# MLVW Replacment



## Robbie (20 Feb 2006)

Does anyone have links (pictures) of possible MLVW replacement's?  Any idea how soon?


----------



## Sig_Des (20 Feb 2006)

There was an article in the latest Canadian Defence Review, with 3 companies vying interest in providing the replacement...I'll see If I can find the trucks and pics

Oshkosh Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks :

http://www.oshkoshtruckcorporation.com/about/product_info%7Edefense.cfm

STEWART & STEVENSON FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES (FMTV):

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/stewart_stevenson/
http://www.ssss.com/Services/Products/TacticalVehicles/FMTV/?pm=401

And the Mercedes-Benz Actros series:

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/daimler_chrysler/daimler_chrysler2.html
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/daimler_chrysler/

edit: found the info


----------



## Robbie (20 Feb 2006)

How about a time frame?  How soon?  What about SEV, like arty, eng, ect?

I'm the Tpt NCO for my unit and have 7 right now.  Talk about RUST.  I just can't keep on top of it.


----------



## TN2IC (20 Feb 2006)

If the MLVW's were taken care of then there should be no rust. Take it to the Mat Techs to paint it..easier said than done... lol..I know I know...

As for the truck deal.. I don't like the Benz one... too low. The STEWART & STEVENSON ones seems to be the best bang for the buck.. and the Oshkosh...I don't like the set up on it. But that is me... not like I am buying them, jsut putting my two cents worth in.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2006)

The purchase will be a mixed fleet, just like the LUVW bought us G-Wagons and MilCOTS.  Price will again be the driving factor (no pun intended).

Of course, it would probably make more sense to get in on another antion's buy - provided they are committed to an ongoing fleet replacement cycle.  That is, buy 250 per year; after 10 years start retiring the original 250.  That way there's rotation of the fleet and no massive rust-out / wear-out for the fleet at one instant.  Commercial fleets attempt to use this sort of cycle; our fleet would be in better shape if we tried to do the same.

Of course, the other problem is that our purchasees are so small.  While 2500 odd vehicles sounds significant, to a major manufacturer it's a few extra shifts for a few weeks.  Hopping on to another, larger purchase may permit us to get a better price for a better vehicle.  Of course, that would leave ACOA and the other Federal regional economic development agencies out in the cold, so there's not much chance of that.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Feb 2006)

A question on your ten year plan:  Don't you forsee changes in vehicle and engine design over ten years affecting commonality of parts for that vehicle fleet?


----------



## Sig_Des (20 Feb 2006)

OK, so I just read the article from Canadian Defence Review.

The new program is the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS). There hasn't been a Statement of Requirement issued has been issued by DND, theres no actual timeframe for the trucks. The 3 companies have expressed interest.

The Actross is in service of over 50 countries. So this means some parts commonality.

The MTVR or Oshkosh is in service with the US Marines with ofer 6,000 trucks to-date.

The S&S FMTV is in service with the US Army, and apparently there's nearly 30,000 vehicles in circulation.

I personally like the Oshkosh and S&S, although the Oshkosh doesn't seem to have an extended cab like the other two. Another point of interest is that the S&S is the only vehicle to pass the US Army's corrosion test, and has a 22-year corrosion guarantee. Don't know what they're guaranteeing per se, but it sounds good.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2006)

George:

I never said the plan was perfect 

However, the US keeps production lines open and producing the same vehicle for a number of years.  If it did turn out that we'd have a bit of mix in the fleet - say at the 8 year point we went from the HumBug Mk I to the HumBug Mk II - I don't think incremental upgrades would add too much to the log tail.

Besides, isn't it usually the case that 5 years after buyign we discover the extra features we really should have requested?  Having such an incremental fleet acquisition plan might permit us to get such changes integrated into the fleet as we replace it, vice an expensive set of VMOs to the workshop in Montreal.


----------



## SMarch (22 Feb 2006)

I really like the SUPACAT especially the M777 Carrier
http://www.supacat.com/hmt%204x4.htm

Benefits 
Light weight the 4x4 can fit in a chinook
The 6x8 + M777 + ammo + crew weighs only 12.3 tonnes (C-130)
NBCD the M777 Carrier crew cab has NBC seals not sure about other variants
Flexability there are already so many Special Equipment Variants (SEV)'s out there that we don't have to reinvent the wheel for our needs

On another note
I sure hope everyone has seen the New M777's they bought for OP Archer
I also read some where that they were buying 12 more from the American order and 24 from BAE Systems

I would like to see a SUPACAT carrier instead of towing a 10.5meter gun

http://www8.janes.com/janesdata/yb/jaa/images/p1116569.jpg

if it requires you to log on go to
http://janes.mil.ca/  
on the din for the CF log on for Janes

Full article for the 6x8 SUPACAT M777 Carrier on Janes
http://www8.janes.com/Search/documentView.do?docId=/content1/janesdata/yb/jaa/jaa_a014.htm@current&pageSelected=allJanes&keyword=m777%20carrier&backPath=http://search.janes.com/Search&Prod_Name=JAA&

They need a carrier for the M777. Currently it can be towed by an MLVW and I assume they use AVGP's to tow them on OP Archer. As the battle field moves into an Urban environment, 10.5m trailer just plan sucks. Even the C3 at 7.4m when towed is challenging inside the city even the LG1 at 5.3 (Traveling) or 6.6m (firing postion can be towed in either) is pretty much the same (cept you can't see it when driving)

MLVW 6.2m + C3 7.4m = 13.6m
MLVW 6.2m + LG1        = 11.5 - 12.9m
MLVW 6.2m + M777 10.5m = 17.2m
AVGP 6m

M777 + SUPACAT CARRIER = 10.5m 

Whatever they end up buying I would love to see a M777 SEV similar to this.


----------



## Mountie (6 Mar 2006)

The Oshkosh MTVR is capable of carrying 7-tons offroad and 15-tons on good roads.  Is there any chance that the MTVR could eventually replace the HLVW fleet when it comes to the end of its service life?  If it could this would greatly simplify maintenance and logistics.  

The MTVR comes in short and long wheel bases, wrecker, dump truck, tractor and 20,000 litre fuel tanker/tractor variants already.  There is talk of developing a fuel/water tanker version for the US Navy Seabee battalions.  The MTVR is the gun-tractor for the USMC's M777 155mm Lightweight Howitzer and the French company GIAT has teamed with Oshkosh to proposed the MTVR as the chassis for an American version of the French CAESAR 155mm wheeled self-propelled howitzer.  The vehicle can have a fully armoured cab and a cargo compartment and has been used as an infantry carrier for two battalions of the USMC 2nd MEB during Operation Iraqi Freedom.  I'm sure you could easily add an armoured or unarmoured van to fulfill CP, signal, maintenance shop and other duties.  Add a PLS version and you have the whole range of logistics vehicle variants capable of 15-tons on roads (HLVW range) and 7-tons off-roads (heavy MLVW range).


----------



## TN2IC (6 Mar 2006)

I think I am in love... thanks Mountie


----------



## Bomber (6 Mar 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22271.0.html


----------



## Thompson_JM (6 Mar 2006)

green and shiney..... *drool......*


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Mar 2006)

BUT HOW GOOD IS THE HEATER IN THE CAB :rage:? :rage:


----------



## Sig_Des (6 Mar 2006)

I'd to read up on what the US Marines think of them....

wouldn't mind driving the bugger, though  :warstory:


----------



## reccecrewman (8 Mar 2006)

Please no Bombardier, Please no Bombardier, Please no Bombardier.........................

The pics look like a good piece of kit, the specs look good too.


----------



## Mountie (14 Mar 2006)

According to the latest edition of the Canadian Defence Review the Load Handling System (LHS) variant of the MTVR already exists and DEW advertises that the MTVR can fulfill all SEV/shelter variant requirements.  I would think that an armoured MTVR Engineer SEV would be an easy configuration that be beneficial.


----------



## Daidalous (18 Mar 2006)

I do not know if each base has money to buy it's own vehicles, but I seen what I believe was a Fright liner mini truck (might be wrong)  with a double cab in Borden carrying Recruits to the ranges and such.  It looks like it would be a good ride seats 6 in the cab, with the standard bed and tarp ,but I don't think it could take that much abuse, like running over trees and fun stuff like that.


----------



## lawandorder (24 Mar 2006)

There is a new video on the CF Army wed page.

Shows different versions of howt he replacement can be set up.  It also has an armoured variant.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1.asp?FlashEnabled=1&


----------



## Patrolman (24 Mar 2006)

I was doing some reading the other day in "Canadian Defence Review" magazine at Chapters on this subject. Apparently the JTF have already purchased some of the Stevenson and Stevenson model and are using them in Afghanistan as we speak. So obviously Canada already has a contract with this company. So it would probably make sense to order more and maybe get a good deal for what is obviously a good vehicle that has been trialed by the JTF. However, it might not be right for conventional Army units. If not the Stevenson and Stevenson my money is on the Mercedes. Not necessarily because it is a better vehicle but because of our existing contracts with Mercedes.


----------



## sabot41 (24 Mar 2006)

My understanding is the Gov't tried to bypass the RFP rules a few yrs ago with a direct buy of S&S vehicles and was caught. It was a bad deal in the end, with no regional contracts and no long term support...just the truck itself. Civy companies involved are all well aware of the rules and existing contracts make no difference whatso ever, an RFP will come out, bids will be submitted and lowest bid will win...anyone want to hazard a guess when the first truck appears, I say no earlier than 2010. Of course if equipment is needed for op purposes, well thats a whole new chapter and different pot of monies...or so I understand..but you can't replace an entire truck fleet for op purposes


----------



## armyboytncoy (12 Apr 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> BUT HOW GOOD IS THE HEATER IN THE CAB :rage:? :rage:



I think that any heater would be a better heater then what we have....lol

and i like the Oshkosh one better, it looks more like an army truck, i think it looks more intimidating then the other ones, but that's just my thoughts


----------



## Mountie (20 May 2006)

Just an update on the Oshkosh MTVR.  The Oshkosh site now has information on the 9-tonne 6x6 Load Handling System and the 16.5-tonne 8x8 Load Handling System.  Again looks like a great replacement down the road for the HLVW in addition to the MLVW.

www.oshkoshtruck.com


----------



## Black Watch (22 May 2006)

I prefer the flat nose on...more manouverable


----------



## Mountie (27 Jul 2006)

Just an update on the MTVR.  The Oshkosh website now indicates that an 8x8 16.5-ton Load Handling System variant now exists in addition to the 6x6 9-ton Load Handling System.  Pictures of both are on the site.   As I questioned earlier, this could likely replace the HLVW when the time comes as well.

www.oshkoshtruck.com


----------



## FEEOP042 (11 Oct 2006)

IMHO Send one of each trucks to Petawawa and let us do a 2 week or one month trials on the trucks with all Units sending a few reps to get the feed back so it can best suite all trades. What the truckers might see are different from the Engineers, and arty and so on.


Chimo


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2006)

FEEOP042 said:
			
		

> IMHO Send one of each trucks to Petawawa and let us do a 2 week or one month trials on the trucks with all Units sending a few reps to get the feed back so it can best suite all trades. What the truckers might see are different from the Engineers, and arty and so on.
> 
> Chimo



So......you were in Pet for the Iltis Trials too?  Was it you who passed them?


----------



## FEEOP042 (11 Oct 2006)

No I was here when the HLVW was going thought RAND trials.

But I know what we need and i can make a difference with the vehs for the Engineers. I have lots of experience with are equipment and taught lots of HLVW and HESV crses. 

Chimo


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2006)

Been to Gagetown?

If a vehicle can handle Gagetown, Petawawa is nothing.

Perhaps that is why some of the trials done in Pet have passed vehicles that should have failed.   ;D


----------



## keaner (11 Oct 2006)

..as long as I have to pull over in -25C to change the fuel filters, I'll be happy...


----------



## Mountie (11 Oct 2006)

I just read in esprit de corps magazine that on Aug. 4th DND "quietly put out a tender for the acquisition of up to 150 new heavy, armoured transport trucks.  Many in the media mistakenly believed this project was part of the previously announced $1.2 billion medium truck project, but the official notice contained a specific disclaimer to the contrary.  It seems this new truck fleet will need to be able to haul a 16-ton payload and must have the capability of mounting an armoured cab.  The bids were to be tabled by Aug. 18th (just 14 days notice) and the supplier should be able to deliver the first 50 trucks within five months.  INdustry insiders quickly realized that the short notice and specific wording of the requirement heavily favoured one manufacturer in particular.  'They went through the Oshkosh catalogue, page by page,' said one jilted competitor.  The US truck manufacturer is represented in Canada by DEW Engineering."

This is the MTVR they are talking about here.  Why not combined this order for heavy trucks with the Oshkosh/DEW proposal for medium trucks and have one common fleet?


----------



## harry8422 (11 Oct 2006)

i read as well that we are supposed to be gettin new trucks but weather or not it will happen i dunno I'll just wait and see just like everything else they promise in the army don't believe it until it is in your hands,your inside of it,or your feet have touched down on the ground...........pro patria


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2006)

harry8422 said:
			
		

> i read as well that we are supposed to be gettin new trucks but weather or not it will happen i dunno I'll just wait and see just like everything else they promise in the army don't believe it until it is in your hands,your inside of it,or your feet have touched down on the ground...........pro patria



Weather is always a factor.  Our extreme climatic conditions will be an important factor in the purchase of any vehicle for the military.


----------



## TN2IC (11 Oct 2006)

:rofl:

I had to re-read that to make sure on what I was understanding. I know what harry8422 meant. Good one anyways George.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2006)

Mountie said:
			
		

> This is the MTVR they are talking about here.  Why not combined this order for heavy trucks with the Oshkosh/DEW proposal for medium trucks and have one common fleet?



Because the 150 trucks represents an Unforecasted Operational Requirement, and can be pushed through quickly.  Routine fleet replacements are not Unforecasted, and will follow the normal procurement cycle.

Hence the problem with all our recent acquisitions - no lifecycle support, no training fleets, and possibly no commonality when the existing fleets are replaced.  We're sinking millions of dollars into kit that may be scrapped when we leave theatre, or that will leave us with an unmanageable logistics tail to support into the future.


----------



## Mountie (11 Oct 2006)

Agreed.  The Oshkosh MTVR is one of the three finalists in the MSVS Replacement Project though.  So if they could manage to choose it for the MSVS it would simplify things.  

And why is it that the CF needs new 16-ton armoured trucks?  I thought the HLVW PLS variant is capable of carrying 16-ton and has add-on armour on the cab in Afghanistan?  I also read on here about a year ago that most of the HLVW fleet was to be converted to the 16-ton PLS variant.  Was that true or just rumour someone printed as fact?


----------



## TN2IC (11 Oct 2006)

Must be rumour, you still need to carry stuff in a normal cargo space without a PLS.


----------



## Mountie (17 Nov 2006)

I provided information regarding the advantages of the Oshkosh MTVR so to be fair here is some new information I found regarding the Stewart & Stevenson FMTV.

The FMTV, which DND has supposedly wanted from the begin, is a 2.5-tonne 4x4 and 5.0-tonne 6x6 truck.  I have been trying to follow the development of the FMTV on the company's website.  I now see that the 11-ton technology demonstrator and the 9-tonne Load Handling System are being produced, the dump truck variant is now available in 5, 7.5 & 10-tonne versions, and there is also a new 17-tonne 8x8 heavy variant.

So the FMTV is also a very good candidate to not only fulfill the MSVS Replacement Project but also replace the HLVW and VHLVW someday.  Even the 11-tonne and 17-tonne variants have 80% commonality.  There are 2.5-tonne cargo and van models; 5.0-tonne cargo (short or long bed, with or without material handling crane), 1,500-gallon water/fuel tanker, expandable van, wrecker (same axles as the 10-tonne dump & cargo variants)and tractor; 9-tonne Load Handling System variant; 10-tonne dump truck and 17-tonne cargo.  A tilt-bed version of the 5-tonne has also been developed to transport the M777 lightweight howitzer rather than towing it for improved mobility and the HIMARS launcher is also based on the FMTV chassis. 

This range of vehicles would easily replace all the MLVW, HLVW and VHLVW.  I assume that variants of the new 11-tonne and 17-tonne versions will be developed in the near future such as tanker and load handling systems.


----------



## Mountie (17 Apr 2007)

I just read this past week that MAN has now entered the MSVS competition.  I was also reading up on the Armoured Heavy Support Vehicle System project (AHSVS) and MAN is also expected to enter this competition.  Once again there is an opportunity to have a common vehicle fleet of MSVS, HSVS and AHSVS with commonality among Allies.  Obviously the Germans use these vehicles but the British have also just ordered a fleet of 5,000 4x4, 6x6 and 8x8 MAN trucks to replace their current vehicles.

www.militarytrucks.man-mn.com


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Apr 2007)

Anyone know how hard it is to uparmour a cab-over design as opposed to a traditional design like the MTVR?


Matthew.


----------



## Robbie (23 Apr 2007)

I read in a magazine but can't remember what one so you will have to take my word.  But most of the new cab over trucks is just a cab swap.  Meaning the change the unarmoured cab for an up armoured one.  Takes about an hour to do for most trucks.


----------



## PetOp (14 May 2007)

Hi, Im with the British Army and have been involved with the trialling and now introduction of the MAN vehicles into all 3 Services. Have to say when the Oshkosh was loooked at it seemed that there was a restriction on the x-country weight carrying capability. It seems that it had to be reduced to 7t. Im not sure what you guys are now using or buying but if its not MAN, you may of lost out a bit. I have driven both Oshkosh and MAN vehicles extensively, and have to say for all round capability it has to be MAN. Any questions on the trucks ill gladly answer.


----------



## PetOp (14 May 2007)

Robbie said:
			
		

> I read in a magazine but can't remember what one so you will have to take my word.  But most of the new cab over trucks is just a cab swap.  Meaning the change the unarmoured cab for an up armoured one.  Takes about an hour to do for most trucks.



The cost of doing it this way is too much to incorporate. But it depends how many armour trucks you want. Do you want every truck in service to have the armour or only a few? It is easier having a add-on type of armour but can take upto 8hrs per vehicle. There is also a weight problem over the front axles which then could reduce your load carrying capability. This can be remedied by uprating the front springs on the axles.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 May 2007)

PetOp said:
			
		

> Hi, Im with the British Army and have been involved with the trialling and now introduction of the MAN vehicles into all 3 Services. Have to say when the Oshkosh was loooked at it seemed that there was a restriction on the x-country weight carrying capability. It seems that it had to be reduced to 7t. Im not sure what you guys are now using or buying but if its not MAN, you may of lost out a bit. I have driven both Oshkosh and MAN vehicles extensively, and have to say for all round capability it has to be MAN. Any questions on the trucks ill gladly answer.



Do you or have you received any compensation from MAN?

No offence is intended, it's just we've had other lobbyists here in the past from Oerlikon and I believe CASA and although we value all information, it's only fair that it's provided in an transparent context.


Many thanks, Matthew.


----------



## PetOp (14 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Do you or have you received any compensation from MAN?
> 
> No offence is intended, it's just we've had other lobbyists here in the past from Oerlikon and I believe CASA and although we value all information, it's only fair that it's provided in an transparent context.
> 
> ...



I understand, but im no way affiliated to MAN. Im a serving soldier of 17yrs and was brought on to the project after the deal was done between UK Ministry of Defence and MAN. My view is purely from a user or guy-on-the-ground point of view. I only give a opinion on what i have experienced, such as driving Oshkosh Army Fuel tankers with the MTVR tractor unit and 20000ltr tank trailer and MAN 6, 9 and 15 tonne vehicles. I did a exchange visit many years ago with the Princess Patricia Light Inf from Edmonton and drove your Steyr Trucks, which were not too bad actually. So dont worry, im here as a soldier not as a salesman!


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 May 2007)

Outstanding.....  ;D


----------



## newfin (14 Nov 2007)

PWGSC has today released the RFP for the MilCOTS version that the reserves will get.  Here is the link to the announcement.

http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=361109


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Nov 2007)

newfin said:
			
		

> PWGSC has today released the RFP for the MilCOTS version that the reserves will get.  Here is the link to the announcement.
> 
> http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=361109



What makes you think that this is only for the Reserves? Last time I check we all used the same trucks.


----------



## chrisf (14 Nov 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> What makes you think that this is only for the Reserves? Last time I check we all used the same trucks.



I'm guessing it's reserve only... the article claims we have a fleet of 2700... but they're only buying 800... unless they're seriously screwing the army on medium trucks... though that wouldn't surprise me either...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Nov 2007)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'm guessing it's reserve only... the article claims we have a fleet of 2700... but they're only buying 800... unless they're seriously screwing the army on medium trucks... though that wouldn't surprise me either...



From MLVW
Entered service: 1982
Number acquired: 2,769


----------



## newfin (14 Nov 2007)

It will be similar to what was done for the Iltis replacement.  The MilCOTS Chevy's went to the reserves and the G-Wagons went to the regular Army.

By the way if you check on the MSVS Project Office site, these MilCOTS trucks still sound pretty capable.  They just are not intended to be deployed in a combat zone.  that does not mean that they will not be useful for domestic use.  Here is the address for the Project web site:

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


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Nov 2007)

newfin said:
			
		

> It will be similar to what was done for the Iltis replacement.  The MilCOTS Chevy's went to the reserves and the G-Wagons went to the regular Army.
> 
> By the way if you check on the MSVS Project Office site, these MilCOTS trucks still sound pretty capable.  They just are not intended to be deployed in a combat zone.  that does not mean that they will not be useful for domestic use.  Here is the address for the Project web site:
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/msvs/index_e.asp



One slight error there newfin the MILCOTS Chevy acutally went to both the Regs and the Reserves. But originally I think the Chevy was only meant for the Reserves IIRC.


----------



## chrisf (15 Nov 2007)

I've heard claims it's basically going to be the dump-truck the field engineers have, with a cargo bed... not a terrible bad option really... just GIVE US DECENT TIRES!

The LUVW milcots are fantastic trucks... just terrible off road as a result of poor ordering specs... throw in a lift kit and proper tires and you'd have a beast of a truck.


----------



## omniman69 (11 Jan 2009)

sry to bump old thread.

wainwright tried to lift their milcots for the ref's of CMTC, but after a few of the trucks were complete a higher-up saw them and ordered them to be returned back to stock because the mods were not authorized.  I did some moon-lighting for the off-road shop that sold the kits to CMTC wainwright.  Impressive truck with the lift and tires and better bumpers front/rear.

Mike


----------



## geo (11 Jan 2009)

We've always said it.... a good truck - just the options selected for us (VS by us) make the truck a mediocre road truck... and not a field truck


----------



## chrisf (11 Jan 2009)

We managed to use them with great success going cross-country in Shilo... problem was you had to keep your foot down pretty hard on the accelerator  to do it... when you had traction, you went foreward, when you didn't, they slid on the skid plates like a tobbogan... a ridiculous practice, extremely rough on the trucks and the training area... the lads would head out in the morning, get to where they were going, and at least have the time, call for an ML to tow them out in the evening as once they stopped, that was it, they were stuck.


----------



## Kokanee (21 Jun 2009)

While travelling westbound on the 401 two weeks ago, I spotted a convoy just west
of Trenton. Five trucks all bearing "student driver" tags and DND plates, of a
type I have not seen at any unit so far;

http://www.historiasdelmotor.com/images/2008/06/mercedes-zetros-1.jpg
(stock picture of vehicles I saw)

Unfortunately I had not packed my camera in my daybag or I would have taken a
picture. They were all in a standard OD green paint scheme, with green tarps,
perhaps these are evaluation units for the military variant of the MLVW
replacement program?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (21 Jun 2009)

I believe what you saw was the "interm" MLWV- SMP rolling around as the the MLVW-MILCOTS is this vehicle:


----------

