I don't see how this can be a direct replacement. This is a much better vehicle for the HMMWV's combat role, but most of the time you actually use a HMMWV as a pickup truck with 8 soldiers sitting in the back driving around post. Does this mean that units will also get F-150s for driving around in the US?
Yep. This is a great replacement for the "gun truck" version of the HMMWV, but there are numerous other variations. Cargo, medical, commo, mechanics, air defense, and doubtless many others I missed all have there own heavily customized HMMWV variants. Surely the military has plans for those as well?
As a former ambulance driver, the only thing this platform seems to offer is better armor and suspension. All of the other features seem largely useless in an ambulance version of this vehicle. I wonder if the military will build variants based on it anyway or go for a separate "utility" platform.
When I was in (mid-80's) there was the CUCV program, which was Chevy Blazers and Silverados. They had Detroit Diesel engines and 24V power, and were designed for what you'd use a pickup and SUV for - running around base and the local area.
I expect with the price and weight of the new L-ATVs, they'll bring back that program for a "runabout" vehicle.
I went digging and it looks like the JLTV is a partial replacement for HMMWV. There are a quarter million HMMWV in the US Army fleet alone - the Army order for JLTV is 50k until 2040. No news on how they're going to replace the other huge chunk of HMMWV's used in low threat roles.
In various other articles, I've seen 2-6 soldiers/Marines listed as the capacity. Also, references to differing levels of armor and armament, though I haven't seen any details.
I agree that the L-ATV doesn't appear suitable as a "run errands on base" truck. I do not know what the Army plans to do for this need.
"This is a much better vehicle for the HMMWV's combat role..."
I'm not so sure about that. Exactly how is this thing "light"? I've heard too many horror stories about HMMWVs getting trapped in tight quarters in towns and the excitement of reversing a convoy under fire. If you need a tank, you need a tank; if you don't need a tank, you don't want a tank.
In today's wars, you almost certainly don't ever want a tank. If you want armor, you want a Stryker. I saw several soldiers lose their lives in M1 Abrams tank, and not a single in a Stryker during combat. Due to the extremely large mufflers that run the length of both sides, the Strykers are so quiet and they are fast enough that by the time they are upon you, you don't know it. In Mosul, our unit was known as the Ghost Riders by the locals due to them never knowing we were there until we were right up on them. The only soldiers we lost in a Stryker while I was in country (03-04) was one that flipped off a bridge and went face down in river mud. They were trapped inside :(
On the other hand, the Abrams tanks suffered many casualties as it is very loud and slow moving. Insurgents have time to emplace IEDs or (worse!) EFPs which with enough 120mm artillery shells, will quite trivially take out a tank at close range. The slow moving heavy armor of the cold war doesn't work in today's asymetric warfare. Here is a slightly photoshopped picture of a Stryker I took at the Palace in Mosul: http://www.digitalprognosis.com/album/images/iraqpics/the-st... Note the bird cage armor which stops RPGs cold.
Source: I was US Army and am a vet of OIF II (UAV Platoon D Troop 1-14 Cavalry 4th Brigade 2nd Infantry Division) in country around 2003-2004 (during the Fallujah offensive)
Comments
I don't see how this can be a direct replacement. This is a much better vehicle for the HMMWV's combat role, but most of the time you actually use a HMMWV as a pickup truck with 8 soldiers sitting in the back driving around post. Does this mean that units will also get F-150s for driving around in the US?
Yep. This is a great replacement for the "gun truck" version of the HMMWV, but there are numerous other variations. Cargo, medical, commo, mechanics, air defense, and doubtless many others I missed all have there own heavily customized HMMWV variants. Surely the military has plans for those as well?
As a former ambulance driver, the only thing this platform seems to offer is better armor and suspension. All of the other features seem largely useless in an ambulance version of this vehicle. I wonder if the military will build variants based on it anyway or go for a separate "utility" platform.
When I was in (mid-80's) there was the CUCV program, which was Chevy Blazers and Silverados. They had Detroit Diesel engines and 24V power, and were designed for what you'd use a pickup and SUV for - running around base and the local area.
I expect with the price and weight of the new L-ATVs, they'll bring back that program for a "runabout" vehicle.
I went digging and it looks like the JLTV is a partial replacement for HMMWV. There are a quarter million HMMWV in the US Army fleet alone - the Army order for JLTV is 50k until 2040. No news on how they're going to replace the other huge chunk of HMMWV's used in low threat roles.
In various other articles, I've seen 2-6 soldiers/Marines listed as the capacity. Also, references to differing levels of armor and armament, though I haven't seen any details.
I agree that the L-ATV doesn't appear suitable as a "run errands on base" truck. I do not know what the Army plans to do for this need.
Totally agree. That and have they planned on air dropping this behemoth? I've seen a HMMWV's with failed 'chutes lying on the DZ.
Or what about a deep fording kit for this guy? I feel like they're trying to make an F-35 on land so they don't have to keep buying trucks.
We use the MILCOT (Silverado) here in Canada, though the G-wagen serves a similar role b.c its so lightly armored.
"This is a much better vehicle for the HMMWV's combat role..."
I'm not so sure about that. Exactly how is this thing "light"? I've heard too many horror stories about HMMWVs getting trapped in tight quarters in towns and the excitement of reversing a convoy under fire. If you need a tank, you need a tank; if you don't need a tank, you don't want a tank.
In today's wars, you almost certainly don't ever want a tank. If you want armor, you want a Stryker. I saw several soldiers lose their lives in M1 Abrams tank, and not a single in a Stryker during combat. Due to the extremely large mufflers that run the length of both sides, the Strykers are so quiet and they are fast enough that by the time they are upon you, you don't know it. In Mosul, our unit was known as the Ghost Riders by the locals due to them never knowing we were there until we were right up on them. The only soldiers we lost in a Stryker while I was in country (03-04) was one that flipped off a bridge and went face down in river mud. They were trapped inside :(
On the other hand, the Abrams tanks suffered many casualties as it is very loud and slow moving. Insurgents have time to emplace IEDs or (worse!) EFPs which with enough 120mm artillery shells, will quite trivially take out a tank at close range. The slow moving heavy armor of the cold war doesn't work in today's asymetric warfare. Here is a slightly photoshopped picture of a Stryker I took at the Palace in Mosul: http://www.digitalprognosis.com/album/images/iraqpics/the-st... Note the bird cage armor which stops RPGs cold.
Source: I was US Army and am a vet of OIF II (UAV Platoon D Troop 1-14 Cavalry 4th Brigade 2nd Infantry Division) in country around 2003-2004 (during the Fallujah offensive)
It's light compared to current MRAPs.