FMTV news - DoD, BAE Sign $1.65B Contract for Cargo Trucks

Here is a link to a story about the FMTV, looks like the U.S. Army is ordering 10,000 more and has an option for 20,000. These new ones will have a removable armor package.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3560570&c=AME&s=LAN

RE: FMTV news - DoD, BAE Sign $1.65B Contract for Cargo Truc

Why not just make them all armored and keep them that way. That way the trucks here in the states if they get called up to go to a different theater of operations would already be ready and able to protect troops. The amount of fuel saved with the armor off is what? It would also give soldiers valuable time for driver training to get use to the heavier vehicle. Train as you fight!

RE: FMTV news - DoD, BAE Sign $1.65B Contract for Cargo Truc

I can't imagine what the fuel savings would be either, but that has got have something to do with it.....

There is new policy coming that our jets can't fly with any extraneous items (large toolboxes, excessive hydraulic fluid/turbine oil, wheel chocks, etc.) to save fuel. For us, it does add up.....but we employ other tactics that generate more fuel savings as well.

RE: FMTV news - DoD, BAE Sign $1.65B Contract for Cargo Truc

the problem with the armor is that its SO HEAVY it crushes the mounts, sages the springs, just beats the hell out of the trucks. All the armored up trucks we were not allowed to take on the streets (the LHS's we were), the M915 we could not take off the pad because the bumps would tare up the cab mounts after time. So thats why they not all armored up... too heavy for the truck to handle day to day driving in the states and non war areas

RE: FMTV news - DoD, BAE Sign $1.65B Contract for Cargo Truc

Ok granted it cost more in maintnance and upkeep to keep them on the road in the states if armored. But ok say that cost is a million dollars a year ( or whatever it is ) for upkeep. Now when them trucks deploy you have to spend more millions on the armor plus the labor ( which some units do it themselves others civilians do it ) to install it. Plus the time away from the fight the equipment is not being used eats up money. In the states look at your log books a see how many miles these trucks run a year and its not that many. Most sit in a motorpool and idle everyday if their lucky, if not run at all once a week or anytime. Then also your PLL will have parts stocked on hand to replace anything broken. If you wait then it may take weeks in theater for parts to catch up to you. Now you have deadline equipment not mission capable. UNSAT!!! Also I would like to reitirate that there are more non-combat related deaths in the war than combat related deaths and most are a result of vehicle accidents. Most of these could of been avoided if the soldiers had proper training and lengthy! training on armored vehicles before being deployed to their theatre of operations. I had a buddy killed after leaving the 101st after our first tour in OIF1 and he PCS to germany and got redeployed. He was killed T.C.ing a FMTV whom the driver had very lil exprience and just got the newer armor plating. They rolled over after leaving the road and going into ditch killing all three inside. Hope fully the bigwigs will come to there senses and get the equipment to the soldiers they need with the proper training!

RE: FMTV news - DoD, BAE Sign $1.65B Contract for Cargo Truc

proper training in the Army will NEVER happen. We just got done training 1990's type of fighting and driving. We were told by the instructors that we will NEVER EVER do this in the "real" army. Just thy way it is.

RE: FMTV news - DoD, BAE Sign $1.65B Contract for Cargo Truc

When I had my soldiers before coming to the EOD school I trained them properly in the Infantry. The maximum range of a excuse is zero meters! Folks in high places know this and some turn their backs thats why we have a lot of " piss poor leadership " running around.

Re: RE: FMTV news - DoD, BAE Sign $1.65B Contract for Cargo

Alredneck said:

Why not just make them all armored and keep them that way. That way the trucks here in the states if they get called up to go to a different theater of operations would already be ready and able to protect troops. The amount of fuel saved with the armor off is what? It would also give soldiers valuable time for driver training to get use to the heavier vehicle. Train as you fight!

Click to expand...

Wear and tear on the vehicle is the issue-not fuel consumption. Keep the armor in place and you have less than 1/2 the life expectancy for the vehicle, simply because it wears out due to overstress. You need to understand the FMTV was NEVER DESIGNED for armor in the first place-all this clamor for armor comes long after the design was locked in and the specifications settled. S&S did the best they could with a bad situation. See the design process discussion in the FMTV thread here:

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=21304

Best regards,

Bob