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

Meet the GM Defense ISV Army Truck

Kirkhill said:
Second thought - skip the radios

We've all got cell phones.

You can keep the radios for the training grounds and when we go operational. This is all about covering administrative requirements.
Click to expand...
We have "blue fleet" cars, vans, and trucks for that work, they are commercial fleet vehicles just like every company buys. I have driven many F-250s, E-250s, and other versions of that sort of vehicle over the years. We aren't running major projects for blue fleet vehicles.

The ISV/ISV-H are for "training grounds" and operations.
 
Kirkhill said:
Jesus mate. I'm not looking for the full blown Best Buy entertainment system.

I just want a truck to run around in.

How much is the PRR that you issue to ground pounders?

...

And as for doors - I want the beast that comes off the line with doors. I'm not paying extra to have you take the doors off so that I can freeze my jewels in January.

Transport. With doors. And a heater.
Click to expand...
The PRR is virtually useless beyond a couple hundred meters on the best of days. This vehicle will be used in training and in operations administratively, it needs a proper CNR system. That costs money.
 
Furniture said:
85% commercial off-the-shelf parts, from the company that makes the commercial off-the-shelf parts.

I'm a fan of supporting local, and GM also makes things in Canada. I also think the Senator is a step up size wise compared to the ISV-H, so they aren't really direct competitors.
Click to expand...
I want to spread the wealth and with Roshel going international, we be helping a Canadian product and workers. Plus having some more competition will keep the big companies from getting lazy. As I have said before, we should be doing small buys every year from domestic companies and trial their equipment and give feedback and see what works and does not.
 
Kirkhill said:
How much is the PRR that you issue to ground pounders?
Click to expand...
$40,000. We don't issue PRRs anymore, we haven't been buying replacements for over a decade. Anything a unit has that dies is not replaced. Instead we use Harris handhelds. Modern communication systems are expensive.

If you want a vehicle you can take into a training area or use during Dom Ops that may take place in areas with no/degraded cell coverage you need proper comms suites in them.

If that is not what you want, instead you just want admin vehicles, then like Furniture said, we have blue fleet vehicles already. Need more trucks than your unit has? Talk to base transport, they will lend you more trucks. Need even more, then we rent them for the limited time we need them.

To be clear: I am not saying we shouldn't buy more green trucks. I think everyone would benefit from MILCOT replacements that we have a plan to properly life cycle. The biggest problem with the fleet now is its age, it is still very useful and used every day even as the trucks are falling apart around their drivers.

There are a lot of uses for trucks that bridge the gap between blue fleet and deployable Army trucks. That means radios installed and probably other, non-Sig, considerations. Not just a bunch of F-150s we bought and had Cpl Bloggins rattle can green. However we only have so much money and staff time to push projects through. Would we get enough use out of these to justify the cost? I lean towards yes, but if it is these or we increase the buy on the LSVW replacement to more fully fill out the A & B echelons (especially for the reserves) then no.

Before we buy things we need to identify the problem we are trying to solve, prioritize how important solving that problem is, then work towards a solution.
 
I was trying to make two points.

The first was that transportation, especially for a small force like Canada's, is a critical requirement. And that something is better than nothing.
A cheap civilian solution that can be beaten up and rapidly replaced from domestic production lines is a good base from which to start your planning.

Land Rover
G- Wagen
Iveco
Toyota
CUCV

All of those, despite their foreign military sales efforts are/were built on lines producing civilian vehicles for the civilian markets. They were produced domestically and employed domestically. Some portion of them are modified for specific military tasks. They were procured in their thousands at prices similar to, if not below, civilian prices.

The second was to put a dollar value on the discussion. That was very much a secondary point.

....

Those vehicles form the basis of planning and mobility. They are issued widely and replaced regularly. They are beaten up and abused. And often they are stretched well beyond their initial intents and replacements have to be purchased. I am thinking of Land Rovers becoming Snatches becoming Foxhound Protected Mobility Vehicles. They Brits are still operating 8000 or so Land Rovers and Pinzgauers. The Germans have something like 12000 G Wagens. The Swedes are buying 3000 Iveco vans (Light Multi Purpose Vehicles). The CUCV programme procured 70,000 vehicles.

You tell me that there is a "blue fleet" budget. Great.

Why not convert all of that budget to pick-up trucks and vans and deploy them on the scales I am envisaging and make them available for Admin and DomOps?

THEN, you can start building on from there your specialist needs (MRZRs, ISVs, LUVs, LMV(L), MSVS, LMV(H)).

Vehicles like Tanks and IFVs and SPHs and VSHORADs, in my mind fall into the same category as Bulldozers and Backhoes. They are tools designed for a very particular task and should be considered as such. They, in particular, Armoured Personnel Carriers, should not be seen in the same light as basic transport.

For an infantry unit their armoured transport should not be their General Duties vehicle. In 2013 I have strong recollections of the PPCLI wheeling south from Edmonton on Hwy 2 at Leduc. They were heading south in their LAVs, complete with Bushmasters, to tackle the floods. And those vehicles weren't even amphibious any more.

Parking lots full of Colorados at Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Mewata, Red Deer and Edmonton would have been at least as useful and would have saved the wear and tear on the LAVs.
 
Kirkhill said:
You tell me that there is a "blue fleet" budget. Great.

Why not convert all of that budget to pick-up trucks and vans and deploy them on the scales I am envisaging and make them available for Admin and DomOps?
Click to expand...
That's exactly what it is minus a few staff sedans lol. Bases have motor pools of blue fleet, moet trucks and vans, for that exact reason. A lot of fords.
Kirkhill said:
For an infantry unit their armoured transport should not be their General Duties vehicle. In 2013 I have strong recollections of the PPCLI wheeling south from Edmonton on Hwy 2 at Leduc. They were heading south in their LAVs, complete with Bushmasters, to tackle the floods. And those vehicles weren't even amphibious any more.
Click to expand...
They took thr LAVs because they're far more mobile than a Colorado in a flood. Ever tried fording a Ford Ranger through a metre of water? It probably wouldn't go so well.
 
PrairieFella said:
That's exactly what it is minus a few staff sedans lol. Bases have motor pools of blue fleet, moet trucks and vans, for that exact reason. A lot of fords.

They took thr LAVs because they're far more mobile than a Colorado in a flood. Ever tried fording a Ford Ranger through a metre of water? It probably wouldn't go so well.
Click to expand...

I tracked the PPCLI south through those flooded river valley in my Jeep Wrangler - and beat them south despite a couple of detours.

Boats would have been more useful.

Perhaps we should be paying more attention to the basic administrative requirements and less time contemplating Leopard 2A8 vs Black Panther K2.
 
Kirkhill said:
I tracked the PPCLI south through those flooded river valley in my Jeep Wrangler - and beat them south despite a couple of detours.
Click to expand...
Your anecdote doesn't negate the fact that civvies were being rescued by those LAVs, in various floods. If a truck could have picked them up, they would have.
Kirkhill said:
Boats would have been more useful.
Click to expand...
Maybe, that's probably why the chimos use them in these situations.
Kirkhill said:
Perhaps we should be paying more attention to the basic administrative requirements and less time contemplating Leopard 2A8 vs Black Panther K2.
Click to expand...
We can walk and chew bubblegum here. We have the technology (and hundreds if not thousands of blue fleet trucks and vans that you didn't realize existed).
 
PrairieFella said:
Your anecdote doesn't negate the fact that civvies were being rescued by those LAVs, in various floods. If a truck could have picked them up, they would have.
Click to expand...
With respect, trucks were picking them up. Too often when the military is called in there is an air of the performative about the effort. One of the reasons those LAVs were employed was the MLVW/HLVW fleet was rusted out, the MSVS MilCOTS were just being fielded and the MSVS SMP fleet had not been ordered. All of those would have been better solutions than the LAVs. Another great argument, IMO, for much larger buys of all of those fleets.

PrairieFella said:
Maybe, that's probably why the chimos use them in these situations.
Click to expand...

Ubique.

PrairieFella said:
We can walk and chew bubblegum here. We have the technology (and hundreds if not thousands of blue fleet trucks and vans that you didn't realize existed).
Click to expand...

I didn't realize you termed them blue fleet.

I also didn't realize that they were as generously distributed. I certainly don't see much sign of them in the Armoury parking lots as I drive around the country.
 
Simply as an observer (and taxpayer), the LAV can do deployed ops as well as domestic ops; a Chev Colorado not so much. If they send in vehicles without comms to an area that is sufficiently devastated that they have to request the military, how do they communicate?

If you want domestically manufactured, off-the-line vehicles, you are down to the Chev Silvarado and Ford Super Duty (although not until 2026, I think).
 
Kirkhill said:
Too often when the military is called in there is an air of the performative about the effort.
Click to expand...
But in, many cases, that is the point.

We always endeavour to help Canadians as much as we can. However, we are not professional wildland firefighters nor flood mitigation specialists, we are a poor tool to respond to these crises. Quite often, by the time are deployed it is too late for us to provide any meaningful help. If we arrive a day before the flood waters peak there isn't much we can do except provide moral support to the community. Which is why we bring LAVs.

LAVs get on the news and a column of LAVs rolling into a flood stricken area generates a lot of social media posts. Digging the elderly out of a snow storm, using a bull dozer to cut fire breaks, and having a front end loader to shore up a dike are all useful actions but provide little media coverage. During natural disaters the government needs to reassure Canadians, especially those displaced, they are doing something.

LAVs are preformative, but in the best way. As civilians are streaming out of disaster stricken areas they see us driving the other way. When they get to a hotel and turn on the news they see us and when they open their feeds on social media they see pictures of us. LAVs let us easily do that, dudes in F-150s make that messaging much harder.

Whether we are providing much in the way of material/physical support is questionable. But that isn't the only reason we are there. Banging a drum and having the figerative cavalry arrive is the effect the government wants. We are there to send the message to Canadians that someone has a plan and is on the way to help. Anything we can do beyond that is gravy.
 
lenaitch said:
Simply as an observer (and taxpayer), the LAV can do deployed ops as well as domestic ops; a Chev Colorado not so much. If they send in vehicles without comms to an area that is sufficiently devastated that they have to request the military, how do they communicate?

If you want domestically manufactured, off-the-line vehicles, you are down to the Chev Silvarado and Ford Super Duty (although not until 2026, I think).
Click to expand...

My point is I would rather reserve the LAV fleet for its anticipated role. They cost too much to waste running hours.

For Domops, and for those that really want to put on a show, then send in fleets of MSVSs (SMPs if you have them but MilCOTS if not).

One of the lasting images of the response to Hurricane Katrina is of a convoy of HEMTTs moving through the flood waters. I don't recall ever seeing an armed vehicle attending any civil emergency in the US.

....

My take on the Colorados/Silverados/SuperDuty/Rams is that more use should be made of them for admin and for as much surrogate training as possible.

And, based on what I am seeing around the world a lot of operations are being conducted with vehicles of that standard.

Rather than buying "Tank Trainers" (Cougars) perhaps we would have been better buying fewer Marders and Leopards and a lot more CUCVs.
 
1748815488053.png

MSVS logistic trucks steer through first deployment in Latvia | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com canadianarmytoday.com


I think Canadians would be expecting to see something more like this arriving in their town in the event of a disaster.

Or even something like this.


1748815717858.png




High-water vehicles: A must for the Guard's domestic response arsenal​

By Master Sgt. Greg Rudl, U.S. Air Force National Guard Bureau
ARLINGTON, Va. - In war, they're called combat vehicles. They're the Light and Medium Tactical Vehicles, HMETTs, deuce-and-a-halfs, and five-ton trucks that are used to haul troops, supplies and equipment around battlefields.

But when Mother Nature strikes and people are stranded by flood waters, those big trucks with their big tires and high ground clearance get a different name.

Some states call them high-water vehicles; others high-clearance, still others high-wheeled. Whatever the name, governors, adjutants general and other state military leaders want to know how many they have, especially when the waters rise.

During domestic response missions, the big trucks plow through high water to rescue American citizens, carry boats that can rescue more people, and bring food and water to the victims of calamities.
Click to expand...
 
Militarized Commercial Off-The-Shelf configuration based on the Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD – 2003 Basic model 861 (GM K25943HD). Colloquially known as the “Milverado.” For use in a non-hostile environment.
Click to expand...

What is the substantive difference between a Milverado and a Blue Fleet Silverado 2500HD?
 
There is also an institutional plan to life cycle blue fleet vehicles. After a set amount of time/kilometers/repair dollars each vehicle is retired and a replacement is procured. With green fleet vehicles you are stuck with what you have until the next project delivers (20-30 years). If someone crashes a milcot the Army has one less truck until that point (potential decades later). If someone crashes a panel van/pick up/staff car it is replaced (not immediately, but in a reasonable amount of time). So green fleets will naturally shrink over time, while blue fleets will stay stable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
29 30 31
Replies
603
Views
221K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
F
The short, disgusting life of the Hummer
Replies
8
Views
15K
Old Sweat
O
G
Army, Marines to Acquire 50,000 New Trucks to Replace Humvees
Replies
7
Views
8K
geo
geo
Back
Top