I like big butts...
Posted on 02/26/2019 5:36:17 AM PST by Drago
The U.S. military's new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle suffers from reliability, safety and lethality shortcomings that need fixing before it will be suitable for battlefield use, according to a recent Defense Department test and evaluation report.
Army and Marine Corps units will soon start training with the JLTV, a high-performance vehicle designed to replace many of the military's aging Humvees.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2013/10/28/pentagon-inspector-general-to-audit-jltv
They’ll just add more cameras and screens, like they have to on all the current cars that now have safety mandated high beltlines.
They’ll just add more cameras and screens, like they have to on all the current cars that now have safety mandated high beltlines.
Comes in both 2-seater and 4-seater models.
WHY???
Already thinking of civilian models? And they did a 27 month shake down and didn’t realize they sucked?
2011 means it’s Obama’s baby.
Sounds like a nice way to have embedded repair contractors in units for a long time to come ensuring a continuing income along with the mods and kits that someone will no doubt discover have to be fitted to the vehicles.
I like big butts...
“Comes in both 2-seater and 4-seater models.
WHY???
Already thinking of civilian models? And they did a 27 month shake down and didn’t realize they sucked?
2011 means it’s Obama’s baby.”
The outgoing Humvees could be converted from two to four seats.
We gave the Strykers a shake down, and we all said that they were horrible for the recon mission, yet 2ACR was still forced to use the POS.
I'd like to see the Army take a look at a slightly-militarized version of a 4-wheel-drive commercial pickup. A lot cheaper, the bugs have been worked out, and it's not like an RPG or IED wouldn't take out the JLTV too.
I love our military...but they sure get screwed every time they turn around.
The answer would be to put the designers and political approvers in these vehicles ON THE BATTLEFIELD. Let them decide if they work before foisting them off on our troops.
Speed
Forward: 70 mph (110 km/h)
Reverse: 8 mph (13 km/h)
Jeez...a man can run faster than that thing can backup. Depending on weight carried, possibly almost twice as fast.
Yup!...lol...Nobody saw that coming in the design process....
Ive worked with some engineers in the industrial construction trades.....One of my older engineers told me....the 1st thing they do now in school is wash the common sense out of these young guys...if they had any to begin with...
We’re lucky it’s not electric with a 25 mile range and take 40hrs to recharge
this is interesting.
I did some contract work on the supplier quality systems development side of things on the initial launch of this vehicle at OSK Defense.
This thing is a beast, and while I am no design engineer, it did seem to be a bit more complicated than it needed to be.
Frankly, I am not surprised by this report, to be honest.
No.
Boy, the whining here is impressive.
There’s a reason for a two seat version; it’s to allow for the command and control payload in the flat bed.
There’s a reason for a four seat version; it’s so four people can sit in it and toss their gear in the back.
Get a clue people. Find out WHY before spewing your ignorance everywhere.
The military industrial complex will iron out the problems as soldiers in the field die because of the flaws.
SSDD
Two seat version is a cargo/shelter carrier. The four seat variant, depending how it is fitted out is a command, communication, general combat, or antitank vehicle.
Not Obama’s fault. JLTV began development in the early/mid-2000s. And a lot of its “problems” derive from the requirement to deliver MRAP levels of under armor crew protection in something smaller than an MRAP or an MRAP-All Terrain Vehicle (MATV). To get a perspective on this, there are pictures around the Internet showing the four vehicles (MRAP, MATV, JLTV, and the latest armored HMMWV side by side. The size differences are startling.
The sad part is that the protective technology being used (standoff combined with dense steel armor plate) is really just a modern version of what has been used since the 1940s. There is so much new armor technology under development now (liquid armor, armor foam, lightweight high density steel, etc.) that could go a long way to addressing the weight issue. But, if JLTV is really is delivering at an all up $400k unit price, how can the services walk away from their capital investment in 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 thousand vehicles when the new technologies are ready?
Keep in mind that the JLTV predecessor, HMMWV, began fielding in the 1980s. There will still be tens of thousands of units on duty with both services well into the 2030s; nearly 50 years after adoption. (Unlike B-52s, these still-in-service HMMWVs will not be 45-50 years old. They will be, for the most part, the latest armored variants manufactured in the 2000-2010+ timeframe.) If the services over invest in JLTV, they may be cutting off all new technology light tactical vehicle development for the next....50 years?
Geez. You want to spoil their fun?
Finally - The Navy doesn’t have to be the only service embarrassed by what Washington buys......
I’d rather take my chances in an M38 or M151.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.