"DVIDS" publishes story on Afghanistan debut of Oshkosh MATV

Click the link at the top of the clipped photo to read the story.

clipped from www.dvidshub.net

Hummer left, M-ATV right.

Old MRAP news from McClatchy

A recent story by Jonathan S. Landay captures in large measure a theme explored a few years ago by David DeCamp in the St. Petersburg Times. That is, that the insurgents facing U.S. armed forces have the means to inexpensively and quickly counter our expensive toys of war.

Landay, writing for the McClatchy news organization, fails to reach the heights of exaggeration reached by DeCamp. But the message remains:

WASHINGTON - Taliban-led insurgents in Afghanistan have devised ways to cripple and even destroy the expensive armored vehicles that offer U.S. forces the best protection against roadside bombs, by using increasingly large explosive charges and rocket-propelled grenades, according to U.S. soldiers and defense officials.

At least eight American troops have been killed this year in attacks on Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, and 40 have been wounded, said a senior U.S. military official who, like others interviewed, declined to be further identified because of the issue's sensitivity.

Why is the issue sensitive?

I would hope that Landay and his sources ponder that issue deeply. The only reason why the issue is particularly sensitive, so far as I can surmise, is that providing clues to the enemy about our vulnerabilities serves to undermine the war effort and assist the enemy.

The source who will not allow himself to be identified because he does not want to be known for giving the enemy a bit of a boost seems to set a challenging standard for lack of integrity.

I do not know Landay at all, including by reputation, but I would not put it past the average journalist to misrepresent the reasoning of his sources.

As for the mere facts of the story, they are not news. Anyone looking at past stories about armored vehicles and using a bit of common sense will know that they are not and have never been advertised as invulnerable. Bigger bombs are easier to detect, and technological advances like EFPs and rocket-propelled grenades typically require harder-to-acquire materials.

The story does bring up the legitimate question of how the M-ATV will fulfill its role. My take is that the new truck's versatility will make it tougher for insurgents to target patrol vehicles. The new trucks will not be tied as closely to predictable routes. Bigger bombs always represented a way to defeat an MRAP or other ground vehicle. That is not news. It probably won't take as much explosive to flip the M-ATV compared to the MRAP.

It isn't rocket science.

Does the Navistar M-ATV feature a v-shaped hull? (Updated)

A couple of years ago, I was able to spread my own unfounded rumor about Navistar's MaxxPro MRAP vehicle. I took an ambiguous statement from a company spokesperson to mean that the MaxxPro achieved its mine protection without using a v-shaped hull.

Something similar may be happening with Navistar's MXT-based M-ATV offering, but this time the information comes from bigger players in the armored vehicle commentary realm.

Specifically, Richard North of Defence of the Realm--the direct descendent of the blog that largely inspired me to post regularly about MRAPs if I felt like it--has apparently glommed on to rumors that Navistar's M-ATV failed initial blast testing. North also reports that the Navistar MXTs purchased by Great Britain, dubbed the "Husky," do not have v-shaped hulls:

With 200 ordered by the MoD in April this year, at a cost of £120 million, the Husky has been converted for military use with "bolt-on" armour. The same version was offered to the US Army for a procurement competition for an off-road mine protected vehicle to serve in Afghanistan. But, in the same week of the MoD order, it was learned that the US Army had failed the vehicle during its compulsory mine protection test and had been ruled ou(t) of the competition.

Again, North is unsurprised. Without what is known as a "v-shaped hull" as a basic part of the design, it is difficult to protect vehicles properly. Yet, with the right design, even light vehicles can withstand blasts that cripple tanks ten times their weight.

It does seem that the Navistar M-ATV is close kin to the Husky. And Navistar has not yet, from what I can tell, described it has having a "v-shaped hull." On the other hand, the company did include the following in its press release:

Navistar’s MXT-based design provides the same production and delivery advantages offered by its original MRAP product, the International® MaxxPro®, but in a lighter and more mobile configuration. The company’s M-ATV unit also incorporates the survivability protection expected from all of Navistar’s MRAP vehicles.
(Navistar)

It is difficult to imagine that "the survivability protection expected from all of Navistar's MRAP vehicles" does not include a v-shaped hull, though it is easy enough to criticize the company for failing to come right out and say it if the M-ATV does have a v-shaped hull.

I simply haven't found any hard evidence to back up North's claims, such as the one where "it was learned that the US Army had failed the vehicle during its compulsory mine protection test." The claim about the M-ATV failing blast testing I can find in the form of conjecture, and later on as an apparent inference when Navistar's protest of the M-ATV competition was apparently resolved by refining the definition of "hull breach."

This does not necessarily add up to the MXT M-ATV or the Husky lacking a v-shaped hull, and neither does it necessarily mean that the modified MXT fails to protect the crew from IED blast significantly less than its competitors.

Though if Navistar continues its uncharacteristic silence about one of its key products then suspicion that something is amiss with both versions of the MXT will understandably swell.


Update:

I finally stumbled across a news report that appears to confirm Richard North's assertion that the Husky does not feature a v-shaped hull as part of its blast protection package:

Like the Eagle IV, which maxes out at NATO STANAG 2a, the Husky appears to be a standard flat-bottomed chassis with extra armor protection. The Husky will come in 3 vehicle types: utility, ambulance and command vehicle, all of which will be powered by 300hp MaxxForce D 6.0L V8 engines, with 530 foot-pounds of torque at 3,000 rpm.
(Defense Industry Daily)

This answer is not exactly definitive, but it has the advantage of lacking an obvious inferential bias stemming from the M-ATV blast testing results.

Another passage in the story also seems relevant to North's criticisms:

Britain recently declined to participate in the American/Australian JLTV program, on the grounds that OUVS was primarily about logistics support rather than patrol vehicles, while patrolling was a heavy emphasis for JLTV. Given the frequent use of Land Rover Snatch as a patrol vehicle, and the accompanying controversies and casualties, this is a somewhat surprising rationale, but Britain’s 400 Iveco Panther CLV vehicles are expected to fill that JLTV-type role.

The Iveco Panther has received criticism for its price tag. The Brits do seem to have ended up paying more for less--another North criticism.

Oshkosh M-ATV video, off-road testing

This video has some unusual footage for early in the game. We get to see the Oshkosh M-ATV from inside for much of the video, and instead of voice-over narration we get informal commentary from the crew.



Bonus:

Another Oshkosh M-ATV video from a public unveiling, featuring commentary by an Oshkosh representative.

Anticlimactic M-ATV contract award

The end-of-April M-ATV contract awards, as I should have expected, merely formalized the modest contracts announced weeks ago to the five remaining finalists.

The government plans to award a winner-take-all contract to one of the vendors, with an initial order by the end of June, the statement said.
(Reuters)

Just in time to pre-empt the M-ATV contract announcement ...

(Marine Corps Commandant James T.) Conway said that instead of pursuing a new line of vehicles, he asked engineers to look at modifying a current version of the MRAP with an independent wheel suspension. A prototype has been tested with good results, he said.
(emilitary.org)

No need for the M-ATV after all?

I'll keep looking for the contract announcement under the presumption that M-ATV offers more than the in-theater modifications can deliver.

M-ATV contracts coming in late April

Crain's reports that Navistar's protest delayed the M-ATV contract decision(s), originally due this week. Contracts are expected by the end of the month.

I don't have a favorite, but I see the Force Protection Cheetah as a long shot because the the company's difficulty in competing for contracts now that bigger companies are competing seriously for these contracts.

Though I suppose Oshkosh hasn't exactly covered itself with glory in the various MRAP competitions, either.

OK, I suppose I do have a favorite. It would surprise me the least if the BAE M-ATV (the Valanx lookalike) won the competition.

Pentagon amends M-ATV solicitation--answer to Navistar objection?

InsideDefense reports (subscription only!) that the M-ATV solicitation has been amended to more specifically define "hull breach."

This, of course, will fuel speculation that the amendment follows from Navistar's recent protest of the M-ATV competition.

Consider this post part of the vanguard of that speculation. I don't know if the InsideDefense report makes the connection, by the way.

Navistar withdraws M-ATV protest

So reports The Wall Street Journal via Dow Jones newswires.

The story says that Navistar stock jumped when the news hit. That pretty much completes a demonstration of the way Wall Street reacts to rumors and incomplete information.

Supposedly the objection addressed a technicality, and Navistar worked it out with the Pentagon without making any details public.

If Navistar's stock rose above its pre-protest baseline, I can think of one reason why, all else being equal.

Supposing capable management, Navistar took a risk in protesting the selection process. They would presumably know that stock would take a hit. That risk makes sense if the resolved technicality offers a measurable advantage to the Navistar bid.

Then again, as somebody once said, where stupidity is the simplest explanation for risky behavior, stick with it.

Navistar protests M-ATV competition

Navistar International has apparently staged a protest of the M-ATV (all-terrain MRAP) competition. The grounds of the context remain unclear since Navistar successfully made it to the second round of that competition.

Navistar filed a protest of the contest with the U.S. Government Accountability Office on March 30, Michael Golden, the GAO's managing associate general counsel for procurement law, said in an interview today. The contest was under way at the time, and a GAO decision on the matter is due by July 8, he said.

Roy Wiley, spokesman for Navistar, confirmed the protest and declined to specify its legal basis because "the matter is under review."

(The Daily Herald)

Navistar's stock dropped on the announcement, according to the story. That makes sense, for one is not likely to protest a competition that one is winning handily.

The drawbacks of the Jackal

Fears over the dangers of the Jackal all-terrain vehicle have been raised after the latest two soldiers were named by the Ministry of Defence last night.

Corporal Graeme Stiff, 24, and Corporal Dean John, 25, of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, were killed in a blast in a Jackal in the Garmsir district of southern Helmand.
(The Telegrah)

Defence of the Realm sounded the alarm over the Jackal's design problems from early on:

The third and least satisfactory of them all is the Coyote TSV (Light) which is to be a 6x6 derivative of the Jackal designed by Supacat Ltd. We are told that it will also have a cargo capacity in excess of 1.5 tons and a four-man crew.

The MoD does not offer a photograph of this, but it may well be similar to the Supacat "Extenda" seen in Paris earlier this year (pictured). There are no indications, as yet, as to whether this will be armoured in the same way as the Jackal but, if it is not, soldiers would be better protected going to war on bicycles.

No doubt there is precious little joy in being right on something like this.

Two more paragraphs of note from the Telegraph story:

"The Jackal ignores all five of the basic principles of mine or blast protection and then seeks to overcome the basic design flaws with bolt-on armour, added as an afterthought. It cannot and will not work," said Dr Richard North, editor of the Defence of the Realm blog.

And ...

Defence analysts are urging the MoD to join the $3 billion American all-terrain mine protected vehicle programme called M-ATV that has been short-listed to three trucks.

It does seem that the Brits need something durable to use on patrols relegated to using Afghanistan's roads. The Jackal apparently handled rough terrain very well, but simply proved a poor fit for patrol duty on those booby-trapped roads.

Five M-ATV finalists identified

Bloomberg.com provides an update on the M-ATV contracts, indicating that the Force Dynamics (Force Protection/General Dynamics) Cheetah, the BAE Systems RG-33 variant, the Global Tactical Systems (BAE) Caiman variant , the Oshkosh "Sandcat" variant and the Navistar MXT variant have won the five initial M-ATV contracts offered by the Pentagon.

clipped from www.bloomberg.com

Force Dynamics and its associated companies, from what I can tell, have yet to make available a quality photograph of the updated Cheetah. I clipped one version of what I take to be a computer artist's rendition of the vehicle.

And I'll blurt out again that the BAE model supposedly based on the RG-33 looks suspiciously close to the BAE/Navistar JLTV design, dubbed the Valanx. Though perhaps the Valanx was in turn based on the RG-33 in some respect.

BusinessWire publishes photos of BAE M-ATVs

Click the link above the photo below to access the image of the Caiman-based model. The image I clipped was supposedly based on the RG model, but it seems to borrow some of its looks from the Valanx. The Valanx, of course, was the JLTV model produced jointly by BAE Systems and Navistar. The window design is the most striking similarity. Lose a window in service and there is only one replacement part. All the windows share the same shape.

clipped from www.businesswire.com

Update:
The link through the Clipmarks border doesn't seem to work, so try this one to access both BusinessWire photos.

The Oshkosh M-ATV

clipped from www.oshkoshdefense.com

The vehicle is recognizably based on the Sasan/Oshkosh Sandcat design.

So we've got the Oshkosh M-ATV, RG-33 and Caiman variants from BAE Systems, an M-ATV version of the Force Protection Cheetah, and the Navistar submission based on its MXT vehicle.

So far I have detected no hint that either Boeing or Northrop Grumman (both of which lost their appeals of the JLTV developmental contract awards) will participate in the M-ATV competition.

Force Protection offers updated Cheetah for M-ATV testing

DefenseNews.com delivered the expected news that Force Protection has submitted an updated Cheetah vehicle for M-ATV testing.

The pictures accompanying the story are borderline comical, consisting as they do of computer generated images superimposed on a set. The end result, as one person noted in the comments, makes them look like toys. Even the photos accompanying the updated Cheetah brochure at FPI's Web site were of strangely poor quality. But at least they offer better evidence that the vehicle exists in real life.

While the presentation may speak to some degree to the overall professionalism of the company, we ought to expect that it will be judged primarily on its merits along with the performance of the company overall.

BAE's M-ATVs

BAE Systems weighed in on the M-ATV competition with two different entries--not just two prototypes essentially representing the same vehicle.

UPI.com reports that one company division has offered a RG-33 variant for M-ATV while another presented a lighter version of the Caiman, as expected.

Where's the Cheetah? (Updated)

With Navistar and Oshkosh announcing delivery of their M-ATV test vehicles to Aberdeen, one wonders about the other purported entrants. Force Protection, for example, has announced the Cheetah as its entry in the competition. But the Force Protection Web site does not yet have any announcement of a vehicle delivery posted.

The company has released a .pdf brochure for the Cheetah that indicates some significant changes in appearance, however.

Sometimes grainy photography serves to hide proprietary information. Whether or not that is the case, the Navistar and Oshkosh presentations look far more professional.


Update:

Not to pick on Force Protection when BAE Systems has apparently done even less to promote its rumored entry in the M-ATV competition. The Caiman CLT was supposed compete for MRAP-lite but has remained effectively out of the news.

Oshkosh delivers two M-ATVs for testing at Aberdeen

OSHKOSH, Wis. — Feb. 23, 2009 — Oshkosh Corporation (NYSE:OSK), announced today that its Defense division delivered two production-representative MRAP All Terrain Vehicles (M-ATV) to the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland for military evaluation. The mission-proven Oshkosh® M-ATV meets the survivability and mobility requirements of the warfighter for Afghanistan. The U.S. Armed Services have an urgent need requirement for M-ATVs to be used in the harsh conditions of Afghanistan. The M-ATV contract has a potential award value of $2 billion.
(Oshkoshdefense.com)

Oshkosh supplied no graphic with its press release, but preliminary reports indicate that the Sandcat (a joint venture with Plasan) represents the Oshkosh M-ATV submission. The company Web site does feature a slick brochure for the Sandcat in .pdf format.

Navistar's M-ATV

The MaxxPro Dash did not represent Navistar's entry in the M-ATV market, it seems.

The company offered up two prototypes for testing, basing the design on the MXT chassis. Recall that the British has chosen the MXT to serve a role in their military because of its mobility. As such, a version modified to take advantage of features like a v-shaped hull could represent a strong entry.

clipped from media.navistar.com

Designed to navigate Afghanistan’s rough terrain and perform in off-road conditions, Navistar’s M-ATV unit utilizes a specially-designed, light-weight armor, which is incorporated into the survivability system. While the platform of the company’s M-ATV vehicle varies from its MaxxPro MRAP, which is based on the International® WorkStar® platform, the smaller base allows Navistar’s unit to weigh significantly less than its MaxxPro Dash - the lightest of the company’s MRAP units and in service now in Afghanistan.

“We are proud to submit a vehicle based on our MXT platform, which was designed to fill a gap that existed between smaller traditional armored 4x4’s and larger transport vehicles,” said Archie Massicotte, president, Navistar Defense. “By utilizing our existing commercial platform, we are able to rapidly advance our vehicle design and provide the military with a product that supports mission needs in Afghanistan.”
(Navistar.com)

I wonder if the British will end up wanting the M-ATV version instead of the non-mine-protected MXTs they ordered.

Electro-shock therapy for military vehicles?

Yeah, the title is slightly misleading.

But it's an ingenious concept. Via Gizmodo:

A team of undergraduate students at MIT have developed a shock absorber that actually generates electricity from bumps in the road. This results in up to a 10 percent improvement in overall vehicle fuel efficiency.

I expect the trick is in storing that electricity for later use. As such, the invention would seem to offer its greatest advantages to some type of hybrid vehicle.