JLTV vs. Humvee – Its Not Even A Fair Fight

After more than three decades of largely reliable service, the era of the “Humvee” or HMMWV is coming to a close. Designed for rugged military service in the 70s and in service since 1984, the “trucks” (at least as we called them in the Corps” have certainly shown their age. While many have been produced in the last 10 years, they suffer from a distinct lack of upgrades and capabilities, which in turn are byproducts of the technology incorporated. Upgrading the HMMWV is difficult and its actually easier to design a whole new vehicle.

Which is what the US Army did.

The new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle is, by almost any standard, a far superior vehicle. But, the question is just how superior is the JLTV? Motor Trend took some time and went on a deep dive into their capabilities.

Perhaps most obvious and important is the upgrade of the engine. The Humvee’s were woefully underpowered by almost any standard for modern mobile battlefields. While capable under the original designed loadout (which there was none), the sub 200 horses under the hood couldn’t keep up with the modern electronics, armor, and weight needed to keep men fighting on unfair grounds.

Secondly, the new JLTV is designed to handle modern symmetric and asymmetric threats by the nature of its design with a V-bottom hull and base built-in armor package. Combined with greater electrical generation, better integration with weapons platforms, and better A/C, I think most Soldiers and Marines will enjoy the new truck.

For the full details and run-down on the future gun trucks, check out Motor Trend here. 

Nathan S

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


  • Uniform223

    It isnt exactly a “gun topic” unless you’re going to mention the possibility of heavy armaments for the new JLTV…



    Yes you read that correctly… a 30mm chain gun. The same one used on the AH-64 Apache.

    Common misconception is that the JLTV is replacing HMMWV. The US Military will still employ HMMWV in a utility purpose (as it was always meant to). The JLTV as I understand it will primary be used “outside the wire”.

    • .45

      Yeah, as far as replacing it goes… well, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for my coworker in the National Guard to tell me all about her first time driving a JLTV, that’s for sure…

      • SGT Fish

        itll take a while unless they get deployed. We got issued MATVs overseas, which is the JLTVs earlier bigger brother. and one hell of a machine

    • Anonymoose

      What, no spade grips?

    • PK

      Hoooooooo boy. Now, that’s not the 30x173mm, but the 30x113mm DEFA chambering is no joke.

      Talk about unfair advantage.

      • Anonymoose

        That’s what they have on Apaches, right? I want one.

        • PK

          I can’t help you out on the chaingun part as I’ve only seen a few on the market as transferable, but building a single shot 30x113mm cannon or rifle is certainly doable.

          Keep your eyes open for a chunk of a GAU-8 barrel, as long as it’s got decent rifling and a couple feet long it’s good enough. Cases and projectiles are available, and it’s a lot less pressure and trouble to load than the 30x173mm.

          • You can keep the chaingun, I just want the helicopter.

          • PK

            Well that sounds good to me! Let’s go buy a AH-64 together, you keep the vehicle and I’ll keep the armament. Ha!

          • No can do, removing standard equipment would lower the resale value.

          • PK
          • Major Tom

            Oh now look, you guys made the anime girl cry. Apologize to her the both of you!

          • Kevin Harron

            Fission cures anime. All hail Curtis LeMay.

          • Stephen Paraski

            Those stubs appear at scrap yards in Warren MI quite frequently.

          • PK

            If that’s the case, you really ought to be buying them and putting them on GunBroker. They’re worth a hundred bucks per section, easily… and that’s in the as-torched condition.

        • El Duderino

          Correct. 30x173mm is the round used on the A-10. It’s like .30 Carbine vs. .300 Win Mag. Same bore, a lot more juice with the 173mm case.

          • PK

            I wouldn’t quite say it’s 30 carbine vs 300wm, but you’re not far off for sure!

            Comparing HEI-T(SD) across the board… 30x173mm is 365g at 1080m/s, 30x113mm is 238g at 810m/s.

      • n0truscotsman

        The idea has been flirted with in the 1990s iirc.

        See the ASP30. Im not sure what happened to it. I’ve heard and read elsewhere that the concussion produced made it pretty impractical to mount on the HMMWV, although with a bigger vehicle with ballistic glass, it might be more suitable.

        • PK

          I’ve seen photos from various nations, where anything from 15mm to 37mm chainguns, HMGs, manual action, and other types of machineguns and cannons have been tried on light vehicles, but as you point out it’s quite the trick to have a light vehicle like this withstand the abuse of repeatedly firing the 30x113mm. It’s in a whole different category from the M2’s .50BMG and the 40x52mm from the Mk19, and the peak recoil outdoes even the GECAL and M134.

          If that isn’t just a hopeful dream/mockup, it’s a serious bit of hardware and will dramatically change the ability of this vehicle.

    • Major Tom

      The 30mm needs anti-aircraft mountings.

    • Sledgecrowbar

      Those Countach fender wells, though. I’m not the only one who sees that, right?

      • Just Say’n

        Yeah, and you’re the only one with a Countach poster in your bedroom still (in your Mom’s basement?). 😉

    • sdf

      The correct name of this “chain gun” isnt “autocannon”?

      • Likvid

        “Chain gun” is specific type of autocannon (or machine gun as there is also 7,62mm version), it’s called like that because bolt assembly is connected to chain, which is driven by electric motor.

        • Stephen Paraski

          And also spent cartridge stays linked?

    • Mr Silly

      Thanks for clarification. I would have assumed the JLTV using the M2 and or the M134.

      Still better than the REO M35’s we used when we were really, REALLY broke, with a M2 triple guns in anti-terror role. Needed a lot of “hill billy arm our”, but was fairly usable. Great truck- bullet and idiot proof.

  • Get over it fanbois

    And still some Luddites want to keep the Humvee. The Humvee is early 80’s tech with early 2000’s crap on it. The L-ATV is an early 2010s vehicle with late 2010 tech, with what ever the guys in the shop can get away with putting in or on it.

    • yeah but how much does it weigh? how much does the JLTV weigh!!!! the USMC, 82nd and others need a vehicle that isn’t the size of a barn (to fit on ships) and is light enough to airlifted…..can you even airdrop a JLTV? how much cube space does this beast take up in an era where everything is larger????

      answer that question in a positive light and then i’m a believer.

      • Uniform223

        Hey look who made his way over here. Are you going to bring up the F-35? Because this a gun site I think this appropriate… F-35B GAU-22A


        To answer your questions…

        “how much does it weigh?”

        >14000lbs. Of course this is subject to mission profile as it has scalable armor kits.

        “Is it light enough to airlifted”

        > see for yourself…




        “can you even airdrop a JLTV?”

        > that was never a requirement, so no.

        “How much cube space does this beast take up”

        > well it’s larger than a HMMWV but smaller than an MRAP.


        • Klaus Von Schmitto

          You can airdrop anything that will go inside of a C17 which this does. How it lands is a problem entirely for parachute riggers.

          • Giolli Joker

            It may also be a problem for whoever is in the landing area… 😉

          • BillyOblivion

            As noted above, Maxim 11, everything is air-droppable at least once.

        • SPQR9

          “Everything is air-droppable at least once.” — Maxims for Maximally Effective Mercenaries No. 11

          • jamezb

            Howard Tayler is proud of you, sir.

        • Phillip Cooper

          But can it be airlifted in high/hot conditions?

      • SGT Fish

        a big reason they made the JLTV was because the MATV was not light enough to sling load under helos and such. so they just scaled it down into the JLTV. so yes the JLTV is air transportable. that’s most of the reason why it exists.

      • azntactical

        You will be able to drop a JLTV at GVWR from a C-130.

      • LCON

        Worse comes to Worse Solomon there is the MRZR.

      • pieslapper

        Everything can be air dropped… at least once.

    • gunsandrockets

      regardless of what “luddites” want, the JLTV which was supposed to replace HMMWV, has turned out to be so expensive that the HMMWV will in large part remain in use for decades.

  • Joe

    A modern purpose built armored car is a better fighting vehicle than a 30 year old glorified pickup?

    • Major Tom

      Humvee is a covered jeep, not a pickup.

      • QuadGMoto

        Jeep comes from g.p., General Purpose vehicle: a light, inexpensive vehicle for getting around in combat conditions.

        I wonder if such a role even exists in modern warfare anymore. Ragtag armies seem to do pretty good with small Toyota pickups to serve that purpose.

        • .45

          Yes, and they also suffer significant casualties…

          • n0truscotsman

            Certain US forces used Hiluxes extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan for such purposes.

            Even recently in syria.

            Mission dictates equipment.

        • LGonDISQUS

          Love Toyota hiluxes!

          Can we have those spec-ops dune buggy strikers back?

  • Slab Rankle

    Somehow I doubt we’ll be seeing street legal versions of this. It’s the end of an era.

    • John

      Then that’s going to be a major problem in the future, because an army vehicle that can’t conform to minimum road laws is just going to inspire more hatred and more fury in the local populace, which leads to more IEDs being planted, which ultimately defeats any amount of armor.


      • Kyle

        Wut? On the list of reasons a terrorist would plant an IED, the fact the JLTV probably won’t be sold to U.S. civvies as surplus doesn’t seem high on the list. Or even on it. At all.

      • Mike

        If used on the roads in the Uk or Europe size and weight will be Important. think narrow roads, small bridges.
        Oh and how much will this cost? When most of them will just be driven down to the stores or mess. We need a ton of general pick up trucks as well

        • CruisingTroll

          They’ll be keeping the Humvee around for general utility use, and likely go back to “Plan B” as they wear out. What’s Plan B? 3/4 ton diesel gov’t fleet pickups. Many units went to Desert Storm with Chevy Blazers and C/K 2500 pickups. No reason they can’t do the same for general utility use today, especially for garrison duty.

  • Sledgecrowbar

    Motor Trend: that bastion of journalistic integrity and quality.

    So I don’t disagree that the Humvee was without deficiencies, nor that the replacement will specifically address those deficiencies, but electrical power generation is not one of them. Adding a second alternator to an engine has been a trivial process for almost as long as engines have been a thing. Even in the engine bay of the Humvee, it’s not even difficult.

    I’m curious to see what engine is in the JLTV, I’m sure it’s an off-the-shelf Cat unit or the like because the existing MRAP/et al series of vehicles work fine with them and the parts supply and service training already exists. My money says it’s an incrementally heavier-duty version of what’s been in the Humvee since the beginning.

    ETA: it’s not even a Cat diesel, it’s a newer version of the same engine that was in the civilian H1 for emissions standards. By the numbers, the JLTV will not be faster than the Humvee at all. The JLTV weighs 2.3 times what the Humvee does and has a 50% improvement in horsepower, which suggests a 50% improvement in torque, so power to weight is considerably lower. Don’t get me wrong, I think Oshkosh will make a good truck, it’s just not as awesome as the made-for-kids Motor Trend likes to sensationalize.

    • hking

      Its basically an off the shelf engine. Our company is producing all the fans and fan clutches for engine cooling and they are using a industry standard model and mount that a lot of CAT equipment uses.

    • Phillip Cooper

      You really ought to read the article before commenting. They tell you within the first few paragraphs what engine it is.

    • azntactical

      JLTV’s top speed is more than the Humvee. I’ve driven both.

    • neckbone

      Try reading the article. It’s about twice as powerful. The up armored humvee weighs 13,000 pounds and has the 190 HP upgraded engine. The jltv has a detuned 400 HP engine and weighs 14,000 pounds. So it’s quite an upgrade.

    • n0truscotsman

      Duramax. Which is an improvement to the HMMWV power plant, which are infamous in diesel circles.

  • 22winmag

    Just a a new-fangled target for anti-tank grenades and missiles.

  • Well, let’s see here. The Humvee was designed to replace the Willis Jeep that we had been using since WWII… and then people thought it was a fecking APC and expected it to be a light tank and got butthurt that the Jeep Replacement was just a big Jeep.
    Now we want our Humvee Replacement to actually be an APC.
    So of course there’s no contest.

    • Yeah, in unconventional, asymmetric warfare where the primary threat is IEDs and there is no real rear line, you kinda want your trucks to be APCs.

      • Major Tom

        It can be argued even in symmetrical conflict the usefulness of a “jeep” type vehicle is extremely limited at best. Between omnipresent ATGM’s, long range (guided) artillery, ground attack aircraft and helicopters (or even armed scout/utility ones) and autocannons galore such a low amount of protection and armament is woefully inadequate.

        • EC

          To be fair, a JLTV/APC would not fare much better against most of the threats you listed either. If this thing came up against any sort of BMP it would be toast rather quickly, and apart from the questionable 30mm variant would have little to fight back with.

          That’s the same problem with the Stryker upgrades that the military is trying out now. The Stryker is meant to be an APC, not an IFV. It can’t take hits from anything above 14.5mm. Yet we’ve insisted on decreasing its durability with the tradeoff of giving it a 30mm autocannon to engage threats that would obliterate it (and the infantry it is meant to carry) quickly.

          • Tom Currie

            Gotta agree with 90% of that. All except the part about the Stryker having been meant to be an APC. It was originally a PC (without the A)! The basic Stryker hull provided protection equal to NIJ Level III, the Strykers needed additional armor bolted all over the outside to provide protection against .50 BMG.

            If you looked at the original O&O Plan the vehicles were never intended to actually fight — they were meant to transport Soldiers to a location near where they would fight. Even the MGS wasn’t originally meant to be a fighting vehicle, it was supposed to be a support vehicle that would follow a dismounted Infantry unit and be called up to fire one or two rounds to take out an enemy strong point like a machine gun that was stopping the dismounted infantry. It was internal Army politics that caused us to end up the the MGS armed with an obsolete tank gun instead of the lower velocity demolition style gun originally intended.

          • EC

            I guess I would call it an APC because it did have basic resistance to small arms… about in line with the earlier M113 APCs.

            The selling point of the Stryker was strategic mobility. The idea was to get Strykers anywhere in the world in 96 hours via C-130s, rolling off the ramps ready to fight. That was it. They were fancy taxis made so that we could respond to any small-scale fight quickly (this was after the Cold War where near-peer conflicts were seen as less important).

            But over time, the Stryker got heavier because it was found to be inadequate. The bolt-on armour and SRAT made it much heavier and incapable of C-130 transport. Double V hulls for IED resistance added even more weight. And of course this latest 30mm attempt.

            Pretty much the Stryker today is an overweight, overworked vehicle that can’t fulfil its original mission of being a rapid-reaction force but also can’t go toe-to-toe against heavier units. Had it remained the lightly-armoured transport that it started as it might have had a role, but in modern war-fighting it’s simply not an optimal solution.

            Now compare the Stryker to Russian and Chinese solutions that actually work… the BMD/ZBD-03 air-droppable series as well as things like the Sprut-SD. Maybe it’s because we assume we will have air superiority to support our airborne forces, but as it is we can’t even push a Stryker out the back of a plane.

          • BillyOblivion

            Maxim 11. Everything is air-droppable at least once.

          • Buck Timlin

            Whether or not the BMD or it’s Chinese analogue work in practice has yet to be seen. While it is definitely far more capable than a Stryker type vehicle I have my doubts that a vehicle, which is barely able to survive against HMGs, will be very useful.

          • EC

            Sure, the BMD-4 and ZBD-03 are going to be lightly armoured… they are meant to be parachuted out of an aircraft.

            It’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison to take them directly against the Stryker, because the Stryker isn’t certified to be kicked out the back of an airplane… only to gently roll off the ramp of an aircraft at an airstrip. Even then though, these light IFVs can take about as much damage as a Stryker can.

            Regardless, certainly the presence of an air-droppable vehicle adds a ton of value to an airborne infantry force. You either have the option of dropping with only light vehicles that resist almost nothing (as in our case) or you can drop light IFVs that can resist most infantry weapons and also provide heavier fire support or other technology. Our infantry would meet a wall against a mechanised or armoured force, but if our light infantry had at least some AFVs with them then there’s a better chance of success.

            It’s why our military is starting their “Mobile Protected Firepower” project, to essentially copy the Russian and Chinese designs. Currently it’s looking to be somewhere between a BMD IFV sort of thing and a Sprut SD-M1 dedicated tank destroyer. No one really knows if such a project will be successful, but the fact that we have a program of our very own shows that the need for vehicles that can support paratroopers is quite real.

          • Tom Currie

            The basic Stryker hull has far less armor than the M113. The M113 was adequate to stop .50BMG, the Stryker requires addiditional armor plates to stop .50BMG rounds.

            Yes, the original requirement was for the Stryker to be transportable by C-130 and arrive “ready to fight” — that requirement was NEVER actually met. The Stryker has always had to be stripped before being transported and the “ready to fight” arrival is a bad joke. The Stryker can be driven off the aircraft, and the crew can then mount an M2 on it and load some ammo on board, but the vehicle is hardly “ready to fight” in any meaningful sense.

            The Prianha > Bison > Kodiak > LAV25 > Stryker lineage had great potential, but unrealistic expectations and political nonsense throughout several steps of the development resulted in a vehicle that is incapable of fulfilling the O&O plan and which has never been used as envisioned. The result is a marginal vehicle with mismatched doctrine that we are still trying to cobble into something useful.

            My personal opinion is that the M1127 (Reconnaissance Vehicle) is potentially the most useful variant, BUT with very limited usefulness AS a reconn vehicle. The M1127 does have great potential is we would recognize the need to reconstitute Constabulary Squadrons in the US Army.

          • Buck Timlin

            Even the BMP-3 isn’t rated to survive a 30mm hit from the front (at relatively close range albeit), so while the BMP can kill the Stryker from the front the reverse is also true.

          • EC

            A BMD-4 can resist 30mm from the frontal arc @ 200m. The BMP-3 can also resist 30mm from beyond 200m.

            In other words, the Stryker has to weasel up to within 200m to kill a BMD/BMP, while the BMD/BMP can engage the Stryker from a much longer distance (about 4km using either their 30mm autocannon or ATGMs).

            It would be a slaughter. Sort of like how in WWII Russian T-34s needed to get super close to the late-war German tanks to have a chance at penetration.

            So no, realistically a 30mm Stryker would be very undergunned compared to an actual IFV. It would have to rely on missiles or other supporting arms to stand a chance against a real IFV (which makes sense, because it is not an IFV).

          • Major Tom

            Worse, I don’t think the 30mm they’re going to use fires APFSDS/conventional AP ammunition.

          • Tom Currie

            Except, of course, that the Stryker does NOT have a 30mm gun YET.

      • micmac80

        IED is quite specific to Iraq and somewhat Afganistan not an issue in Mali ,Ukraine, Syria,Yemen,, its almost non issue anywhere else in the world..Mine protected vehcles size or smaller than Hummer are plenty to go around .Cost a logistic footprint of these will be trough the roof ,a with Pacific pivot , where does the brass that bought these think they can use these in Asia ?

        • To be fair, IEDs have a way of becoming an issue anywhere that asymmetrical warfare is a reality; there were plenty of tanks laid on their sides on the roads of Vietnam and the streets of eastern Europe by buried artillery shells and barrels of scavenged explosives.

          • micmac80

            You are mixing asymmetrical warfare with occupation , asymmetrical warfare doesnt favor IEDs , long term occupation (Vietnam,Iraq, Afghanistan) does.
            And even so you can’t fight a war if you are broke replacing a simple enough 4×4 with JLTV is just waste of resources. The way US fights is extremely expensive and so far proven innefective ,

      • Mike

        Huh? You want an APC to drive to the FOB exchange or a meeting at the RCT CoC? The HMMWV was design to replace a 1/4 ton light truck, not the M8/M20 armored cars. Use your to tool for what it was designed then you won’t have to whine about it not working.

        • BillyOblivion

          Well, not if you have viag…Oh, different tool.

    • Uniform223

      The HMMWVs role in recent conflicts were a matter of necessity rather than actual designed purpose. The US Military didn’t have anything really meant for convoy security during the early years of OIF. This is why there are pictures of gun trucks.




      That was fine for repelling ambushes with small arms fire. Then nasty things called EIDs started to pop up and the occasional EFP.

      • Tom Currie

        A big part of that problem was that we DID have vehicles to do the job — but someone decided those vehicles were ‘too much’ for the kinder gentler Army image that we wanted to project. So we left the tanks and APCs behind and sent tankers and infantrymen into a combat zone with borrowed guns and borrowed HMMWVs.

        Worse yet, in many instances, the missions were simply rotated among the units with a complete disregard for the training or number of personnel. Thus when a brigade combat team had to assign units to run “presence patrols” the mission would rotate between an Infantry Company, a Tank Company, a Cavalry Troop, and an Artillery Battery with each unit taking its turn, just the same way that the units took their turn in rotation pulling post details back in CONUS.

        • Buck Timlin

          That’s not entirely correct, Abrams and Bradleys made up a significant portion of the initial invasion force but they to were found to be vulnerable to IEDs and mines. Though the crews had a vastly higher chance of survival, losing heavy vehicles like those in high numbers put tremendous strain on the logistics system not to mention those vehicles were very poorly suited to the mission at hand. Whether or not you agree with the mission the Army took in it’s counter insurgency effort is a completely different question.

          • Tom Currie

            Abrams and Bradleys did make up a significant portion of the initial invasion force — but the vast majority were withdrawn at the start of the occupation. All units that were deployed later had to leave all their armor at home – and were never allowed to draw from the small number of armored vehicles that had been retained in country, instead they operated either dismounted or using borrowed HMMWVs. Tank units also had to borrow M4 carbines (some early units even borrowed AK’s due to the shortage of M4’s for them to borrow).

            According to your version this was a deliberate decision by the Army that it was more acceptable to have Soldiers killed by IED rather than risk damaging the more expensive armored vehicles. I’m sure there are quite a few who would agree with your opinion concerning the values of the Army leadership involved, but I never addressed WHY the force structure was totally screwed up, only the fact that it was totally screwed up.

            You are somewhat correct that the M1 and M2 were poorly suited to the occupation mission AS IT WAS PERFORMED — however the HMMWV was even more poorly suited to that mission. As much as I might criticize the Stryker, it would have been a far superior choice than either the basic or the “up armored” HMMWV.

        • Nicks87

          In the Air Force we had up-armored Humvees prior to 2003 but for some reason when we invaded Iraq the Army couldn’t get them? I never could figure that one out.

        • Mr Silly

          We did exactly the same in Aceh 1998-2005. No money, no one was exporting to us, so whatever could maybe stop a bullet was jury-rigged to everything that could move.

    • Lance

      No it largely replaced the M-151 MUTT in service since 1960.

      • LOL… WOW. Talking about Splitting Hairs. The M-151 is a fecking Jeep, isn’t it? Don’t be a prat.

        • It’s a Ford, actually.

          • Nashvone

            If you really wanted to split hairs, Ford made most of the Jeeps during WW2 because Wyllis couldn’t.

          • Tom Currie

            Hell if you want to recall history — the Wyllis “Truck, General Purpose” (aka G.P.) itself was a replacement. It was developed and adopted to replace the military motorcycle used by scouts and messengers.

          • Stephen Paraski

            Willys-Overland was acquired by Kaiser, which in turn was bought by Nash that became American Motors Corp and when sold to Chrysler, which wanted the Jeep Brand, AM General was spun off. First Humvee prototypes were built in Livonia MI, 10 miles from TACOM in Warren MI next to General Motors Warren Complex to take advantage of Auto manufactures in Detroit area sub assemblies. The JLTV is built by Oshkosh Heavy Equipment from a clean sheet design.

          • coyotehunter

            Which replaced the horse.

          • Mr Silly

            You cannot feed a Jeep grass or eat it Jeep when it breaks down :).

          • Russell W.

            And if you want to go further, the Jeep was designed by Bantam. However, Bantam couldn’t produce the numbers needed so Ford was given the design to make. As a consolation prize, Bantam got to make the trailers.

          • Mike

            Nope, a MUTT could be a Kaiser or an AM General also.

          • One I drove was an AMG…

          • Mr Silly

            Ahem Willys.

    • ODgreen34

      wish i could upvote this twice. or 9 times

    • Ark

      Yup. The Humvee was not designed to offer any more protection than the open-top Jeeps, unless you count “not getting rained on”. The platform’s perceived shortcomings were the result of trying to use it for something it wasn’t even remotely designed for, and that was a symptom of throwing ourselves into wars we were unprepared for.

      It’s akin to trying to beat a nail in with a screwdriver, and then complaining that you were given a terrible screwdriver, and you need to design a new screwdriver with a long wooden handle and a blunt end for hitting nails.

      • Mr Silly

        Maybe the brass got sick of soggy hats?

    • Mr Silly

      Perfect. Could not have said it better.

  • Madcap_Magician

    Am I the only one who was mostly jazzed about improved air conditioning?

    • Ranger Rick

      That’s a plus, the downside is keeping it working.

      • Madcap_Magician

        Another quality of life improvement would be a 3.5 mm audio input jack. You know, one that doesn’t require manually rewiring your comms gear with wire clippers and electrical tape. Not that anyone has ever done that for the purposes of playing music in the truck. But, you know, someone might want to do that.

        • Tom Currie

          I always figured that was why they put binding posts on the front of an AM-1780 and the local electronics store had plenty of cables with a 3.5mm plug on one end and tinned ends on the other.

          At least that worked fine when I had an M561 with a camper built on the back, and radios in the back for 2.5 secure nets simultaneously.
          No AN/VRC number for the bastardized rig we put together: one RT-246, one RT-524, one R-442 (all with VINSON secure capability), an AM-1780, two control boxes in the cab, two in back, and one on the roof (where I slept in good weather). It’s nice to be the Ops Sgt when the Commo Chief works for you instead of the Motor Sgt.

          Of course, that was long before SINCGARS and FBCB2.

    • Ark

      I’ll take “first thing to break and never be fixed” for $200, Alex.

  • RSG

    Would look great in matte black and parked in my driveway.

  • Klaus Von Schmitto

    The Italian Stallions strike again.

  • Lance

    Overall many fail to see both downsize of both vehicles…. There to darn BIG! The Jeep was a small utilitary vehicle that was used for recon and other tactical jobs. The current vehicles are so big and heavy they are basically a APC with wheels in many cases to big for recon and many can’t use mountain and forest RDS for accessm. Time to go smaller again.

    And why are we talking about this here? This has nothing to do with firearms.

    • MSG1000

      Good question.

      They do often have guns though and are often the main transports of those who carry small arms. Basically since they’re closely related IMO it makes rhe same sense to talk about them as body armor but that’s me.

    • n0truscotsman

      Thats what the Polaris DAGOR is supposed to do. Or Tacomas and Hiluxes for special operations.

  • David G

    Did NSWC-Crane drop both onto concrete though?

  • Ed

    The Humvee isn’t going away. JLTV is only replacing 25% of the Humvee fleet so they will serve for many years to come.


    I can only upvote you once 😣😣😣😣

    • Gary Kirk

      That’s more than enough brother.. I’m just in it for the S&G..

      Just wish I could’ve over dubbed it with “Free Falling”.. But alas, I’z not be good wit dem compertater thinmajigs..

  • Lee Attiny

    I can’t wait to buy a JLTV so I can put 24″ chrome rims with low profile tires on it and a chrome gas cap.

    • Nashvone

      And chrome rescue shackles for when you get stuck in a mall parking lot?

  • The most important question here is whether Oshkosh is going to release a neutered civilian version so all the overpaid and overcompensating wannabe tough guys can look even more ridiculous on the streets than they do in a Hummer.

  • Tom Currie

    Of course it also means that within 10 years (5 more likely), every unit that ISN’T in a war zone is going to need to be issued about an equal number of NON-tactical vehicles. We saw the start of this when the HMMWV replaced the M151, and suddenly the Army discovered that it also needed a fleet of Chevy blazers and pickups for all those peacetime missions where the Hummer was simply too big, too awkward, and too expensive to operate. The Army gradually learned to tolerate the HMMWV – right up until the time when they had to start hanging armor on them (largely because they were being used by units that were supposed to have armored vehicles, but the Army had deployed them without their vehicles). Hanging armor on the truck wasn’t a very good solution, so they replaced the original HMMWV with the Up Armored HMMWV, which was too heavy, too slow, much too awkward, and much too expensive to maintain and operate.

    So now we’re going to step up another notch, to a truck that is even bigger, even heavier, even more awkward, and even more expensive to maintain and operate. This probably IS the right answer on the battlefield – but OMG watch out when they field these in CONUS.

  • azntactical

    This ain’t your average truck. She’s loud, She’s fast, She’s powerful but yet so soft. I’ve driven a few of them. 🙂

  • Mystick

    So, a vehicle with built-in mission creep. It’s the Bradley all over again. Just make a ubiquitous utility tank already.

  • Southpaw89

    So this means that I’ll be able to buy a Humvee in a crate for $500 soon right?

  • Warren Ellis

    What is most amazing is that this vehicle was actually developed and produced under-budget. I’m actually serious. Makes me wonder if pigs are flying or if hell has frozen over.

  • DanGoodShot

    About time. Think about this, before the humvee was the jeep and before that… a horse. So yeah. It’s about time.

  • LazyReader

    No contest, it’s heavier, more expensive, guzzles more fuel and the government consolidates a single manufacturer for all the parts.

  • Buypass

    7 tons vs. 3 tons and at what $ cost? Another case of an expensive and limited availability piece of questionable “perfection” being the enemy of the “good enough” that is readily available and works reasonably well?

  • marathag


    That’s only ‘Light’ in comparison to the M113

  • adverse4

    Make one hell of a camper.

  • coyotehunter

    We solved our lack of escort fire power by outfitting a dump truck with a quad .50 MG on a turret….

  • Arclight

    …way, way, way overdue

  • missourisam

    It is about time that the military opened up competition to upgrade the light forward advance vehicle instead of pouring more money into an outmoded and under powered obsolete vehicle. Now if we can get the politicians to give up the idea that they are more competent to fight a war than trained generals, maybe we can gain some advantage, and lose less military personnel. The nature of war is that men go into danger, but they should not be considered cannon fodder by idiots that never faced worse danger than DC traffic.

  • Mr Silly

    On a slightly different note, as a possible donor nation for these HumVees, looking forward to a possible big discount on surplus reconditioned vehicles. They’re perfectly good enough for all the general work the non front line troops engage in. Sometimes good enough is perfectly acceptable.

  • Sam Damiano

    You do realize that “CJ” stood for Civilian Jeep, right? The only difference was color at first. Later they were street legal versions of MJ’s.