Author Topic: LAV 6.0  (Read 140702 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 178,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,601
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #350 on: August 03, 2020, 16:07:06 »
It's also highly dependent on terrain and season, winter, fall, spring of Eastern Europe your LAV are likely to be mired in mud the moment they leave the hard surfaces. In a place like Iraq, you have a lot more flexibility. The LAV 6.0 would be a beast in Mali, but even then limited by bridges and recovery options. 

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 782
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #351 on: August 03, 2020, 22:11:56 »
It's also highly dependent on terrain and season, winter, fall, spring of Eastern Europe your LAV are likely to be mired in mud the moment they leave the hard surfaces. In a place like Iraq, you have a lot more flexibility. The LAV 6.0 would be a beast in Mali, but even then limited by bridges and recovery options.

On the subject of bridges, one thing that Mali has is a minimal number of bridges. This is driven by a limited number of rivers, and is a characteristic that North and West Africa share with the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan. It’s almost like we picked equipment that was optimal for fighting a counterinsurgency in an arid environment — and are now trying to shoehorn that into the ability to fight the Russians. Those are two different problem sets and with our equipment we are setting ourselves up to play hockey with a baseball bat.

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 196,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,824
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #352 on: August 03, 2020, 23:14:49 »
On the subject of bridges, one thing that Mali has is a minimal number of bridges. This is driven by a limited number of rivers, and is a characteristic that North and West Africa share with the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan. It’s almost like we picked equipment that was optimal for fighting a counterinsurgency in an arid environment — and are now trying to shoehorn that into the ability to fight the Russians. Those are two different problem sets and with our equipment we are setting ourselves up to play hockey with a baseball bat.

We went with a LAV based fleet before going to fight a counter insurgency so I don't think that was a real consideration for the LAV 6 as the next choice rather the commonality/familiarity of the fleet (although that was a bit suspect) played a larger role.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 782
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #353 on: August 03, 2020, 23:55:34 »
We went with a LAV based fleet before going to fight a counter insurgency so I don't think that was a real consideration for the LAV 6 as the next choice rather the commonality/familiarity of the fleet (although that was a bit suspect) played a larger role.

That's a good point. LAV-3 was a post-Cold War project, though, and the decision to replace M113 and Grizzly with a wheeled APC was made after the decision to close down 4CMBG. Was it originally intended to be a primarily peacekeeping/low intensity vehicle, rather than a frontline NATO IFV? I'd probably have to dig into the old articles about the vehicle.

I will note that we made the decision to go with an all-wheeled infantry carrier fleet before the US came out with their Stryker doctrine -- which was pretty clearly designed, in its original concept, to give more mobility and firepower to their light forces rather than being a frontline NATO/Korea heavy force. The US had a clear doctrine, but we made our decision before they came out with it, so that wouldn't  have been a factor.

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,304
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #354 on: August 04, 2020, 00:09:15 »
If I remember correctly, the LAV 3 was intended to be purchased around the 1200 vehicle mark to replace the M113 and Grizzly.
When the price tag came in too high, we ended up purchasing 650 LAV 3 and upgraded the M113 to the TLAV standard.

The purchase of this vehicle was meant for low intensity & medium intensity conflict, which is what we had been dealing with for decades at the time, re: Bosnia, Croatia/Serbia, etc etc.  The UN 'glory days'.

The Tacvest was designed for the same type of theater.  It was meant as an upgrade to the webbing with the old olive drab uniforms, and part of the new CADPAT uniform & kit.  It was designed with low to medium intensity peacekeeping & peace support operations in mind.


A lot of this equipment started to roll out in the late 90's, and I believe the LAV made it's debut during a peacekeeping deployment to Ethiopia & Eritrea.  At the time, it was a HUGE generational leap ahead of what anybody else was fielding for those kinds of operations.  The Coyote still had an extremely impressive surveillance system up until a few years ago too, and has since been updated accordingly. 

Then 9/11 happened, and Afghanistan happened.  A theater we hadn't remotely prepared for, as it was a complete divergence of what we had been doing for decades.  We had the Iltis, green camo, C3 and LG1 Mk 2... the best vehicle we had at the time, and most other NATO countries wish they had, was the LAV. 

Obviously there was a pretty generous shopping spree once Afghanistan kicked off, and the armed forces as a whole filled out with a lot more modern and decent kit.



But yes, our purchase of the LAV 3 did predate the American decision to go with the Stryker.  Our intended use, and their intended use also, was different than what the vehicle eventually evolved into doing. 

(I could be wrong on the above.  I realize yesterday when talking with a colleague, I joined 20 years ago...wtf happened?  Where did that time go?)   :o :2c:
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

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

Offline Kilted

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 110
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #355 on: October 11, 2020, 01:26:50 »
I agee, I would only task the closest units to training centers. Example for Wainwright I would pick the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, their proximity to both 1 VP and Wainwright makes them an ideal choice for a reserve infantry unit to become mechanized.

Have they ended their affiliation with the PPCLI, everything that I have seen recently does not include their secondary title.

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,304
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #356 on: October 11, 2020, 09:36:43 »
Official affiliation?  Or do you mean regular working/training relationship?

I'd assume the reserve units in Edmonton would take advantage of having a large Army base just outside the city.  The access to ranges, courses, instructors, vehicles, infrastructure, etc etc is something that other reserve units throughout the country could only dream of. 
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

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

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #357 on: October 11, 2020, 12:48:50 »
Official affiliation?  Or do you mean regular working/training relationship?

I'd assume the reserve units in Edmonton would take advantage of having a large Army base just outside the city.  The access to ranges, courses, instructors, vehicles, infrastructure, etc etc is something that other reserve units throughout the country could only dream of.

I think he means how they are also referred to as 4th Battalion PPCLI. which is a secondary title as they are designated as the feeder unit for the regiment.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 306,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,680
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #358 on: October 11, 2020, 13:54:20 »
I think he means how they are also referred to as 4th Battalion PPCLI. which is a secondary title as they are designated as the feeder unit for the regiment.

You can read a bit about the historical relationship between the PPCLI and the L Edm R starting at pg 72 of the 2018 issue of the PPCLI's Patrician.

 :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 MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #359 on: October 11, 2020, 14:16:15 »

I'd assume the reserve units in Edmonton would take advantage of having a large Army base just outside the city.  The access to ranges, courses, instructors, vehicles, infrastructure, etc etc is something that other reserve units throughout the country could only dream of.

Except the ATS ranges do not usually run on weekends, cause unions. All maintenance goes through 1 Svc Battalion so even though we have massive maintenance space at Debney, it is not used. There are institutional challenges for the PRes working with the reg force.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 196,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,824
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #360 on: October 11, 2020, 14:37:39 »
Except the ATS ranges do not usually run on weekends, cause unions. All maintenance goes through 1 Svc Battalion so even though we have massive maintenance space at Debney, it is not used. There are institutional challenges for the PRes working with the reg force.

Umm ATS runs on the week ends, it is mil operators in the towers and Range Control in Edm is almost exclusively military there is no union issue.

Does Debney have a control shop? SPPS? Tooling? STTE specific to the veh platforms? Structure in DRMIS for PM and MM modules? Maint is much more than a willingness to fix something. If they don't have the bare basics of the latter (some of which is in short supply and makes sense to be in less locations) maybe they just need to work with 1 Svc Bn and use what they have? I am sure given the priority given to StAR that they might be willing to make things happen.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 321,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,378
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #361 on: October 11, 2020, 18:14:17 »
There are institutional challenges for the PRes working with the reg force.

And vice versa, big time  ;D
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #362 on: October 11, 2020, 19:18:38 »
Umm ATS runs on the week ends, it is mil operators in the towers and Range Control in Edm is almost exclusively military there is no union issue.

Does Debney have a control shop? SPPS? Tooling? STTE specific to the veh platforms? Structure in DRMIS for PM and MM modules? Maint is much more than a willingness to fix something. If they don't have the bare basics of the latter (some of which is in short supply and makes sense to be in less locations) maybe they just need to work with 1 Svc Bn and use what they have? I am sure given the priority given to StAR that they might be willing to make things happen.

Short answer yes, long answer I can PM you details after I'm done work.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"