# NATO Standard Technicals - Jankel's Toyota Hilux Fox



## Kirkhill (12 May 2022)

Jankel's Toyota Hilux variants used by the French and the Belgians.   Also available in closed cab versions more compatible with Canadian weather.















						Fox Family of Light Tactical Vehicles - Jankel
					

Fox Family of Light Tactical Vehicles      Fox Family of Light Tactical Vehicles       The FOX Fleet of Light Tactical Vehicles  From long-range patrol to rapid reaction; border control to




					www.jankel.com
				




They also do a UNIMOG line of Light Tactical Transport Vehicles









						Light Tactical Transport Vehicle (LTTV) - Jankel
					

Light Tactical Transport Vehicle      Light Troop Transport Vehicle       Light Tactical Transport Vehicle – Evolving light tactical vehicle modularity  The Jankel LTTV delivers a multi-role platform which benefits from a removable




					www.jankel.com


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Aug 2022)

Arnold Defense displays vehicle-mounted rocket launcher at SOFIC
					

Arnold Defense is experimenting with integrating its FLETCHER laser-guided rocket system on a UGV.




					www.defenceprocurementinternational.com
				




Thinking more about the Lt Cavalry role for the Reserves.

Jankel Toyotas for the patrol troops.

And Jankel Toyotas with the Arnold Defense/Fletcher 23 round 70mm rocket launchers?  Both direct (precision) and indirect (suppression) fires from one platform.   And possibly a bit of AD (the 70mm was originally an anti-aircraft missile and Stinger is a 70 mm missile as well)


----------



## KevinB (23 Aug 2022)

May want to pick a NA made vehicle…

Chevy Colorado would be an equivalent made in North American option.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2022)

Milverado would be fine.


----------



## GR66 (23 Aug 2022)

Infantry Squad Vehicle if you want a common chassis for a Light Brigade.


----------



## IKnowNothing (23 Aug 2022)

GR66 said:


> Infantry Squad Vehicle if you want a common chassis for a Light Brigade.


What are the pro's and cons of ISV vs. Flyer 72?


----------



## GR66 (23 Aug 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> What are the pro's and cons of ISV vs. Flyer 72?


ISV is being issued to the US Army's Infantry Brigade Combat Teams.  Would provide logistical commonality between our Light Infantry Brigades and theirs.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2022)

GR66 said:


> Infantry Squad Vehicle if you want a common chassis for a Light Brigade.



I kind of thing the ISV might be a bit chilly in January.


----------



## GR66 (23 Aug 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> I kind of thing the ISV might be a bit chilly in January.
> 
> View attachment 72680
> 
> View attachment 72681


That's where this comes in:

Horses for courses.  Light infantry shouldn't be tied to a particular vehicle. 

And how will your Milverado do here?


----------



## FJAG (23 Aug 2022)

KevinB said:


> May want to pick a NA made vehicle…
> 
> Chevy Colorado would be an equivalent made in North American option.


Toyota Tundras and Tacomas are built in the plant in San Antonio, Texas to the tune of 170,000 in 2020 but I take the point on the ISV - we don't need two models.



> Where Are the Toyota Tundra and Tacoma Pickup Trucks Built?



😁


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2022)

GR66 said:


> That's where this comes in:
> View attachment 72683
> Horses for courses.  Light infantry shouldn't be tied to a particular vehicle.
> 
> ...



How will the Bv206 do here?


Horses for courses indeed.


----------



## GR66 (23 Aug 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> How will the Bv206 do here?
> View attachment 72688
> 
> Horses for courses indeed.


Should do just fine....

And it even has the option of turning off that road...


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2022)

GR66 said:


> Should do just fine....
> View attachment 72689
> And it even has the option of turning off that road...



Except it will take twice as long to travel from Calgary to Saskatoon.


----------



## Furniture (23 Aug 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> How will the Bv206 do here?
> View attachment 72688
> 
> Horses for courses indeed.


Buy a mix of ISVs, and closed cab Colorado technicals based on the ISV's powertrain/suspension. 

I bet GM would even make a Colorado/ISV based "troopy" for us if we asked.


----------



## GR66 (23 Aug 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Except it will take twice as long to travel from Calgary to Saskatoon.


If we're forced to make a tactical road move from Calgary to Saskatoon then Canada has bigger issues than which vehicle it selected to mount 70mm Rockets on.  Trains, lowbeds and buses exist for a reason.  

I recall that others have made the point that we shouldn't waste our limited procurement dollars on a vehicle that can't be deployed to a combat mission and I tend to agree with that sentiment.

That being said, this is a silly sidetrack.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Aug 2022)

The discussion should include "how much extra crap can they carry in that vehicle?" asked by some staff type in Ottawa and therefore the load increases beyond the specs, resulting in breakdown and maintenance issues. Call me a cynic but I think the Colorado is too small.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2022)

Most armies have light vehicles that are run around, training vehicles and, in the right circumstances, operational vehicles.  Land Rovers, GWagens, Toyotas and Fords come to mind.

Using vehicles of that type domestically, for local training, utility purposes, tactical training and even long distance road moves does not appear to me to be a waste of money.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2022)

As to extra crap... add a trailer.

Or another vehicle.


----------



## Furniture (23 Aug 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> The discussion should include "how much extra crap can they carry in that vehicle?" asked by some staff type in Ottawa and therefore the load increases beyond the specs, resulting in breakdown and maintenance issues. Call me a cynic but I think the Colorado is too small.


Are you suggesting they couldn't/wouldn't do that with a larger vehicle? I'm shocked that you have so little faith in Ottawa's ability to ruin anything. 😁

To my mind a platoon/troop stores vehicle, or a couple of trailers makes more sense than a larger and heavier vehicle. The West has been getting into larger and heavier vehicles for some time now, to my mind Ukraine has been showing us how that may not be the best answer. More, lighter vehicles would be less bound to roads in marginal conditions, and the loss of one vehicle would be less catastrophic.


----------



## Skysix (30 Aug 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> The discussion should include "how much extra crap can they carry in that vehicle?" asked by some staff type in Ottawa and therefore the load increases beyond the specs, resulting in breakdown and maintenance issues. Call me a cynic but I think the Colorado is too small.


Exactly what they are finding out with the Colorado based ISV. 6max including driver and even then is heavy. 4 with a realistic patrol/combat load in winter (assuming a geater upgrade and a removeable soft-top/side skin setup). Grunt level preferred seating seems to be becoming 2 front facing front seats, 2 front facing rear seats and one rear facing rear seat.

But the COTS 4x4 solution is marginal at best. Just do not have the durability and off-road capabiities. Your average 4x4 off road enthusiast could build a better platform even starting with the Colorado frame and engine.


----------



## KevinB (30 Aug 2022)

The ISV's purpose wasn't articulated well and IMHO the requirement wasn't thought through well either
   It is too small to move the Squad entirely - and originally it wasn't planned to do that - it's an admin support vehicle in all reality.

For the General Purpose role the ISV is a lot cheaper than the Flyer 72, albeit the Flyer is generally a more capable purpose built vehicle,

If you want to have Light vehicle borne Infantry that can use the vehicle in more than just and administrative nature  -- then you need to figure 2-3 vehicles per squad/section.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Aug 2022)

Kevin
What do you think of the British Jackal?


----------



## Weinie (31 Aug 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Kevin
> What do you think of the British Jackal?


It at least has a V on the side vs a Z.


----------



## lenaitch (31 Aug 2022)

There are several articles online about the differences between the Toyota Hilux (mfg in Thailand) and Tacoma.  It seems that, generally, the Tacoma is less 'ruggedized' and more suited to the NA truck market, much of which never sees a gravel road.  I'm not convinced that an off-the-line Chev/GMC, Ranger, etc. is built for the kind of service expected.  I could be wrong but I don't think the GWagon is the same as the G-series civilian models.

If it is expected that 6 fully-kitted folks can fit in a Canyon/Colorado, I don't want to be one of the six.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2022)

Skysix said:


> Exactly what they are finding out with the Colorado based ISV. 6max including driver and even then is heavy. 4 with a realistic patrol/combat load in winter (assuming a geater upgrade and a removeable soft-top/side skin setup). Grunt level preferred seating seems to be becoming 2 front facing front seats, 2 front facing rear seats and one rear facing rear seat.
> 
> But the COTS 4x4 solution is marginal at best. Just do not have the durability and off-road capabiities. Your average 4x4 off road enthusiast could build a better platform even starting with the Colorado frame and engine.


Call ME a cynic, but I have faith that no matter how any vehicle is constructed Carl will figure out how to break it.


----------



## KevinB (31 Aug 2022)

lenaitch said:


> There are several articles online about the differences between the Toyota Hilux (mfg in Thailand) and Tacoma.  It seems that, generally, the Tacoma is less 'ruggedized' and more suited to the NA truck market, much of which never sees a gravel road.  I'm not convinced that an off-the-line Chev/GMC, Ranger, etc. is built for the kind of service expected.  I could be wrong but I don't think the GWagon is the same as the G-series civilian models.


The civilian Gwagons are better in my experience...



lenaitch said:


> If it is expected that 6 fully-kitted folks can fit in a Canyon/Colorado, I don't want to be one of the six.


Well it does have a bed...
    3-4 is a realistic number if it is intended as a full time mobility vehicle.
 If it's not - then I think @Kirkhill has posted a number of more suitable systems that are lighter and more portable.



Colin Parkinson said:


> Kevin
> What do you think of the British Jackal?


Colin - I tend to avoid anything British when it comes to mechanical items.


If I was king -- and I wanted to have a Light Infantry with Mobility Battalion 
  I would opt for a mix of Polaris XP1000 ATV's and Flyer 72's if I didn't have a significant budget constraint.

If I had constraints - I'd opt for a Colorado ZR2 style vehicle with both Polaris XP1000's and some of the Polaris 6x6


----------



## lenaitch (31 Aug 2022)

KevinB said:


> Well it does have a bed...


Is that decided by rank?



KevinB said:


> I tend to avoid anything British when it comes to mechanical items.


I don't about military grade production but they have evolved from Lucas electrics.  

I owned a Triumph motorcycle - never had any electrical problems and it never leaked a drop of oil.  I should have had it bronzed.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (31 Aug 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> What do you think of the British Jackal?


No Kevin but I stayed at a Holiday Inn this summer.
I was involved in bringing the Jackel into the Afghan Theatre from a stowage point of view.  It was nice and shiny then, seemed well received, better than the WIMIKs.
However it did have some weird design choices that I will not get into.


----------



## KevinB (2 Sep 2022)

AmmoTech90 said:


> However it did have some weird design choices that I will not get into.


Understatement


----------



## KevinB (2 Sep 2022)

Armored removed British Tomcar
Having driven some of the SEAL used Tomcars - I was perplexed by how crappy the Brit spec'd version was.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Sep 2022)

Just a question here. Perhaps a non computer driven vehicle could be designed and built. Use whatever chassis you want.

No computers to run the engine etc. Simple to use and maintain. Rugged and strong. Is that too much to ask?


----------



## FJAG (6 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> Colin - I tend to avoid anything British when it comes to mechanical items.


Having owned both a Triumph Spitfire and an Austin Mini, I wholeheartedly agree. 

You'd think I would have learned the first time ... but noooo....

😉


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Sep 2022)

FJAG said:


> Having owned both a Triumph Spitfire and an Austin Mini, I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> You'd think I would have learned the first time ... but noooo....
> 
> 😉



I thoroughly enjoyed my 1960 era Mini* and Vauxhall Victor (okay, it was badged as Envoy) despite the occasional mechanical issues.  The simplicity of their layouts made them easy to work on and if push came to shove (okay, they occasionally needed a push) you could always usually find the parts.

* and of course the reason most of us bought a Mini.


----------



## Skysix (6 Sep 2022)

FJAG said:


> Having owned both a Triumph Spitfire and an Austin Mini, I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> You'd think I would have learned the first time ... but noooo....
> 
> 😉


Hey, I took an Austin mini to Yellowknife and Skagway from Edmonton multiple times. Massively overloaded with  'stuff' including fuel and 2 spare tires. Owned (and euthanised) 4 over the decades. At least they are fixable with minimal tools in the field.


----------



## Skysix (6 Sep 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> I thoroughly enjoyed my 1960 era Mini* and Vauxhall Victor (okay, it was badged as Envoy) despite the occasional mechanical issues.  The simplicity of their layouts made them easy to work on and if push came to shove (okay, they occasionally needed a push) you could always usually find the parts.
> 
> * and of course the reason most of us bought a Mini.


Don't forget Mr. Bean...


----------



## FJAG (6 Sep 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> * and of course the reason most of us bought a Mini.


One of my all-time favourite movies.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Just a question here. Perhaps a non computer driven vehicle could be designed and built. Use whatever chassis you want.
> 
> No computers to run the engine etc. Simple to use and maintain. Rugged and strong. Is that too much to ask?


Adding a decent heater and windshield wipers please.


----------



## NavyShooter (7 Sep 2022)

How about we bring the WW2 Jeep back into production as the basic frame, and add a fancy new body?


----------



## KevinB (7 Sep 2022)

NavyShooter said:


> How about we bring the WW2 Jeep back into production as the basic frame, and add a fancy new body?


1/4 ton vehicles don’t carry much anymore. 
   Definitely not 3+ kitted out soldiers.


----------



## lenaitch (7 Sep 2022)

FJAG said:


> Having owned both a Triumph Spitfire and an Austin Mini, I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> You'd think I would have learned the first time ... but noooo....
> 
> 😉


Designed by and for a nation of tinkerers.  Repair was a fairly regular event, but usually simply accomplished.  My mates an I cut our teeth on Morris Minors.  You could haul out an engine, fix it, and put it back in one night.  My Triumph ran like a top - provided I unrolled the tool kit and did a circle check, daily.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> 1/4 ton vehicles don’t carry much anymore.
> Definitely not 3+ kitted out soldiers.


In 76 we got a military version of the Silverado, we dubbed it the 5/4 . It held up fairly well until the dreaded LSVW came into service.  I preferred my 5/4 over that stupid self igniting LSVW piece of crap. 

A 1500 (Ram or similar chassis) IMO would be a bit smallish but a 2500 with a suitable engine (no electric, no computers etc - just a basic truck) and cargo capacity. Something the drivers and maintenance people can repair easily. Kinda like the old 3/4 except bigger.


----------



## Furniture (7 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> In 76 we got a military version of the Silverado, we dubbed it the 5/4 . It held up fairly well until the dreaded LSVW came into service.  I preferred my 5/4 over that stupid self igniting LSVW piece of crap.
> 
> A 1500 (Ram or similar chassis) IMO would be a bit smallish but a 2500 with a suitable engine (no electric, no computers etc - just a basic truck) and cargo capacity. Something the drivers and maintenance people can repair easily. Kinda like the old 3/4 except bigger.


We'd end up worse off than we are now if we went with a mechanical truck with no computers. We would have to train mechanics to work on the older, less efficient and more maintenance heavy technology, while also having to train them to work on more modern kit. Vehicles today are more reliable than they have ever been, and because of that people don't have the mechanical skills they used to have(out of necessity). 

If the CAF needs a truck with more than 2000lbs (F-150, RAM 1500) of payload to move part of a section around, maybe we need to examine what we are doing?


----------



## Skysix (7 Sep 2022)

NavyShooter said:


> How about we bring the WW2 Jeep back into production as the basic frame, and add a fancy new body?


Already is. The Maharinda Roxer.


----------



## Skysix (7 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> 1/4 ton vehicles don’t carry much anymore.
> Definitely not 3+ kitted out soldiers.


Yet SF is using COTS side-by-sides with 2 and bespoke offroad buggies with 4...


----------



## KevinB (7 Sep 2022)

Skysix said:


> Yet SF is using COTS side-by-sides with 2 and bespoke offroad buggies with 4...


I’d suggest that some missions don’t require a significant payload, or are willing to pay a premium for items that do meet the need.  


Some folks even buy bespoke Land Rovers that have prices that frighten most SOF units  


But equipping a large force with 200k USD hardened Land Rover probably isn’t practical.  

The Ford Ranger / Chevy Colorado type vehicle is the most effective bang for buck for a soft skin ‘ISV’ for larger conventional usage for Canada. 

SOF has a budget that can get more exotic tools


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Sep 2022)

Jeebus, KevinB, your photo’s giving me flashbacks of that big grey POS Sub we had ‘gifted to us’ by GAC until we got the Landcruisers.  That f’n POS was the one that flipped the hood open on me near midnight in the middle of Green Route just by where Short and Beerenfenger were killed.  Everyone was joking about shorty things happening when pilots drive, until I got out and tied the hood back down with some 550- cord I always had on me.


----------



## FJAG (7 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> In 76 we got a military version of the Silverado, we dubbed it the 5/4 . It held up fairly well until the dreaded LSVW came into service.  I preferred my 5/4 over that stupid self igniting LSVW piece of crap.
> 
> A 1500 (Ram or similar chassis) IMO would be a bit smallish but a 2500 with a suitable engine (no electric, no computers etc - just a basic truck) and cargo capacity. Something the drivers and maintenance people can repair easily. Kinda like the old 3/4 except bigger.


I always like the 5/4. As a BK in Shilo my issued vehicle was an M152. One does a lot of hauling stuff and people as a BK so I traded it in for a spare 5/4 cargo floating around and it served me well for three years. No complaints. I went legal before the age of LSVWs dawned.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Sep 2022)

FJAG said:


> I went legal before the age of LSVWs dawned.
> 
> 🍻


LSVW = Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled.

A self igniter in at least one case, the brakes squealed incessantly. Not good in a tac situation.

It was a total crap vehicle, I am sure others can attest to that.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Sep 2022)

Furniture said:


> We'd end up worse off than we are now if we went with a mechanical truck with no computers. We would have to train mechanics to work on the older, less efficient and more maintenance heavy technology, while also having to train them to work on more modern kit. Vehicles today are more reliable than they have ever been, and because of that people don't have the mechanical skills they used to have(out of necessity).
> 
> If the CAF needs a truck with more than 2000lbs (F-150, RAM 1500) of payload to move part of a section around, maybe we need to examine what we are doing?


I would argue that as a crayon eating infantry type a vehicle that can transport 8 kitted out soldiers is required if we are talking "light" infantry. 

That's about 1600 pounds right there, and that is a conservative estimate.  Light Infantry ain't all that light. 

Toss in some ammo and fuel cans and you're bulked out.


And you just know the sparks at Bde HQ and higher will want the section to carry extra shit "just in case".


----------



## Furniture (7 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I would argue that as a crayon eating infantry type a vehicle that can transport 8 kitted out soldiers is required if we are talking "light" infantry.
> 
> That's about 1600 pounds right there, and that is a conservative estimate.  Light Infantry ain't all that light.
> 
> ...


Which is why I think that one section per vehicle is not reasonable for a vehicle below the LAV/Bradley/CV90. Hell, based on the squat I saw on LAVIIIs in Afghanistan, even they weren't up tp the task alone... 

This goes back to my thought that three vehicles per section is kind of the lower reasonable limit for small(ish) vehicles. Two for moving people, one for moving stores, or three for people/stores. 

I realize I'm just a weather weinie with an interest, but I can't see how we can reasonably stick an entire section, plus stores, on something smaller than an IFV/APC. To my mind, more but smaller vehicles is the better answer to the problem than a RAM 3500 that is as big and unweildly as a TLAV is.


----------



## FJAG (7 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I would argue that as a crayon eating infantry type a vehicle that can transport 8 kitted out soldiers is required if we are talking "light" infantry.
> 
> That's about 1600 pounds right there, and that is a conservative estimate.  Light Infantry ain't all that light.
> 
> ...


I think that back in my UEO days we used 250lbs as the standard planning weight for a fully kitted soldier but that was in the days of 64 Pattern webbing, the 3/4 ton SMP as a section carrier and before body armour and before folks started humping 100 lb packs. Wouldn't a standard full up section be 10 inclusive of the driver? If so you could conceivably end up at 2,500 - 3,000 lbs before platoon stores and weapons are added in. 

🍻


----------



## KevinB (8 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Jeebus, KevinB, your photo’s giving me flashbacks of that big grey POS Sub we had ‘gifted to us’ by GAC until we got the Landcruisers.  That f’n POS was the one that flipped the hood open on me near midnight in the middle of Green Route just by where Short and Beerenfenger were killed.  Everyone was joking about shorty things happening when pilots drive, until I got out and tied the hood back down with some 550- cord I always had on me.


Which brings up a good point about TPE (Theatre Provided Equipment) and it's like -- some pretty awful stuff gets done to vehicles and usually someone ends up paying for that who wasn't the one who rode it hard and put it away wet...



FJAG said:


> I always like the 5/4. As a BK in Shilo my issued vehicle was an M152. One does a lot of hauling stuff and people as a BK so I traded it in for a spare 5/4 cargo floating around and it served me well for three years. No complaints. I went legal before the age of LSVWs dawned.
> 
> 🍻


Honestly the 5/4 where pretty decent vehicles - with the dual tanks they could go for miles and miles.

I agree with @Furniture on the section/squad/team mobility requirement of 3-4 vehicles.   Four - and maybe even 5, for the higher sized entities (12-16), as you want a cushion somewhere for breakdown loss on mission.

The advantage of then being able to carry additional support weapons mounted on the vehicle helps.
    The smaller sized vehicles also fit (or can be lifted) easier in Helicopters or Hercs.

The major issue is ensuring it is still a Light Infantry entity and can conduct operations in areas where the vehicles aren’t practical.

Which means those additional vehicle mounted weapons won’t all be able to come.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> Which brings up a good point about TPE (Theatre Provided Equipment) and it's like -- some pretty awful stuff gets done to vehicles and usually someone ends up paying for that who wasn't the one who rode it hard and put it away wet...
> 
> 
> Honestly the 5/4 where pretty decent vehicles - with the dual tanks they could go for miles and miles.
> ...



Which is why I am a fan of the support weapons used by the Light Infantry NOT being vehicle mounted but being vehicle portable. The difference is between a machine gun on a pintle mount that can be easily dismounted and a machine gun in a turret that can't.

It could also mean modularized weapons systems and vehicles with weapons decks into which the module could be secured, or, the module could be dismounted, or transferred to a different class of vehicle.





__





						New MISSION MASTER UGV Modules - European Security & Defence
					

Rheinmetall has been working with Spanish company Escribano Mechanical & Engineering to produce new modules for the MISSION MASTER UGV.




					euro-sd.com
				









						Rheinmetall Canada – Mission Master unmanned ground vehicle A-UGV
					

Rheinmetall Mission Master is a unique family of Autonomous Unmanned Ground Vehicles to support military troops in dangerous missions with difficult conditions.




					www.rheinmetall.ca
				




If one vehicle  can be transformed in the field by swapping modules than, in my opinion, those modules can be swapped into different classes of vehicles and used securely, or equally, dispersed around a position in ground mounts.


----------



## KevinB (8 Sep 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Which is why I am a fan of the support weapons used by the Light Infantry NOT being vehicle mounted but being vehicle portable. The difference is between a machine gun on a pintle mount that can be easily dismounted and a machine gun in a turret that can't.


Yes but...

 A GMG or M2 HMG is a fantastic vehicle support weapon, and a colossal disaster as a dismounted support weapon.
  Plus stabilized mounts are significantly better than standard pintle mounts - AND Vehicle Weapons can use FCS very effectively.

One needs to assess what one is willing to gain and lose in firepower vice dismounted mobility - or in manpower left with vehicles (if vehicles are left that need securing).




Kirkhill said:


> It could also mean modularized weapons systems and vehicles with weapons decks into which the module could be secured, or, the module could be dismounted, or transferred to a different class of vehicle.


Frankly I wouldn't trust Canada with modularity - as you know only one Battle Group of modular systems will be bought - and swapped from unit to unit - and eventually divested when over worked and broken.


Kirkhill said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FJAG (8 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> I agree with @Furniture on the section/squad/team mobility requirement of 3-4 vehicles. Four - and maybe even 5, for the higher sized entities (12-16), as you want a cushion somewhere for breakdown loss on mission.


My concern would be the number of people who would be eaten up as drivers. A platoon could see a dozen or more folks per platoon being left out of the action because they have to move or otherwise monitor their vehicles in many situations. There was a lot to be said for a 2 1/2 ton which could lift the better part of a platoon and its gear in one go and only used up one driver.

The current IBCT has only two vehicles in the whole rifle company and even the battalion has no organic troop transport for them. The ISV is the solution for that. With the ISV, a company of 131 all ranks will need 12-13 vehicles at a minimum to lift the whole company. That will take 10% of the company off line. While the drivers will be available for some tasks, they won't be for all. The more vehicles each section has, the greater will be the problem.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> Yes but...
> 
> A GMG or M2 HMG is a fantastic vehicle support weapon, and a colossal disaster as a dismounted support weapon.
> Plus stabilized mounts are significantly better than standard pintle mounts - AND Vehicle Weapons can use FCS very effectively.



Yes but...

Are the GMG and M2 still a colossal disaster if they are firmly mounted to a suitable mass rather and bouncing around like demented cheerleaders on those light weight tripod thingies?  I am not talking about dismounting a 30 kg gun and putting on a 20 kg tripod (no wonder it bounces...) I am talking about dismounting/transferring a 200 kg module from the back of a UGV to a ground position and digging it in securely.  Or transferring the module to another vehicle for secure mounting.

And stabilized mounts are useful are they required in all vehicles?  What happens if what you are looking for is simple transport that is not to be used in the assault? Or are you recommending a stabilized mount for an ISV?

Effective FCS systems are now available for shoulder launched systems



Or do you want to be able to wire them in for remote operation?  See my comment about dismountable modules.



KevinB said:


> One needs to assess what one is willing to gain and lose in firepower vice dismounted mobility - or in manpower left with vehicles (if vehicles are left that need securing).



Agreed.  But one also needs to fairly consider the advantages that technology can afford if things are don't differently and risks are assessed differently.



KevinB said:


> Frankly I wouldn't trust Canada with modularity - as you know only one Battle Group of modular systems will be bought - and swapped from unit to unit - and eventually divested when over worked and broken.



And there, I regret to say, you are probably right.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Sep 2022)

Norwegian Hellfire mount....


----------



## KevinB (9 Sep 2022)

FJAG said:


> My concern would be the number of people who would be eaten up as drivers. A platoon could see a dozen or more folks per platoon being left out of the action because they have to move or otherwise monitor their vehicles in many situations. There was a lot to be said for a 2 1/2 ton which could lift the better part of a platoon and its gear in one go and only used up one driver.
> 
> The current IBCT has only two vehicles in the whole rifle company and even the battalion has no organic troop transport for them. The ISV is the solution for that. With the ISV, a company of 131 all ranks will need 12-13 vehicles at a minimum to lift the whole company. That will take 10% of the company off line. While the drivers will be available for some tasks, they won't be for all. The more vehicles each section has, the greater will be the problem.
> 
> 🍻


It happens all the time with SOF teams.
    If your using the vehicle on the mission and need to dismount - leave a gunner in the vehicle - who can provide support fires.
 Multiple gunners can provide local security as well if they aren't needed to put down supporting fires.
    If you don’t need to vehicles - then you leave them somewhere they can be secured without draining manpower.

My problem with the ISV type situation with 1  per,  is you overload the ISV if the Section/Squad all are on board - and if you suffer a break down - you have lost an entire squad - as there is zero cross loading possible.

I suspect shortly Optionally manned vehicle with remote follow will allow 1-2 folks to stay with 4-5 vehicles thus you can have your cake, and eat it too...


----------



## KevinB (9 Sep 2022)

I should have added 

Even potentially when no one needs to stay with the vehicles, and those can conduct their own local defense when necessary too.


----------



## KevinB (12 Sep 2022)

I was impressed looking at the Mortar carrier @Kirkhill had mentioned earlier when I saw it today.  In and out of action inside 30 sec.  
   On 4 min they can come into action lay and fire 8 rounds and be mobile.  The setup was significantly more rapid than I had expected. 


Also a lot of fire support light vehicle systems. I didn’t get a lot of pictures as folks are still setting up.


----------



## KevinB (12 Sep 2022)

The Mortar can go on pretty much any 3/4 ton (or larger) Pickup - which is a selling point for those entities who don’t want Land Cruiser or can adapt current in service systems.  

I pointed out the US Army happens to have an assload of Hummers that could be easily adapted.  

The neatest part was one can get up to 1,000 targets loaded into the software so you can either do a pre configured raid and be in and out quickly - or be moving and get a Callfor Fire/Fire Mission -and swing into action immediately.  

It’s a vast improvement over the towed 120’s down here.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2022)

Deleted


----------

