Skip to comments.Armored Humvee replacement competition
Posted on 03/29/2006 9:42:10 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
click here to read article
The HumVee was never supposed to be an armored vehicle. It's a damned good replacement for the Jeep.
Some mighty expensive looking vehicles there.
The US Rangers have already done this. The Humvee was too big, cumbersome and slow for special forces missions so they bought Land Rover Defenders for the role, very similar to the legendary 'pink panthers' used for decades by the SAS.
There were times I was just really happy to be a boot on the ground vs riding in any PG7 Magnet.......
Also look at the front bumper of the vehicle that globalheater posted-see the built in tow cable? Excellent idea. Otherwise I am not too sure about the vehicle as it appears to suffer from the same explosion absorbing flat bottom as the hummer.
Cougar, Buffalo, and RG-31 has been pretty promising as it proved its survivability in Iraq. GPV Commander is attractive for its ability, but rather a candidate of FTTS/FCS/APC for its size, replacing Stryker instead of Hummer. I rather see Buffalo as an APC rather than a multi-purpose vehicle. I would recommend ASV-150 Guardian as the best candidate. While it is several times more expensive than UAH, it costs less than Stryker, and is a four wheeled vehicle. It also has a turret on top which could install grenade launcher systems, and also automated gun system. The use of turret is a big advantage when considering threats from above, IED, and snipers as well. ASV-150 also has three levels of armor, which will allow ASV-150 to be used in non-combat missions without carrying extra weight of armor. While the cost may be concerning, its feature and price below Stryker will still allow mass production at affordinble price. LAV-150 also has a history used by foreign countries (ASV-150 is also used by ISF in Iraq), and could be something worth for exports, which will allow a cost down, improving its cost performance. However, Textron has been suffering damage from Hurrican Katrina. Let's hope they will get into the race replacing Hummers.
With additional armor, ASV-150 has survivability against RPG-7 (however, ability to drive after attack is another problem). I would also guess it will have at least better protection than hummers.
Exactly. Eliminating a general purpose utility vehicle because its not suitable for certain missions in certain environments is nuts. Every vehicle has some drawbacks. A v-shaped undercarriage is either going to raise the profile or reduce ground clearance. More armor will lead to suspension problems and much higher fuel consumption, etc.
Just as one example, exactly how many IED have we encountered in Afghanistan? That's just not a threat we're going to have to face in every future environment. We may fall into the fateful trap of fighting the "last war", because by the time the humvee is completely replaced, our involvement in Iraq is going to be much different than it is today.
Sunday, Mar 12
Four soldiers were killed west of Asadabad, Afghanistan, on March 12, when an improvised explosive device detonated near their HMMWV during combat operations.
Killed were three members of the Army Reserve's 391st Engineer Battalion, Asheville, North Carolina:
Sgt. Kevin D. Akins, 29, of Burnsville, North Carolina.
Spc. Joshua L. Hill, 24, of Fairmount, Indiana.
Staff Sgt. Joseph, R. Ray, 29, of Asheville, North Carolina.
Also killed was:
Sgt. Anton J. Hiett, 25, of Mount Airy, North Carolina. Hiett was assigned to the Army Reserve's 391st Engineer Battalion, Greenville, South Carolina.
Tuesday, Feb 28
Master Sgt. Emigdio E. Elizarraras, 37, of Pico Rivera, California, died in Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan on February 28, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his HMMWV during a reconnaissance mission. Elizarraras was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Tuesday, Feb 13
Four Soldiers died February 13 when a roadside bomb detonated near their Humvee during north of Deh Rawod, Afghanistan. Killed were:
Two of the killed were members of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. They were:
Sgt. 1st Class Chad A. Gonsalves, 31, of Turlock, California.
Staff Sgt. Edwin H. Dazachacon, 38, of Belleville, Illinois.
One of the soldier killed was member of the Group Support Battalion. He was:
Sgt. Alberto D. Montrond, 27, of Suffolk, Mass. He was assigned to the Group Support Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg.
The fourth soldier killed was:
Staff Sgt. Clinton T. Newman, 26, of San Antonio. Newman was assigned to the 321st Civil Affairs Brigade, San Antonio.
Friday, Jan 27
Lance Cpl. Billy D. Brixey Jr., 21, of Ferriday, Louisiana, died January 27 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, from wounds received as a result of an improvised explosive device while traveling in a convoy in Afghanistan on January 25. Brixey was assigned to 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. During Operation Enduring Freedom, his unit was attached to 3rd Marine Logistics Group, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan.
There was that, but being alert 24/7 isn't possible. Also, consider that we had very high casualties in Vietnam (58,000 fatalities alone), Korea, and WW2 (first mechanized GP transportation in war).
The year and a half that it took us to smash Germany/Austria/Hungary in the First World War had enormous casualties, and armor was very rare.
Our fatalities were higher still in the War Between the States (only armor was on a couple of trains and ironclad warships).
So if you map U.S. fatalities over time versus armor, you'll see a declining fatality trend that coincides with a rising armor trend, overall (i.e. speaking very, very broadly).
But...that does not mean that we go to all armor everywhere.
It does show that it makes sense for GP vehicles to be bulletproof for small arms fire. It probably means that even our light GP vehicles should be designed with IEDs/mines in mind (e.g. V-hulls rather than flat bottoms).
It probably means that our existing APC's should all have slat fencing installed for RPG protection, too.
Of course, that's just one side of the equation: defense. Offense is still the way to win wars.
What we're all really doing is recognizing that our enemies don't want to face our offensive capabilities anymore. Rather than fight us in the air, enemy nations are mostly grounding their warcraft (e.g. Serbia 1999, Bosnia 1994, Iraq 1991, Iraq 2003, etc.). Then we noticed that our enemies didn't even want to use their tanks against our armor. Now we're seeing that even fanatical terrorists prefer to plant mines first to then later pray that we run over them...rather than fight our ground forces.
So really what we are facing are the reactions to our Offensive capabilities.
Nonetheless, we've still got to improve our defense.
Also, consider that we had very high casualties in Vietnam (58,000 fatalities alone)
Surely one of your points above is that we can do *better* than back then (not knocking what we did back then, just acknowledging that our tech and tactics and training are better now).
Perhaps we limit recon and scouting in hot zones to Strykers...separating those tasks from general purpose errands and such for existing HMMVW's.
You don't say.
Gee, I wonder what the GMV program was all about.
The faults with the HMMWV are: small internal relative to external volume; poor fit in the CH-47 and MH-47; undeniable US- and client-only vehicle. That, and two different complete sets of drivetrain parts, down to the rims and tires, which guarantee you to have the wrong parts at any given time.
The vehicle you link replaced not HMMWVs but a mixed bag of armed and roll-caged M151s, Toyota HiLux pickups, and Chenoweth sand rails, that were intended for mostly on-pavement activity such as airfield seizures.
Criminal Number 18F
OK, What is wrong with that picture? lol
Why is that barrel pointing at the M113 in front of it!
Judging from the tarp laying over the gun, I would say the photographer is a track rider and not a TC.
But whatever happened to the Armored Ground Mobility System?
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.