$5 billion competition on to replace Humvee - Defender Source
Defender Source  

Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old June 5th, 2012, 01:42 PM
Glenn_Guinto's Avatar
Glenn_Guinto
Status: Offline
Glenn Guinto
94LWB; 99D1; 06RR S/C
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Valley, NY
Posts: 1,037
Registry
$5 billion competition on to replace Humvee

Interesting vehicles here... ECR should build a US version of a pink panther and enter the competition....

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2012...NEWS/120609930
__________________
Glenn


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old June 5th, 2012, 01:47 PM
giftshopduane
Status: Offline
Chris luciano
72 Series 3 88"
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Shirley MA
Posts: 336
Funny don't they all look kinda like Hummers? Why don't they save some $$ and keep building Hummers? Or GM can do it for free and start paying back the taxpayers for their bailout.

On a side note my vote is with the VALANX
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old June 5th, 2012, 02:15 PM
Wolf Fabrication's Avatar
Wolf Fabrication
Status: Offline
Sterling Archer
'08 D3
D-90 Source Vendor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oahu, HI
Posts: 7,453
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by giftshopduane View Post
Funny don't they all look kinda like Hummers? Why don't they save some $$ and keep building Hummers? Or GM can do it for free and start paying back the taxpayers for their bailout.
Because the HMMWV has been rendered completely obsolete by the IED and the post Cold War combat evironment. You can only up armor the truck to a certain point, wherein it becomes pointless.
__________________
"The most unreliable car in the world is the most reliable car in the world." -Jeremy Clarkson refering to the Range Rover


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Semper Fi!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old June 5th, 2012, 02:30 PM
Bill Larson's Avatar
Bill Larson
Status: Offline
Bill Larson
97 D90 SW
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AUS
Posts: 6,563
Back in the day when I did security for LTV Aerospace they did alot of prototyping for the hummer, at the time it was cool stuff. I dont know why big goverment is so stuck on big companies. Some of the best stuff comes out of little fab shops!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old June 5th, 2012, 02:47 PM
SafariHP's Avatar
SafariHP
Status: Offline
Safari Heritage Parts
1983 Defender 110
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA
Posts: 3,326
Rumors around the hallways at the office say that LMCO has this one in the Bank. Some of these are already fielding at least at some the installations I've been to recently.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old June 5th, 2012, 03:09 PM
Jackie Treehorn's Avatar
Jackie Treehorn
Status: Offline
A
1985 (legitimately)
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,984
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn_Guinto View Post
Interesting vehicles here... ECR should build a US version of a pink panther and enter the competition....

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2012...NEWS/120609930
Uncle Sam probably can't afford ECR.
Or more specifically, ECR could never deal with any budget oversight
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old June 5th, 2012, 03:12 PM
Overlander's Avatar
Overlander
Status: Offline
mark kellgren
in between D's in an 04 D2
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,531
Registry
Well here's my thoughts:
  1. BRV-O: that's a just an old HMMVW in a new suit. That crap needs to go. Flat bottoms are so 57 seconds ago. I've seen what an IED underneath a HMMVW will do to it. I'm not riding in that POC.
  2. Eagle: way to simple and flat bottom. Same as BRV-O
  3. L-ATV: What the hell is going on with the front end? That engine compartment is bigger than the crew compartment and bed combined. From that driver's perspective, he will not effectively be able to place his wheel track off-road. F' that.
  4. JLTV: Now that looks more like it. mine-resistant bottom, reasonable cab space and load space. Still looks rather heavy. Heavy, tall and wide is what caused a lot of MRAP's deployed in the middle east to remain parked in the FOB. Too wide for narrow 3rd world 2 or 1 lane roads, too heavy for sand/mud in farm fields, etc. Too big overall to navigate urban streets designed at the time of ox carts.
  5. Saratoga. Looks like a HMMVW with a frame up armored chassis, rather than add on armor. It's mine resistance will determine it's fate in this competition.
  6. Valanx has it all for the current threats we face. Much smaller than traditional MRAPs, but still may be on the heavy side of this competition, and I'll bet it's the most expensive, which hurts them in current economic environment. Will also probably be more thirsty to keep going then all the rest, so operational cost and maintenance will sting them going head to head. This is not a versatile platform.
To completely replace the HMMWV, the vehicle needs to not only serve as that patrol vehicle for line troops facing IED threats, but it also needs to be practical in peacetime as a vehicle a company commander can jump in to go to a meeting in around base or in the field, as well as something that the first sergeant can go pickup chow in and deliver to troops. The platform must be versatile for this role.

If the Pentagon goes as cheap as possible, then we'll likely see the BRV-O. If they care more about mission and best suited tool, I'm guessing it'll be the JLTV or Valanx. IED's aren't going away anytime soon.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old June 5th, 2012, 03:21 PM
rijosho's Avatar
rijosho
Status: Offline
Joshua
1995 Black ST - Rhinolined edition
Research Assistant/Eagle Eyes
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,557
Registry
Yeah, I was surprised by the number of those on the list that still appeared to have rather flat bottoms to them.
__________________
Quote:
I am talking purely from an aesthetics standpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old June 5th, 2012, 03:37 PM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
They should just run standard land rovers or j**p JKs for most stuff and leave the uparmored stuff for specialized missions. Nothing wrong with a normal truck for most work -- and cheaper by a factor of 10.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old June 5th, 2012, 03:40 PM
hillstrubl's Avatar
hillstrubl
Status: Offline
Danny
2005 Disco 3
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Philly, USA
Posts: 1,596
double post
__________________
~2005 Disco 3 "Moneypenny"
~2008 GTI TSI
~If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in English, thank a Veteran.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old June 5th, 2012, 03:40 PM
o2batsea's Avatar
o2batsea
Status: Offline
Bill Adams
66 109 sw 94 lwb
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kensington md
Posts: 6,503
Registry
There's something like 4B worth of soon-to-be obsolete MRAPS sitting in the desert with nowhere to go. I guess they will have to give them to the Afghans to use as taxis. Wapo story here
__________________
Bill Adams

1966 109 5 door wagon 300Tdi "spermaceti fueled"
1994 RRC LeWiB "ruining the air behind me"
1968 2A 88

All my troubles are Rover
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old June 5th, 2012, 03:40 PM
hillstrubl's Avatar
hillstrubl
Status: Offline
Danny
2005 Disco 3
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Philly, USA
Posts: 1,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by giftshopduane View Post
Why don't they save some $$ and keep building Hummers? Or GM can do it for free and start paying back the taxpayers for their bailout.

I'm wondering this too...
__________________
~2005 Disco 3 "Moneypenny"
~2008 GTI TSI
~If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in English, thank a Veteran.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old June 5th, 2012, 04:04 PM
Red90's Avatar
Red90
Status: Online
John B.
1991 Defender 90, 200TDI
Site Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,242
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstrubl View Post
I'm wondering this too...
Running a small budget is not a goal....
__________________
Pissing people off on the "net" since 1983.

Land Rover. Turning owners into mechanics since 1948.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old June 5th, 2012, 04:22 PM
BCN's Avatar
BCN
Status: Offline
BRIAN
94/D90/#1337/AA YELLOW
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: LA, CA, USA
Posts: 53
Ch! Why are you guys looking at cost versus design? Look in who's congressional districts these vehicles will be assembled.... that will tell who will win.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old June 5th, 2012, 04:33 PM
o2batsea's Avatar
o2batsea
Status: Offline
Bill Adams
66 109 sw 94 lwb
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kensington md
Posts: 6,503
Registry
Hummers were designed to fight the Soviet Union. That entity no longer exists so building weapons systems to combat it is counterintuitive.

Besides, I think they were made by AM General,
__________________
Bill Adams

1966 109 5 door wagon 300Tdi "spermaceti fueled"
1994 RRC LeWiB "ruining the air behind me"
1968 2A 88

All my troubles are Rover
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old June 5th, 2012, 04:36 PM
Overlander's Avatar
Overlander
Status: Offline
mark kellgren
in between D's in an 04 D2
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,531
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by o2batsea View Post
Hummers were designed to fight the Soviet Union. That entity no longer exists so building weapons systems to combat it is counterintuitive.
Hush your mouth! Putin does not agree with that assessment yankee swine!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old June 5th, 2012, 05:13 PM
GYM's Avatar
GYM
Status: Offline
Gary
97 SW
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: West Coast
Posts: 1,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSBriggs View Post
I think the CUCV (Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle) program from the 70's-80's still makes alot of sense. Rovers and Jeeps dont even make as much sense as Dodge and Chevy 3/4t pickups.

-Jeff
This is what I remember as well. Obviously the IED threat wasn't what it is now; but what about stateside units?

Wasn't the Humvee the replacement for the old M151 A2 jeep-like vehicles?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old June 5th, 2012, 05:15 PM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
OK pickups and blazers not rovers and jeeps, whatever, $260k for a truck does not make sense at all.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old June 5th, 2012, 06:03 PM
Ray_G's Avatar
Ray_G
Status: Offline
Ray Gerber
54 S1 86", 96 D1 (Coyote), 06 D3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NoVA
Posts: 2,636
Registry
This is one of those subjects that is bound to get me fired up for years to come b/c I'm too close to the issue. Some thoughts, which hopefully won't turn into too much of a rant:

-We're doing a magnificent job of letting the defense industrial cart get in front of the strategy horse. If we're going to pivot to Asia, avoid major land conflict, and all the other things that come from the last decade of conflict (what I lovingly refer to as most of my adult professional life) then why do we need to have a vehicle that is the perfect apex of technology to win against the last war(s) threats. Quite frankly none of the candidates are a revolutionary leap beyond the existing MRAP and MATV family so why invest in them at all?
-The HMMWV performed magnificently in roles it was never supposed to in numbers well beyond what the task organization of any element of our armed service were supposed to have. For fans of history the HMMWV is easily akin to the German Panzer Mk IV; none of the glory of the Panther or Tiger but it was the workhorse day in/day out for the bulk of the real fighting that took place (at least in Iraq) and when you reached the pinnacle of its up-armoring it was a decent truck that kept a lot of people alive. I loved mine:
Click image for larger version

Name:	1st truck (Medium).JPG
Views:	186
Size:	70.2 KB
ID:	52579
Would it defeat bottom attack IEDs or the best in shaped charges? Nope, but the harsh answer to that is something that people don't like to hear:
-Change your tactics. Walk more, at night...like this
Click image for larger version

Name:	Sniper_DA.JPG
Views:	192
Size:	97.4 KB
ID:	52578
You don't get IED'd that much when you are on foot instead of staring through your bulletproof glass. Moreover the guy you're fighting wears flip flops...all that body armor isn't that impressive and when you are acting like infantry you look like an overweight cop chasing a crackhead. But I'm biased. IED's are a symptom of a conflict, not the cause. Attack the motivations of those picking up arms and you stop IEDs.

Some other food for thought:
-None of these vehicles float and all of them weigh a lot. Meaning they don't fit well inside amphibious shipping, so they'll require black bottom boats to get them anywhere in significant numbers-which further means we have to own a port in a conflict zone or take FOREVER to build up combat power. The weight issue means because they are so heavy flying them in is painful and VERY expensive.

I guess my bottom line is we need to think of what we really intend to do in terms of strategy, and doctrine, and then build equipment that is effective in that arena. In the meantime HMMWVs would work fine in most conflicts we face until it matures threat-wise into a real IED environment (Syria, for example, has been in a civil war for a year and it took almost that long for the IED threat to actually emerge).

I'll end my rant for now lest I go further off the deep end...
r-
Ray
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old June 5th, 2012, 06:13 PM
o2batsea's Avatar
o2batsea
Status: Offline
Bill Adams
66 109 sw 94 lwb
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kensington md
Posts: 6,503
Registry
Quote:
We're doing a magnificent job of letting the defense industrial cart get in front of the strategy horse.
LOL. Our weaponry is made by whoever can throw the best parties.
__________________
Bill Adams

1966 109 5 door wagon 300Tdi "spermaceti fueled"
1994 RRC LeWiB "ruining the air behind me"
1968 2A 88

All my troubles are Rover
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat

Tags
ac

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuse Box easy to replace? waveridin1959 Defender Technical Discussions 7 November 5th, 2005 08:11 PM
Land Rover will not replace Defender dbwitt Misc. Chit-Chat 27 March 22nd, 2005 03:03 PM
How do I replace those locks? rustydefender Defender Technical Discussions 3 November 6th, 2004 04:40 PM
Replace tranny hump insulation??? JRowe Defender Technical Discussions 8 October 16th, 2003 10:35 PM
How hard to replace a Transfer case? crash0577 Defender Technical Discussions 1 October 7th, 2003 08:40 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 PM.


Copyright