Wanted: "Ultra-Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV)"

[dimsum]

We already have a ULCV. This pair just seem to need a little 'Kiwi love'

Kiwi love?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Kiwi love?

#falklandswarbride ?  >

 

[GK .Dundas]

While we're looking at expeditionary vehicles and the whole concept this might be an interesting read (still reading myself ).
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR770.html

 

[a_majoor]

Can any of these carry thirty tons of bolt-on armour, though?

Because as soon as one rolls over an IED, we will get Iltis Scandal II spurting from the press and whatever political parties were not in office when the contract was signed...

Interesting point. With the latest technology it is possible to get a high level of protection in a smaller, more mobile vehicle, but physics has the last word (as always). The IDF's "Combat Guard" shows a possible configuration of a "light" and agile vehicle capable of carrying a section or alternatively being used for many other tasks (recce, anti-armour, mortar carrier, etc.); however it weighs 8 tons, so is hardly "light" (and I don't want to have to change the tire). While it is far heavier that many of the vehicles portrayed here, it is still far lighter than a LAVIII, much less a LAV 6.0. Indeed it is half the weight of a TAPV, and has much better protection and performance to boot.

The real issue as always is people are fixated on shiny kit without stopping to think about how it is supposed to be used or even "why do we need this at all?" Chris Pook and I have had friendly heated discussions on these threads over the merits of ATV's over Marginal Terrain Vehicles like the Bronco, and I have come to the conclusion that we are both right, so long as you accept the starting premise either of us are working from. If the right sort of doctrine and TTPs were written, then of course ATV's would be the better choice (but we had better be prepared to live with the various limitations that would come with such a doctrine. Same applies for a doctrine written around MTV's). We are arguing in a vacuum, since there is really no stated reason for having either sort of vehicle at all.....

 

[Kirkhill]

Horses for Courses. 

Edit:  By the way, with all the staff officers running around the place why can't you have ATV TTPs, MTV TTPs and LAV TTPs all accommodated in your doctrine?

 

[Kirkhill]

While we're looking at expeditionary vehicles and the whole concept this might be an interesting read (still reading myself ).
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR770.html

Two thumbs up on that one GK.  I see where Bogie the Francophile has been coming from.

This was particularly interesting:

French officers interviewed by the author also draw a distinction between how they are
taught to operate and the “American way,” with which they have become familiar in Afghanistan.
According to Garnier, for example, the U.S. Army can fight “properly” in the sense that it can think in terms of going about an operation the best way.
In contrast, he said, the French Army sees itself as having to make the best of whatever resources may be available. Thus, according to Garnier, planning for Serval was an exercise in thinking through what was and
was not available and coming to terms with the associated risk. Goya carried the argument further
and defined the American approach to warfare in terms of detecting the enemy, locating
it, and then using firepower to destroy it. “Fire maneuver,” he termed it. This compares with
destroying the enemy through combat, or “combat maneuver,” which is riskier. The French
see fire maneuver as a luxury, something one can do when one has the means, but it is expensive.
According to Goya, France’s Ground Forces Command has gone so far as to express the
desire that the French Army post-Afghanistan “de-Americanizes” so as not to retain the “bad
habits” picked up fighting alongside the U.S. military. “We learned a lot of methods from the
Americans,” he said. But they do not want to retain the default to standoff fires and prefer to go
back to “close combat.” Another officer, a legionnaire who had participated in multiple African
and Afghan deployments, similarly expressed concern that the French Army had learned some
bad lessons in Afghanistan with regard to fighting “American-style warfare” in the sense that
infantrymen worked in close conjunction with drones, satellites, and aircraft providing close
air support. France could not afford to fight like that, he said, and besides, it was contrary to
the experience of most French officers most of the time, who have to operate in the field with
few resources.55

Pages 41 and 42.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.heartofcars.com/nature/brave-guy-escapes-devils-highway-using-utv/?utm_source=Facebook+UTV+Stuck+Mud+Pit+Desk&utm_medium=CPC&utm_campaign=Facebook+UTV+Stuck+Mud+Pit+Jan+2016+Desktop

Check the video - skills.

 

[Journeyman]

While we're looking at expeditionary vehicles and the whole concept this might be an interesting read (still reading myself ).
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR770.html

Concur with CP, good catch. 

While a solid recommendation by the author, I don't see the US military believing that they could learn anything  military from France, for different cultural reasons.

 

[dapaterson]

I don't see the US military believing that they could learn anything  military from France, for different cultural reasons.

Dunno.  If Bernie gets elected, they might take a page out of the French Army's playbook in '58...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Bumped with the next step ...

The Department of National Defence has a requirement to purchase 52 Ultra- Light Combat Vehicles (ULCVs) and ancillary items, including familiarization instructions/training, publications, and other data deliverables in accordance with the requirements of ANNEX B and its appendices. The requirement includes an irrevocable option to purchase up to 26 ULCVs. The requirement also includes, on an as and when requested basis, the provision of Ready Packs, Special Tooling and Test Equipment, In Service Support and the supply of spare parts to support ULCV entire fleet for a period of two (2) years after final delivery of the ULCV.

As part of the Technical Bid, the Bidder must provide one (1) or two (2) units of the proposed Ultra-Light Combat Vehicle(s) at no cost to Canada ...

Full bid package (260+ pg PDF) here.

 

[a_majoor]

Two thumbs up on that one GK.  I see where Bogie the Francophile has been coming from.

This was particularly interesting:

Pages 41 and 42.

Slight digression.

Much of modern American military thought and doctrine on conventional war is an outgrowth of Americans being trained in France before assuming a combat role in WWI. So in many senses the Americans have learned a lot from the French. OTOH, the "American Way of War" is actually based on the Indian Wars period, so light forces, cavalry and scouting are all part of the American war fighting experience. This was refined during the "Banana Wars" and other small scale actions throughout the 20th century. Max Boot's book the Savage Wars of Peace is an interesting history of that evolution. If anything, forces built around light vehicles would be far more consistent with American history and practice than heavy forces.

In many respects, a large standing force such as has existed since the end of WWII is an anomaly in American history, and the drawdown that is occurring (even if for the wrong reasons) is entirely consistent with historical experience.

Back to our regularly scheduled thread.

 

[MilEME09]

Canada buying new fleet of lightweight combat vehicles that could cost over $190k each
http://globalnews.ca/news/2879194/canadia-buying-new-fleet-of-lightweight-combat-vehicles-that-could-cost-over-190k-each/

As the Canadian government continues to come under fire for exports of armoured personnel carriers to countries like Saudi Arabia and South Sudan, our own military is looking to augment its capabilities with an entirely new type of ground vehicle. Following in the footsteps of the American military, Canada has issued a call for tender for 52 new ultra-light combat vehicles, or ULCVs.

The ULCVs will be four-passenger, Jeep-like vehicles that are small and light enough to fit inside a Canadian Forces’ CC-177 Globemaster aircraft, a CC-130 Hercules aircraft or a CH-147 Chinook helicopter (or to be lifted externally by helicopter).

According to the tender documents, published earlier this week, they must also be designed “to be air dropped with a 900 kg payload” from either the Globemaster or the Hercules, and detached/offloaded from the helicopter within five minutes.

They need to be able to operate in extreme temperatures (-32C to +49C), handle a combination of urban and rural environments (mountainous, plains, jungle and woodland) and will be off-road 75 per cent of the time, the documents note.

    “The Department of National Defence (DND) will be using the ULCV as a complimentary vehicle to increase mobility across a spectrum of operations,” confirmed department spokesperson Ashley Lemire in an email to Global News.

“The ULCV is a new type of vehicle and will be used in concert with the current fleet of DND ground vehicles to increase mobility on operations.”
Increasing ground mobility

The ULCV can be used for a variety of different missions and tasks, Lemire noted, extending the “tactical mobility needs” of troops in the field. In plain English, that could mean providing quick deployment into a hostile area, cutting down on the distance soldiers need to walk before reaching an active battle zone.

The ULCVs may also give troops an easier entry and exit during reconnaissance or surveillance missions, and help avoid putting helicopters within the range of enemy fire that could shoot them down.

    “The range and maneuverability of (the) ULCV is an increase over portions of the current fleet of vehicles,” Lemire said.

The call for tender notes that DND will have the option of adding 26 more vehicles to the total within two years.

There are several possible options in terms of the model of ULCV Canada may acquire. U.S. defence firm Polaris could be a contender with its DAGOR model, as could aerospace giant Boeing with the Phantom Badger.

The total cost of the new acquisition will depend on the bids received, but Polaris’ DAGOR models for example, run around US$150,000 apiece. That’s around CAD$194,000 at the current exchange rate.
Tight timeline

Much like their American counterparts, department officials are moving quickly to add ULCVs to the roster of available ground vehicles as the role of special operations groups becomes more prominent. Among other missions, Canadians special forces are currently carrying out training work in Iraq with local Kurdish troops fighting the so-called Islamic State.

This week’s call for tender comes just under a year after an initial request for information, which went out last August, and the first 52 vehicles are expected to be delivered by Nov. 15, 2017.

Asked if the American move to purchase a fleet of ULCVs prompted the Canadian tender, Lemire said that “while we must ensure our equipment remains compatible with other nations with whom we frequently work, the equipment we acquire must also meet the essential requirements … needed for the (Canadian Armed Forces) to achieve the missions assigned by the Government of Canada.”

Can we get a few more for light recce? this is all going to CANSOFCOM

- mod edit to include link -

 

[Kirkhill]

Here is the RFP package with the Mandatory Technical Criteria at Appendix 1.

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2016/08/08/ff9546880ae25d6efb5e625a2adc147e/ABES.PROD.PW__BL.B265.E25938.EBSU000.PDF


Too bad they are specifying something already in NATO or Aussie service otherwise this might be a runner as well.

http://www.jgms.com/resource/01da5d843a784ab38ad6bb7690ad7e69.pdf


Interesting bits from the MTC on weapons - .50 cal with 5 bins ready on the ring and 4 more bins in the vehicle  while the CC gets a Mk48 or a C6 on the pintle mount.

Will any CANSOF lessons learned result in cascading of solutions to the reg forces and the reserves?

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Will any CANSOF lessons learned result in cascading of solutions to the reg forces and the reserves?

Have they ever?

 

[Kirkhill]

Have they ever?

Hope everlasting.....

 

[a_majoor]

And this is a great way to solve which doctrinal issue?

Sorry for the snark, but you would think that someone, somewhere would have learned from the TAPV fiasco....oh, wait....

 

[Spencer100]

Looks like the Polaris is it.

Did not get the 51 units in the RFI, plus I wonder why BRP doesn't bid.  And one more point why is it soo much more than the civilian model?

Polaris to supply Canadian Army with MRZR-D

David Carl, Toronto - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

24 August 2016


Canada will procure 36 Polaris MRZR-D4 utility vehicles and 12 tactical trailers for the army, Public Services and Procurement Canada announced on 23 August.

The vehicles will be supplied through Polaris Industries Ltd, the Canada-based offices of Polaris Industries Inc.

The MRZR-D4 is an ultralight off-road mobility vehicle designed for use by expeditionary forces in rugged terrain. It is air-transportable in both helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft, including the CH-47 Chinook, CH-53 Stallion, MV-22 Osprey, and C-130 Hercules. Canada operates both the CC-130H/E (C-130H/E) and the CH-147F (CH-47F).

Previous versions of the MRZR are in use with special operations forces (SOF) in several Western countries.

 

[Spencer100]

Thinking about this why buy the whole amount of MILCOT units, Buy some and "save" them for deployments. Go the local Polaris dealer and buy 5 for the same price of the civilian model and use for training and the like. The difference is very small (no CARC etc)

They are so cheap many units could get them.  But why do that when we can pay 5 times the price.  ;(

 

[PuckChaser]

Blackout lights, 24V system for radios, runflat tires, beefed up alternator for radios.... lots of reasons for the price increase.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Looks like the Polaris is it.

Did not get the 51 units in the RFI, plus I wonder why BRP doesn't bid.  And one more point why is it soo much more than the civilian model?

Polaris to supply Canadian Army with MRZR-D

David Carl, Toronto - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

24 August 2016


Canada will procure 36 Polaris MRZR-D4 utility vehicles and 12 tactical trailers for the army, Public Services and Procurement Canada announced on 23 August.

The vehicles will be supplied through Polaris Industries Ltd, the Canada-based offices of Polaris Industries Inc.

The MRZR-D4 is an ultralight off-road mobility vehicle designed for use by expeditionary forces in rugged terrain. It is air-transportable in both helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft, including the CH-47 Chinook, CH-53 Stallion, MV-22 Osprey, and C-130 Hercules. Canada operates both the CC-130H/E (C-130H/E) and the CH-147F (CH-47F).

Previous versions of the MRZR are in use with special operations forces (SOF) in several Western countries.

The contract award you reference is for a separate program than the ULCV. 
ULCV is essentially a HMMWV replacement program for CANSOFCOM.  Likely competitors are Polaris' DAGOR, Supacat HMT, GDLS GMV, Boeing Phantom Badger, etc.