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

GBAD - The return of 'FOBS'

Lots of these?
You know me. I like to make use of what we got. Everyone here bitches about the TAPV, but to me the TAPV offers several great features: its mine resistant; it has adequate armour protection against small arms and splinters; it can adequately hold a crew of four; and it has a flat roof where, with a bit of reinforcement, you can mount any number of remote weapon systems like a Moog turret offers.

IMHO, Canada needs a fleet of light armoured vehicles that can mix in with a LAV coy or Leo sqn or cbt tm and provide the close in CUAV, AD coverage that's needed. It's not a place for a pickup truck.

Say a battery of twelve to support a battalion. With 50 you could do the Latvian brigade. That's four batteries. Say a crew of four for 24/7 that 48 bodies - add in another 30 for C&C and CSS and that 320 folks, lets say 80 PYs (roto 0 and leadership) and 240 reservists.

Add another 2 batteries of light systems mounted on whatever the light battalions will get and Bob's your uncle.

There you go. A napkin force that cost $0.02 to produce and didn't need hundreds of thousands in consultant fees and a 5 year project to write a definition and SOR for. Give me another $0.03 and I'll draft a T&OE for you together with a PY/ARes manning source table and a glossy line diagram.

It seems that it's not as easy as it seems to re-purpose existing weapons in new applications.

I wonder what other missile/rocket systems might face similar integration problems on vehicle-mounted applications?
This little beast had roughly the same range as the Longbow and worked just fine in the field almost 3.5 decades ago now.


Maybe Oerlikon can dig out its plans and licence them to Lockheed?