 |
| L-ATV |
 |
| L-ATV |
.jpg) |
| M-ATV |
 |
| M-ATV |
Its beyond obvious that the L-ATV and the M-ATV share MANY similarities. I would go so far to say that the L-ATV is simply a revamped M-ATV...a vehicle that we allready have plenty of.
And that brings me to this disturbing question. If the L-ATV is simply a revamped M-ATV then how did it beat out the BAE Valanx?
The US Army (lets be honest, the Marine Corps has been a reluctant partner in this program) first wanted cutting edge designs. BAE provided one. They wanted MRAP type protection. The Valanx did that. They wanted power production...again the Valanx came through....off road ability...yes....
The Valanx. A new design that provided everything the Army wanted lost out to the L-ATV? From the outside looking in it just doesn't make sense. OSHKOSH is extremely vague in their brochures about vehicle specifics but I just don't see any area where it would outshine the Valanx.
This contest should be protested. I HOPE BAE mans up and does just that. Seemingly inferior products winning production contest leads helps reinforce the impression that these contests are rigged.
This one I will keep an eye on. I look forward to reading the rationale for this decision. Just for comparison sake, below is a picture of the BAE Valanx. How this clean sheet modern design lost to the legacy L-ATV is beyond me but something is wrong with our system.
Price. Of the three awardees, OSK was the most price aggresive. And it met the requirements.
ReplyDeletei hear ya but even if that's the case its still concerning because we know the history of low bids winning and then the price suddenly jacks up. i wonder if they actually did the work to determine whether or not it was a realistic bid or not. I trust that BAE would bid the vehcile as aggressively as everyone else and I know they want a win so I can't see them losing on price grounds.
ReplyDelete