All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)

[Firn]

After operating in them almost exclusively for the past four months (to my chagrin since I so do miss an LAV), I have gained a greater appreciation for the M-ATV, but also higher frustration with the procurement program.

Here are some issues I have with the platform:

-Visibility forward of the driver and vehicle commander sucks because of the size, and angle of the thick windows. The side windows are even worse, and only allow a passenger to peek out and see what is directly abreast of the vehicle. No way to conduct a "5 and 25" check of the ground without opening the suicide door. I know this limitation has to do with the blast resistance, but c'mon, can the engineering design take into account some functionality requirements too?

-There is no IR flood lamp on the vehicle. IR lamps have prooved indispensible on about every tactical vehicle we already use, because it facilitates the use of night vision devices, so why nothing on the M-ATV as a basic piece of equipment? The driver has a driver's viewer enhancer (DVE) that matches the thermal devices employed on tanks and LAVs to allow drivers to drive in all light conditions, but the vehicle commander does not have a similar capability. That means that under zero moonlight situations, it is very difficult to see through the thick windows, and try to guide a driver using a blackout drive light only.

-There are no AC electrical outlets in the vehicle. MRAPs have them, but the M-ATV is oddly left out. It is almost as if Oshkosh is saying, "well gents, we don't have that option on this model, but if you take the hallway past custromer service and go to our custom shop, you should be able to find that add-on." Huh? Was anyone at Oshkosh looking at how we employ massive amounts of devices (biometric, battery chargers, laptops, etc.) in the current environment?

It's like we went forward and back at the same time, and it is just so odd that these basic things are absent.

The last part seems to be typical for organizations, projects and humans in general. Something can be seen widely as basic and logic, but that doesn't mean that the project addresses and includes that.

Said that I really wonder why Power take-offs are not more often found in military vehicles. Electric "PTOs" really should be standard with all that electronic stuff you have to power, especially as it so easy to provide. You have already a generator and a big battery in your vehicle powering all sorts of things, so why shoud you not make that energy source available by a simple standard outlet?

Hydraulic PTOs should also be standard for light and medium trucks, as it adds just little in cost and weight but gives potentially very wide utility for each vehicle with a very wide array of COTS available. With every member of that (transport) truck familiy provided like that you have at little cost a lot of redundancy.

On a side note: Independent suspensions have become better and better and although they will never match a live axle for simplicity and for specific uses like extreme rock crawling they are rightly becoming more popular even for offroad use. There are very rugged and proven designs, from the swing axle of the Kuebelwagens, Tatras and Steyrs to the more modern incarnations. Nowadays actively managed suspensions can greatly adjust their response automatically and according to the input of the driver, although it remains to be seen how they perform under difficult situations in the field.

Certainly for advancing at a moderate or rapid pace over bad roads or riverbeds an IS is the much more comfortable and less fatiguing option.