Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Sunday April 20, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-03-2010, 05:42 PM   #1
White out
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 46277
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Michigan
Vehicle:
** Ring Time of
7:43.5

Default US military is phasing out HMMWV, March 2010

Quote:
Military will only buy enough Humvess to replenish losses

The U.S. military for years has used the Humvee as its “go to” vehicle for numerous tasks from general transportation to combat operations. The problem with using the Humvee in some situations is that the vehicle was not designed from the outset to be an armored vehicle leading to survivability issues in combat situations (i.e., roadside bombings).

In September 2007, word surfaced that the Army was testing Humvee's that used composite body panels to give the vehicle improved survivability on the modern battlefield. These new Humvees never saw deployment though. Rather than try to modify the existing Humvee design the U.S. military is instead abandoning the vehicle for a new design.

Defense Tech reports that in the Pentagon's budget for 2010 only $1 million is allotted to replace vehicles lost to accident and war. There will be no purchases above the number required to replenish stocks. The South Bend Tribune reports that the Army will buy 2,600 additional Humvees that are being built at the AM General plant now and will not be buying more after March. There is over a billion dollars devoted to maintaining the existing Humvee fleet in the Pentagon budget.

The vehicle believed to be replacing the Humvee is called the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle or JLTV. The JLTV is a new vehicle that is being developed by multiple branches of the military including the Army and Marine Corps. The JLTV has been designed from the outset with multiple variants to meet the needs of various missions.

Some of the variants will be armored to help soldiers survive roadside bombings and small arms fire during combat operations. In all five versions are expected including infantry combat vehicles and non-armored versions for use as ambulances, utility vehicles, and general purpose mobility. The JLTV has a higher payload than the Humvee as well. Six soldiers can ride in the JLTV in some versions with other versions carrying less depending on how it is outfitted.
Looks like the trucks will be around for a long time, just not many new ones for the US armed services. They just got the 6.5TD/4speed too.

Nick
White out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 05:48 PM   #2
Siper2
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 1134
Join Date: Mar 2000
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Dillsburg, PA
Vehicle:
2007 BMW 328xi wagon
Silver

Default

Not too surprised, now that Hummer's owned by China.
Siper2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 07:21 PM   #3
John__Gotti
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70598
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Vehicle:
The Oil patch, as
fun as it sounds

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siper2 View Post
Not too surprised, now that Hummer's owned by China.
Pretty sure the Humvee (military) is manufactured by AM General and has nothing to do with hummer (civilian) other then the name and the H1 (or what every they call them) looking similar.
John__Gotti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 07:29 PM   #4
jdmimprez
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 153318
Join Date: Jul 2007
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Hurlburt Field FL
Vehicle:
09 EVO X GSR

Default

There's a smaller version of the MRAP that will probably replace the hummer, but it's not cheap. Just imagine this but smaller.

http://images.google.com/images?q=mr...N&hl=en&tab=wi

Last edited by jdmimprez; 02-03-2010 at 09:48 PM.
jdmimprez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 08:02 PM   #5
White out
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 46277
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Michigan
Vehicle:
** Ring Time of
7:43.5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John__Gotti View Post
Pretty sure the Humvee (military) is manufactured by AM General and has nothing to do with hummer (civilian) other then the name and the H1 (or what every they call them) looking similar.
Exactly.
'92-'01 Hummers are produced by AM General
'02-'06 H1s are produced by Hummer (GM)

Nick
White out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 02:05 AM   #6
Ghosthound
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 110979
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Vehicle:
2010 FJ Cruiser
1999 Miata

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White out View Post
Exactly.
'92-'01 Hummers are produced by AM General
'02-'06 H1s are produced by Hummer (GM)

Nick
im pretty sure all H1's were produced by am general. Only the H2, H3's were produced by GM. which is why the h2 and h3's sucked balls compared to the H1.

Gm was more on the marketing side of things with the H1 and "Hummer" name.
Ghosthound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 06:08 PM   #7
monovich
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 8124
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Denver, Colorado
Vehicle:
1998 Old Grey Mule
Regacy Rype R

Default

are the military and civilian brands even related?
monovich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 06:53 PM   #8
904scooby
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 151518
Join Date: Jun 2007
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: J-ville
Vehicle:
2005 18g'd WRX
CGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monovich View Post
are the military and civilian brands even related?

Kind of but not really, I may be wrong tho.
I think they don't use anything but AM General trucks not H1 by GM

Fail me for not seeing this addressed already
904scooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 06:09 PM   #9
SubaruFan
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 35649
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: CA
Vehicle:
2001 Legacy GT sdn
sand/gray

Default

No worries the next trucks will be automated and our boys will be safe sitting in a comfy secure room running patrol from their lap top.
SubaruFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 08:50 AM   #10
Fiddy82
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 145484
Join Date: Apr 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Fort Lewis
Vehicle:
2011 Legacy GT
White

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubaruFan View Post
No worries the next trucks will be automated and our boys will be safe sitting in a comfy secure room running patrol from their lap top.
Ha thats what they said about the UAV when it came along, then they realized you can't win a conflict from a swivel chair.......Well they still haven't actually realized that.
Fiddy82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 07:51 PM   #11
NeedBoost21
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 150337
Join Date: Jun 2007
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: AZ
Vehicle:
2013 WrX
ISM

Default

the MRAP is the biggest piece the army has wasted its money on. Not maneuverable when trying to assault an objective, easy to roll, and an extremely stiff suspension. When it comes to maintence, its always in the shop, and never enough supplies to fix it. Only plus is the ability to obtain higher speeds than HUMVEE, and tough as nails.

Honestly I chose a HUMVEE over the MRAP all day long!
NeedBoost21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 10:36 PM   #12
jdmimprez
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 153318
Join Date: Jul 2007
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Hurlburt Field FL
Vehicle:
09 EVO X GSR

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedBoost21 View Post
the MRAP is the biggest piece the army has wasted its money on. Not maneuverable when trying to assault an objective, easy to roll, and an extremely stiff suspension. When it comes to maintence, its always in the shop, and never enough supplies to fix it. Only plus is the ability to obtain higher speeds than HUMVEE, and tough as nails.

Honestly I chose a HUMVEE over the MRAP all day long!

yea they're easier to roll & a crap load heavier, but a lot of the troops seem to like the MRAP better. Unlike when the hummer (even w/ the armored kits) when the MRAP gets hit w/ something (RPG, road side bomb/IED...etc) the first layer of armor is designed to crack leaving the 2nd layer ok keeping everyone inside ALIVE, unlike the hummer that just blows up. Even the under side is protected the same way, but in the hummer you might as well be driving a Ford F-150.
One of the production managers came out and gave us a 2 day class on them. He said that a lot of navy guys & marines all say they would rather be in the MRAP if they were to get hit w/ something.
jdmimprez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 07:14 AM   #13
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmimprez View Post
One of the production managers came out and gave us a 2 day class on them. He said that a lot of navy guys & marines all say they would rather be in the MRAP if they were to get hit w/ something.
Did you see your last point? If I was going to get hit I would like to be in an M1 abrams tank too, but that doesn't make them a good choice necessarily for troop transport. There are significant downsides to changing from a vehicle like the H1 to the MRAP. Though given the way the military operates now at least it may make sense.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 07:12 PM   #14
fa5tcogt
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 228215
Join Date: Oct 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
Did you see your last point? If I was going to get hit I would like to be in an M1 abrams tank too, but that doesn't make them a good choice necessarily for troop transport. There are significant downsides to changing from a vehicle like the H1 to the MRAP. Though given the way the military operates now at least it may make sense.
You havent ever actually served as a combatant in any sort of victor unit have you?

Trust me when I tell you the Vee is CRAP. They are horrible for getting in and out of quickly..especially with gear on. A 9mm round could probably penetrate where they actually put armor in the "armored" version.

But as someone who actually has had to face the very real threat of mobility vs getting blown the **** to pieces by an rpg, ied, or some damn jihadist suicide bomber....Ill take the better armor and the worse ride thanks.

But. it would be nice to have something simple. Marines are just going to break anything with a lot of tech in it. Especially in the field. All that hybrind blah blah technology blah blah is good for nothing except keeping the pogue's out of combat, but all that crap is just plain unreliable
fa5tcogt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 04:45 PM   #15
RealDealTarheel
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 142447
Join Date: Mar 2007
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Purgatory, USA
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
Banged Up Blue

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fa5tcogt View Post
But. it would be nice to have something simple. Marines are just going to break anything with a lot of tech in it. Especially in the field. All that hybrind blah blah technology blah blah is good for nothing except keeping the pogue's out of combat, but all that crap is just plain unreliable
This. Put a Marine in a windowless doorless room with 3 ball bearings and he will have lost one and broken another in 30 minutes. Unless it is proven reliable it doesn't need to be incorporated, after all, who's going to dry the grunts tears when the convoy with their hot chow breaks down and doesn't get to them in time and they have to eat an MRE? BTW, you spelled poag wrong.
RealDealTarheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 11:06 PM   #16
FaastLegacy
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 11671
Join Date: Oct 2001
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Default

Let's hope they want some Buffaloes or some Cheetahs - I have stock in Force Protection.
FaastLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 07:27 AM   #17
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
1971 240Z

Default

I cannot believe I am going to say this, but the military should have the first really useful hybrid powertrains. I mean if we can double or triple the mileage of our transports, it makes logistics much easier, and amount of fuel infrastructure could be vastly smaller, as could the support personnel. If there every was a good use for hybrids, it would be troop transport
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 08:32 AM   #18
Fiddy82
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 145484
Join Date: Apr 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Fort Lewis
Vehicle:
2011 Legacy GT
White

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
I cannot believe I am going to say this, but the military should have the first really useful hybrid powertrains. I mean if we can double or triple the mileage of our transports, it makes logistics much easier, and amount of fuel infrastructure could be vastly smaller, as could the support personnel. If there every was a good use for hybrids, it would be troop transport

Scrappy that is soo effin true, but the fact that oil is everywhere here (i'm in afghanistan at the moment) it will never happen. I can't tell how awesome it would be to not have to strap 6 fuel cans to the outside of our MRAPs. That space I could use for mortar and Carl G rounds. ( But really I would take an uparmored Chevy Suburban with a V10 if the unit i'm in would stop being pussies and buy them.)

Next let me say I smile when I read threads like this, you civilians really do care about us military folk, But then I cringe because most of you talk sideways out of your bums about things you have no idea about.

The MRAP vs. HMMV, since i've been blown up in both I can tell you the MRAP IS A MUCH NEEDED IMPROVEMENT. Sure the HMMV is smaller a wee bit faster, more nimble (somewhat) and easier to get in and out of, but after fighting from a MRAP and being ka-blamed in one (IED) I can say that the pros out weigh the cons. Both vehicles are loud and are ****ty infil platforms but for that you just get out and walk a few klicks. This war has turned to one thing and that is IEDs, so it serves its purpose well. Plus Its not as easy to roll as you think. Yesterday no **** i had it tilted so that the guy in the passenger seat was pretty much laying on me and i could look out the driver door window and see the ground as i was driving through some pretty hairy terrain. And an M1 tank would get raped by an IED. And for the record an RPG is still one of the most formiddable weapons out there about the only thing that can stop it is reactive armor and some of that good ol chicken wire.

Last edited by Fiddy82; 02-04-2010 at 08:47 AM.
Fiddy82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 06:17 PM   #19
Ghosthound
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 110979
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Vehicle:
2010 FJ Cruiser
1999 Miata

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
I cannot believe I am going to say this, but the military should have the first really useful hybrid powertrains. I mean if we can double or triple the mileage of our transports, it makes logistics much easier, and amount of fuel infrastructure could be vastly smaller, as could the support personnel. If there every was a good use for hybrids, it would be troop transport
the only problem i see is the reliability of hybrid technologies in the conditions the vehicles would be facing...

With all the mud, dust, vibration, etc that military vehicles go through, is it safe to rely on something so hi tech?

I hate to bring this up, but look at toyota, sure some people think its all mechanical but its starting to look like there may be some sort of electrical issues going on as well.

Luckily for most civilians, MOST of the time, its not a life or death situation. If it were a military vehicle that malfunctioned, it could easily mean death. User what works and has been proven to work. Most hybrid tech found in cars is too new to really see how reliable it is in adverse conditions.
Ghosthound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 08:49 AM   #20
jam007
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 174706
Join Date: Mar 2008
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Camarillo, California
Vehicle:
2004 WRX V8 EJ207
6MT, 08 Spec B

Default

MRAP is under powered with the CAT C10 in it they should've used the C12 that is used in all the MTVR's. Newer model HMMWV's that posses the 6.5 turbo is definitly and improvement over the older 6.2's M998 models. My opinion ill take a MRAP any day.
jam007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 08:53 AM   #21
Fiddy82
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 145484
Join Date: Apr 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Fort Lewis
Vehicle:
2011 Legacy GT
White

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jam007 View Post
MRAP is under powered with the CAT C10 in it they should've used the C12 that is used in all the MTVR's. Newer model HMMWV's that posses the 6.5 turbo is definitly and improvement over the older 6.2's M998 models. My opinion ill take a MRAP any day.
totally true, but its biggest mechanical downfall is the extra retarded drivetrain. What a load of fail
Fiddy82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 02:25 PM   #22
jam007
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 174706
Join Date: Mar 2008
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Camarillo, California
Vehicle:
2004 WRX V8 EJ207
6MT, 08 Spec B

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddy82 View Post
totally true, but its biggest mechanical downfall is the extra retarded drivetrain. What a load of fail
Yea the drivetrain does blow, not to mention we've had alot of front shackles bend or even break due to off road excursions and even managed to bend an axle from time to time..LOL. When we first got'em our unit wanted to give'em a good shake down so we did I thought the Force Protection Tech rep was gonna poop himself...LOL
jam007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 10:30 AM   #23
Yotsuya
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 935
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: ಠ_ಠ
Vehicle:
Jack Soo Fan Club

Default

The Hummvee was freakishly large by itself though I guess it doesn't matter so much in open terrain. Is there anything smaller in the pipeline? I can't imagine the entire Army will only be in a position to function as minesweepers.
Yotsuya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 11:24 AM   #24
White out
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 46277
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Michigan
Vehicle:
** Ring Time of
7:43.5

Default

The hmmwv was never designed to be an up-armored vehicle (even in the early 2000's it was rare to see a slantback, let alone an armored unit). But the vehicle had to be adapted to the current situation.

It is great for use in a military setting (think jeep of previous engagements), but it is not good as a vehicle for handling explosives. The design of the truck allows an ied explosion to go up through the center of the hull or the flat bottom under the passenger seats takes the full blow. Because of this design AMG couldn't change the truck to have a V-bottom for the best protection.

Also, the new up-armored turbo trucks weigh 8,000lbs+ over the original trucks. They are more than double the weight of my truck which has the same driveline (I have a lighter frame). My truck's 0-60 is in the 19 second range.

There is also no room under these trucks to add battery packs, etc.

These new vehicles are great (a much needed update), and it's sad to see the end of the HMMWV. However, it will continue to be produced for other countries, spare parts, and as of now $1M/year for the US government. The truck is currently in its 26th year of production (with a civilian run of 14 years) and will probably not wind down until it has passed the 30 year mark, if that.

Nick
White out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 12:16 PM   #25
Fiddy82
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 145484
Join Date: Apr 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Fort Lewis
Vehicle:
2011 Legacy GT
White

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White out View Post
The hmmwv was never designed to be an up-armored vehicle (even in the early 2000's it was rare to see a slantback, let alone an armored unit). But the vehicle had to be adapted to the current situation.

It is great for use in a military setting (think jeep of previous engagements), but it is not good as a vehicle for handling explosives. The design of the truck allows an ied explosion to go up through the center of the hull or the flat bottom under the passenger seats takes the full blow. Because of this design AMG couldn't change the truck to have a V-bottom for the best protection.

Also, the new up-armored turbo trucks weigh 8,000lbs+ over the original trucks. They are more than double the weight of my truck which has the same driveline (I have a lighter frame). My truck's 0-60 is in the 19 second range.

There is also no room under these trucks to add battery packs, etc.

These new vehicles are great (a much needed update), and it's sad to see the end of the HMMWV. However, it will continue to be produced for other countries, spare parts, and as of now $1M/year for the US government. The truck is currently in its 26th year of production (with a civilian run of 14 years) and will probably not wind down until it has passed the 30 year mark, if that.

Nick
Nick, you my friend know your ****!
Fiddy82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US '98 EJ22E...Phase I or II? interference?? soxx Normally Aspirated Powertrain 5 10-23-2012 01:28 PM
Do you all think that the rice fad is pretty much phased out? NITROS Off-Topic 51 10-31-2006 07:39 PM
Get convicted of negligent homicide in the US military and your sentence is... HoRo1 Political Playground 17 01-26-2006 08:57 AM
US military probes tiger killing at Baghdad zoo WRSport Political Playground 11 09-24-2003 06:56 PM
Is Rota phasing out the battles? 02bump'nWRX Brakes, Steering & Suspension 14 12-15-2002 07:43 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.