Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[blackberet17]

Mind you, the JLTV would probably be a better fit for the Expeditionary Branch than the TAPV.

Agree.

 

[MilEME09]

A couple media outlets including the Ottawa citizen are reporting that a winning vehicle will finally be selected this summer(estimated to be around june) and delivery's of a estimated 1500 trucks will begin in 2017. Ten years late but hey finally going to get those ML's off the road, we hope.

 

[Kirkhill]

Oshkosh wins and delivers the HEMTT

This in consolation for the TAPV contract which is "Modified" to provide the L-ATV instead?

It is always good to have dreams....

 

[dapaterson]

A couple media outlets including the Ottawa citizen are reporting that a winning vehicle will finally be selected this summer(estimated to be around june) and delivery's of a estimated 1500 trucks will begin in 2017. Ten years late but hey finally going to get those ML's off the road, we hope.

That's the MSVS SMP sub-project, not the LVM.

 

[MilEME09]

That's the MSVS SMP sub-project, not the LVM.

My understanding was it was a sub=project within the LVM, my mistake

 

[McG]

That's the MSVS SMP sub-project, not the LVM.

But given that MSVS is buying an HLVW sized replacement for the MLVW, we may as well buy more of the same truck to cover-off LVM.  If any money is left over, maybe LVM could then buy fewer of a smaller vehicle that actually is medium in size.

 

[dapaterson]

LVW is supposed to be scoped to deliver what MSVS does not; it shouldn't be buying more of the same.  I believe that there was some funding moved from LVM for MSVS.

 

[McG]

It is supposed to deliver what MSVS does not, but both projects are looking at the problem backward and will be fielding overlapping as opposed to complementary capabilities.  Both projects are focused on the fleets they are replacing as opposed to the capability they are fielding. 

MSVS is buying 10 ton PLS trucks to repalce 5 ton trucks; LVM will buy something(s) heavier to replace 10 ton and 16 ton trucks and it will by something much lighter to replace the LSVW.  It leaves a gap where the medium truck should be, and potentially two new fleets in the 10 ton range.

Had we looked at this from a better perspective in the begining, we would have started by determining the right future balance of different truck sizes.  We could then buy the correct quantities of light, medium, heavy and (maybe) "super" heavy based on our requirements. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

It is supposed to deliver what MSVS does not, but both projects are looking at the problem backward and will be fielding overlapping as opposed to complementary capabilities.  Both projects are focused on the fleets they are replacing as opposed to the capability they are fielding. 

MSVS is buying 10 ton PLS trucks to repalce 5 ton trucks; LVM will buy something(s) heavier to replace 10 ton and 16 ton trucks and it will by something much lighter to replace the LSVW.  It leaves a gap where the medium truck should be, and potentially two new fleets in the 10 ton range.

Had we looked at this from a better perspective in the begining, we would have started by determining the right future balance of different truck sizes.  We could then buy the correct quantities of light, medium, heavy and (maybe) "super" heavy based on our requirements.

:facepalm:

 

[MilEME09]

Instead we will have a light fleet, what I call a light Heavy fleet (MSVS) and Heavy fleet (HL and its eventual replacement), or in the worst case scenario the LSVW replacement will actually end up being a more medium vehicle leaving us with no light vehicle.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You could build the light fleet around the G-wagon with this being the upper scale

 

[MilEME09]

You could build the light fleet around the G-wagon with this being the upper scale

interesting idea, i'd want it to retain the top hatch though and the mg mount for the ability for the vehicle to defend it self.

 

[OldSolduer]

:facepalm:

My thoughts exactly. We have the big three - Chrysler, GMC and Ford. I'm pretty sure that one of them could come up with a design that would suit our needs, within budget.

And Jesus wept..... :facepalm:

 

[Kirkhill]

My thoughts exactly. We have the big three - Chrysler, GMC and Ford. I'm pretty sure that one of them could come up with a design that would suit our needs, within budget.

And Jesus wept..... :facepalm:

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: joining the chorus of self-flagellation....

Maybe you could have started by finding out what could be done with stock vehicles from those guys - take them off road until they break - and buy them to do what they are capable of.  The stuff they are incapable of is where you need to spend your money to buy specialist fleets.

The Euros don't buy exotic gear unless they have to. Most of their B fleets (landrovers, Ivecos, Volvos etc) come off the same production lines as the civvy fleets that infest their roads.

 

[OldSolduer]

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: joining the chorus of self-flagellation....

Maybe you could have started by finding out what could be done with stock vehicles from those guys - take them off road until they break - and buy them to do what they are capable of.  The stuff they are incapable of is where you need to spend your money to buy specialist fleets.

The Euros don't buy exotic gear unless they have to. Most of their B fleets (landrovers, Ivecos, Volvos etc) come off the same production lines as the civvy fleets that infest their roads.

Start with a chassis from the 2500 series - in essence a 3/4 ton truck, four wheel drive, crew cab, diesel engine. Strip it of all the bells and whistles - manual door locks, manual windows, etc. Rubberized interior vice carpet....just give us a cup holder!!

 

[cupper]

And for god's sake, don't let Bombardier anywhere near it. Or your cup holder will be the easiest thing to maintain on it.

 

[George Wallace]

You could build the light fleet around the G-wagon with this being the upper scale

Why the G-wagen?

There is a much better vehicle produced that wears the same hood ornament.  The UNIMOG.  It is one of the most versatile and adaptable vehicle built.  It has seen service in the RCAF in Europe in the 1950's and 60's.  It has been a workhorse for not only many of NATO militaries, but State and Municipal governments, not to mention industry and farmers.  It is a proven vehicle.

The list of uses for this vehicle are endless.  The variants that are offered, or the equipment that can be driven by the Unimog PTO, seem endless.  Are we stuck with the Chretien "We don't drive limos, we drive Chevy's" philosophy still? 

 

[blackberet17]

LIKE!

 

[Kirkhill]

The Unimog is a great example of a niche vehicle to do the things that Dodge/Ford/GM can't.  Should it be the only truck in the fleet?  I don't think so. 

And while I understand the challenges of mini-fleets I can't worship at the shrine of standardization when standardization results in a compromise too far with flexibility and utility.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

believe me I am a big fan of the unimog, but having a slightly larger vehicle with some common parts with the light vehicle is a good selling point. The G-wagon is what we should have bought instead of the Iltis and renewed them. In fact we need to have a standard where no softskinned vehicle in the fleet is older than 10-15 years. Also no more 3 vehicles gone for 1.5 replacements. So you buy a vehicle, drive them for 7-10 years and start the process of replacement then. If everyone knows your sticking to the standard, some forward planning is possible. This would also reduce the maintenance burden of old orphaned vehicle types.