-AD-A129 216 MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTAB0ILITY ASSESSMENT OF A GENERI CI 1/,ZHIGH MOBILIT Y MULTI..(U) ARMY MATER I EL STE MS ANALYSIACTI VI TY ABERDEEN PROVING G ROU.. W E FERGUSON ET AL.

UNCLASSIFIED FEB 63 AMSA A-TR-3 75 FIG 13/6. N

smmmmhhhhhm

I jU2.8 __2

(I1 1 .25 .(1116

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION~ TEST CHARTNATIONAL BUREAU1 OF STANDARDS 1963 A

op

CIO

--. 4 -

UNCLASS FIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Des Rntare

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORM COMPLETG FORM1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO, 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technicpl Renort No. 375 " 1-/ -4. 1 < ' I

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Mobility and Transportability Assessment of a Technical ReportGeneric High Mobility Multipurpose WheeledVehicle (H!/WV) S. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR() S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)

W. Ferguson; L. Martin; J. Rouse; E. Kusterer

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Mobility Analysis BranchUSAMSAAAPG, MD 21005

I1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

irmy ateriel ev & Readiness Comand FEBRUARY 19835001 Eisenhower Ave IS. NUMBEROF PAGES

Alpx( ndrja VA ?R 15414 MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AOORESS(If diferent tuosu CmntfolfirN Offle) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of Ihi report)

UNCLASSIFIEDSe. DECLASSiFICATION/ DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of ti Repot)

Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered Its Blok 20, It dittert from Report)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WORDS (Continue an reverse @ie if neeeemy mad Identify by bloek namb)Speed Profiles; Terrain Unit; Soil Strength; Tractive Force::obillty Level;Acceleration; Lateral Stability; Turn radius; Tipping Speed; Air Transportability

26 AsRMYACr -fta mm e N et IdeamIt by NSoek mmbor)",The performance of the HMMWV is analyzed and compared to the vehicles which itwill replace. A generic HMMWV is postulated. The vehicles are assessed foroff-road and on-road performance in Europe and the Mid-East. The performancecriteria are: Speed profiles, percentages of total terrain area in whichthe vehicles were immobilized, factors causing immobilization, factors limitingspeed, vehicle acceleration, speed on slopes and stability during turns onside slopes. Additionally air transportability of the vehicles was evaluated.t

OI 0 N 7@ OV2SO ET UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASIrlCATIONt OF TIR PASE (Mben Daeta E heve

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) recognizesthe following individual for contributing to this report:

PEER REVIEWER: Herbert Gage

Aacession For"NTIS GRA&IDTIC TAB

Distribution/

Availability Codeslvail and/or

I Next page is blank.

- 4 ... *ri

CONTENTS

PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. MOBILITY EVALUATION 3

2.1 Off-Road Performance 3

2.2 On-Road Performance 8

Z.3 Tactical Mobility Levels 13

2.4 Acceleration and Speed on Slopes 21

2.5 Lateral Stability 21

3. AIR TRANSPORTABILITY 70

3.1 Fixed Wing Transport 26

3.2 Rotary Wing Transport 3N

4. CONCLUSIONS in

APPENnIX A 35

APPENDIX R 148

DISTRIBIUTION LIST 153

iii Next page is blank.

MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTARILITY ASSESSMENT OF A GENERICHIGH MOBILITY MULTIPURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLE (HMMWV)

1. INTRODUCTION

The US Army Infantry School (USAIS) is currently carrying out a Per-formance and Cost Analysis (P&CA) of the High Mobility Multipurpose WheeledVehicle (HMMWV). AMSAA was requested to support this effort by conductingperformance analyses of the HMMWV and those vehicles which the HMMWV willsupplant in its various roles. The vehicles or combinations of vehiclesconsidered in this study are:

HMMWV Utility TruckHMMWV Utility Truck Mounting the S25n Shelter (A 3600 poundsHMMWV Utility Truck Towing the MlOl 3/4-ton TrailerM151 1/4-ton TruckM151 1/4-ton Truck Towing the M416 1/4-ton TrailerM561 1-1/4 ton TruckM561 1-1/4 ton Truck Towing Mll 3/4-ton Trailer

Since the HMMWV vehicles are still undergoing competitive evaluation,it was decided, for analysis purposes, to use a generic form of the HMMWV havingattributes representative of all of the candidate vehicles, but peculiar tonone. In addition, it was felt that the performance of the cargo loaded HMMWVtruck and the HMMWV weapons carrier mounting the TOW launcher would be similarand therefore the TOW vehicle was not evaluated as such.

The mobility assessment encompassed vehicle performance off-road andon-road in Europe and the Mid-East. The European terrain over which the vehicleswere exercised is located in West Germany and the Mid-East terrain in Jordan.Conditions considered were dry, wet and snow covered surfaces in West Germanyand dry and wet surfaces in Jordan.

Results of the assessment are presented in the form of speed profilesand a listing of the percentages of the total area in which the vehicles wereimmobilized. The factors which caused immobilization as well as those whichlimited speed are also indicated.

On-road performance is shown as average speeds over primary and secon-dary roads and trails. The road networks over which the speeds were computedare located in West Germany and Yuma, Arizona. The Yuma network was selectedbecause it resembles Jordan roads and because no Jordan network is available.Both off-road and on-road vehicle performance were ohtained by exercising thevehicles In the Army Mobility Model. Finally, both off-road and on-roadperformance were employed to determine tactical high, tactical standard andtactical support mobility levels.

*1J

Additional measures of performance which are not provided as specificoutputs of the Army Mobility Model are also furnished. These are vehicle accel-eration and maximum speed on slopes. Stahility durinq turns on side slopes wasalso investigated for the M151, M561 and the HMMWV when carrying the S25Nshelter.

fluring the course of the mobility analysis a request was received fromUSAIS for additional HMMWV P&CA analysis support in the form of a transportabilityevaluation of the HMMWV and certain base case vehicles. Only air transport wasto be considered. The vehicles, aircraft and operational areas are listed below:

a. Vehicles evaluated:

Base Case HMMWV

M561, 5/4-ton, truckM151, 1/4-ton, truck HMMWV, TOW TOW System:M151, 1/4-ton, TOW CarrierM151, 1/4-ton, Missile CarrierM416, 1/4-ton, Trailer

b. Aircraft to be considered:

(1) Internal Loads - C13n, Cl41B, C5A, CH-47D

(2) External Loads - CH-47fl, UH-60, UH-60 (BI)*

c. Scenarios to be considered:

(1) Europe

(2) Mid-East

*Block Improvement

The objectives of the transportability assessment were to determine:

a. Based on loading only one type of vehicle system, the number of eachtype that can be loaded on the Cl3N, C141B, C5A and the ,H-47l aircraft.

b. Whether the CH-47D, UH-60 and UH-60 (BI) can sling load each of thevehicle systems in the Europe and Mid-Fast areas taking into considerationpressure altitude, temperature and round trip distance. Conditions under whichsling loading cannot be effected should he noted.

Section II contains a discussion of the various aspects of the mobilityassessment. In Section III, air transport of the various vehicles in the desig-nated aircraft in the Mid-East and Europe is evaluated. Characteristics of thegeneric HMMWV and speed profiles of actual and cumulative average speeds of

the various vehicles are presented in Appendix A and payload range curves for

the helicopters considered in Appendix B.

2. MOBILITY EVALUATION

2.1 Off-Road Performance.

The Army Mobility Model off-road module was used to assess performanceof the various vehicles in the West Germany and Jordan terrains. The ArmyMobility Model is composed of two modules, the aforementioned off-road moduleand an on-road module. The off-road module computes the maximum feasible first-pass speed for a single vehicle in a single areal patch or terrain unit. Terrainunits are areas in which certain attributes of the terrain such as soil strength,slope, roughness, obstacles and vegetation fall within certain rather narrowranges and thereby can be characterized by a single representative value foreach feature. These :ttributes are then considered to be homogeneous throughoutthe unit.

The vehicle is specified in terms of mechanical, geometric and inertialcharacteristics that determine its interaction with the terrain. These includesuch factors as weiqht distribution, track or wheel size, approach and departureangles, tractive force as a function of speed, and ride and obstacle performancecurves. Driver inputs are considered in terms of his ability to stand shock andvibration and his reaction to certain situations affecting his driving behavior.

With this information at hand, the off-road module computes the maximumvehicle speed in each terrain unit. The terrain unit speeds are cumulated ina speed profile. In these profiles, the terrain units are ordered so that theyprogress from the easiest to the most difficult to negotiate. The profilesshow both the actual and cumulative average speeds as a function of the percentageof terrain traversed. Cumulative average speed is the average speed a vehicle cansustain as a function of the total area it avoids, under the assumption that itavoids the areas posing the greatest impediment to its motion.

An additional output of the off-road module is a listing of the speedlimiting and immobilizing factors and the percentage contribution of each factor.

All the vehicles were exercised in both the off-road and on-road modulesof the Mobility Model. Tables 1-3 show the cumulative average speeds achieved byeach vehicle for each condition over the easiest 50 percent (V50 ) and easiest90 percent (Vg0 ) of the terrain, and indicate the fraction of the terrain that isnot negotiable under each condition.

Two sets of abbreviations appear in this report. The first set appearsin the body of the report anu is used because of its compactness and clarity.The second, imposed by additional computer plotter constraints, appears on thespeed profiles presented in the Appendices. These abbreviations are:

I I I , ,, ,.. .. .... . , . ..J

ABBREVIATION PLOTTER

VEHICLE/COMBINATION IN REPORT TEXT ABBREVIATION

HMMWV Itility Truck HMMWVG HMMWVG

HMMWV Utility Truick

Mounting S250 Shelter HMMWV W/SHFLTER HMMWVSH

HMMWV Towing Mil Trailer HMMWV W/Mlfl HMMWV W/Ml

M1 51 1/4-ton Truck Ml ql A? Ml 51A2

M1S 1/4-ton Truck TowingM416 Trailer (AMMO) M1S W/AMMn TRL MISI W/AMM

MISI 1/4-ton Truck TowingM416 Trailer Ml51 W/M416 M151 W/TRL

M561 1-1/4 ton Truck M561 M561

M561 1-1/4 ton Truck Towing M561 TRMlOl Trailer M561 W/Mlfl

Table 1 shows that the HMMWV carrying cargo or the S250 shelter ortowing the MiOl has higher V50 speeds than the other vehicles on dry surfacesin West Germany and Jordan terrain. All vehicles are immobilized by the time90 percent of either area is traversed, hence no Vq0 values are given. TheHMMWV has a lower incidence of immobilization in the German terrain, but ahigher percentage of no-go's in Jordan. The Jordan terrain is rouqher and theconfiguration of the HMMWV is such that the ohstacles encountered in Jordanimmobilize it more frequently than the Mlql. The Ml1's shorter wheelbaseand slightly better breakover angle probahly contribute to this.

Data presented in Table 7 show the degrading effects of wet surfaceson vehicle mobility. All vehicles experience a reduction in V5n speeds andan increase in the percentage of no-go's. In particular, trailered vehiclesshow a marked increase in no-go's on wet surfaces in West Germany. A reductionin vehicle traction occurs due to the weakness of the soil when wet, resultingin increased immobilization. This is especially true of the West Germanterrain which receives considerably more rainfall in the wet season than doesJordan, and hence has greater moistutre content in the soil.

Table 4 contains a listing of the Vehicle Cone Index (VCI1 ) valuesfor the various vehicles studied. The VCI l value is the soil strength requiredto support one pass of the vehicle in question. This value enters into theexpression used to determine the magnitude of the reactive force exerted hy thesoil in opposition to the tractive or propulsive force imposed on it by thevehicle. Other things being equal,the lower the VrCl, the smaller the reactiveforce the soil must develop to allow the vehicle to move. Consequently, the

4

_ ° " I

TABLE 1

PREDICTED VEHICLE MOBILITY

CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SPEEDS

GERMANY-DRY JORDAN-IRY

V o V9O PERCENT* V'sn V90 PERCENT*

VEHICLE MPH MPH NOGO MPH MPH NOGn

HMMWV W/M101 18.6 NO-GO 12.3 11.7 NO-GO 17.4

MI5I W/M416 16.4 NO-GO 15.4 10.7 Nn-Go 13.2

M561 W/M101 15.1 NO-GO l1.s 12.5 Nn-GN 16.4

M151 W/AMMO TRL 16.5 NO-GO 14.8 10.7 NO-GO 13.1

M151A2 17.9 NO-GO 11.7 10.8 NO-GO 13.1

M561 15.8 NN-GO 10.2 12.5 NO-GO 16.4

HMMWVG 20.3 NO-GO 1n.0 14.0 NO-GN 16.S

HMMWV W/SHELTER 19.7 NO-GO 10.0 13.9 NO-GO 16.5

*NO-GO UNDER V50 OR Vgn cNLUMN INDICATES THE VEHICLE WAS IMMOBILIZED REFORE IT

REACHED THE 50%, OR q0, AREA POINT AND CONSEOUENTLY HAS NO SPEED AT THAT POINT.

5

TABLE 2

PREDICTE) VEHICLE MOBILITY

CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SPEEDS

GERMANY-WET JORnAN-WET

V5 0 V9 0 PERCENT* V5N V90 PERCENT*

VEHICLE MPH MPH NOGO MPH MPH NOGO

HMMWV W/M1Ol 14.2 NO-GO 28.6 12.5 NO-GO 19.0

M151 W/M416 11.5 NO-GO 30.1 9.7 NO-GO 15.5

M561 W/M1Ol 12.3 NO-GO 25.5 11.0 NO-GO 18.1

M151 W/AMMO Trl 11.6 NO-GO 32.3 9.6 NO-GO 19.0

M151A2 14.5 NO-GO 19.8 In.1 NO-GO 14.0

M561 13.8 NO-GO 18.4 12.2 NO-GO 16.8

HMMWVG 16.3 NO-GO 18.6 13.n NO-GO 16.8

HMMWV W/SHELTER 16.1 NO-GO 18.3 13.0 NO-GO 16.8

6

II

TABLE I

PREDICTED VEHICLE MORILITY

CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SPEEnS

GERMANY-SNOW

V50 V9 0 PERCENT*

VEHICLE MPH MPH NOGO

HMMWV W/M1O1 NO-GO NO-GO 50.3

M151 W/M416 NO-GO NO-GO 54.9

M561 W/MlOl 7.8 NO-GO 38.7

M151 W/AMMO TRL NO-GO NO-GO 63.0

M151A2 16.8 NO-GO 26.7

M561 11.5 NO-GO 25.n

HMMWVG 18.6 NO-GO 25.2

HMMWV W/SHELTER 17.3 NO-GO 25.4

7

vehicles having the lower VCI1 will he able to negotiate weaker soils withfewer incidents of immobilization than those having the higher VCT1 values.However, as shown in Table 4, there are no significant differences among thevehicles considered here.

Vehicle performance on snow covered surfaces in West rermany is evenmore degraded, with all but one of the trailered vehicles showing no-go's atthe V50 point. However, it may be noted that the HMMWV vehicles withouttrailers, and the Ml~l, show higher VSO speeds in snow than on wet surfaces.This is caused first by an assumed attenuation of surface rouqhness by the snowcover, and secondly by reduced motion resistance with snow over frozen groundas compared to wet soil. However, the percpntaqe of no-qo's is higher in thesnow, indicating more difficulty in traversing the more severe terrain.

In general, the HMMWV vehicles had hiqher VyO speeds than thecomparison vehicles and fewer no-go's.

Tables showing factors that cause no-go's and factors that limitspeeds are contained in Appendix A. Profiles of actual and cumulative averagespeeds are also contained in this appendix.

2.2 On-Road Performance.

Average speeds of the various vehicles on the West (ermany and Yumaroad networks are presented in Tables r,-7. Speeds are shown over primary andsecondary roads and trails for the same surface conditions considered for off-road travel. Since the Yuma road network represents the Mid-Fast roads,performance in snow was not evaluated for this network.

The on-road module of the Army Mohility Model was used to performthis assessment. The on-road module is similar in concept to the off-roadmodule. Factors such as road type, surface strength, curvature and surfaceroughness are ised to characterize the road units. Vehicle data include qeo-metric, inertial and mechanical characteristics. The model output is vehiclespeed. The three classes of road mentioned are identified as:

Class 1 - Primary: surfaced all weather road, two lanes or more.

Class 2 - Secondary: the halance of all weather roads, generally unpavedbut improved, plus paved roads less than two lanes wide.

Class 3 - Trails: unimproved and fair we)ther roads and trails of at leastone vehicle width.

The average speeds of all the HMMWV vehicles, including the one towingthe MlOl trailer, exceed those of the other vehicles on dry and wet roads andtrails in West Germany and Yuma. On snow covered roads and trails, the HMMWVcarrying cargo or the TOW weapon has higher speeds than all other vehicles, but

8,

I1

TABLE 4

VEHICLE VCI1 VALUES

VEHICLE VCI 1

HMMWV W/Mlfl 22.5

M151 W/M416 21.2

M561 W/MI l11 21 .

M151 W/AMMO TRL 21.2

M15IA2 18.8

M561 19.4

HMMWVG 19.4

HMMWV W/SHELTER 20.q

9

TABLE 5

AVERAGE SPEED ON ROADS AND TRAILS (MPH)

GERMANY-DRY YUMA-DRY

VEHICLE PRIMARY SECONDARY TRAILS PRIMARY SECONDARY TRAILS

HMMWV W/M1 O1 50.3 36.1 13.7 57.7 33.6 13.6

M151 W/M416 44.5 2q.8 9.5 49.6 26.5 1N.N

M561 W/M1O1 39.4 21.4 12.3 47.0 18.8 12.4

M151 W/AMMO TRL 41.7 29.5 9.6 45.n 26.1 lo.n

M151A2 48.8 32.1 9.7 53.0 27.3 l0.N

M561 44.0 23.7 12.9 50.9 19.8 12.4

HMMWVG 53.5 38.4 14.0 60.6 34.3 13.6

HMMWV W/SHELTER 51.7 37.2 13.9 59.2 33.9 13.6

'0

TABLE 6

AVERAGE SPEED ON ROADS AND TRAILS (MPH)

GERMANY-WET YUMA-WET

VEHICLE PRIMARY SECONDARY TRAILS PRIMARY SECONDARY TRAILS

HMMWV W/M1O1 50.3 36.1 13.6 51.7 33.6 13.6

M151 W/M416 44. 29.8 9.5 49.6 26.5 1n.N

M561 W/M1fl1 39.4 21.4 12.1 47.0 18.8 12.4

M151 W/AMMO TRL 41.7 29.5 q.6 44.9 26.1 1N.0

M151A2 48.8 32.1 9.7 53.0 27.3 l0.n

M561 44.0 23.7 12.8 5N.q 19.8 12.4

HMMWVG 53.5 38.4 14.0 60.6 34.3 13.6

HMMWV W/SHELTER 51.7 37.2 13.8 59.2 33.9 13.6

?t.

TABLE 7

AVERAGE SPEED ON ROADS AND TRAILS (MPH)

GERMANY-SNOW

VEHICLE PRIMARY SECONDARY TRAILS

HMMWV W/M1O1 26.8 25.4 16.2

M151 W/M416 25.1 23.0 14.6

M561. W/MlO1 16.3 15.7 11.6

M151 W/AMMO TRL 27.2 25.7 15.9

M151A2 30.0 29.1 18.1

M561 21 .5 19.7 12.9

HMMWVG 32.9 31.1 18.3

HMMWV W/SHELTER 29.7 28.4 17.5

12

when the S250 shelter is added, the speed falls slightly below that of the M151.The addition of the M101 trailer to the HMMWV results in only a small reductionof speed in snow.

2.3 Tactical Mobility Levels.

One means of rating vehicle performance is to express it in terms ofa "mobility level". A mobility level rating system was used in this study toevaluate the various vehicles. This system comprises five levels of mohilityproposed in the HIMO 1 study. It is based on the mission require-ments of the vehicle, including both the frequency of operation on varioussurface types and the degree of severity of terrain encountered for each surfacetype.

Table 9 lists the various mobility levels, the composition of thenetworks in West Germany and the Mid-East (percentages of off-road, road andtrail travel) and the severity of the operation in terms of the terrain androads challenged).

Since the HMMWV will have a very wide range of mission requirements inreplacing both the M151 and the M561, all mobility levels from "tactical support"to "tactical high" are of interest. The speeds computed for each of these levelsare shown In Tables 9 through 11 2. To summarize the results shown in those tables,the following observations are offered:

a. The hasic HMMWV tactical mobility equals or exceeds that of the Mll andthe M561 in 13 of the 15 conditions examined. Only in the Mid-East wet and dryconditions at the tactical high level does a baseline vehicle have a speed advan-tage and even there the advantage is less than one mile per hour.

b. The S250 shelter weight of 3600 pounds does not significantly affect thetactical mobility speeds of the HMMWV.

c. When each is towing a trailer the M561 has a slight advantage over theHMMWV at the higher tactical mobility levels.

NOTE: INuttall, C.J., Jr, and Randolph, n.n., "Mohility Analysis of Standard-and High-Mobility Tactical Support Vehicles (HIMn Study)". Technical ReportM-76-3, February 1976, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, CE,Vicksburg, MS.

2Tahles q through 11 indicate where vehicles cannot negotiate sufficientterrain to accommodate the tactical mobility definition. In such cases a speedof 0.1 MPH is assumed for the unnegotlable area to reflect the time penalty toprovide required engineering support.

13

Lu

U-~ cm~-

a C C 0. CD CD C Cl CD 4 C CD

u <~ V) C 0 CC I a0cC)Cc- CDO 0) > - --

Clui

0-- c CD 4 4 -- Cu 0 0- 00DCC C D C)

cc ) 0l :2 - - - - - - - -

< :E u i ~

cm.

I->-l

(Aiu ixI c DI n<I(-CC

z cj --

- I - CC) Lo~ C- itn U.C LC n U~ILOe

CD~~ CDC- m m

I,

0 0

Ln

CD -CD a- n Ln k l

CD 4= 4 C -. Lo C .U, L

cm - -14 ~CD~ = ~'- ~ I- 0

-

TABLE 9

SPEED AT TACTICAL MORILITY LEVELS

WEST GERMANY-DRY MID-EAST )RY

TACTICAL TACTICAL TACTICAL TACTICAL TACTICAL TAC TIC.'L

VEHICLE HIGH STANDARD SUPPORT HIGH STANDARD SUPPODT

HMMWV/MIOl 4.1* 11R.3 3n.2 I.?* 15.? 22.9

M151/M416 2.3* 15.2 26.1 2.7* 10.7 1R.2

M561/MI l 4.6* 14.7 21.8 4.* 13.6 17.?

M151/AMMO TRL 2.F,* 15.1 25.8 3.7* 10.6 18.n

Ml51A2 4.5* 16.0 27.9 4.9* l0.7 18.4

M561 7.3* 15.6 22.7 4.5* 13.R 17.6

HMMWVG 9.4 1q.1 32.0 4.1* 1.3 ?j.n

HMMWV/SHELTER 9.3 18.8 31.2 4.1* 15.3 22.q

*AREA TRAFFICABLE 904)

I

15

TARLE 10n

SPEED AT TACTICAL MOBILITY LEVELS

WEST GERMANY-WET MIn-EAST-WET

TACTICAL TACTICAL TACTICAL TACTICAL TACTICAL TACTICAL

VEHICLE HIGH STANDARD SUPPORT HIGH STANDARD SUPPORT

HMMWV/Ml01 0.9* 4.3** 29.n 1.7* 14.7 22.6

M151/M416 0.8* 3.7** 24.9 2.6* 9.9 18.0

M561/MlO1 0.9* 20.2 2.7* 13.4 17.1

Mi51/AMMO TRL 0.8* 3.3** 24.7 1.5* 9.8 17.8

M151A2 1.4* 14.7 27.0 3.3* 10.5 18.4

M561 1.7* 14.7 22.2 4.0* 13.7 17.6

HMMWVG 1.7* 17.5 3fl.9 3.7* 15.1 22.9

HMMWV/SHELTER 1.7* 17.3 30.1 3.7* 15.1 22.8

*AREA TRAFFICABLE 9O,

**AREA TRAFFICABLE 80%

16

TARLE I1I

SPEEn AT TACTICAL MOBILITY LEVELS

WEST GERM4ANY-SNOW

TACTICAL TACTICAL TACTICAL

VEHICLE HIGH STANDARD SUPPORT

HMMWV/M101 fl*4* 1.R** 17.q***

M151/M416 0.4* 1.2** 93*

M561/iMO 0.6* 2.2** 14.1

Ml~i/AMMO TRI .3 1.2** 60*

M151A2 .*5.4** 24.9

M4561 1.1* 59q** 17.7

HMMWVG 1.1* 6.2** 26.6H?MWV/SHELTER 1.1* 6.1** 24.5

*AREA TRAFFICARLE 90%

**AREA TRAFFICABLE 80%

***AREA TRAFFICABLE 50W%

17

L.) 0- 0 CD.AJ cc .N: ILJJ

0 -

CD

L) 0- -3i ' r .

w LI ci. ,- CJ n0 - 0

<U~ za,- cc e) - r:

LJcc(n

V7

U-I

L.) CL- Lr r A ) C M

V) uZ w ' ' u o r--c cc C -.

z/ I-eJ,

C6

hiA 4c Vw Lo cn LO LO'J~

-n

V)LjJ

w K 0

C3u.4J c 0 C) 0-- C C, CDU.SL I IjC A

U. r.m

0- 000C 00

-ItLIj

U) In K K

0 ~0

CDJ

4L) 00 C ~(\

uic% 9c X- c.J -C

0 I-C- a L 7 t CIX,~

-j

oi2c

.

IfC m0 . L 'C J m)LaiL a Z-J (e) ,

LaJ

cnim-

qr t I

CL -1 0 Uc Q

K LLJZ (,-. ' 'C-

UI

Ur UZI

C

CC

- - oc Cl

C

L) I§ ~ - I C ,I-Vi.)2

C C-j I-j Z ~ -4= m

wLn -n Un m- -

Ci 2 : CC C' : CCC

C Ca- ~ L i I CC .- CD C) 4= C)i

Li Li < 2:

ex, 2: ko -c to to %0 %Cu~

Lin3E Z

2.4 Acceleration and Speed on Slopes

The acceleration performance of the various vehicles in soils of threedifferent strengths, RCI 290, 120 and 603, is presented in Tables 12-14. TheRCI 290 soil is a strong soil, the RCI 120 has moderate strength and the RCI 60is relatively weak. It can be seen by referring to the tables that the timesto achieve a given speed increase as the soil strength decreases. In terms ofhighest speed achieved and times to reach a given speed, the HMMWV exhibitedthe best performance.

Profiles of acceleration performance over the various strength soilsare presented in Appendix A.

A further measure of vehicle performance is the speeds it can attainon slopes of various grades. Tables 15-17 present the speeds attained by thevarious vehicles on grades ranging from 0 to 60 percent, on soil strengths ofRCI 290, 120 and 60. Attention is directed to the comparative performance ofthe M151A2 and the HMMWV. Neither vehicle ascends the slopes at speeds consis-tently higher than the other. This may be explained by referring to Figure 1.In this plot, the ratio of the vehicle tractive force to vehicle weight is shownas a function of speed. It will be noted that the plots for this function crossat several points, indicating higher tractive force available to one or theother of the vehicles and consequently a greater speed on a given slope as shownin the tables.

2.5 Lateral Stability.

In the course of their operations, vehicles are often required totraverse side slopes. During this time, the vehicle may maneuver to changedirection, avoid obstacles or for other reasons. When the maneuvering involvesturning, centrifugal forces are developed. In addition to this there is a downhill force attributable to the inclination of the vehicle on the side slope.These two forces can act in concert to overturn the vehicle. The greatestpotential to accomplish this occurs when the vehicle path on the slope is perpen-dicular to the maximum gradient of the slope and the radius of the turn circlelies along this gradient with its center uphill of the vehicle. Lateral instabilitycan arise in two forms. First, if the resisting force of the soil is less thanthe sum of the two forces, sliding will occur. Secondly, if the overturningmoments due to the forces are greater than the vehicle restoring moment, tippingor overturning will occur. All other things being equal, for a given vehicle,the overturning moments will vary directly as the vertical height of the centerof gravity.

A means of determining the stability of a vehicle is to fix the sideslope angle, turn radius and soil strength and then compute the speed at which

NOTE: IRCI (Rating Cone Index) is a rating of the soil strength under vehiculartraffic.

21

TARLE 15PREDICTED SPEEF ON SLOPE PERFORMANCE (MPH)

w SLOPE

VEHICLE RCI 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 6P

HMMWV 290 51.3 31.5 24.1 18.0 14.5 11.6 9.4 7.6 5.5 1.1 - -

W/M10l

M151 290 40.2 31.6 19.3 16.6 9.6 9.3 9.1 7.4 - - - -

W/M416

M561 290 31.2 17.6 15.7 8.1 7.7 7.0 5.5 3.8 3.3 2.8 - -W/M1 l

M151 2qO 43.7 32.3 19.3 18.8 14.7 9.3 8.8 8.2 3.7 - - -W/AMMO TRL

M151A2 290 48.4 34.1 32.2 1Q.4 19.2 16.5 12.3 9.4 9.2 9.0 8.8 6.R 3.7

M561 290 42.1 28.? 17.5 14.9 8.1 7.9 7.4 6.8 5.3 3.9 3.5 3.1 2.7

HMMWV 290 58.2 40.9 29.7 24.6 lq.3 16.7 14.1 11.9 I0.3 8.8 7.5 5.9 4.1

HMMWV 290 55.5 36.3 27.1 21.7 17.5 14.6 12.1 10.3 8.7 7.2 5.8 4.7 2.3W/SHELTER

22

TABLE 16PREDICTED SPEED ON SLOPE PERFORMANCE (MPH)

% SLOPE

VEHICLE RCI 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4n 45 sn 55 6n

HMMWV 120 44.8 28.8 22.1 17.1 13.6 11.0 R.q 7.1 4.7 - - -

W/M] i

M151 120 34.2 28.3 19.2 15.3 9.5 .3 Q.N 6.7 - -

W/M416

M561 120 31.1 17.5 14.3 8.n 7.6 6.8 4.2 3.7 3.1 2.5 - - -

W/MI 01

M151 120 38.6 32.2 19.2 17.7 12.9 9.1 8.6 8.0 1.1 - - -

W/AMMO TRL

M151A2 120 44.7 32.5 30.3 lq.3 18.9 15.7 10.5 9.4 9.1 8.9 8.3 6.2 2.5

M561 120 31.2 24.5 17.4 14.2 8.1 7.8 7.3 6.6 4.2 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.5

HMMWV 120 53.4 36.6 27.8 23.4 18.6 16.0 13.5 11.5 q.9 8.5 7.1 5.4 3.3

HMMWV 120 50.0 32.5 25.7 19.9 16.7 13.8 11.6 9.8 8.3 6.8 5.5 4.3 1.6W/SHELTER

23

l i , m ' ' . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. ± v i m . .ll . . . . .

TABLE 17

PREDICTED SPEED ON SLOPE PERFORMANCE (MPH)

% SLOPE

VEHICLE RCI 0 5 10 15 2n 25 30 35 4n 4q O 5 60

HMMWV 60 32.5 24.7 18.4 14.9 11.9 9.6 7.8 5.5 - - - - -

WIMI O1

M151 60 32.3 19.3 17.2 10.6 9.3 q.n 7.7 4.n - - - - -

W/M416

M561 60 17.6 16.4 8.1 7.R 7.1 5.9 3.4 2.1 0.8 - - - -

W/M1 l

M151 6n 31.9 22.0 18.2 14.n 2.5 - - - - -

W/AMMO TRL

M151A2 60 37.0 32.3 21.2 10.1 17.2 13.5 9.4 9.2 8.9 8.7 6.q 3.3 -

M561 60 30.3 17.5 15.8 8.7 8.0 7.5 6.8 5.8 3.7 2.7 1.7 0.7 -

HMMWV 60 43.n 30.6 25.1 1q.9 17.n 14.4 12.1 10.5 8.q 7.5 5.q 2.1 -

HMMWV 60 37.9 27.5 22.3 17.7 14.8 12.2 10.4 8.8 7.3 5.8 4.5 2.2 -

W/SHELTER

24

0o

C c7%

U CL

Ul

LL - M -,

CD CL

L) L

I0-

LA)

U I) 0D Lc) C0 UlA C0 LDLj 0% '0 %D

-; 0; 0 00

TRACTI VE FORCE/WE IGHT

25

the vehicle will slide and the speed at which it will overturn. Of course, thespeeds thus derived will hold only for the set of fixed conditions imposed andwill vary as the conditions vary. Table l presents sliding and tippingspeeds for several sets of conditions. The soil strength selected was RCI 120,i medium strength soil. The turning circle radius chosen represents the minimum-urn radius of each vehicle. Sliding and tipping speeds were calculated for the;lopes indicated in the tables. Two versions of the M561 are shown, one mountinga 2500 pound S250 shelter and one a 3600 pound shelter of the same category. TheHMMWV mounts the 3600 pound S250 shelter.

All the vehicles shown have tipping speeds that are higher than thesliding speeds, hence sliding will occur. The M561 is an articulated vehicle andspeeds are presented for both sections of the vehicle. It should he noted thatthe tipping speeds of the two units differ. If the second unit overturns beforethe first, the whole vehicle will be immohilized, hence the tipping speeds ofthe second unit apply to the whole vehicle. Since both the HMMWV and the M561carrying the S25( shelter at 360n pounds have the same turning circle, we maycompare their tipping speeds. On any given slope, the overturning speed of theHMMWV is higher than that of the M561, indicating a qreater margin of stability.

3. AIR TRANSPORTABILITY

Although the vehicles, aircraft and scenarios to he considered arespecified in Section 1, there are additional conditions which affect the eval-uation. They are:

a. The term "density altitude' as used in the study reqiuest was replacedby "pressure altitude" as agreed during a telephone conversation between USAISand this office.

b. There was no data base available which -ontained the distribution ofpressure altitude/temperature conditions for either Europe or the Mid-East.Existing information on this subject indicates that 2000'/7n°F is a suitableapproximation for Europe while 40f0'/95°F may be used for Mid-East scenarios.

c. The round trip distances for helicopter missions are taken to be 104miles for Europe and 198 miles for the Mid-East. These distances which wereagreed to at the beginning of this study, are representative of those encounteredbetween points of debarkation and engagement in Europe and the Mid-East.

Physical Characteristics used to determine vehicle air transportabilityare presented in Table l.

3.1 Fixed Wing Transport.

Analysis of fixed wing transportability was hased on homogeneouslyloading as many of each system type as possible into the aircraft of interest.Consideration was given to the system's total weight, total length and center of

26

TABLE 18

LATERAL STABILITY

TURNING SPEED SPEEDCIRCLE AT AT

% RADIUS SLIDE TIPPINGVEHICLE RCI SLOPE (FT) (MPH) (MPH)

HMMWV 120 0 3n 16.q 22.62500#

20 14.6 21.1

30 12.6 19.8

4n 10.2 18.4

HMMWV/ 120 0 30 16.9 20.1SHELTER3600# 20 14.6 18.6

30 12.6 17.2

40 1n.2 15.7

M561 120 0 30 16.8 24.3Ist UNIT

20 14.6 23.4SHELTER

30 12.6 22.7

40 10.2 20.4

M561 12n 0 3n 16.8 19.12nd UNIT2500# 20 14.6 17.5SHELTER

30 12.6 16.n

40 10.2 14.3

27

-- _i

LATERAL STABILITY

SPEEn SPEEDTURNING AT ATCIRCLE SL IDE TIPPING

VEHICLE RCI SLOPE RADIUS (FT) (MPH) (MPH)

M561 120 n 30 16.8 24.3Ist UNIT3R0 20 14.6 23.4SHELTER

30 12.6 22.2

40 10.2 20.9

M561 120 0 30 16.-R 18.42nd UNIT705- 20 14.6 16.6SHELTER

3n 12.6 15.n

40 10.2 13.3

MI5lA2 120 0 17 12.7 16.6

20 11.0 15.8

30 q.5 14.8

40 7.7 13.7

28

TABLE I q

VEHICLE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

VEHICLE

Ml 51 W/ 2-Ml 91CHARACTERISTIC M 51 M416 W/M416 M561 HMMWV

WEIGHT (LB) 3600 4790 857n IN,3NN 75NN

LENGTH (IN) 132.7 235.7 368.4 230 lqn

WIDTH (IN) 64.n 64.0 64.0 84.4 85

HEIGHT (IN) 52.5 52.5 52.5 67.8 72

LONGITUDINAL C.G. 58.0 in REAR 99.8 in REAR 113.0 in REAR 101 in REAR

LOCATION OF FRONT OF FRONT N/A OF FRONT OF FRONTBUMPER BUMPER BUMPER BUMPER

29

gravity (c.g.) location with respect to the optimum aircraft c.g. position. Analysisresults are presented in Table 20.

The limiting parameter for those systems considered was the overalllength of each vehicle or vehicle combination.

It should he noted that while the C-5A aircraft was included in theanalysis, its availability to carry these vehicles would be limited. In no caseis that aircraft's maximum payload limit challenged by these systems. Normally,the C-5A is reserved for high priority systems such as the M-l and M-2 which dochallenge that parameter.

3.2 Rotary Wing Transport.

Complete payload vs range curves for the CH-47C and D helicopters andthe UH-60 and UH-60(BI) helicopters are presented in Appendix B. Data from thesecurves are summarized in Table 21.

The four air vehicle systems analyzed met round trip mission distancerequirements with the following exceptions:

a. The 3-piece system consisting of the two Mll trucks and M416 trailercannot be transported by the UH-60 helicopters because there are no provisionsfor slinging three vehicles, and even if there were, the system's total weightwould limit the round trip flying distance to less than mission requirements foreither scenario.

b. The M561 cannot he transported hy the IIH-6n series because its weightexceeds the craft's maximum payload capacity.

c. Mission requirements in either scenario were not met by the llH-60 whencarrying the HMMWV. When the UH-60 (BI) transports the HMMWV, it can meet missionrequirements in Europe only. It should he noted that this aircraft exists onlyas a concept and its performance when fielded may vary considerably from thatpostulated herein.

4. CONCLUSIONS

When the HMMWV is compared to the M1S1 and the M561 baseline vehiclein off-road travel, its performance generally exceeds that of the latter twovehicles. The HMMWV carrying a 36on pound s25N shelter shows little or noreduction in performance when compared to the HMMWV at its rated cargo payloadof 250 pounds. All of the vehicles exhibited a degradation in performancewhen trailers were towed by them.

The on-road speeds of the HMMWV generally exceeded those of the M1SIand the M561, often by an appreciable amount.

30

TABLE 20

MAXIMUM SYSTEMS CARRIE[

SYSTEM C-1 30 C-1 41B C-5A

M561 2 5 12

M151 4 8 20

2-MI51 + M416 1 3 8

HMMWV 2 5 14

31

TABLE 21

HELICOPTER TRANSPORTABILITY

MAXIMUM ROUNDTRIP CAPABILITY - NAUTICAL MILES

HELICOPTER M151 2-Ml51/M416 M561 HMMWV

CH-47C 24 0a 2 40 C 2 40e 240P

CH-470 26 0a 2 R-Nc 260e 26Ne

IJH-60 200b 0d Of h,q

UH-60 (RI) 24 0h Nd Nf h,h

NOTE S:

a Two vehicles carried internally plus one vehicle slunq exterrally.b One vehicle slung externally.c One system carried internally.d No provisions for carrying three vehicle system.e Can be carried internally or slunq externally.

f Exceeds maximum payload capacity of helicopter.g 0 (4000', 950 F), 50 miles (20no', 700 F), 162 miles (sea level, 590F).h 72 miles (4nn', q5oF), 170 miles (20ON', 7NOF), 224 miles (sea level, SQOF)

32

Considered in the context of the various tactical mobility levels,the HIWV displayed consistent superiority over the baseline vehicles.

The acceleration of the HMMWV was better than that of the baselinevehicles. The HMMWV generally met or exceeded the slope climbing performanceof the other two vehicles.

In a conparison of the lateral stahility of the HMMWV with the M561with each carrying S250 shelter, the HMMWV was found to have the more stableconfiguration.

The HMMWV can be air transported by the Clif, C141 and C5A in varyingnumbers. The UH-60 helicopter was not able to carry it over the distancesrequired in the European and Mid-East scenarios.

13 NEXT PAGE Ic RLANK

APPENDIX A

PAGE

VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS 36

SPEED PROFILES 39

NO-GO AND SPEED LIMITING FACTORS 119

ACCELERATION PROFILES 132

SPEED ON SLOPES PROFILES 140

35

HMMWV Generic (HMJWVG) Vehicle Characteristics

The HMMWV vehicle data presented on pages 41 and 42 represent cha-ac-

teristics derived from the vehicles in the HMMWV competition. These char-

acteristics are representative of all the competition vehicles and yet are

peculiar to none. The data shown are a complete set of those required as

input to the Army Mobility Model.

35

VEHICLE DATA FOR 44MdVG

.I!NDIVIDUAL VAR IA3LE LISTING0* * $ * 0 * 9* * * * * * 0 * *I

VDa 1.000 0 IF VEHICLE TRA'KEDol IF W-IEELSDWe 7750.000 VE4ICLE WEIGH-TCL3S)ALX. .500 MAXAXLE LOAD/WToIF W4EELS;C IF TRAXmPs 7750.00 WT. ON PULLING AXLES IF W94EELEODO0 IF TRAXNVEI~m 1 VE4ICLE TYPE (0mTRACKEDv1.4X4pZ.6X6# 3-8X8)VLe 190.000 VEHICLE LE.GTH(I'4CHES)WVW 85.000 VEHICLE WIDT41INCHES)Hps 23.000 HEIGHT Of PUSHSAR(INCHES)HI. 21.000 FRONT END CLEARA4CE(INC1HES)GCXe 12.000 mINImum GROUND ZLEARANCE(INCHES)He. 17.000 IF TRAXHORIZ.DISTo CG. T13 FRONT ROAD WiHEEL CL., IF WHEELE

ROLLING RADIJS(I4CHES)9Co 16.000 GROUND CLEARANCE AT CENTER OF GREATEST SPAN; IF TRAX,.oCCTLm 132.000 DIST.FIRST TO LAST wHEEL/ROADWHEEL CL.DUX. 132s000 IF TRAX.0pIF WHEELED MAX.DIST.8ETWEEN ADJACENT WIEEL

CENTERLINESAV* 65.000 APPROACH ANGLE(OEGREES)AC~rn 17.800 ANGLE BETWEEN LINE // TO GROUND AND LINE BETOiEEN CG. AND

CENTER OF REAR RIADWHEEL OR IDLERFLEWs 11625.000 MAX. FORCE LEADING EDGE WILL STANDIL3SXTWo 12.500 TIRE WIDTH(INCH)XRDTw 16.500 RIM DIAMETERCINC4)XwDu 37e000 OUTSIDE DIAM~ETER OF THE TIRE(INC-I)RR. 17,000 ROLLING RADIUJS Oc TIRECINCH)XTP- 17.000 TIRE PRESSURE(PSI)XMTa 4e000 NUMBER OF WHEELS(DUALS AS ONE)XNTE- 4.000 NUMBER OF d4EELS(DUALS AS TWO)TPRw 4.000 TIRE..PLY RATINGXCFw 0.000 0 WITH NO TIRE CHAINS,1 WIT4 TIRE CHAINSXNAs 2.000 NUMBER OF AXLESRADIAL. 0 0 IF NO RADIALSol IF RADIALSDRISCG- 56.100 HORZ, DIST. CG, TO CENTER OF REAR WHE EL18CS *670 VEHeBRAKING FORCE/VEH.WEIGHTTCMCGHe 18.000 VERTsOISTsCGoTO ROADWHEEL CLCI4CH)TCMCGFw 76.000 HJRZ.OIST.CG*TO FRONT ROADWHEEL CL (ICH)TCMRECu 26*000 REAR END CLEARANCE(INCH)TCMVDA. 45.000 VEHaDEPARTURE ANGLE(DEGREES)TCMRW4. 17*000 IF TRAX RADIUS OF WHEEL/SPROCKET/IDLER USED TO DETERMINE

DEPARTURE ANGLE.TRACK THICKNESS. IF WHEELED#ROLLoRAOIUS(IN)TVARm 0.000 1.MAP4UAL TRANSp-1UMANUAL/TRANSFER CAS=EOmAUTJM.4TICEFFe 1.000 TRANSMIISSION EFFICIENCYFDRe 1.000 FINAL DRIVE RATIOFDREF- 1.000 FINAL DRIVE EFFICIENCYHPT. 20.000 HORSEPOWER/TONRRw 170000 TRAX-SPOCKET PITCH RADIUS(IN)v,4EELSs TIRE ROLLING RADI"',NM. 21 NUMBER OF POINTS IN TRACTIVE FORCE ARRAY

37

TRACTIVE FUK.r ARRAY 3BSTAZLE HE~IGHT ARRAY RI4S ARRAY

SPEED,~Ph To FORCE, LS. *JBST* 04T.,INS SPEDp'.4~ RMSPIN3 SPEEDPF-0.000 10900.000 0.010 lC*CL to it e.1.000 10503.000 4030 lo.;1 @*UU aCeCOO26001 9004I.000 4.5040 % .50w 150i3.000 7250.000 5.300 459000 .600 '45o0C.4.000 64009000' 6.000 27.5CO .703 40.0005.000 5750.000 7.300 19.5,00 6800 ?5.Cccd6.000 5250.000 80000 l4.5k .00 3CoOOQ70000 4800.000 960ji0 110000 1.000 27*0001.000 4500.001.0 8.000 11C240C9.000 4200.000 11000 60cuM. 10200 220000

10.000 38S0.000 12.-300 4.50f0 1.300 29o50C13.000 3100.000 13.000 3.5CC 1.400 17.50c150000 27500O00 14*0IU 3,00C 1.050c 16*04cZ00000 20000.000 30.300 2*C000 1680%) 13900C24oOOC 1750.000 0.000 0.30(1 2.000 110500260000 1400s000 0000C oaCOO 2.5CC 90500349000 1100*000 00000 00000 3.000 85C43000 9500000 00joc 0.000 3.500 8000060o000 750.000 0.000 0.000 4.000 7.50070*OOc 650o000 00000 0.000 5.0003 79000709100 0.000 0030o 0.c(oc s.00 20coC0.000 0.000 00000 0.000 coCOO C.0cc0.000 0.0000 0600c vei.00 0.coz .jC0.000 0000 Col00 0000 0.uOtQ1 %0.000 0.0000 C.300 0.00 0.0000JG,

3B

w

0

LL

ww

LL r

0

C-3C

a_ 0

00

wwDc c0

0<U-)

w0

LL

400

w0L)

00o-

wEz

os ot0 C a 0

Hd 3dSAin

N41

0 P0

N-.

w 0i

00

ww

0

44:

:D

w

0-0

N4

:43

00

0

04

00

cr

0-

zC

o ------- L

HdW Oa33JS iVfli3v

44

00

0

zL

00U10Wr

NLa_

wM

wd a3d0on

o .45

I -___ O0

0C0)

-

zL

0

o L-

L)

a-

C)~

o 0

LLo o z

wd 3dSin3

045

W WQ

00

ww

0-

0 47

00

w0L)

z.m .-

4 n

O0

I II

C)0

wwLO0

00LL.

Nr

ww

C)Y

0zo c zoHJ 03SAIA

0 09

0m

I I I O

Ld0

ELoC0

wL

-

00-

I-

LL

05

w0

00

I-

w

40

I-

:x w- 0<

LL0

wC

C-,

LL.

wCL

HdW '033dS Aiiwn

I II

00

I-

wL 0

00L

w

0-0

09I t z-Hd 3dSino

:52

z0

C,,

z

00

LdD

UL-

LU 0C-,

os 0 to.oHd 3d-Ain

w5

3

00

wm

LL001

I-

ww(L)

- NY

0LL o z0J 03Sino

w5

I 0

00

to

00

* 0

00.V1

-ij

I-

CCUj 0j

0 0

090 -ozo

wd 3dSAin

a-5

CD,

0)

0

00LLD

LLf)

CL

00

0U E0 z

zd 03Sln3

.456

0

0

LL-J 0

00

L()

C

0 0LLr

LL)

0

HdW a033dS Ai1wfl3

t 57

0

0

CD

2:i

0(0<

in L

I-N-

CD

ui

(If

(D 0LL.

CL

0CD

09 0? 01oeoHdW O033dS ivfliov

0X

0

0

-

ot

LOU

U-~

0

wQ

cr

wCL

HdW a033S AJ.1wn3

CL 0

00Ixw

w0

z

-0

0(

0

o 0

LLj

HcIW '033cS ivfliov

S0

wa

00

:

w

LO

w

Ir

w

0

Os O)t or oHdW U033dS A.lifl3

61

LI-

00

LJ

0<

0

C-

CL

HdW a33dS iVnl3Y

52

00

0

z 0

ww

-

00

I-

00

w0C.,

z so t zoHd 3dSAin

o 03

OD

C,,

w

ww

Lf) Nt

Li-

wa.

00

I II

HdW Oa33dS iYA13v

64

Cl O0

0

co

cr

w0

0-

HciW a33dS A1wflo

65

0

00

UU,

LI-0-

C-,V

z so ?oHd 3dSino

o 06

I-

z

cr-0

- -

LLh

w

Hdw a33dS Aliflo

657

00

w

00

I.-

w0CL

zC

os ot t oz 00d a3Sin~

06

40

w

L-

w0

CL0

09. rvcozowd 3dSAin

0.69

cr-i

D0w0

a-

700

00

I-w3L

0

L-

0-0

r (0

r so i aoHd 3JS.ln

37

OD

0

w0

ww

ww

00

wwa-0

272

CL 0

:3

w

0ot

IN

:3k

00

W

oLL

0

0 t ~ os: oz 01HdW 'a33cIS AliwA

73

0-0

w00

Ir

U

0-

Li-

74.

00

0

L-L

ww

C-,Y

z so 2 a0Hd 03SAin

o 75

C0)

:3LO0

ww

U-

w0C-)

0zo s zo

od 003Sin~

U-6

w0

40

3c

0

zC-1

rC

r so c zoHd 3dSAin

37

00

Ito

w 0

0

zL

00

ww

CL

00

0w 0l c zHdW a3dS vnl3

o 08

w

w

LI)

U-0

ir

w0-

Ob' o o 01tHdW a33JS ALllo

7n

CL 0

00

00

(0

LA 0<

08

a-

w

-

c-y00(

LL r0w-C)

0o 0t0 o

801

0-0

00

D-w 0

cmw

<

00

U

0

U-

wEL

HdW aa3dS ivfliov

82

0

0z 0tl zoHU,03d Ain

w8

Cf) OD

0-0

00

0j

0

o::

LLJ0-

C)Y

0zo e 30Hr 03Sin~

o 84

0

LL.

LOC.3

oL0L

zC

os 00 C.oz 0HJW '03dS Wo

0

0

40

0 w

00

00(0

U-

U-

w00-

09r c zo

HdW 4033dS 1vfliov

86

00

w0

0

z

00

U-

a_

w 0y

0., .w. ozd 03SAln

'87

00

C-w 0

0 4

in-.

w0

ck:

- 0LLr

w

0

os

-L ----

w00

x

w

00

ww

L)

0

0 4

w

Os 0* oco 01HdW O0.33dS Aliwfo

89

w

a-a

os ot c oa U

(0W In3d vn

.I .

00

U-

00

00

cr

w0..

J4dW '033cS Aliwn3

91

0

I-

w

0

00

00

ww

00

wd a3d0ino

09

AD-A129 216 MOBILITY AND RANSPORTABILITY ASSESSMENT OF A GENERICHIGH MOBILITYT MULT (U) ARMY MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSISACTIVITY ABERDEEN PROVING GROU.. W E FERGUSON ET AL.

UNCLASSIFIED FEB 83 AMSAA-TR-375 F/G 13/6 NLmz/zz/zz/mmIolEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE*..flflflflflNIIIIIIIIIIIII

11111 1 0 ! 14.01111-1.4

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS1963-A

do

0o

00)

0z 0(0 U

w0o

w* z

0

(0

w

(0bt

LA~0

w 0C.,z

o 0La..

w0..

0N

0

0* 0~ 0~ 01HdW 033d8 A1~WflO

93

- ,~,. -~

IV) 0

00

0 cc

04

w 0

IL).

ww

CL

00

0o 0t0 z0Li..33S vno

L94

40

0i

LL00 0

zr

LL'4

CC"

09 0tocD 01HdW an3ds lyniov

95

-

00o V.

0-0

cm

os ot t oa Jwa0 a3dSfiw

U)96

55

40

o

.

0

-0LL0

CL

797

0

04

0w

LLA

00UU,

w0

os ot 9 oz 4zJ 03Sino

r9

00

a-,

00

ww

X: 04

UID

ww

LL.ccwC.)

os 00 9 aU.. *a3F iin

uI.a_0

00

40

0

LLI

0

U.

-

wL0L

100

0

w0

wwoo

wL

00

cr

w

.09 oto zo

Hdw a33dS AiiIAo

101

0

C

w

0

ww

w

'C

0o 0to zoLi.. 1)3J vn

-77"

U,

w

C,

00

00

a_ 0

0

CD40<

00

00r Ucr

C, 4

010

cr-

Q0

00

100

00

0

CDl

r 00<

00

0

00

0 4

-

00(0

crU

0

C.)

404

0

HdW '033dS Aliwflo

10)7

00

I-w0

0 s 0 0J.ozd 3dSino

IO0

0

0

0

w

w

109

0

00

W

w

1100

-bawl,

0 0

0

40

w

(0

U--

0 so c z0

Nd 03SAin

CLC

3U

LJ

00

w

I

=so r aOHUnd vno

112

0-0

00

w

wQ0

<0

UU,

CL

09 t0 aowd 003SAin

113.

L-

0D

z C

w

w

00

wwaa

w s 0) c z0d 03Sino

11

00

LL00

Ix

LLIICL

0 so 2 1o

0J 4.3d iin

00

o V.

0

w00(

ww3L

09 ot oc oz0<Hr '03SinN

00

0

I-

00

00

00

LL

0

w0

IL

w so r z0

IHdW aa33dS AWoo

LLJ 0

I I I I

0

0

00

-00

00

U-0-w

a-

0

HdW '033dS iVAioY

CoX

cz.

C.. _ 4

C CI

0 -- - S - - - - - - - -o

- LAA

LU..J

LO Lo

0 0 7L~i 119

ex Lj cLm1

V--I:N.I

L) L" =1 r

) Lu0- LJ

CD C.)I I)C.0Ir

- A

Li-

VI-w -

120c

LIJ

LLJ2w

-JJ

CiJ GO

LA-I__j

C-,

CD,0Ln C

Ur

- -LJ

I I_ _ _ _ _ _ >_ _

C)U

< ILI

L&i LM 'Dr 4 Cd:Z"

LAJ'C_ _ _ )_ _ _ _I_ _ _ _

____ r

__

_ __ _

-CDU) o~u4 121

~~VI

L I i

O ~ LLJ

~LLJ

-j

Con J- U V01,I

IAi wI

C-,D

0~L :gj I~-S -i , 3:I - jL

- - ~ 122

-JJ

L.: Lai

LJI LJ j

M . - L

--

C-))

Lj/

Oi. LO:-J

LgJl

~LL LJ_ _ __tj

_ _ _

Th23

LLJU

LO0.

I D

U ~ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

L;

UA

LU >-3 0

Cz

0= r

LO --

41

- 0 I D M

Le, Lo

124

-j -A

CD

U'n

C.,D

LU,

a125

-JJ

LU ) u/ '

L) C N-

-J IUJ

C>J LM C.-

F-J

LZJ I i

c-j~ im W~

U.,. -I rI

:K -= 77'L126

--

- I-j w

>0

-i -q

L.L

LuJ

-j

=~cc1

I) u

ItI

W LUJ

127

W In

-C

C= L

Lli cm,

X ii

Z: LiJ

o _ _

=1 - - - - - -- - - - -- O

(.z128

k)L

20

LA.) c

Ul- 0

LnI

Li

~C

Lu =~ L)I

CDC

5-0 (1 Lu

129

-i jj -j L-

< C-

>CC-

LML

CC

C:V:

C I _ ____ _ Ii

zv

U I.

I-n

"130

-)

LA.: - II I _ _ __ _

LAJ

LI

-.

5

-~ u.

I UIw=1 .

_ Li

~ -WLLe

~, I~ j

0..* - >

In L &^ M b4I- . ,I

0' n koI -U i 1 Z1

131' I i

I a

w

131-

£~C C 0(7 ~C14 ko

0~ :0n az:

1133

00

- - -

I 000f a~c'J'fl('4.-

*

1 I.

I I.

II

4

-j

8 4

I

I IS44

zI 0

'I,

z I0 aS I

6.4 a*U' 4

C 5aS

S II1 4 NII

S IS5' II

5 2S I5*~

5*" 4.4

%,, **.

a um.umrn ~

134

I - - -I L)L3L)

II 000* o'c~J~oII I.I I.

I I.I.

ISI

'.44 II

III

hiI

'4L II

II

o I

IiI

~1'4

I4I

II

* 2I

N I'4El Ip.

I-~1I' ***.

I *.* 01Nh **..

~%

0 0 0 0 0Cl 0

WP.k1kJ~ ER.~

135

aI -- -

CJ(~)L)a000

IIaaI

I

I 0aIaIa

aIz 0N aaaa

II

hiI

N IIh.. aIIaI

0I UI -I

U. II * hi

e.g I

* N

*-b II'I

E I 00 ~N

\ I.

4%.*m. ~*

--

0 0 0 0 0U)

WP.hihID EU.Z1 3G

-~1.

iia.LJLJC)ii - - I-

if o~e'Js.D'I~iIfI:I::ifSfa:I'U iiIia:a: 011.*

.4 1'mu i\

SI'aI I NI I-b I

'4

'4%

"4%,

I 0%**

0 0

ws.umrn az

137

1k -~

-- CDC

Olt00 %

LO~cJ~

10

Ii

LSIWDCLo138

4.

0I . 0I . -

* 4

* 4

I 4 - -

I* * 000I * O'c~o* *I

*

iiiI 4

I"ILi '

IS

*-41h..

I

o * 0I LA

1-I1 4U * p.

1 4

__ 1 4

1 4 hiI *

r .4

'41.4

4 4'4 4'4 4..

.4.\ 4.

a. %, .4.

4~

~% .4.

hi %. *..

Li .4...

C) .4......

0 Si' 0LA

Ifl.bJIuJfl EI.Z.9

139

0' C\J C)

Hi

IIloo

o do*

to I. CI CL

140.

- - -

000

o~J,.D

I ~

14

U'4

ad

h.UIiIi3.

b

II- 4**t..**

g g aPd a

U3..~Jh1F LIZ

141

000I aaC'DC

114

cEU a .3

114

.- .-r *-

C)00 (ON c'J..D

III. 1.* 5

144

LWL)

0 0 00

O'bC'J4

IO kihi

-- -L)(~)L),Y- ~

cc~D('4,-

a1-4 /

I,

IaJ /z /...* bJH I-IL. 1.** 0

1.* 4I... UoI..

I... 'I

I.. IsI. R.1*

I../..

I..Id0

0N

p 0 0N p4

WR.hJbJ~ ELZ

~46

000

10,.

147*

APPENDIX B

148

:i-:-,- :7 -r-

FIG.) LoPuVLOA s 1/LSUSAbIUS tj5 4

-. ~~~~~~~~ rP1TP~Et a~ rY~9 *I

-- !

A LAE V

m 7 - - - .-- E

X3aDE t

0 Q 80 lo o

RADIUS~~~ -AUTC~~ MILAM5AA /1f/8

I-

1< CH4-7V ....

7Ei ~ L -P Y D-csj ______

-T-----4-

UET-IJOfA WARM ULT MW

LzreN~-v tsoT G~?~TL -

7ST Co ftMPtiI :L".)~c

V6 4 0 V.--H-O-- S.-T-- A,-A:

a-uv

S.

- . ~ 7 - - ~ - - - - ' 7-_ 7 : -

v'A A P' 4-0 a1 02. Ic0 2.D____RADU~S- NP-VTif-AL MILS

_______SLUN G PAYLOAD VLFR-US RADU3 _

i ~ m. -- SPECIAL )TILITY Miss~oN-

.LTOTAL t OLL~a3O~ --- -2

2-a30 MAINUT-S*FUE.L RESERVE FOR. C.RV1ISE

3 ,:; PELFO:- MINUTES WARM UP AT MCPA M),JTES HOSEAND I MINUTE CLAMS AT20 FRA AT -T.OWEIGIT

4LIFT OFF AT ZOO F.VRTICAL CLIMB-- C IP.P5.CRUIsE OUT WlT14 SLI)WG 1L.OD (L~LATLTAI)

C,.CIZAUIE 3PCV-C4CLE.AN CONFir-uRArION*- . PLIiS AI T.OQ ATMOSI'HL Kd( CoNpiTIONS.

_____~OPE-LA 114'- WEIGHTrn LMPVY: It5SLs

9CRUISE AT RLS KNOTS T~A, 5,

La

8 04 ...... 7 7a

RZAI)LVS- NAUTM~AL MILF-5

AMSAA -

IMPRLOVE-E BL.ACY HAWKSLUNG, PAYVLOAD vLRSu5 RADIUS___

$P.L~i U L)LITYMISSON _

..L:T0TAL-iu L~L ; 5 O.LB.v

-a:MNTE5fUL RESESVE FOR CrpulSE-___T. FIEVL FOE. 'Z!Mff4L1TL WARM-UP AT MCP~ -2Ml~r.SH~

i. NDI NQE CLIM5 Ar z?.o fPM. AT A 6o HTLGwLI 4.LFT OFf- AT 00 T PJM- VLPT IC~AL CLIiB e I RP:

- S LRUISE OUT WITH SLUNG L.DAD (2-4 FLATPLATE- M")

-. CR(J15EA1T..4k~IMOSPHElLUG. C.ONtiTONS

K-:..... --8,---LltTNG:WEGHT -EM~PTY ;-;11,735 55, ____

-* L -E~9CCKUISL AT.i?..-KNIAT-VT&VE. AIFR6?ED CPFOtBeSr-.kAfte.

______ ~~ --------- j 7 -

LTPANSmi5VD4[ LtMI.Tal5O5IPP

Z 5 /oI CREAE~I R. >

7= it-74 t - - -t

d) -E477i .-- -- __

O40 so 2.0 6

RA01US -NAUTICAL MiL-s

AM SAA

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofCopies ORGANIZATION Copi.s ORGANIZATION

Commander 1 Commander12 Defense Technical Information US Army Electronics R&D

Center CommandATTN: DDC-TC ATTN: DRDEL-SACameron Station Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703

Alexandria, VA 22314I Commander

1 Commander US Army Electronics R&Dea US Army Materiel Development & Command

Readiness Command ATTN: DRDEL-AP-OAATTN: DRCCP 2800 Powder Mill Road

DRCDM-S Adelphi, MD 20783DRCDE-FDRCRE 2 DirectorDRCDE-A US Army TRADOC SystemsDRCQA Analysis Activity

5001 Eisenhower Avenue ATTN: ATAA-SLAlexandria, VA 22333 ATAA-T

While Sands Missile Range, NM2 Commander 88002

US Army Armament Research &Development Command 1 Commander

ATTN: DRDAR-SEA US Army Missile CommandTechnicdl Library ATTN: DRSMI-DS

Dover, NJ 07801 Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Commander I CommanderRock Island Arsenal US Army Troop Support AATTN: Technical Library Aviation Materiel ReadinessRock Island, IL 61299 Command

ATTN: DRSTS-BACommander 4300 Goodfellow Blvd.USAERADCOM St. Louis, MO 63120ATTN: DRDEL-CM (Mr. W. Pepper)280 Powder Mill Road 2 CommanderAdelphi, MD 20783 US Army Tank-Automotive

CommandCommander ATTN: DRSTA-TSLUS Army Test & Evaluation DRSTA-V

Command Warren, MI 48090ATTN: STEDP-MT-LDugway Proving Ground, UT 84022 1 Commander

US Army Mobility EquipmentCommander R&D CommandUS Army Aviation R&D Command ATTN: DRDME-OATTN: DRDAV-BC Fort Belvoir. VA 220604300 Goodfellow BlvdSt. Louis, MO 63120

153

;,

DIS-RIBUTION LIST (continued)

No. of No. ofCopies ORGANIZATIO: Copies nRGANIZATION

Commander 2 ChiefUS Army Natick R&D Command Defense Logistics StudiesATTN: DRDNA-O Information ExchangeNatick, MA 01760 US Army Logistics Management

CenterCommander ATTN: DRXMC-DUS Army Concepts Analysis Fort Lee, VA 23801

Agency8120 Woodmont Avenue 1 Reliability Analysis CenterBethesda, MD 20014 ATTN: Mr. I. L. Krulac

Griffis AFB, NY 13441Pentagon LibraryATTN: ANR-AL-RS (Army Studies)Pentagon, RM 1A518Washington, DC 20310

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

2 Cdr, USATECOMATTN: DRSTE

DRSTE-CS-ABldg 314

Dir. BRL, Bldg 328

Dir, BRLATTN: DRDAR-TSB-S (STINFO Branch)Bldg 305

Dir, HEL, Bldg 520ATTN: DRXHE-FSD

154