LAV 6.0

[Old Sweat]

Dude. I wore DMS boots and puttees for years. They’re awesome! (As long as, you know, it doesn’t rain much of course).

I also wore puttees from 1957 to 1967 or 68, when they became a casualty of integration/unification.

Little known factoid: all the corps in the army wore their puttees with the end starting at the bottom and circling upwards except for the gunners. We started ours at the top and worked down. Don't ask me why, or I'll say something like we were the only ones in step again.

 

[Dale Denton]

If I was GDLS-C i'd be pimping out all of the variants already.

A LAV 6 IFV variant could be cobbled together. US Army already trialed many upgrades for survivability for their Stykers, so it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt and justify the expense. Justified by how heavy we use our LAVs, so in adopting upgrade the US chose not to (as they have many better-protected vehicles fulfilling roles our LAVs do like the Bradley). Would be pretty easy to go all in on the LAV now, keeping the line at London busy, could use in Europe for the EFP in Latvia.

LAV 6 IFV:

Slat armour and additional armour plating - Stykers equipped with it in Iraq

Active Protection System- Trialed but not accepted to due issues with space, weight and power integration (on a Styker though).
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/19/whats-happening-with-stryker-active-protection-congress-wants-to-know/

Saab Mobile Camouflage System - Trialed on Stykers in Europe, helps with "signature management against long-wave and mid-wave thermal sensors, near-wave and short-wave infrared, and radar."
https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2017/05/12/four-us-army-strykers-in-europe-get-survivability-upgrade/
https://saab.com/land/signature-management/force-integrated-systems/mcs_mobile_camouflage_system/

Hellfire/Martlet launcher - Fitted to IM-SHORAD turret, but could be fitted to existing 25MM turret instead.
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker-a1/

All of these without mentioning the 30MM 'Dragoon' turret and the weight of them all together.


Not to mention for heavy formations, LEO2s, combined with a LAV 6 IFV and a few of these:

LAV 6 SPH - Trialed in 2005 with a 105 from Denal, 30KM range.
https://www.gdls.com/products/stryker-family/stryker-sph.php.

 

[FJAG]

I also wore puttees from 1957 to 1967 or 68, when they became a casualty of integration/unification.

Little known factoid: all the corps in the army wore their puttees with the end starting at the bottom and circling upwards except for the gunners. We started ours at the top and worked down. Don't ask me why, or I'll say something like we were the only ones in step again.

I wore mine until 1969 when I transferred to the Reg F. My instructors on basic training told me that the reason that the grunts rolled theirs from bottom to top was so that they overlapped like shingles and shed the water and mud better while we gunners and the cavalry who rode horses (and originally--Boer war, WW1--puttees went up the leg significantly higher) rolled theirs top down so that being tied down at the bottom near the ankle and stirrup they were less likely to come undone by chaffing against the horse and saddle while riding.

:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

If I was GDLS-C i'd be pimping out all of the variants already.

A LAV 6 IFV variant could be cobbled together. US Army already trialed many upgrades for survivability for their Stykers, so it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt and justify the expense. Justified by how heavy we use our LAVs, so in adopting upgrade the US chose not to (as they have many better-protected vehicles fulfilling roles our LAVs do like the Bradley). Would be pretty easy to go all in on the LAV now, keeping the line at London busy, could use in Europe for the EFP in Latvia....

There are some interesting variants there that would indeed be useful.

Those links actually brought up another interesting fact, which is that the M1 Abrams is now also a GDLS product (originally Chrysler). With over 10,000 produced already and with the upgrade process that they have of refurbishing from the hull up, one could probably get much of the "strip" and "reassembly" work done here in Canada. (I've seen videos of the hull paint strip facilities at the Anniston, Alabama Arsenal and that pretty specialized - I think most of the reassembly is done just across the border from here in Lima, Ohio which is within easy reach of GDLS-C London)

See whole process here

I'd really like to see GDLS-C grow into a more robust local industry which IMHO means going a bit more in common with the US line of products.

:cheers:

 

[Dale Denton]

See whole process here

I'd really like to see GDLS-C grow into a more robust local industry which IMHO means going a bit more in common with the US line of products.

:cheers:

Should be (if not secretly already) a national strategic facility and protected as such. Build and invest in its long-term survival and continue to fast-track any projects that could result in some work there. Would be different than Bombardier as its not almost wholly reliant on Fed money either.

If that CCV project were to be resurrected one day, the UKs Ajax (built by GDLS-Europe) should be at least partially built there.

Offer countries with LAV 3 fleets a subsidized refit/upgrade/refurb plan like Boeing did with their Chinook D to E program. Countries like Ireland, NZ, Columbia.

 

[MilEME09]

Should be (if not secretly already) a national strategic facility and protected as such. Build and invest in its long-term survival and continue to fast-track any projects that could result in some work there. Would be different than Bombardier as its not almost wholly reliant on Fed money either.

If that CCV project were to be resurrected one day, the UKs Ajax (built by GDLS-Europe) should be at least partially built there.

Offer countries with LAV 3 fleets a subsidized refit/upgrade/refurb plan like Boeing did with their Chinook D to E program. Countries like Ireland, NZ, Columbia.

NZ is looking at replacing their LAV's, they are close  allies, we could offer the lav 6 to them at a discount.

 

[FJAG]

... If that CCV project were to be resurrected one day, the UKs Ajax (built by GDLS-Europe) should be at least partially built there. ...

Not so sure about that.

While the Brits are getting some Ares as "specialist personnel carriers" to accompany the AJAX recce vehicles in armoured recce regiments of their strike brigades, they have decided to go with a much larger purchase of Boxers for the strike brigades' mech infantry role.

Ajax will also provide recce for the remaining mech brigades where Warrior is the IFV. There is no plan to use Ares there.

I understand Ares has a crew of 3 and can carry seven additional folks, but there must be a reason why Ares doesn't fill the bill for their strike brigades' mech infantry battalions. Ares seems to be called a Protected Mobility Recce Support vehicle which seems to indicate a very specialized role.

:cheers:

 

[GR66]

I disagree on the "panzergrenadier" issue as we've plunked ourselves into Latvia and tied ourselves to it.

If you look at the other national companies in the eFP Latvia battalion you'll find: Spaniards with 6 Leopard 2Es and 15 Pizzaro IFVs; Italians with C1 Ariete tanks and both Freccia and Dardo IFVs; Poland with a company of PT-91 Twardys; and Slovakia with a company of BMP 2s. Latvia has just acquired two battalions of M109A5Os (previous owner, Austria). While a mixed bag and subject to change on rotations, that's as much of a panzer reinforced panzergrenadier battalion as you'll find in the Bundeswehr.

The question is really as to whether or not the LAV6.0 is up to an IFV status. I've read articles coming out of the US National Training Centre where there was much criticism of pairing Strykers with Tanks. That's based on a) Strykers don't have the mobility to accompany the M1; b) Strykers are too lightly armoured (but LAV6.0s have more armour protection which is similar to some tracked IFVs); and c) Strykers are too lightly armed for the role (Stryker section carriers have only a .50 remote weapon system while the LAV6.0s 25mm is a pretty fair anti-APC weapon)

So we're really only talking mobility (as well as the glaring deficiency in sufficient anti-armour capability in our overall current establishments). Most of Latvia strikes me as terrain that wheeled apcs can handle (albeit not at speed accompanying tanks (been there and done that on the relatively smooth Shilo prairie and believe me when I say that the speeds that a Leo and a Marder can attain cross country leaves everyone else in the dust - not to mention tracked and armoured howitzers)

I'm a strong believer in that we need three separate capabilities (read three asymmetrical brigades): one heavy armour and IFV(and I don't rule the LAV6.0 out of this role) specifically for Europe (read Baltics); a light rapid reaction brigade for immediate deployment to elsewhere in the world and a medium LAV6.0 brigade for follow on forces to the rapid deployment for other missions elsewhere. This  concept of the all singing and dancing agile symmetric brigades we have now makes little sense to me other than for stroking the egos of the three Reg F infantry regiments to make sure no one is any better off than the other.

The light and medium brigades may do the majority of our "shooting situation" deployments, but on that 1% day in Latvia, we want the right gear and the right people there.

:cheers:

Question for the infantry types here.  If we were to go for 3 x asymmetrical brigades do you think that the LAV 6.0 is suited for the heavy, armoured brigade?

If not, would something like the Bronco ATTC be an acceptable alternative?  https://www.stengg.com/media/617866/bronco.pdf

You're basically trading a less mobile IFV-light for a minimally armed (RWS capable?) but more mobile battle taxi.  Is the better cross-country mobility, ability to swim and larger potential infantry section size a reasonable trade-off for the loss of firepower?

I know the preferred option would be for a tracked IFV or a heavy APC, but under the current economic climate I don't see Canada purchasing a non-LAV combat vehicle, but could possibly see something like the Bronco with non-combat applications (e.g. the North, flood response, fire response, etc.) being a possibility.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not so sure about that.

While the Brits are getting some Ares as "specialist personnel carriers" to accompany the AJAX recce vehicles in armoured recce regiments of their strike brigades, they have decided to go with a much larger purchase of Boxers for the strike brigades' mech infantry role.

Ajax will also provide recce for the remaining mech brigades where Warrior is the IFV. There is no plan to use Ares there.

I understand Ares has a crew of 3 and can carry seven additional folks, but there must be a reason why Ares doesn't fill the bill for their strike brigades' mech infantry battalions. Ares seems to be called a Protected Mobility Recce Support vehicle which seems to indicate a very specialized role.

:cheers:

It seems they require a ‘strategic mobility’ capability for their infantry, hence the wheels. They want to be able to move large numbers of troops to the battle area fast, by road, and then fight. They’ve got the 40mm gun on another Ajax variant to provide close infantry support. A different concept from the APC with the cannon that we have become used to in recent years.

 

[FJAG]

It seems they require a ‘strategic mobility’ capability for their infantry, hence the wheels. They want to be able to move large numbers of troops to the battle area fast, by road, and then fight. They’ve got the 40mm gun on another Ajax variant to provide close infantry support. A different concept from the APC with the cannon that we have become used to in recent years.

Having some questions about how many folks an Ares can actually carry besides the 3 man crew. Another paper I saw said 4 which could mean that the 7 I mentioned before is crew plus dismounts. That makes sense for a recce squadron where there is a mix of gun vehicles and dismount recce/atk/surv dets rather than infantry per se.

I read one older article in Wavell Room that was very bullish on Strike and gave some good reasons for the idea but at the same time left me utterly unconvinced because the basic concept involves the idea that there will be so much space on the battlefield that the brigade will be able to manoeuvre around the heavy threats that could eat the brigade for lunch. That's a pretty gutsy "assumption" for your commander's "concept of operations" part of the OpsO. Mind you that was still pretty early in the proof of concept part of what Strike really will do although one would think that you have doctrine pretty much figured out before you buy billions of pounds sterling of kit.

This more recent article doesn't add much but does show three additional weaknesses in the existing concept.

What I can't get away from is that heavy brigade actions are still very much in the game when you consider Iraq and the Ukraine which are short of the all-out peer-to-peer war with Russia that everyone seems to think is gone. Why is Saudi Arabia trying to buy 6-700 Leopard 2s? Could it be because Iran still has 2,000 MBTs of various types.

Regretfully I think that the main reason non US armies are cutting back on MBTs is not because medium strike forces are a really great idea but more because the current crop of MBTs was developed during the Cold War it is reaching across the board life cycle end-points (which I sometimes think is an arms industry advertising gimmick born out of the auto industry's campaign to get you to buy a new car every few years). True, MBTs need upgrading to counter new threats and incorporate more efficient systems, but regardless, the cost of a new MBT or an upgrade to a current one, is getting very expensive and any ability to buy cheaper equipment which would allow you to retain your existing, highly expensive manpower, is one that gets jumped on by the brass hats.

I think that any idea to keep a pure "agile, multi-purpose" force is a Pollyannaish pipe dream. You need specialty forces and equipment.

The question whether the LAV6.0 can operate as an infantry fighting vehicle to accompany tanks is entirely dependant on the doctrine one intends to use. In the Stryker brigade the vehicle was always meant to protect infantry while mobile, but the infantry actually dismounts and fights dismounted. Basically what we bought into with the LAV was the Stryker concept.

So in short, if you are looking at infantry that has the capability to accompany tanks in the assault and dismount on or through the objective like a Bradley or a Marder, then no, the LAV6.0 isn't for you because it has neither the cross country mobility nor the protection needed. If your doctrine is that rather than supporting the tanks with infantry during the assault, the tanks and the LAVs support and protect the infantry during the approach and subsequent dismounted battle then a LAV6.0 will probably do. Those are two very different types of action.

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's also highly dependent on terrain and season, winter, fall, spring of Eastern Europe your LAV are likely to be mired in mud the moment they leave the hard surfaces. In a place like Iraq, you have a lot more flexibility. The LAV 6.0 would be a beast in Mali, but even then limited by bridges and recovery options. 

 

[Ostrozac]

It's also highly dependent on terrain and season, winter, fall, spring of Eastern Europe your LAV are likely to be mired in mud the moment they leave the hard surfaces. In a place like Iraq, you have a lot more flexibility. The LAV 6.0 would be a beast in Mali, but even then limited by bridges and recovery options.

On the subject of bridges, one thing that Mali has is a minimal number of bridges. This is driven by a limited number of rivers, and is a characteristic that North and West Africa share with the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan. It’s almost like we picked equipment that was optimal for fighting a counterinsurgency in an arid environment — and are now trying to shoehorn that into the ability to fight the Russians. Those are two different problem sets and with our equipment we are setting ourselves up to play hockey with a baseball bat.

 

[MJP]

On the subject of bridges, one thing that Mali has is a minimal number of bridges. This is driven by a limited number of rivers, and is a characteristic that North and West Africa share with the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan. It’s almost like we picked equipment that was optimal for fighting a counterinsurgency in an arid environment — and are now trying to shoehorn that into the ability to fight the Russians. Those are two different problem sets and with our equipment we are setting ourselves up to play hockey with a baseball bat.

We went with a LAV based fleet before going to fight a counter insurgency so I don't think that was a real consideration for the LAV 6 as the next choice rather the commonality/familiarity of the fleet (although that was a bit suspect) played a larger role.

 

[Ostrozac]

We went with a LAV based fleet before going to fight a counter insurgency so I don't think that was a real consideration for the LAV 6 as the next choice rather the commonality/familiarity of the fleet (although that was a bit suspect) played a larger role.

That's a good point. LAV-3 was a post-Cold War project, though, and the decision to replace M113 and Grizzly with a wheeled APC was made after the decision to close down 4CMBG. Was it originally intended to be a primarily peacekeeping/low intensity vehicle, rather than a frontline NATO IFV? I'd probably have to dig into the old articles about the vehicle.

I will note that we made the decision to go with an all-wheeled infantry carrier fleet before the US came out with their Stryker doctrine -- which was pretty clearly designed, in its original concept, to give more mobility and firepower to their light forces rather than being a frontline NATO/Korea heavy force. The US had a clear doctrine, but we made our decision before they came out with it, so that wouldn't  have been a factor.

 

[CBH99]

If I remember correctly, the LAV 3 was intended to be purchased around the 1200 vehicle mark to replace the M113 and Grizzly.
When the price tag came in too high, we ended up purchasing 650 LAV 3 and upgraded the M113 to the TLAV standard.

The purchase of this vehicle was meant for low intensity & medium intensity conflict, which is what we had been dealing with for decades at the time, re: Bosnia, Croatia/Serbia, etc etc.  The UN 'glory days'.

The Tacvest was designed for the same type of theater.  It was meant as an upgrade to the webbing with the old olive drab uniforms, and part of the new CADPAT uniform & kit.  It was designed with low to medium intensity peacekeeping & peace support operations in mind.


A lot of this equipment started to roll out in the late 90's, and I believe the LAV made it's debut during a peacekeeping deployment to Ethiopia & Eritrea.  At the time, it was a HUGE generational leap ahead of what anybody else was fielding for those kinds of operations.  The Coyote still had an extremely impressive surveillance system up until a few years ago too, and has since been updated accordingly. 

Then 9/11 happened, and Afghanistan happened.  A theater we hadn't remotely prepared for, as it was a complete divergence of what we had been doing for decades.  We had the Iltis, green camo, C3 and LG1 Mk 2... the best vehicle we had at the time, and most other NATO countries wish they had, was the LAV. 

Obviously there was a pretty generous shopping spree once Afghanistan kicked off, and the armed forces as a whole filled out with a lot more modern and decent kit.



But yes, our purchase of the LAV 3 did predate the American decision to go with the Stryker.  Our intended use, and their intended use also, was different than what the vehicle eventually evolved into doing. 

(I could be wrong on the above.  I realize yesterday when talking with a colleague, I joined 20 years ago...wtf happened?  Where did that time go?)  :2c:

 

[Kilted]

I agee, I would only task the closest units to training centers. Example for Wainwright I would pick the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, their proximity to both 1 VP and Wainwright makes them an ideal choice for a reserve infantry unit to become mechanized.

Have they ended their affiliation with the PPCLI, everything that I have seen recently does not include their secondary title.

 

[CBH99]

Official affiliation?  Or do you mean regular working/training relationship?

I'd assume the reserve units in Edmonton would take advantage of having a large Army base just outside the city.  The access to ranges, courses, instructors, vehicles, infrastructure, etc etc is something that other reserve units throughout the country could only dream of. 

 

[MilEME09]

Official affiliation?  Or do you mean regular working/training relationship?

I'd assume the reserve units in Edmonton would take advantage of having a large Army base just outside the city.  The access to ranges, courses, instructors, vehicles, infrastructure, etc etc is something that other reserve units throughout the country could only dream of.

I think he means how they are also referred to as 4th Battalion PPCLI. which is a secondary title as they are designated as the feeder unit for the regiment.

 

[FJAG]

I think he means how they are also referred to as 4th Battalion PPCLI. which is a secondary title as they are designated as the feeder unit for the regiment.

You can read a bit about the historical relationship between the PPCLI and the L Edm R starting at pg 72 of the 2018 issue of the PPCLI's Patrician.

:cheers:

 

[MilEME09]

I'd assume the reserve units in Edmonton would take advantage of having a large Army base just outside the city.  The access to ranges, courses, instructors, vehicles, infrastructure, etc etc is something that other reserve units throughout the country could only dream of.

Except the ATS ranges do not usually run on weekends, cause unions. All maintenance goes through 1 Svc Battalion so even though we have massive maintenance space at Debney, it is not used. There are institutional challenges for the PRes working with the reg force.