NATO Standard Technicals - Jankel's Toyota Hilux Fox

[KevinB]

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]

Kevin
What do you think of the British Jackal?

 

[Weinie]

Kevin
What do you think of the British Jackal?

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

 

[lenaitch]

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]

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]

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...

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.

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]

Well it does have a bed...

Is that decided by rank?

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]

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]

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

Understatement

 

[KevinB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

One of my all-time favourite movies.

 

[OldSolduer]

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]

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

 

[KevinB]

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]

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.