Domestic and Arctic Mobility Enhancement Project

[lenaitch]

https://www.foremost.ca/foremost-mobile-equipment/tracked-vehicles/nodwell-110/

I would talk to these guys and have them build us something that has been used across a wide range of terrain and Canadian made.

I suppose they are free to bid when (if?) the RFP comes out. Or do we want to sole source simply because they are Canadian. We don't have a great track record with that. The might make fine equipment but I checked their website and didn't see any that looked like we'd probably be after (two articulating enclosed units in several variants).

Maybe they could do a cool graphic like Bombardier did for their LRP whining.

 

[Furniture]

I suppose they are free to bid when (if?) the RFP comes out. Or do we want to sole source simply because they are Canadian. We don't have a great track record with that. The might make fine equipment but I checked their website and didn't see any that looked like we'd probably be after (two articulating enclosed units in several variants).

Maybe they could do a cool graphic like Bombardier did for their LRP whining.

Why is there a need for two articulating units? My understanding is the BV was designed that way to provide the required payload at the required ground pressure. If another company can meet the requirements in a different way we shouldn't exclude them...

SORs that include things like "two articulating enclosed units" are how our process gets bogged down in legal fights. Say what you need a machine to do, and then let the designers come up with a way to meet the requirements.

That said, Foremost already makes an articulated cargo carrier.

https://www.foremost.ca/foremost-mobile-equipment/tracked-vehicles/chieftain-r/

I'm not saying sole source a system, but I am saying don't discount a known/well established Canadian brand just because the US military went a different route.

Lastly, why would a domestic manufacturer be a problem for supply chain/support when the vehicle is intended for domestic and arctic(also domestic largely) use?

 

[childs56]

I suppose they are free to bid when (if?) the RFP comes out. Or do we want to sole source simply because they are Canadian. We don't have a great track record with that. The might make fine equipment but I checked their website and didn't see any that looked like we'd probably be after (two articulating enclosed units in several variants).

If we look at the deal do we pay an American Company to supply us with a third party system. Or do we pay to have a experienced Canadian company to provide the same system.

Maybe they could do a cool graphic like Bombardier did for their LRP whining.

I am pretty sure Formost does not need the business. They have great knowledge in the area of expertise, are Canadian, provide Canadian jobs and build a quality product.

 

[quadrapiper]

Why is there a need for two articulating units? My understanding is the BV was designed that way to provide the required payload at the required ground pressure. If another company can meet the requirements in a different way we shouldn't exclude them...

SORs that include things like "two articulating enclosed units" are how our process gets bogged down in legal fights. Say what you need a machine to do, and then let the designers come up with a way to meet the requirements.

That said, Foremost already makes an articulated cargo carrier.

https://www.foremost.ca/foremost-mobile-equipment/tracked-vehicles/chieftain-r/

I'm not saying sole source a system, but I am saying don't discount a known/well established Canadian brand just because the US military went a different route.

Lastly, why would a domestic manufacturer be a problem for supply chain/support when the vehicle is intended for domestic and arctic(also domestic largely) use?

Something to be said for using whatever industry uses in the Canadian Arctic, unless there's a compelling reason not to.

US military options are great if something's routinely going to be slotted on to their supply chain or otherwise be operating in the Canadian south. Might be inadvisable if you're looking at something being maintained in remote areas: being able to purchase parts from civilian sources in the North seems helpful.

 

[CBH99]

I like your enthusiasm Childs56, I truly do. And I agree with you in the sense that if the equipment can be procured from a solid, well experienced Canadian firm than we should do just that.

If the product quality is solid, we should buy Canadian when possible.



That being said, I find myself having to agree with KevinB on this one.

Unless we are going to buy a large enough number to really inject some vigor into Canadian industry, it may make more sense to buy the license-built American product.

Delivery times would be much faster, the supply chain for spare parts more robust, and service support from commercial entities more available.




If we were going to buy 400 to 1000 of the vehicle, that may change things. But if we going to buying a fairly small fleet of 100 vehicles, it may just make sense to order from the same product line the yanks do...

The interoperability aspect of this particular project is moot. Radios that can talk to each other can be installed in whatever vehicle model gets chosen.

 

[suffolkowner]

Im coming around to the foremost idea unless we need an armoured version and even then

 

[daftandbarmy]

Im coming around to the foremost idea unless we need an armoured version and even then

The Royal Marines fielded an armoured version of the BV 206 in AFG, which is now part of their Brigade's Armoured Support Group:

RMASG is under the overall control of 539 Assault Squadron Royal Marines and is the armoured element of 3 Commando Brigade, equipped with the Viking armoured vehicle.[8] The Viking[9] BvS10 All Terrain Vehicle, is a protected tracked vehicle, which can be configured for troop transport, command and control and other tasks.

Royal Marines Armoured Support Group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Meanwhile:

Royal Marines are getting new amphibious vehicles for combat across the Arctic, desert and mountains after a £140m international agreement was made.​

The UK’s Commando Forces will receive 60 of the Future All-Terrain Vehicles (FATVs) from 2025 to replace its current fleet of Vikings and the older Bv 206 – which has been an icon of Arctic deployments for years.

These new vehicles are an evolution of the current Vikings with better amphibious swimming capability and lift capacity with models for troop transport, logistics (which can carry six tonnes of equipment), medical evacuation, recovery, and command and control.

Royal Marines to get new amphibious vehicles in £140m deal

The Royal Marines are one of the world’s most respected – and feared – commando forces. Find out what’s behind the iconic Green Beret.

www.royalnavy.mod.uk

 

[CBH99]

Im coming around to the foremost idea unless we need an armoured version and even then

Maybe I'm wrong...but...I feel as if we are all low key, subconsciously scared we'll get another LSVW quality product from another Navistar type company, and have to keep it in service for decades when in fact the product never should have been accepted by the CAF in the first place.

Such a piece of junk even as it came off the assembly line. How they are still in service genuinely boggles my mind...they felt like they were going to fall apart (or explode) even when they were brand new.

But just because we all have collective PTS courtesy of Navistar, doesn't mean we should project that experience onto future vendors.



So in looking at Foremost more closely...

- Do we plan on deploying this vehicle anywhere outside of Canada? (That's a key question we need to know the answer to, as it pertains to possible need to add bolt on armour & weapons, more robust comms/IFF, etc)

- Do they currently have a COTS product that is similar to what the military was thinking of for this project?

- Do any of those COTS meet the performance requirements as set out in the project?

- Can any of them be easily modified to eet those requirements?

- What is the cost of sole sourcing it to a firm like Foremost compared to holding a standard competition? What in service support contract can be negotiated? Can we purchase them in batches, with each subsequent batch being slightly different based on user feedback?


These are all questions that could be answered within an hour once inquiries start going out & the competition draws closer.

Going the American route does tend to come with an abundance of spare parts and more reliable supply chains, plus assistance with maintenance if deployed on the same operation...but we first need to know whether or not we intend to deploy them outside of Canada.

 

[Aper]

I think Canada should focus on having more operational vehicles that will only operate inside it's borders. And it's about time they should consider having American builders like Oshkosh when it comes to allowing contracts for renewing fleets of Medium or Heavy vehicles.

I solely believe that Canada today is more of a support Army than a fully-independant running one.

 

[captloadie]

We have procured Foremost vehicles in the past, and there were the usual same two opposing views. The drivers thought they were a decent bit of kit, when used within their capabilities. The Maint folks didn't like them, as the maintenance on them was more difficult than just pulling parts and replacing them.

The reasons for an articulating vehicle is simple. Given areas and conditions they are expected to work in, the vehicles are susceptible to beaching on high banks (snow or mud). Having a point that allows bending in the middle, and a powered rear track system helps get out of these situations. While the Chieftain is a great piece of kit, it is way to large for the needs of the CAF.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Both sides of the argument have merit, which is why I suggested that we do both. The Canadian product is more like a Milcot for the Arctic and since the company is not created/dependent on military contracts, small buys every year for the next few years will give us a decently sized fleet of Arctic capable vehicles. The armoured military vehicles will be the frontline vehicles the Canadian ones can be the logistical support one.

 

[CBH99]

I think Canada should focus on having more operational vehicles that will only operate inside it's borders. And it's about time they should consider having American builders like Oshkosh when it comes to allowing contracts for renewing fleets of Medium or Heavy vehicles.

I solely believe that Canada today is more of a support Army than a fully-independant running one.

I agree.

Having a more robust fleet of Milcots or even just some green painted COTS vehicles to be used domestically makes a lot of sense.

No need to be racking up the mileage on the more expensive purely military vehicles.

(Cube vans at the unit level & the odd grey pickup doesnt quite count either.)

Do we still have that fleet of dark navy blue SUV's for domestic ops, aka driving a few guys from Unit A to help Unit B with a ComRel tasking?

(I saw like 6 of them lined up, all with their extra antennae installed, and it actually looked way cooler than it should have...)



(I'd actually be totally in support of having an Op Lentus vehicle pool (or smaller pools if distributed between the provinces) of Milcot vehicles to be used primarily for Op Lentus taskings, and the odd one lent out to a unit needing it for a training ex)

(If we have a reasonable expectation to be assisting with fighting forest fires every summer, assisting with floods every spring, etc - having a larger pool of vehicles purely for domestic ops makes a lot of sense...)


_________________________________


I think that was the idea when the MSVS was chosen. The MSVS is supposed to be primarily for domestic operations, and a SMP truck procured for deployed operations.

The problem ended up being that the deployable SMP vehicle was supposed to be ordered shortly afterwards & come online around the same timeframe - but it wasn't ordered shortly after like the initial plan had called for.



The MSVS has been doing a great job domestically, and is far more capable than the MLVW it replaced.

But the SMP vehicle fleet that was supposed to come online with it instead was just ordered a few weeks ago, with a finalized contract to be released to the public soon.




I could very well be wrong about the above. About a decade ago I had followed the project quite closely, and I'm pretty sure that was the plan...but that was a decade ago & my mind has wondered elsewhere since then, so there's a good chance I may have some details wrong

 

[Aper]

Are the MSVS equipped with the DPF / DEF crap ?

 

[suffolkowner]

Maybe I'm wrong...but...I feel as if we are all low key, subconsciously scared we'll get another LSVW quality product from another Navistar type company, and have to keep it in service for decades when in fact the product never should have been accepted by the CAF in the first place.

Such a piece of junk even as it came off the assembly line. How they are still in service genuinely boggles my mind...they felt like they were going to fall apart (or explode) even when they were brand new.

But just because we all have collective PTS courtesy of Navistar, doesn't mean we should project that experience onto future vendors.



So in looking at Foremost more closely...

- Do we plan on deploying this vehicle anywhere outside of Canada? (That's a key question we need to know the answer to, as it pertains to possible need to add bolt on armour & weapons, more robust comms/IFF, etc)

- Do they currently have a COTS product that is similar to what the military was thinking of for this project?

- Do any of those COTS meet the performance requirements as set out in the project?

- Can any of them be easily modified to eet those requirements?

- What is the cost of sole sourcing it to a firm like Foremost compared to holding a standard competition? What in service support contract can be negotiated? Can we purchase them in batches, with each subsequent batch being slightly different based on user feedback?


These are all questions that could be answered within an hour once inquiries start going out & the competition draws closer.

Going the American route does tend to come with an abundance of spare parts and more reliable supply chains, plus assistance with maintenance if deployed on the same operation...but we first need to know whether or not we intend to deploy them outside of Canada.

We should have a competition. Whether it actually determines the best outcome is debatable.

We have procured Foremost vehicles in the past, and there were the usual same two opposing views. The drivers thought they were a decent bit of kit, when used within their capabilities. The Maint folks didn't like them, as the maintenance on them was more difficult than just pulling parts and replacing them.

The reasons for an articulating vehicle is simple. Given areas and conditions they are expected to work in, the vehicles are susceptible to beaching on high banks (snow or mud). Having a point that allows bending in the middle, and a powered rear track system helps get out of these situations. While the Chieftain is a great piece of kit, it is way to large for the needs of the CAF.

The maintenance issues were in comparison to a BV206?

 

[lenaitch]

I assumed articulation because I thought that was the standard, if not configure it as they will to satisfy the specs.

Buying what the US does has much merit, but I'm not completely married to it. If Foremost, Oshkosh or Mattel have a product that meets the specs, they can put it forward for testing. The military is little different than any other government department in the sense that it is not that great in articulating what it really wants out of a piece of kit (maybe that's TB's fault, IDK) but buying something that meets the specs only to find out we want more or different has become a Canadian tradition, and the change orders, along with a small run, are the things that drives the price into the stratosphere.

If it has become public knowledge that the hunt is on for over-snow transport, then any of the companies can set their design teams into action. Having the government go to a Canadian company simply because they are a Canadian company (for now - we also have a history of that) that makes a related product is no guarantee that we will get what is needed (for the next 50 years).

The concept of domestic kit vs 'deployable kit' makes a lot of assumptions for a military our size. When the balloons go up, I imagine kit will be kit.

 

[suffolkowner]

List of equipment of the Canadian Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

this older article suggests that we are not looking to deployed solution

Canadian Army Today - Issue 3

publications.canadianarmytoday.com

 

[KevinB]

The concept of domestic kit vs 'deployable kit' makes a lot of assumptions for a military our size. When the balloons go up, I imagine kit will be kit.

110%

A good example of a reasonable CAF domestic use vehicle to me is a civilian bus painted in CAF livery.

While I agree that Armor would not likely be needed for most of the Domestic Requirements, the characteristics of the vehicles change significantly when adding armor packages, and I'd rather the drivers etc be used to using an Armored platform than having to learn it in theatre.

Frankly the CA could probably use 2k of the systems, and justify a made in Canada solution, but the CAF being the CAF won't get enough, and if the fleet was split into SMP versus "other" one will endue as an orphan.

No I also don't agree with getting a lesser vehicle for the reserves, as that simply puts the second class soldier aspect to the forefront again.

 

[Aper]

While I agree that Armor would not likely be needed for most of the Domestic Requirements, the characteristics of the vehicles change significantly when adding armor packages, and I'd rather the drivers etc be used to using an Armored platform than having to learn it in theatre.

A very good example was our Coyotes back in Afghanistan. It was not an armoured vehicle designed for such arid regions, plus with all the extra add-on armor we had, the Detroit engine we had was pushed to it's maximum capacity, which resulted in a lot of failures that could've been far worse in term of being vulnerable to attacks.

 

[OldSolduer]

A very good example was our Coyotes back in Afghanistan. It was not an armoured vehicle designed for such arid regions, plus with all the extra add-on armor we had, the Detroit engine we had was pushed to it's maximum capacity, which resulted in a lot of failures that could've been far worse in term of being vulnerable to attacks.

I've said for years that adding armor is a strain on the engine and the drive train. Tires are stressed and so is the suspension.

WHY we continue to do this is beyond me...

 

[Aper]

I've said for years that adding armor is a strain on the engine and the drive train. Tires are stressed and so is the suspension.

WHY we continue to do this is beyond me...

This is why;