Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[jopeters]

I'd prefer if the military sold all the LSVW, MLVW and G-WAGONS (and some variants of HLVWs) and purchased more of the new stuff specifically the new AHSVS which I've heard nothing but good things about and the newer LAVs... I understand that some times you want quantity over quality but I'm a Veh tech and I'm tired of doing annual inspection on vehicles that have made 14 km (the drive tests) since the last inspection, and that have almost no practical value any more. Let's modernize is all i want. Sorry for ranting.

 

[McG]

Military doctrine and acceptance of casualties (or rather the number of casualties) the government is willing to accept is a big determiner (is that a word?) of what kind of armament and armour protection the vehicle has.

One thing about the Brits - when they deploy those Land Rovers with all those weapons you know they are looking for a fight. That attitude is protection all by itself.

I am not tracking you Jim.  I don't think we procure vehicles based casualty acceptance but rather what the CF needs.  Protection of the crew and passengers is certainly a factor involved.  What we have done certainly is restricted vehicle usage in certain situations and even bought new ones to prevent casualties for UOR, but in the long term casualty acceptance IMHO doesn't play a huge role in determining what veh we go with.

Jim,
The difference in approach between the UK and Canada is not so much illustrative of risk aversion as it is illustrative of the fact that most problems can be resolved in a number of different ways from the completely technical/equipment solution to the completely procedural/doctrine solution.  If we look at our problems purely from the perspective of implementing a technical/equipment based solution, then we are failing to consider more than half the potential solutions (some of which may even be better).

 

[Kirkhill]

This is what the Aussies are putting forward as their 7-tonner.  They have decided that the Bushmaster folks will be awarded a development contract for the Hawkei.

http://defense-update.com/20111214_hawkei_selected.html

News Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekgn8KwxIh8

Slide Show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-l7l-B8Dys&feature=related

Fits under a Chinook and, according to the slide show, seems to have provision for the open topped types of vehicles preferred by the Brits and the SASR.

Edited to add the link to the manufacturer's spec sheet.

 

[Hurricane]

So, when I first read about the LVM replacing the AHSVS, my inital response as a user of the AHSVS was why? However, after reading the letter of interest, I see the logic. If I understand it correctly, the LVM will include 3 variants, 2 of which for operational use but armour is removeable for dom ops. Which leaves the full fleet operational for DomOps, or Deployed use. As opposed to the AHSVS which with its permanent armour, is restricted in its movement domestically. Also, with the service agreement, would that mean that our Maint would no longer be burdened with the yearly inspections that if overdue, jack the VOR rate sky high?

 

[Kirkhill]

And the Yanks, just like us, are trying to figure out Trucks, MRAPs, M-ATVs and TAPVs (as well as the armoured fleet).

It seems like it is all to play for.
Maybe we're being too hard on the CCV/TAPV/LVMP project managers in this environment?

 

[LineJumper]

From my perspective, as long as 3 can ride (without a skier in the middle) with all that Stuff the army makes us wear, that can carry a full combat load and not bog down whit a trailer. I loved the 5/4 because it could easily move a linecrews full load. LS could grind it forward, but with a noticeable decrease in forward motion on a flat surface.

I had the good fortune of using a couple of Reserve Silverados in WATC a few years ago and wondered why they have these sweet rides while rolling in the squeeky, pull over every 20 minutes to blow junk out of the fuel lines, add whatever beef about LSVW here, and whatnot.

Due to technology, Lineman have an exponentialy reduced danger while working (microwave shots, etc) yet still require an independant crew vehicle to move weight, in the event line actually is required cross country. So I guess the silverado or some like veh would be suitable. Armour is good and all, but I personally prefer mobility.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm almost willing to say "just go with what everyone else is driving" and purchase a huge fleet of UNIMOGS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unimog

The truck is amazingly adaptable and in service almost anywhere you go (so logistics is less of a problem); there are even MRAP type vehicles built on the chassis so arguments about protection are mooted.

I'm sure these people would be happy to get us started...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

From my perspective, as long as 3 can ride (without a skier in the middle) with all that Stuff the army makes us wear, that can carry a full combat load and not bog down whit a trailer. I loved the 5/4 because it could easily move a linecrews full load. LS could grind it forward, but with a noticeable decrease in forward motion on a flat surface.

I had the good fortune of using a couple of Reserve Silverados in WATC a few years ago and wondered why they have these sweet rides while rolling in the squeeky, pull over every 20 minutes to blow junk out of the fuel lines, add whatever beef about LSVW here, and whatnot.

Due to technology, Lineman have an exponentialy reduced danger while working (microwave shots, etc) yet still require an independant crew vehicle to move weight, in the event line actually is required cross country. So I guess the silverado or some like veh would be suitable. Armour is good and all, but I personally prefer mobility.

I found the 5/4 ton great for road moves but was horrible off road. Extended off road use would kill them quickly. Logging companies expect to get at most 5 years out of a pickup and replace their fleets regularly.

 

[OldSolduer]

I found the 5/4 ton great for road moves but was horrible off road. Extended off road use would kill them quickly. Logging companies expect to get at most 5 years out of a pickup and replace their fleets regularly.

When the 5/4 was made, it was expected to last five years, then be replaced by an SMP vehicle......

 

[Mountie]

http://www.gdels.com/brochures/eagle6x6.pdf

The Eagle V.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Yanks have down-selected three 7-tonner "light" vehicles:

Lockheed Martin's JLTV offering, Oshkosh's L-ATV and AM General's BRV-O.

Given that you guys are in the market for 1000 or so of the LVMP(L), presumably in range, I thought it might be interesting to get opinions on the Brit solutions (Jackal and Foxhound), the Aussie solution-apparent (Thales-Hawkei) and the failed American solutions.

Any preferences for what you would like to see go forward?

Presumably the vehicle is to be bigger than a G-Wagon, but smaller than a TAPV and portable under a CH-47 or 2 or 3 of them inside the Hercules.

Crib sheet attached below

 

[FEEOP042]

Well after being at the LVM trails at Humbolt, Sask. I just hope they correct all the problems from the past vehicle buys... Like the HLVW fleet this will be the buying of PLS pallets that are to short, can not put on a ISO container, no trailers bought, using the old KENWORTH. Now I think we do not need any cargo truck a waste of money for a truck that can do only one thing. If most of them are PLS then you can have less and use the Mission Modules .. like dump truck , flat rack with a frame to have a tarp over it to keep your stores/eqpt dry, a troop carrier/ cargo module, fuel farm, water, concrete etc etc. If we had these we can move stores and eqpt much better.

 

[Infanteer]

At first glance, I like the idea of PLS modules over purpose built trucks.  How much higher would the maintenance be on such a system?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I like that idea.... but since it makes sense.......probably not gonna happen then.....

 

[Kirkhill]

How about buying PLS trailers to tow behind any vehicle?

Then, in addition to using Tpt Vehicles to move them you might also be able to use LAVs, Bisons and (dare I say it?) MTVLs and TAPVs, or similar vehicles as Tractors.

Then deployed battalions could drop off their ISO-podded Cmd and Echelon facilities and still have their tractors available to support manouevre.

 

[Infanteer]

Clearly, you've never tried to use the trailer towing system on a LAV.

 

[Kirkhill]

Clearly, you've never tried to use the trailer towing system on a LAV.

Clearly.

Room for improvement?

Edit: Austrian version of what FEE is talking about.  http://www.empl.at/fileadmin/content/feuerwehr/Download_neu/WLF_E.pdf

Take a look at the upper left of the first page.

This outfit has apparently already supplied fixed frame off-road tandem trailers to you guys.

Link to Manufacturer site

 

[MeatheadMick]

The Hawkei looks slick and would probably be a beast... definitely has the LCF.  The Eagle V though looks almost identical to the concept that MCG brought up.  It would definitely be nice to get some decent vehicles... The LSVW is such a shitshow...  I don't mind the GWagen, but there isn't enough cargo space (with a Turret variant), and the narrow wheel-base and top heavy design makes for a lot of roll overs.  The mean green silverado is awesome for dom ops though,, would be interesting to see a CP box on the bed of a Silverado lol

 

[Infanteer]

I have to try and remember what we are aiming for.

1.  LSVW and MLVW are going to be divested for a Light Protected Truck.

2.  HLVW is going to be divested for a Heavy Protected Truck

3.  G Wagon is going to be divested with no replacment - some of its role will be picked up by the TAPV.

Do I have this right?

 

[Kirkhill]

An LVM Refresher
PDF from MGen Poulter: Feb 2012 - Pre MSVS-SMP Cancellation (Reset?)