Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[McG]

George,
You are arguing with a SME in his lane.  I have worked in that lane enough to have seen that he is right while you are grasping at straws.

The problem is not new equipment; the problem is micro-fleets with no economy of scale.

 

[George Wallace]

I do see his points, as well as yours with micro fleets; as we can see the specialized IED equipment that we had for Afghanistan being sold off, as it is too expensive to maintain otherwise.  Just wondering about those that are not 'micro fleets'; do we need to combine all our future procurement's, of Light, Medium, Heavy and Specialty wheeled lift, to one tender?  Is that the solution? 
If I recall correctly, using the German Army as an example, that is fairly much what they have done; as have most of the European militaries. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Is there a compromise possible?

I doubt if it is possible to eliminate specialized vehicles, like the poor I think they are always likely to be with us.  On the other hand, perhaps, putting the micro-fleets under one management team, does that make sense?  Then, at least, the manager(s) are aware of, and potentially, equipped to handle the special challenges associated with them?

I'm thinking of Engineering Heavy Equipment, Tanks, Marginal Terrain Vehicles, Bisons, things of that sort.

WRT the mainstay vehicles: LAVs, TAPVs, LUVWs, LSVWs, MSVSs, HLVWs, those can perhaps be managed as the fleets they are.



On another point - just going over Poulter again - I think that the LVW-Light programme, with its CLSV, or Combat Logistic Support Vehicle, has the potential to answer both Hamish's and Mountie's concern about the need for smaller more flexible vehicles.

Combat Logistics Support Vehicle (CLSV) - Slide 13
• SEV Direction: The same shelter system will fit on both CLSV SMP and
MilCOTS
• Variants: Min:5 Max:59 (including ambulance, cargo, office/command
post)
• Expeditionary (SMP)
 Protected
 Non-Protected
 JP 8 Fuel
 2.2-3.5 Tonnes
 Improved medium mobility
 C-130
• Domestic Trucks (MilCOTS)
 2.2-3.5 Tonnes
 Medium mobility
 Rail transportation

I wonder, given that the LVW project is an umbrella project for, essentially, four separate vehicles (LVM-L MilCOTs, LVM-L SMP, LVM-H MilCOTs, LVM-H SMP) does that mean that the budget can be moved around as the focus of the effort changes?

If, for example, as Mountie suggests, the MSVS SMP does cover the turf originally planned as a LVM-H SMP requirement, as well as the MSVS turf, could that LVM-H budget be shunted to the other end of the spectrum to increase the buy of LVM-Ls? 

 

[George Wallace]

Is there a compromise possible?

I doubt if it is possible to eliminate specialized vehicles, like the poor I think they are always likely to be with us.  On the other hand, perhaps, putting the micro-fleets under one management team, does that make sense?  Then, at least, the manager(s) are aware of, and potentially, equipped to handle the special challenges associated with them?

This brings me back to the UNIMOG.  The UNIMOG is designed in a way to make it a very versatile and adaptable vehicle.  The common frame can add attachments to its PTO that fill a multitude of functions.  That being the case; do you need a Specialized vehicle, or just a common vehicle that can accept attachments to fulfill specialized functions?

 

[GnyHwy]

We need a common vehicle that can accept mods.

 

[Kirkhill]

We need a common vehicle that can accept mods.

Hmm - A Single-Sourced Terrestrial F-35 then?  >

 

[Old EO Tech]

Is there a compromise possible?

I doubt if it is possible to eliminate specialized vehicles, like the poor I think they are always likely to be with us.  On the other hand, perhaps, putting the micro-fleets under one management team, does that make sense?  Then, at least, the manager(s) are aware of, and potentially, equipped to handle the special challenges associated with them?

I'm thinking of Engineering Heavy Equipment, Tanks, Marginal Terrain Vehicles, Bisons, things of that sort.

WRT the mainstay vehicles: LAVs, TAPVs, LUVWs, LSVWs, MSVSs, HLVWs, those can perhaps be managed as the fleets they are.



On another point - just going over Poulter again - I think that the LVW-Light programme, with its CLSV, or Combat Logistic Support Vehicle, has the potential to answer both Hamish's and Mountie's concern about the need for smaller more flexible vehicles.

I wonder, given that the LVW project is an umbrella project for, essentially, four separate vehicles (LVM-L MilCOTs, LVM-L SMP, LVM-H MilCOTs, LVM-H SMP) does that mean that the budget can be moved around as the focus of the effort changes?

If, for example, as Mountie suggests, the MSVS SMP does cover the turf originally planned as a LVM-H SMP requirement, as well as the MSVS turf, could that LVM-H budget be shunted to the other end of the spectrum to increase the buy of LVM-Ls?

I don't think there is a solution to specialized vehicles like the Combat Engineer stuff, I'd say the best way to manage that though would be to create a project to replace it all at once, to one OEM, and then use the TAPV model sustainment to ensure the contractor has to guarantee parts and tech support for the life of the family of vehicles.  This is costly up front but saves boat loads of money over the life of the vehicles when you now are trying to buy third party parts, or getting third party rebuild contracts for out of service fleet parts. Which is very costly.

As to the MSVS SMP covering off on the turf of the LVM-H, I'm not sure you could entirely do that, we do need a standard 16 ton heavy hauler in the fleet, maybe not 2000+ but enough of a need that would mean a major project of 500ish.  And for sure if we cut back on LVM-H it would certainly make sense to buy more MSVS SMP...especially since all our nice new and never used Seacan SEV kits need to be transported by the new Volvo/Mack trucks...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

Not any higher than the MAN trucks used by the West German army.

So does the MSVS buy preclude the need for commercial pattern trucks that each unit used to have to reduce wear and tear on the tactical vehicles or is the MSVS considered a tactical vehicle now?

 

[blackberet17]

We are doomed if the MSVS is to be considered "tactical"...

 

[KerryBlue]

I do see his points, as well as yours with micro fleets; as we can see the specialized IED equipment that we had for Afghanistan being sold off, as it is too expensive to maintain otherwise. 

Just out of curiosity are we selling of all of our IED equipment? Or are we keeping some vehicles (Buffalo, Cougar) for the C-IED Sqns, and selling off the rest?

 

[Kirkhill]

I suggest this is the purchase that demands the next consideration

Combat Logistics Support Vehicle (CLSV) - Slide 13

• SEV Direction: The same shelter system will fit on both CLSV SMP and
MilCOTS

• Variants: Min:5 Max:59 (including ambulance, cargo, office/command
post)

• Expeditionary (SMP)
 Protected
 Non-Protected
 JP 8 Fuel
 2.2-3.5 Tonnes
 Improved medium mobility (more off road than the MilCOTS?)
 C-130 (<2.74m high, <3.02m wide, < 16.9m long, <16,881 kg total weight)

Both something like the JLTV and the FMTV series of vehicles might fit into this category.....No?

• Domestic Trucks (MilCOTS)
No protection
Any fuel
 2.2-3.5 Tonnes
 Medium mobility (some off road?)
 Rail transportation (size is no object)

Something along the line of an F350 might/could meet the MilCOTS bill?

 

[Eland2]

I suggest this is the purchase that demands the next consideration

Combat Logistics Support Vehicle (CLSV) - Slide 13

• SEV Direction: The same shelter system will fit on both CLSV SMP and
MilCOTS

• Variants: Min:5 Max:59 (including ambulance, cargo, office/command
post)

• Expeditionary (SMP)
 Protected
 Non-Protected
 JP 8 Fuel
 2.2-3.5 Tonnes
 Improved medium mobility (more off road than the MilCOTS?)
 C-130 (<2.74m high, <3.02m wide, < 16.9m long, <16,881 kg total weight)

Both something like the JLTV and the FMTV series of vehicles might fit into this category.....No?

• Domestic Trucks (MilCOTS)
No protection
Any fuel
 2.2-3.5 Tonnes
 Medium mobility (some off road?)
 Rail transportation (size is no object)

Something along the line of an F350 might/could meet the MilCOTS bill?

Actually, the Ford F350 is the platform on which the Irish Army commissioned Ricardo to develop a special forces strike vehicle, so the F350 would probably fit the MilCOTS bill rather nicely. Plus, there are a number of civilian security companies that use the F350 as a platform for their armoured SUVs.

 

[cupper]

You could build the light fleet around the G-wagon with this being the upper scale

BBC's Top Gear did a test drive of the civilian version in 2014.

https://youtu.be/DrUVMdkb4_k

 

[dapaterson]

Oshkosh has successfully appealed the contract award. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160524006184/en/Canadian-International-Trade-Tribunal-Rules-Favor-Oshkosh

 

[QM]

My CO mentioned last week there's rumour/word of an off-the-shelf replacement coming for the G-Wagon, when it's time is up in 2017. Anyone have SA on it?

No, not really a replacement for the G Wagon, but the Army is spending millions on purely commercial vehicles this year and next (ie. F-250s) that will provide some relief for administrative light utility, be it LSVW or G Wagon, as well as 80 Ford Expeditions for use by the Reserve TBGs. But these are obviously not a green tactical vehicles; they will be right off the Ford production line, purely commercial. As well, various ATV are being bought commercially. The major crown projects, however, are at least a half decade away from delivering an SMP vehicle. The commercial buys are meant to be emergency mitigation of some (not all) of the B Fleet reduction. But not really a commercial G Wagon replacement. Emergency relief.

 

[QM]

BBC's Top Gear did a test drive of the civilian version in 2014.

https://youtu.be/DrUVMdkb4_k

Daimler could (could) bid this very same truck for LVM light however it is likely the 6x6 G Wagon would be operating at its very top load capacity when the heaviest of the new light modules (SEVs) are loaded onto it. That would not be a good thing.  Currently, Daimler is working on the Unimog as it's competitor for LVM Light, however we won't know what they choose to bid until the actual bid, in 2018 or 2019.

 

[QM]

Oshkosh has successfully appealed the contract award. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160524006184/en/Canadian-International-Trade-Tribunal-Rules-Favor-Oshkosh

The National Post story by Lee Berthiaume adds that the tribunal will not recommend cancellation of the Mack Defense contract (thus avoiding a decade of legal wrangling with no trucks delivered - whew).

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/taxpayers-could-be-on-hook-for-bill-after-trade-ruling-questions-834m-army-truck-contract

 

[Kirkhill]

Oshkosh alleged the department responsible for managing government purchases, Public Procurement Canada, had been unfair during design testing.

Wasn't the vehicle field testing done by this "independent" third party?

http://www.natc-ht.com/NATC_Overview.htm


And what happened to the "Fairness Monitor"?

 

[QM]

Wasn't the vehicle field testing done by this "independent" third party?

http://www.natc-ht.com/NATC_Overview.htm


And what happened to the "Fairness Monitor"?

No, the physical testing was run by PWGSC (now PSPC) at the NATC facility in Nevada. Concurrently to that, a paper evaluation was done by PWGSC in Ottawa, assessing other aspects of the bids.  But it was PWGSC doing the testing; NATC just provided the terrain, yes some data, some admin support.

The details of the ruling are not yet available so it's too early to say what happened.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks.