Author Topic: LAV 6.0  (Read 73151 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 281

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 281
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #201 on: August 23, 2017, 12:20:38 »
Also an older piece,  Canada is looking at older Stryker hulls. 

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2016/12/08/peru-wants-us-army-stryker-infantry-carrier-vehicles/


Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 188,767
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,793
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #202 on: August 23, 2017, 15:21:21 »
I am not sure why we would look at old US hulls, when we have/had a pile of our own older ones around. The LAV 6 hulls are all brand-new production, as that was the cheapest solution. The USMC had their old hulls completely stripped down, the bottoms cut off, and new ones welded on - much more work and much more expense.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 105,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,061
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #203 on: August 23, 2017, 17:31:11 »
Likely:

"We have money to modify the fleet totally from the ground up"

"Why don't we buy new ones?"

"There is no budget for new ones"

"But the costs are the same or close?"

"There is no budget for new ones"


Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 183,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,264
  • Freespeecher
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #204 on: August 23, 2017, 20:40:21 »
Most likely some sort of procurement magic, money could be spent so long as it was for "upgrades", not new equipment. If the Marines were able to get an extended production run, they may have been able to get new and very different hulls, but still naming them LAV 25 (LAV 25B?), much like the F/A-18 Superhornet is essentially an entirely new airplane compared to the F-18.

A bit of an out of the box suggestion, since the US Army is using Strykers, other countries are considering them and the USMC has a demonstrated need for a newer vehicle, maybe we could put together some sort of consortium and have a very long production run of Strykers for Canada and all the other customers done at once. Economies of scale, low unit costs, extended employment in London and other benefits would apply. If necessary, we could build "green" hulls and let the final customers add radios, electronics and their own turrets or RWS, and still get something like 80% of the benefit.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 188,767
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,793
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #205 on: August 23, 2017, 21:42:55 »
Ours were billed as upgrades, but in reality very little of the original vehicles survived into the "upgraded" ones. The USMC could have done the same thing, and saved money.

GD was producing LAVs for us, USMC, Kuwait, and possibly others in several variants during the 4 RCR tour a few years ago. Business looked good, and the Saudi deal (for which I have mixed feelings) will probably have them running at capacity for a while.