kscarbel2

Navistar is going to get hosed on all those new tractors.

David Cullen, Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT) / December 9, 2019 Celadon Group Inc., operator of one of the nation’s largest truckload carriers and a pioneer of NAFTA cross-border trucking, has voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company announced in the early morning hours of Dec. 9. The Indianapolis-based company is shutting down its business operations effective Dec. 9, except for its Taylor Express unit in Hope Mills, North Carolina, which will continue to operate as Celadon explores “a going concern sale of its operations.” Celadon CEO Paul Svindland told HDT that the company’s plan is “to liquidate all of Celadon except for our Taylor Express subsidiary. Our intent is to ensure drivers deliver their last loads safely and will then be instructed on where to deliver their equipment.” Celadon’s lenders have agreed to provide incremental “debtor-in-possession financing.” Chapter 11 filings typically allow the debtor to continue to operate its business in the ordinary course as the “debtor in possession.” However, the filer loses control over major decisions to the bankruptcy court, such as moving to shut down or expand operations or sell off assets. "Celadon has faced significant costs associated with a multi-year investigation into the actions of former management, including the restatement of financial statements,” Svindland said in a Dec. 9 statement. “When combined with the enormous challenges in the industry, and our significant debt obligations, Celadon was unable to address our significant liquidity constraints through asset sales or other restructuring strategies. “Therefore,” he continued, “ in conjunction with our lenders, we concluded that Celadon had no choice but to cease all operations and proceed with the orderly and safe wind down of our operations through the Chapter 11 process." While Celadon has been experiencing business difficulties for several years and had attempted to restructure without bankruptcy protection, the straw that broke the camel’s back may well have been the federal indictment of two former Celadon top executives in an alleged $60 million fraud scheme, which was unsealed on Dec. 5. Less than eight months before, the Department of Justice announced that Celadon had agreed to pay $42.2 million in restitution for filing materially false and misleading statements to investors and falsifying books, records, and accounts. In early 2017, the company posted a $10 million operating loss in the first quarter of the year and was threatened with delisting its stock on the New York Stock Exchange. Current CEO Paul Svindland was named to his position later that year, as Celadon began divesting itself of some of its businesses, selling off its flatbed operations and its driver training business. Earlier this year, it sold its logistics business and its intermodal business. In late July, Celadon announced that it has refinanced its former revolving credit facility and obtained $165 million in new financing. In the announcement, Celadon said the funding would “provide a platform for the company to engineer a turnaround,” including replacing 2,000 tractors with new units in the next few quarters. At the date of its shutdown, Celadon was operating a fleet of some 3,300 tractors and 10,000 trailers with nearly 4,000 employees. Estimates of the number of drivers in the fleet range to over 3,000. Beyond the immediate impact on shippers awaiting loads and, of course, on the Celadon drivers and other employees who will lose jobs, there’s no hard-and-fast equation to compute the aftermath of a large carrier closing. That being said, Avery Vise, vice president of trucking for freight forecasting and analysis firm FTR, told HDT that, “The truckload freight market is so large and fragmented that the loss of a carrier with even a couple thousand trucks would not have any significant impact on capacity, rates, or the driver supply. “This is especially true at a time, such as today, when capacity utilization is well below average,” he continued. “Certainly, an abrupt shutdown would cause some disruptions for the defunct carrier's customer base, but those challenges generally would be resolved with a week or so, perhaps even within a few days.” On the other hand, Vise allowed that, "One unusual factor that could cause some near-term challenges is the very low capacity in the spot market, which typically would be the principal initial recourse following a major carrier shutdown. Spot truck availability for dry-van freight has been below even last year's low levels through most of 2019."

The foreign aggressor just kicked Eaton's future in medium to the curb. ZF's 8HP is significantly cheaper. Eaton, like Cummins, has lost so much market share that a future is no longer certain. https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/57793-zf-to-offer-beefed-up-light-vehicle-8-speed-transmission-for-medium-trucks/

Related reading: https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/41120-navistar-first-to-market-with-eaton-procision-dual-clutch-amt/?tab=comments#comment-298147 https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/49142-eaton-increases-power-gvw-capacity-on-procision-transmission/?tab=comments#comment-364552

Eaton Discontinues Procision Dual-Clutch Transmission Jim Park, Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT) / December 9, 2019 Eaton is discontinuing its Procision dual-clutch automated medium-duty transmission. An Eaton official said the manufacturer would be discontinuing production of the Procision transmission at the end of the year, saying that customers were notified "a couple of months ago." Eaton refused to provide further details. The Procision, introduced in 2014 and in production since 2015, was the first automated dual-clutch transmission in the North American market. It was a 7-speed configuration with a 0.64:1 double-overdrive final drive ratio and was rated at 660 lb-ft. It featured creep mode, hill helper feature, and had three standard PTO openings. The dual-clutch shifting technology was the key to the Procision transmission. Eaton said when the transmission was launched that the torque path to the drive wheels is not interrupted by gear changes, so drivers wouldn't feel a lag in power when upshifting as they do with a traditional manual transmission or automated manuals. Gear changes are made by swapping the engine torque between clutches with the next gear preselected. Smart features such as Eaton Dynamic Shifting allowed the transmission to automatically switch between economy and performance shift schedules based on mass, grade, and driver demand. Withdrawing the Procision from the medium-duty market leaves Eaton with a line of 5- and 6-speed light- and medium-duty synchronized manual transmissions rated from 11,000 to 66,000 pounds GVW.

We are honored that Southern California Disposal & Recycling included their new #Autocar #ACX in this awesome gender reveal event. Congrats, Sammy Matosian, it's a boy! #AlwaysUp #SantaMonica #itsallabouttheuptime #SoCalDisposal @socaldisposal Always Up - Autocar Trucks .

As numerous people have pointed out..........Saudi nationals learning how to fly in the United States.........didn't work out well the first time.

ZF's 12-speed AS Tronic TraXon automated manual transmission (AMT), which MAN calls "TipMatic". https://www.truck.man.eu/de/en/trucks/truck-assistance-systems/man-tipmatic.html https://www.zf.com/products/en/trucks/traxon/traxon.html

Saudi killer in U.S. Navy base attack hated Americans Reuters / December 7, 2019 PENSACOLA, Fla. (Reuters) - The Saudi airman training at Naval Air Station Pensacola who killed three people there posted criticism of U.S. wars and quoted slain al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on social media hours before the shooting spree. A sheriff’s deputy fatally shot the gunman, ending the second deadly attack at a U.S. military base within a week. The murderer was a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force who was on the base as part of a U.S. Navy training program designed to foster links with foreign allies. The shooter has been named as Second Lieutenant Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani. At least three of the eight people wounded were law enforcement shot as they responded to the attack, including one Navy police officer and two county sheriff’s deputies. Six other Saudi nationals are being questioned by investigators in Florida, three of whom were seen filming the incident, the New York Times reported. An uncle of Alshamrani, Saad bin Hantim Alshamrani, said his nephew was 21, and “likable and mannered towards his family and the community.” He said his nephew “has his religion, his prayer, his honesty and commitments.” The younger Alshamrani posted a justification of his planned attack in English on Twitter a few hours before it began. He referred to U.S. wars in the Middle East, writing that he hated the American people for “committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity,” and criticizing Washington’s support for Israel. He also quoted bin Laden, the Saudi mastermind of the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/47913-remembering-pearl-harbor-december-7-1941/?tab=comments#comment-354199

Yes it is. However, it's not "run" by Martin Lundstedt.......like an American company in the old days. Some days, I think Volvo is run half by the major institutional investors, and half by the board. And then you have the major stake holder, China's Geely. I am every day disgusted that the United Stated Department of Justice approved the purchase of Mack Trucks by a foreign aggressor.

SITRAK is the unsuccessful joint venture between MAN and state-owned China National Heavy Truck Corporation (CNHTC). For the Chinese side, the JV was necessary to they could get MAN technology for their self-branded trucks. CNHTC ranks number 2 in heavy truck sales. The truck above is a revised MAN "TGA" with a China market D26 engine (simplified architecture). Really, a proven truck and all-round solid performer.

.

Owner-Driver / December 2, 2019 Owner-driver Glen ‘Yogi’ Kendall is well known in road transport circles, due to his support of trucking events and his appearances on the TV show Outback Truckers. However, when Yogi arrived at Sandgate Fruit Markets for the Newcastle Hunter Transport Awareness Day convoy, his Kenworth was nowhere to be seen. Instead, he was behind the wheel of a 540hp Sitrak prime mover, manufactured by the China National Heavy Duty Truck Group, or Sinotruk. The Sitrak was brought into Australia in September by Wei Liu, general manager of tyre wholesaler Spider GT. "There’s only two of them in Australia at this point in time, and he wanted some genuine industry feedback on what’s good, bad and ugly about the truck," Yogi explains. "And I’m not backwards in coming forwards." So Yogi flew across from Perth to Melbourne, picked up the truck and drove it up to Newcastle for test run. "I’ve put a couple of thousand ks on the clock. When I picked it up it had 114 ks on the clock," he laughs. "It is a complete and utter change from the ’95 Kenworth I’ve got." What immediately impressed Yogi was the spacious cab. "There’s two bunks in there, a phenomenal amount of room. That’s what I actually did like about it. "The vision is unbelievable, but again I’ve come out of a little Ned Kelly window to a big cab-over. "The mirrors are fantastic, but they make a big blind spot ’cause they’re so close." Yogi says, although the Sitrak drove well, it was difficult to evaluate it driving bobtail. "I did feel a little bit seasick, so it would be nice to put a trailer behind it, put a bit of weight on it and just see what it actually will do." Yogi says the Sitrak boasts MAN technology, and complies with Australian regulations. He adds that Sinotruk has been making trucks since 1935 and is the third largest truck manufacturer in China. However, entering the already competitive Australian truck market is a challenge. "He’s a good bloke to deal with," Yogi says of the Spider GT boss. "The biggest thing he’ll come up against, and we’ve already spoken about it, is how are you going to back it up? "At the moment he’s running Longmarch Tyres and Tianli Ag Tyres around Australia, so he’s got his dealer infrastructure, like parts and all that are not a problem. "So it’s all there. Everything’s laid out in front him." Yogi predicts the Sitrak will be around $200,000 on the road, with possibly a three-year, 600,000km warranty. .

Diesel News Australia / December 2019 Once out on the road, the build quality of the new Hyundai Xcient prime mover comes into its own. There are no creaks and rattles in a loaded truck over rough roads and all of the controls are positive and well adjusted. There is a reassuring reaction to any action by the driver. The steering feels precise, the ZF AS Tronic AMT is set up to make the right gear changes at the right time. The installation of the ZF transmission adds a quality feel to this product, as it does to the Hino 700 Series. It makes the truck work hard when it needs to and to take it easy when it can. It gets the required response from the 520 hp Hyundai engine which burbles away quietly under the cab in a very European style. The engine is a 12.7 L in line six cylinder which is intercooled and turbocharged. The version on offer here puts out 520 hp (382 kW) at 1700 rpm. It achieves maximum torque of 2550 Nm at 1200 rpm. The engine is compliant with Euro 5 and uses SCR to achieve its emission control objectives. The ZF AS Tronic gearbox comes with a very simple steering column control lever to allow the driver to intervene if necessary. On this test drive, out of Warwick in Queensland, down Cunninghams Gap towards Brisbane, before climbing back up the grade into Warwick, this driver hardly felt the need to intervene manually. In the main, the changes were made at the right time and in the right order. Included in the transmission is the ZF transmission retarder which feels very effective and was fully tested in a fully loaded condition on the way down the Gap. At the start of the descent a low gear was selected in manual and the four stage retarder set to maximum. This proved to be too much retardation, although you can never really have too much. Descending the grade, it was possible to run down a couple of ratios higher than expected and to toggle between position two and three on the retarder control, which sits handily on the right hand side of the steering column. To say this truck was comfortable coming down the Gap would be an understatement. Clearly, this truck could run down a grade like this with a B-double on behind and be able to cope with the workload. There is enough here to make a driver feel secure at quite high masses. The climb back up the Gap poses a different challenge to this South Korean product. The spec sheet tells us we have 520 hp and 2550 Nm of torque in our back pocket. The climb shows us it does include what it says on the box. The combination of enough torque and a sure footed AMT like the ZF does a pretty good job of completing the climb. This is not the best performer Diesel has ever climbed the Gap with, but it is certainly not the worst either. Unfortunately, it was not possible to make a definitive judgement on the climbing performance as the truck was baulked by a slow moving heavy load before the final kick over the top of the climb. At the end of the day, this engine and transmission combination proved to be in the same ballpark as its competition, which is where a new entrant needs to be to show it is competitive. The Xcient certainly seems to be that. The truck uses disc brakes all round and includes ABS, ASR, hill start assist and something called vehicle dynamic control, a feature which is something we need to find a little bit more about in the future. .

Iveco's all-new S-WAY comes to North America.......via Nikola. .

Cerberus didn't buy into Navistar Defense have Oshkosh continue it's monopoly on defense trucks. They want a piece of the action! https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/54947-cerberus-to-acquire-majority-interest-in-navistar-defense/

Defense News / November 27, 2019 WASHINGTON — For over a decade, the U.S. Army has used one source — Oshkosh Defense — to build its Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, choosing to sole source to the company beyond its initial five year contract rather than reopen competition. Defense company Navistar is challenging the Army’s choice to forgo competition and filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in early August. Nov. 26 was to be the day a judge would decide whether the U.S. Army violated the law by continuing to order vehicles from Oshkosh outside of the scope of the contract while avoiding competition. And while a bench trial happened, the judge hearing the case did not make a decision. It is unclear what’s next or when a ruling could happen. Navistar decided to sue the Army after it was getting nowhere in its quest to get the Army to produce documents — through a protest filed with the Government Accountability Office — that would show the service’s reasoning to continue to order more vehicles from Oshkosh without competition and without proper legal justification. The company contended that the Army did not justify and improperly awarded its most recent sole source FMTV procurement to Oshkosh, and failed to provide proper notice to possible competitors in accordance with federal acquisition regulations and the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), according to an extensive review of court documents by Defense News. In addition, the Army also ignored a stop work order, which automatically went into effect when a GAO protest was filed. Navistar filed two complaints: One that claims the Army violated the law when it continued to buy Oshkosh vehicles outside of the scope of its contract without holding a competition and another that claims the Army illegally continued to work on production of those vehicles despite a required stop work order that must go into affect once a protest is filed with the GAO. Since 2009, the Army has spent over $6 billion on FMTVs from Oshkosh. FMTVs are used for a wide variety of missions to include transporting capabilities that extend from cargo to missile defense radars. Navistar contends the Army had ample time to compete for follow-on FMTV orders, and the pool was deep with companies ready to provide vehicles that met the service’s requirement, but the Army never did. A long saga The saga goes much further back than just the 2019 GAO protest and lawsuit. Navistar successfully protested the Army’s initial award to Oshkosh back in August 26, 2009. As a result, the Army reviewed its decision, reaffirmed its selection of Oshkosh and awarded it a contract with a performance period of less than five years, set to expire at the end of 2013. The request for proposals ahead of the original contract award estimated 23,341 vehicles to be delivered over a five-year period. Following that, it was Navistar’s belief that the Army would reopen the competition to deliver more FMTVs. Through a series of justification and approvals — five of them — the Army continued to extend the contract through August 25, 2019, arguing each time that it did not have the time to conduct a new competition to meet the service’s needs. In its latest J&A in September 2016, the Army justified it needed another 1,744 FMTVs at an estimated cost of $575 million for total contract duration of 10 years. The Army argued that it needed to sole source FMTVs to Oshkosh because it didn’t have 24 months that it would take to conduct a full competition to meet urgent requirements, while it acknowledged there were other companies to include Navistar that could build FMTVs. The service also justified the sole source award due to its plans to stop procuring the current version of the FMTV as it prepared to take delivery of a new FMTV variant, which was also competitively awarded to Oshkosh in 2018. Navistar chose not to compete for the new variant, according to court documents. The order in 2016 was to fulfill the Army’s remaining needs between the end of the current variant and the future variant expected to be delivered in fiscal year 2020. Navistar again protested with the GAO the 2016 sole source award to Oshkosh for more FMTVs and ended up dropping the protest when it settled with the Army to supply some vehicles to Iraq. Without a J&A or any other documents justifying another order of vehicles, the Army, on June 28, 2019, announced what it described as the award of a $320 million contract modification for domestic purposes and for foreign military sales for the countries of Argentina, Djibouti, Iraq, Lebanon and Romania. The order was for an estimated 1,916 vehicles and extended the performance period of the contract out to 2021, 12 years past the original contract award. The announcement, according to Navistar, never disclosed that the Army had actually already ordered roughly 1,000 vehicles in excess of what was justified in the 2016 J&A. Navistar again filed a protest with the GAO over the orders made without a new J&A, but withdrew its protest in favor of filing a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims when the GAO refused to require the Army to produce relevant documentation justifying the additional FMTVs. It wasn’t until the company filed its complaint in federal court, that it was informed by the Department of Justice that the Army had never stopped work to produce the FMTVs ordered in 2019, Navistar reveals in court documents. Beyond the scope When the Army announced a new sole source procurement for FMTVs to Oshkosh in June, it caught Navistar by surprise because the service hadn’t issued a J&A, which had been its practice after the original contract period of performance had ended, and is also required by law, the company argues in the court documents. The June announcement came on the heels of the five J&As that had included an extra 4,875 vehicles and $1.4 billion more to Oshkosh outside of the scope of the original 2009 contract and procured without competition, Navistar notes. Navistar also learned that the Army, months prior to June 28, had already placed tens of millions of dollars in sole source orders for hundreds of FMTVs beyond the scope of the 2016 J&A. Navistar argued a new J&A to cover the 2019 orders was needed because the previous J&As only provided enough authority to solve the Army’s claimed immediate needs and were very specific in number and delivery time frame and laid out what trucks were needed by which units and where. The company contended that the original contract and subsequent J&As didn’t and shouldn’t provide the Army with “a blank check” to continue buying more vehicles without justifying competition. And it argues that the Army, three years beyond 2016, had ample time to prepare to compete for remaining FMTV orders. A contract or a blank check? While the Army’s arguments are sealed under a protective order and not available for public review, Oshkosh argued in a response to Navistar’s complaint, that the original 2009 contract was a “requirements” contract considered valid through August 25, 2019, for any orders placed. The J&As were essentially just amendments to the original contract. Navistar disagreed and argued that each subsequent J&A should be considered the binding contract and that previous contracts are expired. “CICA does not contain an exception to competition simply because a contract extension involves a requirements contract. To conclude otherwise would gut CICA’s requirements," Navistar added. Oshkosh argued that the Army was required to fulfill all of its needs for the FMTV A1P2 through the Oshkosh contract in whatever quantity became necessary until the contract expires. The company also argued that the contract ceiling value had not been exceeded even with the 2019 orders. Oshkosh also argued that Navistar misinterpreted the difference between the ordering period under a contract and the delivery period. The company claims the contract covers the ordering period and not the delivery period, which can extend beyond. Navistar argued that the September 2016 J&A timeline covers the entirety of the contract to include delivery of the vehicles. Oshkosh also contends that the Army alerted all offerors in the original competition that except for monthly and annual limits there is no minimum quantity and no maximum of vehicles that the Army can order. And Oshkosh stated that the number of vehicles laid out in the Army’s contract and subsequent J&As were just “estimates” and not a ceiling for orders. Additionally, any maximum ceiling just means a company isn’t obligated to honor any orders placed above that level. For Navistar, Oshkosh’s interpretation goes against the core of the Competition in Contracting Act. “These J&As do not contain any rationale that would enable the Army to procure an indefinite quantity of Oshkosh vehicles for years into the future - they only provide enough authority to solve the Army’s claimed immediate problem of requiring vehicles quickly before a competition can be performed,” Navistar argues. The amendment Deviating from its normal course, the Army retroactively revised or amended the September 2016 J&A in early June instead of issuing a new J&A, scratching out original numbers and costs and replacing them with new numbers and new cost estimates. The amendment was made at the request of the Army’s director of policy only after orders earlier in 2019 were discovered to have gone beyond the scope of the 2016 J&A. According to CICA, agencies are not allowed to avoid competition requirements by using the device of a contract modification. The Army did not notify potential offerors of the amendment and claimed, according to Navistar in its response to the court, that the only reason for the amendment was to alert Army leadership of the change. “There is no requirement for the Army to amend a J&A as a method of notifying its own leadership about procurement actions,” Navistar notes. Additionally, Oshkosh argued in its response to Navistar, that the director of policy’s request in an email to amend the J&A because orders had fallen out of the scope, was just “the author’s view.” Navistar writes, “The Army’s attempt to authorize its prior illegal actions along with the Army’s official position at the time the amendment was executed (that its sole source actions were “beyond the scope” of its earlier J&As) are damning indicators that the Army failed to justify its 2019 sole source contract action and that it knew its actions were wrong." Army didn’t hit pause It’s commonly known in defense acquisition that when a GAO protest is filed, work must stop on any contract award at issue until the GAO renders a decision roughly 90 days later. But the Army didn’t stop Oshkosh from ordering parts and beginning work to build vehicles wrapped up in the Navistar protest filed July 8. The service doesn’t dispute this fact, according to court documents. Navistar was not made aware the Army had continued to execute the disputed sole source orders until it filed its lawsuit at the court. Once alerted by a DOJ attorney that the Army had not stopped working, the company issued a separate complaint addressing the Army’s failure to stop working on the contract in accordance with the law. The Navistar complaint states the Army continued to work in secret and did not alert the GAO or Navistar that it was proceeding with the performance of the protested contract. The Army didn’t take any action to override the requirement to stop working on roughly 1,365 vehicles covered under the protest. The Army did stop work on 75 vehicles destined for Iraq and Djibouti, but that did not happen for days after the protest was filed with the GAO. The service “inexplicably”, according to Navistar’s response to the Army’s sealed arguments, believed in “good faith” that the only vehicles in dispute were the 75 vehicles that were bound for Iraq and Djibouti. Navistar states that the administrative record “contains no explanation, documentation or reasoning” as to why the Army failed to stop work. “The Army cannot claim ignorance of its legal obligations (as it appears to be doing) in order to avoid the consequences of its statutory violations,” Navistar argues in its response. The service’s argument, according to Navistar’s response, focuses on a July 12 phone call it had with Navistar’s defense counsel where it claims that the focus of the call was on Iraq and Djibouti requirements, but includes nothing related to it in the administrative record provided to the court. Navistar lays out that the stop work order for the 75 vehicles came at 10:15 a.m. on July 12 before the 10:30 a.m. call with Navistar’s counsel. The call was scheduled at the request of the Army’s counsel and Navistar’s lawyers were advised to come prepared to address the number of FMTV vehicles that it could produce on an expedited basis and the schedule under which it could deliver. According to a declaration submitted to the court, Navistar’s lawyers said the Army’s counsel offered to try to resolve the protest by giving Navistar contracts to provide vehicles for Iraq and Djibouti. Navistar said it would not agree to a resolution unless the Army agreed to have Navistar provide a more substantial volume of both domestic and foreign military sales vehicles. The Army’s lawyers said they couldn’t agree with that and indicated they would have to proceed with the protest. And while Iraq and Djibouti were discussed, “the Army could not have reasonably come away from that telephone conference with such a belief,” that the protest only covered those 75 vehicles, according to Navistar’s response. To Navistar, it was clear from the beginning that its protest covered all orders in 2019 made beyond the scope of the 2016 J&A. .

Defense Blog / December 6, 2019 General Dynamics European Land Systems-Mowag, a business unit of General Dynamics Corporation, said on Thursday it had got a delivery order of 100 EAGLE 6×6 reconnaissance vehicles to the Swiss Army. The EAGLE 6×6 was selected after an international competition conducted by armasuisse, the Swiss federal office for defence procurement. This first order of the EAGLE 6×6 is a milestone for the latest development of the EAGLE vehicle family. The 100 EAGLE 6×6 vehicles will be the vehicle platform of the tactical reconnaissance system “TASYS.” TASYS will be used to gather intelligence for the Swiss Armed Forces including support of civil authorities. It consists of an EAGLE V 6×6 carrier vehicle, a multi-sensor system mounted on a telescopic mast, and a data processing system. For self-protection, the highly-mobile EAGLE V 6×6 TASYS is armoured and equipped with a remotely controlled weapon station. The vehicle offers sufficient payload reserves to allow for future improvements, such as the integration of additional sensors. The EAGLE V 6×6 TASYS starts production in 2020 and will be fielded between 2023 and 2025. Besides the Swiss Army the EAGLE V 4×4 is also extensively used by both Denmark and Germany, where it is very popular with the troops. The further development of the EAGLE V 4×4 into the EAGLE V 6×6 was inspired by operational experience and the need for a vehicle with increased useful volume, more payload, very compact exterior dimensions, as well as constant high mobility and maximized protection. “We are very proud that the Swiss Army is the first customer to introduce the EAGLE V 6×6,” says Oliver Dürr, Vice President Wheeled Vehicles and Managing Director of General Dynamics European Land Systems-Mowag. The EAGLE is available in 4×4 and 6×6 versions and is one of the most modern protected wheeled vehicles in its class. The EAGLE has already proven its efficiency and reliability in various military missions. Due to its power reserves, the EAGLE offers an ideal platform to meet both current and future requirements. In addition to its excellent protection against mines and improvised explosive devices, the EAGLE V 6×6 offers a high payload and a large transport volume, within very compact dimensions. With its unique axle and drive system, the EAGLE V delivers off-road mobility and on-road driving safety. .

Ford recalls 262,000 pickup trucks with defective tailgate latches Associated Press / December 6, 2019 Ford is recalling nearly 262,000 trucks in the U.S. and Canada because the tailgates can open unexpectedly. The recall covers F-250, F-350 and F-450 trucks from the 2017 through 2019 model years. All the trucks have electric tailgate latch release switches in the tailgate handle. Ford says water can get into the electrical wiring and cause a short circuit, activating the switches and releasing the latches. That could allow loose cargo to fall onto the road. Ford says it has no reports of crashes or injuries. Trucks with mechanical tailgate latches are not affected. Dealers will fix the tailgate frame wiring harnesses and install a new tailgate handle release switch. Owners will be notified by male during the week of January 20.