Flyer Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) update

Shaun Connors talks to Michael Ellis, VP Programs, Flyer Defense LLC about their Flyer ISV vehicle - a lightweight all-terrain vehicle designed to carry a nine-member squad and associated equipment.
SUBSCRIBE to our KZbin Channel for more videos / janesbyihsmarkit
Follow us on Twitter / ihs4defrisksec
Like us on Facebook / janesbyihsma. .
For more content go to www.janes.com
Underpinned by Jane's verified and validated open source equipment, security and defence industry data, Jane's Data Analytics supports entity recognition, capability assessment and market analysis, find out more bit.ly/2x6tlQ9

[@brucevilla]

Thanks for Uploading.

[@duck5336]

These things are crazy quiet.

[@shanek6582]

These look fun and cool but I remember all the problems we had uparmoring all the humvees. I think any future military transport vehicles have to be armored and have a bottom designed for IEDs from the drawing board.

[@jdenmark1287]

there are a lot of theaters where that is not the primary consideration. Military operations have always required a mix of strengths.

[@travisjohnson6703]

That's what the JLTV is for, but having a light, cheap vehicle that can serve with airmobile and rear echelon troops is a very good idea. No army can get by with just the biggest, most expesive vehicles-they need a breadth of capabilities.

[@petesjk]

There’s still a need for “light” and maneuverable vehicles, though theses vehicles still weigh more than your typical civilian truck. The unarmored humvee is still being used by the army, but only has 4 seats, and it seems these versions have seats for 6 and 9.

[@darthmorpheus9603]

So true. Waste of money these vehicles are. Better off buying off the shelf 4w4 for airborne and Spec Op troops , but airborne ,Spec Op and rear echelon troops still need IED protection. There are some very light armored materials out now so not having IED protection is just stupid and a waste of a troopers life.

[@darthmorpheus9603]

@@travisjohnson6703 Lockheed C-141 Starlifter. Why would you use anything else to get your airmobile troops to the battlefield and in a JLTV. Marines are smart not using a such a light vehicle in combat.

[@benpeters5851]

Made by soldiers for soldiers

[@1988thefreeman]

Wouldn't an off the shelf 3/4 ton diesel truck be way cheaper?

[@Berserkr01]

I think two Toyota Hilux modified with the tactical stuff would cost the same as one of these! And would also offer protection against dust, and shrapnel!

[@hyun000228]

So nomal army infantry squad use this Flyer???

[@dennisnaffah8733]

I think it’s primarily for airborne and air assault units (and special ops). I haven’t really seen units like 10th mountain or 3rd ID, etc use them yet.

[@Eddwardsroseresfoo]

Chevy isv needs show some

[@Ade-mu4zn]

🇲🇨🇲🇨🇲🇨🇲🇨🇲🇨 1000D

[@MrJihadkoplo]

With zero armour how they hold up contact???

[@marincountyspotter17]

Its not meant for contact. Its meant as a taxi for units like the 82nd Airborne to maneuver with until armored vehicles arrive

[@darugdawg2453]

Not worth it. Ied would blow that belly up

[@marincountyspotter17]

@@darugdawg2453 again it's not a mrap.

[@AleksandrKramarenko]

@@darugdawg2453 It's not meant to patrol continuously over roads and eventually get blown up by IEDs. Nor is it meant to assault fortified enemy positions. It's meant for scouts and special units. It needs good off-road capabilities. It needs to be able to drive for long distances. It needs to be fast. It needs to be small/light enough to fit in some bigger choppers/VTOLs. It needs to be light enough to be para-dropped. I'm not sure if there's a name for such vehicles, but the US has had many of such cars in the past: Fast Attack Vehicle, Desert Patrol Vehicle, Light Strike Vehicle, Internally Transportable Light Strike Vehicle, Ground Mobility Vehicle (Humvee), Polaris MRZR, Ground Mobility Vehicle (Flyer), etc.

[@rudivandoornegat2371]

Unit cost Flyer US$ 300,000 Unit cost Toyota Landcruiser US$ 70,000

[@nunya1263]

Flat bottom vehicle's no bueno for IEDs

[@nikanor8152]

These aren't meant to protect from IEDs in any way. These are designed for special operations as lightweight, relatively low profile vehicles focused on mobility.

[@ngakadaakhlak8314]

Russia

[@themeatpopsicle]

It still blows my mind that trade shows like this still exist in order to connect with customers. You're thinking of spending millions of dollars on specialized equipment? Oh sure just gonna stop by that trade show booth and chat a bit. Ask a few questions. 0_o

[@darthmorpheus9603]

IED's people the Marines did not want them why. Spec Ops use vehicles that blend into there environment , that being civilian looking vehicles. Maybe airborne troops could use them for the first hour to get them to that bridge or town, and then dump them for vehicles that can stop an IED.

[@egilkarlson7253]

When you are airborne you can be drop with a M113. It is an interesting vehicule for spécial forces.

[@darthmorpheus9603]

@@egilkarlson7253 Special Forces , aka the SAS will use civilian looking vehicles so they blend into there environment , that being civilians, so they do not get shot up by every man and his dog with an AK47. And yes it would be better if airborne troops got a newer/better version of the M113 , instead of this light 4x4 with no protection from bullets and IED's.

[@darthmorpheus9603]

@Gar lol and there still not going to use a vehicle like the one in the video and have some farmer use there mobile phone to call the local police, the police then call the army, 30min's later the SAS are dead or have been captured.

[@darugdawg2453]

@gar behind enemy lines. Lmao this is not trench warfare. Guerilla tactics and spec ops do not have lines

[@Eddwardsroseresfoo]

Colorado isv is better