Vehicle suggestions

[ArmySGT.]

They love to say Monococque like every soccer mom and joe bob uses this daily.

So I looked it up to be sure I knew what this mean.

Ok, it literally means single shell. In armor parlance, this means an armored hull to which components are attached versus a hull or frame to which armor is added as part of the components.

Monocoque

[cosmicfish]

I like it. Unlike the last offering, this is being marketed towards a military market which suggests that it is better suited to the Morrow mission. The only problem I would have with this beasty would be coming up with a cover story for why you are transporting hundreds or thousands of these around the US pre-war.

[nuke11]

If you are looking at something like that, I'd be more inclined to look at one of the following;

Oshkosh Defense : L-ATV or M-ATV Extended family
Navistar Defence : MXT family
AM General : BRV-O (more information required, but an interesting vehicle)

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by nuke11

Oshkosh Defense : L-ATV or M-ATV Extended family
AM General : BRV-O (more information required, but an interesting vehicle)

These are the other two contestants in the JLTV competition - I proposed Lockheed's candidate earlier. They all suffer from a dearth of available information (as they are not yet in full-scale production) and from the issue of not being currently available.

Originally Posted by nuke11

Navistar Defence : MXT family

Another perfectly reasonable choice, but I think a bit bigger than the rest. I think you would need to an actual trade study to pick the best option.

[kato13]

Moved some of the posts from here to
How dark is the future of the Morrow Project
as we had drifted from to original topic of vehicles.

[ArmySGT.]

The fact that it kinda looks like a cousin of Batman's Tumbler doesn't hurt either.
http://the-eyeontheworld.blogspot.co...test-mine.html

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The fact that it kinda looks like a cousin of Batman's Tumbler doesn't hurt either.
http://the-eyeontheworld.blogspot.co...test-mine.html

All right, I have to admit: that's pretty badass. Forget my earlier suggestion for the JLTV, this looks pretty solid for TMP. We may disagree on staffing levels, but I like this little beastie.

[RandyT0001]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The fact that it kinda looks like a cousin of Batman's Tumbler doesn't hurt either.
http://the-eyeontheworld.blogspot.co...test-mine.html

Needs to be a 6x6. As a 4x4, disabling one tire stops the vehicle. And these days being armored vs 'anti-material' rifles, M2, Kord 12.7, etc. is desirable.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by RandyT0001

Needs to be a 6x6. As a 4x4, disabling one tire stops the vehicle. And these days being armored vs 'anti-material' rifles, M2, Kord 12.7, etc. is desirable.

All APCs and scouts have run flat tire (aluminum inner ring) to drive on in an emergency, most have a central tire inflation system capable of maintaining two tires at full capacity with two hits each. Most units are carrying a spare, for MPs this meant one spare mounted on a rim per squad on each mission.

On LAV IIIs (Stryker for one) have protection to 14.5, and this is with add on.

All APCs are proofed against 7.62N/7.62Bloc armor piercing, antipersonnel mines, and 155mm shell splinters with detonation at more than 50 meters. 1980s and newer will save the crew but loose the vehicle to an anti armor mine.

I don't give PCs a 6x6 or an 8x8. I want them lean and hungry so they will get out of the vehicle. Don't need a winnebago to be effective.

[ArmySGT.]

Look at this..... The V-150 lives on in a 21st century Canadian version.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...army/28729137/

[cosmicfish]

http://oshkoshdefense.com/jltv/

I missed the announcement, but apparently these are going into production with an initial run of 17,000 units.

[ArmySGT.]

Here is the Brochure from the linked page. Personally, I say wait five years, let the flaws from the first generation stuff get rectified. The contractors that deal mostly with SOCOM (with their limitless budget) will be turning out the better C2 models with better radio suites anyway.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Here is the Brochure from the linked page. Personally, I say wait five years, let the flaws from the first generation stuff get rectified. The contractors that deal mostly with SOCOM (with their limitless budget) will be turning out the better C2 models with better radio suites anyway.

Agreed - as I have mentioned in this and other threads, the Project has too many risks already to make it worse with unproven equipment. That having been said, the last few times I ran TMP I shifted everything a few years into the future from "today" and assumed that the Project was ahead of the curve a bit. If I was running a new game NOW I would consider something like this over the XR311 or the Commando Ranger, with the war coming in the 2018 timeframe and with the Project having planned all along to finalize their equipment stores about a year beforehand.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

http://oshkoshdefense.com/jltv/

I missed the announcement, but apparently these are going into production with an initial run of 17,000 units.

With the JLTV coming out, that means the surplus market is going to be flooded with every model of HMMWV. All the more likely that these would go into caches and depots for Project use. Tons of parts too. So when the DoD goes onto something new the Project quietly scoops up the surplus.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

With the JLTV coming out, that means the surplus market is going to be flooded with every model of HMMWV. All the more likely that these would go into caches and depots for Project use. Tons of parts too. So when the DoD goes onto something new the Project quietly scoops up the surplus.

Sounds reasonable, but remember the way the military flows a lot of surplus to the Guard and/or police units - there will be a lot of competition. One thing I always considered was that the Project was buying some things and manufacturing some others, and that the state-of-the-art stuff was going to the "point" teams while the surplus purchases were going to the support teams and bases that were less likely to see combat.

So if I was setting the last gear up for a few years from now, I might put some JLTV's slipped quietly off the production line into the hands of MARS and Recon, and give the Ag and Psych teams surplus hummers.

[tsofian]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

I don't have the new version yet, just the old version... but I think Science-One was the only vehicle I kept the last time I played. The rest are dated and/or impractical and/or conspicuous compared to what else they could do. The Science-One I kept because, being original it could be presumed to be cutting edge, because there were no other mobile science labs I could find, and because I couldn't think of anything better!

I use the MGM-134 mobile launcher as my Science Rover chassis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-134_Midgetman

http://www.hill.af.mil/library/facts...et.asp?id=5717





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T80V5rbfZ6o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy4J-ZZ7MPo

I change the trailer to lab space and give a walk through from cab to trailer. I also make the trailer the expandable type where the walls fold down into a larger volume space like an RV

[cosmicfish]

I would probably use this as the base instead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_...Tactical_Truck

A little more modern, a little more rugged, etc. Personal preference, really. But I would probably still build from scratch for Science 1, I think it would be worthwhile.

[tsofian]

I don't think the Hemmet is more rugged than the Hardened Mobile Launcher. Hemmets aren't designed to survive the sorts of blast over pressure the HML was

[tsofian]

Here are pics of the Hard Mobile Launcher

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

I don't think the Hemmet is more rugged than the Hardened Mobile Launcher. Hemmets aren't designed to survive the sorts of blast over pressure the HML was

So why don't we design bombers to imitate the ruggedness of the Space Shuttle? Which was killed by a piece of frozen foam?

From what I can find (in particular the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), the HML was designed to survive specific hazards and operate only on military bases and very flat areas. I don't think it was able to operate anywhere that was not pretty flat and gentle, and not especially quickly either. And while it could survive a high-pressure wave it was not seemingly intended to survive ground combat - I can find no reference to any protection against anything other than a somewhat distant nuclear weapon, and that is not very good protection against anything else.

In short, while it is an interesting vehicle, it was designed for a very specialized mission that does not line up well with Project requirements. You could up-armor it, but there is nothing to be done about the terrible mobility.

[tsofian]

The Hemmet is a truck, to the best of my recollection it doesn't have any armor at all. It is reasonably mobile, for a truck, but once you load it down with a whole lot of armor and mission required equipment and such it is going to have mobility issues as well

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

The Hemmet is a truck, to the best of my recollection it doesn't have any armor at all. It is reasonably mobile, for a truck, but once you load it down with a whole lot of armor and mission required equipment and such it is going to have mobility issues as well

No, it doesn't have any armor, and adding some will impair it a bit, depending on how much it weighs compared to the normal cargo load. But it is designed to go anywhere the army goes, and that means it can handle most terrains and situations. The prototype HML's were designed to operate on bases and in flatlands, and there are not many places in the US where you can drag a hundred foot trailer or that can accommodate such a low ground clearance, both of which were design requirements for launching the missiles and surviving a nearby nuke strike.

The HML is cool, but it is a very specialized vehicle designed for a very narrow mission, and outside that mission it is completely impractical.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by tsofian

The Hemmet is a truck, to the best of my recollection it doesn't have any armor at all. It is reasonably mobile, for a truck, but once you load it down with a whole lot of armor and mission required equipment and such it is going to have mobility issues as well

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

No, it doesn't have any armor, and adding some will impair it a bit, depending on how much it weighs compared to the normal cargo load. But it is designed to go anywhere the army goes, and that means it can handle most terrains and situations. The prototype HML's were designed to operate on bases and in flatlands, and there are not many places in the US where you can drag a hundred foot trailer or that can accommodate such a low ground clearance, both of which were design requirements for launching the missiles and surviving a nearby nuke strike.

The HML is cool, but it is a very specialized vehicle designed for a very narrow mission, and outside that mission it is completely impractical.

There is a uparmor kit for the Hemmet since 2005. This doesn't affect the carrying capacity much, it is a 10 ton truck.

[tsofian]

I thought the armor kit effected the center of gravity badly and lead to the vehicle becoming even more role prone that it was originally (Which I don't think was nearly as bad at Hummers). I never drove a Hemmet, but did drive the BIDS version of the Hummer, which had a huge laboratory box on the back and those things were bears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_...Tactical_Truck

I think a lab version of the Hemmet is going to have some issues. The vehicle is a ten ton truck but I think the armor kit only covers the cab, not the payload area. I have seen some gun trucks that have armor on the payload areas but that basically takes up the whole weight of the payload and doesn't leave much for anything else.

In adddition the Hemmet isn't NBC sealed. The HML is all about surviving in a post strike environment. It will certainly have a harder time climbing hills but a lot depends upon the trailer. The HML trailer is designed to house, protect from a nearby nuclear strike and then launch a 30,000 pound ICBM.

With either the Hemmet or the HML the payload will need to be fully custom. I think that a lab doesn't need to be as long or as heavy as the missile trailer was.

YMMV

[ArmySGT.]

Ah but, Hemmets sport the palletized loading system.

Well later A4 models do.

M977 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck.pdf

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

I think a lab version of the Hemmet is going to have some issues. The vehicle is a ten ton truck but I think the armor kit only covers the cab, not the payload area. I have seen some gun trucks that have armor on the payload areas but that basically takes up the whole weight of the payload and doesn't leave much for anything else.

Depending on the level of armor you are looking for, you can fit a lot on the payload and still have room for a lot of equipment. But this remains one of the reasons I think Science One is a custom vehicle.

Originally Posted by tsofian

In adddition the Hemmet isn't NBC sealed. The HML is all about surviving in a post strike environment. It will certainly have a harder time climbing hills but a lot depends upon the trailer. The HML trailer is designed to house, protect from a nearby nuclear strike and then launch a 30,000 pound ICBM.

You can modify ANYTHING to be NBC sealed. But the HML will not "have a harder time climbing hills", it will be completely unable to do so, or to cross any kind of rough terrain - i.e., the vast majority of the post-apocalyptic landscape. It was designed to operate off-road only in the sense that wide flat plains and deserts can be considered "off-road".

[tsofian]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

So why don't we design bombers to imitate the ruggedness of the Space Shuttle? Which was killed by a piece of frozen foam?

From what I can find (in particular the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), the HML was designed to survive specific hazards and operate only on military bases and very flat areas.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is an interesting and very biased source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet...mic_Scientists The group that publishes it is against all nuclear weapons as well as most other nuclear technology and other emerging technologies as well. The likelihood of them publishing a favorable report on any piece of nuclear hardware is fairly remote. Their goal is to discredit all nuclear weapons programs and the use of propaganda is one way they attempt to sway public opinion

Just as a data point the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) has a 515 Hp power plant, eight wheel drive and a total all up weight with the B armor kit of 109.000 pounds. The HML has 1,200 horses and also eight wheel drive and an all up weight of 239,000 pounds or 211 pounds per horse power for the HEMTT and 115 pounds per horse power for the HML. I would say that while towing a ICBM the HML is probably pretty limited but I can't see why the tractor alone would be less mobile than a HEMTT.

Also sealing a vehicle against NBC threats requires a lot of work. The system must not only be sealed but it must also be equipped with an air cleaning and handling system that will ensure that contaminants are filtered out and the air is usually at overpressure to assist in keeping the bad stuff on the outside.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is an interesting and very biased source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet...mic_Scientists The group that publishes it is against all nuclear weapons as well as most other nuclear technology and other emerging technologies as well. The likelihood of them publishing a favorable report on any piece of nuclear hardware is fairly remote. Their goal is to discredit all nuclear weapons programs and the use of propaganda is one way they attempt to sway public opinion

If you like there are also GAO and DoD reports that mention not only the difficulty in finding areas capable of supporting the HML's operations but also the expense of adding roads for them to operate on. Everything in my engineering training and experience, and everything I see about this vehicle combine to tell me that this vehicle was not ever intended to be any more than nominally off-road, and that it would be unable to operate in any but a small fraction of the post-apocalyptic US.

Remember, the challenge for this technology was getting something that would haul around the missile at all. One of the first things sacrificed was "go anywhere" mobility. They didn't need that, this was always intended to operate in the same kinds of places missiles were already based, and those places by and large had lots of flat land and often roads.

Originally Posted by tsofian

Just as a data point the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) has a 515 Hp power plant, eight wheel drive and a total all up weight with the B armor kit of 109.000 pounds. The HML has 1,200 horses and also eight wheel drive and an all up weight of 239,000 pounds or 211 pounds per horse power for the HEMTT and 115 pounds per horse power for the HML. I would say that while towing a ICBM the HML is probably pretty limited but I can't see why the tractor alone would be less mobile than a HEMTT.

Because power is not nearly the only factor in off-road maneuverability. Among many others there is also ground clearance, the HML's biggest problem. Looking at pictures it looks like it has less than 8" of ground clearance, and in a vehicle as long and as wide as this thing even hard, gentle terrain will hit the breakover angle while softer or slightly rougher terrain will just grind it to a halt. Plus, the thing is so danged wide.

Originally Posted by tsofian

Also sealing a vehicle against NBC threats requires a lot of work. The system must not only be sealed but it must also be equipped with an air cleaning and handling system that will ensure that contaminants are filtered out and the air is usually at overpressure to assist in keeping the bad stuff on the outside.

And yet every Morrow vehicle already has NBC systems that meet the exact same standard that you would need for Science One. If the SK-25 can meet the spec, then it is not that hard to achieve.

[tsofian]

Can you link to those sources? I'd like to have them for my reference. Thanks!

The biggest issue might be the trailer. The MP trailer will be a home-brew design for certain, but it could certainly be much shorter and weigh less then the missile transporter/erector/launcher. The tractor itself, with a different trailer may well have much better mobility

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

Can you link to those sources? I'd like to have them for my reference. Thanks!

Here are a few I could recover:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/142998.pdf
http://digitalcollections.library.cm...le&item=712384

Remember that details on this kind of thing are not going to be found on unclassified sites even now.

Originally Posted by tsofian

The biggest issue might be the trailer. The MP trailer will be a home-brew design for certain, but it could certainly be much shorter and weigh less then the missile transporter/erector/launcher. The tractor itself, with a different trailer may well have much better mobility

There is no doubt that the trailer is the worst part, but even for the prime mover by itself significant improvements in off-road capability would have rendered it much more vulnerable to the nuclear blast it was designed to survive. Even looking at the pictures the prototypes look like they would have trouble clearing a curb.