Comments on: A Big Pot of Money for Next-Gen Jeep http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/06/20/a-big-pot-of-money-for-next-gen-jeep/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:56:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: desert sniperhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/06/20/a-big-pot-of-money-for-next-gen-jeep/#comment-2669 desert sniper Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:14:53 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=103#comment-2669 u know what ever it takes to pertect or troops is all that matters the mrap program is a good thing i've driven them thier top heavy but thier doing there jobs over thier we just need to get more over thier faster. u know what ever it takes to pertect or troops is all that matters the mrap program is a good thing i’ve driven them thier top heavy but thier doing there jobs over thier we just need to get more over thier faster.

]]> By: Desert Foxhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/06/20/a-big-pot-of-money-for-next-gen-jeep/#comment-186 Desert Fox Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:10:06 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=103#comment-186 Hay, why don't those chair-borne Admirals/Generals just have those company's build say 200 and then turn them over to the guys (say Army,USMC) who will eventually have to use them and let them use and abuse them for say 1-year in all types of terrain and conditions (combat??). I would believe that they would soon discover that this particular vehicle would fail in the military environment.They may look nice and sporty but what our troops need is a vehicle that is both functional (maintenance enables the person riding in it protection) and ruggedness. Hay, why don’t those chair-borne Admirals/Generals just have those company’s build say 200 and then turn them over to the guys (say Army,USMC) who will eventually have to use them and let them use and abuse them for say 1-year in all types of terrain and conditions (combat??). I would believe that they would soon discover that this particular vehicle would fail in the military environment.

They may look nice and sporty but what our troops need is a vehicle that is both functional (maintenance enables the person riding in it protection) and ruggedness.

]]> By: Mike Piercehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/06/20/a-big-pot-of-money-for-next-gen-jeep/#comment-77 Mike Pierce Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:42:16 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=103#comment-77 Send some out to a MEF, Run them 3 months, Then forget all the Pentagon evaluaters, etc... and plug into the ever reliable Marine Corps "L/CPL Network" you will learn everything you need to about vehicles performance or lack-of. SEMPER FI!!! Send some out to a MEF, Run them 3 months, Then forget all the Pentagon evaluaters, etc… and plug into the ever reliable Marine Corps
“L/CPL Network” you will learn everything you need to about vehicles performance or lack-of.
SEMPER FI!!!

]]> By: CPO LVMhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/06/20/a-big-pot-of-money-for-next-gen-jeep/#comment-37 CPO LVM Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:55:33 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=103#comment-37 This thing looks like any ordinary off road vehilce/SUV!Why don't you just buy some Escalades and send them over to Iraq instead? This thing looks like any ordinary off road vehilce/SUV!

Why don’t you just buy some Escalades and send them over to Iraq instead?

]]> By: David Feldstein Pres. DAVRON Ordnance Engineeringhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/06/20/a-big-pot-of-money-for-next-gen-jeep/#comment-36 David Feldstein Pres. DAVRON Ordnance Engineering Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:53:18 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=103#comment-36 Every time we see the requirements of a new jeep (people mover) it starts off as a real basic version and then grows with each generation with more and more protection, firepower, mission requirements, etc. Most of the requirements coming from our soldiers (and some from critics-San Jose Mercury news on the Bradley) Why are they not asked this question? I agree with lider75, "nothing new"... Even the Striker, just a remake of vehicles other countries have. I can go on for ever on this subject. Where are the mission/missing objectives for these new vehicles? What is it suppose to do? Is the Department of Defense recruiting new ideas? And at what costs? If you want speed with armor protection we may need new ideas for light weight. Or just maybe new ideas on how to cope with threats. Vehicles have looked at passive armor, active armor, pass through (less spalling), deflective armor (inherent in design), etc, etc, etc. What's next? Ground penetrating radar, no wheels or ground contact or less/lighter ground contact. Above ground threats? How about low profile? skinny? light bending (use of mirage)? self adapting camouflage? The basic concept with all military designs is to (and I'm sorry to say this) kill more with less. How about the "ironman"? Or is this still to much sci fi yet? It's the ability of one soldier to carry (maybe) unlimited weight, armament, whatever. And what about speed? Nobody said this suite had to have 2 arms and 2 legs. And the next generations could eliminate the "on-board" solder. There's your "million ants" Mr. Woroner. (I would really like to go more into depth about this subject-really interesting). How about redesign the M113? Last time I checked 80,000 of those units were built, with many now in mothballs. Ever see the 4 roadwheel "Sprint" design? Every time we see the requirements of a new jeep (people mover) it starts off as a real basic version and then grows with each generation with more and more protection, firepower, mission requirements, etc. Most of the requirements coming from our soldiers (and some from critics-San Jose Mercury news on the Bradley) Why are they not asked this question? I agree with lider75, “nothing new”… Even the Striker, just a remake of vehicles other countries have. I can go on for ever on this subject. Where are the mission/missing objectives for these new vehicles? What is it suppose to do? Is the Department of Defense recruiting new ideas? And at what costs? If you want speed with armor protection we may need new ideas for light weight. Or just maybe new ideas on how to cope with threats. Vehicles have looked at passive armor, active armor, pass through (less spalling), deflective armor (inherent in design), etc, etc, etc. What’s next? Ground penetrating radar, no wheels or ground contact or less/lighter ground contact. Above ground threats? How about low profile? skinny? light bending (use of mirage)? self adapting camouflage?
The basic concept with all military designs is to (and I’m sorry to say this) kill more with less. How about the “ironman”? Or is this still to much sci fi yet? It’s the ability of one soldier to carry (maybe) unlimited weight, armament, whatever. And what about speed? Nobody said this suite had to have 2 arms and 2 legs. And the next generations could eliminate the “on-board” solder. There’s your “million ants” Mr. Woroner. (I would really like to go more into depth about this subject-really interesting).
How about redesign the M113? Last time I checked 80,000 of those units were built, with many now in mothballs. Ever see the 4 roadwheel “Sprint” design?

]]> By: lider75http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/06/20/a-big-pot-of-money-for-next-gen-jeep/#comment-23 lider75 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:11:46 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=103#comment-23 this is missing a lot of thing that actual hummvees have. this will be ok for civilian not for military, I don't see the high technology in this! this is missing a lot of thing that actual hummvees have. this will be ok for civilian not for military, I don’t see the high technology in this!

]]> By: Hooliganhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/06/20/a-big-pot-of-money-for-next-gen-jeep/#comment-20 Hooligan Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:53:48 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=103#comment-20 Nice to see that those old Mad max movies are being used to design the new vehicles! Nice to see that those old Mad max movies are being used to design the new vehicles!

]]> By: david rowanhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/06/20/a-big-pot-of-money-for-next-gen-jeep/#comment-19 david rowan Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:32:22 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=103#comment-19 what a piece of crap looking vehicle,,,,,,,,,must we??????? what a piece of crap looking vehicle„„„„,must we???????

]]> By: David Woroner, Pres/CEO Survival Consultants Int'l llchttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/06/20/a-big-pot-of-money-for-next-gen-jeep/#comment-11 David Woroner, Pres/CEO Survival Consultants Int'l llc Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:09:44 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=103#comment-11 I personally think this is a better idea (if one new the new gen armor system to attach to it then the MRAP). Given the fact that many have no idea what Im talking about, well, theres a "project being understaken." The Mrap is a Bank Vault, tipped on its side, with some wheels n a motor. At a million a pop, that some serious cashola for just blowing the undercarriage out. I am STAUNCHLY behind protecting the troops, and doing it with technology that is at hand. Its the Mission Goal of my company. From my personal knowledge, if I was going to continue to carry out "blitzkrieg" type wars, it is always better to put less men, equip., money into each vehicle.. why? Because were still in a "WAR" when that happens and you not only lower the risk to personnel, but the cost drops and I'd rather attack anything with 1 million ants than two elephants. This is something I have spoken pretty much in depth with Christian about and while he has to "see it to believe it, as do I", the addition of inexpensive "protection" (not storm grating)rather than the huge price per unit...(not to mention fuel prices anyone?) Best, David Woroner, President, SCI I personally think this is a better idea (if one new the new gen armor system to attach to it then the MRAP). Given the fact that many have no idea what Im talking about, well, theres a “project being understaken.” The Mrap is a Bank Vault, tipped on its side, with some wheels n a motor. At a million a pop, that some serious cashola for just blowing the undercarriage out. I am STAUNCHLY behind protecting the troops, and doing it with technology that is at hand. Its the Mission Goal of my company.
From my personal knowledge, if I was going to continue to carry out “blitzkrieg” type wars, it is always better to put less men, equip., money into each vehicle.. why? Because were still in a “WAR” when that happens and you not only lower the risk to personnel, but the cost drops and I’d rather attack anything with 1 million ants than two elephants. This is something I have spoken pretty much in depth with Christian about and while he has to “see it to believe it, as do I”, the addition of inexpensive “protection” (not storm grating)rather than the huge price per unit…(not to mention fuel prices anyone?)
Best, David Woroner, President, SCI

]]>