ARMY AL&T


Force Protection Industries and General Dynamics Land Systems). Vehicle test- ing began immediately to provide data in support of making a best-value deter- mination for up to 10,000 M-ATVs. A down-select decision was announced in June, with the contract award going to Oshkosh Defense.


“The Source Selection Evaluation Board did an excellent job compar- ing industry proposals,” said Kevin Fahey, PEO Combat Support and Combat Service Support. As the Source Selection Authority, Fahey added, “We incorporated lessons learned from MRAP and sent M-ATVs to home sta- tions for training before deployment, ensuring that safe, effective, reliable, and supportable M-ATVs were deliv- ered to our operating forces as quickly as possible.”


“The M-ATV procurement is the result of an extremely comprehensive and rig- orous source selection process, which appropriately weighed survivability, mobility, maneuverability, produc- tion capability, price, and other factors within the context of the urgent need for the procurement,” Brogan said.


We incorporated lessons learned from MRAP and sent M-ATVs to home stations for training before deployment, ensuring that safe, effective, reliable, and supportable M-ATVs were delivered to our operating forces as quickly as possible.


“The acquisition process determined the most capable and best-performing vehicle against stringent survivability requirements. Extensive test and evalu- ation with volumes of empirical data were produced, on which a ‘best value’ decision was based. It was detailed, thorough, and fair, and the results were reviewed by an Offi ce of the Secretary of Defense peer review team made up of very senior contracting offi cials.”


As part of the MRAP vehicle program, the M-ATV is a high-priority, acceler- ated acquisition program supporting overseas contingency operations. It retains the highest possible Defense Priority Rating, DX. The government is using the same fundamental acquisition strategy as the original MRAP program with one exception. In addition to rely- ing on the existing JPO infrastructure


to procure, test, fi eld, train, and sup- port the JUONS, the government has leveraged the resources of the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command Contracting Center to sup- port the procurement.


Independent Suspension Systems (ISS) Modifications


Today, there are more than 500 M-ATVs in the Afghanistan theater of operations with more arriving daily. The vehicles are capable of driving up 60-percent inclines, in either forward gear or reverse, and can lean as much as 30 percent to the side. The suspension system keeps the axles from breaking by allowing each wheel to slide up or down as much as 16 inches as the vehicle drives over rocks or through ruts. Initial feedback on the M-ATV is positive. Reports from the field are that, “In addition to its ability to traverse a wide variety of terrain, its speed transforms it from simply a means of transportation to an offensive capability for the commander.”


Since November 2006, the JPO has placed 22,882 MRAP vehicles on con- tract, including 6,644 M-ATVs. In January 2010, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council increased the MRAP family of vehicles requirement up to an additional 4,000 vehicles. The vehicle mix will be determined by operational commanders. Part of the calculus may include how effective ISS are working on baseline MRAPs.


The procurement of the M-ATV derived from an urgent requirement to protect troops in OEF with a highly survivable and off-road-capable vehicle. (Photo by Isaac Rodriguez, Yuma Test Center, AZ.)


24 APRIL –JUNE 2010


The USMC began ISS modifications of existing Cougar MRAPs in the sum- mer of 2009, with good results. The Oshkosh TAK-4 ISS was chosen as the


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72