Posted on 06/23/2004 1:00:10 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
The U.S. Army fielded the HMMWV (or “Humvee,” as we call it) in 1983. At that time, the Humvee represented the pinnacle of automotive technology. Over the last 21 years however, the Humvee has begun to grow long in the tooth.
In 1991 the Army began fielding the M998A2 model, which addressed some of the concerns voiced by units after Operation Desert Storm. The A2 version of the M998 accounts for less than half of the Humvee fleet however, and despite efforts in the mid 1990’s to rebuild the aging fleet, cost ultimately precluded the proposals execution (see a related report at GlobalSecurity.org
Since the initiation of combat operations in Iraq last year, the Humvee has been the focus of a great deal of news media attention. Predominately, that attention has been focused on the Humvee’s lack of armor and the subsequent consequences when battling an asymmetrical threat. The most common version of the Humvee, the M998A1, however, is plagued by several other shortcomings that desperately need to be addressed.
Over the past month or so, the 1st Cavalry Division has received hundreds of M1114 “up-armored” Humvees. In addition to the M1114s, we’re also still receiving the “Add On Armor Kits.” All things being equal, we’d all rather have the M1114s. The AOA kits are a fine stopgap, and are definitely better than nothing, but there are serious deficiencies with the AOA kits and the Humvee in general that need to be addressed.
The Humvee was designed and fielded in the early 1980s, almost 25 years ago. If you were old enough to drive in 1980, take a moment to reflect on what you were driving then, compared to what is available today. The Humvee is a workhorse without a doubt, but it is a workhorse that was designed for a linear battlefield.
Humvees weren’t designed to be on point, as they are day after day here in Iraq. The nature of combat here in Iraq requires that they travel at speeds in excess of 70 mph. through the urban sprawl of Baghdad, complete with thousands of Iraqi motorists.
While the Humvee is unsurpassed in its cross-country characteristics, its road manners need some help. The basic chassis and suspension of the Humvee are remarkable, even by today’s standards. However, when you add a couple thousand pounds of armor (AOA), and another few thousand pounds in sandbags, you are quickly going to exceed the Humvee’s capacity. The proof is in the pudding as they say, and our supply parts requisitions speak for themselves.
Our Humvees constantly blow out tires, shocks, tie rods, and ball joints. Last week, we even saw a Humvee whose upper and lower A-Arms were quite literally rolled upward due to the weight of the vehicle. All that excess weight, and the current suspension’s inability to support it, makes the Humvee a lot of fun to drive at 70 mph!
I strongly believe that PM-LTV should immediately authorize unit-level maintenance to exchange M998 springs, shocks, and suspension components, for those of the heavier M1097s or M1114s. That would make an immediate difference to the Humvee’s performance here on the ground, until a more permanent solution can be developed.
Just as important as the suspension is the Humvee’s lack of muscle. Most of our Humvees here are M998A1s, sporting the GMC 6.2 Diesel engine. This is a diesel boosting an astounding 150 horsepower at 3,600 rpm. Of course, the normal operating range of the Humvee engine is between 1,500 to 2,300 rpm. Without looking at the engine’s power curve, I’d suggest that would put the Humvee’s usable horsepower somewhere around 90 horsepower.
But horsepower alone is a poor judge of performance. You really have to consider the power-to-weight ratio of the vehicle. Assuming a stock M998 Humvee’s curb weight is roughly 5,200 lbs, the M998A1 Humvee has a peak power to weight ratio of 33.3:1 (33 lbs. for every hp).
In order to move the Humvee in accordance with the operational requirements of modern combat, our Humvee fleet needs to be refitted with modern diesel engines. Even the “new” 6.5L engines in the M998A2s only produce a measly 160hp at 3,500 rpm’s – an increase of only 10 hp. As a final base of reference the modern Duramax 6600 diesel engine produces 300 bhp. at 3,100rpm, while achieving 15-20 percent improved fuel economy over the 6.5L Duramax. The Duramax 6600 can most readily be found in the Chevy Silverado, a vehicle that weights 5,800 lbs. when configured in a standard cab configuration, giving the Chevy truck a power-to-weight ratio of 19:1, a marked improvement!
The next major area that needs improvement is the transfer case. There are a lot of soldiers out there driving around in Humvees who don’t fully understand how the Humvee transfer is intended to be used. More than one transfer has suffered as a result.
In order to shift from High to Low, or Low back to High in a Humvee, you have to actually turn off the Humvee engine, place the transmission in neutral, shift the transfer case, and then restart the Humvee. Of course, typically when you find that you need four-wheel drive, stopping is a pretty bad idea, and turning off the vehicle is an even worse idea. I would argue that the manual shifter should be retained, versus the adoption of a push-button system. It is critical that a driver be able to shift into four-wheel drive on the move.
Of critical importance is the addition of a vehicle intercommunications system, similar to the VIC3, or LVIS system by Gentex. Communication inside of a moving Humvee has always been an issue, requiring that the truck commander yell over the engine (which just happens to sit right between the driver and TC) and road noise to communicate with the driver or gunner. At 70 mph., however, it is nearly impossible to hear the radio even with the handset to your ear, to say nothing of communicating with the driver.
The VIC3 or LVIS systems would provide a very simple, readily available solution to a fleet wide problem. By integrating active hearing protection technology offered by an assortment of companies, a major effect of IED blasts, hearing loss, would be negated.
Headsets are commercially available (TASC-II) that would allow the crew to be equipped with a system that could be integrated into the new ACH helmets, subsequently allowing the crew to retain their ballistic head protection and precluding the need for the crew to exchange head protection when dismounted.
Another area of concern is the current prevalence of locally fabricated “Mad Max” gun trucks. In spite of our OTVs, SAPI Plates, and ACH Helmets, it’s a very naked feeling to man a machine gun in the open bed of a Humvee. As a result, individual units have contracted, scrounged, and procured sheet steel, and locally fabricated steel tubs, to offer their crews and gunners some protection.
The quality of design and construction varies dramatically, from fairly well manufactured, to rolling deathtraps. As a rule, most of the steel being used is local sheet steel, 4 mm. in thickness. Most of that steel is carbon steel, which will offer very little protection from anything short of a thrown rock. Worse, if a high velocity round hits carbon steel, not only will the round penetrate, but the steel will spall, adding to the potential presented by flying projectiles.
If you’re particularly unlucky, the initial steel plating might slow down the round just enough to prevent it from penetrating the opposite sheet of steel, causing the round to instead ricochet around the inside of the tub until its energy is expended, or it finds a nice soft piece of human flesh to bury itself in.
The solution is not to band the unit’s initiative by preventing them from fabricating armor tubs. The solution is to provide a standard Humvee Gun Tub for both cargo and command configurations. Until the Army Acquisition Corps can meet the requirement, units can requisition MIL SPEC (Mil-A-46100) Sheets of Armor (8 mm.) using NSN 9515-01-035-7730. By providing the local fabricators (whether they be U.S. servicemen or local nationals) with valid sheet armor, at least the steel itself can be counted on to meet the challenges presented by today’s modern high-velocity rifles.
There are a couple of miscellaneous issues that should also be addressed with the Humvee. Whoever designed the troop seats in the troop carrier had never been off a TRADOC installation. When traveling in the back of a Humvee during combat operations, the last thing a soldier wants to do is present his or her back to the enemy. Burtek manufactures a water tank/troop seat that seats 6-8 soldiers on an integrated water tank, back to back, facing outwards). The water tank would significantly help the volume of water available to the soldiers, a critical consideration when you realize that the Army’s units are MTOEd for a temperate climate, versus the arid climate in which we’ve fought our last two major wars.
This is purely a side note, but my unit’s S-4 told me prior to crossing the border into Iraq that our entire battalion only had enough water for 18 hours because it didn’t have enough water buffalos to transport the required quantity of water. The thought of running out of water during combat operations in the desert is not a good one.
Another area that could be addressed is the three-speed automatic transmission that lacks a parking gear. The Air Force has four-speed automatic transmissions in all of its Humvees, so why don’t we? Army Humvees actually get driven off the golf course.
In closure, the entire Army Humvee fleet needs to brought up to an A3 standard, if we assume the adoption of the previously mentioned modifications would create a new Humvee standard. The retrofit could be completed at the direct support level, by simply swapping out components as they fail. The failure of a major component, such as the engine, would prompt the total overhaul of the vehicle in question, resulting in an A3 retrofit.
As our Army continues to face extended combat operations against terrorists and insurgents, soldiers need to be able to ride into battle in a vehicle worthy of their trust and confidence.
When the Army considers the cost of upgrading its Humvee fleet, it should take time to consider the cost of each soldier it loses as a result of antiquated equipment, and the subsequent impact of that soldier’s loss when presented by an increasingly hostile news media.
Capt. Wayne Hommer USA is the pen name of a U.S. Army officer serving on active duty in Iraq. He can be reached by sending emails to dweditor@yahoo.com for forwarding to him in Iraq. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
How are those Strykers working out?
One of the worst aspects of the Humvee's construction is the use of fiberglass panels for the structure of the main body, floor and forward hood panel. The soldiers have had to use bullet resistant vests on the floors and side walls to resist enemy small-arms fire. <Pathetic!
Once a fire erupts in or on the vehicle, it will continue to burn, right to the ground, with nothing left but the frame rails. The insurgents know this and love to burn these vehicles!!
These vehicles need a fire resistant steel structure, that can resist a rollover and gunfire, even if it adds a bit of weight.
When they get done "up-armoring" all the Humvee's, they still have a Humvee. And a very expensive one at that. They weren't meant for the purpose they are being used for. Better to slow down, and use the old APC. Even then, resistance to the new RPG rounds (although not plentiful-yet)is not great.
More like 75-80 hp at that rpm.
As a final base of reference the modern Duramax 6600 diesel engine produces 300 bhp. at 3,100rpm, while achieving 15-20 percent improved fuel economy over the 6.5L Duramax.
Not a fair comparison. The new Duramax (as well as Ford's Powerstroke Diesel and the Cummins Diesel used by Dodge) use turbochargers and ultra-high pressure injectors (on the order of 30000 psi). I have a feeling those features would make the Humvee a lemon in a battlefield environment.
I agree with everything, except for the Cheesy Duramax (Isuzu) diesel engine.
Why not use the USA build Cummins 5.9 "600" series engine?
1. 325 horsepower
2. 600 ft lbs torque
3. rated for GVW of 38,000!!!!!!!!!!!!
4. 40% more rod bearing surface than the Duramax (Isuzu)
5. Makes peak torque MUCH lower in the RPM range.
6. These engines typically run to 400,000 miles.
7. First schedualed rebuild is at 350,000 miles.
8. 4 factory overbore sized kits available (These engines are NOT throw-aways)!
8. Less parts to maintain than Duramax (Isuzu)
9. Parts are generally 40% to 60% cheaper than Duramax parts.
10. Available at your local Dodge dealer this fall :)
These are just a few advantages of the Cummins 5.9 "600" series.
Turbos and direct injection have NOT been proven to be a liability. Heck, even I can work on my Cummins in my driveway.....LOL. Ever seen a duramax? It defines the word "clutter".
Oh yea, I forgot, in my previous post.
11. Ease of maintenance.
Gee wiz!!!
Its a friggin truck...Not an APC!
Sure you can throw a chain gun or a .50 cal on top...But thats about it...
Although I do like how they have "multi-purposed" this vehicle, from its basic design...Its still just a truck...
It gets really bad MPG...It does not maneuver all that well in tight spots...But its not a tank or APC, so it has a general non-assault function...Certainly not an assault vehicle either...
It does patrol and support, it can tow just about any kind of trailer to its capacity...
But its still just a truck...
If they want more protection for the troops...Get more Bradleys and M-1's out there...Sure that kinda bites into the ole budget...But an incoming bang recieved in one of those is certainly more tolerable than in a Hummer...
The Germans in WW2 had a V-shaped compartmented, 6 wheeled vehicle...I forget the name and or designation...It had a heavy MG in a small turret on top, and in some configurations it could carry 6 troops (including crew), an communications mast to be a command vehicle...etc etc...
The russians copied it as well...
Not sure if it had a amphibious capability (I doubt it)...
Guess I should get to the drawing board and refine that design and win a big government contract and tell them to stop messing with a good thing...
Ehhhh...
Later,
Steve
I figured our humvees would have had some changes incorporated after the Somalia experience. They seemed woefully inadequate for the runs thru Mogadishu and evidently little has changed. Perhaps they're just a rear echelon transporter stuck in another frontless war. As has been discussed in several threads there are effective looking alternatives that offer some blast protection but they have yet to win the number of supporters needed to effect change.
mc
Guy pretty much nails it on the head. But, DOD is not currently buying any HMMWV version except the M1114. Of course, there are still lots of M998's in the inventory, but that problem will take care of itself shortly - the M998 will all be scrap metal due to use and abuse and the shortcomings mentioned in this article.
We need a new wheeled vehicle - actually several types - combat, utility, command, etc.
Depends on who you listen to. Better than some thought they would. Not as well as many hoped. Not many unbiased, honest brokers who don't have a dog in that fight reporting on 3/2 lately.
They would in all likelihood be a liability on the battlefield. Turbos require much more rigorous maintenance schedules than non-forced induction engines. The high pressure injectors have indeed been somewhat of a liability for both Cummins and the Powerstroke. They require much better fuel filtering and are horribly expensive to replace.
I'm a big fan of the Cummins - but there's a reason the Army doesn't have turbocharged Humvees...
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.