From National Defense Magazine. Seems that AM General feels that the best replacement for the HMMWV is another HMMWV. Stewart & Stevenson's 13 ton prototype seems a bit much, but who knows?




The Next Humvee: Army, Marines Weigh Options

By Sandra I. Erwin

The Army and Marine Corps may decide as early as May 2007 to begin searching for a new vehicle that would replace the ubiquitous Humvee.

But even though both services have indicated their intent and desire to buy a new light tactical truck, they are nowhere close to agreeing on exactly what kind of vehicle they want.

During the next 12 months, Army and Marine officials will evaluate industry “white papers” and several prototype vehicles in an attempt to paint a realistic picture of what the industry has to offer, and ultimately settle on what to buy.

Overseeing this effort is Army Col. John Myers, program manager for future tactical systems. His office was created last October specifically to help define performance specs for the new vehicle, and determine whether the services will be ready to solicit bids from manufacturers by May 2007.

“Between now and the milestone decision in May 2007, we are going to create a joint program office to deal with the joint light tactical vehicle,” Myers says in a recent interview. “At this point, it is a discussion for the Army and the Marines to look at what technologies are out there and, if we were to establish a new program for a future truck, what it’s going to have in it,” says Myers.

Ultimately it will be up to the Army’s top leadership to establish “at what point you stop funding current trucks and start funding a new truck,” he adds. “We need a requirements document before we get money. It’s too premature at this point to assume we’ll get production money. We are in a concept phase.”

A “request for information” published by the Marine Corps in January offers a glimpse of the services’ wish-lists and points to the difficulties they will face in trying to accommodate divergent Army and Marine requirements into a single vehicle.

The most likely scenario is that both services will buy different variants, even though they will be part of the same family of vehicles. “The Marines want a variant that is more combat oriented … The Army wants some other vehicles for utility missions, to carry shelters,” says Myers. “How many variants we end up with depends on the requirements. We don’t know yet.”

The request for information asks manufacturers to propose ideas on how to build a “joint light tactical vehicle” with multiple configurations: a six-passenger combat truck, a command and control vehicle, a light weapons platform, an ambulance, a utility truck, a reconnaissance and a combat engineer support vehicle.

Trucks will require two levels of protection: basic standard armor and add-on kits.

Other desired features include electronic jammers, run flat tires, instant fire suppression in the engine and cabin, and fording capability. Built-in communications systems also will be sought in new trucks, including tracking devices, satellite radios and command-and-control terminals.

Officials from the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and the Army Training and Doctrine Command are sorting through a number of white papers that were sent by contractors in recent weeks.

Also feeding into the decision-making process is an ongoing Army competition for which truck makers are building prototype trucks and equipping them with advanced technologies. The competition, known as the “future tactical truck system,” or FTTS, will culminate in early 2007 with a drive-off at the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., and a “user evaluation” by Army Stryker units at Fort Lewis, Wash.

The FTTS includes a heavy 13-ton truck prototype, made by Stewart & Stevenson, and two light utility trucks — one designed by International Truck and Engine Co., and another by Lockheed Martin Corp. The outcome of the technology demonstration in FTTS may influence the requirements of the joint Army-Marine Humvee replacement program, officials say.

The FTTS light truck prototypes are being mischaracterized as Humvee replacements, which has spread confusion among suppliers, says Jeff Carie, Army project manager for the FTTS light vehicle. “There is nothing in production today that meets the Army’s requirements,” Carie says. “We have lots of components and technologies. We are kluging it.”

The manufacturers of the competing FTTS vehicles that will be evaluated later this year hope to eventually be in the running to build the future Humvee. “If we didn’t see that, we wouldn’t be playing at all,” says Chris Buttelle, from International Truck.

Lockheed, whose truck design was acquired via the takeover of a U.K. firm, also recognizes that winning FTTS offers no guarantees of any future production work. The program is helping the Army and the Marine Corps fine-tune their requirements, says Kathryn Hasse, director of tactical wheeled vehicles at Lockheed.

Other companies also plan to participate in any future competition. General Dynamics Land Systems Canada is producing an armored patrol vehicle for the Danish Army that it plans to propose to the U.S. military. The vehicle, called the Duro, is a “Humvee on steroids,” says Gary Third, GDLS business development manager.

The manufacturer of the Humvee, AM General, expects to capitalize on its incumbent status and convince the Army that the latest version of the Humvee is far more capable than any potential challenger. In any future competition for a replacement, “we’ll be there,” says Craig MacNab, spokesman for AM General. He says the company has, over time, upgraded the Humvee to the point that the latest variants are “dramatically different” from the two-decades-old vehicles that still dominate the Army’s light-truck fleet.

Lt. Gen. David F. Melcher, Army deputy chief of staff, says the average age of the Humvee is about 14 years. The Army’s fleet of approximately 137,000 light trucks includes 70,000 of the oldest models, which, in many cases, are unable to accept add-on armor and lack adequate power, Melcher tells an industry conference.

In the 2007-2011 budget, the Army requested nearly $4 billion for new armored Humvees. The assumption is that any new vehicle production would not start until at last 2012.

Industry sources speculate that one of the obstacles ahead for Army and Marine truck buyers may be sticker shock. In recent months, these sources say, the message conveyed to contractors is that the Army will not set a price ceiling on proposed new trucks. Military officials also continually refer to trucks as “combat vehicles,” which implies that trucks may have moved up to a higher price bracket. Current trucks generally cost anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000.

“In Iraq we are finding that our logistics vehicles are as important or more important than combat systems,” says Lt. Gen. William E. Mortensen, deputy chief of the Army Materiel Command, who spoke with National Defense at the Association of the U.S. Army symposium, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

That does not mean that trucks should cost a million dollars, he cautions. “The complexity needs to be managed,” says Mortensen. The Army will have to prioritize its wish list, but technologies such as tracking devices will not be skimped on, he says. “Money is well spent to ensure we know where every vehicle is.”

Contractors, for their part, worry that if trucks end up being too expensive, production will end as soon as the military services begin withdrawing from Iraq. “We have short minds in the Army,” says one industry expert. “When we start getting out of Iraq in three to four years, the mindset will shift.” He recalls that, after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, one of the Army’s “lessons learned” reports recommended that the Army buy armored Humvees. But those lessons were filed away, and only a handful of armored Humvees were built in the late 1990s. When the Army realized in 2003 that it needed armored Humvees to fight the insurgency in Iraq, it had less than 200 vehicles on hand, but needed 11,000.

In the mean time...

The Army is going to buy a bunch more M-1151s. The supposedly improved, but still recogniseable as a Humvee.

I propose that we replace them with either:

A. M113 series

B. M151 series

( More fun to drive!)

Why not cobra?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cobra/

Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicle, seems a good replace for the HMMWV, the Aussies been using them in Iraq, they are sturdy and have high survivability against mines and IEDs. Small calibre weapon fire proof too.

I've been saying since 2000 that we're "Frenchifying" our Army. First the Strykers, roughly equivalent to the French infantry units equipped with VABs, then the light/medium/heavy brigade-centric structure, and now we're getting our own VBLs, which look exactly like the Cobra.

I'd think that RG-31s would be far more useful.

As I understand it the HMMWV replace something like 5 vehicles in service. Was that a good move overall? I can see how the HMMWV might be better than trucks about the same size, but it seems like the MULE, and MUTT are so much smaller replacement with the HMMWV is silly, i.e. it doesn't fit into helo's and other vehicles, it isn't as manuverable, etc. How about going back to two or three sizes to fit different needs?

As I recall one HMMWV sell point was that could replace 2 jeeps w/trailers in load capacity. Better mobility.

The Humvee is a really good vehicle. Well let me rephrase that. The, M998 utility humvee is a really good truck.

But it was never designed to be covered in tons of armor and to be able to take 155mm shells going off right beside it. But it has done a really good job all things considered. M1114s have saved my life and limb twice in in eleven months and I have seen many other people walk away from mangled, wrecked humvees.

Another contender.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6003/

International MXT-MVA Extreme Armored Vehicle



August 15, 2006 The world’s most macho vehicle range has added an armoured variant in the form of the International MXT-MVA (Military Vehicle - Armored) shown for the first time yesterday at the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The MXT-MVA is an all-terrain, armored wheeled vehicle platform designed to provide a new level of ballistics and blast protection on the battlefield and against the new threat of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).

It is a derivative of the MXT 4x4 Pickup which makes an ideal base as it is so big that the crew cab can seat five sumo wrestlers with ease (providing one of them can drive) and the tray can carry a jet ski or a motorcycle with the tailgate up. Not surprisingly, the MXT-MVA can handle the weight of the armor with ease, especially over long distances, rugged terrain and when maneuverability is critical. Powered by a 300-horsepower International V8 diesel engine with 530 lb.-ft. of torque, additional armor does not adversely affect the vehicle's superior payload ability, towing capacity or durability. The cab can be configured to fit as many as six crew members in full gear, while the body of the MXT-MVA is versatile enough to accommodate an array of weapons, navigation and communications systems and applications such as convoy protection, field shelter, ambulance and communications units, which are seamlessly integrated with the company's proprietary multiplexed electrical system.

International Military and Government LLC (IMG) is a wholly owned subsidiary of International Truck and Engine Corporation, and has collaborated extensively with established armor providers and military development engineers within the US Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Centers (TARDEC) National Automotive Center to develop the right armor solutions for the full spectrum of military operations.

related articles

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4029/
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5181/

Yep give it another ten years and they will be proposing a lightweight 1/4 ton vehicle platform.

But please not the M151, I hated those pieces of junk. We had them the same time as we had the M38 and the M38 ran circles around them.

Wonder when the Brits will bite the bullet and buy LAV's?

Just add another FCS variant to the list, that'll solve it ...


Can someone link to an example of an industry white paper? I take it it's not a sales brochure ...

190 hp in a new armored Hummer is woefully underpowered. I hope the military gets a vehicle that can take a blast and still have some real road performance. We will see.....

We must remember that the chosen vehicle will feature in many movies for years to come. There is also the civilan market to consider. Therefore looks are very important; I like the chunky looks of the Panther:



Iveco even has the civilian sector covered:

Even the Russians (GAZ) where offering a look alike HUMMER with a Cat diesel and armour package.

We're (so far) very happy with the RG-32s. You might well be advised to go for something in that size and complemnt with a bigger truck.

Just out of curiousity, would the higher centre of gravity and narrower wheelbase of all the other similar vehicles be a safety disadvantage over the humvee of any significance?

The HUMVEE's width can be a disadvantage. When USAF police moved back into RAF Fairford they found the HUMVEE wouldn't fit down Gloucestershire's narrow lanes and bought Land Rovers instead. I'm sure the UK isn't the only place in the world where roads can be on the narrow side. The US Army's Rangers also use Land Rovers BTW.

What if they use hybrid technology, so they have the regenerative braking to recharge the battery, but - instead of a drivetrain they put an electric motor for each wheel. I've seen crazy stuff written about this before, but maybe now it could work? If your motor weighs a bit, that's ok because it's also doubling as a brake. And true, it's unsprung weight, but that's a small price to pay for all the benefits. The entire drivetrains are eliminated, transfer cases, solid axles, transmissions, differentials, driveshafts, everything. And those are things that will never be worried about breaking again! Plus, if you lose a motor you still have 3 driving wheels going for you. And the ground clearance advantages wouldn't hurt, and the weigt savings could be flipped into armour.

Plus don't electric motors always deliver maximum torque, all the time? That's not a bad thing.

How about buying off the shelf trucks or wrangler JEEPS! and also a fully armored heavy truck for all operations in combat areas.

The Canadians bough CJ 7’s to replace our M38 jeeps, we had to bring the M38’s out of retirement as the CJ kept breaking faster than we could repair them.

Even Jeep fan admit that the new vehicle are a “starting point” where you need to make major modifications before going out in the bush. Also when the military says off-road, they really mean off-road, not rough road or dirt road.

Wranglers are rated ¼-1/2 ton and would not be able to carry a payload plus armour protection.

I'd prefer another Humvee but with a beefier suspension in case we need to add on armor. When a war is over, I'd want the option of taking the armor off to get longer life from a vehicle. The only other changes is a larger bed to carry more gear or people.

The Rangers have discarded the Land Rover based SOV's for HUMVEE variants (in Iraq and A-stan anyway). If they retain any LR vehicles it is only because they will fit internally in a CH/MH-47...................

They need to get a vehicle that can take a blast. This means it will not have a flat bottom. If they go to buy anything with a flat bottom, it will be second rate by design. This is the time to really improve over the hummer. It is a LOT easier to design the vehicle from the start to deal with mines than try to add on stuff later. They can still have add on armor, but the bottom has to be more of a vee shape by design. There is no way to get around it. I hope they do it right.

A narrower/shorter wheelbase can be better for off-road performance. My brother is in an offroading club and they all use the shortest wheelbase of Landrover for this reason.

Yes, that's another advantage ...

If this is so, then I'd like a design with an emphasize on modular add ons then, realizing that future use will be determine the likely needs that will arise.

The Landrover /G-wagon design will stick around as they are fairly cheap to build and as mentioned a Chinnok can carry 2 inside and one slung underneath plus troops and supplies.

Costs are a big issue, the US army uses huge numbers of Hummers and many never go overseas or face an IED threat, can you aford to armour all of them? They will have to accept that they will need 2 vehicles to replace it, hopefully with many common parts, a unarmoured version for general duty that can be fitted with light armour and a more beefier version for serious combat duty.

Vehicles that never go overseas can be largely replaced with OTS runabouts. The CO can tool about in a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited and have all the offroad ability at 25% of the cost. They're also easier to repair.

History has shown that whenever you offer the cheap version along with the expensive version, the cheap version gets bought, at least in the infantry. Got to free up money for FCS and F22. Also, going from light vehicle to same uparmoured vehicles screws up drivers, currently a huge issue with all the non-driving fucks rolling vehicles right now. So, buy fully armoured only and deal with it. Light weight is nice for helos and shit, but that's a <5% scenario. We have a historical tendency to buy shit for the 5% and that fucks the 95% where it's actually used. Example: M551, USMC 120mm mortar, HUMWV, etc etc. S/F....Ken M

What did you hate about the M151? (I assume you had m151A2's)

what's wrong with the humvee? it's not the vehicle, but the doctrine that is the problem IMO. no amount of up armoring is going to turn a truck into an armored fighting vehicle. if we need light armor then go get some light armor. don't jack around with light trucks. we need light armor, not light trucks for combat duties.

can i get one please? minus the armor and all...... if they really make me take it off....

It's not just roads. Back when, the Oz Army tested Hummers and the RACT came down against them as not only wouldn't they fit on many roads and bridges, but they also fit through a lot less forests than other vehicles. The 6x6 Perentie LandRovers that they got, designed to Army specifications, can go more places and carry a bigger load, and more troops, than the Hummer can - for a quarter the price. The Hummer, for all it's good points, is still a classic case of th US military buying on over-specced, under performing, over priced bit of kit when they could have gotten something much better.

That's something I wanted to ask about.

Since IED's mostly seem to be roadside as opposed to a traditional mine that is under your vehicle, wouldn't a V hull, which would be great against under-vehicle mines, actually angle the hull so that the fragments of a roadside IED hit the armor more perpendicular and offer less protection for the same thickness?

Speaking for myself, I operated A1's & A2 in Vietnam (as gunjeeps in an Aerorifle Troop) as well as back stateside (this was all before ROPS, the need for which should tell you something).

There was everything to hate about the M151's....capacity was limited, handling was awful, and rollover was always a possibility even at moderate speeds. Unfit to ride in if you were ever in the back of one.

The Rollover Protection System came along well after I left the service, and amounts to a full rollcage that no doubt saved some lives. As an acquaintance of mine put it...it was a fine vehicle "as long as you didn't go very fast or try to turn the front wheels". Those of ours that hit mines were left unrecognizable as a vehicle...more like a beer can that's been used as a target by a minigun at close range. We moved our 106mm Recoiless Rifles from the M151's over to M37 "Beeps" because it was a more capable vehicle by every measure.

Yes there are more off road mines, but it's the under chassis hits that cause the mass casualties. Road side mines generally kill gunners or other unprotected crew.

Except for EFP's and other direction mines, those are problematic, but also require rather precise aiming as well as a much greater degree of preperation than artillery shells, etc etc. S/F....Ken M

Thanks for the clarification

I have been wondering for quite a while whether a stretched Humvee with an upgraded engine and 6x6 would be a good option.

I would rather see it in the Hybrid power plant design they have tested, IF it offers the advantages claimed, AND can be affordable and reliable.

An evolutionary version with a lighter basic frame IF it could be as sturdy.

Buy OTS. Get one of those Toyota pickups, stick a .50-cal or TOW at the flatbed, install armour....

Whatever happened to that vehicle with the thing called a "blast bucket"? What was it called again

...edit, found out it was the Ultra

modernised M3 halftracks with a V shaped mine resistant hull, new engine and DT, run flats up front and an armored roof in the infantry compartment caked in slat armor?

maybe it's not so laughable afterall. the vehicles stit a ways up and at a casual glance would appear to offer much better mine resistance than a humvee. they already have band tracks don't they? the cross country mobility seems questionable but i'd rather take one into battle than humvee no how much armor it had on it. not exactly an ideal US solution by any means, but any country with the old things still sitting around somewhere in reserve would be foolish to overlook them IMO.

The key question is, do you want a jeep/light truck, or a small combat vehicle?

The problem seems to me to be conflicting requirements, people want it to be everything from a jeep to a LAV-TOW... all at once

Ours were the Cdn version, they were so prone to roll overs that the Cdn army put full roll cages on them.

They also bent very easily, the metal in them was not up to the task, keep in mind we were always short of vehicles so they were always loaded up.

The suspension gave lots of problem, however the 4 speed tranny was a improvement over the M38 on the highway, also the independent suspension allowed it to bottom out to much, plus the canvas never fit right and it had a "tinny" feel to it.

For 20 years I have felt that as close as possible to all US Army vehicles should be at least armored versus fragments and some small arms.

The IED threat has reminded me of this.

And the winner is:

Well, quantity is its own quality, as Stalin used to say!

The Rhienmetall GeFaS looks like an excellent replacement for the HMMWV-2.5 ton vehicle requirement for combat arms units(especially light reconnaissance squadrons in the IBCT and ARS in the HBCT as well). I don't think it will be adopted though b/c of the "not invented/designed/made here" mentality of the defense industry.

Except that it offers roughly the same cross-country capabilities as a stretch limo fitted with off-road tires.

Any wheeled armored vehicle lacks x-country mobility, even M1025/26 sucked. Tracks are the best for off road work-but this is about replacing the HMMWV. Where I've been with HMMWVs cross country mobility isn't high on the list of wants, when we get ready to go back to the plains of Europe to fight then I'll worry about it.

There's an article in the latest ARMOR magazine, touting the Feniks and/or more M1117s as a replacement for the M1114.

For the most part the hummer blows.
a. it is under-powered.
(someone runs a vcp you don't have a prayer in catching anything but a cold).
(you need to haul ass out of an area or to get to an area quickly, best to call air).

b. it is too wide.
(mirror / bumper strikes are common on narrow ass balkan and euro roads).

c. the cost versus capability is akin to being raped and not kissed.

With a little over 8 months in country I have ridden in the up-armored hummer twice (once to get somewhere and once to get back). Since then I have always driven an NTV with a 5 speed shift. I can get anywhere I need to, accelerate quickly, and fly along happily at over 120kmh (try tracking that through a view-finder). I can chase down idiots who need it, or be at (x) location for back-up very quickly (sometimes before air even gets off their pad).

I'm not armored but speed, quick accelration, and manuverability has an armor value all it's own.

If you want an armored car then bring back the M8 Greyhound with modern armor, fcs, and weapons. (it fits in a c130 btw).

If you want a 4 person fast recon vehicle, then this nifty little toyota NTVs will get
4 armored plated, gun toating troops almost anywhere you need them in a rapid frame of time.

my .02 eu/dinar