• 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

Mountie

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I've read a few articles about the LAV 6.0 and the information on the number of dismounts has varied between 6 and 7.  I've been inside one and it seems like 7 would be a tight squeeze.  Can anyone confirm how many dismounts the LAV 6.0 is designed to carry?

If it is only 6 is the rifle section being reorganized?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
677
Points
910
You have just latched onto one of the biggest issues facing the infantry, go get yourself some popcorn.
 

Mountie

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Do I assume from your reply that the LAV-6.0 only carries 6 dismounts and the section is to reorganized?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
677
Points
910
The number of dismounts a APC/IFV can carry in the real world affects the organizations of the sections, lot's of posts here in that regard about the pro's and con's of a turreted APC armed with a cannon vs something like the Styker and the effects on internal volume.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
I suspect that at some future point in time the LAV 6.0 will be fitted with a cannon armed RWS or robotic turret which provides the internal volume for a full dismounted section, not to mention a lower profile, less weight, lower CoG and so on.

OTOH, a LAV 6.x with a cannon armed RWS or robotic turret will have a much higher cost, so the willingness of the government or even the Army to go that route will depend on a lot of other factors....
 

Humphrey Bogart

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
206
Points
810
Mountie said:
I've read a few articles about the LAV 6.0 and the information on the number of dismounts has varied between 6 and 7.  I've been inside one and it seems like 7 would be a tight squeeze.  Can anyone confirm how many dismounts the LAV 6.0 is designed to carry?

If it is only 6 is the rifle section being reorganized?

Seven, uncomfortably.
 

Michael OLeary

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Mountie said:
So no change to the section or platoon organization?

The Directorate of Land Requirements (DLR) started to explore this question a few years ago, prompted by the realization that new vehicles being planned (CCV, TAPV) might not match current section size. Based on my previous work on the infantry section attack, they contacted me to write the body of a paper on the subject, the result of which was this:

Organizing Modern Infantry: An Analysis of Section Fighting Power

As far as I know, there has been no open Infantry Corps discussions on the subject of reorganizing the platoon and section for future vehicles.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
206
Points
810
dapaterson said:
Don't worry.


HLTA fixes that problem.

LOL! 

The vehicle affords better protection at the expense of pretty much everything else.  Storage behind the seats is now inaccessible, new blast seats with three point harnesses make sitting in the thing for any length of time incredibly painful (I pity the poor old senior NCOs with tweaked backs), vehicle is considerably heavier with poor distribution of weight which limits it's cross country mobility, the turret is a significant improvement though so it's not a complete bust.

A vehicle designed to fight the last war  8)

Michael O'Leary said:
The Directorate of Land Requirements (DLR) started to explore this question a few years ago, prompted by the realization that new vehicles being planned (CCV, TAPV) might not match current section size. Based on my previous work on the infantry section attack, they contacted me to write the body of a paper on the subject, the result of which was this:

Organizing Modern Infantry: An Analysis of Section Fighting Power

As far as I know, there has been no open Infantry Corps discussions on the subject of reorganizing the platoon and section for future vehicles.

I am just hoping the Army can finally get me a pair of issued boots that don't fall apart at the first sight of the field.  I'll worry about the composition of an infantry section later.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
2
Points
410
Thucydides said:
I suspect that at some future point in time the LAV 6.0 will be fitted with a cannon armed RWS or robotic turret which provides the internal volume for a full dismounted section, not to mention a lower profile, less weight, lower CoG and so on.

OTOH, a LAV 6.x with a cannon armed RWS or robotic turret will have a much higher cost, so the willingness of the government or even the Army to go that route will depend on a lot of other factors....


PALEASE!  Let's not reintroduce the MGS into this equation.  Prior to the announcement that Canada was going to replace the Leopard 1 with the MGS, we had sent several teams of Crewmen down to Trial the MGS and they failed it on more than one occassion.  Even the Americans are seeing the limitations of their similar equiped Strikers.  Stay away from that failed concept.
 

ArmyGuy99

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Infantry, Infantry Infantry...

Why is that everyone wants to talk about how many INFANTRY soldiers we can cram into a LAV or whatever.  What about the attachments to said Section/platoon?  IF we cram 6 Infantry Soldiers into the LAV and have to be Hatches down (that's a little cosy in full battle rattle)...where do we put the Medic? The Dog Handler and Dog?  What if you have a FOO/FAC attached?  Where do these augments go?  I think, from experience, that someone up on high forgot about this.  The ONLY reason we had room in Afg for 8 in the LAV (the official #) was because 2 guys were in the Air Sentry Hatch.  I HAVE been crammed into one of those for convoy with 8 in seats, 2 on Sentry for 10 and those were NOT good experiences...claustrophobics need not apply.

If someone from NHDHQ/DLR is in here somewhere PLEASE remember that each Inf Platoon is allocated 1 medic that's 3 Junior Medics and a M/Cpl for each Company.  Please leave room for them.  Oh and please leave room so that we fit WITH our battle rattle.  Thank you.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
Robotic turrets are not the MGS turret, but the point needs to be made that something has to "give" if we want a full section of dismounts (plus all the "enablers" we like to take out with us). We already are starting to get some real life experience with large calibre RWS and robotic turrets, so I would hardly say "never".

Consider too that other services are operating very complex "robotic" equipment with success (the CIWS is essentially a robotic turret for air defense of a ship, for example, and many UAV's are automated to a high degree, with the pilot essentially plotting where the vehicle goes and letting the on board systems do the rest. Self driving cars are another example of very complex machines and systems designed to work in very complex environments).

So the trade off is:

a really expensive piece of kit on top of the vehicle to fight with, vs

Lower vehicle hight
Lower vehicle weight
Lower center of gravity
More interior room for the dismounted section

How these trade offs will be managed is beyond my level, and really a new vehicle (LAV 7?) will have to be designed and built to take full advantage of any benefits from this, although if the turret/RWS is well designed and built, retrofitted LAV6.X will benefit from this as well.
 

MedCorps

Sr. Member
Reaction score
19
Points
230
MedTech32 said:
If someone from NHDHQ/DLR is in here somewhere PLEASE remember that each Inf Platoon is allocated 1 medic that's 3 Junior Medics and a M/Cpl for each Company.  Please leave room for them.  Oh and please leave room so that we fit WITH our battle rattle.  Thank you.

Actually, the force employment ratio for an Inf Coy is 2 Med Tech per Coy (1 x Cpl & 1 x MCpl) under the direction of the CSM.  After just seeing the results of Second Future Health Services Field Force Working Group I am confident this will remain and be reinforced in upcoming doctrine revisions. In a mech (motorized) infantry company these Med Tech's should be mounted in their own armoured ambulance. Especially given the prevalence of TCCC ratios in the Infantry Corps and the vast majority of force planning scenarios where we have air superiority the ratios should hold.

Now, if justified by the unit medical plan additional medics can be attached from the HS Role 1 unit integral support (aka UMS) if they have one, to the Coys, in which case they might be attached down to Pl level and require space in the LAV.

Food for thought. 

MC 
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
Why not split the section up into two vehicles? You could have a smaller, lighter vehicle, more room for auxilaries like medics and dog handlers, and if each vehicle had a robotic gun turret, you'd be adding additional firepower.

Cost?
 

dangerboy

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
180
Points
710
That would increase the number of vehicles required in a BN and we don't have enough LAVs to do that.  If you give two LAVs to a Section then you are looking at 7 LAVs in a Platoon vice 4, 24 LAVs in a Coy vice 15.  It very quickly adds up.  You would also need to add 3 more people to a section which would add up to 9 more in a Pl and then 27 in a company, we just don't have the manpower to do it.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
206
Points
810
Lumber said:
Why not split the section up into two vehicles? You could have a smaller, lighter vehicle, more room for auxilaries like medics and dog handlers, and if each vehicle had a robotic gun turret, you'd be adding additional firepower.

Cost?

Cost, span of control, lack of protection (a big no-no for the government) and sustainment.  Twice the vehicles, twice the fuel, parts, etc... required which now increases the size of your A and B echelons significantly.

In the Army things, generally work best in packets of three or four, any larger than that and it becomes two cumbersome for one person to manage.  The problem with LAV 6.0 is that we've taken an IFV and tried to also make it an MRAP (given it a V-Shaped Hull, added blast protection, added special seats with three point harnesses designed to cushion soldiers from a blast).  There have also been calls to remove the turret and put an RWS on it because a couple of soldiers got killed in rollovers, etc. 

We've greatly increased the weight of the original hull which has altered it's off-road performance and also made it far less mobile.  Putting an RWS on the hull to prevent death from rollovers is also a false savings because we need to think of how many lives the decisive firepower of the 25mm has saved.  I can think of a number of engagements, where without the 25mm, things may have turned out a lot differently.  In his book, "Dancing with the Dushman", Col Hope refers specifically to the combat power of the LAV III 25mm being the decisive weapon in his engagements with the Taliban.

What the Army needs to do is lose the infatuation with sexy and go with the tried, tested and true.  We need to standardize equipment across the CAF and if that means buying a vehicle that's a little cheaper, so be it.  I personally think we are too reliant on vehicles and we need to make significant investment in more man-portable systems i.e. AT Weapons, MANPADs, Mortars, etc...

I would much rather have a platoon of LAV IIIs that carry some light mortars and anti-tank weapons with them than a bunch of LAV 6.0 with nothing in them.  At the end of the day, it's all about layering of effects to provide the maximum amount of counters to what your enemy has at his disposal.

 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
88
Points
560
Pardon my foggy memory, but trying to recall my Jr NCO course, didn't a section consist of 12 people?
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
2
Points
410
MedCorps said:
Actually the force employment ratio for a Inf Coy is 2 Med Tech per Coy (1 x Cpl & 1 x MCpl) under the direction of the CSM.  After just seeing the results of Second Future Health Services Field Force Working Group I am confident this will remain and be reinforced in upcoming doctrine revisions. In a mech (motorized) infantry company these Med Tech's should be mounted in their own armoured ambulance. Especially given the prevalence of TCCC ratios in the Infantry Corps and the vast majority of force planning scenarios where we have air superiority the ratios should hold.

Now, if justified by the unit medical plan additional medics can be attached from the HS Role 1 unit integral support (aka UMS) if they have one, to the Coys, in which case they might be attached down to Pl level and require space in the LAV.

Food for thought. 

MC

So?  Why do those Medics have to ride in a platoon vehicle?  They should have their own Amb and trail behind the Platoons and Company in the CSM's packet of vehicles. 

I don't know your actual experience, but in the Armour Corps, the medics travel in their own Amb with the SSM and the Mechs in A Ech.  Also, remember, this is not Afghanistan.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
2
Points
410
One of the problems with some of these 'robotic' systems, when thinking of large calibre wpns, such as cannons, is the reload time and time taken to change types of ammo.  That was one of the most serious problems with the MGS, the ammo carousel and reloading of that carousel once it was empty.  Changing the ammo from one type to another type, meant that the carousel had to cycle through several rounds to find the newly selected round.  As the carousel is not large enough to hold the full ammo load of the vehicle, another problem was the length of time required to reload the carousel after it was emptied.  Not ideal times when one is in Contact. 
 
Top