# Mud Recce Vehicle Concept?



## Matt_Fisher (14 Sep 2005)

I was down at the Modern Day Marine Expo aboard MCB Quantico yesterday.

One of the interesting things that I saw was a concept demonstrator done by the Office of Naval Research and Georgia Tech as a replacement for an armoured HMMWV:
http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/ultra-ap.htm
http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/ultra.htm
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=744

I wasn't overly impressed by the baseline chasis.  The thing is built on a Ford F-350 chasis and drivetrain.  I can't understand why it wasn't done on a HMMWV chasis and drivetrain...absolutely no logistical commonality as nobody uses the F-350.  The other downside to the vehicle is that it has alot of very advanced and race oriented vehicle 'drive by wire' type systems incorporated.  I can only imagine the difficulty of repairing such specialized systems in the field and especially after combat damage, ie. mine/IED strike.

The troop compartment was very interesting though.  Essentially you've got a octagonal looking 'pod' in which sits a driver (facing forward), 2 passengers/scouts, facing outboard on either side and a commander/gunner facing rearwards.  The 4 crew members are enclosed in an aluminum/composite pod that provides for protection against 20mm, AT mine and IED blasts.  

I think this might be have merit if the concept was transfered onto either a RG-31/Mamba/Nyala chasis.  This family of vehicle's chasis was designed purposely to be resistant to mine/IED strikes, and just as importantly, rapidly repairable in the field.  Incorporating the 'pod' design would allow for an excellent crew platform.  Also put on a stabilized Remote Weapons Station with FLIR capability and you've got one heck of a mud recce vehicle.


----------



## DG-41 (14 Sep 2005)

> I can't understand why it wasn't done on a HMMWV chasis and drivetrain...absolutely no logistical commonality as nobody uses the F-350.



Nobody *military* maybe, but you can go down the street to the local Ford dealer and get F350 parts - and they are cheap.

Basing military vehicles off common civilian pattern equipment (when it makes good engineering sense to do so) drops the price of replacement parts by orders of magnitude and increases availibility by similar amounts. Not everything military has to be (or should be) a bespoke part.

DG


----------



## Matt_Fisher (14 Sep 2005)

COTS mentality works well for vehicles that are used domestically, however when you're overseas...trying to find a 'local Ford dealership' in Kabul or Kandahar is somewhat more problematic.  The fact that only this one vehicle uses a specific type of fuel pump, or transfer case, or brake system, etc. make the supply chain more problematic.

Additionally, the Ford F-350 was certainly not designed for ease of repair or maintenance in a 'forward operating base' type environment.


----------



## DG-41 (14 Sep 2005)

Trying to find *any* dealership in Khandahar is likely to be problematic. But when the supply chain back home needs to source replacement parts, it is considerably cheaper and faster to find those parts if they are in general civillian circulation - especially if the vehicle in question was not originally purchased with operational-level scales of spare parts.



> Additionally, the Ford F-350 was certainly not designed for ease of repair or maintenance in a 'forward operating base' type environment.



*snort*

Now stop that... you just made me blow coffee out my nose and all over my keyboard.

I turned wrenches on military equipment for years, and I defy you to convince me that anything on our roster had been designed for "ease of repair or maintainence"

OK, so the power packs on Leo, AVGP etc had quick-release (and occasionaly dry-break quck-release) fittings on their fluid lines, but those can be easily installed on anything - my race car is covered with them.

Ever replaced a traction bar on a fully loaded M113? They broke all the time, and unless you got lucky and you could fish the broken stub out from beneath the floorboards, most of the time that meant completely unloading the track so that you could pop open the floor and get the broken bar out.

Ever change the power pack on an AVGP? It was Christmas time, because you got to keep all the wrenches, sockets, screwdrivers, and other random tools that fell into the engine compartment and slid under the motor, were they were completely inaccessable until the motor came out.

The 5/4 ton truck, which was basically a civvie pattern 1974 Chevy truck with big axles, was no easier or worse to work on than any other vehicle.

Basing kit on civvie stuff, especially super-common civvie stuff, makes tons of sense. It's way cheaper, it is usually more reliable, and it is easier to knit parts in extrmis.

Would you rather have the old 5/4 ton, the CUCV (which was the 5/4 with a diesel) or the current LSVW?

DG


----------



## Matt_Fisher (14 Sep 2005)

Whether it be repairing a blown transfer case on a LAV, or replacing a locked differential on a F-350, the ease of maintenance repairs if often determined by the 'conveniences' that the repair team has.  Trying to undo a drive shaft from a U-joint and a differential whilst in minus 25 degree weather in Norway, or changing out a broken starter while under a scorching 120 degree (F) sun in Iraq (both of which I have done) is certainly less pleasant than working on a F-350 in a climate controlled mechanic shop, with full access to Snap-On's latest tool lineup and having the vehicle plugged into a diagnostic computer to tell you what is perceived to be wrong.

I'd rather have a HMMWV as the baseline chasis, which has parts commonality with a great number of other HMMWVs that are deployed in any theatre.  

Or, barring HMMWV, if you're looking to build a survivable, easily repaired recce. vehicle, do it on something that is designed to be repaired rapidly in the field, the South African Mamba/Nyala/RG series, which incidentally, are based on the drivetrain and powerplant of the Mercedes Unimog...a vehicle that's far more widely used in the developing world than a 2005 Ford F-350.  The Mamba and other such vehicles were designed so that repairs to the drivetrain could be carried out in situ rapidly.  There have been documented cases where South African Casspirs have experienced mineblasts which blew off a complete wheel assembly and severely mangled the axle and differential, but within 2 or 3 hours are back in service after being repaired.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2005)

The HMMVW is designed around a lot of the GM parts bin for the same reasons mentioned above ( one reason GM has been able to take back the "Hummer" brand, so to speak). The HMMVW chassis is quite wide, so an "octagon" crew pod in the centre would fit nicely and make a lot of sense, but since the HMMVW is based on 1980s technology, perhaps it is time to look at a fresh design.

One of the best cars I ever owned was the SAAB-99 "Turbo". SAAB is an aviation company from Sweden, and their engineers turned out very unusual cars and trucks for years between aircraft contracts. The cars were designed from "first principles", and reflectred an engineering for engineering's sake mentality which was only matched by the French firm of Citroen. (Sadly Saab's car division is now owned by GM, and Citroen was absorbed by the PSA group. Their engineers now have to make do with engines and parts from the parent's corporate parts bins). Almost everything was easily accessible by design. Once you rolled the hood up and forward, the entire electronics package was revealed on the top of the left front fender, for example. The car was front wheel drive, which was achieved by the simple expedient of taking a longitudinal engine and transmission mount and placing it in the engine bay backwards; the engine was against the firewall and the tranny was out front. No unequal drive shafts (with their strange driving characteristics), yet the engine compartment and indeed the front end wasn't any longer than a front wheel drive car with the engine and transmission mounted traversely (which is the modern practice). There was lots of room around the engine to work because of this.

The point of this digression is it is indeed possible to have vehicles designed for ease of use and maintainence, but this has to be a primary requirment from the beginning of the design stage. Saabs were great cars, but they were also expensive and difficult to find parts for. "New" Saabs don't have charming touches like roller mounted hoods, since they are really cleaverly disguized Opals from GM's German division, but it is far easier to get parts and find trained mechanics to fix them. This is the sort of trade off that will have to be examined when thinking about future vehicles.


----------

