Polaris DAGOR Could Meet Army’s Ultra-Light Vehicle Need

Polaris Defense announced it will start shipping its newest, lightweight combat vehicle next month.

The Polaris DAGOR, short for Deployable Advanced Ground Off-Road combat vehicle, was developed to meet a need for a combat-utility vehicle, light enough to be sling-loaded into battle from a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, Rich Haddad, general manager for Polaris Defense, at the Association of the United State Army’s 2014 Annual Meeting and Exposition.

The U.S. Army‘s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga., reached out to the defense industry earlier this year to see if it could build the new Ultra Light Combat Vehicle — a new effort to equip infantry brigade combat teams with go-anywhere vehicles capable of carrying a nine-man squad.

Polaris officials are planning to start ship the new DAGOR vehicles to U.S. and foreign special operations forces in November, but said the company plans to pursue a big-Army contract to make ULCVs if the service opens a competition.

The DAGOR has a curb weight of 4,500 pounds and a maximum capacity of 3,250 pounds. It has a turbo-diesel, JP8 engine capable of a 500-mile range.

“It will carry a nine-man squad and all their gear,” Haddad said. “It’s bare bones; there is no armor on it, but it is designed to accept armor.”
From a support perspective, spare parts are readily available through a number of commercial vendors, Haddad said.

“It was designed specifically to be easily maintained,” he said. “The guys can do all their maintenance in the field right in their battalion shops.”

About the Author

Matt Cox
Matthew Cox is a reporter at Military.com. He can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com.
  • blight_qwerty

    Why the hell not? Tired of the government doing business with the same companies that own everything (e.g Lockheed, Boeing, BAE et al). It’s almost a miracle that Oshkosh hasn’t been bought out yet by one of the defense conglomerates yet.

  • Lance

    Got the wrong trade show to show them off. Army want BIG targets for the enemy to see like JLTV. This is more for SOCOM than BIG Army. Though MARSOC and SEALs have been preferring the Growler and ever older MUTTs in the sand box.

  • William_C1

    Can it fit in a V-22?

    • FormerDirtDart

      Luckily the Army doesn’t have a requirement for a squad mobility vehicle to fit into an aircraft they don’t field.

      • William_C1

        I’m aware the Army doesn’t field the V-22 but I was wondering if it was a possible candidate for a better Marine ITV, this seems to be in a size class above that however.

        • FormerDirtDart

          You’re gonna be hard pressed to design a vehicle to carry nine soldiers, and still wedge it’s way into the 60 inch wide limitation to load on a V-22

          But, SOCOM has been trialing GD’s Flyer-60 Advanced Light Strike Vehicle to fit in an Osprey. And Boeing’s Phantom Badger has been put through it’s paces over the last years or so. Both appear to be vast improvements over the M1161 Growler which the Marines got fleeced over.

    • Foolmemore

      At 4,500 lbs, it could be slung loaded by a Chinook with the squad inside for the ride. A Black Hawk can could sing load one too with the squad in another Black Hawk.

      • FormerDirtDart

        Actually, the max gross weight (7750 lbs) is within the weight limitations to allow a single UH-60 to move squad & vehicle in a single lift

        The ULCV requirement is the the vehicle can be carried internally by a CH-47.
        It would also be easy to sling two vehicles side-by-side (shotgun), something the has been done with HMMWVs for decades.
        And, based on my personal experience, if you get just a little imaginative, you could easily sling three vehicles sideways. And still carry their squads inside.
        Hell you could shotgun two externally. and carry one inside with the three squads if you don’t bother with seats.

      • FormerDirtDart

        Hell, the product brochure from Polaris claims you could fit two DAGORs inside a Chinook

        Here is the Specs page, quite a bit easier to read http://www.polaris.com/en-us/military/combat/dago…

      • fhsmct

        an when it starts oscillating and has to be punched off: you lose the vehicle and the squad.

        Or , you get a good pilot who won;t punch off the load (for obvious reasons) and loses the load and the aircraft, along with all souls on board . . .

        • FormerDirtDart

          Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

  • 009

    Wasting tax money again, modify the HUMVEE and you got yourself a commando vehicle!

  • Kiwi

    Bollocks! Should go with what the Australian Special Forces Community fields, a six wheel version of the venerable Land Rover! Excellent for all terrains! And no, no I’m not Australian!

  • Hunter76

    9 fully equipped soldiers in that thing? That’s got to look a lot sillier than the 4 hunters bouncing around in a Polaris in the tv ads.

    • FormerDirtDart

      Nine guys in a DAGOR

  • @shyuechou

    I do wonder as to the unit cost of the DAGOR.

    • ran

      145000 $

  • msgingram

    It needs large high intensity lights and a mount for either a .30 or .50 weapon although a .50 ammo supply would decrease the load capacity. Does this still have the “Rubicon” sticker on it? All kidding aside this is a very needed type of vehicle and I hope we buy a lot of them. Driving a HUMVEE in the streets of cities is quite the challenge and when you hit full reverse, to get away from the trouble, does not steer very well, all the while, what you are running from is laying the fire into the vehicle. I could not turn around, very well, with all the gear on me, to see where I was driving and I hit a lot of walls.

    • Kohje

      Actually, with the given load capacity, your recommendation for a single .30 weapon is totally under-rated. Think 2x Javelin w/ night vision + 40mm gl and/or 60mm mortar + scoped .50 cal.. would give a formidable hit and run night-op vehicle for spec ops and elite elements. Even could mount 120mm mortar w/ pgm and launch mini-uav. You would not want to have an independent company of those coming at your battalion.

    • john

      It seems to be meant for transport, more than attack. It has no armor out-of-the-box, and strikes me as an agile and very unrestricted vehicle, that can go places normally limited to troops on foot. It’s also an off-road vehicle, so in it’s current form, it’s not something that seems to be geared towards fighting in streets. Mountains seem more likely. All-in-all, it’s probably intended to avoid fights with durable, heavy-hitting targets entirely, rather than survive them. Also, nine passengers would make it’s ability to throw stuff like NATO 5.56mm at it’s most likely foes formidable. If it’s intended for use in getting troops to where they can fight other infantry, then six-eight M-16s ought to be enough. You probably don’t want to be using an unarmored vehicle against an opponent that needs a .50 to penetrate. Though a .50 Cal MG is great against multiple distant infantry targets. Point is, it’s a transport, not a weapon. It carries, not attacks. I.E., it’s not going to be doing anything that requires any big MGs. Plus, it can always be added later. It does seem to have the option of adding armor, so, for an armored variant, adding a .50 might be more viable. It’d be better then for supporting the infantry in combat, rather than delivering them to the fight. Essentially, though your idea has potential, it will depend on the specific variant and role to be certain.

      All-in-all, though, I do like the idea of something else similarly small and maneuverable for urban warfare. Those Humvees aren’t exactly small. I don’t think this vehicle specifically is the one for the job, but the characteristics you noted in this vehicle that are good in urban warfare, especially the agility, should also be considered for a vehicle like the one you yourself imagined. compact, fast, and maneuverable. You’re on the right track, if nothing else.

      Also, I countered that pointless downvote you have, because you’re post seems valid to me, and, regardless, isn’t exactly counter-productive or disruptive.

    • john

      oh, actually, I spotted a link by another user down the page with some details on the requirement. It will be able to mount a medium-caliber weapon. Otherwise it wouldn’t meat the specs for the requirement, which requires a mount for that sort of gun. I think .50 cal fits that bill, too. So yes, you definitely didn’t deserve that downvote some moron gave you. You were spot-on with the .50 cal idea, given that it’s already there.

  • cwolf88

    I realize the squad is a basic maneuver element, but defining the squad as the basis for all requirements creates lots of design challenges.

    9 loaded Soldiers in this vehicle is cramped at best with little flexibility.

    There is no protection from weather or enemy weapons.

    Inevitably, folks will ask to add gun/missile mounts, towed mortar, towed 70mm, etc. and variants (ambulance, mortar, etc.).

    If they started out with a half-squad requirement they’d get more performance and flexibility.

    • majr0d

      Have you ever tried to link up two fire teams riding in two vehicles under fire?

      There’s a reason you want them in one vehicle and a lesson relearned in Iraq hence the requirement that the GCV carry the full nine man squad. The Stryker retaught that lesson and clearly demonstrated the efficacy of placing the whole squad in one vehicle.

      More vehicles also requires more crew that steals strength from the Infantry squad as well as more maintenance…

      BTW, this is not a combat vehicle. It’s designed to just get the light infantry moving quicker.

      • john

        “BTW, this is not a combat vehicle. It’s designed to just get the light infantry moving quicker.”

        See, that was what I thought, too. Everyone seems to miss that point, though. I think there’s a misconception that all military equipment is heavily armed and destructive. Or at least that it all has weapons.

  • majr0d

    For those interested in reading about the role that the UCLV is supposed to fill. http://gruntsandco.com/wheels-airborne-light-infa…

    Sadly I think the concept will die on the altar of funding.

    • Will

      This vehicle is undoubtedly much less expensive than the JLTV so don’t count it out yet.

  • tom lorsung

    Have to agree, STICK TO THE HUMM V BASSIS, and modified to light speedy or heavy assult, I believe the military is looking for something to SPEEDILY chase down n destroy not run from the enemy, MULTI VERSIONS, with the same maintance platform, basically they NEED THREE concept vehicles. IE: COMAND N DEFEND,,, ATTACK N TROOP TRANSPORT,,,and SNIPER N ADVANCE.

  • pale male

    sell the humvees to civilians and find a better way

  • Medevac 19

    If that is a picture of the proposed vehicle and that is a normal sized 200lb. man driving it, where are they going to put 8 more 200lbers with 161lbs of gear each? I don’t see am luggage rack. Or are they proposing a trailer?

  • kohje

    Is there a commercial version yet? It would be cool for the desert or beach. An open-air ultra-rough-rider brand w/ 500 mile range… not bad.

  • Desert Rat

    Australian made Thales Hawkei Light Armored Vehicle . Very badass 4WD and can survive a direct IED blast that would turn a Humvee into scrap metal.

  • jmars

    buy a bunch of toyota trucks like the current opposition uses, 90 per cent of the capability at 10 per cent of the cost.

  • DEL061

    Give this vehicle to the US Border Patrol along both borders. They will be able to put it through the wringer. They will discover flaws and or shortfall in design and capabilities.

  • jim

    Can it WIN the BAJA 1000

  • robert Powell

    polaris makes very good equipment…BUT when the bean-counters and the politico’s get through with the lard, fat-cat, extras, and the pure waste. i wouldn’t want one…