# Medium Support Vehicle System



## MedCorps

For those interesting in vehicle procurement... 

A MERX Notice - Letter of Interest went out last Wednesday (12/3/08) for the SMP (aka "the tactical truck) part of the Medium Support Vehicle System.  

Why a new LOI for a project that is already had an LOI issued (the first one went out 1 Feb 2007 with a 20 April 07 closing) 

Here is CSAR's take on it: 

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-loi-msvs-smp.htm

They suggest that the original SMP specification did not provide enough armour protection for overseas deployments.  The 800 MilCOTS MSVS are unaffected as are the 1000 SEV MSVS, the focus is on the 300 SMP MSVS 

For information on the project here: 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/msvs/index_e.asp

Enjoy, 

MC


----------



## steveyb4342

I dont know if this is due to the fact that I only slept 2 hours last night but..... I dont understand your post. Can you dumb it down a bit? lol. Ill try reading again in the morning too lol.

                                                 Thanks Steve


----------



## honestyrules

I`ve seen those in the States earlier this year....nothing new, but they look nice. And most fluids checks can be done from outside the vehicule (right behind the cab, driver`s side)..

http://www.chrishodgephotos.co.uk/funpics/pixww/2002/2002dvd04.jpg

They almost look like mini HL`s, looks like they are Steyr variants...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some time later, this from MERX:


> The Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) Project mandate is to replace the Canadian Forces tactical medium lift capability that is provided by the current fleet of Medium Logistics Vehicles Wheeled (MLVW). The project is comprised of three distinct parts: the acquisition of 1300 Militarized Commercial Off The Shelf (MilCOTS) trucks for use within North America; the acquisition of up to 1500 medium Standard Military Pattern (SMP) trucks, 150 armour protection systems and 300 military trailers; and the acquisition of up to 1000 Special Equipment Vehicle (SEV) variants, that will be carried by the previously described vehicles and trailers, providing specific functionality such as command posts, maintenance workshops, kitchens, movement and stowage of logistical stores and medical facilities to name a few. Each SEV variant will be based on one of five baseline shelters already procured in a separate procurement process. The baseline shelters will be provided as Government Supplied Materiel (GSM) to allow "kitting" work to be carried out.
> 
> Purpose
> 
> The purpose of this notice is to inform industry that a second draft of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the kitting of SEV variants is now available on the project website .... for review and comment.
> 
> Response
> 
> Industry is invited to provide comments on the draft SEV Kitting RFP using any software compatible with MS Office Suite 2003.
> 
> Industry should ensure that its comments are clearly traceable to a particular paragraph or section of a particular document.
> 
> Comments are to be sent by email to the Contracting Authority identified at the end of this notice. Canada intends to use the information submitted to assist in refining the documents for the MSVS Project ....



Deadline:  6 Aug 10 02:00 PM Eastern Daylight Saving Time EDT


----------



## MedCorps

Looks like the SEV kits are well defined: 

The Airforce has a notable collection of SEV's: 

Aircraft Life Support Equipment SEV 
Aircraft Metal Repair SEV 
Aircraft Refinishing SEV 
Aviation SEV 
Avionics SEV 
Aircraft Battery Servicing SEV 
Aircraft Mobile Repair Party SEV 

As do the EME's: 

Electronic / Optronic (EO) Mobile Repair Team SEV 
Vehicle Component Reapir SEV 
Tool Crib SEV 
Welding Mobile Repair Team SEV 
Vehicle Mobile Repair Team SEV 
Weapons Mobile Repair Team SEV 

And the CFHS: 

Dental Clinic SEV 
Medical SEV 
Pharmacy SEV 

And the mapping  guys: 

Geomatics SEV 
Map Storage SEV 
Map Distribution SEV 
Map Production SEV 

And the others:

Non-expandable Field Office SEV 
Expandable Field Office SEV
Postal Field Office SEV
Land Communications Informations Systems SEV
Dive SEV 
Field Kitchen SEV 
Meteorological SEV 
Binned Stores SEV 
Command Post SEV
Command and Control SEV 

This should be interesting... 

MC


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... courtesy of the MSVS project page:


> .... No. 	 Name of Pre-Qualified Bidders 	Pre-Qualified
> Base Vehicle
> 1 	BAE Systems (TVSLP) 	FMTV
> 2 	Daimler AG 	Zetros
> 3 	Oshkosh Corporation 	MTVR, FMTV, HEMTT-A4
> 4 	Navistar Defence Canada Inc. 	ATX8
> 5 	Renault Trucks Defense 	KERAX 8 X 8
> 6 	Rheinmetall / MAN Military Vehicles Canada Ltd. 	HX77 8 X 8 ....


----------



## Grizzly

Is it just me, or do a lot of the trucks in the pre-approved list look more like HLVW replacements rather than MLVW replacements? Are there any plans to combine the requirements and purchase one family of vehicles to replace both fleets?


----------



## Kirkhill

Grizzly said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or do a lot of the trucks in the pre-approved list look more like HLVW replacements rather than MLVW replacements? Are there any plans to combine the requirements and purchase one family of vehicles to replace both fleets?



Or is it just the continuing tendency that has seen the 1/4 ton jeep replaced by the 1 ton HMMWV and the HMMWV replaced by the 2.5 ton MRAP? When does the trend end? or should it?

From one side of the argument - bigger trucks mean that fewer soldiers can carry more tools and therefore do more jobs without needing to call in specialists.
On the other side you have bigger trucks that are harder to deploy and less able to access many parts of the country side.

Of course you also have the trend that if you give a soldier a 30 lb pack he will try to carry 50 lbs of kit in it and start looking for a donkey.
Give him a donkey he'll break that critter's back and want a mule.
Give him a mule and soon he'll be wanting a horse and expect to ride the thing.
When he breaks the horse he'll have to have a jeep, then a HMMWV, then an MRAP.....

There is a thread here about the usefulness  of the ATV - a small, light, unarmoured vehicle that could be easily transported and carry useful loads over rough ground and narrow trails.  I thought we had one of those at one time..... Wasn't it called the Iltis?


----------



## dapaterson

And the MSVS SMP has been stopped...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-slams-the-brakes-on-plan-to-buy-new-military-trucks/article4408849/


----------



## Infanteer

Well, at least there is a standing offer for the duct tape to keep the MLs together.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And the MSVS SMP has been stopped...
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-slams-the-brakes-on-plan-to-buy-new-military-trucks/article4408849/


This has GOT TO be frustrating for you guys. I just heard it on the radio this morning and though I am in the Navy, I know there was some subdued excitement amongst my brethren in green about this acquisition. I wonder if a plan for a more conservative (aka cheaper) option is there...a Plan B perhaps?


----------



## PuckChaser

What shortsighted junk. We under-order MSVS in anticipation of the MSVS SMP, and then they cancel the SMP variant leaving people short on serviceable medium-lift. Next they'll tell us they're cancelling the LSVW replacement project.


----------



## George Wallace

Let's see now.....the old Deuce and a Half was in service for just over 30 years.  The MLVW that replaced it is nearing that same timeframe.  It being "newer, better" may be the reason that some government weenie figures we can stretch it further, or in the words of Jean Chretien: " we don't want to drive a Cadillac, we will drive a Chevie."  With the LSVW and HLVW both reaching the end of their life cycles, the Army is really in a world of hurt.

Perhaps the solution is for Public Works to recall all the government vehicles it has on the road and replace them; trucks, buses, and limos, with vehicles from 1985.  The PM and all Government Ministers can come to work in one of Jean Chretien's 1985 Chevies.   >


What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.


----------



## SOES_vet

I saw this in the news but I am a bit confused as to what is happening. Isn't the MSVS supposed to be the MLVW replacement? Or is there a second contract associated with the MSVS, or is the National Post mixing things up. 

Either way, the author of this article:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/12/matt-gurney-tories-bring-another-proud-moment-in-military-procurement-history/#Comments

failed to mention the present MSVS at all which kind of confused me.



> On Wednesday afternoon, just minutes before final bids from private corporations were due, the federal government unexpectedly cancelled the process to replace the Canadian Army’s fleet of trucks with 2,300 new vehicles. In a statement sent out to the interested companies, the government claimed that, “Economic, marketplace and budgetary circumstances have changed since this solicitation process began. Therefore, the government of Canada needs to reassess this procurement to ensure that the right equipment is acquired for the army at the best value for Canada, prior to proceeding with a new solicitation.”
> 
> No kidding. Of course economic, marketplace and budgetary circumstances have changed since the process began: It began six years ago. And in all that time, the Conservative government has still not been able to get its act together sufficiently to accept bids from companies interested in addressing the Army’s need for new vehicles, a need that both the military and the government agree is real.
> 
> Yes, indeed. Another proud chapter in Canadian military procurement history, brought to you by your troop-supporting Tories.
> 
> Army trucks are not glamorous. They don’t have the sex appeal of a sleek new fighter jet or a deadly tank, and certainly aren’t as impressive as a giant transport plane or a new Navy warship. But they are absolutely vital. Trucks form the backbone of any military operation, at home or abroad. They move soldiers quickly to where they need to be, keep them supplied once they’re there, and can be instrumental in delivering desperately needed humanitarian aid to disaster areas in Canada or elsewhere. A modern military simply doesn’t function without trucks.
> 
> The Canadian Army has trucks. But the current version, the MLVW (Medium Logistics Vehicle Wheeled), first entered Canadian service in 1982, 30 years ago. These vehicles are aging, suffering from brake problems and are simply worn out. The Defence Department called replacing these trucks an urgent priority six years ago, when the Conservatives first announced that replacements would be ordered. They haven’t gotten any younger since. The aging of these trucks not only hurts their reliability, it adds to their costs. That’s unacceptable.
> 
> And yet, for the second time, the government has cancelled the process to replace them. Last November, the government claimed that it needed to “further refine’ the specifications for the trucks, and it was that refined competition for the contract that was supposed to have begun on Wednesday. No such luck for the Army, sadly, which will continue to use its 30-year-old trucks while the government, yet again, resets the entire program.
> 
> Military procurement is always complicated. Equipment intended to be used in combat environments, when lives are on the line, must always be built to a high standard. And military equipment must also be compatible with existing military technologies, able to fit inside the military’s existing ships and aircraft for transportation, and be adaptable to the wide variety of geographic environments that the Canadian military is required to operate in. It’s not surprising when military equipment purchases run over time and budget — frustrating and expensive, but not surprising.
> 
> But it is certainly surprising that, unlike with Canada’s balky submarines or chronically delayed Navy helicopters, the blame for these delays cannot be laid at the feet of anyone else but the federal government. If a contractor goes overbudget on a program, even though the government picks up the tab, it’s not the government’s fault, per se. That’s why modern military procurement contracts include provisions for fining the companies for cost overruns to delivery delays. But the government has no such excuse here. The equipment hasn’t even been ordered yet, six years apparently not being enough time to pick a truck.
> 
> For that, the responsibility must rest with the government. The Harper Tories have long talked a good game about supporting the troops and rebuilding Canada’s military, and in some significant ways, have lived up to their own boasts. But the Army’s trucks are just the latest example of long-identified needs for new military equipment going unfilled because Ottawa can’t effectively organize a competition and select a winner. As much as our soldiers must appreciate the admiration the government has so publicly expressed for their hard work, they’d probably appreciate a truck with reliable brakes that much more.
> 
> National Post


----------



## dapaterson

The MSVS was intended to provide two types of vehicles: MSVS MilCOTS, an off-the-shelf purchase with minimal militarization, for use domestically, and a second fleet of MSVS SMP, for deployed operations, which would include armour packages and a variety of accessories (trailers etc).

It is the second fleet, the MSVS SMP, that has had acquisition stopped. 


(MODS: Can we merge with the other thread on this topic?)


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (MODS: Can we merge with the other thread on this topic?)


Ask and you shall receive ....


----------



## TSM A

I can see the Reg force clawing back all the MSVS Milcots.


----------



## GAP

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The MSVS was intended to provide two types of vehicles: MSVS MilCOTS, an off-the-shelf purchase with minimal militarization, for use domestically, and a second fleet of MSVS SMP, for deployed operations, which would include armour packages and a variety of accessories (trailers etc).
> 
> It is the second fleet, the MSVS SMP, that has had acquisition stopped.



Thanks for posting that....it never twigged that there were 2 different fleets under order...


----------



## Franko

TSM A said:
			
		

> I can see the Reg force clawing back all the MSVS Milcots.



More like fleet management via CFTPO.

I'm sure it'll get messed up as per usual.

Regards


----------



## SOES_vet

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It is the second fleet, the MSVS SMP, that has had acquisition stopped.



Thanks for the heads up! Question. What is wrong with the MSVS Milcot? I know that the AHSVS is based very heavily on a civilian truck, so I don't know why the MSVS Milcot can't be modified to fulfill the role of the MSVS SMP?


----------



## dapaterson

SOES_v said:
			
		

> Thanks for the heads up! Question. What is wrong with the MSVS Milcot? I know that the AHSVS is based very heavily on a civilian truck, so I don't know why the MSVS Milcot can't be modified to fulfill the role of the MSVS SMP?



There's a number of reasons - the first and most significant is that we didn't scope the MSVS MilCOTS for armour.  There's no (easy) way to armour it, and I'm not certain what an improvised armour system would do to its characteristics (loss of range, payload etc).  The SMP variant was explicitly defined to require optional add-on armour.

For permissive environments, the MSVS MilCOTS is fine.  Once there's an enemy messing around in rear areas or over lines of communications, it's less appealing.


----------



## Hurricane

SOES_v said:
			
		

> Thanks for the heads up! Question. What is wrong with the MSVS Milcot? I know that the AHSVS is based very heavily on a civilian truck, so I don't know why the MSVS Milcot can't be modified to fulfill the role of the MSVS SMP?



Having driven both the AHSVS and MSVS Milcot, there is NO comparison. An AHSVS can be buried up to its fenders in thick sandy mud, and still back out of it. The MSVS Milcot cannot even drive through 4 inches of sand without getting stuck even with 6x6 engaged. The fact is, the Milcots version of the MSVS was a crutch to replace the badly worn MLVW fleet for domestic use only. What I find very interesting is that MGen. Ferron just visited us a few days ago and assured us that the procurement was continuing. Guess he was also misinformed.


----------



## Infanteer

Here is how you do an Army mobility project.

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Projects/Project-LAND-121


----------



## Hurricane

That vehicle reminds me of an armadillo.


----------



## Infanteer

It's not the actual vehicle, but the fact that the project rolled all mobility capabilies into a single project.  We insist on a small project to replace capability A1 with project X, and another project to replace capability A2 with project Y, which is competely different.  Meanwhile, a third project to replace capability A3 falls through, so we are forced to use X, Y, and A3, creating 3 times the requirement for parts, trained maintainers and operators, etc, etc.


----------



## dapaterson

And from today's Chronicly Horrible, a good indication that the cancellation was very out of the blue for everyone:



> At a defence conference in Calgary last Tuesday, I attended a presentation by Jake Jacobson, the chief of staff (materiel) at DND. His seminar was entitled, Defence Procurement Works.
> 
> The gist of his message was that the media just don't get it. To emphasize just how swimmingly things were going, Jacobson referred to the fact that in a little over 24 hours, the bids were closing on the standard-military-pattern truck competition. He said it was another good news story that would not get any media coverage.
> 
> Enjoy your retirement, Jake.
> 
> Scott Taylor is editor of Esprit de Corps.



Full article: http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/117638-taylor-politicians-pass-buck-while-bureaucrats-don-t-acknowledge-problems


----------



## Hurricane

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's not the actual vehicle, but the fact that the project rolled all mobility capabilities into a single project.  We insist on a small project to replace capability A1 with project X, and another project to replace capability A2 with project Y, which is completely different.  Meanwhile, a third project to replace capability A3 falls through, so we are forced to use X, Y, and A3, creating 3 times the requirement for parts, trained maintainers and operators, etc, etc.



I would be very convenient if we were to have a similar platform for multiple roles. IE. Same design just on a smaller/larger scale depending on the usage. Much like the new Ford Police Interceptor where both the Sedan and SUV version are virtually identical when it comes to drivetrain and suspension. Just to use the HLVW and SHLVW as an example. Same components, just one has a larger engine and upgraded transfer case, and minor suspension differences. But as far as electrical, body, and everyday driving they are identical. 

Something that would be ideal, however I would think unfeasible would be to have the same company produce all of our SMP fleet, at least for the logistic vehicles. Fighting vehicles are obviously role defined. Not to say they are the best choice or not,  but I will use Oshkosh for an example. The Americans have Oshkosh heavy lift, medium lift, the MRAP, and I'm sure a few others I do not know about.

Would the treasury board like that? Heck no. Will it ever happen, probably not. Is it possible to merge 2 or 3 vehicle requirements into one MREX bid?


----------



## PuckChaser

Hurricane said:
			
		

> Is it possible to merge 2 or 3 vehicle requirements into one MREX bid?



Probably not possible with the way our current procurement system works. Though, it would be a great solution to have common parts across various vehicle types and cost-effective for our comparatively small force.


----------



## Infanteer

How about something like this.  It could potentially replace the:

1.  Coyote/TAPV
2.  RG-31/TAPV
3.  MLVW
4.  LSVW
5.  Bison CP
6.  Husky MRT
7.  Bison Amb
8.  EROC vehicle suite

There is even a "jeep" version as a utility vehicle.

Too bad it lost out in the TAPV project.


----------



## Hurricane

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Probably not possible with the way our current procurement system works. Though, it would be a great solution to have common parts across various vehicle types and cost-effective for our comparatively small force.



No doubt, as well as minimal cross training for Vehicle Tech's on the various versions of the vehicles.


----------



## Hurricane

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How about something like this.  It could potentially replace the:
> 
> 1.  Coyote/TAPV
> 2.  RG-31/TAPV
> 3.  MLVW
> 4.  LSVW
> 5.  Bison CP
> 6.  Husky MRT
> 7.  Bison Amb
> 8.  EROC vehicle suite
> 
> There is even a "jeep" version as a utility vehicle.
> 
> Too bad it lost out in the TAPV project.



The only one of those vehicles I would have to disagree on is the MLVW. It would need a slightly longer cargo bed, after all the ML is a Logistics vehicle. From the looks of that, it could only carry 4 full sized pallats. If there was a dual rear axle variant with an extended cargo bed, that would be ideal for the MLVW replacement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have heard that the Bushmaster did not do as well as expected. For the role intended why not just tag onto this production run. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/FMTV-2010-2015-Oshkosh-Wins-The-Re-Compete-05744/


----------



## Kirkhill

How about an Oshkosh 6x6 Bushmaster (cut back the passenger compartment and turn it into a flatbed/TCV/PLS/MHC conversion)?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17147090/Oshkosh-Bushmaster-2008

Also this

http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?171-Potential-Army-Trucks-Finalise-Testing-(Land-121)&p=905&viewfull=1#post905

And this

http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?171-Potential-Army-Trucks-Finalise-Testing-(Land-121)&p=930&viewfull=1#post930


----------



## a_majoor

Well since the MLVW replacement has been put off, I suppose we can "blue sky" a bit. Here is an idea I raised a while ago using the SEP serial electric vehicle as inspiration. Notice we could get modularity, commonality, production line economies of scale and even armour protection going this way.

Even without the serial electric drive, a variation of the idea may still be possible. Uprated motors using turbochargers for the heavier versions, and perhaps some form of hydrophumatic suspension to adapt to different platform size/loading would provide a wide range of vehicles from a basic set of building blocks.


----------



## McG

At the very least, while waiting to get the SMP project back on rails, we can provide a name to the MilCOTS truck delivered already.  Since the second "S" in the project name was supposed to reflect that we were buying both trucks an ancilary equipment, by refering to the actual truck as "MSVS" we look like fools who neither understand meanings behind words nor remember why we chose those words when projects finally deliver.


----------



## Journeyman

Merely calling the truck an MSVS makes us "look like fools"? You're ovulating, aren't you.


----------



## Armynewsguy

MCG said:
			
		

> At the very least, while waiting to get the SMP project back on rails, we can provide a name to the MilCOTS truck delivered already.  Since the second "S" in the project name was supposed to reflect that we were buying both trucks an ancilary equipment, by refering to the actual truck as "MSVS" we look like fools who neither understand meanings behind words nor remember why we chose those words when projects finally deliver.



M – medium – 2 >10 Tonnes
S – support – B vehicle used for support
V- vehicle – nuff said
S – system - A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.(The free dictionary.com)

SMP – I think we know that one

I don’t see the problem.  ;D


----------



## cupper

MrGnr said:
			
		

> M – medium – 2 >10 Tonnes
> S – support – B vehicle used for support
> V- vehicle – nuff said
> S – system - A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.(The free dictionary.com)
> 
> SMP – I think we know that one
> 
> I don’t see the problem.  ;D



But since a vehicle is a group of interdependent, interrelated and interacting components which form a more complex whole, isn't the second "S" redundant?  >


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A purchase that does not include the word "system" is not sexy enough, one must have the required number of buzzwords in the power point presentation to be noticed.


----------



## Kirkhill

> The Conservative government shut down a project to buy new army trucks because the Defence Department tried to spend more than $300 million without permission, government, military and industry officials have told the Ottawa Citizen.



Link

McG has a useful point.

Now, with the programme 300 MCAD over budget, the programme can be folded and the SMP requirement blended into the LVM programme and relaunched as the LVM(M) to go along with the LVM (H) and LVM (L) programmes.

By the way... who decided there was enough change in the kitty to buy extra 500 MSVS-MilCOTS in the early stages of this project?


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Link
> 
> McG has a useful point.
> 
> Now, with the programme 300 MCAD over budget, the programme can be folded and the SMP requirement blended into the LVM programme and relaunched as the LVM(M) to go along with the LVM (H) and LVM (L) programmes.
> 
> By the way... who decided there was enough change in the kitty to buy extra 500 MSVS-MilCOTS in the early stages of this project?



There are two issues here:  Budgeted funds (department says "Hey, we've got money") vs expenditure authority (Government says "You can spend this much.")

So, my understanding is that the department identified more money to spend to buy more MilCOTS, and went back to Government to get increased expenditure authority.  All is good - the money DND has earmarked is the same amount that the Government has approved to spend.

Now, for the SMP, over time, more requirements have been added - borrowing money from other projects (the department therefore has the money).  However, the overall expenditure authority had not been raised - no one went formally back to Government to get it increased.

That's where the problem comes in - Government has only approved so much money for all the elements of the MSVS program (MilCOTS, SMP, shelters, project management).  The proposed acquisition would have been within the funds DND has budgeted, but not within the amount Government had approved.

I think this is a case of poor sequencing - the proper sequence would have been to go back to Government, get approval for the increase in expenditure, then go out to industry.


----------



## Infanteer

So, it's like saying ADM Mat never got their Section 32 for existing money....


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, it's like saying ADM Mat never got their Section 32 for existing money....



Not quite, but close enough.


----------



## AmmoTech90

So, if DND had identified that it had, what, around 800 million to spend (not withstanding it did not have authority to spend that much), and it can now not spend it, can DND now turn that 800 million back in as a good chunk of the savings required by SR and DRAP?


----------



## dapaterson

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> So, if DND had identified that it had, what, around 800 million to spend (not withstanding it did not have authority to spend that much), and it can now not spend it, can DND now turn that 800 million back in as a good chunk of the savings required by SR and DRAP?



Probably not. SR/DRAP etc are recurring savings, not one time.  They're also supposed to be vote 1 (operations and maintenance) not vote 5 (Capital).

Finally, some DND projects are now funded through accrual funding, which makes it easier ("easier" in government terms) to shift funds to later fiscal years for the same project.

Even if it was being funded through DND's baseline vote 5, keep in mind that it would not have been spent this year, but over the next several years.  So other projects can be rejigged within the larger plan, moving some forward to take advantage of the funding that MSVS won't be spending in those years.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Noted, should have put the joking/sarcasm smiley in.

May be we can rejig it in the larger plan to support the system of supporting medium vehicles (the SSMV project).


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And the MSVS SMP has been stopped...
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-slams-the-brakes-on-plan-to-buy-new-military-trucks/article4408849/



This from MERX:


> .... In order to ensure a successful procurement of the Standard Military Pattern (SMP) component of the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS), Canada wishes to provide Industry with an opportunity to participate in a consultation process as part of this re-solicitation. The information received during these
> exchanges will help Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), the Department of National DEFENCE (DND) and Industry Canada (IC) to validate the SMP Vehicles procurement approach.
> 
> The consultation process will begin with one-on-one meetings with industry. The main objective of the one-on-one meetings is to validate certain aspects of the SMP procurement approach outlined in RFP #W8476-06MSMP/J (issued in December 2011) and to provide an opportunity for Industry to meet with government representatives to discuss their views. Any solutions, ideas or issues raised during the one-on-one meetings or during any other additional sessions will be analyzed for further consideration by Canada ....



Agreement (including "don't talk to media") folks have to sign is attached.

The latest MSVS project page doesn't seem to be caught up at this point.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The Canadian Press' version:


> The federal government is set to jump-start its stalled, multimillion-dollar program to replace the military's aging truck fleet.
> 
> The Public Works Department is scheduling a series of meetings later this month with companies vying for a contract for 1,500 new medium-sized logistics trucks for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> A notice posted on a government contracts website says the meetings are meant to help Public Works "validate" its approach to the long-delayed truck purchase.
> 
> The government abruptly cancelled the truck contract last summer, three minutes before the deadline for bids.
> 
> An email to bidders blamed "economic, marketplace and budgetary circumstances" for the cancellation ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Finally, the PWGSC Info-machine's version:


> The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, and the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), are pleased to announce the launch of an industry consultation process for the Standard Military Pattern (SMP) component of the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) project.
> 
> “Engaging industry is part of our smart procurement approach and the new way forward,” said Minister Ambrose. “In working closely with industry, our Government will ensure the best value for Canadian taxpayers, while providing the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment and capability they need to do their jobs.”
> 
> Public Works and Government Services Canada, in consultation with the Department of National Defence, today issued an invitation to industry to take part in a consultation process as part of the re-issuance of the SMP Request for Proposals. It is anticipated that the one-on-one consultation meetings will take place between January 17 and January 22 in the National Capital Region. The Letter of Interest inviting industry to participate in the consultation process is now available on MERX.
> 
> “Our Government believes it is important to ensure our men and women in uniform have the right equipment to do the difficult and dangerous job we ask of them,” said Minister Valcourt. “The new fleet of trucks represents an important investment to rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces’ ability to provide lift and logistical support on the ground.”
> 
> Public Works and Government Services Canada, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, is purchasing a fleet of medium-sized trucks and associated logistics to replace and modernize the current medium-sized logistics trucks. The SMP requirement is a complex procurement including both the acquisition of five variants of the vehicle and associated equipment as well as in-service support for the life of the vehicles ....


----------



## PuckChaser

Can't wait for the new trucks in 2025 when all that we have left of the MLVWs are the tires on rusted out rims.


----------



## McG

Hopefully the pause allowed for some rationalization between MSVS and the bigger LVMP.  We were on a path toward having two separate new fleets of heavy trucks (MSVS and the LVMP heavy vehicle) but no actual medium vehicle.

I understand that some economies can be had by replacing several medium trucks with fewer bigger trucks, but that should be achieved by rolling those numbers into the HLVW replacement and not by increasing the size of the MLVW replacement vehicle itself.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here are the current section vehicle candidates for the CF, with their payloads.

CSOR's Supacat Jackals - 2100 kg
Future Force JLTV - 1600 kg
Lt Bn TAPV - 2995 kg
LAV III - 3550 kg 
LAV UP - >3550 kg

MLVW Payload - 2270 kg XC 5000 kg On-Road

MSVS Payload.......
HLVW Payload.....
VHLVW Payload......

How many section vehicles to the company vehicle?
How many company vehicles to the battalion?
How many rifles removed from the front line to drive company and battalion vehicles?
Do you need any company and battalion vehicles at all or should brigade be tasked with delivering to the point of use?
What is the impact of modern air delivery (C17/C130 with JPADS, CH-146/147/148s, VTOL UAVs) on the need for a Coy/Bn train?

My sense of things is that if every Section is driving around the countryside in its own armoured 3 Tonne vehicle a support vehicle with a 2.5 or even 5.0 tonne payload is a bit undersized.

4 vehicles at 3 tonnes = 12 tonnes
14 vehicles at 3 tonnes = 42 tonnes
48 vehicles at 3 tonnes = 152 tonnes

12 tonnes = 1x Oshkosh MTVR (7 to 15)
42 tonnes = 2x Oshkosh HEMTT LHS with 2x LHS trailers (11)

1 driver with an MTVR = 4x LAV III
2 drivers with HEMTT LHSs and Trailers = 14x LAVs
8 drivers with HEMTT LHSs and Trailers = 56x LAVs

Perhaps you should just issue CQs with LAV-RWS filled with water and diesel bladders and leave all the other transport at Brigade (Service Bn Transport Coys with HEMTT LHSs)?

Otherwise it looks as if you require an MSVS for every Section. That means instead of 8 drivers you need 56 drivers and if you need a gunner/assistant for every vehicle then you need to dedicate a company of riflemen (112) to the sole purpose of keeping your three rifle coys of LAVs fed and watered.

Would those rifles be better occupied in the LAVs or pushing supplies to the LAVs?

Just some thoughts for a Saturday afternoon.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill,
Your model assumes everything in the Army is an infantry company.  It fails to work in reflecting our needs because it does not consider that anything beyond infantry exists.
It may be that the Infantry have out grown the MLVW (someone from the infantry can provide their thougts on that), and if that is the case they should have thier MLVW replaced by the heavy vehicle of the LVMP and not by MSVS.  In some roles, MLVW will have to be replaced 1:1 by MSVS regardless of the extra size/capacity of the new vehicle - in these cases, the bigger vehicle is wasteful and potentially an impediment to its intended role.


----------



## cupper

I thought all you light infantry guys carried everything you need on your back.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> Your model assumes everything in the Army is an infantry company.  It fails to work in reflecting our needs because it does not consider that anything beyond infantry exists.
> It may be that the Infantry have out grown the MLVW (someone from the infantry can provide their thougts on that), and if that is the case they should have thier MLVW replaced by the heavy vehicle of the LVMP and not by MSVS.  In some roles, MLVW will have to be replaced 1:1 by MSVS regardless of the extra size/capacity of the new vehicle - in these cases, the bigger vehicle is wasteful and potentially an impediment to its intended role.



OR

You can forget the labels and just decide on what capacities you are looking for:

3 Tonner options

ACMAT VLRA in 4x4 and 6x6
MB Gwagen 300 6x6
MB Unimog U4000 4x4
MB Zetros 1833 4x4
MB Zetros 2733 6x6
Renault Sherpa Lt 4x4

10 Tonner options

Oshkosh MTVR
Oshkosh HEMTT
MB Zetros
MAN TGA

Interestingly Oshkosh is offering their Heavy Tactical HEMTT for your MSVS-SMP programme  Oshkosh SMP Link

Perhaps it is the rest of the army, and not the Infantry, that needs to do the rethink.  The rest of the army seem to be the prime users of  non-tactical vehicles in the 1 to 5 tonne payload range.  Perhaps THEY should be looking at rejigging the LVMP so that it includes the vehicles I listed as 3 tonne candidates.

Some of them make equally good section carriers, CPs, MRTs, gun tractors and RRBs.  Not to mention Reserve infantry section or platoon vehicles.

And while this long retired infanteer, appreciates the efforts of the rest of the army, without the infantry you have no army.  >.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill,
You are absolutely right - this should be approached from the perspective of providing a capability.  Specifically, we should be addressing the capability of land transportation.  Unfortunately (and despite talking the "capability" game) the Army is approaching this as a platform replacement project.  And so, as I stated earlier, we have put ourselves onto the unfortunate path where we will hae two new fleets of heavy truck but no medium.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Unless they consider 8 tons to still be medium..... ???


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's a funny thing - in response to Cupper....


I came across a version of something called B-GL-321-007 LAV Company etc.... on SCRIBD.
One of the annexes gave the loadouts for a platoon of LAVs.

Here's the funny bit.  I was able to extract and divide the loadout and apportion it between Infantry Kit and Vehicle Kit pretty easily.  When done I discovered, to my surprise, that even though 4 LAVs can carry 14 tonnes of kit, the amount of kit that they carry that is useful to the 28 guys that dismount is just about what me and the rest of my platoon were required to carry at Gagetown in 1982.

About the only difference is that you guys get a lantern and a coleman stove year round.  We only got those when the snow shoes and toboggans were issued.

We had more mattocks an shovels.

We had a 60mm mortar and some smoke.  You have the Eryx with 9 rounds.

Beyond that all of the rest of the carrying capacity seems to be dedicated to the armoured beast and the two guys that stay with the boiler.  

What really is interesting is that the total ammo load seems to be on the order of 600 kg for the whole platoon or about 20 kg per man.
24 hrs of water and IMPs are carried on the man.  The same amount stays with vehicle.  The vehicle carries your tent, sleeping bag and pressure cooker. 

Is a 3 tonne section vehicle really necessary for every section?


----------



## McG

Maybe take that idea to its own thread?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Back to MSVS business....


> The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, and the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), are pleased to announce that one-on-one consultation meetings have started with military truck manufacturers for the Standard Military Pattern (SMP) component of the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) project.
> 
> “Engaging industry is key to our smart procurement approach,” said Minister Ambrose. “This will ensure the best value for Canadian taxpayers, while providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment and capability they need to do their jobs.”
> 
> Public Works and Government Services Canada and Department of National Defence officials are meeting with industry starting January 17 and into the week of January 21 in the National Capital Region, as part of the first step in the re-procurement of the SMP.
> 
> The Government of Canada will then analyse the information obtained from the consultation process to move forward with this important acquisition ....


PWGSC Info-machine, 18 Jan 13


----------



## The Bread Guy

And the industry consultation is done for the moment - more from the PWGSC Info-machine:


> The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, and the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), are pleased to announce the completion of one-on-one consultation meetings with military truck manufacturers for the Standard Military Pattern (SMP) component of the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) project.
> 
> “Engaging industry is part of our smart procurement approach,” said Minister Ambrose. “In working closely with industry, our Government will ensure the best value for Canadian taxpayers, while providing the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment and capability they need to do their jobs.”
> 
> Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Department of National Defence met with industry between January 17 and 23 in the National Capital Region, as part of the first step in preparing for re-issuing of the SMP Request for Proposals (RFP).
> 
> The Government of Canada has consulted with industry in order to ensure industry input prior to re-issuing the RFP.
> 
> The Government of Canada will now analyze the information obtained from the consultation process in the finalization of the SMP RFP. The intent is to issue the RFP following the consultation process and implementation of the RFP amendments as considered appropriate ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Sun Media's take on the latest step:


> Taking another step toward buying a new fleet of more than 1,000 military transport trucks, the feds have completed their one-on-one meetings with eight undisclosed companies about the purchase.
> 
> "In working closely with industry, our government will ensure the best value for Canadian taxpayers, while providing the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment and capability they need to do their jobs," Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said in a statement.
> 
> Government officials say they'll analyze the industry feedback before kicking off a request for bids, but they don't know when the contract competition will start.
> 
> The project is complex, with the military seeking five variants of the trucks, along with associated equipment and maintenance service for the life of the vehicles ....


----------



## FEEOP042

The rear glad hands of the MSVS. This needs addressed I have seen this several times now but when it breaks off in your hand taking of the coupler to the glad hand. this was today trying to get trailers hooked up for Ex this week. Get rid of the brass and have the glad hand recessed back under the truck so troops stop using it as a foot rest to get up in the truck, and items that fall on to them as well.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

FEEOP042 said:
			
		

> The rear glad hands of the MSVS. This needs addressed I have seen this several times now but when it breaks off in your hand taking of the coupler to the glad hand. this was today trying to get trailers hooked up for Ex this week. Get rid of the brass and have the glad hand recessed back under the truck so troops stop using it as a foot rest to get up in the truck, and items that fall on to them as well.



That is laziness of the troops  ;D and IIRC most of the Cago/TCV variants have had the tailgates modified to be like those on the HL now....

But if you recess them even further into the truck I don't think our current length of airlines on the trailers would reach.....


----------



## FEEOP042

there is lots of air line with the beavertails


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Beavertails yes..... the other ones like from the ML's I don't think so....


----------



## MilEME09

Any one hear about movement in regards to this contract?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Negative Ghost Rider.....


----------



## GnyHwy

When logged into the DWAN, go to the Capabilty Investment Database (CID), use MSVS as a keyword search and read away.  Right click print and there will be plenty of shitter reading material.


----------



## Armynewsguy

In case anyone is interested, the RFP for MSVS SMP was released yesterday.  


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


----------



## The Bread Guy

MrGnr said:
			
		

> In case anyone is interested, the latest RFP for MSVS SMP was released yesterday.
> 
> 
> https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-BW-008-23908


Good catch - ftfy.  Here's the previous try, and here's the full RFP (1600+ page PDF).


----------



## Carbon-14

Does anyone know if any of the kitted SEV shelters have been delivered yet?  I thought that was supposed to start in early 2013.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if any of the kitted SEV shelters have been delivered yet?  I thought that was supposed to start in early 2013.



I haven't seen any yet, but I have seen some traffic on what out of the old shelters needs to go into the new ones.  For me this was about ECL items for Maint shelters, and whether we need things that have gone obsolete etc.   Since I'm getting these emails I'm going to assume that the shelters are on the way soon but that kitting them on the inside is still ongoing.

Not that it matters as we will have shelters for vehicles that are 2 years away :-/  And I have a hard time moving my seacans to WX all the time, let alone a bunch of new shelters :-/


----------



## George Wallace

Are those the ones that DEW is producing?


----------



## Old EO Tech

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are those the ones that DEW is producing?



Yes I believe so, though I'm not in Ottawa anymore, so my knowledge is second hand now.


----------



## Carbon-14

Yes as I understand it, DEW is producing the SEV baseline shelters and then there's a separate contract for kitting.  I'm not sure who won that contract but it may have been DEW as well.


----------

