Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)

[Triton]

Photographs of Boeing, Textron Systems, and Millenworks submission for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program named Light Utility Vehicle (LUV). The partnership also included SAIC, Ford, and Carlson Technology.

Millenworks datasheet for the Light Utility Vehicle (LUV):
http://www.millenworks.com/html/aboutus/news/MillenWorks%20Light%20Utility%20Vehicle%20Data%20Sheet%20Oct%202007.pdf

Image Sources:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=138471

http://circulotrubia.blogspot.com/2008/10/los-finalistas-del-jltv.html

http://www.millenworks.com/html/projects/ltv/luv/index.htm

 

[Triton]

Light Utility Vehicle (LUV)

Improved combat mobility, ride quality and roll stability via Millenworks' semi-active Magneto-Rheological struts. Upgradeable armored hull that supports advanced B-kit applique solutions. Unique all wheel drive parallel hybrid powertrain for reduced fuel consumption in urban driving while providing extended silent watch capability, extensive onboard power.

Specifications

• Electric Powertrain: Brushless permanent magnet motors
• Diesel Powertrain: Steyr Motors M16 VTI Combat, 215 hp
• Top Speed: 76 mph
• 0-30 MPH: < 9.0 sec

Source: http://www.millenworks.com/html/projects/ltv/luv/index.htm

 

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs4ifN0Tvtw


Larger versions of these images can be downloaded at Flickr.

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnalex/3481933684/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnalex/3481122753/sizes/l/in/photostream/

 

[Triton]

The following companies and partnerships bid for the JLTV contract:

• Boeing, Textron and Millenworks
• General Dynamics and AM General (as 'General Tactical Vehicles')
• Force Protection Inc and DRS Technologies (officially rejected on August 14, 2008).
• BAE Systems and Navistar
• Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh Truck and Plasan
• Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems Mobility & Protection Systems, Alcoa Defense and JWF Industries.
• Blackwater and Raytheon

On 29 October 2008 the Pentagon narrowed the field of vendors to the Lockheed Martin, General Tactical Vehicles and BAE Systems/Navistar teams to compete for the final version and contract for the JLTV. Each team received contracts worth between $35.9 million and $45 million to begin the second phase of the program, which could ultimately be worth $20 billion or more. The contracts were put on hold following protests by the losing teams, Northrop Grumman-Oshkosh and Textron-Boeing-SAIC. On 17 February 2009, the Government Accounting Office denied the protests.

Australia signed an agreement in February 2009 to fund nine of the first 30 JLTV prototypes. India has become interested in the program in 2009.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Light_Tactical_Vehicle

 

[Triton]

Blackwater and Raytheon Grizzly submission for the JLTV program.

Source:http://www.tactical-life.com/online/news/blackwaters-new-jltv/

 

[Triton]

Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh, Plasan submission for the JLTV program.

Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=138471

 

[Rickshaw]

Why do they go deliberately out of their way to design such ugly vehicles? :

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

Why do they go deliberately out of their way to design such ugly vehicles? :

Well, that last one's ugly, but not the Light Utility Vehicle (LUV), that thing looks like a mean sumbitch! For some reason it makes me think of Buford T. Justice! ;D

 

[Triton]

Photograph of Force Protection Inc and DRS Technologies proposal.

Source: http://circulotrubia.blogspot.com/2008/10/los-finalistas-del-jltv.html

 

[Triton]

Video of Millenworks Light Utility Vehicle (LUV) on which the Boeing et al. JLTV is based.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EtvSeTg7OM

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://defensetech.org/2013/02/19/jltv-gcv-programs-face-uncertain-futures/

 

[Triton]

BAE Systems/Navistar Defense Valanx and General Tactical Vehicles JLTV Eagle were eliminated on August 23, 2012.

On 23 August 2012, the Army and Marine Corps selected the Lockheed Martin JLTV, the Oshkosh Defense L-ATV, and the AM General BRV-O as the winners of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the competition. The three companies were awarded a contract to build 22 prototype vehicles in 27 months to be judged by the services. Losing bidder Navistar filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) over the evaluation criteria on 31 August 2012. The company withdrew the protest on 4 September 2012

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Light_Tactical_Vehicle

On 27 August 2013, the Army and Marine Corps announced that full-scale testing of JLTV prototypes would begin the following week, with all three vendors having had 66 vehicles delivered. Each company delivered 22 vehicles and six trailers to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. Previous testing had already put the vehicles through more than 400 ballistic and blast tests on armor testing samples; underbody blast testing; and more than 1,000 miles in shakedown testing. Soldiers from the Army Test and Evaluation Command and personnel from the Defense Department's Office of Test and Evaluation will put the vehicles through realistic and rigorous field testing during 14 months of government performance testing. Testing is to be completed by FY 2015, with a production contract to be awarded to a single vendor for nearly 55,000 vehicles, with each vehicle coming off the assembly line not exceeding $250,000. The Army is to begin receiving JLTVs by FY 2018, with all their vehicles planned delivered in the 2030s.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_L-ATV

 

[Triton]

Video of BAE Systems/Navistar Defense Valanx, which was not chosen for the EMD phase of the JLTV competition.

http://youtu.be/T8wb1uANpLE

 

[Triton]

Photos of BAE Systems/Navistar Defense Valanx

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thevalanx/

 

[Triton]

Photos of BAE Systems/Navistar Defense Valanx

Source:
http://www.autowp.ru/picture/bccens
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jltv-hummer-v20-or-mrap-lite-05147/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/baesystemsinc/6207854668/sizes/l/in/photostream/

 

[Triton]

http://youtu.be/hn_nAHx6KFU

http://youtu.be/dfVrVcZ1t7s

 

[Triton]

Video of General Tactical Vehicles JLTV Eagle

http://youtu.be/4l82lmPtOvs

 

[Triton]

General Tactical Vehicles JLTV Eagle

Source:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-180595.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/jltv-eagle-tactical-vehicle-us/jltv-eagle-tactical-vehicle-us2.html

 

[royabulgaf]

The Blackwater/Raytheon one looks the coolest. Put some rims on it and just cruise with the windows open and a 1000 watt stereo system playing "Gangsta's Paradise"

 

[Triton]

The Blackwater/Raytheon one looks the coolest. Put some rims on it and just cruise with the windows open and a 1000 watt stereo system playing "Gangsta's Paradise"

Hmmm, I wonder if there will be civilian luxury editions of the winning JLTV proposal.

 

[jsport]

Gangsta long cabs are not the best Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAPs) designs.. Cab forward designs, protected by (yes expensive) sensors & countermeasures systems, can carry a useful volume. Generally, long cab vehicles do not carry useful volume. The idea is not for the forward engine compartment to absorb the blast, it is for the vehicle not to be subjected to any Mine, side firing EFP IED etc. in the first place. No one even appears to looking at the benefits of a decent CoGravity for these vehicle overall mobility.

 

[Triton]

Gangsta long cabs are not the best Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAPs) designs.. Cab forward designs, protected by (yes expensive) sensors & countermeasures systems, can carry a useful volume. Generally, long cab vehicles do not carry useful volume. The idea is not for the forward engine compartment to absorb the blast, it is for the vehicle not to be subjected to any Mine, side firing EFP IED etc. in the first place. No one even appears to looking at the benefits of a decent CoGravity for these vehicle overall mobility.

How much of these decisions are being made by meeting the customer's appearance expectations of what a proper Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) should look like?

 

[jsport]

in today's budget environ..the v-hull HMWV might be it. Hope that will fit in Ch-47.

 

[Rickshaw]

Cab forward designs place the driver over or in front of the front wheels. If a contact detonation system is being employed, that would place the driver over the apex of the explosion. While expensive sensors may protect you, it is always better to design passive defence in first, rather than rely on expensive sensors working all the time at 100% efficiency. The South Africans and Rhodesians pioneered anti-mine vehicle design and their research always showed that it was better to put the front wheels well out in front and the cab at the centre of the chassis, protected by a deep vee armoured bottom, which deflected blast.

 

[jsport]

Cab forward designs place the driver over or in front of the front wheels. If a contact detonation system is being employed, that would place the driver over the apex of the explosion. While expensive sensors may protect you, it is always better to design passive defence in first, rather than rely on expensive sensors working all the time at 100% efficiency. The South Africans and Rhodesians pioneered anti-mine vehicle design and their research always showed that it was better to put the front wheels well out in front and the cab at the centre of the chassis, protected by a deep vee armoured bottom, which deflected blast.

am quite familar w/ the reasoning.. a standardized forward roller system to assure the vehicle is minimally exposed in any under carriage explosion is an idea. have seen one for HMWVs.. a vehicle priority is to support logistics and for that matter emergency evacuation more than any other issue and that calls for volume capacity..

 

[jsport]

also various drive system such as the 'trail arm drive' of the 80s etc could allow the vehicle to ride higher. have seen a model of a cab forward design w/ extended drive systems.

 

[Rickshaw]

Cab forward designs place the driver over or in front of the front wheels. If a contact detonation system is being employed, that would place the driver over the apex of the explosion. While expensive sensors may protect you, it is always better to design passive defence in first, rather than rely on expensive sensors working all the time at 100% efficiency. The South Africans and Rhodesians pioneered anti-mine vehicle design and their research always showed that it was better to put the front wheels well out in front and the cab at the centre of the chassis, protected by a deep vee armoured bottom, which deflected blast.

am quite familar w/ the reasoning.. a standardized forward roller system to assure the vehicle is minimally exposed in any under carriage explosion is an idea. have seen one for HMWVs.. a vehicle priority is to support logistics and for that matter emergency evacuation more than any other issue and that calls for volume capacity..

"a vehicle priority is to support logistics and for that matter emergency evacuation more than any other issue and that calls for volume capacity" - Only if you vehicle is designed to be first and foremost a logistics vehicle. Patrol vehicles can be dedicated designs and therefore volume capacity is not a necessity. I would suggest that your logistics vehicle would benefit from ensuring it's crew is kept as safe as possible and if you're willing to sacrifice that for volume then I wonder what your priorities are.

As I've said the southern Africans have the most experience at designing these sorts of vehicles and the most success at operating them. It would be worth your while perusing the relevant thread here on the topic.

 

[Rickshaw]

also various drive system such as the 'trail arm drive' of the 80s etc could allow the vehicle to ride higher. have seen a model of a cab forward design w/ extended drive systems.

Trailing arm drives tend to be exotic. Hub reduction drives are now in fairly common use and achieve the same thing more efficiently for logistics vehicles. Unimog and MAN trucks have been using them for over 30 years.

 

[jsport]

also various drive system such as the 'trail arm drive' of the 80s etc could allow the vehicle to ride higher. have seen a model of a cab forward design w/ extended drive systems.

Trailing arm drives tend to be exotic. Hub reduction drives are now in fairly common use and achieve the same thing more efficiently for logistics vehicles. Unimog and MAN trucks have been using them for over 30 years.

GD's RSTV prototype was for some reason not pursued but it had in hub propulsion which would allow higher vehicles..

 

[jsport]

Cab forward designs place the driver over or in front of the front wheels. If a contact detonation system is being employed, that would place the driver over the apex of the explosion. While expensive sensors may protect you, it is always better to design passive defence in first, rather than rely on expensive sensors working all the time at 100% efficiency. The South Africans and Rhodesians pioneered anti-mine vehicle design and their research always showed that it was better to put the front wheels well out in front and the cab at the centre of the chassis, protected by a deep vee armoured bottom, which deflected blast.

am quite familar w/ the reasoning.. a standardized forward roller system to assure the vehicle is minimally exposed in any under carriage explosion is an idea. have seen one for HMWVs.. a vehicle priority is to support logistics and for that matter emergency evacuation more than any other issue and that calls for volume capacity..

"a vehicle priority is to support logistics and for that matter emergency evacuation more than any other issue and that calls for volume capacity" - Only if you vehicle is designed to be first and foremost a logistics vehicle. Patrol vehicles can be dedicated designs and therefore volume capacity is not a necessity. I would suggest that your logistics vehicle would benefit from ensuring it's crew is kept as safe as possible and if you're willing to sacrifice that for volume then I wonder what your priorities are.

As I've said the southern Africans have the most experience at designing these sorts of vehicles and the most success at operating them. It would be worth your while perusing the relevant thread here on the topic.

..have a Southern African friend who was one of the father's of Rhodesian and then S African vehicles roll over and V-hull vehicles. He ran a company in S Carolina for awhile :}. am sure he still advises the mess (he describes) called the Joint MRAP/JTLV decision making .. believe he prefers a vehicle which is either a six or eight wheeled cab forward, v-hulled, high clearance vehicle which can run one axle completely blown away. I sat in a protoype eight wheeled vehicle and there was SAfr version which it likely on the thread you mention and I monitor.

No military that can afford a dedicated Patrol vehicle only multi role vehicles which generally emphasizes logistics.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/10/14/northrop-offers-back-to-the-future-upgrade-to-humvee-fleet.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/12/12/army-releases-rfp-for-jltv/20315849/?sf34623636=%5B%271%27%5D

 

[John21]

Have their been any studies into seeing if a two version vehicle fleet is possible, say if one version is better suited to the Marines or the Army?

Anyway here's the contenders:
Left to right: AM General, Oshkosh, Lockheed Martin

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/big-company-small-vehicle-what-odds-general-dynamics-offers-flyer-for-ulcv/?hootPostID=770e0955d5ec60029f9e3fe69fd758d4

 

[TomS]

More coverage of ULCV in the thread here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20331.msg249124.html#msg249124

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/19/army-expected-to-pick-jltv-winner-soon/

 

[jsport]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/19/army-expected-to-pick-jltv-winner-soon/

thank you for postin..
fully equipped MRAPness then could easily over be over $600k per..hope someone has exact roles and missions down. thinkin HMMWVs will be around for sometime.

 

[bring_it_on]

Oshkosh Takes it...

JLTV enters low rate production

WASHINGTON (August 25, 2015) -- Today, the U.S. Army awarded the Oshkosh Corporation located in Oshkosh, WI, a firm fixed price production contract for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program. The total contract value, including all options is $6,749,799,374.25. JLTV is an Army-led, joint acquisition program with the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) intended to close an existing gap in each Services' light tactical vehicle fleet.

"I am tremendously proud of the JLTV program team," said Heidi Shyu, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology). "Working with industry, they are delivering major improvements in protected mobility for Soldiers and have succeeded in executing a program that remains on-budget and on-schedule."

The Army selected the Oshkosh Corporation from three competing firms participating in the program's engineering and manufacturing development phase, which began in 2012 and concluded earlier this year. Each vendor delivered 22 prototype vehicles as part of JLTV development, which were utilized as part of an intensive, 14-month competitive test.

"With America's Soldiers and Marines in mind, the program team successfully met both Services' requirements for affordable, achievable capability advancements that will make a true difference," said Sean Stackley, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition). "Today's award brings us a step closer to delivering a flexible vehicle that balances the payload, performance, and protection critical in the operating environments of today and tomorrow."

Low Rate Initial Production is slated to begin in the first quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2016. The Army and Marine Corps will procure approximately 17,000 vehicles under this initial contract, with a decision on full rate production by the Department expected in FY18. Procurement of 5,500 USMC vehicles are front-loaded into the JLTV production plan. Initial USMC operating capability is expected in Fiscal Year 2018 with fielding to Marine Corps complete in FY2022.
The Army anticipates having its first unit equipped in FY2018. Army procurement will last until approximately 2040 and replace a significant portion of the Army's legacy light tactical vehicle fleet with 49,099 new vehicles.

JLTV manufacturing will be performed in Oshkosh, WI with deliveries beginning 10 months after award. A full rate production decision is expected in FY2018. JLTV remains a priority modernization effort for the Army and USMC.

http://www.army.mil/article/154425/JLTV_enters_low_rate_production/

 

[Moose]

Well that's unexpected. Guess AM General is in trouble now.

 

[Triton]

Oshkosh is JLTV. Anything else is something less.

https://youtu.be/8oMuGPeiuRo