Whither the G-Wagon

[PanaEng]

A bit out of left field, but this vehicle is designed for most of the same purposes served by Iltis and G-wagon, fits inside a CH-47 (bonus) and could be available right now. Second bopnus for political weenies looking for "benefits" and "offsets"; the company already has a factory in Canada:

http://www.military.com/video/combat-vehicles/armored-vehicles/the-general-dyamics-flyer/763887735001/

Nice, I like it - how much though?
cheers

 

[McG]

Look's like the love child of  one night stand between a hummer and a Kodiak big bear.

In the case of LUVW replacement, the spectrum of potential vehicles begins with those small vehicles and grows to a modern HMMWV family of vehicles.  I suspect different user groups will see different points along this spectrum as preferable ... we probably don't have the space in our budget for both sizes of vehicles.

 

[a_majoor]

Given the size of the Flyer compared to the Growler, I would put my money on the Flyer as it can potentially fil the bill for G Wagon, MilCOT and LSVW replacement. The ability to fit into a helicopter is a huge bonus WRT operational deployment, and also sets a decent size limit for fans of Mud Recce should it go into service with the Reserve Armoured as a recce platform.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Given the size of the Flyer compared to the Growler, I would put my money on the Flyer as it can potentially fil the bill for G Wagon, MilCOT and LSVW replacement. The ability to fit into a helicopter is a huge bonus WRT operational deployment, and also sets a decent size limit for fans of Mud Recce should it go into service with the Reserve Armoured as a recce platform.

While I'm somewhat opposed to mud recce it does look like a perfect fit for the Reserves and for that very reason it will never be purchased for them.

 

[a_majoor]

And plan "C" would be to go with the HMMVW. Luckily, rebuilds are on the way which bring the classic 80's design up to date:

http://defense-update.com/wp/20101026_industry-preparing-for-the-hmmwv-recap.html

Industry Preparing for the HMMWV recap
October 26, 2010 Administrator No comments

Among the heavier tactical vehicles on display were new versions of the BAE Systems’ Caiman Multi-Terrain Vehicle (MTV), configured to support Command and Control On-the-Move (C2OTM) assignments and ambulatory operations. Oshkosh displayed the latest reconnaissance version of the MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (MATV) . This vehicle carries crew of six plus gunner. The recce variant is equipped with mission specific technologies designed for missions such as route, zone and area reconnaissance. Recent models introduced with the M-ATV family of vehicles also includes SOCOM, Utility and Ambulance variants.

As the U.S. Army establishes its right mix of vehicles across the light, medium, and heavy vehicle fleets, new acquisition programs and recapitalization (recap) programs are weighed, assessing a cost effective mix that could meet the services’ planned budget cuts. As light vehicles are concerned, the army is still moving on two parallel paths,acquisition long term strategy developing the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV) while pursuing low-cost recap of existing High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) for the near term.

Several companies at AUSA are addressing the planned HMMWv Recap opportunity, among them BAE Systems and Oshkosh. BAE is offering the application of it’s ‘Integrated Smart V’ (ISV) program coupled with lightweight monocoque V-hull and mine protection improving survivability through relatively cost high investment in modernizing the fleet of high-mobility multipurpose vehicles expected to remain in service for the long term. Oshkosh is also seeking HMMWV recap opportunities, offering the TAK-4 independent suspension for improved mobility. the new suspension also contributes to increased payload capacity needed for the survivability enhancement. In addition to its advanced suspension, Oshkosh incorporates a V-shaped hull and engine and powertrain upgrades to improve soldier survivability as well as off-road mobility and payload capacity.

AM General also displays he an armored HMMWV variants designed in association with Plasan. Unlike other upgrade designs that use monocoque capsules, Plasan designed the vehicle with a ‘kitted armor’, which does away with unused structures and material, therefore reducing the weight of the protected vehicle. As many of the components previously spliced in the center body are now moved from the protected cabin, significant weight is offloaded from the frontal wheels and moved back, and well below the axles’ load level, enabling the armor protected vehicle to demonstrate very high protection while retaining the efficient off road mobility of early HMMWVs.

 

[dapaterson]

While I'm somewhat opposed to mud recce it does look like a perfect fit for the Reserves and for that very reason it will never be purchased for them.

We appear to have things backwards:  Buy kit, then assume roles, missions and tasks will be derived from it for the black hats in the Reserves.

Better still to adhere to the first principle of war: selection and maintenance of the aim.  What do we want the Army to be capable of doing; what within that do we want the black hats to deliver, and then how are they to deliver those capabilities with a mix of Reg, Res, civilians and contractors, and with what equipment?

Otherwise we're just buying shiny toys for no real reason.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Remind me again which army went to war with the exactly right fit of kit to accomplish the aim? Perhaps the Mongols?

 

[dapaterson]

oh, don't get me wrong - the enemy gets a vote, too.

But I'd rather have at least a semblance of a plan and structure to deliver the capabilities we need (or think we need) as opposed to "Ooh, shiny!" as a pillar of force development.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Fit for reserves means to me:

Economical pricing (so we can buy enough to go around, sick of the 1 for 2 syndrome)
Reliable
Readily available parts supply
fixable locally
Good onroad/off road performance
Capable of tactical use and being armed
Adds training value

 

[Kirkhill]

So further to Colin's point....what's wrong with the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited - Basic model at about 25 k a unit.

It is a platform. It goes off road. It is easily and locally maintained.  It would also be better than an ATV for hauling gear and it has a track record.  No doubt "light" troops in the regs could also find employment for it.

The money saved could go for more 27 tonne armoured behomoths currently being considered for liaison vehicles.

 

[McG]

So further to Colin's point....what's wrong with the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited - Basic model at about 25 k a unit.

Between Wrangler & Gladiator, Jeep could fill both the C&R and the light utility role for the COTS platform.

 

[a_majoor]

Given the various different roles needed to be filled by the replacement program (the G wagon, LSVW and MilCOT all serve different purposes) combined with the inability to fund different specialist vehicles for different roles does lead to some sort of multi purpose platform.

There are obviously many different approaches, but in terms of cost and overall utility the Flyer or rebuilt HMMVWs would seem to be the two best choices from where I am sitting. The Flyer is smaller so would be a better platform for the sorts of roles the G wagon was meant to do, but the utility vehicle role isn't impossible (especially if clever solutions like trailers, optimising the layout of utility "boxes" and using miniature components wherever possible are factored in). The rebuilt HMMVW is a bit large for the G wagon roles (but some might argue this makes it more capable of fulfilling these roles), and since it started life as a utility vehicle it fills the bill quite nicely to replace the LSVW and MilCOT). The one chassis solution provides greatly simplified logistical support.

Sorry Kirkhill, but we tried CJ-7's back in the day; they simply didn't have the strength or ruggedness for military life, and certainly were not capable of being modified for multiple roles. If we were to go that route, i'd go for the Toyota Land Cruiser (the choice of insurgents everywhere!) as being a proven rugged vehicle and having logistical support on a global basis (if worst came to worst, just steal parts and replacements from the insurgency).

 

[Kirkhill]

Thuc,

Back in my day they were replacing clapped out Vietnam era M151s in Canadian service with Dodge pickups.    I have fond recollections of a young Corporal allowing his girlfriend Private to take our unit's brand new Dodge  and go haring off across Sarcee - promptly ripping the bottom out of it on a lonely rock covered by prairie grass. CO not best pleased.

This was just about the time that the Iltis was being introduced and being roundly trashed a worthless POS, as was the Grizzly, and the Bombardier MLVW and the Bison.  All of them broke.

Yes.  Jeeps will break.  But they will be readily available and easy to replace when they do break - as opposed to trying to get authorization to use, break and replace a $300,000 custom built JLTV.   

How many jeeps can a typical militia unit break in a typical training year?  1 JLTV = 12 Jeeps.

Are jeeps more or less likely to break than Milverados?

Having said that Toyota's are reasonable vehicles as well - but we're talking about dom ops and reserve force training.  Or are the Milverados being deployed overseas?

 

[George Wallace]

So further to Colin's point....what's wrong with the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited - Basic model at about 25 k a unit.

It is a platform. It goes off road. It is easily and locally maintained.  It would also be better than an ATV for hauling gear and it has a track record.  No doubt "light" troops in the regs could also find employment for it.

The money saved could go for more 27 tonne armoured behomoths currently being considered for liaison vehicles.

Ah!    What is old is new again.

Prior to the CJ-7s we had older versions of the Jeep.  Those older versions had the strength in construction to mount a "Dog Leg" on the CC's side on which he could mount a C-5, which today would permit a C-6 or C-9.  The veh was small enough that it could travel nearly anywhere and was easy to cam and hide.  Unfortunately, in our overly safety conscious society today, the addition of roll bars and such detracts from the low profile that was previously seen prior to the introduction of the M151.

 

[GAP]

Why don't we just try blending in......buy white Toyota Pickups......

 

[Dissident]

We could get a new wrangler with a removable roll bar/pintle mount. It would make me happy.

Hey, for what we do domestically, the MilCots is not that bad for us. But I always lament that it makes it sadly unrealistic to use the truck as a gun truck, as is our current SOP for MPs.

 

[McG]

On the topic of LUVW & LSVW replacement, here are the observations that I made in the Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project thread:

...  On the light side of the spectrum, I think we have need of something that fills the liaison (G-wagon) to cargo (LSVW, MilCOTS), troop caring (LSVW) and special purpose roles (G-wagon,LSVW, MilCOTS).  In the civilian world this would represent everything from jeep/SUV, to pick-up truck and full-sized van … in the military we have typically used pickups in the van role.  What I propose we need is a single vehicle type that comes in different wheel base lengths and different bodies.  This simplifies logistics and reduces training requirements.  For each wheel base, I would envision a full-length cab variant (in a G-Wagon/SUV sort of style).  I would also see an extended pickup cab (2 to 3 crew + pers kit) and crew cab (2-3 crew + 2 passengers) that would be common to both the standard and extended wheel base versions.

All vehicles would have MMG/HMG/AGL mounts (either light RWS or a machine gunner’s hatch).  A lightweight General Purpose Vehicle fleet might consist of:

• Short Wheel Base
  • Jeep-style comd & liaison vehicle with 3 crew & 2 passengers
  • Jeep-style provost vehicle with 3 crew
  • open/soft-top Jeep-style comd & recce vehicle with 3 crew
• Standard Wheel Base
  • Jeep-style liaison vehicle with 3 crew & 4 passengers
  • Pickup Extended Cab-style cargo vehicle with 2 crew
  • Pickup Crew Cab-style cargo vehicle with 3 crew & 2 passengers
  • Misc Pickup Extended Cab-style SEV with 2 crew
  • Misc Pickup Crew Cab-style SEV with 3 crew & 2 passengers
• Extended Wheel Base
  • Nyala layout liaison & TCV with 3 crew & 6 passengers
  • Pickup Extended Cab-style Ambulance with 2 crew up-front
  • Misc Pickup Extended Cab-style SEV with 2 crew
  • Misc Pickup Crew Cab-style SEV with 3 crew & 2 passengers

The vehicles must be designed to be armoured (because armouring vehicles as an after-thought tends to results in unexpected and/or premature mechanical failures), but only the vehicles going to CMBGs should actually be delivered with armour (and vehicles going to Army schools should be delivered with armour simulating ballast).  The purchase plan should bring us to FOC within two years and commit to 300 – 500 new vehicles annually for the life of the fleet.  As new vehicles come in, they will take the armour (or sim-armour) from brigade & TE vehicles, the down-armoured vehicles would then cascade to PRes, bases, Air Force and other users (in some cases eventually reducing the size of our blue fleet).  We would allow ourselves to retire vehicles (from anywhere in the fleet) that are old, tired, or significantly damaged.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Rebuilt HMMVW with better engines would be a logical choice for replacing the LSVW, they can carry the various modules on the back and they make a good candidate for RWS's. I was cynical of the CJ when they came in because they had to compete with the old M38's which were far stronger. My understanding is that the new jeeps are giving a good account of themselves and offer a 5 door variant now as well. I personally think the G-wagon is an excellent vehicle and would want more of them, but it ain't likely to happen.
problem is that any 1/4 to 1/2 ton vehicle can not meet the armour/weapon expections that we demand is needed. The only option is going purpose built armoured vehicles which are very expensive, limited parts and are rarely efficient at carrying large volumes of cargo.

To me the armoured reserves need armoured fighting vehicles and due to the changing nature of warfare so do the MP's. There are enough mature designs out there in 4x4 wheeled AFV's for this type of work to choose from. The will and the money needs to be there. For the armoured units to recruit and retain people they need equipment that fits the above. As for roles and responsibilities, well that changes with every government and next great idea. that reality is not going to change.

 

[McG]

To me the armoured reserves need armoured fighting vehicles ...

I suspect "want" is more fitting than "need" in this case.  While the Armd Reserve might love its own AFV, we do not have the resources to buy a never-to-be-deployable AFV fleet.

In any case, here is another perspective on light fighting & support vehicles.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I suspect "want" is more fitting than "need" in this case.  While the Armd Reserve might love its own AFV, we do not have the resources to buy a never-to-be-deployable AFV fleet.In any case, here is another perspective on light fighting & support vehicles.

That's what they said about the Cougar remember?