MSVS Mil-COTS Gun Tractor (Split From: MLVW restrictions)

[dapaterson]

The AHSVS went through fast.  Did we request IRBs on the UOR?

It's a Mercedes, and as I recall at the time they were part of the happy Daimler-Chrysler family - so IRBs were not an issue.  (Or at least not a difficult issue)

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for clearing that up DAP.

 

[Petard]

The process to define the Artillery need was very lengthy, and like so many things it was very diffcult to get a consensus, especially during the rapid changes over the past 6 years. In the end I certainly do not agree with the "McNugget family" approach to putting everyone in the cab, or creature comforts like quad stereo when the CNR is on the floor and hard to access, but this was driven by feedback from the user community, and the consequence of the standard layout of the sole bidders vehicle. Something to keep in mind too is this particular vehicle is intended for domestic Ops only. The SMP variant will not follow the same approach.

One of the reasons for such an enormous vehicle is that the echelon has been all but eliminated in Arty units. On top of this it was understood from the get go that it was not going to be a one for one replacement of vehicles. Consequently the payload this thing is expected to move before resupply got larger and larger. As for driving straight onto the gun marker, that has never been the only way to do it; it has always been an option to do an action right, left, or even front if need be. Granted I'll give you  that pulling the C3 behind almost 40' of truck does mean units are likely to see more of that.
 
The gun tractor at 30 Fd is still a prototype. A design review just took place last month for the SEV kit for the back. Within the next few months a trial of that kit will take place.
Final production and delivery of the gun tractor variant will not be until next year.

The project office has been aware of the infrastructure problems since the bid return, I can't speak for how they're going to deal with that because I don't know. 

As for how fast the AHSVS came into service, don't forget that it was acquired by UOR, for the Operational needs in theatre. This does not necessarily mean it will remain in service, although most likely it will. The big drawback of the UOR approach is that their very specific mission need results in very limited ability to sustain them, and can mean disposal at end of mission.

What helps people in staff postions on capturing user needs is the dreaded UCR, but how many people actually take the time to not only start one, but follow it through? This information is vital, especially as another large project such as LVMP, which is looking at replacing the other logistic vehicles, is just beginning. The 1st priority of which, for the gunners, is their LSVW CP's. The time to start pushing just how limited or bad those really are is now, officially, and not just carping about it.

 

[TSM A]

The gun tractor at 30 Fd is still a prototype. A design review just took place last month for the SEV kit for the back. Within the next few months a trial of that kit will take place.
Final production and delivery of the gun tractor variant will not be until next year.

Thanks for the info

so with the MLVW fleet essentially grounded that makes arty training real difficult.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The process to define the Artillery need was very lengthy, and like so many things it was very diffcult to get a consensus, especially during the rapid changes over the past 6 years. In the end I certainly do not agree with the "McNugget family" approach to putting everyone in the cab, or creature comforts like quad stereo when the CNR is on the floor and hard to access, but this was driven by feedback from the user community, and the consequence of the standard layout of the sole bidders vehicle. Something to keep in mind too is this particular vehicle is intended for domestic Ops only. The SMP variant will not follow the same approach.

One of the reasons for such an enormous vehicle is that the echelon has been all but eliminated in Arty units. On top of this it was understood from the get go that it was not going to be a one for one replacement of vehicles. Consequently the payload this thing is expected to move before resupply got larger and larger. As for driving straight onto the gun marker, that has never been the only way to do it; it has always been an option to do an action right, left, or even front if need be. Granted I'll give you  that pulling the C3 behind almost 40' of truck does mean units are likely to see more of that.
 
The gun tractor at 30 Fd is still a prototype. A design review just took place last month for the SEV kit for the back. Within the next few months a trial of that kit will take place.
Final production and delivery of the gun tractor variant will not be until next year.

The project office has been aware of the infrastructure problems since the bid return, I can't speak for how they're going to deal with that because I don't know. 

As for how fast the AHSVS came into service, don't forget that it was acquired by UOR, for the Operational needs in theatre. This does not necessarily mean it will remain in service, although most likely it will. The big drawback of the UOR approach is that their very specific mission need results in very limited ability to sustain them, and can mean disposal at end of mission.

What helps people in staff postions on capturing user needs is the dreaded UCR, but how many people actually take the time to not only start one, but follow it through? This information is vital, especially as another large project such as LVMP, which is looking at replacing the other logistic vehicles, is just beginning. The 1st priority of which, for the gunners, is their LSVW CP's. The time to start pushing just how limited or bad those really are is now, officially, and not just carping about it.

Petard,

Thank you very much for the well spoken explanation. Now we have a glimpse into the process, how things like this end up happening and what we can do about it. I apologise for being out of my lane and sarcastic in my prose in my previous post. You also have a PM.

Regards
rg

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Thanks for the info

so with the MLVW fleet essentially grounded that makes arty training real difficult.

I know we that are authorized by the LUVW-MILCOTS ppl to tow our 2 105 C2's with said truck now.....

 

[Petard]

Petard,

Thank you very much for the well spoken explanation. Now we have a glimpse into the process, how things like this end up happening and what we can do about it. I apologise for being out of my lane and sarcastic in my prose in my previous post. You also have a PM.

Regards
rg

Ack, no worries, does say something though that the situation would get you that PO'd, and with good reason.
There's no doubt this vehicle is going to be trouble for units to operate with in the tight confines of old armouries, and young drivers. But the process is too far down range now, this is the truck we're getting and we've got to find a way to deal with it. It also is a good time to learn from it and push your feedback everytime you hear Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project

I'm not sure what they're doing at G3 and the whole fleet management crew to deal with all the MLVW grounding, must be a real nightmare. Even in Roger's Pass they had to make do with an HLVW (worked quite well actually)

I thought some units had been using the MSVS Cargo variant to tow, no?

By the way NFLD sapper, odds are you are very likely to lose both your C1's this year. 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

By the way NFLD sapper, odds are you are very likely to lose both your C1's this year.

You sure on that Petard, CFS ST.JOHN'S is a saluting base and we are tasked with that duty....

 

[Petard]

.... CFS ST.JOHN'S is a saluting base and we are tasked with that duty....

I know, but the C1 is one of those things that is being evaluated for divestment, completely.
Time will tell.

 

[themoose]

I know we that are authorized by the LUVW-MILCOTS ppl to tow our 2 105 C2's with said truck now.....

I would love to see that authorization.....  I highly doubt your allowed to tow a C1/2 or heaven forbid a C3 with the LUVW MilCOTS.  Not to say it's never been done, but you get up to a decent speed, even 50 km/h, and you need to hop on the binders, I think that gun will be pushing your forward quite nicely.  I will use to to maneuver around the compound / armouries, but never on civ roads.    Don't forget, you can barely see around it.

On another not to that, whoever corrected it, your right, that MSVSM GT we got at 30th FD was only there for 1 night.  The PMO came with it and gave us a brief on that plans for it.  According to him we are looking about 1 year before we see them, the engineers are in the same boat, although I expect theirs to be a bit quicker as the cargo area in theirs is much simpler in design than the GT version.

It's a good idea they have, a small crane on the back to lift off stores, a spare tire for the gun, ample storage areas / bins, some sort of set of stairs (sort of like the MLVW one) instead of that death trap ladder.

As for those of you that asked about what it's like towing a C3 behind it, well that's one fun challenge.  As the Regt TPTNCO, I am well accustomed to towing guns, and being an HLVW driver prior to the MSVSM, I have no issues with that size of truck or towing with it.  When you do get the C3 behind it, you can barely see it in your mirrors.    those of us who have towed a howitzer behind the MLVW will know what I mean when I say that you used to look in your mirrors and see the outer edge of the tires and shield flaps.  Now you see next to nothing.  I have mentioned this to the PMO MSVSM, and he told me that it was already mentioned to the PMO Howitzers and they are working on a sort of flag that you attach to the shield flaps to have visual on your gun behind you.

As for physically towing it, it's a dream.  The gun follows nicely, you barely notice it pull or push as you accelerate / brake.  Turning a corner is fine, as your already taking a wide turn for the truck, it's more than wide enough for the gun to follow properly.

With the grounding of the MLVW fleet, yes it's based on a couple isolated incidents, but we have to remember that we are dealing with 28-29 year old trucks that are on the way out.  About 2 years ago they started putting a cap on repairs to the MLVW, if the bill was over over 2k, they wouldn't authorize it and the vehicle would be PCC if it was that bad.  Now with the possibility of MLVW's having catastrophic failure while on the road, the restrictions are warranted.  IMO it's a good way to "assist" in the retirement of the MLVW fleet by restricting them based on these isolated incidents.

 

[themoose]

Petard:  Did you take that HLVW / C3 photo?  If so, just curious why they have the chains on the rear axle as opposed to the intermediate?

I just want to know another person's view on what axle to put chains on... not intending to judge someone here...

Also noticed that that gun has the permanently mounted lights as well...  is everyone starting to get them now??

We were again the test unit for that sort of thing, we've had those style of lights on our guns for years now...  work great (especially the new LED lights) except we need a 3rd brake light in the muzzle....  a red flag just aint enough IMO.

Cheers...

 

[Petard]

I did take the picture of the C3 with the HLVW, but I don't know why they put the chains on the axle they did. Good question and I'll ask around.

The need for a light on the C3 muzzle is a good idea and has been passed onto the life cycle manager, it would help too if units pushed UCRs to identify this. Following behind a C3 it is easy to mistake the actual length of the barrel.

There will not be that many gun tractors, or MilCOTs trucks in general, to go around, so not sure how it will unfold for those units in Saint John's and Charlottetown doing gun salutes there. The C3 is considerably heavier than a C1 and I've seen nothing for approval of other types of vehicles to pull that gun. Given the recent grounding of the MLVW fleet I know Regular Force units are looking into different vehicles to pull the LG1, but this is a deliberate study. Improvising vehicles haphazardly to pull a howitzer to a location on civilian roads is a recipe for an accident, and if the lights are not connected its quite possibly illegal.

I know some are fighting strongly to keep two howitzers in each of those salute base locations, problem is sustaining them there, and balancing that with operational needs when we're going to be reducing the fleet by about 2 dozen guns. Not helping the argument to keep them there are the annual technical inspections that show a habitual lack of user maintenance (and respect for the Artillery's colours), which would put a further strain on scant resources.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

There will not be that many gun tractors, or MilCOTs trucks in general, to go around, so not sure how it will unfold for those units in Saint John's and Charlottetown doing gun salutes there. The C3 is considerably heavier than a C1 and I've seen nothing for approval of other types of vehicles to pull that gun. Given the recent grounding of the MLVW fleet I know Regular Force units are looking into different vehicles to pull the LG1, but this is a deliberate study. Improvising vehicles haphazardly to pull a howitzer to a location on civilian roads is a recipe for an accident, and if the lights are not connected its quite possibly illegal.

Shouldn't be a problem for us as we are getting 7 MSVS's.. including 4 SEVS, 1 Caged and, 2 TCV/CARGO.......and its St. John's not Saint John's.....

 

[Petard]

Having a truck that can pull it does not, by itself, convince me the guns should be left in St John's or Charlottetown.
With fewer parts to go around, especially major assemblies including those with bearing surfaces, it would be diffcult to justify supporting 4 guns being used for just salute purposes, instead of normal artillery training activities.

The abysmal maintenance record of the guns in both St John's and Charlottetown is another reason they shouldn't be left there.

 

[themoose]

I can totally agree with Petard about the lack of parts and the lack of respect for the colors by non artillery units.
These days its harder and harder to get certain parts for the C1/2 & C3, and to justify keeping guns with non-artillery units for the sake of a couple salutes a year (I'm guessing maybe 2-3?).
As the national salute troop we regularly take part in at least 10 salutes each year in the NCR and surrounding area, and we still fight to keep our guns serviceable for this task.
Like all older vehicle / weapons, as newer items become available and the older stuff ages more and more, the tendency is to not devote as much resources to them.  For example the company that overhauled the C3's in the 90's went belly up a couple years back, well Canada had some money tired into them for a parts supply contract.  What did we do?  Sent some people over with some sea cans, loaded up all the parts we could to "get back" the money we invested in them, and brought them home.  As those parts dwindle away, we will likely not see any replacements for them.    The recoil mechanism is one big one, I believe there are only 1-2 left in the system.

As for towing the guns, the LG1 is one thing, being a true "light" gun in the physical sense,  but a C1/2 or C3 is much heavier.    I could see maybe the LG1 being towed with the LUVW MilCOTS but I doubt we will ever see an approval for them to tow a C1/2 or C3.

Are those yellow parts on the C3 specifically AVCON related items??  Can you shed light on to them, I have never seen that before!

Cheers.

Moose.

 

[Petard]

Are those yellow parts on the C3 specifically AVCON related items??  Can you shed light on to them, I have never seen that before!

Cheers.

Moose.

The yellow parts on the shield are for the pump that operates with an hydraulic jack attached to the axle. The jack is only deployed on the gun platfrom to allow quick laying onto specific GAPs, its stowed when firing or travelling. The gun also has spade blocks fitted for the concrete gun ring it is fired off of. These are all AVCON mods
The pump is going to be replaced by a more effective two way one (something like the one on the LG1) next year.

 

[themoose]

The pump is going to be replaced by a more effective two way one (something like the one on the LG1) next year.

Just don't use the one directly from the LG1... we all know how "effective" and reliable that hydraulic system is !  ;D

 

[Thompson_JM]

Petard:  Did you take that HLVW / C3 photo?  If so, just curious why they have the chains on the rear axle as opposed to the intermediate?

I just want to know another person's view on what axle to put chains on... not intending to judge someone here...

My take on this part is that if you only have enough chains to do two of the 4 tires on the rear, stick em on the axle with the Diff lock on it... Since the driver probably already has the Inter-axle (referred to in the MSVS-M as the Power Drive Lock) engaged there will be good traction to begin with... plus with the tongue weight being felt more on the rear axle then the intermediate if worse comes to worse and it gets bogged down, chains on the rear axle will give the most "Bite" (mostly due to the Diff lock)

Thats just my take though... (i'll have to confirm if the Rear Diff lock only locks up the rear axle or the rear and intermediate on an HLVW)


As to part of the reason why they put the "Mobile Home" on the back of the Gun tractors and Engineer variants... See the picture below...

In case one of these bastards goes Tits up on the road, putting the Crew in a restraint system means that another incident like that one will hopefully not happen again.

I am a firm believer in the phrase "No Training should Ever supersede safety for any reason" Yes it happens, but that's not a good enough reason to not try to mitigate risk when and where possible. If that means hopefully we wont have another dead soldier because of a highly preventable "Oops" I am ok with the fact that it seems like overkill to some people.

And before we get into the whole "Troop Lift" debate, Troop lift qualifications for this vehicle are also not being handed out lightly either...  Of the past 3 courses reserve side that I have either taught on, or been a part of, (outside of the "Train the Trainer") only a handful of people are actually Troop lift Qualified.

 

[themoose]

My take on this part is that if you only have enough chains to do two of the 4 tires on the rear, stick em on the axle with the Diff lock on it... Since the driver probably already has the Inter-axle (referred to in the MSVS-M as the Power Drive Lock) engaged there will be good traction to begin with... plus with the tongue weight being felt more on the rear axle then the intermediate if worse comes to worse and it gets bogged down, chains on the rear axle will give the most "Bite" (mostly due to the Diff lock)

That's just my take though... (I'll have to confirm if the Rear Diff lock only locks up the rear axle or the rear and intermediate on an HLVW)

Well to me having the chains on the intermediate axle is best.  It's closest to the C of G and therefore should give better traction aid.  Putting the chains on the rear wheels while having a trailer attached shouldn't do to much extra for you, C of G wont be shifted that far back anyways, and it should move it closer to your intermediate axle anyways.

As for the HLVW and diff locks (it's the same for the MSVS too), you have 3 "levels" as you get stuck.    First engage 6 wheel drive, then engage your PDL (Primary Differential Lock, it locks the intermediate and rear axles together) and finally your differential locks (locking left and right side wheels together).

As to part of the reason why they put the "Mobile Home" on the back of the Gun tractors and Engineer variants... See the picture below...

In case one of these bastards goes Tits up on the road, putting the Crew in a restraint system means that another incident like that one will hopefully not happen again.

I was there the day she was killed.  I said it before, and I said it now, I am glad we finally get our Gunners and Sappers in the cab.  From days of sucking in clouds of dust, to getting rocks kicked back at us from the gun, to being thrown around every which way, to people being killed and seriously injured, I'm so glad we will no longer be in the rear with the gear.    Less a part of the EIS for the gun and more a gun crew.

I am a firm believer in the phrase "No Training should Ever supersede safety for any reason" Yes it happens, but that's not a good enough reason to not try to mitigate risk when and where possible. If that means hopefully we wont have another dead soldier because of a highly preventable "Oops" I am OK with the fact that it seems like overkill to some people.

It's got to start even before the idea of "nothing is more important than safety" when out on an exercise. 
It needs to begin from day 1 when someone is put behind the wheel of 2 - 10 tonnes of military truck and gun / trailer. 
Too many drivers are plucked from behind the wheel of their Honda civic or Pontiac sunfire and put behind the wheel of an HLVW / MLVW / MSVS and told to "drive."  Now I am not totally opposed to how we train our drivers, only certain attitudes towards the training of our drivers.  I have seen too many people thrown on a MLVW course one week (albeit a bastardized short one too) then thrown on a gun tow course the following week, and finally he / she is towing guns with troops in the back the following week.  How can we stress safety when that driver barely knows how an MLVW / HLVW / MSVS handles by itself, and then with a gun / trailer / water buffalo / beavertail attached adding to the handeling characteristics.

Time-frames for training are established for a reason, as soon as you deviate from them because "we are short drivers" or "we don't have anyone gun tow qualified", it's the fuse being lit on the accident powder keg waiting to blow up.

And before we get into the whole "Troop Lift" debate, Troop lift qualifications for this vehicle are also not being handed out lightly either...  Of the past 3 courses reserve side that I have either taught on, or been a part of, (outside of the "Train the Trainer") only a handful of people are actually Troop lift Qualified.

Oh another can of worms there....  They are changing the troop lift system, and how we qualify for it.    No longer do we "automatically" get the qualification if we have done 1000 km on that vehicle, or a year after our driver wheel.  This wasn't making people aware of the inherent dangers of troop lift at all.  I have seen too many guys / gals driving carelessly with troops in the back, something even as simple as not going full speed over bumps that make the driver bounce in their seat but launch the troops in the back all over the place.

We now must take our 1 day troop lift course, which is still a mystery course to me.  I have inquired over and over about this, but nobody seems to know who can teach it, what the material is, etc...  Is this going to make it better? probably not.  Maybe we need to have a sort of practical test, followed up by re-certification if you have not transported troops in the previous 12 months. But this it another topic to discuss later on.

We are moving in the right direction with this, but it's going to take time to get everyone on-line with it and thinking the same way. 

:2c:

Moose

 

[Thompson_JM]

Well to me having the chains on the intermediate axle is best.  It's closest to the C of G and therefore should give better traction aid.  Putting the chains on the rear wheels while having a trailer attached shouldn't do to much extra for you, C of G wont be shifted that far back anyways, and it should move it closer to your intermediate axle anyways.

As for the HLVW and diff locks (it's the same for the MSVS too), you have 3 "levels" as you get stuck.    First engage 6 wheel drive, then engage your PDL (Primary Power Differential Drive Lock, it locks the intermediate and rear axles together) and finally your differential locks (locking left and right side wheels together).

Splitting hairs here but normally you want to engage the "Inter-axle" (on the HLVW) or PDL (on the MSVS-M) first prior to engaging the 6 wheel drive, as there are no speed limitations to an inter-axle or Power Drive lock. whereas it is not recommended to drive the HLVW or MSVS above 50 or 60kph in 6x6..  (moot point in the MSVS since if you engage the front axle over a certain speed it simply wont engage... at least its not supposed to....)

Exceptions to that are when you are required to make sharp turns at low speed and are getting bogged down. Engaging the front axle in those cases will help tighten your turn radius.. this is key on the MSVS-M as the turn radius on a good say is somewhere between "terrible" and "Oh The Humanity...." 

Also, what I was trying to get clarification on was if the Diff lock when engaged, would lock up the two rears, or all 4 rears... even with the Inter-axle lock on. (I know the MSVS-M will lock all 4 when the Rear Diff and PDL is engaged, but if only the Rear Diff is on, it will only lock the rear axle.... confusing? oh yeah....)

It's got to start even before the idea of "nothing is more important than safety" when out on an exercise. 
It needs to begin from day 1 when someone is put behind the wheel of 2 - 10 tonnes of military truck and gun / trailer. 
Too many drivers are plucked from behind the wheel of their Honda civic or Pontiac sunfire and put behind the wheel of an HLVW / MLVW / MSVS and told to "drive."   Now I am not totally opposed to how we train our drivers, only certain attitudes towards the training of our drivers.  I have seen too many people thrown on a MLVW course one week (albeit a bastardized short one too) then thrown on a gun tow course the following week, and finally he / she is towing guns with troops in the back the following week.  How can we stress safety when that driver barely knows how an MLVW / HLVW / MSVS-M handles by itself, and then with a gun / trailer / water buffalo / beaver-tail attached adding to the handling characteristics.

Time-frames for training are established for a reason, as soon as you deviate from them because "we are short drivers" or "we don't have anyone gun tow qualified", it's the fuse being lit on the accident powder keg waiting to blow up.

I agree with you on all the points I bolded here 100%... we have had this discussion on course many times, and emphasis to our students just how important it is to always be thinking in this truck. The HLVW handles like a sports car compared to the MSVS-M


As far as the MSVS goes, I'm just waiting for my area to have a fatality.... the way they are cramming people into these courses and ram-roding them through... its ridiculous... trying to explain this to Standards or Battle school seems to result in them staring at you like you have a toaster on your head.

None of the course packages have been put together properly yet... It's nuts.... 

Bottom line is that when I got qualified HLVW as an MSE-Op I spent the better part of a month driving the thing.... 20 some odd days.... We've got Kids, and I mean kids here... 17-20 years old... who have driven LSVW as their largest vehicle... and they are getting the same fast forward "conversion Course" that people like me with 10 years of time in on the HLVW and a tour driving them all over the sandbox..... and there was still a learning curve for us on the MSVS....

the thing that bugs me the most.... No backing rodeo is taught on this course... If we want students to learn a large vehicle properly, we need to make them walk before they run... the best way to discover the dimensions of the vehicle is moving slowly under control in reverse... make em do that for a day, and their comfort level with the truck with go up a lot faster then just throwing em out on the road and saying "hey best of luck..." which feels like is what is happening in my Brigade group....

And No, a Safe Backing course is not enough, UNLESS it was done WITH an MSVS-M

Oh another can of worms there....  They are changing the troop lift system, and how we qualify for it.    No longer do we "automatically" get the qualification if we have done 1000 km on that vehicle, or a year after our driver wheel.  This wasn't making people aware of the inherent dangers of troop lift at all.  I have seen too many guys / gals driving carelessly with troops in the back, something even as simple as not going full speed over bumps that make the driver bounce in their seat but launch the troops in the back all over the place.

We now must take our 1 day troop lift course, which is still a mystery course to me.  I have inquired over and over about this, but nobody seems to know who can teach it, what the material is, etc...  Is this going to make it better? probably not.  Maybe we need to have a sort of practical test, followed up by re-certification if you have not transported troops in the previous 12 months. But this it another topic to discuss later on.

If you're in the Ottawa area try giving 28... er 32 Svc Bn a call... Talk to one of their Reg F MSE-Op types... they should have an idea about it... Failing that I can give you the number of our UTA who happens to know more about the Troop lift courses and all the stuff to go with it.

We are moving in the right direction with this, but it's going to take time to get everyone on-line with it and thinking the same way. 

No kidding.... and it doesn't help that the SME's are fighting tooth and nail with the Battle Schools and Standards types to make improvements..... At least in our area... Change is very slow... I fear that someone is going to get Shmucked by a truck before anything moves forward....