View Full Version : SF looking for new off the road vehicles.........
greenberetTFS
07-03-2012, 16:49
This is no joke.........:p
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/06/18/us-special-forces-search-for-new-off-road-vehicle/?intcmp=obnetwork
Big Teddy :munchin
For some reason, that just does not look like the most stable of vehicles.
OMG really.. That thing looks like a puce of crap. Some years ago..say 2005 Bragg had a USSSOCOM new Vehicle "show". There was this one that was made by a Germany company that looked like a cross with a GMV & range rover that RRD uses. The nice thing was the M2 fell forward into a "tray" shaped like the M2 on the roof. Soldier just had to pull it up once the MH-47 landed, pop some pins in and load it. Game on.
I like the MATV updated model, I think we need vehicle for blast protection and then something along the lines of the GMV. GMV is a great fighting platform vehicle. The biggest problem with the MRAPs is they don't allow soldiers to fire from. USSOCOM needs to make the MATV needs a long back end for a MEDAVEC platform. I liked they way USSOCOM took the base model and updated it, place SOF add-ons, etc.
I don't know why people don't ask the end user what is needed with anything new.
Just like getting the Razors.. Great addition but I guess people only looked at the fact of what the ATVs were or did. Not the facts that we SOF ran with M240 on swing arms to medic litters on the front and rear to Commo & etc. I see nothing except a sand painted Razor with recovery add-ons.
Dozer523
07-04-2012, 10:10
Big deal. When the HumVee came out in the 80's we took a look at it and liked it, Except . . .
We wanted it stripped down, reconfigured in the back with fuel and ammo racks, a rat patrol machinegun, a trailer for carrying more stuff, a tanks "grunt rail" for strapping on rucks .
Oh! oh! oh! AND! a MOTORCYCLE!!!! (THAT would be so cool.) and we wanted to call it the Desert Mobility Vehicle System. 5th Group and SWC-CD shared the lead.
I had no problem standing in the back holding the roll bar as we barrelled along (glad we didn't do Risk Assessments then).
And there was nothing more fun than poppin' out of Campbell for Biggs; signing for them and cruising the border (without weapons , the Biggs guys never let us take the cycles either) for a week or to at a time.
The only rule that was enforced was the "Gate Rule". "Leave EM as You Found EM". A few Border Incursions? de nada.
And actually, all that rat patrolling paid off in the vehicle we have in Afghanistan.
Peregrino
07-04-2012, 10:49
Dozer - You've stated it as succinctly as any one could have. BFD! SF soldiers will work with whatever they're given, adapt it to the existing requirements (within externally imposed constraints - at least in garrison), move out, and draw fire. The objective will be to avoid drawing fire from conventionally minded management types for non-standard modifications so that our guys can concentrate on mission. The next generation vehicle has been in the works for at least four years that I know of. Unfortunately, the majority of the work has been based on our most recent conflicts - as if they were the only relevant paradigm for future conflicts. The good news - the SMEs are generally pleased with the capabilities and "other" considerations. The bad news at least for SF is that nothing currently on the drawing board will be "reduced signature"; you might as well fly a garrison flag from your antenna (not as much hyperbole as some would argue).
Guymullins
07-04-2012, 15:19
In South Africa we have been designing and manufacturing Mine Resistant Vehicles for nearly 40 years, and some, the Casspir is now at Mk6. We made practically everything mine proof, from water bowsers to recovery vehicles to section patrol vehicles. BAe bought out our company that manufactures the vehicles, but we still make them here for export. With the strong Dollar and weak Rand, I am sure they would be a very economical purchase for you and they are all battle proven and improved over 30 years of war in very harsh environments.
GreenSalsa
07-04-2012, 15:34
I weep for the future of SF if this is what is going to be shoved down our throats...
Paragrouper
07-04-2012, 16:20
Gentlemen, the EM-50 Urban Assault vehicle.;)
Here is the perfect solution
http://image.sporttruck.com/f/16630465/0903st_12_z+2008_sema_show+munster_mobile.jpg
But it takes toooo long to put on the camouflage and make the forehead square....
I weep for the future of SF if this is what is going to be shoved down our throats...
Amen..preach it chief
I don't know why people don't ask the end user what is needed with anything new.
There's a small, but very important organization at Ft. Eustis, VA. It's called TWVRMO, and they gather requirements from "the schools",infantry needs from Benning, Engr needs from Belvoir, etc. Since the new vehicle is likely to be called a "truck", whatever it's use, the requirements will be put together by the Transportation School at Eustis, but with lots of input from Benning. I don't know just where the Special Operations needs will be sourced, but the folks at TWVRMO have a web page and a list of contacts.
The original HMMWV was a bare-bones lightweight that would take nearly a ton of user adaptations and still carry four combat-equipped soldiers. Then, the GO's got a look at the prototypes, added bells and whistles, and those who wanted invulnerability added enough armor to push it down into the mud.
In the beginning, it was more mobile than an M1. Then it turned into a lead weight about as useful as Grandma's station wagon.
I was one of the engineers on the HMMWV during the early years, and I mourn what it could have been.
Paragrouper
07-04-2012, 19:55
I don't know why people don't ask the end user what is needed with anything new.
Godd question.
I would check with Mr. Ellis, Deputy PM for PM FOSOV
This link (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011SOFIC/Wed1015Rms24_25Ellis.pdf) is a briefing on how they're gonna procure vehicles.
Take a good look at the stated requirements for the GMV 1.1. In the past, I've seen a lot of these good ideas go wrong because the platform or the transport method could not handle the weight. Even if they could speed and maneuverability were sacrificed. It all comes down to the trade-offs they make as to whether you end up with a decent truck or another dog.
greenberetTFS
07-04-2012, 23:20
In South Africa we have been designing and manufacturing Mine Resistant Vehicles for nearly 40 years, and some, the Casspir is now at Mk6. We made practically everything mine proof, from water bowsers to recovery vehicles to section patrol vehicles. BAe bought out our company that manufactures the vehicles, but we still make them here for export. With the strong Dollar and weak Rand, I am sure they would be a very economical purchase for you and they are all battle proven and improved over 30 years of war in very harsh environments.
G
Those look like some real solid vehicles.........;)Here's my choice....:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
Golf1echo
07-05-2012, 07:15
Paragrouper: I actually have the civilian version 1976 GMC Palmbeach 2600, very fun to drive and the avocado green and avocado plaid interior is priceless. Your lucky day, it is for sale :)
There's a small, but very important organization at Ft. Eustis, VA. It's called TWVRMO, and they gather requirements from "the schools",infantry needs from Benning, Engr needs from Belvoir, etc. Since the new vehicle is likely to be called a "truck", whatever it's use, the requirements will be put together by the Transportation School at Eustis, but with lots of input from Benning. I don't know just where the Special Operations needs will be sourced, but the folks at TWVRMO have a web page and a list of contacts.
The original HMMWV was a bare-bones lightweight that would take nearly a ton of user adaptations and still carry four combat-equipped soldiers. Then, the GO's got a look at the prototypes, added bells and whistles, and those who wanted invulnerability added enough armor to push it down into the mud.
In the beginning, it was more mobile than an M1. Then it turned into a lead weight about as useful as Grandma's station wagon.
I was one of the engineers on the HMMWV during the early years, and I mourn what it could have been.
I understand the whole Army procurement, but things that are USSOCOM, USASOC & USASFC procured; then make it what we are currently using and can use for 5 to 10 years. I also understand that you can't make everyone our every Group happy. From snow to sand to jungles to rocky environment will drive a lot. But a damn good base model vehicle will work for 80% , of us, the rest will make charges just as a new Tm SGT to a new ODA.
Look at the RGs, MATVs and ask the MRAPs in both countries. SF, SEALS, SOF, MOSGs etc don't really change them that much. RGs are basically the same as the first ODA to get them, same with the MATVs. But the Razor you'll find ask kinds of different things done to them. M240 on swing and to front or rat mounted M3 HMG to M224 mortars.
SF are never happy, we just Gunny Highway it anyway we can. "Improvise, adapt and overcome."
HUMMVE Needs to be updated, really just needs more power for all the armor and maybe a somewhat "V" shape bottom.
Godd question.
I would check with Mr. Ellis, Deputy PM for PM FOSOV
This link (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011SOFIC/Wed1015Rms24_25Ellis.pdf) is a briefing on how they're gonna procure vehicles.
Take a good look at the stated requirements for the GMV 1.1. In the past, I've seen a lot of these good ideas go wrong because the platform or the transport method could not handle the weight. Even if they could speed and maneuverability were sacrificed. It all comes down to the trade-offs they make as to whether you end up with a decent truck or another dog.
Para.. Thanks for the GMV 1.1 link
GreenSalsa
07-05-2012, 09:17
But a damn good base model vehicle will work for 80% , of us, the rest will make charges just as a new Tm SGT to a new ODA.
HUMMVE Needs to be updated, really just needs more power fir all the armor and maybe a somewhat "V" shape bottom.
BINGO we have a winner--I would argue that we don't need as much armor as they are putting on the trucks--I like armored windshields, but prefer to be without doors while on mission. If contact is made--we get OUT of the trucks, in order to close with and destroy.
In rural rugged Afghanistan I want mobility, power, and to a lesser extent speed.
I prefer a platform I can configure to the operational environment.
Badger52
07-05-2012, 09:37
If contact is made--we get OUT of the trucks, in order to close with and destroy.Chief, I wonder if that's why so much of that Chewbaca-lookin' stuff is sold to the UN.
BINGO we have a winner--I would argue that we don't need as much armor as they are putting on the trucks--I like armored windshields, but prefer to be without doors while on mission. If contact is made--we get OUT of the trucks, in order to close with and destroy.
In rural rugged Afghanistan I want mobility, power.
I'm one for getting out and fighting, meeting your enemy. Give us all 4 doors that can come off if needed. I got the MRAPs for blast protection. We just did PMT, I had to argue that people need to get out of the trucks. Sometimes you can't hear them shooting at you due to the road surface and the armor. They need to add a gun fire detection system like the EARS but way better.