No more GI Joe trucks: Army swaps iconic Humvee

[tbone]

No more GI Joe trucks: Army swaps iconic Humvee for a faster, cheaper vehicle

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/02/armys-replacement-for-humvee-infantry-squad-vehicle/85421688007/
 

“The Army’s new 'Jeep' is easier to repair

Thousands of pounds lighter and $80,000 cheaper than the Humvee, the Infantry Squad Vehicle is based on the Chevrolet Colorado truck built in Missouri. It’s basically the same truck that consumers can buy at a local dealership. Only about 20% of the Infantry Squad Vehicle’s components, including communication and electronic gear, are unique to the Army.”

 

”You can repair it anywhere on earth as long as you have access to commercial parts rather than a special military vehicle with special military parts,” said Miller, the Army’s top technical adviser.”

 

————-

 

Technically, this probably could’ve gone under the competing products forum, however, I am commenting about it from a Ford perspective.

 

My question is did Ford even attempt to compete for this government contract? No other midsize truck, other than the Toyota Tacoma (which wouldn’t have happened) would’ve been better suited for this application than the Ranger.  It has an international footprint, and the vast majority of Ranger parts are now shared to my knowledge between regions.  This certainly would have enhance plant utilization, at least for a portion of the build process.  
 

I wish Ford would compete in the defense contract market in a significant way.  

[Joe771476]

What you're forgetting is we're talking about Government Motors as in GM!  Everything is Chevrolet, GMC or "Cadillac" where the "beast" presidential limo is on a GM TRUCK chassis.  Ford is America's car/truck brand, NOT GM. Start rewarding Ford, who took out their own loan back in 2008 by mortgaging the blue oval logo without taking bailout money!

[Rick73]

Does Ford have a comparable engine to GM’s 2.8L diesel I-4?  Just guessing that engine may be better suited for military application compared to Ford’s 2.0L I-4 or 3.0L V6.  Not sure what other diesel engines Ford has available.
 

 

[T-dubz]

Interesting. The article talks about speed, but this vehicle only does 0-60 in 15 secs which granted is much better than the hummers 36 seconds. However, I have to wonder if you are getting rid of roofs, doors, armor, etc, why not focus on side by sides? They would be much cheaper, faster, lighter and easier to transport. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Does Ford have a comparable engine to GM’s 2.8L diesel I-4?  Just guessing that engine may be better suited for military application compared to Ford’s 2.0L I-4 or 3.0L V6.  Not sure what other diesel engines Ford has available.
 

How is it better than Ford’s 2.0 and 3.0 eco blue turbo diesels?

[Sherminator98]

3 hours ago, T-dubz said:

Interesting. The article talks about speed, but this vehicle only does 0-60 in 15 secs which granted is much better than the hummers 36 seconds. However, I have to wonder if you are getting rid of roofs, doors, armor, etc, why not focus on side by sides? They would be much cheaper, faster, lighter and easier to transport. 

Because they are looking at it from a perspective of a car buyer/enthusiast. 
 

Anyways there is a lot more to this then it (not) replacing the Hummer in military service. The Army is doing a reorganization and making new units using this, but I need to see/read what they exactly trying to accomplish with it. It makes some sense in certain situations, but going wholesale light fighting makes me really wonder. 

[Rick73]

17 hours ago, akirby said:

How is it better than Ford’s 2.0 and 3.0 eco blue turbo diesels?

Only that 2.0L is a lot smaller in displacement than 2.8L, so not entirely comparable.  The 3.0L V6 is slightly larger and closer in displacement but it’s a V6.  For commercial, industrial, (non personal) marine, and probably military applications as well, inline engines seem more common for their simpler design, ease of maintenance and repairs, etc., particularly in that size range.  On plus side a Ford 2.0L diesel should have a weight advantage, assuming it can meet power and torque requirements, but would come at expense of having to operate at higher BMEP. 

 

Since military has their own engineering and other resources to evaluate and compare proposals at a different level of detail, I’d bet that selling to them is very different than selling to consumers who on average have very little technical knowledge by comparison.  Regardless, do we even know if Ford were interested in competing for this vehicle contract?  The entire issue could be a moot point. 

[Bob Rosadini]

Huh?  This is an apples and oranges comparison.  And first and foremost in my mind, if this "pick up truck" is only 80 grand cheaper than a Humvee, GM has to be making a killing.

The only thing that comes to my mind is the "technicals" that so many 3rd world armies use..a toyota pick  up with a pedestal mounted automatic weapon of some sort in the bed.🤔 

[sullynd]

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Huh?  This is an apples and oranges comparison.  And first and foremost in my mind, if this "pick up truck" is only 80 grand cheaper than a Humvee, GM has to be making a killing.

The only thing that comes to my mind is the "technicals" that so many 3rd world armies use..a toyota pick  up with a pedestal mounted automatic weapon of some sort in the bed.🤔 

Yes, or AM General was losing money on the Humvee. The crazy thing to me is 300,000 Humvees over four decades is 7500 per year. We’d be questioning the production of a truck at 7500 per MONTH.   If this truck is going to see that kind of limited production perhaps that explains the cost. 
 

That said this seems much more limited in its usefulness. 

[7Mary3]

I would be willing to wager Ford didn't even submit a proposal for the new squad vehicle.  Assuming that it would have been Ranger based, remember that every Ranger Ford manufactures comes at the expense of a very profitable Bronco.  Do we forget how hard it was a couple of years ago to find a new Ranger?  Last thing Ford would want is to lose Bronco sales to low margin DoD fleet sales.  If GM has the vehicle and the plant capacity to build it let them have it.  The Infantry Squad Vehicle is a great idea no matter who is building it, vehicles like the Humvee and the new JLTV are so expensive and specialized it makes no sense to use them for tasks a simple cheaper vehicle can do.  Similar to the old CUCV light trucks.  

[Bob Rosadini]

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Only that 2.0L is a lot smaller in displacement than 2.8L, so not entirely comparable.  The 3.0L V6 is slightly larger and closer in displacement but it’s a V6.  For commercial, industrial, (non personal) marine, and probably military applications as well, inline engines seem more common for their simpler design, ease of maintenance and repairs, etc., particularly in that size range.  On plus side a Ford 2.0L diesel should have a weight advantage, assuming it can meet power and torque requirements, but would come at expense of having to operate at higher BMEP. 

 

Since military has their own engineering and other resources to evaluate and compare proposals at a different level of detail, I’d bet that selling to them is very different than selling to consumers who on average have very little technical knowledge by comparison.  Regardless, do we even know if Ford were interested in competing for this vehicle contract?  The entire issue could be a moot point. 

 

good point!

 

[Bob Rosadini]

3 hours ago, sullynd said:

Yes, or AM General was losing money on the Humvee. The crazy thing to me is 300,000 Humvees over four decades is 7500 per year. We’d be questioning the production of a truck at 7500 per MONTH.   If this truck is going to see that kind of limited production perhaps that explains the cost. 
 

That said this seems much more limited in its usefulness. 

Plus I do believe there are hundreds of them in storage someplace-or so it seems I saw a video of that.

Now if the intent is to have a vehicle to run around in duty at base or non-combat roles but seems like a total non combat mission.

[tbone]

23 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

Because they are looking at it from a perspective of a car buyer/enthusiast. 
 

Anyways there is a lot more to this then it (not) replacing the Hummer in military service. The Army is doing a reorganization and making new units using this, but I need to see/read what they exactly trying to accomplish with it. It makes some sense in certain situations, but going wholesale light fighting makes me really wonder. 

My understanding is the ISV meant to allow a nine soldier squad to move quickly across rough terrain without heavy armor. This isn’t meant for substantial urban combat, but more fast-paced operations like raids, airfield seizures, and urban maneuver warfare.

 

It was designed for operating in contested, dispersed environments, such as the Pacific islands, Eastern Europe, urban sprawl. 

It should be noted this not meant to be a Humvee or JLTV replacement, so it doesn’t need to meet their level of protection.  
 

It was mentioned the use of drones/tech was meant to clear the way for the ISV, justifying the lack of armor and IED protection. 
 

Theoretically, I understand what is meant to be achieved with this vehicle, but only actual combat will determine its success.   This isn’t a vehicle I would want to be in during an urban ambush, against a sizable force, where speed of escape is hindered or prevented. I’ll be curious to see if this thing ends up with up-armor kits like the Humvee in some form,  when it gets employed in a setting it wasn’t designed for, which seems to inevitably happen. 

[tbone]

9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Only that 2.0L is a lot smaller in displacement than 2.8L, so not entirely comparable.  The 3.0L V6 is slightly larger and closer in displacement but it’s a V6.  For commercial, industrial, (non personal) marine, and probably military applications as well, inline engines seem more common for their simpler design, ease of maintenance and repairs, etc., particularly in that size range.  On plus side a Ford 2.0L diesel should have a weight advantage, assuming it can meet power and torque requirements, but would come at expense of having to operate at higher BMEP. 

 

Since military has their own engineering and other resources to evaluate and compare proposals at a different level of detail, I’d bet that selling to them is very different than selling to consumers who on average have very little technical knowledge by comparison.  Regardless, do we even know if Ford were interested in competing for this vehicle contract?  The entire issue could be a moot point. 

It seems the Ford compares favorably with the GM using the Australian specs:

 

Ford 2.0L Bi-Turbo I4 Diesel

• Power: 154 kW = 206 hp
• Torque: 500 Nm = 369 lb-ft

GM 2.8L Duramax I4 Diesel (LWN)

• Power: 147 kW = 197 hp
• Torque: 500 Nm = 369 lb-ft

 

[jpd80]

 

 

Military versions of Ranger from Ricardo and RMA vehicles

 

https://rmaspecialvehicles.com/introducing-the-ford-ranger-light-tactical-vehicle/

 

https://www.ricardo.com/en/news-and-insights/press-releases/2023/ricardo-develops-advanced-ranger-hex-6x6-conversion-with-hybrid-electric-drivetrain

 

 

 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Looks like another major tactical mistake in the making- the enemy will spot that cabless monstrosity from miles away and target it, while a dirty Toyota Tacoma or similar pickup fits in anywhere...

[tbone]

22 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I would be willing to wager Ford didn't even submit a proposal for the new squad vehicle.  Assuming that it would have been Ranger based, remember that every Ranger Ford manufactures comes at the expense of a very profitable Bronco.  Do we forget how hard it was a couple of years ago to find a new Ranger?  Last thing Ford would want is to lose Bronco sales to low margin DoD fleet sales.  If GM has the vehicle and the plant capacity to build it let them have it.  The Infantry Squad Vehicle is a great idea no matter who is building it, vehicles like the Humvee and the new JLTV are so expensive and specialized it makes no sense to use them for tasks a simple cheaper vehicle can do.  Similar to the old CUCV light trucks.  

If I cared to guess, they did not submit a proposal.  I anticipate I would’ve come across that if they had.

 

I understand your point regarding not losing any civilian production, but I don’t think Michigan Assembly is operating at full capacity and this would basically be a chassis that wouldn’t go through the whole process on the regular production line.  
 

It is just irritating that Ford rarely competes for defense contracts and using a competitor’s product overseas when they could have competed on this one. 

[7Mary3]

1 hour ago, tbone said:

It is just irritating that Ford rarely competes for defense contracts and using a competitor’s product overseas when they could have competed on this one. 

 

And GM has a division dedicated to defense sales:

 

https://www.gmdefensellc.com/site/us/en/gm-defense/home.html

Edited August 4, 2025 by 7Mary3

[Sherminator98]

20 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Looks like another major tactical mistake in the making- the enemy will spot that cabless monstrosity from miles away and target it, while a dirty Toyota Tacoma or similar pickup fits in anywhere...

 

Its a freaking Chevy Colorado for crying out loud-you know the truck that competes with the Tacoma...sigh

[Sherminator98]

On 8/4/2025 at 2:28 AM, jpd80 said:

 

 

Military versions of Ranger from Ricardo and RMA vehicles

 

https://rmaspecialvehicles.com/introducing-the-ford-ranger-light-tactical-vehicle/

 

https://www.ricardo.com/en/news-and-insights/press-releases/2023/ricardo-develops-advanced-ranger-hex-6x6-conversion-with-hybrid-electric-drivetrain

 

The Ford Everest is used also by the French Armed Forces

https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/meet-the-ford-everest-and-ranger-fleet-enlisted-by-the-french-army

 

[Motorpsychology]

I propose the following as a legitimate alternative, not satire.

Being a light infantry Vietnam era veteran, I too question the logic of a 9-troop vehicle. For a tactical mission, an infantry squad is typically composed of two fireteams and sometimes additional support. The observation was made that an IED or sniper fire could more easily degrade the success of the mission; one rocket propelled grenade would take out the whole squad. If you are to use mobility to get troops to the battlefield. I think it would be more expedient to ferry them using an updated version of the WWII Ford GPW. Equipped with a simple 2.0l diesel, the enemy is now confronted with two smaller, moving targets that can deploy two fireteams to two different areas, increasing the chances for success while decreasing the potential for casualties. A GPW "2.0" could be outfitted with a drone launch/retrieve system and be light enough to be ferried by helicopter. Using a drone, a platoon or squad leader could rapidly move their fireteams to more effectively execute the mission.

1943 Ford GPW:

 

 

[Sherminator98]

20 hours ago, Motorpsychology said:

I propose the following as a legitimate alternative, not satire.

Being a light infantry Vietnam era veteran, I too question the logic of a 9-troop vehicle. For a tactical mission, an infantry squad is typically composed of two fireteams and sometimes additional support. The observation was made that an IED or sniper fire could more easily degrade the success of the mission; one rocket propelled grenade would take out the whole squad. If you are to use mobility to get troops to the battlefield. I think it would be more expedient to ferry them using an updated version of the WWII Ford GPW. Equipped with a simple 2.0l diesel, the enemy is now confronted with two smaller, moving targets that can deploy two fireteams to two different areas, increasing the chances for success while decreasing the potential for casualties. A GPW "2.0" could be outfitted with a drone launch/retrieve system and be light enough to be ferried by helicopter. Using a drone, a platoon or squad leader could rapidly move their fireteams to more effectively execute the mission.

1943 Ford GPW:

 

The Jeep is way too small and unsafe to be used on a modern battlefield. If you modernized it, you'll wind up with the ISV above. 

 

I think the big thing many people are missing is this vehicle (at least its original intent) is to transport light troops faster then they can walk some place and not directly engage the enemy with. Its basically a taxi to get near the fight, not fight the fight. I know the Army was talking about expanding the use of this vehicle in more units (replacing traditional Stryker/Mech Infantry units) which is giving me pause, unless they expecting them to be doing Island hopping in the Pacific, where a Bradley is a bit overkill. 

 

[SoonerLS]

It sounds like they’re intended for a new tactical doctrine that’s explained in this video:

 

 

[AM222]

On 8/3/2025 at 3:06 AM, Rick73 said:

Does Ford have a comparable engine to GM’s 2.8L diesel I-4?  Just guessing that engine may be better suited for military application compared to Ford’s 2.0L I-4 or 3.0L V6.  Not sure what other diesel engines Ford has available.
 

 

They do, but probably not designed for US/ US military regulations.
Ford has their 2.0 I4 diesel engines like the ones offered in the rest-of-the-world Ranger, the same Ranger the "FG-P Light Tactical Vehicle" is based on (below). "The JP8 fuel conversion allows the FG-P to run on all grades of diesel fuel and even jet fuel."

This has a "Silent Mode" which shuts off the combustion engine and switches to an electric motor that's good for speeds up to 20km/h (12.43mph).

Edited August 7, 2025 by AM222

[Sherminator98]

17 minutes ago, AM222 said:

They do, but probably not designed for US/ US military regulations.
Ford has their 2.0 I4 diesel engines like the ones offered in the rest-of-the-world Ranger, the same Ranger the "FG-P Light Tactical Vehicle" is based on (below). "The JP8 fuel conversion allows the FG-P to run on all grades of diesel fuel and even jet fuel."

 

Military vehicles don't have to meet the same requirements as civilian vehicles...and JP8 is the primary fuel used in DOD tactical vehicles and generators when possible.