Medium Support Vehicle System

[dapaterson]

Link

McG has a useful point.

Now, with the programme 300 MCAD over budget, the programme can be folded and the SMP requirement blended into the LVM programme and relaunched as the LVM(M) to go along with the LVM (H) and LVM (L) programmes.

By the way... who decided there was enough change in the kitty to buy extra 500 MSVS-MilCOTS in the early stages of this project?

There are two issues here:  Budgeted funds (department says "Hey, we've got money") vs expenditure authority (Government says "You can spend this much.")

So, my understanding is that the department identified more money to spend to buy more MilCOTS, and went back to Government to get increased expenditure authority.  All is good - the money DND has earmarked is the same amount that the Government has approved to spend.

Now, for the SMP, over time, more requirements have been added - borrowing money from other projects (the department therefore has the money).  However, the overall expenditure authority had not been raised - no one went formally back to Government to get it increased.

That's where the problem comes in - Government has only approved so much money for all the elements of the MSVS program (MilCOTS, SMP, shelters, project management).  The proposed acquisition would have been within the funds DND has budgeted, but not within the amount Government had approved.

I think this is a case of poor sequencing - the proper sequence would have been to go back to Government, get approval for the increase in expenditure, then go out to industry.

 

[Infanteer]

So, it's like saying ADM Mat never got their Section 32 for existing money....

 

[dapaterson]

So, it's like saying ADM Mat never got their Section 32 for existing money....

Not quite, but close enough.

 

[AmmoTech90]

So, if DND had identified that it had, what, around 800 million to spend (not withstanding it did not have authority to spend that much), and it can now not spend it, can DND now turn that 800 million back in as a good chunk of the savings required by SR and DRAP?

 

[dapaterson]

So, if DND had identified that it had, what, around 800 million to spend (not withstanding it did not have authority to spend that much), and it can now not spend it, can DND now turn that 800 million back in as a good chunk of the savings required by SR and DRAP?

Probably not. SR/DRAP etc are recurring savings, not one time.  They're also supposed to be vote 1 (operations and maintenance) not vote 5 (Capital).

Finally, some DND projects are now funded through accrual funding, which makes it easier ("easier" in government terms) to shift funds to later fiscal years for the same project.

Even if it was being funded through DND's baseline vote 5, keep in mind that it would not have been spent this year, but over the next several years.  So other projects can be rejigged within the larger plan, moving some forward to take advantage of the funding that MSVS won't be spending in those years.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Noted, should have put the joking/sarcasm smiley in.

May be we can rejig it in the larger plan to support the system of supporting medium vehicles (the SSMV project).

 

[The Bread Guy]

And the MSVS SMP has been stopped...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-slams-the-brakes-on-plan-to-buy-new-military-trucks/article4408849/

This from MERX:

.... In order to ensure a successful procurement of the Standard Military Pattern (SMP) component of the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS), Canada wishes to provide Industry with an opportunity to participate in a consultation process as part of this re-solicitation. The information received during these
exchanges will help Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), the Department of National DEFENCE (DND) and Industry Canada (IC) to validate the SMP Vehicles procurement approach.

The consultation process will begin with one-on-one meetings with industry. The main objective of the one-on-one meetings is to validate certain aspects of the SMP procurement approach outlined in RFP #W8476-06MSMP/J (issued in December 2011) and to provide an opportunity for Industry to meet with government representatives to discuss their views. Any solutions, ideas or issues raised during the one-on-one meetings or during any other additional sessions will be analyzed for further consideration by Canada ....

Agreement (including "don't talk to media") folks have to sign is attached.

The latest MSVS project page doesn't seem to be caught up at this point.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The Canadian Press' version:

The federal government is set to jump-start its stalled, multimillion-dollar program to replace the military's aging truck fleet.

The Public Works Department is scheduling a series of meetings later this month with companies vying for a contract for 1,500 new medium-sized logistics trucks for the Canadian Forces.

A notice posted on a government contracts website says the meetings are meant to help Public Works "validate" its approach to the long-delayed truck purchase.

The government abruptly cancelled the truck contract last summer, three minutes before the deadline for bids.

An email to bidders blamed "economic, marketplace and budgetary circumstances" for the cancellation ....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Finally, the PWGSC Info-machine's version:

The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, and the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), are pleased to announce the launch of an industry consultation process for the Standard Military Pattern (SMP) component of the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) project.

“Engaging industry is part of our smart procurement approach and the new way forward,” said Minister Ambrose. “In working closely with industry, our Government will ensure the best value for Canadian taxpayers, while providing the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment and capability they need to do their jobs.”

Public Works and Government Services Canada, in consultation with the Department of National Defence, today issued an invitation to industry to take part in a consultation process as part of the re-issuance of the SMP Request for Proposals. It is anticipated that the one-on-one consultation meetings will take place between January 17 and January 22 in the National Capital Region. The Letter of Interest inviting industry to participate in the consultation process is now available on MERX.

“Our Government believes it is important to ensure our men and women in uniform have the right equipment to do the difficult and dangerous job we ask of them,” said Minister Valcourt. “The new fleet of trucks represents an important investment to rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces’ ability to provide lift and logistical support on the ground.”

Public Works and Government Services Canada, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, is purchasing a fleet of medium-sized trucks and associated logistics to replace and modernize the current medium-sized logistics trucks. The SMP requirement is a complex procurement including both the acquisition of five variants of the vehicle and associated equipment as well as in-service support for the life of the vehicles ....

 

[PuckChaser]

Can't wait for the new trucks in 2025 when all that we have left of the MLVWs are the tires on rusted out rims.

 

[McG]

Hopefully the pause allowed for some rationalization between MSVS and the bigger LVMP.  We were on a path toward having two separate new fleets of heavy trucks (MSVS and the LVMP heavy vehicle) but no actual medium vehicle.

I understand that some economies can be had by replacing several medium trucks with fewer bigger trucks, but that should be achieved by rolling those numbers into the HLVW replacement and not by increasing the size of the MLVW replacement vehicle itself. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Here are the current section vehicle candidates for the CF, with their payloads.

CSOR's Supacat Jackals - 2100 kg
Future Force JLTV - 1600 kg
Lt Bn TAPV - 2995 kg
LAV III - 3550 kg
LAV UP - >3550 kg

MLVW Payload - 2270 kg XC 5000 kg On-Road

MSVS Payload.......
HLVW Payload.....
VHLVW Payload......

How many section vehicles to the company vehicle?
How many company vehicles to the battalion?
How many rifles removed from the front line to drive company and battalion vehicles?
Do you need any company and battalion vehicles at all or should brigade be tasked with delivering to the point of use?
What is the impact of modern air delivery (C17/C130 with JPADS, CH-146/147/148s, VTOL UAVs) on the need for a Coy/Bn train?

My sense of things is that if every Section is driving around the countryside in its own armoured 3 Tonne vehicle a support vehicle with a 2.5 or even 5.0 tonne payload is a bit undersized.

4 vehicles at 3 tonnes = 12 tonnes
14 vehicles at 3 tonnes = 42 tonnes
48 vehicles at 3 tonnes = 152 tonnes

12 tonnes = 1x Oshkosh MTVR (7 to 15)
42 tonnes = 2x Oshkosh HEMTT LHS with 2x LHS trailers (11)

1 driver with an MTVR = 4x LAV III
2 drivers with HEMTT LHSs and Trailers = 14x LAVs
8 drivers with HEMTT LHSs and Trailers = 56x LAVs

Perhaps you should just issue CQs with LAV-RWS filled with water and diesel bladders and leave all the other transport at Brigade (Service Bn Transport Coys with HEMTT LHSs)?

Otherwise it looks as if you require an MSVS for every Section. That means instead of 8 drivers you need 56 drivers and if you need a gunner/assistant for every vehicle then you need to dedicate a company of riflemen (112) to the sole purpose of keeping your three rifle coys of LAVs fed and watered.

Would those rifles be better occupied in the LAVs or pushing supplies to the LAVs?

Just some thoughts for a Saturday afternoon. 

 

[McG]

Kirkhill,
Your model assumes everything in the Army is an infantry company.  It fails to work in reflecting our needs because it does not consider that anything beyond infantry exists.
It may be that the Infantry have out grown the MLVW (someone from the infantry can provide their thougts on that), and if that is the case they should have thier MLVW replaced by the heavy vehicle of the LVMP and not by MSVS.  In some roles, MLVW will have to be replaced 1:1 by MSVS regardless of the extra size/capacity of the new vehicle - in these cases, the bigger vehicle is wasteful and potentially an impediment to its intended role.

 

[cupper]

I thought all you light infantry guys carried everything you need on your back.  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill,
Your model assumes everything in the Army is an infantry company.  It fails to work in reflecting our needs because it does not consider that anything beyond infantry exists.
It may be that the Infantry have out grown the MLVW (someone from the infantry can provide their thougts on that), and if that is the case they should have thier MLVW replaced by the heavy vehicle of the LVMP and not by MSVS.  In some roles, MLVW will have to be replaced 1:1 by MSVS regardless of the extra size/capacity of the new vehicle - in these cases, the bigger vehicle is wasteful and potentially an impediment to its intended role.

OR

You can forget the labels and just decide on what capacities you are looking for:

3 Tonner options

ACMAT VLRA in 4x4 and 6x6
MB Gwagen 300 6x6
MB Unimog U4000 4x4
MB Zetros 1833 4x4
MB Zetros 2733 6x6
Renault Sherpa Lt 4x4

10 Tonner options

Oshkosh MTVR
Oshkosh HEMTT
MB Zetros
MAN TGA

Interestingly Oshkosh is offering their Heavy Tactical HEMTT for your MSVS-SMP programme  Oshkosh SMP Link

Perhaps it is the rest of the army, and not the Infantry, that needs to do the rethink.  The rest of the army seem to be the prime users of  non-tactical vehicles in the 1 to 5 tonne payload range.  Perhaps THEY should be looking at rejigging the LVMP so that it includes the vehicles I listed as 3 tonne candidates.

Some of them make equally good section carriers, CPs, MRTs, gun tractors and RRBs.  Not to mention Reserve infantry section or platoon vehicles.

And while this long retired infanteer, appreciates the efforts of the rest of the army, without the infantry you have no army.  >.

 

[McG]

Kirkhill,
You are absolutely right - this should be approached from the perspective of providing a capability.  Specifically, we should be addressing the capability of land transportation.  Unfortunately (and despite talking the "capability" game) the Army is approaching this as a platform replacement project.  And so, as I stated earlier, we have put ourselves onto the unfortunate path where we will hae two new fleets of heavy truck but no medium.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Unless they consider 8 tons to still be medium..... ???

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's a funny thing - in response to Cupper....


I came across a version of something called B-GL-321-007 LAV Company etc.... on SCRIBD.
One of the annexes gave the loadouts for a platoon of LAVs.

Here's the funny bit.  I was able to extract and divide the loadout and apportion it between Infantry Kit and Vehicle Kit pretty easily.  When done I discovered, to my surprise, that even though 4 LAVs can carry 14 tonnes of kit, the amount of kit that they carry that is useful to the 28 guys that dismount is just about what me and the rest of my platoon were required to carry at Gagetown in 1982.

About the only difference is that you guys get a lantern and a coleman stove year round.  We only got those when the snow shoes and toboggans were issued.

We had more mattocks an shovels.

We had a 60mm mortar and some smoke.  You have the Eryx with 9 rounds.

Beyond that all of the rest of the carrying capacity seems to be dedicated to the armoured beast and the two guys that stay with the boiler. 

What really is interesting is that the total ammo load seems to be on the order of 600 kg for the whole platoon or about 20 kg per man.
24 hrs of water and IMPs are carried on the man.  The same amount stays with vehicle.  The vehicle carries your tent, sleeping bag and pressure cooker.

Is a 3 tonne section vehicle really necessary for every section?

 

[McG]

Maybe take that idea to its own thread?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Back to MSVS business....

The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, and the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), are pleased to announce that one-on-one consultation meetings have started with military truck manufacturers for the Standard Military Pattern (SMP) component of the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) project.

“Engaging industry is key to our smart procurement approach,” said Minister Ambrose. “This will ensure the best value for Canadian taxpayers, while providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment and capability they need to do their jobs.”

Public Works and Government Services Canada and Department of National Defence officials are meeting with industry starting January 17 and into the week of January 21 in the National Capital Region, as part of the first step in the re-procurement of the SMP.

The Government of Canada will then analyse the information obtained from the consultation process to move forward with this important acquisition ....

PWGSC Info-machine, 18 Jan 13