• Army cancels Humvee Recap, places bets on JLTV
    62 replies, posted
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34383972]like it was said in the other article, i really don't like how the tires are exposed that much without armor plating.[/QUOTE] run-flat tire
[QUOTE=Falchion;34388710]Would be probably even more impractical than the civilian humvees already are unless you're really into overcompensating or live in the middle of the amazonian jungle.[/QUOTE] Civilian Humvees suck. That's why I like this news, all of those surplus humvees will probably be sold on the civilian market.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;34389807]Civilian Humvees suck. That's why I like this news, all of those surplus humvees will probably be sold on the civilian market.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't mind owning a uparmoured humvee. Direct RPG hit [img]http://www.apacheclips.com/files/ef24527a33a2.jpg[/img] Also, wasn't the M-ATV meant to replace the humvee?
This looks much better and more practical.
[img]http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-enlargePic07.html?project=imageShell07&bigImage=HUMMER-WSJ-100615.jpg&h=955&w=959&title=WSJ.COM&thePubDate=20080826[/img]
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;34388219]Woohoo, surplus Humvees![/QUOTE] I wonder if they will rip out the armor plating. Before we got the super uparmored ones, they would just take out the bulletproof glass and leave the plating. The glass was expensive and easily removed, but ripping out the relatively cheap plating was simply not cost efficient. However modern uparmored humvees might be a little too scary for the government to allow on our streets. :P
[QUOTE=GunFox;34390164]I wonder if they will rip out the armor plating. Before we got the super uparmored ones, they would just take out the bulletproof glass and leave the plating. The glass was expensive and easily removed, but ripping out the relatively cheap plating was simply not cost efficient. However modern uparmored humvees might be a little too scary for the government to allow on our streets. :P[/QUOTE] I was talking about the standard unarmored ones.
[QUOTE=muffinmastah;34384497]Point is, what if you need to carry extra people? Where do they stay? On the current vehicle its square, sit on the hood, sit on the roof, hang on to the side, hold on to the back... where do you hold onto on the new one? I like the shapes, but lets be practical here.[/QUOTE] The hell? You think the US military are tons of monkeys and they hang on to the vehicle? I mean, they are safety hazards enough and I think they can spare enough vehicles to allow them to all sit inside one.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34390164]I wonder if they will rip out the armor plating. Before we got the super uparmored ones, they would just take out the bulletproof glass and leave the plating. The glass was expensive and easily removed, but ripping out the relatively cheap plating was simply not cost efficient. However modern uparmored humvees might be a little too scary for the government to allow on our streets. :P[/QUOTE] I remember in 03 and 04 there were plenty of DIY uparmoured variants. [img]http://www.lostiniraq.com/images/hillbilly-armor-315_640x480.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;34386388]Kinda makes you wonder how much longer the Abrams has left in its service life, and what the next MBT will be...[/QUOTE] A good while. The blunt force approach to tank design has generally served it quite well. That turbine engine is particularly nice. Much quieter than other tank engines and will run on pretty much anything you throw at it. The tank requires little to no modification in the event we change our standard fuel to some other flammable substance. I imagine the next MBT will be a revisit of the failed MBT-70 which was supposed to be the replacement for the M60 Patton. They ran into difficulties and scrapped the design due to funding and technical issues. The Abrams was at production stage just a few years later after having been basically thrown together. The MBT-70 had a lot of innovative ideas, but lacked the tech, funding, and picture of a modern battlefield. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70[/url] It will have to undergo a huge revamp, but I imagine the tech/ideas produced from it will likely make an appearance in some way or another.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;34390200]The hell? You think the US military are tons of monkeys and they hang on to the vehicle? I mean, they are safety hazards enough and I think they can spare enough vehicles to allow them to all sit inside one.[/QUOTE] Didn't the special forces variant allowed that? [img]http://data.primeportal.net/hummers/brent_sauer/sf_hummer/sf_hummer_09_of_11.JPG[/img]
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;34390181]I was talking about the standard unarmored ones.[/QUOTE] I figured. Adding armor plating makes the gas mileage go from miles per gallon to gallons per mile. :P
[QUOTE=shian;34390312]Didn't the special forces variant allowed that? [img]http://data.primeportal.net/hummers/brent_sauer/sf_hummer/sf_hummer_09_of_11.JPG[/img][/QUOTE] Special Forces just don't give a fuck and the Army doesn't care what they do. Also didn't the previous concept for the new humvee look taller in the back? Because the entire thing is to lower your profile as much as possible, like this new concept does pretty well.
That kinda looks like the EDF car in Red Faction Guerrilla to me.
Humvees will always have a place in my heart as all my life that has been the military vehicle I see everywhere. Also even though the performance isn't all that great, it looks awesome. This new vehicle looks insanely cool though. I wouldn't mind a civilian version like they did with the Hummer. All the more reason now that Hummers aren't being made anymore.
[QUOTE=Swilly;34386760]I'm hoping for a Leopard looking tank. That thing is badass. [img]http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Pics/Leopard2A6E-01.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] M1A3 is currently being developed by the Army, and supposedly should be fielded by 2017.
If you're going off of looks alone, the flypmode wins every time. [img]http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/non-make/ns/ns_628113_717.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;34386388]Kinda makes you wonder how much longer the Abrams has left in its service life, and what the next MBT will be...[/QUOTE] I'm hoping for more of a... [img]http://mechwarrior5.ru/images/timberW.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;34391048]If you're going off of looks alone, the flypmode wins every time. [img]http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/non-make/ns/ns_628113_717.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] It looks like a pissed off character from cars.
[QUOTE=Kill Me No;34387784]Now that is a smart vehicle. The gunner never has to expose himself to shoot back. Why don't we have more things like this[/QUOTE] Late reply but: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWS[/url]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34391067]I'm hoping for more of a... [img]http://mechwarrior5.ru/images/timberW.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I was sitting here wondering how effective something along that design might be. It sucks for taking out armored vehicles, but for the kind of fighting we are doing right now, it might actually be pretty damn cool. The legs, if designed properly, could pull off a hell of a ninja trick. There are microwave towers setup around the United States that were originally intended to serve as a communications network in the even of a nuclear conflict. They are defunct now, made redundant by the robustness of the internet, but they were interesting because the towers could survive a near hit from a nuclear warhead. The reason being that they were designed to, from any given direction, only present a very small amount of surface area on which a concussive blast could hit. So a roadside bomb, for instance, might go off and since the clearance is so high on this thing and the legs present such a minimal surface area, it might ultimately cause little damage or even fail to slow it down at all. The height would obviously be scary, but it would also allow it to defend infantry against enemy infantry attacking from rooftops and from behind cover. Since the height would allow it to see it on top of rooftops and shoot down over enemy cover. I wouldn't even consider fielding something like it without an active defense system. A damn good ADS could defend it, and the infantry squad near it. Explosively formed penetrators would still be an issue though. Obviously this design would skip the massive array of weaponry in favor of more targeting stuff. 30mm cannon and some TOW/Javelin missiles perhaps. A stinger or two for good measure. Triple bonus points if they can deploy out the back of a C-130 from the air. Because paratroopers are one thing, paramechs are terrifying.
damn and i thought the humvee looked really cool next iteration better be the bat tumbler
[QUOTE=GunFox;34392362]I was sitting here wondering how effective something along that design might be. It sucks for taking out armored vehicles, but for the kind of fighting we are doing right now, it might actually be pretty damn cool. The legs, if designed properly, could pull off a hell of a ninja trick. There are microwave towers setup around the United States that were originally intended to serve as a communications network in the even of a nuclear conflict. They are defunct now, made redundant by the robustness of the internet, but they were interesting because the towers could survive a near hit from a nuclear warhead. The reason being that they were designed to, from any given direction, only present a very small amount of surface area on which a concussive blast could hit. So a roadside bomb, for instance, might go off and since the clearance is so high on this thing and the legs present such a minimal surface area, it might ultimately cause little damage or even fail to slow it down at all. The height would obviously be scary, but it would also allow it to defend infantry against enemy infantry attacking from rooftops and from behind cover. Since the height would allow it to see it on top of rooftops and shoot down over enemy cover. I wouldn't even consider fielding something like it without an active defense system. A damn good ADS could defend it, and the infantry squad near it. Explosively formed penetrators would still be an issue though. Obviously this design would skip the massive array of weaponry in favor of more targeting stuff. 30mm cannon and some TOW/Javelin missiles perhaps. A stinger or two for good measure. Triple bonus points if they can deploy out the back of a C-130 from the air. Because paratroopers are one thing, paramechs are terrifying.[/QUOTE] But you have to consider their legs. They can not be too heavily packed or else it would not be able to be agile at all, and if even one is taken out it goes toppling down.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;34393796]But you have to consider their legs. They can not be too heavily packed or else it would not be able to be agile at all, and if even one is taken out it goes toppling down.[/QUOTE] Just make mech crutches
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;34393796]But you have to consider their legs. They can not be too heavily packed or else it would not be able to be agile at all, and if even one is taken out it goes toppling down.[/QUOTE] Little different than treads, ultimately. The tires/treads/legs area always a weak spot. Generally speaking it isn't too difficult to make them immune to small arms fire. Shoulder launched weapons would be intercepted by the ADS and concussive force would be diverted by the shape. That leaves cannon class stuff. A good 20mm or 30mm cannon might take it out, but the people we are fighting rarely have these things. The cross country capability that legs provide is insane though. There are large parts of nations where even uparmored humvees can't reach. Such a design would have little issue. Especially if it could be air dropped. I wouldn't replace a MBT with it though. Not that I particularly think we need MBT's anymore.
wasnt darpa trying to do this: [img]http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/64297e48-283b-4ef5-b5ef-b1bf15ed1389.Full_.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Mattk50;34394661]wasnt darpa trying to do this: [img]http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/64297e48-283b-4ef5-b5ef-b1bf15ed1389.Full_.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Do want.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34390305]A good while. The blunt force approach to tank design has generally served it quite well. That turbine engine is particularly nice. Much quieter than other tank engines and will run on pretty much anything you throw at it. The tank requires little to no modification in the event we change our standard fuel to some other flammable substance. I imagine the next MBT will be a revisit of the failed MBT-70 which was supposed to be the replacement for the M60 Patton. They ran into difficulties and scrapped the design due to funding and technical issues. The Abrams was at production stage just a few years later after having been basically thrown together. The MBT-70 had a lot of innovative ideas, but lacked the tech, funding, and picture of a modern battlefield. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70[/url] It will have to undergo a huge revamp, but I imagine the tech/ideas produced from it will likely make an appearance in some way or another.[/QUOTE] Metal Gear Solid : Peace Walker comes to mind. Keeping on topic though, if they do replace the humvees with the new one, where will the old humvees go? Will the US sell them to other countries or keep it for something?
Sell them to other countries or government auctions.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34392362]I was sitting here wondering how effective something along that design might be. It sucks for taking out armored vehicles, but for the kind of fighting we are doing right now, it might actually be pretty damn cool. The legs, if designed properly, could pull off a hell of a ninja trick. There are microwave towers setup around the United States that were originally intended to serve as a communications network in the even of a nuclear conflict. They are defunct now, made redundant by the robustness of the internet, but they were interesting because the towers could survive a near hit from a nuclear warhead. The reason being that they were designed to, from any given direction, only present a very small amount of surface area on which a concussive blast could hit. So a roadside bomb, for instance, might go off and since the clearance is so high on this thing and the legs present such a minimal surface area, it might ultimately cause little damage or even fail to slow it down at all. The height would obviously be scary, but it would also allow it to defend infantry against enemy infantry attacking from rooftops and from behind cover. Since the height would allow it to see it on top of rooftops and shoot down over enemy cover. I wouldn't even consider fielding something like it without an active defense system. A damn good ADS could defend it, and the infantry squad near it. Explosively formed penetrators would still be an issue though. Obviously this design would skip the massive array of weaponry in favor of more targeting stuff. 30mm cannon and some TOW/Javelin missiles perhaps. A stinger or two for good measure. Triple bonus points if they can deploy out the back of a C-130 from the air. Because paratroopers are one thing, paramechs are terrifying.[/QUOTE] I'll love to see a realistic version of this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.