Comments on: New Armored Capsule For Humvee

By: Sgt Vincent

Sgt Vincent — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:36:28 +0000

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. __

By: vet45

vet45 — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:00:07 +0000

do they plan on making any more hummers! daaaa

By: SogOne0

SogOne0 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:22:18 +0000

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!

By: BigDuke60

BigDuke60 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:58:18 +0000

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

By: Cwolf88

Cwolf88 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:58:29 +0000

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.

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:30:52 +0000

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.

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:30:24 +0000

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.

By: MAJ Javier E. Rivera

MAJ Javier E. Rivera — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:42:42 +0000

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

By: Robb

Robb — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:08:19 +0000

If Patton was around he would probably slap you around and call you a girl! Thankfully for you, he is resting now!

By: GusP

GusP — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:34:35 +0000

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.

By: DerbyTims

DerbyTims — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:46:53 +0000

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.

By: Trophy

Trophy — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:44:02 +0000

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.

By: matt

matt — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:41:34 +0000

Does anyone know what other solutions will be offered as apart of the HMMWV RECAP program

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:12:32 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:11:20 +0000

Stryker is classified as a light armored vehicle, not a light vehicle.

By: Trophy

Trophy — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:35:37 +0000

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.

By: Trophy

Trophy — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:22:23 +0000

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.

By: Trophy

Trophy — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:11:37 +0000

“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.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:47:28 +0000

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”

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:36:50 +0000

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.