Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[cupper]

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.

Just to throw my somewhat ancient  :2c: to add to this, a larger vehicle will also require larger recovery assets as well.

I know from experience that when the MLVW was introduced (at the reserve level at least) the 5 Ton Wreckers were fine for dealing with towing the standard cargo units, but were slightly under sized when dealing with a unit with a HIAB crane. The additional weight was just enough to make steering of the wrecker a bit of a hair raising experience.

Had a situation where we needed to bring one back from Aldershot to Halifax. Hooked it up at the old Anti-Armour Course building at the top of Rubber Road, and was supposed to tow it out to the Battalion position on the driving range prior to the move back to Halifax. Tried to make the corner to head out to the main gate, only to have the Wrecker decide to continue straight across the road. It was all I could o to fight it around to the old maintenance garage and unhook it. We ended up having the MSS from Halifax send their commercial 10 Ton up later.

 

[OldSolduer]

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)

I've said this before and if any procurement type people read this, think about what I am about to say:

When the government decides, based on the CF recommendation, that we can purchase new vehicles, the fol pers should be involved :

Drivers - Basically Cpls that have been there, done that and know vehicles and their Dvr maint
Maintainers - first and second line who actually do the work
Signallers - only because I feel sorry for them and they do work in vehicles - I think....
Crew commanders - for the AFV/Tank lot
Other pers that may need to use the vehicle ie engineers for the Engr SEV etc.

We cannot seem to get it through our heads our MCpls, Cpls and Ptes can think and figure stuff out, or even have better ideas than the design people who may or may not have had military experience.

 

[George Wallace]

I've said this before and if any procurement type people read this, think about what I am about to say:

When the government decides, based on the CF recommendation, that we can purchase new vehicles, the fol pers should be involved :

Drivers - Basically Cpls that have been there, done that and know vehicles and their Dvr maint
Maintainers - first and second line who actually do the work
Signallers - only because I feel sorry for them and they do work in vehicles - I think....
Crew commanders - for the AFV/Tank lot
Other pers that may need to use the vehicle ie engineers for the Engr SEV etc.

We cannot seem to get it through our heads our MCpls, Cpls and Ptes can think and figure stuff out, or even have better ideas than the design people who may or may not have had military experience.

Why for the love of god, is the "End User" ignored by the "genius' " who make up these procurements?  This brings back the construction of a Tank Hangar in Petawawa in 1994.  The foundation was laid prior to our deploying to Bosnia, and when I walked around it in the compound I knew right away that the dimensions for the bay doors were too small.  When we returned from Bosnia in 1995, the hangar exterior was complete and lo and behold when a tank was brought up to drive through the doors, there was only one inch clearance on either side.  Did I mention that the Add-on Armour had just arrived, but had not been installed?  Anyone who has been around tracked vehicles knows that a slight touch of the steering controls and the vehicle pivots.  One inch clearance on each side of the vehicle is an accident waiting to happen.....and a bay door made inoperable.....and a Security Detail now initiated to secure the building during after duty hours......and a very large repair bill......repeated over the occupation period of that building hundreds of times during its use.  Some "bean counter" figured they could save X number of dollars by reducing the size of the doors.  End result, "savings" in door size on this building, cancellation of the multi-tonne crane that was to be installed in said building......and need to construct a new tank hangar which would accommodated "Tanks" and the multi-tonne crane that ran the length of the hangar.  Five cents saved on short term/Hundreds of dollars spent on long term to fix problems created by initial savings.  (This is the theme of the modern generations/government.)

 

[dapaterson]

Why for the love of god, is the "End User" ignored by the "genius' " who make up these procurements?

The End User writes the requirement.  If the doors were too small then talk to the armoured officers and NCMs posted to the Directorate of Land Requirements.  They signed off on the requirement.

If, like most branches, the black hats sent less then their best and brightest to DLR, then don't blame the procurement folks for a requirements failure.

 

[PuckChaser]

Signallers - only because I feel sorry for them and they do work in vehicles - I think....

Yeah, we make a lot of use out of the trucksack.

Biggest issue I've seen from the MSVS point of view, is how the hell you link a MSVS SEV pod into a CP complex without having custom made mod tent/drash/whatever adapters. I mean, even mod and drash can work together fairly well.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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)

I was told by an MSE guru on my course that one of the requirements for the MSVS project was that the truck needed to have a service station authorized to work on it within 100km of any CF base or establishment where the truck will be used (or something along those lines). Only one company could conveniently achieve that requirement.



The truck is horrible. Troops in the back need to lean back against the sides in order to shit the tailgate half the time. One of our trucks needs a tie down strap with the vehicle at all times so that the driver can pinch the walls together in order to shut the tailgate if he doesn't have troops int he back.  We really ought to investigate why we picked the MSVS and deal out some administrative action.

 

[George Wallace]

Biggest issue I've seen from the MSVS point of view, is how the hell you link a MSVS SEV pod into a CP complex without having custom made mod tent/drash/whatever adapters. I mean, even mod and drash can work together fairly well.

Why not?  It was done for the MLVWs of 1CDSHR or whatever they were called back then when 1 Cdn Div ran two "Hubs".  Some aluminium platforms and stairs and then modified tentage

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I was told by an MSE guru on my course that one of the requirements for the MSVS project was that the truck needed to have a service station authorized to work on it within 100km of any CF base or establishment where the truck will be used (or something along those lines). Only one company could conveniently achieve that requirement.



The truck is horrible. Troops in the back need to lean back against the sides in order to crap the tailgate half the time. One of our trucks needs a tie down strap with the vehicle at all times so that the driver can pinch the walls together in order to shut the tailgate if he doesn't have troops int he back.  We really ought to investigate why we picked the MSVS and deal out some administrative action.

All TCV variants were supposed to have turnbuckle mods to sidewalls to stop that problem with the tailgate.....

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Why not?  It was done for the MLVWs of 1CDSHR or whatever they were called back then when 1 Cdn Div ran two "Hubs".  Some aluminium platforms and stairs and then modified tentage

The SEV variants and the Caged Variant all have the usual shitty ladder that is standard on all MSVS but they also have a staircase like on the old ML QM trucks....

 

[PuckChaser]

Why not?  It was done for the MLVWs of 1CDSHR or whatever they were called back then when 1 Cdn Div ran two "Hubs".  Some aluminium platforms and stairs and then modified tentage

For once I'd like to see us think of something ahead of time, instead of relying on the ingenuity of CF members to "make it work". HQSS and the LSVW replacement can't be done in vacuums, we need the specs for HQSS to fit onto whatever the new LSVW will be.

 

[PanaEng]

The End User writes the requirement.  If the doors were too small then talk to the armoured officers and NCMs posted to the Directorate of Land Requirements.  They signed off on the requirement.

If, like most branches, the black hats sent less then their best and brightest to DLR, then don't blame the procurement folks for a requirements failure.

Good point, we all like to criticize PWGSC, DND, "the man", whatever, when it is actually our own guys that write the requirements.
So we need to start with competent career managers, that would send at least competent ppl to DLR positions and require them to have the proper experience and trg (technical writing, requirement analysis and writing, risk analysis and a few more specific technical subjects as applicable to their role)
but more importantly, the ability to talk to each other.
I'm willing to bet though that we will still complain about the results.

 

[George Wallace]

For once I'd like to see us think of something ahead of time, instead of relying on the ingenuity of CF members to "make it work". HQSS and the LSVW replacement can't be done in vacuums, we need the specs for HQSS to fit onto whatever the new LSVW will be.

They probably still have the platforms and tentage at the Regiment, hidden away in a storage container.  You are not going to find custom platforms to connect four or five trucks backed up together forming a "hub" at any auto manufacturer.  That is something done after a vehicle has been purchased and the specs can be done up as a custom job.

 

[cupper]

Why for the love of god, is the "End User" ignored by the "genius' " who make up these procurements?  This brings back the construction of a Tank Hangar in Petawawa in 1994. 

I know that there is a good possibility that when you are dealing with buildings, even though there may be some consultation in the initial planning stage, the actual design  and design review are done by people who would have a hard time identifying a tank in the first place. Usually major construction projects are done by DCC ) Defense Construction Canada, and coordinated / overseen by Public Works (or whatever they are called now). The actual design is outsourced to architectural and engineering firms (perhaps several). At any point in the review process there may be input from various users, but I know from personal experience that it usually gets lost in translation.

George's example also brings to mind the fiasco with the Shipborne Aircraft procurement and I believe the Halifax class frigates. The hanger doors were too small for the aircraft chosen. Fortunately we were saved from embarrassment by having the aircraft cancelled if memory serves correct..

 

[PuckChaser]

You are not going to find custom platforms to connect four or five trucks backed up together forming a "hub" at any auto manufacturer.  That is something done after a vehicle has been purchased and the specs can be done up as a custom job.

DRASH makes them (I use this example as that's all I've used). The vehicle "boots" fit about 5 different vehicles in one shot, including our LSVWs and "Queen Mary" M113s. I'm not saying the auto manufacturer is going to have them, but we need to get the vehicle and SEV/Pod figured out so the vehicle connections can be tendered with the HQSS contract. Otherwise we're 5 years and a whole lot of Jerry-rigging from having proper tentage.

 

[Infanteer]

DRASH is too heavy, too fragile and too bulky.  We chucked it a few years ago due to its impractical characteristics.

 

[Mountie]

Here's a couple options to the problem mentioned about the MSVS being too big: 

#1 - Here is a smaller version of the Navistar MSVS MiLCOTS that I mentioned earlier.  Perhaps it could fit some of the roles that don't need the large MSVS.  It could be a gun tractor for the C3 105mm (if it remains) or the 81mm mortars that the reserve artillery is to be getting, a replacement for the LSVW variants, maybe even a small Engineer SEV.

#2 - The Zetros 6x6 was a candidate for the MSVS SMP.  Its cab can be armoured, its very mobile, etc.  Seems to be a good choice.  And it comes in a 4x4 version as well.  If both were procured this would give the CF the diversity that is required.  The SEV's based on the 10' ISO containers would fit.  It would be a better choice for many of the SEV's.  And the 6x6 variant can fit the 20' ISO containers and SEVs.  And not only do the two Zetros models have commonality of parts, they also have an 80% commonality with the AHSVS Actros.

Would this be a better option?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

If I am not mistaken but the AHSVS ACTROS was a one time buy for Afghanistan hence why they only ordered 86 82 of them....

 

[McG]

If I am not mistaken but the AHSVS ACTROS was a one time buy for Afghanistan hence why they only ordered 86 of them....

You are correct.  There was also no provision to sustain the vehicle after Afghanistan, so keeping it alive would mean taking O&M money from somewhere else.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You are correct.  There was also no provision to sustain the vehicle after Afghanistan, so keeping it alive would mean taking O&M money from somewhere else.

Could the HSVS replace the MSVS?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

They didn't buy enough... ObedientiaZelum....

They got a  cargo,  recovery, tank transporter tractor, and PLS (palletized loading system). Contrary to original plans, all trucks will have armour cabs – this "Protected Cab" by LMT and adds 2,000 kg to vehicle weight.

Specs on the AHSVS....

DaimlerChrysler (Mercedes-Benz)  Actros 4100 series  –  Specifications
  Powerplant:   15.93 L, 330 kW Mercedes Benz OM502LA, V8 turbo-diesel
  Trans.:   Mercedes Telligent  AutoTrans automatic transmission
  Weights:
  total wt., 93 t (110 t , tractor) , dead weight  23,000 kg,  fifth
  wheel load  (approx.) 23,000 kg ,  gross axle load  70,000 kg
  Size/speed:   (8x8 tractor) 8.4m L x 2.9m W x 4.02m H,  max speed: 88 km/h
  Protection:   cab  (sides/ roof):  STANAG 4569 level 1, floor:  level 3b
  Variants:   cargo, cargo (hoist), PLS, recovery, and tank tractor trailer