You seem to confuse two different roles: light utility vehicle and armored personnel carrier. The HMMWV was never intended to be an APC (and in fairness, the Army seems to have become confused about this as well), but a replacement for the jeep: very mobile and very rugged but not built for actual combat. By all means, if you want everyone in an APC, field APCs (we have Bradleys and Strikers, and could field M113s from storage if we wanted to). And yes, we could use foreign-designed wheeled APCs, or design our own wheeled APCs.

For patrolling and street fighting, the troops probably should be in APCs. But for just getting around and doing work, particularly in quieter areas, the HMMWVs require considerably less maintenance and a smaller logistical train.

Joe,
What Jeff said was to be my opening, good thing a more knowledgeable commenter did it.
My second item regards the Rock developed by http://graniteglobalservices.com/automotive/specification.htm
Too much info for comment, email to follow.
Mike

IMO, the US needs mine-resistant patrol vehicles like the RG-31... and it also needs more APCs for operations in high-threat urban zones.

The RG-31 is not, properly speaking, an APC. Nor are the Cougar, Casspir, et. al. To the extent they're referred to as a class, it's as "mine-resistant patrol vehicles" or some similar locution. The RG-31, in particular, is a wheeled vehicle about the same size as the Hummer. It's just better designed for patrols on an actual battlefield.

And if the USA didn't intend that functionality, why not just buy the old no-protection Jeeps that predated the Hummers, and cost about 1/4 as much if that?

The HMMWV was a "middle ground" idea that sort of made sense in its day, but its rationale has evaporated and its niche no longer exists. Let's review:

• Again and again, the US military says that the urban fight is the future of warfare
• But too many of its tools are not built to survive there, even under counter-insurgency warfare conditions.
• We also hear, again and again, of the "non-linear battlefield" (perhaps Jessica Lynch could tell us a thing or two).
• Yet the implications of that idea are not being addressed.

One of the implications is that "just getting around and doing work, particularly in quieter areas" is an idea that becomes silly on its face for a military vehicle. Either field something entirely civilian, like a Ford F150 or civilian SUV, which is entirely restricted to that role - or get a real military vehicle. A designation that now begins with real patrol vehicles like the RG-31, and escalates through to APCs.

The non-linear and urban battlefields make middle options like the HMMWV ridiculous... and dangerous to boot.

Hmm, will add a couple of these points to the article.

The Rock is a cool vehicle, developed by a former SEAL after a friend was one of the security contractors murdered in Fallujah. At $200k per, it costs about as much as the up-armored HMMWV, but is based on a wholly civilian vehicle and appears (note: not sure, haven't seen tests) to have better protection in urban environments in exchange for no real off-road capabilities.

And BTW, here's what The Rock's creator Chris Berman has to say about up-armouring Hummers:

"...armoring Humvees is like trying to put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound," says Berman. "The spirit of it is fantastic. The application of it is ridiculous."

Military Hummers suck, civilian hummers suck. Maybe there is a pattern there.

Up Armored Hummers with upgrade kits was likely a short term solution that does not cost much resource and time to manufacture, versus long term solutions to introduce new armored vehicles into service. However, it is not always required to have these armored vehicles, depending on type of operations, such as disaster relief. The benifits of removable uparmor kits is that you could add or remove the kit depeneding on the type of operations, rather hostile such as the low intensity conflict or calm such as disaster relief and riot control operations. You do not need armored vehicles in disaster relief operations, while it may require large number of vehicles for transports of equipments and people. The low intensity conflict of Iraq and Afghanistan does not force the end of hummers. It is also cost ineffecient to develop large quantities of armored vehicles. There is a need of compromise to provide moderate armored vehicles that will reach in the hands of each team, instead of high grade armored vehicles provided to only few. The budget is limited, and there is limitations on how many armored vehicles could be manufactured within the limited budget. However, I still promote introducing M1117 ASV-150 Guardian as one of the candidates to replace hummers, several times expensive than uparmored hummers, but cheaper than APC such as the Strykers, as a compromise between the cost and the grade of armor, so that each team will likely have armored vehicles with good amount of armor. M1117 ASV-150 Guardian also has up armored kits which allows adjusting to missions, and abilities to survive RPG-7 attacks. It also has turrets to protect the gunner and the option to add on automated gun system with a grenade launcher system. M1117 ASV-150 is the ideal system as the next generation of hummers.

It's not a replacement for hummers, but one of the other options availible for low intensity missions may be M-8 AGS Bufford. This is something like a track version of Stryker MGS, and has three levels of armor, ability to carry 120 mm gun versus 105 mm of Stryker MGS, and availible to be air dropped. Somehow, rather or not General Motors are lobbying to block the use of M-8 in Iraq fearing it would steal some of the shares of Stryker, there is still no news about M-8 AGS to be used in Iraq, once that was proposed in the past by a congressman. The government hinted its use in Iraq, but also added that this will not mean M-8 AGS will officially be one of the systems to be a full produced system.

You think the Hummers are bad, you should see what your poor northern cousins were driving when we first deployed to Afghanistan. In fact, here, I'll show ya:

The Iltis

Considering what it was like to boot around in that bucket of bolts, I almost wet myself every time I got to borrow a Hummer.

Ofcourse, now we've upgraded to the G-Wagon (which was, in my opinion, a big mistake), and the Nyala, which is a seriously bad-ass vehicle. The armour isn't anything spectacular if you're facing .50cal or RPG's, but it'll soak up mines and IEDs no problem. I'm surprised the US mil hasn't started aquiring them in larger numbers.

I did not say "remove all Hummers from the military." I did say I wanted "serious plan to make the Hummer history in America's theaters of war." Different argument. Ultimately, however, that will likely mean a serious slowdown in production of new Hummers, and reliance on existing stocks for uses in the USA and other no or low-threat locations.

Pedestrian's point re: removable armor echoes mine. The thing is, any of these M1151/M1152 vehicles sent to Iraq will never have the armor removed. So they'll wear out and be left behind just like the non-removable M1114s. The removable armor still offers enough field and lostistics advantages to justify some subtitution for other Hummers while better alternatives phase in.

I like the M1117 Guardian ASV a lot, but look at its carrying capacity. It's really a dedicated MP vehicle, and exceptionally good at that too. It should probably be part of a future force mix.

Only downside is that there was one M1117 Guardian ASV manufacturing facility, and guess where? Yup. New Orleans.

Alex, thanks for noting the Iltis' utter suckitude, just to give our readers a proper sense of what faces other militaries by comparison.

I'll add that the "Nyalas" Alex talks about are RG-31s. He also highlights one difference between an APC and a mine-resistant patrol vehicle, which is often the damage it can be equipped to take. No-one expects an RG-31 to survive an RPG hit; if you want that, you need an M113 with slats. Though I'm told "The Rock" can be fitted with slat armor too, so the lines may be blurring...

One more thing, just to toot a horn as a Canadian. We used some cool jointed vehicles called Bv-206s in Afghanistan that are somewhere between a Hummer and an APC, but can go over pretty much any terrain. They won't stop an RPG either - but they'll often ride right over pressure-detonated IEDs, because their ground pressure is so amazingly low. They can be coverted for amphibious "swimming", fitted into helicopters like the CH-47 Chinook, or split into two sections and carried under two Blackhawks.

Very, very useful little vehicles to have in places like Afghanistan, giving air and ground mobility, carrying power, and some protection if you're taking on foot infantry like the Taliban off-road in the hills (where Hummers are simply inequipped to be). Wouldn't use them in urban operations, though.

When I think of a non-linear battle field the Jessica I think of is Simpson.

BTW Congress makes the procurement rules. Most of the delay is their fault. The delay is there to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.

Joe,

Kudos for getting a lot of the logistics stuff right. Refreshing.

Still there is training of maintenance folks and acqusition of spares and consumables (filters, fuses, etc). Which is why getting a few units into the field is easy and getting lots is hard.

You see there are training budgets, training schedules, test eqpt, special tools, supply depots, inventory line items, etc., etc., etc.

And all of this has to be co-ordinated with deployment schedules. The troops will need to practice with the eqpt. for 6 months to a year before going into the field with it. With the logistics of maintenance and repair coming six months to a year before that. All of which means the regulars will get the eqpt. before the guard. And what will the guard get? Think Jessica Simpson humming a tune with a V on the end. Except hopefully the vehicles will be up armored and Jessica will not. :-)

from a Brit,

America's closest allies ( argueably ) Britain and Israel have been involved in counter insurgency for decades. Did NOONE at the Pentagon think to ask either country for their experience?

Israel : uses converted tanks(!!!) where necessary. Has range of armoured cars.

Britain : simply purchased a cheap armoured hull on a truck chasis (its called SAXON ). Note 4 wheels : enough to get around the streets of Belfast, and rapidly reach GErmany to reinforce NATO. Purhased mine proof vehicles ( note BEFORE Iraq started ).

Agreed, Joe. Good post. This vehicle was not meant to be a primary fighting vehicle. So why are so many good, brave people still having to ride into harm's way in them?

I know some people who have worked on Gun Trucks. 5 and 7 ton trucks are inherently mine resistant and with added shielding they can survive IEDs. They are big, strong and far off the ground. They have the suspention to carry extra armor and cab protection. Add an armored box in back with 50cal mounts and spaul shield the floor and the resistance to IEDs and potential for self defense jumps.
When you are doing logistics or convoy stuff trucks that can protect themselves and the other trucks with them sounds like a terrific idea.
Maybe that will mean a few less Hummvys on convoy protection duty.
Problem may be that this is relatively simple and does not cost all that much.
The next war (say in Iran) is going to involve a reprize of the Sadam feyadeen attacking the logistic corridors and lots of sophisticated IEDs. Gun trucks are one of the proper responces.

Rob, totally with you on the gun trucks. Trent Telenko has done an excellent article about them here on Winds.

Erm, David.... British commander in Basra recently resigned when they refused to up-armor his Land Rovers, they only go out in formations of Warrior vehicles these days and restrict patrolling, government says they don't need armor. No vehicles like the Buffalos or IED-disposal robots, either.

Hey, nobody's perfect.

The Saxon is certainly better designed for an Iraq-style environment than the Hummer - but really, it's a different class of vehicle than the Hummer, The Rock, or the RG-31. Its almost a full-on APC, and if it's close to anything, it's more like an older version of the Australian Bushmaster.

Presumably Britain needs the Saxons it has and they aren't made any more - so if the Yanks are going that way... buy the Bushmaster. Or go cheap, cheap, cheap and buy up the old Casspirs South Africa is selling now for a song (India bought some, wise move). They're probably throwaways in a few years, but maybe that's even a recommendation point - then it's just a pure dedicated solution in theater, and you're not stuck with a vehicle in the logistics/supply chain afterward.

The point being, there are a ton of cost-effective solutions here - IF the Pentagon was interested. And puzzlingly, maddeningly, it doesn;t seem to be.

Our's is the country which at one time could produce a Liberty Ship in under a week and thousands of tanks and aircraft each month.

So I don't really buy those looooong timelines.

If we REALLY wanted to produce these vehicles in quick time, we could. It's all a matter of priorities.

But no one in Washington seems to be motivated enough to actually kick-start American industry into supporting the War-Effort.

What saddens me most about this War is that it seems as though our armed forces have been fighting it with one hand tied behind their backs.

Washington has let them down.... again.

I disagree with flat bottomed Humvee's being mine traps. A mine will not explode directly underneath the flat bottom. They will explode underneath the wheel assembly and blow the wheel assembly off.

The flat bottoms are more susceptible to belly shots from IED's. Take it from me, I've seen IED's explode all around the vehicle, same with mines.

"Would these upgraded "M113A4" vehicles survive IED attacks as well as a Stryker? No, and that isn't the comparison I'd make"
Say what? The upgraded M113s have heavier armor than a Stryker, and there are MANY uparmored M113s (the highly successful Israeli Zelda among them) serving throughout the world. Tracked vehicles are also what Stryker drivers call for when they get stuck.