Comments by "Stan Wagner" (@Buck123four) on "Defense News" channel.

  1. IRT Protection, you won't read in a public forum its capabilities, for obvious reasons. / This is a DEMO film, not a film of the 200,000 + miles it was tested in MD, AZ, or AL, or of the individual performance tests it underwent (air drop, fording, side slope, cornering, lane changes at speed, etc.). It also underwent an Operational Test in the desert, with an Army unit. They had some (trivial) recommendations, & some items were added; a muffler, a front-facing camera, storage compartments were ruggedized. / Has been fielded for well over two years, & program managers et al are constantly looking for areas that need improvement. Overall, not bad for the DoDs first shot at an armored truck with significant off-road capability, towing up to 11,000 pounds, with 10Kw onboard / 10Kw exportable power.
    3
  2. Yep...wasn't even close. OTC rocked w/ this program.
    2
  3. Superb vehicle & well managed program. Sure hope it isn't viewed as the "bill payer" for all the Buck Rogers Toys Du Jour. Not many Soldiers bleeding / dying these days, & that usually results in programs that protect Soldiers & Marines taking budget cuts.
    2
  4. I remember seeing T-shirts in Vienna Austria with a kangaroo on it, with a circle around it & a stripe thru the kangaroo. Mebbe someone needs this T-shirt?
    2
  5. Two weeks of training for mechanics.
    2
  6.  @dannykh22asirify  T&P is a bunch of BS artists who exaggerate things just to do something. They have ZERO journalistic morals. The rollover at Stewart was DRIVER ERROR. The vehicle that rolled was operating a few hours later.
    2
  7.  @dannykh22asirify  That vehicle at FT Stewart rolled over cuz it got ran off the road. And it was back operationally the same day. T&P & the other "military" media suck at telling the truth.
    2
  8. This is just a demo film. Testing was conducted around the US, from Arizona to Maryland to Alaska, varied terrain all around.
    2
  9.  @scottlutzke2323  Yes. NET ready; 10Kw onboard power; 10Kw exportable power; more than adequate ballistic protection; off road will run circles around HMMWV; survivable in rollovers; mounts all current MG & RWS; etc. Not perfect, but given mandates from VCSA ~10 years ago, it is ready. A bit cramped, but all blemishes aside, I'd have preferred it in Mog 2 decades ago over HMMWV / uparmored HMMWV (which didn't exist in today's form). (And MDO is about 99% renaming existing "stuff," but gives the go's sumthin harmless to do.)
    2
  10.  @TaftCastle  EVERY requirement was vetted w/ USA, USMC, Joint Staff, word by word, line by line. Every one.
    2
  11.  @TaftCastle  ALL wars; protection, mobility C4ISR capable. SECARMY runs off at mouth - time for him to go back to private industry & BS folks there.
    2
  12. JLTV is NOT a MATV, same company, JLTV has much better reliability & off road mobility. Much better.
    1
  13.  @iamtheonlywilly  Was tested at Yuma & 29 Palms & Alaska, etc. All environments, all temps.
    1
  14. Thats a promo video...NOT testing.
    1
  15. There are over 2,000,000 on the road...
    1
  16. Thats the DoD standard. Fuel tankers abound...
    1
  17. You need not wonder.
    1
  18. No more exposed than HMMWV was, or any other military truck. Protecting the crew is the intent. Any hit in the engine area can disable any vehicle.
    1
  19. Ya might mean MRAP-ATV? JLTV looks like a scaled down truck that looks similar to MATV.
    1
  20. Mufflers have been added, even though there are plenty of Army ground vehicles that are nosier.
    1
  21.  @shonuffisthemaster  Oshkosh chose the engine. And...there are way over 2,000,000 duramax engines out there.
    1
  22.  @shonuffisthemaster  The Duramax's were modified by Gail Banks, supposedly an expert on engines. The choice of engines was Oshkosh's, NOT DoD. (If DoD directs an item, they are responsible for all outcomes...something that isn't good.) Cost was definitely a factor is this entire program, so that may have been a factor. But I agree Detroit Diesel, Cummins, etc. make some tremendous engines, especially for marine (boat) applications. But we shall see how they hold up - but with over 2,000,000 Duramax engines on the road, then mebbe are doing something right. Thx.
    1
  23.  @shonuffisthemaster  Oshkosh chose the engine...not the govt.
    1
  24. BIG issues! VERY big issues. Solutions were to add a muffler; make back windows bigger; and add a small camera to the front grill. Thats about it for the GAO "problems." GAO makes mountains out of mole specks...they do that well, but nothing else. JLTV is the STUDLIEST light wheeled vehicle the Army & Marines have ever had.
    1
  25. Major problems? Fixes were bigger rear windows, a front camera, and a muffler. Daily News & others don't know their head from a sandwich...but they have to print something. Even if its BS.
    1
  26. Test results = ~8,000 miles between breakdowns. HMMWV = 4X less.
    1
  27.  @paulwilliams8555  It wasn't totalled. Rolled away AOK. Ya can roll ANYTHING if ya try... did it to FMTVs 6 months after fielding. But JLTV occupants will survive, if seatbelts are on.
    1
  28. One can roll anything. Anything. Thats why the training for this vehicle is about 2 weeks long.
    1
  29.  @dannykh22asirify  One was rolled. but NOT totaled. Was running a few hours later. (Driver error was the cause of mishap.)
    1
  30. It underwent lots of blast testing. Lots.
    1
  31. Was tested in Alaska - no major issues.
    1
  32. NO foreign competitor ever expressed interest in making JLTV; MANY countries want to buy them. That is a fact.
    1
  33. If ya ever seen anyone who was blown into the air by a bomb / IED you might have a different opinion. JLTVs are the way of the future for light wheeled vehicles that can go off-road in all military operations. They can shoot, move, & communicate.
    1
  34. Thats why the CSA, Cmdt of USMC, & Vice Chairman JCS approved JLTV. They are all stupid.
    1
  35. The GAO is typically wrong. Their "auditors" are often 1 year outta college w/ BS's in Sociology or some such degree. Check out what the USMC is doing with JLTV... making them ship-killing platforms, among other things.
    1
  36. The Houthis will be smoldering in their graves, if the buzzards don't get them first.
    1
  37. What makes you say that? The 'official' who said that doesn't know what he is talking about...just talk & talk, when not flying around shaking peoples hands.
    1
  38. It was never designed to fire a 30MM, though it could if necessary.
    1
  39.  @raymondhollingsworth3643  The 30MM was NEVER listed as an approved requirement in the JLTV source document, called a CPD. Just cuz SF or Finance or AG has something listed in their INTERNAL documents, if it never made it to the JLTV CPD its NOT a JLTV requirement.
    1
  40. A couple hundred thousand miles of testing in all terrain & climate types has likely identified most - if not all - items likely to fail.
    1
  41. Its a demo film...thats NOT the test course. Tested in Alaska, Arizona, & Maryland...about 200,000 miles.
    1
  42. Yes. DoD didn't ask for them but OTC put them in anyways.
    1
  43. There is now a front facing camera.
    1
  44. USMC & Army versions are same basic vehicle. USMC initially was gonna buy 5,000...its now up to 15,000.
    1
  45. Its a demo film...NOT a test course. 200,000 miles of testing, varied terrain, Alaska, Arizona, Maryland.
    1
  46. Can mount any wpn that goes on a HMMWV. Remote wpns stations have been mounted by some foreign countries that are buying the JLTV.
    1