They were. Amethyste and Perle were built (funny enough under the Améthyste program) to address these issues. The rest of the Rubis-class was further rebuilt to match this standard.
Building heavy trucks is definitely something we can and should be doing more of in Canada. Unfortunately at the moment, the only large scale truck builder is American owned Paccar in Quebec. And they don't have any defense offerings.
There is an interesting Canadian owned start up out in Donald BC, Edison Motors. They will be building heavy duty logging and oilfield trucks and I think that could very easily be developed into an armored variant for the army once they have their factory up and running.
Indeed. Our capacity is limited, but it is there, and the foundations are there to undertake a program even if licensed. As for Edison? They want to get into defence, and plan to jump into it. However I can't speak to the plans themselves.
I am excited to see LVM Heavy roll out. LVM Light... Not so much. In the interest of commonality... Despite 4 other Class 8 fleets... We have made our light/nimble Light Logistics vehicles into giant Heavy Class 8 trucks... But shorter & less capable.
... It is... Frustrating. & Those trucks will have issues supporting light forces etc.
I don't have the stats /data for LVM specifically... So don't know exactly what axles or axle spacings we used. Pretty sure that given the fairly long spacings, they are not considered paired axles in the MTO terminology, so they would all use the single axle ratings. Also, as I recall the tire width on the R20 XZLs we tend to use are a bit wider than normal truck tires - not super singles, but more than a single wheel. Technically would allow fudging the numbers a bit....
IF we adhered to the provincial MTO (etc) regulations. Which we don't. There is a jursdictional issue in the laws that allow CAF to ignore if necessary. We try to, when it makes sense, but the mobility & payload requirements (including armoured cabs) often makes it difficult to adhere to provincial regulations.
There is a recapitalisation project in tue books (in name only at the moment). Recapitalisation can mean whatever the Army wants it to mean - light refresh, full rebuild or replacement. It also covers Navistars & Macks & SEVs... completely different products, so it might make sense to break it up. I really hope any MACK eplacement is tied to the LVM truck. MSVS SMP is the same size might as well have the same capaility. ... But our procurement systems have not historically supported good (efficient) decision making.
As for the Navistars for Reserve/Domestic use... I would replace them with a lighter truck than LVM, & standardise Light logistics vehicles on whatever platform that ends up being.
sadly i dont think theres any way to standardize unless we bundle all the trucks together in a competition or create a national logistics truck manufacturer program
Yes, it will take a deliberate bundling and a different acquisition / procurement structure. I've thought of & proposed just such a framework on Twitter...
The bloat we've seen in the "Medium" fleet makes this easier. Mack 8x8s are essentially now just less capable heavy trucks.
Wait for LVM to finish delivering, & then start a new Capital acquisition Contract for Heavy Trucks.... Scope it for just the trucks (all the ISO container systems etc. Can be bought as/when required).. Make it a Standing Offer and/or Supply Arrangement. Scope the contracts so you can replace all (heavy) Trucks over 10-15 years, with flexibility to increase qty if necessary to support CAF growth ... Or replace attrition (combat or otherwise). Call it 300 ish trucks a year.
Some of MSVS MilCOTS/Navistars & LVM Light requirement could become Heavy trucks. For the rest, I would buy a much lighter truck... Something like an F-600 or T-180 chassis...
assuming it comes down to the payloads and road limits on the size of trucks/axles. A normal commercial truck might for example run two, three, four 9.5T axles but with duals instead of singles for wheels. LVM is running 13.5t axles? I dont really understand that because it would exceed the allowable weight limits. I dont have my MTO book anymore but it used to be that the axles had to be 101" away to be considered independent as well. All that to say are the trucks too big or is that what they needed to be to meet the regulations?
Paccar (Kenworth/Peterbuilt) has a factory in Ste-Thérèse QC and collaborated with SAAB-Scania in the past. Just saying….anything is possible!
I heard the Rubis class were verry noisey. Maybe a good thing we didn’t end up with them.
They were. Amethyste and Perle were built (funny enough under the Améthyste program) to address these issues. The rest of the Rubis-class was further rebuilt to match this standard.
Building heavy trucks is definitely something we can and should be doing more of in Canada. Unfortunately at the moment, the only large scale truck builder is American owned Paccar in Quebec. And they don't have any defense offerings.
There is an interesting Canadian owned start up out in Donald BC, Edison Motors. They will be building heavy duty logging and oilfield trucks and I think that could very easily be developed into an armored variant for the army once they have their factory up and running.
Indeed. Our capacity is limited, but it is there, and the foundations are there to undertake a program even if licensed. As for Edison? They want to get into defence, and plan to jump into it. However I can't speak to the plans themselves.
I understand the Edison guys have done some nice work….be nice for someone to integrate them into CAF work.
I think defense is something they are trying to break into. Their planning to bring a truck to CANSEC this year from what I've heard.
I am excited to see LVM Heavy roll out. LVM Light... Not so much. In the interest of commonality... Despite 4 other Class 8 fleets... We have made our light/nimble Light Logistics vehicles into giant Heavy Class 8 trucks... But shorter & less capable.
... It is... Frustrating. & Those trucks will have issues supporting light forces etc.
We use Ariba where I work. I don't think anyone can get away from it. SAP does stand for Suffering And Pain after all...
I don't have the stats /data for LVM specifically... So don't know exactly what axles or axle spacings we used. Pretty sure that given the fairly long spacings, they are not considered paired axles in the MTO terminology, so they would all use the single axle ratings. Also, as I recall the tire width on the R20 XZLs we tend to use are a bit wider than normal truck tires - not super singles, but more than a single wheel. Technically would allow fudging the numbers a bit....
IF we adhered to the provincial MTO (etc) regulations. Which we don't. There is a jursdictional issue in the laws that allow CAF to ignore if necessary. We try to, when it makes sense, but the mobility & payload requirements (including armoured cabs) often makes it difficult to adhere to provincial regulations.
Arent any MSVS replacements going to have their own separate competition with a presumably unknown result?
There is a recapitalisation project in tue books (in name only at the moment). Recapitalisation can mean whatever the Army wants it to mean - light refresh, full rebuild or replacement. It also covers Navistars & Macks & SEVs... completely different products, so it might make sense to break it up. I really hope any MACK eplacement is tied to the LVM truck. MSVS SMP is the same size might as well have the same capaility. ... But our procurement systems have not historically supported good (efficient) decision making.
As for the Navistars for Reserve/Domestic use... I would replace them with a lighter truck than LVM, & standardise Light logistics vehicles on whatever platform that ends up being.
sadly i dont think theres any way to standardize unless we bundle all the trucks together in a competition or create a national logistics truck manufacturer program
LVM heavy 500 Zetros 8x8
LVM light 1000 Zetros 4x4
MSVS-SMP 1587 Mack 8x8
MSVS-MIL 1300 Navistar 6x6
ERC 100 RMMHX 8x8
HIMARS 28 Oshkosh 6x6
5000? trucks every 10ish yrs
Yes, it will take a deliberate bundling and a different acquisition / procurement structure. I've thought of & proposed just such a framework on Twitter...
The bloat we've seen in the "Medium" fleet makes this easier. Mack 8x8s are essentially now just less capable heavy trucks.
Wait for LVM to finish delivering, & then start a new Capital acquisition Contract for Heavy Trucks.... Scope it for just the trucks (all the ISO container systems etc. Can be bought as/when required).. Make it a Standing Offer and/or Supply Arrangement. Scope the contracts so you can replace all (heavy) Trucks over 10-15 years, with flexibility to increase qty if necessary to support CAF growth ... Or replace attrition (combat or otherwise). Call it 300 ish trucks a year.
Some of MSVS MilCOTS/Navistars & LVM Light requirement could become Heavy trucks. For the rest, I would buy a much lighter truck... Something like an F-600 or T-180 chassis...
assuming it comes down to the payloads and road limits on the size of trucks/axles. A normal commercial truck might for example run two, three, four 9.5T axles but with duals instead of singles for wheels. LVM is running 13.5t axles? I dont really understand that because it would exceed the allowable weight limits. I dont have my MTO book anymore but it used to be that the axles had to be 101" away to be considered independent as well. All that to say are the trucks too big or is that what they needed to be to meet the regulations?