Posted on Aug 26, 2015
It seems the HMMWV is on its way out. What are your thoughts?
44.9K
236
181
19
19
0
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/
http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2015/08/25/oshkosh-wins-jltv-award/32278319/
Posted in these groups: 
Equipment
Equipment
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 67
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Capt Jeff S. Concur. I was actually just looking up the Osprey's internal width to see if it supported the JLTV.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Richard Martin
While in the Marines, FAST Company used old M151 Jeeps outfitted with larger puncture proof tires and a 350 Chevy engine. Rode in one, they are some fast little suckers. You could fit two of them in a 46 or a 53. But, some of the above comments are right, with the Jeeps in there, you can't fit any troops. Other than the ones in the Jeeps.
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
The benefit of loading internally instead of slinging externally is that the pilot is less restricted on what he can do flying. You can fly faster and farther with the payload carried internally.
I don't see the loss of troop seating as that major a deal. You are limited by the weight you carry and you aren't going to fill the seats in the bird and carry a Humvee sized external payload.
More than likely you will be going in with more than one helo and the troops can ride in the other helo. It's safer doing it that way anyway.
I don't see the loss of troop seating as that major a deal. You are limited by the weight you carry and you aren't going to fill the seats in the bird and carry a Humvee sized external payload.
More than likely you will be going in with more than one helo and the troops can ride in the other helo. It's safer doing it that way anyway.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
SGM Steve Wettstein
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
I also came in with 151, easy to work on, easiest -10 in the Army inventory to read and follow. I just hope this a quality first vehicle and not another junk hauler.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
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?
(3)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
MAJ (Join to see) From what I have read it is a little shorter than a M-ATV. Other than that it looks the same to me. Thank you for your reply.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
It's a great step. Hopefully it's properly armored and sturdy enough to protect our troops
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
The HMMWV was tested out in Yuma in it's time and was the poorest performer out of the 4 contenders. It was chosen due to politics. The JLTV has some good improvements, but the view on the vehicle as a platform that can handle anything is wrong - one size simply doesnt fit all.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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
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
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
The company shares its name with a kids clothing manufacturer, hmm...
(3)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
The best part is that Oshkosh will also be making a multi-service set of denim overalls for optional wear.
(0)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca - Sorry Sir. Some days I can't tell when people are being sarcastic. My bad.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Seems to be a tradition - they used to tell us that the original M-16's were made by Mattell.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
No apology necessary SGM Steve Wettstein, I knew where you were coming from. :-)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google