M113A1 & M1A1s, 1AR
(click to expand)

The M113A1 family of vehicles was introduced into service in Australia in the mid 1960s, and arrived in time to see service in Vietnam. Additional vehicle variants were added until 1979, and there are 766 M113A1 vehicles currently in the Australian Army fleet. By February 2005, however, only 520 remained in service.

A number of upgrades have been suggested for Australia’s APCs(Armoured Personnel Carrier) over the years, with a number of different reviews and upgrade proposals submitted. Many of Australia’s M113s remained in the old M113A1 configuration, though some had at least been repaired and overhauled at 25,000 km. Bushmaster wheeled mine-resistant vehicles have replaced some M113s in the ADF, but the M113’s lightweight, tracked, off-road mobility remains important to Australian mechanized formations, and to troops deployed in combat zones. A plan approved in the 1990s involved a “minimum upgrade” of 537 vehicles from 1996-1998, at a cost of about A$ 40 million in 1993 dollars, with a major upgrade to follow. That major upgrade did follow – along with schedule slips, and cost increases from around A$ 594 million to nearly A$ 1 billion.

New-Old Vehicles: The M113-AS4s

M113AS4 APC
(click to expand)

There are 7 variants of the upgraded M113AS family being produced under LAND 106. Enhancements are being made to a variety of areas.

Protection: Add-on external armor kits to protect against weapons up to 14.5mm; internal spall liners; hull reinforcement to improve mine protection; fuel tanks moved from inside to outside. The change in configuration also allowed the introduction of stealth characteristics into the design by decreasing the overall turret profile, and reducing the vehicle’s radar cross-section and infra-red signature.

Firepower: A new Australian designed and built electrical turret, with improvements designed to lessen the battering its occupant takes. It will host a new .50 caliber weapon that sports a quick change barrel and day/night sights.

M113AS: new controls
(click to expand)

Mobility: Replacement of the engine, transmission, drive train and driver’s controls. To maximize the benefits of this new driveline, the suspension, track and road wheels are also being replaced.

Internal: Compartment improvements like heat mitigation measures and better stowage of equipment externally where it isn’t so much in the way. New electrical and fuel systems; a land navigation system that combines GPS and INS.

The exact designations refer to the upgraded vehicles’ general characteristics. M113-AS3 variants have 5 road wheel stations per side, and a Recommended Gross Vehicle Mass of 15,000 kg/ 33,069 pounds. AS4 variants are stretched by 666 mm/ 26.2″, with 6 road wheel stations per side, and an RGVM of 18,000 kg/ 39,683 pounds. Variants include:

• Armoured Personnel Carrier (M113-AS4 APC). Most common variant.
  
• Armoured Fitters (M113-AS4 AF). Includes a new Hiab crane with a significantly enhanced 2.4-tonne lift at 4 meters. 38 planned of 350.
  
• Armoured Recovery Vehicle Light (M806-AS4 ARVL). Includes a Sepson winch capable of a 13-tonne single line pull. 12 planned of 350.
  
• Armoured Ambulance (M113-AS4 AA)
  
• Armoured Command Vehicle (M113-AS4 ACV)
  
• Armoured Logistic Vehicle (M113-AS4 ALV)
  
• Armoured Mortar (M125-AS3 AM)

The final vehicles will be transportable in the RAAF’s C-17A heavy-lift aircraft (4 per plane, vs. 3 for larger armored vehicles), though that hasn’t been certified as of March 2012. One M113AS4 may be transportable in an Australian C-130J tactical transport aircraft if enough equipment is removed, but it hasn’t been certified, even though the initial test took place 6 years ago in March 2006. ANAO is correct to cite that gap as possible evidence of a problem.

On land, the upgraded M113s will have to wait for the arrival of its LAND 121 (“Overlander”) Phase 3 heavy trucks to transport them, and the ADF will need to lease commercial vehicles until then.

Australia’s LAND 106

The Program

A plan approved in the late 1990s involved a “minimum upgrade” of 537 vehicles from 1996-1998, at a cost of about A$ 40 million in 1993 dollars, with a major upgrade to follow. That initial plan was derailed mid-stream by an unsolicited contractor proposal to combine the 2 phases. The end result was Australia’s LAND 106 project, which aimed to perform major upgrades to a smaller set of 350 M113 APCs. That program suffered from problems in its early stages, delaying any fielded modernization until 2007.

The operational effect of that switch has been to delay fleet upgrades by about a decade. Final delivery is now expected to take place at the end of 2012.

M113AS4 FV
(click to expand)

The LAND 106 M113 Upgrade was scheduled to be completed in 3 stages, and delivery of the first company group of upgraded M113s was scheduled for 2006.

Stage 1: Development and preliminary testing of 2 Demonstration vehicles. Completed in 2004.

Stage 2: Design, construction and testing of the first 14 of the Initial Production Vehicles (IPV). This stage encountered a number of technical difficulties, resulting in an extensive Test and Evaluation Phase. Delivery of the initial 16 Phase 1 & 2 vehicles (14 APCs, 1 AF and 1 ARVL) to the 1st Brigade in Darwin was completed in December 2007.

Design development of the remaining 4 vehicle variants will continue through to the end of 2009.

Stage 3: Design, construction and testing of the remaining IPVs, and the delivery of 336 production standard vehicles. Began with successful completion of the Production Readiness Review for the base M113 APC variant in November 2007.

When Tenix’s land systems business was acquired by BAE Systems, it was easy for the vehicle’s original manufacturer (United Defense, now the largest part of BAE Land Systems) to assume leadership of the project via its new subsidiary. Tenix had chosen Germany’s FFG as the major technology partner for the program. Other key subcontractors and suppliers include Thales Optronics, Moog GmbH, SKF Australia, Bisalloy and a number of Australian SMEs including Imag Australia Pty. Limited.

The ANAO’s 2012 Report

Australia’s independent audit department, the ANAO, has issued a number of reports covering the LAND 106 program, with the program nearing its end, the 2012 audit offers a solid retrospective of the program, its progress, and the lessons learned from its problems. The core of its conclusions:

“Deficiencies in the [2002] Major Upgrade Contract meant that technical problems with the vehicles’ design and production could not be effectively managed under its provisions. Contrary to the advice tendered to government when the major upgrade was initially approved, critical milestones were not effectively incorporated into the contract, which also failed to properly specify vehicle payloads, prioritise vehicle technical specifications in order of necessity and desirability, or establish clear terms for liquidated damages.”

The project subsequently failed to perform, but the government found that it was in a poor position to collect damages, and so ended up renegotiating the contract in 2 global settlements, in an attempt to fix the contract’s original problems. What the November 2007 and August 2011 settlements could not fix, was the time, effort, and money wasted as a result of those omissions.

Defence considers that the Prime Contractor is currently on course to deliver all 431 vehicles by October 2012, after the delivery date has been revised several times.

According to the ANAO, a range of factors hurt project schedule performance, including:

• Delays in the preparation and stretching of M113 hulls under the CSP Contract, which are needed to feed into the major upgrade production line.
  
• Missing/broken lifting eyes on existing M113, which caused delays in moving hulls through the CSP process).
  
• Poor quality, with more vehicles than expected needing rework after quality inspections. That was an especial problem, because the production facilities at Bandiana had limited room for rework.
  
• The ANAO refers to “facility failures at the Defence-owned facilities in Bandiana.”
  
• Hull de-lamination, resulting in additional preparation work, and laminar cracking, which resulted in hulls being set aside until a suitable repair technique could be developed.
  
• Delays in the technical development of the ALV [cargo variant] and AM [mortar variant]; and
  
• Shortages of VIC 3 vehicle communication harnesses, supplied by Defence as government furnished equipment, and required to finish the vehicle.

M113AS4s, Exercise
Chong Ju 2009
(click to view full)

According the ANAO, the full cost of the M113 upgrades is close to A$ 1 billion for 431 vehicles. A$ 2.32 million per vehicle isn’t small change, though in fairness, it is half or less of the cost of a new, modern tracked IFV like BAE’s M2 Bradley, or its CV90. Australia’s Chief of Army responded to the ANAO by saying that:

“…as the Capability Manager … I am satisfied that the [upgraded M113] provides a significantly enhanced capability to Army and that it is a potent and capable platform. I am also satisfied that the delivery of [the upgrade project] satisfies the original requirement specified by the Capability Manager.”

The question ANAO asks is whether the project’s long delays, and 20-year run, have left those requirements behind. The M113AS4 is much less capable than modern IFVs. It has weaker armor protection, less formidable weaponry, and remains stuck with old communication gear. That last issue will be a problem going forward. ANAO:

“The M113 relies on the VIC 3 model communications harness as its main electronic communication system. There are currently a limited number of these harnesses available, and priority… is given to the ASLAV vehicles, currently deployed to Afghanistan… Army aims to rectify this shortage by December 2012 through fitting the Bushmaster fleet… with updated SOTAS communications systems, which will make an increased number of VIC 3 harnesses available… [Even so,] the electronic systems fitted to the upgraded vehicles do not permit optimal communication and data transfer with heavy tanks and the other force elements, such as artillery and aircraft, with which they are intended to operate… Army originally expected to address the current communications limitations of the M113 by fitting to these vehicles the systems to be developed under projects LAND 75 and LAND 125.64 However, in the context of the 2012-13 Federal Budget, the relevant phases… will not now proceed.”

An even more alarming problem involves the M113s’ reliability. ANAO:

“Maintenance records classify the vehicles as ‘Fully Functional’; ‘Restricted Use’; or ‘Unserviceable’. Over the three years to December 2010, the proportion of vehicles at the School of Armour classified as ‘Fully Functional’ decreased from an average of 62 per cent in 2008 to 38 per cent in 2010. Since 2010, this has not improved: Defence advised that as at 19 March 2012 the proportion of vehicles classed as ‘Fully Functional’ was 39 per cent across Army. The main factors affecting vehicle availability have been a lack of supplies (spare parts) and mechanical failures.”

That reliability level would become a serious problem if the upgraded M113s had to be deployed. It also affects the math of a comparison with more expensive IFVs. Assume that buying a new IFV would be 225% of the final upgrade cost, that the budget to buy them remains the same, and that we use reliability benchmarks met by those modern IFVs:

• 431 M113-AS4s x 39% fully functional = 168 available IFVs.
• 192 modern IFVs x 70% fully functional = 134 available IFVs

At similar availability rates, Australia’s DoD would have a strong argument for its choice. Given the actual number of available machines, however, a good counter-argument can be made that it would have been better to own 134 IFVs that are much more capable. What is certain, is that neglecting this key performance parameter seems to have cost Australia hard.

Contracts and Key Events

M113AS4 FV and ARVL
(click to expand)

November 17/15: The Australian Department of Defense have issued a request for information for 450 tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) as part of the Australian Defence Force’s largest ever land systems acquisition program. Project LAND 400, which is now in its third phase, has been a major overhaul of existing aging equipment of the ADF and in total will cost approximately USD $7.1 billion. Phase Three will aim to replace the existing M113AS4 and it is hoped that these will be replaced by 2025 and the M113AS4 LOT by 2030, but the Australian DoD find the machinery decaying given current and emerging threats.

May 24/12: The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) issues “Upgrade of the M113 Fleet of Armoured Vehicles.”

Specific conclusions are covered in the previous section, but its overall tone is that many of the program’s problems and cost increases were avoidable. They also point out that the final product is an APC that’s under the capability standard of modern alternatives, despite its costs. This is true, and was known in advance. Australia accepted that trade, in exchange for what it saw as a lower-cost option, with better transportability. Limited communications compatibility with its companion M1 tanks, and the withdrawal of the M113s from plans for Australia’s new battlefield management C4I systems, is a more serious issue. Most serious of all is the fact that availability rates for the upgraded M113s remain abysmal – under 40%! That will impact training, and unless it’s corrected, it will become a serious problem if the armored vehicles ever get deployed.

Meanwhile, BAE has qualified for the first 3 incentive payments under the August 2011 re-negotiation, and looks to be on target to deliver all M113s by the end of October 2012.

May 10/12: Australia’s budget features a series of reductions. From the Chief of Army’s Budget Message:

“M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carriers. One hundred M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carriers will be placed into temporary storage [along with 15 M1A1 Abrams tanks]. The APCs will be placed into temporary storage in a condition where they can be rapidly returned to service when Army’s fiscal situation improves. Army will need to develop an equipment and training methodology to ensure an adequate number of crews are maintained to meet contingency requirements.”

Lt. Gen. D.L. Morrison later pens a letter to the editor of The West Australian, reiterating his confidence in the M113AS4, and citing the current measures as “informed solely by a need to reduce operating costs in order to focus key resources to operational priorities and linked training support.”

August 2011: 2nd global settlement. Dissatisfaction with BAE’s performance led Australia’s DoD to begun reviewing its legal contractual options in June 2010, but it eventually decided that it was on softer ground than it thought, and decided to negotiate a solution instead. The new agreement involves a number of concessions from Defence, and according to the ANAO, key provisions included:

• BAE withdraws A$ 5 million in postponement claims.
  
• Australia’s DoD won’t exercise contractual rights to liquidated damages of approximately A$ 1 million for late delivery.
  
• Final delivery date for all vehicles moves from April 2012 to Dec 9/12.
  
• Incentive payments totaling A$ 2.8 million are available to BAE if certain production targets are met between August 2011 – October 2012, including delivery of the last vehicle by the end of October. Defence says this was done to avoid having BAE close some of its facilities early, and set LAND 106’s schedule back even further.

Oct 7/10: BAE Systems Land and Armaments LP’s US Combat Systems business announces a $14 million contract to provide T150F double-pin track link assemblies and sprockets, for Australia’s M113 upgrades.

Work on the track shoes will take place at the BAE Systems’ Anniston, AL facility by the existing workforce, and is expected to be complete in July 2011. The contract was awarded by Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation office based in Washington, DC.

M113AS4 night test
(click to expand)

March 27/09: The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) issues “Management of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier Upgrade Project.” The 2009 ANAO report praises progress in a number of problem areas that were highlighted in the 2005 report. The 2007 renegotiation and restructuring has helped the program make significant progress in key areas, from management, to technical development. Having said that:

“The M113 Major Upgrade Project commenced in July 2002 and has suffered a series of delays. Army has so far received 42 of the 350 vehicles to be upgraded [which is behind schedule]… In July 2008, the Prime Contractor informed Defence that the existing production facilities at Bandiana, Victoria, were not adequate to the task and, at December 2008, there was a potential shortfall of around 100 upgraded vehicles by December 2010.

The backlog is caused chiefly by delays in extending the hulls. This is proving to be more complex than anticipated, and is taking longer than expected… would not be able to deliver 350 upgraded vehicles by December 2010. Defence is currently negotiating arrangements with the Prime Contractor…”

Oct 28/08: Australia’s Labor Party government announces an A$ 220 million (currently about $143 million) addition to LAND 106. BAE will upgrade another 81 M113s to equip Darwin’s 5 RAR mechanized infantry and the recently established 7 RAR, raising the total to 431 vehicles.

BAE Systems’ production line at Bandiana in northern Victoria will now remain open until July 2011, and additional facilities will be opened in Williamstown, Victoria and Wingfield, South Australia to ensure that delivery commitments are met.

May 22/08: The LAND 106 project is reported to be back on track. Frontier India:

“The M113 project experienced some well-known technical problems in the development phase, and it was feared these problems would impact on the cost and schedule of the project,” the announcement said. The serious technical risks faced by the project have now been resolved, the schedule pressures have been reduced, and the project does not face cost pressures said the release.”

Nov 15/07: The first 4 M113AS4s built by Tenix Aerospace and Defence are accepted into service with the Australian Army’s 7th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment (Mechanised Infantry), during a ceremony in Darwin. Australian DoD | Space Daily.

M113A1, last exercise
(click to expand)

June 11/06: Australia’s DMO contracts with Honeywell Germany to supply the new TALIN 500 Inertial Navigation Unit for the M113 vehicles at a cost of A$ 11 million.

Acquired under Project JP5408, the TALIN 500 is the central component of the new navigation system for the M113s, integrating a global positioning system (GPS) with the inertial navigation functions as a backup if GPS isn’t available. The new system will provide full navigation capability to both the commander and driver of the M113. DMO believes the system has export potential. DoD release | DMO On Target article.

July 28/05: The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report criticizes Australia’s management of its M113 upgrade program, beginning with the 3-year delay between project approval in June 1999 and the July 2002 contract and continuing to the present day. The report add that the November 2006 goal for introduction into service is unlikely to be achievable. ANAO report | Jane’s

July 15/02: Australia’s Liberal Party government announces an A$ 400 million (then about $223.5 million) contract with Tenix Defence Land Division to upgrade 350 M113 tracked armored fighting vehicles to M113-AS4 configuration. Imag Australia Ltd. Pty release.

June 2002: The M113 Major Upgrade Project is approved at a cost of A$ 552 million (ANAO figure).

Additional Readings and Sources

• Australian DMO – LAND 106 – M113 Upgrade Project
• Australia DMO – Large-Scale Projects: Upgrade of M-113 Armoured Vehicles LAND 106
• ANAO (May 24/12) – Upgrade of the M113 Fleet of Armoured Vehicles
• ANAO (March 27/09) – Management of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier Upgrade Project
• ANAO (July 28/05) – Management of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier Upgrade Project
• Digger History – “The Tracks”: A Digger’s Best Heavy Metal. Includes history of the M113 in Australian service.
• Australian DoD, Team Australia – Mackay Defence Technologies: armoured vehicles – vibration and noise isolation (APC floor mats)
• Jane’s – BAE Systems Australia one-man turret for M113 APC upgrades (Australia), AFV turrets and cupola
• Army: The Soldiers Newspaper (#1169, June 28/07) – Now that’s better. Discusses firing trials of the new electric turret.
• Army: The Soldiers Newspaper (Ed. 1151, July 27/06) – A fitting display. Discusses the M113-AS4 FV and ARVL.
• Army: The Soldiers Newspaper (#1135) – New M113 on track

In the wake of events in Georgia and Crimea, Poland has emerged as NATO’s key eastern bastion. The Tarcza Polski (Shield of Poland) aims to give it an advanced air defense system to match.

Poland’s military rise has been slow, but steady. Smart economic policies have created growth, and a willingness to finance national defense is slowly improving their equipment. Combat deployments abroad to Iraq and Afghanistan have both sharpened training, and highlighted areas that still need fixing. Missile proliferation in the Middle East, American fecklessness, and a rearming Russia have all led Poland to the conclusion that they can no longer depend on old Soviet-era air defense equipment. They need their own advanced national air defense system, which can benefit from allied contributions without being dependent on them.

Tarcza Polski’s 3 Air Defense Tiers

The Shield of Poland is envisaged as a 3-tier system.

Tier 1: Local Thunder

POPRAD/ GROM
(click to view full)

The lowest tier involves shoulder-fired Grom/Piorun missiles. Poland’s Grom (“Thunder”) is reportedly the product of some unauthorized “borrowing” from Russia’s SA-18, with local Polish changes and improvements. Grom/Piorun missiles can also be fielded as additions to fixed, radar-aided 23mm guns (Pilica system), or integrated on truck-mounted quad launchers (Poprad system). Both will be part of Tarcza Polski.

Grom missiles have already claimed a number of Russian aircraft, when used by Georgian armed forces during the 2008 conflict.

The Piorun is an enhanced version of Grom, with a new proximity fuze and warhead.

Tier 2: NAREW Air Defense

NASAMS-II
(click to view full)

The next tier is known as the NAREW program. It involves up to 11 batteries of “short range” conventional air defense missiles, without anti-ballistic missile capabilities. While the top-tier systems have garnered the most attention and focus, and will be implemented first as a high-performance deterrent, NAREW’s ability to counter aircraft and cruise missiles at an affordable cost may make it Poland’s most critical purchase.

Competitors reportedly include Diehl (IRIS-T SL), MBDA-Bumar (VL-MICA), Israel’s RAFAEL (SPYDER & Iron Dome); and Raytheon (NASAMS). MBDA-Lockheed’s MEADS system was dealt out after Poland failed to shortlist it for the top-tier WISLA system, but Diehl’s IRIS-T remains.

MBDA’s VL-MICA. This variant of their medium range air-to-air missile has been picked for a few naval vessels, and a 2011 MBDA release suggests at least 1 export customer on land. That customer is believed to be Oman, and unconfirmed rumors suggest that there are more. The Platoon Command Post and 3D radar are complemented by missiles that come in infrared and radar guided versions. That mix makes the system dangerous even if its radars are shut down, and protected from enemy detection.

MEADS / IRIS-T. This consortium was led by Lockheed Martin and MEADS, creating a top-tier BMD system that can also mount Diehl’s IRIS-T. Aircraft and cruise missile missiles could be engaged with either MEADS’ PAC-3 MSE or IRIS-T, depending on distance, priority, etc. This dual role made MEADS’ bid something of an all-or-nothing affair. When Poland decided that MEADS was too risky to become a WISLA finalist, it effectively killed the system as a NAREW option, though buy-in from Germany and Italy could change its fate.

IRIS-T SL spun out as an independent bid, offering and a vertically-launched variant of the infrared-guided air-to-air missile, complete with an enhanced rocket motor, an aerodynamic hood for extended range, a data link, and an autonomous GPS/INS navigation system. That’s paired with an Australian CEAFAR AESA radar, Rheinmetall Air Defence’s Oerlikon Skymaster battle management system, and Terma’s BMD-Flex command, control and communication system.

SPYDER

RAFAEL’s SPYDER. Israel’s system uses a pair of Python-5 IIR-guided and derivative Derby radar-guided missiles to the same effect as the different MICA variants, cued by a combination of radar and optical sensors. The truck-mounted system comes in SR (4 missiles) and MR (8 missiles with range-extending boosters) options. One interesting question is whether SPYDER-MR could also mount the Stunner missile from David’s Sling, creating a mobile BMD option. There’s already a base for Polish-Israeli cooperation, as Peru’s new air defenses are a combination of Poprad and SPYDER-SR systems, via a partnership between Poland’s Bumar (Poprad), RAFAEL (SPYDER system), and Northrop Grumman (long-range TPS-78 radar). It will be interesting to see if that arrangement rebounds back to Poland. SPYDER has been publicly exported to Georgia, India, Peru, and Singapore.

Raytheon’s NASAMS-II. This system seems to hold the high ground, if NAREW is considered on its own. Its flexible open-architecture command and control could place it at the center of Poland’s tactical air defenses, and Raytheon is working with WZU SA in Grudziadz to re-use Poland’s tracked Soviet-era SA-6 launchers as part of the system. Fokker would provide the launcher canisters, and Thales-Nederland the radar. Missile variety (IRIS-T, AIM-9X Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, and longer-range RIM-162 ESSM), and commonality with existing Polish Air Force missile stocks (AIM-9X and AIM-120) help create a powerful edge. NATO and related NASAMS customers include Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain; it has also been exported elsewhere.

Tier 3: The WISLA Air/BMD Tier

SAMP/T Aster-30
(click to view full)

The top tier is the WISLA program, which will have priority. In this “medium range” competition, up to 8 batteries will act as both long-range air defense, and point defense against short to medium range ballistic missiles. The only reason WISLA isn’t classed as long range is the expected 300+ km reach of land-based SM-3 Block IIA missiles, once the USA’s Aegis Ashore complex goes live at Redzikowo in 2018.

Competitors reportedly include MBDA-Lockheed (MEADS), MBDA-Thales-Bumar (SAMP/T Mamba using Aster-30), Israel’s SIBAT export agency (David’s Sling/ “Stunner”), and Raytheon (PATRIOT). All have killed ballistic missiles in live-fire tests, and all offer different advantages and disadvantages.

MEADS concept
(click to view full)

MEADS. Advantages: European partnership, Advanced unified solution. Disadvantages: Risk. Lost its American customer due to the cost of integrating it with back-end command systems. The PAC-3 MSE missile is migrating to PATRIOT batteries, however, and MEADS’ advanced radars may do likewise eventually. Meanwhile, MEADS program partners Germany and Italy are looking at the possibility of financing the full system into production themselves, and Polish participation would really help. That’s good news in terms of industrial development opportunities, but it also adds real risks. Lockheed Martin and MBDA’s MEADS is a step up from PATRIOT in all respects, and its ability to launch Diehl’s short-range IR-guided IRIS-T SL missiles as a supplement adds to its appeal over PATRIOT.

The catch is that Poland would have to accept project risk, cost risk, and coalition risk in exchange. They chose not to, but there are reports that MEADS’ PAC-3 MSE missile could be an option as part of Raytheon’s bid.

PATRIOT explained
(click to view full)

PATRIOT (Finalist). Advantages: No-risk choice. Disadvantages: Performance. Raytheon offers the most widely deployed and proven option, with zero development risk, a set path to integration with American and NATO back-end systems, full compatibility with American units already on Polish soil, and a massive global installed base that guarantees long-term upgrades and support. Raytheon IDS VP Sanjay Kapoor has added that that Polish systems would include the “PAC-3 MSE missile and recent technological enhancements introduced into the Patriot radar and command and control…”

On the flip side, PATRIOT currently has the least powerful radar in this group, and there is some concern that even with the PAC-3 MSE, future Russian aircraft and weapons will begin to outpace its capabilities. In response, Raytheon is offering Poland a variant of the TPQ-65 with 360-degree rotating coverage, an all-new antenna, and a new IFF system built in cooperation with Poland’s Bumar. RAFAEL’s Stunner missile is also an option, as an optional “Low Cost Interceptor”. Beyond that, Raytheon’s TPY-2 could also help even up the radar equation quickly, if it’s offered as part of the overall Wisla bid. It’s already being exported to the UAE as part of their land-based THAAD BMD system, and a TPY-2 is currently operating on NATO’s behalf in Turkey.

SAMP/T Mamba (Finalist). Advantages: European partnership, Range. Disadvantages: Cost, French diplomacy. MBDA’s SAMP/T uses an advanced Arabel radar, and an Aster-30 missile with longer proven reach than Poland’s other WISLA options. The SAMP/T system already serves with France and Italy, and France is implementing its own national BMD system within NATO’s ALTBMD. That makes it a ready model if Poland wants a European system. On the industrial front, MBDA has already secured key partnerships.

All of these considerations make SAMP/T a strong contender in Poland, if Mamba’s cost and France’s snake-eyes diplomacy don’t destroy its chances. America’s relationship with Poland had been damaged before the Ukrainian crisis, but France’s continued willingness to sell Russia amphibious assault ships after Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine is an odd case of “anything vous can do, nous can do meilleur”. Still, senior members of the Polish government have been recorded saying that American security guarantees are worthless. In that context, EuroSAM’s status as a finalist becomes less surprising.

DS intercept test
(click to view full)

Stunner/ David’s Sling. Advantages: Cost. Disadvantages: Initial capabilities. This system is just completing development in Israel, where it will replace existing MIM-23 Hawk and MIM-104 PATRIOT batteries. Its Stunner missile said to be significantly less expensive than Lockheed Martin’s PATRIOT PAC-3, and the firm has even worked with Raytheon to tout a PAAC-4 system that would use Stunner on top of Raytheon’s PATRIOT Config-3 core system. Unfortunately, Stunner’s initial release won’t have key capabilities like cruise missile/ UAV interception, or the ability to hit maneuvering ballistic targets. Israel’s SIBAT tends to be closed-mouthed about its offerings, but it does have the leeway to offer Poland other advanced equipment like the Green Pine long-range radar used in Israel, South Korea, and India.

We thought that “the Israeli firm could have a tough climb here,” and pressure from the USA was the final nail. The Israeli firm was not a finalist, but the Stunner missile survives as a PAAC-4 option within Raytheon’s official bid.

Contracts & Key Events

Raytheon, MSPO 2013

December 21/15: PIT-RADWAR has received an order for 79 Poprad self-propelled surface-to-air missile systems from Poland. The $273 million contract will also include the upgrade of two previously delivered systems. The short-range anti-aircraft system uses the Polish-made Grom MANPADS. Poland’s new government, led by the right-wing Law & Justice Party, has sought to increase military spending as part of NATO directives, but also holds a desire to increase production of armaments domestically.

Oct 23/14: NAREW. Col. Adam Duda of Poland’s Armament Inspectorate outlines their candidates and timelines for the NAREW medium-range air defense system. The technical dialogue will begin in November 2014, for completion in Q1 2015. They believe that Poland can continue to provide all of its own command and control systems, but basic tactical and technical assumptions, and feasibility studies, will continue until the end of 2015. The winning system would be picked in 2016. Poland is only looking at complete system packages, and announced candidates include:

“Kongsberg NASAMS, MBDA Mica VL, Israeli Spyder and Iron Dome systems and the German IRIS-T. [Duda] claimed though that “other solutions” may also be taken into account during the proceedings.”

Note the addition of Iron Dome and the absence of MEADS, which was eliminated from WISLA. Germany and Italy are still deciding whether to invest in it independently, however, and the door seems open if those decisions change the landscape. Meanwhile, IRIS-T SL survived as an independent bid, offering and a vertically-launched variant of the infrared-guided air-to-air missile, complete with an enhanced rocket motor, an aerodynamic hood for extended range, a data link, and an autonomous GPS/INS navigation system. That’s paired with an Australian CEAFAR AESA radar, Rheinmetall Air Defence’s Oerlikon Skymaster battle management system, and Terma’s BMD-Flex command, control and communication system. Sources: Defence24, “Poland to Begin Short Range Air Defence System Procurement in 2016”.

Sept 2/14: MBDA. At the MSPO military exhibition in Kielce, Poland, MBDA signs 2 Letters of Intent with MESKO (Aster-30 B1 work and B1NT development) and PIT-RADWAR S.A (missile uplink receiver equipment), relating to the Polish “Wisla” medium range air and missile defence programme. MBDA adds that:

“…warhead, booster and servo actuators will be transferred to our Polish partners, as well as missile maintenance and training.”

Sources: MBDA, “MSPO: MBDA seals new perspectives for stronger cooperation with Polish industry”.

June 12/14: Raytheon. Raytheon Company and Bumar Elektronika announce a partnership to design and develop a modernized Patriot Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) antenna that can upgrade previous ground systems. Meanwhile, Raytheon has begun laying out its broader vision for WISLA.

The IFF system will be used as part of an “advanced Patriot 360 degree radar.” Raytheon says that it would be based on the current AN/APG-65 with the new Radar Digital Processor, but it would carry an all-new antenna, and rotate for full hemispheric coverage. The result would also be an attractive upgrade for customers whose emplaced PATRIOTs are currently limited to a 120 degree field of regard. It would also bring Raytheon closer to parity with Lockheed’s MEADS, which substitutes three 360-degree radars (2 X-band MFCR, 1 UHF-band VSR) in place of the PATRIOT system’s single G-band MPQ-53 (PAC-2) or MPQ-65 (PAC-3).

A new open-architecture, NATO-compatible Common Command and Control (CC2) system would be a joint Raytheon-Polish development, incorporating PATRIOT fire control software, but allowing the integration of options like NASAMS and other systems. CC2’s design, development, and testing would be done in partnership with Polish industry, with the final product produced in Poland.

Missile choice would be up to Poland. Raytheon makes PAC-2 GEM missiles, while Lockheed Martin makes PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE missiles. To flank their rival at the high end, Raytheon is offering a “new advanced Low Cost Interceptor (LCI)” option. This refers to Raytheon’s PAAC-4 offering, which can add RAFAEL’s Stunner missiles from the competing David’s Sling air defense/ ABM system. If previous reports are true (q.v. May 14/14), Raytheon has effectively recruited their Israeli competitor into their team. The final LCI missile solution would be based on Polish requirements, and it’s worth noting that Raytheon is also RAFAEL’s partner for the famous Iron Dome counter-rocket system. Sources: Direct discussions | Raytheon, “Poland’s Bumar Elektronika and Raytheon Partner to Develop New Patriot IFF Antenna”.

May 14/14: No Israel in WISLA. The USA has reportedly used export clearance to block Israel’s David’s Sling system from WISLA consideration. Israel’s silence concerning Russia’s ongoing annexation of eastern Ukraine hasn’t helped them in Poland, either. France is one-upping the Israelis with their continued willingness to sell Russia amphibious assault helicopter carriers, but they seem committed, even though a SAMP/T win in Poland would earn around 5x what Russia is paying for the Vladivostoks. Which leaves a strong likelihood that WISLA will be American-made. Reuters:

“As compensation, the manufacturer of the Israeli David’s Sling missile defense system may get a role in a future U.S.-led arms sale to Warsaw, the [Israeli] official, who has been briefed on the competition, told Reuters on condition of anonymity…. The involvement of U.S. technologies gives Washington an effective veto over export of the system, which the Israeli defense official said had been quietly wielded in this case. “There has been pressure,” he said, without elaborating. “We cannot sell everything we want to.””

At the same time, Lockheed Martin’s Marty Coyne told Reuters that the US government had “supported the MEADS bid by giving Lockheed permission to offer producing its baseline PAC-3 missiles in Poland, and to help Polish industry set up production of its own long-range missile.” If the winner is MEADS, that would mean either a PAC-3 downgrade within the more advanced MEADS system, or full local production of the PAC-3 MSE, which is the USA most advanced air defense missile. Sources: Reuters, “Exclusive: Israel’s David’s Sling will not win Polish missile tender – official”.

March 20/14: Polish Deputy Defence Minister Czeslaw Mroczek tells Reuters that Polish priorities are changing. With respect to the Shield of Poland:

“By the end of this year we want to already have chosen an offer. That is the acceleration by several months, compared to our original plans, that we are talking about…. To a certain extent, the decision on accelerating this process is the result of a review commissioned by the prime minister and the defence minister because of the situation in Ukraine.”

The full system is still slated to be ready by 2022, and could cost up to $13 billion. The WISLA medium range system is reportedly going to be Phase 1. Sources: Reuters, “Poland speeds up missile defense plan amid Ukraine crisis”.

March 17/14: MEADS. With Russia in the middle of invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea, Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute writes that:

“Both [China and Russia] field ballistic missiles and airborne weapons that would present a challenge to Patriot in its current form, and the outlook is for such weapons to become more capable…. in an unusual move, the Obama Administration late last week gave prime contractor Lockheed Martin permission to offer the Medium Extended Air Defense System to Warsaw for use in the Polish Shield. The Poles have known about MEADS for some time, because two other European NATO nations – Germany and Italy – provided 42% of the money needed to develop it. A Polish delegation showed up for November tests in which a MEADS prototype demonstrated its ability to intercept a drone and a ballistic missile approaching from opposite directions.”

Meanwhile, Warsaw Business Journal confirms just 4 finalists: SAMP/T (MBDA & Thales), MEADS (MBDA & Lockheed Martin), Raytheon (PATRIOT), and the Israeli government (David’s Sling). Sources: Forbes Magazine, “Ukraine Crisis: Poland’s Air Defenses Become A Pressing Concern For Washington” | Warsaw Business Journal, “Four in the running for medium range air defense system”.

Feb 11/14: WISLA. Poland’s Ministry of National Defense announced the start of Phase 2 of WISLA’s technical dialogue. Stage 2 aims to identify the areas of potential technical and industrial cooperation, the transfer of knowledge, technology, and production, and the intellectual property rights available.

Raytheon says that they are 1 of 5 shortlisted parties, and recently signed a Letter of Intent with Poland’s Polski Holding Obronny sp.z o.o. (PHO) to explore cooperation. Their WISLA offering is based on PATRIOT, and Raytheon and PHO are hosting a Partnering Conference on March 18-19/14 at the Hilton Hotel in Warsaw, Poland. Sources: Raytheon, “Poland invites Raytheon to participate in round two of WISLA technical dialogues”.

Nov 26/13: Defense News offers an update on Polish plans:

“Poland plans to modernize its anti-aircraft and anti-missile system by 2022 by adding short- and middle-range missiles. The program is estimated to be worth as much as 26.4 billion zloty (US $8.4 billion), according to figures obtained by local daily Gazeta Wyborcza, which makes it the country’s largest armament program.”

Poland reportedly had 14 firms interested in WISLA, including Boeing, Israel’s SIBAT export agency, MBDA (incl. a consortium led by Poland’s Bumar), and Raytheon. Some of the interested firms would have to be sub-contractors, or supply just part of a system: Turkey’s Aselsan, Northrop Grumman, Selex, Spain’s Indra and Sener, and Thales.

Lockheed Martin is notably absent, but MEADS is being offered through MBDA as a 2nd bid, alongside their SAMP/T offer through Bumar. Lockheed Martin would remain an active MEADS participant, and remaining development funds are estimated at $400 – 600 million. Germany and Italy and considering “a transition to European development work” by the end of 2014, and have invited Poland to join them. Sources: Defense News, “Building the Shield” | NTI Global Security Newswire, “Poland Eyes Up to $8.4 Billion in Air and Missile Defense Costs”.

Sept 18/13: Budgets. Poland’s government introduces a 10-year military modernization law that lays out a comprehensive modernization program. Once enacted, it will remove the problem of unspent modernization funds having to be returned each year, and prevent attempts to shift the money to other purposes. The catch? Poland’s “Law on the reform and technical modernization of Polish Armed Forces” includes a guarantee that every year, Poland will spend 1.95% of GDP on defense. The good news is that this sets a solid minimum. The bad news is that it also sets an effective maximum, so successful financing of these programs will depend on the long-term state of Poland’s economy.

“Among the priorities defined by the President Bronislaw Komorowski and Prime Minister Donald Tusk in November 2011, written in “Technical Modernization Plan for 2013-2022″ the following key operational programs are listed:

1. Air defence system – among other things the following items will be procured under this program:
– air defence medium-range missile systems WISLA;
– air defence short-range missile systems NAREW;
– self-propelled air defence missile systems POPRAD;
– mobile air defence missile system GROM/PIORUN;
– air defence short-range artillery-missile systems PILICA [DID: ZU-23-2 with 2 Grom missiles];
– mobile three-coordinates radio stations SOLA/BYSTRA.”

Sources: Polish MON, “Money for new military equipment guaranteed”.

Aegis Ashore
(click to view full)

Aug 6/12: Poland fixing its “mistake”. Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski states that Poland is prepared to create its own anti-aircraft and missile defense system as part of a NATO shield, at a cost of $3-6 billion. With respect to the USA’s defensive plan, which Poland hasn’t rejected:

“Our mistake was that by accepting the American offer of a shield we failed to take into account the political risk associated with a change of president. We paid a high political price. We do not want to make the same mistake again.”

The missile and air defense system proposed by the Polish president would target all short and some medium range missiles, just like the initial 2 stages of the EPAA. The system would be part of the emerging NATO Missile Defense shield, but beyond that, details regarding radars, weapons, etc. would have to be fleshed out in subsequent contracts. Germany and France were specifically mentioned as potential partners, and MBDA’s naval PAAMS system and Aster-30 missiles have already been converted to a land equivalent of their own. Their SAMP/T is the logical competitor if Poland wants to buy a non-American system. Its weakness is that it wouldn’t be able to grow into a counter against IRBM or ICBM missiles, but that could make it a very good complement to an American system that can. Relations with Israel are close, but David’s Sling is a joint development with Raytheon, and past American behavior has involved use its weapon export rules against potential competitors. Polskie Radio | Forbes | German Marshall Fund of the United States | Russia’s RIA Novosti | UK’s The Telegraph | UPI | WSJ Emerging Europe.

Sept 20/10: Budgets. Defense Minister Bogdan Klich announces that the 2011 military budget will grow 7.1% after 2010’s austerity measures, to PZL 27.25 billion ($8.79 billion). A national air and missile defense system will likely need its own separate approval, and:

“Anticipating the tender announcement, all likely bidders presented their offers from Sept. 6 to 9 at the International Defense Industry Exhibition MSPO in Kielce…. included a proposal based on the short-range VL Mica and medium-range Aster-30 missiles from European missile maker MBDA integrated with radars and Grom missiles from Poland’s Bumar Group; Norway’s Kongsberg and Raytheon’s joint bid comprising Patriot and NASAMS II systems; and Israeli Rafael and Raytheon with the Spider and Stunner interceptors.”

Sources: Defense News, “Poland’s Defense Budget Rises, With Emphasis on Modernization”.

December 2009: Status of Forces agreement between Poland and the USA paves the way for emplacement of US Army PATRIOT missile batteries in the country.

July 1/09: MBDA. The firm takes its existing Polish agreements (q.v. Sept 3/07) a step further, and signs a framework agreement:

“This agreement will see MBDA and BUMAR jointly involved in a project to modernise Poland’s ground based air defences. Long term co-operation will permit significant exchanges of technology between the two partners and the optimisation of investments already made. In this respect the new system will draw on elements of MBDA’s short-range VL MICA and medium-range Aster 30 missiles with other major subsystems such as the radars and the command and control systems developed by PIT (the Warsaw-based telecommunications research institute – Przemyslowy Instytut Telekomunikacji) and RADWAR (one of several companies within the BUMAR group which is Poland’s largest defence equipment manufacturer).”

Sources: MBDA, “MBDA and BUMAR sign framework agreement for the future Polish air defence system” | Microwave Journal, “MBDA and BUMAR Sign Polish Air Defense Agreement.”

Sept 3/07: MBDA. The firm signs initial Polish partnership deals:

“The agreement, signed in the presence of Polish Vice-Prime Minister Przeyslaw Dosiewski and Polish Secretary of State for Defence Marek Zajakala, is aimed at future cooperation to meet the Polish Armed Forces’ long term ground based air defence requirements.

Under the agreement MBDA, along with Przemyslowy Instytut Telekomunikacji (PIT) and RADWAR (part of BUMAR, Poland’s largest defence equipment manufacturer) will have the common aim of providing the Polish Armed Forces with the range of Polish made weapon systems that will be needed to meet the country’s national anti-air defence requirements as well as its NATO and European commitments over the next 20 years.”

Sources: MBDA, “MBDA signs cooperative air defence agreement with Polish”.

Additional Readings

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

General Background

• Polski Holding Obronny sp.z o.o. – Shield of Poland. Polish Defence Holding is the leader of the Tarcza Polski national program, which will be fully compatible with NATO’s NATINADS Integrated Air Defense System.
• Polish MON (Sept 18/13) – Money for new military equipment guaranteed.
• DID – SM-3 BMD, in from the Sea: EPAA & Aegis Ashore. America’s long-range Aegis Ashore system will be installed at Redzikowo in 2018.
• NATO – Ballistic missile defence
• Raytheon – Raytheon in Poland.

WISLA Contenders

• Army Technology – Stunner Missile Interceptor System, Israel. Full system is called David’s Sling, also known in Israel as “Magic Wand.” Expelliarmus!
• RAFAEL – STUNNER (David’s Sling). Technically, Israel’s full David’s Sling system also includes equipment from IAI and other firms; Stunner is just the missile.
• Raytheon – Stunner: Terminal Missile Defense Interceptor. Working with RAFAEL on David’s Sling, incl. the PAAC-4 option that marries PATRIOT Config-3 ground systems with Stunner.
• DID – Beyond Patriot? The Multinational MEADS Air Defense Program.
• DID – Timely Defenders: The PATRIOT Missile System.
• Army Technology – Aster 30 SAMP/T – Surface-to-Air Missile Platform / Terrain, Other.
• MBDA – Aster-30 SAMP/T.
• EuroSAM – Ground Launched Systems. MBDA-Thales partnership offers SAMP/T with Aster-15 & Aster-30, Thales radars and back-end systems.

NAREW Contenders

• Diehl Defence – IRIS-T Guided Missile Family. The IRIS-T SL package; note that the missile itself could also be integrated into NASAMS, but the similar AIM-9X would also offer Air Force commonality.
• Army Technology – Mica Vertical Launch Short-Range Air-Defence System, France.
• MBDA – VL MICA.
• Army Technology – SPYDER Surface-to-Air Launcher for PYthon 5 and DERby Missiles, Israel.
• RAFAEL – SPYDER-MR ADS.
• Army Technology – Surface-Launched AMRAAM (SL-AMRAAM / CLAWS), United States of America.
• Raytheon – National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System.
• Kongsberg Defence – NASAMS – Surface Launched AMRAAM. Mainstay missile is the AIM-120 AMRAAM, but it can also mount longer-range RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrows, and shorter-range, infrared-guided AIM-9X Sidewinder or IRIS-T missiles.

News & Views

• Reuters (March 21/14) – Poland speeds up missile defense plan amid Ukraine crisis. Having Russia annex part of your next-door neighbor does tend to concentrate the mind.
• Forbes (March 17/14) – Ukraine Crisis: Poland’s Air Defenses Become A Pressing Concern For Washington. Better late than never – MEADS approved for export.
• Defense News (Nov 26/13) – Building the Shield: European Nations Cooperate With US, NATO Allies On Missile Defense.
• Breaking Defense (Oct 17/13) – Why Russia Keeps Moving The Football On European Missile Defense: Politics. “Ironically, moving the technology further away from Russian borders could increase the potential for its successful use against Russian missiles. So, whether or not Russian technical concerns could ever really be assuaged must be questioned.”
• Raytheon (January 2013) – Interview with Nowa Technika Wojskowa [PDF]. Raytheon IDS VP Sanjay Kapoor says that Polish systems would include the “PAC-3 MSE missile and recent technological enhancements introduced into the Patriot radar and command and control…”
• Army Recognition (Sept 4/12) – Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) modernizes Polish medium range air defense system. “The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is shown mounted on a 2P25 [DID- tracked SA-6 system] launch vehicle with new launcher canisters from Fokker and a semi-active radar upgrade solution on a mobile vehicle from Thales-Netherlands.”
• Survival in the City (Sept 4/12) – What will happen with the Polish air defense? Site is flaky, but the article checks out against other sources.
• German Marshall Fund (Aug 11/12) – Polish Missile Defense Plan Puts Poland First. Also explains the diplomatic tensions created by the USA.
• Defense News (Sept 20/10) – Poland’s Defense Budget Rises, With Emphasis on Modernization.
• Commentary Magazine (December 2009) – The Missile Defense Betrayal. The revised European missile defense plan was not universally well-received on the political front, with many conservatives sharply critical. Commentary Magazine’s article includes coverage of the political dynamics at work in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Kilo Class cutaway
(click to view full)

In April 2009, reports surfaced that Vietnam had agreed in principle to a deal with Russia for 6 of its diesel-electric Kilo/ Project 636 Class fast attack submarines. By December 2009, it was an inflection-point deal for a capability that Vietnam has never had before. By November 2013, the new submarines had begun to arrive.

Nor is that the only change in Vietnam’s military capabilities these days, courtesy of their long-standing relationship with Russia. There have been some outside deals for items like maritime surveillance floatplanes, and a Dutch deal will provide high-end frigates. For the most part, however, Vietnam’s new combat power in the air, at sea, and on land is coming from Russia. China’s displays of naval might are only part of the mosaic influencing Vietnam’s decisions in these matters.

Vietnam’s New Military Buys: Considerations & Conclusions

Southeast Asia
(click to view full)

China’s 2009 display of naval might certainly marks an increased shift toward “forward defense” farther from its borders, a policy that must eventually include China’s trade lifeline to Vietnam’s south, through the Straits of Malacca. It also underlined a growing gap between China’s increasingly advanced ships and high capacity hovercraft, and Vietnam’s fleet of older Soviet and even American ships.

Ownership of the Spratly Islands remains very much in dispute, and Vietnam and China share a centuries-long history of mutual distrust and occupation. Recent punctuations of that animosity include the 1979 3rd Indochina War; this was followed by a significant skirmish in 1981, and a naval skirmish over the Spratly Islands in 1988. Today, Vietnamese protests over a Chinese bauxite mine in Vietnam, and media disobedience over the Spratly Islands issue, serve as a reminder that the 1989 treaty has not changed the relationship’s underlying fundamentals.

Key Platforms

Submarines

Kilo Class for China
(click to view full)

China itself has adopted a strategy of building up a submarine force to counter a superior surface opponent (the US Navy). It’s entirely logical for Vietnam to adopt a similar approach vis-a-vis China, especially given that China’s lifeline of raw materials and exported goods from and to Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and parts of Asia passes right by Vietnam’s doorstep.

Aside from Thyssen Krupp Marine’s U209 family of submarines, the Russian Kilo Class are the world’s most widely exported subs. They’re known for a level of quietness that’s significantly better than other Russian designs, and have been produced in the Project 877EKM, and the Project 636M “Improved Kilo” / Varshavyanka Class variant that Vietnam is receiving. Countries operating or ordering these submarines include Russia, Algeria, China, India, Iran, Poland, and Romania.

There had been some speculation that Vietnam’s emphasis on shallow water operations, and proximity to the Straits of Malacca, might have made DCNS’ novel 885t, $200 million Andrasta Class of “pocket submarines” attractive. Instead, Vietnam appears to have opted for a longer-range, higher capacity 3,000t submarine from its tried and true Russia partner. They can be armed with 533mm heavy torpedoes, mines, and/or the 3M54 Klub-S family of missiles. The Improved Kilo Class boats will be named:

• HQ-182 Hanoi (delivered)
  
• HQ-183 Ho Chi Minh City (testing complete 2014-01)
  
• HQ-184 Hai Phong (launched 2013-08, arrival 2014)
  
• HQ-185 Khanh Hoa (arrival 2015)
  
• HQ-186 Da Nang (arrival 2015)
  
• HQ-187 Ba Ria-Vung Tau (arrival 2016)

Other Naval

Dinh Tien Hoang
(click to view full)

The new submarines are the most important new Russian addition to Vietnam’s capabilities, but they are not alone. A mixed set of 6 stealthy Gepard 3.9/Dinh Tien Hoang Class light frigates will add surface warfare and patrol punch. The first pair optimized for surface attack are already delivered, plus orders for 2 model emphasizing anti-submarine warfare, and 2 upgraded ships with undetermined capabilities as yet.

Gepard 3.9 frigates. These ships are a combined diesel-turbine export version of Russia’s Project 11611 (Tartarstan) frigates, which serve in the Caspian fleet. The 102m/ 2,100t design sits in the grey area between small frigates and large corvettes, and despite their 5,000nm endurance, they’re best suited to local maritime patrol and interdiction. Their stealth-enhanced ship design and 8 sub-sonic Kh-35E anti-ship missiles make them potentially dangerous adversaries in littoral regions; other armament includes 1 AK-176 76mm main gun, 2x AK-630 family multi-barrel 30mm automated guns, and 12-20 mines. There’s space at the back of the ship for a Ka-27 helicopter, but no hangar.

Air defense is handled by a Palma turret derived from the land-based SA-19 Tunguska, carrying twin AO-18KD multi-barrel 30mm cannons and 8 SOSNA-R 9M337 hyper-velocity laser beam rider missiles. An optical turret in the Palma’s center handles fire control, and a command module includes the 3Ts-99/Positiv ME1 target detection 3D radar. It’s mounted in place of the 9K33M “OSA-M”/SS-N-4 Gecko twin-launcher missile system installed on Russia’s frigates, and provides a maximum air defense reach of 10 km and 19,500 feet altitude, with a 2nd kill zone out to 4 km for the 30mm guns.

The ASW ships can be expected to carry 533 mm torpedo tubes, depth charges, and an RBU-6000 12-barreled Anti-Submarine rocket launcher.

This size and weapons array may not be much to get excited about, relative to other international frigate designs, but it will make them Vietnam’s most capable combat ships until the Dutch Sigma Class frigates arrive. There has been talk about including Shtil-1 air defense missiles with a 50 km range on the last 2 ships, in place of the Palma turret. Adding those would quadruple the ships’ air defense radius, but the ship’s overall changes would need to extend beyond that mounting.

Molniya/ Project 12418 FAC. These missile-armed Fast Attack Crafts, derived from the Tarantul-class Soviet corvette design, will help modernize a fleet that’s mostly made up of aging Soviet FACs, and captured American ships from the Vietnam War. The new ships are small, at just 550t full load, but they pack a very dangerous set of 8 sub-sonic Kh-35E anti-ship missiles, or 4 Moskit/ SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missiles. Up to 10 may be built under the 2010 contract.

An agreement to license-build the Russian Kh-35 anti-ship missile adds extra impetus to Vietnam’s maritime modernization.

Air Force: SU-30MKs, and…?

SU-30MK2 weapons
(click to view full)

Vietnam’s air force is still reliant on the same core platform that formed their high end during the Vietnam war: the MiG-21. Swing-wing SU-22M4 strike and close air support fighters are only slightly newer. After that, there’s a sharp technological break to SU-27 air superiority fighters. Vietnam is slowly extending that modernized base with newer multi-role SU-30 planes from the same fighter family, strengthening air defenses and adding a long-range strike capability. They need that kind of firepower, given China’s own set of SU-30/J-11s, and the existence of flash-points like the Spratleys far from the mainland. The question is how they manage to balance that qualitative improvement with the need for fighter numbers, as the MiGs and SU-22s age out.

Note that even the most modern fighters will be limited without AWACS/ AEW support for wider awareness and coordination, and patrol ranges around key disputed territories like the Spratlys will be limited without mid-air refueling platforms. The bad news is that Vietnam doesn’t have a lot of budget to spare, and its ground forces are also in need of significant upgrades. The good news is that options like the Airbus/IAI C295 AEW, BAe 146 tanker conversions, and IAI Bedek’s K-767 tanker conversion of used commercial aircraft are creating new lower-cost options.

Contracts and Key Events

This section covers only Vietnamese contracts with Russia. As the “Additional Readings” section notes, Russia is not Vietnam’s exclusive arms provider – but it is the country’s most important defense relationship.

January 5/16: Vietnam has received possession of two more Su-30MK2 fighters, bringing the current number now operated to to thirty two. Dubbed the King Cobra, the Vietnamese Air Force hopes to have this increased to thirty-six by the end of 2016. The latest order, for twelve jets, was signed in 2013 and worth $600 million. Flight training for the aircraft is being provided by the Indian Air Force, who also operate the Russian made aircraft in their own military. In the past, India has trained Vietnamese naval personnel in operating Russian Kilo-class submarines.

Dec 10/14: Submarines. HQ-184 Hai Phong is reportedly on its way to Vietnam, after technical acceptance was signed on Dec. 4. The rest of the project appears on track: sea trials for boat #4 started in June, while the keel of #6 was laid in May.

Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines: Admiralty Shipyards provide Vietnamese Navy with third Project 636.1 submarine, Vietnam media relaying Russian sources.

Testing “Lightning” ships

Dec 8/14: Fast Attack Crafts. HQ 377 and HQ 378, the first 2 of 6 Molniya fast attack, are handed over by Ba Son Corporation for induction by the Vietnamese navy. The ships had been tested in April and delivered in June. The government seems to support Ba Son’s request to build a new, more modern shipbuilding factory.

Sources: Nhan Dan: Ba Son Corporation urged to complete, hand over missile boats | Tuoi Tre News: Vietnam to boost defense development, improve military combat capacity | Vietnam Breaking News: Vietnam to build more Russian missile boats | Asitimes: Vietnam holds technical test for its first 2 domestically-made high-speed missile boats.

Aug 27/14: SU-30s. Russia & India Report says that negotiations are underway to deepen Vietnam’s training relationship with India, progressing beyond subs to include its 36 SU-30MK2 jets by 2015. Malaysia already trains with India, as their SU-30MKM jets have a lot in common with the IAF’s SU-30MKIs. Vietnam’s SU-30MKs lack canards and thrust vectoring, but India is a logical pairing:

“India and Vietnam are likely to sign a defence agreement, under which Vietnamese pilots will be trained to operate Russian-built Sukhoi fighters, sources in the Indian Defence Ministry told RIR. The agreement is likely to be signed when Indian President Pranab Mukherjee visits the Southeast Asian country in September. The details are being finalised during the on-going visit of Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to Vietnam, the sources said…. India will also consider the sale of the Indo-Russian BrahMos missiles to Vietnam [DID: q.v. Dec 3/13 entry], although a deal is not imminent, the sources added.”

Adding the air-launched, supersonic BrahMos to Vietnam’s arsenal would make Indian training the only sensible solution, while greatly increasing Vietnam’s strike reach and capabilities. Sources: Russia & India Report, “India to train Vietnamese pilots to fly Sukhoi fighters”.

April 23/14: Frigates. Russia’s Nudelman Precision Engineering Design Bureau confirms that the “People’s Army of Vietnam Navy” (Maoist heritage, much?) will equip its Project 11661 Gepard anti-submarine light frigates with the same Palma air defense and CIWS system that sits on the first 2 surface warfare frigates. The ships are scheduled for delivery in 2017, and given the space constraints involved in a 2,100t platform, it’s always interesting to see what can and can’t stay when they’re equipped for a new role. Sources: IHS Jane’s Navy International, “Vietnam to arm new Gepard-class frigates with Palma CIWS”.

April 1/14: Frigates. Vietnam’s 2nd batch of Gepard frigates are scheduled for delivery in 2017, according to Zelenodolsk Shipyard’s annual financial statements. That set is supposed to be optimized for anti-submarine duties. Sources: IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Vietnam to receive two more Gepard frigates in 2017”.

Jan 16/14: Submarines. Vietnam’s 2nd submarine, HQ-183 Ho Chi Minh City, completes operational tests in Russia and receives its checkout certificate. It will be loaded onto a barge, and is expected to arrive in Vietnam around May 3/14.

HQ-184 Hai Phong was launched on Aug 28/13, and is also expected to be delivered to Vietnam in 2014. HQ-186 Khanh Hoa is due in 2015, and HQ-185 Da Nang can be inferred as also arriving that year. HQ-187 Ba Ria Vung Tau is due in 2016. Sources: Bao Dat Viet, “Tau ngam HQ-185 Da Nang ha thuy ngay 28/3” | Thanh Nien News, “Vietnam’s second Russian submarine completes testing” | Vietnamnet, “Russia hands over the second submarine to Vietnam”.

T-90
(click to view full)

Jan 10/14: Tanks. Vietnam is reportedly investigating the possibility of upgrading at least some of their existing fleet of about 480 T-72 main battle tanks, and buying T-90s to begin replacing their force of almost 1,000 elderly T-55s. Due diligence has reportedly been done with India’s T-90s, which also face the ravages of hot climates.

The problem is cost. T-72 upgrades can be sourced from a number of countries besides Russia, but top of the line new tanks are costly. If new armored personnel carriers also have to be bought for Vietnam’s armored formations, the entire project gets very expensive very quickly. On the other hand, defeats on land are very, very expensive when you have a large and aggressive neighbor on your border, and a long history of animosity. Tanks may not be the whole answer, but Vietnam will have to spend money to upgrade its land forces in some way.

Vietnam’s armored forces include various models of Russian and Chinese equipment, which means their fleets are fragmented as well as old. Consolidation of any sort would be helpful, though their terrain means that light vehicles can be as important as heavy armor. Israel has been talking to Vietnam about military deals, and one wonders if they’ve discussed conversion of the T-55s into refurbished Achzarit heavy APCs. Sources: Tinnong, “Viet Nam xem xet mua xe tang T-90 cua Nga”.

Kh-35E/ SS-N-25
(click to view full)

Dec 3/13: Weapons. Vietnam has reportedly placed an official request for a derivative of the Russian SS-N-26 Oniks missiles that already equip a couple of its shore batteries:

“Vietnam formally requested India to supply the Indo-Russian BrahMos cruise missiles at a meeting in New Delhi, informed sources told RIR. The request was made when Vietnam Communist party general secretary Nguyen Phu Trong visited the Indian capital, the sources said, adding that the Southeast Asian country was looking at enhancing security cooperation with India… During Phu Trong’s visits, requests were also made to India for submarine training and for conversion training for Vietnamese pilots to fly Sukhoi-30 aircrafts.”

The PJ-10 Brahmos is also a supersonic, radar-guided, medium-range anti-ship and strike missile. Vietnam’s current and planned ships aren’t good platforms for BrahMos, and Vietnam already has similar SS-N-26 shore batteries in place. A buy from India could deploy mobile shore batteries, but the most likely interest involves the developmental air-launched BrahMos, designed to be carried by SU-30 fighters. That would add about 300 km of strike range to Vietnam’s fighters, using a lethal threat to both enemy ships and shore installations. Deploying that combination would be almost as significant as Vietnam’s new submarines in shifting the South China Sea’s overall balance of power. Sources: Russia & India Report, “Vietnam looking to purchase BrahMos cruise missiles”.

Nov 7/13: Submarines. The Improved Kilo Class boat HQ-183 Hanoi is handed over to the Vietnam Navy in Russia, where its crew has been undergoing training. It will be loaded onto a barge on November 11/13, and prepared for shipment to Vietnam.

At the same time, representatives from Russia and Vietnam sign a document that will transfer a new submarine sailor training center in Cam Ranh Bay to the Vietnam Navy in January 2014, when the Hanoi and its cadre arrive at Cam Ranh Bay. By the end of 2014, Vietnam is expected to have 3 of its 6 ordered submarines. Sources: Vietnam Bridge, “Russia hands over Cam Ranh submarine sailor training center to Vietnam” | RIA Novosti, “Russia to Deliver 2 More ‘Black Hole’ Subs to Vietnam in ’14”.

Oct 25/13: Infrastructure. Vietnam officially inaugurates a maintenance line in Da Nang’s “Factory A32” for Su-27 and Su-30 fighters. Other countries have had real problems waiting for Russian support, so moving more of that support in-country will boost the fighter fleet’s availability. Sources: People’s Army Newspaper Online, “Maintenance line for Su-27 and Su-30 fighters unveiled”.

Sept 26/13: Infrastructure. Vietnam is committing to a ship repair facility in Cam Ranh Bay that can handle Russian ships by 2015. It’s a win for their ally, but Vietnam is also trying to turn Cam Ranh Bay into a broader maritime service center. US Military Sealift Command ships have received repairs and basic maintenance there over the last couple of years.

Strong naval maintenance capabilities for Russian designs is also a big asset to a force that operates Russian ships almost exclusively. Sources: RIA Novosti, “Vietnam Sets 2015 Deadline for Soviet, Russian Ship Repair Facility”.

Sept 24/13: Frigates. Russia’s Zelenodolsk shipyard has begun construction on Vietnam’s next Gepard Class 2,100t light frigates, which will be optimized for anti-submarine warfare instead of surface attack (q.v. Dec 7/11). Sources: RIA Novosti, “Russia Starts Building 2 Frigates for Vietnamese Navy”.

July 5/13: Submarines. Russia’s Interfax says that Vietnam’s 2nd submarine, Ho Chi Minh City, has returned to Admiralty Shipyards of St. Petersburg after series of sea trials. The 1st sub, Hanoi, was launched in August 2012 (vid. Aug 28/12 entry), and both are scheduled for handover to the Vietnamese Navy later in 2013. Earlier reports had targeted the end of 2012 for Haoi’s handover.

Note that the photograph in the linked article is not a Kilo Class sub. Thanh Nien News.

May 21/13: SU-30s. A Tuoi Tre News article offers some revealing information, alongside the classic Stakhanovite paeans.

“Living in rented houses, many of the [SU-30 maintenance] staff have to work as part time teachers in local schools to earn extra income for their families. They even use their own money to buy devices to test tools of their own invention before submitting ideas to leaders.”

Needless to say, economic conflicts of interest among the maintenance staff for your nation’s premiere air asset offers all kinds of potential vulnerabilities.

May 17/13: SU-30s. A Tuoi Tre News article discussed the propensity of Vietnamese pilots to stay in the aircraft and try to land, even if the failure is very serious. Materiel worth more than people? That does seem to be part of the attitude, but if so, it’s a long-standing predisposition:

“For example, three-star colonel and pilot Dao Quoc Khang managed to save his Su-27 when its engines broke down just seconds after taking off…. in April last year, captain and chief of Air Strike Regiment 935 Nguyen Xuan Tuyen and flight head Nguyen Gia Nhan saved a Su-30MK2 while they were on a regular patrol over East Sea and its engines suddenly stopped working when it was 600km from the coast. “….We told ourselves in our minds that we are responsible for keeping the US$50 million asset of the State in one piece. It is made from the labor of citizens. And we must protect it at any price, even if that means our lives,” pilot Tuyen said.”

In fairness, ejecting 600 km from the coast is near-certain death, given Vietnam’s limited search and rescue resources. So the brave and selfless-sounding justification doesn’t actually change their decision, and is the sort of thing you’d expect in an article that quotes political commissars with a straight face. Or is the mentality in the pilot’s justification real? That’s the interesting question.

March 29/13: Submarines. Rubin design bureau general director Igor Vilnit pledges to deliver the 1st Project 636M Improved Kilo Class submarine to Vietnam “in 2013 as scheduled.” Odd. Earlier reports from RIA Novosti (vid. Aug 28/12) had the handover taking place at the end of 2012.

The first boat has been built by Admiralteiskie Verfi shipyard in St. Petersburg, Russia, and is undergoing sea trials. All 6 boats are due for delivery by 2016. What isn’t addressed in these reports is Vietnam’s recruiting, training, infrastructure, and maintenance preparations. As Vietnam’s Australian neighbors have discovered the hard way, neglect of any of these 4 “invisible” elements leads to an undeployable submarine force. Vietnam has the advantage of beginning with a proven, tested submarine design, but in all other areas, they’re building from a very low foundation. RIA Novosti.

Oct 26/12: SU-34s? Phun.vn cites a report from the mysterious site “Periscope 2,” wherein it’s suggested that Vietnam plans to replace its fleet of 50 or so aged SU-22 strike aircraft with SU-34s, and that export approval will be given immediately, once it’s requested. The report also suggests that Saab JAS-39 Gripens will replace the VPAF’s even older fleet of 150 or so MiG-21s, that L-159s may replace existing L-39 trainers alongside Vietnam’s reported Yak-130 options, and that Vietnam may be interested in C295-AEW planes.

All of the above are possible, and militarily reasonable choices. Even the L-159 could be reasonable, if bought second-hand as a dual role trainer and MiG-21 fill in, to give the VPAF a dual Russian & Western fleet with appropriate weapon options. The thing is, “reasonable” doesn’t mean “likely”, and DID could find no other reports along these lines. Any of the non-trainer deals would be quite expensive, and Vietnam’s economy is a bit shaky these days. In addition, all of the non-Russian equipment would require export approval for American military items.

We throw this item in for reader interest, with a strong caution concerning its reliability. Phun.vn [in Vietnamese].

Aug 28/12: Submarines. Russia’s RIA Novosti reports that the Admiralteiskie Verfi shipyard in St. Petersburg has launched Vietnam’s 1st Project 636 diesel-electric submarine. The boat is due for handover to Vietnam by the end of 2012.

July 27/12: Political. Vietnam says that Russia can set up a base in Cam Ranh Bay, but it would be a maintenance base, not a military base. Vietnam is trying to promote Cam Ranh as a ship maintenance center, and has even worked on ships from US Military Sealift Command. Sources: RIA Novosti, “Vietnam Ready to Host Russian Maritime Base”.

June 21/12: Fighters. Vietnam is conducting air patrols over the disputed Spratly Islands, using its long-range Su-27 fighters.

“Hong Lei, spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, protested against the patrols by Vietnamese Su-27 fighters over the disputed Spratly islands in the South China Sea at a press conference in Beijing…. The flights by fighters from the Vietnam People’s Air Force over the Spratlys are routine and will continue, according to the Vietnamese military officials.”

State-owned China Radio International makes some valid points when it cites reasons not to be too concerned about Vietnam’s Su-27s: payload limitations, the lack of AWACS support for wider awareness and coordination, and the lack of mid-air refueling platforms. On the other hand, there’s no denying that the Su-27s and Su-30s offer Vietnam a leap forward in both air superiority and strike roles. With that foundation in place, it’s possible for Vietnam to begin closing some of the other gaps in coming years. Sources: Taiwan’s Want China Times, “Beijing downplays threat of Vietnam’s air force”.

March 29/12: Sub training from India? Singapore’s Asia Times:

“For full-scale underwater warfare training, it appears Vietnam will turn to India. The two countries have been engaged in high-level military talks with special emphasis on maritime cooperation. Since the Indian navy also employs Kilo-class submarines, New Delhi would be well suited to train Vietnamese crews. China responded warily to this bilateral warming trend in both words and deeds when a Chinese warship reportedly confronted an Indian navy vessel leaving a Vietnamese port in August… Moscow will reportedly build a submarine base for Vietnam at strategic Cam Ranh Bay, a one-time American and later Soviet naval base…”

Gepard 3.9, 2-view
(click to view full)

Dec 7/11: ASW Frigates. Rosoboronexport and the Zelenodolsk Gorky Plant have finished shipping Vietnam’s 1st 2 Gepard Class frigates, and have just signed a contract for 2 more. That isn’t a surprise, as reports from March 2010 were already discussing a set set. Unlike the first set, however, this next 2 will concentrate on anti-submarine warfare, rather than surface attack missions.

Vietnam’s example may also be creating ripples in the region. Gorky Plant Deputy Director Sergei Rudenko adds that Vietnam’s neighbor Cambodia has expressed its own interest in the Gepard Class. Interfax-AVN.

2 more Gepard Class frigates

Oct 20/11: Patrol boats. Vietnam signs acceptance certificates for the last 2 of 4 Project 10412/ Svetlyak Export Class patrol boats at Almaz Shipbuilding Firm. The 390t class was originally developed for the KGB’s border guards, mounting an AK-176M 76.2mm cannon, an AK-630 30mm gatling gun, and a mount for very short range SA-16/SA-18 anti-aircraft missiles.

The first 2 ships were delivered to Vietnam in 2002, and the 2 follow-on order ships were laid down in June 2009. Unfortunately, repeated issues with key components, including the Arsenal AK-176M gun mounts, delayed construction. The ships will be moved to St. Petersburg, and embarked on a transport ship for shipping to Vietnam. RusNavy.

Aug 22/11: Frigates. The Gepard Class frigate Ly Thai To [HQ-012] arrives at Cam Ranh Bay. Sources: Defense News, “Vietnam Receives Second Russian-Made Frigate”.

March 27/10: RIA Novosti reports that Chinese admirals are beginning to grasp the implications of advanced diesel-electric attack submarines in the hands of several regional neighbors, located right near China’s shipping lifelines.

Vietnam’s Kilo Class, Malaysia’s Scorpene Class, and Singapore’s Vastergotland Class submarines are all on China’s Southeast Asian radar. In the background, Indonesia continues to express its intent to buy Kilo Class submarines of its own.

Postscript: Indonesia eventually ended up buying a modern South Korean variant of the German U209.

March 25/10: Submarines. It’s good to be a good customer. Russian defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov says that Russia will help Vietnam build the submarine base it needs to house its new Kilos, provide a loan to help buy rescue and auxiliary vessels and planes for Vietnam’s navy, and build a ship repair yard. That yard would benefit the Russians, too, as it could service visiting Russian navy ships.

Vietnam’s geographic position could make its service yard attractive to other navies as well, giving other countries even more reason to focus on relations with the Southeast Asian nation. A good service yard could wind up being as important to Vietnam’s geo-political position as the submarines themselves. Associated Press | China’s Xinhua.

March 23/10: Russia’s Voice covers growing ties between Russia and Vietnam, which is becoming one of Russia’s biggest arms customers:

“Vietnam backs multilateral cooperation with Russia especially in military defense, stated Vietnam’s president Nguyen Minh Triet during talks with Russia’s Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov in Hanoi. “Each of Russia’s victories is like our own, the president said, and we support Russia in the Georgian conflict.” The president said that the US decision not to deploy its ABMs in Eastern Europe is also a victory for Russia… Anatoly Serdyukov noted that Vietnam is Russia’s strategic partner and Russia is ready to train Vietnamese personnel at the Russian Defense Ministry’s academies.”

March 16/10: Frigates. Russia’s Zelenodolsk PKB shipyard launches Vietnam’s 2nd Project Gepard 3.9 light frigate into the River Volga. In May 2010, the warship will sail to St. Peterburg and then travel by sea to Vietnam for sea trials. The 1st ship in the order was launched in August 2009.

A separate report indicates that Vietnam could be preparing to order 2 more light frigates of this type. ITAR-TASS [in Russian] | ITAR-TASS Arms [in Russian].

Feb 10/10: SU-30s. Interfax reports the signing of a formal contract between Russia and Vietnam for 12 SU-30MKK fighters, for delivery in 2011-2012, plus associated weapons, service, and support. The deal is reportedly worth $1 billion, and is signed the day after a Russian contract to build Vietnam’s first nuclear plant.

The exact state of the contract is less than clear, so we’re sticking with Dec 15/09 as the date. Agence France Presse | AP | RT | Straits Times.

SU-30MK & SU-27SK
(click to view full)

Dec 15/09: Shortly after Vietnam makes its defense white paper public, reports indicate that it has ordered 6 Improved Kilo Class submarines and 12 SU-30MKK fighter jets from Russia, during a visit to Moscow by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung.

Russia’s Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed Defense Ministry official on Dec 15/09, who said the submarines were improved “Project 636” types, and gave the deal’s value at of $2 billion, with delivery taking place at a rate of 1 submarine per year. The Sukhoi Su-30MK2 fighter jet deal was valued at $600 million, and would raise Vietnam’s SU-27/SU-30 family fleet to 20 fighters.

Vietnam also invited Russia to help build its 1st nuclear power plant, and hopes to begin construction in 2014 and put it on line by 2020. The country has been growing its manufacturing capacity in recent years, partly at China’s expense, and needs to improve its electric grid in tandem. Vietnam’s Thanh Nien News | RIA Novosti | Agence France Presse | Associated Press | BBC News | China’s Xinhua | Agence France Presse analysis.

12 SU-30s & 6 Improved Kilo submarines

Dec 4/09: Russia’s RIA Novosti reports:

“According to the Vedomosti business daily, Moscow and Hanoi are close to sign deals on the purchase of six Kilo class diesel-electric submarines and 12 Su-30MK2 Flanker-C multirole fighters. The submarine contract, worth an estimated $1.8 billion, includes the construction of on-shore infrastructure and training of submarine crews and will be the second largest submarine contract concluded by Russia since the Soviet era after the 2002 deal on the delivery of eight subs to China.”

April 27/09: Initial media reports. The submarine deal’s value is reported to be around $1.8 billion, and the SSKs would be built at Admiralty Shipyards in St. Petersburg. In addition to submarines, the Vietnamese Navy order is said to include new heavyweight torpedoes and missiles (most likely Klub family) to arm them.

This is a big step forward. There have been rumors that Vietnam owns 2 ex-Yugoslav mini-submarines for use in commando operations, but the Vietnamese People’s Navy doesn’t own any full size submarines that can take on enemy subs and ships.

Some of the Russian reports note that these 6 submarines were once planned for Venezuela, adding that Russia’s Rosoboronexport canceled the deal following Hugo Chavez’ meeting with US President Barack Obama. That must be judged an extraordinarily thin public rationale for canceling a $1.5+ billion purchase. A sinking global oil market, and Venezuela’s growing economic dependence on its declining oil production for revenue, are far more likely reasons for any delay and/or shift. See: RIA Novosti | MosNews | St. Petersburg Times | Singapore Straits Times | Defpro.

Additional Readings

• Haze Grey – World Navies Today: Vietnam
• Naval Technology – SSK Kilo Class (Type 636) Attack Submarine, Russia
• Rubin Design Bureau – Project 636. “Improved Kilo”/ Varshavyanka Class.
• Zelenodolsk Shipyard – Frigate of 11661 project “Gepard – 3.9”
• Air Force Technology – Su-30MK Multi-Role Two-Seater Fighter Aircraft, Russia
• Army Technology – T-72S Main Battle Tank, Russia
• The Armor Site – Russian T-90/T90S Main Battle Tank
• Military Today – Achzarit Heavy Armored Personnel Carrier. An option for converting the large fleet of T-55s?

News and Views

• Unbiased Jottings (April 1/13) – Maritime Contours: India – Vietnam & India-Japan Relationships. The site is by Indian Rear Admiral S Kulshrestha (ret.)
• Tuoi Tre News (May 21/13) – Caretakers of Sukhoi jet fighters in Vietnam
• Tuoi Tre News (May 17/13) – The ‘Air cobra’ of Vietnam’s air force
• The Diplomat (Nov 1/12) – Vietnam’s Underwater Anti-Access Fleet
• Reuters (Feb 10/12) – Vietnam seen courting Western arms deals. Israel is also in this mix, and can leverage experience with nearby clients in India, Thailand, and Singapore.
• DID (Oct 30/11) – More than the Sum of Its Parts: Dutch SIGMA Ships for Vietnam?
• DID (May 5/10) – Vietnamese Navy Orders DHC-6 Twin-Otter 400s. The durable float planes are a clever choice for short-range maritime surveillance.
• Reuters (Dec 14/09) – U.S. eyes Vietnam, Libya arms sales. The focus at this point is on “non-lethal” equipment, in Vietnam’s case, the focus is on maritime patrol aircraft, coastal radar systems, and English language training..

EQ-36 concept
(click to view full)

Firefinder radars track the path of incoming shells, rockets, mortars, etc., and calculate the point they were fired from. Raytheon’s TPQ-36 radar is specifically designed to counter medium range enemy weapon systems out to a range of 24 kilometers, while the TPQ-37 can locate longer-range systems, and even surface launched missiles, out to 50 kilometers. Michael Yon, embedded with 1-24 (“Deuce Four”) in Mosul, offered a first hand description of counter-battery radars’ effect on enemy tactics in 2005.

Better radar technologies offer a number of potential advantages for this role, including wider fields of view and less maintenance. Not to mention fewer disruptive, time-sucking false positives for deployed troops. In September 2006, Lockheed Martin began a contract to deliver their “Enhanced AN/TPQ-36” (EQ-36) radars. Despite the close official name and designation, this was a wholly new radar system, from a different company. Orders have begun to accumulate, along with deployments – and, finally, a less confusing designation change to AN/TPQ-53.

The TPQ-53 Counterfire Radar System

TPQ-53 components
(click to view full)

The TPQ-53 includes a number of operational improvements, including 360 degree coverage capability instead of the TPQ-36’s current 90 degrees, and dramatic reductions in false alarm rates. A successful program would replace many of the TPQ-36 radars currently in service.

In 2002, the US Army began a research project called the Multi-Mission Radar Advance Technology Objective. The goal was similar to the US Marine Corps’ G/ATOR: a single mobile radar system able to perform Air Defense Surveillance, Air Defense Fire Control, Counter Target Acquisition (artillery tracing) and Air Traffic Service missions. Unlike the Marines, the Army didn’t proceed from there toward a full development project. Instead, they incorporated some of the technologies and learning from MMRATO into a competition that would begin by fielding radars to solve the CTA problem.

Both the truck-mounted AN/TPQ-53, and the smaller Humvee-mounted TPQ-50 LCMR (Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar) trace back to that effort, and the TPQ-53 also grew out of lessons learned from the previous generation TPQ-36/37 Firefinder radar series. The base radar technology is more advanced, and software and hardware were modernized. Mechanically, the radar got more robust gears, a rotating platform, an automated leveling system for faster and more reliable emplacement, and an improved air cooled system to improve reliability and keep costs down. The Army expects these changes to save millions of dollars over the radars’ lifetimes.

An AN/TPQ-53 radar system is actually made up of 2 vehicles. One FMTV truck is the Mission Essential Group, containing the radar antenna and the power generator. The second FMTV truck carries the Sustainment Group, with a climate controlled operations shelter and backup power generator.

The TPQ-53 is IFPC (Indirect Fire Protection Capability) compatible in countering rocket, artillery, and mortar attacks, and the Army is thinking of adding software upgrades to allow it to track larger targets, and perform air defense surveillance against UAVs, helicopters, and enemy aircraft.

The system’s operations center allows the radar to link back to Army command systems like AFATDS and FAADC2. Linkages to ground-based Counter Rocket Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM) command systems, which can also connect to fire control radars and defensive weapons like the Phalanx Centurion, provide a complete defensive solution for protected bases. If the radar’s functions expand to include broader air defense, those command system linkages will become even more important.

Automation and built-in test sensors means that only 4 soldiers can operate the system, with an emplacement time of 5 minutes and a displacement time of just 2 minutes. This compares to 3 HMMWVs and 6 people for the previous TPQ-36v8 system; or 2 FMTV trucks, 2 HMMWVs, and 13 people for the TPQ-37v8.

A built-in encrypted wireless radio can reach up to 1 km away, allowing operators to disperse and make themselves more difficult targets. Soldiers can use a pair of ruggedized Linux laptop computers to handle operations from anywhere in range, or work from the climate-controlled shelter vehicle.

EQ-36/ TPQ-53: Program and Industrial Team

Old: TPQ-36 Firefinder
(click to view full)

The initial Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) contract for 5 radars was issued in January 2007. In spring 2007, the prototype completed successful counterfire target acquisition testing in both 90- and 360-degree modes at the U.S. Army’s Yuma Proving Grounds in Yuma, AZ. In summer 2007, the system completed successful air surveillance testing at White Sands Missile Range in White Sands, NM. A prototype was unveiled in October 2007, and the 1st system was delivered to the Army in summer 2009. By late 2010, the first EQ-36 systems were deployed in Iraq & Afghanistan.

An August 2011 option raised the EQ-36’s QRC order total to 36 systems (4 + 12 + 17 + 3), though some official documents place the number at 38. Another 65 AN/TPY-53 radars were ordered later, following the Milestone C update decision that launched low-rate initial production.

Over the longer term, the potential exists for $1.6+ billion in orders, covering all QRC units + 136 radars in the program of record. The Full Rate Production decision is scheduled for Q4 FY 2014.

Industrial team members for the EQ-36 program include Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors (MS2):

• Lockheed Martin MS2 in Syracuse, NY (Program lead, antenna array, digital module assemblies);
  
• Lockheed Martin MS2 in Moorestown, NJ, facility (transmit/receive modules);
  
• Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training and Support, in Orlando, FL (TPQ-53 training system and curriculum);
  
• Burtek, Inc. in Chesterfield, MI (operations shelter and stationary platform);
  
• Syracuse Research Corp. in Syracuse, NY (digital signal processor);
  
• Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, PA (maintenance support).

Contracts and Key Events

The radar is an American product, with the USA as its founding and largest customer. As such, timelines and divisions use American fiscal years, which end on September 30th.

TPQ-53 system
(click to view full)

February 9/16: Testing of the Q-53 Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar System in June 2015 has shown the radar is having difficulty detecting volley-fired mortars. While the second initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) found the system effective against single-fired rockets, artillery, and mortar munitions, it was unable to handle the detection of more than one munition fired at the same time, according to Michael Gilmore’s annual Operational Test & Evaluation report. The radar also struggled to identify the difference between a mortar, a rocket, and artillery. The Army, however, has stated that the radars have been working well in operational environments, and plans are to increase performance in high clutter environments with development and integration of software upgrades in 2019, with more testing planned for 240 mm and 122 mm munitions not assessed in previous tests.

April 7/14: Support. Lockheed Martin in Liverpool, NY receives a $9.1 million contract modification for interim contractor ssupport of the AN/TPQ-53 radar fleet.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 Army budgets. Work will continue until Sept 30/14, and will be performed in Liverpool, NY. US Army Contracting Command in Aberdeen, MD manages the comntract (W15P7T-06-C-T004 P00092).

March 28/14: +14. Lockheed Martin in Liverpool, NY receives a $145.9 million contract modification for another 13 AN/TPQ-53 radar systems, along with 13 corresponding sets of on-board spares. This is the 4th installment under the March 13/12 multi-year contract, and brings orders to $751 million: 65 systems over 4 phases.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY14 US Army budgets. Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/16. US Army Contracting Command in Aberdeen, MD manages the contract (W15P7T-12-C-C015, PO 0022).

AUSA 2011
(click to view video)

June 27/13: +19. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Liverpool, NY receives a $206.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to procure AN/TPQ-53 Radar Systems and corresponding spare parts, using a combination of FY 2012 and 2012 funds. Lockheed Martin sets the number at 19 radar systems, and this order brings the cumulative total face value of this contract is $605.1 million over the low-rate initial production contract, with 52 systems ordered over 3 phases.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY. US Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD manages this contract (W15P7T-12-C-C015, PO 0010). Sources: Pentagon, Lockheed Martin Aug 26/13 release.

March 12/13: Support. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Liverpool, NY receives a $12 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, to provide interim contractor support for the AN/TPQ-53 radar system.

Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY until the end of FY 2013 on Sept 30/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W15P7T-06-C-T004).

Dec 19/12 – Jan 17/13: future competition for FRP? PM Radars issues a Sources Sought request to determine whether reintroducing competition for Full Rate Production (FRP) may be possible in FY 2014. In other words, this is not an RFP to displace incumbent Lockheed Martin just yet, but it’s the homework that might create the option to do so.

The Army anticipates an FRP contract in Q4 FY 2014, as a single award, firm fixed price (FFP) contract comprised of a base year, with multiple separately priced options and range quantities. Spares, new equipment training, and technical manuals will also be acquired on a FFP basis. This would lead to the acquisition of about 70 systems over 4 years. Key factors in the source selection process include a Live Ammunition System Demonstration (LASD) planned for the first half of FY 2014. Data witnessed by the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) will not be an adequate substitute to participating in the live demo.

The submission date for this information request, originally set to Jan 14, 2013, is later postponed to Feb. 12. The FRP RFP itself is planned for release in Q4 FY 2013, with an award in Q3 FY 2014. FBO: W15P7T-13-R-C113.

Jan 2013: DOTE report. In its FY2012 report, the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation notes reliability improvements, with less frequent system aborts than the 2011 system demonstration’s 1 per 30 hours. Some of these original issues were attributed to user documentation and training, which slated for further improvement.

Even so, the results show a fallback from vast improvements after initial configuration changes, to a final configuration figure of 1 abort every 75 hours during limited testing. Initial Operational Test & Evaluation is scheduled for fall 2013, and the radars will need a big jump to hit required reliability levels of 1 abort every 257 hours.

A Limited User Test (LUT) took place in the fall of 2012, but that’s in FY 2013, and so it isn’t covered in the 2012 annual report.

Oct 17/12: Add other functions? The US Army announces that it has begun fielding the AN/TPQ-53, and the Humvee-mounted AN/TPQ-50 Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar, to protect forward-deployed forces. They also discuss a number of the AN/TPQ-53 system’s features, and reveal that the Army is considering software upgrades that would add general air surveillance radar capabilities against helicopters, UAVs, cruise missiles, and aircraft. Note that the radar’s antenna is heavily derived from the 2002 MMR ATO radar project, which already contemplated air volume search as a mission.

One indication that the Army is serious is that they’re moving the program from PEO IEWS Product Manager Radars, to PEO Missiles and Space. That will organize air defense radars under the same organizational umbrella as the counter-fire radars. US Army.

April 20/12: +21. Lockheed Martin issues a release citing $391 million in US Army contracts for 33 TPQ-53 systems.

Asked for clarification, the firm explains that the US Army has exercised its 2nd option under the contract since the March 13/12 announcement, adding another $225 million for another 21 systems (W15P7T-12-C-C015).

April 2/12: Lockheed Martin MS2 Radar Systems in Liverpool, NY receives a $23.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, for services “in support of the EQ-36 radar” through April 30/13.

Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY. The original bid was solicited through the Internet, with 3 bids received by U.S. Army Contracting Command in Fort Monmouth, NJ (W15P7T-06-C-T004).

Jan 17/12: Test reports. The Pentagon releases the FY 2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The “Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 (EQ-36) Radar System” is included. The Army conducted 3 Live Ammunition System Demonstration (LASD) radar test events at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, in October 2010, January 2011, and June 2011. Unfortunately, the DOT&E office reports that the systems had problems with reliability and accuracy:

“Based on radar testing at Yuma Proving Ground and Army reporting from theater to date, radar reliability remains poor and is well below system requirements… one system abort every 30 hours [instead of 1 per] 185 hours… provided accurate locations of most rocket, artillery, and mortars systems… [but] has difficulty detecting certain types of rockets and artillery rounds. Using updated software, the QRC AN/TPQ-53 radar demonstrated improvements in reducing the rate of misclassifying aircraft as threat projectiles in the 90-degree and 360-degree modes… June 2011 testing, the QRC AN/TPQ-53 radar decreased the rate of [false positives, but]… misclassifying and false location reporting rates remain below the Program of Record requirement of one false report in 12 hours.”

TPQ-53 on truck
(click to view full)

September 2011: TPQ-53. The EQ-36 gets a formal designation change, to the less-confusing QRC(Quick Reaction Capability) AN/TPQ-53. The Army will select the Program of Record EQ-36 radar contractor some time in FY 2012, to produce up to 136 systems. Source: 2011 DOT&E report.

Designation change

Aug 15/11: Army Contracting Command (ACC) APG-C4ISR, in Aberdeen, MD announces that it intends to buy more EQ-36 radar systems, to begin Program of Record purchases instead of the Quick Reaction Capability buys to date.

The solicitation for Full Rate Production (FRP) was first posted on Feb 16/11 at an estimated value of $940 million. The response date has been postponed by 30 days to Sept 14/11, under “Best Value” consideration and Firm Fixed Price (FFP) pricing. A June 30/11 revision addressed inconsistencies on desired quantities that had built up since the presolicitation. The planned production schedule for this 5-year contract is currently set to 12 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) units in FY 2013, 23 LRIP units in FY 2015, and 32 Full-Rate Production (FRP) units in FY 2016, for a total of 67 systems (W15P7T-11-R-T201). FBO.gov, ASFI.

June 21/10: Sub-contractors. Donaldson Company announces that the EQ-36 will use its patented StrataTube filtration technology to air-cool its electronics, without introducing dust and other contaminants. Current schedules have the final units for that initial 17-system June 2007 contract delivered by fall 2010.

Donaldson StrataTubes use inertial force to spin dust and other contaminants out of the air stream, but have no moving parts to wear out or break, and are maintenance-free. Custom designed EQ-36 Strata panels are included in the radar’s antenna and pedestal systems, and it joins other StrataTube using military devices like the M1 Abrams tank and H-60 family of helicopters.

April 29/09: Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Liverpool, NY receives a $20.7 million firm-fixed-price contract that buys spares for the 12 initial production Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 Radar Systems.

Work is to be performed in Liverpool, NY, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/10. One sole source was bid solicited from the radar’s manufacturer and one bid was received by the CECOM Acquisition Center in Fort Monmouth, NJ (W15P7T-06-C-T004).

EQ-36 at Yuma
(click to view full)

July 29/08: +12. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Support in Syracuse, NY receives an $84.3 million firm-fixed-price contract to accelerate the production and delivery of the 12 Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder Initial Production Radar Systems (EQ-36), which were listed as options within the initial development contract. Those options were reportedly exercised in June 2008.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY, and is expected to be complete by Oct 25/10. There was one bid solicited on March 23/08, and 1 bid was received by the CECOM Acquisition Center in Fort Monmouth, NJ activity (W15-P7T-06-C-T004)

Nov-Dec 2007: Testing. A prototype EQ-36 radar built by industry partner SRC is tested against mortars and rockets at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. During the tests, the EQ-36 prototype successfully located the firing positions of both rocket and mortar launchers. Lockheed Martin says that live fire testing was conducted over a 7 day period without a single false alarm.

2002: MMR ATO. Contract to Syracuse Research Corp. (SRC) for a “Multi-Mission Radar, Advanced Technology Objective”. The radar is designed to perform C-RAM/ Firefinder, Air volume search, Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD), and Air Traffic Control functions.

For this demonstration project, Lockheed Martin is a sub-contractor. The radar turns out to be a TPQ-53 precursor. Later, the roles flip to make SRC a Lockheed sub-contractor, with responsibility for the radar’s core Digital Signal Processor.

Additional Readings

• Lockheed Martin – TPQ-53 Radar System. Formerly called the EQ-36, or Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar. Still referred to that way in some contracts.

Competitors and predecessors include…

• Raytheon – AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder Weapon Locating System. See also ThalesRaytheon page.
• Global Security – AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder Radar
• Raytheon – AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder Weapon Locating System. See also ThalesRaytheon pages for the TPQ-37.
• Global Security – AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder Artillery Locating Radar
• DID – US Marines to Get G/ATOR AESA Ground Radars. G/ATOR’s scope matches MMRATO’s, but its evolution is a reverse image of the TPQ-53’s. It begins with air defense, and will add counterfire in Increment II. By Increment IV, it will have all of MMRATO’s envisioned capabilities, including Air Traffic Control.
• DoD Inspector General, via WayBack (Oct. 2001) – Firefinder audit report [PDF]. Older Firefinder radars were known as AN/TPQ-36, AN/TPQ-37 and AN/TPQ-47.r Artillery Locating Radar
• DID – US Marines to Get G/ATOR AESA Ground Radars. G/ATOR’s scope matches MMRATO’s, but its evolution is a reverse image of the TPQ-53’s. It begins with air defense, and will add counterfire in Increment II. By Increment IV, it will have all of MMRATO’s envisioned capabilities, including Air Traffic Control.
• DoD Inspector General, via WayBack (Oct. 2001) – Firefinder audit report [PDF]. Older Firefinder radars were known as AN/TPQ-36, AN/TPQ-37 and AN/TPQ-47.

Polish Leopard 2A4
(click to view full)

Germany is almost done selling off one of the world’s most impressive tank fleets, earning itself a solid market around the world in the process, and choking sales of competitive designs. In November 2013, Poland announced that it would buy a 2nd batch of Leopard 2 tanks from Germany, along with assorted other equipment. As usual, the package price was incredibly cheap: just EUR 180 million for 119 more tanks, plus range training fittings, machine guns, radios; and assorted armored tractors, cars, and trucks. Poland’s next question is what to do with the new gear…

Poland’s Leopard Cavalry

Leopard 2A5
(click to view full)

Poland’s original set of 128 Leopard 2A4 tanks were bought and transferred in the mid-2000s. They need a full overhaul, and modernization would be an excellent idea. The new Leopards include another 14 2A4s, plus 105 of the more advanced Leopard 2A5s. This will form the high-end core of Poland’s armored brigades, with capabilities and survivability far ahead of its T-72 and PT-91 Twardy (locally designed upgrade beyond T-72M1) tanks.

The Polish Army needs commonality within its Leopard fleet at some point. Meanwhile, Polish industry is unhappy because the new acquisitions will replace the mothballed T-72 fleet with a German design, rather than having the MON fund a new Polish design by 2016. The logical solution is to involve Polish industry in a common upgrade effort that will begin by bringing the existing fleet to a more advanced Leopard 2PL standard, then follow by upgrading the newer Leopard 2A5s to create a common Polish standard.

Rumors have Poland looking for a final configuration that’s similar to Canada’s new Leopard 2A6Ms. That would reshape and strengthen the armor structure to 2A5 levels and beyond, upgrade the sights and communications, beef up the internal climate control to handle hot environments like Afghanistan, add extra mine blast protection underneath, and provide points to fit engineering utilities like dozer blades and mine clearance rollers.

A parallel track is working to make Poland self-sufficient in producing the 2 key ammunition types for its tank fleet: 120mm High Explosive shells for general use, and tungsten Armor Piercing Fin-stabilized Discarding Sabot shells for killing other tanks. Mesko S.A., which is being folded into Poland’s PGZ, has now received contracts for both types, and industrial investment is underway.

Contracts & Key Events

Polish Leo-2A4s

February 22/16: A modernization of Poland’s Leopard 24A tanks will involve collaboration between Germany’s Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH and Poland’s state-run defense company Bumar-Labedy SA. The $144 million contract will see Rheinmetall build a prototype upgraded tank, dubbed the Leopard 2PL, and modernize a trial batch of about a dozen units. As with all ongoing Polish defense deals, the next phase will see work domesticated after a knowledge and technology transfer to Bumar-Labedy, who will take care of the modernization of the remaining tanks. At present, the Polish Army operates 128 Leopolds after a 2002 purchase from the German Bundeswehr.

October 6/15: Poland’s Armament Inspectorate has reportedly received three offers to upgrade the country’s Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks. Turkey’s Aselsan and Germany’s Rheinmetall and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann are the three bidders, with a selection slated for later this month. The country has bought two batches of Leopard 2A4s from Germany, with the Polish Army also operating around a hundred more modern 2A5 variants. In total 142 MBTs will be modernized, with a prototype scheduled for production next year. The new design will be known as the Leopard 2PL, with the winning bidder set to collaborate with the Polish Armaments Group to complete the modernization program.

Nov 13/14: Ammo. The Ministry of National Defence’s Armaments Inspectorate signs a PLN 240 million ($71 million) multi-year contract for tank shells with Mesko S.A. at Lucznik Arms Factory in Radom. This is the companion buy to the Sept 27/14 contract, designed to make Poland self-sufficient in tank-killing APFSDS-T 120mm shells as well as high-explosive ammunition. The new shells will supplement, and eventually replace, German DM33A2 tungsten armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot shells.

Supplying 13,000 APFSDS-T shells from 2015 – 2017 is only part of the bigger industrial picture. The consolidation of Mesko and other firms into PGZ (Polish Armaments Group/ Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa in Polish) is still on, and modernizing the Lucznik factory is part of that. Polish authorities will invest about PLN 45 million ($13 million) in new tooling and technology lines, as part of Poland’s efforts to ensure “independence for the Polish arms industry in this segment of military production.”

Poland is taking significant steps toward a defensive posture that is part of NATO, but senior officials doubt that NATO would actually help. As such, they’re trying to rely on that help as little as possible. They aren’t withdrawing from NATO by any means, and are pursuing closer cooperation and training with the German Army that could extend to joint commands – but they’re also quietly reviving the Home Army by recruiting at shooting clubs, etc. Sources: Dziennik Zbrojny, “Polish combat ammunition for Polish Leopard 2 tanks” | Aviation Week Ares, “Poland and Germany Deepen Army Cooperation” | The XX Committee, “Poland Prepares for Russian Invasion”.

120mm APFSDS-T ammo & Poland’s posture

Oct 20/14: 2A5s. Leopard 2A5 tanks continue to arrive from Germany (q.v. Nov 23/13) by rail, to join the 34th Armoured Cavalry Brigade. They’re received by German contractors, who work beside the Polish Army on inspection and maintenance to certify their condition.

Of course, an order like this requires more than just tanks. Technical support vehicles and trucks, specialized technical equipment, AGDUS laser shooting simulators etc. also need to arrive. But the process is underway. Sources: Defence24, “Poland Receives More Leopard 2A5 Tanks”.

Sept 2/14: 2PL etc. Poland is backing off of its planned Leopard 2PL upgrade, until the major industry consolidation takes place into PGZ (Polish Armaments Group/ Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa in Polish). This will allow the MON to allocate this work directly rather than relying on chosen team-ups (q.v. Dec 10/13), but it also takes away a lot of the competitive incentive. What it will not change, is the need to find a partner from Germany or Turkey with the requisite know-how. An opportunity for KMW, and for Poland’s GAIN SA? We’ll see.

The initial 2012 plan involved prototype rollout in 2014-2015, with full modernization of Poland’s original Leopard 2A4 fleet taking place from 2015-2018. Unfortunately, waiting for PGZ will destroy that timeline.

Poland will also need to address the issue of armored vehicles to accompany 34 Brigade’s Leopard 2A5 tanks. 10 Armoured Brigade currently uses M113 tracked APCs and derivative M577 command vehicles alongside its Leopard 2A4s, but Poland doesn’t have uncommitted surplus armored vehicles to stand up the 2nd Leopard tank brigade. There are rumors that Poland is negotiating a transfer of mothballed M113s and M577s from the USA in order to fill this gap. That will bring the issue of a 2nd modernization to the fore, of course, in order to ensure that the new armored vehicles can all work together. Sources: DziennikZbrojny.pl, “Przetarg na modernizacje Leopardow z problemami”.

Dec 10/13: 2PL upgrade. Poland’s MON receives 3 responses to their modernization RFP. The teams are:

• Wojskowe Zaklady Motoryzacyjne S.A., Wojskowymi Zakladami Lacznosci, and Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH
  
• Bumar-Labedy, OBRUM Gliwice, and PHO
  
• PCO SA and Turkey’s Aselsan Elektronik

Sources: DziennikZbrojny.pl, “Przetarg na modernizacje Leopardow z problemami”.

Oct 30/13: 2PL upgrade. Poland releases an RFP for modernization of its existing Leopard tank fleet to the 2PL standard. Upgrades will include modifications including armor improvements, a suspension upgrade, and modernized sighting and fire control. It’s issued per Decision No 118 of the Minister of National Defence, bypassing the Public Procurement Law in the interests of national security. This allows Poland to issue the RFP to domestic firms only, despite EU regulations. The deadline is Dec 10/13. Sources: Dziennik Zbrojny, “Przetarg na modernizacje Leopardow z problemami”.

January 2013: Ammo. A contract is signed with the Mesko Works to equip Poland’s Leopard tanks with 3,300 more 120mm high explosive shells: 1,500 in FY 2013, and 1,800 in FY 2014. The contract could grow to 14,000 shells, over a period lasting until 2017. Sources: Defence24, “14 thousand shells for Polish Leopards”.

Additional Readings

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

DID would like to thank our friends at DziennikZbrojny.pl for their assistance with ongoing developments.

• The Armor Site – Kampfpanzer Leopard 2. The best public information anywhere, all variants.
• Army Technology – PT-91 Twardy Main Battle Tank, Poland.
• DID – Poland’s Balancing Act: A Briefing for the Defense Sector – Part 1. Guest article from Avascent Consulting explains the PGZ consolidation among other issues. Part 2 link at the end.
• DID (Sept 9/14) – Polish Defence Modernization: Between strategic intent and spending reality. Dominik Kimla looks at a different aspect: asks if the TMP’s full $44 billion in funding will really be there, and what that might mean.
• DID (Sept 4/14) – Queen of Battles: Poland’s New Artillery Programs (2014 snapshot). Includes new self-propelled howitzers for use with heavy armored formations.

News & Views

• The XX Committee (Oct 30/14) – Poland Prepares for Russian Invasion.
• Dziennik Zbrojny (Sept 4/14) – Przetarg na modernizacje Leopardow z problemami.
• German Bundesministerium der Verteidigung (Nov 22/13) – Deutschland und Polen unterzeichnen Vertrag zum Kauf von Leopard Kampfpanzern.
• Polish MON (Nov 22/13) – Kolejne Leopardy dla wojsk ladowych.
• Defence24 (Sept 22/13) – Polska kupuje Leopardy. Early report of the deal, numbers are very close but not exact. Also points out Polish industrial grumbles.
• Altair (Sept 6/12) – e-RAPORT MSPO 4/2012 – Ku spolonizowanemu Leopardowi 2PL. Germany’s KMW signed an agreement with Bumar Group re: modernization of Poland’s Leopard 2A4s.

South Korea’s XK2
(click to view full)

Turkey’s tank fleet is currently made up of American M-48s and M-60s, some of which have been modernized with Israeli cooperation into M-60 Sabra tanks, plus a large contingent of German Leopard 1s and Leopard 2s. That is hardy surprising. America and Germany are Turkey’s 2 most important geopolitical relationships, and this is reflected in Turkey’s choice of defense industry partners. The country’s industrial offset requirements ensure that these manufacturers have a long history of local partnerships to draw upon.

In recent years, however, a pair of new players have begun to make an impact on the Turkish defense scene. One was Israel, whose firms specialized in sub-systems, upgrades, and UAVs. The other is the Republic of [South] Korea, who has made inroads in the Turkish market with turboprop training aircraft, mobile howitzers… and now, main battle tanks.

The Altay Program

Turkey’s Altay
(click to view full)

Turkey’s new tank is named after Gen. Fahrettin Altay, a cavalry commander in Turkey’s War of Independence. The tank will use a 120mm smoothbore gun, with the usual 7.62mm coaxial machine gun and a pintle-mounted 12.7mm machin gun up top. Compared to the ROK’s K2 Black Panther, the Altay is reportedly longer, with an added road wheel and a slightly modified turret. It may also carry heavier armor.

The 2008 System Development deal includes the production of 4 prototypes worth $70 million dollars, and technology transfer worth $330 million dollars.

Altay
click for video

Once development is complete, a second set of production contracts will be signed. The Turks’ official goal was to design, test, and build the first Altay tank in 6.5 years, which would place the event in early 2015. So far, 2015 remains the target date for production to begin.

Turkey reportedly plans to produce 200-250 of the tanks locally.

Industrial

Under this $400 million development deal, The Republic of Turkey will own all design and intellectual property rights to the final vehicle. Turkey’s Otokar will build the tanks in cooperation with various sub-contractors, including:

• South Korea’s Hyundai Rotem (XK2 Black Panther base design, expertise and parts as required, technical support system, C3I, help with modernization of Otokar’s factory in the northwestern province of Sakarya).
  
• Aselsan (fire control and C3I systems, other sub-systems)
  
• MTU Friedrichshafen (1,500 hp diesel engine. May be replaced by 1,800 hp Turkish engine if they can develop it)
  
• SSM’s STM group (C3I co-development with Aselsan)
  
• Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation, i.e. state-owned MKEK, (120mm/55 caliber main gun)
  
• Roketsan (Modular Armor Package)

Foreign companies are reportedly under consideration for key items beyond the engine, including armor and complex systems integration.

Contracts and Key Events

ROK governments have been building a formidable local defense industry as a matter of policy, and those efforts are beginning to win export sales around the globe. The Altay project is just the latest payoff.

Relations with Turkey have been especially warm, owing in part to the Turks’ heroic combat record in the Korean War. In recent years, that combination of warm relations and solid products has led to Turkish orders worth hundreds of millions of dollars for KT-1 turboprop training aircraft, and K-9/K-10 derived “Firtina” mobile howitzers. In July 2007, South Korea’s inroads became undeniable, as discussions began concerning a deal to develop Turkey’s next generation tanks. That was a major upset, but it had yet to coalesce into a deal. By the end of July 2008, however, the ink was dry on a deal that made Korea’s new XK2 the basis of Turkey’s co-produced Altay tank.

Altay unveiled
(click to view full)

March 1/16: The Turkish government has granted land to defense firm BMC to relocate and build a new plant. The 222-hectare site will see $430 million invested by the company into the expansion with the plant believed to be operational within two years. BMC is currently bidding for the serial production of the indigenous Altay battle tank, which has been developed by rival company Otokar. While the bidding process has yet to begin, the winners would see a contract to produce up to 1,000 Altays after an initial run of 250 for the Turkish Army.

January 21/16: Turkey’s Undersecretariat for Defense Industries (SSM) has announced that a number of parties have expressed interest in purchasing their indigenous new generation main battle tank, the Altay. Those that may look to make purchases are regional allies, including a number of Gulf countries and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia in particular has been expressing keen interest after officials from these countries were invited to observe firing tests of the tank. While still in development, and a manufacturer for serial production is yet to be announced, the interest seemingly generated may lead to some big business for Ankara in the coming years.

Nov 18/14: XK-2. South Korea’s WON 2+ trillion (about $1.84 billion) XK-2 tank project, which served as the basis for Altay, has experienced delays due to technical difficulties. Acceleration performance has been a particular issue, and the ROK plans to field it with a locally-made engine and transmission by 2017. So far, about 100 K-2 Black Panther tanks have been deployed in Korea. Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea to put K-2 combat tank into full service by 2017”.

Feb 27/14: Engines. While talking to reporters about Airbus’ A400M contract, Undersecretary for Defense Murad Bayar mentions that:

“Turkey’s Altay tank’s engine must be made in the country. There are also proposals from two Turkish companies to produce the engine in Turkey.”

It’s a blow to initial engine provider MTU Friedrichshafen. Whether it ends up affecting the tank depends on whether Turkish firms produce an engine in time, with adequate performance, efficiency and reliability. Sources: Anatolia News Agency, “Airbus and Turkey Dispute Over A400M Military Aircraft”.

Nov 14/13: Industrial shift? SSM’s chief, Murad Bayar, tells Defense News that they’re looking at a different approach to Altay’s production contract. Koc-owned Otokar is very likely to remain the main manufacturer, but they’re reportedly considering a consortium/ cooperative approach composed of Turkish and even foreign firms. Politics is playing a strong role:

“Otokar is owned by Turkey’s biggest business conglomerate, Koc Holding, whose defense business may be a casualty of a row between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and one of its top executives after a month of civil unrest that battered the Turkish government. In one incident during June demonstrations, protesters tried to escape police tear gas and pepper spray by taking refuge in a posh Istanbul hotel, Divan, owned by Koc. Hotel management admitted the protesters to its lobby, but police fired more tear gas and pepper spray into the hotel lobby, although it is illegal to fire these chemicals into indoor spaces.”

The Erdogan government’s response was to relax the laws regarding police conduct, while calling the youthful protesters “terrorists” and promising to punish firms that helped them in any way. Koc has already lost a contract to build “Milgem” corvettes, so suspicions of a political motive over Altay are well founded. Defense News, “Turkey Mulling ‘Big Team’ for Tank Production” | Hurriyet Daily News, “Koc’s defense business a casualty of feud with government?” | Wikipedia, 2013 Protests in Turkey.

June 11/12: Update. While announcing its vehicle lineup for Eurosatory 2012, Otokar provides a project update:

“The first phase of the project, ‘Conceptual Design Process’, has been completed in 2010. And we presented the full-scale model, which reflects the concept design of ALTAY, at IDEF Exhibition, last year. In scope of the ‘Detailed Design Process’ which is the second and the most critical phase of the project, ‘Preliminary Design Phase’, has been successfully completed by the last quarter of 2011. During this phase, manufacturing of prototypes took start in line with this process. Following the completion of the Second Phase, we’re planning to start the ‘Prototype Development and Qualification Phase’ which is the third and the last phase. In scope of the project plan we continue investing in the first prototype of the ALTAY tank which will be ready for testing by the last quarter of this year. In addition to our existing facilities within Otokar plant, we have recently established a new Tank Test Center with an investment of USD 10 million.”

March 27/12: SSM’s plan. Turkey’s SSM procurement agency has unveiled their new 5-year strategic plan, with timetables for key acquisitions. The plan commits to begin deliveries of the Altay tank by 2015. Hurriyet Daily News

XK2, firing
(click to view larger)

July 6/09: US Pressure on Israel. The Jerusalem Post reports that the USA had pressured Israel out of Turkey’s tank competition, in order to give American firms better odds. Israel would have entered the competition with a strong position to build on. Turkey’s existing M-60 tanks were heavily modernized by Israeli firms, based on the same “Sabra” modification set that Israel used on its own M60s. Beyond Sabra, Israel’s current Merkava family tanks are purpose-built for the needs of warfare in the Middle East, with unique features for urban warfare and counter-terrorism conflicts.

Within a couple of years, worsening relations between Turkey’s Islamist government and Israel made any such project unthinkable anyway.

March 2007: According to a resolution adopted at the meeting of the National Defence Executive Committee, the Turkish government decides to begin contract negotiations with Otokar, as the nominee for prime contractor.

February 2007: Bid evaluation process, aiming to appoint the prime contractor, is completed in February 2007.

April 2005: Feasibility study complete. The path forward is defined as “designing and development of the main battle tank inside Turkey by getting technical support and assistance from abroad whenever required.”

2005: The Turkish SSM defense procurement agency charges a 3-firm Turkish industrial consortium with a feasibility study to determine the production pattern for the Turkish National Main Battle Tank Project.

Additional Readings

• Turkish SSM procurement agency – Turkish National Main Battle Tank Project
• Army Technology – Altay Main Battle Tank, Turkey
• Wikipedia – K2 Black Panther
• Otokar corporate site
• Yonhap news service (May 27/08) – Seoul, Istanbul seal agreement on logistics cooperation. Military logistics, involving security of ammunition supply and other commodities in peace or war. This is an important agreement, and its signature makes the ROK’s status as a major Turkish arms supplier official.

M1126, post-IED
(click to view full)

Under current plans, the 8×8 wheeled Stryker armored vehicle will be the future backbone of 8 US Army and 1 National Guard medium armored brigades. The 5th Stryker Brigade from Fort Lewis, WA was the first Stryker unit sent to Afghanistan, deployed in the summer of 2009 as part of a troop level increase. The brigade was equipped with 350 Stryker vehicles. In the first few months of deployment, they lost 21 soldiers, with 40 more wounded, to IED land mines. The losses prompted the Army to examine modifications to their Stryker vehicles, in order to make them more resistant to land mines.

One result is the Stryker hull redesign, creating the v-hulled Stryker DVH. The US Army is now on pace to order 2 brigades worth, as it moves toward the end of Stryker armored vehicle production.

Strykers, Struck: The Afghan Experience & Response

Struck Stryker
(click to view larger)

The Strykers have come under criticism for their performance in Afghanistan since the first Stryker brigade was deployed there in the summer of 2009. The Stryker vehicles have been faulted for their lack of maneuverability on rough terrain, a problem that Canada’s similar LAV-IIIs have also experienced.

That creates an associated vulnerability to IED land mines planted in the road. In June 2009, the 5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division deployed to Kandahar province. It had 37 troops killed in action and 238 wounded over its year-long deployment, and their flat-bottom Strykers were diverted part-way through into road guard missions, away from intense combat. Their replacement, the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, continued the “freedom of movement” missions, and had suffered 14 KIA, 5 noncombat KIA, and more than 100 wounded, as of May 2011. Stars and Stripes reports:

“In one incident in August [2010], a 1st Squadron flat-bottomed Stryker was struck by a massive bomb hidden in a highway culvert in Kandahar province. The blast peeled away the armor protecting its engine like the skin of an orange, snapped off a wheel at the axel and mangled the metal cage that was designed to protect troops from rocket-propelled grenades.

[Pfc. Dustyn Applegate]… doesn’t rate the Stryker as a good vehicle for the sort of counter-IED mission that his unit was engaged in… “That’s the bad thing about the Stryker,” he said. “It has a flat bottom, so when the blast happens, it just blows up instead of up and out like with an MRAP. There is no safe place on the Stryker.”

On the other hand, “M1126 Strykers in Combat: Experiences & Lessons” detailed surprisingly positive reviews of the wheeled APCs’ performance in Iraq. There, they made good use of roads, and their relative silence compared to tracked vehicles was an asset in urban warfare. If the Stryker is not the vehicle for all situations, it has at least proven to be very useful under defined circumstances.

Any campaign that includes the mission of securing key roads, which is to say any mission that depends on economic progress and trade growth, will find Strykers very useful – so long as they remain survivable.

Deflecting Danger: The Strykker DVH Effort

V-Hull at work:
Cougar MRAP
(click to view full)

Hence the Stryker double-v hull design, which channels blast force away from the vehicle and its occupants. The US Army has announced contracts to produce 742 Stryker DVH vehicles, as retrofits and as new production vehicles. That’s the full extent of the current plan, which was a major step beyond the program’s initial plan of 450 Stryker DVHs.

The modified M1126 Stryker ICVV/DVH infantry carrier is the base variant for 7 additional configurations, which will be employed as part of coherent v-hulled Stryker Brigade Combat Teams: M1129 DVH Mortar Carrier, M1130 DVH Command Vehicle, M1131 DVH Fire Support Vehicle, M1132 DVH Engineer Squad Vehicle, M1133 DVH Medical Evacuation Vehicle, M1134 DVH Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle, and the Infantry Carrier Vehicle DVH-Scout (ICVV-S). The ICVV-S is a new configuration that allows internal stowage of the Long Range Advance Scout (LRAS) surveillance system, which is mounted externally on the standard M1127 Reconnaissance Vehicle.

The Stryker DVH program retains a connection with overall Stryker modernization efforts. In a sense, it just prioritized one element of that plan for faster fielding, and made them the front-line vehicles for an SBCT in-theater. That will rise to 2 SBCTs by the end of 2012. After that, the Army says that:

“Once the Army decides on the appropriate future force structure, fleet mix and overall number of combat vehicles, the quantity of DVH Strykers and variants of Strykers will be finalized.”

America isn’t the only one upgrading its LAV-IIIs. Blast-protection efforts are underway for Australia’s ASLAVs, and in Canada via the near-term LAV LORIT program, and their longer-term LAV-III upgrade to the same base vehicle.

To date, however, the Stryker Double-V Hull remains unique to the USA.

Left Behind

Stryker M1128, Iraq
(click to view full)

Some Stryker typers won’t be getting the DVH treatment. The US Army does not plan to purchase Stryker DVH versions of the M1127 Reconnaissance vehicle (which does have an ICVV-S DVH counterpart), M1128 MGS assault gun, or the M1135 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle. Once the DVH vehicles are done, and the last set of M1135s are ordered and produced, overall Stryker production will end.

During the December 2010 Stryker DVH Configuration Steering Board, the Army decided not to pursue full-rate production for the standard M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System, either. While the M1128’s 105mm gun offers potent firepower, the type already has significant weight and protection issues that haven’t been resolved. The Army decided that neither continued production nor DVH made sense for this type, unless the Stryker Modernization program gave the vehicle more base heft and power.

That seems less and less likely. According to US Army spokesperson Lt. Col. Peggy Kageleiry:

“Stryker Modernization has been replaced with a reduced-scope Engineering Change Proposal (ECP). The scope of the ECP for Stryker upgrades is still to be determined, but the following will be considered: buy-back Space, Weight, Power, and Cooling (SWaP-C) deficiencies, improve mobility and protection, and provide ability to accept future network and protection upgrades.”

Contracts & Key Events

M1126 DVH Exchange
(click to view full)

Under the contracts, the GM General Dynamics Land Systems Defense Group partnership in Sterling Heights, MI will provide design and integration engineering services, test articles/prototypes, and procurement of materials, including long-lead materials, to support the modified hull design with related integrated system changes. The US Army says the contract objectives are an integrated solution that will provide improved protection levels to support operations in Afghanistan.

The Army’s Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) in Warren, MI manages these contracts.

M1126 DVH
(click to view full)

March 4/16: An industry wide search is to be carried out by the US Army to seek increased capabilities for its Stryker units. The Army will look at different sensors, better ways to integrate capabilities, and ways to make vehicles more survivable. This will go beyond the current efforts to upgun the armored vehicle by adding 30mm cannons or Javelin missiles, and to add Double-V Hulls for extra durability. The new and improved vehicles are expected to reach operational capability by early 2018.

February 15/16: The US Army plans to upgun their 8×8 Stryker armored vehicles. The vehicles will be fitted with a 30mm automatic cannon, that comes with air-burst shells, for use in air defense activities. The gun would allow the vehicles to act as a mobile anti-aircraft gun, as the Army looks to increase capabilities of existing systems, while funds for any major programs are non-existent. The upgunning with the 30mm cannon was initially intended to destroy light-armored vehicles such as the Russian BMP, with the inclusion of the air-burst shells allowing for greater capabilities.

November 6/15: Lithuania has requested 84 Stryker Infantry Combat Vehicles from the US, with the State Department approving the potential Foreign Military Sale. The request also includes 30mm cannons – recently approved as an upgrade for some US Strykers stationed in Europe – and Remote Weapons Stations, as well as machine guns, communications systems and auxiliary equipment. The potential deal is estimated to value $599 million, with 30 US government or contractor personnel required to travel to Lithuania to help implement the introduction and sustainment of the Strykers.

October 6/15: The Army’s Stryker vehicles will benefit from a $411 million upgrade program for the vehicles’ main armament, with the 2016 NDAA bill including $314 million for modification work to the fleet to up-gun their 12.7mm cannons to 30mm guns. The remaining $97 million is earmarked for R&D, with the House and Senate Armed Service Committees criticizing the Army for an increasingly unacceptable per-vehicle cost to upgrade the Stryker fleet. A response to fears that the Strykers would be out-gunned by would-be Russian adversaries in Europe, the Army was given a provisional thumbs-up for the upgrade work in April, with the Hill stipulating that the upgrades will be limited to the Army’s European-deployed Strykers rather than form a fleet-wide upgrade program.

May 5/15: The Army’s European-deployed Stryker mobile guns have been given a provisional thumbs-up for more powerful weapon systems. The current 12.7mm machine guns will be upgraded to 30mm autocannons, with the “high priority need” a reflection of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment’s requirement for increased lethality, according to a memo obtained by Breaking Defense earlier this month.

Jan 12/14: Good news, bad news. The good news: the Army wants to convert all 9 of its standard Stryker Brigades to the DVH configuration, using the DVH Exchange option.

The bad news is what you’d expect: no funding beyond the first 2 brigades they’ve already done, and the 3rd they hope to finish by 2016 (q.v. Sept 10/13). Which means GDLS Canada’s LAV-III/ Stryker manufacturing equipment will have to be placed in layaway mode for a future production line restart, to be triggered by either future US Army orders or foreign sales. Either way, however, a line restart always costs extra. Sources: Defense News, “US Plans Radical Upgrade of Stryker Brigades”.

Oct 15/12: DVH Exchange. The US Army announces that they’ve completed the 1st vehicle in their Stryker DVH exchange program. The exchange involves taking a standard Stryker variant, reusing common parts, refurbishing them, and inserting the parts into a vehicle on the DVH production line.

The Army is documenting the teardown and reuse process, in hopes of having clearer figures if the Army decides that it wants more Stryker DVHs later on. Obviously, they’re hoping to find out that this saves money, by using a lot of the old parts. Once they’ve had a chance to try and make this process more efficient, then cost it, they’ll be in position to present a case. US Army.

M1126 DVHs, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

March 4/12: Plans. The US Army clarifies its plans for the Stryker DVH: 760 total, to be delivered by the end of 2012, equipping 2 Brigade Combat Teams. When queried, however, Lt. Col. Peggy Kageleiry said that:

“…the Army has a current procurement target of 742 Double-V Hull (DVH) Stryker vehicles… which will be completed by December 2012. Procurement of 158 NBCRVs which are on contract in FY12 & FY13, will complete the current planned Stryker vehicle purchase. Once the Army decides on the appropriate future force structure, fleet mix and overall number of combat vehicles, the quantity of DVH Strykers and variants of Strykers will be finalized.”

With respect to performance in-theater, Lt. Gen. Bill Phillips, principal military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, says there have been about 40 land mine incidents for the DVH. In 38 of those incidents, all soldiers walked away with just minor injuries. In his words: “That vehicle has performed beyond our expectations.”

Jan 18/12: Industrial. GDLS’ newly-acquired Force Protection manufacturing facility in Ladson, SC, will be doing work on another v-hulled vehicle. About $10 million in new work is moving there, to install additional combat-related communication and protection equipment on 292 Stryker DVH (Double-V Hull) 8×8 wheeled APCs, which are getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan.

The new work begins in March 2012, and will occupy about 45 jobs until about February 2013. Force Protection.

Jan 17/12: DOT&E Report. The US Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation issues his FY 2011 Annual Report, which includes the Stryker DVH program. The program get good reviews, based on tests. The modified Strykers retained the same basic mobility, proved their performance against land mines, and actually had better reliability than their flat-hulled counterparts. They were rated both operationally effective for performance, and operationally suitable for reliability.

Quibbles were minor, involving data collection for the M1126 ICVV’s operational assessment, and problems with the Stryker DVH driver’s compartment being too small for larger Soldiers. The Army is planning a driver’s compartment redesign, and will continue to test the other 7 DVH variants through Q3 2012. In the nearer term, February 2012 is expected to see the end of Styker ICVV-Scout operational testing, and M1129 Mortar Carrier Vehicle DVH developmental and operational testing, at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona.

Oct 25/11: +177. General Dynamics Land Systems announces a $367 million order for another 177 Stryker double-V hull (DVH) wheeled APCs, raising the US Army’s buy to 2 full Stryker DVH Brigade Combat Teams. Work on Stryker DVH vehicles is performed in Anniston, AL and Lima, OH, as well as the main production facility in London, ON, Canada (W56HZV-07-D-M112, #0266, Mod.1).

The firm says that over 320 double-V-hulled Stryker vehicles have been produced so far, under a contract awarded in July 2010 for 450 double-V-hull vehicles. Deliveries will be complete by July 2013. DID checked with GDLS, and confirmed that this order brings the total number of ordered Stryker DVH vehicles to 742.

Oct 5/11: +115. General Dynamics Land Systems announces a $243 million contract to produce and deliver another 115 Stryker DVHs. General Dynamics will also provide production sustainment support and obsolescence management services. Work will be performed in Anniston, AL, London, ON, Canada, and Lima, OH. Deliveries will be complete by September 2012 (W56HZV-07-D-M112, #0266).

The firm says that about 300 double-V-hulled Strykers have been delivered so far, under a contract awarded in July 2010, with initial deliveries rolling out in May 2011. This order begins to go beyond the program’s original goal of 450. GDLS.

M1126, Mosul – no DVH
(click to view full)

June 1/11: A $40 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification “for Stryker double-V hull development and delivery of prototype vehicles.”

Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI, and London, Ontario, Canada, with an estimated completion date of July 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-07-D-M112).

May 20/11: Deployment. Stars & Stripes relays the US Army’s statement re: Afghan deployments of the Stryker DVH, and also details combat statistics and criticisms related to the Stryker’s deployments in Afghanistan.

May 9/11: Deployment. US Army:

“In the coming weeks, Soldiers in Afghanistan will begin to see 150 new Strykers with a double-V hull, or DVH… The Stryker DVH, with enhanced armor, wider tires and blast-attenuating seats, went from conception to production in less than one year… “The rapid turnaround of the DVH is responsiveness at its best,” Col. Robert Schumitz, Stryker Brigade Combat Team Project Management Office, project manager, said… Engineers at General Dynamics Land Systems conceived of the double-V-hull design and tested it at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., and the Army’s National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif… There are 140 Stryker DVH’s already in the Army supply chain, and plans are to field a total of 450 vehicles.”

April 12/11: +404. A pair of contracts worth $49.5 million revise earlier orders for 404 vehicles. The wording is confusing, but GDLS clarifies that: “The dod announcements are not new vehicles or contracts” – designating them as limit increases to existing contracts.

A $37.2 million firm-fixed-price contract revises the not-to-exceed amount and obligated amount for Double-V hull production cut-in to 178 Stryker vehicles. Work will be performed at London, Ontario, Canada, and Anniston, AL, with an estimated completion date of Feb 29/12. One bid was solicited and one received (W56HZV-07-D-M112).

A $12.3 million firm-fixed-price contract revises the not-to-exceed amount and obligated amount for Double-V hull production cut-in to 226 Stryker vehicles. Work will be performed at London, Ontario, Canada, and Anniston, AL, with an estimated completion date of Feb 29/12. One bid was solicited and one received (W56HZV-07-D-M112).

March 3/11: +15. GM GDLS Defense Group, LLC in Sterling Heights, MI receives an $18.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract that will “provide for support for 19 Stryker flat-bottom vehicles and 15 Stryker double-V hull vehicles.” Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI, with an estimated completion date of Feb 29/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-07-D-M112).

Dec 3/10: Support. A $91.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee/firm-fixed-price contract, for service to support performance specification changes to the Stryker vehicle. These changes will design and buy “necessary components to support the Stryker mine protection kit” for vehicles in the Afghan theater.

Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI (5%), and London, Canada (95%), with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-07-D-M112).

Oct 27/10: +46. A $8.3 million firm-fixed-price contract cuts the modified double-v hull design into another 46 Stryker vehicles on the production line. Note that cut-in contracts pay for making the changes and for the new materials, not for the entire Stryker.

Work will be performed in London, Canada (50%), and Anniston, AL (50%), with an estimated completion date of Feb 29/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-07-D-M112, #0256). This order brings the total to the program’s goal of 450 vehicles.

Oct 13/10: +45. A $9.5 million firm-fixed-price contract to cut the modified double-V hull design into the production of another 45 Stryker vehicles. Work is to be performed in London, Ontario, Canada (50%), and Anniston, AL (50%), with an estimated completion date of February 2012. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-07-D-M112).

M1129 MC – no DVH
(click to view full)

Aug 10/10: Renovations may be more difficult than they first appear. A $20 million firm-fixed-price contract adds the modified hull design (double-V hull), into an additional 78 new-build vehicles, raising the total to 359. It also revises the obligated amount for the previous 281 vehicles (vid. July 9/10). Work is to be performed in London, Ontario, Canada (50%), and Anniston, AL (50%), with an estimated completion date of Feb 22/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-07-D-M112). See also GD release.

Aug 6/10: A $9.8 million firm-fixed-price contract revises the obligated amount for the production cut-in of the revised Stryker performance and hull design into 281 new-build vehicles (vid. July 9/10). Work is to be performed in Sterling Heights, MI (30%), and London, Canada (70%), with an estimated completion date of Feb 16/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-07-D-M112).

July 9/10: A $30.1 million firm-fixed-price contract directs production cut-in of the revised Stryker performance specifications, which incorporates a modified double-V hull design, into 281 vehicles. The new vehicles will be sent to Afghanistan. Work will be performed in London, Canada (70%), and Sterling Heights, MI (30%). Deliveries will begin in January 2011 to allow vehicles to be available for use by the Stryker brigade that will rotate into Afghanistan in 2011, and will be completed by February 2012. (W56HZV-07-D-M112). See also GDLS release.

June 1/10: The GM GDLS Defense Group, LLC in Sterling Heights, MI recently received a $29.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract buys 14 Stryker Double-V Hull prototype vehicles for government ballistic, performance/durability, and logistics testing and demonstration.

Work is to be performed in Sterling Heights, MI (41%); and London, ON, Canada (59%), with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/11. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by TACOM, CCTA-AI in Warren, MI (W56HZV-07-D-M112).

April 9/10: A $58.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a modified hull design for the US Army’s Stryker vehicles to improve performance and survivability in Afghanistan. Work is to be performed in Sterling Heights, MI (41%), and London, Ontario, Canada (59%), with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/11 (W56HZV-07-D-M112).

March 11/2010: During US Senate testimony in early 2010, Gen. George Casey said that the US Army was planning to modify the Stryker vehicle with a double V-shaped hull designed to deflect land mine blasts from below.

The Stryker M1135 NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) reconnaissance and M1128 MGS assault gun variants would reportedly not be modified under the current plan. That could create field issues, since the M1128 is meant to act as firepower support in Stryker brigades.

Additional Readings

• General Dynamics Land Systems – Stryker ICV, DVH
• US Army – Army plans major Stryker upgrades. Outlines the next steps beyond the DVH program. A number of DVH vehicles will probably receive these retrofits as well.
• DID – Stryker DVH Armored Vehicles for Colombia. The country ordered 24 LAV-III DVHs in January 2012.

Yak-130
(click to view full)

A February 2006 report noted that a $4 billion arms sale was brewing between Algeria and Russia involving fighter aircraft, tanks, and air defense systems, with the possibility of additional equipment. Those options came through the following month, as a high-level Russian delegation in Algeria closed up to $7.5 billion worth of arms contracts. The Algerian package remains post-Soviet Russia’s largest single arms deal. As an instructive comparison, annual Russian weapons export orders from all customers were just $5-6 billion per year in 2004 and 2005.

Reuters South Africa quoted Rosoboronexport chief Sergei Chemezov as saying that “Practically all types of arms which we have are included, anti-missile systems, aviation, sea and land technology.” The actual contents of that deal were murky, though DID offers triangulation among several sources to help sort out the confusion. A number of these deals have evolved over time, and other public-source information has helped to sharpen the picture a bit. The subsequent crash of Algeria’s MiG-29 deal, and its ripple effects, are also discussed.

The Algerian Package: What’s the Big Deal?

Absent any confirming releases by Rosoboronexport, reports regarding this deal have varied. Russia’s ITAR-Tass, for instance, initially reported that Algeria would buy 40 MiG-29 fighters, 20 Sukhoi-30 fighters and 16 Yak-130 training planes as well as 8 S-300 PMU2 Favorit rocket systems and about 40 T-90 tanks. This was the composition most often reported in the press, but it doesn’t come close to a $7.5 billion dollar deal.

A better and more detailed report came from Vedomosti, and later from the June 2006 issue of Moscow Defense Brief (MDB). Other sources have also helped to sharpen and clarify certain equipment numbers and costs. What follows is a composite picture, built up from ITAR-Tass and subsequent reports.

Aircraft

SU-30MKA
click for video

44 Su-30MKA Flanker 2-seat multi-role fighters. Up from 28.

DID’s earlier report, MDB’s June 2006 update, and Defense News’ February 2008 report, all agreed on the numbers: 28 planes for $1.5 billion. A follow-on deal in 2010 eventually replaced the MiG-29s with 16 more SU-30MKAs. If all reported MiG monies were simply shifted without further payment, it would place the total Flanker deal at $2.8 – $3.3 billion for 44 fighters.

Accounts of this variant, with some saying that it’s similar to the advanced canard-winged SU-30MKI/M delivered to India and Malaysia, while others cited it as a generic SU-30MK export model. Pictures and other reports settled the issue: it’s a canard-winged SU-30MKM variant. The SU-30MKI/M series adds new avionics, full thrust vectoring, and canard wings to the basic SU-30 design, among other enhancements. The Algerian SU-30s are closer to the SU-30MKMs, using Thales’ avionics and a French Damocles targeting and surveillance pod.

Algeria reportedly took delivery of its first 3 fighters between December 2007 and January 2008. As of March 2008, 6 fighters had been delivered, before deliveries were suspended over payment disputes related to the MiG-29s. By November 2009, all 28 of the original batch had arrived. The rest should have all been delivered by the end of 2012.

34 MiG-29SMT Fulcrum lightweight multi-role fighters.

MDB updated the order to include 28 MiG-29SMT fighters and 6 two-seat MiG-29UBT aircraft (28+6=34), and noted this segment as $1.8 billion, of which $300 million will go back as a trade-in for 36 of Algeria’s existing MiG-29s, to be resold to third countries. A February 2008 Defense News report agreed on the number and composition, but described this segment as a $1.3 billion contract.

The MiG contract was eventually canceled, in favor of more SU-30 fighters.

16 Yak-130 Mitten combat trainers and light attack aircraft.

DID’s earlier report had noted the Yaks as an additional option, with the possibility of up to 50 aircraft. They will complement/ replace Algeria’s older L-39 ZA Albatros aircraft from Czechoslovakia. MDB reports 16 Yak-130s, for a total of $200 million, an assessment later confirmed by Air Inrternational News at Farnborough in July 2006.

Moscow Defense Brief added that while the content of the options is not known, it is likely that 12-20 more MiG-29SMT fighters and 14-16 more Yak-130 trainers would be purchased if the options are exercised. The MiG options certainly won’t be exercised, but the Yak-130 options might be.

Helicopters. In 2013, Algeria added a separate deal for 42 Mi-28NE attack helicopters. These have a much slimmer and more dedicated profile than the Mi-24s Algeria currently flies.

According to Vedomosti, other contracts in the package included:

Ground Forces

AT-13 Metis-M ATGM

300 T-90S main battle tanks. For tanks, the ‘S’ designation signifies an export version ($1+ billion).

MDB agreed, and believed that the first 40 tanks will be delivered in 2006. In July 2006, however, an Algerian representative reportedly noted to Jane’s that the figure was actually 180 tanks. A February 2008 Defense News report put the number at 185, which has been repeated by Russian media in 2012. Those same media reported a follow-on 120-tank order, reportedly completed in autumn 2011 for $470-$500 million. Which makes 305 tanks, for over $1 billion.

Upgrades of 250 T-72 main battle tanks (over $200 million). Not mentioned by MDB, or Defense News.

AT-13 Metis-M wire-guided and AT-14 Kornet semi-automatic laser beam-riding anti-armor guided missiles.

Both missile types can also be fitted with thermobaric warheads for devastating anti-personnel effects within buildings, caves, etc. This component was also mentioned by MDB, and a February 2008 Defense News report gives a figure of 216 Kornet-E missiles. This figure seems low based on comparable TOW-2 missile requests from similar countries, however, especially given Algeria’s ongoing civil war. 216 AT-14 launchers is more likely, with an undetermined number of missiles and the AT-13s still unaccounted for. These numbers remain very unclear.

A February 2008 Defense News report mentioned 8 Krasnopol laser-guided artillery shells as part of the deal.

This would barely cover basic testing needs, but testing before buying might be well advised. India has identified serious defects with its Krasnopol shells.

Air Defense

S-300PMU2 Favorit
radar & launchers
(click to view full)

30 self-propelled M1 Tunguska gun/missile systems for low-level, short-range air defense and light fire support (up to $500 million, disputed).

Each 34t tracked M1 vehicle carries 8 short range 9M311-M1 (SA-19 Grison) missiles. Range is from 15 – 6,000m for ground targets, and 15 – 10,000m for aerial targets. They’re coupled with pair of twin-barrel 30mm cannon that have a maximum firing rate of 5,000 rounds per minute and a range of 3 km against air targets, or 4 km against ground targets. A target acquisition radar and target tracking radar, optical sight, and digital computing system guides these weapons, with a detection range of 18 km and a tracking range of 16 km. MDB mentioned these systems as well, but put no specific value on them.

If it is in fact the M1 Tunguska, Algeria would join its neighbor and sometime rival Morocco. Who signed a December 2004 contract for 12 Tunguska systems. On the other hand, A February 2008 Defense News report claimed that the Algerian contract covered 38 Pantsyr S1/SA-22 truck-mounted mobile gun/missile systems instead. Each carries 12 “97E6” missiles, which appear to be advanced SA-19/9M311 derivatives, and a pair of 30mm cannon. The Pantsyr S1 offer slightly longer reach against air targets vs. the Tunguska M1 (12km vs. 10km), and has also been ordered by Jordan, Syria, and the UAE.

8 of Russia’s advanced S-300 PMU-2 Favorit anti-air missile systems (aka. SA-10E, $1 billion).

MDB agrees with the number and figure, but Defense News put the number at 4; the range is thus 32-64 launchers.

According to eDefense Online, a S-300PMU2 Favorit battalion is equipped with a 30N6E2 fire-control radar, a 96L6E target-acquisition and designation radar, 8 launchers (5P85SE), and a set of 48N6E2 missiles (4 per launcher) with a range of 200 km against aircraft and 40 km against ballistic missiles. Each battalion complex is designated 90Zh6E2. The system can engage 6 targets at a time with up to 12 missiles using its own 96L6 target-acquisition radar, at altitudes ranging anywhere from 35 feet (10m) off the deck to 90,000 feet (27km). The 83M6E2 regimental command and control system adds to these capabilities, and can support a mass engagement of 36 targets at a time.

Navy

Steregushchy Class
(click to view full)

The deal also reportedly includes unspecified work on Algeria’s navy. According to Haze Gray, Algeria’s Russian combatant ships include 2 Kilo Class submarines, 3 Koni class frigates, 3 Nanuchka class corvettes, and 11 Osa I and II Class missile boats (which may not be operable). Most entered service between 1975-1985, with the most modern ship being a Kilo Class sub that entered service in 1988. Repairs and upgrades had already begun on a limited basis during the 1990s, but more extensive refurbishment and upgrades are likely to be necessary.

By 2006, Algeria had bought 2 new Kilo Class submarines. By 2013, they had also bought 2 modified Stergushchy Class corvettes, and were reportedly looking for 2 more submarines.

Structuring the Deal: Anatomy of a Euro-Squeeze

Tunguska M1 LLAD
(click to view full)

The biggest issue hanging over the deal was a $4.7 billion debt outstanding from past purchases of Soviet arms. As the next section notes, buying advanced Russian arms is nothing new for Algeria. UPI notes that the logical question arose: if there was no money to pay the debt, how would Algeria pay for all of this new equipment?

Enter Russia’s energy sector, in the persons of LUKoil CEO Vagit Alekperov, Gazprom chief Alexei Miller, and Igor Makarov of independent gas producer Itera. UPI believes the final arrangement is that Algeria will give gives Russian companies access to oil- and gas-rich regions, with the proceeds split between the producer and the Algerian government. The Algerian government is then bound to immediately transfer the revenues to Russian arms manufacturers, until such time as the debt is paid off.

Meanwhile, OPEC member Algeria develops more of her energy reserves, and the projects create local employment in the bargain. Indeed, the St. Petersburg Times reports that an $80 billion, 5-year program is underway aimed at boosting growth and drawing more investments to Algeria as it recovers from an extremely bloody civil war. That war against the Wahhabist/Salafist al-Qaeda affiliate GSPC and other Islamist terrorist groups has lasted over a decade and is still ongoing, but government successes over the last few years have sharply reduced the size of the threat.

The Morocco Times notes that Algeria has the world’s seventh-largest natural gas reserves with 4.55 trillion cubic meters, and is the world’s fourth-biggest gas exporter after Russia, Canada and Norway at 60 billion cubic meters per year. Russia, meanwhile, is the number one gas exporter to Europe, with about 26% of the market. By coordinating its export policies with number three exporter Algeria (about 10% of the European market), Russia may be able to increase its leverage within Europe, complicate the EU’s efforts to diversify its sources of supply, and leverage that improved position into greater participation in and influence over Europe’s pipeline projects.

That prospect looked good in 2006, anyway. Since that date, the growth of “fracking” techniques to extract natural gas from shale has changed the global energy picture. While some European countries are choosing to sit on their reserves, Poland isn’t one of them, and should soon find itself acting as a major gas provider for the continent. Their own especial fear of dependence on Russia is expected to ensure the required commitment. They will eventually be joined by Greece and Israel, who discovered huge offshore gas fields between Cyprus and Israel, and have begun cooperating with an eye to joint European exports. Russia is playing a smart game on that front, but no matter how the situation is played, supply and demand will govern deals. The reality is that each new player increases the difficulty of market control, and Russia’s prospects of achieving it are dim.

Contracts and Key Events

March 4/16: Russia and Algeria are expected to sign an agreement for 12 Su-34 fighter-bombers by the end of 2016. Russian news source TASS reported that contracts on the deal were waiting on approval of export licenses. Negotiations on the deal were opened last November, and could also be extended to a larger purchase of up to 40 of the aircraft. When the deal is confirmed, it will cement Algeria as manufacturer Sukhoi’s best customer in the region following last September’s order of 14 Su-30 fighters. The North African nation already operates 44 Su-30 aircraft.

January 4/16: After eight years of negotiations, Algeria seems to have formally ordered Su-34 fighters from Russia. The procurement is said to be for about twelve of the aircraft’s export variant, the Su-32, to replace the aging MiG-25s in service. The announcement was made in an interview with director of Novosibirsk Aircraft Production Association, Chkalov Sergey Smirnov.

September 14/15: Algeria is ordering an additional fourteen Su-30MKI multirole fighters from Russia to supplement the 44 already in service with the Algerian Air Force. Algeria is an important export customer for the Russian defense industry, with the North African country ordering a significant number of attack and transport helicopters last June. The Indian Air Force also operates the Su-30MKI, with the IAF suffering a high crash rate among its fleet in recent months. This latest deal is thought to value approximately $420 million, with deliveries expected between 2016 and 2017.

August 20/15: Russia intends to deliver another pair of Mil Mi-26T2 heavy lift helicopters to Algeria later this year, with another two following in early 2016, according to Russian media reports. The first two helicopters were delivered to the North African country in July, with reports indicating that a second contract – covering eight further helicopters of the type – is likely to complete deliveries by the end of 2017, bringing the total of heavy lift helicopters operated by Algeria to 14. The Mi-26T2 re-entered series production in May, with Algeria also reported to be ordering attack helicopters from Russia.

Mi-28N
(click to view full)

June 12/14: Mi-28s. Rosvertol’s 2013 annual report contains a number of interesting details regarding its orders. Algeria [foreign customer 012] ordered 6 Mi-26T2 ultra-heavy lift helicopters on June 26/13, and 42 Mi-28NE attack helicopters on Dec 26/13.

Mi-28NEs are dedicated attack helicopters, without the secondary transport capabilities of Algeria’s 36 Mi-24 Mk.IIIs. This order makes Algeria the type’s 2nd export customer after Iraq (15), but they are the type’s largest customer. Unless prospects in Egypt [customer 818], Turkmenistan [customer 795], or Uzbekistan [customer 860] really step up, they’re likely to remain so. Sources: Rostvertol PLC, “Annual Report ‘Rosvertol’, ZA2013 Year | LiveJournal bmpd [in Russian, incl. photos].

Mi-28NE attack & Mi-26T transport helos

June 7/13: RIA Novosti offers an update on Russian criminal prosecution of people involved in the canceled Algerian MiG-29 sale. There have been consequences, but…. it’s Russia.

The Moscow city court just handed down a 4-year suspended sentence to former Rezon director general Mikael Kazaryan. Rezon is charged with selling MiG outdated equipment, amd covering it up with forged certificates and tags. In earlier proceedings, Aviaremsnab head Musail Ismailov had 2 years added to his 5.5 year sentence, giving him 7.5 years for ripping off the Polish and Algerian air forces. May 2012 saw another 3 people convicted, with one sentenced to 5 years in prison, and the others fined.

On the other hand, this is Russia. MiG’s former First Deputy Director General Sergei Tsivilev, and his deputy Oleg Fadeyev, both escaped sentencing in December 2012, on grounds that the 6-year statute of limitations for their offense had expired. If you start too late, then yes, that happens. RIA Novosti.

March 11/13: UPI offers some snapshot updates of Algeria’s arms imports, which extend beyond Russia and look set to grow, thanks to a 14% increase in their 2013 military budget. $10.3 billion isn’t huge by some standards, but it’s enough to keep the new acquisitions coming, and the oil and gas revenues underpinning that budget seem stable.

“Delivery of the Su-30MKA aircraft, worth $1 billion, should have been completed at the end of 2012 by Rosoboronexport, Russia’s state arms exporter.

Delivery of the last of 120 T-90 tanks under a $470 million 2006 contract is still under way. Delivery of 180 T-90s under an earlier contract was completed in 2009.

Algiers is also looking for two Project 636 advanced variants of the SSK Type 877EKM Kilo class submarines. These diesel-electric boats are stealthier than the Algerian navy’s four Kilos delivered in 1988 and 2010.”

Beyond its initial umbrella buy covered here, Algeria has ordered 2 Stergushchy (Project 20382 Tiger export variant) corvettes from Russia. Beyond Russia, 2011 saw an order for an Italian San Giorgio Class LPD derivative and associated landing craft. 2012 saw Algeria buy 2 German Meko A200 frigates and 6 Super Lynx helicopters, along with a reported agreement to purchase up to 1,200 of Rheinmetall’s Fuchs armored personnel carriers, which came through later in 2014. There’s even a reported purchase of 3 light frigates from China pending, depending on whom one asks.

T-90 tank
(click to view full)

Feb 14/12: Tanks! Russian media report that Algeria has added another 120 T-90 tanks to its orders, at a cost of $470-500 million, bringing its total fleet to around 305. Russia media sources attribute the buy to the Arab Spring’s toppling of nearby regimes, but a closer look shows that a fleet of 305 T-90s is about what Algeria was initially expected to order. This may just be the completion of their planned buy, with an added push from external events.

Meanwhile, Russia is reportedly moving to upgrade its T-72 tanks as a cheaper alternative to new T-90s, while the army awaits a new tank design. Which means they’re looking to sell T-90 production abroad:

“In 2009, Russia’s defense export giant Rosoboronexport completed the delivery of 185 T-90C tanks to Algeria… in the fall of 2011, Algeria signed another contract with Russia for the delivery of 120 brand new Russian tanks, the Vedomosti newspaper wrote with reference to its sources at Rosoboronexport and Russian Technologies… In 2011, the Russian Defense Ministry stopped purchasing T-90 tanks… Instead, the Russian tanks will be delivered abroad. Russia will soon catch up with China on the sales volume of this hardware. In the summer of 2011, Russia signed a contract with Turkmenistan for the delivery of 20 T-90C tanks. Russia is also in talks with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Indonesia.”

120 more T-90 tanks

Sept 1/11: Yak-130. Algerian pilots training at the Irkutsk Aviation Plant’s airfield perform their 1st first solo flights, following 3 months of training and over 100 flights with Irkut crews. Irkut says they’ve also been training Algerian engineers and technicians on the Yak-130 aircraft, as Algeria prepared to induct the planes. JSC Irkut.

June 21/10: SU-30s. Arabian Aerospace reports that Russia is selling Algeria another 16 SU-30MKAs:

“The Algerian additional order was negotiated earlier this month by Rosoboroneksport which said additional prospects for the aircraft in the region are possible… The Su-30MKA is a variant based on India’s Su-30MKI and Malaysia’s Su-30MKM developed by Sukhoi OKB and Irkut and produced by the Irkut Aircraft Production Association plant in Irkutsk. The Su-30MKA features French avionics, including the Thales Damocles laser designation and targetting pod, but is said to be closer to the Su-30MKI than the Su-30MKM.”

That last appears to be based on a RIA Novosti report that wasn’t worded entirely clearly; the MKM is itself an MKI variant whose biggest modifications involve the replacement of Indian and Israeli avionics and onboard equipment with French and Russian equipment, much as the Algerians have done.

June 2/10: Deliveries. Russia’s RIA Novosti:

“Russia will supply Su-30 Flanker fighters and Yak-130 Mitten trainer/light attack jets to Algeria in 2011, the deputy head of the Russian Federal Service for Military Technical Cooperation, Vyacheslav Dzirkalin, said. “The delivery of Su-30s and Yak-130s [to Algeria] is due to begin next year, this is no military secret,” Dzirkalin said. Earlier in April, the head of Russian Technologies state Corporation, Sergei Chemezov, in an interview with the Novaya Gazeta weekly said Russia would ship to Algeria “a party of modern Russian fighters” at a price of about $1 billion. Dzirkalin did not specify the number of aircraft to be delivered to Algeria.”

Back in 2006, Moscow Defense Brief had said that the Algerian contract contained an option for another 14-16 Yak-130 trainer and light attack planes. Irkut’s December 2009 release announcing delivery of all Algerian Yak-130s would strongly indicate that more deliveries would involve an option order. The first batch of SU-30MKAs have already finished delivery as well, but more deliveries would be expected in 2011 as part of the reported MiG-29 substitution deal.

Dec 22/09: Irkut Corporation announces in passing that “The Irkut Corporation concluded the contract with Algeria on delivery of Yak-130 and carrying out its contractual obligations.”

June 15/09: Yak-130s. Russia’s RIA Novosti quotes Irkut head Oleg Demchenko at the Le Bourget airshow in Paris:

“We will have a contract with Russia’s Defense Ministry for 62 aircraft, and we will supply 16 Yak-130 planes to Algeria… Demchenko said the first Yak-130 to be delivered to Russia’s Air Force in July is undergoing flight tests in the city of Nizhny Novgorod on the Volga. “The first two planes from the Algeria contract are in the final assembly,” Demchenko said. Demchenko also said Irkut would complete the delivery of Su-30 Flanker-C [DID: the base SU-30 type] fighters to Algeria in 2009.”

May 13/09: SU-30s. The World Tribune reports that:

“A key element in the project has been the Algerian procurement of 180 T-90 MBTs from Russia. In 2008, the last of the tanks arrived in Algeria, with deployment expected later in 2009… Algeria was also said to have received most of its order of Su-30MK fighter-jets. SIPRI said Algeria has acquired 18 out of 28 Sukhois. The next stage of the Russian military modernization project would focus on naval platforms. Algeria has ordered two Project 636 Kilo-class submarines from Moscow.”

Jan 13/09: MiG-29s. RIA Novosti quotes “a Russian Defense Ministry source”, and says that Russia’s Air Force will receive Algeria’s 34 MiG-29 SMT and MiG-29 UBT fighters later in 2009, and induct them into service. Note that the picture used with RIA Novosti’s story is of a MiG-29K, the carrier-based variant that has been sold to India.

Aviation Week adds that the Russian government has signed a RUB 20 billion (about $615 million) agreement to buy the 28 MiG-29SMTs, and is negotiating for the 2-seat MiG-29UBTs, while making plans to fold RAC MiG into its United Aircraft Corporation alongside Sukhoi.

Czech MiG-29
(click to view full)

May 28/08: MiG-35s? Russia’s RIA Novosti quotes MiG Corp. CEO Anatoly Belov as saying that:

“We are currently in negotiations on delivering our fighter aircraft, including MiG-35s, to Algeria.”

The MiG-35 is the most modern variant, with full thrust vectoring for supermaneuverability and the possibility of an AESA radar. It is currently in the running for India’s MMRCA competition, but is not in service anywhere yet. As for Algeria’s delivered MiG-29SMTs, RIA Novosti reports that:

“The aircraft were eventually returned to Russia in April this year and following additional tests could go in service with the Russian Air Force.”

A same-day report quotes Irkut’s head Oleg Demchenko at the Berlin Air Show ILA2008″

“We have a contract with Algeria to supply 16 [Yak-130] aircraft… We are planning to start deliveries in January 2009.”

May 15/08: Fighter switch? The Russian daily Kommersant reports that Algeria may be prepared to settle for 14-16 extra SU-30 fighters from NPK Irkut, instead of the MiG-29s. The financial issues have yet to be worked out, however, including the fate of Algeria’s $250 million down payment and any extra costs created by substituting the larger Sukhoi aircraft.

Feb 28/08: Despite assurances earlier this week, the SU-30MK deal is feeling the after-effects. Kommersant reports that Russia has postponed deliveries of Su-30 fighters after Algeria failed to transfer payment for 28 aircraft in early February, per the contract. Algeria froze all payments under military contracts with Russia in October 2007, and has said the freeze would not be lifted until Russia takes back 15 MiG-29 fighter jets whose quality is in dispute. RIA Novosti | Algeria’s El Khabar | Forbes | StrategyPage, incl. other security developments in Algeria this month.

See also Reuters April 1/08 op-ed article “Algeria spat shows challenge to Russian arms sales.”

Rafale factor?
(click to view full)

February 2008: Rushin’ for refunds. On Feb 18/07, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that after paying $423 million under the arms package:

“For the first time in the history of Russian military cooperation, a foreign customers is returning a military hardware purchase. Last week, an agreement was signed on the return of 15 MiG planes acquired by Algeria in 2006 and 2007. …Kommersant has learned that proposed returning the planes immediately, that is, before the president’s visit to Moscow, “on the basis of an oral agreement,” with documentary formalities to be taken care of later. However, according to a source in the United Aviation Construction Corp., the Federal Service for Military-Technological Cooperation, Rosoboronexport, the MiG Corp. and the Algerian Air Force signed an official agreement on the return of the planes to Russia… The contract will not be completely renounced, however, according to a UACC source. He said that Algeria was being offered more up-to-date MiG-29M2 or MiG-35 models or nonaviation hardware in exchange. The cost of one MiG-29M2 or MiG-35 is $5-10 million higher than of a MiG-29SMT. A Kommersant source in the aviation industry says that the lot of Su-30MKI(A) models for Algeria may be increased.”

The report set of a firestorm of coverage, and more than a little bit of speculation, including reports that the entire $7.5 billion arms deal was in danger of renegotiation. A few reports even spoke of cancellation.

The official complaint regarding the MiG-29s is that technical problems led to deeper investigations, whereupon the Algerians concluded that the planes included used/older parts from the 1990s, as well as new-build parts. The Russians have essentially admitted this; Defense News quotes a Russian official who said the parts were not used, but “produced in the late 1990s and stored since then.” This is actually a very plausible story. Russia’s 1990s economic crash, and accompanying defense budget crash, would certainly have left a number of work-in progress assemblies available. During this period, it’s also true that MiG-29 exports have been very slow due to the popularity of rival Sukhoi’s larger SU-30 family. The official also said that “Russian technicians were fixing the problems – all of which were minor and technical – in Algeria.”

The use of stored parts may not necessarily lead to technical problems by themselves; indeed, American aircraft are regularly returned to flying condition and front-line service after prolonged storage at AMARG in the Arizona desert. Poor Russian storage procedures could create legitimate technical issues, however, and so could poor craftsmanship generally. The latter is a real and acknowledged problem for the Russian defense industry (vid. Appendix B).

Even so, few observers seem to be taking the situation at face value. Nikita Petrov noted in his RIA Novosti Op/Ed that: “Off the record, Russian arms exporters maintain that before being sent to the south Mediterranean coast, the fighters were approved by Algerian experts. They also checked them up upon arrival in the country, and even started flying them. How can they now complain of defects, used spare parts or rusted units?”

One set of speculations and reports from anonymous sources has Algeria switching the MiG order for more Yak-130 trainer/light attack aircraft, more advanced MiG-29 variants, or more SU-30MKAs. This would be a fairly straightforward adjustment within the contract, and offers the least disruption to the current deal. Other speculations are more involved, and more consequential. Along those lines, number of speculations have been advanced as the real reasons behind the cancellation. Many of them are quite interesting:

• As is true in Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries, arms deals involve middlemen who take a cut of the proceedings. The selection of those middlemen ties into tribal politics, and connection to different political groups and clans. Intrigues involving these factions can easily boil over into defense acquisitions. For instance:
• Algerian President Bouteflika intends to seek a third term. Russian defense analyst Nikita Petrov notes in his RIA Novosti Op/Ed that “A competing clan is represented in the security forces of that country. They are using the crisis of the Russian planes to weaken the position of Ahmed Gaid Salah, who is loyal to the president.”
• Another set of speculations concerns France, who retains surprisingly good ties to Algeria given their mutual history. The French had been working hard to sell Algeria Rafale fighters – and after they lost, they kept working to counter Russia’s 2006 energy squeeze play. New President Sarkozy has apparently stepped up the diplomatic offensive, and one set of speculations from various sources involves energy and/or fighter deals with France that would end up redefining the Russian contract.
• Andrew Brooke of the International Institute for Strategic Studies even adds China to the mix, noting that they are willing to undercut its rivals to break into the valuable North African arms and energy market.
• One piece of information helping to fuel speculation re: outside influences is the fact that in August 2007, the Algerian Minister of Energy announced the discontinuation of an MoU between Russia’s Gazprom and the Algerian company Sonatrach. This ended the legal cooperation agreement to produce hydrocarbons and liquefied natural gas in Algeria, though negotiations to resurrect it are ongoing.

May 2007: Algeria begins refusing deliveries of MiG-29 SMTs, demanding that Russia take back the first 15 aircraft it had delivered and citing the “inferior quality” of certain components and units. Source. Defense News reports that each of the 15 jets had been flown 80 to 90 hours by this time.

Appendix A: Algeria’s Appetite for Advanced Arms

MI-24 Hind
(click to view full)

This level of advanced equipment is not altogether surprising. In 1999, Algerian President Abdel Aziz Boutefliqa announced a new military policy aimed at modernizing Algeria’s army and shifting it toward a modernized, professional force. Yet military observers would note that modern equipment is hardly new to the Algerians.

Algeria had been a client for Soviet arms throughout the Cold War, and country data notes that they typically received and operated some of Russia’s most advanced export equipment. The ANP was one of the first armies outside Eastern Europe to be equipped with the T-72 tank. Algeria also received the BMP-1 and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles, MiG-23 Flogger and MiG-25 Foxbat fighters, Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters, modern rapid-firing artillery, and SA-2 and SA-3 air defense missile systems.

Armed SU-24 Fencer
(click to view full)

Algeria currently flies the lightweight MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter, and a previous UPI story noted that Algeria received 18 SU-30MK multi-role fighters in 2005, along with a $120 million deal for 22 of Russia’s SU-24 Fencer tactical bombers that proved so popular in Chechnya. In 1999, Algeria also became one of the first customers for Russia’s Smerch-M 300mmm multiple rocket launcher system.

In many ways, therefore, this purchasing wave is simply a continuation of what Algeria’s military government is used to. Even so, there is one important way in which this proposed deal would represent a break with the recent past.

Moscow Defense Brief magazine editor Ruslan Pukhov noted to The Moscow Times that after the Soviet Union’s breakup, Algeria’s military contracts largely switched to firms in Belarus and the Ukraine. We’d add that rather than dealing with Russian firms, Algeria even worked closely with South Africa’s ATE Aerospace to upgrade its Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters with new avionics, sensors, weapons, and logistics infrastructure. the result was the fully-modernized “Mi-24 Superhind Mk3“.

“This [$4 billion] contract will be Russia’s triumphant return to North Africa,” said Pukhov. “In the coming years, Algeria will account for 20% of Russian’s arms exports, while China and India will plummet from 70% to 50%” as a result of saturated markets and diversification of those of those countries’ arms sources.

Appendix B: Russia’s Arms Industry Woes

Coming as it does around the same time that its major export client India appears to be slipping away, and is in very prominent negotiations with Russia over a bungled refit of the aircraft carrier Gorshkov, the Algerian return serves to underscore a very real issue for Russia’s defense industry.

Fast-rising prices for gas, oil, and key metals like titanium have made Russia’s government cash-rich again, but that may not be enough. The complete defense budget collapses of the 1990s may have left Russia a lasting legacy – and made its current situation a canonical example of what happens when you damage your industrial base. Russian defense analyst Nikita Petrov explains, in a February 2008 RIA Novosti Op/Ed:

“…the Algerian experts are right when they talk about a drop in quality of Russian arms exports. This is openly admitted by top-ranking officials in charge of the Russian military-industrial sector… At a recent Academy of Military Sciences conference, Putilin said that “although the enterprises of the military-industrial sector have increased their turnout by more than 14% (military production went up by 19.1%, and civilian by 7.6%), some of them are simply unable to fulfill state-awarded contracts. Moreover, they cannot even use the allocated funds…” …Highly qualified personnel have come close to retirement age. Machines and technologies are becoming obsolescent – capital equipment in the defense industry is more than 30 years old. Major technologies have been lost, usual contacts severed, and the required raw materials and equipment are in short supply. The price of energy… greatly exceeds the deflators fixed by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Graduates of technical colleges are reluctant to work in the defense industry. Salaries are rather low, and career opportunities cannot compete with those in the oil and gas industry… Before, young people were not drafted if they worked at a military plant called a mailbox. Now this benefit does not exist… technical vocational schools no longer exist…”

This isn’t the first time RIA Novosti has covered these issues. Nikita Petrov again, this time from a January 2007 RIA Novosti article:

“In the last few months, defense factories have expanded production by 14.1%, boosting military-equipment and civilian output by 19.1% and 7.6%, respectively. Nevertheless, some of them are simply unable to fulfil the state defense order and to effectively spend federal-budget allocations… Only 36% of strategic defense enterprises are solvent, while another 23% are tottering on the verge of bankruptcy… The lack of qualified personnel and up-to-date production equipment will inevitably impair product quality. In fact, India, Algeria and some other countries are beginning to file quality claims [emphasis DID’s]… Since 1992, not a single state defense order has been fulfilled completely and on time.”

All this despite a 2008 official Russian defense budget of 800 billion rubles ($32.6 billion), rising to RUB 900 billion/ $36.7B in 2009 and RUB 1.1 trillion/ $45B in 2010. But money alone won’t instantly provide production lines with the required tools, some of which must be bought abroad. Or produce technically qualified graduates from thin air to operate them. Or fix the gap between real and official prices, including poorly-set energy cost adjustments. Or handle the property right issues and state interference that prevent the creation of efficient holding companies, and make it very difficult to restructure the assets and production of the holding companies that are created.

Recovery from that situation will take more than just cash. It may even take more than time.

Russia’s policy of non-interference with its customers use of military equipment is giving them an opening on the military export front, and steadily rising arms export totals (about $6 billion in 2005, about $7 billion in 2007) back that up. But the opportunity can, and will evaporate quickly if a consensus grows that an exporter cannot deliver reliably or at acceptable quality levels.

Continued domestic defense spending may eventually begin to fix some of the problems with Russia’s defense industry, if it is coupled with political will. Even that happy scenario may not be enough to fix its export reputation, however, unless improvement comes rather more rapidly.

Appendix C: Additional Readings & Sources

• DID – Russia’s Military Spending Jumping – But Can Its Industry? Expanded, updated version of Appendix B.

News & Views

• DID (June 19/14) – Fox Among the Hans: Algeria’s Big Fuchs APC Order. They ordered 980 German 6×6 wheeled APCs. Germany is also a significant arms supplier, including 2 MEKO A200 frigates.
• defenceWeb (Nov 14/12) – Algeria increasing military spending. With a heavy focus on naval assets.
• Bloomberg (June 22/12) – Gazprom Biggest Loser as Shale Gas Upends World Markets. The premise of the Algerian deal looks increasingly outdated.
• ISN (Nov 17/09) – Arming the Maghreb. Discusses recent and prospective North African arms purchases in Libya, Morocco, and Algeria. ISN is a project of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology’s Center for Security Studies (ETH Zurich’s CSS), and is jointly funded by the Swiss Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) and ETH Zurich.
• Reuters (April 1/08) – Algeria spat shows challenge to Russian arms sales [dead link].
• Defense News (Feb 25/08) – Algeria Wants To Return MiGs: Fighter Tiff May Sink $8B Arms Sale – and Energy Deal.
• Flight International (Feb 25/08) – Algeria returns ‘faulty’ MiG-29s.
• StrategyPage (Feb 25/08) – The Bandit King to the Rescue. Of al-Qaeda in North Africa; the article has interesting information re: leadership changes, the ongoing civil war in Algeria, and the spillover elsewhere. Mentions the MiGs in passing.
• UPI (Feb 25/08) – Analysis: European defense contracts. Includes 2007 Russian arms export figures. Reportedly $7 billion, of which $6.2 billion went through government-controlled Rosoboronexport, who has an estimated order backlog between $25 billion and $32 billion. Divides as 52% aircraft & helicopters, 21% weapons and land equipment, 10% air defense systems, and 8% navy.
• Kommersant (Feb 20/08) – Putin Orders to Buy More Modern Aircraft for Defense. Looks like he’s got 15 to start…
• RIA Novosti, Nikita Petrov Op/Ed (Feb 19/08) – Returning fighters, Algerian style. Very interesting rumors, and adds much more definite information re: the Russian defense industry and its quality issues.
• Moscow Times (Feb 19/08) – MiG Denies Algeria Jets Deal in Trouble.
• RIA Novosti (Feb 18/08) – Algeria to return 15 MiG aircraft to Russia over inferior quality.
• Kommersant (Feb 18/08) – Algeria Lays Down Russian Arms.
• RIA Novosti (Jan 9/07) – Russian defense industry still faces problems. Points out, inter alia, that: “The management of the Novosibirsk Aircraft Plant had promised to supply six, rather than two, Su-34 bombers in late 2006.” Other items in the report are also highly relevant to the larger remarmament picture, including production difficulties, paper factories, and insolvency levels within the industry.
• Moscow Defense Brief #1 (7) 2007 – The Venezuela Contracts. Includes Algeria in the overall Russian arms & policy overview.
• Moscow Defense Brief #2 (6) 2006 (June 2006) – The Algerian Deal.
• Moscow Defense Brief #2 (6) 2006 (June 2006) – Risk Factors of the Delivery of Russian Arms to Algeria. Their conclusion? “…it should be emphasized that the likelihood of the successful implementation of the Russian-Algerian arms deal is very high. But in order to ensure this result, Russia should work closely not only with the Algerian General Staff, but with its oil and gas lobby as well.”
• Vedomosti (March 13/06) – Russian arms trade freed from “Sino-Indian ghetto” – expert.

Lebanese armed forces

The Lebanese Army’s own web site is blunt: “The assistance received from Syria, the USA, and other friendly countries has played a basic role in bridging the gap between needs and available means.”

A number of countries are stepping up to fill those gaps, left in a military ravaged by foreign occupation, a long and losing civil war, and the presence of Hizb’Allah – a foreign-backed private army in Lebanon, with superior firepower. The battle for influence in that country is multi-polar, with countries including the USA, France, and Saudi Arabia moving to counter Syria and Iran’s proxies, and countries like Russia working with independent agendas. The USA has been supplying a wide range of equipment from ammunition to armored vehicles, and is adding tanks, mini-UAVs, and even patrol boats to that list. Belgium has worked to sell some of its own tanks and APCs, France has offered help with Lebanon’s existing French equipment; and in April 2009, Russia went so far as to offer MiG-29 fighters, for free, from its own stocks.

What capabilities would these systems bring? How are those sales going? And how is Lebanon itself changing, in the wake of both Hezbollah’s takeover and Syria’s civil war?

UAVS, Tanks, and Planes

RQ-11 assembly
(click to view full)

The main internal threat is Hezbollah, who is currently part of a 2009 unity government that is within the orbit of Syria’s Bashar Assad, and of Iran via its Hezbollah foreign legion. Pentration of the army and its institutions is accordingly extensive, which creates hard questions about the aid’s appropriateness, and security risks surrounding systems that are turned over.

Aerovironment’s RQ-11 Raven has become extremely popular in Afghanistan, and seen extensive use in Iraq. While the hand-launched UAV is far too small to carry anything beyond cameras, and is limited to low-flying missions out to about 1-15 miles, its virtues as a readily-used, squad-portable reconnaissance system that lets troops see over the next hill, or into the next block, are well and widely appreciated.

The M60 tank is a development of the M48 Patton, and was the M1 Abrams’ predecessor in the US Army and Marines. While the M1 was developed in response to the threat of the Soviet T-72, it turned out that the M60 was the T-72’s real peer competitor, whereas the M1 proved to be a massive overmatch. Something the M1 crews appreciated during combat in Operation Desert Storm. The M60A3 was the last serving model, sporting electronic upgrades while retaining the rounded turret and 105mm gun. It still serves with a number of militaries around the world. Egypt has the largest regional M60 fleet, followed by Turkey’s “M60 Sabras” that sport significant Israeli improvements to their sighting systems and electronics, as well as a full array of explosive reactive armor.

Recent combat experience teaches that even in urban situations, when tanks enter the fray, fights usually end quickly. Tanks of the M60’s vintage, however, lack the advanced armor protection and shaped designs required to withstand hits from popular threats like RPGs and anti-tank missiles. This can be remedied to some extent by adding explosive reactive armor and other ancillary systems. In their absence, however, M60s could not be expected to last very long against even private armies like Hezbollah, which makes extensive use of anti-tank missiles. The M60A3s, and similar vintage Leopard 1A5s from Belgium, would nonetheless offer an improvement over Lebanon’s existing T-54/55 and M48A5 tanks.

Russian MiG-29
(click to view full)

Lebanon’s fixed-wing fighter/attack force currently consists of about 4 Hawker Hunter jets, a 1950s era subsonic design that remains an aviation classic, and an OV-10 Bronco turboprop observation and light attack plane. In contrast, the used MiG-29s offered for free by Russia are late 1980s high-performance fighters, intended as a competitor to the F-16. Early versions are mainly air interceptor aircraft, though some Soviet MiG-29As were also given nuclear strike roles. Subsequent MiG-29Cs were confined to Soviet forces, incorporating radar improvements and an enlarged spine with extra fuel and an active electronic jammer system. Neither variant is suitable for delivering precision ground attack ordnance, a capability restricted to subsequent MiG-29S upgrades and modifications.

An interesting but very logical shift occurred in early 2010, when Russia and Lebanon agreed to substitute Mi-24 “Hind” helicopter gunships for the MiG-29s. The Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s saw some air-air engagements involving Iraqi Mi-24s and Iranian AH-1J SeaCobra helicopters, but the Hind’s main use is as a ground attack platform. It fits Lebanon’s military requirements and base infrastructure far better than the MiG-29s would have, but it also introduces an interesting new capability into Lebanon’s correlation of forces.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s participation in Lebanon’s government is a triple-edged sword for the Lebanese military.

On the one hand, it makes hostilities with Lebanon’s army unlikely so long as the accord lasts. The other 2 edges, however, are sharp. One is that it gave Hezbollah free rein to re-arm and organize. Hezbollah’s agenda is set in Iran and not in Lebanon, which has set the stage for future conflicts within and beyond Lebanon. For instance, Hezbollah is currently functioning as Iran’s Condor Legion equivalent in Syria’s civil war.

The other edge is that Israeli officials have said that since Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, acts carried out by Hezbollah would be considered to be coming from Lebanon’s government – i.e. acts of war rather than terrorism. The strong implication is that any Israeli response would encompass all of Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. So far, that has largely kept a lid on things.

Contracts and Key Events

March 17/16: Bell Helicopters are to supply three UH-1H Huey II helicopters to the government of Lebanon. The $18.9 million contract is expected to be completed by March 2017, and is part of an order for 18 Huey II helicopters for Lebanon approved by the US Department of State in September 2014. While initially designed as a troop transport and support helicopter, it has been pressed into service by Lebanon as a bomber. For this role they were fitted with extended undercarriage skids and improvised bomb racks for the delivery of 250 kg (550 lb) and 400 kg (880 lb) bombs.

February 22/16: A $3 billion Saudi Arabian aid package to allow the Lebanese Army to buy French weapons has been suspended. Saudi officials cited the lack of condemnation by Beirut over attacks on Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran for the cancelling the deal. The remainder of a further $1 billion package to help the Lebanese internal security service battle terrorism was also cancelled. The incident comes as one of a series highlighting the growing tensions between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi’a Iran, with Lebanese Hezbollah a key ally of Tehran. Equipment to be procured included combat and transport vehicles, attack helicopters, three small corvette warships, surveillance and communication equipment as well as the provision of training maintenance.

July 24/15: The Lebanese government has requested 1,500 TOW-2A guided missiles from the US, with the State Department approving the possible Foreign Military Sale, estimated to value $245 million. 1,000 of the missiles requested are the anti-armor variant and the remaining 500 bunker busting variants, with the order also including fifty launchers. The Lebanese government has recently received the first weapons purchased from France in November last year with Saudi financing the deal worth around $3 billion. Shipments of these weapons (including Milan anti-tank missiles) began in April. The country’s government also received weapons from China earlier this month, with these thought to have been donated by the Chinese government. The US has sent approximately $1 billion in military aid to Lebanon over the last eight years, previously supplying older versions of the TOW-2 system.

June 11/15: Lebanon is buying six Super Tucano ground attack aircraft from the US through a Foreign Military Sale thought to be worth approximately $462 million, including spares, support services and auxiliary equipment. The US and Lebanese governments discussed the potential sale of Super Tucanos in 2010, with the DSCA announcement on Tuesday confirming reports from March which set a deadline of 2018 for delivery of the six aircraft. The Embraer-manufactured turboprop aircraft is particularly useful in counterinsurgency operations, as well as being more very affordable. For these reasons the Super Tucano has seen export success to several African states and numerous other nations worldwide.

Feb 26/15: April set as French arms delivery commencement. France is reportedly to start shipping its planned sale of $3 billion worth of Saudi-purchased arms to Lebanon in April. The announcement appears to have taken many media organs by surprise, given the already volatile military situation in the country. Different reports ascribe various Saudi motives for the pressing of the weapons into Lebanese Army hands, ranging from expressing pique at the U.S. (UPI) – whose arms were not purchased – to a direct effort to fund a force to take on Hezbollah (MintPress). It took the French two years to get to this point of readiness. Had the Saudis sought U.S. arms, the approvals would certainly have been much longer in coming, if they ever came. That the Lebanese Army would take on Hezbollah remains unlikely, as precedent shows a long inability to deny Hezbollah anything in Lebanon the group wishes to take.

IqAF Hueys

Oct 24/14: UK. After a meeting between UK Chief of the Defense Staff General Sir Nicholas Houghton and Lebanese Army Commander General Jean Kahwaji. the UK sends Lebanon a $16 million donation. It includes 164 Land Rovers, 1,500 sets of body armor, a secure radio communication network, border watchtowers, and HESCO bastions that can be filled with earth to create bulletproof walls in Army positions along the frontier. Meanwhile, Lebanon’s Daily Star says:

“As for the earlier $3 billion aid announced by Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdel-Aziz, it will come in the form of weapons, equipment and training to be provided by France…. [but] has not yet gone into effect with reports saying that the Kingdom first wants to receive assurances that the weapons will not benefit Hezbollah.”

That sounds like a pretty tall order, given the realities of Lebanon. Sources: Al Defaiya, “UK Delivers Military Equipment to Lebanese Army”.

Oct 8/14: France. The French defense minister says that the 3-way deal with Saudi Arabia (q.v. Dec 30/13) may finally be ready to finance over EUR 2 billion in purchases of French weapons:

“Ce projet a ete valide par la France et ce projet est valide avec les forces armees libanaises”, a-t-il declare mercredi 8 octobre, lors de la seance des questions au gouvernement. Et d’ajouter : “Tous les travaux sont termines et le president de la Republique a indique hier à Monsieur [Saad] Hariri [ancien Premier ministre et leader politique de la communaute sunnite libanaise, NDLR] que les conditions etaient desormais remplies.”

That could end up being a very substantial infusion. The question is what the government will spend it on. And who will end up controlling what they buy. Sources: France24, “Liban : conditions réunies pour livrer des armes françaises, selon Le Drian”.

AC-208B firing
(click to view full)

Sept 12/14: AC-208Bs. US ambassador David Hale says the USA will send “an armed Cessna” , and also arm a Cessna it had previously provided to the Lebanese Army. they’re referring to the AC-208B conversion, which allows the Caravan to independently carry, target, and fire 2 AGM-114 Hellfire laser-guided missiles. It’s hardly a regional power projection tool, but it’s a fine platform for surveillance and strikes on isolated guerrilla groups.

“The Lebanese government and army have requested additional aircraft from the United States: an armed Cessna and other light air support aircraft… It is our intention to support those requests for additional aircraft, using funds generously made available to Lebanon by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia…” [q.v. Dec 30/13]

That won’t use much of their $3 billion offer, and it’s a good investment for all concerned. Beyond the usual hijinks in Lebanon, the Sunni ISIS group has reached beyond Syria and Iraq into Lebanon, taking a number of Lebanese soldiers captive and beheading them. Iraq is already using AC-208Bs successfully against ISIS, and the USA is stepping up efforts to contain the group via 3rd parties since it has abandoned its own combat presence in Iraq. The Saudis also see ISIS as a threat, one that’s approaching the level offered by Iran and its legions. Sources: Lebanon Daily Star, “US arming Lebanon military to combat ISIS: Hale” | Kuwait News Agency, “US to deliver armed light Cessna aircraft to Lebanon to combat ISIL” | Middle East Monitor, “US to deliver armed aircraft to Lebanon”.

Dec 30/13: Saudi Arabia. Lebanon couldn’t help but be drawn into the Sunni-Shia proxy wars that are engulfing the Arab world. Saudi Arabia pledges $3 billion in military aid to Lebanon’s government, in a move that’s clearly designed to strengthen that government at the expense of Iran’s Hezbollah. Specific equipment isn’t specified, so we’ll see how all of this works itself out.

Here’s the Saudi dilemma, in a nutshell: what to provide? If the money is used to provide small arms, anti-tank missiles, and good training, it would probably make the biggest difference on the ground. The bad news? These items are small and portable. Hezbollah’s infiltration of the armed forces and power within the government means that many of the items in question won’t stay in government hands. On the other hand, if Saudi aid is used to provide higher-end items like armed helicopters, armored vehicles, etc., then the bad news is that $3 billion doesn’t actually deliver as much as one imagines. Especially in a military whose support systems and infrastructure are questionable. That high-end approach is also vulnerable to counter-strokes: all Hezbollah would need to do, in order to incapacitate new fleets, would be to threaten the maintenance workers in order to ensure that they do a poor job. Sources: CS Monitor, “Saudi Arabia promises record $3 billion in military aid to Lebanon”.

July 31/13: Radios. Advanced Technology Systems Co. in McLean, VA receives a $26.7 million multi-year, firm-fixed-price, foreign military sales from Lebanon for TETRA trunked radio communication systems. TETRA is an abbreviation of TErrestrial Trunked RAdio. It has been defined and approved by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), and is a standard for radio communication in the same way that GSM is a mobile telephony standard. It’s often used to create networks for first responders and internal security forces, but a number of militaries around the world also use them.

Work will be performed in Lebanon. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (W15P7T-13-C-D082).

May 26/13: Syria/Lebanon War. In the New Yorker, war correspondent Dexter Filkins reports:

“It’s official: the war in Syria has spread to Lebanon. In an extraordinary speech Saturday, Hassan Nasrallah, the bearded and bespectacled leader of the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, promised an all-out effort to keep the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad in power in Syria. “It’s our battle, and we are up to it,” Nasrallah said in a televised address. The war, he said, had entered “a completely new phase.”

This is a terrifying development; the beginning of a regional war. Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed armed group, has been fighting inside Syria for months, something I detailed in an article on the group in February. But Hezbollah was intervening in Syria covertly…. As more and more Hezbollah fighters died inside Syria, that lie could no longer be sustained. The truth is out.

On Saturday, by declaring his undying loyalty to the Assad regime, Nasrallah has signalled an escalation in Hezbollah’s involvement…”

Nov 1/12: Hueys. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. in Hurst, TX receives a $33.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for single-engine UH-1H+ Huey II helicopters and related support services. Work will be performed in Hurst, TX with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by U.S. Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-11-G-0011).

U.S. Army Security Assistance Command has confirmed to us that this order will be transferred to the “government” of Lebanon. The July 25/12 DSCA request was for 6, and this appears to cover that number.

July 25/12: Helicopter request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] a potential sale to Lebanon of 6 Huey II helicopters and associated equipment, parts, training, and logistical support, at an estimated cost of $63 million. Hezbollah is still in charge, albeit somewhat weakened by the civil war in Syria, which interferes with supply lines to their masters in Iran. The US DSCA claims that:

“This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by providing Lebanon with necessary mobility capabilities to maintain internal security, enforce United Nation’s Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701, and counter terrorist threats… The Huey II will augment Lebanon’s aging fleet of UH-1H aircraft.”

If Congress agrees enough to avoid overtly blocking the sale within 30 days, Lebanon can begin negotiations with Bell Helicopter in Fort Worth, TX. Fortunately for Bell, “Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Lebanon.”

Jan 12/12: AC-208Bs. Alliant Techsystems, Inc. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $16.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for one used Caravan Cessna 208B aircraft, continued contractor logistics support, and spares with associated repair and return effort. This supports a Foreign Military Sales Program and the Lebanon Air Force Caravan Program.

The C-208B is a single-propeller plane that’s often used for flight training and light cargo duties. The Iraqi Air Force have turned them into low-cost AC-208B “Combat Caravan” surveillance and close support planes by adding a surveillance/targeting turret, accompanying internal displays, and M299 racks for Hellfire missiles on the wings. official reports indicate that the planes headed to Lebanon are Combat Caravans.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA, and is expected to be complete by Nov 16/16. The ASC/WINK/FMS at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH acts as Lebanon’s agent in this matter (FA8620-12-C-4005). See also Flight International.

AMP-145 CPB concept
(click to view larger)

June 13/11: Takeover. The new Lebanese government names its cabinet, which Hezbollah and its supporters dominate. BBC.

Jan 19/11: Takeover. Hezbollah ousts Prime Minister Hariri and engineers a de facto coup in Lebanon. Lebanon Daily Star | Now Lebanon | Reuters | Ya Libnan.

Jan 14/11: Patrol Boats. Maritime Security Strategies, LLC in Tampa, FL received a $29 million firm-fixed price contract to construct a 42-meter coastal security craft and provide associated equipment, material, training and technical services to the Government of Lebanon. This will be the first sale of the firm’s AMP-145 multi-mission platform design, though their regional orders also include 2 60-meter Offshore Supply/Command Vessels under construction for the Iraqi Navy.

MSS’ managing partner, USN Rear Admiral (ret.) Robert Cox touts “new designs and features that deliver significant cost and performance improvements over the current industry offerings,” including fast reconfiguration. The hulls are an epoxy-resin composite, with an aluminum deck and superstructure. American shipbuilders have had mixed results with composite hulls, but they are coming into wider international use due to their weight advantages, which translates directly into greater speed, increased maneuverability and lower fuel consumption.

The Lebanese Navy’s AMP-145 incorporates ITAR compliant controls and automation, including embedded sensors in key components, and a non-militarized, passive Integrated Bridge System (IBS) from Raytheon Anschutz GmbH that manages the ship’s automation system, as well as feeds from CCTV and a FLIR thermal imaging cameras. Surface search X and S-band ARPA radars, a full package of navigation sensors, data management software, GMDSS A3, and all other electronics and safety equipment completes the IBS and Command and Surveillance package. The C2/Operations Center is fitted with a customized Situational Awareness Display which shares all charts, targets and craft movements with the Integrated Bridge System. Depictions of the craft show a 30mm cannon and mounts for 7.62mm – 12.7mm machine guns, but armament details were not provided.

Work will be performed in Tampa, FL, and is expected to be complete by January 2012, though the company has set a delivery date of end 2011. MSS will work with its primary design agent and shipbuilding partner, RiverHawk Fast Sea Frames, LLC, of Tampa, FL to design, produce and outfit the ship. The MSS/RiverHawk team is currently completing epoxy-resin composite hull construction and rigging in of the major engineering systems at VectorWorks Marine facilities in Titusville, FL. The aluminum decks and superstructure are nearing completion in RiverHawk’s Tampa yard, where they will be mated to the hull, and several South Florida sub-contractors will also play significant roles. The contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC, who manages the contract on behalf of its Foreign Military Sale client (N00024-11-C-2241).

• Length: 43.5 meters
  
• Breadth overall: 8.5 meters
  
• Draft: ~ 2 meters
  
• Displacement: ~ 265 metric tons
  
• Crew Complement: 6 – 22
  
• Speed: > 25 knots
  
• Range @ 11 Knots: > 2600 nm
  
• Effective Limits @ 12 Knots: Sea State 4
  
• Survivability: Sea State 5
  
• Endurance: 5-7 days

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has taken its marching orders and withdrawn from the government in Lebanon, setting up a minor political crisis as the country waits for a UN report that’s likely to indict Hezbollah members, as well as its foreign backers in Syria and beyond, for the Hariri assassination. See also: Maritime Security Strategies | Al-Defaiya | Al-Jazeera | Reuters | Voice of America | Israel’s Ynet News.

French SA342
(click to view full)

Dec 17/10: HOT missiles. Agence France Presse reports that France will give Lebanon 100 MBDA HOT anti-tank missiles to equip Lebanon’s SA342M Gazelle helicopters. A Lebanese official told AFP that: “The missiles will be delivered before the end of February and are being given with no conditions attached.”

The move has sparked concern among some American political figures. Lebanese received 12 Gazelle helicopters in mid-2007, and in January 2010, it signed an agreement to refurbish them (vid. Jan 22/10 entry).

Nov 13/10: Unblocked. The congressional hold on $100 million in military aid to Lebanon clears, as Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA] and Nita Lowey [D-NY] drop their opposition after a classified briefing and presenting results of a “thorough inter-agency review” by the Obama administration. Berman: “As a result, I am convinced that implementation of the spending plan will now have greater focus, and I am reassured as to the nature and purposes of the proposed package.” Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) Resident Scholar Aram Nerguizian, whose report on U.S. military aid to Lebanon is coming out later in November 2010, has said that American aid can help the armed forces keep a lid on Lebanon, and “keeps Lebanon from escalating beyond the range of the real.” Israel, on the other hand, seemed less reassured:

“Iran’s domination of Lebanon through its proxy Hezbollah has destroyed any chance for peace, has turned Lebanon into an Iranian satellite and made Lebanon a hub for regional terror and instability”

Lifting the hold Congressional may release funds while the present “lame duck” session is still alive, until and unless future action affirmatively blocks it. Berman chairs the House Foreign Affairs committee, and Lowey heads the House Appropriations committee’s foreign operations subcommittee. They will be reduced to ranking minority members in the new Congress, however, and Berman’s likely successor, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL], opposes further aid to Lebanon as well as to the Palestinian Authority. Lebanese Daily Star | Agence France Presse | Israel’s Arutz Sheva | Bloomberg | Foreign Policy Magazine | Jerusalem Post | Fox News | UAE’s The National | Reuters | Voice of America.

Aug 8/10: Blocked. The US Congress is blocking $100 million in aid to the Lebanese military, amidst concerns it is cooperating with Hezbollah. The Congressional holds come in the wake of an Aug 3 shooting of 2 Israeli officers while brush was being cleared along the northern border. One Israeli officer was killed and another seriously wounded in the firefight, which also killed at least 2 Lebanese soldiers and a journalist. There are reports that the Lebanese troops in question were using American-supplied weapons. Associated Press | Jerusalem Post | al-Manar TV (Hezbollah affiliate) | Lebanon Daily Star | Australia’s The Age/ Reuters re: clash.

June 3/10: The USA delivers $427,000 worth of weapons, body armor and bomb investigation equipment to Lebanese security officials, via a $1 million anti-terrorism assistance program for Lebanon from the U.S. State Department. UPI.

May 24/10: Rising US concern. Foreign Policy magazine’s blog The Cable documents rising concern within the Pentagon and Congress over continued military aid to Lebanon, in the wake of what they see as a blurring of the lines between the government and Hezbollah.

MI-24 Hind
(click to view full)

Feb 26/10: Make Hinds, not Fulcrums. NaharNet reports that Lebanese President Michel Suleiman has returned from a visit to Russia, and…

“Russian authorities agreed to substitute the 10 MiG-29 fighter jets previously mulled military aid with Mi-24 advanced military helicopters “based on the request of the Lebanese side that conducted technical and functional studies on the Russian fund for the Lebanese Air Force.”

The Mi-24 “Hind” helicopter gunship became famous during Russia’s war in Afghanistan, and it remains popular with militaries around the world. The most modern version is the Mi-35. Unlike most attack helicopters, it has secondary troop transport capabilities.

Jan 22/10: Lebanon has reportedly signed an agreement with the French company Euro Tech to revamp 13 Gazelle helicopters transferred in 2007, equipping the 10 Puma helicopters granted by the UAE, and training Lebanese helicopter pilots.

The Puma helicopters are expected to start arriving within the first half of 2010 in 2 batches of 4 and then 6 machines. Reports suggest, however, that France is hesitant to supply Lebanon with missiles for the Gazelle helicopters, for fear they would end up in Hezbollah’s hands. The Lebanese Air Force reportedly used up all of its missiles in the 2007 Nahr el-Bared battle against Fatah al-Islam terrorists. Nahar Net.

Nov 16/09: Media report that Russian military experts will be visiting Lebanon in the next few days and staying until Nov 26/09. They will be assessing the conditions at Lebanese airports and bases, assessing their ability to support MiG-29s and other equipment. A formal contract for the 10 MiG-29s is expected very shortly after their report. China’s Xinhua reports that the MiG deal is causing some trepidation in certain parts of Lebanon:

“Since then, the deal has sparked an internal debate about the necessity of obtaining these aircraft in a small country like Lebanon, which has a national army and an armed militia Hezbollah, which owns thousands of short and mid-range rockets.”

See also: Lebanese Daily Star | Naharnet Newsdesk | Il-Oubnan | China’s Xinhua.

April 9/09: Naharnet Newsdesk reports confirmation of American arms shipments to Lebanon by US State Department officials David Hale and Colin Kahl:

“Hale said the shipment includes 41 Howitzer artillery and 12 Zodiac boats. He said the Lebanese military will also be receiving in May 12 pilotless Raven aircrafts that would help the army monitor any attempt to fire rockets from southern Lebanon into northern Israel. Hale said the delivery also includes one Cessna Caravan aircraft, which is expected to arrive end of April to provide air support for ground forces. A set of 20 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles and the first batch of 10 M-60 tanks will also be arriving in May, according to Hale.”

April 8/09: The Pentagon’s AFPS reports on progress:

“Toward helping it fulfill that role, the United States has provided more than $410 million in military assistance to Lebanon since 2006. That support has included Humvees, trucks, M-198 howitzer artillery pieces, M-4 and M-16 rifles, body armor vests, MK-19 grenade launchers, shoulder-fired rockets, spare helicopter parts and millions of ammunition rounds.

More recently, the Defense Department has been working with the Lebanese government to expedite delivery of Cessna close-air-support aircraft with precision Hellfire missiles and [RQ-11] Raven unmanned aerial vehicle systems. The United States is also working to transfer M60 Abrams tanks to the Lebanese military from other countries in the region, Kahl said. These systems, expected to be delivered by June…”

M60A3
(click to view full)

Dec 19/08: Defense News quotes “a senior U.S. state department official… in Beirut” saying that he U.S. plans to deliver M-60 tanks to Lebanon in spring 2009. the official stresses that the US does not see any competition with Russia or other countries, as all assistance to help the Lebanese government is welcome.

Dec 1/08: The Pentagon’s AFPS publishes “U.S. Forces Help Lebanese Military Assert Control“, which discusses American efforts to re-equip Lebanon’s army:

“The United States and Lebanon signed a military cooperation agreement in October [2008], establishing the U.S.-Lebanese Joint Military Commission to provide an official framework for the bilateral U.S.-Lebanese military relationship… “The most important [recommendation] was that the Lebanese military needed a lot of help in the military basics… They needed trucks, Humvees, parts and ammunition more than they needed high-end, expensive weaponry.” They also need training… In 2006, the United States renewed its security relationship with Lebanon, and since then has funneled more than $400 million in foreign military sales money… “Our part of that is to help build up the Lebanese armed forces so the Lebanese government can be sovereign in all its territory.”

…The United States has sent 285 Humvees to Lebanon, and another 312 will arrive by March. The United States has sent 200 trucks to the Lebanese and 41 M-198 155 mm artillery pieces. The Lebanese army also will get night-vision equipment and some tactical unmanned aerial vehicles. “Behind it is all basics – 12 million rounds of ammo, spare helicopter parts, shoulder-fired rockets,” Straub said. “We want them to play their role in controlling Lebanese territory. We also want them to deter the terrorist threat.” The United States is committed to getting Lebanon more modern tanks, and the U.S. military is working on delivering M-60A3 tanks.”

Dec 18/08: The UK’s Times reports that Russia will provide Lebanon with 10 MiG-29 fighter jets, for free, under an agreement on military-technical assistance. Rosoboronexport’s Mikhail Dmitryev said that the jets would come from Russia’s existing stock, and added that Moscow was also in talks to supply Lebanon with heavy armor. The country currently operates very old T-54/55 Russian tanks.

Aug 27/08: Belgian defense minister Pierre Crem visits Lebanon to finalize an agreement to sell 43 Leopard 1A5 tanks, and 28 M113 derivative armored personnel carriers (16 AIFVs and 12 conventional), to Lebanon. RTL Info via MplL.

M113s form the backbone of Lebanese mechanized forces, thanks to significant donations from American stocks. The AIFV model adds a 25mm gun. The Leopard 1A5 is a modernized Leopard tank, roughly on par with or slightly better than the American M60A3.

Additional Readings

• Lebanese Army – Equipment
• Wikipedia – Lebanese Ground Forces Equipment
• Commentary Magazine (April 14/09) – The UN’s Disintegration in Lebanon Michael Totten has spent time living in Lebanon over the past few years, and often reports on that country for various publications.

AAV7 to LHD 2
(click to view full)

The USMC needs to keep its 40+ year old AAV Amtracs in service, after destroying the EFV amphibious armored personnel carrier replacement program in 2011 with over-ambitious requirements. Iraq taught the USMC that the Amtracs didn’t offer enough protection, and so the latest refurbishment effort plans to improve the AAVP-7A1 personnel carrier’s protection levels. Deliveries are expected to take place between 2018 – 2023…

Contracts & Key Events

AAV7P1 Amtracs
(click to view full)

As things stand now, the follow-on Armored Combat Vehicle Phase 1.1 will involve 300 commercial off-the-shelf wheeled armored vehicles. A true swimming AAV replacement won’t arrive until ACV Phase 1.2, but the USMC is still estimating a Phase 1.2 cost of $12-14 million per vehicle, even after reducing the EFV’s requirements. Phase 1.2’s timing will coincide with the beginning of a demographic fiscal crunch, in parallel with increased operations and maintenance costs for the high-maintenance platforms (esp. MV-22 and F-35B) the USMC has been buying lately. That doesn’t augur well, and implies that the AAV7 fleet will remain important for a long time.

SAIC video

March 18/16: The USMC is to receive upgrades to their Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) as their replacement, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), will not be operational until the 2020s. 392 AAV7A1s are to receive an extensive survivability upgrade in a $194 million contract. The USMC has found that AAVs have been vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IED) and other weapons when operating in Iraq and elsewhere. Improvements to be made include flat-sided buoyant ceramic armor panels, new shock-mitigation seats, replacing benches in older AAVs, and a new transmission, increasing the vehicle’s top speed.

May 9/14: USMC Systems Command in Quantico, VA issues a pair of $27.8 million firm-fixed-price contracts to design and develop AAV7 protection improvements for the USMC’s existing APCs. Work is expected to be complete in February 2015, at which point the USMC will pick a design. The winner will receive an implementation contract option, raising the total value they receive to somewhere between $163.5 million and $206 million, and extending their individual contract until September 2019.

This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 4 offers received. The 2 development contract winners were:

BAE Systems Land & Armaments, Santa Clara, CA. Work will be performed in York, PA (65%); Santa Clara, CA (30%); Aiken, SC (4%); and Sterling Heights, MI (1%). Contract M67854-14-C-0001.

Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) in McLean, VA. Work will be performed in Charleston, SC (24%); Ontario, Canada (20%); Langley, British Columbia, Canada (15%); Lansing Charter Township, MI (7%); Oceanside, CA (7%); Sterling Heights, MI (5%); Columbus, Indiana (4%); McLean, VA (3%); Plymouth Township, MI (2%); Benton, AR (2%); Detroit, MI (2%); Minneapolis, MN (2%); Chandler, AZ (2%); San Diego, CA (1%); Baltimore, MD (1%); and various other locations less the 1% (3%). Contract M67854-14-C-0002.

Development contracts

Oct 29/13: RFP. The USMC issues their AAV Survivability Upgrade RFP, covering up to 396 AAV7s. An initial development phase will be followed by upgrades to 396 AAV7s.

The USMC wants basic internal systems improvements, along with better protection of the underbelly and sides, blast attenuating seats that hang instead of jarring with every blast to the vehicle’s bottom, and spall liners that keep enemy fire from blasting lethal metal shards out of the vehicle’s inside walls. The systems need to be in production or close to it, with a Tech Readiness Level of 6 (tested prototypes) at the outset. The vehicles still need to be seaworthy when everything is done, and the USMC also hopes to improve on corrosion resistance.

Test vehicles will need to demonstrate adequate performance, including 75% vehicle availability. Low-Rate Initial Production deliveries would begin in Q1 2018 at 4 vehicles, with deliveries rising to 24 per quarter in Q2 2021. The program would end at the end of FY 2023. The government will receive either unlimited data rights, or government-purpose rights to the final design. The difference between those classifications may matter, because the US military aren’t the only ones using the AAV7.

Additional Readings

• FBO.gov (Oct 29/13, #M67854-14-R-0001) – AAV Survivability Upgrade.
• DefenseMediaNetwork (Nov 6/13) – AAV Survivability Upgrade Moves Forward: Select fraction of aging AAVs will undergo upgrade to hold the line until ACV fielding.
• DefenseMediaNetwork (July 16/13) – Marine Corps Explores AAV Reset Options.

pre-Colombian ICVs
(click to view larger)

Textron’s M1117 Commando ASV is a modern-day armored car, with armor, weapons, and mine protection that are superior to a Humvee jeep. Its 29,500 pound curb weight is lower than other MRAP vehicles, and the type failed MRAP testing. Nevertheless, it’s widely fielded in American Military Police units, has been exported to Bulgaria, and is in use by Iraq and Colombia in a stretched infantry carrier version.

With respect to Colombia…

Background Briefing

Fitting in Locally

EE-11 Urutu
(click to view full)

The Colombian Army’s armor is almost exclusively wheeled, comprising a large number of Brazilian EE-9 Cascavel 4×4 fire support vehicles and Russian-designed BTR-80 8×8 wheeled APCs, mixed with a handful of EE-11 Urutu 6×6 APCs, ancient M8 Greyhound 6×6 wheeled armored cars, and blast-resistant RG-31 Nyala 4×4 MRAPs. Ancient M3 half-tracks appear to be the lone exception.

Under President Uribe, Colombia has waged a successful campaign that has removed many of the gains enjoyed by both the left-wing narco-terrorists of FARC, ELN et. al., and right-wing narco-paramilitaries like the AUC. The conflict continues, however, and in late 2008, AT4 anti-tank rockets that Sweden had sold to the Venezuelan government were found in FARC bases.

Mines were the logical next threat. More powerful vehicles seemed to be in order.

A January 2009 report included about 30 armored vehicles as part of a wider $4 billion modernization package being financed by a special tax. There were also reports that more BTR-80s would be built locally, if negotiations with Russia were successful. By December 2009, however, the order was in for 39 Commando APCs, which are similar enough that they could be an effective BTR-80 substitute. The APCs are used in the Army’s armored cavalry units. By April 2013, order totals stood at 57.

The M1117 Commando ICV

M1117 ICV
(click to view larger)

Colombia becomes the 2nd country to order the M1117 ICV, after Iraq. The tan vehicle in the above photo is a good example – in the enlarged version, you can see the Arabic writing painted on it. The vehicle type is also referred to as a Commando Advanced APC, per a more recent re-branding initiative by Textron. Commando Advanced also includes the Commando Advanced ASV (same as the M1117), and a Commando Advanced Reconnaissance variant for artillery targeting and overwatch.

Compared to the original M1117 ASV, the Commando APC variant has been stretched 24 inches between the wheel base, and its head room and volume has been increased by adding a 6-inch extension over the base roof line. These changes turn it into a full armored personnel carrier that can fit 2 crew members, 8 dismounts, and 1 additional gunner, though exact seating is set up per customer specifications. Weaponry appears to change, as the M1117’s distinctive twin-weapon full turret is replaced by an armored cupola that can hold either a .50 caliber/ 12.7mm machine gun, or a 40mm grenade machine gun. The Commando APC is available in 3 different protection levels, depending on which applique armor system is added to the vehicle.

The net effect is a smaller, lighter wheeled APC that works well in urban scenarios, and in countries whose infrastructure or climate/terrain combination may create problems for larger 22-35 ton vehicles.

Contracts & Key Events

(click to view full)

April 6/16: Textron Systems will provide a number of Commando Select armored personnel carriers (APCs) with 40/50 turrents as a foreign military sales contract to both Colombia and Iraq. The $65 million deal will see each country receive 54 of the APCs each, alongside four Commando Select APCs with 40/50 turret and command and control (C2) variant; and two each Commando Select APCs. Funds for the four-wheel APC will come out of the US Army’s “other procurement” funds.

April 1/13: Order. Textron Land and Marine Systems, New Orleans, LA receives a maximum $31.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for more Commando Advanced APCs and related services in Colombia. Based on past orders, this seemed to be around 50 machines – but Textron eventually pegged the figure at 28 APCs with the twin 40mm/.50 cal remote turrets, plus extensive repairs on 2 of the Colombian Army’s 39 Armored Cavalry APCs. Deliveries are expected to begin in November, and finish by April 2014.

As a Foreign Military Sale, 1 bid was solicited, with 1 bid received. US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI acts as Colombia’s agent (W56HZV-13-C-0333). See also Textron Systems’ Aug 22/13 release.

More Commandos

March 1/13: Turrets. Textron Marine & Land Systems announces a $5.5 million contract award from US Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) to provide 12 armored turrets, technical support services, vehicle repairs and spare parts for the Colombian Army’s 39 Commando APCs. Commando ICV/APCs with the full dual-weapon turret are referred to as Commando Elite APCs.

They also reveal that Colombia has expressed an interest in more APCs, under a separate U.S. Foreign Military Sales case. Textron.

May 2010: Fielded. The Colombian Army fields the M1117 ICV. Source.

Additional Readings

• DID – Colombia’s Defense Modernization
• Textron Land a& Marine Systems – ASV Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV)

Namer
(click to view full)

Urban fights are thought of as the future of warfare in many countries, but to Israel, urban fighting is a very current reality. At the same time, conventional defense requires well-protected forces that can maneuver and survive with the country’s heavy armor, out in the tank-friendly environs of the Middle East. The Israelis had long depended on the M113 to fill these roles, but heavier options were needed, and the Israelis could care less about air-transportability. The resourceful Israelis turned to their stock of captured Soviet T-54/55 tanks for initial solutions, producing the Achzarit APC. They liked the results so much that they decided to do the same thing with their older Merkava Mk.I tank hulls, creating the 60 tonne Namer (“leopard”). That’s about twice the weight of the USA’s M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs), but Namers are mostly used as ultra-heavy but lightly-armed armored personnel carriers. Unmanned turrets with a 30mm cannon and Spike missiles would be needed to turn them into true IFVs.

Even in an APC role, experiences during the 2006 war in Lebanon against Syria and Iran confirmed the Namer’s value. The Israelis decided to build more using new Merkava Mk.IV hulls, but that creates some manufacturing issues for the Israelis, who were trying to quickly build up their Merkava fleet per the long-range “Tefen” plan. Israel would also benefit financially from having more manufacturing done in America. The solution? Find an American partner. Enter General Dynamics Land Systems.

Contracts & Key Events

Namer, GCV trials
(click to view full)

April 14/16: A combat engineering version of Israel’s Namer troop carrier is currently undergoing operational testing. Based on the Merkava Mk4 main battle tank, the new Namer is equipped with the Trophy Active Protection System (APS), which defends against anti-tank missiles, mortars, and RPGs. The new version will allow Israeli ground forces to deal with terror tunnels, bridge obstacles and maneuver in high-threat areas.

Aug 21/14: More? Recent fighting in Gaza killed 7 members of the elite Golani Brigade, when their M113 tracked APC was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. There’s a strong sense among Israeli commanders that they need better armor, especially if they expect to fight Hezbollah again in Lebanon. The question is, what kind of armor?

Namers are certainly on the shopping list, judging by published comments. At the same time, the success of Windbreaker/ Trophy active protection systems against Hamas anti-tank RPGs and missiles means that they’re likely to find themselves in the priority pipeline as well. Modifications to existing M113s could add v-hulls to reduce vulnerability to mines, and Windbreaker to defeat incoming RPGs and missiles. Israel has many hundreds of M113s to replace, and retrofits are definitely a cheaper option. It will be interesting to see which mix they choose. Sources: Globes, “Israel’s defense cos will be Gaza conflict’s big winners” | IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “IDF wants more Namer APCs and Trophy protection systems”.

Jan 11/14: Cuts coming. The Israel Ministry of Defense next multi-year plan would slash its planned procurement of Namer heavy IFVs from 386 to 170 vehicles, and will production 2 years earlier, in 2017. The first batch of 7 Namer hulls was delivered by General Dynamics at the end of 2013, for full outfitting in Israel, with production expected to ramp up to 60 per year. If the Israeli plan is finalized, changes will be required.

The initial GDLS contract involved 110 Namers, with fixed-price options for up to 276 more, and up-front investment in tooling at the Lima, OH JSMC plant. Israeli sources say the contract is being renegotiated, and Defense News estimates that renegotiation penalties will be around $17 million. In addition, lower economies of scale are expected to raise base vehicle costs from $730,000 at full rate production to about $900,000 each at reduced production. Since each Namer needs to be outfitted with a range of advanced equipment in Israel, its final cost is significantly higher than that.

Merkava Mk4 tank production has also been slowed, so Israel could probably bring production back home, but that’s an unlikely outcome. There are real financial and industrial benefits to keeping GDLS as a supplier. With that said, lower Namer production at a facility that won’t have American vehicle orders until 2017 isn’t great news for GD. Sources: Defense Update, “Israel Plans to Slash Namer Production by 60%” | Defense News, “GD, Israel Renegotiate Troop Carrier Deal To Cut US Production”.

Aug 25/13: Industrial. The Lima News provides an update regarding the Namer contract:

“Israel is contracting with General Dynamics for a new armored personnel carrier. The JSMC has worked on five prototype vehicles and will begin shipping them by the end of the month. Once the vehicle is in full production, the JSMC will make five a month, for 60 a year. The contract calls for 386 vehicles to be built through 2019.

The JSMC, which is a government-owned facility operated by General Dynamics, currently employs about 700. Deters said it would be difficult to say what that number will look like even in the short term… much of its future in the next few years depends on the foreign work…. The Pentagon has wanted to shutter the Abrams program until 2017, saying it has enough tanks until the next generation of the battle tank is developed and in production.”

Merkava Mk4
(click to view full)

June 27/12: Passive on active protection. The Jerusalem Post reports that Israel has finished equipping its 1st brigade of Merkava 4 tanks with the Trophy active protection system, but adds:

“While the installation of the Trophy will continue, the IDF has yet to begin installing a missile defense system on its new Namer armored personnel carrier (APC). State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss issued a report last month… and criticized the Defense Ministry’s decision in 2010 to combine the Trophy with a similar system – called Iron Fist… Iron Fist launches a projectile that IMI claims makes it effective in intercepting tank shells and not just anti-tank missiles – something Trophy cannot do. The comptroller’s main criticism centers on the defense establishment’s failure to develop or order an active protection system for the Namer. While Trophy is already being installed on tanks, a decision from 2009 to install Iron Fist on the Namer has been overturned and a replacement has not been found.”

June 22/12: The USMC won’t be moving a $16 million hull manufacturing line out of Lima, OH and over to Georgia just yet. The Army’s Joint Systems Manufacturing Center is run by General Dynamics, and the Marines will delay their decision until they compile a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed $19 million move ($6 million move + $13 million to restore the JSMC capability). It’s all part of a larger process:

“Following the Defense Department’s cancellation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Program, the Marine Corps began reviewing the future use of all EFV-associated equipment procured as part of that program. The JSMC was set to build the fighting vehicle, but now is using the hull machining equipment on other combat vehicles…
“As a matter of fact, we’re machining the Namer nose assembly on that machine right now,” Deters said.”

Looks like General Dynamics’ bid was successful.

Oct 25/10: General Dynamics Land Systems announces that they have become the preferred bidder to negotiate a contract with the Israeli Ministry of Defense, which would transfer at least some production of Namer IFVs from Israel to the USA. The competitive procurement process was for the production of Merkava APC hulls, material kit sets, and integration work, and the Israelis are rumored to be interested in 100 vehicles or more.

General Dynamics expects to complete contract negotiations by the end of this year, for a base contract extending to March 2015, with options to November 2019. If successful, production will be performed at their Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, OH. This would allow Israel to purchase them with American military aid dollars granted by the Camp David Peace accords etc. General Dynamics.

Additional Readings

• Israeli Weapons – Namer
• Army Technology – Namer Heavy Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Israel
• Defense Update – Israel Launches Namer Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle Program
• The Armor Site – Main Battle Tank: Merkava
• DID – Iran-Syria vs. Israel, Round 1: Assessments & Lessons Learned

Army IBCS Concept
(click to enlarge)

Interim design review for IBCS completed. (April 26/10)

The US Army awarded a Northrop Grumman-led team a $577 million, 5-year, cost-plus-incentive-fee/ cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to develop the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS).

Northrop Grumman beat out a team led by Raytheon. The two teams competed in the preliminary design phase of the program.

IBCS is intended to transform the Army’s disparate air and missile defense systems — each with independent sensing, command-and-control and launching capabilities — into an integrated defense capability. The system will enable the Army to manages all of its air and missile defense systems from 1 command-and-control center.

Northrop Grumman’s winning IBCS design is based on a non-proprietary, open architecture approach…

Patriot system
(click for explanation)

The Northrop Grumman design uses a network-centric system-of-systems approach for integrating sensors, weapons, and battle management command, control, communications and intelligence systems (C4ISR).

It uses common software and creates standard interfaces that will allow soldiers to take advantage of expanded sensor and weapon system combinations through an integrated fire-control network.

Northrop Grumman’s team includes heavy hitters Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Harris, as well as Schafer, nLogic, Numerica, Applied Data Trends, Colsa, Space and Missile Defense Technologies, Cohesion Force, Millenium Engineering and Integration, RhinoCorp, and Tobyhanna Army Depot.

The air and missile defense systems that will be integrated via IBCS include:

• Patriot anti-air missile system,
  
• Surface-Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (SLAMRAAM),
  
• Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS),
  
• Sentinel radar, and (if the U.S. Department of Defense approves)
  
• Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD),
  
• Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).

It is worth noting that 4 of the systems that IBCS will integrate – Patriot, JLENS, SLAMRAAM, and THAAD – are developed by Raytheon.

The Integrated Air and Missile Defense Project Office, Program Executive Office for Missiles and Space in Huntsville, AL manages the IBCS program. Northrop Grumman will also headquarter its IBCS program in Huntsville and expects to field the IBCS by 2014.

Updates

April 20/16: The US Army has successfully carried out a dual engagement flight test of the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS). Developed by Northrop Grumman, the system has the ability to identify, track, engage, and defeat ballistic and cruise missile targets. The April 8 test built upon previous testing and validated the ability of IBCS to manage multiple threats. A Milestone C (production and deployment) decision is anticipated for later this fall.

October 14/15: The Army wants to buy missile systems capable of scaling up from counterinsurgency operations all the way to highly kinetic combat operations, using modularity to rationalise the various missile systems currently in service. The plan is to use the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) to bring together the multiple air and missile defense systems under one integrated command and control system, with the IBCS currently in development under a $577 million, five-year contract awarded to Northrop Grumman in April 2010. Other routes to improved commonality and modularity include adding different missiles to the prototype Indirect Fire Protection Capability system and acquiring a new 360-degree radar capable of plugging into the Army’s various missile systems.

Night raid
(click to view larger)

A USA Today article, dramatically demonstrates the advantage night vision capabilities provide to US troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was Christmas Eve 2007, and US Army Rangers were searching for suspected Al-Qaeda members in Mosul, Iraq. Using their night vision goggles to avoid alerting the enemy, the Rangers found 2 Al-Qaeda suspects who were holding an 11-year-old Iraqi boy hostage. Thanks to their night vision capabilities, they were able to shoot the suspects without harming the boy. After that encounter, a firefight erupted between the Army rangers and Al-Qaeda insurgents, with 10 insurgents killed, including the head of an assassination cell. Army ranger losses? Zero. As former General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the US Army’s 24th Infantry Division in the 1991 Desert Storm conflict, commented: “Our night vision capability provided the single greatest mismatch of the war.”

It still does. This free DID Spotlight Article will examine how this technology works, how its military application has developed over years, how the technology is used by troops in the field, as well as major contracts for procuring night vision goggles.

Night Vision Technology

Thermal image of tank
(click to view larger)

Night vision technology uses image intensification (I2) to see details at night because it works by intensifying the existing light spectrum. Low levels of ambient light pass through a photocathode that converts the light photons to electrons, then amplifies them. Sensitivity levels to various infrared, ultraviolet and visible spectrum wavelengths vary with the exact device. They then hit a phosphor screen (read: “TV screen”) where they are converted into visible light (read: “picture”).

The phosphor screen is colored green because the human eye can differentiate more shades of green than other phosphor colors. Like cameras, night vision devices have various image magnifications. The distance at which a human-sized figure can be clearly recognized under normal conditions (moon and star light, with no haze or fog) depends on both the magnifying power of the objective lens and the strength of the image intensifier.

A complementary technology – infrared (IR) or thermal imaging – uses heat sources (aka. “deep infrared” spectrum) instead. Because infrared is actively emitted and not just reflected, and isn’t blocked as easily as visible light, this form of “infravision” works in no-light conditions that may prevail underground and inside dark buildings, or in conditions like dust storms, fog, etc. The more sophisticated night vision systems for US soldiers also incorporate IR technology to provided another way to see things at night.

Generations

The night vision industry has evolved through three generations of development. Each generation offers more sensitivity and can operate effectively on less light.

Generation I
Amplification: 1,000x

AN-PVS-2 scope
(click to view larger)

The early 1960s witnessed the beginning of passive night vision. Technological improvements included vacuum-tight fused fiber optics for good center resolution and improved gain, multi-alkali photocathodes and fiber optic input and output windows.

Generation I devices lacked the sensitivity and light amplification necessary to see below full moonlight and were often staged or cascaded to improve gain. As a result, Generation I systems were large and cumbersome, less reliable, and relatively poor low-light imagers. They were also characterized by streaking and distortion. Operating life expectancy of Generation I image intensifier tubes was about 2,000 hours. Generation I technology is obsolete in the US market.

An example of a Generation I device is the AN/PVS-2 scope [pdf].

Generation II
Amplification: 20,000x

AN-PVS-5 goggles
(click to view larger)

The development of the microchannel plate (MCP) led to the birth of Generation II devices in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Higher electron gains were now possible through smaller packaging, and performance improvements made observation possible down to 1/4 moonlight.

The first proximity focused MCP image intensifier tube was an 18mm used in the original AN/PVS-5 night vision goggles. Generation II tubes had a life expectancy from 2,500 hours to 4,000 hours.

Generation II+ provided improved performance over standard Generation II by providing increased gain at high and low levels. Generation II+ equipment provided the best image under full moonlight conditions and was recommended for urban environments.

Examples of Generation II devices include:

• AN/PVS-3 miniscope
  
• AN/PVS-4 individual weapon sight
  
• AN/PVS-5 night vision goggles

Generation III
Amplification: 30,000-50,000x

AN/PVS-14 monocular goggles

A Generation III intensifier multiplies the light gathering power of the eye or video receptor up to 30,000 times. Requiring over 460 manufacturing steps, the Generation III intensifier is typically characterized by a gallium arsenide (GaAs) photocathode. The photon sensitivity of the GaAs photocathode extends into the near-infrared region, where night sky illumination and contrast ratios are highest.

Sealed to an input window that minimizes veiling glare, the photocathode generates an electron current which is proximity focused onto a phosphor screen, where the electron energy is converted into green light that can then be relayed to the eye or sensor through an output window.

Continuing improvements have increased the operating life expectancy of Generation III tubes to 10,000 hours. This is an important consideration when the intensifier tube normally represents 50% of the overall cost of the night vision system.

Generation III’s high infrared response complements this phenomenon, creating a sharper, more informative image.

Examples of the Generation III devices include:

• AN/PVS-7 binocular night vision goggles
  
• AN/PVS-10 night vision scope
  
• AN/PVS-14 monocular night vision goggles
  
• AN/PVS-15 submersible night vision binoculars
  
• AN/PVS-23 binocular night vision goggles
  
• AN/AVS-6 goggles for helicopter pilots are now produced at the Gen III standard
  
• AN/AVS-7 aviator’s night vision imaging system
  
• AN/GVS-5 laser rangefinder
  
• AN/AAS-32 airborne laser tracker
  
• MX-10160 image intensifier assemblies for NVD use

Generation III+

Helmet-mounted ENVG
(click to view larger)

Generation III+ devices differ from standard Generation III in 3 ways. First, an automatic gated power supply system regulates the photocathode voltage, allowing the device to adapt instantaneously to changing light conditions.

The 2nd way is a removed or greatly thinned ion barrier, which decreases the amount of electrons that are usually rejected by the standard Generation III MCP, resulting in less image noise and the ability to operate with a luminous sensitivity at 2850K of only 700, compared to operating with a luminous sensitivity of at least 1800 for Generation III type image intensifier.

And the 3rd way is combining the I2 and IR technologies to enable troops to use the goggles in any environment.

Examples of a Generation III+ device are AN/PVS-22 scope and Enhanced Night Vision Goggles (ENVG).

Riding the Omnibus

AN/PVS-7D

Since 1985, the US Army has procured night vision devices through a series of Omnibus multiyear contract vehicles.

Under Omnibus I, the Army awarded multiyear production contracts to Litton for AN/PVS-7A binocular night vision goggles and a joint venture of ITT/Varo for AN/PVS-7B binocular night vision goggles.

This contract set the stage for subsequent omnibus contract packages that covered the multiyear procurement of AN/PVS-7 series and AN/AVS-6 and AN/AVS-9 aviator’s night vision systems and associated I2 tubes. Omnibus II was awarded in 1990; Omnibus III in 1992; Omnibus IV in 1996; Omnibus V in 1998; and Omnibus VI in 2002.

The most recent contracts, Omnibus VII, were awarded to Northrop Grumman and ITT in 2005. The indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts have a potential value of an estimated $3.2 billion during the 5-year contract period.

Each of contractors received the same total potential award of up to 370,486 AN/PVS-14 monocular goggles and 34,300 AN/PVS-7 binocular goggles and associated MX-10130/UV image intensifier tubes, and MX-11769/UV intensifier tubes.

Night Vision Limitations

Helicopter dust impairs
I2-based night vision goggles
(click to view larger)

As former General McCaffrey said, night vision provides a significant advantage to US troops in the field. However, with benefits come risks. Some of the risks include accidents caused as a result of poor device design or inadequate training. For example, night vision devices cause problems with soldier’s depth perception, peripheral vision, and color-based vision.

The I2 technology used in night vision devices can increase distortion of light and limit the soldier’s field of vision. In addition, the technology does not work in no light environments.

The visual clearness provided by I2 technology rapidly diminishes for objects over 400 feet away, particularly if they are moving quickly. Also, weather can significantly diminish the functioning of night vision equipment. Rain, clouds, mist, dust, smoke, and fog all affect performance. For example, if a helicopter lands in a dusty area, the dust blown up by the rotors can make I2-based night vision systems virtually useless. Also, a bright moon can significantly degrade performance; it is the equivalent of looking at the sun with the naked eye.

While IR technology can be used effectively in no light environments, it too has limitations that could lead to accidents in the field. For instance, IR technology cannot be used to identify precise details of remote objects, particular if they have similar heat footprints. In addition, IR technology cannot distinguish facial features.

Although IR technology is better at seeing through rain and fog, it has problems distinguishing objects that have been cooled by rain, such as runways. Also, high humidity impairs the ability of IR devices to distinguish heat signatures.

The Way Ahead

One solution to the shortcomings of the I2 and IR technologies is to combine them in one system. This is the approach taken by the Generation III+ night vision devices discussed above. When it is raining or foggy, the soldier can switch from I2 to IR technology. When facial features need to be seen, the soldier can switch back.

In addition, by digitizing the images, night vision goggles would not only enable the fusion of I2 and IR technologies, but also allow those images to be sent via a communication link to other soldiers as well as back to the command post.

Going digital does come at a price. Just as earlier versions of digital electronics, such as the cell phone, were larger, heavier and more power hungry than their analog counterparts, so the new digital night vision devices that fuse I2 and IR capabilities electronically. Further development will needed so that these devices do not become a burden, instead of an aid, to the soldier in the field.

All in all, the benefits of night vision technology far outweigh the problems and give US forces a vital advantage in close quarters’ combat.

Contracts and Key Events

A broad range of contracts have been issued by the US military for night vision devices over the years. Below is a list of the major contracts issued since 2004. Note that orders for PAS-13 thermal weapon sights are covered in full elsewhere, as they are properly weapon scopes.

AN/AVS-6 NVGs
(click to view full)

May 6/16: Elbit Systems has announced the successful testing of their new BrightNite multi-spectral panoramic vision system. The system was installed on an Airbus Twin-Star helicopter and trialed by a dozen pilots from various Air Forces. BrightNite’s function is to allow utility helicopters to successfully operate in poor visibility missions, and was tested during moonless and pitch-back night-time conditions, when missions are rarely executed.

Sept 19/12: In September 2012, the The US Army Contracting Command in Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD issues a pair of contracts for Enhanced 3rd Generation Aviator’s Night Vision Imaging Systems. Army systems are focused on systems for helicopter pilots, and the $200 million firm-fixed-price contract is a multiple-award vehicle, which means that the 2 winners will compete for each task order from the date of issue to Sept 3/17.

The firms involved have since confirmed to DID that this contract covers the AN/AVS-6, which can be mounted to a variety of aviator helmets, including the SPH-4B, HGU-56P, and Alpha. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 3 bids received, but just 2 winners:

• L-3 Communications Corp. in Tempe, AZ (W91CRB-12-D-0014)
  
• [ex-ITT] Exelis Inc. in Roanoke, VA (W91CRB-12-D-0015).

Sept 30/11: FLIR Boston Systems, Inc. in North Billerica, MA receives an $18.1 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for the “clip-on night vision device, thermal, short-range”, and accessories in support of U.S. Special Operations Command.

$420,920 will be obligated at time of contract award. Work will be performed in North Billerica, MA, and is expected to be complete by September 2016. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 9 offers received by the US Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division in Crane, IN (N00164-11-D-JN68).

Sept 30/11: FLIR Government Systems Pittsburgh, Inc. in Freeport, PA receives a $30.1 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for the “clip-on night vision device, image intensified”, and accessories in support of U.S. Special Operations Command.

$65,100 will be obligated at time of award. Work will be performed in Freeport, PA, and is expected to be completed by September 2016. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 5 proposals received by the US Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division in Crane, IN (N00164-11-D-JN67).

June 13/11: ITT Corp. in Roanoke, VA received a $36.2 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for AN/AVS-9 night vision image intensifier sets, for use by USMC and US Navy helicopter pilots. The AN/AVS-9 system is a night vision system consisting of a binocular imaging assembly, a helmet mount, a low profile power pack, a carrying case, and ancillary equipment.

Work will be performed in Roanoke, VA, and is expected to be completed by June 2016. $1,719,720 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 2 offers received by the US Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, IN (N00164-11-D-JQ00).

April 13/11: L-3 in Garland, TX receives $7 million firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for 2,588 Enhanced Third Generation Image Intensification Ground Night Vision Imaging Systems. Work will be performed in Garland, TX, with an estimated completion date of May 22/14. Two bids were solicited with 2 bids received by U.S. Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (W91CRB-11-D-0083).

Dec 16/10: All Native Service Co. in Bellevue, NB received a $22.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for technology advancement support services to the Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate at Fort Belvoir, VA. This effort provides the Army and Department of Defense with technology solutions for night vision and electronic sensors and sensor suites for target acquisition, engagement and defeat of enemy forces day or night, and under all battlefield and weather conditions.

Work will be performed at Fort Belvoir, VA (23%); Yuma Proving Grounds, AZ (11%); Fort AP Hill, VA (11%); Eglin Air Force Base, FL (11%); Fort Hunter Liggett, CA (11%); Jefferson Proving Grounds, IN (11%); White Sands, NM (11%); and Aberdeen, MD (11%). Work is expected to be completed by December 2011. The contract was not competitively procured by the US Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indian Head, MD (N00174-11-D-0006).

Oct 20/10: EOIR Technologies announces that it received a $245 million contract from the US Army’s Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate to provide engineering support and technology assistance. The contract supports research, development, experiments, engineering, prototyping, and field support to develop quick reaction war support services and material related to the directorate’s efforts at Fort Belvoir and Fort AP Hill, Quick Reaction Programs, Overseas Contingency Operations, as well as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

PM SMS: ENVG
click to play video

Aug 12/10: ITT Corp. in Roanoke, VA wins a $260.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 220 enhanced night vision goggles test articles, and associated contracts date requirement lists. Work will be performed in Roanoke, VA, with an estimated completion date of Aug 9/13. Bids were solicited on the web with 6 bids received by the US ARDEC Contracting Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (W91CRB-10-C-0177).

The USA’s ENVG, or AN/PSQ-20, is the first helmet-mounted night vision monocular to combine the strengths of both image intensification (I2) and infrared (IR, or thermal) technologies into one device. ITT competed in the second ENVG follow-on proposal with an updated version that it calls the Spiral Enhanced Night Vision Goggle (SENVG) that incorporates the 18 mm image intensifier tube, utilizes several qualified ENVG subassemblies, and is powered by 3 AA batteries/. It also adds a digital upgrade capability that will allow the goggle to export fused imagery for transmission via battlefield networks.

In 2005, ITT was one of the firms awarded the initial ENVG contract, with the U.S. Army beginning fielding of the units in April 2008. As of August 2010, ITT has provided over 2,400 ENVG systems to the U.S. Army, with another 6,500 to be delivered on the current contract. See also ITT release

Aug 12/10: DRS Systems, Inc. in Parsippany, NJ receives a $255.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for 220 enhanced night vision goggles test articles, and associated contracts date requirement lists. Work will be performed in Roanoke, VA, with an estimated completion date of Aug 9/13. Bids were solicited on the web with 6 bids received by the US ARDEC Contracting Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (W91CRB-10-C-0178).

Aug 12/10: L-3 Insight Technology, Inc. in Londonderry, NH wins a $255.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for 220 enhanced night vision goggles test articles, and associated contracts date requirement lists. Work will be performed in Roanoke, VA, with an estimated completion date of Aug 10/13. Bids were solicited on the web with 6 bids received by the US ARDEC Contracting Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (W91CRB-10-C-0179).

April 15/10: L-3 Communications completes its acquisition of Insight Technology in Londonderry, NH. Insight develops and manufactures night vision and electro-optical devices, including laser aiming and illumination devices, laser rangefinders, laser markers and designators, night vision goggles and monoculars, and thermal imaging systems. Insight employs approximately 1,100 people and has $290 million in annual sales. L-3 said that the purchase price represents 9 times Insight’s estimated 2010 EBITDA (see Feb 19/10 entry). L-3 expects the acquisition to add $200 million to its sales. The company will be renamed L-3 Insight Technology. Terms were not disclosed.

April 5/10 The DoD’s Joint Improvised Explosives Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) issued a broad agency announcement asking for industry proposals on ways to integrate night vision devices into explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) bomb suits for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to JIEDDO, the face shields on the EOD bomb suit helmets currently do not allow for the use of night vision devices, such as the PVS-7 and PVS-14. Proposals are due June 4/10.

March 30/10: L-3 Communications’ EOS Division in Garland, TX received a 2-year, $30 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for the purchase of MX 10160 image intensifier assemblies in support of US Special Operations Command Headquarters Procurement Division. The work will be performed in Tempe, AZ and is expected to be complete in 2012 (H92222-10-D-0012).

March 1/10: Insight Technology in Londonderry, NH received a $34.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for the Fusion Goggle System Version 4 (FGS V4) from the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The command requires the FGS V4 for special operations force elements currently engaged in the overseas contingency operations. The application for this item is combined thermal imaging and image intensification. Work will be performed in Londonderry and is expected to be completed by March 2015. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division in Indiana manages the contract (N00164-10-D-JQ58).

Feb 22/10: The US State Department announces that on Feb 4/10 it lifted a 3-year export debarment imposed on ITT for export rule violations regarding its night vision systems.

In March 2007, ITT plead guilty to violating the US Arms Export Control Act when the company released technical information to China, Singapore and the United Kingdom for night vision systems without proper export licenses. In December 2007, ITT agreed to pay penalties and institute remedial compliance measures to address its lax export control compliance. Under the debarment, the State Department restricted certain exports of night vision equipment and technical data to specific countries.

According to the Feb 22/10 Federal Register announcement:

“The Department of State has reviewed the circumstances and consulted with other appropriate U.S. agencies, and has determined that ITT Corporation has taken appropriate steps to address the causes of the violations and to mitigate any law enforcement concerns.”

In response, ITT said in a statement:

“ITT has spent a tremendous amount of effort, time and resources to ensure that its export compliance program is effective and fully compliant with government law and regulations. The reinstatement of export privileges reinforces our commitment to ensure that we are following both the letter and intent of all U.S. laws and regulations.”

Feb 19/10: L-3 Communications announces that it agreed to acquire Insight Technology in Londonderry, NH, for an undisclosed consideration. Insight develops and manufactures night vision and electro-optical devices, including laser aiming and illumination devices, laser rangefinders, laser markers and designators, night vision goggles and monoculars, and thermal imaging systems. Insight employs approximately 1,100 people and has $290 million in annual sales. L-3 said that the purchase price represents 9 times Insight’s estimated 2010 EBITDA. It expects to complete the acquisition in the second quarter of 2010.

Feb 8/10: Irvine Sensors in Costa Mesa, CA announces a subcontract worth up to $18 million to supply clip-on thermal imagers (COTI) to Optics 1 under a $37.8 million COTI contract awarded by the Naval Surface Warfare Center of Crane, IN (see Jan 20/10 entry).

Irvine Sensors and Optics 1 jointly developed the COTI technology. The COTI has been designed to clip onto existing military night vision goggles and provide users with thermal images to complement the amplified low-light images that the goggles currently provide. There are about 1 million night vision goggles in US military inventories that could potentially be retrofitted with the COTI system, according to Irvine Sensors.

Jan 20/10: Optics 1 in Manchester, NH won a $37.8 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 6,600 Clip on Thermal Imager (COTI) systems, repairs, spares and associated data. The COTI clips onto the AN/PVS-15A night vision goggle to give special operation forces an optically fused device providing a thermal image into either the right or left side of the PVS-15A goggle. Optics 1 will perform the work in Manchester, NH, and expects to complete it by January 2015. This contract was competitively procured via FedBizOpps with 2 offers received by the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, IN (N00164-10-D-JQ48).

Jan 12/10: ITT Night Vision Division in Roanoke, VA received a $7.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for various night vision equipment for the Canadian military. ITT will perform the work in Roanoke, VA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10. CECOM Acquisition Center at Fort Monmouth, NJ manages the contract (W15P7T-10-C-D214).

Oct 16/09: ITT Corp. received a $72 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for its aviator’s night vision goggles (AN/AVS-6), night vision tubes and spare parts. The company competitively won 100% of the contract awarded by the US Army Research Development and Engineering Command. With this most recent award, ITT said it remains the sole supplier of aviation goggles and tubes to the US Army.

Oct 16/09: ITT Corp. received a $19.3 million delivery order from the US Army’s Research Development & Engineering Command Acquisition Center under the OMNI VII contract (see Sept 15/05 item) for AN/PVS-14 night vision monocular devices – 80% of these goggles are destined for the US Air Force with the remaining quantities for the US Navy and US Army.

The AN/PVS-14 is a night vision monocular that provides enhanced resolution for mobility and target identification. For use by ground forces, these devices can be hand-held, head- or weapon-mounted or fitted to a camera. The AN/PVS-14 operates on a single AA battery and comes equipped with ITT’s thin-filmed proprietary Generation 3 Pinnacle image intensifier tube that has the ability to detect available light more than 10 times the power of previous generations.

Aug 12/09: ITT Corp. received $43 million in follow-on orders for Enhanced Night Vision Goggles (ENVG) and associated spare parts from the US Army’s Research, Development and Engineering Command Acquisition Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground in MD. The original contract (W91CRB-05-D-0012), awarded in 2005, has a potential value of $560 million. ITT partnered with Raytheon in developing the ENVG, which combines a number of night vision technologies.

The ENVG, or AN/PSQ-20, is the first helmet-mounted night vision monocular to combine the strengths of both image intensification (I2) and infrared (IR, or thermal) technologies into one device, according to ITT. The US Army’s first unit equipped with ENVG was introduced in April 2008.

Jan 8/09: L3 Electro-Optical Systems (EOS) in Garland, TX won [pdf] a maximum $48.9 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for Submersible Binocular Night Vision Systems (SBNVSs). The SBNVSs will be used by US Navy personnel to provide night vision capability. Work will be performed in Garland, TX and is expected to be complete by January 2014. This contract was competitively procured via FedBizOpps, with 4 offers received. The Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, IN manages the contract (N00164-09-D-JQ69).

Sept 29/08: Small business qualifier Norotos in Santa Ana, CA won a maximum value $15 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for ruggedized night vision mounting hardware. The night vision mounting hardware will be procured for surface US Navy operational use with current night vision devices as well as future procurements of night vision devices. The helmet-mounting system will be universal to support AN/PVS-15B binocular, AN/PVS-7C goggle, AN/PVS-18 monocular, and F6015 monocular.

Work will be performed in Santa Ana, CA and is expected to be complete by June 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $194,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via FedBizOpps, with 2 offers received by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane IN (N00164-08-D-JQ23).

Sept 17/08: Science Applications International Corp. in San Diego, CA won a $6.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The primary objective of the Advanced Night Vision System program is to develop core technologies for improving night vision capability in urban operations. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA; Elk River, MN; Bull Shoals, AZ; Palo Alto, CA; Watertown, MA; and Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, with an estimated completion date of March 15/10. Bids were solicited via a Broad Agency Announcement and 3 bids were received by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in Arlington, VA (HR0011-08-C-0144).

June 18/08: ITT Night Vision in Roanoke, VA received a $6.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for PVS-7D night vision and AN/PVS7 night vision devices. Work will be performed in Roanoke, VA and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/09. For this contract, 1 bid was solicited by the US Army’s CECOM Acquisition Center in Fort Monmouth, NJ (W15P7T-08-C-D236).

June 9/08: Information Network Systems in Alexandria, VA received a $9.2 million task order (#0030) under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (M67854-02-A-9013) to provide analytical, acquisition, administrative and logistics support for the Program Manager, Optics and Non-lethal Systems, Infantry Weapons Systems, Marine Corps Systems Command. PM ONS develops, demonstrates, procures, fields, and provides life-cycle management support for electro-optical systems, optics tools and test equipment, and non-lethal and force protection (NL/FP) systems to support USMC warfighting forces. This includes all day and night scopes, laser pointers, laser illuminators, thermal weapons sights, night vision enhancement devices, and NL/FP systems. Work will be performed in Stafford, VA and is expected to be complete in June 2009. The Marine Corps System Command in Quantico, VA manages the contract.

Sept 28/07: ITT Night Vision in Roanoke, VA received a $10.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for procurement of AN/AVS-9 Aviator’s Night Vision Goggles and associated data. The AN/AVS-9 Aviator’s Night Vision Goggles are helmet-mounted goggles that will be used on US Navy ships for nighttime flight operations by both aircraft pilots and ship crew members. Work will be performed in Roanoke, VA and is expected to be complete by September 2012. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division, IN (N00164-07-D-8540).

Sept 6/07: ITT Night Vision in Roanoke, VA received a maximum $37.1 million fixed-price indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for a maximum of 5,200 submersible monocular night vision systems (US Navy); 2,500 submersible monocular night visions systems (US Coast Guard); 3,000 head-mount face mask assemblies; 7,500 head mounts; 3,000 head straps for personnel armor system for ground troops helmet; 3,000 head straps for modular integrated communications helmet (MICH); 3,000 low profile 3-hole MICH mounting brackets; and associated data.

Work will be performed in Roanoke, VA and is expected to be complete by September 2012. Contract funds in the amount of $5.6 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured by a request for proposals with multiple firms solicited and 1 offer received by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division, IN (N00164-07-D-8550).

July 18/07: Northrop Grumman’s Litton Systems in Garland, TX received a $74 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity letter contract for production and delivery of the AN/PVS-17C miniature night sight, and associated spare and repair parts. The contract provides for a minimum quantity of 100 and a maximum of 10,000 units. Work will be performed in Garland, TX and is expected to be complete in December 2010. This follow-on contract meets an urgent requirement, and was not awarded competitively by the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA (M67854-07-C-1011).

July 16/07: ITT Night Vision in Roanoke, VA received a maximum $16.6 million firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for a maximum of 6,800 18 mm Image Intensifier MX-10160C Tubes. Image Intensifier Assembly 18-mm Microchannel Wafer High Performance Tubes are utilized in night vision goggles.

Work will be performed in Roanoke, VA and expected to be complete by July 2012. This contract was competitively procured by a request for proposals with 2 firms solicited and 1 offer received by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division, IN (N00164-07-D-8543).

May 21/07: ITT Corp.’s Night Vision Division in Roanoke, VA received a $6 million firm-fixed-price five-year indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for 18 mm Image Intensifier Tubes for use in night vision goggles, night vision weapon sights, night vision binoculars and night vision monoculars. The tubes magnify and enhance existing natural light or laser illumination to allow users to see in the dark.

Work will be performed in Roanoke, VA, and is expected to be complete by May 2012. This contract was competitively procured and solicited via the web via FedBizOpps with 1 offer received by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division, IN (N00164-07-D-8520).

April 24/07: DRS technologies subsidiary Night Vision Systems in Allentown, PA received a maximum $139.3 million fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for night vision equipment on behalf of the US Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps. This is a 5-year contract with 1 base year and 4 one-year options. There were 5 proposals solicited and 4 responded. Date of performance completion is April 19, 2008. Contracting activity is Defense Supply Center Columbus, (DSCC) in Columbus, OH (SPM7AX-07-D-7014).

March 21/07: Columbia Research Corp. in Washington, DC received a $6.3 million term task order (M67854-04-A-5167 Task Order 0003) for acquisition, logistics, and administrative support services for the Program Manager Optics & Non-Lethal Systems (ONS), Infantry Weapons Systems office. The ONS program manager develops, demonstrates, procures, fields, and provides life-cycle management support for optics and non-lethal systems to support USMC warfighting forces. This includes all day and night scopes, laser pointers, laser illuminators, thermal weapons sights, night vision enhancement devices, and non-lethal systems.

Work will be performed in Quantico, VA (81%); Albany, GA (13%); Camp Lejeune, NC (3%); and Camp Pendleton, CA. (3%). Additionally, to accommodate logistics management and training issues, on-site support at Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, GA, and other CONUS locations is required throughout the contract duration to support handling of logistics and training requirements in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the expected triple increase in assets. .

Sept 28/06: Insight Technology in Londonderry, NH, received a $9.7 million firm-fixed price contract modification. This contract action is required to assemble and deliver 145 Block I Panoramic Night Vision Goggles, 1,112 snap-on diaper assemblies, and 16 ANV-126-210 adapter kits. At this time, $7.3 million has been obligated. This work will be complete by April 2008. Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH manages the contract (FA8607-04-C-2752/P00011).

Sept 15/05: The US Army Contracting Agency at White Sands Missile Range, NM issued $3.24 billion in contracts to Northrop Grumman in Garland, TX, and ITT Industries in Roanoke, VA for “Omnibus VII enhanced third generation image intensifier ground night vision devices and spare image intensifier tubes.” The US Army and US Marine Corps are using 1 omnibus contract to purchase the following night-vision devices: AN/PVS-14 monocular, AN/PVS-7D binocular, MX-10130/UV image intensifier tubes, and MX-11769/UV image intensifier tubes.

Northrop Grumman received a $1.85 billion contract (W9124Q-05-D-0823), and the company will performed the work in Garland, TX (60%), and Tempe, AZ (40%). ITT received a $1.39 billion contract (W9124Q-05-D-0821), and the company will perform the work in Roanoke, VA.

March 31/04: BAE Systems won a 5-year contract from the US Army’s Communication and Electronics Command (CECOM) to supply a family of next-generation thermal weapon sights for soldiers. The base contract is worth $111 million, and could be valued at more than $250 million if all options are exercised.

Additional Readings

• DID – ENVG-III/ FWS-I: Point and Shoot Night Vision. The next step in soldier night vision and weapon sights, awarded in May 2014.
• US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command – Night Vision & Electronic Sensors Directorate
• GlobalSecurity.org – Night Vision Goggles
• Wikipedia – Night vision device
• HowStuffWorks.com – How Night Vision Works
• ITT – Night Vision website.
• Special Operations Technology magazine (November/December 2009) – Clip on Night Vision.
• National Defense (October 2009) – Future Night Vision Devices: More than Just Goggles.
• Army Times (Sept 2/09) – Army boosts buy of new night-vision goggle.
• Air Force News (April 26/05) – Airmen receive panoramic night-vision goggles.

For night vision device limitations, see the following articles by Chris Johnson at the University of Glasgow, Scotland.

• The Role of Night Vision Equipment in Military Incidents and Accidents [PDF].
• The Operational Strengths and Weaknesses of Military Night Vision Equipment [PDF].

SPYDER Mobile Firing Unit
(click to view full)

Israel’s SPYDER air defense system follows a recent trend of using advanced air-air missiles designed for fighter jets as ground-launched surface-to-air missiles (SAM). This truck-mounted system mixes radar and optical tracking with any combination of short to medium-range Derby 4 and ultra-agile short-range 5th generation Python 5 air to air missiles, in order to create a versatile system adapted for a wider range of threats. Hence its inclusion in in our AMRAAM FOCUS article’s “international competitors” section.

India has become the system’s inaugural export customer. SPYDER will reportedly replace India’s Russian-made OSA-AKM/SA-8 Gecko and ZRK-BD Strela-10M/ SA-13 Gopher SAM systems, and the purchase has decisively shelved the Indian DRDO’s failed Trishul project.

More success may be on the way. As India’s Air Force gears up, the Army is reportedly about to follow suit with an even bigger contract.

The SPYDER System

SPYDER Systems
(click to view full)

Each SPYDER ADS-SR Mobile Firing Unit can slant-launch up to 4 missiles in either lock on after launch (LOAL) mode, or lock on before launch (LOBL). This short-range version offers 360 degree quick engagement capability and 60-target tracking via IAI’s Elta EL/M 2106 ATAR 3D surveillance radar and TOPLITE optical sensor, a kill range of over 15 km, and openly advertised effectiveness from 20 – 9,000 meters (65 – 30,000 feet).

A new SPYDER ADS-MR 6×6 truck version was unveiled at Eurosatory 2006. It’s restricted to LOAL but offers 8 vertical-launch missiles in any mix, adds a dedicated radar vehicle with a more powerful radar, and puts boosters on all missiles, in order to improve advertised range to 50 km/ 30 miles, and performance to 16 km/ 52,000 feet.

A typical SPYDER squadron consists of 1 Mobile Command and Control Unit, plus 4 Mobile Firing Units with their own built-in power supplies and missile sets of 4-8 missiles.

Contracts and Key Events

SPYDER MR vs. SR
(click to view full)

May 26/16: Israel’s Rafael Advanced Systems looks set to win the Indian Army’s short-range surface-to-air missile (SRSAM) contest with its Spyder system. According to the Economic Times, the Spyder seems poised to win after offerings from Sweden’s Saab and Russia’s Rosoboronexport failed to comply with the Army’s requirements during technical trials. The competition has been running for five years.

October 26/15: Vietnam has purchased [Vietnamese] SPYDER air defense systems, manufactured by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The surface-to-air missile system is capable of launching the company’s advanced Derby beyond visual range and Python-5 missiles, with it unclear whether the Vietnamese military has purchased the Short Range (SPYDER-SR) or Medium Range (SPYDER-MR) version, with respective ranges of 20km and 50km.

Aug 18/09: Indian Army’s QR-SAM. The Times of India reports that India’s Ministry of Defence has finally given the go-ahead for the army’s INR 40 billion (about $820 million) Quick-Reaction SAM program. These mobile missiles would protect Indian maneuver elements like armored columns and troop concentrations, as well as important areas and installations. The Army seeks to equip 3 regiments with this contract, which is over twice the size of the IAF’s 18 squadron purchase. The Times of India:

“With the indigenous Akash and Trishul air defence projects not meeting its “user-requirements”… The Defence Acquisitions Council, chaired by defence minister A K Antony, discussed the entire matter on Monday. Though there was no official word, sources said the Israeli SpyDer QR-SAM systems had been selected for the project.

…The projects were in a limbo for quite some time now, with one of the main reasons being the naming of Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Rafael in the Rs 1,160-crore Barak-I deal kickbacks case by the CBI. The government, however, was reluctant to blacklist these Israeli armament firms because it held that it would prove “counter-productive” since there were several “crucial” defence projects underway with them.”

Jan 20/09: SR-SAM – Revenge of DRDO? India Defence reports that neither MBDA nor India’s state-run DRDO have given up on their “SR-SAM” short range air defense proposal. Rumors peg it as a combination of DRDO’s Trishul and MBDA’s VL-MICA system, though Trishul’s failure and VL-MICA’s techologies mean that claims regarding Trishul technology are likely to be about saving face as much as anything else.

The “Maitri” LLQRM proposal’s positioning would be directly competitive with RAFAEL’s SPYDER, and VL-MICA is deployable as a mobile system. That could affect SPYDER’s future expansion within the Indian military, and might even affect its prospects if program problems crop up. MICA’s capabilities mean that SR-SAM/Maitri would also be directly competitive with India’s indigenous Akash, and might even impinge on the proposed medium range MR-SAM deal involving a longer-range Barak missile.

Dec 11/08: The Indian Ministry of Defence confirms that it has signed the Spyder contract – and canceled Trishul. Defence Minister Shri AK Antony, in a written reply to Shri Tarini Kanta Roy in Rajya Sabha:

“Ministry of Defence has signed a contract with M/s Rafael, Israel to procure Spyder Low Level Quick Reaction Missile System (LLQRM) for the Indian Air Force.

The proposal for Trishul system was foreclosed due to its inability to meet certain critical operational requirements. However, it served as a technology demonstrator and the expertise acquired with the technologies developed during design and development phase of Trishul Missile System are being utilized for developing state-of-the-art Short Range Surface to Air Missile System.”

Costs were not disclosed, though some reports place the deal at $260 million; previous reports of R 18,000 crore would be about $362 million at current exchange rates. Nor was the future composition of India’s Spyder force; Spyder systems now come in the 8-pack, booster-enabled SPYDER ADS-MR, and the 4-pack SPYDER ADS-SR. Indian MoD | domain-b.

Oct 13/08: DNA India reports that a new order from the Union government downgraded both IAI and RAFAEL’s position as weapon suppliers to India, and may place the Spyder contract in jeopardy. The issue is not expected to sort itself out until after the 2009 Parliamentary elections. Read “India Downgrades Vendor Status of IAI and RAFAEL” for more.

Sept 1/08: The Spyder contract was delayed for almost 2 years by political accusations, but those have apparently been put to rest. Defense News reports that a $260 million contract has now been signed with Rafael. The Indian Air Force will receive 18 Spyder systems, with deliveries beginning in early 2011 and finishing by August 2012. Unusually, the contract will not include any mandatory industrial offsets.

March 19/07: Reports indicate that MBDA is working on a deal with the DRDO, whose Trishul short range anti-aorcraft missile project continues to flounder. DRDO’s Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) would team with MBDA to develop a “new-generation low-level, quick-reaction missile (LLQRM) system” known as ‘Maitri’, for the Indian Navy and Air Force. India Defence.

The project is said to be worth $500 million and is to be signed in May between the Hyderabad-based DRDL and MBDA. It is retry to revive the work done under the unsuccessful Trishul LLQRM project,

October 2006: India Defence quoted Air Chief SP Tyagi as saying India is close to wrapping up a deal to purchase quick reaction surface-to-air missiles from Israel as a mobile air defense system. Under the deal, India proposed to buy 18 SPYDER (Surface-to-air PYthon and DERby) missile systems and accompanying missiles in a deal worth more than Rs 1,800 crores (18 billion Indian rupees, or about $395.4 million at the time). RAFAEL would be the prime contractor, and Israel Aircraft Industries the major subcontractor.

Additional Readings

• RAFAEL – SPYDER ADS-MR
• RAFAEL – SPYDER ADS-SR
• RAFAEL – Python 5: Full Sphere IR Air-to-Air Missile
• RAFAEL – Derby: Beyond visual Range Air-to-Air Missile
• Israeli Weapons – SPYDER
• Army Technology – SPYDER Surface-to-Air Python 5 and Derby Air Defence Missile System, Israel
• DID – India’s IGMP Missile Programs. Including the canceled Trishul and the medium range Akash SAM.
• DID – India & Israel Introducing MR-SAM. Based on a longer-range version of the Barak missile.

Kilo Class cutaway
(click to view full)

In April 2009, reports surfaced that Vietnam had agreed in principle to a deal with Russia for 6 of its diesel-electric Kilo/ Project 636 Class fast attack submarines. By December 2009, it was an inflection-point deal for a capability that Vietnam has never had before. By November 2013, the new submarines had begun to arrive.

Nor is that the only change in Vietnam’s military capabilities these days, courtesy of their long-standing relationship with Russia. There have been some outside deals for items like maritime surveillance floatplanes, and a Dutch deal will provide high-end frigates. For the most part, however, Vietnam’s new combat power in the air, at sea, and on land is coming from Russia. China’s displays of naval might are only part of the mosaic influencing Vietnam’s decisions in these matters.

Vietnam’s New Military Buys: Considerations & Conclusions

Southeast Asia
(click to view full)

China’s 2009 display of naval might certainly marks an increased shift toward “forward defense” farther from its borders, a policy that must eventually include China’s trade lifeline to Vietnam’s south, through the Straits of Malacca. It also underlined a growing gap between China’s increasingly advanced ships and high capacity hovercraft, and Vietnam’s fleet of older Soviet and even American ships.

Ownership of the Spratly Islands remains very much in dispute, and Vietnam and China share a centuries-long history of mutual distrust and occupation. Recent punctuations of that animosity include the 1979 3rd Indochina War; this was followed by a significant skirmish in 1981, and a naval skirmish over the Spratly Islands in 1988. Today, Vietnamese protests over a Chinese bauxite mine in Vietnam, and media disobedience over the Spratly Islands issue, serve as a reminder that the 1989 treaty has not changed the relationship’s underlying fundamentals.

Key Platforms

Submarines

Kilo Class for China
(click to view full)

China itself has adopted a strategy of building up a submarine force to counter a superior surface opponent (the US Navy). It’s entirely logical for Vietnam to adopt a similar approach vis-a-vis China, especially given that China’s lifeline of raw materials and exported goods from and to Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and parts of Asia passes right by Vietnam’s doorstep.

Aside from Thyssen Krupp Marine’s U209 family of submarines, the Russian Kilo Class are the world’s most widely exported subs. They’re known for a level of quietness that’s significantly better than other Russian designs, and have been produced in the Project 877EKM, and the Project 636M “Improved Kilo” / Varshavyanka Class variant that Vietnam is receiving. Countries operating or ordering these submarines include Russia, Algeria, China, India, Iran, Poland, and Romania.

There had been some speculation that Vietnam’s emphasis on shallow water operations, and proximity to the Straits of Malacca, might have made DCNS’ novel 885t, $200 million Andrasta Class of “pocket submarines” attractive. Instead, Vietnam appears to have opted for a longer-range, higher capacity 3,000t submarine from its tried and true Russia partner. They can be armed with 533mm heavy torpedoes, mines, and/or the 3M54 Klub-S family of missiles. The Improved Kilo Class boats will be named:

• HQ-182 Hanoi (delivered)
  
• HQ-183 Ho Chi Minh City (testing complete 2014-01)
  
• HQ-184 Hai Phong (launched 2013-08, arrival 2014)
  
• HQ-185 Khanh Hoa (arrival 2015)
  
• HQ-186 Da Nang (arrival 2015)
  
• HQ-187 Ba Ria-Vung Tau (arrival 2016)

Other Naval

Dinh Tien Hoang
(click to view full)

The new submarines are the most important new Russian addition to Vietnam’s capabilities, but they are not alone. A mixed set of 6 stealthy Gepard 3.9/Dinh Tien Hoang Class light frigates will add surface warfare and patrol punch. The first pair optimized for surface attack are already delivered, plus orders for 2 model emphasizing anti-submarine warfare, and 2 upgraded ships with undetermined capabilities as yet.

Gepard 3.9 frigates. These ships are a combined diesel-turbine export version of Russia’s Project 11611 (Tartarstan) frigates, which serve in the Caspian fleet. The 102m/ 2,100t design sits in the grey area between small frigates and large corvettes, and despite their 5,000nm endurance, they’re best suited to local maritime patrol and interdiction. Their stealth-enhanced ship design and 8 sub-sonic Kh-35E anti-ship missiles make them potentially dangerous adversaries in littoral regions; other armament includes 1 AK-176 76mm main gun, 2x AK-630 family multi-barrel 30mm automated guns, and 12-20 mines. There’s space at the back of the ship for a Ka-27 helicopter, but no hangar.

Air defense is handled by a Palma turret derived from the land-based SA-19 Tunguska, carrying twin AO-18KD multi-barrel 30mm cannons and 8 SOSNA-R 9M337 hyper-velocity laser beam rider missiles. An optical turret in the Palma’s center handles fire control, and a command module includes the 3Ts-99/Positiv ME1 target detection 3D radar. It’s mounted in place of the 9K33M “OSA-M”/SS-N-4 Gecko twin-launcher missile system installed on Russia’s frigates, and provides a maximum air defense reach of 10 km and 19,500 feet altitude, with a 2nd kill zone out to 4 km for the 30mm guns.

The ASW ships can be expected to carry 533 mm torpedo tubes, depth charges, and an RBU-6000 12-barreled Anti-Submarine rocket launcher.

This size and weapons array may not be much to get excited about, relative to other international frigate designs, but it will make them Vietnam’s most capable combat ships until the Dutch Sigma Class frigates arrive. There has been talk about including Shtil-1 air defense missiles with a 50 km range on the last 2 ships, in place of the Palma turret. Adding those would quadruple the ships’ air defense radius, but the ship’s overall changes would need to extend beyond that mounting.

Molniya/ Project 12418 FAC. These missile-armed Fast Attack Crafts, derived from the Tarantul-class Soviet corvette design, will help modernize a fleet that’s mostly made up of aging Soviet FACs, and captured American ships from the Vietnam War. The new ships are small, at just 550t full load, but they pack a very dangerous set of 8 sub-sonic Kh-35E anti-ship missiles, or 4 Moskit/ SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missiles. Up to 10 may be built under the 2010 contract.

An agreement to license-build the Russian Kh-35 anti-ship missile adds extra impetus to Vietnam’s maritime modernization.

Air Force: SU-30MKs, and…?

SU-30MK2 weapons
(click to view full)

Vietnam’s air force is still reliant on the same core platform that formed their high end during the Vietnam war: the MiG-21. Swing-wing SU-22M4 strike and close air support fighters are only slightly newer. After that, there’s a sharp technological break to SU-27 air superiority fighters. Vietnam is slowly extending that modernized base with newer multi-role SU-30 planes from the same fighter family, strengthening air defenses and adding a long-range strike capability. They need that kind of firepower, given China’s own set of SU-30/J-11s, and the existence of flash-points like the Spratleys far from the mainland. The question is how they manage to balance that qualitative improvement with the need for fighter numbers, as the MiGs and SU-22s age out.

Note that even the most modern fighters will be limited without AWACS/ AEW support for wider awareness and coordination, and patrol ranges around key disputed territories like the Spratlys will be limited without mid-air refueling platforms. The bad news is that Vietnam doesn’t have a lot of budget to spare, and its ground forces are also in need of significant upgrades. The good news is that options like the Airbus/IAI C295 AEW, BAe 146 tanker conversions, and IAI Bedek’s K-767 tanker conversion of used commercial aircraft are creating new lower-cost options.

Contracts and Key Events

This section covers only Vietnamese contracts with Russia. As the “Additional Readings” section notes, Russia is not Vietnam’s exclusive arms provider – but it is the country’s most important defense relationship.

May 27/16: Just days after the lifting of the US arms embargo, Vietnam look like they may request F-16s and P-3 Orions from Pentagon’s excess defense articles (EDA) program. Hanoi may also look into purchasing US made UAVs alongside the aircraft to improve its air defense and maritime security capabilities in order to enhance its position in the South China Sea. It’s also likely that the government will look to achieve a similar P-3 deal given to Taiwan including torpedoes (banned under the embargo) and an F-16 EDA procurement given to Indonesia.

May 24/16: US President Barack Obama has announced the lifting of a decades long arms embargo on Vietnam. Speaking in Hanoi with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang and under a looming bust of Communist leader Ho Chi Minh, Obama said that the move will end a “lingering vestige of the Cold War” and pave the way for more-normal relations between the two countries. The move comes as Vietnam looks to recenter allies amid a growing spat with China over ownership of islands in the South China Sea, while also looking to lessen their reliance on Russian weapons manufacturers, factors that may make Hanoi one of Washington’s new best friends in the region.

January 5/16: Vietnam has received possession of two more Su-30MK2 fighters, bringing the current number now operated to to thirty two. Dubbed the King Cobra, the Vietnamese Air Force hopes to have this increased to thirty-six by the end of 2016. The latest order, for twelve jets, was signed in 2013 and worth $600 million. Flight training for the aircraft is being provided by the Indian Air Force, who also operate the Russian made aircraft in their own military. In the past, India has trained Vietnamese naval personnel in operating Russian Kilo-class submarines.

Dec 10/14: Submarines. HQ-184 Hai Phong is reportedly on its way to Vietnam, after technical acceptance was signed on Dec. 4. The rest of the project appears on track: sea trials for boat #4 started in June, while the keel of #6 was laid in May.

Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines: Admiralty Shipyards provide Vietnamese Navy with third Project 636.1 submarine, Vietnam media relaying Russian sources.

Testing “Lightning” ships

Dec 8/14: Fast Attack Crafts. HQ 377 and HQ 378, the first 2 of 6 Molniya fast attack, are handed over by Ba Son Corporation for induction by the Vietnamese navy. The ships had been tested in April and delivered in June. The government seems to support Ba Son’s request to build a new, more modern shipbuilding factory.

Sources: Nhan Dan: Ba Son Corporation urged to complete, hand over missile boats | Tuoi Tre News: Vietnam to boost defense development, improve military combat capacity | Vietnam Breaking News: Vietnam to build more Russian missile boats | Asitimes: Vietnam holds technical test for its first 2 domestically-made high-speed missile boats.

Aug 27/14: SU-30s. Russia & India Report says that negotiations are underway to deepen Vietnam’s training relationship with India, progressing beyond subs to include its 36 SU-30MK2 jets by 2015. Malaysia already trains with India, as their SU-30MKM jets have a lot in common with the IAF’s SU-30MKIs. Vietnam’s SU-30MKs lack canards and thrust vectoring, but India is a logical pairing:

“India and Vietnam are likely to sign a defence agreement, under which Vietnamese pilots will be trained to operate Russian-built Sukhoi fighters, sources in the Indian Defence Ministry told RIR. The agreement is likely to be signed when Indian President Pranab Mukherjee visits the Southeast Asian country in September. The details are being finalised during the on-going visit of Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to Vietnam, the sources said…. India will also consider the sale of the Indo-Russian BrahMos missiles to Vietnam [DID: q.v. Dec 3/13 entry], although a deal is not imminent, the sources added.”

Adding the air-launched, supersonic BrahMos to Vietnam’s arsenal would make Indian training the only sensible solution, while greatly increasing Vietnam’s strike reach and capabilities. Sources: Russia & India Report, “India to train Vietnamese pilots to fly Sukhoi fighters”.

April 23/14: Frigates. Russia’s Nudelman Precision Engineering Design Bureau confirms that the “People’s Army of Vietnam Navy” (Maoist heritage, much?) will equip its Project 11661 Gepard anti-submarine light frigates with the same Palma air defense and CIWS system that sits on the first 2 surface warfare frigates. The ships are scheduled for delivery in 2017, and given the space constraints involved in a 2,100t platform, it’s always interesting to see what can and can’t stay when they’re equipped for a new role. Sources: IHS Jane’s Navy International, “Vietnam to arm new Gepard-class frigates with Palma CIWS”.

April 1/14: Frigates. Vietnam’s 2nd batch of Gepard frigates are scheduled for delivery in 2017, according to Zelenodolsk Shipyard’s annual financial statements. That set is supposed to be optimized for anti-submarine duties. Sources: IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Vietnam to receive two more Gepard frigates in 2017”.

Jan 16/14: Submarines. Vietnam’s 2nd submarine, HQ-183 Ho Chi Minh City, completes operational tests in Russia and receives its checkout certificate. It will be loaded onto a barge, and is expected to arrive in Vietnam around May 3/14.

HQ-184 Hai Phong was launched on Aug 28/13, and is also expected to be delivered to Vietnam in 2014. HQ-186 Khanh Hoa is due in 2015, and HQ-185 Da Nang can be inferred as also arriving that year. HQ-187 Ba Ria Vung Tau is due in 2016. Sources: Bao Dat Viet, “Tau ngam HQ-185 Da Nang ha thuy ngay 28/3” | Thanh Nien News, “Vietnam’s second Russian submarine completes testing” | Vietnamnet, “Russia hands over the second submarine to Vietnam”.

T-90
(click to view full)

Jan 10/14: Tanks. Vietnam is reportedly investigating the possibility of upgrading at least some of their existing fleet of about 480 T-72 main battle tanks, and buying T-90s to begin replacing their force of almost 1,000 elderly T-55s. Due diligence has reportedly been done with India’s T-90s, which also face the ravages of hot climates.

The problem is cost. T-72 upgrades can be sourced from a number of countries besides Russia, but top of the line new tanks are costly. If new armored personnel carriers also have to be bought for Vietnam’s armored formations, the entire project gets very expensive very quickly. On the other hand, defeats on land are very, very expensive when you have a large and aggressive neighbor on your border, and a long history of animosity. Tanks may not be the whole answer, but Vietnam will have to spend money to upgrade its land forces in some way.

Vietnam’s armored forces include various models of Russian and Chinese equipment, which means their fleets are fragmented as well as old. Consolidation of any sort would be helpful, though their terrain means that light vehicles can be as important as heavy armor. Israel has been talking to Vietnam about military deals, and one wonders if they’ve discussed conversion of the T-55s into refurbished Achzarit heavy APCs. Sources: Tinnong, “Viet Nam xem xet mua xe tang T-90 cua Nga”.

Kh-35E/ SS-N-25
(click to view full)

Dec 3/13: Weapons. Vietnam has reportedly placed an official request for a derivative of the Russian SS-N-26 Oniks missiles that already equip a couple of its shore batteries:

“Vietnam formally requested India to supply the Indo-Russian BrahMos cruise missiles at a meeting in New Delhi, informed sources told RIR. The request was made when Vietnam Communist party general secretary Nguyen Phu Trong visited the Indian capital, the sources said, adding that the Southeast Asian country was looking at enhancing security cooperation with India… During Phu Trong’s visits, requests were also made to India for submarine training and for conversion training for Vietnamese pilots to fly Sukhoi-30 aircrafts.”

The PJ-10 Brahmos is also a supersonic, radar-guided, medium-range anti-ship and strike missile. Vietnam’s current and planned ships aren’t good platforms for BrahMos, and Vietnam already has similar SS-N-26 shore batteries in place. A buy from India could deploy mobile shore batteries, but the most likely interest involves the developmental air-launched BrahMos, designed to be carried by SU-30 fighters. That would add about 300 km of strike range to Vietnam’s fighters, using a lethal threat to both enemy ships and shore installations. Deploying that combination would be almost as significant as Vietnam’s new submarines in shifting the South China Sea’s overall balance of power. Sources: Russia & India Report, “Vietnam looking to purchase BrahMos cruise missiles”.

Nov 7/13: Submarines. The Improved Kilo Class boat HQ-183 Hanoi is handed over to the Vietnam Navy in Russia, where its crew has been undergoing training. It will be loaded onto a barge on November 11/13, and prepared for shipment to Vietnam.

At the same time, representatives from Russia and Vietnam sign a document that will transfer a new submarine sailor training center in Cam Ranh Bay to the Vietnam Navy in January 2014, when the Hanoi and its cadre arrive at Cam Ranh Bay. By the end of 2014, Vietnam is expected to have 3 of its 6 ordered submarines. Sources: Vietnam Bridge, “Russia hands over Cam Ranh submarine sailor training center to Vietnam” | RIA Novosti, “Russia to Deliver 2 More ‘Black Hole’ Subs to Vietnam in ’14”.

Oct 25/13: Infrastructure. Vietnam officially inaugurates a maintenance line in Da Nang’s “Factory A32” for Su-27 and Su-30 fighters. Other countries have had real problems waiting for Russian support, so moving more of that support in-country will boost the fighter fleet’s availability. Sources: People’s Army Newspaper Online, “Maintenance line for Su-27 and Su-30 fighters unveiled”.

Sept 26/13: Infrastructure. Vietnam is committing to a ship repair facility in Cam Ranh Bay that can handle Russian ships by 2015. It’s a win for their ally, but Vietnam is also trying to turn Cam Ranh Bay into a broader maritime service center. US Military Sealift Command ships have received repairs and basic maintenance there over the last couple of years.

Strong naval maintenance capabilities for Russian designs is also a big asset to a force that operates Russian ships almost exclusively. Sources: RIA Novosti, “Vietnam Sets 2015 Deadline for Soviet, Russian Ship Repair Facility”.

Sept 24/13: Frigates. Russia’s Zelenodolsk shipyard has begun construction on Vietnam’s next Gepard Class 2,100t light frigates, which will be optimized for anti-submarine warfare instead of surface attack (q.v. Dec 7/11). Sources: RIA Novosti, “Russia Starts Building 2 Frigates for Vietnamese Navy”.

July 5/13: Submarines. Russia’s Interfax says that Vietnam’s 2nd submarine, Ho Chi Minh City, has returned to Admiralty Shipyards of St. Petersburg after series of sea trials. The 1st sub, Hanoi, was launched in August 2012 (vid. Aug 28/12 entry), and both are scheduled for handover to the Vietnamese Navy later in 2013. Earlier reports had targeted the end of 2012 for Haoi’s handover.

Note that the photograph in the linked article is not a Kilo Class sub. Thanh Nien News.

May 21/13: SU-30s. A Tuoi Tre News article offers some revealing information, alongside the classic Stakhanovite paeans.

“Living in rented houses, many of the [SU-30 maintenance] staff have to work as part time teachers in local schools to earn extra income for their families. They even use their own money to buy devices to test tools of their own invention before submitting ideas to leaders.”

Needless to say, economic conflicts of interest among the maintenance staff for your nation’s premiere air asset offers all kinds of potential vulnerabilities.

May 17/13: SU-30s. A Tuoi Tre News article discussed the propensity of Vietnamese pilots to stay in the aircraft and try to land, even if the failure is very serious. Materiel worth more than people? That does seem to be part of the attitude, but if so, it’s a long-standing predisposition:

“For example, three-star colonel and pilot Dao Quoc Khang managed to save his Su-27 when its engines broke down just seconds after taking off…. in April last year, captain and chief of Air Strike Regiment 935 Nguyen Xuan Tuyen and flight head Nguyen Gia Nhan saved a Su-30MK2 while they were on a regular patrol over East Sea and its engines suddenly stopped working when it was 600km from the coast. “….We told ourselves in our minds that we are responsible for keeping the US$50 million asset of the State in one piece. It is made from the labor of citizens. And we must protect it at any price, even if that means our lives,” pilot Tuyen said.”

In fairness, ejecting 600 km from the coast is near-certain death, given Vietnam’s limited search and rescue resources. So the brave and selfless-sounding justification doesn’t actually change their decision, and is the sort of thing you’d expect in an article that quotes political commissars with a straight face. Or is the mentality in the pilot’s justification real? That’s the interesting question.

March 29/13: Submarines. Rubin design bureau general director Igor Vilnit pledges to deliver the 1st Project 636M Improved Kilo Class submarine to Vietnam “in 2013 as scheduled.” Odd. Earlier reports from RIA Novosti (vid. Aug 28/12) had the handover taking place at the end of 2012.

The first boat has been built by Admiralteiskie Verfi shipyard in St. Petersburg, Russia, and is undergoing sea trials. All 6 boats are due for delivery by 2016. What isn’t addressed in these reports is Vietnam’s recruiting, training, infrastructure, and maintenance preparations. As Vietnam’s Australian neighbors have discovered the hard way, neglect of any of these 4 “invisible” elements leads to an undeployable submarine force. Vietnam has the advantage of beginning with a proven, tested submarine design, but in all other areas, they’re building from a very low foundation. RIA Novosti.

Oct 26/12: SU-34s? Phun.vn cites a report from the mysterious site “Periscope 2,” wherein it’s suggested that Vietnam plans to replace its fleet of 50 or so aged SU-22 strike aircraft with SU-34s, and that export approval will be given immediately, once it’s requested. The report also suggests that Saab JAS-39 Gripens will replace the VPAF’s even older fleet of 150 or so MiG-21s, that L-159s may replace existing L-39 trainers alongside Vietnam’s reported Yak-130 options, and that Vietnam may be interested in C295-AEW planes.

All of the above are possible, and militarily reasonable choices. Even the L-159 could be reasonable, if bought second-hand as a dual role trainer and MiG-21 fill in, to give the VPAF a dual Russian & Western fleet with appropriate weapon options. The thing is, “reasonable” doesn’t mean “likely”, and DID could find no other reports along these lines. Any of the non-trainer deals would be quite expensive, and Vietnam’s economy is a bit shaky these days. In addition, all of the non-Russian equipment would require export approval for American military items.

We throw this item in for reader interest, with a strong caution concerning its reliability. Phun.vn [in Vietnamese].

Aug 28/12: Submarines. Russia’s RIA Novosti reports that the Admiralteiskie Verfi shipyard in St. Petersburg has launched Vietnam’s 1st Project 636 diesel-electric submarine. The boat is due for handover to Vietnam by the end of 2012.

July 27/12: Political. Vietnam says that Russia can set up a base in Cam Ranh Bay, but it would be a maintenance base, not a military base. Vietnam is trying to promote Cam Ranh as a ship maintenance center, and has even worked on ships from US Military Sealift Command. Sources: RIA Novosti, “Vietnam Ready to Host Russian Maritime Base”.

June 21/12: Fighters. Vietnam is conducting air patrols over the disputed Spratly Islands, using its long-range Su-27 fighters.

“Hong Lei, spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, protested against the patrols by Vietnamese Su-27 fighters over the disputed Spratly islands in the South China Sea at a press conference in Beijing…. The flights by fighters from the Vietnam People’s Air Force over the Spratlys are routine and will continue, according to the Vietnamese military officials.”

State-owned China Radio International makes some valid points when it cites reasons not to be too concerned about Vietnam’s Su-27s: payload limitations, the lack of AWACS support for wider awareness and coordination, and the lack of mid-air refueling platforms. On the other hand, there’s no denying that the Su-27s and Su-30s offer Vietnam a leap forward in both air superiority and strike roles. With that foundation in place, it’s possible for Vietnam to begin closing some of the other gaps in coming years. Sources: Taiwan’s Want China Times, “Beijing downplays threat of Vietnam’s air force”.

March 29/12: Sub training from India? Singapore’s Asia Times:

“For full-scale underwater warfare training, it appears Vietnam will turn to India. The two countries have been engaged in high-level military talks with special emphasis on maritime cooperation. Since the Indian navy also employs Kilo-class submarines, New Delhi would be well suited to train Vietnamese crews. China responded warily to this bilateral warming trend in both words and deeds when a Chinese warship reportedly confronted an Indian navy vessel leaving a Vietnamese port in August… Moscow will reportedly build a submarine base for Vietnam at strategic Cam Ranh Bay, a one-time American and later Soviet naval base…”

Gepard 3.9, 2-view
(click to view full)

Dec 7/11: ASW Frigates. Rosoboronexport and the Zelenodolsk Gorky Plant have finished shipping Vietnam’s 1st 2 Gepard Class frigates, and have just signed a contract for 2 more. That isn’t a surprise, as reports from March 2010 were already discussing a set set. Unlike the first set, however, this next 2 will concentrate on anti-submarine warfare, rather than surface attack missions.

Vietnam’s example may also be creating ripples in the region. Gorky Plant Deputy Director Sergei Rudenko adds that Vietnam’s neighbor Cambodia has expressed its own interest in the Gepard Class. Interfax-AVN.

2 more Gepard Class frigates

Oct 20/11: Patrol boats. Vietnam signs acceptance certificates for the last 2 of 4 Project 10412/ Svetlyak Export Class patrol boats at Almaz Shipbuilding Firm. The 390t class was originally developed for the KGB’s border guards, mounting an AK-176M 76.2mm cannon, an AK-630 30mm gatling gun, and a mount for very short range SA-16/SA-18 anti-aircraft missiles.

The first 2 ships were delivered to Vietnam in 2002, and the 2 follow-on order ships were laid down in June 2009. Unfortunately, repeated issues with key components, including the Arsenal AK-176M gun mounts, delayed construction. The ships will be moved to St. Petersburg, and embarked on a transport ship for shipping to Vietnam. RusNavy.

Aug 22/11: Frigates. The Gepard Class frigate Ly Thai To [HQ-012] arrives at Cam Ranh Bay. Sources: Defense News, “Vietnam Receives Second Russian-Made Frigate”.

March 27/10: RIA Novosti reports that Chinese admirals are beginning to grasp the implications of advanced diesel-electric attack submarines in the hands of several regional neighbors, located right near China’s shipping lifelines.

Vietnam’s Kilo Class, Malaysia’s Scorpene Class, and Singapore’s Vastergotland Class submarines are all on China’s Southeast Asian radar. In the background, Indonesia continues to express its intent to buy Kilo Class submarines of its own.

Postscript: Indonesia eventually ended up buying a modern South Korean variant of the German U209.

March 25/10: Submarines. It’s good to be a good customer. Russian defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov says that Russia will help Vietnam build the submarine base it needs to house its new Kilos, provide a loan to help buy rescue and auxiliary vessels and planes for Vietnam’s navy, and build a ship repair yard. That yard would benefit the Russians, too, as it could service visiting Russian navy ships.

Vietnam’s geographic position could make its service yard attractive to other navies as well, giving other countries even more reason to focus on relations with the Southeast Asian nation. A good service yard could wind up being as important to Vietnam’s geo-political position as the submarines themselves. Associated Press | China’s Xinhua.

March 23/10: Russia’s Voice covers growing ties between Russia and Vietnam, which is becoming one of Russia’s biggest arms customers:

“Vietnam backs multilateral cooperation with Russia especially in military defense, stated Vietnam’s president Nguyen Minh Triet during talks with Russia’s Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov in Hanoi. “Each of Russia’s victories is like our own, the president said, and we support Russia in the Georgian conflict.” The president said that the US decision not to deploy its ABMs in Eastern Europe is also a victory for Russia… Anatoly Serdyukov noted that Vietnam is Russia’s strategic partner and Russia is ready to train Vietnamese personnel at the Russian Defense Ministry’s academies.”

March 16/10: Frigates. Russia’s Zelenodolsk PKB shipyard launches Vietnam’s 2nd Project Gepard 3.9 light frigate into the River Volga. In May 2010, the warship will sail to St. Peterburg and then travel by sea to Vietnam for sea trials. The 1st ship in the order was launched in August 2009.

A separate report indicates that Vietnam could be preparing to order 2 more light frigates of this type. ITAR-TASS [in Russian] | ITAR-TASS Arms [in Russian].

Feb 10/10: SU-30s. Interfax reports the signing of a formal contract between Russia and Vietnam for 12 SU-30MKK fighters, for delivery in 2011-2012, plus associated weapons, service, and support. The deal is reportedly worth $1 billion, and is signed the day after a Russian contract to build Vietnam’s first nuclear plant.

The exact state of the contract is less than clear, so we’re sticking with Dec 15/09 as the date. Agence France Presse | AP | RT | Straits Times.

SU-30MK & SU-27SK
(click to view full)

Dec 15/09: Shortly after Vietnam makes its defense white paper public, reports indicate that it has ordered 6 Improved Kilo Class submarines and 12 SU-30MKK fighter jets from Russia, during a visit to Moscow by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung.

Russia’s Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed Defense Ministry official on Dec 15/09, who said the submarines were improved “Project 636” types, and gave the deal’s value at of $2 billion, with delivery taking place at a rate of 1 submarine per year. The Sukhoi Su-30MK2 fighter jet deal was valued at $600 million, and would raise Vietnam’s SU-27/SU-30 family fleet to 20 fighters.

Vietnam also invited Russia to help build its 1st nuclear power plant, and hopes to begin construction in 2014 and put it on line by 2020. The country has been growing its manufacturing capacity in recent years, partly at China’s expense, and needs to improve its electric grid in tandem. Vietnam’s Thanh Nien News | RIA Novosti | Agence France Presse | Associated Press | BBC News | China’s Xinhua | Agence France Presse analysis.

12 SU-30s & 6 Improved Kilo submarines

Dec 4/09: Russia’s RIA Novosti reports:

“According to the Vedomosti business daily, Moscow and Hanoi are close to sign deals on the purchase of six Kilo class diesel-electric submarines and 12 Su-30MK2 Flanker-C multirole fighters. The submarine contract, worth an estimated $1.8 billion, includes the construction of on-shore infrastructure and training of submarine crews and will be the second largest submarine contract concluded by Russia since the Soviet era after the 2002 deal on the delivery of eight subs to China.”

April 27/09: Initial media reports. The submarine deal’s value is reported to be around $1.8 billion, and the SSKs would be built at Admiralty Shipyards in St. Petersburg. In addition to submarines, the Vietnamese Navy order is said to include new heavyweight torpedoes and missiles (most likely Klub family) to arm them.

This is a big step forward. There have been rumors that Vietnam owns 2 ex-Yugoslav mini-submarines for use in commando operations, but the Vietnamese People’s Navy doesn’t own any full size submarines that can take on enemy subs and ships.

Some of the Russian reports note that these 6 submarines were once planned for Venezuela, adding that Russia’s Rosoboronexport canceled the deal following Hugo Chavez’ meeting with US President Barack Obama. That must be judged an extraordinarily thin public rationale for canceling a $1.5+ billion purchase. A sinking global oil market, and Venezuela’s growing economic dependence on its declining oil production for revenue, are far more likely reasons for any delay and/or shift. See: RIA Novosti | MosNews | St. Petersburg Times | Singapore Straits Times | Defpro.

Additional Readings

• Haze Grey – World Navies Today: Vietnam
• Naval Technology – SSK Kilo Class (Type 636) Attack Submarine, Russia
• Rubin Design Bureau – Project 636. “Improved Kilo”/ Varshavyanka Class.
• Zelenodolsk Shipyard – Frigate of 11661 project “Gepard – 3.9”
• Air Force Technology – Su-30MK Multi-Role Two-Seater Fighter Aircraft, Russia
• Army Technology – T-72S Main Battle Tank, Russia
• The Armor Site – Russian T-90/T90S Main Battle Tank
• Military Today – Achzarit Heavy Armored Personnel Carrier. An option for converting the large fleet of T-55s?

News and Views

• Unbiased Jottings (April 1/13) – Maritime Contours: India – Vietnam & India-Japan Relationships. The site is by Indian Rear Admiral S Kulshrestha (ret.)
• Tuoi Tre News (May 21/13) – Caretakers of Sukhoi jet fighters in Vietnam
• Tuoi Tre News (May 17/13) – The ‘Air cobra’ of Vietnam’s air force
• The Diplomat (Nov 1/12) – Vietnam’s Underwater Anti-Access Fleet
• Reuters (Feb 10/12) – Vietnam seen courting Western arms deals. Israel is also in this mix, and can leverage experience with nearby clients in India, Thailand, and Singapore.
• DID (Oct 30/11) – More than the Sum of Its Parts: Dutch SIGMA Ships for Vietnam?
• DID (May 5/10) – Vietnamese Navy Orders DHC-6 Twin-Otter 400s. The durable float planes are a clever choice for short-range maritime surveillance.
• Reuters (Dec 14/09) – U.S. eyes Vietnam, Libya arms sales. The focus at this point is on “non-lethal” equipment, in Vietnam’s case, the focus is on maritime patrol aircraft, coastal radar systems, and English language training..

Griffon

In 2009 France was planning to start delivering by 2015 new multirole armored vehicles to replace a variety of aging infantry vehicles starting, within a large modernization program called Scorpion. But the 2010-14 multiyear budget relied on a number of rosy assumptions that were soon disproved by reality, and the Scorpion program was one of the mismatch’s casualties, along with plans to start working on a second aircraft carrier.

Promises were made again in the next 5-year budget plan, while maintenance costs kept increasing to sustain vehicles offering an underwhelming mix of limited protection, autonomy, and mobility. French defense manufacturers also started to sound the alarm as Scorpion became increasingly vital to prevent factory closures. The French DGA defense procurement agency paid heed to their plea and issued a tender limited to national manufacturers. By the end of 2014 the ministry of defense finally initiated the 1st procurement tranche of a program expected to last beyond 2025.

On one hand, the expected turnaround from prototype to delivery in 4 to 6 years is tight and will put pressure on contractors, though they started some early conceptual work in 2010. On the other hand this still amounts to a late and light production schedule for the rest of the decade.

The Scorpion Acquisition

VAB Ultima

This major program intends to rationalize a hodgepodge of aging land vehicles and systems while preserving France’s industrial base. The 2 main vehicles in this program share a common chassis and will offer protection from mines and IEDs and ballistic threats at NATO’s STANAG 4569 Level 4. There’s been no public information on engines yet.

Scorpion launch (in French)

The main components of the planned, full acquisition are:

• 1,722 véhicules blindés multi rôles (VBMR)

Dubbed “Griffon”, VBMRs will replace Véhicules de l’avant blindé (VAB) 4×4 infantry carriers acquired starting in 1976 and upgraded in the late 90s. While the ubiquitous VAB turned into 36 variations, no more than a handful of VBMR variants should be created, between troop transport, medical, command/control, and artillery observation purposes.

The 6×6 designs will weight between 20 and 24 tons, with a remotely-operated 7.62mm or 12.7mm machine gun or a 40mm grenade launcher. Deliveries should reach 780 units by 2025. The infantry transport version will carry 8 troops in addition to the crew of 2.

• 248 engins blindés de reconnaissance et de combat (EBRC)

Dubbed “Jaguar”, EBRCs will replace AMX10RC and Sagaie light tanks, as well as VABs in their HOT antitank configuration, to perform combat and reconnaissance missions. These legacy vehicles lost mobility and autonomy with upgrades, but their design remains vulnerable to current threats, and they have become expensive to maintain given their average age. VABs for instance grew from an initial 13 tons to about 16 tons in the latest Ultima configuration.

Jaguar is a 6×6 wheeled 25-ton design with a crew of 3. For armament it will be fitted with a 40mm cannon jointly developed by Nexter and BAE with a 1,500m reach, a remote-controlled 7.62mm machine gun, and MBDA’s MMP (3,500, reach). Deliveries should reach 110 units by 2025.

• 358 lightweight VBMRs

This 10-ton 4×4 design will replace 4-ton Véhicules Blindés Légers (Light armored vehicles) procured since 1990. Deliveries between 2021 and 2025 should reach 200 vehicles.

• The Système d’information du combat SCORPION (SICS)

This common communications platform will replace 6 separate legacy systems, starting in 2016.

• 200 overhauled Leclerc XL tanks

This looks somewhat like an extraneous graft in this program, so that France doesn’t give up entirely on what’s left of its battle tank fleet.

Contracts and Events

Jan. 16/2014: Préférence nationale. Les Echos reports that the DGA procurement agency restricted its tender to French manufacturers, and cited article 346 of the European Union Treaty to exclude bids from other member states.

Sources: Les Echos: Blindés : l’armée lance un appel d’offres de plus de 2 milliards d’euros | EDA: Article 346 of the TFEU.

Nov. 9/2011: industrial team. Nexter and Renault Truck Defense sign a cooperation agreement to jointly manufacture VBMRs.

Feb. 22/2010: initial decision. An inter-ministerial investment commission approves the start of Scorpion’s research and development phase.

Readings and Sources

• French MINDEF – Official Scorpion presentation [PDF, in French]
• DGA – Scorpion [in French]
• Nexter – 40mm Cased Telescoped Armament System (CTAS): Cannon (CT C).
• France’s DGA – Le canon de 40 mm à munitions télescopées CTCA (Cased Telescoped Canon and Ammunition).

(click to view full)

The US may have left Iraq in 2012, but that country is a long way from being able to police its own airspace. The country’s air defenses involve just 2 airspace surveillance radars and 3 air-traffic-control radars, plus some Saddam-era anti-aircraft guns. In addition shoddy maintenance jeopardizes a small air fleet, though Iraq’s only armed aircraft are Cessna AC-208Bs.

Their first serious defensive systems will be short-range Pantsir S1 systems from Russia, but now an official export request outlines the backbone of Iraq’s future air defense architecture. If it’s installed, it would give them “a baseline tactical radar and threat intercept capability” with missiles, and eventually with their F-16IQ fighters.

Contracts & Key Events

June 22/16: The US State Department has cleared potential foreign military sale (FMS) for AC-208 sustainment, logistics, and spares support to the government of Iraq. Contained in the $181 million deal is a five-year sustainment package for its AC/RC-208 fleet that includes: operational, intermediate, and depot-level maintenance; spare parts; component repair; publication updates; maintenance training; and logistics. This will allow the Iraqi Air Force (IqAF) to continue to operate its fleet of eight C-208 light attack and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft beyond the June 2016 end of its existing CLS contract.

Aug 5/13: The US DSCA announces [PDF] Iraq’s official request to import an Integrated Air Defense System. Requested items include:

• 40 Avenger Fire Units. Avenger is a short-range gun/missile system, mounted on HMMWVs. It’s in the same competitive class as the Pantsir S1s, but its Stinger missiles use their own targeting, instead of command guidance.
  
• 681 FIM-92H Block I Stinger Reprogrammable Micro-Processor (RMP) missiles.
• 3 HAWK XXI Batteries (6 Fire Units). Hawk missile systems are the PATRIOT’s predecessors, but they have been heavily updated over the years and have even demonstrated limited ballistic missile defense capabilities (MIM-23J/K). Engagement range is around 35 miles. The system is used by Iraq’s neighbors in Iran (from the Shah’s era), Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE. Hawk XXI systems would be on par with Turkey’s, and Iraq’s request includes 216 MIM-23P Hawk Tactical Missiles, 6 Battery Fire Direction Centers, 6 High Powered Illuminator Radars, 2 Mobile Battalion Operation Centers (BOC), 3 HAWK XXI BOC Air Defense Consoles (ADCs), 1DS/GS Shop 20, 1 DS/GS Shop 21, 1 Mini-Certified Round Assembly Facility (MCRAF).
• 13 AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel medium-range radars. Mobile. Can be used as part of Kongsberg of Norway’s NASAMS system, which is fully interoperable with Hawk XXI.
• 7 AN/YSQ-184D Forward Area Air Defense Command, Control, and Intelligence (FAAD C2I) Systems
  
• 75 AN/VRC-92E SINCGARS Radios
  
• Ground Air Transmit Receive Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency radio capability
• Facilities and construction for 1 underground Air Defense Operations Center and 2 Air Defense Sector Operations Centers
• Plus spare and repair parts, repair and return, software support, systems integration, long haul communication technical integration, communications equipment, support equipment and sustainment, tools and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other US Government and contractor support services.

The DSCA also acknowledges that the Integrated Air Defense Systems includes Lockheed Martin’s TPS-77 Long-Range Radars (the radars already ordered and in place), 10 Medium Range Radars, and the Omnyx-I0 Air Command and Control System.

The estimated cost is $2.403 billion. If contracts are negotiated, the principal contractors involved in this program would be:

• Lockheed Martin Corporation in San Diego, CA (TPS-77)
  
• Thales Raytheon Systems in Fullerton, CA (Sentinel)
  
• Boeing Company and American General (Avenger)
  
• Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA
  
• Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, Andover, MA (Stinger, Hawk)
  
• Northrop Grumman in Rolling Meadows, IL
  
• Kratos Defense and Aerospace in Huntsville, AL

Additional Readings

• DID – Iraq: Weapons – and Challenges – In the Pipeline
• DID – Baby Come Back: Iraq is Buying Russian Weapons Again. Including Pantsir S1 mobile short-range air defense systems.
• DID – Iraq Orders a Long-Range Radar. Now confirmed to be the mobile AN/TPS-77.
• DID – The New Iraqi Air Force: F-16IQ Block 52 Fighters. They’ll also be part of Iraq’s future IADS.
• Boeing – Avenger.
• Lockheed Martin – Long-Range Ground-Based Air Surveillance. Which includes the TPS-77 transportable radar, with a range of up to 250 nautical miles.
• Raytheon – Stinger.
• Raytheon – Hawk XXI.
• ThalesRaytheonSystems – AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel. Radar range is 90 – 120 miles.
• Kongsberg Gruppen – Ground Based Air Defence Systems. They’re involved in HAWK XXI and NASAMS.

EQ-36 concept
(click to view full)

Firefinder radars track the path of incoming shells, rockets, mortars, etc., and calculate the point they were fired from. Raytheon’s TPQ-36 radar is specifically designed to counter medium range enemy weapon systems out to a range of 24 kilometers, while the TPQ-37 can locate longer-range systems, and even surface launched missiles, out to 50 kilometers. Michael Yon, embedded with 1-24 (“Deuce Four”) in Mosul, offered a first hand description of counter-battery radars’ effect on enemy tactics in 2005.

Better radar technologies offer a number of potential advantages for this role, including wider fields of view and less maintenance. Not to mention fewer disruptive, time-sucking false positives for deployed troops. In September 2006, Lockheed Martin began a contract to deliver their “Enhanced AN/TPQ-36” (EQ-36) radars. Despite the close official name and designation, this was a wholly new radar system, from a different company. Orders have begun to accumulate, along with deployments – and, finally, a less confusing designation change to AN/TPQ-53.

The TPQ-53 Counterfire Radar System

TPQ-53 components
(click to view full)

The TPQ-53 includes a number of operational improvements, including 360 degree coverage capability instead of the TPQ-36’s current 90 degrees, and dramatic reductions in false alarm rates. A successful program would replace many of the TPQ-36 radars currently in service.

In 2002, the US Army began a research project called the Multi-Mission Radar Advance Technology Objective. The goal was similar to the US Marine Corps’ G/ATOR: a single mobile radar system able to perform Air Defense Surveillance, Air Defense Fire Control, Counter Target Acquisition (artillery tracing) and Air Traffic Service missions. Unlike the Marines, the Army didn’t proceed from there toward a full development project. Instead, they incorporated some of the technologies and learning from MMRATO into a competition that would begin by fielding radars to solve the CTA problem.

Both the truck-mounted AN/TPQ-53, and the smaller Humvee-mounted TPQ-50 LCMR (Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar) trace back to that effort, and the TPQ-53 also grew out of lessons learned from the previous generation TPQ-36/37 Firefinder radar series. The base radar technology is more advanced, and software and hardware were modernized. Mechanically, the radar got more robust gears, a rotating platform, an automated leveling system for faster and more reliable emplacement, and an improved air cooled system to improve reliability and keep costs down. The Army expects these changes to save millions of dollars over the radars’ lifetimes.

An AN/TPQ-53 radar system is actually made up of 2 vehicles. One FMTV truck is the Mission Essential Group, containing the radar antenna and the power generator. The second FMTV truck carries the Sustainment Group, with a climate controlled operations shelter and backup power generator.

The TPQ-53 is IFPC (Indirect Fire Protection Capability) compatible in countering rocket, artillery, and mortar attacks, and the Army is thinking of adding software upgrades to allow it to track larger targets, and perform air defense surveillance against UAVs, helicopters, and enemy aircraft.

The system’s operations center allows the radar to link back to Army command systems like AFATDS and FAADC2. Linkages to ground-based Counter Rocket Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM) command systems, which can also connect to fire control radars and defensive weapons like the Phalanx Centurion, provide a complete defensive solution for protected bases. If the radar’s functions expand to include broader air defense, those command system linkages will become even more important.

Automation and built-in test sensors means that only 4 soldiers can operate the system, with an emplacement time of 5 minutes and a displacement time of just 2 minutes. This compares to 3 HMMWVs and 6 people for the previous TPQ-36v8 system; or 2 FMTV trucks, 2 HMMWVs, and 13 people for the TPQ-37v8.

A built-in encrypted wireless radio can reach up to 1 km away, allowing operators to disperse and make themselves more difficult targets. Soldiers can use a pair of ruggedized Linux laptop computers to handle operations from anywhere in range, or work from the climate-controlled shelter vehicle.

EQ-36/ TPQ-53: Program and Industrial Team

Old: TPQ-36 Firefinder
(click to view full)

The initial Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) contract for 5 radars was issued in January 2007. In spring 2007, the prototype completed successful counterfire target acquisition testing in both 90- and 360-degree modes at the U.S. Army’s Yuma Proving Grounds in Yuma, AZ. In summer 2007, the system completed successful air surveillance testing at White Sands Missile Range in White Sands, NM. A prototype was unveiled in October 2007, and the 1st system was delivered to the Army in summer 2009. By late 2010, the first EQ-36 systems were deployed in Iraq & Afghanistan.

An August 2011 option raised the EQ-36’s QRC order total to 36 systems (4 + 12 + 17 + 3), though some official documents place the number at 38. Another 65 AN/TPY-53 radars were ordered later, following the Milestone C update decision that launched low-rate initial production.

Over the longer term, the potential exists for $1.6+ billion in orders, covering all QRC units + 136 radars in the program of record. The Full Rate Production decision is scheduled for Q4 FY 2014.

Industrial team members for the EQ-36 program include Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors (MS2):

• Lockheed Martin MS2 in Syracuse, NY (Program lead, antenna array, digital module assemblies);
  
• Lockheed Martin MS2 in Moorestown, NJ, facility (transmit/receive modules);
  
• Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training and Support, in Orlando, FL (TPQ-53 training system and curriculum);
  
• Burtek, Inc. in Chesterfield, MI (operations shelter and stationary platform);
  
• Syracuse Research Corp. in Syracuse, NY (digital signal processor);
  
• Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, PA (maintenance support).

Contracts and Key Events

The radar is an American product, with the USA as its founding and largest customer. As such, timelines and divisions use American fiscal years, which end on September 30th.

TPQ-53 system
(click to view full)

June 29/16: Lockheed Martin’s AN/TPQ-53 counter-battery radar has proven that it can be used to detect unmanned aerial vehicles alongside its usual task of detecting incoming artillery and rocket fire. The company announced the success following testing carried out by the US Army as part of its Maneuver and Fires Integration Experiment (MFIX) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Conducted annually, the MFIX exercise brings together military, industry and academia to assess solutions to future warfighting needs in a live environment.

February 9/16: Testing of the Q-53 Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar System in June 2015 has shown the radar is having difficulty detecting volley-fired mortars. While the second initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) found the system effective against single-fired rockets, artillery, and mortar munitions, it was unable to handle the detection of more than one munition fired at the same time, according to Michael Gilmore’s annual Operational Test & Evaluation report. The radar also struggled to identify the difference between a mortar, a rocket, and artillery. The Army, however, has stated that the radars have been working well in operational environments, and plans are to increase performance in high clutter environments with development and integration of software upgrades in 2019, with more testing planned for 240 mm and 122 mm munitions not assessed in previous tests.

April 7/14: Support. Lockheed Martin in Liverpool, NY receives a $9.1 million contract modification for interim contractor ssupport of the AN/TPQ-53 radar fleet.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 Army budgets. Work will continue until Sept 30/14, and will be performed in Liverpool, NY. US Army Contracting Command in Aberdeen, MD manages the comntract (W15P7T-06-C-T004 P00092).

March 28/14: +14. Lockheed Martin in Liverpool, NY receives a $145.9 million contract modification for another 13 AN/TPQ-53 radar systems, along with 13 corresponding sets of on-board spares. This is the 4th installment under the March 13/12 multi-year contract, and brings orders to $751 million: 65 systems over 4 phases.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY14 US Army budgets. Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/16. US Army Contracting Command in Aberdeen, MD manages the contract (W15P7T-12-C-C015, PO 0022).

AUSA 2011
(click to view video)

June 27/13: +19. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Liverpool, NY receives a $206.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to procure AN/TPQ-53 Radar Systems and corresponding spare parts, using a combination of FY 2012 and 2012 funds. Lockheed Martin sets the number at 19 radar systems, and this order brings the cumulative total face value of this contract is $605.1 million over the low-rate initial production contract, with 52 systems ordered over 3 phases.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY. US Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD manages this contract (W15P7T-12-C-C015, PO 0010). Sources: Pentagon, Lockheed Martin Aug 26/13 release.

March 12/13: Support. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Liverpool, NY receives a $12 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, to provide interim contractor support for the AN/TPQ-53 radar system.

Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY until the end of FY 2013 on Sept 30/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W15P7T-06-C-T004).

Dec 19/12 – Jan 17/13: future competition for FRP? PM Radars issues a Sources Sought request to determine whether reintroducing competition for Full Rate Production (FRP) may be possible in FY 2014. In other words, this is not an RFP to displace incumbent Lockheed Martin just yet, but it’s the homework that might create the option to do so.

The Army anticipates an FRP contract in Q4 FY 2014, as a single award, firm fixed price (FFP) contract comprised of a base year, with multiple separately priced options and range quantities. Spares, new equipment training, and technical manuals will also be acquired on a FFP basis. This would lead to the acquisition of about 70 systems over 4 years. Key factors in the source selection process include a Live Ammunition System Demonstration (LASD) planned for the first half of FY 2014. Data witnessed by the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) will not be an adequate substitute to participating in the live demo.

The submission date for this information request, originally set to Jan 14, 2013, is later postponed to Feb. 12. The FRP RFP itself is planned for release in Q4 FY 2013, with an award in Q3 FY 2014. FBO: W15P7T-13-R-C113.

Jan 2013: DOTE report. In its FY2012 report, the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation notes reliability improvements, with less frequent system aborts than the 2011 system demonstration’s 1 per 30 hours. Some of these original issues were attributed to user documentation and training, which slated for further improvement.

Even so, the results show a fallback from vast improvements after initial configuration changes, to a final configuration figure of 1 abort every 75 hours during limited testing. Initial Operational Test & Evaluation is scheduled for fall 2013, and the radars will need a big jump to hit required reliability levels of 1 abort every 257 hours.

A Limited User Test (LUT) took place in the fall of 2012, but that’s in FY 2013, and so it isn’t covered in the 2012 annual report.

Oct 17/12: Add other functions? The US Army announces that it has begun fielding the AN/TPQ-53, and the Humvee-mounted AN/TPQ-50 Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar, to protect forward-deployed forces. They also discuss a number of the AN/TPQ-53 system’s features, and reveal that the Army is considering software upgrades that would add general air surveillance radar capabilities against helicopters, UAVs, cruise missiles, and aircraft. Note that the radar’s antenna is heavily derived from the 2002 MMR ATO radar project, which already contemplated air volume search as a mission.

One indication that the Army is serious is that they’re moving the program from PEO IEWS Product Manager Radars, to PEO Missiles and Space. That will organize air defense radars under the same organizational umbrella as the counter-fire radars. US Army.

April 20/12: +21. Lockheed Martin issues a release citing $391 million in US Army contracts for 33 TPQ-53 systems.

Asked for clarification, the firm explains that the US Army has exercised its 2nd option under the contract since the March 13/12 announcement, adding another $225 million for another 21 systems (W15P7T-12-C-C015).

April 2/12: Lockheed Martin MS2 Radar Systems in Liverpool, NY receives a $23.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, for services “in support of the EQ-36 radar” through April 30/13.

Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY. The original bid was solicited through the Internet, with 3 bids received by U.S. Army Contracting Command in Fort Monmouth, NJ (W15P7T-06-C-T004).

Jan 17/12: Test reports. The Pentagon releases the FY 2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The “Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 (EQ-36) Radar System” is included. The Army conducted 3 Live Ammunition System Demonstration (LASD) radar test events at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, in October 2010, January 2011, and June 2011. Unfortunately, the DOT&E office reports that the systems had problems with reliability and accuracy:

“Based on radar testing at Yuma Proving Ground and Army reporting from theater to date, radar reliability remains poor and is well below system requirements… one system abort every 30 hours [instead of 1 per] 185 hours… provided accurate locations of most rocket, artillery, and mortars systems… [but] has difficulty detecting certain types of rockets and artillery rounds. Using updated software, the QRC AN/TPQ-53 radar demonstrated improvements in reducing the rate of misclassifying aircraft as threat projectiles in the 90-degree and 360-degree modes… June 2011 testing, the QRC AN/TPQ-53 radar decreased the rate of [false positives, but]… misclassifying and false location reporting rates remain below the Program of Record requirement of one false report in 12 hours.”

TPQ-53 on truck
(click to view full)

September 2011: TPQ-53. The EQ-36 gets a formal designation change, to the less-confusing QRC(Quick Reaction Capability) AN/TPQ-53. The Army will select the Program of Record EQ-36 radar contractor some time in FY 2012, to produce up to 136 systems. Source: 2011 DOT&E report.

Designation change

Aug 15/11: Army Contracting Command (ACC) APG-C4ISR, in Aberdeen, MD announces that it intends to buy more EQ-36 radar systems, to begin Program of Record purchases instead of the Quick Reaction Capability buys to date.

The solicitation for Full Rate Production (FRP) was first posted on Feb 16/11 at an estimated value of $940 million. The response date has been postponed by 30 days to Sept 14/11, under “Best Value” consideration and Firm Fixed Price (FFP) pricing. A June 30/11 revision addressed inconsistencies on desired quantities that had built up since the presolicitation. The planned production schedule for this 5-year contract is currently set to 12 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) units in FY 2013, 23 LRIP units in FY 2015, and 32 Full-Rate Production (FRP) units in FY 2016, for a total of 67 systems (W15P7T-11-R-T201). FBO.gov, ASFI.

June 21/10: Sub-contractors. Donaldson Company announces that the EQ-36 will use its patented StrataTube filtration technology to air-cool its electronics, without introducing dust and other contaminants. Current schedules have the final units for that initial 17-system June 2007 contract delivered by fall 2010.

Donaldson StrataTubes use inertial force to spin dust and other contaminants out of the air stream, but have no moving parts to wear out or break, and are maintenance-free. Custom designed EQ-36 Strata panels are included in the radar’s antenna and pedestal systems, and it joins other StrataTube using military devices like the M1 Abrams tank and H-60 family of helicopters.

April 29/09: Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Liverpool, NY receives a $20.7 million firm-fixed-price contract that buys spares for the 12 initial production Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 Radar Systems.

Work is to be performed in Liverpool, NY, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/10. One sole source was bid solicited from the radar’s manufacturer and one bid was received by the CECOM Acquisition Center in Fort Monmouth, NJ (W15P7T-06-C-T004).

EQ-36 at Yuma
(click to view full)

July 29/08: +12. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Support in Syracuse, NY receives an $84.3 million firm-fixed-price contract to accelerate the production and delivery of the 12 Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder Initial Production Radar Systems (EQ-36), which were listed as options within the initial development contract. Those options were reportedly exercised in June 2008.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY, and is expected to be complete by Oct 25/10. There was one bid solicited on March 23/08, and 1 bid was received by the CECOM Acquisition Center in Fort Monmouth, NJ activity (W15-P7T-06-C-T004)

Nov-Dec 2007: Testing. A prototype EQ-36 radar built by industry partner SRC is tested against mortars and rockets at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. During the tests, the EQ-36 prototype successfully located the firing positions of both rocket and mortar launchers. Lockheed Martin says that live fire testing was conducted over a 7 day period without a single false alarm.

2002: MMR ATO. Contract to Syracuse Research Corp. (SRC) for a “Multi-Mission Radar, Advanced Technology Objective”. The radar is designed to perform C-RAM/ Firefinder, Air volume search, Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD), and Air Traffic Control functions.

For this demonstration project, Lockheed Martin is a sub-contractor. The radar turns out to be a TPQ-53 precursor. Later, the roles flip to make SRC a Lockheed sub-contractor, with responsibility for the radar’s core Digital Signal Processor.

Additional Readings

• Lockheed Martin – TPQ-53 Radar System. Formerly called the EQ-36, or Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar. Still referred to that way in some contracts.

Competitors and predecessors include…

• Raytheon – AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder Weapon Locating System. See also ThalesRaytheon page.
• Global Security – AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder Radar
• Raytheon – AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder Weapon Locating System. See also ThalesRaytheon pages for the TPQ-37.
• Global Security – AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder Artillery Locating Radar
• DID – US Marines to Get G/ATOR AESA Ground Radars. G/ATOR’s scope matches MMRATO’s, but its evolution is a reverse image of the TPQ-53’s. It begins with air defense, and will add counterfire in Increment II. By Increment IV, it will have all of MMRATO’s envisioned capabilities, including Air Traffic Control.
• DoD Inspector General, via WayBack (Oct. 2001) – Firefinder audit report [PDF]. Older Firefinder radars were known as AN/TPQ-36, AN/TPQ-37 and AN/TPQ-47.r Artillery Locating Radar
• DID – US Marines to Get G/ATOR AESA Ground Radars. G/ATOR’s scope matches MMRATO’s, but its evolution is a reverse image of the TPQ-53’s. It begins with air defense, and will add counterfire in Increment II. By Increment IV, it will have all of MMRATO’s envisioned capabilities, including Air Traffic Control.
• DoD Inspector General, via WayBack (Oct. 2001) – Firefinder audit report [PDF]. Older Firefinder radars were known as AN/TPQ-36, AN/TPQ-37 and AN/TPQ-47.

A Viking comes ashore

The BvS10 is the successor to the wildly popular Bv206, 11,000 of which have been sold to 40 countries around the world – including the USA (M978). Readers may have seen these vehicles elsewhere, too, as a number of Bv206s have post-military careers at ski resorts, in industries like mining and logging, etc. The new BvS-10 is larger and more heavily armored; it’s in use in Britain, France and the Netherlands as a key armored vehicle for their respective Marines, has been bought by Sweden, and is under evaluation elsewhere. International interest includes imitators: Singapore’s Bronco ATTC is a BVS10 competitor, and Finland and Norway have their own local Bv206 variants.

What makes this unusual-looking vehicle family and design so popular? They aren’t like Humvees or similar wheeled mainstays. They aren’t full armored personnel carriers, either – they’re armored, but Bv family vehicles can’t take the kind of punishment that a Bradley or LAV can absorb. Instead, the secret to their success lies in a remarkable all-terrain capability, and their ability to fill a rare and critical role: air-portable and amphibious infantry enhancement. These success factors are discussed below, along with contracts and key developments related to this vehicle family.

The Bv Family of Vehicles

Bv206S vs. Bv206

Hagglunds Bv family vehicles are really two separate chassis working together. Hydraulic cylinders that push or pull one chassis segment relative to the other do all the steering. The central articulation point also allows the two segments to twist and turn in different planes, accommodating the most difficult terrain from high slopes to winding forest trails. Meanwhile, wide band tracks ensure good traction, with a low “footprint” pressure that lets these vehicles move across all terrains, and can even avoid tripping anti-tank mines. Amphibious conversion is quick.

The Bv206S is a slightly larger (10-tonne/ 11 ton full combat weight), armored version of the Bv206 that retains helicopter air-portability inside a CH-47 Chinook, or can have its 2 sections airlifted separately by a pair of medium utility helicopters like Britain’s EH101 Merlins.

BvS10 Mk.II & ARTHUR
(click to view full)

BAE Haaglunds’ new BvS10 differs from its Bv206 predecessors by adding a bit more weight at 7.6t/ 16,300 pounds empty, with a maximum designed weight of 10.6t/ 23,350 pounds. Fortunately, a more powerful Cummins 5.9 litre diesel engine gives it 80 kph/50 mph performance on class A roads, and a 300 km/ 180 miles range. The improved ground clearance and newly developed chassis, power train and steering units give the vehicle considerably enhanced speed and comfort, as well as greater load carrying capability (up to 5 tons for some variants), and the ability to add various modular sub-systems such as add-on armor, weapon-mounts, a load-changer, and cargo platforms. The Viking can operate in temperatures from -46C/-51F to 49C/120F, can ford through water up to a depth of 1.5 m/ 5 feet without preparation, and is fully amphibious with 5kph/ 3mph water speed on a full load, after less than 2 minutes’ preparation by the crew. BAE data places the existing Viking’s reliability in theater at 88%.

BvS10s have been performing well, but various up-armoring additions mean that they have also been working beyond their maximum designed weight for months. Hence BAE Hagglunds’ BvS10 Mark II, whose maximum designed weight is 14.2t/ 31,300 pounds, with a payload of 6t/ 13,250 pounds. It incorporates a larger and more powerful engine, a bigger alternator which gives more electrical power, an improved steering unit, uprated suspension and brakes, a shallow v-hull for extra mine protection, and the ability to carry more armor. Despite the extra armor, the Mk II fulfills all the original Viking requirements, such as the ability to swim. Variants include:

• BvS10 MkII APC. Carry 3 crew, and up to 6 fully-equipped soldiers.
  
• BvS10 Ambulance. Just 2 crew, and space for 2 stretchers & 2 paramedics.
  
• BvS10 C2. Carry a command & control system and up to 4 staff.
  
• BvS10 Logistics. Have a flatbed in place of the standard back cab. Slide-on modules for the flatbed include a 10-foot container, the ARTHUR artillery locating radar, or a communications module.
  
• BvS10 Repair & Recovery (RRC). Crew + 4 technical specialists. The rear cab is fitted with a full mobile workshop, as well as a HIAB crane and capstan for recovery work.
  
• BvS10 UAS. Used as an equipment transporter for the UK’s new Mk450 Watchkeeper UAV system.

Imitation, the Sincerest form of Flattery

Singapore’s Bronco ATTC
(click to view larger)

A larger vehicle is currently in service with Singapore as ST Kinetics’ Bronco ATTC (All-Terrain Tracked Carrier), and as the Warthog in Britain. Gross Vehicle Weight is 18t/ 40,000 pounds, including a 6.8t/ 15,00 pound total payload, or space for up to 16 troops. Its Caterpillar C7 engine delivers up to 350 bhp, driving it up to 65 km/h on smooth surfaces, or allowing it to handle 60% gradients and 30% side slopes in all conditions and terrains. Singapore is a Bv206 customer, and when the ATTC was introduced, Haaglunds launched a lawsuit claiming that ST Kinetics had copied their design. That lawsuit was later dropped, leaving ST Kinetics with a similar but heavier competitor.

The Bronco is fully amphibious, and its versatility has made it very useful in post-tsunami relief efforts. An up-armored, non-amphibious “Warthog” variant was picked by the British Army to replace borrowed Royal Marines’ BvS10s in Afghanistan, with the BvS10s returning to the Royal Marines for future use.

Bv-206S, side view
(click to view full)

The smaller Bv206 has also received its share of international flattery. Finnish firm Patria Vehicles’ NA-140 and its variants are very similar, and more than 300 have been manufactured since 1985 to equip the armies of China, Turkey and Finland.

After 20 years of using the Bv206, Norway is also introducing up to 1,000 units of the Natech (Narvik Technology AS) P6 in P6-300M and other variants, as part of Project 5085; it is reported to be very similar to the Bv-206S.

Bv Family: Why So Popular?

Bv-206S ambulance
(click to view full)

The BvS vehicle family’s popularity boils down to:

Key Virtue #1: Outstanding air transportability. These vehicles can be carried in many tactical and even light air transports, carried inside a CH-47 Chinook, or slung underneath other medium-heavy helicopters. The Bronco ATTC is an exception, but all of these vehicles can also be broken into their 2 component sections to be loaded into or slung beneath many helicopter types due to their low height, width, and weight.

Key Virtue #2: True all-terrain capability. These vehicles are designed to operate in conditions ranging from the heat and humidity of the jungle to dry desert and the frozen Arctic, and have done so. Their low weight and extra-wide tracked distribution make even snow and marshy ground passable, thanks to very low ground pressure. That same low ground pressure offers more safety against anti-tank mines, who may not receive enough pressure to detonate. They can quickly be made fully amphibious, and this combination of mobility advantages has made them popular with a number of countries’ Marine Corps.

Per Thrana: Bv206
mortar carrier, Norway
(click to view full)

Key Virtue #3: Specialized variants. This family of vehicles offers a wide array of variants, including models with cranes for load handling and recovery, ammunition resupply vehicles, ambulance functions, deployable command posts, mortar carrier versions, and artillery hunting radar (the Bv206 ARTHUR). In addition, several countries are developing their own indigenous variants.

The result: Infantry enhancement. This family of vehicles offers instant air-portable infantry mobility with small arms protection (Bv206S and later); additional carrying capacity over all terrains to reduce soldiers’ burdens; and firepower overmatch via its weapon mount (medium-heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, anti-armor missiles, mortars, etc.), via extra weapons inside (ammunition, anti-armor missiles, etc.), , and via its towing capabilities (mortars, howitzers etc.). They are not designed for major combat, and are not a substitute for full-size armored personnel carriers (APCs). What they can do is bring a combination of APC and Jeep benefits in a more mobile, all-terrain, platform – one capable of 3rd-dimension envelopment, and rapid ground response into the most difficult terrain.

Contracts and Key Events

At present, the BvS-10 is in operation with the British Royal Marines, has been delivered to the Dutch Royal Marines and begun deliveries to France and Sweden, and is reportedly under trial and evaluation in Finland (who already operates Bv206 variants). All BvS10 customers share operational information, and co-operate on support through a multi-national user group that BAE Systems co-ordinates.

BvS10 Mk.II
(click to view full)

July 7/16: Austria is to join France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK in operating BAE System’s BvS10 Beowulf military vehicle after signing contracts with the Swedish government for the delivery of 32 vehicles. While the value of the contract is unknown, deliveries are expected to begin in the second half of 2017 and conclude in 2019. Designed to operate in rugged terrain to deliver personnel or cargo in combat and disaster relief situations, the BvS10 will play a role in Austria’s European Union Mountain Training Warfare Initiative where it will host schools, training and support to enhance military effectiveness in mountain terrain.

May 27/14: Canada. Rheinmetall Canada displays a BvS-10 at its CANSEC booth, in the wake of a teaming agreement that has them cooperating with BAE on a future bid for Canada’s Marginal Terrain Vehicles (MTV) program. the Canadians already possess Bv-206 vehicles, and have used them in Afghanistan (q.v. Appendix A). Sources: BAE Systems, “BAE Systems and Rheinmetall Team to Offer Go-Anywhere Vehicles to Canada”.

French VHM/ BvS10
(click to view full)

Dec 19/13: Sweden. The Swedish FMV procurement agency exercises part of their Jan 5/12 contract option, via a SEK 800 million ($120 million) contract for 102 more BvS10 Mk.IIBs, raising their order total to 150. That leaves them with 25 more options.

The 102 vehicles will be delivered in the same 4 variants: troop carrier, ambulance, C2 command vehicle, and “logistics” (cargo carrier). They will continue manufacturing in BAE Systems Hagglunds’ refurbished production facility in Ornskoldsvik, Sweden, with deliveries beginning in 2014 and ending in 2015. Sources: BAE, “Sweden Buys 102 More BvS10 All-Terrain Vehicles From BAE Systems” | Swedish FMV, “FMV bestaller ytterligare 102 bandvagnar av Hagglunds”.

Sweden: 102 more BvS10 Mk.IIB

June 2013: Refit report. Britain’s Battlespace magazine offers an update on the refits, even as BAE Systems discusses more comprehensive Viking support arrangements with the UK MoD. Phase 1 Refits, which handled existing Mk.IIs and the Mk.Is with upgraded hulls, were finished in May 2013.

Phase 2 deliveries have now started, and installation of the required improvements plus the latest v-hull bottom will continue until April 2014. The exceptions will be rear cars for Repair & Recovery variants, which are unmanned while in transit.

Phase 3 involves the Mortar and Crew Served weapon variants (TL: 27). They also receive the latest v-hull, except for the mortar version’s rear cars. The new variants will undergo testing this summer, and deliveries aren’t expected to begin until March 2014.

Phase 4 involves new blast protection kits, which began delivery in April 2013. All upgrades will be available to other BvS10 operators, if they request it. Battlespace

Nov 25/11: France. France’s DGA announces [in French] that it has formally accepted delivery of its 1st 14-tonne, v-hulled BvS10 Mk.2/ VHM under the 53 vehicle contract (vid. Dec 22/09 entry). This is not the same thing as the 1st delivery by the manufacturer (vid. March 29/10 entry). Before it could receive formal acceptance, the Véhicule a Haute Mobilité had to be qualified for operational service during 8 months of trials, which ended in September 2011.

Dutch BvS10
in Chad 2009
(click to view full)

May 21/10: Dutch. The Netherlands is looking to upgrade 127 of the Dutch Marines’ Bv-206Ds with a mid-life upgrade (MLU) package to extend their operational life to 2020, the same as the Marines’ new BvS10 Vikings. The MLU budget is estimated between EUR 25 – 50 million, and the main risk involves the vehicle frame. If the glassfiber reinforced plastic has become fragile due to sun exposure, full replacement will make the upgrade much more costly. Kamenbrief [in Dutch].

March 29/10: UK. BAE Systems delivers the last of 24 BvS10 Viking Mk.II mine-protected vehicles ordered by the British Royal Marines (see Sept 30/09 entry). The vehicles will be deployed to Afghanistan in the near future. BAE Systems’ release adds that deliveries on France’s December 2009 order for BvS10 MkIIs have begun.

Nov 19/09: UK. The British Army announces that the first ST Kinetics Warthog has been manufactured and shipped to the UK. It will be fitted with electronics and armaments , and must then be fully tested and certified as safe to use. Steps after that are its issue to troops for pre-deployment training, and then deployment.

Bronco ATTC
(click to view full)

Dec 18/08: Broncos for Britain. Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd’s similar but heavier Bronco beats BAE’s BvS10 Mk.2, as they win a GBP 150 million (about S$ 330 million/ $230 million) contract from the UK Ministry of Defence for 100 Bronco ATTCs. These 20-ton “Warthog” vehicles will be supplied to the British Army’s Royal Armoured Corps, for use in Afghanistan.

A total of 4 Warthog variants will be built under the contract – APC/Troop Carrier, Ambulance, Command, and Repair & Recovery. Vehicle deliveries will commence in Q3 2009, with the majority to be delivered in 2010. UK MoD Programme Manager Simon Cox had this to say:

“We appreciate the close, flexible and constructive working relationship with ST Kinetics. They are a great company to work with and the Bronco has exceeded our expectations in terms of quality, capability and performance. We are delighted with their product, attitude and the progress jointly made in a very short time indeed.”

The Army had been using BvS10s on loan from the Royal Marines. Those vehicles will remain in service, and will be rotated back to Britain and the Marines once they are replaced in theater. UK MoD | ST Kinetics | Defense News.

Britain’s Army: 100 ATTC Broncos

Awaiting extraction
(click to view full)

Dec 2/08: Defense News reports that the UK MoD has ordered 22 more Vikings this year, bringing the total number of BvS10s they’ve bought to almost 150 vehicles. It adds that a number of these have been destroyed in combat, and the UK MoD has said that they are in negotiations with BAE for a mine blast protection kit. Delivery is expected to be complete by mid-2009.

Over the longer term, however, a larger vehicle may be necessary. BvS10s have been performing well, but various up-armoring additions mean that they have also been working beyond their maximum designed weight for months. Candidates for the folow-on “Warthog” buy of up to 100 vehicles reportedly include the BvS10 Mk II, and Singapore’s Bronco ATTC.

Britain: 22 BvS10

Oct 29/08: UK Defence Secretary John Hutton announces a package worth GBP 700 million (then $1.56 billion equivalent, but only $1.05 billion by late November), which will pay for over 700 new armored vehicles for use in Afghanistan. They include over 100 brand-new “Warthog” cross-country vehicles, which will have greater protection levels. Contracts remain to be negotiated.

March 30/08: Dutch issues. In “Marine heeft nu al pech met Vikings“, De Telegraaf reports that Dutch Marines have been working for weeks install new drive shafts in their 74 BvS10 Viking vehicles (see June 1/05 entry), after problems were discovered during exercises in England and Norway. 10 Vikings required for operation in Chad have been repaired.

On April 24/08, the Dutch MvD answered questions regarding the vehicles [Dutch, PDF], stemming from the De Telegraaf article.

BvS10, UK trials
(click to view full)

August 2007: Sub-contractors. A second order of 26 MR555 weapon ring mounts with accompanying gunshield protection is shipped from Australia’s Plattmounts to the UK, for installation on BvS10 Viking vehicles. These mounts also equip British FV432 Mk 3 Bulldog tracked APCs, as well as many of the USA’s RG-31 Charger mine-resistant patrol vehicles.

Dutch Bv-206, Norway
by Torbjorn Kjosvold
(click to view full)

June 12/06: Sweden. BAE Systems Hagglunds AB announces a SKr 260 million ($35 million) rush order from the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for 52 additional Bv206S vehicles, with an option for more. The order amounts to 52 vehicles with an option to acquire additional vehicles, bringing the Swedish Armed Forces up to a total of 93 Bv206S. With this order, 479 of BAE Hagglunds’ Bv206S vehicles have now been sold to Sweden, Germany, Italy, France and Spain.

The goal driving the FMV is the coming activation of the EU’s Nordic Battle Groupas of January 1st 2008, and led by Sweden. The FMV release notes that “…Bv206S can be transported by air with several of the smaller airplanes and helicopter models, which makes it a very suitable vehicle alternative for rapid forces with high demands on tactical and strategical mobility and troop transport under protection.”

Sweden: 52 Bv206S

Nov-Dec 2006: Sub-contractors. The initial order of 43 MR555 weapon ring mounts with accompanying gunshield protection is shipped from Australia’s Plattmounts to the UK, for installation on BvS10 Viking vehicles.

Jan 26/06: Dutch. Just 8 months after the contract was signed, BAE Systems Hagglunds has delivered the first of 74 armored BvS-10 Viking armored all terrain vehicles to the Dutch Army. The purchasing process was accomplished in less than 3 months, and the lead-time between contract and serial delivery has been only 8 months. Brig. Gen. Paul Opgenort:

“We are very content with Hagglunds and the company’s ability to keep to the time agreed for the first delivery. A key to the success has been the unconventional but flexible way of working, regarding the processes of development, purchase and production.”

Appendix A: Bv Vehicles’ Performance in Afghanistan

Bv206, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Canadian Bv206s performed well with the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group during Afghanistan’s Operation Anaconda. Attached to the U.S. Army’s 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division as part of a joint force, they were airlifted inside US Army CH-47D Chinooks to an objective called “The Whaleback” as part of the subsidiary Operation Harpoon. Their experience, and the British experience in Afghanistan, are illustrative.

Senior Analyst Mordica’s “High Altitude Operations” report from the US Center for Army Lessons Learned (no longer publicly available) noted:

“DISCUSSION: The Canadian Army air assaulted small unit support vehicles (SUSV) into the mountains during offensive operations against the al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. The vehicles were used to move distances over the rough terrain at high altitudes, allowing the infantry to ride or transport their loads into battle. These vehicles allowed the infantry some small arms protection and helped them beat the fatigue associated with mountain operations. The SUSV is helicopter transportable and provides all-terrain mobility. The vehicle performed well in combat.”

StrategyPage has a more publicly accessible March 19, 2002 follow-up, with an interesting twist:

“Major Chuck Jarnot, 101st Airborne Division Liaison Officer in Afghanistan, noted that the greatest risk to vehicle movement in Afghanistan is not Taliban/Al-Quedas Rocket Propelled Grenades, but rather the millions of land mines laid throughout the country. The Canadian BV-206 AMV used in Anaconda mitigates this risk by virtue of the very light weight and tracked suspension that results in extremely light ground pressure.

This not only contributes to its excellent terrain agility, but makes anti-tank mine detonation a very small probability since the BV-206 ground pressure is far below the minimum necessary to set off a typical anti-tank mine.”

The larger BvS10 entered the Afghan theater of operations as a key vehicle for the British Royal Marines, complete with anti-RPG slat/’birdcage’ armor. The British Army borrowed some, then replaced them with their “Warthog” derivation of ST Kinetics’ larger Bronco ATTC. The Royal Marines also bought a larger vehicle for use in Afghanistan, but their follow-on buy was the BvS10 Mk.II. In 2013, they will be joined in theater by similar Swedish vehicles. Some experiences from 2006-2008 are illustrative of the platforms’ advantages and tactical employment:

RAF CH-47 w. BvS10,
Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Feb 13/08: Nothing subtle about this UK MoD article: “Marines back in the Vikings – “They are phenomenal”.” One expects that sort of tone from a Ministry of Defence. The key is how well they back that tone up with examples from the field, and whether offsetting problems have surfaced. To date, DID is not aware of performance below expectations in any respect. On to more thoughts from the front lines:

“…due to their popularity the demand for their use is high amongst all troops patrolling and conducting operations in Helmand. Consequently, the demand on the Marines trained to drive them is high too. To help alleviate the pressure… a third unit, from the Queen’s Royal Lancers A Squadron, has been trained and recently deployed to Helmand. They are the first Army unit to operate the Viking on their own.”

Growing demand across service boundaries is always a positive sign. Major Jez Stemp, the Officer Commanding the Royal Marines’ Armoured Support Company:

“Their greatest asset is their all terrain mobility. The Taliban tend to mine known routes, but the Vikings can manoeuvre around them and go off road.”

Royal Marine Tom Aylett, back in Afghanistan for the second time:

“We put the lads in the back of the wagon, drop them off to do operations and attacks with the Vikings. I drive it and man the gun on top… They provide us with a lot of protection and allow us to get closer to the enemy. It’s very reliable, can go up a hill and never gets bogged down like other vehicles.”

Royal Marine Lance Corporal Dean Walker concurs:

“The Viking opens up a lot more operations. We can move where, with and who we want.”

BvS10 Viking w.
MR555 gun shield
(click to view full)

Jan 28/08: The UK MoD’s “Keeping the Vikings on the move (VIDEO)” is focused on the soldiers who maintain its BvS10 vehicles, but it also offers some observations from tactical experience. Corporal Kev Walker of 1 Battalion Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers works with Vikings in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan:

“The Royal Welsh got contacted by an anti aircraft gun. My troop went in with the Vikings to create a screen, allowing them to get out. We put down heavy fire from the Viking’s General Purpose Machine Gun (It is also fitted with .50 calibre guns), and before we left, having taken no casualties, it looked like all the Taliban had left. If we didn’t have something like the Viking it wouldn’t have been such a happy ending. It was pretty heavy terrain too and I’m not sure any other vehicle could have got in there. We know the Taliban don’t like them…”

Staff Sergeant Chris Hanks of the Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers adds:

“They can cope with the terrain because they have track mobility, which is much better than wheeled vehicles and gets bogged down less. “

Sept 12/07: “Viking vehicles prove their worth in volatile Helmand” contains quotes from Maj. Jez Hermer of the Royal Marines’ Armoured Support Company at Bovington, Dorset:

“Since the beginning of the Afghan conflict everyone has woken up to the success of Viking. It is now very important to Operation HERRICK. It has opened up Helmand province and given commanders a broader range of options than they would have had available to them… I see it remaining in Afghanistan and I don’t see it coming back until the end of the commitment.”

“The forces’ inventory of armoured vehicles has come under serious examination in Afghanistan and Iraq. With excellent protection, an ability to operate in all weathers across all terrain, including to ‘swim’ in water, and to withstand a range of threats, Viking has performed well…”

The British Army, meanwhile, is using tracked Spartan vehicles to similar effect.

Jan 23/07: Some of the lads in theater seem to like the new Platt MR550 weapon mounts and gunshields. This was forwarded to us [name and profanities redacted]:

“been busy but got time to tell your mount is f

• brilliant, the lads love it. been out and about and without a doubt it has stopped some lads becoming casualties. its stable as hell and the lads are big fans of the extended ranges we reach when firing. had a few problems with little bits but got them sorted in no time at all… say a big thankyou to all your staff for getting them out here as they have been a life safer in some of the s** situation we have found ourselfs in. well mate got to go and get ready for anthor trip out.”

Other comments from Royal Marines about their new gunshield:

”Took hits with no worries!”… ”RPG hit the vehicle and we moved on”… ”On the Platt we were shooting out to 2300m on GPMG and tracer burned out… continual shooting on same target watching the splash”

BvS-10, Afghanistan –
note anti-RPG armor
(click to view full)

Jan 10-11/07: A pair of releases from the UK MoD covering operations in Afghanistan speak very highly of the BvS10 Vikings’ performance, noting their battle-ready helicopter transportability and their success in combat against small-arms fire, mortars, and even single-warhead RPGs thanks to their slat armor. The vehicles are already credited with saving a number of lives; one expects to hear this from official sources, but the level of enthusiasm from front-line soldiers without an investment in the vehicle program is a very positive sign.

Oct 31/06: The first ever operation involving the new BvS-10 Viking armored vehicle is successfully completed by Royal Marine Commandos in the rugged terrain of southern Afghanistan. Operation Zina saw 33 Vikings complete a 10-hour combat move into Helmand province from their base in Kandahar airfield, moving through notorious areas of Kandahar City and Gereshk. During the journey Royal Navy Harriers provided force protection and helped clear the route ahead of the convoy, which was also supported by armored fighting vehicles from Denmark and Estonia. Despite some heavy surveillance from suspected Taliban, the journey was completed without incident. See video [Windows Media, 1.87 MB].

The UK MoD release notes that “Being able to operate over deep sand and boulder fields, the Vikings have the mobility to operate anywhere in Helmand province and carry a section of Marines into battle… The Vikings are now patrolling throughout Helmand province and their ability to go anywhere at speed will be a tremendous asset to the Royal Marines.”

Additional Readings and Sources

Thanks to Benelux subscriber David Vandenberghe for his tips and translation assistance.

Background: Bv Family of Vehicles

• BAE Systems Press Kit – BvS10.
• Army Technology – Viking (BvS10) Amphibious Armoured All-Terrain Vehicle, United Kingdom .
• UK Army – Viking BVS10.
• BAE Press Kit – Bv206S. 2012 snapshot.
• Army Technology – Bv206S Armoured, Articulated All-Terrain Vehicle, Sweden.
• CASR DND 101 – Canadian Forces Tracked Utility Vehicle – the Hagglunds Bv206.
• Arctic Tracks – The Hagglunds Bv206: Most versatile vehicle on earth. It shouldn’t be surprising that the vehicles also have a number of civilian uses.
• BV206 ATV’s Vehicles. Another outfit, this one selling used British military vehicles in a number of civilian configurations.
• One35th.com – ARTHUR – Artillery Hunting Radar on BV206. Better than nothing, but Canada trialed ARTHUR in Afghanistan and found that the number of false positives were an issue.
• One35th.com – Related Bv206-2. Includes information re: other countries’ local variants.

Background: Similar and Related Vehicles

• One35th.com – DSTA/ ST Kinetics Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier.
• Army Technology – Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier, United Kingdom. The country should, of course, be “Singapore,” who has ordered over 600.
• UK Army – Warthog. The British variant of the Bronco is called “Warthog.”
• ST Engineering – Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier.
• Wikipedia – Sisu Nasu. Also sold to France, Mexico, Taiwan, and Turkey. Finland is replacing some them with used Norwegian Bv206-D6N vehicles, via an initial order of 123 with an option for 150 more.
• Finnish Army – NA-140 GT. Still in use.

News & Views

• UK Army Kit! Magazine (Winter 2007) – The Striking Viking. Cover article for that issue, but the magazine is only available internally within the Army now.
• UK Ministry of Defence (Oct 31/06) – Vikings complete first convoy mission in Afghanistan (incl. VIDEO).
• Defense Talk (Jan 26/06) – First BvS10 Armoured all Terrain Vehicle for Dutch Army
• BAE Systems (June 1/05) – Holland Orders 74 BvS10 All Terrain Vehicles From BAE Systems
• The Adventures of Chester (Jan 5/05) – Singapore Military Tsumani Relief.
• Defense Week (April 8/02) – Canadians Put An Unusual Vehicle to the Test. Re: Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan.
• StrategyPage: Armor – March 19, 2002. Operation Anaconda…
• Canadian Department of National Defense (March 13/02) – Deputy-Chief of Defence Staff Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison Provides a Briefing on Operations of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. includes details re: Operation Harpoon.