quote:

Just take the two pounds of wheel weights off each corner

Pretty sure those are inflators or some other wizardry.

Still, that project's gonna need some explanation.

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:
could have got a razor for 25 k or so... What else is new.

Yep, just looks like a stretched UTV. Granted, an incredibly overpriced UTV ($330K?? really?).

Dumbest idea ever.

Is the military afraid doors on that thing will get scratched? Better hope the squad supplies, not to mention troops, are rain retardant.

Those who say R&D costs are the bulk of the cost are absolutely right. Your F-150 or Silverado also cost $200 million or more to develop. The difference is Ford or GM spreads that cost over a million units per year each making the R&D costs a couple hundred per unit.

For maybe a better example of amortizing the cost of a specialized vehicle, the new Corvette costs $60,000 and runs circles around cars that cost 2-3x as much, because GM to their credit cracked the code for making a 500 hp supercar for around the price of a fully loaded minivan. Turns out the answer is "volume."

Onto specific points...
No, the military can't use a side-by-side ATV off the shelf. The military runs on diesel and jet fuel, not pump gas. There was a program a number of years ago to retrofit a KLR650 motorcycle to use diesel. It made for a $20,000+/unit bike. I'm sure someone at DOD is looking into the cost to retrofit a side by side though but it's not easy.

No, the military can't use a commercial off the shelf Hilux. For one Toyota doesn't have much of a US government presence or experience working with the US military's requirements. Aside from that there was evidently a weight requirement. Based on how it's designed that looks like a sub-4000 lbs. vehicle. The deployment model appears to be "Load it in a helicopter with a bunch of guys, roll it out/drop it off, go to town." That can't easily be done with a Humvee or a JLTV -- they're just too heavy. I don't think a Blackhawk can even sling carry one of the up-armored Humvees.

If you want apples to apples comparison, look at the cost of developing and fielding a Baja buggy or trophy truck. https://www.texasdesertracing.com/classes/
For the higher spec vehicles it's well into the six figures. Contracts like that also frequently include O&M support, parts, and additional supplies. A race team's budget to field 3 or so trucks can be around a million a year, so GM's cost seems fairly reasonable.

It's interesting to see these paired with the JLTV which was never meant as a 1:1 replacement for the Humvee. I can only imagine how many of them will be rolled by E-2s hot dogging them on base. Glad they have those race seats and what seems like excellent rollover protection.

quote:

Originally posted by low8option:
Looks like the Dune Buggy the Army played around with back in the 80s.

We had those at Ft. Lewis. The drivers were crazy. As I recall they were a stop gap as the Hummer was delayed.
However, when it came to shoot and scoot they were impressive.

quote:

was a program a number of years ago to retrofit a KLR650 motorcycle to use diesel. It made for a $20,000+/unit bike. I'm sure someone at DOD is looking into the cost to retrofit a side by side though but it's not easy.

Kawasaki makes a diesel version of their Mule. I’m pretty sure that all versions of the Kubota RTV series (900, 1100, 1120, whatever others) come in diesel, if not exclusively in diesel versions. I would not recommend either of those for the application, but there are commercially available diesel powered side by sides available.

So all that R&D cost that accounts for the bulk of the $330,000 price tag per unit is for the 10% of the design that doesn't use off the shelf components of a standard truck?

Still seems steep to me.

Hopefully it will at least have some jeep style canvas covers/doors. Otherwise you're gonna see cheap shit tarps over the top because troops don't actually want to get wet for some reason.

I can see it as a Scout or Recon vehicle for SF, where a small group of soldiers need to move fast over uncertain terrain.
As a general purpose infantry vehicle? Nope!

Talk about having your ass hung out in the breeze; one guy with a single 30 mag could do some serious damage to one fully loaded With personnel.

I see no room for rucksacks, etc. unless they plan on strapping them to the roof.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
Talk about having your ass hung out in the breeze; one guy with a single 30 mag could do some serious damage to one fully loaded With personnel.

The intent is for the vehicle to be quickly deployed by helicopter for use by light infantry. Any type of armor would have prevented that.

I would envision that either an M240 or M249 can be mounted on the rear portion. The military probably has some type of automatic grenade launcher as well.

I’d be curious to see the cost build up for the contract. The initial cost would include building the factory to assemble the vehicle.

Makes perfect sense to build it in North Carolina. First customer will probably be the 82nd Airborne and they probably have the logistics capacity to transport/deploy them wherever they need to go.

This is an asset that’s been missing from the military’s arsenal for far too long. I’m glad someone finally got around to fixing that.

For everyone saying “dumb” the Army’s premier light infantry unit has been using similar vehicles for many decades. When I was in the 75th in the early 90s we called them RSOVs.

Never saw one in a Chinook, don’t know if it could handle the weight? We’d put 2x in a C130.

That it carries a full squad of 9 and can be inserted even by a UH 60 is full of win.

As to the price, yes RD and very low volume. That price will also include an extensive fielding, training and maintenance program supported by the contractor.

Kinda' reminds me of one of those nature park safari, let's-go-look-at-the-giraffes type of thing. I sure wouldn't want to be clustered in one of those when the shooting starts.

I pity the two soldiers in the very back when the vehicle hits a big bump.

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:

quote:

Just take the two pounds of wheel weights off each corner

Pretty sure those are inflators or some other wizardry.

Those are tire beadlocks used to help keep the tire on the rim when running low tire pressure for much better traction offroad.

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
Couldn't they just buy diesel Toyota Hilux crew cabs and add 5 seats in the bed for less than $60,000?

this,,


or one of the mid east variants of the Land Cruiser/Nissan Patrol

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
For the link averse, here's a pic:

didn't the army got all safety with the M151 years ago and install netting to act as doors?
think that may happen with this one??


and how long before someone in maintenance w/ a welder adds some plate, and pintles?

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
didn't the army got all safety with the M151 years ago and install netting to act as doors?
think that may happen with this one??

No. This vehicle has seatbelts and shoulder harnesses (look at the picture); Jeeps had none of these.

Jeeps I rode in CONUS had a "safety strap" on each side; in Alaska they had arctic kits w/doors.

If anyone is interested, the ISV is procured through the Other Procurement, Army (OPA) appropriation, Budget Activity 1 (Tactical and Support Vehicles), P-1 Line #5 (Ground Mobility Vehicles).

From the FY21 Procurement Forms: "The FY2021 Base procurement dollars in the amount of $37.932 million supports the procurement of 167 Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV), contractor System Engineering/Program Management (SEPM), fielding to include Spares, Total Package Fielding (TPF), and Interim Contractor Support (ICS), Engineering Change Proposals (ECP) to include retrofits, Logistics Development, System Technical Support (STS), and program management."

"The approved Army Acquisition Objective (AAO) is 2,065."

The ISV's flyaway unit cost is $190,916.