The Humvee’s replacement: Oshkosh’s L-ATV

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/meet-the-humvees-replacement-oshkoshs-l-atv/

by Killah911 • 11 years ago

41 46 11 years ago

jmcguckin• 11 years ago

$396K each

steve19• 11 years ago

This probably includes spare parts, training and the electronics package. compared to the $200k armoured humvee, it is not that excessive.

ansgri• 11 years ago

pretty adequate for a vehicle with remote controlled guns, electronic warfare and shot location system.

hiccup2• 11 years ago

That's for the base model. They add $1M in gear to each of these.

jdhawk• 11 years ago

oh, you wanted seats and a steering wheel? What about the underbody coating....

chrisBob• 11 years ago

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?

0xffff2• 11 years ago

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.

icegreentea• 11 years ago

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.

kondor6c• 11 years ago

Totally agree. That and have they planned on air dropping this behemoth? I've seen a HMMWV's with failed 'chutes lying on the DZ.

Or what about a deep fording kit for this guy? I feel like they're trying to make an F-35 on land so they don't have to keep buying trucks.

alistairSH• 11 years ago

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.

chiph• 11 years ago

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.

mcguire• 11 years ago

"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.

masklinn8• 11 years ago

It's light compared to current MRAPs.

SEJeff• 11 years ago

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)

gao8a• 11 years ago

We use the MILCOT (Silverado) here in Canada, though the G-wagen serves a similar role b.c its so lightly armored.

MindTwister• 11 years ago

  Army Program Executive Office Combat Support & Combat Service Support Chief

...what a title

Guthur• 11 years ago

Can any one point to the troop carrying capacity of these, all I can find is tonnage.

Seems more like a wheeled fighting vehicle than a multi purpose utility vehicle.

ohitsdom• 11 years ago

Yesterday's HN article on the topic said two versions, seating 2 and 4 occupants.

hiccup2• 11 years ago

More details at wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_L-ATV

masklinn8• 11 years ago

And on the manufacturer's website: http://oshkoshdefense.com/vehicles/l-atv/

DannoHung• 11 years ago

Lol, they'll end up buying this thing just in time for the next major operation to be in a flat urban environment with narrow passes.

rtkwe• 11 years ago

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.

http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/1108/41601cd795da32c9c...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/JL...

protomyth• 11 years ago

"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.

JumpJumpJump• 11 years ago

Nitpicking about the OP but 14,000 / 5,900 is nearer to 2x than it is to 3x.

j_syk2• 11 years ago

I believe it's a hybrid. My company makes fuel tanks for the current M-ATV from Oshkosh. Working on bids to make the tanks for this one too.

masklinn8• 11 years ago

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.

[0] http://oshkoshdefense.com/components/propulse/

masklinn8• 11 years ago

What the heck?!? It weighs almost 3x as much but gets better gas mileage?

More modern engine and better transmission probably?

valarauca12• 11 years ago

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.

burger_moon3• 11 years ago

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?

anaptdemise3• 11 years ago

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.

Probably a Husky 2G. They are tandem two seaters used for mine/IED detection and disposal.

burger_moon3• 11 years ago

Yep that looks like it. Thanks!

Looks like they're built by a company in SC so it's weird they were heading out of Oshkosh.

The Humvee’s replacement: Oshkosh’s L-ATV

Related Stories