# Wanted:  "Ultra-Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV)"



## The Bread Guy

This from the public tender site:


> Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) is seeking information on an new capability involving acquisition of ultra-light combat vehicles (ULCV's) to support the Department of National Defence (DND). Refer to the attached document for complete details on this Request for Information (RFI).
> 
> The objective of the RFI is to share DND's requirement and seek feedback from Industry on potential options to meet Canadian Armed Force needs and associated capability, schedule and cost as requested under Section 6 of the RFI document.  This is the first step of an Industry Engagement process where the ULCV project will be seeking initial input on availability of technology, ability for industry to deliver and cost estimates for the initial acquisition of the required ULCV capability.
> 
> To augment the information being requested in this RFI, there will be an industry equipment demonstration to provide an opportunity for DND to view the vehicles and allow Industry to present its equipment in an interactive environment.  Participation in this activity is voluntary and non-participation will not prejudice the follow-on procurement.  The demonstrations will take place during the week of 19 October 2015.  The demonstrations will be held at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ontario ....


From the RFI package (attached):


> .... The ULCVs are required to be true light-weight high mobility tactical vehicles, which provide critical integral tactical maneuver to the Canadian Armed Forces deployed out of area in support of Counter Terrorism and High Value Task operations. This vehicle will be used in low, medium and high intensity threat environments and is expected to be off-road 75 % of the time. The ULCV is expected to operate in a wide variety of temperatures (-32 C to + 49 C) and climates, from temperate to the extremes found in desert or tropical climates (humidity ranging from 0 to 100 %). Furthermore, a combination of urban or rural  environments situated within mountainous, plains, jungle and woodland areas should be expected.  The ULCV will operate on roads of varying quality ranging from paved highways, dirt trails and in most cases broken and/or uneven ground. The ULCV will be operated by personnel who will be experiencing the effects of battle fatigue therefore it must be capable of continuous operations with minimum breakdown, damage or operator maintenance. The ULCV must provide maximum flexibility when tailoring specific force packages. The integration of user supplied communication equipment and weapons systems will be required. The ULCV must have growth potential to accommodate future technological and system capability improvements in numerous areas such as: maneuver, firepower/weapon systems, protection/survivability, human systems and communications/sensors ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## Dissident

Iltis?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hah, that would be so ironically funny


----------



## Kirkhill

Polaris





General Dynamics





Boeing


----------



## Rocky Mountains

Why doesn't somebody invent the Jeep?


----------



## cupper

How light do are we looking for?

*Win World War Z on this mean green 'survival bike'*

http://www.cnet.com/news/win-world-war-z-on-this-mean-green-survival-bike/



> Everyone knows that when the zombie apocalypse comes, the roads are going to be choked with traffic from drivers who abandoned their cars when they, um, lost their heads. So what you'll need to get around is a bike. And, in my opinion, there simply is no better bike for navigating your way through the brain-splattered aftermath of World War Z than the Motopeds Survival Bike: Black Ops Edition.
> 
> If you're unfamiliar with Motopeds, it's a company that "uses a 49cc-to-155cc 4-stroke horizontal OHV motor and downhill mountain bike parts mounted to a custom frame and swing arm" to create "a high-quality motorized bicycle at a great price," according to its website.
> 
> For the Survival Bike, the company has equipped its already cool-looking chassis with gear that's essential for blasting through columns of the undead, including a Barnett Recruit Compound Crossbow, United Cutlery M48 Hawk Harpoon, Gerber Fixed Blade Saw, Blackburn X6 Light System, climbing rope and carabiners, extra gas storage, and a bike mount for your iPhone, because it's important to have the right playlist banging in your ears when you're kicking some zombie butt.
> 
> The bike's not quite ready for sale yet, but Motopeds says on its Facebook page: "The Survival Motoped will be priced very soon, we just want to get all the first Motopeds out prior. We will make these bikes very affordable as well." The post also says the Survival Bike will get about 80-120 miles per gallon, so that's an another advantage it'll have with those post-apocalyptic gas supplies dwindling.
> 
> I wonder if Motoped will be taking any of the Facebook fan comments on board before releasing the bike. One commenter suggests that the air filter be enclosed in some kind of protective housing, while another wonders if the bike will be available with gas cans bigger than the gallon-ish standard size. Of all the Facebook comments though, I have to say my favorite is: "Shut up and take my soul."
> 
> Better than what the zombies are going to take if you don't get away on this bike?


----------



## Kirkhill

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Why doesn't somebody invent the Jeep?





> 1.4 VEHICLE SYSTEMS
> 
> 1.4.1 Weights and Dimensions
> 
> 1.4.1.1 The proposed ULCV has a *Curb Weight (CW) of
> 2040 kg or less* as defined in TOP 2-2-801, Weight
> Distribution and Ground Pressure (Wheeled and Tracked
> Vehicles), US Army Development Test Command, Test
> Operations Procedure
> .
> 1.4.1.2 The proposed ULCV is capable of carrying a
> *Payload of 1475 kg* under all Mission Profile conditions as
> described in the RFI paragraphs 2, 3.1 and 3.2, Mission
> Profile, and as defined in TOP 2-2-801, Weight Distribution
> and Ground Pressure (Wheeled and Tracked Vehicles, US
> Army Development Test Command, Test Operations
> Procedure.



Close but no seegar (but a damsight cheaper)

Jeep J8



> Weights
> GVW 3,864 kg (8,518 lb)
> *Curb Weight 2,600 kg* (5,732 lb)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jgms.com/resource/01da5d843a784ab38ad6bb7690ad7e69.pdf
> 
> *Payload 1,264 kg *(2,787 lb)
> Trailer Towing 3,500 kg (7,716 lb)


----------



## a_majoor

Maybe something built along these principles:

http://www.gizmag.com/swincar-tilting-4-wheel-spider-car-concept/38745/


----------



## a_majoor

Two for Chris Pook, who is a big fan. The DAGOR mounting a minigun has a much higher LCF, but probably a much higher curb weight as well!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Polaris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General Dynamics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing



Tis a rehash of old concept


----------



## Loachman

Can any of these carry thirty tons of bolt-on armour, though?

Because as soon as one rolls over an IED, we will get Iltis Scandal II spurting from the press and whatever political parties were not in office when the contract was signed...


----------



## Kirkhill

So the operational standard for the Canadian Armed Forces is: No soldiers will die.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Our friends to the South probably have a parking lot full of FAVs in Ft Lewis that aren't doing anything.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=FAV&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5p5WNgJbKAhUP3GMKHa0RAJQQ_AUICCgC&biw=1366&bih=653#tbm=isch&q=fast+attack+vehicle


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was there when that craze hit, quite a few crew commanders died in rollovers.


----------



## Loachman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So the operational standard for the Canadian Armed Forces is: No soldiers will die.



That appears to be the political standard.


----------



## daftandbarmy

We already have a ULCV. This pair just seem to need a little 'Kiwi love'


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting to compare the Polaris to this:


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Interesting to compare the Polaris to this:



Tthe trucks at the bottom carry a much larger payload of decent tea....


----------



## Kirkhill

Not to mention an impossible-to-spoof navigation system....


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We already have a ULCV. This pair just seem to need a little 'Kiwi love'



Kiwi love?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Kiwi love?


#falklandswarbride ?  >


----------



## GK .Dundas

While we're looking at expeditionary vehicles and the whole concept this might be an interesting read (still reading myself ).
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR770.html


----------



## a_majoor

Loachman said:
			
		

> Can any of these carry thirty tons of bolt-on armour, though?
> 
> Because as soon as one rolls over an IED, we will get Iltis Scandal II spurting from the press and whatever political parties were not in office when the contract was signed...



Interesting point. With the latest technology it is possible to get a high level of protection in a smaller, more mobile vehicle, but physics has the last word (as always). The IDF's "Combat Guard" shows a possible configuration of a "light" and agile vehicle capable of carrying a section or alternatively being used for many other tasks (recce, anti-armour, mortar carrier, etc.); however it weighs 8 tons, so is hardly "light" (and I don't want to have to change the tire). While it is far heavier that many of the vehicles portrayed here, it is still far lighter than a LAVIII, much less a LAV 6.0. Indeed it is half the weight of a TAPV, and has much better protection and performance to boot.

The real issue as always is people are fixated on shiny kit without stopping to think about how it is supposed to be used or even "why do we need this at all?" Chris Pook and I have had friendly heated discussions on these threads over the merits of ATV's over Marginal Terrain Vehicles like the Bronco, and I have come to the conclusion that we are _both_ right, so long as you accept the starting premise either of us are working from. If the right sort of doctrine and TTPs were written, then of course ATV's would be the better choice (but we had better be prepared to live with the various limitations that would come with such a doctrine. Same applies for a doctrine written around MTV's). We are arguing in a vacuum, since there is really no stated reason for having either sort of vehicle at all.....


----------



## Kirkhill

Horses for Courses.   

Edit:  By the way, with all the staff officers running around the place why can't you have ATV TTPs, MTV TTPs and LAV TTPs all accommodated in your doctrine?


----------



## Kirkhill

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> While we're looking at expeditionary vehicles and the whole concept this might be an interesting read (still reading myself ).
> http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR770.html



Two thumbs up on that one GK.  I see where Bogie the Francophile has been coming from.

This was particularly interesting:



> *French officers interviewed by the author also draw a distinction between how they are
> taught to operate and the “American way,”* with which they have become familiar in Afghanistan.
> According to Garnier, for example, *the U.S. Army* can fight “properly” in the sense that it *can think in terms of going about an operation the best way*.
> In contrast, he said, *the French Army sees itself as having to make the best of whatever resources may be available*. Thus, according to Garnier, planning for Serval was an exercise in thinking through what was and
> was not available and coming to terms with the associated risk. *Goya carried the argument further
> and defined the American approach to warfare in terms of detecting the enemy, locating
> it, and then using firepower to destroy it. “Fire maneuver,” he termed it. This compares with
> destroying the enemy through combat, or “combat maneuver,” which is riskier*. The French
> see fire maneuver as a luxury, something one can do when one has the means, but it is expensive.
> According to Goya, France’s Ground Forces Command has gone so far as to express the
> desire that the French Army post-Afghanistan “de-Americanizes” so as not to retain the “bad
> habits” picked up fighting alongside the U.S. military.* “We learned a lot of methods from the
> Americans,” he said. But they do not want to retain the default to standoff fires and prefer to go
> back to “close combat.”* Another officer, a legionnaire who had participated in multiple African
> and Afghan deployments, similarly expressed concern that the French Army had learned some
> bad lessons in Afghanistan with regard to fighting *“American-style warfare” in the sense that
> infantrymen worked in close conjunction with drones, satellites, and aircraft providing close
> air support. France could not afford to fight like that, he said, and besides, it was contrary to
> the experience of most French officers most of the time, who have to operate in the field with
> few resources*.55



Pages 41 and 42.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.heartofcars.com/nature/brave-guy-escapes-devils-highway-using-utv/?utm_source=Facebook+UTV+Stuck+Mud+Pit+Desk&utm_medium=CPC&utm_campaign=Facebook+UTV+Stuck+Mud+Pit+Jan+2016+Desktop

Check the video - skills.


----------



## Journeyman

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> While we're looking at expeditionary vehicles and the whole concept this might be an interesting read (still reading myself ).
> http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR770.html


Concur with CP, good catch.  

While a solid recommendation by the author, I don't see the US military believing that they could learn _anything_  military from France, for different cultural reasons.


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I don't see the US military believing that they could learn _anything_  military from France, for different cultural reasons.



Dunno.  If Bernie gets elected, they might take a page out of the French Army's playbook in '58...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the next step ...


> The Department of National Defence has a requirement to purchase 52 Ultra- Light Combat Vehicles (ULCVs) and ancillary items, including familiarization instructions/training, publications, and other data deliverables in accordance with the requirements of ANNEX B and its appendices. The requirement includes an irrevocable option to purchase up to 26 ULCVs. The requirement also includes, on an as and when requested basis, the provision of Ready Packs, Special Tooling and Test Equipment, In Service Support and the supply of spare parts to support ULCV entire fleet for a period of two (2) years after final delivery of the ULCV.
> 
> As part of the Technical Bid, the Bidder must provide one (1) or two (2) units of the proposed Ultra-Light Combat Vehicle(s) at no cost to Canada ...


Full bid package (260+ pg PDF) here.


----------



## a_majoor

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Two thumbs up on that one GK.  I see where Bogie the Francophile has been coming from.
> 
> This was particularly interesting:
> 
> Pages 41 and 42.



Slight digression.

Much of modern American military thought and doctrine on conventional war is an outgrowth of Americans being trained in France before assuming a combat role in WWI. So in many senses the Americans have learned a lot from the French. OTOH, the "American Way of War" is actually based on the Indian Wars period, so light forces, cavalry and scouting are all part of the American war fighting experience. This was refined during the "Banana Wars" and other small scale actions throughout the 20th century. Max Boot's book the Savage Wars of Peace is an interesting history of that evolution. If anything, forces built around light vehicles would be far more consistent with American history and practice than heavy forces.

In many respects, a large standing force such as has existed since the end of WWII is an anomaly in American history, and the drawdown that is occurring (even if for the wrong reasons) is entirely consistent with historical experience.

Back to our regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## MilEME09

> *Canada buying new fleet of lightweight combat vehicles that could cost over $190k each*
> http://globalnews.ca/news/2879194/canadia-buying-new-fleet-of-lightweight-combat-vehicles-that-could-cost-over-190k-each/
> 
> As the Canadian government continues to come under fire for exports of armoured personnel carriers to countries like Saudi Arabia and South Sudan, our own military is looking to augment its capabilities with an entirely new type of ground vehicle. Following in the footsteps of the American military, Canada has issued a call for tender for 52 new ultra-light combat vehicles, or ULCVs.
> 
> The ULCVs will be four-passenger, Jeep-like vehicles that are small and light enough to fit inside a Canadian Forces’ CC-177 Globemaster aircraft, a CC-130 Hercules aircraft or a CH-147 Chinook helicopter (or to be lifted externally by helicopter).
> 
> According to the tender documents, published earlier this week, they must also be designed “to be air dropped with a 900 kg payload” from either the Globemaster or the Hercules, and detached/offloaded from the helicopter within five minutes.
> 
> They need to be able to operate in extreme temperatures (-32C to +49C), handle a combination of urban and rural environments (mountainous, plains, jungle and woodland) and will be off-road 75 per cent of the time, the documents note.
> 
> “The Department of National Defence (DND) will be using the ULCV as a complimentary vehicle to increase mobility across a spectrum of operations,” confirmed department spokesperson Ashley Lemire in an email to Global News.
> 
> “The ULCV is a new type of vehicle and will be used in concert with the current fleet of DND ground vehicles to increase mobility on operations.”
> Increasing ground mobility
> 
> The ULCV can be used for a variety of different missions and tasks, Lemire noted, extending the “tactical mobility needs” of troops in the field. In plain English, that could mean providing quick deployment into a hostile area, cutting down on the distance soldiers need to walk before reaching an active battle zone.
> 
> The ULCVs may also give troops an easier entry and exit during reconnaissance or surveillance missions, and help avoid putting helicopters within the range of enemy fire that could shoot them down.
> 
> “The range and maneuverability of (the) ULCV is an increase over portions of the current fleet of vehicles,” Lemire said.
> 
> The call for tender notes that DND will have the option of adding 26 more vehicles to the total within two years.
> 
> There are several possible options in terms of the model of ULCV Canada may acquire. U.S. defence firm Polaris could be a contender with its DAGOR model, as could aerospace giant Boeing with the Phantom Badger.
> 
> The total cost of the new acquisition will depend on the bids received, but Polaris’ DAGOR models for example, run around US$150,000 apiece. That’s around CAD$194,000 at the current exchange rate.
> Tight timeline
> 
> Much like their American counterparts, department officials are moving quickly to add ULCVs to the roster of available ground vehicles as the role of special operations groups becomes more prominent. Among other missions, Canadians special forces are currently carrying out training work in Iraq with local Kurdish troops fighting the so-called Islamic State.
> 
> This week’s call for tender comes just under a year after an initial request for information, which went out last August, and the first 52 vehicles are expected to be delivered by Nov. 15, 2017.
> 
> Asked if the American move to purchase a fleet of ULCVs prompted the Canadian tender, Lemire said that “while we must ensure our equipment remains compatible with other nations with whom we frequently work, the equipment we acquire must also meet the essential requirements … needed for the (Canadian Armed Forces) to achieve the missions assigned by the Government of Canada.”



Can we get a few more for light recce? this is all going to CANSOFCOM

_- mod edit to include link -_


----------



## Kirkhill

Here is the RFP package with the Mandatory Technical Criteria at Appendix 1.

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2016/08/08/ff9546880ae25d6efb5e625a2adc147e/ABES.PROD.PW__BL.B265.E25938.EBSU000.PDF


Too bad they are specifying something already in NATO or Aussie service otherwise this might be a runner as well.

http://www.jgms.com/resource/01da5d843a784ab38ad6bb7690ad7e69.pdf


Interesting bits from the MTC on weapons - .50 cal with 5 bins ready on the ring and 4 more bins in the vehicle  while the CC gets a Mk48 or a C6 on the pintle mount.

Will any CANSOF lessons learned result in cascading of solutions to the reg forces and the reserves?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Will any CANSOF lessons learned result in cascading of solutions to the reg forces and the reserves?



Have they ever?


----------



## Kirkhill

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Have they ever?



Hope everlasting.....


----------



## a_majoor

And this is a great way to solve _which_ doctrinal issue?

Sorry for the snark, but you would think that someone, somewhere would have learned from the TAPV fiasco....oh, wait....


----------



## Spencer100

Looks like the Polaris is it. 

Did not get the 51 units in the RFI, plus I wonder why BRP doesn't bid.  And one more point why is it soo much more than the civilian model?

Polaris to supply Canadian Army with MRZR-D

David Carl, Toronto - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly 

24 August 2016


Canada will procure 36 Polaris MRZR-D4 utility vehicles and 12 tactical trailers for the army, Public Services and Procurement Canada announced on 23 August.

The vehicles will be supplied through Polaris Industries Ltd, the Canada-based offices of Polaris Industries Inc.

The MRZR-D4 is an ultralight off-road mobility vehicle designed for use by expeditionary forces in rugged terrain. It is air-transportable in both helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft, including the CH-47 Chinook, CH-53 Stallion, MV-22 Osprey, and C-130 Hercules. Canada operates both the CC-130H/E (C-130H/E) and the CH-147F (CH-47F).

Previous versions of the MRZR are in use with special operations forces (SOF) in several Western countries.


----------



## Spencer100

Thinking about this why buy the whole amount of MILCOT units, Buy some and "save" them for deployments. Go the local Polaris dealer and buy 5 for the same price of the civilian model and use for training and the like. The difference is very small (no CARC etc)

They are so cheap many units could get them.  But why do that when we can pay 5 times the price.  ;(


----------



## PuckChaser

Blackout lights, 24V system for radios, runflat tires, beefed up alternator for radios.... lots of reasons for the price increase.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Looks like the Polaris is it.
> 
> Did not get the 51 units in the RFI, plus I wonder why BRP doesn't bid.  And one more point why is it soo much more than the civilian model?
> 
> Polaris to supply Canadian Army with MRZR-D
> 
> David Carl, Toronto - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
> 
> 24 August 2016
> 
> 
> Canada will procure 36 Polaris MRZR-D4 utility vehicles and 12 tactical trailers for the army, Public Services and Procurement Canada announced on 23 August.
> 
> The vehicles will be supplied through Polaris Industries Ltd, the Canada-based offices of Polaris Industries Inc.
> 
> The MRZR-D4 is an ultralight off-road mobility vehicle designed for use by expeditionary forces in rugged terrain. It is air-transportable in both helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft, including the CH-47 Chinook, CH-53 Stallion, MV-22 Osprey, and C-130 Hercules. Canada operates both the CC-130H/E (C-130H/E) and the CH-147F (CH-47F).
> 
> Previous versions of the MRZR are in use with special operations forces (SOF) in several Western countries.



The contract award you reference is for a separate program than the ULCV.  
ULCV is essentially a HMMWV replacement program for CANSOFCOM.  Likely competitors are Polaris' DAGOR, Supacat HMT, GDLS GMV, Boeing Phantom Badger, etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Blackout lights, 24V system for radios, runflat tires, beefed up alternator for radios.... lots of reasons for the price increase.



Still a dual level purchase, buy the required number of militarized vehicles and a good number of the civilian model for training and driver courses.


----------



## PuckChaser

I don't think you'll accrue any cost savings by running double fleet of COTS and MOTS. Every unit needs some to train, do we reduce their operational fleet to give them a few training versions, or just bite the bullet that stuff breaks whether it's on course or not and get as many operational models as you can?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As long as the parts commonality is sufficient and the price difference is worth having them, then training vehicles for this fleet should not be counted as part of the fleet, but as training aids and expendable ones at that. Problem is now if you write a number of the tactical ones off in training, it's unlikely they have  replacements.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here is the Polaris MRZR data sheet.

http://cdn1.polaris.com/globalassets/military/2016/datasheets/mrzr.pdf?v=38fa0733

Here is the Polaris RZR build your own site.

http://www.polaris.com/en-ca/rzr-side-by-side/choose-model

Tell me again that Polaris, or any other manufacturer, can't cost-competitively craft a solution unique to your requirements.

You want blackout lights instead of halogens on your light bar?  You want an additional alternator and battery?  You want different tyres?

You want fries with that?


----------



## Spencer100

Always get the fries.


----------



## a_majoor

And a side of mayo as well.


While Chris is correct is saying a manufacturer can and often will modify the product for the customer's specifications, it seems like an iron law that when said customer is Her Majesty in Right of Canada, the cost escalates considerably. I recall doing a very rough comparison when the G-Wagon and MilCOTS were first introduced, we simply went to the DND website, looked at the number of vehicles purchased and the amount spent, did a bit of simple arithmetic and came up with the rather crazy numbers of MilCOTS costing over $80,000/unit and G-Wagons going for over $120,000. For comparison, the GM website allowed us to "build" a Silverado to almost DND specs (no 24V alternators or extra batteries), for far less cost. It was a bit more difficult to do direct cost comparison for the civilian pattern G Wagon because armoured door panels and roof pintle mounts are not generally options you can get at the dealership, but the G-Wagon was in the neighbourhood of $50,000. 

Going farther back, the Illtis cost a cool $20,000 back in its day, and in the early 1980's $20,000 could get you a pretty high end vehicle on civvi street (of course the civilian Illtis was a flop because it was far more expensive than a Jeep or other utilitarian 4X4).

While there are specialty requirements for real military vehicles (i.e. armour, NBC protection, fully amphibious capability, ability to be air dropped from a C-130 or size and weight requirements to fit in the back of a Chinook), these are for specialist vehicles. MilCOT should mean just that, a civilian vehicle with minor changes and a coat of green paint, not a civilian vehicle with an inflated price tag and a coat of green paint.


----------



## CombatMacguyver

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Blackout lights, 24V system for radios, runflat tires, beefed up alternator for radios.... lots of reasons for the price increase.



Blackout lights and a 24V system would take an EO and a Veh about a day to install at pretty minimal cost if you gave them free reign to just get 'er done (LPO battery and LED systems instead of whatever canadianized garbage we'd have available to us).  The Alternator wouldn't be a big deal either.

The runflats would be 99% of the cost.


----------



## MilEME09

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> Blackout lights and a 24V system would take an EO and a Veh about a day to install at pretty minimal cost if you gave them free reign to just get 'er done (LPO battery and LED systems instead of whatever canadianized garbage we'd have available to us).  The Alternator wouldn't be a big deal either.
> 
> The runflats would be 99% of the cost.


Two days, gotta account for those 3 RCEME coffee breaks 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dissident

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While Chris is correct is saying a manufacturer can and often will modify the product for the customer's specifications, it seems like an iron law that when said customer is Her Majesty in Right of Canada, the cost escalates considerably. I recall doing a very rough comparison when the G-Wagon and MilCOTS were first introduced, we simply went to the DND website, looked at the number of vehicles purchased and the amount spent, did a bit of simple arithmetic and came up with the rather crazy numbers of MilCOTS costing over $80,000/unit and G-Wagons going for over $120,000. For comparison, the GM website allowed us to "build" a Silverado to almost DND specs (no 24V alternators or extra batteries), for far less cost. It was a bit more difficult to do direct cost comparison for the civilian pattern G Wagon because armoured door panels and roof pintle mounts are not generally options you can get at the dealership, but the G-Wagon was in the neighbourhood of $50,000.



I get the same feeling, but I just wanted to ask if your calculations included the warranty and initial training I think we received with the vehicles.


----------



## Eland2

Or, you could go for something like Singapore's Light Strike Vehicle, if you want a ULCV with somewhat more capability than the Polaris vehicle. It can mount a 40mm AGL, or a .50 cal HMG, or an ATGM post. The non-ATGM version can seat up to six soldiers. Air-transportable via C-130 or CH47 Chinook. Off-road speeds up to 110km/h.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eland2

Can you sling it below a CH-148?  

I'm guessing there are going to a lot more of them immediately available on forward deployments than CH-147s.


----------



## a_majoor

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Or, you could go for something like Singapore's Light Strike Vehicle, if you want a ULCV with somewhat more capability than the Polaris vehicle. It can mount a 40mm AGL, or a .50 cal HMG, or an ATGM post. The non-ATGM version can seat up to six soldiers. Air-transportable via C-130 or CH47 Chinook. Off-road speeds up to 110km/h.



While very interesting (and quite cool), this starts getting into the same area of debate Chris Pook and I have been arguing over with ATV's vs MTV's like the Bronco or BV-206. Larger vehicles are more capable and can do more things (A Bronco can be configured to carry a section with all their kit, or to be an ATGM platform, or an 81mm mortar platform, is amphibious and ari portable sung under a helicopter), but is also more expensive, physically larger and more cumbersome to deploy etc.

If we are starting to talk about fighting vehicles, then armour protection, the ability to survive IED's and possibly NBC protection should all factor in. Layering on armour to existing designs gives us monsters like the LAV 6.0, which probably represents the limits of wheeled mobility. Different thinking gives us vehicles like the Israeli "Combat Guard", which can transport a section of soldiers or be configured to other roles, can carry a RWS for self protection, is fully protected and weighs "only" 8 tons.

I will have to ask again, just what doctrinal issue is being addressed by the use of upgraded ATV's? The size upgrade of the Singapore LSV means that you can carry more useful equipment, but it is still unprotected in any meaningful sense of the word. It is also not amphibious, nor would it be capable of travelling in really difficult terrain like an MTV so you are not getting advantages like being able to operate where no one else can go. Being able to carry extra stuff is a logistical issue, but then again, having amphibious and marginal terrain capabilities provides so much more (light infantry can operate out of difficult and complex terrain far longer if their logistics vehicles can move through complex and marginal terrain as well).


----------



## Kirkhill

Thuc:

Second verse, same as first.

If you can't get the vehicle to the fight then it just doesn't matter.  

Doctrine needs to be adjusted to permit the possible.  Doctrine for the merely desirable will not assist the government (as much as I hate saying that) nor advance Canada's interests.

Doctrine needs to based on the tools at hand.

 ;D  :cheers: and have another.


----------



## Eland2

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While very interesting (and quite cool), this starts getting into the same area of debate Chris Pook and I have been arguing over with ATV's vs MTV's like the Bronco or BV-206. Larger vehicles are more capable and can do more things (A Bronco can be configured to carry a section with all their kit, or to be an ATGM platform, or an 81mm mortar platform, is amphibious and ari portable sung under a helicopter), but is also more expensive, physically larger and more cumbersome to deploy etc.
> 
> If we are starting to talk about fighting vehicles, then armour protection, the ability to survive IED's and possibly NBC protection should all factor in. Layering on armour to existing designs gives us monsters like the LAV 6.0, which probably represents the limits of wheeled mobility. Different thinking gives us vehicles like the Israeli "Combat Guard", which can transport a section of soldiers or be configured to other roles, can carry a RWS for self protection, is fully protected and weighs "only" 8 tons.
> 
> I will have to ask again, just what doctrinal issue is being addressed by the use of upgraded ATV's? The size upgrade of the Singapore LSV means that you can carry more useful equipment, but it is still unprotected in any meaningful sense of the word. It is also not amphibious, *nor would it be capable of travelling in really difficult terrain like an MTV so you are not getting advantages like being able to operate where no one else can go.* Being able to carry extra stuff is a logistical issue, but then again, having amphibious and marginal terrain capabilities provides so much more (light infantry can operate out of difficult and complex terrain far longer if their logistics vehicles can move through complex and marginal terrain as well).



And this is where one has to question whether a vehicle like the LSV can operate successfully in Canada, given the frequently difficult terrain that exists, particularly in remote areas. In provinces like Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and a good chunk of southern Alberta, the LSV might be useful to help stand up quick reaction forces that need to strike quickly and then disappear. Most of BC, Quebec and the Maritimes offer much rougher terrain with few dirt trails, so there would be less of an opportunity to deploy a vehicle like the LSV. But then again, even the TAPV would be faced with similar difficulties in the same areas.

You could conceivably issue the LSV to PRes recce units and get substantially more cross-country mobility than you would ever get from the existing G-Wagens and MilCOTS trucks they currently have. The TAPV is a Reg Force asset and is unlikely to ever be issued to PRes recce units, save for a few that reserve units are allowed to access occasionally for training purposes. 

There are several big selling features when it comes to issuing LSV's to PRes units. The biggest one being the ability to mount ATGM's, AGL's and HMG's, while G-Wagens and MilCOTS vehicles are totally unable to accommodate any of these weapon systems. The next is a large payload of 1,000 kilos, although wheeled recce units have never really needed to carry that much in the way of stores for a typical training weekend. Mind you, the large payload means that PRes recce units could become more or less self-sufficient for a significant period of time before needing to link up with service battalion units for replenishment. And since the LSV's can carry up to six soldiers, you could configure a recce squadron so that it has one organic assault troop consisting of three or four callsigns, with each callsign having two crew members and four assault troopers. 

Then there is the vehicle's rapid air portability, meaning you could deploy a squadron of LSV's in a real hurry and far faster than you could ever deploy G-Wagens and MilCOTS trucks over a large area.

But the fly in the ointment, as always, and as you point out, is doctrine. If the LSV's were acquired for the PRes, how would you use them, given that PRes units generally operate as training cadres, aid-to-the-civil power resources, and augmentation for the Regular Force in overseas or other major deployments? And given those roles, do they really need the sophisticated weapon systems they can carry? I ask the question because there is very little chance that PRes units would ever see any actual combat within Canada as the country is pretty safe from invasion by a foreign power because of its sheer size, harsh climate and terrain, and the presence of the United States.

It's conceivable that they could end up deployed as part of a light rapid-reaction force overseas, but from a doctrinal standpoint, the Regular Force isn't yet configured to handle RRF missions - save for what JTF2 and CSOR can do.

As to the lack of armour protection, I don't think that is a concern that applies to the LSV. It's designed to operate as a hit-and-run type of asset, and to cope with the odd isolated tank or two it might encounter. Indeed, if a LSV crew did encounter armour, they would probably be able to engage only from well-prepared defensive positions, or a well-hidden defilade that's covered with a lot of vegetation and other natural materials.


----------



## Kirkhill

In the interests of the discussion.

(and it seems to be compatible with all of CH-147/8/9)



> Light Strike Vehicle Mark II
> 
> 
> The Light Strike Vehicle Mark II (LSV MK. II) replaces the ageing fleet of LSVs and is produced by Singapore Technologies Kinetics.
> *The primary role of the LSV MK. II is against armoured threats. It is designed to be helicopter portable and manoeuvrable over cross-country terrain. The vehicle is equipped with enhanced networking capabilities to support the integration with other combat systems during operations.*
> 
> The LSV MK. II is produced in three variants: the Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL) variant that operates the 40mm AGL system; the Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) variant that operates the Spike missile system; and the Utility variant for general purpose usage.
> 
> The LSV MK. II vehicle bears several enhancements vis-a-vis the LSV that it replaces. It has a more powerful engine, an improved suspension system and a better designed space frame. The new vehicle also has a larger seating capacity and supports an array of communication systems that enhances its networking capabilities with other combat systems in the battlefield. These enhancements allow the LSV MK. II to be more agile and deployable than its predecessor.
> 
> LSV MK. II (New)	LSV
> *Weight	1800 kg	1500 kg*
> Length	4.9 m	4.25m
> Height	1.8 m	1.9 m
> Width	2.1 m	2.11m
> Maximum Land Speed	110km/hr	110km/hr
> Weapons Systems Configurations	7.62mm GPMG, 40mm AGL or Spike System	7.62mm GPMG, 40mm AGL or ATGM
> Maximum Power (HP)	136	104
> Maximum Crew Capacity	6	3



https://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/press_room/official_releases/nr/2013/nov/19nov13_nr/19nov13_fs2.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

On a more serious note, you can see some of Russia's ULCV in the first part of this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE7SNpf0lqM


----------



## daftandbarmy

Forget the fancy cr@p. A modern Jeep with a machine gun on the back would be leaps and bounds ahead of what we have now.

Call in the 'Canadian Tire Technical'


----------



## Matt_Fisher

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Forget the fancy cr@p. A modern Jeep with a machine gun on the back would be leaps and bounds ahead of what we have now.
> 
> Call in the 'Canadian Tire Technical'



Funny enough, one of the contenders for the US Army's 'Ground Mobility Vehicle' (GMV) project is a joint venture between Jeep and Hendrick Motorsports:  http://www.commandousa.com/
Good backgrounder on the US Army's GMV project is:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Mobility_Vehicle_(proposed_vehicle)


----------



## a_majoor

Eland2 said:
			
		

> But the fly in the ointment, as always, and as you point out, is doctrine. If the LSV's were acquired for the PRes, how would you use them, given that PRes units generally operate as training cadres, aid-to-the-civil power resources, and augmentation for the Regular Force in overseas or other major deployments? And given those roles, do they really need the sophisticated weapon systems they can carry? I ask the question because there is very little chance that PRes units would ever see any actual combat within Canada as the country is pretty safe from invasion by a foreign power because of its sheer size, harsh climate and terrain, and the presence of the United States.



What you are describing is the sort of gong show that we face; someone reads Jane's or some other catalogue and sees a shiny piece of kit. We want to buy it, but then we need to decide what to do with it. In my particular case, TAPV's were provisionally allocated to IA (since the Light Infantry Battalions could not use them), and this causes a huge dilemma: does IA need to use two TAPV's per team, since our doctrine calls for a 5 man team, of do we have to downgrade our capabilities and go down to a 3 man team so everyone and their kit fits in one TAPV?. Of course we have struggled with the issue for years having to use G wagons (a Gwagon C&R provides the firepower, but has no room for a full team plus a language assistant, while a "regular" Gwagon has room for people but no organic firepower....

While some of the proposed vehicles like the Flyer, DAGOR and so on will actually be a big step up from a Gwagon in terms of carriage, performance and lift capability, this is still not helpful if you really have no idea what you intend to do with them. I am also a big fan of economies of scale, so unless the niche is extremely important. then I would avoid micro fleets as much as possible, and seek out families of vehicles with modular capabilities.


----------



## MJP

Thucydides said:
			
		

> What you are describing is the sort of gong show that we face; someone reads Jane's or some other catalogue and sees a shiny piece of kit. We want to buy it, but then we need to decide what to do with it. In my particular case, TAPV's were provisionally allocated to IA (since the Light Infantry Battalions could not use them), and this causes a huge dilemma: does IA need to use two TAPV's per team, since our doctrine calls for a 5 man team,



Since you love tangents it seems, do we just say screw IA and other such PY, equipment sucking uselessness that no one really cares about and put PYs back into things that actually matter and avoid the whole "5 man vs firepower team issue"?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could equip the Reserve armoured units with 2 troops of vehicles, one with the current G-wagons with ring mounted MG and the other with open topped G-wagons with MG's. Reserve Arty gets soft topped G-wagons for OP parties. Some of the current armoured G-wagons for Battery escort and General duties at the Battery position, have some soft topped ones for the CO, etc.

Equip the Reserve units with soft topped G-wagons to carry mortars and ATGM. I wonder if they make subcal kits for ATGM? 

Since the G-wagon is already in service, just increase the fleet slowly with buys every year and slowly replace all the older ones. The other option is to use Jeeps for the soft topped roles.


----------



## Kirkhill

Agreed the G Wagon is in service.  But why are we buying European utility vehicles when Local vehicles are available?  I have no problem going off shore to buy capability when we don't have that capability locally.  I get buying foreign missiles and planes.  I am of two minds on ships.

But cars? Jeeps? Light trucks? Trucks of any sort?  I don't get that.

We now build good LAVs.  We apparently build good off road vehicles and snow vehicles.  There may be some better designs out there, like the Viking and that little Japanese runabout they were trialling in the arctic.  For those, if we have an existing factory, we can always purchase the license.  

I am hoping that the NSPS is going to be as successful as the AVGP-LAV decision has been.  I fear that we can end up with UTDC Steyrs and Western IVECOs.

Jeeps we build locally.  And they and their parts are readily available and relatively cheap.

By the way, as a reminder - Steyr and the GWagon are both products of Frank Stronach's Magna Corporation - money to Frank and Belinda but no Canadian jobs.

Of all of the candidates here I am with D&B on purchasing Jeeps for Domestic service and, I believe, for rapid deployment light forces.  Assuming that it can be slung by a Cyclone.

Do tactics really change that much depending on whether it is 90 HP or 200 HP, or Dana axles, or TAC suspension?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The G-wagon is a good all round truck, more robust than a stock jeep. Plus there is already a armoured and armed versions. If you could find a local plant to build new ones, fine by me. The Jeeps would do, but you need a plan to replace them fairly soon.


----------



## dapaterson

As always, DND writes a specification. Industry decides "Do I want this business or not?" and either offers or does not offer to sell a product. (See:MSVS MilCOTS)  In the event of multiple offers, the offerings are assessed against the specification and a winner is selected.

Is the question "Why the G-Wagon?" or is it "Why didn't Jeep offer to sell us anything?" or "Why did the G-Wagon beat the Jeep?"


Unless you want DND's budget to serve as a regional economic development slush fund, where quality comes second to jobs in a particular riding...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Unless you want DND's budget to serve as a regional economic development slush fund, where quality comes second to jobs in a particular riding...



when has it not?  [lol:
You have an argument to sole source to expand the fleet of G-wagons, if DND writes it properly. They could be sent CKD to Canada for final assembly here.


----------



## Kirkhill

Give over.

I have sourced a whole bunch of kit from a whole bunch of people for a whole bunch of clients over the years.

One of my priorities is always: how do I keep this thing running?

I sold Euro gear and I was proud of the stuff I sold.  But that gear came with a sound network of spare parts depots, maintenance mechanics and applications engineers.

Conversely I have seen North American suppliers that can't be arsed to get out of bed in the morning for a client in the same town.

Given that I still plunk for somebody that can keep my downtime to a minimum, at minimum cost to myself in parts in stock and specialized labour, and by and large that means somebody in a 24 to 48 hour radius of my location.  Minimizing O&M is high on my agenda.

The next thing on the agenda is: does it get the job done and does it get the job done well?

I can work around a system that is only performing at 85% efficiency and not the 95% that I was promised.  I can handle some higher costs in consumables.  I can't handle not having any tools available to get any work done at all.  Get 'er done.

The final thing on the agenda is: how much does it cost?

More often than not this is bounded by: how much can we afford?

I would rather have a Rolls Royce delivery van.  I can get the job done with a Tuk Tuk.  In the absence of either the job doesn't get done.


----------



## dapaterson

And DND writes specs that include sustainment and maintenance for some period of time.  Either through internal resources or manufacturer support or some combination of both.  Problems arise when equipment is kept well beyond its useful life.

And don't assume North American = parts availability.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ford-f150-auto-parts-obsolete-go-public-1.3746577


----------



## Kirkhill

> Conversely I have seen North American suppliers that can't be arsed to get out of bed in the morning for a client in the same town.


----------



## a_majoor

MJP said:
			
		

> Since you love tangents it seems, do we just say screw IA and other such PY, equipment sucking uselessness that no one really cares about and put PYs back into things that actually matter and avoid the whole "5 man vs firepower team issue"?



The modalities of warfare have changed pretty dramatically over my time in service, so evolving doctrine (including introducing new capabilities and possibly closing out old ones) is part of the process. But making things needlessly difficult simply makes getting and using new capabilities efficiently much more difficult.

The example of the difficulties of trying to shoehorn IA teams into TAPVs is only an illustration I am personally familiar with. I'm sure Air Defenders, Cyber warfare or counter mine (both Army and Navy) can tell similar stories as well. Other threads show that lots of PY's get sucked into headquarters and admin, so streamlining there is probably a far more efficient way to get the manpower everyone wants and needs.


----------



## Journeyman

_Ultra_-ULCV -- indirect fire mode.


----------



## a_majoor

US SOFCOM looking at their version of a ULCV, although for certain values of "light". Compared to an MRAP type vehicle, these _are_ lightweight vehicles:

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htsf/articles/20170615.aspx



> *Special Operations: Every Second Counts*
> 
> June 15, 2017: Since 2012 U.S. SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has been seeking a new type of special vehicle; the ULCV (Ultra Light Combat Vehicle). Such a vehicle was meant to deal with several major problems SOCON operators had hummers, even models customized for SOCOM operations.
> 
> This led to a competition to win a contract for 1,100 vehicles to replace special SOCOM hummers. Whoever won not only for SOCOM contracts but a lot of export orders as well as a significant number of orders from police and even civilians. This competition produced two finalist vehicles; DAGOR and Flyer 72.
> 
> DAGOR is a two ton light truck that can carry 1.4 tons or nine troops. It can be carried inside a CH-47 or slung under a UH-60 helicopter. DAGOR can also be dropped via parachute and be ready to roll within two minutes of reaching the ground. Some are calling this a “21st century jeep” but there are some important differences.
> 
> Flyer 72 is a 2.5 ton vehicle that is 72 inches (201cm) wide. It can carry 2.6 tons for a total combat weight of 5 tons. It is open, with a roll cage and no doors so that operators can quickly get out while fully equipped for combat. It can be used with up to nine seats (three front, three rear, two rear deck and one gunner). Top speed is 152 kilometers an hour and range on internal fuel is about 1,000 kilometers cross-country at 64 kilometers an hour on largely flat ground. That can be halved on rough terrain.
> 
> Basically SOCOM wants a hummer in terms of carrying capacity but a dune buggy in terms of maneuverability and ease of getting in and out. A major shortcoming of the hummer (for commandos) was the extra second or two it required to get in or out.
> 
> While the hummer (or HMMWV) was an improvement on earlier military vehicles it did not address the special needs of SOCOM personnel. Meanwhile the 2.4 ton HMMWV, which replaced the 1.1 ton jeep and 3 ton M37 "3/4 ton" truck in the late 1980s is being replaced by still heavier vehicles of the same size that are designed to absorb combat damage. The World War II concept of the unarmored light vehicle for moving men and material around the battlefield has been radically changed for the regular troops, but not for SOCOM. Special operations were willing to trade protection for mobility, especially since they often travelled cross country and not through places where they were likely to encounter mines or roadside bombs.
> 
> What led to DAGOR and Flyer 72 was SOCOM long noting that civilian markets were developing (for recreational purposes) the vehicles they needed. Thus in 2009 SOCOM bought 1,625 Mule 4010 4x4 vehicles, calling them Light Tactical All-Terrain (LTAT) Vehicles, and using them for commandos and Special Forces in combat zones. Basically a dune buggy, LTAT weighs 637 kg (1,400 pounds) but can carry 591 kg (1,330 pounds, including four passengers, plus a rear cargo area and a roof rack). The mule can also tow up to 1,200 pounds (546 kg). Top speed is 40 kilometers an hour, and the fuel tank carries 25 liters (6.2 gallons).
> 
> Special Operations troops are very fond of dune buggy type vehicles. These are also becoming more popular as civilian recreation vehicles, for cross country travel. The four wheel drive LTAT can easily be moved by helicopter to wherever, and then let the SOCOM operators move on cross country, often at night (with the driver using night vision goggles to navigate). DAGOR and Flyer 72 take advantage of the “dune buggy” tech to deliver a larger vehicle. Each is expected to cost under $200,000 each when bought in quantity. The main reason for the price (higher than civilian models) is the need to build the military vehicles to a more rugged standard.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Thucydides said:
			
		

> US SOFCOM looking at their version of a ULCV, although for certain values of "light". Compared to an MRAP type vehicle, these _are_ lightweight vehicles:
> 
> https://strategypage.com/htmw/htsf/articles/20170615.aspx



That article you referenced was pretty out to lunch.  DAGOR was never competed against Flyer 72 for SOCOM's 'Ground Mobility Vehicle 1.1' (GMV 1.1) program.  GMV 1.1 is a replacement for the HMMWV based original Ground Mobility Vehicle variant.  Contract was awarded for GMV back in 2013.  http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2013/08/general-dynamics-gmv11.html
ULCV was a US Army program to motorize its Airborne Brigade Combat Teams.  That program was then renamed 'Ground Mobility Vehicle' (not to be confused with SOCOM's own GMV 1.1 program).  From there, this past spring a sole source contract was awarded to GD-OTS for a modified version of their Flyer 72 (which is the SOCOM GMV 1.1 vehicle) to provide an initial operating capability to the Army's Airborne Brigade Combat Teams.

For organizations that require rapid deployment capability, then a vehicle that sacrifices armour/protection for strategic deployability and tactical mobility makes sense.


----------



## McG

It seems at least two of the three 3rd battalions have the vehicle pictured in the attached file.  Does anybody know what the plan is for these?

On a related note, what sort of trade-offs are being made in going with a vehicle with this buggy look as opposed to something more like a Jeep or Iltis?  I assume it is a sacrifice of top speed, road-worthiness, and maybe range for a little better cross-country performance ... but I don't know this.


----------



## Kirkhill

I believe that that is the Polaris MRZR 4

https://military.polaris.com/en-us/combat/mrzr-4/

https://military.polaris.com/en-us/combat/mrzr-4/specs/






The Polaris Dagor seems to be a bit bigger.

https://military.polaris.com/en-us/combat/dagor-military-tan/

Edit: Curious observation -  take look at the "windshield roll bar" in front of the driver on the "Canadianized" version. In the "Stock" version the "windshield frame" is intact.  On the "Canadianized" version the pipe on the upper part of the frame, between the two hinges, has been removed.  Visibility?  But how about structural integrity in the event of a rollover?

Take a look at the "uprights" on the windshield frame.  On the "Stock" model they are straight.  On the "Canadianized" version they seem to have buckled a bit.  Nothing that a bit of gun tape and baling wire can't fix, I'm sure.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

MCG said:
			
		

> It seems at least two of the three 3rd battalions have the vehicle pictured in the attached file.  Does anybody know what the plan is for these?
> 
> On a related note, what sort of trade-offs are being made in going with a vehicle with this buggy look as opposed to something more like a Jeep or Iltis?  I assume it is a sacrifice of top speed, road-worthiness, and maybe range for a little better cross-country performance ... but I don't know this.



It is the MRZR-D4 (Diesel variant of the MRZR-4).  The Army purchased 36 to provide 12 for each of the light battalions as a buy and try as a means of providing an increase to soldier mobility.  How they are being employed is TBD.


----------



## a_majoor

Saw them in MR17, but there was little discussion as to what they were actually being used for. I mostly saw them towing special cross country trailers, so some sort of logistical support role can be guessed at.

The DAGOR and Flyer are much bigger, seating up to 9 troops rather than the 4 in the MRZR-D4


----------



## Jarnhamar

Used by Recce in lieu of G-Wagons (pintle mounts are available for MGs apparently).  You can rig up a stretcher to the trailer but it's pretty dinky. They top out at about 81kph and they're incredibly stable when driving cross country, quite too. Very awesome machines to drive. Maintenance wise the train the trainer people said it would be cheaper just to replace them every few years than getting parts in and fixing them.  I'm told the sticker price for the Canadian MRZR is $56'000 a unit.


----------



## a_majoor

Very interesting Israeli vehicle. While somewhat bigger than a "side by side" it is far more capable, having  payload capacity similar to a Ford F-250.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/car-technology/g28133562/tomcar-tx-test-drive/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Everything the Iltis wanted to be, but couldn't. Mind you the first mine strike causing casualties and they start piling on the armour.


----------



## a_majoor

Colin P said:
			
		

> Everything the Iltis wanted to be, but couldn't. Mind you the first mine strike causing casualties and they start piling on the armour.



As an alternative to layering on armour lift the suspension and install a "V" bottom instead. Early MRAPs from South Africa were essentially Unimogs with a lift kit and V bottom welded on to the bottom.


----------



## TN2IC

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Interesting to compare the Polaris to this:




As long as its still made in Canada....


----------



## a_majoor

While not exactly ultra light (this is a 1940 era WWII vehicle), it is interesting to see how things were done back then, and consider the evolution of these things - this would fit into the mid sized vehicles like the DAGOR, Flyer or new GM ISV in terms of size and ability to carry weapons, even though it normally only carried a 4 man crew:

Camionetta SPA-Viberti AS42

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/italy/Camioneta_AS-42_Sahariana.php



> The concept behind the AS42 “Sahariana” appeared in the minds of Italian designers in 1942, when the famous British and Commonwealth Long Range Desert Groups (LRDG), with their distinctive heavily-armed and unarmored long-range vehicles, were breaking far behind Axis lines, creating havoc in refilling bases or airfields. At the same time, their large-scale reconnaissance tasks were very valuable to Allied intelligence. The Regio Esercito (Italian Royal Army) tried to emulate these units by using a project that SPA-Viberti had proposed a year before based on the chassis of the AB41 armored car, itself derived from the chassis of the Fiat-SPA TM40 medium artillery tractor.
> 
> The AS42 “Sahariana’ was a reconnaissance car, initially unarmed. However, under pressure from the Italian Royal Army’s high command, the vehicles received heavy armament. The SPA-Viberti AS42 was rapidly developed at the beginning of 1942. The prototype was presented to the army on July 9, 1942, passed all tests and was put into production in the SPA-Viberti factory in Turin as early as August 1942.



A long and interesting article from a historical perspective


----------



## Kirkhill

Classic PR!  Introducing Her Majesty's newest international spokesman.  Cpl Jamie Kilbride o' ra Paras dyenoken.






Subtitles not included.


----------



## Blackadder1916

The CF already had the Supacat 6x6 ATV in its inventory.  We bought 10 of them and 20 trailers in 1997 for the DART; got rid of them around 2006.


----------



## Kat Stevens




----------

