LAV 6.0

[GR66]

Both. Kuwait has an older version of the same turret with 2x TOW launchers installed on a Warrior chassis. Google "desert Warrior ifv" for pics.

Spike or Javelin could be put on instead of TOW.

Excellent. Thanks! Since we're likely stuck with the LAV for some time to come I think it would be worthwhile looking at options for making it more survivable. The option of adding ATGMs to the existing Delco turrets would certainly make for a more cost effective solution than completely new turrets (or replacing the turrets with an RWS).

 

[KevinB]

Excellent. Thanks! Since we're likely stuck with the LAV for some time to come I think it would be worthwhile looking at options for making it more survivable. The option of adding ATGMs to the existing Delco turrets would certainly make for a more cost effective solution than completely new turrets (or replacing the turrets with an RWS).

There are several different bolt on options.
Hellfire and Javelin systems have been trialed on LAV-25’s, and I as I understand the same linkage upgrade can handle either Missile using the main gun thermal as a CLU to lock.

NLOS linkage requires a different feed system, but there are ones that allow for both direct lock and NLOS third party targeting, but I’m pretty sure the CA LAV would need some comms upgrades as well as other firmware improvements to take the feeds.

While I’m a big fan of ATGM on IFV, I’m not sure that’s the right road for the LAV 6.0, I think it would be better to have a Coy Armor Defense Section with LAV-JUA (Javelin under armor) to support the Rifle Coy’s in the event they got engaged by Armor.

AH’s, Arty, NLOS ATGM’s and Green/Blue Armor, and supporting direct fire ATGM’s are a much more desirable option to engage Red Armor with than an APC.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What about guided missiles for other than AT work? I understand the US used TOW as a bunker buster in Iraq quite effectively.

 

[GR66]

What about guided missiles for other than AT work? I understand the US used TOW as a bunker buster in Iraq quite effectively.

I wonder if it's an overly expensive and limited availability weapon for fire support purposes. Would you be better off adding a DFS-type LAV to each section for that?

 

[FJAG]

While I’m a big fan of ATGM on IFV, I’m not sure that’s the right road for the LAV 6.0, I think it would be better to have a Coy Armor Defense Section with LAV-JUA (Javelin under armor) to support the Rifle Coy’s in the event they got engaged by Armor.

Boy! You got me thinking again. I tend to default back to what I learned. (And yes, that takes me back to the 3.5" rocket launcher for anti-armour)

I started up around the time the first Carl G's replaced the 3.5. At that point we had M72, Carl G, 106 mm recoilless and SS11 for anti armour work. M72s went down to sections. Carl G's were more specialized weapons dets within the coy. The 106 and SS11 were at battalion and there were discussions and trials to move them into a specialized brigade anti-armour company. In Europe in 1964 B Coy 3 R22R was turned into a bde anti-armour coy with 106s, Entacs and SS11s. It kicked around until 1970 when they were moved into Bn anti-armour platoons. Tanks were of course the main anti -armour system.

All that to say that there is always a dividing line between what becomes an every soldier weapon and what becomes a specialist weapon and and where the line is drawn. Factors such as ease of use, practical range, weight, desire to concentrate at decisive locations or distribute widely, etc.

For me, the trade off point comes at the Carl G. It and the lower level M72ish, Panzerfaust 3 are all coy level weapon. I actually prefer the reloadable RPG concept. A lightweight reusable launcher with multiple simple and smaller and equally lightweight projectiles just seems to make sense to me.

Everything above that becomes a specialist det weapon at either battalion or brigade/div. There's a lot of learning and thinking to do as to what "direct fire" weapons should be used and how they should be organized (IMHO within the battalion) and precision "indirect" fire weapons should be organized (again, IMHO as brigade/div artillery resources intimately tied in with forward observers/controllers.)

Like you, I'm not sure if the turret of a LAV ISC is the best place for anti-armour missiles. Personally, I think that if the LAV is put into a position where it needs to use the missile then it has been improperly deployed. It's not an IFV that's designed to tangle. As a secondary point, if we deploy missiles on a LAV ISC turret then for much of the fight, most of these would be sitting idle and be a wasted resource. OTOH, there should clearly be specialist anti-armour carriers (whether LAV or other) which have no other purpose than anti-armour work.

 

[KevinB]

With an unlimited budget ideally one could have cannon and a DF/NLOS Under Armor ATGM for every vehicle.

I am a huge fan of better to have a not need than need and not have.

1) Coy Firebase wouldn’t need a special vehicle
2) Probably more important all Rifle Coy vehicles are interchangeable and non distinguishable.


But that’s not going to happen for Canada.
1) It would be a fortune that would be better spent elsewhere.
2) Given the deficiencies in LAV variants in Canada, funds are better spent for those than getting everyone an ATGM.


Back to the section/squad and platoon anti-armor weapons.
I think at the section level an AT-4 is a decent tool, the warhead on it being 84mm is significantly larger than the 66mm LAW series.
I like the Carl G in the M4 variant, but not as a primary AT system but more as a Bunker buster and anti vehicle systems as a secondary.
I think the Javelin has no real equal when it come to Armor Defense. The ability to lock, then fire and forget is a huge advantage.
But there are a lot of things out there than don’t need a Javelin - so the M4 CG84 and AT-4 have a role.

 

[McG]

Does anyone know what specific turret is installed on the LAV 6.0 ISC? My Google-foo has so far failed me this morning. Might need more coffee!

It was formerly called a Delco turret, but I think GDLS bought that company. They have a version fitted with TOW, and Australia fielded it on some of their LAV. Here it is on a LAV III

 

[AC 011]

It was formerly called a Delco turret, but I think GDLS bought that company. They have a version fitted with TOW, and Australia fielded it on some of their LAV. Here it is on a LAV III
View attachment 75890

The original USMC LAV-25 turret was by Delco Systems, which was owned by General Motors. It was bought from GM by GDLS at the same time as the London LAV operations.

The TOW version was trialed by Australia, but they didn't buy any.

 

[Kirkhill]

It was formerly called a Delco turret, but I think GDLS bought that company. They have a version fitted with TOW, and Australia fielded it on some of their LAV. Here it is on a LAV III
View attachment 75890

Apply the Javelins to some of the LAV-CPs and create a 5 km Standoff AT Platoon in every coy and a couple more Platoons at Battalion.

Brimstone is a 12 km missile

NLOS-Exactor is a 25 to 30 km missile
Brimstone II is a 40 km missile
Switchblade 600 is a 40 km loitering munition
Hero-120 is a 60 km loitering munition

What are the limits of engagement of?

a Platoon
a Company
a Battalion
a Brigade
a Division

HIMARS truck engages from 20 km to 500 km.

MANPADS/MSHORAD provides air defence to 8 km

CAMM provides air defence to 25 km
CAMM-ER provides air defence to 45 km
ESSM provides air defence to 50 km
NSM - antiship to 200 km

SM2 - air defence to 170 km
SM3 - air defence to 1200 km
SM6 - air defence to to 460 km
SM6 - surface to surface 1500 km
Tomahawk - surface to surface 1500 km


What is the Area of Interest of the Platoon on the modern battlefield?

 

[Kirkhill]

Can anybody confirm this report from ca Jan. 21 this year?

The claim is that the M1128 Stryker MGS was in action on the Opytne road in the Bakhmut area in support of a small unit delaying action (rear guard)

The rear guard consisted of an infantry force backed by a single howitzer and a single MGS.

Regardless of the claim one thing stands out to me and that is the frequency with which both sides make reference to individual vehicle and actions by large sections / small platoons (10 to 20 combatants). This seemed to be true everywhere, even during offensives, after Russia's Kyiv assault with massed forces.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Was poking around online and saw this, (assuming it's still alive and somewhat on time) the only capability that was actively fielded by CA in the LAVIII family that didn't make LAV UP was TUA, am I missing something?

 

[Kirkhill]

Was poking around online and saw this, (assuming it's still alive and somewhat on time) the only capability that was actively fielded by CA in the LAVIII family that didn't make LAV UP was TUA, am I missing something?

Yep - the TUAs were de-turreted and sent to Afghanistan to serve as APCs (with Nanuk RWS stations) - there to serve alongside the Leopards, your one stop fire support system.

Afterwards their serial numbers were applied to LAV 6s which were then outfitted with 66 Long Range Surveillance Systems to do the job of the Coyotes.

There's always a plan.

 

[Kirkhill]

• Mountie Jun 16, 2009
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #117

The ELAV (Cdn Engr)...is the only LAV in the fleet that uses the RWS.
It is universal in that it can mount anything up to a MK-19 AGL.
Engrs that I know are not fond of it as it take up too much space in the veh and not enough for engr stores.

I'm talking about the 33 extra TUA hulls that were converted to ISC with the Nanuk RWS (Often being referred to as the Bison 2). I read in a few different articles that they were just recently deployed to Afghanistan.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2007/GDLS-Canada-lands-order-for-army-LAV-III-ISCs.html

Canada Converting LAV-III TUAVs to Infantry Carriers - Defense Industry Daily

M1134 Stryker(click to view full) The Canadian Department of National Defence has awarded Genertal Dynamics Land Systems - Canada a C$ 49.2 million (about $46.3 million) contract to take 33 of the 71 LAV-III chassis originally manufactured under a previous contract for LAV-III TOW Under Armour...

www.defenseindustrydaily.com

 

[Kirkhill]

You know, IIRC, prior to the arrival of the Coyote with the mast mounted surveillance system those TUA turrets had the best optics in the army. At least by reputation.

72 of those turrets we had.

I'm trying to envisage 3 Coyote Regiments with a TUA Squadron of 24 LAV 6s available.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You know, IIRC, prior to the arrival of the Coyote with the mast mounted surveillance system those TUA turrets had the best optics in the army. At least by reputation.

72 of those turrets we had.

I'm trying to envisage 3 Coyote Regiments with a TUA Squadron of 24 LAV 6s available.

Not even close.

It was ADATS With the best optics.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not even close.

It was ADATS With the best optics.

Tanks! Glad for the correction.

So in 2011 we had 72 TUA and 24 ADATs - ditched when the MGS went west.

 

[childs56]

Why would we not run the LAV with a Launcher system on the side of the turret even if only a couple of vehicles get the system. I like the idea of having the capability to build upon the LAV chassis.
One of the reasons I asked earlier on in this or another post about the Bradley Armor compared to the LAVs is that the basic Bradley without its add on armor and plates provides not much if any more protection then the LAV 6 does. If we were to go with a Tracked Version of the LAV6 similar to the Boxer tracked vehicle I think it would be a winner especially with add on armor and anti tank missiles mounted.

Time will tell which way we go or done go. Imagine a Tracked Lav with Air defense suit on it.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Yep - the TUAs were de-turreted and sent to Afghanistan to serve as APCs (with Nanuk RWS stations) - there to serve alongside the Leopards, your one stop fire support system.

Afterwards their serial numbers were applied to LAV 6s which were then outfitted with 66 Long Range Surveillance Systems to do the job of the Coyotes.

There's always a plan.

Based on the numbers I considered whether it was LRSS under a different name, but the timelines dont match up, and then I found this separately named and funded project.

Under the Additional Mechanized Armoured Vehicle Project

Objective
To replace the LAV III capability that were not replaced by the initial LAV UP project.
Requirements
The project will deliver 60 armoured platforms to the Canadian Army in order to complete the replacement of the obsolete LAV III fleet capability.

60 more new 6's, but what is this LAV III capability?
Standard (now ISC), OPV, CPV, ELAV were all already address by LAV UP
LAV TUA- LAVIII based, fielded by Canada, not addressed by LAV UP
LAV ISC- LAVIII based, fielded by Canada, not addressed by LAV UP (does a turretless APC represent a key capability that needs replacing?)
Bison Mortar- Not LAVIII based (but had overlap of usage), fielded by Canada, not addressed by LAV UP
MGS -LAVIII based, not fielded by Canada, not addressed by LAV UP

A man can hope that it's mortar and ATGM carriers (and that it hasn't been cancelled), but that whole page has been neglected since 2020

 

[FJAG]

Tanks! Glad for the correction.

So in 2011 we had 72 TUA and 24 ADATs - ditched when the MGS went west.

MGS died in 2006 with the Leo 2 purchase. The ADATS stayed around in the AD role until around 2011 when they were withdrawn for various reasons.

 

[Kirkhill]

MGS died in 2006 with the Leo 2 purchase. The ADATS stayed around in the AD role until around 2011 when they were withdrawn for various reasons.

MGS TUA ADATS IIRC were all tarred with the system of systems brush. And babies were chucked out with bathwater when the tanks were justified.

Just like mortars and pioneers were ditched to ensure all the LAV seats were filled.

As to the GDF OO5s - i saw a 2019 rumour that we had actually held on to those - 20 in storage? Any truth?