The Special Operations community often moves in a circular motion when it comes to adopting and employing new weapons, equipment, and vehicles.
Take for instance the US Army’s bouncing from the 7.62 round, then forcing 5.56 down NATO’s throat, before now swinging back in the other direction with Rangers and Special Forces making good use of the 7.62 SCAR-H. Light infantry maneuver tactics grew out of the Vietnam War before the Army gradually moved towards heavy armored vehicles and burying soldiers under undue amounts of body armor.
Today, SOF units in Afghanistan are now moving back towards lighter combat loads and unarmored, but highly mobile, tactical vehicles.
Currently, Army Special Operations is seeking to identify a new Ground Mobility Vehicle to replace the Humvee. USASOC put out the word some time ago that it was looking for a SOF specific all-terrain vehicle that seated four troops to include the turret gunner.
At the moment Jeep and Flyer are the two front runners competing for the contract. Jeep has submitted it’s entry based on it’s new J8 platform. Initially having constructed a prototype Light Patrol Vehicle, Jeep responded to inputs from the SOF community to create a new truck to suit the requirements of the units involved.
In the beginning, one of the stipulations around this project was that the vehicle be compatible with the VTOL capable, V-22 Osprey. Finally, this requirement was given the chop in favor of seeking a platform specifically compatible with the MH-47 helicopter preferred by Army Special Operations teams. Jeep has reportedly accomplished this task, however it pushed the entire project back by six months.
Flyer meanwhile, appears to be somewhat behind the power curve, submitting it’s own entry into the fray with an engine that soldiers are finding to be overly complicated. Reports state that if the Flyer entry were to break down in the austere environments that SOF units operate in that the vehicle would have to be returned to the United States for repairs.
Pictures and additional details of these vehicles are not yet forthcoming, but we will be keeping an eye on this project for future developments.
Kit Up! contributor Jack Murphy is a former Ranger and Special Forces Soldiers and the author of the military thriller Reflexive Fire.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
I'm surprised Force Protection isn't offering the JAMMA. I am surprised they did away with the V-22 size restriction. Maybe they just plan just buy what ever the Air Force chooses for the Guardian Angel vehicle.
Having trained in the M151, CUCV, and HMMV, I have to ask, why is the military making ingress/egress harder and harder to accomplish as the amount if gear on the soldier increases?
Tripping over multiple tubes to sit in a narrow bucket seat isn't how to do the job. Things are going from bad to worse, and the users are being left completely out of the ergonomic loop, much less using whiz bang power sources and overly complicated drivetrains. Having a vehicle completely disabled from one broken tie rod end is no joke, but something HMMV users suffer as a norm.
Dead Nuts Reliable is the mandatory standard, and it won't happen with cutting edge tech or geeked out Moon Rovers. An overhead valve pushrod motor does that, and mechanics know how to keep them running. Designing a driveline with an easily replaceable mechanical "fuse," that takes the breakage out of the other parts, should included. An automatic transmission standard, and the chassis a flat platform with no step over whatsoever, like a chopper cargo floor. And seating? Seriously consider a bench or even individual saddles, NOT buckets. Try sitting in a lunchroom chair with full battle rattle and see for yourself. Better yet, ask any troop what he'd like to use – something with no highrider sides, plenty of clearance, and a seat long enough to accomodate the pack he will be wearing.
The HMMV was a great concept until some committee added so many tasks it bloated out of any useful proportion for light duty, and like was said, we're coming back full circle to a simple 4WD platform that shouldn't constrict the team or how it's used. Leave it as KISS as possible, and keep out of the way, it will work just fine. Those guys in little white pickups aren't so bad off, there's no sense making a $95,000 copy that only benefits the vendors parts department.
Hard to do nowadays. IIRC, Congress passed a law some years ago barring the industry from talking directly to end users after they found out a toilet seat on an airplane cost some thousands of dollars. Now, none of them stopped to think that maybe an aerial dumper was probably gonna be a bit more advanced than their porcelain thrones back home, but never the less they passed that law. AFAIK in the early 2000's this was still the case, and legally the industry was restricted to talking only to vets rather than people in the sandbox. While many would write letters to these companies complaining about this or that, they could never get big Army units to T&E. SOF got to T&E all sorts of things, but many of those toys are too expensive for big Army.
This might have changed, but this was the case a decade ago.
But in the case you site, it was fraud. It was an RV part that was passed through several fake contractors, with mark-up added at each step.
I'm with you on the coffee maker for the C-5, and the submarine hammers. But there are plenty of examples of fraud to go with the legitimate R&D.
Well, if they don't want the Flyer…. I'll take it off their hands at government surplus prices. Does the 40 come standard?
First off, that isn't the Flyer in the picture that they are offering. Second, I didn't think they had actually started the down select for a new vehicle yet. Seems like this article is a bit out of school. Between this article and the motorcycle article it seems like the author doesn't understand the difference between a test or demonstration and a full up force wide buy.
The dirt bike is already in service. SOF has submitted it's Key Performance Points to the industry and is seeking to identify it's next tactical vehicle but a force wide buy is still a ways down the road. Correct, the above picture is an example of a Flyer product, not the vehicle that has actually been submitted.
I'd still take it :P
question is. does it come with a radio/cd player?
ArmorWorks Hyena…
The Supacat Jackal family might be a good fit IMHO
I think it's weight is likely a problem. It weighs about as much If you stacked a Jeep on top of an unarmored HMMWV,
The Jackal is enormous, this needs to fit in a CH-47.
The Jackal does fit into a Ch-47.
The Jackal is a fine vehicle, but it wouldn't fit the requirements of this request.
the MV, unarmoured Jackal, is light and …as both are, designed to fit into a CH-47.
There are alot of light vehicles in SOCOM service from old M-151s to FAVs to dune buggies. So another vehicle wont really mean anything in SOCOM service.
By the way the Mk-17 was going back to 7.62mm NATO the regular army went back to it as far back as 2002 with M-14DMRs. Now M-14EBRs and M-110s are usage, no change there.
Speed Buggy! weeeeeee…..
Raise the sides and add a small outboard motor and you have a Schwimmwagen
they need basic bullet-proof parts like those used in old vehicles. i have a 1978 f150 with 33 year old parts that still work fine and if something breaks, the vehicle is so basic that there is no problem. simple yet elegant is the way to go. they need less "engineer" minded people because, honestly, they over think and over analyze simple problems.
The "community" might want a lighter smaller vehicle but that doesn't change America's expectation that wars shouldn't have casualties. First couple of IEDs that destroy vehicle and passengers is going to end their use, have them armored or most likely go to an MRAP. The operators won't complain but their masters will ask why their special ops are just as costly as conventional ops. The exception will be CAG, DEVGRU etc. who can use/pay for whatever they want and generally run less day to day missions. BTW Jack, the Rangers dropped the SCAR and went BACK to the M4.
British Army SF Supacat Extenda in the back of a Chinook:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnprxtd3831qlcxqlo1_500.jpg
What about the USMC Growler? Developed specifically to nest in an Osprey…
Looks like the XR311 (also known as the Lambo Cheetah).
It's not about functionality it's about money. Big money. Companies scam the people, have congress and senate on payroll. Everyone knows it…nothing changes.
Back in the early 90s I was parking Landrover Defenders on the back of MH47s. As a matter of fact and MH47 will fit two Defenders and an internal fuel blatter if I remember correctly. This was in 75th Ranger Regiment. So why do they need to reinvent the wheel when an answer already exists???
Drop the dumb stuff and bring back the M151. That as an all purpose, lightweight machine.