• 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

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
90
Points
280
That`s roughly $3,200,000 to load that vehicle with one loadout. I am sure it`s quite capable, but that`s an eye watering amount for what might be one day of munitions for one vehicle.
The economics of modern war do appear to be a head scratcher that probably needs more serious and disciplined study, since historically it’s been so important.

Historically the two preferred models seemed to be either to aspire to have the second best equipment in the world, saving money on bleeding edge R&D and making up for it in mass, the Red Army/Soviet Army/Russian Army liked to follow this model, or have slightly better equipment than your opponent, to make up for his numbers, like the US did in Korea.

The late Cold War-to-modern US-led model of supremely, exquisitely good was deemed to be a success after Desert Storm, but I question it’s sustainability. Do we really want to keep going down the road of precision guided weapons for killing everything, including bunkers, trucks and tents? That’s like using $4 billion dollar frigates to shake down pirates and smugglers, which the west also does.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
199
Points
710
Aside from the fact that in the era of Trillion dollar budgets a Million doesn't go as far as it used to how much time, space and blood are you willing to trade for that amount of treasure?

Not that my parsimonious Scots blood is opposed to finding the cheapest solution (and I am sure that old solutions back-burnered because of risk to operators can be safely reconsidered with remote/autonomous solutions).

However our Gunners have a Field Artillery fixation. With the advances in technology I believe that the Department of National Defence should be able to start living up to its name and actively pursuing Defence of the Realm strategies. Who is responsible for building the Canadian Iron Dome to eliminate immediate threats? Master-General of the Ordnance? Then, from that firm base, build out the RCAF/Space Command, then the mobile protected bubbles the RCN provides internationally, then the expeditionary intervention forces of the Special Ops and the Army.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
199
Points
710
Further to this is this

1620501923600.png

2x 15 NLOS missiles in 16 cell containers. If that container's contents can be launched from the back of a LAV then it can be launched from the back of a truck, from the deck of a ship, from a sea-can (how many ready to launch missiles in a 20 foot sea-can - I'm going to guess 5x2x15 (150 or so - the 16th cell is for the controls.), any flat surface.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
199
Points
710
WRT price

As GR66 points out - there are other loadouts: Switchblade, Coyote, LARMs, Spike to name a few. And Anti-air missiles.
 

GR66

Sr. Member
Reaction score
86
Points
360
WRT price

As GR66 points out - there are other loadouts: Switchblade, Coyote, LARMs, Spike to name a few. And Anti-air missiles.

And I'm certainly not suggesting that all our eggs go in this VLS basket. I'm simply suggesting that when you look at the ATGM options maybe a single vehicle that can carry 16 x assorted munitions might give more flexibility than vehicles that only have dual turret-based launchers.

I'm a firm believer in a solid high/low mix of platforms and weapons. Each has it's role and you definitely need to have a large volume of cheap, low-tech systems to draw on once the high-priced, high-tech options are expended.

And remember, not every conflict will be the final conflict, fight to the death, last man standing situation like WWII. In some situations relatively small number of well targeted strikes might turn the tide in a limited conflict.

A relatively light force that can call on the precision weapons of some "arsenal" LAVs and HIMARS as required backed up by a bunch of LAV 105mm-SPGs and LAV-120mm mortar vehicles, etc. give you both high volume of fire as well as some staying power.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
658
Points
940
Aside from the fact that in the era of Trillion dollar budgets a Million doesn't go as far as it used to how much time, space and blood are you willing to trade for that amount of treasure?

Not that my parsimonious Scots blood is opposed to finding the cheapest solution (and I am sure that old solutions back-burnered because of risk to operators can be safely reconsidered with remote/autonomous solutions).

However our Gunners have a Field Artillery fixation. With the advances in technology I believe that the Department of National Defence should be able to start living up to its name and actively pursuing Defence of the Realm strategies. Who is responsible for building the Canadian Iron Dome to eliminate immediate threats? Master-General of the Ordnance? Then, from that firm base, build out the RCAF/Space Command, then the mobile protected bubbles the RCN provides internationally, then the expeditionary intervention forces of the Special Ops and the Army.

Believe me, when an artillery regiment has a grand total of eight howitzers, then you are far, far away from having a field artillery fixation.

What the artillery has is exactly what the Army provides them the money for which is currently close to p***-all. Iron Dome? The Army took a then viable air defence system away from the artillery because it cost too much to keep it current. There's a new more modest system in the procurement stream which, if everything goes exquisitely correct, (and we know how well that works out) should be provided for in the 2026-7 budget.

The artillery doesn't lack ideas. What it lacks is funding in an era consumed with spending money on ships and fighters. Don't hold your breath for that Canadian Iron Dome.

😥
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
199
Points
710
Believe me, when an artillery regiment has a grand total of eight howitzers, then you are far, far away from having a field artillery fixation.

What the artillery has is exactly what the Army provides them the money for which is currently close to p***-all. Iron Dome? The Army took a then viable air defence system away from the artillery because it cost too much to keep it current. There's a new more modest system in the procurement stream which, if everything goes exquisitely correct, (and we know how well that works out) should be provided for in the 2026-7 budget.

The artillery doesn't lack ideas. What it lacks is funding in an era consumed with spending money on ships and fighters. Don't hold your breath for that Canadian Iron Dome.

😥
Seen. Agreed.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,674
Points
1,060
Believe me, when an artillery regiment has a grand total of eight howitzers, then you are far, far away from having a field artillery fixation.

What the artillery has is exactly what the Army provides them the money for which is currently close to p***-all. Iron Dome? The Army took a then viable air defence system away from the artillery because it cost too much to keep it current. There's a new more modest system in the procurement stream which, if everything goes exquisitely correct, (and we know how well that works out) should be provided for in the 2026-7 budget.

The artillery doesn't lack ideas. What it lacks is funding in an era consumed with spending money on ships and fighters. Don't hold your breath for that Canadian Iron Dome.

😥
Arrested Development Crying GIF by HULU
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
350
Points
880
Aside from the fact that in the era of Trillion dollar budgets a Million doesn't go as far as it used to how much time, space and blood are you willing to trade for that amount of treasure?

One of the side benefits of adopting "strategy of technology" is that it deters conflicts. Saves a lot more money than it consumes.
 
Top