Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[PuckChaser]

We need a jeep type platform, but trying to use it as a fighting vehicle or fighting vehicle trainer is bad news bears.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

We need a jeep type platform, but trying to use it as a fighting vehicle or fighting vehicle trainer is bad news bears.

We need to have the "come to Jesus moment" that not every vehicle in the battlespace is going to be survivable.

Speed provides it's own amount of security and that comes at the cost of protection (armour). Having elements that can move quick and see the threat can do a lot more to protect the larger force.

 

[Brad Sallows]

We need a jeep type platform, but trying to use it as a fighting vehicle or fighting vehicle trainer is bad news bears.

"Jeeps" were, and should still be, quarter- to half-ton utility vehicles which are not intended for or employed in the F Ech. They should be inexpensive; uncomplicated with respect to assembly, maintenance, and operation; modestly cross-country capable; and near-disposable.

The stuff we currently buy overshoots the marks. It should be possible to take a vehicle which has to serve for 20 peacetime years and provide engineering documents and plans for an assembly line that would reduce it to a "monkey model" with a 6 month life expectancy.

 

[PrairieFella]

Does the LUVW actually need to be replaced?

Unless you want 1500ish less sets of wheels, yes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

We need to have the "come to Jesus moment" that not every vehicle in the battlespace is going to be survivable.

Speed provides it's own amount of security and that comes at the cost of protection (armour). Having elements that can move quick and see the threat can do a lot more to protect the larger force.

 

[FJAG]

"Jeeps" were, and should still be, quarter- to half-ton utility vehicles which are not intended for or employed in the F Ech. They should be inexpensive; uncomplicated with respect to assembly, maintenance, and operation; modestly cross-country capable; and near-disposable.

The stuff we currently buy overshoots the marks. It should be possible to take a vehicle which has to serve for 20 peacetime years and provide engineering documents and plans for an assembly line that would reduce it to a "monkey model" with a 6 month life expectancy.

I agree with you 100% ... but ... then the first lawsuit comes in from the family of a soldier killed in a Snatch Land Rover or a newspaper article critical of the Iltis and in no time at all the risk averse crowd has you in a TLAV.

 

[markppcli]

Does the LUVW actually need to be replaced?

Do you think 20 yr old vehicles that have been used off road for most of their lives are going to be in good condition ?

 

[markppcli]

Does the LUVW actually need to be replaced?

Do you think 20 yr old vehicles that have been used off road for most of their lives are

"Jeeps" were, and should still be, quarter- to half-ton utility vehicles which are not intended for or employed in the F Ech. They should be inexpensive; uncomplicated with respect to assembly, maintenance, and operation; modestly cross-country capable; and near-disposable.

I’ll disagree, the US Army bought the Jeep and labelled it the 1940/41 dodge reconnaissance / weapons carrier. It was procured for F Ech employment from the get go. Similar vehicles were employed in those roles continuously until the war on terror maybe survivability and force protection the critical ground.


Agreed with the sentiment we have to get used to the idea that not everyone is going to be wrapped in an armoured bubble in operations anymore.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I agree with you 100% ... but ... then the first lawsuit comes in from the family of a soldier killed in a Snatch Land Rover or a newspaper article critical of the Iltis and in no time at all the risk averse crowd has you in a TLAV.

The TAPV enters the chat...

 

[FJAG]

The TAPV enters the chat...

Crap! Crap! Crap! - I meant TAPV not TLAV.

 

[FJAG]

Do you think 20 yr old vehicles that have been used off road for most of their lives are going to be in good condition ?

You know, I started off on 20 year old 3/4 tons and 2 1/2 tons and they were generally in good condition. The robustness of the basic vehicle and its life cycle maintenance has a lot to do with it. But yeah. You're right. The current crowd is in need of being paid off for faithful service.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I agree with you 100% ... but ... then the first lawsuit comes in from the family of a soldier killed in a Snatch Land Rover or a newspaper article critical of the Iltis and in no time at all the risk averse crowd has you in a TLAV.

I wasn't clear. We should select vehicles that we know we can dumb down for wartime, but only dumb them down in wartime.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’ll disagree, the US Army bought the Jeep and labelled it the 1940/41 dodge reconnaissance / weapons carrier. It was procured for F Ech employment from the get go. Similar vehicles were employed in those roles continuously until the war on terror maybe survivability and force protection the critical ground.

Good point. The transportation needs of light forces are different from medium and heavy. I wouldn't use utility vehicles in the F Ech of the latter two.

 

[Maxman1]

"Jeeps" were, and should still be, quarter- to half-ton utility vehicles which are not intended for or employed in the F Ech. They should be inexpensive; uncomplicated with respect to assembly, maintenance, and operation; modestly cross-country capable; and near-disposable.

The stuff we currently buy overshoots the marks. It should be possible to take a vehicle which has to serve for 20 peacetime years and provide engineering documents and plans for an assembly line that would reduce it to a "monkey model" with a 6 month life expectancy.

Maybe we could do that with the LSVW, if we still have a product license for it. Give the basic design to GM Defense or Oshkosh and tell them "fix this" (among other things, a better engine and transmission, like the Duramax 6.6 and Allison 6 speed).

 

[PrairieFella]

Maybe we could do that with the LSVW, if we still have a product license for it. Give the basic design to GM Defense or Oshkosh and tell them "fix this" (among other things, a better engine and transmission, like the Duramax 6.6 and Allison 6 speed).

You are evil lol

 

[MilEME09]

Maybe we could do that with the LSVW, if we still have a product license for it. Give the basic design to GM Defense or Oshkosh and tell them "fix this" (among other things, a better engine and transmission, like the Duramax 6.6 and Allison 6 speed).

if Sig couldn't fix the L86, idk if anyone can fix that with the budget we could approve.

 

[KevinB]

Good point. The transportation needs of light forces are different from medium and heavy. I wouldn't use utility vehicles in the F Ech of the latter two.

This is a major issue. Being able to identify the needs of a force and translate them into a proper requirement document for vehicles for certain roles.

While it is a nice idea to have a pure fleet of vehicle X, odds are that there is no way in hell that it will actually fill the mission needs of a force.

if Hk couldn't fix the L86, idk if anyone can fix that with the budget we could approve.

1) Fixed it for you
2) The LSVW was a terrible design from the get go - the only fix for it is a different vehicle

Honestly the CUCV should have replaced the 5/4 period - a diesel Chevy that could do everything the gas version did and more. I don't recall what the reason was the Militia got 2,000 or so from the USMC back in the late 80's but it probably should have been 10k in various configurations to replace the clapped out 1970's 5/4 ton gas Chevy's. In the ideal word the Hummer would have replaced the 5/4's, but alas it was not to be.

The ISV is actually a pretty decent Jeep/Iltis replacement - I would agree with @Kirkhill that for Canada's weather and the role it would be used for that some sort of tarp and doors - similar to the Iltis, and the MRZR's can fill certain lighter roles that the ISV isn't ideal for.

It however still leaves a gap that the 5/4 filled (I won't say LSVW as it really never filled the gaps) - something like a Hummer would fill that for the Unarmored Requirements -- but you are ending up in JLTV territory for the Armored aspect of a wheeled run about.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Honestly the CUCV should have replaced the 5/4 period - a diesel Chevy that could do everything the gas version did and more. I don't recall what the reason was the Militia got 2,000 or so from the USMC back in the late 80's but it probably should have been 10k in various configurations to replace the clapped out 1970's 5/4 ton gas Chevy's.

An armoury floor story I heard was that the USMC ordered more than needed, and the excess was cheaply available.

I don't remember what the column label was above whatever seemed to be the cost/price of items in the QM's lists, and I wouldn't have known exactly what it meant at the time. My recollection: MLVW (US M35/36) was "58000", Iltis was "28000", CUCV was somewhere around "6000" or maybe it was "8000". I figured at least it meant we'd gotten a bargain. Maybe it also meant there was an advantage piggybacking onto someone else's large-scale buys.

 

[KevinB]

An armoury floor story I heard was that the USMC ordered more than needed, and the excess was cheaply available.

I don't remember what the column label was above whatever seemed to be the cost/price of items in the QM's lists, and I wouldn't have known exactly what it meant at the time. My recollection: MLVW (US M35/36) was "58000", Iltis was "28000", CUCV was somewhere around "6000" or maybe it was "8000". I figured at least it meant we'd gotten a bargain. Maybe it also meant there was an advantage piggybacking onto someone else's large-scale buys.

The USMC had ordered the CUCV before they opted for the Hummer from the Army as well -- so they did not take nearly as many as the original contract held, and Canada wasn't the only taker of those (a number when into Central and South America as FMA, and the Philippines as well).

The cost numbers sound right from my recollection as well, I remember the first time I got in an Iltis and thought "man, we got had..."

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canada got into the Iltis as the Germans were getting rid of theirs for the Steyer G-Wagon, that should have been the vehicle we bought. IVECO which was the parent design enjoyed a much better reputation than our version and has a whole host of military truck models in various weight classes.