LAV 6.0

[daftandbarmy]

The tallest vehicle in the Combat Team is now the ambulance.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1715156053459963988

More, and bigger, red crosses than any video game...

... Because Canada cares so much, we only have armoured ambulance vehicles

 

[dapaterson]

These are replacing Bison ambulances. Other variants will provide fitter and other needed vehicles; prior armoured vehicle acquisitions have ignored support vehicles.

Canada's obsession with "operator" generals has a direct correlation with the loss of support enablers. But at least we have nine Potempkin Reg F Inf Bns (along with dozens more in the Res F).

 

[McG]

More, and bigger, red crosses than any video game...

... Because Canada cares so much, we only have armoured ambulance vehicles

It’s not about the Red Cross so much as someone thought that vehicles pulling onto the combat team objective need room to stand inside. The new engineer section carrier and the new generic APC will have the same profile.

 

[daftandbarmy]

These are replacing Bison ambulances. Other variants will provide fitter and other needed vehicles; prior armoured vehicle acquisitions have ignored support vehicles.

Canada's obsession with "operator" generals has a direct correlation with the loss of support enablers. But at least we have nine Potempkin Reg F Inf Bns (along with dozens more in the Res F).

Luckily I studied some Russian history at SFU. I particularly enjoyed this bit...


In politics and economics, a Potemkin village (Russian: потёмкинские деревни, romanized: potyómkinskiye derévni) is a construction (literal or figurative) whose purpose is to provide an external façade to a situation, to make people believe that the situation is better than it is.

The term comes from stories of a fake portable village built by Grigory Potemkin, former lover of Empress Catherine II, solely to impress the Empress during her journey to Crimea in 1787.[1] Modern historians agree that accounts of this portable village are exaggerated.

The original story was that Potemkin erected phony portable settlements along the banks of the Dnieper River in order to impress the Russian Empress and foreign guests. The structures would be disassembled after she passed, and re-assembled farther along her route to be seen again.

Potemkin village - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KevinB]

It’s not about the Red Cross so much as someone thought that vehicles pulling onto the combat team objective need room to stand inside. The new engineer section carrier and the new generic APC will have the same profile.

Someone who did this requirement needs to be beaten, their superior who didn’t stop them beaten as well, and the subordinates in the office also beaten for not stopping the idiot who did this.

 

[McG]

Someone who did this requirement needs to be beaten, their superior who didn’t stop them beaten as well, and the subordinates in the office also beaten for not stopping the idiot who did this.

I know CA is not free of blame, but think mostly GDLS wagged the dog on this.

 

[Spencer100]

I know CA is not free of blame, but think mostly GDLS wagged the dog on this.

99% GDLS and Liberal party. The SA deal was looking bad politically the deal could go south. SA had already pulled some of the order. The Liberals had made a deal with CAW/Unifor Gerry Diaz for votes. London is important. GDLS comes in you need to keep the plant open. Here's a deal.

CAF we need new vehicles. Commonality with the current LAV6 is good. So deal!

Win for everyone! (battlefield usefulness, who knows)

Liberals make Unifor members (well union bosses) happy. Liberals buy stuff for the CAF (see we love the military) And bonus there is no big bad point thing on top, see they're support vehicles, and wheeled so they can be used to move snow. There is a reason they show just the ambulance. GDLS gets more work. CAF get something new.

All round golf claps!

 

[Spencer100]

How are they doing in Ukraine? I did see some video when they got there.

Did they boom or are doing great, or just ok?

 

[DBNSG]

How are they doing in Ukraine? I did see some video when they got there.

Did they boom or are doing great, or just ok?

I did see a video of a brigade that used the Stryker variant and they praised its speed and armor protection.

 

[Good2Golf]

Someone who did this requirement needs to be beaten, their superior who didn’t stop them beaten as well, and the subordinates in the office also beaten for not stopping the idiot who did this.

I think they all got fruit baskets from GDLS.

 

[KevinB]

I know CA is not free of blame, but think mostly GDLS wagged the dog on this.

I’m not even happy with the idea that the CP’s need to be Queen Mary height. It just screams CP vehicle.

The fact that the CAF got forced into this makes me want to puke.

 

[McG]

I’m not even happy with the idea that the CP’s need to be Queen Mary height. It just screams CP vehicle.

I am okay with platforms that have standing space, but there are places they do not belong. The F Ech and the A1 Ech are two of those places where it does not belong.

 

[Maxman1]

Someone who did this requirement needs to be beaten, their superior who didn’t stop them beaten as well, and the subordinates in the office also beaten for not stopping the idiot who did this.

"Hmmmmm, Sergeant-Major, beat the men on the parade square."

 

[Kirkhill]

The general recently visited the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Vilseck, Germany and praised the unit for its innovative command and control. The 2nd Cavalry’s regiment commander uses five Stryker armored vehicles digitally connected across the battlefield to exercise command and control.

“[The regimental commander] understands the challenges of large-scale combat operations and is adapting in real time to be more mobile, low signature and lethal,” George said.

George also said the Army can use simple, accessible technology such as a tablet to replace large operations centers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1713727770419761218

A glorified game of spot the difference?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1715335566147912131

 

[FJAG]

99% GDLS and Liberal party. The SA deal was looking bad politically the deal could go south. SA had already pulled some of the order. The Liberals had made a deal with CAW/Unifor Gerry Diaz for votes. London is important. GDLS comes in you need to keep the plant open. Here's a deal.

CAF we need new vehicles. Commonality with the current LAV6 is good. So deal!

Win for everyone! (battlefield usefulness, who knows)

Liberals make Unifor members (well union bosses) happy. Liberals buy stuff for the CAF (see we love the military) And bonus there is no big bad point thing on top, see they're support vehicles, and wheeled so they can be used to move snow. There is a reason they show just the ambulance. GDLS gets more work. CAF get something new.

All round golf claps!

I really don't care who gets happy as long as we keep the major armoured vehicle manufacturer in Canada in business and viable.

I'm not the biggest fan of the LAV and I wish GDLS in London could diversify into a tracked vehicle - although I'm a bit hesitant on AJAX - and I doubt but they could do additional versions for mortars, SHORAD, and anti-armour and maybe even a few Bookers and various robotics vehicles. Hell - get them a contract to build a couple or three battalions of K9s.

Lord, we need a multi-decade procurement program to keep our armoured equipment and industry refreshed.

 

[FJAG]

I’m not even happy with the idea that the CP’s need to be Queen Mary height. It just screams CP vehicle.

The fact that the CAF got forced into this makes me want to puke.

I am okay with platforms that have standing space, but there are places they do not belong. The F Ech and the A1 Ech are two of those places where it does not belong.

Remember these guys at 8 1/2 feet

These were actually taller at 9 1/4 feet.



Which compared with the M13 at 6 feet to the hull top and 8 1/4 feet to machine gun.

The LAV 6.0 with turret comes in at 10 3/4 feet and while I've looked everywhere I can't find a height specification for the ACSV but generally it doesn't look much taller than the turret height of the basic LAV 6.0

I'm just guessing here, and anyone who knows better can let me know, but I don't expect any of the CP version ACSVs will replace the existing LAV 6.0 used by the company level command team, or the COs Tac or the BC's OPV. They'll operate in battalion and above command posts etc. instead. These have always been a different configuration.

That leaves ambulances and cargo variants (which I presume may go to coy QMs) and other things that generally stay a bound behind.

Generally, shit has gotten bigger. IMHO, the LAV 6.0 is a beast. Effectively, its almost two feet taller than the Leopard tanks of my generation and almost 1 1/2 feet taller than the initial LAV3 was. That concerns me. The fact that the ACSV is as tall as the LAV 6.0 doesn't give me additional concern. The fact that the vehicle's signature is different from the fighting version doesn't either. That's the way of it unless you want to start building LAV 6.0s support vehicles with dummy turrets simply to confuse the Bosch.

 

[Kirkhill]

Remember these guys at 8 1/2 feet

These were actually taller at 9 1/4 feet.

View attachment 80814

Which compared with the M13 at 6 feet to the hull top and 8 1/4 feet to machine gun.

The LAV 6.0 with turret comes in at 10 3/4 feet and while I've looked everywhere I can't find a height specification for the ACSV but generally it doesn't look much taller than the turret height of the basic LAV 6.0

I'm just guessing here, and anyone who knows better can let me know, but I don't expect any of the CP version ACSVs will replace the existing LAV 6.0 used by the company level command team, or the COs Tac or the BC's OPV. They'll operate in battalion and above command posts etc. instead. These have always been a different configuration.

That leaves ambulances and cargo variants (which I presume may go to coy QMs) and other things that generally stay a bound behind.

Generally, shit has gotten bigger. IMHO, the LAV 6.0 is a beast. Effectively, its almost two feet taller than the Leopard tanks of my generation and almost 1 1/2 feet taller than the initial LAV3 was. That concerns me. The fact that the ACSV is as tall as the LAV 6.0 doesn't give me additional concern. The fact that the vehicle's signature is different from the fighting version doesn't either. That's the way of it unless you want to start building LAV 6.0s support vehicles with dummy turrets simply to confuse the Bosch.

Sustaining the Army of 2040 & Contested Logistics

Hamilton highlighted some of the sustainment enterprise’s “must do’s,” to provide future readiness in the [Indo-Pacific] including: Leveraging data analytics and investing in predictive logistics capabilities; Use of autonomous technology to extend operational reach, prolong endurance and...

army.ca

What is a bound when the distance from BMA to FLOT is 200 km? What is the optimum vehicle when companies and batteries are widely dispersed and multiple supply routes are called for?

Large columns get targeted by artillery. Isolated vehicles get picked off by PGMs and FPV Drones.

 

[markppcli]

Remember these guys at 8 1/2 feet

These were actually taller at 9 1/4 feet.

View attachment 80814

Which compared with the M13 at 6 feet to the hull top and 8 1/4 feet to machine gun.

The LAV 6.0 with turret comes in at 10 3/4 feet and while I've looked everywhere I can't find a height specification for the ACSV but generally it doesn't look much taller than the turret height of the basic LAV 6.0

I'm just guessing here, and anyone who knows better can let me know, but I don't expect any of the CP version ACSVs will replace the existing LAV 6.0 used by the company level command team, or the COs Tac or the BC's OPV. They'll operate in battalion and above command posts etc. instead. These have always been a different configuration.

That leaves ambulances and cargo variants (which I presume may go to coy QMs) and other things that generally stay a bound behind.

Generally, shit has gotten bigger. IMHO, the LAV 6.0 is a beast. Effectively, its almost two feet taller than the Leopard tanks of my generation and almost 1 1/2 feet taller than the initial LAV3 was. That concerns me. The fact that the ACSV is as tall as the LAV 6.0 doesn't give me additional concern. The fact that the vehicle's signature is different from the fighting version doesn't either. That's the way of it unless you want to start building LAV 6.0s support vehicles with dummy turrets simply to confuse the Bosch.

You’re right in the CP context. The ACSV isn’t going to be replacing the Company or Bn / Reg CP, the Bde Comd will still be in a LAV 6. They’re going to replace the Queen Marrys for the Artillery and the signals Bisons.

 

[Spencer100]

This is interesting. US India deal on Strykers. Funny part about first time Strykers being built in another country. Me thinks his briefing notes are not correct. Lol

I was thinking the LAV 6, have Canadian R&D in them and would need Canadian permission. Or are the "Strykers" are US tech? Canada and India are not getting along at this moment. If we were would this announcement not between Canadian and India? So GD does the end run around the GoC? Bad taste from Saudi? In the will Indian engineering and management not have to go yo GD London? And Canadians go to India to help set up the plant? I quess GD could do it without any Canadian help.

India plans to make armored vehicles with US help, officials say

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced the deal during a bilateral meeting with State Secretary Antony Blinken and Indian ministers of defense and external affairs.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Fabius]

Between the US JSMC in Lima Ohio, and the US Army facilities in Anniston Alabama not to mention the GDLS facilities and staff in the US, I am not sure if London Ontario plays much of a role in the Stryker anymore.

Additionally the Stryker from my understanding is now quite different than a LAV 6, they have been upgraded in different ways.

Interesting development in any case.