The U.S. Army is finally set the phase out one of the most iconic images of the modern American military: the Humvee

RallyPoint Shared Content — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:45:06 -0400

Originally published on finance.yahoo.com:
--
The US Army is finally set to phase out one of the most consistent images of modern American military power: the Humvee.
Earlier this year, the US Army announced the three finalists for the massive contract to replace the iconic Humvee, which has been in service for almost three decades.

Oshkosh Corporation, defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and Humvee-maker AM General each delivered 22 prototypes of their Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLVT) to military evaluators, who are running elaborate tests on the vehicles to determine the best fit.

Since the 1990s, AM General's Humvee has been the US military's workhorse, first seeing action in the Gulf War.

Despite its ubiquity, the Humvee has caused some serious headaches for American forces. As Wired notes, the Humvee was designed in the 1980s as an off-road carrier to transport troops and equipment quickly across Eastern Europe in a theoretical ground war against the then Soviet Union.

But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Humvee's mission changed. It was deployed to the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, where US commanders quickly discovered that it was dangerously under equipped to protect troops against close-combat urban fire and improvised explosive devices.

With this problem in mind, the vehicles in this summer's competition are all far more resistant to explosive blasts. The new vehicles are smaller, so they can be more easily airlifted and transported. They're also light and better equipped to deal with the urban and off-road patrol duties that the Humvee took on in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The winning payout for the contract will be huge. As the Dallas Morning News reports, the US Army plans to spend billions on at least 20,000 vehicles, and the Marine Corps will likely buy around 5,000. If the vehicle is more successful, it could be an even greater windfall — since the '80s, the AM General has produced 250,000 Humvees for the US military.

Here are the three vehicles that could replace the Humvee:

Oshkosh's L-ATV

Oshkosh's entry into the competition is the Light Combat Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle.

The company has one advantage. After the Army realized in the early 2000s that the Humvee left troops vulnerable to blasts, the Pentagon ordered thousands of Oshkosh's Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the name suggests, Oshkosh's MRAP was much better suited to transport troops through these environments. Wired notes that the MRAP was so successful at sustaining blasts that some troops reportedly didn't realize when they ran over bombs.

Oshkosh's entry in the JLTV contest attempts to expand upon the MRAP's success. The L-ATV is a lighter, smaller vehicle than the MRAP and can be more quickly and easily airlifted. This makes the vehicle preferable to the MRAP, which is large and can't be deployed to areas where it needs to maneuver in crowded spaces.

Oshkosh believes that since the company demonstrated its proficiency with the MRAP, the JLTV is a natural transition.

"The Oshkosh M-ATV is the only vehicle performing the JLTV mission profile in operations today," Oshkosh Vice President of Business Development Jennifer Christiansen told Business Insider in an email.

"This is where Oshkosh is truly unique because no other company has successfully transitioned more new military vehicle programs into production for the US Department of Defense," Christiansen said.

The vehicle also has some unique features. If the military wishes to make their vehicles a little greener, Oshkosh threw an optional hybrid-diesel engine into the mix to help increase fuel efficiency.

Lockheed Martin's JLTV

Designed with anti-guerilla combat in mind, Lockheed is playing on somewhat unfamiliar ground in the ground fight. Oshkosh and AM General both have troop carriers in use by the US military, while Lockheed is still more widely known for its high-tech aircraft and missile systems.

Like the other competitors, Lockheed aimed to make its slightly boxier vehicle lighter and tested it for blast-resistance.

"It can take a soldier everywhere, but can survive everything that they could survive in an MRAP," Trevor McWilliams, a former soldier whose truck was hit with an IED, said in a Lockheed promotional video.

Lockheed is also hoping that the vehicle's price tag will persuade the military to adopt its proposal. The defense contractor's website touts the vehicle's gas mileage, low production cost, and easy adaptability in case mechanics want to add on or upgrade the car in the shop.

"We are providing the most capable vehicle to our soldiers and our marines, and we're going to do it a very affordable cost," Lockheed Martin program director Katheryn Hasse told Army Recognition in 2014.

AM General's BRV-O

Though the Humvee itself may be on the way out, the lessons it learned have been passed on to AM General's 21st century version.

This time around, AM General has built the Humvee's largest weakness into the vehicle's name: the Blast-Resistant Vehicle Off-Road. The company is highlighting the renewed safety of their BRV-O, touting its blast-resistant frame and space for amour add-ons.

"The Humvee was not designed for underbody protection, so the BRV-O has a higher ground clearance and is able to apply a protection kit to the bottom of the vehicle," AM General Vice President of Business Development Chris Vanslanger told CNN in 2012.

According to AM General, the BRV-O is also the only vehicle equipped with a system that allows all passengers to connect to the military's C4ISR network, which helps troops, aircraft, and commanders link up and coordinate movements on the battlefield.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/3-high-tech-vehicles-vying-182352504.html

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 1:59 PM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:59:23 -0400

Nooooooooooooooo!

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 15 at 2015 2:02 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:02:50 -0400

its nice and all, but I think to a degree, too little, too late.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 2:03 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:03:46 -0400

Everything has a reason and a season

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Jun 15 at 2015 2:10 PM

1LT William Clardy — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:10:06 -0400

And here I thought MRAPs were ugly...

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 15 at 2015 2:17 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:17:34 -0400

I wonder if we are doing enough with IED research.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 15 at 2015 2:37 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:37:22 -0400

I still miss the M-151s There was no where we could not take them...and if you got stuck, you could just about get out, lift it up and move by hand.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 15 at 2015 2:38 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:38:21 -0400

Now? Let the two wars happen and then have an epiphany. I'll keep saying this until I die....you don't take away the OH-58D from the ground forces as a cost saving measure only to turn around and upgrade ground forces with all new toys. There are plenty of uparmored vehicles now (a day late and a dollar short). Let me guess, we will give them to the police departments for $1. Money well spent. Even uparmored, these new vehicles will not provide protection equal to that of a true scout helicopter providing route reconnaissance. I'm not bashing Apaches, but they don't have the ability to have small arms hanging out providing immediate suppression of the enemy. How do you eliminate a threat in a crowded town on crowded streets when all you can do is fire a 30mm ( for area suppression, not a precision weapon). In this media sensitive world, good luck getting clearance for fires with an Apache. Save the Kiowa.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 2:38 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:38:58 -0400

So, vehicles were produced to participate in a war that never happened, and that equipment was deployed in a combat zone where it was less than effective.

Why does it seem like we're doing it again? Maybe I'm crazy, but with the development of UAVs, isn't it very likely the next thing to tear through us like the IEDs did will be small, air-surface missile/munitions.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Jun 15 at 2015 2:43 PM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:43:50 -0400

What we have failed to do is prepare well for two environments. The better vehicle we get for IEDs in an urban environment we loose mobility in the back country. A four door Jeep Wrangler would work much better in the back country but get slaughtered in today's urban environment. What happened to light and heavy units? Why do we need a new MRAP when we have had armored vehicles for 70yrs to transport troops? We need to stop looking for that one size fits all vehicle and remember back that heavy up armored vehicles do not work well in water and mud. How many people have drown in Iraq because of heavy hummers in rivers? We need two troop vehicles, one for back country and one for urban environments, period.

Response by CSM David Heidke made Jun 15 at 2015 2:48 PM

CSM David Heidke — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:48:05 -0400

The L-ATV seems to be modeled after the M-ATV which has horrible blind spots.

If they plan on replacing HMMWVs with these, the amount of accidents due to not being able to see out of them is going to skyrocket.

For stateside they need to just paint some SUVs with flat green paint.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 15 at 2015 3:22 PM

SGT William Howell — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:22:38 -0400

Shouldn't ISIS have a say in what we get? I mean it will only be a couple years till we give these to the Iraqis and they will in turn hand them over to the enemy?

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 15 at 2015 3:27 PM

SGT William Howell — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:27:29 -0400

Do any of these have cup holders?

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 15 at 2015 3:32 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:32:47 -0400

Hold the Phone!

The last time I looked, the bad guys ride around in Toyota Pickups. Hmmm....can you spell We got way too much money and no idea what to do with it?

Bring back the Gun Jeep and keep Hummvees. And use the money that they are going to put in this black hole of a money pit into funding, Oh I don't know, another Light Infantry RCT....Or maybe upkeep on the A-10 aircraft or hell, a c-17 full of rubber paddle balls to airdrop over ISIS to give them something constructive to do....

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jun 15 at 2015 3:34 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:34:50 -0400

I remember turning in our M151 Jeeps for the Hummers in late '88 or early '89 at Ft. Carson and going through the NETT training on the Hummers, they were great back then as a replacement for the jeep. She's been a good workhorse for the military for a quarter century....

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jun 15 at 2015 4:24 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:24:27 -0400

THANK GOD!

- I thought it was a POS when I traded in the 1008's and 1009'.
- I thought it was stupid that there was a center console big enough to sleep in, but there wasn't enough room for my legs, gas mask, Kevlar, and flack vest.
- I thought it was a POS when trying to start it in the "chilly" winters at Ft Campbell incorrectly required an engine change (I'd hate to see what happened at bases where it got cold).
- I thought it was a POS when the top speed couldn't keep up with a 5 Ton.
- I thought it was idiotic when they came out with the H2 and soccer mom's everywhere started banging their doors into other people because the freaking thing barely fits into a parking spot.

The only thing good I can say about it is it had a heck of a lot of ground clearance for something with a center of gravity that low.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Jun 15 at 2015 4:29 PM

SGT James Elphick — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:29:32 -0400

This is just another example showing that we haven't figured out how to fight wars, just what toys we want when we do.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 15 at 2015 4:33 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:33:40 -0400

I've lived through the M38A1, the M151A1-A2, and the Humvee. In my view every time they changed, it was worse. The Humvee couldn't get into places the 1/4t could and morphed into a vehicle it was never meant to be. I hope that this is better force the force, but color me a skeptic.

Response by SGT Bryan McTaggart made Jun 15 at 2015 4:39 PM

SGT Bryan McTaggart — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:39:08 -0400

Thank God. The only nice thing I'll ever say about a HMMWV is that thing is an off-roading beast in the hands of a capable driver. It was pig-slow (even the A2 models with the overdrive transmission weren't great), about as stealthy as a flash-bang, and didn't quite do anything well. And that's before we talk about the dungeon that was the interior...you couldn't have ordered me to sit in the back seat of one without a ton of incoming fire heading my way.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 4:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:49:56 -0400

I hope they are roomier in the doors and leg room. I don't know how the six footers manage, not to mention the body armor and gear we wear that hangs up on everything. I hope they test for fit also.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jun 15 at 2015 5:03 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:03:39 -0400

IMO from the three that they are going to choose there doesn't seem to be much difference from the M-ATV that we are using now. Probably a little smaller.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jun 15 at 2015 6:22 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:22:15 -0400

So many fond memories in Humvees. It's kind of sad to see them go for nostalgic reasons -- though I would always want the DoD to make the best decisions for force readiness.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 6:59 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:59:12 -0400

only constant is change, and that could depend whose district produces what. Hopefully they can get a good vehicle with out a huge compromise somewhere.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Jun 15 at 2015 7:40 PM

MAJ James Woods — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:40:35 -0400

When I saw my first HUMVEE in 1998 at my first duty assignment; I laughed when I saw the nomenclature say it was an armored vehicle. I was like "what armor?" Our scouts told me it was better to be stealthy so you didn't get shot at. It's typical politics to wait for the enemy to deploy IEDs before producing a real light armored wheeled vehicle.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Jun 15 at 2015 8:12 PM

SGT John Wesley — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:12:12 -0400

I'm going with this! Plus a 44 ounce cup holder!

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 8:51 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:51:47 -0400

If I had my choice I'd go with Oshkosh. Tired of having to fix stuff from multiple manufacturers when it comes to the wheeled vehicle fleet. The company itself has an excellent upgrade program and already took over the FMTV platform from Stewart/Stevenson--making it way more reliable in the process. Add the Tac-4 suspension to the JLTV and you wont have as much of an issue when it comes to adding the armor. My only suggestion if they were awarded the contract is to get rid of the master kill switch that that of the M-ATV--it's garbage and none of the vehicle operators follow the proper shut down sequence for it--killing the ECU. It would also save from having different FSR's for these since it'd be the same company that produces the HEMTT, PLS and again the FMTV.

Response by SPC Danny Eldridge made Jun 15 at 2015 11:42 PM

SPC Danny Eldridge — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:42:17 -0400

What I'm feeling must be similar to how the previous generation felt when they phased out the Jeep

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 12:06 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:06:02 -0400

A) what ever the winner is we won't see them for another ten years. B) Are they going to test their applicability to all the uses of the HMMV? How applicable will these vehicles be to a FA unit for moving Howitzers? How much ammo can they carry? How many of these will it take to carry all the required BII and crew? How about ADA units requirements? I'm sure there are several other army branches that have requirements that will go overlooked aswell.

Response by SSG Lloyd Becker BSBA-HCM, MBA made Jun 16 at 2015 2:31 AM

SSG Lloyd Becker BSBA-HCM, MBA — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:31:23 -0400

The M151A1 and the A2 have had a longer track record than the HUMVEE. So, what is the problem?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 3:44 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 03:44:53 -0400

Three Questions: When will they make them available as surplus, where can I get it, and how cheap will they be?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 8:50 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:50:56 -0400

That BRV-O looks Really cool

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 4:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:49:02 -0400

IMO, they should also be considering the German AMPV.

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/ampv.htm

AMPV Light Protected Vehicle | Military-Today.com

The AMPV, or Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, was jointly developed by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetall. It can be considered as a lightweight MRAP vehicle.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jun 18 at 2015 7:16 AM

SFC Joseph Weber — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:16:43 -0400

I'm still pretty upset abut the M151 and M561. Can't talk about the HMMWV right now....

Response by SFC Jeff Stevenson made Jun 18 at 2015 11:59 AM

SFC Jeff Stevenson — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:59:10 -0400

The most Iconic? I beg to differ. The M151 has seen much more shoreline, mountains, jungle than the HMMWV will ever see. And in some eyes, did much better. Might see a very quick change of heart depending on what region our next enemy pops up from. The weight of these will cause more problems than they are worth. And the logistics? I'm glad to be retired.

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Jun 21 at 2015 8:13 PM

SSG Stephen Arnold — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 20:13:01 -0400

The Hmmv was a dog when it was first introduced. Did it ever improve?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 8:32 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:32:30 -0400

I really hope that the Oshkosh LATV has more room than the MATV does. I really have a hard time believing anybody ever approved purchase of the MATV. Can't see out of it, and if you're over 6 feet tall, you pretty much have to be a gunner, because you can't fit in the thing.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 11:25 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:25:04 -0400

Cigarette smoke-proof interiors and built-in spitter holders are a must.

Response by SGT James Allen made Jun 29 at 2015 4:59 PM

SGT James Allen — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:59:04 -0400

I always thought the humvee was a bad truck. Give me a jeep any day.
I had a hand in building the first armored humvees. We started out making under armor kits to send to Somalia. We formed, fitted and welded them by hand. Then we made the fully armored prototypes. They were way too heavy. We had to put rear springs on the front so it didn't look like a hot rod. And forget about going off road; I test drove the prototype and as soon as I hit a little mud I was axle deep in it.

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Sep 10 at 2015 11:32 PM

CSM Carl Cunningham — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:32:24 -0400

Yes, and I think the timing is right. With advances in technology, we can have a much better and hopefully safer product for Soldiers.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2015 11:37 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:37:54 -0400

I was aware the contract was awarded. This vehicle screams bulky and MRAP-like to me. I'm not a fan but my opinion could be swayed once I get to see it in action.

I see this and imagine the movie "Pentagon Wars" as they develop the Bradley Fighting Vehicle...

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Sep 10 at 2015 11:38 PM

SrA Daniel Hunter — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:38:31 -0400

It's an Oshkosh by gosh...someone was going to say it, why not me?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 12:00 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:23 -0400

The poor HUMVEE was designed to be a combat pickup truck, and it got pressed into service as an armored assault vehicle-- a role it was never intended for-- and then people complained it couldn't do that job. Of course it couldn't!

The powers-that-be could have distributed the M1117 armored car more widely, or they could have up-gunned the M93 Fox, and let the HUMVEE go back to being what it was intended to be. But I guess they decided they needed a whole new vehicle, and perhaps with the technological advances it is time.

But finally, higher-ups are realizing what I have been griping about for years: we focus too much on either super-heavy armor & mechanized infantry, or light heli and para forces. We neglect medium, wheeled vehicles needed for convoy escort and fast reconnaissance, and urban applications. The Stryker is alright, but we can do more and better.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Sep 11 at 2015 2:12 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:12:51 -0400

I still want my 151

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 2:52 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:52:24 -0400

As a young soldier, 1885 this was my first drivers test vehicle?
Also the M151A1/A2

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 3:07 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:07:58 -0400

HUMVEE has evolved beyond its capabilities. Seems practical to replace it with a more efficient platform. However, is this the natural order of things or if we trace the $$$$$$$$ what will it tell us? Abandoning the OH58 and A10 are very bad ideas. Those platforms still have usefulness regardless of their age. Not sure I can say the same thing about the HUMVEE?

Response by PVT Jevon James made Mar 13 at 2016 6:11 PM

PVT Jevon James — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 18:11:26 -0400

The MRAP is a better choice the problem is size in combat and explosions, it has the same features as the Oshkosh's L-ATV meaning bast protection, but the MRAP is cost efficient and mechanical friendly.