Hummer obsolete?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

HYPOCENTER 10/28/2006 5:05:42 PM

Realistically, not everyone can have an M1A1 and that’s not what I’m calling for. An M1A1 level of vehicle is overkill for use in most instances and not very good for urban combat anyway (and some IED’s can/do take them out). But armoring all vehicles is necessary. Yeah, sure, budgets will go wild as with all new procurement (nothing new there). The real question should be: can we afford NOT to?

For instance, putting the human life variable aside… I know that up armoring HMMWVs is lowering their life cycle by years. I read somewhere the max-life span of an up-armored HMMWV is 4 years. So increased costs will happen either way… a whole new vehicle is more than warranted.

In urban warfare, in conflicts where there is no rear echelon and a “front line” is non-existent (i.e. Afghanistan/Iraq) soft skin vehicles are obsolete.

Any cost in defense budget would be immediately repaid in the political and operational gain by a military that is 1) better capable 2) increased moral from better protection and 3) lives saved from IED attacks, decreasing political pressure and thus frustrating the enemy.

Quote Reply

verong m-1117 10/28/2006 5:07:56 PM

Hey there Folks,

The Armored Humvee was originally used by the MP's. It is being replaced by the M-1117 ASV.

all those armored vehicles reduce the number of dead and wounded per combat sorte!!!!!!! Now that is just fine with me!!!! how about you?????

Sincerely,

Keith

Quote Reply

Nasty German Idiot 10/28/2006 5:43:54 PM

The Fennek is a designated scout vehicle, not the kind that you use for patrols (although that may be a role of them too)

Dingo fits that role, is able to survive heavy IED and mine hits

antitank mine hit, crew only slightly injured

Quote Reply

HYPOCENTER ULTRA-AP and 3T 10/28/2006 8:26:58 PM

Here are two designs from Georgia Tech (I think they're both based off of current ford chassis): The first is the ULTRA AP

Then there is the ULTRA 3T (below)

PS: I found a list of vehicles on... (but it shows what else is out there).

Quote Reply

joe6pack 10/28/2006 10:36:43 PM

"Yeah, sure, budgets will go wild as with all new procurement (nothing new there). The real question should be: can we afford NOT to?"

Brutally honest? My answer is yes. Mostly because I don't believe we can afford to make every vehichle in the US inventory weigh in start at 8 or more tons. Probably cruising towards 15-20 if you want to proof them against a lot of the threats out thier. Look, budgets are not unlimited. Even if a whole new fleet of up-armored vehichles did come into existence. The long term expense of maintaining and deploying them will eat into training dollars. It will make future deployments that more difficult. The level of support needed to maintain troops abroad will be greater.

"Any cost in defense budget would be immediately repaid in the political" - see my previous comment. New congress, or war ends, or federal budget needs to make some cuts. Dollars get cut from the military and we have a heavy force that we can't adequately maintain or train with. When looking at new systems, the DoD has to look at current as well as future issues.

"and operational gain by a military that is 1) better capable" - I beleive that is debatable. See my concerns regarding deployability and support.

"2) increased moral from better protection and" - I see this as a yes and no sort of thing. Certainly more protection is a good thing and breeds more confidence in the vehichle. However, I have some minor worries about the idea.

"3) lives saved from IED attacks, decreasing political pressure and thus frustrating the enemy." Short of the M1A1 idea, I don't think this is long term fix. The enemy will adapt.

Now, I'm not totally in disagreement with you. We have to look at these issues when designing new vehichles. However, I'm not convinced that creating a fleet of heavily armored vehichles is a workable solution.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles Armored Support Vehicles 10/31/2006 10:07:27 PM

You DO NOT want to have too much armor on your logisitics fleet. Enough for crew protection is it. Too much weight and you are burning too much fuel. More importantly you are destroying the roads you are running on which requires greater engineering assets.

Quote Reply

1 2