From the UK, we have the example of Force Protection UK's Ocelot Light Protected Patrol Vehicle. This truck will operate in the same manner as our future JLTV (perhaps in a more tactical role with no provision for the utility variants).
In Australia we just got word that their new Hawkei Light Protected Vehicle has made it to the second round in their selection process.
What's obvious is that the JLTV as its currently designed (by all competitors) is just too heavy. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against highly protected vehicles. The issue becomes one of fewer returns with every ton increase in weight. MRAPs are notorious for poor ride and handling qualities (bad for troop effectiveness once they reach the objective) and for their inability to navigate confined areas of roadways (mostly tight mountain passes). The number of injured and killed by accidents is probably one of the more under reported consequences of the war against IEDs.
The Granite Tactical looks like an interesting solution, as we discussed yesterday, evolution not revolution.
ReplyDeleteThe only question I would ask in this case though is, has the Humvee reached the end of its usefulness in the teeth of the IED. IED's are a strategic weapon and no matter what spectrum of operation the USMC (or anyone else for that matter) take part in, IED's are going to figure heavily.
This is the reason why the UK has recognised that there is only so much one can do with existing designs before one has to start from Scratch. The LPPV will replace the Snatch Land Rover which is about as effective as it can be in the right conditions. They are hopelessly unsuitable for environments with IED's.
This has prompted the MoD to avoid the upgrade route (which it has done several times over the last several years anyway) and go something designed from scratch.
It will replace the Snatch in the protected mobility role but will also likely replace the WMIK Land Rovers and possibly some of the numerous other vehicles we have in service as well. The cab is modular and they have discussed making a 6x6 variant which would be useful for light logistics, command, artillery towing etc.
Good question. My answer is I don't think so. Consider this. The mobility of the Humvee has never been questioned---only its ability to withstand IEDs.
ReplyDeleteThe Granite solution uses a cab system. Not modular but a cab system that the Office of Naval Research was working on almost 8 years ago.
The solution isn't elegant. But it should work.
Its squeezes more life out of a proven chassis and also provides the protection required.
The Thales Hawkei's ballistic protection by you-know-who!
ReplyDeleteActually, no vehicle has been shortlisted by Australia for it's Protected light vehicle program.
ReplyDeleteAustralia has Project Overlander, which is a project designed to replace our light, medium and heavy support vehicle fleets.
Overlander has been running since the late 90', but in the meantime however, Australia has gone to war, in numerous different operational environments and our vehicles and people have actually been shot at and attempts made to blow them up. Not very civilised I know... Who'd have thought an enemy would attempt to kill our soldiers and destroy our equipment?
We have chosen the Mercedes G Wagon as our Landrover 110 replacement.
However as previously mentioned, our vehicles and troops for the first significant time in ages, have actually had to spend some time on a "two way range" and have to face a strong RPG and IED threat as well.
Australia through hard experience has been forced to understand that un-armoured G wagon type vehicles simply do not cut it, on modern battlefields where primary maneuver capability is vehicle based.
And so for combat related utility taskings, we decided to jump into JLTV to provide a protected vehicle for taskings we normally would have used an un-armoured Landrover.
Despite the requirement for a protected utility vehicle capability being publicly known for years (it was in the Overlander RFI) no tender actually addressed this requirement for some reason. So Government went ahead and invested coin in the JLTV SDD phase (similar to our JSF investment) with the expectation that we could somewhat influence the design and development of the vehicle eventually chosen and give us a good head start on procuring same for our requirement (1300 vehicles). By defence standards, the $30m or so we invested in this program is pretty small change, however our local defence industry went absolutely ballistic.
They wailed and cried that this was unfair and that if they had only known that the Government would actually invest coin to help develop such a capability (they couldn't very well argue that they hadn't known about the requirement, because they responded to other components of the same request for tender)they would have submitted a proposal. They bleated about Australian jobs going offshore and the apparent excellence of Australian made products etc and really whinged a lot.
Government in it's vote hungry style, immediately crumbled in the face of such an onslaught and allowed Defence Industry to re-tender for Project Overlander (and thus delay the whole thing miserably once again, oh and Government realised it's pick for the heavy vehicle, actually wasn't up to scratch, but that doesn't directly relate to this article) and conceded that it was hardly fair to help fund even a portion of JLTV without doing likewise for Australian Industry Solutions to the protected light utility vehicle requirement.
So that's what this announcement is. Funding for the proposals of 3x Australia company's totalling $27m in all ($9m per company) to help them develop a solution for the requirement and formally respond to the Government's request for proposals for this part of the Overlander Project.
None of these vehicles have been "shortlisted" for Project Overlander. The companies have simply been given another chance to develop a product (that they've already had years to do and did nothing) and a bit of cash to help. All remain in competition with the JLTV program to fulfill the Governments requirement.
Sorry if this all seems a bit convoluted, but that is Australian Defence Procurement for you...
Wow Aussie Digger, you just crushed me! I was hailing this advertisement (now I know) as being something totally different. Add to it my disappointment at the weight of the JLTV and I was really looking at the Hawkei and the Ocelot as being a more common sense solution. Pricier than putting capsules on Humvees but still a better solution than the JLTV.
ReplyDeleteQuestion though. What's your impression of the JLTV? Is it considered too heavy by Australian Defense or are they still interested?
Hey mate, sorry didn't mean to upset your blog, but there were quite a few articles written about this announcement around the place and it seems as if few or none, actually never read the announcement, but rather a misinterpreted version of it and then just went on and quoted this misread version of it. Here is the announcement:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.minister.defence.gov.au/gregCombettpl.cfm?CurrentId=10336
As can be seen, JLTV is still in the running for this project. Given that I think 6x vehicles are competing for JLTV, a "shortlist" for this project remains a long way off.
I think that JLTV will probably produce a fair vehicle (though they all look as ugly as sin to me, the Hawkei looking rather better, to my eye, but since when do looks REALLY count?).
Regardless of the outcome of JLTV, Australian troops will be better protected with ANY competing vehicle, then they are now in a soft sknned Landrover 110 and that is what I like about the project...
Cheers
AD