TriShield

BAE Systems-Led Team to Submit Proposal for JLTV EMD Phase



Valanx to be powered by Ford's class-leading PowerStroke® diesel engine

ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--BAE Systems, along with teammates Northrop Grumman and Meritor Defense, announced today that they plan to submit tomorrow a proposal for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program.

"Our JLTVs are protected and survivable, light enough for transport by air or sea, and agile on road and off. Most importantly, they are affordable. This is truly a vehicle that is going to meet the needs of our service men and women."

"We kept the best from the Technology Development phase and applied it to our EMD vehicles, and we've made refinements to perform even better," said Glenn Lamartin, BAE Systems JLTV Capture Lead. "Our JLTVs are protected and survivable, light enough for transport by air or sea, and agile on road and off. Most importantly, they are affordable. This is truly a vehicle that is going to meet the needs of our service men and women."

As part of its proposal, BAE Systems is proud to announce the selection of a Ford Motor Company engine to power our JLTV family of vehicles-the Power Stroke® 6.7 liter turbocharged diesel with class-leading fuel economy and the best horsepower and torque of any engine in its class. This is the same engine Ford designed, engineered, and built to power its F-Series Super Duty® trucks.

"We have worked hard over the last year to strengthen our team and our offer, bringing together the best of the defense and automotive industries," said Ann Hoholick, BAE Systems Vice President of Amphibious & New Programs. "Ford products have a reputation for dependability and performance, even under challenging conditions. With their experience in commercial trucks, we see this as a great fit for our JLTV offer. It's a win for us and a win for our valued customers."

The government plans to award up to three EMD contracts in June of this year. The EMD phase of the JLTV program entails the delivery of 22 prototype vehicles and other equipment for testing, and it brings the U.S. Army and Marine Corps closer to a final vehicle to support and benefit our warfighters.

About Meritor Defense

Meritor, Inc. is a leading global supplier of drivetrain, mobility, braking and aftermarket solutions for commercial vehicle and industrial markets. With more than a 100-year legacy of providing innovative products that offer superior performance, efficiency and reliability, the company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, defense, specialty and aftermarket customers in more than 70 countries. Meritor is based in Troy, Mich., United States, and is made up of more than 10,000 diverse employees who apply their knowledge and skills in manufacturing facilities, engineering centers, joint ventures, distribution centers and global offices in 19 countries.

About Northrop Grumman Corporation

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

TriShield

Ford is not a partner with the group but did provide a statement yesterday.

"We're proud of Ford's 6.7-liter Power Stroke V8 diesel engines and their best-in-class power, durability and fuel economy," said Ford spokesman Mike Levine. "And we are proud the engines were chosen to be part of BAE's JLTV entry."

ElkySS

iTrader: (6)

wanna guess how we are gonna lose the next war?

726.0chevelle

iTrader: (17)

how hard will it be to change head studs in the desert?

BanditTA

iTrader: (3)

Fuel economy and power yes, reliability no - dumb move.

93M6Formula

Class leading powerstroke.......HA!

ChaseSS

iTrader: (17)

exactly what I was thinking, but they still have to win the contract first

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

holy crap what a dumb move.

Heater

Don't know if you guys know or not; but the 6.7 Power Stroke is not made by International and is a totally different designed engine by Ford.


IMO, I would of thought that the Cummin's would of been the first choice.

93M6Formula

Oh i know that and I honestly think that's half the problem. It hasn't been out long enough IMO to be proven for use like this whereas the Duramax and the Cummins have had plenty of time on the road and extreme conditions.

I'm not being a Nutswinger it's just my opinion.

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

depends, we fighting to win?

SSCamaro99_3

iTrader: (1)

Exactly what I was thinking. How does 2 model years tell us anything about reliability. The Duramax has been on the road since 01. Most of the bugs should be ironed out, same with the Cummins.

beerwhiskeyjoe

Yall are concerned about Ford's reliability? Have any of you ever worked on the GM built piece of crap the military is using now? Don't even get me started on the complete lack of any sort of reliability in the current HMMWV.. like that crap 5.7 gas-converted-to-diesel motor they still use? We got pretty good at swapping those out... along with the crap 700r4/4l-whatever transmission and transfer case that would burn out just as often.. both diffs would crap out surprisingly often, hell GM couldn't even put a halfshaft on there that would stay in place without a tube of locktite per truck.

And that wasn't just in Iraq, those pos' would break every bit as much in Korea even when we weren't in the field....

I say lets give Ford a chance... they cant do any worse.

93M6Formula

Maybe you should do some research before you sound like a ******* idiot.

The 6.2 and 6.5 Diesel was NOT a gasser turned diesel. The 5.7L Diesel was loosely based on the OLDS 5.7L gas engine and was known for poor reliability that no question and that's why it was dropped. The 6.2s and 6.5s were a completely new design that had nothing to do with a gas engine. They were very good motors that were built for fuel mileage and decent power. Unfortunately for the 6.5, the main webs in the block were too weak to take the boost pressure from the turbo. Although that is not what generally killed them. 94+ 6.5s got the computer controlled injection pump which had a failure prone PMD box that failed due to heat. relocate it and you have a reliable motor. I've seen multiple 6.2s and 6.5s surpass 300K miles or more. it's all about how you take care of them. Now go drink your beer and whiskey joe...

beerwhiskeyjoe

Excuse the **** out of me Captain Internet, I was going off of what the **** they taught us about the HMMWV, you know, in the Army..... where we used them. Speaking of research, whether or not its a gasser motor or not doesn't change the fact the N/A 6.2, 6.5 and turbo 6.5 in the HMMWV is a PIECE OF ****; my research being from actually using and working on them you clueless, mouth-breathing, needle-dicked douchebag. Do you wanna see a copy of my 214, ********?

Or maybe I should cower under your wikipedia copy? Say whatever the **** you want, I've been over every ******* inch of a 998 to a 1116 working on them 100+ hours a week and I know for a fact while they're amazingly capable, they are unreliable ****. Now go run some 14's in your formula, 93m6.

Dumbass.

It'llrun

I wouldn't call using a Ford diesel a big mistake just yet. They're looking at several criteria pieces and I suspect economy is near or on the top of their list. There haven't been as many complaints about the 6.7L as I expected, but then... it isn't that 6.0 or 6.4L International either.

He never even began to claim the 6.2 or 6.5L was a converted engine. He explained they're crap. He is, by and large, 100% correct. Neither of those engines was worth its weight as a boat anchor.

Indeed, it was the worst V8 diesel GM ever offered. It was dropped, but the 6.2's and 6.5's were too, for the same reason.

Again, he didn't say they did have anything to do with a gas engine. Note: Both the 6.2L and 6.5L had main web cracking problems. Those weren't the only problems, however. They had crank failures(largely due to the harmonic balancer and/or dual mass flywheel), the PMD you talked about, and they also had head cracking issues and head bolt issues. These were FAR from "very good motors" by any stretch of the human imagination... if you know anything about engines, anyway.

Very good? That's probably why GM tossed them as soon as Isuzu agreed to build a diesel for GM... No, they were pretty much just plain ole junk. They weren't very efficient, power was all but pathetic, torque wasn't good, let alone great(more could be had from basically any big block by the big 3)and they were loud and dirty. The final rendition of the 6.5L(with turbo) was the only one even close to decent power and torque. It made 87-93 Mustang GT like power and similar torque to the 454 used in the same trucks of the era. The Duramax or Ford or Cummins diesel engines of today nearly double the best 6.5L TD GM ever offered.

These diesels aren't just all about how they're maintained. No... They're problems FAR exceed simply maintenance.

Perhaps most importantly here, the Ford 6.7L diesel is far and away, multiple times better than any of the three GM diesels discussed here. The Duramax may be better, but those old junk engines were not. I too, like Heater, would've sooner expected the Cummins I6. On the other hand, they may have needed a shorter engine.

beerwhiskeyjoe

To be fair I did, I was under the assumption the 6.2 was a bored out version of the 5.7 gasser to diesel, at least thats what the common thought was when I was in. So I was wrong on that little detail, but I'm glad we can agree the ultimate outcome of those engines.

I haven't heard a single bad thing about the Powerstrokes since the new 6.7's came out. Ford has been pretty good lately about learning quickly from bad lessons so I have a lot of hope for them.

It'llrun

HA! I didn't read it that way... If that's how you meant it, yes, you got it wrong. Since you didn't say it, I didn't think that was your meaning. I did question(to myself) the 5.7L being used in military vehicles, however. Since I wasn't in the Army(I was in the Navy), I let that go.

There must be some issues with the 6.7L, but I'm not convinced any of them are a big enough deal to think the engine incapable. There's a good chance the decision was based in the facts only in a few key areas. They may have decided that since the Big 3 all have similar power and torque, they'd look for whatever fits within their available space as well as gets the best economy.

SSCamaro99_3

iTrader: (1)

This is the only part any of us are arguing. There is no way to tell that. They have been out two model years froma clean sheet design. To compare their service record to the Duramax (2001 to present) and much less the Cummins (I can't even say when the basic architecture dates to), is conjecture at best.

It'llrun

There are so many factors into these decisions, we're best off simply watching what happens. The 6.7L Ford seems to be what they want. There's really nothing wrong with that.