Talk:Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who's in the running? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  JLTV IS BACK ON, YO

message: 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)
thread_title:  Status 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/jltv/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/jltv-eagle-tactical-vehicle-us/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Now we have a winner... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  JILTVEE?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delivery orders under ID/IQ contract awards 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/09/26/army-places-order-jltvs/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315114000/http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_army_wheeled_and_armoured_vehicle_uk/l-atv_oshkosh_light_combat_tactical_all-terrain_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_army_wheeled_and_armoured_vehicle_uk/l-atv_oshkosh_light_combat_tactical_all-terrain_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  JLTV M-designators 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recommend deleting paragraph about the polyfibroblast paint 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015021630/http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003781.html to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003781.html
*Added  tag to http://www.thestreet.com/newsanalysis/aerospace-defense/10395298.html
*Added  tag to http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3543820&c=AME&s=LAN
*Added  tag to http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/majorsys/jltv/JLTV_PD/JLTV_PD_FoV%20vs1.8.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100404120928/http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/majorsys/jltv_emd/jltv_emd.htm to http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/majorsys/jltv_emd/jltv_emd.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Type 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress