LAV 6.0

[McG]

Yes George, different recoil systems.  That does not change what I said earlier. 

Same M68 cannon firing the same M900 penetrator is the same recoil energy and the same terminal effects down range. 

If you need, I can explain how length of recoil stroke changes the recoil perceived by the firing platform.  It is not a factor in terminal effects.

 

[Eland2]

How do you define low powered?  The MGS fires the same M900 105mm APFSDS-T round as late M-60 and early M-1.1; it is no more "low powered" than the Leo C2.

I did not know that the MGS fires the M900 round. Thanks for setting me straight on this.

 

[Old Sweat]

Yes George, different recoil systems.  That does not change what I said earlier.  If you need, I can explain how length of recoil stroke changes the recoil perceived by the firing platform.  It is not a factor in terminal effects.

And this has its own effect on the stability of the platform. Newton got it right, which is something to remember when somebody talks about fiddling with the length of the recoil run.

It also doesn't matter to the round once it leaves the tube.

 

[a_majoor]

From a technical perspective, there is no reason to doubt that large calibre weapons can be mounted on wheeled platforms. The CV-CT turret uses a 105mm cannon, and the Centauro tank destroyer mounts a 120mm cannon, similar to that of a Gen 3 tank. The BMP-3 turret has been demonstrated mounted on the Finnish Patria MAV, and it carries a 100mm cannon and a 30mm autocannon (along with a coax MG; things are pretty crowded in there).

The issue with the MGS isn't so much the cannon, but the rather awful mount that it is in.

 

[McG]

And this has its own effect on the stability of the platform. Newton got it right, which is something to remember when somebody talks about fiddling with the length of the recoil run.

The long recoil stroke is what lets a large gun fire from a lighter vehicle and keep stable.  The trade-off is in rate of fire as the gun spends more time in travel after each shot.

 

[Old Sweat]

The long recoil stroke is what lets a large gun fire from a lighter vehicle and keep stable.  The trade-off is in rate of fire as the gun spends more time in travel after each shot.

Agreed. But the remaining force is transmitted through the non-recoiling mass into the ground. Hence the challenges of firing in an non-vehicle axis direction.

(I haven't computed the recoil equation for frigging near 50 years, so my detailed knowledge is very rusty.)

 

[Eland2]

From a technical perspective, there is no reason to doubt that large calibre weapons can be mounted on wheeled platforms. The CV-CT turret uses a 105mm cannon, and the Centauro tank destroyer mounts a 120mm cannon, similar to that of a Gen 3 tank. The BMP-3 turret has been demonstrated mounted on the Finnish Patria MAV, and it carries a 100mm cannon and a 30mm autocannon (along with a coax MG; things are pretty crowded in there).

The issue with the MGS isn't so much the cannon, but the rather awful mount that it is in.

I've always felt that the MGS turret system was really an orphan product that General Dynamics couldn't find a home for, and so they stuck it on a LAV hull in an attempt to create something that was marketable just because it was different. From a crew safety/survivability standpoint, the turret confers only minimal benefits as the thin armour of the LAV hull and the turret are quite vulnerable to top-attack munitions.

Because the turret is situated so far back on the hull, the MGS can't do hull-down positions very well. In theory, the MGS turret should confer some degree of survivability if it were mounted further forward on the hull, as the gun would be the only thing an enemy could see over the crest and thus present the only target. Hence the turret crew might stand a better chance of surviving if an enemy tank does get in a lucky shot and takes out the main gun.

On the other hand, at typical engagement distances, the MGS likely does OK without needing to resort to taking up hull-down positions or going into defiladed positions if the enemy force consists of soldiers armed with AK-47s and the odd RPG-7. If I had to go into any environment more threatening than that, I would want a regular tank providing fire support instead.

I've heard/read that the autoloader system in the MGS is both complicated and awkward. That it works at all amazes me, but I could imagine that it might present a nightmare for weapons techs in the field if something does go wrong.

 

[Underway]

This is all true, but the rate of transfer is also important.  The length of time of the transfer does reduce the power on the vehicle.  A longer recoil with a stronger recoil system means that the power transfer to the vehicle is the same total amount just that over each subunit of time it is less.  This is the basic principle of recoil systems in everything from shocks to guns.  And yes the remaining force is transferred to the vehicle, just that the vehicle is ideally able to deal much more easily with what's left over, usually through mass and go force distribution systems.

From everything I've read the MGS needed one or more of the following changes:  more mass to deal with the force distribution, lower gun hight, wider base, smaller gun, different gun position.  It essentially comes down to a lower centre of gravity and a gun too big and awkward for the platform.

If they really want to put a gun on a MGS for infantry support and not worry about the anti-tank component then they should have gone with a 70-90mm round size.  It would have significantly increased rate of fire, platform stability and number of rounds while probably not bothering the "infantry support" capability.  It's also going to hurt the hell out of everything short of a MBT or heavy bunker.

Also a 120mm mortar variant would be awesome infantry support, which might even be better at AT than a 105 in some circumstances.  But we didn't do that either.

So at the end of the day that means that the MGS was in my mind designed to deal with MBT's of the T-72 to T-80 variety otherwise they would have used a lighter gun.

 

[a_majoor]

My understanding of the MGS system actually begins with the RDF project of the 1980's, and the reequiping of American and allied Armour units.

GD had produced an "expeditionary tank" using an early version of the MGS turret (think of the Swedish experiment with a Marder carrying a 105mm cannon on a remote control turret). The entire RDF project wound down in confusion, hence the orphaned turret. A lot of other orphaned things were also left over, including the AAI "ARES" 75mm canon using telescoped ammunition and capable of burst fire, which also never found a home. At about the same time, the move among allied armies was to go to 120mm main guns for tanks, leaving lots of 105mm ammunition and gun barrels available. (There is also a strange assumprtion among the Americans that anything with the name "tank" needed to be able to take on an MBT one on one, hence the ARES cannon was not "good enough" to arm a light tank...).

The turret and LAV hull does make a useful "bunker buster" and general support platform (although I would rather pay more money and get something like the CV-CT turret. A 120 mm mortar like the AMOS would be very useful as well, but if we can only have one, the CV-CT does offer a 420 elevation...).

Like the great man once said: "You nfight with the army you have, not the one you want", so the Strykers will be dealing with their MGS for a long time to come.

 

[Soldier1stTradesman2nd]

Instead of talking about what the Canadian Army should have for APCs/IFVs, how about we list out the several and significant issues being reported about the LAV 6.0 platform.  It is incredible what the troops are saying about this lemon of a vehicle.

General Dynamics Canada needs to be held to account for designing, building and delivering a seriously shoddy piece of kit.

I'll start:

A/C condensation piped into double hull, requiring draining every four hours or risk shorting out the wiring inside same space.

 

[Ostrozac]

Well, anecdotally, I hear that the LAV 6.0 has a great brake system, as long as there's no frost. Which makes it a bit touchy for our climate. And apparently it doesn't like being recovered, as in it is incredibly difficult to recover a broken down vehicle.

Given the lackluster response to the LAV 6.0, the similar response to the TAPV project, and the cancellation of CCV, is the infantry well on our way to being a light infantry based force? Or is our equipment making that decision for us?

 

[CBH99]

Let me ask you guys this, since you just brought up the lacklustre impression so far of the LAV 6.0. 

As a guy who got out when prior to the LAV 6.0 coming online, I'm curious - is the new LAV "better" or "worse" than the LAV 3?  Any/all issues from a user standpoint. 

 

[MilEME09]

Let me ask you guys this, since you just brought up the lacklustre impression so far of the LAV 6.0. 

As a guy who got out when prior to the LAV 6.0 coming online, I'm curious - is the new LAV "better" or "worse" than the LAV 3?  Any/all issues from a user standpoint.

I haven't taken a LAV course at the weapons school, but got a walk around of it and asked a lot of question, My understanding is it is better, less top heavy (due to the larger chassis), more storage space, just better eveything really, that said it's still a LAV, still wheeled, and not a heavy IVF, you can only improve so much before you hit a wall. I personally would rate it as one of the better IFV's in the western world, would be made better if it had a couple ATGM's on the turret, but thats just me, modern tech can merge a standard and a TUA turret together easily I think.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I haven't taken a LAV course at the weapons school, but got a walk around of it and asked a lot of question, My understanding is it is better, less top heavy (due to the larger chassis), more storage space, just better eveything really, that said it's still a LAV, still wheeled, and not a heavy IVF, you can only improve so much before you hit a wall. I personally would rate it as one of the better IFV's in the western world, would be made better if it had a couple ATGM's on the turret, but thats just me, modern tech can merge a standard and a TUA turret together easily I think.

You mean like they had on teh Bradley IFV decades ago?

 

[Soldier1stTradesman2nd]

OK, more issues with the current rollout of LAV 6.0's:

1. As stated earlier, inherent design flaw with A/C condensation flowing into the double hull, incidentally where all of the critical wiring (non waterproof) resides. Hull needs 45 mins of draining for every 4 hours of operation;

2. Vehicles are being delivered without steering wheels;

3. Some vehicles are being delivered with drilled brake rotors (reportedly not replaced after factory tests);

4. Turret (while significantly enhanced from LAV III) wiring is messed up, causing "ghost turret" phenomenon - turret traverses slowly on its own

5. Vehicle is almost 10 tons heavier that LAV III - there is no vehicle in the CAF fleet (save a tank) that can recover the LAV 6.0;

6. Most of the fleet is grounded due to severe faults detected in the hydraulic brake systems (could cause catastrophic loss of braking ability)

I am sure there are more issues, incl crew ergonomics etc, but the above short list demonstrates abject lack of caring for quality control. Must get the Canadian delivery out of the way for Saudi vehicles to be produced...

 

[PuckChaser]

Are all these captured in a UCR? Seems like a more appropriate place to identify issues...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

OK, more issues with the current rollout of LAV 6.0's:

1. As stated earlier, inherent design flaw with A/C condensation flowing into the double hull, incidentally where all of the critical wiring (non waterproof) resides. Hull needs 45 mins of draining for every 4 hours of operation;

2. Vehicles are being delivered without steering wheels;

3. Some vehicles are being delivered with drilled brake rotors (reportedly not replaced after factory tests);

4. Turret (while significantly enhanced from LAV III) wiring is messed up, causing "ghost turret" phenomenon - turret traverses slowly on its own

5. Vehicle is almost 10 tons heavier that LAV III - there is no vehicle in the CAF fleet (save a tank) that can recover the LAV 6.0;

6. Most of the fleet is grounded due to severe faults detected in the hydraulic brake systems (could cause catastrophic loss of braking ability)

I am sure there are more issues, incl crew ergonomics etc, but the above short list demonstrates abject lack of caring for quality control. Must get the Canadian delivery out of the way for Saudi vehicles to be produced...

It's called, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

The LAVIII worked just fine, then we went along and tried to turn an IFV in to an MRAP. 

 

[McG]

Are all these captured in a UCR? Seems like a more appropriate place to identify issues...

The Army and DGLEPM are well aware of the fleet problems.

The fault is partially ours.  While billed as an upgrade, these are essentially new vehicles (left over parts form the original vehicles are the LAV III monuments going up around the country) without an operational history in another country, and we did not choose to put a low rate initial production run through extensive RAMD trailing before accepting the design.

 

[CBH99]

Wow.  Just wow.

A definite lack of oversight when it comes to quality control, might be an understatement.  How can the same factory that produced the LAV 3 & currently produces the Stryker, allow vehicles to roll off an assembly line with critical defects?

Who is to say the Saudi order won't be so large, the workers won't be cutting corners on their vehicles also in order to meet a deadline?  I'm not a mechanic by any means, but ensuring critical systems are in working order should be a no-brainer.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The Army and DGLEPM are well aware of the fleet problems.

The fault is partially ours.  While billed as an upgrade, these are essentially new vehicles (left over parts form the original vehicles are the LAV III monuments going up around the country) without an operational history in another country, and we did not choose to put a low rate initial production run through extensive RAMD trailing before accepting the design.

Criminal ineptitude at its finest!  Who is getting fired?  Oh wait, we're the Canadian Army.  So nobody    >

How we manage to take a vehicle, that did Yeoman's work in the Sandbox and completely make a **** of it is just too funny.