India Signs Up For Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
- Thread starter NSG_Blackcats
- Start date
sandeepdg
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,333
- Likes
- 227
the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle project with the US should be used as a learning exercise only.... We should go into buying these vehicles anymore than a few handful of them.....We should share the tech with our own companies like Mahindra and Tata, so that they can come up with something as good.... it will give a boost to defense market for these vehicles and well as be efficient and economical....
i think mahindra axe and tata lsv prove that we can build our own new design with low cost and greater effectivity......also capable of equal technology but we need greater private participation in this field...
chathurang
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 15
- Likes
- 2
its a waste of money.....thats what i would say.Fro the looks of it,indian army doesnt need these kind of vehicles as of now.We must look into the type and scenario for fighting that our troops face.
Ofcourse armoured carriers are required,but we should develop the ones that suites our purpose,not for style for the army,but for real useful purpose. It should concentrate now on euipping our land forces with good rifles,body armour and fighting equipment.
Ofcourse armoured carriers are required,but we should develop the ones that suites our purpose,not for style for the army,but for real useful purpose. It should concentrate now on euipping our land forces with good rifles,body armour and fighting equipment.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,779
- Likes
- 2,666
the JLTV and the LSV are fundamentally different programs in that the JLTV program is envisaged tp provide a vehicle designed to be protected against IED & Mine attacks something the LSV is not designed for.
I have no doubt in the ability of M&M, TATA and AshokLeyland... Yes they can deliver..but they don't have dedicated production lines to cater Defence sector....and if they are so good then why don't they able to market it in other countries eg.. latin America... Africa.....the one who is going to supply us these vehicles have dedicated business model for such requirments...as this segment require too much of R&D.... i don't think they(indian companies) will ever go for such kind of product either... In India most of the industries run on VOLUME.... so tht they have Economies of scale in medium to larger term.....
If ask me I would like to see Indian companies Aquire such companies..or form some kind of JVs... if allowed by both Govt.
If ask me I would like to see Indian companies Aquire such companies..or form some kind of JVs... if allowed by both Govt.
sandeepdg
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,333
- Likes
- 227
Mine protected vehicles are not a new thing for us... the Ordnance factory at Medak is already manufacturing such vehicles for the paramilitary and state police forces. Now they have come up with a new version of the same on a Stallion truck platform which is pretty advanced than the older one. So making a JLTV like vehicle should not be much of a problem for companies like Tata & M&M provided that the Ordnance factories and DRDO provide them with appropriate technical consultation. And production lines can be started in a span of few weeks since these companies already have the infrastructure to produce these types of vehicles, provided that the IA gives a serious request for their supply.
nrj
Ambassador
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,658
- Likes
- 3,911
Next-Generation Light Truck Program Has Tall Orders to Fill
ABERDEEN TEST CENTER, Md. — Improved performance, protection and payload: Military officials want all three to be included in its new truck.
Army and Marine Corps officials debuted three prototypes made by three different manufacturers recently. And none of their solutions look anything like the humvees they hope to one day replace.
After about five months of work, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and General Tactical Vehicles — a joint venture between General Dynamics and AM General — each delivered a total of seven prototypes, all with different weight classes or configurations, for the JLTV program to test.
None of the vendors is guaranteed that its truck will be chosen for the next phase. Program managers insist that these prototypes will be used merely for collecting data so they can refine requirements for the next stage of development.
Program managers have a long list of needs, many of which were not big concerns when the humvee was in development 30 years ago.
The emergence of the roadside bomb as the weapon of choice for insurgents is driving the need for more protection; and the current climate calling for fiscal restraint in the federal government is demanding that the next generation of light tactical wheeled vehicles be easy to maintain, and have improved fuel efficiency.
These requirements may be at odds. The heavier the vehicle the more fuel it takes to move it. A series of mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles were rushed into the field in response to the improvised explosive device threat. These trucks were intentionally tilted heavily toward the protection part of the equation. The services now want to know if they can have it all: safety for the troops, reliable, rugged parts and the ability to carry added armor, soldiers, marines, and all their equipment.
To further complicate the process, the Army and Marine Corps must balance their desires. The marines want a truck that is easily transportable to fit their expeditionary nature.
Weight is the number one problem his team encountered, said Don E. Howe, senior director of General Tactical Vehicles.
"You can meet the protection levels, the payload requirements. You can meet the performance requirements, in most cases that can be done," Howe said. But keeping the trucks light enough to be transportable on rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft such as the CH-47 Chinook and the C-130, along with the transport ships the Marine Corps use, makes the weight issue complex, he said.
"You have to meet certain weight profiles. That's where the challenge is. And it will continue to be a challenge on this program as long as these vehicles are in existence," Howe predicted.
Army Lt. Col. Wolfgang Petermann, JLTV program manager, told National Defense that "we are on track with our weight," but there will be refinements made on the requirements for the engineering and manufacturing development part of the process, which follows the current technology development phase.
Meanwhile, officials are asking the three vendors to deliver an eighth variation of their prototypes by September, a subvariant of the B models, which are designed to carry payloads of 4,000 to 4,500 pounds.
Dean Johnson, deputy program manager and the Marine Corps' representative on the program, said the need to balance weight and protection prompted the services to ask for the new vehicle.
"We're trying to drive that weight down as low as we can," he said.
Managers must make trade-offs to reach these sometimes conflicting needs. The new prototype will have the same chassis as the six-passenger B model, but to make the weight and protection requirement, will only have seating for four.
The weight will stay the same," said Johnson. "The functionality will come on to a smaller platform."
Program engineers are looking at components made of composite materials, and other items that could be lightened in order to hit the weight targets.
Petermann said one pleasant surprise so far has been the fuel efficiency requirement. On average, the JLTV officials are seeing about 20 percent better miles-per-gallon results than what was demanded.
"We'll see the requirement go up because we can meet it," he said.
While ballistic trials have been completed, the program has not completed reliability and performance testing. Each vehicle will undergo about 20,000 miles of testing at Aberdeen and at the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona. The Australian military, a partner in the program, is receiving right-hand drive vehicles in August, which will be tested at its facilities.
Along with the B variant, there are the As, which should carry 3,500 pounds and the Cs, which have a 5,100 pound payload requirement. All three must come with trailers. Category B has heavy guns, TOW missiles and ambulance versions.
In this current phase, officials are looking for reliability rates three times longer than what is found on the humvee. In short, the services want the vehicles to go thousands of miles longer between breakdowns. And when they do need repairs, vendors are being asked for vehicles that are easy to fix and have 85 percent common parts among the variants, Petermann said.
Two items on the list that may be dropped, Petermann said, were road departure warning and collision avoidance systems.
"In a tactical environment, there may not be a road. So is there really a need for it?" Petermann asked.
Source
ABERDEEN TEST CENTER, Md. — Improved performance, protection and payload: Military officials want all three to be included in its new truck.
Army and Marine Corps officials debuted three prototypes made by three different manufacturers recently. And none of their solutions look anything like the humvees they hope to one day replace.
After about five months of work, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and General Tactical Vehicles — a joint venture between General Dynamics and AM General — each delivered a total of seven prototypes, all with different weight classes or configurations, for the JLTV program to test.
None of the vendors is guaranteed that its truck will be chosen for the next phase. Program managers insist that these prototypes will be used merely for collecting data so they can refine requirements for the next stage of development.
Program managers have a long list of needs, many of which were not big concerns when the humvee was in development 30 years ago.
The emergence of the roadside bomb as the weapon of choice for insurgents is driving the need for more protection; and the current climate calling for fiscal restraint in the federal government is demanding that the next generation of light tactical wheeled vehicles be easy to maintain, and have improved fuel efficiency.
These requirements may be at odds. The heavier the vehicle the more fuel it takes to move it. A series of mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles were rushed into the field in response to the improvised explosive device threat. These trucks were intentionally tilted heavily toward the protection part of the equation. The services now want to know if they can have it all: safety for the troops, reliable, rugged parts and the ability to carry added armor, soldiers, marines, and all their equipment.
To further complicate the process, the Army and Marine Corps must balance their desires. The marines want a truck that is easily transportable to fit their expeditionary nature.
Weight is the number one problem his team encountered, said Don E. Howe, senior director of General Tactical Vehicles.
"You can meet the protection levels, the payload requirements. You can meet the performance requirements, in most cases that can be done," Howe said. But keeping the trucks light enough to be transportable on rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft such as the CH-47 Chinook and the C-130, along with the transport ships the Marine Corps use, makes the weight issue complex, he said.
"You have to meet certain weight profiles. That's where the challenge is. And it will continue to be a challenge on this program as long as these vehicles are in existence," Howe predicted.
Army Lt. Col. Wolfgang Petermann, JLTV program manager, told National Defense that "we are on track with our weight," but there will be refinements made on the requirements for the engineering and manufacturing development part of the process, which follows the current technology development phase.
Meanwhile, officials are asking the three vendors to deliver an eighth variation of their prototypes by September, a subvariant of the B models, which are designed to carry payloads of 4,000 to 4,500 pounds.
Dean Johnson, deputy program manager and the Marine Corps' representative on the program, said the need to balance weight and protection prompted the services to ask for the new vehicle.
"We're trying to drive that weight down as low as we can," he said.
Managers must make trade-offs to reach these sometimes conflicting needs. The new prototype will have the same chassis as the six-passenger B model, but to make the weight and protection requirement, will only have seating for four.
The weight will stay the same," said Johnson. "The functionality will come on to a smaller platform."
Program engineers are looking at components made of composite materials, and other items that could be lightened in order to hit the weight targets.
Petermann said one pleasant surprise so far has been the fuel efficiency requirement. On average, the JLTV officials are seeing about 20 percent better miles-per-gallon results than what was demanded.
"We'll see the requirement go up because we can meet it," he said.
While ballistic trials have been completed, the program has not completed reliability and performance testing. Each vehicle will undergo about 20,000 miles of testing at Aberdeen and at the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona. The Australian military, a partner in the program, is receiving right-hand drive vehicles in August, which will be tested at its facilities.
Along with the B variant, there are the As, which should carry 3,500 pounds and the Cs, which have a 5,100 pound payload requirement. All three must come with trailers. Category B has heavy guns, TOW missiles and ambulance versions.
In this current phase, officials are looking for reliability rates three times longer than what is found on the humvee. In short, the services want the vehicles to go thousands of miles longer between breakdowns. And when they do need repairs, vendors are being asked for vehicles that are easy to fix and have 85 percent common parts among the variants, Petermann said.
Two items on the list that may be dropped, Petermann said, were road departure warning and collision avoidance systems.
"In a tactical environment, there may not be a road. So is there really a need for it?" Petermann asked.
Source
nrj
Ambassador
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,658
- Likes
- 3,911
New Truck To Show The Way for Acquisition Reforms
ABERDEEN TEST CENTER, Md. — Program managers for the $60 million joint Army-Marine Corps program to build a new vehicle to replace the aging humvee rolled out three new prototypes here recently and put them through the paces on a hilly test track in the Maryland woods.
But it was more than a debut for the hopeful joint light tactical vehicle vendors. The trucks were high-profile examples of the competitive prototyping movement, a congressionally mandated method of acquiring technology that proponents say will reduce cost overruns and lessen the risk of failure for military hardware development programs.
It could be another five years before the JLTV vehicles begin to be produced in large quantities, and competitive prototyping — at least for trucks — is proven to be a success or not. Observers are wondering if this is truly a solution to the Defense Department's well-known acquisition woes, or if it's just a flavor of the month. There are also concerns that the per-unit cost of the trucks will be too high.
Meanwhile, JLTV program managers said the new strategy is working well so far. They are aware that the process for the way the trucks are being developed is being watched as closely as the vehicles themselves.
"I think this is kind of the poster child" for competitive prototyping, said Dean Johnson, the JLTV deputy program manager and the Marine Corps' representative on the program. "Competition is a wonderful thing. It is the American way."
Three vendors are providing a series of prototype vehicles — BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and General Tactical Vehicles, which is a consortium of AM General and General Dynamics Land Systems.
Army and Marine Corps officials will run tests on the 21 variations of vehicles they have received, collect performance, protection and payload data, and then use what they learn to refine their requirements.
After that process is finished, there will be an open competition to select participants in the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. Two vendors will be selected for that contract. They may or may not be one of the three who provided the prototype vehicles.
"As we get those results from that testing, we'll feed that back into our requirements and say, 'OK, did we get it right? Or did we ask for a bridge too far in the requirements?'" said Army Lt. Col. Wolfgang Petermann, JLTV program manager.
"Contractors are helping us inform our requirements and then anybody can compete," he added.
"Competitive prototyping is working," Petermann told National Defense. All three manufacturers delivered their vehicles on time and on budget. "And we're meeting our performance requirements."
In one example, all three vehicles are exceeding the miles-per-gallon expectations. During the next phase, the program can raise the bar as far as fuel efficiency, Petermann said.
In a typical technology development phase, acquisition managers would be running tests on individual components. It has skipped ahead, and the program is now putting the vehicles through the paces as a system, he noted.
The buzzwords are "gaining knowledge" and "reducing risk."
The theory is that program managers are learning how much of the so-called iron triangle — performance, protection and payload — they can get out of the trucks. Forcing the manufacturers to use, reliable, proven technologies reduces the risk that new and untested components might insert into the program.
"Our requirement is mature technology," Petermann said. "What technology industry decides to bring, that is up to them. As long as you can meet all of our requirements, we won't direct them to a specific" component.
Whether the acquisition community and contractors believe that competitive prototyping is the future is currently not up for debate. It's the law of the land.
The Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act passed in 2009 requires that prototypes be produced for major weapons acquisition programs prior to Milestone B, which is the point where independent review boards must give a thumbs up or thumbs down to a program before it can proceed to the engineering and manufacturing development phase. The law allows the services to request waivers for some programs, though.
"We have gone a step further "¦ and taken a whole integrated system look so we can further reduce risk for the program as it goes into the EMD phase," Petermann said.
Don E. Howe, senior director of General Tactical Vehicles, said he has been through many acquisition programs as a vendor, but never anything like competitive prototyping.
"They don't want to spend a lot of time finding out that things can't be done," he said of the Army and Marine Corps.
The process has been open so far, he said.
"We have shared with them the good news, and we have shared with them the bad. Because when you are developing one of these products from scratch, trying to fit in all the different requirements, balance that iron triangle, it's tough sledding, let me tell you. The Army knows that and the Marine Corps knows that," he said.
Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems declined to be interviewed on the competitive prototyping process.
To facilitate communications, the program has an integrated product team for each vendor so they know who to go to when they have concerns and questions. Each team has a manager, a test and evaluation specialist, a command, control, communications, computer, intelligence (C4I) expert and a Marine Corps representative.
They report to the program manager what is and isn't working, and good ideas that can be shared with other teams. They can determine where one team might be struggling and let them know how the other two teams are approaching the problem. This also makes for better "firewalling," so proprietary information can be protected, said Chris Brouwer, C4I chief on the program.
Nancy Spruill, director of acquisition resources and analysis at the office of the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, that competitive prototyping in JLTV program is "already working."
"We are able to conduct more effective developmental testing, improve the design solution, and increase our confidence in the system cost estimates," she said in a hearing that investigated the first year of the acquisition reform act.
Key will be not overburdening the process with excessive reviews, she added. Prior to the EMD phase, one independent review must certify that the technologies in the JLTV program are mature enough to proceed.
"The lead time to design and deliver capability is already too long. As a result, we intend to ensure that process agility in not undermined with more 'checkers' than those being 'checked,'" she said.
Johnson said he has heard criticism that competitive prototyping may add time to the process. The current tests will last one year through May 2011. Using the data gathered, a new request for proposals will be issued in June 2011, and two vendors will be selected in December for the EMD phase. That will last two years. Officials hope to reach a Milestone C decision, where an independent review board makes a decision whether the trucks can enter full-rate production, in 2013. If JLTV passes that review, production would begin in 2015.
"Some would say that [competitive prototyping] adds time to the program length. I would argue that what you do on the front end saves you time on the back end," Johnson said.
The method has the endorsement of the Government Accountability Office. Michael Sullivan, director of acquisition and sourcing management at GAO, said requiring programs to invest more time and resources up front, refining concepts through early systems engineering, and developing technologies and prototypes before starting systems integration is in line with the good practices GAO has been recommending for years.
The wild card is interference, he warned.
Programs that have pursued "risky and unexecutable" acquisition strategies have won funding in the past. Such programs must be denied funding before they begin, he said.
"This will require sustained leadership from the secretary of defense, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and the military services and the cooperation of support of Congress," Sullivan said.
At this stage, competitive prototyping could be a misnomer, given that the program managers say that after the current phase, the competition will be opened up again to select two vehicles for the engineering phase. And the winners of that contract may or may not be one of the three testing their trucks.
How realistic is it that BAE, Lockheed Martin or General Tactical Vehicles will be bypassed for other manufacturers? There were four other teams who competed to take part in the technology development phase, but lost out. They could potentially step in.
"Anything is possible. I would never say never," said Nathaniel H. Sledge Jr., a retired Army colonel and former program manager.
"They're hedging their bets saying that they don't have to buy any of them. That's true," he continued. "But why would you go through all of this if you don't have an intention to eventually purchase one of these trucks? That would be an expensive science or research project."
If competitive prototyping in the technology development phase is only about refining requirements, then he questioned its value.
"If that's their sole reason, it's not sufficient because that's a waste of money," he said. "You can refine your requirements by collecting data in the field in war theaters." Operators can be asked what they think needs to be added to the next generation of vehicles.
"But you do find out the art of the possible when you do these tests because some of the guys in the field ask for things that may not be realistic," Sledge noted.
Competitive prototyping has been tried in the past, although the JLTV is the largest program to attempt it so far, he added.
At the end of the day, the process is supposed to be more efficient, and therefore, save taxpayers money.
However, there is a risk that the program may deliver a vehicle that has a per-unit cost that is too expensive. The Army intends to purchase roughly 55,000 vehicles, although that number is still being debated within the service. The Marine Corps' number has been steady at 5,500. The prototypes delivered more closely resemble the mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles that were rushed into the field during the Iraq war, than the humvees they are intended to replace. The MRAPs provided the protection needed, but were expensive, with some models costing as much as $800,000. Up-armored humvees are in the $150,000 range.
We are "evolving it into something that is achievable, affordable, and in the end gives us a balance between all the requirements that we are trying to trade against one another," said Johnson.
However, how much capability the two services want to spend on each vehicle is for them to decide, he added.
"We're really trying to make this program affordable "¦ but we don't in the program office make those trades," Johnson said. JLTV program managers inform the Marine Corps and Army how much it will cost to add a certain feature. It will be up to their "customers" on how much they want to pay.
Sullivan warned House members that this has been a pitfall in the past. The Pentagon has taken steps to improve its rigor in providing reliable cost estimates, but "more independence, methodical rigor, and better information about risk areas like technology will make estimates more realistic," he said.
However, "realism is compromised as the competition for funding encourages programs to appear more affordable," he added.
Program officials hope to also save some development funding through an international partnership. Australia has chipped in and additional $30 million and contributed three personnel to the current development phase.
The Australian government is on its own fact-finding mission, explained Lt. Col. Robin Petersen, one of the three staff members sent over.
Australia entered the program to seek data, schedule and cost estimates. Like the Defense Department, there has been no decision whether it will proceed with the program. And like the U.S government, there is no commitment to buy any of the vehicles from the three vendors.
"We came up with very similar requirements ... that's why we looked at what the U.S. is doing," he said.
"We are fighting the same fights. We are encountering the same threats and facing the same issues that the U.S Army faces in terms of the JTLV program," he added. The Australian army uses C-130s, and CH-47Fs as well, so has the same mobility requirements.
There are political sensitivities as far as buying from foreign manufacturers, he said. He named three manufacturers capable of doing the work in Australia, all of them subsidiaries of international vehicle manufacturers.
"Australian taxpayers are also very sensitive to where they spend Australian money," Petersen said.
After the current testing phase is finished, there will be a decision as to whether the Australian armed forces want to continue in the cooperative agreement, or go its own way.
Australia will receive seven right-hand drive prototypes from the three vendors, which will be shipped to proving grounds in that nation. They will perform about 15,000 miles of testing there, and that data will be shared with the U.S. program. JLTV program managers can use the three personnel however they see fit, Petersen said.
Johnson said the process is working.
"I've been in the business for a long time. And it is working. It is working for us and we will press forward into a fairly low risk EMD phase," he said.
Source
ABERDEEN TEST CENTER, Md. — Program managers for the $60 million joint Army-Marine Corps program to build a new vehicle to replace the aging humvee rolled out three new prototypes here recently and put them through the paces on a hilly test track in the Maryland woods.
But it was more than a debut for the hopeful joint light tactical vehicle vendors. The trucks were high-profile examples of the competitive prototyping movement, a congressionally mandated method of acquiring technology that proponents say will reduce cost overruns and lessen the risk of failure for military hardware development programs.
It could be another five years before the JLTV vehicles begin to be produced in large quantities, and competitive prototyping — at least for trucks — is proven to be a success or not. Observers are wondering if this is truly a solution to the Defense Department's well-known acquisition woes, or if it's just a flavor of the month. There are also concerns that the per-unit cost of the trucks will be too high.
Meanwhile, JLTV program managers said the new strategy is working well so far. They are aware that the process for the way the trucks are being developed is being watched as closely as the vehicles themselves.
"I think this is kind of the poster child" for competitive prototyping, said Dean Johnson, the JLTV deputy program manager and the Marine Corps' representative on the program. "Competition is a wonderful thing. It is the American way."
Three vendors are providing a series of prototype vehicles — BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and General Tactical Vehicles, which is a consortium of AM General and General Dynamics Land Systems.
Army and Marine Corps officials will run tests on the 21 variations of vehicles they have received, collect performance, protection and payload data, and then use what they learn to refine their requirements.
After that process is finished, there will be an open competition to select participants in the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. Two vendors will be selected for that contract. They may or may not be one of the three who provided the prototype vehicles.
"As we get those results from that testing, we'll feed that back into our requirements and say, 'OK, did we get it right? Or did we ask for a bridge too far in the requirements?'" said Army Lt. Col. Wolfgang Petermann, JLTV program manager.
"Contractors are helping us inform our requirements and then anybody can compete," he added.
"Competitive prototyping is working," Petermann told National Defense. All three manufacturers delivered their vehicles on time and on budget. "And we're meeting our performance requirements."
In one example, all three vehicles are exceeding the miles-per-gallon expectations. During the next phase, the program can raise the bar as far as fuel efficiency, Petermann said.
In a typical technology development phase, acquisition managers would be running tests on individual components. It has skipped ahead, and the program is now putting the vehicles through the paces as a system, he noted.
The buzzwords are "gaining knowledge" and "reducing risk."
The theory is that program managers are learning how much of the so-called iron triangle — performance, protection and payload — they can get out of the trucks. Forcing the manufacturers to use, reliable, proven technologies reduces the risk that new and untested components might insert into the program.
"Our requirement is mature technology," Petermann said. "What technology industry decides to bring, that is up to them. As long as you can meet all of our requirements, we won't direct them to a specific" component.
Whether the acquisition community and contractors believe that competitive prototyping is the future is currently not up for debate. It's the law of the land.
The Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act passed in 2009 requires that prototypes be produced for major weapons acquisition programs prior to Milestone B, which is the point where independent review boards must give a thumbs up or thumbs down to a program before it can proceed to the engineering and manufacturing development phase. The law allows the services to request waivers for some programs, though.
"We have gone a step further "¦ and taken a whole integrated system look so we can further reduce risk for the program as it goes into the EMD phase," Petermann said.
Don E. Howe, senior director of General Tactical Vehicles, said he has been through many acquisition programs as a vendor, but never anything like competitive prototyping.
"They don't want to spend a lot of time finding out that things can't be done," he said of the Army and Marine Corps.
The process has been open so far, he said.
"We have shared with them the good news, and we have shared with them the bad. Because when you are developing one of these products from scratch, trying to fit in all the different requirements, balance that iron triangle, it's tough sledding, let me tell you. The Army knows that and the Marine Corps knows that," he said.
Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems declined to be interviewed on the competitive prototyping process.
To facilitate communications, the program has an integrated product team for each vendor so they know who to go to when they have concerns and questions. Each team has a manager, a test and evaluation specialist, a command, control, communications, computer, intelligence (C4I) expert and a Marine Corps representative.
They report to the program manager what is and isn't working, and good ideas that can be shared with other teams. They can determine where one team might be struggling and let them know how the other two teams are approaching the problem. This also makes for better "firewalling," so proprietary information can be protected, said Chris Brouwer, C4I chief on the program.
Nancy Spruill, director of acquisition resources and analysis at the office of the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, that competitive prototyping in JLTV program is "already working."
"We are able to conduct more effective developmental testing, improve the design solution, and increase our confidence in the system cost estimates," she said in a hearing that investigated the first year of the acquisition reform act.
Key will be not overburdening the process with excessive reviews, she added. Prior to the EMD phase, one independent review must certify that the technologies in the JLTV program are mature enough to proceed.
"The lead time to design and deliver capability is already too long. As a result, we intend to ensure that process agility in not undermined with more 'checkers' than those being 'checked,'" she said.
Johnson said he has heard criticism that competitive prototyping may add time to the process. The current tests will last one year through May 2011. Using the data gathered, a new request for proposals will be issued in June 2011, and two vendors will be selected in December for the EMD phase. That will last two years. Officials hope to reach a Milestone C decision, where an independent review board makes a decision whether the trucks can enter full-rate production, in 2013. If JLTV passes that review, production would begin in 2015.
"Some would say that [competitive prototyping] adds time to the program length. I would argue that what you do on the front end saves you time on the back end," Johnson said.
The method has the endorsement of the Government Accountability Office. Michael Sullivan, director of acquisition and sourcing management at GAO, said requiring programs to invest more time and resources up front, refining concepts through early systems engineering, and developing technologies and prototypes before starting systems integration is in line with the good practices GAO has been recommending for years.
The wild card is interference, he warned.
Programs that have pursued "risky and unexecutable" acquisition strategies have won funding in the past. Such programs must be denied funding before they begin, he said.
"This will require sustained leadership from the secretary of defense, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and the military services and the cooperation of support of Congress," Sullivan said.
At this stage, competitive prototyping could be a misnomer, given that the program managers say that after the current phase, the competition will be opened up again to select two vehicles for the engineering phase. And the winners of that contract may or may not be one of the three testing their trucks.
How realistic is it that BAE, Lockheed Martin or General Tactical Vehicles will be bypassed for other manufacturers? There were four other teams who competed to take part in the technology development phase, but lost out. They could potentially step in.
"Anything is possible. I would never say never," said Nathaniel H. Sledge Jr., a retired Army colonel and former program manager.
"They're hedging their bets saying that they don't have to buy any of them. That's true," he continued. "But why would you go through all of this if you don't have an intention to eventually purchase one of these trucks? That would be an expensive science or research project."
If competitive prototyping in the technology development phase is only about refining requirements, then he questioned its value.
"If that's their sole reason, it's not sufficient because that's a waste of money," he said. "You can refine your requirements by collecting data in the field in war theaters." Operators can be asked what they think needs to be added to the next generation of vehicles.
"But you do find out the art of the possible when you do these tests because some of the guys in the field ask for things that may not be realistic," Sledge noted.
Competitive prototyping has been tried in the past, although the JLTV is the largest program to attempt it so far, he added.
At the end of the day, the process is supposed to be more efficient, and therefore, save taxpayers money.
However, there is a risk that the program may deliver a vehicle that has a per-unit cost that is too expensive. The Army intends to purchase roughly 55,000 vehicles, although that number is still being debated within the service. The Marine Corps' number has been steady at 5,500. The prototypes delivered more closely resemble the mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles that were rushed into the field during the Iraq war, than the humvees they are intended to replace. The MRAPs provided the protection needed, but were expensive, with some models costing as much as $800,000. Up-armored humvees are in the $150,000 range.
We are "evolving it into something that is achievable, affordable, and in the end gives us a balance between all the requirements that we are trying to trade against one another," said Johnson.
However, how much capability the two services want to spend on each vehicle is for them to decide, he added.
"We're really trying to make this program affordable "¦ but we don't in the program office make those trades," Johnson said. JLTV program managers inform the Marine Corps and Army how much it will cost to add a certain feature. It will be up to their "customers" on how much they want to pay.
Sullivan warned House members that this has been a pitfall in the past. The Pentagon has taken steps to improve its rigor in providing reliable cost estimates, but "more independence, methodical rigor, and better information about risk areas like technology will make estimates more realistic," he said.
However, "realism is compromised as the competition for funding encourages programs to appear more affordable," he added.
Program officials hope to also save some development funding through an international partnership. Australia has chipped in and additional $30 million and contributed three personnel to the current development phase.
The Australian government is on its own fact-finding mission, explained Lt. Col. Robin Petersen, one of the three staff members sent over.
Australia entered the program to seek data, schedule and cost estimates. Like the Defense Department, there has been no decision whether it will proceed with the program. And like the U.S government, there is no commitment to buy any of the vehicles from the three vendors.
"We came up with very similar requirements ... that's why we looked at what the U.S. is doing," he said.
"We are fighting the same fights. We are encountering the same threats and facing the same issues that the U.S Army faces in terms of the JTLV program," he added. The Australian army uses C-130s, and CH-47Fs as well, so has the same mobility requirements.
There are political sensitivities as far as buying from foreign manufacturers, he said. He named three manufacturers capable of doing the work in Australia, all of them subsidiaries of international vehicle manufacturers.
"Australian taxpayers are also very sensitive to where they spend Australian money," Petersen said.
After the current testing phase is finished, there will be a decision as to whether the Australian armed forces want to continue in the cooperative agreement, or go its own way.
Australia will receive seven right-hand drive prototypes from the three vendors, which will be shipped to proving grounds in that nation. They will perform about 15,000 miles of testing there, and that data will be shared with the U.S. program. JLTV program managers can use the three personnel however they see fit, Petersen said.
Johnson said the process is working.
"I've been in the business for a long time. And it is working. It is working for us and we will press forward into a fairly low risk EMD phase," he said.
Source
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
Sorry India, the US Senate appropriations committee is killing the JLTV programme.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 5,842
- Likes
- 1,837
This is a very old thread, i dont see why we need the JLTV when we can make our own? Why this craziness of foreign vendor addiction?
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,809
- Likes
- 4,619
It is in our* psyche to get foreign approval.
Slave mentality at its finest.
* By our i mean majority of people in India not all.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,662
- Likes
- 526
Actually, JLTV development has been going on in India for 10 years or so - cue Mahindra and Tata. But the IA has found that Indian automakers still do not have the quality of steel and armor for a JLTV. Hence trying to buy from Abroad.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
Yeah, well I think it is good news for India so they can try and go indigenous. There is no reason they can't make these vehicles even if they have to import a couple pieces.
