# Whither the G-Wagon



## Fishbone Jones

So my understanding from the Corps conference I attended, not long ago, is that the GWagon is on it's way out. Completely off the books by 2015 and a 50% draw down by 2012. IIRC.

It's was stated also that the Reserves won't get any of the TAPV or CCV. Without getting into that whole big discussion of maint, training, etc (we've discussed this already a number of times for various armoured vehicle) this makes sense.

The problem is no replacement has been looked at or announced for the GWagon. Given procurment times, if the status quo is maintained, there will be no replacement in place when the GWagon is gone.

I really hope that if all the above is true, there is a group of mandarins working away in secret somewhere that are totally on top of the problem, and will deem us worthy of an explanation in the short term, so the Reserves don't have to subsist on rumour until 201?.

So, has anyone else heard anything?

Perhaps the glacial movement on the GWagon cupola fix is just a way of getting us used to having no vehicles while we keep the existing stock in great shape for the highest bidder. Then again maybe my tinfoil is getting too tight ;D


----------



## WLSC

IT doesn't make sence at all !!!  They are almost brand new.  I can understand not deployed in A-stan but its not the only mission we have or will have !!!  How the training can be done with that type of véhicule ??


----------



## tango22a

RG:

I don't want to " rain on your parade", but doesn't it seem logical that NO money, No role and NO vehicles = NO PRes Armoured Regiments. I hope my cynicism is not showing up too much!


Unhappily,


tango22a


----------



## vonGarvin

If the brain trust in procurements is to be trusted, then the role of the G-Wagon will be "filled" with apple carts.

As stated, though it's no longer of use in Afghanistan, I'd like to point out that other nations used unarmoured vehicles there, AND that we don't just serve there.  We had the lovely Iltis and the LSVW in Haiti in 2004, and they both served rather well.


----------



## WLSC

My questio





			
				tango22a said:
			
		

> RG:
> 
> I don't want to " rain on your parade", but doesn't it seem logical that NO money, No role and NO vehicles = NO PRes Armoured Regiments. I hope my cynicism is not showing up too much!
> 
> 
> Unhappily,
> 
> 
> tango22a



Excacly my thouht !  Am I the only one or I see a twisted way to take away more units, role or what ever else ??


----------



## Fishbone Jones

tango22a said:
			
		

> RG:
> 
> I don't want to " rain on your parade", but doesn't it seem logical that NO money, No role and NO vehicles = NO PRes Armoured Regiments. I hope my cynicism is not showing up too much!
> 
> 
> Unhappily,
> 
> 
> tango22a



Raining on what parade?  The Armoured Reserve are not the sole users of this vehicle. We're not here to raise a spectre of some sort of boogieman, decimation of reserve units or anything else. 

We're here to try determine the disposition of the GWagon.   

That's all.

Please stay on topic or find a discussion in another thread.

Jeez, second and third reply and we're headed for a train wreck already. :


----------



## WLSC

> We're here to try determine the disposition of the GWagon.



Then, I say let's use them of road and really see what they can do the more we can before they are taken away.  So we can buy them cheaper when they'l go in surplus sales >


----------



## PuckChaser

The same thing is happening for the LSVW.... plans to lifecycle the equipment out, but no replacement even remotely looked at. 

Very confused about the GWagon though, I think it would be a good DomOp utility vehicle. Definitely has a lot of life left in the tires.


----------



## Petard

I'm not one of the mandarins, I'm on the far periphery of this project, but there is something going on. 
There is project beginning to replace the G Wagon, the LSVW, and the HLVW, its called the Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_11/iss_3/CAJ_Vol11.3_02_e.pdf
It is incredibly complex, it does or will involve more direct feedback from the user community, but it is certainly not an easy problem to even define.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

FusMR said:
			
		

> Then, I say let's use them of road and really see what they can do the more we can before they are taken away.  So we can buy them cheaper when they'l go in surplus sales >



The cupola mounting hardware has been deemed defective. The fix is out there apparently, but we're told there is no money in the project to fund it. In the meantime, the cupola variants are grounded, and have been since before the summer, as per a CANLANDGEN (CANFORGEN?), pending the fix or a four hour\ week gun plumber inspection.

The soccer mom version is still allowed to be operated, but whoever has them seems to have hidden them and won't lend them out or discuss them.


----------



## tango22a

RG:


Well, after inserting foot up a$$, AGAIN!!, and getting thrown under the bus, AGAIN!!, I think I'll just ride off into the sunset.


Cheers,


tango22a


----------



## Armymedic

Pity, I honest believe that the G wagon was one of the best military vehicles I have driven. Its too bad we (the CF we) tried to use them to fit every role, instead of the ones it was designed and purchased for.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Also to bad we bought the Iltis design when the German army was retiring them and didn't buy into the Steyer/G-wagon back then. It's a good vehicle for the reserves and likely a great vehicle for some low intensity missions. Judging by the lack of success in most "Wunder-Uber, do all" vehicle porcurment trials around the world I would suspect that no new replacement will be forthcoming anytime soon. Even if they do select a new vehicle, the costs will require a 1 for 2 or 3 vehicle replacement, which compounds the 1 for 2 Iltis replacement of the M36.

Just to stir the pot, we could buy cheaply this from our dear friends in Russia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuepkesNXhQ&feature=related

As I recall it is also offered with a Cummin's diesel


----------



## Dissident

"Hello Reserve, 

Please hand over your MilCOTS.

Sincerily,

The Regular Force


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dissident said:
			
		

> "Hello Reserve,
> 
> Please hand over your MilCOTS.
> 
> Sincerily,
> 
> The Regular Force
> 
> P.S. thanks for the Bisons and Cougars



Fixed it for you......


----------



## NavyShooter

And getting new Jeeps/equivalent is EASY compared to getting new ships....

They can pretty much buy light jeep-ish vehicles almost anywhere that will fit 'most' of what's needed.

You should see what the Navy's going through to get new ships............talk about "faint hope" indeed.

As for the G-wagon, I think it's replacement might be a lower priority issue because it is almost a COTS purchase.  

NS


----------



## Fergie

This is rather baseless-- rumour/talk amongst some NCO's--but I have heard rumblings of ATV's (or something to that effect) becoming a primary vehicle for Armour Recce reserve units.  I found this quite ridiculous at first... Comms would seriously degrade (b!^@h in back with a manpack?) and carrying essential kit would become comparatively more difficult... but after a while I could "appreciate" the pros from a budgetary and training perspective (if mud recce is the aim).  After all they're not meant for combat, they would just be "training aids"  : for reservists.  Clearly this needs to be taken with a _pound_ of salt (and is an absolutely terrible idea if realistic/augmenting Reg force training is the aim), but I thought I'd mention it for the sake of it.

...It sure would be a blast to spend a weekend blazing around the training area on a zone recce with something like that  8)

-Fergie


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's been sort of done before
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3346586231_a2cb472732.jpg


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Fergie said:
			
		

> This is rather baseless-- rumour/talk amongst some NCO's--but I have heard rumblings of ATV's (or something to that effect) becoming a primary vehicle for Armour Recce reserve units.  I found this quite ridiculous at first... Comms would seriously degrade (b!^@h in back with a manpack?) and carrying essential kit would become comparatively more difficult... but after a while I could "appreciate" the pros from a budgetary and training perspective (if mud recce is the aim).  After all they're not meant for combat, they would just be "training aids"  : for reservists.  Clearly this needs to be taken with a _pound_ of salt (and is an absolutely terrible idea if realistic/augmenting Reg force training is the aim), but I thought I'd mention it for the sake of it.
> 
> ...It sure would be a blast to spend a weekend blazing around the training area on a zone recce with something like that  8)
> 
> -Fergie





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> It's been sort of done before
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3346586231_a2cb472732.jpg



Completely baseless.

Actually, it has been done before. An Arm'd Recce Tp, from the Ont R, were given ATVs as their principle vehicle (around 2003 IIRC). For a variety of reasons, it was an abject failure, and that was only one troop. On a Sqn orbat the results would have been horrendous. The TO&E, tactics, comms, etc are totally unmanageable. This is neither a recce or warfighting vehicle. They were not even training aids. To pretend otherwise is downright stupid.

Moving on, ATVs were to go to at least one Res Arm'd Regt in SW Ontario. They were only to be used in supplementing the G Wagons in the Reg't role for it's territorial tasking. That idea and issue got about as much real support from the Army as the rest of the Territorial Force fiasco.

At any rate, you should run as fast as you can, because someone, without a schmick is trying to blow smoke up your arsehole. Oh, and quit listening to foolish rumours.


----------



## George Wallace

Fergie said:
			
		

> This is rather baseless-- rumour/talk amongst some NCO's--but I have heard rumblings of ATV's (or something to that effect) becoming a primary vehicle for Armour Recce reserve units.  I found this quite ridiculous at first... Comms would seriously degrade (b!^@h in back with a manpack?) and carrying essential kit would become comparatively more difficult... but after a while I could "appreciate" the pros from a budgetary and training perspective (if mud recce is the aim).  After all they're not meant for combat, they would just be "training aids"  : for reservists.  Clearly this needs to be taken with a _pound_ of salt (and is an absolutely terrible idea if realistic/augmenting Reg force training is the aim), but I thought I'd mention it for the sake of it.
> 
> ...It sure would be a blast to spend a weekend blazing around the training area on a zone recce with something like that  8)
> 
> -Fergie



Try this for some ideas:

ATV RECCE TRIALS


----------



## Thompson_JM

Why do I get the feeling that we are going to loose the LSVW and G-Wagon, and if we're lucky we'll get a new vehicle a few YEARS after that all happens....  :crybaby:

Personally if the Reg Force wants our Milverados, they can have em... The G-Wagon is so much more capable then they ever could be.....  Its a half decent Dom-Ops vehicle on hardpack, but nowhere near as rugged or versatile as the LUVW


----------



## Sig_Des

Tommy said:
			
		

> Why do I get the feeling that we are going to loose the LSVW and G-Wagon, and if we're lucky we'll get a new vehicle a few YEARS after that all happens....  :crybaby:
> 
> Personally if the Reg Force wants our Milverados, they can have em... The G-Wagon is so much more capable then they ever could be.....  Its a half decent Dom-Ops vehicle on hardpack, but nowhere near as rugged or versatile as the LUVW



Wouldn't be too bad if it had a couple inches of lift, decent tires, and a good skid-plate... But yeah, I'll take a G-wagon over the milcot any day right now.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't be too bad if it had a couple inches of lift, decent tires, and a good skid-plate... But yeah, I'll take a G-wagon over the milcot any day right now.



Except the guys at CMTC did that out in Wainwrong and the Damned thing STILL got stuck!!!  ;D

But yes, it did work better off road... somewhat...

Still out in Sufferfield?


----------



## Sig_Des

Tommy said:
			
		

> Except the guys at CMTC did that out in Wainwrong and the Damned thing STILL got stuck!!!  ;D
> 
> But yes, it did work better off road... somewhat...
> 
> Still out in Sufferfield?



Nah, weeks reprieve, and back to the suck for more. Best part about the CMTC Milcots (from what I hear from little birds), is that once higher levels heard of the mods, from the lofty heights came word to put it back to the way it was.


----------



## dapaterson

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Nah, weeks reprieve, and back to the suck for more. Best part about the CMTC Milcots (from what I hear from little birds), is that once higher levels heard of the mods, from the lofty heights came word to put it back to the way it was.



Oddly enough, when local modifications are made, that's what happens.  You have no authority to modify your issued equipment.


----------



## Thompson_JM

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, when local modifications are made, that's what happens.  You have no authority to modify your issued equipment.



This may be true, but that truck is a serious PoS........ We lost a lot of capability when we gave up the Iltis for that thing.... If its useless off road what happens when we have to do a Dom Op and there are no roads due to a disaster... etc... it could happen... and if we toss the G-Wagon before a replacement is put into service, then where do we end up?

I still cant fully understand where the CF is going with this whole vehicle project but my gut feeling has me a little nervous about where we will end up...  :endnigh:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Tommy said:
			
		

> This may be true, but that truck is a serious PoS........ We lost a lot of capability when we gave up the Iltis for that thing.... If its useless off road what happens when we have to do a Dom Op and there are no roads due to a disaster... etc... it could happen... and if we toss the G-Wagon before a replacement is put into service, then where do we end up?
> 
> I still cant fully understand where the CF is going with this whole vehicle project but my gut feeling has me a little nervous about where we will end up...  :endnigh:



Whereever it goes we'll have to see.

Recce didn't turn in our Iltis for the milcot. We had both all along and it wasn't meant as a replacement for the Iltis. Don't like the truck? Start another thread. There are plenty that do like it, especially when it is used as intended.

Let's keep on track here and stick with the disposition of the G Wagon, shall we?


----------



## dapaterson

I must admit that this is the first time I've ever seen someone referring to the Iltis as "the good old days".


The Iltis was replaced because it was well beyond its useful life.  The decision to go back to the future and replace it with an off-the-shelf truck painted green with a few minor modifications (Milverado), along with a more robust vehicle (G Wagon) was driven by cost.

There was a finite amount of money available to replace the fleet.  An all G-Wagon fleet would have provided significantly fewer vehicles than the mixed fleet, which would have been a dramatic decrease in capability.  The mixed fleet provided greater numbers of vehicles, but at the cost of some individual capability.  That's a trade off that is often made - there are other vehicles that can be used off road or in more degraded conditions.

There is not an unlimited defence budget; choices have to be made between options.  In this case, the military leadership decided where and how to draw the line between the less capable but less expensive and more capable and more expensive to have a fleet mix to respond to scenarios.


----------



## vonGarvin

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Iltis was replaced because it was well beyond its useful life.  Sgt. Short and Cpl Beerenfenger were killed while driving one.



I prefer the Iltis to the Geländewagen ("G-Wagon").  It's much more than nostalgia, because the Iltis served its role of a utility vehicle much better than its replacement, was manoeuverable, fit well into tight traffic, etc.  I know, it's just opinion, but here we are less than ten years after delivery looking at getting rid of it already.

Edited to replace wrong word!


----------



## Thompson_JM

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ...but here we are less than ten years after delivery looking at getting rid of it already...



This is the point that makes me go Hrmmm.... 


I do understand the reasoning for why they went with the Milverado/G-wagon mixed purchase.... I still dont have to like it....  In my opinion it makes worse the gap between Reg's and Reserves when it comes to Training....  but I digress on that point... 

What really throws me, is why in heck they are looking to toss the G-Wagon now, when it's still a perfectly good vehicle for what it was intended for... and well within its usable lifespan? And there is the question of just what exactly happens to the Reserve Armd Recce units... I can only assume they would be, (and should be) getting whatever the replacement is.


----------



## dapaterson

Given the mechanical condition of the Iltis fleet, options were (a) complete, comprehensive, very expensive overhaul or (b) replacement.  Replacement was the optimal choice.

While some incidents may have hastened the implementation, the project was launched in 1996 with initial contracts signed in 2002.


The Iltis was acquired  in the mid 80s, and lasted under 20 years.  The replacement project was launched when the fleet was 10 years old.

The GWagon is now roughly 10 years old; starting the work to replace it now is entirely consistent with prior practice (see: The Iltis).


----------



## Thompson_JM

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Iltis was acquired  in the mid 80s, and lasted under 20 years.  The replacement project was launched when the fleet was 10 years old.
> 
> The GWagon is now roughly 10 years old; starting the work to replace it now is entirely consistent with prior practice (see: The Iltis).



Ahhhhh.... Now that makes a bit more sense.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given the mechanical condition of the Iltis fleet, options were (a) complete, comprehensive, very expensive overhaul or (b) replacement.  Replacement was the optimal choice.
> 
> While some incidents may have hastened the implementation, the project was launched in 1996 with initial contracts signed in 2002.
> 
> 
> The Iltis was acquired  in the mid 80s, and lasted under 20 years.  The replacement project was launched when the fleet was 10 years old.
> 
> The GWagon is now roughly 10 years old; starting the work to replace it now is entirely consistent with prior practice (see: The Iltis).



Unless you look at the timelines in the original post. That, and there is no replacement project started, that we know of.


----------



## dapaterson

There's another thread on the "Logistics Vehicle Modernization Project" that will encompass replacements for LUVW, LSVW and HLVW.


The problem of the Reserves is not a question of vehicles, but of the Armoured Corps not knowing what to do with the Reserves - the platform isn't the underlying issue.


----------



## Thompson_JM

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There's another thread on the "Logistics Vehicle Modernization Project" that will encompass replacements for LUVW, LSVW and HLVW.
> 
> 
> The problem of the Reserves is not a question of vehicles, but of the Armoured Corps not knowing what to do with the Reserves - the platform isn't the underlying issue.



Oh its not just the Armoured Corps.............


----------



## vonGarvin

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The GWagon is now roughly 10 years old; starting the work to replace *it now is entirely consistent with prior practice (see: The Iltis).*


Not at all.  The LUVW is to be divested just after it serves 10 years.  In Haiti on Op HALO in 2004, we were using Iltis.  Athena got their LUVW in...04? 05?  It is scheduled _right now_ to be divested in 2016 (ish).  That is just over 10 years.  By the Iltis-calendar, we would have received the LUVW circa 1995 (ish)


----------



## dapaterson

The Iltis was scheduled for divestment earlier than it occured; I have no doubt that the LVMP will face delays as well, pushing the reitrement of the G-Wagon to the right.  (DND's major projects rarely deliver in accordance with their initial timelines, but that is many other discussions).

The timelines are not identical, but are similar.


----------



## a_majoor

A bit out of left field, but this vehicle is designed for most of the same purposes served by Iltis and G-wagon, fits inside a CH-47 (bonus) and could be available right now. Second bopnus for political weenies looking for "benefits" and "offsets"; the company already has a factory in Canada:

http://www.military.com/video/combat-vehicles/armored-vehicles/the-general-dyamics-flyer/763887735001/


----------



## my72jeep

Look's like the love child of  one night stand between a hummer and a Kodiak big bear.


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A bit out of left field, but this vehicle is designed for most of the same purposes served by Iltis and G-wagon, fits inside a CH-47 (bonus) and could be available right now.


In the ATV thread, the heavy end of the proposals got into vehicles like Iltis and Growler.


----------



## PanaEng

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A bit out of left field, but this vehicle is designed for most of the same purposes served by Iltis and G-wagon, fits inside a CH-47 (bonus) and could be available right now. Second bopnus for political weenies looking for "benefits" and "offsets"; the company already has a factory in Canada:
> 
> http://www.military.com/video/combat-vehicles/armored-vehicles/the-general-dyamics-flyer/763887735001/


Nice, I like it - how much though?
cheers


----------



## McG

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Look's like the love child of  one night stand between a hummer and a Kodiak big bear.


In the case of LUVW replacement, the spectrum of potential vehicles begins with those small vehicles and grows to a modern HMMWV family of vehicles.  I suspect different user groups will see different points along this spectrum as preferable ... we probably don't have the space in our budget for both sizes of vehicles.


----------



## a_majoor

Given the size of the Flyer compared to the Growler, I would put my money on the Flyer as it can potentially fil the bill for G Wagon, MilCOT and LSVW replacement. The ability to fit into a helicopter is a huge bonus WRT operational deployment, and also sets a decent size limit for fans of Mud Recce should it go into service with the Reserve Armoured as a recce platform.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given the size of the Flyer compared to the Growler, I would put my money on the Flyer as it can potentially fil the bill for G Wagon, MilCOT and LSVW replacement. The ability to fit into a helicopter is a huge bonus WRT operational deployment, and also sets a decent size limit for fans of Mud Recce should it go into service with the Reserve Armoured as a recce platform.


 While I'm somewhat opposed to mud recce it does look like a perfect fit for the Reserves and for that very reason it will never be purchased for them.


----------



## a_majoor

And plan "C" would be to go with the HMMVW. Luckily, rebuilds are on the way which bring the classic 80's design up to date:

http://defense-update.com/wp/20101026_industry-preparing-for-the-hmmwv-recap.html



> *Industry Preparing for the HMMWV recap*
> October 26, 2010 Administrator No comments
> 
> Among the heavier tactical vehicles on display were new versions of the BAE Systems’ Caiman Multi-Terrain Vehicle (MTV), configured to support Command and Control On-the-Move (C2OTM) assignments and ambulatory operations. Oshkosh displayed the latest reconnaissance version of the MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (MATV) . This vehicle carries crew of six plus gunner. The recce variant is equipped with mission specific technologies designed for missions such as route, zone and area reconnaissance. Recent models introduced with the M-ATV family of vehicles also includes SOCOM, Utility and Ambulance variants.
> 
> As the U.S. Army establishes its right mix of vehicles across the light, medium, and heavy vehicle fleets, new acquisition programs and recapitalization (recap) programs are weighed, assessing a cost effective mix that could meet the services’ planned budget cuts. As light vehicles are concerned, the army is still moving on two parallel paths,acquisition long term strategy developing the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV) while pursuing low-cost recap of existing High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) for the near term.
> 
> Several companies at AUSA are addressing the planned HMMWv Recap opportunity, among them BAE Systems and Oshkosh. BAE is offering the application of it’s ‘Integrated Smart V’ (ISV) program coupled with lightweight monocoque V-hull and mine protection improving survivability through relatively cost high investment in modernizing the fleet of high-mobility multipurpose vehicles expected to remain in service for the long term. Oshkosh is also seeking HMMWV recap opportunities, offering the TAK-4 independent suspension for improved mobility. the new suspension also contributes to increased payload capacity needed for the survivability enhancement. In addition to its advanced suspension, Oshkosh incorporates a V-shaped hull and engine and powertrain upgrades to improve soldier survivability as well as off-road mobility and payload capacity.
> 
> AM General also displays he an armored HMMWV variants designed in association with Plasan. Unlike other upgrade designs that use monocoque capsules, Plasan designed the vehicle with a ‘kitted armor’, which does away with unused structures and material, therefore reducing the weight of the protected vehicle. As many of the components previously spliced in the center body are now moved from the protected cabin, significant weight is offloaded from the frontal wheels and moved back, and well below the axles’ load level, enabling the armor protected vehicle to demonstrate very high protection while retaining the efficient off road mobility of early HMMWVs.


----------



## dapaterson

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> While I'm somewhat opposed to mud recce it does look like a perfect fit for the Reserves and for that very reason it will never be purchased for them.



We appear to have things backwards:  Buy kit, then assume roles, missions and tasks will be derived from it for the black hats in the Reserves.

Better still to adhere to the first principle of war: selection and maintenance of the aim.  What do we want the Army to be capable of doing; what within that do we want the black hats to deliver, and then how are they to deliver those capabilities with a mix of Reg, Res, civilians and contractors, and with what equipment?

Otherwise we're just buying shiny toys for no real reason.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Remind me again which army went to war with the exactly right fit of kit to accomplish the aim? Perhaps the Mongols?


----------



## dapaterson

oh, don't get me wrong - the enemy gets a vote, too.

But I'd rather have at least a semblance of a plan and structure to deliver the capabilities we need (or think we need) as opposed to "Ooh, shiny!" as a pillar of force development.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fit for reserves means to me:

Economical pricing (so we can buy enough to go around, sick of the 1 for 2 syndrome)
Reliable
Readily available parts supply
fixable locally
Good onroad/off road performance
Capable of tactical use and being armed
Adds training value


----------



## Kirkhill

So further to Colin's point....what's wrong with the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited - Basic model at about 25 k a unit.

It is a platform. It goes off road. It is easily and locally maintained.   It would also be better than an ATV for hauling gear and it has a track record.  No doubt "light" troops in the regs could also find employment for it.

The money saved could go for more 27 tonne armoured behomoths currently being considered for liaison vehicles.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So further to Colin's point....what's wrong with the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited - Basic model at about 25 k a unit.


Between Wrangler & Gladiator, Jeep could fill both the C&R and the light utility role for the COTS platform.


----------



## a_majoor

Given the various different roles needed to be filled by the replacement program (the G wagon, LSVW and MilCOT all serve different purposes) combined with the inability to fund different specialist vehicles for different roles does lead to some sort of multi purpose platform.

There are obviously many different approaches, but in terms of cost and overall utility the Flyer or rebuilt HMMVWs would seem to be the two best choices from where I am sitting. The Flyer is smaller so would be a better platform for the sorts of roles the G wagon was meant to do, but the utility vehicle role isn't impossible (especially if clever solutions like trailers, optimising the layout of utility "boxes" and using miniature components wherever possible are factored in). The rebuilt HMMVW is a bit large for the G wagon roles (but some might argue this makes it _more_ capable of fulfilling these roles), and since it started life as a utility vehicle it fills the bill quite nicely to replace the LSVW and MilCOT). The one chassis solution provides greatly simplified logistical support.

Sorry Kirkhill, but we tried CJ-7's back in the day; they simply didn't have the strength or ruggedness for military life, and certainly were not capable of being modified for multiple roles. If we were to go that route, i'd go for the Toyota Land Cruiser (the choice of insurgents everywhere!) as being a proven rugged vehicle and having logistical support on a global basis (if worst came to worst, just steal parts and replacements from the insurgency).


----------



## Kirkhill

Thuc,

Back in my day they were replacing clapped out Vietnam era M151s in Canadian service with Dodge pickups.    I have fond recollections of a young Corporal allowing his girlfriend Private to take our unit's brand new Dodge  and go haring off across Sarcee - promptly ripping the bottom out of it on a lonely rock covered by prairie grass. CO not best pleased.

This was just about the time that the Iltis was being introduced and being roundly trashed a worthless POS, as was the Grizzly, and the Bombardier MLVW and the Bison.  All of them broke.

Yes.  Jeeps will break.  But they will be readily available and easy to replace when they do break - as opposed to trying to get authorization to use, break and replace a $300,000 custom built JLTV.    

How many jeeps can a typical militia unit break in a typical training year?  1 JLTV = 12 Jeeps.

Are jeeps more or less likely to break than Milverados?

Having said that Toyota's are reasonable vehicles as well - but we're talking about dom ops and reserve force training.  Or are the Milverados being deployed overseas?


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So further to Colin's point....what's wrong with the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited - Basic model at about 25 k a unit.
> 
> It is a platform. It goes off road. It is easily and locally maintained.   It would also be better than an ATV for hauling gear and it has a track record.  No doubt "light" troops in the regs could also find employment for it.
> 
> The money saved could go for more 27 tonne armoured behomoths currently being considered for liaison vehicles.



Ah!    What is old is new again.

Prior to the CJ-7s we had older versions of the Jeep.  Those older versions had the strength in construction to mount a "Dog Leg" on the CC's side on which he could mount a C-5, which today would permit a C-6 or C-9.   The veh was small enough that it could travel nearly anywhere and was easy to cam and hide.  Unfortunately, in our overly safety conscious society today, the addition of roll bars and such detracts from the low profile that was previously seen prior to the introduction of the M151.


----------



## GAP

Why don't we just try blending in......buy white Toyota Pickups......


----------



## Dissident

We could get a new wrangler with a removable roll bar/pintle mount. It would make me happy.

Hey, for what we do domestically, the MilCots is not that bad for us. But I always lament that it makes it sadly unrealistic to use the truck as a gun truck, as is our current SOP for MPs.


----------



## McG

On the topic of LUVW & LSVW replacement, here are the observations that I made in the Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project thread:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ...  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
> open/soft-top Jeep-style comd & recce 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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Rebuilt HMMVW with better engines would be a logical choice for replacing the LSVW, they can carry the various modules on the back and they make a good candidate for RWS's. I was cynical of the CJ when they came in because they had to compete with the old M38's which were far stronger. My understanding is that the new jeeps are giving a good account of themselves and offer a 5 door variant now as well. I personally think the G-wagon is an excellent vehicle and would want more of them, but it ain't likely to happen. 
problem is that any 1/4 to 1/2 ton vehicle can not meet the armour/weapon expections that we demand is needed. The only option is going purpose built armoured vehicles which are very expensive, limited parts and are rarely efficient at carrying large volumes of cargo.

To me the armoured reserves need armoured fighting vehicles and due to the changing nature of warfare so do the MP's. There are enough mature designs out there in 4x4 wheeled AFV's for this type of work to choose from. The will and the money needs to be there. For the armoured units to recruit and retain people they need equipment that fits the above. As for roles and responsibilities, well that changes with every government and next great idea. that reality is not going to change.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> To me the armoured reserves need armoured fighting vehicles ...


I suspect "want" is more fitting than "need" in this case.  While the Armd Reserve might love its own AFV, we do not have the resources to buy a never-to-be-deployable AFV fleet.

In any case, here is another perspective on light fighting & support vehicles.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> I suspect "want" is more fitting than "need" in this case.  While the Armd Reserve might love its own AFV,* we do not have the resources to buy a never-to-be-deployable AFV fleet.*In any case, here is another perspective on light fighting & support vehicles.



That's what they said about the Cougar remember?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't think the Bison was to be deployed either. (I could be wrong on this)

I disagree, you need equipment that reflects the core of what you are/do to be able to attract and retain people. There is no contract to hold people in the reserves, therefore you need to offer something in return for their time and investment. The old M38's with the GPMG at least offered the "Rat patrol" image, right now they don't have much to offer except the "chance" to play with the big cats.

The reality is we have no idea what will be our next conflict, nobody would have guessed we be bombing the Balkans, fighting a COIN war in Afghanstan, bombing Libya. 

While it would be great to get the best AFV for all possibilities, the reality is we could only afford a "2nd best " model. Likely something on the lines of the M117 which a quick google search shows a cost of roughly 350,000 each (not sure what that contract included). For about 13 vehicles to equip the 2 armoured units out here (6 each plus a spare, BCR's and BCD's) you are looking at about 4.5 million.

I just used the M117 as an example and not as the only vehicle that fulfill the purpose.


----------



## Kirkhill

Conversely Colin

2x 4 M1117s  +1 = 3.15 MCAD

4.5-3.15 = 1.35 MCAD

4 Jeeps = 100 KCAD
28 Jeeps = 700 KCAD

BCDs = 14 Jeeps + 4 M117s 
BCRs = 14 Jeeps + 4 M117s

650 KCAD left in the kitty to buy SAA.

BCRs and BCDs each have the ability to train 18 Dvr/CC tms and deploy them on domops in useful vehicles.  On domops the CF can add 36 veh tms to scout out back roads and isolated communities.

Meanwhile soldiers learn military driving skills, maintenance skills, convoy and patrol skills, driving appropriate to vehicle and conditions, back-roads navigation, off-road driving.....and some exposure to the difference between light vehicles and heavy vehicles.


----------

