[MPJackal]

"
The HMMWV was designed, from the beginning, as a UTILITY vehicle. It was created to replace the Jeep, not the armored combat vehicle".

While giving HMMWV passengers additional protection is a good idea, giving them a false sense of security about the nature and limitations of their vehicle IS NOT.


Actually, you are incorrect. The new Up Armored (UA) HMMWV's have performed very well. As of December there were zero fatalities resulting from enemy fire on UA HMMWV. In one instance a UA took a direct hit from an RPG with only minor damage.
The greatest risk with UA's was the exposed gunner. This system eliminates this risk while giving much greater accuracy even on the move.
Sounds like a good idea to me.

[SJSAMPLE]

UA HMMWVs are not designed or armored to survive RPG blasts. Just because the crew of one vehicle survived" a hit doesn't meant that the concept is deeply flawed. Turning the HMMWV into a gun platform, which is exactly what this is, is deeply flawed logic.

The UA concept was to provide small arms protection to vehicle occupants in high threat areas. Not every HMMWV needs to be (or should be) up-armored. By adding a remote weapons station, you're moving the HMMWV into more dangerous terrain. When you start using a modified utility vehicle as a weapons platform, the UA stands for "Under Armored".

[Yasotay]

In one instance a UA took a direct hit from an RPG with only minor damage.

That is very diffcult to believe. There aren't ANY HMMWVs that can withstand a 'direct hit' from a RPG.