If only the US had a swarm of small, fast, inexpensive FPV drones with which to destroy those small attack boats

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Friday, May 22, 2026 - 06:59 pm: Edit

The U.S. has a large RC crowd with models of about anything that has ever flown of various scales....
Round them up into a Bde sized unit and you'd have exactly what the military needs....

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Friday, May 22, 2026 - 08:34 pm: Edit

...but first they would need to go through a procurement process that might take a decade and cost tens of billions of dollars.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 23, 2026 - 01:19 am: Edit

Before being cancelled and restarted.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, May 23, 2026 - 02:33 am: Edit

William, the obvious counter to a small boat is probably another small boat, perhaps even a fast attack craft or patrol craft. Even with drones to fire at Iranian boats the problem with US ships is that they are too expensive to have so close to shore and there is still the need to be there to stop and inspect suspect ships etc.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, May 23, 2026 - 08:21 am: Edit

Perhaps it is counterintuitive:

Google inquiry:

Quote:” Yes, the U.S. Air Force A-10 Warthog has proven highly effective at neutralizing Iranian small fast attack boats in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.The aircraft's performance in this maritime combat role includes the following specifics:Combat Success: During Operation Epic Fury, U.S. Central Command utilized A-10s alongside naval assets to successfully hunt and destroy fast-attack watercraft. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed that joint operations effectively neutralized more than 120 Iranian vessels.Weaponry: The A-10 excels at this mission primarily using its iconic GAU-8 Avenger 30mm cannon, which is devastatingly accurate against lightly armored boats. It also heavily employs precision munitions like APKWS (Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System) laser-guided rockets to pick off individual vessels.Cost Efficiency: Using expensive naval missiles (such as the multi-million dollar SM-6) against cheap $50,000 to $500,000 Iranian speedboats presents an unfavorable financial gap. The A-10 provides a highly cost-effective and economical alternative for this specific threat.Tactical Loitering: Because the A-10 can fly low, slow, and loiter for extended periods, it is perfectly suited for patrolling tight littoral zones and identifying swarms of fast-moving craft.Experts note that this operational success is only possible because the U.S. and its allies have already suppressed or destroyed the majority of Iran's high-tier integrated air defense systems. In uncontested airspace, the Warthog's ability to withstand heavy gunfire makes it an ideal platform for patrolling vital shipping lanes.”

Asalways, this was an AI inquiry, and it is possible that some information in it may not be fully accurate.

Y.M.M.V.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, May 23, 2026 - 09:17 am: Edit

Drones could be operated from ships or from land.

If 20 Iranian boats come out all at once and move towards an oil tanker, it's an attack. No need to inspect anything.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 23, 2026 - 10:23 am: Edit

Helicopter gunships also work as a great solution to the small armed boats problem.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, May 23, 2026 - 11:27 am: Edit

Heck just use OA-1 from SOCOM.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 25, 2026 - 09:49 am: Edit

On a different topic, France has been building a new aircraft carrier, often referred to by its abbreviation, PANG, is a nuclear powered 78,000 ton aircraft carrier.

Some of the details have changed.

First, France has purchased EMALs from General Atomics, the contractor that builds EMALs for the current generation U.S. Navy carriers. (The reasons given was cost, France decided that it couldn’t afford the R&D and the time required to do it themselves. Open question if China’s failure to develop and deploy EMALs was a factor…)

Second, the PANG air group downgraded to just 30 manned fighters. France announced that the PANG will rely on drones for its primary attack functions.

Third, France has a couple of serious issues in building the PANG.

For one, there is only one dry dock large enough.

For a second, there is only one sea port/naval base capable of fueling nuclear powered ships, and it is at Toulon, in the Mediterranean.

The only dry dock big enough is over 2,000 kilometers away, on the Atlantic coast in north/west France.


The solution is to build the PANG, and TOW it through international waters around Portugal and Spain.

The French navy has released the new updated budget for construction, fueling and including towing charges, the PANG will exceed 10.5 billion euros.

They were, at one time, going to participate with the U.K. And the Royal Navy and construct a third Queen Elizabeth class carrier, and it was to be assembled in a french shipyard, at far less cost.

It remains to be seen if they made the right choice.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 25, 2026 - 10:41 am: Edit

Ukraine destroyed Russian FSB headquarters at Henichenska Hirka, killing over 100 top security and intelligence officers.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 25, 2026 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Looks like Petrick called the shot correctly again.

China announced a “new” policy this weekend.

All international brokerage accounts held by Chinese citizens are to be closed within two years, and the Chinese government allegedly declared that it will “claw back” all the appreciation gains earned after the conversion from the yuan Chinese currency conversion to foreign currency.

I didn’t see this coming(and Petrick may have instinctively anticipated it without knowing how the mechanism actually works…). But it is simple:

We talked about how the Chinese government has been selling off its investment in U.S. Treasury securities earlier, and mentioned that private citizens (and this includes Chinese citizens) owned more total U.S. securities than were then held by the Chinese government.

By announcing a divestment program with a two year deadline, China is forcing both government and citizen investments in U.S. Treasury securities out of the market for new treasury securities, directly reducing the total buyers of U.S. Treasury securities.

Its supply snd demand on a huge scale.

With fewer buyers, the supply of u.s. treasury securities will by definition need to increase the yield of its products to make them more attractive to buyers. This is called discounting, selling the securities for less so the yield of the investment increases. Obviously, selling the securities at a discount reduces the total revenue realized from the sale.

Regardless of the recent president Trump visit to China last week media spin, this action by China is almost certainly an attack on the United States government financial system.

I can’t get more in to this news without touching politics, but this could be why the U.S. has been pushing an aggressive Tariff policy from the beginning of the current administration.

There are, at present several different possible outcomes.

1. One nation could potentially lose big…either China or the U.S. I haven’t figured out yet what the odds are, but it’s unlikely that both China AND the U.S. both win, and it is entirely possible that both lose…

2. Regardless of the result of #1 above, the size of the U.S. debt may shrink over the next two years (assumes tariff collections increase to cover current spending.)

3. The Mainstream Media has been covering U.S. economic news and adding a lot of spin, but has not been covering the Chinese economy as closely.

The claw back thing mentioned above might be a desperation tactic to reverse China’s recent economic slowdown. If so, it is very likely to have VERY serious unintended consequences that could, if not stopped, lead to even more severe problems later on.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, May 25, 2026 - 11:13 pm: Edit

China has long had a policy of trying to severely restrict foriegn investment and holdings by individual Chinese investors. They want that money to stay in China.

In theory, you can only convert $50,000 of Chinese currency to foreign currency per person per year and the Chinese currency is not otherwise convertible and has strict restrictions on export of currency. [Edited: you can get an exemption for documented international trade, so this isn't even supposed to be 100% strictly enforced. But such exemptions are supposed to be documented and approved by the government.]

This policy has been leaking like a sieve for the last couple of decades, with any number of dodges to move money out of China by various means (including cryptocurrencies, so they may collapse in value if China actually finds a way to claw back that money, I'm not holding my breath, the government of China is trying to restrict the people who implement this sort of policy for the government of China here, I suspect the new policy will also leak like a sieve because the people actually implementing and running it want it to leak like a sieve).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 25, 2026 - 11:27 pm: Edit

Douglas, I can’t fault your argument.

I think you are describing it accurately.

What I am posting, is really more a declaration of intent by the Chinese communist regime in China. You may be entirely correct in everything you are asserting… just as I tried to assert that if the Chi-coms get what they say they want, is more likely to backfire than succeed.

Time will tell.

Who know? Perhaps Petrick got it right the first time…

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 10:30 am: Edit

There have been several posts of “analysis “ on the proposals for building battleships for the U.S. navy, some of which appear to contradict each other.

A google inquiry on the question revealed:

Quote:” The U.S. Navy proposes building up to 15 to 25 massive, 30,000-to-40,000-ton "Trump-class" guided-missile battleships. These will anchor the new "Golden Fleet" strategy. They are needed to counter the rapidly growing fleet size of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and project overwhelming power.The Navy wants these new battleships for a few specific strategic and capability-based reasons:Massive Firepower: These heavily armored platforms are designed to carry next-generation technology, including hypersonic weapons, advanced rail guns, high-power lasers, and nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles.Bridging the Capacity Gap: By utilizing larger hulls, the Navy aims to increase its overall fighting numbers and heavy offensive capabilities, offsetting fleet deficits created as aging cruisers retire.Artificial Intelligence: The proposed battleships are intended to incorporate AI capabilities for advanced control and automated operations.However, the proposal is highly controversial. Critics and naval analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warn that building these hulking 30,000-ton behemoths will be incredibly expensive, potentially costing up to $17 billion per vessel in procurement. Critics also question whether these ships are the most effective way to counter modern adversaries, arguing that such resources might be better spent on more distributed and flexible fleets.”

As is usual, this was prepared by Googles AI, and may contain incorrect information.

Y.M.M.V.

The specific reason for concern is China’s newest destroyer, type 55 is reported to have a missile capacity of 112 surface to surface attack missiles.

The flight 3 Burke class destroyer has an after missile battery of 64 cells capacity, and a forward missile cell battery capacity of 32 cells.

Current practice , for Destroyers assigned for Air defense missions, is to have the aft missile cells loaded with anti Air Defense missiles, of which two missiles each are to be launched to ensure 100% probability of a kill on a in coming missile.

The forward missile bay is loaded with 16 land attack missiles and 16 anti Submarine missiles.

There is no reload, as the missile cells are only reloaded at a naval base.

The resulting math:

Each Burke flight 3 destroyer is able to engage up to 32 inbound enemy missiles before it empties her missile capacity.

As reported above, the Chinese type 55 destroyer has a missile capacity of 112. (Granted, some are almost certainly going to be ASW or anti air attack missiles, but they only need 33+ to swamp the Burke class destroyers defense.

The kicker is The Chinese PLAN (People Liberation Army Navy) built 13 destroyers last year. The U.S. navy built two.

The BBGN class battleships are supposed to “fill the gap” by having larger numbers of missiles cells, and adding hypersonic, laser and other advanced weapons.

At an estimated 17 billion $USD each, it is a very expensive alternative.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 10:53 am: Edit

Right, and if they get attacked by 1000 naval drones, each costing $100K, what are they going to do?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 11:09 am: Edit

Jeff

"this action by China is almost certainly an attack on the United States government financial system."

I don't belive this statement is correct - several Western Governments have all seen their Gilt/Treasury Yields increase - all by about 25 basis points on 10 year debt and 15 to 25 Basis points on 30 year debt -over the last few months or so (I don't know why I picked October 2025.... but this the approx low in yields over the last 12 months)

(The UK did see Gilt Yields Spike again last week, but they have come down abit modestly).

I think the honest answer is several nations (Swiss/Japan/China) are all concerned that some Western Nations are overspending and don't want to left with worthless (or less valuable) bonds.

Comments about why those 3 nations are perceived as higher risk are perhaps too far into the Politcial Column - but the UK is an excellent example at the moment.

(Wierdly, German Bunds have gone... which did surprise me - they were historically the Stable non-Swiss European Bond nation).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Ukraine wants to join the EU as it gets a lot of benefits, but the EU requires reforms that will take Ukraine years to fulfill (Ukraine wants to skip this step) and the EU is reluctant to take on a nation at war with a big bully country. The EU has a vague mutual defense clause that could push EU countries to send more money and stuff (and arguably troops) to Ukraine. So that boat is sailing slowly.

Germany has just proposed that Ukraine be given "associate status" which doesn't exist and would have to be defined. That has a lot of EU countries very nervous.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Russia's Far East District has 40% of the last but only 5% of the population. The population was 10,750,000 in 1980 due to massive cash incentives for people to move there. (The cost of living is high because everything has to be shipped in over a shaky transport system.)

Today the population is only 7,750,000 because Russia can no longer sustain the cash incentives and the population was mostly military age men who have all disappeared into the military or draft dodger status.

Chinese investments are the only reason the economy of the Far East works at all. It is China that pays to open new mines and factories.

Even worse, there are at least 500,000 Chinese officially in the Russian Far East on work contracts and rumors hold there could be that many more Chinese illegally living in the Russian Far East. (There are also 50,000 North Korean contract workers who live in poverty while the NK government steals their wages.)

There could come a time when China effectively controls the economy and resources of the Russian Far East, which isn't far from just annexing it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Ukraine is heavily pushing in Zaparosche, the area of the mainland adjacent to Crimea. This is mostly Russian occupied and has been since the war started. A recent Russian offensive in that region collapsed. Ukrainian drones have made road and rail travel in the area extremely interesting. YouTube clickbait channels are already announcing "Crimea is cut off" and "Putin is finished" which are overstatements. A major Ukrainian offensive is expected to kick off when the mud dries out. Zelensky is holding seances with German Field Marshal Eric von Manstein.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Paul Howard:

You are making an “Apples to Oranges” comparison, and attributing the rise in european government securities yields as some sort of proof that China’s recent decision to divest in U.S. treasury securities is not an attack on the United States governments funding of government spending.

Actually, the cases are very similar, in that the U.S. administrations demands to reform NATO defense spending would result in vastly increased defense spending has scared off buyers of european debt. (The obvious reason being that increased government defense spending would almost certainly require either increased taxes, cuts to social spending, or both.)

In short, the rise in European debt yields shows that buyers demand a greater rate of return on their investment.

Weather that is due to concerns of forced increases of defense spending, or fears of increased taxes or concerns of the ultimate stability of the various european governments matters not.

Bottom line is discounting of a nations investment grade treasury instruments is by definition a statement of insecurity of that governments stability.

If, as you imply, that European governments are stable, secure investments, in a world of instability, what should happen is buyers would be willing to pay a premium price on such securities… reflecting the confidence of the buyers to receive both interest income as well as full return of the principal upon maturity (as in the case of bonds.)

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Jeff

On current numbers - China has ofloaded $41 Billion ... and Japan has offloaded (which I mentioned) nearly $48 billion - and yet you still claim it's China attacking US financially?

Both nations are trimming their US Debt positions - but why your desire to attack China on what it does?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 04:19 pm: Edit

China is getting ready for a war after the 2028 elections.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Air Transportation: USAF Turning Transports Into Bombers
May 26, 2026: The American Air Force Rapid Dragon program, subsequently labeled Dragon Cart, evolved into a Program of Record and enabled cargo aircraft able to deploy palletized cruise missiles by 2027. The American Air Force’s Rapid Dragon program became an official POR/Program Of Record, the AFLCMC/Air Force Life Cycle Management Center announced in late April 2026. A POR status means the system has been formally approved by the government and ensures Congressional funding allocation in future budgets.
Rapid Dragon saw the Air Force using cargo aircraft such as the C-130J Hercules and its derivatives, and the C-17 Globemaster III to conduct palletized launches of numerous standoff surface strike missiles. The project has now been designated as Dragon Cart after transferring oversight from the AFRL/Air Force Research Laboratory to the AFLCMC.
The system is expected to enter service by 2027, using the MTA/Middle Tier Acquisition Rapid Fielding path. The AFLCMC also named the FAMM/Family of Affordable Mass Munitions series of missiles, developed under the ERAM Extended Range Attack Munition Initiative, as the preferred weapons of choice for Dragon Cart.
The Zone 5 Technologies Rusty Dagger and Co-Aspire’s RAACM/Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile were created as part of the FAMM/ERAM program. The former was put through a series of live-warhead and integration trials with an F-16 in January and March 2026, respectively.
The FAMM program also has evolved into the FAMM-BAR/Beyond Adversary Reach purchasing agreement. An April 20, 2026, AFLCMC Request for Information seeks companies that can design and manufacture FAMM weapons to be launched both lugged and palletized and meet production orders of 1,000-2,000 missiles a year for the American government and foreign buyers.
The original Rapid Dragon palletized munitions program has been tested numerous times using surrogate missiles and live units of the AGM-158B JASSM-ER/Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range. The service said that Dragon Cart evolved from experiences obtained from the experimental campaign.
The AFLCMC said the Dragon Cart’s strength lies in being able to leverage existing standard airlift inventory and airdrop equipment and an American government-owned Battle Management System. This allows the kinetic systems like the FAMM and the JASSM in the palletized configurations to be moved onto an airlift aircraft, dropped out the back, and dispensed in mid-air worldwide.
The Dragon Cart’s program manager revealed that the concept offers operational ambiguity, adversary deterrence and additional command options to maximize operational effects. It was also noted that this gave the Air Force the opportunity to transform mobility aircraft into powerful strike platforms, unlocking capabilities the Air Force wouldn’t normally have in how we employ our airlift fleet.
Dragon Cart also rapidly transitioned to a Program of Record because of the emphasis of government control over the weapons data and technology, unlike other legacy defense procurement programs. The System engineering program manager emphasized that the MBSE/Model-Based Systems Engineering approach assists rapid modifications to the FAMM’s design to accommodate new payloads.
Because the Air Force owns the engineering, if a new payload needs a launch module that is slightly longer, we just model it, do the load path analysis, and send that model to our production vendors.
The service also explained that, by assembling proven, existing technologies in novel ways and maintaining strict control over the digital architecture, the program office has eliminated traditional roadblocks, aiding rapid scaling and future upgrades.
Interestingly, the Air Force had previously determined that the program’s name is derived from a thousand year-old Chinese military designed RDC/Rapid Dragon Carts crossbow catapults that launched multiple crossbow bolts with the pull of a single trigger, raining devastation down from incredible ranges.
One trial over the White Sands Missile Range, in August 2021, saw the representative missile being released from the cargo hold of a C-17A Globemaster III and an EC-130SJ. Another test in December 2021 at Eglin AFB, saw an MC-130J Commando II airdropping a four-cell Rapid Dragon deployment system containing the FTV/Flight Test Vehicles and three simulators upon receiving targeting data and uploading that into the FTV.
A third test in November 2022 saw an MC-130J Commando II from the 352nd Special Operations Wing deploying one such pallet over the Norwegian Sea. A JASSM-ER successfully exited the pallet and began its powered flight.
Regarding the program’s future, the late April AFLCMC RFI explained that the program office sought to streamline the battlespace by developing a single, common, air-to-surface munition that is affordable, adaptable, and possesses significant standoff range. The core concept is a singular design that allows for the primary deployment method via palletized long-range strike from cargo aircraft. The government is also presenting trade space for a secondary deployment method from the same singular design for long-range employment on fighter and additional aircraft.
Other industry leaders have also developed their own cost-effective, scalable palletized-launch air-to-ground missiles. These include Leidos’ Black Arrow, which the Air Force designated as the AGM-190A in February, and Lockheed Martin’s CMMT/Common Multi-Mission Truck. The CMMT has an unpowered glide-vehicle called CMMT-D and a smaller powered variant called CMMT-X.
A useful addition to this program could launch torpedoes encased in glide frames instead of missiles. China has about two thousand mega tankers and mega container cargo ships which are too big to being even fazed by a single missile or bomb, but they all have only one or two propellers. The United States Navy has about one thousand anti-ship torpedoes with long range and big warheads, and two thousand anti-submarine (ASW) torpedoes with sorter range and small warheads. The ASW torpedoes can be easily programmed to blow ship propellers off, which will both immobilize such large ships, plus the hot after-effects will cause the propeller shafts to race out of control. Vibrations from such events usually open up hundred foot plus long rips deep into ships and sink them.
It would be impossibly expensive for China to equip its mega tanker/container ships with the radars, electronics and radar-guided missiles to defend against attack from shorter-range ASW torpedoes launched outside the range of cheap, short-range man-carried and launched infra-red anti-aircraft missiles like Stingers.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Support: The Evolution of International Tactical Vehicles
May 26, 2026: When motor vehicles first showed up in military operations, it was civilian cars and trucks that were carrying soldiers and machine-guns. The first use was in 1899 during the Boper war between Britain and the Dutch Boers in South Africa. Before World War I began in 1024, the French and Germans were experimenting with the use of cars, trucks and motorcycles during military operations. Although most armies continued to depend on horses to haul supplies and artillery through World War II, the American army was fully motorized. After World War II the American military vehicles like the jeep, three-quarter ton truck and 2.5 ton truck were used by dozens of nations. Russia developed similar vehicles, even though they had received over half a million vehicles from the Americans by 1945.
By the late 20th century, China became a major producer of military vehicles. China openly copies a lot of foreign military equipment designs, often in many variations because multiple manufacturers get involved. While the Chinese military thought the American hummer HMMWV was a useful design, it was not adopted widely. The basic tactical vehicle in the Chinese military is the BJ2022 Brave Warrior or Yongshi. The BJ2022 entered service in 2007 after being developed as a joint venture between a Chinese firm and Chrysler. Because of that American connection, the BJ2022 was legally based on the Jeep Cherokee although a bit larger. BJ2022 comes in two versions, with one being a bit longer and serving as something similar to the old American ¾ ton truck. Most of the BJ2022 are basically much updated World War II American jeep designs that borrow much from SUV and four-wheel drive innovations. The basic version can carry a payload of 500 kg and seats four. The longer version carries 750 kg and seats up to eight. These are four-wheel drive vehicles that have manual transmissions and are mainly used on roads or flat terrain.
Chinese hummer-like vehicles are popular with Chinese and foreign special operations troops. The Chinese armed forces are not buying a lot of these vehicles, a few thousand or so a year at most although civilian versions became popular with Chinese and export customers. The most popular of these hummer clones comes from Dongfeng, which initially produced some hummers under license. Dongfeng has since produced a number of hummer variants, including armored models equipped to handle RWS\Remote Weapons Systems. These were nicknamed Mengshi or East Wind Warrior. The latest of these, the CSK-181, is an eight ton armored hummer design similar to the new American JLTV. One characteristic of the Chinese hummers is the built-in night vision cameras, one in front and one in the back with a flat-screen display for the driver to use, and a satellite navigation system.
Although China tried Russian and European designs in their search for a new tactical truck, similar to the American hummer, they finally settled on a hummer clone of their own. China still uses the Russian and German designs for most of its tactical vehicles but it is also buying a growing number of locally made hummer clones.
China got their hands on an American M998 HMMWV hummer in 1988. Initially, Chinese military officials felt the hummer was too expensive. But the performance of the hummer in the 1991 Gulf War, plus the growing presence of the American civilian version of the hummer, especially those brought in by oil companies for use in remote areas, changed minds. By 2003, two Chinese companies were producing hummer clones and the Chinese Army adopted one of them as the EQ2050. Within a decade an armored version was developed as the EQ2058 followed by several other variants, including a longer 6x6 vehicle.
Meanwhile, the Americans developed a new hummer-like vehicle, the JLTV/Joint Light Tactical Vehicle hummer/MRAP replacement. The first export customer, Slovenia, ordered 38 in late 2018 with the first one arriving in 2021. Several other nations were considering JLTV, including Britain who sought to purchase 2,500 vehicles. Export versions sell for up to $400,000 each depending on accessories. Buyers like Britain order vehicles that allow for a lot of substitution of some American components with British equivalents and the use of British accessories. The American designer and manufacturer, Oshkosh, has been promoting the JLTV to military and police organizations worldwide and already has several other NATO allies discussing JLTV acquisition.
Mass production for JLTV begins in late 2019 with most of those vehicles going to the U.S. Army, which planned to buy 49,000 vehicles to replace armored HMMWV Hummer vehicles as well as many MRAP/Mine Resistant Armor Protected trucks. As of early 2019, about 12,000 JLTVs had been produced. Thousands of American soldiers and marines already have experience with JLTV because low-rate production began in 2015 with orders for 657 vehicles and that was subsequently increased so that the American military, mainly the army, could get their personnel used to the new vehicle. These users also provided a lot of feedback, which was understandable. The design was based on a lot of soldier feedback and online discussions, particularly on message boards only accessible to the troops, about what worked and what didn’t in combat. This was especially true with regard to armored Humvees and MRAPS. The military wanted to avoid relearning lessons about vehicle protection learned and forgotten after World War II, Korea and Vietnam. That means constant feedback from users and that is most important before mass production begins.
The first low-rate production orders came months after the Oshkosh L-ATV was selected as the winner of the design competition. The Oshkosh JLTV is a light armored vehicle that provides a high, MRAP level of protection against roadside bombs and mines while also carrying a crew of two and up to 2.3 tons of passengers or cargo. Top road speed is 112 kilometers an hour and it has a hatch in the top that allows for installation of a manned machine-gun or a RWS. Range on internal fuel is 480 kilometers and it has an improved suspension for a smoother ride off-road. The diesel engine can also generate 70 kw of electrical power.
In 2013 the American Army received the first 66 prototypes of the JLTV, 22 each from three manufacturers, Lockheed, Oshkosh, and AM General. Each design was different but adhered to the basic design specification. The three JTLV designs were all improvements on the HMMWV. After two years of testing, the army selected Oshkosh. The initial order was for 16,901 vehicles costing about $400,000 each. There are eight models, which is normal for vehicles like this and reflects different needs like basic personnel carrier, scout, ambulance, cargo and so on. About a quarter of the first JLTVs are for the U.S. Marine Corps. Additional vehicles will be built for foreign and non-military customers. Because the U.S. is producing this new vehicle design, which contains a lot of expensive new technology, the per-unit cost is lower than most nations can match by developing their own comparable vehicle. That was a major attraction for the British.
As JLTV entered service it signaled the end of an era. The HMMWV, Hum-V or Hummer was an iconic and revolutionary vehicle and the most innovative military transport to show up since World War II. About half the annual sales of HMMWV vehicles went to the American Army, with the rest going to other branches of the American military and foreign customers. Nearly 300,000 hummers have been produced so far, in dozens of variants and versions. The army will continue to use the hummer for a decade or more after the JLTV enters service, but the unique vehicle design is now beginning to fade away.
The 6.4 ton JLTV that replaces the 4 ton armored HMMWV, 2.4 tons unarmored, is heavier because of the JLTV being more robust and better protected. The hummer itself replaced the 1.1 ton jeep and the 3 ton M37 3/4 ton truck in the 1980s. The JLTV marks a notable design direction for tactical vehicles. The JLTV is designed to absorb combat damage and be quickly equipped with two different armor kits. In effect, the World War II concept of the unarmored light vehicle for moving men and material around the battlefield has been radically changed.
This began in Iraq, where it was demonstrated that you can fight your way through a hostile population on a regular basis and defeat a guerilla force constantly attacking your tactical and logistical vehicles. This had never worked before but it worked this time, in part because American troops promptly armored their hummers and truck and quickly developed road warrior tactics that defeated roadside and suicide bombs. Even though these bombs created a lot of American casualties, the overall American death rate in Iraq and Afghanistan was a third of what it was in Vietnam and World War II. This was in large part because of the armored humvees and trucks. Few people outside the military noted this event, a watershed moment in military history. But it was recognized within the military and produced this sharp shift in design philosophy for tactical trucks, and the result is the JLTV.
The American Army began replacing the World War II era vehicles with the HMMWV in 1985. This was the first new unarmored combat vehicle design since World War II when the jeep and ¾ ton truck was introduced. The HMMWV was expected to last for three decades or more. But that plan changed once Iraq was invaded. As expected, hummers wore out a lot more quickly during five years in combat than during peacetime use, which was usually 14 years. So the army and marines began developing, ahead of schedule, a new vehicle to supplement the hummer in combat zones.
In addition to being built to better survive mines and roadside bombs, the JLTV will be able to generate up to 70 kW of electricity, for operating all the new electronic gear and recharging batteries, have an automatic fire extinguishing system, and jam-resistant doors. Like the Hummer, JLTV will be easy to reconfigure, for everything from a four-seat, armed scout vehicle to an ambulance, command vehicle, or cargo or troop transport.
The hummer will continue to be used outside of the combat zone, where most troops spend most of their time. But the JLTV will be built to better handle the beating vehicles take in the combat zone, including a design that enables troops to quickly slide in armor and Kevlar panels to make the vehicles bullet and blast proof.