RFI For Light Forces Enhancement Phase II Released

Project Update

Another day, another RFI. This time for one that I had thought would come out a bit earlier, before CANSEC, but it seems that things were not meant to be. We have a new RFI, finally, for Phase II of the Light Forces Enhancement project.

For those that don't know, LFE Phase II is a follow-up to LFE Phase I, which was split off from the wider LFE as an emergency UOR. Originally there were no phases, but we like phases these days, and there was a considerable enough demand in Latvia for the Light Infantry to have a dedicated platform that the feds decided to contract for 90 Light Tactical Vehicles from General Motors back in July 2024.

I won't get into the controversy and the doctrine side of the value of ultra-light vehicles here. I am a famous defender of the utility of light vehicles. I believe that there is a purpose to them that oftentimes gets overlooked and, in some cases, ignores present reality.

Are they susceptible in the modern battlespace? Absolutely. Are there areas where low-signature, ultra-light platforms provide tactical utility that larger vehicles like those under LUV couldn't provide? Yes. Is it better than walking, and does it provide light infantry with a platform able to not only support them but increase their combat effectiveness by allowing them a rapid-response and higher-payload capability than nothing at all? 100%.

Just throwing things out there; this is about the RFI, not Noah ranting on doctrine or force development. Despite being essentially the same, I thought it would still be valuable to provide another breakdown of the RFI. You guys seem to really like this kind of stuff, so I see no reason why we shouldn't get the juicier details out there.

So, while there isn't too much here, I still feel the need to get into things and try to break down this RFI as best we can.

The Requirements

To reiterate, LFE Phase II is a follow-up. There isn't a whole lot of major difference coming into it versus Phase I. Both aim to acquire an ultra-light, air-portable, off-road vehicle to give light forces tactical mobility, reach, and persistence in dispersed and austere environments.

The RFI provides us immediately with some updated numbers. The project aims to acquire up to 220 vehicles and 33 light trailers, with an option to increase the platform count if the project is selected for scope expansion. There is no figure attached to that expansion; it is left deliberately open-ended.

These numbers are slightly different from the commonly spoken-about and long-standing numbers discussed since Phase I, which pegged Phase II at up to 222 vehicles and 23 trailers. In the grand scheme, there isn't too much of a difference. It is entirely inconsequential to the project, but I still wanted to make note of it.

The updated schedule has engagement running through 2026/2027 with a contract award pegged for 2028. We have an updated IOC in 2029 and FOC in 2030. I should note, as always with RFIs, that these dates are all subject to change.

They align with what I know, and are still a useful benchmark, but with anything related to an RFI, you can expect changes, both to timelines and requirements, as things progress. You should never get attached to what you see in an RFI.

The future LFE vehicle is built around two variants: TMP-Personnel and TMP-Cargo. These are jointly referred to as the Tactical Mobility Platform (TMP) in the RFI. This remains unchanged from Phase I.

The TMP-P is expected to seat a 9-soldier light infantry section in full fighting order with rucksacks at 160kg per soldier, without degrading the gunner station. The TMP-P is also expected to have the ability to support a stretch up to 10 soldiers.

The TMP-C is built around a 4-to-5 soldier detachment plus cargo capacity. This is one area where the RFI gets pleasantly detailed and specific. A TMP-C with four soldiers in fighting order (137kg each with day bags) is asked to resupply two platoons at a 1,185.5kg load-out (64 rations, 22 jerry cans, double ammo scale) or three platoons at 1,778.2kg.

Both variants are also asked whether the driver, gunner, and commander (and separately, all occupants) can securely stow their rifles when not in use, and the TMP-C is asked whether it can carry an identical spare tire without compromising any other requirement.

Trailer requirements are pegged to all three NATO/North American standard pallet sizes (32x48, 40x48, and 48x48 inch) at both 1,000kg and 2,000kg loads. The RFI also asks if the trailer can carry these without significant on-road mobility degradation. There's also a requirement to carry two casualties on stretchers.

Fuel requirements remain the same as always, asking for continuous operation on any commercial-grade diesel and/or JP-8. Cold starting is more specific, asking if the TMP can perform an unaided start with the entire drivetrain at -40°C ambient, plus compatibility with NATO slave-cable starting. There is a bit more nitty-gritty there, but we won't get into every little technical ask here. If you guys really wanna know, just ask.

Recovery is another section that gets some fair love here, with the RFI asking about self-recovery, recovery by another TMP, and towing by another TMP on paved roads without a towing trailer, with follow-on questions on maximum tow speed and the time/preparation required to rig for it.

Mobility and survivability requirements don't change much and stay fairly simple to what you'd expect. The RFI asks for fording of at least 0.7m with a stretch to 1.0m, and full submerged operability at 0.7m for ten minutes.

Survivability requirements include CARC-equivalent chemical/biological resistant coatings, self-sealing fuel tanks against 7.62mm, and a removable heated cab cover. On armament, the RFI asks for a 360-degree gunner station compatible with the C9, C6, M2, C16 automatic grenade launcher, and ATGM systems.

Adding on ATGM is a fun one here, because I was under the impression it would not be included, but I am happy to see it thrown in here. Of course, I expect there to be a lot of experimentation with the LFE vehicles.

There were a lot of really cool trials done with the MRZR leading up to LFE, primarily in what kind of armament could be included in future light vehicles. God bless Alex Buck, the crazy, lovable bastard. He would have a field day.

Also included in survivability is tactical blackout lighting with defined behaviour (dash dimming, horn disable, driving lights off) and questioning on whether the gunner station can supply power to the mounted weapon system.

Detection signature is also distinct here. The RFI asks whether vehicle design, materials, surface preparation, and paint systems reduce detection across the full electromagnetic and electro-optic spectrum, and separately asks for the external noise profile and the test methodology used to establish it.

On the electronic side, there's a cyber-hardening question (whether the TMP is designed to be non-susceptible to cyberattack) paired with an EW-detection question on minimizing electromagnetic spectrum emissions from the vehicle itself. We won't get deep into that here, but we will acknowledge it is there.

Maintainability and Availability get pushed harder than in earlier RFIs. The RFI asks industry if the TMP can be repaired by industry partners across Canada and, separately, worldwide. On availability, the RFI asks whether there's a consistently active production line and how long industry forecasts it remaining active, and notably, whether IP rights could be provided to allow mass production through alternate OEMs during mass mobilization.

Maybe I have missed it, but this is the first time an RFI like this, at least recently, has specifically singled out the need for IP in the event of mass mobilization, specifically as it pertains to scalable production in conflict.

If it has been in there, I haven't seen it. I am fairly confident that this is the first acknowledgement of needing domestic IP rights specifically to support mass mobilization. Of course, if you've been following us since last year, you'll know that Army Mod is distinctly built around mobilization.

While not really acknowledged, the concept of a Mobilized Reserve is inherently built on establishing a foundational layer of human capital that can provide flexibility and scale in conflict. One of the major roles of 2nd Div is acting as the primary support for a future mass mobilization system.

What exactly that system looks like, I am not at liberty to say; that is no-talk territory at this time. However, despite it being a major component of Army Mod, we hear comparatively little about it as a concept. Certainly, we don't really ask that question much when it comes to RFIs/RFPs.

Of course, if you follow the newsletter, you'll remember that there are conversations like this happening in the background. The high-end 5000+ ACV-W numbers were specifically tied to what a high-end, mass-mobilized CAF would need available to support both the 1st and 2nd Division.

I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge this, because it caught me a bit by surprise that it was mentioned. I am VERY happy to see that mass mobilization and the need to secure scalable production in some form is acknowledged here. It is really important.

To be more detailed, the RFI asks industry what elements of the LFE capability could realistically be designed, manufactured, assembled, or integrated in Canada, either by the prime or through Canadian partners, and asks vendors to identify existing Canadian supply chains or industrial ecosystems that could be leveraged or expanded to support delivery at scale.

The RFI goes as far as to ask specifically about potential partnership structures to get there: joint ventures, licensed production, technology transfer, co-development, or consortium approaches are all discussed, along with what experience a bidder has running long-term partnerships with allied governments or domestic industries on comparable programmes.

On sustainment specifically, the RFI asks how repair, overhaul, software support, and obsolescence management could be conducted in Canada, and how domestic sustainment capacity would improve readiness during periods of heightened demand or geopolitical disruption.

To close off on a lighter note, there is also the air transportability requirement. The target curb weight ceiling is roughly 2,950 kg to preserve aircraft operational range.

The RFI wants to know whether two TMPs fit internally in a CH-147F Chinook, whether they can be driven on and off under their own power, and whether a pair can be slung simultaneously. It asks whether a single TMP and trailer combo can be slung together.

On fixed-wing lift, the RFI asks for the TMP to be airdrop-capable from both CC-177 and CC-130. The RFI also wants two TMPs transportable simultaneously in a Hercules with room left for 18 soldiers and their rucksacks.

Some Thoughts

Overall, LFE Phase II is more of the same. It is left deliberately open and keeps requirements simple and manageable to what most folks could do if asked. It is not inherently exclusive in itself. DAGOR and ISV have always been the baseline platforms here, and neither of them are excluded.

Not to discount third options, nor am I gonna be like others and say this is a GM handout. I don't think that is fair, and the RFI does not convey that message. In some of the wording, such as the internal Chinook requirement and wording on weights, the RFI actually feels very close to some of the DAGOR marketing!

Of course, GM does maintain an advantage here on the maintainability and domestic aspect, with an already established precedent with Phase I, a domestic manufacturing footprint that could be leveraged if they bite the bullet, and a large, robust supply chain leveraging the existing Colorado ZR2 that it's based off of.

That doesn't exclude people from Polaris, and the RFI gives them a fair chance to demonstrate their ability and willingness to support domestication and IP sharing. While it isn't giving a whole lot of room, the pathway is viable and laid out for them. In this case, when it comes to utility vehicles, I don't think it is unfair to ask for industry to be willing to set up domestic supply chains, or at least allow us the ability to license existing designs.

That goes for most utility and support vehicles. It should have included Zetros, but I digress. That is another argument. Again, there isn't much special here. It is a fairly normal, basic ask for an ultra-light utility vehicle. It is minimally different to Phase I, and while I do believe one supplier has a big advantage out the gate, I don't think it is fair to conflate that to the RFI being restrictive. It isn't.

There is a pathway, even small, for something other than the ISV to take the brass ring here. It exists, even if small, and that bears repeating in an era where RFIs are increasingly pushing certain pathways and the Federal government is taking a heavy hand in choosing procurement outcomes.

So, when something competitive, simple, and generally fair comes along? I think it deserves a good thumbs up.