MLVW Replacment?

[Matt_Fisher]

For the future of military transport, have a google at what the US is doing with the Future Tactical Truck project:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1011
http://www.dtic.mil/matris/sbir/sbir043/a255.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002ftts/skalny.pdf
http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/(soldier)/20044?OpenDocument

The CFs should do a rebuild program of the MLVW to the M35A3 standard as applicable, acquire enough 5 ton trucks for the Mobile Artillery program and hold off on purchasing a new fleet to replace the MLVW until 2008-2010 when a giant leap forward in capability will be realized with the introduction of the Future Tactical Truck.

 

[XJimmy]

Thanks so far guys.  Some more thoughts I was kicking around.  Maybe a larger truck with armour is better?  You can move supplies in safer, in less trips?  Is airportability really required?  And are we out of sync with other nations in purchasing of our logistics vehicles.  Meaning the technology.  I thought the ML was/is a great vehicle but how much longer until the fleet of ML's is done?

 

[a_majoor]

Since the US buys its equipment in vast quantities, it is probably better to syncronize our buys with theirs.

Larger trucks have their place, but it becomes a sort of cost cost benifit analysis. Fewer trucks = less cost, but each downed truck = more risk of not getting supplies. The only armoured vehicles should be "admin troop" vehicles directly supporting the F ech.

 

[a_majoor]

Here is a rather unorthodox idea for a new truck:

http://www.newholland.com/h4/products/products_series_detail.asp?Reg=NA&RL=ENNA&NavID=000001277003&series=000005218311

The machine is designed to go cross country, has a built in "fork lift" type arm for picking up cargo, and a tilt bed to off load. Farmers want reliable and inexpensive machinery, and so do we!

Yes, it may not be the 100% solution, but it would probably be a lot simpler to throw a few mods on a machine like that than to wait until 2008-2010, or design a new truck from scratch.

 

[12alfa]

Since we will probably have to wait until at least 2008 or beyond, we should at least think about some more exotic options.

Don't take this the wrong way...............

But have we not got enough unproven, poor designs, not used by others, etc, type equipment?

Ie: MGS,ADATS,LSVW,MLVE, and we all know how this is working out don't we.

Can't we for once buy equipment that is in wide use, proven, and a assembly line in place. or would this make us look like fools?

 

[Gunnerlove]

Lets not touch Hybrid vehicles until the civilian ones start to perform as promised. If you need more power throw a second alternator and a couple extra batteries into a vehicle. Leave one on the ignition/starter circut and use the others for the accessories. 2-4 lead acid batteries will cost a hell of alot less to replace than the battery pack in any hybrid. As an added feature you would make it harder to kill a vehicles battery.

 

[a_majoor]

By the time we get around to buying a replacement for the MLVW, hybrids will have developed a track record. If we tie into the US program, production line economies will be available for both the purchase and support of the "electro-ML".

The New Holland hay baler might be a bit of an odd suggestion, but it is currently available, and has many of the qualities we might want in a transport truck. The built in "forklift", or whatever it is called allows the driver/store man to pick up palletized or containerized cargo, and the tipping loadbed allows the same one man to offload the truck as well. One troop can do the work of many, and a lot faster too.

The point is a 1950's vintage design will not work for 21rst century warfare and military operations.

 

[dodge01rt]

As a reserve driver in the mid to late '80s the ML was a great truck,it had loads of power from the 500 Detroit.As a lark on an exercises one weekend I proved that the ML could do a 4 wheel brake stand.Thats a ton of power. >

 

[Mountie]

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

 

[FEEOP042]

Mountie........Styre was bought out by MAN. I think that we should buy the MAN I have used them and it is a great truck. The Styre you have to raise the cab to do your DI but the man you don't engine access is behind the cab. Less glass in the front I find as well.

 

[WOLO]

for those that are curious there is a MLVW replcaement project inthe works, I have been following it closely, As it stands reight now, they are planning to buy a SMP for the regs and you guessed it a MILCOT for the reserves.  They are looking at a "buy of opurtunity " as S&S has offered their FMTV to them but who knows where that will go. As for the rest the project team had sent out a survey to the users quite some time ago asking for input( this is how I found out) And they make take some of the info into account, but they are looking at a 4.5 ton( the MLVW is actually a 5tn) truck with PLS capabilities...

 

[Kirkhill]

Now that would be just plain dumb.  If there is one piece of SMP kit that the Reserves should have it is the MLVW.  Especially if Disaster Assistance and Humanitarian Aid missions are in there future.

Rugged, off-road capability with a large pay-load and easy (relatively speaking guys - no offence intended) to drive.

Able to get past mud-slides.

 

[a_majoor]

Buying two different types of trucks to "save money" is the most expensive possible option!

You have less economy of scale, two separate supply and logistics chains, no interoperability between the Reg and Reserve worlds, and as Kirkhill says a MilcotsLVW has little utility in a disaster relief scenario.

Is ANY thought process at all going into this decision?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I think you will find that distribution will be based on task - MILCOTs for admin work (driving from one base to another, from Supply to Transport), and MILSPEC for field work (resupply, tp lift etc) - and not Reg / Res as suggested.

Dave

 

[Bomber]

Talking with some of the vehicle replacement guys, one option is a "modular" system, where the basic chassis is common, and there are various "modules" to be put on the vehicle, like armour, SEV kits, cranes and other fancy jazz.  Just about the same as what we have right now, but the Reserves, and Regs not on deployment or pre-deployment would use the basic cab with their applicable kits on it, armour would be used in work up and deployment.

 

[TCBF]

Seems to me "everything old is new again" .  Way back, we had Deuce-and-a-halfs, plus 3 Ton "Stake" (S/C: Special Commercial) trucks as well. Many out their will recall propane modded three tons being driven around their basic training, and carrying their kit to and from the Granville Ranges.

Tom

 

[Kirkhill]

Nine Companies Short-Listed For ADF Vehicles Tender
 
 
(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued March 17, 2005)
 
 
Nine companies have been short-listed to supply medium and heavy military vehicles to the Australian Defence Force as part of Project Overlander, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today. 

The short-listed companies are ADI Limited, Daimler Chrysler Australia-Pacific, General Dynamics - Land Systems Australia, MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG, Mack Truck Australia, Scania Australia, Stewart & Stevenson, Tenix Defence and Terex Corporation. 

Senator Hill said the short-list was selected after detailed assessment of responses from 18 companies following an invitation to register interest. 

Senator Hill also announced that ADF light vehicles would be acquired through an open tender process and that plans for acquisition of trailers were also being finalised. 

As part of the initial phase of Project Overlander, vehicles and trailers will be replaced in Army's high readiness units, such as 3 Brigade, 5 Aviation Regiment, 10 Force Support Battalion located in Townsville and Sydney and RAAF high readiness units located in Amberley. 

The vehicles and trailers are scheduled to be delivered between 2008 and 2010 at a cost of up to $600 million. A later phase of the project will replace the vehicle and trailer fleet in remaining units. 

"Field vehicles and trailers are the backbone of the Australian Defence Force's land warfighting support, sustainment, deployment and redeployment structure. They are used to transport personnel, combat supplies, materiel, replacement combat systems and to evacuate casualties from the battlefield if necessary," Senator Hill said. 

"These vehicles and trailers also serve as platforms and prime movers for weapons systems, and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance and electronic warfare capabilities. 

"Our current fleet is ageing and is becoming more costly to maintain and upgrade. The vehicles will comprise six classes of basic vehicle chassis, ranging from lightweight to prime movers with interchangeable modules to increase operational flexibility." 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

 

[Trogdor]

Oh cool that Stewart & Stevenson truck is what the US used for the HMARS.  The lighter version of the MLRS.  Holds half the rounds and can be deployed via herc.

I think this would be a good replacement for the MLVW

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24067&highlight=marine+truck

 

[Maclimius]

With regards to the disaster relief scenario, I'm not sure how many of you were actually involved with Operation Peregrine back in 2003, but the terrain that we covered with MLVWs with troops in the back were areas that not even the beefed up forestry trucks were able to get in to. I would sort of compare those forestry trucks to the MILCOTS except for one fact. The forestry trucks could get in to better places. With it's low suspension and huge, flat skid plate, you can get high centred on even fairly well maintained roads, let alone badly maintained ones. The MLVW is still a great utility vehicle. The only thing holding it back is age. No matter how many times you change the oil, change the tires, weld the rust spots, eventually the chasis wears out. Going with a newer model makes sense. The Americans did it, why can't we. Then we could actually get back in line with their logistics vehicle production scheme.

Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer to have a vehicle that is locally made, but the cost difference far outweighs the benefit. The LSVW was a perfect example of that. I live in Kelowna, the same city as the now defunct Western Star that built it (bought out by Freightliner and sold off). From having talked to the people that were working the assembly line, they thought it was a piece of crap as they were building it. They couldn't do anything about it due to outside political pressure.

We should just stick with a design that works, with a few updates of course (better fuel efficiency, more efficient transmission, etc.), and reuse it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Colin2]

We were quite unimpressed with the MLVW when it first arrived, lots of problems, including spring mounts, frames, fender,etc Not to mention that screwy spare tire setup. The old Deuce was a better thought out vehicle, although underpowered. The MLVW could have been a really winner but was buggered up by the builder and by DND cost saving exercises.

The army in Germany in the 80's had the MAN 8x8's cargo and wrecker version, very nice vehicles and well liked.

We had an old 3 ton stake truck with a slant-6, great old truck ran for years, they tried to take it without replacing it. We maintained it ourselves until till they literal had to bring the MP's to get it from us. Yes ever unit should one