# Replacing the HMMWVE - The Contenders



## SierraM37 (Nov 2, 2008)

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120604/carnews/120609930

Expect a plethora of surplus Humvee's to hit the market in 2015. Next gen light tactical vehicle in phase II and whittled down to a few contenders. Which one would you choose?


----------



## tc556guy (Apr 28, 2011)

I don't expect to see surplus humvees on the open market. They'll run them into the ground, push them down to the Guard and LEOs , pass them off to third world nations, etc.


----------



## torquemada (May 6, 2012)

Oshkosh will win the bid they make a huge amount of military equipment.


----------



## echo1432 (May 16, 2012)

torquemada said:


> Oshkosh will win the bid they make a huge amount of military equipment.


Forget buying surplus hmmwv's. MATVs can't take a IED hit but they are very capable wheelers.


----------



## 1969cj-5 (Sep 14, 2011)

HUMVEES will not make it to civillian hands, they are not built to safety standards for the highways. They will be sold off to third world countries or scrapped. 

I think the Oshkosh LAT-V will get the contract, they are already being used by contractors in the AOR. I saw a storage lot with dozens of them still in shrink wrap on my last deployment.


----------



## Sam (Jan 7, 2009)

The HMMWV is a POS anyway. 
From a first line user standpoint, the seating is too low, hard to get in and out of, high maintenance, parts availability is poor even for the military, physical capacity is low for the footprint.

Like anything built to do many jobs, it does none of them well.
We lost a lot of carrying capacity and mobility when we went from the 151 to the Hummer. Theoretically it had better mobility but in reality it wasn't needed. Used to be able to load 5 151's and M101 trailers in a C130 in the space we need for 3 Hummers. That translates into a lot of lost carrying capacity. All the 151 needed was a small diesel engine.

BTW, armored vehicles are not needed for the mobility role. Legwork is.
We are so roadbound it's ridiculous.


----------



## Ration-AL (Apr 18, 2012)

torquemada said:


> Oshkosh will win the bid they make a huge amount of military equipment.


my money is on BAE or lockheed, but i am bias....lol


----------



## Jack Aubrey (May 24, 2009)

I think it's appropriate they unveiled the BRVO in Detroit. It would just what a soccer mom in Detroit would need to stay safe! Ha,ha! JA


----------



## piglett (Dec 10, 2010)

Sam said:


> The HMMWV is a POS anyway.
> From a first line user standpoint, the seating is too low, hard to get in and out of, high maintenance, parts availability is poor even for the military, physical capacity is low for the footprint.
> 
> Like anything built to do many jobs, it does none of them well.
> .


 i used to transport HMMWV's from base to base.
many times i ended up driving them on my own trailer & then back off again when it was time to unload. i'm 5'10" & can tell you that there is just no room in those dam things. my tiny little toyota pickup has more room for the driver that those dam things do in them. so unless they are only going to allow little girls that are 5' tall to drive them they need to allow for more room for the people who have to operate them.


----------



## 101airborne (Jan 29, 2010)

tc556guy said:


> I don't expect to see surplus humvees on the open market. They'll run them into the ground, push them down to the Guard and LEOs , pass them off to third world nations, etc.


Google military surplus vehicles and you'll find them. A friend of mine in Houston deals in them. However they have gotten crazy expensive. My friend used to be able to get............

5 tons for $2,000
duece and a halfs for $1,500
the blazers for $600
Hummers for $3,000

Now they are double or triple the cost.


----------



## rplanck (Aug 3, 2012)

I buy and sell Military Vehicals, it's true there not as cheap as they use to be. And lately with certain tv shows out there people are looking toward military surplus Vehicals . I have mixed feelings about this, there not cheap to maintain , and I wouldn't want to bug out in a veh that's 30-40years old. You never know when that part that's 40 years old isn't going to break, it happens a lot . Fuel is another problem, there not fuel efficient , I have many muti fuel deuces that's another set of problems. The DOD doesn't sell HUmmves, there are a few out there @$30000, most are destroyed or sent to other countries.


----------



## ranran4 (Aug 9, 2012)

rplanck said:


> I buy and sell Military Vehicals, it's true there not as cheap as they use to be. And lately with certain tv shows out there people are looking toward military surplus Vehicals . I have mixed feelings about this, there not cheap to maintain , and I wouldn't want to bug out in a veh that's 30-40years old. You never know when that part that's 40 years old isn't going to break, it happens a lot . Fuel is another problem, there not fuel efficient , I have many muti fuel deuces that's another set of problems. The DOD doesn't sell HUmmves, there are a few out there @$30000, most are destroyed or sent to other countries.


Describe the multi fuel problems? I had just added this on the wish list to my post about the rail truck.


----------

