LAV 6.0

[Retired AF Guy]

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:

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

 

[Cloud Cover]

With respect to (i), is that subsection contemplating a new ISR Mod vehicle?

 

[GR66]

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?

 

[Infanteer]

I had an RWS-equipped LAV 3 and it easily fit 9 personnel in it.

 

[blacktriangle]

Infanteer beat me to it, but during the Afghan years, there were LAV-III RWS. No idea what became of them.

 

[FJAG]

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:

 

[McG]

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.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

4 has or had them too.. iirc...

 

[GR66]

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. 

 

[MilEME09]

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.

 

[Infanteer]

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/

 

[CBH99]

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

 

[MilEME09]

All those variants and yet no LAV based recovery vehicle.

 

[dapaterson]

All those variants and yet no LAV based recovery vehicle.

Part of the 360.

 

[MilEME09]

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.

 

[FJAG]

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.

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:

 

[MilEME09]

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.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Which we declined. Is there any other country that shoots itself in the balls more than Canada?

 

[MilEME09]

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.

 

[Spencer100]

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?