The new HumVee has dawned upon us?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rasmasyean, Nov 4, 2009.

  1. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #1
    Check this out. It looks like a HumVee replacement vehicle, the Oshkosh MATV.

    http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-11-02-voa48.cfm?rss=politics
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_M-ATV

    According to them, it’s a mine resistant HumVee that can operate in all-terrain. Looks like the best of both worlds. They seemed to have come out with it pretty fast. If this works out, maybe this (or derivatives) can replace the fleet of HumVees and be the new standard in NATO light vehicle exports. So far the initial contract is $2.7 billion, but I imagine that if this works, maybe lots of armies would want some and it would definitely help boost the economy a bit. I'm sure it will even up the standard of warfare! :D
     
  2. Burnsey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    It's not pretty that's for sure. Can't see GM coming out with a street version of that thing.
     
  3. Signal-11 macrumors 65816

    Signal-11

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    2nd Star to the Right
    #3
    Not even close.

    Different roles, different vehicles. At half a million a pop and a rolling weight of 15 tons, this thing is anything but a general purpose utility vehicle. The HMMWV was never meant to be a tactical vehicle, except in certain limited roles (eg, cav scouts).
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
  5. LumbermanSVO macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    #5
    Aw come on, my truck weighs more than twice that and gets over 6mpg! :D

    Seriously, is the extra fuel burned worth more than our soldiers lives?
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #6
    Its possible to actually make a safer vehicle that also doesn't obliterate fuel.....
     
  7. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #7
    Not really. Armor==safe, generally speaking. Armor==weight.
     
  8. LumbermanSVO macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    #8
    I guess to me safety and reliability seem FAR more important than fuel consumption when it comes to war equipment. How much fuel would it take to replace the ones that get blown up or break down and get abandoned?

    The vehicles that provide the best blast and projectile protection tend to be heavy. Heavy things normally use more fuel.

    Mechanical diesels are also typically more reliable than their computer driven counterparts. They also use more fuel and have worse emissions numbers.

    Part of the poor fuel economy from war vehicles also comes from things like gear reduction hubs that allow the vehicles to go over rough terrain and obstacles. There isn't much of a fix for that without adding more parts, complexity and weight.

    But you are more than welcome to go fight in a Toyota hybrid if you like ;)
     
  9. jmann macrumors 604

    jmann

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Location:
    bump on a log in a hole in the bottom of the sea
    #9
    Who would want a street version of that car?! :eek: Well the next time I plan on driving through a mine field, I'll look into getting this car. :rolleyes:
     
  10. dmr727 macrumors G3

    dmr727

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #10
    I'm sure Arnold will buy one at one point. :)
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #11
    To a point, there were kits to add on TOW-1/2 missile launchers and Stinger/AA turrets, but the vehicle was never built to withstand a standup fight against any significant weapon. "Up-armored" HMMWVs were a hedge, a bandaid to solve the gap between the general purpose vehicle and the larger and heavier armored tracks like the M-1 or M-2/3 (or the Marines AAV-7 and LAV-25).

    The MRAP or "Cougar" and the "Rhino Runner" are both expensive and difficult-to-build machines, but the force protection may be helpful. Although, since the Iraqis have been able to construct IEDs capable of flipping an M-1A2 over, I wouldn't put too much faith in the armor of these new trucks.

    Safety and reliability are paramount, although fuel is an important logistical element that can't be ignored. In Afghanistan, a vehicle that can't make it from one base to another just becomes another problem, but you're correct.

    I don't see this becoming the next "Hummer," except for the rarest of customers who are willing to pay G-Wagon prices for an uncomfortable ride.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #12
    Not in 2009 it doesn't. We use composites now with many weight saving technologies. We don't just pile more metal on and call it a day. Frankly, I don't think they did their homework on this one and were just pressured by the military industrial complex to just scoop up a few thousand for a "steal".

    We've been seeing new types of armors from explosives to much lighter weight composites that are actually more explosion resistant than mere metals being developed for years/decades now. Where the **** are they on the front lines? Why aren't we giving our soldiers the tech we've been promising for years now? :mad:
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #13
    As I understand it, the MRAP uses a composite by Plasan, an Israeli company, that makes a number of armor and carbon composites. It should be lighter than it's steel equivalent although it may be thicker. I can't really find out what the MRAP armor is actually made from, but I would assume it's some version of the glass/ceramic/steel plastics already employed in many vehicles, but in a mixture and depth less than that used in Chobham armor (the M-1A2 and Challenger armor) to keep the weight and cost down.
     
  14. LumbermanSVO macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    #14
    You are right about the range issues. Fuel capacity, gross weight, vehicles setup/intended use and fuel consumption all have an effect on range, not just fuel consumption.
     
  15. Signal-11 macrumors 65816

    Signal-11

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    2nd Star to the Right
    #15
    There is no one MRAP model and manufacturer. MRAPs are a family/classification of vehicles. Construction can vary greatly between the types that are in service, though they've standardized a lot of things due to complaints about logistical difficulty of maintenance between different MRAPs.

    I think they were originally meant to be a COTS or near COTS solution to what was supposed to be a temporary problem - Iraq. In the Iraq context, these things make sense. Relatively urbanized, good road network, 360 sphere of battle, etc.

    Anyway, any kind of armored vehicle will always be making trade-offs between protection, speed and weight.
     
  16. Signal-11 macrumors 65816

    Signal-11

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    2nd Star to the Right
    #16
    I'm not sure I completely agree with this. There is and was a role for up-armored hmmwvs. You cannot run a Stryker or any medium armored vehicle over bad, undeveloped roads and poor bridges without spending some time on route planning. I used to watch FARDC BTR convoys flounder and be stuck for days because of poor road selection.

    There's a line of reasoning and a lot of evidence to suggest that you're much better off and better protected being in properly designed mine resistant vehicle such as most MRAPs than an MBT if you hit a landmine/buried IED. Of course, side impacts and ERPs are another story.

    I've rolled heavy (originally an African expat phrase, not security contracting, BTW) in several of the South African mine protected vehicles (that US MRAPs are based on) in heavily mined areas and it sure beats the hell out of some kevlar mine mats and crossed fingers.
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    What is this asinine comment supposed to mean?
     
  18. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #18
    I guess you didn't read the comments following the OP... :p
     
  19. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #19
    Well, the “tactical role” of a HumVee originally consisted of small transport to and from the “front”. In asymmetric warfare of modern times, there is no front and they have adapted these transports and basically changed and adopted to the new tactical aspects as mentioned by others.

    Iraqi and Afghan forces alone have 15K HumVees (that we know of) and in places like these, there is lots of need for this type of vehicle to replace HumVees and other military jeeps that they already sport. I’m sure the Iraqi’s have the dough not to mention the spare fuel. As for Afghans…I suppose the international community will pick up the tab. ;) Don't forget that this is a "low production run" they delivered. Prolly for beta testing.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    Yes, I did. What is "upping the standard of warfare" supposed to mean? Killing more brown people? Setting up more puppet governments? Invading more countries? The phrase is utterly asinine.
     
  21. Signal-11 macrumors 65816

    Signal-11

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    2nd Star to the Right
    #21
    No, it wasn't. That couldn't possibly be further from the truth.

    The only intended battlefield role of the HMMWV before the mid 90s were ADA and cav scouts. That was about it. Show me a pre Somalia combat arms TOE or FM that has HMMWVs for use as battle taxis. They were ALWAYS meant to be utility vehicles, not combat vehicles.

    Rear area (internal/urban) security was meant to be handled by MPs. If things got heavy, they were meant to roll in Cadillac Gage Commandos/M1117s.

    I have no idea what point it is you're trying to make.

    Iraq and Afghanistan are VERY different places. There is nothing similar about the two other than they are both predominantly Islamic and both can be very dusty. Vehicles that will work in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan for reasons already alluded to.

    BTW, most of these original MRAPs are to be donated to Iraq.
     
  22. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #22
    If NASA can get a PPC 750 to work on Mars, we should be able to get some sort of engine management to work in combat vehicles. I think MoTeC could be adapted easily. ;)
     
  23. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #23

    The HMMWV was designed primarily for personnel and light cargo transport behind front lines. Like the previous Jeep, the basic HMMWV has no armor or protection against nuclear, biological, and chemical threats. Nevertheless, losses were relatively low in conventional operations, such as Desert Storm. Vehicles and crews suffered considerable damage and losses during the Battle of Mogadishu due to the nature of the urban engagement; however, the chassis survivability allowed the majority of those crews to return to safety, though the HMMWV was never designed to offer protection against intense small arms fire, much less machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. However, with the rise of asymmetric warfare and low intensity conflicts, the HMMWV has been pressed into service in urban combat roles for which it was not originally intended.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee#Usage_in_combat


    What's wrong with replacing heavier trucks with some lighter new models if they do the job? I think that would be an Iraqi Army decision on saving fuel and perhaps some ad-hoc off-road capabilities. Are you telling me that "roads" blanket every inch of Iraq?

    As for "Islamic", we all know what happens in those places. Which, sparked the development of the mine-resistant vehicle in the first place. Don't be surprised if "Islamics" learn and adapt from each other to blow crap up the same way in other "Islamic" places as well. Pakistan is now the new battlegorund. Iran next? Don't tell me you'd be shocked if it happens. ;)
     
  24. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #24
    Whether you accept it or not, War is part of life and always has been. Naturally, the ones who make an effort to excel at it have an advantage.

    You can hide behind that angelic costume with wings and halos that believe that it makes you “Good” to be “disgusted” by notions of war, but the reality of it is that there are other people who think they are “Gooder” and won’t hesitate to destroy your kind just because you think different.

    Griping about how the world is won’t change the nature. And I’m sure you owe your life-style (or even existence) to someone out there who has “upped the standard of warfare” to your people’s advantage. ;)
     
  25. Signal-11 macrumors 65816

    Signal-11

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    2nd Star to the Right
    #25
    Why did you quote this and why did you bold the section that you did?

    Do you understand that the section you bolded and the following quote, to which I responded, are conceptually different?

    You seem to be mixing up and confusing several terms and concepts that, in context, have specific meanings and connotations. For this reason, I find your line of reasoning very difficult to read, as they completely confuse and conflates what to me are very clear and distinct terms and concepts. At this point, I find this to be just plain just nonsensical.

    See, at this point, my first reaction was, "Huh? WTH are you going off about?"

    Let's go waaaay back to the beginning of this thread. Go ahead and read your comments. Take a few minutes. I'll be right here waiting for you.

    Done? In the very first post, you suggested this thing as a replacement for the HMMWV. This thing weighs about 4 times as much as any of the up-armored HMMWV variants.

    Now, in comparison to the MRAPs, there are several MRAP models, from those in the same weight class, to much much heavier models.

    So if I am to understand correctly, your argument has gone from 'M-ATVs should replace HMMWVs' to 'M-ATVs should replace MRAPS.' n'est ce pas?

    At this point, I want to take a diversion from your strange logic twisties and shotgun approach to argument to the actual practical and military.

    Just what do you think is the role of a 15-30T armored, mine resistant vehicle and just what do you think "off-road" capability means in a military context?

    Wow, you totally missed the point.
     

Share This Page