XC2V to replace the HummVee?

[Lucky]

The XC2V is a crowd sourced design that is being tested, and may replace the humvee.

Darap's project is testing both crowd sourcing and the prototype.

Crowd Sourcing is suppose to be cheaper and faster then standard design methods.

The XC2V is suppose to be a cheaper replacement for the hummer as I understand it. At worst it is much better looking then the hummer.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ck=main_sr

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1055 ... rt-vehicle

http://www.insideline.com/car-pictures/ ... llery.html

http://forge.local-motors.com/pages/project.php?cg=7564

What do you guys think?

[Mr. Oragahn]

The XC2V is a crowd sourced design that is being tested, and may replace the humvee.

Darap's project is testing both crowd sourcing and the prototype.

Crowd Sourcing is suppose to be cheaper and faster then standard design methods.

The XC2V is suppose to be a cheaper replacement for the hummer as I understand it. At worst it is much better looking then the hummer.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ck=main_sr

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1055 ... rt-vehicle

http://www.insideline.com/car-pictures/ ... llery.html

http://forge.local-motors.com/pages/project.php?cg=7564

What do you guys think?

Cheaper, too much coolness and a raised rear section for what use again?

[Lucky]

Cheaper

That is the point of the crowd sourcing experiment at least. If I was reading some of the articles I found correctly then the greatest cost when designing a new thing is at the beginning, and crowd sourcing is a way to shorten and cheapen the design phase.

I honestly don't know how much a XC2V costs as i was having a hard time finding detailed articles on it.

too much coolness

Do you see this as a good thing or bad thing, and why?

I don't see how an attractive exterior is bad so long as the vehicle's performance is not impeded, or the maintenance and production costs raised. It kind of looks like the designer was trying to make a militarized Rally Fighter, and make use of sloped armor to me.

and a raised rear section for what use again?

The roof is raised like that so people can sit behind the driver. The XC2V is designed to fit at least 4 people in spite being a two door hatchback.
http://www.insideline.com/car-pictures/ ... llery.html

[Mr. Oragahn]

too much coolness

Do you see this as a good thing or bad thing, and why?

I don't see how an attractive exterior is bad so long as the vehicle's performance is not impeded, or the maintenance and production costs raised. It kind of looks like the designer was trying to make a militarized Rally Fighter, and make use of sloped armor to me.

In general, efficiency follows humility, not exuberance. Complicated hull forms that serve no purpose, for one, increase the costs of production. That's just an example.

and a raised rear section for what use again?

The roof is raised like that so people can sit behind the driver. The XC2V is designed to fit at least 4 people in spite being a two door hatchback.
http://www.insideline.com/car-pictures/ ... llery.html

Considering the position of those windows for the rear passengers that is almost flush with the roof of the vehicle, how they are narrow, and the position of one's eyes on a face, I think they're cosmetic more than anything else. Read: they let the sun shine in, that is all.

And even if it's nitpicking here considering the extra hull height due to the elevated position, I generally prefer my vehicle to have the lowest profile if possible.

http://pinoytutorial.com/techtorial/dar ... -soldiers/
New Hasbro Sand Warriors series! Reminds me of some spaceship toys I had, working with magnets.
Stop wasting time to cramp to guys in there and either leave the room for real stuff or make it a real four guys vehicle.

lol @ dog in the video.

(edited for nonsense words being out of place, *sigh*)

[2046]

This is terrible on so many levels.

1. Two-doors, four people . . . good luck getting out in a hurry.

2. Crowd-sourced design and software-only prototyping . . . so it's the ultimate design-by-committee and then they're not even going to do a real prototype?

And that's just the start.

[Lucky]

In general, efficiency follows humility, not exuberance. Complicated hull forms that serve no purpose, for one, increase the costs of production. That's just an example.

Generally form follows function. The XC2V seems to be shaped like an off road racer. This would imply the XC2V is cool looking because the design is practical. Just google "off road race cars" and "Baja 1000 rally", and you will see several similarly designed off road vehicles.

http://www.caranddriver.com/photos-09q2 ... oto-275865

http://www.puro-off-road.com/class-1-un ... el-special

http://utvweekly.com/index.php/2009/12/ ... baja-1000/

If designs similar to the XC2V win off road races like the Baja 1000, then the looks are likely a result of function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baja_1000

Considering the position of those windows for the rear passengers that is almost flush with the roof of the vehicle, how they are narrow, and the position of one's eyes on a face and how, I think they're cosmetic more than anything else. Read: they light the sun shine in, that is all.

It is a prototype from what I've read, and that means the design has not been finalized. If the windows are a problem they can easily be removed after all. There may be an actual reason they are there even.

http://pinoytutorial.com/techtorial/dar ... -soldiers/
New Hasbro Sand Warriors series! Reminds me of some spaceship toys I had, working with magnets.
Stop wasting time to cramp to guys in there and either leave the room for real stuff or make it a real four guys vehicle.

You had Starcom toys as well? ^_^

The XC2V is suppose to be modular. Some of the diagrams showed that it was suppose to be able to carry up to six wounded, or 4 healthy soldiers, and the seats fold down.

lol @ dog in the video.

That isn't a dog. That is a highly skilled craftsman who needs a shave and is taking a break.

[Lucky]

1. Two-doors, four people . . . good luck getting out in a hurry.

It's a good thing they are still testing the prototypes then.

2. Crowd-sourced design and software-only prototyping . . . so it's the ultimate design-by-committee and then they're not even going to do a real prototype?

Did you read any of the articles i linked to? Did you bother to research the topic, and then not bother to share the information with the rest of us?

DARPA is testing physical prototypes right now last I heard. Where did you get the idea that the XC2V was going straight into production?

Crowd Sourcing has been used to design cars and computer programs before with good results, and Local Motors seems to work by having a contest. They have people send in designs, and then a first, second, and third place winners are chosen.

Local Motors Youtube page. They explain how designs are submitted and chosen. It doesn't seem to be what you think it is.
http://www.youtube.com/user/localmotors/videos

I suggest you look up the Rally Fighter. Below is what Top Gear(USA) did when they took it for a spin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn6rvj08 ... re=related

And that's just the start.

I hope your other thoughts on the matter are better sourced because you seem to be uninformed about what was done.

[2046]

Well aren't we in a snit today, little man? I talk about a dumb idea you brought up and asked for feedback on (an idea that was not yours so it isn't as if your emotional investment in it, evident now, was evident then), and you try to insult me in response. I am ever so sorry I peed in your cereal.

2. Crowd-sourced design and software-only prototyping . . . so it's the ultimate design-by-committee and then they're not even going to do a real prototype?

Did you read any of the articles i linked to?

No. I am not even reading this now. Ass.

Where did you get the idea that the XC2V was going straight into production?

From the first fucking article you linked to, which rather explicitly states that they are doing testing in software and also skipping the design-test-redesign timeline to speed things into production. I finished that article but stopped right there because that's stupid.

If the article was a crappy article that did not say what you wanted it to say or was inaccurate then perhaps you shouldn't have used it, or shouldn't have opened with it, or should've prefaced it, rather than acting like a little b .... grr, self-restraint.

Call me snooty if you wish, but I am too old and have spent too many years of research to have some punk toss off insulting claims just because I don't agree that the military's latest overwrought dumb idea is the best thing since fellatio.

If you cannot abide contrary opinions and have to respond with insults, then don't fucking ask for opinions. And if you are so emotional about the topic you shouldn't ask about, then next time sell it better and don't put a bad link as the fucking flagship.

Good day.

[Mike DiCenso]

Gentlemen, tone it down with the insults, please.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

This is terrible on so many levels.

1. Two-doors, four people . . . good luck getting out in a hurry.

The vehicle has an ejection system for the two guys at the back. It farts them out. No airbag, no room for that.

2. Crowd-sourced design and software-only prototyping . . . so it's the ultimate design-by-committee and then they're not even going to do a real prototype?

Dude, they tested it in a Crysis mod. I think it will pass. Piece of cake.

[Mr. Oragahn]

In general, efficiency follows humility, not exuberance. Complicated hull forms that serve no purpose, for one, increase the costs of production. That's just an example.

Generally form follows function. The XC2V seems to be shaped like an off road racer. This would imply the XC2V is cool looking because the design is practical. Just google "off road race cars" and "Baja 1000 rally", and you will see several similarly designed off road vehicles.

http://www.caranddriver.com/photos-09q2 ... oto-275865

http://www.puro-off-road.com/class-1-un ... el-special

http://utvweekly.com/index.php/2009/12/ ... baja-1000/

If designs similar to the XC2V win off road races like the Baja 1000, then the looks are likely a result of function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baja_1000

It replaces a vehicle which could be armoured and be more practical to the people inside.

I guess all it lacks now is a phaser tripod.

It is a prototype from what I've read, and that means the design has not been finalized. If the windows are a problem they can easily be removed after all. There may be an actual reason they are there even.

What kind of douche wouldn't already realize from the drawing that the horizontal windows are just useless and the people at the back won't see shit? To make them useful, they need to have the rear seats raised, with more head room, which means they stick out even more.
The only possible thing that could solve that would be a set of lenses and mirrors, kinda periscope, to allow the guys on the back to see something, if only trees. Of course the design seems to be going for massive cheapness, and I didn't notice any such device in the construction video.
I suppose it's to see the stars and the sun, since there won't be any GPS.

You had Starcom toys as well? ^_^

Awesome thing.
I still have the big assault shuttle stuffed in a plastic box:



I don't think this toy franchise went very far, and that's a pity. The designs were very nice.
The magnets and the partly modular design really made those things ace. Even the small figurines had magnets in their boots.
There also was a 3D black & white short comics in the box.

Mmm... from the wikipedia page:

"Starcom: The U.S. Space Force is an animated syndicated series in the 1980s that spawned a successful motorized toy line franchise in Europe and Asia for Mattel, despite its failures to succeed in its U.S. domestic market. The plot was based on the adventures of an American astronaut brigade as they fought off attempted invasions by Shadow Force, a nasty collection of aliens and robots led by the nefarious Emperor Dark."

Never gonna be remember'd for the plot.

The XC2V is suppose to be modular. Some of the diagrams showed that it was suppose to be able to carry up to six wounded, or 4 healthy soldiers, and the seats fold down.

We need to be clear on that. Is it supposed to be a fast recon/evac vehicle with Tupperware as armour or what?

That isn't a dog. That is a highly skilled craftsman who needs a shave and is taking a break.

:)

[Lucky]

Well aren't we in a snit today, little man? I talk about a dumb idea you brought up and asked for feedback on (an idea that was not yours so it isn't as if your emotional investment in it, evident now, was evident then), and you try to insult me in response. I am ever so sorry I peed in your cereal.

I don't see insults in my response to you.

You seem to be mistaking confusion on my part for insults.

No. I am not even reading this now. Ass.

This doesn't make sense.

From the first fucking article you linked to, which rather explicitly states that they are doing testing in software and also skipping the design-test-redesign timeline to speed things into production. I finished that article but stopped right there because that's stupid.

If the article was a crappy article that did not say what you wanted it to say or was inaccurate then perhaps you shouldn't have used it, or shouldn't have opened with it, or should've prefaced it, rather than acting like a little b .... grr, self-restraint.

Then could you quote the part I seemingly can't find. I admit I have a physical problem that causes me to at times unknowingly skip lines of text.

Call me snooty if you wish, but I am too old and have spent too many years of research to have some punk toss off insulting claims just because I don't agree that the military's latest overwrought dumb idea is the best thing since fellatio.

You have been researching crowd sourcing for years?

If you cannot abide contrary opinions and have to respond with insults, then don't fucking ask for opinions. And if you are so emotional about the topic you shouldn't ask about, then next time sell it better and don't put a bad link as the fucking flagship.

I haven't been insulting you.

[Lucky]

It replaces a vehicle which could be armoured and be more practical to the people inside.

The people in charge of the US military would disagree that the problem is so simple to fix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee_replacement_process

Everything i've ever read or head about the Humvee said that it just wasn't designed for the conditions it has to deal with, and while adding armor helps deal with some of those problem it causes other problems.

I'm not sure that the XC2V project has much to do with replacing the Humvee, and that is why I put a question mark in the title of the thread.

I guess all it lacks now is a phaser tripod.

Oddly enough real world militaries use vehicles similar to the Argo buggy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Patrol_Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Strike_Vehicle

What kind of douche wouldn't already realize from the drawing that the horizontal windows are just useless and the people at the back won't see shit? To make them useful, they need to have the rear seats raised, with more head room, which means they stick out even more.
The only possible thing that could solve that would be a set of lenses and mirrors, kinda periscope, to allow the guys on the back to see something, if only trees. Of course the design seems to be going for massive cheapness, and I didn't notice any such device in the construction video.
I suppose it's to see the stars and the sun, since there won't be any GPS.

http://forge.localmotors.com/pages/project.php?cg=7564
http://s3.amazonaws.com/lmi/user-images/co77560.jpg
Judging by this blueprint it looks like the guys in the back can see out those windows, but that might only be on paper.

Given the off road nature of the vehicle head room is needed so the riders do not suffer head and neck injuries, and so the riders heads are inside the cab. It's only about six feet tall from lowest point to highest point isn't it?

Awesome thing.
I still have the big assault shuttle stuffed in a plastic box:


http://www.digitalmonkeybox.com/Starcom ... 006004.jpg
I don't think this toy franchise went very far, and that's a pity. The designs were very nice.
The magnets and the partly modular design really made those things ace. Even the small figurines had magnets in their boots.
There also was a 3D black & white short comics in the box.

Mmm... from the wikipedia page:

"Starcom: The U.S. Space Force is an animated syndicated series in the 1980s that spawned a successful motorized toy line franchise in Europe and Asia for Mattel, despite its failures to succeed in its U.S. domestic market. The plot was based on the adventures of an American astronaut brigade as they fought off attempted invasions by Shadow Force, a nasty collection of aliens and robots led by the nefarious Emperor Dark."

Never gonna be remember'd for the plot.

I was always partial to the Starwolf. IF you are going to have fighters in your Sci-Fi you don't get a better design.

I always thought Starcom human forces were a united Earth space force of sort of thing. I honestly can't see any one country being able to do what was done in the series do to politics and the fact that at least a couple other countries should have a similar level of technology.

The basic idea could be made into a good trilogy

We need to be clear on that. Is it supposed to be a fast recon/evac vehicle with Tupperware as armour or what?

The XC2V Design Challenge asked individuals to co-create a vehicle body design for two different missions—Combat Reconnaissance and Combat Delivery & Evacuation – and submit these concepts for vote. This competitive challenge prompted designers to push the limits of creative design. Feedback from the crowd enabled designers to incorporate novel ideas and concepts.

Entrants have to meet a few specific requirements: use Local Motors’ “tubular steel chassis with existing GM LS3 V8 powertrain” — the metal latticework pictured above — and carry up to five passengers, including up to three people lying down. (This is medevac, after all.) It’s got to carry up to 1200 pounds and tow up to 4000. Apart from that, go wild. You want the thing to fly? Well, get on that.

The challenge is being conducted with Local Motors, a Phoenix-based company that lets a community of car designers and engineers collaborate on designing cars, which can then be bought and built in regional micro-factories. Local Motors’ first “open source” production vehicle is the Rally Fighter, which was developed in 2008 using a crowd-sourced process. The XC2V design submissions must be based on the lightweight, tubular steel chassis and the General Motors LS3 V8 powertrain found in that vehicle.

Budding designers must also devise a vehicle that meets two mission sets – combat delivery and evacuation and combat reconnaissance. To meet the requirements of combat delivery and evacuation missions, the judges will be looking for flexible vehicle body designs that allow supplies, people and equipment to be transported around a potentially hostile battlefield in the quickest and most efficient way possible.
Meanwhile, in terms of combat reconnaissance, the vehicle must also be light and fast with the capability to mount sighting systems on the exterior and space inside to stow items such as camouflage and ammunition so it is easily accessible.

It is suppose to be a combat reconnaissance vehicle and a combat delivery and evacuation vehicle. The biggest difference between the winner of the XC2V project and a Humvee seems to be that the winner of the XC2V project is intended to enter combat from the beginning.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Everything i've ever read or head about the Humvee said that it just wasn't designed for the conditions it has to deal with, and while adding armor helps deal with some of those problem it causes other problems.

I'm not saying the humvee is perfect, but at least it's sturdy and voluminous on the sides and is clearly shaped like a brick, has no fancy shapes (no radars, we don't care) so that makes the addition of defense systems easier.

What kind of douche wouldn't already realize from the drawing that the horizontal windows are just useless and the people at the back won't see shit? To make them useful, they need to have the rear seats raised, with more head room, which means they stick out even more.
The only possible thing that could solve that would be a set of lenses and mirrors, kinda periscope, to allow the guys on the back to see something, if only trees. Of course the design seems to be going for massive cheapness, and I didn't notice any such device in the construction video.
I suppose it's to see the stars and the sun, since there won't be any GPS.

http://forge.localmotors.com/pages/project.php?cg=7564
http://s3.amazonaws.com/lmi/user-images/co77560.jpg
Judging by this blueprint it looks like the guys in the back can see out those windows, but that might only be on paper.

The blueprint is completely at odds with the finished model regarding the top windows.
The blueprint shows that the rear passengers have their eyes flush with the roof of the forward section, have a decent vision of things above that plane, and have plenty of headroom above.
Compare this with the article here:
http://pinoytutorial.com/techtorial/dar ... -soldiers/
We have the video, that shows the size of people, the volume of their heads. It just doesn't work. We have proof that the rear roof is different. We have proof that the second blueprint doesn't even show the thick hatches on the front roof.
Look, we can even see something else on the blueprint: the height of those windows on the sides of the vehicle is much greater, then narrow towards the junction of the pair. It gives a "nasty look" to those two glasses. It's much less noticeable in the model. Not only that, but the triangular section that supposedly goes down is actually completely flat with the rest of the aft roof, and that not because they decided to make the windows greater, but on the contrary, at the expense of head room.
We can also see on the blueprint that at its greatest height, a window is practically 3/5th of the the man's head height we can see, while for the model, you couldn't even squeeze a fist through them. Pause at 1:10 for example, there's a guy inside the vehicle, on the right. You can see his left hand on the edge of what would be the left door. It allows you to see the make a comparison between the width of his knuckle and the height of the window at its tallest point.
It's complete BS.


Oh and I love the inspiration intro in the first document. They forgot to add the batmobile, Pikachu, Freddy Mercury and lazorz.

Given the off road nature of the vehicle head room is needed so the riders do not suffer head and neck injuries, and so the riders heads are inside the cab. It's only about six feet tall from lowest point to highest point isn't it?

It's even worse, because we know that they're not supposed to have their heads touch the roof. Good luck seeing through those slits without pressing one of your ears against said roof.

Looking at the original article, they're literally skipping one major testing phase to go straight to production?

LOL

I was always partial to the Starwolf. IF you are going to have fighters in your Sci-Fi you don't get a better design.

Yes, their fighters do look ace. There's the whole F-117 vibe to them. The Vampires also had it. I just love the idea that all of them can be packed and transported. It's a good plus on the logistics side. Starcom's Battlecrane is too cool. It can carry containers and also fold into a shape that precisely is the same as one of those containers.
When you look at the Shadow forces, it's actually stunning how the mobility of those vehicles is so flexible.
http://www.virtualtoychest.com/starcom/starcom.html

I always thought Starcom human forces were a united Earth space force of sort of thing. I honestly can't see any one country being able to do what was done in the series do to politics and the fact that at least a couple other countries should have a similar level of technology.

The basic idea could be made into a good trilogy

It would need to be enhanced. The toys clearly are the best part by far.
It's understandable, back then, why it would be considered logical that the USA could still be so powerful in the future. Our current view is quite different than what we enjoyed back then. Thus, the Space Marines Corps in ALIEN for example which seem to be the main force several LY around, although in reality they'd probably be one army among many.

It is suppose to be a combat reconnaissance vehicle and a combat delivery and evacuation vehicle. The biggest difference between the winner of the XC2V project and a Humvee seems to be that the winner of the XC2V project is intended to enter combat from the beginning.

[/quote]

The bit that cracked me up:

"...and carry up to five passengers, including up to three people lying down. (This is medevac, after all.)"

Err... there has to be room for three peeps lying down now? And a minibar, perhaps?
Why not make its aft as large as the front? Also, as an extension of what Robert pointed out, how are those wounded people going to be accessed? There's no opening on the rear section safe the aft roof's hatch and eventually, that theoretical door that I can't even see here. There's not even enough room to squeeze two people lying on their backs + one medic at the back, etc.
I mean this piece of junk really cries failure. All I can see from the beginning is its silly coolness factor.

[Lucky]

I'm not saying the humvee is perfect, but at least it's sturdy and voluminous on the sides and is clearly shaped like a brick, has no fancy shapes (no radars, we don't care) so that makes the addition of defense systems easier.

I have heard it said that the Humvee's size is a major draw back for using it. It has trouble fitting through city streets, and on narrow roads.

Why not just get a Marauder if you think being large is a good thing?.^_^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDoRmT0iRic

The blueprint is completely at odds with the finished model regarding the top windows.
The blueprint shows that the rear passengers have their eyes flush with the roof of the forward section, have a decent vision of things above that plane, and have plenty of headroom above.
Compare this with the article here:
http://pinoytutorial.com/techtorial/dar ... -soldiers/
We have the video, that shows the size of people, the volume of their heads. It just doesn't work. We have proof that the rear roof is different. We have proof that the second blueprint doesn't even show the thick hatches on the front roof.
Look, we can even see something else on the blueprint: the height of those windows on the sides of the vehicle is much greater, then narrow towards the junction of the pair. It gives a "nasty look" to those two glasses. It's much less noticeable in the model. Not only that, but the triangular section that supposedly goes down is actually completely flat with the rest of the aft roof, and that not because they decided to make the windows greater, but on the contrary, at the expense of head room.
We can also see on the blueprint that at its greatest height, a window is practically 3/5th of the the man's head height we can see, while for the model, you couldn't even squeeze a fist through them. Pause at 1:10 for example, there's a guy inside the vehicle, on the right. You can see his left hand on the edge of what would be the left door. It allows you to see the make a comparison between the width of his knuckle and the height of the window at its tallest point.
It's complete BS.

I think you are right.

Oh and I love the inspiration intro in the first document. They forgot to add the batmobile, Pikachu, Freddy Mercury and lazorz.

In all honesty i can see how those things influenced the design, particularly the ant.

It's even worse, because we know that they're not supposed to have their heads touch the roof. Good luck seeing through those slits without pressing one of your ears against said roof.

Obviously a design where you have to cut your own head off to to use would be bad.

Looking at the original article, they're literally skipping one major testing phase to go straight to production?

I'm honestly confused as to what part of the design phase they are trying to avoid/shorten. I thought they wanted to shorten the design phase, and start working with prototypes as quickly as possible?

Yes, their fighters do look ace. There's the whole F-117 vibe to them. The Vampires also had it. I just love the idea that all of them can be packed and transported. It's a good plus on the logistics side. Starcom's Battlecrane is too cool. It can carry containers and also fold into a shape that precisely is the same as one of those containers.
When you look at the Shadow forces, it's actually stunning how the mobility of those vehicles is so flexible.
http://www.virtualtoychest.com/starcom/starcom.html

It's rather odd they put so much thought into the designs to make them practical, and it is rare that the toys have a gimmick that matches the show nearly perfectly.

It would need to be enhanced. The toys clearly are the best part by far.

Well, I don't really think it would be hard to come up with a scenario where a single human space force came to be. Earth already has multinational scientific projects, and we have an international space station. Starcom could start out as a NASA like origination that later gets something like anti-space piracy duties added years after mining and colonies start being set up.

The real problem is figuring out what the conflict is over. It might work best if the Shadows are just a group of well funded pirates. It would explain the heavy use of robots if they are few in number.

It's understandable, back then, why it would be considered logical that the USA could still be so powerful in the future. Our current view is quite different than what we enjoyed back then. Thus, the Space Marines Corps in ALIEN for example which seem to be the main force several LY around, although in reality they'd probably be one army among many.

The Space Marines in Aliens were U.S.A. military?

The bit that cracked me up:

"...and carry up to five passengers, including up to three people lying down. (This is medevac, after all.)"

Err... there has to be room for three peeps lying down now? And a minibar, perhaps?
Why not make its aft as large as the front? Also, as an extension of what Robert pointed out, how are those wounded people going to be accessed? There's no opening on the rear section safe the aft roof's hatch and eventually, that theoretical door that I can't even see here. There's not even enough room to squeeze two people lying on their backs + one medic at the back, etc.
I mean this piece of junk really cries failure. All I can see from the beginning is its silly coolness factor.

That makes me wonder if that is full size? I'm not sure why they would build a scaled down version however?