» Online Users: 225 |
| 45 members and 180 guests |
|
11b1776
,
1ton cucv k5 turbo
,
2ndamndmnt
,
5ton5897
,
ABN173
,
AC
,
AGE|kshaufl
,
BIGJOB
,
Billy Bobbed
,
Blake
,
Bob H
,
Brad4321
,
builderboy
,
cattlerepairman
,
cjcottrill
,
cptd
,
DEMON
,
Deuce_and_a_Half_Dragon
,
dezert ratt
,
diesel nutz
,
dozer1
,
gumps10
,
harleyhouse
,
hd1009
,
iam4thapack
,
islandguydon
,
JCKnife
,
jks587
,
mdlbldrmatt135
,
Mr.C
,
nexgen91
,
patracy
,
plumkrazy
,
RidgeRunner609
,
RJM27
,
sedohr
,
tanhmmwv
,
tbanks
,
tie6044
,
tigger
,
tom2147
,
twa@ezdn.net
,
USSR
,
Zadvark
,
zak
|
| Most users ever online was 902, 10-29-2011 at 05:09. |
|
 |
|
10-28-2008, 09:17
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
General
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 460
|
HUMVEE Replacement
Our paper this AM says that the Pentagon is supposed to vote soon on the vehicle to replace the HUMVEE. It's supposed to be a lightweight vehicle that will do all and protect the occupants from mine blasts. It will be quite awhile before it's fielded.
|
|
|
10-30-2008, 09:25
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
General
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 460
|
Local paper ran another article about it this morn. Says they want to start fielding it in 2010 to replace over 150,000 HUMVEES.
|
|
|
10-30-2008, 09:59
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
4 Star General
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 3,510
|
just remember how long it took the gooberment to replace the deuce and take them all out of circulation... I dont think the hmmwv's are going anywhere anytime soon.
|
|
|
10-30-2008, 10:01
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
4 Star General
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Front Royal, VA
Posts: 8,430
|
IIRC, the M715 series, the M880 series and CUCV series were "interim" fields until a suitable replacement for the M37 and M151 were found, at least that is one opinion I have heard before in print. The HMMWV was supposed to replace most of them, except in a non-tactical role where the CUCV would continue until replaced (by the CUCV II, which never really took off except for a few bought by Uncle Sam). By 2010, the HMMWV will be near the 30-year deployment life span for a vehicle platform, and due for a change.
Also, I remember that only a handful of the replacements for the HMMWV would be mine-resistant vehicles (mainly due to the fact that mine-resistant vehicles are very expensive to produce, repair, and operate. Plus, you don't need a heavy armored truck driving around CONUS bases burning twice as much fuel as normal vehicles, just to pick up "groceries"). I believe something similar to the unarmored HMMWV will make up the bulk of the replacement force.
__________________
Mike
maddawg308
FCC # W1AMR Extra Class
MVPA #33431
NRA Life member
2003 Dodge Durango SLT 4.7L V-8 parts hauler
1967 Stevens M416 trailer
owner of the "Dawg House" travelling Vietnam radio hooch display
avatar: Capt. Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly/Serenity
|
|
|
10-30-2008, 21:25
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
CPL
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: .
Posts: 5,178
|
and the full up armor Humvee sucks! ever try to move 13k pounds with a 6.5? its feels like driving a dump truck with a 4 cylinder engine and it about to roll over in every turn. I will be glad to get rid of them. Now on base in a soft skin? F yeah there a blast! fast and you can slide around in them. I think the humvee is been turned in to something it should not have been. too much crap on that platform.
|
|
|
10-30-2008, 21:27
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
2 Star General
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 796
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Westech
and the full up armor Humvee sucks! ever try to move 13k pounds with a 6.5? its feels like driving a dump truck with a 4 cylinder engine and it about to roll over in every turn. I will be glad to get rid of them. Now on base in a soft skin? F yeah there a blast! fast and you can slide around in them. I think the humvee is been turned in to something it should not have been. too much crap on that platform.
|
Agreed that the HUMVEE is being asked to do jobs that it was not designed to do - but isn't it better to give a warfighter some protection rather than none at all?
"Tanner"
__________________
"There is lots of information to be found here on SS; some of it is even accurate..."
|
|
|
10-30-2008, 21:37
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
CPL
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: .
Posts: 5,178
|
I never said take them away....just should have been replaced or what is being asked to do transferred to a better platform.
|
|
|
10-31-2008, 05:13
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
4 Star General
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Parkville, MD
Posts: 3,618
|
I have several ideas that I am waiting to see if the Army retains me other wise I am going to Stuart Stevenson, Oshkosh or Mack with them because I think it is the answer we need for mine and SAF resistance, transportablity and cost. Once I get a deal I will share it with you. Yup the UAH is a pig with all the kits on it. That is why they are only putting 6.5 TD's in them but I would rather be in one in Iraq and Afghanistan than a soft skin sorry been there and done that a few times and we should keep them till the WOT is over. I may have to up armor my fleet living so close to Baltimore
__________________
Mount Soledad Cross in San Diego
God Bless America
David
70 M35A2 W/W
72 M109
71 M818 W/W
49 CJ2A
62 CJ5
77 Cher 401
88 YJ
98 K2500 Sub 6.5 T
84 M1009
86 M1031
M127A2
M107A2
M105A2
M101A2
M332
M969
M200A1Mod to Conv Dolly
3 Dollies
Rokon
|
|
|
10-31-2008, 10:22
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
General
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 460
|
They showed the prototype on the news last night. I can tell you it's not going to be a "light tacticle" vehicle. (Such as the M151A1/2 was). The front looks like an varient of the Oshkosh trucks and from the windshield back it looks like a square Hummer.
Course the actual vehicle may be different.
|
|
|
 |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|