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

Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
58
Points
530
The Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project is beginning to replace the LUVW, LSVW, and HLVW … and possibly/probably the miscellaneous heavier support vehicles including SHLVW, HESV and AHSVS.  I thought it might be interesting to get some collective ideas on what it is we need or what sort of end-state our fleet may look like, and any other generic comments on future support/logistic fleets.

As a pedantic starting point, I will suggest that the acronym that names any new vehicles should not end in “S.”  “S” is for the system and implies not just a vehicle but all the vehicles (potentially including vehicles of different types), any PLS based shelter or mission systems, trailers, and other “bits” of the whole capability.  It is wrong that we currently refer to trucks as AHSVS or MSVS, and in the future we should not have LSVS, LUVS, HSVS or any other such acronym as the name referencing the truck itself.

Now, on to more important things.  On the light side of the spectrum, I think we have need of something that fills the liaison (G-wagon) to cargo (LSVW, MilCOTS), troop caring (LSVW) and special purpose roles (G-wagon,LSVW, MilCOTS).  In the civilian world this would represent everything from jeep/SUV, to pick-up truck and full-sized van … in the military we have typically used pickups in the van role.  What I propose we need is a single vehicle type that comes in different wheel base lengths and different bodies.  This simplifies logistics and reduces training requirements.  For each wheel base, I would envision a full-length cab variant (in a G-Wagon/SUV sort of style).  I would also see an extended pickup cab (2 to 3 crew + pers kit) and crew cab (2-3 crew + 2 passengers) that would be common to both the standard and extended wheel base versions.

All vehicles would have MMG/HMG/AGL mounts (either light RWS or a machine gunner’s hatch).  A lightweight General Purpose Vehicle fleet might consist of:
  • Short Wheel Base
    • Jeep-style comd & liaison vehicle with 3 crew & 2 passengers
    • Jeep-style provost vehicle with 3 crew
  • Standard Wheel Base
    • Jeep-style liaison vehicle with 3 crew & 4 passengers
    • Pickup Extended Cab-style cargo vehicle with 2 crew
    • Pickup Crew Cab-style cargo vehicle with 3 crew & 2 passengers
    • Misc Pickup Extended Cab-style SEV with 2 crew
    • Misc Pickup Crew Cab-style SEV with 3 crew & 2 passengers
  • Extended Wheel Base
    • Nyala layout liaison & TCV with 3 crew & 6 passengers
    • Pickup Extended Cab-style Ambulance with 2 crew up-front
    • Misc Pickup Extended Cab-style SEV with 2 crew
    • Misc Pickup Crew Cab-style SEV with 3 crew & 2 passengers
The vehicles must be designed to be armoured (because armouring vehicles as an after-thought tends to results in unexpected and/or premature mechanical failures), but only the vehicles going to CMBGs should actually be delivered with armour (and vehicles going to Army schools should be delivered with armour simulating ballast).  The purchase plan should bring us to FOC within two years and commit to 300 – 500 new vehicles annually for the life of the fleet.  As new vehicles come in, they will take the armour (or sim-armour) from brigade & TE vehicles, the down-armoured vehicles would then cascade to PRes, bases, Air Force and other users (in some cases eventually reducing the size of our blue fleet).  We would allow ourselves to retire vehicles (from anywhere in the fleet) that are old, tired, or significantly damaged.

Given that MSVS is bringing in vehicles that are almost as large & heavy as the HLVW, we may want to give consideration to something between MSVS and an LGPV (as I proposed it).  On the other end of the spectrum, additional vehicles of the eventual MSVS variety could cover some HLVW replacement needs.  The rest of the HLVW replacement could be satisfied with a family of vehicles that have capacity to replace the heavier vehicles (HESV, SHLVW, etc) as well.
 

Thompson_JM

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
From a reserve perspective as our LSVW's and HLVW's are cycled out, if the CF keeps going on its current trend of "Buy the reservists something off the shelf" I would recommend a modified LUVW-M to replace the LSVW fleets... basically a next generation CUCV deal, where there are Amb's CP's TCV's Cage trucks, etc.. etc.. and Not every vehicle would need the 4 person extended cab. 

Is it ideal... not by a long shot.... would it sacrifice our ability to train off road... Yup.... Would they work for Dom ops though... Probably... Would they cost the Govt less money... For sure....  :eek:rly:



What I'd like to see is that we get the same thing the Reg-F get minus the Armour. That way we have one training standard to meet. 

Whatever happens it will be interesting to see what actually gets purchased and put into service....
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
683
Points
860
The challenge is that military-specific equipment is significantly more expensive than militarized equipment (MilCOTS type vehicles).  As my crystal ball, though cloudy, does not see a large scale influx of funding in the near term ,we therefore ahve to work within available resources, which means the MSVS (MilCOTS) is the model for the future - civilian pattern truck painted green with minor modifications, followed by a smaller, internationally deployable and survivable fleet of similar capabilities.

The additional challenge in acquisition is that our numbers are relatively small.  With the rolling replacement concept we're looking at 300-500 trucks per year; for most factories, tooling up for such a small run would not be cost effective.  Or, arther, DND would pay a significant premium to have those produciton lines altered for the week it would take to make our trucks, then shifted back to regular production - unless we stick with a MilCOTS type solution.
 

Thompson_JM

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I can understand the concept of MilCOTS for the reserve side, though I'll never fully embrace it.... (but such is life under the almighty dollar right?  ;D)

But With all the specific Military type Trucks out there, (Oskkosh, Mann, etc... ) how hard is it for one of those companies to just produce for us? 

I know there are rules as far as procurement goes, but what would be the biggest thing that always seems to get in the way of the CF buying the Good or most capable equipment, vice (from some of the troops perspective) settling for second (or third or fourth... ) best?  (apart from money)
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
683
Points
860
Tommy said:
I can understand the concept of MilCOTS for the reserve side, though I'll never fully embrace it.... (but such is life under the almighty dollar right?  ;D)

But With all the specific Military type Trucks out there, (Oskkosh, Mann, etc... ) how hard is it for one of those companies to just produce for us? 

I know there are rules as far as procurement goes, but what would be the biggest thing that always seems to get in the way of the CF buying the Good or most capable equipment, vice (from some of the troops perspective) settling for second (or third or fourth... ) best?  (apart from money)

"The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves".

The CF writes requriements documentation for its major purchases.  These indicate mandatory criteria and rated criteria.  This is developed in conjunction with Public Works, then posted on a system known as MERX.  Vendors submit bids that identify how they meet the mandatory and rated cirteria.

DND/CF staff evaluate the bids, may declare some as non-compliant (if they do not meet mandatory cirteria) and then rate based on the criteria they specified.  Sometimes this is combined with the cost information for a final decision; in other cases it is exclusively based on evaluation criteria; others may purchase the lowest cost compliant model.

Ultiamtely, though, it is DND that decides what to purchase, based on offers from industry.  For the MSVS MilCOTS, only one company offered to sell us trucks.  Not only one was complaint, but only a single offer was received.

So it's not a case that "we chose a second or third rate product"; it's that no one else was willing to sell us vehicles and provide the support we requested.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
58
Points
530
dapaterson said:
The challenge is that military-specific equipment is significantly more expensive than militarized equipment (MilCOTS type vehicles).  As my crystal ball, though cloudy, does not see a large scale influx of funding in the near term ,we therefore ahve to work within available resources, which means the MSVS (MilCOTS) is the model for the future - civilian pattern truck painted green with minor modifications, followed by a smaller, internationally deployable and survivable fleet of similar capabilities.

The additional challenge in acquisition is that our numbers are relatively small.  With the rolling replacement concept we're looking at 300-500 trucks per year; for most factories, tooling up for such a small run would not be cost effective.  Or, arther, DND would pay a significant premium to have those produciton lines altered for the week it would take to make our trucks, then shifted back to regular production - unless we stick with a MilCOTS type solution.

Perhaps my proposal is a best match for the MilCOTS version of the light vehicle.  Even the MilCOTS should have the up & down armour option and be fitted for mounted weapons - it gives more flexibility to employ the vehicle internationally based on mission analysis (and NDHQ's threat assessment).

In any case, I think I will propose one more variant of the short wheel base being a soft-top Jeep-style C&R vehicle with 3 crew.

 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
226
Points
780
I really like the idea of a COTS pickup-truck with dual rear wheels for the LSVW replacement as a non-tactical option. A beefed up version of the 5/4 ton trucks (not that I'm old enough to have used them), that can use the same pods we have now to cut down costs.
 

Wookilar

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dapaterson said:
Ultiamtely, though, it is DND that decides what to purchase, based on offers from industry.  For the MSVS MilCOTS, only one company offered to sell us trucks.  Not only one was complaint, but only a single offer was received.

So it's not a case that "we chose a second or third rate product"; it's that no one else was willing to sell us vehicles and provide the support we requested.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one DA. While you have it absolutely right on how it is "supposed" to happen, with major equipment purchases, politics plays as much a part as anything else.

LSVW anyone?

We could have had Oshkosh trucks instead of the MSVS, piggybacked onto the last US Army order. That was squished as there was minimal to no CanCon. The proposal never had any legs.

Also, as someone that writes SOW and Selection Criteria, I can write the SOW for a particular piece of equipment that I want to purchase. All I need to do is pick one technical spec that I know only 1 manufacturer is capable (or willing) to meet, make it mandatory, and it will be the only one that passes.

Conversely, I can write the SOW so that most companies will not even be interested in the process, because I have already made it next to impossible for them to be compliant.

Is it right? Not at all. I know PWGSC has certainly changed some procurement rules over the last few years, but there is still a lot of leeway in what we are able to do.

As for the vehicles, I can only hope that one day we will get a vehicle procurement right. Which means support vehicles delivered at the same time (Recovery especially), special tools, parts and manuals as well as training for our Veh Techs so that we can actually support the things. The LSVW was my first experience in fielding new kit, then the Coyote, then LAV. All were done the same. Part of it the fault of the govt, part of it our own fault (I know the pointy end wants all the frames to be primary capability vehicles, but if we don't have a Wrecker, how do we support?).

For this Log Veh replacement, I really hope they take their time and put together a comprehensive plan that really does fill the 80% solution. We need Recce (w/variants), Light and Heavy (also with variants). The requirement for a separate Medium class can be debated really (the cost of spare parts and the overhead required for a whole class of vehs could be compared to just buying more Heavy).

Realize though that "standardization" of veh platforms only results in a savings to a point. They can all use the same lights, seats, heater fans, etc. but still need different suspensions, tires, starters, alternators, a/c units, p/s pumps, etc. and that's the really expensive parts. It would be easier for the Supply system (less NSN..but I'm DRMIS would find something to mess up  :p), but I'm not convinced we would see any real substantial savings.

There is so much more to this replacement program than just selecting the "best" vehicle system. I just hope Ottawa remembers that.

Wook
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
683
Points
860
Wook:

Because folks write specs to disqualify competition PWGSC spends a lot of time reviewing our work to make sure we're not trying to pull stunts like that.  Again, we are our own worst enemies.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,078
Points
910
Is there any reason why we wouldn't consider something like the Airborne Amphibious Stalwart?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mr_pCrhTkk
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
Together with the equally lovely Saracen and Saladin ( I had the complete Matchbox set once upon a time).

Now there was an example of a well thought out equipment buy.  (Notwithstanding Lucas).
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
5
Points
430
Might as well toss out the whole nine yards (an idea from the past). Given the potentially huge economy of scale and logistical advantages, this is at the far end of possibility as a home grown and developed project (as long as the project isn't being run by the same people who took a decade to create and issue a rucksack....)

http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-188549.html#msg188549
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,078
Points
910
Thucydides said:
Might as well toss out the whole nine yards (an idea from the past). Given the potentially huge economy of scale and logistical advantages, this is at the far end of possibility as a home grown and developed project (as long as the project isn't being run by the same people who took a decade to create and issue a rucksack....)

http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-188549.html#msg188549

Good point... the new rucksack could replace the MLVW. It's big enough  ;D
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Wookilar said:
Conversely, I can write the SOW so that most companies will not even be interested in the process, because I have already made it next to impossible for them to be compliant.

Is it right? Not at all. I know PWGSC has certainly changed some procurement rules over the last few years, but there is still a lot of leeway in what we are able to do.
....
There is so much more to this replacement program than just selecting the "best" vehicle system. I just hope Ottawa remembers that.

Wook

There are many participants involved with writting a SOR or a SOW for a system that will be implemented service wide
Your assumption that you can sole source through clever spec writting would get called from the get go

Sole sourcing is possible, but it is very diffcult to justify.
From what I've seen, more often than not sole sourcing is justified because of the urgency of a situation, and sometimes the opportunity to acquire a capability quickly (and often more cheaply) through foreign military sales. The drawback is that these quick delivery times often come with the risk of sustainment problems.

At anyrate, given the scope of this program, I don't see how it could do anything but rely on competitive bids.

 

Wookilar

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You guys are right, PWGSC should be all over an SOR/SOW written like that.

However, nothing systemically has changed in the last decade to proclude gov't interference such as displayed by the LSVW project. Sole-sourcing is supposed to be difficult to do (it certainly is for me to prove on relatively minor projects), but we've seen significvant sole-sourced projects go through without any (seeming) hitches in the last few years.

Tanks, choppers and planes all went through. Now, mind you, I'm not saying that any/all of that stuff is junk (on the contrary), but there was more than a little bit of political motivation behind all of it. With a project of this size, we would be foolish to presume that the gov't of the day would stay out of it and allow a purely competitive bid process to work itself through. There are too many ridings (votes) that would have a potential stake in it.

Wook
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
683
Points
860
Government involvement in procurement is a design feature, not a bug.  Ultimately it is elected officials who are responsible and acountable for public expenditures.  No oversight or inadequate oversight and control leads to other issues, such as cost overruns, "gold-plating", or pricing ourselves out of the marketplace (CF-105s come to mind).

As for our recent forays into sole-sourcing:  C17s, C130Js and CH-47s were the only AC of their type in production and available, and thus the ACAN approach was unassailable; the Leo 2s were an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR).  Note also that in all three acquisitions there was significant governmental support/direction to do so.  Other urgent acquisitions, such as the AHSVS, were done on a competitive basis.

 

Wookilar

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dapaterson said:
Government involvement in procurement is a design feature, not a bug.

Thanks DA, I never thought of it like that. I look at transmissions from Winnipeg, alternators from Quebec and tires from Nova Scotia as inefficiencies that cause overall costs (and time-lines) to increase. Looking at it from the other view point says that the inherent cost increases of such a procurement method are not only acceptable but part of the overall plan..... that would have some effects that would ripple outward in those areas.....which is the general idea I suppose.

(Note: I understand fully that no veh manufacturer makes all their own parts, however, the manufacturer usually chooses their supplier according to the going market, which is not always the case in gov't procurement plans).

I guess it comes down to a value judgment on how much gov't input their should be in public service acquisitions and an argument could be made for either way.

Wook
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
683
Points
860
At the coal face I'll be the first to acknowledge the frustrations that arise (having lived through many of them).  But ultimately governemtns are responsible and accountable.

Much like making sausage, you might not want to watch if you like the final product.  And as Churchill pointed out, it's the worst of all possible systems.  Except for the others.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
402
Points
880
Keep in mind that equipment that exists, functions and is useful is an important part of maintaining a functioning reserve. If you don't invest in it, why should the people invest their time and effort?
 

The Bread Guy

Army.ca Relic
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
45
Points
630
.... via MERX Letter of Interest (LOI):
.... The LVM Project has completed the Identification phase and is in the Options Analysis phase. The Options Analysis phase will determine the best mix of payload, functionality, mobility, protection, and firepower for logistic vehicles. The final quantities of the project deliverables have not been determined.  This LOI is a key step in the Options Analysis that will guide the LVM Project in selecting the types and quantities of the deliverables as well as develop appropriate procurement strategies.

The LVM Project will modernize two major fleets, namely the 1,200 Heavy Logistic Vehicle Wheeled (HLVW) and 2,800 Logistic Support Vehicle Wheeled (LSVW). As well, 59 Heavy Engineer Support Vehicles (HESV) will also be modernized. Within the LVM Project modernization through acquisition is the most likely approach.

The LVM Project is seeking a wide range of deliverables that may be challenging to some individual companies. However, potential suppliers are encouraged to submit responses addressing those deliverables that they can provide.

Purpose

The purpose of this Letter of Interest (LOI) is to communicate the Government of Canada and Canadian Forces' (CF) initial requirements, and to request information relating to the price and availability of goods and services regarding possible provision of ground-based logistics solutions.

The information will be used to support Canada's decision-making process in determining its requirement and procurement strategy.

Notes

This LOI is not a bid solicitation and no contract will result from it.

The Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR) is currently being developed and is subject to change based on the evolution of the requirement, which may be as a result of information provided by industry ....
Bid documents attached.
 
Top