Filed under: SUVs, Trucks/Pickups, Government/Legal, Tech, Commercial Trucks, GM, HUMMER
Soldiers need a better HUMMER
It's been called HMMWV, the High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, Humvee for short, or HUMMER for civilian use, but it's been twenty years since DoD chassis M998 was put into service, and the Pentagon wants something new.
The Humvee slowly found its way into the civilian market when celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger began purchasing them for personal use, and the brand was bought from AM General by General Motors in 1999. GM recently took the Hummer H1 off the civilian market, replaced by the more modern and (comparatively speaking) more efficient and roadworthy H2. Now the Pentagon wants part of the action again with a new Humvee 30-40% lighter, more fuel efficient and with better armor to protect our troops.
AM General and GM are not currently competing for the DoD tender, but Navistar International (with the CXT) and aerospace giant Lockheed Martin are in the running.
The Humvee originally gained its fame on CNN during the first Iraq war, several years after it was put into service. Since then, new technologies – including vitals like drivetrain and lightweight/high-strength construction materials – have been developed that could prove useful on the battlefield.
[Source: Edmunds Straightline]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
G-Man 7:29PM (10/08/2006)
The pentagon wants a new Humvee, Arnold wants a new Hummer.
Reply
Stewart Elliot 7:46PM (10/08/2006)
"The pentagon wants something new....." Try a Land Rover, and is one of the best off road vehicles on the planet !!
Reply
cheezedog420 8:08PM (10/08/2006)
They don't need a new HMMWV, they need a new driveline for the HMMWV. The main problem with the HMMWV is can't handle all the Ballistic armor its being loaded down with to compleat its mission Iraq. (Its was design to be a fast attack unit... Not slow urban patrol target.)
In any case, to meet this new Ocupational mission, all that extra Ballistic armor the HMMWV is being loaded down with is exceeding the capablitys of the current Diesel motor.
This reason is probably why the Army is really pushing its Striker brigade into Iraq. The striker is much better suited for the mission of urban patrol, (It was designed from the onset to be armored unit capable of resisting RPG attack.)
On top of that, the slow urban driving is eating into the Armys supply chain Allowance for the Hummer... (Strikers will do that too, but atleast it will be offsetted by better a better survival rate...)
In any case, I would not be suprized if the Army goes to GM about having the Silvarado Hybrid Driveline. The HMMWV could probably fit such a driveline, it only need to be reconfigured for Diesel. And in doing so, that would really reduce the HMMWV's Fuel consumption while in Iraq.
Reply
Steve2 8:17PM (10/08/2006)
An H1 actually gets better mpg than an H2, because the H1 is a turbo-Diesel.
Is the H1 more efficient? I dunno about that, given the differences between Diesel and gas.
Stewart Elliot:
A Land Rover is nothing like one of these vehicles, even a Defender. You want to compare a Land Rover to an H2, that's fine. But an H1 is a lot heavier duty vehicle. Just like a HiLux is a fantastic vehicle on its own, it's not a 1-ton truck no matter how good it is.
Reply
B. Remy McTaggart 8:38PM (10/08/2006)
The M998 (and associated platforms, most infamously the M1114) is basically a '83 diesel Blazer with a bodykit. They are slow as hell, handle like a shopping cart full of concrete bricks, and are wider than asses inside a Bally's. The Stryker is a middle-child, and I dunno about the RPG capability after seeing the modified "birdcage" for it. The CXT looks like a good start, I could also argue for S&S to go ahead and modify the M1097 LMTV, but anything has to be better than the HMMWV.
Reply
SUBE555 10:18PM (10/08/2006)
I really wish they'd actually talk about the JLTV program and the various ones attached to this subject instead of giving you little blurbs.
The Hummer in it's various forms needs to be replaced due to it's new mission profile. It was designed back when the threat came from eastern Europe. It wasn't designed with armor in it's profile, heck IED's weren't really considered, not the same thing as a tank mine nor purpose.
The JLTV family program, which the Hummer replacement fits under, has many companies who are very serious about contending in any run-off competition. I've seen a number of the vehicles which are working towards this program from the ILAV contract, it should be very interesting who takes the cake. There are a lot of different vehicles out there that are at least somewhat capable of what the military wants, some definitely better than others. The outcome could be very surprising for those who work in the field.
Reply
Stoneman 7:39AM (10/09/2006)
The military, sure, but not your grocery mom's. I mean, come on...
Stoneman
http://www.stonemanautoreview.com
Reply
Carlton 7:45AM (10/09/2006)
""The pentagon wants something new....." Try a Land Rover, and is one of the best off road vehicles on the planet !!"
Without a doubt the dumbest comment I've ever seen on this blog.
"The pentagon wants a new Humvee, Arnold wants a new Hummer."
And this one is a close second.
Reply
Tater 8:10AM (10/09/2006)
Hmm...Land Rover seems to be good enough for the US Special Forces - US Army Rangers to be exact. Anyone who thinks the HUMVEE is a better built, more dependable or more capable vehicle than a Defender, hasn't much experience with either.
Reply
Mr. Oak 9:53AM (10/09/2006)
2. "The pentagon wants something new....." Try a Land Rover, and is one of the best off road vehicles on the planet !!
11. Hmm...Land Rover seems to be good enough for the US Special Forces - US Army Rangers to be exact.
# 11. First. Sure Special forces will use Range Rovers, think of it as sort of an "unmarked police car" Special Forces are supposed to try and blend into their environment, HUMVEES only blend in amongst other Humvees. Also, showing up in a Chevy or Ford, they may as well show up in US Olympics track suits. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
#2. I'll dismiss your stupid comment as just that, a stupid comment. Now, let's talk about those fine Rover products.
(a). Without question, Range Rovers are amongst the best if not the best FWD/AWD capable vehicles on this planet. That BMW bought the company pirated the technology for their X5, X3 etc., before selling them off like slaves to Ford, is a testament to that. Ford however, is too stupid to transfer this technology to their downstream products.
Now, I live in an upity suburban region of the north eastern US. Range Rovers/Land Rovers along with Cayannes, X5, H2s, H1s, MLs,Escalades, Navigators, Land Cruisers, Acuras and Lexuses are usually the second or third car in most of these house-holds. Just about everything listed above there has a much better reliability record than the Rover products. Sure Range Rovers look great on the front lawns of the aristocrats' mansions, castles and estates, most of them log less than 5k miles per year on their odometers. My point is, these though wonderful vehicles, they are not heavy lifters. Military Duty = Heavy Lifting.
BTW: Everyone whom I know personally that used/uses a RR/LR as their primary vehicle, has regretted their decision to buy the damn things
Reply
Galley 10:14AM (10/09/2006)
What our military really needs is a Tucker Combat Car!
Reply
Tater 11:23AM (10/09/2006)
#12,
The US Army Rangers *currently* use Land Rover Defenders by choice, over the HUMVEE. The Defender is employed by military customers around the world.
You seem to have some kind of axe to grind against Land Rover based upon second-hand anecdotes related to completely different Land Rover models. That you don't recognize the distinction between the vehicle in question, and those you are second-hand (un)famillar with, is basis enough to discount your opinions.
Reply
Mr. Oak 12:44PM (10/09/2006)
Tater: I grew up in Land Rovers, always thoutht they were the greatest. That was until you had to live with one here in the U.S. as a daily driver. Would I buy one? not if it were my primary mode of transport. The BMW powered ones may be better. Waiting to see how the now Jaguar powered ones hold up.
Don't be fooled by the fact that militaries use them, the military has motor-pools where they can drop off the broken one and grab another, that's what we did. If you read my previous post, you'd see that I do not question their ability to execute a given task. I repeat, they do have the most capable off-road systems anywhere.
It's their reliability and longevity and cost of keeping them running that I have a problem with.
Rover at large has always had reliability issues here in the U.S. I'm sure you recall the disaster that was the Sterling 825 & 827 - The original '85/86(?)Acura Legend was mechanically identical(engine & transmission) That Acura Legend is can still be seen on the streets here, the Sterlings? ...went the way of the dinosaur.
Reply
Tater 1:12PM (10/09/2006)
15.
Rover Cars - i.e. Sterling, are not, and never were a part of the Land Rover company. To criticize Land Rover for the failings of Sterling is just plain incorrect. Rover and Land Rover were only ever associated in name, and by the fact that they were once nationalized under British Leyland, along with a dozen other makers,(Austin, MG, Jaguar, etc, etc) then bought by BMW, who subsequently sold both as distinct, and totally independent companies.
15. "Don't be fooled by the fact that militaries use them, the military has motor-pools where they can drop off the broken one and grab another, that's what we did. If you read my previous post, you'd see that I do not question their ability to execute a given task. I repeat, they do have the most capable off-road systems anywhere."
Would seem to make them a good fit for a customer like the US Army, with it's.......motor pools and all. :)
Reply
Hummer Guy 1:50PM (10/09/2006)
If the military moves away from the Humvee to something else, it will probably be some assault looking military vehicle like the one International built a while back. No way are they going to use a vehicle that is currently used to carry the kids to soccer practice.
Reply
lwstudent 2:14PM (10/09/2006)
this idea of saving money by buying new fuel efficient hummers. what a JOKE they pay sooooo much for a hummer for starters why buy another corporate pork barrel excuse of a vehicle.
the DoD needs to talk to the EPA about hydraulic hybrids, they will spend over 150-200k on a future hummer when they could alter the ones they have already for under 1k and save a bunch of money right there.
the armor upgrade kit they sent over to help protect crews cost over around a 100k per vehicle. wTf!
its not fuel they need to save, it is the amount of money they squander on repairs and servicing. heck if they took a hummer to a jiffy lube for an oil change they would save thousands of dollars.
It is hypocritical to say they want to cut costs by replacing hummer with another money sucker. They spend around a million dollars a year servicing these trucks.
the Dod needs to accept bids from foreign manufacturers and then some competition for the contracts would lower the price. this policy of pork barrel local only costs the US taxpayer more. if they were really concerned with saving money then they should begin at the source of all this hypocracy.
Reply
MikeW 2:26PM (10/09/2006)
Maybe the H1 alpha gets better mileage than an H2, but remember there is 10% more energy in diesel, so that would be a wash.
The HMMWV needs the 6.6 & Allison 1000 6 speed auto with 3.08 axle and 1.92 hubs, perfect for the 100mph 10,000 lbs truck.
Reply
Donald Hindle 5:58PM (10/09/2006)
The vehicle being marketed by Navistar/International is the MXT, not the CXT
Reply
Koba 2:00AM (10/11/2006)
Cracker jack job. This all results from one administration, the current one. The urban police roles of the 21st century are not a new idea, try going as far back as Somalia. Google the name Shinseki, he was the Head of the Army, and wished to institute a medium level assault system, between the HMMWV and the M1 Abrams. Needless to say, Shinsekis ideas were flushed, and now our forces pay dearly b/c bureaucrats like Rumsfeld have EVERYTHING figured out, and see the need to fight ANYONE, regardless of their expertise, who disagrees with them.
The HMMWV needs an update, and the Army needs a purpose built medium strength vehicle to slide between a HMMWV and a tank. The HMMWV's small size and ease of maneuverability are needed for more conventional military actions (like say Korea or Iran).
Reply
Cars 5:55AM (10/16/2006)
A fine combination of vehicles.
Reply