It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oshkosh L-ATV $399,000 fully loaded

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
With the cost of a Humvee being $70,000 unarmored, and around $200,000 armored, does anyone think Trump will see an issue with the nearly $4400,000 a piece price tag of the Oshkosh? Keep in mind the average median cost of a house in the US is $189,000.
The Median Home Price Is $188,900. Here’s What That Actually Buys You.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

With a cost of "loaded" Oshkosh at 399,000 a piece, does anyone think that the Trump admin will start to question the cost of these little golden peaches?


As we reported yesterday, the initial contract for low-rate initial production and full-rate production was valued at $6.7 billion, although over the lifetime of production, the cost would likely run about $30 billion. According to a story on Defense One, Army officials said the average price of each truck would be below $399,000. And if that sounds dear, take solace in the fact that that figure includes a full complement of battle equipment.
www.autoblog.com...

A humvee was 70,000$ not armored, and around 200,000$ with. But the new Oshkosh should be safer.


As for how it compares to the Humvee, a 2011 report from CNN indicated that a basic model cost Uncle Sam around $70,000, although that figure ballooned to $160,000 to $220,000 once armor was fitted. So while the JLTV could be thought of as costing at least $180,000 more than its predecessor, it's worth noting that the new vehicle should be far more survivable than the modified Humvee.

edit on Sun Dec 25 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: title edit




posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
The original Jeeps made for WW II cost the government $648.74 - $782.59 apiece.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I remember as a yoot when I was working for the Corps of Engineers, I was stunned, nay, flabbergasted at what my gubmint was paying for equipment. I knew what some of that stuff went for, and I asked the boss. "There's retail for civilians, discount for technicians, and there's the special government price"

"What's special about it?"

"It's about three times the retail price for the same equipment"



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
With the cost of a Humvee being $70,000 unarmored, and around $200,000 armored, does anyone think Trump will see an issue with the nearly $4400,000 a piece price tag of the Oshkosh? Keep in mind the average median cost of a house in the US is $189,000.
The Median Home Price Is $188,900. Here’s What That Actually Buys You.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

With a cost of "loaded" Oshkosh at 399,000 a piece, does anyone think that the Trump admin will start to question the cost of these little golden peaches?


As we reported yesterday, the initial contract for low-rate initial production and full-rate production was valued at $6.7 billion, although over the lifetime of production, the cost would likely run about $30 billion. According to a story on Defense One, Army officials said the average price of each truck would be below $399,000. And if that sounds dear, take solace in the fact that that figure includes a full complement of battle equipment.
www.autoblog.com...

A humvee was 70,000$ not armored, and around 200,000$ with. But the new Oshkosh should be safer.


As for how it compares to the Humvee, a 2011 report from CNN indicated that a basic model cost Uncle Sam around $70,000, although that figure ballooned to $160,000 to $220,000 once armor was fitted. So while the JLTV could be thought of as costing at least $180,000 more than its predecessor, it's worth noting that the new vehicle should be far more survivable than the modified Humvee.



A hummer was 80k from the showroom in the 90's.

Basic frame and configuration, without custom leather seats and wood, stereo, paint job and carpeting? 20k?

Wholesale armored? $170k

Add 10% service charge over cost and it's nowhere near 400k.






posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
Seems like the tax payer is getting nailed and Oshkosh is yucking it up. I hope Trump looks at this and asks some prettty serious questions.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Bedlam
Seems like the tax payer is getting nailed and Oshkosh is yucking it up. I hope Trump looks at this and asks some prettty serious questions.


Don't they make high end childrens clothes?





posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Oshkosh bgosh That's what I thought. Could you imagine the price of a baby's one-zee? $400.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Oshkosh bgosh That's what I thought. Could you imagine the price of a baby's one-zee? $400.


Duluth Trading is worse. $25 for one pair of drawers.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Not sure why he would want to tweet about this project. I don't see any problems with it. They delivered the unarmored version at the price point requested by the army. And the army agreed with the fully armored and combat equipped version price. It is designed with armor in mind and not just an after thought like the Humvee. It has higher ground clearance and better suspension then a Humvee. It was designed to be carried into battle by helicopter if needed, something the MRAP cant do. All in all seems like an all around good purchase for the Army.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Same with the 35 and the boeing deal.

Sorry, I think the $$$ that was being thrown around was wrong and irresponsible. Obama just let the money flow.

Seems like a new wind may, and I did say may be blowing into the Military Industrial complex.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Pyle

Same with the 35 and the boeing deal.

Sorry, I think the $$$ that was being thrown around was wrong and irresponsible. Obama just let the money flow.

Seems like a new wind may, and I did say may be blowing into the Military Industrial complex.


Nah you are just angry because Trump brought them up.

The F-35 costs were coming down before Trump said anything. T

he VC-25 replacement estimates were as cheap as Boeing could go for 2 of a one off production build that could meet the Air Forces requirements and they were still projecting to lose money on them. Boeing will of strive to build them cheaper just to make their losses smaller. If the Air Force wants cheaper VC-25 replacements they will need to change the requirements.

So basically Trump tweets are much to do about nothing.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

100 million plus per plane is crazy money, when the world is moving to drones.

But hey what is the difference, as long as the public can say oooooo look at that. And the share holders can say ooooo look at the return.

And I thought the prices were getting out of control for quite a while. There is a real need for oversight, and the lobbied can't and won't do the job. Trump may be up for the job.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Well, you have to remember; the Humvee was designed for all-terrain "transport". It was never designed to be an Armored Personnel Carrier. The Marine MRAP program was a purpose built vehicle designed to be heavily armored against IED type weapons as well as small to medium arms. But, MRAPs are big and they're heavy, and they're not nearly as maneuverable.

The IED just about made the HMMWV (Humvee) obsolete overnight, and up-armoring was an absolute requirement, but the up-armoring was an afterthought which made them much more difficult to maintain. The L-ATV is a vehicle designed as a transport, but is already up-armored beyond that of the Humvee, and can be even fitted with further armor.

I don't have an opinion on the cost of the L-ATV really, but the price of a single soldier's life is pretty high in my book. Plus, you can buy about 250 L-ATV's for the price of a single F-35. Kinda seems like a bargain in comparison.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Pyle

100 million plus per plane is crazy money, when the world is moving to drones.

But hey what is the difference, as long as the public can say oooooo look at that. And the share holders can say ooooo look at the return.

And I thought the prices were getting out of control for quite a while. There is a real need for oversight, and the lobbied can't and won't do the job. Trump may be up for the job.


The world is not moving to drones in all areas.

The prices for new fighters has increased drastically with each new Gen that gets built. The fact that we will be using 3 variants of 1 airframe should be a huge cost savings in the long run. Cheaper parts, logistics and training.

USAF procurement has had better oversight for a few years now. This isn't something new that Trump is bringing in. The USAF screwed the pooch hard with the KC-X program. This caused some drastic changes in the whole process. The USAF also moved to fixed cost bids with the LRSB program, cost overruns will be forced on the builder and not the government.

So please stop with the false rhetoric that Trump is somehow changing the way things are done.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Not trying to piss on your thread , but, if you ride in a humvee while being shot at, you'll appreciate the Oshkosh. We lost a lot of good men and women to the humvee due to lack if armor and poor design in general. The Oshkosh is far superior to it. Is it worth 400k, I don't know. But on the other hand, what is a Soldiers life worth? They all make money off war, it's just Oshkosh's turn. Who cares? It's still cheaper when you factor in transporting corpses and paying benefits to a family that lost one of ours.
edit on 12252016 by Natas0114 because: Typo

edit on 12252016 by Natas0114 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Pyle

100 million plus per plane is crazy money, when the world is moving to drones.

But hey what is the difference, as long as the public can say oooooo look at that. And the share holders can say ooooo look at the return.

And I thought the prices were getting out of control for quite a while. There is a real need for oversight, and the lobbied can't and won't do the job. Trump may be up for the job.


The world is not moving to drones in all areas.

The prices for new fighters has increased drastically with each new Gen that gets built. The fact that we will be using 3 variants of 1 airframe should be a huge cost savings in the long run. Cheaper parts, logistics and training.
....

Not really. They are pretty much 3 different airframes.
www.airforcemag.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
The original Jeeps made for WW II cost the government $648.74 - $782.59 apiece.



The function of Jeeps in World War II was much different than the function of vehicles today.

Also, while World War II did see use of land mines, they were not used in the same way IEDs are used today.

This is what happens to a HMMWV when it hits a typical IED.


This is what happens to a M-ATV (in current use, think of it as a precursor to the JLTV) when it hits a typical IED


Of course a bigger IED could # up a MATV pretty good as well, but note I said "typical" IED, which, in Afghanistan is a 40lbs-er. There is a huge difference in not only troop survivability (and injuries), but these new vehicles like the JLTV, MRAPs, MATV are modular and way more rebuildable than HMMWVs. Look at those pictures, which one do you think is more cost effective to rebuild? When I say modular, I'm talking about the suspension system. A modern MRAP can run over a 40 lbs IED and lose a wheel and the whole assembly can be replaced as a unit, assuming the hull isn't to compromised or damaged. The same cannot be said for HMMWVs, evidently.

Back on the availability aspect:

In 2013, one of my buddies was in an MRAP that hit a 120 pounder. It rolled the MRAP, threw the turret with the gunner and ended up on its side if my recollection of the event is correct (He was in another company). Their were 5 Marines and a dog in that MRAP. "Only" 1 of them was killed. The driver, and only because he didn't combat lock his door. When the IED hit, it blew the driver side door open and the Marine driving went half way out. When the truck rolled - you can put together the rest. The Vehicle Commander legs were broken and the turret gunner got rocked pretty good, but nothing permanent.

That blast would have vaporized a Humvee. Likely with all hands.

These vehicles also provide a lot more integrated protection for personnel as well as well as provide bigger, more reliable mobile command stations as it were. What I mean by that is it is quite possible to "live" off your trucks for extended deployments. They have more room for cargo, ammo, food, water, etc. I should know, I was in a route clearance company and lived off our trucks for weeks at a time on a regular basis, typically around 2 weeks, one time for just over a month. That wouldn't be as practical with Humvee's.

My 2 cents. Congrats if you made it this far.




top topics



 
3

log in

join