"82nd Airborne Tries Ultralight Vehicles" Topic

"The Army's 82nd Airborne Division is evaluating an ultra-lightweight combat vehicle (ULCV), a new effort that would allow airborne assault troops to drop far from objectives that are protected by air defense, then speed over land to capture them — and Congress has taken notice.

The House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee proposal for the National Defense Authorization Act requires the secretary of the Army to brief the HASC by March 1, 2016, on the ongoing effort. The Army is looking to address a request from the 82nd Airborne Division, and it has already purchased 33 commercial vehicles for proof-of-principle tests…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Sounds promising …

I wonder how long before they fit a ring mount to them for use with M240's or a mount for a Javelin/TOW missile.

So what we have here is an ultra-modern, high-tech and undoubtedly expensive…truck. Seems to me the good old(and readily available)Hummer could do what is envisioned for these things, and more cheaply. But admittedly it isn't new or "sexy". Never discount that when considering equipment acquisition.

Hummer is actually too big and too heavy.

Not to mention doesn't have the capacity to haul a full squad.

This is a 9+ passenger stretched Jeep.

Lion,

Just did a little Google-Fu to refresh my memory and first hand experience. The M998 Troop Carrier meets all the criteria mentioned, except possibly one: it'a an off-road vehicle that can carry a 9 man squad, and it can be carried(internal/external) by the CH-47 as well as the UH-60(external). The only possible exception is the air-droppability of it. I'm not even certain that it's not air-droppable, but I'm pretty certain they could make it so without too much effort if it isn't.

I also took a look at the two main candidates mentioned in the article: the Polaris DAGOR and the Polaris MRZR 4. The DAGOR fits the bill but is extremely cramped, and the MRZR 4 doesn't appear to be able to carry 9 bodies, although the article did say that SOCOM was interested in the MRZR 4 and maybe has different criteria.

So I stand by my statement that the tried-and-true Hummer could do the job for less but suffers from not being new or "sexy".

But as long as they get something that does the job properly I'm satisfied.

And Jav98: The full US Army RFP does include mounts for the SAWs or M240s that belong to the squad.

extra-basic battle taxi, no armor.

I'm oddly amused by the fact that the Polaris 4-seaters are about the same size, gross weight, and horsepower as a Kubelwagen or Schwimmwagen.

But as long as they get something that does the job properly I'm satisfied.

Very true … let's hope whatever the troops get does at least that …

But how long before they overload the things like we do everything else? A friend of mine broke the axel on his FDC Humvee when he jacked it up to change a flat. That is a major overload

Owen

Hold on just a second. Design specs have been re-opened. It must now be fully tracked, have a turret with a gun no smaller than 25mm and be able to launch cruise missiles. Also, the Coast Guard is being consulted as to amphibious needs. The Air Force is recommending it have vertical take-off and air refueling capabilities. The Navy is requesting that it be made submersible. Finally, the Red Cross is requiring a donut maker and coffee pot on each vehicle.

Sounds like a call to re-introduce the Willys Jeep!

Need to seat nine? We could buy them pre-modded from the Phillipines.

As far as I can see the Hummer was a flop. It used so much fuel it was an impractical vehicle. You would need a vehicle that could do miles to the gallon not gallons to the mile (bit of artistic creativity here but not that much). Be careful else you will also be needing Wiesels and the French motorised T tray (can't remember what it is called but it looks like an oversized tray on wheels).

If youre air dropping/landing then anything thats not weapons, food or ammo needs to really be able to justify itself. A BMD probably does, not sure about this.

The 6 wheel stretched Land Rover the Aussie SAS use might fit the bill.

As far as I can see the Hummer was a flop

Not really after having the M151 and then it being replaced by the HMMWV. The HMMWV has many versions. And in some cases it had to have upgrades. Like armoring the exposed roof top .50 cal. Which they also had to do on the M113 APC, etc. … Something we have to look at. And it's been coming around for a long time, IMO. Dismounted troops once inserted, whether by chutes, choppers, etc. … Need to move faster than they can walk in many situations. Of course this will vary based on the mission and as usual terrain. Being both Air Assualt and Airborne qualified and serving in the 101, waaay back in my distant youth. Then being assigned to 3 Mech Bns and eventually commanding a Mech Co.(M113). In many cases, I rather ride then walk. That being said, with any vehicle mounted Infantry. You have to know when to stay mounted and when to dismount. And this is true for Mech in AFVs or Light in trucks, etc. …

The Humvee was very good at what it was supposed to do, which was mainly replace the jeep. it is when it got shoved into a dozen roles oit was not designed for that problems appeared, just as had happened with the jeep before it.

I have had both in my section as well as the POS gammagoat. I like the Jeep for personal transport for maybe 3 people. After that the Humvee is very superior.

Owen