Full JLTV competition is coming soon, Army says

Full JLTV competition is coming soon, Army says

Debt ceiling? Austerity budgets? Forget all that! The Army is getting ready to buy a whole mess of brand new vehicles. The service announced this week that it won’t be long before it goes forward with the main event in its Joint Light Tactical Vehicle competition, which will pit a bevy of defense industry giants against each other in a showdown for a deal that could be worth some $20 billion or more.

In the ring are BAE Systems and Navistar; Lockheed Martin; and General Tactical Vehicles, a venture of General Dynamics Land Systems and Humvee-builder AM General — with all manner of subs and sub-subs mixed up in this thing. (BAE, for example, is both offering its own vehicle and is a part of Lockheed Martin’s “industry team.”) The Army wants a vehicle with better protection for soldiers, more power and more electronic toys, and its story this week explained that the service believes it can get that with this competition. The technology development phase just wound up, explained Sustainment Systems director Tom Goddette, and now it’s on to the big show.

Per the Army’s story:


“The purpose of the TD phase was geared toward refining the requirements in order to demonstrate the JLTV’s ability to meet the designated capability gaps,” Goddette said. “The program has succeeded in identifying and proving out those areas of needed development — and now the Army is analyzing what trade-offs might be required in order to best pursue an acquisition strategy that both lowers costs and delivers this needed capability to Soldiers.”

The competitive prototyping and extensive testing pursued during the TD phase was designed to match technological capability with the vehicle’s requirements and lower risk for an anticipated production phase, Goddette said.

“We demonstrated that every one of the requirements was achievable,” Goddette explained. “We’ve learned that some trade-offs are necessary to pursue an overall strategy that best synchronizes requirements, resources, mature technologies and a cost-reducing acquisition strategy. We demonstrated not only that the requirements were achievable, but we gained valuable insight into the cost of each capability and effect that one capability might have on another. We’ve learned that some trade-offs are necessary to pursue an overall strategy that best synchronizes requirements, resources, mature technologies and a cost-reducing acquisition strategy,” Goddette said.

Operating in today’s more budget-constrained fiscal environment, Army developers are working on an approach to JLTV procurement that harnesses the best available technologies while minimizing costs and achieving efficiency in the process, he said.

One such approach includes the possibility of buying less add-on armor, known as B-kits, for the vehicles because not every JLTV will need the added protection and new, lightweight materials may likely become available in the future, Goddette said.

Due to its enhanced technological capabilities, the JLTV will be able to perform a wide range of missions and perform many roles Humvees are currently unable to do, Goddette said. At the same time, the Army has embarked upon a competitive Humvee recap program aimed at improving the survivability of the existing vehicle that is already in the Army inventory.

Oh, yeah, that’s right — the Army already owns tens of thousands of Humvees, but it needs to “recapitalize” them before they’re usable on the post-IED battlefield. But never fear — there’s room in the arsenal for all the trucks under the rainbow.

“The JLTV and Humvee-recap program are designed to complement one another as part of an integrated Light Tactical Vehicle strategy designed to best prepare our force for a range of anticipated future contingencies,” Goddette said. “These two competitive efforts are also synchronized with one another to invest a limited amount of resources up front enabling a ‘try before we buy’ approach and capitalize on the vast experience our industry partners have gained over that past five years.”

So: The Army’s vision is that its units will include some combinations of upgraded Humvees, JLTVs and the Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected vehicles it has already spent billions fielding in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And let’s not forget the new Ground Combat Vehicle, supposed to enter service in seven years.) The key question now is whether all this can become a reality in tomorrow’s frugal America.

Join the Conversation

Well, having just read how the world could end financially next Tuesday, if I was the military, I’d be laying pretty low for a little while until the smoke clears.

Some congressperson might see this and say, ‘Wanna bet?’

Just saying.

The U.S. Armed Forces may even decide to reduce personnel costs and shut down this Web-site.

It makes sense what you are saying, but in a world with little common-sense, nothing surprises me any more.

Hey oxygen thief, this site isn’t run, funded, or officially associated with any US governmental agency.

You mean this privately owned and funded website? Yeah… I’m sure they will.

Alright Papas, where did you find “little common sense”? Stop hoarding it, share it.

Except its $20B over 15 years. Simple financing, adjusted for present value its less; if we paid it all at once, today, it’d cost $10B. While that sounds like a bad thing… its the difference between $10B this year or $1.3B this year. If we believe this is a necessity and that we will inevitably have to replace these vehicles with newer more survivable ones $1.3B for the next 15 years is a saving when compared to pushing it off and having that price tag climb.

Anybody want to hear first hand experience of r & d work of JLTV prototype? In honor of GARY SLACK?

The problem with the JLTV program is not the technology or its relative readiness, but the numbers. The Army and the Marines have bought enough M-ATVs and other MRAPs with reasonable off-road performance (like Navistar’s MaxxPro Dash and Force Protection’s Cougar IS) to equip the 130,000 troops currently fighting in Afghanistan.

To make the case for more vehicles, the services would need a plausible scenario in which they would deploy a force significantly larger than than on an extended counterinsurgency campaign. They’d also have to show that they couldn’t just order those vehicles in a hurry, from past MRAP manufacturers, if the US government was again actually brazen enough to get involved in such a war.

This does not seem like a case that the generals could make with straight faces.

I work on Maxxpro’s in AFG. We do not need more vehicles. There are already fields of hundreds, if not thousands total, of MATV’s and MRAP’s not being used. Most HUMVEE’s are being given to the Afgans. I have no idea what HUMVEE’s they’re going to rebuild. Lets not forget the supply chain for new parts of these new vehicles. We’re already paying 3x the normal price for many parts. Now lets add another 100,000 over priced parts. And of course we’re going to keep soldier training substandard. Seriously.….I’ve had to teach them the difference between a metric and standard bolt. This unit is one of the first I’ve worked with to have a Soldier that actually knows and can diagnose air conditioning. They’re nice guys, but Army training is ineffective overall. Lets put the Army budget in check. We don’t need more vehicles.

I agree but if the government trained their soldiers to do their own maintenance you would be out of a job. The HMMWV will cost more to ship back to CONUS than what it’s worth so that vehicle would be best off just leaving on the side of the road in CENTCOM. The market is so competitive right now with companies like Oshkosh Defense bidding themselves into the ground and taking BAE Sealy with them the government might as well take advantage of the cost reductions for systems, vehicles and aircraft. The addition of the looming healthcare bill is scaring many U.S. small business manufacturers that are the backbone of our defense industry. Defense spending in any amount is the smartest spending for the U.S. but current cost reduction intiatives are also going to hurt the military because of poor quality. Manufacturers that do defense work are bidding extremely low just to get the work and keep their doors open. When they find that their contracts are not making money they will cut corners to break even or to turn a profit. Cutting corners on defense contracts is not acceptable but DCMA is short handed and not catching many of the violations.

sure, we wanna know all the dirt on the bean counter who has assisted in running BAE into the ground along with queen Linda.

1. The DOD is choking on too many trucks and vehicles right now. And have been ordered to get rid of some.
2. The JLTV is a perfect example of a program taken over by Airplane companies. Even since day one, the contractors have been changing the specifications and dumbing the design down, while the whole time keeping the price sky high. Nearly $800,000.00 per unit. 3. What kind of ballistic protection does it have? Not .50 ball ammo, barely AK47 AP, if that? 4. All the companies are charging the same price. 5. Collectively, the companies involved have spent more than a Billion to compete. Why? So they can charge the taxpayers $1300.00 for a brake spring kit that would normally cost $30.00 at Truck Mart. 6. The program was supposed to be cancelled. Then some special Senators got it going again. “Give me MONEY”. 7. They tip over. 8. They came in overweight. 9. Better designs are already being developed, the program took too long. 10. The people at ONR and TACOM will fight you with everything they have at their disposal to keep any over designs away from them, like they were a disease. 11. The Solders are trusting the people at TACOM to do the right thing. The people at TACOM are a bunch of taxpayer rapists, pretending to be concerned about putting the Solders first. 12. The truth is, They are looking for their next JOB. Instead of doing the one they have right now. The indifference is unbelievable. 13. If you approach ONR or TACOM with the World’s most advanced truck design in the World. They will fight you to keep it out of sight of anyone who matters. Shut down TACOM. Fire half the people at ONR. They love their next employers more than their current calling. I puke on your JLTV.

1. Why does the JLTV cost so much? 2. If you look on Yahoo Finance, why do the same people own 90% of all the entrants competing for the JLTV contract? 3. Why do they all look the same? 4. When Lockheed’s JLTV tipped over during a field test, why is this not a problem? 5. From the beginning, if you did the math. A requirement for
.50 cal or 14mm ap rus. protection was the requirement. If you added up the 44mm armor protection needed to do this. The vehicle would have weighed more than a APC. Did anyone say a word? No. Why not? I like MONEY!.
5. In the last 6 or 7 years. Has, not even one better design appeared? Has not anyone learned anything? So we are building a truck with 6 year old ideas. Who cares? When you have a light armored vehicle that is worth over 1 million with weapons and radios and computers and people. Why not just paint it florescent orange and put a target on the door. And a sign that has a dollar sign on it. $. Alla Akbar! Alla Akbar. Tongue swizzle.

JLTV=Master procurement manipulation at it’s finest apex. Fixed prices. Rip off replacement parts prices.
More Oshkosh training at $1800.00 per day per person. $5000.00 radiators. $1200.00 tires. All to make the DOD more efficient? The JLTV program is a giant joke. Plus they changed the requirements to tell the Army.
“This is what you need”. It is not what they asked for. Plus it will never do what it was supposed to do. Do more than a MRAP 2 or 3. Just buy Cadillac Gage Commando APCs and keep those. TACOM = JP Morgan’s Biat ch.

I would rather we have a new IFV (*cough*GCV*cough*) than this overpriced MRAP.

I have worked on General Dynamic/AM Generals JLTV and yes it is over weight just like all of them but if you see it in person you would want to be riding in it. The Hummer is a death trap. We have a huge trained work force ready to build these as soon as it is offered and we are working on cost saving as we speak. The weight issue is being addressed by all compeditors and will be a major task to keep the troops safe. Note that the parts for these are not your daddy’s farm truck parts .… they are very heavy duty and not off the shelf at Auto Mart. Tires are run flats not firestone car tires. But cost savings, believe it or not are an issue for our companies unlike when the M1 Abrams was built at cost plus .… plus whatever you could tack on it. As for the Hummers over there ship them back and sell them for what the shipping and handling was as I have already paid for this truck with my tax dollars. I want one!!!

I had thought of giving details but thought “what for the damage is done”. Plant 7 in Santa Clara is about to close for good. I remember watching a video of a precocious adolescent in suit proclaim in a flippant manner “come on we all know Santa Clara is going to close” (with the mannerisms of a Rodney Dangerfield), it was said at a BAE site in Minnesota. Upper management went into major spin mode to ally the fears of devoted employees that worked at Plant 7. We did great work at Plant 7 (Santa Clara site). I had the honor to work with several gifted individuals at all levels and skills. I am a second generation employee. But none of that mattered to BEAN COUNTERS who have no vision beyond a spread sheet to validate my statement ; How is BAE doing? Gaining any new contracts in the combat vehicle modification department? Yes they won a contract for the Heracles M88 program. How long will that last? BAE lost the MATV contract, will they win the JLTV contract , Armored Multipurpose Vehicle or the GCV contract? Time will tell. Some people from Plant 7 went to Stirling Heights, MI only a few. I worked with engineers from Stirling Heights, they all came from the automotive industry. The majority told me the only reason their with BAE is because its the only job in town as soon as the auto industry turns around they will leave for they dislike the “bean counter environment” in a research and development world. Am I bitter? Of coarse I am, wouldn’t you be? For all the brilliant work done at Plant 7 to be shut down for superficial reasons. Yea Stirling is close to TACOM but have BAE gained any new major contracts? Maybe I’m wrong please tell me. Perhaps the timing of the vision of Dumb and Dumber and the current Administration proposed cutbacks in the Defense Department made the closure of Plant 7 inevitable, I move on wish me luck.

What happened to my comment I made last night?

I was an FSR for the JLTV program.(BAE Systems/Navistar) I was there during the entire TD Phase build and test. I don’t know where you got your info on the truck tipping over. Only one competitor had a roll over accident. The investigation proved it to be driver error. That was the only accident during the TD Phase. I was at the Yuma Proving Ground with my vehicles and I will tell you the Govt beat the crap out of them every single day. There was zero pussyfooting around when these vehicles hit the test courses. My team was kept very busy for the duration of the test. I can’t speak for the other competitors FSR teams( We weren’t allowed to talkto them or see their vehicles) but I believe our vehicles performed very well. Yes we had issues, but we were able to come up with solutions and correct the very quickly. As a former Motor Transport Marine I love the JLTV. The power and protection it affords Marines and soldiers is worth the cost. Maintainabilty was not bad either even though the vehicles were still prototypes. You can speculate all you want, but youshould at leat talk to the guys who were down in the weeds with this vehicle before you start spouting garbage.

Some things I forgot in my reply to Militor.
The Program engineers at BAE sought our input through the entire TD phase on ways they could make the vehicle more user and maintainer friendly. They also asked us for input on design changes to make the vehicle more sound. I give BAE credit for putting together a great FSR team. All 9 of us had extensive expeirience working on combat vehicles. The majority of us were former military. The engineering team was also great. Any of you who have had experience working with engineers know they can be very uppity and condesending to those of us non engineers. This team wasn’t, they truely wanted our input, and really listened when we told them things they didn’t want to hear. I would work with each and every one of them again without a second thought.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement