Home » Land » New Armored Capsule For Humvee

New Armored Capsule For Humvee

By Greg Grant Thursday, February 25th, 2010 10:19 am
Posted in Land

We spoke to some folks from Textron about a new vehicle they’re unveiling down at the Army’s annual winter symposium underway in Florida. Called the Small Combat Tactical Vehicle Capsule (SCTVC), it’s a bolt-on armored capsule that fits onto the existing Humvee chassis, giving the vehicle Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) level protection from IED and mine blasts.

With the new vehicle (shown next to a Humvee), Textron hopes to get a piece of the Army’s $1 billion-plus, 60,000 vehicle up-armored Humvee recap contract due out this spring. The SCTVC also appears to be a good fit for the Marines who are trying to shed some weight from their battle fleet, said Mark Savarese, a spokesperson for Textron’s Marine and Land Systems.

The Marines have awarded Textron a contract for three upgraded Humvee test vehicles, after putting the SCTVC through a series of blast and ballistic tests; further testing will focus on mobility and durability.

One of the big problems with the Humvee is that its flat bottom acts as a gas trap when hit by an IED, concentrating the blast energy upward into the vehicle. The original design also had lots of gaps and holes in the frame that allowed flames inside.

Textron’s bolt-on SCTVC capsule has a V-shaped bottom, so the interior is completely encapsulated in steel armor, including the fuel tank. The hull itself is lifted further off the ground than the up-armored Humvee, providing all important clearance between exploding ordinance and the crew compartment. More space is available inside, allowing troops to get in and out more quickly. Savarese said. While the SCTVC adds armor, it doesn’t tax the Humvee engine and drive train. “The brilliance is in the simplicity of the design,” he said.

I can see why the Marines are taking an interest in the SCTVC. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway has been having fits about the burgeoning size and weight of his vehicle fleet as the Corps bought more and more of the bulky MRAPs. As it turns out, buying a vehicle tailored for a very specific operating environment, that is paved roads in urban areas with lots of IEDs, might not be the best solution for a service that’s supposed to be expeditionary and amphibious.

Conway is on record saying that the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), a Humvee replacement that weighs in at 22,000 pounds, is too heavy for his strategically mobile shock troops.

How bad is the Marine’s battle fleet weight gain? I came across a post over at the Navy centric Information Dissemination blog that illustrates the point. According to Lt. Col. Roger Galbraith, Marine units have more vehicles than even 10 years ago. So many more that even if the Marines were to get the 38 amphibious ships they originally said they needed to haul two Marine Expeditionary Brigades (the new 30 year shipbuilding plan and QDR give them 29–33), they would still be forced to leave vehicles behind.

The heavier vehicles also make the amphibious ships too top heavy, he writes. To make his point, he provides the following illustration:

Old Vehicle: M151 Jeep: 3,000 lbs.
Currents ships designed around: M998 Soft-door HMMWV: 5,000 lbs
Currently used on the ground: Up-Armored HMMWV: 7,600 lbs
Future vehicle, Joint Light? Tactical Vehicle: 22,000 lbs

I think he’s a little light on the up-armored Humvee;I think its weight is closer to the 12,000 pounds range. What’s clear is the Corps is facing a real problem with new bulkier and heavier vehicles crowding out limited space on amphibs and will have to rethink their vehicle modernization plans.

Share |

Join the Conversation

	BOOMER February 25th, 2010 at 10:42 am Adding more weight higher without widening the tire track ( the new bodie extends past the wheel track ) I fear rolling over will become a big issue with this upgrade. It looks good _ ijust dont think they pre identifed all the issues.
	BOOMER February 25th, 2010 at 10:59 am I just went out and took some measurements on a humvee. There is ample space between the lower control arms and frame that they could install with minimum mfg.(drill one hole on the control arm and use an off the shelf RANCHO upper mount)an additional shock mounted at an angle on each corner would help control the side to side roll of the higher and heavier body. Going to a wider (off the shelf ) tire and rim to widen the humvees stance will also graetly enhance detering a roll over. I’ll see if I can argue this point from my end, hopefuly someone will listen before it becomes an issue that requires a team of engineers to spend a year to figure out how to fix??????? Because with the already increased height, once you add gun turrents or launchers to the top it is really going to start to roll on such a short wheel base.
	John King February 25th, 2010 at 4:28 pm Critical thinking and analysis instead of political BS. That’s what this blog is supposed to be about. Thanks, Boomer.
	DensityDuck February 25th, 2010 at 4:45 pm “To make his point, he provides the following illustration: Old Vehicle: M151 Jeep: 3,000 lbs. Currents ships designed around: M998 Soft-door HMMWV: 5,000 lbs Currently used on the ground: Up-Armored HMMWV: 7,600 lbs Future vehicle, Joint Light? Tactical Vehicle: 22,000 lbs” The thing is, I look at that list and I see: “vehicle that can’t withstand an IED: 3000 lbs“ “vehicle that can’t withstand an IED: 5000 lbs“ “vehicle that can’t withstand an IED: 7600 lbs“ “vehicle that CAN withstand an IED: 22000 lbs” Protection against blast effect requires a certain weight of armor. The End. You can do some tricks with angling and flash-guidance, but at the end of the day you just need more steel. Complaining about weight doesn’t do much good; it’s not as though OshKosh made the JLTV weigh ten tons because they got paid by the pound!
	Eyecare February 25th, 2010 at 5:00 pm Better than an uparmored Humvee but it still puts Marines closer to the explosion than other versions of MRAP designs. No vechicle is totally IED proof and there will always be a tradeoff between weight and protection. Is it better to use a vehicle that has a bad design to counter IEDs and improve on it or to use one that’s purposebuild to minimize the risk of injury/death from IEDs? Which would you rather have if you or someone you loved had to ride in one in an area prone to IEDs? Unfortunately like every other major procurement item in the defense budget the politicians will have their say based on whatever special interest that contributes to their campaign happens to be in their district.
	HAZMAT 77 February 25th, 2010 at 5:06 pm The HMMWV already has a wide stance, I doubt that much more width is needed…but maybe so. Adding wider tires and rims though is going to increase the wear and tear on the axles.
	charlie 4266 February 25th, 2010 at 5:43 pm I agree with you that no vehicle is 100% IED proof. I saw the results of an IED in Viet nam consisting of a wire controlled 155 round go boom under a M-48A3 tank. It blew off the whole back of the tank and killed all but the driver. We’re talking about a 53 ton.
	joe February 25th, 2010 at 5:56 pm Granite Tactical Vehicles has more pictures of the SCTVC at their website (granitetacticalvehicles.com). Interestingly, a couple of the pictures show an Avenger version. If their package made an M998 top heavy, then the Avenger would be even worse. They may have already addressed the altered center of mass.
	BOOMER February 25th, 2010 at 12:56 pm You have to remember this is just an upgrade to the humvee to better protect our guys and not an MRAP replacement. The MRAP works OK on paved roads and hard packed earth but has issues in soft earth and sand. The cougar is a lightend up version that does better off road but it had to give up some armor to do it. Plus you have to look at that we cannot replace all the humvees with MRAPS or cougars, we could never transport enough of them in time to make up the difference. And take into account if you put an MRAP in a muddy field that once it bogs down, everything behind it most likely will as well, and they are not designed to take repetitive hits from RPG’s and such. So the ideal the MARINES is working on is just based on you dont know where your next war or conflict may be, the humvee in itself is still too big for a lot of forrest and urban travel as it is let alone trying to move something as large as an MRAP in those areas.(it’s like trading a semi for a volkswagon and thinking you are going to be able to use the same parking spot at the mall).
	William C. February 25th, 2010 at 10:33 pm The JLTV is supposed to weigh 22,000 pounds? Is this figure correct for all of the proposals?
	TMB February 26th, 2010 at 12:07 am According to BAE’s website, the basic version of their JLTV weighs 16,000 pounds. There are supposed to be 4 variants to the JLTV which probably range above and below the stated 22,000 pounds.
	ssgob February 26th, 2010 at 3:29 am Are we using these in Iraq? http://www.amgeneral.com/vehicles/hmmwv/internati... If we are, What’s wrong with it? If not, why not? It appears we can sell good ideas to the turks but can’t use it ourselves.
	Curt February 26th, 2010 at 2:27 am The Marines want lighter equipment because it has to fit on the ships and aircraft they have. Since the Marines reason to exist is amphibious operations, all the armoured vehicles that don’t fit on the ships or can’t be carried by the helos, vehicles like MRAPs, are only useful when they do operations that are not part of their core mission. Operations like Afghanistan and Iraq today. For example, the AAV is a lousy APC and sucks against IEDs, but it has the ability to float and survive 10ft waves! How many Marines and vehicles were lost to mines and IEDs before the end of active hostilities in Iraq?
	Pete February 26th, 2010 at 8:36 am Because the COBRA is NOT an American idea, It is Turkish. They 100% developed it. American pride stops it being fielded by the US military. Anyway, AM General only started to promote it AFTER is became obvious that the US army was not going to buy anymore of thier heaps of useless crap so called ‘High Mobility Multi-wheeled Vehicles, which is false and misleading advertising.
	Pete February 26th, 2010 at 8:47 am I LOVE the way that Americans can deem something to be something that it is not. how can anything weighing 10 TONS be described as LIGHT. No wonder you loose so many conflicts if you can’t face reality. Its like the Japs in WW2 saying that they Anniliated the American carriers after the midway battle. Sooner or later you will need to wake up and smell the roses gentlemen. A so called 10 ton vehicle is NOT light. a 3000lb Jeep is light, and of more value in winning wars. You wrap yourselves up in armour to the point you can’t fight effectively. I think that if General Patton was around, he would drag you out of them and tell you to stop mucking around and to kill the enemy toe to toe. War is about dying, even if it means your own men dying. As he said ” if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”
	Trophy February 26th, 2010 at 10:11 am “American pride stops it being fielded by the US military.” Um let’s see: The American military uses a large variety of non-indigenous weapons and systems. Such as the H&K MP5. The Aérospatiale HH-65 Dolphin. The Stryker is based off of the Canadian LAV III, which is based off of the Swiss MOWAG Piranha III. A variety of modifications and upgrades to American systems are derived from US allies.
	Trophy February 26th, 2010 at 10:22 am Also, the HMMWV isn’t false or misleading advertising. Originally it lived up that name. In the war in Iraq, it got pressed into a role that it wasn’t designed for. So they started slabbing on the armor, which required a bigger and beefier engine, transmission, suspension and chassis.
	Trophy February 26th, 2010 at 10:35 am It’s light compared to a Bradley (30 tons). A Stryker is classified as light at 20 tons. It’s all relative. 3,000 pounds for a compact sedan is heavy. While 3,000 pounds for a mid-size truck is light. “War is about dying, even if it means your own men dying.” That is the reality of war… but it’s always easier to say something like that when it’s someone that goes off to spill their blood, and not you.
	Chris February 26th, 2010 at 2:11 pm Stryker is classified as a light armored vehicle, not a light vehicle.
	Chris February 26th, 2010 at 2:12 pm The drive train in the Cobra actually was developed by AM General. Not saying that the Turks dont have a better vehicle, but the lineage is clear.
	matt February 26th, 2010 at 2:41 pm Does anyone know what other solutions will be offered as apart of the HMMWV RECAP program
	Trophy February 26th, 2010 at 6:44 pm The JLTV is designed to be a light armored family. The HMMWV was originally designed to be a light vehicle, but as of late has been transformed into something not quite a light vehicle, and not quite a light armored vehicle.
	DerbyTims February 27th, 2010 at 3:46 am My ancestors were medieval Sappers and they brought down a 100 ton granite wall of a castle with and improvised fire device consisting of a tunnel under the wall and wood supports the wall crumbled and the knights and pike-man rushed into the fort. The conflict continues between protection and attack.
	GusP February 27th, 2010 at 8:34 am What about the Aussie Bushmaster??Used by the Dutch and ordered by the UK.Combat tested in Ghan and Iraq by Australian troops.High survival rate for troops on board when hit by IED.
	Robb February 27th, 2010 at 8:08 pm If Patton was around he would probably slap you around and call you a girl! Thankfully for you, he is resting now!
	MAJ Javier E. Rivera March 2nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm What is the fuel/energy efficiency of this new SCTVC concept? Every time I read about the new concepts being developed, typically the discussion revolves around protection, weapons capabilities, and mobility. But, I rarely hear anything about their fuel consumption or energy efficiency. I wonder if fuel/energy efficiency is seriously considered during the materiel solution analysis and development phases of the systems acquisition process. We can all agree that strategic decisions made during wars are always limited by the logistic capabilities of the systems being used. We all saw what happened in WWII during Patton’s offensive in France when his tanks simply ran out of fuel and the offensive reached culmination. In that case, one could argue that culmination was reached simply because Patton overextended his logistic lines of support. But on the other hand, one could also argue that the tanks were simply not fuel efficient. Today, I think we face the same limitations with our vehicles. Just imagine how far we can go during offensive operations, or for how long we can sustain them, simply if our vehicles were more fuel/energy efficient. It is a fact that our military is the single-largest purchaser and consumer of oil in the world. This heavy dependence on oil is a matter that is directly affecting our national security policies. Although the POTUS has yet to issue a National Security Strategy, it is not unreasonable to infer from his public statements that one of his national security policies is for our Nation to become more energy efficient. Therefore, I assume, or at least I would hope, that from now on all the DOD materiel acquisition decisions will be in line with the POTUS national security strategic policies on energy. Let me be clear that I am not an expert on vehicular engineering, so I humbly admit that I cannot offer technical solutions to the discussion. I only want to spark a discussion on the matter, and hope that someone with the technical intellect and expertise can offer solutions to the fuel “inefficiency” problem of our vehicles. It is OK to focus on protection, weapons capabilities, and mobility when analyzing and developing a new concept. But we also need better and more innovative fuel/energy efficient military vehicles. v/r — MAJ Javier E. Rivera, Student, ILE course 10–001, Fort Lee, VA
	BOOMER March 2nd, 2010 at 10:30 pm MAJ — you make some good points. the SCTV is still a HUMVEE, it just has a new body on it. The 6.5 turbo is antiquated, although an improvement over the 6.2, the 6.5 is based off the 454 big block chevy where as the 6.2 was a 350 Oldsmobile based engine. Niethier are real diesel engines compared to the new Cummings, Powerstroke, or Duramax engines currently used in trucks which would provide more power, durability and fuel economy especialy if upgraded with aftermarket performance parts. In almost all vehicles they use old existing technology which is sometimes good, but they fail to make use of performance improvements. My counterparts and I have been talking over the concept of adapting a Catapiler straight six and trans for use in HUMVEES to replace the 6.5 and 4L80 auto trans. They are in the supply system, hard to tear up, easy to maintain, better performance and fuel economy. There are those of us out there considering how to improve what we have and future items, hard part is getting Officers in the loop to listen to us.
	BOOMER March 3rd, 2010 at 5:30 pm let me correct my last post before everyone else does. the 6.2 & 6.5 are the same engine, 6.5 is just bored out, and there is a 6.5 turbo model as well. the one off the Oldsmobile 350 was the 5.7 diesel used in blazers and pickups, many of them were upgraded to 6.2 and 6.5 naturaly asperated. We build these things all day here and the numbers just ran together in my head while typing.
	Cwolf88 March 4th, 2010 at 3:58 pm Actually the MAJ is right in the sense that you want a systems of systems look. Folks are making major investments in FOB-related energy consumption because those translate into 17 more tankers per day per FOB on external supply routes. If you look at the war costs/soldier (about $1M/year), a huge chunk of that is fuel. Why stay with old diesel technology? Why not go TDI? The threat-armor balance has to be explicit. You cannot uparmor anything to defeat a 2,000 pound IED.
	BigDuke60 March 4th, 2010 at 7:58 pm Pete going toe to toe,is one thing,and works well,there have been no Better troops at doing this. But remember, when they Hide like little Girls and set off Bombs By remote, what are you going to do. sit at Home and post things you know nothing about? TMGS Jbrown U.S.M.C. ret (81/2006
	SogOne0 March 4th, 2010 at 10:22 pm 77705256 Physics always prevails; Gsa/DoD appropriations need to survey the man/woman in the field maintaining our vehicles and pass this info to the bidders. Leave politics to politicians and the rest to those that get the job done!
	vet45 March 5th, 2010 at 2:00 am do they plan on making any more hummers! daaaa
	Sgt Vincent March 9th, 2010 at 4:36 am Sir,__Now my question would be this for you, what size Cat are you talking about? And do you think that it can be dropped strait in to the bay of any HMMWV? I have been in the Marine Corps for eight years and have been through just about every school that the Corps has for Motor T and I keep asking these same questions. I have also been a mechanic for over sixteen years and have a degree in Automotive and Diesel Technology. I like what the Maj was saying about fuel economy but we have to look at what we have. Not a whole lot in most areas. You would have to send a lot of Marines through a lot of schooling on newer engines how to rebuild them, how to use scan tools to pull codes and figure out what sensors do what and how they all work together. The newer engines and transmissions that are out there are great and would really be beneficial for the military as a hole but we also need to look at all the factor that goes with it. I would love to be a part of something that can improve on what we have.__R/S Sgt Vincent, N.A. __