Skip to comments.Armored Humvee replacement competition
Posted on 03/29/2006 9:42:10 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
Set Condition 1 has some info on the contenders: Bushmaster meets the competition in the US
Airborne Combat Engineer notes The Army is looking at off-the-shelf vehicles and asks Why not buy an interim replacement for the Humvee?
Joe Katzman: Hummer Deathtraps Suck: Take 2
UPDATE: I knew I'd seen another good post on the Humvee problem just recently. In an update to his post, Joe K points out Washington Park Prophet's, um, The Humvee Problem.
For the record, Murdoc isn't necessarily down on the Humvee. But Murdoc's down on the fact that our military seems to be reacting in slow motion to this problem.
Yes, the military is a massive bureaucratic juggernaut that's about as easy to turn as a loaded supertanker and I realize that it can't just replace the Humvee overnight. But it almost seems like the decision-makers are waiting it out, hoping that Iraq settles down soon enough to head off a major course change. This, of course, doesn't seem terribly likely to happen in the first place, and it ignores the fact that we'd then be facing our next military challenge with the same Achilles heel. Not to mention the number of lives and limbs lost between now and then.
...insurgent groups around the world are upping the number of bomb-makers in their.ranks... Similar to my position on Marines in Iraq using the lightly-armored Amtrac, I recognize that just up and switching vehicles because of a particular shortcoming in a particular environment isn't generally wise. But this environment is here to stay, as is the shortcoming, so it makes sense to make a few adjustments.
No light vehicle is ever going to be bomb-proof. Some of these IEDs blow tanks to pieces. But a vehicle better-suited to the environment would do wonders for the cause.
Do not forget that every potential enemy is eating the Humvee's performance up. Potential terrorist/insurgent/jihadists are stockpiling IED material as we speak. Just as the US military is increasing the number of special forces operators and snipers, insurgent groups around the world are upping the number of bomb-makers in their ranks, hoping (waiting) for a chance to blow a passing Humvee loaded with infidels to smithereens. You know it's true.
BAE Systems RG-32M
Force Protection Inc. Cougar
Force Protection Buffalo
General Dynamics Land Systems RG-31
General Purpose Vehicles: Commander
LENCO Bearcat armored truck
Lawrence Livermore National Labs Gun Box
Oshkosh Truck Corp. Bushmaster
Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. Multipurpose Troop Transport Carrier System Box
Textron Marine Land System Armored Security Vehicle, Guardian
Windhoeker Maschinenfabrik WerWolf Mk II
If our next conflict is in open country, Bradleys and Tanks will lead the way and the HumVee replacement will be called an overweight doorstop, unable to manuver in tough terrain.
The HumVee was never supposed to be an armored venhicl. It's a damned good replacement for the Jeep.
We need an armoured urban combat vehicle, they should be popular with police forces worldwide too, but that's not what the HumVee or its replacement needs to be.
Open country is just what we manuever through on the way to the enemy's key terrain, which usually isn't out in the boonies.
The HumVee is too wide to get through the streets and alleys of the Afghanistan villages in the highlands. In one raid - the Americans traveled to the outskirts of town in Hum's and then transfered to the Afghan Forces Toyotas for the actual raid on a Taliban outpost in town. The Hum's couldn't get there!
I'll repost this with a page reference later!
Anyone have similar comments from cities in Iraq??
Take another look at Textron Land Systems entry. I believe that that one is the one that I would saddle up in, because of the visible armament.
The Canadians could have had humvees. The chose G-Wagons.
I hear these don't hold up as well to IED's as HMMWV's.
Looks never do tell the full story.
Which ones did the South African's develop?
They had a V shaped bottom which makes more sense...
OSHKOSH, Wis., Mar 06, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Oshkosh Truck Corporation (NYSE:OSK), a leading manufacturer of specialty trucks and truck bodies, announced today that it has added an armored vehicle to its stable of combat-proven military trucks. Under a licensing agreement with the vehicle's developer, ADI Limited of Australia, Oshkosh Truck will market, manufacture and support the Bushmaster armored vehicle for North American customers as well as countries eligible for Foreign Military Sales. Senior executives from both companies signed the agreement at a ceremony held at the Australian Embassy, on Friday, Feb. 24.
The Bushmaster was originally developed by ADI, in conjunction with the Australian Defence Force. The vehicle is mine-blast resistant due to its v-shaped hull, and its armor provides IED and ballistic protection to its occupants. The vehicle's mission profile requires it to travel long distances over rough terrain and deliver its occupants to their destination as safely and comfortably as possible, making them more effective in a tactical environment. There are currently over 100 Bushmaster vehicles in service with the Australian Defence Forces, with a number of the vehicles deployed with Australian units in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. An additional 200 vehicles are under contract and scheduled for production at ADI's Bendigo (Australia) facility.
"The Bushmaster provides Oshkosh Truck with an even greater ability to support our customer through a wider spectrum of conflict", said John Stoddart, Oshkosh's executive vice president and president, defense. "As threats and the nature of conflict have evolved, the need for vehicles offering greater safety has grown. This vehicle can meet that need by not only improving troop safety, but delivering the level of performance the military expects from an Oshkosh vehicle."
Oshkosh plans to manufacture Bushmaster vehicles at its defense manufacturing facility in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and can support significant volumes of Bushmaster vehicle production if required. ADI's Bendigo facility will work in conjunction with Oshkosh Truck to support any increase in demand.
Steps are also being taken to integrate components currently used on Oshkosh Truck's fleet of military logistics vehicles. This will increase parts commonality between the Bushmaster and vehicles currently used by the U.S. military, making it easier and less expensive for the U.S. military to supply logistics to a Bushmaster fleet. Oshkosh Truck is already providing logistics support to the Australian Bushmaster fleet in Iraq and Afghanistan through its global parts and service network.
Oshkosh Truck Corporation (NYSE:OSK) is a leading manufacturer of specialty trucks and truck bodies for the defense, fire and emergency, concrete placement and refuse hauling markets. Oshkosh Truck is a Fortune 1000 company with products marketed under the Oshkosh(R), Pierce(R), McNeilus(R), Medtec(TM), Geesink(R), Norba(R), Jerr-Dan(R), CON-E-CO(R) and London(R) brand names. The company is headquartered in Oshkosh, Wis., and had annual sales of $2.96 billion in fiscal 2005. To learn more about Oshkosh Truck Corporation, visit its web site at www.oshkoshtruckcorporation.com
I don't believe they've left out the famous "Herkimer Battle Jitney" the finest nonlethal combat vehicle ever made! I'd paste a pic if I knew how.
it's called fennek
*********AN EXCERPT *********************
The Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicle is an Australian designed and built wheeled armoured vehicle produced by Australian Defence Industries Limited (ADI). The Bushmaster is designed for operations in northern Australia, and is capable of carrying 9 soldiers and their equipment, fuel and supplies for 3 days.
This issue tears me up. We can probably all agree that general transport in combat zones should be able to protect our guys from small arms fire.
We might even be able to agree that all such combat vehicles have V-hulls so that they can better survive mines/IEDs.
But some of those vehicles above are entirely inappropriate for running logistics and errands.
Don't get me wrong, scout and recon vehicles should be better armored (but even so they've got to be fast and quiet in order to sneak around)...
...and our armored personnel carriers should be improved...
...but the HMMWV is designed for what 4 to 6 people? This is the vehicle that you get in to go from one part of the base to another...something that doing all day in an M1A1 would probably strike all of us as inappropriate.
You need a general purpose vehicle for rear echelon logistics. Take the HMMWV, change its flat underbody to a V-hull with just enough armor to withstand running over a small ex-Soviet mortar, bullet-proof the sides and glass...and use that for non-combat purposes in the rear of war zones (e.g. bases, single-person transport, etc.).
Then use an armored vehicle like those shown above for recon and combat patrols. That's something that a general purpose vehicle isn't designed for.
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?
It's called Dingo.
Perhaps we limit recon and scouting in hot zones to Strykers...separating those tasks from general purpose errands and such for existing HMMVW's.
OAS (in South African) produces both the RG-31 and the RG-32. OAS is a wholly owned subsidiary of BAE Systems but General Dynamics has the marketing rights for the RG-31. The Buffalo, produced by Force Protection (in South Carolina) is a derivative of a South African design.
That's very true and very real...but...combat fatigue and road weariness impacts even the otherwise alert motorcycle rider after enough miles.
Which is to say, you can only be alert for so long. When you are alert, or capable of being alert, then being able to bail out has high value. For longer duty, however, you'd better have some small-arms armor protection. You can't forever remain so alert as to avoid getting shot, after all. For the long-term, you need armor.
Understanding the above, it makes sense that hyper-alert Special Forces put a premium on mobility rather than on armor for their hit-hard, hit-fast missions.
But longer-term SOF (e.g. a 2 week sniper mission) will use the armor of camoflage...an option frequently not available to GI's riding on a road in a GP vehicle (hence, the need for some armor).
There is a place for max mobility, minimum armor. There is a place for maximum armor. And most other places require varying degrees of compromises...keeping in mind that historically our casualties have declined as our armor has increased (because people can't be alert 24/7).
Which is to say, you can only be alert for so long.
I still have this thing about being in confined spaces.
12+ lbs of anti-tank exposive, and no one hurt. Pretty impressive
Armored Security Vehicle 131 is a premier platform that is being used for convoy and route security in Iraq. The ASV employs the MK-19 grenade machine gun (turret mounted), M-2 .50-caliber machine gun (turret mounted), and the M-249 5.56mm Squad Automatic Weapon. ASV 131 arrived in Iraq in late June.
Armored Security Vehicle is highly-mobile and C-130 Aircraft transportable. The vehicle's armor is capable of resisting .50 caliber armor piercing rounds and has the capability to deflect up to a 12-pound mine blast. This particular M1117 blew an o-ring in the wheel solenoid and was repaired at Camp Liberty, Iraq, April 5, 2005.
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.