Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[quadrapiper]

One more bitch from an early slide deck on the LVM project which showed only 12 "arty" CP versions of the light truck. That exactly equals the number of RegF arty gun troops - nothing for the ResF gun batteries.

So when Bdr Bloggins wraps one around a boulder...

 

[Maxman1]

Exactly. No allowance for attrition, on top of being less than operational requirements.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

That's going to be a bitch to get into a hide...

 

[KevinB]

im also curious about the blue AFV turret that is over the top right of the side profile picture. Looks interesting.

It is GD's 30mm turret offering.

It appears to be a LAV 700 with an advanced version of the 30mm Kongsberg turret from the Striker A1, but there turret is marked GDLS 30, so...

 

[PrairieFella]

It is GD's 30mm turret offering.
View attachment 90491
It appears to be a LAV 700 with an advanced version of the 30mm Kongsberg turret from the Striker A1, but there turret is marked GDLS 30, so...

Neat. Thanks for the picture!

 

[FJAG]

Experience in Afghanistan finally settled on each troop having an M777 tracked command post, and a total of four TLAVs, one for the recce vehicle, one for the TSM and one for each of the two gun detachments. That wasn't the case back in Canada except during some predeployment training. One can only hope that some of the new ACSVs will be designated for that, at least for the deployed battery in Latvia and predeploying subunits.

 

[Rifleman62]

One more bitch from an early slide deck on the LVM project which showed only 12 "arty" CP versions of the light truck. That exactly equals the number of RegF arty gun troops - nothing for the ResF gun batteries.

It's a cunning plan by the Army. When the LSVW is withdrawn, the ResF Arty is without a CP, then no need to replace the C3 How.

 

[FJAG]

It's a cunning plan by the Army. When the LSVW is withdrawn, the ResF Arty is without a CP, then no need to replace the C3 How.

Hah! in 2 Horse we did 3-4 week long winter exercises with no trucks - only helicopters. We'd run command posts with a plotter and a 25 set in a snowbank . . . with an onion tied to our belts as was the fashion in the day.

 

[suffolkowner]

I kinda like the looks of it but: the M37 3/4 ton begat the Chevy 5/4 ton which begat the LSVW 7/4 ton which now begets the LVM(Light) 44/4 ? ton Zetros.

I've tried to find specifications for the new Zetros based 4 x 4 LVM(Light) and the only thing I've found was the manufacturer's rating of 11.6 ton max payload. It sure looks bigger than my old Deuce and a half gun tractor and a lot bigger than my old 3/4 ton TPU command post.

One more bitch from an early slide deck on the LVM project which showed only 12 "arty" CP versions of the light truck. That exactly equals the number of RegF arty gun troops - nothing for the ResF gun batteries. I presume other ResF corps will have the same limited access to these vehicles. Not sure where exactly that stands now.

is the light Zetros going to have the same axles as the heavy? I thought they were going to?

 

[Maxman1]

The heavy Zetros is going to be an 8x8, so it might use the same axles, but more of them.

 

[Prairie canuck]

1. Why did you jump into a thread on logistic vehicles to fantasize about buying battle tanks?
2. What is the source of this reoccurring idea that the US is so awash in equipment that they are desperate to off-load it?
3. Why is there always someone who thinks the solution to making CAF a capable military is by casting away kit that works and buying old, used equipment that someone else is desperate to divest?

Geez I must be the first to go a little off track in a thread.....
The requirement to get to 2 % was discussed so I presented an option to get closer to that goal and to appease our neighbours by purchasing their equipment which also has the bonus of being very close to the parts manufacturer and quick delivery.
Canada will not get to 2% by purchasing any number of logistic vehicles.
The US government keeps purchasing/manufacturing equipment, in minimum quantities, not because they need it but to keep the assembly lines intact. A lot of equipment sits mothballed and that will only increase as the Marines reduce their heavier equipment.

 

[McG]

Geez I must be the first to go a little off track in a thread.....

Dude, we are trying to talk about trucks. You are not. Stop trying to thread hijack.

 

[markppcli]

Experience in Afghanistan finally settled on each troop having an M777 tracked command post, and a total of four TLAVs, one for the recce vehicle, one for the TSM and one for each of the two gun detachments. That wasn't the case back in Canada except during some predeployment training. One can only hope that some of the new ACSVs will be designated for that, at least for the deployed battery in Latvia and predeploying subunits.

We have a dozen ACSV in 1 RCHA.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The CAF treats tactical trucks like Capital assets, when the Ukraine war shows that they are pretty much disposable assets. In a conflict, you might only get 2-3 missions out of a truck before it is destroyed or badly broken. We should have a NSS like program where we are buying new trucks constantly, as we reach our full fleet size, the older trucks are mothballed for a period and then sold at a discount to friendly States in need.

The same factory produces all the different sizes and is a Crown Corp, they can also do outside contracts if possible. Beef up all of the Reserve units fleets as well. The maintenance requirements will drop as the fleet gets younger and work at getting Class B vehicle techs at each Reserve unit to ensure basic maintenance is done.

 

[PrairieFella]

The CAF treats tactical trucks like Capital assets, when the Ukraine war shows that they are pretty much disposable assets. In a conflict, you might only get 2-3 missions out of a truck before it is destroyed or badly broken. We should have a NSS like program where we are buying new trucks constantly, as we reach our full fleet size, the older trucks are mothballed for a period and then sold at a discount to friendly States in need.

The same factory produces all the different sizes and is a Crown Corp, they can also do outside contracts if possible. Beef up all of the Reserve units fleets as well. The maintenance requirements will drop as the fleet gets younger and work at getting Class B vehicle techs at each Reserve unit to ensure basic maintenance is done.

This is exactly why I've gone from the JTLV camp to the SENRAP camp. It's cheaper, does basically the same things and the supply line is stable in Canada. They can be pumped out as quickly as needed. The factory Roshel has for these is actually 20 mins down the road from the new Ford F550 factory opening soon, the F550 being the basis of the Senator.

 

[KevinB]

This is exactly why I've gone from the JTLV camp to the SENRAP camp. It's cheaper, does basically the same things and the supply line is stable in Canada. They can be pumped out as quickly as needed. The factory Roshel has for these is actually 20 mins down the road from the new Ford F550 factory opening soon, the F550 being the basis of the Senator.

It is cheaper because it has nowhere near the same survivability.

It is in the same boat as the LENCO Bearcat, it is a domestic armored car that can work for LE, and Armored Car services. Far away from any anticipated combat it can work to protect against haphazard bombardment as a on road protected mobility ambulance/taxi - but it doesn't have the armor nor the mobility to go anywhere near an active combat zone.

Kit is cheap (even when it is expensive), people are not.

 

[Staff Weenie]

The CAF treats tactical trucks like Capital assets, when the Ukraine war shows that they are pretty much disposable assets. In a conflict, you might only get 2-3 missions out of a truck before it is destroyed or badly broken. We should have a NSS like program where we are buying new trucks constantly, as we reach our full fleet size, the older trucks are mothballed for a period and then sold at a discount to friendly States in need.

The same factory produces all the different sizes and is a Crown Corp, they can also do outside contracts if possible. Beef up all of the Reserve units fleets as well. The maintenance requirements will drop as the fleet gets younger and work at getting Class B vehicle techs at each Reserve unit to ensure basic maintenance is done.

You are spot on with this assessment. Vehicles are going to be burned through at a furious rate. Stop trying to buy 1,200-1,500 of the absolute best all encompassing vehicle you can find. Get the 70-80% solution and buy more than you need.

The LSVW is the result of late 1980s assessment/purchasing for a post-FRP CAF of 55,000 Reg F - and even then they only bought a fraction of what was actually needed. The current Reg F cap is approx 72,000 and I've seen something recently about possibly going over 80,000 (if we can ever find/train enough people). So, any 1:1 replacement of the LSVW would not have been good enough for the 1990s CAF, and will be vastly insufficient for the current and future CAF.

To make matters worse, the last White Paper we had (and the concept has been kept in subsequent publications) proposed that we will have at least two years of strategic geopolitical warning prior to any major conflict breaking out. In that time, Canada would thus be able to purchase all the things it needs to fully equip the CAF. Well, I'm not sure how much more warning the government needs - maybe in 50' tall burning letters on lawn of Parliament Hill. We no longer have the liberty of time - we don't need 1,200-1,500 vehicles in the next 5-10 years, we need >3,000 in the next year. NATO conventional deterrence is only effective if you actually come to the table with something. I feel like we are the Commissionaires of NATO - 'Stop or I'll say stop again.'

 

[PrairieFella]

It is cheaper because it has nowhere near the same survivability.

It is in the same boat as the LENCO Bearcat, it is a domestic armored car that can work for LE, and Armored Car services. Far away from any anticipated combat it can work to protect against haphazard bombardment as a on road protected mobility ambulance/taxi - but it doesn't have the armor nor the mobility to go anywhere near an active combat zone.

Kit is cheap (even when it is expensive), people are not.

The Senator is doing just fine for what we expect out of logistic vehicles in Ukraine. Mind you, that's from open sources I've found on the internet, I can't speak to whatever more internal BDAs are being done on senators in combat. I agree they aren't as survivable but they also seem to proving to be pretty survivable against mine strikes and FPV drones. The JTLV is getting fucked just the same as a senator if it's catching any sort of sustained fire from 12.7mm or greater. We don't intend to be using LUV kinetically anyways, so why not support domestic manufacturing that does the job and doesn't hold the risk of being cut off if the Donald becomes even more irredentist?

Mind you this is cavalry concept aside, but that is a whole other kettle of fish defining what a protected mobility squadron would like in low-intensity contexts.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Survivability is a luxury when you have low intensity fighting. You can salvage, repair, and recover the asset moving forward and the G1 shop doesn't need to convert transfer cases into replacements within a week.

It goes out the window in a LSCO in many facets. Quantity and replenshment become the name of the game to some extent.

We have forgotten this and will be hooped thebnext time we get into the kind of fight Ukraine is in now. Especially with massive lorries that seem ill suited to hides, harbours, blacktracks, or taking years to produce in scale.

 

[KevinB]

Survivability is a luxury when you have low intensity fighting. You can salvage, repair, and recover the asset moving forward and the G1 shop doesn't need to convert transfer cases into replacements within a week.

It goes out the window in a LSCO in many facets. Quantity and replenshment become the name of the game to some extent.

To a point, but keep in mind nearly every single western AFV that wasn't captured by Russia, was able to be recovered and repaired for use, and all the crews but one Challenger 2 crew survived the engagement that took out their vehicle.

Russia on the other hand has been losing crews and vehicles at unprecedented rates (well unprecedented for the last 70 years). Quantity isn't it's own form of Quality anymore.

We have forgotten this and will be hooped thebnext time we get into the kind of fight Ukraine is in now. Especially with massive lorries that seem ill suited to hides, harbours, blacktracks, or taking years to produce in scale.

Massive - and unarmored.

I would suggest that for a practical larger scale conflict that Canada needs to be able to create armored vehicles that aren't armored by afterthought of throwing additional armor on a vehicle after it was designed - but working with a manufacturer to come up with purpose built vehicles that incorporate an armor package from day 1 - of which some of the armor package is removable when not needed (but the chassis is purpose built as an armored vehicle).

I would also suggest that Canada find an OEM they can work with for a fleet of Tracked Armored Vehicles, including Tracked Armored Logistics vehicles.