• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LSVW Replacement

Re the LSVW, I agree with Colin.

Having the good furtune on working on a number of UNIMOG type vehicles and the Italian vehicle (that we should have bought), I can whole heartedly say that the vast majority of problems wuth the LSVW are homegrown.

The list of deficiencies that this vehicle has is.....well, no sense beating a dead horse. We all know what is wrong with it. The CF knew what was wrong with it when we accepted them.

It's not like we had a choice. Thank you Kim Cambell and Western Star.
 
We actually had a guy in Germany in the 80's "Scotty" who bought and old 3/4 ton and restored it, painted it "Fire engine red" drove it for his whole 4 years in Baden and had it shipped back to Canada, i wonder if he still has it.
 
At one time, there were a lot of old "gin palaces" being used as low tech campers.
Indestructible.... you just had to replace the old mud tires with something that had grip

Loved that truck
Loved to confuse the newby drivers by moving the 2 / 4 WD hi/low gear levers to centre position & effectively dissengaging the drive train....
 
They are still in use, some have been re-equipped with a Diesel engine. I still remember the 3 colour camo, black, green and light tan.
 
I think we should buy a couple of these as replacements. Bodies like a tin can but imagine the impression we would make!
 
Right!  You know you are no longer fit to be in the Unit, when you can not climb up into or out of your vehicle.  Are you sure it would be safe and one wouldn't get nose bleeds from the altitude?
 
Kalatzi said:
Hmmm, Custom Canadian Design + Burueacracy + small production run = Big Bucks in a small budget
The suggestions to go with a proven design sound a lot better

The answer to the dilemma is to build something worth exporting, and then develop Canada-centric designs from the
export version. Don't give me the hoo-ha that Canada can't do something like this (you know, the usual shibboleths - small market,
no prior experience, yadda yadda) because a Finnish company called Patria has designed and is building a series of
wheeled APC's from the ground up which have seen great export success. Yet Finland, to my knowledge
has no indignenous automotive industry of its own. Using your argument would mean that the Finns should not have been
able to pull something like this off. What's the population of Finland, anyway? 2 million, tops?
By 'indigenous' I mean something which originated within the country, not simply a branch plant system with foreign designs and parts like Canada has.

 
Synthos said:
I think we should buy a couple of these as replacements. Bodies like a tin can but imagine the impression we would make!

Lord Jee Thunderin, I'm in love. What is the chance of getting some of these? I am sure they won't bog down in Gagetown.
 
Eland said:
The answer to the dilemma is to build something worth exporting, and then develop Canada-centric designs from the
export version. Don't give me the hoo-ha that Canada can't do something like this (you know, the usual shibboleths - small market,
no prior experience, yadda yadda) because a Finnish company called Patria has designed and is building a series of
wheeled APC's from the ground up which have seen great export success. Yet Finland, to my knowledge
has no indignenous automotive industry of its own. Using your argument would mean that the Finns should not have been
able to pull something like this off. What's the population of Finland, anyway? 2 million, tops?
By 'indigenous' I mean something which originated within the country, not simply a branch plant system with foreign designs and parts like Canada has.

The Bison and the LAVIIIs are derivatives of the Mowag Cougar/ Grizzly vehicle design bought by Canada & built by GM Diesel
 
geo said:
The Bison and the LAVIIIs are derivatives of the Mowag Cougar/ Grizzly vehicle design bought by Canada & built by GM Diesel

You are correct. However, the MOWAG designs Canada acquired in the mid-1970's were not designed in Canada. What happened with the MOWAG-based vehicles is that we took a foreign design and adapted them for Canadian needs in the form of the Grizzly, Cougar and later, the Bison, LAVIII and Coyote.

The LAVIII is ultimately an extension, or an enhanced version of the LAV-25, which was built to satisfy a USMC requirement for a light cavalry vehicle. The turret mounted on the LAV-25, if I recall correctly, was originally designed and developed by Arrowpointe Systems of Detroit, Michigan. General Motors eventually bought out Arrowpointe, or acquired the rights to the turret system. Then they were manufactured by GM Delco, which was soon swallowed up by General Dynamics Land Systems. The turrets on the Grizzly are designed and made by Cadillac Gage (which I believe is now part of the GDLS fold). The Cougars were equipped with turrets made by Alvis UK in England, which were originally designed to be mounted on the hulls of the Scorpion light tank, not armoured cars.

Not much real Canadian content there. The Grizzly/Cougar/Bison/LAV-III/Coyote is a classically Canadian story: Take someone else's design, make a few improvements here and there and then slap a big maple leaf on it, as if it were something Canadians developed from the ground up.

Our reluctance to design any serious military hardware in this country has complex roots, but they seem to go back to the Ram II tank built in World War II, which had a Canadian-designed turret and a modified, US-built M3 Grant hull. It proved to be a failure because the turret was unable to accommodate anything larger than a six-pounder gun, and the British/Canadian armies needed more firepower. So the tank ended up being relegated to the training role, and later, was converted into the Kangaroo APC.

Then came the Avro Arrow interceptor, a platform which had huge potential and capabilities, boasting the world's first true 'fly-by-wire' system. It was killed by cost overruns, Avro mismanagement, lack of foreign markets and ultimately a weak government which caved into American pressure to can it (I believe this happened because the US aerospace industry had nothing at the time which could compete).

Then came the Bobcat APC, again a wonderful idea with lots of potential, but something which collapsed under its own weight - probably due to government meddling, underfunding, and insufficient engineering/manufacturing resources.
 
I would not call the RAM a failure, the mantle could take a 6 pdr gun, which actually had better armour penetration than the 75mm used by the US, had the RAM come out a bit earlier and been able to take part in the African battles, it would have been our success story. As it was, they became tank trainers, SP guns, the first HAPC's, OP and a few other roles. The fact that Canada could start building and producing tanks as fast as it did was a remarkable feat. As for the turret ring issue, that was also the case for many tanks.
 
Good day.

yes i am new, but from all the posts i have seen,  i don't see anyone touchin on the maint aspect of the LS.  I lost count of how many trans and tcase and engines i have had to change, let alone the times the engine has caught fire from the fuel line prob.  From everyone at the unit that i have asked they say it IS garbage.  Now if we went with the same f350 dually that the linemen use and convert it over to the other variants that it could fullfill(mrt being my personal fav) i really don't see a problem with it filling the needs for a 1.5t+ vehicle, or even a Dodge 3500 cab and chassis as a base, then modify the bed as per IMO

Cfn Ryan

 
You're right that a chassis like the f350 could fulfill the roles mentioned.

Problem is, the bids that had dually's were rejected. For the LS project, the big three domestic manufacturers all put in dually's. They were rejected in the selection process. The CF only wanted single axle designs.

I don't see this changing, the higher ups don't seem to like dually's. There are reasons for it (technical and logistical). Also, the weight load can be accommodated with single axles, but you have to build the right kind of frame and put the right kind of engine and powertrain in it.

Ford, GM and Dodge all wanted to use a civilian truck and paint it green, charge huge prices for it and make no changes on their assembly lines (equals bigger profit for them). We need a military truck, not a green pickup. Ask the guys about the limitations of the green GM Silveradoes. Nice vehicle for around the back forty and maybe Wainwright, not great for off-road when weighted down.
 
omniman69 said:
Good day.

yes i am new, but from all the posts i have seen,  i don't see anyone touchin on the maint aspect of the LS.  I lost count of how many trans and tcase and engines i have had to change, let alone the times the engine has caught fire from the fuel line prob.  From everyone at the unit that i have asked they say it IS garbage.  Now if we went with the same f350 dually that the linemen use and convert it over to the other variants that it could fullfill(mrt being my personal fav) i really don't see a problem with it filling the needs for a 1.5t+ vehicle, or even a Dodge 3500 cab and chassis as a base, then modify the bed as per IMO

Cfn Ryan

You mean like the Dodge 3/4 tons with the 318" V8 that wouldn't start in the cold, the 5/4 tons that snapped front axles, couldn't keep up with the rest of the vehicles off-road, etc,etc. How about the wonderful 6.2L diesels in the other pickups we bought? Civy logging companies except to get approx 5 years at best out of their fleet of pickup trucks and then replace them. Our problem is we will buy them and then expect to keep them going for 15years.
 
i have seen some of the trucks comin to wainwright, and with the fabech lift and 35's, the are NOW capable trucks(alot meaner lookin too).  I have no problem with the durasmack, they just need to have the power bumped up a bit for its application. >:D

mike
 
FWIW in the early 70s the dodge power wagons did a commendable job.
Buy em, use em for 5 years and then replace em?..... would make the trucks that much better choice for domestic ops.
 
5 year plans work fine in the small business world but a army fleet  has to be around for at least 10 years, it can take 2 years just to get the fleet exchanged and up and running, with driver training, tech support.
but when they buy a fleet you think they  would start plans to replace it soon after they buy it, after all the red tape takes 10 years to cut to just to get the money to think about what is needed.
i think maybe a standard pickup type truck should be used thru out NATO that way the parts and techs will all have the same training, and the  fleet will be interchangeable
 
10 years wouldn't be all that bad either.... so long as the trucks are being replaced on year 10 and not an issue of yes, we'll start looking into it now kinda thing,
 
Remember the 5/4 was to fill the gap from 76 to 79/80 as an interim measure until the milspec light-duty came along....16 years later...

Don't know about the daully thing, but Ford and Dodge make single rear wheel 1-ton versions now.  I'm thinking it would be fairly hard to screw up a Cummins-powered 1-ton...no?  ???
 
Back
Top