LAV 6.0

[ueo]

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.

Sorta like most govt (either stripe) policies.

 

[Kirkhill]

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 wonder how much of the problem lies with Textron, how much lies with Rheinmetall and how much lies with the CAF?

The M1117 appears to be a workable platform for some applications. So Textron must know how to build those.

On the other hand Rheinmetall got the Kongsberg integration contract from Textron

TAPV – Tactical armoured patrol vehicle​

Textron Systems Canada and Rheinmetall Canada provide a 4x4 wheeled armoured vehicle specifically engineered to meet the Canadian Forces’ requirements for survivability, protection, power, mobility and versatility for a broad spectrum of operations in the world’s most challenging environments.The modern design includes a new protection package designed to shield troops from roadside bombs.



Rheinmetall Canada performs multiple integration functions and final vehicle assembly to include the Kongsberg remote weapon station and government furnished equipment. The company will also play a large role in the program’s long-term system support.

Perhaps it is Rheinmetall that was responsible for the placement of the RWS, the spare, the crane and the seats?

Who was responsible for the bigger tires and the higher ground clearance? And was that done in consultation with all the principals and partners?

And finally, of the 500 TAPVs delivered 136 were to be delivered without RWS systems. Did those also have spare wheels and cranes on the roof? And are they as unstable as the RWS models.?

National Defence - Canada.ca

The Department of National Defense and the Canadian Armed Forces advise and support the Minister of National Defense and implement government decisions regarding the defense of Canadian interests at home and abroad.

www.forces.gc.ca

Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle infographic​

National Defence - Canada.ca

The Department of National Defense and the Canadian Armed Forces advise and support the Minister of National Defense and implement government decisions regarding the defense of Canadian interests at home and abroad.

www.forces.gc.ca

Infographic description​

The Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) is a wheeled combat vehicle that can fulfill a variety of roles on the battlefield, such as reconnaissance and surveillance, security, command and control, cargo and armoured transport of personnel and equipment.

TAPV general specifications​

• Height: 2.39 metres to roof, 3.21 metres with remote weapons system
• Length: 6.81 metres
• Width: 2.75 metres
• Combat load: 18,300 kilograms (gross vehicle weight) (41,000 lbs)
• Maximum forward speed: 110 kilometres per hour
• Range: 650 kilometres at 88 kilometres per hour
• Fuel type: Diesel or JP-8 (jet fuel)
• Fuel capacity: 272 litres (main) plus 19 litres (reserve)

Reconnaissance TAPV​

• 193 to be delivered
• 138 equipped with a remote weapons system
• Crew of three personnel (driver, crew commander, gunner) and two soldiers

General Utility TAPV​

• 307 to be delivered
• 226 equipped with a remote weapons system
• Crew of three personnel (driver, crew commander, gunner) and three soldiers

 

[KevinB]

I wonder how much of the problem lies with Textron, how much lies with Rheinmetall and how much lies with the CAF?

Going with my gut ---> CAF 110%

The M1117 appears to be a workable platform for some applications. So Textron must know how to build those.

On the other hand Rheinmetall got the Kongsberg integration contract from Textron

There are RWS on some of the M1117, but most have a very similar (near identical) 1M turret like the AVGP with Mk19 and M2HB.
None have the tire or a HIAB up top - because that is just insane...

Perhaps it is Rheinmetall that was responsible for the placement of the RWS, the spare, the crane and the seats?

Who was responsible for the bigger tires and the higher ground clearance? And was that done in consultation with all the principals and partners?

As I understand it - the CAF wanted higher ground clearance - for more stand off from surface and subsurface IED's.
Textron already had a model like that - without a care tire on top, and a heavy crane...

And finally, of the 500 TAPVs delivered 136 were to be delivered without RWS systems. Did those also have spare wheels and cranes on the roof? And are they as unstable as the RWS models.?

I believe all the CAF versions have the HIAB Crane and Roof Mounted Spare Tire - which are significantly heavier than the RWS is anyway.

 

[Kirkhill]

Going with my gut ---> CAF 110%


There are RWS on some of the M1117, but most have a very similar (near identical) 1M turret like the AVGP with Mk19 and M2HB.
None have the tire or a HIAB up top - because that is just insane...


As I understand it - the CAF wanted higher ground clearance - for more stand off from surface and subsurface IED's.
Textron already had a model like that - without a care tire on top, and a heavy crane...


I believe all the CAF versions have the HIAB Crane and Roof Mounted Spare Tire - which are significantly heavier than the RWS is anyway.

I sense a commonality.....

So plan A.... remove spare and crane?

Which Textron model had the extra ground clearance?

 

[KevinB]

I sense a commonality.....

So plan A.... remove spare and crane?

Which Textron model had the extra ground clearance?

Commando® Family of Products

Enhanced combination of lethality, survivability, mobility and sustainability

www.textronsystems.com

Commando Elite appears to be the base vehicle for the CAF TAPV, as they have the TAPV pictured.

The Commando Select is the M1117 ASV.

Textron claims that all of the three variants have the same gradient and side slope capabilities considering the M1117 ASV is nearly as heavy - and has a lower CoG - I suspect they just copy pasted from the ASV, and didn't consider any changes to the brochure.

The Commando Elite has a 2" higher vertical wall scaling ability (24" versus 22").


I do note that Textron has an internal 120mm Mortar variant, but I think that again is a better model for the LAV.


Honestly IMHO Canada would have been much better served by just getting the M117 ASV, it could have done the job a lot better, and have some room in it too.
Or better yet - why add yet another small fleet orphan - and just get more LAV...

 

[dapaterson]

Image of the RCEME unveiling their work on TAPV design.

 

[GR66]

I do note that Textron has an internal 120mm Mortar variant, but I think that again is a better model for the LAV.


Honestly IMHO Canada would have been much better served by just getting the M117 ASV, it could have done the job a lot better, and have some room in it too.
Or better yet - why add yet another small fleet orphan - and just get more LAV...

Agree 100% with the highlighted. If we're going to commit to the LAV then get all the variants required to make the fleet effective (Mortar, SHORAD, AT). Keep the TAPVs for roles for which they are suited - MPs, Force Protection units, etc. The Recce model might not be ideal for a peer conflict, but they are at least a platform with a Recce suite for the Reserves to train in the role.

Nothing says that just because we've received 500 of them we have to find a use for all 500 of them during peacetime. Use as many as make sense and put the rest into storage to cover losses/force expansion if required.

I understand the desire to try and find a role for them since we have them, but every TAPV-SHORAD, TAPV-Mortar or TAPV-AT we create is money/turrets/personnel/training that could instead be put into LAV-SHORAD, LAV-Mortar or LAV-AT which are more appropriate for the Army.

 

[KevinB]

Back to the LAV

Curious if any of the LAV fleet has gotten the Stryker A1 upgrades

Stryker A1

Stryker A1 General Dynamics collaborates with the Army on several new innovative capabilities that are ready today for tomorrow’s fight. The Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) will provide Soldiers with a vehicle that will dominate the battlefields of tomorrow. Four Major Upgrades of the Stryker ECP...

www.gdls.com

The on to missing CAF models

M1129 Stryker - 120mm Mortar variant. M1129 Mortar Carrier - Wikipedia
GDLS doesn't show it on their website

MSHORAD

Sgt Stout

Stryker M-Shorad The Stryker M–SHORAD vehicle provides lethal, mobile and survivable air defense against an array of aerial threats.• Based on the new Stryker A1 chassis, the M–SHORAD enables the Army’s maneuver units for Multi–Domain Operations.• Highlights:– On–board target–acquisition...

www.gdls.com

DE / CUAS

Stryker Leonidas

Stryker Leonidas General Dynamics Land Systems and Epirus, Inc., have a Strategic Teaming Agreement to integrate the Leonidas directed energy system and broader high-power microwave technology into the U.S. Army’s Stryker and other manned and autonomous ground combat vehicles for enhanced mobile...

www.gdls.com

I ignored the M1134 ATGM Variant - as it is just a TUA-LAV, and the given the MSHORAD has swappable rails for Stinger, Sidewinder, or Hellfire - one would assume that a Hellfire only ATGM variant would be an easy day.

 

[GR66]

Back to the LAV

Curious if any of the LAV fleet has gotten the Stryker A1 upgrades

Stryker A1

Stryker A1 General Dynamics collaborates with the Army on several new innovative capabilities that are ready today for tomorrow’s fight. The Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) will provide Soldiers with a vehicle that will dominate the battlefields of tomorrow. Four Major Upgrades of the Stryker ECP...

www.gdls.com

The on to missing CAF models

M1129 Stryker - 120mm Mortar variant. M1129 Mortar Carrier - Wikipedia
GDLS doesn't show it on their website

MSHORAD

Sgt Stout

Stryker M-Shorad The Stryker M–SHORAD vehicle provides lethal, mobile and survivable air defense against an array of aerial threats.• Based on the new Stryker A1 chassis, the M–SHORAD enables the Army’s maneuver units for Multi–Domain Operations.• Highlights:– On–board target–acquisition...

www.gdls.com

DE / CUAS

Stryker Leonidas

Stryker Leonidas General Dynamics Land Systems and Epirus, Inc., have a Strategic Teaming Agreement to integrate the Leonidas directed energy system and broader high-power microwave technology into the U.S. Army’s Stryker and other manned and autonomous ground combat vehicles for enhanced mobile...

www.gdls.com

I ignored the M1134 ATGM Variant - as it is just a TUA-LAV, and the given the MSHORAD has swappable rails for Stinger, Sidewinder, or Hellfire - one would assume that a Hellfire only ATGM variant would be an easy day.

Given the small number of tanks we have I'd also include a DFS model. Having a DFS LAV in the Battalion CS Company would help reduce the need to penny packet out Leopards to support the infantry and instead let them remain concentrated for the AT role. I believe GDLS supplied Saudi Arabia a DFS model with a Cockerill 105mm HP gun. The Italian Centauro II uses a 120mm gun which would eliminate the need for an additional ammo type for the Army.

GDLS also supplied KSA with a turreted 120mm Mortar model so that should be any easy purchase as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is the USMC's LAV Hero-120 - a similar structure could be used for any LRATGM system, such as Spike NLOS, Brimstone, Switchblade 600 etc.

 

[KevinB]

Given the small number of tanks we have I'd also include a DFS model. Having a DFS LAV in the Battalion CS Company would help reduce the need to penny packet out Leopards to support the infantry and instead let them remain concentrated for the AT role. I believe GDLS supplied Saudi Arabia a DFS model with a Cockerill 105mm HP gun. The Italian Centauro II uses a 120mm gun which would eliminate the need for an additional ammo type for the Army.

You can’t put a full power 120mm tank gun on a LAV. The suspension won’t take it.
The 105mm isn’t even a full power tank gun.

Honestly to me putting a 105 or 120mM cannon on a LAV is a waste. For Anti Armor you just get a Hellfire etc launcher - and the current 25mm is great for infantry support work — plus with 120mm Mortar variant you mention below - you can clobber pretty much any non tank item as needed.

GDLS also supplied KSA with a turreted 120mm Mortar model so that should be any easy purchase as well.

 

[GR66]

You can’t put a full power 120mm tank gun on a LAV. The suspension won’t take it.
The 105mm isn’t even a full power tank gun.

Honestly to me putting a 105 or 120mM cannon on a LAV is a waste. For Anti Armor you just get a Hellfire etc launcher - and the current 25mm is great for infantry support work — plus with 120mm Mortar variant you mention below - you can clobber pretty much any non tank item as needed.

The thought on a 105mm/120mm on a LAV is as a direct fire support weapon not an anti-tank platform. Think grape huts not T-90s. Gun rounds are a lot cheaper (and more plentiful) than Hellfires for that role.

Both guns are already in use on LAV-type platforms so I'm thinking that there are already suspension solutions.

 

[KevinB]

The thought on a 105mm/120mm on a LAV is as a direct fire support weapon not an anti-tank platform. Think grape huts not T-90s. Gun rounds are a lot cheaper (and more plentiful) than Hellfires for that role.

Both guns are already in use on LAV-type platforms so I'm thinking that there are already suspension solutions.

Neither have worked well -- the MGS down here did a big flop

The problem with tank guns - is people then want to play tank...

 

[daftandbarmy]

Neither have worked well -- the MGS down here did a big flop

The problem with tank guns - is people then want to play tank...

 

[MilEME09]

Neither have worked well -- the MGS down here did a big flop

The problem with tank guns - is people then want to play tank...

Also auto loader was crap and prone to malfunction.

Thing about out LAV fleet is we keep not buying everything we need, the infantry needs motor carriers, but we have none, funny thing is because of Ukraine I hear we suddenly realize they might be useful.....

 

[GR66]

Neither have worked well -- the MGS down here did a big flop

The problem with tank guns - is people then want to play tank...

Which is why they should be an Infantry-manned vehicle...

Training and doctrine should help with that?

Edit to add: MPF for the IBCTs is basically the same thing but with tracks. There obviously is a perceived need for a direct fire support option.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Put a sigh at the TC position "Your armour is this thick "X"

 

[Fabius]

Back to the LAV

Curious if any of the LAV fleet has gotten the Stryker A1 upgrades

Stryker A1

Stryker A1 General Dynamics collaborates with the Army on several new innovative capabilities that are ready today for tomorrow’s fight. The Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) will provide Soldiers with a vehicle that will dominate the battlefields of tomorrow. Four Major Upgrades of the Stryker ECP...

www.gdls.com

The on to missing CAF models

M1129 Stryker - 120mm Mortar variant. M1129 Mortar Carrier - Wikipedia
GDLS doesn't show it on their website

MSHORAD

Sgt Stout

Stryker M-Shorad The Stryker M–SHORAD vehicle provides lethal, mobile and survivable air defense against an array of aerial threats.• Based on the new Stryker A1 chassis, the M–SHORAD enables the Army’s maneuver units for Multi–Domain Operations.• Highlights:– On–board target–acquisition...

www.gdls.com

DE / CUAS

Stryker Leonidas

Stryker Leonidas General Dynamics Land Systems and Epirus, Inc., have a Strategic Teaming Agreement to integrate the Leonidas directed energy system and broader high-power microwave technology into the U.S. Army’s Stryker and other manned and autonomous ground combat vehicles for enhanced mobile...

www.gdls.com

I ignored the M1134 ATGM Variant - as it is just a TUA-LAV, and the given the MSHORAD has swappable rails for Stinger, Sidewinder, or Hellfire - one would assume that a Hellfire only ATGM variant would be an easy day.

In terms of the LAV 6 vs Stryker A1, maybe sort of. My understanding is that the LAV 6 originally came with the engine/ drive train the A1 is getting now.
Given some of the power generation issues etc that the LAV 6 has I doubt we have or are getting the A1 upgrades in terms of power management.

In terms of the LAV6 as I understand it we need some major updates in terms of the electrical system if we want to move into the future with it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Neither have worked well -- the MGS down here did a big flop

The problem with tank guns - is people then want to play tank...

B1 Centauro - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Put a scope on a rifle and people want to play sniper.

 

[ueo]

Commando® Family of Products

Enhanced combination of lethality, survivability, mobility and sustainability

www.textronsystems.com

Commando Elite appears to be the base vehicle for the CAF TAPV, as they have the TAPV pictured.

The Commando Select is the M1117 ASV.

Textron claims that all of the three variants have the same gradient and side slope capabilities considering the M1117 ASV is nearly as heavy - and has a lower CoG - I suspect they just copy pasted from the ASV, and didn't consider any changes to the brochure.

The Commando Elite has a 2" higher vertical wall scaling ability (24" versus 22").


I do note that Textron has an internal 120mm Mortar variant, but I think that again is a better model for the LAV.


Honestly IMHO Canada would have been much better served by just getting the M117 ASV, it could have done the job a lot better, and have some room in it too.
Or better yet - why add yet another small fleet orphan - and just get more LAV...

Love to see the 120 mor fired internally. Saw trials of the 81 in an M113. not so good.