looks impressive, please do not let there be a "street" version, we already have enough MORONS driving oversized vehicles
15th September, 2011 @ 7:45 p.m. (California Time)
I hope they sell them on the civilian market, just to annoy the suicidal idiots in the smugmobiles.
15th September, 2011 @ 8:47 p.m. (California Time)
Yes, make a civilian version!!!! I love running over jealous idiots in their little hatchbacks.
15th September, 2011 @ 9:18 p.m. (California Time)
The vehicle was developed with pallsan (kiutz sassa israel)
16th September, 2011 @ 5:30 a.m. (California Time)
Yes, build a civilian version to run right over the self-righteous, smug MORONS that drive their Priuses.
16th September, 2011 @ 8:55 a.m. (California Time)
Why can\'t those that leave comments just stick with the article subject without adding idiotic political thoughts and name calling? The intelligence and maturity of comment differences between American and those in England and Europe is astounding.
16th September, 2011 @ 11:06 a.m. (California Time)
Looks good, I can\'t wait to trade in my Hummer for an Oshkosh, by gosh! If only to piss off the self-righteous hybrid owners. After all, it is a hybrid. I hope it will come with a big towing package.
16th September, 2011 @ 11:58 a.m. (California Time)
Keeping occupants reasonably safe when the improvised explosive charges are in play sounds really challenging. How does one even guess at the strength of an improvised device? Worse yet would it only be a matter of an enemy using a bit more of a charge if these vehicles become common in conflict areas? Using robotics instead of human occupied vehicles seems like a better idea to me.
16th September, 2011 @ 12:26 p.m. (California Time)
I just wonder if it could be any fuglier.
Its looks is its own weapon.
16th September, 2011 @ 7:46 p.m. (California Time)
to chidrbmt, not all Americans think along these lines (I realize that this is not what you said)... please realize that it\'s kind of a self selecting group that responds; meaning the most likely to post here are those who are interested in military vehicles. I would believe that there will be a vocal minority of this set who hold less than socially responsible or respectful positions. I believe that most military personnel would take the position that they would be willing to fight for our rights as Americans to drive low carbon footprint vehicles, regardless of personal views.
I do agree a few people can be \"smug\" about being environmentally aware, but to respond that we should run them over points out the lack of social respect. Clearly we have a ways to go to voicing opinions in more mature manner.
Regarding the vehicle; I\'d love to know how they got 20\" of wheel travel, that is a tremendous technical achievement, and should let the passengers get to where they are needed with less fatigue. And as a Wisconsinite, I am proud that Oshkosh Truck is being considered to be a supplier to the military.
16th September, 2011 @ 10:43 p.m. (California Time)
Re; Jim Sadler
Robots can not do everything. The bigger the bomb the easier it is to detect before it blows.
16th September, 2011 @ 10:45 p.m. (California Time)
Cost per vehicle?? I thought we were getting out of the war business and starting to spend American dollars on the problems at \"home\". Weapons manufacturers/military suppliers need to kick back and allow some of our taxpayer money to be spent on the people in need in our own country. Sorry, just doing a little daydreaming...
17th September, 2011 @ 2:19 a.m. (California Time)
Looks good as a military vehicle. If they had the CV Engine they could go twice as far on the same fuel for the IC engine part. Never heard of it? Neither have they.
17th September, 2011 @ 7:40 a.m. (California Time)
Keeping the barbarians from burning our country down around our ears is doing something at home.
17th September, 2011 @ 8:19 a.m. (California Time)
With the obviously larger size I doubt they can get the mileage they get out of the Hummer even with the hybrid. The money if there is any should be spent in detection technology. Identifying mines and other explosives negates the need for this very large expense. Anything new should use magnesium alloy to reduce weight improve range and be less obvious (less heat because less exhaust). We need ground penetrating radar on the vehicles. Seeing underground would prevent them from driving over bombs. No vehicle really survives that. Maybe no one is seriously injured but driving away like it was nothing...I doubt it. Then you have to send more in to rescue them.
And the security is an illusion anyway. The only reason to bring people in is to have them on foot messing with other human ground troupes. Making sure they are safe until they are not? Waste of money. If you aren\'t going to get out and do the job why even have more than one guy in a vehicle? There was a lot of unnecessary manpower used in paroling in our recent endeavors endangering far more troupes than made any sense.
The design itself is overkill in the wrong areas. You don\'t need a frame like that unless you are hauling a heavy weight like a dump truck. Building it from a simi just does not make sense to carry a dozen guys. There is a difference between being armored and being built for hauling heavy loads. Really, if you are going to have all that armor you might as well give the armor a structural role. It would make more sense to make a frameless vehicle like the Aptera or how airplanes are built only with a thick armor shell that contains everything. The mass could be greatly reduced using some strong composite armor/body. Sure it might look a little less intimidating to look like an egg, but you get everything else: safety, efficiency, ease of transport, better potential for reliability, expanded range both in distance and type of terrain, and speed. It could be much faster. It could even be amphibious without too much difficulty. And why bother with windows just have a couple dozen cameras behind some very strong glass? Stronger and safer without it. Driving goggles can give the driver a computerized 3-d view around the entire vehicle...night vision...the works. You could even design it to retract a flat tire and change it inside the vehicle without exposing anyone to harm.
This looks like the Russian stuff. I bet we could buy their personnel carriers for a quarter the cost and it would be virtually identical in capability minus some electronic junk that we could add. Not that that is the best choice as it is overbuilt similarly.
I think the US military were considering a German design a few years back with a hybrid that actually got reasonable mileage and addressed some of the weaknesses of the Hummer as well.
The stupidest thing is that the military always orders basically hand made cars (well the WWII Jeeps used the techniques available at the time). That adds massively to the cost. They should pick a good design and actually use proper robotic mass production to keeps costs appropriate.
This guzzling piece of junk looks like something from WWI...we don\'t need a snow plow in the desert.
18th September, 2011 @ 2:45 a.m. (California Time)
Slowburn, chevypower and Daryl need to have their driving license privileges revoked, permanently. If you can\'t share the road you don\'t need to be driving.
18th September, 2011 @ 8:55 a.m. (California Time)
Australians do it better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Protected_Mobility_Vehicle
18th September, 2011 @ 6:09 p.m. (California Time)
The Oshkosh L-ATV is aimed as an entry in the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program which is an all service effort by the military to meet many of your comments and establish one vehicle or a limited set of vehicles going forward. My point was that there is new technology that can help this and other vehicles meet the mandated energy requirements if the industry looks past the same ole same ole. A hybrid will still require a range entender. There is no free lunch. A given mass will required a given horsepower. There is a better way.
My frustration is trying to get an industry to look at something they haven\'t thought of. Real innovation is change not product improvement. If interested you or others might look at CVGlobal-Inc.com for a little reading.
18th September, 2011 @ 6:20 p.m. (California Time)
@simon gray, totally agree with you mate.
The bushies the best in the business.
Designed for maximum occupant protection they are an another Aussie engineering success.
Sales to the US military have been previously turned down.
Maybe the million AUD per unit pricetag is too expensive for the US military.
18th September, 2011 @ 9:47 p.m. (California Time)
Re; William H Lanteigne
If you can not recognize a joke when you see one, at least learn the difference between \"annoy\" and \"run over\".
Magnesium should never be used on military vehicles because of the way it burns.
Your entire second paragraph shows massive contempt for soldiers. First protecting them until they are in position to do their job is more cost effective than throwing them away for no purpose. Delivering the soldier to the battlefield in a rested state saves lives, including those of noncombatants. Given you contempt for soldiers you are obviously unqualified to offer opinion on force usage. The American military has gone to great lengths to determine optimal force levels for minimum causalities. It is the cost effective as well as moral choice.
If you have time for a clean sheet design doing away with the separate frame is desirable but people are in harms way TODAY. These are mine, and ambush protected trucks, they are intended to do everything that the truck that they are replacing does and protect the cargo at the same time.
Windows are immune to EMP. Video systems are not.
\"You could even design it to retract a flat tire and change it inside the vehicle without exposing anyone to harm.\" If you are willing to massively increase the vehicles cost, massively reduce reliability, massively increase fuel consumption, and reduce the level of protection.
This is a case of form following function. Even assuming that the Russian junk offers the same capabilities subsidizing Russian military development is bad policy.
Speaking of German equipment. In WWII the Germans tough us the cost of doing product development on the battlefield. France debugged captured Panzerkampfwagen V \"Panther\" tanks and got much better service out of them than the Germans did. Reliability is more important than fuel economy.
The military usually can only buy in limited quantities. That is congress, not the military\'s choice. The supplier decides weather how to set up the assembly line.
\"This guzzling piece of junk looks like something from WWI...we don\'t need a snow plow in the desert.\" Further proof of your obvious contempt for the people keeping the savages away from the American doorstep.
Re; Simon Gray
The Bushmaster also looks like a fine piece of equipment, but I would need better articles on both to reach an opinion.
19th September, 2011 @ 12:38 a.m. (California Time)
In the beginning there was the UNIMOG-- still in production. Why settle for less?
19th September, 2011 @ 4:27 p.m. (California Time)
Re; Walt Stawicki
I didn\'t see anything about them coming from the factory mine, and ambush protected.
20th September, 2011 @ 9 a.m. (California Time)
Did anyone notice in the wikkipeadia article into,that Oshkosh does in fact have a contract with the Aussie Bushmaster company......
24th October, 2011 @ 9:03 p.m. (California Time)