I don't see how this can be a direct replacement. This is a much better vehicle for the HMMWV's combat role, but most of the time you actually use a HMMWV as a pickup truck with 8 soldiers sitting in the back driving around post. Does this mean that units will also get F-150s for driving around in the US?
Yep. This is a great replacement for the "gun truck" version of the HMMWV, but there are numerous other variations. Cargo, medical, commo, mechanics, air defense, and doubtless many others I missed all have there own heavily customized HMMWV variants. Surely the military has plans for those as well?
As a former ambulance driver, the only thing this platform seems to offer is better armor and suspension. All of the other features seem largely useless in an ambulance version of this vehicle. I wonder if the military will build variants based on it anyway or go for a separate "utility" platform.
When I was in (mid-80's) there was the CUCV program, which was Chevy Blazers and Silverados. They had Detroit Diesel engines and 24V power, and were designed for what you'd use a pickup and SUV for - running around base and the local area.
I expect with the price and weight of the new L-ATVs, they'll bring back that program for a "runabout" vehicle.
I went digging and it looks like the JLTV is a partial replacement for HMMWV. There are a quarter million HMMWV in the US Army fleet alone - the Army order for JLTV is 50k until 2040. No news on how they're going to replace the other huge chunk of HMMWV's used in low threat roles.
In various other articles, I've seen 2-6 soldiers/Marines listed as the capacity. Also, references to differing levels of armor and armament, though I haven't seen any details.
I agree that the L-ATV doesn't appear suitable as a "run errands on base" truck. I do not know what the Army plans to do for this need.
"This is a much better vehicle for the HMMWV's combat role..."
I'm not so sure about that. Exactly how is this thing "light"? I've heard too many horror stories about HMMWVs getting trapped in tight quarters in towns and the excitement of reversing a convoy under fire. If you need a tank, you need a tank; if you don't need a tank, you don't want a tank.
In today's wars, you almost certainly don't ever want a tank. If you want armor, you want a Stryker. I saw several soldiers lose their lives in M1 Abrams tank, and not a single in a Stryker during combat. Due to the extremely large mufflers that run the length of both sides, the Strykers are so quiet and they are fast enough that by the time they are upon you, you don't know it. In Mosul, our unit was known as the Ghost Riders by the locals due to them never knowing we were there until we were right up on them. The only soldiers we lost in a Stryker while I was in country (03-04) was one that flipped off a bridge and went face down in river mud. They were trapped inside :(
On the other hand, the Abrams tanks suffered many casualties as it is very loud and slow moving. Insurgents have time to emplace IEDs or (worse!) EFPs which with enough 120mm artillery shells, will quite trivially take out a tank at close range. The slow moving heavy armor of the cold war doesn't work in today's asymetric warfare. Here is a slightly photoshopped picture of a Stryker I took at the Palace in Mosul: http://www.digitalprognosis.com/album/images/iraqpics/the-st... Note the bird cage armor which stops RPGs cold.
Source: I was US Army and am a vet of OIF II (UAV Platoon D Troop 1-14 Cavalry 4th Brigade 2nd Infantry Division) in country around 2003-2004 (during the Fallujah offensive)
"The L-ATV can be transported by heavy-lift helicopter or by the Marine Corps' landing craft, but it's a much bigger payload than the Hummer, with a curb weight nearly three times that of the older vehicle: about 14,000 pounds, compared to the Humvee's 5,900 pounds."
and
"But the L-ATV also has better fuel efficiency than the Humvee, and its suspension system allows for 70 percent faster off-road speeds."
What the heck?!? It weighs almost 3x as much but gets better gas mileage?
Glad they are buying something that deals well with IEDs.
There's a diesel-electric transmission option[0], but I'm not sure there's much capacity for battery-only operation so calling it a hybrid is a stretch. It allows the ATV to double as a hefty generator (120kW AC) for field ops which is pretty cool.
> Does it need to be able to run in all electric to be considered a hybrid?
Well I'd say so, using multiple power sources is what makes a hybrid vehicle hybrid. If it must always use the ICE, it just has an electric transmission rather than a mechanical one.
> If it must always use the ICE, it just has an electric transmission rather than a mechanical one.
I would respectfully disagree. When an engine is asked for WOT most of the time they throw fuel economy to the wind and give it max power bar none. You might spend 50% more fuel for 10% more power versus 90% throttle.
If you have a 3kWh battery bank then you can eliminate this really wasteful special case and use the batteries as very, very short term power source to get the vehicle up to speed quickly. 3kWh discharged in 3 minutes is 60kW which is an extra 50-75HP depending on your driveline efficiency. And then when you're not flooring it you can run the engine a bit harder and quickly recharge the battery bank for the next surge.
Just because you're not running off of batteries for an hour doesn't make it not a hybrid. If you use the batteries for even just 10-15 seconds in particularly fuel-wasteful engine conditions to eliminate them, that totally qualifies as hybrid.
> Just because you're not running off of batteries for an hour doesn't make it not a hybrid. If you use the batteries for even just 10-15 seconds in particularly fuel-wasteful engine conditions to eliminate them, that totally qualifies as hybrid.
That means any KERS or regenerative braking[0] qualifies the machine it's a component of as a hybrid, it completely devaluates the word and makes it entirely meaningless.
I'm an automotive engineer, if a system can recover kinetic energy and use it for propulsion, we call it a hybrid. KERS is absolutely a hybrid system, they are just optimized for power instead of energy.
The real pedantic question is does predictive cruise control count as a momentum hybrid.
If you have regenerative braking most of the time that's electric, so you've got a motor/generator and some kind of energy storage. To me hybrid means that you have a gas/electric hybrid drivetrain not that it runs off of batteries for an amount of time that you feel is long enough.
Good regenerative brakes probably have to be at least 50-100HP otherwise they don't offer very much braking effect. And that would mean that they can offer a substantial boost during acceleration too. And that can substantially alter the fuel economy of a vehicle.
Since you don't like my definition of hybrid, and you think it devalues the word (despite being completely in line with the Wikipedia definition) why don't you at least offer your definition. This isn't a conversation at the moment, just you shitting on things that you don't like and complaining.
> If you have regenerative braking most of the time that's electric
That's just a confirmation of my footnote not an answer to my question. Is an F1 with KERS or a truck with hydraulic regenerative braking a hybrid?
> not that it runs off of batteries for an amount of time that you feel is long enough.
That I agree with actually.
> Since you don't like my definition of hybrid, and you think it devalues the word (despite being completely in line with the Wikipedia definition) why don't you at least offer your definition.
> That it can use its power sources independently.
I would suspect that all hybrids can use their power sources independently, to some degree. But is that degree useful.
What you're calling a "hybrid" is really more of a "dual fuel" vehicle, not a hybrid. Because in your mind, if it can't run completely 100% off of EITHER power source at any one time, it's not a hybrid. But that's not how most of the world defines hybrid.
Yes, annd the USArmy invested in 2010 on multi-million dollar fuel efficiency testing center. Starting around 2008 there was a big internal push to make military vehicles more fuel efficient.
I highly doubt the new engine. Most USArmy engines are very old (typically 60's era Diesel) due to the object simplicity (and fuel diversity) [1]. Anyone Joe-Blow can be trained to fix these, and fixes are faster under fire.
Most the fuel savings from from transmissions/cooling systems. Which are modular so they can be upgraded, and simply replaced on failure.
Source: Contracted to TARDEC research 2010-2013
[1] I'm wrong here. L-ATV uses a Duramax V8 circa 99-01 GM engine. Which is ~30 years newer then other engines used.
Talk about too little, too late. The largest consumption of fuel in the middle east wars was ... for air-conditioning tents(!) Vehicles come in far behind.
I just drove up through WI a couple days ago and saw trailer after trailer of Oshkosh vehicles being shipped out. I saw a new one never seen before, not this L-ATV. It looked like something out of Mad Max. It looked like it had a single seat, cockpit up high, very narrow with big wheels. Can't find it on their products listing or wiki though.I saw quite a few of them too.
Is there a list of new Army vehicles being put into service I can find?
Defense contractors aren't the most efficient manufacturers. Wouldn't surprise me if they shipped the vehicle from SC to Oshkosh to have the tires installed. But it was probably some of the mine detection equipment. They usually ship parts or vehicles all over in the process of manufacturing. For example, a microprocessor component might go through about 20 different organizations after it is originally purchased, getting modifications from each, before being installed in the final project. Makes source determination near impossible when there is a defect.
EDIT: The Pearson Engineering PEROCC is pretty cool too. Adds a third seat for a gunner.
That is interesting. When I was a machinist and worked on sub components the material had to be able to be traced back to the mine that it came from. You would think something like a microprocessor would have the same level of checks.
> You would think something like a microprocessor would have the same level of checks.
Yeah, the chips themselves are easy, but some chips get programmed along the food chain at different steps and if there is an issue everyone assumes it isn't because of their piece.
The Humvee isn't exactly a thin vehicle either. They're the same width judging by the pictures below, which makes sense because they were designed to fit on the same aircraft.
