Domestic and Arctic Mobility Enhancement Project

[Prairie canuck]

That would certainly be close I was a security guard at Mb. Hydro during that period . I can remember seeing the 206 and a Pickup on Mattracks . And of course the The Foremost. As well a variety of various oversnow vehicles.
Btw . The 206's were Former RM issue and gasoline powered.

I knew the line maintenance crews who trialed those. They certainly looked impressive compared to the old Flextrac/Foremost equipment. In actual usage, not so impressive. You must have been around the old head office on Taylor and Harrow shop out back. Forgive my ignorance but who is the RM?

 

[GK .Dundas]

Yeah, Taylor and Harrow fond memories of the place. .
Royal Marines surplus from their stocks. They'd been replaced by the diesel version in service.
I understand it that you can find the older variants all over the world and in the oddest places..

 

[KevinB]

Foremost would sink like anything else if it had armor and a combat load on it too. The fact is there is no free lunch, and the height of some of the vehicles makes for a massive side profile (a large negative in a military vehicle). I’m sure it’s fantastic for Forestry uses, but the only think useful in that terrain for the military is a helicopter that has air superiority/supremacy.

While the MTLB has thinner tracks it is a really light armored vehicle and negotiates muskeg great. Just not Ukrainian mud bogs when combat loaded. They where built originally in Ukraine (as part of the USSR) for that terrain and without dismounts and combat load they do quite well. I’m guessing the trials guys in the USSR never opted for a combat realistic load trial.

 

[Kirkhill]

While the MTLB has thinner tracks it is a really light armored vehicle and negotiates muskeg great. Just not Ukrainian mud bogs when combat loaded. They where built originally in Ukraine (as part of the USSR) for that terrain and without dismounts and combat load they do quite well. I’m guessing the trials guys in the USSR never opted for a combat realistic load trial.

What you mean to say is that the users overloaded the vehicle for the terrain - they expected too much out of the vehicle. If the dam thing is sinking unload it. Maybe make two trips. Or use more vehicles.

 

[KevinB]

What you mean to say is that the users overloaded the vehicle for the terrain - they expected too much out of the vehicle. If the dam thing is sinking unload it. Maybe make two trips. Or use more vehicles.

Empty vehicles serve no purpose…

 

[Kirkhill]

Empty vehicles serve no purpose…

Stuck vehicles serve no purpose.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Foremost would sink like anything else if it had armor and a combat load on it too. The fact is there is no free lunch, and the height of some of the vehicles makes for a massive side profile (a large negative in a military vehicle). I’m sure it’s fantastic for Forestry uses, but the only think useful in that terrain for the military is a helicopter that has air superiority/supremacy.

While the MTLB has thinner tracks it is a really light armored vehicle and negotiates muskeg great. Just not Ukrainian mud bogs when combat loaded. They where built originally in Ukraine (as part of the USSR) for that terrain and without dismounts and combat load they do quite well. I’m guessing the trials guys in the USSR never opted for a combat realistic load trial.

Working the problem with mobility in mind in the far north, let's say Baffin Island. Access with any larger vehicles such as a MBT, LAV, and even the TAPV are very very limited, so notwithstanding it's military requirements the vehicles presently used for patrols are limited to snowmobiles. these are great for patrols. You are correct that helicopters will get you to where you want to be and in a hurry they are limited by weather. However once you get dropped of you will still need to be mobile. Mobility in that case is limited to what you cab sling under a Chinook. Hard packed snow opens it up to all kinds of tracked vehicles and the BV's will perform well but if there's a thaw (avoids global warming debate) then you're driving in soup. The Foremost vehicles are specifically designed for these conditions, even the Russians bought a bunch in the 80's (outfitted for forest fire fighting in Siberia I believe). The smaller and midsized units have model #s which if you multiply by 100 will give you it's load capacity. Add the buoyancy option and it won't sink. The only way to find out is to work with the company, give them the requirements, and trial 2 or 3. If it doesn't work then so be it. But if they do come up with something that meets the requirements you now have a Canadian supplier/manufacturer and a model or 2 that gives you a capacity that isn't limited by how many operational BVs are still around. With the chance there will be some extra cash lying around it may be an opportune time to give it a go. Plus it'll make Alberta happy (insert smartass smilie here)

And now for some pure entertainment

at about 2 mins you can hear the empties clinking around the back of the truck

 

[Spencer100]

The US Army picks the BAE offering.

The BAE Sweden Beowulf based on the BvS10.

BAE Systems wins US Army deal for Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle

BAE Systems will build the Army's new Cold-Weather All-Terrain Vehicle, meant to replace aging vehicles as the service beefs up its Arctic focus.

www.defensenews.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

The US Army picks the BAE offering.

The BAE Sweden Beowulf based on the BvS10.

BAE Systems wins US Army deal for Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle

BAE Systems will build the Army's new Cold-Weather All-Terrain Vehicle, meant to replace aging vehicles as the service beefs up its Arctic focus.

www.defensenews.com

Awesome vehicle, nice choice!

 

[Skysix]

But no armor.... I guess the figure in the current AT environment armor enough to protect crew would be too heavy.

Too bad about those 12.7mm AP hits though....

 

[daftandbarmy]

But no armor.... I guess the figure in the current AT environment armor enough to protect crew would be too heavy.

Too bad about those 12.7mm AP hits though....

I think it has up-armouring packages though, does it not?


The BvS10 is similar to, but distinct from, Hägglunds earlier Bandvagn 206 or Bv 206S. It is a much larger vehicle based upon the characteristic twin-cab, articulated steering system typical of Hägglunds all-terrain vehicles. The main differences from the older Bv206s are a more powerful Cummins 5.9 litre diesel engine, improved ground clearance, and newly developed chassis, power train and steering units that give the vehicle considerably enhanced speed (up to 65 km/h from the previous 51.5 km/h on road) and comfort on road and in terrain, as well as greater load-carrying capability (up to 5 tons), and the ability to add various modular sub-systems such as add-on armour, weapon mounts, a load-changer and cargo platforms.

BvS10 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[childs56]

When you see the Foremost and other bed trucks, sows trucks working in the muskeg up North carrying the Drilling rigs and equipment through the mud and skeg I often wondered why the Military did not buy those trucks for serious heavy off road equipment moving.

 

[Furniture]

But no armor.... I guess the figure in the current AT environment armor enough to protect crew would be too heavy.

Too bad about those 12.7mm AP hits though....

I suspect the intent is to use them like jeeps, not Shermans...

Not every(or even most) green vehicle needs to be a fighting vehicle. In Afghanistan we needed armour, in the next fight lots of light vehicles is likely to be more useful.

 

[Skysix]

When you see the Foremost and other bed trucks, sows trucks working in the muskeg up North carrying the Drilling rigs and equipment through the mud and skeg I often wondered why the Military did not buy those trucks for serious heavy off road equipment moving.

Not made in USA

 

[daftandbarmy]

I suspect the intent is to use them like jeeps, not Shermans...

Not every(or even most) green vehicle needs to be a fighting vehicle. In Afghanistan we needed armour, in the next fight lots of light vehicles is likely to be more useful.

And tanks are really good in certain types of snow conditions.

As I recall, the Leopard was particularly nimble..... for obvious reasons

 

[Spencer100]

Not made in USA

Neither is the Beowulf based on BvS10 they are buying. BAE Systems America unit is selling it in partnership with its Swedish unit BAE Systems Hagglunds.

The SUSV units they are replacing were also produced by Hagglunds. The BV206 or some call it a Bandvagn.

CAF have or had some too. That is what they are looking to replace but it just takes ten times as long to make a procurement.

Oh as an aside the way BAE Systems US operates is different. It has the ability to be counted as an "American" company it has at own board and governance. The British side can only see the financials and some business side of things. Many times they will little to no idea what the American side is working on. Now they will know the big picture stuff but not the sensitive areas. So in this case it is almost two companies teaming up but with same ownership. Airbus and others are very jealous of BAE status. The closest other foreign company to this is Leonardo and their Leonardo DRS subsidiary but they are in the process of selling it off.

 

[Spencer100]

What the Royal Marines are doing. For their program

Royal Marines to get 60 new amphibious vehicles

The FATVs will be in-service until 2058, replacing the BV206 tracked and older BvS 10 ‘Viking’ models.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

 

[Kirkhill]

What the Royal Marines are doing. For their program

Royal Marines to get 60 new amphibious vehicles

The FATVs will be in-service until 2058, replacing the BV206 tracked and older BvS 10 ‘Viking’ models.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

So that puts the Brits, Swedes and Germans using a variant of the BvS10/Beowulf adopted by the US Army for its Alaska based. 11th Airborne Division

US Army selects BAE’s Beowulf all-terrain vehicle - The Engineer

BAE Systems has been awarded a $278m contract to supply the US Army with Beowulf all-terain vehicles, a deal that includes spare parts and contractor logistics support.

www.theengineer.co.uk

 

[daftandbarmy]

So that puts the Brits, Swedes and Germans using a variant of the BvS10/Beowulf adopted by the US Army for its Alaska based. 11th Airborne Division

US Army selects BAE’s Beowulf all-terrain vehicle - The Engineer

BAE Systems has been awarded a $278m contract to supply the US Army with Beowulf all-terain vehicles, a deal that includes spare parts and contractor logistics support.

www.theengineer.co.uk

The bitter reality is that, despite the obvious usefulness of the BV 206 variants, the only real war winning vehicles in arctic warfare are tanks and tracked APCs, and tracked artillery and engineer vehicles, just in like the 'non-Arctic' type of warfare.

If we don't have tracked vehicles, and practise deploying them in the arctic, we'll be in 2nd place in that AO.

 

[Kirkhill]

The bitter reality is that, despite the obvious usefulness of the BV 206 variants, the only real war winning vehicles in arctic warfare are tanks and tracked APCs, and tracked artillery and engineer vehicles, just in like the 'non-Arctic' type of warfare.

If we don't have tracked vehicles, and practise deploying them in the arctic, we'll be in 2nd place in that AO.

We can't get an armoured Brigade to Seoul or Southampton in a timely fashion. And you expect to get one to Eureka or the Barren Lands? The good news is that nobody else can get one there either.

Nordkapp in something else again. There are other people, starting with the Norwegians, Swedes and Finns that can bring those assets to the fight. But despite their couple hundred tanks and their similar numbers of APCs their ATVs number in the range of 10,000 or so. And the Poles and the Balts have been offering barracks for Light Infantry.

First we have to get wherever it is we want to go.