Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[daftandbarmy]

If there was one logistics vehicle that should be armoured my vote would go to the gas truck...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2071182127635272141

 

[PrairieFella]

Noah Gairn is reporting rumours that LUV may be moved up to awarding in 2027. I sure hope thats true.

 

[HavokFour]

Noah Gairn is reporting rumours that LUV may be moved up to awarding in 2027. I sure hope thats true.

Just touched on it again today.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2074522995930919265

https://twitter.com/x/status/2074523000481734821

 

[PuckChaser]

Just give it to Roshel already. Slam dunk domestic winner for LUVW.

 

[HavokFour]

The old 6 way competition, 4 Canadian and 2 American companies.

Canadian: Armatec Survivability Group, GM Defense Canada, Roshel, Terradyne Armoured Vehicles

American: AM General, Oshkosh Defence

Ottawa sidelines foreign firms in $4.9B army vehicle competition​

Whittled down to 2 Canadian.

Prime Minister Carney secures new defence partnerships at the 2026 NATO Summit

Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, concluded his participation at the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, Türkiye.

www.pm.gc.ca

 

[PrairieFella]

Honestly good. Theres no reason we should be outsourcing B fleet trucks to the Americans. The Ukrainians really like the Senator and its being truly battle tested. Good enough for me.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Honestly good. Theres no reason we should be outsourcing B fleet trucks to the Americans. The Ukrainians really like the Senator and its being truly battle tested. Good enough for me.

100% battle tested.

That gives a chance to have Roshel to improve upon known weakness for our batch.

 

[MJP]

Honestly good. Theres no reason we should be outsourcing B fleet trucks to the Americans. The Ukrainians really like the Senator and its being truly battle tested.

Agreed. My other hope is we get out of huge one off buys and just continually upgrade the fleets over time.

 

[PuckChaser]

You mean we cant just buy trucks like we buy airplanes and ships by expecting them to last 30+ years?

 

[MJP]

You mean we cant just buy trucks like we buy airplanes and ships by expecting them to last 30+ years?

I mean we did exactly that so yes...but please no. Please no

 

[PrairieFella]

I think the question now is which Roshel product will we buy? Senator APC, Senator Pickup, the new Ford milcot version, etc

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No truck in the CAF should be more than 15 years old.

 

[McG]

Agreed. My other hope is we get out of huge one off buys and just continually upgrade the fleets over time.

When everything is past its expiry date, you need to replace everything right away and then buy 10% every year (accepting that you are just going to retire trucks early until you hit steady state).

 

[MJP]

When everything is past its expiry date, you need to replace everything right away and then buy 10% every year (accepting that you are just going to retire trucks early until you hit steady state).

Yes that is what I meant for sizzle.

 

[McG]

No truck in the CAF should be more than 15 years old.

After 10 years, there will be parts and sub-assemblies that are no longer manufactured. We should not be keeping a vehicle older than 10.

 

[Eaglelord17]

After 10 years, there will be parts and sub-assemblies that are no longer manufactured. We should not be keeping a vehicle older than 10.

You can keep a vehicle older than 10 years old. You just have to have reasonable warstock of parts available. If we ever get below that point the vehicle should be up for replacement immediately (whether the vehicle is 3 years old or 25 years old).

 

[OldSolduer]

The CAF tends to keep stuff well past the best before date.

 

[McG]

You can keep a vehicle older than 10 years old. You just have to have reasonable warstock of parts available. If we ever get below that point the vehicle should be up for replacement immediately (whether the vehicle is 3 years old or 25 years old).

Some times "we can do it" does not mean "it" is something we should do. The fetish of needing to keep everything in service forever will not help us. When you do limited annual purchases to continually refresh the fleet, each year sees a few parts substituted newer ones so no two production years are going to be exactly the same, and quite typically your new part is not backward compatible to support the older model. So the keep it in service longer because we can fetish results in the supply system having to support multiple fleets that may aesthetically look the same. So now the supply depot is allocating space for three generations of critical sub-assembly A, the MRT is carrying lower density of all parts to make room for more generations of each, and even the CQ carries three types intake filter so that he has the right one when you tell him the year of your truck.

 

[Kirkhill]

You can keep a vehicle older than 10 years old. You just have to have reasonable warstock of parts available. If we ever get below that point the vehicle should be up for replacement immediately (whether the vehicle is 3 years old or 25 years old).

Rumour hss it that Toronto operates fleets of vehicles.

If you ask AI questions like how many of what kind and brand, how old and how often they are bought you get some interesting answers. None of them involve replacing the entire fleet on a single purchase every 30 years.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Rumour hss it that Toronto operates fleets of vehicles.

If you ask AI questions like how many of what kind and brand, how old and how often they are bought you get some interesting answers. None of them involve replacing the entire fleet on a single purchase every 30 years.

No but they also aren’t looking for efficiency in training and parts supply for said vehicles being blown up in usage.

Different places get by on different things. Trying to look at things from how civilian company/government organization may do things isn’t necessarily the best perspective for how a military should. That outlook is why our warstocks are so light to begin with.

Some times "we can do it" does not mean "it" is something we should do. The fetish of needing to keep everything in service forever will not help us. When you do limited annual purchases to continually refresh the fleet, each year sees a few parts substituted newer ones so no two production years are going to be exactly the same, and quite typically your new part is not backward compatible to support the older model. So the keep it in service longer because we can fetish results in the supply system having to support multiple fleets that may aesthetically look the same. So now the supply depot is allocating space for three generations of critical sub-assembly A, the MRT is carrying lower density of all parts to make room for more generations of each, and even the CQ carries three types intake filter so that he has the right one when you tell him the year of your truck.

Alternatively you can do larger purchases periodically and avoid having the discrepancy in the fleets that comes from constant small orders.

The most important part is having enough vehicles and enough parts to service them including in the event of a war. The fact we fail to stock adequate supplies in peacetime tells me that needs to be changed.