It seems the HMMWV is on its way out. What are your thoughts?

SGM Steve Wettstein — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:20:18 -0400

DoD has selected Oshkosh to build the replacement for the HMMWV, the JLTV. What are your feelings on this. What did you think of the HMMWV?

http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2015/08/25/oshkosh-wins-jltv-award/32278319/

Oshkosh Defense wins $30B contract to build vehicles that will replace Humvee ﬂeet

Oshkosh Defense won a major contract to build the ground vehicle that could become a symbol of the U.S. Army for a generation and will eventually replace the Pentagon's storied but aging fleet of Humvees, the Army announced Tuesday.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 26 at 2015 6:28 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:28:06 -0400

I will always remember my first sight of Humvees. Huge Lot of them Maintained at Annacostia Naval Station Washington DC 87-90. Neat Vehicles.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 26 at 2015 6:33 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:33:03 -0400

The company shares its name with a kids clothing manufacturer, hmm...

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Aug 26 at 2015 6:43 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:43:21 -0400

While many will complain about the costs, if it better protects our Soldiers, Sailors, Airment and Marines when asked to put their lives on the line, it is worth the cost. Protecting our Nations most precious resource, our sons and daughters is of the utmost importance! I look forward to seeing this on mission!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMuGPeiuRo

Oshkosh is JLTV. Anything else is something less.

When it comes to protecting our troops, there’s no substitute for experience. Based on billions of real-world operational miles, only the Oshkosh Light Comb...

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Aug 26 at 2015 6:53 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:53:14 -0400

I never saw a Humvee. I was in and out during the era of the M151 Jeep. I remember hearing the Humvee's were coming but they had not made it before I departed in 1985.

The M151's were Vietnam era relics but were great off road vehicles. They would have never worked in the middle east with the open tops, no armor etc. and armoring them would have been difficult at best. The only way we could beef them up was putting sand bags on the floor. IED's would have destroyed them.

The Humvee was a good vehicle at the right time and the military got a lot of good use out of them and they served us well. There were the issues of getting them armored up early on in Iraq but IED's and the like were not contemplated when they were designed and I am sure the cost of armoring them initially was considered and ruled out.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 26 at 2015 6:59 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:59:50 -0400

I see a lot of parallels between the HMMWV (and its replacement) and the F35. It's our baseline common ground platform.

The old jeeps were our Gen1. We realized we needed something more robust and came up with the Gen2: HMMWV. We're now evolving into Gen3

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Aug 26 at 2015 7:02 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:02:06 -0400

I thought the HMMWV was too wide. You need something that can fit in a CH 53 instead of being slung underneath it. The jeeps used in WWII by contrast fit easily. Perhaps we need a helo with a slightly wider bay to accommodate the next gen of vehicles.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 7:29 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:29:14 -0400

The HMMMVhas been an excellent asset the military. I'm confident the JLTV will cut the mustard. Several my Soldiers at USAOTC gave it rave reviews and Identified a couple possible improvements. Hopefully when it roles out it will be on point.

Response by SGT William Howell made Aug 26 at 2015 7:35 AM

SGT William Howell — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:35:10 -0400

It was a POS from the start. It was way too big for what it could actually carry. 4 people and not all their gear for a vehicle twice the size of a SUV. It was too wide to drive anywhere overseas. If you needed something on the other side of post you had to drive this huge monstrosity. Don't even get me started on the seats. It was just a freaking nightmare.

What we need is a smaller vehicle that we can actually get around in. Like a JEEP!

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 26 at 2015 7:52 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:52:26 -0400

It's a great step. Hopefully it's properly armored and sturdy enough to protect our troops

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 8:26 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:26:57 -0400

The HMMWV is probably another example of the DOD trying to make a Swiss Army knife out of a can-opener. What started out as a replacement for the "Jeep" has been converted to what amounts to a light tank...albeit with an inferior powerplant and drive train.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 26 at 2015 8:51 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:51:38 -0400

I saw on of these when I was in the Stan and wasn't impressed. The Hummer wasn't suited for the mission over there, but it did give mobility where my Cougar gave strength and capability. I'm also biased towards the Cougar with what I was able to carry in terms of cargo, weapons, and ammo, and I also liked the Hummer for some of the same reasons. I'm glad this is going to an American company, that will employ folks in a time where jobs are scarce, and maybe I'll get the chance to drive one of these and change my mind on it.

Response by Sgt Joshua Ray made Aug 26 at 2015 9:25 AM

Sgt Joshua Ray — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:25:44 -0400

We used the hmmwv in Iraq. It broke down a lot while we there. It never seemed to work right consistently. we were sending it for repair about once a month each month. The thing did have a lot of power and when it did run it got us where we needed to go but I would grade it a c+ overall.

Response by SFC Nikhil Kumra made Aug 26 at 2015 9:53 AM

SFC Nikhil Kumra — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:53:07 -0400

I personally believe that the HMMVW has never really been conducive to a light infantry, small unit strategy of "smaller, more lethal" .... I always felt that it was too bulky, and did not handle as well as it should in situations where speed is more important than security. Furthermore, it looks like this vehicle may be better armored than an HMMVW, which is key to future wars. I think that this is a great idea. Whether you're in an offensive position or bounding back, you always need speed and maneuverability.

I believe the way we look at IEDs is wrong - It is simply a problem to fix - as soon as we find a way to successfully avoid or even "pass through" IEDs with little to no damage, the enemy will be weakened severely - of course you do have some HUGE IEDs, but not every IED is absolutely catastrophic. If we can find a resolution to what we consider "catastrophic" today, then the smaller/"normal" IEDs will be completely harmless in vehicles - if we can figure out a way to make IEDs harmless while on foot? We'll be invincible. Just my opinion.

What concerns me more with all of this is -- what are our plans for our current equipment? Are we going to supply our future enemies? How will the politicians screw this up? Can we re-coup some money off of our old equipment? Can we get rid of armor capabilities prior to selling the HMMVWs off? Either way, in that case, as long as the new vehicle is more maneuverable, I guess it will due since we'll likely be fighting our enemy in our old vehicles anyway...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 10:00 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:00:16 -0400

It isn't intended to replace the HMMWV as you can see by the limited numbers. It's also too tall to serve effectively in a HBCT as a support vehicle. I'm really curious which units will receive these, seems like a good role for the stability mission but not fit for offense or defense. How is this better than the M-ATV?

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Aug 26 at 2015 10:23 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:23:22 -0400

I came in with the M151 and there was nothing better than our M151A2s. We could put them almost anywhere...I think we tried. They did not have any type of armor...unless you counted the windshields...if we ever put them up...but you could hide them with a bed sheet or behind three foot high bush? Bigger is not always better
At the low end of the amount they are talking about, we could just put our troops in Lamborghini Gallardos? If nothing else, think about what we could do for recruiting?
To the statement in the article, there is NO way 'the JLTV would have the protective armor of a tank but the fleet-footed mobility of a Jeep' This is an engineering impossibility. I swear there were times we would just pick up the Jeeps and have four or five men move them if you could not drive it into a place.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 10:47 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:47:59 -0400

I loved the HMMWV and despised the UAHMMWV. The HMMWV was great for what is was designed for, which was not having tons of aftermarket armour added to it. I never had any mechanical issues with a HMMWV. I've had 3 UAHMMWVs burst into flame on me, non-combat related. What caused the fire? The fire suppression system shorting out, yes the fire suppression system caused the fire. We should have gone for a rebuild 10 years ago rather than now.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 11:12 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:12:54 -0400

This has obviously been on the way for a long time. The MRAP was a questionable design for a quick solution to a problem. Wasn't the long term answer though. The problem with the HMMWV (a venerable mule of a system) isn't the HMMWV itself. It could certainly do everything that it was supposed to do back when. The problem lies in the other systems that we have added to it. Think back to the first HMMWV's. They had a HMMWV and a radio...maybe a weapon system. That was it. Now there are DUKES and RHINOS and FBCB2 and PLGGRS, and acoustic sensors and a small goat attached to the thing. The lack of armor doesn't help either, but that's not as big of an issue now. There isn't space in a HMMWV because of what has been added to it. We need to make sure we take that knowledge forward with the JLTV or we will run into the same issues in the future.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 26 at 2015 11:20 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:20:50 -0400

One question. Where are the thousands we paid for over the past 8 or 10 years. This looks like the MIC getting their political due.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 26 at 2015 12:34 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:34:07 -0400

Sounds like another highly overpriced vehicle, that will have huge problems, survivability issues and major delays in construction - is there any acquisition project recently that hasn't?

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Aug 26 at 2015 12:48 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:48:50 -0400

the humvee is a good vic pay the Billion on the toops

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 1:02 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:02:16 -0400

I have a lot of knowledge about this program, including the development and selection. It's great to see it progressing, and I think the JLTV is going to be a great platform!

edit: weird it looked like it posted this in the middle of typing my reply. Please see my complete reply instead of this one :-/

Sorry for the duplicate!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 1:06 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:06:04 -0400

I have a lot of knowledge about this program, including the development and selection. It's great to see it progressing, and I think the JLTV is going to be a great platform!

It brings back significant reliability and supportability that were lost with the (needed) rapid fielding and variety of MRAPs. Hopefully this will be a long lasting performer.

Background: MRAPs were developed and deployed by many different companies all at once. This was to get a needed capability to the fight quickly. They intentionally didn't care about how long they lasted or how they would be maintained and taken care of. At the same time they started the JLTV program as a longer term solution to the same problem. We are now at the phase of getting rid of the MRAPs and fielding the JLTV.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Aug 26 at 2015 1:10 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:10:11 -0400

The humvee is a good vehicles give the billion to the toops

Response by Sgt Adam Jennings made Aug 26 at 2015 2:07 PM

Sgt Adam Jennings — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:07:38 -0400

It's time for a change. The HMMWV was a great vehicle for its time, but times have changed. I'd love to have a surplus HMMWV to run around in the mountains here. But I don't have to worry about IEDs, rocky/craggy surfaces on the mountains in my area, or insurgents shooting at me. I think it's time our brothers and sisters got a vehicle worthy of the climate they are now fighting in.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Aug 26 at 2015 4:08 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:08:43 -0400

Well the HMMWV has been around since 1984. It is a great vehicle that has its own issues. Room being one. If they come out with a platform that is good as the HMMWV and it has more room I am all for it!

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 26 at 2015 4:28 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:28:30 -0400

My thoughts are probably the same as every other veteran's thoughts. Which country gets all the old stuff and when do we expect to go to war against them?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 4:46 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:46:18 -0400

This thing looks way too much like a MATV. I hope it's just aesthetics, because the MATV made the Humvee feel comfortable.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Aug 26 at 2015 4:46 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:46:50 -0400

You want my honest opinion, GM used and abused the US Military with a very poor quality machine, prone to failure, underpowered, machine. the engine and tranny were prone too many failure of epic proportions. There mantra was to sell cheap and make their money on the repair parts. GM owes the tax payers for selling us a lemon of a vehicle for so long. I hope, and I pray Oshkosh does not think this way, their product have mostly been very well made and held up well.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 8:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:12:26 -0400

SGM, I just looked at this today. I think that in the AOs that we have been operating in, these are going to be amazing. That is once they get all the bugs worked out of them. It is like the M1A1 Aims...the predecessor to the M1A2 Main Battle Tank. It was TERRIBLE, I HATED it. I wanted nothing more than to go back to my seemingly outdated M1A1 because it was already good to go. I think that when this truck actually gets worked in to the mix (and subsequently worked out in theater or preparing for such) then it is going to be something that we like. (Not like that horrible MRAP, I thought I was going to be killed just from riding in it, much less if we hit an IED with it). I think this is going to be more along the lines of the MATVs, I always wanted to be in those. Should be awesome in my opinion.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Aug 26 at 2015 8:13 PM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:13:34 -0400

Good one SGM Steve Wettstein!!! I came in the Army in 1980 with the M151, lived thru the short (thankfully) CUCV era, and saw HMMWV fielding in 1984/85... then HMMWV pure in the early 90s. In 1993, when we left Somalia, our HMMWVs were so trashed, we should have pushed them into the ocean vs loaded them on ships... We road those same HMMWVs into Iraq in 2003 (1025/1026). I saw all our UAHs get sent off to OIF/OEF and never come back... We rode them hard. My life was saved several times by M1114s and M1151s... Most of my MP career was in HMMWV. I have had and been in M1117s and MRAPS, but they have served us well and it is time.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 9:49 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:49:23 -0400

If the interior is anything like the M-ATV this thing is garbage. The door design was too narrow for people to exit rapidly, it sits too high, and has too many blind spots.

Response by SFC Joseph James made Aug 27 at 2015 12:55 AM

SFC Joseph James — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:55:45 -0400

Lat -vee looks cool. The Humvee wasn't that great a vehicle anyway in my book. I was a driver as a private and it leaked, everywhere! lol

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Aug 27 at 2015 1:29 AM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:29:31 -0400

Every time I hear the name Oshkosh, I think "of OshKosh Bgosh, the kids clothing store... Any relation? If so, should make for an interesting vehicle! LOL!

Kids Clothes, Toddler Clothes & Baby Clothes | OshKosh B'gosh

Shop for kids clothes and toddler clothes at Oshkosh.com. See favorites like our World's Best Overalls, kid's denim and more children's clothing at OshKosh B'gosh.

Response by LtCol Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2015 1:50 AM

LtCol Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:50:56 -0400

Let's just hope it's properly armored.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Aug 27 at 2015 9:59 AM

SFC Joseph Weber — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:59:23 -0400

meh...

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2015 12:27 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:27:37 -0400

My thoughts on the HMMWV?
"Wide Load Coming Through!
Detail, take down two fence posts down on either side of the gate to let the beast out!"

Going back towards something built more like a truck is a good step because we treat or want to treat most vehicles in the military like a truck: with the ability to carry heavy, bulky loads and attach whatever newfangled "kit" has become flavor of the year.

Response by MSG Reid Zohfeld made Aug 27 at 2015 12:53 PM

MSG Reid Zohfeld — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:53:32 -0400

I have the same thoughts as I had when the Army went away from the M151.
The jeep was small and compact and you rarely ever saw 10 jeeps in a row. Troops where transported in cargo trucks and such. Then the HMMWV came around which was wider which restricted some operation on narrow roads. To me the HMMWV was just ok but I do not think the Thinkers ever thought it would used the way it has been used. This new vehicle looks tough but the military still needs something like a jeep or HMMWV or something in between for Command purposes.

Response by SPC David S. made Aug 27 at 2015 1:43 PM

SPC David S. — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:43:22 -0400

Never liked the HMMWV as it was way to thin skinned for me. Anything in the Stryker or MRAP direction is a win regardless of the cost. I think IED's proved the deficiencies of the HMMWV

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Aug 27 at 2015 2:31 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:31:33 -0400

SGM Steve Wettstein Question: After re-reading this, a couple of things stuck out; AM General said it is reviewing the decision of the award to Oshkosh and is "considering all available options.", as well as Lockheed-Martin, who will decide later whether to protest the award after it is debriefed by the Army.
I'm not familiar with the process, but is this standard practice, or does this indicate there is a chance the award can be pulled and re awarded? Or maybe this is this just the talk of two sore losers? Also, are there any links that you know of shows the other two vehicles? Would love to get a look at them...

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 27 at 2015 2:32 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:32:16 -0400

I did not see anything wrong with HMMWV's.

Response by GySgt Joseph Jay Johnston made Aug 27 at 2015 3:29 PM

GySgt Joseph Jay Johnston — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:29:30 -0400

Should have been done a long time ago................

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made Aug 27 at 2015 3:38 PM

PFC Tuan Trang — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:38:23 -0400

It look nice, but what are the benefit of it? is it bullet proof? if it same as the humvee we have but just better look, then i'll rather stick with what we got, and invest that money on something usefull for our troops.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2015 4:20 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:20:49 -0400

They look perfectly suitable for the types of conflict we are just now finishing up, and completely unsuitable for any sort of sustained conflict between conventional military forces. First, they are huge targets... might as well be driving a barn. Second, given the size and the weight... I'm guessing they are incredibly thirsty and expensive to maintain. Last, why can't we build a decent light transport truck for less than 100K... take a 30K Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, slap 70K work of armor and modifications on it and call it a day.

Response by SPC Craig Weaver made Aug 27 at 2015 4:46 PM

SPC Craig Weaver — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:46:22 -0400

I was in the US Army stationed in Ft.Lewis, Washington when they introduced the HMMWV to replace the jeep - it was sometime between 1983 to 1986. I was amazed at the HMMWV - now 30 years later it is being replaced by the JLTV - Amazing!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 27 at 2015 8:11 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:11:50 -0400

I am not brilliant or even smart, but when I see a vehicle covered with sandbags, it gets the little wheel in my head turning.

Response by LTC Christopher Sands made Aug 27 at 2015 8:33 PM

LTC Christopher Sands — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:33:33 -0400

I was in when we had Jeeps. Equipment comes and goes.

Response by CW4 John Karl T. made Aug 28 at 2015 12:14 AM

CW4 John Karl T. — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:14:17 -0400

If you are going to insist that utility vehicles operate in an armor environment you are locking yourself into one of two scenarios. Either build little tanks or be prepared to take casualties. You may find that Congress can be persuaded to fund a few tanks while they turn their backs on the casualties. Then we are left with the task of trying to limit casualties without the tools to properly conduct the mission in a high threat environment.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Aug 28 at 2015 12:21 AM

SGT Michael Glenn — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:21:48 -0400

Our unit was one of the 1st to test it !!! All I can say is its BEAST !!!! (under breath) too wide... not bullet proof, out dated like most everything else from that area and earlier.... clears throat....Man !!! that thing was BEAST !!!!!

Response by CH (MAJ) Thomas Conner made Aug 28 at 2015 5:46 AM

CH (MAJ) Thomas Conner — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 05:46:11 -0400

When I left Active Duty in 1984, the Army was talking about replacing Jeeps and M88s with HMMWVs. The first time I actually saw or rode in one was when I joined the Reserves. I preferred my old M151A2! Hopefully the JLTV will be safer and more comfortable!

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Aug 28 at 2015 6:38 AM

CW4 Guy Butler — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 06:38:34 -0400

It also has a cargo/troop variant - 2 seats and a little over 5000 LB cargo capacity; about the same as a M1152.

Response by SR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 9:45 AM

SR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:45:10 -0400

There is also this kind of automated trucks ! Look the test on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV51BGIzkwU

Response by SGT Brandon Bergeron made Aug 28 at 2015 12:18 PM

SGT Brandon Bergeron — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:18:44 -0400

The humvee served its purpose and now the dynamics of the battlefield has changed and is still changing it is time for new equipment. I think this JLTV will do great in the place of the Humvee, and do what supposed to do in this ever changing world and changing battlefield.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Aug 28 at 2015 1:57 PM

SSG Mike Angelo — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:57:21 -0400

Change is good, new equipment in the hands of troops should experience this transition with high morale, esprit de corps and overall unit cohesiveness. NETT new equipment training teams should be sensitive and taylor new equipment to the small team leadership concept and gaining units mission.

Response by LCpl Nicholas Christiansen made Aug 28 at 2015 2:52 PM

LCpl Nicholas Christiansen — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:52:42 -0400

I'm impressed by its design and performance. Not sure how happy I am about the Army getting 50,000 and my beloved Corps only getting 5,500, but it's a good start.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 3:19 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:19:08 -0400

Thank God..Never like the HMMWV..I'd go back to the Willy's if I could. Hopefully the new JLTV won't have to be as heavily modified to fit the situation, as in collecting whatever metal you can find to up armor your HMMWV..

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 5:31 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:31:37 -0400

I'll get excited when I get a HWMMV that has clear windows.

Response by SSG James Bigbie made Aug 29 at 2015 2:29 AM

SSG James Bigbie — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 02:29:09 -0400

I was in a Border Cavalry regiment when the Hummer first came out. It couldn't go a lot of places that the Jeeps went, and was very hard on tires. It didn't get better with age. The new vehicle looks bigger than the Hummer, which is not necessarily a good thing. I agree with buying American, but why couldn't someone come up with a Land Rover variant?

Response by TSgt Marco McDowell made Aug 29 at 2015 3:49 AM

TSgt Marco McDowell — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 03:49:02 -0400

Evolution. From pack mules to this, someone will always find a pro or con with any transportation. Anything beats humping so if it's even a slight improvement over the HMMWV, then good. I just want to know if I can score one when they de-mil them. I could make use of one out in the woods or fishing.

Response by SSG David Dickson made Aug 29 at 2015 5:42 AM

SSG David Dickson — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 05:42:47 -0400

To everything there is an end. The JEEP had a long run, 40 years, the HMMWV, what 35? I suppose it's time to move on. I guess my question is when can I buy one on the surplus market?

Response by 1SG Jason Fitzpatrick made Aug 29 at 2015 8:02 AM

1SG Jason Fitzpatrick — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:02:42 -0400

When can I get an ole 1025. I think that it would be the epitome of the phrase huntin truck.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 10:15 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:15:09 -0400

If it saves Soldier's and Marine's lives or keeps their limbs from getting shredded off, then it's worth every penny... and I'll give them some of my pay to build them.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Aug 29 at 2015 5:01 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:01:22 -0400

I was a brand new 2LT when the 7th ID at Fort Ord fielded the HMMWVs in several different variations. I remember riding in one pulling a trailer up and down the muddy tank trails going over the hills of Fort Hunter Liggett. I was impressed at how mobile it was. That continued over the years with all the upgrades and add-ons to increase survivability. I just hope the JLTV continues that.

Response by Sgt William Biggs made Aug 29 at 2015 7:49 PM

Sgt William Biggs — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:49:48 -0400

I am a big fan of the MRAP and MATV. I think Oshkosh makes good products and it is probably past time to change out the HMMWV. As long as the technology continues (i.e. BFT, tire inflation systems, and the like), I feel as though troops will have some good gear coming their way.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 8:37 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:37:43 -0400

I'm actually curios what you think. I was looking at the replacement and they described it as having the armor of a light tank (as the general mobility vehicle). I remember when we used to drive around in open top jeeps and CUC-V's (Chevrolet Tahoes for the younger crowd).
It seems that our tactics are way FU when everybody needs to be driving around in tanks.

Response by SSG Timothy Miller made Aug 29 at 2015 8:57 PM

SSG Timothy Miller — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:57:56 -0400

It has been around for a long time now. When I was on active duty, we were transitioning from the Jeep to the HUMVEE. It was fully online when I discharged. It's first test was during Desert Shield/Storm. It served us well. However, it does have vulnerbilities. Our active duty need a vehicle that can offer better protection from the IED's which have maimed many of our uniformed troops. I HATE to see our men and women lose limbs when there might be a better solution to help prevent this from happening. I understand the new vehicles have reactive armour which can save our people from disabilities or life. I left active duty after Desert Storm during the draw down of the first Bush Administration so I am not very knowledgeable of the new vehicles. I only know that the HUMMERS were work horses for us 'back when' and they served us well. If the new vehicles will offer more protection from harm and are reliable, I'm all for spending tax dollars for our men/women in uniform today.

Tim Miller, USA Veteran
Pottsboro, TX

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 2:52 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:52:36 -0400

Either way it will still need constant repair and maintenance nothing there ever changes so job still the same there

Response by PFC Donnie Harold Harris made Sep 1 at 2015 4:53 PM

PFC Donnie Harold Harris — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:53:43 -0400

Even Thou the HuVee was made in Indiana, I like the Possibilities of this new Truck. Where will it be made at?

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Sep 11 at 2015 6:53 PM

1SG Patrick Sims — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:53:12 -0400

It still has the ability to serve in some capacity.