http://www.theage.com.au/drive/motor-news/military-drive-for-jeep-20091027-hi8j.html

The Jeep could be on the verge of making a return to its roots: serving in the US army.

http://www.theage.com.au/drive/motor-news/military-drive-for-jeep-20091027-hi8j.html

The Jeep could be on the verge of making a return to its roots: serving in the US army.

it's a great idea, but i wouldn't want to take that thing into combat at all. there are faster and more agile multi-purpose vehicles out there being proposed to the Military.

i think the J8 would be suited for border patrol, but there's no way a 50 cal would ever be mounted on it. current the border patrol uses modified Tahoes and Suburbans with the front bumper removed and a custom bumper installed to increase the angle better suited for off-road driving.

as much as i like the J8, i think it needs to be beefed up a bit before it ever sees combat. there is no way in h*ll that i would want to be in that thing when bullets are flying. i would rather be in a humvee that offers more protection, or one of the JLTV's that are hopefully coming out within the next half a decade

That Jeep has every after market accessory I could ever want!

Jeep has been trying to do this for a few years. It's already had success selling similar models to other armed forces around the world. I'm guessing that's a .30 caliber MG on there, but if an old MB could handle a .30, I wouldn't be surprised if this could handle a .50. And don't forget an M38A1 was sometimes equipped with a tactical nuclear cannon. Unfortunately, the blast zone exceeded the firing range.

When we were kids, we loved "The Rat Patrol". This stirred up some fond memories.:)

lol on Rat Patrol, I drove those same Jeeps when I was in the Army, guess that ages me, lol. We generally had M60 (7.62mm, 308) machine guns mounted, not the M2 (50 cal) heavy barrel. The 50's are usually base camp defense, not squad weapons.

The name Jeep comes from old military slang for the vehicles, being they were General Purpose, or GP, which was slanged to be Jeep.

in my opinion the J8 needs to be beefed up before it ever should even be considered to enter combat. the Army has come a long way since the open-top Jeeps that used to be their work-horse in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

however, i would be in favor of the J8 being used as a no-contact quick reconnaissance vehicle but i still think it needs more protection before it's ever given to the special forces. i know the scout vehicles used in Desert Storm had even less protection than the J8, but they were more agile.

i think the J8 is heading in the right direction, but it needs some improvements before the Army uses it for actual combat. it could at least replace the utility Humvees that are used around my base and other bases for transporting equipment etc. however, the Army won't replace these unless they have to due to cost reasons related to budget cuts

UMM...where do I get the .30 cal aftermarket addon for my Jeep :D

The classifieds in Military Vehicles Magazine. Unfortunately, you'll have to settle for a welded receiver:( One guy around here has one on his MB.

If you like military vehicles and/or need Jeep parts for CJ, XJ, YJ, TJ, JK. there's a great WWII Museum in Hubbard, OH and 4WD Hardware is about a 1/2 hour away in Columbiana, OH. A Jeep Junkyard is there as well. They do live firings of .50 calibers at the museum a few times a year. You can participate for a fee. It a museum fundraiser, but I haven't had the pleasure.

I've got a friend from many Jeep Jamborees who lives nearby and is sometimes able to get mud tires from the Denman Tire factory in Warren. They're the folks who manufacture Swampers and Buckshots. He as an "in" for employee pricing, but it's limited to 2 sets a year. My wife is from around there and I never complain about visiting her relatives. Actually when we go, I don't spend much time at the house at all, as you may have guessed.:)

as much as i like the J8, i think it needs to be beefed up a bit before it ever sees combat. there is no way in h*ll that i would want to be in that thing when bullets are flying.

The article does state that it is not intended to be a combat vehicle. Although, the WW2 version gets high praise from IKE down to the GI's about how it helped win WW2.

Sometimes mobility is more important than armament and protection. I was reading the other day about how some of our service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan don't like all the body armor they have to wear because it reduces their mobility.

Border patrol: how about a 20mm gatlin cannon:-))).

It's about time!

The article does state that it is not intended to be a combat vehicle. Although, the WW2 version gets high praise from IKE down to the GI's about how it helped win WW2.



this is true, the WWII Jeep received a lot of praise from the Army...but it was revolutionary for its time and answered the call for the desperate need of a vehicle that could haul medium artillery guns, troops, and be airdropped into combat. a vehicle similar to that model would not be sufficient for today's modern combat theaters...however a vehicle with the same revolutionary design (in a modern sense) would be welcome


Sometimes mobility is more important than armament and protection. I was reading the other day about how some of our service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan don't like all the body armor they have to wear because it reduces their mobility.


i agree...in some situations mobility is more important than protection. the J8 would have to be made more agile if it would like to fall in the "mobility" category as the Army and Special Forces both currently have very quick and agile off-road vehicles. all i'm saying is that the J8 needs to be modified more if it wants to be Army worthy...whether that involves more protection or armor or more agility (depending on which kind of vehicle they want this to be)


on a side note...how is your Liberty going? i've been taking notice of them on base a lot...i'm starting to think maybe it would be a nice vehicle to have. what have your MPG's been averaging so far?

is it just me, or does that look like a truck you would see a bunch of somali's or iraqi(anti-american) rolling around in.

i like it, but at the same time i dont. if there were to be a new Army Jeep, it would have to be less wrangler-ish and more cherokee/hummer-ish as far as design. there is just to much ordinance that would be able to penetrate a low armor vehicle like that ://

is it just me, or does that look like a truck you would see a bunch of somali's or iraqi(anti-american) rolling around in.

i like it, but at the same time i dont. if there were to be a new Army Jeep, it would have to be less wrangler-ish and more cherokee/hummer-ish as far as design. there is just to much ordinance that would be able to penetrate a low armor vehicle like that ://

that's what i was trying to say...it looks too much like what the anti-american forces would be driving. it needs to be beefed up A LOT before it ever was to see combat since the soldiers are way too exposed.

what would be pretty cool would be a flight follower type of helmet that would control a 50 cal in the rear. you would have the driver controlling the vehicle, but the passenger would have the flight follower helmet and look at the target and the 50-cal would rotate to that target (similar to what they have on the Cobra attack helicopters).

i still would demand the J8 get beefed up before it ever saw combat...but if it played a supporting role on base i would be in favor of the current design

is it just me, or does that look like a truck you would see a bunch of somali's or iraqi(anti-american) rolling around in.

i like it, but at the same time i dont. if there were to be a new Army Jeep, it would have to be less wrangler-ish and more cherokee/hummer-ish as far as design. there is just to much ordinance that would be able to penetrate a low armor vehicle like that ://

Actually I think the taliban was notorious for driving Toyotas iirc.

this is true, the WWII Jeep received a lot of praise from the Army...but it was revolutionary for its time and answered the call for the desperate need of a vehicle that could haul medium artillery guns, troops, and be airdropped into combat. a vehicle similar to that model would not be sufficient for today's modern combat theaters...however a vehicle with the same revolutionary design (in a modern sense) would be welcome



i agree...in some situations mobility is more important than protection. the J8 would have to be made more agile if it would like to fall in the "mobility" category as the Army and Special Forces both currently have very quick and agile off-road vehicles. all i'm saying is that the J8 needs to be modified more if it wants to be Army worthy...whether that involves more protection or armor or more agility (depending on which kind of vehicle they want this to be)


on a side note...how is your Liberty going? i've been taking notice of them on base a lot...i'm starting to think maybe it would be a nice vehicle to have. what have your MPG's been averaging so far?


Your comments outline exactly what is wrong with Jeep. Any Wrangler should be battle ready with little or no modification.

is it just me, or does that look like a truck you would see a bunch of somali's or iraqi(anti-american) rolling around in.

i like it, but at the same time i dont. if there were to be a new Army Jeep, it would have to be less wrangler-ish and more cherokee/hummer-ish as far as design. there is just to much ordinance that would be able to penetrate a low armor vehicle like that ://

Have you seen a WW2 Jeep?
No doors, canvas roof.
Not safe, but still very useful.

Your comments outline exactly what is wrong with Jeep. Any Wrangler should be battle ready with little or no modification.

if a factory stock Wrangler was battle-ready from the get-go, no one would be able to afford one. the same goes for Humvees...the stock version is not battle-ready by any means.

the Army's standards for combat worthiness have increased exponentially since the Jeep was accepted into the Army's fleet.


however, with what you said...that would be SO COOL if consumers could purchase battle-ready Wranglers (minus the weaponry obviously)


Have you seen a WW2 Jeep?
No doors, canvas roof.
Not safe, but still very useful.


this is true, but the modern combat theater is different than back in WWII. troops need protection against IED's and RPG's that are not only explosive, but shoot a slug that will go through a couple of inches of thick steel. a vehicle like the J8 would never be able to see combat if it wasn't beefed up. any vehicle that rolls through the streets of Baghdad needs 360-degrees of protection (top, bottom, all sides, rear, etc). however, the urban fighting is now shifting to open valleys and desert in Afghanistan. it just further shows that the Army needs have a diverse arsenal of weaponry and vehicles that support the warfighter in all environments (hot, cold, mountainous, flat, desert, junge, urban, etc)

i am in support of replacing the aging Humvee fleet used on bases for transportation, hauling equipment, or general support , with the J8. however the Army would need some sort of cost justification to get rid of these vehicles since many of them work just fine and require minimal maintenance. if the J8 could save the Army money in some way or increase functionality, then they will jump on it. i just don't see anything with it at the moment that would make the Army increase costs over besides the fact that it looks "cool"

I wonder what milage would be in a full armored Jeep, 6 MPG maybe. No idea why anyone would want that for their vehicle unless in a war zone.

I wonder what milage would be in a full armored Jeep, 6 MPG maybe. No idea why anyone would want that for their vehicle unless in a war zone.

ask the H1 owners why they wanted to get 10 mpg average lol

I think something like that could definitely serve a role in the military. From my Army days, I recall our HMMWV's (both armored and soft tops) were often simply too large, too wide, or too heavy for a lot of terrain.

Not every mission requires an up armored 1114 or even a soft top HMMWV. When I served in the Balkans, our SF detachments routinely used Mitsubishi Monteros; I suspect because they were fast, quiet, maneuverable, and relatively inconspicuous. I served in a mech infantry unit and there were many times we had to modify our routes through town because our HMMWV's were too wide to get through streets or across bridges or were too heavy for eroding mountain roads. Our Bradleys were almost never fielded because of this.

I could definitely see the US Army having a need for a small, fast, and agile 4WD vehicle. If they're going to procure Monteros, why not consider a Jeep?

im not saying it couldnt be used for auxilary uses...but like that, its not much of a vehicle. and i agree that not all situations call for humvees, and i do know theyre are dune buggys and things of that sort in use by the army, but that simply looks like it would be pretty slow compared to anything else its size.

if the Army was looking for a light transport with light armor and good mobility, that could simply be a Wrangler or Unlimited with a few modifcations..this J8 would kinda be too heavy to be light, and too light to be heavy.

That Jeep has every after market accessory I could ever want!

Kaz, don't you think the Jerry Can on the side is a bit over the top though... :D

If I were taking a city, I say give me a tank, if I'm a fwd observer (if they even have those anymore) give me a jeep! Heck, drones are going to take over everything, so I guess it doesn't much matter anymore :-(

on a side note...how is your Liberty going? i've been taking notice of them on base a lot...i'm starting to think maybe it would be a nice vehicle to have. what have your MPG's been averaging so far?

When we got the Liberty, with about 3,000 miles, my wife was averaging a little of 18 MPG. It now has a little of 4,000 miles and she is averaging a little over 19 MPG. By contrast, the JGC I drive to work has been averaging between 19.3 and 20.4 MPG.

I'm surprised at how many people feel the 3.7L is underpowered. Either they have way too high expectations or they haven't driven a Jeep powered by it. Speaking for the Liberty, it is an excellent engine. While the Liberty isn't as quick as the XJ, let there be no mistake, if you don't want grass to grow under the tires, it is very capable. Yes, I am still biased toward the 4.0L, but the 3.7 is a nice substitute. I want to see the new Phoenix engines starting next year.

It is a very nice riding vehicle. I now can see why most people who buy the new Liberty like them. The steering is nice and crisp with a tight turning radius (but not as good as the XJ, but better than the JGC that I am now driving). The seats took a little adjusting to, but now I like them. Brakes are very good.

Haven't had the opportunity to take it off-road, but I will before the snow starts flying to make sure everything checks out. It has hill descent control, which I would like to check out to see if I like it better than manual braking.

BTW, my son is in the process of putting a new (used) engine in the XJ. He is buying it off us and has changed all gaskets and other odds and ends before installing it the vehicle. Glad to see it will be back on the road.

Hoosier,

What model year is your Grand?
My in-laws had a mid 90's with a 6 in it. They would get low 20's on the road most of the time.

[QUOTE=joesjeeps And don't forget an M38A1 was sometimes equipped with a tactical nuclear cannon. Unfortunately, the blast zone exceeded the firing range. [/QUOTE]

LMAO, I do not know why that's funny to me, but it is.:hammertime:

Hoosier,

What model year is your Grand?
My in-laws had a mid 90's with a 6 in it. They would get low 20's on the road most of the time.

It's a 4.0L 2003. Most of my driving is highway driving. Of course, if I wanted to drive like a bat out of jello, I could significantly reduce my MPG:-)).

I think the J8 would be an excellent idea for use in the USA, it would free up our gas guzzling HMMWVs for deployment. Serving in the US the Jeep wouldn't need all the heavy armor that plagues our HMMWVs.

I can think of several uses for a military grade Wrangler folks. Too many of you are focusing on convoys! What about fire department command vehicles for places like Hill AFB Utah; Nevada; Afghanistan? What about Security Forces perimeter control? First Response Medical? Civil Engineering?

Being in the SOG I can tell you personally that we could find a use for this Jeep and apply it to almost every operation we use. Far too many people get caught up on what the media portrays war to be...convoys.

Interesting topic!

Out of curiosity I did some digging around. The Egyptians are buying J8's, for patrols and auxiliary purposes, and as another stated, it's about functionality and mobility. I drove an unarmored LMTV into Iraq in a convoy of soft-skinned HMMWVs. All the doors were even put in shipping containers before we left the U.S. since a canvas door won't do anything but get in the way! It's not all about heavy exuberantly-priced armored RPG magnets (or as the insurgents would say, 'magnetic force-shielded' when their wild shots miss!). Besides, wont' do them much good to attack a 50+ light vehicle convoy with hundreds of soldiers in body armor, armed with everything from rifles and hand grenades to .50 cal machine guns and 40mm automatic grenade launchers :wow: Besides, there was an armored concept, see the last video.
I found a couple videos in which we are told they could be ordered in the US with the Liberty's former 2.8L diesel, or a 5.7L HEMI. They are given some heavy duty equipment and a lift for heavy hauling off-highway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beHF-9ZkMTI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lRtvZKUBHI

Also, enjoy and towards teh end (2:20) there is a armored J8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7neyKDBR8IU

I just want to start by saying, I love Jeeps, and I know that Jeeps were first Military vehicles. However, the needs of the Military has changed and Jeep has not. Anyone who has seen modern combat knows that. If we would have shown up in Iraq and Afganistan with these jokes, our causality list would be ten times larger then it already is. To emphisize my point allow me to illistrate.
in 2003 we showed up in Iraq with standard HMMWV's
http://www.jeeppatriot.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=318&pictureid=1924
After the initail invasion we had to upgrade to our HMMWV's to counter the insergents
http://www.jeeppatriot.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=318&pictureid=1925
In a high number of cases those HMMWV were not offering enough protection so we brought in Dragoons
http://www.jeeppatriot.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=318&pictureid=1930
Those were older vehicles and needed replacing so the Stryker was introduced
http://www.jeeppatriot.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=318&pictureid=1927
The Rhino was specificly designed to take a land mine blast from direcly underneath protect the personnel inside.
http://www.jeeppatriot.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=318&pictureid=1928
Ok this may look cool but where does it fit in? I think this is just an attempt at Chrysler to land a fat Government Contract in order to stay afloat.
http://www.jeeppatriot.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=318&pictureid=1929

http://www.jeeppatriot.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=318&pictureid=1926
This is the Titan, a vehicle currently being researched by the Military to replace the HMMWV. If Chrysler could compete with this they may have a chance at the contract.

robi454, I agree, though even in the U.S. military, all are disposable.. we raised our hand saying we'd sacrifice our lives to complete our mission and to protect others. When the cost to keep us alive exceeds our value, which our government overall does seem to value its defenders greatly, that is when we have to make use of what is already available, including our minds.

You are correct. I am constantly being reminded how disposable I am. As a dog handler, one of my jobs is to sweep convoy routes on foot prior to the convoys heading out.

All I am saying is that after all the upgrading the military has done to protect its war fighters, I don't see us going backwards to the Jeep. Now it is quite possible that the jeep could be used back in the States to replace what we call the CCUTV's.(regular commercial vehicles used for light noncombat roles).

Now it is quite possible that the jeep could be used back in the States to replace what we call the CCUTV's.(regular commercial vehicles used for light noncombat roles).

possibly. on my army base all of the hauling is done by decommissioned Humvees or pickup trucks (F-150, Silverados, Dodge Rams, etc). i don't see the army going out and buying brand new Jeep J8's b/c they look cool. these decommissioned Humvees would need to break down. but, then they'll just get more decommissioned Humvees from theater and strip those down.

the Humvee is a work horse, and they don't just quit running. they keep running and running. the Army would need a legitimate justification for scrapping perfectly working vehicles to buy Jeep J8's.

Exactly my point. This is just an attempt from Chrysler to get some more government money. I deal with a lot of vehicles at work, Military and civilian specs, and other then the special purpose vehicles (HMMWV's, LMTV's, basicly vehicles made only for the military) and I know how much the government pays for them.

Take an F-350 Superduty. Whats the wholesale price tag on one if a private company were to pruchase ten of them? 40k maybe 50k, the govenment pays 60k to 80k when buying hundreds of them.

Exactly my point. This is just an attempt from Chrysler to get some more government money. I deal with a lot of vehicles at work, Military and civilian specs, and other then the special purpose vehicles (HMMWV's, LMTV's, basicly vehicles made only for the military) and I know how much the government pays for them.

Take an F-350 Superduty. Whats the wholesale price tag on one if a private company were to pruchase ten of them? 40k maybe 50k, the govenment pays 60k to 80k when buying hundreds of them.

government overpays for EVERYTHING...except for hotels. gotta love the military per diem :smiley_thumbs_up:

They don't overpay me, that is for damn sure.

They don't overpay me, that is for damn sure.

i 2nd that lol

i just don't see where the Jeel J8 will fit in. i know we love jeeps...but the fact is that most hauling / transportation jobs on base can be accomplished with pickup trucks (F-150's, Silverados, and Rams). anything too big to accomplish with these pickup trucks, that's where the decommissioned humvees come along. are they fuel efficient? nope. have they already paid for themselves in combat theater use? yep. will a Jeep J8 fleet be more expensive to purchase (even if it is more fuel efficient) than keeping around decommissioned humvees or continuing to decommission humvees from theater? of course it will be more expensive.

while i love the Jeep...i don't ever expect it to get back into military use again. it's a new type of warfare these days and our soldiers require a vehicle that's more robust than a jacked up Wrangler with bells and whistles. on the domestic front, there are already vehicles (and more vehicles in concept phases) that accomplish the Jeep J8's intended purpose much much better.

believe me, it's every current general's wet dream to be able to drive around in a Jeep on base. it's just not like the good old days anymore...

As requested:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3836/storm3armoredfront.jpg

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/4972/storm2032020armored2020.jpg

Although the British army has dedicated APCs , they have for many years & still do today rely on the Land Rover Defender. This vehicle is great for the SAS Snatch Squads & Long Range desert Patrols ( It beats a Hummer hands down over soft sand) But it is basicaly a " Soft Skinned " vehicle & suceptible to small arms fire & roadside bombs.The Brits are working on other designs but untill such times as they come on line the poor old British " Squaddie" has to make do with what he is given.The British army has thousands of Defenders & I feel they are loathe to get rid of them.

WOW, that Jeep looks way to heavy. The tires are straining to hold the weight. It does look cool.

Have you seen a WW2 Jeep?
No doors, canvas roof.
Not safe, but still very useful.

yeah, that was WWII. When they lost over 3K soldiers in one day and no one complained. Today you lose 3 soldiers in one month and everyone hates you. Most people must think that war is like a Rambo movie, one American with unlimited ammo, grenades, a bowie knife, and a few arrows takes out and entire regime.

also, i was watching a TV show, they are promoting a new vehicle, more expensive than the hummer, but safer, and it would actually save the army money, cuz the less soldiers they lose, the less insurance policies they have to pay out. thats what they said. I guess the hummers cost around $250.000, and this vehicle would cost almost $500.000 but can carry more soldier, more weapons and has better armor and ground clearance against IED.

that vehicle looks cool, but i doubt it has any underbody protection which is what our soldiers need. the only thing that this could be good for would be riot control...but we already have decent vehicles for that