Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[PrairieFella]

I’ve driven German GWagons it’s still a piece of shit. Your suffering rectal cranial inversion if you think the Hummer is a crap Mil vehicle.

I think you're so America-brained you simply can't accept there are better options than stuff from the US of A. Not one American I've worked with liked the Humvee. Poor ergonomics, shitty offroad, poor kit storage, poor reliability. The civvie Hummer was shitty off the line, they put an inline 5 in what is basically a super duty. No shit it was gutless. At least the real old ones had some beefy V8s but they had terrible safety ratings and their fuel economy was something like 4km to the litre.

 

[KevinB]

I have zero experience with civilian versions. I have a fair bit of experience with Canadian and US Mil and some foreign mil vehicles though. I’m also old enough to remember the jeeps and the Iltis when it was new to the CAF.

Pre GWOT the Hummers were fantastic, the GMVW versions where in GWOT too (albeit the patrol bumper was aluminum so you couldn’t ram with it) The Hummer got clobbered when it was armored then unarmored, as it was designed for a 2.5t load but not 2.5t armor and people and combat load.

 

[suffolkowner]

speaking of hummers

https://twitter.com/x/status/1794895654776623151

• General Dynamics - Eagle• Oshkosh - JLTV• Thales - Hawkei

 

[PrairieFella]

speaking of hummers

https://twitter.com/x/status/1794895654776623151

• General Dynamics - Eagle• Oshkosh - JLTV• Thales - Hawkei

The MOWAG eagle V could be interesting. Made by GDLS so there's definitely an industry "in" there.

 

[Alco]

The civvie Hummer was shitty off the line, they put an inline 5 in what is basically a super duty.

Please, at least get the facts straight. The civilian Hummer H1 was powered by a 6.2l gm V8 diesel, not an inline 5. It also wasn't based off a Super Duty as you claim. It was based off the original mil spec Hummer. When GM took the option on the Hummer name, they introduced the H2 which was based off a GM 2500HD truck.....again, not a Super Duty. It had engine options of either a 6.0l V8, or a 6.2l V8....still not an inline 5.

 

[PrairieFella]

Please, at least get the facts straight. The civilian Hummer H1 was powered by a 6.2l gm V8 diesel, not an inline 5. It also wasn't based off a Super Duty as you claim. It was based off the original mil spec Hummer. When GM took the option on the Hummer name, they introduced the H2 which was based off a GM 2500HD truck.....again, not a Super Duty. It had engine options of either a 6.0l V8, or a 6.2l V8....still not an inline 5.

Super Duty is a lack of precision on my part. I don't mean super duty as in the ford truck, I mean super duty as in the heaviest class of pickup truck. Officially it's known as heavy duty. My bad there. In terms of the I5, I didn't specify a model, I'm talking the H3 there which had two variants with the GM Atlas, an I5.

 

[Alco]

Super Duty is a lack of precision on my part. I don't mean super duty as in the ford truck, I mean super duty as in the heaviest class of pickup truck. Officially it's known as heavy duty. My bad there. In terms of the I5, I didn't specify a model, I'm talking the H3 there which had two variants with the GM Atlas, an I5.

The H3 has absolutely nothing to do with the Hummers built by AM General. Why you would even reference it in a discussion about an AM General built truck is beyond me. Incidentally, the H2 was not built on the heaviest class of pickup. That would be a one ton. It was built based on a hybrid of a three-quarter-ton truck in the front and a half-ton frame in the rear.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think you're so America-brained you simply can't accept there are better options than stuff from the US of A. Not one American I've worked with liked the Humvee. Poor ergonomics, shitty offroad, poor kit storage, poor reliability. The civvie Hummer was shitty off the line, they put an inline 5 in what is basically a super duty. No shit it was gutless. At least the real old ones had some beefy V8s but they had terrible safety ratings and their fuel economy was something like 4km to the litre.

You guys will have to be specific about which version(s) you're talking about.

I'm not America-brained, and I only met a handful of people who regularly drove a Humvee, and they all loved them (pre-2001 time frame).

 

[suffolkowner]

speaking of Zetros

Mercedes-Benz Special Trucks: Zetros 8x8 and not only - EDR Magazine

Announced officially on Day 4 at Eurosatory, the Mercedes-Benz Special Trucks contract for Canada was expected, the selection having been

www.edrmagazine.eu

The new Zetros 3851A 8×8 has a gross vehicle mass of 38 tonnes, with a payload up to 25 tonnes. It is powered by a Mercedes-Benz OM 460 Euro V 6-cylinders in line engine with a 12.8 litres displacement providing 510 hp, coupled to an Allison 4500 transmission. It is fitted with 14.00 R 20 tires and is 11.15 metres long, 2.6 metres wide and 3.7 metres high, and is equipped with an LHS hooklift system with container-handling unit.

Ill post in LVM too where it belongs lol

 

[PrairieFella]

Dark fucking day, especially for the Reserves. LUVW replacement pushed back to 2030. I have no idea how reserve armoured units are supposed to survive 5 more years with the current LUVW VOR. Rough.

Any procurement folk here have any insight as to why this is taking so long?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/light-utility-vehicle-dnd-procurement-1.7315675

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Please, at least get the facts straight. The civilian Hummer H1 was powered by a 6.2l gm V8 diesel, not an inline 5. It also wasn't based off a Super Duty as you claim. It was based off the original mil spec Hummer. When GM took the option on the Hummer name, they introduced the H2 which was based off a GM 2500HD truck.....again, not a Super Duty. It had engine options of either a 6.0l V8, or a 6.2l V8....still not an inline 5.

The 6.2 Diesel was a completely shit engine as well. Poor mileage and very short life for a diesel.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Dark fucking day, especially for the Reserves. LUVW replacement pushed back to 2030. I have no idea how reserve armoured units are supposed to survive 5 more years with the current LUVW VOR. Rough.

Any procurement folk here have any insight as to why this is taking so long?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/light-utility-vehicle-dnd-procurement-1.7315675

With a 52% serviceability rate for equipment across the board at present.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-army-equipment-maintenance-1.7293634

 

[dapaterson]

Dark fucking day, especially for the Reserves. LUVW replacement pushed back to 2030. I have no idea how reserve armoured units are supposed to survive 5 more years with the current LUVW VOR. Rough.

Any procurement folk here have any insight as to why this is taking so long?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/light-utility-vehicle-dnd-procurement-1.7315675

Note from the article that it's to be a bifurcates buy, replacing parts of the fleet with civilian pattern vehicles (not militarized) starting next year.

 

[McG]

Dark fucking day, especially for the Reserves. LUVW replacement pushed back to 2030. I have no idea how reserve armoured units are supposed to survive 5 more years with the current LUVW VOR. Rough.

Any procurement folk here have any insight as to why this is taking so long?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/light-utility-vehicle-dnd-procurement-1.7315675

The article says the MilCOTS will be coming next year. How do you arrive at “Dark day, especially for the Reserves”?

But DND recently told CBC News that it has decided to split the program into two phases — beginning with the acquisition next year of commercial off-the-shelf vehicles, and leaving the purchase of lightly armoured vehicles to later years.

 

[PrairieFella]

Because half of the reserve manoeuvre element still has no kit (Armoured ARes) and will continue to do so until 2030. What little cross training happens in the reserve will continue to grind to a halt. Tough to practice combined arms tactics without the second combat arm.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Tough to practice combined arms tactics without mastering single arm platoon and company first. And there's limited utility marrying up Res F light infantry with Res F in light vehicles pretending to be tanks.

 

[FJAG]

Tough to practice combined arms tactics without mastering single arm platoon and company first. And there's limited utility marrying up Res F light infantry with Res F in light vehicles pretending to be tanks.

There was a time in the 1930s where weapons were simple and tactics yet to be developed where using ersatz tanks had a benefit. That situation is long gone. Tactics still play a part but mostly its getting people to become proficient handling the complex systems that they now have - from manoeuvring the tank to using the weapons control system to the communications systems etc. In short you need to learn on the actual kit you will fight (or something damn close to it) in order to become proficient. IMHO, that's doable even for reservists - vis the US ARNG - but certainly not the way we are.

Its equally problematic for ARes logistics trades who have no field serviceable equipment to train on and then have no opportunity to put their training to practical use in a simulated operational situation. At best a handful of them experience the operation of a static base NSE.

 

[PrairieFella]

Tough to practice combined arms tactics without mastering single arm platoon and company first. And there's limited utility marrying up Res F light infantry with Res F in light vehicles pretending to be tanks.

And how are Troop and Squadron tactics to be mastered without kit?

 

[Kirkhill]

How many people can repair the vehicles they drive, the phones they use or the monitors they watch?

The vast majority of people replace broken kit rather than repair it. And few people even understand how the kit they use works. The kit is designed explicitly for that type of operator. They even have a name for it - user friendly.

Even mechanics, by and large, pop out broken parts and plug in new ones.

Good logistics are more important than training.

Buy stuff that is easily replaced rather than paying over the odds to try and create something that won't break.

 

[PrairieFella]

How many people can repair the vehicles they drive, the phones they use or the monitors they watch?

The vast majority of people replace broken kit rather than repair it. And few people even understand how the kit they use works. The kit is designed explicitly for that type of operator. They even have a name for it - user friendly.

Even mechanics, by and large, pop out broken parts and plug in new ones.

Good logistics are more important than training.

Buy stuff that is easily replaced rather than paying over the odds to try and create something that won't break.

There's only so long you can fix kit. The OEM parts are no longer available for the LUVW, sure we can get refurbished parts but then that's a game of diminishing returns.