Army Will Whack Tac Vehicles

Army Will Whack Tac Vehicles

UPDATED: Congressional Aide Says JLTV Fate Looks Uncertain; Less Biz for Industry

The Army has come out with its tactical vehicle strategy and it commits the force to field 244,000 trucks  with scalable armor that can support network connections, including MRAPs. That will leave the service with smaller total fleet, down to 244,000 by 2025 from the current level of 260,000.

A congressional aide said the new strategy will mean, “a significant decline for all the companies building new trucks (AM General, Oshkosh, and BAE, primarily).


The Army was pushed by Congress to come out with a strategy out of worries the service was basically buying MRAPS and other gear without any kind of intelligent, long-term plan.  As the defense appropriations report language put it:

Concerns persist regarding the absence of an overall truck acquisition strategy to guide the Army’s plans and programs. It is not clear that the Army has conducted the needed analyses for sound acquisition plans or to reap potential savings. defense appropriations report language.

Here’s the basic plan. Overall, the Army will shrink its fleet of HUMVEEs, MRAPs and medium trucks to 244,000 by 2025 from its current 260,000. How? The service will rid itself of 4,000 of the hardest to maintain and most beat up MRAPS by 2025.  It will scrap the 28,000-strong M35 fleet and replace it with new FMTVs for a fleet total of 76,000. That will mean a total reduction of 4,000 trucks. The HUMVEE fleet will shrink the most, going from 101,000 to 35,000 by 2025. But there appears to be one big hole in the Army plan. It does not project how many Joint Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles it will be. The strategy’s answer: TBD.

Overall, the service wants to“buy less, more often” because it thinks this “allows maximum flexibility and technology insertion, thereby reducing risk of obsolescence in the face of a highly adaptive enemy.” To put it another way, the Army won’t again have to pour unplanned money into something like MRAPs, which lack  automated maintenance technology and standard tools, parts and maintenance training that has long been required for most Army vehicles. Not to mention how poorly most MRAPs perform once they leave highways.

What does Congress think of the plan? One aide still in town –quoted above — said the report didn’t have much new information and didn’t answer some of the questions the Army needs to answer.

“The only new information appears to be a tacit admission that due to the large number of new trucks procured since 2001 that they are going to significantly reduce procurement of new vehicles in favor of recap/mods,” the aide said.

Things don’t look great for JLTV if the plan turns out to be what actually happens. “The fact that JLTV is a “TBD” does not auger well for the program.  It seems likely that we will buy just enough to support deployed units, for example, vs. equipping the entire Army.  If one assumes only a few brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan at some point, that is a small number of JLTVs.   As far as those numbers go, they seem to be just nibbling around the margins,” the aide added.

On top of that, the service didn’t really address “what assumptions they are making about force structure.  In theory, every type of unit in the Army should have X trucks.  If you total up the requirement, that tells you what the entire Army needs (call it X’).  I’m not sure I understand how they explain having less than the current X’ for each truck type,” the aide said in an email.

Join the Conversation

What did Congress think when they threw $30B to buy as many MRAPs as you could buy as fast as you could buy them? There was no intelligent plan other than volume buys. Now they’re being critical. Nothing is new here.

The lighter M-ATV can fill some of the roles of the MRAP and Humvee combined — Oshkosh is marketing a M-ATV in ambulance and utility variant based on a shelter design. Humvee can be upgraded with a new blast-proof cabin tested by the US Marines.

MRAPs were an emergency requirement and saved many lives, and JLTV was a program that’s too late and overbudget. There are off-the-shelf alternatives for both now.

HUMVEE’s wont be around much longer — the engines and transmissions are weak and getting harder to find rebuildable cores for, the suspensions suck big time. MCRAPS are the same — yes they did save lives but they were not as needed as many were led to believe. The brass forgot about the workhorse of the modern military, helos should had been transporting supplies and not contractor semi’s. Without the civilian driven convoys on the roads, IED’s would not had been employed as much as they were. And in truth — if civilian contractors had not been involved, congress never would had funded all the uparmor and IED vehicles, it was all to apease them and not the troops.

Sounds like our whole tactical vehicle force needs some reorganization.

better solution: don’t make war
when you have nuclear weapon , that’s not necessary to make war, nobody will fight one country who have nuclear bomb.…but USA was USA , can’t chnge that, they can make more wars, and americn continue to think they make war for peace and freedom

What? That didn’t make any sense.

You got that right — I thought I was just reading too fast or something. People like that just dont realize that AMERICA is not the issue — it’s people like them coming here — inbreeding and trying to convert us over to the country they abandoned. Like we always said in the military “the last command is always the better command” & “the only easy day was yesterday” it appears it applies to countries as well.

Unfortunately many items were far too large or heavy to have been transported by helicopters. Compounding that problem was the sheer magnitude of items to be moved, not enough rotary wing assets in the entire military to keep up with the amount of stuff needing transpo.

The convoys had to roll and in keeping with the current teeth-to-tail ratio it had to be contractors that were doing the driving. Doesn’t mean that anyone had to like it, and very few did, but its the price for doing business in a modern ground war.

Most of the military vehicles that I have ever driven (or ridden in) have been slightly modified commercial vehicles. Anybody have any idea of how many commercial vs custom vehicles the military has? I often wonder what a standard Hummer has that a 4 wheel drive Suburban does not?

The suburban has more passenger space, more parts availability, a heavier duty suspension, better manuverability, better gas milage, faster, unilimitted upgrade potential to the suspension and engine, and cost about 200K less. The HUMVEE has run flat tires and a NSN#.

You are correct — but at the same time we (the military) should not be held responsible for rebuilding enemy territory. Plus no rebuilding should had started till the military and not politicians said the war was over. Up to that point helos could had provided sufficient support to the troops.

The humvee has a higher towing and gross weight rating than any Suburban. It also has much greater clearance and off-road capability. It is a highly customizable platform. In fact, it is a scaled down truck designed solely for military purposes. The Suburban is a comfy family station wagon on a (at best) 3/4 ton platform. The humvee is not just a military vehicle, but a tactical military vehicle. Similar to the Mercedes-Benz G series and the Land Rover, it is highly adept at not needing roads to get the job done. The military has employed commercial GM pick-ups for military duties during the cold war, but the vehicles just didn’t cut it.

The military has a great product in the MATV that offers superior survivability along with an off road capability that the Humvee’s do not offer. As a current military man that has used both products I would strongly request replacing the Humvee fleet due to poor quality along with a suspension system that has been outdated for years. Hopefully we will provide our brothers and sisters serving the best products we can to get them home safe.

Having never driven a Humvee, or even ridden in one… Why do some people on this discussion compare the Humvee to a Mercedes, and many others say that it has a crummy suspension, will soon be worn out, etc.??

We rebuild over 500 HUMVEE engines and transmissions every month and do suspension repairs as well just at Fort Hood, all the othe DOL’s and depots do about the same. A HUMVEE (especialy uparmored) has no great towing capacity as previously mentioned (especialy off road). A comercial 4x4 with an upgraded offroad suspension system — tires — exhaust — and power take off will out tow and out perform a HUMVEE all day long ( if you try and run a HUMVEE all day long at 50 miles an hour offroad towing something it will explode the engine or trans). But modern 4x4’s have thier limits as well due to converting to the cushy independent suspension systems. SOLID AXLE LEAFSPRING SUSPENSIONS ARE STILL THE STRONGEST AND BEST OFFROAD SUSPENSIONS AND EASY TO UPGRADE TO HANDLE MORE HEIGHT OR WEIGHT.

If COTS actualy worked and our engineers actualy knew anything about offroading what would happen is they would take the 25,000 M35’s mentioned and remove the cab — bed — engine — trans, and rbuild the diffs and suspension. then install a Cummins turbo diesel and allison trans onto it — from there design and build new bodies such as stretched out versions of the new HUMVEE V hull IED replacement body (some in wagon & some in quad cab truck configurations) the cost would be less than 1 mil each, 5 mil less than a MATV. With the truck configurations you would be able to perm mount mortars or recoiless rifles in the rear rather than towing them. The M35 is a good platform — one of the best ever — thats why it is still around — I have seen them more than once pulling thier new replacements out of mud holes or through flood water more than once, with a modern engine — trans and cab they would be awesome for another 50 years.

Wow! The most powerful, expensive, and technology dependent military force in history can’t figure out what kind and how many trucks it needs? Let’s see if we can agree on some ground rules:

- Buy the same trucks for all the services; same NSN, same tires, same radio, same paint.

- Plan on all the vehicles to be deployable; contract for stateside transportation.

- Buy a trailer for each vehicle not designated as a prime mover for towed equipment; ensure the trailer uses the same tires and rims as the towing vehicle.

- Plan for a gun on each vehicle.

- Don’t design the vehicle with changing specifications, let industry show what they can do.

- Have a fifty year plan with four year increments.

77705256
Nice of you guys to keep it clean. M35, MRAP, crap, etc.. Everyone thinks they have the solution whether it is hardware, software or anything else. Let’s get out of the spending spiral — acquire — design — maintain — disenfranchise and start all over. Just do what gets the job done. It is difficult and appropriate to support our troops with what they require not what someone else wants them to have or thinks they should. Ground pounders will get the job done with whatever they can find. Is that fair? NO. Just the way it is. Humvee no just walk the terrain, CV22 no just helo us in close. We walk well on our own with air and TAC support

I think you have some good points about the M35 being upgraded, but you are far off on the costs associated with the MATV. The MATV is under 500K new, and after the military upgrades it is just over 1 million such as the communications package. It has far surpassed anything the HUMVEE has been ableto do and has saved a significant amount of lives in battle. The adaption of newer technology to our boys fleet is a great idea due to the fact that the soldiers serving deserve the very best. I think we need to invest more in saving American lives than we do in helping other countries fix themselves.

Yours is a strange statement indeed. Aside from the now obsolete CUCVs, there are relatively few civilian vehicles in service. And none deployed tactically. There is no comparison between a HUMVEE and a Suburban. Completely different design and engineering emphasis. That is the Suburban was never designed or intended for tactical deployment. The HUMVEE is a MUCH more heavily constructed vehicle all the way around. That’s true vs either the 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton Suburban. The HUMVEE has GVW rating at least a ton higher than the Suburban. BTW, under similar driving conditions, the HUMVEE should get as good or better mileage; it has a diesel engine…

Driven under the same conditions, only the most heavily modified civilian vehicles would have a chance of competing with a HUMVEE. Heavily modified civilian off road vehicles break CONSTANTLY in off-road endurance runs, such as the Rubicon in California.

Surley with all the money being pumped into anti-IED devices someone would invent a realtime vison reading device for IED detection. Its not the vechicals as the major issue rather the causes such as China, Iran and other nations supplies smarter IED devices. Knockout the IEDs first or even better remove the threats of the Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Lash-E-Tobia funnding for rouge or so called friendly states.

my chevy 2500hd with pintle (identicle to our post’ govrment vehicles) will pull trailers our 1151 up armored will not. Read the tow rating on the hmmwv then look in a chevy 2500hd’s owners manual. Nuff said.

COTS MRAPS were a great IMMEDIATE fix. We got trucks fast. But now its time to do it right. As far as soldiers on the ground have been concerned an MRAP was a disposable vehicle. The hulls held up and saved lives but the trucks themselves never lasted up to the terrain in afg.

“my chevy 2500hd with pintle (identicle to our post’ govrment vehicles) will pull trailers our 1151 up armored will not.”

That’s the key word: armored. Would your Chevy stand up to even small-arms fire?

G’day BOOMER: I think you nailed the problem to the wall. I have held this belief for a long time. The M35 is certainly a good place to start. I agree the basic rule should be commonality across all platforms. Find a solid chassis and drive-train in the 11/2 to 21/2 ton range, possibly with a dedicated cab and comm.suite then develop modular systems that can be bolted on as requirements are defined. This would simplify the logistics train immensely as well the training requirements for the mechanics. This concept should also be applied to the ongoing GCV fiasco whether it’s wheeled or tracked. Start with a solid dependable chassis and drive-train and a modular approach to the rest of the vehicle as requirements develop. The cost per unit would be more on par for a commercial product than any present Mil. development/acquisition cost.

This would also benefit industry as any related company could gear up for production at a relatively low tooling cost. It would also seem to be a good way to get some much needed jobs back for the big three auto manufacturers as well as many small national sub-contractors.

I also see this as an excellent selling point to allies/NATO as they could retool manufacturing to suit their needs and the U.S. would make money from licensing and weapons suites. Being Canadian I could easily see our Military investing in such a concept.

Of course this seems too simple and logical that it will probably never see the light of day. Well we can only hope that someone will wake up and smell the coffee.

lets put it this way you can flip a humvee going 30mph.

I’ve got it… Use more FAST little dirt bikes that can carry one man and 100lb. of gear, Small cost, fast and not restricted to roads or trails, attach a light weight Titanium shield and a small camouflage net to hide it when necessary. Now you have a FAST,HIGHLY MOBILE, HARD TO HIT trooper that can travel anywhere the bike can go. Equipped with a small GPS/Radio like the Garmin Rino and you can spread your troops out to reduce IED effectiveness.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement