In the last of the series on logistics I am going to look at containerisation and trucks, sorry it’s a bit long
The Army is generally moving towards a rational and coherent fleet of logistic vehicles. The old Bedford MK’s and TM’s are slowly going out of service to be eventually replaced by the MAN Military Trucks Support Vehicle (SV) range and whilst the Foden DROPS are being hammered in Afghanistan they will eventually be replaced by the HLDC programme. The Oskosh Close Support Tanker is performing extremely well, one of the most mobile vehicles in theatre and although operating under a PFI, the Heavy Equipment Tractor (HET), also from Oskosh, has proven to be a great success.
Future programmes include the Light Equipment Transporter, General Support Tanker and the Articulated/Non Articulated Vehicle Programme but not much is in the public domain about these, or what direction they will take.
Support Vehicles (Trucks)
The MAN Support Vehicles (SV) comprise a number of weights and types and will eventually replace the 4, 8 and 14 tonners in addition to a number of recovery variants. Total fleet size should be about 6,600 vehicles for £1.3billion, the numbers having been continually revised down from about 7,200 in initial news releases.
Wonder if the price has gone down?
The order attracted significant controversy as the competing offers seemed to offer better value for money and the European integration aspect of the decision allegedly trumped other considerations. Despite this, they are an excellent design with a long heritage, but if the Oshkosh offer was taken for example, the commonality advantages between the Heavy Equipment Transporter, Close Support Tanker and whatever trucks were taken to fulfill the SV requirement, would have been very useful.
We are where we are though.
MAN Military Trucks produce two variants, the SX has a stiffer chassis and coil springs so has much greater mobility, the HX is the lower specification variant, which of course we have ordered many more of.
HX Chassis
SX Chassis
There are 3 HX variants, the 2 axle SX60 which replaces the 4 tonner, the 3 axle HX58 which replaces the 8 tonners and finally, the HX77 which replaces the 14 tonner. The SX comes in two variants, the 4 axle SX45 Recovery Variant and 3 axle SX44 Unit Support Tanker and Cargo.
Man SV SX45 Recovery Variant
We don’t call them HX or SX though, instead preferring titles like Medium Mobility, Cargo Vehicle Heavy Medium Mobility and Improved Medium Mobility!
The theatre entry specification includes armoured cabs, weapon stations, run flat tyres and many other enhancements. The 288 recovery vehicles are partnered with 69 recovery trailers, each vehicle weighs 32 tonnes and can lift 15 tonnes, much more than the old Foden ‘wreckers’
Instead of the old bench seats or trying to find a comfortable place to sit between cam nets and stores the SV’s will have the option to use dedicated rollover protected seating from Roush, health and safety legislation means the sight of soldiers hanging out of the back of a 4 tonner will be a distant memory!
C Vehicles (Trucks)
The C Vehicle PFI incorporates engineering plant, cranes and other equipment. Awarded to the Amey Lex Consortium (ALC) in 2005 after a lengthy bidding process and is a 15 year deal, valued at approximately £600million. Equipment is centrally pooled in a number of locations and when units use the equipment they are in effect, hiring it. VT have subsequently acquired Lex Defence and are now part of the Babcock organisation. On contract commencement, ALC purchased the MoD’s equipment although it is rumoured that acceptance criteria was so stringent the MoD had to spend considerable sums getting equipment ready for the handover and for the same costs it could have bought new. This legacy equipment was to be phased out and replaced with new equipment as the agreement progresses, most of this has already happened.
Although the scheme includes operator training, surely it would have been logical to use the same equipment as the rest of the Army?
Not in crazy PFI land it isn’t, despite nearly 500 of the MAN Support Vehicles being fitted with jibs the C Vehicle PFI has provided similarly equipped Iveco Trakker units. There is nothing wrong with the Trakker but another vehicle type that overlaps completely with existing vehicles but provided as part of the PFI means yet another training requirement at a time when we should be consolidating equipment types, funnily enough, one of the core objectives of the C Vehicle PFI, the halving of equipment types.
The PFI has provided a number of 6×6 Trakker vehicles, total chassis order was 206, variants include Self Loading Dump Trucks (SLDT), Medium Dump Truck (MDT) tippers fitted with the Thompson Loadmaster tipping body, Nurock volumetric concrete mixing plant, Truck Mounted Loader with an Atlas Terex lifting arm and even well drilling rigs.
Iveco Tracker - Nurock Cement Mixer
Iveco Trakker - Medium Dump truck
Iveco Trakker - Self Loading Dump Truck
Iveco Trakker - Truck Mounted Loader
The MAN SV is a proper military truck with a long heritage and has been designed specifically with expansion in mind, it can be fitted with a protected cab for example, without modification. The Trakker vehicles in theatre appear not to be protected to the same degree and the quantities seem to be very low, the SLDT and MDT will be obtained in quantities of around 70 each for example.
It is not clear whether the recent UOR purchases of protected engineering plant has been obtained through the PFI.
I remain to be convinced about the operational usefulness and value for money of PFI schemes especially given the fact that those with the information to illustrate value for money have a vested interest in not releasing it. Ideally, all military trucks in UK service should be based on the MAN SV base designs.
DROPS
DROPS is a family of logistics vehicles that use a HIAB Multilift designed derivative of the Marel Corporation hooklift system, commonly used for waste containers.
There are two types of vehicle - the Leyland Medium Mobility Load Carrier (MMLC), and the Foden Improved Medium Mobility Load Carrier (IMMLC). IMMLC is used primarily as an ammunition carrier in support of AS90 155mm self-propelled guns. MMLC operates solo, or towing a skeleton trailer. DROPS revolutionised logistics transport when introduced and continues to be the backbone of the Army’s transportation capability. Coming into service in 1994 the IMMLC (Foden) contract was for £75million and 400 vehicles. The earlier Leyland MMLC contract delivered just over 1,400 vehicles.
Leyland DROPS
Foden DROPS
A research paper from the US in 1991 shows some of the thinking behind the DROPS and ISO Container system, click here to read.
The Enhanced Palletised Load System (EPLS) is designed to supplement the existing DROPS vehicles because there are of course not enough of them, by fitting a number of HX77 chassis, which were on the production line, with a HIAB Multilift hooklift system. EPLS is a UOR, the original SV programme did not feature a DROPS replacement and it has pulled vehicles from the existing pool, they are not extras. The main difference between EPLS and the DROPS system is that EPLS can lift standard ISO containers without putting them on a flatrack first, obviously providing much greater flexibility although flatracks are used quite frequently for non container loads like vehicles, trailers or other equipment.
EPLS
There is absolutely no doubt, EPLS is a success story, more flexible than DROPS and delivered in double quick time, but it is not necessarily the best system for the medium to long term. Once the load has been deposited on the ground it needs a crane or similar to reposition, the centre of gravity can be high which reduces mobility and the departure angle can be disadvantageous to certain loads. The original role of DROPS, delivering huge quantities of ammunition to Royal Artillery batteries, may have diminished somewhat, but simply looking at a typical Combat Logistics Patrol in Afghanistan it is clear that the ISO container has completely penetrated the logistics system.
The low cost option would simply bring EPLS into the main equipment programme, so this is what is likely to happen, but in the medium term we should be moving towards a more comprehensive and flexible solution.
A key question is, should the system be mounted on the chassis of a truck, on an articulated trailer or both. The second question is the design, a simple hooklift or more complex but more flexible sideloader.
A trailer mounted system would likely be towed by the Close Support Tractor unit and if chassis mounted, the MAN SV would be the obvious donor vehicle.
The sidelift or side loading arrangement provides maximum flexibility that loads, unloads and stacks ISO containers using two hydraulic arms at either end of the chassis or trailer. Sidelift was developed in the sixties by Klaus Transport-systems, who were ultimately purchased by Steelbro in New Zealand and the system developed further. Other manufacturers include Hammar and Swinglift. Advantages include reducing the need for container handling cranes or fork lifts, the flat load/unload profile is advantageous for some loads and the ability to stack containers can also be very useful. A single sidelift trailer could be used to offload an entire convoys worth of containers and can be telescoped to handle 10, 20 or 40 foot ISO containers or flatracks.
The RLC do use sideloaders but only in a niche role, the Rail Transfer Equipment (RTE) Klaus Kranmobil uses a semi trailer design for transferring containers from railway flat beds to road vehicles. The Simple Rail Transfer Equipment (STRE) is mounted onto a modified flatrack and operated from the DROPS vehicle
DROPS or EPLS would need 2 vehicles to transport 2 containers, those 2 vehicles would need 4 crew. The cost of 4 crew members must include training, wages, health cover, pension and a myriad of other ‘capitation’ costs. The 2 vehicles need maintaining, spares holding, training courses and of course all these need personnel, expensive personnel.
If we could replace 2 DROPS/EPLS with a single system that can handle 2 20ft containers then the personnel reduction alone would result in a significant cost saving.
See the video below for the operation of a 40 foot system
Sidelifters are in use with the Army but only a very limited basis.
Trailer mounted units may not have the mobility required and a chassis based design is relatively top heavy, which again limits mobility because of the tip over hazard.
In an earlier FDR post I proposed using an articulated loader as a base for a protected vehicle family. The front cab would be armoured and a variety of swappable modules forming the payload. Payload modules could include personnel carrier, command, mortar, ISR or other weapon systems. By making the payload separate from the transport vehicle we increase flexibility and reduce overall cost.
In a logistics role these articulated loaders could use a side lift system, the mobility advantages of an articulated loader are apparent in the video below.
Because of the relative advantages and disadvantages of articulated loaders, rigid chassis and trailer mounted units it would seem obvious to use all three options.
Others
The Oskosh Global Heavy Equipment Tractor (HET) is teamed up with a number of trailers from King Trailers and Broshuis, the King trailers being used mainly for very heavy equipment like Challenger and the Broshuis for Warrior sized and below loads (max 45 tonnes). The HET is a version of the US M1070 HET.
Heavy Equipment Transporter with King trailer
Earlier this year, 20 Improved Mobility Trailers were obtained under a UOR for the Heavy Equipment Transporter. At a cost of £150k each, the trailers from Broshuis have greater ability in rough terrain i.e. Afghanistan, than the existing trailers. Given the wholesale move from CVR(T) that can be carried on the back of a Foden DROPS or MAN EPLS, to an ASCOD SV which can’t, there is going to be a need a much greater number of HET’s and trailers. The HET’s are provided by Fastraxx, a PFI provider owned by Kellog Brown and Root. The PFI will run for 20 years and provides 92 HET’s, trailers and sponsored reserve drivers.
The implications of FRES Scout on this PFI are uncertain.
Broshuis IM Trailer
Providing fuel and water distribution, the Oshkosh Close Support Tanker, another Oshkosh success story, are amongst the most mobile vehicles we have, based on the well proven MTVR.
Close Support Tanker
Completing the stragglers is the Alvis Unipower 8×8 vehicle used for carrying the Royal Engineers General Support Bridge. In the interests of logistics commonality we should transfer the bridging and launch/recovery equipment to an SV chassis.
Alvis Unipower GSB
Containers and Modules
Combat Logistic Patrol - 19 Combat Service Support Battalion
As can be seen from the image above, the ISO container is here to stay.
Based on a standard 20ft ISO container the Deployable Machine Shop (DMS) from Marshall SV has recently been purchased and will equip the REME, RM and RAF. 44 have been purchased for £5.8million, hold on, that over £130k each. In 2008, the MoD purchased 25 fuel tank containers from WEW Westerwalder for £4million to provide static and mobile refuelling points. WEW have a long track record in defence and provide tank containers to numerous military forces. General Dynamics have provided the container based Bulk Medical Storage Facility (BMSF) and the RAF have also joined the rush to containerise with the Tactical Reconnaissance Deployable Imagery System (will leave you to work out the acronym!) made from recycled hospital containers (which were pretty rubbish by all accounts)
Deployable Machine Shop
Bulk Medical Storage Facility
TARDIS
WEW Fuel Container
The march of containerisation should continue, their all round usefulness has been well proven in Afghanistan.
The Oshkosh PLS Engineering Mission Modules are a good illustration of what can be achieved and these would go some way to achieving commonality with the C Vehicle fleet.
Container handling equipment includes everything from simple dollys to complex rough terrain handlers. There have been a number of interesting studies on improving the C17′s ability to handle ISO containers and this work translates to other aircraft.
ISO reach stackers are available from a number of manufacturers such as Fantuzzi, ISO Loader and Atlas Terex but the most common type in military service is from Kalmar Rough Terrain Container Handler, often called the ‘wretch’
- Kalmar Rough Terrain Container Handler
In April this year I published a post on lightweight vehicles in which I wondered if we could extend the concept of containerisation and DROPS to non logistics applications, more combat oriented but in a smaller package.
In what was probably a coincidence, great minds thinking alike, the Cameleon MMS concept was launched in May, featured in the July edition of G3 and at DVD10
The MMS uses an Iveco 4×4 Daily as the donor chassis and has a small capacity DROPS like system to load and unload various mission modules.
Cameleon MMS
It is clear that the Army has fully embraced the ISO container for logistics and combat service support but we should be thinking ahead and realising the advantages that containerisation, modularisation and quick handling provide into non logistics roles, as ably demonstrated by Oviks
Summary
Short Term
- Continue with SV
Medium Term
- Independent investigation into value for money and operational effectiveness of C Vehicle and HET PFI’s
- Coherence between SV and C Vehicles
- Sidelift DROPs replacement on range of trailers, SV and articulated loaders
- Move towards a modular demountable architecture
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
35 Comments
Excellent post, boss. And (only have a few minutes) to pick out a point of substance, the detailed consideration of how PFIs can go awry at the micro level (not just budgetary baksheesh but poor consideration of the knock-on effects of particular relationships and procurements) is very good stuff. While it may not technically be investigative reporting in full (although I suspect it is, another value of this site), it does put details from a hectic subject like logistics fleet management in an understandable light.
But what I really, in my heart of hearts, need to say is the fact that Her Majesty’s Forces *finally* managed to make TARDIS into a milspec acronym (and for something that expands to be bigger than it started, too!) made my entire day.
Also: management and transport of containerized supply/ISTAR/maintenance equipment is so very much the natural environment for flex-system architecture (two base fleets, one wheeled and one tracked?) Sounds like a tabloid headline: “Long Live Lego Logistics.”
Thing three: if you take SV as the root wheeled vehicle of such a two-track system, as you seem to push for, where would you look for a tracked basis where and when that’s required? Is there an afterlife in there for Warrior, or last-generation AVREs, for example, or will you run into such maintenance and parts-supply issues over time that it’s better to start fresh?
(I buy the SV argument myself, with MAN’s multinational organisation in place, you could centralise design but spread production workshare, and not just ensure modular commonality within your own armed forces, but interoperability with several of the neighbours, including Jed’s lot in Outer Canuckistan :)
One point that has been missed is that SV still can’t tow all of the MOD’s existing trailers (FEPS for example) and therefore some of the legacy fleet must still be run on until a solution can be found.
Containers are the way forward but I do want to make a few comments on them from an aviation perspective:
1, their tare weight (the parasitic weight of the container itself) makes them inefficient for air transports – which in any case haven’t been optimised to carry them. They’re built to be strong enough to be stacked half a dozen tall in a harsh marine environment, which is overkill for aviation and certainly limits the ability of helicopters carry a worthwhile load in a container.
2, This leads me onto QuadCons which I think the DoD are seriously considering. These are sub-containers which can be bolted together to form a full container but which can be quickly broken down for carriage by small truck/helicopter. Check them out and tell me what you think.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/55-65/appe.htm
C
Theres no reason a much lighter shipping container couldnt be made for air travel, its the dimensions (and near 0 cost) that are important.
Thanks Civvy, I did wonder why every picture of FEPS I have seen has been one lashed to a DROPS flatrack, will update the post
C, yes, good points. The steel ISO container is very heavy but have a look here for an alternative
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/02/haiti-and-water/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHlTrOVv9gs
One of the main reasons ISO continers are sealed units is to stop cargo workers seeing whats in them and nicking stuff.
You could replace the top and sides with something that weighs less, maybe even just a canvass (like a cargo truck).
Not sure how big the payload area of an A400m is, even if you can fit 5 ISO containers in, its a third of max cargo weight.
Not ideal, but containers arent going to be shipping heavy stuff anyway
I was rather pleased when they selected MAN for the SV contract. I am firmly of the opinion that the German Army does not buy rubbish and these trucks were substantially better than the current fleet. What I did nor fully appreciate at the time was that the HX version was the lower spec version and I believe that 90% of the order is for this version. The SX is the full mil-spec and has a fully automatic gearbox rather than the flappy-paddle semi of the HX. I had not appreciated that the DROPS vehicles were NOT part of this order.
The selection of the Oshkosh for fuel and water tanker and the HET does seem strange. I would have thought the MoD would want to standardise on its fleet.
With the likes of the HMT I was surprised they bought as many of the smaller 5 tonne variants as they did. I think they should have gone for more of the larger 8 and 15 tonne versions.
Wonderfull thing hindsight!!!
it beeen mentioned on here before, however it’s relevant to this post and saves people new to the site to go looking for it.
available in 20,40and 45ft options Foldable, roll up door and collaspible when empty, what’s not like?
http://www.gizmag.com/the-cargoshell-ingenious-collapsible-replacement-for-the-standard-shipping-container/13736/
Admin, congratulations on another superb post.
Just a few points and questions (if you have time to answer them.) Do not worry if you don’t. You must be a busy chap.
You mention that the MAN SVs are not called HX or SX. Instead, they are known by titles such as Medium Mobility, Cargo Vehicle Heavy Medium Mobility and Improved Medium Mobility. Is there a place, do you think, for a genuine High Mobility truck, say in the 8 tonnes range? I know that QuinetiQ (spelling?) were working on an electric-drive version of such a vehicle but I don’t know how far it’s got.
Do you intend to examine other, lighter logistics vehicles or have you already done so in another post? I am particularly interested in whether the Coyote, the Husky, the Wolfhound etc. will be eventually taken into the main equipment programme as part of the “green” Army, but perhaps those vehicles would not be categorized as logistic vehicles?
You mentioned the value of sidelifters. Do you happen to know whether the Rail Transfer Equipment (RTE), which was carried by some DROPS vehicles, is still in service? Is that the kind of thing you had in mind?
On the subject of trailers, I know that some Broshuis trailers were bought to replace some of those towed by the Seddons in the LET role but you’re saying that some were bought to be used in the HET role. Another later purchase must have been made then?
I thik that the Army has narrowed the choice of vehicles for its HLDC (DROPS replacement programme) to just two – MAN and Oshkosh (the latter being the MTVR, I believe). Given that the Oshkosh, combined with a Broshuis trailer, is also in line for the new LET programme, it could, if chose, certainly help with the drive to “ruthless commonality”.
Lastly, do you intend, in the post on Engineering equipment, to deal with plant? You have already touched on Dump Trucks, etc but I believe that ALC have already introduced new plant such as the D5 dozer, the Volvo grader and new Terex cranes. It would be nice to know more about these and others. I would be particularly interested to know whether the new protected engineer plant were obtained under UOR programmes.
Phew! I know think that I have far too much of you but I am going to send the post anyway in the hope that you can at lest answer some of the queries, if only one or two!
Thanks everyone
Jackstaff TARDIS, it would have to be the bloody crabs. The more I think about this the more I think we need a serious cross service rationalisation of equipment based on standard ‘lego’ building blocks. Why can’t the Army and RN use a standard modular small VLS for example, for CAMM, Fireshadow, GMLRS or whatever. Tracked chassis, why not, the MLRS chassis and Stormer would be suitable candidates or even Warrior or ASCOD. Its not rocket science is it!
Mike High mobility truck, how about a new build stally, although a tracked on might be more appropriate. I am though, a big fan of the articulated loader design, I think we could use one in a variety of roles both logistics and combat oriented.
Lighter logistics vehicles, have a look here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/04/fdr-medium-weight-vehicles/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/04/fdr-light-weight-vehicles/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/why-have-we-bought-the-springer/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/light-strike-vehicles-update/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/light-strike-vehicles/
I can see Wolfhound and Coyote being bought into the main equipment programme because they have commonality with others types, Husky seem the odd one out
Not sure if the old RTE is still in service
I think the latest Broshuis trailers were only purchased last year as a UOR because they needed something with better mobility.
I might do a post of combat engineering equipment and plant but there isnt really much to say about it, it looks pretty well sorted to be honest!
The new CAT medium and light wheelies were obtained under UOR, not sure if they are in the ALC PFI though, I suspect so
This was the most interesting Think Defence article for months to me. I’m interested in this topic, but not nearly satisfied with my level of knowledge about it.
I must say that the side-lifters don’t convince me. They appear too complicated.
Interesting fact:
It took the land forces of the world two decades to introduce at last the DROPS/PLS/MULTI self-loading technology after it had been introduced for civilian trucks. Self-loading technologies were used back in the 40′s in prototypes and back in the 60′s for artillery carriers (medium truck able to carry a 105mm field howitzer without the speed & agility restrictions of towing).
The forces were also rather late with containerisation.
Could the high mobility tracked system be the Bronco (Warthog) Logistics variant?
http://www.stengg.com/upload/995A9iATNhT6FY12ZMS.pdf
Admin,thanks for all the formation.
A new-build “Stally” sounds great and would not be prohibitively expensive. It would certainly need a modern diesel engine. The old fuel consumption rate was something like 12 miles per gallon, if I remember correctly (or was it 12 gallons per mile!).
A tracked chassis. I agree. Why not? What has happened to all the MLRS chass that have been withdrawn by the way, or the AS90 ones, come to that?
With reference to a possible combat engineering and plant post, I agree that much of it has been pretty well sorted. However, there is perhaps quite a lot of scope in bridging requirements. Is our range of bridging adequate? etc. Also a brief resume of Titan, Trojan, Terrier, Shielder, new plant, etc. would be highly informative to someone like me, whose research skills are near zero.
Interesting to read Sven’s comments about how the military lag behind the civvy commercial world with regard to logistics technology.
The range of bridging equipment we have is more than adequate the problem is we have very little of it
The military has been incredibly slow to adopt civilian technology in logistics and many other fields, not really sure why. Adopting civilian technology and modes of operation is another common theme at Think Defence
Jason, yes, there is no reason why Warthog could form a logistics variant, there are plenty of pictures out there of similar vehicles with DROPS type hooklift systems
C,
Valid point about the heli-portable container wait, but airportability is only a small part of a containers usuable life. Perhaps its time to look at the flying crane concept for heavy lift helicopters again. It comes in and out of vogue every few years, but as containerisation is the logistcal future, why can’t we view our rotary wing assets in the same way as our vehicular assets?
The S-64/CH-54 Tarhe led the way in this respect, any container tare weight would be off-set by the reduction in fuselge weight, given the skeletal design of the flying crane. Different missions could have role equipped containers ready to attach. A medical container for casevac and a utility one for troop carrying. They could even have diverse ones for putting out forest fires or delivering ready to go containerised medical facilities for direct delivery for humanitarian missions. I can feel a post coming on…..
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-64.php
i watched the how to build series on bbc2 and when they did the programme on QuinetiQ with respect to the chinook rebuilds and robotics halfway through the programme, you can see the vehicle mike is talking about!!
I remember soldier magazine did a feature on it and it was like a stally 2000 obviously it’s still around, but it looked it was just used for admin jobs around the compound, shame.
“Interesting to read Sven’s comments about how the military lag behind the civvy commercial world with regard to logistics technology.”
Different priorities
If you went to TESCO or Bulk Iron Ore Shipping Ltd and said I can cut your transport costs 10% they’d rip your arm off, appologise and give you a high paid job.
If you told the Armed Forces you could cut their transport costs 10% they’d wander off and look at something that goes whizzy whizzy bang.
As I’ve argued before, the armed forces (and most other branches of government) have an extremely broken or none existant feedback mechanism.
Improvements in the private sector are rewarded by increased profits and bonuses all round, improvements in the public sector are, at best, ignored and at worst rewarded by budget cuts.
As others have said, another first class well research article sir!
New production Stalwart with modern components would at least please the ‘loggies’ supporting 3 CDO Brig. As Jackstaff asked and others replied, tracked logistics, seems a good idea and the Warthog (Bronco) is already produced in such a version.
The Naval side of containerised logistics is interesting. Could you take a fairly bare hull like the Dutch JSS and use it as multi-role replacement for both the Fort Class AOR and the two older Fort class support ships ?
So, you would need refrigerated containers for food. Standard ones with shelving / storage systems for spare parts. Armoured ones (with explosion / fire suppression) for munitions etc But you would also need to load them onboard so that you could gain easy access to them, or rather easy access to their contents. Of course if your supporting Crabs or Pongo’s you just need to unload them at destination, but containerised logistics for underway replenishment might need a bit more thought.
By the way, the RN has always had a TARDIS, at least warship designers for the last 60 years have always thought you could cram a lot more people and stuff into a junior rates mess deck than appeared physically possible…… :-)
Every time I see a modern lorry – military or civilian – I find myself shaking my head in disbelief. I can’t believe that manufacturers are able to sell such total and utter shite! Look at your average car in 1920. You’ll see a basic ladder type chassis of reasonable strength but dubious torsional rigidity held aloft by rigid axles suspended on semi eliptical leaf springs. Look at the equivalent lorry in 1920 and you see the same but larger. Now look at a modern car. Look at it’s technical sophistication, it’s chassis-less contruction, independent suspension and disk brakes. Now look at a modern lorry. Still a basic ladder chassis with rigid axles on semi-eliptical springs and, quite often still, drum brakes. OK, some now have air bags replacing the steel springs and disc brakes are becoming more common but in most repsects the chassis and suspension technology hasn’t changed in 90 years. Some truck manufacturers have broken the mold – Tatra, springs to mind, as does Dennis whose custom designed fire engines used stainless steel space frames and independent suspension to make them a lot better handlng, and therefore faster to the scene, than their commercial truck rivals. Also more expensive so they went out of the fire engine market in 2007. I’m starting to rant so I’ll get to the point. What is a Jackal except a a lightly armoured 7.5 ton truck? Originally it was a truck – the Supacat High Mobility Truck (HMT) so why not make use of the design? It’s off road capability will be much greater than any of the vehicles mentioned above and it uses lots of off the shelf commercial parts. Look at that Iveco based Chameleon. A good idea (the mini DROPS system) on a chassis that is no better in concept than a Bedford QL! Take the DROPS system and put it on a Supacat HMT chassis and you have a very mobile vehicle with a neat and flexible cargo system to boot. Use the same basic idea, scaled up to replace the full sized DROPS – it’s performance will surpass any conventional truck and, although it may not be as capable in truly extreme terrain as an articulated, Volvo type chassis it will be a heck of a lot faster in any other situation.
A long time ago, back when I was in primary school, I had a book about lorries. It was of the lots-of-pictures-and-not-much-text variety (I was only 8 . . .) but the last chapter was dedicated to The Future. One idea put forward was the “minimum truck”. It was designed to be the smallest lorry capable of carrying a full size shipping container. It was a four axle design with a monocoque chassis, the cab out front and low down like a mobile crane with the cab roof forming the front portion of the load deck. It was, said the book, half the weight of the equivalent articulated tractor / trailer unit.
It made me think.
It still does!
“What is a Jackal except a a lightly armoured 7.5 ton truck? Originally it was a truck – the Supacat High Mobility Truck (HMT) so why not make use of the design? It’s off road capability will be much greater than any of the vehicles mentioned above and it uses lots of off the shelf commercial parts.”
Pete Arundel seems to talk one hell of a lot of good sense about the Supacat HMT. There was/is a 6-wheeled version, which was to act as the carrier vehicle for the LIMAWS (Rocket) and an 8-wheeled version which was to carry LIMAWS (Gun). Interestingly, although those two systems were cancelled, the 6-wheeled version (called ‘Meionic’, or some such name) was also due to enter service as the carrier for the Soothsayer ECM system. That was also eventually cancelled but not before the vehicle had been further developed and actually manufactured (to the best of my knowledge) by Babcock at Devonport. I think about 30 of the trucks were produced and I wonder what has happened to them. Did they enter service to be used in some other role, or have they been flogged abroad, quietly disposed of or what? I presume that the MOD funded their development and manufacture and they would have been useful high mobility vehicles on which to develop systems such as the ones Pete suggests (e.g.DROPS). As he says, the performance of the HMT would certainly surpass that of any conventional truck.
@ Richard Stockley,
You weren’t a Thunderbirds fan by any chance were you…?
Joking aside, I think General James Gavin had the same idea you have just proposed. He wanted stol airlifters who fuselage was a kind of ‘module’ that could be left behind after it landed. These ‘modules’ would be fully fitted out repair shops, medical facilities etc etc.
An interesting concept, perhaps its time has come. Thanks for jogging the old grey matter.
Andy.
I was thinking on the same lines as Pete Arundel but on a more expanded platform.
As IEDs are here to stay all in theatre vehicles need to be armoured and mine proof to a certain degree, even the B and C types. So my eye has been taken by the IMI Wildcat
http://www.military-today.com/apc/imi_wildcat.htm
http://www.imi-israel.com/vault/documents/wildcat.pdf
It should equip the Light Brigades as a Protected Mobility Transport (same as the old Saxon but far better protected), but as it is built on 4×4 truck chassis it would make an excellent donar vehicle not only for command, ambulances etc but using DROPS could be used for almost anything and be mine/IED resistant which is so crucial now.
IF Supacat could make an equivalent that would be better but one can only hope!!
As for high mobilty (dont bite my head off as we have already chose it) but make a flatbed version of the ASCOD ala the old stormer flatbed perhaps using the longer wheelbase version of the DONAR SP gun.
Richard, there are some great videos on YouTube of the Skycrane.
http://www.ericksonaircrane.com/
They might still sell us a few
Without straying into web lunatic territory how about a SkyCrane version of the CH53X, you know I think we should dump Chinook and and go for a 3 type rotary fleet
CH53X
AW149 or NH90
Apache
I might be persuaded to have a skycrane version of the CH53
Makes a lot of sense to me!
Ian B
I said something similar on the light and medium protected patrol vehicles.
The Light would be a basic flat bed (well, V bed really) truck, and if you wanted a fire support vehicle, you’d put a fire support module on the back, if you wanted an ambulance, you’d put a medical module on the back.
The Medium would be a 4×4 Driver Module at the front, and this would link up to and pull mission modules, which could have 2/4/6/8 wheels themselves, be of various lengths and builds, so they could be a 4 wheeled 10 ft ISO container carrier, or an 8 wheeled 20ft ISO carrier, fire support platforms (2 remote turrets each armed with dual 81mm mortars), UAV controllers (2 or 3 workstations for UAV pilots, couldnt launch them, but could take over once they’re launched from base), no reason a 20ft/8wheel direct fire varient couldnt have 4 remote 20/40mm autcannons in a diamond.
i was visting a mate in the states not long back and i was watching the military channel on discovery (as you do)!! They had a programme on the 64 as it was just about to leave military service one of the pilots from the vietnam era made an interesting point. He said that the development and purchasing costs had been recovered twice over through the ammount of downed cabs recovered by the 64 and then repaired instead of being destroyed in situ.
Admin,
Just going back to my suggestion for a post on Combat Engineering and Plant, I realize now that I was being rather cheeky in asking. You do not run a “Request Show”! So please ignore my suggestion if you do not have the time or feel that there is not enough discussion to be had. Most of it does seem to be sorted. It’s just that I have a special interest in bridging and plant.
Some very intersting views on this post, though!
Ref the modern Skycrane and General Gavin’s modular airlifters – there was a bunch of sites that used to be on Geocities, non of the URL’s work now, but they were run be ex-US Army (or in some cases serving reservists I think) who were big proponents of using the M113 series vehicles for airborne maneouvre. Anyway they had a load of photos of a scale model build from CH53 and S64 kits, a hybrid 3 engined Skycrane version of the Ch53 basically, they then modded it further with lift generating wings and the Piasecki ‘fan tail’ ! They also had a great deal to say about “battle boxes” – standard containers or units which could be carried by said Skycrane derivative. You will have to google and see if they have put up new pages elsewhere, but wouldn’t it be nice if the CH53X Super-super Sea Stalion was a no fueselage Skycrane type model ?
Mike, you weren’t being cheeky at all. All suggestions are more than welcome
If I can refer you to this post,
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/hurrah-for-the-cre/
It’s the one subject I should do well :)
Andy JS and Admin,
Funnily enough Thunderbird 2 did drift across my mind, a large VTOL machine that carries pre-loaded pods. I also thought a Skycrane version of the forthcoming CH-53K would be fantastic. The basic design has been proven time and again. It’s definitely worth looking at.
Admin, thanks for the reply. Enjoyed the video and, if what I am thinking is correct, then, yes, you should do it well!
am probably setting myself up for a fall there mike, hurrah
Another good reason to go down the Supacat HMT route is that it would use common components not only with Jackal (and it’s 6 wheeled derivative – the name escapes me) but also with the Supacat SPV400 design for the LPPV requirement.