- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
Fair do's!
Still I would rather see Canadians spend money trying to do that with DAME/CATV vehicles than not doing anything at all.
Domestic and Arctic Mobility Enhancement Project
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
Fair do's!
Still I would rather see Canadians spend money trying to do that with DAME/CATV vehicles than not doing anything at all.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
I were wrong!
It wasn't 400 in the 1987 White Paper "Challenge and Commitment" The vehicles were designated Northern Terrain Vehicles and the White Paper called for 820 of them. The 1989 budget reduced the call to 400.
Perrin Beatty's Militia would have been equipped with 820 Bv206s and 200 Bisons. And the Militia (Army Reserves) would have comprised 65,000 at various stages of training and utility, with an additional body of Supplementary List Reservists of around 25,000.
By my reckoning 820 would have put 4 on each armoury floor and still left a bunch over for training centres and northern deployments.
It wasn't 400 in the 1987 White Paper "Challenge and Commitment" The vehicles were designated Northern Terrain Vehicles and the White Paper called for 820 of them. The 1989 budget reduced the call to 400.
Perrin Beatty's Militia would have been equipped with 820 Bv206s and 200 Bisons. And the Militia (Army Reserves) would have comprised 65,000 at various stages of training and utility, with an additional body of Supplementary List Reservists of around 25,000.
By my reckoning 820 would have put 4 on each armoury floor and still left a bunch over for training centres and northern deployments.
- Reaction score
- 1,401
- Points
- 1,160
Oh, you are so correct.
Never saw a Bison.
Never saw a Bison.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,224
- Points
- 1,160
I had limited experience with them but thought they were a pretty good, classic, APC. Kind of like a Western BTR 60.
Lots of room, good mobility, easy to drive (I think), and less to maintain as there wasn't a turret or any other fancy doo dads....
Infantry proof, in other words
- Reaction score
- 21,948
- Points
- 1,260
I did.
In 1 CMBG…
1 VP had some
Field Amb had some
Engineers had some
Everyone had them, except the Reserves.
We also had some BV’s
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 21,948
- Points
- 1,260
Yes and no, at the time the Regular Army needed them more than the reserves.It was to weep.
The problem occurred when no one cared to backfill the Reserves.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
Accepted.
Could have done with those 200 Bisons and 820 Bvs. Would have made a world of difference to the utility of the Reserves, both on the civil and military fronts.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
Maybe just some of the lighter, amphibious, LAV IIs that the USMC still seems to prefer. Without the turrets.
Kind of like the Bisons now I think about it? But with the double v hull?
“The system has to possess the size, weight and power to accommodate those systems and still stay within their vehicle cone index or their ground pressure. They want these systems to be under 18-and-a-half tons, and again, they want to fit four on a Ship-to-Shore Connector. The vehicle not only has to have outstanding land mobility, it has to swim in the ocean; it has to depart from connectors, and it has to transition through the surf zone.”
How about just keeping the GDLS line open churning out bare-bones Bison Ups for the Militia. If the regs want to claim some then drag them in like they did with the Bisons and convert to meet their needs. Just keep replacing them in the Reserves lines.
- Reaction score
- 21,948
- Points
- 1,260
The problem is Bare bones models are different, and actually add to the problem.
If your VTech’s, WTech’s and FCS Techs are used to working in LAV 6.0’s, a different vehicle won’t be easier.
Your just adding to the list of things to work on.
If your VTech’s, WTech’s and FCS Techs are used to working in LAV 6.0’s, a different vehicle won’t be easier.
Your just adding to the list of things to work on.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,224
- Points
- 1,160
The vehicle thing is a red herring.
The Militia doesn't need armoured vehicles, seriously. I was in a Militia unit that was equipped with Grizzlies... it was a waste of time and resources, for many different reasons. We need some reliable SMP troop carrying vehicles that don't have air brakes (see what I did there?
).The Militia needs a clear primary combat focused mission, that is properly led and supported at all levels and doesn't change/ get fuzzy every two years, along the lines of 'will augment the Reg F to level 3/4' (say twice). Then all current training and resources need to line up with that.
Right now we seem to be operating a patchwork of balkanized activities loosely connected to various different missions from 'do whatever you want' and 'keep the troops exited' to .....
.....'provide the combat support platoons for Reg F units' - soon to change by the way - and 'make sure you have a succession plan for the CBG HQs and 'Junior Generals' we need to play politics like the Regs.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
I agree the Militia doesn't need armoured vehicles. But if GDLS is going to be the lead supplier or vehicles to the CAF then the simplest vehicle in their production line is the LAV II. As I noted on the Force 2025 thread I would be thrilled if they created a GDLS Stollie. Rugged and amphibious but not armoured.
And I would be ecstatic if we had a thousand of those 10-12,000 unarmoured Bv206s that were sold around the world available in the Service Battalions.
And I would be ecstatic if we had a thousand of those 10-12,000 unarmoured Bv206s that were sold around the world available in the Service Battalions.
Prairie canuck
Member
- Reaction score
- 171
- Points
- 780
Our electrical utility operates transmission and distribution from Hudson Bay to the border with the US. The plant is situated in a wide variety of terrain and access to large parts of it is challenging to say the least. Almost exclusively the vehicles used to access the lines for maintenance and repair has for many years been Flextrac / Nowell / Foremost vehicles. I believe the latter is located in or near Calgary. There has on occasion been other "off-road" vehicles trialed. About 20 yrs ago the BV206 was one of those. After a full year and in all weather conditions it was returned to the vendor with a thanks, but no thanks. It's main fault was clearance. Deep snow or bog conditions often left the tracks high with no traction and there's only so many time the guys could drag a winch cable out where it wasn't fun any more. a more recent trial was the Sherp. Staff put the units through every bit of terrain and in all kinds of weather. It was a big success. Approved and purchased. They are limited to light equipment and personnel so the wide tracked crane and pole diggers remain essential.
To access this vast country it may be best to look at how local oil field / exploration / utility companies have dealt with working here and the solutions they have come up with. Money is a big motivator so the equipment they use must do the job.
To access this vast country it may be best to look at how local oil field / exploration / utility companies have dealt with working here and the solutions they have come up with. Money is a big motivator so the equipment they use must do the job.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,725
- Points
- 1,160
It seems that vehicles operating in deep snow or unfrozen tundra involves a lot of trade-offs, ultimately ending up being particularly specialized or the boy scout knife of vehicle; doing a number of things sort-of well but none of them really well. The Sherp seems capable, but slow and relatively small.
Even in exploration world, they typically have pre-determined destinations and wait until freeze-up and prepare the route with bulldozers. The 'rig-handling trucks, while very capable (powerful, good clearance, multi-wheel drive) don't operate on unprepared ground that I am aware of.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
I think though, that Prairie Canuck is offering you two choices:
You can go anywhere slowly.
Or you can go some places fast, weather permitting.
In deep snow, bush, muskeg or at spring break up nobody is going anywhere fast. As Vlad is finding out. Even in the prairies farmers have to pick their opportunities to get on the fields. A little bit after the frost starts coming out of the ground but before spring meltwater and rains turn the gumbo back in to the saltwater marsh it used to be.
Surface travel is likely going to be restricted to walking pace, or a little better, with the vehicles being used to transport heavy gear slowly.
If you want to move fast then you are going to have to leave the surface, either by aircraft or helicopter.
Or, along highways.
Which brings me to a direct question for Prairie Canuck. What is the primary means of transport for those Foremost vehicles? An F350 and a beavertail or a low-bed semi?
Prairie canuck
Member
- Reaction score
- 171
- Points
- 780
The Sherps are on 2 axle trailers with about a 10,000 lb maximum capacity so your example of an F350 is a minimum. The tracked digger/derricks come in various sizes with the lighter of them the same as the Sherp but as they progress in size the trailers and the towing vehicles do the same. Only the very largest (see Foremost site) require low beds. Both the Sherps and tracked vehicles operate in any condition and at any time of the year.
As for Speed the Sherps aren't snowmobile fast but do move along a a good clip. I would estimate that if it were configured properly you could reasonably expect to move 6 to 8 personnel with their gear 200 to 240 kms in an 8 hr day. The smaller tracked vehicles would be slower but of course could likely accommodate 8 to 10 personnel up to 150km in an 8 hr day. The large carriers or digger/derricks (use you imagination as to want you want to mount on them) would likely max out at 100km in an 8 hr day. These times and distance estimates are also based on a variety of terrains and weather. I have experience with the tracked vehicles but can only go by what present (younger) operators have shared about the Sherps.
Prairie canuck
Member
- Reaction score
- 171
- Points
- 780
As an example we've all seen how Russian vehicles are getting stuck when they try to "off road". I can testify that the Foremost tracked vehicles will traverse those same areas without any problems. Wide tracked vehicles are built for that and can even be specified to float. (we had a couple that actually had mounts for boat motors on the back) I'm in no way suggesting that any Foremost type vehicles be used in those combat conditions but in the north of our fair land with the snow and muskeg they will get you and a considerable amount of material and weapons to where you want to go, albeit at a slower pace. If you need to get somewhere faster then you'll have to send the Skidoo Skandics ahead while the Foremost follow along later. Obviously the CAF would have to work with Foremost to see if and what mods can be done.
Side note: if there's an outage these vehicles must and have responded at any time of the year.
Just more information to store way back in the corner of your brains..
Side note: if there's an outage these vehicles must and have responded at any time of the year.
Just more information to store way back in the corner of your brains..
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,634
- Points
- 960
That would certainly be close I was a security guard at Mb. Hydro during that period . I can remember seeing the 206 and a Pickup on Mattracks . And of course the The Foremost. As well a variety of various oversnow vehicles.
Btw . The 206's were Former RM issue and gasoline powered.
Similar threads
