Author Topic: ATVs  (Read 84719 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,683
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: ATVs
« Reply #100 on: April 20, 2011, 13:38:51 »
I think there was just an accident involving an ATV and CF personal, but can't find the link. Many of the consulting companies doing oil/gas/forestry are moving away from the small 4 wheeled ATV's to the larger gators and 6x6 due to the large number of injuries.

Also what is new is old
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:18pdrTowedByDragonTractor1932.jpg

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 257,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,228
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: ATVs
« Reply #101 on: April 22, 2011, 01:50:56 »
I think there was just an accident involving an ATV and CF personal, but can't find the link. Many of the consulting companies doing oil/gas/forestry are moving away from the small 4 wheeled ATV's to the larger gators and 6x6 due to the large number of injuries.

Also what is new is old
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:18pdrTowedByDragonTractor1932.jpg

The Tom Car looks pretty sturdy. Maybe we should just start using WW2 era jeeps, they seem about the same size.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/springer_130409.html
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline DirtyDog

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 10,829
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 690
Re: ATVs
« Reply #102 on: April 22, 2011, 09:37:12 »
You can go out into the Pet training area lately without running in packs of ATVs, mostly being ridden by a particular unit.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,683
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: ATVs
« Reply #103 on: April 23, 2011, 22:23:31 »
The Tom Car looks pretty sturdy. Maybe we should just start using WW2 era jeeps, they seem about the same size.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/springer_130409.html

of course there is the champ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Champ

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 220,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,870
Re: ATVs
« Reply #104 on: April 23, 2011, 22:27:11 »
I never heard any British service member say anyting good about the Champ. Most comments included a word that rhymed with "trucking."
« Last Edit: April 24, 2011, 06:09:04 by Old Sweat »

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: ATVs
« Reply #105 on: April 23, 2011, 22:45:39 »
All the cool kids wanted the Mini Moke  ;D
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 257,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,228
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: ATVs
« Reply #106 on: April 25, 2011, 22:36:47 »
All the cool kids wanted the Mini Moke  ;D

I'm guessing that those would have been the kids they wouldn't even let on the short bus, right?  ;D
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: ATVs
« Reply #107 on: April 25, 2011, 23:54:50 »
When you're 10 years old a skateboard on 4 soup plates looks a whole lot different than if you need to sit in the back seat to be able to drive the thing.  Gymnasts only need apply.

Good news - based on your latest grenade launcher it qualifies as man-packable.  ;D
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: ATVs
« Reply #108 on: October 06, 2013, 20:23:37 »
Bump - to resurrect ATVs as a topic.

Came across this Support Vehicle.





Swing arm mounted Mk 48,  a CG-84 on the back deck and a stand alone 40mm GL on the right front fender.  It looks like there might also be a tripod for the Mk 48 on the right rear.

Link
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,957
Re: ATVs
« Reply #109 on: October 06, 2013, 20:38:27 »
Hmmm.....desert rats?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
Re: ATVs
« Reply #110 on: October 06, 2013, 22:22:24 »
With the amount of "stuff" they want to carry, even an ATV might be too small.

We are now looking at a 6X6 'Gator, or perhaps something like a Polaris "Ranger" to carry the gear with a certain amount of reserve.

Of course, once you start going down that road, then there is an accelerating spiral of needing/wanting to carry more kit, bigger vehicles and a bigger logistical tail. I've made a few arguments upthread about perhaps leapfrogging the entire issue and going to a much more capable all terrain/marginal terrain vehicle like the BV 206 or its successors (Viking or Bronco). For fans of retro technology, here is a picture of a '60's vintage MTV which uses wheels rather than tracks, the prototype of the XM 808 "Twister". A vehicle in this configuration (no armoured upper deck, etc.) seems to combine much of the mobility of a BV 206 type vehicle with a much higher road speed. Maybe this is the route we should be looking at.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 180,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,379
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: ATVs
« Reply #111 on: October 06, 2013, 23:09:18 »
Battalions are getting these now.  Conventional ATVs as well as 4 and 6 wheel side-by-sides.

Interesting pieces of kit and, as the norm seems to be, no doctrinal role for them within the Infantry (Army HQ to units - Here is some stuff, figure out what you want to do with it).
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: ATVs
« Reply #112 on: October 07, 2013, 01:36:46 »
With the amount of "stuff" they want to carry, even an ATV might be too small.

We are now looking at a 6X6 'Gator, or perhaps something like a Polaris "Ranger" to carry the gear with a certain amount of reserve.

Of course, once you start going down that road, then there is an accelerating spiral of needing/wanting to carry more kit, bigger vehicles and a bigger logistical tail. I've made a few arguments upthread about perhaps leapfrogging the entire issue and going to a much more capable all terrain/marginal terrain vehicle like the BV 206 or its successors (Viking or Bronco). For fans of retro technology, here is a picture of a '60's vintage MTV which uses wheels rather than tracks, the prototype of the XM 808 "Twister". A vehicle in this configuration (no armoured upper deck, etc.) seems to combine much of the mobility of a BV 206 type vehicle with a much higher road speed. Maybe this is the route we should be looking at.


Jaysus Thuc,

In one paragraph you have managed to get from a vehicle which can be transported with and provide support to a dismounted infantry unit any place in the world to one that needs C-17s and BHSs.

Can we consider working with the minimum requirement instead of the kitchen sink?   ;D

Consider a two-up Quad with a half tonne trailer as the first level prime mover.    You have bigger, more expensive carriers available already.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
Re: ATVs
« Reply #113 on: October 07, 2013, 20:56:29 »
My arguments for the larger, more capable vehicles is posted upthread here: http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,96332.msg968241.html#msg968241

It seems to me that the ATV class of vehicles is simply too limited to be more than a specialized niche vehicle, and even some of the arguments posted in this thread can be subsumed into the larger vehicle. Even in the commercial world we see the same evolution happening, each generation of ATV becomes larger and more "capable" to the point that Polaris "Rangers" are only slightly smaller than an Iltis of old.

While the XM 808 is certainly overkill (the transmission engineering would impress Rube Goldberg) it occurs to me that one of the drawbacks of the BV-206 and its various successors is low road speed, maybe there is a place for a wheeled BV-206 type vehicle. In any event I'll be happy to see the Army get Bronco's or Vikings, or even dust off the BV 206 fleet and put them back in action.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: ATVs
« Reply #114 on: October 07, 2013, 21:18:32 »
The ATV photo I posted above carries the entire platoon det (minus the 60mm - the 40mm substitutes (poorly)).

That ATV would increase the fighting power of a dismounted platoon and can be carried by a CH-146 anywhere.

Anything bigger requires more support and more transport and is more restricted in the places it can travel - meaning more distance between the deployed platoon and its support.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
Re: ATVs
« Reply #115 on: October 08, 2013, 22:05:14 »
Without being too contentious, the ATV can carry the weapon det's "stuff", but not the det itself.

A BV 206 is also airportable (using a Chinook), as well as amphibious, so not only can you fly it in, but it can swim itself into places as well. My argument is mostly based around versatility, the bigger vehicle can (to a certain extent) do more things than an ATV. Fro people who really are into niche (black) roles, maybe the argument for an ATV is stronger than for a BV 206, but for the rest of us, I will submit that sometimes size really does matter.  :)
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: ATVs
« Reply #116 on: October 11, 2013, 20:35:57 »
I've been "out of range" for few days and chomping at the bit to get back to this discussion.

Agreed:  The ATV only carries the weapons for the Det.

So what?

Most Dets don't have enough bodies to man all the weapons.   This is due to the need to carry the weapons, tripods, sights, tools, spares...... and enough ammo to be useful.  ATV? Problem solved.  Trigger pullers are not is short supply.  Weapons and ammo for trigger pullers are.

I'm going to propose a couple of "what if" scenarios.

What if, in 1982, the Brits had had access to 500 kg ATVs capable of hauling 750 kg of gear across the Falklands?

2 Para marched 21 km and then had to lay up to catch their breath after humping loads of more than 100 lbs each.  At that they only managed to move 2x 81 mm tubes and 1000 bombs.   They had extra MGs but they were scattered all over the battlefield and didn't really come into their own until they were grouped at Platoon, Company and Battalion level.  Relocating the guns in a timely manner, and more importantly supplying them with ammunition were a problem.  So much so that the Pioneers were assigned as ammo carriers.  The Motor Transport platoon, in the absence of Motor Transport was assigned to D&D at HQ.  Wounded remained in place on the battlefield until the festivities ended.

Could supplying the MT platoon with a dozen Quads and a bunch of 1/2 ton trailers have changed the situation? 

Could the troops have arrived faster and/or fresher?
Could the Mor Platoon have had more tubes and rounds available?
Could the MGs have been more readily resupplied and relocated?
Could the Pioneers have been freed up to act as an additional Rifle Platoon?
Could Bn have had more direct contact with Brigade using the Quads to run messages to the rear and bring supplies forward?
Could the Bn's assigned RAF FAC made it forward if he had been relieved of his pack and not broken his ankle on the approach march?

Another scenario would be seizing a position and permitting greater dispersal of the available forces due the ability to bring heavier weapons and greater ammunition loads further forward faster than dismounted troops.

I like the Quads for the following reasons:

They are light enough to be transported by all air means from CH-146 on up.
They can draw a trailer of up to 800 kg.  Coincidentally that is equivalent to the carrying capacity of the WW2 Platoon Vehicles.
With trailers loads can be pre-staged, reducing turn around time.
Without trailers the Quad can be used as a scouting, courier or supply vehicle.  Or even a commanders ride.

In short, they can go everywhere heliborne/airborne troops can go.  They are the vehicle that the light forces have been trying to find since WW2.

They permit the distance between the LZ and the Objective to be longer allowing greater probability of masking the LZ and permitting additional troops and supplies to be delivered before the Objective is alerted and they LZ becomes unsafe.

In the defence, they supply logistical support - and together with a batch of Helo delivered bobcats - permit the construction of a stronger defensive position through the ability to move construction materials around the site.

Somebody around here keeps posting articles about unmanned vehicles like the USMC's GUSS:

 

The intent of the vehicle is to support dismounted troops in the advance.

The alternative unit being tested is the Robotic Mule



which only carries a payload of 180 kg.

Those are in development and cost a fortune

This is available and dirt cheap.



And appreciated....

Testimonial 1

Quote
Upgraded quad bikes for British forces in Afghanistan
Posted on June 23, 2009 by Strike-Hold

A shipment of upgraded quad bikes are bound for the front line in Afghanistan to boost troops’ ability to deliver vital combat supplies to Service personnel on the ground.200 of the upgraded all-terrain vehicles and trailers have been ordered for British troops as part of a £5m contract with Yamaha and Logic.The upgrades to the bikes include a left hand throttle which provides a dual throttle fit giving greater manoeuvrability in theatre; and dual stretcher fit on the trailers to evacuate two casualties at a time thereby speeding up emergency aid.

The quad bikes can reach speeds of up to 75km/h, can carry up to almost 160kg with the trailer attached, and are already being used to deliver food, water and ammunition to troops on the front line in difficult to access areas – or where it is more appropriate to offer a lower profile. Even with the trailer attached, they can operate through streams and puddles of up to half their wheel-height.

Major Matt Cansdale of 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, who used the bikes during his recent operational tour, added:

“The quad bikes proved to be reliable and able to go places that no other vehicle could. The equipment that the quad bikes were able to carry enabled us to launch patrols that covered more distance and were longer in duration than would otherwise have been the case, so we were able to push into areas that the enemy did not expect us.”The ability to evacuate casualties effectively and quickly also meant that we could move away from established routes while limiting the risk to our forces.”

Testimonial 2

To address the discrepancy in load carrying numbers cited by the paras and myself - herewith the Polaris specs

So, I suggest the choice rests between



and



Laser attachment pending.   ;D


PS  Further to the 1982 "What If" scenario.... in the 105 Lt Guns had been replaced with the M777s Goose Green would have been in range of the beachhead at San Carlos and a couple of Excaliburs would have shut down the 35mm AAs that were used in Direct Fire mode against the Paras.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 20:40:19 by Kirkhill »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
Re: ATVs
« Reply #117 on: October 11, 2013, 22:16:39 »
Well Kirkhill, I can see your ATV and raise you a BV-202.

Using your same example, the Paras could have moves all their men and equipment via BV-202 (the appropriate example for the era). Eight man sections complete could be carried at 35KPH (or even swum across the channel separating the islands at @ 7 KPH, a capability that would have been very unsettling for the Argentinians) with all their kit, and grouped according to task (no MGs and Milans scattered about the battlefield)

BV 202's could be configured as Mortar carriers with the tubes mounted on a baseplate in the trailer and ammunition at hand for immediate action, and as gun tractors for the artillery. Like the FV-432, the BV's would be battle taxis, dropping the Paras, Ghurkas, Marines etc. close to the FEBA and shuttling ammunition and supplies forward, as well as carrying out the wounded.

So the larger vehicle can do the jobs, and add additional capabllities for most conventional operations.

Even going fast forward to the recent past, if Canadian units (Regular or Reserve) had BV-206's, Vikings or Broncos during the Alberta floods, they could have driven around with up to 5 tons of supplies, swum out to stranded civilians (or swum to houses to check them out) and carried out groups of people (up to 16 at a time, plus the driver).

So in terms of overall versatility, I am still going to argue for the larger and more capable vehicle as giving you the capability to do much more. Yes, there are niches for ATV's (and canoes, for that matter), but we should give the niche capabilities to the niche operators...
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: ATVs
« Reply #118 on: October 11, 2013, 22:42:36 »
Yes but....

The Bandvagons (202 or 206) or Vikings or Broncos take up more space in ships and aeroplanes and are more limited in the number of helos that can lift them.

I see the helo as the primary mover of the force over ground.  The ATV is nothing more than a mule hauling heavy freight for the dismounted platoon once it is on the ground.

It is not a replacement for a GWagen or TAPV or LAV.   

Also, I take issue with the notion that unless you are mounted you are only adding a niche capability.  I believe that regardless of the transport the job on the ground is the same.

Certainly troops that train with the same transport day after day will develop skills and capabilities that those that are more generalist won't. 

I continue to argue for the separation of infantry from their transport and that they should be married up prior to operations for familiarization training.

ATVs I consider to be the type of system that can be quickly mastered by anybody currently wearing a Canadian uniform and thus not requiring specialty training or a separate MOSID.

Edit: By the way - there were Bv202s on the Falklands but they were held by the Marines and few in number.  They were used as Coy CPs IIRC.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
Re: ATVs
« Reply #119 on: October 11, 2013, 23:08:57 »
If it's helicopters you want..... ;)

An author I know once pointed out in an article (The Return of the Canadian Mounted Rifles; CAJ Vol 5 No 4 Winter 2002 Pg. 73-77) that even a dedicated airmobile unit should have some sort of ground arm so the unit could continue to function without being weather limited, and proposed there should be 2 "lift" companies and a "motor" company to compliment the lift companies and support the troops on the ground when and if they were unable to be supported from the air. One guess as to the sort of vehicle the Motor Company was to be equipped with....

Quote
Evolving from the BV 206 company, a “motor company” will give the CMR a unique ability for sustained operations that an all air unit lacks. The motor company has enhanced mobility on the ground, few weather restrictions, and can carry more supplies for extended operations than the dismounted infantry companies. As a secondary function, the motor company can support airmobile operations by delivering supplies to dismounted infantry, freeing the lift company for other tasks and extending the time the airmobile company can remain in the field. Operationally, the motor company can share the benefits of air mobility, since medium-lift helicopters can airlift the BV 206 or similar vehicles. The limitation is the amount of airlift available, meaning air movement by the motor company will be slower and more complex than airmobile infantry company movements. While the airmobile companies can move rapidly around a wide area of operation, the motor company is more suited for “landholder” duties, securing areas or “digging out” opponents who have been identified and fixed by the airmobile companies.20 In areas of complex terrain that masks the enemy from sensors and standoff attack, this will become a key asset for successful operations. The motor company will need to maintain all-terrain capabilities. The BV 206 can undergo a modernization program, upgrading the engine and suspension systems to improve mobility, or the Army can choose a successor vehicle.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: ATVs
« Reply #120 on: October 12, 2013, 00:12:55 »
I seem to recall reading that article..... once or twice.

I don't, and didn't, disagree with the premise.  I can see that organization as being functional for many situations.  Many,  not all.  I do disagree with the notion that a unit needs a permanent organization as described.  I like to keep things as simple as possible and then adjust to suit the situation.

I like the idea of putting the LAVs etc back in the hands of the Armour, the helos in the hands of the RCAF (Green), and vehicles like the BVs and MLVWs in the hands of the Svc Bn.

And, as you know, I too am a fan of the Bv206 and agree that it needs to be part of the toolkit (ahem - moreso than a CCV - ahem).
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
Re: ATVs
« Reply #121 on: January 28, 2014, 15:07:11 »
A bit of a tangent, but this company is (was?) offering an amphibious vehicle with about the size and carrying capability of a jeep. Looking back at this thread, I noted water crossing wasn't a very strong consideration in most arguments. So if *we* want to advocate for ATV's, then let it be something like the Argo, which is amphibious. This vehicle is the next size up, and of course the BV/Viking/Bronco class of marginal terrain vehicles is the largest size under consideration. The Gibbs corporation is still in business, so this option isn't closed out:

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0407/news/050407_hsa.htm

Quote
Forces to Pursue High Speed Amphibious Vehicles
News April. 5, 2007
 
Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) and Gibbs Technologies will develop a family of High Speed Amphibious (HSA) vehicles designed specifically for military operations. The new vehicle will reduce the risk of marines and Special Forces units by dramatically reducing the sea-to-shore transition time. According to Rich Lockwood, Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensor's vice president for Mission Systems, "HSA minimizes that risk, allowing forces to move safer and faster - and with capabilities that make it a powerful asset in a net-enabled force."
 
The new vehicles will be based on Gibbs' amphibious vehicle prototypes originally designed for the consumer market. Lockheed Martin and Gibbs will enhance these designs integrating expeditionary command and control capability, armor and weapons systems. Gibbs' technology enables amphibians to travel at speeds over 45 mph on water and over 100 mph on land - and to transition from water-to-land or land-to-water in five seconds. These features provide a much needed capability for military littoral, riverine and special operations. The vehicles will have armor protection capability, they will be equipped with network ability to share and distribute information from onboard and remote sensors. The craft will be able to accommodate a variety of weapons systems, based on specific mission needs.

Gibbs and Lockheed Martin are developing three military concept vehicles, representing a scalable capability to meet various missions - the Amphibious Combat Craft -- Expeditionary (ACC-E), a 20-foot amphibian capable 45 mph on the water and 80 mph on land; The Amphibious Combat Craft - Riverine (ACC-R) is a 35-foot amphibian capable of 40 mph on the water and 65 mph on land; and the Terraquad, capable of over 55 mph on the water and 50 mph on land.
Alan Gibbs founded Gibbs Technologies in New Zealand in 1996. Initial amphibian concept work was undertaken in 1997 and 1998 in Detroit. In 1999, excited by the technology, Neil Jenkins merged his business to form Gibbs Technologies UK, of which Gibbs Military Amphibian is a licensee. "

HSAs are high performance craft on the water, and high performance vehicles on the ground and the transition between the two is seamless," says Alan Gibbs, chairman of Gibbs Technologies. "These are true amphibians, combining the best of both worlds". Gibbs' commercial offerings, currently in prototype stage, include the Aquada, a three-person sports car, Humdinga, a four-wheel military vehicle, and Gibbs Quadski, an amphibious all terrain vehicle.

 
 
 


 



 
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.