Comments on: JLTV Tests Begin

By: xxx

xxx — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:32:24 +0000

there are many good points but to put some reality into the equation you must take into account mobility in combat. While a MRAP does fine on the main MSR’s it is not the best use in the actual cities, in that case we need the ability to manuver and protect as well as communicate. The JLTV is also expandable to the future of our force. What would you like your son or daughter to be in, a Jeep or JLTV.

By: USMA Transpo 06

USMA Transpo 06 — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:37:14 +0000

The JLTV will not fully replace the HMMWV. The Army has over 180,000 HMMWVs. The current JLTV acquisition projection of 60,000 is less than 1/2 of the projection of +140,000 from a year or two ago. This is probably in responce to the price tag that is almost double of the old desired $250K mark. ($418-475K) As for the slow process to procure this system, the government’s idea is to increase competition to get a lower price (open bidding for the next phase starts next summer) and a detailed development process to reduce technical risks/snags in the system development and testing.

At 60,000 units at $418K each, the unit acquisition costs alone will run over $30 Billion for the Army.

Transpo CPT (RET)…now a consultant.

By: USMA Transpo 06

USMA Transpo 06 — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:36:46 +0000

The MRAP was a knee-jerk reaction to save lives, but it was not properly planned and we will see ballooning lifecycle costs to maintain the numerous variants procured in recent years. (Different manufacturers = different parts = increased supply inventories & maintenance costs) One of the best MRAPs is currently finishing production and was made on a dumptruck chasie with a dumptruck engine. One issue with MRAP vs JLTV is the modular capability. JLTV offers modularity and common parts which should reduce some of the longterm/lifecycle costs.

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:03:46 +0000

Have you ever been shot at or blown up let alone ride in a humvee that is not suited for the weight we put on these vehicles with makeshift armour???? I didnt think so!

By: father & son vets

father & son vets — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:43:41 +0000

Big bombs are more effective, less costly and don’t allow counter-fire.…go crusher bombs !!!!

By: likota

likota — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:28:23 +0000

To tell them you don’t trust them yet you are still doing business with them insures the high ground when arguing your case. Remember they are some of the largest corporations in the world and will get legal costls added to claim award. Play nice, they do want return business and in many cases give more as incentive to be the first called to notify them to bid. Remember most Government retiries go to work with these companies; think about it.

By: Likota

Likota — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:27:40 +0000

What I got from the article is Contracting is going to hold them to a performance based payment/ The criteria can only support this is there have been no changes to the contract. Payment on delivery of accepted after performance testing is legal; to hold a contractor t o a delivery date when changes have been made to the spec’s leaving the contractor to front a R&D change are illegal unless the contractor signs the change in the contract language; I can’t see any contractor to do it, especially when the friendly interacting seems to have gone south. We (government) get more from a contractor when bonus’s are paid for performance exceeding the timeline fir delivery by the contractor; threatening to screw with a companies $$$ when they are putting out to all the required assets to deliver is wrong and will be readdressed at the end of the contract where there are no more promises of additional quantities being dangled, legal will tell you to pay, with iterest.

By: Once a Marine

Once a Marine — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:08:18 +0000

I like the General Dynamics version, from the pictures, it can be used in Garrison and in theater (Iraq/Afghanistan). But how are these vehicles on speed, durability and easy access, in & out of the vehicle without and/or with wearing the body armor? That is something they need to have in mind when it comes to the soldiers who have get in out of the vehicles with ease in a combat situation.

By: reddog10

reddog10 — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:55:17 +0000

It is about time that the military woke up to the fact that a HUMMER was a replacement for the M151 and never intended to be a real fighting vehicle. My question is will we need to get a bigger rotary wing aircraft to carry the new tactical vehicle?

Remember when a jeep would fit in a 46?

By: Marine Veteran

Marine Veteran — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:06:42 +0000

What is “light” about 23,000lbs? or 19,000, or 13,000? This is an albatros for the Marine Corps.

Right this very minute there are issues within the Marine Corps over vehicle towing capacity and compatibility between varisous near-traditional towed loads, i.e. the ubiquitous ‘trailer’, and so-called prime movers, e.g. the HMMWV, MTVR, MRAP, and MATV. Slapping a mess of armor on a vehicle.…and not having capacity to tow a trailer weighing a couple of tons.…is counter-intuitive. General Conway is right on the mark.…right smack dab in the “V” ring.

By: pennst98

pennst98 — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:58:07 +0000

It's not a bad idea, the Govt. used to do a lot of this "in house." The real problem is staffing. So much of the Army (and DoD) leadership is piss poor and mired in political patronage you won't end up hiring talented professionals, you'll end up hiring a "diverse" workforce of know-nothings and former PM's that couldn't find their ____ with two hands a flashlight. If you don't believe me ask yourself how many great weapons and innovations have come out of Picatinny arsenal? (if you said less than 3 in 5 decades, you're right) You also face the private/public disconnect; private industry has MUCH more leverage in terms of salary and benefits than the government could ever hope for. So if it's like most agencies it will end up subcontracting 90% of its duties due to lack of talent/vision, thus contributing little while adding expense/waste to an already untenable system.

By: pennst98

pennst98 — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:50:15 +0000

Eh.….I’m 50/50. Do we need the JLTV itself? I can give you an emphatic no. Do we need something in this catagory, yes.

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing with stopwastingmytax$, I was just trying to balance the arguments against a bloated program that is taking forever to deliver old tech, and comparing the JLTV to the HMMWV based soley on cost. At <$250K a unit, we could really use it. At >$500K a unit, don’t bother.

By: StopWastingMyTax$

StopWastingMyTax$ — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:22:44 +0000

yup you hit the nail on the head — that’s the way this industry and defense leadership work. rather than solve the O&M problems of existing fielded systems, they would rather take a leap in the dark with excessive high technology promises and a monolithic impossible to manage too big to fail acquisition program, which opens up a whole slew of new problems. bottom line is, the 18 year old troops fighting for our freedom will forever be attempting to accomplish missions and risking their lives with flawed systems. the real problems do not get addressed adequately enough. Excessive high tech working in a lab & test environment means nothing if it cannot O&M properly anywhere in the world in the fight all environmental conditions. don’t get me wrong i’m not opposed to high tech, just exorbitantly expensive ones that promise much more than they can deliver.

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:17:59 +0000

It is fact that a round or rounded structure deflects more blast because there are no flat spots to impact. AN IED in the ground blows up and out as do a lot of conventional non shape charge mines thus any flat spot is going to be impacted. Also I said start with a two ton chassis and go from there. It doesnt have to be as heavy as an MRAP, if a tank cannot withstand anti tank weapons then how can a light vehicle. They need to be light weight to be multi terrain and dependable, the drive train also needs to be caple of handling added weight from modular armour should it be needed in theater at a later date so that the drive train does not become the week point. Our nex war could be in a jungle or frozen tundra where an over weight vehicle will become useless and our troops on foot or scurry to by a bunch of light weight 4x4’s off the shelf as another stop gap like the MRAP.

By: Guest

Guest — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:30:26 +0000

It amazes me that there is such a rush to produce a new product that like most of the products that have been produced in the past will just corrode away and cost more to fix than it would have if considered in the initial planning. Look at the HUMMER. When I was involved with them they were a corrosion nightmare. Look at the MRAP another corrosion nightmare. Will they never learn? Do they need all of this haste and waste to produce another product that will just be another maintenance problem. Take time and make it durable and sustainable for the team.

By: Io205

Io205 — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:24:45 +0000

The hi / lo mode should be normal. There is no need for a full-spec JLTV (or HMMWV etc) on the bases. Exept for training and a little backup of course.

By: William C.

William C. — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:54:08 +0000

What can the F-22 and F-35 do that the F-15 and F-16 can’t? How about obtain air superiority against any opponent and be less restricted by modern integrated air defense systems. Legacy aircraft would have a difficult time against opponents with SA-21s (S-400) and multiple layers of SAM coverage.

You want a new bomber? So do I, but that involves spending money which our politicians would rather waste on something else. Ignoring that problem, what should the design’s features be? Should it have a high level of stealth or not? Should it subsonic or supersonic, and if supersonic how fast should it be cruising at? I don’t think the USAF itself knows what they want for sure.

We certainly need new tankers but the problem isn’t unwillingness to buy them, the problem is this whole contractor Boeing vs. EADS mess.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:21:29 +0000

Boomer, have you modeled round bottom hull designs? I think you are going in the wrong direction. I’m not saying that a V-hull is the end all, but rounding it out doesn’t deflect a blast. Further, ballistic protection is not the issue. It’s blast that drives the design, and there isn’t a 2 ton commercial chassis that is going to support the kind of cab weight to meet the blast requirements and also isn’t going to turn into shrapnel when it gets hit.

By: Taxpayer

Taxpayer — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:46:07 +0000

Regarding the cost of whatever product we decide on, maybe the way to minimize the cost and keep this program from getting bloated is to make it in-house in a government plant. Employees only slightly less people (exclude the marketers and lobbyists), who still pay local taxes. Plus we can get it done and get it out. But I like a hi/low mix for on-base in garrison mode (lo) and deployed forces (hi).

By: StopWastingMyTax$

StopWastingMyTax$ — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:02:25 +0000

well the troops love them, they save lives, we log many mission critical on-road miles driving from FOB to FOB, and the M-ATV is on order and NDI M-ATVs are already in the fight. JLTV will be available when? and JLTV thick logistics are going to be in Afghanistan when??