Boeing Built Marines an Osprey Jeep with NASCAR Connection

Phantom Badger 1One of the drawbacks of the Marines’ MV-22 Osprey has been its inability to take aboard an all-terrain, multi-role combat vehicle and deliver it to the fight.

The vehicle would have to be only five-feet wide to fit the tight confines of the tilt-rotor aircraft and also have enough power to handle the 60 percent grade of the off-on ramp.

“It was a square peg in a round hole thing,” said Garrett Kasper, a spokesman for Advanced Boeing Military Aircraft. “Those have been the limiting factors.”

Boeing and MSI Defense Solutions, of Mooresville, N.C., have developed the Phantom Badger Internally Transportable Vehicle as a solution to the Marines’ problem. MSI Defense Solutions worked with NASCAR teams before it started working with the Pentagon.

The 60-inch wide Badger has a 240 horsepower multi-fuel engine, can ford 3 feet of water and can hit 80 mph on paved roads, according to the manufacturers.  The vehicle is a much easier fit into the more spacious cabins of the CH-47, the C-130 and the C-17.

The Badger also features four-wheel steering, giving it a 24-foot turn radius. With the flip of a dashboard switch, both front and rear wheels can be steered.

Boeing played up the modularity of the Badger that would allow it to be configured for a range of missions, including reconnaissance, explosive ordnance disposal, mounted weaponry, and combat search and rescue.

In the rescue mission, the Badger can be fitted with as many as six litters, Kasper said. The modules can be switched out in about an hour with simple tools to handle six bolts on the reach chassis, Kasper said.

Another feature was easy maintenance. “Many key items like tires, hydraulic pumps, bolts, and winches are already in the motor pool supply system,” Boeing said.

34 Comments on "Boeing Built Marines an Osprey Jeep with NASCAR Connection"

  1. Let me guess….it will only cost the taxpayers 1 million per copy.

  2. No mention of the M1161 and M1163? They're $200k jeeps built to carry a mortar system and other odds and ends on the V-22. The Corps has had them for a few years.

  3. Strange all the talk of BIG HUMVEEs and JLTVs and yet most operators prefer a small tactical vehicle like the GROWLER or Jeep. M-151 FAV and its evolved cousins live again and keeps living in SOCOM.

  4. The USMC developed the M422 Mighty Mite in the last millennium…..but it probably was not expensive enough to use today.

  5. Why not use Polaris Rangers or other off the shelf utv.

  6. Boeing. Ridiculous.

    Only idiots would give Boeing a contract for a couple dozen or few hundred offroad cars. There are much better, small companies which -while still making much profit – would produce a much cheaper vehicle.

    And this wasn't the first attempt to build or buy such a thing. There were the miniature Jeep-lookalikes which suddenly costed ten times the COTS price once painted in green. There were the G-Wagons. There was the RST-V gold plates Rube Goldberg machine.

    They should have bought a decent helicopter.

  7. That steering. We've taken our first step towards realizing a Halo Warthog. Perhaps Boeing should have named it the Piglet.

  8. Well on the positive side there is no way they could possibly make this as expensive as the Marine's current ITV.

  9. Really? 70 years after WWII we came up with a vehicle with the same capabilities as the jeep?

    If this vehicle is intended for any kind of combat mission, then it seems that the hard lessons we learned in Somalia, Afstan and Iraq with the non-armored vehicles are forgotten. We might have to suffer some additional thousands of casualties for the geniuses to realize that for combat missions you need ARMORED vehicles.

  10. Might just be my arm chair general, scifi mind cranked to 11, but why not have a V-22-type or quad rotor carryall that can reliably pick up tanks, armored vehicles, supplies, etc? Perhaps some sort of claw that can quickly grip a SUV-sized object. Certainly a system that can do this isn't outside the realm of possibility.

  11. Phantom Badger Internally Transportable Vehicle is NOT a Jeep.
    There's only one Jeep and this vehicle is NOT a Jeep!

  12. PostwarVandal | April 9, 2014 at 7:53 am | Reply

    "…can be fitted with as many as six litters"
    That's a lot of cats…

  13. This cart has no business in a serious fight. An AK would tear it to shreds. If you need a light attack force, go with Special Forces or SEALS and their dune buggies. By buying into the MV22 paradigm, by which they can't use any fighting vehicles, the Marines are transforming themselves into a light infantry, which will face increasingly tough going at budget times.

  14. Why not pound everything down below into a whiskery red mist with drones and leave the Osprey's and the jeeps and the ground pounders safe at home?

  15. "MSI Defense Solutions worked with NASCAR teams before it started working with the Pentagon."

    So what did they work with NASCAR teams on? You can change the tires and put fuel it in less than 14 seconds?

  16. Another waist of tax payer money for a toy that they want.

  17. Didn't GD win both USMC and SOCOM ITV contract?

    Boeing solution was not NAVAIR certified (but they are the Boeing so they probably won't care)

  18. I'm surprised nobody seized up on the modules business.

    "Boeing played up the modularity of the Badger that would allow it to be configured for a range of missions, including reconnaissance, explosive ordnance disposal, mounted weaponry, and combat search and rescue.
    In the rescue mission, the Badger can be fitted with as many as six litters, Kasper said. The modules can be switched out in about an hour with simple tools to handle six bolts on the reach chassis, Kasper said."

    When have we heard "rapidly switchable modules" before…ha ha.

  19. http://www.janes.com/article/36534/boeing-s-phant

    In October 2014[sic?] the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) disclosed that it had chosen the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (GD OTS) Flyer Advanced Light Strike Vehicle (ALSV) over the Phantom Badger for its V-22 Internally Transportable Vehicle (ITV) contract.
    http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2013/09/bds

  20. This seems backwards to me. Shouldn't one develop vehicles that meet one's tactical needs (I assume things like the HMMWV started out that way), then develop an aircraft that can transport those vehicles? Why was the V22 developed in the first place if it cannot transport standard US military tactical vehicles? Strictly as a troop transport? Probably a whole bunch of historical reasons for how things have worked out, I guess.

  21. Well since we’ve already got bolts and tires that will fit this MUST be a good deal.

    The fact that a spokesperson was willing to stand there and say “many” parts are already on hand, and include in that litany of items things like bolts, tires, and winches… which I’m pretty sure can be made to fit any vehicle…. And actually be serious shows how ignorant these companies have become. Here’s a crazy idea: why not build the damn aircraft wide enough to accommodate existing vehicles. Since you were building an aircraft and all. But this way you get to build TWO things for the military to buy. Well played.

  22. Everyone,

    I think you are all being too judgmental.
    After all, it was build with the help of NASCAR. Lol

  23. A custom vehicle for their custom aircraft …
    Doesn't sound like a pyramid scheme at all.

  24. they have to spend tax anyway because that is their job

  25. indianmedicine | April 9, 2014 at 3:52 pm | Reply

    I don't see these as being demanded in the high numbers that would be required to equip a large maneuver element, but would be reduced in numbers to provide Specialized Command needs within the design roles.

    I believe this vehicle would have Good Purpose within the USMC SPEC-OPS Community for insertion and movement to target and/or MSS Purpose.

    Many are unaware the it was the USMC that "Wrote The Book" on "Small War's" from its experience in the Pacific Theater back in the day – which is the Foundation for the Multiple Services in their contribution to to LIC/UW/DA Missions.

    So, if we can keep a Committee from Design Over Load, I see the USMC being a "Happy Camper" with this – with "Cost Effectiveness" in mind.

    -De Oppresso Liber- Non Gratum Anus Rodentum-

  26. I looked couldn't determine what these are supposed to cost us
    tax payers, but with Boeing involved you can bet it's sure got to be
    more than a Porsche 911 costs and not nearly as stable as one
    either.

  27. more B S And a waste of money we the people don't have.

  28. Looks like a pretty nice vehicle. But this Commando is a real Jeep – http://www.commandousa.com

  29. What is the unload time once the ov-22 is on the ground in a combat mode? I can see the load master standing out there waving the vehicle out of the OV-22.
    What in the hell was this hill climb up on a mat of some kind. Are they going to carry mats with them in combat so they can lay them out of the hill that the vehicle has to go up. Show me this thing going up a sand dune in a desert or a hill in lets say a country like Afghanistan something that is real. Not a hard dirt road that was show in this video. This was a bunch of crap for testing this vehicle in my book. I can see my self taking fire and running around in circles around a pile of rock. I know you need a vehicle that will turn in a short space but make it real.

    Show me what it can do on rough ground where you are taking fire and you are in the bug out mode not out for a Sunday drive. Your test video didn’t show me much of anything

  30. Asking questions are in faft nice thing if you are noot understanding anything completely, however this paragraph presents fastidious unnderstanding even.

  31. And you wonder what happened to all them M-151 Jeeps

  32. hi!,I love your writing very so much! proportion we keep in touch extra approximately your post on AOL?
    I need ann expert on this house to resolve my
    problem. Maybe that is you! Taking a look forward to look you.

  33. They could have taken the Dodge Ram chassis with its unbreakable 5.9L diesel, thrown some armor around it for about $65,000 a copy. A phantom badger will cost 2.5 times that, my guess.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*