
The Humvee’s replacement: Oshkosh’s L-ATV - Killah911
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/meet-the-humvees-replacement-oshkoshs-l-atv/
======
chrisBob
I don't see how this can be a direct replacement. This is a much better
vehicle for the HMMWV's combat role, but most of the time you actually use a
HMMWV as a pickup truck with 8 soldiers sitting in the back driving around
post. Does this mean that units will also get F-150s for driving around in the
US?

~~~
mcguire
" _This is a much better vehicle for the HMMWV 's combat role..._"

I'm not so sure about that. Exactly how is this thing "light"? I've heard too
many horror stories about HMMWVs getting trapped in tight quarters in towns
and the excitement of reversing a convoy under fire. If you need a tank, you
need a _tank_ ; if you don't need a tank, you don't want a tank.

~~~
SEJeff
In today's wars, you almost certainly don't ever want a tank. If you want
armor, you want a Stryker. I saw several soldiers lose their lives in M1
Abrams tank, and not a single in a Stryker during combat. Due to the extremely
large mufflers that run the length of both sides, the Strykers are so quiet
and they are fast enough that by the time they are upon you, you don't know
it. In Mosul, our unit was known as the Ghost Riders by the locals due to them
never knowing we were there until we were right up on them. The only soldiers
we lost in a Stryker while I was in country (03-04) was one that flipped off a
bridge and went face down in river mud. They were trapped inside :(

On the other hand, the Abrams tanks suffered many casualties as it is very
loud and slow moving. Insurgents have time to emplace IEDs or (worse!) EFPs
which with enough 120mm artillery shells, will quite trivially take out a tank
at close range. The slow moving heavy armor of the cold war doesn't work in
today's asymetric warfare. Here is a slightly photoshopped picture of a
Stryker I took at the Palace in Mosul:
[http://www.digitalprognosis.com/album/images/iraqpics/the-
st...](http://www.digitalprognosis.com/album/images/iraqpics/the-stryker.jpg)
Note the bird cage armor which stops RPGs cold.

Source: I was US Army and am a vet of OIF II (UAV Platoon D Troop 1-14 Cavalry
4th Brigade 2nd Infantry Division) in country around 2003-2004 (during the
Fallujah offensive)

------
protomyth
"The L-ATV can be transported by heavy-lift helicopter or by the Marine Corps'
landing craft, but it's a much bigger payload than the Hummer, with a curb
weight nearly three times that of the older vehicle: about 14,000 pounds,
compared to the Humvee's 5,900 pounds."

and

"But the L-ATV also has better fuel efficiency than the Humvee, and its
suspension system allows for 70 percent faster off-road speeds."

What the heck?!? It weighs almost 3x as much but gets better gas mileage?

Glad they are buying something that deals well with IEDs.

~~~
j_syk
I believe it's a hybrid. My company makes fuel tanks for the current M-ATV
from Oshkosh. Working on bids to make the tanks for this one too.

~~~
masklinn
There's a diesel-electric transmission option[0], but I'm not sure there's
much capacity for battery-only operation so calling it a hybrid is a stretch.
It allows the ATV to double as a hefty generator (120kW AC) for field ops
which is pretty cool.

[0]
[http://oshkoshdefense.com/components/propulse/](http://oshkoshdefense.com/components/propulse/)

~~~
j_syk
The wiki directly states that the "hybrid" engine accounts for a 35% increase
in efficiency.

Does it need to be able to run in all electric to be considered a hybrid?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_L-
ATV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_L-ATV)

~~~
masklinn
> Does it need to be able to run in all electric to be considered a hybrid?

Well I'd say so, using multiple power sources is what makes a hybrid vehicle
hybrid. If it must always use the ICE, it just has an electric transmission
rather than a mechanical one.

~~~
msandford
> If it must always use the ICE, it just has an electric transmission rather
> than a mechanical one.

I would respectfully disagree. When an engine is asked for WOT most of the
time they throw fuel economy to the wind and give it max power bar none. You
might spend 50% more fuel for 10% more power versus 90% throttle.

If you have a 3kWh battery bank then you can eliminate this really wasteful
special case and use the batteries as very, very short term power source to
get the vehicle up to speed quickly. 3kWh discharged in 3 minutes is 60kW
which is an extra 50-75HP depending on your driveline efficiency. And then
when you're not flooring it you can run the engine a bit harder and quickly
recharge the battery bank for the next surge.

Just because you're not running off of batteries for an hour doesn't make it
not a hybrid. If you use the batteries for even just 10-15 seconds in
particularly fuel-wasteful engine conditions to eliminate them, that totally
qualifies as hybrid.

~~~
masklinn
> Just because you're not running off of batteries for an hour doesn't make it
> not a hybrid. If you use the batteries for even just 10-15 seconds in
> particularly fuel-wasteful engine conditions to eliminate them, that totally
> qualifies as hybrid.

That means any KERS or regenerative braking[0] qualifies the machine it's a
component of as a hybrid, it completely devaluates the word and makes it
entirely meaningless.

[0] unless it stores back in the same place?

~~~
msandford
If you have regenerative braking most of the time that's electric, so you've
got a motor/generator and some kind of energy storage. To me hybrid means that
you have a _gas /electric hybrid drivetrain_ not that it runs off of batteries
for an amount of time that you feel is long enough.

Good regenerative brakes probably have to be at least 50-100HP otherwise they
don't offer very much braking effect. And that would mean that they can offer
a substantial boost during acceleration too. And that can substantially alter
the fuel economy of a vehicle.

Since you don't like my definition of hybrid, and you think it devalues the
word (despite being completely in line with the Wikipedia definition) why
don't you at least offer your definition. This isn't a conversation at the
moment, just you shitting on things that you don't like and complaining.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle)

~~~
masklinn
> If you have regenerative braking most of the time that's electric

That's just a confirmation of my footnote not an answer to my question. Is an
F1 with KERS or a truck with hydraulic regenerative braking a hybrid?

> not that it runs off of batteries for an amount of time that you feel is
> long enough.

That I agree with actually.

> Since you don't like my definition of hybrid, and you think it devalues the
> word (despite being completely in line with the Wikipedia definition) why
> don't you at least offer your definition.

That it can use its power sources independently.

~~~
msandford
> That it can use its power sources independently.

I would suspect that all hybrids can use their power sources independently, to
some degree. But is that degree useful.

What you're calling a "hybrid" is really more of a "dual fuel" vehicle, not a
hybrid. Because in your mind, if it can't run completely 100% off of EITHER
power source at any one time, it's not a hybrid. But that's not how most of
the world defines hybrid.

------
burger_moon
I just drove up through WI a couple days ago and saw trailer after trailer of
Oshkosh vehicles being shipped out. I saw a new one never seen before, not
this L-ATV. It looked like something out of Mad Max. It looked like it had a
single seat, cockpit up high, very narrow with big wheels. Can't find it on
their products listing or wiki though.I saw quite a few of them too.

Is there a list of new Army vehicles being put into service I can find?

~~~
anaptdemise
> not this L-ATV. It looked like something out of Mad Max. It looked like it
> had a single seat, cockpit up high, very narrow with big wheels.

Probably a Husky 2G. They are tandem two seaters used for mine/IED detection
and disposal.

~~~
burger_moon
Yep that looks like it. Thanks!

Looks like they're built by a company in SC so it's weird they were heading
out of Oshkosh.

~~~
anaptdemise
Defense contractors aren't the most efficient manufacturers. Wouldn't surprise
me if they shipped the vehicle from SC to Oshkosh to have the tires installed.
But it was probably some of the mine detection equipment. They usually ship
parts or vehicles all over in the process of manufacturing. For example, a
microprocessor component might go through about 20 different organizations
after it is originally purchased, getting modifications from each, before
being installed in the final project. Makes source determination near
impossible when there is a defect.

EDIT: The Pearson Engineering PEROCC is pretty cool too. Adds a third seat for
a gunner.

~~~
burger_moon
That is interesting. When I was a machinist and worked on sub components the
material had to be able to be traced back to the mine that it came from. You
would think something like a microprocessor would have the same level of
checks.

~~~
anaptdemise
> You would think something like a microprocessor would have the same level of
> checks.

Yeah, the chips themselves are easy, but some chips get programmed along the
food chain at different steps and if there is an issue everyone assumes it
isn't because of their piece.

------
MindTwister

      Army Program Executive Office Combat Support & Combat Service Support Chief
    

...what a title

------
hiccup
More details at wikipedia - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_L-
ATV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_L-ATV)

~~~
masklinn
And on the manufacturer's website:
[http://oshkoshdefense.com/vehicles/l-atv/](http://oshkoshdefense.com/vehicles/l-atv/)

------
DannoHung
Lol, they'll end up buying this thing just in time for the next major
operation to be in a flat urban environment with narrow passes.

~~~
rtkwe
The Humvee isn't exactly a thin vehicle either. They're the same width judging
by the pictures below, which makes sense because they were designed to fit on
the same aircraft.

[http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/1108/41601cd795da32c9c...](http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/1108/41601cd795da32c9c1cb.jpeg)

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/JL...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/JLTV_Gallery_2.jpg/800px-
JLTV_Gallery_2.jpg)

------
Guthur
Can any one point to the troop carrying capacity of these, all I can find is
tonnage.

Seems more like a wheeled fighting vehicle than a multi purpose utility
vehicle.

~~~
ohitsdom
Yesterday's HN article on the topic said two versions, seating 2 and 4
occupants.

------
jmcguckin
$396K each

~~~
hiccup
That's for the base model. They add $1M in gear to each of these.

~~~
jdhawk
oh, you wanted seats and a steering wheel? What about the underbody
coating....

~~~
joshrotenberg
Don't leave out the gold package.

