Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[McG]

Why didn't we?

Because we were focused on replacing one platform with a newer like platform.  In other words, we did exactly what our capability development doctrine says not to do (and almost exactly what we did/are doing with MSVS).

 

[FEEOP042]

The problem is several issues.

1. Dealing with IED's mines, The CF want armoured cabs so to have the vehicle carry the load say 8t you will need a 10t or higher and so on.

2. The one I think is the big problem is the army/airforce getting a vehicle for its use right we don't need TCV's on OPs since there is no protection, so we need them here buy a civie pattern for that here don't need all the bells and whistles as an SMP.

3. The next is supply movement lets look at this. We have supplies in are QM's and in are QM's truck so we have almost double the stores for nothing. answer is this.

http://www.bohfpusystems.com/  this will reduce are cost to double are supplies and be more moblie. All this needs to be addressed what we need the truck for now not just what it is replacing. Fix the short comings with the HLVW PLS like no trailers, the pallet to short for stacking on top to transport three, or locking on a sea can, and putting on the knight trailers.

4. The MSVS Engr variant was signed off by someone that did not know anything about what was wrong with the old MLVW and wanted to make his stay at DLR an easy ride. This is what should have been looked at.

 

[George Wallace]

The problem is several issues.

1. Dealing with IED's mines, The CF want armoured cabs so to have the vehicle carry the load say 8t you will need a 10t or higher and so on.

2. The one I think is the big problem is the army/airforce getting a vehicle for its use right we don't need TCV's on OPs since there is no protection, so we need them here buy a civie pattern for that here don't need all the bells and whistles as an SMP.

3. The next is supply movement lets look at this. We have supplies in are QM's and in are QM's truck so we have almost double the stores for nothing. answer is this.

http://www.bohfpusystems.com/  this will reduce are cost to double are supplies and be more moblie. All this needs to be addressed what we need the truck for now not just what it is replacing. Fix the short comings with the HLVW PLS like no trailers, the pallet to short for stacking on top to transport three, or locking on a sea can, and putting on the knight trailers.

4. The MSVS Engr variant was signed off by someone that did not know anything about what was wrong with the old MLVW and wanted to make his stay at DLR an easy ride. This is what should have been looked at.

I really had a lot of difficulty reading that.

Problem with your suggestion that we buy civilian pattern vehicles for domestic use, means that we are not trained on, nor maintaining operational equipment.  All our vehicles need to "roll" or they become maintainence nightmares.  You can not place a fleet of vehicles in long term storage and expect to drive them any time you may need them.  They will need complete mechanical overhauls and servicing.  No real cost savings there.

As for "Stores", we should have at least 48 hrs of combat stores loaded, and the rest in QM would be "B Ech"; resupplied as required.  The Supply Chain is there for a very good reason.  There is not always what you want to "Local Purchase" in an emergency.

 

[PanaEng]

Agree with George; however, if we HAVE to live with a civ pattern domestically (at least in the reserves), something similar to what FEE042 identified would have been more useful than the current behemoth. The disadvantages of the current offering (we haven't received our SEV  due to comms systems not installed yet - but easy to see from the cargo and TCV variants):

• can't manoeuvre in narrow trails and streets;
• very questionable off road capability;
• unsafe load handling (what load handling) and pers access to cargo area;
• the auger is useless - you can't position the veh to use it

What FEE042 proposed offers:

• easy access to tools and supplies;
• replacing the auger with a HIAB or similar crane/arm with modular attachments: hook, pallet, grapple, hydraulic tools (breaker, auger, cutters, etc.)
  
  an extended cab for the section is the only thing missing from those pics he posted.
  Actually, just changing the auger  with a HIAB type multy tool system will make the current "SEV" into a barely useful engineer veh as opposed to just a section moving veh with some cargo area.

 

[Kirkhill]

......

As for "Stores", we should have at least 48 hrs of combat stores loaded, and the rest in QM would be "B Ech"; resupplied as required.  The Supply Chain is there for a very good reason.  ......

This brings up a really interesting point:  What is the burn rate of combat stores?

In 1982, a Doctrine Standard Gagetown Infantry Platoon (3x 10 man sections and a 5 man weapons det)  could carry everything it needed for 72 hours of combat in Germany on its back.  This included a 60mm mortar, a CG-84 and an ancient Browning MMG on a tripod as well as cleaning kits and spares and picks, shovels or machetes for every man.  Everything we carried could fit comfortably in the back of a single Deuce-and-a-half.  With a second on we could lift the platoon as well.

There was no magic involved. The definition of an hour of combat has changed.

Also the design of the vehicle imposes its own constraints.  The LAV has a payload tonnage comparable to the Deuce and a Half, as does the TAPV.  Both have a differential between their GVWR and their curb weight of 2.5 to 3.0 tonnes.  But neither of those vehicles are as flexible, as load carriers, as the Deuce because of the shape of the armoured cocoon.

At the same time the Canadian Section, which doctrinally is operating within the same battalion framework as it was when fixed by the Brits in 1943,  has had a lot of support assets pushed forwards to it from Brigade, Division and Corps.

In 1943 the section had 6 to 8 bayonets attached to bolt action rifles and 1 or 2 magazine fed Brens with access to a 1 tonne pickup in the company lines.

In 2013, 70 years later, the section has 4 to 6 Brens (C7s), 2x MG-42s (C9s) and a its own Deuce and a Half to carry its gear (LAV).  It also carries a Vickers MMG (C6 Coax - or Besa Coax if you prefer) from the Battalion MMG Platoon or Brigade MMG Battalion, and a Bofors (M242) from the Divisional Lt Anti Air Regiment.

In 1943 the Section Commanders controlled the rate of ammunition consumption of the rifles and the Brens.  Full stop.

The fire of the MMGs was controlled by Battalion and Brigade with ammunition consumption being restricted for reasons of surprise, concentration of forces and economy of effort (Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in my day).
The Bofors fire was controlled by the Divisional Commander and was held in reserve for AA work and significant support requirements like "the Crossing of the Rhine".

Now every Section Commander has his own Bofors and Vickers MMG and a Deuce and Half's worth of Ammunition and sees every action as a Rhine Crossing: probably with justification - the impact on the troops in his section is identical in both instances.

However, just because the Divisional Commander (Maj General) lets his Sergeants ride on his Bofors tractors does he also have to give them authority to fire the Bofors whenever they see fit?

He probably does these days but it still begs the question:

If I am issued ammunition that is intended to last for 72 hours, and permitted to carry it in my own vehicle, and if I am forced to engage the enemy in my first hour do I have the right to burn through the 72 hours worth of supply or do I husband it to make it stretch over the 72 hours during which I am supposed to dominate my sector?

If I am only issued 24 hours on the section vehicle, with 24 at the CQ and 24 at QM then the OC and the CO get an opportunity to intervene in the decision making process.

Historically, even though individual soldiers carried ammunition on their person (typically as few as 60 rounds for a campaign), the rate of consumption was controlled by the command structure through mechanisms like platoon and volley fire.

I can understand the desire to have support and ammunition on hand, and also the imperative to use what is available when the need presents itself. I can also see, in a world of shrinking budgets the constant pressure to maintain support capabilities by pushing them forward towards the FEBA.  After all Gunners can become an Infanteers pretty easily so why not eliminate Bayonets and create an army of MMG Battalions and Bofors Regiments? 

You just need more and bigger trucks to keep the guns supplied with ammunition and spare parts.

Or do you work with what you have available? ???

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Agree with George; however, if we HAVE to live with a civ pattern domestically (at least in the reserves), something similar to what FEE042 identified would have been more useful than the current behemoth. The disadvantages of the current offering (we haven't received our SEV  due to comms systems not installed yet - but easy to see from the cargo and TCV variants):

• can't manoeuvre in narrow trails and streets;
• very questionable off road capability;
• unsafe load handling (what load handling) and pers access to cargo area;
• the auger is useless - you can't position the veh to use it

What FEE042 proposed offers:

• easy access to tools and supplies;
• replacing the auger with a HIAB or similar crane/arm with modular attachments: hook, pallet, grapple, hydraulic tools (breaker, auger, cutters, etc.)
  
  an extended cab for the section is the only thing missing from those pics he posted.
  Actually, just changing the auger  with a HIAB type multy tool system will make the current "SEV" into a barely useful engineer veh as opposed to just a section moving veh with some cargo area.

Pana afaik none of these vehs are outfitted for TCCS, yes they have the internal mounts but no AMU's on the exterior, I traced the aerial wiring and it disappears into the headliner with no exterior mounts......and I would hate to be the bugger that forgot to lower the mast....

Auger does have some movement mind you it is lateral to the truck moves out about 2ft or so from the truck....ENGR SEV comes with 2 ways to access the rear deck, the standard shitty ladder and a staircase for more static locations... lots of bins in the rear but a very limited work area...

 

[FEEOP042]

GW  I mean for the TCV's we don't require them as part of the MSVS SMP since overseas there is no protection for troops in the back. Here in Canada we can use a cheaper off the shelf 2 1/2t or lighter for troop transport when needed.

I say we only get SMP fleets for the trucks we only need to get Milcot for troop transport here in Canada. We need SMP for the following PLS, MHC, Engr variant, Sig linemen truck, SEV type bodies to a certain trade. the Base line shelters are CHU so they are picked up with the PLS truck. This way the CF has one truck fleet SMP so if we need more trucks if we lose them on operations we can call up the ones at the PRes.

I don't see a need for cargo trucks we should only get PLS/CHU trucks and trailers so more uses you just pick up the pallet or module you need. like fuel farms, dump truck, water module, etc

 

[George Wallace]

What I was saying is it is fine to have only MILCOTs for domestic use, but to have any vehicles for use on Operations overseas, you need to be trained on their operation and maint.  If we had a fleet of vehicles solely for Operations in long term preservation, they would be useless in an emergency/deployment as they would have to be completely overhauled mechanically to be put into working order; not to mention crews trained to maintain and operate them.  An idle vehicle creates numerous mechanical problems.  Seals, for instance, dry out.  Perhaps you remember when the MLVW fleet was taken off the road and parked for months due to safety issues with the brakes.  Their long term period of not moving created numerous other mechanical problems and expenses. 

Could we compare your feelings on the trucks to a weapon system?  What if we had bolt action rifles for domestic/training use, and C7A2's in long term preservation for Operations? 

Train as you would fight.  Goes just as well for vehicles as it does for any other aspect of our training.

 

[dapaterson]

Train as you would fight.  Goes just as well for vehicles as it does for any other aspect of our training.

So what do you want to cut then?  We can't afford that amount of equipment in the SMP configuration; we therefore have to divest things.

 

[George Wallace]

So what do you want to cut then?  We can't afford that amount of equipment in the SMP configuration; we therefore have to divest things.

Historically....as we watch the trends of each new procurement, new procurements half what we held previously.  Unfortunately, this "Peace Dividend" can not go on to infinity.  The CF will soon reach the point that it is "Ineffective".

We replaced the 3/4 Ton SMP with a MILCOT 5/4 Ton.  (Please don't call the LSVW a 'real' army truck.) That was the start.  Now we are replacing the MLVW with a MILCOT.  Eventually we will have no SMP vehicles.  Hate to say it, but the Mexican Army is better equipped.  Thank the Lord that the US of A buffers us from them.  >

 

[dapaterson]

No, we did not replace the MLVW with a MilCOTS.

We replaced a portion of the fleet with a MilCOTS and have mismanaged the acquisition of an SMP variant; but the plan is still to acquire two different vehicles to replace the fleet, one MilCOTS, on SMP - since otherwise, as you observed, we'll have much fewer vehicles.


So again - you want an all SMP fleet. Fine.  What will we cut to get the number of trucks we need?  We need both money for the acquisition, and money for the lifecycle support, since SMP are much more expensive than commercial vehicles to maintain.  So we'll cancel some other acquisitions, and dispose of some other equipment to free up the maintenance dollars needed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well other than one MLVW and a Iltis, my old unit has only 2 SMP's left, well 4 if you count the FAT and 3/4 ton

 

[Infanteer]

So again - you want an all SMP fleet. Fine.  What will we cut to get the number of trucks we need?

ASICs.  4 GSR.  The CCV.

How's that?  If the TAPV contract hadn't already been signed, I'd lump that in as well.

 

[dapaterson]

ACK to your divestment list.  Now you just need to convince the CLS.

 

[cupper]

Kirkhill, very interesting perspective.

 

[cupper]

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.

Thanks for the info MrGnr.

Perhaps I was just being sentimental for my 5-Ton M-62.

Not having seen the Truhitch in action, I'm still skeptical but open minded. One concern would be the lower weight of the Tractor / FWTRD compared to a fixed mounted recovery vehicle when it comes to winching operations. I can see if the unit is mounted on something like a HEMTT 8x8, but on a smaller tractor unit would required a system of ground anchors or spades to make up that for that lost weight. Another concern would be having sufficient storage space for rigging such as snatch blocks, chains, tow cables, pioneer tools and so forth. Also having mounts for Oxy-Accetylene tanks and associated cutting torches, or at least a man-pack unit.

I understand that the Enhanced Recovery Project is strictly for the Wheeled Fleet. I assume that the current buy of Leo's included the ARV variants to address the needs for tracked recovery. Is there thought to a lighter tracked unit to be included if we move to a tracked CCV or IFV, similar to the M113 ARVL?

 

[daftandbarmy]

It looks like these could replace MILCOTS and the LSVW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b81F7dCA98E&list=UUSXqARiuZFpFaRDE_056y3w&index=2&feature=plcp

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting a common chassis and body work, wonder if it comes with a larger engine and drive train though?

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm guessing that the Aussies are parlaying their experience with the Land Rover Perenties.


They were/are locally built Land Rovers, all powered by an ISUZU diesel, that came in a variety of 4x4 and 6x6 configurations.

http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Perentie.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Perentie

These G-Wagen mods look as if they are direct replacements for the Perenties.

They also are in addition to the 7 tonne Hawkei Patrol vehicle, and the 15 tonne Bushmasters and ASLAVs.

 

[a_majoor]

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.