backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by callmeroy.. on Feb 9 at 9:04 AM


JLTV to Replace Humvee
Military will only buy enough Humvess to replenish losses

The U.S. military for years has used the Humvee as its “go to” vehicle for numerous tasks from general transportation to combat operations. The problem with using the Humvee in some situations is that the vehicle was not designed from the outset to be an armored vehicle leading to survivability issues in combat situations (i.e., roadside bombings).

In September 2007, word surfaced that the Army was testing Humvee's that used composite body panels to give the vehicle improved survivability on the modern battlefield. These new Humvees never saw deployment though. Rather than try to modify the existing Humvee design the U.S. military is instead abandoning the vehicle for a new design. 

Defense Tech reports that in the Pentagon's budget for 2010 only $1 million is allotted to replace vehicles lost to accident and war. There will be no purchases above the number required to replenish stocks. The South Bend Tribune reports that the Army will buy 2,600 additional Humvees that are being built at the AM General plant now and will not be buying more after March. There is over a billion dollars devoted to maintaining the existing Humvee fleet in the Pentagon budget.

The vehicle believed to be replacing the Humvee is called the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle or JLTV. The JLTV is a new vehicle that is being developed by multiple branches of the military including the Army and Marine Corps. The JLTV has been designed from the outset with multiple variants to meet the needs of various missions. 

Some of the variants will be armored to help soldiers survive roadside bombings and small arms fire during combat operations. In all five versions are expected including infantry combat vehicles and non-armored versions for use as ambulances, utility vehicles, and general purpose mobility. The JLTV has a higher payload than the Humvee as well. Six soldiers can ride in the JLTV in some versions with other versions carrying less depending on how it is outfitted.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/2/2010 11:47:30 AM , Rating: 1
Have the lessons of the T-34 been forgotten? Namely sloping armour is far more effective than straight.




RE: Why big slab sides?
By bissimo on 2/2/2010 11:51:22 AM , Rating: 1
As well as a low profile... This thing looks like it's 7 feet tall.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By GWD5318 on 2/2/2010 12:04:04 PM , Rating: 5
You guys realize that this thing actually has to carry troops and/or equipment, right? You can't have descent cargo capacity is a squished down angular profile. I mean, if you want low profile and angular, go armour up a Lamborghini or something. Just don't count on carrying too much with you or fording that river.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/2/2010 12:41:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You can't have descent cargo capacity is a squished down angular profile.


Leaving out the squished down bit (not my assertion), in an angular profile you use the interior space given by the angles for storage... things like guns, water, medicine, stretchers... all can be stored in a much lower vertical space than people.

I would have made the body wider using angles, not retained the same width - look at how much the mudguards protrude from the bodywork - what a waste of vehicle footprint.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By jabber on 2/2/2010 1:05:15 PM , Rating: 1
You cant make the body too wide. You have to take into account where the vehicle has to be used.

In this case it could well be having to dart in and out of narrow middle-eastern town streets etc. Plus the wider it is the less nimble it becomes. Turning circles increase.

A vehicle like this is always a compromise. I guess the basic spec for defense would be to withstand direct/sustained fire from 7.62mm rounds and possible survivability from RPGs and IEDs.

Modern battle tanks dont have to worry about sloping armour as the modern composite armour types negates the advantage so you can build a more efficient box shape for sheer internal techinical advantage. Sloping armour is great but its a way to get more for less in most cases.

If you could make a London Black Cab resistant to 7.62mm rounds then that would be the ultimate urban warrior vehicle!


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/2/2010 1:08:43 PM , Rating: 1
My last sentence:

quote:
look at how much the mudguards protrude from the bodywork - what a waste of vehicle footprint.


Why do you think I would have said that?


RE: Why big slab sides?
By omnicronx on 2/2/2010 2:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
It extends to the edge of the wheel, so its hardly a waste. Furthermore, ever heard of center of gravity? You can't have the cab extended to the very edge of the frame if you expect the thing to remain upright..

Width and space inside are also surely reasons that the cab itself is not armored on an angle. Also to be fair, the focus here is road side bomb attacks, slanted armor is not going to help you in the slightest in this situation.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By omnicronx on 2/2/2010 2:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
FYI look again at the picture, both the front and the doors have slanted armor. The doors in particular slant up and down from the middle vertically.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By daInvincibleGama on 2/2/2010 2:20:21 PM , Rating: 4
You're not following his line of thinking, dude. The doors do have slanted armor, but space above the wheels is wasted when it could be used to carry guns, water, etc. and make the armor slanted upwards, i.e. not deflecting debris into itself.

And the body could be extended over the wheel well without making it any less stable, as is done in just about every car made today + the HMMWV. It has nothing to do with the center of gravity, which basically means center of mass, which would remain in the same place. The moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis, on the other hand, would increase, which would make it more stable. The wheels wouldn't have to be extended out further, so neither the footprint nor the turning radius would increase.

The other poster has a point. There might be some other reason for this design though.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By SPOOFE on 2/2/2010 2:47:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It has nothing to do with the center of gravity, which basically means center of mass, which would remain in the same place.

You're correct that it will remain in the same place; you are incorrect to suggest "it has nothing to do with [it]". The further the body extends from the center of mass, the greater a force any side-to-side wobble will have (think like a lever; the longer the lever, the more significant small forces become). I think your mind is exaggerating the positive and diminishing the negative attributes of what you are suggesting.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Jaybus on 2/2/2010 4:16:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It has nothing to do with the center of gravity, which basically means center of mass, which would remain in the same place.


Only when parked. When moving, the COG shifts whenever there is an acceleration in any direction. This is known as weight transfer. Increasing the moment of inertia about the roll axis also increases the weight transfer for a given lateral acceleration. Decreasing the moment of inertia about the roll axis by concentrating more of the mass closer to the center of gravity increases the stability. This is why F1 and Indy cars have their wheels on the extreme corners of the cars with as little mass as possible over them.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By elgueroloco on 2/5/2010 11:41:12 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
as is done in just about every car made today + the HMMWV.


There is a huge, huge difference between the sheet metal body of a car and the armored body of a tactical vehicle. The body of a car makes up relatively little of the car's total mass, and so has little effect on its CoG, with the chassis, tranny, axles and engine making up by far the bulk of the car's mass. In an armored tactical vehicle, the armor is the majority of the mass/weight, and thus has a much greater effect on CoG.

And while we're mentioning the HMMWV, if you knew anything about up-armored HMMWV's, you would know that rollovers have been a huge problem with them, so much so that they implemented an entire training program with rollover simulator machines to prepare soldiers for such events, and whenever I went out as the gunner, I had to wear this ridiculous "batman costume"/"dope-on-rope" restraining harness that was supposed to keep me from being ejected and crushed by the vehicle in the even of a rollover. It was of course useless, frequently came undone, and would have provided me zero protection in a rollover, but it was required nonetheless.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why big slab sides?
By Bruneauinfo on 2/2/2010 5:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
they did say it was in development - and that this particular vehicle has not been selected for certain. the basis of the story is the drop in funding for the current vehicle.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/2/2010 5:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh, danke.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Bruneauinfo on 2/2/2010 9:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
and there are also variants. the one pictured probably has a particular purpose. maybe they have a version laden with side compartments, etc.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why big slab sides?
By Regected on 2/2/2010 1:27:49 PM , Rating: 3
No, I'm sure this era of vehicle will be used in US streets and suburbs. Why else would there be an active military unit deployed for the first time in history on US soil?


RE: Why big slab sides?
By foolsgambit11 on 2/2/2010 6:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
Learn your history, guy. I mean, I guess it may depend on your definition of 'active', 'deployed', and 'US soil', but there are plenty of cases of military units operating on US soil. First, there are lots of military bases on US soil with active units, but that's me being pedantic; I know that's not what you meant. That's why I won't bring up military actions on U.S. territories and possessions, either. But what about activated reserve and guard units that are used for security during natural disasters? What about security for events and places, like at airports, or the military police from Hunter Army Air Field (an active Army unit) used to guard the G8 meeting in downtown Savannah, GA? Or troops used to enforce the desegregation of schools in Alabama? What about the Civil War, in which, depending on how you take it, a foreign military and the US military duked it out on US soil? The War of 1812? The better part of the Revolutionary War (if you count us as the United States starting at the Declaration of Independence, and not a the ratification of the Constitution)? US Troops have been used to maintain the security of our nation, including on our own soil, since its inception. And no military coup yet. Frankly, with so many troops active guarding our nation in the US, I'm not even sure which "active military unit" you were talking about.

Of course, the real point is that if a vehicle works in the streets of Baghdad, it certainly will work on the streets of New York City. The maneuverability challenges in Baghdad are way worse (except maybe when it has snowed heavily in New York). So if you design a vehicle to do what you need it to do, you'll always be able to accuse it of working great in the 'burbs.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By marvdmartian on 2/2/2010 1:34:47 PM , Rating: 3
Or some of the old style Yellow Cabs in NYC. Those were pretty much bullet proof all along!


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Lord 666 on 2/2/2010 1:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree about the wasted space, the vehicle footprint probably accounts for an ambulance version which would run flush to the wheels.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By daInvincibleGama on 2/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why big slab sides?
By SPOOFE on 2/2/2010 2:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree that it's a "cut corner", and I also disagree that any enhanced utility would be significant enough to be called "noticeable".


RE: Why big slab sides?
By funkyd99 on 2/2/2010 4:26:01 PM , Rating: 4
If you follow the JLTV link in the article, you'll see one of the requirements was jam-resistant doors. I'm guessing by recessing the doors they are less susceptible to damage, not to mention the possibility of opening if the vehicle is flush with a wall.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/2/2010 6:00:24 PM , Rating: 5
Look Amiga, with all due respect, unless you are an actual vehicle designer for the military, I find your style of armchair quarterbacking this design and your amateurish attempts to sound like you know wtf you are talking about to be slighting annoying. And obviously others do too.

Anyone can 'woulda 'coulda 'shoulda on paper. In the real world you can't always make something exactly the way you would like and still have it be effective and fill it's role. Sacrifices must be made. Engineering is a compromise as much as it is about solving problems.

Now have fun playing with Autocad and convincing yourself that you could do better.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2010 12:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not ground vehicle... I'm airborne stuff.

But I'm quite aware of the basic principles of both passive and active armour... active armour was covered as an aside to using composites in space vehicles believe it or not.

(BTW engineering is ALL about compromise!)


RE: Why big slab sides?
By stromgald30 on 2/3/2010 8:49:11 PM , Rating: 1
You're not a real engineer. Maybe your title says so, but if you've had any real industry experience, you should know that things are a certain way for a reason.

If it didn't meet the specs of surviving certain types of gunfire or IEDs, then it wouldn't be built. With the government, all specs are thoroughly examined and tested. That's why everything the military buys costs the taxpayers so much.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By callmeroy on 2/9/2010 9:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
...and that I'm sure folks FAR more qualified in design of military vehicles than the people posting on this website were involved in the creation of this vehicle. I love the "Monday Morning QB" posts though they are great...I'm sure there's reasons for every design component of this thing to be how it is.

...and how much do folks keep up with current events and battlefield technology....these vehicles aren't supposed to be heavily armed and armored to begin with..that's not their mission. They are multi-purpose utilitarian vehicles. Emergency evacuations/ambulance/fast extraction/recon/scout/or just plain old battlefield transportation.

They are armored enough so they have some durability and you should be safe from small arms fire or possible the fragmentation of a grenade blowing up near by...but they aren't meant to be tanks with wheels.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By borismkv on 2/2/2010 3:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you pay attention to the lines, it does have some sloped armor, as much as they could easily afford to use. And low profile, against mines and IEDs, a low profile is a death sentence. If you notice, just from the picture, there is a reinforced armor plate below the crew cabin. This is to protect against IEDs and mines. The high profile allows the force to disperse a little bit prior to hitting the vehicle. A low profile would take the full force of an explosion and throw the vehicle into the air, pretty much killing anyone inside while its at it.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Jeffk464 on 2/2/2010 10:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe to get it higher off the ground and further from road side bombs, especially if it has a v shaped bottom.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By nafhan on 2/2/2010 12:09:43 PM , Rating: 4
This isn't an armored vehicle, and it's not replacing an armored vehicle. If this was supposed to be a main battle tank, you'd have a point, but it's not. Take a look at a Hummer or a Jeep. They don't exactly have sloped armor, either.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/2/2010 12:38:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This isn't an armored vehicle


I suggest you read the article again...


RE: Why big slab sides?
By bissimo on 2/2/2010 2:52:34 PM , Rating: 3
This thing is supposed to be a more heavily armored version of the Hummer. The Hummer and Jeep were designed mainly to be used behind the front lines, where the troops inside didn't have to worry about RPGs and IEDs. The wars we are fighting in today are different, the people using these things are under constant threat of attack, thus the need for a new type of vehicle.

I'm not saying it has to be a main battle tank, or even a true APC, but since it's being designed with protection in mind (unlike the Jeep and Hummer) the designers should take into account lessons that have been learned from tank design.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Mr Perfect on 2/2/2010 1:19:53 PM , Rating: 3
It's hard to see much in that thumbnail picture, but I do see some sloping. Mainly, from under the window lines on up the armor slopes to meet the roof. It also looks like the armor under that line has a slight angle to it as well.

Not exactly an Abram's turret, but they tried.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Mr Perfect on 2/2/2010 1:32:08 PM , Rating: 5
Found a bigger version of the same pic.

http://www.internationaltrucks.com/StaticFiles/int...

Made by International, is it?


RE: Why big slab sides?
By corduroygt on 2/2/2010 1:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sloping armor is indeed better for protecting against shells coming in a downward trajectory far away. This thing needs to be optimized to be resistant against IED's, not tanks.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/2/2010 1:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
How do you think blast waves work? Pressure pulses? (BTW - sloping armour is nothing to do with ballistic trajectory shells - often the easiest way into any armoured vehicle is through the roof)

Do you think it is better to try and absorb shrapnel or deflect it? (Clue - which will use less energy)

I can't believe people are voting this down! Obviously they don't have much in the way of an understanding of physics and energy absorption.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By omnicronx on 2/2/2010 2:11:57 PM , Rating: 5
Its being rated down because he may have glanced at the picture for half a second, if he had actually looked at the picture he would have realized that is very much so has slanted armor.

Furthermore if you read the reasoning behind the change, it was to protect against particular attacks, mainly road side bombs, not against tanks.

Don't get me wrong, deflecting energy is the way to go, but its beyond the scope of this article and the point of this vehicle.(and of course the fact that he was wrong about the armor in the first place doesnt really help his case)


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/2/2010 5:38:22 PM , Rating: 1
I guesstimate the slope to be around 10 degrees... based on simple trig (very simplistic - quick and dirty - in reality it'll be much more complex and projectile-armour interaction dependant) that means from a lateral explosion, your taking about 98% of the energy... increase that to 20 degrees and that drops to 94%, 30 degrees = 87%, 45 deg = 71% etc etc etc...

The armour under the floor is definitely sloped, that is obvious. However, the doors have minimal slope, which is not ideal for road-side bombs...


RE: Why big slab sides?
By SPOOFE on 2/2/2010 2:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you think blast waves work?

I know that the ground absorbs a lot, and that a bomb sitting on the ground is not necessarily the best armor penetrator in existence.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By bissimo on 2/2/2010 2:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
The ground reflects the energy from a blast black up to the vehicle. if you take the same explosive and detonate it on top of the vehicle, it will deliver less energy to the vehicle as most of it can escape upwards.
This also depends on the type of ground. Mud will adsorb some energy, like you say, but a firm roadway will reflect it.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By SPOOFE on 2/2/2010 3:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ground reflects the energy from a blast black up to the vehicle.

And spreads it out. Think of what happens to light when it bounces off a wall; instead of coming from a point source, it's suddenly coming from all directions over a wide area, minimizing the energy focused on any one point. The energy will still be delivered to the vehicle, of course, but it reduces the likelihood of penetration over, say, a shaped charge.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By corduroygt on 2/2/2010 3:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
I thought angled armor was effective due to trajectories, but now I can see that it's easier to reflect something that's not hitting you orthagonally.
I am not claiming to know anything since I definitely don't, maybe you could explain? Thanks


RE: Why big slab sides?
By Amiga500 on 2/2/2010 5:41:20 PM , Rating: 3
(1) Better to deflect than absorb
(2) There will be greater effective thickness to a sloped armour, a function of thickness/cos(incidence angle of projectile to armour)


RE: Why big slab sides?
By drewidgho5t on 2/9/2010 3:37:38 AM , Rating: 2
WTF?? In your scenario sloping sides would in fact increase the exposure to the projectile.

Sloping sides are meant to deflect projectiles shot from the side.


RE: Why big slab sides?
By IcePickFreak on 2/2/2010 11:27:58 PM , Rating: 5
In other related news, the entire F35 JSF program has been scrapped and any existing F35's will be sold at auction to the highest bidder.

This unexpected move comes after discovering Dailytech readers have all the answers, and so the next generation fighter aircraft for the US Military will be designed and manufactured by them.

Technical details on the aircraft are under tight wraps, but things should move along swiftly according to the following schedule and information they have supplied:

1. Design to be completed within 2 weeks.
2. Full production to start in 4 weeks.
3. They design and build them in their sleep.
4. Each aircraft will only cost $5,000.
5. The new fighter will "Totally pwn" the sky.


M-ATV
By Suntan on 2/2/2010 11:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
RE: M-ATV
By littleprince on 2/2/2010 11:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if they have a 1million budget, they couldn't even afford the tested vehicle.


RE: M-ATV
By tdawg on 2/2/2010 12:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
The overall budget for fleet maintenance, replacement, etc is $1 billion. The $1 million figure is the paltry amount allocated to buying new Humvees to replace aged/broken Humvees in the fleet.


RE: M-ATV
By tdawg on 2/2/2010 11:59:09 AM , Rating: 2
That's pretty cool, and I'm with Car & Driver on the nickname, "B'Gosh"! :)


RE: M-ATV
By Bender 123 on 2/2/2010 1:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
Its actually the name of a popular childrens clothing brand...Oshkosh B'Gosh.

Strange, but true...Living about an hour west of Oshkosh, Wisconsin (same town as the Oshkosh trucks) it makes sense.


RE: M-ATV
By tdawg on 2/2/2010 11:49:17 PM , Rating: 3
I know, that's why it's funny.


RE: M-ATV
By Nightraptor on 2/2/2010 1:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
This is one of a number of designs of MRAP's which are currently in use by our troops. The problem with them is that they are extremely large and too heavy to be used as a general purpose troop transport because it is very difficult and expensive to airlift them. The vehicle talked about in this article would be something our heli's and C-130's would be able to get to the battlefield easier.


RE: M-ATV
By Nightraptor on 2/2/2010 1:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
Curb weight for the vehicle you listed btw is 25,000 LBs. Curb weight for the vehicle in the article will be between 3200 and 4600 LBs. These are two completely different classes of vehicles.


RE: M-ATV
By borismkv on 2/2/2010 3:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
The simple answer is that the military is already trying to figure out what they're going to do with their current fleet of Mine Resistant Vehicles. They're big, heavy, top-heavy, and *expensive as hell*.


By tallcool1 on 2/2/2010 12:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Defense Tech reports that in the Pentagon's budget for 2010 only $1 million is allotted to replace vehicles lost to accident and war.
The Obama administration gave out $3 billion for the "Cash For Clunkers" program, just so that the general public could "stimulate" the global automobile industry and maybe get a few more miles to the gallon. Yet when it comes to the safety of our troops, not as much money to go around?




By jonmcc33 on 2/2/2010 12:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
No amount of money is going to stop an IED. I have seen videos of some that launch a M1A1 Abrams tank right into the air. Do you think better armored vehicles are going to do anything against that?

I'm for using that $1 million to bring our troops home on a 1 way airplane ticket.


By Spuke on 2/2/2010 2:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm for using that $1 million to bring our troops home on a 1 way airplane ticket.
Why?


By SPOOFE on 2/2/2010 2:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have seen videos of some that launch a M1A1 Abrams tank right into the air.

I'd love to see those videos.

Such a bomb would be huge, and would surely cost a lot of money. It sounds like adding more armor just ups the attrition on a hypothetical enemy's resources. All of a sudden they have to devote twice or thrice the resources to make the same number of kills? Sounds like that's exactly what armor is supposed to accomplish.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/2/2010 4:39:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No amount of money is going to stop an IED. I have seen videos of some that launch a M1A1 Abrams tank right into the air.


You're so full of shit. IED's are not massive shaped charges. I call bullshit on one launching a tank into the air, and would ask you to post these "videos". Because I can't seem to find them anywhere. Do you know how much an M1A1 weighs and what kind of explosive it would take to "launch" one ??

Saying "no amount of money can stop an IED" is purely ignorant. IED's have claimed many lives, it's true, but many more than that have survived them. You make them seem like the most deadly weapon system on the planet. They are only effective because we weren't prepared for them. They aren't nearly as effective now, and soon will be even less so.


By FishTankX on 2/3/2010 1:54:56 AM , Rating: 2
By rcc on 2/3/2010 3:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
A for effort, but that's no M1A1. It looks more like an APC variant than a tank.


By FishTankX on 2/5/2010 3:31:06 AM , Rating: 3
You're correct, it's a stryker, my bad, I admit defeat.

However, I have heard of large IED (5 155mm artillery shells strapped together) blowing the turret off an abrams. However, I have no evidence to corroborate my story.


It kind of looks like...
By Newspapercrane on 2/2/2010 11:43:51 AM , Rating: 2
The Batmobile from the new movies.




RE: It kind of looks like...
By Omega215D on 2/2/2010 11:58:50 AM , Rating: 5
The Tumbler? Nah, You wouldn't be interested in that...


RE: It kind of looks like...
By jonmcc33 on 2/2/2010 12:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
+1

Can we get a 6?


Huge
By twhittet on 2/2/2010 11:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is a huge decision - I'm surprised I haven't heard about it before now. Luckily I don't think I'll ever have a need for an armored vehicle again, but for the troops sake I really hope it's an improvement upon the M1114 in safety. This decision could be either saving or losing American lives for decades to come, and I hope it wasn't made by politicians.




RE: Huge
By kb9fcc on 2/2/2010 12:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a huge decision - I'm surprised I haven't heard about it before now.


Strange, the contracts for the JLTV were awarded two years ago...

To blunt, this is old news.


RE: Huge
By twhittet on 2/2/2010 5:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
"To blunt", February 2009 is a little less than 2 years ago.

This isn't OLD news, this is current news, as it will affect hundreds of thousands of soldiers now and in the future. I hope my friends currently get this vehicle in the future as long as it doesn't suck .


Looks like a Warthog.
By lightfoot on 2/2/2010 12:08:19 PM , Rating: 3
Warthog? No, this is definitely a Puma.




RE: Looks like a Warthog.
By Suntan on 2/2/2010 12:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
And yet, those videos were still better than 99% of the video you can download on the interweb.

-Suntan


Cheap?
By gwzubeck on 2/2/2010 1:06:43 PM , Rating: 1
I know that the military has heavier design requirements than an average car but for all of you who think a million dollars is cheap I think you can buy a brand new ferrari for $350,000. The ferrari is top notch hand craftsmanship. So unless you are talking about seperating the design costs from actual manufacturing costs I see $1 million dollars as plenty of fat to manufacture this vehicle. Who's to say they aren't going to sell these humvees to other countries as well to spread the economies of scale even more; say another 1000 Humvees around the world to other countries. I just can't see them making anything less than $100,000-$200,000 net profit per vehicle. The age of $2000 lighters and ash trays are over. Use stock parts. LOL




RE: Cheap?
By mindless1 on 2/5/2010 6:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, a new design like this is bound to have a lot of "stock parts" lying around.

Apples and oranges about the Ferrari, or would you care to take the Ferrari into a 1-on-1 against the pictured vehicle even without the high-tech electronics onboard? Remember, cost isn't just about fabrication of frame/wheels/etc, it's about R&D recoup, proprietary innovation to build something that exceeds all enemy capability per the same purpose/type vehicle.

Back to the Ferrari, in a one on one with it I'd be fine in a $10K used SUV, but do you recommend we deploy US soldiers in trade-ins from the cash for clunkers program?


RE: Cheap?
By gwzubeck on 2/7/2010 6:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
If you read carefully to what I said to manufacture this vehicle for $1 million excluding whatever design costs. So if it costs $200 million to design the vehicle that would be seperated out from the actual manufacturing cost of $1 million per vehicle. The problem is that these crafty defense manufacturers will get the politicians convinced that a $1.5 million sale price is necessary including design costs for 20 years (when it only takes 2-4 years to recoup those design costs). So theres a 100% net profit per vehicle of $750,000 per vehicle for next 16 years after the first few years. No worries, the next group of politicians won't have a clue or may actually be part of the gravy train conspiracy.


Saw these Monday
By nafhan on 2/2/2010 12:05:22 PM , Rating: 3
I saw a couple of these on the backs of semi trucks Monday, and was wondering what they were. Given the location, they were probably heading towards Quantico.
On an unrelated note, will the civilian version be called the "Jolter"?




Replacement for the HMMWV
By LittlBilly on 2/3/2010 4:36:16 AM , Rating: 3
As a veteran of OIF (05-06), I'll just give my 2 cents on the survivability of the HMMWV during that period.

Our unit had the "new" M1114s factory fitted armor and upgraded engine to handle the extra weight. The older M998s used add on armor kits which were pretty much thin steel plates hastily fitted on the vehicle, usually with no armor underneath the passenger compartment. Either version was not really suited to withstand the blast of an explosive device under or on the side of the vehicle. Both vehicles were very top heavy, causing at least 3 roll-overs during our rotation.

Most IEDs at the time were 155mm artillery rounds that were rigged with a wireless detonation system (car alarm remote, cordless phone, etc) or command detonation (physical wire trigger). If the IED was buried in the ground along a roadway, the ground would absorb some of the blast, but still do significant amount of damage. The ones that were suspended above the ground, say strapped onto the back of a guard rail along the road, would blow the doors off the vehicle and needless to say, harm its occupants. I can definitely see the advantage in having sloped armor on the new vehicles.

The most deadly IEDs however, were platter charges. A shaped charge was used to superheat a metal disc and propel it in the direction of the engine block and driver. These weapons could easily go through the armor of a M1A1. It's not comforting that the insurgents possessed something that could take out a tank, but no vehicle is invincible.

I'm just glad that they are finally replacing the HMMWV and giving marines and soldiers proper equipment instead of re purposed junk never intended to be used in the current theater.




What about the civilian version?
By wingless on 2/2/2010 6:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
How soon before some douche bag is driving one of these on the highway?




Basics missing.
By pjs on 2/2/2010 11:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
Multiple cup holders, docking station for an iPhone or iPod and one or more of those super-duper mil spec toilet seats round out this deal for only #25,000 more (iPod or iPhone NOT included).




By Belard on 2/3/2010 11:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sooner or later, some Rapper is going to buy one of these to he and his hommies can play.




This IS NOT a consumer vehicle
By andrew2424 on 2/7/2010 8:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
Having a lot of experience with these types of vehicles (thousands of hours driving and riding) I can tell you that the sloped sides, wheelwell fairings and things like that have nothing to do with the actual ballistic protection. The only purpose they serve is to keep rocks and mud from comming off the wheels. You have to remember... these are not intended to ever be used on US streets, and they surely are not made to USDOT specifications. The looks of the vehicle are totally irrelivant. If you see other vehicles of this type and read what specifically makes them better than a HMMWV, google the Force Protection Cougar. It's the bottom end that really make the difference... it's shaped like a "V" as opposed to the flat bottom of the HMMWV. Think of the V-hull bottom provideing the path of least resistance...




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki