JLTV Decision Expected Friday

JLTV Decision Expected Friday

Soldiers and Marines will have a better idea who will build their Humvee replacement this Friday when the Army is expected to announce the three companies who will compete to win the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle contract.

Six industry teams are vying to build the JLTV and earn one of the three 27-month Engineering and Manufacturing Development contracts that stipulates each team produce 22 trucks. The Army will pick from those three teams to choose who will build the Army and Marine Corps’ JLTV fleet.

The contract up for grabs is one of the largest available available for bid from the Pentagon. The reduction in planned spending means these contracts mean even more to the defense companies looking to stem losses. The Army plans to buy at least 50,000 vehicles while the Marine Corps plans to buy 5,000.

Both service want to keep the price tag no higher than $250,000 per vehicle. The JLTV program appeared doomed to be replaced by the Humvee Recap program until Army and Marine Corps officials sat down at the bargaining table and agreed to cut certain requirements to get down to the $250,000 figure.

The JLTV has faced a string of delays in the past to include the awarding of the EMD contract, but sources inside the Pentagon appear confident the announcement will be made Friday.

In what was expected to be a three horse race for the EMD contract, the playing field grew to six in the weeks leading up to the deadline to submit proposals for the contract.

The three teams that entered the technology development phase of the competition included General Tactical Vehicles (General Dynamics and AM General), BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin, and Navistar and BAE Systems. Weeks before the deadline, though, teams started splitting off to offer separate bids causing a chain reaction.

Navistar split from BAE Systems to offer their Saratoga vehicle. AM General then announced they’d offer an independent bid even though they promised to continue to work together with General Dynamics on their General Tactical Vehicles bid. BAE Systems announced that the Ford Company would build the engine for their newly independent bid once Navistar bolted.

Meanwhile, Oshkosh announced months earlier that they would enter the competition. And through it all, Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems, never broke up their team.

It’s possible that AM General and BAE Systems could have multiple bids selected for the EMD contract or none at all.

Join the Conversation

WOW! 6 teams! All big gov’t suppliers…I believe that Howe & Howe Tech should partner with Ibis Tech to build it and F’ Big Gov’t contractors…

What have you got against the companies listed? Simply that they are big?? You get big by doing good work. And if the government is buying 55,000 vehicles, at $250,000 a piece, you better believe that question like “can you deliver as promised?” and “what is your track record on similar big orders?” are proper questions to ask. What is with the “F’ Big Gov’t contractors” mentality?

Yeah, they should award the contract to Joe’s Tractor Supply and repair business because he knows them there diesel engines and one time, he he’ped them Army fellers fix one o dem HUMVEE things that they’re so fond of.

Hould still just scrapp this whole ideal and go with the J8 jeep with diesel engine and make Chrysler give them to us at cost till they pay back the tax payers for their bail out, should work out to 9 J8’s for the cost of 1 current JLTV design (which are too big and heavy).


So, it only took them three years to figure out that they couldn’t afford 100,000+ copies of the impenetrable anti-gravity vehicle specified in the original RFP…

Of course, they can still only (maybe) afford 50,000 — less than half of the MISSION NEED to replace all Humvees that justified this program in the first place. And they’ll only get that if the sticker price really holds at $250k, which is approximately as likely as sensible healthcare reform.

What have I got against the big companies you ask? Well the politicians they have in their pockets for one, their cost over runs secondly, the fact they all use union workers thirdly, their lack of innovation or out side the box thinking is fourth and lastly Howe & Howe Tech teaming with Ibis Tech was a JOKE…sorry you didn’t get it…and why are they $250,000.00/each…hell the armored personel carrier(Terradyne Ghurka) that the Rock/ Dewayne Johnson used in Fast Furious is less expensive than $250,000.00 and already has proven technology.

While we’re listing vehicles which are nowhere near capable of the same mission, why not give the troops all Challengers like Washington drove in that Dodge commercial?

Thats just it, The J8 military version is not a std jeep (higher ground clearance — turbo diesel — heavy duty off road suspension — heavy duty cooling system). No it will not carry a squad of troops and no it is not armored but we already have vehicles that are (bradleys and strykers). maybe instead of trying to buil vehicles to carry more troops they should be reorganizing and training troops to operate more efficiently in smaller squads (i.e. like SPECWAR). We are already mothballing MRAPS like crazy because they are a maintenance nightmare and to big and heavy for most roads, Jeeps served well for decades and can be fitted with 106 recoiless and 50 bmgs and mk19’s to make formidable patrol vehicles while still being smaller and lighter (thus able to transport more vehicles faster) plus the parts are avail off the shelf world wide. I do like the challenger comercial though.

I couldn’t agree with you more, J8’s would be perfect, and they do offer an armored version as well as a version that could carry a squad of soldiers. Along with being cheaper and already proven in service with the Aussies and the Egyptians, it would be great to get back to a real strong American legend.

1. Politicians in pockets — care to name names (which companies own which politicians)?
2. Cost over runs — valid complaint — but there are often valid reasons too — case by case analysis needed to determine the cause (sometimes contractor at fault, sometimes gov changing requirements as they go).
3. Union workers — I don’t think they all use union workers. (I’m sure the UAW would love to get their grubby finger into those pockets, but even they have limited reach.) I don’t know truck manufacturing, but I do know other defense contracting, and it is very competitive, with lots of players, and a shrinking pie. Over-paying employees makes you less competitive, and you lose contract bids.
4. Lack of innovation — Huh? There is plenty of innovation out there. Good example right here — 6 teams — each looking for cost and innovation advantages over the others. Contract will (should) go to team that best fits service needs. (Of course, if the service already knows what they want (an up-armored down-priced hummer) innovation is not needed, and will probably be penalized (as high risk) rather than rewarded.)

oshkosh corp am general and lockheed martin win emd contract phase

oshkosh corp am general and lockheed martin win emd contract phase

Latest information just in on the winner of this contract. The military has pick the system that cost the most while still not having the ability to meet the needs of the men and women in the field. This was done so more money can be spent on development of subsystems to correct the JLTV short comings at a later date.

Also do we really need to send a truck where we need a Bradley?

Joe T,
I used to work for one of those big corporations. They constantly run onto schedule and cost overruns, the engineering management and Directors manipulate the EVMS to look pretty.
And yes there are Union workers in these companies and they have held projects hostage many, many times negotiating for more money than they actually deserve.
Innovation, here is one for ya, SMOD (Stryker Modernization) V Hull, guess what, been around since WWII, a new engineer to the company received engineer of the year for introducing an existing technologies onto the vehicle platform, no new innovation as its met with absolute resistance, not a vested effort.
Integration of mature technologies, uh oh, need to be careful, APS is a great example, FCS program refused all aspects except Raytheons APS system even though their were combat proven APS systems out there.
As far as teaming goes, cant knock that,worked on some of the best teams.
However, the most dangerous aspect is not the flaws of the process its the corporations themselves, beware when getting involved, they are carnivorous by nature!


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

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.