FEATURE ARTICLE

February 2007

Army, Marines to Acquire 50,000 New Trucks to Replace Humvees

By Harold Kennedy

A fistful of defense companies will be vying to win a contract to develop a replacement for the humvee — the Army and Marine Corps’ light, all-terrain truck.

Later this year, the Marine Corps and the Army will seek industry bids for the so-called “family of joint light tactical vehicles.” The target date for introducing the new vehicle is 2012, said Lt Col. Ben Garza, project manager.

The Army initially plans to buy 392 vehicles for tests, and eventually could begin to acquire as many as 4,291 per year to equip seven brigades annually. The Army estimates it will need 38,421 JLTV vehicles through 2020.

The Marine Corps projects buys of up to 14,150 vehicles through 2020.

Since production began in 1984, AM General of South Bend, Ind., has manufactured more than 190,000 humvees — or high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles. During the fighting in Iraq, the vehicle has aged faster than expected. The humvee’s peacetime service life is 14 years, but in combat it drops to five years.

In addition, emergency measures to protect humvees against roadside bombs in Iraq, such as bolt-on steel armor, have wreaked havoc on the vehicles’ suspensions and engines. Improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, have destroyed or disabled large numbers of humvees and killed or wounded many of their occupants.

Almost four years after the invasion, nearly all of the tactical vehicles in U.S. Central Command have at least some form of armor protection. But the additional weight diminishes the vehicles’ payload and mobility.

The Office of Naval Research –- acting for the services –- last fall awarded contracts of $500,000 to each of five contractors to come up with conceptual designs and mockups of the vehicles. The companies are AM General, General Dynamics Land Systems, BAE Systems Land and Armament Group, Oshkosh Truck Corp., and Textron Systems Marine & Land Division.

Another firm, Lockheed Martin Systems Integration –- which was not asked to contribute a conceptual design and mockup –- nevertheless has announced that it has teamed with Armor Holdings Inc., to make a bid.

Lockheed Martin has little experience making trucks, but in 2006, it won a $9 million contract to build a technology demonstration vehicle for the second phase of the Army’s future tactical truck system advanced concept technology demonstration.

For the joint light tactical vehicle project, Lockheed Martin plans to serve as the prime contractor, said Kathryn Hasse, the company’s tactical wheeled-vehicles director. Armor Holdings will provide the truck expertise, she added. That firm, which produces body and vehicular armor, in 2006 bought Stewart and Stevenson, a major manufacturer of military trucks.

Some of the participants are reluctant to discuss their efforts. “It’s awkward, because it is competitive,” said AM General spokesman Craig McNab.

Earlier this month, AM General and General Dynamics Land Systems announced their intent to form a joint venture, called General Tactical Vehicles, to compete for the JLTV program.

In the fall, the services tentatively plan to award one or more contracts for prototypes to be tested. They intend to decide on a final design and begin low-rate production perhaps 27 to 30 months later, Garza said. The plan is for five variants that are configured to perform specific functions.

A six-passenger combat tactical vehicle will transport armed troops. A larger carrier will hold up to nine members of a light infantry squad. A reconnaissance platform will conduct long-range missions into enemy territory without being detected. A command-and-control version will carry a unit commander, communications specialists and their equipment. A utility truck will transport cargo, from light weapons to casualties and supplies. Each variant will come with a compatible trailer.

The vehicles will be designed to provide basic built-in armor protection, known as the “A” kit. They also must accommodate an add-on system, called the “B” kit, which can be installed by vehicle occupants whenever they deem necessary.

The propulsion systems must be capable of providing adequate mobility performance under widely varying vehicle load conditions. Vehicles should be able to tow substantial loads –- ideally up to 10,000 pounds –- on roads and cross-country.

The body structure must be strong and rigid enough to secure heavy armor panels and ballistic glass, yet light enough for air transport. The braking system must be sized for the maximum anticipated weight, yet still be capable of functioning properly when the vehicle is lightly loaded.

ONR has directed the contractors to pay particular attention in their analyses to the engine and drive train. Should they be mechanical, electric or some form of hybrid-electric system? If electric motors are employed, should they be built into the wheel hubs or mounted in the vehicle’s differential gear housing?

Another important factor will be the design of the vehicle’s armor. It must offer protection against the most common threats, including small arms, IEDs and mine blasts, Garza said. “What we’re looking for, basically, is a light tactical vehicle that provides survivability and protection for its occupants and maintains the performance and payload capability.”

Some of the technologies that could be adapted for the joint light tactical vehicle are being employed in a new family of so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected — or MRAP — vehicles, which feature raised chasses and V-shaped undercarriages to diffuse the impact of blasts.

With a variety of tactical vehicles on the market, many contractors contend that companies should pool their resources to meet requirements for the joint light tactical vehicle. “We do believe that one size won’t fit all,” said John Stoddart, president of Oshkosh’s defense division. “We’re looking to team with a company with expertise in light vehicles to balance our knowledge of heavier vehicles.”

Oshkosh makes the Army’s heavy expanded mobility tactical truck, which weighs between 31 and 49 tons depending on the model, and the Marines’ seven-ton medium tactical vehicle replacement.

AM General, for its part, is convinced that no matter what happens with the joint light tactical vehicle program, the Army and Marines are going to be using the humvee for a long time to come.

For one thing, McNab said, only a small portion of humvees operate in combat zones and, thus, require armor protection. “The humvee does a lot of things,” he said. “It has a huge mission. It carries just about everything the services need carried. It’s going to be hard to replace.”

The procurement agency in charge of the JTLV program, the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, asked vendors to also consider long-term logistics and support issues in their bids.

“The services need to address several significant concerns in addition to traditional performance, schedule and acquisition cost,” a TACOM announcement said. Vendors should consider, for example, congressional mandates that new vehicles be equipped with mature technologies so as to minimize development costs and schedules. “Minimizing the life cycle cost and logistics footprint of future systems is vital to their effective deployment and operation,” the statement said.

TACOM also warned vendors that all JLTV final designs and technical specifications will be owned by the government. This issue is particularly relevant because the Defense Department does not want to risk a repeat of what happened in 2004, when it found out that that the technical blueprints for the armor plating used in the humvee was owned by the supplier, Armor Holdings. “Recent experience with some current systems has stressed the need for sufficient technical data availability … to allow timely and effective solutions to problems that were not considered when the data was originally generated and acquired such as integration of add-on armor,” said the TACOM announcement. “Therefore, the government will generate and maintain JLTV data and pursue governmental rights to technical data.”

Additional reporting by Sandra I. Erwin

Please email your comments to Editor@ndia.org

Back To Top