• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LAV 6.0

CBH99 said:
Wow.  Just wow.

A definite lack of oversight when it comes to quality control, might be an understatement.  How can the same factory that produced the LAV 3 & currently produces the Stryker, allow vehicles to roll off an assembly line with critical defects?

Who is to say the Saudi order won't be so large, the workers won't be cutting corners on their vehicles also in order to meet a deadline?  I'm not a mechanic by any means, but ensuring critical systems are in working order should be a no-brainer.
It is not workers cutting corners.  The reality is that modern vehicles need extensive user and RAMD trials.  Without this, faults go unidentified until the vehicle is well into fielding.  When it comes to military equipment, normally the first government to buy is on the hook to do the RAMD (we did it with LAV III), and there are some countries where industry can pay the government to put a vehicle through its paces prior to marketing for export.
 
MCG said:
(left over parts form the original vehicles are the LAV III monuments going up around the country)

Left over parts include such things as complete hulls and turrets. Little survives from the original vehicles.
 
recceguy said:
How do you move a vehicle without a steering wheel? :facepalm:

534185.jpg


Never leave home without it.
 
The French alternative to the LAV

3367FEFF00000578-0-image-a-45_1461257924190.jpg


British troops trained alongside a French armoured vehicle during today's training exercise on Salisbury Plain

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3552388/Britain-never-war-without-European-allies-Defence-Secretary-claims-denies-backing-EU-army.html#ixzz46Vuv3l8c
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Have the Brits shrunk or is that really a 12 foot tall vehicle?  I guess the good news is that you can see over the tops of houses.
 
Well, their posture is poor and they're not wearing bearskins...
 
Typical French - making the 'maudit Anglais' walk instead of riding in the comfort of an air conditioned APC...  :whistle:
 
Interesting to walk by Wolseley Barracks and see the AVGP Grizzly parked out on the monument square, and compare its size with the LAV III or LAV 6.0.

I think the USMC hit the "sweet spot" with their LAV 25, it has the firepower of the LAV III but much better mobility since it is smaller and lighter. The French vehicle in the picture upthread simply screams "target".

The Israeli "Combat Guard" vehicle concept shows an alternative direction, using clever engineering, speed and active defense systems to transport a section in a vehicle weighing only 8 tons
 

Attachments

  • mmu_get_jpeg.php.jpg
    mmu_get_jpeg.php.jpg
    27.6 KB · Views: 556
  • lav-25_121.jpg
    lav-25_121.jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 562
  • th.jpg
    th.jpg
    11.6 KB · Views: 719
  • Combat Guard side.jpg
    Combat Guard side.jpg
    47.7 KB · Views: 553
Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
5. Vehicle is almost 10 tons heavier that LAV III - there is no vehicle in the CAF fleet (save a tank) that can recover the LAV 6.0;

Are the half dozen or so A/HSVS Wreckers not sufficient? Those things are pretty damn big, and if I'm not mistaken, are used frequently to haul around the Leo 2A6's.

 
If I remember correctly, the AHVS were bought as a UOR for Afghanistan and are not road legal for use in Canada (off of bases) so does not help us for any domestic operations.
 
dangerboy said:
If I remember correctly, the AHVS were bought as a UOR for Afghanistan and are not road legal for use in Canada (off of bases) so does not help us for any domestic operations.

In a Domestic OP, it wouldn't matter what's road legal or not, it's about mitigating casualties. The cost of repairing some roads versus not having proper recovery assets which could lead to other more dire consequences is, I'm sure, understandable and would be forgiven should it be needed.

Also, they've been used out in training grounds and on bases quite frequently without much issue, it may just be that they're too tall and too wide to be safely operated on a standard highway, but not necessarily illegal for highway movement.

I stand to be corrected though.
 
LunchMeat said:
In a Domestic OP, it wouldn't matter what's road legal or not, it's about mitigating casualties. The cost of repairing some roads versus not having proper recovery assets which could lead to other more dire consequences is, I'm sure, understandable and would be forgiven should it be needed.

Also, they've been used out in training grounds and on bases quite frequently without much issue, it may just be that they're too tall and too wide to be safely operated on a standard highway, but not necessarily illegal for highway movement.

I stand to be corrected though.

my understand from talking to truckers and vehicle techs is that they were to wide for a standard road way, meaning to take them off pass would be an obligatory wide load sign? or is that to easy?
 
While not an immediate fix, this program by DARPA could lead to new ways of doing things so all our vehicles are smaller, lighter and more versatile. Considering that we could roll up many "mini fleets" the CAF might consider looking in on tis program and seeing how we could design a family of vehicles using these new principles with a production run of several hundred to a thousand vehicles.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/darpa-program-to-revolutionize-vehicle.html

DARPA program to revolutionize vehicle and building designs to fully take advantage new advanced materials

DARPA announced its TRAnsformative DESign (TRADES) program. TRADES is a fundamental research effort to develop new mathematics and algorithms that can more fully take advantage of the almost boundless design space that has been enabled by new materials and fabrication methods.

Advanced materials are increasingly embodying counterintuitive properties, such as extreme strength and super lightness, while additive manufacturing and other new technologies are vastly improving the ability to fashion these novel materials into shapes that would previously have been extremely costly or even impossible to create. Generating new designs that fully exploit these properties, however, has proven extremely challenging. Conventional design technologies, representations, and algorithms are inherently constrained by outdated presumptions about material properties and manufacturing methods. As a result, today’s design technologies are simply not able to bring to fruition the enormous level of physical detail and complexity made possible with cutting-edge manufacturing capabilities and materials.

“The structural and functional complexities introduced by today’s advanced materials and manufacturing methods have exceeded our capacity to simultaneously optimize all the variables involved,” said Jan Vandenbrande, DARPA program manager. “We have reached the fundamental limits of what our computer-aided design tools and processes can handle, and need revolutionary new tools that can take requirements from a human designer and propose radically new concepts, shapes and structures that would likely never be conceived by even our best design programs today, much less by a human alone.”

For example, designing a structure whose components vary significantly in their physical or functional properties, such as a phased array radar, and an aircraft skin, is extremely complicated using available tools. Usually the relevant components are designed separately and then they are joined. TRADES envisions coming up with more elegant and unified designs—in this case, perhaps embedding the radar directly into the vehicle skin itself—potentially reducing cost, size and weight of future military systems. Similarly, existing design tools cannot take full advantage of the unique properties and processing requirements of advanced materials, such as carbon fiber composites, which have their own shaping requirements. Not accounting for these requirements during design can lead to production difficulties and defects, and in extreme cases require manual hand layup. Such problems could be mitigated or even eliminated if designers had the tools to account for the characteristics and manufacturing and processing requirements of the advanced materials.

“Much of today’s design is really re-design based on useful but very old ideas,” Vandenbrande said. “The design for building aircraft fuselages today, for example, is based on a spar-and-rib concept that dates back to design ideas from four thousand years ago when ancient ships such as the Royal Barge of Khufu used this basic design concept for its hull. TRADES could revolutionize such well-worn designs.”
 
Very cool stuff. The potential and theoretical that our our scientific minds come up with is practically endless, but without anyone flipping the bill for production and R&D, and no actual commitment or requirements coming from any army, these amazing ideas will remain in wait, or at least remain near the bottom of the pile of things to do.
 
dangerboy said:
If I remember correctly, the AHVS were bought as a UOR for Afghanistan and are not road legal for use in Canada (off of bases) so does not help us for any domestic operations.

From CASR
total wt., 93 t (110 t , tractor) , dead weight  23,000 kg,  fifth
  wheel load  (approx.) 23,000 kg ,  gross axle load  70,000 kg

(8x8 tractor) 8.4m L x 2.9m W x 4.02m H,  max speed: 88 km/h

Certainly seems to meet Alberta's regs http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=2002_315.cfm&leg_type=Regs&isbncln=9780779734542

I suspect it does not meet certain obscure regulations for lights, safety feature designed mainly to keep foreign made vehicles out to protect the now mostly extinct domestic market. But then I'm rather cynical. I suspect the Feds could carve out special regs for military vehicles exemptions if they so choose to.

 
Bzzliteyr said:
I have driven a Leopard C2 in Ottawa, I suspect it wasn't road legal.

Mirrors? check, lights + signals? check, maybe not all the safety features the government would want, but it's a bloody tank, my understanding was part of the design was to make them road legal due to the need to be using roads in Europe if the red army ever came over the fulda gap. I don't know about canadian regulations but the Leo 1 and all models of it are road legal.
 
Back
Top