• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LAV 6.0

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
174
Points
430
That`s roughly $3,200,000 to load that vehicle with one loadout. I am sure it`s quite capable, but that`s an eye watering amount for what might be one day of munitions for one vehicle.
The economics of modern war do appear to be a head scratcher that probably needs more serious and disciplined study, since historically it’s been so important.

Historically the two preferred models seemed to be either to aspire to have the second best equipment in the world, saving money on bleeding edge R&D and making up for it in mass, the Red Army/Soviet Army/Russian Army liked to follow this model, or have slightly better equipment than your opponent, to make up for his numbers, like the US did in Korea.

The late Cold War-to-modern US-led model of supremely, exquisitely good was deemed to be a success after Desert Storm, but I question it’s sustainability. Do we really want to keep going down the road of precision guided weapons for killing everything, including bunkers, trucks and tents? That’s like using $4 billion dollar frigates to shake down pirates and smugglers, which the west also does.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
702
Points
1,060
Aside from the fact that in the era of Trillion dollar budgets a Million doesn't go as far as it used to how much time, space and blood are you willing to trade for that amount of treasure?

Not that my parsimonious Scots blood is opposed to finding the cheapest solution (and I am sure that old solutions back-burnered because of risk to operators can be safely reconsidered with remote/autonomous solutions).

However our Gunners have a Field Artillery fixation. With the advances in technology I believe that the Department of National Defence should be able to start living up to its name and actively pursuing Defence of the Realm strategies. Who is responsible for building the Canadian Iron Dome to eliminate immediate threats? Master-General of the Ordnance? Then, from that firm base, build out the RCAF/Space Command, then the mobile protected bubbles the RCN provides internationally, then the expeditionary intervention forces of the Special Ops and the Army.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
702
Points
1,060
Further to this is this

1620501923600.png

2x 15 NLOS missiles in 16 cell containers. If that container's contents can be launched from the back of a LAV then it can be launched from the back of a truck, from the deck of a ship, from a sea-can (how many ready to launch missiles in a 20 foot sea-can - I'm going to guess 5x2x15 (150 or so - the 16th cell is for the controls.), any flat surface.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
702
Points
1,060
WRT price

As GR66 points out - there are other loadouts: Switchblade, Coyote, LARMs, Spike to name a few. And Anti-air missiles.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
1,010
WRT price

As GR66 points out - there are other loadouts: Switchblade, Coyote, LARMs, Spike to name a few. And Anti-air missiles.

And I'm certainly not suggesting that all our eggs go in this VLS basket. I'm simply suggesting that when you look at the ATGM options maybe a single vehicle that can carry 16 x assorted munitions might give more flexibility than vehicles that only have dual turret-based launchers.

I'm a firm believer in a solid high/low mix of platforms and weapons. Each has it's role and you definitely need to have a large volume of cheap, low-tech systems to draw on once the high-priced, high-tech options are expended.

And remember, not every conflict will be the final conflict, fight to the death, last man standing situation like WWII. In some situations relatively small number of well targeted strikes might turn the tide in a limited conflict.

A relatively light force that can call on the precision weapons of some "arsenal" LAVs and HIMARS as required backed up by a bunch of LAV 105mm-SPGs and LAV-120mm mortar vehicles, etc. give you both high volume of fire as well as some staying power.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,794
Points
1,040
Aside from the fact that in the era of Trillion dollar budgets a Million doesn't go as far as it used to how much time, space and blood are you willing to trade for that amount of treasure?

Not that my parsimonious Scots blood is opposed to finding the cheapest solution (and I am sure that old solutions back-burnered because of risk to operators can be safely reconsidered with remote/autonomous solutions).

However our Gunners have a Field Artillery fixation. With the advances in technology I believe that the Department of National Defence should be able to start living up to its name and actively pursuing Defence of the Realm strategies. Who is responsible for building the Canadian Iron Dome to eliminate immediate threats? Master-General of the Ordnance? Then, from that firm base, build out the RCAF/Space Command, then the mobile protected bubbles the RCN provides internationally, then the expeditionary intervention forces of the Special Ops and the Army.

Believe me, when an artillery regiment has a grand total of eight howitzers, then you are far, far away from having a field artillery fixation.

What the artillery has is exactly what the Army provides them the money for which is currently close to p***-all. Iron Dome? The Army took a then viable air defence system away from the artillery because it cost too much to keep it current. There's a new more modest system in the procurement stream which, if everything goes exquisitely correct, (and we know how well that works out) should be provided for in the 2026-7 budget.

The artillery doesn't lack ideas. What it lacks is funding in an era consumed with spending money on ships and fighters. Don't hold your breath for that Canadian Iron Dome.

😥
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
702
Points
1,060
Believe me, when an artillery regiment has a grand total of eight howitzers, then you are far, far away from having a field artillery fixation.

What the artillery has is exactly what the Army provides them the money for which is currently close to p***-all. Iron Dome? The Army took a then viable air defence system away from the artillery because it cost too much to keep it current. There's a new more modest system in the procurement stream which, if everything goes exquisitely correct, (and we know how well that works out) should be provided for in the 2026-7 budget.

The artillery doesn't lack ideas. What it lacks is funding in an era consumed with spending money on ships and fighters. Don't hold your breath for that Canadian Iron Dome.

😥
Seen. Agreed.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,321
Points
1,060
Believe me, when an artillery regiment has a grand total of eight howitzers, then you are far, far away from having a field artillery fixation.

What the artillery has is exactly what the Army provides them the money for which is currently close to p***-all. Iron Dome? The Army took a then viable air defence system away from the artillery because it cost too much to keep it current. There's a new more modest system in the procurement stream which, if everything goes exquisitely correct, (and we know how well that works out) should be provided for in the 2026-7 budget.

The artillery doesn't lack ideas. What it lacks is funding in an era consumed with spending money on ships and fighters. Don't hold your breath for that Canadian Iron Dome.

😥
Arrested Development Crying GIF by HULU
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
957
Points
910
Aside from the fact that in the era of Trillion dollar budgets a Million doesn't go as far as it used to how much time, space and blood are you willing to trade for that amount of treasure?

One of the side benefits of adopting "strategy of technology" is that it deters conflicts. Saves a lot more money than it consumes.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
66
Points
330
Lots of discussions on LAVs in other threads, but it felt best to add this here:

Screens from GDLS instagram page from AUSA seen below.

I'm an advocate of an strategic industrial strategy that enables us to "LAV-ify" as much as possible, then commit to a new base chassis for the next 30 years (CV90 Copy or BOXER) and continually build more variants. An Army and RCAF "NSS" so to speak. Commit to more Bell Textron products in refitted UH-1Y "Super-Griffons" and Vipers, BV206's and a domestic MILCOTS options for snowmobiles, ATVs and UTVs, Colt Canada/CZ lines open, etc....

Login • Instagram

11.PNG332.PNG
 

Attachments

  • 1634361998853.png
    1634361998853.png
    661.1 KB · Views: 6

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
I'm an advocate of an strategic industrial strategy that enables us to "LAV-ify" as much as possible, then commit to a new base chassis for the next 30 years (CV90 Copy or BOXER) and continually build more variants. An Army and RCAF "NSS" so to speak. Commit to more Bell Textron products in refitted UH-1Y "Super-Griffons" and Vipers, BV206's and a domestic MILCOTS options for snowmobiles, ATVs and UTVs, Colt Canada/CZ lines open, etc....
I couldn’t agree more. The baffling part is - why is this already not the case?

Does Industry Canada, who is involved in all of our major acquisitions & capital projects, not look at how beneficial for the country it would be if the government would develop me and commit to an industrial base here.

And all of those vehicles/platforms you mentioned are EXTREMELY easy to do with the current infrastructure.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,014
Points
910
I couldn’t agree more. The baffling part is - why is this already not the case?

Does Industry Canada, who is involved in all of our major acquisitions & capital projects, not look at how beneficial for the country it would be if the government would develop me and commit to an industrial base here.

And all of those vehicles/platforms you mentioned are EXTREMELY easy to do with the current infrastructure.
Probably because the CF is generally a terrible business partner - as polices change on the whim of the .gov
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
Probably because the CF is generally a terrible business partner - as polices change on the whim of the .gov
That’s true. Very true. It’s hard to do business with a partner like DND/CAF who can have even a project cancelled at basically any time, without much notice.

Having bipartisan agreement on certain procurement policies would go a long way to correcting a large part of that.

Streamlining procurement so only a few fingers are in the pie would help - DND/CAF keeping a simple procurement simple would really help as well. (Pistol replacement…ahem…)


RCMP, CBSA, and almost every law enforcement agency in the country is a reliable business partner when it comes to vehicle acquisition, firearm acquisition, etc.

None of them may be huge business partners individually, but those sales add up very quickly.

DND/CAF may never be as stable as a partner just due to our purpose and capability goals. We don’t need new medium or heavy logistic trucks every year, nor helicopters, nor fighters, nor warships, etc. But we could use them more than once every 20+ years.

But if we modified & simplified the way we do procurement, we could be a desirable business partner when it comes to smaller yet consistent sales - even on the capital acquisition side.



For example, Bell Textron has their helicopter factory in (ofcourse) Quebec.

Our initial purchase of 100 Griffons was great for that company, factory, local economy, etc.

But once those 100 helicopters were delivered, Canadian government orders mostly dried up, minus the odd purchase here and there. (We also screwed them out of supplying 15 helicopters to the Philippines. A great way for Bell to consider closing their factory here next time they look to streamline their operations.)


Now that we’ve had the Griffon in service for quite some time, and our entire military is familiar with them - when it comes time for replacement, we could implement a simple 10 helicopters per year, for 10 years. (Or something like that. Maybe even do it in 5 year increments - I’m sure you get my drift.)

Sign the contract so it’s a done deal, so it doesn’t have to be revisited each year - perhaps modified to reflect economic or technological changes.

The CAF can sell off the oldest choppers with the most hours, and have them replaced with newer birds. Perhaps focus on delivering the newer birds to one squadron at a time, to keep things as simple as possible.

The CAF is happy. Bell is happy. The local economy is happy because the work is highly skilled, well paying, and consistent. The general public doesn’t have a huge panic attack with the price tag, and comes to support the CAF more and more as we become a more vital part of local economies. And that really does trickle out in so many ways.

Our boom & bust way of doing things is great for a company that wants a nice multi-billion dollar shot in the arm. It’s bad for companies that want to do business on a consistent basis. It’s terrible for companies that need to hire or train people with specialized skill-sets, who disappear after the work does.


<It would just be nice if the elected officials in Ottawa grew up and said “Politics aside, we all agree this would benefit our country in the following ways. Let’s agree to make this a policy, regardless of which party is in power.”

Because stable economies and jobs! jobs! jobs! are not only great for everybody, but it saves the political parties the hassle of needing to promise a bunch of nonsense come election times. They can focus on their policies rather than surprise announcements to bribe voters.>


KevinB, the above was in agreement with your post, and a bit of ranting. (I’ve been doing that a lot lately…is this what getting older feels like? Is that what I’m going through?) It wasn’t meant as a lecture of the obvious by any means
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,794
Points
1,040
We seem to have a technical glitch there. The quote you started with CBH99, which is listed as mine, is in fact KevinB's.

???

:unsure:
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
We seem to have a technical glitch there. The quote you started with CBH99, which is listed as mine, is in fact KevinB's.

???

:unsure:
😐🤷🏼‍♂️

I probably started to reply to something on my phone, but didn’t post it. Then replied to something else from my computer & forgot to delete what I had started.

Sorry guys
 
Top