# Domestic and Arctic Mobility Enhancement Project



## Kirkhill

While we are in the game of opining....

I wonder if there is any appetite to move the DAME project timelines forwards.  One reason for wondering is the confluence of policy



> Renew Canada’s focus on surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches, particularly our Arctic regions, and increase the size of the Canadian Rangers.


http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-national-defence-mandate-letter

and technology







.  

This is the new BAE Hagglunds BvS10 Beowulf - an UNarmoured version of the Viking used by the Royal Marines and the Royal Netherlands Marines.


In 1987 Perrin Beatty, in his Challenge and Commitment white paper, to anchor his Domestic Force (The SSF + Militia Brigades + Vital Point troops (Security Guards with Guns)) on a mixed fleet of 






820 to be purchased and built in Calgary by Foremost

And 199 of these (or similar)







I thought then, and I still think, that on that score Minister Beatty had it about right.

The Bv206, supplied to the Militia Service Battalions across the country, and prepositioned in the north, would make for a "poor man's helicopter", supplying a platform that would access the 70% of the country that isn't accessible by road and would permit access when the roads are impassable, as during domestic disasters.   It would also permit realistic off-road training by both regs and reserves.  And finally, it is an excellent expeditionary vehicle being transportable by air and can swim off a ship.

Unfortunately the Bv206, although more than 10,000 were built, was taken out of production and allowed to become obsolete.  And the only way to acquire the capability was to buy armoured vehicles, in particular the Viking. 






In Afghanistan the value of the vehicle was demonstrated by both the PPCLI and the Royal Marines (in armoured form).  That spurred a renewed interest which generated competition in the form of the Singapore Technologies / General Dynamics competitor, the Bronco. Also armoured. 

While both the Viking and Bronco are apparently great pieces of kit they suffer from being armoured.  This drives up purchase price and operating costs.  It also drives down payload, mobility and transportability. 

What was missing was an unarmoured, cheap, replacement for the original Bv206.  The Beowulf is apparently that replacement - 30 years in the making. 

Additional info is available at these links:

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/bvs10_beowulf.htm

http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_kingdom_british_army_light_armoured_vehicle/bvs10_beowulf_all-terrain_tracked_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_description_pictures_video_12509156.html

As noted above Beatty proposed a fleet of 820 Bv206s and 199 Bisons.  I think his numbers are still about right. But instead of the Bv206s and Bisons I  would be proposing Beowulfs and Vikings - in the same strengths.

A Transport Platoon of 30 to 40 Beowulfs in each Territorial Battalion Group would permit training and a quick response to domestic emergencies.  Together with prepositioned vehicles in the north at the Air Forces FOLs, Resolute and Nanisivik that adds up to 300 to 500 vehicles.  Put some more into the Regs hands, some in storage and some onboard the CSCs.....  ...... some armoured and you quickly find yourself back up around the 1000 vehicle mark.

And if you don't like the Hagglunds, we can always get a Canadian made knock-off through General Dynamics supplying Singapore Technologies new UNarmoured version of the Bronco, the Extremv







I know it is to dream, and I know we must wait for the new white paper in 2017 but ..... in the words of my daughter, "Maaaaaaybe".


----------



## a_majoor

I like how you are thinking  

If the TAPV program were to collapse, that might be a very interesting way of gaining much of the capabilitiy the program was initiated to provide.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

License built in Canada would be acceptable and save us currency exchange and make the politicians happy. Seriously we sort of created this niche, we should own it! But it has to be an existing facility that gets the contract and they need to maintain the jigs and special equipment for building them. Have the contract specify slow rate production so you get a continuous supply and the line stays open with potential other buyers.


----------



## Kirkhill

Somebody like these guys perhaps?






http://foremost.ca/foremost-mobile-equipment/tracked-vehicles/chieftain-c/

I wonder if the wounds have healed yet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

wounds healed, pray do tell?


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> wounds healed, pray do tell?





> BV-206 NTV PROJECT GETS PROD FROM ACTION-ORIENTED ALBERTA FIRM
> 
> Lack of activity on Mobile Command's Northern Terrain Vehicle (NTV) acquisition programme has prompted Hagglunds Foremost Inc. of Calgary, Alberta to issue a discussion paper in the hope of generating political support for the project. *In July 1988, DND approved an acquisition of 820 Swedish BV-206 northern terrain vehicles to be used for territorial defence tasks.* The same fiberglass hulled, rubber tracked over-snow vehicles was successfully used by the Canadian Air Sea Transportable (CAST) Brigade.
> 
> *Hagglunds Foremost Inc. (HF) was formed in February 1989 as a joint venture between Hagglunds Vehicle AB of Sweden, manufacturer of the BV-206, and Canadian Foremost Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta to produce the vehicle in Canada. By early 1989, the firm had actually started converting Swedish technical drawings to Canadian standards and had sent out a number of information packages to potential subcontractors in expectation of a contract award by March 1990. Then came the April 1989 budget cuts. The NTV programme was reduced by half and delayed indefinitely. *The company began to cut its staff. Since April the project has remained frozen. An increasingly uncertain HF is awaiting a contract to begin project definition and the NTV Project Management Office (PMO) is waiting for funding to proceed with a Canadianization study to determine which Canadian parts can be used with the BV-206. HF, on its own initiative, issued its paper.
> 
> According to Shari Pusch of Canadian Foremost Ltd., the discussion paper was prepared to update HF's internal management staff, its Board of Directors and any concerned subcontractors. The company also seeks political support. The document reminds its readers that the NTV meets Mobile Command's requirement for a vehicle which can traverse difficult terrain and that the BV-206's low ground pressure minimizes risk of damage to the fragile northern ecology. The paper stresses western industrial diversity for the benefit of any politicians who need to be reminded of this well known political and regional development imperative of the current government.
> 
> While the company is conducting its private sector briefings, the NTV PMO is in a continual briefing process of its own, keeping senior DND decision makers informed. An Interdepartmental Senior Review Board (ISRB) is scheduled for today, November 29, at which representatives from DND, DSS and regional development departments will be briefed on project status. There are bright spots to the otherwise irritating situation which are keeping HF guardedly optimistic. DND is experimenting with an air droppable BV prototype which shows promise. Discussions between Hagglunds AB and Canadian Foremost Ltd. may result in HF producing BV-206s in Calgary for the U.S. Army. At present the U.S. buys its BV-206s directly from Hagglunds AB in Sweden. Lastly, the HF paper argues that when an NTV contract is finally awarded, there will be a high degree of Canadian content involved. Svante Andersson, Hagglund's representative in Ottawa, states that as much as 60 percent of the NTV may be made up of Canadian parts.



http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/twr/twr48v3.html

In other news from the same 1989 Bulletin



> RESERVE UNITS TO GET NEW COMPUTERIZED PAY SYSTEM





> CANADA CAUGHT SLOUCHING
> 
> For a country which has depended on others to help fulfill its military requirements and commitments, these are tough times. The ongoing fragmentation of eastern Europe and the potential dismemberment of NATO will cause grave concerns for Canada's security interests.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Northern defence was a Harper thing. Don't expect much out of the Trudeau Liberals on that front. That would mean admitting Harper was right and the Liberals would rather set themselves on fire than agree with him.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't doubt that.

But if the ChiComs can figure out how to make Capitalism Communist I am sure the LPC can figure out how to make Conservatism Liberal (they've had practice).


----------



## quadrapiper

recceguy said:
			
		

> Northern defence was a Harper thing. Don't expect much out of the Trudeau Liberals on that front. That would mean admitting Harper was right and the Liberals would rather set themselves on fire than agree with him.


Northern _presence_, on the other hand (or at least giving the appearance of caring about "the North") has been something of an on-again, off-again bullet point for any number of governments.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

recceguy said:
			
		

> Northern defence and anything in the west was a Harper thing. Don't expect much out of the Trudeau Liberals on that front. That would mean admitting Harper was right and the Liberals would rather set themselves on fire than agree with him.



Fixed it for you  [


----------



## dangerboy

The Army's twitter feed shows that we can easily work with the BV206 and that it is a good platform for the C16 AGLS.

Link to actual twitter post https://twitter.com/CanadianArmy/status/692761297478356993


----------



## Spencer100

Here you go the Russians have the perfect solution!

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/12/russian-sherpa-atv-frozen-lake/

The Sperpa ATV.  It looks fun!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was planning on posting that. What I would base in the arctic for summer use is the CB-90 fast attack boats and a couple of fast vehicle landing craft. Sped in the Arctic waters can allow you to escape the ice fronts or find some shelter from them.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> I was planning on posting that. What I would base in the arctic for summer use is the CB-90 fast attack boats and a couple of fast vehicle landing craft. Sped in the Arctic waters can allow you to escape the ice fronts or find some shelter from them.



Be nice if you could get them on and off the back of the larger vessels - like the AOPSs and the CSCs as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We slung these POS landing craft/fuelbarge from our buoy tenders, either from the main crane or the workboat davits, big enough for large ATV's 






of course the Swedes have their own ideas (thread drifting....)


----------



## a_majoor

Getting around on most of the terrain, water and ice is easily accomplisned by the LCAC, which also allows you to carry and deliver all kinds of "stuff" depending on the mission. For the best of all possible worlds ( ) LCAC's carrying troops mounted on BV-206/Bronco type MTV's gets you pretty much anywhere in the arctic and far north.

Second pic is a smaller hovercraft operating in the ice, this type is more flexible since the fans are fully steerable.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually Thuc, hovercraft operation on ice is a real bitche. It is slow, dangerous and require a lot of training because you are going over a surface that is neither solid like the ground, nor reacts like water (i.e. as "hard" if you put evenly directed high air pressure on it). Such operation is slow and perilous. Moreover, it is downright dangerous in certain conditions, such as entering frazil, where the lift is suddenly lost and the hovercraft can tip or sink by digging in.  

Look at your second picture: You can see that the hovercraft is not getting hardly any lift on the ice (the side walls show no lift) and is in fact relying on the flotation of its hull, which is not the best hull shape for speed and direction on ice.

The Coast guard uses small hovercrafts on the St Lawrence river area in the spring (only) to dispose of ice dams, but they don't quite go on the ice. They come at it from the open water side and simply lunge at the ice dam and then stop just over its edge. That way, they blow an open pocket of air under the ice's leading edge, and climbing on top of it, rest the weight of the hovercraft on that unsupported edge to break it. Very difficult work for highly experience drivers and which requires complete concentration to avoid accidents.

This said, there are people up there in the Arctic, the Inuit, who know the waters better than we do, know how to orient themselves and have been operating with small boats for a long time (Kayak at first and large aluminium fishermen's boat nowadays). If the Navy is serious about having a minimal presence on water when actual commissioned vessels are not around, I personally think that it should consider the possibility of creating a "Marine Ranger" system that could operate small, fast but effective boats whenever the waters are open (someone suggested the CB-90 - I am not convinced, but its little brother the SB90E would be a good candidate).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Second pic is a smaller hovercraft operating in the ice, this type is more flexible since the fans are fully steerable.



Actually, Thuc, the LCAC is just as steerable as the smaller one, possibly more steerable. On the LCAC, the two tube like cowlings at the front (both sides) are not air intakes, they are orientable trusters used for steering. The only reason they are pointing straight forward in your picture is that this LCAC is backing full, probably a picture taken from the deck of an American phib just as it exits the well deck.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually Thuc, hovercraft operation on ice is a real bitche. It is slow, dangerous and require a lot of training because you are going over a surface that is neither solid like the ground, nor reacts like water (i.e. as "hard" if you put evenly directed high air pressure on it). Such operation is slow and perilous. Moreover, it is downright dangerous in certain conditions, such as entering frazil, where the lift is suddenly lost and the hovercraft can tip or sink by digging in.
> 
> Look at your second picture: You can see that the hovercraft is not getting hardly any lift on the ice (the side walls show no lift) and is in fact relying on the flotation of its hull, which is not the best hull shape for speed and direction on ice.
> 
> The Coast guard uses small hovercrafts on the St Lawrence river area in the spring (only) to dispose of ice dams, but they don't quite go on the ice. They come at it from the open water side and simply lunge at the ice dam and then stop just over its edge. That way, they blow an open pocket of air under the ice's leading edge, and climbing on top of it, rest the weight of the hovercraft on that unsupported edge to break it. Very difficult work for highly experience drivers and which requires complete concentration to avoid accidents.
> 
> This said, there are people up there in the Arctic, the Inuit, who know the waters better than we do, know how to orient themselves and have been operating with small boats for a long time (Kayak at first and large aluminium fishermen's boat nowadays). If the Navy is serious about having a minimal presence on water when actual commissioned vessels are not around, I personally think that it should consider the possibility of creating a "Marine Ranger" system that could operate small, fast but effective boats whenever the waters are open (someone suggested the CB-90 - I am not convinced, but its little brother the SB90E would be a good candidate).



I support the Marine Ranger idea, as for hovercraft, the big issue was that they actually go faster over a hard surface than water as no "bowel" is formed underneath, the limiting factor that we used for speed over ground in the SRN6 was the time it took for the bag to deflate and the hull to impact the hard surface, which meant 30Kts. Several of my Captains had served in the Arctic, lot's of good stories. the SRN6 used to suffer from "shallow water effect" which meant the bow wave would get so big the craft struggled to get over it and we would often go up onto the beach a bit to get more speed, getting over the "hump" meant getting up to over 13kts and then the craft would break over the bow wave and be able to pick up speed. With the "Econo" model of props we had reverse was not much of an option either.


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting discussion. The general idea that most people like me have is a hovercraft can travel over most relatively flat surfaces, including ice, beaches, muskeg or tundra. The thought I had in mind was the hovercraft can come in from the water or even run a ways up river, then deposit the load This should work along much of the arctic coast, and inside Hudson Bay. If the troops are in MTV's, then they can move further inland without much difficulty (considering the mobility of the beast).

Obviously there is a little more to it than that...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They are great niche machines, but require a fair bit of maintenance. The AP1-800 is a far more capable than the old SRN6 or the Griffons used by the Royal Marines. The Ap1-88, USMC LCAAC and the big Russian hovercraft all share the same skirt design, based on the original BHC high/low pressure area skirt. It takes more power to run that design, but it’s more robust and capable. The Griffon and others use loop and chain (single walled) as I recall.  A google book link on hovercraft stability https://books.google.ca/books?id=aJT0gK710LwC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=stability+in+a+hovercraft&source=bl&ots=EQQXCtYN_l&sig=RQWwdZiOmOVYeHbXvOocFZdyiSw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij0JCSjcPLAhVonoMKHV2nAtAQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=stability%20in%20a%20hovercraft&f=false

The BHC design


----------



## daftandbarmy

We took LCUs and LCVPs just about everywhere in arctic Norway. 

They were awesome, especially with a nice little cover over the cargo deck with hot air pumped in for those 'cool evenings' up north. As I recall, we loaded the whole company, with vehicles (BV202), on two of them for short trips. They worked nicely with the LPDs with their internal docks, of course, and we also used them in conjunction with DFDS ferries e.g., you just step off the car deck onto the LCU ramp. I recall bashing through what I thought was some fairly substantial ice in the fjords occasionally, so they seemed to be 'thin ice capable' at any rate.

"These vessels are capable of operating independently for up to 14 days with a range of 600 nautical miles. They are capable of operating world-wide, from Arctic operating areas to tropical operating areas."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Utility


----------



## Colin Parkinson

And it would be quite easy to have them built here, have a couple on each coast, keep 2 in the arctic and perhaps 2 on the Great lakes. Units could work them into their training and Naval Reserves can help fill out the crews.


----------



## Kirkhill

Might want to throw some Mexeflotes into the mix as well - either with or without their own power modules





















Modular and expandable.  Used as pontoons, dock and barges.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lot's of nifty stuff to use, of course you need trucks and ships to transport that stuff


----------



## Kirkhill

You have Bvs to transport the Mexe's on land and SB90Es to tug them on water.  Where the Bvs can be loaded on the Mexe's.

And the cone licks itself.  [


----------



## a_majoor

We can combine all this splashing around in the water with the obsession for reviving historical units, badges and patches:

Bring on the new _Compagnies Franches de la Marine_!

On a more serious note, a combined arms unit combining some sort of shallow draft ship (LCUs, LCVPs, Mexeflotes or hovercraft) and MTV/helicopter mobility to move troops and equipment around would seem to be just the thing for large swaths of Canada's north.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just for clarity sake, Thuc, the "Compagnies Franches de la Marine" were not embarked troops, like the Royal Marines or the US Marines are. They were French colonial troops - army in other word - raised for the land defence of the colonies. It just happens that in France, the colonies were administered by the Navy department, hence, the troops they hired and trained were called "marine"  (in the sense of Navy) troops. They however, had nothing to do with landings, expeditionary warfare, and were not even found onboard ships to help with boardings (like R.M.'s).


----------



## Old Sweat

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just for clarity sake, Thuc, the "Compagnies Franches de la Marine" were not embarked troops, like the Royal Marines or the US Marines are. They were French colonial troops - army in other word - raised for the land defence of the colonies. It just happens that in France, the colonies were administered by the Navy department, hence, the troops they hired and trained were called "marine"  (in the sense of Navy) troops. They however, had nothing to do with landings, expeditionary warfare, and were not even found onboard ships to help with boardings (like R.M.'s).



They also were very good at what they were raised to do!


----------



## a_majoor

Joking aside, any unit needing multiple modes of transport (and probably lots of different capabilities, like engineering, long distance signalling and the ability to sustain logistics in a very harsh environment in a single package) would not just be a ordinary battalion, but some sort of mini joint task force.

How such a force is organized and equipped (and what it would be expected to do) would be a very interesting discussion.


----------



## Kirkhill

I was just reading an Aide Memoire prepared for the Calgary Highlanders over the name of LCol H Moncrief CO, in the era of Heller Rockets and 106mm Reckless Rifles but FNs and SMGs

One of the pieces of kit available to the battalion Pioneer platoon, apparently,  was some light pontoon bridging - suitable for foot traffic light vehicles.



> Aluminum Floating Bridging
> One Set
> 472' 6" ft br
> 115 ft lt veh br
> 3 rafts for lt veh treadway 84 lbs
> Pontoon - 100 lbs
> 
> Time of Erection
> 
> 472'6" of ft br - 25 mins
> 115' of lt veh br
> A-50 mins
> B-25 mins
> 
> Rafts Assembled
> (ea) - 10 mins



If those old fellers could figure out how to throw a bridge across a stream without the aid of engineers it can't be beyond the ken of today's bright sparks.   Except for all that OHSA paper work ......

But, this was back in the days of .30 and .50 Brownings, proper smoke grenades using WP and Special Weapons, including the M2A1 Portable Flame Thrower (72 lbs, 20-45 yds range, 6-9 bursts of 1 sec from 4.75 Imp Gals of fuel (thickened)) and the Flame Thrower Transportable Cdn No.1 Mk1 CREE (165-185 yds, 78.9 Imp Gals). Just the thing for those frosty days.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Joking aside, any unit needing multiple modes of transport (and probably lots of different capabilities, like engineering, long distance signalling and the ability to sustain logistics in a very harsh environment in a single package) would not just be a ordinary battalion, but some sort of mini joint task force.
> 
> How such a force is organized and equipped (and what it would be expected to do) would be a very interesting discussion.



You mean like these guys?

The Battle of the Scheldt was a military operation in northern Belgium and the southwestern Netherlands that took place during the Second World War. On September 12, 1944, the First Canadian Army was given the task of clearing the Scheldt of German occupiers. The first attacks began on September 13, with little success. 

Under the command of General Henry Duncan Graham (Harry) Crerar, the First Canadian Army was international in character. In addition to the 2nd Canadian Corps (which included the 2nd and 3rd Canadian Infantry Divisions and the 4th Canadian Armoured Division), the 1st British Corps, and the 1st Polish Armoured Division, at various times American, Belgian, and Dutch soldiers were also included as units. The First Canadian Army in northwestern Europe during the final phases of the war was a powerful force, the largest army that had ever been under the control of a Canadian general. The strength of this army ranged from approximately 105,000 to 175,000 Canadian soldiers to anywhere from 200,000 to over 450,000 when including the soldiers from other nations. 

The flooded, muddy terrain and the tenacity of the well-fortified German defences made the Battle of the Scheldt especially gruelling and bloody. Indeed, the battle is considered by some historians to have been waged on the most difficult battlefield of the Second World War. At the end of the five-week offensive, the victorious First Canadian Army had taken 41,043 prisoners, but suffered 12,873 casualties (killed, wounded, or missing), 6,367 of whom were Canadians.


http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/second-world-war/liberation-belgium-battle-scheldt


----------



## Kirkhill

Of Terrapins and Buffaloes











Courtesy of Wiki -


----------



## a_majoor

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You mean like these guys?



Yes, but scaled to todays financial and political sensibilities. A unit somewhere between a reinforced Combat Team and Battlegroup in size is probably about right, and if it has the right ship/helicopter support, you could post one at Moosonee to cover James and Hudson Bay, perhaps another one at Resolute Bay to cover the NW Passage and one somewhere near the Mackenzie river delta to cover the Western high arctic.

Unlike a battlegroup of combat team, it won't have integral armour, and probably use mortars rather than artillery (if any), but bulk up on other enablers. Maybe the Mechanized Infantry Battalion of the late 1980's, with its integral Combat Support Company and Service Support Company might be a better model (HQ and SIGS Coy provides the satellite uplinks and HF trunks to southern Canada).

And given the rather specialized means of cross country transport (Terrapins and Buffaloes were good for what they had to do, but swimming, crossing swamp and muskeg and trundling over snow is probably best handled by a modern MTV like a Bronco or Viking), maybe having them grouped together in a transport company rather than integral like LAVs would work better.


----------



## Kirkhill

I'd swap the Integral LAVs, GS MTVs around and make the MTVs integral while brigading the LAVs/TAPVs.  Especially for DOMOPs focused units.

I note from another older winter SOP (2VP circa 1970) that only one of the 4 "rifle coys" was "mechanized".  The 3 "rifle coys actual" were motorized on wheels but were to be prepared for foot borne warfare (as was the "mechanized" coy).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the Brits have a lightweight foot bridge they can deploy at hand. Working with the School of Military Engineering in Chillwack in the 80's I was mighty impressed by them constructing a Baily bridge over a creek at night under tactical conditions and by hand only.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Yes, but scaled to todays financial and political sensibilities. A unit somewhere between a reinforced Combat Team and Battlegroup in size is probably about right, and if it has the right ship/helicopter support, you could post one at Moosonee to cover James and Hudson Bay, perhaps another one at Resolute Bay to cover the NW Passage and one somewhere near the Mackenzie river delta to cover the Western high arctic.
> 
> Unlike a battlegroup of combat team, it won't have integral armour, and probably use mortars rather than artillery (if any), but bulk up on other enablers. Maybe the Mechanized Infantry Battalion of the late 1980's, with its integral Combat Support Company and Service Support Company might be a better model (HQ and SIGS Coy provides the satellite uplinks and HF trunks to southern Canada).
> 
> And given the rather specialized means of cross country transport (Terrapins and Buffaloes were good for what they had to do, but swimming, crossing swamp and muskeg and trundling over snow is probably best handled by a modern MTV like a Bronco or Viking), maybe having them grouped together in a transport company rather than integral like LAVs would work better.



One of the best over snow vehicles I've seen in action is a Leopard tank... just sayin'


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> One of the best over snow vehicles I've seen in action is a Leopard tank... just sayin'



Let me tell you,  at times a Leopard tank and packed snow on a hill are the equivalent of a hockey puck on ice.   [:-[


----------



## cavalryman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let me tell you,  at times a Leopard tank and packed snow on a hill are the equivalent of a hockey puck on ice.   [:-[


Black hat hockey [


----------



## a_majoor

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Black hat hockey [



So long as I'm not in the net!

MTV's can carry weapons like the 106mm Recoiless rifle (for a real blast from the past) or mount an ATGM like TOW to provide the sort of long range fire support that may be needed, and still swim through swamps or travel over muskeg. The basic MTV can also serve as the basis for a mortar carrier, ambulance, CP, comms "truck" and many other roles (it can even carry troops!). So WRT logistics, you can standardize on a single family of vehicles to carry out missions once you get off the boat/plane/helicopter/etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Modernized BV206 could easily be built domestically. Carrier, recovery, Command, engineer, signal, mortar and AT versions. Hell even a light weight bridge carrier. This would mean jobs and money spent within Canada, do a slow production ramp up to keep the assembly lines working for a long time.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Modernized BV206 could easily be built domestically. Carrier, recovery, Command, engineer, signal, mortar and AT versions. Hell even a light weight bridge carrier. This would mean jobs and money spent within Canada, do a slow production ramp up to keep the assembly lines working for a long time.



Again - This is the modernized Bv206  but now it has undergone the same transformation as the old Half Ton Pickup.  It has transitioned from a 2 Tonne payload (Half Tonne up Front and 1.5 Tonnes in the Back with an additional 2.5 Tonnes of Towing Capacity)  to an  8 Tonne payload with (I'm guessing) an additional 5 to 8 Tonnes of Towing Capacity.  This is because engine has gone from a 130 HP Ford Taurus engine, as found in the Ford Ranger,  to a 285 HP 5.9 Litre Cummins Diesel as found in Ram 3500s up to 2008 or thereabouts.  I wouldn't doubt that the more modern 350 HP 6.7 Litre would also fit.








This machine is no longer just a local runabout any more than this is:






And, also as previously noted, we have also successfully explored local production of an offshore design by a qualified Canadian manufacturer.






http://foremost.ca/foremost-mobile-equipment/tracked-vehicles/chieftain-c/

You no longer have a Pick-up.  You now have a Medium Truck.

One more image:






And that is with the Ford Ranger engine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As you stated, the how is there, the need is there, just the will and how many is missing.


----------



## CBH99

I have absolutely zero experience in the arctic, and not much experience in winter warfare.

The trailer being pulled in that last image looks like the tires are having a hard time muscling their way through deeper snow.

Do trailers exist that have similar tracks to that of the towing vehicle?  Could make for much easier towing of trailers in winter/arctic conditions??


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Considering the last pic shows what appears to be a 20ton beaver tail..yeah it would have problems in deep snow...


----------



## Kirkhill

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I have absolutely zero experience in the arctic, and not much experience in winter warfare.
> 
> The trailer being pulled in that last image looks like the tires are having a hard time muscling their way through deeper snow.
> 
> Do trailers exist that have similar tracks to that of the towing vehicle?  Could make for much easier towing of trailers in winter/arctic conditions??



Maybe something like this?






http://www.sno-cat.com/tracked-trailers-Sno-Cat.html

It seems to me that that trailer, plus the Beowulf BvS10 makes a whole lot more sense than this:






Especially if integrated with the Chinooks and maaaaaayyybeeee something like this:






http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/giant-airships-one-step-closer-to-use-in-alberta-oilsands-canada-s-north-1.2837727

Unfortunately the shape of the airship has attracted some interesting comparisons


----------



## a_majoor

The Bronco can be built under licence here in Canada by GDLS (big surprise there), but I believe Foremost in Alberta had done the production of the BV-206, and any surviving ones could be sent back for refurbishment and upgrades. Re-looking at the title, "Domestic" can also be covered by MTV's, since they can swim out in floods to check isolated houses and carry rescuers and equipment, cross rubble strewn terrain (they have less ground pressure than a walking man) and get men and equipment virtually anywhere across Canada. Only in the very urbanized parts of Canada with their extensive road and rail networks would most of the advantages of the MTV be overshadowed by their slow road speeds. Trailers mounted on huge "Rolligon" tires can accompany most MTV's (and looking at Rolligons, they might be revived as a form of MTV in of themselves: http://www.unusuallocomotion.com/pages/industrial/rolligons-and-terra-tires.html)

Ships, hovercraft, helicopters or blimps could be used to move the MTV's and soldiers across longer distances, as well as forward positioning supplies. For max flex and utility, these transport means would be directly and permanently associated with the Bn.

I'm starting to think of a composite unit designed along the lines of the 1980's era Mech Infantry Battalion but with a much enhanced HQ and Sigs Coy (I'd also put the Recce Pl there so they are in the CO's pocket), and a robust Combat Support Coy and Service Support Coy so they can move and operate in isolated areas and impassable terrain (the Pioneer platoon would need to be always at 100% strength, for example, so overborne in Garrison to cover the inevitable posted for courses, leave and admin stuff). Some sort of movement or transport cell would also be needed in the HQ to facilitate the movement of the Bn via "their" ship or helicopter squadron (or whatever other magic carpets are being used to get to the disembarkation point)


----------



## Kirkhill

I have been seeing this little Rampage vehicle being showcased during Op Nunalivut

Apparently it is not a developmental vehicle but a production vehicle that is manufactured by Polaris and available in Japan

http://powersportsbusiness.com/top-stories/2016/04/18/polaris-supports-operation-nunalivut/



> A Polaris Rampage, an amphibious, all-terrain, all-season, global-reach platform, was deployed in support of Canadian Operation Nunalivut in the North Pole.



The vehicle got the attention of SNAFU!

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ca/2016/04/canadian-army-and-defense-research.html

Here is the Japanese spec sheet 

http://www.whitehouse.co.jp/wha/rampage/

According to the google translator it weighs 1567 kg (CH-148/CH-149 and larger) with a 454 kg payload and a towing capacity of 6000 lbs (2700 kg).   With a 110 HP, 999cc engine it has a land speed of >80 km/h and is amphibious.

An interesting complement the BvS10 Beowulf.  -  an Iltis to the Beowulf's MLVW.

I wonder if anybody is going to try the Wiesel 2 up North?

Edit - more pictures of the Rampage at a Tokyo trade show.

http://en.responsejp.com/article/2015/10/18/262284.html


----------



## a_majoor

So lets do a little costing out and see if this could be sold to Gerald Butts as "infrastructure" spending.

So far I have essentially advocated to either create 3 new battalions (or move one battalion each from the regiments) to the high arctic, create 3 bases (Inuvik, Resolute Bay and Moosenee), buy 240+ MTV's, and have 3 squadrons of helicopters and a small fleet of ships/shallow draft craft/hovercraft. Of course there will also need to be the ability to run an air bridge to these bases for logistics support, and enough aircraft to bring sufficient men and supplies...Enablers to support the arctic force will also be needed, including specialized comms, engineers, medical and others needed to keep things going when isolated from the support facilities in southern Canada.

Some of the costs might be shared with the Coast Guard for ships and SAR for the helicopter squadrons (although are Chinooks really adaptable enough for that role?) and some of the C-130's for the air bridge. 

Thoughts?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Why not think outside of the box and go for Ekranoplans?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why not think outside of the box and go for Ekranoplans?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle



They were meant more for the long rivers in the USSR, even they finally gave up on them. I would spend money on improving the infrastructure of the North, so you can move units there at a moments notice. We are starting to see more all weather roads up that way and learning how to do long distance road moves along with air bridging will be important. Some riverboats with jets would also help. At the same time you need to increase the reserve presence up there to provide security for your new infrastructure, till the troops arrive.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> They were meant more for the long rivers in the USSR, even they finally gave up on them. I would spend money on improving the infrastructure of the North, so you can move units there at a moments notice. We are starting to see more all weather roads up that way and learning how to do long distance road moves along with air bridging will be important. Some riverboats with jets would also help. At the same time you need to increase the reserve presence up there to provide security for your new infrastructure, till the troops arrive.



Colin, I can't agree with you on this one.

Building roads and rail to service less than 1,000,000 people scattered over the 7,000,000 km2 that represents the 70% of Canada not currently serviced by either will never be economical.   Even here on the prairies, where some 7,000,000 people occupy less than 1,000,000 km2 governments struggle to maintain roads, most of which are gravelled at best and you still need off-road capability to cover the distances between roads.  And that is on open, hard ground, not ground that is covered by trees or water or that turns to mush when the ground warms up or is vertical rock.

We settlers just can't get our oxcarts up into that country.  But we can get Chinooks up there to complement river transportation and we can get tracked vehicles up there to lay their own roads as they go. 

As an aside, I remember somebody commenting/complaining that the Chinook design hasn't changed much in 50 years and is expected to keep flying for another 50.  Maybe it is for exactly the same reason that the oxcart design hasn't changed in 5000 years. 
It is a fundamentally sound design.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We are going to have to agree to disagree. [

 We do need some allweather roads and a railway to the North. Just part of the cost of doing businesses. As for the populations, we need to wean people away from the south. We need to look at the “population bands”. Using the BC/Yukon model I am familiar with:
The main one is the South border region
2nd band is the 53/54 Latitude band –Prince George, Rupert, Edmonton, etc
3rd  band is the “Middle North” Ft Nelson, Whitehorse, Ft simpson, Yellowknife
4th Band is the North Coastline, coppermine, etc
5th band is the archipelago communities 

You can make places in the 2nd band more livable fairly easily, better connectivity (internet), transit, etc

3rd band is a bit harder, again connectivity is important, services, better healthcare facilities, schools, etc. 
In the 2nd and 3rd band you need to encourage non-resource related jobs to provide a cushion for the ups and down

4th and 5th band needs some connections with the south through roads, rail and airports. But also better port facilities, this is be a big part of infrastructure funding and could be done over a long period.

People need two main things to move up North, quality of life and jobs. The latter is the hardest, but good connectivity allows for more non-resource jobs or secondary jobs to support the resource jobs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Colin, I can't agree with you on this one.
> 
> Building roads and rail to service less than 1,000,000 people scattered over the 7,000,000 km2 that represents the 70% of Canada not currently serviced by either will never be economical.   Even here on the prairies, where some 7,000,000 people occupy less than 1,000,000 km2 governments struggle to maintain roads, most of which are gravelled at best and you still need off-road capability to cover the distances between roads.  And that is on open, hard ground, not ground that is covered by trees or water or that turns to mush when the ground warms up or is vertical rock.
> 
> We settlers just can't get our oxcarts up into that country.  But we can get Chinooks up there to complement river transportation and we can get tracked vehicles up there to lay their own roads as they go.
> 
> As an aside, I remember somebody commenting/complaining that the Chinook design hasn't changed much in 50 years and is expected to keep flying for another 50.  Maybe it is for exactly the same reason that the oxcart design hasn't changed in 5000 years.
> It is a fundamentally sound design.



The airport in Iqaluit has tarmac long enough to take the Space Shuttle, apparently, as an emergency option.

This is clearly far too big for normal travel requirements yet, amazingly, enough money was found to build it to keep various levels and nationalities of governments - and their space programs - happy.

Where there is a will, there is a way (and money).


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree that anything is possible if cash.

The point of contention is which is cheaper:

Building, maintaining and operating trucks, roads and bridges or building and maintaining runways and heliports, wharfs, boats, barges and helicopters.

My money is on the alternatives to the roads.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting conversation I had with a Canfor Engineer about the forest Practice Codes. He said that by adhering to them it cost more to build, but in the long term they saved a lot of money as road maintenance and emergency repairs dropped considerably. So if you are building a major road, invest in doing it well.

This is one road upgrade I was involved in   http://www.sydroad.com/


----------



## Kirkhill

I can, actually, see a case for a small number of well constructed trunk roads.  But I still "feel" that there will still be too much space in between them to allow for a network such as we are used to in the south.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

totally agree on that

Those main roads should also be supported with small airstrips ( again positioning is key) and eventually powerlines. The powerlines don’t have to be part of the main grid, but providing power to nearby communities using small Hydro like this https://www.yukonenergy.ca/energy-in-yukon/our-projects-facilities/new-hydro/pine-creek-hydro-project/


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> totally agree on that
> 
> Those main roads should also be supported with small airstrips ( again positioning is key) and eventually powerlines. The powerlines don’t have to be part of the main grid, but providing power to nearby communities using small Hydro like this https://www.yukonenergy.ca/energy-in-yukon/our-projects-facilities/new-hydro/pine-creek-hydro-project/



I still prefer to come at the problem from this end: with distributed Combined Heat and Power systems.  These are with natural gas which may be locally available, but could be with diesel or propane.














http://world.honda.com/powerproducts-technology/cogeneration/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The big cost to the communities is often the diesel for the generators, plus it costs a lot to move the quantities required. This was the case in Atlin, 2 B trains a week as I recall. It's actually cheaper for BC Hydro to buy the electricity from the small hydro plant the Tiniglit built than to ship the fuel in. I know elsewhere, I think it was Tuk or Inuvik is running low on NG and they don't have the money to drill a new well. I quite like the idea of the small Toshiba reactors, but I know anything nuclear is dead for the next decade. http://www.gizmag.com/small-modular-nuclear-reactors/20860/

Interesting link from Japan, always neat to see other solutions. Another SE Asian solution (and a shameless plug for my blog that I have neglected) http://denofzeus.blogspot.ca/2010/06/gobar-gas-only-dung-beattles-will-be.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A good news story that speaks partly to what we are talking about http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/teen-first-nation-drinking-water-1.3563110


----------



## Kirkhill

Good on the youngster. I hope they can figure out how to maintain a dozen just like him.  As we've noted before, the issue is not just one of supplying the plant but of finding the people to operate and maintain it.  And allowing people to take pride in their efforts.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Good on the youngster. I hope they can figure out how to maintain a dozen just like him.  As we've noted before, the issue is not just one of supplying the plant but of finding the people to operate and maintain it.  And allowing people to take pride in their efforts.


And ensuring the pool of such keeners grows to avoid having only a few keeners getting so good that they get poached away to bigger, higher-paying jobs without leaving keen replacements behind.


----------



## a_majoor

WRT an airbridge to the high arctic, there might be some opportunity for a cost sharing arrangement. There are plenty of bush pilots still operating around the sort with everything from surplus C-130's retired from the USAF to DC-3's and smaller aircraft.

If the Canadian Government were to supply the airframes and a bit of basic infrastructure in the north for private operators in return for these carriers being "on call" for government work, we could have a standardized fleet of aircraft and pool of trained operators ready to go at short notice. While it might be nice to spring for dozens of C-130's, those aircraft might not be economical for private operators (mostly because it is probably difficult to fill the cargo hold with paying freight for a plane that size). Some of the smaller transport planes that vendors have been flogging for the FWSAR would probably be the 80% solution.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'll throw it here as it's a winter use vehicle adaptation.  On display at the Polaris booth at CANSEC was this motorcycle called a Timbersled.  I can see this being the wet dream of all sorts of soldiers.


----------



## Spencer100

Plus the Russian battle buggies!

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21206/russian-commandos-debut-arctic-combat-buggy-that-looks-right-out-of-fast-and-furious

Looks kind of fun


----------



## a_majoor

Oddly, I was on the same website, but came across a different vehicle. The Standard 8X8 chassis was developed as a private venture to build a family of high mobility cross country vehicles. One of the first demonstrated was a vehicle carrying a 20mm Vulcan cannon for SHORAD (the same cannon carried by the M-163), but the concept was expanded to include proposals for transport trucks, artillery prime movers and so on.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21002/excalibur-was-a-vulcan-gatling-gun-wielding-air-defense-vehicle-straight-out-of-g-i-joe

With wider diameter tires (or even very enlarged "Rollagon" type wheels) it probably would make for a cheaper MTV, and as a "Family of vehicles" would provide that logistical commonality and economy of scale when buying and using them.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Oddly, I was on the same website, but came across a different vehicle. The Standard 8X8 chassis was developed as a private venture to build a family of high mobility cross country vehicles. One of the first demonstrated was a vehicle carrying a 20mm Vulcan cannon for SHORAD (the same cannon carried by the M-163), but the concept was expanded to include proposals for transport trucks, artillery prime movers and so on.
> 
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21002/excalibur-was-a-vulcan-gatling-gun-wielding-air-defense-vehicle-straight-out-of-g-i-joe
> 
> With wider diameter tires (or even very enlarged "Rollagon" type wheels) it probably would make for a cheaper MTV, and as a "Family of vehicles" would provide that logistical commonality and economy of scale when buying and using them.


Further to your posting,for your perusal and comment.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/supacat-terrain-mobility-platform-atmp/

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/multidrive-vehicles/

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/esarco-vehicles/


----------



## Kirkhill

Horse's mouth:  ;D

https://supacat.com/products/


----------



## daftandbarmy

One of the best all terrain vehicles I've seen in action in the arctic is the Leopard tank, which the Germans designed to go all the way to Moscow in case of 'Eastern Front II'.

Just sayin'


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CB-90 is supposed to be quite good in snow as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR37pYAA0HY


----------



## Kirkhill

Bump - Bv206 replacement programme



> The [US] Army is looking for a new all-around vehicle that can swim, climb and charge through snow
> By: Todd South     17 hours ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BAE Systems is one company vying to replace the more than 40-year-old tracked, Small Unit Support Vehicle for the Army, Marines and National Guard. They're offering the modernized BvS10, which comes in armored and unarmored versions. (BAE Systems)
> 
> After more than 40 years of service, the robust little all-terrain vehicle that can climb mountains, ford rivers and churn through snow needs replacing.
> 
> And the Army, Marines and National Guard are asking industry to give them a new ride.
> 
> Back in June, Army Contracting Command officials put out a Request for Information for industry to share what they think can replace the Small Unit Support Vehicle, a tracked vehicle that’s been in service since the mid-1970s.
> 
> At one point, there were 1,100 of them in the U.S. military inventory. Now, only a few dozen remain, mostly in service in cold weather areas such as U.S. Army Alaska.
> 
> The new program to replace the SUSV has been dubbed the “Joint All Weather All Terrain Support Vehicle," or JAASV.



https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/08/30/the-army-is-looking-for-a-new-all-around-vehicle-that-can-swim-climb-and-charge-through-snow/


----------



## Dale Denton

Just licence out 500 to someone in Canada for extra $, its not like you can't use these everywhere.

What ever happened to this project? Not supposed to even start til 2020/2021 but I read of different tests and experiments of Light Over Snow Vehicles?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Single source contracts appear to be the only way we get decent equipment, just saying.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Bump - Bv206 replacement programme
> 
> https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/08/30/the-army-is-looking-for-a-new-all-around-vehicle-that-can-swim-climb-and-charge-through-snow/



We used these a lot in Norway in the winter, and they are awesome.  :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

No doubt we are going to attempt to recreate Bobcat 2.0


----------



## Blackadder1916

Colin P said:
			
		

> No doubt we are going to attempt to recreate Bobcat 2.0



What's wrong with that?  The original Bobcat did go into production . . . of a sort.


----------



## a_majoor

Reviving an old thread, based on an interesting article from Strategypage:






						Sea Transportation: Saving The Sevmorput
					

The world’s only nuclear-powered non-military ships are operated by Russia These include five nuclear powered icebreakers and one cargo ship, the Sevmorput While Russia is building five new nuclear icebreakers, the first one completed has run int




					strategypage.com
				




While a nuclear powered, semi icebreaker LASH (Lighters Aboard Ship) might be a bit much, given the extreme conditions that it is ment to operate under, the Sevmorput is perhaps the most reasonable solution possible for the arctic. Certainly Canada is now moving towards developing small, modular nuclear powerplants, so we could indeed go that way if desired, but even without nuclear power, this type of ship seems ideal to provide logistics support to the far North for most of the year. The use of on board lighters allows you to send supplies even into shallow waters, and the Sevmorput also has several on board cranes so it can transfer cargo containers and other supplies and equipment to a dock as well.

One thing that "we" collectively don't have a real handle on is how to support large scale operations in the arctic. Thinking about ships like this could be one way to extend our reach.


----------



## quadrapiper

a_majoor said:


> Reviving an old thread, based on an interesting article from Strategypage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sea Transportation: Saving The Sevmorput
> 
> 
> The world’s only nuclear-powered non-military ships are operated by Russia These include five nuclear powered icebreakers and one cargo ship, the Sevmorput While Russia is building five new nuclear icebreakers, the first one completed has run int
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strategypage.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While a nuclear powered, semi icebreaker LASH (Lighters Aboard Ship) might be a bit much, given the extreme conditions that it is ment to operate under, the Sevmorput is perhaps the most reasonable solution possible for the arctic. Certainly Canada is now moving towards developing small, modular nuclear powerplants, so we could indeed go that way if desired, but even without nuclear power, this type of ship seems ideal to provide logistics support to the far North for most of the year. The use of on board lighters allows you to send supplies even into shallow waters, and the Sevmorput also has several on board cranes so it can transfer cargo containers and other supplies and equipment to a dock as well.
> 
> One thing that "we" collectively don't have a real handle on is how to support large scale operations in the arctic. Thinking about ships like this could be one way to extend our reach.



Desgagnés runs with embarked barges (can't remember if any are powered) and tugs for Northern resupply.








						Fleet - Desgagnés
					

All our vessels are compliant with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) and have all been certified by Transport Canada.




					desgagnes.com


----------



## Kirkhill

Bump

Our need is greater than theirs.  And yet they are likely to be setting the pace for what we eventually buy.  

But that's OK.  We're only there to help.






						Competitors Vie for Army Arctic Vehicle Contract
					

Competitors Vie for Army Arctic Vehicle Contract




					www.nationaldefensemagazine.org


----------



## Colin Parkinson

a_majoor said:


> Reviving an old thread, based on an interesting article from Strategypage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sea Transportation: Saving The Sevmorput
> 
> 
> The world’s only nuclear-powered non-military ships are operated by Russia These include five nuclear powered icebreakers and one cargo ship, the Sevmorput While Russia is building five new nuclear icebreakers, the first one completed has run int
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strategypage.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While a nuclear powered, semi icebreaker LASH (Lighters Aboard Ship) might be a bit much, given the extreme conditions that it is ment to operate under, the Sevmorput is perhaps the most reasonable solution possible for the arctic. Certainly Canada is now moving towards developing small, modular nuclear powerplants, so we could indeed go that way if desired, but even without nuclear power, this type of ship seems ideal to provide logistics support to the far North for most of the year. The use of on board lighters allows you to send supplies even into shallow waters, and the Sevmorput also has several on board cranes so it can transfer cargo containers and other supplies and equipment to a dock as well.
> 
> One thing that "we" collectively don't have a real handle on is how to support large scale operations in the arctic. Thinking about ships like this could be one way to extend our reach.


Interesting, didn't think any LASH ships were still in service. Ice strengthened Bay Class or Mistrals would give us enough capacity to move the materials that we could realistically muster as our BV 206 fleet is dwindling as well, as well as provide Forward fleet support and command functions.


----------



## Kirkhill

OK.

Changing track completely now.

I have a new obsession.

For a long time I have been a fan of the Swedish defence industry, and in particular the BAE Haegglunds Bandvagon Series as exemplified by the Bv206.  I have assumed that there is no better solution to the DAME (Domestic Arctic Mobility Enhancement) Project.  I wuz wrong.

Oh Canada!

Bombardier and Foremost (a Calgary oilfield specialist company) have solid reputations and interesting solutions, with Bombardier strongly penetrating the recreational market or light snowmobiles, ATVs and "tricycles"

Trundling along in the rear has been a small specialty company called Argo.

I think Argo might be the future.







						Arctic mobility makes tracks | Canadian Army Today
					






					canadianarmytoday.com
				






This is the Argo













But Argo now has a big brother

The Argo Sherp Pro XT - a Canadian derivative of a Russian invention marketed by a Ukrainian company.   Canadianization means modifying the drive to the Argo style chain bath, replacing the Kubota diesel with a North American legal Doosan from Hyundai, and putting some comfortable seats and controls in it.  The unit has attracted the attention of Rheinmetal of Quebec who have extended their Argo Mission Master range to include the Sherp as the Mission Master XT.   Rheinmetall is focusing on the Argo series as UGVs.  But it can also operate as an optionally manned UGV.
Now for the videos.

The original Russian/Ukrainian Vehicle








The Argo Vehicle








The Rheinmetall Vehicle








The Rheinmetall Argo Mission Master Original








Argo Promo.









And as an aside to the tankers - the optionally manned concept is also being applied to tanks - perhaps there is hope for the one-man tank yet.









						Optionally Manned Tank: The U.S. Army's Future Tank Plan Is Here
					

Expect longer range sensing, better defenses and weapons, and an optional drone capabilitiy.




					nationalinterest.org
				




Or even an optionally manned Ripsaw









						Ripsaw Unmanned Mini-Tank Sent To The Army's Shooting Range For The First Time
					

The Ripsaw is better known for its action movie pedigree, but the Army's unmanned version packs a very real 30mm cannon.




					www.thedrive.com
				










The bases of a Canadian Light Brigade, Militia and SAR?   Air, Sea and Heliportable?  CH-146, CH-148, CH-149, CH-147, CC-295, CC-130, AOPS?


----------



## Kirkhill

This is what really sold me.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What I like about Sherpa's is they have an enclosed cab, that's a big thing in the Arctic. the good news is they are in production . Meaning we can buy a batch for evaluation and if we like them, then buy a licence to have them built in Canada and the companies here bid on the construction and not the design. I think these types can compliment the BV 210s' and armoured versions. The Sherpas could be bought to provide mobility and support to the Ranger patrols and Arctic SAR.








						#1 Sherp ATV Sales - USA. New & Used. Sell on Consignment.
					

The #1 Sherp ATV sales broker in the USA. Selling new and used Sherp Pro and the all new Pro XT. View tech specs, or call or text 813.699.9062.




					sherpatvsales.com


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> What I like about Sherpa's is they have an enclosed cab, that's a big thing in the Arctic. the good news is they are in production . Meaning we can buy a batch for evaluation and if we like them, then buy a licence to have them built in Canada and the companies here bid on the construction and not the design. I think these types can compliment the BV 210s' and armoured versions. The Sherpas could be bought to provide mobility and support to the Ranger patrols and Arctic SAR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1 Sherp ATV Sales - USA. New & Used. Sell on Consignment.
> 
> 
> The #1 Sherp ATV sales broker in the USA. Selling new and used Sherp Pro and the all new Pro XT. View tech specs, or call or text 813.699.9062.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sherpatvsales.com




One point though Colin, judging from the Argo and Rheinmetall videos, there is already a Canadian licence and production.  

Argo seems to own the licence and is teamed with Rheinmetal for the Mission Master XT.

The Argo version also seems to be built around the Hyndai, Doosan D18 EPA diesel.


----------



## Kirkhill

ARGO Partners with SHERP for Co-Brand Agreement
					

/CNW/ -- ARGO, the worldwide leader for amphibious Extreme Terrain Vehicles (XTVs), is pleased to announce it has entered into a manufacturing and supply...




					www.newswire.ca
				




SHERP

*

**Industry**Amphibious off-road vehicles**Founded**2012**Headquarters**Winnipeg, Canada*
Kyiv, Ukraine
Saint-Petersburg, RussiaKey people
Alexei Garagashyan (Engineer)
Yaroslav Prygara (former CEO)
Vlad Shkolnik (Owner)
Sergey Samokhvalov (Owner)
ProductsAmphibious ATV/UTV/XTVNumber of employees300+ (120 in Russia)Websitehttps://sherp.ru https://sherpglobal.com


----------



## Kirkhill

Rheinmetall ports its Mission Master autonomous control system to the rest of its fleet including

Wiesel
Lynx
Boxer 
HX Trucks






All can be driven manually, remotely, in follow mode or authonomously.


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile the Yanks continue to develop their arctic mobility 

- Oshkosh/Singapore Bronco-Warthog vs BAE/Hagglunds BvS10-Viking









						Cold combat: BAE Systems and Oshkosh vie for US Army’s CATV programme
					

The US Army has selected vehicles from BAE Systems Hägglunds and Oshkosh Defense for its CATV programme.




					www.army-technology.com
				




- Enhances Follow the Leader technology (same concept that Rheinmetall is developing with the Canadian Argo/Sherpa and the German Wiesel






						Army Sees Progress with Leader-Follower Vehicle Technology
					

Army Sees Progress with Leader-Follower Vehicle Technology




					www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
				






No doubt we will end up buying one of the US or Brit solutions and then subsidize Bombardier to have them (the Yanks and Brits) show us how to make snowmobiles.

Just as well there is no need for all terrain vehicles in Canada or the Canadian Forces. We don't know how to make them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have no problem with them paying for the tests and we picking the model based on our needs and using the information gained for that.


----------



## foresterab

I've started seeing sherpa vehicles on fires...frankly not very good as they have too small of cargo capacity and limited passenger capacity.    If you have an equipment operator and can only carry 3? people it's not a great mix.

The original Hagglunds are still well respected and used although the older Nodewell and Merukas are still floating around.    Why are they used?  All terrain access, in crappy conditions, and can operate when aircraft can't/won't fly especially due to flight conditions.      There are some newer Meruka's that are used as dump trailers/cargo frames that are modern designs but there are few passenger models around.


----------



## Spencer100

Kirkhill said:


> Meanwhile the Yanks continue to develop their arctic mobility
> 
> - Oshkosh/Singapore Bronco-Warthog vs BAE/Hagglunds BvS10-Viking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold combat: BAE Systems and Oshkosh vie for US Army’s CATV programme
> 
> 
> The US Army has selected vehicles from BAE Systems Hägglunds and Oshkosh Defense for its CATV programme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.army-technology.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Enhances Follow the Leader technology (same concept that Rheinmetall is developing with the Canadian Argo/Sherpa and the German Wiesel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army Sees Progress with Leader-Follower Vehicle Technology
> 
> 
> Army Sees Progress with Leader-Follower Vehicle Technology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we will end up buying one of the US or Brit solutions and then subsidize Bombardier to have them (the Yanks and Brits) show us how to make snowmobiles.
> 
> Just as well there is no need for all terrain vehicles in Canada or the Canadian Forces. We don't know how to make them.


Small point....Bombardier just builds Large Private Business Jet now.  That's it. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

The legacy business of Snowmobiles is BRP.   They still have one plant in Valcourt Que.


----------



## Kirkhill

Spencer100 said:


> Small point....Bombardier just builds Large Private Business Jet now.  That's it. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
> 
> The legacy business of Snowmobiles is BRP.   They still have one plant in Valcourt Que.



Thanks for the reminder, from the BRP (Bombardier Recreational Products) 






						About Us
					

Learn all about our heritage, innovation, manufacturing sites and offices, our dealer network. Find a dealer near you!




					www.brp.com
				






> We create innovative ways to move – on snow, on water, on asphalt or dirt – even in the air.
> 
> Headquartered in the Canadian town of Valcourt, Quebec, BRP has been reimagining the way you access your world since 2003 and beyond. Building on a tradition of ingenuity and intense customer focus that go all the way back to 1937, we operate manufacturing facilities in Canada, the United States, Mexico, Finland, Austria and Australia. We have a total workforce of more than 14,500 driven, resourceful people.
> 
> Our portfolio of industry-leading and distinctive products comprises Ski-Doo and Lynx snowmobiles, Sea-Doo watercraft, Can-Am On- and Off-Road vehicles, Alumacraft, Manitou, Quintrex and Rotax marine propulsion systems as well as Rotax engines for karts and recreational aircraft. We support our product lines with a dedicated parts, accessories and clothing business, to fully enhance your riding experience.



The Calgary alternative is Foremost Mobile Equipment









						Foremost Mobile Equipment
					

Download Foremost Mobile Equipment Product Catalog     Foremost Mobile Equipment  Since 1965, the Foremost name has been associated with our remarkable line of off-road tracked and wheeled vehicles. Early innovations like the Nodwell 110, developed in the Canadian Arctic in the 1960’s, set Foremost




					www.foremost.ca
				






> Foremost Mobile Equipment​Since 1965, the Foremost name has been associated with our remarkable line of off-road tracked and wheeled vehicles. Early innovations like the Nodwell 110, developed in the Canadian Arctic in the 1960’s, set Foremost on the road to success. Foremost vehicles are in operation around the globe moving people, supplies and equipment across some of the most difficult terrain imaginable. Over the years, Foremost’s low-bearing ground pressure transportation equipment has gained international recognition for reliable performance and mobility in extreme conditions.
> Our products include exploration drills, waterwell & construction drills, tooling for mining & drilling, pipe handlers, vac trucks, and heavy duty tracked & wheeled off-road vehicles.



And Foremost had the contract to supply 400 Hagglunds Bv206 to the Canadian Army in 1988.  Cancelled.


----------



## Spencer100

Oh yes one more point the (took me a minute to remember and look up)

Bombardier first line of business the Muskeg (sold machines to the army in WWII) and BR series of machines was sold to Camplast which then sold to the Italian snow groomer company Prinoth which is part Lietner.  They make ski lifts and snow making equipment.  The company still has a plant in Granby Que.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> And Foremost had the contract to supply 400 Hagglunds Bv206 to the Canadian Army in 1988.  Cancelled.




Nooooooooo..........


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Nooooooooo..........



What?  You reckon they might have come in handy in BC recently?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> What?  You reckon they might have come in handy in BC recently?



In BC.... or anywhere else too.


----------



## Dana381

Dew engineering built diesel snowmobiles, I'm not sure if they still are building them but I bet they could re-start the line in the CAF asked nicely.

I saw a bunch for sale a while ago on G.C. surplus. Maybe we should have kept them


----------



## Kirkhill

Kind of looks like Sarcee.

BAE, Oshkosh cold weather vehicle prototypes survive Army’s Alaskan tests​








						BAE, Oshkosh cold weather vehicle prototypes survive Army's Alaskan tests - Breaking Defense
					

BAE systems and Oshkosh Defense, with its partner ST Engineering, will now compete for the contract, with an award expected near the end of June.




					breakingdefense.com
				




I guess we'll have to wait and see if the Americans buy the Swedish or the Singaporean snowmobile before we decide which one to Canadianize.

Meanwhile

Oshkosh Defense announces first hybrid electric JLTV​








						Oshkosh Defense announces first hybrid electric JLTV - Breaking Defense
					

Oshkosh's current major customers, the Army and the Marines, haven't asked for an electric hybrid JLTV, but the company said the ones they have can be retrofitted "easily."




					breakingdefense.com
				





Just spitballing but would a hybrid electric version of either the Bronco or the BandVagon be of use to Canadians in general or the army in particular, or even just the Molitia?


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Just spitballing but would a hybrid electric version of either the Bronco or the BandVagon be of use to Canadians in general or the army in particular, or even just the Molitia?


EV's don't like the cold - Don't think there will be any use for a Cold Weather Hybrid - as the heater will suck it dry, so it would need to run the regular engine nearly all the time.
   All it adds is cost and complexity.


----------



## lenaitch

KevinB said:


> EV's don't like the cold - Don't think there will be any use for a Cold Weather Hybrid - as the heater will suck it dry, so it would need to run the regular engine nearly all the time.
> All it adds is cost and complexity.


Plus you need a genny instead of a bowser (or cans), and 're-fuel' time is a lot slower.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> EV's don't like the cold - Don't think there will be any use for a Cold Weather Hybrid - as the heater will suck it dry, so it would need to run the regular engine nearly all the time.
> All it adds is cost and complexity.





KevinB said:


> EV's don't like the cold - Don't think there will be any use for a Cold Weather Hybrid - as the heater will suck it dry, so it would need to run the regular engine nearly all the time.
> All it adds is cost and complexity.




Fair do's!

Still I would rather see Canadians spend money trying to do that with DAME/CATV vehicles than not doing anything at all.


----------



## Kirkhill

I were wrong!

It wasn't 400 in the 1987 White Paper "Challenge and Commitment"  The vehicles were designated Northern Terrain Vehicles and the White Paper called for 820 of them.   The 1989 budget reduced the call to 400.



> That same blueprint called for the purchase of 820 Northern Terrain Vehicles- an articulated, tracked, multi-purpose utility vehicles which would have equipped Army reserve units across Canada. That project got as far as the factory being built in Calgary to assemble the NTVs, before the whole thing was scrapped.



Perrin Beatty's Militia would have been equipped with 820 Bv206s and 200 Bisons.  And the Militia (Army Reserves) would have comprised 65,000 at various stages of training and utility, with an additional body of Supplementary List Reservists of around 25,000.

By my reckoning 820 would have put 4 on each armoury floor and still left a bunch over for training centres and northern deployments.


----------



## KevinB

Just more for the Reg Force to take...


----------



## Rifleman62

Oh, you are so correct.

Never saw a Bison.



> Bison. The *Light Armoured Vehicle II* (LAV II) Bison is an armoured personnel carrier in operation since 1990. They were purchased and intended for operation by the Canadian Forces Primary Reserve, but were rapidly appropriated by the regular force of the Canadian Army.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Rifleman62 said:


> Oh, you are so correct.
> 
> Never saw a Bison.



I had limited experience with them but thought they were a pretty good, classic, APC. Kind of like a Western BTR 60.

Lots of room, good mobility, easy to drive (I think), and less to maintain as there wasn't a turret or any other fancy doo dads....

Infantry proof, in other words


----------



## KevinB

Rifleman62 said:


> Oh, you are so correct.
> 
> Never saw a Bison.


I did. 
  In 1 CMBG…
1 VP had some
Field Amb had some
Engineers had some
Everyone had them, except the Reserves.

We also had some BV’s


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> I did.
> In 1 CMBG…
> 1 VP had some
> Field Amb had some
> Engineers had some
> Everyone had them, except the Reserves.
> 
> We also had some BV’s



It was to weep.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> It was to weep.


Yes and no, at the time the Regular Army needed them more than the reserves.  

The problem occurred when no one cared to backfill the Reserves.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Yes and no, at the time the Regular Army needed them more than the reserves.
> 
> The problem occurred when no one cared to backfill the Reserves.



Accepted.

Could have done with those 200 Bisons and 820 Bvs.  Would have made a world of difference to the utility of the Reserves, both on the civil and military fronts.


----------



## KevinB

They should give some of the 1M LAV’s the CAF seems to be intent on acquiring to the Reserves.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> They should give some of the 1M LAV’s the CAF seems to be intent on acquiring to the Reserves.



Maybe just some of the lighter, amphibious, LAV IIs that the USMC still seems to prefer.  Without the turrets.

Kind of like the Bisons now I think about it?  But with the double v hull?

 “The system has to possess the size, weight and power to accommodate those systems and still stay within their vehicle cone index or their ground pressure. They want these systems to be under 18-and-a-half tons, and again, they want to fit four on a Ship-to-Shore Connector. The vehicle not only has to have outstanding land mobility, it has to swim in the ocean; it has to depart from connectors, and it has to transition through the surf zone.”

How about just keeping the GDLS line open churning out bare-bones Bison Ups for the Militia.  If the regs want to claim some then drag them in like they did with the Bisons and convert to meet their needs.  Just keep replacing them in the Reserves lines.


----------



## KevinB

The problem is Bare bones models are different, and actually add to the problem. 

If your VTech’s, WTech’s and FCS Techs are used to working in LAV 6.0’s, a different vehicle won’t be easier. 

Your just adding to the list of things to work on.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> How about just keeping the GDLS line open churning out bare-bones Bison Ups for the Militia.  If the regs want to claim some then drag them in like they did with the Bisons and convert to meet their needs.  Just keep replacing them in the Reserves lines.



The vehicle thing is a red herring.

The Militia doesn't need armoured vehicles, seriously. I was in a Militia unit that was equipped with Grizzlies... it was a waste of time and resources, for many different reasons. We need some reliable SMP troop carrying vehicles that don't have air brakes (see what I did there? ).

The Militia needs a clear primary combat focused mission, that is properly led and supported at all levels and doesn't change/ get fuzzy every two years, along the lines of 'will augment the Reg F to level 3/4' (say twice). Then all current training and resources need to line up with that.

Right now we seem to be operating a patchwork of balkanized activities loosely connected to various different missions from 'do whatever you want' and 'keep the troops exited' to .....

.....'provide the combat support platoons for Reg F units' - soon to change by the way - and 'make sure you have a succession plan for the CBG HQs and 'Junior Generals' we need to play politics like the Regs.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree the Militia doesn't need armoured vehicles.  But if GDLS is going to be the lead supplier or vehicles to the CAF then the simplest vehicle in their production line is the LAV II.  As I noted on the Force 2025 thread I would be thrilled if they created a GDLS Stollie. Rugged and amphibious but not armoured.

And I would be ecstatic if we had a thousand of those 10-12,000 unarmoured Bv206s that were sold around the world available in the Service Battalions.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Our electrical utility operates transmission and distribution from Hudson Bay to the border with the US. The plant is situated in a wide variety of terrain and access to large parts of it is challenging to say the least. Almost exclusively the vehicles used to access the lines for maintenance and repair has for many years been Flextrac / Nowell / Foremost vehicles. I believe the latter is located in or near Calgary.  There has on occasion been other "off-road" vehicles trialed. About 20 yrs ago the BV206 was one of those. After a full year and in all weather conditions it was returned to the vendor with a thanks, but no thanks. It's main fault was clearance. Deep snow or bog conditions often left the tracks high with no traction and there's only so many time the guys could drag a winch cable out where it wasn't fun any more. a more recent trial was the Sherp. Staff put the units through every bit of terrain and in all kinds of weather. It was a big success. Approved and purchased. They are limited to light equipment and personnel so the wide tracked crane and pole diggers remain essential.
To access this vast country it may be best to look at how local oil field / exploration / utility companies have dealt with working here and the solutions they have come up with. Money is a big motivator so the equipment they use must do the job.


			https://www.foremost.ca/tracked-and-wheeled-vehicles/


----------



## lenaitch

Prairie canuck said:


> Our electrical utility operates transmission and distribution from Hudson Bay to the border with the US. The plant is situated in a wide variety of terrain and access to large parts of it is challenging to say the least. Almost exclusively the vehicles used to access the lines for maintenance and repair has for many years been Flextrac / Nowell / Foremost vehicles. I believe the latter is located in or near Calgary.  There has on occasion been other "off-road" vehicles trialed. About 20 yrs ago the BV206 was one of those. After a full year and in all weather conditions it was returned to the vendor with a thanks, but no thanks. It's main fault was clearance. Deep snow or bog conditions often left the tracks high with no traction and there's only so many time the guys could drag a winch cable out where it wasn't fun any more. a more recent trial was the Sherp. Staff put the units through every bit of terrain and in all kinds of weather. It was a big success. Approved and purchased. They are limited to light equipment and personnel so the wide tracked crane and pole diggers remain essential.
> To access this vast country it may be best to look at how local oil field / exploration / utility companies have dealt with working here and the solutions they have come up with. Money is a big motivator so the equipment they use must do the job.
> 
> 
> https://www.foremost.ca/tracked-and-wheeled-vehicles/


It seems that vehicles operating in deep snow or unfrozen tundra involves a lot of trade-offs, ultimately ending up being particularly specialized or the boy scout knife of vehicle; doing a number of things sort-of well but none of them really well.  The Sherp seems capable, but slow and relatively small.

Even in exploration world, they typically have pre-determined destinations and wait until freeze-up and prepare the route with bulldozers.  The 'rig-handling trucks, while very capable (powerful, good clearance, multi-wheel drive) don't operate on unprepared ground that I am aware of.


----------



## Kirkhill

lenaitch said:


> It seems that vehicles operating in deep snow or unfrozen tundra involves a lot of trade-offs, ultimately ending up being particularly specialized or the boy scout knife of vehicle; doing a number of things sort-of well but none of them really well.  The Sherp seems capable, but slow and relatively small.
> 
> Even in exploration world, they typically have pre-determined destinations and wait until freeze-up and prepare the route with bulldozers.  The 'rig-handling trucks, while very capable (powerful, good clearance, multi-wheel drive) don't operate on unprepared ground that I am aware of.



I think though, that Prairie Canuck is offering you two choices:

You can go anywhere slowly.

Or you can go some places fast, weather permitting.

In deep snow, bush, muskeg or at spring break up nobody is going anywhere fast.   As Vlad is finding out.  Even in the prairies farmers have to pick their opportunities to get on the fields.  A little bit after the frost starts coming out of the ground but before spring meltwater and rains turn the gumbo back in to the saltwater marsh it used to be.

Surface travel is likely going to be restricted to walking pace, or a little better, with the vehicles being used to transport heavy gear slowly.

If you want to move fast then you are going to have to leave the surface, either by aircraft or helicopter.

Or, along highways.


Which brings me to a direct question for Prairie Canuck.  What is the primary means of transport for those Foremost vehicles?  An F350 and a beavertail or a low-bed semi?


----------



## Prairie canuck

Kirkhill said:


> I think though, that Prairie Canuck is offering you two choices:
> 
> You can go anywhere slowly.
> 
> Or you can go some places fast, weather permitting.
> 
> In deep snow, bush, muskeg or at spring break up nobody is going anywhere fast.   As Vlad is finding out.  Even in the prairies farmers have to pick their opportunities to get on the fields.  A little bit after the frost starts coming out of the ground but before spring meltwater and rains turn the gumbo back in to the saltwater marsh it used to be.
> 
> Surface travel is likely going to be restricted to walking pace, or a little better, with the vehicles being used to transport heavy gear slowly.
> 
> If you want to move fast then you are going to have to leave the surface, either by aircraft or helicopter.
> 
> Or, along highways.
> 
> 
> Which brings me to a direct question for Prairie Canuck.  What is the primary means of transport for those Foremost vehicles?  An F350 and a beavertail or a low-bed semi?


The Sherps are on 2 axle trailers with about a 10,000 lb maximum capacity so your example of an F350 is a minimum. The tracked digger/derricks come in various sizes with the lighter of them the same as the Sherp but as they progress in size the trailers and the towing vehicles do the same. Only the very largest (see Foremost site) require low beds. Both the Sherps and tracked vehicles operate in any condition and at any time of the year. 
As for Speed the Sherps aren't snowmobile fast but do move along a a good clip. I would estimate that if it were configured properly you could reasonably expect to move 6 to 8 personnel with their gear 200 to 240 kms in an 8 hr day. The smaller tracked vehicles would be slower but of course could likely accommodate 8 to 10 personnel up to 150km in an 8 hr day. The large carriers or digger/derricks (use you imagination as to want you want to mount on them) would likely max out at 100km in an 8 hr day. These times and distance estimates are also based on a variety of terrains and weather. I have experience with the tracked vehicles but can only go by what present (younger) operators have shared about the Sherps.


----------



## Prairie canuck

As an example we've all seen how Russian vehicles are getting stuck when they try to "off road". I can testify that the Foremost tracked vehicles will traverse those same areas without any problems. Wide tracked vehicles are built for that and can even be specified to float. (we had a couple that actually had mounts for boat motors on the back) I'm in no way suggesting that any Foremost type vehicles be used in those combat conditions but in the north of our fair land with the snow and muskeg they will get you and a considerable amount of material and weapons to where you want to go, albeit at a slower pace. If you need to get somewhere faster then you'll have to send the Skidoo Skandics ahead while the Foremost follow along later. Obviously the CAF would have to work with Foremost to see if and what mods can be done.
Side note: if there's an outage these vehicles must and have responded at any time of the year.

Just more information to store way back in the corner of your brains..


----------



## GK .Dundas

Prairie canuck said:


> Our electrical utility operates transmission and distribution from Hudson Bay to the border with the US. The plant is situated in a wide variety of terrain and access to large parts of it is challenging to say the least. Almost exclusively the vehicles used to access the lines for maintenance and repair has for many years been Flextrac / Nowell / Foremost vehicles. I believe the latter is located in or near Calgary.  There has on occasion been other "off-road" vehicles trialed. About 20 yrs ago the BV206 was one of those. After a full year and in all weather conditions it was returned to the vendor with a thanks, but no thanks. It's main fault was clearance. Deep snow or bog conditions often left the tracks high with no traction and there's only so many time the guys could drag a winch cable out where it wasn't fun any more. a more recent trial was the Sherp. Staff put the units through every bit of terrain and in all kinds of weather. It was a big success. Approved and purchased. They are limited to light equipment and personnel so the wide tracked crane and pole diggers remain essential.
> To access this vast country it may be best to look at how local oil field / exploration / utility companies have dealt with working here and the solutions they have come up with. Money is a big motivator so the equipment they use must do the job.
> 
> 
> https://www.foremost.ca/tracked-and-wheeled-vehicles/


That would certainly be close I was a security guard at Mb. Hydro during that period . I  can remember seeing the 206 and a Pickup on Mattracks . And of course the The Foremost. As well a variety of various oversnow vehicles.
Btw . The 206's were Former RM issue and gasoline powered.


----------



## Prairie canuck

GK .Dundas said:


> That would certainly be close I was a security guard at Mb. Hydro during that period . I  can remember seeing the 206 and a Pickup on Mattracks . And of course the The Foremost. As well a variety of various oversnow vehicles.
> Btw . The 206's were Former RM issue and gasoline powered.


I knew the line maintenance crews who trialed those. They certainly looked impressive compared to the old Flextrac/Foremost equipment. In actual usage, not so impressive. You must have been around the old head office on Taylor and Harrow shop out back. Forgive my ignorance but who is the RM?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Yeah, Taylor and Harrow  fond memories of the place. .
Royal Marines surplus from their stocks. They'd been replaced by the diesel version in service. 
I understand it that you can find the older variants all over the world and in the oddest places..


----------



## KevinB

Foremost would sink like anything else if it had armor and a combat load on it too.  The fact is there is no free lunch, and the height of some of the vehicles makes for a massive side profile (a large negative in a military vehicle).  I’m sure it’s fantastic for Forestry uses, but the only think useful in that terrain for the military is a helicopter that has air superiority/supremacy.  

While the MTLB has thinner tracks it is a really light armored vehicle and negotiates muskeg great.  Just not Ukrainian mud bogs when combat loaded.   They where built originally in Ukraine (as part of the USSR) for that terrain and without dismounts and combat load they do quite well.  I’m guessing the trials guys in the USSR never opted for a combat realistic load trial.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> While the MTLB has thinner tracks it is a really light armored vehicle and negotiates muskeg great.  Just not Ukrainian mud bogs when combat loaded.   They where built originally in Ukraine (as part of the USSR) for that terrain and without dismounts and combat load they do quite well.  I’m guessing the trials guys in the USSR never opted for a combat realistic load trial.



What you mean to say is that the users overloaded the vehicle for the terrain - they expected too much out of the vehicle.  If the dam thing is sinking unload it.  Maybe make two trips.  Or use more vehicles.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> What you mean to say is that the users overloaded the vehicle for the terrain - they expected too much out of the vehicle.  If the dam thing is sinking unload it.  Maybe make two trips.  Or use more vehicles.


Empty vehicles serve no purpose…


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Empty vehicles serve no purpose…



Stuck vehicles serve no purpose.


----------



## Prairie canuck

KevinB said:


> Foremost would sink like anything else if it had armor and a combat load on it too.  The fact is there is no free lunch, and the height of some of the vehicles makes for a massive side profile (a large negative in a military vehicle).  I’m sure it’s fantastic for Forestry uses, but the only think useful in that terrain for the military is a helicopter that has air superiority/supremacy.
> 
> While the MTLB has thinner tracks it is a really light armored vehicle and negotiates muskeg great.  Just not Ukrainian mud bogs when combat loaded.   They where built originally in Ukraine (as part of the USSR) for that terrain and without dismounts and combat load they do quite well.  I’m guessing the trials guys in the USSR never opted for a combat realistic load trial.


Working the problem with mobility in mind in the far north, let's say Baffin Island. Access with any larger vehicles such as a MBT, LAV, and even the TAPV are very very limited, so notwithstanding it's military requirements the vehicles presently used for patrols are limited to snowmobiles. these are great for patrols. You are correct that helicopters will get you to where you want to be and in a hurry they are limited by weather. However once you get dropped of you will still need to be mobile. Mobility in that case is limited to what you cab sling under a Chinook. Hard packed snow opens it up to all kinds of tracked vehicles and the BV's will perform well but if there's a thaw (avoids global warming debate) then you're driving in soup. The Foremost vehicles are specifically designed for these conditions, even the Russians bought a bunch in the 80's (outfitted for forest fire fighting in Siberia I believe). The smaller and midsized units have model #s which if you multiply by 100 will give you it's load capacity. Add the buoyancy option and it won't sink. The only way to find out is to work with the company, give them the requirements, and trial 2 or 3. If it doesn't work then so be it. But if they do come up with something that meets the requirements you now have a Canadian supplier/manufacturer and a model or 2 that gives you a capacity that isn't limited by how many operational BVs are still around. With the chance there will be some extra cash lying around it may be an opportune time to give it a go. Plus it'll make Alberta happy (insert smartass smilie here)





And now for some pure entertainment 



 at about 2 mins you can hear the empties clinking around the back of the truck


----------



## Spencer100

The US Army picks the BAE offering.  

The BAE Sweden Beowulf based on the BvS10.  









						BAE Systems wins US Army deal for Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle
					

BAE Systems will build the Army's new Cold-Weather All-Terrain Vehicle, meant to replace aging vehicles as the service beefs up its Arctic focus.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

Spencer100 said:


> The US Army picks the BAE offering.
> 
> The BAE Sweden Beowulf based on the BvS10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BAE Systems wins US Army deal for Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle
> 
> 
> BAE Systems will build the Army's new Cold-Weather All-Terrain Vehicle, meant to replace aging vehicles as the service beefs up its Arctic focus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com



Awesome vehicle, nice choice!


----------



## Skysix

But no armor.... I guess the figure in the current AT environment armor enough to protect crew would be too heavy.

Too bad about those 12.7mm AP hits though....


----------



## daftandbarmy

Skysix said:


> But no armor.... I guess the figure in the current AT environment armor enough to protect crew would be too heavy.
> 
> Too bad about those 12.7mm AP hits though....



I think it has up-armouring packages though, does it not?


The BvS10 is similar to, but distinct from, Hägglunds earlier Bandvagn 206 or Bv 206S. It is a much larger vehicle based upon the characteristic twin-cab, articulated steering system typical of Hägglunds all-terrain vehicles. The main differences from the older Bv206s are a more powerful Cummins 5.9 litre diesel engine, improved ground clearance, and newly developed chassis, power train and steering units that give the vehicle considerably enhanced speed (up to 65 km/h from the previous 51.5 km/h on road) and comfort on road and in terrain, as well as greater load-carrying capability (up to 5 tons), and the ability to add various modular sub-systems such as add-on armour, weapon mounts, a load-changer and cargo platforms.









						BvS 10 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## childs56

When you see the Foremost and other bed trucks, sows trucks working in the muskeg up North carrying the Drilling rigs and equipment through the mud and skeg I often wondered why the Military did not buy those trucks for serious heavy off road equipment moving.


----------



## Furniture

Skysix said:


> But no armor.... I guess the figure in the current AT environment armor enough to protect crew would be too heavy.
> 
> Too bad about those 12.7mm AP hits though....


I suspect the intent is to use them like jeeps, not Shermans...

Not every(or even most) green vehicle needs to be a fighting vehicle. In Afghanistan we needed armour, in the next fight lots of light vehicles is likely to be more useful.


----------



## Skysix

childs56 said:


> When you see the Foremost and other bed trucks, sows trucks working in the muskeg up North carrying the Drilling rigs and equipment through the mud and skeg I often wondered why the Military did not buy those trucks for serious heavy off road equipment moving.


Not made in USA


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> I suspect the intent is to use them like jeeps, not Shermans...
> 
> Not every(or even most) green vehicle needs to be a fighting vehicle. In Afghanistan we needed armour, in the next fight lots of light vehicles is likely to be more useful.



And tanks are really good in certain types of snow conditions.

As I recall, the Leopard was particularly nimble..... for obvious reasons


----------



## Spencer100

Skysix said:


> Not made in USA


Neither is the Beowulf based on BvS10 they are buying.  BAE Systems America unit is selling it in partnership with its Swedish unit BAE Systems Hagglunds.  

The SUSV units they are replacing were also produced by Hagglunds.  The BV206 or some call it a Bandvagn. 

CAF have or had some too.  That is what they are looking to replace but it just takes ten times as long to make a procurement.  

 Oh as an aside the way BAE Systems US operates is different.  It has the ability to be counted as an "American" company it has at own board and governance.  The British side can only see the financials and some business side of things.  Many times they will little to no idea what the American side is working on.  Now they will know the big picture stuff but not the sensitive areas.  So in this case it is almost two companies teaming up but with same ownership.   Airbus and others are very jealous of BAE status.  The closest other foreign company to this is Leonardo and their Leonardo DRS subsidiary but they are in the process of selling it off.


----------



## Spencer100

What the Royal Marines are doing. For their program 









						Royal Marines to get 60 new amphibious vehicles
					

The FATVs will be in-service until 2058, replacing the BV206 tracked and older BvS 10 ‘Viking’ models.




					ukdefencejournal.org.uk


----------



## Kirkhill

Spencer100 said:


> What the Royal Marines are doing. For their program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Royal Marines to get 60 new amphibious vehicles
> 
> 
> The FATVs will be in-service until 2058, replacing the BV206 tracked and older BvS 10 ‘Viking’ models.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ukdefencejournal.org.uk



So that puts the Brits, Swedes and Germans using a variant of the BvS10/Beowulf adopted by the US Army for its Alaska based. 11th Airborne Division









						The Engineer - US Army selects BAE’s Beowulf all-terrain vehicle
					

BAE Systems has been awarded a $278m contract to supply the US Army with Beowulf all-terain vehicles, a deal that includes spare parts and contractor logistics support.




					www.theengineer.co.uk


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> So that puts the Brits, Swedes and Germans using a variant of the BvS10/Beowulf adopted by the US Army for its Alaska based. 11th Airborne Division
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Engineer - US Army selects BAE’s Beowulf all-terrain vehicle
> 
> 
> BAE Systems has been awarded a $278m contract to supply the US Army with Beowulf all-terain vehicles, a deal that includes spare parts and contractor logistics support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theengineer.co.uk



The bitter reality is that, despite the obvious usefulness of the BV 206 variants, the only real war winning vehicles in arctic warfare are tanks and tracked APCs, and tracked artillery and engineer vehicles, just in like the 'non-Arctic' type of warfare.

If we don't have tracked vehicles, and practise deploying them in the arctic, we'll be in 2nd place in that AO.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> The bitter reality is that, despite the obvious usefulness of the BV 206 variants, the only real war winning vehicles in arctic warfare are tanks and tracked APCs, and tracked artillery and engineer vehicles, just in like the 'non-Arctic' type of warfare.
> 
> If we don't have tracked vehicles, and practise deploying them in the arctic, we'll be in 2nd place in that AO.



We can't get an armoured Brigade to Seoul or Southampton in a timely fashion.   And you expect to get one to Eureka or the Barren Lands?  The good news is that nobody else can get one there either.

Nordkapp in something else again.  There are other people, starting with the Norwegians, Swedes and Finns that can bring those assets to the fight.  But despite their couple hundred tanks and their similar numbers of APCs their ATVs number in the range of 10,000 or so.   And the Poles and the Balts have been offering barracks for Light Infantry.

First we have to get wherever it is we want to go.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> We can't get an armoured Brigade to Seoul or Southampton in a timely fashion.   And you expect to get one to Eureka or the Barren Lands?  The good news is that nobody else can get one there either.


Most countries have them, and could get them there. 
  Canada has neither ability.  



Kirkhill said:


> Nordkapp in something else again.  There are other people, starting with the Norwegians, Swedes and Finns that can bring those assets to the fight.  But despite their couple hundred tanks and their similar numbers of APCs their ATVs number in the range of 10,000 or so.   And the Poles and the Balts have been offering barracks for Light Infantry.
> 
> First we have to get wherever it is we want to go.


Honestly it’s a three part issue. 
1) Having the Equipment and Personnel 
2) Having the Ability to move and support them 
3) Having the willingness to do the above.  

Canada is 0/3 on this.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> We can't get an armoured Brigade to Seoul or Southampton in a timely fashion.   And you expect to get one to Eureka or the Barren Lands?  The good news is that nobody else can get one there either.
> 
> Nordkapp in something else again.  There are other people, starting with the Norwegians, Swedes and Finns that can bring those assets to the fight.  But despite their couple hundred tanks and their similar numbers of APCs their ATVs number in the range of 10,000 or so.   And the Poles and the Balts have been offering barracks for Light Infantry.
> 
> First we have to get wherever it is we want to go.



Here's what the Russians are doing at high latitudes right now... and it seems to include heavy armour:


Satellite images reveal changes at key Russian military bases in the Arctic​


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Here's what the Russians are doing at high latitudes right now... and it seems to include heavy armour:
> 
> 
> Satellite images reveal changes at key Russian military bases in the Arctic​



We can't get pilots to renew because of Cold Lake.

This would be the equivalent of posting 12e RBC to Alert.

The one thing I notice is the presence of trees alongside of the tanks.  Those trees represent pluses and minuses.  The first thing they represent is a relatively moderate climate and shelter.  On the other hand they represent two way cover and concealment.


----------

