Comments on: Army Awards JLTV Contracts

By: jonh

jonh — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:59:07 +0000

Ok they are just building bigger ieds. I was in country when one took out an abrahms not pretty. If the shape charge don get you the percussion will

By: Gene

Gene — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:21:01 +0000

Well, once again the Army is looking at threshold items and not Objective Item contracting. Just like the MRAP there will be many different vehicles that dont defeat the larger threats. Unfortunately for the soldier our politicians and people who have not been on the ground fighting the battle are making the decisions. I am here in Iraq and see first hand what even the smallest of threat does to an MRAP. Dont get me wrong, I have also seen where soldiers were blown up in an MRAP and survived with no injuries only to get into another MRAP 4 hours later and be back out there doing their job!!!! I think the amount of damage is done not necessarily by the size of the threat but where it (the vehicle) takes the hit. So unless you can equip a vehicle with a new armor package to defeat all threats you wont defeat the threat our soldiers are facing. I seriously doubt you will get any vehicle in the 2000 to 5000 lb range to defeat the modern threats in todays war on terror. Its like the old addage, 50 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag. Mark my words, the vehicles will range in the 15 to 20,000 pound range and wont be air mobile other than inside a big plane. get real, wake up and smell the dust in Iraq/Afghanistan and you will understand the fight we are facing daily. check out the Protector at http://www.protectedvehicles.com and you will see a vehicle that can defeat all threats and is very fast and mobile. God Bless our soldiers and the fight they take to the enemy every day!!!

By: jim

jim — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:40:31 +0000

Looking at the evolution of the JLTV program to date (and the broader future USA/USMC procurement discussions), does anyone have any insight or comment on why Loockheed did not act when BAE bought Armor Holdings. It seems that Armor was/is pretty important to Lockheed’s ambitions to be a player in the ground vehicle space. Now Lockheeds “team mate” is a division of a competitive bidder? Jim

By: Mad

Mad — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:51:26 +0000

Batmobile.

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 02:34:41 +0000

Can we drive one?
If civilianized or NOT?
Like to drive one.

By: JEFF

JEFF — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:23:34 +0000

Steve and Tamir,
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I appreciate it, I can finally put a clear picture to each entry.
Just off looks alone BAE’s entry looks the part. Lockheed’s looks almost MRAPish huge.

By: Tamir Eshel

Tamir Eshel — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:00:59 +0000

FEFF, You can find photos and commentary on today’s Defense Update items on the JLTV program and recent displays at AUSA 2008 http://www.defense-update.com

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:10:05 +0000

Greg, where do you get 3500 — 5500 pounds? The JLTV is more robust and is armored. Apparently you can’t do math.
Also, Jeff, you aren’t going to see the JLTV models until they are in production or unless the manufacturer “wants” you to see them

By: Steve Field

Steve Field — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:16:58 +0000

Jeff,
My name is Steve Field and I work in communications at BAE Systems. The photo in this post is of the BAE Systems-Navistar JLTV, which we call the Valanx.
You can find more images of our vehicle in the multimedia section of our site, http://www.thevalanx.com.
Steve

By: JEFF

JEFF — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:57:55 +0000

Does anybody know where you can find some pictures of these JLTVs? I only know what Lockheed entry looks like but have no clue on the General Tactical Vehicle or BAE entry.
Also, what are the chances this program gets axed when Obama wins? I’m going 35% chance of it getting axed.