LAV 6.0

[TangoTwoBravo]

It was not about the system of systems problem. By 2009, if something was not in use in Afghanistan or identified to fill a gap in Afghanistan it was on the chopping block. If the Taliban had had mech BTGs in Kandahar province during our war then we'd look different.

 

[KevinB]

It was not about the system of systems problem. By 2009, if something was not in use in Afghanistan or identified to fill a gap in Afghanistan it was on the chopping block. If the Taliban had had mech BTGs in Kandahar province during our war then we'd look different.

That statement really pisses me off, and I know you aren’t to blame for it, but any decent read of history would have shown how foolish and shortsighted that was.

 

[FJAG]

MGS TUA ADATS IIRC were all tarred with the system of systems brush. And babies were chucked out with bathwater when the tanks were justified.

Just like mortars and pioneers were ditched to ensure all the LAV seats were filled.

As to the GDF OO5s - i saw a 2019 rumour that we had actually held on to those - 20 in storage? Any truth?

I know they were kept in storage for quite a few years after they were taken out of service but as to when (if ever) they were disposed of I do not know.

 

[Kirkhill]

I know they were kept in storage for quite a few years after they were taken out of service but as to when (if ever) they were disposed of I do not know.

Could we get lucky?

After all the 40mm Boffins went from the Bonny, to LAHR to the Kingstons? No?

Funny that we kept the Boffins in storage from WW2 and brought them back into service a couple of times but, as T2B and Kevin are noting, we chose not to hang onto other kit that could have been rendered useful at a later date.

Why was it found necessary to disband the pioneer platoon to add their warm bodies to rifle sections rather than:

a) fielding the pioneer platoon as a rifle platoon
b) distributing the pioneers as pioneers from the pioneer platoon to the rifle platoons for missions?

 

[KevinB]

Could we get lucky?

After all the 40mm Boffins went from the Bonny, to LAHR to the Kingstons? No?

Funny that we kept the Boffins in storage from WW2 and brought them back into service a couple of times but, as T2B and Kevin are noting, we chose not to hang onto other kit that could have been rendered useful at a later date.

Why was it found necessary to disband the pioneer platoon to add their warm bodies to rifle sections rather than:

a) fielding the pioneer platoon as a rifle platoon
b) distributing the pioneers as pioneers from the pioneer platoon to the rifle platoons forr missions?

We broke up Cbt Support briefly in 1VP to add snipers, Recce and pioneers into rifle companies as part of training for OP Cobra (the never realized mission to extract UN personnel in FYR) as it was thought for that mission companies would need Cbt Spt elements pushed down to them, and not held at Bn, only Armor Defence Platoon (TOW Platoon) and Mortars stayed together.

 

[Kirkhill]

We broke up Cbt Support briefly in 1VP to add snipers, Recce and pioneers into rifle companies as part of training for OP Cobra (the never realized mission to extract UN personnel in FYR) as it was thought for that mission companies would need Cbt Spt elements pushed down to them, and not held at Bn, only Armor Defence Platoon (TOW Platoon) and Mortars stayed together.

If the Project Convergence article is anything to go by that distribution might make more sense going forwards.

In Ukraine 30 vehicles in one place seems to be a Target.

 

[markppcli]

Why would we not run the LAV with a Launcher system on the side of the turret even if only a couple of vehicles get the system. I like the idea of having the capability to build upon the LAV chassis.
One of the reasons I asked earlier on in this or another post about the Bradley Armor compared to the LAVs is that the basic Bradley without its add on armor and plates provides not much if any more protection then the LAV 6 does. If we were to go with a Tracked Version of the LAV6 similar to the Boxer tracked vehicle I think it would be a winner especially with add on armor and anti tank missiles mounted.

Time will tell which way we go or done go. Imagine a Tracked Lav with Air defense suit on it.

There is a lot to like about having ATGMs on the side of an IFV. For me TOW doesn’t work well in that role, Bradley success in Iraq aside, because of the requirement to track to target and the speed of the missile. There’s also the issue of bulk as each missile is 90 odd lbs and around a meter long. The TUA allowed you to fire a missile, reposition, shoot again, the reload from inside. The whole rear was dedicated to carrying TOW rounds. TUA was a direct evolution of the m113 TOW systems they replaced and it works well in our play book would be a shorter answer i guess.

LAV AD suits exist, MSHORAD jumps to mind.

 

[markppcli]

If the Project Convergence article is anything to go by that distribution might make more sense going forwards.

In Ukraine 30 vehicles in one place seems to be a Target.

Yes, but keeping tow in a platoon structure to itself works because of how they are supposed to resupply / deploy.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, but keeping tow in a platoon structure to itself works because of how they are supposed to resupply / deploy.

I absolutely think that in garrison that all the specialists should be kept under one command. I also think that that concentration of specialists should be maintained as long as possible - meaning as long as they are not engaged by effective enemy fire.

If the enemy insists on massing targets then massed fires is going to be the necessary response. And in those circumstances a group of 4 to 8 ATGMs serving a common kill zone, shooting and scooting, seems to this civvy to be a right answer.

But if the enemy eventually disperses, because they learn or they run out of tanks, then surely those ATGMs would likely disperse as well because now our own company groups need individual protection?

 

[markppcli]

I absolutely think that in garrison that all the specialists should be kept under one command. I also think that that concentration of specialists should be maintained as long as possible - meaning as long as they are not engaged by effective enemy fire.

If the enemy insists on massing targets then massed fires is going to be the necessary response. And in those circumstances a group of 4 to 8 ATGMs serving a common kill zone, shooting and scooting, seems to this civvy to be a right answer.

But if the enemy eventually disperses, because they learn or they run out of tanks, then surely those ATGMs would likely disperse as well because now our own company groups need individual protection?

TOW platoons have always been dispersed in groups, coordinated by their platoon commander who advises the CO on the AT plan. The WOs job is to drive a truck of missile around and ensure they have reloads. AT has been dispersed and massing since the 80s. Actually we all have, separated platoon hides to then mass combat teams and strike and then off to hides again. None of this is new it’s just stuff we’d sidelined for Afghanistan.

 

[Kirkhill]

TOW platoons have always been dispersed in groups, coordinated by their platoon commander who advises the CO on the AT plan. The WOs job is to drive a truck of missile around and ensure they have reloads. AT has been dispersed and massing since the 80s. Actually we all have, separated platoon hides to then mass combat teams and strike and then off to hides again. None of this is new it’s just stuff we’d sidelined for Afghanistan.

Nothing new, agreed with one exception. The increase in range of everything. It gets harder to close with and destroy. And even if you do find a target to destroy you are going to have to travel farther to find the next one. Seems to me it is going to continue to be easier to adopt the American tactic of sending a bullet instead of a man.

 

[childs56]

There is a lot to like about having ATGMs on the side of an IFV. For me TOW doesn’t work well in that role, Bradley success in Iraq aside, because of the requirement to track to target and the speed of the missile. There’s also the issue of bulk as each missile is 90 odd lbs and around a meter long. The TUA allowed you to fire a missile, reposition, shoot again, the reload from inside. The whole rear was dedicated to carrying TOW rounds. TUA was a direct evolution of the m113 TOW systems they replaced and it works well in our play book would be a shorter answer i guess.

LAV AD suits exist, MSHORAD jumps to mind.

I would like the idea of having every Lav with a Launcher even if they only have two missiles each. That can have a enemy thinking twice about their choices, Especially looking at who our enemy might be going forward. That shot might be the difference between shoot and scoot or shot and burn. I would prefer the first one. We know the Canadian military more then likely wont dedicate a system to this again. Why not make a useful stop gap means. Then require a dedicated system. We get the best of all worlds then well anyways.

 

[markppcli]

I would like the idea of having every Lav with a Launcher even if they only have two missiles each. That can have an enemy thinking twice about their choices, Especially looking at who our enemy might be going forward. That shot might be the difference between shoot and scoot or shot and burn. I would prefer the first one. We know the Canadian military more then likely wont dedicate a system to this again. Why not make a useful stop gap means. Then require a dedicated system. We get the best of all worlds then well anyways.

I actually see dedicated ATGM vehicles as more likely. Javeline and Spike can both “clip in” to mounts and be fired from the hatches of a TAPV or G Ride which is a far lower cost than rebuilding LAV turrets. Again it comes down to how that missile is fired and locks. TOW is point and shoot but much be constantly tracked( rf link back to its sight) and is slow (200 ms) where Javelin and Spike are fire and forget (good for shoot and scoot) but require you to lock the missile on, not sure about Javelin but spike you need to bring a pair of chevrons onto the target, which would mean a redesign of the whole FCS in a LAV.

 

[KevinB]

I actually see dedicated ATGM vehicles as more likely. Javeline and Spike can both “clip in” to mounts and be fired from the hatches of a TAPV or G Ride which is a far lower cost than rebuilding LAV turrets. Again it comes down to how that missile is fired and locks. TOW is point and shoot but much be constantly tracked( rf link back to its sight) and is slow (200 ms) where Javelin and Spike are fire and forget (good for shoot and scoot) but require you to lock the missile on, not sure about Javelin but spike you need to bring a pair of chevrons onto the target, which would mean a redesign of the whole FCS in a LAV.

Given both Javelin and Spike use thermal - it should be possible within a software update to the Thermals to use the LAV FCS, and the wiring harness to the missile.
I’d prefer a Spike NLOS for ADP on a dedicated system, and the option of clip on Javelin for a LAV, if not for all, for at least some of the ISC fleet.

 

[markppcli]

Given both Javelin and Spike use thermal - it should be possible within a software update to the Thermals to use the LAV FCS, and the wiring harness to the missile.
I’d prefer a Spike NLOS for ADP on a dedicated system, and the option of clip on Javelin for a LAV, if not for all, for at least some of the ISC fleet.

Same thermal sight yeah, but the lock on procedure would require extra imput unless you over complicate it.

 

[KevinB]

Same thermal sight yeah, but the lock on procedure would require extra imput unless you over complicate it.

Need a new joystick - with a gun/missile selector - and a lock button as well.
So potentially a significant wiring harness update

 

[FJAG]

I actually see dedicated ATGM vehicles as more likely. Javeline and Spike can both “clip in” to mounts and be fired from the hatches of a TAPV or G Ride which is a far lower cost than rebuilding LAV turrets. Again it comes down to how that missile is fired and locks. TOW is point and shoot but much be constantly tracked( rf link back to its sight) and is slow (200 ms) where Javelin and Spike are fire and forget (good for shoot and scoot) but require you to lock the missile on, not sure about Javelin but spike you need to bring a pair of chevrons onto the target, which would mean a redesign of the whole FCS in a LAV.

I like the TAPV solution because 1) making use of TAPV and 2) more room for reloads in the vehicle then in a LAV section carrier.

 

[KevinB]

I like the TAPV solution because 1) making use of TAPV and 2) more room for reloads in the vehicle then in a LAV section carrier.

I’m skeptical of the TAPV, as off-road mobility seems to be hindered by its high CoG.
Maybe moving the spare down to the lower front (like the AVGP, Bison and LAV often do) and getting rid of the then useless wheel crane could help with that.

 

[FJAG]

I’m skeptical of the TAPV, as off-road mobility seems to be hindered by its high CoG.
Maybe moving the spare down to the lower front (like the AVGP, Bison and LAV often do) and getting rid of the then useless wheel crane could help with that.

I only approve of TAPV because it's what we got and we aren't getting anything new soon. And quite frankly we have a lot of higher priority needs for other gear. In the meantime we can make use of them. If you can get a universal type of unmanned turret that can subsequently be grafted onto something else (if it's still useable) then even better.

 

[markppcli]

I only approve of TAPV because it's what we got and we aren't getting anything new soon. And quite frankly we have a lot of higher priority needs for other gear. In the meantime we can make use of them. If you can get a universal type of unmanned turret that can subsequently be grafted onto something else (if it's still useable) then even better.

Finding a role for it is something that needs to happen I agree. There’s no chance we’re going to trade them in for something better so find something is the only option. ATGM, Mortar, and AD movers are probably the best bet.