# HMMWV Replacement Contestants Down To 3



## Centermass (Aug 23, 2012)

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 (Aug 23, 2012)

The finalists look like an MRAP "legitmately raped" a HMMWV and that's what drove out of the gaping maw some months later.


----------



## Etype (Aug 23, 2012)

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 (Aug 23, 2012)

Etype said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2012)

Etype said:


> .... 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.


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.


----------



## Grimfury160 (Aug 28, 2012)

Abnormally large still, what about more compact low to the ground replacement? The HMMV fleet is well aged and needs to be replaced as it is!
With the budgeting scare just go to Datsun's with armor plates.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 28, 2012)

Yeah, since ground clearance isn't at all a factor in offroad capability.....


----------



## Grimfury160 (Aug 29, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> 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.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 29, 2012)

Those last photos remind me of one of the newer 4-door Jeeps.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 29, 2012)

Grimfury160 said:


> 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 (Aug 29, 2012)

Grimfury160 said:


> 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 (Aug 29, 2012)

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 (Aug 30, 2012)

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.


----------



## ÉIREGOBRÁCH1922 (Aug 30, 2012)

I think it was a good choice when the Irish Defence Forces settled on the RG-32M5 light tactical vehicle made by BAE Systems.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 30, 2012)

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).


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 30, 2012)

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.


----------



## Grimfury160 (Aug 30, 2012)

ÉIREGOBRÁCH1922 said:


> I think it was a good choice when the Irish Defence Forces settled on the RG-32M5 light tactical vehicle made by BAE Systems.
> 
> View attachment 6650


Very Nice!


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 10, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> 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 (Oct 11, 2012)

SOWT said:


> 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 (Jan 30, 2014)

TheSiatonist said:


> These were posted on ARFCom a few months back...
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/tWRK1.jpg
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 30, 2014)

Draneol said:


> 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.



You do realize those vehicles were living in a friggin combat zone at 120*F and the windows were cleaned with whatever polluted groundwater could be found 1/2 the time, right?  You do understand the word 'Combat'...  or is it not technical enough, there sharpshooter?

It is nice that you have some knowledge, but your post does not come across as somebody who ever spent any time in the military, unless it was in a rear support function.

ETA-  maybe the distorted blots are where bullets hit the windows and left a mark?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 30, 2014)

Ballistic glass varies in construction, and what the military uses is intended for seeing the light of day... When the shit's dirty/fogging up and you need to get from point A to point B and can't see shit, spit/piss/water/windex/loogies are what you use to clean the windshield with the sleeve of your uniform... not some specialized cleaner and nice clean specialty material fabrics that don't exist when you're on a patrol in an armored vehicle in the desert.


----------



## Draneol (Jan 31, 2014)

I didn't mean to step on anyones toes, my apologies.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 31, 2014)

Draneol said:


> I didn't mean to step on anyones toes, my apologies.



Just trying to drag you out of the lab and into the real world...  and trust me, the real world is not as pretty as a lab even after an explosion in said lab...

...and never assume that the people you are talking to are idiots and know nothing of your subject matter, you will not impress most crowds with condescending, pseudo intellectual, 'I'm smarter than you' bullshit...  some of us actually understand layered composite reactive armor... believe it or not...


----------



## Red-Dot (Feb 1, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> Ballistic glass varies in construction, and what the military uses is intended for seeing the light of day... When the shit's dirty/fogging up and you need to get from point A to point B and can't see shit, spit/piss/water/windex/loogies are what you use to clean the windshield with the sleeve of your uniform... not some specialized cleaner and nice clean specialty material fabrics that don't exist when you're on a patrol in an armored vehicle in the desert.



Rip-it's work good...


----------



## roketsciontist (Apr 27, 2014)

I'm back after a long hiatus from this website.  Have you guys checked out the new GMV 1.1 which USSOCOM has awarded a contract to General Dynamics - Ordnance and Tactical Systems? Public record shows that they are using a modified Flyer Defense design.  Officially I am NOT the "SOCOM Chief Vehicle Engineer" if there was such a title.  I'm gonna assume that they will have an early version of this vehicle on display at SOFIC next month...hopefully there will be some public release pictures to share at that time.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 3, 2014)

Kind of old news, I remember AFSOC buying a bunch last summer.  And it seems that only SOF types get mobility, and those of us that need stuff for our mission get the finger (Bradley as a Recce Platform).


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 5, 2014)

You became a armored cavalry scout and you complaining that you have a Bradley for a recce vehicle?

LMAO. 

If you ever get the chance during your career to put eyes on the enemy, much less have the need to engage that enemy, you will learn to appreciate that Bradley.


----------



## x SF med (May 5, 2014)

JAB said:


> You became a armored cavalry scout and you complaining that you have a Bradley for a recce vehicle?
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> If you ever get the chance during your career to put eyes on the enemy, much less have the need to engage that enemy, you will learn to appreciate that Bradley.



@ThunderHorse -I was a Mech Infantry guy at one time...  we had the M113...  Cav Scouts had jeeps or CucV's or HMMVs...   or shoe leather...  don't bitch about the Bradley, it offers speed, firepower and protection...  unless you want to go back to horses.

JAB is right.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 5, 2014)

As a light guy attached to 1st CAV I develop a strong love to seeing a Bradley show up to a fire fight. The Bradley and the Apache are two of the finest fire support assets in an urban environment.  That and if I was going to be part of a large scale conventional maneuver war, as a scout or as infantry, I would want that Bradley.

My $.02


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 22, 2014)

What the Bradley can do I like.  However for armored recce, I'd rather have the British Scimitar.  Smaller profile, fast, big gun.  And then since we're in a 3x5 mix I'd like some of the GMV 1.1s.

And damn that turret is small.


----------

