“The Pentagon is accelerating its search to replace the Humvee after two years of roadside bomb blasts and suicide attacks in Iraq,” says USA Today.
“Before the war in Iraq, a successor to the Army’s dominant vehicle wasn’t due until the middle of the next decade. Now the Army plans to review designs this fall, and working prototypes will be due in June.“
The U.S. military needs those prototypes to be better armored than the often thin-skinned Humvees, of course. But they also want “a beefier suspension that can handle the weight of the armor… lower fuel consumption, to reduce the need for supply convoys that have been targets of insurgents… [and] improved onboard power generation to handle the expanding array of electronics that troops take into battle today compared with the simple radios of 30 years ago.“
I’ve got a brief profile of one potential Humvee replacement in next month’s Popular Mechanics. Defense Review looks at another, Georgia Tech’s Ultra Armored Patrol.
(Big ups: Eric)
Humvee 2.0
Previous post: Rapid Fire 8/24/05
Next post: Sub Base Saved
{ 61 comments… read them below or add one }
There is no need for such a new hummer v2.0. There is already one candidate, and it’s called ASV-150 Guardian. Why waste money to build something from scratch when there is already a candidate? I would strongly recommend for the US Armed Force to have ASV-150 as the platform (meaning to have modifications for multiple use) of next generation of hummers.
I will deport myself from the country if we replace the hummer with this ugly cheap sand buggy. This is just as bad as the spandex soldiers of the future.
Good Morning,
I’m somewhat in agreement with “Pedestrian” on this, although I don’t think the ASV-150 is the solution either.
The problem here seems to be that the Military is trying to build two distinctly different vehicles onto one chasis.
First requirement is an escort vehicle of a light armored nature for use in a medium intensity war zone and the second being a general purpose 1/4 to 1/2 ton carrier like the old M-151 “Jeep”.
The obovious solution is to make two vehicles.
Sometimes consolidationof mssions works sometimes it doesn’t make sense. In this case I don’t think it does.
The Military doesn’t an expensive up-armored combat vehicle for a Company Commander or The First Sergeant to run anround with on post looking for a place to get a haircut. It’s just a waste of resources. Their are many commerical “SUV” type vehicles that can be modified to meet mil specs for this roll.
As for a combat vehicle I think maybe the old U.S. Vietnam Era V-100 might be a place to start in designing something. One thing the HUMVEE lacked was an armored weapons station that gives some reasonable measure of ballistic protection to the gunner. I would suggest this be of first priority in any design to be considered.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
What it looks like is that the military wants a gold plated “vehicle for all seasons”. I have a feeling that they aren’t going to get that, except at phenomenal cost, at reduced performance due to excessive weight.
Also, I noticed the chatter about possibly including move-by-wire into future vehicles. I’d be really nervous about being dependent on move-by-wire in a vehicle that needs to be able to take small arms fire, resist small explosions and take mine hits to the undercarriage. Has any real research been done on the functionality of move-by-wire under ground combat situations? It makes really good sense for aircraft, where mechanical failure is often lethal, but perhaps it’s not such good idea for land vehicles given that they are expected to soak up bullets small explosions where mechanical failures are more inconvenient than lethal.
Marshall Astor – move-by-wire? wierd name, I’ve always known it as Drive-By-Wire. And it has being undergoing study for several years now…but no, not in any combat vehicles.
The main one being GM’s Hy-Wire.
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/
I actually think that having a electronically controlled vehicle is better then mechanical. Since its just wires, and so it would be easy to build the vehicle with great redundancy, like have all the vehicles major systems be on both sides of the vehicles, so if an rpg hits the right side, and damages some wiring, driving functions are still normal since you would then be driving using the wire system on the left side.
Hmmmm, looks reminiscent to the British FOX (light-armoured recon and C&C vehicle…about 25+ yrs old by now). We have a vehicle designed with an ’80′s approach and concept, attempting to function in a new century; redundant, yes. When will the DoD accept a design with “tried-and-true” methodology instead of straight-up sci-fi style values????? I’ll bet if we brought back the 1/2-tracks of WWII and ‘Nam, we’d have a few more of our comrades in one piece….
A vehicle for all seasons. Not truely practical. The more weight added the greater the cost in fuel and parts. They are looking for everything for nothing and it doesn’t work that way. Mine survivability, don’t think it will happen in a light vehical anytime soon.
My issue with the new designs is that they seem to be ignoring many lessons learned since WW2 and all developments since: good and bad…
I live and work in land mine clearance in Africa.
I build mine protected vehicles and upgrade existing ones. a lot of good comments here. mine are posted on my blog. http://sdsideas.blogspot.com/
I will post more on the subject shortly.
Yes, go for it! Spend more money that we don’t have to fight another Vietnam! And lets spend billions in the process and continue to see our brave warriors be targets, aks “Sitting Ducks”.
We did not find weapons of mass destruction, killed Sadaam’s two sons, now lets cap him and get the hell out of there, there will NEVER be peace there!
Oh, and one more thing, of which I agree with Senator Biden on, give Donald Rumsfield his Marching Orders right out of his position!
I believe that we need to sink our money into tech. that will prevent any man loss period! If that means a bomb sniffing tank, so be it, if this means a robot, so be it. So many of our men are getting killed and I am personally tired of it. Yes, I believe in freedom, but enough is enough. The car companies have the technology so a humvee can get like 50 mpg. Why are we not using it? Hmm, someone is making a lot of money. I am a 100% disabled vet. and I would like to see change for our troops! Lets get our money behind us, and put it in front of us.
Hmm..heavier suspension to carry the weight of armour, lower fuel consumption, and similar deployability? Doesn’t that breach the laws of physics?
At least without disruptive technology changes.
Murc – I’m familiar with drive-by-wire (I think move-by-wire is just a general term that covers the type of system regardless of the vehicle type) and other systems, including the GM work, and I’m really enthusiastic about them for non-combat vehicles, aircraft and naval vehicles. I’m just hoping that they do some hard, serious testing about those redundecies before 18 year old kids find out the hard way.
My other main concern about the level of electronics in many “on the drawing board” designs is their potential for unknown vulnerability. Imagining a conflict 10-20 years out, mines and other weapon systems designed to disable electronic systems (communication, drive-by-wire, onboard computers) may be even easier to build and deploy than weapons based on conventional explosives.
Or easily built devices such as microwave based “pain rays” may make it shockingly easy to disable the occupants of any future Humvee, regardless of how much steel and ceramic you put between them and the weapon. In the current conflict in Iraq, we are fighting opponents who lost a war over a decade ago, had their economy totally wiped out by sanctions before the current operations. It’s almost unthinkable that any future conflict could be so ridiculously stacked in favour of the United States’ military superiority. The technology and production assets an opponent would have at their disposal in any future coflict will likely be much greater than Iraq posessed, even coming into the 1st Gulf War. In other words, an advanced Humvee might be perfect for the conflict we are engaged in now, but by the time it rolls off the assembly line and is integrated into the military, be obsolete, or at least no better than the current version.
Go off the shelf or go with the M-113′s, that are already in country by the way.
As some one said during GW 1, wars today will be fought with what you got. The current procurment corpocricey can’t keep up with the modern battle field.
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/fc_army_040105.html
I agree with Murc.
The Army already picked up a fuel-cell GM vehicle earlier this year in April. Testing in the US until July 2006.
First let’s keep the anti-war talk to ourselves. We are talking about vehicles to replace the HMMWV. The humvee does not need to be replaced. The humvee does what it was desinged to do, and it does it pretty well. The fact is we do not have a realistic urban combat vehicle, that will survive in this enviorment. The only answer is to develop a vehicle specifically designed for this enviorment, and not come up with unrealistic expectations for an all in one vehicle. (The Army seems to like all in one solutions, just look at the new Army uniform. Which is a huge target in anything but a desert enviorment)
I dont think a improved replacement is going to be the end all answer. Alot of the IED’s over there are made with arty rounds and shape charges. Thus taking out even some of the most heavly armed vehicles. The only thing I hated about the Humvees was the width. Because of the width it is hard to get them in places that a smaller european vehicle can manuver in the tight streets.
that vehicle is one ugly breed, I say beef up the hummer under carriage and sides, make it more fuel efficient and also put more troops on the ground and you will have alot less cacualties, success in numbers and start hitting them with some of there own car bombs and roadside mines. the thing is who can you trust as friendly or insurgent ? Rumsfeld ought to spend the nite over there an see what it is really like. Let the boys take care of business. Give them the tools and troops they need to suceed before we loose anymore than we allready have. We should have swept up the side villages when we first landed and maybe we wouldn’t be having the problems we are now having.
From what I’ve seen on this vehicle, it’s a beauty…
individual electric motors in each of the hubs, so
it can literally turn on a dime. The diesel engine
can be turned off so it runs nearly silent when
necessary. Also, it has power outlets built in!
The “willy”was a nice all terrain jeep and good believe me! Whats wrong with modernizing a 3/4 tonner? I mean when we leave we will most likely leave it over there anyway? Modernize the 3/4 ton I am sure if you rebuilt that more armor heavy suspension, everything ups and down wede have a good type of jeep.Diesel is okay,even gas longer range. but of course the big car dealers will compete for contract. and the Brass has its budget also. A.B.
>Go off the shelf or go with the M-113′s
What is the advantage of wheeled vehicles? What is M-113 most used for? Did You forget about mobility? What about cost performance? productivity?
>Doesn’t that breach the laws of physics?
True, but there are also technology breakthroughs that allows to increase the effeciency and decrease the energy loss.
>Alot of the IED’s over there are made with arty
>rounds and shape charges. Thus taking out even
>some of the most heavly armed vehicles.
That is how ordinary people respond, meaning that the whole environment is not being visualized. I am not going beyond that. Think about it yourself.
The need of a new vehicle?? The hum-v is not a light armored vehicle. The AAV, LAV, M-113 these are light armored vehicles. Some of these machines are over 30 years old. Programs are in place to replace them now. Why spend money on some thing that was not meant to be? If the company Gunny wants to check the local sights let him take a real armored vehicle.
But people you forget that this humvee is just a prototype you don’t know what to expect if it’s going to look better and be better at the most.
Good Morning,
Although I have great affection for the M-113 (I was with the 11ACR in Vietnam 1966, does anyone else here have actual combat experience in an M-113?) it has proven itself in Vietnam, Gulf War I and the current Gulf War most recently with the 1AD in Karbala and the 2ACR in Najaf both actions occured in 2004.
The M-113 is a 50 year old combat platform that evolved from a “Combat Taxi” to a full blown “Armored Fighting Vehicle” in Vietnam. The current up-armoring up grade from what I am reading would reduce the capabilities of this old war horse.
The added weight has already neccessitated a new power plant and transmission along with a reduction in range and the vehicle in no longer able to float or swim. The “New and Improved M-113″ is due to hit the streets of Iraq in Spring 2006.
The attributes of the M-113 that made it an excellent AFV was that was agile, easy to train a crew on and could be armed to what ever the mission required. It is to be seen if the new M-113 can follow in those tracks.
I think it’s time for new ideas in AFV’s beyond the M-113A3 Gavin and the M-2A3/M-3A3 Bradley’s, both are mid 20th. Century techonolgy that has seen it’s day. Personally I don’t think the M-1126 Stryker is the answer, if anything it is a reversal in the evolution in AFV’s.
There are many tactical problems in Iraq, with the most glearing being that the Americans are spending all there time in base camps and not on offseive operations. The United States has the worlds greatest and best Military with more then enough firepower to finish the job in Iraq but won’t use it.
The politicians are telling the media that we are in a quagmire in Iraq because you can’t kill all the insurgents. I don’t know how they can say that since we never tried, either in Vietnam or now in Iraq to kill all the bad guys.
It is a sad day when most U.S. causalities in a War occur in convoys bringing Air Conditioners, DVD’s and Soda Pop to large base camps and to idle soldiers waiting around who find them selves “Mortar Bait”.
An Army can be the worlds best but if you doesn’t go out and seek the enemy and engage him they are nothing more the a target. No war can be WON this way no matter how good your equipment is, and thats a fact my friends.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
I think we are missing the point of the (HMMWV). The acronym stands for Hightly Mobile Military Wheeled Vehicle. I drove a hummer for nearly 5 years, and I think that it would be a major mistake to completely replace it with something heavier. Much of my time in the military was spent in Korea, where the planners in their infinite wisdom have been phasing out wheeled units for years in favor of heavy mech units. These heavy mech units are great for the desert but I am wondering if the next armed conflict may occur in Korea, especially with the current retoric. If that is the case, heavy armored vehicles don’t fare so well in rice pattys (unless it is in the middle of winter). The hummer may not work well in an urban environment, but replacing it completely with something that may not work in some future environment would be ill advised and foolhardy.
Gentlemen! At ease! Ya’ll are confusing two seperate topics here. (Quick/condensed History lesson)
WW2: Jeeps…made to do about 20+ jobs, did some well.
Half tracks: Copied German models, but were faster/made in higher numbers. ALSO modded to do about 8 different jobs. Did some well.
Fast forward…
“Pentomic Era/Cold War/Vietnam”
As a Cav trooper, Enlisted and Officer, saw the M113 do wonderful things. Also saw Vietnam vets photo albums FULLof oics of melted M113′s in Vietnam. (Yes boys, MELTED M113′s.) Modded to do a host of things…does some well.
Today:Bush’s foray into Iraq;HUMV’s have been modded so far along, that they are hardly recognizable. Well, thats progress on the battlefield. Vehicle was made to do a host of things, does some well. (1sg getting a haircut!) Anyway…
Guys are getting hurt daily,the HUMV’s are way too heavy for the drivetrains, and the slap on/mod as you go Armor fixes are just barely getting the job done. So what do we do?
The Germans have the fix, and its proven. It’s called the “Dingo”, and its a strong, fast,mineproof vehicle that is a cross between a Stryker, and a BTR-60.The Haji’s would get ONE look at the Teutonic grill bearing down on them, and most thoughts of being a hero woulod dissipate. Great vehicle, and its available.Go check it out…and leave the H2′s for Xibit and Rap singers….
Read article on the German Dingo. Nice vehicle, its gonna be financed by US Military aid. http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/dingo-kmw.htm
I was part of a combat engineer team in iraq who’s mission was to hunt down IED’s I believe this vehicle would be usefull to enigineers for hunting IED’s. But not every unit needs this new humvee.
People i really think that if they plan on keeping our troops there for another 4 years, Than they should get their heads out of the butt. And come up with something, as much as some of you may think the german dingo is good they would not fight along side us, why buy from them when we have great people in the states . If they can raise gas prices over night, Maybe a few will placed kicks in the butt and maybe afew revoked military contracts, we may be able to see a new type coming off the line in about 6 mouths. What do you think Mr Skinner i been reading your comments and must say i agree with most of them .I spent 2 years in nam my second tour with the 82nd airborne div. B troop 1st 17th calvery we start out with jeeps move into the apc, I also fill that with up dates it could be use again . Maybe till somthing else comes around. Too all our troops be safe and hurry home
The French used a vehicle in Africa in the 60′s that was four wheeled mounted a 90mm gun and topped 50mph speed. There must be some of these vehicles left however using French armament isn’t politically correct now.
I read the article on the Dingo. It looks like an effective vehicle with a fairly flexible platform. (The Bundeswehr always gets really cool vehicles)
From what the article said, only the order of Dingos for the IDF is funded by US military aid, not the entire program.
The old M41 light Tank should be updated and built again, its a damn site better than anything they are using now
Had to go look up the “Dingo”
As a retired combat vet, with 10 years riding in tanks all I can say about the dingo is for convoy duty and geting its troops home safe and sound I will take the old M41 anytime.
Seems to me the military insists on re-learning old lessons over and over again.
goddamn , must you people complain about every damn thing the army or government does?!? quit you damn complaining and stop being a bunch of damn crybabies…. if you dont like it see if you can do a better job, faggets!
I think that we need to use the funding to lower the fuel cost and also bring the troops back home.
If we are going to upgrade a military vehicle it should be the 2 1/2 Humvee. The only problem with the Humvee is the it has no power it cant even climb small hills.
OK, I can’t take this anymore. I just read the posts about the “drivwe By Wire”. People, Have you ever been in a vehicle durring combat?? THe new LMTV is absolutely WORTHLESS when the batteries or Generator go out. THe transmision is electronic. Pure Genious. We have towed more LMTV’s with electrical prblems with a HEMTT Wrecker without a generator. We just couldn’t shut off the wrecker, it’s Diesel, it runs. Useing electronic components makes sense on a cost effective basis, but when parts start to go out, Mechanical will keep you alive and get you out of the “kill zone”.
Because I know first hand what it looks like and feels like to have a RPG rip through your HUMVEE I support the fact that they are trying to beef it up and give it a thicker skin. No one should have to loose both there legs like I have because the “armor” on a HUMVEE is crappy.
RECON
Looks and appeal to the purchaser and our government mean nothing. These vehicular tools should be designed by soldiers who use them and engineers who demand performance from them.
The A-10 was reviled and had to fight to be used because it was “ugly.” War is “ugly.” And if we didn’t have A-10′s, I daresay a lot of enemies who don’t have tanks now would have had tanks to fight against us with. Politics should leave our weapons alone.
I’ve done my fun in the sun (Iraq), I would welcome any improvements to the current equipment offered. I don’t think I would (deport) myself because the Army is doing something to help me come home in one piece. You may think she’s ugly, but she could safe your life some day. Fuel cost, weight, who cares bring me home in one piece, bottom line!!!! I believe I worth the cost…
[ USMC 20 yr veteran ]
Reminds me of these “rednecks” who buy a Dodge HEMI and then whine about 6mpg…. The M151 had a place (I remember the TOW Marines (1988)complaining about the extra effort to “dig-in” the HMMVV). They longed for the small, mobile, easy to hide M151… The HMMVV was never designed as an “armoured” platform. It does a lot of things quite well but not those missions designed for the Bradley. You can’t change the “Laws of Physics”…
I agree with Will Wheeler (8/25). The original Hummer was built for overland combat operations and it has proven to be both effective and valuable in that assignment. It was never intended for urban combat operations as has been all too often sadly demonstrated in Iraq. And no matter how much time, effort and money our short sighted and dim witted “leaders” devote to trying to upgrade the Hummer it will never be the vehicle that is needed to get the job done while providing adequate safety for our troops. (You will note in the article that led to all this discussion, for example, that both of the prototypes under consideration still have flat undercarriages which cannot redirect the blast from the shaped charges and multiple 500 pound bombs that the insurgents are now using.) The only viable solution to this problem is an entirely new vehicle that can fulfill the Hummer’s requirements while also providing security and safety for our troops. And, much to the chagrin of our planners, it does not have to be an American designed vehicle.
For troop and cargo movement we could pursue purchase of the “Rhino”, a large, bus type of vehicle that can supposedly withstand anything the ragheads have at their disposal. Rheumy Rummy, in an endorsement of this approach, will travel only in a “Rhino” whenever he is in-country.
The solution to the Hummer problem is a little more difficult,but I am sure that if the Pentagon and the White House could abandon this “We’ll fix it at any price” approach, we could find something somewhere in the world market that would represent a better solution without us having to spend the millions (billions?)it would take for us to give our troops the vehicle they need and the safety and security they deserve.
ghostrider03
Now that body bags are being shipped home every one wont to do some thing and of course blame some one else for not doing it in the past. THE BLUF is The Hummer was never meant to be an armored veh. “THEY” said it was not a front line veh. Now that we figured out there is no front line and “THEY” remembered there was no front line. we start looking for a better veh. We say we dont repeat History but we did the same thing in Iraq we did in Vietnam with add on armor yes it is time to buy some thing new will it have problems yes! They all do but it will offer more protection than we have now.
Yes the current humvee peace time use and model needs to be modified to reflect the present situation as it is. The proto type with the keel bottom seems like the right idea. Lift the hummer off the ground about another 12 inches or so…have enegry absorbant materials or blast plates like those on a Bradley and Abrahms. The thinking has to be on the level of survivability.
SInce WW II the soldiers have had to modify the vehicles supplied by the military to provide protection. The Combat vehicles (ie tanks) have always been armored but the Combat Service Support vehicles never have proving that the military may study the history of war but they never learn. The process of designing and building un-armored vehicles and then modifying them with armor is never cost effective and seldom works as planned. The HMMWV does need to be replaced with a better vehicle that can better with stand the harsh combat environments. As several other people have stated the HMMWV was never designed to be anything other than a REMF transport. It does this well and does not need to be replaced since there will always be brass inside the wire who need be driven to the barber shop or the PX. Instead we need to have a vehicle to fill a gap in our arsonnel. There are several different vehicles in use in Iraq as I speak that can be purchased off the shelf. They are all armored, sit higher up from the ground and have V shapped bottoms to deflect any blasts to reduce the risk of a breack to the vehicle. Most are right hand drive which leads me to believe they are Austrailian or South African but I do not know for sure. The “drive by wire” theory is garbage. When a broken wire or malfunctioning sensor stops you from leaving the kill zone while those around you have manual linkages are getting to safety then you will understand this concept. If you are wondering what qualifies me to have these opinions it is because I was there for OIF I when Baghdad fell, OIF II when the insurgency began and I am back there again for OIF III trying to survive the Battle Fields that the roads have become.
Combat Arms can win a war. Combat Support can both win or loose a war.
Fat Dave
I would have to say that the HMMWV is doing what its designed to do. Its a troop transport for gods sake and it does a good job. I know that everyone wants all of our troops to come home safe, but dont forget that we are at war. Some of our nations young men and women will die. Good freinds of mine have died over there as well as relatives. Its the nature of the beast. I think that the money that it would cost for a new vehicle to be produced could be re-directed to another situation such as the current emergency that we now face in Louisiana and Mississippi and other states. I myself am in the military and serve as a Bradley Commander. I have been to Iraq and have seen the distruction that IED’s and RPG’s can do. I stayed on combat patrols, raids and IED sweeps the entire time I was there. My unit would work 48 hour shifts, switching between platoons. Out of our 48 hours off we hardley had any downtime due to the fact that maintenance has to be conducted on not only our vehicles but our weapons, living enviroments, fortifications and other things as well. We also had to conduct training during our off time to keep our soldiers sharp on tasks that they were not performing on a regular day-to-day basis. I have no idea about the units you are talking about Mr. Skinner but a soldier is bait the entire time you are over there. All you can do is impliment the training that soldiers recieve and do your best to survive. The armor that we have in our inventory is doing just fine M113′s, M2/M3′s, M1 and up-armored HMMWV’s are doing a hell of a job over there. Lets concetrate on the skill level of our professional men and women deployed over-seas instead of trying to come up with some crazy technology that probably wont work in the first place. I mean really, how many of you have actually been hit with a 155mm arty round configured into an IED or had a RPG slam into the side of your Bradley. They are two pretty powerful explosions that I am afraid would rip any vehicle you could throw at them. I just got lucky I guess.
They need to find a vehical that will hold up to not only the RPG’s and IED’s, but the heat and the wear and tear of the mission. The HMMWV doesn’t do that very well.
I just wonder with all the high tec we have now why they can’t build a vehical that is easy to work on like the Jeeps were. Maintance will make or brake a mission.
The HMMWV’s are to heavy, under powered (like most military vehicals), and need to many parts and tools to keep running.
THIS IS THE SECOND OR THIRD OF FOURTH DUMMEST IDEA THE R&D PEOPLE HAVE COME UP WITH FOR IRAQ SOLDIERS.. IF AN IED CAN TAKE OUT A BRADLEY OR AN M1 WHAT MAKES THEM THINK THAT THIS CRAP OF A MACHINE IS GOING TO PROTECT ANYONE…
YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT LOW TO THE GROUND SO THE BLAST CANT GET UNDER IT TO BLAST EVERYTHING UP..
DONT THESE R&D PEOPLE KNOW ANYTHING..????
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A BLAST NORMALY GOES OUT AND UP.SO YOU GOT TO BE UNDER THE BLAST AREA…. LOWER TO THE GROUND.
THE NEXT BRIGHT IDEA THE PENTAGON NERDS GET FOR A NEW VEHICAL DESIGH ,,, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO RUN AROUND THE STREETS OF BAGDAD AND SEE IF IT WORKS BEFORE THEY PUT IT OUT FOR TRIAL AND ERROR . GI”S ARENT GUINNIE PIGS …
Humvees are for other purpose not to function as that designed for bradleys
I think that whe should stay with the up armer humves. They are good vehicals we just need newer ones and more up armer vehicals. Unstead of spending all that money on other things. I was hit three times with an IED intergated exploseve devices.It saved me twice the third time was when I got heart. I know from experiance there good vehical, stay with them get the marine more.
It should also have a time machine on the hood so i can change the past so i can be president. and it has to have dvd player so i can see myself in action, and see my favored hoilday movie jingo all the way!!!
I TOLD YOU ID BE BACK
Here I post the solutions actually adopter by the Italian and British Army.
The IVECO designed VTLM is what could be defined a Humvee 2.0 designed from the begining with protection in mind.
The VTLM has been adopted also by the british army:
http://www.defense-update.com/products/m/MLV.htm
http://www.ferreamole.it/images/vtlm/vtlm_01.htm
As you can see there are many options on the market that could be considered for a short term solution.
As for the British Army the MLV could be produced in USA.
Has anyone seen the UNICAT?. Makes the Hummer and Shadow look sick. It not only is a wheeled vehicle for high speed use (conventional steering), but it takes rubber overtracks and converts to skid steering. Whieghs 1.2 tons and carries up to double that.
Cobra has been developed by Otokar’s research and development team to provide the best solution for the need of the armed forced for wheeled armored vehicles. Cobra attracts interest with its superior maneuvering capability and its high level of ballistic protection as well as its feature of adjustability of the same platform for diverse functions. It provides great facilities in maintenance and service as it is designed on the same framework and infrastructure and it can be manufactured in many models and types. The fact that the infrastructure remains the same even in diverse Cobras manufactured for different realms, which, in turn, saves from maintenance and repair works and spare parts, makes Cobra an armored vehicle preferred by many armies.
Rubber tire-wheeled 4 x 4 Cobra Armored Vehicle capable of carrying 1+8 personnel is manufactured with the following types. Moreover, it has an amphibious version as well.
Export of all armoured vehicles subject to requirements of related governments’ export licence regulations
Armored Personnel Carrier Vehicle
Armored NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle
Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle
Armored Command and Control Vehicle
Armored Communication Vehicle
Armored EOD Vehicle
Armored Ambulance
Armored 12,7/40 mm Weapon Platform
Mobility
The Cobra’s power/weight ratio is higher than 30 HP/ton. The powerful turbo diesel VB engine gives Cobra power to navigate the toughest terrain conditions. An electronically controlled automatic transmission, permanent four wheel drive and 2-speed lockable transfer box ensure high mobility whatever the terrain conditions are. An independent suspension and Central Tyre Inflation System make the Cobra the highest mobility armored vehicle in its class.
Survivability
The optimized body angles of the monocoque hull structure provide Cobra built-in survivability. This, together with a slow silhouette and high mobility in all types of terrain, result in excellent level of survivability. Run-flat tyres, provided as standard feature, allow the vehicle to continue its mission, even with deflated tyres.
Transportability
The compactly designed Cobra is transportable by aircraft, helicopter, truck or railway, suitable for rapid deployment forces.
Cobra Open Turret Personnel Carrier
Suspension structure, rapid ingress and egress capability provided by the wide doors of Cobra vehicle ensure safe transfer and easy interference of the personnel. Vehicle’s monocoque body and its wide wall angles are designed to provide higher ballistic and mine protection and due to its low profile, it is not an easy target to detect.
Cobra Closed Turret Personnel Carrier
Otokar designed closed turret, enhances Cobra’s effectiveness in day and night conditions during missions such as border control, road and strategic area protection and fire support to the teams in combat area.
Cobra 40 mm AGL ve 12.7 mm MG Vehicle
The 360
For heavens sake people the HUMVEE was a replacement for the OPEN JEEP as a troop transport. It was never intended to be an armoured personnel carrier nor does it want to be. That is what the Bradley, Striker and the previous units are. Please do not burie the humvee for not being something it was never designed to be. It is a GREAT personnel transport and is just that.
One day, I was killed by other people, I told my brother, and I was dead. My brother said he come to help me. I said that people were very terrible, he had a lot of equipment, and I think he must be having much Guild Wars Gold. Mt brother said, no matter, he find friends come to help me. In this way, I recognized him.
It is wind outside the window, and I numbness under the keyboard, watching the computer screen in a daze, reminiscent of the past acid sweet, think of all people cry. In this long Goonzu road, who join me through? The game the same as reality, it also need friends, need a paternity can go with own people. I spent some money to buy goonzu gold, so I can find to find together with in the other half Goonzu down and eventually found nothing, I despair, I gave up, I sad, and I cry.
Later, we often played together, we always upgrade and earned cheap Gaia gold together. We are very happy in the Gaia game. I really fell in love with the girl, and I also like the Gaia game.
So I know my paradise Nana, and some friends. Bu then, I added AQQI. And a variety of reasons, and the summer of cake, magic rabbit, blue shocks, such as several friends built a new council: Return of the King. And I recognized the beiertuo brotherhood. As the help of this friends and will help in growing, and this time sheikhs left the group B, the new president rose, lead us to defend the B group. We Society of Friends also actively participated in the mine warfare, winning glory for the family. Later, because a number of reasons I left the RF. And I took my all RF money send my friends.
Leave for three years, I have quite repeatedly returned to the Rappelz game. I continue for good equipment to buy rupees. Three years of time I have played many games, but no a game can let me real input. By now I have found that the original is the lack of a person accompanying me.
95 levels, to me this had been a friend of the people around, the new service first hand the hand of a person to manually 95, it is really difficult for my themselves, but I have been have a lot of iro zeny.
all of this is not what i wanted you doofs