Talk:Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program

Who's in the running?

I've tried to establish a list of the JLTV candidates based on various news sources and press releases. There is some conflicting information though and I'd be grateful for any additional clarifying information and sources. These are my unanswered questions: Is Force Protection in with GD and AMGeneral or are they going alone with the Cheetah? Is the Textron/Boeing/Millenworks teaming definitely a 3-way? Is Lockheed still in with Armor Holdings now that AH is part of BAE? Is Plasan in with Navistar as they were with the MRAP? Is the CTV a candidate or a government research project? Are there any other players? Dino246 (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

General Dynamics Corp. and Humvee maker AM General is one team. Lockheed Martin Corp. and Armor Holdings; and BAE Systems and Navistar International Corp are now the other two. The funny thing is that BAE owns most of Armor Holdings, so they will make out either way unless GD and AM General win. Twix2247 (talk) 23:01, 29 Ocotber 2008 (UTC)

I have no sources but It seems as though The CTV is a research project. I saw videos talking about the CTV as having the best of alot of JLTVs. And I'v seen photos of them with backgrounds that seems like Afghanistan. Have you seen the videos on the vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozzycovers (talk • contribs) 07:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

JLTV IS BACK ON, YO

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c836b09bfcd2f60e3c24420bd84753e6&tab=core&_cview=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodd56 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Status

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME IF THIS THING HAS BEEN CANCELLED OR NOT?! Sorry for the demand, I just would like to know if our wise Congress has cancelled this thing or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.120.60 (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oshkosh won contract https://news.yahoo.com/oshkosh-build-humvee-replacement-u-military-sources-211430670--finance.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.85.236 (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions

User:America789, can you clarify this sentence you just added? "How many light vehicles that will need to be reduced are still being determined, but they are hoped to direct the effects to the existing Humvee fleet." Thanks - thewolfchild 05:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The military is being required to reduce the number of light vehicles in its fleet due to cuts. Officials are hoping to reduce Humvee numbers instead of planned JLTV numbers. I reworded the text to make it more understandable. America789 (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - thewolfchild 02:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Fnlayson, I noticed you removed a "line break" from my last edit. It looked completely normal on my pc. Can I ask what screen size/resolution you're using? Obviously you noticed it, I just find that kinda' weird. Thanks - thewolfchild 05:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. I just checked the diff of your edit and there was a line break added in the middle of a sentence. So I simply removed it. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't leave a break intentionally, it appears to occur because of the length of the attached ref. It looked normal when I saved it.

Weird. Oh well... - thewolfchild 02:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's minor. That has happened to me sometimes when pasting the title of an article into a ref. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Now we have a winner...

I've been looking at the image gallery in the JLTV article, and I think most that know anything about the JLTV program will agree it's pretty poor, representing only some of the numerous competitors throughout JLTV's various stages. Now there's a winner (subject to inevitable protests), I'd propose a couple of changes. I opt to talk about these before just doing them, as unlike some Wiki articles, JLTV is well-viewed, well-maintained, and by generally well-informed folk. So... The obvious options in my mind would be... 1)Populate the Gallery with images of all competitors offerings from all stages of the competition... Probably not possible, would result in a sizeable Gallery, but I'll give it a go if that's what the majority go for... 2) Populate the gallery with two or three L-ATV variant images (now the JLTV), complimenting these with images of the 2 competitors from only the final stage (AM Gen's BRV-O and LM's JLTV). Irrespective of which way it goes, I'm sure we'll all agree, the current mismatched handful of random images do not match favorably the quality of the text. As a relatively new Ed, I'm not sure how long these things should stay open for discussion, but given 12:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC) the high-profile of JLTV right now, would 21 days be enough??Wolpat (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is much too long to need a gallery. Galleries are best used for short articles where there is not enough room for multiple images. See MoS section WP:Gallery for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your personal thoughts on what to do with what currently exists?Wolpat (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

JILTVEE??

I reverted this one-off edit as it was unexplained and uncited. I Googled before I reverted and can find no real evidence this term is generally used. In fact, Google delivered just 7 results, 2 of those from Wikipedia! As time progresses the term may become used (or may not), but for now, I suggest it is purely speculative (and gimmicky) and in use by the odd person, so not really suited for inclusion. I suspect there will be a Wiki policy that covers this type of thing, but that's for those more versed in Wiki than I should this topic ever become a more in-depth conversation...Wolpat (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Delivery orders under ID/IQ contract awards

User:Fnlayson, I note you reverted part of my recent edits, and specifically those related to the recently placed JLTV delivery order. Rather than just re-revert (which I think would be annoying and unhelpful) I thought I'd Talk first, and see where we get to. Firstly, I'd like to say I'm not sure we shouldn't include something that is technically correct in encyclopedic content just because it may be confusing. If it's correct it's correct, confusing or otherwise. In this case though, I don't think it is confusing, but that's just an opinion and I accept one that could be clouded by my subject knowledge. But to clarify and support my reasoning for inclusion of the term delivery order as opposed to just order..., when TACOM places such an order under a contract of JLTV's type it is awarded as a 'delivery order' and not simply an order; it's contract-speak, and may even be legalese I'm not sure (but could check if needed). It is a delivery order under a previously awarded contract, and usually an ID/IQ contract. The current JLTV award allows for up to 16,901 JLTVs over a base and eight contract years. When re-cycled in mass media (which has limited knowledge of such things) by staffers who will tomorrow could be writing about sugar in donuts not JLTVs, the term order is often used instead of delivery order, and worse still, all too often you will read of delivery orders under contracts being called contracts themselves... If you've the time or interest, pop TACOM Delivery Order FMTV in to Google and you'll see the contractual term delivery order pop up regularly in valid sources. I used FMTV as numerous delivery orders have been placed, while for JLTV there's just the one so far. All of that said/read, if you don't agree we should revert to the delivery order terminology, given the time & effort I've put into getting JLTV as accurate as possible I'm happy to take time out for a Wiki-wide debate on the subject in any style the system demands. Look forward to your comments.Wolpat (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the post, Wolpat. I couldn't figure out what type of order does not involve delivery. I don't remember seeing 'delivery order' in aerospace and defense media articles. I think it would be better to use more general wording for a wide range of readers. Is a delivery order for vehicles for combat use/operational use (as opposed to test use)? Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Hello User:Fnlayson and thanks for the quick and polite response. You are correct with your opening sentence, of course... No order doesn't involve the delivery of something! However, it took me a while but I did some digging and have found something written (in relation to Oshkosh's FMTV contract; as close as I could get) to explain where/how the term Delivery Order fits in ( http://government-contracts.insidegov.com/l/8546614/W56HZV09D0159 ). While it doesn't actually state it to be legalese, it says while explaining the type of contract won by the contractor (a Delivery Order) that a Delivery Order is: An order for supplies placed against an established indefinite delivery contract. In this case W56HZV09D0159, the FMTV ID/IQ contract. Sometimes Indefinite Delivery contracts can be, or can be presented as, ID/IQ Delivery/Quantity. JLTV is an indefinite delivery contract, and those first vehicles ordered are the first order 'for supplies placed against an established indefinite delivery contract'. As I mention in my previous post, the accuracy of reporting (and lack of understanding of terms I'm sure) often dilute the accuracy of use of Delivery Order, but in this case it is technically accurate to refer to the orders under JLTV as Delivery Orders. To clarify a little, contracts for JLTVs EMD phase etc. were entirely different entities, and other contracts can be placed for additional JLTV work if required. I can only assume that for aerospace (if a DoD contract) delivery orders would also be placed against established indefinite delivery contracts. With that all said, I should probably conclude with my thoughts; I continue to think we should use delivery order (even if in one instance we explain what a Delivery Order is), as it is technically correct and I'm sure we would both like Wiki to be as accurate as possible.Wolpat (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

JLTV M-designators

Hello User:Fnlayson, after I post this Talk I will revert your earlier revert of my JLTV variant update. Rather than just revert without explanation, I thought I'd take a few moments out to hopefully explain why I've done this.

Compared to other vehicles, the US Army has adopted a slightly different system regarding variant designations and M-numbers/designators with JLTV, and maybe because previously things have become rather convoluted over time. However, I do agree right now JLTV designations themselves appear rather convoluted. Well, that is until you really sit down and look at them. Then they do make sense, even if at first, second or even third read they appear to just repeat themselves...

Right now there are four JLTV variants assigned M-numbers/designators. There will almost certainly be more in the future. The four JLTV variants assigned M-numbers/designators are the M1278, M1279, M1280 and M1281. Sadly their allocation follows no logical system, so compounding confusion...

So... there are currently three base variants of the JLTV, a two-door and two four-door designs. The two-door base variant is designated Utility and the 4-door base variants are designated General Purpose and Close Combat Weapons Carrier. There could be more base variants in the future. Importantly, M-numbers/designators are not allocated to base variants.

M-numbers/designators are in fact allocated to Mission Package Configurations when these are applied/fitted to the base variant. The confusion creeps in when it is seen that a base variant can be fitted with a Mission Package Configuration of the same name. In fact, all three current base variants (Utility/General Purpose/Close Combat Weapons Carrier) are fitted with Mission Package Configurations of the same name. By way of specific example, the General Purpose base variant is fitted with the General Purpose Mission Package Configuration, to then be allocated the M-number/designator of M1280 General Purpose JLTV (JLTV-GP). So to correctly present the US Army's designation and variant/configuration structure of the M1280 JLTV you would use General Purpose 3 times... It is the M1280 JLTV General Purpose (JLTV-GP) which is based on the General Purpose base variant fitted with the General Purpose Mission Package Configuration.

The one exception right now is the M1278. The M1278 has the Heavy Guns Carrier Mission Package Configuration applied/fitted to the General Purpose base variant. The General Purpose base variant is currently the only variant with more than a self-named Mission Package Configuration.

I hope that explains the reasoning behind my revert, and hopefully you'll now see it is required for technical accuracy, no matter how daft it may at first appear. I'm going to read my explanatory text on the JLTV page again, and if I think I can make things any clearer in text, I will make some changes.--Wolpat (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The labeling/formatting of these entries in the article is vague and confusing. There needs to be a clear break between the designation/name and description text. I'm not going to bother any more. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Fnlayson, I'll re-read it all over the weekend and see if I can make it any clearer. I'm sure I can do something if I put my mind to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Recommend deleting paragraph about the polyfibroblast paint

This seems like an oddball paragraph. Its about paint that could be applied to any vehicle. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the JLTV specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweerek (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Type

"Light tactical vehicle" is not a type, it's a description. In No amount of Googling can I find anything other than the JLTV referred to as a light tactical vehicle. A type by definition would have other things in it. A type is "a number of things or persons sharing a particular characteristic, or set of characteristics, that causes them to be regarded as a group." For example, the Light Armoured Vehicle 3 isn't "Type: Light Armoured Vehicle", it's "type: Infantry Fighting Vehicle."

It's like if I asked, "What kind is it?" and User:FNlayson answered "The kind it is." That's some stoner logic right there.

The JLTV is an armoured personnel carrier. It's a specific type of armoured personnel carrier, the same kind an MRAP is. But it's not an MRAP, since MRAPs are a different United States military program. The closest thing that fits the definition is infantry mobility vehicle, but more broadly it's an APC. Agerward (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Light Tactical Vehicle is commonly used in the defence industry. It was a useless descriptor as was so I created a page for it. Hopefully the article will get approved and expanded. Draft:Light Tactical Vehicle Agerward (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Oshkosh L-ATV which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)