emr said:
I believe Bob mentions an EMP protection in the deisign...& Joaquin, I doubt that most 88Mikes could cob anything together anyway...as a bunch of 18 year olds, they would be far and inbetween,And the Kids in Vietnam did not either...Some of u guys make the pic of some Army drivers swaping parts on the road?? rare to say the very very least., We look at this with 20 to 30 years experience with large trucks, and say hey those kids could do this, NOOO they can't, i know an awful lot of them and they can't ,I do not think Your truck is a fair evaluation of the finished product by any stretch either.I am amazed how simple most suggest things should be then drool over that over enginered piece of machinery the Marines use...My Lord that thing is getting absolutly NOOO field expedient work in the field under fire my friend, and it is 2008 not 1968, SORRY we race thru country's and have service centers thruout, today and this is a fact,>> U HOOKUP and RUN or BURN it where it stands, THAT IS REALITY> As an avid 4byer I will say a straight axle and simplicity is the true measure, And everyone with all those opinions like the oxy sensor deadlining the truck in transit as usual were and are not true, either,Whew,I for one will say it again, it is a good truck for the buck.alot of thought is easily seen thru out the design.It has an awesome drivetrain, and a ride someone can live with... less fatigue...and drive with very little training. ...Randy
Be careful there.....
Seriously, MTVR and FMTV are 2 programs that are only superficially related...that is, they are both classified as "tactical trucks". That's as far as the mission requirements are common. FMTV could never meet (regardless of S&S' attempts) the MTVR requirements, and likewise MTVR could never meet the FMTV requirements.
Now, that being said, the word "requirements" comes from the RFQ and mission profiles laid out by TARDEC and TACOM, NOT the field commanders meaning of the word "requirements". I am not saying one is better than the other, or blasting one as worse than the other-they are simply apples and oranges.
Failure to understand the defined requirements (in my experience, NEVER handed out to the troopers in the field) is the root cause of mission failure.
Case in point-armoring the FMTV cabs. Sorry to those that disagree with the following, by definition (TACOM's original RFQ specifications and requirements, not mine) tactical trucks are NOT to be armored-that is the reason for the existance of an M2/3 Bradley, LAV-25, Cougar, Grizzly, etc.
Now guys-dont't go yelling "We dont have them and we have to build out own" and similar comments.
It doesn't matter. As a vehicle designer, I have to make a LOT of compromises in the design of a vehicle-wheeled OR tracked (yes I have worked on tracks also...another story for another day). I cannot just change the RFQ requirements laid down by TACOM-I have to meet those specifications and requirements, at the lowest possible cost or the company loses the contract to build and possibly, a greater number of people die due to an inferior design that is cheaper.
FMTV was
NEVER INTENDEDto have any armor attached, of any type-this was added to the trucks long after all the vehicles had been designed. You simply cannot add 5-`10K lbs of various types of ballistic armor to these trucks without the trucks disassembling themselves, breaking parts, having excessive fuel consumption, and all sorts of other fun things. MTVR, being a far later (or "newer" if you will) program, such kits were initially required, designed, and implemented in the initial design of the vehicle
FROM THE OUTSET.
Hopefully I have not angered anyone "on the sharp end" with my comments, but I felt these words were necessary for those left out of the loop to understand why things are the way they are.
As far as Joaquin's comments, I believe he was referring to his application of LMTV that he has, and frankly, for his application, I agree. All those doodads and geegaws are (with the exception of the CTIS) unnecessary and a detriment to those that use such a vehicle in the manner he does. Out in the boonies, watching the tide come in and the surf getting ready to bury your home is not the time for a computer to crap out and lock the vehicle to the location it is sitting in. In this case, yes, manual transmissions, non-electronic engines, springs instead of air bag suspensions, and things of this type are easier to repar by yourself.
Best as always,
Bob