LAV 6.0

[KevinB]

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

Yes, very few ATGM/AGM’s have the speed and just as importantly maneuvering ability to succeed engaging an aircraft (unless it’s parked).

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, very few ATGM/AGM’s have the speed and just as importantly maneuvering ability to succeed engaging an aircraft (unless it’s parked).

I was more thinking along the lines of tanks, boats and bunkers.

 

[MilEME09]

Didn't the MMEV fail testing because at 90 degrees a missile Launch flipped the vehicle? And they didn't want to spend more money to fix it

 

[FJAG]

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

View attachment 69492


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

ADATS wasn't. It was bought principally as an AD weapon for 4 AD in Europe. The AT element was one of those little things that may have swayed a vote in the room but wasn't what it was about.

MMEV was a good idea fairy gone manic in 2004/5 what with the whole mix of MGS and LAV TUAs. I think putting the ADATs system on a LAV was just a chassis standardization thing more than anything else (plus some system and ISTAR integration upgrades). The whole thing had a big price tag too ($750 million for 30 of them)

Didn't the MMEV fail testing because at 90 degrees a missile Launch flipped the vehicle? And they didn't want to spend more money to fix it

I hadn't heard that. The killer came in 2006 because tanks were needed in Afghanistan. The MGS money was used to buy them at bargain basement prices and both LAV TUA and MMEV went Tango Uniform as being no longer necessary or desirable. ADATS was kept on with 4 AD until 2011.

 

[McG]

I am aware of two requests from the TF in Kandahar which were denied for the purpose an equipment lifecycle management objective. The AVLB request was denied because sending those to Afghanistan would undermine the argument for their not being replaced, and LAV TUA was not sent because it might undermine continued progress of the tank replacement.

The AVLB justification may be just rumour. I know it was requested and denied, but I was never part of the conversations as to why. I was in the room at a DLEPS Ops brief when instruction was given not to support any efforts to deploy LAV TUA because it could do jobs that CF said only a tank could do, and an in-service vehicle doing those jobs in Kandahar might have taken wheels of the tank replacement cart.

 

[Dana381]

I am aware of two requests from the TF in Kandahar which were denied for the purpose an equipment lifecycle management objective. The AVLB request was denied because sending those to Afghanistan would undermine the argument for their not being replaced, and LAV TUA was not sent because it might undermine continued progress of the tank replacement.

The AVLB justification may be just rumour. I know it was requested and denied, but I was never part of the conversations as to why. I was in the room at a DLEPS Ops brief when instruction was given not to support any efforts to deploy LAV TUA because it could do jobs that CF said only a tank could do, and an in-service vehicle doing those jobs in Kandahar might have taken wheels of the tank replacement cart.

Now you did it, when the PMO see your post the leopards will be sold to the Dutch

 

[KevinB]

I am aware of two requests from the TF in Kandahar which were denied for the purpose an equipment lifecycle management objective. The AVLB request was denied because sending those to Afghanistan would undermine the argument for their not being replaced, and LAV TUA was not sent because it might undermine continued progress of the tank replacement.

The AVLB justification may be just rumour. I know it was requested and denied, but I was never part of the conversations as to why. I was in the room at a DLEPS Ops brief when instruction was given not to support any efforts to deploy LAV TUA because it could do jobs that CF said only a tank could do, and an in-service vehicle doing those jobs in Kandahar might have taken wheels of the tank replacement cart.

I really cannot understand why the CA constantly shoots itself in the foot.
The correct method was to field LAV-TUA and then say, it's great we need more, but we still need a tank because of XYZ...

 

[Dana381]

I really cannot understand why the CA constantly shoots itself in the foot.
The correct method was to field LAV-TUA and then say, it's great we need more, but we still need a tank because of XYZ...

Not if you understand the poverty mentality, I grew up with it everywhere on P.E.I. and I see it with my customers occasionally. If there is a cheaper option, no matter how bad it is, they will take it. If the army wanted new tanks, tanks had to be the only solution. The lav was supposed to replace the tank so if a lav with tow could do the job 1/2 as well they would order 2x as many. Then as time went on drop 1/2 the order before delivery.

 

[GK .Dundas]

* Cough * Cougar DFSV cough

 

[Underway]

Few questions regarding these ACSV variants...

Variants and Quantity
1. Troop Cargo Vehicles (TCV) – General purpose LAV (41)
2. Ambulance (Amb) with four litters (49)
3. Command Post (97)
4. Engineer with dozer, auger and lane marking capabilities (19)
5. Electronic Warfare (18)
6. Maintenance Recovery Vehicle (54)
7. Mobile Repair Team (70)
8. Fitter/ Cargo Vehicle (13)

What is the difference between a Fitter/Cargo and Troop Cargo (for that matter what is a Fitter?)

Also who uses the Command Post variant and how does it integrate into a CMBG?

 

[Kirkhill]

I can answer the one about the "Fitter". That is a mechanic - as in a Pipe Fitter. Originally they worked with steam pipes and were steam fitters then they transferred their skills to diesel engines which were also characterized by lots of pipes. Then they started "fitting" all sorts of bits of metal and things together to keep vehicles and plants running.

General Fitter - British Army Jobs

A general fitter services the Army's vehicles and equipment. Be sent anywhere in the world as a first class engineer in the British Army.

apply.army.mod.uk

 

[KevinB]

No seat belts or seats is my guess.
Fitter/Cargo vehicles are general empty rear ended with D rings to lash down cargo

 

[McG]

What is the difference between a Fitter/Cargo and Troop Cargo (for that matter what is a Fitter?)

The fitter has an arm to support power pack changes.

Also who uses the Command Post variant and how does it integrate into a CMBG?

Battalion & Brigade HQs. Radio Rebroadcast teams. The medium range radar battery.

 

[FJAG]

Our fitter vehicle in an SP battery was a 2 1/2 ton which had lots of cargo bins in racks in the back for spare parts.

 

[McG]

You probably don’t need a fitter when you have an ARV that can do the job.

 

[Underway]

So let me play this back so I understand

-the Fitter does simple replacement/repair jobs, and the cargo part of their job is to carry the spare parts for the quick repairs - which echelon does the fitter normally work?
-the reason there are few fitters is because the Mobile Recovery Vehicle can do the same job if they have the spares nearby (crane out a power pack for example) and if they are not recovering vehicles in the field (do they recover under fire or are they an echelon removed...?)
-Mobile Repair Team are for more complicated or in-depth repairs of vehicles, they take what the MRV brings back and fix it up to go back in the fight (or just do the regular maint for the CMBG vehicles in the field?)

Do I have that sort of correct? I need to find an EME friend and buy a pitcher one night to get all this info.

 

[McG]

In larger armoured platforms, one vehicle can do both recovery & fitter. The smaller armoured platforms can generally do one or the other. Your A echelon will have MRT & ARV, while the B ech will typically hold fitters & more MRT.

 

[KevinB]

View attachment 70357You probably don’t need a fitter when you have an ARV that can do the job.

Is it wrong when I see that, I cry the M109 was divested...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In larger armoured platforms, one vehicle can do both recovery & fitter. The smaller armoured platforms can generally do one or the other. Your A echelon will have MRT & ARV, while the B ech will typically hold fitters & more MRT.

Every war I have read about there were shortages of recovery vehicles on all sides. The Germans in particular were very good at vehicle recovery in WWII, as they had to be in order to maintain any sort of tank force. The number of ARV's and recovery vehicles we have now is nowhere near enough.

 

[GR66]

Rheinmetall has developed a Boxer-based bridge layer. If we're going to stick with the LAV as our primary combat vehicle then something similar on the LAV 6.0 chassis would likely make sense.