• 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?

GAP said:
Has not the US gone through most of the various designs...why not take a peek at what they use and if possible buy off the shelf.

That would make way too much sense, and prevent the bureaucracy from spending lots of taxpayers money on "studies" and other useless money wasters, they much prefer to waste piles of money, letting some crackhead build it here in Canada.  Just go out and buy a COTS platform and be done with it, no testing required.....other users have already tested the life out of em.........well except for a cup holder that will hold a double-double on an 48% gradient!
lostrover said:
well except for a cup holder that will hold a double-double on an 48% gradient!

Use that CD thingy....watch though....some times it closes and causes the cup to leak!!
So...this thread has been quiet for a long time.  There was a recent article by Dave ******** in the Ottawa Citizen regarding:


I work for an engineering firm currently trying to design parking lots for these new MLVWs we're supposed to be getting.  We don't even know what they are!  If anyone has any new info please share.
Designing a parking lot for vehicles we do not have & who'se dimensions are not known ???
Cheez, that makes a lot of sense.... NOT!

If we are buying trucks that have +/- the same capacity as those we are replacing - then they should come in at +/- same dimensions.  If they are a snubnozed "cab- over" design, then it'll need less room to park - but will require the additional space for the cab to tip forwards during maintenance.
The SMP portion of the medium truck project (Medium Support Vehicle System) is not proceeding well according to those at NDHQ.
Perhaps the most egregious thing is that they cling to old paradigms. They want a 4-tonne and 8-tonne capacity vehicle because that's what they've always had.  But they also say that they want NATO compatibility so that when cross-loading the loads don't have to be re-packaged into smaller shipment. A loaded 20-foot ISO container is 16 tonnes (NATO standard) but they seem oblivious to this

To me it looks ******** is confusing two different trucks. A new Medium Support Vehicle of 4-8 tonnes and HLVW/SHLVW that carries the ISO Containers.

geo said:
Designing a parking lot for vehicles we do not have & who'se dimensions are not known ???
Cheez, that makes a lot of sense.... NOT!

Yeah, really...does that surprise anyone?

Seriously though, DCC can't delay construction projects until PMO makes decisions on MLVWs.  I guess all we can do is design the parking to accomodate the larger of the two vehicles in question, the OshKosh MTVR. 
Why are we worried?  We all know that the Government will continue their policy to replace current equipment with half the numbers anyway.  If the current parking lot can hold the current vehicles, it will surely hold half the number.  Now should we be talking about buildings, then that is a different matter, but not too much so.

In 1994 the foundation was finally laid for a new Tank Hangar in Petawawa.  Walking the site, I looked at the doorways in the foundation and knew even before the walls were started that the doors would be too small for the current tank that we had.  Some Engineer/Contractor/Architect had decided to save a few thousand dollars per door and cut the dimensions down.  When the Hangar was 'completed' (without the tracked overhead crane) they tried to fit a tank through one of the twenty doors.  It fit with one inch between it and the frame of the door.  Anyone who had dealt with heavy tracked equipment knows that this will not work.  Now, there was also the question of the new 'add on armour' which made the tanks two to three feet wider.  Needless to say, a new hangar had to be built to the "correct" dimensions.  No taking shortcuts.  No skimping on doors.
One inch?!?  I know we build to MMR (Minimum Military Requirement) but that's ridiculous!
Just an idea. As your crew´s liked the AHSVS Actros wouldn´t it make sense to buy the corresponding smaller Actros trucks as MLVW replacement? Also for an later HLVW replacement the Actros family could be used. This would clearly easen up logistic support for you truck fleet, as all trucks would have large number of interchangeable parts in common. And you can get MB parts all over the world.

We bought those trucks as a UOR, which meant we could waive many procurement rules.  But it also means that we got those specific trucks for that specific need.

For any other needs we have to conduct an open competition, and not cherry pick.  It's an attempt to avoid the Gillette syndrome, where you get the razor almost free, but pay through the nose for blades.
From a perspective on trade agreements, it does.  Other wise we'd see DND repeatedly buy two or three of one item, then claim "compatibility with existing fleet" as a pre-requisite in a larger purchase of hundreds of that item - often at inflated prices.

Not to mention that UOR purchases typically sacrifice many requirements of the permanent capability in order to get the "right now" capability.  Thus, kit bought for Afghanistan may be functioning perfectly there but at the same time would be entirely inadequate back in Canada, in our next theatre of operations, or for a different type of mission.
There is no doubt that the Actros family of trucks is a good one.
Here is hoping that they submit a bid when the time comes.
Just to make it clear. I am not trying to "sell" you anything. I myself prefer MAN trucks for military matters. It was just a point from an logistical position. We had to learn it the hard way that it not helps your war efforts to have a dozens different vehicle with almost the same spec´s but with completely different logistical chain´s behind them. I also know that you three know what I am talking about. But how much people reading this don´t?
I only chose the Actros family as an example and because you already bought them in form of the AHSVS and it would be an logical choice to build on the experience you have gathered with them.