Move over, Humvee

[Onkel Neal]

Looks like the US is replacing the aging Humvee, with the LATV.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2015/aug/28/lucarative-contract-replace-humvee-boon-wisconsin-based-oshkosh/322335/

Oshkosh will produce for the Army and Marines about 17,000 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, which are designed to provide more protection against roadside bombs and mines than Humvees. Options for further contracts could push the total value to around $30 billion.

I'm not sure 17,000 is enough but it's a good start.

[Torplexed]

Well, if the past is any guide to go by, the government will gift our remaining inventory of these vehicles to Iraq and they should be in ISIS hands about five minutes later.

But not before Arnold gets one.

[STEED]

The Marauder - Ten Ton Military Vehicle - Top Gear - BBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDoRmT0iRic


Bet Arnie has a couple. :)



"Terminator" Vs Range Rover - TerraMax - Top Gear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV51BGIzkwU

[Platapus]

This is good news. In my experience in the military with the HMMWV was that it was almost good at a lot of things and not very good at a lot of things.

The designers, through mission creep, ended up with a vehicle with limited maneuverability that was already far too heavy for either efficient fuel economy and for a lot of terrain. A lot of the variants I worked with were too heavy.

Plus it was as uncomfortable and clumsy as an armoured vehicle... but it did not have any armour.

The people designing such vehicles need to have a photograph of the M151 MUTT hanging over their desk. Any design decision that varies from this design needs to be questioned. :yep:

[Aktungbby]

to every $6.7 billion expensive problem there is a cheap solution; I don't see much gain for the buck here other than keeping Oshkoshians gainfully employed at tax payer expense. Oshkosh Defense beat out Maryland-based Lockheed Martin and Indiana-based AM General for the contract. Both companies have 10 days for file formal protests.:down: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Why-The-RPG-Rules-2-10-2009.asp (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Why-The-RPG-Rules-2-10-2009.asp) $500.00>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/RPG_PG_7VL.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/JLTV_Spec_table.jpg/800px-JLTV_Spec_table.jpgwith vehicles designed 'fitted for, but not with', protection. Protection kits can be installed and uninstalled from vehicles in the field using only basic tools. The A-kit is fitted on the production line and is a combination of a limited amount of armouring, in difficult-to-access areas of the vehicle, together with a significant amount of armour installation attachments and required support structures. The bulk of the armour, the B-kit, is installed in the field on an 'as required' basis. Two soldiers can install B-kit armor in five hours. An 800-pound RPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-propelled_grenade) protection kit can be installed in two hours at field-level maintenance and completed by the crew within 30 minutes. The benefits of the A-kit/B-kit principle are that armour is only fitted when required, reducing vehicle wear and tear and, by default, whole life cycle costs. Improvements and/or upgrades to armour are also far easier to integrate into an appliqué solution. No quantity for JLTV armouring kits has yet been disclosed, but it is anticipated that the estimated $65,000 kits will be procured on a 'one kit to three vehicle' basis. The overall protection solution will include a spall liner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spall#Antitank_warfare) to minimize perforation effects within a vehicle when the vehicle takes hostile fire. $6.75 BILLION /17000 VEHICLES= $397,000 PER UNIT AND I STILL GOTTA ADD $ 65,000 FOR THE RPG's CHEAP SOLUTION to 1 in 3 vehicles?......And we're getting F-35 Raptors at $85 Million apiece to boot?:nope: :hmph: 'Hitler said it best: "First let's kill everyone who took accounting!":/\\!!

[Wolferz]

The poor Hummer didn't last as long as the Willys Jeep did. Not to mention all the other light utility vehicles the military bought. Like the CUCV pickup trucks and all of their variants.

[Onkel Neal]

$400,000 a pop. Man, they must carve them out of unicorn bones.

[Wolferz]

$400,000 a pop. Man, they must carve them out of unicorn bones.


Nah, Osh Kosh Wisconsin has a very high cost of living. Cold weather gear ain't cheap! :03::O:

And they still have some black projects that need secret funding.:hmmm:

[Betonov]

Anything that looks too expensive smells of lobbying.
And that is bad news for the troops.

[Schroeder]

Anything that looks too expensive smells of lobbying.
And that is bad news for the troops.
You can't compare those prices to the prices of normal cars. They'll only build 17.000 units so all the research and development costs have to be amortized with just that. A regular car that is build by the millions can spread it's R&D costs over those millions of vehicles so that each individual unit only has to cover for a tiny fraction of those costs and therefore becomes cheaper than a product with similar R&D costs that is only build 17.000 times (and R&D on those vehicles was probably way more expensive than a normal car or truck).
Apart from that it's necessary to armor vehicles to counter the thread of IEDs and RPGs which every self proclaimed freedom fighter seems to have in abundance these days.
(can we actually sue Russia and China to pay some of those costs? After all they allow all those weapons to flow around the world unchecked.:/\\!!)

[Aktungbby]

There's not much R & D here, just a repackage of ideas from well used and developed predecessors and an extra $65K to do what it's supposed to do to begin with. Oshoshians and their Congre$$man are celebrating. Similarly, we have a problem with the Abrams: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/abrams-tank-congress-army_n_3173717.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/abrams-tank-congress-army_n_3173717.html) Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, has led the congressional push to increase funding for Abrams tanks. “The industrial base cannot be turned on and off like a light switch," he said in statement following last year's release of the Pentagon's budget request. He noted the Abrams program is supported by nearly 900 suppliers, 75 percent of which are small businesses that could be in financial peril if Abrams work dries up. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=1737 (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=1737) Fiscally we are led (like sheep) to the slaughter...but well fleeced:03: beforehand by the judas-goat Congre$$ with an economy to uphold first...I re$t my ca$e:hmph:

[Betonov]

You can't compare those prices to the prices of normal cars. They'll only build 17.000 units so all the research and development costs have to be amortized with just that...

I know what you mean.
it's just that Neal has a bit more insight about how much US military gear costs and if he says the price is a bit too much for it, I'll believe it.

[Aktungbby]

I know what you mean.
it's just that Neal has a bit more insight about how much US military gear costs and if he says the price is a bit too much for it, I'll believe it.
NEAL!!! After all my math:wah: They only pull this in Wisconsin. In the neighboring state: "that's not "Minnesota nice":sunny: But it is the home of Paul Bunyan...you can walk into any bank with an axe...just leave the "babe" outside :O:http://www.paulbunyantrail.com/images/pbcover.jpg
http://www.paulbunyantrail.com/page17.html (http://www.paulbunyantrail.com/page17.html)

[Harvs]

They should get themselves some Bushmasters :up:
http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipment-and-clothing/Vehicles/Bushmaster