LAV 6.0

[Kirkhill]

18.5 ton class
GDLS (LAV)
Textron (Cottonmouth)

ARV Recovery
ARV Logistics

ARV C4-UAS

ARV OPF-M (Hero-120 Loitering Attack Missile)



ARV C-UAS (Something like the MSHORAD?)



ARV



Or perhaps with a Puma turret (it integrates 2x Spike Missiles)

Cottonmouth™

Purpose-built for the United States Marine Corps Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV) program.

www.textronsystems.com

 

[MilEME09]

New CP rolls off the line

 

[Kirkhill]

Can heat seeking missiles find air-conditioners?

 

[PuckChaser]

Too bad it'll be filled with garbage radios and no Signalers to run it...

 

[dapaterson]

You mean fitted for not with garbage radios.

 

[KevinB]

I sort of expected the Troop/Cargo to be, like well a Stryker, not a giant malignant blimp.

 

[McG]

I sort of expected the Troop/Cargo to be, like well a Stryker, not a giant malignant blimp.

I believe there were a lot of political hands in this. Seemingly overnight, CAF went from we cannot sole source ACSV to we will sole source for the platform that GDLS is trying to sell right now. That platform is a LAV 6+ body designed to replace the Queen Mary .... which means the vehicles that are replacing TLAV APCs, ambulances, and engineer section carriers will all be giant billboards. I'll admit that the ambulance in the A2 echelon probably benefits from standing space inside, but the ambulance in the A1 echelon should have as low a profile as possible when it is rolling up to pull combat team casualties off the objective. Engineer section carriers on the LAV III and LAV 6 platforms have already struggled with weight management and that is not going to be helped by adding another 2 ft of height to the armoured hull.

 

[FJAG]

Then again there are a lot of images of very low profile but burned out BMPs. Makes one wonder what the optimal height is.

 

[GK .Dundas]

New CP rolls off the line

View attachment 69480

Well, that errrr, .. ....interrrrsstting ahhh yeah .....Good Lord that THING is immense!

 

[KevinB]

Then again there are a lot of images of very low profile but burned out BMPs. Makes one wonder what the optimal height is.

Optimal height is being on the right side of NLAW and Javelin

 

[KevinB]

I believe there were a lot of political hands in this. Seemingly overnight, CAF went from we cannot sole source ACSV to we will sole source for the platform that GDLS is trying to sell right now. That platform is a LAV 6+ body designed to replace the Queen Mary .... which means the vehicles that are replacing TLAV APCs, ambulances, and engineer section carriers will all be giant billboards.

Wait what?
The Combat Engineers are going to be rolling around without a Turret and in a CP sized Winnebago? No one likes you anymore do they?
Criminal would have been more word for it.

I'll admit that the ambulance in the A2 echelon probably benefits from standing space inside, but the ambulance in the A1 echelon should have as low a profile as possible when it is rolling up to pull combat team casualties off the objective. Engineer section carriers on the LAV III and LAV 6 platforms have already struggled with weight management and that is not going to be helped by adding another 2 ft of height to the armoured hull.

I cry for you folks.

 

[KevinB]

ARV C-UAS (Something like the MSHORAD?)

View attachment 67729

I really wanted to see the CAF get some of these.

Does GDLS only need to sell the crap that no one else wants to the CAF?

 

[Kirkhill]

I really wanted to see the CAF get some of these.

Does GDLS only need to sell the crap that no one else wants to the CAF?

Nope. We were there before them. We turned it down.

Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just like we had these which we decided to turn into APCs



And they say we can't get any good stuff to play with.

 

[FJAG]

Nope. We were there before them. We turned it down.

View attachment 69483

Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just like we had these which we decided to turn into APCs

View attachment 69484

And they say we can't get any good stuff to play with.

Remember too that the MMEV was being looked at for its dual role and together with the MGS and LAV-TUA were being looked at as the Leo replacement. It basically used a LAV3 hull and the ADATS turret and guts.

There were a lot of reasons why this fell apart. Leos for Afghanistan basically undercut the requirement and $ broke the camel's back.

 

[Kirkhill]

Remember too that the MMEV was being looked at for its dual role and together with the MGS and LAV-TUA were being looked at as the Leo replacement. It basically used a LAV3 hull and the ADATS turret and guts.

There were a lot of reasons why this fell apart. Leos for Afghanistan basically undercut the requirement and $ broke the camel's back.

That dammed accountant again.

Either/Or.

Leo or System of systems.
GMG or 60mm mortar.

There was nothing wrong with Rick's SoS or his BHS.

 

[Kirkhill]

ADATS

Air Defence Anti-Tank System.

One Missile. Two Targets.

 

[KevinB]

ADATS

Air Defence Anti-Tank System.

One Missile. Two Targets.

Admittedly it was a poor idea - one needed to view it as ADBATE (Air Defense, But Anti-Armor Emergency)
The dual role was in extremis - and not purpose built - lot cheaper AT missiles around...

 

[FJAG]

ADATS

Air Defence Anti-Tank System.

One Missile. Two Targets.

The missile was designed for that though. It had an HE fragmentation/shaped charge warhead initiated either with a point detonating or proximity fuze. As I said in the Javelin argument, terminal effects matter and armour and aircraft have completely different vulnerabilities and exposure profiles that need to be catered for. You can build a missile that caters to both and ADATS' missile was built that way from square one.

 

[Kirkhill]

Admittedly it was a poor idea - one needed to view it as ADBATE (Air Defense, But Anti-Armor Emergency)
The dual role was in extremis - and not purpose built - lot cheaper AT missiles around...

Kevin, do you reckon that those Hellfires on the MSHORAD are only going to be used against helicopters?

 

[Kirkhill]

The missile was designed for that though. It had an HE fragmentation/shaped charge warhead initiated either with a point detonating or proximity fuze. As I said in the Javelin argument, terminal effects matter and armour and aircraft have completely different vulnerabilities and exposure profiles that need to be catered for. You can build a missile that caters to both and ADATS' missile was built that way from square one.

In that case a good idea was scotched because command got lost in the weeds.

I always assumed MMEV and TUA were road-bound versions of this




I guess that's why they pay fly-boys more!