Damaged/Destroyed Vehicles

[Colin Parkinson]

I thought the US was also buying a LAV version that had the raised back similar to the Bison?

 

[GAP]

What are we doing to replenish the LAV III's that are damaged?

I sent an email to MND asking this, simply because, while I have been looking around for something, I have seen nothing that addresses the issue.

If I am out lunch...correct me.

This was my reply from MND today

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank you for your correspondence of 24 July 2006 concerning the Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) IIIs in use by Canadian Forces personnel deployed in Afghanistan. I regret the delay in replying.

I am advised that the Canadian Forces bought enough LAV IIIs in the original purchase order to meet several objectives including training, contemporary threat assessments, and our commitments overseas.

I would like to assure you that there is a plan in place to ensure the availability of operational stocks to replace any vehicles should they be damaged or destroyed. As of 28 July 2005, there have only been seven LAV IIIs damaged beyond local repair, and they were returned to Canada; only one LAV III has been damaged beyond economic repair.

Rest assured that the Department of National Defence maintains close contact with General Dynamics Canada and that the Army Staff is aware of any timelines for the replacement of the LAV III should the need arise. However, with the current stock from the original purchase, it is not anticipated that there will be a need for any additional purchase of the LAV IIIs in the near future.


Sincerely,


The Honourable Gordon J. O'Connor, PC, MP
Minister of National Defence

 

[geo]

Like the M113, the LAVs will be stripped down and rebuilt from the ground up. Those not perfect will find their way into training units and the ones with 100% integrity will be sent out.............

Good plan, huh?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

GAP
With a reply like that, now I am worried, the military never plans for the future well and with a decade+ of a government that couldn't make a decision certainly will not have helped, and therefore are likely lying out their arse as they really don't know what the hell they are going to do.

 

[Desert Fox]

I was just wondering something.

Now that more CF vehicles seem to be getting banged up in Afghanistan, does anyone know if the CF buys new vehicles to replace heavily damaged and destroyed equipment? I am speaking mostly of LAV's and G wagons since they seem to take the brunt of it over there. Can most cases be fixed, or are vehicles wrote off without any replacement?

I'm not a truck doctor by any means. But alot of the damage sustained by the LAV's has been stress fractures. LAV's which in many cases appear to survive some bad hits, result in internal damage, where the hull is cracked and beyond repair... Im sure every working part is stripped and used in these cases...

might as well recover what you can from a gaint green paper weight....

 

[McG]

What are we doing to replenish the LAV III's that are damaged?

... in short they are drawn from stocks in Canada.

But it seems to end there...even those have to be replenished as some point.

Soon (relatively) the answer will come from here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/60697.0.html

 

[EX COELIS]

A long drawn out debate involving political factors such as cost, damage, wear and tear, maintenance etc. when it comes down to tracks vs wheels.
Question: What is considered safer?
Fact: Armoured troops (LdSH RC- Little dum Shitheads Really Crazy), for those of us who have served with the unit, have not been killed using tracked upgraded 30 year old Leo 1A3's, now designated Leo C2's.
The Great Lav III (wheeled) that every one raves about has been the principal vehicle deaths have occurred in since its deployment in Afghan.  Question:  Is the LAV III and little sister the Coyote, even with upgraded Armour package, (knowing the basic armour thickness is 15mm) the ideal vehicle/s for the job? Taking into account the three main factors defining an AFV/MICV/Tank, being - Firepower, Mobility and Protection.
Forget about politics, money, logictics etc, for a moment and consider what AFV/MICV/Tanks would be more suitable for the threat level, environment and operational requirements of the current mission.  Remember I'm talking about an ideal situation (fantasy land if you will).  Put yourself in the Battle Group commander's shoes where you get to draw on whatever is currently available through any and all countries.
Having served in and operated Canada's current inventory of vehicle's, with a couple of exceptions, I'm curious as to what individuals within this forum would has to say, if anything.
Curious.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well consider that most of the vehicles involved in combat and patrols are the LAV, you can see why that would be linked to the highest number of causalities. The LAV does a good job offering blast deflection of a typical IED, the flat bottom of a M113 would not do the same. Whatever you put in the field the enemy will try to find a way to defeat, you can only put so much armour on any vehicle. To much armour and it breaks or destroys the already bad roads.

You could invest in new HAPC's based on the MerK IV hull, but that would be huge bucks with lots of politics.

 

[geo]

The combatants we are facing are working with mines and explosives that were cashed by the Soviets. Over time, they apply the " if God is willing" philosophy.  Stack explosives & see what effect it has on a type of vehicles. 

Build up charges until one day when you hit paydirt & punch a hole through and through.  At present we recover all of our damaged AFVs so the TB cannot inspect & tinker on a castaway hull.

The M113 metal box will not fare as well - it's flat bottom will not work in it's favor IMHO.