Final Fate of the MLVWs

[rob love]

Only 3 years ago, running Leopard hulls were being sold to the public. Now the Canadian military seems to have gone to the other extreme. We touched on this topic previously, but now it is in full swing. The CADC website recently advertised the sale in this province (and others) the sale of a large quantity of 11.00X20 radial tires and nearly a million KGs of scrap metal. The metal was to be removed from the federal penitentiary. The estimated 1,100 tires went for a whopping $2800 (about $2.30 a tire) while the metal ended up selling for about 10¢ a pound ($214567 total). They seem to be selling the tarps separately and got $757 for the first 29 tarps they have put up to auction (about $25 or so a tarp).

If you figure that every truck has 7 tires, that means there are about 157 trucks to go through the program here in Manitoba. Simple arithmetic means we are seeing a return of about $1400 a truck. Subtract from that the costs of moving them to the prisons, and the payments to the prisoners for dismantling them (corcan does not work for free). Considering that in this neck of the woods the MLVWs are still pretty sound, and many come with winches...some even with cranes, that does not seem like a very good return for the assets. The trucks cost the government $64,000 each back in 1983 when we bought them, and now they are almost paying to have them taken away.

My real concern is that this type of action is going to make it an impossible hobby for future generations. If we look back to the sales of the Iltis, there were attempts to sell them as "ranch use only". Eventually they did sell them for street use, and I have never heard anything negative about the civilians use of them. Same goes for the old duece and a half and the 5 tons. They were far less roadworthy when they were sold off, and I do not recall any negative publicity or legal liabilities resulting from their sales.

So why this fate for the MLVWs? It can't be ITAR, since the US military sells similar vehicles to it's public all the time.

Anyway, that's my rant, time to go out to the shop and do some work on the toys.

[Hans Mulder]

The rationale I was told by the EME types is the air over hydraulic brakes would not pass the CVSA.

[45jim]

It could very well be an ITAR issue. Since the truck and it's IP (intellectual property) are of US origin the sale of these trucks could be subject to ITAR restrictions imposed by the US. This also affects things like the CF-5's (sitting for sale in Winnipeg for years) M 113's and other pieces of US technology. The Leopard is obviously not of US origin (neither is the Iltis) so is unaffected by US law, or the perception of US law. ITAR is so sticky that the Government may just be taking the high road and destroying them rather than face a potential problem later. They really could get around it by restricting the export of the trucks out of Canada like the US does with its equipment.

I don't by argument that it's a potential liability either, surplus equipment (non-military and military) is sold everyday and the Government does not care about the liability. I firmly believe its the nanny state bureaucrats who don't think civilians should own military equipment. They don't care what they cost, they don't care that the tax payer is losing out on potential residual value, they just care about their jobs and their pensions. Its the land of "cover your ass" and screw the rest.

[Robin Craig]

Gents,

all I have to say is "poppy cock" or in another language "balderdash"

Our two Bedford trucks are plated and safetied here in Ontario with a full commercial vehicle safety check, yes, unlike other people, our big stuff gets inspected and properly plated for the GVW that it is with load. They are both air over hydraulic.

To say that the MLs would not pass is bafflegab.

I 100% agree with Rob Love that our heritage is going down the tubes.

It is amazing what attitudes there are in this country about private heavy metal ownership.

Can anyone answer me why a CVRT Spartan is so more complex or technical than an M113????? Just about the same machine in many respects.

You can buy CVRTs freely, yet over here M113s are controlled.

Blows my mind

Also a RANT . . . I too am going to the shop for the evening to fix the fall out from this gem, see picture!


Robin

[super dave]

I seen the tarps for sale but where did they list the tires and other bits as I did not see them listed and look regularly ????????

[rob love]

The tires and the scrap metal were both on the same CADC For Sale site that the tarps were on. Your MLVWs were listed as scrap metal from the Drumheller Pen.

Here are the links to the ones that came from Alberta.

The tires are at this link:
http://crownassets.pwgsc.gc.ca/mn-en...K&sf=ferm-clos
The truck remnants are here:
http://crownassets.pwgsc.gc.ca/mn-en...K&sf=ferm-clos

[Bob Carriere]

When they say they are selling scrap steel....... can we assume the trucks have been cut up in pieces..... or ripped appart....... engine damaged beyond repair...... or is the scrap steel a bare complete truck with out tires.....???

In Ottawa they are busting there butts trying to sell used plywood crates at $10 each and they could be making a hefty profit if they sold parts, axles. cargo boxes, etc......

In my opinion it seems like a contract intended for someone specific..... big enought o buy the whole lot over a 12 month period......

I can't understand why they could not sell the tires inlots of 4 for farming use instead of blessing one buyer to buy the all at $2.00 each..... they are listing and selling used Winter tires across Canada for $50 to $100 bucks...

So much for paying the deficit.

Yeck!!!!!

Bob

[Bruce MacMillan]

I had a conversation with somebody that is a regular buyer in Edmonton and was told the Brits have been approached by Ottawa and asked to cut up their ex-BATUS vehicles rather than sell them.

What next?? A long wheel base registry!

[Gordon Yeo]

This topic seems to get thrashed around to no ones satisfaction. Bob raises a valid point of poor asset value recovery, I wonder if the Auditor Generals office might be interested in this sort of thing.

[super dave]

Thanks for the info Rob I did not think to see the tires in the scrap section as I rarely look there.

[Bob Carriere]

... if you contact the Auditor General talk to him in English he is not bilingual.

Now we know how LEVY army surplus in Toronto made its fortune back in the early fifties..... have a deep pocket.... buy in bulk.... sell individually for a good mark up...... after all all that LEVY resold was subject to provincial and federal sales tax.......

Bob

[Bob Carriere]

... CADC are listing a bunch of 6V53T rebuilt engine......

Unfortunately they will not fit in a CMP....... pity !!!

[rob love]

6-53T is not a MLVW engine. The MLVW used a 8.2l fuel pincher detroit. Those engines would appear to be for the AVGPs.

[Jon Skagfeld]

Originally Posted by rob love

6-53T is not a MLVW engine. The MLVW used a 8.2l fuel pincher detroit. Those engines would appear to be for the AVGPs.

6V53T definately for AVGPs and, I believe, M113.

Not MLVW.

[rob love]

Originally Posted by Jon Skagfeld

6V53T definately for AVGPs and, I believe, M113.

Not MLVW.

The engines listed for sale have compressors and accessories which are for the AVGP. It is possible that the engines could be stripped down and adapted to M113 FOVs, but they are not in that configuration now.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Seeing that the MLVW is based on the US M35, you can be pretty sure it's an arms / technology trafficking issue which is enforced by your Southern brothers.

Residual value does not exist in government accounting. The budget was spent, there is no asset value in the books. Even when time comes to dispose of assets, making money is not the prime objective of governments.

H.

Originally Posted by 45jim

It could very well be an ITAR issue. Since the truck and it's IP (intellectual property) are of US origin the sale of these trucks could be subject to ITAR restrictions imposed by the US. This also affects things like the CF-5's (sitting for sale in Winnipeg for years) M 113's and other pieces of US technology. The Leopard is obviously not of US origin (neither is the Iltis) so is unaffected by US law, or the perception of US law. ITAR is so sticky that the Government may just be taking the high road and destroying them rather than face a potential problem later. They really could get around it by restricting the export of the trucks out of Canada like the US does with its equipment.

I don't by argument that it's a potential liability either, surplus equipment (non-military and military) is sold everyday and the Government does not care about the liability. I firmly believe its the nanny state bureaucrats who don't think civilians should own military equipment. They don't care what they cost, they don't care that the tax payer is losing out on potential residual value, they just care about their jobs and their pensions. Its the land of "cover your ass" and screw the rest.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

Residual value does not exist in government accounting. The budget was spent, there is no asset value in the books. Even when time comes to dispose of assets, making money is not the prime objective of governments.

H.

This may have been the case at one time, but in the UK the Disposals Services Authority has been running for some time now, and getting more value from disposal of its reduntant equipment, so so much so that the Australian government has taken note of the UK operation and learning lessons from it in their bulk disposal of military vehicles which is becoming dated or obsolete. This fact was noted from one of their official statements.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Richard Farrant

This may have been the case at one time, but in the UK the Disposals Services Authority has been running for some time now, and getting more value from disposal of its ureduntant equipment, so so much so that the Australian government has taken note of the UK operation and learning lessons from it in their bulk disposal of military vehicles which is becoming dated or obsolete. This fact was noted from one of their official statements.

Indeed, but the UK MoD is the exeption to the rule, not only in their disposal strategy, but also in their acquisition and support contracts. In my view they are the most innovative MoD for these aspects. Taxpayers can only hope their respective governments will adopt the British "best practices".

H.