Unhinged: What The Military Needs To Replace The HMMWV With…Forget Bigger, Go Smaller For Once!


Unhinged: What The Military Needs To Replace The HMMWV With…Forget Bigger, Go Smaller For Once!

The HMMWV is in it’s sunset years…this we’ve known, and honestly, for the military, it’s a long time coming. I’ve blasted it before and I’ll blast it again: it’s an excellent off-roader and good everyday utility vehicle. But it’s slower than all hell (even the upgraded A2 models), has nearly zero interior room compared to most other military vehicles, and proved to be woefully inadequate during the first couple of years of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What brought about the decision to replace AM General’s workhorse can be summed up in three letters: I.E.D., which stands for “Improvised Explosive Device” and is better termed “roadside bomb”. The effects of what one of these can do is pretty much on point with what your imagination is coming up with: if one can knock a Stryker armored fighting vehicle on it’s side and launch a 28-ton Buffalo MRAP into the air, just think of what it can do to a vehicle best described as a diesel K5 Blazer with a badass bodykit.

Photo: Joe Bullinger

The military has been opting to go with a “bigger is better” theme for the last ten years, and not long ago it decided to make the same move with the HMMWV by replacing it with the Oshkosh M-ATV. Cost? Nearly half a million per vehicle. Weight? 27,000 plus pounds before equipment. All of that weight for four people and one gunner? No…there has to be a better way. I’m not degrading the M-ATV…it’s got it’s uses…but for everyday taskings, it’s radical overkill. It’s like driving an International CXT every day, just because.

LSSV

Chevrolet LSSV

Currently, there is word that a request for proposals will come down from the military for a low-cost, commercial, off-the-shelf vehicle to slot in for lighter duties. GM still makes a military version of their Silverado/Suburban line (now known as the LSSV, or Light Service Support Vehicle), but another player is bringing in an option that not only has current military service and excellent off-road capabilities, but has a heritage that goes back to World War II. Hendrick Dynamics, a company that, yes, is related to Hendrick Motorsports, has created a modified form of the Jeep Wrangler, called the Hendrick Commando, that looks to be very promising. Hendrick Dynamics is currently laying out a three-model offering: one pickup variant that is similar to the Mopar JK-8 conversion kit, a two-seater based on the two-door Wrangler, and a four-seater based on the four-door Wrangler Unlimited. Power is from a multi-fuel capable diesel, the 2.8L VM Motori unit that is found in the Jeep J8.

CommandoUSA0059

Photo: Hendrick Dynamics

The official proposal is expected later this year, and regardless of which vehicle wins, it’s a step in the right direction. Five-ton wheeled tanks that cost eye-watering amounts of money were never the right answer for most situations. They have their place, but not every military unit needed them. A five ton truck isn’t needed to haul six soldiers around on a detail. To prove a point: the most useful vehicles my unit had on it’s last deployment were the two John Deere M-Gators and the one Nissan pickup truck we had keys to, that ran on a freaking prayer and little else. A militarized Chevy Silverado or Jeep Wrangler make perfect sense, are easier to maneuver, would be easy to train soldiers on, and wouldn’t cost near the amount of money the M-ATV would. Do the right thing and give the military a realistically useable vehicle for day-to-day use.

CommandoUSA0016

Photo: Hendrick Dynamics


  • Share This
  • Pinterest
  • 0

15 thoughts on “Unhinged: What The Military Needs To Replace The HMMWV With…Forget Bigger, Go Smaller For Once!

  1. Gary Smrtic

    Do you know what our government is doing with billions of $$ worth of MRAP’s overseas? No, not leaving 2400 of them there for ISIS to take over and use like they did the HUMMVEES. No, they are cutting almost new MRAP’s up into two foot squares and selling the steel for scrap overseas. Perfectly servicable vehicles. They could be brought back and mothballed at some depot. But someone in this adminsitration has decided to just cut them up. Obscene.

    1. ANGRYJOE

      This is nothing new. It has been going on for as long modern warfare has. In Vietnam they destroyed anything they felt would fall into the wrong hands. WWII, WWI, all the same thing….The cost of bringing them back and storing them long term is far greater that the cost of building then scraping. At least when they scrap them they recoup some money, if they store them they just cost money. It sounds insane but when you are familiar with the costs of projects like that….it makes perfect sense….

      1. BeaverMartin

        I agree watching them get cut up almost made me cry, but you’re 100% correct. Shipping a multi ton vehicle from a landlocked country, with no infrastructure, and hostile neighbors is VERY, expensive. I close Salerno down on my last deployment MRAPs are really the tip of the money burning iceberg. War is expensive.

  2. Loren

    Full agreement there. If an Israeli soldier needs to go for a donut they can jump in a Tom-Car, but we need ten tons of armor. Plus, the Jeep rocks.

  3. C Royer

    government do the right and cost effective thing, that would be funny if not so sad. Small to medium sized vehicles for use everywhere except combat (90%) just makes too much sense to ever happen

  4. BigDogSS

    Did you really say the HUMMVEE is a K/5 Blazer with a body kit?? I don’t think so… Other than maybe the engine, are there ANY parts they might share?

  5. Bryan McTaggart Post author

    It was a generalization based on a joke I’ve been making ever since the day I joined the Army…I’m very critical of the HMMWV. To me, the 1980s CUCV M1009 and a M998 HMMWV are close enough to be brothers. But if you want to nit-pick, you can look at the engines, transmissions, and possibly the transfer cases.

    1. Whelk

      You’re critical of the HMMWV becaus it can blown up and then you favor a jeep with the same problem? I don’t get the thinking.

      1. Bryan McTaggart Post author

        I’m critical of the HMMWV for a different reason: even unarmored, the 6.2 and 6.5L diesels were taxed with vehicle weight, there is insufficient room for the passengers and their gear, their acceleration was pitiful, and most units still had 3-spd automatic variations, which gear-limited the truck to about 65-70mph at best. Personally, I’m a fan of the “light and fast” philosophy for the basic work truck for the military. Big and heavy works for pure combat, but nobody needs a 27,000 pound medium-duty truck to haul a few guys to the dining facility or to move tools.

  6. Matt Cramer

    I can understand what they did with the M-ATV and why, but I figured they already had some sort of light-use thing in place like the old CUCVs.

  7. Brendan M

    If we cheap out on our military, you know some weinie puffer in the white house will just spend it on food stamps and free cell phones.
    Buy our soldiers the big boy car.
    And go see the movie 13 Hours. Everyone in America should see it.

    1. tedly

      Wow. The eloquence and careful consideration apparent in your response is just overwhelming. How anyone can find fault with it is beyond me.

  8. BeaverMartin

    It would be too difficult to explain the DoD’s procurement processes to the un-initiated. Basically an operational need must be identified prior to purchasing a commercial off the shelf solution (unless you’re in a SOCOM unit who has different funding and requirements) I could see an operational need for a J8 in force-able entry units (Airborne, Air Assault) or SOF units. Would be a great replacement for the M-Gator, but I suspect DOTMLPF requirements will prevent it from happening.

  9. Threedoor

    My unit could have used two cucv pickups and a forklift. Everything else we had was overkill or we were not allowed to use the correct equipment. Politics and looks rule in the military rather than efficiency and logic.

Comments are closed.