Hi Guys,
I wonder if the HB kit could used with 9th ID High Technology Test Bed programme?

I don't think the styrene plastic used in the HB FAV will be strong enough for the environmental stresses in the High Technology Test Bed programme.

I will use mine to fill a hole in the stash

Maybe, with some changes. They are similar, but not the same vehicle.

9ID FAV

I wonder what happend to HTTB vehicles. Where the HMMWV`s rebuild into another variant?

cool vehicle . but the guys look awful vulnerable !!

They were very vulnerable. When I was assigned to the 9th ID way back in 81-83, we had several accidents. My unit was equipped with 64 1/4 tons, and we had the opportunity to go head to head with units assigned to the HTTB program several times (once quite literally when we had a head on collision with a FAV at night at Yakima Firing Range--where the FAV fiberglass body came out the loser). The FAV was fast, light, and a fairly stable gun platform, but it was a far cry from today's SF FAV. They were primarily a souped up "dune buggy" back then, whereas today they are "purpose built" and "safer" from that standpoint. The HTTB concept was a good way to "prove" today's operational use though.
VR, Russ

Does anyone know how many FAV`s, HMMWV Armored Squad Carriers and HMMWV RED-T were build for this programme?

I was in the program from 1981-83, and to my knowledge there were no "armored" HMMWV vehicles in the program at that time. In fact there were only a few cargo, ambulance and transport HMMWV prototypes around for testing, and the four seat decidedly "un-armored" utility version which was under evaluation. The Kevlar "Armored" HMMWV and armored glass HMMWV came much later. What we had for the MP and Recon organizations was a fiberglass body "fast back" shell, with povision for a gun ring up top mounting a .50, M-60 or M-40. Frankly, at the time the HMMWV was unimpressive to the troops that got them. I remember a particular test in Yakima where the HMMWV was matched to an M151A1, where the HMMWV could not traverse a ravine (going down the length of the ravine) and the M151A1 could. Where the HMMWV excelled was in the payload, it could carry twice as much equipment, radios and troops as the M151. Ultimately, that's what sold it to the Army, it sure wasn't its size or simplicity. There were at least a battalion's worth of FAVs purchased for the program, with the 2/75 Rangers and one of the 9th Division's Infantry battalions (I can't remember which now) selected for testing, something like 60 vehicles as I recall, but it's been a long time, so I might not be correct on the numbers. They were not widely fielded by the 9th Division. The High Technology Test Bed (HTTB) was exactly that-- a Test and Evaluation organization for new equipment, doctrine and training, some of which, like the FAV, came directly "off the shelf". I happened to be in one of the first units fielding and testing the MRE while we were there, I have a broken tooth to show for it! All you fellow vets who ever ate an MRE have us "guinea pigs" in HTTB units to thank for today's "improved" MREs.
😝
VR, Russ

Related website :

http://www.fastattackvehicle.com/index.html

H.P.