Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,867
- Points
- 1,160
I suspect the leg stand is a 2nd line maintenance thing. Frankly the whole "flex" stuff is marketing as far as I am concerned. It's actual field use will be very minor if at all.
Infantry Vehicles
- Thread starter KevinB
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,688
- Points
- 1,160
I agree that switching modules in the field is not very likely.
But building modules and trucks separately - and I see the drive module as a truck - seems entirely reasonable. Most of the big dollar items are likely to be in the module and not the truck. The truck is likely to wear out before the module. On the other hand the module is likely to need upgrading on a separate schedule to the truck. The modules can be taken off the truck and swapped for a current module while the old module goes back to the shop for refit.
Or just swapped out for a TCV module if the APC fleet has been taking a beating and more armoured mobility is required.
But here's a question: About the Log Module. It carries two pallets under armour. How many pallets could the truck carry on the frame if it left the armour plate behind?
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,613
- Points
- 1,160
I agree with the concept of modularity where possible with the caveat noted in an article I posted previously in another thread (that I don't have time at the moment to find) that achieving modularity does not come at the expense of performance of the primary function (i.e. you can make it modular but it's only 80% as effective as the non-modular version) or overall cost (i.e. you can make it modular but you can only get 4 x units for the same price as 6 x non-modular units).
- Reaction score
- 7,688
- Points
- 1,160
Would you consider life-cycle costs of managing upgrades, service and repairs?
An awful lot of equipment these days is built to permit modularity, even at a higher initial cost, because in the long term (20 to 40 years - the life of a LAV, Tank, Plane or Ship) - it is cheaper, easier and faster to keep the plant current with the needs of the moment.
I have to admit though, the armoured logistics module has me scratching my head.
An awful lot of equipment these days is built to permit modularity, even at a higher initial cost, because in the long term (20 to 40 years - the life of a LAV, Tank, Plane or Ship) - it is cheaper, easier and faster to keep the plant current with the needs of the moment.
I have to admit though, the armoured logistics module has me scratching my head.
- Reaction score
- 5,718
- Points
- 1,140
I suspect battery technology is nowhere near being able to support that sort of idea. I'll actually go so far as to say that it's a completely unrealistic idea, as batteries weigh far too much compared to fuel for the same power output. There is a very valid reason EVs haven't taken over the world already...
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,281
- Points
- 1,160
My initial thought was the cargo variant would be for resupply internal to a mech unit, i.e., RQ or CQ. The wikipedia entry describes it as "The Boxer Cargo is a Dutch-specific variant that replaces the YPR-765 prv variant of the AIFV".
Unit Organisation and Equipment
Unit organisation and equipment; organisational charts and descriptions (tables of organisation and equipment)
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Points
- 1,010
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 12,084
- Points
- 1,160
I remember a lot was made about the 5/4 ton truck line when we first got them that the chassis was standard but the rest was modular so that for instance you could switch out a command post module with a cargo bed or a line layer. I don't ever recall it being done. If the chassis went N/s for some reason it just went into workshop for repairs for a few days. Of course peacetime use and wartime use are two different things.
I kind of wonder how much of a problem the logistics guys would have with that due to stock numbers and such.
The sigs used to go all crazy if you modified the radio installation kit. There's an anecdote about when F Bty deployed to Kabul, the command post designated to go was a clapped out piece of junk so they swapped out its radio installation into the Battery Captain's box van. It caused no end of consternation in Montreal when they checked the CFR number against the installation inside/stock number. Took a year to sort out.
I'm not saying that you can't sort that type of stuff out. I'm not sure we're that flexible, however.
The idea is a good one but my guess is that you pay for that modularity, probably won't use it and will have no end of problems with the power (and possibly hydraulic), air conditioning, heating etc, connections to the rear end radios, electronics, weapon systems, NBCD air pressurization, fire extinguishers etc. etc.
Just as an aside, I'm surprised the Boxer is a right hand drive. Great for the Brits but ...
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,867
- Points
- 1,160
Modularity for trucks makes a lot of sense, for AFV I see diminishing returns
- Reaction score
- 5,718
- Points
- 1,140
The current MSVS is a pretty smart way of doing "modularity", the SEV containers are self contained with generators, so any SEV can be loaded on any truck and can be dropped at a location if the truck is needed elsewhere.
I know the Met dets with the artillery had been getting dropped in the field fairly regularly when the MSVS was first coming out, as the Met guys had no qualified MSVS drivers, and there were too few trucks.
- Reaction score
- 24,024
- Points
- 1,090
Too many platforms to move and not enough trucks is the Army way.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 12,084
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 5,718
- Points
- 1,140
It worked out, the SEV could be dropped and they could do the job. Better to get them out into the field than to have them sitting back in garrison.Jeez!!!
MJP
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,445
- Points
- 1,260
Certainly not an engineer but having dealt with the fielding centers ( essentially places within the military that do retrofits) the comms wire and other electrical placements matter very much. I can certainly see why the professionals would disparage people taking liberties with electrical wiring but also realize the field force has a sayI remember a lot was made about the 5/4 ton truck line when we first got them that the chassis was standard but the rest was modular so that for instance you could switch out a command post module with a cargo bed or a line layer. I don't ever recall it being done. If the chassis went N/s for some reason it just went into workshop for repairs for a few days. Of course peacetime use and wartime use are two different things.
I kind of wonder how much of a problem the logistics guys would have with that due to stock numbers and such.
The sigs used to go all crazy if you modified the radio installation kit. There's an anecdote about when F Bty deployed to Kabul, the command post designated to go was a clapped out piece of junk so they swapped out its radio installation into the Battery Captain's box van. It caused no end of consternation in Montreal when they checked the CFR number against the installation inside/stock number. Took a year to sort out.
I'm not saying that you can't sort that type of stuff out. I'm not sure we're that flexible, however.
The idea is a good one but my guess is that you pay for that modularity, probably won't use it and will have no end of problems with the power (and possibly hydraulic), air conditioning, heating etc, connections to the rear end radios, electronics, weapon systems, NBCD air pressurization, fire extinguishers etc. etc.
Just as an aside, I'm surprised the Boxer is a right hand drive. Great for the Brits but ...
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,281
- Points
- 1,160
I remember a lot was made about the 5/4 ton truck line when we first got them that the chassis was standard but the rest was modular so that for instance you could switch out a command post module with a cargo bed or a line layer. I don't ever recall it being done. If the chassis went N/s for some reason it just went into workshop for repairs for a few days. Of course peacetime use and wartime use are two different things.
I kind of wonder how much of a problem the logistics guys would have with that due to stock numbers and such.
The sigs used to go all crazy if you modified the radio installation kit. There's an anecdote about when F Bty deployed to Kabul, the command post designated to go was a clapped out piece of junk so they swapped out its radio installation into the Battery Captain's box van. It caused no end of consternation in Montreal when they checked the CFR number against the installation inside/stock number. Took a year to sort out.
I'm not saying that you can't sort that type of stuff out. I'm not sure we're that flexible, however.
The idea is a good one but my guess is that you pay for that modularity, probably won't use it and will have no end of problems with the power (and possibly hydraulic), air conditioning, heating etc, connections to the rear end radios, electronics, weapon systems, NBCD air pressurization, fire extinguishers etc. etc.
Just as an aside, I'm surprised the Boxer is a right hand drive. Great for the Brits but ...
The first task I did when I was posted to 1 Fd Amb as a private in the 1970s was (with the EME) help put all the boxes on our 5/4s. The replacements for our 3/4 tons arrived as bare chasses (except for the cargos, they were regular pick-ups) along with the different variants of boxes (mostly ambs in our case). Initially there were eight bolts that held them on. Within a couple of years that was modified fleet wide after a couple of shelters went flying off due to vibration having loosened the bolts. As for swapping out modules, that was only done when the LSVWs were the replacement. The boxes came off the 5/4s, were refurbished by CORCAN and then put on the LSVWs before distribution to units. I was back at 1 Fd Amb (this time as a Coy OC) when we went through that process. One of the first things I did when I started getting my ambulances back was to make sure that they were properly bolted on (other than missing one bolt, things were mostly fine).
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 12,084
- Points
- 1,160
Actually, in my day most of the time they worked out of the headquarters building and flew their balloons from the parking lot. That was adequate for the whole ranges.
Since then the poor buggers have had to work out of MLVWs, Bisons, TLAVs, and now they're being dropped off in a pod from the back of a truck. I don't know about the rest of the organization but dropping off a little met det in the middle of nowhere with no security or being dependent on others for security just feels a bit bush league.
A lot of those guys are Air Force and Navy but it shouldn't be too challenging to get them MSVS qualified ... but for the lack of trucks. I've never actually even seen an SMP MSVS but it strikes me that's a lot of truck for a met det.
- Reaction score
- 5,718
- Points
- 1,140
Balloons from the Met shack are good for the whole training area, but sitting in the Met shack launching balloons doesn't prepare people for living in the field. The reason dets were being dropped was mostly to prove the kit, and get the sections ready for deployments. As of last year all Met sections had vehicles and drivers, but there was a transition period. My point was more that the MSVS SEVs are capable of being dropped and run independent of the truck.Actually, in my day most of the time they worked out of the headquarters building and flew their balloons from the parking lot. That was adequate for the whole ranges.
Since then the poor buggers have had to work out of MLVWs, Bisons, TLAVs, and now they're being dropped off in a pod from the back of a truck. I don't know about the rest of the organization but dropping off a little met det in the middle of nowhere with no security or being dependent on others for security just feels a bit bush league.
A lot of those guys are Air Force and Navy but it shouldn't be too challenging to get them MSVS qualified ... but for the lack of trucks. I've never actually even seen an SMP MSVS but it strikes me that's a lot of truck for a met det.
In a shooting war Met would be with a troop at all times, just like back in Afghanistan.
The vehicles have always been pretty Gucci, we had heat/AC, and power at all times. The MSVS SEV is definitely overkill since we have other more compact options, but the CA seems happy enough to use the MSVS SEV.
- Reaction score
- 7,688
- Points
- 1,160
And this is what is wrong with the current military procurement system, especially in Canada but also in the UK and the US
Instead of waiting for the perfect answer the civilian world has been delivering good enuff and making it better.
11 Military modifications of a workable civilian pattern vehicle in 12 years
81 generations of the same civilian pattern vehicle in 18 years.
Instead of waiting for the perfect answer the civilian world has been delivering good enuff and making it better.
11 Military modifications of a workable civilian pattern vehicle in 12 years
81 generations of the same civilian pattern vehicle in 18 years.
| POLARIS SportsmanModels/Series Timeline, Specifications & Photos |
| Home > Moto > POLARIS > Sportsman |
| Generations: 81 |
| First production year: 2005 |
| Updated: 8 March 2023 |
| The MRZR Alpha is Polaris' 11th military vehicle produced in 12 years |
2005 | Sportsman | Civilian |
2007 | RZR | Civilian |
2009 | Sportsman 850 | Civilian |
2010 | RZR 800 | US Army SOTF |
2011 | MV850 | US Forces |
2012 | MRZR | Introduced |
2013 | MRZR 2 | USSOCOM |
2013 | MRZR 4 | USSOCOM |
2014 | DAGOR | USSOCOM |
2016 | MRZR D2 | USMC - UTV |
2016 | MRZR D4 | USMC - UTV |
2021 | MRZR Alpha | USSOCOM, US Abn - LTATV |
2023 | MRZR Alpha | USMC - ULTV |
