# Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW



## McG

The Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project is beginning to replace the LUVW, LSVW, and HLVW … and possibly/probably the miscellaneous heavier support vehicles including SHLVW, HESV and AHSVS.  I thought it might be interesting to get some collective ideas on what it is we need or what sort of end-state our fleet may look like, and any other generic comments on future support/logistic fleets.

As a pedantic starting point, I will suggest that the acronym that names any new vehicles should not end in “S.”  “S” is for the system and implies not just a vehicle but all the vehicles (potentially including vehicles of different types), any PLS based shelter or mission systems, trailers, and other “bits” of the whole capability.  It is wrong that we currently refer to trucks as AHSVS or MSVS, and in the future we should not have LSVS, LUVS, HSVS or any other such acronym as the name referencing the truck itself.

Now, on to more important things.  On the light side of the spectrum, I think we have need of something that fills the liaison (G-wagon) to cargo (LSVW, MilCOTS), troop caring (LSVW) and special purpose roles (G-wagon,LSVW, MilCOTS).  In the civilian world this would represent everything from jeep/SUV, to pick-up truck and full-sized van … in the military we have typically used pickups in the van role.  What I propose we need is a single vehicle type that comes in different wheel base lengths and different bodies.  This simplifies logistics and reduces training requirements.  For each wheel base, I would envision a full-length cab variant (in a G-Wagon/SUV sort of style).  I would also see an extended pickup cab (2 to 3 crew + pers kit) and crew cab (2-3 crew + 2 passengers) that would be common to both the standard and extended wheel base versions.

All vehicles would have MMG/HMG/AGL mounts (either light RWS or a machine gunner’s hatch).  A lightweight General Purpose Vehicle fleet might consist of:
Short Wheel Base
Jeep-style comd & liaison vehicle with 3 crew & 2 passengers
Jeep-style provost vehicle with 3 crew

Standard Wheel Base
Jeep-style liaison vehicle with 3 crew & 4 passengers 
Pickup Extended Cab-style cargo vehicle with 2 crew
Pickup Crew Cab-style cargo vehicle with 3 crew & 2 passengers
Misc Pickup Extended Cab-style SEV with 2 crew
Misc Pickup Crew Cab-style SEV with 3 crew & 2 passengers

Extended Wheel Base
Nyala layout liaison & TCV with 3 crew & 6 passengers
Pickup Extended Cab-style Ambulance with 2 crew up-front
Misc Pickup Extended Cab-style SEV with 2 crew
Misc Pickup Crew Cab-style SEV with 3 crew & 2 passengers

The vehicles must be designed to be armoured (because armouring vehicles as an after-thought tends to results in unexpected and/or premature mechanical failures), but only the vehicles going to CMBGs should actually be delivered with armour (and vehicles going to Army schools should be delivered with armour simulating ballast).  The purchase plan should bring us to FOC within two years and commit to 300 – 500 new vehicles annually for the life of the fleet.  As new vehicles come in, they will take the armour (or sim-armour) from brigade & TE vehicles, the down-armoured vehicles would then cascade to PRes, bases, Air Force and other users (in some cases eventually reducing the size of our blue fleet).  We would allow ourselves to retire vehicles (from anywhere in the fleet) that are old, tired, or significantly damaged.

Given that MSVS is bringing in vehicles that are almost as large & heavy as the HLVW, we may want to give consideration to something between MSVS and an LGPV (as I proposed it).  On the other end of the spectrum, additional vehicles of the eventual MSVS variety could cover some HLVW replacement needs.  The rest of the HLVW replacement could be satisfied with a family of vehicles that have capacity to replace the heavier vehicles (HESV, SHLVW, etc) as well.


----------



## Thompson_JM

From a reserve perspective as our LSVW's and HLVW's are cycled out, if the CF keeps going on its current trend of "Buy the reservists something off the shelf" I would recommend a modified LUVW-M to replace the LSVW fleets... basically a next generation CUCV deal, where there are Amb's CP's TCV's Cage trucks, etc.. etc.. and Not every vehicle would need the 4 person extended cab.  

Is it ideal... not by a long shot.... would it sacrifice our ability to train off road... Yup.... Would they work for Dom ops though... Probably... Would they cost the Govt less money... For sure....  rly:



What I'd like to see is that we get the same thing the Reg-F get minus the Armour. That way we have one training standard to meet.  

Whatever happens it will be interesting to see what actually gets purchased and put into service....


----------



## dapaterson

The challenge is that military-specific equipment is significantly more expensive than militarized equipment (MilCOTS type vehicles).  As my crystal ball, though cloudy, does not see a large scale influx of funding in the near term ,we therefore ahve to work within available resources, which means the MSVS (MilCOTS) is the model for the future - civilian pattern truck painted green with minor modifications, followed by a smaller, internationally deployable and survivable fleet of similar capabilities.

The additional challenge in acquisition is that our numbers are relatively small.  With the rolling replacement concept we're looking at 300-500 trucks per year; for most factories, tooling up for such a small run would not be cost effective.  Or, arther, DND would pay a significant premium to have those produciton lines altered for the week it would take to make our trucks, then shifted back to regular production - unless we stick with a MilCOTS type solution.


----------



## Thompson_JM

I can understand the concept of MilCOTS for the reserve side, though I'll never fully embrace it.... (but such is life under the almighty dollar right?  ;D)

But With all the specific Military type Trucks out there, (Oskkosh, Mann, etc... ) how hard is it for one of those companies to just produce for us?  

I know there are rules as far as procurement goes, but what would be the biggest thing that always seems to get in the way of the CF buying the Good or most capable equipment, vice (from some of the troops perspective) settling for second (or third or fourth... ) best?  (apart from money)


----------



## dapaterson

Tommy said:
			
		

> I can understand the concept of MilCOTS for the reserve side, though I'll never fully embrace it.... (but such is life under the almighty dollar right?  ;D)
> 
> But With all the specific Military type Trucks out there, (Oskkosh, Mann, etc... ) how hard is it for one of those companies to just produce for us?
> 
> I know there are rules as far as procurement goes, but what would be the biggest thing that always seems to get in the way of the CF buying the Good or most capable equipment, vice (from some of the troops perspective) settling for second (or third or fourth... ) best?  (apart from money)



"The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves".

The CF writes requriements documentation for its major purchases.  These indicate mandatory criteria and rated criteria.  This is developed in conjunction with Public Works, then posted on a system known as MERX.  Vendors submit bids that identify how they meet the mandatory and rated cirteria.

DND/CF staff evaluate the bids, may declare some as non-compliant (if they do not meet mandatory cirteria) and then rate based on the criteria they specified.  Sometimes this is combined with the cost information for a final decision; in other cases it is exclusively based on evaluation criteria; others may purchase the lowest cost compliant model.

Ultiamtely, though, it is DND that decides what to purchase, based on offers from industry.  For the MSVS MilCOTS, only one company offered to sell us trucks.  Not only one was complaint, but only a single offer was received.

So it's not a case that "we chose a second or third rate product"; it's that no one else was willing to sell us vehicles and provide the support we requested.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The challenge is that military-specific equipment is significantly more expensive than militarized equipment (MilCOTS type vehicles).  As my crystal ball, though cloudy, does not see a large scale influx of funding in the near term ,we therefore ahve to work within available resources, which means the MSVS (MilCOTS) is the model for the future - civilian pattern truck painted green with minor modifications, followed by a smaller, internationally deployable and survivable fleet of similar capabilities.
> 
> The additional challenge in acquisition is that our numbers are relatively small.  With the rolling replacement concept we're looking at 300-500 trucks per year; for most factories, tooling up for such a small run would not be cost effective.  Or, arther, DND would pay a significant premium to have those produciton lines altered for the week it would take to make our trucks, then shifted back to regular production - unless we stick with a MilCOTS type solution.



Perhaps my proposal is a best match for the MilCOTS version of the light vehicle.  Even the MilCOTS should have the up & down armour option and be fitted for mounted weapons - it gives more flexibility to employ the vehicle internationally based on mission analysis (and NDHQ's threat assessment).

In any case, I think I will propose one more variant of the short wheel base being a _soft-top Jeep-style C&R vehicle with 3 crew_.


----------



## PuckChaser

I really like the idea of a COTS pickup-truck with dual rear wheels for the LSVW replacement as a non-tactical option. A beefed up version of the 5/4 ton trucks (not that I'm old enough to have used them), that can use the same pods we have now to cut down costs.


----------



## Wookilar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ultiamtely, though, it is DND that decides what to purchase, based on offers from industry.  For the MSVS MilCOTS, only one company offered to sell us trucks.  Not only one was complaint, but only a single offer was received.
> 
> So it's not a case that "we chose a second or third rate product"; it's that no one else was willing to sell us vehicles and provide the support we requested.



I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one DA. While you have it absolutely right on how it is "supposed" to happen, with major equipment purchases, politics plays as much a part as anything else.

LSVW anyone?

We could have had Oshkosh trucks instead of the MSVS, piggybacked onto the last US Army order. That was squished as there was minimal to no CanCon. The proposal never had any legs.

Also, as someone that writes SOW and Selection Criteria, I can write the SOW for a particular piece of equipment that I want to purchase. All I need to do is pick one technical spec that I know only 1 manufacturer is capable (or willing) to meet, make it mandatory, and it will be the only one that passes.

Conversely, I can write the SOW so that most companies will not even be interested in the process, because I have already made it next to impossible for them to be compliant.

Is it right? Not at all. I know PWGSC has certainly changed some procurement rules over the last few years, but there is still a lot of leeway in what we are able to do.

As for the vehicles, I can only hope that one day we will get a vehicle procurement right. Which means support vehicles delivered at the same time (Recovery especially), special tools, parts and manuals as well as training for our Veh Techs so that we can actually support the things. The LSVW was my first experience in fielding new kit, then the Coyote, then LAV. All were done the same. Part of it the fault of the govt, part of it our own fault (I know the pointy end wants all the frames to be primary capability vehicles, but if we don't have a Wrecker, how do we support?).

For this Log Veh replacement, I really hope they take their time and put together a comprehensive plan that really does fill the 80% solution. We need Recce (w/variants), Light and Heavy (also with variants). The requirement for a separate Medium class can be debated really (the cost of spare parts and the overhead required for a whole class of vehs could be compared to just buying more Heavy).

Realize though that "standardization" of veh platforms only results in a savings to a point. They can all use the same lights, seats, heater fans, etc. but still need different suspensions, tires, starters, alternators, a/c units, p/s pumps, etc. and that's the really expensive parts. It would be easier for the Supply system (less NSN..but I'm DRMIS would find something to mess up  ), but I'm not convinced we would see any real substantial savings.

There is so much more to this replacement program than just selecting the "best" vehicle system. I just hope Ottawa remembers that.

Wook


----------



## dapaterson

Wook:

Because folks write specs to disqualify competition PWGSC spends a lot of time reviewing our work to make sure we're not trying to pull stunts like that.  Again, we are our own worst enemies.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Is there any reason why we wouldn't consider something like the Airborne Amphibious Stalwart?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mr_pCrhTkk


----------



## Kirkhill

Together with the equally lovely Saracen and Saladin ( I had the complete Matchbox set once upon a time).

Now there was an example of a well thought out equipment buy.  (Notwithstanding Lucas).


----------



## a_majoor

Might as well toss out the whole nine yards (an idea from the past). Given the potentially huge economy of scale and logistical advantages, this is at the far end of possibility as a home grown and developed project (as long as the project isn't being run by the same people who took a decade to create and issue a rucksack....)

http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-188549.html#msg188549


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Might as well toss out the whole nine yards (an idea from the past). Given the potentially huge economy of scale and logistical advantages, this is at the far end of possibility as a home grown and developed project (as long as the project isn't being run by the same people who took a decade to create and issue a rucksack....)
> 
> http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-188549.html#msg188549



Good point... the new rucksack could replace the MLVW. It's big enough  ;D


----------



## Petard

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Conversely, I can write the SOW so that most companies will not even be interested in the process, because I have already made it next to impossible for them to be compliant.
> 
> Is it right? Not at all. I know PWGSC has certainly changed some procurement rules over the last few years, but there is still a lot of leeway in what we are able to do.
> ....
> There is so much more to this replacement program than just selecting the "best" vehicle system. I just hope Ottawa remembers that.
> 
> Wook



There are many participants involved with writting a SOR or a SOW for a system that will be implemented service wide
Your assumption that you can sole source through clever spec writting would get called from the get go 

Sole sourcing is possible, but it is very diffcult to justify.
From what I've seen, more often than not sole sourcing is justified because of the urgency of a situation, and sometimes the opportunity to acquire a capability quickly (and often more cheaply) through foreign military sales. The drawback is that these quick delivery times often come with the risk of sustainment problems.

At anyrate, given the scope of this program, I don't see how it could do anything but rely on competitive bids.


----------



## Wookilar

You guys are right, PWGSC should be all over an SOR/SOW written like that.

However, nothing systemically has changed in the last decade to proclude gov't interference such as displayed by the LSVW project. Sole-sourcing is supposed to be difficult to do (it certainly is for me to prove on relatively minor projects), but we've seen significvant sole-sourced projects go through without any (seeming) hitches in the last few years.

Tanks, choppers and planes all went through. Now, mind you, I'm not saying that any/all of that stuff is junk (on the contrary), but there was more than a little bit of political motivation behind all of it. With a project of this size, we would be foolish to presume that the gov't of the day would stay out of it and allow a purely competitive bid process to work itself through. There are too many ridings (votes) that would have a potential stake in it.

Wook


----------



## dapaterson

Government involvement in procurement is a design feature, not a bug.  Ultimately it is elected officials who are responsible and acountable for public expenditures.  No oversight or inadequate oversight and control leads to other issues, such as cost overruns, "gold-plating", or pricing ourselves out of the marketplace (CF-105s come to mind).

As for our recent forays into sole-sourcing:  C17s, C130Js and CH-47s were the only AC of their type in production and available, and thus the ACAN approach was unassailable; the Leo 2s were an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR).  Note also that in all three acquisitions there was significant governmental support/direction to do so.  Other urgent acquisitions, such as the AHSVS, were done on a competitive basis.


----------



## Wookilar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Government involvement in procurement is a design feature, not a bug.



Thanks DA, I never thought of it like that. I look at transmissions from Winnipeg, alternators from Quebec and tires from Nova Scotia as inefficiencies that cause overall costs (and time-lines) to increase. Looking at it from the other view point says that the inherent cost increases of such a procurement method are not only acceptable but part of the overall plan..... that would have some effects that would ripple outward in those areas.....which is the general idea I suppose.

(Note: I understand fully that no veh manufacturer makes all their own parts, however, the manufacturer usually chooses their supplier according to the going market, which is not always the case in gov't procurement plans).

I guess it comes down to a value judgment on how much gov't input their should be in public service acquisitions and an argument could be made for either way.

Wook


----------



## dapaterson

At the coal face I'll be the first to acknowledge the frustrations that arise (having lived through many of them).  But ultimately governemtns are responsible and accountable.

Much like making sausage, you might not want to watch if you like the final product.  And as Churchill pointed out, it's the worst of all possible systems.  Except for the others.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Keep in mind that equipment that exists, functions and is useful is an important part of maintaining a functioning reserve. If you don't invest in it, why should the people invest their time and effort?


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... via MERX Letter of Interest (LOI):


> .... The LVM Project has completed the Identification phase and is in the Options Analysis phase. The Options Analysis phase will determine the best mix of payload, functionality, mobility, protection, and firepower for logistic vehicles. The final quantities of the project deliverables have not been determined.  This LOI is a key step in the Options Analysis that will guide the LVM Project in selecting the types and quantities of the deliverables as well as develop appropriate procurement strategies.
> 
> The LVM Project will modernize two major fleets, namely the 1,200 Heavy Logistic Vehicle Wheeled (HLVW) and 2,800 Logistic Support Vehicle Wheeled (LSVW). As well, 59 Heavy Engineer Support Vehicles (HESV) will also be modernized. Within the LVM Project modernization through acquisition is the most likely approach.
> 
> The LVM Project is seeking a wide range of deliverables that may be challenging to some individual companies. However, potential suppliers are encouraged to submit responses addressing those deliverables that they can provide.
> 
> Purpose
> 
> The purpose of this Letter of Interest (LOI) is to communicate the Government of Canada and Canadian Forces' (CF) initial requirements, and to request information relating to the price and availability of goods and services regarding possible provision of ground-based logistics solutions.
> 
> The information will be used to support Canada's decision-making process in determining its requirement and procurement strategy.
> 
> Notes
> 
> This LOI is not a bid solicitation and no contract will result from it.
> 
> The Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR) is currently being developed and is subject to change based on the evolution of the requirement, which may be as a result of information provided by industry ....


Bid documents attached.


----------



## PuckChaser

I'll be a MWO by the time we get new LSVWs, but at least my troops won't have to drive those underpowered death-traps! Good to see progress in the procurement process on the replacements.


----------



## McG

Good to see that HESV will be considered within the HLVW replacement.  That should get us one fewer vehicle fleet to manage.
Will AHSVS disappear before or after the heavy LVMP platform comes on line?


----------



## dapaterson

MCG said:
			
		

> Will AHSVS disappear before or after the heavy LVMP platform comes on line?



Depends.  I suspect we'll fill up on the other fleets first, so we can replace AHSVS if there's enough money left over, or if not, retain it.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

I've always been a big fan of the HUMMVEE and it's many variants it brings to the table.  I like the General Tactical Vehicles JLTV variant they're proposing to the US military myself.  I think it would be a good replacement for the MILCOT, LSVW and G-Wagon.  Replacing all 3 light vehicles with a common one would save money in parts and training IMO.


----------



## Kirkhill

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> I've always been a big fan of the HUMMVEE and it's many variants it brings to the table.  I like the General Tactical Vehicles JLTV variant they're proposing to the US military myself.  I think it would be a good replacement for the MILCOT, LSVW and G-Wagon.  Replacing all 3 light vehicles with a common one would save money in parts and training IMO.



Would it also make an acceptable TAPV?  At least for some of the Roles?  A 7 to 10 vehicle seems more appropriate in that role than the 14 to 25 tonne behemoths that they are testing just now. IMHO.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Would it also make an acceptable TAPV?  At least for some of the Roles?  A 7 to 10 vehicle seems more appropriate in that role than the 14 to 25 tonne behemoths that they are testing just now. IMHO.


I would think so, but I'm not 100% sure of it's capabilities.  Here is the link to the JLTV (Joint Light Tactical Vehicle) Background and Issues for Congress paper http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22942.pdf
The potential per unit cost is around the $320,000US mark, which might be a little steep for our needs.  The US Marines are even saying it's too high.  I think the JLTV is a step down from the MRAP and MATVs the US Army has been using in Iraq/Afghanistan.  They are looking for something with the ballistic/blast protection available on an MRAP, but in the size/capability of the HMMWV as its partial replacement.

Here's a picture of my favourite.


----------



## McG

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> I've always been a big fan of the HUMMVEE and it's many variants it brings to the table.  I like the General Tactical Vehicles JLTV variant they're proposing to the US military myself.  I think it would be a good replacement for the MILCOT, LSVW and G-Wagon.  Replacing all 3 light vehicles with a common one would save money in parts and training IMO.


There are some who would suggest that we need something smaller than an HMMVW as our smallest vehicle.  There is merit to that cautious opinion.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

MCG said:
			
		

> There are some who would suggest that we need something smaller than an HMMVW as our smallest vehicle.  There is merit to that cautious opinion.


I too have heard that opinion and while there may be _some_ merit it, we should not base a vehicle purchase just on the possibility of it having to traverse a narrow street once in a while.


----------



## Spooks

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> I too have heard that opinion and while there may be _some_ merit it, we should not base a vehicle purchase just on the possibility of it having to traverse a narrow street once in a while.



Just an opinion here, but in my opinion, the LUVW was bought and offered the 'get through narrow streets' advantage. However, many CF members were dying due to IED issues in said vehicles. Therefore, the vehicle of choice beame the Nyala/RG chasis. This become cyclical as after we get the big, 'bomb proof' vehicles, they want small ones again.

*le sigh*


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> Just an opinion here, but in my opinion, the LUVW was bought and offered the 'get through narrow streets' advantage. However, many CF members were dying due to IED issues in said vehicles. Therefore, the vehicle of choice beame the Nyala/RG chasis. This become cyclical as after we get the big, 'bomb proof' vehicles, they want small ones again.
> 
> *le sigh*


I completely agree.  That's why we need to look at an all around capable vehicle that is 'bomb resistant'.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Go figure guess that's why they sent us 2 HLVW PLS from war stock.....


----------



## a_majoor

The JTLV/MRAP light programs were supposed to provide the small vehicle + bomb proof package, but the laws of physics are pretty rigorously enforced wherever you go.

Popular Mechanics did a piece based on rapidly assembling existing pieces and concepts to a Ford F 450 truck frame, and except for the BaE "transpiring" armour (millions of small holes to allow water to seep through and reduce thermal signature) and the serial electric drive pretty much everything about the concept is off the shelf:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/pm-designs-the-replacement-for-the-pentagons-joint-light-tactical-vehicle-6432935

With "normal" armour (perhaps covered in thermal blankets or other signature management technology) and a heavy duty diesel engine to power this, the project is actually quite doable (literally at the level of a custom build shop if the order is small enough), so there are affordable options if we expand the envelope.  The PMJTLV is also versatile enough to be the basis for a many vehicle family, which makes it even more attractive. Simple, inexpensive and available on a short time frame? 

Nah, never happen...


----------



## Spooks

Over the year of the war, one thing I did learn is that no matter how 'bomb resistant' or armoured you make a vehcile, the enemy will just make a bigger bomb and all you accomplish is slowing ithe vehicle down due to an increase in weight. Even though I, myself, was bombed in a G Wagon, I still would trust them overseas. Yes, an AT mine could obliterate it but when you are bombing down Hwy 4 at 140kmh is harder to hit with a command-detonated IED than a slow-moving 40kmh Nyala. This is just my opinion and I am fully aware of the bashing that is about to ensue.


----------



## MJP

GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> Over the year of the war, one thing I did learn is that no matter how 'bomb resistant' or armoured you make a vehcile, the enemy will just make a bigger bomb and all you accomplish is slowing ithe vehicle down due to an increase in weight. Even though I, myself, was bombed in a G Wagon, I still would trust them overseas. Yes, an AT mine could obliterate it but when you are bombing down Hwy 4 at 140kmh is harder to hit with a command-detonated IED than a slow-moving 40kmh Nyala. This is just my opinion and I am fully aware of the bashing that is about to ensue.



Meh I don't think you should worry about a bashing.  I can recall many a conversation where we discussed the loss of Gwagon outside the wire.  The vehicle moved around the countryside very well and made some areas more accessiable.  I always thought the the knee jerk risk adverse reaction to removing them from outside the wire duties was silly.  All it did was remove a tool from a commanders toolbox.  No longer was a fast nimble vehicle an option for a commander during their assessment, but rather a mixture of vehs of which none had the mobility of the G wagon.


----------



## OldSolduer

MJP said:
			
		

> Meh I don't think you should worry about a bashing.  I can recall many a conversation where we discussed the loss of Gwagon outside the wire.  The vehicle moved around the countryside very well and made some areas more accessiable.  I always thought the the knee jerk risk adverse reaction to removing them from outside the wire duties was silly.  All it did was remove a tool from a commanders toolbox.  No longer was a fast nimble vehicle an option for a commander during their assessment, but rather a mixture of vehs of which none had the mobility of the G wagon.



There is always a trade off and that depends on your doctrine. Do we want nimble, speedy vehicles with less protection for the crew or heavier protection and slower speeds and less agility, not to mention the associated costs.

In my mind (infantry here so keep the words small and sentences short please) when we design or buy a vehicle, we have to keep some things in mind:

1. The end user - driver, crew/sect comd and the troops - the vehicle must be simple to operate and maintain;
2. Maintainers - the vehicle should be easy to fix ie replace the power pack in and hour or so;
3. Commanders - vehicles need the required comms systems
4. Protection vs Speed and agility - like I said, it depends on what you want.

As some have said, the heavier you make the vehicle - the bigger the bombs the bad guys will build.


----------



## a_majoor

Everyone and every nation has their own version of risk assessment.

I was somewhat amused by the contrast between the massive uparmoured HUMMVW's the Americans used and the Landrover 110's the British used. The Brit's idea of protection was a Kevlar blanket laid on the floor, but the 110's mounted a huge selection of automatic weapons covering most of the arcs. The newer "Supacat Jackal" resembled a platform on wheels; but each corner mounted a machinegun of some sort and a center mount held a .50 or AGL...


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Everyone and every nation has their own version of risk assessment.
> 
> I was somewhat amused by the contrast between the massive uparmoured HUMMVW's the Americans used and the Landrover 110's the British used. The Brit's idea of protection was a Kevlar blanket laid on the floor, but the 110's mounted a huge selection of automatic weapons covering most of the arcs. The newer "Supacat Jackal" resembled a platform on wheels; but each corner mounted a machinegun of some sort and a center mount held a .50 or AGL...


Nothing like being a gunner on one of those completely exposed with a small metal plate to sit on.  I used to think they resembled a porcupine bristling with rifles and MG's.  A lot of their tactics were different too focusing on avoiding roads, so their need for extra blast protection was not as big a priority.


----------



## Spooks

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> There is always a trade off and that depends on your doctrine. Do we want nimble, speedy vehicles with less protection for the crew or heavier protection and slower speeds and less agility, not to mention the associated costs.
> 
> In my mind (infantry here so keep the words small and sentences short please) when we design or buy a vehicle, we have to keep some things in mind:
> 
> 1. The end user - driver, crew/sect comd and the troops - the vehicle must be simple to operate and maintain;
> 2. Maintainers - the vehicle should be easy to fix ie replace the power pack in and hour or so;
> 3. Commanders - vehicles need the required comms systems
> 4. Protection vs Speed and agility - like I said, it depends on what you want.
> 
> As some have said, the heavier you make the vehicle - the bigger the bombs the bad guys will build.



Phew, no hatemail when I came on today. On Mr Seggie's post, the thing I like about the GWagon is that you have a driver and -maybe- a gunner for the vehicle. LAVs require those plus a Crew Cmdr which means more people are needed outside of the dismounted attack. This is probably just my Light Infantry mind not able to grasp Mechanized Infantry's concept of ops.  :-[


----------



## OldSolduer

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Nothing like being a gunner on one of those completely exposed with a small metal plate to sit on.  I used to think they resembled a porcupine bristling with rifles and MG's.  A lot of their tactics were different too focusing on avoiding roads, so their need for extra blast protection was not as big a priority.



Military doctrine and acceptance of casualties (or rather the number of casualties) the government is willing to accept is a big determiner (is that a word?) of what kind of armament and armour protection the vehicle has.

One thing about the Brits - when they deploy those Land Rovers with all those weapons you know they are looking for a fight. That attitude is protection all by itself.


----------



## MJP

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Military doctrine and acceptance of casualties (or rather the number of casualties) the government is willing to accept is a big determiner (is that a word?) of what kind of armament and armour protection the vehicle has.



I am not tracking you Jim.  I don't think we procure vehicles based casualty acceptance but rather what the CF needs.  Protection of the crew and passengers is certainly a factor involved.  What we have done certainly is restricted vehicle usage in certain situations and even bought new ones to prevent casualties for UOR, but in the long term casualty acceptance IMHO doesn't play a huge role in determining what veh we go with.


----------



## jopeters

I'd prefer if the military sold all the LSVW, MLVW and G-WAGONS (and some variants of HLVWs) and purchased more of the new stuff specifically the new AHSVS which I've heard nothing but good things about and the newer LAVs... I understand that some times you want quantity over quality but I'm a Veh tech and I'm tired of doing annual inspection on vehicles that have made 14 km (the drive tests) since the last inspection, and that have almost no practical value any more. Let's modernize is all i want. Sorry for ranting.


----------



## McG

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Military doctrine and acceptance of casualties (or rather the number of casualties) the government is willing to accept is a big determiner (is that a word?) of what kind of armament and armour protection the vehicle has.
> 
> One thing about the Brits - when they deploy those Land Rovers with all those weapons you know they are looking for a fight. That attitude is protection all by itself.





			
				MJP said:
			
		

> I am not tracking you Jim.  I don't think we procure vehicles based casualty acceptance but rather what the CF needs.  Protection of the crew and passengers is certainly a factor involved.  What we have done certainly is restricted vehicle usage in certain situations and even bought new ones to prevent casualties for UOR, but in the long term casualty acceptance IMHO doesn't play a huge role in determining what veh we go with.


Jim,
The difference in approach between the UK and Canada is not so much illustrative of risk aversion as it is illustrative of the fact that most problems can be resolved in a number of different ways from the completely technical/equipment solution to the completely procedural/doctrine solution.  If we look at our problems purely from the perspective of implementing a technical/equipment based solution, then we are failing to consider more than half the potential solutions (some of which may even be better).


----------



## Kirkhill

This is what the Aussies are putting forward as their 7-tonner.  They have decided that the Bushmaster folks will be awarded a development contract for the Hawkei.

http://defense-update.com/20111214_hawkei_selected.html

News Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekgn8KwxIh8

Slide Show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-l7l-B8Dys&feature=related







Fits under a Chinook and, according to the slide show, seems to have provision for the open topped types of vehicles preferred by the Brits and the SASR.

Edited to add the link to the manufacturer's spec sheet.


----------



## Hurricane

So, when I first read about the LVM replacing the AHSVS, my inital response as a user of the AHSVS was why? However, after reading the letter of interest, I see the logic. If I understand it correctly, the LVM will include 3 variants, 2 of which for operational use but armour is removeable for dom ops. Which leaves the full fleet operational for DomOps, or Deployed use. As opposed to the AHSVS which with its permanent armour, is restricted in its movement domestically. Also, with the service agreement, would that mean that our Maint would no longer be burdened with the yearly inspections that if overdue, jack the VOR rate sky high?


----------



## Kirkhill

And the Yanks, just like us, are trying to figure out Trucks, MRAPs, M-ATVs and TAPVs (as well as the armoured fleet).

It seems like it is all to play for.
Maybe we're being too hard on the CCV/TAPV/LVMP project managers in this environment?


----------



## LineJumper

From my perspective, as long as 3 can ride (without a skier in the middle) with all that Stuff the army makes us wear, that can carry a full combat load and not bog down whit a trailer. I loved the 5/4 because it could easily move a linecrews full load. LS could grind it forward, but with a noticeable decrease in forward motion on a flat surface. 

I had the good fortune of using a couple of Reserve Silverados in WATC a few years ago and wondered why they have these sweet rides while rolling in the squeeky, pull over every 20 minutes to blow junk out of the fuel lines, add whatever beef about LSVW here, and whatnot.

Due to technology, Lineman have an exponentialy reduced danger while working (microwave shots, etc) yet still require an independant crew vehicle to move weight, in the event line actually is required cross country. So I guess the silverado or some like veh would be suitable. Armour is good and all, but I personally prefer mobility.


----------



## a_majoor

I'm almost willing to say "just go with what everyone else is driving" and purchase a huge fleet of UNIMOGS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unimog

The truck is amazingly adaptable and in service almost anywhere you go (so logistics is less of a problem); there are even MRAP type vehicles built on the chassis so arguments about protection are mooted.

I'm sure these people would be happy to get us started...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LineJumper said:
			
		

> From my perspective, as long as 3 can ride (without a skier in the middle) with all that Stuff the army makes us wear, that can carry a full combat load and not bog down whit a trailer. I loved the 5/4 because it could easily move a linecrews full load. LS could grind it forward, but with a noticeable decrease in forward motion on a flat surface.
> 
> I had the good fortune of using a couple of Reserve Silverados in WATC a few years ago and wondered why they have these sweet rides while rolling in the squeeky, pull over every 20 minutes to blow junk out of the fuel lines, add whatever beef about LSVW here, and whatnot.
> 
> Due to technology, Lineman have an exponentialy reduced danger while working (microwave shots, etc) yet still require an independant crew vehicle to move weight, in the event line actually is required cross country. So I guess the silverado or some like veh would be suitable. Armour is good and all, but I personally prefer mobility.



I found the 5/4 ton great for road moves but was horrible off road. Extended off road use would kill them quickly. Logging companies expect to get at most 5 years out of a pickup and replace their fleets regularly.


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin P said:
			
		

> I found the 5/4 ton great for road moves but was horrible off road. Extended off road use would kill them quickly. Logging companies expect to get at most 5 years out of a pickup and replace their fleets regularly.



When the 5/4 was made, it was expected to last five years, then be replaced by an SMP vehicle......


----------



## Mountie

http://www.gdels.com/brochures/eagle6x6.pdf

The Eagle V.


----------



## Kirkhill

The Yanks have down-selected three 7-tonner "light" vehicles:

Lockheed Martin's JLTV offering, Oshkosh's L-ATV and AM General's BRV-O.

Given that you guys are in the market for 1000 or so of the LVMP(L), presumably in range, I thought it might be interesting to get opinions on the Brit solutions (Jackal and Foxhound), the Aussie solution-apparent (Thales-Hawkei) and the failed American solutions.

Any preferences for what you would like to see go forward?

Presumably the vehicle is to be bigger than a G-Wagon, but smaller than a TAPV and portable under a CH-47 or 2 or 3 of them inside the Hercules.

Crib sheet attached below


----------



## FEEOP042

Well after being at the LVM trails at Humbolt, Sask. I just hope they correct all the problems from the past vehicle buys... Like the HLVW fleet this will be the buying of PLS pallets that are to short, can not put on a ISO container, no trailers bought, using the old KENWORTH. Now I think we do not need any cargo truck a waste of money for a truck that can do only one thing. If most of them are PLS then you can have less and use the Mission Modules .. like dump truck , flat rack with a frame to have a tarp over it to keep your stores/eqpt dry, a troop carrier/ cargo module, fuel farm, water, concrete etc etc. If we had these we can move stores and eqpt much better.


----------



## Infanteer

At first glance, I like the idea of PLS modules over purpose built trucks.  How much higher would the maintenance be on such a system?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I like that idea.... but since it makes sense.......probably not gonna happen then.....


----------



## Kirkhill

How about buying PLS trailers to tow behind any vehicle?

Then, in addition to using Tpt Vehicles to move them you might also be able to use LAVs, Bisons and (dare I say it?) MTVLs and TAPVs, or similar vehicles as Tractors.

Then deployed battalions could drop off their ISO-podded Cmd and Echelon facilities and still have their tractors available to support manouevre.


----------



## Infanteer

Clearly, you've never tried to use the trailer towing system on a LAV.


----------



## Kirkhill

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Clearly, you've never tried to use the trailer towing system on a LAV.



Clearly.

Room for improvement?

Edit: Austrian version of what FEE is talking about.  http://www.empl.at/fileadmin/content/feuerwehr/Download_neu/WLF_E.pdf

Take a look at the upper left of the first page.

This outfit has apparently already supplied fixed frame off-road tandem trailers to you guys.






Link to Manufacturer site


----------



## MeatheadMick

The Hawkei looks slick and would probably be a beast... definitely has the LCF.  The Eagle V though looks almost identical to the concept that MCG brought up.  It would definitely be nice to get some decent vehicles... The LSVW is such a shitshow...  I don't mind the GWagen, but there isn't enough cargo space (with a Turret variant), and the narrow wheel-base and top heavy design makes for a lot of roll overs.  The mean green silverado is awesome for dom ops though,, would be interesting to see a CP box on the bed of a Silverado lol


----------



## Infanteer

I have to try and remember what we are aiming for.

1.  LSVW and MLVW are going to be divested for a Light Protected Truck.

2.  HLVW is going to be divested for a Heavy Protected Truck

3.  G Wagon is going to be divested with no replacment - some of its role will be picked up by the TAPV.

Do I have this right?


----------



## Kirkhill

An LVM Refresher
PDF from MGen Poulter: Feb 2012 - Pre MSVS-SMP Cancellation (Reset?)


----------



## Infanteer

Okay, that makes it clear.

G-Wagon/LSVW ---> LMV Light

MLVW ---> MSVS SMP and MSVS MILCOT

HLVW ---> LMV Heavy


----------



## Kirkhill

Are you sure about the LVM (L) replacing both the LSVW AND the G-Wagen?

The way that I read that the LUVWs (both MilCOTS and SMP (G-Wagen)) were/are to be the subjects of separate replacement plans.

It seems to me only the LSVW is to be replaced by the LVM(L) - and it was for that programme that I assumed that we might be considering the 7 tonne GVW vehicles like the JLTV, Hawkei, Foxhound etc.

I see the Mediums and Heavies the same way you do.


----------



## Kirkhill

I think I am starting to catch up to FEE's position on these trucks.

Is the MSVS-SMP project really necessary?

Would the money be better spent split between the LVM Light and LVM Heavy projects?

If you take a look at MGen Poulter's weight ranges the LVM Light is intended to operate with a pay load equivalent to the old Deuce and a Half, or the MLVW that the MSVS was supposed to replace.

But the MSVS actually was a replacement for the HLVW with both of them rated at 10 tonnes of payload.

Now if the game plan is to operate with ISO Containers (20 ft approximately equal to 20 tonnes fully loaded) shouldn't the standard transport vehicle be the 20 tonne Heavy with all the PLS systems FEE is asking for?

In Afghanistan, with the Actros Heavies, did anybody feel that they were overkill with respect to supply?  Was there a need for a smaller truck to move smaller loads in a more timely fashion? Or did the IED/Convoy system restrict delivery times in any event?


----------



## Kirkhill

For the record and the discussion - here are the job requirements of the JLTV programme.  In my opinion these requirements would seem to be in broad commonality with both the 7 tonners I mentioned previously and also the LVM-Light requirements.

Again, the C configuration, with it 5100 lb or 2.5 ton payload and prime mover requirement seems to put it into the role of the Deuce and a Half as a CQ vehicle.


----------



## Infanteer

I don't know if the SMP MSVS is already in progress.  If not, I don't see any fault in going to a Light and Heavy Utility truck.  Any Tn guys care to chip in?

The JLTV project seems to fit the bill - it's too bad we ate it with the TAPV and didn't get a common utility chassis with 3 Payload categories as described above.  The G-Wagon, LSVW, RG-31 and Coyote could have all been replaced by one common project....


----------



## Mountie

How about:

LUVW, LSVW & MLVW replaced by Eagle V or Navistar MXT known as the Light Support Vehicle System (LSVS) with basic, weapons carrier, ambulance, command post, cargo, MP and SEV variants 

MLVW & HLVW replaced by HEMTT 8x8 (10-tonne) being offered for the MSVS in cargo, PLS & fuel/water tanker versions known as the MSVS

HLVW PLS, tractor & wrecker replaced by the Oshkosh LVSR 10x10 (16-tonne) PLS, tractor and wrecker known as the Heavy Support Vehicle System (HSVS)

This would give two basic vehicle systems to replace four current systems (HEMTT & LVSR are based on the same vehicle).  The commonality of parts would be cheaper to operate.


General Dynamics Eagle V: http://www.gdels.com/brochures/eagle6x6.pdf

Navistar Defence MXT: http://www.navistardefense.com/NavistarDefense/vehicles

Oshkosh HEMTT 8x8: http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/products/13/hemtt-a4

Oshkosh LVRS: http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/products/16/lvsr


----------



## MeatheadMick

So according to the timeline in 5 years we're all going to be sleeping in sea-cans in the field carried by the MSVS?  Cool... lol

By the time I get my Sgt's we should have a new military fleet lol.

Still expected to happen sooner than a new MP Academy  ;D


----------



## Mountie

There is also a smaller version of the Navistar Defence MSVS Milcots version.  This would replace the LSVW for the Reserves.


----------



## MeatheadMick

Mountie said:
			
		

> There is also a smaller version of the Navistar Defence MSVS Milcots version.  This would replace the LSVW for the Reserves.



THAT is awesome!   I would much rather drive that anyday over the current LS POS  >


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know if the SMP MSVS is already in progress.  If not, I don't see any fault in going to a Light and Heavy Utility truck.  Any Tn guys care to chip in?


There seems to be the belief that we can do better by replacing the medium size support vehicle with larger vehicles.  The MSVS, coming in closer to the HLVW than MLVW, is illustrative.

Unfortunately, there are problems with a purely bigger is better philosophy.  A truck larger than needed is a truck that is harder to hide on the battlefield, that burns more fuel, that is more work to camouflage, and that fits in fewer places than it should.  Another concern when replacing two medium for one large is that lower level echelons are robbed of a flexibility to divide itself and sp a sub-unit that is split on different axis or AOs.  Those same lower levels loose a sort of depth/resiliency with fewer but bigger trucks; it is an all eggs in one basket scenario.  With two medium trucks, the loss of one still leaves you with half your stuff to continue with ops; with one large truck, it's loss leaves you with nothing.

The problem with MSV is that it replaced a platform and so focused on the existing platform as opposed to looking at our whole support fleet.   Some of the MLVW needed to be replaced by whatever HSV also replaces the HLVW, SHLVW & HESV.  Unfortunately, with single platform replacement blinders on, we did not take that path.  Instead, the requirement for some MLVW to be replaced by a much larger vehicle has lead to all being replaced by a much larger vehicle, including those which should not have been replaced by larger.


----------



## ArmyRick

I could have sworn I read somewhere (I believe in designing the army of tomorrow) that the Canadian Army was supposed to aim for "families of vehicles" to reduce seperate vehicle fleet cost. I am not a trucker by any means, so this is not my expertise. I have been a course WO with an MSVS and I remember parking it in the admin area when we hit the field and leaving it there as my "mobile stores/staff office" truck. It just wasn't that mobile, it stayed there the whole week.

Good points to note, bigger vehicles cost more to sustain. I am not the combat Log expert but as pointed out, we have to think holistically when purchasing vehicles (i.e. the big picture).


----------



## PPCLI Guy

We also have to remember that trucks are not just about logistics.  They also must fit various SEVs, and be suitable as gun tractors as well....


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We also have to remember that trucks are not just about logistics.  They also must fit various SEVs, and be suitable as gun tractors as well....



And that is the biggest problem... we now have the MSVS ENGR SEV and it's a pos....


----------



## McG

Yep.  The MLVW Engr SEV was an ideal size - the MSVS Engr SEV is a cumbersome beast.


----------



## ArmyRick

With the MSVS, was this a DND driven project or public works? Basically who made the big boy decision to buy Green barns with wheels?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MCG said:
			
		

> Yep.  The MLVW Engr SEV was an ideal size - the MSVS Engr SEV is a cumbersome beast.



And not very user friendly... IMHO the auger sucks balls, appears to have no power at all even though the PTO/Engine is engaging at almost 2k rpm and has no outriggers.... and they are plague with problems with the rear cargo doors (same issues with the other caged trucks). Also the work space in the cargo area is limited to a very small work bench, the rest is taken up with cabinets....


----------



## Nfld Sapper

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> With the MSVS, was this a DND driven project or public works? Basically who made the big boy decision to buy Green barns with wheels?



Two words, lowest bidder....


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> With the MSVS, was this a DND driven project or public works? Basically who made the big boy decision to buy Green barns with wheels?





			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Two words, lowest bidder....


Saddly, no.  The MSVS was inflicted on the CF by the CF.  We defined what we wanted, and industry gave exactly that to us.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

That too......


----------



## dapaterson

For the MSVS MilCOTS (MSVS SMP is caught in a procurement hell of DND's own devising) DND/CF wrote the specification.  A total of one vendor was interested enough to make a bid.  So DND's choices were (a) Buy It or (b) cancel the procurement, go back to the drawing board, and hope that if they did it again someone would bid with a different vehicle (say 18-24 month delay if everything went exactly according to plan)


----------



## cupper

MCG said:
			
		

> There seems to be the belief that we can do better by replacing the medium size support vehicle with larger vehicles.  The MSVS, coming in closer to the HLVW than MLVW, is illustrative.



Just to throw my somewhat ancient  :2c: to add to this, a larger vehicle will also require larger recovery assets as well.

I know from experience that when the MLVW was introduced (at the reserve level at least) the 5 Ton Wreckers were fine for dealing with towing the standard cargo units, but were slightly under sized when dealing with a unit with a HIAB crane. The additional weight was just enough to make steering of the wrecker a bit of a hair raising experience.

Had a situation where we needed to bring one back from Aldershot to Halifax. Hooked it up at the old Anti-Armour Course building at the top of Rubber Road, and was supposed to tow it out to the Battalion position on the driving range prior to the move back to Halifax. Tried to make the corner to head out to the main gate, only to have the Wrecker decide to continue straight across the road. It was all I could o to fight it around to the old maintenance garage and unhook it. We ended up having the MSS from Halifax send their commercial 10 Ton up later.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For the MSVS MilCOTS (MSVS SMP is caught in a procurement hell of DND's own devising) DND/CF wrote the specification.  A total of one vendor was interested enough to make a bid.  So DND's choices were (a) Buy It or (b) cancel the procurement, go back to the drawing board, and hope that if they did it again someone would bid with a different vehicle (say 18-24 month delay if everything went exactly according to plan)



I've said this before and if any procurement type people read this, think about what I am about to say:

When the government decides, based on the CF recommendation, that we can purchase new vehicles, the fol pers should be involved :

Drivers - Basically Cpls that have been there, done that and know vehicles and their Dvr maint
Maintainers - first and second line who actually do the work
Signallers - only because I feel sorry for them and they do work in vehicles - I think....
Crew commanders - for the AFV/Tank lot
Other pers that may need to use the vehicle ie engineers for the Engr SEV etc.

We cannot seem to get it through our heads our MCpls, Cpls and Ptes can think and figure stuff out, or even have better ideas than the design people who may or may not have had military experience.


----------



## George Wallace

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I've said this before and if any procurement type people read this, think about what I am about to say:
> 
> When the government decides, based on the CF recommendation, that we can purchase new vehicles, the fol pers should be involved :
> 
> Drivers - Basically Cpls that have been there, done that and know vehicles and their Dvr maint
> Maintainers - first and second line who actually do the work
> Signallers - only because I feel sorry for them and they do work in vehicles - I think....
> Crew commanders - for the AFV/Tank lot
> Other pers that may need to use the vehicle ie engineers for the Engr SEV etc.
> 
> We cannot seem to get it through our heads our MCpls, Cpls and Ptes can think and figure stuff out, or even have better ideas than the design people who may or may not have had military experience.



Why for the love of god, is the "End User" ignored by the "genius' " who make up these procurements?  This brings back the construction of a Tank Hangar in Petawawa in 1994.  The foundation was laid prior to our deploying to Bosnia, and when I walked around it in the compound I knew right away that the dimensions for the bay doors were too small.  When we returned from Bosnia in 1995, the hangar exterior was complete and lo and behold when a tank was brought up to drive through the doors, there was only one inch clearance on either side.  Did I mention that the Add-on Armour had just arrived, but had not been installed?  Anyone who has been around tracked vehicles knows that a slight touch of the steering controls and the vehicle pivots.  One inch clearance on each side of the vehicle is an accident waiting to happen.....and a bay door made inoperable.....and a Security Detail now initiated to secure the building during after duty hours......and a very large repair bill......repeated over the occupation period of that building hundreds of times during its use.  Some "bean counter" figured they could save X number of dollars by reducing the size of the doors.   End result, "savings" in door size on this building, cancellation of the multi-tonne crane that was to be installed in said building......and need to construct a new tank hangar which would accommodated "Tanks" and the multi-tonne crane that ran the length of the hangar.  Five cents saved on short term/Hundreds of dollars spent on long term to fix problems created by initial savings.  (This is the theme of the modern generations/government.)


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why for the love of god, is the "End User" ignored by the "genius' " who make up these procurements?



The End User writes the requirement.  If the doors were too small then talk to the armoured officers and NCMs posted to the Directorate of Land Requirements.  They signed off on the requirement.

If, like most branches, the black hats sent less then their best and brightest to DLR, then don't blame the procurement folks for a requirements failure.


----------



## PuckChaser

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Signallers - only because I feel sorry for them and they do work in vehicles - I think....



Yeah, we make a lot of use out of the trucksack.

Biggest issue I've seen from the MSVS point of view, is how the hell you link a MSVS SEV pod into a CP complex without having custom made mod tent/drash/whatever adapters. I mean, even mod and drash can work together fairly well.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For the MSVS MilCOTS (MSVS SMP is caught in a procurement hell of DND's own devising) DND/CF wrote the specification.  A total of one vendor was interested enough to make a bid.  So DND's choices were (a) Buy It or (b) cancel the procurement, go back to the drawing board, and hope that if they did it again someone would bid with a different vehicle (say 18-24 month delay if everything went exactly according to plan)



I was told by an MSE guru on my course that one of the requirements for the MSVS project was that the truck needed to have a service station authorized to work on it within 100km of any CF base or establishment where the truck will be used (or something along those lines). Only one company could conveniently achieve that requirement.



The truck is horrible. Troops in the back need to lean back against the sides in order to shit the tailgate half the time. One of our trucks needs a tie down strap with the vehicle at all times so that the driver can pinch the walls together in order to shut the tailgate if he doesn't have troops int he back.  We really ought to investigate why we picked the MSVS and deal out some administrative action.


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Biggest issue I've seen from the MSVS point of view, is how the hell you link a MSVS SEV pod into a CP complex without having custom made mod tent/drash/whatever adapters. I mean, even mod and drash can work together fairly well.



Why not?  It was done for the MLVWs of 1CDSHR or whatever they were called back then when 1 Cdn Div ran two "Hubs".  Some aluminium platforms and stairs and then modified tentage


----------



## Nfld Sapper

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I was told by an MSE guru on my course that one of the requirements for the MSVS project was that the truck needed to have a service station authorized to work on it within 100km of any CF base or establishment where the truck will be used (or something along those lines). Only one company could conveniently achieve that requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> The truck is horrible. Troops in the back need to lean back against the sides in order to crap the tailgate half the time. One of our trucks needs a tie down strap with the vehicle at all times so that the driver can pinch the walls together in order to shut the tailgate if he doesn't have troops int he back.  We really ought to investigate why we picked the MSVS and deal out some administrative action.



All TCV variants were supposed to have turnbuckle mods to sidewalls to stop that problem with the tailgate.....


----------



## Nfld Sapper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why not?  It was done for the MLVWs of 1CDSHR or whatever they were called back then when 1 Cdn Div ran two "Hubs".  Some aluminium platforms and stairs and then modified tentage



The SEV variants and the Caged Variant all have the usual shitty ladder that is standard on all MSVS but they also have a staircase like on the old ML QM trucks....


----------



## PuckChaser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why not?  It was done for the MLVWs of 1CDSHR or whatever they were called back then when 1 Cdn Div ran two "Hubs".  Some aluminium platforms and stairs and then modified tentage



For once I'd like to see us think of something ahead of time, instead of relying on the ingenuity of CF members to "make it work". HQSS and the LSVW replacement can't be done in vacuums, we need the specs for HQSS to fit onto whatever the new LSVW will be.


----------



## PanaEng

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The End User writes the requirement.  If the doors were too small then talk to the armoured officers and NCMs posted to the Directorate of Land Requirements.  They signed off on the requirement.
> 
> If, like most branches, the black hats sent less then their best and brightest to DLR, then don't blame the procurement folks for a requirements failure.



Good point, we all like to criticize PWGSC, DND, "the man", whatever, when it is actually our own guys that write the requirements.
So we need to start with competent career managers, that would send at least competent ppl to DLR positions and require them to have the proper experience and trg (technical writing, requirement analysis and writing, risk analysis and a few more specific technical subjects as applicable to their role)
but more importantly, the ability to talk to each other.
I'm willing to bet though that we will still complain about the results.


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> For once I'd like to see us think of something ahead of time, instead of relying on the ingenuity of CF members to "make it work". HQSS and the LSVW replacement can't be done in vacuums, we need the specs for HQSS to fit onto whatever the new LSVW will be.



They probably still have the platforms and tentage at the Regiment, hidden away in a storage container.  You are not going to find custom platforms to connect four or five trucks backed up together forming a "hub" at any auto manufacturer.   That is something done after a vehicle has been purchased and the specs can be done up as a custom job.


----------



## cupper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why for the love of god, is the "End User" ignored by the "genius' " who make up these procurements?  This brings back the construction of a Tank Hangar in Petawawa in 1994.



I know that there is a good possibility that when you are dealing with buildings, even though there may be some consultation in the initial planning stage, the actual design  and design review are done by people who would have a hard time identifying a tank in the first place. Usually major construction projects are done by DCC ) Defense Construction Canada, and coordinated / overseen by Public Works (or whatever they are called now). The actual design is outsourced to architectural and engineering firms (perhaps several). At any point in the review process there may be input from various users, but I know from personal experience that it usually gets lost in translation.

George's example also brings to mind the fiasco with the Shipborne Aircraft procurement and I believe the Halifax class frigates. The hanger doors were too small for the aircraft chosen. Fortunately we were saved from embarrassment by having the aircraft cancelled if memory serves correct..


----------



## PuckChaser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are not going to find custom platforms to connect four or five trucks backed up together forming a "hub" at any auto manufacturer.   That is something done after a vehicle has been purchased and the specs can be done up as a custom job.



DRASH makes them (I use this example as that's all I've used). The vehicle "boots" fit about 5 different vehicles in one shot, including our LSVWs and "Queen Mary" M113s. I'm not saying the auto manufacturer is going to have them, but we need to get the vehicle and SEV/Pod figured out so the vehicle connections can be tendered with the HQSS contract. Otherwise we're 5 years and a whole lot of Jerry-rigging from having proper tentage.


----------



## Infanteer

DRASH is too heavy, too fragile and too bulky.  We chucked it a few years ago due to its impractical characteristics.


----------



## Mountie

Here's a couple options to the problem mentioned about the MSVS being too big:  

#1 - Here is a smaller version of the Navistar MSVS MiLCOTS that I mentioned earlier.  Perhaps it could fit some of the roles that don't need the large MSVS.  It could be a gun tractor for the C3 105mm (if it remains) or the 81mm mortars that the reserve artillery is to be getting, a replacement for the LSVW variants, maybe even a small Engineer SEV.

#2 - The Zetros 6x6 was a candidate for the MSVS SMP.  Its cab can be armoured, its very mobile, etc.  Seems to be a good choice.  And it comes in a 4x4 version as well.  If both were procured this would give the CF the diversity that is required.  The SEV's based on the 10' ISO containers would fit.  It would be a better choice for many of the SEV's.  And the 6x6 variant can fit the 20' ISO containers and SEVs.  And not only do the two Zetros models have commonality of parts, they also have an 80% commonality with the AHSVS Actros.

Would this be a better option?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

If I am not mistaken but the AHSVS ACTROS was a one time buy for Afghanistan hence why they only ordered 86 82 of them....


----------



## McG

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> If I am not mistaken but the AHSVS ACTROS was a one time buy for Afghanistan hence why they only ordered 86 of them....


You are correct.  There was also no provision to sustain the vehicle after Afghanistan, so keeping it alive would mean taking O&M money from somewhere else.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MCG said:
			
		

> You are correct.  There was also no provision to sustain the vehicle after Afghanistan, so keeping it alive would mean taking O&M money from somewhere else.



Could the HSVS replace the MSVS?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

They didn't buy enough... ObedientiaZelum.... 

They got a  cargo,  recovery, tank transporter tractor, and PLS (palletized loading system). Contrary to original plans, all trucks will have armour cabs – this "Protected Cab" by LMT and adds 2,000 kg to vehicle weight.

Specs on the AHSVS....

 DaimlerChrysler (Mercedes-Benz)  Actros 4100 series  –  Specifications
  Powerplant:	  15.93 L, 330 kW Mercedes Benz OM502LA, V8 turbo-diesel
  Trans.:	  Mercedes Telligent  AutoTrans automatic transmission
  Weights:
 	  total wt., 93 t (110 t , tractor) , dead weight  23,000 kg,  fifth
  wheel load  (approx.) 23,000 kg ,  gross axle load  70,000 kg
  Size/speed:	  (8x8 tractor) 8.4m L x 2.9m W x 4.02m H,  max speed: 88 km/h
  Protection:	  cab  (sides/ roof):  STANAG 4569 level 1, floor:  level 3b
  Variants:	  cargo, cargo (hoist), PLS, recovery, and tank tractor trailer


----------



## McG

I think the US Army got a lot right with the FMTV.  It is a single family of vehicle that can come in 4x4 up to 8x8 configurations and sees different length of wheelbase offered in the 6x6 configuration.  I would prefer there be more than the standard cab option.  In medium and larger trucks, I think we need the option of crew cabs (driver, commander, gunner and two) and even occasionally "fire truck" cab cabs (driver, commander, gunner and four - five).

Unfortunately, it is too late to go back and define a requirement for such a family of vehicles for MSVS MilCOTS.  We are stuck with the what we got in the Navistar, and our requirement to do things competitively could result in our being stuck with an intermediate sized truck of a whole different family of vehicles should we attempt such a purchase.  

It may not be too late to get the requirement correct for the MSVS SMP.  Of course, that means we need to look at the requirement from a broader perspective than just MLVW replacement.  That would mean we need to define the requirements for both our medium family and heavy family of vehicles, and the "weight class" which becomes the dividing line.  I think the US Army again got a lot right with the HEMTT for the heavy class (as did the USMC with the HEMTT's close cousin the LVS).


----------



## Mountie

Could they not buy more AHSVS as part of the LVM Project to replace the HLVW's that aren't replaced by the MSVS?  

Or there's always the MAN Support Vehicles chosen by the British Army.  4x4 (6-tonne), 6x6 (9-tonne) and 8x8 (15-tonne) trucks to fill all ranges of support with a common vehicle.

Or you have the USMC Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) with the 4x4, 6x6 & 8x8 variants.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MSVS is not replacing the HLVW fleet, it is replacing the MLVW fleet .....


----------



## McG

Mountie said:
			
		

> Could they not buy more AHSVS as part of the LVM Project to replace the HLVW's that aren't replaced by the MSVS?


1.  No HLVW are being replaced by MSVS.   While it is the size of HLVW, the MSVS was bought to replace MLVW.

2.  No, " they" cannot just buy more AHSVS.  We have signed international agreements that oblige us to replace the HLVW through a competitive process.  Trucks are not so complicated as to be able to craft a sole source argument that would hold up to PWGSC or Globe&Mail scrutiny.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Attached pdf has some interesting information (not sure if it has been posted before)

Interesting to note that the LUVW MILCOTS is/was  declared obsolete in 2010


----------



## cupper

So, how does the Fifth Wheel attachment to turn a tractor into a wrecker work? Does anyone else use something similar, or is it just someone's attempt at multi-tasking?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

cupper said:
			
		

> So, how does the Fifth Wheel attachment to turn a tractor into a wrecker work? Does anyone else use something similar, or is it just someone's attempt at multi-tasking?



http://www.towyourown.com/model_45UL_Under%20Reach.html

http://www.towyourown.com/model_10_fifth_wheel_wrecker.html

http://www.zacklift.com/Fifthwheeler/Fifth.htm

They do exist....


----------



## cupper

Found this one as well, which seem to be directly developed for military use.

http://truhitch.com/truhitchinthemilitary.html

Call me skeptical.  :dunno:


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The End User writes the requirement.  If the doors were too small then talk to the armoured officers and NCMs posted to the Directorate of Land Requirements.  They signed off on the requirement.
> 
> If, like most branches, the black hats sent less then their best and brightest to DLR, then don't blame the procurement folks for a requirements failure.



Assuming that all the numpties, or at least some, are posted to DLR, then it's no wonder we get doors that are too small, vice a ramp (Grizzly)  or the the self ingniting Loud Squeaky Vehicleq Wheeled, and now the nightmare MSVS. Or a ruck that doesn't cooperate with body armour..... :facepalm:


----------



## dapaterson

Also, keep in mind that Canada's defence purchases are relatively small.  Custom builds are extremely expensive, both to acquire and to maintain.  Sometimes, our "Want" list gets winnowed down because there's nothing on the market that can meet all our wants and still fit within our budget.  Off the shelf but missing some Canadian desired features can look very appealing - and can be very successful - look at the C130Js and C17s.  With both we bought the standard model, and are keeping them in line with all future modifications, so our spares are not unique, the production line didn't need any special changes for us, and there was no additional engineering study or test required.

So, do you accept a door instead of a ramp, and get 50% more vehicles, or do we choose the ramp as the key feature and pay for the extra engineering up front, and pay throughout the lifecycle for spares that are "Canadian unique"?  Those are the sorts of trade-offs that sometimes have to be made.


----------



## Armynewsguy

Well, where to begin? First off a bit of background where I am working. Currently I am employed in the position of  DLR8-6-2, DLR 8 basically is “trucks”.

DLR 8 is currently looking after writing the requirements for MSVS SMP, LVM (light and Heavy), Shelters for MSVS, ERC (Enhanced Recovery Capability) and Tank Transporter.

Our section is comprised of Regular and Reserve troops with most having current operational experience.  So if you will indulge me here are a few points to clear up some misconceptions that I have read throughout this thread.

We TALK to a vast and varied audience, but more importantly we listen to what the troops on the ground are telling us.  Our staff have talked to all major stakeholders at all levels about what is required to field a new fleet of heavy and light vehicles. B y the way just to clarify MSVS is replacing MLVW. 

We also engage industry, we want to know what can they provide for us now and how will that serve us 10, 20 25 years into the future. It may surprise you to know that many of our NATO Allies are going through the same exercise as the CF in new fleet procurement. We talk to our allies and scour the world looking for the best equipment so that we may write informed requirements.

If you believe that you have some great ideas for our future fleets drop me a pm and I will be happy to answer any question you may have or put you in touch with the Project Director or Deputy that can help you out. 

Specifically, I am the Deputy Project Director for the Enhanced Recovery Project. My Major and I will be writing the statement of requirements for the new-wheeled recovery capability. We don’t know what it is yet, we are beginning to form an idea of what we require and we don’t know what it will look like. I can tell you the system(s) will recover all wheeled fleets in the CF inventory and for the battle field as far forward as possible (O ya, it won’t be tracked).

To Cupper, the CF has a small quantity of Truhitch already in the Forces; the Americans use it as their only authorized piece of recovery equipment for the Stryker fleet. We will also be acquiring more fifth wheel towing devices in the near future to help us through growing capability gap that the HLVW cannot fill now and into the future.  We believe that FWTD is an outstanding capability and are looking to exploit it as much as we can.

Sorry for the long post, if you have any questions please feel free to ask in this thread or drop me a pm.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Not pointing any fingers but how did the ENGR SEV get approved on a platform that is too big for our needs, needs over 100 ft turn radius for a complete turn and can not go into areas that the MLVW ENGER SEV could?


----------



## McG

As I do not believe MrGnr was in the job at the time MSVS MilCOTS decisions were made, I am more concerned what is being done to ensure the same foolishness is not repeated in MSVS SMP.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Roger that MCG, but he may have some insight on it  :dunno:


----------



## McG

MrGnr said:
			
		

> ... if you have any questions please feel free to ask in this thread or drop me a pm.


 Okay.  I've dropped a handful of ideas on where I think the projects (MSVS & LVM) should go (or should have gone) as it involves our future vehicles.  How much of this has traction up in your office:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> The Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project is beginning to replace the LUVW, LSVW, and HLVW … and possibly/probably the miscellaneous heavier support vehicles including SHLVW, HESV and AHSVS.  I thought it might be interesting to get some collective ideas on what it is we need or what sort of end-state our fleet may look like, and any other generic comments on future support/logistic fleets.
> 
> …  On the light side of the spectrum, I think we have need of something that fills the liaison (G-wagon) to cargo (LSVW, MilCOTS), troop caring (LSVW) and special purpose roles (G-wagon,LSVW, MilCOTS).  In the civilian world this would represent everything from jeep/SUV, to pick-up truck and full-sized van … in the military we have typically used pickups in the van role.  What I propose we need is a single vehicle type that comes in different wheel base lengths and different bodies.  This simplifies logistics and reduces training requirements.  For each wheel base, I would envision a full-length cab variant (in a G-Wagon/SUV sort of style).  I would also see an extended pickup cab (2 to 3 crew + pers kit) and crew cab (2-3 crew + 2 passengers) that would be common to both the standard and extended wheel base versions.
> 
> All vehicles would have MMG/HMG/AGL mounts (either light RWS or a machine gunner’s hatch).  A lightweight General Purpose Vehicle fleet might consist of:
> Short Wheel Base
> Jeep-style comd & liaison vehicle (hard top) with 3 crew & 2 passengers
> Jeep-style comd & reconnaissance vehicle (soft top) with 3 crew & 2 passengers
> Jeep-style provost vehicle with 3 crew
> 
> Standard Wheel Base
> Jeep-style liaison vehicle with 3 crew & 4 passengers
> Pickup Extended Cab-style cargo vehicle with 2 crew
> Pickup Crew Cab-style cargo vehicle with 3 crew & 2 passengers
> Misc Pickup Extended Cab-style SEV with 2 crew
> Misc Pickup Crew Cab-style SEV with 3 crew & 2 passengers
> 
> Extended Wheel Base
> Nyala layout liaison & TCV with 3 crew & 6 passengers
> Pickup Extended Cab-style Ambulance with 2 crew up-front
> Misc Pickup Extended Cab-style SEV with 2 crew
> Misc Pickup Crew Cab-style SEV with 3 crew & 2 passengers
> 
> The vehicles must be designed to be armoured (because armouring vehicles as an after-thought tends to results in unexpected and/or premature mechanical failures), but only the vehicles going to CMBGs should actually be delivered with armour (and vehicles going to Army schools should be delivered with armour simulating ballast).  The purchase plan should bring us to FOC within two years and commit to 300 – 500 new vehicles annually for the life of the fleet.  As new vehicles come in, they will take the armour (or sim-armour) from brigade & TE vehicles, the down-armoured vehicles would then cascade to PRes, bases, Air Force and other users (in some cases eventually reducing the size of our blue fleet).  We would allow ourselves to retire vehicles (from anywhere in the fleet) that are old, tired, or significantly damaged.
> 
> Given that MSVS is bringing in vehicles that are almost as large & heavy as the HLVW, we may want to give consideration to something between MSVS and an LGPV (as I proposed it).  On the other end of the spectrum, additional vehicles of the eventual MSVS variety could cover some HLVW replacement needs.  The rest of the HLVW replacement could be satisfied with a family of vehicles that have capacity to replace the heavier vehicles (HESV, SHLVW, etc) as well.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> There seems to be the belief that we can do better by replacing the medium size support vehicle with larger vehicles.  The MSVS, coming in closer to the HLVW than MLVW, is illustrative.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are problems with a purely bigger is better philosophy.  A truck larger than needed is a truck that is harder to hide on the battlefield, that burns more fuel, that is more work to camouflage, and that fits in fewer places than it should.  Another concern when replacing two medium for one large is that lower level echelons are robbed of a flexibility to divide itself and sp a sub-unit that is split on different axis or AOs.  Those same lower levels loose a sort of depth/resiliency with fewer but bigger trucks; it is an all eggs in one basket scenario.  With two medium trucks, the loss of one still leaves you with half your stuff to continue with ops; with one large truck, it's loss leaves you with nothing.
> 
> The problem with MSV is that it replaced a platform and so focused on the existing platform as opposed to looking at our whole support fleet.   Some of the MLVW needed to be replaced by whatever HSV also replaces the HLVW, SHLVW & HESV.  Unfortunately, with single platform replacement blinders on, we did not take that path.  Instead, the requirement for some MLVW to be replaced by a much larger vehicle has lead to all being replaced by a much larger vehicle, including those which should not have been replaced by larger.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I think the US Army got a lot right with the FMTV.  It is a single family of vehicle that can come in 4x4 up to 8x8 configurations and sees different length of wheelbase offered in the 6x6 configuration.  I would prefer there be more than the standard cab option.  In medium and larger trucks, I think we need the option of crew cabs (driver, commander, gunner and two) and even occasionally "fire truck" cab cabs (driver, commander, gunner and four - five).
> 
> Unfortunately, it is too late to go back and define a requirement for such a family of vehicles for MSVS MilCOTS.  We are stuck with the what we got in the Navistar, and our requirement to do things competitively could result in our being stuck with an intermediate sized truck of a whole different family of vehicles should we attempt such a purchase.
> 
> It may not be too late to get the requirement correct for the MSVS SMP.  Of course, that means we need to look at the requirement from a broader perspective than just MLVW replacement.  That would mean we need to define the requirements for both our medium family and heavy family of vehicles, and the "weight class" which becomes the dividing line.  I think the US Army again got a lot right with the HEMTT for the heavy class (as did the USMC with the HEMTT's close cousin the LVS).


----------



## Armynewsguy

I was not in the section during the writing of MSVS MILCOT. I do not believe that I should talk on how that purchase transpired as I do not have all the facts, and it would be speculation on my part. My goal in life at the moment is to try and get the best piece of equipment for the Canadian Forces in order to safely and efficiently recover vehicles off the battlefield and domestically. I do know this; no matter what we field we will not make everyone happy and that's ok. We will do our best, and with the help of a lot of great people we will get the job done.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Roger that Gnr, I believe you have a tough job ahead like you said not everyone will be satisfied with what ever we get.....I wish you good luck though.


----------



## Mountie

Although the MSVS is intended to replace the MLVW and not the HLVW, the candidates prior to the latest cancellation and rewrite of the project were all in the HLVW class. 

Mercedes-Benz Zetros 6x6 (7-10T)
Oshkosh HEMTT 8x8 (10T)
MAN HX77 8x8 (15T)
TATRA/Navistar ATX8 8x8 (up to 21T)
Oshkosh MTVR 6x6 (7-15T)
Renault Kerax 8x8 (17-23T)

The MLVW is a 2.5T vehicle and the HLVW is a 10/16T vehicle.  So although the MSVS is replacing the MLVW, it will also be taking on roles that were once performed by the HLVW I would assume.  As someone said earlier, don't think of it as a direct replacement for any vehicle, but think about the bigger picture and the roles that it will fulfill.   According to the attached document the HLVW and HESV are scheduled for replacement by 2019/2020.  If a combined MLVW/HLVW replacement could achieved with one vehicle family this would save a lot of support costs.   Several of these vehicles fleets come in 2-3 different sizes from 6-18T and in 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 and 10x10.   Wouldn't this be the best "bang for our buck"?


----------



## McG

Mountie said:
			
		

> Although the MSVS is intended to replace the MLVW and not the HLVW, the candidates prior to the latest cancellation and rewrite of the project were all in the HLVW class.
> 
> ...
> 
> The MLVW is a 2.5T vehicle and the HLVW is a 10/16T vehicle.  So although the MSVS is replacing the MLVW, it will also be taking on roles that were once performed by the HLVW I would assume.


That is not the case.  The MSVS will replace the MLVW.  There will be no MSVS spare or beyond requirement to start doing HLVW jobs.  We are going to force a 10 - 16 ton vehicle into the role of a 2.5 to 3 ton vehicle, then a few years later we will get another 10 - 16 ton vehicle and still have nothing to fill that 2.5 to 3 ton role.



			
				Mountie said:
			
		

> As someone said earlier, don't think of it as a direct replacement for any vehicle, but think about the bigger picture and the roles that it will fulfill.   According to the attached document the HLVW and HESV are scheduled for replacement by 2019/2020.  If a combined MLVW/HLVW replacement could achieved with one vehicle family this would save a lot of support costs.


Here is the problem.  We cannot do that.  Not for the MSVS MilCOTS at least.  If we want to do it for the MSVS SMP, then we need to bring that project to a full stop and re-assess the requirement for all our trucks in the medium to heavy range.  

I think the best thing we could do would be to put out one single RFP for a family of wheeled logistic/support vehicles to cover the range from medium to super heavy.  Contractors could offer up to three families to meet the requirement, but points would be awarded for brining that down to two families of vehicles and even more points awarded for commonalities between those two families.

… but that is not what we are doing.


Getting back to the light end of the spectrum and the discussion about a need for a recce/patrol platform in the Iltis size range.  It ended somewhat indecisively with some arguing that we absolutely needed that smaller vehicle for motor recce while others suggested we should not purchase a vehicle "just on the possibility of it having to traverse a narrow street once in a while."

If a larger (though still small) vehicle can meet our needs for command, liaison, convoy escort, patrolling, etc, then we missed an opportunity to consolidate fleets back in '93 when we could have brought in a fleet of VM 90 C&R variants on the same platform as our new VM 90 support vehicles.  In hind sight, we probably dodged a bullet given what Bombardier did turning the VM 90 into LSVW.

Ten years later, we passed another opportunity to consolidate fleets.  The Australians didn't pass the same opportunity when they bought a G-Wagon family to do everything we get out of LUVW & LSVW.

As this thread has previously identified, there are other vehicles (including the HMMVW) out there than can provide the same versatility.  I started this thread defining what I though the light vehicle needed to be; although LSVW and the different LUVW are slated for retirement at different times, I hope we consolidate the replacement.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

MCG said:
			
		

> Ten years later, we passed another opportunity to consolidate fleets.  The Australians didn't pass the same opportunity when they bought a G-Wagon family to do everything we get out of LUVW & LSVW.



Why didn't we?


----------



## McG

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Why didn't we?


Because we were focused on replacing one platform with a newer _like_ platform.  In other words, we did exactly what our capability development doctrine says not to do (and almost exactly what we did/are doing with MSVS).


----------



## FEEOP042

The problem is several issues.

1. Dealing with IED's mines, The CF want armoured cabs so to have the vehicle carry the load say 8t you will need a 10t or higher and so on.

2. The one I think is the big problem is the army/airforce getting a vehicle for its use right we don't need TCV's on OPs since there is no protection, so we need them here buy a civie pattern for that here don't need all the bells and whistles as an SMP. 

3. The next is supply movement lets look at this. We have supplies in are QM's and in are QM's truck so we have almost double the stores for nothing. answer is this.

http://www.bohfpusystems.com/  this will reduce are cost to double are supplies and be more moblie. All this needs to be addressed what we need the truck for now not just what it is replacing. Fix the short comings with the HLVW PLS like no trailers, the pallet to short for stacking on top to transport three, or locking on a sea can, and putting on the knight trailers.

4. The MSVS Engr variant was signed off by someone that did not know anything about what was wrong with the old MLVW and wanted to make his stay at DLR an easy ride. This is what should have been looked at.


----------



## George Wallace

FEEOP042 said:
			
		

> The problem is several issues.
> 
> 1. Dealing with IED's mines, The CF want armoured cabs so to have the vehicle carry the load say 8t you will need a 10t or higher and so on.
> 
> 2. The one I think is the big problem is the army/airforce getting a vehicle for its use right we don't need TCV's on OPs since there is no protection, so we need them here buy a civie pattern for that here don't need all the bells and whistles as an SMP.
> 
> 3. The next is supply movement lets look at this. We have supplies in are QM's and in are QM's truck so we have almost double the stores for nothing. answer is this.
> 
> http://www.bohfpusystems.com/  this will reduce are cost to double are supplies and be more moblie. All this needs to be addressed what we need the truck for now not just what it is replacing. Fix the short comings with the HLVW PLS like no trailers, the pallet to short for stacking on top to transport three, or locking on a sea can, and putting on the knight trailers.
> 
> 4. The MSVS Engr variant was signed off by someone that did not know anything about what was wrong with the old MLVW and wanted to make his stay at DLR an easy ride. This is what should have been looked at.



I really had a lot of difficulty reading that.

Problem with your suggestion that we buy civilian pattern vehicles for domestic use, means that we are not trained on, nor maintaining operational equipment.  All our vehicles need to "roll" or they become maintainence nightmares.  You can not place a fleet of vehicles in long term storage and expect to drive them any time you may need them.  They will need complete mechanical overhauls and servicing.  No real cost savings there.

As for "Stores", we should have at least 48 hrs of combat stores loaded, and the rest in QM would be "B Ech"; resupplied as required.  The Supply Chain is there for a very good reason.  There is not always what you want to "Local Purchase" in an emergency.


----------



## PanaEng

Agree with George; however, if we HAVE to live with a civ pattern domestically (at least in the reserves), something similar to what FEE042 identified would have been more useful than the current behemoth. The disadvantages of the current offering (we haven't received our SEV  due to comms systems not installed yet - but easy to see from the cargo and TCV variants):
can't manoeuvre in narrow trails and streets;
very questionable off road capability; 
unsafe load handling (what load handling) and pers access to cargo area;
the auger is useless - you can't position the veh to use it
What FEE042 proposed offers:
easy access to tools and supplies;
replacing the auger with a HIAB or similar crane/arm with modular attachments: hook, pallet, grapple, hydraulic tools (breaker, auger, cutters, etc.)


an extended cab for the section is the only thing missing from those pics he posted.
Actually, just changing the auger  with a HIAB type multy tool system will make the current "SEV" into a barely useful engineer veh as opposed to just a section moving veh with some cargo area.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ......
> 
> As for "Stores", we should have at least 48 hrs of combat stores loaded, and the rest in QM would be "B Ech"; resupplied as required.  The Supply Chain is there for a very good reason.  ......



This brings up a really interesting point:  What is the burn rate of combat stores?

In 1982, a Doctrine Standard Gagetown Infantry Platoon (3x 10 man sections and a 5 man weapons det)  could carry everything it needed for 72 hours of combat in Germany on its back.  This included a 60mm mortar, a CG-84 and an ancient Browning MMG on a tripod as well as cleaning kits and spares and picks, shovels or machetes for every man.  Everything we carried could fit comfortably in the back of a single Deuce-and-a-half.   With a second on we could lift the platoon as well.

There was no magic involved. The definition of an hour of combat has changed.

Also the design of the vehicle imposes its own constraints.  The LAV has a payload tonnage comparable to the Deuce and a Half, as does the TAPV.  Both have a differential between their GVWR and their curb weight of 2.5 to 3.0 tonnes.  But neither of those vehicles are as flexible, as load carriers, as the Deuce because of the shape of the armoured cocoon.

At the same time the Canadian Section, which doctrinally is operating within the same battalion framework as it was when fixed by the Brits in 1943,  has had a lot of support assets pushed forwards to it from Brigade, Division and Corps.

In 1943 the section had 6 to 8 bayonets attached to bolt action rifles and 1 or 2 magazine fed Brens with access to a 1 tonne pickup in the company lines.

In 2013, 70 years later, the section has 4 to 6 Brens (C7s), 2x MG-42s (C9s) and a its own Deuce and a Half to carry its gear (LAV).  It also carries a Vickers MMG (C6 Coax - or Besa Coax if you prefer) from the Battalion MMG Platoon or Brigade MMG Battalion, and a Bofors (M242) from the Divisional Lt Anti Air Regiment.

In 1943 the Section Commanders controlled the rate of ammunition consumption of the rifles and the Brens.  Full stop.

The fire of the MMGs was controlled by Battalion and Brigade with ammunition consumption being restricted for reasons of surprise, concentration of forces and economy of effort (Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in my day).
The Bofors fire was controlled by the Divisional Commander and was held in reserve for AA work and significant support requirements like "the Crossing of the Rhine".

Now every Section Commander has his own Bofors and Vickers MMG and a Deuce and Half's worth of Ammunition and sees every action as a Rhine Crossing: probably with justification - the impact on the troops in his section is identical in both instances.

However, just because the Divisional Commander (Maj General) lets his Sergeants ride on his Bofors tractors does he also have to give them authority to fire the Bofors whenever they see fit?

He probably does these days but it still begs the question:

If I am issued ammunition that is intended to last for 72 hours, and permitted to carry it in my own vehicle, and if I am forced to engage the enemy in my first hour do I have the right to burn through the 72 hours worth of supply or do I husband it to make it stretch over the 72 hours during which I am supposed to dominate my sector?

If I am only issued 24 hours on the section vehicle, with 24 at the CQ and 24 at QM then the OC and the CO get an opportunity to intervene in the decision making process.

Historically, even though individual soldiers carried ammunition on their person (typically as few as 60 rounds for a campaign), the rate of consumption was controlled by the command structure through mechanisms like platoon and volley fire.

I can understand the desire to have support and ammunition on hand, and also the imperative to use what is available when the need presents itself. I can also see, in a world of shrinking budgets the constant pressure to maintain support capabilities by pushing them forward towards the FEBA.  After all Gunners can become an Infanteers pretty easily so why not eliminate Bayonets and create an army of MMG Battalions and Bofors Regiments?  

You just need more and bigger trucks to keep the guns supplied with ammunition and spare parts.

Or do you work with what you have available? ???


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Agree with George; however, if we HAVE to live with a civ pattern domestically (at least in the reserves), something similar to what FEE042 identified would have been more useful than the current behemoth. The disadvantages of the current offering (we haven't received our SEV  due to comms systems not installed yet - but easy to see from the cargo and TCV variants):
> can't manoeuvre in narrow trails and streets;
> very questionable off road capability;
> unsafe load handling (what load handling) and pers access to cargo area;
> the auger is useless - you can't position the veh to use it
> What FEE042 proposed offers:
> easy access to tools and supplies;
> replacing the auger with a HIAB or similar crane/arm with modular attachments: hook, pallet, grapple, hydraulic tools (breaker, auger, cutters, etc.)
> 
> 
> an extended cab for the section is the only thing missing from those pics he posted.
> Actually, just changing the auger  with a HIAB type multy tool system will make the current "SEV" into a barely useful engineer veh as opposed to just a section moving veh with some cargo area.



Pana afaik none of these vehs are outfitted for TCCS, yes they have the internal mounts but no AMU's on the exterior, I traced the aerial wiring and it disappears into the headliner with no exterior mounts......and I would hate to be the bugger that forgot to lower the mast....

Auger does have some movement mind you it is lateral to the truck moves out about 2ft or so from the truck....ENGR SEV comes with 2 ways to access the rear deck, the standard shitty ladder and a staircase for more static locations... lots of bins in the rear but a very limited work area...


----------



## FEEOP042

GW   I mean for the TCV's we don't require them as part of the MSVS SMP since overseas there is no protection for troops in the back. Here in Canada we can use a cheaper off the shelf 2 1/2t or lighter for troop transport when needed.

I say we only get SMP fleets for the trucks we only need to get Milcot for troop transport here in Canada. We need SMP for the following PLS, MHC, Engr variant, Sig linemen truck, SEV type bodies to a certain trade. the Base line shelters are CHU so they are picked up with the PLS truck. This way the CF has one truck fleet SMP so if we need more trucks if we lose them on operations we can call up the ones at the PRes. 

I don't see a need for cargo trucks we should only get PLS/CHU trucks and trailers so more uses you just pick up the pallet or module you need. like fuel farms, dump truck, water module, etc


----------



## George Wallace

What I was saying is it is fine to have only MILCOTs for domestic use, but to have any vehicles for use on Operations overseas, you need to be trained on their operation and maint.  If we had a fleet of vehicles solely for Operations in long term preservation, they would be useless in an emergency/deployment as they would have to be completely overhauled mechanically to be put into working order; not to mention crews trained to maintain and operate them.   An idle vehicle creates numerous mechanical problems.  Seals, for instance, dry out.  Perhaps you remember when the MLVW fleet was taken off the road and parked for months due to safety issues with the brakes.  Their long term period of not moving created numerous other mechanical problems and expenses.  

Could we compare your feelings on the trucks to a weapon system?  What if we had bolt action rifles for domestic/training use, and C7A2's in long term preservation for Operations?  

Train as you would fight.  Goes just as well for vehicles as it does for any other aspect of our training.


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Train as you would fight.  Goes just as well for vehicles as it does for any other aspect of our training.



So what do you want to cut then?  We can't afford that amount of equipment in the SMP configuration; we therefore have to divest things.


----------



## George Wallace

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So what do you want to cut then?  We can't afford that amount of equipment in the SMP configuration; we therefore have to divest things.



Historically....as we watch the trends of each new procurement, new procurements half what we held previously.  Unfortunately, this "Peace Dividend" can not go on to infinity.  The CF will soon reach the point that it is "Ineffective".

We replaced the 3/4 Ton SMP with a MILCOT 5/4 Ton.  (Please don't call the LSVW a 'real' army truck.) That was the start.  Now we are replacing the MLVW with a MILCOT.  Eventually we will have no SMP vehicles.  Hate to say it, but the Mexican Army is better equipped.  Thank the Lord that the US of A buffers us from them.   >


----------



## dapaterson

No, we did not replace the MLVW with a MilCOTS.

We replaced a portion of the fleet with a MilCOTS and have mismanaged the acquisition of an SMP variant; but the plan is still to acquire two different vehicles to replace the fleet, one MilCOTS, on SMP - since otherwise, as you observed, we'll have much fewer vehicles.


So again - you want an all SMP fleet. Fine.  What will we cut to get the number of trucks we need?  We need both money for the acquisition, and money for the lifecycle support, since SMP are much more expensive than commercial vehicles to maintain.  So we'll cancel some other acquisitions, and dispose of some other equipment to free up the maintenance dollars needed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well other than one MLVW and a Iltis, my old unit has only 2 SMP's left, well 4 if you count the FAT and 3/4 ton


----------



## Infanteer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So again - you want an all SMP fleet. Fine.  What will we cut to get the number of trucks we need?



ASICs.  4 GSR.  The CCV.

How's that?  If the TAPV contract hadn't already been signed, I'd lump that in as well.


----------



## dapaterson

ACK to your divestment list.  Now you just need to convince the CLS.


----------



## cupper

Kirkhill, very interesting perspective.


----------



## cupper

MrGnr said:
			
		

> Specifically, I am the Deputy Project Director for the Enhanced Recovery Project. My Major and I will be writing the statement of requirements for the new-wheeled recovery capability. We don’t know what it is yet, we are beginning to form an idea of what we require and we don’t know what it will look like. I can tell you the system(s) will recover all wheeled fleets in the CF inventory and for the battle field as far forward as possible (O ya, it won’t be tracked).
> 
> To Cupper, the CF has a small quantity of Truhitch already in the Forces; the Americans use it as their only authorized piece of recovery equipment for the Stryker fleet. We will also be acquiring more fifth wheel towing devices in the near future to help us through growing capability gap that the HLVW cannot fill now and into the future.  We believe that FWTD is an outstanding capability and are looking to exploit it as much as we can.



Thanks for the info MrGnr.

Perhaps I was just being sentimental for my 5-Ton M-62. 

Not having seen the Truhitch in action, I'm still skeptical but open minded. One concern would be the lower weight of the Tractor / FWTRD compared to a fixed mounted recovery vehicle when it comes to winching operations. I can see if the unit is mounted on something like a HEMTT 8x8, but on a smaller tractor unit would required a system of ground anchors or spades to make up that for that lost weight. Another concern would be having sufficient storage space for rigging such as snatch blocks, chains, tow cables, pioneer tools and so forth. Also having mounts for Oxy-Accetylene tanks and associated cutting torches, or at least a man-pack unit.

I understand that the Enhanced Recovery Project is strictly for the Wheeled Fleet. I assume that the current buy of Leo's included the ARV variants to address the needs for tracked recovery. Is there thought to a lighter tracked unit to be included if we move to a tracked CCV or IFV, similar to the M113 ARVL?


----------



## daftandbarmy

It looks like these could replace MILCOTS and the LSVW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b81F7dCA98E&list=UUSXqARiuZFpFaRDE_056y3w&index=2&feature=plcp


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting a common chassis and body work, wonder if it comes with a larger engine and drive train though?


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm guessing that the Aussies are parlaying their experience with the Land Rover Perenties.


They were/are locally built Land Rovers, all powered by an ISUZU diesel, that came in a variety of 4x4 and 6x6 configurations.

http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Perentie.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Perentie

These G-Wagen mods look as if they are direct replacements for the Perenties.

They also are in addition to the 7 tonne Hawkei Patrol vehicle, and the 15 tonne Bushmasters and ASLAVs.


----------



## a_majoor

By the time this gets sorted out, the UNIMOG will be in its seventh generation or so.

Surely it must have entered someone’s calculation that on of the most widely used military trucks in the world (and with a global supply network to service the civilian fleets of UNIMOGS) might also be a good fit for us. Looking at the multitude of SMP variations, as well as some pretty odd home brewed things built on UNIMOG chassis for unique purposes would seem to answer any of the “yeah, but” objections as well.


----------



## cupper

Thucydides said:
			
		

> By the time this gets sorted out, the UNIMOG will be in its seventh generation or so.
> 
> Surely it must have entered someone’s calculation that on of the most widely used military trucks in the world (and with a global supply network to service the civilian fleets of UNIMOGS) might also be a good fit for us. Looking at the multitude of SMP variations, as well as some pretty odd home brewed things built on UNIMOG chassis for unique purposes would seem to answer any of the “yeah, but” objections as well.



Like this?

http://globalxvehicles.com/global-traveler/


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Surely it must have entered someone’s calculation that on of the most widely used military trucks in the world (and with a global supply network to service the civilian fleets of UNIMOGS) might also be a good fit for us.


Maybe, but if Unimog does not bid against the RFP then Unimog cannot win the contract.
We (the CF) need to get our requirement right.  Industry will then come with their solutions.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Thucydides said:
			
		

> By the time this gets sorted out, the UNIMOG will be in its seventh generation or so.
> 
> And probably fusion powered .


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG said:
			
		

> Maybe, but if Unimog does not bid against the RFP then Unimog cannot win the contract.
> We (the CF) need to get our requirement right.  Industry will then come with their solutions.



He speaks the truth, burn him!!!!!!  :evil:


----------



## a_majoor

Maybe we can revive this rather novel idea:

http://ghostmodeler.blogspot.ca/2012/08/northrops-tab-for-all-seasons.html



> *Northrop’s TAB for All Seasons*
> By Tony Chong
> 
> Perhaps one of the most unusual designs proposed by the heritage Northrop Corporation was the Truck, Airplane, Boat (TAB) Vericraft triphibian, an ungainly looking vehicle that attempted to be the all-in-one answer to the U.S. Army’s looming tactical needs.
> 
> TAB was developed in the mid-1960s in an attempt to secure participation in an Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) program called Project AGILE.  One of the issues under investigation was the problem of mobility and logistical supply to remote bases and outposts in inaccessible environments.  With the U.S. increasingly involved in the Vietnam conflict this was a major concern for military planners.
> 
> Northrop envisioned a rugged, easy to build, low-cost aircraft that had the ability to operate effectively not just in the air, but on the water and on land as well.  While primarily designed for the short-range utility cargo mission, it was to be easily adaptable for use as a troop transport, weapons carrier, mobile command post or medical evacuation vehicle.
> 
> The proposed craft featured a rectangular box of a fuselage outfitted with a catamaran hull, retractable wheels and rotatable wings and tail.  Twin Pratt & Whitney PT6-B15 turboprop engines, mounted in a single pod nacelle, provided power to a 7.5 foot shrouded propeller.  Engineered with a constant-chord wing with a span of 60 feet, the TAB was to be 40 feet long, with a folded wing width of 9.5 feet and a height of 13.5 feet.  The cargo compartment was to be 6 feet high, 6 feet wide and 15 feet long.  Gross weight, complete with up to 4,000 lbs of cargo, was projected at 12,000 lbs.
> 
> Conversion to any operational mode was anticipated to take approximately 10 minutes.  Additionally, all mode conversions could be done onboard the TAB during water operations.  The vehicle was also scaled to fit into the cargo hold of a Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport for long, overseas deployments.
> 
> Northrop expended considerable time and effort in this design.  A multi-volume proposal brochure was developed that included cost and operations comparisons to other proposed Army vehicles, including the fixed-wing de Havilland of Canada CV-2 (later C-7) Caribou and the rotary-wing Boeing-Vertol CH-47 Chinook and Bell UH-1 Iroquois (Huey).
> 
> Performance was projected to be modest.  The 130 mph air speed would be slightly faster than the Huey but much slower than the Caribou or Chinook.  Truck speed would top out at 50 mph.  Ironically the boat mode would provide the best performance with calm water speeds up to 35 kts.
> 
> A detailed scale model was built toward this effort, along with a larger scale radio controlled model of the basic TAB design.  Interestingly enough, no formal N-number was attached to the program.  While a Preliminary Design (PD) number was likely given to the TAB, its identity has proved elusive thus far.
> 
> In any event, the program did not go forward.  ARPA declined to offer funding, perhaps in part because the newly implemented 1966 agreement between the Army and U.S. Air Force mandated that the Army give up all fixed-wing tactical airlift capabilities in exchange for unrestricted development and acquisition of rotary-wing assets.  TAB’s primary customer was now obliged to go with the UH-1 and CH-47.  The end result was the coming of age of the helicopter-borne air-mobile Army during combat operations in the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> Kristi Harding contributed to this article.
> 
> For further reading on Project AGILE, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_AGILE
> 
> A look into the scope of Project AGILE can be found in this July to December 1963 semiannual report by ARPA, including Subproject III to which TAB was tailored: http://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/findaids/agentorange/text/00340.pdf
> 
> A review of the Army/Air Force 1966 agreement can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Maybe we can revive this rather novel idea:
> 
> http://ghostmodeler.blogspot.ca/2012/08/northrops-tab-for-all-seasons.html


That is most certainly not what we need.


----------



## Infanteer

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Maybe we can revive this rather novel idea:
> 
> http://ghostmodeler.blogspot.ca/2012/08/northrops-tab-for-all-seasons.html



Or maybe we can just buy some new trucks.


----------



## a_majoor

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Or maybe we can just buy some new trucks.



Hear! Hear!

Too bad the process is so complicated that designing and building the TAB seems easy by comparison........


----------



## dapaterson

Government procurement is actually pretty simple.  Drawn out, but simple.

The biggest problem is people who do not understand the process, attempt end-runs around what they perceive to be problems, and end up causing more problems and delays.

Of course "Doing my job and getting things done" doesn't get you PER points - "Fucking things up in new and crazy ways Leading Change" does.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Government procurement is actually pretty simple.  Drawn out, but simple.
> 
> The biggest problem is people who do not understand the process, attempt end-runs around what they perceive to be problems, and end up causing more problems and delays.
> 
> Of course "Doing my job and getting things done" doesn't get you PER points - "******* things up in new and crazy ways Leading Change" does.



There is an ancient legal maxim: Justice delayed is justice denied.

I would apply the same time factor to any process.  If the process is drawn out it is flawed.  Punkt.

From that premise it is easy to understand why people look for alternative solutions to debating technicalities with untrained bureaucrats who are on a  two year "up or out" time-table.  When you have faced the same committee three times in five years and realize that you are the only original face in the room it is difficult to summon up the effort to do the "sales pitch" one more time.

The process may be simple, once it is found, described and taught but for the uninitiated it is much like playing the Legend of Zelda.  I watched my kids play it as they grew up. They wandered through the darkness and exposed their environment by bumping into things: walls, warriors and ogres.  When ogres were slain, and they had a chance to take stock of their revealed surroundings,  they fell through trap doors to magically appear in another void which eventually revealed more ogres to be slain.  Eventually, when all trapdoors had been opened and all ogres slain the simplicity of the design was revealed.  However this required much spilling of blood, spending of treasure, the occasional miraculous potion and, above all, many lives.

I encouraged my kids to play that game.  I found it a perfect analogy for dealing with any bureaucracy (commercial or political) - a life skill in any age.

When National Defence, Public Works and Government Services, Industry Canada and Foreign Affairs can all conjointly create a simple one page process description that applies to all projects equally then I will accept that the problem is with the supplicants begging indulgences from Pharaoh.  Until then the problem lies with the bureacracy.


----------



## McG

Problems and ideas related to military procurement are covered in depth here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26594.0.html


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> Problems and ideas related to military procurement are covered in depth here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26594.0.html



Apologies for the diversion.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> ....
> Getting back to the light end of the spectrum and the discussion about a need for a recce/patrol platform in the Iltis size range.  It ended somewhat indecisively with some arguing that we absolutely needed that smaller vehicle for motor recce while others suggested we should not purchase a vehicle "just on the possibility of it having to traverse a narrow street once in a while."
> 
> ....



Just giving a look at some of the hurdles the Light Battalions are having to face.

I'm inclined to think Iltis might be just what they need.

You can park two of them inside a Chinook and one (if you collapse the roll bar) inside a Cyclone.  You can sling one under a Griffon (for a short distance).

It can carry up to 4 bodies and tow a half tonne trailer ( a half tonne equals a C6 and 10,000 rounds - about right for an MG in SF mode probably the right load for a C16 with ammo).

Maybe it is not right for Day 7 of a deployment but would seem to be a reasonable choice for Day 1 (assuming you're not fighting your way onto ground but rather taking ground and making the other guy come to you.)

Iltis weighs half as much as a G-Wagen and about as much as four loaded Yamaha Grizzly 700s.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Single small problem with the Cyclone: It is not a transport helicopter. Its insides are already spoken for by the various sensor stations.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Single small problem with the Cyclone: It is not a transport helicopter. Its insides are already spoken for by the various sensor stations.



Other small problem with the Cyclone:  It doesn't exist in a usable state.


----------



## Kirkhill

Beyond the "notional" nature of the Cyclone, I understood that part of the design challenge was that the aircraft was to be a "multi-role" platform that could be converted at sea from an ASW vehicle to a Utility vehicle by rolling the AESOPs and TACCO's consoles out of the back.  The conversion was supposed to be reversible.

If that requirement has been set aside then disregard my previous.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I might be wrong, and a SME correct me please, but I am unaware that the Cyclone has a stern ramp. I am only aware of the two side doors to the after cabin, and none of them is big enough to let in a car.

My understanding of the "utility" aspect was that there is enough room in the cabin for passengers in harness seats , that you can sling a machine gun to use as force protection for  boarding teams, and use a door winch for SAR and team insertion.


----------



## Kirkhill

Excuse the continued tangent.







Courtesy of Naval Technology


And from Defense Industry Daily



> The MH-92/ CH-148 Naval Helicopter
> 
> The H-92 Superhawk platform Canada chose for its “CH-148 Cyclone” maritime helicopters is a larger derivative of the ubiquitous H-60 family that comprise most of the US Navy’s current fleet. it makes heavier use of rust-proof composite materials, and also sports uprated engines, a rear ramp, and other features that place it in a similar class to Europe’s delayed NH90 NFH model, whose schedule has also slipped until it is also expected to become fully operational around 2013.
> 
> Initial Cyclone specifications called for GE’s 3,000 hp class CT7-8C engines, but helicopter weight growth will force another engine upgrade before the final design is ready. Standard self-sealing fuel tanks can carry up to 3,030 kg of fuel, and an in-flight refuelling probe allows in-air refueling for extended range flights.
> 
> The 17 cubic meter cabin is fitted with a cargo handling system with a centerline 1,814 kg/ 4,000 pound capacity cargo winch, floor rollers, and cargo tie-down points. A 6 foot-wide aft ramp allows easy and fast loading and unloading of cargo and troops. A 272 kg/ 600 pound capacity hydraulic rescue hoist can reportedly be added to the helicopter if necessary....



These and similar articles form the basis of my understanding.  My apologies if I mislead.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/05/video-articulate-this-chainlink-4x4-is-frighteningly-awesome/

On the subject:

Here is the suspension system required for a light vehicle






Video at the link.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Specialized suspension has been around for a long time, Google some of the British interwar Armoured car drivetrain, Strausser I think it's called?


----------



## McG

I think the future light vehicle is the alligator farthest from the boat.


----------



## cupper

By the time they cut the budget and reevaluate needs and specifications, I suspect that all we would be able to afford is this


----------



## FutureSight

I have heard that the replacement project for the LSVW were put on hold.

Any word as to what are the possible options? and when we could be possibly getting them?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Have you heard of the "search" function?  It works amazingly well.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest via MERX:


> .... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for theoretical and practical on- and off-road vehicle mobility fundamentals training.  The Logistics Vehicle Modernization (LVM) Project, which will replace the existing light and heavy logistics vehicles and associated equipment, is currently in the Option Analysis phase.  In order to assist with the finalization of the Statement of Requirements, the development of the Statement of Work and the test plan, the Project Management Office LVM has a requirement to train engineers, technicians and other technical staff to enhance their technical knowledge of military tactical vehicles’ off- and on-road mobility fundamentals.  This includes engineering aspects of vehicle design, testing, and operation which are unique to military vehicles.  Another objective of this course is for candidates to better understand the vehicle terrain interaction, and to improve their ability to optimize the use of the vehicle for specific conditions.
> 
> This Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN)
> 
> The purpose of this ACAN is to signal DND’s intention to award a contract with an estimated value of US $44,140.00 for theoretical and practical military tactical vehicle mobility fundamentals training for nine (9) technical staff, to the Nevada Automotive Test Center (A Division of Hodges Transportation, Inc.) of Carson City, Nevada ....


----------



## McG

So this is a contract to train the project staff so that they can write the SOR and SOW in order to eventually get to the RFP.
As the SOR and SOW are written in different offices, it would suggest the students will be a mix of Army from DLR and civi engineers/techs from ADM(Mat).
Wonder why we did not turn to the faculty in RMC responsible to teach "military tactical vehicles’ off- and on-road mobility fundamentals," and including "engineering aspects of vehicle design, testing, and operation which are unique to military vehicles."


----------



## OldSolduer

I'd rather have the team made up of a bunch of drivers, maintainers and sup techs.


----------



## dangerboy

MCG said:
			
		

> So this is a contract to train the project staff so that they can write the SOR and SOW in order to eventually get to the RFP.
> As the SOR and SOW are written in different offices, it would suggest the students will be a mix of Army from DLR and civi engineers/techs from ADM(Mat).
> Wonder why we did not turn to the faculty in RMC responsible to teach "military tactical vehicles’ off- and on-road mobility fundamentals," and including "engineering aspects of vehicle design, testing, and operation which are unique to military vehicles."



Especially since they do teach that.  On the ATWO and ATSO courses  have a module on Vehicle Systems, Survivability and Mobility that sounds like they cover those topics.


----------



## Armynewsguy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'd rather have the team made up of a bunch of drivers, maintainers and sup techs.



Jim, the DLR 6 team does indeed have an MSE OP(CWO) and also 2 Maintainers (one Maj, one MrGnr) teamed up with 6 LOG Officers and one Infantry WO.  When the time comes the equipment will be tested/trialed by Army troops to ensure their feedback is recorded and heeded.



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> Especially since they do teach that.  On the ATWO and ATSO courses  have a module on Vehicle Systems, Survivability and Mobility that sounds like they cover those topics.



Dangerboy, yes they do cover those subjects on the ATWO/LFTSP course. But to quote a favourite saying from the course "the information is a mile wide and an inch deep". While the information presented gives you a basic understanding of terramechanics it does not provide enough information to write an informed SOR/SOW. The more informed we are at the time of writing, the less chance of getting something wrong. A little bit of an investment at the start of the project will provide big dividends later on.


----------



## McG

MrGnr said:
			
		

> ... yes they do cover those subjects on the ATWO/LFTSP course. But to quote a favourite saying from the course "the information is a mile wide and an inch deep". While the information presented gives you a basic understanding of terramechanics it does not provide enough information to write an informed SOR/SOW.


But the RMC engineers who instruct the ATWO/ATSO should be able to deliver this deeper, more focused instruction to the project staff ... or they should be capable of advising the project staff.  Why are we contracting for a capability that is resident in the organization?


----------



## Kat Stevens

MrGnr said:
			
		

> Jim, the DLR 6 team does indeed have an MSE OP(CWO) and also 2 Maintainers (one Maj, one MrGnr) teamed up with 6 LOG Officers and one Infantry WO.  When the time comes the equipment will be tested/trialed by Army troops to ensure their feedback is recorded and heeded.
> 
> Dangerboy, yes they do cover those subjects on the ATWO/LFTSP course. But to quote a favourite saying from the course "the information is a mile wide and an inch deep". While the information presented gives you a basic understanding of terramechanics it does not provide enough information to write an informed SOR/SOW. The more informed we are at the time of writing, the less chance of getting something wrong. A little bit of an investment at the start of the project will provide big dividends later on.



You mean like with the LSVW?  That kind of heeding of feedback?  God help our troops.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if the LSVW was more a case of the builder mucking it up, than the original design? IVECO's are popular with globetrotting crowd, just saw 2 here in Vancouver all kitted out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder if the LSVW was more a case of the builder mucking it up, than the original design? IVECO's are popular with globetrotting crowd, just saw 2 here in Vancouver all kitted out.



Comparing the IVECO and the LSVW, is like comparing the original German VW Iltis and that cheesy knockoff that we got from Bombardier.

They both look like their parent, but that's about where it stops.

YMMV


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> IVECO's are popular with globetrotting crowd, just saw 2 here in Vancouver all kitted out.


We have allies still using the IVECO VM90T on operations.  It is a platform that could have filled all the roles of the LSVW that we gave its knock-off, and it could do the C&R, MP, and liaison functions we gave the G-wagon.  Some platform rationalization would not be bad for us.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/100166/post-1190924.html#msg1190924


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> We have allies still using the IVECO VM90T on operations.  It is a platform that could have filled all the roles of the LSVW that we gave its knock-off, and it could do the C&R, MP, and liaison functions we gave the G-wagon.  Some platform rationalization would not be bad for us.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/100166/post-1190924.html#msg1190924



Stop that!

Quit making sense!


----------



## PanaEng

MrGnr said:
			
		

> Jim, the DLR 6 team does indeed have an MSE OP(CWO) and also 2 Maintainers (one Maj, one MrGnr) teamed up with 6 LOG Officers and one Infantry WO.  When the time comes the equipment will be tested/trialed by Army troops to ensure their feedback is recorded and heeded.
> 
> Dangerboy, yes they do cover those subjects on the ATWO/LFTSP course. But to quote a favourite saying from the course "the information is a mile wide and an inch deep". While the information presented gives you a basic understanding of terramechanics it does not provide enough information to write an informed SOR/SOW. The more informed we are at the time of writing, the less chance of getting something wrong. A little bit of an investment at the start of the project will provide big dividends later on.


And to ad to Kat's comment... that's how we ended up with the MSVS "Engr" SEV?  - I put Engr in quotes since it is utterly useless other than to carry 9 soldiers comfortably down the highway. 
(Granted, there were some Engineers involved but they were so out of the loop... or understaffed...  maybe I should blame the career managers) - maybe that's no place for a CWO who's last field time in a field tp was 20 yrs ago...  How do we "keep it real"?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Remember when an Engineer Regiment was given a piece of equipment to trial and was basically told "try to break it"?  Those were the days.


----------



## PanaEng

:dude:





			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Remember when an Engineer Regiment was given a piece of equipment to trial and was basically told "try to break it"?  Those were the days.


99.9% success rate! (before explosives showed up...)
CHIMO!


----------



## dapaterson

History of the MSVS MilCOTS has to be taken in context - there was a grand total of one company that bid.  Leaving two choices:  Take it or leave it.

So, the question in that case is better phrased:  What's better: the new MSVS SEV, or the MLVW (no parts available)?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Quantity has a quality all of its own: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-logistical-vehicles.asp


----------



## a_majoor

Total blue sky idea here, but a vehicle similar in concept to aircraft MHE's would be very easy to load/unload (built in rollers on the load bed and can be loaded or unloaded from either end). While the scissor lift loadbed might be useful now and then, for 90% of the fleet, that would not be needed. Analogues of all existing truck sizes can be created just like MHEs come in a wide range of sizes.

Speed in material handling (and modernizing things so almost all of what we carry is palletized or containerized) would go a long way to making our logistical chain more efficient and productive, which should be the larger purpose of the fleet. This also extends to specialist vehicles, if the base truck is designed to rapidly load, carry and unload containers, modular container "packages" can be created for virtually every special purpose.

So long as the chassis has sufficient ground clearance and cross country mobility (low ground pressure), and can be equipped with a winch and/or PTO, then we have the basis for rethinking the nature of the logistics fleet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> History of the MSVS MilCOTS has to be taken in context - there was a grand total of one company that bid.  Leaving two choices:  Take it or leave it.
> 
> So, the question in that case is better phrased:  What's better: the new MSVS SEV, or the MLVW (no parts available)?



At which point we should have bite the bullet and married ourselves to this contract http://defense-update.com/20081113_ltas_fmtv_medium_truck.html


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> At which point we should have bite the bullet and married ourselves to this contract http://defense-update.com/20081113_ltas_fmtv_medium_truck.html



No.  MSVS MilCOTS ios not intended as an armoured, expeditionary vehicle.  Those cost much more to acquire and maintain.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I believe that contract also included the unarmoured version. Going by our previous deployments, I would say the odds of the current MSVS MilCOTS being deployed overseas is fairly high. Even more so when you consider that "intermin" will likely mean the next 20 years. 

It's funny we argue that it's impossible to have multiple fleets of AFV's, yet seem quite content with doing the same for logistical trucks. Don't get me wrong, every unit should have some domestic sourced vehicles for the day to day running around in and picking up supplies from the depots and such to reduce wear on the tactical fleet. An argument that fell on deaf ears when they fought hard to take our 3-ton stake truck from us.


----------



## dapaterson

Look back to the spec for the MSVS MiLCOTS.  We wanted dealer service close at hand to reduce maintenance pers & ensure a supply chain.  Buying a military vehicle loses those savings and flexibility.


----------



## marinemech

We had 3-4 2014 in Military green come off the Truck from Autoport in Dartmouth, ill have to check to see if they have any special tagging on them, they are all outfitted with the Steel Bumpers, Removable Cap, and 1 had a front winch and 1 had a rear winch , did not look at the other one(s)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Look back to the spec for the MSVS MiLCOTS.  We wanted dealer service close at hand to reduce maintenance pers & ensure a supply chain.  Buying a military vehicle loses those savings and flexibility.



I know they are still pretty new, but how is that supply chain idea working out so far? 

One thing I will say, their winches look a lot better thought out then the ones from the MLVW.


----------



## PuckChaser

Colin P said:
			
		

> I know they are still pretty new, but how is that supply chain idea working out so far?



Bunch were grounded at my unit until a mod could get done downtown, right before a major exercise. Tpt Rep had to call in a favour to get two trucks completed so we could actually bring our kit. Rest will get done "eventually." We're just another number in a civvie truck shop.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Bunch were grounded at my unit until a mod could get done downtown, right before a major exercise. Tpt Rep had to call in a favour to get two trucks completed so we could actually bring our kit. Rest will get done "eventually." We're just another number in a civvie truck shop.



As opposed to just another number on base, where there are no parts...


----------



## Armynewsguy

For information on MSVS SMP check out Buyandsell.gc.ca

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-BW-008-23908


----------



## MilEME09

MrGnr said:
			
		

> For information on MSVS SMP check out Buyandsell.gc.ca
> 
> https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-BW-008-23908



closes December 17th eh? maybe DND will get a nice gift for the holidays


----------



## The Bread Guy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> closes December 17th eh? maybe DND will get a nice gift for the holidays


1300 vehicles, purchased in 8 days?  Only if Santa himself brought them.


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> closes December 17th eh? maybe DND will get a nice gift for the holidays



Holidays 2019.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Holidays 2019.



I didn't say what year did I?  >


----------



## The Bread Guy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I didn't say what year did I?  >


Or which holiday, right?


----------



## MilEME09

It would appear on december 12th they extended the deadline to Jan 8th, hmmm more time for bidders perhaps? or use the announcement to shut down the CCV cancellation from the headlines?


----------



## QM

One of the bidders asked for a few more weeks. MSVS RFP closed successfully on 08 Jan and the bid evaluation is starting right away, in Nevada.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Log Offr said:
			
		

> One of the bidders asked for a few more weeks. MSVS RFP closed successfully on 08 Jan and the bid evaluation is starting right away, in Nevada.



So are they planning on putting down on Red or Black?  ;D


----------



## MilEME09

Log Offr said:
			
		

> One of the bidders asked for a few more weeks. MSVS RFP closed successfully on 08 Jan and the bid evaluation is starting right away, in Nevada.



So the tests are going on right now? maybe the extra time was to get their vehicle(s) to the proving ground in Area 51 Nevada


----------



## McG

Log Offr said:
			
		

> One of the bidders asked for a few more weeks. MSVS RFP closed successfully on 08 Jan and the bid evaluation is starting right away, in Nevada.


Why is bid evaluation (an administrative task) being done in Nevada?
Do you mean that vehicle testing will occur in Nevada?


----------



## OldSolduer

MCG said:
			
		

> Why is bid evaluation (an administrative task) being done in Nevada?
> Do you mean that vehicle testing will occur in Nevada?



IIRC the cold weather testing for the Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled was done in Nevada or somewhere like that.


----------



## MilEME09

*Stalling on military trucks costly, feds warned; Opposition calls it 'pathetic'*





> OTTAWA - The longer it takes the federal government to buy 1,500 new replacement trucks for the military, the fewer vehicles it will be able to afford, the Department of National Defence warned in 2012.
> 
> The unusually frank assessment of the medium support vehicle program, cancelled twice since 2006, came in a memo to former deputy defence minister Robert Fonberg just weeks after the Department of Public Works pulled the plug for the second time.
> 
> It was part of a series of internal documents, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, that show the decision to halt the program was the direct result of budget cuts at National Defence.
> 
> Fonberg, who has since moved on to another position in the government, was told by officials that the $800 million set aside by the Conservatives for that portion of the program was being eroded by inflation at a rate of two per cent a year.
> 
> "The potential impact of schedule delays ... is that for every year of delay, it is estimated that (censored) fewer vehicles can be procured," said a briefing dated Nov. 27, 2012.
> 
> It was also costing the department $10.5 million per year to keep the project office open, the briefing noted.
> 
> The program was quietly restarted last year — bids closed just last week — but a contract award is not expected until the summer of 2015, just weeks before the next federal election — a delay that could chew as much as $48 million of buying power out of the program.
> 
> New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris said the timing of a relatively straightforward purchase of trucks has been hijacked by politics.
> 
> "It's pathetic," said Harris. "What else can you say? It's pathetic."
> 
> The briefing and a series of other documents paint a picture of how National Defence had painted into a corner over the program. Budget cuts from 2010 were trickling down to front-line programs and planners were being left in the lurch.
> 
> Defence officials were advised midway through 2012, just as final bids were about to be submitted by contractors, that "as a result of 'expenditure review measures' there could be a reduction in the current financial cap" allocated to the truck program, a series of Public Works emails shows.
> 
> Officials scrambled during the first weeks of July 2012 to salvage the truck plan, which was described as being an "urgent priority" when it was first announced because of safety concerns with the existing 1980s-vintage fleet.
> 
> Harris said the political imperative of balancing the budget clearly took priority over safety hazards.
> 
> "The government wanted to put themselves in a position of having to declare a surplus in time for an election, where they can announce tax breaks," he said.
> 
> The army has started parking some of the vehicles and using them for spare parts in hopes of saving money.


----------



## PuckChaser

> It was also costing the department $10.5 million per year to keep the project office open, the briefing noted.



Why defense procurement is broken in one sentence.


----------



## suffolkowner

Yep! Multiply that by every open project plus the added complexity multiply that by the average time to procure. Money wasted.


----------



## MilEME09

So the only vehicle I can confirm in the running is the Oshkosh MSVS SMP, they released a statement back on the 8th

*Oshkosh Defense Canada Delivers MSVS SMP Bid with Next-Generation Capabilities for Canadian Armed Forces*



> OTTAWA, Ontario (Jan. 8, 2014) — The Canadian Government is taking important steps in modernizing its logistics vehicle fleet by advancing the Standard Military Pattern (SMP) component of the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) project. Oshkosh Defense Canada, Inc., a subsidiary of Oshkosh Corporation (NYSE:OSK), responded to the Government of Canada’s MSVS SMP Request for Proposal (RFP), offering a high performance, low risk solution to meet the Canadian Department of National Defence’s (DND) mission requirements and protect Canadian Soldiers for decades to come.
> 
> “Working closely with our Canadian industry partners and a growing network of Canadian suppliers, our Oshkosh MSVS SMP offering provides superior vehicle performance, sustainment across six continents, and ultimately, the best overall value for Canada,” said John Urias, Oshkosh Corporation executive vice president and president of Oshkosh Defense. “The Oshkosh MSVS SMP family of vehicles is the next generation of the world’s most trusted, battle-proven military platform in the field today. We are proud to present the Government of Canada with our MSVS SMP bid that meets or exceeds all project requirements, and most importantly, provides Canadian Soldiers with the modern logistics vehicles they need to perform their missions.”
> 
> The Best Value for Canada
> 
> Oshkosh, in collaboration with its Canadian team members and suppliers, will return 100 percent or more of the MSVS SMP contract value to the Canadian economy. Oshkosh’s strategic team members for the project include DEW Engineering and Development, General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada, and Link Suspensions of Canada – Raydan Division.
> 
> “Our MSVS SMP team aligns core Oshkosh design, production and sustainment strengths with Canada’s finest technology, manufacturing and services capabilities,” said John Lazar, senior director of Global Strategic Initiatives for Oshkosh Defense. “We are committed to supporting MSVS SMP and future Canadian vehicle modernization programs by working with companies across Canada and creating new economic value in the process.”
> 
> Exceptional Performance, Without the Risk
> 
> Oshkosh designed, extensively tested and built its MSVS SMP solution to bring the latest ground vehicle technologies to the Canadian Armed Forces. The Oshkosh MSVS SMP vehicles and trailers are built to serve a full range of logistics missions from disaster recovery at home to major conflicts abroad. Key vehicle subsystems, including a high-performance drive train, advanced suspension and braking systems, and a state-of-the-art armour protection system, allow the Oshkosh MSVS SMP to achieve a 70 percent off-road mission profile and a 98 percent mission reliability rate – both of which will enable Canada’s ground forces to more safely operate in a vast array of threat levels, climates and terrains.
> 
> The Oshkosh MSVS SMP builds upon decades of in-theatre experience around the globe and more than one billion real-world operational kilometres accumulated on the Oshkosh Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) platform. The acclaimed HEMTT platform is a purpose-built military vehicle that has been chosen by the United States Department of Defense and more than 20 allies worldwide – consistently outperforming commercial vehicle derivatives in competitive scenarios.
> 
> Canada’s MSVS SMP RFP also includes five years of In-Service Support (ISS). With Canadian troops more frequently mobilized around the world for defence and humanitarian missions, complete life cycle sustainment is increasingly important to ensure mission readiness.
> 
> The Oshkosh team’s ISS offering leverages decades of performance based contracting and major repair/overhaul programs experience to minimize MSVS SMP life cycle costs while maximizing reliability and readiness rates. “Our ISS plan is based on a robust global supply chain and a mature logistics system that spans six continents,” added Lazar. “By applying our logistics supportability analysis methodology to manage fleet health, Oshkosh has helped reduced military vehicle fleet life cycle costs as much as 70 percent.”



http://en.oshkoshdefense.ca/vehicles/msvs-smp/


----------



## dapaterson

Latest Canadian Defence Review has an overview of the five(?) likely competitors: Oshkosh, Navistar, Mercedes Benz, Volvo and another I forget.  Unfortunately, I don't have the magazine at home, and can't access their website edition: http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/


----------



## dapaterson

According to CDR, the contenders will be:

Navistar - proposing the ATX-8 (Tatra 8x8)
Mack Defense - (part of Volvo) Renault Trucks Kerax as the base for their 8x8 submission
Mercedes Benz - 6x6 Zetros
Oshkosh - HEMTT A4 8x8
Rheinmetall - Migh Mobility Series HX 77 8x8


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> According to CDR, the contenders will be:
> 
> Navistar - proposing the ATX-8 (Tatra 8x8)
> Mack Defense - (part of Volvo) Renault Trucks Kerax as the base for their 8x8 submission
> Mercedes Benz - 6x6 Zetros
> Oshkosh - HEMTT A4 8x8
> Rheinmetall - Migh Mobility Series HX 77 8x8



months of testing, and yet no selection till next fall and deliveries in 2017..............


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Since these are already tried and trusted SMP platforms (I think) so minor modifications to make them "Canadianized" should be quick and easy IMHO...


----------



## Rifleman62

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Since these are already tried and trusted SMP platforms (I think) so minor modifications to make them "Canadianized" should be quick and easy IMHO...



Visited the states of Washington or Colorado recently did you?


----------



## Journeyman

And you just _know_ that the unthinking, finger-pointing classes are going to see the Zetros and proclaim, "the government is neglecting the troops, yet they buy Mercedes Benz!"


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Oshkosh are good proven trucks and at least we'd have some interoperability with out nearest ally.


----------



## MilEME09

Dear DND,

Instead of putting funds towards replacing kit that works such as mukluks, gloves, ruck sacks, tac vests, and small packs (yes thats right my CSM told us they are replacing our small packs, rucks(to remove the 84 pattern?) and tac vests), wet weather boots, and the list goes on. Instead put that money into getting us a ML replacement sooner then two days after never, replace the LS, and the HL, we need new wreakers, ours breaks the moment it comes back from repairs.

Signed

your troops


----------



## jlv031

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Dear DND,
> 
> Instead of putting funds towards replacing kit that works such as mukluks, gloves, ruck sacks, tac vests, and small packs (yes thats right my CSM told us they are replacing our small packs, rucks(to remove the 84 pattern?) and tac vests), wet weather boots, and the list goes on. Instead put that money into getting us a ML replacement sooner then two days after never, replace the LS, and the HL, we need new wreakers, ours breaks the moment it comes back from repairs.
> 
> Signed
> 
> your troops



And a wrecker that can actually recover all the equipment we are responsible to fix/tow!!  It is ridiculous to go on a recovery call 1 hour away, realise we need to tow it back and have to call a civy wrecker...


----------



## OldSolduer

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Since these are already tried and trusted SMP platforms (I think) so minor modifications to make them "Canadianized" should be quick and easy IMHO...



When you say "Canadianize" do you mean modifying so much it doesn't not resemble the original test vehicle and doesn't perform as well as intended? 

Or do you mean putting a decent cab heater and a block heater in?  >


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Dear DND,
> 
> Instead of putting funds towards replacing kit that works such as mukluks, gloves, ruck sacks, tac vests, and small packs (yes thats right my CSM told us they are replacing our small packs, rucks(to remove the 84 pattern?) and tac vests), wet weather boots, and the list goes on. Instead put that money into getting us a ML replacement sooner then two days after never, replace the LS, and the HL, we need new wreakers, ours breaks the moment it comes back from repairs.
> 
> Signed
> 
> your troops



Tacvest doesn't work.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Tacvest doesn't work.



I meant worked as in the sense that its not falling apart, and actually holds what you put in


----------



## PPCLI Guy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Dear DND,
> 
> Instead of putting funds towards replacing kit that works such as mukluks, gloves, ruck sacks, tac vests, and small packs (yes thats right my CSM told us they are replacing our small packs, rucks(to remove the 84 pattern?) and tac vests), wet weather boots, and the list goes on. Instead put that money into getting us a ML replacement sooner then two days after never, replace the LS, and the HL, we need new wreakers, ours breaks the moment it comes back from repairs.
> 
> Signed
> 
> your troops



Dear Troops,

Careful what you ask for.  You complained loud and long about things like boots, tacvests, mukluks etc, and so we spent all of our energy trying to satisfy your needs and desires.  Sadly, we had no capacity left to focus on important things like trucks.

Signed,

DND


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The concepts of:

Buying stuff for the military is not new
What is a truck is not new, even if the tech evolves
The tasks of a truck has not fundamental changed since WWII
Sources of military trucks are plentiful
Costs of running trucks is known to us
The number of trucks we need is fairly well known

So I'm unclear how they can muck this up so badly.


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I meant worked as in the sense that its not falling apart, and actually holds what you put in



Ask C6/C9 gunner or Leo 2 crewman if the tacvest holds what they need to put in it.


----------



## OldSolduer

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Dear Troops,
> 
> Careful what you ask for.  You complained loud and long about things like boots, tacvests, mukluks etc, and so we spent all of our energy trying to satisfy your needs and desires.  Sadly, we had no capacity left to focus on important things like trucks.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> DND



I have to agree with this. 

Sometimes,as much as this pains me to say, we pay too much attention to "want" and not enough to "need".


----------



## Kirkhill

Jim, I don't like the differentiation between "want" and "need".

Too many budget cycles and too many fights with accountants trying to justify a purchase on the basis of a "need" only to have the idiot with the cash to tell me or my customer it can't be afforded.  They spin their efforts at "due dilligence", blissfully ignorant of the nature of the operations they are reviewing,  and demand the trimming of your "wish list" into "wants" and "needs".  They then immediately eliminate the "wants" and hack the "needs" with a dull axe.

I would sooner they just left the wish list intact, told us how much money they are going to let us have for the year and then bugger off back to their lairs to play with their latest electronic gizmos* until the next tax year comes around.  Let the operators manage their budgets.

*It is a particular bugbear of mine that the one department that never seems to lack for "toys" is the accounting department.  When mastodons were crushing ice (I'm not quite as old as some round here) and laptops were new inventions, the first department so equipped in the company for which I worked, was the upper echelons of the accountants who showed up at their desk every morning at 9:15 precisely.  Not those of us in the field force serving clients from Florida to Alaska and fielding calls at 2 O'Clock in the morning. 

PS - It must be infectious.  I must apologize.  I have noted a recent tendency for the tone of my posts to become ever more sarcastic and pointed and negative.  It is either February or the civvy version of Cafard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill
You are bang on, the "necessary sacrifices" are to be borne by the doers and not the planners(who see their function as critical). Sadly the places that should be cut have enough time, information sources and resources to insulate themselves from the cuts which end up fostering themselves on the people to busy doing their job to notice the reduction vibes coming their way. It's not just a DND issue either. I suspect DND and NDHQ could happily function without any actual combat forces at their disposal.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> .... the "necessary sacrifices" are to be borne by the doers and not the planners ....


And in most systems, it's the planners, not the doers, who plan the changes ....  



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect DND and NDHQ could happily function without any actual combat forces at their disposal.


Hate to sound like a broken record, but there's a _"Yes, Minister"_ episode on that - a hospital where 1)  there are no patients, 2)  public servants within said it's actually easier to run the place without patients, and 3) a union threatens a general strike at word the government is looking at closing the hospital.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You forgot to mention that in the episode, the empty hospital won the Florence Nightingale Award for most hygienic hospital  .


----------



## Fishbone Jones

From the sounds of today's budget, this thread has just become an academic exercise.

Best get out the paint and tire black. It sounds like you won't be getting anything new for a long time yet.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

The trucks were profiled for 2021 / 2022. so no immediate impact


----------



## Old EO Tech

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The trucks were profiled for 2021 / 2022. so no immediate impact



Yes I'm hoping this is nothing more than some smoke and mirrors, the LVM project is not delivering the LSVW and HLVW replacement until the 2023 timeframe, but I do hope that the MSVS SMP or the ERC Recovery Project are not delayed by this funding shift.  It's bad enough that we are parking half our B fleet, delays to these projects will really effect the CA's ability to deploy at all anywhere.


----------



## MilEME09

Well according to CDR, a winner for the MSVS SMP project wont be announced till fall 2016 with delivery in 2017. which falls in the moving $3.1 billion off till 2016/17 meaning i think that project is safe, that said i havent heard a bloody thing on the ERC recovery project.


----------



## Armynewsguy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well according to CDR, a winner for the MSVS SMP project wont be announced till fall 2016 with delivery in 2017. which falls in the moving $3.1 billion off till 2016/17 meaning i think that project is safe, that said I haven't heard a bloody thing on the ERC recovery project.



MilEME09, if you have access or knows someone that has access to the CID, look up the ERC project and call the PD or D/PD of that project. I am sure that one of these fine folks  :nod: will be able to fill you in on the project and where it stands at the moment. But, as a bit of a spoiler the project is still high on the list of new acquisitions for the Army Commander and is finally gathering some speed. 

The interterm recovery solution (fifth wheel towing recovery device (Tru-Hitch)) will start to be fielded and trained on next month, with Pet being the first base to receive the kit.

For others speculating on the fate of projects or where they are at now, I offer the same advice simply give the appropriate person in DLR a call and they will be happy to fill you in on where the project is at. For any truck related questions DLR 6 is the section to contact, find out from the CID who  the PD or deputy is and give them a call and yes all projects are regularly updated on the CID.

For any of you who have some great ideas on wheeled recovery, I urge to call the D/PD ERC and talk to him and pass on your ideas. Who knows, maybe you have the solution ERC is looking for.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MrGnr said:
			
		

> MilEME09, if you have access or knows someone that has access to the CID, look up the ERC project and call the PD or D/PD of that project. I am sure that one of these fine folks  :nod: will be able to fill you in on the project and where it stands at the moment. But, as a bit of a spoiler the project is still high on the list of new acquisitions for the Army Commander and is finally gathering some speed.
> 
> The interterm recovery solution (fifth wheel towing recovery device (Tru-Hitch)) will start to be fielded and trained on next month, with Pet being the first base to receive the kit.
> 
> For others speculating on the fate of projects or where they are at now, I offer the same advice simply give the appropriate person in DLR a call and they will be happy to fill you in on where the project is at. For any truck related questions DLR 6 is the section to contact, find out from the CID who  the PD or deputy is and give them a call and yes all projects are regularly updated on the CID.
> 
> For any of you who have some great ideas on wheeled recovery, I urge to call the D/PD ERC and talk to him and pass on your ideas. Who knows, maybe you have the solution ERC is looking for.



People expect the _*acquisitions*_ to be stymied.

I don't think many are under the delusion that all those project offices and teams will be closed down, as a result, though.

The equipment may not be forthcoming, but those $10 million sacred stove pipe empires will remain.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MrGnr said:
			
		

> The interterm recovery solution (fifth wheel towing recovery device (Tru-Hitch)) will start to be fielded and trained on next month, with Pet being the first base to receive the kit.
> 
> F
> For any of you who have some great ideas on wheeled recovery, I urge to call the D/PD ERC and talk to him and pass on your ideas. Who knows, maybe you have the solution ERC is looking for.



Is this a sort of MILCOT wrecker? 

I note there is a wrecker option on the Sterling chassis  http://www.americanwreckersales.com/equipment/vulcan/v60-v60b-v70.html


----------



## Old EO Tech

MrGnr said:
			
		

> MilEME09, if you have access or knows someone that has access to the CID, look up the ERC project and call the PD or D/PD of that project. I am sure that one of these fine folks  :nod: will be able to fill you in on the project and where it stands at the moment. But, as a bit of a spoiler the project is still high on the list of new acquisitions for the Army Commander and is finally gathering some speed.
> 
> The interterm recovery solution (fifth wheel towing recovery device (Tru-Hitch)) will start to be fielded and trained on next month, with Pet being the first base to receive the kit.
> 
> For others speculating on the fate of projects or where they are at now, I offer the same advice simply give the appropriate person in DLR a call and they will be happy to fill you in on where the project is at. For any truck related questions DLR 6 is the section to contact, find out from the CID who  the PD or deputy is and give them a call and yes all projects are regularly updated on the CID.
> 
> For any of you who have some great ideas on wheeled recovery, I urge to call the D/PD ERC and talk to him and pass on your ideas. Who knows, maybe you have the solution ERC is looking for.



I don't think there is any lack of knowledge/expertise of what is required for new recovery vehicles in the ERC project, I'm sure the issues in moving forward were financial and political.  Three years ago I saw a presentation that stated the ERC was the Army Comd number one priority for new projects, and yet we are only now moving forward with it.

I'm sure there are a few contenders for a new Wrecker platform, but in my opinion there is only one platform that makes sense for LAV recovery and that is the LAV(stryker) MRV, it would have common logistics with the LAV 6.0 platform we are already getting and has the specs to take over for the Bison MRV that we have been limping along with now.

http://www.gdls.com/index.php/products/stryker-family/stryker-mrv

My only question is why the LAVUP project was not given the mandate to buy these, the ERC should have only been left to find a new Wrecker.....


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is this a sort of MILCOT wrecker?



My unit is a pretty good Milcot wrecker, based on the number of prangs we've had in the past few months  ;D


----------



## Old EO Tech

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is this a sort of MILCOT wrecker?
> 
> I note there is a wrecker option on the Sterling chassis  http://www.americanwreckersales.com/equipment/vulcan/v60-v60b-v70.html



The problem with Civy heavy duty wreckers is that they don't go offroad very well, there suspension is to low to the ground.  Even the AHSVS Wrecker which is a beast had this issue on occasion.

The Oshkosh wrecker has my vote, I'm sure we can get some regional industrial kick backs to have parts for a Canadian version made in *insert political region of choice here* and still get a wrecker that will do the job for us for the next 30 years or so.

http://oshkoshdefense.com/variants/mkr15-wrecker/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In a perfect world, you could have a tactical wrecker and Milcot wrecker to cover the road work. that would reduce the load on the tactical wreckers and save them for the stuff they do best.


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin P said:
			
		

> In a perfect world, you could have a tactical wrecker and Milcot wrecker to cover the road work. that would reduce the load on the tactical wreckers and save them for the stuff they do best.


why not contract out MILCOT wrecker rather than purchasing and maintaining them?


----------



## MilEME09

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> why not contract out MILCOT wrecker rather than purchasing and maintaining them?



We've been forced to do that where i am because our Wrecker is always down, so we call city wide towing, only down side is if we break down on a Saturday they dont send their Heavy Wrecker till monday


----------



## dapaterson

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> why not contract out MILCOT wrecker rather than purchasing and maintaining them?



Because we need soldiers to maintain recovery skills.

National recovery is already contracted out; are you proposing we contract out most field recovery as well?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A question for our engineer and support service types. Do you guys (in addition to military courses) get sent on civilian driving courses for Class 1 and Semi trailer trucks for the support services and Heavy machinery courses for the Engineers?  

Are any of the military courses for the above recognized  in the civilian world?

Just wondering if the more specialized equipment can be leased/rented for field exercises


----------



## MilEME09

As far as i've seen none of the techs I know have been sent on or given civilian equivalent courses at the army's dime. Just like its near impossible or takes forever for the army to recognize them.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

CFSME used to do it in the Wack many many moons ago...


----------



## Armynewsguy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Because we need soldiers to maintain recovery skills.
> 
> National recovery is already contracted out; are you proposing we contract out most field recovery as well?



Not all National recovery is contracted out, in fact I would wager that most of the areas are not. There can be times when we required the assistance of civilian companies, but by in large we are self dependant. Hopefully with the roll out of the Fifth wheel towing recovery system this will give our guys a break and allow them to do their jobs and not be reliant on down town tow trucks.

ERC is a ways off and all the ideas that you guys have been throwing out have been discussed and investigated , but I'm glad to see that people are worried about CSS issues and looking for solutions.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Here in Nfld, it's by civilian wrecker with HLVW backup...If I recall correctly for most of NB it's Military with civilian backup...


----------



## MilEME09

MrGnr said:
			
		

> Not all National recovery is contracted out, in fact I would wager that most of the areas are not. There can be times when we required the assistance of civilian companies, but by in large we are self dependant. Hopefully with the roll out of the Fifth wheel towing recovery system this will give our guys a break and allow them to do their jobs and not be reliant on down town tow trucks.
> 
> ERC is a ways off and all the ideas that you guys have been throwing out have been discussed and investigated , but I'm glad to see that people are worried about CSS issues and looking for solutions.



I think its a matter of distance, if your near a base its not going to be contracted out, but say southern Alberta or Western Ontario for example it would probably be contracted out because it would be faster and maybe even cheaper then sending for national recovery


----------



## Old EO Tech

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Here in Nfld, it's by civilian wrecker with HLVW backup...If I recall correctly for most of NB it's Military with civilian backup...



It generally depends on what units are close and what capabilies they have.  Any area close to a RegF Bde will have the Svc Bn take care of National Recovery, if you are out of range of a RegF Svc Bn, then yes it will be mostly contracted recovery.  I'm not sure if the beefed up PRes Svc Bn(ASU Closures etc)  will be capable of National Recovery or not, but my gut feeling says no.


----------



## MilEME09

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> It generally depends on what units are close and what capabilies they have.  Any area close to a RegF Bde will have the Svc Bn take care of National Recovery, if you are out of range of a RegF Svc Bn, then yes it will be mostly contracted recovery.  I'm not sure if the beefed up PRes Svc Bn(ASU Closures etc)  will be capable of National Recovery or not, but my gut feeling says no.



depends if we have a wrecker and available RSS staff, at my unit we have an assigned recovery section of a couple RSS and volunteer reservists who have flexible hours


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Because we need soldiers to maintain recovery skills.
> 
> National recovery is already contracted out; are you proposing we contract out most field recovery as well?



Not at all.


----------



## PeaceReaper

I've moderately skimmed over the last 10 pages and I haven't seen anyone mention the HMMVW (Humvee) as a logical candidate for the LVM-Light series of trucks to replace the MILCOT LUVW and the LSVW? I know the brass is petrified of American iconography, but our SF units used and loved it for the most part and IIRC, 3PPCLI was using them in Afghanistan and liked them as well. What is the big deal surrounding the HMMVW? 

I apologize if this was already discussed.


----------



## MilEME09

PeaceReaper said:
			
		

> I've moderately skimmed over the last 10 pages and I haven't seen anyone mention the HMMVW (Humvee) as a logical candidate for the LVM-Light series of trucks to replace the MILCOT LUVW and the LSVW? I know the brass is petrified of American iconography, but our SF units used and loved it for the most part and IIRC, 3PPCLI was using them in Afghanistan and liked them as well. What is the big deal surrounding the HMMVW?
> 
> I apologize if this was already discussed.



The simple version is its old, the US recently signed a contract with Oshkosh if i recall correctly to begin replacing all their HMMVW's with L-ATV's. Would we pick up all those old HMMVW's? doubtful overseas has proven they couldn't take a RPG to save its life, and the trend is armour and personal protection of the crew (which is not a bad thing).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mind you we picked the Iltis just as the Germans were getting rid of their and going to G-wagons, so we would be right on schedule.  8)


----------



## Nfld Sapper

:nod: yup it's the Canadian way.....


----------



## McG

HMMVW came up on page 2.  It is a good truck, and might be a good fit for the CF.  However, it is not without its faults and it is certainly far from the only possibility for the CF.  That means procurement laws prevent us from just buying brand name. 

We need to talk physical and performance requirements instead of brands.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just get the TB staff, PWGSC and politicans to conduct the the bid review in the back of a LSVW CP while on the move.


----------



## Carbon-14

Colin P said:
			
		

> Just get the TB staff, PWGSC and politicans to conduct the the bid review in the back of a LSVW CP while on the move.



Is the LS rolling down a hill or being pushed by Ptes?


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin P said:
			
		

> Just get the TB staff, PWGSC and politicans to conduct the the bid review in the back of a LSVW CP while on the move.



With the heater N/S, in the middle of a Manitoba winter........


----------



## MilEME09

Just Read the Latest Issue of Canadian Defense Review which has a profile article on the Oshkosh HEMTT A4 thats in the competition, interestingly Oshkosh has spent money for the crane on some varients, like the MRT varient to conform specifically to Canadian kit. They lengthened the cargo body and put on ISO locks so the cargo variant can carry a 20ft ISO container. Operational range is greater then 650km, top speed of around 110km/h and Oshkosh reveals they are working on vehicles for a bid on the ERC project (using their HEMTT A4 Wrecker) and other parts of the LVM like replacing the LSVW.


----------



## McG

Industry invests a lot so that they might win our competitions.  It is why they become disgruntled when major projects have a habit of being cancelled, delayed or significantly altered.


----------



## Old EO Tech

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Just Read the Latest Issue of Canadian Defense Review which has a profile article on the Oshkosh HEMTT A4 thats in the competition, interestingly Oshkosh has spent money for the crane on some varients, like the MRT varient to conform specifically to Canadian kit. They lengthened the cargo body and put on ISO locks so the cargo variant can carry a 20ft ISO container. Operational range is greater then 650km, top speed of around 110km/h and Oshkosh reveals they are working on vehicles for a bid on the ERC project (using their HEMTT A4 Wrecker) and other parts of the LVM like replacing the LSVW.



I would love to see Oshkosh win, but unfortunately, the ERC Vehicle is 6 years away, and the MSVS SMP is still 3 years away, and the rest of the LVM is at least 9 years away....going to be a rough ride in the next decade.  Though as our canabalized B fleet is used up I can see the post 2015 Government having to lease vehicles to bridge the gap until LVM/ERC/ACSV projects deliver final products....either that or the Army will be functionally non deployable :-/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the army has got to see trucks as expendable items and have a rolling replacement program and replace them earlier like industry does. Logging companies expect to get about 5 years out of a pickup and budget accordingly. Frankly I think every unit should have at least one each of completely civilian model pickup and 3 ton truck to supplement the tactical vehicles and that includes the reserves. this will increase the Brigades ability to move, reduce wear on the tactical fleet and have vehicles that can be repaired anywhere. 

For the Tactical stuff buy off the shelf in production versions in smaller lots frequently, if different models get chosen, then issue them in clusters, I know people will say "parts, training, etc" but lets face it your current way of doing things is not working. As for repair training, issue good manuals and have a electronic forum the vehicle techs can use to discuss fixes and issues. Most of the techs are smart and don't need to be "certified" to work on vehicle X and not vehicle Y, when both are trucks using basically the same principles. The army is going to have to let go of some of the process side and I suspect that will be the hardest because certain people love their reports and pie charts.


----------



## dangerboy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Most of the techs are smart and don't need to be "certified" to work on vehicle X and not vehicle Y, when both are trucks using basically the same principles.



From what I understand this is how the EME school is training it's vehicle techs right now.  They call  it a systems based approach where they teach the basic/principles of the component (such as brakes) and not how a specific vehicle such as an HLVW's brakes work.  There are exceptions with specialty vehicles such as a Leo 2.


----------



## MilEME09

dangerboy said:
			
		

> From what I understand this is how the EME school is training it's vehicle techs right now.  They call  it a systems based approach where they teach the basic/principles of the component (such as brakes) and not how a specific vehicle such as an HLVW's brakes work.  There are exceptions with specialty vehicles such as a Leo 2.



thats exactly how it is now, as for the ERC project Oshkosh will be offering their 10x10 Multi mission recovery system, which has a crane that can lift 34,019 Kg, its a beast of a machine and would love to see it as the new wreaker in the CF


----------



## blackberet17

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Do you need Million Dollar Buggies (TAPV) - or even $100,000 G Wagons?
> 
> Would $25000 Jeeps and Milcots get the job done for you?



For Dom Ops, what we require is a veh platform which allows us to do our jobs.

For pers and crew trg purposes, we need a veh platform which will provide the trg required for the crew IOT ease the transition to a RegF platform (i.e. TAPV, LAV, Coyote) - if such requirement occurs (deployment, CT, etc.) - minus of course the need for platform-specific trg (TOC, dvr, etc.).

Milcot doesn't fit the bill, unless you plan on installing a turret.

$25,000 Jeeps? Questions:

1) can a turret be installed, with wpns system, while maintaining vehicle stability?
2) can it carry a comms suite, a 3-4 pers crew, plus kit, and tools?
3) what is its armour capability?

I've seen pictures from the late 80s early 90s, when some PRes Armd Recce units had Buick Rendez-Vous and Aztecs. Doing recce in a white or silver Aztec is not how we do our job.

If someone can source a Jeep, which fills the above, plus has improved off-road capabilities; some armour; can be repaired locally without our veh techs getting their knickers in a knot; can run double bank comms on its existing power supply; plus all the other stuff I'm forgetting right now; for $25,000? Why hasn't someone done this already? 

LUVW was about $180,000 per unit, apparently.

Sadly, when we could have purchased some HMMWV our American counterparts had going spare and were trying to offload at a rumoured $90,000 per unit...


----------



## KerryBlue

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> $25,000 Jeeps? Questions:
> 
> 1) can a turret be installed, with wpns system, while maintaining vehicle stability?
> 2) can it carry a comms suite, a 3-4 pers crew, plus kit, and tools?
> 3) what is its armour capability?



For the jeep why not something like Israel's AIL Storm III based on the wrangler. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIL_Storm



> Commander version[edit]
> The commander version incorporates a 5 door hard top cab allowing for the quick and convenient entrance and exit of the driver and all passengers or troops. A large rear compartment enables the storage of both cargo and communications equipment.
> 
> This version comes equipped with an air conditioning system providing maximum comfort in hot climatic conditions. A roll over protection structure (ROPS) maximizes safety conditions for passengers.
> 
> Armored version[edit]
> The armored version of the Storm 3, designed for protection against light weapon threats, incorporates a heavy duty transfer case and a specially designed suspension system which includes heavy duty springs (front - coil, rear - leaf) and shock absorbers, together with rigid heavy duty axles allowing for a smooth and safe ride on both rough terrain as well as regular highways.
> 
> Reconnaissance & Patrol version[edit]
> The Storm 3 reconnaissance and patrol model allows for extra stowage of fuel, water and equipment. This version is especially suited to be fitted with various machine gun or special equipment mountings.




Doubt they cost under/around 25k though, but they look like a viable option.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Reserve Recce vehicles never had a turret till the G-wagon, the M38 had a proper pintle mount in front of the passenger/TC seat, the CJ5 and Iltis had bungy cord mounts as I recall although proper ones were proposed. Even our Ferrets only had pintle mounts.

Things can be done, with the current jeep


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> Reserve Recce vehicles never had a turret till the G-wagon, the M38 had a proper pintle mount in front of the passenger/TC seat, the CJ5 and Iltis had bungy cord mounts as I recall although proper ones were proposed. Even our Ferrets only had pintle mounts.



It was an easy mod to reinforce the 'Dog Leg' mount onto the M38.  The civilian pattern CJ 5 had too weak a body to properly accept mounting the 'Dog Leg'.   Both the 'Mutt" and Iltis had roll bars that took away from the low profiles of the M38 and CJ's.  Also, both the 'Mutt" (M151A2) and Iltis were unibody construction which added to modification problems.


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect to the $25,000 Jeep.  There is the Jeep and there is the stuff you hang on it.

The stuff you hang on it should be transferable to another vehicle so as to prevent writing off everything when you bust a cross-member and can't weld it back together again.

With respect to fuel commonality - diesel Wranglers have been selling in Australia for a few years now, the same place that required the 6x6 G-Wagon to be built.  The diesel variant is supposed to be available in spring 2015. 



> Vehicle style: Five-door heavy-duty SUV wagon
> Price: $44,000 (plus on-road costs)
> Engine/trans: 2.8 litre turbo-diesel | 5spd automatic
> Fuel consumption listed: 8.8 l/100km | Tested: 10.2 l/100km
> 
> 
> 2.8 litre CRD DOHC 16V 4-cylinder turbo diesel
> 5-speed Automatic Transmission
> 147kW@3,600rpm, 460Nm@1,600-2,600rpm
> Command-Trac, manual, part-time, shift-on-the-fly transfer case
> Heavy-duty suspension: front and rear feature 5-link solid axles with coil springs, heavy-duty monotube gas-charged shock absorbers
> Four-wheel disc anti-lock brake system (ABS)
> Dana 30 heavy-duty solid front axle, and Dana 44 heavy-duty solid rear axle
> Turning circle: 10.4m
> 
> Towing capacity (braked) is 2.0 tonne, and 750kg unbraked;



http://www.themotorreport.com.au/59405/jeep-wrangler-diesel--review-2014-unlimited-sport-28-crd-automatic

$25,000?  US Dollars vice Aussie Dollars.  Bulk buy of assembly line options.  No Canadianization.  No Militarization.  Just a Jeep.  Even if the price were $45000 you would still have a competitive option.


----------



## blackberet17

Ahh, if only we weren't phasing out the .50...

You just KNOW the higher powers will want it a) Canadianized; and b) Militarized. Which is what spiraled the cost of the LUVW from a $60,000 veh (non-Cdn and non-mil, of course) to $180,000 veh...

I wonder if that was before or after it was painted green...


----------



## dapaterson

Careful how you define "cost".

CAF accounting for "cost" include acquisition support costs - staff who write specs, staff in PWGSC who do the contracting, office space, travel to see bidders, travel to work with suppliers; maintenance costs - two years of spares or costs of extended warranties, plus technical publications in both official languages; training costs for conversion and steady-state training (which are supposed to include the class A reserve pay for reserve personnel), including any new training devices needed; infra costs - new parking lots or whatever that are needed... oh, and the cost that's paid to acquire the equipment in question.

So it's not accurate to say that DND paid $180K per vehicle; it's accurate to say that it cost DND $180K each to acquire the vehicle.


----------



## GK .Dundas

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Ahh, if only we weren't phasing out the .50...
> 
> You just KNOW the higher powers will want it a) Canadianized; and b) Militarized. Which is what spiraled the cost of the LUVW from a $60,000 veh (non-Cdn and non-mil, of course) to $180,000 veh...
> 
> I wonder if that was before or after it was painted green...


   Let me see ? That will make it the third or fourth time we've phased the .50 out of service ?


----------



## OldSolduer

Just my thoughts, but another NATO nation across the pond seems to have beat this one into submission with Land Rovers.

Personally I think the Jeep brand is a bit on the light side to mount MGs etc on.


----------



## Kirkhill

Perhaps they are a bit on the light side Jim, but the reason I like them for duty and training over here is that they are available, they are cheap and they have a chain of supply that allows them to be repaired or replaced cheaply.

Landrover is popular in Britain for exactly those reasons. Likewise Peugeots and Mercedes on the Continent.

Non Sequitur Alert!

This discussion got me to thinking about a Richard Holmes' book "Tommy" and his discussion about horses in the British Army of 1914.

The BEF had one Cavalry Division that required 10000 horses.  It also required 6000 horses for each of its four Infantry Divisions.  Infantry didn't need many fewer than the Cavalry, in fact collectively it required more.  Still, the requirement was infinitessimal compared to the Continental requirements so Britain didn't have a State Breeding programme.  It bought horses from trade and then assigned available horses to duties depending on their suitability.

It is not recorded that anybody demanded of the breeders, state sponsored or otherwise, that they supply a proposal for a six legged horse.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkwall agreed that the logistics would demand we should use the Jeep chassis. I have a buddy that has a Jeep and she does the rock crawling thing with it. She may have some suggestions.


----------



## MilEME09

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Kirkwall agreed that the logistics would demand we should use the Jeep chassis. I have a buddy that has a Jeep and she does the rock crawling thing with it. She may have some suggestions.



I would say the smart thing to do, is start with the bare bones chassis and work our way up into what we need. A couple MG mounts, an amp, radios, etc... now lets see what we need to do to the chassis to fit all this kit and make it work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Careful how you define "cost".
> 
> CAF accounting for "cost" include acquisition support costs - staff who write specs, staff in PWGSC who do the contracting, office space, travel to see bidders, travel to work with suppliers; maintenance costs - two years of spares or costs of extended warranties, plus technical publications in both official languages; training costs for conversion and steady-state training (which are supposed to include the class A reserve pay for reserve personnel), including any new training devices needed; infra costs - new parking lots or whatever that are needed... oh, and the cost that's paid to acquire the equipment in question.
> 
> So it's not accurate to say that DND paid $180K per vehicle; it's accurate to say that it cost DND $180K each to acquire the vehicle.


Most of the Reserve units in Vancouver are losing parking, not gaining any despite any vehicle buy.


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I would say the smart thing to do, is start with the bare bones chassis and work our way up into *what we need*. A couple MG mounts, an amp, radios, etc... now lets see what we need to do to the chassis to fit all this kit and make it work.



And thereby hangs the tale:  What we need.

When a dismounted group of soldiers is confronted with a task they are limited by the number of soldiers and the strength of their backs as to what to carry.  They then have to decide what is critical to the task and decide what they are taking, what they are leaving and how they are going to distribute the load among themselves. They don't have the luxury of carrying an axe to knock down doors if no doors are expected to be encountered.  Some stuff gets carried in echelon vehicles. Some stuff gets delivered when necessary. Some stuff just gets done without.

When vehicles get involved everybody suddenly wants to carry everything on every vehicle.... just in case.  A modern variant of the 18th century train of servants, doxies, mess silver and hunting suites that Generals like Howe, Cornwallis and Marlborough had to constantly struggle against.

Why not start with the proposition that a vehicle, like a man or a horse, has finite capabilities and then accommodate the limitations of the vehicle in the mission planning.  Decide what is going to stay behind, what is going to be held by the SQ and what you can carry in the terrain you are going to cross without breaking axles every two miles.

Camels and elephants have their place but we can only supply horses.

The art of engineering solutions lies in working with that which is available immediately.  Leave building super-machines to people that have the luxury of unlimited time and unlimited budgets.  You can buy it when they get it right.


----------



## blackberet17

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Careful how you define "cost".
> 
> CAF accounting for "cost" include acquisition support costs - staff who write specs, staff in PWGSC who do the contracting, office space, travel to see bidders, travel to work with suppliers; maintenance costs - two years of spares or costs of extended warranties, plus technical publications in both official languages; training costs for conversion and steady-state training (which are supposed to include the class A reserve pay for reserve personnel), including any new training devices needed; infra costs - new parking lots or whatever that are needed... oh, and the cost that's paid to acquire the equipment in question.
> 
> So it's not accurate to say that DND paid $180K per vehicle; it's accurate to say that it cost DND $180K each to acquire the vehicle.



Apologies, I thought this is what I meant - DND paid $180k per unit, i.e., this was just the per unit cost: buy the veh, with Canadian-Military-ization, period. It did not include spare parts, trg, etc., i.e., what is commonly referred to as the life-cycle cost per unit.

For example, just as the per unit price tag on the F-35A is at $124.8millionUSD, Norway estimated the life-cycle cost for its (intended) 52xF-35s at $769million per unit.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's the link to the company that builds and supports the Jeeps shown above....

http://www.jgms.com/

And they probably cost more than $25,000 being suitably upgraded, militarized and customized.


----------



## acen

Here is an interesting contender in the ~$150k range: the Polaris Dagor.

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20141016-polaris-dagor-ready-for-action


----------



## blackberet17

acen said:
			
		

> Here is an interesting contender in the ~$150k range: the Polaris Dagor.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20141016-polaris-dagor-ready-for-action



Sounds like a snowmobile, a Polaris...


----------



## Spencer100

Same company.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

No thank you expensive toy with many unobtainable parts. OK for SOF types that can write off stuff and buy more. 

For the armoured reserves the open armed Jeep would be a good draw to bring people in and let them learn the older recce skills which likely have a good value considering a conflict like Ukraine where nobody is entirely sure where the frontline currently is. Again a clearcut mission they can train for with the equipment they need, that is what is required to maintain numbers, interests and commitment.


----------



## Kirkhill

> About *as long, wide, tall and heavy as a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited,* the Dagor was designed with transportability in mind. One of them can fly in a sling beneath a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, and two of them can fit end-to-end in the belly of a twin-rotor CH-47 Chinook.





> he Boeing Phantom Badger) makes use of some proven civilian-spec components, including controls and powertrain. Boeing’s Badger uses a 3-litre turbo-diesel V6 from the Jeep Grand Cherokee



So one unit is modeled on the Wrangler and the other unit uses Jeep engines....

Agreed Colin.

The SOF types are buying Shelby's original Mustangs when Mustangs would get the job done.  

A hodge podge of parts from various suppliers, with custom manufactured connectors, assembled under a shade tree and with a couple thousand trial miles behind it.  Vice something that has been coming off an assembly line for 75 years and was copied by Landrover which in turn was copied by Mercedes.

For those that were unaware the Landrover was built by an English farmer who ran his war surplus jeep into the dirt by 1948 (he used it as a tractor for plowing amongst other things).  Being unable to acquire another jeep he modified what remained of his existing one with a British truck and tractor parts.  The concept was picked up by Rover.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

with centre steering position no less and then later in the 60's Jeep built a version using Landrover drive train and frame with a production Jeep body, the Germans built a all steel Landrover for their borderguards unit.

I would be all for keeping the G-wagon and getting the open topped version for Armoured Reserve, it's basically a very good vehicle and a design that has long legs left into it. Not to mention you could also replace the LSVW with their 6 wheeled version. But the jeep would suffice over the current Milcot/rentals usage for the recce role.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> with centre steering position no less and then later in the 60's Jeep built a version using Landrover drive train and frame with a production Jeep body, the Germans built a all steel Landrover for their borderguards unit.
> 
> I would be all for keeping the G-wagon and getting the open topped version for Armoured Reserve, it's basically a very good vehicle and a design that has long legs left into it. Not to mention you could also replace the LSVW with their 6 wheeled version. But the jeep would suffice over the current Milcot/rentals usage for the recce role.



Damme! If I don't behold a 6-legged horse!  >


----------



## a_majoor

I have seen various proposals for building light vehicles (at this point in time very few mil spec vehicles resemble the classic jeep at all) up to MRAP-Light spec, usually on the Ford F-450 chassis. Popular Mechanics had a design concept in their magazine a few years ago, and Georgia Tech built a prototype also based on a large pickup truck frame: 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/pm-designs-the-replacement-for-the-pentagons-joint-light-tactical-vehicle-6432935

http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/ultra.htm

Actually we are probably looking in the wrong direction with Jeep or Ford frames and power trains. Most of the places we might deploy will probably have local militias running around in Toyota Hilux or Land Cruiser variants.

Much of the inflated costs of military hardware seems to have little to do with the equipment at all; if we could streamline our logistics and management practices to match cutting edge companies like WalMart or Amazon.com then we could see reasonably priced equipment available in the numbers needed to actually equip all the forces.


----------



## cupper

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Much of the inflated costs of military hardware seems to have little to do with the equipment at all; if we could streamline our logistics and management practices to match cutting edge companies like WalMart or Amazon.com then we could see reasonably priced equipment available in the numbers needed to actually equip all the forces.



But we run the risk of our troops declining to this level:

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com  :boke:


----------



## Kirkhill

> Recently, the J8 has been submitted as a replacement for the Toyota Tacoma, Toyota Hilux and HMMWV for US Special Forces.



Wiki

Parts are available in Europe, Israel, Egypt and Australia..... 

And yes ..... I love my Jeep.  ;D

And this spring the 2016 model civilian North American Wrangler will be available with a 3.0 l V6 diesel delivering 240 HP, 420 ft-lb of torque and 30 MPUSG.


----------



## mad dog 2020

The Big three beg and compete for the contract(s) for police cars. It is big business.
With the recent innovations with engines and power trains. The Army might be wise to look into the Commericial North Ammerican market.
The Eco Boost Ford or my favourite (bought one) 3.0 eco Diesel Dodge. Imagine a truch that can pull 9200 lbs and empty do over 1300 kms on a 98 litre tank. 
Can you say cost saving on a road move from Shilo to Wainwright, Pet to Gagetown or I heard of a Pet to Wainwright. 
Put out the feelers and they will come. 
Save the Military totla spec for overseas. Notice the rebels all have Toyota pick ups with 50s mounted in the bed (wonder if they use a bed liner or spray in) Delivers just as much firepower.


----------



## a_majoor

Sadly, Cupper, there are already many troops who fit the part (literally, even if they barely fit in the hatch  >)

One reason that traditional jeeps are no longer really viable military vehicles is the ever increasing amount of "stuff" soldiers are ordered to (or insist on) taking into the field. The HMMVW is far larger than the M 151 "Mutt" it replaced because it needed to be a 5/4 ton logistics truck (only later did it evolve into a fighting vehicle).

Even vehicles that can fit into helicopters (like the "Flyer" http://www.marvingroup.com/index.php/companies/flyer/products/new_product/) are actually rather substantial, more so once you add on the armour and stowage kit. The Flyer and many other military light vehicles also have cross country performance "out of the box" which few civilian 4X4's can match.


----------



## Kirkhill

If the reason for the ever expanding carrier is ever expanding girths and and ever expanding equipment requirements then maybe the time is ripe to instill some discipline.   Issue smaller vehicles.  The stuff that isn't immediately required goes into that rolling tool shed known as the CQ/SQ/BQ's vehicle(s).  Once every year or so you can do what most/some of us do at home.  Go through the tool shed and chuck out the stuff that hasn't been used in a while and is taking up space.

As to the nature of the vehicle: What do bullets and snowflakes have in common?  They are both environmental artifacts that fly through the air.  In Canada we regularly encounter snowflakes.  We seldom encounter bullets.  Mines are a virtual unknown.  The RCMP does most of its patrolling in air conditioned passenger cars produced on regular assembly lines.

The first question you should be asking yourselves is: What can we achieve with civilian pattern kit?

Once that question is answered then you can start thinking about filling gaps in your capabilities with low production run equipment specially manufactured for military customers. For domestic ops a couple of dozen TAPVs held in each Divs vehicle stocks wouldn't be amiss.  The BGS (BundesGrenzShutz) used this vehicle






Tell me that that is not the same as this






Just the thing you need for your next Oka or WTO party.

There is a need for a back-up force to back stop the RCMP when it is tied up.  The RCAC(Reserves) in Jeeps could pick up some of the patrolling slack.  It could add to domestic patrols.  It could expand the patrol range deeper into the bush.  

And when the Big Boys of the RCAC decide that they really need some additional help in dusty places - they will have a more fully competent body of troops available to them that they can train to their standards in the 6 to 12 month work-up period that seems to be the norm these days.

Edited because the first TAPV photo link died.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If the reason for the ever expanding carrier is ever expanding girths and and ever expanding equipment requirements then maybe the time is ripe to instill some discipline.   Issue smaller vehicles.  The stuff that isn't immediately required goes into that rolling tool shed known as the CQ/SQ/BQ's vehicle(s).  Once every year or so you can do what most/some of us do at home.  Go through the tool shed and chuck out the stuff that hasn't been used in a while and is taking up space.
> 
> As to the nature of the vehicle: What do bullets and snowflakes have in common?  They are both environmental artifacts that fly through the air.  In Canada we regularly encounter snowflakes.  We seldom encounter bullets.  Mines are a virtual unknown.  The RCMP does most of its patrolling in air conditioned passenger cars produced on regular assembly lines.
> 
> The first question you should be asking yourselves is: What can we achieve with civilian pattern kit?
> 
> Once that question is answered then you can start thinking about filling gaps in your capabilities with low production run equipment specially manufactured for military customers. For domestic ops a couple of dozen TAPVs held in each Divs vehicle stocks wouldn't be amiss.  The BGS (BundesGrenzShutz) used this vehicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me that that is not the same as this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the thing you need for your next Oka or WTO party.
> 
> There is a need for a back-up force to back stop the RCMP when it is tied up.  The RCAC(Reserves) in Jeeps could pick up some of the patrolling slack.  It could add to domestic patrols.  It could expand the patrol range deeper into the bush.
> 
> And when the Big Boys of the RCAC decide that they really need some additional help in dusty places - they will have a more fully competent body of troops available to them that they can train to their standards in the 6 to 12 month work-up period that seems to be the norm these days.



I agree. Go Unimog! http://www.neuerunimog.com/en/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Unimog is the LSVW we should have gone for, would also make a great off-road recovery vehicle for all the smaller stuff.


----------



## blackberet17

I disagree on open-top vehs, if only for protection from the elements for the dvr and internal components, and should the veh roll (hello G-wag...).

Otherwise, if the platform allows us to carry essential kit and do our jobs, I'm all for it. I fully recognize the need for cost-cutting, but let's not just look at something civi-side, say this will work! with glee in our eyes, and buy the bunch, without forethought to maintenance, trg, etc.

And that's a horrible shade of green...


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Unimog is the LSVW we should have gone for, would also make a great off-road recovery vehicle for all the smaller stuff.



Agreed, but you have to remember the 'Time' that the decision was made and who formed the Government of the day: "Chevrolets; NOT Cadillacs".  Now imagine them buying Army trucks with the Mercedes logo on the front.  Wasn't going to happen.


----------



## GK .Dundas

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Agreed, but you have to remember the 'Time' that the decision was made and who formed the Government of the day: "Chevrolets; NOT Cadillacs".  Now imagine them buying Army trucks with the Mercedes logo on the front.  Wasn't going to happen.


 As I recall Mercedes sells a large commercial van that is also sold under the Dodge brand as well. So it might just be possible.


----------



## George Wallace

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> As I recall Mercedes sells a large commercial van that is also sold under the Dodge brand as well. So it might just be possible.



Yes they do now.  Not back then.  Since the purchase of the LSVW long ago, we have seen the purchase of Mercedes G Wagens.  It is now a moot point.


----------



## Kirkhill

Which light recce vehicle - light utility vehicle do you want Frank and Belinda Stronach to sell you?



> "Canada's Magna International Inc. acquired control of Steyr-Daimler-Puch in 1998, giving Magna, one of the world's largest auto suppliers, the ability to produce whole vehicles. Today, Magna-Steyr also produces the Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Voyager, BMW X3 and Saab 9-3 convertible.Canada's Magna International Inc. acquired control of Steyr-Daimler-Puch in 1998, giving Magna, one of the world's largest auto suppliers, the ability to produce whole vehicles. Today, Magna-Steyr also produces the Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Voyager, BMW X3 and Saab 9-3 convertible."
> 
> http://www.canadiandriver.com/roadtest/05g-class.htm



The little guy that wouldn't buy Cadillac helicopters was quite happy buying Mercedes jeeps.


----------



## daftandbarmy

\


This Scaled-Down Armored Truck Could Be the Next Humvee

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense figured out the Humvee—its multi-purpose troop transport vehicle, designed in the 1980s when everyone thought the US would be fighting the Soviets across Europe—was woefully ill-equipped to deal with the type of asymmetric warfare American soldiers faced in the Middle East.

Humvees, produced by contractor AM General, weren’t really designed as combat vehicles, and offer little protection to occupants against improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades. Since those proved to be major threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military hurriedly ordered armor upgrades that could be fitted to existing Humvees, but ruined its valuable off-road capabilities. It put more money into large, heavy, and expensive mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles, which are hugely successful at protecting occupants but too big for many mission profiles.

Now, with the war in Iraq over (sort of) and combat in Afghanistan winding down, the DoD can spend its time and money on a new, major acquisition: the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), the machine that will replace the venerable but outdated Humvee.

One of the frontrunners going after the $9.4 billion contract to design and produce that replacement is the Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Corporation, which calls its vehicle the Light Combat Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle. The L-ATV (Oshkosh is fluent in acronym-obsessed military parlance) is the faster little brother to its popular MRAP, the M-ATV. “Future battlefields will have an unpredictable level of terrain and tactics and threats,” says John Bryant, senior vice president of defense programs for Oshkosh Defense. “Troops require an all-terrain vehicle that’s scalable, net-ready, that performs off road, and is highly reliable.”


http://www.wired.com/2014/10/the-next-humvee/


----------



## Kirkhill

CH-124/CH-148/CH-149 lifts Jeep J8, Defender and G-Wagen.  They also land on all Canadian ships including the CSC with whatever capabilities its finally has.

JLTV needs CH-147 to lift it (and won't carry it inside where the above three vehicles will fit).  CH-147 can't operate from Canadian ships.

CH-147 should be able to operate from Canadian ships.  Canadian ships should carry vehicles that helicopters can lift.

Will this ever happen......not flaming likely.

Mind you, the JLTV would probably be a better fit for the Expeditionary Branch than the TAPV.


----------



## blackberet17

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Mind you, the JLTV would probably be a better fit for the Expeditionary Branch than the TAPV.



Agree.


----------



## MilEME09

A couple media outlets including the Ottawa citizen are reporting that a winning vehicle will finally be selected this summer(estimated to be around june) and delivery's of a estimated 1500 trucks will begin in 2017. Ten years late but hey finally going to get those ML's off the road, we hope.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oshkosh wins and delivers the HEMTT 







This in consolation for the TAPV contract which is "Modified" to provide the L-ATV instead?






It is always good to have dreams....


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> A couple media outlets including the Ottawa citizen are reporting that a winning vehicle will finally be selected this summer(estimated to be around june) and delivery's of a estimated 1500 trucks will begin in 2017. Ten years late but hey finally going to get those ML's off the road, we hope.



That's the MSVS SMP sub-project, not the LVM.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That's the MSVS SMP sub-project, not the LVM.



My understanding was it was a sub=project within the LVM, my mistake


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That's the MSVS SMP sub-project, not the LVM.


But given that MSVS is buying an HLVW sized replacement for the MLVW, we may as well buy more of the same truck to cover-off LVM.  If any money is left over, maybe LVM could then buy fewer of a smaller vehicle that actually is medium in size.


----------



## dapaterson

LVW is supposed to be scoped to deliver what MSVS does not; it shouldn't be buying more of the same.  I believe that there was some funding moved from LVM for MSVS.


----------



## McG

It is supposed to deliver what MSVS does not, but both projects are looking at the problem backward and will be fielding overlapping as opposed to complementary capabilities.  Both projects are focused on the fleets they are replacing as opposed to the capability they are fielding.  

MSVS is buying 10 ton PLS trucks to repalce 5 ton trucks; LVM will buy something(s) heavier to replace 10 ton and 16 ton trucks and it will by something much lighter to replace the LSVW.  It leaves a gap where the medium truck should be, and potentially two new fleets in the 10 ton range.

Had we looked at this from a better perspective in the begining, we would have started by determining the right future balance of different truck sizes.  We could then buy the correct quantities of light, medium, heavy and (maybe) "super" heavy based on our requirements.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MCG said:
			
		

> It is supposed to deliver what MSVS does not, but both projects are looking at the problem backward and will be fielding overlapping as opposed to complementary capabilities.  Both projects are focused on the fleets they are replacing as opposed to the capability they are fielding.
> 
> MSVS is buying 10 ton PLS trucks to repalce 5 ton trucks; LVM will buy something(s) heavier to replace 10 ton and 16 ton trucks and it will by something much lighter to replace the LSVW.  It leaves a gap where the medium truck should be, and potentially two new fleets in the 10 ton range.
> 
> Had we looked at this from a better perspective in the begining, we would have started by determining the right future balance of different truck sizes.  We could then buy the correct quantities of light, medium, heavy and (maybe) "super" heavy based on our requirements.



 :facepalm:


----------



## MilEME09

Instead we will have a light fleet, what I call a light Heavy fleet (MSVS) and Heavy fleet (HL and its eventual replacement), or in the worst case scenario the LSVW replacement will actually end up being a more medium vehicle leaving us with no light vehicle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could build the light fleet around the G-wagon with this being the upper scale


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could build the light fleet around the G-wagon with this being the upper scale



interesting idea, i'd want it to retain the top hatch though and the mg mount for the ability for the vehicle to defend it self.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> :facepalm:



My thoughts exactly. We have the big three - Chrysler, GMC and Ford. I'm pretty sure that one of them could come up with a design that would suit our needs, within budget. 

And Jesus wept..... :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> My thoughts exactly. We have the big three - Chrysler, GMC and Ford. I'm pretty sure that one of them could come up with a design that would suit our needs, within budget.
> 
> And Jesus wept..... :facepalm:



 :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: joining the chorus of self-flagellation....

Maybe you could have started by finding out what could be done with stock vehicles from those guys - take them off road until they break - and buy them to do what they are capable of.  The stuff they are incapable of is where you need to spend your money to buy specialist fleets.

The Euros don't buy exotic gear unless they have to. Most of their B fleets (landrovers, Ivecos, Volvos etc) come off the same production lines as the civvy fleets that infest their roads.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: joining the chorus of self-flagellation....
> 
> Maybe you could have started by finding out what could be done with stock vehicles from those guys - take them off road until they break - and buy them to do what they are capable of.  The stuff they are incapable of is where you need to spend your money to buy specialist fleets.
> 
> The Euros don't buy exotic gear unless they have to. Most of their B fleets (landrovers, Ivecos, Volvos etc) come off the same production lines as the civvy fleets that infest their roads.



Start with a chassis from the 2500 series - in essence a 3/4 ton truck, four wheel drive, crew cab, diesel engine. Strip it of all the bells and whistles - manual door locks, manual windows, etc. Rubberized interior vice carpet....just give us a cup holder!!


----------



## cupper

And for god's sake, don't let Bombardier anywhere near it. Or your cup holder will be the easiest thing to maintain on it.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could build the light fleet around the G-wagon with this being the upper scale



Why the G-wagen?

There is a much better vehicle produced that wears the same hood ornament.  The UNIMOG.  It is one of the most versatile and adaptable vehicle built.  It has seen service in the RCAF in Europe in the 1950's and 60's.  It has been a workhorse for not only many of NATO militaries, but State and Municipal governments, not to mention industry and farmers.  It is a proven vehicle.


























The list of uses for this vehicle are endless.  The variants that are offered, or the equipment that can be driven by the Unimog PTO, seem endless.  Are we stuck with the Chretien "We don't drive limos, we drive Chevy's" philosophy still?


----------



## blackberet17

George Wallace said:
			
		

>



LIKE!


----------



## Kirkhill

The Unimog is a great example of a niche vehicle to do the things that Dodge/Ford/GM can't.  Should it be the only truck in the fleet?  I don't think so.  

And while I understand the challenges of mini-fleets I can't worship at the shrine of standardization when standardization results in a compromise too far with flexibility and utility.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

believe me I am a big fan of the unimog, but having a slightly larger vehicle with some common parts with the light vehicle is a good selling point. The G-wagon is what we should have bought instead of the Iltis and renewed them. In fact we need to have a standard where no softskinned vehicle in the fleet is older than 10-15 years. Also no more 3 vehicles gone for 1.5 replacements. So you buy a vehicle, drive them for 7-10 years and start the process of replacement then. If everyone knows your sticking to the standard, some forward planning is possible. This would also reduce the maintenance burden of old orphaned vehicle types.


----------



## Kirkhill

I am a big fan of the 80-20 rule.

I would be spending my money on a readily available vehicle that can do 80% of the tasks required and save most of my money for niche vehicles that are critical for capabilities that the readily available vehicle can`t supply.

For $25,000,000 I could buy 250 GWagens at $100,000 a piece or 100 of the latest Light Patrol Vehicle from Supacat and Ricardo.  And then have to create a domestic and expeditionary logistic and maintenance support system.

I can buy 1000 Jeeps for $25,000,000 and replace them every 5 years (my jeep is 6 years old and still retains two-thirds the value I paid for it), or I could lease them and self-insure the fleet (you buy what you break).  Or I could buy 1000 Silverado 2500HDs.  In neither case do I have to worry about creating a support system.  It either exists or else the vehicle is cheap enough and easily replaceable that it can be considered a disposable item - like the old M151 jeep.

Saving money at that end frees up high end money to buy gucci kit.  It does mean that not everybody gets the gucci kit but the system has the gucci kit available to support everybody.

And in this case, I would argue, that gucci kit should include Unimogs for their specialist capabilities. What we shouldn`t be doing is buying Unimogs to do the jobs that Jeeps and Silverados can do.  That is a waste of money.


----------



## captloadie

So, basically the CA should do what the RCAF has been doing for years. We buy specialized kit for specialized roles, and everyone else gets COTS.


----------



## Kirkhill

captloadie said:
			
		

> So, basically the CA should do what the RCAF has been doing for years. We buy specialized kit for specialized roles, and everyone else gets COTS.



Does it work for you guys....


----------



## captloadie

With the exception of trying to get parts for our green fleet from the Army, not too many complaints so far. Admittedly, the majority of the organizations don't operate in the same type of training areas.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More COTS talk:



> French Army Is Buying Fleet of Ford Pickup Trucks
> 
> PARIS — In what might be construed as a blow to Gallic pride, the French Army will soon be patrolling La Belle France, the land of Renaults and Peugeots, in Ford Ranger pickups.
> 
> The army is buying 1,000 of the Ford trucks as part of a “crash program” to begin replacing its fleet of off-road vehicles, said Pierre Bayle, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry. The army’s Peugeot P4 jeeps went into service in 1983 and are becoming obsolete, he said.
> 
> Two other vehicles were considered, Mr. Bayle said: PSA Peugeot Citroën’s Berlingo, and the Dacia Duster, made by Renault. But Ford got the nod for the first replacement order because of its large payload capacity, he said. The truck can carry five adults and a ton of cargo, more than the French vehicles.
> 
> “It’s not a question of America versus France,” Mr. Bayle said, as not one of the three vehicles in question was made in either country. The _Ranger is made in South Africa_ [emphasis added], the Duster in Romania and the Berlingo in Spain...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/business/international/french-army-is-buying-fleet-of-ford-pickup-trucks.html?smid=tw-share



Actually quite similar to F-150:
http://www.ford.co.za/commercials/ranger/models
http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/meet-the-2015-ford-ranger-you-wont-be-buying.html/?a=viewall







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## blackberet17

My CO mentioned last week there's rumour/word of an off-the-shelf replacement coming for the G-Wagon, when it's time is up in 2017. Anyone have SA on it?


----------



## dapaterson

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> My CO mentioned last week there's rumour/word of an off-the-shelf replacement coming for the G-Wagon, when it's time is up in 2017. Anyone have SA on it?



There is a project in the identification stage (pre-options analysis) for LUVW replacement - both MilCOTS and SMP.  There is a notional funding envelope that is not even indicative, and that to my knowledge is not yet in the department's investment plan.  A 2017 date is ridiculously optimistic, given the current state of work.

If you have DWAN access, go to the VCDS home page, go to Chief of Programme, from the left-hand menu select Tools & Resources, select the "Application" link for the Capability Investment Database, and then select "Search CID" and look for CA 1403.  You should get the project information page, which currently holds very basic tombstone data.


----------



## Eland2

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am a big fan of the 80-20 rule.
> 
> I would be spending my money on a readily available vehicle that can do 80% of the tasks required and save most of my money for niche vehicles that are critical for capabilities that the readily available vehicle can`t supply.
> 
> For $25,000,000 I could buy 250 GWagens at $100,000 a piece or 100 of the latest Light Patrol Vehicle from Supacat and Ricardo.  And then have to create a domestic and expeditionary logistic and maintenance support system.
> 
> I can buy 1000 Jeeps for $25,000,000 and replace them every 5 years (my jeep is 6 years old and still retains two-thirds the value I paid for it), or I could lease them and self-insure the fleet (you buy what you break).  Or I could buy 1000 Silverado 2500HDs.  In neither case do I have to worry about creating a support system.  It either exists or else the vehicle is cheap enough and easily replaceable that it can be considered a disposable item - like the old M151 jeep.
> 
> Saving money at that end frees up high end money to buy gucci kit.  It does mean that not everybody gets the gucci kit but the system has the gucci kit available to support everybody.
> 
> And in this case, I would argue, that gucci kit should include Unimogs for their specialist capabilities. What we shouldn`t be doing is buying Unimogs to do the jobs that Jeeps and Silverados can do.  That is a waste of money.



I never thought that the G-Wagen made a very good light recce vehicle. The G-Wagen was never really designed to function as such anyway - MB originally designed it to function as a general utility and liaison vehicle. Sure, you could go for the Rheinmetall LIV Wolf tactical vehicles that are just stretched G-Wagens with a chopped-off top, but they are pretty pricy.

The Silverado 2500HD, aka 'Milverado' is a good base to work from if you're seeking a truck that can provide light logistical support, but useless as a recce vehicle. If you did decide to turn some of the 1000 Silverados you've bought into recce/patrol variants, like the Irish Army's special forces units did with their Ford F350's, you'd need a third-party like Ricardo to do the custom-building and that will push up the unit cost considerably.

Or, you could go with the Jeep J8, which already comes pre-configured in recce/patrol, ambulance, troop-carrier and even truck-like variants, save yourself a ton of dough, and get an easily maintained platform with parts very widely available on a commercial basis. You'd kill several birds with one stone and not need to let special customization contracts to create the variants you'd require.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eland you are using common sense, stop that!


----------



## cupper

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Eland you are using common sense, stop that!



Forgive him Jim. He hasn't been around long enough to develop the deep seeded cynicism the rest of us have nurtured into a work of art. ;D


----------



## Eland2

cupper said:
			
		

> Forgive him Jim. He hasn't been around long enough to develop the deep seeded cynicism the rest of us have nurtured into a work of art. ;D



Maybe I haven't been here long enough to develop that 'deep-seated sense of cynicism', but as a reasonably well educated layman (with a small amount of experience as a reservist) who has a half-baked idea of how military procurement works, I definitely understand where the cynicism comes from.

When I was a young guy serving in an armoured recce unit equipped with M38A1 and M151 jeeps, all of the members of my unit, me included, would absolutely have killed or given up their left (insert dangling modifier here) to get their hands on Jeep J8's. 

Pintle-mounted GPMG for the crew commander? Check. A .50 cal mounted on a turret ring on the roof portion of the rear of the vehicle, or possibly a grenade launcher? Check. Not having to learn anything new with respect to doing vehicle parades? Check. A fair amount of space to store kit or lash it to the sides of the vehicle? Check. Longer wheelbase for greater safety and stability? Check. I mean, how could you go wrong with a vehicle that has that many good attributes?


----------



## Kirkhill

Careful Eland - you are at risk of picking a winner.

That is the job of Her Majesty's Bureaucrats in Public Works and Government Services.

Damm this Cynicism Bug - it appears to be contagious.

J8 Link


----------



## George Wallace

Eland2 said:
			
		

> When I was a young guy serving in an armoured recce unit equipped with M38A1 and M151 jeeps, all of the members of my unit, me included, would absolutely have killed or given up their left (insert dangling modifier here) to get their hands on Jeep J8's.
> 
> Pintle-mounted GPMG for the crew commander? Check. A .50 cal mounted on a turret ring on the roof portion of the rear of the vehicle, or possibly a grenade launcher? Check. Not having to learn anything new with respect to doing vehicle parades? Check. A fair amount of space to store kit or lash it to the sides of the vehicle? Check. Longer wheelbase for greater safety and stability? Check. I mean, how could you go wrong with a vehicle that has that many good attributes?



As one who was doing Armd Recce in M38A1, I would not follow all your 'dreams' of having a J8.  The pintle-mounted GPMG could not be used on the M151, nor any later version of Jeeps, due to the lack of reinforcing in the frames and bodies of the vehicles to support such mounts.  When the switch was made to the M151, with its roll cage (Time when the CAF were becoming very SAFETY conscience.), it raised the vehicles profile and made it much easier to detect.  Mounting a .50 Cal on a turret would only have made the vehicle more so, and honestly not much more effective.  Remember, the GPMG was only for immediate defence if surprised, not a wpn to go and attack with a la 'Rat Patrol'.  The role was to "See without being seen".

I don't understand your point of a longer wheel base.  Longer wheel base would reduce cross country maneuverability.  The last thing you would want in a wheeled vehicle, in a combat situation, would be to be 'hung up' on a mound.

[Edit to add:  On my first Exercise as a young Troop officer, on a wet, rainy Cape Breton morning, a RCD RSS officer gave me shyte for having my canvas and windscreen up (along with all my Troop).  "Get it down!" were his orders.  Reflective glass is your enemy after all, and a high profile, no capability to hear outside of your warm cab with the heater running defeats the whole purpose of your being there.  Lesson learned and confirmed numerous times after.]


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We did buy commercial jeeps CJ5 I think and they did not last long. Any good vehicle is going to be pricy, buying the G-wagon again means having a flow of commercially available parts, the armoured version with MG is pushing the design limits, where you spend a lot of money for a vehicle that is struggling. Use the hardtop for general duty, radio, command, open top for Reserve recce. For an light 4x4 AFV buy one that was designed from the ground up as one.


----------



## George Wallace

CJ5's and CJ7's if I remember correctly.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> I've always been a big fan of the HUMMVEE and it's many variants it brings to the table.  I like the General Tactical Vehicles JLTV variant they're proposing to the US military myself.  I think it would be a good replacement for the MILCOT, LSVW and G-Wagon.  Replacing all 3 light vehicles with a common one would save money in parts and training IMO.



I travelled in one for about 3 hours and nearly died of compression injuries. There's more room in a friggin' Mini....


----------



## cupper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> CJ5's and CJ7's if I remember correctly.



Yeah. I remember doing summer intake inspections on them in Aldershot and driving back and forth from Worthington to Base Maintenance on Milcon in Gagetown. Not my favorite piece of kit.

They were just taking the M151's out of service when I came in. The M38's were being pulled along until the Iltis became available. Remember doing suspension testing on a couple of M38 106 recoilless Jeeps. The heavier leaf springs made for some interesting drives.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We were reissued the M38's when the CJ's started to fail prematurely. For the Reserves we could issue civy model jeeps and trucks without to much problem if we set a strict lifespan and fullsome replacement policy, so the vehicle is used for 7-8 years, replaced and disposed of at Crown Assests.


----------



## blackberet17

I'll gladly take the J8 LPV...


----------



## KerryBlue

Pretty sure this belongs here... Looks like new trucks are coming 

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1001579&_ga=1.218338650.2133939155.1432051845


----------



## dapaterson

Not quite.  The MSVS project is distinct but related to the LVM project.  LVM will replace light and heavy trucks; this announcement is for medium trucks (the M in MSVS).


----------



## KerryBlue

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not quite.  The MSVS project is distinct but related to the LVM project.  LVM will replace light and heavy trucks; this announcement is for medium trucks (the M in MSVS).



Ah my apologies then.


----------



## blackberet17

Damn, got my hopes up.

I missed the cynicism bug going around last time...


----------



## Kirkhill

However, although KB got it in the wrong thread, and it should be in the MSVS thread, if his announcement then this?








http://mackdefense.wpengine.com/product/kerax/

Confirmation: http://www.forconstructionpros.com/press_release/12093164/mack-defense-to-supply-1500-trucks-to-the-canadian-armed-forces


----------



## KerryBlue

Can someone explain the difference to me between the MSVS and the vehicles discussed in this thread. Just a brief explain to me like I'm five would work.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://dtic.mil/ndia/2012tactical/poulter.pdf

Try this link Kerry.

The MSVS is the meat in the sandwich between the 3 tonners of the LVM-Light programme (AKA Combat Logistic Support Vehicle) and the 16 tonners of the LVM-Heavy programme.  LVM-L + LVM-H +Enhanced Recovery Capability (Wreckers) = LVM.  

MSVS is a separate project comprising:
1300 Navstar MilCOTS trucks
1350 Mack SMPs
150 Armoured Mack SMPs
300 Trailers
895 SEV shelters 
792 SEV kits.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/medium-support-vehicle.page


----------



## dapaterson

Short answer: It's all trucks for the military.  Just different people responsible for buying them within DND.


----------



## KerryBlue

Thank you Kirkhill and dapaterson. I understand the vehicles may not be the right ones, but at least the army is getting some new trucks.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KerryBlue said:
			
		

> Thank you Kirkhill and dapaterson. I understand the vehicles may not be the right ones, but at least the army is getting some new trucks.



A... friggin' men to that!  :nod:


----------



## Eland2

I was listening to CBC Radio News on the way home from work tonight and heard that Mack Trucks were just awarded the contract to supply the balance of trucks required under the MSVS programme. The trucks will be built in Quebec and in service by 2017 - 2018.


----------



## CBH99

A quick question to those who are more involved & have more knowledge of the day-to-day requirements than I do.  

Is 1500 of these vehicles enough?   Is 1500 of these, combined with the 1300(?) MSVS bought a few years ago, enough??  

I ask out of genuine curiosity.   In the link to the .pdf slide posted by Kirkhill earlier in the thread, it would seem - based purely on numbers - that the numbers of vehicles being purchased is only roughly half of the original fleet size of the previous fleet.  

Just curious is all.


----------



## Ludoc

1500 MSVS SMP + 1300 MSVS MilCOTS = 2800 trucks.

That is slightly more than the size of the MLVW fleet. (The .pdf said we had 2760 MLs)

Plus, the new trucks have a greater payload and may have a larger bed. So we will have more trucks that can each carry more.


----------



## CBH99

Oh.   In that case, YYYAAAYYYYY!!!!!    FINALLY!!!!!     :nod:

Sorry, the .pdf link from Kirkhill had me a bit confused on the numbers.


----------



## cupper

Ludoc said:
			
		

> 1500 MSVS SMP + 1300 MSVS MilCOTS = 2800 trucks.
> 
> That is slightly more than the size of the MLVW fleet. (The .pdf said we had 2760 MLs)
> 
> Plus, the new trucks have a greater payload and may have a larger bed. So we will have more trucks that can each carry more.



All that increased cargo capacity and nothing to carry. 

Except all the new buttons and bows.  >


----------



## ringo

Hoped for Rheinmetall MAN trucks, oh well hopefully next week they announce the purchase of Boeing's last C-17.


----------



## Old EO Tech

ringo said:
			
		

> Hoped for Rheinmetall MAN trucks, oh well hopefully next week they announce the purchase of Boeing's last C-17.



I was hoping for Oshkosh, but likely came in to expensive, or not enough Canadian content.  The problem I see in the the future is that just because Mack won the MSVS, there is no guarantee that they will win the LVM-L or LVM-H or even the ERC Wrecker....so we could end up with 4 difference truck platforms...which is a logistics headache, like the four different RWS systems we maintain now...


----------



## George Wallace

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I was hoping for Oshkosh, but likely came in to expensive, or not enough Canadian content.  The problem I see in the the future is that just because Mack won the MSVS, there is no guarantee that they will win the LVM-L or LVM-H or even the ERC Wrecker....so we could end up with 4 difference truck platforms...which is a logistics headache, like the four different RWS systems we maintain now...



MAN does have a place in my heart, as well.  They, like the UNIMOG, are quite reliable and versatile.  (I think there is still an image problem from the Chretien years underlying some of these decisions--buying Chevies instead of Cadillacs.)

The statement that "4 difference truck platforms...which is a logistics headache" is only a headache when you are talking about insignificant numbers.  If the fleet for the LVM-L is as large as this purchase, then there should be no more a logistic problem than what currently exists with current fleets of vehicles and equipment in the CAF inventory.


----------



## Underway

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The statement that "4 difference truck platforms...which is a logistics headache" is only a headache when you are talking about insignificant numbers.  If the fleet for the LVM-L is as large as this purchase, then there should be no more a logistic problem than what currently exists with current fleets of vehicles and equipment in the CAF inventory.



Agreed.  If there's going to be 2800 of these guys then there should be no major issues.  It's the one offs and small mixed equipments that are a pain.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ludoc said:
			
		

> 1500 MSVS SMP + 1300 MSVS MilCOTS = 2800 trucks.
> 
> That is slightly more than the size of the MLVW fleet. (The .pdf said we had 2760 MLs)
> 
> Plus, the new trucks have a greater payload and may have a larger bed. So we will have more trucks that can each carry more.



MLVW's replaced the Deuces at around 2 for 3 as I recall. Plus many units (Reserves) also had 3 ton commercial pattern truck, which was never replaced.  The fact that the 2 buys are slightly more than the MLVW's is a good thing. However the MSVS are restricted from off-road as I recall?


----------



## daftandbarmy

cupper said:
			
		

> All that increased cargo capacity and nothing to carry.
> 
> Except all the new buttons and bows.  >



You clearly haven't seen the size of some of our Bde staff, have you?


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You clearly haven't seen the size of some of our Bde staff, have you?



Does this mean that all the trucks come with Hydraulic Lifts?


----------



## Mountie

According to the manufacturer's website, the Kerax has a 17-23 tonne payload capacity.  Is this not more like a HLVW replacement than an MLVW replacement?

I would have thought something like the Zetros 4x4 (5-tonne) and 6x6 (10-tonne) vehicles would have been suitable as a MLVW replacement with the Actos or Kerax in the 15+ tonne range replacing the HLVW.


----------



## CBH99

Thats a great thing.  Increased numbers of vehicles, and the vehicles themselves have the ability to carry more stuff than their predecessor.   Great increase in capability, feels so good to finally see this project come to fruition.


----------



## Kirkhill

Mountie said:
			
		

> According to the manufacturer's website, the Kerax has a 17-23 tonne payload capacity.  Is this not more like a HLVW replacement than an MLVW replacement?
> 
> I would have thought something like the Zetros 4x4 (5-tonne) and 6x6 (10-tonne) vehicles would have been suitable as a MLVW replacement with the Actos or Kerax in the 15+ tonne range replacing the HLVW.



Mountie - the Light Vehicle is targeted at the 3 tonne range.  That means that each LSVW will be replaced by a MLVW.  Just as in the civvy world Pickups have gone from 1/2 tonnes to 3 tonners capable of towing 7 tonnes on highways.  At that end of the spectrum 80 HP engines have been replaced by 200 HP ones.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Underway said:
			
		

> Agreed.  If there's going to be 2800 of these guys then there should be no major issues.  It's the one offs and small mixed equipments that are a pain.



At a fleet level yes this is true, but at the tactical level, it would be much better to have an entire fleet based off one OEM, with common parts across light, medium and heavy trucks.  As it is right now, I at 1VP have 7 Seacans of parts to support 15 days for a mobile mech inf Bn.  If I can reduce that by even 33% due to common parts, that is two less seacans I have to move on low beds or PLS forward.  And likely 5000 line items gone.  Repeat this across all first line units....it is not insignificant...


----------



## Mountie

I get that Kirkhill.  But isn't that a huge gap in capability between 3 and 17 tonnes?  So if there is a 4-tonne load, a 17-tonne truck is the only option?

The attached powerpoint, Canadian Army Support Vehicles (2012), shows that the MSVS was to be in the 8-10 tonne range and the LVM-Heady was to be at the 16 tonne capacity.  The KERAX MSVS actually surpasses the LVM-Heavy goal.  That's all I'm saying.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012tactical/poulter.pdf

Looking at our allies they all have several vehicles in between that range:  
USMC has the 7-ton MTVR then the 15-ton LSVR
US Army has the 5-ton FMTV, the 10-ton HEMMT 8x8 and then the 16-ton HEMTT 10x10
UK, Australia, New Zealand and several other armies have the MAN Support Vehicle family with the 6-ton 4x4, 9-ton 6x6 and 15-ton 8x8

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the 4x4 9.6 tonne version of the KERAX as the MSVS and then the 8x8 17-23 tonne version as the HSVS or LVM-Heavy (HLVW replacement)?  What I'm getting at is if the MSVS is a 17-23 tonne vehicle, what is the LVM-Heavy going to be?


----------



## Kirkhill

I think (I don't know, I'm guessing/surmising) that the real driving force is not so much mass but volume, although mass probably plays a role.

17 tonnes over the road payload can quickly become 8.5 tonnes cross country.  That is what happened with the 5 tonne Deuce and a Half (MLVW).

But more critical is the move from break-bulk loads to palletized and containerized loads.  ISO Seacans are rarely maxed out on weight.  They routinely bulk out on volume.  These trucks appear to be built around the concept of transporting 20 foot Seacans, for more efficient material handling.  A 20 footer can weigh up to 24 tonnes fully loaded with a 21.6 tonne payload.  But it is not unusual for them to be less than half full.   The remainder of the volume is taken up with air due to low bulk density (grains), packaged goods (shoes in cartons), irregularly shaped items (cars/bikes/atvs/industrial plant).

The truck becomes a less efficient transporter of mass but the material handling conveyor from warehouse to point of use becomes more efficient because of less manual labour at transit points.

Another point (again I would guess, I don't know) is that the CF is so far behind the curve in terms of transport it could actually end up ahead of the curve.  A lot of the smaller trucks you mentioned are having their capacity eaten up by armour (which also reduces cross country capability).  That contributes to needing 3 tonners when 5/4s used to get the job done.

Because Canada effectively has nothing it is not lumbered with equipment purchased based on 15 year old decisions - pre Iraq.  One way of tackling its problems is to fix the middle of the bell curve with Medium vehicles, determine what they can do, and then adjust the tails of the curve with the LVM Light and LVM Heavy projects.


----------



## George Wallace

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> At a fleet level yes this is true, but at the tactical level, it would be much better to have an entire fleet based off one OEM, with common parts across light, medium and heavy trucks.  As it is right now, I at 1VP have 7 Seacans of parts to support 15 days for a mobile mech inf Bn.  If I can reduce that by even 33% due to common parts, that is two less seacans I have to move on low beds or PLS forward.  And likely 5000 line items gone.  Repeat this across all first line units....it is not insignificant...



Tactical vehicles are one thing.  Support vehicles are another.   F Ech of a Cbt Arms unit would have no issues here.  A and B Ech of a Cbt Arms unit would only need to have the minimum of parts to provide support, then everything else should be passed to the Rear and 2nd Line Repairs/Recovery.   Sounds almost like you are carrying everything that 3rd Line would carry, which is not necessary.


----------



## McG

Is 2760 the number of MLVW in service now, or the number two years ago before we divested half the B fleet because we could not sustain it? 

I understood the project was buying a truck twice as big with the intent of providing only slightly better than 1:2.


----------



## Kirkhill

According to Poulter 2012, 2760 was the size of the fleet.

Military Today says that Bombardier built over 2700.



> The MLVW or Medium Logistics Vehicle Wheeled is in service with Canadian armed forces. It is based on the obsolete US M35 cargo truck design, dated back to 1950s, however Canadian version includes many modifications. The MLVW entered service in 1982. Over 2 700 of these trucks had been license-produced by Bombardier.



http://www.military-today.com/trucks/mlvw.htm

It would suggest to me that you had over 2700 on charge with considerably fewer than that as runners.

You now have, or will have 2700 vehicles that can lift as much as the HLVWs  while still retaining the HLVW fleet.  Half of the MSVS project seems to be at least as capable as the 1200 or so HLVWs on charge.


----------



## cupper

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> At a fleet level yes this is true, but at the tactical level, it would be much better to have an entire fleet based off one OEM, with common parts across light, medium and heavy trucks.  As it is right now, I at 1VP have 7 Seacans of parts to support 15 days for a mobile mech inf Bn.  If I can reduce that by even 33% due to common parts, that is two less seacans I have to move on low beds or PLS forward.  And likely 5000 line items gone.  Repeat this across all first line units....it is not insignificant...



Not to mention it makes it more difficult to scavenge parts from other disabled vehicles when you have several different vehicle platforms.


----------



## George Wallace

cupper said:
			
		

> Not to mention it makes it more difficult to scavenge parts from other disabled vehicles when you have several different vehicle platforms.



Not many parts on an AFV that will be useful to a B Veh.


----------



## cupper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not many parts on an AFV that will be useful to a B Veh.



True, but that's not the point, is it.


----------



## George Wallace

cupper said:
			
		

> True, but that's not the point, is it.



Point is:  Cbt Arms units don't need to carry enough spare parts to fix every conceivable problem.  That is what Svc Bn is for.


----------



## cupper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Point is:  Cbt Arms units don't need to carry enough spare parts to fix every conceivable problem.  That is what Svc Bn is for.



Right. I got that. But only you combat arms guys would try to take parts off an MLVW in hopes of repairing your Leo.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cupper said:
			
		

> Right. I got that. But only you combat arms guys would try to take parts off an MLVW in hopes of repairing your Leo.



.........and with gun tape and WD40 we have the ingenuity to make it happen


----------



## cupper

recceguy said:
			
		

> .........and with gun tape and WD40 we have the ingenuity to make it happen



Red Green would be proud ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

Ludoc said:
			
		

> 1500 MSVS SMP + 1300 MSVS MilCOTS = 2800 trucks.
> 
> That is slightly more than the size of the MLVW fleet. (The .pdf said we had 2760 MLs)
> 
> Plus, the new trucks have a greater payload and may have a larger bed. So we will have more trucks that can each carry more.



The MSVS the Pres has is too high, and cannot go off road. For all intents and purposes it's a farm truck with 
OD paint. But it's got a CD player and cup holders.


----------



## Old EO Tech

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Tactical vehicles are one thing.  Support vehicles are another.   F Ech of a Cbt Arms unit would have no issues here.  A and B Ech of a Cbt Arms unit would only need to have the minimum of parts to provide support, then everything else should be passed to the Rear and 2nd Line Repairs/Recovery.   Sounds almost like you are carrying everything that 3rd Line would carry, which is not necessary.



Not at all, like I indicated I am carrying 15 days of 1st line parts for 200 A and B vehicles, exactly as I am suppose to by doctrine.  The fact that it takes 7 seacans is because of the amount of different platforms I have to support...  There is a CFTO called a Permissive Repair Schedule that actually tells us what is a first and second line repair, and by extension what parts are held by a SPSS as apposed to RPPL and EMAS at a service battalion.


----------



## George Wallace

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Not at all, like I indicated I am carrying 15 days of 1st line parts for 200 A and B vehicles, exactly as I am suppose to by doctrine.  The fact that it takes 7 seacans is because of the amount of different platforms I have to support...  There is a CFTO called a Permissive Repair Schedule that actually tells us what is a first and second line repair, and by extension what parts are held by a SPSS as apposed to RPPL and EMAS at a service battalion.



Thank you for the clarification.  

Still, the amount of seacans you require, although it will increase due to the different types of equipment we use; it would also increase if we had only one 'brand name' of equipment due to the increasing complexity of the equipment as technology advances.  Look at the Jeeps of the '60's and the simplicity of their construction, and then compare them to the complex automotive designs of today.  In some cases you have to be a computer technician to keep a vehicle on the road today.  
In that, I can see your argument to look at one 'family' or 'brand name' for parts.  Much like the MAN tank transporter was supposed to have had a powerpack that could be placed in a Leo 1 tank, and the road wheels for the Marder were the same as those of the Leo 1.  Question then would be: could the current contract winner provide those transferable parts to all the different fleets being replaced?  Do we have to make it one contract; specifying that the winning tender is able to produce all Light, Medium, Heavy and Specialized fleets capable of having interchangeable common components when we tender future purchases?


----------



## McG

George, 
You are arguing with a SME in his lane.  I have worked in that lane enough to have seen that he is right while you are grasping at straws.

The problem is not new equipment; the problem is micro-fleets with no economy of scale.


----------



## George Wallace

I do see his points, as well as yours with micro fleets; as we can see the specialized IED equipment that we had for Afghanistan being sold off, as it is too expensive to maintain otherwise.  Just wondering about those that are not 'micro fleets'; do we need to combine all our future procurement's, of Light, Medium, Heavy and Specialty wheeled lift, to one tender?   Is that the solution?  
If I recall correctly, using the German Army as an example, that is fairly much what they have done; as have most of the European militaries.


----------



## Kirkhill

Is there a compromise possible?

I doubt if it is possible to eliminate specialized vehicles, like the poor I think they are always likely to be with us.  On the other hand, perhaps, putting the micro-fleets under one management team, does that make sense?  Then, at least, the manager(s) are aware of, and potentially, equipped to handle the special challenges associated with them?

I'm thinking of Engineering Heavy Equipment, Tanks, Marginal Terrain Vehicles, Bisons, things of that sort.

WRT the mainstay vehicles: LAVs, TAPVs, LUVWs, LSVWs, MSVSs, HLVWs, those can perhaps be managed as the fleets they are.



On another point - just going over Poulter again - I think that the LVW-Light programme, with its CLSV, or Combat Logistic Support Vehicle, has the potential to answer both Hamish's and Mountie's concern about the need for smaller more flexible vehicles.



> Combat Logistics Support Vehicle (CLSV) - Slide 13
> • SEV Direction: The same shelter system will fit on both CLSV SMP and
> MilCOTS
> • Variants: Min:5 Max:59 (including ambulance, cargo, office/command
> post)
> • Expeditionary (SMP)
>  Protected
>  Non-Protected
>  JP 8 Fuel
>  2.2-3.5 Tonnes
>  Improved medium mobility
>  C-130
> • Domestic Trucks (MilCOTS)
>  2.2-3.5 Tonnes
>  Medium mobility
>  Rail transportation



I wonder, given that the LVW project is an umbrella project for, essentially, four separate vehicles (LVM-L MilCOTs, LVM-L SMP, LVM-H MilCOTs, LVM-H SMP) does that mean that the budget can be moved around as the focus of the effort changes?

If, for example, as Mountie suggests, the MSVS SMP does cover the turf originally planned as a LVM-H SMP requirement, as well as the MSVS turf, could that LVM-H budget be shunted to the other end of the spectrum to increase the buy of LVM-Ls?


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is there a compromise possible?
> 
> I doubt if it is possible to eliminate specialized vehicles, like the poor I think they are always likely to be with us.  On the other hand, perhaps, putting the micro-fleets under one management team, does that make sense?  Then, at least, the manager(s) are aware of, and potentially, equipped to handle the special challenges associated with them?



This brings me back to the UNIMOG.  The UNIMOG is designed in a way to make it a very versatile and adaptable vehicle.  The common frame can add attachments to its PTO that fill a multitude of functions.  That being the case; do you need a Specialized vehicle, or just a common vehicle that can accept attachments to fulfill specialized functions?


----------



## GnyHwy

We need a common vehicle that can accept mods.


----------



## Kirkhill

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> We need a common vehicle that can accept mods.



Hmm - A Single-Sourced Terrestrial F-35 then?   >


----------



## Old EO Tech

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is there a compromise possible?
> 
> I doubt if it is possible to eliminate specialized vehicles, like the poor I think they are always likely to be with us.  On the other hand, perhaps, putting the micro-fleets under one management team, does that make sense?  Then, at least, the manager(s) are aware of, and potentially, equipped to handle the special challenges associated with them?
> 
> I'm thinking of Engineering Heavy Equipment, Tanks, Marginal Terrain Vehicles, Bisons, things of that sort.
> 
> WRT the mainstay vehicles: LAVs, TAPVs, LUVWs, LSVWs, MSVSs, HLVWs, those can perhaps be managed as the fleets they are.
> 
> 
> 
> On another point - just going over Poulter again - I think that the LVW-Light programme, with its CLSV, or Combat Logistic Support Vehicle, has the potential to answer both Hamish's and Mountie's concern about the need for smaller more flexible vehicles.
> 
> I wonder, given that the LVW project is an umbrella project for, essentially, four separate vehicles (LVM-L MilCOTs, LVM-L SMP, LVM-H MilCOTs, LVM-H SMP) does that mean that the budget can be moved around as the focus of the effort changes?
> 
> If, for example, as Mountie suggests, the MSVS SMP does cover the turf originally planned as a LVM-H SMP requirement, as well as the MSVS turf, could that LVM-H budget be shunted to the other end of the spectrum to increase the buy of LVM-Ls?



I don't think there is a solution to specialized vehicles like the Combat Engineer stuff, I'd say the best way to manage that though would be to create a project to replace it all at once, to one OEM, and then use the TAPV model sustainment to ensure the contractor has to guarantee parts and tech support for the life of the family of vehicles.  This is costly up front but saves boat loads of money over the life of the vehicles when you now are trying to buy third party parts, or getting third party rebuild contracts for out of service fleet parts. Which is very costly.

As to the MSVS SMP covering off on the turf of the LVM-H, I'm not sure you could entirely do that, we do need a standard 16 ton heavy hauler in the fleet, maybe not 2000+ but enough of a need that would mean a major project of 500ish.  And for sure if we cut back on LVM-H it would certainly make sense to buy more MSVS SMP...especially since all our nice new and never used Seacan SEV kits need to be transported by the new Volvo/Mack trucks...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The MSVS the Pres has is too high, and cannot go off road. For all intents and purposes it's a farm truck with
> OD paint. But it's got a CD player and cup holders.



Not any higher than the MAN trucks used by the West German army.

So does the MSVS buy preclude the need for commercial pattern trucks that each unit used to have to reduce wear and tear on the tactical vehicles or is the MSVS considered a tactical vehicle now?


----------



## blackberet17

We are doomed if the MSVS is to be considered "tactical"...


----------



## KerryBlue

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I do see his points, as well as yours with micro fleets; as we can see the specialized IED equipment that we had for Afghanistan being sold off, as it is too expensive to maintain otherwise.



Just out of curiosity are we selling of all of our IED equipment? Or are we keeping some vehicles (Buffalo, Cougar) for the C-IED Sqns, and selling off the rest?


----------



## Kirkhill

I suggest this is the purchase that demands the next consideration

Combat Logistics Support Vehicle (CLSV) - Slide 13 

• SEV Direction: The same shelter system will fit on both CLSV SMP and
MilCOTS

• Variants: Min:5 Max:59 (including ambulance, cargo, office/command
post)

• Expeditionary (SMP)
 Protected
 Non-Protected
 JP 8 Fuel
 2.2-3.5 Tonnes
 Improved medium mobility (more off road than the MilCOTS?)
 C-130 (<2.74m high, <3.02m wide, < 16.9m long, <16,881 kg total weight)

Both something like the JLTV and the FMTV series of vehicles might fit into this category.....No?

• Domestic Trucks (MilCOTS)
No protection
Any fuel
 2.2-3.5 Tonnes
 Medium mobility (some off road?)
 Rail transportation (size is no object)

Something along the line of an F350 might/could meet the MilCOTS bill?


----------



## Eland2

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I suggest this is the purchase that demands the next consideration
> 
> Combat Logistics Support Vehicle (CLSV) - Slide 13
> 
> • SEV Direction: The same shelter system will fit on both CLSV SMP and
> MilCOTS
> 
> • Variants: Min:5 Max:59 (including ambulance, cargo, office/command
> post)
> 
> • Expeditionary (SMP)
>  Protected
>  Non-Protected
>  JP 8 Fuel
>  2.2-3.5 Tonnes
>  Improved medium mobility (more off road than the MilCOTS?)
>  C-130 (<2.74m high, <3.02m wide, < 16.9m long, <16,881 kg total weight)
> 
> Both something like the JLTV and the FMTV series of vehicles might fit into this category.....No?
> 
> • Domestic Trucks (MilCOTS)
> No protection
> Any fuel
>  2.2-3.5 Tonnes
>  Medium mobility (some off road?)
>  Rail transportation (size is no object)
> *
> Something along the line of an F350 might/could meet the MilCOTS bill?*



Actually, the Ford F350 is the platform on which the Irish Army commissioned Ricardo to develop a special forces strike vehicle, so the F350 would probably fit the MilCOTS bill rather nicely. Plus, there are a number of civilian security companies that use the F350 as a platform for their armoured SUVs.


----------



## cupper

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could build the light fleet around the G-wagon with this being the upper scale



BBC's Top Gear did a test drive of the civilian version in 2014.

https://youtu.be/DrUVMdkb4_k


----------



## dapaterson

Oshkosh has successfully appealed the contract award. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160524006184/en/Canadian-International-Trade-Tribunal-Rules-Favor-Oshkosh


----------



## QM

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> My CO mentioned last week there's rumour/word of an off-the-shelf replacement coming for the G-Wagon, when it's time is up in 2017. Anyone have SA on it?



No, not really a replacement for the G Wagon, but the Army is spending millions on purely commercial vehicles this year and next (ie. F-250s) that will provide some relief for administrative light utility, be it LSVW or G Wagon, as well as 80 Ford Expeditions for use by the Reserve TBGs. But these are obviously not a green tactical vehicles; they will be right off the Ford production line, purely commercial. As well, various ATV are being bought commercially. The major crown projects, however, are at least a half decade away from delivering an SMP vehicle. The commercial buys are meant to be emergency mitigation of some (not all) of the B Fleet reduction. But not really a commercial G Wagon replacement. Emergency relief.


----------



## QM

cupper said:
			
		

> BBC's Top Gear did a test drive of the civilian version in 2014.
> 
> https://youtu.be/DrUVMdkb4_k



Daimler could (could) bid this very same truck for LVM light however it is likely the 6x6 G Wagon would be operating at its very top load capacity when the heaviest of the new light modules (SEVs) are loaded onto it. That would not be a good thing.  Currently, Daimler is working on the Unimog as it's competitor for LVM Light, however we won't know what they choose to bid until the actual bid, in 2018 or 2019.


----------



## QM

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Oshkosh has successfully appealed the contract award. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160524006184/en/Canadian-International-Trade-Tribunal-Rules-Favor-Oshkosh



The National Post story by Lee Berthiaume adds that the tribunal will not recommend cancellation of the Mack Defense contract (thus avoiding a decade of legal wrangling with no trucks delivered - whew).

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/taxpayers-could-be-on-hook-for-bill-after-trade-ruling-questions-834m-army-truck-contract


----------



## Kirkhill

> Oshkosh alleged the department responsible for managing government purchases, Public Procurement Canada, had been unfair during design testing.



Wasn't the vehicle field testing done by this "independent" third party?

http://www.natc-ht.com/NATC_Overview.htm


And what happened to the "Fairness Monitor"?


----------



## QM

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Wasn't the vehicle field testing done by this "independent" third party?
> 
> http://www.natc-ht.com/NATC_Overview.htm
> 
> 
> And what happened to the "Fairness Monitor"?



No, the physical testing was run by PWGSC (now PSPC) at the NATC facility in Nevada. Concurrently to that, a paper evaluation was done by PWGSC in Ottawa, assessing other aspects of the bids.  But it was PWGSC doing the testing; NATC just provided the terrain, yes some data, some admin support.

The details of the ruling are not yet available so it's too early to say what happened.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks.


----------



## PuckChaser

Log Offr said:
			
		

> The details of the ruling are not yet available so it's too early to say what happened.



One article I saw said the decision points from the Tribunal will be released tomorrow. Be interesting to read to see who screwed this up so badly.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://army.ca/forums/threads/118377/post-1438406.html#msg1438406

Just saw Colin's post about the AHSVS roadworthiness in Alberta.  (see link above)

Got me to thinking about the current state of play wrt autonomous vehicles and came across this article from April 7, 2016:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/118377/post-1438406.html#msg1438406









> A caravan of about a dozen self-driving, semi-trailer trucks for the first time finished a trip across parts of Europe this week.
> 
> The autonomous truck challenge was organized by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and included rigs from six manufacturers, including Volvo, Daimler and Volkswagen subsidiary Scania. The convoy journeyed from manufacturing facilities in Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Sweden to the port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
> 
> A Scania semi-trailer traveled the longest distance -- more than 2,000 miles and across four national borders. The network of authorities involved in the pilot project included federal governments, roadway authorities and consumer groups from six nations.



I can imagine the next thing is a packet of 8x8 straight frames (no cabs) playing follow the leader with a pair of TAPVs acting as shepherds.  Only 4 to 6 bodies at risk.


----------



## Happy Guy

Log Offr said:
			
		

> No, the physical testing was run by PWGSC (now PSPC) at the NATC facility in Nevada. Concurrently to that, a paper evaluation was done by PWGSC in Ottawa, assessing other aspects of the bids.  But it was PWGSC doing the testing; NATC just provided the terrain, yes some data, some admin support.
> 
> The details of the ruling are not yet available so it's too early to say what happened.


Admittedly I've last worked at DGLPEM about 10 years ago and my knowledge maybe dated, but this statement that PSPC (PWGSC) runs physical testing seems incorrect to me.  While PSPC is the Contracting Authority it is not in charge of the trials, that should be the Project Manager (DGLEPM) in collaboration with the Project Director (DLR).

The bid evaluation, of which any physical testing is a part of, is overseen by PSPC but the bid methodology is primarily written by the Project Director and Manager.  The scoring of the bids is primarily by the Project Director and Manager.  PSPC is there to make sure that everything has conducted fairly and everything is transparent to the bidders.  PSPC awards the contract but this is based on the work by the Project Director and Manager.


----------



## QM

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Admittedly I've last worked at DGLPEM about 10 years ago and my knowledge maybe dated, but this statement that PSPC (PWGSC) runs physical testing seems incorrect to me.  While PSPC is the Contracting Authority it is not in charge of the trials, that should be the Project Manager (DGLEPM) in collaboration with the Project Director (DLR).
> 
> The bid evaluation, of which any physical testing is a part of, is overseen by PSPC but the bid methodology is primarily written by the Project Director and Manager.  The scoring of the bids is primarily by the Project Director and Manager.  PSPC is there to make sure that everything has conducted fairly and everything is transparent to the bidders.  PSPC awards the contract but this is based on the work by the Project Director and Manager.



Yes and no. It can seem that the PD is running the trial, but if he is he is reporting to PSPC not to the PM or anyone else in DND. The PM and PD (DND, in other words) are only the technical SME. The trials are run by PSPC, for PSPC, with heavy assistance from DND and the former Industry Canada, since they are the experts in those elements of the bid eval. The industrial benefits SME is the former Industry Canada (now Innovation, Science and Economic Development), and PSPC is the SME on procurement strategy and price. While the PD and PM are the technical experts, setting the technical standards and providing SME input to the bid methodology, it is PSPC leadership that gets to approve that methodology, then roll it into the approved methodology on industrial benefits, plus the price, ISS and contracting (again, all approved by PSPC). 

Then PSPC runs the eval. Indeed they are heavily reliant on DND and IC expertise, because PSPC staff are not technical experts, but it is PSPC at the helm, with the Fairness Monitor ensuring transparency, as you and another poster have mentioned. Once the eval starts, DND is there, monitoring, advocating for common sense when required, providing a fair bit of horsepower to the activity, often chairing meetings by default (since the PD and PM are the ones with the vested interest in seeing things done right). But its a PSPC show, and their responsibility to select the winning bid based on PSPC-approved methodology. They then guard the identity of the winner with their lives except for a very very small number of DND/IC personnel who need to write paragraphs for the contract acceptance.

If DND were left to it's own devices, the entire eval process would be much simpler and more common-sense oriented. But, arguably, that would open us up to even more challenges. PSPC is anal, but their analness is aimed at preventing challenges or winning them when they arise. Its truly shocking that CITT was able to find cracks in the PSPC zero-risk armour (although on a 450 page RFP, I guess there is ample opportunity for something to have been messed up).


----------



## QM

It can also be that the PD and PM have the stronger personalities on the team, as compared to the PW guys, so they look as though they are the ones in charge.  They deliver the update and summary briefings, etc. that anyone in DND would see.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://army.ca/forums/threads/118377/post-1438406.html#msg1438406
> 
> Just saw Colin's post about the AHSVS roadworthiness in Alberta.  (see link above)
> 
> Got me to thinking about the current state of play wrt autonomous vehicles and came across this article from April 7, 2016:
> 
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/118377/post-1438406.html#msg1438406
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can imagine the next thing is a packet of 8x8 straight frames (no cabs) playing follow the leader with a pair of TAPVs acting as shepherds.  Only 4 to 6 bodies at risk.



That route pretty much describes the most likely axis of the Russian Army during their next invasion now that those silly Scandahoovians have built a vehicle/ train connection between Denmark and Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98resund_Bridge


----------



## Kirkhill

Scandahoovians?  I haven't heard that since I moved up to the prairies in 1980.   ;D

Interesting point about the Russian route though.  Perhaps a new selling point for getting NATO assistance to Scandahoovia.  Fustest with the Mostest.

By the way, the trip from Copenhagen to Antwerp was about 7 hours with 1 hour being spent at the Danish-German border.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting concept/toy






https://youtu.be/Fm8J9-x1vSE
https://youtu.be/7hMSeOhC3Aw

http://trucktracks.com/en/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yea I wonder how they perform vs Keltracs, I suspct you might get some friction losses there.


----------



## Kirkhill

Friction losses - seen and agreed 

Keltracs?  - googlefu fails me.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

sorry my bad, Matttracks


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen - a more positive connection vs a longer install?


----------



## MilEME09

> *Vehicle replacement project will ‘revolutionize’ Army logistics*
> 
> By Steven Fouchard, Army Public Affairs
> Gatineau, Quebec  — The motto of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Logistics Branch, which plays a wide range of supportive roles from transporting  equipment and troops to providing command and control functions, is Servitium Nulli Secundus, meaning Service Second to None. A process to refresh the CAF’s fleet of logistics vehicles is currently underway and has been designed to ensure the branch will continue to live up to that standard. The Logistics Vehicle Modernization (LVM) Project, explained Project Director Major Michael Chagnon, is about upgrading an aging fleet of vehicles, but has also been designed with an eye to greater efficiency. While the project is still in the early stages, and delivery of any new vehicles not expected before 2021, Maj Chagnon said an analysis of what the CAF needs and what is available on the market has been done. The result is a general determination that the new vehicles will be heavier and have greater cargo capacities than what is currently in use. “It comes down to how much we want to take out in the field and reducing the number of vehicles in the field as well,” said Maj Chagnon. “So if you have one vehicle that can carry twice as much, then you only have one vehicle on the road as opposed to two. The entire fleet will revolutionize the way that logistics are done in terms of the ability to lift and move.” The increased cargo capacity of the incoming light and heavy vehicles is demonstrated by their ability to carry, respectively, three-metre and six-metre cargo containers. Each vehicle will also be able to tow additional containers on trailers at the same time.
> 
> Modules that will be delivered with the new vehicles, meanwhile, will allow for a wide variety of additional uses. “Having the modularity will allow a commander to switch amongst priorities if he needs to have more command posts or more workshops, or to carry supplies for example,” said Maj Chagnon. The Canadian Army is taking the lead with LVM, he added, because it is the most logistics-intensive of the CAF’s branches and will use 70 per cent of the new vehicles that will be ordered. Logistics vehicles are classed according to their weight and cargo capacity as light, medium, or heavy. The vehicles that comprise the current logistics fleet are described below. The LVM project is focused on replacing the light and heavy fleets only. The CAF’s medium-class logistical vehicles will be replaced sooner in a separate but related process, the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) Project. After a competitive bidding process, U.S.-based Mack Defense was selected as the supplier in 2015. The company, based in Allentown, Pennsylvania, will start delivery of more than 1,500 8x8 trucks in 2017 to replace the Medium Logistics Vehicle Wheeled (MLVW), a general utility truck used to transport troops and equipment and tow artillery.
> 
> The new medium vehicles are based on French manufacturer Renault’s Kerax line of logistics trucks. Final assembly will take place in Sainte-Claire, Quebec. With a capacity of 10 tons compared to the MLVW’s three-and-a-half, they will come in several variants, including mobile repair and cargo models.
> Procuring weapons and vehicles for the Canadian Armed Forces is a long and detailed process. This is to ensure that military members are well-equipped and well-protected so they can effectively serve Canadians at home and abroad. Every measure is taken to make sure taxpayers get the best value for their money. The project described in this article is in the Options Analysis phase.
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/notes/canadian-army/vehicle-replacement-project-will-revolutionize-army-logistics/1255961637829145?qid=6396432848713193288&mf_story_key=9078166136542789081



was posted to the armys facebook, less trucks to pull more great, but now you have less trucks to send out on DP's and such, you loose one truck and now you've lost a bigger portion of your fleet, and large amounts of supplies potentially. to me it only makes sense from a dollar amount, at min you still need 5 trucks on any given call, sure you might be able to do three or four DP's now in one go, but if your convoy gets hit early on, thats a lot of units without supplies, and your service battalion might not have more supplies to push forward. Eggs in one basket for supply doesn't work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

1 for 2 trucks, repeat several times for the last 50 years and soon you have none. However having no trucks does have a positive side, we save a fortune of POL, spare parts, maintenance, parking, covered storage and PY for maintainers and drivers.


----------



## McG

Overly large trucks in small numbers introduce more vulnerabilities than just the higher impact of individual casualties.  They can go in fewer directions at one time, so tasks may take longer.  We have natures of cargo that cannot be carried together, so twice the capacity may require the same number of trucks.  Overly large trucks consume more fuel when a job could have been done by a smaller truck.  Overly large trucks are harder to hide, harder to fit behind cover, and easier to hit with fires.


----------



## PuckChaser

But they fit nicely in the CLP-resupply, FOB-based warfare of our last deployment. The Canadian Armed Forces - always ready and equipped for the last war, not this one.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For the most part equip the Reserves with mostly a Milcot fleet, however no lease agreements, we use them as we will. The armoured units keep their G-wagons with part of their unit using jeeps. Service battalions get mostly civilian pattern trucks with a few tactical trucks to provide the “frontline” resupply. Artillery gets mostly tactical trucks for gun tractors (assuming we will have any guns left to tow) and ammo resupply. A couple of large Milcot trucks for general duties.

CP’s are based on pickups with new boxes, both fixed and demoutable. Jeep can provide the utility vehicle. 

Not sure what model works for infantry, at least a couple of 2-3 ton Milcots for general duty, CP and jeeps to provide utility and vehicle for the heavy weapons platoon (assuming they have heavy weapons left) Some could get Various ATV’s to replace the jeeps. Most of the lift could be provided by the local service battalion, but infantry gets their own lift if the Svc Bat is to far away. 

No unarmoured vehicle stays around longer than 12 years and replacement of the Reserve fleet right now should be at either 2 for 1 or 1.5 for 1 to build up the fleet to acceptable levels, afterwards replacement level can be 1 for 1. Keeping the fleet newer means less upkeep and surplusing revenue should go back to the department the equipment came from.


----------



## dapaterson

Much of this comes down to priorities.  Acquiring the TAPV (a vehicle fleet in search of a purpose) was a higher priority (and thus got funded before) replacing sustainment vehicles.  

As long as that occurs, as long as we have amateurs practicing tactics instead of professionals practicing logistics, problems like this will occur, where the sustainment function will remain the poor cousin to the other four.


----------



## McG

Another problem is that we ignore our own doctrine for capability development, which says DO NOT focus on platform replacement but DO focus on capability requirements.

We bought MSVS focousing on platform (MLVW) replacement and, because many MLVW could be replaced with a larger truck, all the MLVW will be replaced with a truck bigger than the HLVW.  LVM(Hy) is also focoused on platform replacement so HLVW, SHLVW, and HESV will all be replaced by a truck that is magnitudes larger (even in cases where a new MSVS would be a better fit).  LVM(Li) will replace every LSVW with a truck about the size of an MLVW, whether that makes sense for every particular truck or not.

Had we followed our doctrine, we could have determined our tpt requirements, broken that into some required number of "weight classes" (I assume three to four), and procured whichever new truck most overlapped with the MLVW.  Conceivably, we could have had an "HSVS" project that replaced most MLVW and many HLVW, then a true medium truck project which replaced remaining MLVW and some LSVW.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Acronym Assistance:  "tpt requirements"?


----------



## McG

Tpt = transportation


----------



## daftandbarmy

MCG said:
			
		

> Tpt = transportation



Or 'target, practice, tracer'


----------



## McG

No.  That would be "TPT"


----------



## Kirkhill

What, on earth, are you lot moaning about?

The LSVW is a veritable paragon of military vehicles.  A truck among trucks with hundreds of thousands of kilometers left on the clock

Sez here..... must be true.



> In August and September of last year, the Department of National Defence suddenly sold off dozens of LSVWs (light support vehicle wheeled). These are insanely capable vehicles: Italian-designed, four wheel drive and with odometers all in the five digits. They were also remarkably cheap. During the army’s two-month-long light truck blowout, buyers picked these up for anything between $1000 and $5000 a unit. Which means that for the price of a brand new Ford F-150, the discerning consumer could have instead purchased a fearsome convoy of six one and a half ton army trucks. But be warned, these things are positively no frills; no radio, no airbags, no air conditioning, no ignition key.



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/own-your-own-army-convoy-highlights-from-the-canadian-governments-official-auction-site


----------



## MilEME09

some ones smoking the same stuff the LPC is, must be pretty good to call a LSVW a good vehicle, though I hear it was decent when first introduced, for about a month.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I bet that in civy hands they have sorted out the majority of the issues in a couple of months


----------



## Kat Stevens

The Iveco that LS was ripper off, err based on, was quite a good vehicle. Only when it got Canadianized did it become an embarrassment. Same thing with the Iltis.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Colin P said:
			
		

> I bet that in civy hands they have sorted out the majority of the issues in a couple of months


 While I'm not an automotive expert of any sort  I suspect my Provincial Highway Department is  or at least was.
Here in Manitoba a group of provincial mechanics  got their hands on a LSVW for a couple of hours and examined it .To  put it mildly they were not impressed .
The story goes that they produced a four page list of defects that had to be fixed before they would even think , think of allowing it on any road in the province. Assuming of course that it was a civilian vehicle .


----------



## MilEME09

Anyone hear if the delivery schedule is on track for the MSVS SMP? first deliveries should be this summer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> While I'm not an automotive expert of any sort  I suspect my Provincial Highway Department is  or at least was.
> Here in Manitoba a group of provincial mechanics  got their hands on a LSVW for a couple of hours and examined it .To  put it mildly they were not impressed .
> The story goes that they produced a four page list of defects that had to be fixed before they would even think , think of allowing it on any road in the province. Assuming of course that it was a civilian vehicle .



having seen what they make people go through importing vehicles, most is chickenshit stuff or totally inappropriate to the vehicle in question.


----------



## QM

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Anyone hear if the delivery schedule is on track for the MSVS SMP? first deliveries should be this summer.



First delivery will be December this year. There are challenges with transplanting the Renault production line and supply chain into Canada (Quebec and Saskatchewan), as one might expect. Much of that was based on problems with the numerous sub-contractors that feed said production line and supply chain. It seems its not easy to transplant an operation to the other side of the ocean. The armour and trailers will start trickling in through the fall, but delivery of the trucks themselves won't kick into high gear until 2018. In the meantime, it's AHSVS for the missions, and more of the same for Canada.


----------



## a_majoor

Just as a bit of historical trivia, the US Army's heavy lift truck in the 1960's to early 1980's, the M 520, was not only fully articulated (which gave it some interesting cross country mobility) but also fully amphibious as well.

Funny how something like that was built using 1960 technology, but we can hardly get vehicles with limited cross country mobility today.


----------



## MilEME09

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Just as a bit of historical trivia, the US Army's heavy lift truck in the 1960's to early 1980's, the M 520, was not only fully articulated (which gave it some interesting cross country mobility) but also fully amphibious as well.
> 
> Funny how something like that was built using 1960 technology, but we can hardly get vehicles with limited cross country mobility today.



Armies fight wars, wars in places that aren't always paved, and have a gas station at regular distances, people seem to have forgotten that over many decades.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Just as a bit of historical trivia, the US Army's heavy lift truck in the 1960's to early 1980's, the M 520, was not only fully articulated (which gave it some interesting cross country mobility) but also fully amphibious as well.
> 
> Funny how something like that was built using 1960 technology, but we can hardly get vehicles with limited cross country mobility today.



Designed by people like this, not a computer in sight, but a lot of education and experiance.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Designed by people like this, not a computer in sight, but a lot of education and experiance.



I miss the smell of a decent pipe.  Contributory to a convivial working atmosphere.


----------



## QM

For relatively low tech equipment like trucks, Canada buys what industry produces. Our quantities are too small to make designing our own trucks and having someone build them, economically viable. Performance standards are examined and set, but the existing military trucks invariably meet them anyhow (fording depth, mobility, cargo capacity, crane lift capacity, protection, etc).  We then cross check to see which of the upcoming lineups of existing military truck manufacturers, none of whom are Canadian, will meet our requirements. If enough manufacturers have lineups that meet our needs, thus allowing a competitive process, we're good. Since the manufacturers all sell to our NATO partners, who have virtually the same truck requirements as us, the lineups invariably meet Canadian requirements. Its then just a matter of who puts together the best bid package between MAN and Oshkosh and Mercedes and Navistar and Iveco and Mack / Renault, etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We can't even write a decent scope of work or contract. Basically all we need to ask is weight class and in service within NATO or countries X,Y and & Z. Then go from there.


----------



## Kirkhill

You could also ask what performance tests they have already passed and service history with other countries (Mean Miles Between Failures).


----------



## QM

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> You could also ask what performance tests they have already passed and service history with other countries (Mean Miles Between Failures).



Performance histories in other NATO partners are always requested and provided. Nothing is so straightforward though. The 2010 truck the Americans or Germans are using is not the same as the 2019 truck that Canada will buy, and there are hundreds of pages of other assessments required by PSPC and ISEDC (all on behalf of Treasury Board, sigh). And (worse) technical performance is only one component of the bid evaluation alongside price and industrial benefits. To boot, the bidding companies have their lawyers lined up to jump on any perceived discrepancy in the evaluations. Ain't nothing easy in government procurement.


----------



## Kirkhill

Log Offr said:
			
		

> Ain't nothing easy in government procurement.



Sympathies.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Log Offr said:
			
		

> Performance histories in other NATO partners are always requested and provided. Nothing is so straightforward though. The 2010 truck the Americans or Germans are using is not the same as the 2019 truck that Canada will buy, and there are hundreds of pages of other assessments required by PSPC and ISEDC (all on behalf of Treasury Board, sigh). And (worse) technical performance is only one component of the bid evaluation alongside price and industrial benefits. To boot, the bidding companies have their lawyers lined up to jump on any perceived discrepancy in the evaluations. Ain't nothing easy in government procurement.



Make TB hump the logistic support on their backs and trucks will soon be forthcoming. Working in government has taught me to truly despise TB.


----------



## Bearpaw

If you want to get rid of TB interference, just take away their computers, calculators and spreadsheets---they will soon disappear into their rabbit-holes.

Bearpaw


----------



## Kirkhill

How about relocate Hull to St-Boniface?


----------



## Spencer100

This is going to happen very fast in the automotive world.  

Plus a Canadian connection.   Does the CAF play a roll in this when they cross the bridge? 

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20170601/NEWS/170609969/army-to-test-autonomous-vehicles-on-blue-water-bridge-i-69#utm_medium=email&utm_source=cdb-michmorning&utm_campaign=cdb-michmorning-20170602


----------



## Colin Parkinson

EMP weapons ambushing an autonomous convoy, taking out driving control and self defense system.


----------



## captloadie

As opposed to an EMP taking out driving control and then the ambush taking out the drivers/defenders? I would imagine that there would be eyes in the sky ready to defend any critical autonomous convoy.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> EMP weapons ambushing an autonomous convoy, taking out driving control and self defense system.



With everything managed by consultants


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> With everything managed by consultants



The convoy would never get on the road........   ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The convoy would never get on the road........   ;D



Not without a Gannt chart and one helluva PPT presentation it wouldn't


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Not without a Gannt chart and one helluva PPT presentation it wouldn't



I can point you in the right direction.... for a modest consideration.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I can point you in the right direction.... for a modest consideration.



Sure.... as long as you use a laser pointer


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Sure.... as long as you use a laser pointer



10 foot pole not good enough?


----------



## MilEME09

Israeli company plasan has come out with a new light armoured ambulance as part of its sandcat family. Never heard of NGVA till now, I am assuming it's some new attempt at standardizing aspects of NATO vehicle families. Perhaps a contender to replace the LSVW.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/plasan_adds_ambulance_variant_to_its_sandcat_4x4_armored_vehicle_family.html


----------



## childs56

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> While I'm not an automotive expert of any sort  I suspect my Provincial Highway Department is  or at least was.
> Here in Manitoba a group of provincial mechanics  got their hands on a LSVW for a couple of hours and examined it .To  put it mildly they were not impressed .
> The story goes that they produced a four page list of defects that had to be fixed before they would even think , think of allowing it on any road in the province. Assuming of course that it was a civilian vehicle .


I would love to read that report.


----------



## Blackadder1916

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> . . . Never heard of NGVA till now, I am assuming it's some new attempt at standardizing aspects of NATO vehicle families. Perhaps a contender to replace the LSVW.



https://www.natogva.org/

NATO GENERIC VEHICLE ARCHITECTURE

NGVA is a NATO Standardisation Agreement  (STANAG 4754) based on open standards to design and integrate multiple electronic sub-systems onto military vehicles which are controllable from a multifunction crew display and control unit.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> While I'm not an automotive expert of any sort  I suspect my Provincial Highway Department is  or at least was.
> Here in Manitoba a group of provincial mechanics  got their hands on a LSVW for a couple of hours and examined it .To  put it mildly they were not impressed .
> The story goes that they produced a four page list of defects that had to be fixed before they would even think , think of allowing it on any road in the province. Assuming of course that it was a civilian vehicle .



Hmm you mean the same experts that allow modern cars onto the roads with turn signals that can't be seen by other drivers in the daylight, cars that can do double the speed limit and have no rearward visibility?


----------



## MilEME09

Thales Canada took this past winter to do winter trails of their Hawkei around Ottawa and Pet apparently. Thales says they will be offering the Hawkei for both the LUV and LFE projects, the LUV will go to tender late spring of this year. Can honestly say it looks better then a G-wagon or a Milverado.

https://canadianarmytoday.com/a-cold-weather-test/?fbclid=IwAR3Yux3Eq79fS61zpPV5EeP5sEGBQza4Y9Hu_xAG5f4miaL2IuZtBVD_Kh0


----------



## Dale Denton

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Thales Canada took this past winter to do winter trails of their Hawkei around Ottawa and Pet apparently. Thales says they will be offering the Hawkei for both the LUV and LFE projects, the LUV will go to tender late spring of this year. Can honestly say it looks better then a G-wagon or a Milverado.
> 
> https://canadianarmytoday.com/a-cold-weather-test/?fbclid=IwAR3Yux3Eq79fS61zpPV5EeP5sEGBQza4Y9Hu_xAG5f4miaL2IuZtBVD_Kh0



Just heard of this project, 2500 vehicles is a lot. Makes for an interesting read. What's the timeline for this project? 

Hopefully we don't pay what the Australians did...

* Coalition suppressed auditor's finding that $1.3bn Thales arms deal could have cost half with US*
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/22/coalition-suppressed-auditors-finding-that-13bn-thales-arms-deal-could-have-cost-half-with-us

*Bendigo Hawkei build schedule under threat from delays, reliability issues*


> https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/6547893/hawkei-roll-out-threatened-by-delays-reliability-issues/


----------



## PuckChaser

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Just heard of this project, 2500 vehicles is a lot. Makes for an interesting read. What's the timeline for this project?



Well we needed the vehicles 10 years ago, so we'll get them 10 years from now.


----------



## MilEME09

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Just heard of this project, 2500 vehicles is a lot. Makes for an interesting read. What's the timeline for this project?
> 
> Hopefully we don't pay what the Australians did...
> 
> * Coalition suppressed auditor's finding that $1.3bn Thales arms deal could have cost half with US*
> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/22/coalition-suppressed-auditors-finding-that-13bn-thales-arms-deal-could-have-cost-half-with-us
> 
> *Bendigo Hawkei build schedule under threat from delays, reliability issues*



Well that's what we normally pay anyway! Seriously though with issues like that, likely another company will win, be interesting to see who else bids.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Have them licence built here with minimal Canadization so we can get parts later when the plant shuts down.


----------



## RDBZ

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well that's what we normally pay anyway! Seriously though with issues like that, likely another company will win, be interesting to see who else bids.



The program has moved on from the development phase.  The first LRIP vehicles were recently delivered to the ADF in April this year.  Thales bought out Steyr so the latter's financial troubles are now irrelevant in terms of supply of engines.


----------



## MilEME09

End of an Era, today 1 CMBG announced on Facebook they are beginning the divestment of the remaining MLVW's from service.


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Well we needed the vehicles 10 years ago, so we'll get them 10 years from now.



Optimist. :tsktsk:


----------



## MJP

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> End of an Era, today 1 CMBG announced on Facebook they are beginning the divestment of the remaining MLVW's from service.



Watched a running ML towbar a non running ML to the divestment area.


----------



## MilEME09

This morning CAF announced via social media the intention via draft RFP to replace our light and heavy logistics fleets. Good bye LSVW......eventually 


https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/pdmdvl-lvmp-eng.html?fbclid=IwAR1DporjqDLZaxPlS03r68MmjXrF-ySWHrG9t91BijDbhOQTtEAKHES4n8g


----------



## PuckChaser

Its a draft RFP, not even the real RFP. I'll be a CWO or long retired before the LSVW gets replaced.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> This morning CAF announced via social media the intention via draft RFP to replace our light and heavy logistics fleets. Good bye LSVW......eventually
> 
> 
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/pdmdvl-lvmp-eng.html?fbclid=IwAR1DporjqDLZaxPlS03r68MmjXrF-ySWHrG9t91BijDbhOQTtEAKHES4n8g


From the link:
As a result of the Invitation to Qualify (ITQ) process, Canada established a list of qualified suppliers who have demonstrated the technical ability to develop and propose solutions for the project.

Daimler AG
General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada Corporation and General Dynamics Land Systems, Incorporated
Iveco Defence Vehicles S.p.A.
Mack Defense LLC (with ARQUUS)
Navistar Defense LLC
Oshkosh Defense Canada Incorporated and Oshkosh Defense, LLC
Rheinmetall Canada Inc. and Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles GmbH
Only these suppliers will be invited to participate in the next phases of engagement to review and refine the procurement requirements and to submit bids in response to the RFP.


----------



## CBH99

The project to replace the MSVW is complete, right??  Trucks delivered.

This is for LUVW specifically?


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:
			
		

> The project to replace the MSVW is complete, right??  Trucks delivered.
> 
> This is for LUVW specifically?



logistics fleet, so LSVW, HLVW and engineering equipment is my understanding.

Replacement of the LUVW both milcot and G wagon are a separate project.


----------



## suffolkowner

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> logistics fleet, so LSVW, HLVW and engineering equipment is my understanding.
> 
> Replacement of the LUVW both milcot and G wagon are a separate project.



So the LSVW and HLVW will be from the same manufacturer? Wikipedia has the LSVW at 1333 of the original 2879 and the HLVW at 591 of the original 1212, I wonder what the replacement numbers will be?


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> So the LSVW and HLVW will be from the same manufacturer? Wikipedia has the LSVW at 1333 of the original 2879 and the HLVW at 591 of the original 1212, I wonder what the replacement numbers will be?



Hopefully several thousand of each, logistics fleets you can't always do more with less, because you can't be in two places at once. And on a DP you can't have multiple stores in one vehicle. Ammo, food, POL, salvage, etc.. all has to have its own truck. Plus you need all the varients as well, plus trailers.


----------



## suffolkowner

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Hopefully several thousand of each, logistics fleets you can't always do more with less, because you can't be in two places at once. And on a DP you can't have multiple stores in one vehicle. Ammo, food, POL, salvage, etc.. all has to have its own truck. Plus you need all the varients as well, plus trailers.



What do you think the difference is between the HLVW replacement and the MSVS-SMP will be? The MSVS-SMP is already an 8x8, correct? So what can you do go 10x10 or duals?


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> What do you think the difference is between the HLVW replacement and the MSVS-SMP will be? The MSVS-SMP is already an 8x8, correct? So what can you do go 10x10 or duals?



Its not about wheels, its tonnage and capacity, given the upsizing of vehicles the HL replacement will likely be in the 12 to 16 ton range. Likely with a crane and a large cargo capacity.


----------



## suffolkowner

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Its not about wheels, its tonnage and capacity, given the upsizing of vehicles the HL replacement will likely be in the 12 to 16 ton range. Likely with a crane and a large cargo capacity.



But how do you get the capacity without adding another axle or wheels?


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> But how do you get the capacity without adding another axle or wheels?



Thats upto individual companies to design but likely duel wheels in the rear is possible.


----------



## suffolkowner

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Thats upto individual companies to design but likely duel wheels in the rear is possible.



fair enough it will be interesting to see the proposals, hopefully the process can be completed in 5yrs instead of 10


----------



## suffolkowner

pretty decent new CDR magazine out

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/

The Enhanced Recovery Project is covered on page 50 with 159 units and 30 Armoured protection systems and GDLS-MB / Iveco/ 
Navistar /Oshkosh and rheinmetall so far involved. Also mentioned in the magazine are the other projects with the HSVS looking to replace the HLVW and AHSV as well as the Western Star water purification system transports. Still the opportunity exists to buy something from every truck manufacturer out there to help spread the wealth ;D 

maybe the following only slightly tongue in cheek

MSVS= 1300 Navistar
MSVS-SMP= 1587 Kerex
HSVS= 700 Rheinmetall
EHRC= 159 Oshkosh
LSVS= 2400 Iveco
LUVW= another 2000 to replace the milverado and g-wagen


----------



## MilEME09

Way to early to make any calls as to what we will get however it looks like given the time line the ERC is a high priority. Other projects expected to deliver this decade are the LSVW and HLVW replacement, and the replacement of the Chevy Silverado and G wagon with a single utility vehicle platform.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

And there is also the heavy equipment fleet too....


----------



## suffolkowner

Another article on the truck fleet replacement






						The road to new logistics trucks | Canadian Army Today
					






					canadianarmytoday.com
				




The numbers don't look particularly amazing, talking about replacing an original 2879 LSVW (now 1333) with 650-1100 and over 1500 Heavy (now 591 +86 AHSVS and 59 Osmosis water(?)) with 300-550. I get not needing as many heavy due to the overlap with the new mediums but that shouldn't result in such a large reduction in the LSVW's, should it?


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:


> Another article on the truck fleet replacement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The road to new logistics trucks | Canadian Army Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> canadianarmytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don't look particularly amazing, talking about replacing an original 2879 LSVW (now 1333) with 650-1100 and over 1500 Heavy (now 591 +86 AHSVS and 59 Osmosis water(?)) with 300-550. I get not needing as many heavy due to the overlap with the new mediums but that shouldn't result in such a large reduction in the LSVW's, should it?


Only way that makes sense for the LSVW is if we go heavy on the milcot replacement.


----------



## Kirkhill

Gotta remember there is a separate project for a new LUV in addition to the LVM Light.  And there are 330 ULCV that don't exist in the inventory now.  And finally there is the Arctic Mobility project to replace the Bv206 capability.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:


> Gotta remember there is a separate project for a new LUV in addition to the LVM Light.  And there are 330 ULCV that don't exist in the inventory now.  And finally there is the Arctic Mobility project to replace the Bv206 capability.


What, with another BV? What can possibly compete in that field?


----------



## CBH99

The BV's in our inventory are pretty old.  I imagine they will be replaced with a newer version of the BV.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> The BV's in our inventory are pretty old.  I imagine they will be replaced with a newer version of the BV.



Cpl Frisk has an informative piece on the subject:

Bv 206 meets Mercedes​Several modern vehicles are found on the market, including BAE System Hägglund’s BvS10 Viking Mk 2 and ST Engineering’s Bronco ATTC, which underwent snow mobility testing in Finland last winter. However, for a country like Finland which has over 600 Bv 206 and a number of older indigenous Sisu NA-series (as well as a handful of the lightly protected Bv 308), getting a similar number of modern protected all terrain vehicles is probably overly expensive. The BvS10 Viking is found in an unarmoured (and likely cheaper) version designated BvS10 BEOWULF, but with modern military vehicles ‘cheap’ doesn’t necessarily equal ‘little money’.









						Bv 206 – Corporal Frisk
					

Posts about Bv 206 written by Corporal Frisk




					corporalfrisk.com


----------



## Kirkhill

The only problem I have with Beowulf is that, unlike the 206, it won't fit in a Chinook.  The market needs new build, up-engined 206s.  Or at least a cabriolet version of the Beowulf.

On the other hand they can be sling loaded.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> Gotta remember there is a separate project for a new LUV in addition to the LVM Light.  And there are 330 ULCV that don't exist in the inventory now.  And finally there is the Arctic Mobility project to replace the Bv206 capability.


Also have to note these projects have to stay in budget, so that night be the max vehicles they can get with the current allocated budget for the project.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> On the other hand they can be sling loaded.


The “give them back to the taxpayer” option is the preferred COA, more so for should emergencies arise where non-jettisonable heavy weight is undesirable.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> The “give them back to the taxpayer” option is the preferred COA, more so for should emergencies arise where non-jettisonable heavy weight is undesirable.


I much prefer a slung load for alot of the same reasons. And it is much easier on my aged body not putting heavy things into a helicopter and pulling them out again....


----------



## Rifleman62

Is the replacement project considering future needs or current requirements?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:


> Another article on the truck fleet replacement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The road to new logistics trucks | Canadian Army Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> canadianarmytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don't look particularly amazing, talking about replacing an original 2879 LSVW (now 1333) with 650-1100 and over 1500 Heavy (now 591 +86 AHSVS and 59 Osmosis water(?)) with 300-550. I get not needing as many heavy due to the overlap with the new mediums but that shouldn't result in such a large reduction in the LSVW's, should it?


Not to mention when they replaced the 5 ton, Deuces, 5/4ton, jeep it was on a roughly 1-2 new for every 3 old vehicles.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin Parkinson said:


> Not to mention when they replaced the 5 ton, Deuces, 5/4ton, jeep it was on a roughly 1-2 new for every 3 old vehicles.


We keep trying to do more with less, yes the truck may be bigger and can haul more but I can't deliver to two units at the same time unless doing a centralized DP, which is what we will be forced to do due to smaller numbers of trucks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:


> We keep trying to do more with less, yes the truck may be bigger and can haul more but I can't deliver to two units at the same time unless doing a centralized DP, which is what we will be forced to do due to smaller numbers of trucks.


Russian and Chinese artillery is happy that we are so obliging in concentrating our assets for them and saving them money on future Fire Missions.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin Parkinson said:


> Russian and Chinese artillery is happy that we are so obliging in concentrating our assets for them and saving them money on future Fire Missions.


Turns a DP into a Equipment collection point in 5 seconds or less.


----------



## MilEME09

LVM goes to bidding






						Bidding opens on logistics trucks | Canadian Army Today
					






					canadianarmytoday.com


----------

