# Damaged/Destroyed Vehicles



## blacktriangle (14 Apr 2006)

I was just wondering something.

Now that more CF vehicles seem to be getting banged up in Afghanistan, does anyone know if the CF buys new vehicles to replace heavily damaged and destroyed equipment? I am speaking mostly of LAV's and G wagons since they seem to take the brunt of it over there. Can most cases be fixed, or are vehicles wrote off without any replacement?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (14 Apr 2006)

The short answer:  there's no mechanism to purchase replacements for vehicles and/or equipment lost overseas.  Instead, these are typically sent from stocks in Canada.


----------



## TN2IC (15 Apr 2006)

Just more space parts for the Veh Techs to play with.


----------



## McG (15 Apr 2006)

S.Smith said:
			
		

> ... are vehicles wrote off without any replacement?


Yep.  Replacement vehicles can be sent from Canada, but the national inventory is reduced.

We could buy more, but that is a decision the government (and not the military) would have to make.


----------



## FoverF (17 Apr 2006)

I know that in the air force aircraft which have been essentially destroyed (by any reasonable estimate) are often 'repaired' (built just about from scratch with the same data-plate). 

I have a buddy who said they used to 'repair' Kiowas, essentially from scratch, on a fairly regular basis, at a cost several times greater than the purchase price of a new one. 

This brings up the point that a peice of equipment is 'worth' whatever you're willing to pay for it. Someone in the CF was obviously willing to pay several million dollars for a machine that could be purchased new for less than half a mil... IF they were allowed to purchase it new.
But it seems they WERE allowed to spend essentially as much as they needed to fix one.... 
Not a particularily efficient way to get attrition replacements, but you gotta do what you gotta do within the limits set by the gov.


----------



## Wookilar (19 Apr 2006)

Every piece of equipment, whether it be a veh, weapon or what have you, has a limit (dollar wise). Right now at this ungodly hour, I can not think of the proper term for it. Once that limit is reached, it is generally scraped because it is no longer feasible to keep repairing it. Essentially, to buy a new one would be cheaper. Authorization to "repair" said item can be given (a particular 1954 20 KW skid mounted generator comes to mind) by higher, but is usually only done if there is no chance of replacement or there are other extenuating circumstances.


----------



## geo (19 Apr 2006)

as far as I know, there hasn't been a LAV that's been banged up beyond the possibility of repair. The one that got banged up by 2 RPGs had a wheel blown off - repairable. The ones that have rolled over might need some fixin WRT the turret & external bits but, vehicles nailed by IEDs have all been GWagons / commercialish pattern vehicles.
While some GWagons are beyond the possibility of repair, at least they are "currently available from Benz production" should the need arise


----------



## George Wallace (19 Apr 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> .........but, vehicles nailed by IEDs have all been GWagons / commercialish pattern vehicles.
> While some GWagons are beyond the possibility of repair, at least they are "currently available from Benz production" should the need arise


This is the problem.  If we originally bought.....say 50, and have lost 10, that leaves us having to replace those 10 with vehicles from Units in Canada.  This is a loss of vehs in Theatre and our Fleet now 10 less, with Units in Canada having to do without as they send their vehs over as replacements.  There is no program to purchase 10 more to replace loses. 

We see it with all our major equipment purchases.  The minimum number are bought, with no thought of a reserve or pool for Operational use.  If any pieces of equipment are lost on a deployment, the whole CF must now do without.  In many cases there is not even a "Bandaid Solution" to the problem, just "You will now do without".

If I remember correctly, the GWagen was originally to be for the Reserves and now they have been short changed by this lack of foresight and policy.


----------



## TN2IC (19 Apr 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> as far as I know, there hasn't been a LAV that's been banged up beyond the possibility of repair. The one that got banged up by 2 RPGs had a wheel blown off - repairable. The ones that have rolled over might need some fixin WRT the turret & external bits but, vehicles nailed by IEDs have all been GWagons / commercialish pattern vehicles.
> While some GWagons are beyond the possibility of repair, at least they are "currently available from Benz production" should the need arise



Are these Benz still cover under their warrentry? Hmm..


----------



## dapaterson (19 Apr 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We see it with all our major equipment purchases.  The minimum number are bought, with no thought of a reserve or pool for Operational use.  If any pieces of equipment are lost on a deployment, the whole CF must now do without.  In many cases there is not even a "Bandaid Solution" to the problem, just "You will now do without".
> 
> If I remember correctly, the GWagen was originally to be for the Reserves and now they have been short changed by this lack of foresight and policy.



There are limited Log stocks included in purchases, but the trend of late has been to minimize those holdings.

The LUVW was never intended as a "reserve-only" purchase.  A quantity of GWagens was designated for Reserve Armd units; this quantity was later increased.  The full delivery is not yet complete - we are continuing to accept delivery of vehicles; I beleive that the scheduled end of delivery is this summer / early fall.  After they are delivered, there is some acceptance testing and fuinally delivery to units.  While the fielding plan has undergone numerous changes to meet operational demands, there has been no plan to reduce allocations to reserve units.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Apr 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The LUVW was never intended as a "reserve-only" purchase.  A quantity of GWagens was designated for Reserve Armd units; this quantity was later increased.  The full delivery is not yet complete - we are continuing to accept delivery of vehicles; I beleive that the scheduled end of delivery is this summer / early fall.  After they are delivered, there is some acceptance testing and fuinally delivery to units.  While the fielding plan has undergone numerous changes to meet operational demands, there has been no plan to reduce allocations to reserve units.



I hope not.  Many Reservists still hold fond memories of the Bison issue.   :


----------



## McG (19 Apr 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> ... vehicles nailed by IEDs have all been GWagons / commercialish pattern vehicles.  ...


You'd best go back through news papers of the last two months.  You'll find your information to be incorrect a few times over.


----------



## dynaglide (19 Apr 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Every piece of equipment, whether it be a veh, weapon or what have you, has a limit (dollar wise). Right now at this ungodly hour, I can not think of the proper term for it. Once that limit is reached, it is generally scraped because it is no longer feasible to keep repairing it. Essentially, to buy a new one would be cheaper. Authorization to "repair" said item can be given (a particular 1954 20 KW skid mounted generator comes to mind) by higher, but is usually only done if there is no chance of replacement or there are other extenuating circumstances.



I believe the term is "BER" or Beyond Economical Repair.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Apr 2006)

> The LUVW was never intended as a "reserve-only" purchase.  A quantity of GWagens was designated for Reserve Armd units; this quantity was later increased.



Just a quick interjection, then I'll be on my way.

I was on the Army Equipment Board when the G Wagon purchase was first finalized, so was involved in the various procurement discussions.

The initial LUVW project consisted of two parts:  the G Wagon, for the Regular Force only, and MILCOTS for the Reserve Force only.  NO G Wagons were intended for the Reserves and the entire Reserve Iltis fleet was to be replaced (not one for one) by MILCOTS.  Armoured Recce was initially offered something like a Suburban with a C-6 (I'm not kidding), although that didn't see the light of day.  Cougars were kept around a bit longer as a solution was worked out.

Cooler heads eventually prevailed and the G Wagon C&R (C&R was initially intended for Regular Infantry Recce platoons) contract was extended to allow for the purchase of sufficient vehicles for Armoured Recce units.


----------



## geo (19 Apr 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> You'd best go back through news papers of the last two months.  You'll find your information to be incorrect a few times over.


if you go back to my original post, I do make mention of LAVs - but most all of those were involved in traffic mishaps & with work on turret and the bits that stick out, those should not be BLR.


----------



## Wookilar (20 Apr 2006)

To repair a piece of equipment that is fairly new, and has the correspondingly large parts stock in the system (such as the LAV III) is easy shmeasy. According to sources closer to the ground than I (fellow grease-monkeys), G Wagon parts are also in good supply. Bits and grapple grommets are very rarely a problem. Turret baskets, grenade launchers, even barrels or entire actions, mirrors, lights (etc.) are all relatively easy to get and in stock.

The problem is, just like George says, that once a vehicle (say a sparkly new G Wagon) sustains a major bit of damage to the framing or body, there is bugger-all the various mechs can do (I know many genius Mat Techs, but it is difficult to weld together charred scrap) and there is currently, that I know of, no system in place to replace that vehicle. It gets removed from Plan Ex and the FMS, and no longer exists. It will just sit out back and slowly get stripped of parts ...I mean the damage report may change over time as more defects are found  ;D That may not be a problem now, but in 5-10 years (or sooner, depending on how many take a beating) the strain on the fleet will be huge and the powers that be will have to start reallocating vehicles, CF wide. 

And when I'm the lucky dog being the "young" TO in 1 Special Viper Commando telling the CO that we just don't have a G Wagon for him and the DCO to tool around in on EX (being hard-core, of course, as only the SVC BN's can be) because too many got blowed up across the water (or Wainwright, whichever applies), I'm not going to be having a good day.


----------



## Timex (25 Apr 2006)

One of the major factors to consider when a veh, or any other piece of kit is BER'd is availability of replacements. Sure it is possble for the Big Giant Heads to  order 12 more G Wagons because the production line is still active, but with the current armoured fleet it's different. The production lines for LAV and Bison have moved on. To retool the production line for a handful of replacements would be so expensive that paying up to 2 or 3 times the original purchase price to repair it suddenly becomes more attractive. As for our current collection of vehs that have sustained accident and blast damage, and there are some, they will be completely overhauled and sent back into the fight.

Arte et Marte


----------



## silentbutdeadly (25 Apr 2006)

geo,

just so your informed a Lav and Bison were hit directly with IED's , the Lav being about about 25 feet or more in front of me and the bison about a few hundred metres and well we are short one Lav in our platoon and will never see another again as we are told and thats the norm for the repairs in KAF.


----------



## geo (25 Apr 2006)

SBD, thanks for the info.
LFQA isn't sending troops out your way for a while yet so vehicle losses aren't tracked closely over here (for now).


----------



## Sgt.Cormier4Life (25 Apr 2006)

Yeah that's a good question? It seems all that is flipping and getting damaged are the LAV III's, think we need to upgrade the maintenance on the armour?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2006)

Sgt.Cormier4Life said:
			
		

> Yeah that's a good question? It seems all that is flipping and getting damaged are the LAV III's, think we need to upgrade the maintenance on the armour?



I don't know how to interpret this post?  Are you within your Lanes?


----------



## Dissident (25 Apr 2006)

On a tangent:

This seems like a good way to start treating veh procurements a little differently. Instead of doing major life altering multy million dollar whole fleet replacing of specific veh, maybe we should start looking at replacing the current Gwagon with a next generation one, once a critical mass number of veh have become casulties.

I know this is way out of my payrate/experience, but I am not the first one to come up with this idea...


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (26 Apr 2006)

I read in the psot that  50 new  trucks/ jeep like machines are being built in South Africa for use in the Combat zones. they are built to handle mines and other IEDs, first ones should be on the ground in May of this year, 25 are being made now and another 25 to come later. Problems waas getting them added to the current production line. I read that in the National Post today. so replacements are on order for the Gwagon


----------



## Wookilar (26 Apr 2006)

No, these are the Mamba (or whatever we're calling them now). Been around for years. Good vehicles, but not meant to replace G Wagons.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Apr 2006)

Actually they are the Nyala which are from all accounts an upgraded Mamba.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (26 Apr 2006)

They're Nyalas, as CFL points out; however, as Wookilar mentions they've been around (in very small numbers) for a few years.  The new vehicles have been fitted with a remote weapons system that (if the propaganda is to be believed - I personally have no idea) is very effective.  IIRC, they'll be used as patrol vehicles, replacing armoured G-Wagons in this role.  50 were bought, of which a significant number are currently in Kandahar.


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2006)

What are we doing to replenish the LAV III's that are damaged?

I sent an email to MND asking this, simply because, while I have been looking around for something, I have seen nothing that addresses the issue.

If I am out lunch...correct me.


----------



## KevinB (24 Jul 2006)

Going Light  ;D


----------



## MJP (24 Jul 2006)

Here is a thread on the subject

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42188.0.html

But in short they are drawn from stocks in Canada.


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2006)

MJP said:
			
		

> Here is a thread on the subject
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42188.0.html
> 
> But in short they are drawn from stocks in Canada.



But it seems to end there...even those have to be replenished as some point.

Mods can merg this with the original thread if they want...sorry I didn't see it.


----------



## MJP (24 Jul 2006)

But it's a government decision....I'm sure the the military has to ask for them as well.  Maybe we have a  neverending Op Stock stashed away somewhere

Don't you have a business to run?  Get off the computer and go to work!


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2006)

MJP said:
			
		

> But it's a government decision....I'm sure the the military has to ask for them as well.  Maybe we have a  neverending Op Stock stashed away somewhere
> 
> Don't you have a business to run?  Get of the computer and go to work!



This is my job...I worked for 1/2 hour this morning (I went down and got donuts too, I will have you know!!) and am exhausted.... sigh...youth... ;D


----------



## Pea (24 Jul 2006)

What is this, Family Feud?  Feels like a Game Show Network re-run.  ;D

Haha Gap.. Too funny.


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2006)

Pea said:
			
		

> What is this, Family Feud?  Feels like a Game Show Network re-run.  ;D
> 
> Haha Gap.. Too funny.



Unfortunately, he knows what my workday entails

He has this "work ethic" thingy....don't know where it comes from..... 

but maybe he's learned that old age and treachery will outdo youth and enthusiasm.... I think   ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jul 2006)

The unlimited stock you refer to is the 600 plus veh rusting in Wainwright.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2006)

GD has a program to "zero time" Strykers returning from Iraq, and several other LAV stakeholders are looking for upgrades and even increasing stocks of older versions of the LAV (USMC and Saudi National Guard are apparently looking at this for LAV 25 varients). By extension, the CF can get the remaining LAVs "Zero timed", and perhaps with the assembly line being reopened for that purpose getting some new build replacements might be possible.

We could also tag on to the other forces production runs, although logistically we would be adding new and different vehicles to the fleet (LAV 25's are only superficially similar to Coyotes and Bisons, and Strykers do not mount the Delco 25mm turret, for example).

These are not ideal solutions, but maybe some variations of these ideas could get us back up to speed on the fleet stockpile.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> The unlimited stock you refer to is the 600 plus veh rusting in Wainwright.



Are these all LAV III's or earlier?

Consumption and destruction of whole vehicles on a regular basis does appear to been part of the original planning.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jul 2006)

There are stocks of every vehicle we have out there and a lot of the time the are rusting away because there isn't enough pers to maintain them all and they are stored outside.  I think I may have been a little rash when I said 600 though.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (25 Jul 2006)

> I think I may have been a little rash when I said 600 though.



Depends on the type.  If you're counting _everything_, including trailers, you're well over 700 vehicles in Wainwright for CMTC.


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> We could also tag on to the other forces production runs, although logistically we would be adding new and different vehicles to the fleet (LAV 25's are only superficially similar to Coyotes and Bisons, and Strykers do not mount the Delco 25mm turret, for example).


This would still be similar vehicles.  We could even look at turretless LAV IIIs to replace lost Bisons.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jul 2006)

I thought the US was also buying a LAV version that had the raised back similar to the Bison?


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> What are we doing to replenish the LAV III's that are damaged?
> 
> I sent an email to MND asking this, simply because, while I have been looking around for something, I have seen nothing that addresses the issue.
> 
> If I am out lunch...correct me.



This was my reply from MND today

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank you for your correspondence of 24 July 2006 concerning the Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) IIIs in use by Canadian Forces personnel deployed in Afghanistan. I regret the delay in replying.

I am advised that the Canadian Forces bought enough LAV IIIs in the original purchase order to meet several objectives including training, contemporary threat assessments, and our commitments overseas.

I would like to assure you that there is a plan in place to ensure the availability of operational stocks to replace any vehicles should they be damaged or destroyed. As of 28 July 2005, there have only been seven LAV IIIs damaged beyond local repair, and they were returned to Canada; only one LAV III has been damaged beyond economic repair. 

Rest assured that the Department of National Defence maintains close contact with General Dynamics Canada and that the Army Staff is aware of any timelines for the replacement of the LAV III should the need arise. However, with the current stock from the original purchase, it is not anticipated that there will be a need for any additional purchase of the LAV IIIs in the near future.


Sincerely,


The Honourable Gordon J. O'Connor, PC, MP
Minister of National Defence


----------



## geo (19 Sep 2006)

Like the M113, the LAVs will be stripped down and rebuilt from the ground up. Those not perfect will find their way into training units and the ones with 100% integrity will be sent out............. 

Good plan, huh?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Sep 2006)

GAP
With a reply like that, now I am worried, the military never plans for the future well and with a decade+ of a government that couldn't make a decision certainly will not have helped, and therefore are likely lying out their arse as they really don't know what the hell they are going to do.


----------



## Desert Fox (29 Nov 2006)

S.Smith said:
			
		

> I was just wondering something.
> 
> Now that more CF vehicles seem to be getting banged up in Afghanistan, does anyone know if the CF buys new vehicles to replace heavily damaged and destroyed equipment? I am speaking mostly of LAV's and G wagons since they seem to take the brunt of it over there. Can most cases be fixed, or are vehicles wrote off without any replacement?



I'm not a truck doctor by any means. But alot of the damage sustained by the LAV's has been stress fractures. LAV's which in many cases appear to survive some bad hits, result in internal damage, where the hull is cracked and beyond repair... Im sure every working part is stripped and used in these cases... 

might as well recover what you can from a gaint green paper weight....


----------



## McG (16 May 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> What are we doing to replenish the LAV III's that are damaged?





			
				MJP said:
			
		

> ... in short they are drawn from stocks in Canada.





			
				GAP said:
			
		

> But it seems to end there...even those have to be replenished as some point.



Soon (relatively) the answer will come from here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/60697.0.html


----------



## EX COELIS (29 Aug 2007)

A long drawn out debate involving political factors such as cost, damage, wear and tear, maintenance etc. when it comes down to tracks vs wheels.
Question: What is considered safer? 
Fact: Armoured troops (LdSH RC- Little dum Shitheads Really Crazy), for those of us who have served with the unit, have not been killed using tracked upgraded 30 year old Leo 1A3's, now designated Leo C2's.
The Great Lav III (wheeled) that every one raves about has been the principal vehicle deaths have occurred in since its deployment in Afghan.  Question:  Is the LAV III and little sister the Coyote, even with upgraded Armour package, (knowing the basic armour thickness is 15mm) the ideal vehicle/s for the job? Taking into account the three main factors defining an AFV/MICV/Tank, being - Firepower, Mobility and Protection.
Forget about politics, money, logictics etc, for a moment and consider what AFV/MICV/Tanks would be more suitable for the threat level, environment and operational requirements of the current mission.  Remember I'm talking about an ideal situation (fantasy land if you will).  Put yourself in the Battle Group commander's shoes where you get to draw on whatever is currently available through any and all countries. 
Having served in and operated Canada's current inventory of vehicle's, with a couple of exceptions, I'm curious as to what individuals within this forum would has to say, if anything.
Curious.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2007)

Well consider that most of the vehicles involved in combat and patrols are the LAV, you can see why that would be linked to the highest number of causalities. The LAV does a good job offering blast deflection of a typical IED, the flat bottom of a M113 would not do the same. Whatever you put in the field the enemy will try to find a way to defeat, you can only put so much armour on any vehicle. To much armour and it breaks or destroys the already bad roads.

You could invest in new HAPC's based on the MerK IV hull, but that would be huge bucks with lots of politics.


----------



## geo (29 Aug 2007)

The combatants we are facing are working with mines and explosives that were cashed by the Soviets. Over time, they apply the " if God is willing" philosophy.  Stack explosives & see what effect it has on a type of vehicles.  

Build up charges until one day when you hit paydirt & punch a hole through and through.  At present we recover all of our damaged AFVs so the TB cannot inspect & tinker on a castaway hull.

The M113 metal box will not fare as well - it's flat bottom will not work in it's favor IMHO.


----------

