McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,491
- Points
- 1,260
Even if it is bought for medium cavalry?
LAV 6.0
- Thread starter Mountie
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 18,879
- Points
- 1,160
Those of us looking for a smaller crew appreciate the issue.
It comes down to a trade off as between a three-man crew and an additional dismount in contact. My preference goes for the extra dismount because IMHO, the LAV is not up to being an IFV even if we call it that.
As an aside I note that the DND websites describe the LAV 6 [20.6k tonnes/28.5k tonnes with add-on armour] as "Canada's IFV" but GDLS's website describes it as the Infantry Section Carrier. Note that GDLS's AJAX, which comes in at 38.5 tonnes, is described by GDLS as an armoured fighting vehicle, The later version of the CV-90, like the Mk IV, are also coming in at around 35-38k tonnes and are described by BAE as an IFV. IMHO those ten tonnes of mass and the tracks matter when it comes to the issue of how much the vehicle should be used in close combat and even fire support in an LSCO scenario.
I would see a dedicated driver and gunner who stay with the LAV at all times. The vehicle would be crew commanded by the section commander while the troops are mounted but that on dismounting the gunner assumes the crew commander role as well as gunner. In large measure that's because some of us consider that the LAV should not be a close combat/fire support vehicle as it is too vulnerable - it should disgorge its dismounts under cover and/or withdraw to a position where it can cover flanks, do air defence, and perhaps operate as a launcher vehicle from cover for loitering munitions, UAVs and ATGMs.
I feel completely differently for a tracked IFV - like the AJAX (ARES), CV-90, AS21 Redback (42k tonnes) and Puma (Level C 43k tonnes) that are built and configured to fight while their troops are mounted, penetrate onto or very close to objectives and provide close support during the fight. Those should clearly have a three-man crew for the reasons you state.
- Reaction score
- 2,227
- Points
- 1,160
They, the government would, wouldn't they. Say if often enough and everyone will believe it. Next the Infantry will be employing IFV tactics with "Canada's IFV".
NO more LAV's please. This vehicle is going to get our soldiers killed because we are too cheap to get an IFV.
If GDLS built an IFV we might purchase the vehicle because jobs and votes are a higher priority than worthwhile equipment to give our soldiers tools for the task.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 29,343
- Points
- 1,260
I 100% agree with you.
But as @FJAG notes, the issue what the role of the vehicle is for.
To me an AFV in the "assault role" needs a 3-4 person crew. There is only so much that one person can do to retain SA in a moving vehicle, keep it in the fight and engage effectively and not be a danger to friendlies, the 2 person turret is a check and balance to ensure that the weapons are not brought to bear on the wrong targets.
To quote a friend of mine during some operations in Iraq, "the Abrams is the number one threat to US Infantrymen". Mainly as any larger vehicle that will jockey to reduce the likelihood of taking effective enemy fire is dangerous -- the vehicle commander is generally not going to be in the open hatch looking around if there is direct and indirect fire coming in. Now vehicle SA systems have come a long way from 2003-2006, but large vehicles are still a threat (even if friendly) to dismounted troops.
We have IFF beacons on helmet to avoid fratricide - and individual positioning now as well with some comms systems - so there are ways to introduce SA to the vehicle crews to watch out for "crunchies".
Quite frankly no western army really knows how bad it will be in an LSCO for AFV crews as the ability to ride hatches open will be totally removed - the CC riding head up to find targets and look around is fully removed - AFV's not having advanced Commander independent cupola sensors will be severely degraded. As well in a non EW degraded environment there will be a mass of data input as well which can be overwhelming, I suspect this is the reason that some AFV designs that use an autoloader have a 4th crewman to manage non direct features SA and other data.
Now if you look at the Stryker - it is really a battlefield taxi - there is no intent to assault positions (at least in an LSCO against a Peer/Near Peer Enemy) with the Stryker's - it disembarks the dismounted troops outside of engagement range (which sucks in an artillery saturated environment).
The Stryker's have some support weapons via RWS (Mk19 GMG and .50 M2 or GAU-19 if SOF Stryker) but those are generally more of a self defense weapon system than an actual firebase for the attack, unless it is a very limited enemy in terms of size and weaponry.
So for the APC role, the 2 person crew (driver and CC) isn't as limiting as it is to a vehicle that is expected to interoperate with other AFV's and dismounts on the battlefield.
Where I get confused it where is the LAV 6.0's role on the LSCO battlefield. Because it is neither fish nor fowl.
- Reaction score
- 12,259
- Points
- 1,160
To me the difference has always been that the APC is there to serve the troops. In an IFV the troops serve the vehicle.
Once the troops are dismounted the vehicles are tied to the 4 mph battle if they are supplying integral fire support.
The cavalry types want to make those periods as short and infrequent as possible so they can continue with the 40 mph battle.
The infantry doesn't want their support doing a Rupert and swanning off into the blue. They want something that will soak up punishment along with them and give them the fire support they need. Thus infantry tanks like Matilda were heavily armoured and the lack of speed was a feature not a bug.
Rather than two IFVs I would sooner the infantry was supplied with an MBT that stayed with them on the objective and an APC that delivered them and retired to a safer location.
For the caVALry there I can see value in IFVs and 3-4 man crews with dedicated small, low profile vehicles.
Once the troops are dismounted the vehicles are tied to the 4 mph battle if they are supplying integral fire support.
The cavalry types want to make those periods as short and infrequent as possible so they can continue with the 40 mph battle.
The infantry doesn't want their support doing a Rupert and swanning off into the blue. They want something that will soak up punishment along with them and give them the fire support they need. Thus infantry tanks like Matilda were heavily armoured and the lack of speed was a feature not a bug.
Rather than two IFVs I would sooner the infantry was supplied with an MBT that stayed with them on the objective and an APC that delivered them and retired to a safer location.
For the caVALry there I can see value in IFVs and 3-4 man crews with dedicated small, low profile vehicles.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 29,343
- Points
- 1,260
The MBT does jack and shit for artillery fire.
You are missing some significant what why where's of the IFV.
- Reaction score
- 18,879
- Points
- 1,160
Yeah but neither does the IFV once the dismount takes place. The protection against artillery fire provided for mounted personal by an APC is essentially the same as for an IFV (assuming same levels of armour).
More and more my preference goes for an APC with an appropriate RWS that doesn't penetrate the hull and leaves space for dismounts. And conceivably you could make that same vehicle an IFV with add on armour letting you get further into the fight and with a 3 v 2 man crew so that the weapon system can provide the controlled intimate fire support expected of a proper IFV.
Maybe I should patent that idea.
After reading Watlings latest RUSI article I believe more and more in UGV RWS for fire support - I just have troubles seeing how well robotics companies operate in scenarios other than defence and slow plodding Ukrainian type of combat.
- Reaction score
- 12,259
- Points
- 1,160
Yeah but neither does the IFV once the dismount takes place. The protection against artillery fire provided for mounted personal by an APC is essentially the same as for an IFV (assuming same levels of armour).
More and more my preference goes for an APC with an appropriate RWS that doesn't penetrate the hull and leaves space for dismounts. And conceivably you could make that same vehicle an IFV with add on armour letting you get further into the fight and with a 3 v 2 man crew so that the weapon system can provide the controlled intimate fire support expected of a proper IFV.
Maybe I should patent that idea.
After reading Watlings latest RUSI article I believe more and more in UGV RWS for fire support - I just have troubles seeing how well robotics companies operate in scenarios other than defence and slow plodding Ukrainian type of combat.
It was wheeled but....
Saladin and Saracen.
Both 6x6. Same engine. Same running gear.
One with a turret on a cut down hull. The other with a box on top of the same hull. One drove with the engine facing the enemy. The other drove with the engine to the rear.
....
And as to the plodding battle... infantry.
Leave the 40 mph battle to the RCAC .... and their dedicated but small assault troopers.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 29,343
- Points
- 1,260
Generally no one these days makes APC's in the olden M113/FV432 type setup. The AMPV is the closest, and it still has way way more armor than those did.
IFV's have gotten way way more armor (unless one looks at the NAMER HAPC which is really just a Merkava MBT without the tank turret), and the APC "role" has been twisted into all sorts of things.
RWS have significant limitations in combat - they generally cannot reload or remedy stoppages under armor - which is generally a KPP for any vehicle expected to enter a fight.
The penetrating turrets provide a much larger and protected ammunition load as well.
UGV's are coming, and there will be more and more in different roles and sizes.Maybe I should patent that idea.
After reading Watlings latest RUSI article I believe more and more in UGV RWS for fire support - I just have troubles seeing how well robotics companies operate in scenarios other than defence and slow plodding Ukrainian type of combat.
I foresee many high threat roles will be passed to UGV's - AVBL's, Breaching Roles - both mechanical and chemical/explosive due to the exposed nature of the roles.
@Kirkhill 's favorite RIPSAW offers Light Forces a Support System that can offer DFS as well as conduct protective tasks for personnel using it as cover.
As well many Mud Recce and Engineer Recce tasks can now be done by Mini and Micro UGV and Mini and Micro UAS.
- Reaction score
- 11,163
- Points
- 1,040
I'm curious about how much experience western armies have with on/short-of objective dismounting against a true peer capable of brewing up a few boxes on their way to on/short-of. An IFV is just an ISC that hasn't encountered a particular reality...
- Reaction score
- 18,879
- Points
- 1,160
That's my question as well. Surely it's something that can be wargamed and experimented with. I would think it's one of the critical things you'd like to have some facts and figures on casualties on.
There's no question that some vehicles can take more punishment than others, but there ought to be some fairly decent data on that.
One issue that rarely gets discussed or talked about is the effect of supporting direct and indirect fire in suppressing or neutralizing enemy positions and how long the effects of that last thus giving IFVs the ability to close on the objective and dismount their personnel. Neutralization wears off quickly so does create some risk.
I think that our biggest failing is that we tend to do these "exercises" in a limited setting where there is often no interlocking, neighbouring forces on the flanks or in depth to worry about. That's where my mind wanders when I think of the great armoured battlegroup charge onto the objective - the undiscovered, unneutralized ATGM firing positions off on the flanks or on hillocks to the rear. We obviously limit these scenarios as there are teaching points to be covered but at some point failure needs to be explored as failure is the greatest teaching point we have.
- Reaction score
- 12,878
- Points
- 1,260
Oddly enough, there is an entire thread on that topic....
- Reaction score
- 12,259
- Points
- 1,160
Half Price, Twice Orders Finland's Patria 6x6 Dominates European APC Market | Defense Express
Finland's Patria 6x6 APCs offer Europe's lowest price among analogues, as shown by Sweden’s new contract and program popularity
en.defence-ua.com
With CV90 IFVs selling in the 9 to 13 MUSD range (1 F35 will get you 10)
And LAV type wheeled IFV selling in the 3 to 6 MUSD range (20 to 30 per F35)
If all you are looking for is an armoured go anywhere bus then the Patria CAV 6x6 seems to be a popular solution at a bit under 1.5 MUSD. A bit more with SEV kits.
(63 per F35)
They cost 3 times the price of a Senator but with greater payload and more all terrain capability.
Probably comparably priced to the old Bison, but the driver and VC will be a lot more combfortable.
- Reaction score
- 12,259
- Points
- 1,160
GDLS has developed a module called PERCH that they have demonstrated on the Abrams but they claim is compatible with all their vehicles.
Suitable for launching Switchblabe Loitering Munitions.
defence-blog.com
“Integrating Switchblade 300 and 600 into General Dynamics Land Systems platforms through the PERCH modular kit delivers immediate operational advantages – extending reach and enabling rapid, precise effects from protected positions,” said Brian Young, senior vice president of loitering munitions systems at AeroVironment. “This demonstration showcased the expanded beyond-line-of-sight precision engagement capabilities available to our military by embedding mature loitering munition systems on combat vehicles. We value our partnership with GDLS and our shared commitment to delivering reliable, field-ready solutions to warfighters.”
LAVs plus Switchblades. Infantry or Cavalry?
en.wikipedia.org
Swichblade 300 - 10 km and 15 min
Switchblade 600 - 40 km and 40 min
CFB Wainwright 609 km2 (25 x 25 km = 625 km2)
CFB Suffield 2700 km2 (50 x 50 km = 2500 km2)
CFB Shilo 400 km2 (`15 x 30 km)
CFB Gagetown 1100 km2 (33 x 33 km = 1100 km2)
One LAV 6 with a pair of Switchblade 600s can supply overwatch over any of our largest training areas.
Switchblade 600 only flies at an altitude of 150 m which results in a horizon of 44 km
Hero 120, with a range of 60 km and an endurance of 60 minutes flies at up to 18,000 ft or 5400 m which gives a horizon of 250 to 300 km.
Suitable for launching Switchblabe Loitering Munitions.
U.S. Army tests drone-firing kit on Abrams
General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) and AeroVironment (AV) have successfully demonstrated the integration of Switchblade loitering munitions into frontline combat platforms using a new modular launcher system known as PERCH. The Precision Effects & Reconnaissance, Canister-Housed (PERCH) system...
defence-blog.com
“Integrating Switchblade 300 and 600 into General Dynamics Land Systems platforms through the PERCH modular kit delivers immediate operational advantages – extending reach and enabling rapid, precise effects from protected positions,” said Brian Young, senior vice president of loitering munitions systems at AeroVironment. “This demonstration showcased the expanded beyond-line-of-sight precision engagement capabilities available to our military by embedding mature loitering munition systems on combat vehicles. We value our partnership with GDLS and our shared commitment to delivering reliable, field-ready solutions to warfighters.”
LAVs plus Switchblades. Infantry or Cavalry?
AeroVironment Switchblade - Wikipedia
Swichblade 300 - 10 km and 15 min
Switchblade 600 - 40 km and 40 min
CFB Wainwright 609 km2 (25 x 25 km = 625 km2)
CFB Suffield 2700 km2 (50 x 50 km = 2500 km2)
CFB Shilo 400 km2 (`15 x 30 km)
CFB Gagetown 1100 km2 (33 x 33 km = 1100 km2)
One LAV 6 with a pair of Switchblade 600s can supply overwatch over any of our largest training areas.
Switchblade 600 only flies at an altitude of 150 m which results in a horizon of 44 km
Hero 120, with a range of 60 km and an endurance of 60 minutes flies at up to 18,000 ft or 5400 m which gives a horizon of 250 to 300 km.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,722
- Points
- 1,210
funny enough, this debate is happening right now about LAV 6 mk2 and the ALAV program. some are calling for putting the light back in Light Armoured Vehicle, and ditching the turret. leaving MCAV for direct fire support.I hope not. I'm holding out for tracks and if has to be another LAV 6.0 then I want one with the turret gone, more room for dismounts, a crew limited to 2 and a hull Fitted For MOOG RIwP.
I like its unmanned turret and more room in the hull.
- Reaction score
- 2,812
- Points
- 1,090
ACSV having some issues in Ukraine
- Reaction score
- 12,259
- Points
- 1,160
It is worth clicking on that link and reading the rest of the thread.
Heavy.
Tires wear.
Electronically very noisy.
Hard to maintain.
RWS with 7.62 and 12.7 too light for suppressive fire.
Burns as easy as a pickup truck when hit by an FPV.
Expensive is not better.
- Reaction score
- 6,308
- Points
- 1,260
Hopefully the feedback is taken back to London and they work on addressing these issues accordingly.
- Reaction score
- 2,812
- Points
- 1,090
maybe using it hard cause its new ?
- Reaction score
- 6,308
- Points
- 1,260
Who is the manufacturer of the tires? Who else besides us uses those same tires?
Similar threads
