Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[McG]

I think the future light vehicle is the alligator farthest from the boat.

 

[cupper]

By the time they cut the budget and reevaluate needs and specifications, I suspect that all we would be able to afford is this

 

[FutureSight]

I have heard that the replacement project for the LSVW were put on hold.

Any word as to what are the possible options? and when we could be possibly getting them?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Have you heard of the "search" function?  It works amazingly well.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest via MERX:

.... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for theoretical and practical on- and off-road vehicle mobility fundamentals training.  The Logistics Vehicle Modernization (LVM) Project, which will replace the existing light and heavy logistics vehicles and associated equipment, is currently in the Option Analysis phase.  In order to assist with the finalization of the Statement of Requirements, the development of the Statement of Work and the test plan, the Project Management Office LVM has a requirement to train engineers, technicians and other technical staff to enhance their technical knowledge of military tactical vehicles’ off- and on-road mobility fundamentals.  This includes engineering aspects of vehicle design, testing, and operation which are unique to military vehicles.  Another objective of this course is for candidates to better understand the vehicle terrain interaction, and to improve their ability to optimize the use of the vehicle for specific conditions.

This Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN)

The purpose of this ACAN is to signal DND’s intention to award a contract with an estimated value of US $44,140.00 for theoretical and practical military tactical vehicle mobility fundamentals training for nine (9) technical staff, to the Nevada Automotive Test Center (A Division of Hodges Transportation, Inc.) of Carson City, Nevada ....

 

[McG]

So this is a contract to train the project staff so that they can write the SOR and SOW in order to eventually get to the RFP.
As the SOR and SOW are written in different offices, it would suggest the students will be a mix of Army from DLR and civi engineers/techs from ADM(Mat).
Wonder why we did not turn to the faculty in RMC responsible to teach "military tactical vehicles’ off- and on-road mobility fundamentals," and including "engineering aspects of vehicle design, testing, and operation which are unique to military vehicles."

 

[OldSolduer]

I'd rather have the team made up of a bunch of drivers, maintainers and sup techs.

 

[dangerboy]

So this is a contract to train the project staff so that they can write the SOR and SOW in order to eventually get to the RFP.
As the SOR and SOW are written in different offices, it would suggest the students will be a mix of Army from DLR and civi engineers/techs from ADM(Mat).
Wonder why we did not turn to the faculty in RMC responsible to teach "military tactical vehicles’ off- and on-road mobility fundamentals," and including "engineering aspects of vehicle design, testing, and operation which are unique to military vehicles."

Especially since they do teach that.  On the ATWO and ATSO courses  have a module on Vehicle Systems, Survivability and Mobility that sounds like they cover those topics.

 

[Armynewsguy]

I'd rather have the team made up of a bunch of drivers, maintainers and sup techs.

Jim, the DLR 6 team does indeed have an MSE OP(CWO) and also 2 Maintainers (one Maj, one MrGnr) teamed up with 6 LOG Officers and one Infantry WO.  When the time comes the equipment will be tested/trialed by Army troops to ensure their feedback is recorded and heeded.

Especially since they do teach that.  On the ATWO and ATSO courses  have a module on Vehicle Systems, Survivability and Mobility that sounds like they cover those topics.

Dangerboy, yes they do cover those subjects on the ATWO/LFTSP course. But to quote a favourite saying from the course "the information is a mile wide and an inch deep". While the information presented gives you a basic understanding of terramechanics it does not provide enough information to write an informed SOR/SOW. The more informed we are at the time of writing, the less chance of getting something wrong. A little bit of an investment at the start of the project will provide big dividends later on.

 

[McG]

... yes they do cover those subjects on the ATWO/LFTSP course. But to quote a favourite saying from the course "the information is a mile wide and an inch deep". While the information presented gives you a basic understanding of terramechanics it does not provide enough information to write an informed SOR/SOW.

But the RMC engineers who instruct the ATWO/ATSO should be able to deliver this deeper, more focused instruction to the project staff ... or they should be capable of advising the project staff.  Why are we contracting for a capability that is resident in the organization?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Jim, the DLR 6 team does indeed have an MSE OP(CWO) and also 2 Maintainers (one Maj, one MrGnr) teamed up with 6 LOG Officers and one Infantry WO.  When the time comes the equipment will be tested/trialed by Army troops to ensure their feedback is recorded and heeded.

Dangerboy, yes they do cover those subjects on the ATWO/LFTSP course. But to quote a favourite saying from the course "the information is a mile wide and an inch deep". While the information presented gives you a basic understanding of terramechanics it does not provide enough information to write an informed SOR/SOW. The more informed we are at the time of writing, the less chance of getting something wrong. A little bit of an investment at the start of the project will provide big dividends later on.

You mean like with the LSVW?  That kind of heeding of feedback?  God help our troops.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wonder if the LSVW was more a case of the builder mucking it up, than the original design? IVECO's are popular with globetrotting crowd, just saw 2 here in Vancouver all kitted out.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I wonder if the LSVW was more a case of the builder mucking it up, than the original design? IVECO's are popular with globetrotting crowd, just saw 2 here in Vancouver all kitted out.

Comparing the IVECO and the LSVW, is like comparing the original German VW Iltis and that cheesy knockoff that we got from Bombardier.

They both look like their parent, but that's about where it stops.

YMMV

 

[McG]

IVECO's are popular with globetrotting crowd, just saw 2 here in Vancouver all kitted out.

We have allies still using the IVECO VM90T on operations.  It is a platform that could have filled all the roles of the LSVW that we gave its knock-off, and it could do the C&R, MP, and liaison functions we gave the G-wagon.  Some platform rationalization would not be bad for us.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/100166/post-1190924.html#msg1190924

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We have allies still using the IVECO VM90T on operations.  It is a platform that could have filled all the roles of the LSVW that we gave its knock-off, and it could do the C&R, MP, and liaison functions we gave the G-wagon.  Some platform rationalization would not be bad for us.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/100166/post-1190924.html#msg1190924

Stop that!

Quit making sense!

 

[PanaEng]

Jim, the DLR 6 team does indeed have an MSE OP(CWO) and also 2 Maintainers (one Maj, one MrGnr) teamed up with 6 LOG Officers and one Infantry WO.  When the time comes the equipment will be tested/trialed by Army troops to ensure their feedback is recorded and heeded.

Dangerboy, yes they do cover those subjects on the ATWO/LFTSP course. But to quote a favourite saying from the course "the information is a mile wide and an inch deep". While the information presented gives you a basic understanding of terramechanics it does not provide enough information to write an informed SOR/SOW. The more informed we are at the time of writing, the less chance of getting something wrong. A little bit of an investment at the start of the project will provide big dividends later on.

And to ad to Kat's comment... that's how we ended up with the MSVS "Engr" SEV?  - I put Engr in quotes since it is utterly useless other than to carry 9 soldiers comfortably down the highway.
(Granted, there were some Engineers involved but they were so out of the loop... or understaffed...  maybe I should blame the career managers) - maybe that's no place for a CWO who's last field time in a field tp was 20 yrs ago...  How do we "keep it real"?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Remember when an Engineer Regiment was given a piece of equipment to trial and was basically told "try to break it"?  Those were the days.

 

[PanaEng]

:dude:

Remember when an Engineer Regiment was given a piece of equipment to trial and was basically told "try to break it"?  Those were the days.

99.9% success rate! (before explosives showed up...)
CHIMO!

 

[dapaterson]

History of the MSVS MilCOTS has to be taken in context - there was a grand total of one company that bid.  Leaving two choices:  Take it or leave it.

So, the question in that case is better phrased:  What's better: the new MSVS SEV, or the MLVW (no parts available)?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Quantity has a quality all of its own: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-logistical-vehicles.asp