At a glance I'm wondering about PMCS and maintenance. That looks more maintenance intensive, and you're going to need heavier gear to service it. It's an armored car, not a Jeep.
Looks like cargo space is more limited than a HMMWV. Doesn't look comfy to sleep in, but comfier to sleep under. Grille shape doesn't make me happy, as PFC's will be hitting deer, concrete posts, parked five ton's they couldn't see, etc. Mirrors can't be safely adjusted in transit. I do like the more exposed tire wells. Honestly, the cargo area looks like the weakest element. With a HMMWV, you can have two casualties laying side by side. With this, you can have one. It looks more like a hopper in the back. Ok, good for improvised firing platform. Bad for hauling gear.
Not saying vehicles shouldn't be designed for war. Far from it. But people may live out of these things for weeks at a time.
So, as an uparmored HMMWV, better.
For an non-armored HMMWV, not better. It won't haul the same amount of stuff unless they significantly redesign the bed, which hopefully won't be too expensive.
It'd work out fine if you decrease the ratio of cars to trucks. Buy less HMMWV replacements, increase number of LMTV's and MTV's on the MTOE. Of course, that means more bodies packed into truck beds, which defines "high valued target" for IED folks.
