LAV 6.0

[Loachman]

The Canadian economy as a whole has been largely moving away from investing in rail infrastructure in favour of doing more with trucks

The railways are still investing in infrastructure, and quite a lot, but only as warranted. They are most efficient when moving bulk or long-distance, and that is where they concentrate.

 

[a_majoor]

Merkavas, like other tanks (pretty much regardless of what nation makes them) are sized to fit on transport trailers and pass though railroad tunnels, highway tunnels and most trestle bridges. The real limitation of transporting modern MBTs lies more in their weight, since M-1s, Leopard 2's, Merkavas, Challengers and Le Clerc's can tip the scales at between 57 to 70,000kg. Traditionally only railbeds were engineered to carry this sort of weight, but modern road engineering (at least in first world countries) overcomes this, and modern trailers have far better suspensions that allow drivers to drive and turn even with a multitude of wheels distributing the load.

Regardless, any means to reduce the weight of MBT's, IFV's and other military equipment makes things much better in terms of transportation and logistics. Replacing turrets with RWS (some are capable of mounting 30mm cannons) or cleft "Wegmann" turrets reduces the armoured volume and provides perhaps the biggest single saving. Using modern materials and replacing hatches, suspension components etc. can also provide some savings. The power to weight ratio improves with putting the vehicle on a diet, or you can replace the power pack with a somewhat smaller one if you want the same power to weight ratio.

We need to look at the entire problem. Lighter AFV's mean less fuel consumption, and smaller transports which also need less fuel. Vehicles which don't need MCL 100 bridges to cross can go more places (and you don't need to carry MCL 100 bridging equipment either). The savings go downstream as well, hangers and base infrastructure does not need to be built for the size and weight of such big equipment and so on.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There is no need for the rail head to be right on the base in Edmonton nor would we or any rail service sink the upteen millions of dollars in infrastructure and upkeep. There is a major rail loading facility less than 20kms away, that is used when required.

How many round trips does a transporter need to make to the railhead to move a tracked unit and how much time does the loading/unloading and rail loading soak up?

 

[MJP]

Well we don't have that many tracked vehicles so as many as it takes.  Again the commercial market can fill in where we lack numbers domestically and with planning operationally.  We need to maintain a capability but we shouldn't have excess transporters, rarely used rail lines or sink resources beyond a certain capability as it is a diminishing return on other fronts (procurement, maintenance, storage, IT, time).

We can't be all singing all dancing, we have to make rational decisions as our budget, ppl and time are finite resources. 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The railways are still investing in infrastructure, and quite a lot, but only as warranted. They are most efficient when moving bulk or long-distance, and that is where they concentrate.

Yep, I was out West a couple of years ago and saw a bunch of new track being laid.  There has to be. Financial reason for them to do so.  The rail line in Churchill died with the Wheat Board.  Want to blame someone, blame the Federal Government.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well we don't have that many tracked vehicles so as many as it takes.  Again the commercial market can fill in where we lack numbers domestically and with planning operationally.  We need to maintain a capability but we shouldn't have excess transporters, rarely used rail lines or sink resources beyond a certain capability as it is a diminishing return on other fronts (procurement, maintenance, storage, IT, time).

We can't be all singing all dancing, we have to make rational decisions as our budget, ppl and time are finite resources.

Likely some of that cost can be had from outside of the DND budget, plus a properly constructed line that does not see heavy use does not need much maintenance.

 

[MJP]

Likely some of that cost can be had from outside of the DND budget, plus a properly constructed line that does not see heavy use does not need much maintenance.

Dude you are arguing for a unicorn when the current donkey works well enough.

 

[Loachman]

All freight railways in Canada and the US are commercial operations. They will only operate where and when profitable, just like any other commercial operation. Unless the port in Churchill generates enough traffic to warrant continuing to maintain the line, and in the absence of government subsidies, it makes no sense to expect it to be operated.

As for running lines into bases, who would pay for those, besides the customer? Tracklaying is not cheap. CN and CP would be happy to accommodate us as much as any other paying customer, of course.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/index-eng.html

Promote as a way to reduce DND "Carbon footprint". In the past I have seen the government doing some very interesting funding options, at one point I was training students at the Armouries with monies from Employment Canada and then had another monies given to me to employ fisherman on some museum boats so they could earn employment credits to collect UI. I have also reviewed a large number of projects (bridges, roads, etc) where various government agencies where shoveling money out the door to stuff that would be far less useful than this. What you need is someone to watch and pounce on grants and funds to get what you want. Finding a way to tie to the political bandwagon dejour is important.   

 

[Kirkhill]

Or....

The money could be used to buy Tanks, or ships to transport the Tanks once they get to Shearwater or Esquimalt.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

But tanks are evil and unnecessary in this enlightened age of Peacekeeping and Grey ships are full of political blackholes. Build a spur line, put up sign, cut ribbon announcing major Carbon savings at ceremony and "jobs for Canadians", then the dog and pony show leaves. Add +10 political points if work is complete within 6 month of election, add another 10 if in key riding, minus 10 if opposition stronghold.

 

[Kirkhill]

:goodpost:

 

[George Wallace]

But tanks are evil and unnecessary in this enlightened age of Peacekeeping and Grey ships are full of political blackholes. Build a spur line, put up sign, cut ribbon announcing major Carbon savings at ceremony and "jobs for Canadians", then the dog and pony show leaves. Add +10 political points if work is complete within 6 month of election, add another 10 if in key riding, minus 10 if opposition stronghold.

BRING BACK THE RAILWAY GUNS!  :warstory:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Complete and utter thread drift, but electric railguns on rail cars, powered by locomotives could be part of the upcoming mix.

 

[Eland2]

For what it's worth, the Highbury Avenue supply depot of CFB London had a rail line that ran right next to it. Seemed to me like a pretty good location for getting stuff that needs to be sent by rail sent off quickly and efficiently.

The rail line is still there, but the Highbury Depot is not, as it was torn down about five or six years ago.

CFB London was in a pretty good location as it not only had easy access to a railhead, but the airport is just 7km from where the base used to be, and just before you get to the airport, there's the Veterans' Memorial Parkway, which directly links to the 401 in the city's south end.

 

[MilEME09]

For what it's worth, the Highbury Avenue supply depot of CFB London had a rail line that ran right next to it. Seemed to me like a pretty good location for getting stuff that needs to be sent by rail sent off quickly and efficiently.

The rail line is still there, but the Highbury Depot is not, as it was torn down about five or six years ago.

CFB London was in a pretty good location as it not only had easy access to a railhead, but the airport is just 7km from where the base used to be, and just before you get to the airport, there's the Veterans' Memorial Parkway, which directly links to the 401 in the city's south end.

Unfortunately removing bases from urban areas was a key liberal plan in the early 90s.

 

[Loachman]

The move of 1 RCR from London to Petawawa was initiated during Brian Mulroney's term as Prime Minister.

 

[MilEME09]

Sorta related, tests are now under way of 12 Strykers equipped with 30mm cannons, and Javelin missiles (6 of each type). Already coined the Dragoon, I wonder how easy it would be to up gun our LAV's to 30mm?

http://taskandpurpose.com/watch-army-test-upgraded-stryker-vehicles-meant-counter-russian-firepower/

 

[ballz]

Unless we know the EN is headed towards a better armoured APC, I'd rather not. The upgrade to the LAV 6.0 was a nightmare, but after 2 years of trials and 2 years using it in the field, we've got most of the bugs worked out (*knock knock*).

That and.... nothing we do with equipment procurement is easy, including an "upgrade."

I think I'd much rather see us procure an HAPC... having a HAPC and a IFV (LAV 6.0) would give us a lot of flexibility. Of course, I doubt we'll ever see this army fully equipped to fight and sustain one fleet of infantry vehs, let alone two... and certainly not simultaneously to finally having a real fleet of tanks!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I get the impression is that they want a HAPC on a wheeled chassis. At some weight point, wheels do not make sense and I suspect we passed that point, but I also suspect they can't get authority to purchase a tracked HAPC, but can get funding to buy a overweight design made here. GD was experimenting with a tracked Stryker, anyone knows what became of that?