Canadian Army "Silverado" Iltis replacement pics

[MapleLeafInfantry]

Well here ya guys go, as promised, enjoy!
pics taken today! (mar 20/04)
http://home.mycybernet.net/~db7/pics/silverado1.JPG

a wee bit larger then our old vw friend...
http://home.mycybernet.net/~db7/pics/silverado2.jpg

C7A1's and leather does life get any better? :D (edit: notice the essential kit in this photo? roll up the rim to win!!)
http://home.mycybernet.net/~db7/pics/silverado3.JPG

I really like that gun rack
http://home.mycybernet.net/~db7/pics/silverado4.JPG

enough space in the bed to be used as an ammo point!. Disapointing however that three is no slit in the roof or box for a gunner....
meh

MLI

[pAt]

are the reserves only getting them?

[memphiz]

sweet pics, looks hella cold there, where are you located

[MapleLeafInfantry]

ok well these are non-deployment heh, but i mean cmmon here, they are far more deployable then an iltis (with exception of size)

Regular force will be using them for the comms trade, as well as possibly ambulances and non combat oriented veh's.... (ressuply etc...)

Not so hella cold today, just a pleathora of wierd sideways snow, then rain, then snow, then hail with lots of wind, and at coldest around -10 during the day...

located in 33cbg, northern ontario. :p

MLI

[memphiz]

ok thanks

[SR15]

wow, you guys still have snow... :petting:
cool pics

[MapleLeafInfantry]

We're all wearing gortex and fleece, damn right we still have snow!

mli.

[memphiz]

yeah most the snows gone where i live, its just windy as hell, the other day we had 100km/hr winds

[Yard Ape]

Yes, there are C7s in the truck, but the real proof that it Canadian Military is lying on the floor.

http://www.imageshack.us/img2/9634/untitled42.JPG

[Yard Ape]

are the reserves only getting them?Yes. The Regs will get the Mercedes and everyone is keeping the LSVW (which is what this vehicle would be more appropriate for replacing).

[fantassin]

You must have HUGE oil ressources to run that sort of fuel guzzler !

What is it, another of those gurgling V-8, 5.5 litres, turbo-charged engine that produces 160 bhp at 200 RPMs....while the Italians would do better with an Alfa Romeo 4 cylindres atmospheric engine !

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

You must have HUGE oil ressources to run that sort of fuel guzzler !

What is it, another of those gurgling V-8, 5.5 litres, turbo-charged engine that produces 160 bhp at 200 RPMs....while the Italians would do better with an Alfa Romeo 4 cylindres atmospheric engine !

Tax dollars well spent as far as I'm concerned. These guys need nice rides, maybe the guys will quit using world war 2 era vehicles to drive around my city.

I would preffer if they did use Toyota 4 Runner instead (late 80's would be nice). They are easy to maintain and cheap, also in the current area's in Afghanistan and the Middle East parts are all over the place. Soldiers would be able to learn rather easily how to repair one and maintain one, and can take extreme amounts of abuse before breaking.

[Resevoir Hogs]

All I'm gonna say is Vomattt

Whats with the CF and buying cheaper civilian grade vehicles even if they say they'll NEVER be used operationally. First the Griffon now this rofl
It must be nice knowing that your troops are driving around in "nice rides" whos survivability in combat is very questionable.
Why don't you all just get one vehicle for all the forces that can be used in many different roles like the Hummer or one of the many European redesigns. Or better yet make your own version of it. Even the Brits are getting a new vehicle that is very similar to the Hummer. It has good armor protection against small arms, low profile and wide enough to give very good stability. Plus you can mount weapons systems on them without stripping the vehicle down to a roll cage.

http://www.defence-data.com/dsei2003/dsei10035.htm
http://www.alvisvehicles.co.uk/news/news_content.cfm?news_id=100075
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/

http://defence-data.com/storypic/mlvalvisiveco.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/images/FCLV_1.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/images/FCLV_2.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/images/FCLV_4.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/images/FCLV_5.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/images/FCLV_7.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/images/FCLV_9.jpg
http://www.waitnews.com/images/iveco_5.jpg

[fantassin]

This vehicle is in fact Italian, made by Iveco, and that it was selected by the British army recently in the LMV project. Alvis is just the local partner of Iveco in the UK within the frame of that project.

France has got a similar project going on; it's called the "PVP" (small protected vehicle in french) and it is a new category of vehicle between the P4 unprotected jeep and the armoured and NBC protected Panhard VBL.

[redhawk_six]

All I'm gonna say is Vomattt

Whats with the CF and buying cheaper civilian grade vehicles even if they say they'll NEVER be used operationally. First the Griffon now this rofl
It must be nice knowing that your troops are driving around in "nice rides" whos survivability in combat is very questionable.


research, the key to not looking like a moron.

Those chevs are NOT civilan grade. They were designed for the military, and are fully military grade. I've seen these chevs being put through their paces on a DOD testing range before. They are certainly up for any task the military needs them for. With some more upgrades, they could even give the humvee a run for it's money. They are the new version of the old military blazers, not some stupid civlian model painted green like you seemed to of assumed. They are far from stock.

[Frens]

UK bought about 500 Iveco LMV woot

[Resevoir Hogs]

Ha, ok I have seen the specs on the Silverados in YOUR DND newspaper long before this post and believe me when I say the Humvee has nothing to worry about lol.

GO to the DND website and read about the project.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/MapleLeaf/html_files/html_view_e.asp?page=vol6-04army

The term they use to describe the vehicle it MilCOTS. Military COMMERCIAL of the shelf model. Just because you paint it green, raise the vehicle and try to mine proof it and add a military comms system to it doesn't make the thing military grade. 7.62 and 5.56 would make swiss cheese outta this thing. Even DND admits it is quote "not intended for deployment". What good is it having a vehicle that cannot be sent with the troops on an operation?

[MapleLeafInfantry]

@resevoir hogs
after the LSVW, i don't believe Canada will be purchasing any further Iveco veh's. I also can't imagine the pricetag on that beast, if you understood the cf at all, its that we buy from the cheapest bidder.
you belive that we should make our own version of it? its time to step into reality. The entire CF wanted to be outfitted with G-Wagen's, but cost is the largest player, the thought of doing R&D into producing our own veh is out of this world. The CF is equiped on a needs basis... The reservists and non combat trades don't need a G-wagon for trg, but when they do it will be available... You have to look at the $$ sign, i'd rather have a smaller fleet of deployable veh's then an entire fleet of undesirables. The only thing i dislike about the vehicle is not having modular doors, roof or gun mount. Your awnser to this question is financially out of the question.

MLI

[Yard Ape]

Whats with the CF and buying cheaper civilian grade vehicles even if they say they'll NEVER be used operationally. First the Griffon now this. Sadly, the tradition of buying “training vehicles” began with the Cougar and then the Bison. These vehicles also established the precedent that “training vehicles” will be used operationally when we realize that we did not buy enough “operational vehicles.”

The entire CF wanted to be outfitted with G-Wagen's, but cost is the largest player … The CF is equiped on a needs basis... The reservists and non combat trades don't need a G-wagon for trg, but when they do it will be available... Actually, right from the start the plan was to buy separate vehicles for the reserves and the regular force. We are not buying any for war stocks, so these vehicles will not just appear if we need them. Sadly, we cannot train each reservist to pull a Mercedes out his @$$ in the event he is mobilized.

It must be nice knowing that your troops are driving around in "nice rides" whos survivability in combat is very questionable. How is this worse than the average HMMVW, which is also unarmoured?

Why don't you all just get one vehicle for all the forces that can be used in many different roles like the Hummer or one of the many European redesigns. No one vehicle will fit every requirement. It is the reason that the USMC is buying the same Mercedes vehicle that we are buying. However, Canada should buy some Armoured HMMVW. It would be the ideal replacement for the LSVW fleet, and it could replace the Iltis in some of its roles. The Mercedes Geländewagen is probably the right vehicle for the majority of the Iltis replacement though. There is value to its small size.

[Yard Ape]

after the LSVW, i don't believe Canada will be purchasing any further Iveco veh's. Blame Bombardier for what it did to the truck & not Iveco. There are options for armoured light patrol vehicles that are already available from the LAV plant in London. A GM derivative of the MOWAG Eagle was developed after MOWAG was bought (I belive it is called the Brute) and they make the Reumech Mamba under another name (although this may be less suitable as a patrol/fighting vehicle). I am also a fan of the Fenneck and VBL.

Not every Iltis needs to be replaced by such an armoured vehicle, but at least any that are intended to be used in Recce or an F echelon should be.

[Resevoir Hogs]

At least your special forces know what they're doing
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dcds/units/jtf2/images/JTF_03.jpg

[MapleLeafInfantry]

At least your special forces know what they're doing
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dcds/units/jtf2/images/JTF_03.jpg

b/c its sooooo much more armoured then an iltis or milerado :backhand:
MLI

[redhawk_six]

At least your special forces know what they're doing
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dcds/units/jtf2/images/JTF_03.jpg

How the **** is that better than the chevy? It has no armour what so ever, less than the chevy actully. DO SOME ****ING RESEARCH! Don't coming in here bashing everyone's opinions and acting like an ass if you don't know what you're talking about. The humvee is COMPLETELY UN-ARMOURED! :bash:

[Resevoir Hogs]

HAHAHAHA take a pill dude. Have you ever heard of a Special Forces unit using armored vehicles?! It is a completly different role from that of the Humvee in say the 2nd Inf Div or 10th mountain. However at least it makes up for that in firepower. No gun mount on your silverado. Notice the Mk 19 40mm auto-grenade launcher and what looks to be a FN MAG GPMG.

Question you should ask yourself is how is a Humvee NOT superior to a Chevy lol.

I understand that the Canadian Defence budget is MUCH lower than our 200-300 some billion a year. Though that just means you should be spending your money more wisely. Buying vehicles that you could and would never use overseas for your military(even if it is for the reserves who hardly ever go overseas) is a very unwise use of money.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

At least your special forces know what they're doing
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dcds/units/jtf2/images/JTF_03.jpg

How the f*** is that better than the chevy? It has no armour what so ever, less than the chevy actully. DO SOME f*** RESEARCH! Don't coming in here bashing everyone's opinions and acting like an ass if you don't know what you're talking about. The humvee is COMPLETELY UN-ARMOURED! :bash:
word

[Nunavut's sewage]

I'm forced to agree with hogs. Silverado just was never made for the job it is to do with the militia. Even with add ons it will never be as good as any of the vehicles that were specifically designed for the military.

[Yard Ape]

Question you should ask yourself is how is a Humvee NOT superior to a Chevy lol. In the roles that the Chevy might actually be appropriat for, it is not superiour to the Humvee. As a replacment to an Iltis, it is still not superiour. However, in the case of the Iltis replacment, there could be a good case made for the Mercedes Geländewagen.

We are buying a good replacment vehicle, the only problem is that we are not using that vehicle to replace all of the Iltis.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/gwag-5.jpgUSMC G-Wagen

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/iltis-7.jpgCanadian Iltis

[marty649]

The silverados are strictly for dometic work. The Gwagons are replacing the Iltis.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9878&highlight=g+wagons

[redhawk_six]

HAHAHAHA take a pill dude. Have you ever heard of a Special Forces unit using armored vehicles?! It is a completly different role from that of the Humvee in say the 2nd Inf Div or 10th mountain. However at least it makes up for that in firepower. No gun mount on your silverado. Notice the Mk 19 40mm auto-grenade launcher and what looks to be a FN MAG GPMG.

Question you should ask yourself is how is a Humvee NOT superior to a Chevy lol.

I understand that the Canadian Defence budget is MUCH lower than our 200-300 some billion a year. Though that just means you should be spending your money more wisely. Buying vehicles that you could and would never use overseas for your military(even if it is for the reserves who hardly ever go overseas) is a very unwise use of money.

You really are a dumb ass aren't you? The US military has these chevs too, they're the ones who first bought them, and the reason why chevy made them. The US military is also still widely using the old 80's Chevy Military Blazers, vehicles Canada retired many years ago. So, before you get on your ignorant high horse and bitch to Canadians about the Canadian military using these things, I suggest you DO SOME F*CKING RESEARCH! By the way, the US special forces use stock, unmodified Toyota 4X4 pick-ups in combat, what do you say to that? Dumbass.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

These silverado's are not going to be used over-seas or in any combat.
I still think we should've used Toyota's....

[Ian H]

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/images/FCLV_9.jpg
http://www.waitnews.com/images/iveco_5.jpg

I don't know much about this vehicle for the British Army, what is it replacing? For what roles?

[RSK]

I think its all about getting you A to B and if you ever roll over a mine... I dont give a **** what you're in... other than a friggin tank.

You are pretty much done!

[Yard Ape]

There are also issues of crew protection from small arms and fragmentation. Neither new Canadian vehicle does much for this.

[Resevoir Hogs]

All you've taught me red is that you seem to have some kinda dead animal up your ass about other's justified criticism. I'm well aware of the vehicles you mentioned. But as I said before (maybe you missed it) what the special forces use and what the larger regular army uses are two completly different roles. Spec ops have stripped down vehicles like landrovers or toyotas and do not have a requirement for mine or small arms protection. Instead they want something thats fast and can carry the ammount of ammunition and weapons they require for their longer range patrols. Also special forces operators have the advantage of more intense training and are probably far more observant than the average soldier and can therefore spot threats more readily.
That being said maybe you can understand why the humvee is stripped down and with two very nice weapons systems mounted on it. But clearly you are lacking in comprehension skills so it may be pointless to have even explained this to you this far.

But in the conventional forces of the army armor is a far bigger priority because they will have to exposure to the enemy cannot be hidden as easily. Also on patrols they may have to guard or stay in one position for longer periods as is the case in Iraq. This makes them far more vulnerable to better prepared ambushes. All this means that the Humvee or any other vehicle in that role is required to not only have a machine gun for protection but also have some armor and mine protection.

Now I KNOW we in the US have this vehicle but we don't use them for the role your forces are planning for it. An we certainly don't make it the mainstay of our reserves feild light transport fleet.

[MapleLeafInfantry]

Ok, I rather enjoy the flame war here, but heres the bottom line.
I took the photos. This is a training vehicle, not for operational usage.

The G-Wagon is also being deployed to reserve units as well, the silverado is just currently available in my brigade, and as we have no ilti, we need veh for training.

Now I KNOW we in the US have this vehicle but we don't use them for the role your forces are planning for it. An we certainly don't make it the mainstay of our reserves feild light transport fleet.

What would you rather? we continue to utilize a derelict fleet of ilti?
the role is non combat, at home, non deployment is that anything outside of its mandate? Can you honestly say that it there is better value in the iltis then this vehicle? If you're trying to provide a comparin between the difference in kit between the united states and canada you've picked a ****ty topic, and thats sad. There are far more pressing issues then a training vehicle used domestically, of which, this vehicle is pretty well suited for. I've rode in this vehicle, the g-wagon and the iltis, it is a far better vehicle than the iltis for training use, and is cost effective at providing that training. If you've had the chance to train with military vehicles before, the onus is not wholly on the vehicle, propper drills are just as important. You seem to be attacking the argument from the wrong point... For the last time, I'd like to point out the word to you DOMESTIC. In all honesty when will the whole fleet of LUVW be deployed? Never. You fail to understand the position the canadian government has taken, a vehicle for our domestic needs(MilCots Silervado) and for our deployment needs(G-wagon)I use these veh's, and I'm glad that we have an deployable, superior vehicle to the iltis, and a reliable vehicle for training domestically.

mli

[Resevoir Hogs]

I would rather you all spend more of your GDP on defence and buy everyone at least G Wagons instead of spending money on "training" vehicles for the army?

[MapleLeafInfantry]

I'd rather have good health care, a good education system, with publically subsidized university education (i'm only paying around $4400 a year in tution), welfare, social services and a decent stable economy personally. I cherish the institutions that our government has in place and damned if i would like to see the public suffer due to the misgovernance of funding by the state. I would rather see Canada scale down its deployments then be rid of its public institutions to provide for a stronger military, thats not the Canadian culture, It isn't who we are. It's a comprimise, but the current setup works.

mli

[redhawk_six]

Now I KNOW we in the US have this vehicle but we don't use them for the role your forces are planning for it. An we certainly don't make it the mainstay of our reserves feild light transport fleet.

Now you've proven your intelligence, or lack there of.... In Canada, we use these for non-combat roles. In the US, the US military uses them for, big suprise, non-combat roles! The same god damn roles! You even said it yourself, the Canadian army won't be sending these to war! You just completely contradicted yourself, proving your ignorance. You're only arguing because you feel some dumbass need to make yourself seem superiour to everyone else, that's obvious, so don't argue with me. Canada IS NOT using these in combat, you said it yourself on page 2. Now, how is that different from the states? IT'S ****ING NOT! Grab a brain dumbass.

[Resevoir Hogs]

I said

would rather you all spend more of your GDP on defence and buy everyone at least G Wagons instead of spending money on "training" vehicles for the army?

Now I don't know what you think "training" means but here it is indeed a non-combat role. I KNOW that your Milcots are non combat vehicles. You've so proudly pointed out that your reserves (I assume that means combat arms reserve units as well) are going to be driving non combat vehicles. rofl glad your happy with that.

The point I'm making is this, your forces are replacing 2,500 of your Iltis with 802 G wagons and 1,061 Milcots(silverados). SO not only are you going to have less TOTAL number a vehicles for this role. But more than half of them will be undeployable. Just when the state of the world is FAR more unstable than the past decade and the CF will most likely be taking on far more responsibilities overseas. Hopefully you guys'll opt for the extra 499 G wagons.

Now DND spent 229 million on the G Wagon contract. That's vehicles and NATO level 1 small arms protection for 160 of the 802. I'm just saying that with all the cut backs and bad spending decisions your forces have had to endure in past years (buying more challenger VIP jets for the airforce to fly politicians around when you already had enough) or (replacing recently upgraded Leopard 1s to C2s with unproven Stryker Mobile Gun Systems and TUA systems for a hefty pricetag of 600 million)
the least they could have done is spend an extra 100 million to outfit your reserves with combat capable vehicles in the unlikely event they would be called up in bulk for some unforeseen war or emergency. That's all I'm saying now if you don't agree your reserves should have something that will serve them well overseas as well as at a range day then fine, that is your delusional thinking and not a problem of mine.

Now how bout you heed your own advice and "go research" you could do some good from it. Instead of just coming on here and swearing like pre pubecent moron.

[EvanL]

I said

would rather you all spend more of your GDP on defence and buy everyone at least G Wagons instead of spending money on "training" vehicles for the army?

Now I don't know what you think "training" means but here it is indeed a non-combat role. I KNOW that your Milcots are non combat vehicles. You've so proudly pointed out that your reserves (I assume that means combat arms reserve units as well) are going to be driving non combat vehicles. rofl glad your happy with that.

The point I'm making is this, your forces are replacing 2,500 of your Iltis with 802 G wagons and 1,061 Milcots(silverados). SO not only are you going to have less TOTAL number a vehicles for this role. But more than half of them will be undeployable. Just when the state of the world is FAR more unstable than the past decade and the CF will most likely be taking on far more responsibilities overseas. Hopefully you guys'll opt for the extra 499 G wagons.

Now DND spent 229 million on the G Wagon contract. That's vehicles and NATO level 1 small arms protection for 160 of the 802. I'm just saying that with all the cut backs and bad spending decisions your forces have had to endure in past years (buying more challenger VIP jets for the airforce to fly politicians around when you already had enough) or (replacing recently upgraded Leopard 1s to C2s with unproven Stryker Mobile Gun Systems and TUA systems for a hefty pricetag of 600 million)
the least they could have done is spend an extra 100 million to outfit your reserves with combat capable vehicles in the unlikely event they would be called up in bulk for some unforeseen war or emergency. That's all I'm saying now if you don't agree your reserves should have something that will serve them well overseas as well as at a range day then fine, that is your delusional thinking and not a problem of mine.

Now how bout you heed your own advice and "go research" you could do some good from it. Instead of just coming on here and swearing like pre pubecent moron.
Why dont you shut up and stop telling other people how their country should be run.

[MapleLeafInfantry]

lol so the reserves gets a silverado to replace the iltis, I gotta point something out, the milerado is superior to the iltis, the troops are happy to have a working vehicle, go flame somewhere else.

mli

[BMF_EOD]

Many active duty US forces have the "silverdao" in their inventory. (My unit included). It is not designed for tactical survivability more of a support role.
The US designates it the LSSV for Light Service Support Vehicle. Attached is a url that takes you to a page showing a few near the bottom.

All of ours come with a hard top on the back. I do however wish they would stop painting them green or camo and leave them normal colored. (because of the urban usage of the truck). We also put 33" tires and a 3 inch lift on them locally.

http://www.rockcrawler.com/trailreports/SEMA2003/hummer_sut.asp

http://www.gm-defense.com/showroom/lssv/

[Yard Ape]

Never. You fail to understand the position the canadian government has taken, a vehicle for our domestic needs(MilCots Silervado) and for our deployment needs(G-wagon) I use these veh's, and I'm glad that we have an deployable, superior vehicle to the iltis, and a reliable vehicle for training domestically. . . . So, we have a vehicle for international operations & one for domestic training. What do we use for domestic operations?

Don't forget that the "domestic" spectrum is not limited to BC Fires, Manitoba floods, Quebec ice storms, and Atlantic Hurricanes. There is also the potential for combat operations like the FLQ crissis, Oka stand-off, Kananaskis security force, or responce to AQ terrorist attack. If our limited G-Wagens (& even more limitted armour linning) are all overseas, what do we have to do the job @ home?

[redhawk_six]

All the situations you listed were not full fledged combat situations. Hell, in the Oka stand off, the only person to die was a Quebec police officer before the army was called in. These trucks are more than enough for anything the Canadian military would require them for domesticly. If it came down to a full fledged domistic war, then the diffrence between the G-Wagon or Humvee and these trucks wouldn't matter. It wouldn't make any diffrence which they're using, the armour is more or less the same, a normal vehicle body. I think what people are forgetting here is first, that the humvees and G-wagons, stock, don't have anymore armour than the chevy unless you add on to them, which you could do with any vehicle, the chevy included. Second, wars are not won by the light vehicles like the humvees, G-wagons, and chevys, they are won by the foot soldier, who can (or should be able to) fight with or without a truck.

Humvees and G-wagons, just like a chevy, can't go through a dense forest, they can't climb the tallest mountains, and they can't take an RPG hit without turning into a smouldering pile of rubble. A humvee and a G-wagon won't stand up any to small arms fire from assualt weapons any better than a chevy. Those are facts. In combat, no one cares who made your truck.

For you people insulting the Canadian military about the chevy and armour, shall I dig up the burtal photos of shot up, torn apart humvees from somolia? Shall we ask US soldiers, those who actully survived, who's humvees were destroyed by RPGs in Iraq if they think the chevy would've been any worse?

[Yard Ape]

redhawk,
Open the blinders a little & you will see that armour is the least of the issues. The Chevy cannot mount a weapon. All the alternatives can mount HMG or larger.

[redhawk_six]

redhawk,
Open the blinders a little & you will see that armour is the least of the issues. The Chevy cannot mount a weapon. All the alternatives can mount HMG or larger.

It could, with some modification. A turret could be constructed in the rear. A hole would have to be cut in the roof, and a turret constructed, but it could. By the way, the last I checked, the G-Wagon didn't have a turret either.

[GrimmyRX]

I'd rather have good health care, a good education system, with publically subsidized university education (i'm only paying around $4400 a year in tution), welfare, social services and a decent stable economy personally. I cherish the institutions that our government has in place and damned if i would like to see the public suffer due to the misgovernance of funding by the state. I would rather see Canada scale down its deployments then be rid of its public institutions to provide for a stronger military, thats not the Canadian culture, It isn't who we are. It's a comprimise, but the current setup works.

mli

*cough* and by works, you mean, we get an underfunded military because the Gov had decided to blow more money on pacifying Quebec, et al.

[MapleLeafInfantry]

do i sense an all too familiar western alienation? :lol:
you seem to misunderstand Canadian politics, if Quebec isn't placated
then the amount of cash that it would take to sort out that mess if it ever blew up would do far more damage....

take a look around, the military isn't the only thing underfunded, and its by no means at the top of the list for the next insurgance of cash.
I'm not saying quebec isn't right out to lunch, it is, but cmon here, for the betterment of canadians as a whole there are far more important things
to send taxes towards then the canadian military. You're even more out to lunch if you'd like to remove funds from those institutions to better our military.

No matter if we funded the military to hell, we'd still be the CF, not the united states army/usmc/navy/af , don't sell off the rest of canada trying to act like something we're not, and that the citizens of our democracy don't want.

Anyways, im using your post to voice my anger over the new budget, the ideas of selling our assets to transfer into our operating costs and cover up our short term budget pitfalls is revolting, if i sold my car to pay off my credit card bills what would i have to pay off the visa on month two? or build income....

mli
(im a bloody grump, this polisci essay is killing me)

[Lone Predator]

western alienation?

nah, Albertans wanting to storm ottawa and burn it to the ground is just a phase. No doubt in the future the west will be respected and admired, and perhaps have a voice in the house of commons.

rofl


haha that was fun, now where's my torch? :D

-this thread needs to lighten up, if I wanted to watch people bitch and gripe at eachother I'd watch the Apprentice or go to a Conservative Party Rally

[pkneeyahx]

This thread is rather misleading. The CF has had these "Silverado"s for quite some time. The Iltis is being phased out and the G-Wagon is being phased in as it's replacement.

See here for more info;
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Feature_Story/2004/feb04/09-2_f_e.asp

[GrimmyRX]

do i sense an all too familiar western alienation? :lol:
you seem to misunderstand Canadian politics, if Quebec isn't placated
then the amount of cash that it would take to sort out that mess if it ever blew up would do far more damage....

take a look around, the military isn't the only thing underfunded, and its by no means at the top of the list for the next insurgance of cash.
I'm not saying quebec isn't right out to lunch, it is, but cmon here, for the betterment of canadians as a whole there are far more important things
to send taxes towards then the canadian military. You're even more out to lunch if you'd like to remove funds from those institutions to better our military.

No matter if we funded the military to hell, we'd still be the CF, not the united states army/usmc/navy/af , don't sell off the rest of canada trying to act like something we're not, and that the citizens of our democracy don't want.

Anyways, im using your post to voice my anger over the new budget, the ideas of selling our assets to transfer into our operating costs and cover up our short term budget pitfalls is revolting, if i sold my car to pay off my credit card bills what would i have to pay off the visa on month two? or build income....

mli
(im a bloody grump, this polisci essay is killing me)

Hah hah, yeah, well, this westerner's just alittle bit mifted over what we seem to have to give Quebec to placate them. I do, however, understand WHY we do it, but I don't like it.

I'm really not trying to make the CF what it's not. However, giving it a budget that's decent (not a 13 billion dollar paper budget where only about 9 billion actually GOES towards the military) and a size that can withstand all the stress that the current and past governments have put on it, which, I suppose would be somewhere around 100,000 personnel in total.

[Yard Ape]

A turret could be constructed in the rear. A hole would have to be cut in the roof, and a turret constructed, but it could. By the way, the last I checked, the G-Wagon didn't have a turret either.A turret is not required to mount a MG, only a removable roof or hatch. One of the criteria for the LUVW SMP bidding was that the vehicle be capable of mounting upto & including an HMG (saddly there was no requirment that it be capable of mounting TOW as the Iltis currently does). I have my doubts that this could easily be done to the LUVW MILCOTS as the roof would have to be reinforced to support the vibrations of a MG & the weight of a ring to allow the MG to rotate around the hatch opening.

Could it be done? Yes. However, there is no plan to do it and so the capability will not exist if it is ever needed. If it were done then we would have an excellent replacment for the LSVW. However, it would still be too big for an Iltis replacment.

If there must be MILCOTS & SMP variants, then we should have looked at a compact pick-up (unfortunatly, these don't seem to come in crew-cab) or Jeep CJ (or even Cherokee). The shorter wheel base of these vehicles gives them greater agility. A liaison officer does not need a full sized pick-up as a run about. A squadron OC does not need a full sized pick-up as his rover. The assistant CQMS could use the full sized pick-up, but we already have LSVW for that!

[Yard Ape]

This thread is rather misleading. The CF has had these "Silverado"s for quite some time. The Iltis is being phased out and the G-Wagon is being phased in as it's replacement. Did you read the article that you linked to? Both vehicles are new & being bought to replace portions of the Iltis fleet.

The 802 G Wagons will form part of the Army’s Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled (LUVW) fleet, acquired to replace the 19-year old Iltis. Additionally, 1 061 militarized commercial off-the-shelf (MILCOTS) Silverado (4x4) vehicles in three variants—basic, cable layers and military police—are being acquired from General Motors . . . Fielding of the MILCOTS fleet commenced in October 2003 and will be completed by August 2004.
You are probably thinking of the unmodified civillian SUVs & pick-ups that DND has been buying for years to use on bases & as utility vehicles for garrison work. These are not intended for the field.

[MapleLeafInfantry]

An interesting point was raised to me today....
I was driving a civy pattern veh today (for work) and the guy beside me said, yes the iltis is designed to drive off road, but were in a light infantry bn, we walk every where, we aren't mech, the majority of use that the lsvw, ml, iltis, panel van, & crew cab get are driving on roads, to exercises, concentrations, taskings, and daily home unit duties.

in the moooowlisha thats pretty much what we use these veh for, since my drivers course i've only once driven the veh offroad (maybe cause im not a remf) but for road driving in the reserves, frig it does a nice job, its got a fm radio. too bad its not as much of an go any where vehicle as the iltis imho.

mli

[Yard Ape]

yes the iltis is designed to drive off road, but we're in a light infantry bn, we walk every where, we aren't mech, the majority of use that the lsvw, ml, iltis, panel van, & crew cab get are driving on roads, to exercises, concentrations, taskings, and daily home unit duties.The average Canadian reserve battalion registers little larger than an understrength Coy (if more than a Pl). These vehicles would require more of thier cross country ability if we were to exercise at the level of (full) battalion & even formation more frequently.

I belive it is important that we be able to fight away from our vehicles, but we must also be able to fight with them (because sometimes the ground will let us use them & sometimes it will not). It reserve infantry units each housed a Cbt Sp Pl then they would see much more value to an LUVW SMP as a platform for HMGs, TOW (or recoilless rifle) and motor recce.

[MapleLeafInfantry]

we're a larger then average bn, I have never seen us go bahaing in the iltis, and rapid deployment is easily achievable visa ve the milerado

thing is, even back in the iltis days with the c6 and tow mount the mowlisha never even gets the trg on it anyways, the trg on that has been kept for armd recce.

the trg based for res inf is always veh support not veh approach.

armoured recce, (not motor recce) in the reserve will be using the gunit wagon. The focus of unmounted inf trg will never involve veh aside from onabus offdabus drills

light inf units have a company wep det, not a cbt spt pl, everything is in the light role. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have a mount there, its just outside of whats included at unit trg for a res light inf bn, heli mobile ops fall into the same category, a means for putting the troops on the ground to fight. I guess the problem here is with the drills for veh's?
but, if you want to discuss that it can't be done here :|

mli