Author Topic: LAV 6.0  (Read 135137 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,230
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #275 on: August 18, 2019, 23:50:56 »

US National guard get approx. the same amount of training as the PRes do initially (though they don't have the BS weekend BMQ option).  However to retain their pension and health benefits they must do their 2 week (consecutive) mandatory training, miss that, lose pension.  Plenty of PRes soldiers never do more than parade the bare minimum to stay off of NES status.  Weekend exercises just don't cut it for experience the same way.

This is a symptom of the bigger problem,  would you show up if you had the option not to if you came in to get no real training value.

The number 1 thing being preached the the ARes right now is augmentation is prio 1. If the reg force wants that as our prio 1, then start acting like it. Stop this bull crap that we are less capable, less experienced, less trusted to do the job, and start training us to be able to augment you all properly. That means we all train on the same kit. Do we use it all the time? Maybe not but if you have a group of reservists come for work up training, the smaller that training delta is the better.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Online ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 130,801
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,495
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #276 on: August 19, 2019, 02:15:43 »
The number 1 thing being preached the the ARes right now is augmentation is prio 1. If the reg force wants that as our prio 1, then start acting like it. Stop this bull crap that we are less capable, less experienced, less trusted to do the job, and start training us to be able to augment you all properly. That means we all train on the same kit. Do we use it all the time? Maybe not but if you have a group of reservists come for work up training, the smaller that training delta is the better.

I had a post written up about this earlier but this thread has gone a bit off the rails. But since you're going down a similar road as I was going down...

I would have *zero* issues with having the PRes augment the Reg Force day-to-day (i.e. not just for tours) and then we can provide them all of this training and integrate them into the grind that one must endure to keep a LAV fleet maintained and LAV crews trained.

But this idea that the reserves, with zero resources, can take on a LAV fleet and do it all internally is just silly. The reserves simply don't have the resources to do this internally. The *people* may be as capable but the Units as a whole simply aren't. That's why they augment the Reg Force with troops, not with with Battle Groups. It's also not "augmenting" the Reg Force at all. If anything it will end up sucking more out of the Reg Force as the PRes just won't have the resources required to do it, and they'll need Reg Force assets.

FTSE is a perfect example where we should be giving troops Class B contracts to go join a Reg Force unit. All the infrastructure is in place to employ them, provide good training, have them take part in good training, and lord knows when I was trying to "train" my platoon with 7 troops in the summer time because they are all tasked to frig, I could have used some augmentation. If a mechanized Battalion was full of reserve augmentees in the summer it would be a lot better way to keep the PRes folks engaged in mechanized infantry stuff than sending the PRes units a bunch of LAVs they can't maintain, can't store, and can't operate, and saying "hey, figure this out yourself."

But instead during FTSE the PRes Units are expected to be like a Reg Force Unit for the summer.... and I've seen the plans on how they intended to keep the now idle troops occupied, like running back-to-back-to-back first aid courses.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 02:49:02 by ballz »
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 147,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,810
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #277 on: August 19, 2019, 13:16:48 »
If they are meant to replace the Bison, wouldn't the last variant be the NBC recce vehicle?

I am sure that the department wouldn't want people to consider that we still take "nuclear" into consideration: Way too warlike.  ;)

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 947,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,724
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #278 on: August 19, 2019, 16:53:07 »
Without getting into OPSEC type stuff, which I realize may prevent an answer on this particular subject, but curious...what capabilities are we generally lacking in in regards to the terrible EW suite?  Ive heard from multiple sources that the EW capabilities are very much lacking, and like you said, the ones we have aren't the most reliable....just curious if there was anything anybody could say without violating OPSEC type stuff about what capabilities they would like to see and/or are doable in the near future for us?

In a nutshell, it doesn't reliably (sometimes at all) deliver what's promised. Its 1980s doctrine built on 1990s technology for a static peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Very limited use of Software Defined Radios, which is critical to a modern EW vehicle. It's using the same contractors who have failed to provide working solutions for over 15 years without them being fired, and when fixes do come its usually in the form of a bigger and more cumbersome antenna system that still won't deliver the fidelity and systems reliability that is demanded of the limited amount of vehicles we have. There's also a big bunfight (or there was when I left the unit) between where TacEW ends and SIGINT begins, again limiting operational effectiveness. Successes in Afghanistan were built solely on the hard work of the crews to push through terrible kit to get proper Indications&Warnings and Threat Warnings out in a timely manner to actually save lives.

Unfortunately you're right, the actual scope of the waste in that project would make yours and the CBC's head spin, but the details are at the SECRET level. We're so much further behind every other FVEY nation in TacEW its laughable.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,230
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #279 on: February 21, 2020, 10:10:51 »
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-20-00907488


Any one know if this is the planned surveillance suite for the LAV 6?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 69,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,896
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #280 on: February 22, 2020, 08:49:24 »
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-20-00907488


Any one know if this is the planned surveillance suite for the LAV 6?

From the attached document:

Quote
1.5. Project Scope 1.5.1.    The scope of the ISR Mod project covers the hardware, software, and specialty equipment necessary to implement and train use of a digitized Land ISR system and modern sensors. The ISR Mod project scope will include the following system components:

a)    Land ISR digitized C2 System that interfaces with the Land C2 and Battle Management System to integrate sensor information. It also needs to distribute information and intelligence to support manoeuvre forces, targeting and Joint Fires. The digitized system must ensure a sensor-to-effector linkage and will incorporate Allied standards for information, communications;

b)    Applications to streamline ISR information, aid in the tactical use of ISR data and the necessary gateways to migrate the information into the Land Battle Management System, Joint Fires and other applicable systems;

c)     ISR applications to reduce cognitive load, improve awareness and facilitate information sharing;

d)    ISR applications or software to improve sensor efficiency, cross-queuing and maximize sensor performance of both in-service and future systems;

e)    Modernization and integration of the existing CAF sensors, both hardware and software, into a unified ISR network;

f)    Acquisition of new sensors that address sensor gaps or obsolescence issues with the existing CAF sensor;

g)    Integration of the existing and new sensors into the Army armoured fighting vehicle fleet;

h)    New UAS platforms to carry sensors that cannot be integrated into existing Army UAS;

i)     Ability to carry sensor payloads on specialized armoured vehicles or networking infrastructure that cannot currently be integrated into existing Army armoured vehicles

j)     Specialized communication systems to supplement existing and future communication systems to facilitate information flow;

k)    Distributed and networked Training Simulation System; and

l)    Initial provisioning of two (2) years spare parts and the establishment of In-Service Support Contracts: repair & overhaul, software upgrades, technical investigations and sparing.

Link
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,600
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #281 on: February 23, 2020, 13:26:13 »
With respect to (i), is that subsection contemplating a new ISR Mod vehicle?
... Move!! ...

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 64,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 714
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #282 on: April 18, 2020, 12:31:35 »
Here's a question that kind of ties together a couple of threads and goes back to page 1 of this thread about the LAV 6.0.

How many dismounts would a LAV 6.0 fit if the turret was replaced with a RWS (or simply removed to create an armoured battle taxi)?

Could you fit 9 dismounts with full battle gear?

Leaving aside what type of RWS you might have (Cannon, MG & Grenade Launcher, MG & Javelin, etc.), if you make the doctrinal decision that infantry are to fight dismounted and that the primary role of the APC is to provide mobility and protection bringing the infantry to the fight and any fire support it brings is a bonus, then perhaps you could:

Re-organize the infantry section to be 9 troops like the Australians trialed in their "Virtual Infantry Section Experiment" outlined on Page #29 in Michael O'Leary's Regimental Rogue article linked on the first page of this thread (http://regimentalrogue.com/blog/caj_vol13.3_06_e.pdf).

Quoting from the article:
"The nine-personnel section was in three elements (command, assault and support) of three
personnel each. The assault and support groups were identically equipped, each having a light
machine-gun and an M203 grenade launcher. The command group consists of the section
commander and two scouts"

"The nine-personnel section was determined to produce better overall results in the study’s analysis.
While this is probably based primarily on the fact that it was the familiar section organization for the
participating soldiers, there is another factor to be considered. The nine-personnel section allows the
commander the flexibility to remain outside the assault groups’ fighting process while directing them.
The commander also has the two section scouts as his own reserve, to be used to deal with new threats
or to reinforce the assault groups as dictated by the tactical situation.24 This allows the commander to
balance his attention between the immediate fight and command responsibilities, thus improving the
commander’s situational awareness and flexibility to react to the evolving situation. This section structure
gives the commander a significant advantage over the eight-personnel section structure, which places
the commander in the immediate fight as an assault group commander, while having to also command
the entire section and to monitor the actions and demands of the parent platoon."

To my mind this organization provides quite a bit of flexibility and resilience over our current LAV section organization.  The two "scouts" in the command element could be used to reinforce the assault/support elements to make them 4-troops each if required.  It would also allow for greater resilience in dealing with casualties.  Two casualties could be replaced with the "scouts" from the command element and still maintain your full 3-troop assault/support elements.  A 3rd casualty could be replaced by putting the section commander directly into either the assault/support element to keep them viable.  It wouldn't be until the 4th casualty that the section would have to reorganize into a single 4-troop assault group with the section commander being separate.  A 5th casualty would still leave you with a 4-troop assault group.

If I understand correctly with the current LAV section with 7 x dismounts, a single casualty puts you down to two 3-troop assault/support elements and a 2nd casualty would force you to re-organize to a single assault group (with the section commander separate). 

Both of these scenarios of course assume that the vehicle crews remain with the vehicles to provide mobility when required and fire support from their weapons when possible.

Another advantage of this would be that you could use this Section structure across the CF with LAV sections, Light Infantry sections and Reserve Infantry sections all using the same 9-troop sections.  Would this simplify training and make it easier for formed Reserve sub-units to be inserted into the Regular force structure as reinforcements?





Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 196,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,679
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #283 on: April 18, 2020, 12:37:35 »
I had an RWS-equipped LAV 3 and it easily fit 9 personnel in it.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline reverse_engineer

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 67,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,679
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #284 on: April 18, 2020, 12:39:24 »
Infanteer beat me to it, but during the Afghan years, there were LAV-III RWS. No idea what became of them.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 280,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,350
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #285 on: April 18, 2020, 13:29:48 »
Here's a question that kind of ties together a couple of threads and goes back to page 1 of this thread about the LAV 6.0.

How many dismounts would a LAV 6.0 fit if the turret was replaced with a RWS (or simply removed to create an armoured battle taxi)?

Could you fit 9 dismounts with full battle gear?
...

The US infantry squad consists of nine men; a squad leader and two fire teams of four (a team ldr, a grenadier, an LMG and a rifleman)

The concept of a Stryker brigade is to fight dismounted and the Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV - M1126 - essentially a LAV 3 type body) is designed to provide rapid mobility but is NOT used as an infantry "fighting" vehicle. It carries a RWS that can mount either a .50; Mk 19 grenade launcher of 7.62mm M240; has a crew of two and carries a full nine man squad as dismounts. The platoon has four vehicles: one for each squad and one for the platoon commdr's team and the platoon's weapon det.

There have been a number of articles written in the US that the Stryker does not do well when one tries to use it with armour in an assault as 1) it does not have the mobility to accompany tanks over rough terrain; and 2) it's armour protection is very weak (The light in LAV means "lightly armoured")

Notwithstanding this, there has been a movement within the US Army to "upgun" the Stryker with a 30mm turret (and maybe a javelin missile launcher). The original intent is for these prototype vehicles (called the ICV Dragoon) is to replace many of the Stryker 105mm Mobile Gun Systems direct fire support vehicle (of which every infantry company in an SBCT had a three-MGS platoon) and which were found to be a piece of crap. The MGS's have been withdrawn from the battalions and some have been placed into the SBCT's cavalry squadron.

The ICV Dragoons are probably also destined to increase the capability of the SBCT's Cavalry Squadron and not for use within the Stryker infantry battalions but that is still up in the air as the evaluation process is still ongoing.

You should also note that a Stryker battalion, unlike the IBCT's infantry battalions do not have a weapons company. There is, however, an anti-tank company in the brigade which has 9 x TOW equipped Strykers. In addition each of the brigade's 27 rifle squads has a dismounted Javelin missile launcher withe their vehicle with 2 or 3 reloads. Trials are underway to create an ability to fir the Javelin from within the vehicles.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 213,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,868
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #286 on: April 18, 2020, 15:17:28 »
Infanteer beat me to it, but during the Afghan years, there were LAV-III RWS. No idea what became of them.
They all seemed to end-up at 2 CER awaiting their turn to go into the LAV-up project and be "upgraded" to one of the LAV 6 variants that were coming off that line.

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 293,691
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Squadron Quartermaster Sergeant
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #287 on: April 18, 2020, 15:35:24 »
4 has or had them too.. iirc...
CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 64,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 714
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #288 on: April 18, 2020, 16:35:31 »
Thanks for the info.  My understanding of the LAV 6.0 is that it has different seating than the LAV III as part of the mine protection upgrades.  I guess since I'm assuming that we're contractually wedded to the LAV 6.0 for the foreseeable future I was wondering about it's capacity specifically. 

How many of the APC versions of LAV 6.0 with the 25mm turret have been ordered and how many of those have been delivered to date?  Is there enough left to be produced that production could be switched to a non-turreted version?  I'm assuming (again) that re-building a turreted LAV 6.0 into a non-turreted LAV 6.0 would be too expensive to do (both economically and politically). 

I guess if finding a realistic vehicle option that would allow for 9 dismounts (i.e. the LAV 6.0 for the next 20 years) then discussion of a 9-person squad is hypothetical for our mechanized Battalions anyway. 




Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,230
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #289 on: April 18, 2020, 17:21:27 »
Exact numbers are protected by operational security, however you should take note the last contract given to GDLS was for variants other then the infantry carrier.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 196,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,679
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #290 on: April 18, 2020, 18:06:40 »
Exact numbers are protected by operational security, however you should take note the last contract given to GDLS was for variants other then the infantry carrier.

You sure about that, because PWGSC publishes this stuff.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/vbsc-acsv-eng.html

...and the previous buy of an upgrade of 550 was well publicized as well.

https://vanguardcanada.com/2014/01/29/lav-6-0-protected-mobile-lethal/

"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,181
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #291 on: April 18, 2020, 18:11:52 »
550 LAV 6.0's...

Plus an additional 360 LAV 6.0 based vehicles to replace the Bisons and M113s, consolidating the fleet with a common vehicle base.


For a total of 860 vehicles.


Plus 500 TAPV.



Seems like the Army is actually doing alright on the armoured vehicle side of things
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,230
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #292 on: April 18, 2020, 18:22:45 »
All those variants and yet no LAV based recovery vehicle.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 530,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,221
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #293 on: April 18, 2020, 18:51:04 »
All those variants and yet no LAV based recovery vehicle.
Part of the 360.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,230
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #294 on: April 18, 2020, 19:09:48 »
Part of the 360.

Finally a LAV MRV? About time, we have been asking for it, for years, after all if a LAV needed recovering you needed an ARV because of the lack of a LAV based platform.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 280,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,350
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #295 on: April 18, 2020, 19:10:56 »
All those variants and yet no LAV based recovery vehicle.

In the US Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the M984 Heavy Expanded Wrecker is the standard recovery vehicle.

Quote
The M984 wrecker is the only HEMTT variant to have been produced in the A1 configuration, and this resulting in the change of recovery crane and retrieval system between A0 and A1 configurations. The current model is the M984A4. Standard equipment includes a 27,240 kg (60,050 lb) capacity two-speed recovery winch, a rear-mounted 11,340 kg capacity vehicle retrieval system, and a 6,350 kg (14,000 lb) at 2.74 m (9.0 ft) capacity Grove materials handling crane. A 9,072 kg (20,000 lb) bare drum capacity self-recovery winch is fitted as standard on the M984.

There are 3 x M984 in each of the Brigade Support Battalion's Forward Support Companies that are attached to each Stryker infantry battalion, Cavalry Squadron, Engineer Battalion and Fires Battalion  plus another 4 in the BSB's Field Maintenance Company (for a total of 22 in the brigade.)



The BSB Distribution company also has 6 x M916 Light Equipment Transporter with an M172 flat bed trailer that has a 25 ton capacity which can (if required) transport one of the current Stryker variants.



This is the only image of the LAV 6.0 MRV I've found:



https://www.gdlscanada.com/products/LAV/LAV-6.0.html

 :cheers:

« Last Edit: April 18, 2020, 19:23:08 by FJAG »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,230
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #296 on: April 18, 2020, 19:15:53 »
In the US Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the M984 Heavy Expanded Wrecker is the standard recovery vehicle.

There are 3 x M984 in each of the Brigade Support Battalion's Forward Support Companies that are attached to each Stryker infantry battalion, Cavalry Squadron, Engineer Battalion and Fires Battalion  plus another 4 in the BSB's Field Maintenance Company (for a total of 22 in the brigade.)



The BSB Distribution company also has 6 x M916 Light Equipment Transporter with an M172 flat bed trailer that has a 25 ton capacity which can (if required) transport one of the current Stryker variants.



 :cheers:

As I recall, the HEMTT was a rival to Mack for the MSVS smp, which they offered a recovery version which they even redesigned the crane for to allow it to do leo 2 turret pulls.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,600
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #297 on: April 18, 2020, 21:39:14 »
Which we declined. Is there any other country that shoots itself in the balls more than Canada?
... Move!! ...

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,230
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #298 on: April 23, 2020, 19:03:14 »
https://militaryleak.com/2018/09/23/cmi-defence-cockerill-3030/

Well if we ever want to up gun the LAV, GDLS Europe has created a modular turret that has many different weapon configuration, including 25mm, 50mm and 105mm. Above is a video of the turret being tested on a LAV chassis.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Spencer100

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 621
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #299 on: April 23, 2020, 19:15:23 »
https://militaryleak.com/2018/09/23/cmi-defence-cockerill-3030/

Well if we ever want to up gun the LAV, GDLS Europe has created a modular turret that has many different weapon configuration, including 25mm, 50mm and 105mm. Above is a video of the turret being tested on a LAV chassis.

Is the Cockerill turret not the one the Saudi's picked to put on some of theirs?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2020, 19:20:15 by Spencer100 »