Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[cupper]

By the time this gets sorted out, the UNIMOG will be in its seventh generation or so.

Surely it must have entered someone’s calculation that on of the most widely used military trucks in the world (and with a global supply network to service the civilian fleets of UNIMOGS) might also be a good fit for us. Looking at the multitude of SMP variations, as well as some pretty odd home brewed things built on UNIMOG chassis for unique purposes would seem to answer any of the “yeah, but” objections as well.

Like this?

http://globalxvehicles.com/global-traveler/

 

[McG]

Surely it must have entered someone’s calculation that on of the most widely used military trucks in the world (and with a global supply network to service the civilian fleets of UNIMOGS) might also be a good fit for us.

Maybe, but if Unimog does not bid against the RFP then Unimog cannot win the contract.
We (the CF) need to get our requirement right.  Industry will then come with their solutions.

 

[GK .Dundas]

By the time this gets sorted out, the UNIMOG will be in its seventh generation or so.

And probably fusion powered .

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Maybe, but if Unimog does not bid against the RFP then Unimog cannot win the contract.
We (the CF) need to get our requirement right.  Industry will then come with their solutions.

He speaks the truth, burn him!!!!!!  :evil:

 

[a_majoor]

Maybe we can revive this rather novel idea:

http://ghostmodeler.blogspot.ca/2012/08/northrops-tab-for-all-seasons.html

Northrop’s TAB for All Seasons
By Tony Chong

Perhaps one of the most unusual designs proposed by the heritage Northrop Corporation was the Truck, Airplane, Boat (TAB) Vericraft triphibian, an ungainly looking vehicle that attempted to be the all-in-one answer to the U.S. Army’s looming tactical needs.

TAB was developed in the mid-1960s in an attempt to secure participation in an Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) program called Project AGILE.  One of the issues under investigation was the problem of mobility and logistical supply to remote bases and outposts in inaccessible environments.  With the U.S. increasingly involved in the Vietnam conflict this was a major concern for military planners.

Northrop envisioned a rugged, easy to build, low-cost aircraft that had the ability to operate effectively not just in the air, but on the water and on land as well.  While primarily designed for the short-range utility cargo mission, it was to be easily adaptable for use as a troop transport, weapons carrier, mobile command post or medical evacuation vehicle.

The proposed craft featured a rectangular box of a fuselage outfitted with a catamaran hull, retractable wheels and rotatable wings and tail.  Twin Pratt & Whitney PT6-B15 turboprop engines, mounted in a single pod nacelle, provided power to a 7.5 foot shrouded propeller.  Engineered with a constant-chord wing with a span of 60 feet, the TAB was to be 40 feet long, with a folded wing width of 9.5 feet and a height of 13.5 feet.  The cargo compartment was to be 6 feet high, 6 feet wide and 15 feet long.  Gross weight, complete with up to 4,000 lbs of cargo, was projected at 12,000 lbs.

Conversion to any operational mode was anticipated to take approximately 10 minutes.  Additionally, all mode conversions could be done onboard the TAB during water operations.  The vehicle was also scaled to fit into the cargo hold of a Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport for long, overseas deployments.

Northrop expended considerable time and effort in this design.  A multi-volume proposal brochure was developed that included cost and operations comparisons to other proposed Army vehicles, including the fixed-wing de Havilland of Canada CV-2 (later C-7) Caribou and the rotary-wing Boeing-Vertol CH-47 Chinook and Bell UH-1 Iroquois (Huey).

Performance was projected to be modest.  The 130 mph air speed would be slightly faster than the Huey but much slower than the Caribou or Chinook.  Truck speed would top out at 50 mph.  Ironically the boat mode would provide the best performance with calm water speeds up to 35 kts.

A detailed scale model was built toward this effort, along with a larger scale radio controlled model of the basic TAB design.  Interestingly enough, no formal N-number was attached to the program.  While a Preliminary Design (PD) number was likely given to the TAB, its identity has proved elusive thus far.

In any event, the program did not go forward.  ARPA declined to offer funding, perhaps in part because the newly implemented 1966 agreement between the Army and U.S. Air Force mandated that the Army give up all fixed-wing tactical airlift capabilities in exchange for unrestricted development and acquisition of rotary-wing assets.  TAB’s primary customer was now obliged to go with the UH-1 and CH-47.  The end result was the coming of age of the helicopter-borne air-mobile Army during combat operations in the Vietnam War.


Kristi Harding contributed to this article.

For further reading on Project AGILE, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_AGILE

A look into the scope of Project AGILE can be found in this July to December 1963 semiannual report by ARPA, including Subproject III to which TAB was tailored: http://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/findaids/agentorange/text/00340.pdf

A review of the Army/Air Force 1966 agreement can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966

 

[McG]

Maybe we can revive this rather novel idea:

http://ghostmodeler.blogspot.ca/2012/08/northrops-tab-for-all-seasons.html

That is most certainly not what we need.

 

[Infanteer]

Maybe we can revive this rather novel idea:

http://ghostmodeler.blogspot.ca/2012/08/northrops-tab-for-all-seasons.html

Or maybe we can just buy some new trucks.

 

[a_majoor]

Or maybe we can just buy some new trucks.

Hear! Hear!

Too bad the process is so complicated that designing and building the TAB seems easy by comparison........

 

[dapaterson]

Government procurement is actually pretty simple.  Drawn out, but simple.

The biggest problem is people who do not understand the process, attempt end-runs around what they perceive to be problems, and end up causing more problems and delays.

Of course "Doing my job and getting things done" doesn't get you PER points - "Fucking things up in new and crazy ways Leading Change" does.

 

[Kirkhill]

Government procurement is actually pretty simple.  Drawn out, but simple.

The biggest problem is people who do not understand the process, attempt end-runs around what they perceive to be problems, and end up causing more problems and delays.

Of course "Doing my job and getting things done" doesn't get you PER points - "******* things up in new and crazy ways Leading Change" does.

There is an ancient legal maxim: Justice delayed is justice denied.

I would apply the same time factor to any process.  If the process is drawn out it is flawed.  Punkt.

From that premise it is easy to understand why people look for alternative solutions to debating technicalities with untrained bureaucrats who are on a  two year "up or out" time-table.  When you have faced the same committee three times in five years and realize that you are the only original face in the room it is difficult to summon up the effort to do the "sales pitch" one more time.

The process may be simple, once it is found, described and taught but for the uninitiated it is much like playing the Legend of Zelda.  I watched my kids play it as they grew up. They wandered through the darkness and exposed their environment by bumping into things: walls, warriors and ogres.  When ogres were slain, and they had a chance to take stock of their revealed surroundings,  they fell through trap doors to magically appear in another void which eventually revealed more ogres to be slain.  Eventually, when all trapdoors had been opened and all ogres slain the simplicity of the design was revealed.  However this required much spilling of blood, spending of treasure, the occasional miraculous potion and, above all, many lives.

I encouraged my kids to play that game.  I found it a perfect analogy for dealing with any bureaucracy (commercial or political) - a life skill in any age.

When National Defence, Public Works and Government Services, Industry Canada and Foreign Affairs can all conjointly create a simple one page process description that applies to all projects equally then I will accept that the problem is with the supplicants begging indulgences from Pharaoh.  Until then the problem lies with the bureacracy.

 

[McG]

Problems and ideas related to military procurement are covered in depth here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26594.0.html

 

[Kirkhill]

Problems and ideas related to military procurement are covered in depth here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26594.0.html

Apologies for the diversion.

 

[Kirkhill]

....
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."

....

Just giving a look at some of the hurdles the Light Battalions are having to face.

I'm inclined to think Iltis might be just what they need.

You can park two of them inside a Chinook and one (if you collapse the roll bar) inside a Cyclone.  You can sling one under a Griffon (for a short distance).

It can carry up to 4 bodies and tow a half tonne trailer ( a half tonne equals a C6 and 10,000 rounds - about right for an MG in SF mode probably the right load for a C16 with ammo).

Maybe it is not right for Day 7 of a deployment but would seem to be a reasonable choice for Day 1 (assuming you're not fighting your way onto ground but rather taking ground and making the other guy come to you.)

Iltis weighs half as much as a G-Wagen and about as much as four loaded Yamaha Grizzly 700s.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Single small problem with the Cyclone: It is not a transport helicopter. Its insides are already spoken for by the various sensor stations.

 

[dapaterson]

Single small problem with the Cyclone: It is not a transport helicopter. Its insides are already spoken for by the various sensor stations.

Other small problem with the Cyclone:  It doesn't exist in a usable state.

 

[Kirkhill]

Beyond the "notional" nature of the Cyclone, I understood that part of the design challenge was that the aircraft was to be a "multi-role" platform that could be converted at sea from an ASW vehicle to a Utility vehicle by rolling the AESOPs and TACCO's consoles out of the back.  The conversion was supposed to be reversible.

If that requirement has been set aside then disregard my previous.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I might be wrong, and a SME correct me please, but I am unaware that the Cyclone has a stern ramp. I am only aware of the two side doors to the after cabin, and none of them is big enough to let in a car.

My understanding of the "utility" aspect was that there is enough room in the cabin for passengers in harness seats , that you can sling a machine gun to use as force protection for  boarding teams, and use a door winch for SAR and team insertion.

 

[Kirkhill]

Excuse the continued tangent.

Courtesy of Naval Technology


And from Defense Industry Daily

The MH-92/ CH-148 Naval Helicopter

The H-92 Superhawk platform Canada chose for its “CH-148 Cyclone” maritime helicopters is a larger derivative of the ubiquitous H-60 family that comprise most of the US Navy’s current fleet. it makes heavier use of rust-proof composite materials, and also sports uprated engines, a rear ramp, and other features that place it in a similar class to Europe’s delayed NH90 NFH model, whose schedule has also slipped until it is also expected to become fully operational around 2013.

Initial Cyclone specifications called for GE’s 3,000 hp class CT7-8C engines, but helicopter weight growth will force another engine upgrade before the final design is ready. Standard self-sealing fuel tanks can carry up to 3,030 kg of fuel, and an in-flight refuelling probe allows in-air refueling for extended range flights.

The 17 cubic meter cabin is fitted with a cargo handling system with a centerline 1,814 kg/ 4,000 pound capacity cargo winch, floor rollers, and cargo tie-down points. A 6 foot-wide aft ramp allows easy and fast loading and unloading of cargo and troops. A 272 kg/ 600 pound capacity hydraulic rescue hoist can reportedly be added to the helicopter if necessary....

These and similar articles form the basis of my understanding.  My apologies if I mislead.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/05/video-articulate-this-chainlink-4x4-is-frighteningly-awesome/

On the subject:

Here is the suspension system required for a light vehicle

Video at the link.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Specialized suspension has been around for a long time, Google some of the British interwar Armoured car drivetrain, Strausser I think it's called?