My attention was recently brought to Force Protection’s JAMMA, or Joint All-Terrain Modular Mobility Asset vehicle. As I’ve reported in the past, SOCOM has dropped the requirement for a V-22 compatible vehicle from it’s request to industry for a Humvee replacement, however, the JAMMA comes in two flavors. Narrow track for the V-22 Osprey and wide track for the MH-47 Chinook.
From Force Protection:
“The Joint All-Terrain Modular Mobility Asset (JAMMA) was built as a first response vehicle to better equip and protect those who put their lives at risk in crisis situations. A technological leap over similar vehicles, this high performance platform can handle challenging terrain at high speeds even with a combat payload. JAMMA has innovative rollover protection and modular, threat-specific armor for multiple mission profiles – reconnaissance, rescue/recovery, med-evac, mobile security, and more. The optional state-of-the-art hybrid engine optimizes vehicle efficiency and generates 22kW of continuous exportable power.”
One feature that caught my attention right away was the rollover protection. Many soldiers mistakenly believe that the A, B, and C pillars on a standard Humvee somehow constitute a roll bar. I was in a vehicle roll over myself in Afghanistan and thankfully we all walked away with only some bruises.
Sadly, I was also in another convoy during the same deployment where a Ranger was killed in the course of a roll over. I’m convinced that some kind of roll over protection for the turret gunner can save many lives. The question is, can it be done without reducing the capabilities of the vehicle and the gunner’s movement and range of fire.
It seems that the JAMMA may have a viable solution with a retractable roll bar. If they build a FM and Sat antennae into the metal framework they might be on to a good thing!
Kit Up! contributor Jack Murphy is a former Ranger, Special Forces Soldier and is the author of the military thriller Reflexive Fire.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
"should the "jamma" have a role bar"… im thinking probably, and its a great prop for an umbrella. looking at this one is a little dissappointting*…. shouldnt the cab be ABOVE THE FRONT AXL….?
why do we keep going to oskhosh when the South Africans have been doing this for 40 years, at a 3rd the cost…?
Funny cause thats not an oshkosh vehicle. And bae uses SA designs not oshkosh.
Rollover protection is an obvious addition. It beats the alternative. Using your head as the “roll bar”! It also gives pax in the back something to brace against to avoid the vehicle crushing occupants. Its not perfect but any added protection will help especially in slow or accidental rollover traversing uneven terrain. Added bonus is that it allows for a tarp or camo netting to be draped over the vehicle to protect from rain or cold/sun. And, you can hang your under rods on them to dry after washing the crap in them after surviving a rollover.
Jeeps had them for decades why not MRAPS and these JAMMAs should too.
Mr. Murphy,
First, let me say that in the name of survivability I would be fully supportive – roll bars are a huge positive when operating in such unforgiving terrain. As far as the gunner goes, if he's operating a mounted weapon one would hope that the weapon and vehicle designs would be complimentary in such fashion that would allow the barrel of the weapon to to swing freely without its arc contacting the roll bar – maybe by positioning the roll bar towards the rear of the chassis/bed, position the mount in the theoretical center of the vehicle/front of the bed, and beefing up the B pillar to include an actual roll bar. These are all things that any well-written requirement and well-learned engineers can accomplish.
Secondly, and i may be playing catch up here, but I find it somewhat of a farce to have two different vehicles to accommodate their aerial transport platforms. Forcing commanders to decide if they will more likely utilize either the Osprey or Chinook and make acquisition plans off of that assumption is bad procurement. However, if particular SOF units could make educated estimates towards their mission set and the platforms which they will utilize for infil/exfil etc, then one could potentially argue the two different vehicles. I would hope, however, for simplicity that one vehicle would be chosen and it would be transportable by any tactical/end user airlift means available – though this would force the hand of the thinner-tracked vehicle, it would yield at least some ease for commanders and ensuring their vehicle assets are available for the operators.
Bottom line – get the user what they need.
Your Loyal Reader and DoD Acq Engineer,
BC
Thank you so much for weighing in BC. As far as the roll bar itself, I imagine it would have to rotate with the turret as to make sure it doesn't run up against the gunner's barrel or otherwise restrict movement. It doesn't look like the JAMMA has a turret of course, but that would be the idea in a humvee upgrade at least.
As far as two platforms, I agree, it would end up being a logistical nightmare. I suspect that you already know this, but during WWII the Nazis had something like forty-some-odd supply trucks in their military which led to serious logistical issues down the line when each truck needs different parts to be repaired. I suspect that in the case of Force Protection's vehicle, that they are just hedging their bets by providing SOCOM with both options and hoping that they will pick whichever one they feel best fits their requirements. In the long run, having multiple platforms, even in SOF, would probably lead to some serious problems that would snowball as time went on unless the parts really were interchangeable other than a few large end items.
Thanks for reading!
Should a roll bar be a requirement? Funny Jack!
Great comments on adopting two different vehicles for the same mission.
Ref why not buy S. African? Answers: American jobs, indigenous production, supply & parts? Cost & availability are valid counterarguments but I'd like to at least TRY a US manufacturer first.
If DOD did buy South African would the manufacturers have to build a plant here in the US and employ a certain number of Americans as weapons companies have to? South Africa and Rhodesia both did COIN on the cheap, plenty of lessons to learn there.
Maybe an American company can negotiate the licence for it and built it in the states. Depending on the size of the fleet and its long term sustainment, licensing may be more fiscally practical for all concerned than having the SA company open a new plant in the US.
Yes, we could negotiate. I wouldn't buy foreign unless we could build it here. I just don't support adopting foreign initiatives without even TRYING to homegrow a solution. What, are we Chinese?
BTW, "South Africa and Rhodesia both did COIN on the cheap, plenty of lessons to learn there." Rhodesia didin't win (not a good lesson). They had some good equipment. S. Africa (like Brazil) puts out some good equipment. One of the biggest lessons to learn from both nations is how they created their OWN solutions.
We didn't "win" in Vietnam but I think there were good lessons to be learned from that conflict as well. South Africa didn't win either, the terrorists now run their government but the SADF had COIN and IED's figured out long before we did. The Marine Corps' academic treatment on Rhodesia was called Tactical Victory/Strategic Defeat. However, I agree that we need to find our own solutions, specific to the particular problems we are facing.
Not much to add, but Raytheons "bike shop" was working on a offroad vehicle specifically to fit in a v-22.
It was diesel electric, had one off custom wheel motors, a custom diesel engine from europe, link suspension, etc. This was ~4 years ago maybe.
Wasn't that called like the Shadow RST-V? Super cool look, super cool functionality, too bad it never took off.
The JAMMA looks devastating when it's dressed up as a gun truck. Like 3 M240's and a deuce. Or a mk19. Talk about suppressive fire. (And hearing loss)
I think that their should be an option for hydraulic arms on the sides of the cage so the crew can right the vehicle by themselves easily and get back on the road.
Still love the SAS Land Rover 110 HCPU. Better ways of engineering a roll bar than that rainbow of steel.
The problem with asking our home industries to design something should be obvious: they are given certain specs (subject to change), a limited amount of funds and told to go to work. The DOD does not want something that works 'today', they want something that is cutting edge (and a little beyond), so the designers always try to come up with something new.
Does a combat vehicle like this REALLY need a hybrid engine? Can't a diesel or gasoline engine work just as well and NOT require enormous amounts of money to create? We keep digging ourselves into this technology hole and thinking that if we throw more money at the problem we can find a solution. BUT IS IT NECESSARY?
We are entering a period of tight funds, lets just build something that works using off-the-shelf parts.
Agreed. I've been wondering about why our military is headed in the "spend green to go green" when it dampens combat effectiveness.
Think logistics. Even though diesel engines get really good fuel mileage, that fuel still needs to be transported into theater and distributed. If you can get the equivalent or better mileage with a hybrid drive train, that means less fuel that needs to be hauled in, which means fewer ground convoys, fuel trucks, bladders, drivers, guards and also fewer opportunities for attacks on them, etc.
Of Course there needs to be rollover protection for all. But DOD needs to quit asking for narrow requirements in buying things. How about just what is needed for, then let the think tanks come up with something awesome. Requirements are what the problem is for the entire SCAR mess and the replacing of the M4. If the think tanks could just go, there is no telling what would come. It's kind of how the B-52 and B-1 bombers came to be.
Reflex, you miss the part where I said, "They (Rhodesia) had some good equipment. S. Africa (like Brazil) puts out some good equipment."?
Ah, I understand. I would look in their direction tactically as well.
"http://www.viceland.com/wp/2011/04/the-greatest-pseudo-terrorists-of-all-time/"
Cool article. CSM (Ret) Kelso and a fella who goes by Salisbury Marine are friends of mine and we've chatted hours about their time as Rhodesian soldiers. Quite familiar with the history and TTP of the conflict. I thought we were talking about vehicles?
BTW, that picture in the article is of conventional trucks.
I wasn't even aware of Kelso's service in the RLI until after I left the military. Wasn't he the post Sergeant Major at Benning?
No, Mike was the U.S. Army Infantry Center's command sergeant major when I retired. The post commanders and CSM are separate these days from unit or organization COC. E.G. Bragg's post SGM has nothing to do with the the 82nd, 18th ABN Corp or the SF side. Its all another "command billet".
Oh and Mike was likely involved in the article you shared.
Okay, I knew he was up in BLD 4 but wasn't sure. It sounds like the writer of that article talked directly to Dennis but who knows.