• Army signs contract for new humvee!
    116 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;33952532]This is like the one project we actually probably needed. Humvees get annihilated by roadside bombs.[/QUOTE]They tend to have a propensity for the doors sealing shut when IEDs hit them, as well as locks and whatnot killing the soldiers inside. I hope this thing can take blasts better. Problem is, they still won't be able to take a blast from an EFP. Once we can defeat that, then things will get better.
[QUOTE=Coffee;33950842]Looks like it's from Red Faction Guerrilla.[/QUOTE] Damnit I was gonna say that. It strongly reminds me of the EDF Scout Car, but larger. The second version reminds me of the EDF Staff Car: [img]http://www.tardec.info/GVSETNews/images/080308_gvset06.jpg[/img] [img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110503212159/redfaction/images/thumb/e/e0/StaffCarGood.png/830px-StaffCarGood.png[/img] I have to wonder if they did that on purpose, or if RFG's developers just knew well what they were doing when designing futuristic military vehicles.
Disappointed, I was hoping for the winged version.
[QUOTE=notxmania;33952246]just what i wanted, more techno-fetishist trash to inflate our military budget and provide wank material for war nerds.[/QUOTE] As much as I am for chopping the budget, this is kinda needed. The Humvee is being used in ways that were never really intended. It was designed as a Utility Vehicle, but we use it for everything else now, and it's not built to withstand so much damage.
I was going to complain about this probably costing a lot but if that 70% improvement in fuel efficiency is accurate I guess they will pay for themselves
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;33951503]I'm sure I read somewhere that the HL2 APC is based off that model.[/QUOTE] Yeah because a game made almost eight years ago totally got a model reference from something that's just been created
Hopefully they wont break down constantly like our current ones. :rolleye:
I liked the look of the current ones better. But if this one is an upgrade then i am all for it.
BTW: [IMG]http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/7771_8348_ZOM.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;33952829]BTW: [IMG]http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/7771_8348_ZOM.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I still doubt it will take a hit from an EFP.
Back seats don't look too roomy.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;33952391]Fucking futuristic military vehicles. The Light Armored Vehicles of today are starting to become more heavily armored & armed than the light tanks of World War 2.[/QUOTE] What vehicles faced in WW2 is totally different than what we face today, now there's a larger emphasis on explosives and shaped charges which would totally eliminate a light WW2 era tank And about armed better, a tank gun of today is still much more effective than a machine gun, though modern grenade launchers are pretty dangerous for their relative size
Why has nobody said THIS yet? [B]It really reminds me of the District 9 MNU jeeps.[/B]
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33953129]Why has nobody said THIS yet? [B]It really reminds me of the District 9 MNU jeeps.[/B][/QUOTE] I just realized that, those were so awesome Though I find it sad that that the designers tried to make it tacticool looking
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33953129]Why has nobody said THIS yet? [B]It really reminds me of the District 9 MNU jeeps.[/B][/QUOTE] Aren't those Toyota hilux?
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;33953153]I just realized that, those were so awesome Though I find it sad that that the designers tried to make it tacticool looking[/QUOTE] They're design students, why wouldn't they make it look good?
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;33953153]I just realized that, those were so awesome Though I find it sad that that the designers tried to make it tacticool looking[/QUOTE] So? It has cupholders, armor, and it looks neat to boot. While I am not sold on it as a replacement to our current Humvees, it can definitely fill a support and transport role. As long as it will keep me and my battle buddies safe, I am all for it. EFPs will still be a problem, but they can penetrate strykers and abrams tanks, so I guess I would be fucked either way. Also, humvees are uncomfortable as shit to ride in and there is no comfortable way to hold your weapon when you are riding in one. Not only that, but it is awkward to get in and out of one with your weapon and also having to keep the couple hundred pound door from smashing you or your limbs.
[QUOTE=Van-man;33950798]So, can a civilian buy an armored version?[/QUOTE] Fixed.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;33953198]Aren't those Toyota hilux?[/QUOTE] If i remember right they are, but they're heavily rebuilt for that particular movie. [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;33953476]Fixed.[/QUOTE] Armor's gonna fuck the mileage too much for a civilian. It'll be heavy as fuck and just ruin the handling of it in a sub-urban or inner-city environment. Besides the US military always likes to keep the armor details on their soon-to-be or currently used vehicles confidential, in order to keep the insurgents and terrorists from learning it's weak spots right away.
That is the ugliest, most tacticool piece of shit I have ever seen
sweet lets buy some more gadgets for the army~!! at least we'll have a good looking hummer revision for civilians again
Can't wait to see soccer moms picking up their kids in these.
[QUOTE=TestECull;33950935]....Hrm...Willys Jeep lasted about 50-60 years. Hummer has lasted about 20. We gonna get a new model 5 years after this is approved and deployed?[/QUOTE] Yes, but you could drive a Jeep around in a World War II battlefield, but you'd never even consider driving one in Afghanistan. Conflict has changed too much for that to be an apt comparison. Your technology needs to advance with warfare. So what if you need to redesign everything in 5 years? If that's what it takes to keep soldiers and equipment safe, so be it.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;33952838]I still doubt it will take a hit from an EFP.[/QUOTE] Question is, what can truly withstand a hit from an EFP.
[img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110503212159/redfaction/images/thumb/e/e0/StaffCarGood.png/830px-StaffCarGood.png[/img] First thing I thought of.
[QUOTE=Groat;33953803]That is the ugliest, most tacticool piece of shit I have ever seen[/QUOTE] Why the fuck do people complain about a potential humvee replacement as "tacticool" or "techno military fetish wankery"? Who gives a shit if it looks good or not, if it gets the job done, then by all means, use it.
[QUOTE=tier56;33954376]Why the fuck do people complain about a potential humvee replacement as "tacticool" or "techno military fetish wankery"? Who gives a shit if it looks good or not, if it gets the job done, then by all means, use it.[/QUOTE] People like to nitpick the smallest details just to find something they can complain/bitch about. This helps them feel like they know a better way to do it, and are somehow more qualified than the armed forces.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;33954389]People like to nitpick the smallest details just to find something they can complain/bitch about. This helps them feel like they know a better way to do it, and are somehow more qualified than the armed forces.[/QUOTE] I mean, people pointing out it's flaws is fine, but bitching about it's appearance is pretty damn stupid.
[QUOTE=Groat;33953803]That is the ugliest, most tacticool piece of shit I have ever seen[/QUOTE] Tacticool implies it has unnecessary shit on it. I don't see unnecessary shit on it.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;33952631]They tend to have a propensity for the doors sealing shut when IEDs hit them, as well as locks and whatnot killing the soldiers inside. I hope this thing can take blasts better. Problem is, they still won't be able to take a blast from an EFP. Once we can defeat that, then things will get better.[/QUOTE] To reliably defeat those right now you require armor thickness, which these vehicles can't provide. Even assuming you had the power necessary to haul all that armor around, you need a vehicle that won't cause small bridges to collapse (Which is a serious limitation in many countries). To defeat an IED, you can redirect the blast, hence the angular design of MRAP type vehicles, which drastically reduces the armor thickness necessary. I imagine active defense systems will be further developed to the point where shoulder and vehicle launched penetrators can be intercepted and destroyed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.