Author Topic: LAV 6.0  (Read 113438 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,678
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"

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 123,831
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,379
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 Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 127,289
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,380
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #277 on: August 19, 2019, 09:48:35 »
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.

The Reserves would need to be reorganized if we wanted them to be able to operate equipment like the LAV 6.0.

There are a whole host of reasons, political, cultural, etc. Why that won't happen.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 253,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,926
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #278 on: August 19, 2019, 10:26:39 »
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.

Do you know if any of the battalions have asked for FTSE personnel for stuff like this? By the end of this summer the various CBGs should be able to say with a fair degree of accuracy 'we had x number of troops sitting idle in May, June, July, and August'. It should be easy enough to determine how many could be pledged to battalions for next year.

You do that, and you beef up the CT cells at CFRG... Some problems will be solved.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 470,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,998
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #279 on: August 19, 2019, 10:39:09 »
Many FTSE pers are not yet at the OFP - depending how late they are enrolled, some will not even get BMQ in a summer.  While I agree that providing FTSE pers to get OJT with Reg F units would be valuable experience, I don't think Reg F units would like to have dozens on untrained folks in their lines for the summer.
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 Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 127,289
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,380
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #280 on: August 19, 2019, 10:51:14 »
Many FTSE pers are not yet at the OFP - depending how late they are enrolled, some will not even get BMQ in a summer.  While I agree that providing FTSE pers to get OJT with Reg F units would be valuable experience, I don't think Reg F units would like to have dozens on untrained folks in their lines for the summer.

You are def right.  I think the idea of OJEs is a nice one but it really just turns in to filler time and what ends up happening is we end up dumping dozens of untrained people at operational units who really shouldn't be babysitting them.

Case in point, the annual dog & pony show that is the ROTP summer OJE program.  The Navy tries to run a pretty extensive OJE program but all that ends up happening is we spend many thousands of dollars flying Naval Cadets out to Esquimalt or Halifax for the summer who park themselves and do nothing other than eat rations.

Or we send a bunch of NCdts/OCdts on courses like BPara or Ships Dive Course that takes spaces from people that are going to actually use the course on an operational ship.  We then complain that we don't have enough parachute qualified soldiers or sailors qualified as divers/rescue swimmers, etc.

I think it would be better if we GASP.....
Trained our people in a timely manner.

A NCdt shouldn't receive four years of free education only to find out they get chronically seasick because they have never set foot on a ship before.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 10:56:11 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 73,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,945
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #281 on: August 19, 2019, 12:56:40 »
I'm all for simple and inexpensive field vehicles, particularly trucks, but what I mean by "simple" is the difference between our old 6-wheel AVGP and today's LAV.  My guesses are that in adjusted dollars, a LAV costs much more than an AVGP; that a LAV and all of its hardware is more complex to learn to use properly; and that a LAV requires a greater breadth and depth of maintenance skills and time to look after all of the aforementioned hardware.

Another guess is that the Res F, while continually improving, has not improved as fast as some of our equipment.  What the Res F in 1990 could do with contemporary equipment is - again mostly a guess - beyond what the Res F in 2020 can do with contemporary equipment.  Comparisons to what other nations achieve highlight to me that the explanation must lie in differences between them and us: so look to the money, the training and time commitment (again, the money), etc.

I'd restructure the Res F as it stands to see whether it improves itself before committing to more equipment and facilities.  To provide the latter up front is an unjustifiable leap of faith.  Some of the people arguing for change back in my day were also some of the people arguing that each proposed change was impractical, insulting, un-doable, etc.  If the only possible changes are their preferred changes, don't bother trying.

The generations that fought WWII and Korea and whose 1950s and 1960s Res F experience I did think deserved to be heard (larger units, experienced leadership) are pretty much gone from the associations and other points of influence.  Another guess: most of the senior Res-side people who weigh in going forward will just be people who grew up in the Res F as it is, with very few true veterans of multiple operational deployments.  It's past time to stop giving much weight to the opinions that tend to favour status quo.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 253,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,926
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #282 on: August 19, 2019, 12:57:52 »
Many FTSE pers are not yet at the OFP - depending how late they are enrolled, some will not even get BMQ in a summer.  While I agree that providing FTSE pers to get OJT with Reg F units would be valuable experience, I don't think Reg F units would like to have dozens on untrained folks in their lines for the summer.

Right. I hadn't thought of that, and many of those who are OFP are babysitting thsoe who aren't- pre PLQ Cpls with two and a half years in making sure the new kids don't light themselves on fire.

Big picture, how's the army looking in terms of getting sufficient people leadership qualified these days? I'm hoping within a few more years the FTSE construct will create a larger cohort of PLQ candidates and then instructors? It jives with my recollection of many recruits joining late in high school, and having basically five summers to give the army before graduating university.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,678
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #283 on: August 19, 2019, 12:58:24 »
FTSE is designed for those under 5 years of service, meaning for tech trades you womt have a qualified tech until the 5th year if your lucky. DRCCC is for trained personal in the CSS world to get class B contracts upto 90 days (sometimes longer) for skills maintance. I agree that the ARes cant under current structure maintain LAVs, what I foresee working is having LAVs at the major bases Avalible for the Pres to sign out for exercises. Maybe invest in some kind of simulator for training in garrison.

Back to the topic on hand the news releases state 8 varients. I can only seem to count 7, whats the last one? TUA, mortor carrier?

Troop carrier
EW
MRV
MRT
CP
Amb
Engineer
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,705
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #284 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 ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 123,831
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,379
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #285 on: August 19, 2019, 16:25:43 »
Do you know if any of the battalions have asked for FTSE personnel for stuff like this?

No, that I don't know, nor do I suspect it would matter as the plan for FTSE was from much higher. I do know that when I was at 2 RCR we spent 2 years trying to get reserve augmentation, even gave it a name "Op REINFORCEMENT," and it transpired into us getting only about 15 reservists for Ex Rugged Bear (Level 3/5 pre-MR training) / Maple Resolve. Except their CFTPOs were only done up until the end of Rugged Bear so half of them had to go home because they had other commitments lined up (not blaming them, blaming the machine for that one).

We also went out of our way to get untrained 2Lts from the Infantry School brought in. We employed them in garrison and in the field. They were with us all the way up to Level 4 live in the fall which is as far as we went that year.

Many FTSE pers are not yet at the OFP - depending how late they are enrolled, some will not even get BMQ in a summer.  While I agree that providing FTSE pers to get OJT with Reg F units would be valuable experience, I don't think Reg F units would like to have dozens on untrained folks in their lines for the summer.

They wouldn't be. They'd be sent on their courses that they are supposed to go on and prioritized for. But at least then they'd have the administrative support to get them on the courses / get them looked after / receive them / employ them during the breaks between courses. One of the struggles I heard for PRes Units was actually trying to administer all this as they had so many people coming and going in and out of the unit. This is not normal for the Reserves in the summer time as they are usually stood down. Everyone goes on their courses and when they aren't on course they are at home because the unit isn't running. Now they were on full-time Class B contracts so they couldn't just be at home doing nothing in the 3 weeks between each course.

That said, there is plenty of stuff at a Battalion that a non-OFP person can be employed. It's not like all of the infantry tasks are rocket science. See above about us employing untrained 2Lts in our rifle companies who were on loan from the infantry school, and speaking to one of them at the Xmas Mess Dinner in December, having just finished his Ph IV, he was quite happy he was training with us the year prior and said it definitely helped him be successful on his courses.

And personally, the best thing I witnessed for our SNCOs and NCOs was after 2 years of having zero privates (the running joke was that they were unicorns) because of the recruitment cycle, all of a sudden there were huge influxes of brand new privates that needed leadership, needed direction, and needed help.

You are def right.  I think the idea of OJEs is a nice one but it really just turns in to filler time and what ends up happening is we end up dumping dozens of untrained people at operational units who really shouldn't be babysitting them.

3x dozen divided by 9 platoons... is 4 per platoon. I suspect I could have taken 8-10 with who I had on the ground at the time and we'd have been better off vice hindered.

Case in point, the annual dog & pony show that is the ROTP summer OJE program.  The Navy tries to run a pretty extensive OJE program but all that ends up happening is we spend many thousands of dollars flying Naval Cadets out to Esquimalt or Halifax for the summer who park themselves and do nothing other than eat rations.

I'm not sure the untrained officers is a fair comparison to a BMQ-qualified troop. There are also a lot more places to employ a BMQ-qualified troop in the Reg Force Army than there are places to employ a untrained Navy officers, so the sheer numbers issue would be less of a factor.


Granted, I'd like to see the number of people in the army, by rank, that took advantage of FTSE this year and last year. There is obviously a lot of assumptions being made on our parts about viability that would be impacted by those numbers.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 925,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,226
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #286 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.