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

NATO Standard Technicals - Jankel's Toyota Hilux Fox

Kirkhill

Puggled and Wabbit Scot.
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
8,198
Points
1,160
Jankel's Toyota Hilux variants used by the French and the Belgians. Also available in closed cab versions more compatible with Canadian weather.

1652390050986.png1652390114756.png


They also do a UNIMOG line of Light Tactical Transport Vehicles

 
1661024605772.png


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