• 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

Humphrey Bogart said:
They have EW variants.  They are Bisons with 21 EW Regt.  Cool vehicles with some neat capability (that barely works) but they are getting long in the tooth.

FTFY.

The only thing that's a bigger travesty on the wasted money in the EW project is the terrible design of the EW suite itself that after 10 years in Afghanistan and multiple recommendations to change, nothing happened. EW variants are multiple tonnes overweight (without bolt on armor) and stupidly have all the weight on the rear right side. When I was running one we proposed a suite redesign and pleaded for LAV3s, I guess its good they finally will get them when we've got no place to deploy them.
 
There will always be a next time for deployment.  Better to deploy the next time with a new LAV than the old Bison.

Without getting into OPSEC type stuff, which I realize may prevent an answer on this particular subject, but curious...what capabilities are we generally lacking in in regards to the terrible EW suite?  Ive heard from multiple sources that the EW capabilities are very much lacking, and like you said, the ones we have aren't the most reliable....just curious if there was anything anybody could say without violating OPSEC type stuff about what capabilities they would like to see and/or are doable in the near future for us? 
 
For those of you who have access to JED on DWAN, flip through a few issues and you will see how far behind we are.
 
Underway said:
Umm the article posted and discussed in the four posts before you decided to post??  No recce variant.  Amb, Repair, Recovery etc...

The one that most interests me is the EW variant.  That seems new to the army's vehicle fleet.  It's about time, with all the drones and EW warfare popping up from various state and non-state actors.

This project doesn't include RECCE because RECCE variants are already part of the original LAV UP Project, they have not been delivered because of issues with the surveillance suite because the original OEM went bankrupt :-/  And now we have a mess of trying to get the IP for the mast from the courts and find a 3rd party company willing to pick up the pieces.
 
Please tell me that we'll keep the surplus TLAVs and Bisons in some form of war stocks or assign them to the Reserve Force and not sell them for scrap and cut them up like we did the M109s.

:facepalm:
 
FJAG said:
Please tell me that we'll keep the surplus TLAVs and Bisons in some form of war stocks or assign them to the Reserve Force and not sell them for scrap and cut them up like we did the M109s.

:facepalm:

Old crappy equipment that's too expensive to sustain should be disposed of, not retained.

We don't need an army that could be featured on an episode of Hoarders.
 
FJAG said:
Please tell me that we'll keep the surplus TLAVs and Bisons in some form of war stocks or assign them to the Reserve Force and not sell them for scrap and cut them up like we did the M109s.

:facepalm:

Fuck no.... We don't need more useless fleets to maintain
 
dapaterson said:
Old crappy equipment that's too expensive to sustain should be disposed of, not retained.

We don't need an army that could be featured on an episode of Hoarders.

If it's truly old and crappy and beyond salvage it should be. If on the other hand it is still usable, even if only as an interim training aid, it should receive a reasonable level of maintenance and be put into use.

Here's where we differ, I guess. In my mind a Reserve Force should be capable of quickly expanding the Regular Force with significant combat power not otherwise needed on a day to day basis and not merely fill in a few blank files in the Reg F establishment. Most other armies have forces that are tiered where some units and formations that have equipment that is older and less capable than its best equipped ones. The US does this as does Russia. (for example the T-80 modernization process https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-t-80-tank-no-joke-27086). If you do not have the equipment (and concurrently don't have reservists trained on it) then it's entirely impossible to expand (or to use an older out of favour  term - mobilize)

I agree completely with the idea of standardizing the Reg F fleet on the LAV chassis but that doesn't mean that there aren't uses for the existing TLAVs and Bisons in second/third line Reserve units providing at least one (if not two) properly manned and equipped combat support brigade(s). There is no acquisition cost, just ongoing maintenance costs. If we can't find the money for that it's because our leadership mindset is that it's just not necessary to be able to expand our force beyond the three brigades that we have because we'll never do anything but throw out the odd battle group on some mid-level activity.

I think that's a critical error in our leadership's philosophy vis a vis regular and reserve forces.

My new motto is "Keep the Metal! Use the Metal!"

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
... If on the other hand it is still usable, even if only as an interim training aid, it should receive a reasonable level of maintenance and be put into use...
I dearly love the bisons as a platform but they have been used hard for too many years. Most units I know concede they will only have about 50% of their fleets road worthy at one time. Even with their crews working full time to maintain them and full time mechanics supporting them we can barely keep them on the road. Saddling the reserves with our cast off broken equipment doesn't really help them.

However, if you read between the lines:

1. We are buying 300+ new vehicles. They are going to replace about 100 bisons in service and some number of TLAVs that is probably much lower than that. So we expanding the fleet, a lot.

2. One of the variants we announced is a troop carry. The Reg Force has enough LAVs to carry it's troops, or at least it's mech infantry.

Too many vehicles to replace what we currently use them for, in a variant the Reg force does not need. Indeed a variant that is much less maintenance intensive (no need for turret monthlies/FCS tech inspections). I think the Reserves are going to get a bunch of brand new vehicles.
 
Ludoc said:
I dearly love the bisons as a platform but they have been used hard for too many years. Most units I know concede they will only have about 50% of their fleets road worthy at one time. Even with their crews working full time to maintain them and full time mechanics supporting them we can barely keep them on the road. Saddling the reserves with our cast off broken equipment doesn't really help them.

However, if you read between the lines:

1. We are buying 300+ new vehicles. They are going to replace about 100 bisons in service and some number of TLAVs that is probably much lower than that. So we expanding the fleet, a lot.

2. One of the variants we announced is a troop carry. The Reg Force has enough LAVs to carry it's troops, or at least it's mech infantry.

Too many vehicles to replace what we currently use them for, in a variant the Reg force does not need. Indeed a variant that is much less maintenance intensive (no need for turret monthlies/FCS tech inspections). I think the Reserves are going to get a bunch of brand new vehicles.

I don't think you read that right. The troop carrier variants already exist. They were simply highlighting all the variants we will have once these variants are added to the mix. It would be quite silly to give the PRes LAV 6.0 section carriers.


FJAG said:
If it's truly old and crappy and beyond salvage it should be. If on the other hand it is still usable, even if only as an interim training aid, it should receive a reasonable level of maintenance and be put into use.

The TLAVs will still probably get used... they can be used to go recover the LAV 6.0 MRV that got stuck after trying to recover another LAV 6.0 that was obviously in terrain that a wheeled LAV 6.0 shouldn't be in. I'm sure the maintainers operating the MRV will have make some pretty funny remarks about lemmings and whatnot.
 
ballz said:
The TLAVs will still probably get used... they can be used to go recover the LAV 6.0 MRV that got stuck after trying to recover another LAV 6.0 that was obviously in terrain that a wheeled LAV 6.0 shouldn't be in. I'm sure the maintainers operating the MRV will have make some pretty funny remarks about lemmings and whatnot.

I must admit I've always stood on the tracked v wheeled argument ever since my tracked SP battery went blithely thundered on past an entire squadron/company group of Cougars and Grizzlies bogged down in a muddy field on the Lawfield Impact area.

:nana:
 
dapaterson said:
Old crappy equipment that's too expensive to sustain should be disposed of, not retained.

We don't need an army that could be featured on an episode of Hoarders.

On the other hand binning some of these vehicles does limit any depth, and going all wheeled doesn’t necessarily allow for tactical flexibility either

The M109 fleet, and all light tracked vehicles (Recce and CP) associated with the Mech Bty’s were withdrawn without replacements. Up until late 2009 approximately 26 M109’s were kept in excellent condition, with the potential of bringing them back into service post Afghanistan, with one gun Bty Mech and the other towed in each Regt. This certainly would’ve given the gun Regt’s greater flexibility in deploying depending on the situation. But all were scrapped, or turned into monuments, all in the interest of saving money without really addressing capability deficiencies

When M777 was brought into service, it was done in far fewer numbers than the M109s, and without vehicles for the Gun Dets, Recce or CP. Even the SMP variant of the gun tractor are limited in number, and cannot carry the gun det.  The Bty’s consequently play a catch as catch can whole fleet management game for vehicles, with a number of the MiliCOT gun tractors meant for the P Res getting borrowed by Reg Force units on a regular basis. This is bound to cause wear at a greater rate than intended, and reduce availability in the long term. Some of the TAPV castoffs were picked up by the Artillery and alleviated the situation somewhat for Recce, but gaps remain

It might help if the Gun Bty’s hung onto some of these TLAVs, it would alleviate the gun det vehicle problems, and increase their tactical mobility, something the M777 is somewhat handicapped in (although it does have high operational mobility).

 
ballz said:
I don't think you read that right. The troop carrier variants already exist. They were simply highlighting all the variants we will have once these variants are added to the mix. It would be quite silly to give the PRes LAV 6.0 section carriers.

From the Government's fact page: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/08/canada-negotiates-new-armoured-combat-support-vehicles.html

The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, announced that the government will acquire 360 combat support Light Armoured Vehicles (LAV) from General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada (GDLS-C).
...
The current fleet of armoured support vehicles is comprised of the LAV II Bison and the M113 Tracked LAV.
...
The CAF’s Armoured Combat Support Vehicles will be available in eight variants, providing services such as: ambulances, vehicle recovery, engineering, mobile repair, electronic warfare, troop carrying, and command posts.

Right now we are trying to read tea leaves. Part of problem is the press releases are probably not written by pers who really have all the information/really understand the differences in these vehicles. But it sounds to me like they are getting section carriers.

We just gave the armoured reservists TAPVs. I don't see this as much different. Training pers on the platform we will deploy them in, makes integration of the reserves into the Reg force much easier.

The cost also includes new infrastructure to house and maintain the vehicles.

Much like the TAPV contract. Sure we may build some LAV barns at each Reg force Bdes but I think we will pick some Reserve Force Armouries to get some upgrades for they new vehicles like with the TAPV.

I look forward to the announcements (closer to the election to keep this in the news cycle) clarifying what it is we are actually paying for.
 
Ludoc said:
Part of problem is the press releases are probably not written by pers who really have all the information/really understand the differences in these vehicles.

That seems to be what is happening here... they're mixing up words they don't understand, at least that's what I'm thinking, yours is the more optimistic view I suppose.

Ludoc said:
We just gave the armoured reservists TAPVs. I don't see this as much different. Training pers on the platform we will deploy them in, makes integration of the reserves into the Reg force much easier.

This is a lot different. The training requirements for a LAV 6.0 are much more than a TAPV (longer), there are three positions that need to be manned and trained for (crew comd, gunner, and driver). And the PRes would not be deploying in those positions unless it's World War 3 so there's not exactly any utility in them having the quals. And you get rusty on those skills pretty quick, so if we were going to mobilize it'd be better to just put them through the grinder and have them deploy fresh off of the course. Not to mention the maintenance requirements...

And this is all ignoring the fact that I don't believe the TAPVs were ever meant for PRes... much like a lot of our kit, it just gets dropped on us and we figure out where to put it. In the case of the C16 for example, we put in CQ stores collecting dust for many years.
 
I believe the TCVs are meant to replace the M113 TLAVs being used in in Artillery and Engineer units to move sections around.
 
ballz said:
That seems to be what is happening here... they're mixing up words they don't understand, at least that's what I'm thinking, yours is the more optimistic view I suppose.

This is a lot different. The training requirements for a LAV 6.0 are much more than a TAPV (longer), there are three positions that need to be manned and trained for (crew comd, gunner, and driver). And the PRes would not be deploying in those positions unless it's World War 3 so there's not exactly any utility in them having the quals. And you get rusty on those skills pretty quick, so if we were going to mobilize it'd be better to just put them through the grinder and have them deploy fresh off of the course. Not to mention the maintenance requirements...

And this is all ignoring the fact that I don't believe the TAPVs were ever meant for PRes... much like a lot of our kit, it just gets dropped on us and we figure out where to put it. In the case of the C16 for example, we put in CQ stores collecting dust for many years.

Are there three crew positions in the TCV?  And what quals does the CC require? 

As for putting kit in stores and have it gathering dust for many years - isn't that explicitly the function of a reserve?  To be stored until it is needed? 
 
The TCV, if it's like the ELAV or any Bison, should only have two crew members - driver and crew commander.

As for trying to get some utility out of TLAVs and Bisons, if you guys have lived the VOR fight in line units and what this would entail on downloading A vehicle platforms on reserve organizations with no internal, full time maintenance ability, you'd swat that good idea fairy fast.  Divesting old platforms will be a case of addition to capability by subtraction of maintenance liabilities.
 
I agree about not putting worn out gear into reserve (or the reserves) but I suggest as a model this:

280px-Green_Goddess_1.jpg


The Green Goddess is the colloquial name for the Bedford RLHZ Self Propelled Pump, a fire engine used originally by the Auxiliary Fire Service (AFS), and latterly held in reserve by the Home Office until 2004, and available when required to deal with exceptional events, including being operated by the British Armed Forces during fire-fighters’ strikes (1977 and 2002). These green-painted vehicles were built between 1953 and 1956 for the AFS. The design was based on a Bedford RL series British military truck.

Auxiliary Fire Service

The Auxiliary Fire Service was established as part of civil defence preparations after World War II, and subsequent events such as the Soviet Union detonating an atomic bomb made their presence supporting civilians as part of Britain's civil defence an important role. It was thought that a nuclear attack on Britain would cause a large number of fires, which would overwhelm the ordinary fire service, so a large stock of basic fire engines was ordered to form a reserve capacity. They were in continuous use by the AFS, until disbandment in 1968 by the Harold Wilson Government.

The Green Goddess machines were not primarily fire engines (AFS members referred to them as 'appliances'); they are more correctly titled "self propelled pumps", with some being two-wheel drive (4x2), and others in four-wheel drive (4x4) form. Their main role was to pump huge quantities of water from lakes, rivers, canals and other sources into cities hit by a nuclear attack. The machines could be used in a relay system over a number of miles, with Green Goddesses at regular intervals to boost the water pressure. Firefighting was a secondary role.

Operational use

Prior to disbandment, the AFS used the Green Goddess extensively in support of the local fire services throughout the UK. They provided additional water delivery and firefighting capability at times when the regular fire brigades had a major incident to contain. The ability to relay large quantities of water over considerable distances was invaluable in some more remote locations, or where the incident required more water than local water systems could provide. Most UK boroughs had an Auxiliary Fire Service detachment housed alongside the regular brigade equipment.

After 1968, the vehicles were mothballed, but occasionally used by the Armed Forces to provide fire cover in a number of fire strikes, notably in 1977 and 2002 (see UK firefighter dispute 2002–2003). They were also deployed to pump water in floods and droughts. They were well maintained in storage, and regularly road tested. There was a less significant strike by firefighters in the Winter of Discontent (late 1978 and early 1979), where once again the Green Goddesses were drafted in to cover; it is largely forgotten by many as it occurred at a time when a significant percentage of public sector workers were on strike.[1]

The role of Green Goddesses was superseded by new contingency arrangements. The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 gave the Government the power to instruct fire and rescue authorities to make their own vehicles available in the event of future industrial action. New Incident Response Units introduced after the September 11, 2001 attacks offered high power pumping ability among a range of other contingency functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Goddess

Obviously I am not recommending the infamous "buckets and ladders" of the 1950s here.  What is noteworthy, IMO, is that a government explicitly bought a "rainy day" fleet that served for 50 years supplying occasional reserve capacity.

Buy TCVs for a "rainy day".  Heck you could even supply them with a water pump and monitor and a bladder that you stuff in the back, and use them for fire fighting.

Edit: Although I would prefer these instead

1434570545061.jpg

1434570545001.jpg
 
Infanteer said:
The TCV, if it's like the ELAV or any Bison, should only have two crew members - driver and crew commander.

As for trying to get some utility out of TLAVs and Bisons, if you guys have lived the VOR fight in line units and what this would entail on downloading A vehicle platforms on reserve organizations with no internal, full time maintenance ability, you'd swat that good idea fairy fast.  Divesting old platforms will be a case of addition to capability by subtraction of maintenance liabilities.

Just a few random thoughts:

1) Reserve units put much less running time/year on their equipment which translates to less maintenance needs over the years and a longer service life;

2) every Reserve Brigade has a service battalion with a maintenance company. Refocus recruiting and retention and Class B contracts to up organic maintenance support within the Bde. What teenage boy doesn't want to be a mechanic on an armored vehicle?;

3) These classes of military vehicles do not need large or new housing barns to overwinter and generally do not need to be used in large numbers during the winter. Winterize and tarp most of them at the end of the summer training cycle for the next spring;

4) Run a proper refurbishment program at the time of transfer so that serviceable vehicles are properly inspected and put into running condition (or analyzed and catalogued for parts) before being put into reservists hands;

5) Here's a thought. Seriously review the staffing at various levels of headquarters and convert the funding for them to maintainers and warfighters. Just as an example, there are enough lawyers and support staff in the CF to man a small battalion of infantry (and if you convert their pay and benefits due to their higher rank levels to squadies--a whole battalion. As a further more detailed example, in total, the prosecution and defence arms of the legal branch are roughly established/manned at 2 Reg F Cols; 4 Reg F LCols; 21 Reg F Majs; 9 full-time civ assistants; 2 Res F LCols and 13 Res F Majs in order to annually handle some 62 courts martial, 9 appeals and various ancillary services). Ottawa is full of these types of examples. During the period 2004 to 2010 civilian personnel in the department grew by 33%, staff at headquarters above the brigade level by 46%, and within the National Capitol Region by 38%. We've become enamored with administering ourselves rather than creating a warfighting force that's a credible deterrent. Lack of equipment (whether new or old) for the Reserves is one giant part of this deficiency.

6) Why can we always find excuses as to why the Reserves are not capable of holding/maintaining equipment that they can use to augment/expand our defence capabilities (and thereby eliminating our deficiencies) rather than fixing the problem? Don't tell me its money. DND get billions and billions every year. It's how DND chooses to spend it that's the real issue.

Rant ends.

:alone:
 
FJAG said:
Just a few random thoughts:

1) Reserve units put much less running time/year on their equipment which translates to less maintenance needs over the years and a longer service life;

2) every Reserve Brigade has a service battalion with a maintenance company. Refocus recruiting and retention and Class B contracts to up organic maintenance support within the Bde. What teenage boy doesn't want to be a mechanic on an armored vehicle?;

3) These classes of military vehicles do not need large or new housing barns to overwinter and generally do not need to be used in large numbers during the winter. Winterize and tarp most of them at the end of the summer training cycle for the next spring;

4) Run a proper refurbishment program at the time of transfer so that serviceable vehicles are properly inspected and put into running condition (or analyzed and catalogued for parts) before being put into reservists hands;

5) Here's a thought. Seriously review the staffing at various levels of headquarters and convert the funding for them to maintainers and warfighters. Just as an example, there are enough lawyers and support staff in the CF to man a small battalion of infantry (and if you convert their pay and benefits due to their higher rank levels to squadies--a whole battalion. As a further more detailed example, in total, the prosecution and defence arms of the legal branch are roughly established/manned at 2 Reg F Cols; 4 Reg F LCols; 21 Reg F Majs; 9 full-time civ assistants; 2 Res F LCols and 13 Res F Majs in order to annually handle some 62 courts martial, 9 appeals and various ancillary services). Ottawa is full of these types of examples. During the period 2004 to 2010 civilian personnel in the department grew by 33%, staff at headquarters above the brigade level by 46%, and within the National Capitol Region by 38%. We've become enamored with administering ourselves rather than creating a warfighting force that's a credible deterrent. Lack of equipment (whether new or old) for the Reserves is one giant part of this deficiency.

6) Why can we always find excuses as to why the Reserves are not capable of holding/maintaining equipment that they can use to augment/expand our defence capabilities (and thereby eliminating our deficiencies) rather than fixing the problem? Don't tell me its money. DND get billions and billions every year. It's how DND chooses to spend it that's the real issue.

Rant ends.

:alone:

You have to be the first lawyer in the history of time FJAG that has advocated getting rid of some lawyers  ;D
 
Back
Top