Jeep J8 Light Patrol Vehicle being marketed by Jeep Government & Military sales, a subsidiary of the Jankel Group.

Japanese Toyota Jankel Al-Thalab (Fox) LRPV.

And then there's the truly weird concepts...

hurr

durr

this one is known as PBM-97, but it is actually pretty old one

don't even ask me

Toros ("hummock") is a pretty new concept.

Typhoon-K or К4386 is the newest concept by Kamaz, somewhat similar to Tigr, but seemingly quite heavier.

and the Tigr itself, which is already mass-produced, but not in big quantities

This is some other BPM-97 mod with HMG and 6x6, and there's also a version with 30mm cannon.

Practically speaking it was a new concept in 90-00s, I think, to just take a truck chassis and wield an armoured hull on top of it. Wikipedia says there are about 100 total and they are primarily used with border guard.

I don't know, really, these are a bit heavy for jeep, you can easily say they are closer to armoured cars. I should've posted it in other thread, I afraid.

More of the Tigers. There's about less then 1000 of these produced before discontinuation.

And this is a very much of an utility jeep. With a huge ramp on the top to be able to reach 1 or even 2 stores up. Never actually saw that in combat.

Though I'd say, with modern density of fire, you don't want to meet your enemy with something unarmoured, unless he is a poorly-trained moderate rebel.

2014 prototype for Ministry of Internal Affairs - "Ansyr" (apparently named after some obscure ancient trading weight unit). Amphibious vehicle.

What's wrong with using bikes?

4 bike per 4 people results in same fuel used as 1 jeep per 4 people. For example a commercial jeep is 20mpg whereas a dirt bike is 80mpg.

And it allows far more flexibility.

The militarized UTVs seems a bit more in character with the original Jeep concept than the current Wrangler.

>With the JLTV costing the expensive side of $400K per unit, it makes sense to have a cheap utility vehicle for rear echelon duties, so would a militarised Jeep Wrangler fit the bill?
Crew cab truck.

It can do off road, it can do on road. It's faster and more fuel efficient compared to a jeep. And actual tooling and spare parts exist in abundance.

It can carry five crew in the cab and additional six in the back. In lieu of six extra crewmembers, it can carry outsize loads in the back, such as wounded or heavier weapons, or supplies for the five crew.

>>21522
4 times the MX, no weather protection, no cargo capacity. And you can't put a TOW launcher/AA gun on it, or put a shelter on the back so it can be used as a ambulance/command vehicle/radio truck/etc.

>>21526

So CUCV or MILCOT, something already done by the US and Canada.

The issue is what do you consider rear-echelon duties? CUCVs were actually deployed at one point and it was...less than ideal.

The US Army's biggest critique of the CUCVs was their lack of capability and robustness off road. Light trucks are not reliable off-road vehicles, even more so these days (I'd take an old GM square body off-roading before I took a brand new truck from *any* of the current light trucks.

At one point in the early 2000s Ford and Chrysler offered up prototypes based on an F-350 and a Ram 2500. This was under the COMBATT program that was upgrading the Humvee (A3 and A4 versions that never made it past testing due to funding cuts).

The reason to look at Jeeps is that you'd be starting with a vehicle that fixes the issue CUCVs faced - a robust and capable off-road chassis.

>>21527
>4 times the MX
Four times simpler as well.

>no weather protection
>no cargo capacity
>can't put a TOW launcher
>AA gun on it
>put a shelter on the back so it can be used as a ambulance/command vehicle/radio truck/etc
All of these are already covered by JLTV.

We're looking for one thing it DOES NOT cover, which is low fuel, high speed, off road personnel transport.

In other words how do you get people from A-Z in terms of within-base transport, between-base transport, and so on. Because using JLTV for this job is going to rack up ridiculous costs pretty fast.

>>21528
>combatt fords
Exactly the program I was thinking of

>The issue is what do you consider rear-echelon duties? CUCVs were actually deployed at one point and it was...less than ideal.
This is an issue of poorly trained inexperienced leaders making bad decisions on how to employ their assets, and military personnel reacting to situations (ie inconveniences/losses) with zero regard for perspective because of ridiculous micromanagement stress from Washington.
CUCV were ordered strictly for on-road logistics work, so it was kind of dumb for Army to complain about their off road or combat performance. Those same companies could have easily made minor modifications for off road work, if they were asked, and the additions could still draw on massive commercial sector for maintenance.

>>21531

>>CUCV were ordered strictly for on-road logistics work, so it was kind of dumb for Army to complain about their off road or combat performance

M1008s were deployed to Iraq during the first gulf war, because the existing jeep fleet was mostly un-deployable. Their performance in Iraq was what lead to the Army's complaints.

M1008s had Dana 60s up front and Corporate 14s in the back with Detroit Lockers. That's a pretty damned decent setup for off-roading, the only thing I would add is a locking front diff if it were my truck. So the automakers *DID* make "minor modifications for off road work". Fairly substantial modifications all around actually, because they were rated as 1 1/4 ton SRW trucks.

Trucks and jeeps are fundamentally different vehicles, trying to replace the capabilities of one with the other is a road filled with compromise.

>>21532
I don't get why the Army was complaining then... Do you know what were they doing with it?

Also if you could plz recommend books/pdfs on the topic, I'm running short of reading material.

>>21533

Well they're heavier and larger vehicles. A lot heavier. An M151 weighed 2,400 lbs. An M1008 weighed 5,900 lbs. You're also looking at an 85 inch wheelbase vs a 131 inch wheelbase. The Mutt also had 9.4 inches of ground clearance vs the 7.4 inches the CUCVs had.

So lighter, with a higher ground clearance and a shorter wheelbase. Those are all things an off-road vehicle should strive for.

If you tried to operate a CUCV on anything but hard surfaces, it would be far more likely to sink to its axles and get stuck. So taking them to a desert was just a bad idea all around. It's wheelbase was also more likely to lead to high-centering the truck.

They're capable but different. Solid axles also perform worse going over-land at speed. They're great for slow speed articulation and durability, but shit for control at speed. Since military vehicles spend less time rock crawling and more time pretending to race the Baja1000, independent suspension is a better choice.

>>21534

Addendum;

So what the Army was trying to do with them was operate them in a desert environment. Sand is a shitty thing to try and drive on. The only way to really do it successfully is to be light and fast. CUCVs are neither.

>>21535
Yeah I can't help but feel that's operator error which can be fixed with superior training/planning.

>>21536

Well your feelings are pointless.

>>21537
I feel that my feelings are extremely important.

OP correctly identifies that it would be really expensive to use JLTV for driving around a base, driving between bases, military police duties and so on.

OP solution is a Jeep,
>for driving around a base
Which is not a bad solution if it got modernized.

Users spot that a Jeep isn't that off road, so they suggest dune buggy prototypes
>for driving around a base.

Users spot that a Jeep has no armor, and recommend full on APCs and MRAPs instead
>for driving around a base.

Someone suggests a massive civilian truck so it can carry 11 people or outsize loads
>for driving around a base.

Another user says even that isn't enough!

Engineering solutions are supposed to be as simple as possible, yet still fulfill the basic requirement of moving from barracks to medical centre, to mess, to MP office. A sporterized golf cart or bike would be the best solution here.

What kind of military base is even built in a swamp or some area requiring off-road ability?

>>21545
The original Jeep is a good example of decent engineering. It's small, it's light, it comes apart real easy, it holds 4-5 people and some stuff. It does that well enough, and nothing more.

Fuck, just bring back some version of the original Jeeps optimised for modern production methods.

>>21545

Did you actually read the same thread that is displayed here? I tried to write up a response at first addressing it but there's so little in it that is actually true/how the discussion actually went that it's hard to maintain a solid point of rebuttal. Like nothing you said happened actually happened that way, and it was all in an attempt to make it look like we all just walked ourselves into a Bradley situation unknowingly and you're somehow smarter than us for pointing it out?

First of all, at no point was the purpose of the discussion to debate the merits of something that can "drive around a base". Also your concept of what a military base actually is seems to be lacking;

>> What kind of military base is even built in a swamp or some area requiring off-road ability?

Many. Many because many are used for training. I've personally had to unfuck a MILCOT that was buried to its rear axles in what was normally a grassy field turned almost-swamp from rain. Fine enough to walk on, too weak to support a 3/4 tonne pickup. It's like you don't know what most bases are actually like to work on/train at.

But this is ultimately all irrelevant, because your entire premise is based on your first point;

>> OP correctly identifies that it would be really expensive to use JLTV for driving around a base, driving between bases, military police duties and so on.

No, OP did not identify that at all. That's not what this thread is about, at all. He uses the term "rear echelon duties" after posting a link who's fourth sentence is literally;

>> The Army is looking for lightweight combat vehicles for infantry brigade combat teams

So no one was talking about vehicles

>> for driving around a base

You decided on your own definition for rear echelon and then ran with it, trying to force the narrative on the rest of the thread.

The rest of your points don't even make any sense once you realize that. You're badly paraphrasing and removing context to make it seem like we're idiots for suggesting stuff that doesn't fit a role that was never present in the discussion. You literally pulled a point out of your ass and tried to make it fit a discussion after the fact.

>>21546
I think a UTV would fit that bill, they've seen some frontline use.

>>21547
>Many. Many because many are used for training.
Training bases aren't what I'm talking about, and you know it. JLTVs can be used on training bases, it's not even in the discussion.

>Fine enough to walk on, too weak to support a 3/4 tonne pickup.
Driving a 2-3t vehicle over a swamp is the exact opposite of what I'm suggesting, you're just proving my point.

>He uses the term "rear echelon duties"
Most rear echelon duties can be carried out by JLTV, we need a vehicle to fill the duties it can't. Claiming you need a second vehicle that ven diagrams 90% of JLTVs duties is exactly the kind of mission creep I'm talking about, stay on problem!

>>21549

So you just decided to not read half my post again or are you actually just ignoring it to fit your narrative still?

You're still talking as though this thread started around your idea, yet it clearly didn't. It's been demonstrated that it hasn't, in a rather understandable fashion I would have thought.

If you'd like to start your own thread on what the US Armed forces should choose to replace the LSSV (Light Service Support Vehicle, a family of Chevrolet trucks adopted in 2001), go right ahead.

This thread was and still is about what can fill the capability gap between a $40,000 5,000lb pickup truck and a $400,000 14,000lb Humvee replacement. It's not mission creep if your mission was never in the profile.

>>21549
>ural motorcycle

A motorcycle as poorly constructed as your arguments.
http://advrider.com/index.php?threads/why-you-should-not-buy-a-ural-motorcycle.794963/

>>21555
198 fucking pages!

  >>21551
No, actually, you're the one talking like the thread started around your idea. OP said cheap utility vehicle, which is what I've posted >>21548
You seem to think he's talking about a TRUCK for some reason.

>>21555
Thanks but I'll ignore the advice of forum poster called "Pitcher" who lives in Poland and has an opinion on why Urak bikes are the most unreliable in America.

Ural bikes are some of the most common military bikes in the world, their use of a drive shaft instead of chain transfers large amounts of power much more reliably, and they have a proven offroad performance record.

Thanks for wanting to discuss vehicles instead of what the thread is about, that troll guy is starting to bore me.

>>21562
It's what happens when someone says something dumb on the internet and doesn't retract their statement after being proven wrong. Ural is actually one of the most capable bikes out there, and at the top if the field is limited to military bikes.

>>21564
>Thanks but I'll ignore the advice of forum poster called "Pitcher" who lives in Poland and has an opinion on why Urak bikes are the most unreliable in America.

Which somehow makes all his citations of other people having problems wrong? Did you just open the page, see "Location: Polska", cry out "Russophobia!" and close it?

>Ural bikes are some of the most common military bikes in the world

Ural produces around 1200 bikes per year, most of them being sold to either hipsters in the US (most popular sales states: New England, California and Texas) or wheraboos/tankies who want a (National) Socialist motorcycle. And somehow I don't think we'd be having this conversation if we were talking about the Chang Jiang 750, the PLA rebadging of the Ural/R71.

Most military forces use Kawasaki or Honda offroads, or whatever their local industry produces. (or quads)

You know what may actually fit the bill?

http://supacat.com/products/atmp/

robust 6x6 platform, can move fast enough on base, and good enough off road and in swampy terrain. Could be customisable for rear echelon work. Tarp covers and a ball/ring mounted m249 would fix most concerns, hell it can even carry light equipment/stores and there would be no reason you couldnt design some fold up lightweight seats for extra personnel movement.

>>21565
Thanks but I'll trust video evidence over claims of anonymous people on the internet.

  >>21568
Pinzgauer is a bit bigger and same cost.

  RAM Mk3

  BAE LAV

  Northrop Grumman Hellhound

>>21574
>'Did you just open the page, see "Location: Polska", cry out "Russophobia!" and close it?'
>'yes'

  >>21578
that stow able weapons platform seems a bit awkward. Would be unpleasant if someone accidentally hit the switch with a squad crammed in the back. Still, it is interesting to see the effort they go through to make this fit as easily into an aircraft as possible, not a whole lot of vehicle will fit inside the CH-47. (although they have carried sling loaded humvees before) Not quite as tiny as the Boeing Phantom Badger tactical golfcart that will fit inside a V-22, barely.

>>21580
I think outfitting the crew with 7.62 neato LMG and just punching some roof hatches would make way more sense.

>Boeing Phantom Badger tactical golfcart that will fit inside a V-22, barely.
>lets build 200 new transport aircraft!
>oh no we made them too small!
>lets build 5000 super small vehicles just on the off-chance that they have to be transported by our small aircraft!
Never understood this line of thinking, it puts the people who have to ride those vehicles into danger and it's probably more expensive in the long run. Why don't they just build 200 of bigger aircraft to fit the vehicles currently in use, then they don't need brand new tiny vehicles and can save money by using the old vehicles.

It seems like a backwards way of thinking (the vehicle being there to serve the transport aircraft instead of the other way around).