HMMWV Replacement Contestants Down To 3

Centermass

Ranger
Verified SOF
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,647
Location
Whoville
#1
The winners -- AM General, builder of the current Humvee; Lockheed Martin and Oshkosh Corp. -- beat out three other teams from Navistar, General Dynamics and BAE Systems. The three top entrants won contracts worth about $60 million each to build a small fleet of demonstration models that will be tested by the Army. Whichever team prevails will win a contract to build 20,000 vehicles for the U.S. Army and another 5,000 for the Marines at an estimated cost of $5 billion; the eventual deal could be worth far more depending on options and whether other countries buy the same vehicle -- a rare opportunity in a era where the Defense Department faces up to $1 trillion in budget cuts.
Compared to the current Humvee, the new designs offer far more interior space; compared to the original World War II-era Jeep, they're tanks with wheels that can travel farther and faster over rough terrain and rivers. While required to be less expensive per vehicle, all were designed to withstand blasts from mines and roadside bombs, a leading killer of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Lockheed Martin JLTV (L) Oshkosh L-ATV (R)



AM General BRV-O (Above)

AM General's BRV-O entry sports a 3,500-lb. payload, self-leveling suspension and a 3.2-liter, 300-hp turbocharged six-cylinder diesel meant to be far more fuel-efficient than the V-8s used in the Humvee. Lockheed Martin says its JLTV has been designed to minimize weight -- allowing it to be hauled by helicopter -- while avoiding high-cost materials like titanium. And the Oshkosh L-ATV would be the first hybrid-electric all-terrain military light tactical vehicle.

Story - More Photos
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
13,318
Location
Not Afghanistan
#2
The finalists look like an MRAP "legitmately raped" a HMMWV and that's what drove out of the gaping maw some months later.
 

Etype

Special Forces
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
2,258
#3
I think I drove one of the Lockheed submissions last year in Uwharrie, pretty good off-roader. The SRATS is a very good vehicle as well- I saw a few in Afghanistan, but not many. The cool thing about the SRATS is it can go places even GMVs can't.
 

moobob

Capsizing islands...
Verified Military
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
500
Location
murica
#4
I think I drove one of the Lockheed submissions last year in Uwharrie, pretty good off-roader. The SRATS is a very good vehicle as well- I saw a few in Afghanistan, but not many. The cool thing about the SRATS is it can go places even GMVs can't.
That's reassuring. Light armor while having superior off-road capability is win-win. Hopefully it's not an abortion like the MATV.
 

TheSiatonist

Designated Hoops Sniper!
Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
1,414
Location
Siaton, Neg. Or.
#5

Grimfury160

Personnel Clerk
SOF Support
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
182
Location
Shaking a tree! Do you see me on the map?
#8
Yeah, since ground clearance isn't at all a factor in offroad capability.....
What I meant to say was they look a little heavy and high. You dont want to be driving around GEO Trackers in the field and fliping in ditches.
Just go back to JEEPs no need to drop millions in a fleet that for the most part will sit idle CONUS.
 

Ranger Psych

Ranger
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,359
Location
Saving lives one axe swing at a time.
#10
What I meant to say was they look a little heavy and high. You dont want to be driving around GEO Trackers in the field and fliping in ditches.
Just go back to JEEPs no need to drop millions in a fleet that for the most part will sit idle CONUS.

Erm, I guess you're ignoring the fact that there's still combat operations ongoing daily, worldwide?
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
8,401
Location
San Antonio Texas
#11
What I meant to say was they look a little heavy and high. You dont want to be driving around GEO Trackers in the field and fliping in ditches.
Just go back to JEEPs no need to drop millions in a fleet that for the most part will sit idle CONUS.
You want to lead the first convoy?

Expensive, yes.
But the demand for an IED resistant vehicle is what is driving the new developments.
I seem to recall a roll over issue with the old jeeps, which was one of the reasons given for developing the HMMWV.
I hope planners don't want to make this a cure all vehicle, as I see use for "Up-Armored" HMMWV's for the foreseeable future.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
13,318
Location
Not Afghanistan
#12
Jeeps had a rollover problem and IIRC also began to suffer mobility issues when a larger engine without as much torque was placed in it. More weight, less torque, Mongo stuck in mud.

Up armored HMMWV's should be called LMMWV's because of what the extra weight did to them and helped contribute to our buttoned up, armored knight mentality.
 

Grimfury160

Personnel Clerk
SOF Support
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
182
Location
Shaking a tree! Do you see me on the map?
#13
This has been an ongoing discussion on the replacement of the fleet since around 2008. Extensive, expensive testing and fielding has given outside bidding companies ability to provide motivational declination with the movers and shakers. Some veteran based companies are able to provide their immediate input in what the operators need moving forward. The current trending conversation is correct with forward operations just like the MRAP which is rarely seen CONUS. I would furthermore state that the newer vehicles may cause problems with tail loading in rotary wing aircraft for IAT (Internal Air Transport) as the JLTV program is basing off of EAT (External Air Transport) requirements. IAT requirements are only showing fixed wing aircraft for configuration set by TARDEC during its initial conception.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
8,401
Location
San Antonio Texas
#15
I think we need more then one vehicle. Light Forces with HMMWV's in the initial takedown, small MRAP Type vehicles for the follow-on forces. Occupation forces can bring heavy MRAPs in.

IED's will be an issue, but I think we won't see IED's in the initial assault (unless we telegraph our punch a la Iraq).
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
8,401
Location
San Antonio Texas
#18
The most irritating thing is that mil vehicles NOW don't meet the safety requirements and can't be sold to civilians other than as scrap. IE HMMWV's you can't buy at auction without being torched/demill'ed. Bullshittimus maximus.
I thought there was a "collectable" clause that allowed companies/individuals to buy vehicles.

You could always buy one off of the Mexican Army.
 

Ranger Psych

Ranger
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,359
Location
Saving lives one axe swing at a time.
#19
I thought there was a "collectable" clause that allowed companies/individuals to buy vehicles.

You could always buy one off of the Mexican Army.
Nope. HMMWV's have to be demill'ed and are only good for parts, the frame has to be crushed/torched in a pattern hard to repair before picking it up. 2.5 and 5 ton trucks, wreckers, and the like are legal because they're heavy trucks and as such most of the safety requirements are different due to the weight classification. There's actually quite a bit of GOOD equipment that has to be destroyed on sale, which is kicking the .gov in the balls specifically because if it was more useful than just scrap value, people would pay a whole lot more for them.
 

Draneol

Unverified
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
42
Location
Seattle, WA
#20
These were posted on ARFCom a few months back...

http://i.imgur.com/tWRK1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/itQkC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/9p66v.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/fdDVQ.jpg

I believe these were already sanitized from showing any sensitive stuff, but all the same -- please remove if inappropriate.
How come you guys don't put any cardboard or Styrofoam on the windows of that truck? UV will warp and distort the spinel plates through long-term exposure, and it looks like someone used an acid, probably windex or windex like window cleaner on the windows of that vehicle, because of the distorted blots on the "glass". I don't mean to come off like a jackass, but do troops get trained to properly take care of their vehicles? Ballistic Glass isn't actually glass, it's a ceramic composite that is compressed to maximum density and pressure treated then layered. Because of the vacuum between layers holding them together, the least elemental and temperature exposure they recieve, the better off they are. Overtime the windows of that truck will implode by nature, but making the lifespan shorter due to negligence just costs more money and safety than it needs to.
 
Top