LAV 6.0

[MilEME09]

Seems like a few disappointments in the LAV family. Weird ammo truck, pop open mortar variant (if the picture is accurate) and the ever-fucked LAV LRSS. Let's hope the LAV 6 mk 2 is better since I'm sure we'll get them haha.

I believe there is a LAV 6 lethality upgrade program but its unfunded, i could see us getting the Mk2 turrets if budget was there

 

[PrairieFella]

I believe there is a LAV 6 lethality upgrade program but its unfunded, i could see us getting the Mk2 turrets if budget was there

I don't think it was an accident that GDLSC saying they may lay off workers came so close to all of these reveals haha.

 

[FJAG]

I believe there is a LAV 6 lethality upgrade program but its unfunded, i could see us getting the Mk2 turrets if budget was there

Honestly, I think the LAV 6.0 is too much of a vehicle to be a Light armoured vehicle. Giving it more of a turret runs the risk of making it look even more like an IFV and expecting to employ it as such.

Having said that I can see where from a cost perspective we may wish to go down that road albeit at some point, if an upgrade LAV 6.1 falls short of being an IFV, the government may need to deal with an issue similar to the operational use of the Iltis.

Quite frankly my optimum solution is to buy proper IFVs for an armoured brigade or two or three and relegate the current LAVs (whether as is or improved) to two mechanized infantry brigades where the LAV does not pretend to be an IFV but simply an infantry carrier.

 

[KevinB]

The CA really needs to get over this wheel fetish, for at least 1 (preferably 2) Bde’s.

I fail to understand why making a heavier larger LAV makes sense to anyone.


The LAV 10x10 Howitzer just continues to underwhelm me.

The Mortar carrier looks like a M1252 Stryker - which we are trying to get rid of to adopt a turreted mortar due to protection issues - mainly crew exposure to both splinters and noise/pressure as the 120mm crews are getting significantly high TBI rates from their outgoing bombs.

The Ammo carrier is just some idiots wet dream. It’s a total waste of a LAV hull.

 

[KevinB]

Incremental upgrade(s) to the same frame/chassis vs completely new vehicle is my guess

I think you meant “incremental upgrades”.
It isn’t the same frame/chassis from my understanding, it is a new vehicle without admitting it’s a new vehicle.

 

[GR66]

I think you meant “incremental upgrades”.
It isn’t the same frame/chassis from my understanding, it is a new vehicle without admitting it’s a new vehicle.

"excremental upgrades"?

 

[Kirkhill]

The US version of the same debate....

The US Army is too light to win

Too much of its force is under-armored and under-gunned.

www.defenseone.com

Let’s take roll of the Army’s 31 active maneuver brigades.


Eleven are heavy brigades equipped with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles—well-protected platforms suited to modern war.

Another six brigades are Stryker formations equipped with their eponymous lightly armored, wheeled infantry carriers. ....

The remaining 14 active maneuver brigades are light infantry formations, cheaper and easier to deploy but, realistically, unable to compete with today’s threat. Under current guidance, they go to war in “infantry squad vehicles”—essentially, unarmored dune buggies without heavy weapons.

Originally called the “interim armored vehicle,” the Stryker was intended to serve only until the arrival of the Future Combat Systems, which imploded instead. From conception, Stryker units have suffered from doctrinal and conceptual confusion. Stryker units carry more dismounted troops than Bradley units, which are intended to fight primarily mounted. But they are infantry carriers, not infantry fighting vehicles. With poor off-road mobility, they are vulnerable to hand-held antiarmor systems, and their units have towed rather than self-propelled artillery. Repeated National Training Center rotations show they cannot survive when employed against armor.

What should the U.S. Army do? Several things:

re-equip light brigades with protected, wheeled transport mounting heavy weapons, as before;

restore their antiarmor companies;

increase the density of Javelin anti-tank and Stinger air defense systems across light formations;

replace towed light artillery with wheeled, 155mm systems like the French Caesar or German RCH-155;

reverse the deactivation of divisional air cavalry squadrons;

and arm divisional UH-60 assault helos with the Hellfire antitank missile system.

Sounds like he is proposing converting the Light Brigades to Stryker Brigades - protected, wheeled transport
and adding wheeled SPHs but keeping armed helos.

Stryker brigades should be converted into true heavy brigades, perhaps with reconditioned M1 Abrams tanks and M2 Bradley fighting vehicles that are now in storage. Hundreds of earlier variants of the M1, M2, and M109 self-propelled howitzer are stored at Sierra Army Depot in Nevada.

Should Stryker brigades be retained, they should include an armor battalion, similar to Russian motor rifle brigades.

He does make the point that if the US Army wanted to heavy up then they are not short of kit, even if it is old kit.
It appears moot to me as to whether or not it is better to leave the Stryker units in Strykers and heavy up some light brigades from scratch. Part of the problem is that too many people see Strykers as second rate Heavys rather than mobile Lights. Both Stryker and Light Brigades would have to learn Heavy skills from scratch.
As to adding an armor battalion to a Stryker Brigade - as long as you have tank transporters to work with them - and give up on the air portability thing. And if that - M10 Booker or M1A2? Or even M1A1?

Heavy brigades should be upgraded with the M1A3 Main Battle Tank and M2A4 Infantry Fighting Vehicle as soon as possible.

Army divisions should field a general support 155mm artillery battalion in addition to the artillery battalions providing direct support to the maneuver brigades. All brigades and divisions should include air defense and electronic warfare units, as well as dedicated drone formations with trained operators at every echelon from company to division.

What? No rockets?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

lol they aren’t calling it the LAV 700 anymore. I wonder what the CA is buying now.

Curious is that’s a TOW, Javelin or Hellfire launcher (Hellfire are usually on exposed rails but some are enclosed). Hellfire or Javelin would at least allow for NLOS.

Well this article states that there are ATGM mounts, (one each side of turret), but no mention of manufacturer.

General Dynamics Canada presents LAV 6.0 Mk II 8x8 with new turret offering greater firepower

General Dynamics Canada presents LAV 6.0 Mk II 8x8 with new turret offering greater firepower

armyrecognition.com