MLVW Replacment?

[Gunnerlove]

Not to be a dick but all steel will rust, even stainless (trust me). If it will form an oxide over eposed metal it is probably hot dip galvanized steel. The zinc will provide limited protection to the steel.

Weight reduction and corrosion resistance were the reason Hummers have aluminum bodies. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Right enough Gunnerlove. Stainless needs contact with particular metals to make it rust though,  like iron filings from a brush used to clean a black iron weld.  Those few bits of iron will be enough to start corrosion.

Having said that,  I would be surprised if stainless were the metal of choice because AFAIK stainless makes a poor structural metal tending to break rather than bend.  But I only use it for making yoghurt .

I haven't worked with galvanized steels.

 

[1feral1]

The US M35 has been around since the early 60's at least (gasoline powered and manual transmission), and before that was ther trusty US M135, which we had. The good ole Duce! We had 'em  in Regina from 1951-to about 1956 models. A certain Queen Bee by the name of Godzilla rings a bell, along with 2.5T cargos, Stinky (POL veh), and Ditch witch, names which were stenciled below the driver's door.

I remember when we took the ML conversion course in MJ back in Jan/Feb 1984. In 2000, I was again in an MLVW '062' the same one I trained on 22 yrs back. It still ran, was in good shape for her age, and was a bit rusty on the guards, but it still smelled the same!

Cheers,

Wes

 

[teddy49]

All right I'm new here and this is my first post, so I'm gonna preface it with some backround.  I've been in the Mo ( and driving MLs for almost 12 years now)  Infantry not trucker.  I've been a professional truck driver, for 10 years.  Recently, I spent 7 months in Iraq, pulling fuel tankers for KBR from base to base.  My opinions are based on these experiences.  As far as cab over design being a liability, when Mines or IEDs are concerned, At KBR ( where we ran European cabover Volvo's and Mercedes Actros trucks) we found the opposite to usually be true.  Iraq may be an anomaly, but most IEDs were detonated on the right side of the vehicle at ground level.  This placed the motor in the ideal position to protect the driver, if it went off under the truck.  If it was beside the truck, our Kevlar blankets did an excellent job of stopping fragments and even AK fire.  That being said, my vote would still go to the Oshkosh.  First, I love the motor.  I have driven trucks with virtually every motor available in the 12 liter 425 horsepower class.  Series 60 Detroit, E-7 Mack, D-12 Volvo, and the C-12 Cat.  I love that motor.  Regardless of what the numbers say, the one I had when I pulled turnpike doubles in Alberta would outpull an N-14/460 Cummins.  The 3126 Cat, even with it's rating of 330 horsepower, is IMHO up to the task.  At only 7.2 liters, it's just too small, especially what you start moving sea containers and the like.  Keep in mind that the 300 horse motor in the HLVW is 10 liters in displacement.  That's a Chevy v-6.  But seriously, the more understressed the motor the better.  Especially for military applications, where long life is major requirement.  The 3126 in the FMTV is at the upper end of its performance envelope.  The C-12 isn't.  The 3126 has a checkered past in commercial service anyway, even in the lower ratings.  The independent suspension on the Oshkosh is a pretty advanced setup and certainly more complex than the leaf spring and sway bar arrangement that the FMTV employs and that counts against it.  Plus coil springs are a pain to change compared to leaf springs, and these are some coils.  But it's not an overly complex setup, and I think that the benefits in ride and the lower resultant stress on other vehicle components help to make up for the complexity.  If it's simpler (is that a word) but you have to fix it more, is there any benefit. 

Also, and I think that this is a major benefit, the Oshkosh, has a more modular armour kit that attaches to the existing Cab Structure.  If you want to up armour a FMTV, you have to put an entirely new cab on it.  You want to talk logistical night mare.

And going from the user feedback perspective, many Army personnel that I talked to weren't totally in love with the FMTV.  It's more comfortable versus the old trucks, but it has some reliability issues, in Army service.  I couldn't get them to elaborate on those issues though.  The marines I talked to had no complaints and many praises for the Oshkosh.  If that's anything to go by.

Just my $0.02

 

[ringo]

I'm new here never been in the military but for 20 years operated a few trucks in a company I owned started out with 10 ton payload vehicles but in the final years operated 20 ton payload on road of course, IMHO the forces need to be doing more with less ie fewer 2 1/2 ton type's more 5 or 10 ton types I certainly like the looks of the Oshkosh truck they have a very good reputation.

 

[Kyle]

I don't know if MAN has also been taken over by Stery/S&S, but the MAN trucks are completely different. 

Vice-versa. Steyr trucks are built by MAN now. That's why the HLVW has German NATO stock numbers on all the parts. I wondered why that was, until I found out that Steyr sold their truck building operations to MAN.

Gun Plumber:

Agreed on every point. The ML is anything BUT underpowered. The V8 that they dropped into it has power enough to pull a 105 uphill as fast as an unloaded LSVW MRT. It has a lot more power than the US version. It doesn't even have a turbocharger, and it can still do what it has to do with plenty of power to spare. The design is geriatric, sure, but if we introduced a new truck, how much would we really have to change? I'd change a few things (like the faulty intermediate / rear axle system, for starters), but the concept would be pretty much the same. As far as off-road capability, towing capacity, and versatility, the ML's not a bad design. The concept of the truck isn't its weakness - it's the way that it was built.

"Far to often Canada replaces veh or equipment with unproven designs and tries to work out the bugs after we've already accepted it."

Heh. Why does the LSVW come so readily to mind? Although, to be fair, I think it's more a victim of its specifications as anything else. The Army wanted a cheap truck that would be good on fuel, and that's what they got. I think our problem is that we expect too little and expect to get it too cheap. Here's to hoping tht we don't do something similar to that experiment when the times eventually does com to replace the MLVW.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think our problem is that we expect too little...

Too little or too much?     Maybe just unrealistic - trying to buy one size fits all gear

and expect to get it too cheap

  Amen brother...although the PWGSC mark-up does tend to confound things.

 

[Bomber]

To much for to little, sounds like an iltis replacement being used as an armoured convoy escort.

 

[Spr.Earl]

We are cheap and thrat's a fact!
Why don't we just buy all the old SMP multi fuelers from the States.Loads of parts,the are built like a tank and are simple to maintain.
Yes I have driven loads of them,with the calibre of drivers we have we would have no probs with them.
Militaries to day are fogetting the old addage of "KISS" Keep it Simple Stupid.
For certain Arms yes have specialised vehicles but for over all MSR use the old SMP is good enough if our drivers are trained to do 1st and some 2nd Ech. maintenance.

 

[teddy49]

Why don't we just buy all the old SMP multi fuelers from the States.Loads of parts,the are built like a tank and are simple to maintain.

Cause they're using them all right now.  You should see the motley collection of deuces and 5 tons running around here,  I've even seen some old RIOs in Air Force service up at LSA Anaconda.  I think they are some of the first diesel trucks that the US military had.

For what it's worth we had more than a few convoy escorts done buy guys in M35 5-tons and they were a lot more reliable than the M1114 hummvees.  But they were slow.  Changing tires sucks on them, since you have to disassemble the central inflation system on the wheel and then put it back together properly for the wheel to mount.  And when you have to figure it out, cause the Army guys who you're "helping" are all Air Defense guys whose home unit has M-113s, and they have no clue when it comes to 5-tons.  Learining how to do this on ASR Evansville is fun.  But there's nothing like dirty looks from the bad guys to keep you motivated to learn.

Just my $0.02

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Looks like OshKosh is gearing up to submit a version of their MTVR for the MLVW replacement program:
http://www.oshkoshtruckcanada.com/

 

[teddy49]

Agreed on every point. The ML is anything BUT underpowered. The V8 that they dropped into it has power enough to pull a 105 uphill as fast as an unloaded LSVW MRT. It has a lot more power than the US version. It doesn't even have a turbocharger, and it can still do what it has to do with plenty of power to spare.

This is the part I where I ask what you're smoking ;D  The 250 horse 14 liter turboed Cummins has less power than the 160 horse 8 liter naturally aspirated Detroit?  How do you figure.  I will grant that the ML may have a superior power to weight ratio versus the M35.  But the M35 is a substantially heavier vehicle.  But the M35s that they are running here will do 100 -105 kph.  I've heard lots of stories about MLs that would do that, but in almost 12 years in the military, I've never seen one, never mind driven one. I don't understand how compairing a slow underpowered overburdened vehicle to one that is woefully inadequate in every regard, means that the ML is great. ???  Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to slag the ML.  It has been soldiering on since before a lot of soldiers were born and continues to give faithful service today, despite its age.  But the times, they are a changing.  Where are you gonna put a TCCS mount, PLGRS mount, and Athena, or the american MTS system, if they ever come on line, in an ML.  There's no room.  Never mind the ammo for the c-6 or the fifty in the ring mount on the roof.  Oh that's right, we don't use fifty anymore.  But there's new realities in modern warfare that the ML wasn't designed for.  One is that even logistical vehicles need the firepower that only support weapons can provide.  Another is that these things are rolling phone booths/radio stations with all the satellite and radio gear that's stuffed in them.  I've been inside an M35 with all this crap in it and it's a tight fit for just me with my vest on.  Never mind that the yanks are stuffing 3 guys into this thing for convoy duty.  (Driver, Vehicle Commander, and Gunner)  The trucks can't handle it.  The people can't handle it.  There's better stuff out there that could be had for less money than a life extension program for MLs.  And the new stuff does actually work better.  Sorry but it's true.

What would you rather have, a new old truck, or a new truck.

 

[Mountie]

"We should be jumping onto the next generation not the last generation, MTVR not the FMTV"

This is exactly why the MAN series would be more appropriate.  The British Army will be taking delivery of the MAN 6, 12 & 18 tonne trucks in the next few years and will be using them for the next 20+ years.  CF personnel are often deployed on international operations with British and German units and therefore there would be some opportunities for sharing of spare parts.

 

[George Wallace]

Mann has been producing some very fine trucks for the military for a long time.   The great thing about German engineering, is that they have thought of the 'end-user' in designing things.   One socket for all the vital Drivers Maint.   Locations of Filler Caps, Dip Sticks, Drain Plugs, etc.   It is in many cases some of the small things in designing a vehicle that will make it an acceptable vehicle for the troops to maintain and use.   It was a problem with many of the British machines; anyone change the oils on a Ferret?   A 'Plumbers Nightmare".  

The Mann Tank Transporter, for instance, was designed with the same power pack as the Leopard.   It has a hydraulic system in the trailer, to load or recover AFVs and MBTs in any gradient.   It came equipped with a winch system to recover 'Dead Heads'.   If this company keeps producing equipment like this, it is no problem buying right off the shelf.

 

[Kirkhill]

At least it will give an opportunity to find out how they operate in Canadian service?  S&S, as noted elsewhere, also has rights to the G-Wagen and the Pinzgauer.  It makes for an interesting stable.

 

[Gunnerlove]

Anyone who claims the MLVW has enough power has never driven one through the Rockies. The brakes are what really scare me though.

 

[Craig B]

Agree with you there Gunnerlove . Not enough power and backward breaking system .

It has a few other faults too , front heater/defroster sucks , windshield whipers are bad  and the drivers seat dosen't adjust enough ( backwards , up/down ) .

It could really use a weapons mount too .

Craig

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thought the weapons mount, on the ML/ Gun Tractor, for you guys was the tow pintle

 

[Craig B]

Thought the weapons mount, on the ML/ Gun Tractor, for you guys was the tow pintle

It is indeed   ;D

However , the 105mm C3 is a tad unwieldy when dealing with an ambush or an air attack .

Craig

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.ssss.com/NR/rdonlyres/3173DB68-638B-4325-9924-DF74CA01FD31/778/LSAC.pdf

Surfing for something else I came across this.   The LSAC (Low Signature Armored Cab) for the FMTV trucks.   8 man-hours to swap out with the conventional cab.

Stanag 4569 Level 2 7.62mm AP for glass and cab

Stanag 4569 Level 2a, 3a Exceeds 12-16 lbs mines.

Still C-130 transportable.

This article is interesting as well.   http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=25891

It discusses whether logistics vehicles need to be permanently armoured or whether a replaceable cab like the FMTV one above is adequate.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/fmtv-lsac_armored-cabs.jpg