DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Ground Vehicles » Humvees on Crack

Humvees on Crack

ultra-ap.jpgThat’s the only way I can describe the two armored vehi­cles that were hog­ging the right lane of I-​​26 out­side Charleston, S.C. this week­end. They were early exam­ples of the ULTRA AP — “AP” for “Armored Patrol” — a Humvee replace­ment being devel­oped by Georgia Tech for the U.S. Marine Corps. The ones I saw were pre­sum­ably on their way to the Navy lab in Charleston.
“The ULTRA AP will empha­size high-​​output diesel power com­bined with rev­o­lu­tion­ary armor and a fully mod­ern chas­sis,” accord­ing to Georgia Tech Research News. But never mind all that. The key dif­fer­ence between the ULTRA AP and the Humvee, and the rea­son the ULTRA needs a new engine and chas­sis at all, is that the new vehi­cle is wrapped in enough steel and ceramic to with­stand all but the biggest IEDs. Experience in Iraq, where IEDs are the major killer, has proved that the bat­tle­field of the future is no place for thin-​​skinned vehi­cles. In fact, the two newest addi­tions to the Army’s vehi­cle fleet, the Meerkat and the Buffalo (pic­tured below), are both designed for max­i­mum pro­tec­tion against IEDs.
GODSEY.JPGThe Army’s flag­ship pro­gram, Future Combat Systems, once hinged on air-​​transportable vehi­cles that were lighter than the cur­rent fleet. The Army was count­ing on advanced net­works and long-​​range fires to make FCS sur­vive­able.
Now FCS has been redesigned to cope with dense urban envi­ron­ments and sophis­ti­cated IEDs. ULTRA AP, Meerkat and Buffalo have given us a glimpse of the future, where ground com­bat vehi­cles are as heavy as ever, if not heav­ier.
The big ques­tion? How do we get these big, heavy vehi­cles into the fight quicker?
–David Axe

Share |

November 7th, 2005 | Ground Vehicles | 175728 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/11/07/humvees-on-crack/Humvees+on+Crack2005-11-08+03%3A13%3A06wonk You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Sonic Booms Redux | Rapid Fire 11/​08/​05 » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Pedestrian says:
    November 7, 2005 at 11:13 pm

    Just get an M1117 Guardian. Why start a new project to waste more money. If there will not be a civil­ian model like Hummer for Ultra, is there any chance to decrease the cost? Size? Are you going to ignore sur­viv­abil­ity for size? Cost? There has to be a com­pro­mise some­where for cost. Guardian is about 5 times the price of M1114, but is less than half the price of Stryker, and 1/​3 the price of Bradley. Meanwhile, it can sur­vive RPG attacks with the addi­tional armor, and get away with sniper fires for the turret.

    Reply
  2. Mycroft says:
    November 8, 2005 at 12:02 am

    As for how to get them into bat­tle quicker, I think the answer is the same as before: more trans­port. More heavy cargo planes, more sealift, etc.

    Reply
  3. Frank Alab says:
    November 8, 2005 at 12:58 am

    Having been through mor­tar attacks I can not put a price on a soldier’s safety at all, espe­cially as hav­ing been that sol­dier. I don’t care what these cost, I would rather my tax dol­lars go to pro­tect­ing troops than other venues of gov­ern­ment interest.

    Reply
  4. jtw says:
    November 8, 2005 at 1:09 am

    this is the best the uni­ver­sity of geor­gia could come up with? what a joke.
    it is pretty bad that these ideas are get­ting enter­tained at all in the first place.
    i am seri­ously think­ing of mov­ing to another coun­try, my rights are infringed by politi­cians who have no mea­sur­able IQ, the whole coun­try is full of greedy capitalists/​scams/​underachievers in worth­less jobs get­ting paid money, and intel­lec­tual infe­ri­ors can go about with their piti­ful ideas and get the inter­est of the same peo­ple who print them money.
    but on the other hand the rest of the world is full of even worse idi­otic under­de­vel­oped ape’s.
    hope­fully the moon smash’s into the planet soon and i goto a bet­ter place, because i am not hon­ored to share the planet with cur­rent inhab­i­tants. either that or some focused nat­ural dis­as­ter does all the dirty work and san­ity is established.

    Reply
  5. jtw says:
    November 8, 2005 at 1:21 am

    No I take the moon part back, I am too good to go down with you guys. Alot of pin­pointed nat­ural dis­as­ters would be better.

    Reply
  6. JSAllison says:
    November 8, 2005 at 10:01 am

    Welp, how about for starters we scale the pointy nosed one seat super­cruis­ing wun­der­waffe pro­gram (that’d be the F/(A)-22, btw) waaaay back in favor of more trans­ports? But then I’ll bet some of y’all knew I was going to say that…

    Reply
  7. Byron Skinner says:
    November 8, 2005 at 2:24 pm

    Good Morning JSAllison,
    I can only add num­ber to your osber­va­tions. The Air Force is can­celling the final 42 C-​​117 Globemaster III’s or about 25% of the autho­rized fleet of 200.
    That bud­get suck­ing sound is as you say the F/​A-​​22 and now the F-​​35 pro­gram. But maybe the folks over at DARPA are work­ing on lev­a­tion and water walk­ing. In which case we won’t need all those C-117’s.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner
    “Stewart’s Platoon”

    Reply
  8. Ares says:
    November 9, 2005 at 1:36 am

    I’m a fan of the F/A-22…the 35 is a way off yet…so I wont judge it yet.
    I’m hop­ing that the WALRUS pro­gram does very well…to the point where we only need a small amount of cargo planes, and there only kept for quick response sit­u­a­tions. Airships are bet­ter in sooo sooo many ways.

    Reply
  9. Byron Skinner says:
    November 9, 2005 at 12:59 pm

    Good Morning Folks,
    Anyone else notice the styl­ized American Flag patch on the right sleeve of the sol­dier in the for­ground. I like it.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner
    “Stewart’s Platoon”

    Reply
  10. Uncleji says:
    November 11, 2005 at 11:55 am

    Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to be buy some “pigs” from the British Army http://​www​.rememu​seum​.org​.uk/​v​e​h​i​c​l​e​s​/​d​o​m​/​v​e​h​h​u​m​b​.​htm

    Reply
  11. Dennis says:
    February 4, 2006 at 11:42 pm

    Faster into com­bat?
    There has been a rev­o­lu­tion in ship­ping tech­nol­ogy. Aluminum fer­rys can carry large cargo at extreme speeds using tur­bine engines. Of course that does not get the cargo to shore, but get­ting the stuff there fast is the hard part.
    Of course this would require the Navy to get off its butt and be a lit­tle inno­v­a­tive. I fore­see this hap­pen­ing …never
    The Army may go with a big­ger vehi­cle, but the Marines are tied to a light force.

    Reply
  12. Rob says:
    February 7, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    Many of these new gen­er­a­tion Hummvs look like big trucks with stuff added on. Why should this be so expen­sive. The basic truck gets you a lot of the crit­i­cal para­me­ters eas­ily. Things like ground clear­ance away from mines, speed and han­dling, weight (armour car­ry­ing capac­ity). More armoured trucks, lots more and gun trucks would seem to go a long way toward pro­tect­ing troups on the road. Why does this stuff have to be so expensive??

    Reply
  13. preston says:
    October 20, 2006 at 12:23 pm

    this design is the future and we should sup­port it just like we should sup­port our sol­diers in iraq

    Reply
  14. Anon666 says:
    December 11, 2006 at 7:47 pm

    How to move them best? Airships. As described here: http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Walrus„00.html

    Reply
  15. hypnotoad says:
    February 13, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    Call me a roman­tic but I will def­i­nitely miss the Humvee. It has really defined the look of our mil­i­tary.
    Somehow I feel that these ULTRA ATs look like the maraud­ing Panzerspahwagens of the future. I felt the same way when we switched from the Vietnam ‘pot’ hel­met to the mod­ern ‘fritz’ hel­met.
    I know it’s silly but I do not want the US Army to look any more like Nazis than we already do.

    Reply
  16. Racer says:
    December 19, 2007 at 5:30 am

    The cur­rent ver­sions of the Humvee are being “unar­mored” and they are putting tons of armor on them. how­ever they were not designed to han­dle the enor­mous amount of weight when all this new cladding is attached to them. Secondly no mat­ter how strong and great the Humvee is it also isnt designed to han­dle many of the IED threats that the war­riors now face. So parts break, war­riors are put at risk and the vehi­cle isnt near as effi­cient as it used to be We lose a lot of good war­riors because of this. So yes it costs a lot to make a totally new piece of gear. If you was placed in harms way you would want the absolute best gear you could get for you and your bud­dies. I have been there and done that and let me tell you the Buffalo and oth­ers like it put the Humvee to shame in troop survivability

    Reply
  17. Racer says:
    December 19, 2007 at 5:34 am

    oops that should be “up armored” sorry for the typo

    Reply
  18. cheap 2moons gold says:
    August 5, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    Therefore, I dili­gently prac­ticed the level to pro­mote, only then pro­mote only then can help me to save many cheap 2moons gold.

    Reply
  19. Requiem gold says:
    August 5, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    My friends in order to help me, send me much Requiem gold, I was very thank him.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage