MLVW Replacment
- Thread starter Robbie
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
There was an article in the latest Canadian Defence Review, with 3 companies vying interest in providing the replacement...I'll see If I can find the trucks and pics
Oshkosh Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks :
http://www.oshkoshtruckcorporation.com/about/product_info%7Edefense.cfm
STEWART & STEVENSON FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES (FMTV):
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/stewart_stevenson/
http://www.ssss.com/Services/Products/TacticalVehicles/FMTV/?pm=401
And the Mercedes-Benz Actros series:
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/daimler_chrysler/daimler_chrysler2.html
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/daimler_chrysler/
edit: found the info
Oshkosh Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks :
http://www.oshkoshtruckcorporation.com/about/product_info%7Edefense.cfm
STEWART & STEVENSON FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES (FMTV):
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/stewart_stevenson/
http://www.ssss.com/Services/Products/TacticalVehicles/FMTV/?pm=401
And the Mercedes-Benz Actros series:
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/daimler_chrysler/daimler_chrysler2.html
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/daimler_chrysler/
edit: found the info
TN2IC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
If the MLVW's were taken care of then there should be no rust. Take it to the Mat Techs to paint it..easier said than done... lol..I know I know...
As for the truck deal.. I don't like the Benz one... too low. The STEWART & STEVENSON ones seems to be the best bang for the buck.. and the Oshkosh...I don't like the set up on it. But that is me... not like I am buying them, jsut putting my two cents worth in.
As for the truck deal.. I don't like the Benz one... too low. The STEWART & STEVENSON ones seems to be the best bang for the buck.. and the Oshkosh...I don't like the set up on it. But that is me... not like I am buying them, jsut putting my two cents worth in.
- Reaction score
- 26,718
- Points
- 1,090
The purchase will be a mixed fleet, just like the LUVW bought us G-Wagons and MilCOTS. Price will again be the driving factor (no pun intended).
Of course, it would probably make more sense to get in on another antion's buy - provided they are committed to an ongoing fleet replacement cycle. That is, buy 250 per year; after 10 years start retiring the original 250. That way there's rotation of the fleet and no massive rust-out / wear-out for the fleet at one instant. Commercial fleets attempt to use this sort of cycle; our fleet would be in better shape if we tried to do the same.
Of course, the other problem is that our purchasees are so small. While 2500 odd vehicles sounds significant, to a major manufacturer it's a few extra shifts for a few weeks. Hopping on to another, larger purchase may permit us to get a better price for a better vehicle. Of course, that would leave ACOA and the other Federal regional economic development agencies out in the cold, so there's not much chance of that.
Of course, it would probably make more sense to get in on another antion's buy - provided they are committed to an ongoing fleet replacement cycle. That is, buy 250 per year; after 10 years start retiring the original 250. That way there's rotation of the fleet and no massive rust-out / wear-out for the fleet at one instant. Commercial fleets attempt to use this sort of cycle; our fleet would be in better shape if we tried to do the same.
Of course, the other problem is that our purchasees are so small. While 2500 odd vehicles sounds significant, to a major manufacturer it's a few extra shifts for a few weeks. Hopping on to another, larger purchase may permit us to get a better price for a better vehicle. Of course, that would leave ACOA and the other Federal regional economic development agencies out in the cold, so there's not much chance of that.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
A question on your ten year plan: Don't you forsee changes in vehicle and engine design over ten years affecting commonality of parts for that vehicle fleet?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
OK, so I just read the article from Canadian Defence Review.
The new program is the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS). There hasn't been a Statement of Requirement issued has been issued by DND, theres no actual timeframe for the trucks. The 3 companies have expressed interest.
The Actross is in service of over 50 countries. So this means some parts commonality.
The MTVR or Oshkosh is in service with the US Marines with ofer 6,000 trucks to-date.
The S&S FMTV is in service with the US Army, and apparently there's nearly 30,000 vehicles in circulation.
I personally like the Oshkosh and S&S, although the Oshkosh doesn't seem to have an extended cab like the other two. Another point of interest is that the S&S is the only vehicle to pass the US Army's corrosion test, and has a 22-year corrosion guarantee. Don't know what they're guaranteeing per se, but it sounds good.
The new program is the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS). There hasn't been a Statement of Requirement issued has been issued by DND, theres no actual timeframe for the trucks. The 3 companies have expressed interest.
The Actross is in service of over 50 countries. So this means some parts commonality.
The MTVR or Oshkosh is in service with the US Marines with ofer 6,000 trucks to-date.
The S&S FMTV is in service with the US Army, and apparently there's nearly 30,000 vehicles in circulation.
I personally like the Oshkosh and S&S, although the Oshkosh doesn't seem to have an extended cab like the other two. Another point of interest is that the S&S is the only vehicle to pass the US Army's corrosion test, and has a 22-year corrosion guarantee. Don't know what they're guaranteeing per se, but it sounds good.
- Reaction score
- 26,718
- Points
- 1,090
George:
I never said the plan was perfect
However, the US keeps production lines open and producing the same vehicle for a number of years. If it did turn out that we'd have a bit of mix in the fleet - say at the 8 year point we went from the HumBug Mk I to the HumBug Mk II - I don't think incremental upgrades would add too much to the log tail.
Besides, isn't it usually the case that 5 years after buyign we discover the extra features we really should have requested? Having such an incremental fleet acquisition plan might permit us to get such changes integrated into the fleet as we replace it, vice an expensive set of VMOs to the workshop in Montreal.
I never said the plan was perfect
However, the US keeps production lines open and producing the same vehicle for a number of years. If it did turn out that we'd have a bit of mix in the fleet - say at the 8 year point we went from the HumBug Mk I to the HumBug Mk II - I don't think incremental upgrades would add too much to the log tail.
Besides, isn't it usually the case that 5 years after buyign we discover the extra features we really should have requested? Having such an incremental fleet acquisition plan might permit us to get such changes integrated into the fleet as we replace it, vice an expensive set of VMOs to the workshop in Montreal.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I really like the SUPACAT especially the M777 Carrier
http://www.supacat.com/hmt%204x4.htm
Benefits
Light weight the 4x4 can fit in a chinook
The 6x8 + M777 + ammo + crew weighs only 12.3 tonnes (C-130)
NBCD the M777 Carrier crew cab has NBC seals not sure about other variants
Flexability there are already so many Special Equipment Variants (SEV)'s out there that we don't have to reinvent the wheel for our needs
On another note
I sure hope everyone has seen the New M777's they bought for OP Archer
I also read some where that they were buying 12 more from the American order and 24 from BAE Systems
I would like to see a SUPACAT carrier instead of towing a 10.5meter gun
http://www8.janes.com/janesdata/yb/jaa/images/p1116569.jpg
if it requires you to log on go to
http://janes.mil.ca/
on the din for the CF log on for Janes
Full article for the 6x8 SUPACAT M777 Carrier on Janes
http://www8.janes.com/Search/documentView.do?docId=/content1/janesdata/yb/jaa/jaa_a014.htm@current&pageSelected=allJanes&keyword=m777%20carrier&backPath=http://search.janes.com/Search&Prod_Name=JAA&
They need a carrier for the M777. Currently it can be towed by an MLVW and I assume they use AVGP's to tow them on OP Archer. As the battle field moves into an Urban environment, 10.5m trailer just plan sucks. Even the C3 at 7.4m when towed is challenging inside the city even the LG1 at 5.3 (Traveling) or 6.6m (firing postion can be towed in either) is pretty much the same (cept you can't see it when driving)
MLVW 6.2m + C3 7.4m = 13.6m
MLVW 6.2m + LG1 = 11.5 - 12.9m
MLVW 6.2m + M777 10.5m = 17.2m
AVGP 6m
M777 + SUPACAT CARRIER = 10.5m
Whatever they end up buying I would love to see a M777 SEV similar to this.
http://www.supacat.com/hmt%204x4.htm
Benefits
Light weight the 4x4 can fit in a chinook
The 6x8 + M777 + ammo + crew weighs only 12.3 tonnes (C-130)
NBCD the M777 Carrier crew cab has NBC seals not sure about other variants
Flexability there are already so many Special Equipment Variants (SEV)'s out there that we don't have to reinvent the wheel for our needs
On another note
I sure hope everyone has seen the New M777's they bought for OP Archer
I also read some where that they were buying 12 more from the American order and 24 from BAE Systems
I would like to see a SUPACAT carrier instead of towing a 10.5meter gun
http://www8.janes.com/janesdata/yb/jaa/images/p1116569.jpg
if it requires you to log on go to
http://janes.mil.ca/
on the din for the CF log on for Janes
Full article for the 6x8 SUPACAT M777 Carrier on Janes
http://www8.janes.com/Search/documentView.do?docId=/content1/janesdata/yb/jaa/jaa_a014.htm@current&pageSelected=allJanes&keyword=m777%20carrier&backPath=http://search.janes.com/Search&Prod_Name=JAA&
They need a carrier for the M777. Currently it can be towed by an MLVW and I assume they use AVGP's to tow them on OP Archer. As the battle field moves into an Urban environment, 10.5m trailer just plan sucks. Even the C3 at 7.4m when towed is challenging inside the city even the LG1 at 5.3 (Traveling) or 6.6m (firing postion can be towed in either) is pretty much the same (cept you can't see it when driving)
MLVW 6.2m + C3 7.4m = 13.6m
MLVW 6.2m + LG1 = 11.5 - 12.9m
MLVW 6.2m + M777 10.5m = 17.2m
AVGP 6m
M777 + SUPACAT CARRIER = 10.5m
Whatever they end up buying I would love to see a M777 SEV similar to this.
Mountie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
The Oshkosh MTVR is capable of carrying 7-tons offroad and 15-tons on good roads. Is there any chance that the MTVR could eventually replace the HLVW fleet when it comes to the end of its service life? If it could this would greatly simplify maintenance and logistics.
The MTVR comes in short and long wheel bases, wrecker, dump truck, tractor and 20,000 litre fuel tanker/tractor variants already. There is talk of developing a fuel/water tanker version for the US Navy Seabee battalions. The MTVR is the gun-tractor for the USMC's M777 155mm Lightweight Howitzer and the French company GIAT has teamed with Oshkosh to proposed the MTVR as the chassis for an American version of the French CAESAR 155mm wheeled self-propelled howitzer. The vehicle can have a fully armoured cab and a cargo compartment and has been used as an infantry carrier for two battalions of the USMC 2nd MEB during Operation Iraqi Freedom. I'm sure you could easily add an armoured or unarmoured van to fulfill CP, signal, maintenance shop and other duties. Add a PLS version and you have the whole range of logistics vehicle variants capable of 15-tons on roads (HLVW range) and 7-tons off-roads (heavy MLVW range).
The MTVR comes in short and long wheel bases, wrecker, dump truck, tractor and 20,000 litre fuel tanker/tractor variants already. There is talk of developing a fuel/water tanker version for the US Navy Seabee battalions. The MTVR is the gun-tractor for the USMC's M777 155mm Lightweight Howitzer and the French company GIAT has teamed with Oshkosh to proposed the MTVR as the chassis for an American version of the French CAESAR 155mm wheeled self-propelled howitzer. The vehicle can have a fully armoured cab and a cargo compartment and has been used as an infantry carrier for two battalions of the USMC 2nd MEB during Operation Iraqi Freedom. I'm sure you could easily add an armoured or unarmoured van to fulfill CP, signal, maintenance shop and other duties. Add a PLS version and you have the whole range of logistics vehicle variants capable of 15-tons on roads (HLVW range) and 7-tons off-roads (heavy MLVW range).
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
green and shiney..... *drool......*
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
BUT HOW GOOD IS THE HEATER IN THE CAB :rage:? :rage:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Please no Bombardier, Please no Bombardier, Please no Bombardier.........................
The pics look like a good piece of kit, the specs look good too.
The pics look like a good piece of kit, the specs look good too.
Mountie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
According to the latest edition of the Canadian Defence Review the Load Handling System (LHS) variant of the MTVR already exists and DEW advertises that the MTVR can fulfill all SEV/shelter variant requirements. I would think that an armoured MTVR Engineer SEV would be an easy configuration that be beneficial.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I do not know if each base has money to buy it's own vehicles, but I seen what I believe was a Fright liner mini truck (might be wrong) with a double cab in Borden carrying Recruits to the ranges and such. It looks like it would be a good ride seats 6 in the cab, with the standard bed and tarp ,but I don't think it could take that much abuse, like running over trees and fun stuff like that.
lawandorder
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
There is a new video on the CF Army wed page.
Shows different versions of howt he replacement can be set up. It also has an armoured variant.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1.asp?FlashEnabled=1&
Shows different versions of howt he replacement can be set up. It also has an armoured variant.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1.asp?FlashEnabled=1&
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I was doing some reading the other day in "Canadian Defence Review" magazine at Chapters on this subject. Apparently the JTF have already purchased some of the Stevenson and Stevenson model and are using them in Afghanistan as we speak. So obviously Canada already has a contract with this company. So it would probably make sense to order more and maybe get a good deal for what is obviously a good vehicle that has been trialed by the JTF. However, it might not be right for conventional Army units. If not the Stevenson and Stevenson my money is on the Mercedes. Not necessarily because it is a better vehicle but because of our existing contracts with Mercedes.
Similar threads
