Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

[PuckChaser]

I'll be a MWO by the time we get new LSVWs, but at least my troops won't have to drive those underpowered death-traps! Good to see progress in the procurement process on the replacements.

 

[McG]

Good to see that HESV will be considered within the HLVW replacement.  That should get us one fewer vehicle fleet to manage.
Will AHSVS disappear before or after the heavy LVMP platform comes on line?

 

[dapaterson]

Will AHSVS disappear before or after the heavy LVMP platform comes on line?

Depends.  I suspect we'll fill up on the other fleets first, so we can replace AHSVS if there's enough money left over, or if not, retain it.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

I've always been a big fan of the HUMMVEE and it's many variants it brings to the table.  I like the General Tactical Vehicles JLTV variant they're proposing to the US military myself.  I think it would be a good replacement for the MILCOT, LSVW and G-Wagon.  Replacing all 3 light vehicles with a common one would save money in parts and training IMO.

 

[Kirkhill]

I've always been a big fan of the HUMMVEE and it's many variants it brings to the table.  I like the General Tactical Vehicles JLTV variant they're proposing to the US military myself.  I think it would be a good replacement for the MILCOT, LSVW and G-Wagon.  Replacing all 3 light vehicles with a common one would save money in parts and training IMO.

Would it also make an acceptable TAPV?  At least for some of the Roles?  A 7 to 10 vehicle seems more appropriate in that role than the 14 to 25 tonne behemoths that they are testing just now. IMHO.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

Would it also make an acceptable TAPV?  At least for some of the Roles?  A 7 to 10 vehicle seems more appropriate in that role than the 14 to 25 tonne behemoths that they are testing just now. IMHO.

I would think so, but I'm not 100% sure of it's capabilities.  Here is the link to the JLTV (Joint Light Tactical Vehicle) Background and Issues for Congress paper http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22942.pdf
The potential per unit cost is around the $320,000US mark, which might be a little steep for our needs.  The US Marines are even saying it's too high.  I think the JLTV is a step down from the MRAP and MATVs the US Army has been using in Iraq/Afghanistan.  They are looking for something with the ballistic/blast protection available on an MRAP, but in the size/capability of the HMMWV as its partial replacement.

Here's a picture of my favourite.

 

[McG]

I've always been a big fan of the HUMMVEE and it's many variants it brings to the table.  I like the General Tactical Vehicles JLTV variant they're proposing to the US military myself.  I think it would be a good replacement for the MILCOT, LSVW and G-Wagon.  Replacing all 3 light vehicles with a common one would save money in parts and training IMO.

There are some who would suggest that we need something smaller than an HMMVW as our smallest vehicle.  There is merit to that cautious opinion. 

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

There are some who would suggest that we need something smaller than an HMMVW as our smallest vehicle.  There is merit to that cautious opinion.

I too have heard that opinion and while there may be some merit it, we should not base a vehicle purchase just on the possibility of it having to traverse a narrow street once in a while. 

 

[Spooks]

I too have heard that opinion and while there may be some merit it, we should not base a vehicle purchase just on the possibility of it having to traverse a narrow street once in a while.

Just an opinion here, but in my opinion, the LUVW was bought and offered the 'get through narrow streets' advantage. However, many CF members were dying due to IED issues in said vehicles. Therefore, the vehicle of choice beame the Nyala/RG chasis. This become cyclical as after we get the big, 'bomb proof' vehicles, they want small ones again.

*le sigh*

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

Just an opinion here, but in my opinion, the LUVW was bought and offered the 'get through narrow streets' advantage. However, many CF members were dying due to IED issues in said vehicles. Therefore, the vehicle of choice beame the Nyala/RG chasis. This become cyclical as after we get the big, 'bomb proof' vehicles, they want small ones again.

*le sigh*

I completely agree.  That's why we need to look at an all around capable vehicle that is 'bomb resistant'.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Go figure guess that's why they sent us 2 HLVW PLS from war stock.....

 

[a_majoor]

The JTLV/MRAP light programs were supposed to provide the small vehicle + bomb proof package, but the laws of physics are pretty rigorously enforced wherever you go.

Popular Mechanics did a piece based on rapidly assembling existing pieces and concepts to a Ford F 450 truck frame, and except for the BaE "transpiring" armour (millions of small holes to allow water to seep through and reduce thermal signature) and the serial electric drive pretty much everything about the concept is off the shelf:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/pm-designs-the-replacement-for-the-pentagons-joint-light-tactical-vehicle-6432935

With "normal" armour (perhaps covered in thermal blankets or other signature management technology) and a heavy duty diesel engine to power this, the project is actually quite doable (literally at the level of a custom build shop if the order is small enough), so there are affordable options if we expand the envelope.  The PMJTLV is also versatile enough to be the basis for a many vehicle family, which makes it even more attractive. Simple, inexpensive and available on a short time frame?

Nah, never happen...

 

[Spooks]

Over the year of the war, one thing I did learn is that no matter how 'bomb resistant' or armoured you make a vehcile, the enemy will just make a bigger bomb and all you accomplish is slowing ithe vehicle down due to an increase in weight. Even though I, myself, was bombed in a G Wagon, I still would trust them overseas. Yes, an AT mine could obliterate it but when you are bombing down Hwy 4 at 140kmh is harder to hit with a command-detonated IED than a slow-moving 40kmh Nyala. This is just my opinion and I am fully aware of the bashing that is about to ensue.

 

[MJP]

Over the year of the war, one thing I did learn is that no matter how 'bomb resistant' or armoured you make a vehcile, the enemy will just make a bigger bomb and all you accomplish is slowing ithe vehicle down due to an increase in weight. Even though I, myself, was bombed in a G Wagon, I still would trust them overseas. Yes, an AT mine could obliterate it but when you are bombing down Hwy 4 at 140kmh is harder to hit with a command-detonated IED than a slow-moving 40kmh Nyala. This is just my opinion and I am fully aware of the bashing that is about to ensue.

Meh I don't think you should worry about a bashing.  I can recall many a conversation where we discussed the loss of Gwagon outside the wire.  The vehicle moved around the countryside very well and made some areas more accessiable.  I always thought the the knee jerk risk adverse reaction to removing them from outside the wire duties was silly.  All it did was remove a tool from a commanders toolbox.  No longer was a fast nimble vehicle an option for a commander during their assessment, but rather a mixture of vehs of which none had the mobility of the G wagon.

 

[OldSolduer]

Meh I don't think you should worry about a bashing.  I can recall many a conversation where we discussed the loss of Gwagon outside the wire.  The vehicle moved around the countryside very well and made some areas more accessiable.  I always thought the the knee jerk risk adverse reaction to removing them from outside the wire duties was silly.  All it did was remove a tool from a commanders toolbox.  No longer was a fast nimble vehicle an option for a commander during their assessment, but rather a mixture of vehs of which none had the mobility of the G wagon.

There is always a trade off and that depends on your doctrine. Do we want nimble, speedy vehicles with less protection for the crew or heavier protection and slower speeds and less agility, not to mention the associated costs.

In my mind (infantry here so keep the words small and sentences short please) when we design or buy a vehicle, we have to keep some things in mind:

1. The end user - driver, crew/sect comd and the troops - the vehicle must be simple to operate and maintain;
2. Maintainers - the vehicle should be easy to fix ie replace the power pack in and hour or so;
3. Commanders - vehicles need the required comms systems
4. Protection vs Speed and agility - like I said, it depends on what you want.

As some have said, the heavier you make the vehicle - the bigger the bombs the bad guys will build.

 

[a_majoor]

Everyone and every nation has their own version of risk assessment.

I was somewhat amused by the contrast between the massive uparmoured HUMMVW's the Americans used and the Landrover 110's the British used. The Brit's idea of protection was a Kevlar blanket laid on the floor, but the 110's mounted a huge selection of automatic weapons covering most of the arcs. The newer "Supacat Jackal" resembled a platform on wheels; but each corner mounted a machinegun of some sort and a center mount held a .50 or AGL...

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

Everyone and every nation has their own version of risk assessment.

I was somewhat amused by the contrast between the massive uparmoured HUMMVW's the Americans used and the Landrover 110's the British used. The Brit's idea of protection was a Kevlar blanket laid on the floor, but the 110's mounted a huge selection of automatic weapons covering most of the arcs. The newer "Supacat Jackal" resembled a platform on wheels; but each corner mounted a machinegun of some sort and a center mount held a .50 or AGL...

Nothing like being a gunner on one of those completely exposed with a small metal plate to sit on.  I used to think they resembled a porcupine bristling with rifles and MG's.  A lot of their tactics were different too focusing on avoiding roads, so their need for extra blast protection was not as big a priority.

 

[Spooks]

There is always a trade off and that depends on your doctrine. Do we want nimble, speedy vehicles with less protection for the crew or heavier protection and slower speeds and less agility, not to mention the associated costs.

In my mind (infantry here so keep the words small and sentences short please) when we design or buy a vehicle, we have to keep some things in mind:

1. The end user - driver, crew/sect comd and the troops - the vehicle must be simple to operate and maintain;
2. Maintainers - the vehicle should be easy to fix ie replace the power pack in and hour or so;
3. Commanders - vehicles need the required comms systems
4. Protection vs Speed and agility - like I said, it depends on what you want.

As some have said, the heavier you make the vehicle - the bigger the bombs the bad guys will build.

Phew, no hatemail when I came on today. On Mr Seggie's post, the thing I like about the GWagon is that you have a driver and -maybe- a gunner for the vehicle. LAVs require those plus a Crew Cmdr which means more people are needed outside of the dismounted attack. This is probably just my Light Infantry mind not able to grasp Mechanized Infantry's concept of ops.  :-[

 

[OldSolduer]

Nothing like being a gunner on one of those completely exposed with a small metal plate to sit on.  I used to think they resembled a porcupine bristling with rifles and MG's.  A lot of their tactics were different too focusing on avoiding roads, so their need for extra blast protection was not as big a priority.

Military doctrine and acceptance of casualties (or rather the number of casualties) the government is willing to accept is a big determiner (is that a word?) of what kind of armament and armour protection the vehicle has.

One thing about the Brits - when they deploy those Land Rovers with all those weapons you know they are looking for a fight. That attitude is protection all by itself.

 

[MJP]

Military doctrine and acceptance of casualties (or rather the number of casualties) the government is willing to accept is a big determiner (is that a word?) of what kind of armament and armour protection the vehicle has.

I am not tracking you Jim.  I don't think we procure vehicles based casualty acceptance but rather what the CF needs.  Protection of the crew and passengers is certainly a factor involved.  What we have done certainly is restricted vehicle usage in certain situations and even bought new ones to prevent casualties for UOR, but in the long term casualty acceptance IMHO doesn't play a huge role in determining what veh we go with.