Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW
- Thread starter McG
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,427
- Points
- 1,160
Are you sure about the LVM (L) replacing both the LSVW AND the G-Wagen?
The way that I read that the LUVWs (both MilCOTS and SMP (G-Wagen)) were/are to be the subjects of separate replacement plans.
It seems to me only the LSVW is to be replaced by the LVM(L) - and it was for that programme that I assumed that we might be considering the 7 tonne GVW vehicles like the JLTV, Hawkei, Foxhound etc.
I see the Mediums and Heavies the same way you do.
The way that I read that the LUVWs (both MilCOTS and SMP (G-Wagen)) were/are to be the subjects of separate replacement plans.
It seems to me only the LSVW is to be replaced by the LVM(L) - and it was for that programme that I assumed that we might be considering the 7 tonne GVW vehicles like the JLTV, Hawkei, Foxhound etc.
I see the Mediums and Heavies the same way you do.
- Reaction score
- 7,427
- Points
- 1,160
I think I am starting to catch up to FEE's position on these trucks.
Is the MSVS-SMP project really necessary?
Would the money be better spent split between the LVM Light and LVM Heavy projects?
If you take a look at MGen Poulter's weight ranges the LVM Light is intended to operate with a pay load equivalent to the old Deuce and a Half, or the MLVW that the MSVS was supposed to replace.
But the MSVS actually was a replacement for the HLVW with both of them rated at 10 tonnes of payload.
Now if the game plan is to operate with ISO Containers (20 ft approximately equal to 20 tonnes fully loaded) shouldn't the standard transport vehicle be the 20 tonne Heavy with all the PLS systems FEE is asking for?
In Afghanistan, with the Actros Heavies, did anybody feel that they were overkill with respect to supply? Was there a need for a smaller truck to move smaller loads in a more timely fashion? Or did the IED/Convoy system restrict delivery times in any event?
Is the MSVS-SMP project really necessary?
Would the money be better spent split between the LVM Light and LVM Heavy projects?
If you take a look at MGen Poulter's weight ranges the LVM Light is intended to operate with a pay load equivalent to the old Deuce and a Half, or the MLVW that the MSVS was supposed to replace.
But the MSVS actually was a replacement for the HLVW with both of them rated at 10 tonnes of payload.
Now if the game plan is to operate with ISO Containers (20 ft approximately equal to 20 tonnes fully loaded) shouldn't the standard transport vehicle be the 20 tonne Heavy with all the PLS systems FEE is asking for?
In Afghanistan, with the Actros Heavies, did anybody feel that they were overkill with respect to supply? Was there a need for a smaller truck to move smaller loads in a more timely fashion? Or did the IED/Convoy system restrict delivery times in any event?
- Reaction score
- 7,427
- Points
- 1,160
For the record and the discussion - here are the job requirements of the JLTV programme. In my opinion these requirements would seem to be in broad commonality with both the 7 tonners I mentioned previously and also the LVM-Light requirements.
Again, the C configuration, with it 5100 lb or 2.5 ton payload and prime mover requirement seems to put it into the role of the Deuce and a Half as a CQ vehicle.
- Reaction score
- 9,243
- Points
- 1,260
I don't know if the SMP MSVS is already in progress. If not, I don't see any fault in going to a Light and Heavy Utility truck. Any Tn guys care to chip in?
The JLTV project seems to fit the bill - it's too bad we ate it with the TAPV and didn't get a common utility chassis with 3 Payload categories as described above. The G-Wagon, LSVW, RG-31 and Coyote could have all been replaced by one common project....
The JLTV project seems to fit the bill - it's too bad we ate it with the TAPV and didn't get a common utility chassis with 3 Payload categories as described above. The G-Wagon, LSVW, RG-31 and Coyote could have all been replaced by one common project....
Mountie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
How about:
LUVW, LSVW & MLVW replaced by Eagle V or Navistar MXT known as the Light Support Vehicle System (LSVS) with basic, weapons carrier, ambulance, command post, cargo, MP and SEV variants
MLVW & HLVW replaced by HEMTT 8x8 (10-tonne) being offered for the MSVS in cargo, PLS & fuel/water tanker versions known as the MSVS
HLVW PLS, tractor & wrecker replaced by the Oshkosh LVSR 10x10 (16-tonne) PLS, tractor and wrecker known as the Heavy Support Vehicle System (HSVS)
This would give two basic vehicle systems to replace four current systems (HEMTT & LVSR are based on the same vehicle). The commonality of parts would be cheaper to operate.
General Dynamics Eagle V: http://www.gdels.com/brochures/eagle6x6.pdf
Navistar Defence MXT: http://www.navistardefense.com/NavistarDefense/vehicles
Oshkosh HEMTT 8x8: http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/products/13/hemtt-a4
Oshkosh LVRS: http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/products/16/lvsr
LUVW, LSVW & MLVW replaced by Eagle V or Navistar MXT known as the Light Support Vehicle System (LSVS) with basic, weapons carrier, ambulance, command post, cargo, MP and SEV variants
MLVW & HLVW replaced by HEMTT 8x8 (10-tonne) being offered for the MSVS in cargo, PLS & fuel/water tanker versions known as the MSVS
HLVW PLS, tractor & wrecker replaced by the Oshkosh LVSR 10x10 (16-tonne) PLS, tractor and wrecker known as the Heavy Support Vehicle System (HSVS)
This would give two basic vehicle systems to replace four current systems (HEMTT & LVSR are based on the same vehicle). The commonality of parts would be cheaper to operate.
General Dynamics Eagle V: http://www.gdels.com/brochures/eagle6x6.pdf
Navistar Defence MXT: http://www.navistardefense.com/NavistarDefense/vehicles
Oshkosh HEMTT 8x8: http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/products/13/hemtt-a4
Oshkosh LVRS: http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/products/16/lvsr
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
So according to the timeline in 5 years we're all going to be sleeping in sea-cans in the field carried by the MSVS? Cool... lol
By the time I get my Sgt's we should have a new military fleet lol.
Still expected to happen sooner than a new MP Academy ;D
By the time I get my Sgt's we should have a new military fleet lol.
Still expected to happen sooner than a new MP Academy ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Mountie said:
THAT is awesome! I would much rather drive that anyday over the current LS POS >
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,375
- Points
- 1,160
There seems to be the belief that we can do better by replacing the medium size support vehicle with larger vehicles. The MSVS, coming in closer to the HLVW than MLVW, is illustrative.Infanteer said:
Unfortunately, there are problems with a purely bigger is better philosophy. A truck larger than needed is a truck that is harder to hide on the battlefield, that burns more fuel, that is more work to camouflage, and that fits in fewer places than it should. Another concern when replacing two medium for one large is that lower level echelons are robbed of a flexibility to divide itself and sp a sub-unit that is split on different axis or AOs. Those same lower levels loose a sort of depth/resiliency with fewer but bigger trucks; it is an all eggs in one basket scenario. With two medium trucks, the loss of one still leaves you with half your stuff to continue with ops; with one large truck, it's loss leaves you with nothing.
The problem with MSV is that it replaced a platform and so focused on the existing platform as opposed to looking at our whole support fleet. Some of the MLVW needed to be replaced by whatever HSV also replaces the HLVW, SHLVW & HESV. Unfortunately, with single platform replacement blinders on, we did not take that path. Instead, the requirement for some MLVW to be replaced by a much larger vehicle has lead to all being replaced by a much larger vehicle, including those which should not have been replaced by larger.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,986
- Points
- 1,010
I could have sworn I read somewhere (I believe in designing the army of tomorrow) that the Canadian Army was supposed to aim for "families of vehicles" to reduce seperate vehicle fleet cost. I am not a trucker by any means, so this is not my expertise. I have been a course WO with an MSVS and I remember parking it in the admin area when we hit the field and leaving it there as my "mobile stores/staff office" truck. It just wasn't that mobile, it stayed there the whole week.
Good points to note, bigger vehicles cost more to sustain. I am not the combat Log expert but as pointed out, we have to think holistically when purchasing vehicles (i.e. the big picture).
Good points to note, bigger vehicles cost more to sustain. I am not the combat Log expert but as pointed out, we have to think holistically when purchasing vehicles (i.e. the big picture).
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
PPCLI Guy said:
And that is the biggest problem... we now have the MSVS ENGR SEV and it's a pos....
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
MCG said:
And not very user friendly... IMHO the auger sucks balls, appears to have no power at all even though the PTO/Engine is engaging at almost 2k rpm and has no outriggers.... and they are plague with problems with the rear cargo doors (same issues with the other caged trucks). Also the work space in the cargo area is limited to a very small work bench, the rest is taken up with cabinets....
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
ArmyRick said:
Two words, lowest bidder....
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
That too......
- Reaction score
- 22,473
- Points
- 1,090
For the MSVS MilCOTS (MSVS SMP is caught in a procurement hell of DND's own devising) DND/CF wrote the specification. A total of one vendor was interested enough to make a bid. So DND's choices were (a) Buy It or (b) cancel the procurement, go back to the drawing board, and hope that if they did it again someone would bid with a different vehicle (say 18-24 month delay if everything went exactly according to plan)
Similar threads
