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

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

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
658
Points
910
PuckChaser said:
Blackout lights, 24V system for radios, runflat tires, beefed up alternator for radios.... lots of reasons for the price increase.

Still a dual level purchase, buy the required number of militarized vehicles and a good number of the civilian model for training and driver courses.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
299
Points
1,030
I don't think you'll accrue any cost savings by running double fleet of COTS and MOTS. Every unit needs some to train, do we reduce their operational fleet to give them a few training versions, or just bite the bullet that stuff breaks whether it's on course or not and get as many operational models as you can?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
658
Points
910
As long as the parts commonality is sufficient and the price difference is worth having them, then training vehicles for this fleet should not be counted as part of the fleet, but as training aids and expendable ones at that. Problem is now if you write a number of the tactical ones off in training, it's unlikely they have  replacements. 
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
Here is the Polaris MRZR data sheet.

http://cdn1.polaris.com/globalassets/military/2016/datasheets/mrzr.pdf?v=38fa0733

Here is the Polaris RZR build your own site.

http://www.polaris.com/en-ca/rzr-side-by-side/choose-model

Tell me again that Polaris, or any other manufacturer, can't cost-competitively craft a solution unique to your requirements.

You want blackout lights instead of halogens on your light bar?  You want an additional alternator and battery?  You want different tyres?

You want fries with that?
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
And a side of mayo as well.


While Chris is correct is saying a manufacturer can and often will modify the product for the customer's specifications, it seems like an iron law that when said customer is Her Majesty in Right of Canada, the cost escalates considerably. I recall doing a very rough comparison when the G-Wagon and MilCOTS were first introduced, we simply went to the DND website, looked at the number of vehicles purchased and the amount spent, did a bit of simple arithmetic and came up with the rather crazy numbers of MilCOTS costing over $80,000/unit and G-Wagons going for over $120,000. For comparison, the GM website allowed us to "build" a Silverado to almost DND specs (no 24V alternators or extra batteries), for far less cost. It was a bit more difficult to do direct cost comparison for the civilian pattern G Wagon because armoured door panels and roof pintle mounts are not generally options you can get at the dealership, but the G-Wagon was in the neighbourhood of $50,000.

Going farther back, the Illtis cost a cool $20,000 back in its day, and in the early 1980's $20,000 could get you a pretty high end vehicle on civvi street (of course the civilian Illtis was a flop because it was far more expensive than a Jeep or other utilitarian 4X4).

While there are specialty requirements for real military vehicles (i.e. armour, NBC protection, fully amphibious capability, ability to be air dropped from a C-130 or size and weight requirements to fit in the back of a Chinook), these are for specialist vehicles. MilCOT should mean just that, a civilian vehicle with minor changes and a coat of green paint, not a civilian vehicle with an inflated price tag and a coat of green paint.
 

CombatMacguyver

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PuckChaser said:
Blackout lights, 24V system for radios, runflat tires, beefed up alternator for radios.... lots of reasons for the price increase.

Blackout lights and a 24V system would take an EO and a Veh about a day to install at pretty minimal cost if you gave them free reign to just get 'er done (LPO battery and LED systems instead of whatever canadianized garbage we'd have available to us).  The Alternator wouldn't be a big deal either.

The runflats would be 99% of the cost.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
264
Points
910
CombatMacgyver said:
Blackout lights and a 24V system would take an EO and a Veh about a day to install at pretty minimal cost if you gave them free reign to just get 'er done (LPO battery and LED systems instead of whatever canadianized garbage we'd have available to us).  The Alternator wouldn't be a big deal either.

The runflats would be 99% of the cost.
Two days, gotta account for those 3 RCEME coffee breaks

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

Dissident

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Thucydides said:
While Chris is correct is saying a manufacturer can and often will modify the product for the customer's specifications, it seems like an iron law that when said customer is Her Majesty in Right of Canada, the cost escalates considerably. I recall doing a very rough comparison when the G-Wagon and MilCOTS were first introduced, we simply went to the DND website, looked at the number of vehicles purchased and the amount spent, did a bit of simple arithmetic and came up with the rather crazy numbers of MilCOTS costing over $80,000/unit and G-Wagons going for over $120,000. For comparison, the GM website allowed us to "build" a Silverado to almost DND specs (no 24V alternators or extra batteries), for far less cost. It was a bit more difficult to do direct cost comparison for the civilian pattern G Wagon because armoured door panels and roof pintle mounts are not generally options you can get at the dealership, but the G-Wagon was in the neighbourhood of $50,000.

I get the same feeling, but I just wanted to ask if your calculations included the warranty and initial training I think we received with the vehicles.
 

Eland2

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Or, you could go for something like Singapore's Light Strike Vehicle, if you want a ULCV with somewhat more capability than the Polaris vehicle. It can mount a 40mm AGL, or a .50 cal HMG, or an ATGM post. The non-ATGM version can seat up to six soldiers. Air-transportable via C-130 or CH47 Chinook. Off-road speeds up to 110km/h.
 

Attachments

  • 1200px-Singapore_Army_Mark_2_Light_Strike_Vehicle_on_display_at_the_National_Museum_of_Singapo...jpg
    1200px-Singapore_Army_Mark_2_Light_Strike_Vehicle_on_display_at_the_National_Museum_of_Singapo...jpg
    242.5 KB · Views: 1,012

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
Eland2

Can you sling it below a CH-148? 

I'm guessing there are going to a lot more of them immediately available on forward deployments than CH-147s.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
Eland2 said:
Or, you could go for something like Singapore's Light Strike Vehicle, if you want a ULCV with somewhat more capability than the Polaris vehicle. It can mount a 40mm AGL, or a .50 cal HMG, or an ATGM post. The non-ATGM version can seat up to six soldiers. Air-transportable via C-130 or CH47 Chinook. Off-road speeds up to 110km/h.

While very interesting (and quite cool), this starts getting into the same area of debate Chris Pook and I have been arguing over with ATV's vs MTV's like the Bronco or BV-206. Larger vehicles are more capable and can do more things (A Bronco can be configured to carry a section with all their kit, or to be an ATGM platform, or an 81mm mortar platform, is amphibious and ari portable sung under a helicopter), but is also more expensive, physically larger and more cumbersome to deploy etc.

If we are starting to talk about fighting vehicles, then armour protection, the ability to survive IED's and possibly NBC protection should all factor in. Layering on armour to existing designs gives us monsters like the LAV 6.0, which probably represents the limits of wheeled mobility. Different thinking gives us vehicles like the Israeli "Combat Guard", which can transport a section of soldiers or be configured to other roles, can carry a RWS for self protection, is fully protected and weighs "only" 8 tons.

I will have to ask again, just what doctrinal issue is being addressed by the use of upgraded ATV's? The size upgrade of the Singapore LSV means that you can carry more useful equipment, but it is still unprotected in any meaningful sense of the word. It is also not amphibious, nor would it be capable of travelling in really difficult terrain like an MTV so you are not getting advantages like being able to operate where no one else can go. Being able to carry extra stuff is a logistical issue, but then again, having amphibious and marginal terrain capabilities provides so much more (light infantry can operate out of difficult and complex terrain far longer if their logistics vehicles can move through complex and marginal terrain as well).
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
Thuc:

Second verse, same as first.

If you can't get the vehicle to the fight then it just doesn't matter. 

Doctrine needs to be adjusted to permit the possible.  Doctrine for the merely desirable will not assist the government (as much as I hate saying that) nor advance Canada's interests.

Doctrine needs to based on the tools at hand.

;D  :cheers: and have another.
 

Eland2

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Thucydides said:
While very interesting (and quite cool), this starts getting into the same area of debate Chris Pook and I have been arguing over with ATV's vs MTV's like the Bronco or BV-206. Larger vehicles are more capable and can do more things (A Bronco can be configured to carry a section with all their kit, or to be an ATGM platform, or an 81mm mortar platform, is amphibious and ari portable sung under a helicopter), but is also more expensive, physically larger and more cumbersome to deploy etc.

If we are starting to talk about fighting vehicles, then armour protection, the ability to survive IED's and possibly NBC protection should all factor in. Layering on armour to existing designs gives us monsters like the LAV 6.0, which probably represents the limits of wheeled mobility. Different thinking gives us vehicles like the Israeli "Combat Guard", which can transport a section of soldiers or be configured to other roles, can carry a RWS for self protection, is fully protected and weighs "only" 8 tons.

I will have to ask again, just what doctrinal issue is being addressed by the use of upgraded ATV's? The size upgrade of the Singapore LSV means that you can carry more useful equipment, but it is still unprotected in any meaningful sense of the word. It is also not amphibious, nor would it be capable of travelling in really difficult terrain like an MTV so you are not getting advantages like being able to operate where no one else can go. Being able to carry extra stuff is a logistical issue, but then again, having amphibious and marginal terrain capabilities provides so much more (light infantry can operate out of difficult and complex terrain far longer if their logistics vehicles can move through complex and marginal terrain as well).

And this is where one has to question whether a vehicle like the LSV can operate successfully in Canada, given the frequently difficult terrain that exists, particularly in remote areas. In provinces like Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and a good chunk of southern Alberta, the LSV might be useful to help stand up quick reaction forces that need to strike quickly and then disappear. Most of BC, Quebec and the Maritimes offer much rougher terrain with few dirt trails, so there would be less of an opportunity to deploy a vehicle like the LSV. But then again, even the TAPV would be faced with similar difficulties in the same areas.

You could conceivably issue the LSV to PRes recce units and get substantially more cross-country mobility than you would ever get from the existing G-Wagens and MilCOTS trucks they currently have. The TAPV is a Reg Force asset and is unlikely to ever be issued to PRes recce units, save for a few that reserve units are allowed to access occasionally for training purposes.

There are several big selling features when it comes to issuing LSV's to PRes units. The biggest one being the ability to mount ATGM's, AGL's and HMG's, while G-Wagens and MilCOTS vehicles are totally unable to accommodate any of these weapon systems. The next is a large payload of 1,000 kilos, although wheeled recce units have never really needed to carry that much in the way of stores for a typical training weekend. Mind you, the large payload means that PRes recce units could become more or less self-sufficient for a significant period of time before needing to link up with service battalion units for replenishment. And since the LSV's can carry up to six soldiers, you could configure a recce squadron so that it has one organic assault troop consisting of three or four callsigns, with each callsign having two crew members and four assault troopers.

Then there is the vehicle's rapid air portability, meaning you could deploy a squadron of LSV's in a real hurry and far faster than you could ever deploy G-Wagens and MilCOTS trucks over a large area.

But the fly in the ointment, as always, and as you point out, is doctrine. If the LSV's were acquired for the PRes, how would you use them, given that PRes units generally operate as training cadres, aid-to-the-civil power resources, and augmentation for the Regular Force in overseas or other major deployments? And given those roles, do they really need the sophisticated weapon systems they can carry? I ask the question because there is very little chance that PRes units would ever see any actual combat within Canada as the country is pretty safe from invasion by a foreign power because of its sheer size, harsh climate and terrain, and the presence of the United States.

It's conceivable that they could end up deployed as part of a light rapid-reaction force overseas, but from a doctrinal standpoint, the Regular Force isn't yet configured to handle RRF missions - save for what JTF2 and CSOR can do.

As to the lack of armour protection, I don't think that is a concern that applies to the LSV. It's designed to operate as a hit-and-run type of asset, and to cope with the odd isolated tank or two it might encounter. Indeed, if a LSV crew did encounter armour, they would probably be able to engage only from well-prepared defensive positions, or a well-hidden defilade that's covered with a lot of vegetation and other natural materials.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
In the interests of the discussion.

(and it seems to be compatible with all of CH-147/8/9)

Light Strike Vehicle Mark II


The Light Strike Vehicle Mark II (LSV MK. II) replaces the ageing fleet of LSVs and is produced by Singapore Technologies Kinetics.
The primary role of the LSV MK. II is against armoured threats. It is designed to be helicopter portable and manoeuvrable over cross-country terrain. The vehicle is equipped with enhanced networking capabilities to support the integration with other combat systems during operations.

The LSV MK. II is produced in three variants: the Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL) variant that operates the 40mm AGL system; the Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) variant that operates the Spike missile system; and the Utility variant for general purpose usage.

The LSV MK. II vehicle bears several enhancements vis-a-vis the LSV that it replaces. It has a more powerful engine, an improved suspension system and a better designed space frame. The new vehicle also has a larger seating capacity and supports an array of communication systems that enhances its networking capabilities with other combat systems in the battlefield. These enhancements allow the LSV MK. II to be more agile and deployable than its predecessor.

LSV MK. II (New) LSV
Weight 1800 kg 1500 kg
Length 4.9 m 4.25m
Height 1.8 m 1.9 m
Width 2.1 m 2.11m
Maximum Land Speed 110km/hr 110km/hr
Weapons Systems Configurations 7.62mm GPMG, 40mm AGL or Spike System 7.62mm GPMG, 40mm AGL or ATGM
Maximum Power (HP) 136 104
Maximum Crew Capacity 6 3

https://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/press_room/official_releases/nr/2013/nov/19nov13_nr/19nov13_fs2.html
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
658
Points
910
7683573.jpg



On a more serious note, you can see some of Russia's ULCV in the first part of this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE7SNpf0lqM
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,622
Points
1,060
Forget the fancy cr@p. A modern Jeep with a machine gun on the back would be leaps and bounds ahead of what we have now.

Call in the 'Canadian Tire Technical' :)
 

Matt_Fisher

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
daftandbarmy said:
Forget the fancy cr@p. A modern Jeep with a machine gun on the back would be leaps and bounds ahead of what we have now.

Call in the 'Canadian Tire Technical' :)

Funny enough, one of the contenders for the US Army's 'Ground Mobility Vehicle' (GMV) project is a joint venture between Jeep and Hendrick Motorsports:  http://www.commandousa.com/
Good backgrounder on the US Army's GMV project is:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Mobility_Vehicle_(proposed_vehicle)
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
Eland2 said:
But the fly in the ointment, as always, and as you point out, is doctrine. If the LSV's were acquired for the PRes, how would you use them, given that PRes units generally operate as training cadres, aid-to-the-civil power resources, and augmentation for the Regular Force in overseas or other major deployments? And given those roles, do they really need the sophisticated weapon systems they can carry? I ask the question because there is very little chance that PRes units would ever see any actual combat within Canada as the country is pretty safe from invasion by a foreign power because of its sheer size, harsh climate and terrain, and the presence of the United States.

What you are describing is the sort of gong show that we face; someone reads Jane's or some other catalogue and sees a shiny piece of kit. We want to buy it, but then we need to decide what to do with it. In my particular case, TAPV's were provisionally allocated to IA (since the Light Infantry Battalions could not use them), and this causes a huge dilemma: does IA need to use two TAPV's per team, since our doctrine calls for a 5 man team, of do we have to downgrade our capabilities and go down to a 3 man team so everyone and their kit fits in one TAPV?. Of course we have struggled with the issue for years having to use G wagons (a Gwagon C&R provides the firepower, but has no room for a full team plus a language assistant, while a "regular" Gwagon has room for people but no organic firepower....

While some of the proposed vehicles like the Flyer, DAGOR and so on will actually be a big step up from a Gwagon in terms of carriage, performance and lift capability, this is still not helpful if you really have no idea what you intend to do with them. I am also a big fan of economies of scale, so unless the niche is extremely important. then I would avoid micro fleets as much as possible, and seek out families of vehicles with modular capabilities.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
159
Points
780
Thucydides said:
What you are describing is the sort of gong show that we face; someone reads Jane's or some other catalogue and sees a shiny piece of kit. We want to buy it, but then we need to decide what to do with it. In my particular case, TAPV's were provisionally allocated to IA (since the Light Infantry Battalions could not use them), and this causes a huge dilemma: does IA need to use two TAPV's per team, since our doctrine calls for a 5 man team,

Since you love tangents it seems, do we just say screw IA and other such PY, equipment sucking uselessness that no one really cares about and put PYs back into things that actually matter and avoid the whole "5 man vs firepower team issue"? 
 
Top