I'll believe it when I see it.
I agree. And quite a few can be unarmored.It's 2 ½ ton, which is the lightest Mercedes offers it. It's more of an MLVW replacement.
We need something in the ¾ to 5/4 ton range for the G-Wagen, Milcot and LSVW.
I agree. And quite a few can be unarmored.
Here's a thought. The US Army is cutting back on JTLVs in exchange for more, and cheaper, ISVs. Why not take the two-pax version as a utility vehicle?
![]()
There's also a 4 and 5-pax version.
![]()
And for the places where armour is an absolute necessity, well . . . there seems to be lots of spare JTLV production available and there is always this line by some local folks:
![]()
This is not a hard problem.
![]()
The first two are ISV options. The third one is a Senator option. In line with the issues up-thread, there are medical evacuation versions of each.Nice looking truck!
The way it's going LUV phase 2 will pretty much fill the size the LSVW was, everything keeps getting bigger. Hopefully with budget increases we get a crab ton more vehicles then we originally planned.The first two are ISV options. The third one is a Senator option. In line with the issues up-thread, there are medical evacuation versions of each.
![]()
Scope increases take project time in addition to more money. Would you accept a 2 year delay in LUV so that the scope can be rewritten, re-approved, re-costed, and then funded to include some replacements for LSVW variants?The way it's going LUV phase 2 will pretty much fill the size the LSVW was, everything keeps getting bigger. Hopefully with budget increases we get a crab ton more vehicles then we originally planned.
LUV phase 2 was already split as a seperate contract, DND is already looking to just add numbers to existing contracts to help hit 2%. Amb varients might be out of scope and require a new contract but just increase say the cargo varient is easier.Scope increases take project time in addition to more money. Would you accept a 2 year delay in LUV so that the scope can be rewritten, re-approved, re-costed, and then funded to include some replacements for LSVW variants?
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as throwing money at a named project. Adding new variants to scope sends a project back to seek options analysis phase approvals, with all the documentation and approval gateways that are associated with that. The project would likely be sent back to the Independent Review Panel, which will add months even after internal DND gateways are achieved. Then you are probably losing another year to get new industry costing for variants that were not previously considered in order to cost accuracy to satisfy the subsequent reviewers and gateways for funding approval.LUV phase 2 was already split as a seperate contract, DND is already looking to just add numbers to existing contracts to help hit 2%. Amb varients might be out of scope and require a new contract but just increase say the cargo varient is easier.
Really it boils down to then is once again we need procurement reform to get what we needUnfortunately, it is not as simple as throwing money at a named project. Adding new variants to scope sends a project back to seek options analysis phase approvals, with all the documentation and approval gateways that are associated with that. The project would likely be sent back to the Independent Review Panel, which will add months even after internal DND gateways are achieved. Then you are probably losing another year to get new industry costing for variants that were not previously considered in order to cost accuracy to satisfy the subsequent reviewers and gateways for funding approval.
If it is really important, it can be done with the application of additional experienced project staff and general officer engagement to jump queues in the approval gateways. But even then the risk of significant delay remains. There is currently no easy button, and finding manufactures with suitable products is never the critical path. So the question remains, are you ready to risk a multi-year delay in LUVW replacement for the sake of also getting some better suited LSVW replacements?
By pure accident, it's an excellent MLVW replacement. The smart move would be to select a 5-8 ton 6x6 Zetros to eventually replace the MSVS.Though, it will probably be great for some MLVW tasks that the MSVS is too monstrous to do.
Every gate reflects a problem that is now "fixed".Really it boils down to then is once again we need procurement reform to get what we need
GM has their LUV that does basically exactly that.The LUV is basically a modern version of the Iltis.
Maybe we could take a 1 ton Silverado chassis and have someone build a military truck body on top.
You and your logic.By pure accident, it's an excellent MLVW replacement. The smart move would be to select a 5-8 ton 6x6 Zetros to eventually replace the MSVS.
GM has their LUV that does basically exactly that.
A bunch of those wouldn't be the worst thing for non-green settings: fill that step between "Gator" and "vast crew-cab."
We need a Wayne’s Word reaction emoji, because only laugh, cry, and hurl are sufficient to acknowledge that truism.Every gate reflects a problem that is now "fixed".
And then someone finds a new way to fuck up magnificently.We need a Wayne’s Word reaction emoji, because only laugh, cry, and hurl are sufficient to acknowledge that truism.
I mean, it is possible to build a grid that supports both but you are going to be disappointed if you think that duality should exist down to each outlet.And then someone finds a new way to fuck up magnificently.
"What if we converted 50hz to 60hz? No way for things to go sideways!"
Systems integration into other 60hz systems is overrated.I mean, it is possible to build a grid that supports both but you are going to be disappointed if you think that duality should exist down to each outlet.