• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

Or maybe just but these straight off the lot.... at about 90,000 CAD apiece.

1752684608646.png 2025-jeep-gladiator-us-021732886615492.jpeg

Jeep Gladiator 2025: Powertrain and Power​

Model presented: Jeep Gladiator 2025 US
The Jeep Gladiator truck, competitively priced new, now has two effective powertrains:

  • 3.6 L V6 gasoline engine producing 285 horsepower and 260 lb-ft of torque.
  • 2.0 L turbocharged 4-cylinder engine with an electric motor delivering 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft of torque. This hybrid powertrain is comparable to that found in the hybrid Jeep Wrangler.
With the gasoline engine, combined fuel consumption will be 13.2 L/100 km, while it will be 12.0 L/100 km with the 4xe model. The latter remains more powerful in terms of horsepower.

Towing and Payload Capacity​

If you opt for the combustion model of the Jeep pickup truck, with an initial price that will suit you, it can tow up to 7,700 lb. In contrast, the Jeep Gladiator vehicle offers a towing capacity of up to 5,000 lb.

Equipped with a practical three-position tailgate for loading bulkier goods, the Jeep Gladiator truck offers a maximum payload of up to 1,725 lb, the best in its segment.

Onboard Technologies and Features​

Onboard the mid-size truck, you will have access to numerous innovative features. Among them, you can mention:
  • 12.3-inch screen
  • Uconnect 5
  • Optional Alpine 9-speaker audio system
  • Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto
  • Navigation system
  • Hands-free Bluetooth with voice recognition
  • Text messaging function
  • And more
Regarding safety and driver assistance systems, they are numerous. All Jeeps are known to be safe vehicles, including, of course, the Jeep Gladiator truck, but also in another category, the Jeep Grand Wagoneer for instance. We can mention:
  • Trailer sway control system
  • Anti-roll system
  • Hill descent control
  • Blind spot monitoring system
  • Forward collision warning with active braking
  • Adaptive cruise control
  • TrailCam off-road camera
  • Rear cross-path detection
  • And more
Edit - forgot to add - you can also drop the windscreen to get rid of reflections and let the VC fire forwards from his seat, or use his optics unobstructed.

1752687402992.png
 
Last edited:
So, in Canada, if the ISV is strictly an administrative vehicle for logistical support, not to be used for tactical purposes, which makes more sense?

The open rail Colorado or the enclosed Milverado?

View attachment 94660View attachment 94662

When does a "logistical" function (e.g., moving pers) stop and a "tactical" function (e.g., moving the elements of a sub-sub unit into position) begin? My questions would be "how will a particular unit fight?" and "where will they fight?".

It's attributed to Admiral E.J. King that he said "I don't know what this logistics stuff is that Marshall is always talking about, but I want some". The repeating of that comment led many to think that Navy senior leadership doesn't think about or include the requirement for logistical depth in support in their planning process. However thirty years before at least one admiral was thinking about it.

Strategy, Tactics, Logistics and Invention

Perhaps no four words are more vaguely understood than the four words that head this page.
 
That all depends on which side of the argument you are on - the side that views this simply as transport which provides excellent all around situational awareness and still allows the ability to fight back instantly in an ambush and dismount rapidly or a closed van with limited armoured protection that provides limited situational awareness, and is difficult to dismount from.

The issue starts with your use of the term "administrative" which implies a rear area role. The ISV is a "tactical" vehicle which, while not designed to be a mounted fighting vehicle, is designed to provide transport of fighting troops in forward areas just short of combat.

One needs to understand the roles. It's difficult to say that the WW2 SAS and current SAS with their open Land Rovers or that the current Brit Jackals with their open superstructures are wrong. It's just a different theory of which is the right approach for the task envisioned. Neither choice is blatantly wrong albeit people will fight passionately for their particular viewpoint on this issue. Personally I see both vehicles as highly usefull depending on what role they are assigned to.

🍻

When does a "logistical" function (e.g., moving pers) stop and a "tactical" function (e.g., moving the elements of a sub-sub unit into position) begin? My questions would be "how will a particular unit fight?" and "where will they fight?".

It's attributed to Admiral E.J. King that he said "I don't know what this logistics stuff is that Marshall is always talking about, but I want some". The repeating of that comment led many to think that Navy senior leadership doesn't think about or include the requirement for logistical depth in support in their planning process. However thirty years before at least one admiral was thinking about it.


More "interfaces" - that may become my word of the day.

In all cases, rear or forward, tactical or administrative, combat or logistics, isn't it really about getting the most out of what you have available?

Every vehicle can get stuck, will find spaces into which it cannot fit, will find a bullet that can penetrate it or a bomb that can hoist it. The art/science/magic comes from accurately guessing how far you can go and still be effective.

....

The difference between FRES and the LRDG was the LRDG worked with the vehicles that were available and figured out what they could do with them. The FRES programme, like virtually every modern military vehicle programme has had the luxury of time in infinite committees to debate the perfect set of specs for the perfect vehicle for all circumstances.

Witness the Booker...


Program Executive Officer Ground Combat Systems Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean told reporters in 2023 the system would support Army units “by suppressing and destroying fortifications, gun systems, entrenchments and secondarily then providing protection against enemy armored vehicles.”

“Back in 2013, 2014 when the requirements were being written … it was supposed to be something that could be transportable on a C-130,” which is “the backbone tactical airlift capability of the Joint Force,” Haelig said in an interview. “The idea was that this was going to be something that would be going alongside the early entry, forcible entry operation units … that don’t have organic heavy fire support.”

In short, it was supposed to be a big gun that could accompany the lightest of infantry, the paratroopers.


Such a platform “sounded great on paper, but as the system progressed through the development process, it became something that, well, maybe we can only get it on a C-17,” he said. Then the requirements changed again “to, well, it doesn’t need to be airdroppable,” which “kind of negates” the original purpose of the platform.

“If it’s not airdroppable, how is it going to be going in alongside … the airdroppable forces themselves?” Haelig said. “So, requirements creep is obviously a problem.”

Ultimately a self-propelled field gun became yet another tank. Because people might be tempted to use it as a tank.
 
Back
Top