Oshkosh showcases JLTV entry, L-ATV

Oshkosh Defense took a gamble Wednesday when it decided to show off its offering for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle competition, the Light Combat Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle (L-ATV), to defense reporters at a remote, off-road course just south of Quantico Marine Base.

The demo came as everyone waited for the Army and the Marine Corps’s decision on which three companies will advance to the final phase of the JLTV competition.

Just hours after the dirt settled on the course, Oshkosh’s gamble paid off. The Army and Marines selected Oshkosh, along with Lockheed Martin and AM General, to advance to the engineering, manufacturing and development phase of the competition. (Video of the ride along beyond the jump.)

There’s no way to characterize the performance of the Oshkosh LATV since none of the other competitors chose to drive journalists around in their JLTV prototypes.

There was one point on the course – as you will see in the video below – that the LATV we were riding in drives down an incline that really looked more like a drop-off from where I was sitting. If I hadn’t been riding on Oshkosh’s course, I might have been a little nervous.

Oshkosh’s L-ATV is big and muscular, just like the other JLTV prototypes. Yet Oshkosh officials maintain that it’s about half the weight of their M-ATV Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle and capable of off-road speeds up to 70 percent faster than the M-ATV.

Here is a video with John Bryant, vice president and general manager for Joint Marine Corps Programs at Oshkosh Defense, talking about the LATV.

— Matthew Cox

About the Author

Michael Hoffman
Michael Hoffman is the executive editor at Tandem NSI and a contributor to Military.com. He can be reached at mhoffman@tandemnsi.com.
  • Giovanni Bagnus

    Please, where is the video?

  • Giovanni Bagnus

    OK, found it.

  • blight_

    What is Lockheed’s entry into JLTV?


  • Tradoc Tanker

    I mean it’s cool and all, but it’s still pretty freaking big. I think whatever replaces the HMMWV should be about the same size of the HMMWV, like the J8 or something.

  • Tad

    Can’t see over the hood to what’s in front of the vehicle. Perhaps a boxer-style engine would help reduce the hood height… Otherwise video cameras hooked up to a nice bright monitor inside the vehicle are needed.

    • blight_

      To some degree, this is true of most vehicles. I guess one could shift the engine to under the cab, like on some 18 wheelers. However, vehicle height increases to unacceptable levels, and may present complications when rockets start flying. The engine would either shield the crew or contribute shrapnel to the interior….

    • Doc Huck

      So obviuosly youve never been inside an M-ATV. Theres is a camera than is part of the vehicle’s BII that inclues the moveable camera with day/night capapbility and a drop down screen that mounts where the driver’s sunvisor would normally go. With the suspended seats the view is pretty damn good. If this vehicle has half the off road capability that our M-ATV’s had in Afghanistan then it will be a good buy.

  • Lance

    Glad the US companies own over the Euro zone. H however the designs are all too BIG and bulky for the job. A small maneuverable vehicles is needed. more wasted money we dont have.

  • Franco

    Science & technology entails: invention, patent & innovation, what’s better than a humvee category, must have it’s virtual advantages; not withstanding, buyers have to make their choices!

  • Gordon

    Can we afford these at $250,000 a pop? (Probably much more when finalized.) 1.25 billion dollars, for 5,000 base vehicles, not including anything else (which would run BILLIONS more dollars.) I’ll answer my own question – NO. If these are to be REPLACEMENTS for Humvee’s, definitely not. As additions, in smaller numbers – possibly. In WWII the Germans had a Schwimmwagen which had a bathtub type steel body no doubt resistant to mines compared to their Kubelwagen “jeep.” Weight – 2000 pounds. Size – similar to US Jeep. Cost – cheap, it was Volkswagen. Just say’n, time for out-of-the-box thinking. GPS-controlled, 7-ton, 4 MPG vehicles just don’t seem smart, at this time. To commit a multi-billion system NOW, just seems over-the-top. At least with B-52’s we have gotten DECADES use out of them. How long will our latest ground-based toys be in service?

  • Tyler

    The problem is, we’re designing everything for occupation duty. Sometimes, in a mobility war, you have to sacrifice some mine protection to gain speed and mobility (not to mention maintain other armor protection against direct fire.) These aren’t inherently bad, but not as a wholesale solution to our ground based mobility.

    • blight_

      Agreed. Though in an era of rocket-launchable scatterable mines, and city fighting where an enemy may have the opportunity to prepare an area with mines and IEDs, mine protection may not be a bad thing.

    • Jeff M

      Speed isn’t that important. I think one of these plus my two feet would give me all the speed and mobility I need, plus a safe place to hole up and something to carry a couple tons of weapon systems. Speed is the mistake the SR-71 and the EFV made…

  • jsallison

    Check out the right rear tire during the beginning spiel…slackers.

  • Rob

    I don’t know, this vehicle impressive but i won’t classify them as “light”.

    Need to protect soldiers from harm makes pressing issue. However, its also gate way to dive the costs up. Oshkosh and Lockheed’s machines are heavy trucks. Lighter then what came before them. Are they actually suitable for irregulars?

    Costs of these machines and driving force to protect our troops is going end up with just Robotic Combat vehicles with deployable drone fighters with couple soldiers in distance.

    I hope they find balance before things go too expensive to even field soldiers in their trucks.

  • kie

    I can say one thing. I rode in it today and that is one impressive beast. I have never seen a vehicle of that size do what that thing can do. At one point I was sure it would roll with what they were putting it through and I realized that even if it did I wasn’t going anywhere. I had no fear because its a tank. The speeds it can do and turns it can take on grass and mud is unbelievable. I am prior military and believe this is an awesome future to be looking at!

  • Bellcross

    Gotta love all the so called experts in the comments here trying to tell the military what kind of vehicles it needs.

  • Gordon

    All of us “experts” are Americans (probably), most of us are prior service or current service (probably), and yes, sir, we DO tell the military what to do and what it needs, and are intelligent enough to decide. In the United States, the military is supposed to be subordinate to the civilian government. When the military tells the citizens what it will do, that’s when we know we are living in a dictatorship. Discussion in a forum like this is allowed because the civilian government still controls the military bureaucracy. When it is no longer allowed, you may be assured that we are no longer a free people.

  • TomUK

    Looks like a camel to me – (the definition of ‘camel’ being “A horse designed by a committee”).

  • John Tillson

    How does this compare to a modernized M113? I bet a modern M113 will cost less and meet a wider mission spectrum. I used M113 ACAVs in Vietnam and have yet to see a more versatile infantry vehicle.