Like allot of other MRAPS, they deviated from the original requirements list. Optimally they should have One M2.50 cal MG on the roof. And a MK1940mm grenade launcher. Plus if possible. A Fifty aft facing. For Convoy support. Or combinations of the three. The whole MRAP program is a watering down of a program that had good ideas. Then it went crazy.
Originally it had a design for a active hitch. A hitch that could suck up and marry a lunette eye trailer to a pintle hitch. Handy. Well one on the contractors said,"HuH"?. So you won't get it.
Almost everyone of the JLTV designs has a giant bottom, IED speaking. Like the BAE a big vacuum cleaner mouth bottom. Sure it looks veed. But every inch of flat area adds to overpressure from side or bottom blast. I could comment more on their creation. Old technology. Static design.
Hard to modify, difficult to change. Good luck BAE.

Posted by: Steve Militor at July 6, 2008 09:16 PM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 12:01 AM

-Dennis,

Remember that this is a prototype.

In the information at this link,
(As Brian2020 posted)

BAE says that the vehicle has an active defense system apparently resembling a shotgun. I have no clue what that really entails, but they seem to have it figured out to dissemble RPGs before they hit.

As for offense, something like this should receive a remotely-operated turret... or two! Adds some weight and possibly height, but aren't gunners the most vulnerable?

Also, Deus Ex,

The wheel-wells are very open, yes. That was one of the first things I noticed as well. The reason for this is to maintain that "air mobility."

By being "height adjustable" it can be lowered for shipping (must be under a certain, specific height) then after that can be raised to better suspension and distance the vehicle from ground explosives.

maybe if it came with a folding plate that fit there... as long as it doesn't interfere with what it protects.

Posted by: Patron Vectras at March 11, 2008 02:52 PM

It looks like a good design.
But even for the size and function they are going for, why no turret?
Where is the offensive capability?
I just do not want us to have to go to war, get a lot of guys killed before they bow to the obvious and put a swiveling turret with gunner protection on them.
You know, like the Humvee.....

Posted by: Dennis at March 4, 2008 10:04 PM

Any thread going to start on Hugo Chavez threatening war with Colombia? he wants to try out his new Su-27s. NOW THIS IS TAILOR MADE FOR OUR F-22s!!!! Now we'll find out how they'll perform against each other. Yesssss,bring it on!!!!!!

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 3, 2008 07:29 AM

Does no one on this board bother to read anything?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3398575&c=AME&s=TOP

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_10812719124.html

First off, this a prototype. Second, there is no such thing a perfect vehicle. Everything has strengths and weaknesses depending on specific campaigns, theaters, and missions. Everything is a trade off.

This is not an MRAP 1 or MRAP 2. The JTLV is supposed to be between an over taxed up armored Humvee and the cumbersome, Iraq specific MRAPs. It won't survive 500 pound IEDs, like MRAPs, but can cross bridges and soft terrain. Might actually be useful.

This BAE/Navistar armored vehicle is 8 tons, off road capable, height adjustable, V shaped hull, and may have active protection systems, and room for passive armor upgrades.

There are several competitors for the JTLV, after a competition, a winner will be selected.

Posted by: Bryan2020 at March 1, 2008 04:42 PM

Anyone know how this thing is supposed to compare to a Humvee?

Posted by: hunter at March 1, 2008 04:26 PM

MRAP requirements for a vehicle are for other theatres of war or phase or battle. It is dspecifically designed for non-linear types of war other than conventional types of war. MRAP's are huge in terms of weight and dimensions and therefore a huge logistical burden in first phases of warfare. where you need to get equipement fast to the theatre. Imho this vehicle is on the big side as well and the question of it being air movable is a legitimate one. On the other hand it is supposed to replace the HMMV which is also a bit too bulky to be true air movable in large quantities.

Posted by: Michael Portier at March 1, 2008 10:49 AM

I was looking at the video of the vehicle driving about, and noticed that above all four wheels is an unarmored section about a foot tall that has behind it (completely uncovered) what look to be key elements of the mechanism to drive and operate the machine. Considering that soldiers will most likely be in MANY firefights with this vehicle, wouldn't you want to protect parts of the vehicle relating to the functional operation of the machine? It looks like a very large target, and if shrapnel or bullets were to strike those easy-to-hit component, would that endanger the car's occupants? Would it stop the car from functioning? Would steering be gone?

This vehicle also doesn't have a V-shaped bottom. Insurgents of the future won't just forget that American losses were greatest against IEDs. And lets face it, we won't be fighting Russia or China, so let us keep the focus a bit more on small wars rather than large, HIGHLY unlikely ones.

Posted by: Deus Ex at March 1, 2008 09:44 AM

Re: Flat Bottom

If you look closely at the video you can see what looks like storage compartments under the doors. Do those extend all the way under the vehicle?

If not then the passenger compartment could have a V shape, with the lockers being outside the blast resistant portion of the vehicle that holds the passengers and crew. That would still provide some protection from blast while both providing extra storage and lowering the COG.

Posted by: WFS at February 29, 2008 11:44 PM

Seriously though.. wouldn't a higher ground clearance be good for driving through a jungle anyways?

i was thinking the same.....
oh wait with president obama we wont need a good military hell just hope it goes away while he changes into some new pants

last

durka durka jihad! jihad!

Posted by: James at February 29, 2008 07:32 PM

A non-flat bottom (ie mrap style) is basically a terrible design except in the case of an explosion directly under the vehicle right? Otherwise flat is better. It is lighter and gives a lower center of gravity (which means faster and better handling). The only good thing about the non-flat bottom is the survivability of a direct under-carriage explosion.

Given the point of the vehicle is to be light and fast, maybe they were aiming for light and fast. Not every vehicle made has to be able to survive Iraqi streets. That after all is what the MRAP is for.

Posted by: Jim Harvey at February 29, 2008 06:36 PM

My bad Lew...editing error...fixed now.

Posted by: Christian Lowe at February 29, 2008 05:19 PM

We are BAE not BEA.

Posted by: Lew Jamison at February 29, 2008 05:12 PM

The article says they played a Rage Against the Machine song to intro the vehicle. I find that incredibly amusing. :D

Posted by: Brian at February 29, 2008 05:05 PM

Team America World police F* yea!
ha!

Seriously though.. wouldn't a higher ground clearance be good for driving through a jungle anyways?

I know its only 1 of the features that make MRAPs more survivable. But a flat bottom displays the lack of 'learned lessons'.

Is there a requirement that they be air drop able?

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at February 29, 2008 04:33 PM

Wow that's awfully exciting music for a vehicle that never breaks 20mph in the video.

Posted by: Jalann at February 29, 2008 04:20 PM