• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

MLVW Replacment?

The MILCOTS has limited use in "certain" disaster relief scenarios. Kind of like the Iltis was of limited use in a great deal of situations such as medical evac and resupply.

Apples and oranges. 

 
I drove the Oshkosh MTVR on Wednesday last week.  Fits in our Herc's without waivers, carries a crap load of weight, is crazy big, and is designed to be idiot proof.  It is also the chosen truck of the Marine corps, the company told us they had just signed a deal for 1020 more trucks on top of their order.  The truck has a 425 hp caterpillar engine, and over 1500 foot pounds of torque.  Dudes, I have seen no better truck.
 
Bomber said:
I drove the Oshkosh MTVR on Wednesday last week.   Fits in our Herc's without waivers, carries a crap load of weight, is crazy big, and is designed to be idiot proof.   It is also the chosen truck of the Marine corps, the company told us they had just signed a deal for 1020 more trucks on top of their order.   The truck has a 425 hp caterpillar engine, and over 1500 foot pounds of torque.   Dudes, I have seen no better truck.

Bomber, I heard a rumbling that the USMC was now using the MTVR as the tractor for their M777 LW 155mm gun.  You wouldn't happen to know what the empty (with basic fluids) weight of an MTVR is, would you?

Thanks,
Duey
 
According to USMC MTVR website @ http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/p&r/concepts/2000/PDFs/Chapter4/MTVR.PDF
The MTVR's weight of 28,000 lbs and reducible height of 98 inches make it internally transportable by C-130 and externally by CH-53.
 
Hi! I'm new here - but a long time ago i was a sapper ( 5 Genie, 3 Fld sqn - 1CER). Regarding this truck, how good is it on the highway - what's it top speed - as I can remember the long slow road moves from Chilliwack to Wainwright. It seems to me that most Canadian Forces driving is on road as opposed to off-road so is it too much truck for CF purposes. By the way - could anyone tell me regarding CF vehicles -what are the concepts of holdings - I presume there's no such thing as a 1/4 ton now but who gets what and why currently and in planning? Tnx
 
One of the pictures in the brochure had it towing the M777, The one I drove had 5 tons of steel plate bolted in the back to give the drivers a demo of how it would perform off road when loaded.  It is rated at carrying 7.1 tons off and 15 on, so it would squeeze a bunch more life out of the HLVW fleet as well.  The one I drove with weight pulled an unofficial 0-50mph in about 12 seconds, going by my watch down a long straight road with a bit of a rise.  I was also able to climb a 24 inch concrete step by pulling right up to it, engaging the 6 wheel, and then pressing on the gas.  The engine is a Cat "c-9 or c-12"??? I don;t know if that makes any sense, but hp numbers were 425 and torque was around 1500.  I also liked the limp home capability.  The marines are only ordering every 6th one with a spare tire mounted, all the rest upon receiving a flat that the CTIS can't cope with, are treated to a bar being inserted into the suspension arms and then being twisted like a giant bolt.  This compresses the suspension, raising the wheel with bad tire off the ground, and then the vehicle "limps" home.  The truck was also very smart, there wa s a computer in the cab, that did a proper DI upon starting, much like in the new silverado's and stuff, only smarter.  It would tell you when you had a faulty driver.  The cab on the one I drove was made by DEW and was armoured against 7.62 AP
 
Sorry, in the brocure it is actually towing an M198, and the engine is a C-12.  Top speed is 65 mph.
 
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/04/08/032959.html

Stewart and Stevenson has apparently bought the UK company that produces the Pinzgauer (ATK)

They now hold the G-Wagen, the Pinzgauer and the FMTV.

Any chance of one-stop shopping for a fleet?
 
Ever checked out Stewart & Stevenson's FMTV trucks, they have a pretty good variety. You can find their site on army-technology.com.
 
Thanks for the suggestion BPC.  :)
Cheers
 
We should be jumping onto the next generation not the last generation, MTVR not the FMTV
 
Bomber:

I thought MTVR and FMTV were concurrent designs?  The reason I prefer the FMTV over the MTVR is the Cab-over design. Logistically it is easier to pack FMTVs than MTVRs.  More trucks into a smaller space.
 
it's been awhile since any-one has posted on this thread - Is there any new information on  MLVW replacements?
 
MTVR seems to be a huge leap over the FMTV, both of which are a quantum leap over the current ML.  I would figure cab over would be a bad item, mine blasts going upwards, I think that was one of the things the DEW people said tat the Demo I went to.  The way the cab is armoured and shaped is designed to protect the driver, putting the cab of the wheels was bad according to the company that didn;t do it.  Plus the engine is enormous, a giant Cat diesel.  The truck even tells the maintainers when the current driver is an idiot.  Finally, after being told how, I was able to hop in and drive like a pro, not friggin around.  Beyond everything, it can climb a 24 inch concrete step, like it wasn't even there.  It is also a 1998 design, vs the FMTV which I think is a 1988 design.  At the rated strength, it will easily spell off the HL's as they get ready for Life Extension, and only take up a bit more space than an HL.
 
I would figure cab over would be a bad item, mine blasts going upwards, I think that was one of the things the DEW people said tat the Demo I went to.

Thanks Bomber.  That's something I hadn't thought of.  In any event, if we are going to have a BFS to get the trucks from one place to another space is not going to be at such a premium.

It is also a 1998 design, vs the FMTV which I think is a 1988 design.

That too was news.

Cheers.
 
"if we are going to have a BFS to get the trucks from one place to another space is not going to be at such a premium."

Another good reason for the MTVR, the USMC requested a truck that wouldn't rust.  So, the vehicle is made of some steal that is light, strong and has a high content of something to eliminate rust.  The info given was that a fresh scar in the metal would oxidize and seal itself after about a week.  The described it as a self healing material.  Once the oxidization has happened, the scar is effectively sealed and good as new.  And being Marine kit, they are designed for being carried on ships, in moist environments.

 
Should also increase life expectancy at Gagetown, Valcartier and Petawawa - assuming that they are still salting highways down there. ;)

Cheers

Re-reading your description it almost sounds like they are made of stainless steel.  Is it possible that that's what they are made of?
 
In regard to MTVR vs. FMTV, the reason why the Marines went with the OshKosh MTVR was because they had a requirement for a 7 ton rather than  2.5 or 5 ton requirement that the US Army had.

MTVR is a very capable vehicle, but for alot of what the CF uses the ML for, it's serious overkill.  A 5 ton FMTV would probably be a more capable mix.  Also, if DND played their cards right, a combination buy of FMTV and Pinzgauer from Stewart and Stevenson might be an economical way to replace the MLVW and LSVW in one buy.  With Stewart and Stevenson now owning Pinzgauer, I'd imagine that alot of parts commonalities between the two vehicle types will develop.
 
As soon as this notion of air transport exhausts itself, I figure we should get some better kit.  Cause lets face it, the planes aren't getting more capable of lifting things with age.  The HL's are going for their refit, going to be a big capability gap for a while until they are all back.  The ML's are pretty much toast.  And if we get those big Honkin ships, then I demand a big honkin truck.  And the MTVR fits my bill.  Besides, towing 155's with a bunch of ammo will require a bunch of truck.  Once they start up armouring things, the truck will be reduced to a 5 ton capacity, where the FMTV would be brought down to almost ML equivalent.
 
I would figure cab over would be a bad item, mine blasts going upwards, I think that was one of the things the DEW people said tat the Demo I went to.

Plus with a cab forward design, every time you hit a big bump or pothole, you really feel it because you're right over the axle.
 
Back
Top