LAV 6.0

[GK .Dundas]

Canada doesn't fight alone. Has never fought alone. Right now its going to be NATO or US in the most probable scenario.

Assuming of course that they can spare those assets.....I wouldn't bet the rent money on that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Assuming of course that they can spare those assets.....I wouldn't bet the rent money on that.

Canada spent a lot of effort in WW2 gap filling - Building Corvettes, Mosquitos, CMP trucks, Bren Carriers and Brens - not to mention shells, wheat and cheese.
Gap filling was necessary because the assets weren't available - demand was greater than supply. Just as it is in Ukraine.

 

[CBH99]

Assuming of course that they can spare those assets.....I wouldn't bet the rent money on that.

The only real scenario where this may be an issue looking forwards will be a conflict with China. And on this case, I imagine air & naval forces will be in the thick of the fight long, long before any friendly AD troops are getting their boots on the ground. Because these operations absolutely will be joint operations with 2 or more NATO countries, they wouldn’t be ‘sparing’ any.

But it was that type of thinking during the COIN years (ground based AD isn’t required) that got us to this point in the first place, so I digress. Obviously there is a need, even if it’s focused on loitering munitions & drones.


That type of threat coming from Russia is now mostly a moot point. (In my opinion anyway.)

The Ukrainians have used highly dispersed yet organized/coordinated teams w/ modern systems to great affect against both aircraft & enemy combat vehicles. To the point most Russian vehicles were either destroyed/captured, and Russian jets don’t want to fly anywhere near their airspace.

I think that strategy is what we (the west) would be employing, as that strategy advise came directly from NATO SOF organizations.

 

[KevinB]

The only real scenario where this may be an issue looking forwards will be a conflict with China. And on this case, I imagine air & naval forces will be in the thick of the fight long, long before any friendly AD troops are getting their boots on the ground. Because these operations absolutely will be joint operations with 2 or more NATO countries, they wouldn’t be ‘sparing’ any.

But it was that type of thinking during the COIN years (ground based AD isn’t required) that got us to this point in the first place, so I digress. Obviously there is a need, even if it’s focused on loitering munitions & drones.


That type of threat coming from Russia is now mostly a moot point. (In my opinion anyway.)

The Ukrainians have used highly dispersed yet organized/coordinated teams w/ modern systems to great affect against both aircraft & enemy combat vehicles. To the point most Russian vehicles were either destroyed/captured, and Russian jets don’t want to fly anywhere near their airspace.

I think that strategy is what we (the west) would be employing, as that strategy advise came directly from NATO SOF organizations.

One needs to be careful from drawing too many conclusions from how UKR is fighting their war.
The proliferation of MANPADS and other GBAD in the UA is more due to the lack of Ukrainian aircraft to fight Air Superiority missions against Russian A/C.
Both Armies have pushed out a lot of AD assets to attempt to deny their opponents the ability to use AC for unfettered ground attack.

 

[FJAG]

TLAV is being replaced by ACSV. A wheeled LAV 6+ with a hull tall enough to stand inside. It will probably be a great CP, but we may regret having the A1 echelon ambulance as the tallest vehicle in the combat team.

Replacing the TLAV with ACSV isn't really the issue though. It's good to have the ACSV working in LAV battalions rather than the current fleet of TLAVs, but the fact of the matter is that there is a need for a new fleet of tracked IFVs and their supporting vehicles to accompany tanks in heavy units.

Creating a tracked version of our current LAV and ACSL fleet should not be a gigantic technical challenge. GDLS is already building tracked fleets (AJAX, MPF). The challenge, in order to create as much fleet standardization as possible, is to adapt tracked running gear to the existing LAV hulls and engines. I'm not an engineer but the drive train for a tracked vehicle with two powered sprockets and a torsion bar suspension should be simpler than that of an 8X8 wheeled vehicle.

 

[FJAG]

One needs to be careful from drawing too many conclusions from how UKR is fighting their war.
The proliferation of MANPADS and other GBAD in the UA is more due to the lack of Ukrainian aircraft to fight Air Superiority missions against Russian A/C.
Both Armies have pushed out a lot of AD assets to attempt to deny their opponents the ability to use AC for unfettered ground attack.

It sure seems to be working though considering the limited use of ac by Russia.

I don't want to be the one to say that airpower is dead ... but ... I'm tempted to considering how the air force seemed to prematurely announce the death of artillery.

It strikes me that its one of those "everything in moderation" things. The most successful suppression of enemy air power seems to still be a combination of the use of air superiority fighters and a robust integrated AD system.

 

[Kirkhill]

It sure seems to be working though considering the limited use of ac by Russia.

I don't want to be the one to say that airpower is dead ... but ... I'm tempted to considering how the air force seemed to prematurely announce the death of artillery.

It strikes me that its one of those "everything in moderation" things. The most successful suppression of enemy air power seems to still be a combination of the use of air superiority fighters and a robust integrated AD system.

Bigger toolbox with more options - including tanks....

 

[Spencer100]

Replacing the TLAV with ACSV isn't really the issue though. It's good to have the ACSV working in LAV battalions rather than the current fleet of TLAVs, but the fact of the matter is that there is a need for a new fleet of tracked IFVs and their supporting vehicles to accompany tanks in heavy units.

Creating a tracked version of our current LAV and ACSL fleet should not be a gigantic technical challenge. GDLS is already building tracked fleets (AJAX, MPF). The challenge, in order to create as much fleet standardization as possible, is to adapt tracked running gear to the existing LAV hulls and engines. I'm not an engineer but the drive train for a tracked vehicle with two powered sprockets and a torsion bar suspension should be simpler than that of an 8X8 wheeled vehicle.

You mean like the one GDLS has already designed. Just check the box at check out. And GDLS will have it delivered....without need of your Prime account.

Stryker+Tr Prototype Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

The Stryker+Tr is currently being developed by General Dynamics Land Systems. It is a tracked version of the M1126 Stryker infantry carrier vehicle. The new APC is aimed at the US Army's requirement.

www.military-today.com

Redirect Notice

 

[FJAG]

You mean like the one GDLS has already designed. Just check the box at check out. And GDLS will have it delivered....without need of your Prime account.

Stryker+Tr Prototype Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

The Stryker+Tr is currently being developed by General Dynamics Land Systems. It is a tracked version of the M1126 Stryker infantry carrier vehicle. The new APC is aimed at the US Army's requirement.

www.military-today.com

Redirect Notice

I've seen that before. It's a bit heavy at 38 tons to the point where it needed a new engine different from the run of the mill 24 ton Stryker and even the 28 ton LAV 6. Not sure if the upgraded LAV 6 engine is the same as the T-Stryker. If you can't have the same basic hull and automotives as between the tracked and wheeled version of the LAV then you lose out on common maintenance. That's really why the M1283 makes so much sense as the AMPV in the Bradley units - a common chassis. For our small Army a common system as between the tracked and wheeled carriers would be a very useful.

 

[Prairie canuck]

I've seen that before. It's a bit heavy at 38 tons to the point where it needed a new engine different from the run of the mill 24 ton Stryker and even the 28 ton LAV 6. Not sure if the upgraded LAV 6 engine is the same as the T-Stryker. If you can't have the same basic hull and automotives as between the tracked and wheeled version of the LAV then you lose out on common maintenance. That's really why the M1283 makes so much sense as the AMPV in the Bradley units - a common chassis. For our small Army a common system as between the tracked and wheeled carriers would be a very useful.

M1283 (Bradley) - 39 tons - 600hp - BAEsystems US
CV9035 - 37 tons (includes turret)- 750 - 810hp - Hagglunds / Bofors Sweden
Tracked LAV (7?)- 38 tons - 675hp - GDLS Canada? 60 percent commonality with wheeled Strykers. WIKI - Stryker
So weight concerns between them is a wash.

 

[FJAG]

M1283 (Bradley) - 39 tons - 600hp - BAEsystems US
CV9035 - 37 tons (includes turret)- 750 - 810hp - Hagglunds / Bofors Sweden
Tracked LAV (7?)- 38 tons - 675hp - GDLS Canada? 60 percent commonality with wheeled Strykers. WIKI - Stryker
So weight concerns between them is a wash.

It's not the weight per se. It's the need for a different engine than the wheeled LAV. 60% commonality is pretty good but if most of that is hull components then it doesn't help so much as all the moving parts-the stuff that breaks and needs servicing-are different and you might as well choose a CV90 as your IFV.

But then again, as I said, I'm not an engineer. Maybe you can make the tracks work on the current LAV6 hull and engine as well.

 

[suffolkowner]

Did the slap the engine from the LAV 700 in it or the other way around?

LAV 700 Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

The LAV 700 armored personnel carrier was developed by General Dynamics Land Systems, of Canada. Its production commenced in 2017. It is one of the most protected armored personnel carriers in the world.

www.military-today.com

 

[FJAG]

Did the slap the engine from the LAV 700 in it or the other way around?

LAV 700 Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

The LAV 700 armored personnel carrier was developed by General Dynamics Land Systems, of Canada. Its production commenced in 2017. It is one of the most protected armored personnel carriers in the world.

www.military-today.com

That's an interesting idea.

Based on the two spec sheets above, the 700 has a diesel Caterpillar C13 giving 711hp while the T-Stryker has a diesel giving 675hp. (as an aside the LAV3 had a Caterpillar 3126 Diesel producing 350hp and the LAV 6.0 a Caterpillar C9 rated at 450 hp on GDLS spec sheets but 375 on Caterpillar's ())

Caterpillar's spec sheets say the C13 delivers 520hp (577 for the C13B) so the numbers don't quite jive but by the looks of it the 700 has a slightly more powerful engine and the 6.0 a weaker one than the T-Stryker. The T-Stryker goes back to 2012 while the 700 didn't enter production until a few years later.

Long story short, the engines for the T-Stryker as configured back in 2012 are not the same as our current fleet of LAV6 and the LAV 6 engine would probably not be powerful enough for a T-LAV6 version. Leaving aside the issue of any extra armour, I guess the real question is: how much weight does the tracked running gear and power transfer system add over and above the weight of the wheeled running gear?

 

[McG]

It's not the weight per se. It's the need for a different engine than the wheeled LAV.

Theoretically, you can have tracked and wheeled fleets that share a common engine, but they cannot have a common powerpack as the mated transmissions will be different.

… unless maybe you have a fleet of in series drivetrain hybrids and the powerpack is just the internal combustion motor mated to a generator.

 

[KevinB]

Strykers are getting the engine upgrade now too - as are Bradley’s
The current one can t power the data needs of the vehicles.

 

[childs56]

For engines being different as long as the engine itself is a commercial one and the transmission assembly a commercial set up all one does is contact the local dealer and get the engine fixed or a replacement. This nonsense of running different engines is a determent to the fleet is silly. I would prefer to stay with one engine and one transmission manufacturer, but run what model number is proper. If you run a C13 or C14/15 there are parts commonality along with program, tuning, diagnostic and parts. If you run a Allison Transmission then stick with them. Waterous is good to deal with overall and can diagnose, train and send parts pretty quick, they can even help over the phone. You can pretty much order up and have in reserve complete engine and transmissions on standby.

 

[McG]

all one does is contact the local dealer

Yeah. That works in a conventional war. Just go to the local store and all your logistics problems are magicked away. No need for supply trains with scale of spare parts. No need for maintainers with experience on the kit.

 

[McG]

Uncommon platforms & uncommon parts are an impediment to repairability, availability, and maintainability on a month long FTX in Canada. It is not something that can be dismissed or wished away in the design of operational equipment fleets.

 

[childs56]

Uncommon platforms & uncommon parts are an impediment to repairability, availability, and maintainability on a month long FTX in Canada. It is not something that can be dismissed or wished away in the design of operational equipment fleets.

The problem is more a procurement issue then actual availability of parts. Heck our mechanics couldn't fix a 1/2inch air line for my Gun tractor. A quick trip to the local parts store fixed it real quick. I know one can not go to the local store in war, but I would hope our procurement system would have general parts available during a war. Most engines are specific and your not going to fix them in the field except maybe a alternator change going on a stretch here maybe a injector, but you need specialty tools for that not to mention the diagnostic/ computer tools. Your going to be changing power packs out, keeping for example a CAT C13 and a Cat C15 in reserve should be able to be done by Supply, if not then your doomed anyways. Many of the parts such as compressors/ alternators etc should be compatible.

Yeah. That works in a conventional war. Just go to the local store and all your logistics problems are magicked away. No need for supply trains with scale of spare parts. No need for maintainers with experience on the kit.

There nothing wrong with the Maintainers learning how to repair, but how many of them change injectors on the current C9 engine or do a cylinder sleeve swap or head swap or even a complete a overhaul? How many shops are tooled up to do heads/sleeves in the field. They usually do a Power pack swap and send the engine off down the line. I doubt very much we overhaul our own engines. How many 1st second or even third line have the full Cat Diagnostic Software/ tools, how many do repairs on the transmissions?

Did I read that right that our LAVS have a ZF seven-speed dual clutch transmission while the American one has Allison 3200SP transmission, which transmission is better, does anyone know? Lets talk about restriction of parts.

 

[Kirkhill]

Did a little more research into our Baltic Friends

Conveniently the populations of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania add up to 33.1 Million inhabitants. We have 38 Million inhabitants. So we have a bit of slack.

Our Baltic Buddies can field a Heavy (Tracked) Force, a Medium (Wheeled) Force and a Light (All Terrain Force).

The Heavy Force

M270 MRLS	41​
155mm SPH	184​
120mm SPM	60​
120mm MBT	467​
30mm CVR(T)	198​
35mm SPAAG	6​
AVLB	35​
AEV	55​
ARV	54​
CV90 IFV	775​
M113 APC	795​
ACSV APC	150​
ACSV SAM	6​

All of the MBTs are various Leopard 2 Models
Some of the M270s have been donated to Ukraine by Norway
The ACSV is a new tracked APC manufactured in Flensburg on the German Danish border.
Half of the SPMs (Self Propelled Mortars - 120mm) are the Swedish twin barreled turreted Mjolnir. The rest are Cardoms operated by the Danes.
K9s are very popular as SPHs
Lots of Engineering assets.
Lots of M113s still in service.

The Medium Force

HIMARS MRLS	6​
155mm SPH	85​
155mm Towed	167
120mm SPM	39​
IFV-30	207​
APC	1887
CBRN Recce	6​

Piranhas, Boxers, Patria and Fuchs in 6x6 and 8x8 configurations are all very popular as armoured transports. If they have RWS systems then they are light systems with one gun (7.62, 12.7 or 40) for self defence. Only one country, Estonia has decided to upgun their Boxers with a 30mm cannon and Spike N-LOS (not LR or ER but N-LOS). They have no tanks.

SPHs are Caesars and Archers.
SPMs are AMOS twin barrelled 120mms on Patrias.

The Light Force

Mercedes-Benz Unimog 435	Truck		Estonia	4,500 to 5,500 kg
Mercedes-Benz Unimog	Truck	120[22]	Latvia	4,500 to 5,500 kg
RG-32M Galten	Mine-resistant 4x4 vehicle	260​	Sweden	4,450 kg
RG32M	Mine-resistant 4x4 vehicle	74​	Finland	4,450 kg
Humvee M1043	Armoured car	30	Latvia	3,900 kg
Humvee M1113	Armoured car	8	Latvia	3,900 kg
HMMWV Stinger	Air Defence	3​	Norway	3,900 kg
Humvee		200+	Lithuania	3,900 kg
Volvo C303	4x4 & 6x6 Multi-purpose wheeled vehicle	6500​	Sweden	2,900 kg

Toyota Land Cruiser		???	Norway	2,643 kg
Toyota Land Cruiser		12	Lithuania	2,643 kg
Mercedes-Benz G-Class	4x4 utility vehicle		Estonia	2,500 to 3,000 kg
Mercedes-Benz G-Class	4x4 utility vehicle (Armoured)	50	Latvia	2,500 to 3,000 kg
Mercedes-Benz G-Class	4x4 utility vehicle	78	Latvia	2,500 to 3,000 kg
Mercedes-Benz G-Class	4x4 utility vehicle	3,000​	Norway	2,500 to 3,000 kg
Mercedes-Benz G-Class	4x4 utility vehicle	???	Sweden	2,500 to 3,000 kg
Nissan Terrano II		???	Norway	1,760 kg
Land Rover Wolf	4x4 utility vehicle		Norway	1,600 kg
Land Rover Defender 110	4x4 utility vehicle	?	Finland	1,600 kg
Land Rover Defender	4x4 utility vehicle	2	Latvia	1,600 kg
Land Rover Defender	4x4 utility vehicle	100+	Lithuania	1,600 kg
Toyota Hilux	Pickup truck	?	Finland	1,050 kg
Polaris MRZR 4	All-terrain vehicle		Norway	952 kg
Polaris MRZR 4	All-terrain vehicle	62	Latvia	952 kg

BvS 10	All-terrain carrier	48​	Sweden	8,500 kg
BV308	All-terrain carrier	19​	Finland	5,450 kg
Bv 206s	All-terrain carrier	50​	Sweden	5,450 kg
Sisu NA-120 GT	All-terrain carrier	~250	Finland	5,250 kg
Bv 206	All-terrain carrier	4500​	Sweden	4,330 kg
Bv 206	All-terrain carrier	1000​	Norway	4,330 kg
BV206 D6N	All-terrain carrier	~400	Finland	4,330 kg
Bv 206	All-terrain carrier	10+	Lithuania	4,330 kg
Bv 206	All-terrain carrier		Latvia	4,330 kg
Bv 202	All-terrain carrier	5000​	Sweden	3,200 kg

Can-Am Outlander	All-terrain vehicle	582	Latvia	530 kg
Lynx Outlander 6x6 Army	All-terrain vehicle	100​	Norway	530 kg
Polaris Bigboss 6WD ATV	All-terrain vehicle		Norway	488 kg
Polaris Sportsman MV7	All-terrain vehicle	?	Finland	450 kg
Polaris Sportsman 500/800 EFI	All-terrain vehicle	?	Finland	359 kg

Lynx Yeti Pro V800	Snowmobile		Norway	361 kg
Lynx Commander 800R E-TEC Army	Snowmobile	200​	Norway	292 kg
Lynx 5900 and 6900	Snowmobile		Norway	250 kg
Lynx GLX 5900	Snowmobile	?	Finland	250 kg

That equates to thousands of 4x4s (10 to 20,000), over 10,000 of the Bandvagons and a few thousand ATVs and Snowmobiles.


I am not going to harp on the numbers of each individual type of system.

My interest is the number of systems maintained. Call it a toolbox or call it a stable. Our friends choose to absorb the cost of maintaining the necessary equipment. Even if it means maintaining a bunch of micro-fleets.