LAV 6.0

[MJP]

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.

Umm ATS runs on the week ends, it is mil operators in the towers and Range Control in Edm is almost exclusively military there is no union issue.

Does Debney have a control shop? SPPS? Tooling? STTE specific to the veh platforms? Structure in DRMIS for PM and MM modules? Maint is much more than a willingness to fix something. If they don't have the bare basics of the latter (some of which is in short supply and makes sense to be in less locations) maybe they just need to work with 1 Svc Bn and use what they have? I am sure given the priority given to StAR that they might be willing to make things happen.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There are institutional challenges for the PRes working with the reg force.

And vice versa, big time  ;D

 

[MilEME09]

Umm ATS runs on the week ends, it is mil operators in the towers and Range Control in Edm is almost exclusively military there is no union issue.

Does Debney have a control shop? SPPS? Tooling? STTE specific to the veh platforms? Structure in DRMIS for PM and MM modules? Maint is much more than a willingness to fix something. If they don't have the bare basics of the latter (some of which is in short supply and makes sense to be in less locations) maybe they just need to work with 1 Svc Bn and use what they have? I am sure given the priority given to StAR that they might be willing to make things happen.

Short answer yes, long answer I can PM you details after I'm done work.

 

[FJAG]

London-made military vehicles, part of $3B order, start rolling off line
Norman De Bono May 03, 2021

Military vehicle made by London-based General Dynamics, part of a $3-billion federal government contract, are now rolling off the line. General Dynamics Land Systems Canada on Monday rolled out the first vehicle it has assembled as part of a multi-billion-dollar order for 360 new LAV 6.0 light armoured vehicles for the Canadian military.

The Oxford Street manufacturer held an online event offering a first look at the armoured combat support vehicle – a troop carrier. It’s the first of eight different variants, military-speak for different models of the same vehicle.

It’s expected the second variant, a field ambulance, will roll off the line this summer.

Harjit Sajjan, federal minister of national defence, called the LAV 6 vehicle the “backbone” of the Canadian military and praised the nearly 2,000-strong London workforce.

“You do critical work every day,” he said.

Other variants include vehicle recovery, engineering, mobile repair, electronic warfare, troop carrying and command posts.

General Dynamics in London announced the four-year, $3-billion deal in 2019.

Since 2011, Ottawa has invested $1.5 billion to improve its London-made fleet of 550 LAV IIIs, extending their life to 2035.

London workers praised as military vehicles in $3B order start rolling off line

 

[Dale Denton]

^Good news.

Was there a reason given why there aren't any Mortar Carrier or SHORAD versions bought too? Seems like we're going full-LAV 6.0 anyways, why not go full-bore?

 

[dapaterson]

SHORAD requires a functional AD system to integrate into.

 

[FJAG]

^Good news.

Was there a reason given why there aren't any Mortar Carrier or SHORAD versions bought too? Seems like we're going full-LAV 6.0 anyways, why not go full-bore?

SHORAD is a separate project in its own right. I'm not sure of what the details of the SOR are as to what it's requirements for a chassis, but it would be logical that any prospective contractors would base it on the LAV 6 even if it doesn't call for that.

As to mortars - - I guess they just weren't an important enough priority to the people that stated the requirements.

 

[dangerboy]

Probably did not have the budget for two additional versions, so they prioritized what would be more essential. I do not know this for sure just my guess.

 

[McG]

^Good news.

Was there a reason given why there aren't any Mortar Carrier or SHORAD versions bought too? Seems like we're going full-LAV 6.0 anyways, why not go full-bore?

Because it is deliberately a platform replacement. We did not have mortar carriers or SHORAD on any still in service Bison or TLAV variant, so the project never looked as such variants.

 

[CBH99]

The nice thing about having a GD plant in Canada - especially in Ontario - is that future orders can and most likely will be made.

If the capabilities are acquired, it’s good optics if the government orders a few more. Especially around an election time.

 

[Kirkhill]

SHORAD is a separate project in its own right. I'm not sure of what the details of the SOR are as to what it's requirements for a chassis, but it would be logical that any prospective contractors would base it on the LAV 6 even if it doesn't call for that.

As to mortars - - I guess they just weren't an important enough priority to the people that stated the requirements.

WRT mortars

From

Army’s Development Of Long-Range Weapons Destabilizes Boundaries With Air Force

What if Army munitions had more range than fighter aircraft? What if mortars could hit targets usually reserved for howitzers?

www.forbes.com

Mortars are typically used in close proximity to enemy formations, lofting rounds in high parabolic trajectories that can then drop almost straight down on top of targets like entrenched infantry.

But testing by the Navy has shown that mortar rounds can actually glide dozens of miles to more distant targets and then hit within a meter or so of intended targets.

This presents a potential challenge to the traditional use of fires, because a 120mm mortar round has the same explosive power as a 155mm artillery round. Mortars typically are much easier to move around on a battlefield.

The Artillery is spoiled for choices - 120mm Mortars, 105mm Howitzers, 155mm Howitzers, Rockets, Missiles, Loitering Munitions, UAVs (Single Use, Attritable, Recoverable), GBAD, CRAM, Sensors galore, everything ISTAR, Battlefield Management, Interfacing with the national intelligence picture (or whatever it is called), satellites, High Altitude Pseudo Satellites, the RCN and the RCAF.

If any one department needs to be emphasized, it seems to me, it is the Gunners. They are most positively impacted by the changing technology and they are the seminal organization, the ordnance department, from which the engineers, the arty, the navy and the air force all sprang - not to mention the Fusiliers.

Special Forces, Infantry and Cavalry - first and foremost - Sensors for the Artillery?

The Gunners - major political effect - a small number of gunners, most of them out of harms way (just like the RCAF), can have an inordinate effect on any battlefield the Government chooses, can be rapidly deployed, rapidly retargeted, rapidly recalled - rapidly respond to changing tactical, operational and strategic needs. And be deployed from fixed locations within the sanctuary of the homeland or be deployed on mobile platforms like ships, planes, LAVs and trucks, manned and unmanned.

And have the option of reviving the Field Artillery with my current bee in my bonnet - the unmanned 105mm portee.

Next CDS? A Gunner?

Revive the Ordnance Department? A Canadian Master-General of the Ordnance?

Edit - The RCAF as an airborne special force with the F35s acting as Artillery Sensors and Ordnance Platforms?

 

[Kirkhill]

And, given the current climate, I am going to propose a candidate for the revived post of Master-General of the Ordnance.

Farah Alibay - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[FJAG]

There truly are some interesting choices available.

Most folks don't know that the "weapons" of the artillery are not their guns but their projectiles. The gun is the delivery mechanism while the projectile is what gives the artillery's effects (ie its "act" function) on the target. The choice of the propelling element that gets the projectile there has always been a system of trade-offs respecting the amount of explosive or steel or fuzing function or cost element or manufacturing simplicity etc needed to deliver that effect. If a mortar with a gliding round (or better yet a guided loitering one) can deliver the range of a gun with the same or better effect at the target then bingo. If a rocket is capable of delivering a more complex fuzed and steerable projectile because of the lower shock on launch then great. If a hand launched drone (or swarm of drones) can deliver sufficient punch to penetrate the top armour of an MBT then wonderful. The big issue is fire support coordination and a comprehensive network to allow all the sensors and delivery capabilities to act in harmony.

There's only one drawback to all of this. The artillery took a kick in the n*ts over the last two decades. In Canada we are still infantry centric. Notwithstanding the lessons learned in Afghanistan, we have let the artillery branch (or perhaps both the direct and indirect fire support branches) atrophy for a host of reasons. In the absence of a looming threat there is no particular sense of urgency within the Army to revive either capability in a serious way. We have lost much of the sense of what combined arms really are and what the essential components are that are needed.

Since PYs are the big issue, I would commit heresy, strip each brigade of one infantry battalion and use the PYs to strengthen the direct fire component (armour/anti armour); indirect fire (guns, mortars, drones, sensors, AD etc); and sustainment (particularly maintainers but supply also). A brigade with three manoeuvre battalions--armoured and/or infantry--can function. A brigade without sufficient direct fire, indirect fire and sustainment capability cannot function for long.

 

[Kirkhill]

Do you have to strip an entire battalion? Or can you achieve the same effect by reducing the infantry section to 6, like the Danes and Swedes and maybe reducing the Light Battalions to something that is not interchangeable with the LAV Battalions? Maybe move the LAVs in the Battalions into a separate LAV Coy, or even a separate LAV Bn in the Bde?

Either way I am with you on the need to put the em-PHA-sis on a different syl - LAB - le and refocus the effort.

1871 Dominion Land Survey
1871 RCA. (Kingston and Quebec command the portals to the St Lawrence Seaway)
1874 NWMP.
1876 RMC.
1883 Schools of Infantry and Cavalry.
1903 Royal Canadian Engineers and Signalling Corps.
1910 RCN.
1912 RFC.

Ordnance first.
And I would include not just the launchers but also the sensors and the comms under Ordnance.
Next - figure out how few troops you need to effectively employ the Ordnance - and that includes infanteers, troopers, operators, pilots and sailors.


Follow the Swedes and you can reduce Tank Troops from 16 troops to 12 (Squadrons from 76 to 44) and Infantry Platoons from 40 to 28 (22 if the dismounts are reduced from 3x 6 to 3x 4) A Troop and a Platoon would find you an additional 16 to 22 driver/operators.

 

[Kirkhill]

I can't find the old Mortar threads so if somebody wants to relocate this feel free.

Royal Marines playing around with 81mm mortars in a light mode while the Royal Artillery hunts them.

Royal Marines Trial Can-Am 6x6 ATV For Mortars | Joint Forces News

Royal Marines from 45 Commando have been trialling Can-Am OUTLANDER MAX 6x6 all-terrain vehicles in the mortar transport role.

www.joint-forces.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Old is new

 

[Kirkhill]

Hmmmm

FV4401 Contentious - Wikipedia



Alternate version - Twin Wombat 120 mm Recoilless with 7 round auto-loaders

Here's the Royal Marines without the auto-loaders.


Now if only we new a company specializing in recoilless rifle rounds....

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's the Brit's FV4401 project - heavily influenced by the Swedish S-Tank - 1x Driver/Gunner. Aimed by aiming the vehicle.

2x 120mm Wombat recoilless rifles
2x 7 round revolver autoloaders

With the improvements demonstrated by Carl Gustav at the 84mm calibre (warheads, guidance, confined space signature reduction, aiming systems, material upgrades) I can't help but wonder if a RWS variant is possible for mounting on a very light remote/autonomous carrier vehicle.

Bunker busting artillery piece
Adjunct to missiles in the Anti-AFV role
GP DF artillery

 

[GR66]

Or how about something like this?



From the Army Technology website: Lockheed Martin UK unwraps future anti-armour concept

Lockheed Martin UK 8x8 Boxer with 16 x vertical launch tubes for Brimstone missiles with 360 degree engagement capability ideal for complex terrains such as valleys or urban city streets. Has mast-mounted sensors to identify targets from behind cover or can hand off targets to forward units.

More missile capacity than traditional turret equipped ATGM vehicles. You wouldn't have to expose your LAV-based vehicle to LOS of heavier enemy armour units. The targeting units can be lighter vehicles or dismounts that are less likely to be targeted/engaged by enemy loitering munitions, aircraft, etc. Brimstone missiles have air-launched versions which raises the question of whether this vehicle could launch missiles while on the move?

Furthermore, you could possibly adapt the vertical launch tubes to launch a variety of munitions. Loitering munitions like the Switchblade 600 are tube launched and have a hand-off capability to controllers with a tablet. Equip with canister-launched AA missiles and match one of these vehicles with a gun-based SHORAD vehicle so you've got more missiles available and the launcher can stay stealthy because it's not emitting any radar signals.

LM UK is developing this as a modular system that could also be mounted on light vehicles (Reserves?) or in future Uncrewed Ground Vehicles (to keep Kirkhill happy ).

I'd view something like this as a land-based version of an arsenal ship/aircraft and ideal for an army like Canada that doesn't have heavy brigades.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That`s roughly $3,200,000 to load that vehicle with one loadout. I am sure it`s quite capable, but that`s an eye watering amount for what might be one day of munitions for one vehicle.