# LSVW what happened?



## Trogdor

I've been searching the forums and I simply can't find what I want to know.

Does anyone here know why we chose to buy the LSVW?  I mean from what I hear it had failed the army's trials over and over again.  

I heard a rumour that it was due to Defence Minister at the time Kim Campbell.  Something about her having a stake in the company financially or that the factory where they were to be built was inher riding or something.

However, I don't know for sure the actually history of this choice. Can someone enlighten me as to what the freak happened with that project?


----------



## Sig_Des

You had to bring up the Kim Campbell special, didn't you?


----------



## Trogdor

Well I just want to know what happened.  I mean I've heard a lot of rumours but never any definitive answer as to why she made us get that truck.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> Well I just want to know what happened.  I mean I've heard a lot of rumours but never any definitive answer as to why she made us get that truck.



......and typical of back room, political decisions, you likely never will. One thing you can rest assured of, it wasn't because of the quality and durability.


----------



## Trogdor

Well can anyone tell me if the Western star factory where they were produced was in fact in her riding?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> Well can anyone tell me if the Western star factory where they were produced was in fact in her riding?



Her riding was in British Columbia and so is Western Star.


----------



## recoverygod

I'm not sure of the "true" story, and I'm not sure i want to.  But yes the LSVW is a great vehicle in principle only.  I was in only a few years when it first made their appearance.  I do know for sure that it failed all of our testing. And was sent to the states to get tested, and I'm sure we paid for them to pass it.  i did take a couple of them to the western star dealer for warranty repair.  and nearly got thrown out of the dealer when i arrived.  the manager told me that no one and the dealer and other dealers at the time would believe that western star would put their name on such a vehicle.  and on a personal note.  I am surprised that a plastic truck rusts.


----------



## old medic

The Factory, (at the time) was in Kelowna.  Some history for you on the then Western Star Company:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Motor_Company


> From the 1950 until 1975, White Motors distributed Freightliner trucks under a agreement with Freightliner's parent, Consolidated Freightways Inc. by Volvo Trucks. White manufactured, under its own brands - White, Autocar and Western Star, as well, leading to the company becoming known as the "Big Four" through to the mid-70s.
> 
> By 1980, White was insolvent, despite importing Semon E. "Bunkie" Knudsen, son of General Motors legend Semon Knudsen, and President of Ford Motor Co. in 1969-70. AB Volvo acquired the U.S. assets of the company, while two, energy-related companies based in Calgary, AB, Bow Valley Resource Services and Nova, an Alberta Corp., purchased the Canadian assets, including the Kelowna, B.C., plant, and the Western Star nameplate and product range.



Auto World - May 1991
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_n5_v27/ai_10746616


> AUSTRALIAN DISTRIBUTOR BUYS WESTERN STAR
> 
> Western Star Truck Inc. has been purchased by its distributor, Western Star Trucks, Australia.
> 
> Bought for an undisclosed price, the sale was announced at the Mid-America Truck Show in Louisville, Ky. A holding company, Western Star International Ltd., has been set up to control both Western Star Australia and Western Star North America.
> 
> The Mississauga, Ontario-based maker of customized Class 8 trucks had been jointly owned by Nova Corp. and Bovar Inc., both of Calgary, Alberta, since 1981 when Western Star was formed out of the Canadian assets of bankrupt White Motor Co. The sale allows Nova and Bovar to concentrate on their core businesses -- oil and gas. The companies reportedly had been trying to sell Western Star since the mid-'80s..............
> 
> Western Star recently inked an agreement with Iveco BV of Italy to assemble 3,000 light trucks for the Canadian Armed Forces.




http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/twr/gulfwar/twr12v5.htm


> LSVW COMPETITION HEATS UP AS PMO EVALUATES BIDS THIS WEEK
> 
> The Light Support Vehicle Wheeled (LSVW) Project which will replace Mobile Command's geriatric fleet of 2,800 rusting, 5/4 ton Chevrolet cargo trucks has entered into the evaluation phase with the submission of four bids to the Military Operational Support Trucks Programme Management Office (MOST PMO). Competing for the contract to supply up to 3,300 vehicles in five configurations are Freightliner of Canada Ltd./Mercedes Benz Trucks; Invar Manufacturing Ltd. of Batawa, Ontario with Chrysler Canada; UTDC Inc. of Kingston, Ontario teamed with Steyr-Daimler-Puch AG of Austria; and Western Star Trucks Inc. in Kelowna, British Columbia associated with IVECO of Italy.
> 
> Colonel Malcolm Campbell, MOST Programme Manager said that evaluation teams gathered on Monday morning to begin reviewing four proposals which were submitted in time to meet the March 11 deadline. Six other companies which were also issued a Request For Proposal (RFP) in September 1990 — including British Aerospace, Flexicoil, Ford Canada, General Motors of Canada Diesel Division, LTV, and Oerlikon Aerospace — subsequently withdrew from the competition.
> 
> Campbell says that DND is seeking to acquire "a commercial vehicle with military enhancements" having a capacity in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 metric tonnes. The vehicle will be required to carry a shelter, three men and a trailer load. As price will be a major factor in determining the value of the contract, the new LSVW will represent a "minimum cost replacement to replace the existing capability". Central to the four bids is the vehicle being offered by each contending team.
> 
> Invar Manufacturing Ltd. submitted a uniquely all-Canadian bid disclosing that the main cab and chassis unit of its proposed vehicle is the Chrysler Canada Dodge W350 truck fitted with a turbo-charged diesel engine and a four-wheel drive line. The W350 truck would come directly off the Chrysler Canada production line and modifications to such parts as axles and tires would be undertaken by Chrysler prior to shipment to Invar for completion of the militarization. Company officials at Invar say they are pleased to be able to propose "the only all-Canadian bid" and single out this uniqueness as what they believe to be a `leg over' in the competition.
> 
> UTDC has proposed the `Noriker', a vehicle adapted by Steyr-Daimler-Puch for military applications which includes commercially proven equipment from the Volkswagen LT vehicle series. Bob Gawley, manager of Marketing and Communications at UTDC says that his company will provide a prototype built and tested in Austria and fully compliant with RFP specifications. The prototype will undergo further testing in Kingston to ensure that Canadian components can be successfully integrated into the vehicle.
> 
> Western Star Trucks hopes to fulfill DND's LSVW requirement with the IVECO (Fiat) Model 40.10 built by Western Star under Licensing Agreement with IVECO. The IVECO 40.10 is designed to perform for a twenty-year lifetime and is currently in military service with at least ten NATO countries. The Western Star LSVW bid contains the support of its dealer network which includes a dealership adjacent to every Canadian Forces Base in Canada.
> 
> Campbell told The Wednesday Report that Freightliner is offering a `Unimog' vehicle. Oddly, when contacted on Monday, Freightliner of Canada President John Mosier said he did not know if he should reveal this or other details of his company's bid. He was invited to think about it, but no further response had been received from his firm at press time.
> 
> The winning bid is expected to be announced between August and September and deliveries of the LSVWs will commence one year following the contract award. Campbell has been given no indication that the LSVW Project will be affected by budget constraints.



http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2000/07/19/2western000719.html


> Western Star and Freightliner to merge
> After the close of trading Wednesday, Western Star Trucks said it will be bought by DaimlerChrysler's Freightliner unit in a deal worth $670 million.
> 
> Oregon-based Freightliner, North America's largest heavy-duty truck producer, will pay $42 per share for all issued and outstanding shares of Kelowna-based Western Star. The two companies had been rumoured to be linking up and Western Star's shares were halted all day on the Toronto Stock Exchange.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can probably read between the lines on this next document:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/19971998/CDND97E.PDF
pages 67-68



> Light Support Vehicle Wheeled (LSVW) Project
> 
> 1. Overview
> The objective of the Light Support Vehicle Wheeled (LSVW) project is to acquire a minimum of 2,879
> vehicles and associated logistics support to replace the 5/4 ton militarized commercial trucks which were
> purchased in 1976. Authority was given for the procurement of an additional 128 vehicles which
> increased the quantity from 2,751 to 2,879 vehicles.
> 
> On 1 March 1992, following a competitive bid process, a contract was awarded to Western Star
> Trucks Inc. of Kelowna, British Columbia. Production of the vehicles commenced in February 1994 and
> was completed in March 1996.
> 
> 2. Lead and Participating Departments
> • Lead Authority: Department of National Defence
> • Service Department: Public Works and Government Services Canada
> • Third Parties: Industry Canada
> Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
> Western Economic Diversification Canada
> Federal Office of Regional Development (Quebec)
> 
> 3. Prime and Major Sub-Contractors, Address
> 
> Prime contractor: 	Western Star, Kelowna B. C.
> Sub- contractor: 	Iveco, Bolzano Italy
> DEW Engineering , Ottawa Ont.
> 
> 4. Major Milestones
> • Award of Contracts Mar 1992
> • Prototype Delivery Sep 1992
> • First Full Production Delivery Feb 1994
> • Last Delivery Mar 1996
> • Project Completion Mar 1998
> 
> 5. Achievements and Explanations of Variances
> T h e p roject completion has been delayed by one year and is now scheduled for March 1998. This one
> year extension is primarily as a result of delays in obtaining the initial provision of repair parts.
> 
> 6. Industrial benefits
> The industrial and regional benefits commitment of Western Star Trucks Inc. includes direct in-vehicle
> Canadian Content totalling approximately $103.5 million (1991 dollars) distributed as follows:
> 
> $ (millions)
> Atlantic Region 3.9
> Quebec Region 6.4
> Ontario Region 32.2
> Western Region 61.0
> 
> Achievements: to March 31,1996, the achievements are as follows:
> • direct IRB’s $127.4 million
> • Indirect IRB’s $79.3 million
> • small business participation and development.
> 
> 7. Summary of Costs
> The non-recurring costs associated with the approved project are:
> 
> Figure 60: Cost and Expenditure Detail
> (thousands of dollars)
> 
> Currently           	Forecast 				        Future
> 
> Estimated           	Expenditures 				     Years
> 
> Total 		          To March 31 		Estimates 	  Require-
> 
> Cost 		          1997 			    1997-98 	      ments
> 
> 273,419 		     256,107 	                    17,312 		-----
> 
> Once the Light Support Vehicle Wheeled (LSVW) is fully operational, the total reduction in
> Personnel, Operations and Maintenance cost is estimated at $1.1 million.






http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=hansard&mee=92&parl=35&ses=1&language=E
Monday, September 19, 1994



> Question No. 59-Mr. Lavigne:
> 
> With respect to the program to replace the 5/4 tonne vehicles built by General Motors for the Department of National Defence, (a) what is the cost of the new vehicle acquisition program, (b) what are the results of the tests carried out on these vehicles (i) by National Defence personnel and (ii) by civilian contractors, and (c) what is the value of the contracts awarded to civilian contractors to carry out these tests?
> 
> 5827
> 
> Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): The light support vehicle wheeled (LSVW) is the replacement for the 1 1/4 ton trucks built by General Motors. The LSVW is being produced by Western Star Trucks Inc. (WSTI) with a contract cost of $224.3M.
> 
> The LSVW has undergone one of the most comprehensive and thorough test programs ever undertaken by the Department of National Defence (DND) with a wheeled support vehicle system. Throughout this testing, as problems were identified, WSTI developed solutions and fully validated those solutions to DND's satisfaction. Because of these problems, the LSVW was judged to have failed the initial reliability, availability maintainability and durability (RAMD) tests conducted by DND in Canada. To validate the final modifications, WSTI was obligated to conduct a second set of RAMD tests at its expense at a test site fully acceptable to DND.
> 
> To avoid delays in fielding the LSVW, it was necessary to change the test site to the Nevada automotive test centre (NATC) because snow conditions in Petawawa masked the test track terrain, in effect reducing its severity. The testing carried out at the NATC was more severe than that encountered in Canada. Furthermore, to thoroughly prove the modifications, operation was skewed so that the largest percentage of testing was over severe cross-country. The terrain at the NATC is rugged and temperatures varied considerably. The NATC is a top-notch test facility with a worldwide reputation which has tested some 1,000 systems for the U.S. Department of Defense and major vehicle manufacturers. It is noteworthy that the LSVW has undergone more testing over more varied and more demanding conditions than any other wheeled army vehicle. This testing was continuously supervised by three to four Canadian forces engineers and technicians.
> 
> RAMD has done its intended job of identifying problem to permit the Canadian army and the manufacturer to fully debug the equipment prior to final production. As a result of this second test by NATC, all modifications were proven out and the vehicle was found to be fully acceptable.
> 
> The contract to NATC was paid for and managed by WSTI.





Tuesday, November 28, 1995
http://www.parl.gc.ca/35/Archives/committees351/govo/evidence/71_95-11-28/govo71_blk101.html



> .1108
> 
> The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
> 
> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome and thank the Department of National Defence for appearing before the committee today. Colleagues, I would particularly like to introduce to you Mr. John McLure, the associate deputy minister; Mr. Pierre Lagueux, the assistant deputy minister; and Mr. Rick Burton, the general manager of materiel control and business management. Jean Boyle is not coming.
> 
> 
> .1140
> 
> Mr. Bryden: It's very important, because I'm a numbers man. I like to see numbers before me so I can understand what's going on and see trends for myself.
> 
> I'll go on a little bit. I'm also interested in whatever history you can supply me with on what's called the light support vehicle wheeled project, LSVW, which has been subject to some controversy over the past while. There are a series of contracts that have been in some difficulty. Perhaps you could give us some detail about that. You can comment on it, if you like. But again, that's the kind of thing I'd like to look at to see as a model for what's going on....
> 
> .....<snip>.......
> 
> Mr. Bryden: I would like you to go a little bit further there and tell me the distinction between a classified audit and a non-classified audit. What is it I can't see? Can I see the audit of the LSVW?
> 
> Mr. Lagueux: If an audit was performed, I would expect it. But there are projects that procure classified material. Therefore, the audits of those projects would be classified.
> 
> Mr. Bryden: So it would have to be classified, like electronic equipment?
> 
> Mr. Lagueux: Yes.




http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/scondva/engraph/200498_e.asp
SCONDVA - Transcript - Monday, April 20, 1998



> .2130
> The Chairman: Corporal Tom Paisley.
> 
> Corporal Tom Paisley (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I have a few points.
> 
> ......<snip>................
> 
> • 2135
> 
> And who decides what vehicles we buy? We bought the LSVW. I know three people personally who were on the committee that tested the LSVW and told them not to buy it. We go out on exercise and we have to come into a hide quietly. What's the first thing you hear?....................



http://www.journal.dnd.ca/engraph/Vol2/no2/pdf/59-66_e.pdf



> footnote 36. Edgar and Haglund, p. 73. Some might
> argue that even the issue of being operationally
> acceptable is debatable. The vehicle problems
> associated with the recent LSVW project are
> considered by many to be a clear example of
> IRB issues taking precedence over operational
> capability. See the Land Engineering Test
> Establishment LSVW Reliability, Availability,
> Maintainability, Durability (RAMD) Test
> Report of 20 May 1994 for details on the oper-
> ational problems associated with the vehicle.




SENATE OF CANADA
Proceedings of the Standing
Senate Committee on
National Security
and Defence

http://parl11.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/defe-e/pdf/03issue.pdf



> Monday, June 12, 2006 (in camera)
> Page 138
> 
> The Forces will also soon need to replace its smaller logistics vehicle, the Light
> Support Vehicle, Wheeled (LSVW). The LSVW is used throughout the battlefield
> in such roles as troop transport, medical evacuation, maintenance, administration
> and light cargo. It is transportable in a CC-130 Hercules aircraft.
> These vehicles are, on average, 12 years old and will go beyond their service life
> around the end of the decade.
> The Light Support Vehicle, Wheeled (LSVW) provides transportation capacity
> between that of the smaller Iltis and G-Wagon, and the larger 2 ½ ton Medium
> Logistic Vehicle, Wheeled (MLVW). It is based on Italy’s Iveco Model 40.10 and
> was built at the Kelowna plant of Western Star.
> The LSVW's cargo capacity is too small for traditional tactical loads. Large
> stowage boxes and a spare tire mount behind the cab result in a fairly short cargo
> bed. To overcome the space restrictions, LSVW’s often tow an 850 kg trailer to
> provide adequate carrying capacity. Towing trailers and piling on the cargo
> 
> exacerbates the LSVW’s other key limitation – the rather anaemic power provided
> by its Fiat 2.5 litre diesel engine.
> The LSVW is unpopular. It has been criticized for poor handling, top-heaviness,
> unreliable brakes and transmission, and awkward engine access amongst other
> things. However, much of the difficulty resulted from the original specifications.
> The Department emphasized fuel efficiency and low purchase price when they
> were looking for a new light support truck. That is what it got – a vehicle with top
> speeds of 25 km/h off-road and only 90km/h on pavement.
> Neither the small engine (only 115 hp despite turbo-charging) nor the weak
> automatic transmission is adequate for tough military operational support duties.
> The transmission occasionally pops out of gear under stress. Fading breaks and
> rust have shown up far too early in the lives of these vehicles.
> In the end the Canadian Forces got what they paid for – caveat emptor.105
> 
> The Committee believes that the Forces will require approximately 4,700
> replacements for these trucks as the Army transforms into a larger, but lighter and
> more mobile force. The Committee estimates that the cost of replacing the Light
> Support Vehicle Wheeled will be $700-750 million. Replacing them as they reach
> the end of their mandate service life will reduce excessive maintenance costs to
> keep them running longer.
> The Committee believes that planning for the next generation of Light Support
> Vehicles should take into consideration the likely need to equip some or all of
> them with armour.
> 
> The Committee recommends that:
> 33. The Government should accelerate the acquisition of the next generation
> of light support vehicles, with the intent to take first delivery no later
> than 2011.


----------



## Trogdor

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> What is this compulsive questioning leading to?  You are a Reserve Cpl according to your profile.  I wonder why the childish insistance in your questioning.  Perhaps if you learned to do some research you could find out.  Here is a site that may help you the Wayback Machine



I'm on a dirvers course right now.  So it sparked my interest to find out why exactly the choice was made to buy it.  Just for general knowledge.


----------



## TN2IC

Ah, what's a "dirvers" course? Just messing with you.


Cheers,
TN2IC


----------



## paracowboy

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> I'm on a dirvers course right now.  So it sparked my interest to find out why exactly the choice was made to buy it.  Just for general knowledge.


brother, I think this is one of those cases where ignorance is bliss. The truth probably just made you more cynical and jaded, huh?


----------



## Danjanou

paracowboy said:
			
		

> brother, I think this is one of those cases where ignorance is bliss. The truth probably just made you more cynical and jaded, huh?



Yup, because the one thing this place really needs more of is more jaded cynics  8)


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> Well can anyone tell me if the Western star factory where they were produced was in fact in her riding?



No, the MP for Kelowna at the time was Al Horning, a PC rep.  _However_, the Associate Minister was Mary Collins, who happened to be from North Vancouver.  IIRC (and I had something to do with the project on the peripheries), it was Collins who directed the purchase based on IRB considerations.  I remember chatting with both the PD (again, IIRC) and a couple of the EME advisors who were none too impressed.  :


----------



## Sig_Des

> As price will be a major factor in determining the value of the contract, the new LSVW will represent a "minimum cost replacement to replace the existing capability"



 :rofl:


----------



## old medic

Exactly my thoughts, I took a calculator to it last night...
2879 trucks divided by 224 300 000.00 dollars = $77908.99 each
granted, different pods and configs, so that's an average price.


----------



## Trogdor

Wonder what they'll end up replacing them with. Anyone here ever driven one with an armour kit on it?  I figure they'd probably be really front heavy with that thing on them.

On another note anyone know if they've decided which truck will replace the MLVW?  I have had my money on the Oshcosh.  highest level of protection out of the bunch I hear.

Here's a marine one in Iraq


----------



## startbutton

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> What is this compulsive questioning leading to?  You are a Reserve Cpl according to your profile.  I wonder why the childish insistance in your questioning.  Perhaps if you learned to do some research you could find out.  Here is a site that may help you the Wayback Machine


Do You have a problem with Reserves ? Would it had been better if he was in the Regs ?
Many a soldier has asked that question when they first see and drive/ride it .


----------



## Fishbone Jones

startbutton said:
			
		

> Do You have a problem with Reserves ? Would it had been better if he was in the Regs ?
> Many a soldier has asked that question when they first see and drive/ride it .



Reel in your neck. It has nothing to do with it. Don't like a comment? PM and ask him. Just keep it civil and off the thread.


----------



## old man neri

old medic said:
			
		

> Exactly my thoughts, I took a calculator to it last night...
> 2879 trucks divided by 224 300 000.00 dollars = $77908.99 each
> granted, different pods and configs, so that's an average price.



That's actually pretty cheap, it's a government contract. A big part of the answer is in what you wrote. Less than 3000 vehicles, that's a very very small production run thus the price increases per unit. R&D costs as well as set up costs have to amortized over smaller number of units. Also, like I said, it's a gov't contract, there is all sorts additional costs included. Ever look at the price tag of G-Wagon?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Well, by comparison, the Ottawa Citizen quoted the original price of the Iltis at $84,000 each.  Guess you don't get what you pay for...  :-\


----------



## old medic

I think a better comparison would be the cost of the proposals Western Star was bidding against.
Having looked at some of them, The LSVW was expensive and sub-par.  
The G-wagon would be apples and oranges.


----------



## Kat Stevens

As I understand it, it failed every trial it was put through.  Basically we were told that "if the truck doesn't fit the army, the army will have to fit the truck".  That was from a newspaper article I saw hanging on the notice board at BMaint shed office in Wainwright, about '98ish.


----------



## old man neri

old medic said:
			
		

> The G-wagon would be apples and oranges.



I understand that, I just wanted it to use it as an example about how military vehicles are deceptively expensive.


----------



## old medic

Seen. Many are. Just to expand on my last comment, 
The problem with the LSVW project cost, is that it wasn't replacing a low production run 
military specific design. It was replacing a fleet of commercial 1976 Chevrolet pick-up trucks.



> 1. Overview
> The objective of the Light Support Vehicle Wheeled (LSVW) project is to acquire a minimum of 2,879
> vehicles and associated logistics support to replace the 5/4 ton militarized commercial trucks which were
> purchased in 1976



When I compare the cost of the LSVW project, to say, Invar's proposal (A fleet purchase of 1993 Dodge W350 
trucks right off the Chrysler Canada line with a Chrysler done CUCV upgrade package and Invar 
remount/refurbs/decks as needed), I believe the price we paid was exceptionally high.  The problem, as many 
have said before, it didn't provide large figure IRB's all over the country.


----------



## old medic

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Well, by comparison, the Ottawa Citizen quoted the original price of the Iltis at $84,000 each.  Guess you don't get what you pay for...  :-\



http://www.cda-cdai.ca/Parliamentary_Presentations/Pellerin%20to%20SCFAIT%20Jun%202005.pdf
Testimony of Colonel (Retired) Alain Pellerin
Executive Director, Conference of Defence Associations
to the
House of Commons
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
June 26, 2005

<edit to add: also located here: http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=123261 >



> Col (Retired) Alain Pellerin: You're
> absolutely right, but then are we willing to
> pay the price? Unfortunately, when the
> decision is taken to replace major pieces of
> equipment it is very expensive, even for
> relatively small projects. For instance, the
> trucks, starting with the jeep and then
> medium-weight trucks and heavy-weight
> trucks, were all built in Canada under
> licence. You remember the Bombardier Iltis.
> Well, we could have bought those in
> Germany--they're essentially built on a
> Volkswagen Rabbit frame. It would have cost
> $26,000, but we said no, we wanted to build
> them in Canada and it cost $81,000 per jeep.
> Then we only sold some to Belgium and the
> production line closed. But we kept them for
> 20 years, so we didn't have enough spare
> parts and we had to use spare parts from
> other vehicles or go back to Volkswagen to
> try to get them.


----------



## lostrover

Don't forget that the actual cost of the individual vehicle is much less, the contracts provided for a large amount of spare/replacement parts also.  So imagine buying a new car, then getting all the parts you might need for the duration of its life............the cost of that Honda Civic easily doubled...


----------



## old medic

In our example of the LSVW: 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/35/Archives/committees351/govo/evidence/71_95-11-28/govo71_blk101.html



> Mr. Lagueux:
> 
> I had the occasion to visit Western Star just a few weeks ago. From my perspective, the contract seems to have gone reasonably well.
> 
> We are now looking at terms of follow-on support for that vehicle and discussing that with Western Star in terms of looking at them. Again, it's part of our trend to go more to industry for support, as opposed to in-house support.
> 
> .....
> 
> Mr. Bryden: Can you tell us about the cost threshold? Has it stayed within the original contract? Have there been adjustments? It was originally a $200 million contract, if I understand correctly.
> 
> If you can't answer that easily now, I'm quite happy to take an analysis at a later date.
> 
> Mr. Lagueux: Off the top of my head, I'm sorry, sir, I can't answer those questions, but just let me speak generally to that question in terms of large contracts and amendments.
> 
> Very frequently, you'll find that large contracts - these are major crown projects that we're talking about of several hundred million dollars - will often have follow-on amendments to them. For example, we will procure for the piece of equipment itself. Then we will follow on with an amendment to that contract once we know further information about the contract and once the logistics support plans have been put in place. Then we will contract for the initial spares that come with the vehicle as an amendment to the original contract.
> 
> Western Star has a large network of dealers across the country, and we're looking to see what support they can provide to the vehicle, as opposed to setting up a support infrastructure within the Canadian Forces. We're looking to see what can be done in that area.


----------



## Wookilar

We can talk about price points, parts supply, and contract regs all we want. It doesn't change the fact that the LSVW was a politically motivated purchase that was given to us. I'm sure other government departments deal with crappy equipment, purchased to support someone in power, somewhere (I wonder what the Coast Guard has to put up with?). It's all about votes.

That being said, there is some work trying to be done on our procurement front. It will be a long, slow battle against the Treasury Board and Canada Works, but I think that we are making some progress with the bureaucrats. We will never be totally free of politics when it comes to procurement, but hopefully common sense can come to the fore.


----------



## recoverygod

I remeber working at bmaint CFB Toronto when we got the first shipment.  And then the groupe of techs that came to intoduce us to the new toy.  All they mentioned was the bad.  Not once did they say anything good.  And these were the factory reps  lol.


----------



## lostrover

I wonder how many of the "factory reps" were ex-military adding some cushion to there pensions?  The LSVW's problems are solely a result of the Canadian Governments procurement process.  The majority of the gripe that surface are from the average use, and some operators.  Its the vehicle we have and use, deal with it, the lack of operator training is not the fault of the vehicle.  Training and maintenance are the key.  Until such time as proper driver training and maintenance is achieved, theories such as this will plague the CF.  The maintainers do the best they can, primarily abuse from drivers/operators is causing much of the problem.  something we shall be seeing very shortly with newer vehicles such as the Glendelwagon.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Does anyone wish to list the problems with the LSVW that are purely issues of the vehicle, again?
Just to help Lostrover out, because I doubt the training is even half the problem.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The Russians had some ideas about keeping equipment simple and robust.  Notwithstanding the fact they also designed equipment with the expectation it would only have to last a few weeks in combat, it shouldn't be hard to pare down the specs to provide a truck that can serve 20 years and is mechanically uncomplicated.


----------



## lostrover

The CDN version of the IVECO 410 was a first production run (ie bran new tooling), yes within the first year or so close to 100 mods had to be done to the vehicle, similar to any new manufacturing venture.  Here are the most mentioned problems with the LSVW.

1. Squealing brakes - they still work, and they never freeze up, More than adequate drainage and looseness...........hence the squealing
2. Lack of power - last time i checked the the limit for smp vehicles is still 80 kph, it will do it, try mating the gears in the transmission with the engine to achieve the most out of it

This is a vehicle designed for field use, hence mobility, when defining mobility in a wheeled vehicle, 3 aspects are considered (with regard to performance).  Thankfully the military loves acronyms.  ATC.  Articulation, Clearance, and Traction. Articulation is the ability for the suspension to move throughout its axis to promote the ability to keep the tires on the ground (and limit cross axleing).  Clearance is the attribute of sufficient clearance under the low hanging components of the vehicle to prevent the vehicle from becoming grounded and taking into account the approach, departure, and ramp breaker angles.  Traction is the amount of engine power that can be converted into forward motion before a wheel starts to spin (hence a spinning wheel has little tractive value in most environment).  Hence with the LSVW with out going into specs which i would have to look up....just some basics

1. Articulation-independant front end-pros greater contact with the ground, smoother ride, cons, limits clearance on obstacles
                    -leaf sprung rear suspension- pros greater load carrying capability, simple design, cons, rough ride, increased axle wrap

   The suspension of the LSVW performs its job to meet its designation as a 1.5T Platform.

2.  Clearance - save for the cab  side steps, pros great approach and ramp break-over angles, more than sufficient clearance  under the    axles due to the fitting of 36-37" tires, cons,limited departure angle due to the box.

  The LSVW has sufficient clearance to perform it function whilst staying within the realms of a multipurpose vehicle.

3. Traction - pros, rear differential lock (overcomes the effects of becoming cross axled) , dual range transfer case, aggressive tires (which can be aired down to increase floatation/tractive ability, and fitted with chains for use in severe snow/mud environments) cons, inherent to the requirements of the vehicle the rear leaf sprung (yet essential for load carry requirements) limits articulation in the rear.  Empty the LSVW's COG is nose biased, however with load can be equalized, thus while the vehicle is empty the rear axle is for the most part unloaded thus affecting mobility in low traction environments.

  The LSVW has no tractive issues

Maintainers have to deal with the vehicle they are presented with and they do an amazing job at it, with what they have, yet alot of issues are the result of abuse by drivers/operators.  Prior to an individual saying "well its an army truck, it should take it"  just remember mobility.  You need to delivery beans and bullets essential to the task/operation, if your vehicle is broken................the chain in broken.  Mobility is essential, a vehicle broken from sheer abuse for no reason (being shot at is a valid reason), is systematic within the CF, as most adhere to the adage "drive it like you stole it"


----------



## lostrover

just to add spell check messed up a few, hence ramp breaker.....is ramp break-over


----------



## dynaglide

I'm a maintainer and have been working on these piles of ?%it since they came out.  Basic design flaws are the biggest problems with this truck.  i.e. metal fuel tanks rusting from the inside out, bodies rusting out when the vehs were less than a year old, fuel filters after the fuel pump, etc, etc,etc.... An off the shelf purchase from any of the big 3 manufacturers at the time would have been a better idea.  (parts procurement, servicing, etc).  Operator trg/error will always be a problem but in this case the truck itself is the bigger problem.


----------



## George Wallace

lostrover said:
			
		

> 2. Lack of power - last time i checked the the limit for smp vehicles is still 80 kph, it will do it, try mating the gears in the transmission with the engine to achieve the most out of it



Spoken like a 'Sales Rep'.  80 Kph would and should be considered a traffic hazard on any major road system in North America and Europe.  I would say that the old rules of Convoys travelling at 80 kph is 50 to 60 years out of date.  Those were once the normal speeds achieved by all automobiles.  Speeds have greatly increased in the last century.  Unfortunately DND has not kept up with the times in this regard.  

A vehicle with a top speed of 80 kph would greatly hinder the safety of a convoy in theatre today.  Our vehicles require speed at times to escape from situations that develop in the movement of convoys in a hostile area.  80 kph makes this vehicle the weakest link, and like in nature the easiest target in the 'herd' to cull.  

This vehicle has too many problems, besides being underpowered.  It offers absolutely no protection to its crew.  Its heater is too weak to heat the cab in the winter, and too hot in the summer.  The Driver's seat is designed for 'midgets' and a driver who is 6' or taller has difficulty fitting into it.  The handbrake works opposite to the way most other vehicles handbrakes do.  Fiberglass hood and cab do not support the weight of crews when they have to climb up to cam the vehicle.  The windows in the doors are inefficient.  The mirrors are poorly located.  The battery box is poorly designed and located.  The batteries are prone to catch fire/fire hazard if left in the vehicle while stored in a garage for a long period of time.  Undercab storage and steps rust out too quickly.  Spare Tire storage is poorly designed and difficult to use.

Driver training in the CF is not a problem.  It is usually quite extensive, so don't be blaming vehicle shortcomings on drivers.  That is where it appears you have some sort of vested interest in the manufacturer.


----------



## career_radio-checker

They do have one advantage above all other vehicles and that is on the range... they are a higher target and therefore easier to hit  

-LSVW= Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled
-Greatest example of war-profiteering / army shafting in Canadian history.
-Lousy to try and stand up in (box variant) 
-worst location for a Hand Brake (watch your foot when you get out of one). And NEVER walk in between a packet of LSVWs! Especially on a hill.

That's really all I got to say about them.


----------



## lostrover

Thank you Dynaglide!

most of the issues you mentioned are relative to the 'being built in Canada deal' .

The fuel tank build was sub contrated out (among various other pieces) were manufactured, yet sat in storage, waiting for the vehicles production to ramp up, likewise with the bodies, manufactured off site, and left bare waiting for assembly, then no sandblasting, prep or primer, just a shot of CARC.  With respect to the fuel filters, you have me thinking right now, but i can't remember is the fuel pump in-tank or inline (its been awhile and my current project already has me up late at nights)?  I agree 100% with your rationale, that buying from one of the big three would have had it dividends, yet that was done with the MILCOT and in some circles it too suffers a bad rap.  With regards to the post by Brad Swallows, the US, re-engineered a large quantity of its M35's to the designation of M35A2 (aka 1950's truck to new truck) at an extremely low cost and it still works for a capital expenditure that is non-relavent in todays world.  Dynaglide, should you have the opportunity to venture abroad...........take a look at the foreign IVECO 410's, you'll be impressed.


----------



## old man neri

lostrover said:
			
		

> yet that was done with the MILCOT and in some circles it too suffers a bad rap.



Ya, that's cause a lot of people think the MILCOT (aka milverado) is suppose to be a true off road going jeep. It is not and never was meant to be, it does have enhancements to make it more off road but it still has limitations. 

No matter what piece of kit comes out you will always get some soldiers/airmen/sailors that love it, some that hate it with a passion, and a varied bunch somewhere in the middle. That is a fact of life.


----------



## dynaglide

lostrover said:
			
		

> Thank you Dynaglide!
> 
> most of the issues you mentioned are relative to the 'being built in Canada deal' .
> 
> The fuel tank build was sub contrated out (among various other pieces) were manufactured, yet sat in storage, waiting for the vehicles production to ramp up, likewise with the bodies, manufactured off site, and left bare waiting for assembly, then no sandblasting, prep or primer, just a shot of CARC.  With respect to the fuel filters, you have me thinking right now, but i can't remember is the fuel pump in-tank or inline (its been awhile and my current project already has me up late at nights)?  I agree 100% with your rationale, that buying from one of the big three would have had it dividends, yet that was done with the MILCOT and in some circles it too suffers a bad rap.  With regards to the post by Brad Swallows, the US, re-engineered a large quantity of its M35's to the designation of M35A2 (aka 1950's truck to new truck) at an extremely low cost and it still works for a capital expenditure that is non-relavent in todays world.  Dynaglide, should you have the opportunity to venture abroad...........take a look at the foreign IVECO 410's, you'll be impressed.



The original fuel pump design had an inline filter(designed for gas engines, never diesel, followed by an electric fuel pump(external to the tank) followed by a spin-filter.  We have illegally modified alot of them and re-routed the the lines so the spin-on filter came after the pump and got rid of the small inline filters. (All they served to do was get prematurally clogged anyway.)  This mod is vastly superior and has been proven time and time again.


----------



## dynaglide

Amendment to my last post:  I should have said the filter came before the pump on the ones we modified.


----------



## lostrover

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Spoken like a 'Sales Rep'.  80 Kph would and should be considered a traffic hazard on any major road system in North America and Europe.  I would say that the old rules of Convoys travelling at 80 kph is 50 to 60 years out of date.  Those were once the normal speeds achieved by all automobiles.


 

Regretfully Mr Wallace I am not a sales rep.  Vehicles since the 1940's have been able to achieve speeds in excess of 80kph easily, the factor is the vehicle the military is driving, ie a much greater COG (center of gravity) and load potential.  My 52 tracotr can do close to 50kph, it may not go fast but it can do alot more than an Acura TL work wise (ok picking up women on a tractor doesn't work) but all I can say i think of the intended role the LSVW has to play.


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> A vehicle with a top speed of 80 kph would greatly hinder the safety of a convoy in theatre today.  Our vehicles require speed at times to escape from situations that develop in the movement of convoys in a hostile area.  80 kph makes this vehicle the weakest link, and like in nature the easiest target in the 'herd' to cull.



Yes true, however an LSVW can exceed 80KPH, compare the acceleration rate of the LSVW vs other vehicles in theatre, its up there.


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> It offers absolutely no protection to its crew.



Nor was it designed to, nor was the HMMVW, yet now the US, like us are faced with amouring soft skined vehicles and as a result degrading the utility of the platform.  Up-armoured HMMVW's are suffering massive structural damge from being uparmored and are loosing the speed varient from the additional weight.  


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Its heater is too weak to heat the cab in the winter, and too hot in the summer.



How is the heat and air conditionaing in the MLVW (sorry had to throw that in).


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The handbrake works opposite to the way most other vehicles handbrakes do.



It is a European vehicle, something that should have been addressed prior to the build in North America.


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The batteries are prone to catch fire/fire hazard if left in the vehicle while stored in a garage for a long period of time.



There has been a mod to correct this many years ago. 


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Spare Tire storage is poorly designed and difficult to use.



Glad to hear your input on a better solution, be sure to account for the weight of the tire/rim, and the physical capabilities of the average person


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Driver training in the CF is not a problem.  It is usually quite extensive, so don't be blaming vehicle shortcomings on drivers.  That is where it appears you have some sort of vested interest in the manufacturer.



My BDT was 8 weeks in Borden, after which i was qual on ILTIS, MLVW, panel van and crew cab, upon rtu I had additional PO's to do in order to qual on CUCV, CJ-7 etc......Once again i have no vested interest in the manufacturer and so long as the opposing party is out things should get better.


Its a tool in our tool box, a better understanding might prove worth of its use.




[Edut: Sort out Quotes]


----------



## lostrover

Dynaglide,

Thus by improving the accessibility for operator maintenance, by removing the filter prior to the fuel pump, we created our own problems.  As you are in the know, when i did my SME conversion on the LSVW, part of the DVR/operator's daily inspection was to drain the fuel filter (ala MLVW) on each morning parade, did that go by the way side also?  

All of our vehicles have strength's and weaknesses, but addressing them, we are able to fully utilise them.


----------



## dynaglide

We only removed the small in-line filter which got prematurally clogged because they are designed for gas engines.  We re-routed the lines so the larger spin on filter came before the pump.  You didn't read my post.  I said this mod improved performance.


----------



## Wookilar

Never mind the "plastic" anti-corrosion liner on the original fuel tanks. Hello, fuel eats plastic, even diesel.

And please do not get me going on starter fires, FFCH fires, alternator fires, bad ground straps, rusted out floors (in Alberta), etc. etc.

As for the engine being good enough....for a base cargo truck or for hauling a few troops around, it does well. Put a SEV of any kind on it and they suck @ss. Try driving an LS MRT or an LS AMB and see how fast you get up to 80 kph.

It does have good 4X4 capability, yes. As long as the aluminum t-case does not explode (due to excessive torque, not driver non-maintainence) or the front diff doesn't implode.

The truck is an ill-conceived, ill-designed, and poorly put together vehicle. Main components from Fiat, Western Star, and main contractors were done with the lowest price in mind, to try and keep the weight down. They were trying to keep the weight down because it was underpowered. Picture the LSVW without the turbo. That's what we were supposed to get.

I have worked on these vehicles from the very start. They suck (for very simple and basic design flaws) and we all should do whatever we can to ensure that we never get stuck with such a politically-motivated piece of crap ever again.

Just my opinion, of course.

Wook


----------



## career_radio-checker

Wookilar said:
			
		

> As for the engine being good enough....for a base cargo truck or for hauling a few troops around, it does well. Put a SEV of any kind on it and they suck @ss. Try driving an LS MRT or an LS AMB and see how fast you get up to 80 kph.



Try pulling an LS LCT with a 10k Genny in the back. Ahhhh, so much highway and too few middle fingers.


----------



## Sig_Des

Wookilar said:
			
		

> It does have good 4X4 capability, yes. As long as the aluminum t-case does not explode (due to excessive torque, not driver non-maintainence) or the front diff doesn't implode.



+1 WooK!

Career_Radio_Checker, how many times did 508's transmission blow up on me? 5? (That's in a 2 year period. Never got replaced...only repaired)


----------



## recoverygod

ah yes the fires.  nothing like waking up on ex, wondering what that smell is.  Only to run to the closest FE and put the sucker out.  and don't forget the spare tire mech killer.  nearly knocked me out.


----------



## 241

lostrover said:
			
		

> 2. Lack of power - last time i checked the the limit for smp vehicles is still 80 kph, it will do it, try mating the gears in the transmission with the engine to achieve the most out of it



Now I am sure that if I have been mis-informed someone will be around to correct me soon enough, I have not taught on nor been on a drivers course since before we started getting the MILCOTS and G-Wagens but troops that are qualified on these vehicles are telling me that that rule has been changed to if the vehicle can do the LEGAL highway speed they are allowed to travel at that speed.

Also a member of my units wife (whom used to be in the army) has said that her father was on the LSVW selection project at the beginning and retired part way through, he then went to she her at work saw the LSVW and asked what it was then said that it was no where close to what they had decided on, so apparently there where some "changes" made through out the final stages of the project.


----------



## Sig_Des

241 said:
			
		

> Now I am sure that if I have been mis-informed someone will be around to correct me soon enough, I have not taught on nor been on a drivers course since before we started getting the MILCOTS and G-Wagens but troops that are qualified on these vehicles are telling me that that rule has been changed to if the vehicle can do the LEGAL highway speed they are allowed to travel at that speed.



IIRC from my DG course, It's only up to 100 kph, and only applies to individual vehicles. Packets are still only up to 80 kph, as are vehicles carrying DG.


----------



## 241

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> IIRC from my DG course, It's only up to 100 kph, and only applies to individual vehicles. Packets are still only up to 80 kph, as are vehicles carrying DG.



Ah ok thanks, (see I said someone would be along shortly), I will keep that in mind for the next road move to Wainwright for Ex, make sure everyone leaves Timmies in 5 minute intervals...   ;D


----------



## Trogdor

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Spoken like a 'Sales Rep'.  80 Kph would and should be considered a traffic hazard on any major road system in North America and Europe.  I would say that the old rules of Convoys travelling at 80 kph is 50 to 60 years out of date.  Those were once the normal speeds achieved by all automobiles.  Speeds have greatly increased in the last century.  Unfortunately DND has not kept up with the times in this regard.



I think there is a new order out saying we can do 100 on highways.  I am not 100% sure, but I believe this to be the case; does anyone here have access to any official declaration from DND that confirms this?  

The newer vehicles that are coming into the system such as the MLVW replacement and the new backhoe can deffinetly top 100 kph.

I will try and confirm this at work today and be back later with what I find out.


----------



## Trogdor

Ahh didn't read that last part. Ok 100 individually and 80 in clusters makes sense.  Of course when we get to the days when all our vehicles can do 100 it'll be real nice.


----------



## WogCpl

F.I.A.T.
Fix It Again Tony!
There is no good points about that P.O.S. We should have bought Hummers. When Gen. Brewer (DGLEM at the time) came to visit us maintainers in Bosnia 2000, the first thing he did was apoligise for the Little Squeeky Vehicle Wheeled. (Actually, he did say LSVW, but I try to bash it every chance i get)


----------



## George Wallace

lostrover said:
			
		

> Regretfully Mr Wallace I am not a sales rep.  Vehicles since the 1940's have been able to achieve speeds in excess of 80kph easily, the factor is the vehicle the military is driving, ie a much greater COG (center of gravity) and load potential.  My 52 tracotr can do close to 50kph, it may not go fast but it can do alot more than an Acura TL work wise (ok picking up women on a tractor doesn't work) but all I can say i think of the intended role the LSVW has to play.
> Yes true, however an LSVW can exceed 80KPH, compare the acceleration rate of the LSVW vs other vehicles in theatre, its up there.
> 
> Its a tool in our tool box, a better understanding might prove worth of its use.



Every Convoy I have been involved in, on Road or Cross Country, the main culprit in reduced speed has been the LSVW.  Even an overloaded MLVW has left the LSVW in the 'dust'.  

As for a tool in our tool box, well I personally prefer not to have broke tools in my tool box.  I would prefer that all my tools are in good, serviceable condition and capable of doing their job properly.


----------



## TN2IC

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> I think there is a new order out saying we can do 100 on highways.  I am not 100% sure, but I believe this to be the case; does anyone here have access to any official declaration from DND that confirms this?



Check out the most updated Driver Regs.. should be in there. I don't have the e-version of it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

....and so how long are you guys stuck with these things?

Of note, I've been stuck behind about couple and they only way it looked like they'd break 80kph is if someone pushed them out of the back of Herc from altitude.


Matthew.


----------



## Sig_Des

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Of note, I've been stuck behind about couple and they only way it looked like they'd break 80kph is if someone pushed them out of the back of Herc from altitude.



Oh, it can hit +80...sometimes 90...

Downhill...With a loaded rad pod behind it...and a ton of equipment in a trailer....

Don't even think about speed when it's up-armoured


----------



## lostrover

We went from the 5/4T and CUCV to the LSVW, was this a step in a better direction, ie going towards a military vehicle versus a modified commercial vehicle?  Should the MILCOT have replaced the 1.5T fleet?  Only one post thus far has shown a positive aspect of the vehicle, regardless of what we have in the fleet there will always be complaints.  Lets begin with the M37 and 5/4T and CUCV, did we have complaints with these vehicles, yes we sure did, but we used them regardless.  Does anybody care to go over the pros and cons of these vehicle we have used prior to the LSVW? Blatant remarks such as its a POS does nothing to help the situation, understanding of the role it can play and be used in todays army is paramount.  The thought that we should buy HMMVW's is not much of a point, TACOM has already solicited for a replacement, the US has determined it no longer fits there need and is 20+ yrs old technology and very limited to the role it can play.  Would taking the MLVW or M35 series and removing one real axle, shortening the box, CTIS and a new powerplant fulfill this role...........few have complaints about the MLVW.


----------



## Wookilar

LRover,

I have to agree with your sentiment (mostly) in that the LS is what we have so we should learn to use it.

My point however, is that except for low-speed 4X4 capability, it's capabilities are sub-standard. You can be the best trained driver on the planet, but if your T-Case blows (for the third time), you've gone through 2 starters (1 crapped out, other caught on fire), 2 FFCH's (fire X2), AND your cab heater core goes (AGAIN! and it's February, in Suffield, of course), you tend to get a low opinion of a vehicle.

Sure we had issues with the 5/4's and CUCV's, and every other vehicle we've ever had, but no class of vehicle I have ever worked (except maybe M113 TUA's in the last few years) has taken so many man-hours to keep on the road. Go down to your Maint section and ask the Production WO if you can look at LSVW stats on PlanEx. It's bloody scary.

Remember when the LS first came out? It was supposed to be Mortar Pl vehicle. It was a very embarrassing CF Day in Calgary to have the guys jump out of them for the simulated battle run on the soccer field on Currie Barracks. Screeeeeeeechhchchchchch!!!!!!!!

I agree with you on the HMMVW's, we knew 10 years ago the US was already planning on replacing them. I personally like the hummer's, but would not advocate getting them for a number of reasons. 

I disagree about using the M35 chassis, even as a starting point. The ML as we know it is illegal to be on the road, always has been (it's a brake thing, no real backup and does not fullfill Ministry of Transport/Highways [whoever they are, forget right now] requirements). Also, talking about old technology, man.... Don't get me wrong, the ML's are solid and will last a while yet, but a modern vehicle is better in almost everyway. From a performance point-of-view, not necessarily a maintenance point-of -view.

Wook


----------



## WogCpl

As for finding a use for the LS, give them to all of the schools throughout Canada and use them for training only. Operationally, i cant see anything good about them unless your just running around the FOB. I worked on and drove all 3 of the trucks you mentioned LR, and I can say with a great deal of experience that the LS is a POS. I liked my M113 Fitter better than my LS, now thats saying something, us in the Regs never got the CUCV, that was given to the reserves only, the only imporvement I can see in changing from the 5/4 to the LS is that the LS is diesel. The CUCV was great for about 250 000km, then the blocks would crack and the crankshaft would snap in two. The hummer is a good solid truck with the 6.5L diesel and a 2.5 ton payload (not the earlier 6.2, same engine as the CUCV), not to mention the parts are easy to get, the $73 000 dollar price tag on the LS included spare parts for each truck, by the way . As far as an ML frame, forget it. The ML was underpowered from day 1 the 8.2 fuel pincher just does not have enough snot to get it moving, although i must admit that i have never changed many of them. Wook, your right about the brakes too, DOT has not let prime movers on the road with air over hydraulic single cyl master cylinders brake systems since the late 60's but they are still legal on trailers. In short, we really have no operational need for an LSVW, as log as we have the "G" for a whistle head runner and maybe an ML type veh(oshkosh or FMTV) as a tpt/cargo truck. I think that we can all agree that force protection is paramount and hopefully we don't see CSS guys doing anything in an LS operationally. I still remember how gutless my LS up armored MRT w/nonworking airconditioner was going round trip to Bihac, after that one trip it stayed on camp and i used the Bison!


----------



## recoverygod

I do agree that everyone complains about the kit that is issued.  We are Canadian, its our past time.  But when I am changing and engine with in 2 weeks of delivery, there is an issue.  The LS is a POS  no doubt.  and nothing can be done about it now.  The MILCOT Idea is a great idea.  For one of many main reasons, Quality control.  the vehicle that is sent out, is most part ready to go.  the LS had QA problems as well.  As for the ML.  I love that truck.  it is very solid, and yes it could use a better engine, but apart from that.  its a great truck, and if a engine replacement was done, the truck would last for ever.  That's my 3 cents in


----------



## Wookilar

FatwogCpl,

Yes, to all the above. I really don't see the need for such a small vehicle, especially when the price tag for replacement is not really that far off from the ML replacement project.

Saying that you actually liked your Fitter has me wondering about your sanity though  ;D. FRG in Calgary? (I was BRP then FRG for the move to Edmonton).

Imagine: an Army without an under-powered, over-weighted vehicle. All Ambs, MRT's (anything with a SEV box) on a medium truck frame (except for the few heavies on HL frames). A whole line of parts, gone out of the system. One less vehicle type to manage, same number of vehicle totals. What a wonderful world we could live in. Ohh well, at least we got the whole fleet on diesel now. Only took 100 years.

Wook


----------



## WogCpl

My fitter was great, we had a resurgence in 1 svc bn a couple years ago (2001ish) and used them on every ex! The heater always worked and nav with the PLGR was simple cause it was all x-country, on the down side my elbows did tend to get a little beat up in the crew cmdrs hatch. Both my personalities also question my sanity, so i guess all three of us think i'm nuts.
I am with you Wook, we really have no need for a "little" truck.
RecGod, as far as the ML goes, i think it's had it's day, i will agree that the frame and drive train are bulletproof but i hate changeing battery boxes and fenders, and i have yet to be in one in the winter and find a heater that will put out enough BTU's to at least keep my canteen from freezing. I would scap both the ML and LS and go with the FMTV or Oshkosh if i had my way.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The MLVW had lots of issues when they came out and the 5/4 tons were useless offroad, especially the box versions. There is nothing about the M35 design that can’t be updated and there are armour kits available for it. I would like to see the old deuce spare tire hanger design brought back, simple and workable. The LSVW screeching is a brake lining issue from what I can tell, I also see people traveling around the world in IVECO based trucks and they are happy with them. Europeon vehicles have always depended more on the gearbox to provide the right amount of torque rather than a larger engine. I find many North Americans concept of successful offroad is merely pushing the gas pedal to the metal and going till they stop.

The G-wagons are a decent design for a ¼ ton truck, and the Pinzauger is still in production and is a proven military design, they could be replacing the LSVW with them right now if they wanted to.


----------



## lostrover

Take at the remanufacturing of the M35 into the M35A2 and A3 variants, same engine and transmission as the FMTV's, CTIS, all kinds of goodies on a simple platform (and yes the air over hydraulic issue was dealt with).  I haven't a clue how to attach a picture on here, but for a feasible option to an LSVW, take an MLVW and remove one rear axle, and go the route of an M35A3.   Imagine a fleet of three support vehicles all sharing common components.

http://www.m35products.com/images/shorty2lg.jpg  Add a SEV box to it and off we go.  I will try to locate a paper I had written on the M35A2-3 project with relevant references (yeah continuing studies was fun).


----------



## WogCpl

Colin I agree, but EVERYTHING about the ML needs to be updated. from the grease lubed wheel bearings you need to put a chunk of cork in to keep the gear oil out on up.
I will agree we need to keep mil vehicles simple, personally i am still a big fan of vehicles that can still operate if the electrical system goes in the toilet,(at least you can limp your @ss out).
Iveco's are good...for europe. for short people driving twisty little roads sure. but for trying to run from an ambush or escape an IED, i'll take horsepower.
And as far as off roading goes, wheel spin is the enemy, regardless of how much power you have some people just haven't figured that out yet.


----------



## lostrover

Well I have yet to see a vehicle that will outrun a bullet/rpg or what have you.  Yes faster moving vehicles present a harder target to hit (lead time is a bummer), but if the bad guys want to get you, regardless they will (my personla view)



			
				FatwogCpl said:
			
		

> And as far as off roading goes, wheel spin is the enemy, regardless of how much power you have some people just haven't figured that out yet.



 Yet some say there is not a lack of driver training, and currently overseas in the light fleet there are alot of band-aid attempts to overcome the shortfalls of training, and reasoning.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FatwogCpl said:
			
		

> Colin I agree, but EVERYTHING about the ML needs to be updated. from the grease lubed wheel bearings you need to put a chunk of cork in to keep the gear oil out on up.
> I will agree we need to keep mil vehicles simple, personally i am still a big fan of vehicles that can still operate if the electrical system goes in the toilet,(at least you can limp your @ss out).
> Iveco's are good...for europe. for short people driving twisty little roads sure. but for trying to run from an ambush or escape an IED, i'll take horsepower.
> And as far as off roading goes, wheel spin is the enemy, regardless of how much power you have some people just haven't figured that out yet.



Hey I drive a Landrover with Ligmun Vitate bushings!!! Cork gaskets are nice because it's easy to make your own. The MLVW never struck me as a happy meeting between the engine and tranny. I do remember the increase horsepower was nice over the old 302 inline 6 in the deuce, not to mention the fuel range increase! The 5tons were in really rough shape when I was driving them and the gas wrecker were all on their last legs. Going to Germany and watching the MAN trucks and that MAN wrecker(thing of beauty)was pure joy!!!


----------



## WogCpl

Ah the 5 ton! I can not believe that people complained about getting rid of that wrecker to make way for the HLVW.
Q: Why do brits drink warm beer?
A: Lucas makes fridges!
A little Landrover/Triumph humor for you Colin, and if your rovers a gasser, you'll definately know what i am talking about ;D.
Hey, if we had defenders, i would be all for a re-life project, but we might as well start fresh and strike while the irons hot with our currently op focused CDS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

3 positions of a Lucas switch:

1  flicker

2 dim

3 smoke 

 ;D

All Lucas products worked on smoke, if the smoke escaped it didn't work anymore!!

Lucas made vacum cleaners for awhile, it was the only product they made that didn't suck  

My 87 Range Rover is an excellent vehicle, although a pig on gas. Disc brakes and coil springs work great off-road.


----------



## recoverygod

By design the Ml should have oil through the bearings.  It is an oiled lube design from day one.  The reason why we Greece them now is because the fleet doesn't move as much, so greasing them stopped the parts from rusting solid.  Which would actually improve the stupid park brake.  We should have bought the unimogs instead of ivecos.  yes iveco are great trucks.  but i rarely ever heard of a complaint from a unimog.  and you can now by them here in north America. At any freightliner dealer.  Which is owned by chrysler, who is owned by mercades.


----------



## AideMemoire

When I was still in, I heard the prototype built and submitted for trials by Western Star (i.e., the one that passed those trials) incorporated a number of improvements over the sorely lacking original IVECO design.  As the story goes, as this new and improved unit was getting ready to go into production for CF, IVECO got wind of it and essentially told Western Star:

"You have a contract to build our truck under license, so you're going to build OUR truck under license, or you're in breach of contract."

Needless to say, IVECO appears to have had its way, and the Little Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled we all know and love entered service to replace the five-quads and CUCVs.  Personally, apart from watching entire formations of U.S. troops laughing their asses off as we passed them with our brakes screeching like a boiled cat, I didn't really mind them so much.  Cramped cab, poor ventilation, stupid high-idle neutral lockout which pissed us off when we were running line -- but halfway decent turning circle and not-too-shabby offroad compared to the CUCVs.    We did have a couple of outright dogs though.  One kept going back to ASU because you'd be driving along and suddenly you couldn't do anymore than about 50 km/h with your foot through the floor -- and each time it came back from (*cough*) 'repair' - it wound up doing the same thing on the way back to the unit.  Another one -- rad truck -- had some weird-ass wiring problems and either wouldn't charge or would grossly overcharge.  I was doing a shift in the back of that thing when the sigs batteries essentially started gassing out the pod.  Yeahnice.  P.O.S.  I certainly don't miss that one. 

When we did Cougar Salvo one year we had a bunch of the DND procurement people and a bunch of Western Star folks present to see the LSVW's shortcomings in action.  One problem we had with the trucks was entirely DND's creation, as the comms pods originally designed specifically for the LSVW were nice and light and perfectly suited for the IVECO design -- but expensive -- so Ottawa elected to re-use the comms pods off of the old Five-Quads and CUCVs that the LS was replacing.  Those pods were re-skinned, had their internal arrangements changed around, and had extra stuff bolted on the outsides to support VIXAM masts etc. -- but were otherwise the same pod that was on the older vehicles.  The weight of this pod with all its associated kit (and CRTTZ was still around then - and that's a *lot* of add'l weight in a pod) apparently was too much given the specs of the IVECO design, and stuff began to bend and warp and crack and give out well before the vehicle and its components neared the end of their projected design life.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I haven't heard any italian soldier truely hate their version and the Inveco chassis is quite common on around the world caravans and the people that owned them were very happy with them. I think Western Star screwed up a fair bit all on their own.


----------



## chrisf

With regards to the speed limit of an SMP vehicle, I was recently "pooped" on by our course warrant on a drivers course, after he came up behind myself and a student on a highway doing approx 95km/h in an ML vs the "limit" of "80km/h". I was confident I had done nothing wrong, so we looked it up, and lo and behold, it is definitly max 100km/h, not to exceed posted limit.


----------



## AideMemoire

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> With regards to the speed limit of an SMP vehicle, I was recently "pooped" on by our course warrant on a drivers course, after he came up behind myself and a student on a highway doing approx 95km/h in an ML vs the "limit" of "80km/h". I was confident I had done nothing wrong, so we looked it up, and lo and behold, it is definitly max 100km/h, not to exceed posted limit.



I used to see DND SMP stuff of all shapes and sizes come out surplus with those "MAX SPEED 80 KM/H" stickers stuck somewhere, so at one point it must've been the reg for anything that wasn't a panel or a staff car.  Chances are pretty good your Warrant still has that stuck in his head from the early 1990's or whatever and figures nothing ever changes.  It definitely, definitely should be covered in the driver wheeled course though.


----------



## chrisf

It's only changed in the last few years. maybe 2005.


----------



## geo

an old holdover from the Max 50 MPH from the Miles per hour generation.
50mph / 6 X 10 = 80 KPH


----------



## AideMemoire

geo said:
			
		

> an old holdover from the Max 50 MPH from the Miles per hour generation.
> 50mph / 6 X 10 = 80 KPH



Plus I guess the 80 km/h stickers gave the old gas-powered deuces something to strive for.


----------



## geo

Heh....
If you looked after your deuce & knew how to wind her up.... you would be amaazed at the speed you could get outa her..... however - trying to slow her down with those mud tires on a wet / slippery surface.... gives you some grey hair


----------



## Nfld Sapper

geo said:
			
		

> Heh....
> If you looked after your deuce & knew how to wind her up.... you would be amaazed at the speed you could get outa her..... however - trying to slow her down with those mud tires on a wet / slippery surface.... gives you some grey hair



Ah so thats where you got yours  ;D


----------



## geo

got them ??? I LOST them


----------



## Colin Parkinson

geo said:
			
		

> Heh....
> If you looked after your deuce & knew how to wind her up.... you would be amaazed at the speed you could get outa her..... however - trying to slow her down with those mud tires on a wet / slippery surface.... gives you some grey hair



Add on a 105mm Howizter with no brakes and you will quickly find yourself doing 180 degree turn abouts in a intersection!!!!!

Remember going up the side of a hill in Yakima with 6 tons of ammo in the back of my deuce. The poor beast would reeve up and leap ahead a couple of feet and then repeat all the way up the hill, let it have a good rest to cool down afterwards. You had to respect those trucks for the beating they would take.


----------



## AideMemoire

Skidding? Ohyeah.  The old joke goes:

Q: Do you know why they call them "non-directional tires?"
A: Because when you hit the brakes you skid in no particular direction...

I was coming down the ramp of a C-130 in a 74 Pattern Jeep  (M151A2) after a photo op courtesy of the loadmaster, and as I hit the brake to slow down, sure enough the jeep started going sideways on me down the Hercy-bird ramp.  Loadmaster was watching at the bottom in horror figuring he had front row seats to a train wreck, and the only thing he could thing to do was cross his arms in the "Stop" signal - like I hadn't already thought of that :  All turned out okay, but I figured out that a Hercules ramp wasn't the best place to discover one of your rear brakes was grabbing, especially with an audience.


----------



## AideMemoire

AideMemoire said:
			
		

> I was coming down the ramp of a C-130 in a 74 Pattern Jeep  (M151A2) after a photo op



I now remember it was actually a C-5 Galaxy, not a Herc.  This is what happens when you eat too many meals out of aluminum tins.


----------



## NcmArtillery

I beat up Kim Campbell's son in Grade 3  ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper

NcmArtillery said:
			
		

> I beat up Kim Campbell's son in Grade 3  ;D



And your comment adds what to this thread?

MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## Loachman

NcmArtillery said:
			
		

> I beat up Kim Campbell's son in Grade 3  ;D



Great first impression.


----------



## aesop081

NcmArtillery said:
			
		

> I beat up Kim Campbell's son in Grade 3  ;D



I think i speak for everyone in saying thank you for posting. We can sleep at night now, knowing this information. I havent slept in 16 months.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Thanks for your drive-by posting.....


----------



## Kat Stevens

I think he gets it.


----------

