Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[PuckChaser]

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

One article I saw said the decision points from the Tribunal will be released tomorrow. Be interesting to read to see who screwed this up so badly.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://army.ca/forums/threads/118377/post-1438406.html#msg1438406

Just saw Colin's post about the AHSVS roadworthiness in Alberta.  (see link above)

Got me to thinking about the current state of play wrt autonomous vehicles and came across this article from April 7, 2016:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/118377/post-1438406.html#msg1438406

A caravan of about a dozen self-driving, semi-trailer trucks for the first time finished a trip across parts of Europe this week.

The autonomous truck challenge was organized by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and included rigs from six manufacturers, including Volvo, Daimler and Volkswagen subsidiary Scania. The convoy journeyed from manufacturing facilities in Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Sweden to the port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

A Scania semi-trailer traveled the longest distance -- more than 2,000 miles and across four national borders. The network of authorities involved in the pilot project included federal governments, roadway authorities and consumer groups from six nations.

I can imagine the next thing is a packet of 8x8 straight frames (no cabs) playing follow the leader with a pair of TAPVs acting as shepherds.  Only 4 to 6 bodies at risk.

 

[Happy Guy]

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.

Admittedly I've last worked at DGLPEM about 10 years ago and my knowledge maybe dated, but this statement that PSPC (PWGSC) runs physical testing seems incorrect to me.  While PSPC is the Contracting Authority it is not in charge of the trials, that should be the Project Manager (DGLEPM) in collaboration with the Project Director (DLR).

The bid evaluation, of which any physical testing is a part of, is overseen by PSPC but the bid methodology is primarily written by the Project Director and Manager.  The scoring of the bids is primarily by the Project Director and Manager.  PSPC is there to make sure that everything has conducted fairly and everything is transparent to the bidders.  PSPC awards the contract but this is based on the work by the Project Director and Manager.

 

[QM]

Admittedly I've last worked at DGLPEM about 10 years ago and my knowledge maybe dated, but this statement that PSPC (PWGSC) runs physical testing seems incorrect to me.  While PSPC is the Contracting Authority it is not in charge of the trials, that should be the Project Manager (DGLEPM) in collaboration with the Project Director (DLR).

The bid evaluation, of which any physical testing is a part of, is overseen by PSPC but the bid methodology is primarily written by the Project Director and Manager.  The scoring of the bids is primarily by the Project Director and Manager.  PSPC is there to make sure that everything has conducted fairly and everything is transparent to the bidders.  PSPC awards the contract but this is based on the work by the Project Director and Manager.

Yes and no. It can seem that the PD is running the trial, but if he is he is reporting to PSPC not to the PM or anyone else in DND. The PM and PD (DND, in other words) are only the technical SME. The trials are run by PSPC, for PSPC, with heavy assistance from DND and the former Industry Canada, since they are the experts in those elements of the bid eval. The industrial benefits SME is the former Industry Canada (now Innovation, Science and Economic Development), and PSPC is the SME on procurement strategy and price. While the PD and PM are the technical experts, setting the technical standards and providing SME input to the bid methodology, it is PSPC leadership that gets to approve that methodology, then roll it into the approved methodology on industrial benefits, plus the price, ISS and contracting (again, all approved by PSPC).

Then PSPC runs the eval. Indeed they are heavily reliant on DND and IC expertise, because PSPC staff are not technical experts, but it is PSPC at the helm, with the Fairness Monitor ensuring transparency, as you and another poster have mentioned. Once the eval starts, DND is there, monitoring, advocating for common sense when required, providing a fair bit of horsepower to the activity, often chairing meetings by default (since the PD and PM are the ones with the vested interest in seeing things done right). But its a PSPC show, and their responsibility to select the winning bid based on PSPC-approved methodology. They then guard the identity of the winner with their lives except for a very very small number of DND/IC personnel who need to write paragraphs for the contract acceptance.

If DND were left to it's own devices, the entire eval process would be much simpler and more common-sense oriented. But, arguably, that would open us up to even more challenges. PSPC is anal, but their analness is aimed at preventing challenges or winning them when they arise. Its truly shocking that CITT was able to find cracks in the PSPC zero-risk armour (although on a 450 page RFP, I guess there is ample opportunity for something to have been messed up).

 

[QM]

It can also be that the PD and PM have the stronger personalities on the team, as compared to the PW guys, so they look as though they are the ones in charge.  They deliver the update and summary briefings, etc. that anyone in DND would see.

 

[daftandbarmy]

http://army.ca/forums/threads/118377/post-1438406.html#msg1438406

Just saw Colin's post about the AHSVS roadworthiness in Alberta.  (see link above)

Got me to thinking about the current state of play wrt autonomous vehicles and came across this article from April 7, 2016:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/118377/post-1438406.html#msg1438406

I can imagine the next thing is a packet of 8x8 straight frames (no cabs) playing follow the leader with a pair of TAPVs acting as shepherds.  Only 4 to 6 bodies at risk.

That route pretty much describes the most likely axis of the Russian Army during their next invasion now that those silly Scandahoovians have built a vehicle/ train connection between Denmark and Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98resund_Bridge

 

[Kirkhill]

Scandahoovians?  I haven't heard that since I moved up to the prairies in 1980.  ;D

Interesting point about the Russian route though.  Perhaps a new selling point for getting NATO assistance to Scandahoovia.  Fustest with the Mostest.

By the way, the trip from Copenhagen to Antwerp was about 7 hours with 1 hour being spent at the Danish-German border.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting concept/toy

https://youtu.be/Fm8J9-x1vSE
https://youtu.be/7hMSeOhC3Aw

http://trucktracks.com/en/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yea I wonder how they perform vs Keltracs, I suspct you might get some friction losses there.

 

[Kirkhill]

Friction losses - seen and agreed

Keltracs?  - googlefu fails me.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

sorry my bad, Matttracks

 

[Kirkhill]

Seen - a more positive connection vs a longer install?

 

[MilEME09]

Vehicle replacement project will ‘revolutionize’ Army logistics

By Steven Fouchard, Army Public Affairs
Gatineau, Quebec  — The motto of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Logistics Branch, which plays a wide range of supportive roles from transporting  equipment and troops to providing command and control functions, is Servitium Nulli Secundus, meaning Service Second to None. A process to refresh the CAF’s fleet of logistics vehicles is currently underway and has been designed to ensure the branch will continue to live up to that standard. The Logistics Vehicle Modernization (LVM) Project, explained Project Director Major Michael Chagnon, is about upgrading an aging fleet of vehicles, but has also been designed with an eye to greater efficiency. While the project is still in the early stages, and delivery of any new vehicles not expected before 2021, Maj Chagnon said an analysis of what the CAF needs and what is available on the market has been done. The result is a general determination that the new vehicles will be heavier and have greater cargo capacities than what is currently in use. “It comes down to how much we want to take out in the field and reducing the number of vehicles in the field as well,” said Maj Chagnon. “So if you have one vehicle that can carry twice as much, then you only have one vehicle on the road as opposed to two. The entire fleet will revolutionize the way that logistics are done in terms of the ability to lift and move.” The increased cargo capacity of the incoming light and heavy vehicles is demonstrated by their ability to carry, respectively, three-metre and six-metre cargo containers. Each vehicle will also be able to tow additional containers on trailers at the same time.

Modules that will be delivered with the new vehicles, meanwhile, will allow for a wide variety of additional uses. “Having the modularity will allow a commander to switch amongst priorities if he needs to have more command posts or more workshops, or to carry supplies for example,” said Maj Chagnon. The Canadian Army is taking the lead with LVM, he added, because it is the most logistics-intensive of the CAF’s branches and will use 70 per cent of the new vehicles that will be ordered. Logistics vehicles are classed according to their weight and cargo capacity as light, medium, or heavy. The vehicles that comprise the current logistics fleet are described below. The LVM project is focused on replacing the light and heavy fleets only. The CAF’s medium-class logistical vehicles will be replaced sooner in a separate but related process, the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) Project. After a competitive bidding process, U.S.-based Mack Defense was selected as the supplier in 2015. The company, based in Allentown, Pennsylvania, will start delivery of more than 1,500 8x8 trucks in 2017 to replace the Medium Logistics Vehicle Wheeled (MLVW), a general utility truck used to transport troops and equipment and tow artillery.

The new medium vehicles are based on French manufacturer Renault’s Kerax line of logistics trucks. Final assembly will take place in Sainte-Claire, Quebec. With a capacity of 10 tons compared to the MLVW’s three-and-a-half, they will come in several variants, including mobile repair and cargo models.
Procuring weapons and vehicles for the Canadian Armed Forces is a long and detailed process. This is to ensure that military members are well-equipped and well-protected so they can effectively serve Canadians at home and abroad. Every measure is taken to make sure taxpayers get the best value for their money. The project described in this article is in the Options Analysis phase.


https://www.facebook.com/notes/canadian-army/vehicle-replacement-project-will-revolutionize-army-logistics/1255961637829145?qid=6396432848713193288&mf_story_key=9078166136542789081

was posted to the armys facebook, less trucks to pull more great, but now you have less trucks to send out on DP's and such, you loose one truck and now you've lost a bigger portion of your fleet, and large amounts of supplies potentially. to me it only makes sense from a dollar amount, at min you still need 5 trucks on any given call, sure you might be able to do three or four DP's now in one go, but if your convoy gets hit early on, thats a lot of units without supplies, and your service battalion might not have more supplies to push forward. Eggs in one basket for supply doesn't work.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

1 for 2 trucks, repeat several times for the last 50 years and soon you have none. However having no trucks does have a positive side, we save a fortune of POL, spare parts, maintenance, parking, covered storage and PY for maintainers and drivers. 

 

[McG]

Overly large trucks in small numbers introduce more vulnerabilities than just the higher impact of individual casualties.  They can go in fewer directions at one time, so tasks may take longer.  We have natures of cargo that cannot be carried together, so twice the capacity may require the same number of trucks.  Overly large trucks consume more fuel when a job could have been done by a smaller truck.  Overly large trucks are harder to hide, harder to fit behind cover, and easier to hit with fires.

 

[PuckChaser]

But they fit nicely in the CLP-resupply, FOB-based warfare of our last deployment. The Canadian Armed Forces - always ready and equipped for the last war, not this one.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For the most part equip the Reserves with mostly a Milcot fleet, however no lease agreements, we use them as we will. The armoured units keep their G-wagons with part of their unit using jeeps. Service battalions get mostly civilian pattern trucks with a few tactical trucks to provide the “frontline” resupply. Artillery gets mostly tactical trucks for gun tractors (assuming we will have any guns left to tow) and ammo resupply. A couple of large Milcot trucks for general duties.

CP’s are based on pickups with new boxes, both fixed and demoutable. Jeep can provide the utility vehicle.

Not sure what model works for infantry, at least a couple of 2-3 ton Milcots for general duty, CP and jeeps to provide utility and vehicle for the heavy weapons platoon (assuming they have heavy weapons left) Some could get Various ATV’s to replace the jeeps. Most of the lift could be provided by the local service battalion, but infantry gets their own lift if the Svc Bat is to far away.

No unarmoured vehicle stays around longer than 12 years and replacement of the Reserve fleet right now should be at either 2 for 1 or 1.5 for 1 to build up the fleet to acceptable levels, afterwards replacement level can be 1 for 1. Keeping the fleet newer means less upkeep and surplusing revenue should go back to the department the equipment came from.   

 

[dapaterson]

Much of this comes down to priorities.  Acquiring the TAPV (a vehicle fleet in search of a purpose) was a higher priority (and thus got funded before) replacing sustainment vehicles. 

As long as that occurs, as long as we have amateurs practicing tactics instead of professionals practicing logistics, problems like this will occur, where the sustainment function will remain the poor cousin to the other four.

 

[McG]

Another problem is that we ignore our own doctrine for capability development, which says DO NOT focus on platform replacement but DO focus on capability requirements.

We bought MSVS focousing on platform (MLVW) replacement and, because many MLVW could be replaced with a larger truck, all the MLVW will be replaced with a truck bigger than the HLVW.  LVM(Hy) is also focoused on platform replacement so HLVW, SHLVW, and HESV will all be replaced by a truck that is magnitudes larger (even in cases where a new MSVS would be a better fit).  LVM(Li) will replace every LSVW with a truck about the size of an MLVW, whether that makes sense for every particular truck or not.

Had we followed our doctrine, we could have determined our tpt requirements, broken that into some required number of "weight classes" (I assume three to four), and procured whichever new truck most overlapped with the MLVW.  Conceivably, we could have had an "HSVS" project that replaced most MLVW and many HLVW, then a true medium truck project which replaced remaining MLVW and some LSVW.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Acronym Assistance:  "tpt requirements"?