# MLVW Replacment?



## XJimmy

After doing a search on this topic in both CSS and Vehicles sections of this board, I still had no luck.   Any info on whether their is a replacement on the horizon for the ML ?   If so what are the favoured options ( FMTV, MAN's SX series etc ) ?


----------



## gun plumber

The best replcement for the MLVW? Hmmmmm.....let me think........Ah yes......A new version of the MLVW!
The design is proven,no costly parts contracts or training reqd,no driver conversion needed and backwards compatibility with all existing SEV's.
The design of the vehical has'nt changed that much in 60 years for a reason.The fact that a 20 year old truck is still kicking and works just fine is a testament to the veh itself.
I'm sure everybody will argue with me,but why try to reinvent the wheel every 5 years or so?
Just like on another thread,replace the 9mm Browning HP with the modern version of the High Power,again for all the same reasons.
Now the LSVW on the other hand..........


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The ML design has not been around for all that long.

It is underpowered, with an extremely poor suspension, poor turning radius, and zero comforts.

The Steyr family of vehicles is an example of what can be done, they have a smaller version of the HLVW that I drove once overseas, excellent vehicle.  That would ease driver training, and some parts, I would think, having the HL and ML made by the same firm.


----------



## brin11

> The Steyr family of vehicles is an example of what can be done, they have a smaller version of the HLVW that I drove once overseas



Lance, do you have a pic of this vehicle?  I tried searching for it but had no luck.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> The ML design has not been around for all that long.
> 
> It is underpowered, with an extremely poor suspension, poor turning radius, and zero comforts.



Yeah, but it has that really cool cruise control feature, plus the rocket-assist Ether injector....


----------



## gun plumber

For starters,the veh itself has only been around for 20 or so years,but the design has been around since WW2 in one form or another(the deuce an a half,and the old 5 ton).
Second off-Why do we require a veh that can do 180 Km\h,has air glide suspension and a Cd player?The MLVW is a utillity truck.You don't need fancy features for a beat em up truck.A modern version of the ML would fit all the bills that we require.
Again the Styr line of veh is a good veh,but what it boils down to is you want something simple,and if that means Pte Bloggins has a sore bum after a few bumps and we still have to teach 3 point turns on the Driver wheeled course than thats what it takes to use an already proven design.Far to often Canada replaces veh or equipment with unproven designs and tries to work out the bugs after we've already accepted it.
As far as under powered,I would have to disagree.I served the guns for 9 years and if a veh can haul The SEV proper,a howitzer,44 rnds of 105 ammo,7 troops plus all of thier equipment,gun stores and still do 40-60 km offroad and not get stuck in all but the worst of terrain,I would have to say it's got enough power to do the job.Agreed about on highway preformance though.Nothing puts you to sleep like the hum of the V-8 desiel,wind and 40 km\h uphill.
cheers


----------



## Michael Dorosh

gun plumber said:
			
		

> .Agreed about on highway preformance though.Nothing puts you to sleep like the hum of the V-8 desiel,wind and 40 km\h uphill.
> cheers



Add to that the 100 km straight-as-an-arrow road coming out of Wainwright on the way home to Calgary - I kid you not, not one single turn in the road for over an hour.  YAWWWWNNNN

They COULD do something about the seats in the cab - though that nice long bench lets you put three up front unlike an LSVW.

Some kind of shock absorbing troop seats would be nice too.....or maybe even some damn seatbelts and weapons racks.  Get an inexperienced driver up front and the potential to kill somebody, break their back or knock out their teeth isn't inconsiderable....


----------



## canuck101

what do you guys think of the Oshkosh Truck Corp. The Marine Corps Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) Program is this the truck you guys were thinking of.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mtvr.htm


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Check out this bad boy.

http://www.swiec.com/p1-7.htm

Those of you singing the praises of the POS MLVW obviously have had limited experience in what is available.

Beg to differ it is underpowered?  Wow.


----------



## brin11

Thanks Lance for the link.  As for having limited experience with what's available, I think that's probably true.  Many that I know have only driven our military pattern vehicles and not had any exposure to anything else.


----------



## childs56

the MLVW Gun Tractor has padded troop seats and even seat belts. I forgot to mention the nice heater and lights in the back. Ahh the life of a Gunner. Yes replace them with a modern day 6x6 or 4x4 heavy duty truck such as the Yanks have, or build new MLVW's here in Candada.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

CTD said:
			
		

> the MLVW Gun Tractor has padded troop seats and even seat belts. I forgot to mention the nice heater and lights in the back. Ahh the life of a Gunner. Yes replace them with a modern day 6x6 or 4x4 heavy duty truck such as the Yanks have, or build new MLVW's here in Candada.



So no carbon-monoxide piped directly into the troop compartment, ala the LSVW?  Sweet.

I remember being in the back of an LS as my CSM drove off from a position and forgot I was there...nothing like lying flat on your back on a cold metal floor praying that you live through the experience of going cross country at speed; luckily I was the only one back there - couldn't imagine 10 or so C7s and helmets flying around under that tarp...


----------



## Mountie

I would say go with the Steyr model just for the commonality of parts to simplify maintenance and logistics.  However, if in a perfect world, there was funding to replace the HLVW series soon, I would go with either the MAN series that the British Army is purchasing right now, or the Stewart & Stevenson FMTV series.  A common series of MLVW, HLVW and VHLVW is the key I think.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

MAN now owns Steyr, and uses the Steyr military vehicles as the basis for both vehicles.  For whatever reason, they are sold under at least three different names, MAN, Steyr and Pinzguaer.  I sould suspect that the Steyr name will disappear.....


----------



## Matt_Fisher

A likely candidate for the MLVW replacement will be the Stewart & Stevenson Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles 'FMTV' which are currently in use by the US Army and are being marketed to the British Army.

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/stewart_stevenson/
http://www.ssss.com/Home/Products/TacticalVehicles/FMTV/?pm=1601

I don't think that the Oshkosh FMTV will be considered that serously, as it is a 7 ton vehicle and the CFs will likely be tailoring the requirement around a 2.5/5 ton vehicle.

Another option for the MLVW would be to do a rebuild, similar to what the US Army has done with some of its old M-35 2.5/5 ton trucks.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehmlvw.htm


----------



## Mountie

The S&S FMTV was not chosen by the British.  They chose the MAN ERF proposal instead.  They are replacing their 4, 8 and 14 tonne Bedford and Leyland trucks with 6, 12 and 18 tonne MANs.  There are many sites on this, the British Army's "Soldier Magazine" is one.   Just search MoD MAN Military Trucks and you will get a bunch.


----------



## Kirkhill

I think if you dig a little deeper you will find that the MAN, Steyr, Pinzgauer line is also the Stewart & Stevenson FMTV built under license in the States.

http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/ecars/SS/FMTV.html


----------



## Kirkhill

Oh and by the way Steyr-Daimler-Puch is Mercedes, Mercedes is G-Wagen.  Stewart & Stevenson builds the FMTV it also is the licenced producer of g-wagens for the USMC in the States.

Pinzgauer is now produced in the UK by a British company.  Not sure about their ownership.


----------



## a_majoor

Since we will probably have to wait until at least 2008 or beyond, we should at least think about some more exotic options. Hybrid electric vehicles are already on the road, (Honda Civic and Toyota Prius today, Ford Explorer Hybrid in the near future, and many more) and offer several bonus's over an ordinary truck.

1. They have better fuel mileage, reducing logistics requirements.
2. Electric motors are quiet and offer high torque. This helps with field problems like not having enough torque to pull out of a deep rut, and might give the option of short "silent run-ups" to DP's, harbours and hides etc.
3. Electric motors in the wheel hubs provide much more interior room in the same sized vehicle.
4. The electric power supply of the vehicle can be tapped for sensors and communications equipment (no lash-ups like the MILCOTS).
5. The electric power supply can be accessed when the vehicle is stationary, reducing the need for generators etc.

While this isn't a magic bullet solution, there is no reason not to make plans. By the time a hybrid electric truck is ready to retire, fuel cell technology may be mature enough to be the prime mover for all vehicles. Our guys will have 15-20 years experience on electric vehicles by then, so the transition will be much smoother.


----------



## Kirkhill

a_majoor, your hybrid solution isn't incompatible with the S&S/FMTV/G-Wagen line.  S&S is producing hybrid drive buses and has produced hybrid FMTVs that have been trialled by the US Army.  Good Reviews

http://www.na.baesystems.com/releasesDetail.cfm?a=88
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/stewart_stevenson/
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1012

I am a BIG fan, especially for the Militia.  Cross country capability PLUS a remote/mobile electricity generating facility could have great applications for civil emergencies.  Just think how many electrical appliances that Home Depot and Canadian Tire stock that would be useful in the event of an emergency if only there was a power supply.  Tools aren't in short supply in Canada but power might be.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

For the future of military transport, have a google at what the US is doing with the Future Tactical Truck project:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1011
http://www.dtic.mil/matris/sbir/sbir043/a255.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002ftts/skalny.pdf
http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/(soldier)/20044?OpenDocument

The CFs should do a rebuild program of the MLVW to the M35A3 standard as applicable, acquire enough 5 ton trucks for the Mobile Artillery program and hold off on purchasing a new fleet to replace the MLVW until 2008-2010 when a giant leap forward in capability will be realized with the introduction of the Future Tactical Truck.


----------



## XJimmy

Thanks so far guys.  Some more thoughts I was kicking around.  Maybe a larger truck with armour is better?  You can move supplies in safer, in less trips?  Is airportability really required?  And are we out of sync with other nations in purchasing of our logistics vehicles.  Meaning the technology.  I thought the ML was/is a great vehicle but how much longer until the fleet of ML's is done?


----------



## a_majoor

Since the US buys its equipment in vast quantities, it is probably better to syncronize our buys with theirs.

Larger trucks have their place, but it becomes a sort of cost cost benifit analysis. Fewer trucks = less cost, but each downed truck = more risk of not getting supplies. The only armoured vehicles should be "admin troop" vehicles directly supporting the F ech.


----------



## a_majoor

Here is a rather unorthodox idea for a new truck: 

http://www.newholland.com/h4/products/products_series_detail.asp?Reg=NA&RL=ENNA&NavID=000001277003&series=000005218311

The machine is designed to go cross country, has a built in "fork lift" type arm for picking up cargo, and a tilt bed to off load. Farmers want reliable and inexpensive machinery, and so do we! 

Yes, it may not be the 100% solution, but it would probably be a lot simpler to throw a few mods on a machine like that than to wait until 2008-2010, or design a new truck from scratch.


----------



## 12alfa

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since we will probably have to wait until at least 2008 or beyond, we should at least think about some more exotic options.



Don't take this the wrong way...............

But have we not got enough unproven, poor designs, not used by others, etc, type equipment?

Ie: MGS,ADATS,LSVW,MLVE, and we all know how this is working out don't we.

Can't we for once buy equipment that is in wide use, proven, and a assembly line in place. or would this make us look like fools?


----------



## Gunnerlove

Lets not touch Hybrid vehicles until the civilian ones start to perform as promised. If you need more power throw a second alternator and a couple extra batteries into a vehicle. Leave one on the ignition/starter circut and use the others for the accessories. 2-4 lead acid batteries will cost a hell of alot less to replace than the battery pack in any hybrid. As an added feature you would make it harder to kill a vehicles battery.


----------



## a_majoor

By the time we get around to buying a replacement for the MLVW, hybrids will have developed a track record. If we tie into the US program, production line economies will be available for both the purchase and support of the "electro-ML".

The New Holland hay baler might be a bit of an odd suggestion, but it is currently available, and has many of the qualities we might want in a transport truck. The built in "forklift", or whatever it is called allows the driver/store man to pick up palletized or containerized cargo, and the tipping loadbed allows the same one man to offload the truck as well. One troop can do the work of many, and a lot faster too.

The point is a 1950's vintage design will not work for 21rst century warfare and military operations.


----------



## dodge01rt

As a reserve driver in the mid to late '80s the ML was a great truck,it had loads of power from the 500 Detroit.As a lark on an exercises one weekend I proved that the ML could do a 4 wheel brake stand.Thats a ton of power. >


----------



## Mountie

I don't know if MAN has also been taken over by Stery/S&S, but the MAN trucks are completely different.


----------



## FEEOP042

Mountie........Styre was bought out by MAN. I think that we should buy the MAN I have used them and it is a great truck. The Styre you have to raise the cab to do your DI but the man you don't engine access is behind the cab. Less glass in the front I find as well.


----------



## WOLO

for those that are curious there is a MLVW replcaement project inthe works, I have been following it closely, As it stands reight now, they are planning to buy a SMP for the regs and you guessed it a MILCOT for the reserves.  They are looking at a "buy of opurtunity " as S&S has offered their FMTV to them but who knows where that will go. As for the rest the project team had sent out a survey to the users quite some time ago asking for input( this is how I found out) And they make take some of the info into account, but they are looking at a 4.5 ton( the MLVW is actually a 5tn) truck with PLS capabilities...


----------



## Kirkhill

Now that would be just plain dumb.  If there is one piece of SMP kit that the Reserves should have it is the MLVW.  Especially if Disaster Assistance and Humanitarian Aid missions are in there future.

Rugged, off-road capability with a large pay-load and easy (relatively speaking guys - no offence intended) to drive.

Able to get past mud-slides.


----------



## a_majoor

Buying two different types of trucks to "save money" is the most expensive possible option!

You have less economy of scale, two separate supply and logistics chains, no interoperability between the Reg and Reserve worlds, and as Kirkhill says a MilcotsLVW has little utility in a disaster relief scenario.

Is *ANY* thought process at all going into this decision?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I think you will find that distribution will be based on task - MILCOTs for admin work (driving from one base to another, from Supply to Transport), and MILSPEC for field work (resupply, tp lift etc) - and not Reg / Res as suggested.

Dave


----------



## Bomber

Talking with some of the vehicle replacement guys, one option is a "modular" system, where the basic chassis is common, and there are various "modules" to be put on the vehicle, like armour, SEV kits, cranes and other fancy jazz.  Just about the same as what we have right now, but the Reserves, and Regs not on deployment or pre-deployment would use the basic cab with their applicable kits on it, armour would be used in work up and deployment.


----------



## TCBF

Seems to me "everything old is new again" .  Way back, we had Deuce-and-a-halfs, plus 3 Ton "Stake" (S/C: Special Commercial) trucks as well. Many out their will recall propane modded three tons being driven around their basic training, and carrying their kit to and from the Granville Ranges.

Tom


----------



## Kirkhill

Nine Companies Short-Listed For ADF Vehicles Tender 
  
  
(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued March 17, 2005)
  
  
 Nine companies have been short-listed to supply medium and heavy military vehicles to the Australian Defence Force as part of Project Overlander, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.  

The short-listed companies are ADI Limited, Daimler Chrysler Australia-Pacific, General Dynamics - Land Systems Australia, MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG, Mack Truck Australia, Scania Australia, Stewart & Stevenson, Tenix Defence and Terex Corporation.  

Senator Hill said the short-list was selected after detailed assessment of responses from 18 companies following an invitation to register interest.  

Senator Hill also announced that ADF light vehicles would be acquired through an open tender process and that plans for acquisition of trailers were also being finalised.  

As part of the initial phase of Project Overlander, vehicles and trailers will be replaced in Army's high readiness units, such as 3 Brigade, 5 Aviation Regiment, 10 Force Support Battalion located in Townsville and Sydney and RAAF high readiness units located in Amberley.  

The vehicles and trailers are scheduled to be delivered between 2008 and 2010 at a cost of up to $600 million. A later phase of the project will replace the vehicle and trailer fleet in remaining units.  

"Field vehicles and trailers are the backbone of the Australian Defence Force's land warfighting support, sustainment, deployment and redeployment structure. They are used to transport personnel, combat supplies, materiel, replacement combat systems and to evacuate casualties from the battlefield if necessary," Senator Hill said.  

"These vehicles and trailers also serve as platforms and prime movers for weapons systems, and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance and electronic warfare capabilities.  

"Our current fleet is ageing and is becoming more costly to maintain and upgrade. The vehicles will comprise six classes of basic vehicle chassis, ranging from lightweight to prime movers with interchangeable modules to increase operational flexibility."  

-ends-  

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34


----------



## Trogdor

Oh cool that Stewart & Stevenson truck is what the US used for the HMARS.  The lighter version of the MLRS.  Holds half the rounds and can be deployed via herc.

I think this would be a good replacement for the MLVW

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24067&highlight=marine+truck


----------



## Maclimius

With regards to the disaster relief scenario, I'm not sure how many of you were actually involved with Operation Peregrine back in 2003, but the terrain that we covered with MLVWs with troops in the back were areas that not even the beefed up forestry trucks were able to get in to. I would sort of compare those forestry trucks to the MILCOTS except for one fact. The forestry trucks could get in to better places. With it's low suspension and huge, flat skid plate, you can get high centred on even fairly well maintained roads, let alone badly maintained ones. The MLVW is still a great utility vehicle. The only thing holding it back is age. No matter how many times you change the oil, change the tires, weld the rust spots, eventually the chasis wears out. Going with a newer model makes sense. The Americans did it, why can't we. Then we could actually get back in line with their logistics vehicle production scheme. 

Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer to have a vehicle that is locally made, but the cost difference far outweighs the benefit. The LSVW was a perfect example of that. I live in Kelowna, the same city as the now defunct Western Star that built it (bought out by Freightliner and sold off). From having talked to the people that were working the assembly line, they thought it was a piece of crap as they were building it. They couldn't do anything about it due to outside political pressure. 

We should just stick with a design that works, with a few updates of course (better fuel efficiency, more efficient transmission, etc.), and reuse it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## Colin2

We were quite unimpressed with the MLVW when it first arrived, lots of problems, including spring mounts, frames, fender,etc Not to mention that screwy spare tire setup. The old Deuce was a better thought out vehicle, although underpowered. The MLVW could have been a really winner but was buggered up by the builder and by DND cost saving exercises.

The army in Germany in the 80's had the MAN 8x8's cargo and wrecker version, very nice vehicles and well liked.

We had an old 3 ton stake truck with a slant-6, great old truck ran for years, they tried to take it without replacing it. We maintained it ourselves until till they literal had to bring the MP's to get it from us. Yes ever unit should one


----------



## Gunnerlove

The MILCOTS has limited use in "certain" disaster relief scenarios. Kind of like the Iltis was of limited use in a great deal of situations such as medical evac and resupply. 

Apples and oranges.


----------



## Bomber

I drove the Oshkosh MTVR on Wednesday last week.  Fits in our Herc's without waivers, carries a crap load of weight, is crazy big, and is designed to be idiot proof.  It is also the chosen truck of the Marine corps, the company told us they had just signed a deal for 1020 more trucks on top of their order.  The truck has a 425 hp caterpillar engine, and over 1500 foot pounds of torque.  Dudes, I have seen no better truck.


----------



## Good2Golf

Bomber said:
			
		

> I drove the Oshkosh MTVR on Wednesday last week.   Fits in our Herc's without waivers, carries a crap load of weight, is crazy big, and is designed to be idiot proof.   It is also the chosen truck of the Marine corps, the company told us they had just signed a deal for 1020 more trucks on top of their order.   The truck has a 425 hp caterpillar engine, and over 1500 foot pounds of torque.   Dudes, I have seen no better truck.



Bomber, I heard a rumbling that the USMC was now using the MTVR as the tractor for their M777 LW 155mm gun.  You wouldn't happen to know what the empty (with basic fluids) weight of an MTVR is, would you?

Thanks,
Duey


----------



## Gunner98

According to USMC MTVR website @ http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/p&r/concepts/2000/PDFs/Chapter4/MTVR.PDF
The MTVR's weight of 28,000 lbs and reducible height of 98 inches make it internally transportable by C-130 and externally by CH-53.


----------



## JackD

Hi! I'm new here - but a long time ago i was a sapper ( 5 Genie, 3 Fld sqn - 1CER). Regarding this truck, how good is it on the highway - what's it top speed - as I can remember the long slow road moves from Chilliwack to Wainwright. It seems to me that most Canadian Forces driving is on road as opposed to off-road so is it too much truck for CF purposes. By the way - could anyone tell me regarding CF vehicles -what are the concepts of holdings - I presume there's no such thing as a 1/4 ton now but who gets what and why currently and in planning? Tnx


----------



## Bomber

One of the pictures in the brochure had it towing the M777, The one I drove had 5 tons of steel plate bolted in the back to give the drivers a demo of how it would perform off road when loaded.  It is rated at carrying 7.1 tons off and 15 on, so it would squeeze a bunch more life out of the HLVW fleet as well.  The one I drove with weight pulled an unofficial 0-50mph in about 12 seconds, going by my watch down a long straight road with a bit of a rise.  I was also able to climb a 24 inch concrete step by pulling right up to it, engaging the 6 wheel, and then pressing on the gas.  The engine is a Cat "c-9 or c-12"??? I don;t know if that makes any sense, but hp numbers were 425 and torque was around 1500.  I also liked the limp home capability.  The marines are only ordering every 6th one with a spare tire mounted, all the rest upon receiving a flat that the CTIS can't cope with, are treated to a bar being inserted into the suspension arms and then being twisted like a giant bolt.  This compresses the suspension, raising the wheel with bad tire off the ground, and then the vehicle "limps" home.  The truck was also very smart, there wa s a computer in the cab, that did a proper DI upon starting, much like in the new silverado's and stuff, only smarter.  It would tell you when you had a faulty driver.  The cab on the one I drove was made by DEW and was armoured against 7.62 AP


----------



## Bomber

Sorry, in the brocure it is actually towing an M198, and the engine is a C-12.  Top speed is 65 mph.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/04/08/032959.html

Stewart and Stevenson has apparently bought the UK company that produces the Pinzgauer (ATK)

They now hold the G-Wagen, the Pinzgauer and the FMTV.

Any chance of one-stop shopping for a fleet?


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

Ever checked out Stewart & Stevenson's FMTV trucks, they have a pretty good variety. You can find their site on army-technology.com.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the suggestion BPC.   
Cheers


----------



## Bomber

We should be jumping onto the next generation not the last generation, MTVR not the FMTV


----------



## Kirkhill

Bomber: 

I thought MTVR and FMTV were concurrent designs?  The reason I prefer the FMTV over the MTVR is the Cab-over design. Logistically it is easier to pack FMTVs than MTVRs.  More trucks into a smaller space.


----------



## JackD

it's been awhile since any-one has posted on this thread - Is there any new information on  MLVW replacements?


----------



## Bomber

MTVR seems to be a huge leap over the FMTV, both of which are a quantum leap over the current ML.  I would figure cab over would be a bad item, mine blasts going upwards, I think that was one of the things the DEW people said tat the Demo I went to.  The way the cab is armoured and shaped is designed to protect the driver, putting the cab of the wheels was bad according to the company that didn;t do it.  Plus the engine is enormous, a giant Cat diesel.  The truck even tells the maintainers when the current driver is an idiot.  Finally, after being told how, I was able to hop in and drive like a pro, not friggin around.  Beyond everything, it can climb a 24 inch concrete step, like it wasn't even there.  It is also a 1998 design, vs the FMTV which I think is a 1988 design.  At the rated strength, it will easily spell off the HL's as they get ready for Life Extension, and only take up a bit more space than an HL.


----------



## Kirkhill

> I would figure cab over would be a bad item, mine blasts going upwards, I think that was one of the things the DEW people said tat the Demo I went to.



Thanks Bomber.  That's something I hadn't thought of.  In any event, if we are going to have a BFS to get the trucks from one place to another space is not going to be at such a premium.



> It is also a 1998 design, vs the FMTV which I think is a 1988 design.



That too was news.

Cheers.


----------



## Bomber

"if we are going to have a BFS to get the trucks from one place to another space is not going to be at such a premium."

Another good reason for the MTVR, the USMC requested a truck that wouldn't rust.  So, the vehicle is made of some steal that is light, strong and has a high content of something to eliminate rust.  The info given was that a fresh scar in the metal would oxidize and seal itself after about a week.  The described it as a self healing material.  Once the oxidization has happened, the scar is effectively sealed and good as new.  And being Marine kit, they are designed for being carried on ships, in moist environments.


----------



## Kirkhill

Should also increase life expectancy at Gagetown, Valcartier and Petawawa - assuming that they are still salting highways down there. 

Cheers

Re-reading your description it almost sounds like they are made of stainless steel.  Is it possible that that's what they are made of?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

In regard to MTVR vs. FMTV, the reason why the Marines went with the OshKosh MTVR was because they had a requirement for a 7 ton rather than  2.5 or 5 ton requirement that the US Army had.

MTVR is a very capable vehicle, but for alot of what the CF uses the ML for, it's serious overkill.  A 5 ton FMTV would probably be a more capable mix.  Also, if DND played their cards right, a combination buy of FMTV and Pinzgauer from Stewart and Stevenson might be an economical way to replace the MLVW and LSVW in one buy.  With Stewart and Stevenson now owning Pinzgauer, I'd imagine that alot of parts commonalities between the two vehicle types will develop.


----------



## Bomber

As soon as this notion of air transport exhausts itself, I figure we should get some better kit.  Cause lets face it, the planes aren't getting more capable of lifting things with age.  The HL's are going for their refit, going to be a big capability gap for a while until they are all back.  The ML's are pretty much toast.  And if we get those big Honkin ships, then I demand a big honkin truck.  And the MTVR fits my bill.  Besides, towing 155's with a bunch of ammo will require a bunch of truck.  Once they start up armouring things, the truck will be reduced to a 5 ton capacity, where the FMTV would be brought down to almost ML equivalent.


----------



## Allen

> I would figure cab over would be a bad item, mine blasts going upwards, I think that was one of the things the DEW people said tat the Demo I went to.



Plus with a cab forward design, every time you hit a big bump or pothole, you really feel it because you're right over the axle.


----------



## Gunnerlove

Not to be a dick but all steel will rust, even stainless (trust me). If it will form an oxide over eposed metal it is probably hot dip galvanized steel. The zinc will provide limited protection to the steel. 

Weight reduction and corrosion resistance were the reason Hummers have aluminum bodies.


----------



## Kirkhill

Right enough Gunnerlove. Stainless needs contact with particular metals to make it rust though,  like iron filings from a brush used to clean a black iron weld.  Those few bits of iron will be enough to start corrosion.

Having said that,  I would be surprised if stainless were the metal of choice because AFAIK stainless makes a poor structural metal tending to break rather than bend.  But I only use it for making yoghurt .

I haven't worked with galvanized steels.


----------



## 1feral1

The US M35 has been around since the early 60's at least (gasoline powered and manual transmission), and before that was ther trusty US M135, which we had. The good ole Duce! We had 'em  in Regina from 1951-to about 1956 models. A certain Queen Bee by the name of Godzilla rings a bell, along with 2.5T cargos, Stinky (POL veh), and Ditch witch, names which were stenciled below the driver's door.

I remember when we took the ML conversion course in MJ back in Jan/Feb 1984. In 2000, I was again in an MLVW '062' the same one I trained on 22 yrs back. It still ran, was in good shape for her age, and was a bit rusty on the guards, but it still smelled the same!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## teddy49

All right I'm new here and this is my first post, so I'm gonna preface it with some backround.  I've been in the Mo ( and driving MLs for almost 12 years now)  Infantry not trucker.  I've been a professional truck driver, for 10 years.  Recently, I spent 7 months in Iraq, pulling fuel tankers for KBR from base to base.  My opinions are based on these experiences.  As far as cab over design being a liability, when Mines or IEDs are concerned, At KBR ( where we ran European cabover Volvo's and Mercedes Actros trucks) we found the opposite to usually be true.  Iraq may be an anomaly, but most IEDs were detonated on the right side of the vehicle at ground level.  This placed the motor in the ideal position to protect the driver, if it went off under the truck.  If it was beside the truck, our Kevlar blankets did an excellent job of stopping fragments and even AK fire.  That being said, my vote would still go to the Oshkosh.  First, I love the motor.  I have driven trucks with virtually every motor available in the 12 liter 425 horsepower class.  Series 60 Detroit, E-7 Mack, D-12 Volvo, and the C-12 Cat.  I love that motor.  Regardless of what the numbers say, the one I had when I pulled turnpike doubles in Alberta would outpull an N-14/460 Cummins.  The 3126 Cat, even with it's rating of 330 horsepower, is IMHO up to the task.  At only 7.2 liters, it's just too small, especially what you start moving sea containers and the like.  Keep in mind that the 300 horse motor in the HLVW is 10 liters in displacement.  That's a Chevy v-6.  But seriously, the more understressed the motor the better.  Especially for military applications, where long life is major requirement.  The 3126 in the FMTV is at the upper end of its performance envelope.  The C-12 isn't.  The 3126 has a checkered past in commercial service anyway, even in the lower ratings.  The independent suspension on the Oshkosh is a pretty advanced setup and certainly more complex than the leaf spring and sway bar arrangement that the FMTV employs and that counts against it.  Plus coil springs are a pain to change compared to leaf springs, and these are some coils.  But it's not an overly complex setup, and I think that the benefits in ride and the lower resultant stress on other vehicle components help to make up for the complexity.  If it's simpler (is that a word) but you have to fix it more, is there any benefit.  

Also, and I think that this is a major benefit, the Oshkosh, has a more modular armour kit that attaches to the existing Cab Structure.  If you want to up armour a FMTV, you have to put an entirely new cab on it.  You want to talk logistical night mare.

And going from the user feedback perspective, many Army personnel that I talked to weren't totally in love with the FMTV.  It's more comfortable versus the old trucks, but it has some reliability issues, in Army service.  I couldn't get them to elaborate on those issues though.  The marines I talked to had no complaints and many praises for the Oshkosh.  If that's anything to go by.

Just my $0.02


----------



## ringo

I'm new here never been in the military but for 20 years operated a few trucks in a company I owned started out with 10 ton payload vehicles but in the final years operated 20 ton payload on road of course, IMHO the forces need to be doing more with less ie fewer 2 1/2 ton type's more 5 or 10 ton types I certainly like the looks of the Oshkosh truck they have a very good reputation.


----------



## Kyle

Mountie said:
			
		

> I don't know if MAN has also been taken over by Stery/S&S, but the MAN trucks are completely different.



Vice-versa. Steyr trucks are built by MAN now. That's why the HLVW has German NATO stock numbers on all the parts. I wondered why that was, until I found out that Steyr sold their truck building operations to MAN.

Gun Plumber:

Agreed on every point. The ML is anything BUT underpowered. The V8 that they dropped into it has power enough to pull a 105 uphill as fast as an unloaded LSVW MRT. It has a lot more power than the US version. It doesn't even have a turbocharger, and it can still do what it has to do with plenty of power to spare. The design is geriatric, sure, but if we introduced a new truck, how much would we really have to change? I'd change a few things (like the faulty intermediate / rear axle system, for starters), but the concept would be pretty much the same. As far as off-road capability, towing capacity, and versatility, the ML's not a bad design. The concept of the truck isn't its weakness - it's the way that it was built.

"Far to often Canada replaces veh or equipment with unproven designs and tries to work out the bugs after we've already accepted it."

Heh. Why does the LSVW come so readily to mind? Although, to be fair, I think it's more a victim of its specifications as anything else. The Army wanted a cheap truck that would be good on fuel, and that's what they got. I think our problem is that we expect too little and expect to get it too cheap. Here's to hoping tht we don't do something similar to that experiment when the times eventually does com to replace the MLVW.


----------



## Kirkhill

> I think our problem is that we expect too little...


Too little or too much?      Maybe just unrealistic - trying to buy one size fits all gear



> and expect to get it too cheap


   Amen brother...although the PWGSC mark-up does tend to confound things.


----------



## Bomber

To much for to little, sounds like an iltis replacement being used as an armoured convoy escort.


----------



## Spr.Earl

We are cheap and thrat's a fact! 
Why don't we just buy all the old SMP multi fuelers from the States.Loads of parts,the are built like a tank and are simple to maintain.
Yes I have driven loads of them,with the calibre of drivers we have we would have no probs with them.
Militaries to day are fogetting the old addage of "KISS" Keep it Simple Stupid.
For certain Arms yes have specialised vehicles but for over all MSR use the old SMP is good enough if our drivers are trained to do 1st and some 2nd Ech. maintenance.


----------



## teddy49

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Why don't we just buy all the old SMP multi fuelers from the States.Loads of parts,the are built like a tank and are simple to maintain.
> 
> Cause they're using them all right now.  You should see the motley collection of deuces and 5 tons running around here,  I've even seen some old RIOs in Air Force service up at LSA Anaconda.  I think they are some of the first diesel trucks that the US military had.
> 
> For what it's worth we had more than a few convoy escorts done buy guys in M35 5-tons and they were a lot more reliable than the M1114 hummvees.  But they were slow.  Changing tires sucks on them, since you have to disassemble the central inflation system on the wheel and then put it back together properly for the wheel to mount.  And when you have to figure it out, cause the Army guys who you're "helping" are all Air Defense guys whose home unit has M-113s, and they have no clue when it comes to 5-tons.  Learining how to do this on ASR Evansville is fun.  But there's nothing like dirty looks from the bad guys to keep you motivated to learn.
> 
> Just my $0.02


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Looks like OshKosh is gearing up to submit a version of their MTVR for the MLVW replacement program:
http://www.oshkoshtruckcanada.com/


----------



## teddy49

Agreed on every point. The ML is anything BUT underpowered. The V8 that they dropped into it has power enough to pull a 105 uphill as fast as an unloaded LSVW MRT. It has a lot more power than the US version. It doesn't even have a turbocharger, and it can still do what it has to do with plenty of power to spare. 

This is the part I where I ask what you're smoking ;D   The 250 horse 14 liter turboed Cummins has less power than the 160 horse 8 liter naturally aspirated Detroit?   How do you figure.   I will grant that the ML may have a superior power to weight ratio versus the M35.   But the M35 is a substantially heavier vehicle.   But the M35s that they are running here will do 100 -105 kph.   I've heard lots of stories about MLs that would do that, but in almost 12 years in the military, I've never seen one, never mind driven one. I don't understand how compairing a slow underpowered overburdened vehicle to one that is woefully inadequate in every regard, means that the ML is great. ???   Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to slag the ML.   It has been soldiering on since before a lot of soldiers were born and continues to give faithful service today, despite its age.   But the times, they are a changing.   Where are you gonna put a TCCS mount, PLGRS mount, and Athena, or the american MTS system, if they ever come on line, in an ML.   There's no room.   Never mind the ammo for the c-6 or the fifty in the ring mount on the roof.   Oh that's right, we don't use fifty anymore.   But there's new realities in modern warfare that the ML wasn't designed for.   One is that even logistical vehicles need the firepower that only support weapons can provide.   Another is that these things are rolling phone booths/radio stations with all the satellite and radio gear that's stuffed in them.   I've been inside an M35 with all this crap in it and it's a tight fit for just me with my vest on.   Never mind that the yanks are stuffing 3 guys into this thing for convoy duty.   (Driver, Vehicle Commander, and Gunner)   The trucks can't handle it.   The people can't handle it.   There's better stuff out there that could be had for less money than a life extension program for MLs.   And the new stuff does actually work better.   Sorry but it's true.

 What would you rather have, a new old truck, or a new truck.


----------



## Mountie

"We should be jumping onto the next generation not the last generation, MTVR not the FMTV"

This is exactly why the MAN series would be more appropriate.  The British Army will be taking delivery of the MAN 6, 12 & 18 tonne trucks in the next few years and will be using them for the next 20+ years.  CF personnel are often deployed on international operations with British and German units and therefore there would be some opportunities for sharing of spare parts.


----------



## George Wallace

Mann has been producing some very fine trucks for the military for a long time.   The great thing about German engineering, is that they have thought of the 'end-user' in designing things.   One socket for all the vital Drivers Maint.   Locations of Filler Caps, Dip Sticks, Drain Plugs, etc.   It is in many cases some of the small things in designing a vehicle that will make it an acceptable vehicle for the troops to maintain and use.   It was a problem with many of the British machines; anyone change the oils on a Ferret?   A 'Plumbers Nightmare".   

The Mann Tank Transporter, for instance, was designed with the same power pack as the Leopard.   It has a hydraulic system in the trailer, to load or recover AFVs and MBTs in any gradient.   It came equipped with a winch system to recover 'Dead Heads'.   If this company keeps producing equipment like this, it is no problem buying right off the shelf.


----------



## Kirkhill

At least it will give an opportunity to find out how they operate in Canadian service?  S&S, as noted elsewhere, also has rights to the G-Wagen and the Pinzgauer.  It makes for an interesting stable.


----------



## Gunnerlove

Anyone who claims the MLVW has enough power has never driven one through the Rockies. The brakes are what really scare me though.


----------



## Craig B

Agree with you there Gunnerlove . Not enough power and backward breaking system . 

It has a few other faults too , front heater/defroster sucks , windshield whipers are bad  and the drivers seat dosen't adjust enough ( backwards , up/down ) . 

It could really use a weapons mount too . 

Craig


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thought the weapons mount, on the ML/ Gun Tractor, for you guys was the tow pintle


----------



## Craig B

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thought the weapons mount, on the ML/ Gun Tractor, for you guys was the tow pintle



It is indeed   ;D

However , the 105mm C3 is a tad unwieldy when dealing with an ambush or an air attack .

Craig


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.ssss.com/NR/rdonlyres/3173DB68-638B-4325-9924-DF74CA01FD31/778/LSAC.pdf

Surfing for something else I came across this.   The LSAC (Low Signature Armored Cab) for the FMTV trucks.   8 man-hours to swap out with the conventional cab.

Stanag 4569 Level 2 7.62mm AP for glass and cab

Stanag 4569 Level 2a, 3a Exceeds 12-16 lbs mines.

Still C-130 transportable.

This article is interesting as well.   http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=25891 

It discusses whether logistics vehicles need to be permanently armoured or whether a replaceable cab like the FMTV one above is adequate.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/fmtv-lsac_armored-cabs.jpg


----------



## a_majoor

I talked to the Stevenson & Stewart guy about the replacable cab at AUSA, and his take on it was that unarmoured cabs provided better fuel economy and vehicle life due to reduced weight. Leaving armoured cabs off trucks in training establishments and on bases in the US made perfect sense from that perspective, and it is a fairly simple conversion which can be done in theater, or better still, before the truck rolls onto the transport and departs to theater.


----------



## TN2IC

I would not want to tilt that cab with all that weight!!!! I have seen one roll before.. no lie.


----------



## TN2IC

Kyle said:
			
		

> Vice-versa. Steyr trucks are built by MAN now. That's why the HLVW has German NATO stock numbers on all the parts. I wondered why that was, until I found out that Steyr sold their truck building operations to MAN.




Not to make anyone sounds dumb.... Steyr is Austrian, not German. Correct me if I am wrong. Sorry about the post jaking.

Arte and Marte...


----------



## teddy49

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Not to make anyone sounds dumb.... Steyr is Austrian, not German. Correct me if I am wrong. Sorry about the post jaking.
> 
> Arte and Marte...



If you read the post again, Steyr being Austrian, would explain his confusion vis a vis their parts having a German NATO Stock Number.  MAN of course is german.


----------



## Timex129

My feelings on this. Keep the MLVW's in the fleet. All you need to do is upgrade the suspendsion (not really needed).
But the brakes on the other hand, they need some work. The brakes been an illegal system since the last one rolled off the line. Switch the brakes to a HD hydrulic system or an air brake system, either way the air over hydrulic system should be removed. If compition rock crawers are useing the same drivetraing we are there has to be a reason for it. If their looking for a vehicle to replace it should be the LSVW. I want to know what was going through KIM CAmbell's head on that one. I think it was something like this ( Oh look, it's such a cute little truck let's sign the contract know). Oh well they're not that bad for a first line MRT if you really know how to look after one.


----------



## Gunnerlove

20+ year old army trucks are a liability in peacetime and do not require a restoration they require a far more cost effective solution, replacement. 

Our fleet is suffering from rust out and pimping your ride is not going to fix the problem.


----------



## TN2IC

Time to call TLC to fix the MLVW's... image a pimped out MLVW? Watch out... it will happen.


----------



## lostrover

Good another vehicle thread!!  Seems the CF had alot of MAN trucks in Germany......yet they got all sold off, what should we buy???  S&S, Steyr etc.......not a viable option for the CF, for our purchase is too small, thus spares will become an issue.  The MLVW is already a great platform.......readin one of the post about poor braking..........try compression braking and driving for the conditions.  The US Army many M35 2.5/5T vehicles at less than 1/2 the cost of replacement and was able to continue to use its vast supply of replacement parts on vehicles that were built in the 1960's and were able increase mobility and save the taxpayers alot of money in doing so.  Imagine an MLVW, stripped down fully rebuilt, new powerplant, CTIS system, real air brakes etc...........a dependable workhorse that all the techs know how to maintain and doesn't have to deal with the electrial/cpu problems of the FMTV Series trucks.  The LSVW..(gonna start something here) in its original platform is an amazing vehicle as the Iveco 410, its just that when we feel the need to build vehicle in Canada with all new tooling there are many issues.............how many problems do the major automotive manufactures have with an initial production run???/ loads...........to save money all around we need to buy from the existing manufacutres......whom have already worked out the bugs


----------



## XJimmy

New models of the MTVR are up in the Oshkosh site for those interested.  Includes dump, tractor and LHS variants.


----------



## William Webb Ellis

XJimmy said:
			
		

> Oshkosh site



you don't mean, http://www.oshkoshbgosh.com/ do you,   because I think that is where they found the LSVW


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I remember when they introduced the MLVW to replace the Deuce, we were all excited until we got them. They certainly had lots more power than the 6cyl inline that we had before. But the MLVW suffered from a lot of “Bombardier engineering issues”

The MLVW is a evolution of a design that can trace it’s origins back to WWII. The basic layout is good, it just that the company that built it screwed it up. I remember spring hanger coming off, warped frames, the winch being almost useless and spare tire holder was a POS. The old deuce had a spare tire hanger that allowed one person to easily manoeuvre the tire on and off. Also the steel used in construction was not as good as the deuce. 

The MLVW seats however were much better and the Gun tractor version was a step up in luxury for the poor buggers in the back. The basic M35 design is good and can be redone again and just fix what you don’t like from the current version. Jordon makes a armour system for them and adding a basic MG ring like the US did would be simple.


----------



## Kirkhill

"Bombardier Engineering Issues"

Likely the same issues that plague the LSVW.

That is the advantage of working with a company that makes thousands of units on permanently established production lines.  They learn from their mistakes.  They  continue in business so they can fix them.  They maintain good quality assurance systems to ensure that they don't make those same costly mistakes again.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Since my overriding concern as I've voiced in other threads is an enemy's ability to determine time & place of ambushes with RPG's and IED's, my lean would be towards the MTVR with heavy add-on armour packs for foreign deployments.

RE:  The MTVR being bigger than the vehicles they would replace which seems to concern some of you, can you elaborate on situations where you see this being a problem?


Thanks in advance,  Matthew.


----------



## el_wiersema

I heard the americans had a large 8x8 that didn't have a disel engin. I was all electric and it had amazing power. It recharged it's batteries whenever it braked. I think i saw it on the discovery channel. So if the discovery channel said it, then it must be true right?


----------



## Gunner98

GM, General Dynamics, Oshkosh and Hummer have designed protypes of Hybrid vehicles that are under consideration - more than 30,000 vehicles could be contracted:

trucks.about.com/cs/militarytrucks/a/gm_miltary.htm
www.dodsbir.net/Sitis/view_ pdf.asp?id=HE%208x8%20AHED%2027.pdf 
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Jan/Military_Vehicles.htm
www.oshkoshtruck.com/pdf/ Oshkosh_HEMMT_A3_w-ProPulse.pdf


----------



## Kyle

At the CI-SQFT, they have a few MilCOTS (Military Commercial Off-The-Shelf) Sterling trucks to replace the ML. At 5 BNS, we don't have any yet, so I haven't seen any, and unfortunately don't know much more about them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Most of the units when I joined up had a 3-5 ton stake truck that was bought off the street, it saved wear and tear on the MilSpec vehicles for the day to day chores and they generally have more volume than the MilSpec trucks. Good for supporting moves from one base to another for exercises. We managed to keep our for an extra 6 years by doing all of our own maintenance, including axle and engine repairs. The bean counters were desperate to grab it because it had outlived it’s “lifespan” and it was screwing up their books, yet they refused to replace it and it was the most used truck in the fleet. Truly short-sighted thinking.   :


----------



## Ljealexander

The announcement of the Canadian Forces purchase of new medium trucks was made earlier today.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/27/military-trucks.html


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I was wondering when someone was going to bump this! I see they mention a mixture of military tactical trucks, specialized stuff like field kitchens, as well as commercial trucks - I take it they mean those big cube trucks?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Yup...the representational photos I've seen look like the old 5 ton stakes... The actual vehicle could be anything, though.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.militarytrucks.man-mn.com/en/Products/Medium_Mobility_Military_Range__The_HX_series.jsp

Here's a link to the Medium MAN trucks that are currently being purchased by the Brits.  They are also buying the heavier SX series.  Does anybody know who their Canadian partner might be?

As near as I can understand the contenders to date we have:

Oerlikon Aerospace aligned with Stewart & Stevenson on the US Army's FMTV
DEW Engineering aligned with Oshkosh on the US Marine's MTVR
The MAN trucks are entering service with the British forces but as noted I don't know the Canadian partner if any.

Another runner might be the Steyr trucks - younger and smaller cousins to the HLVW  (http://www.swiec.com/p1-7.htm ) which might be put forward by Mercedes and/or Frank Stronach's Magna corporation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

so what are the pro's and cons of 4x4 vs 6x6 in this weight class, the 4x4 would seem to be simpler and cheaper to build, but the 6x6 would like have better cross country performance and ground pressure.


----------



## Wookilar

Don't look at from a 4x4 or 6x6 point of view. It's all about the number of axles (yes, I know, essentially the same thing, except for the emphasis). It will be dependant on how much weight per axle the vehicle is able to carry. Keep in mind, one of the "reasons" the LSVW was "selected" was because it was a single wheel 4X4 design, whereas the big three domestic bids were all dually 4X4's. WWS claimed that their design could effectively carry the required weight without the dual rear wheels. A load of crap, of course, but I digress.

As for size being a factor, there are a lot of places where an HL/ML (virtually the same width, if you hadn't noticed) can not fit in between buildings. Remember, a lot of the places we go still use donkeys and Kosovo Harley's as their main mode of transport, therefore the roads are still essentially goat paths. Wide open desert is one thing, getting to the middle of a fair sized town is another.

Getting an HL Wrecker or an ML MRT to a job site can be a little interesting at times. Or talk to anyone that has ever driven one of the ML POL pod trucks with the puppy pod in tow.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I had the pleasure of driving a 5 ton in Germany, following an idiot in a 5/4 ton on a "shortcut" through some villages.  :


----------



## lostrover

Seeing as I might have once crossed paths with Wookilar at one point in time...............................our theatre of operations is not within North America, however our training is, which raises the issue of spares.  The FMTV platorm is over 20 years old and is scheduled for replacement in 2010.  The CF requires soemthing "old school" that will last, for our theatres, the Unimog or Pnzgauer seem appropriate, but both the vehicles have gone through alot of changes over the years, and no longer have band -aid fixes available to it (sorry tech's I know you try your dambest).  There are a few companies in the US that rework the M35 (aka MLVW platform) into the M35A2 and even modify it from existing stocks in to a 4x4 versus a 6x6.  anybody that has spent time near an MLVW knows the chassis can be narrowed quite easily.  Yes the US is using the FMTV Platform, yet the majority of its CSS comes from National Guard Units that are still using "old school" technology, and it works.  The MLVW fleet is approx. 2600 vehicles, we should be looking at a cost effective means.  Purchasing a new 2 1/2T platform for $3-500,000 per unit is now very feasible.  My rant is done.


----------



## Wong

See I was in Ottawa in the spring and I saw on the road a CDN prototype of the Oshkosh MTVR with a armour cab....from DEW eng....I suppose since GDLS is in London....I heard trought the branches that the Army might be purchasing part of the fleet from Oshkosh and the other part from Stewart & Stevenson for other type of truck....I might be wrong but since they want some special truck i.e. dental and medical truck..... For myself after seing the Oshkosh truck and some video on internet.....I would go for the Oshkosh truck.....better technology, 6 wheels independant suspension, Cat engine.....and lots of more really good features....


----------



## Allen

For those who are interested, here is the MSVS project web site which came online recently:

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

Also, the LOI for the MilCOTS portion of the project was released on MERX today:

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&State=7&id=PW-%24%24BW-004-14783&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=PpizxFrgWIiZMyf4SCZsJQ%3d%3d


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So they want 1500 military pattern vehicles with 1,000 SEV kits, which leaves 500 vehicles with basic cargo box. That number seems way to small to maintain a fleet for the next 15-20 years. Better to buy off the shelf then.

Buying a large fleet of commercial 5 ton trucks for general duties does make sense and reduces the wear on tactical vehicles.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Sorry, I must have missed it in skimming the links, but was in the projected "in-service" dates for the replacement vehicles?


Matthew.


----------



## Allen

> So they want 1500 military pattern vehicles with 1,000 SEV kits, which leaves 500 vehicles with basic cargo box. That number seems way to small to maintain a fleet for the next 15-20 years.



Are the SEV kits easily installed and removed? If so, maybe it is possible they plan to keep most vehicles in a basic cargo configuration, and install kits only when needed.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Allen said:
			
		

> Are the SEV kits easily installed and removed? If so, maybe it is possible they plan to keep most vehicles in a basic cargo configuration, and install kits only when needed.



Nope SEV kits are a complete modification of the said vehicle.

Example, Engineer SEV adds hydraulic tank, hoses and an earth auger.


----------



## Wookilar

You might be thinking of the engineer SEV's. They're a bit of a different ball of wax with the hydraulics involved.

A number of existing SEV bodies are just boxes of different sizes/configurations. Securing a Dental SEV is virtually the same as a SEV box for the clerks/Wpns Techs/Tool Crib, etc. to work out of. An HL with a HIAB is able to lift most (but not all) current SEV boxes. I really can't see them changing that too much. We just need new bodies (and some insulation and modern heaters would be nice). Anybody seen a parts kit for a Hunter Heater lately?

Wook


----------



## dapaterson

Ideally, we'd get a fleet of PLS-like vehicles, where the pods could be loaded on the mover as required.  More flexibility with the fleet; since Dental vehicle could easily leave the office at a static site, and then re-use the mover for whatever other task arises.

Certainly, there are risks in such an approach (ie what if we need to bug out and have more pods on the ground than vehicles to move them), but with fewer and fewer vehicles in our fleets, we need to make optimal use of each and every one that is available.


----------



## Gunnerlove

Not a new idea as "back in the Nam" the US installed self contained Artillery CPs in Sea Cans, which fit perfectly under a sky crane. If trucks towing guns can't get why would you expect the CP to? 

35 years behind the curve. Guess new to us is good enough.

As for SEV kits. The Artillery SEV mod is just a different bed and a troop heater.


----------



## retd cpl wife

Hello I am the retd cpl,  I have 14 yrs exp as an EME tech , veh tech that is. There are some short term things you can do to make the MLVW more acceptable until it is replaced. 1st remember the poor turn radius of the old 5 ton, there was a mod which altered the the placement of the steering box which improves turn radius. We all know MLVW turns like a train. Second as for comfort use the HLVW suspension seat for the dvr, I would suggest a little thicker padding for pass bench. As for the 3000 plus rpm scream can't do much about that unfortunately. unless you insulate the cab. It's called the screaming demon for a reason. Everyone wants a big creature feature truck.
so they can be comfy. Honestly, the reason why the MLVW was designed after previous vehicles was for simplicity. Also for quick retrieval & repairs when broken down. It is a multipurpose truck, so not everyone is gonna love or hate it.Over all it is a reliable vehicle when properly looked after.We had an MLVW MRT that ran on only 7 cyl, instead of 8 for at least 2 yrs, at the guns which did fine surprisingly.

Remember this is only my opinion.


----------



## retd cpl wife

Hello this is retd cpl again, was reading a post about MLVW brake system. What makes it illegal also is a single reservoir for brake fluid. Once you lose the fluid, you have no brake application accept for the good old hand brake, which is not an emergency brake, but a PARK brake. The hand brake is a drum mounted on the output shaft of the transfer case, to hold the vehicle weight while it is parked. One idea is to find a dual tank reservoir that fits on ML master cyl, so if you lose fluid on one side you still have something to safely bring you to a stop. Something which all pass cars & light trucks have on civilian streets.


----------



## TN2IC

Screaming demons... I"ve heard that so many times. It's refer to the Detroit engine. Boys can they scream!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

retd cpl wife said:
			
		

> Hello this is retd cpl again, was reading a post about MLVW brake system. What makes it illegal also is a single reservoir for brake fluid. Once you lose the fluid, you have no brake application accept for the good old hand brake, which is not an emergency brake, but a PARK brake. The hand brake is a drum mounted on the output shaft of the transfer case, to hold the vehicle weight while it is parked. One idea is to find a dual tank reservoir that fits on ML master cyl, so if you lose fluid on one side you still have something to safely bring you to a stop. Something which all pass cars & light trucks have on civilian streets.



Well actually most Sers IIA landrovers still have single reservoir brake system. As for the noise, I certainly didn't find it noisy, far quieter than the 5 ton and slightly more than the Deuce. My biggest whines were the lack of decent fording capability without prep compared to the Deuce, a much poorer designed spare tire mount and that the slight angle of the cab sides allowed rain into the cab as opposed to the Decue's slab sides. Also having a front spring hanger come off going through a small mud hole on a new truck didn't impress me and who ever designed the mount for that winch should have their hands crushed, it was an accident waiting to happen.


----------



## XJimmy

Does anybody have opinions as to whether or not the armoured heavy support vehicle requirements ( I realize it's just beginning to be looked at) will have a bearing on the choice of vehicle for medium support, and is any one manufacturer better able to meet this challenge than another ?


----------



## GAP

Has not the US gone through most of the various designs...why not take a peek at what they use and if possible buy off the shelf.


----------



## lostrover

GAP said:
			
		

> Has not the US gone through most of the various designs...why not take a peek at what they use and if possible buy off the shelf.



That would make way too much sense, and prevent the bureaucracy from spending lots of taxpayers money on "studies" and other useless money wasters, they much prefer to waste piles of money, letting some crackhead build it here in Canada.  Just go out and buy a COTS platform and be done with it, no testing required.....other users have already tested the life out of em.........well except for a cup holder that will hold a double-double on an 48% gradient!


----------



## GAP

lostrover said:
			
		

> well except for a cup holder that will hold a double-double on an 48% gradient!



Use that CD thingy....watch though....some times it closes and causes the cup to leak!!


----------



## jlorik

So...this thread has been quiet for a long time.  There was a recent article by Dave ******** in the Ottawa Citizen regarding:

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/12/01/army-truck-program-runs-into-more-trouble.aspx

I work for an engineering firm currently trying to design parking lots for these new MLVWs we're supposed to be getting.  We don't even know what they are!  If anyone has any new info please share.


----------



## geo

Designing a parking lot for vehicles we do not have & who'se dimensions are not known ???
Cheez, that makes a lot of sense.... NOT!

If we are buying trucks that have +/- the same capacity as those we are replacing - then they should come in at +/- same dimensions.  If they are a snubnozed "cab- over" design, then it'll need less room to park - but will require the additional space for the cab to tip forwards during maintenance.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

> The SMP portion of the medium truck project* (Medium Support Vehicle System)* is not proceeding well according to those at NDHQ.
> Perhaps the most egregious thing is that they cling to old paradigms. They want a 4-tonne and 8-tonne capacity vehicle because that's what they've always had.  But they also say that they want *NATO compatibility so that when cross-loading the loads don't have to be re-packaged into smaller shipment. A loaded 20-foot ISO container is 16 tonnes (NATO standard) but they seem oblivious to this*



To me it looks ******** is confusing two different trucks. A new Medium Support Vehicle of 4-8 tonnes and HLVW/SHLVW that carries the ISO Containers.

EDITED FOR SPELLING


----------



## jlorik

geo said:
			
		

> Designing a parking lot for vehicles we do not have & who'se dimensions are not known ???
> Cheez, that makes a lot of sense.... NOT!



Yeah, really...does that surprise anyone?

Seriously though, DCC can't delay construction projects until PMO makes decisions on MLVWs.  I guess all we can do is design the parking to accomodate the larger of the two vehicles in question, the OshKosh MTVR.


----------



## George Wallace

Why are we worried?  We all know that the Government will continue their policy to replace current equipment with half the numbers anyway.  If the current parking lot can hold the current vehicles, it will surely hold half the number.  Now should we be talking about buildings, then that is a different matter, but not too much so.

In 1994 the foundation was finally laid for a new Tank Hangar in Petawawa.  Walking the site, I looked at the doorways in the foundation and knew even before the walls were started that the doors would be too small for the current tank that we had.  Some Engineer/Contractor/Architect had decided to save a few thousand dollars per door and cut the dimensions down.  When the Hangar was 'completed' (without the tracked overhead crane) they tried to fit a tank through one of the twenty doors.  It fit with one inch between it and the frame of the door.  Anyone who had dealt with heavy tracked equipment knows that this will not work.  Now, there was also the question of the new 'add on armour' which made the tanks two to three feet wider.  Needless to say, a new hangar had to be built to the "correct" dimensions.  No taking shortcuts.  No skimping on doors.


----------



## jlorik

One inch?!?  I know we build to MMR (Minimum Military Requirement) but that's ridiculous!


----------



## ironduke57

Just an idea. As your crew´s liked the AHSVS Actros wouldn´t it make sense to buy the corresponding smaller Actros trucks as MLVW replacement? Also for an later HLVW replacement the Actros family could be used. This would clearly easen up logistic support for you truck fleet, as all trucks would have large number of interchangeable parts in common. And you can get MB parts all over the world.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## dapaterson

We bought those trucks as a UOR, which meant we could waive many procurement rules.  But it also means that we got those specific trucks for that specific need.

For any other needs we have to conduct an open competition, and not cherry pick.  It's an attempt to avoid the Gillette syndrome, where you get the razor almost free, but pay through the nose for blades.


----------



## ironduke57

I know, but that doesn´t negate the reasoning in my post.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## dapaterson

From a perspective on trade agreements, it does.  Other wise we'd see DND repeatedly buy two or three of one item, then claim "compatibility with existing fleet" as a pre-requisite in a larger purchase of hundreds of that item - often at inflated prices.


----------



## McG

Not to mention that UOR purchases typically sacrifice many requirements of the permanent capability in order to get the "right now" capability.  Thus, kit bought for Afghanistan may be functioning perfectly there but at the same time would be entirely inadequate back in Canada, in our next theatre of operations, or for a different type of mission.


----------



## geo

Ironduke...
There is no doubt that the Actros family of trucks is a good one.
Here is hoping that they submit a bid when the time comes.


----------



## ironduke57

Just to make it clear. I am not trying to "sell" you anything. I myself prefer MAN trucks for military matters. It was just a point from an logistical position. We had to learn it the hard way that it not helps your war efforts to have a dozens different vehicle with almost the same spec´s but with completely different logistical chain´s behind them. I also know that you three know what I am talking about. But how much people reading this don´t?
I only chose the Actros family as an example and because you already bought them in form of the AHSVS and it would be an logical choice to build on the experience you have gathered with them.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------

