• 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

Cdn Blackshirt said:
For the civvies on the board (myself included)...

How will the new mechanized battalions be structured with the new LAV 6 and TAPV's?

Also is there any hope after this announcement we'll get good news on:
1.  ATGM purchase
2.  Leopard 2 Upgrades (perhaps also to a common standard)
3. Self-Propelled Howitzer acquisition
4.  HIMARS acquisition

1. TOW's have been pulled out of storage already because of the eastern europe OPs, so seeing more bought isn't far fetched.
2. Will cost a alot of time and money to get all our fleet to one standard model, though this would be beneficial from a logistical and maintenance perspective.
3&4. it's possible but we have not had mobile arty since we retired the M109's, and going that route will depend on the type of force Ottawa and NDHQ want us to be.
 
Well the US delivered it's message to NATO, looking for a plan for meeting the 2% target
 
suffolkowner said:
Well the US delivered it's message to NATO, looking for a plan for meeting the 2% target

even half a percent, if spent wisely could make a lot of difference for the CF, maybe more leopards so all our tank regiments have them, enough radio's and C6's so everyone has them (especially the reserves), more ammunition, take the option for more trucks from the soon to start delivery MSVS SMP program (more logistics vehicles is never a bad thing)
 
ballz said:
Please God no, we need a full two weeks in February to expend all remaining ammo already.

Then it sounds like to me ammunition is not being allocated properly, again problem for the Pres, to do a MG range, we get half a belt each, enough ammo to run everyone though PWT2, and maybe a couple reshoots
 
MilEME09 said:
Then it sounds like to me ammunition is not being allocated properly

Not being allocated at all, actually. That would require decision-making, planning & organizational skills, accountability, and accepting a minute level of risk.

Just another end fiscal year ammo burn-off at the Battalion....

 

Attachments

  • end fiscal year.jpg
    end fiscal year.jpg
    78.1 KB · Views: 457
ballz said:
Not being allocated at all, actually. That would require decision-making, planning & organizational skills, accountability, and accepting a minute level of risk.

Just another end fiscal year ammo burn-off at the Battalion....

This reminds me of the time when one of my uncles, who was running a supply section on a base several decades ago, had to instruct a bunch of his corporals to go out to every Canadian Tire store in town and buy as many standard carpentry hammers as they could using the money they were given. The hammers weren't needed but the whole exercise was carried out just so the logistics company could justify the same budget for the following year and thus not have a shortfall in funding.

Zero-based budgeting is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
 
Been a while on this thread.

News on the LAV-25.  The Army is upgrading its Stryker fleet. 

size0.jpg

https://www.army.mil/article/181203/soldiers_test_stryker_with_30_mm_cannon_more_upgrades_to_come

That is old news.  2 ACR is getting them for Europe.

This bit is a bit more interesting though.  The Abn troops are in need of more fire support that is air deployable.  Talk of M8s and MGSs  etc.

Apparently somebody has discovered that the Marine LAV-25 already fits the bill.  It armoured, armed and air deployable (as well as amphibious).  It is not as well protected as the Stryker/LAV 6.0.  It is not as heavily armed as the upgunned Stryker with its 30mm.  But it is better than a Humvee and you can air-drop four from a C-17.

Army To Get Marine LAVs For The First Time
By JAMES CLARK  on May 1, 2017 T&P ON FACEBOOK 

As the military’s smallest service, the Marine Corps is often the last to receive new gear — getting M4s and upgraded .50-cal machine guns years after the Army’s already had them in spades — leading to a sense that Marines get the other branches’ hand-me-downs.

Well, looks like it’s the Army’s turn. For what’s probably the first time in its history, the Army is looking to acquire modified Marine Light Armored Vehicles for air drop operations with the 82nd Airborne Division, according to Military Times.

The LAV popped up on the Army’s radar due to its potential for airborne operations. Compared to the Army’s Stryker infantry vehicle, the eight-wheeled LAV is lighter — between 31,000 to 38,000 pounds depending on the variant — and roughly four LAVs can fit into a C-17, compared to three Strykers. The LAV-25s being eyed by the Army require a three-person crew, carry six additional passengers, and boast a 25 mm gun.

3283485.jpg


Light Armored Vehicle-25s from Bravo Troop, 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, line up in a tactical formation during a live fire training exercise.


To get acquainted with the amphibious reconnaissance vehicle, soldiers with the 82nd’s 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, have conducted simulator training alongside Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; driver training at Camp Pendleton in California; and maintenance training at Fort Lee, Virginia. The Corps also sent four LAVs for testing and training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where soldiers are familiarizing themselves with the vehicles.

General Dynamics, which produces the LAVs, is currently modifying three of them to be air dropped, according to Military Times. Though the company successfully air dropped both Strykers and LAVs in the early 2000s, this is the first time any military client has asked for LAVs to be modified — the chassis need parachute-rigging attachments installed — for that mission.

The Army has shown interest in obtaining up to 60 LAV-25s from the Marine Corps, Barb Hamby, a spokesperson for Marine Corps Systems Command told Military Times.

With the Army poised to receive Marine Corps hand-me-downs — while the Corps scopes out a hybrid spy sub — this news sounds too good to be true. But, if the Army does decide to take a bunch of LAVs off the Marines’ hands, the soldiers with the 82nd may want to set aside some time to repaint the interior. There’s no telling how many dick drawings grace the inside of a Marine LAV.

http://taskandpurpose.com/army-gets-marine-lavs-for-first-time/

Notions about "the best" vs "good enough"  and "risk management" vs "risk aversion" come to mind.

And in a related thought

Marine Corps Investing in Light Vehicles To Take the Load Off Troops’ Shoulders

mrzr-at-quantico-1_878.ashx


The Marine Corps is taking advantage of commercial-off-the-shelf technology to equip troops with new logistics vehicles.

Infantry Marines recently received dozens of ultra light off-road vehicles to provide logistics support and help lighten their load, according to the service. The delivery in February came six months after the contract award to Polaris Defense for 144 diesel-powered MRZR-D4s.

The acquisition was part of the service’s utility task vehicle program, said Mark Godfrey, vehicle capabilities integration officer at the Marine Corps’ capabilities development directorate.

The rugged, all-terrain UTVs had a number of requirements, including the ability to carry four Marines, each weighing 250 pounds, and 500 pounds of cargo, or some variation of that, he noted. Additionally, the vehicles — which are roughly 12 feet long — needed to be internally transported by the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters.

“We’ve had a long-standing requirement for this type of internally transportable vehicle,” he told National Defense. “We had Marines that were in special purpose MAGTFs [Marine Air-Ground Task Forces] and forward deployed that were being … placed in areas of operations, and they didn’t have a logistics platform to support them once they hit the ground.”

The service had been looking to equip infantry regiments with such a platform since 2004 when the Marine Corps drafted a joint operational requirements document, Godfrey said....

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/4/3/marine-corps-investing-in-light-vehicles-to-take-the-load-off-troops-shoulders

Commercial Off The Shelf.  ie Available and Cheap.  And again "risk management" vs "risk aversion".

Or as somebody once said: "Something's better than nothing".

And, by the way, the Army is also looking at the Wrangler

Earlier this year the U.S. Army had negotiations with Hendrick Dynamics, which developed a modified light off-road vehicle built on the Jeep Wrangler with a modified JP-8 diesel engine. This Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) vehicle was dubbed the Commando and is now officially designated the Grand Mobility Vehicle (GMV).

"We're right in the transition to light mobility for our military," Marshall Carlson, Hendrick Dynamics’ general manager, told FoxNews.com. "This is much lighter than the JLTV, and it won't be armored – it is what is being called a 'better boot.' The GMV is for those light infantry and airborne infantry that can only move across the battlefield by walking at 3mph. This is literally a people mover that can go anywhere."

What also makes the GMV program notable is that Hendrick Dynamics is contracting the Jeeps from Chrysler, which is bringing the iconic vehicle back to the battlefield.

"Chrysler has been a great supporter of this program," added Carlson, "These are the export versions with the diesel engines, and we're modifying these for the military to provide that needed mobility. We think this is a game changer and one that literally went back to the future and took another look at the jeep."

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/07/22/75-years-after-it-was-first-deployed-will-us-army-bring-back-jeep.html
 
Watching LAV 6.0's lumbering around in Wainwright is an interesting experience. The ruts they carved into the earth were visibly deeper than the ones the LAV 3's were churning into the earth, and I can't help but wonder where and when they won't be able to move cross country simply due to the high ground pressure.

This isn't to say the 6.0 isn't an impressive piece of kit, but seeing the "regression" back to the LAV 25 by the US Army does seem to say we have reached the point of diminishing returns. No doubt the LAV 25 chassis, or something of similar size could be recreated using more modern manufacturing techniques and materials to make it far better protected without inordinate weight gains, while we look around to see if there are other concepts and ideas which could get us similar results with a lower mass and logistical footprint.
 
Thucydides said:
Watching LAV 6.0's lumbering around in Wainwright is an interesting experience. The ruts they carved into the earth were visibly deeper than the ones the LAV 3's were churning into the earth, and I can't help but wonder where and when they won't be able to move cross country simply due to the high ground pressure.

This isn't to say the 6.0 isn't an impressive piece of kit, but seeing the "regression" back to the LAV 25 by the US Army does seem to say we have reached the point of diminishing returns. No doubt the LAV 25 chassis, or something of similar size could be recreated using more modern manufacturing techniques and materials to make it far better protected without inordinate weight gains, while we look around to see if there are other concepts and ideas which could get us similar results with a lower mass and logistical footprint.

We're just protecting our strategic weak spot.  Casualties.  So the vehicles get bigger and more heavily armoured.  But I totally agree.  Had a good talk with my Coy Cmd once about how we might have done Afghanistan backwards WRT vehciles.  If we had of started with the big heavy vehicles and then as the Taliban started making the really big roadside bombs switched to light mobile vehicles to go where those bombs couldn't be placed... 

Anything heavier than the LAV 6.0 will probably have to be tracked.  As you say the ground pressure must be enormous on these things.
 
Noob question:  What are the technical reasons why they could not use wider tires to better distribute the heavier weight?
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
Noob question:  What are the technical reasons why they could not use wider tires to better distribute the heavier weight?

Basically it's an engineering/space problem.  Wider tires mean more weight.  Also where the hell are you going to squish them under the vehicle?  If they stick out to far then you have a weird situation where the tires don't fit under the vehicle and all the attendant problems that comes with that.
 
This picture of the Panzer VII "Maus" shows the logical end; the tracks are almost the full width of the vehicle. You can imagine the effects with so much intrusion on the hull space. Now try this with wheels, and you would not be able to turn very well, unless you had fixed wheels and skid steering like a Bobcat or AMX-10RC
 

Attachments

  • panzerkampfwagen-viii-maus-photo2.jpg
    panzerkampfwagen-viii-maus-photo2.jpg
    63.6 KB · Views: 224
Underway said:
We're just protecting our strategic weak spot.  Casualties.  So the vehicles get bigger and more heavily armoured.

We did a poor job of that then. The LAVs are still extremely vulnerable in a near-peer fight.

There is a very good article written by an Inf Major who went to Ukraine recently called "Chariots on Fire" which talks about the hard-learned lessons of combatants on both sides of the Russo-Ukraine conflict in their BMPs. Essentially the article argues that we need to adopt our current tactics to the LAV 6.0 which is extremely vulnerable.

It doesn't go as far as to say we made a mistake with going with light armoured vehicles that can bring a lot of firepower to the fight and should have went the same way as the Israelis and procured Heavy APCs (based on a tank chassis.... essentially a big armoured taxi), but it does outline the route the Israelis took and the route we took.

I agree with the article... IMO, our current tactics require HAPCs. As a LAV Capt for the last 2 years, and especially on Maple Resolve, I have become ever more tuned into how vulnerable the LAVs are and some ways in which we employ them that they quite frankly suck at.
 
:goodpost: :bravo:

As a Armour soldier, I have long argued the fallacies of going with Wheels over Tracks for mobility.  We have witnessed in Afghanistan that lightly armoured vehicles are easy kills for an enemy that is not even a peer.  We should have learned before we even went there from the Russian experience. 

If anyone missed it, look back at the Armour Corps discussions in these forums on the MGS and Stryker.
 
ballz said:
We did a poor job of that then. The LAVs are still extremely vulnerable in a near-peer fight.

There is a very good article written by an Inf Major who went to Ukraine recently called "Chariots on Fire" which talks about the hard-learned lessons of combatants on both sides of the Russo-Ukraine conflict in their BMPs. Essentially the article argues that we need to adopt our current tactics to the LAV 6.0 which is extremely vulnerable.

It doesn't go as far as to say we made a mistake with going with light armoured vehicles that can bring a lot of firepower to the fight and should have went the same way as the Israelis and procured Heavy APCs (based on a tank chassis.... essentially a big armoured taxi), but it does outline the route the Israelis took and the route we took.

I agree with the article... IMO, our current tactics require HAPCs. As a LAV Capt for the last 2 years, and especially on Maple Resolve, I have become ever more tuned into how vulnerable the LAVs are and some ways in which we employ them that they quite frankly suck at.

Any source for this article by chance?  My quick Google-foo didn't come up with anything.
 
GR66 said:
Any source for this article by chance?  My quick Google-foo didn't come up with anything.

It was in the Infantry Corp magazine thing, it's on the Inf School acims page... I'll find it at work tomorrow.
 
ballz said:
We did a poor job of that then. The LAVs are still extremely vulnerable in a near-peer fight.

There is a very good article written by an Inf Major who went to Ukraine recently called "Chariots on Fire" which talks about the hard-learned lessons of combatants on both sides of the Russo-Ukraine conflict in their BMPs. Essentially the article argues that we need to adopt our current tactics to the LAV 6.0 which is extremely vulnerable.

It doesn't go as far as to say we made a mistake with going with light armoured vehicles that can bring a lot of firepower to the fight and should have went the same way as the Israelis and procured Heavy APCs (based on a tank chassis.... essentially a big armoured taxi), but it does outline the route the Israelis took and the route we took.

I agree with the article... IMO, our current tactics require HAPCs. As a LAV Capt for the last 2 years, and especially on Maple Resolve, I have become ever more tuned into how vulnerable the LAVs are and some ways in which we employ them that they quite frankly suck at.

This is the weakness of the General Purpose Combat Capability (GPCC) Medium-weight Force.

Able to do everything but a master of nothing.  Our Mech Tactics are still based on post WWII armoured warfare doctrine; however, we've had to adapt to a variety of different operating environments and compromises have been made.

We are also too small to have a sufficiently capable heavy force while still being able to simultaneously accomplish our other tasks.
 
Humphrey Bogart said:
We are also too small to have a sufficiently capable heavy force while still being able to simultaneously accomplish our other tasks.

Are you sure about Humphrey?  Or is just that there is failure to "concentrate the forces" available?

Grouping all the tanks in a single regiment, with a battalion or two of infantry, Divisional Arty and Engineers in one location would, it seems to me, promote the opportunity to polish up skills.  The other brigades could focus on ligther/GP taskings.

 
Back
Top