Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Humvee replacement


Utah Bob #35998

Recommended Posts

:wacko:

Quote

Despite that long list of woes, the report does conclude that the JLTVs are “operationally effective.” Which is to say, they can accomplish their missions as designed, when they work. So there’s that.

 

Busted and bug riddled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found them overpriced and too large for the bush roads up here.

Found a 1/2 or 3/4 ton pick up more useful and economic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cost is just south of a half-million:  US$433,539

 

All the armor in the world on that thing ain't gonna help if you have to walk home...  :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a bit about this program.  Oshkosh Truck is the manufacturer.  When the military went out to solicit bids, Oshkosh was number 4 in a 3 horse race because theirs cost more initially.  Instead of giving up, Oshkosh continued to develop this vehicle and test it on their own dime.  The other 3 took government money to continue on developing and testing.  When it came time to do the actual government tests, the only one that passed was Oshkosh's submittal.  Oshkosh was brought back into the program and eventually beat out all the others and was eventually awarded the business.  The award was contested but the government and military threw the objections out.  Oshkosh is one of the finest companies in Wisconsin with great people.  The vehicle is not perfect but what vehicle is.  You can't please everyone.  The JLTV is saving lives compared to the HUMVEE.  I haven't ridden in one but would love to someday.  It is a full sized truck.  Not a passenger car or pickup.  Oshkosh is already working on the next version.  Not a lot different than when the M-1 or M-16 was introduced.  Expectations have to change with each new iteration.  Even the Abrams is on what version?  The JLTV was developed for survivability of the troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, there was nothing wrong with the HUMVEE.  It was a replacement for that non-armored jeep but was asked to be an armored vehicle in the sand.  Original concept was just like the jeep, recon and transport.  The only issue we had with them when they were first fielded was that it was bigger than the jeep and wouldn't fit on some of the small trails we used in Germany.  Otherwise, it was a large step up from the jeep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OshKosh B'Gosh!

 

1.  Virtually all new military equipment has bugs and flaws that have to be worked out before full scale production begins, especially today with the digital and computer stuff

 

2.  The JLTV looks like the best compromise.  The general purpose Humvee was never designed to be a light armored vehicle that was resistant to mines and IED's  or carry the weight of all the modifications added to it .  It is very likely that there will be a need for a light armored vehicle that is resistant to mines and IED's for future counter-insurgency warfare.  Given the U.S. advances in technology as well as better training and experienced soldiers, the likelihood of conventional land warfare is low and not likely to last very long if it does happen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those familiar with military procurement. The source of 90% of all problems is requirements creep.

 

For example original spec is for a 1500 lb payload capacity. But after 80% of the design is completed a bunch of new capability is added. This results in the actual payload being 1700 lbs which exceeds the original 1500 limit. Well the design is too far along to start over so now bandaids are added to allow the carrying of the additional weight which works. At the 90% mark even more requirements are added and now the payload is 2000 lbs. Remember theat the original design was for a 1500 lb payload. This results in even more  bandaids and compromises which adversly effect reliability and maintainability. This viscious cycle continues until the program is either scrapped for overruns or the original design is changed so that it will carry the additional weight. Which results in the actual cost being two or three times the original price tag.

 

Many a goverment contract has been won because a business was savy enough to far exceed the original requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2019 at 11:17 AM, Redleg Reilly, SASS #46372 said:

By the way, there was nothing wrong with the HUMVEE.  It was a replacement for that non-armored jeep but was asked to be an armored vehicle in the sand.  Original concept was just like the jeep, recon and transport.  The only issue we had with them when they were first fielded was that it was bigger than the jeep and wouldn't fit on some of the small trails we used in Germany.  Otherwise, it was a large step up from the jeep.

Never said the armor wasn't good-Still have a son alive because a RPG bounced off the windshield, while he was driving his.

The driveline couldn't handle the dust/dirt & abuse of combat.

OLG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Never said the armor wasn't good-Still have a son alive because a RPG bounced off the windshield, while he was driving his.

The driveline couldn't handle the dust/dirt & abuse of combat.

OLG

 

 

The drive line issues were caused by the additional weight of the armor that saved his life. The original Humvee design did not include armor. The armor came about due to requirements creep. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the late 1980’s MCI decided to vacate a mountaintop communications site that I had customers repeaters on so I made a deal with the Indian tribe whose reservation the site was on to take over the site management. There was no commercial power and the diesel generators gobbled down 100 gallons of diesel a day. One of the first things that I did is replace those big old generators with smaller generators that used 1/4 the fuel that they did. Once all of the MCI equipment was gone there was no need for all of that generating capacity and all of the excess generated was going into a big resistor sink on the side of the building.

 

Anyway after getting the site more profitable my old Toyota pick up was about done in so I thought I’d get a Hummer but the only 2 problems were a really sharp switchback just below the generator building  and a real tight cut that the road up to the actual transmitter site on the peak had to go through. I went to the Hummer dealer down in San Diego right off the I8 freeway and the salesman took me and my son down to the Hummer test track down by the Mexican border and let us drive the Hummer, we were in love with that thing. This was the H1 mind you not the newer model. Well we got back to the dealership and I told them I’d buy the Hummer but before I did we had to do a joint trip up to the mountaintop  to make sure it could make it, they agreed.

 

On the chosen day of the mountaintop test drive everything went pretty well until we got to that tight switchback and by maneuvering quite a bit with a person standing outside to warn me so that I didn’t slide off of the road and down the mountain I made the turn. I was still in love even though most of my mountaintop visits were alone and at night I still wanted that Hummer. The two dealership guys wanted to see the generator building so we stopped and I showed them around and then headed up the last 1/4 mile to the top of the mountain. They thought that they had made the sale until we got to the cut and there was no way that thing was going to fit through that cut. The son of the dealer was one of the guys on the trip and he was pretty adamant that we not even try for fear of damaging the sides of the vehicle.

 

So I went out and bought a Jeep and it did just fine but it did suffer quite a few scrapes from that cut over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

Bob, the report actually said “operationally ineffective,” meaning it CANNOT do its job and still costs a bunch more than the HMMWV.  

 

They are now claiming all the problems have been fixed, but I’m skeptical.

The JLTV General Purpose (GP),Heavy Guns Carrier (HGC), and Utility(UTL) variants are operationally effectivefor employment in
combat and tactical missions.
• The JLTV Close Combat Weapons Carrier (CCWC) is not operationally effective for use in combat and tactical missions. The CCWC provides less capability to engage threats with
the Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided (TOW) missiles over the fielded High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). The missile reload process is slow and difficult for crews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, don’t forget I work for the DoD.  One of us is getting an erroneous report.  In fact, I had a meeting about this yesterday.  Apparently the commandant of the infantry corps has rejected the JTLV and the Army has cut their order in half.  But with the infantry not buying it, Big Army is trying to figure out what to do with it.  We MPs are getting rid if our ASVs, so they may force it on us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

Bob, don’t forget I work for the DoD.  One of us is getting an erroneous report.  In fact, I had a meeting about this yesterday.  Apparently the commandant of the infantry corps has rejected the JTLV and the Army has cut their order in half.  But with the infantry not buying it, Big Army is trying to figure out what to do with it.  We MPs are getting rid if our ASVs, so they may force it on us.

Page 88 of this report. On page 89 it goes on to say "The JLTV towing the fielded M1102H trailer is not operationally effective for combat missions."

And  "The CCWC is not operationally eff ective for employment in combat and tactical missions."

https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/other/2018DOTEAnnualReport.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.