Domestic and Arctic Mobility Enhancement Project

[lenaitch]

Just for your knowledge we have a Canadian made sherp : The fat truck with a 4x4 or 8x8 version: Vehicles - Models - Fat Truck - Industrial off-road utility vehicles.

And they already work with rheinmetall for the Mission Master XT, an extreme-terrain unmanned ground vehicle (UGV)

Rheinmetall

Rheinmetall Mission Master is a unique family of Autonomous Unmanned Ground Vehicles to support military troops in dangerous missions with difficult conditions.

www.rheinmetall.com

A quick comparison of the two:

Fat Truck vs Sherp

What are the differences and similarities between Fat Truck and Sherp? Let's dive into the specs of these two carriers and how these compare to one another

www.usdredge.com

 

[Prairie canuck]

Is a 4000 km at 30 km/h (133 hours of travel time) a realistic application of the vehicle? Suppose the vehicle were employed in conjunction with a hamlet? The hamlet provides the fuel cache. 1000 km at 60 km/h (17 hours of travel time). The range might be less but the response time within the useful range will be halved. And both vehicles can haul additional POL with them to extend their range.

You're still creating multiple fuel caches in coastal hamlets, there really isn't any inland hamlets, that have to be monitored and maintained. Wouldn't air drops be better? Freeing up the column to stay inland and away from the coast?
As I work through traveling cross country and the terrain, rivers, and creeks I am becoming more convinced that a mix of BV's and Sherp would be best. Summer in the Arctic definitely favours the Sherp. Winter is a wash.

 

[Kirkhill]

You're still creating multiple fuel caches in coastal hamlets, there really isn't any inland hamlets, that have to be monitored and maintained. Wouldn't air drops be better? Freeing up the column to stay inland and away from the coast?
As I work through traveling cross country and the terrain, rivers, and creeks I am becoming more convinced that a mix of BV's and Sherp would be best. Summer in the Arctic definitely favours the Sherp. Winter is a wash.

So we have seasons and terrain.

4 seasons first

Winter
Break-up
Summer
Freeze-up

Terrain

Prairies
Working Forests
Wild Forests
Taiga
Tundra
Swamps/Marshes/Bogs
Mountains
Ice - Sea Ice, Lake Ice and River Ice.

It sounds as if you have pretty broad experience with some if not most of the above which puts you miles ahead of me.

Years back, pre-Sherp(a) days, I proposed that our domestic force needed to be based on airlift and the things that could be moved into position by air and supported by air. That meant focusing on the lift that was available, specifically the CH-146 and CH-147, the CC-138 and CC-130, and the CC-144, CC-330 and the CC-177.

I anticipated that the majority of the force would move the longest distances in the CC-330s (CC-150s back then) to regional hub. A long, hard runway as close to the incident as possible. The CC-144s would serve for liaison roles while the CC-177s would be optimized on supplying outsize equipment, vehicles in particular, on clean, well-maintained runways. We don't have many of them and need to look after them. I note that the CC-330s are big enough to carry vehicles as well now. What can you get inside a CC-130.

Leg two on the deployment would involve a transfer from the regional hub to a rough strip. Obviously that becomes the role for the CC-130 in airlift mode carrying everything, people, pallets and vehicles, with the CC-138 in the liaison role.

Leg three is from the rough strip to a FOB. The helicopters CH-147 doing the lifting and the CH-146 in liaison/utility.

Finally you have local and tactical movement on the surface, and there you bump into all the factors I mentioned above.

Anciently, again pre-Sherp(a) days, I concluded that for enduring presence the solution was the BV-206, which could be lifted by the CC-177, the CC-130 and the CH-147. The Bv could be augmented in the summer by R(H)IBs that could be underslung.

Support could be augmented by airdrop from the CC-130s with the caveat that anything dropped had to be recoverable by the CH-147 for return to the local rough strip and transport by the CC-130s rearward.

The Bv-206 has become the bigger BvS10 and the Beowulf. The army has added MRZRs to its range of options. Boats are still a seasonal option. And of course the Sherp / Fat Boy is now in the mix.

Preferred solutions?

 

[Kirkhill]

Part Deux....

Back in those ancient days, about 15 years ago, there were no UAVs/USVs/UGVs.

So....
Sticking with the logistics first and referencing the basic infantry section travelling. Does the section have to have its own Bv206 equivalent?

How about every section gets its own crawler? Its own Self-Propelled Pulk?



Load up your water, rations, ammunition, shelter, stove and lamp, cooking utensils, tools and batteries. Add fuel for the crawler. Make it a hybrid with a decent battery for silent ops and to rapidly recharge smaller batteries. Built in recharger to store and recharge all those NOD, drone and radio batteries.

....

And speaking of radios, ensure that every crawler has got three or four Fibre Optic comms ports to support tethers. We have been able to throw wires and cables over kilometers, regardless of terrain, safely and securely for decades, ever since the TOW missile was deployed. And cheaply.
Comms with no signature.

Handset to tether. Tether to crawler. Crawler to tether. Tether to Quadcopter. Quadcopter flies for ISR. Or RRB if necessary. Or to another crawler 5 km away. Second crawler's crew detaches tether from first crew's Quadcopter and plugs it into a jack on their crawler. Silent comms.

If it is necessary to get out of Dodge unclip the jacks if you have time. If not just drive off and break the link. The wire or cable is cheap.

....

Secondary use of the crawler is as a shelter. Leave the pole and the canvas of the shelter, complete with scrim, permanently attached to the crawler to speed set up. Stop. Set up shelter to cover and conceal the crawler under canvas - Rucks are in the shelter with you. As is your hot water from the onboard Boiling Vessel.

Shovels, axes, saws and machetes are to hand as are lots of line.

And it can carry both skis and snowshoes.

And, you can reverse the traces. Instead of you pulling the pulk, the pulk pulls you.

In the summertime swap out the tent for a lighter shelter and add an inflatable raft. A compressor would be nice. It would also make blowing up those mattresses in the winter easier. Could the raft be big enough to float the crawler? Bring the section across in two trips and the crawler in the third?

Tracks as options for the crawlers?

The crawler doesn't need to be autonomous, or even radio controlled. A follow-me tether would be useful in many situations with optional RC or Autonomous control. Keeping in mind that those add weight, cost, fuel and electronic noise and susceptibility.

...

Other points,

CQ's options have now expanded to include not just individual ride-on ATVs and snowmobiles, with and without trailers, but also to large Quad and Octocopters.

Again, those could be autonomous, wireless or tethered. And big enough to recover one of the section to the rear.



....

Final thought, wrt the UAS as an RRB.

Handset to tether. Tether to crawler. Crawler to tether. Tether to UAS. UAS to distant transmission point and elevates to increase LOS comms horizon. Enemy detects RRB transmission but both originator and receiver are quiet.

...

And then you can start thinking about weaponry.

You could even think about the section Carl Gustaf.

 

[Kirkhill]

Rheinmetall

Rheinmetall Mission Master is a unique family of Autonomous Unmanned Ground Vehicles to support military troops in dangerous missions with difficult conditions.

www.rheinmetall.com

 

[Kirkhill]

If mobile power source with compressor how about an inflatable shelter that doubles as a boat? Or an inflatable boat that doubles as a shelter? Swap the weight of the pole for the compressor?

Mission Master Unmanned Ground Vehicle, Germany

The Mission Master unmanned ground vehicle is produced by Rheinmetall to support multiple mission requirements of troops in difficult terrain conditions.

www.army-technology.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You're still creating multiple fuel caches in coastal hamlets, there really isn't any inland hamlets, that have to be monitored and maintained. Wouldn't air drops be better? Freeing up the column to stay inland and away from the coast?
As I work through traveling cross country and the terrain, rivers, and creeks I am becoming more convinced that a mix of BV's and Sherp would be best. Summer in the Arctic definitely favours the Sherp. Winter is a wash.

All those Hamlets have fuel storage already. Just improving and enlarging it.

 

[Spencer100]

Sorry just re read that and it should have been BAE Systems Land & Armaments

Not sure which deal you are referring to. Canada has backed out on so many deals with various companies it is laughable.

I find it funny that our own procurement ignores the fact that we have companies in Canada who can manufacture, build and maintain this type of equipment.

Did you ask if they even want to bid? I know companies that would not as the process is beyond painful. As someone who has tried it is not easy. It is very very expensive to even get to the point to even submit a full bid. I don't think many Canadian owned OEM or small manufacturers could even complete a proper bid. Look even global companies team here with other global companies because the pain required to bid. Daimler teams with GDLS-C to supply a truck and they have a massive footprint in Canada already.

For most CAF platforms we should just throw in the towel and buy whatever the US buying at that point. It would be cheaper and easier on everyone. But that will never happen nor would your solution of all Canadian manufacturing. So we will do this......25 years to buy a truck, 30 to buy a helicopter..

 

[childs56]

Did you ask if they even want to bid?

Most will not especially out West as they generally require a partnership back east in order to be considered.

I know companies that would not as the process is beyond painful. As someone who has tried it is not easy. It is very very expensive to even get to the point to even submit a full bid.

I don't think many Canadian owned OEM or small manufacturers could even complete a proper bid.

There appears to be many small companies who win bids all the time with the Cdn Government. Just the vast majority have roots back east, often deals with the big guys like Bombardier, Irving etc.

Look even global companies team here with other global companies because the pain required to bid. Daimler teams with GDLS-C to supply a truck and they have a massive footprint in Canada already.

the big companies all have deals as each one supplies a different aspect to the overall program. It is easier for them to align with another.
Example Daimler provides a truck chassis. GDLS supplies a defense suit along with a missile system.

For most CAF platforms we should just throw in the towel and buy whatever the US buying at that point. It would be cheaper and easier on everyone.

Not all US equipment is suitable for us. Then again having enough equipment might be a start.

But that will never happen nor would your solution of all Canadian manufacturing. So we will do this......25 years to buy a truck, 30 to buy a helicopter..

We can all look forward to the next generation truck or helicopter three gens from now.

 

[Prairie canuck]

All those Hamlets have fuel storage already. Just improving and enlarging it.

(I ask for patience as I try to mission plan an overland maneuver in the arctic. )

I realize that each has it's own cache in quantities for civilian use, but you're restricting your resupply points to the coasts which for arguments sake are more vulnerable and not in the interior. On the coasts of Baffin, Devon, Ellesmere etc travelling overland from hamlet to hamlet is a long trip if the ice is gone. Just as an example Pond Inlet as the crow flies to Arctic Bay is about 250km. the same trip via overland is likely double as you drive around long fjords and if you're attempting it in Summer it might even be much longer as you'll be zig zagging avoiding marshlands too.

If those hamlets / resupply points have airstrips which can accommodate C130s (even better if they are C17 capable) then I imagine the CH147s (and a lesser extent the CH146s) can fly the resupply runs to the interior.
(I can see I'm talking myself into expanding / improving northern airstrips too but it's unavoidable as the existing infrastructure is very limited.! )

This likely needs some scenarios to play it out?

 

[Kirkhill]

(I ask for patience as I try to mission plan an overland maneuver in the arctic. )

I realize that each has it's own cache in quantities for civilian use, but you're restricting your resupply points to the coasts which for arguments sake are more vulnerable and not in the interior. On the coasts of Baffin, Devon, Ellesmere etc travelling overland from hamlet to hamlet is a long trip if the ice is gone. Just as an example Pond Inlet as the crow flies to Arctic Bay is about 250km. the same trip via overland is likely double as you drive around long fjords and if you're attempting it in Summer it might even be much longer as you'll be zig zagging avoiding marshlands too.

If those hamlets / resupply points have airstrips which can accommodate C130s (even better if they are C17 capable) then I imagine the CH147s (and a lesser extent the CH146s) can fly the resupply runs to the interior.
(I can see I'm talking myself into expanding / improving northern airstrips too but it's unavoidable as the existing infrastructure is very limited.! )

This likely needs some scenarios to play it out?

More Hooks. At least another 17. Preferably 34.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am not quite sure I understand this thread.

The proposal is to drive vehicles across the tundra in the summer, because why?

Everything that I know about the Arctic says that is a super bad idea. Even for a BV206 type vehicle.

 

[OldSolduer]

These. A battalion mounted on these.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not quite sure I understand this thread.

The proposal is to drive vehicles across the tundra in the summer, because why?

Everything that I know about the Arctic says that is a super bad idea. Even for a BV206 type vehicle.

The Arctic ATV: The Whirligig

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The hamlets are going to be your centre of gravity anyways. I have been inland of the arctic coast, lots and lots of nothing and you need aviation support. The hamlets give marine access and any intrusions are going to be coastal anyways. If a couple hundred of Spetnaz (PLA equivalent) are dropped off a couple hundred km from any hamlet, I just interdict their air support and let the bears, wolves, cold and Inuit take care of them.

To be fair there is certain key bits in the interior, mostly winter roads, existing airfields and some communities that may need protecting.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am not quite sure I understand this thread.

The proposal is to drive vehicles across the tundra in the summer, because why?

Everything that I know about the Arctic says that is a super bad idea. Even for a BV206 type vehicle.

You may need to operate vehicles in the tundra to approach an area already taken. The vehicles carry extra food, tents, rations and medical supplies and support weapons. if you can keep the ground pressure down to less than a human, than the vehicle will likley work. My guess that any trip is going to be 50km or less from your landing site to the objective.

 

[GR66]

The hamlets are going to be your centre of gravity anyways. I have been inland of the arctic coast, lots and lots of nothing and you need aviation support. The hamlets give marine access and any intrusions are going to be coastal anyways. If a couple hundred of Spetnaz (PLA equivalent) are dropped off a couple hundred km from any hamlet, I just interdict their air support and let the bears, wolves, cold and Inuit take care of them.

To be fair there is certain key bits in the interior, mostly winter roads, existing airfields and some communities that may need protecting.

As former CDS General Natynczyk said "If someone were to invade the Canadian Arctic, my first task would be to rescue them.”

 

[Cloud Cover]

The Sherp only has a max speed of 30kph compared to the BvS10 at 60kph. However the Sherp has a range of 4000km vs the BvS10 at 1000km (or 4 fuel caches compared to one, logistics logistics.)

The tyres are so big it would fail the GBA procurement phase, unless the army reintroduces a grip test.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As former CDS General Natynczyk said "If someone were to invade the Canadian Arctic, my first task would be to rescue them.”

Unless they occupy Mould Bay with a group of "Researchers" protected by "Bear Safety personal" armed with automatic rifles, MG, AT, Manpads, etc. with support from the Russian and Chinese Icebreaker fleet.

 

[GR66]

Unless they occupy Mould Bay with a group of "Researchers" protected by "Bear Safety personal" armed with automatic rifles, MG, AT, Manpads, etc. with support from the Russian and Chinese Icebreaker fleet.

I'd suggest that interdicting or "removing" the support vessels would be much more effective than sending ground troops in BvS10's to conduct some type of assault. Once their support is gone then I think the "Researchers" will fairly quickly require rescue.