It sounds as if all of you are simply proposing an new vehicle in addition to the humvee rather than a replacement.

The problem with the U.S. vehicles often comes from politics and lack of variants. For example, the Humvee has been exported to make the Otokar Cobra (Turkey) which is fully armored nose-to-tail and has a fully-enclosed turret. Swiss MOWAG also took the Humvee chassis and made the Eagle, also more armored and with a fully-enclosed turret than the M1114, respectively. Both Eagle and Cobra are designed and built from the chassis up and are in effect better than the M1114. The same goes for the F-16 with Block 60s and above being sold to foreign air forces, which of course means that the USAF doesn't have the best F-16s for its pilots.

Instead of making an armored Humvee from chassis up on the assembly line, the U.S. instead takes built Humvees, ships them to another state, guts the interior, and uparmors them that way to make the M1114, which doesn't make as much sense as factory-fresh armored Humvees.

Politics also comes to play. The U.S. Army acts as a ladder with M1s and M2s on the top of the food chain and trucks, trailers, and Humvees at the bottom. Funds always comes top-down. Every military branch has this issue---superstars vs. grunts and the stars get all the money, attention, and glamour. The only wheeled superstar in the U.S. Army is the Stryker. The rest are buried under armored tracks.

Then comes OIF and OEF and guess who are the grunts turned superstars? The trucks, trailers, and Humvees, long ignored as "adequate enough." Well, they're not adequate since they're not true combat vehicles or even armored cars.

I don't want to sound anti-American, but a lot of the problems Humvees, trucks, and trailers face today is how politics and the Govt. operate. We all heard the saying, "If it's not broken, DON'T FIX IT!" A lot of people follow this motto. A classic example is NASA's space shuttle. It wasn't broken, so nothing was fixed until something broke and everything ground to a halt. Now foam broke off from the fuel tank (again) and NASA has to fix it when perhaps the solution is to find a replacement long ago.

One issue I also dislike about these U.S. Army "replacement ideas" is the 1:1 basis such as the Humvee replaces the M151 and "Humvee replacement" replaces Humvee. There is no other alternative, and when it comes to land warfare, the emerging and different threats are more than say air combat. While I understand a 1 for 1 replacement is to save cost and maintenance, I do believe that at times, there should be more variants, more tools in the toolbox, more vehicles to choose from such as the British have with their variety of armored cars (see Jane's tank guide or the Russians have with their variety of BTR turrets). For example, if you want a SUV, wouldn't it stink to have just one to chose from one manufacturer that makes it? (And what happens if that manufacturer goes on strike or can't meet production orders?). The space shuttle is that way (the only U.S. ticket to get people into space) and now the U.S. Govt. is rediscovering the use of rockets. Corporate sector and private security companies are another story...

Mind you the hummer is still one of the better light infantry transport vehicles when you compare it with other countries. You cant compare the hummer to tanks for obvious reasons and as Gino mentioned, nothing is indestructable. I would be interested to see what replaces the hummer too.

If you compare the light transport vehicles to the ones in New Zealand's (Unimog) and Singapore's jeep, the hummer still prevails in terms of its infrastructure any day.