Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[George Wallace]

You clearly haven't seen the size of some of our Bde staff, have you? 

Does this mean that all the trucks come with Hydraulic Lifts?

 

[Mountie]

According to the manufacturer's website, the Kerax has a 17-23 tonne payload capacity.  Is this not more like a HLVW replacement than an MLVW replacement?

I would have thought something like the Zetros 4x4 (5-tonne) and 6x6 (10-tonne) vehicles would have been suitable as a MLVW replacement with the Actos or Kerax in the 15+ tonne range replacing the HLVW.

 

[CBH99]

Thats a great thing.  Increased numbers of vehicles, and the vehicles themselves have the ability to carry more stuff than their predecessor.  Great increase in capability, feels so good to finally see this project come to fruition.

 

[Kirkhill]

According to the manufacturer's website, the Kerax has a 17-23 tonne payload capacity.  Is this not more like a HLVW replacement than an MLVW replacement?

I would have thought something like the Zetros 4x4 (5-tonne) and 6x6 (10-tonne) vehicles would have been suitable as a MLVW replacement with the Actos or Kerax in the 15+ tonne range replacing the HLVW.

Mountie - the Light Vehicle is targeted at the 3 tonne range.  That means that each LSVW will be replaced by a MLVW.  Just as in the civvy world Pickups have gone from 1/2 tonnes to 3 tonners capable of towing 7 tonnes on highways.  At that end of the spectrum 80 HP engines have been replaced by 200 HP ones.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Agreed.  If there's going to be 2800 of these guys then there should be no major issues.  It's the one offs and small mixed equipments that are a pain.

At a fleet level yes this is true, but at the tactical level, it would be much better to have an entire fleet based off one OEM, with common parts across light, medium and heavy trucks.  As it is right now, I at 1VP have 7 Seacans of parts to support 15 days for a mobile mech inf Bn.  If I can reduce that by even 33% due to common parts, that is two less seacans I have to move on low beds or PLS forward.  And likely 5000 line items gone.  Repeat this across all first line units....it is not insignificant...

 

[Mountie]

I get that Kirkhill.  But isn't that a huge gap in capability between 3 and 17 tonnes?  So if there is a 4-tonne load, a 17-tonne truck is the only option?

The attached powerpoint, Canadian Army Support Vehicles (2012), shows that the MSVS was to be in the 8-10 tonne range and the LVM-Heady was to be at the 16 tonne capacity.  The KERAX MSVS actually surpasses the LVM-Heavy goal.  That's all I'm saying.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012tactical/poulter.pdf

Looking at our allies they all have several vehicles in between that range: 
USMC has the 7-ton MTVR then the 15-ton LSVR
US Army has the 5-ton FMTV, the 10-ton HEMMT 8x8 and then the 16-ton HEMTT 10x10
UK, Australia, New Zealand and several other armies have the MAN Support Vehicle family with the 6-ton 4x4, 9-ton 6x6 and 15-ton 8x8

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the 4x4 9.6 tonne version of the KERAX as the MSVS and then the 8x8 17-23 tonne version as the HSVS or LVM-Heavy (HLVW replacement)?  What I'm getting at is if the MSVS is a 17-23 tonne vehicle, what is the LVM-Heavy going to be?

 

[Kirkhill]

I think (I don't know, I'm guessing/surmising) that the real driving force is not so much mass but volume, although mass probably plays a role.

17 tonnes over the road payload can quickly become 8.5 tonnes cross country.  That is what happened with the 5 tonne Deuce and a Half (MLVW).

But more critical is the move from break-bulk loads to palletized and containerized loads.  ISO Seacans are rarely maxed out on weight.  They routinely bulk out on volume.  These trucks appear to be built around the concept of transporting 20 foot Seacans, for more efficient material handling.  A 20 footer can weigh up to 24 tonnes fully loaded with a 21.6 tonne payload.  But it is not unusual for them to be less than half full.  The remainder of the volume is taken up with air due to low bulk density (grains), packaged goods (shoes in cartons), irregularly shaped items (cars/bikes/atvs/industrial plant).

The truck becomes a less efficient transporter of mass but the material handling conveyor from warehouse to point of use becomes more efficient because of less manual labour at transit points.

Another point (again I would guess, I don't know) is that the CF is so far behind the curve in terms of transport it could actually end up ahead of the curve.  A lot of the smaller trucks you mentioned are having their capacity eaten up by armour (which also reduces cross country capability).  That contributes to needing 3 tonners when 5/4s used to get the job done.

Because Canada effectively has nothing it is not lumbered with equipment purchased based on 15 year old decisions - pre Iraq.  One way of tackling its problems is to fix the middle of the bell curve with Medium vehicles, determine what they can do, and then adjust the tails of the curve with the LVM Light and LVM Heavy projects.

 

[George Wallace]

At a fleet level yes this is true, but at the tactical level, it would be much better to have an entire fleet based off one OEM, with common parts across light, medium and heavy trucks.  As it is right now, I at 1VP have 7 Seacans of parts to support 15 days for a mobile mech inf Bn.  If I can reduce that by even 33% due to common parts, that is two less seacans I have to move on low beds or PLS forward.  And likely 5000 line items gone.  Repeat this across all first line units....it is not insignificant...

Tactical vehicles are one thing.  Support vehicles are another.  F Ech of a Cbt Arms unit would have no issues here.  A and B Ech of a Cbt Arms unit would only need to have the minimum of parts to provide support, then everything else should be passed to the Rear and 2nd Line Repairs/Recovery.  Sounds almost like you are carrying everything that 3rd Line would carry, which is not necessary.

 

[McG]

Is 2760 the number of MLVW in service now, or the number two years ago before we divested half the B fleet because we could not sustain it?

I understood the project was buying a truck twice as big with the intent of providing only slightly better than 1:2.

 

[Kirkhill]

According to Poulter 2012, 2760 was the size of the fleet.

Military Today says that Bombardier built over 2700.

The MLVW or Medium Logistics Vehicle Wheeled is in service with Canadian armed forces. It is based on the obsolete US M35 cargo truck design, dated back to 1950s, however Canadian version includes many modifications. The MLVW entered service in 1982. Over 2 700 of these trucks had been license-produced by Bombardier.

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/mlvw.htm

It would suggest to me that you had over 2700 on charge with considerably fewer than that as runners.

You now have, or will have 2700 vehicles that can lift as much as the HLVWs  while still retaining the HLVW fleet.  Half of the MSVS project seems to be at least as capable as the 1200 or so HLVWs on charge.

 

[cupper]

At a fleet level yes this is true, but at the tactical level, it would be much better to have an entire fleet based off one OEM, with common parts across light, medium and heavy trucks.  As it is right now, I at 1VP have 7 Seacans of parts to support 15 days for a mobile mech inf Bn.  If I can reduce that by even 33% due to common parts, that is two less seacans I have to move on low beds or PLS forward.  And likely 5000 line items gone.  Repeat this across all first line units....it is not insignificant...

Not to mention it makes it more difficult to scavenge parts from other disabled vehicles when you have several different vehicle platforms.

 

[George Wallace]

Not to mention it makes it more difficult to scavenge parts from other disabled vehicles when you have several different vehicle platforms.

Not many parts on an AFV that will be useful to a B Veh.

 

[cupper]

Not many parts on an AFV that will be useful to a B Veh.

True, but that's not the point, is it.

 

[George Wallace]

True, but that's not the point, is it.

Point is:  Cbt Arms units don't need to carry enough spare parts to fix every conceivable problem.  That is what Svc Bn is for.

 

[cupper]

Point is:  Cbt Arms units don't need to carry enough spare parts to fix every conceivable problem.  That is what Svc Bn is for.

Right. I got that. But only you combat arms guys would try to take parts off an MLVW in hopes of repairing your Leo.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Right. I got that. But only you combat arms guys would try to take parts off an MLVW in hopes of repairing your Leo.

.........and with gun tape and WD40 we have the ingenuity to make it happen

 

[cupper]

.........and with gun tape and WD40 we have the ingenuity to make it happen

Red Green would be proud ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

1500 MSVS SMP + 1300 MSVS MilCOTS = 2800 trucks.

That is slightly more than the size of the MLVW fleet. (The .pdf said we had 2760 MLs)

Plus, the new trucks have a greater payload and may have a larger bed. So we will have more trucks that can each carry more.

The MSVS the Pres has is too high, and cannot go off road. For all intents and purposes it's a farm truck with
OD paint. But it's got a CD player and cup holders.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Tactical vehicles are one thing.  Support vehicles are another.  F Ech of a Cbt Arms unit would have no issues here.  A and B Ech of a Cbt Arms unit would only need to have the minimum of parts to provide support, then everything else should be passed to the Rear and 2nd Line Repairs/Recovery.  Sounds almost like you are carrying everything that 3rd Line would carry, which is not necessary.

Not at all, like I indicated I am carrying 15 days of 1st line parts for 200 A and B vehicles, exactly as I am suppose to by doctrine.  The fact that it takes 7 seacans is because of the amount of different platforms I have to support...  There is a CFTO called a Permissive Repair Schedule that actually tells us what is a first and second line repair, and by extension what parts are held by a SPSS as apposed to RPPL and EMAS at a service battalion.

 

[George Wallace]

Not at all, like I indicated I am carrying 15 days of 1st line parts for 200 A and B vehicles, exactly as I am suppose to by doctrine.  The fact that it takes 7 seacans is because of the amount of different platforms I have to support...  There is a CFTO called a Permissive Repair Schedule that actually tells us what is a first and second line repair, and by extension what parts are held by a SPSS as apposed to RPPL and EMAS at a service battalion.

Thank you for the clarification. 

Still, the amount of seacans you require, although it will increase due to the different types of equipment we use; it would also increase if we had only one 'brand name' of equipment due to the increasing complexity of the equipment as technology advances.  Look at the Jeeps of the '60's and the simplicity of their construction, and then compare them to the complex automotive designs of today.  In some cases you have to be a computer technician to keep a vehicle on the road today. 
In that, I can see your argument to look at one 'family' or 'brand name' for parts.  Much like the MAN tank transporter was supposed to have had a powerpack that could be placed in a Leo 1 tank, and the road wheels for the Marder were the same as those of the Leo 1.  Question then would be: could the current contract winner provide those transferable parts to all the different fleets being replaced?  Do we have to make it one contract; specifying that the winning tender is able to produce all Light, Medium, Heavy and Specialized fleets capable of having interchangeable common components when we tender future purchases?