• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

yup know it well. The two GM plants in Canada at onetime also did that.

I find people outside of the industry don't really understand the size. The complexity, size, competitiveness and the full scope of the automotive industry. When Ottawa puts a bid out for Postal trucks, or army trucks etc.

I was having drink one night at an industry conference not automotive one for my after work job job. My much larger public owned competitor says to me "who are you people? We have put everyone else out out of business or bought them you guys don't die." I said to him I'm from Windsor and we do the Car business and every other business and/or industry in the world is easier.

Amen to that, and thank Gawd that Ford (and the others) are on our side ;)

How Ford's Willow Run Assembly Plant Helped Win World War II​

The Willow Run bomber plant made aviation, industrial and social history—along with new B-24s by the hour.​


President Roosevelt stunned millions of listeners when he announced during a May 26, 1940, fireside chat that government must “harness the efficient machinery of America’s manufacturers” to produce 50,000 combat aircraft over the next 12 months to confront the “approaching storm” of global war. FDR’s goal exceeded the total of all planes built in the U.S. since the Wright brothers’ 1903 flight at Kitty Hawk, NC, and he challenged the aviation industry to match that number in succeeding years. As he spoke, the country had fewer than 3,000 warplanes in its arsenal, most obsolete.

The president and his advisers were convinced that long-range, high-altitude heavy bombers would be the decisive weapon in a war dominated by air power and industrial muscle. Their shopping list included 12,000 of these aerial battleships to attack Germany’s heartland, hammering military installations, bridges, factories, rail yards, fuel storage tanks and communications centers. The “heavies” of choice were the B-17 Flying Fortress from Boeing Airplane Co. and the B-24 Liberator from Consolidated Aircraft.

The B-17 had a six-year history of design, development, testing and limited production. The twin-finned, high-winged B-24 with its dual bomb bays and tricycle landing gear debuted in 1939 as a repurposed land model of Consolidated’s bulky flying boats. Handcrafted versions were pressed into service in England, but the San Diego company lacked resources and methods for high-volume production of the largest, most complex airplane ever designed. Still, aviation industry leaders scoffed when the War Department chose Ford Motor Co. to mass-produce Liberators.

Automobiles of the era had 15,000 parts and weighed around 3,000 pounds. Sixty-seven feet long, the B-24 had 450,000 parts and 360,000 rivets in 550 sizes, and it weighed 18 tons. Skeptics dismissed mass production of a plane this enormous and advanced as a carmaker’s fantasy that would crash and burn when repeated design changes disrupted assembly lines and junked expensive tooling. “You can’t expect a blacksmith to make a watch overnight,” sniffed Dutch Kindelberger, president of North American Aviation.

Ford proved them wrong, not easily nor entirely, during a 2.5-year production run in a 3.5-million-square-foot factory built over Willow Run Creek near Ypsilanti, MI. The massive plant turned out 8,645 Liberators vs. 9,808 manufactured by four factories of Consolidated, Douglas Aircraft, and North American Aviation. Together they produced more of the slab-sided behemoths than any American warplane ever.

 
Amen to that, and thank Gawd that Ford (and the others) are on our side ;)

How Ford's Willow Run Assembly Plant Helped Win World War II​

The Willow Run bomber plant made aviation, industrial and social history—along with new B-24s by the hour.​


President Roosevelt stunned millions of listeners when he announced during a May 26, 1940, fireside chat that government must “harness the efficient machinery of America’s manufacturers” to produce 50,000 combat aircraft over the next 12 months to confront the “approaching storm” of global war. FDR’s goal exceeded the total of all planes built in the U.S. since the Wright brothers’ 1903 flight at Kitty Hawk, NC, and he challenged the aviation industry to match that number in succeeding years. As he spoke, the country had fewer than 3,000 warplanes in its arsenal, most obsolete.

The president and his advisers were convinced that long-range, high-altitude heavy bombers would be the decisive weapon in a war dominated by air power and industrial muscle. Their shopping list included 12,000 of these aerial battleships to attack Germany’s heartland, hammering military installations, bridges, factories, rail yards, fuel storage tanks and communications centers. The “heavies” of choice were the B-17 Flying Fortress from Boeing Airplane Co. and the B-24 Liberator from Consolidated Aircraft.

The B-17 had a six-year history of design, development, testing and limited production. The twin-finned, high-winged B-24 with its dual bomb bays and tricycle landing gear debuted in 1939 as a repurposed land model of Consolidated’s bulky flying boats. Handcrafted versions were pressed into service in England, but the San Diego company lacked resources and methods for high-volume production of the largest, most complex airplane ever designed. Still, aviation industry leaders scoffed when the War Department chose Ford Motor Co. to mass-produce Liberators.

Automobiles of the era had 15,000 parts and weighed around 3,000 pounds. Sixty-seven feet long, the B-24 had 450,000 parts and 360,000 rivets in 550 sizes, and it weighed 18 tons. Skeptics dismissed mass production of a plane this enormous and advanced as a carmaker’s fantasy that would crash and burn when repeated design changes disrupted assembly lines and junked expensive tooling. “You can’t expect a blacksmith to make a watch overnight,” sniffed Dutch Kindelberger, president of North American Aviation.

Ford proved them wrong, not easily nor entirely, during a 2.5-year production run in a 3.5-million-square-foot factory built over Willow Run Creek near Ypsilanti, MI. The massive plant turned out 8,645 Liberators vs. 9,808 manufactured by four factories of Consolidated, Douglas Aircraft, and North American Aviation. Together they produced more of the slab-sided behemoths than any American warplane ever.

I got to see it before they razed it. Part is still up.

Fun story I heard about the Sec of War or industry in the US got a report of Ford using marble in the washrooms of the plant and that it was an luxury extravagance being paid by the government. Then he got there to see for himself the first manager told him marble we have tons of. Steel is short supply for the war. Marble not so much need in war. He got back in the car and went back to Washington.

 
Last edited:
I posted the GM defence win else where but it is interesting here too.


We should just tack on 1000 for us.
Uhm, I'd say probably 4-5k
 
And we have a winner


 
And we have a winner


Hmmm...The Merc truck purchased though GD. That can't be expensive at all.

I guess everyone will just be happy something is moving forward.
 
If GD can just win the ERC project, we would have commonality among the majority of our logistics fleet
 
The trucks are an interesting thing

The LSVW is supposed to be replaced close to (or less?) what we have now 1300 instead of the original 2879

The MSVS Milcots = 1300
The MSVS-SMP - 1587

The HLVW I think I read somewhere is going to be a max of 500?

And then I think I read that the LUVW-Milcot (1061) and LUVW-SMP (1159) were going to be replaced with one common vehicle with add on armour but at half the fleet so like 1100 total

edit

edit no 2

"The LVM project will acquire up to 542 heavy trucks and as many as 1,113 light trucks to replace the Heavy Engineer Support Vehicle (HESV), Heavy Logistics Vehicle Wheeled (HLVW), and Light Support Vehicle Wheeled (LSVW), all of which entered service in the 1990s."

Is there a confirmation of the truck numbers?
 
Didn’t we bought another truck a couples of years ago? Why two fleet or they are complementing each other?
 
Didn’t we bought another truck a couples of years ago? Why two fleet or they are complementing each other?
That was the MSV. The ML replacement. This is the Light and HLVW replacement. Admittedly the Light is more of a medium, but again the CA didn’t buy enough mediums to even do a 1:2 replacement.

I also notice the Light and Heavy don’t seem to have Armor packages. I guess Canada is really out of the Army business but for show.
 
That was the MSV. The ML replacement. This is the Light and HLVW replacement. Admittedly the Light is more of a medium, but again the CA didn’t buy enough mediums to even do a 1:2 replacement.

I also notice the Light and Heavy don’t seem to have Armor packages. I guess Canada is really out of the Army business but for show.
2 out of 3 with commonality, not bad I guess. The MSV was early because the ML were more than past due. I could ha e been a good idea to replace everything with the same family. Let me guess, the MSV family lost against GDLS even if we already have the 1/3 replaced by them?
 
That was the MSV. The ML replacement. This is the Light and HLVW replacement. Admittedly the Light is more of a medium, but again the CA didn’t buy enough mediums to even do a 1:2 replacement.

I also notice the Light and Heavy don’t seem to have Armor packages. I guess Canada is really out of the Army business but for show.
From the press release:

Quick facts​

  • National Defence has a requirement to acquire a new fleet of light and heavy logistics vehicles, trailers, vehicle modules, armour protection kits, logistics support and initial in-service support.
 
Perhaps the wording is fitted for but not with.

Perhaps the thinking was that armed conflict is returning to being more conventional, where the enemy lines are more defined, and therefore we won't be sending our logistics vehicles through enemy held territory, there is a lessor need to have them up armored. Maybe the CCA actually decided that given the projected use of the vehicles, risk was mitigated to a point deemed acceptable. The result being more bang for our buck.
 
Back
Top