JLTV is dead. Meet the future Humvee.
Via Jonathan and
Defense-Update.
The new suspension offers the vehicle a 70 percent off-road profile
capability. The new suspension restores a 2,500-pound vehicle payload capacity
in addition to the armor and occupants. Introducing 14 inches of independent
wheel travel, the HMMWV can overcome obstacles and navigate rugged, mountainous
environments. The vehicle’s performance is also improved in 40 percent increase
in the maximum speed and a 46 percent improvement in braking. With ground
clearance increases to 17 inches, and additional payload capacity, an
under-vehicle V-shaped panel can be added, to further improve survivability from
mine blasts and IEDs. The higher ground clearance further improves mobility and
occupant visibility.
It's a great conversion, and especially an affordable one compared to JLTV/MRAP et al.
ReplyDeleteWhat worries me is its height; it may survive an IED blast, but after a roll-over you might still have troops stuck in an ambush.
good point Marcase but that's why there are roll over training stations at every base. consider it an immersion trainer but instead of training for helicopter accidents you're training for a rolled over vehicle.
ReplyDeletebut the main thing is that this takes a big expense off the Marine Corps plate. no JLTV means more money for other projects and i'm willing to bet the Army will follow suit.
Is this going to be a full RESET or a simply upgrade package? Some of those HM frames have got to be feeling the stress of hard use so I guess the former will be more sensible in the long run?
ReplyDeleteAlso, will the new vehicle with weapon mounts etc still fit into a C-130 or the upcoming CH-53K? Both weight and height would be a tight squeeze eh?
With a renewed commitment to the Humvee, will anyone question the sale of Hummer to China?
ReplyDeleteI'm concerned...
So,
ReplyDeleteWe take a vehicle with a roll over issue and jack it up. Anyone else see the issue? Also, let all take into account the fact that this program has failed to take into account the largest issue with the HMMWV, human factors. If anyone has ever spent time in the back seat of one of these trucks (I have, in Iraq) then they know they are death traps. Love this truck, love it without armor and it may be the best vehicle the Army has ever developed, but its time to move on. I will admitt that this was a good try. You can't make a brick fly, so stop trying.
did you read the article?
ReplyDeletenot only is it being 'lifted' but it will have an armored capsule designed for it. if we can save money by redesigning an existing vehicle then why not try?
It makes obvious sense to develop what you have rather than develop new, it's something I think the military should do a lot more of
ReplyDeleteBut diminishing returns means at some point you have to break with the past and go something new
The UK has been working with lots of older designs, upgrading them but in what I think is a pretty major decision and one for the better, is the recent adoption of the FPE Ocelot.
A fresh piece of paper design can unshackle itself from the constraints of the old and come up with something much much better
Sol,
ReplyDeleteI did read the article. Not the smartest person in the world and I am sure I likely missed something but I am pretty sure it says nothing about increasing the ability of the war fighter inside. Mostly, the article talked about off road performance, braking and IED protection. To me, that means they have increased the performance but not the internal volume. The features they have increased are all things that as a former officer are greatly appreciated. I just believe that there is much more to a combat vehicle than these factors. The most dangerous weapon in that vehicle is the Marine or Soldier inside.
We as industry should be building vehicles that support war fighters, not creating war fighters that support vehicles.
Think Defense and Sol, I agree and disagree. Each vehicle should be evaluated on its own to see how it best supports the mission it is designed for and how improvements might increase performance and affordability. How much can we push into a vehicle before we start endangering lives (Stryker) (Bradley) (LAV) (EFV) (HMMWV) (MRAP)? Also, with the way technology is advancing, how can we not look at newer options? There are some options that are affordable and still provide increase capability.
Interesting. Whilst the improvements in mobility will be very welcome, a more important factor will be whether the improved HMMWV can offer the same levels of blast and ballistic protection as next-gen alternatives such as JLTV.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as Think Defence points out, diminishing returns means at some point you have to break with the past and go something new, which is why JLTV, LPPV (UK) and LAND 121 Phase 4 (Australia) came about. The improved HMMWV probably won't be able to complete in terms of C4I and exportable power either.
I don't think it is an either/or decision - there seems to be an operational justification for both types of vehicle (the improved HMMWV AND the next-gen alternative). But in times of severe budget cuts, will the accountants win over the Generals...?
everyone is forgetting that if we ever run into another heavily infested ied area again, that we'll have plenty of excess MRAPs in storage.
ReplyDeleteas far as the USMC is concerned, we're bumping up against the weight limitations of current and even future amphibs. at one time they were cubing out ... now they're in danger of just having equipment on board that just too damn heavy.
the LPPV is the most attractive option i've seen in the new vehicles you mentioned but the rest of them really offer no improvement in power generation or C4I...and lets be real...that can added on relatively easily.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteYou can put radio's in a row boat. We should be building vehicles that are in a organic form, good trucks, not wiz bang. Think we all agree on the real topic, the best truck for the mission. It becomes a topic of economics.
Sol - firstly, MRAPs are way too heavy and lack the off-road mobility of smaller, lighter alternatives. Isn't that why M-ATV came in?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, as you rightly point out, weight is the real issue for expeditionary forces like the USMC and island nations like the Aussies. So what's required is something with high levels of protection (blast and ballistic) at a low weight.
While power generation and C4I can be added on relatively easily, to do a retro-fit to an existing vehicle will increase the weight significantly, so a 'clean sheet' approach is justified.
I think a key differentiator will be a vehicle that has the capability to 'plug-and-play' current AND future C4I while keeping the weight down.
More important still will be the ability to offer large amounts of exportable power at a low weight - this will be the toughet challenge, since more batteries = significantly more weight. Do any of these vehicles have an inline starter/generator (ISG) (ala GD Piranha) that could generate large amounts of electrical power at a lower weight? That might solve the problem.