• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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
 

Attachments

  • jltvluv01sl8.jpg
    jltvluv01sl8.jpg
    181.6 KB · Views: 1,255
  • img_8_17361_6.jpeg
    img_8_17361_6.jpeg
    109.3 KB · Views: 1,052
  • img_04.jpg
    img_04.jpg
    85.5 KB · Views: 992
  • img_03.jpg
    img_03.jpg
    142.2 KB · Views: 979
  • img_09.jpg
    img_09.jpg
    157 KB · Views: 958
  • img_10.jpg
    img_10.jpg
    191.7 KB · Views: 62
  • img_06.jpg
    img_06.jpg
    191.7 KB · Views: 49

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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
 

Attachments

  • img_02.jpg
    img_02.jpg
    112.3 KB · Views: 50
  • img_08.jpg
    img_08.jpg
    96.1 KB · Views: 47
  • img_05.jpg
    img_05.jpg
    148.8 KB · Views: 72
  • img_07.jpg
    img_07.jpg
    174.9 KB · Views: 55

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com

Attachments

  • 3481933684_57f1776edb_b.jpg
    3481933684_57f1776edb_b.jpg
    331.7 KB · Views: 48
  • 3481122753_ee1e47ed62_b.jpg
    3481122753_ee1e47ed62_b.jpg
    451.8 KB · Views: 92

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
162
Why do they go deliberately out of their way to design such ugly vehicles? ::)
 

Demon Lord Razgriz

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
189
Reaction score
2
rickshaw said:
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

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,404
Reaction score
4,152
http://defensetech.org/2013/02/19/jltv-gcv-programs-face-uncertain-futures/
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Video of BAE Systems/Navistar Defense Valanx, which was not chosen for the EMD phase of the JLTV competition.

http://youtu.be/T8wb1uANpLE
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Photos of BAE Systems/Navistar Defense Valanx

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

Attachments

  • 3322629979_70d7d8f3d9_o.jpg
    3322629979_70d7d8f3d9_o.jpg
    233.1 KB · Views: 24
  • 3322630121_95b4bd5a1e_o.jpg
    3322630121_95b4bd5a1e_o.jpg
    219.6 KB · Views: 32
  • 3323463026_09687a313f_o.jpg
    3323463026_09687a313f_o.jpg
    217.9 KB · Views: 34
  • 5979630418_c678de27eb_b.jpg
    5979630418_c678de27eb_b.jpg
    87.2 KB · Views: 35
  • 5979073113_4faa34cf9d_b.jpg
    5979073113_4faa34cf9d_b.jpg
    85.8 KB · Views: 30
  • 5979632418_b7fac78bcb_b.jpg
    5979632418_b7fac78bcb_b.jpg
    86.1 KB · Views: 32
  • 5979633416_d2e8e9b902_b.jpg
    5979633416_d2e8e9b902_b.jpg
    120.8 KB · Views: 36
  • 5979634368_13c34d689f_b.jpg
    5979634368_13c34d689f_b.jpg
    145 KB · Views: 36

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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/
 

Attachments

  • 6207852806_6f8e582dc8_b.jpg
    6207852806_6f8e582dc8_b.jpg
    191.4 KB · Views: 40
  • 6207854668_c12a387596_b.jpg
    6207854668_c12a387596_b.jpg
    190.6 KB · Views: 30
  • LAND_JLTV_Valanx_and_Trailer_lg.jpg
    LAND_JLTV_Valanx_and_Trailer_lg.jpg
    205 KB · Views: 29
  • autowp.ru_bae_valanx_jltv_gpv_2.jpg
    autowp.ru_bae_valanx_jltv_gpv_2.jpg
    809.5 KB · Views: 33
  • autowp.ru_bae_valanx_jltv_gpv_1.jpg
    autowp.ru_bae_valanx_jltv_gpv_1.jpg
    875.5 KB · Views: 35

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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
 

Attachments

  • 1280px-GTV_JLTV.jpg
    1280px-GTV_JLTV.jpg
    193.3 KB · Views: 638
  • 2l-image.jpg
    2l-image.jpg
    18.1 KB · Views: 615
  • 4l-image.jpg
    4l-image.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 605

royabulgaf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
514
Reaction score
93
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

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
royabulgaf said:
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

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,447
Reaction score
478
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

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
802
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
jsport said:
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

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,447
Reaction score
478
in today's budget environ..the v-hull HMWV might be it. Hope that will fit in Ch-47.
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
162
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

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,447
Reaction score
478
Kadija_Man said:
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

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,447
Reaction score
478
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
162
jsport said:
Kadija_Man said:
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
162
jsport said:
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

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,447
Reaction score
478
Kadija_Man said:
jsport said:
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

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,447
Reaction score
478
Kadija_Man said:
jsport said:
Kadija_Man said:
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

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,404
Reaction score
4,152
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/10/14/northrop-offers-back-to-the-future-upgrade-to-humvee-fleet.html
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
1,900
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/12/12/army-releases-rfp-for-jltv/20315849/?sf34623636=%5B%271%27%5D
 

John21

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
148
Reaction score
3
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
JLTV_Vehicles.png
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
1,900
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/big-company-small-vehicle-what-odds-general-dynamics-offers-flyer-for-ulcv/?hootPostID=770e0955d5ec60029f9e3fe69fd758d4
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,665
Reaction score
1,860
More coverage of ULCV in the thread here:

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

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
1,900
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/19/army-expected-to-pick-jltv-winner-soon/
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,447
Reaction score
478
bobbymike said:
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

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
476
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
406
Well that's unexpected. Guess AM General is in trouble now.
 
Top