Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[McG]

I think the US Army got a lot right with the FMTV.  It is a single family of vehicle that can come in 4x4 up to 8x8 configurations and sees different length of wheelbase offered in the 6x6 configuration.  I would prefer there be more than the standard cab option.  In medium and larger trucks, I think we need the option of crew cabs (driver, commander, gunner and two) and even occasionally "fire truck" cab cabs (driver, commander, gunner and four - five).

Unfortunately, it is too late to go back and define a requirement for such a family of vehicles for MSVS MilCOTS.  We are stuck with the what we got in the Navistar, and our requirement to do things competitively could result in our being stuck with an intermediate sized truck of a whole different family of vehicles should we attempt such a purchase. 

It may not be too late to get the requirement correct for the MSVS SMP.  Of course, that means we need to look at the requirement from a broader perspective than just MLVW replacement.  That would mean we need to define the requirements for both our medium family and heavy family of vehicles, and the "weight class" which becomes the dividing line.  I think the US Army again got a lot right with the HEMTT for the heavy class (as did the USMC with the HEMTT's close cousin the LVS).

 

[Mountie]

Could they not buy more AHSVS as part of the LVM Project to replace the HLVW's that aren't replaced by the MSVS? 

Or there's always the MAN Support Vehicles chosen by the British Army.  4x4 (6-tonne), 6x6 (9-tonne) and 8x8 (15-tonne) trucks to fill all ranges of support with a common vehicle.

Or you have the USMC Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) with the 4x4, 6x6 & 8x8 variants. 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

MSVS is not replacing the HLVW fleet, it is replacing the MLVW fleet .....

 

[McG]

Could they not buy more AHSVS as part of the LVM Project to replace the HLVW's that aren't replaced by the MSVS? 

1.  No HLVW are being replaced by MSVS.  While it is the size of HLVW, the MSVS was bought to replace MLVW.

2.  No, " they" cannot just buy more AHSVS.  We have signed international agreements that oblige us to replace the HLVW through a competitive process.  Trucks are not so complicated as to be able to craft a sole source argument that would hold up to PWGSC or Globe&Mail scrutiny.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Attached pdf has some interesting information (not sure if it has been posted before)

Interesting to note that the LUVW MILCOTS is/was  declared obsolete in 2010

 

[cupper]

So, how does the Fifth Wheel attachment to turn a tractor into a wrecker work? Does anyone else use something similar, or is it just someone's attempt at multi-tasking?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

So, how does the Fifth Wheel attachment to turn a tractor into a wrecker work? Does anyone else use something similar, or is it just someone's attempt at multi-tasking?

http://www.towyourown.com/model_45UL_Under%20Reach.html

http://www.towyourown.com/model_10_fifth_wheel_wrecker.html

http://www.zacklift.com/Fifthwheeler/Fifth.htm

They do exist....

 

[cupper]

Found this one as well, which seem to be directly developed for military use.

http://truhitch.com/truhitchinthemilitary.html

Call me skeptical.  :dunno:

 

[OldSolduer]

The End User writes the requirement.  If the doors were too small then talk to the armoured officers and NCMs posted to the Directorate of Land Requirements.  They signed off on the requirement.

If, like most branches, the black hats sent less then their best and brightest to DLR, then don't blame the procurement folks for a requirements failure.

Assuming that all the numpties, or at least some, are posted to DLR, then it's no wonder we get doors that are too small, vice a ramp (Grizzly)  or the the self ingniting Loud Squeaky Vehicleq Wheeled, and now the nightmare MSVS. Or a ruck that doesn't cooperate with body armour..... :facepalm:

 

[dapaterson]

Also, keep in mind that Canada's defence purchases are relatively small.  Custom builds are extremely expensive, both to acquire and to maintain.  Sometimes, our "Want" list gets winnowed down because there's nothing on the market that can meet all our wants and still fit within our budget.  Off the shelf but missing some Canadian desired features can look very appealing - and can be very successful - look at the C130Js and C17s.  With both we bought the standard model, and are keeping them in line with all future modifications, so our spares are not unique, the production line didn't need any special changes for us, and there was no additional engineering study or test required.

So, do you accept a door instead of a ramp, and get 50% more vehicles, or do we choose the ramp as the key feature and pay for the extra engineering up front, and pay throughout the lifecycle for spares that are "Canadian unique"?  Those are the sorts of trade-offs that sometimes have to be made.

 

[Armynewsguy]

Well, where to begin? First off a bit of background where I am working. Currently I am employed in the position of  DLR8-6-2, DLR 8 basically is “trucks”.

DLR 8 is currently looking after writing the requirements for MSVS SMP, LVM (light and Heavy), Shelters for MSVS, ERC (Enhanced Recovery Capability) and Tank Transporter.

Our section is comprised of Regular and Reserve troops with most having current operational experience.  So if you will indulge me here are a few points to clear up some misconceptions that I have read throughout this thread.

We TALK to a vast and varied audience, but more importantly we listen to what the troops on the ground are telling us.  Our staff have talked to all major stakeholders at all levels about what is required to field a new fleet of heavy and light vehicles. B y the way just to clarify MSVS is replacing MLVW.

We also engage industry, we want to know what can they provide for us now and how will that serve us 10, 20 25 years into the future. It may surprise you to know that many of our NATO Allies are going through the same exercise as the CF in new fleet procurement. We talk to our allies and scour the world looking for the best equipment so that we may write informed requirements.

If you believe that you have some great ideas for our future fleets drop me a pm and I will be happy to answer any question you may have or put you in touch with the Project Director or Deputy that can help you out.

Specifically, I am the Deputy Project Director for the Enhanced Recovery Project. My Major and I will be writing the statement of requirements for the new-wheeled recovery capability. We don’t know what it is yet, we are beginning to form an idea of what we require and we don’t know what it will look like. I can tell you the system(s) will recover all wheeled fleets in the CF inventory and for the battle field as far forward as possible (O ya, it won’t be tracked).

To Cupper, the CF has a small quantity of Truhitch already in the Forces; the Americans use it as their only authorized piece of recovery equipment for the Stryker fleet. We will also be acquiring more fifth wheel towing devices in the near future to help us through growing capability gap that the HLVW cannot fill now and into the future.  We believe that FWTD is an outstanding capability and are looking to exploit it as much as we can.

Sorry for the long post, if you have any questions please feel free to ask in this thread or drop me a pm.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Not pointing any fingers but how did the ENGR SEV get approved on a platform that is too big for our needs, needs over 100 ft turn radius for a complete turn and can not go into areas that the MLVW ENGER SEV could?

 

[McG]

As I do not believe MrGnr was in the job at the time MSVS MilCOTS decisions were made, I am more concerned what is being done to ensure the same foolishness is not repeated in MSVS SMP.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Roger that MCG, but he may have some insight on it  :dunno:

 

[McG]

... if you have any questions please feel free to ask in this thread or drop me a pm.

Okay.  I've dropped a handful of ideas on where I think the projects (MSVS & LVM) should go (or should have gone) as it involves our future vehicles.  How much of this has traction up in your office:

The Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project is beginning to replace the LUVW, LSVW, and HLVW … and possibly/probably the miscellaneous heavier support vehicles including SHLVW, HESV and AHSVS.  I thought it might be interesting to get some collective ideas on what it is we need or what sort of end-state our fleet may look like, and any other generic comments on future support/logistic fleets.

…  On the light side of the spectrum, I think we have need of something that fills the liaison (G-wagon) to cargo (LSVW, MilCOTS), troop caring (LSVW) and special purpose roles (G-wagon,LSVW, MilCOTS).  In the civilian world this would represent everything from jeep/SUV, to pick-up truck and full-sized van … in the military we have typically used pickups in the van role.  What I propose we need is a single vehicle type that comes in different wheel base lengths and different bodies.  This simplifies logistics and reduces training requirements.  For each wheel base, I would envision a full-length cab variant (in a G-Wagon/SUV sort of style).  I would also see an extended pickup cab (2 to 3 crew + pers kit) and crew cab (2-3 crew + 2 passengers) that would be common to both the standard and extended wheel base versions.

All vehicles would have MMG/HMG/AGL mounts (either light RWS or a machine gunner’s hatch).  A lightweight General Purpose Vehicle fleet might consist of:

• Short Wheel Base
  • Jeep-style comd & liaison vehicle (hard top) with 3 crew & 2 passengers
  • Jeep-style comd & reconnaissance vehicle (soft top) with 3 crew & 2 passengers
  • Jeep-style provost vehicle with 3 crew
• Standard Wheel Base
  • Jeep-style liaison vehicle with 3 crew & 4 passengers
  • Pickup Extended Cab-style cargo vehicle with 2 crew
  • Pickup Crew Cab-style cargo vehicle with 3 crew & 2 passengers
  • Misc Pickup Extended Cab-style SEV with 2 crew
  • Misc Pickup Crew Cab-style SEV with 3 crew & 2 passengers
• Extended Wheel Base
  • Nyala layout liaison & TCV with 3 crew & 6 passengers
  • Pickup Extended Cab-style Ambulance with 2 crew up-front
  • Misc Pickup Extended Cab-style SEV with 2 crew
  • Misc Pickup Crew Cab-style SEV with 3 crew & 2 passengers

The vehicles must be designed to be armoured (because armouring vehicles as an after-thought tends to results in unexpected and/or premature mechanical failures), but only the vehicles going to CMBGs should actually be delivered with armour (and vehicles going to Army schools should be delivered with armour simulating ballast).  The purchase plan should bring us to FOC within two years and commit to 300 – 500 new vehicles annually for the life of the fleet.  As new vehicles come in, they will take the armour (or sim-armour) from brigade & TE vehicles, the down-armoured vehicles would then cascade to PRes, bases, Air Force and other users (in some cases eventually reducing the size of our blue fleet).  We would allow ourselves to retire vehicles (from anywhere in the fleet) that are old, tired, or significantly damaged.

Given that MSVS is bringing in vehicles that are almost as large & heavy as the HLVW, we may want to give consideration to something between MSVS and an LGPV (as I proposed it).  On the other end of the spectrum, additional vehicles of the eventual MSVS variety could cover some HLVW replacement needs.  The rest of the HLVW replacement could be satisfied with a family of vehicles that have capacity to replace the heavier vehicles (HESV, SHLVW, etc) as well.

There seems to be the belief that we can do better by replacing the medium size support vehicle with larger vehicles.  The MSVS, coming in closer to the HLVW than MLVW, is illustrative.

Unfortunately, there are problems with a purely bigger is better philosophy.  A truck larger than needed is a truck that is harder to hide on the battlefield, that burns more fuel, that is more work to camouflage, and that fits in fewer places than it should.  Another concern when replacing two medium for one large is that lower level echelons are robbed of a flexibility to divide itself and sp a sub-unit that is split on different axis or AOs.  Those same lower levels loose a sort of depth/resiliency with fewer but bigger trucks; it is an all eggs in one basket scenario.  With two medium trucks, the loss of one still leaves you with half your stuff to continue with ops; with one large truck, it's loss leaves you with nothing.

The problem with MSV is that it replaced a platform and so focused on the existing platform as opposed to looking at our whole support fleet.  Some of the MLVW needed to be replaced by whatever HSV also replaces the HLVW, SHLVW & HESV.  Unfortunately, with single platform replacement blinders on, we did not take that path.  Instead, the requirement for some MLVW to be replaced by a much larger vehicle has lead to all being replaced by a much larger vehicle, including those which should not have been replaced by larger.

I think the US Army got a lot right with the FMTV.  It is a single family of vehicle that can come in 4x4 up to 8x8 configurations and sees different length of wheelbase offered in the 6x6 configuration.  I would prefer there be more than the standard cab option.  In medium and larger trucks, I think we need the option of crew cabs (driver, commander, gunner and two) and even occasionally "fire truck" cab cabs (driver, commander, gunner and four - five).

Unfortunately, it is too late to go back and define a requirement for such a family of vehicles for MSVS MilCOTS.  We are stuck with the what we got in the Navistar, and our requirement to do things competitively could result in our being stuck with an intermediate sized truck of a whole different family of vehicles should we attempt such a purchase. 

It may not be too late to get the requirement correct for the MSVS SMP.  Of course, that means we need to look at the requirement from a broader perspective than just MLVW replacement.  That would mean we need to define the requirements for both our medium family and heavy family of vehicles, and the "weight class" which becomes the dividing line.  I think the US Army again got a lot right with the HEMTT for the heavy class (as did the USMC with the HEMTT's close cousin the LVS).

 

[Armynewsguy]

I was not in the section during the writing of MSVS MILCOT. I do not believe that I should talk on how that purchase transpired as I do not have all the facts, and it would be speculation on my part. My goal in life at the moment is to try and get the best piece of equipment for the Canadian Forces in order to safely and efficiently recover vehicles off the battlefield and domestically. I do know this; no matter what we field we will not make everyone happy and that's ok. We will do our best, and with the help of a lot of great people we will get the job done.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Roger that Gnr, I believe you have a tough job ahead like you said not everyone will be satisfied with what ever we get.....I wish you good luck though.

 

[Mountie]

Although the MSVS is intended to replace the MLVW and not the HLVW, the candidates prior to the latest cancellation and rewrite of the project were all in the HLVW class.

Mercedes-Benz Zetros 6x6 (7-10T)
Oshkosh HEMTT 8x8 (10T)
MAN HX77 8x8 (15T)
TATRA/Navistar ATX8 8x8 (up to 21T)
Oshkosh MTVR 6x6 (7-15T)
Renault Kerax 8x8 (17-23T)

The MLVW is a 2.5T vehicle and the HLVW is a 10/16T vehicle.  So although the MSVS is replacing the MLVW, it will also be taking on roles that were once performed by the HLVW I would assume.  As someone said earlier, don't think of it as a direct replacement for any vehicle, but think about the bigger picture and the roles that it will fulfill.  According to the attached document the HLVW and HESV are scheduled for replacement by 2019/2020.  If a combined MLVW/HLVW replacement could achieved with one vehicle family this would save a lot of support costs.  Several of these vehicles fleets come in 2-3 different sizes from 6-18T and in 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 and 10x10.  Wouldn't this be the best "bang for our buck"?

 

[McG]

Although the MSVS is intended to replace the MLVW and not the HLVW, the candidates prior to the latest cancellation and rewrite of the project were all in the HLVW class.

...

The MLVW is a 2.5T vehicle and the HLVW is a 10/16T vehicle.  So although the MSVS is replacing the MLVW, it will also be taking on roles that were once performed by the HLVW I would assume.

That is not the case.  The MSVS will replace the MLVW.  There will be no MSVS spare or beyond requirement to start doing HLVW jobs.  We are going to force a 10 - 16 ton vehicle into the role of a 2.5 to 3 ton vehicle, then a few years later we will get another 10 - 16 ton vehicle and still have nothing to fill that 2.5 to 3 ton role.

As someone said earlier, don't think of it as a direct replacement for any vehicle, but think about the bigger picture and the roles that it will fulfill.  According to the attached document the HLVW and HESV are scheduled for replacement by 2019/2020.  If a combined MLVW/HLVW replacement could achieved with one vehicle family this would save a lot of support costs. 

Here is the problem.  We cannot do that.  Not for the MSVS MilCOTS at least.  If we want to do it for the MSVS SMP, then we need to bring that project to a full stop and re-assess the requirement for all our trucks in the medium to heavy range. 

I think the best thing we could do would be to put out one single RFP for a family of wheeled logistic/support vehicles to cover the range from medium to super heavy.  Contractors could offer up to three families to meet the requirement, but points would be awarded for brining that down to two families of vehicles and even more points awarded for commonalities between those two families.

… but that is not what we are doing.


Getting back to the light end of the spectrum and the discussion about a need for a recce/patrol platform in the Iltis size range.  It ended somewhat indecisively with some arguing that we absolutely needed that smaller vehicle for motor recce while others suggested we should not purchase a vehicle "just on the possibility of it having to traverse a narrow street once in a while."

If a larger (though still small) vehicle can meet our needs for command, liaison, convoy escort, patrolling, etc, then we missed an opportunity to consolidate fleets back in '93 when we could have brought in a fleet of VM 90 C&R variants on the same platform as our new VM 90 support vehicles.  In hind sight, we probably dodged a bullet given what Bombardier did turning the VM 90 into LSVW.

Ten years later, we passed another opportunity to consolidate fleets.  The Australians didn't pass the same opportunity when they bought a G-Wagon family to do everything we get out of LUVW & LSVW.

As this thread has previously identified, there are other vehicles (including the HMMVW) out there than can provide the same versatility.  I started this thread defining what I though the light vehicle needed to be; although LSVW and the different LUVW are slated for retirement at different times, I hope we consolidate the replacement.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Ten years later, we passed another opportunity to consolidate fleets.  The Australians didn't pass the same opportunity when they bought a G-Wagon family to do everything we get out of LUVW & LSVW.

Why didn't we?