• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

Rumour hss it that Toronto operates fleets of vehicles.

If you ask AI questions like how many of what kind and brand, how old and how often they are bought you get some interesting answers. None of them involve replacing the entire fleet on a single purchase every 30 years.
The CAF updates it's blue fleet in small batches as they age-out, the CAF isn't a stranger to what large companies or businesses do.

The problem is the green fleet, where there is extra training and unique parts requirements. Even TPS' cruisers are a completely off-the-shelf solution from a major brand, like buying a Silverado WT for Bob's plumbing or RP Ops.
 
The CAF updates it's blue fleet in small batches as they age-out, the CAF isn't a stranger to what large companies or businesses do.

The problem is the green fleet, where there is extra training and unique parts requirements. Even TPS' cruisers are a completely off-the-shelf solution from a major brand, like buying a Silverado WT for Bob's plumbing or RP Ops.

And you are pointing in the direction of the problem.

Customization.

The less you customize the easier it is to purchase, maintain and replace.
 
And you are pointing in the direction of the problem.

Customization.

The less you customize the easier it is to purchase, maintain and replace.
Green fleet serves different roles than blue fleet.

Green fleet needs commonality across the fleet to enable maintenance and repair. Blue fleet is handled through dealer networks. (With some variation for high cost low density non militarized fleets).
 
And you are pointing in the direction of the problem.

Customization.

The less you customize the easier it is to purchase, maintain and replace.
Im hoping we get into customization honestly. If it proves effective Id like to see an amb, light recovery, CUAS, even light mortar, etc if it works out.
 
Green fleet serves different roles than blue fleet.

Green fleet needs commonality across the fleet to enable maintenance and repair. Blue fleet is handled through dealer networks. (With some variation for high cost low density non militarized fleets).
The problem is that the current concept does not provide adequate war stocks. The second problem is that there is only so much money to go around. There needs to be a program that both allows the cycling of older but still useable vehicles into war stocks while new vehicles are introduced in a logical plan that is both economical and sustainable.

The concept of "we need a common fleet to simplify maintenance and repair" hasn't worked for us in peacetime (see the previous year's VOR rates) and will leave us incapable of sustaining anything more than a battlegroup in wartime. And that is ludicrous.

If anything that Ukraine teaches us about sustainment in battle it is that you need to be able to and can in fact sustain a wide variety of equipment. Sometime it just gets used 'til it wears out or breaks and then you coble something together or let it sit in a field. Stuff gets grouped in brigades for as much commonality as you can. We can do that as well. I see three tiers of equipment - 1) front line deployed formations and Canadian-based training and replacement formations; 2) Canadian formations for domestic operations; 3) A territorial home guard. Those can, and probably will have different sets of green fleets which may, in part, be hand-me-down fleets.

The CAF has to get out of the rut of just thinking about its full-timers - what has now become 1 Div - and seriously plan for what 2 Div will become and need and, more importantly, what the expanded war-time army will need. - and that needs to include a greatly expanded, more versatile log and maint structure.

🍻
 
The problem is that the current concept does not provide adequate war stocks. The second problem is that there is only so much money to go around. There needs to be a program that both allows the cycling of older but still useable vehicles into war stocks while new vehicles are introduced in a logical plan that is both economical and sustainable.

The concept of "we need a common fleet to simplify maintenance and repair" hasn't worked for us in peacetime (see the previous year's VOR rates) and will leave us incapable of sustaining anything more than a battlegroup in wartime. And that is ludicrous.

If anything that Ukraine teaches us about sustainment in battle it is that you need to be able to and can in fact sustain a wide variety of equipment. Sometime it just gets used 'til it wears out or breaks and then you coble something together or let it sit in a field. Stuff gets grouped in brigades for as much commonality as you can. We can do that as well. I see three tiers of equipment - 1) front line deployed formations and Canadian-based training and replacement formations; 2) Canadian formations for domestic operations; 3) A territorial home guard. Those can, and probably will have different sets of green fleets which may, in part, be hand-me-down fleets.

The CAF has to get out of the rut of just thinking about its full-timers - what has now become 1 Div - and seriously plan for what 2 Div will become and need and, more importantly, what the expanded war-time army will need. - and that needs to include a greatly expanded, more versatile log and maint structure.

🍻
The lack of 2 Div plan announcements isgetting concerning.
 
The lack of 2 Div plan announcements isgetting concerning.
I think that you'll find that the army will be turning to 2 Div matters in a large way starting early this fall. Plans should fall out after that.

🍻
 
Honestly good. Theres no reason we should be outsourcing B fleet trucks to the Americans. The Ukrainians really like the Senator and its being truly battle tested. Good enough for me.
Well CANSOF did testing and they bought JLTV’s.

But hey, buy second rate Canadian stuff if you want.
 
Well CANSOF did testing and they bought JLTV’s.

But hey, buy second rate Canadian stuff if you want.
CANSOF is no more immune to "shiny" than the rest of the CAF, and they tend to have more money to throw at toys...

What does the JTLV offer to non-combat troops that the Senator doesn't, and what is the price delta?
 
CANSOF is no more immune to "shiny" than the rest of the CAF, and they tend to have more money to throw at toys...
Fair
What does the JTLV offer to non-combat troops that the Senator doesn't, and what is the price delta?
One could argue non-combat troops don’t need an armored vehicle.
Those who do need an armored vehicle, need it to function properly.

I do not believe one can make a decent armored vehicle off a commercial frame - that goes for GM, Ford etc.

The amount of engineering needing to hide fuel and brake lines makes it so it isn’t a commercial chassis, and just going to get fixed down at the Ford shop isn’t happening.

AM General did the Hummer as a purpose built military vehicle - but the frame wasn’t conducive to making an armored vehicle / great vehicle and offers a lot of flexibility. But when they went to make a purpose built armored Hummer, so much changed that it wasn’t backwards compatible to a lot of parts.

Quite honestly I am not a fan of the JLTV as it smacks of last war —

I’d be building a modernized M113 (AMPV) for general purpose protected mobility. As well as original Bison (dropping the Amphibious kit though) to a wheeled protected vehicle.

The rest either needs a heavier armored vehicles (like a MBT and Heavy IFV) or light soft skin stuff like the ISV, and GM’s LUV
 
Last edited:
The problem is that the current concept does not provide adequate war stocks. The second problem is that there is only so much money to go around. There needs to be a program that both allows the cycling of older but still useable vehicles into war stocks while new vehicles are introduced in a logical plan that is both economical and sustainable.

The concept of "we need a common fleet to simplify maintenance and repair" hasn't worked for us in peacetime (see the previous year's VOR rates) and will leave us incapable of sustaining anything more than a battlegroup in wartime. And that is ludicrous.

If anything that Ukraine teaches us about sustainment in battle it is that you need to be able to and can in fact sustain a wide variety of equipment. Sometime it just gets used 'til it wears out or breaks and then you coble something together or let it sit in a field. Stuff gets grouped in brigades for as much commonality as you can. We can do that as well. I see three tiers of equipment - 1) front line deployed formations and Canadian-based training and replacement formations; 2) Canadian formations for domestic operations; 3) A territorial home guard. Those can, and probably will have different sets of green fleets which may, in part, be hand-me-down fleets.

The CAF has to get out of the rut of just thinking about its full-timers - what has now become 1 Div - and seriously plan for what 2 Div will become and need and, more importantly, what the expanded war-time army will need. - and that needs to include a greatly expanded, more versatile log and maint structure.

🍻
CAF VOR rates are driven by institutional decisions not to resource spares. Just like the ammunition holdings measured in hours, not days or months, are driven by institutional decisions not to resource the ammunition program.

As long as positions requiring sustainment knowledge and experience are instead filled by combat arms GOFOs the CAF will have these problems. It's like filling the J6 with an infantry officer... When command and management of the CAF are patronage spoils for the various factions in the CAF, this is the outcome.
 
Well CANSOF did testing and they bought JLTV’s.

But hey, buy second rate Canadian stuff if you want.
Youre very quick to wave off the fact the Ukrainians genuinely really like thr product they get with Roshel, especially since it got the upgraded suspension.
 
Back
Top