• 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

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,814
Points
1,160
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

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,634
Points
1,260
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

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,734
Points
1,160
What about guided missiles for other than AT work? I understand the US used TOW as a bunker buster in Iraq quite effectively.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,814
Points
1,160
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,777
Points
1,040
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

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,634
Points
1,260
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,561
Points
1,160
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
F671758B-8A49-4530-A20E-E945C4C06974.jpeg
 

AC 011

Jr. Member
Reaction score
26
Points
330
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,350
Points
1,160
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?
 
Top