LSVW what happened?
- Thread starter Trogdor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
As I understand it, it failed every trial it was put through. Basically we were told that "if the truck doesn't fit the army, the army will have to fit the truck". That was from a newspaper article I saw hanging on the notice board at BMaint shed office in Wainwright, about '98ish.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
old medic said:
I understand that, I just wanted it to use it as an example about how military vehicles are deceptively expensive.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Seen. Many are. Just to expand on my last comment,
The problem with the LSVW project cost, is that it wasn't replacing a low production run
military specific design. It was replacing a fleet of commercial 1976 Chevrolet pick-up trucks.
When I compare the cost of the LSVW project, to say, Invar's proposal (A fleet purchase of 1993 Dodge W350
trucks right off the Chrysler Canada line with a Chrysler done CUCV upgrade package and Invar
remount/refurbs/decks as needed), I believe the price we paid was exceptionally high. The problem, as many
have said before, it didn't provide large figure IRB's all over the country.
The problem with the LSVW project cost, is that it wasn't replacing a low production run
military specific design. It was replacing a fleet of commercial 1976 Chevrolet pick-up trucks.
When I compare the cost of the LSVW project, to say, Invar's proposal (A fleet purchase of 1993 Dodge W350
trucks right off the Chrysler Canada line with a Chrysler done CUCV upgrade package and Invar
remount/refurbs/decks as needed), I believe the price we paid was exceptionally high. The problem, as many
have said before, it didn't provide large figure IRB's all over the country.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Teddy Ruxpin said:
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/Parliamentary_Presentations/Pellerin%20to%20SCFAIT%20Jun%202005.pdf
Testimony of Colonel (Retired) Alain Pellerin
Executive Director, Conference of Defence Associations
to the
House of Commons
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
June 26, 2005
<edit to add: also located here: http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=123261 >
Don't forget that the actual cost of the individual vehicle is much less, the contracts provided for a large amount of spare/replacement parts also. So imagine buying a new car, then getting all the parts you might need for the duration of its life............the cost of that Honda Civic easily doubled...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
We can talk about price points, parts supply, and contract regs all we want. It doesn't change the fact that the LSVW was a politically motivated purchase that was given to us. I'm sure other government departments deal with crappy equipment, purchased to support someone in power, somewhere (I wonder what the Coast Guard has to put up with?). It's all about votes.
That being said, there is some work trying to be done on our procurement front. It will be a long, slow battle against the Treasury Board and Canada Works, but I think that we are making some progress with the bureaucrats. We will never be totally free of politics when it comes to procurement, but hopefully common sense can come to the fore.
That being said, there is some work trying to be done on our procurement front. It will be a long, slow battle against the Treasury Board and Canada Works, but I think that we are making some progress with the bureaucrats. We will never be totally free of politics when it comes to procurement, but hopefully common sense can come to the fore.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I remeber working at bmaint CFB Toronto when we got the first shipment. And then the groupe of techs that came to intoduce us to the new toy. All they mentioned was the bad. Not once did they say anything good. And these were the factory reps lol.
I wonder how many of the "factory reps" were ex-military adding some cushion to there pensions? The LSVW's problems are solely a result of the Canadian Governments procurement process. The majority of the gripe that surface are from the average use, and some operators. Its the vehicle we have and use, deal with it, the lack of operator training is not the fault of the vehicle. Training and maintenance are the key. Until such time as proper driver training and maintenance is achieved, theories such as this will plague the CF. The maintainers do the best they can, primarily abuse from drivers/operators is causing much of the problem. something we shall be seeing very shortly with newer vehicles such as the Glendelwagon.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Does anyone wish to list the problems with the LSVW that are purely issues of the vehicle, again?
Just to help Lostrover out, because I doubt the training is even half the problem.
Just to help Lostrover out, because I doubt the training is even half the problem.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,030
- Points
- 1,040
The Russians had some ideas about keeping equipment simple and robust. Notwithstanding the fact they also designed equipment with the expectation it would only have to last a few weeks in combat, it shouldn't be hard to pare down the specs to provide a truck that can serve 20 years and is mechanically uncomplicated.
The CDN version of the IVECO 410 was a first production run (ie bran new tooling), yes within the first year or so close to 100 mods had to be done to the vehicle, similar to any new manufacturing venture. Here are the most mentioned problems with the LSVW.
1. Squealing brakes - they still work, and they never freeze up, More than adequate drainage and looseness...........hence the squealing
2. Lack of power - last time i checked the the limit for smp vehicles is still 80 kph, it will do it, try mating the gears in the transmission with the engine to achieve the most out of it
This is a vehicle designed for field use, hence mobility, when defining mobility in a wheeled vehicle, 3 aspects are considered (with regard to performance). Thankfully the military loves acronyms. ATC. Articulation, Clearance, and Traction. Articulation is the ability for the suspension to move throughout its axis to promote the ability to keep the tires on the ground (and limit cross axleing). Clearance is the attribute of sufficient clearance under the low hanging components of the vehicle to prevent the vehicle from becoming grounded and taking into account the approach, departure, and ramp breaker angles. Traction is the amount of engine power that can be converted into forward motion before a wheel starts to spin (hence a spinning wheel has little tractive value in most environment). Hence with the LSVW with out going into specs which i would have to look up....just some basics
1. Articulation-independant front end-pros greater contact with the ground, smoother ride, cons, limits clearance on obstacles
-leaf sprung rear suspension- pros greater load carrying capability, simple design, cons, rough ride, increased axle wrap
The suspension of the LSVW performs its job to meet its designation as a 1.5T Platform.
2. Clearance - save for the cab side steps, pros great approach and ramp break-over angles, more than sufficient clearance under the axles due to the fitting of 36-37" tires, cons,limited departure angle due to the box.
The LSVW has sufficient clearance to perform it function whilst staying within the realms of a multipurpose vehicle.
3. Traction - pros, rear differential lock (overcomes the effects of becoming cross axled) , dual range transfer case, aggressive tires (which can be aired down to increase floatation/tractive ability, and fitted with chains for use in severe snow/mud environments) cons, inherent to the requirements of the vehicle the rear leaf sprung (yet essential for load carry requirements) limits articulation in the rear. Empty the LSVW's COG is nose biased, however with load can be equalized, thus while the vehicle is empty the rear axle is for the most part unloaded thus affecting mobility in low traction environments.
The LSVW has no tractive issues
Maintainers have to deal with the vehicle they are presented with and they do an amazing job at it, with what they have, yet alot of issues are the result of abuse by drivers/operators. Prior to an individual saying "well its an army truck, it should take it" just remember mobility. You need to delivery beans and bullets essential to the task/operation, if your vehicle is broken................the chain in broken. Mobility is essential, a vehicle broken from sheer abuse for no reason (being shot at is a valid reason), is systematic within the CF, as most adhere to the adage "drive it like you stole it"
1. Squealing brakes - they still work, and they never freeze up, More than adequate drainage and looseness...........hence the squealing
2. Lack of power - last time i checked the the limit for smp vehicles is still 80 kph, it will do it, try mating the gears in the transmission with the engine to achieve the most out of it
This is a vehicle designed for field use, hence mobility, when defining mobility in a wheeled vehicle, 3 aspects are considered (with regard to performance). Thankfully the military loves acronyms. ATC. Articulation, Clearance, and Traction. Articulation is the ability for the suspension to move throughout its axis to promote the ability to keep the tires on the ground (and limit cross axleing). Clearance is the attribute of sufficient clearance under the low hanging components of the vehicle to prevent the vehicle from becoming grounded and taking into account the approach, departure, and ramp breaker angles. Traction is the amount of engine power that can be converted into forward motion before a wheel starts to spin (hence a spinning wheel has little tractive value in most environment). Hence with the LSVW with out going into specs which i would have to look up....just some basics
1. Articulation-independant front end-pros greater contact with the ground, smoother ride, cons, limits clearance on obstacles
-leaf sprung rear suspension- pros greater load carrying capability, simple design, cons, rough ride, increased axle wrap
The suspension of the LSVW performs its job to meet its designation as a 1.5T Platform.
2. Clearance - save for the cab side steps, pros great approach and ramp break-over angles, more than sufficient clearance under the axles due to the fitting of 36-37" tires, cons,limited departure angle due to the box.
The LSVW has sufficient clearance to perform it function whilst staying within the realms of a multipurpose vehicle.
3. Traction - pros, rear differential lock (overcomes the effects of becoming cross axled) , dual range transfer case, aggressive tires (which can be aired down to increase floatation/tractive ability, and fitted with chains for use in severe snow/mud environments) cons, inherent to the requirements of the vehicle the rear leaf sprung (yet essential for load carry requirements) limits articulation in the rear. Empty the LSVW's COG is nose biased, however with load can be equalized, thus while the vehicle is empty the rear axle is for the most part unloaded thus affecting mobility in low traction environments.
The LSVW has no tractive issues
Maintainers have to deal with the vehicle they are presented with and they do an amazing job at it, with what they have, yet alot of issues are the result of abuse by drivers/operators. Prior to an individual saying "well its an army truck, it should take it" just remember mobility. You need to delivery beans and bullets essential to the task/operation, if your vehicle is broken................the chain in broken. Mobility is essential, a vehicle broken from sheer abuse for no reason (being shot at is a valid reason), is systematic within the CF, as most adhere to the adage "drive it like you stole it"
I'm a maintainer and have been working on these piles of ?%it since they came out. Basic design flaws are the biggest problems with this truck. i.e. metal fuel tanks rusting from the inside out, bodies rusting out when the vehs were less than a year old, fuel filters after the fuel pump, etc, etc,etc.... An off the shelf purchase from any of the big 3 manufacturers at the time would have been a better idea. (parts procurement, servicing, etc). Operator trg/error will always be a problem but in this case the truck itself is the bigger problem.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
lostrover said:
Spoken like a 'Sales Rep'. 80 Kph would and should be considered a traffic hazard on any major road system in North America and Europe. I would say that the old rules of Convoys travelling at 80 kph is 50 to 60 years out of date. Those were once the normal speeds achieved by all automobiles. Speeds have greatly increased in the last century. Unfortunately DND has not kept up with the times in this regard.
A vehicle with a top speed of 80 kph would greatly hinder the safety of a convoy in theatre today. Our vehicles require speed at times to escape from situations that develop in the movement of convoys in a hostile area. 80 kph makes this vehicle the weakest link, and like in nature the easiest target in the 'herd' to cull.
This vehicle has too many problems, besides being underpowered. It offers absolutely no protection to its crew. Its heater is too weak to heat the cab in the winter, and too hot in the summer. The Driver's seat is designed for 'midgets' and a driver who is 6' or taller has difficulty fitting into it. The handbrake works opposite to the way most other vehicles handbrakes do. Fiberglass hood and cab do not support the weight of crews when they have to climb up to cam the vehicle. The windows in the doors are inefficient. The mirrors are poorly located. The battery box is poorly designed and located. The batteries are prone to catch fire/fire hazard if left in the vehicle while stored in a garage for a long period of time. Undercab storage and steps rust out too quickly. Spare Tire storage is poorly designed and difficult to use.
Driver training in the CF is not a problem. It is usually quite extensive, so don't be blaming vehicle shortcomings on drivers. That is where it appears you have some sort of vested interest in the manufacturer.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
They do have one advantage above all other vehicles and that is on the range... they are a higher target and therefore easier to hit 
-LSVW= Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled
-Greatest example of war-profiteering / army shafting in Canadian history.
-Lousy to try and stand up in (box variant)
-worst location for a Hand Brake (watch your foot when you get out of one). And NEVER walk in between a packet of LSVWs! Especially on a hill.
That's really all I got to say about them.
-LSVW= Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled
-Greatest example of war-profiteering / army shafting in Canadian history.
-Lousy to try and stand up in (box variant)
-worst location for a Hand Brake (watch your foot when you get out of one). And NEVER walk in between a packet of LSVWs! Especially on a hill.
That's really all I got to say about them.
Thank you Dynaglide!
most of the issues you mentioned are relative to the 'being built in Canada deal' .
The fuel tank build was sub contrated out (among various other pieces) were manufactured, yet sat in storage, waiting for the vehicles production to ramp up, likewise with the bodies, manufactured off site, and left bare waiting for assembly, then no sandblasting, prep or primer, just a shot of CARC. With respect to the fuel filters, you have me thinking right now, but i can't remember is the fuel pump in-tank or inline (its been awhile and my current project already has me up late at nights)? I agree 100% with your rationale, that buying from one of the big three would have had it dividends, yet that was done with the MILCOT and in some circles it too suffers a bad rap. With regards to the post by Brad Swallows, the US, re-engineered a large quantity of its M35's to the designation of M35A2 (aka 1950's truck to new truck) at an extremely low cost and it still works for a capital expenditure that is non-relavent in todays world. Dynaglide, should you have the opportunity to venture abroad...........take a look at the foreign IVECO 410's, you'll be impressed.
most of the issues you mentioned are relative to the 'being built in Canada deal' .
The fuel tank build was sub contrated out (among various other pieces) were manufactured, yet sat in storage, waiting for the vehicles production to ramp up, likewise with the bodies, manufactured off site, and left bare waiting for assembly, then no sandblasting, prep or primer, just a shot of CARC. With respect to the fuel filters, you have me thinking right now, but i can't remember is the fuel pump in-tank or inline (its been awhile and my current project already has me up late at nights)? I agree 100% with your rationale, that buying from one of the big three would have had it dividends, yet that was done with the MILCOT and in some circles it too suffers a bad rap. With regards to the post by Brad Swallows, the US, re-engineered a large quantity of its M35's to the designation of M35A2 (aka 1950's truck to new truck) at an extremely low cost and it still works for a capital expenditure that is non-relavent in todays world. Dynaglide, should you have the opportunity to venture abroad...........take a look at the foreign IVECO 410's, you'll be impressed.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
lostrover said:
Ya, that's cause a lot of people think the MILCOT (aka milverado) is suppose to be a true off road going jeep. It is not and never was meant to be, it does have enhancements to make it more off road but it still has limitations.
No matter what piece of kit comes out you will always get some soldiers/airmen/sailors that love it, some that hate it with a passion, and a varied bunch somewhere in the middle. That is a fact of life.
lostrover said:
The original fuel pump design had an inline filter(designed for gas engines, never diesel, followed by an electric fuel pump(external to the tank) followed by a spin-filter. We have illegally modified alot of them and re-routed the the lines so the spin-on filter came after the pump and got rid of the small inline filters. (All they served to do was get prematurally clogged anyway.) This mod is vastly superior and has been proven time and time again.
Similar threads
