Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[KevinB]

For ambulances and CP's it will work nicely. It's 1m longer than the LSVW so not to big. The JTLVA2 is bigger than the Senator and carries 4. It has much better protection and would be a better choice for the upfront shooty bits. I see the current Senator versions and some more version to fulfil the secondary roles where some armour would be good and yet won't break the bank to buy or the maintenance budget.

I’m real torn on roles you mention. I see it as ‘a little bit pregnant’.

1) I don’t think it fits the bill for a CP - as in a heavy or medium unit that is a LAV or the MSV SMP for Bde. For a light unit, it’s too big and bulky, and the ideal of a light vehicle Box CP is counter to the general doctrine for light forces — at least at the unit level. Yeah I’m not a fan of Arty units doing it either for Bty or Reg’t CP’s for a bunch of reasons.

2) Same sort of thought goes to the Ambulance role. It should be a LAV for the LAV entities. For light units - you’re more looking at an evac vehicle so the MRZR or ISV are probably better in that way - as they have vastly better mobility.


Honestly if the CA properly equipped all of its units - the idea of something like this would be relegated to the trash or as an emergency interim option for national mobilization.

 

[McG]

Too tall for either an ambulance or an optimal CP.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Too tall for either an ambulance or an optimal CP.

The LAV or the Senator?

I see the Senator freeing up LAV's and JTV's for the more offensive stuff and the equipping the support forces

 

[daftandbarmy]

The LAV or the Senator?

I see the Senator freeing up LAV's and JTV's for the more offensive stuff and the equipping the support forces

It's almost as if we could use a well articulated, and broadly supported, doctrine to guide our decision making.

But why do that when you can just watch the UA and RuA trash each other on You tube every day and base your decision making on that

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's almost as if we could use a well articulated, and broadly supported, doctrine to guide our decision making.

That ain't happening till we are deep in sh*t, at which point we won't have the capacity to supply and reequip our army or the Navy/Air force. Buying Senators for ourselves keeps a Canadian arms company operating which gives us some military and industrial depth and experience.

 

[quadrapiper]

Honestly if the CA properly equipped all of its units - the idea of something like this would be relegated to the trash or as an emergency interim option for national mobilization.

So an abundance of Senators at armouries and wherever else might make sense as troop lift, DOMOPS fleet, training vehicles (yes, noted, not a worthwhile role on its own, but if it means having a CP, an ambulance, and some vaguely offensive transports that won't TAPV over on the highway and are light enough to be used on training areas that aren't built up/bridged for LAVs and Leopards... bonus) might be worth acquiring?

 

[Kirkhill]

How often was doctrine revised between the years 1939 and 1945? Between 1914 and 1918?

It seems to me that doctrine in wartime is something of a moveable feast. It is only when things slow down, after the bullets stop flying, the conscripts return home and the army returns to proper soldiering that doctrine gets the attention that it deserves.

 

[Maxman1]

The Senator is simultaneously too much truck and not enough truck. It's a Brinks bank truck, not a dedicated MRAP or LAV, so the armour level isn't great, meanwhile that armour means it's too big and heavy and lacks cargo capacity for the 5/4 role.

I'd say our best bet is to take a Silverado 1 ton 4x4 chassis with drivetrain and have Oshkosh or GDLS build several configurations of a utility truck on top. Configurations such as standard cab with ambulance, CP, cargo bed with folding seats, Suburban-type four door hardtop wagon and Wrangler-style four door removable top, and so on. Basically what the LS was supposed to be, but isn't.

 

[KevinB]

How often was doctrine revised between the years 1939 and 1945? Between 1914 and 1918?

It seems to me that doctrine in wartime is something of a moveable feast. It is only when things slow down, after the bullets stop flying, the conscripts return home and the army returns to proper soldiering that doctrine gets the attention that it deserves.

Or maybe just, maybe doctrine came out of wartime learning.

Doctrine will shift - but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that @Maxman1 speaks true above.

So an abundance of Senators at armouries and wherever else might make sense as troop lift, DOMOPS fleet, training vehicles (yes, noted, not a worthwhile role on its own, but if it means having a CP, an ambulance, and some vaguely offensive transports that won't TAPV over on the highway and are light enough to be used on training areas that aren't built up/bridged for LAVs and Leopards... bonus) might be worth acquiring?

No, actually FUCK NO - those Reserve units shouldn't be inflicted with that -- every unit in the CA should have the same foundational items.
So LAV for Mech units - and ISV and MRZR for Light, and yes LEO 2 for Armoured Reserves, and whatever else comes out of these programs - the whole MSV-SMP versus MSV-CIV pattern is fucktarded.
That way the entire support structure is designed around operational kit -
By all means have Base run around vehicles as commercial buys - but there is zero excuse for not buying operational kit for every single unit.

 

[Kirkhill]

Or maybe just, maybe doctrine came out of wartime learning.

Agreed - but can you write doctrine while drinking from a fire hose?

Doctrine will indeed shift

....

I am trying to find a USAF article about taking "Drones" on board. There was comment to the effect that issues like Tactics, Employment, Maintenance, Doctrine, Documentation, Scale of Issue, Usage - all nicely collapsed into some sort of air force acronym - were conventionally defined before an RFP was issued. However, in the current environment, where new kit and new ideas are popping up every minute and a half all of those other issues have to be managed on the fly.

We are back to the era of Bleriots, Sopwiths and Fokkers. Although there were all sorts of flying machines in WW2 and again with the Century Fighter program of the 1960s.

...

Sometimes it is difficult to write doctrine.

 

[Good2Golf]

and ISV and MRZR for Light

Woah, woah, woah!

Do you mean ‘Light’ in name, light in regimental designation, or light in an “as-yet-to-be-finalized-but-we’re-going-to-get-there-at-some-point-eventually-maybe-I-think-so-maybe-we’ll-figure-it-out-after-the-next-LFWG-meeting” designation and resourcing in the light role?

 

[McG]

I see the Senator freeing up LAV's and JTV's for the more offensive stuff and the equipping the support forces

Where do you think these LAVs exist that you plan to “free up”? What are they doing if not already the job you think you will move them to?

 

[KevinB]

Woah, woah, woah!

Do you mean ‘Light’ in name, light in regimental designation, or light in an “as-yet-to-be-finalized-but-we’re-going-to-get-there-at-some-point-eventually-maybe-I-think-so-maybe-we’ll-figure-it-out-after-the-next-LFWG-meeting” designation and resourcing in the light role?

Yes

 

[Good2Golf]

Thought so.