[EDITOR’S NOTE: The copy keeps pouring in from Colin and the gang over at DoD Buzz who are all over the Association of the US Army convention in DC like white on rice. We’ll feature some of their content, but I’d recommend keeping an eye on what they’re up to over at the Buzz.]
With up to $100 billion at stake in an era when defense budgets are probably going to shrink, you can understand why defense industry officials lust after the contracts for the three variants of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). Final proposals are due this week with a contract award set for the end of the month. The rubber is about to hit the road with the Army set to award three 27-month technology development contracts.
One interesting tidbit: Army Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, Armys deputy chief of staff for programs, told reporters Wednesday afternoon that JLTV must be able to withstand both IEDs and explosively formed penetrators. Until now, industry and government officials had avoided discussion of explicit protection levels. Most details of protection requirements are classified. Industry officials with each team declined to discuss this, only saying that their vehicles met or exceeded MRAP protection requirements.
Here are the teams competing: Boeing, Textron and SAIC; BAE and Navistar; Northrop Grumman and Oshkosh Truck; Lockheed Martin and Armor Holdings; Blackwater and Raytheon. A lot of the floor space at the AUSA conference this week boasted a variant of the JLTV. All of the JLTVs variants on display boasted ISR systems that will allow them to joint FCS brigades, as the Army plans for them to do eventually. They also had either the ability to let drivers flip a switch or hit a computer screen for differing terrains and weather conditions.
BAE unveiled its prototype for variant B [pictured above], a rakish looking vehicle with a relatively spacious interior capable of seating seven fully loaded troopers.
Lockheed displayed a very impressive vehicle. During a press briefing, Lockheed officials boasted of the 20,000 miles their JLTV prototype has endured. Troops had clambered in and out of the vehicle with full combat gear, proving their cabin design, they said. The company had declined to use a hybrid engine after extensive analysis, said Katherine Hasse, who leads the companys JLTV effort. Our experience with hybrids was that they are not ready for military use yet, she said, adding that they boost vehicle weight by up to 700 pounds.
An Oshkosh official agrees that hybrids arent ready yet. There also are disadvantages to the big hump between the two front seats caused by the GTV vehicles transmission. (The Oshkosh official had not seen the Lockheed vehicle.) Thats fine if youre a hurdler, said Ken Juergens, Oshkoshs program director for JLTV. The Northrop-Oshkosh team is using a diesel-electric drive system, which eliminates the need for a transmission and conventional drivetrain. Juergens also touted Oshkoshs experience in building vehicles in different weight classes: Nobody else has gone to different weight classes. The
Congress has concerns about whether the Army can handle all the ground vehicles it plans to buy. In the House report accompanying its version of the 2009 defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee mentioned JLTV twice in separate sections.
In addition to the thousands of light, medium, and heavy trucks and hundreds of armored security vehicles, the committee is aware the Army would purchase over 12,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles by the end of fiscal year 2008 and almost 2,000 additional Stryker vehicles through fiscal year 2013, the report noted.
Concurrently, the Army and the Marine Corps continue to develop the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV), which would perform many of the same missions that current up-armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV) and MRAP vehicles now perform. So it calls on the Army to work with the Marines to come up with a long-term strategy and to consider cost reduction strategies, reliability, and maintainability improvement initiatives.
Last week at the Modern Marine Symposium I had the opportunity to poke around in a few of the JLTV candidates. While I’m not an expert on ground vehicles, I did notice a few differences, both in capabilities and showmanship.
The BAE/Navistar vehicle pictured above had one of the lowest profiles of the variants I saw. The cabin was comfortable, equipment user friendly, and definitely had FCS on its mind as far as capabilities. It seated two in the front and five in the back with removal fold-up seats and helicopter-style seatbelts. It had vastly improved situational awareness/C2 gear, computerized diagnostics software, and was built for simplfied logistical support (common parts throughout vehicle).
The Lockheed truck was a little larger and felt heavier sitting in it. While many of the systems were similar to the BAE truck, the supervisor kept reminding me that their design “met the DoD requirements.” It felt like he used that statement to keep from actually having a two-way discussion and meeting the DoD’s specs was the final word. While the BAE rep was engaging and asked me for input, the Lockheed rep mostly gave me a sales pitch with buzz words. Overall the truck was a little less user friendly, but appeared more ruggedized. Incidently if you go to the Aviation Week blog “Lockheed’s Latest Prototype, 6 Oct 2008″ you can see my legs sticking out from underneath the door at the show. (shameless plug, I know)
The General Dynamics/AM General truck was huge. It was boxy and of the same style as the Lockheed truck. Unfortunately I can’t say much more about it since the guy representing the truck pretty much ignored me until a couple SYSCON suits approached him. They talked, he pitched, and I tried to at least get a look inside despite being blown off by all parties.
I don’t recall seeing a Northrup Grumman/Oshkosh variant at the symposium, but they had mock-ups and prototypes of other vehicles they’re working on. Oshkosh is very good at building large trucks, and even if they don’t get the JLTV contract I imagine they’ll be making military trucks for years to come.
what criteria is the army using for judging whether a vehicle can “withstand” an IED or EFP? i ask because looking at the MRAP, the Stryker, and a few other designs that’ve been hit by IEDs in recent years and at how they’ve managed it, i’m having trouble believing any truly IED-resistant vehicle could ever be described as “light”.
did any of them have v shaped hulls to protect from ied’s? and ballistic glass for windows? for a design that can replace the wheels for tracks so depending on mission you can have true all terrain abilities.
Here’s a good example of classified info. The nature of IEDs makes it impossible to guess what the vehicle will be up against. My guess is the specs are going to call for a charge xlbs in size, x feet away or under the vehicle and survive an x sized and powered self forging penetrator. Needless to say, I shouldn’t think we’ll be hearing the actual specs. Then again, someone could be dumb enough to tell the bad guys just how big a charge you need. “withstand” is a vague enough term to probably just mean what percentage of the crew survived even if it’s a mission kill for the vehicle for x amount of IED or SFP.
Most if not all the JLTV designs have V-shaped hulls and/or a lot of ground clearance as well as thick glass on the windows. My guess on the anti-IED piece is the same as when they fielded the Stryker to the army a few years ago. The specs called for a full combat load of 20 tons to make it roll right off a C-130 into a fight. The final product came closer to 26 tons. When asked, then Army Sec. Harvey said something like “it was a goal we wanted them to shoot for, not necessarily achieve.” The DoD telling the companies to make the trucks that can “withstand” IEDs leaves a lot of room for interpretation as well as growth.
Produce them for PD use, USBP, MP, SP use,
Ranger use?, std Infantry,
Recon & Scout roles.
Id drive one with flexfuel engine.
Neat.
There is no vehicle in the current DoD inventory that is “IED proof”, not even MRAPs or Cougars. The enemy learns and builds a more powerful IED, then typical double/triple stacked AT mine. The newer vehicles do reduced casualities and we are thank for them, versus using the 1114s and 1151s. The current vehicles are good enough to get the job done. Instead of spending all that money on a quote “improved IED vehicle” — which there is no way that can be done. How about spending that money on HUMINT assets or other assets (UAVs and etc), to indentify and target the IED makers. In my experience it is simple — stop the IED makers and US Soldiers do not get killed by IEDs. These guys are intelligent and the everyone under estimates their ability to learn and create more powerfull IEDs.
The Northrup-Oshkosh paragraph seems to be garbled. Other sources say Northrup-Oshkosh IS proposing a hybrid, which means they probably think hybrids ARE ready for prime time. Plus hybrids get rid of the transmission tunnel.