Comments on: Big Boys Battle For JLTV Billions

By: Madisonian

Madisonian — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:49:18 +0000

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.

By: 11Bravo108

11Bravo108 — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:43:29 +0000

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.

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 02:22:51 +0000

Produce them for PD use, USBP, MP, SP use,
Ranger use?, std Infantry,
Recon & Scout roles.
Id drive one with flexfuel engine.
Neat.

By: TB

TB — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:32:23 +0000

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.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:08:17 +0000

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.

By: slntax

slntax — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:40:08 +0000

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.

By: Nomen Nescio

Nomen Nescio — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:55:33 +0000

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".

By: TB

TB — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:00:10 +0000

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.