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

July 14/16: Production has commenced on Embraer A-29 Super Tucanos destined for Lebanon from the start of 2017. The US government agreed to a $173 million foreign military sales contract in November that will see Embraer’s US partner Sierra Nevada deliver six of the light-attack turboprops to the Lebanese air force by 2019. Once in service, the aircraft will support Lebanon’s fleet of intelligence and reconnaissance Cessna 208B Caravans.

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.

RQ-11B Raven
(click to view full)

The RQ-11 Raven is a 4.2-pound, backpackable, hand-launched UAV that provides day and night, real-time video imagery for “over the hill” and “around the corner” reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition.

Each Raven system typically consists of 3 aircraft, 2 ground control stations, system spares, and related services. The digital upgrades are still designated RQ-11Bs, but they enable a given area to include more Ravens, with improved capabilities. The secret? Using L-band spectrum more efficiently.

• Ravin’ bout Ravens: Current Models, and Proposed Upgrades
  
• Contracts and Key Events [updated]
  
• Additional Readings
  

Ravin’ bout Ravens

Raven in the field

The Raven has received positive reviews from Army units in the field. The basic RQ-11 “Raven B” has a wingspan of 4.5 feet, weighs 4.2 pounds when taken out of its backpack and assembled. The hand-launched UAV includes a color electro-optical camera, or an infrared camera for night operations. The UAV operates just 100-500 feet off the ground, which removes many airspace “deconfliction” and clearance issues. Traveling at 30-60 mph on its quiet electric motor and lithium-ion batteries, it can fly for about 60-90 minutes. Line-of-sight control range is about 6.2 miles.

The man-portable Raven system features 3 UAVs, a ground control unit, a remote video terminal, transit cases and support equipment.

With respect to the digital upgrade, Commenting about the digital upgrades in National Defense magazine, Col. Gregory Gonzalez, project manager of the Army’s unmanned aerial system (UAS) program, said:

“This allows us to have more capable and faster processing for better payloads. By using the frequency spectrum in [the L-band] more efficiently, we will be able to [fly] up to 16 Ravens in a specific geographical area, as opposed to just four.”

The digital upgrade also includes greater communication security through signal encryption. The analog Ravens have come under scrutiny because they send unencrypted video signals that could be intercepted by insurgents equipped with a laptop computer, reports the Associated Press.

The Raven system can be flown manually or autonomously through set way-points with options of either a daylight or infrared camera. Over 3,000 Ravens have already been deployed to US forces for use in light infantry Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) and dismounted warfare.

Full funding for the digital upgrade order was provided by a US Department of Defense supplemental funding bill. Deliveries of the Raven digital systems and kits began in October 2009.

Beyond the “digital Raven” project, Col. Gonzalez’s office is proposing adding 2 new sizes of UAV: 1 that would be smaller than the current 4.5 feet long, 4.2 pound RQ-11B, and 1 that would be larger. All 3 sizes would use the same controller and frequency, and would link into the Army’s “One System” remote video terminal. The proposal still needs to be approved by the Army leadership.

Contracts and Key Events

RQ-11: higher, faster…
(click to view full)

Unless otherwise indicated, AeroVironment in Simi Valley, CA is the contractor.

August 1/16: As part of the European Reassurance Initiative package, Ukraine has received 24 RQ-11B Raven UAV systems from the US. The hand-launched reconnaissance and surveillance tool are being given to help increase and modernize Ukrainian security efforts amid ongoing violence in the country’s eastern regions. More than $600 million has been made available by the US for training and equipment to help Kiev better defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Oct 5/11: A $6.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for new USAF Raven systems, and Initial Spares Packages. USAF Security Forces plan to employ Raven systems to enhance situational awareness and security at bases worldwide. This initial order will provide training systems for USAF personnel, as a precursor to broader deployment.

Work will be performed in Simi Valley, CA, with an estimated completion date of Feb 29/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by U.S. Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-11-C-0055). See also Aerovironment.

Sept 8/11: Aerovironment announces a $15.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract order to support US Army Raven systems over “the next several months.”

May 25/11: AeroVironment, Inc. in Monrovia, CA receives an $8.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for 67 Army Digital Data Link Raven Systems and 67 Army Raven Digital Data Link spares packages.

Work will be performed in Simi Valley, CA, with an estimated completion date of May 14/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received, by the U.S. Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-11-C-0055). The U.S. Army continues toward its total acquisition objective of 2,358 systems (7,074 UAVs), though that may rise. See also Aerovironment release.

April 20/11: The US Army currently equips each brigade with 15 RQ-11B Raven systems, but the 9 Afghan BCTs want to raise that to 35 each (105 UAVs). They’re also shipping larger Puma-AE UAV systems into theater, with 64 in and another 20 requested. So what’s the problem? Training.

Right now, the US FAA requires Federal Aviation Administration must issue a certificate of authorization, in order to fly UAVs in US air space. There are limits to that requirement, but it takes months to get that certification, and it’s hurting operator training. Commanders are complaining that some operators lack adequate pre-combat preparation, and must learn on the job.

In response, the US Army has instituted a buddy program, a tracking program for operators, and a ground-based technical solution. Under the buddy program, skilled mini-UAV operators will teach other soldiers. The web tracker will make sure that qualified operators don’t get lost in the shuffle when they move from one brigade to another. The technical solution involves a ground-based sense-and-avoid system that may help expedite FAA certification. NDIA’s National Defense Magazine.

April 12/11: A $14.8 million order for 248 US Army digital Raven UAV retrofit kits. Work is scheduled to be completed by December 2011, and will be performed at Simi Valley, CA, with an estimated completion date of Oct 9/12. One bid was solicited with one received. by the US Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-05-0338). See also Aervironment release.

Feb 4/11: Aviation Week reports that the US Army wants to beef up UAV availability down to the platoon level, in an environment where, as Army Operations Office aviation UAS director Lt. Col. James Cutting puts it, “there will never be enough multi-million-dollar systems to cover them.” Where now there are 17 RQ-11 Ravens in a brigade combat team (BCT), the Army plans to increase this to 49 “Small UAS family of systems”, initially made up of AeroVironment’s Puma AE at the high end, RQ-11B Raven as the core, and smaller Wasp III as the true “flying binoculars” micro UAV.

Down the road, this set is expected to be a competition, and the numbers involved make it an attractive target. According to Cutting, the Army will push the new UAVs directly down to engineer, armor and infantry units , rather than forming more aviation units and adding their overhead. Since the UAVs in question are so small, and fly at under 1,000 feet, they can be used without worrying about “deconfliction,” and don’t really require the same planning & support overhead as, for instance, a unit of RQ-7B Shadows, or MQ-1C Gray Eagles. Aviation Week | Aviation Week Ares.

Jan 27/11: A $7.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 919 U.S. Marine Corps Raven Module 2 upgrade sets. The upgrade kits allow digital RQ-11B Ravens to operate using a different frequency band than the stock configuration. Funding was appropriated in the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

Work will be performed in Simi Valley, CA, with an estimated completion date of April 30/11. Even though they’re for the Marines, 1 bid was solicited with 1 bid received by the U.S. Army AMCOM Contracting Center at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-05-C-0338). See also Aerovironment.

Dec 28/10: A $46.2 million order for 123 new digital Raven UAV systems and spares, as well as 186 digital retrofit kits for the USMC and 339 digital retrofit kits for the US Army. The order represents the remainder of funds appropriated for the Raven systems procured in the FY 2010 DoD appropriations. Work is expected to be completed within a year. AeroVironment release

May 10/10: An $11.2 million firm-fixed-price contract, exercising and finalizing a not-to-exceed FY 2010 option for up to 113 full rate production Raven systems, 113 Raven initial spare packages, and Raven engineering services. This effort procures 63 Raven systems; 63 Raven initial spare packages plus Raven engineering services, and logistics support for the family of systems proof of principle effort. The latter appears to be Col. Gonzalez’ “3 sizes” approach.

Work will be performed in Simi Valley, CA, with an estimated completion date of Jan 30/11. U.S. Army Contracting Command, CCAM-AR-A at Redstone Arsenal, AL is the contractor (W58RGZ-05-C-0338). See also Aerovironment release.

April 12/10: A $12.3 million order for 216 retrofit kits to upgrade existing analog Ravens to digital data link capabilities. Aerovironment release.

April 6/10: A $6.8 million firm-fixed-price contract exercises a priced option for 51 US Marine Corps RQ-11B systems with digital data links plus 51 initial spares packages and contractor logistics support.

Work is to be performed in Simi Valley, CA, with an estimated completion date of March 29/11. One bid was solicited with one bid received by U.S. Army Contracting Command/CCAM-AR-A at Redstone Arsenal, AlL (W58RGZ-05-C-0338).

Feb 23/10: AeroVironment in Monrovia, CA announces that it received firm fixed-price orders valued at $20.7 million for digital Raven UAVs and digital retrofit kits, and $17.1 million for Raven system spare parts, repairs and training services for the US Army and US Marine Corps. The Raven system and retrofit order represents a portion of the $121 million appropriated for RQ-11 Raven system procurement in the FY 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The items and services provided under these awards are scheduled to be delivered over the next 12 months.

Dec 21/09: AeroVironment in Monrovia, CA announces that it recieved a $23.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to supply digital RQ-11 Raven hand-held UAVs and digital kits to upgrade existing analog RQ-11s being used by the US Army and US Marine Corps. If all options are exercised, the potential value of the contract modification is $66.6 million.

Additional Readings

• Aerovironment – UAS: Raven
• USAF Fact Sheet – RQ-11B Raven
• Army Technology – RQ-11 Raven Unmanned Aircraft System, USA
• Designation Systems – AeroVironment RQ-11 Raven
• DID – Handling UAV-Generated Huge Data Volumes
• U.S. Department of Defense (Nov 9/10) – Armed with Science. Describes how Spartans (U.S Army 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team) employed the Raven system to reduce enemy attacks on U.S. forces.
• National Defense Magazine (November 2009) – Army to Expand Raven Family of Unmanned Aircraft
• DID (Feb 24/05) – Raven UAV Draws Raves from the Field

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)

August 2/16: BAE and Rheinmetall have both been shortlisted by the Australian government to participate in the second phase of their LAND 400 program. The vehicles offered, AMV35 (BAE) and the Boxer 8×8 (RM), will now be assessed on their mounted combat reconnaissance capabilities. Once selected, the winning company will provide replacements for the Australian light armored vehicle and M113 armored personnel carrier fleets.

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

Before: M109 & M992
(click to view full)

The USA’s 155mm M109 self-propelled howitzers (SPH) were first introduced in 1962, as a form of armored mobile artillery that could stand up to the massed fire tactics of Soviet heavy artillery and rockets. They and their companion M992 Armored Ammunition Resupply Vehicles (AARV) have been rebuilt and upgraded several times, most recently via the M109A6 Paladin upgrade.

In the meantime, the Army has re-learned a few home truths. Artillery arrives in seconds rather than minutes or hours, is never unavailable due to bad weather, and cheaply delivers a volume of explosive destruction that would otherwise require hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bombers and precision weapons. Most combat casualties in the gunpowder age have come from artillery fire, and the US Army will need its mobile fleet for some time to come. So, too, will the many countries that have bought the M109 and still use it, unless BAE wishes to cede that market to South Korea’s modern K9/K10 system, or new concept candidates like the KMW/GDLS DONAR. What to do? Enter the Paladin PIM program.

PIM Program: A New M109A7/ M992A3 Paladin

M109 Limitations & the M109A6 Paladin

M109A6 Paladin, fired
(click to view full)

While the M109 was technically mobile, in practice it was only semi-mobile. The need to string communications wire in order to physically connect the battery’s howitzers and their fire-control center fixed the vehicles in position. Surveyors were used to calculate the battery’s location as part of this process, and the entire emplacement and readying procedure could easily take 15-20 minutes. So, too, could the process of taking this setup down so the battery could move to another location. It didn’t take a genius to figure out that spending so much time outside of any protective armor was going to get a lot of people killed in any serious conflict involving tools like attack helicopters, massed artillery and rocket fire, and nifty toys like artillery-locating radars that backtrack the origin point of incoming shells.

The M109A6 Paladin addressed these issues via computerization and communications upgrades. Secure SINCGARS radios replaced the wires. Inertial navigation systems and sensors attached to the gun automatically tell the crew where they are, and where their shells are likely to land. Finally, automatic gun-laying translates the fire co-ordinates to a specific gun position. No aiming circles. No surveyed fire points. No wire lines. Just move into the assigned position area somewhere, calculate data, receive orders from the platoon operations center, use FBCB2 (aka “Blue Force Tracker”) to verify the location of “friendlies,” use the automatic PDFCS (Paladin Digital Fire Control System) to aim the gun and send the shell on its way. Once the fire mission is over, the vehicle can move off, receive another target, then quickly lay and fire again.

Improved armor added even more protection to the new system, and an upgraded engine and transmission made the M109A6 speedier. On-board prognostics and diagnostics were installed to improve the vehicles’ readiness and maintainability. Finally, ammunition stowage was made safer, and the load was increased from 36 rounds to 39 rounds of 155mm shells. Some of which can be M982 Excalibur GPS-guided shells.

The M992 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle (FAASV) vehicle is the M019’s companion. The M992A2 is also referred to as “Carrier Ammunition Tracked” by the US Army, which is an apt name because it holds up to 90 shells on 2 racks (up to 12,000 pounds total), plus an hydraulic conveyor belt to help with loading the M109. In practice, the duo’s crews often handle that task manually. The Paladin PIM program will enhance the FAASV/CAT to M992A3.

M109A7 PIM: The Weapon

M109, firing
(click to view full)

The Paladin Integrated Management partnership builds on the A6’s advances, but there are so many changes that it’s almost a new-build program.

The BAE/Army partnership will re-use the turret structure and the main 155/39 mm gun. As such, additional range and accuracy depends on using new projectiles like the rocket-boosted & GPS-guided M982 Excalibur, or ATK’s non-boosted PGK screw-in guidance system. Both are explicitly contemplated in the Paladin PIM’s loading systems. Maximum rate of fire also remains unchanged, because tube structure and temperature remain the limiting factor for sustained rates of fire.

The Paladin Digital Fire Control System is somewhere between old and new. The system has continued to receive upgrades, and is being produced by BAE and Northrop Grumman. GPS is currently provided via older PLGR systems, with data sent to the Dynamic Reference Unit – Hybrid (DRU-H inertial navigator), but the obsolescence of electronic components within this box means that DRU-H and possibly PLGR are on the future replacement list.

M109A7 PIM
(click to view full)

What will be new? Two big advances:

Chassis. Previous M109 upgrades hadn’t altered the M109’s 1950s configuration. The new chassis are being fabricated & assembled with components from the M2/M3 Bradley IFV (e.g. engine, transmission, final drives, etc.), in order to create more commonality across America’s Heavy Brigade Combat teams. BAE Systems expects a growth in overall weight of less than 5%, but the combined effects of the new chassis and more robust drive components give Paladin PIM the ability to operate at higher weights than its current GVW maximum of about 39 tons/ 35.4 tonnes. That will be tested, given the expected weight of the T2 add-on armor and separate underbelly armor add-on kits.

All-Electric. The M109A7 PIM also incorporates select technologies from the Future Combat Systems 155mm NLOS-C (Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon), including modern electric gun drive systems to replace the current 1960s-era hydraulically-operated elevation and azimuth drives. The removal of the hydraulic systems saves the crew a tremendous amount of maintenance, and they retain manual backups for gun laying just in case.

The shift to an electric turret included a major redesign of the vehicle’s power system, converting the 600 hp engine’s work into up to 70 kW of 600 volt/ 28 volt direct current for use by various on-board systems. The power system’s modularity means that if any one of the motors inside fails, it can be replaced in the field within less than 15 minutes, using the same single part type. In concrete terms, it means the howitzer crew can handle the problem themselves and continue the mission, instead of withdrawing for repairs.

Paladin PIM: The Program

Adam Zarfoss, BAE Systems’ director of artillery programs:

“Artillery is playing an important role in operations in Iraq, with the Paladin providing critical fire support with both standard and precision munitions… The M109A6-PIM is the next step in Paladin development to ensure this essential fire support system remains ready and sustainable for soldiers in the HBCT [Heavy Brigade Combat Teams] through its projected life beyond the year 2050.”

Even with the previous-generation Paladin’s computerization and fast, safe set-up and take-down, a noticeable capability gap existed between the M109A6 used in Iraq, and newer self-propelled guns. At the same time, America’s comparable XM2001 Crusader/ XM2002 ARRV was canceled as an $11 billion Cold War relic in 2002, and the light 155mm NLOS-C died with the 2009 removal of the Future Combat Systems ground vehicle program.

The Paladin Integrated Management Program is designed to handle America’s future needs in the absence of Crusader and NLOS-C, and close some of the M109A6’s technological gaps. The initial goal was 600 M109A7 / M992A3 vehicle sets, but that has been lowered slightly to 558.

BAE Systems and the U.S. Army have signed a 2007 memorandum of understanding (MoU), establishing a Public-Private Partnership (P3) to develop and sustain the Army’s M109A6 vehicles throughout their life cycle. The establishment of a P3 will capitalize on the strengths and capabilities of each organization to ensure the cost-effective and on-time reset of the current fleet of M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) and M992A2 Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicles (FAASV), as well as the planned production of the M109A7/M992A3 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) systems.

PIM prototypes were originally slated to be delivered to the US Army for test and evaluation in 2009, but changes to the program meant that the prototype contract wasn’t even issued until October 2009. That moved prototype delivery back to May 2011.

By January 2012, BAE had completed Phase I of the Army’s formal Developmental Test Program, with 5 vehicles returning for refurbishment, and 2 remaining at Aberdeen Proving Grounds for further tests. Full testing of all vehicles was set to resume in June 2012, and the Milestone C approval to proceed with Low-Rate-Initial-Production (LRIP) was scheduled for June 2013. In practice LRIP approval by the Defense Acquisition Board slipped to October 2013, and formal induction didn’t take place until May 2014.

Industrial Team

M992 cutaway
(click to view full)

Parties to the memorandum signing include BAE Systems leaders, US Army TACOM (Tank, automotive & Armaments COMmand), The Army’s PEO-GCS (Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems), the Army’s PKM-HBCT (Project Manager – Heavy Brigade Combat Team), and the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama. The MoU was signed during the AUSA 2007 conference in Washington, DC.

BAE Systems has significant experience with public-private partnerships thanks to Britain’s “future contracting for availability” innovations. In the USA, meanwhile, it has a long standing and successful partnership with the Red River Army Depot in Texas to remanufacture and upgrade the USA’s M2/M3 Bradley fighting vehicles.

The Army’s PM-HBCT will manage the M109 RESET activities. Anniston Army Depot will retain labor and lead the majority of the program, including the M109A6-PIM production process, through the public-private partnership. They will be integrated into the PIM Integrated Product Development Teams (IPDTs) structure during the design phase, and will support the manufacture of the prototype vehicles.

During the production phase, Anniston Army Depot will be responsible for induction of vehicles, overhaul of critical components like the gun system, and modification/ upgrade of the cab structure. BAE Systems will be responsible for materials management. The partially assembled cabs, along with overhauled components, will be provided to BAE Systems for integration with the new M109A7 PIM chassis. Areas involved in production will include York, PA; Aiken, SC; and Elgin, OK where final assembly will take place.

Export Potential

PzH-2000

A total of 975 M109A6 Paladins were produced for the US Army, and another 225 or so were produced for Taiwan. Full rate production ceased in 1999. BAE built a small final batch to fill out an Army National Guard request, which finished in 2001.

Most other countries who use the M109 (Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Kuwait, Morocco, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia, Iran on its own, soon Iraq with US support) employ previous versions, ranging from M109A1s to M109A5s.

That’s a lot of potential upgrades.

So far, the most popular upgrade abroad is the M109A5+, which adds independent position location via GPS/INS, and radio transmission of co-ordinates. It’s a budget-conscious upgrade that omits the M109A6’s automatic gun-laying, which would require a tear-down and rebuild of the turret. It also omits the PIM upgrades, which make very substantial changes to every part of the vehicle.

On the other hand, countries that do decide to field fully modern armored artillery systems will find that Paladin PIM is still generally cheaper than buying new heavy systems. That’s enough to succeed in America. What about the rest of the world?

Abroad, Paladin PIM will be competing against options like KMW’s PzH-2000, Denel’s G6, and Samsung’s K9/K10 on the heavy side, some of which offer more advanced features. It will also have to deal with substitution threats from lightly-armored truck-mounted 155mm artillery like BAE/Saab’s Archer, Elbit’s Atmos, and Nexter’s Caesar. It’s still early days, but the M109A7 Paladin PIM system has yet to find an export customer.

Contracts and Key Events

Unless otherwise noted, US Army TACOM in Warren, MI issues the contracts to BAE Systems Land & Armaments’ Ground Systems Division in York, PA.

At Fort Sill

August 11/16: Howitzers in the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program are being questioned over deficiencies with the weapon’s maximum rate of fire and problems with the automatic fire extinguisher that could potentially endanger the crew. The DoD’s inspector general raised the queries in a report released last week. 2012 and 2013 tests saw the howitzer fail the test for maximum rate of fire which led to a redesign of hardware, software and firing procedures but still failed a total of four out of eight attempts following the fixes “under non-stressful firing conditions.”

November 2/15: The Army announced on Friday that they have awarded a $245.3 million contract modification for 30 M109A7 Paladin self-propelled howitzers, along with 30 M992A3 Armored Ammunition Resupply Vehicles. This low rate initial production-2 (LRIP-2) modification (Option 2) follows a similar award (Option 1) in October 2014 for 18 of each vehicle, with the two options scheduled for deliveries by February 2017 and June 2018 respectively.

FY 2015

Oct 31/14: LRIP-2. A $141.8 million fixed-price-incentive contract modification exercises Option 1 for 18 M109A7 Self-Propelled Howitzers and 18 M992A3 Carrier Ammunition Tracked vehicles. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 and 2015 Army budgets. This raises the contract’s total value (q.v. Oct 30/13) to $386.7 million so far.

Estimated completion date is Feb 28/17. Work will be performed in Elgin, OK (18%), and York, PA (82%) (W56HZV-14-C-0002, PO 0011).

LRIP-2 order: 18 SPH, 18 CAT

M109A7: Fire!
(click to view full)

July 18/14: EMD. An $88.3 million modification to contract to extend the existing M109A7 and M992A3 engineering and manufacturing development contract to incorporate low rate initial production test support. $14.1 million in FY 2013 and 2014 US Army RDT&E funding is committed immediately.

This raises announced Paladin PIM EMD contracts (q.v. Jan 17/12) to $401.6 million. Estimated completion date is March 31/17. Work will be performed in York, PA (W56HZV-09-C-0550, PO 0081).

May 14/14: Engines. BAE Systems Land & Armaments LP in York, PA receives a $16.1 million contract modification for an advance buy of V903 engines, to equip PIM low rate initial production vehicles.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 budgets. Work will be performed in Columbus, IN (77%), and York, PA (23%), with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/18. US Army Contracting Command-Tank and Automotive in Warren, MI manages the contract (W56HZV-14-C-0002, PO 0003).

March 31/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2013, plus time to compile and publish. For the PIM program, its design is mature. So are its 2 critical new technologies: power pack integration, and the ceramic bearing of the generator assembly. On the other hand, weight limits are a concern, and testing had better go right, because the program’s schedule leaves very little time for fixes if tests show problems.

The largest single technology risk involves the current contractor for the engine and transmission, who may cease production due to lack of orders. That could force a vendor switch and even a redesign of the engine compartment, raising costs between $32 – $100 million and adding a “significant” schedule delay.

The Milestone C delay from June – October 2013 was staff-driven due to sequestration. Other delays to the start of developmental testing stemmed from changes to protection and survivability requirements, which led to a new ballistic hull and turret and new armor kits.

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The revised program schedule reduces the program’s planned low-rate (LRIP) production run from 72 sets – 66 sets, while cutting the LRIP period from 4 years – 3 years.

The new M109A6 PIM has done well in tests with GPS-guided shells, with a CEP of less than 10m for rocket-boosted M982 Ia-2 Excalibur shells out to 35 miles, and average CEP of 24m out to 15 miles for ATK’s screw-in Precision Guidance Kit. The bad news is that ordinary shells are a problem. In 2012 Limited User Tests, the PIM failed to meet accuracy requirements at short (4-6 km) ranges, offered a timeliness downgrade from M109A6 standards by meeting less than 20% of fire mission time standards, and displayed deformation and jamming of the M82 primer when firing when firing M232A1 Modular Artillery Charge System (MACS) Charge 5 propellant.

The Army has begun using some very innovative approaches in its effort to fix the defects (q.v. July 30/12), and in January 2013, the program began installing and testing a series of Corrective Actions, Producibility, and Obsolescence (CPO) changes for the SPH and CAT. The Army intends to fix the timeliness problem using hardware and software changes, and there have been some positive indicators in subsequent tests. Meanwhile, they intend to continue testing upgraded suspension and transmission components in light of increased weight from the underbelly and T2 up-armoring kits.

A special research team is looking at the MACS problems. They’re considering a wide range of options: propellant changes, breech & firing mechanism redesigns, alternative ignition systems, or even restricting the PIM to 4 MACS charges and taking the range penalty.

PIM LUT

December 2012: Test results. The Pentagon’s Operational Test & Evaluation Office publishes its 1st report [PDF] on PIM. The Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) was approved in March 2012, and prototypes refurbished in June 2012 had gone through Phase II development testing by October 2012, following Phase I tests a year earlier.

Vehicle discrepancies after repeated gun shock were higher than with legacy subsystems, including PDFCS. A software issue between the Muzzle Velocity Radar System (MVRS) and PDFCS led to frequent failures. The SPH also failed to meet its climbing requirement, though DOTE doesn’t say whether that’s a problem with meeting a paper spec or a more serious mobility issue.

The report notes that the program’s tight schedule means corrective actions will have to wait until the LRIP phase. This leads DOTE to conclude that “the schedule for development, test, and implementation of those [corrective action, producibility, and obsolescence (CPO)] changes is high-risk and challenging.”

Dec 6/12: BAE Systems announces that they’ve picked the Elgin, OK facility in the Fort Sill Industrial Park for M109A6 Paladin PIM Low Rate Initial Production. This will move those jobs to Elgin about 2-3 years sooner than the original plan. BAE, in turn, wants to be next to the Army’s Artillery Center of Excellence and its experienced personnel.

The PIM LRIP award is expected in Q3 2013, and will involve just 72 PIM systems. Key components of the PIM production vehicles, including the chassis, will be sent to the Elgin facility from BAE Systems manufacturing facilities and suppliers. As part of final assembly and checkout, BAE Systems will use Fort Sill for mobility and firing verification.

July 30/12: Videogames & Telemetry. David Musgrave is the Army’s project lead for fire control software development on the M109A6 PIM, and he’s having a problem:

“We were encountering some problems with firing tests. I started asking questions looking for objective use data. How often does subsystem X fail? When it does fail, what was the user trying to do at the time? How often does a user perform Y task? The truth was I couldn’t get any decent answers. I was frustrated that there was a very limited information channel from our system back to us while it was being used.”

He thinks the solution might involve taking a tip from the videogame industry, which uses “telemetry” to track how people are interacting with the games, and what they’re using or not using. A presentation from BioWare’s Georg Zoller was especially inspirational, and Musgrave has a good head on his shoulders when it comes to the reality of implementation in the Army. He sees huge potential benefits for program managers, units, and soldiers alike, but only if the system doesn’t interfere with the weapon in any way, and the program doesn’t try to do too much. The biggest technical challenge will be finding a reasonable method to reliably get the tracking data back to a central server. See also US Army Article | Full RDECOM PowerPoint Presentation [PDF].

Oct 24/11: EMD. A $9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide refurbishment and analysis services for the PIM Bridge 3 effort. Work will be performed in York, PA, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-09-C-0550).

Oct 5/11: EMD. A $9.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the PIM Bridge 1 effort. Work will be performed in York, PA, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/11. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by the U.S. Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-C-0550).

Oct 5/11: T2. A $7.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to buy the PIM’s T-2 Armor Kits. Work will be performed in York, PA, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by the U.S. Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-C-0550).

Oct 5/11: Transmission. L3 Communications Corp. in Muskegon, MI receives a $7.9 million firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, to develop a common transmission for the Bradley Family IFV/CFVs, and the Paladin Integrated Management vehicles. Work will be performed in Muskegon, MI, with an estimated completion date of Nov 15/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by the U.S. Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-C-0098).

M109A6 PIM
(click to view full)

June 7/11: An $11.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, to buy PIM ballistic hulls and turrets. Recall that the new PIM chassis are being fabricated & assembled with Bradley common components.

Work will be performed in York, PA, with an estimated completion date of April 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-09-C-0550).

Oct 28/10: BAE Systems announces that they are on track to deliver 7 Paladin/FAASV Integrated Management (PIM) prototype vehicles to the U.S. Army on schedule, under the $63.9 million August 2009 research and development contract, announced in October 2009 (5 M109s, 2 FAASVs).

The initial PIM vehicles are conducting contractor testing in Yuma, AZ and Aberdeen, MD before they are delivered for government testing in January 2011.

June 15/10: An $8.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, for Paladin PIM line replaceable units. Work is to be performed in York, PA, with an estimated completion date of June 30/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-09-0550).

Jan 20/10: Rollout. BAE Systems unveils its upgraded PIM (Paladin Integrated Management) vehicle to military customers, Congressional representatives, community leaders and employees at a ceremony held at its York facility. This is the 1st vehicle built under the Oct 5/09 contract. BAE Systems release.

Nov 4/08: PDFCS. BAE systems announces a $20 million contract from the US Army’s TACOM Life Cycle Management Command, to purchase and deliver 140 Paladin Digital Fire Control Systems (PDFCS) kits, and more than 60 spare components to support the system. They will be added to the 450 or so kits that have already been ordered under this contract.

Some of the kits under this contract will be installed on vehicles at fielding sites across the world, while others will be shipped to an Army Depot where they will be used on the Paladin reset line. Work will be performed by the existing workforce at BAE Systems facilities in York, PA; Sterling Heights, MI; and Anniston, AL beginning in September 2009. Deliveries are scheduled to be complete by January 2010.

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.

Background: Artillery & Shells

• US Army – M109 Family of Vehicles [PDF].
• BAE Systems – Paladin Integrated Management (M109A6 PIM).
• GlobalSecurity.com – M109 155mm SP Howitzer. The M109A6 Paladin has a separate, subsidiary entry.
• Wikipedia – M109 Howitzer. Good list of purchasing countries.
• Maine Military Authority – Capabilities: M-109 Howitzer. “Maine Military Authority stores M-109 Howitzers for the United States Army Security Assistance Center (USASAC). These Howitzers are available for sale to foreign militaries. Maine Military Authority has the capability to rebuild M-109 Howitzers and return them to fully Mission Capable (FMC) status. MMA has rebuilt 72 Howitzers to date for USASAC.”
• DID – GPS-Guided Shells: The New Excaliburs. Block Ib and Excalibur-S are relevant to the M109A7.
• DID – New Frontiers for Raytheon’s Excalibur GPS Guided Shells. From June 2013.
• DID – ATK’s PGK: Turning Shells into Precision Artillery. Less accurate and less range than Excalibur, but cheaper.

News & Views

• US Army (May 19/14) – Army inducts self-propelled howitzer into low-rate initial production.
• US Army (Sept 1/11) – Army developing new self-propelled howitzer.
• US Army (April 15/11) – Army harvests technology from canceled programs. Paladin PIM benefited from NLOS-C.
• NDIA National Defense Magazine (May 2010) – Army Resuscitates Mobile Artillery Program. Some NLOS-C technologies will move to the M109 Paladin PIM.

Boxer MRAV
(click to view full)

Wheeled armored vehicles have become much more common, but the Dutch-German Boxer stands out from the crowd. Its English acronym is “Multi Role Armoured Vehicle” (MRAV), but rather than being a family of different vehicles, the Boxer will use a single chassis, with snap-in modules for different purposes from infantry carrier to command, cargo, ambulance, etc.

The base vehicle has a maximum road speed of 100 km/h (60 mp/h) and an operational range of 1,000 km (600 miles). In its troop carrying configuration, it has a crew of 2 and can carry 10 fully equipped troops. The MRAV is fighting for space in a crowded market, but its principal countries are beginning to give it the front-line credibility it needs to succeed.

Boxer MRAV: The Vehicle

Boxer modular concept
(click to view full)

The base 8×8 vehicle provides a load capacity to 8 tonnes (9 tons) and has an internal capacity of more than 14 square meters. The Mission modules fit into the base vehicle’s steel shell, incorporating a primary safety cell with a triple floor and shaped sides to deflect mine blasts. Ceramic modular armor is sandwiched between the vehicle cell and the steel coat, and all three elements are secured by fastening bolts. The shaped sides of the modules also work to deflect mine blasts away from the soldiers inside, while a double-lined hull soaks up critical blast deformation.

The exact maximum weight of a Boxer MRAV depends on the version, and on its add-on armor package. The base is currently about 30 tonnes (33 tons), but its current design allows it to grow to 36 tonnes (39.6 tons) without any additional modification to the drive line. The vehicle and modules are air transportable in an A400M or larger aircraft, and modules are interchangeable in less than one hour.

Boxer MRAV: The Program

CV90-35 MkIII
(click to view full)

In mid-2006 the Netherlands decided to remain in the ARTEC consortium’s joint Boxer MRAV modular armored personnel carrier project with Germany. Despite earlier reservations, Dutch secretary of Defense Cees van der Knaap declared to the 2nd Chamber that the country wanted to continue with the project. By June 28th, 2006, a release noted that the Chamber had given the green light; the APC’s price has apparently been reduced to an acceptable level following negotiations with Stork. A formal contract worth up to EUR 1.2 billion (about $1.6 billion) was finally signed in December 2006, clearing the way for both Dutch & German vehicle production.

The Royal Netherlands Army is purchasing 200 Boxer vehicles for transport, engineering, command, and transportation of wounded, replacing some of their YP-408s and all of their M577s (command post version of the M113). The 200 Boxer MRAVs will be delivered in 5 versions – 58 ambulances, 55 Command Post variants, 41 engineer group (pioneer) vehicles, 27 cargo vehicles, and 19 cargo/command-and-control vehicles to replace the current YPR 765 tracked vehicles. Note that this figure is down from initial estimates of 384 vehicles.

In addition to the Boxers, the Dutch Army will also be operating BAE Hagglunds’ CV90-35 MkIIIs as Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

Land trials, with RWS
(click to view full)

Under current plans, Jane’s revised reports indicate that the German Army is due to take delivery of 272 Boxer vehicles in 3 baseline versions: 135 armored personnel carriers (APCs), 65 command post (CP) variants, and 72 heavy armored ambulances. The Boxers will replace some Fuchs 6 x 6 and tracked M113-series APCs currently in service; like the Dutch Boxers, they will fill a middle weight armor role alongside heavier tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicles – in this case, the new KMW/Rheinmetall Puma.

The Boxer program is being managed by the European OCCAR (Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation) Armaments Agency. Britain was initially part of the MRAV consortium as well, but left in 2003 to pursue its own future armored vehicles project called FRES. The industrial contractor is ARTEC GmbH – acting on behalf of the consortium formed by Kraus-Maffei Wegmann (36%), Rheinmetall Landsysteme (14%) and Stork PWV (50%).

Manufacturing of the vehicles will take place in both countries. Amsterdam-based Stork PWV is the national prime contractor and system integrator for the Dutch Boxer vehicles. As a partner, Stork Special Products is also responsible for assembling of the power pack consisting of a MTU engine, angular gear, transmission, cooling block and over 1,200 minor parts in total. They’re also developing the Environmental Control System, an air-conditioning system with integrated NBC(nuclear, biological, chemical) protection.

Contracts and Key Events

MRAV Ambulance
(click to view full)

August 24/16: Lithuania’s Ministry of Defense continues with the modernization of their land forces after awarding a $435.1 million contract to the German-Dutch Artec consortium for the provision of 8×8 Boxer infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). The group, a cooperation between Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles will deliver the vehicles equipped with Israeli-made turrets and armed with 30 mm cannons and Spike LR anti-tank missiles. This follows a bilateral cooperation between Lithuania and the Dutch government, who are currently in the process of transferring second hand Army land vehicles east to boost Lithuanian military capabilities.

June 25/14: Dutch delivery. Formal delivery of the 1st Dutch Boxer to the 13th NL Brigade’s medical company. The Director of the NL Defence Materiel Organisation symbolically delivers the vehicle by handing over a wrench that serves as an emergency opener for the rear door. Sources: OCCAR, “Formal handover of first Netherlands BOXER vehicle to the customer”.

April 7/14: Update. OCCAR-EA’s BOXER Programme Manager has approved delivery of the first Dutch Boxer, an ambulance variant. The NL AMB BOXER vehicle is the first BOXER vehicle built at the new Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles – NL facilities in Ede, The Netherlands. The schedule foresees that the last of the 52 NL AMB will be delivered in January 2015, to be followed with the next NL BOXER vehicle types: Command Post (CP), Engineers Group (GNGP) and Cargo (CAR). The Dutch are getting 8 Driver Training Vehicles (DTV), and 192 Boxer variants for delivery by the end of 2017.

Germany has already received 225 vehicles, built by KMW in Munich and by Rheinmetall in Kassel, leaving just 47 left to be delivered to Germany before the end of 2016. Sources: OCCAR, “Start of The Netherlands’ Ambulance BOXER delivery”.

May 2012: LANCE. Rheinmetall announces that a concept study equipping the Boxer with Rheinmetall’s LANCE medium caliber turret has finished trials at their test center in Unterluss. The firm worked with RMMV Kassel, RLS Augsburg and RLS Kiel, to combine the LANCE turret system with a Boxer module, and modify the mission module.

Jan 24/12: The German Bundeswehr produces a video about the Boxer’s combat deployment in Afghanistan. Deployment is going well, but they may want more storage space. That’s always an interesting challenge with APCs. The Boxer CP variant is set to arrive in theater in February 2012. German Bundeswehr [in German] | Aviation Week.

July 22/11: German Boxer A1 MRAVs ship out to Afghanistan, aboard chartered AN-124 aircraft.

A1 is a modification set designed for ISAF operations in Afghanistan. It includes extra armor, raising the FLW-200 remote weapon station 30 cm/ 1 foot to give it better coverage high and low, and an appropriate camouflage pattern for the ISAF region. FuInfoSys networking between the Boxer and the infantry group equipped with the IdZ-21 Future Soldier system is standard. KMW.

March 3/11: Germany readies to deploy the Boxer. Its driver training school in Dornstadt received 7 Driver Training Vehicles (DTV) in 2010. In February 2011, another 8 Boxer APCs were delivered to 292 Jaegerbattalion in Donaueschingen, in preparation for the vehicle’s deployment to Afghanistan with this unit in August 2011. OCCAR | German Army [in German].

Oct 7/10: BAE Systems announces a $3.6 million contract from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) to manufacture and deliver SCHROTH brand 4-point harness safety restraint with integrated airbag systems, to equip for 125 German Boxer vehicles. BAE will produce 7 restraint systems per vehicle (875 total), along with replacement parts. As part of the agreement, SCHROTH engineers have also developed a special, self-administered diagnostic tool for soldiers to verify that the systems are in working order. Deliveries of the new restraint system are expected to be completed in 2014.

Airbags to protect passengers are nothing new in civilian vehicles, but they’re still rare in combat vehicles. In the event of a crash, sensors on the SCHROTH harness measure the resulting acceleration, and send signals to gas generators whose micro pyrotechnical charges deploy the airbags in a fraction of a second.

April 27/10: A brief to the Dutch Parliament says that Boxer MRAV “Drive Module” (main body) qualification will not be done by the end of 2010, as scheduled. The vehicle did not fully meet contracted standards, and Germany’s intent to use Boxers in Afghanistan in 2010 has had effects of its own.

An agreement was reached with Germany for post-delivery qualifications in 2010, during so-called “Reliability Batch Trials,” with any changes Germany requires made at the manufacturer’s expense. Agreements were also made concerning post-qualification of some Drive Module sub-components, and alteration of the Logistic Qualification Course.

In contrast, the Dutch absolutely require pre-qualification before they’ll accept delivery. That means delays for series production of Dutch vehicles, and to the future Cargo, Ambulance and Command versions. Extra budget is also being requested to modify the Dutch C2-LAN system to a full C4I system. Kamenbrief [in Dutch]

Feb 8/10: KMW subsidiary Dutch Defense Vehicle Systems (DDVS) opens a new production facility in Helmond, near Eindhoven, NL. The facility will produce all hulls and several mission modules for the German-Dutch Boxer vehicle program, which currently stands at a total of 472 vehicles. Helmond will also be the site for logistics and maintenance service to the Dutch fleet of Fennek reconnaissance vehicles. KMW release [PDF]

Sept 23/09: At a ceremony in Munich, Rheinmetall Defence and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) transfer the first serially produced Boxer to the Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en matière d’Armement (OCCAR), which is administering the Boxer project, and Germany’s Federal Agency for Defence Technology and Procurement (BWB). Rheinmetall | KMW [PDF format].

May 8/08: ARTEC’s Boxer MRAV made a dramatic comeback to reach the finals, but lost to General Dynamics MOWAG’s Piranha-V in Britain’s FRES-Utility competition. | UK MoD release | General Dynamics UK release.

June 14/07: Stung by criticism that the MoD has wasted years in order to select off-the-shelf vehicles that may not be survivable enough, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support Lord Drayson fires back in a public forum:

“Yes, the Boxer was a programme the MoD pulled out of when it was known as the MRAV programme. We took that decision in 2002 in light of the requirement at the time. We have since reviewed the FRES requirement in light of recent operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Force protection in theatre now has a higher priority than strategic deployability – I don’t think anyone would argue with that view. When the situation changes our procurement process must be capable of responding to that change… I’m not going to go into the details of the protection FRES will have in a public forum… But to suggest that we are ignoring the threats we face in Iraq and Afghanistan today when we set the requirement for our future vehicles is wrong. And the idea that taking into account the full range of threats FRES will be less well protected than the patrol vehicles you list (such as the Mastiff) is also wrong. Finally, let’s all be clear that FRES is neither a protected patrol vehicle nor a replacement for Warrior…”

Given Canada’s poor experiences with wheeled vehicles in Afghanistan, and the Stryker’s emerging difficulties against new IED land mines in Iraq, this may become a recurring subject.

June 8/07: Britain’s MoD announces the FRES finalists. Surprisingly, the SEP vehicles don’t make that list, nor do other test platforms. All of the finalists are wheeled: General Dynamics MOWAG’s Piranha IV, Nexter (formerly Giat’s) VBCI – and the KMW-ARTEC Boxer, which Britain pulled out of several years ago in order to pursue FRES.

The vehicles will go on to the “trials of truth,” and the MoD says the outcome of the trials will be announced by the end of November 2007. At that point, “one or more utility vehicle designs will go forward for detailed assessment.” UK MoD release | Nexter release | KMW release.

May 23/07: Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that ARTEC expects to deliver the first Boxer 8 x 8 MRAV to the German Army on schedule in late 2009, with deliveries to the Royal Netherlands Army following in 2011.

Dec 19/06: At Bernardkazerne in Amersfoort, the Netherlands, a contract is signed for series deliveries of the Boxer Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle to the Netherlands and German armed forces. The series production contract covers up to 272 vehicles for Germany and the 200 vehicles for the Netherlands, with a total value of EUR 1.2 billion (about $1.58 billion), of which Stork will receive EUR 500 million (about $660 million) from 2008 – 2016. Up to 70% of Stork’s turnover will be subcontracted. Deliveries of the vehicles will start in 2009 and extend for seven years.

The contract for Stork encompasses a continued design for 2 new Boxer versions, the series production of 200 Boxer vehicles in 5 versions and an initial in-service support package. The Netherlands army will use the Boxer in 5 different versions: an ambulance vehicle, command post, engineer vehicle, and two types of cargo vehicles. See Stork release.

Dec 13/06: The Budget Committee of the German Bundestag approves MRAV acquisition. Formal signing of an OCCAR acquisition contract by representatives of Germany and the Netherlands is expected to take place on December 19, 2006. The order will reportedly encompass 400 vehicles, 200 of which are earmarked for the German Bundeswehr. Under this contract, the Germans would also have an option for a further 72 units configured as field ambulances. See Rheinmetall release, also KMW release in German.

Oct 13/06: The Dutch Ministerie Van Defensie issues a release noting that the Council of Ministers has approved the purchase of 200 Boxer APCs for the Dutch Army; the final decision now moves on to Parliament (and see Oct 10/06 entry below). The first Boxer MRAVs will enter service in 2011, and deliveries will be complete in 2016. Defense Aerospace’s translation adds some additional information that doesn’t appear to be in the Dutch release, noting that:

“On the basis of information supplied by industry, the operating cost of the Boxer for 200 vehicles over a life span of 30 years was initially estimated at approx. 1,125 million euros (excl VAT). More recent estimates have allowed the Ministry of Defence to reduce the projected life-time operating cost to 938 million euros (excl VAT), based on the best available data.”

In approximate US dollars, the range would be $1.176 billion – $1.41 billion, or about $5.88 – $7.05 million per vehicle over a 30-year operating period.

Oct 10/06: Jane’s International Defence Review reports that The Netherlands national elections scheduled for November 22, 2006 could lead to changes on the defense front. “With the electorate more or less split down the middle, a change of government from the current centre-right coalition to a new centre-left or even 100 per cent-left coalition is not impossible.” Such shifts would have implications for programs like the Boxer MRAV. As it happens, the Dutch elections produced losses for all major parties and left Parliament in a similar balance.

Additional Readings & Sources

• ARTEC Boxer official site
• Stork NV – Boxer. The subsidiary tasked with production is Stork PWV, who has this Boxer page, and also the Stork Special Products page that includes details re: some of Stork’s sub-projects within the program.
• KMW – Boxer Wheeled Vehicle
• Rheinmetall Defence – Boxer
• Army Technology – Boxer MRAV Wheeled Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle, Europe
• Ministerie van Defensie (June 28/06) – Kamer Steunt Voortgang Boxer
• Janes (May 22/06) – Revised bid aims to put Boxer back in the ring
• Ministerie van Defensie (June 21/06) – Nederland Gaat Door Met Boxer Pantservoertuig
• Janes (Oct 3/05) – Boxer misses key pricing deadline

G/ATOR diorama
(click to view full)

The US military’s long run of unquestioned air superiority has led to shortcuts in mobile land-based air defenses, and the US Marines are no exception. A December 2005 release from Sen. Schumer’s office [D-NY] said that:

“Current radar performance does not meet operational forces requirements… consequences could potentially allow opposing forces to gain air and ground superiority in future operational areas.”

One of the programs in the works to address this gap is the AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR mobile radar system. It’s actually the result of fusing 2 programs: the Multi-Role Radar System (MRRS), and Ground Weapons Locator Radar (GWLR) requirements. When the last G/ATOR software upgrade becomes operational, it will replace and consolidate numerous legacy radars, including the AN/TPS-63 air surveillance, AN/MPQ-62 force control, AN/TPS-73 air traffic control, AN/UPS-3 air defense, and AN/TPQ-36/37 artillery tracking & locating radar systems.

The G/ATOR System

NGC on G/ATOR
click to play video

G/ATOR systems were supposed to be transportable in C-130 Hercules tactical transport aircraft, and by MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotors (underslung), CH-53 heavy helicopters (underslung or internal), or CH-47 heavy lift helicopters (underslung or internal). That’s still sort of true.

The radars themselves were originally slated be mounted on HMMWV jeeps, which would have fit all of these requirements. Issues with weight and protection eventually pushed the Marines to abandon the system’s 3-jeep model, and to make the radar itself a towable trailer.

My ride’s here…
(click to view full)

The system can still be carried in a single C-130, and consists of: (1) a Radar Equipment Group trailer, (2) a Power Equipment Group 60kW generator in an ISO container, and (3) a Communication Equipment Group mounted on a HMMWV. The PEG container will usually be mounted on an MTVR truck, which will also tow the REG trailer. The USMC will also have the option of leaving the truck behind, and airlifting the radar trailer, power container, and C2 HMMWV in 3 separate CH-53 helicopter or MV-22 tilt-rotor loads.

Flexible Fielding: G/ATOR Increments

Incoming…
(click to view full)

The AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR is intended to be a software-based radar. This idea has become common for radios, and many fighter radars offer a number of different modes (air scan, ground looking SAR maps, etc.) via software. The idea for G/ATOR is similar: common hardware that can switch in the field from air traffic control, to aerial volume search and targeting, to artillery counterfire tracking. Northrop Grumman says that some specific switches would require a radar shutdown and restart as the new software is loaded.

This kind of flexibility also lets the USMC field the radar, then add new capabilities via 3 blocks of upgrades:

Initial Increment I/ Block 1 – in testing. supports 2 distinct mission areas: Short range air defense, and air surveillance in tactical air operations centers (TAOC), including baseline IFF (identification, friend or foe). It replaces the AN/UPS-3, AN/MPQ-62, and AN/TPS-63 radar systems. G/ATOR program manager Capt. Lee Bond (USN, ret.) explains one of the advantages it offers:

“There are threats out there today – like small hovering UAVs – that were not envisioned when our legacy radars were developed and fielded a generation ago. So the performance of our legacy radars against those emergent threats on the modern battlefield is spotty at best. The smaller and slower the target gets and the lower to the ground it flies, the trickier it is for the traditional radar to find it. G/ATOR absolutely wipes out those limitations and gives you complete situational awareness of everything in the sky.”

Increment I engineering will allow growth to accommodate all following increments without equipment re-design, and will provide an open architecture that makes it easier to upgrade the computers, computer programs, and firmware in all subsequent increments. Its development phase was supposed to end at the end of April, 2012, but Milestone C approval didn’t come until January 2014.

Increment II/ Block 2 – development underway. will address the Marine Expeditionary Force counter fire/targeting missions, adding ground counter-battery and target acquisition against enemy mortars, rockets, or artillery. It replaces the AN/TPQ-46 radar system.

The baseline requirements remain, and the Marines have added program R&D funding to investigate the potential for additional capabilities within this area.

Increment III – planning only. This set of improvements will actually come after IV. It adds tactical enhancements for the air mission, including decoy/electronic counter-counter measures capabilities, electronic protection equipment and software, sensor netting, an advanced radar environmental simulator (RES), and a logistics integrated data environment (IDE, a computer system for managing and monitoring fleet health, spares supply, maintenance instructions, etc.). “Non-cooperative target recognition” capabilities are very useful for identifying enemies, and they’re even more useful if a Marine Corps Hornet’s IFF system has a problem on the way back in.

There’s no firm timeline for Increment III yet, and its components could change. Future plans involve sensor netting and integration with the USMC’s shoulder-fired Stinger air defense missiles, or their successors.

Increment IV/ Block 4 – RFI out. will add an air traffic control (ATC) capability, which is extremely useful in disaster relief situations like Haiti. IFF Mode 5/S capability has also been moved here. The baseline requirements remain, and the Marines have added program funding to investigate the potential for additional capabilities in this area.

Development will come before Increment III. Existing radars and software for this task are already well-understood, so this was seen as a safer step with a quick payoff. 2015 is the target for development to begin, with late 2018 or 2019 the target for entering service. It will replace the AN/TPS-73 radar system.

The G/ATOR Program

At present, the Marine Corps’ Approved Acquisition Objective is a total of 45 G/ATOR systems, about a 30% drop from the 2005 baseline of 64 systems. The Marines had wanted 81 systems before G/ATOR became a formal program.

G/ATOR began in 2007, and has left the System Design and Development (SDD/EMD) Phase to begin low-rate production. Formal government developmental testing (DT) is underway. Initial DT1B1, DT1B2, and DT1B3 phases have been completed at Wallops Island, VA, and Yuma Proving Grounds, AZ.

Tactically, the TPS-80 G/ATOR will fit below the USMC’s existing AN/TPS-59 long-range radars, offering less range, but finer detail within its scan radius. An evolved version may even replace the USMC’s longer-range radars, under the joint service 3DELRR (“3-dealer”) program, though the initial 2014 award went to a Raytheon offering before GAO challenges were filed.

G/ATOR TPS-80: Technology Challenges

Now: TPS-63
(click to view full)

Once all of these increments are implemented, AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR will use its active electronically scanned array (AESA) technology to provide aircraft detection, tracking, and engagement; cruise-missile detection and engagement; ground-weapon location; and military air-traffic control – all in one package.

Radars are all about time & energy management. That has traditionally involved electronic hardware, but these days it relies more on software: marshaling and directing the energies required, placing them high or low as needed, emitting signals at precise times to shape them. The electronics and software must collect and analyze the results, in order to create the right kind of “complete” picture. G/ATOR’s various tasks have very different, even contradictory time/energy requirements. Fulfilling those tasks would require a radar that offered new levels of flexibility.

Both the Marines and Northrop Grumman acknowledged the challenges up front. It has been treated as a technologically difficult program since its inception in 2007.

Making G/ATOR thinkable

APG-81 test mount
(click to view full)

A trio of technology developments made G/ATOR thinkable.

The 1st was a growing trend toward active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, which are composed of thousands of individual solid state transmit/receive modules that can operate individually or in assigned groups. In addition to the flexibility they offer, AESA radars have smaller sidelobes beyond the main beam focus, which helps to reduce false alarms for applications like counterfire targeting.

The 2nd trend is the growing dominance of software over hardware, especially in controlling and interpreting information from AESA-type radars. Northrop Grumman already had experience implementing different modes in its AESA fighter radars, including a project to turn them into high-bandwidth communications relays.

In G/ATOR’s case, the connection was very direct. Northrop Grumman personnel have confirmed that the F-35 fighter’s AN/APG-81 radar technologies were adapted for use in G/ATOR, and that it will use the APG-81 facility and production line.

The 3rd trend is Moore’s Law, which makes an exponentially-increasing level of computing power available to control radar systems and analyze their returns.

These advances make G/ATOR thinkable, but actually developing it requires very advanced engineering expertise. This is especially true when the radar in question will face the kinds of ground environments and general unpleasantness associated with the US Marines, as opposed to clean air force maintenance hangars and navy decks.

Northrop Grumman’s management made a decision that the benefits of a successful program justified a significant corporate commitment, and gave the program access to top talent within the firm. Now, all they had to do was execute.

Execution, Without Dying

The new G/ATOR
(click to view full)

Every program encounters engineering and financial challenges, and G/ATOR has been no exception.

Creating a radar that can do all of these things, while taking Marine Corps level abuse, required new engineering. To offer just a few examples:

Weight. The ability to take Marine Corps level abuse also requires survivability. Which meant extra weight. The program’s shift away from 3 unarmored and integrated HMMWVs to a “MTVR truck + trailer + HMMWV” configuration cost the development team about a year for re-design, refining, and approval.

Temperature. G/ATOR is designed to operate in ambient temperatures of -40 to +55 degrees Centigrade, and must keep its electronics at a common temperature to avoid data errors. Instead of using heavy 2-stage cooling systems, however, the radar uses forced circulation from fans blowing ambient uncooled air through the array. As a side-benefit, that made the radar lighter.

Scope. These basic design challenges were exacerbated by scope increases, as potential flexibility became thinkable and then real. This is exciting, because new capabilities create additional growth opportunities, and new potential uses. On the other hand, it’s also taxing to a design team already challenged by the core project.

Upgradeability. Then there’s the double-edged sword that is Moore’s Law of geometrically expanding processor chip power.

If a chip is obsolete in 5 years, and may not be produced at all in 10, but the radar must last 30 years, what is one to do? One option is to switch to a processor with 100% more growth capacity early in the project. Given Moore’s Law, that only buys you about 5 more years, maybe 10 at the most. The US military’s growing insistence on open systems architectures and modularity (OSA/ MOSA) will help make future swap-ins easier, but OSA/MOSA implementations are not created equal. Engineering design quality is the difference, which takes time.

Gallium Nitride. Quality engineering also opens new doors, because base technology matters. Thinning air for the generator’s carburetor currently pushes the TPS-80’s PEG below its full 60 kW power output at altitude. Back in 2007, the US military was near the beginning of its efforts to use Gallium Nitride (GaN) as a more efficient semiconductor material. More efficiency equals better performance, so the promise was clear, but the development risks weren’t. In response, the program stuck with conventional Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) electronics, but conducted studies and planned for a switch down the road.

Those studies showed that GaN circuits could draw just 50 kW for full radar power, allowing full effectiveness at 10,000 feet or beyond. Higher altitude naturally improves a radar’s field of view, and is a defining feature in places like Afghanistan, so the tactical impact is significant.

By 2012, research had made considerable advances thanks to investments by DARPA, the US Army, the USAF, and defense firms. The USMC kept its promise to set aside funds for the GaN switch, and USAF development dollars from the 3DELRR program built on good engineering and early planning to help complete the shift. In late FY 2013, the G/ATOR program office began the technology switch from to GaN.

Not cheap.
(click to view full)

Finally, there’s the financial end.

On the bad news front, the deliberate devaluation of the US dollar pushed a huge rise in gold’s American dollar price from 2007, which has backed off somewhat for now. Gold’s rise has been the subject of many reports, but few link that to gold’s industrial use in the kinds of high-fidelity connectors needed by a radar’s advanced electronics.

On the good news front, G/ATOR has made enough progress that it’s attracting interest in early deployment. That can be dangerous to a program, because the system will still have gaps, which can be exploited by politicians as an excuse to remove funding. The G/ATOR team has had to think hard about this, and one of their conclusions was that they could leverage Urgent Operational Requirements to finish the production program 3 years early. Faster replacement means less money spent maintaining earlier radars, which aren’t in ideal shape. It would also cut 3 years of variable costs out of production.

The current trend is to stretch defense programs out into costlier timelines, in order to save a bit of money each year. Events get a vote, however, and it remains to be seen whether G/ATOR manages to buck the general trend.

G/ATOR TPS-80: Industrial Partners

Industrial partners for the G/ATOR TPS-80 program include:

• Northrop Grumman (prime contractor)
  
• Caterpillar Logistics in Morton, IL.
  
• CEA Technologies, Inc. in Canberra, Australia (radar expertise, also involved in the CEAFAR/CEAMount project for Australia).
  
• Curtiss Wright.
  
• Moog Industries.
  
• Saab-Sensis Corporation in Syracuse, NY.
  
• Stanley/Techrizon in Lawton, OK. Formerly Telos.

G/ATOR: Beyond the Marines

3DELRR

G/ATOR began with the Marines, but its team doesn’t expect it to stay there.

When their Highly Expeditionary Long-Range Surveillance Radar program fell victim to budget constraints, the Marines joined the USAF’s 3DELRR air and ballistic missile defense program. In a 2012 interview, G/ATOR program manager Capt. Lee Bond said that G/ATOR’s scope would provide 85% of 3DELRR’s specifications, with the additional capabilities from increments II & IV thrown in for free. He believes that using G/ATOR as a base could cut 2 years from development time, and lower costs by 20% due to economies of scale. Northrop Grumman has openly stated their intent to pursue this path.

Bond also believes that G/ATOR would exceed the expected specifications for the US Army’s coming Multi-Mission Radar solicitation, depending on how the Army defines “simultaneous” multi-mission capability.

Northrop Grumman remains interested in future naval applications, which could lead to scaled G/ATOR technologies equipping smaller ships like the USA’s Littoral Combat Ships, or being incorporated into emerging multi-band radar naval arrays like AMDR. Northrop Grumman will say only that they’re looking at naval applications, and a November 2013 ONR study will look at replacing many of the US Navy’s older air surveillance radars with a G/ATOR derivative.

Then, there are foreign buys. The USA isn’t the only country worried about finding a very different set of targets on modern battlefields, or needing high-performance artillery-tracking radars for deployments abroad. Budget cuts in some countries make multi-mission radars attractive, and Northrop Grumman’s experience has been that ground-based radar exports have been worth 2.0x – 2.5x the value of American orders.

Official expressions of interest aren’t possible until a new system is cleared for those discussions, but Northrop Grumman says that they’ve receive a number of unofficial expressions of interest. Once G/ATOR passes Milestone C and can move into Low-Rate Initial Production, the USMC will be freer to respond to official inquiries from foreign governments. That happened in January 2014.

TPQ-53 on truck
(click to view full)

Northrop Grumman’s competitors haven’t been idle, of course. Lockheed Martin is busy introducing its new AN/TPQ-53 counter-battery radar, while Raytheon has its MPQ-64 Improved Sentinel series of air defense radars. Abroad, Saab’s Giraffe series of land and sea radars already fuses air surveillance and counter-battery targeting, and their Giraffe 4A is designed as a next-generation capability with the same capabilities as G/ATOR Block 2. All of these radars can also take advantage of new technologies, and some variants offer features within G/ATOR’s proposed set.

On the other hand, the TPS-53 grew out of an Army RFP that optimized its architecture for the counter-battery mission, making future additions and changes more difficult. The MPQ-64 Sentinel is a widely-used air defense radar, but its parameters re: range, elevation angle, power, etc. create their own limitations. Both competitors are likely to see continued improvement, but G/ATOR’s level of back-end integration remains unique, and its architecture is likely to give it rate-of-improvement advantages per dollar spent. To date, the TPS-80 G/ATOR remains the only Pentagon JROC-approved program that has funded integration of all of these capabilities into 1 system.

Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise noted, US Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA issues all contracts to Northrop Grumman’s Electronic Systems unit in Linthicum Heights, MD.

Oorah!
(click to view full)

September 2/16: Northrop Grumman has been awarded a $375 million Navy contract for procurement of the Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) system. Due for completion in 2020, the contract will cover nine G/ATOR low-rate initial production systems. G/ATOR provides a highly mobile, multi-mission radar system designed to support global expeditionary requirements and offers multi-faceted detection and tracking capabilities to engage a range of hostile threats while providing robust air traffic control.

Nov 3/14: USMC Plan. The USMC’s Aviation Plan to 2030 deals with radars as well. G/ATOR may have lost the 3DELRR competition for now (q.v. Oct 21-22/14), but it might gain a ballistic missile defense capability anyway:

“TPS-80 Block III is not a formal acquisition program, but consists of software developments that will enhance the radar’s performance and capabilities. Threats will continue to evolve over the course of the radar’s lifecycle and maintaining currency to detect emerging threats will remain a priority…. These software upgrades may include but are not limited to, Non-Cooperative Targeting Recognition (NCTR), Electronic Protection (EP) and Theatre Ballistic Missile (TBM) Tracking.”

If the USMC does go ahead with Increment III, they’ll have some interesting choices to make. Sources: USMC, Marine Aviation Plan 2015 [PDF].

Oct 21-22/14: GAO PRotests. The USAF confirms that Northrop Grumman has formally issued a protest against the USAF’s 3DELRR award to Raytheon. The next day, Lockheed Martin confirms that they are also filing a protest.

That halts the program until the challenge receives a ruling, which could take up to 100 days. In order to succeed, the challengers need to show that either Raytheon’s radar isn’t technically acceptable, that it wasn’t the lowest priced – or that something in the process went awry, ensuring that that competitors were treated differently or criteria weren’t applied fairly. Sources: See DID’s GAO Primer | Defense News, “Northrop Challenges 3DELRR Contract Award” | Reuters, “UPDATE 1-Lockheed Martin challenges contract to Raytheon”.

March 31/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2013, plus time to compile and publish. Our program dashboard has been updated accordingly. G/ATOR technologies are mature and its design is stable and demonstrated, but its production processes are not yet mature. Fortunately, the performance-boosting GaN technology for the T/R modules is maturing on schedule. Unfortunately, G/ATOR has a number of issues with system startup, random crashes, operator control console freezes, and an unstable command and control interface (q.v. Jan 28/14). In response:

“The G/ATOR program office has put together a plan to incorporate software fixes to correct system start up and prevent crashes. Some hardware alterations may be required. The program office plans to increase and improve system performance by upgrading the software integration lab to support accelerated testing and conducting field testing with users every six months to demonstrate reliability growth and operational relevance….

The program is authorized to procure 57 G/ATOR systems; however, only 45 were funded in the fiscal year 2014 President’s budget. According to the program office, the 12 unfunded G/ATOR systems will require funding by fiscal year 2016 in order to meet initial operational capability…. In addition, the concurrent development and production of G/ATOR may be adversely affected by personnel shortages caused, in part, by the impending retirement of highly experienced acquisition workforce staff.”

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). G/ATOR is included, and it seems to be having serious software issues, creating MTBOMF of 42.8 hours in the Field User Evaluation instead of the 500 hour goal:

“G/ATOR reliability-related software deficiencies have continued and have kept the radar from meeting its Mean Time Between Operational Mission Failure (MTBOMF) requirements. After allowing additional time for the software to further mature prior to the program’s Milestone C decision (scheduled for 1QFY14), the program added a fourth developmental test period to assess improvement…. it remains unclear if G/ATOR will meet key reliability metrics by the start of IOT&E (scheduled for 3QFY17)….

500 hours MTBOMF cannot be realistically achieved within the context of the current G/ATOR test schedule through IOT&E…. The program has not yet finalized an acceptable reliability growth strategy, has not completed an adequate test design for the IOT&E…. Over 80 percent of the Block 1 and Block 2 procurement is planned with GaN radar modules, yet it remains unclear if adequate production representative versions of the system will be available in time for IOT&E.”

Dec 4/13: Testing. Northrop Grumman announces that G/ATOR tests at MCAS Yuma have been successful, including support for 2 Weapons and Tactics Instruction (WTI) events. The firm says that the TPS-80 “detected and tracked targets that other systems at the exercise were not able to”, extracting targets from heavy clutter backgrounds and exceeding its objective-level (best case) availability requirements.

We’ll have to wait until early in 2014 to read the DOT&E’s report, but it sounds like the program is headed to Milestone C and Low-Rate Initial Production. Sources: Northrop Grumman, Dec 4/13 release.

Nov 6/13: Saltwater G/ATOR? Northrop Grumman announces an 18-month, $6 million study to explore replacement options for the US Navy’s AN/SPS-48 (all carriers, LHA/LHD amphibious air support, and LPD-17 amphibious ships) and AN/SPS-49 (all carriers, FFG-7 frigates, CG-47 cruisers, LHD amphibious air support, LSD-41/49 amphibious ships) air surveillance radars.

The Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) Study’s terms of reference would modify an existing radar to act in this capacity, and Northrop Grumman states that they’ll be using their AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR. Existing FFG-7 frigates are too old and limited to be good upgrade candidates, and the CG-47 cruisers and LSD ships are currently in the middle of major modernizations. With that said, the pace of major ship maintenance periods still leaves the USN with a number of options if they decide that this is a good idea. EASR is sponsored by the Office of Naval Research under its Integrated Topside program. Sources: NGC, Nov 6/13 release.

G/ATOR REG
(click to view full)

Sept 11/13: GaN. A $10.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification will raise the EMD Phase cost ceiling, in order to fund G/ATOR’s transition to Gallium Nitride electronics. GaN improves the radar’s performance, which allows the Marines to either push it harder or throttle back the generator. Fueling generators adds to both logistics burdens and operational risk, and even with full fuel, G/ATOR was falling short at higher altitudes that sap its generator’s power. GaN electronics offers full performance at just 50 kW, instead of the generator’s sea-level limit of 60 kW. Since higher altitude equals a wider field of view, the difference matters on the battlefield.

The G/ATOR program has always known about this difference, but it chose to wait until the underlying electronics were more proven, and the industrial infrastructure made it a low-risk switch. Time has delivered both changes, and development financing from the 3DELRR program (q.v. Aug 26/13) appears to have bridged the last technical gaps within the TPS-80 design.

Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/14. This contract wasn’t competitively procured, as it’s within the scope of the current contract and its changes clause (M67854-07-C-2072, PO 0115).

GaN transition

Aug 26/13: 3DELRR. Northrop Grumman announces that they completed their 3DELRR radar demonstration back in July. They refer to it as “The U.S. Air Force system variant of the Department of Defense AN/TPS-80 radar…” but unlike the USMC’s current G/ATORs, this S-band radar uses Gallium Nitride transmit/receive modules. That technology is in the USMC’s plans, and the development work may pay off for the Marines, just as all the work on the USMC’s TPS-80 G/ATOR would offer dividends to the USAF.

As one might expect, given their design’s lineage, Northrop Grumman also touts “successful system ambient air cooling under extremely hot operating conditions,” as well as the radar’s well-developed system self-test and calibration capabilities. Sources: Northrop Grumman Aug 26/13 release.

June 28/13: More SDD. Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Linthicum Heights, MD receives a $24.5 million cost-plus-incentive-fee, firm-fixed-price contract modification that increases the G/ATOR EMD phase’s estimated ceiling cost.

These price hikes parcel out as $21.1 million for development using FY 2013 funds, with $13.6 million committed immediately. EMD work will be performed Linthicum Heights, MD (88%); Yuma, AZ (10%); and Syracuse, NY (2%), and is expected to be complete by April 25/14.

The added $3.4 million for extra production engineering support uses FY 2012 funds, with all funds committed immediately. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD (81%), and Syracuse, NY (19%), and is expected to be complete by Feb 16/14.

This brings announced EMD contracts to around $533.7 million, but the GAO’s August 2012 figures already had G/ATOR development spending pegged at $539.5 million of a planned $893.1 million. The gap is easily explained, as announcements only cover contracts above a certain threshold. Note that the original baseline for G/ATOR development was $364.3 million in $FY13 (M67854-07-C-2072).

April 15/13: Budget. The FY14 request submitted by the Navy barely changes from the previous year’s budget, at $78.2 million. FY16 also remains stable, but FY15 and FY17 are lower by $19 million and $26 million respectively. Air Defense/Air Radar AD/SR Capability System Demonstration (DT)(1B) and Operational Assessment (OA) are extended by 2 quarters, while LRIP and Milestone C both slip by 1 quarter. Milestones further out in the plan (IOT&E, IOC, FRP decision) are supposed to be unaffected by these changes earlier in the schedule. US Navy PE 0204460M [PDF].

March 28/13: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2012, plus time to compile and publish. G/ATOR appears for the 1st time, and the overall report is good.

GAO acknowledges that performance requirements for G/ATOR have grown from 5 key performance parameters in 2005, to 16 in 2012. Program officials describe this as a “clarification,” but there’s no question that KPP expansion creates more development work. This explains some, but not all, of the program 145% RDT&E jump since the 2005 baseline. Overall program cost is up 101.2%, to $3.034 billion as of June 2012, despite a drop from 64 to 57 radars.

On the bright side, things have been much more stable since the program was re-baselined in January 2010. All 6 critical TPS-80 technologies are approaching full maturity, with 100% of design drawings released, using GaAS (Gallium Arsenide) electronics. The GAO gives no specific timeline for incorporation of better GaN (Gallium Nitride) electronics, but does say the program could save as much as $500 million from the change, while reducing weight and power demand.

Dec 21/12: More SDD. An $8.6 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification to increase G/ATOR’s estimated EMD (same as SDD) phase cost ceiling, in light of an expected cost overrun. $2.1 million is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD (75%) and Syracuse, NY (11%); Wallop’s Island, VA (11%) and Yuma, AZ (3%); and is expected to be complete April 25/14 (M67854-07-C-2072).

July 26/12: Testing. Northrop Grumman Corporation’s initial AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR Increment 1 system has been delivered to Surface Combat Systems Center (SCSC) Wallops Island in Eastern Virginia for G/ATOR’s 1st and 2nd phases of developmental testing. Yuma, AZ will host the 3rd and final DT phase, and operational assessment. NGC.

June 6/12: Increment II. The USMC is asking Northrop Grumman’s Electronic Systems sector in Linthicum Heights, MD to begin developing G/ATOR’s Increment II Ground Weapons Locating Radar (GWLR) software, which will track incoming shells and rockets back to their point of origin. The amount of the contract has yet to be negotiated. Military Aerospace & Electronics.

Dec 7/11: More SDD. A $32.3 million contract modification for the continuation of GATOR Increment I, to support the changes made to the risk reduction change order.

Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD (95%), and Syracuse, NY (5%), and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/13. This contract modification was not competitively procured, as the contract effort is within the scope of the current contract and is entered into pursuant to the changes clause (M67854-07-C-2072).

Nov 17/11: Northrop Grumman Corporation announces that its 1st Ground Based Radar Conference drew more than 90 attendees over 3 days, representing 10 nations. Besides the G/ATOR system, Northrop Grumman also sells AN/TPS-78 and AN/TPS-703 solid-state tactical mobile radar systems; and the Highly Adaptable Multi-Mission Radar (HAMMR) AESA radar for on-the-move, 360 degree coverage.

Feb 4/11: More SDD. A $38.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification, extending the GATOR Increment I development program. It will support the agreed-upon expansions to the original integrated performance baseline, and extend the contract’s period through April 30/12.

Work will be performed in a contractor facility at Linthicum Heights, MD (85%); and by Northrop Grumman’s subcontractor, Sensis Corp., located in Syracuse, NY (15%). Work is expected to be complete in April 2012 (M67854-07-C-2072).

April 5/10: Testing. Northrop Grumman Corporation announces the next system test phase.

This phase will use a fully populated G/ATOR array, complete with all transmit/receive modules, radiating elements, prime power and distribution, RF manifold, and associated control and processing electronics. This newest series of tests includes detailed verification that the G/ATOR’s active electronically scanned array (AESA) hardware will support all of the system’s multi-mission capabilities, and demonstration of all required AESA functions including beam generation, steering and control, performance at full rated power, operating bandwidth and automated array calibration techniques.

Testing of this array is taking place at the company’s antenna test facility in Norwalk, CT; in 2009, a prototype partial G/ATOR array was tested at the same facility, and expanded testing on that prototype radar array continues at NGC’s engineering and manufacturing complex in Baltimore. Once the 2nd, full array completes testing, it will be integrated with the other G/ATOR components for the next levels: full systems-level integration testing, and subsequent environmental testing.

Dec 29/09: More SDD. A $35.5 million contract modification increases the estimated cost ceiling and target cost of CLIN0001, finalizing change orders to the configuration the G/ATOR’s new up-armored MTVR carrier trucks. It also covers the modification and implementation of the upgraded UPX-40 as the identification-friend-or-foe system, and a change of the IFF system from government furnished property to contractor-acquired government property.

Approximately 80% of the work will be performed by Northrop Grumman in Linthicum Heights, MD, and approximately 20% will be performed by Northrop Grumman’s subcontractor, Sensis Corp. in Syracuse, NY. The contract modification was not competitively procured, as the contract cost increase is within scope of the current contract and is entered into pursuant to the changes clause (M67854-07-C-2072).

Dec 10/09: Program support. General Dynamics Information Technology in Fairfax, VA received a $5.8 million task order under a firm-fixed-price contract. They’ll provide on-going technical, managerial and logistics support for Program Executive Office – Land Systems, Program Manager Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR).

Emerging development efforts include engineering, architecture and logistical analysis of G/ATOR. Support requirements include supporting the G/ATOR Milestone C processes, and engineering and technical reviews (since Milestone B is complete). Additional support requirements include development and maintenance of programmatic information to be displayed in a G/ATOR Program Operations Center, information security, admin support, information assurance, joint interoperability, family of system definition/development and business analysis to define investment strategies, contract administration, planning programming and budgeting planning, logistics support, equipment specialist, earned value management system, program management plan support and cost/risk assessments. Due to in-sourcing, cost proposal and analysis efforts will not be required.

Support requirements include for the contractor to conduct/complete the logistics assessment of the manpower, personnel and training requirements and facilities analysis needed to support G/ATOR, the development of Manpower Training Integrated project team, to use as input and/or the development of the Manpower Personnel and Training plan. Work will be performed in Quantico, VA, and the contract will end in December 2010. The Marine Corps System Command in Quantico, VA manages the contract (M67854-02-A-9014, #0042).

Oct 6/09: More SDD. A $14 million modification under a previously awarded contract to increase the estimated cost ceiling for G/ATOR system development and demonstration to reflect its anticipated cost overrun. The contract modification was not competitively procured, as the cost overrun is within scope of the current contract, and is entered into pursuant to the changes clause. Discussions with US MARSYSCOM indicate that this increase is cumulative with the March 2009 ceiling increase.

Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD (75%) and Syracuse, NY (25%), and is expected to be complete in September 2011. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (M67854-07-C-2072).

Oct 5/09: Testing. Northrop Grumman announces that a prototype G/ATOR partial array antenna has completed successful testing at a company antenna test range in Norwalk, CT. The partial array is now being integrated with additional radar subsystems for follow-on testing at Northrop Grumman’s Electronic Systems sector headquarters in Baltimore, MD. Meanwhile, a 2nd G/ATOR AESA is scheduled for testing at the Norwalk, CT test facility later in 2009.

The G/ATOR AESA array can be thought of as “networked mini-radars,” so meeting all test objectives with a partial array that includes transmit/receive functionality, hardware and software communications, array tuning, and calibration techniques gives Northrop Grumman a high degree of confidence that the first fully populated array (currently under integration/test) will likewise be a success. Northrop Grumman representatives told DID that some test objectives were exceeded, and all were met. They added that their goal was, and is, to field a test radar that is as close to Full Rate Production versions as possible, using the same people and processes.

G/ATOR concept
(click to view full)

March 3/09: More SDD. A maximum $40.5 million contract modification reflect the anticipated cost overrun associated with completion of the G/ATOR’s SDD phase. The contract modification was not competitively procured, as the cost overrun is designated as being within the scope of the current contract.

Northrop Grumman estimated an additional $36 million to complete the SDD phase, of which the Government is immediately funding $16.8 million to support contract requirements for completing the Critical Design Review (CDR) scheduled from March to mid-April 2009. In addition, the contract modification increases the contract value by $4.5 million for engineering services and support over the life of the contract through June 2012. Those engineering services will be requested on an as-needed basis, and the Government has begun by requesting $238,695.

Work will be performed by Northrop Grumman Corp., in Linthicum Heights, MD (69%), and by Northrop Grumman’s subcontract, Sensis in Syracuse, NY (31%). Of the total funds obligated with this contract modification so far, $120,215 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (M67854-07-C-2072, P00024).

Dec 19/08: Sub-contractors. A $6.4 million modification to a previously awarded contract for Human Systems Integration (HSI) work, to be completed by June 2012. Work will be performed by Northrop Grumman Corporation in Linthicum Heights, MD (69%), and by their subcontractor Sensis, in Syracuse, NY (31%). The modification was not competitively procured, sine it’s classified as an engineering change within scope of the current contract (M67854-07-C-2072):

“The contractor shall develop and implement a plan to effectively apply HSI principles during G/ATOR design, production and integration. The contractor shall ensure Human Factors Engineering, Manpower, Personnel, Training, System Safety, Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH), and Personnel Survivability requirements are incorporated into the layout, design, and arrangement of equipment having an operator or maintainer interface.”

As technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond are beginning to realize, serious interaction design generally needs to begin earlier in the process. This is an improvement over the frequent practice of saving HSI for last, when it’s very difficult to change anything no matter what the findings show.

June 17/08: More SDD. A $28.2 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to extend the schedule by 8 1/2 months and increase the level of effort for G/ATOR system development and demonstration.

At this time, no additional funds are being committed, but the option is there if additional support and engineering effort is needed. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD (75%) and East Syracuse, NY (25%) and is expected to be complete December 2016 if all options are exercised (M67854-07-C-2072).

March 10/08: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Corporation announces a contract from Northrop Grumman to provide their new VPX boards and subsystems, high density digital signal processing products and optimized software tools.. The result will be a rugged air-flow-through radar processing subsystem using open architecture-based standards and software.

The initial $4.3 million contract is for development, which is expected to be complete in 2010. This subsystem will be designed and manufactured at Curtiss-Wright’s motion control facility in San Diego, CA, and will include products from its Leesburg, VA and Ottawa, Canada locations. The production phase of the G/ATOR program will be executed as an option under the current contract, and is planned to start in 2010.

Feb 27/08: No fries, chips. A $10.7 million modification to previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for design and development of a new Serial Rapid I/O processor for the G/ATOR. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD (75%) and East Syracuse, NY (25%), and is expected to be complete March 2011 (M67854-07-C-2072).

Sept 6/07: SRR. Northrop Grumman Corporation and the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) successfully reviewed and agreed upon 768 G/ATOR contractual design requirements during the recent System Requirements Review (SRR) held at Northrop Grumman’s Electronic Systems sector headquarters in Baltimore, MD. NGC release.

Additional Readings & Sources

Background: AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR

DID thanks the personnel of Northrop Grumman for multiple interviews over the life of this article.

• Northrop Grumman – Ground/Air Task Order Radar (G/ATOR)
• US Marine Corps Systems Command, PEO Land Systems, via WayBack – Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR)
• USMC PEO Land Systems, via WayBack (2012) – Ground-Based Air Defense And Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar [PDF]

News & Views

• USNI Seapower Magazine, via WayBack (November 2010) – A Radar for All Missions. [PDF, via Northrop Grumman’s site].
• Sen. Charles Schumer, via WayBack (Dec 19/05) – Schumer, Clinton: Congressional Panel Backs $14.4 Million For Defense Projects To Benefit Central New York. G/ATOR is mentioned.
• Military Aerospace Electronics, via WayBack (Sept 19/05) – Marine Corps chooses Northrop Grumman for new battlefield radar system

Related Systems

• DID – USA Developing New 3DELRR Long-Range Ground Radar. Northrop Grumman believes that a scaled-up version of G/ATOR would fit, but lost to Raytheon before submitting a GAO challenge.
• Northrop Grumman – AN/APG-81 AESA Radar. Its technical design contributed to Northrop Grumman’s G/ATOR solution.
• DID – TPQ-53 Counterfire Radars: Incoming…. Originally developed to track incoming artillery and rockets, and locate their source. It stemmed from a 2002 research effort whose scope was similar to G/ATOR’s, and the Army is now talking about extending the Lockheed Martin radar’s capabilities to include air defense. Other extensions may follow.
• Saab – Giraffe 4X. Truck-mounted AESA radar for air defense and counterfire missions.
• ThalesRaytheon – AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel. Integrated into NASAMS/ SL-AMRAAM air defense systems, but they’ve developed an additional C-RAM counterfire mode.
• US Marine Corps (July 3/07) – New radar system brings the fight back to terrorists. They’re talking about the 150 lb. Lightweight Counter-Mortar Radar deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Its convenient, tactically-useful size means that it may continue to exist alongside the vehicle-mounted G/ATOR Increment III, despite have some function overlap.
• DID (July 20/06) – Germany Orders New AESA Battlefield Radars. Cover the German BUR system, which will be mounted on blast-resistant Dingo 2 vehicles.

Improved Sentinel
(click to view full)

In September 2011, Thales Raytheon Systems in Fullerton, CA received a $162.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for 56 Sentinel AN/MPQ-64A3 radars, along with associated spares and fielding support. Work will be performed in Fullerton, CA, and Forest, MS, with an estimated completion date of June 1/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W31P4Q-11-C-0301).

Their Sentinel radar was to be an integral part of the SL-AMRAAM surface to air missile system, until the US Army decided to assume more battlefield risk and cancel it. Even so, the X-band Sentinel pulse-doppler 3D radars can detect a wide variety of aerial targets, and are being bought for forward area air defense units of the U.S. Army and USMC. Raytheon refers to this buy as Improved Sentinel radars (MPQ-64F1), and conversations with Raytheon personnel confirm that the Pentagon’s “MPQ-64-A3” is the same radar. They also confirm its ability to pinpoint the origin of mortar and artillery fire, and note that its effective range has tripled over the original Sentinel, to 120 km/ 75 miles. Cargo HMMWVs are used as the companion/ towing vehicle, and are equipped with the requisite generator to provide power for the radar.

Updates

September 21/16: Egypt is to receive eight Sentinel AN/MPQ-64F1 radars following the foreign military sale approval by the US State Department. The package, including training and other associative equipment, is estimated to cost $70 million. Once delivered, the Sentinels will work toward improving existing Egyptian air-defense capabilities following a series of aviation disasters over the last year.

Cougar 6×6, IEDed
– the crew lived.
(click to view full)

With the acquisition of Force Protection by General Dynamics in November 2011, future purchases will be covered under “General Dynamics MRAPs: Partners and Purchases.”

The Cougar family of medium-sized blast-protected vehicles is produced in both 4-wheel (formerly Cougar H) and 6-wheel (formerly Cougar HE) layouts. Eventually, the wisdom of using survivable vehicles in a theater where land mines were the #1 threat became clearer, and these vehicles have gradually shifted from dedicated engineer and Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) roles to patrol and route-proving/ convoy lead functions as well. Related variants and blast-resistant designs are also produced in response to country-specific requirements (Wolfhound, Mastiff, Ridgeback, ILAV Badger) and other designs cover different operational needs (Buffalo mine-clearance, Cheetah, Ocelot, and JAMMA patrol vehicles). To date, the firm has received orders from Britain, Canada, France, Hungary, Italy, Iraq, and Yemen; and Poland operates some on loan from the USA. Front line testimonials offer evidence of their effectiveness.

Cougar orders predate the USA’s MRAP program to rush mine-resistant vehicles to the front lines; indeed, the performance of Force Protection’s vehicles on the front lines was probably the #1 trigger for the MRAP program’s existence. This FOCUS article describes Force Protection’s vehicles and corporate performance, which became an issue in recent years. It also covers key events and procurements around the world related to Force Protection’s Cougar (MRAP CAT I & II), Buffalo (MRAP CAT III), and related blast-resistant vehicle families.

The Cougar Vehicles

Cougar 4×4
(click to view full)

Unlike the Hummer, Cougar vehicles are designed to withstand a 30-pound blast of TNT to either the front or rear axles, or a 15-pound blast to the center portion of the vehicle. Ballistic protection is also installed for the radiator, fuel tanks, and battery compartments. Each vehicle is equipped with weapons ports, a M-240G machine gun mount, engineer/ Explosive Ordinance Disposal tool storage, 2 spare tires, and a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical overpressure and filter system that also works very well as air conditioning. As their site puts it, 4 full inches of ballistic glass in the viewing ports et. al. “help you see what hit you.”

These are not small vehicles. The Cougar is substantially larger than a HMMWV, with heavier armor and features like a V-hull designed specifically to help it survive mine blasts. As the amusing web page by manufacturer Force Protection puts it: “Drop your purse, it’s not a Hummer.”

The M1114 up-armored Hummers have an empty “curb weight” of around 9,000 pounds, and a top weight of about 12,000 pounds. The comparable Cougar 4×4 MRAP CAT 1 weighs 31,000 empty (“curb weight”), with a maximum recommended weight when fully loaded of 38,000 pounds (“gross vehicle weight, or GVW). It usually carries 4 troops, plus the front 2 seats.

Cougar 6×6
click to play video

The larger Cougar 6×6 MRAP CAT II has a curb weight of 38,000 pounds, and a GVW of 52,000 pounds. They can carry 8 troops plus the front 2 seats, These vehicles can be customized for multiple tasks including troop transport, mine and explosive ordnance disposal, command and control, reconnaissance and as a lead convoy vehicle.

An even larger and more awe-inspiring relative, the Buffalo, is also deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan as a mine-disposal vehicle. Its signature feature has given it a nickname: “The Claw.”

Testing, testing…
(click to view full)

The Cougar family’s added weight, and designed-in protection, make a difference. As one June 2007 USMC.MIL story describes it:

“I’ve had two IEDs go off on me in the last two weeks,” said [Staff Sgt. Timothy Kessler of C Company, 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 6], whose unit has been hit at least six times so far since the beginning of his tour. The largest explosion detonated under the right front tire of the vehicle.

“It blew my fenders off, it blew the front bumper about 30 meters away. We never did find the fenders, but all the Marines inside the vehicle were OK.”

“The other blast was again under the right tire. We sustained minor damage and it fragged my window up a little bit,” said Kessler.

Although the MRAP vehicle Kessler was riding in survived the attacks, it is very likely that a humvee would have sustained catastrophic damage.”

Cougar interior
(click to view full)

On March 1/07, the Cougar’s success in theater led The Commandant of the US Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway to submit a Memorandum to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff [PDF]. It traces the history of program growth for MRAP vehicles, including a significant acceleration in 2006 from a request for 185 vehicles in May to 4,060 vehicles by November. It listed MRAP vehicles as his #1 unfunded priority, and added that:

“Based on the recognition of significantly reduced lethal and severe injuries in MRAP vs. the HMMWV, on 2 January 2007, commander, MARCENT requested support for a policy change that would provide MRAP level protection for all Marines operating outside the wire in MNF-W[1] . Under this policy, limited use of Armored HMMWV’s [sic] will be authorized in specific tactical situations where the operational characteristics of HMMWV are required. On 6 February 2007, the MROC (Marines Requirements Oversight Council) validated a Marine Corps requirement of 3700 vehicles in support of this policy.”

The USMC subsequently requested 3,700 vehicles under the 7,774-vehicle MRAP program (since expanded to 15,274 and then 15,771). They remain the lead acquisition service for MRAP, but Force Protection slipped from the US military’s #1 provider to #3 – and only became a more distant 3rd place as the competition continued. US MRAP candidates and orders included:

FP’s Cheetah:
a big hill to climb
(click to view full)

In order to maintain its momentum, Force Protection would need another success. It had invested some of its earnings to develop a smaller, lighter vehicle called the Cheetah. Weighing in at just 14,000 pounds empty, its size (89″ tall x 88″ wide x 212″ long) and mass allow a CH-53 helicopter to lift it from ship to shore, and also offer easier transport in amphibious ships. A cruise speed of 75 mph helps the Cheetah live up to its moniker, while its turning radius of 30 feet gives it the ability to maneuver in confined spaces like urban battlefields. Lighter, smaller vehicles do mean less protection, even with a v-hull design. Nevertheless, Force Protection claims that the Cheetah can withstand a 15 pound/ 7 kg TNT blast anywhere under the vehicle, 30 pounds/ 13.65 kg under the wheels, or 50 pounds/ 22 kg if detonated 6.5 feet/ 2 meters to the side.

The firm saw the Cheetah as its future, and several customers expressed interest or undertook evaluations. With funds and attention devoted to larger MRAP class vehicles, however, no-one bought any. Force Protection’s real goal was the JLTV program, which would replace many of the US military’s Hummers and could see orders for 60,000 or more vehicles. Cheetah had been ready for some time, much earlier than its competitors; its failure to secure an initial stage JLTV development contract in late 2008 was a shock to the firm. In response, Force Protection expanded its Force Dynamics alliance with General Dynamics to include the Cheetah, in order to compete for interim-buy MRAP-ATV contracts that seek lighter blast-resistant vehicles.

Unfortunately, that fell through as well, leaving the Cheetah with no initial customer.

FP’s JAMMA
(click to view full)

Efforts to develop vehicles for foreign customers have been more successful. Distinct Cougar 6×6 variants serve with Iraq as the ILAV/Badger, and with the British Army as the more heavily protected Mastiff or Mastiff 2. The British also operate smaller 4×4 “Ridgback” variants. The British also worked with Force Protection to develop a specialty 6×6 flatbed truck version called the Wolfhound, then served as the variant’s lead customer. Read “UK Land Forces Order Cougar Family Vehicles” for more.

Another follow-on vehicle called the JAMMA is optimized for Special Forces use, and has the distinction of being transportable in the V-22 Osprey‘s low compartment.

Ocelot modularity
(click to view full)

A British partnership has also developed the Ocelot, an entirely new vehicle design in the Cheetah’s weight class. Force Protection claims that its Ocelot exceeds the required LPPV mine protection level and offers protection similar to the 6×6 Mastiff Cougar variant, while still meeting LPPV targets for mobility, payload, size and gross vehicle weight. It is now the preferred bidder for that contract, continuing its remarkable strak of success in Britain.

Ocelot is a modular design with a core automotive armored spine or “skateboard,” and a composite special-to-role pod. Center of gravity is low, as all the heavy items are contained within the V-shaped skateboard: the Steyr 3.2 litre straight six diesel powerpack, propshaft, 6-speed ZF gearbox, AxelTech differentials, fuel tank and all the suspension gear, except for a torsion bar which is mounted alongside the hull. The V-shape design results in the running gear not intruding into the crew area, making movement from front to back easier and improving protection levels. Bulkheads between vehicle crew and dismounts, and between crew and electronic equipment such as radios and jammers, give added protection. Current add-on pods include patrol, fire support, or protected logistics vehicle, and the patrol vehicle pod seats 2 crew and 4 dismounts. The pods can be swapped out in the field as the need requires. Access is through large rear doors, 2 top hatches, or an oversize commander’s door. Ocelot can reportedly be airlifted in a C-130 Hercules aircraft, or even a CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter.

Winning either the British LPPV or Australia’s Overlander PMV-L competitions would allow Ocelot to establish a solid foothold in the light patrol vehicle market.

Cougar Family: Related Contracts & Events

Wolfhound TSV
(click to view full)

With the acquisition of Force Protection by General Dynamics, future purchases will be covered under “General Dynamics MRAPs: Partners and Purchases.”

Unless otherwise indicated, all contracts are issued by the Marine Corps Systems Command (MARSYSCOM) in Quantico, VA to Force Protection Industries Inc. in Ladson, SC. Note that many maintenance contracts are connected with specific American MRAP Program delivery orders. The first order was for test vehicles; subsequent orders under that contract (M67854-07-D-5031) include:

#002: 60 CAT I Cougar 4x4s and 65 CAT II Cougar 6x6s
#003: 300 CAT I and 700 CAT II
#004: 395 CAT I and 60 CAT II
#005: 25 CAT I and 100 CAT II
#006: 553 CAT I and 247 CAT II
#007: 178 CAT I and 180 CAT II
#012: 1,862 vehicles: Oshkosh TAK-4 suspension kits

These listed orders do not count Buffalo MRAP Class III mine-clearance vehicles, which are sole-sourced, or orders outside the USA. Both of those order types are covered below as they happen.

October 5/16: A second batch of mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles have been delivered to Egypt under the US Excess Defense Articles grant program. While the exact number of vehicles delivered remains unknown, the original shipment contained 762 MRAPs. First used for US operations in Afghanistan, the vehicles will give enhanced levels of protection to Egyptian soldiers tackling Islamist militants in the Sinai desert.

Sept 23/11: A $16.9 million firm-fixed-priced contract modification for 961 fuel protection kits, and 8 sets of MRAP Capability Insertion Enhanced and Inspect or Repair only-as-necessary tools. Work will be performed in Charleston, SC, and is expected to be complete no later than March 30/12. $5.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031). See also Force Protection.

Sept 1/11: Force Protection and CAE formally bid a modified Cougar 6×6 “Timberwolf” for Canada’s TAPV competition.

Aug 24/11: Force Protection bids a variant of its Ocelot vehicle for Australia’s Special Operations Vehicles – Commando (Project JP 2097 Phase 1B/ REDFIN competition. The Ocelot is also getting a look as part of Australia’s Overlander program, Phase 4, as a Protected Mobility Vehicle – Light (PMV-L) competitor.

Aug 5/11: Executive shuffles. Force Protection makes a a couple of leadership moves. Philip Ciarlo becomes Chief of Operations, after serving as VP, Sourcing at Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors. He also spent more than 20 years in GE.

COO Randy Hutcherson goes back to his roots as Chief of Business Development, a new position for the company. He joined Force Protection in 2009 as EVP, Programs, Global Sales and Business Development, after a career at EADS North America that included their aerial tanker bid. CEO Michael Moody said that:

“We have several large programs we are pursuing in which important customer decisions are expected in the coming months and expect that further requirements for the Company’s products and services are likely to be defined in the near to mid-term.”

June 29/11: A $63.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 56 Buffalo A2 mine-clearance vehicles, and 56 accompanying bar armor kits. Buffalos use BAE’s LROD aluminum bar armor kit.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, with an estimated completion date of Nov 1/12, though Force Protection expects to have them all built by July 31/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received by the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) in Warren, MI (W56HZV-08-C-0028). Force Protection release.

June 23/11: A $7.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 6-month renewal of 55 field service representatives to conduct general maintenance and upgrade operations in Afghanistan. Work is expected to be completed by Dec 31/11, but all contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031).

June 15/11: An $8.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 6-month renewal of 43 field service representatives to support operations at Vehicle Support Facility-Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Afghanistan, and is expected to be completed by Dec 31/11, but all contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031).

See also Force Protection release. Service and support contracts almost always exceed the value of the initial purchase contracts over time, and with production activities slowed considerably, support contracts like these are a critical source of revenue for the firm.

June 14/11: A $14.4 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification for a 6-month renewal of 87 field service representatives and accompanying equipment to install spall liner blanket kits, independent suspension kits, modernization safety kits and conduct general maintenance on the Cougar MRAP fleet in Afghanistan. Work is expected to be completed by Dec 31/11, but all contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031).

May 2/11: A $106.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 1,000 of Oshkosh’s TAK-4 Independent Suspension System kits: 650 for Cougar 4x4s, and 350 for Cougar 6x6s. Delivery of the kits is expected to begin in the Company’s Q3 2011.

Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI (95%, indicating that most of the contract’s value is Oshkosh’s), and Ladson, SC (5%), and is expected to be complete no later than Dec 31/11. $1.4 million in FY 2009 Other Procurement Air Force funds for the project will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (M67854-07-D-5031). See also Force Protection release.

April 29/11: An $18.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 1,103 Cougar fuel tank protection modernization kits.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete no later than Dec 31/11. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031). See also Force Protection release.

April 6/11: Force Protection announces a $46.6 million Foreign Military Sale (FMS) for 40 Buffalo MRAP-III clearance vehicles. All work under this contract will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete by September 30, 2011. US MARSYSCOM manages the sale on behalf of its FMS client, which is not named (M67854-11-C-5063).

March 30/11: An $11.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 10-month renewal of 46 field service representatives to install liner blanket kits, install modernization safety kits, and conduct general maintenance work on the Cougar Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle fleet. All work will be performed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and will be completed by Dec 31/11. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031).

March 9/11: Force Protection, Inc. releases its Q4 and full-year 2010 financial statements for the 12 months ended Dec 31/10. Lower spares and sustainment and vehicle sales were partially offset by increased modernization revenues. Net Sales were $656.0 million (2009: $977.1M), with Operating Income of $23.4 million (2009: $43.3M) and Net Income of $15.2 million (2009: $29.5M). Gross margin was 20.4% (2009: 16.5% without the Cheetah vehicle writeoff).

The firm’s year-end cash balance sits at $150 million, and more than $1 billion in new 2010 orders allowed them to enter 2011 with more than $560 million in funded backlog. Approximately three-quarters of this amount is expected to be recognized in 2011.

Separately, the board of directors has authorized Force Protection to repurchase up to $20 million of its common stock.

Cougar w. IED jammer
(click to view full)

Dec 16/10: Force Protection Industries, Inc. announces that it has broken the $1 billion mark for business in 2010. Of the orders received, approximately 53% were associated with modernization, spares and and maintenance for the company’s 4,500+ vehicles worldwide, while new vehicle orders accounted for about 47%.

Dec 15/10: A $13.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 87 MRAP field service representatives. Work will be performed in Kuwait, and the option runs until June 30/11. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031).

Dec 3/10: A $17.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 12-month renewal of 54 field service representatives to provide the full spectrum of support, modernization, and upgrade work on the Cougar Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle fleet. Work will be performed in Kuwait, and th renewal will expire on by Dec 31/11 (M67854-07-D-5031). See also Force Protection release.

Nov 29/10: As expected, Britain signs a GBP 180 million (about $300 million) contract with Force Protection Europe and their partner Ricardo plc, buying 200 Ocelot LPPVs. The vehicles will be known as Foxhounds in British service. UK MoD | British Forces News (video) | Force Protection | Defense News.

Nov 3/10: Force Protection, Inc. announces its Q3 2010 results. Full details can be found in the release, but net sales have dropped about 45% from Q3 2009, and the firm reports a slight net loss of $1.9 million for the quarter. FY 2010 9-month net income is $4.0 million so far.

As of September 30, 2010, the Company’s cash and inventories were $105.4 million and $85.9 million, respectively. In addition, accounts receivable was $186.6 million, including $105.8 million of earned but unbilled receivables, and accounts payable was $95.7 million.

Oct 1/10: Force Protection Inc. announces an agreement to settle 2 shareholder lawsuits, subject to court approval and certain other conditions.

A $24 million settlement covers the consolidated shareholder securities class action entitled In re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against the Company and a number of the Company’s former directors and/or officers. Most of the settlement will be covered by insurance.

A related shareholder derivative action pending in the same federal court, In re Force Protection, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:08-1907-CWH, is settled for $2.25 million from insurance, plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and expenses up to $2.3 million, and the adoption of certain corporate governance practices.

Sept 30/10: A $6.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 3 month extension of 55 field service representatives to complete independent suspension system kit installation on the Cougar MRAP fleet. Work is expected to be complete by Dec 31/10 (M67854-07-D-5031).

This brings announces Cougar ISS related contracts to $462.2M.

Sept 22/10: The UK MoD picks the Force Protection Europe partnership as their preferred bidder for its Light Protected Patrol Vehicle program, as its Ocelot beats Supacat/NP Aerospace’s SPV 400. Past reports have suggested an initial buy of around 200 vehicles, and Urgent Operational Requirements contract negotiations will now begin. Read “Blast Breakers: UK Land Forces Order Force Protection’s Vehicles” for the full report.

Sept 20/10: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC receives a $5.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 3-month extension of 70 field service representatives to complete independent suspension system kit installation on the Cougar MRAP fleet. When DID adds up all of the announced contracts that directly revolve around Cougar ISS upgrades, they add up to about $457.7 million (158.1 + 21.9 + 58 + 58.6 + 26.2 + 82.3 + 17.25 + 19.6 + 10.2 + 5.5).

All work will be performed in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Dec 3/10. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (M67854-07-D-5031).

Aug 24/10: The US Congressional Research Service releases the latest version [PDF] of its report “Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress. Excerpts:

“As of June 28, 2010, more than 8,500 MRAPs had reportedly been shipped to Afghanistan, with over 3,500 of those being the newer M-ATVs. The Army has recently said that it will begin development of yet another MRAP version – the “Ultra-Lite MRAP” – which raises questions about possible vehicle redundancies. The Marines, although voicing support for the M-ATV program, have retrofitted a number of MRAPs with new suspension systems and reportedly are satisfied with the results. This apparent success calls into question not only if the Marines need all of the M-ATVs allocated to them by DOD but also if the Marines’ retrofitted suspension system might be a more cost-effective alternative for the other services… Among potential issues for congressional consideration are the status of almost 5,000 MRAPS in Afghanistan that are reportedly not being used because of their size and weight.”

In terms of overall budgets:

“Through FY2010, Congress appropriated $34.95 billion for all versions of the MRAP. In March 2010, DOD reprogrammed an additional $3.9 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operations fund to MRAP procurement. Congress approved an additional $1.2 billion for MRAP procurement, included in the FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-212). The full FY2011 DOD budget request of $3.4 billion for the MRAP Vehicle Fund has been authorized by the House (H.R. 5136).”

Aug 19/10: A $64.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 1,946 seat survivability upgrade kits and the associated integration and installation on the Cougar CAT I A1 MRAP vehicles.

The installations will be performed in Afghanistan (80%), Kuwait (5%), and on vehicles at home stations in the U.S. (15%). Work is expected to be completed by February 2011 (M67854-07-D-5031). See also Force Protection release.

Aug 17/10: A $14.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) to purchase 43 field service representatives and standard consumable kits to support operations at Vehicle Support Facility-Afghanistan. All work will be performed in Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete by June 30/11. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. See also Force Protection release.

Aug 17/10: DoD Buzz reports that the US Army’s latest Tactical Vehicle Strategy looks like bad news for the JLTV, with small buys spaced over time to equip deployed units. Bottom line?

“Here’s the basic plan. Overall, the Army will shrink its fleet of HUMVEEs, MRAPs and medium trucks to 244,000 by 2025 from its current 260,000. How? The service will rid itself of 4,000 of the hardest to maintain and most beat up MRAPS by 2025. It will scrap the 28,000-strong M35 fleet and replace it with new FMTVs for a fleet total of 76,000. That will mean a total reduction of 4,000 trucks. The HUMVEE fleet will shrink the most, going from 101,000 to 35,000 by 2025. But there appears to be one big hole in the Army plan. It does not project how many Joint Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles it will be. The strategy’s answer: TBD.”

If Force Protection’s Cougars end up targeted in the 4,000, it would put a serious crimp in company revenues, which depend on maintenance and upgrade contracts to suport the existing fleet. See the full Army Tactical Vehicle Strategy [PDF].

July 28/10: A pair of $5.6 firm-fixed price contract modifications (total $10.2 million). Each covers a 5-month extension for 36 Field Service Representatives, who will help install Oshkosh’s TAK-4 Independent Suspension Systems onto Cougar MRAPs, to create Cougar ISS vehicles.

All work will be performed in Bagram (M67854-07-D-5031, #0016) and Kandahar (M67854-07-D-5031), #0017), Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete by June 30/11.

July 27/10: Force Protection partners with Canadian engineering & support firm SNC-Lavalin Defense Contractors, Inc. for the Canadian Government’s 500-600 vehicle Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (“TAPV”) program.

Their TAPV Cougar bid will be arrayed against Oshkosh & General Dynamics Land Systems Canada (M-ATV), and Thales and DEW Engineering (Bushmaster). Force Protection. Read “FLCV: Canada Looks to Upgrade Its Armor” for more.

July 20/10: Force Protection, Inc. announces that the Government of Canada has advanced their 2 Cougar variants beyond the 500-600 vehicle TAPV programs Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ) phase. In addition to the Cougar 4×4 and 6×6 variants, 7 vehicles from other equipment manufacturers were selected to move into the RFP phase, with a winner and contract expected in 2011. Force Protection.

July 2/10: In the wake of the May 26/10 announcement that its Ocelot is a candidate for Australia’s A$ 1 billion PMV-L component of Project Overlander, Force Protection meets with potential suppliers, as well as State Government ministers and industry representatives in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. Force Protection.

June 24/10: A $19.6 million firm-fixed-price modification to a previous contract (M67854-07-D-5031, delivery order #0012), for a 3 month extension of 216 field service representatives. These individuals will be used to complete TAK-4 independent suspension system installation on the Cougar Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle fleet at the MRAP sustainment facility in Kuwait. Work will be performed in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Sept 30/10. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. See also Force Protection release.

June 23/10: Defense News reports an announcement by the new coalition government’s Minister for Defence Equipment, Peter Luff, who says they will be buying another 28 Wolfhound TSV protected heavy cargo vehicles.

It’s one of a pair of contracts to different manufacturers, reported to be worth a total of GBP 65 million (about $96.8 million). The other manufacturer, Supacat, announces a GBP 45 million contract, leaving GBP 20 million (about $29.8 million) for the Wolfhound purchase. The UK MoD confirms this figure several days later.

June 23/10: Force Protection Europe in the UK announces a support product for its vehicle fleets. Karrus is a comprehensive closed-loop logistics software management suite. It analyzes complex logistics data using inputs from field representatives and other sources, in order to provide a fleet-wide maintenance snapshot. It can also be used to make projections, answering questions like what parts are needed, current fleet availability, projected fleet maintenance costs for the next 10 years, etc.

Force Protection Europe Ltd’s Managing Director, David Hind, sees the system as being useful far beyond Force Protection’s UK products, though it has been tested and used with those vehicles, and does fit well with British support trends. Karrus will be promoted on a global basis, including in the United States by Force Protection Europe’s parent company.

June 22/10: A $15.4 million firm-fixed-price modification to a previous contract (M67854-07-D-5031, delivery order #0015) for the services of 43 field service representatives to install spall-liner blanket kits and modernization safety kits, and conduct general maintenance to the Cougar MRAP fleet supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Spall liners use kevlar-type fabric, in order to either catch some shrapnel and bullet fragments that get past the outer armor, or narrow the coverage that any explosion can have in the vehicle’s interior. Work under this contract will be performed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it will end on June 30/11. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. See also Force Protection release.

June 11/10: A $10.8 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previous contract (M67854-07-D-5031, delivery order #0018) to buy 2,654 alternator modernization 570 amp kits for Cougar family vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. With all the gadgets and add-ons they have to run, more electric power is always a good thing.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete by March 31/11. $1,937,510 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. See also Force Protection release.

June 4/10: A $46.1 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previous contract (M67854-07-D-5031, delivery order #0018) for 2,451 enhanced Automated Fire Extinguishing Systems. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in July 2010, and be complete by February 2011.

Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI, and is expected to be complete in February 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. See also Force Protection release.

May 26/10: The Ocelot is one of 3 vehicles added to the competition for the Australian Overlander Program’s Phase 4 buy of up to 1,300 PMV-L blast-resistant patrol vehicles. Thales Australia, Force Protection Europe, and General Dynamics Land Systems will each receive 6-month contracts worth up to A$ 9 million, in order to develop “Protected Mobility Vehicle” prototypes. Those prototypes would compete against any winners from the American/Australian JLTV competition. Australian DoD | Force Protection | Thales Australia.

May 25/10: Force Protection Europe has been invited by the UK MoD to tender for Britain’s LPPV (Light Protected Patrol Vehicle) Demonstration, Production and Support Phases. The invite follows a recently awarded contract placed for 2 Ocelot vehicles, presumably for testing purposes. Force Protection release.

May 20/10: The US DSCA announces [PDF] Britain’s formal request to buy another 102 Mastiff 6×6 blast-resistant vehicles, along with associated tools and test equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related support. The estimated cost is up to $122 million.

The principal contractor will be Force Protection Industries, Inc., of Ladson, SC. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. The continued support of nine Field Service Representatives, currently providing in-theater maintenance support for the existing Mastiff vehicles until July 2010, will be extended until the UK can provide this support internally.

May 5/10: Force Protection, Inc. announces a $62.4 million modification to US Army TACOM contract W56HZV-08-C-0028 for 60 Buffalo mine protected clearance vehicles (MPCV), plus field support representatives, and technical data and manuals. The initial award is a firm-fixed-price $32.9 million contract. This contract modification is subject to finalization, so the end price may change somewhat.

Work is to be performed in Ladson, SC, with an estimated completion date of Nov 1/12, but Force Protection promises June 30/11 completion, with deliveries scheduled to begin in the 4th quarter of 2010. Unlike the rest of the MRAP competition, Buffalo MRAP-III MPCV vehicles are sole-source; 1 bid was solicited by U.S. Army TACOM in Warren, MI, with 1 bid received (W56HZV-08-C-0028).

May 4/10: $24 million for 30 Cougar 4×4 Category I MRAP vehicles including field service support. The contract is a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) for unspecified “coalition forces in support of US forces,” and is subject to adjustment.

The work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete by April 29/11 (M67854-10-C-5133).

April 19/10: $17.25 million for field service representatives to install the TAK-4 independent suspension system kits on Cougar MRAP vehicles in theater.

Work under these 2 $8.6 million each firm-fixed-priced delivery orders, issued under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (M67854-07-D-5031, #0016 and #0017), will be performed at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete by Jan 31/11.

April 2/10: $82.3 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of 755 Cougar independent suspension system (ISS) kits. The ISS kits are being manufactured by Oshkosh Defense in Wisconsin.

Work will be performed at the MRAP Sustainment Facility in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/10. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Force Protection release

March 8/10: Force Protection announces FY 2009 financial results for the year ended Dec 31/09. Net income was $29.5 million/ $0.43 per share (2008: $46.9M/ $0.69 per share), and operating income of $43.3 million (2008: $68.5M). That includes a $19.3 million write-down in Q3 2009, and also cost reduction activities that led to a 17% decrease in general and administrative expenses.

FY 2009 net sales were $977.1 million (all FP), compared to $1.3 billion in 2008 (about $920 million Force Protection + $479.5 million minimal margin pass-through sales to General Dynamics under the Force Dynamics MRAP agreement). The firm’s modernization, spares and sustainment business was a big 2009 contributor, growing by $461.6 million (over 180%). Of the firm’s 2009 shipments, 123 were its heavyweight Buffalo vehicles, a more than 50% increase over 2008. Overall inventories were down to $74.1 million (2008: $88.5M), but accounts receivable rose to $143.5 million (2008: $138.4M).

In a credit crunch environment, the firm’s year end cash and cash equivalents balance was $147.3 million (end 2008: $111.0M), thanks to annual net cash of $49.5 million (2008: $37.0M). Force Protection release.

March 8/10: A $26.2 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #0012) in support of the Cougar ISS program that upgrades vehicles with Oshkosh’s TAK-4 suspension. The contract will extend the work of 216 field service representatives, life support, and vehicle and equipment rental.

Work will be performed at the MRAP Sustainment Facility in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by June 30/10. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. See also July 2009 entries. Force Protection release

Feb 24/10: We be JAMMA. Force protection debuts its Joint All-Terrain Modular Mobility Asset (JAMMA) vehicle at AUSA Winter 2010. The vehicle is described as an armor-ready, four-occupant, hybrid powered (incl. 22Kw continuous exportable), high-performance off-road vehicle that can be transported inside the V-22 Osprey. JAMMA is equipped to handle high speeds, and is touted as a Special Operations suited vehicle whose modular system allows it to be up-armored easily. Force Protection release | Product Page.

Feb 23/10: Force Protection announces an order for 23 British Cougar Mastiff Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) variants, via a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) contract from Marine Corps Systems Command. The undefinitized contract has a value not to exceed $16.1 million.

The work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete before April 2010. Indeed, the first 5 Mastiff contracted vehicles were delivered on Feb 8/10, 20 days after contract award, thanks to long lead funding that was already in place.

Feb 22/10: Force Protection’s Board of Directors appoints Randy Hutcherson as Chief Operating Officer, effective Feb 18/10. He had been serving as Executive Vice President, Programs, Global Sales and Business Development, and will continue to report to Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Michael Moody. Announcement | Executive Profile.

Dec 30/09: Figures obtained by Britain’s Liberal Democrat party indicate that only 134 of Britain’s 271 delivered Mastiffs are considered “fit for purpose” due to maintenance and battle damage, and the new Ridgeback 4×4 vehicles being used for the first time by 11 Light Brigade have just a 60% rate at 73 fit for service of 118 delivered. The first Ridgbacks and Mastiff 2s were deployed in Afghanistan in June 2009. UK’s Times | defense aerospace.

Ocelot unveiled
(click to view full)

Sept 30/09: As vehicle production tails off, Force Protection, Inc. needs to lower its cash burn rate in order to remain viable. Today, the firm formally announces a program to reorganize itself and slash costs, which is expected to save at least $40 million annually and will be complete by the first half of 2010.

Th company will eliminate about 120 net jobs from its current workforce of 1,200 employees and contractors, involving Q3 2009 severance charges of about $2 million. Reductions in manufacturing and engineering will be partially offset by an increase in the Company’s support facility in Kuwait, and growth in support and and supply-chain management related jobs. The company is streamlining its spares logistics functions as a whole, including proposed freight management changes that are expected to yield significant cost savings and improved customer response times. The firm will also be pursuing “significant savings opportunities” in general corporate functions such as finance, consulting, legal and human resources, facilities management, travel, insurance, and other costs. Force Protection release.

Sept 28/09: Force Protection, Inc. announces a $52.8 million modification to US Army TACOM contract W56HZV-08-C-0028, ordering 48 Buffalo Mine Protected Clearance Vehicles (MPCV). This contract modification is subject to finalization, so the end price may change somewhat. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete prior to September 2010.

The Company adds that it continues to expect additional orders under this program, and to make total deliveries of over 100 Buffalos during FY 2010.

Sept 8/09: Force Protection Europe, Limited debuts its 7.5 ton Ocelot light protected patrol vehicle (LPPV) at Britain’s DSEi 2009 exhibition in London. It has 4-wheel steering, giving it a market leading turning circle of 39 feet. It is 17 feet long, 8 feet high and 7 feet wide.

The Ocelot was designed in conjunction with UK automotive engineering firm Ricardo plc, specifically to meet the requirements for Britain’s upcoming LPPV competition. Ocelot is based on a modular design with a core automotive armored spine or “skateboard,” and a composite special-to-role pod. Center of gravity is low, as all the heavy items are contained within the V-shaped skateboard: the Steyr 3.2 litre straight six diesel powerpack, propshaft, 6-speed ZF gearbox, AxelTech differentials, fuel tank and all the suspension gear except a torsion bar which is mounted alongside the hull. The V-shape design results in the running gear not intruding into the crew area, making movement from front to back easier while improving protection levels. Bulkheads between vehicle crew and dismounts, and between them and the vehicle electronic equipment such as radios and jammers, give added protection.

Force Protection claims that its Ocelot exceeds the required LPPV mine protection level and offers protection similar to the 6×6 Mastiff Cougar variant, while still meeting LPPV targets for mobility, payload, size and gross vehicle weight. Current pods include patrol, fire support, or protected logistics vehicle, and the patrol vehicle pod has seating for 2 crew and 4 dismounts. Access is through large rear doors, 2 top hatches, or an oversize commander’s door. The pods can be swapped out in the field as the need requires. Ocelot can reportedly be airlifted in a C-130 Hercules aircraft, or even a CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter. Force Protection release | Ricardo release | Ocelot product page.

Aug 24/09: $8.1 million for firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0010 modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031), for US Marine Corps field service representative support in and around Afghanistan. The contract will run until Dec 31/10.

July 27/09: Force Protection, Inc. announces a $52.8 million modification to contract W56HZV-08-C-0028 from the United States Army TACOM for 48 MRAP-III Buffalo Mine Protected Clearance Vehicles (MPCV). This contract amount is not exact, and will be finalized later. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete before Jan 31/10.

On the same day, as a result of this award and the Army’s continued commitment to the Buffalo program, Force Protection amends and extends its lease for building 3 at its Ladson, SC facility until June 30/14.

July 15/09: A $58.6 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (M67854-07-D-5031, #012). This contract amount is not exact, and will be finalized later. Support for the installation of TAK-4 independent suspension kits will will be performed in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/09.

Force Protection’s release describes this as a supplementary order that will convert another 545 Cougar vehicles, bringing the total number to 1,862.

July 2/09: A $58 million firm-fixed-priced modification to previously awarded delivery order #0012 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031), buying Phase 2 Field Service Representative Support, Equipment, Consumables, Bench Stock, and Training to install TAK-4 Independent Suspension Kits on 1,317 MRAP Cougar Vehicles.

This order brings the announced total for TAK-4 refit-related contracts to $237.5 (158.1 + 21.9 + 58.0) million. Work will be performed at the MRAP Sustainment Facility in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Feb 28/10. See also Force Protection’s release, and subsequent amendment.

July 1/09: Force Protection discusses the results of the US military’s M-ATV competition, which Oshkosh won:

“[M-ATV] did not select the Cheetah Mk. II vehicle submitted by Force Dynamics, LLC, the Company’s joint venture with General Dynamics Land Systems. The Company anticipates a relatively soft level of operating profit in its second quarter due to the timing of vehicle and other product shipments and costs related to the M-ATV competition. However, it expects a stronger second half and full year performance, due to expected life cycle support business combined with planned shipments of the Buffalo and the Wolfhound Tactical Support Vehicle (TSV).”

Michael Moody, Chief Executive Officer of Force Protection, added:

“We are grateful for the consideration given to our M-ATV submission by the customer, though of course we are disappointed to have not been selected. Even so, our business planning and ability to continue to generate growth and value for our shareholders was not dependent upon winning the M-ATV program… We have good near-term prospects, a highly active research and development organization and over $119 million in cash and no debt”

June 16/09: A $21.4 million modification of a firm-fixed-price delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #012), buying Phase 1 field service representative support for the installation of the new TAK-4 independent suspension kits on MRAP Cougar vehicles. See the April 8-9/09 entries.

Work will be performed at the MRAP Sustainment Facility in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/09. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (Sept 30/09).

June 10/09: According to the UK Ministry of Defence, the first batch of Mastiff 2 and Ridgback 4×4 vehicles have reached Afghanistan. A total of 300 are now operational.

Upgrades to the newest vehicles include explosive attenuating seats to reduce back injuries; improved armor; improved axles and suspension to cope with the difficult terrain; better thermal imaging for the drivers; and greater crew capacity. UK MoD | DID Spotlight: “UK Land Forces Order Cougar Family Vehicles.”

May 18/09: Force Protection announces that it has signed a lease in Mina Abdullah, Kuwait, and will soon open a total life cycle support facility that includes warehousing, administrative offices, and depot services. The facility is designed to shorten turnaround time for spare parts, modernization, service and repairs, and training for the Company’s deployed fleet of vehicles throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. The facility will provide maintenance and repair training as well as Operational New Equipment Training (OPNET) for new and upgraded vehicles.

April 9/09: Oshkosh announces a $122 million sub-contract from Force Protection, who is buying its TAK-4® independent suspension system for Cougar retrofits (see April 8/09 entry). The TAK-4 suspension systems are used in the US Marines’ MTVR medium truck fleet to improve their off-road capability, and have also been featured in Oshkosh’s JLTV and M-ATV entries.

April 8/09: A $158.1 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, #0012) to buy independent suspension kits for Force Protection’s Cougar MRAP vehicles. Work will be performed in the field, and in various locations within the United States, and is expected to be complete by Dec 30/10. See also Force Protection’s release, and a June 5/09 USMC article “MRAP modified from the ground up,” which adds that:

“The current MRAP has an issue with the axels bending and springs breaking when it hits harsher terrain… The independent suspension system virtually eliminates those problems…FPI field service representatives remove the old suspension system and prepare the hull surface for placing the independent suspension system… “We align the new suspension, permanently attach the brackets, and finally put the new suspension in their permanently… We only get one shot to align them correctly, so the whole process takes time.”

After FPI finishes with placing the new suspension, Oshkosh takes over and hooks up the brake systems, electrical wires and hoses, and makes sure everything is in working order… The process for conversion takes approximately six to seven days… Oshkosh’s central tire inflation system [which allows deflation for better traction on soft terrain]… is also being installed into the vehicles…”

April 7/09: The UK MoD signs a contract for 97 Wolfhound 6×6 heavy support vehicles, at a cost of about GBP 90 million ($122.6 million equivalent). These Cougar variants will be built by Integrated Survivability Technologies Limited (IST), a new 50/50 joint venture between Force Protection Inc., and their partner NP Aerospace in Coventry. The Wolfhound contract is expected to create 50 new jobs within NP Aerospace and its supplier base. In Force Protection’s words:

“The establishment of IST is intended to provide a single point of contact and design authority for future Force Protection business in the United Kingdom, including new projects, fleet upgrades and logistics support. The Wolfhound award represents the first direct sale to an overseas government of a Force Protection product. All previous Force Protection product orders for non-United States governments have been awarded through the United States Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.”

See: UK MoD | Force Protection.

April 7/09: Force Protection announces a $1.3 million Hungarian Ministry of Defence order for 3 Cougar vehicles, spare parts and training by June 2009.

Hungary currently fields an ISAF contingent of around 370 troops, and leads a Provincial Reconstruction Team at Pol-i-Khomri, north of Bagram.

April 7/09: A $21.9 million firm-fixed-priced modification to previously awarded delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #0007) to buy parts for the Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) for MRAP Category (CAT) I and II Prescribed Load Lists; CAT I and II Authorized Stockage Lists; CAT I and II Battle Damage Repair Lists; and the MRAP I and II Deprocessing Kit.

Work will be performed in Detroit, MI and is expected to be complete by Oct 30/09. The address appears to indicate work under the Spartan Motors contractor team arrangement.

French Buffalo
(click to view full)

April 4/09: Leased SALIS AN-124 cargo planes deliver 3 French Buffalos to Afghanistan, where they will serve with combat engineer detachments. They were accompanied by 4 SOUVIM (IVMMD Meerkat) vehicles, which serve as advance scouts for counter-mine operations. Once mines are detected, the Buffalo is used to dispose of anything that remains. DGA release [in French].

April 1/09: Force Protection, Inc. and Spartan Motors jointly announce a Contractor Team Arrangement to combine service capabilities and infrastructure for spare parts and field service of Force Protection’s fleet of Cougar vehicles. Each firm will commit key staff, facilities and information systems. Force Protection release.

March 26/09: Force Protection, Inc. (NASDAQ: FRPT) files its 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), within the prescribed period. That includes the audited results for the years ended Dec 31/08 and Dec 31/07, and the re-audited results for the year ended Dec 31/06.

Timely filing of accurate SEC statements has been a serious recent issue for the firm, so this timely filing is an important milestone for the firm. Force Protection release.

Feb 3/09: Spartan Motors, Inc. in Charlotte, MI received a $9.3 million firm-fixed-price, sole-source contract for 151 MRAP-III Buffalo Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle axle retrofit kits. Spartan is also a member of the Force Dynamics partnership that manufactures Cougars, in conjunction with Force Protection and General Dynamics.

Work will be performed at Charlotte, MI with an estimated completion date of May 18/09.The U.S. Army Tank & Automotive Command in Warren, MI manages this contract (W56HZV-09-C-0122).

Feb 3/09: A $17.3 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, order #10) for the purchase of 41 Joint Program Office, South West Asia ITC instructors for a 6-month period, and 55 Mobile Red River Army Depot training instructors for a 6 month period. Work will be performed in Operation Iraqi Freedom/ Operation Enduring Freedom’s of responsibilities, and various locations within the United States, and is expected to be completed by June 30/09.

Jan 16/09: A $6.9 million firm-fixed-priced contract for 8 MRAP Category III Buffalo Vehicles and associated items. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and delivery is expected to be complete by Sept 1/09, with sustainment support continuing through January 2012 (M67854-09-C-5000).

Jan 15/09: Force Dynamics, LLC, the Force Protection/ General Dynamics joint venture that has produced Cougar vehicles under the MRAP program, announces that they are submitting Force Protection’s Cheetah in response to the U.S. Army’s MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) solicitation. Force Protection.

Force Protection has refused to include the Cheetah under the original Force Dynamics agreement, which splits manufacturing and revenues on a 50/50 basis. Cheetah’s failure to secure an initial contact as one of the 3 JLTV program finalists apparently created a change of heart. The base vehicle has been ready for a couple of years now, but it needs a base customer to succeed in the global marketplace. M-ATV, which could end up ordering up to 10,000 vehicles, is now the Cheetah’s best chance of justifying its development costs, and becoming a sustainable global offering.

Jan 14/09: A $5.9 million firm- fixed-price modification to previously awarded delivery order #0005 under contract M67854-07-D-5031. the military is buying CDRL A043 PHST – Preservation and Packaging, CDRL A044 PHST – Validation Report, CDRL A045 PHST – Special Packaging Instruction, and 15 additional Field Service Representatives (FSR) – OCONUS to support MRAP Category I Cougar 4×4 vehicles in Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and in the Operation Enduring Freedom area of responsibility, and is expected to be complete by April 1/10.

Dec 23/08: Force Protection is informed by the SEC that, as a result of the October 2008 deregistration of prior auditor Jaspers + Hall, the Company should have its consolidated 2006 financial statements re-audited. The firm’s current auditors, Grant Thornton LLP, will play that role. Source.

Dec 18/08: A $10.4 million firm fixed priced modification to previously awarded under Delivery Order #0007 for armor kits (B-Kits) to be installed on 178 MRAP CAT I vehicles. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and in CENTCOM’s Area of Responsibilities. Work is expected to be complete by June 30/09 (M67854-07-D-5031).

Dec 16/08: Force Protection announces 2 contract awards from Marine Corps Systems Command for 188 Cougar Exterior Ballistic EFP kits. These kits are designed to deal with Explosively Formed penetrator land mines, which form the equivalent of a tank shell and then fire it into the triggering or targeted vehicle. These unfinalized contracts carry a combined dollar value not to exceed $30 million, with delivery scheduled for late 2008 and early 2009.

The Force Armor kits use layered composite materials and metal that are 11 3/4-inch thick, and can be cut to fit any vehicle capable of carrying the weight. It weighs about 102 pounds and costs about $2,000 per square foot. Force Protection | Defense News.

Nov 19/08: New Wolfhound variant. Force Protection’s Wolfhound, a flatbed truck variant of the Cougar 6×6, wins the UK’s Tactical Support Vehicle (Heavy) competition as the preferred bidder. Force Protection proposes to deliver these vehicles in conjunction with their UK integration partner, NP Aerospace; Chairman and CEO Michael Moody adds:

“We completed design work and built two prototypes for Wolfhound, which is based on our highly successful Cougar vehicle, in just 90 days. During this time we also carried out blast tests and mobility trials.”

The Wolfhounds will be used to carry supplies into the most dangerous areas, and will often operate alongside its Mastiff (6×6) and Ridgback (4×4) brethren. The exact number of vehicles and cost remain unfinalized. UK MoD | Force Protection.

Nov 19/08: Force Protection announces a not-to-exceed $15 million modification under contract M67854-06-C-5162 from Marine Corps Systems Command, to deliver 24 more Cougar Mastiff 6x6s to the British Ministry of Defence. The undefinitized contract includes vehicles and spare parts, and the vehicles are scheduled for delivery in 2009.

On Oct 29/08, the UK MoD mentioned that that they would buy another 30 Cougar family 6×6 and 4×4 vehicles, in order to improve their training fleet. This may well be part of that order. Force Protection release.

Nov 17/08: The Canadian Forces, which already uses a handful of Cougar (5) and Buffalo (5) vehicles in Afghanistan, submits a modification under contract M67854-07-C-5039 for 14 Buffalo A2 route-clearance vehicles, and 34 more Cougar vehicles. The undefinitized contract modification carries a dollar value not to exceed $49.4 million, and includes vehicles, spare parts and field support. The vehicles are scheduled for delivery in 2009. Force Protection release.

Nov 14/08: The US government issues a pre-solitication notice for a subsidiary competition called M-ATV, essentially an “MRAP Lite” bridge buy to the JLTV. FBO pre-solicitation #W56HZV-09-R-0115. Force Protection’s Cheetah is likely to be a prime contender for the buy(s), which could reach up to 10,000 vehicles.

The requirement for land mine and EFP protection, in a vehicle that’s lighter and more mobile than MRAP, may prove very challenging for anyone to meet with an off the shelf product. A subsequent Defense News article places M-ATV’s top weight at 12.5 tons empty, however, which is only slightly lighter than some existing MRAPs. That could put the 7-10 ton Cheetah at a disadvantage.

The RFP is expected by early December 2008. A draft issued on Nov 25/08 states that M-ATV would receive the same DX top-priority production rating employed by the original MRAP program, adding that the first vehicles are expected to be fielded in the fall of 2009.

Nov 13/08: Force Protection, Inc. announces 2 orders for its MRAP Category III Buffalo mine-clearance vehicles, worth $34.1 million.

The first is an not-to-exceed $15.5 million unfinalized order from the United States Army for 16 Buffalo A2 route-clearance vehicles (W56HZV-08-C-0028). It is connected with the requirement for the Ground Standoff Mine Detection System (GSTAMIDS) program of record. The vehicles are to be delivered no later than the end of June 2009.

The firm also received a modification to contract M67854-06-C-5162 from Marine Corps Systems Command for a Foreign Military Sales order of 14 Buffalo vehicles to be delivered to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. The not to exceed $18.6 million contract is also unfinalized with respect to its total amount, and represents the first orders for the Buffalo vehicle from the United Kingdom. The Buffalos will be part of Britain’s GBP 96 million Talisman program, which will also include a set of armored engineer-excavator tractors and other related equipment. Work, including vehicle deliveries and sustainment, is to be complete by October 2009. UK MoD announcement.

Cheetah
(click to view full)

Oct 28/08: Force Protection’s Cheetah has been in development for a couple of years now; the lighter (14,000 pound empty) vehicle has been positioned as a mine-resistant candidate for the US military’s touted JLTV program to replace its Hummers. Force Protection was partnered with Finmecanica’s DRS for the competition.

The US military announces its 3 winners on this day – and the Cheetah is not among them. A BAE/Navistar team, the General Tactical Vehicles partnership of General Dynamics and Hummer maker AM General, and a team led by Lockheed Martin won 27-month development contracts in preparation for the next down-select. Per the Oct 24/08 entry, however, the Cheetah might become a bridge “MRAP-lite” order candidate until JLTV is fielded – currently scheduled for 2013, if indeed that is what happens. US Army release.

Oct 29/08: An $11.8 million firm-fixed-priced modification to previously awarded delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #0007) for MRAP Vehicle EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) cages, increased quantities of prescribed load lists, authorized spares, Battle Damage Assessment repair kits, and deprocessing kits. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and in CENTCOM’s area of responsibility. Work is expected to be complete by Dec 31/09.

Oct 24/08: Defense News reports that more mine-resistant vehicles could be in the order pipeline. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps reportedly plan to rapidly develop and buy a fleet of 7-10 ton vehicles that offer better mine resistance than Hummers, but better off-road mobility than MRAPs. Afghanistan is seen as an especial focus for these vehicles.

Oshkosh’s Sandcat and Force Protection’s Cheetah vehicle are seen as potential candidates for that bridge buy, and Navistar’s MaxxPro Dash must also be placed in this category given recent the MRAP orders for deployment of this lightened variant to Afghanistan. Defense News places potential military demand at 2,000- 5,000 bridge buy vehicles – assuming that future issues with the JLTV program and Army funding don’t lead to the “bridge” becoming the road.

Oct 24/08: Force Protection announces an additional delivery order for 27 Buffalo A2 variant route-clearance vehicles. This unfinalized contract arries a dollar value not to exceed $26.2 million, and is submitted as an urgent operational requirement. These vehicles are to be delivered prior to June 2009 (W56HZV-08-C-0028).

Oct 20/08: The Alamagordo Daily News reports that the new A2 version of the Buffalo CAT-III MRAP mine removal vehicle is currently undergoing testing and evaluation by White Sands Missile Range’s Survivability Vulnerability Assessment Directorate. The vehicle is being evaluated for its ability to survive various electromagnetic environmental effects and threats – which correctly implies testing for nuclear scenarios. Alamagordo Daily News | Reprinted by Force Protection.

Oct 7/08: Force Protection, Inc. announces a letter from the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Hearings Panel, stating that it had determined to continue the listing of the Company’s securities because Force Protection has filed its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, and the Quarterly Reports for the first two quarters of 2008.

Father and Daughter
(click to view full)

Sept 30/08: Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza’s report “Polish Soldiers in Unwanted Vehicles” that Poland has selected Force Protection’s Cougar as a lease from the American military, with the first 30 to begin delivery in October 2008. Robert Rochowicz, a spokesman for Poland’s Ministry of Defence, is quoted as saying that “The Cougars will be delivered by US Army to a location of our choice.”

The move reportedly suspends Poland’s own MRAP buy for about a year, and the selection has caused some controversy in Polish military circles.

Sept 30/08: Force Protection announces that it has filed its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods ended March 31/08 and June 30/08. The Company also filed with the SEC its amended Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q/A, restated for the quarterly periods ended March 31/07, June 30/07, and Sept 30/07. Force Protection adds that it is now up to date with reporting requirements for the SEC and listing requirements for the NASDAQ market.

The firm’s Sept 30/08 release offers more details regarding its recent and past quarterly results.

Sept 24/08: A $41.8 million firm fixed priced modification to delivery order #0003 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of 90-day’s worth of spares per the Prescribed Load List (PLL); labor support and Authorized Stockage List (ASL). Work will be performed in, Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete no later than Oct 29/09. See also Force Protection release.

Sept 22/08: Force Protection announces an extension from the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel to file its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first and second quarters of 2008 on or before Sept 30/08.

Sept 19/08: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $6.8 million firm-fixed-priced modification to previously awarded delivery order #0006 under previously awarded contract M67854-07-D-5031. The modification covers an MRAP Field Service Representative Site Lead and welders outside the United States, and finalizes the cost for Battle Damage Assessment Repair (BDAR) Kits and Deprocessing Kits. Work will be performed in Ladson, S.C., and in Iraq and Afghanistan; his contact period will expire in Dec 31/09.

Sept 15/08: Force Protection files its 2007 10-K financial statement, and explains its financial disclosure plans. From its release:

“…announced results for the full fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 and filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company noted that this filing includes restated condensed consolidated financial statements for the periods ended March 31, 2007, June 30, 2007 and September 30, 2007. Additionally, the Company stated that it intends to file separate amended Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first, second and third quarters of 2007 and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first and second quarters of 2008 on or before September 30, 2008.”

The firm has also requested a NASDAQ listing extension to Sept 30/08.

Sept 4/08: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received $7.2 million for a firm-fixed-priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031 #0013) for the purchase of 5 test vehicles with “engineering change proposal upgrades for enhanced maneuverability and associated non-recurring engineering costs.” That’s the exact language used to describe the Pentagon’s same-day order for 822 Navistar MaxxPro Dash vehicles, a ighter variant optimized for operations in Afghanistan. Force Protection release confirms as much. If Force Protection’s modified vehicles pass testing could conversions of some existing stock, or future American orders, be in store?

Work will be performed in, Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete no later than Jan 31/09. See also Force Protection release.

Sept 2/03: General Dynamics Land Systems announces contracts from Force Protection Inc. that are worth $47 million. GDLS will provide supplies and support for Force Dynamics Cougar vehicles under the MRAP vehicle program. Work under these contracts will be performed in Anniston and Oxford, AL; Charlotte, MI; Ladson, SC; Lima, OH; Kings Point, NC; and Sealy, TX.

Aug 28/08: The corporation’s accounting books remain a very serious problem. The firm will now restate its previously reported financial statements for the 3 month period ended March 31/07 and the 3 and 6 month periods ended June 30/07, in addition to restating its previously reported interim financial statements for the 3 and 9 months ended Sept 30/07. Meanwhile, serious accounting weaknesses are proving difficult to clean up. From the company release:

“Management discovered accounting errors during its 2007 interim period and year-end review, including errors associated with recognizing the value of revenue, certain accrued liabilities, inventory and deferred taxes in the proper quarterly periods. The Company discussed the matters related to the restatement with Grant Thornton LLP, the Company’s current independent registered public accounting firm…

The Company intends to file an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or before September 15, 2008. The Company anticipates that its consolidated statement of operations included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 will report net sales of approximately $890 million, representing an increase of over $694 million from net sales of $196 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The increase in net sales was primarily due to contracts awarded under the United States military’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (“MRAP”) vehicle program. Although revenues increased in 2007, the Company expects that 2007 net income will be significantly lower than the $16.6 million of net income that the Company reported for the year ended December 31, 2006.

The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the matters described above on its internal controls over financial reporting and the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures. Management noted it had previously identified and described material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on November 13, 2007. As a result of these previously identified material weaknesses and other deficiencies identified during the review of financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007, management has concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2007. Additionally, management does not believe that the material weaknesses identified as of December 31, 2007 will be remediated by September 30, 2008 and anticipates that material weaknesses will be identified in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first, second and third quarters of 2008.”

Aug 20/08: An $18 million firm fixed priced modification to previously awarded delivery order #0006 under an existing contract (M67854-07-D-5031). The US military is buying MRAP parts, training equipment, training material, tool sets, field service outside the continental United States (OCONUS), continental United States, and administration.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC; Camp Lejeune, NC; Camp Pendleton, CA; Twenty-nine Palms, CA; Gulfport, MS; Port Hueneme, CA; Fort Story, VA; Texarakana, TX, and CENTCOM’s front lines, and work is expected to be complete in December 2009.

Aug 12/08: NASDAQ Letter. Force Protection, Inc. (NASDAQ: FRPT) must announce a notice from the staff of The Nasdaq Stock Market stating that the Company is not in compliance with Nasdaq rules, because it has failed to file its 10-Q form with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30/08, and that Force Protection is subject to having its stock delisted from the Nasdaq. This is not the first letter NASDAQ has sent FRPT on the subject of 10-Q filings.

At the Company’s request, a hearing on the Staff Determination was conducted before the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel. On May 29/08, the Company received a letter from the Nasdaq Hearings Panel granting its request for continued listing on the Nasdaq Stock Market until Sept 15/08, subject to certain conditions:

“These conditions include, without limitation, that on or before September 15, 2008 Force Protection shall file with the SEC its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, the Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 and any required restatements. As a result, the Company’s common stock may remain listed with the Nasdaq Capital Market until September 15, 2008.”

July 18/08: Force Protection, Inc. will produce 5 Buffalo mine-disposal vehicles for the French military, as a $3.5 million modification to contract M67854-07-C-5039. The order is scheduled for completion by November 2008. Since the Buffalo vehicle is not part of the Force Dynamics partnership, work will be performed solely by Force Protection Industries.

July 1/08: A $43 million modification to a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, Delivery Order #0006) for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Integrated Logistic Support sustainment parts, Training Equipment, Training Material, Tool Sets, Outside the Continental United States Instructors and Field Service Representatives.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and within CENTCOM’s area of responsibility, and is expected to be complete in December 2009. See also Force Protection Aug 8/08 release re: its support orders.

June 2008: The US Army names to Cougar 6×6’s Reconnaissance Vehicle System variant as one of the Top 10 military inventions of 2007. The RECCE adds a number of additional features including the Protector/CROWS gun that can be operated from inside the vehicle; ‘Blue Force Tracker‘ that shows identifies enemies and all friendly forces (sometimes found on other vehicles as well); Gyrocams; and a Robot Deployment System that lets the crew deploy and retrieve tracked MTRS robots without having to open the vehicle.

Read “US Army Awards Top 10 Inventions of 2007” to see the other winners.

May 29/08: A $28.5 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, #0003) to purchase welding services and spares under the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) effort. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete in October 2009.

May 29/08: A $15.2 million modification to contract (M67854-07-D-5031) Delivery Order #0006 to purchase field support services under the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) effort. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete in October 2009.

May 23/08: A $6.4 million firm-fixed-priced modification under delivery order #0001 to contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) MRAP instructors. Work will be performed in the combat area of operations until August 2008.

May 5/08: A $17.1 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, #0005) for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle integrated logistic support sustainment parts and OCONUS(Outside the CONtinental US) field service representatives. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete in October 2009. The Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA issued the contract.

May 1/08: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC receives a not to exceed $91.55 million contract modification from the UK MoD under previously awarded contract (M67854-06-C-5162), in exchange for 151 vehicles and associated spares. Force Protection notes them as Cougar vehicles; the 4x4s are apparently named “Ridgebacks” in British parlance, and will complement the larger Mastiff vehicles. See also April 8/08 entry.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, with the first vehicle deliveries scheduled to begin in July 2008; work is expected to be complete in July 2009. Funds for this action are provided by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence and do not expire. The Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA handles the order on the American side. Force Protection release | DID coverage of Britain’s Mastiff/Rideback orders.

April 29/08: A $15.3 million modification to delivery order #0003 (See Jan 15/08 entry) under previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract M67854-07-D-5031 for “Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) sustainment parts.” Or, in English, for spares. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete in October 2008.

April 22/08: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $12.6 million firm-fixed-priced modification under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, Delivery Order #0004) for MRAP Vehicle logistics support to include technical data, provisioning data, Outside the Continental United States field service representatives, a 1-year maintenance workshop block and a 1-year forward deployment block of services. Work will be performed in the combat area of operations and in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete by Nov. 2008.

April 8/08: The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notifies Congress of the United Kingdom’s formal request for another 157 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)Category I 4×4 Cougar vehicles, as well as tools and test equipment, maintenance support, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, support equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. This is not a contract, but past British requests have been consistently followed by orders.

The estimated cost is $125 million, and the proposed sale requires the continued support of 7 Field Service Representatives (FSRs), currently providing in theater maintenance support for Britain’s existing Mastiff Cougar 6×6 variants. An additional 8 FSRs will be added under the UK-P-LTR arrangement, and the United Kingdom has requested 1 additional FSR under this proposed sale to support the additional vehicles until July 31/09.

Note that any contract arising from this request will not be part of the Force Dynamics joint venture, which only applies to American MRAP sales. DSCA release [PDF] | Force Protection release.

April 8/08: Force Protection, Inc.’s Executive Vice President for Customer Relations Damon Walsh, and Vice President for Program Management Bill LaFontaine, have received a “Patriot Award” Certificate of Appreciation from the U.S. Department of Defense.

The Patriot Award recognizes employers whose policies and practices are supportive of their employees’ participation in the National Guard and Reserve. All awards originate from nominations by individual Reserve members, and are issued by the DoD’s National Committee of Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. Force Protection release.

Cougar-H 4×4 EOD
(click to view full)

March 24/08: Force Protection announces that NASDAQ has taken initial steps to de-list the company for failing to file its 10-K. Compounding the firm’s difficulties, its auditors resign, on the grounds that the company’s financial controls make it impossible for them to offer an opinion backing the company’s figures.

See “Force Protection: Blast-Resistant Manufacturer Headed for Implosion?” for more.

March 14/08: A $9.8 million delivery order under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for 12 Cougar 4×4 and 6 Cougar 6×6 vehicles. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete November 2008.

This order, coming as it does on the same day as orders for hundreds of vehicles from key competitors, and following on the heels of plant capacity expansion (q.v. Nov 30/07) and a small December 2007 order (q.v. Dec 18/07), is not good news for the firm. Indeed, a Bloomberg report claims that today’s orders were mainly for the U.S. Army, and quotes Force Protection’s vice president for government relations Michael Aldrich as saying that “This is the logical continuation of the course the Army set back in December… From December we stopped ramping up [as the US Army chose to focus on BAE and Navistar]. Force Protection remains in 3rd place overall within the MRAP competition, slipping to 21.8% behind Navistar (36.9%) and BAE Systems (35.7%), but remaining well ahead of partner General Dynamics’ collaboration with South Africa’s BAE OMC on the proven RG-31 (4.4%).

March 14/08: A $7.7 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5006, #007) for the purchase of 11 MRAP Category III (Buffalo) vehicles. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete in September 2008.

The Buffalo is a sole-source contract to Force Protection, and 117 have been ordered to date. Whereas its Cougars are designed to resist land mines, the Buffalo vehicle and its long-armed claw are designed to dig them up and dispose of them.

March 7/08: Force Dynamics, LLC, the joint venture company of Force Protection, Inc. and General Dynamics Land Systems announces that Damon Walsh has been named Chairman, and that Daniel Busher has been unanimously selected as new members of the Board, effective March 3/08. The remaining members remain: Mark Roualet as Vice Chairman; Susan Young as Treasurer; and Richard Hamilton and John Gonias as members at large.

Mr. Walsh is a Level III Certified Acquisition Professional as well as a Certified Professional Contracts Manager with more than 25 years experience in both the operational Army and Acquisition communities, who served as a career officer in a wide variety of U.S. Army staff and command positions before joining Force Protection.

Mr. Busher has more than 20 years of international business experience in the automotive industry, and was an executive of materials for North American Automotive Operations within Alcoa before joining Force Protection. Force Protection release.

March 3/08: Force Protection, Inc. announces that interim CEO Michael Moody will become the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chairman.

News is less good for the firm’s Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer positions; Raymond Pollard, the Company’s COO, departed effective this day, and the firm has determined not to fill the COO role in the near future. CEO Moody will assume immediate responsibility for Mr. Pollard’s direct reports, which include Executive Vice Presidents Damon Walsh, Daniel Busher (both of whom joined the Force Dynamics joint venture’s Board on this day) and Mark Edwards.

CFO Michael Durski departed the Company effective Feb 29/08 to pursue other interests, and the Board appointed Huron Consulting Group, LLC managing director Francis E. Scheuerell, Jr. as the Interim CFO while an external search is undertaken.

March 3/08: This isn’t going to help the firm on Wall Street. Force Protection, Inc. [NASDAQ:FRPT] announces that it will delay the filing of its Annual Report/ Form 10-K with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2007, waiting until an audit of the fiscal year’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended 2007 is complete. The firm will also restate its previously reported interim financial statements for the 3 and 9 month periods ended Sept 30/07, by filing a Form 8-K with the SEC.

“Management discovered significant accounting errors during its year end review, including errors specifically related to the recording of accounts payable related to inventory purchased from a sub-contractor as a result of a contract termination. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the matters described above on its internal control over financial reporting and the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures. Management noted it had previously identified and described material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filing dated November 13, 2007. As a result of these previously identified material weaknesses and other deficiencies identified during the review of financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007, management has concluded internal controls over financial report were not effective as of December 31, 2007. Additionally, management does not believe that the material weaknesses identified as of December 31, 2007 will be remediated by March 31, 2008 and anticipates that material weaknesses will be identified in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2008. Therefore, management expects that internal control over financial reporting is likely to be ineffective as of March 31, 2008.”

Feb 21/08: The UK contracts for 174 Mastiff vehicles (see Oct 8/07 entry) in a not to exceed $115.1 million contract modification under previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract M67854-06-C-5162. This order includes Mastiff 6×6 MRAP vehicles and associated test sets, spares and support services. Work will be performed in Ladson, S.C., and is expected to be complete in July 2009. Orders are placed via US MARSYSCOM. Force Protection release.

Feb 21/08: The Italian Ministry of Defense is buying 10 “MRAP” vehicles and associated support services and parts under a not to exceed $8.4 million modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-C-5039). Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be completed in June 2009. Orders are formally placed through MARSYSCOM.

Italy has displayed interest in all of Force Protection’s vehicles at various times: the Cougar, the Buffalo mine-clearance vehicle, and even the Cheetah light patrol vehicle. Given Italy’s existing contract for several hundred Iveco MLV blast-resistant light patrol vehicles, however, the Buffalo seemed like the most likely choice. A later Force Protection release revealed that the order is for 4 Buffalo mine-removal vehicles, and 6 Cougar 6×6 vehicles.

Jan 15/08: Force Protection Industries Inc. in Ladson, SC received $74.1 million for firm-fixed-priced delivery orders #0003 and #0005 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of integrated logistic support (ILS) support. The sustainment ILS will consist of authorized stockage list category (CAT) I and CAT II, prescribed load list CAT I and CAT II, deprocessing, and special tools in support of Cougar MRAP vehicles in theater.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete by July 2008 (M67854-07-D-5031 / #0003 and #0005). Force Protection release.

Jan 8/08: Force Protection, Inc. announces that CEO Gordon McGilton will retire from the Company effective Jan 31/08. The Company Board of Directors has appointed President Michael Moody, age 61, as the Interim CEO, “while a search is conducted to select a CEO from internal and external candidates.” Corporate release | Statement from Michael Moody.

Jan 2/08: The Force Protection, Inc. and General Dynamics Land Systems joint venture Force Dynamics, LLC announces that they’ve produced 350 MRAP vehicles in December 2007: 343 Cougar 4×4 and 6×6 MRAP Category I/II vehicles, and 7 MRAP Category III Buffalo vehicles (vs. 6 called for in the contract). They also report that Force Dynamics finished 2007 56 vehicles ahead of schedule on all MRAP Category I and II delivery commitments, and 3 vehicles ahead of schedule on its sole-sourced Category III Buffalo contracts. Force Protection release.

Cougar 4×4
(click for full size)

Dec 18/07: A $377.8 million firm fixed priced delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #007) for 178 Cougar 4×4 MRAP CAT-I vehicles and 180 Cougar 6×6 MRAP CAT-II vehicles, which include engineer change proposals to improve the vehicles and Integrated Logistic Support. The sustainment ILS will consist of Authorized Stockage List CAT-I and CAT-II, Prescribed Load Listing CAT-I and CAT-II, Deprocessing, and Basic Issue Items. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete by July 2008. This contract was competitively procured.

The net result of this contract, however, is further competitive slippage, as Force Protection drops to 3rd place in total MRAP orders behind Navistar (37.6%) and BAE Systems (30.1%). To date, the USA has ordered a total of 3,053 Force Protection MRAP CAT-I/II vehicles (1,506 Cougar 4x4s, and 1,547 Cougar 6x6s), or 25.7% of total orders. That probably isn’t what investors wanted to hear, so Force Protection’s release added a pair of interesting tidbits:

“MARCORSYSCOM also advised Force Protection that its Cheetah vehicle proposal is in the competitive range for continued development and testing and will be further evaluated with modifications as part of the ongoing MRAP II competition… We are in the process of finalizing a contract for the Buffalo route clearance vehicles to be part of the Ground Standoff Mine Detection System (GSTAMIDS) program of record.”

That first item might be important, as Force Protection submitted a modified Cougar but did not receive a contract for additional vehicles under the MRAP-II competition, which aims to field vehicles that can survive the more advanced EFP(Explosively Formed Penetrator) land mines in theater. Rivals BAE Systems, and the i3/Ceradyne/Oshkosh team’s Bull vehicle, did. The follow-on question is whether a deployable vehicle like the Cheetah, with an empty weight of only 14,000 pounds vs. the Cougar 4x4s 31,000 pounds, can be fitted to resist the 30 and 50 pound land mines being detonated at Aberdeen – in addition to EFPs, which are more akin to cannon shells being fired into a vehicle.

Dec 14/07: Force Protection CEO Gordon McGlinton feels compelled to issue a press release in order to “address significant misinformation about the Company and to update our shareholders on Force Protection’s financial posture and dispel unfounded rumors amongst the shareholder base, the investment community, and elsewhere”.

Dec 3/07: Production capacity issues have been an ongoing refrain for Force Protection, as it moved from a start-up operation to a large industrial manufacturer over the 2004-2007 period. One response has been to provide more data re: monthly vehicle production records, and a corporate release covers the Force Dynamics joint venture’s November 2007 statistics.

According to Force Protection, the partnerships produced 288 Cougar 4×4 and 6×6 vehicles under the MRAP contract, and is now 68 vehicles ahead of schedule on all MRAP Category I and II delivery commitments for the year. Force Protection alone also produced nine MRAP Category III Buffalo vehicles in November, one more than the 8 deliveries called for in its sole-sourced CAT III contract. The firm is now 2 vehicles ahead of schedule on its sole-sourced Category III Buffalo contracts for the year.

The firm has publicly pledged to reach 400 vehicles per month by February 2008.

Nov 30/07: Force Protection, Inc. opens its new manufacturing facility in Roxboro, NC (q.v. July 12/07 entry). The 430,000 square foot state-of-the-art facility is expected to employ approximately 270 people upon reaching full capacity, and the total cost for the Roxboro facility’s assembly line was approximately $31 million. Force Protection release.

Nov 28/07: Force Protection holds a ceremony commemorating the delivery of its 1,000th vehicle for the MRAP program. The Ladson, South Carolina event features, inter alia, Senator Lindsey Graham, Captain Joe Manna from the Defense Contract Management Agency, and Mr. Paul Mann, MRAP Program Manager representing the U.S. Department of Defense. Source.

Nov 13/07: Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that:

“United States land systems specialist Force Protection is aiming to increase production of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to 1,000 units per month by July 2008 with the ultimate target of producing a total of 12,100 MRAPs by the end of next year. The announcement came after Force Dynamics – the joint venture production partnership of Force Protection and General Dynamics Land Systems – reported on 5 November that it had broken vehicle production records during October.”

Nov 8/07: Force Protection, Inc. announces a contract from the U.S. Army’s Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for an additional 29 Buffalo MRAP CAT III mine-protected vehicles. The approximate total value of the contract is $22.3 million. They add that “Force Protection has delivered more than 140 Buffalo vehicles to date in support of route clearance missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Nov 8/07: Force Protection, Inc. CEO Gordon McGilton testifies before members of the House Armed Services Committee. He says that the Force Dynamics partnership delivered 208 vehicles in October 2007, and plans to expand its maximum production rates to build, together with its partners, approximately 500 vehicles per month by April 2008 and approximately 1,000 vehicles per month by July 2008, for a total of approximately 12,100 MRAP vehicles by the end of 2008. As of Nov 1/07, 734 Cougar MRAP Category I and II vehicles have been delivered. Force Protection release.

Nov 1/07: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $91.8 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles University, new equipment training, integrated logistic support and OCONUS (outside of the continental United States) field service representatives support. Work will be performed at Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete November 2008. The Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA issued the contract.

Force Protection’s release adds that “Pursuant to Force Protection’s agreement with General Dynamics Land Systems, a portion of the work under this contract will be performed by General Dynamics Land Systems pursuant to a subcontract.”

Oct 18/07: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received $376.6 million for firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0006 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of 553 Cougar 4×4 MRAP CAT I vehicles, 247 Cougar 6×6 MRAP CAT II vehicles, and vehicle sustainment Integrated Logistic Support. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be completed April 2008. This contract was competitively procured. by the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA.

Per the Force Dynamics partnership, General Dynamics receives 50% of the contract’s value; their Oct 22/07 release cites a value of $189 million, with work being performed at Anniston, AL and Oxford, AL; Charlotte, MI; Ladson, SC; Lima, OH; Kings Point, NC; and Sealy, TX. Force Protection release.

Wall Street analysts are not happy with the company’s loss of dominance in the MRAP competition, and Navistar’s consistently larger order totals. As of this date, Force Protection remains 2nd in the MRAP CAT I/II race with 30.9% of total orders – 1,338 Cougar 4x4s, and 1,367 Cougar 6x6s – behind Navistar (33.8%), but ahead of BAE Systems (26.3%) and General Dynamics (7.1%). MRAP CAT III is a sole-source buy of FP’s Buffalo vehicle, and 77 have been ordered to date.

Oct 15/07: The Pentagon’s DefenseLINK quoted excerpts a speech before the Center for a New American Security, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway talked about MRAPs, and may have shed more light on the picture at the top of our article:

“We had an incident the other day where an MRAP was hit with a 300-pound charge right under the engine. Now, I mention the size of the charge because we were testing them at Aberdeen against 30- and 50-pound charges. But a 300-pound charge went off right under the engine. It blew the engine about 65 meters away from the vehicle, caused a complete reversal of direction on the part of the MRAP, but of the four Marines inside, the regimental commander put one on light duty for seven days and the other three continued with the patrol. So it’s an amazing vehicle in terms of the protection that it gives to our people against these underbody blasts.”

Oct 8/07: UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown announces that Britain will buy another 140 Mastiff vehicles for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MoD intends to finalize the deal for this additional set vehicles “in the next few weeks,” and has set aside GBP 100 million for this purpose. MoD release.

NP Aerospace in Coventry integrates and up-armors delivered Cougars to create the finished Mastiff vehicle. A subsequent December 17/07 notification from the US DSCA submits an official request for up to 170 MRAP CAT-II vehicles, and values the contract at up to $147 million. In other words, more Mastiffs than planned, for less money (GBP 100 million = about $206 million).

Iraqi ILAV w. MCATS
(click to view full)

Oct 8/07: Force Protection, Inc. announces a purchase order from BAE Systems for an additional 45 Iraq Light Armored Vehicles (ILAV): 27 for Iraq under the existing 400 vehicle contract, and 18 for Yemen. The order is worth an estimated $3.5 million, and will be completed by February 2008. The firm also clarifies the ILAV’s current production status:

“The combined enterprise of Force Protection and BAE Systems previously received awards totaling $180 million in 2006 to build 398 4×4 ILAVs, based on the proven design of the Cougar vehicle. In total, the contract authorizes production of up to 1,050 Cougar ILAVs. BAE Systems is prime contractor on the ILAV program, with Force Protection as subcontractor. “

Oct 3/07: The Force Dynamics, LLC partnership announces production figures of “more than 115 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Category I and Category II Cougar vehicles” in September 2007, exceeding delivery objectives and MRAP contract requirements. To date, Force Dynamics is ahead of schedule on its Category I and Category II MRAP competitive contracts for 2007.

Are they ahead of projections made in June 2007 re: production capacity? That question was not answered.

Aug 10/07: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received $69.8 million for delivery order #0005 under previously awarded firm-fixed-priced, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract M67854-07-D-5031. The US military will purchase another 25 Cougar 4×4 MRAP CAT-I vehicles, and 100 more MRAP CAT-II Cougar 6×6 vehicles. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC; Anniston, AL; and Sealy, TX, and work is expected to be complete December 2007. The Marine Corps Systems Command, in Quantico, VA issued the contract.

The Force Protection release adds that the company has placed more than 60 Field Service Representatives (FSRs) in the field to assist the armed forces in training and vehicle maintenance in Iraq and Afghanistan.

July 12/07: Force Protection is expanding its own production capacity, via a new 430,000 square foot facility in Roxboro, NC. It will produce Cougar vehicles – and also FP’s new, lighter Cheetah. Meanwhile, General Dynamics is ramping up its own capacity within the Force Dynamics partnership via a new 80,000 square foot plant in Oxford, AL; and expansion of its workforce at Anniston, AL by 50 employees. See full DID coverage.

July 5/07: General Dynamics announces a $111 million contract for MRAP work associated with the $221.7 million order noted below on June 19/07. They will produce 235 of the 455 Cougar vehicles. Fabrication and assembly will be performed in Anniston and Oxford, AL; Charlotte, MI; Ladson, SC; Lima, OH; Kings Point, NC; and Sealy, TX.

June 29/07: General Dynamics announces the delivery of the first MRAP Cougar vehicles from its new production lines in Alabama, as part of the Force Dynamics partnership.

Two General Dynamics assembly operations are being created in Alabama. The 80,000-square foot main General Dynamics assembly site for MRAP vehicles will eventually employ 220 new workers in Oxford, AL, while a supporting production site at Anniston Army Depot, AL will employ 50 new workers, in addition to the 240 building Fox and Stryker combat vehicles and the Abrams tank gunner’s primary sight. General Dynamics also contracted with BR Williams to operate a warehouse in Oxford, AL to support the new production operations. GDLS says that the Alabama sites will build more than 350 of Force Protection’s Category I 4×4 and Category II 6×6 Cougar vehicles by January 2008.

June 20/07: Force Protection issues their release re: the recent 455 vehicle order. It included this statement:

“We are delighted to receive this most recent order,” said Force Protection COO Raymond Pollard. “It permits us in concert with General Dynamics Land Systems and other partnered contractors to continue to increase the rate at which MRAP vehicles are being delivered to our government customer. We, of course, anticipate more orders to sustain that rate, which is currently scheduled to exceed 400 vehicles per month by February 2008.”

June 19/07: A $221.7 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0004 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for additional 395 Cougar 4×4 Category I MRUV patrol vehicles, and 60 Cougar 6×6 Category II JERRV squad vehicles under Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contracts for MRAP vehicles. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and by various subcontractors.

This order brings their total awards under the MRAP program to 1,780: 760 CAT I vehicles and 1,020 CAT II, to make up 48% of the vehicles ordered so far from the 9 (now 7) competitors.

Buffalo. Soldier.
(click to view full)

May 31/07: The US military orders 14 Buffalo MRAP Category III vehicles for $12 million. Unlike the other MRAP categories, there is only one type of CAT-III vehicle. Full DID coverage.

May 4/07: An $8.8 million contact award from Canadian Expeditionary Force Command (CEFCOM) to produce 5 Buffalo mine-clearance vehicles and 5 Cougars. Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA will administer the contract under a foreign military sales agreement (FMS). The sustainment will consist of 90-days worth of spares, forward deployment and maintenance workshop service blocks, field service representatives, and operator and maintenance training (M67854-07-D-5039).

There have been rumors that the Canadian order was smaller than originally intended, due to USMC delivery priority. Nevertheless, it was solicited as a sole source procurement under the terms of an “International Agreement” as cited under FAR 6.302-4. See full DID coverage: “Canada Bringing Buffalos, Cougars to Afghanistan”

April 24/07: Small business qualifier Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $481.4 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order (#0003) under previously-awarded contract #M67854-07-D-5031 for additional Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) vehicles. The order covers 1,000 of the firm’s Cougar vehicles: 300 of the 31,000 pound curb weight 4x4s in MRAP Category 1 (MRAP-MRUV), and 700 of the 38,000 pound curb weight 6-wheeled Cougars in MRAP Category 2 (MRAP-JERRV). See full DID coverage.

March 14/07: Britain Orders 22 More Mastiff Cougar Variants, bringing the total to 108 vehicles and about $70.1 million. Force Protection release.

Feb 14/07: The US military orders 125 Cougar vehicles for shipment to the front and support in theater, as advance orders under the new MRAP (Mine-Resistant, Ambush Protected) contract. The contract includes 60 Cougar 4x4s (MRAP Category 1) and 65 Cougar 6x6s (MRAP Category 2), and amounts to $67.4 million. There are still 9 vendors competing in the 2 MRAP vehicle categories, and testing of the contenders is still underway. Total MRAP program orders could hit 4,100 vehicles and $2 billion.

March 8/07: Armor Holdings, Inc. announces a $40.7 million contract from Force Protection Industries, Inc. to produce Cougar armored vehicles for delivery to the U.S. Marine Corps. The contract includes production of vehicles and technical support, and falls under their agreement with Force Protection to manufacture and assemble Cougar vehicles in support of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle program (see Nov 20/06 entry). Work will be performed in 2007 by the Armor Holdings Aerospace & Defense Group at its facilities located in Sealy, TX.

Armor Holdings and Force Protection are continuing discussions for follow-on Cougar production should Force Protection receive additional U.S. Marine Corps MRAP orders. Armor Holdings release.

Jan 11/07: Force Protection Industries Inc. in Ladson, SC received an estimated $9.4 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for 15 Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV, aka. Cougar) with associated manuals, deployment kits, and training. Vehicles will be deployed to and supported in Iraq. Work will be preformed in Iraq, and is expected to be complete April 2008. “This contract is a sole source award based on an urgent and compelling need for the government.” The Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA issued the contract (M67854-07-D-5015).

Jan 4/07: ManTech International Corporation announces a $159 million contract over 16 months from the US Army Communications Electronics Life Cycle Command, to support mine-clearing and other systems for the U.S. Army in numerous locations within Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. ManTech will provide services as ordered under the task including deployed sustainment management; deployed logistics and repairs management; unique system training and curriculum support; and resource management and acquisition. “ManTech will also support unique and specialized systems including the mine-clearing, Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Rapid Response Vehicle” (JERRV, aka. Cougar). Services will be provided in Southwest Asia – including Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait, for the Program Management Assured Mobility Systems and the U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Command. See DID coverage.

Nov 20/06: Force Protection signs a production agreement with Armor Holdings, Inc.’s Aerospace & Defense Group. Force Protection will be the prime contractor under the agreement, with Armor Holdings as principal subcontractor, using its Sealy, Texas based capacity and core expertise in the automotive integration and assembly of the vehicle.

Mastiff, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Nov 16/06: Force Protection delivers the first round of Cougar Mastiff Patrol Protected vehicles (Mastiff PPV) to the British Ministry of Defence 3 weeks early. See release.

Nov 11/06: Force Protection signs a production agreement with General Dynamics Land Systems. Force Protection will be prime contractor under the agreement, with General Dynamics as subcontractor, using available production capacity at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, OH to perform structure fabrication of the Cougar.

Nov 9/06: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $125 million letter contract for 100 Joint EOD Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV) and 44 Buffalo vehicles with associated manuals, deployment kits, field representative support and training. Vehicles will be deployed to and supported in Iraq, but work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete by November 2007; support will continue up to a year after fielding. This is a sole source award to Force Protection Industries, Inc., based on an urgent and compelling need for the Government by the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA (M67854-07D-5006).

This contract contains options, which if exercised, would bring the totals to 200 JERRV vehicles and 82 Buffalo vehicles, and the estimated contract value to $200 million. It is considered to be the first award made under the new MRAP(Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected) program. DID article.

Oct 16/06: USMC Orders for Gyrocam Products Continue to Rise. As DID’s article notes, these stabilized, triple-sensor gyrocams are often mounted on Cougars to assist in early detection of IEDs. This follow-on order brings Gyrocam Camera Systems’ orders for this product to about $95 million.

Cougar-H & EOD Team
(click to view full)

Sept 29/06: Force Protection, Inc. announces an extension of its agreement with Denel PTY of South Africa subsidiary Mechem. The deal extends the term of their relationship for an additional five years effective September 13, 2006. Mechem specializes in the supply of landmine detection, de-mining, and unexploded ordnance disposal equipment and services, and they will continue to work exclusively with Force Protection on all projects relating to the exploitation of their technology. See release.

Aug 11/06: UK Land Forces Order 86 ‘Mastiff PPV’ Cougar Vehicles for $62.9 million. The full contract was announced in Britain on July 25 and included 2 other vehicle types, but this is the date DefenseINK released an announcement with specific numbers and dollar amounts for the Cougar (US) portion. DID’s article also adds more background concerning Force Protection’s efforts & plans to increase production capacity.

May 31/06: BAE Delivering a Cougar Variant for Iraq’s $445.4M ILAV Contract. The contract could go as high as 1,050 Cougar vehicles if all options are exercised, and BAE will also be enagaged in production work.

May 31/06: GyroCam Systems LLC in Sarasota, FL received a $43.4 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum ordering quantity of 67 of their 360-degree camera systems plus associated manuals, installation, deployment blocks, field support, and training. Manufacturing will be performed in Sarasota, FL, with installation on the Cougar JERRV ehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Work on the GyroCam contract is expected to be complete by May 2007. This contract is a limited competitive commercial contract award to GyroCam Systems LLC by the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA (M67854-06-D-5034).

May 2/06: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $50.9 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum ordering quantity of 79 Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV) and associated manuals, spares, field support, and training. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC (60%) and Charlotte, MI (40%), and work is expected to be complete by May 2007. This contract is a sole source award to Force Protection Industries, Inc. by the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA (M67854-06-D-5042). As DID noteds in our article, this contract is in addition to the 27 Cougars purchased by the Marines for use in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 122-vehicle all-services order DID covered in May 2005.

May 18/05: Force Protection Industries Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $16.5 million firm-fixed-price delivery order under previously awarded contract M67854-05-D-5091. The delivery order is for 17 Cougar Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV), associated manuals, and spares. A maximum of 122 vehicles can be ordered off of the contract, and this contract brings the delivery order total to 88. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC (60%) and Charlotte, MI (40%), and is expected to be complete by May 2006 [DID note: it completed in June 2006]. This contract is a sole source award to Force Protection Industries Inc. by the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA. DID covered it.

Cougar HE in Iraq

May 16/05: Force Protection Industries Inc. in Ladson, SC received a sole-source $45.7 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum ordering quantity of 122 Cougar Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV) and associated manuals, spares and field support. The initial delivery order is for 71 out of the 122 vehicles available on the contract. Work on this contract will be performed in Ladson, SC (60%) and Charlotte, MI (40%), and is expected to be complete by May 2006. This contract is a sole source award to Force Protection Industries Inc., as they are the sole manufacturer. The Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA issued the contract (M67854-05-D-5091).

While the Cougar has been deployed with the Marines since the fall of 2004 when the Corps purchased 27 Cougars for use in Iraq and Afghanistan, the May 16th order marked the first time that the other services will receive the armored vehicle. Under the contract, funded by the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Task Force, Force Protection Industries will manufacture the vehicles and provide program management and logistics support. The Marine Corps are the lead procurement agency to buy the 122 Cougars, which are to be distributed among the US Marine Corps (38 vehicles), Army, Navy and Air Force. The first vehicles are expected to reach the field by early fall 2005.

Footnotes

fn1. MNF-W is the western region of Iraq, encompassing the western elements of the Sunni Triangle (esp. Ramadi) and the neighboring Al-Anbar region. The region is current a focal point for operations in Iraq, owing to a multi-tribal revolt against Al-Qaeda and an energetic, organized pursuit of vendettas against them that has significantly altered the balance of power in that critical Sunni region. It remains an extremely violent and dangerous place, of course, in part because of that revolt.

Appendix A: Ramping Up Production

Cougar assembly
(click to view full)

Force Protection has come a long way from its origins as Sonic Jet Performance, Inc., a boat maker who purchased Technical Solutions – and the accompanying rights to produce the South-African designed Cougar and Buffalo vehicles – from Garth Barrett in 2002. Initial interest was low, however, and the company has had issues with late delivery as it struggled to fill the initial orders it was given. At the beginning of 2004, Force Protection firm had just 12 employees.

At the same time, however, they were the only off-the-shelf, American-built, mine-resistant vehicle on the market – and the bottom line was, their product worked (see DefenseTech for an especially hilarious example). That positioning gave Force Protection the cushion it needed to ramp up production and grow the company from 2005-2007, as limited orders from the US military were supplemented by contracts for the British and Iraqis.

As of July 2006, more than 200 Buffalo and Cougar vehicles were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan without a fatality, despite more than 1,000 mine detonations and IED attacks. Force Protection, Inc. also hired its 500th employee in July 2006, and a July 17, 20006 release noted that they are engaged in efforts to triple their internal manufacturing capacity. A second and third Cougar production line is being put in place following $41 million of equity financing, and production of its Buffalo variant is also slated to double.

Buffalo: IED test
(click to view full)

An August 10, 2006 release reveals that the firm delivered 11 of the 12 Cougar Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV) requested, and both of the Cougar-derived Buffalo Mine Protected Route Clearance (MPCV) vehicles (aka. “The Claw”) to the U.S. government in July 2006. This compares to 19 Cougar and 3 Buffalo vehicles in June 2006, completing its May 2005 contract with the US Marine Corps for 122 vehicles one month after the expected end date.

Force Protection’s July 17/06 release said they will even make use of other companies’ capacity to fill present and future orders – and readers who peruse our coverage of Iraq’s 378-vehicle ILAV contract will note the addition of production at BAE Land Systems (York, PA and Anniston, AL) and fire truck manufacturers Spartan Chassis (Charlotte, MI) to the production network. By October 1, 2006, Force Protection could claim delivery of more than 30 Buffalo, Cougar, and Iraqi ILAV vehicles to the U.S. government.

The firm has stated that with the new measures in place, it believes that it can continue to expand production throughout the rest of 2006. Of course, its November 11, 2006 Force Dynamics co-production agreement with General Dynamics Land Systems (see below) also helps.

Then came the MRAP program. In November 2006, the MRAP program was slated to buy around 1,000 vehicles. But the US Congress was waking up to the fact that solutions offering far better protection than up-armored Hummers were available. Pressure steadily built on the US military, augmented by requests from the field. By January 2007, MRAP was a 4,100 vehicle program. By April, it was a 7,774 vehicle program that had added the USAF and Special Operations Command as customers.

That surge has meant competition from larger firms, as well as smaller entities like Garth Barrett’s new Protected Vehicles, Inc. For Force Protection, it has also meant continued expansion, including a new 430,000 square foot facility in North Carolina and additional production capacity from General Dynamics plants in Oxford, AL and Anniston, AL. Firms like Spartan Chassis in Michigan and Armor Holdings (now BAE) are also part of the Cougar’s production chain, and there are rumors that Textron may be added. With the MRAP program in full swing, Force Protection now says that it plans to have production capacity for up to 400 Cougar vehicles per month by February 2008.

As of September 2007, production per month has risen to 115 vehicles.

Appendix B: Additional Readings and Sources:

• Navistar moved to #1 in the MRAP competition with the MaxxPro, developed with Israeli firm Plasan Sasa.
• BAE’s MRAP orders, covering RG-33 family and Caiman orders, made them #2.
• Force Protection – Front Line Testimonials
• UK Forces Afghanistan Blog (April 13/11) – British-Australian co-operation helps deliver extra armour to Afghanistan. With the RAF fully engaged, an extra C-17 came in very handy, in order to get the Wolfhound into theater.
• Des Moines Register (March 24/11) – Brawny ‘buffalo’ helps Iowa Guard to hunt buried bombs
• UK MoD (June 17/08) – Cougar begins its transformation into the Ridgback
• Seeking Alpha (March 18/08) – What’s Behind Force Protection’s Significant Share Price Drop? An analyst llooks at how he got his predictions wrong.
• MarketWatch (Dec 19/07) – Force Protection loses ground to rivals. “MRAP orders were historically based on who could produce the number the DoD wanted, but greater concern was later based upon commonality with other existing vehicles in the fleet,” said Patrick McCarthy, an analyst for Friedman, Billings, Ramsey.”
• USA Today (Aug 2/07) – As explosives in Iraq get deadlier, makers of armored vehicles alter plans. Good history of Force Protection, and side-by-side comparison of the Cougar 4×4 with the M114 HMMWV. N.B. While FP has produced the most mine-resistant vehicles for US forces, at the time of publication they were in second place for MRAP program orders; the USA Today chart blurs this distinction.
• USMC (June 18/07) – MNF-W eyes MRAP. MNF-W stands for Multi-National Forces West in Iraq, covering the Sunni Triangle areas around Ramadi and Fallujah, and extending west into Al-Anbar province where Al-Qaeda’s heavy-handed actions resulted in an ongoing tribal revolt against them.
• USMC Commandant James T. Conway (March 1/07) – Memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff re: MRAP [PDF format]. Includes information re: a requested policy change that would use only MRAP class vehicles “outside the wire” (i.e. off-base) in MNF-W, barring special commander’s waivers.
• 10Q Detective (Aug 26/06) – Force Protection–Explosive Turnaround Story. In 2001, Force Protection looked like it might go out of business. Much has changed. An interesting business/stock analysis of Force Protection, Inc., with details the rest of DID’s coverage does not include. DID adds that we don’t do stock recommendations, that this is one source of information among many whose reliability you must evaluate entirely on your own, and that if you buy stocks that’s 100% your decision and your risk.
• US Marine Corps (April 8/06) – Cougar Roars Through Iraq
• US Marine Corps (Feb 2/06) – Cougar on Prowl for IEDs
• Force Protection Industries – Cougar family. Includes one of the best defense site tag lines we’ve ever seen, anywhere: “Drop your purse, it’s not a Hummer.”
• DoD report and Corporate News Release.
• GlobalSecurity.org – Cougar HEV [Hardened Engineer Vehicle]
• DID (March 23/06) – $191.9M more to AM General for M1151 & M1152 Humvee Jeeps (updated). Explains why the Cougar is important by illustrating the problems with the Hummer, and looking at how key design differences affect battlefield survivability.
• DID (Feb 10/06) – $18.6M for More Buffalo Mine Clearance Vehicles. If you think the Cougars are impressive… meet ‘The Claw’
• DID (June 29/05) – NY Times on Procurement Issues for Armored Vehicles to Iraq (Updated). A surprisingly good article from the NY Times, with solid background regarding the Cougar system’s difficult procurement start in the Pentagon bureaucracy and subsequent turnaround die to events in Iraq.
• Military.com (Sept 15/04) – New Cougar HEV to hit Corps soon

FOCUS Article search tag: cougarfocus

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)

November 1/16: The first upgunned Stryker infantry carrier vehicle has been returned to the US Army. Designated as the Stryker Dragoon, the vehicle comes armed with a more lethal 30mm cannon and will be fielded with the Germany-based 2nd Cavalry Regiment in May 2018. Other new aspects of the upgrade include an integrated Kongsberg MCT-30mm Weapon System with a remotely-operated, unmanned turret; a new, fully-integrated commander’s station; and upgraded driveline component and hull modifications. Full rate production will commence following an abbreviated test phase in Spring 2017.

May 9/16: The US Army has awarded General Dynamic Land Systems a $329 million contract for the production, logistics product development, and test support for the Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) 30mm lethality upgrade. Upgrading the lethality and durability of the Army’s Strykers has become a recent priority for the service as the Pentagon looks to increase the vehicle’s operational capabilities. General Dynamic’s work on the project is expected to run until January 15, 2021.

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.

M1A2 SEP
(click to view full)

America’s M1 Abrams tanks come in a number of versions. In addition to the M1A1 that is now standard, the US Army is beginning to field its M1 TUSK for urban warfare. It also operates the M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP), currently the most advanced standard variant.

This Spotlight article covers the M1A2 Abrams SEP upgrade program, and will be updated and backfilled as new contracts are issued and key events take place.

M1A2 SEP: Additional Background

Some SEP upgrades
(click to view full)

The M1A2 SEP is builds on the digitized M1A2 platform with an improved armor package of third generation steel-encased depleted uranium armor, a new command and control system, second-generation FLIR thermal sights that include a Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) for “hunter-killer” operation, the Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit (UAAPU) that lets crews run key electronics without running the engine, and a Thermal Management System (TMS – i.e. air conditioning for crew & electronics). The M1A2 SEP also features enhanced electronics like color maps and displays, improved networked communications, high-density computer memory and increased microprocessing speed, a more user friendly “Soldier Machine Interface (SMI)”, and an open operating computing system that will make future upgrades and additions easier.

The M1A2 SEP’s advanced FLIR/thermal sights are part of the US Army’s Horizontal Technology Integration (HTI) Second Generation Forward Looking Infrared (HTI SGF) sighting systems program, which creates commonality with other vehicles like the M2/M3 Bradley IFVs.

The M1A2 SEP is a formidable upgrade package, but it was missing a small but crucial item. Troops in Iraq and elsewhere are also clamoring for a phone on the outside of the tank that will let them talk to the vehicle crew. This was common as far back as World War 2, and its lack is hampering coordination on the modern battlefield – especially in urban areas. A General Dynamics representative noted that future M1A2 Abrams TUSK (Tank Urban Survivability Kit) vehicles will have this feature, but the SEP v1 tanks did not.

M1A2 SEP Version 2 configuration, which is just beginning to appear, fixes this. It adds improved displays, sights, and power systems compared to earlier SEP versions – plus the tank-infantry phone. Recent orders also added a CROWS-II top-mounted machine gun with advanced sights. The CROWS system can be controlled from inside the tank using a joystick and screen, removing the need to open the hatch and expose the crews to snipers. SEPv2 is the most technologically advanced digital Abrams tank, and is also positioned for future communications and other technology updates.

Recent budgets for M1A1 enhancements, including both M1A1-Situational Awareness and M1A2 tanks, include:

• FY 2010: $278.8 million for 22 tanks ($93.8M RDT&E, $185.0M procurement)
  
• FY 2011: $294.4 million for 21 tanks ($93.6M RDT&E, $182.0M procurement, $18.8M spares)
  
• FY 2012: $583.9 million for 63 tanks ($9.3M RDT&E, $567.4M procurement, $7.2M spares)
  
• FY 2013 Request: $300.8 million, ($97.3M RDT&E, $203.5M procurement) meant to “complete the final [SEP] production, fielding, and training” – 20-24 tanks by some reports.
  
• FY 2014 Request: $297.4 million ($101.3M RDT&E, $178.1M procurement).

M1A2 SEP: Related Contracts

Commander’s Display Unit

The Armor Site notes that:

“A multi-year contract for 307 M1A2 Abrams Systems Enhancement Program (SEP) tanks was awarded in March 2001 with production into 2004. The current Army plan allows for a fleet of 588 M1A2 SEP, 586 M1A2 and 4,393 M1A1 tanks. The potential exits for a retrofit program of 129 M1A2 tanks to the SEP configuration between 2004 and 2005… The US Army decided to cancel future production of the M1A2 SEP from FY2004, but in June 2005 ordered the upgraded of a further 60 M1A2 tanks to SEP configuration.”

That program has now grown very substantially, and a 2007 contract added 435 more more M1A2 SEPs. Orders have continued to come in, and General Dynamics says that the current multi-year award set will complete the modernization of all M1 tanks in the active-duty army to M1A2 SEP standard. By 2014, however, their interest in keeping the facility running led supportive members of Congress to continue spending money on the program, over the Army’s objections.

Unless otherwise specified, all contracts are awarded by The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) in Warren, MI; and the recipient is General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI.

December 15/16: The US State Department signed off on a $1.7 billion foreign military sale with Kuwait for the recapitalization of 218 of the kingdom’s M1A2 tanks. Work included in the deal involves the supply of 240 M2A1 machine guns; 480 7.62 M240 machine guns; 240 AN/VRC-92E SINCGARS radios; 1,085 night vision goggles; technical support; and training services. A number of defense contractors will be included in the program, with General Dynamics, Raytheon, Meggitt, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Honeywell, all involved.

Jan 31/14: +12. A $72.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for 12 M1A2 SEPv2 tanks.

$15.7 million in FY 2013 funds are committed immediately. other procurement funds in the amount of $15,712,969 were obligated at the time of the award. Work will be performed in Lima, OH; Scranton, PA; Anniston, ALA; and Tallahassee, FL; and will run until Dec 31/15. One bid was solicited with one received. With Israel’s Namer heavy IFV order facing significant cuts, any production at Lima surely be welcomed (W56HZV-14-C-0054).

April 29/13: Keep spending. Congress is looking to spend funds over and above the Pentagon’s request, in order to keep General Dynamics Land Systems running at a higher rate. The Lima plant is reportedly producing about 5 M1A2S upgrade kits per month for Saudi Arabia, and 4 M1A1M kits per month for Egypt, plus production of Israeli Namer ultra-heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Of the Army’s 2,400 tanks, about 1,500 – 1,600 have reportedly received the $7.5 million MA2SEPv2 upgrade. The US Army had wanted to stop buying tanks until 2017, using funds for R&D to produce an updated M1 variant.

Congress has other ideas, and $468 million is a consistently-used figure for the extra spending, but that isn’t broken down clearly. What is clear is that the US Army has said it doesn’t want or need more M1A2s, and wants to spend the money elsewhere at a time when its reducing training and maintenance. Congress disagrees for a combination of industrial reasons involving the restart costs of drying up the sub-contractor chain (and killing some of their firms), and political reasons involving jobs in a state with powerful representatives and outsize significance in Presidential politics. AP | CS Monitor.

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage. With respect to the M1 fleet, the budget would spend $279.4 million ($101.3M RDT&E, $178.1M procurement) to:

“…maintain the armor facility at a sustainable level and minimize loss of skilled labor. It also procures numerous approved modifications to fielded M1A2 Abrams tanks, including the Data Distribution Unit (DDU) to enable network interoperability, the Vehicle Health Management System (VHMS), loader tray modification to improve safety and the Commander’s Remote Operating Weapon Station (CROWS).”

April 25/12: General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI wins a $31.1 million firm-fixed-price contract to create 46 Abrams M1A2 SEPv2 vehicles from existing stocks, by installing the upgrade kits.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH; Scranton, PA; Anniston, AL; and Tallahassee, FL, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/14. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W56HZV-12-C-0198).

Dec 23/11: +21. A $59.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Packages and CROWS weapon stations. Based on past contracts, this will cover 21 M1A2 SEPv2 kits, and finish funding for the planned 435 tanks under the program, though an installation contract may still be forthcoming.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH; Tallahassee, FL; Anniston, AL; Scranton, PA; and Sterling Heights, MI, with an estimated completion date of June 30/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

March 1/11: A $59.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for up to 21 Abrams M1A2 SEPv2 upgrade tanks. That means full materials and labor for the upgrades.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH; Tallahassee, FL; Anniston, AL; Scranton, PA; and Sterling Heights, MI, with an estimated completion date of June 30/13. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

M1A2 SEPv2, Iraq
(click to view full)

March 5/10: +22. A $62.1 million firm-fixed-price contract covers Program Year 4, Increment 2 of the Abrams multi-year contract. The Army is buying full materials and labor for 22 M1A2 SEPv2 upgrades.

General Dynamics Land Systems says that before this recent “call-up” of 22 kits, 371 of the 435 total vehicles had been funded. Now, only 42 vehicles require funding, and they expected to be taken care of in the next 2 increments around January 2011 and 2012. These “funding years” are different from “program years”, and PY 4 is expected to cover 39 M1A2 SEPv2s.

Work is to be performed in Lima, OH (75%); Tallahassee, FL (10%); Anniston, AL (9%); Scranton, PA (3%); and Sterling Heights, MI (3%), with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. TACOM in Warren, MI issued the contract (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Sept 14/09: CROWS. An $18.2 million unfinalized Change Order Modification firm-fixed-price multi-year contract to buy up to 370 Commanders Remote Operated Weapons Stations version 2 kits (CROWS II) for M1A2 SEPv2 upgrade vehicles. Work is to be performed in Lima, OH with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/12 (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

March 2/09: A $9.8 million firm-fixed-price, firm fixed price level of effort, cost plus fixed fee contract to provide parts for the reset material necessary to allow Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) to reset 5 Battle Damaged M1 SEPv1 tanks to a SEPv2 configuration, with a 100% option to RESET another 5.

Work is to be performed at Sterling Heights, MI, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/10 (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Feb 24/09: A $32 million firm-fixed-price contract change order issued to RESET 129 of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment’s Abrams SEPv2 tanks.

Work is to be performed at Lima, Ohio, (75%), Tallahassee, FL (10%), Anniston, AL (9%), Scranton, PA (3%), and Sterling Heights, MI (3%), with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/10. One bid was solicited and one bid received (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Feb 3/09: A $5.9 million firm fixed price contract change order to buy improved ammunition racks, as part of a RESET program for 90 M1A2 SEPv1 tanks that are being upgraded to SEPv2.

Work is to be performed at Lima, OH (75%), Tallahassee, FL (10%), Anniston, AL (9%), Scranton, PA (3%), and Sterling Heights, MI (3%), with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/10 (W56HZV-06-C-0006).

Jan 27/09: +24. An $80.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for the Abrams Multi-Year Contract’s program year 2, increment 2. This contract buys 24 M1A2 SEPv2 upgrades, and funds 6 more tanks in program year 3, increment 1, for a total of 30.

Work will be performed at Sterling Heights, MI, with an estimated completion date of June 30/12. One bid was solicited and one bid received (W56HZV-06-G-0006). GDLS release.

Nov 20/08: +180 RESET. A $63.7 million firm-fixed-price contract, exercising an option to RESET 180 Abrams M1A2 SEPv1 to SEPv2 tanks. Work will be performed in Tallahassee, FL, Anniston, AL, Scranton, PA, and Sterling Heights, MI, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/10. One bid was solicited and one bid was received (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

See also Aug 5/08 entry, and the GDLS release.

Aug 29/08: General Dynamics Lands Systems Division in Sterling Heights, MI received a $30.8 million cost-reimbursable contract to procure long-lead-materials. These materials will be bought in as a prelude to upgrading 129 Third Armored Cavalry Regiment Abrams tanks to the M1A2 SEP configuration.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH; Tallahassee, FL; Anniston, AL; Scranton, PA; and Sterling Heights, MI, with an estimated completion date of Oct 31/09. One bid was solicited, and one bid was received (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Aug 5/08: A $613.5 million Firm Fixed Price, contract for Award Program Year One increment 2, in a multi-year contract for Abrams M1A2 SEPv2 upgrades. The contract will upgrade 235 M1A1 tanks to this configuration.

The order was made under a multi-year contract (see Feb 7/08 entry) which authorized the modernization of 435 M1A1 tanks that have been in the Army’s inventory for more than 20 years. An additional 180 tanks remain to be upgraded through the program, which will complete the conversion of all tanks in the Army’s active component to the M1A2 SEP V2 configuration.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH; Anniston, AL; Tallahassee, FL; Sterling Heights, MI; and Scranton, PA, and is expected to be complete by Oct 31/11. There was one bid solicited from the manufacturer on Oct 5/07, and one bid was received (W56HZV-06-G-0006). See also GDLS release.

June 3/08: A $19.8 million cost-reimbursable-no-fee contract for the procurement of long lead material to support maintenance of 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment Abrams M1A2 SEP tanks. Work will be performed primarily in Lima, OH and is expected to be complete by Oct 30/09. One bid was solicited on April 29/08 (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

April 28/08: A $28.2 million cost-no-fee contract for long lead materials, which will be used in the recapitalization of M1A2 SEPv1 tanks. Work will be performed primarily in Lima, OH and is expected to be complete on Nov 28/08. One bid was solicited on Jan 18/08 (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Jan 15/08: A $12.4 million cost-no fee contract “for system enhancement package upgrade vehicles.” Work will be performed in Lima Army Tank Plant, OH, and is expected to be complete by April 30, 2008. One bid was solicited on Oct 5/07, and 1 bid was received (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Dec 19/07: +180 RESET. General Dynamics Land Systems announces a $257.8 million award for procurement of materials and labor required to RESET 180 Abrams tanks under the Abrams Improved SEP Reset (ISR) program. The program could total more than $320 million if all options are exercised. As part of the Improved Systems Enhancement Package (SEP) Reset program, M1A2 SEP Version 1 tanks are modified to the SEP Version 2 configuration.

Deliveries begin in September 2009, and are expected to be complete by September 2010. Work will be performed by existing employees in Anniston, AL; Tallahassee, FL; Lima, OH; Sterling Heights, MI; and Scranton, PA. There was 1 bid solicited on Feb 13/07, and 1 bid was received (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Nov 19/07: +240 RESET. General Dynamics Land Systems received an $88.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for reset of 240 M1A2 Abrams tanks. Work will be performed in Lima, OH and is expected to be complete by Sept. 30, 2009 (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

As part of the reset program, M1A2 SEP Version 1 tanks are upgraded to the SEP Version 2 configuration. GDLS release.

Oct 3/07: A $16.5 million delivery order as part of a $24 million firm-fixed-price contract to provide parts for the reset of battle-damaged SEPv1 Tanks to a SEPv2 configuration. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI, and is expected to be complete by Dec. 31, 2009. This was a sole source contract initiated on May 14, 2007 (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Oct 1/07: A delivery order amount of $20.1 million as part of a $510.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for reset of Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Packages to the M1A2 Tanks. As part of the Improved Systems Enhancement Package (SEP) reset program, M1A2 SEP Version 1 tanks are modified to the SEP Version 2 configuration, which includes improved displays, sights, power, and a tank-infantry phone. It is the most technologically advanced digital Abrams tank and is positioned for future technology insertions for compatibility with the Army’s Future Combat Systems.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH (75%), Tallahassee, FL (10%), Anniston, AL (9%), Scranton, PA (3%), and Sterling Heights, MI (3%), and is expected to be complete by Sept. 30, 2009. This was a sole source contract initiated on Oct. 20, 2006 (W56HZV-06-G-0006). GD release.

M1A2, getting the range
(click to view full)

Aug 13/07: A delivery order amount of $5.7 million as part of a $6.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for spare parts for the M1A2 System Enhancement Program Tank. Work will be performed in Lima, OH and is expected to be complete by July 31, 2010. This was a sole source contract initiated on May 14, 2007 by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Rock Island, IL (DAAE20-02-G-0009).

Aug 8/07: +???. The full delivery order amount of $270.6 million as part of a firm-fixed-price contract for system enhancement package for the Abrams M1A2 Tanks. Work will be performed in Lima, OH (75%), Tallahassee, FL (10%), Anniston, AL (9%), Scranton, PA (3%), and Sterling Heights, MI (3%), and is expected to be complete by July 31/10. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on March 16, 2007. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Aug 8/07: +???. The full delivery order amount of $139.3 million for retrofit of M1A2 Vehicles to M1A2 SEP Version 2 configuration. Work will be performed in Lima, OH (75%), Tallahassee, FL (10%), Anniston, AL (9%), Scranton, PA (3%), and Sterling Heights, MI (3%), and is expected to be complete by Jan 31/10. This was a sole source contract initiated on Feb. 21/07 (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Specific details re: numbers et. al. are usually present in General Dynamics’ follow-on releases; not this time.

April 18/07: The full delivery order amount of $9.1 million as part of a cost contract for long-lead material for RESET for battle damaged M1A2 System Enhancement Package tanks. Work will be performed in Anniston, AL (40%), Lima, OH (20%), Sterling Heights, MI (10%), and Scranton, PA (30%), and is expected to be complete by June 30, 2007. This was a sole source contract initiated on April 10, 2007 (W56HZV-06-G-0006). GDLS release.

Dec 4/06: +312 RESET. A delivery order amount of $305 million as part of a $351 million cost contract for RESET of Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP)v1 to M1A2 SEPv2 tanks, and long lead material for the additional RESET of M1A2 SEPv1 and M1A2 SEPv2 tanks. A GDLS representative confirms that the contact covers 312 tanks returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH (75%), Tallahassee, FL (10%), Anniston, AL (9%), Scranton, PA (3%), and Sterling Heights, MI (3%), and is expected to be complete on Sept. 30, 2009. This was a sole source contract initiated on Oct. 20, 2006 (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

Nov 27/06: +180. The full $379.8 million delivery order amount of a firm-fixed-price contract to upgrade 180 M1A2 tanks to Abrams M1A2 SEP Version 2 status, along with total packing fielding material for initial fielding. Work will be performed in Lima, OH (75%), Tallahassee, FL (10%), Anniston, AL (9%), Scranton, PA (3%), and Sterling Heights, MI (3%), and is expected to be complete by Nov 30/09. This was a sole source contract initiated on August 29, 2006 (W56HZV-06-G-0006). See also GDLS press release, and a subsequent release which gives the number. A GDLS representative confirmed that the conversions involved M1A2 tanks.

Nov 27/06: GM subsidiary Allison Transmission in Indianapolis, IN received an $11 million modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for Zero-Timed X1100-3B Transmissions in Support of the System Enhancement Package RESET Program. This would be the RESET maintenance program for M1A2 SEP tanks. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and is expected to be complete by Nov. 30, 2007. This was a sole source contract initiated on Aug. 22, 2006 (DAAE07-01-C-N040).

Nov 27/06: GM subsidiary Allison Transmission in Indianapolis, IN received a $32.6 million modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for Zero-Timed X1100-3B Transmissions in Support of the Improved System Enhancement Package RESET Program. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on Sept. 29, 2006 (DAAE07-01-C-N040).

Nov 27/06: GM subsidiary Allison Transmission in Indianapolis, IN received a $24.2 million modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for Zero-Timed X1100-3B Transmissions in Support of the System Enhancement Package Retrofit Program. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and is expected to be complete by Dec. 31, 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on Aug. 18, 2006 (DAAE07-01-C-N040).

Nov 27/06: GM subsidiary Allison Transmission in Indianapolis, IN received a $16.1 million modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for Upgraded X1100-3B Transmissions with Refurbished Containers in Support of the System Enhancement Package Program. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and is expected to be complete by April 30, 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on Jan. 25, 2006 (DAAE07-01-C-N040).

M1A2 Abrams

Aug 4/06: +60. General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI received the full delivery order amount of $134.7 million as part of a firm-fixed-price contract for Abrams M1A2 SEP (system enhancement package) retrofits to 60 existing M1A2 Abrams tanks, along with total package fielding material for initial fielding. The M1A2 SEP is the latest, most technologically advanced Abrams variant, and the contract also includes a $145 million option to upgrade 60 more M1A2s, bringing the total to $280 million if all options are exercised.

Work on this SEP upgrade contract will be performed in Lima, OH (75%), Tallahassee, FL (10%), Anniston, AL (9%), Scranton, PA (3%), and Sterling Heights, MI (3%). Delivery of the first 60 vehicles is slated to begin in November 2007 and is expected to be complete by Nov. 30, 2008. Delivery of the 60 option vehicles would begin in November 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on Feb. 1, 2006 by the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

July 8/05: An estimated $7.3 million firm-fixed price contract for 90 commanders display units for the M1A2 Abrams System Enhanced Program (M1A2 SEP) Tank. The work is to be performed at the company’s Tallahassee, FL location and is to be completed Sept. 20, 2007. The Tank-automotive Armament Command in Rock Island, IL issued the contract (DAAE20-02-G-0009 delivery order 0109).

June 20/05: +???. A $141.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for M1A2 Abrams Upgrade Tanks to the System and Continuous Enhancement Program Configurations. Work will be performed in Lima, OH (75%), Imperial Valley, CA (1%), Tallahassee, FL (1%), Sterling Heights, MI (1%), Scranton, PA (3%), and Anniston, AL (9%), and is expected to be complete by Jan. 31, 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on March 1, 2003 (DAAE07-01-G-N001). See GDLS press release, which places the number of tanks upgraded to M1A2 SEP at 60. It adds that vehicle deliveries to General Dynamics are scheduled for January through October 2007, with vehicle hand-off to the U.S. Army expected in January 2008.

April 29/05: An $8.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for unique spares for the M1A2 SEP Abrams Tank, and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Work will be performed in Killeen, TX (85%); Sterling Heights, MI (10%); and Southwest Asia (5%), and is expected to be complete by April 30, 2010. This was a sole source contract initiated on April 14, 2004 by US Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Rock Island, IL (W52H09-05-C-0089). See also GDLS press release.

Sept 2/04: A $22.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for repair and modification to 111 M1A2 SEP Tanks. Work will be performed in Lima, OH and is expected to be complete by July 30, 2005. This was a sole source contract initiated on July 14, 2004 (DAAE07-01-G-N001). A subsequent GDLS press release clarified that this is a contract “to repair and modify 111 M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Package (SEP) tanks that have recently returned from the war zone.” Work will be performed at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio, and is expected to be complete by July 30, 2005. The total value for this effort is actually about $70 million, allocated between TACOM ($40 million, to include major component repair by Anniston Army Depot), and GDLS ($29.9 Million).

May 6/04: +65. General Dynamics Land Systems announces a $121 million delivery order as part of a contract valued at $244 million, to retrofit 65 M1A2 Abrams tanks to the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Program) configuration. The tanks are being retrofitted to modernize the U.S. Army’s 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

Work will be performed with the existing workforce at General Dynamics’ facilities in Lima, OH (74%); Tallahassee, FL (10%); Anniston, AL (9%); Scranton, PA (3%); Imperial Valley, CA. (1%); Muskegon, MI (1%); and Sterling Heights, MI (1%). Work will also be done at Fort Carson, CO (1%).

May 15/03: +14. A delivery order amount of $26 million, under a firm-fixed-price contract to retrofit 14 M1A2 Abrams Upgrade Tanks to the M1A2 SEP configuration. Work will be performed in Lima, OH (75%), Imperial Valley, CA (1%), Tallahassee, FL (10%), Sterling Heights, MI (1%), Scranton, PA (3%), Anniston, AL (9%), and Muskegon, IL (1%), and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2004. This was a sole source contract initiated on April 29, 2002 (DAAE07-01-G-N001).

Nov 29/02: A delivery order amount of $5.8 million as part of an $8.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 10 gigabyte solid state removable memory cartridges for retrofit into M1A2 Abrams SEP tanks. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights (0.2%) and Bloomington, MN (99.8%), and is to be complete by Aug. 31, 2003. This was a sole source contract initiated on Nov. 15, 2002 (DAAE07-01-G-N001).

May 16/02: A delivery order amount of $2.9 million as part of a $5.8 million (cumulative total) un-priced contractual action for 9 lines of spare parts in support of the M1A2 SEP Abrams Tank. Work will be performed in Lima, OH (10%); Imperial, CA (40%); Tallahassee, FL (40%), Anniston, AL (10%), and is to be complete by Oct. 30, 2003. This is a sole-source contract initiated on Feb. 14, 2002 by the U. S. Army Tank and Automotive Command in Rock Island, IL (DAAE20-97-G-0002).

Feb 9/01: +240. A $142 million modification to firm-fixed-price, multi-year contract DAAE07-95-C-0292. This procurement is an equitable adjustment to change-order modification P00110, that incorporated the System Enhancement Package (SEP) into 240 M1A2 Abrams Upgrade Tanks. This modification adds first article tests for the SEP into 240 tanks, adds material and testing for Under Armor Auxiliary Power Units that are to be retrofitted onto M1A2 Abrams Upgrade Tanks with the SEP.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH (80%); Scranton, PA (3%); Imperial Valley, CA (1%); Anniston, AL (4%); Tallahassee, FL (10%); Muskegon, MS (1%), and Sterling Heights, MI (1%), and is expected to be complete by Dec. 31, 2001. Of the total contract funds, $97.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This is a sole source contract initiated on Jan. 18, 1995.

Jan 16/01: The Research Triangle Institute in Research Triangle Park, NC received a $6 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract N61339-95-C-0015, exercising an option for the production of one M1A2 Tank System Enhancement Package and one Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Maintenance Training System, Trainer Unique Modification Kit.

Work will be performed in Research Triangle Park, NC (60%) and Daytona, FL (40%); and is expected to be complete by September 2001. The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL issued the contract.

Feb 10/2000: The Research Triangle Institute in Research Triangle Park, NC received a $5 million modification to previously awarded contract N61339-95-C-0015 for the design, refurbishment, documentation, fabrication, integration, testing, manufacture, delivery and installation of the M1A2 system enhancement package maintenance training systems. Work will be performed in Research Triangle Park, NC (60%) and Daytona, FL (40%), and is expected to be complete by November 2000. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL issued the contract.

Dec 22/99: A $24.9 million modification to cost-plus-fixed-fee contract DAAE07-96-C-X195, to exercise the option for system technical support for the Abrams Tank Program, a system enhancement package M1A2 retrofit for the Abrams Tank. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI and is expected to be complete by July 30, 2001. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This is a sole source contract initiated on May 2, 1996.

Nov 23/99: A $5 modification to cost-plus-fixed-fee contract DAAE07-96-C-X195, to exercise priced options for system technical support for the Abrams Tank Program, the M1A2 retrofit System Enhancement Package. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI and is expected to be complete by Aug. 30, 2001. This is a sole source contract initiated on May 2, 1996.

May 4/98: A $9.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for various spares in support of fielding of the System Enhancement Package (SEP) of the M1A2 upgrade tank. Work will be performed in Tallahassee, FL (75%); Lima, OH (10%); Imperial Valley, CA (10%); and Scranton, OH (5%), and is expected to be complete by Dec. 31, 2000. This is a sole source contract initiated on Dec. 8, 1997 by the U.S. Army Tank-automotive & Armaments Command at Rock Island, IL (DAAE20-97-G-0002/0008).

Sept 26/97: A $7.3 million increment of a $24.3 million modification to a $127.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research and development for the Abrams System Enhancement Package (ASEP) that will be incorporated into the M1A2 Abrams Tank. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI and is expected to be complete by Feb. 28, 1999. Of the total contract funds, $14,757 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This is a sole source contract initiated on Nov. 23, 1994 (DAAE07-94-C-0727).

Aug 8/96: A $10 million modification to a cost plus fixed fee contract for two Heavy Assault Bridge Pre-Low Rate Initial Production Pilot/Test vehicles in Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) configuration. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI and is expected to be complete by February 28, 1998. This is a sole source contract initiated on May 29, 1996 (DAAE07-94-C-0727).

Additional Readings & Sources

• The Armor Site – M1A1/2 Abrams. Simply the best Abrams tank reference.
• James Hasik’s “What to do about Lima and York” series (March – August 2013) – Part 1 | Part 2 – findings from A.T. Kearney, and a radical suggestion for consolidation | Part 3 – and now the Iraqi-Saudi alternative.
• NBC News (July 28/12) – The M1 Abrams: The Army tank that could not be stopped
• US Army – (Feb 19/08) – Modified M1-A2 Abrams Tanks Improve Safety, Precision. Describes the TUSK modifications.
• US Army Logistics Management College, ALOG Magazine (Jan-Feb 1996) – Keeping M1A1’s in Action. A new way to employ the Army’s M1A1 full-up power pack (FUPP) saves time and money and helps ensure a combat-ready tank unit. A FUPP consists of a Honeywell AGT-1500 turbine engine, which contains four modules, and an Allison X1100-3B transmission.

Saudi M1A2
(click to view full)

In July 2006 the US DSCA informed Congress [PDF] that the government of Saudi Arabia wished to purchase 58 M1A1 Abrams tanks, then upgrade these M1A1s, along with its existing 315 M1A2s, to create 373 M1A2S (Saudi) Abrams configuration main battle tanks. The sale will include kits, spare and repair parts, communications and support equipment, publications and technical data, personnel training and training equipment, contractor engineering and technical support services and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.

This program also dovetails well with ongoing Cooperative Logistics Supply Support Agreement, which ensure support and spare parts for their American-made land equipment. This sale and upgrade program will be executed in 3 phases, and is well underway.

M1A2S Program: Phases and Plans

The 3 phases for the main program are as follows:

• PHASE 1: Engineering phase for 30 months;
• PHASE 2: Purchase of 58 M1A1s, and upgrade to M1A2S (Saudi) configuration. The Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) program was designed to economically rebuild and maintain the M1A1 Main Battle Tank (MBT) to a ‘like new’ condition, in order to improve fleet readiness and reduce sustainment costs. The 58 M1A1s will undergo an ‘AIM-like’ process and will be upgraded to the M1A2S configuration in the United States;
• PHASE 3: Tear down of the 315 M1A2 Abrams in Saudi Arabia’s tank fleet and upgrade to the M1A2S configuration. The 315 Saudi M1A2A MBT’s will also undergo an ‘AIM-like’ process and will be re-configured to the M1A2S configuration. Vehicle teardown and final re-assembly will be accomplished in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has an unusual land forces structure whereby it has an “American brigade” (8th Armored Brigade) currently armed with US equipment like M1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradleys et. al., and a “French brigade” (4th Armored Brigade) armed with French equipment including AMX-30 tanks, AMX-10P APCs, et. al. Indeed, Saudi equipment throughout its land forces tends to be a mixture of American and French equipment as a rule. This hedges against supplier continuity and creates wider markers for geopolitical favors, at the cost of increased maintenance burdens and potential logistical and interoperability headaches. The Tribune-Libanaise’s 2006 article “The Dynamics of Weapons Procurement in Gulf States” offers outstanding insight and background in this area.

There were rumors that the 2006 memorandum of defense cooperation with France may also lead to an order of Leclerc main battle tanks etc., to upgrade the “French brigade” alongside its American counterpart. There has been no action on that front, but there have been countervailing rumors of a deal for Russian T-90s.

Contracts and Key Events

Unless otherwise noted, General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI executes these contracts, while the U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Command in Warren, MI manages the contract on behalf of its Foreign Military Sale client in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi M1 at Anniston
(click to view full)

December 21/16: General Dynamics has been awarded an $82 million contract to convert M1A2 tanks to the M1A2S configuration for the US Army. The M1A2S is a specialized configuration for tanks operated by the government of Saudi Arabia. GD design and manufacture the vehicles in the US, which are then sold to the kingdom through foreign military sales agreements.

Sept 18/13: +84. General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI receives an $187.6 million firm-fixed-price contract to convert 84 tanks to M1A2S configuration.

Under this sole-source arrangement, 44 M1A1s and 40 M1A2 Abrams tanks will be converted in Lima, OH and Sterling, MI. U.S. Army Contracting Command – Tank and Automotive in Warren, MI acts as the Saudis’ agent (W56HZV-13-C-0315).

July 12/13: Bigger opportunity? Handelsblatt reports that the Saudis are reconsidering their planned German Leopard 2A7 tank buy. Slow German approval, and a range of opposition that includes both opposition politicians and elements within KMW itself, are raising the proposed deal’s risk profile. When those hindrances are added to the fact that German firms would have to build the support infrastructure they would need in Saudi Arabia from the ground up, the entire 270-tank buy is reportedly looking less attractive.

Handelsblatt says that American M1 tanks are the Saudis’ preferred alternative, which would make sense if the Saudis limit their goals to a swap-out of their old M60 tanks. The M1A2S is already serving in the Royal Saudi Land Forces, and the industrial slowdown in GDLS’ Lima, OH plant makes this a good time to negotiate. Handelsblatt [in German].

March 25/13: General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI receives a $39.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, to convert more M1A2 tanks to M1A2S configuration for Saudi Arabia. Saudi contracts have become very important as GDLS tries to keep the plant open in the face of near-zero demand from the US Army.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH with an estimated completion date of Jan 31/14. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-11-C-0350). See also Lima News.

Jan 3/13: General Dynamic Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI receives a $132.7 million contract for “services in support of M1A2S Abrams Tank production for Foreign Military Sales.” GDLS has confirmed that this contract covers 69 tanks.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH, with an estimated completion date of July 31/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-13-C-0104).

April 12/12: US Army sheds light. The US Army throws a bit of light on a program that has been short of details, as it announces that Anniston Army Depot had contracted to overhaul 143 Saudi M1 Abrams tanks to M1A2S standard, through a partnership with General Dynamics Land Systems. It extends a previous GDLS partnership that began in early 2011, when the depot assisted in upgrading 57 M1A1 and M1A2 tanks to the M1A2S variant.

Once structural repairs are complete, the hulls, turrets and components will be shipped from Alabama to Lima, OH, where the tanks will be assembled by General Dynamics Land Systems.

That brings the total number of M1A2S tanks under the agreement to 200, and an additional 129 tanks are awaiting funding. Work will take place at Lima Army Tank Plant, OH, where 326,000 direct labor hours are expected for the installation through this program. Anniston Army Depot employees will disassemble and sandblast the vehicles, then perform needed repairs to the hulls and turrets. They’ll also play a key role in refurbishing components for the vehicles by rebuilding the Gunner’s Primary Sight assembly, computer control panel, elevating mechanism assembly, gunner’s control assembly, and other parts for each tank. US Army.

April 9/12: A $12.1 million cost contract modification buying M1A2S long lead materials. Work will be performed in Lima, OH, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-11-C-0350).

March 2/12: An $11.1 million cost contract modification buying M1A2S long lead materials. Work will be performed in Lima, OH, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-11-C-0350).

March 2/12: An $8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to convert M1A2S tanks. Work will be performed in Lima, OH, with an estimated completion date of May 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-11-C-0005).

Jan 5/12: Lockheed Martin Global Training and Logistics in Orlando, FL receives an $8.2 million firm-fixed-price contract to upgrade Saudi Advanced Gunnery Training System configurations to the M1A2S standard.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, and Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, with an estimated completion date of Feb 28/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by the US Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Acquisition Center in Orlando, FL, who acts as Saudi Arabia’s agent in this matter (W900KK-12-C-0008).

Jan 5/12: An $11.8 million cost contract modification “to increase foreign military sales funding.” No further details are given, but the contract number corresponds to Saudi M1A2S upgrades. Work will be performed in Lima, OH, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by the US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-11-C-0350).

Nov 10/11: Mistaken announcement. A $6.9 million cost-no-fee contract for kits to convert M1A2 tanks to Saudi Arabia’s M1A2S configuration. Work will be performed in Oxford, AL, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-11-C-0350).

Discussions with GDLS reveal that despite the Pentagon announcement, this isn’t a contract yet.

Aug 11/11: A $29.75 million cost-no-fee contract for kit delivery and associated labor supporting production and conversion of 60 M1A2 tanks to Saudi Arabia’s M1A2S configuration. Work will be performed in Lima, OH until Aug 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-11-C-0350).

Aug 9/11: A $12.6 million cost-no-fee contract for kit delivery and associated labor supporting production and conversion of 42 more M1A2 tanks to Saudi Arabia’s M1A2S configuration. Work will be performed in Lima, OH, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-11-C-0005).

Jan 4/11: A $6.9 million cost-no-fee contract will provide tools and equipment to help set up a production facility in Saudi Arabia for converting M1 Abrams tanks to the M1A2S configuration. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI, with an estimated completion date of Aug 1/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-10-C-0160).

Jan 4/11: A $37.1 million cost-no-fee contract for materials and labor to convert 42 M1A2 tanks to Saudi Arabia’s M1A2S configuration. Work will be performed in Lima, OH, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-11-C-0005).

Saudi M1 Abrams
(click to view full)

Dec 3/10: A $19 million firm-fixed-price contract to incorporate the unique materials and labor required for the conversion of 15 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) M1A1 to M1A2S tanks.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH with an estimated completion date of March 3/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-10-C-0002).

Dec 8/09: A $17.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1 lot of common and long lead components to support the conversion of 15 M1A2 tanks to M1A2S tanks for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Work is to be performed at the Lima Army Tank Plant in Lima, OH, with an estimated completion date of March 31/12. One bid was solicited and one bid received by the U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-10-C-0002).

According to GDLS, this is a separate order from the process initiated by the July 2006 DSCA request, which is currently in Phase 2 and expects to deliver M1A2S tanks in 2010. It is not even a Foreign Military Sale; technically, it’s a US Army order that will convert 15 of the US Army’s M1A2s, whereupon they will be conveyed to Saudi Arabia.

Sept 18/09: A $7.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to support Saudi Arabia’s M1A2S Abrams tank conversion. Work is to be performed in Warren, MI with an estimated completion date of Feb 28/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received by US Army TACOM in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-C-0095).

Nov 4/08: A $58.3 million cost plus fixed price contract to convert M1A2 Abrams tanks into Saudi M1A2S configuration. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10. One bid was solicited and one bid was received, by US Army TACOM in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-C-0095).

This appears to be the Phase 2 contract. General Dynamics’ release describes the final product as “a hybrid configuration of the M1A1, M1A2 and M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) tank variants for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” It adds:

“Related contracts are expected to be awarded through FMS under the multiphase Royal Saudi Land Forces M1A2S program that will fund additional engineering work, production and modification to vehicles, and plant retooling.”

M88A2 HERCULES
(click to view full)

July 28/06: US DSCA announcement. The DSCA also reviews past US weapons land weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, noting that (links are DID’s):

“We previously notified transmittal number 90-07 to Congress on 2 December 1989 of the possible sale of 315 M1A2A Abrams tanks, with ancillary weapons and equipment, 30 M88A1 recovery vehicles, 175 M998 [HMMWV jeep] utility trucks, other trucks, ammunition, and full logistics support for an estimated value of $725 million.

Transmittal number 90-78 was notified to Congress on 27 October 1990 for the possible sale of 150 M1A2 tanks, 200 Bradley Fighting Vehicle Family Systems (including TOW versions and 1,750 TOW IIA Missiles), 207 M113 Armored Personnel Carrier Family Vehicles, [including] 50 M548 Cargo Carriers; 17 M88A1 [Recovery Vehicles and] 43 M578 Recovery Vehicles, ammunition, and full logistics support for an estimated value of $3.2 billion.”

General Dynamics Land Systems of Sterling Heights, MI will be the prime contractor. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale, and implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia for up to 8 years. The exact number of representatives will be established during program definition between representatives of the United States Government and the purchaser.

VBTP concept
(click to view full)

In December 2009, Brazil signed a EUR 2.5 billion deal with Italy’s Iveco that aims to renew its wheeled armored personnel carrier fleet, and revive Brazil’s land vehicle defense industry in the bargain. The 6×6 Guarani Viatura Blindada Transporte de Pessoal, Media de Rodas (VBTP-MR) is envisaged as a vehicle family that can replace Engesa’s wheeled vehicles. Their EE-9 and EE-11 have suffered from age-related problems, questionable protection levels, and a shortage of ready spares since Engesa’s 1993 bankruptcy.

Iveco is best known around the world for its trucks, but its Iveco Fiat Oto Melara joint venture has designed and fielded the core of Italy’s tank, wheeled APC, and tracked IFV fleets. The firm already has the new Puma wheeled 6×6/ 4×4 APC in its offering set, but the VBTP will offer them a new market, a new joint venture, and new export opportunities.

VBTP: The Need

EE-11 Urutu
(click to view full)

Brazil’s armored vehicle fleet is currently dominated by a set of Engesa’s vehicles. The EE-11 Urutu wheeled 6×6 APC was popular with a number of foreign clients, as well as Brazil’s own forces. It is named after a local pit viper, per Brazilian tradition (bothrops alternatus, also known as Jararaca and Yarara). The EE-9 Cascavel 6×6 armored vehicle is easily recognizable by its 90mm gun, and was produced for Brazil and for numerous foreign clients. That warning silhouette is replicated in its choice of name, which refers to the South American Rattlesnake (crotalus durissus).

By the early 1990s, however, Engesa’s main client was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The 1991 Gulf War, and subsequent international embargoes on weapon sales to Iraq, destroyed the firm. With its main client gone, no orders of consequence forthcoming in its home market, and its innovative Osorio medium tank elbowed aside by Saudi Arabia in favor of the American M1, Engesa went bankrupt in 1993. When it did, Brazil’s impressive local defense industry lost the heart of its advanced vehicle capabilities.

It also lost the main source of parts and maintenance for Brazil’s armored vehicle fleet. Brazil continues to operate its vehicles, and despite the EE-11’s weakness against some armor-piercing small arms rounds, it has been used in missions like the UN operation to stabilize Haiti. Even so, it was clear to the Brazilians that a replacement was needed. The combination of a rising resource economy and local threats have also driven 2 key trends in Brazil. One is a very significant increase in Brazil’s defense budgets, which have led to recapitalization programs for fighter jets, helicopters, air transports, and submarines. The other is a determination to restore Brazil’s decayed local defense industry, now that the Cold War’s inherent geo-political advantages for NATO and Warsaw Pact affiliated defense firms have vanished.

VBTP Guarani: The Vehicles

Guarani

The new VBTP-MR is currently envisaged as an 18-tonne (about 20 ton) vehicle at full recommended weight (GVW), with amphibious capacity up to 17.5 tonnes. It will be powered by a FPT diesel engine coupled to an automatic gearbox, and is designed to carry a crew of 10 dismounts plus the driver. Outline specifications include dimensions of 6.9m long x 2.7 m wide x 2.34 m high, which allow its to fit into a C-130 Hercules or forthcoming Brazilian KC-390 transport aircraft dimensionally, as well as by weight.

The vehicle can be fitted with a variety of remote-controlled weapon stations for additional firepower, including Elbit’s ORCWS UT-30BR, with its 30mm cannon and ability to carry anti-tank missiles. Standard UT-30BR armament is a 30mm cannon, 7.62mm co-axial machine gun, and smoke grenades, along with a panoramic commander’s sight and a laser warner.

VBTP-MR concept
(click to view full)

Because the vehicles are currently under development, all figures should be considered provisional. The work is being carried out jointly by the Brazilian Army (through the project Mobility Strategy and the DCT – Department of Science and Technology) and Iveco. By late 2009, around 30 million Brazilian Reals (EUR 12 million) had been invested in vehicle definition with “major specialist Brazilian companies.”

VBTP: Contracts and Key Events

“Tropa de Elite 3” trailer?

January 10/2017: Israel’s Elbit Systems has been contracted by the Brazilian Army to supply remote controlled weapons stations. Named REMAX, the system will be supplied over a five-year period and an initial production order worth $7.5 million. A REMAX turret is fitted on Brazilian VBTP-MR Guarani APCs, which includes a .50 machine gun, gives soldiers 360° capacity and is equipped with night vision, thermal vision, high resolution camera and zoom.

Aug/Sept 2014: State of the program. At the end of September Iveco delivered the 100th of a total of 128 vehicles to be delivered by the end of 2014 (16 pilot VBTPs, 86 evaluation vehicles + 26 addons). The 2015 budget sets aside BRL 200M ($82M) for 56 vehicles.

An entry on the Brazilian Army’s weblog explained in August how the Guarani was “finally operational.” The 33º BI Mec (Batalhão de Infantaria Mecanizado – Mechanized Infantry Battalion) received its 1st 13 vehicles back in March 2014 and should have 42 of them by 2015. They are being tested in the southern state of Paraná near Paraguay and seem to meet expectations. The vehicle can cross streams as expected, though it has a slight tendency to sink further on its right due to the engine’s position.

Sources: Defensa.com: “Iveco Latin America construye el blindado VBTP-MR Guaraní número 100” | Exército Brasileiro: “Guarani finalmente operacional” [in Portuguese].

Feb 12/14: Sub-contractors. Brazil picks Thales’ Sotas vehicle communication system as their armored vehicle communications system. Sotas will form the core of all voice and data communications in the Guarani, integrating various sensors, data terminals and radios. This follows a small 2011 purchase for testing purposes.

The Sotas system will also be retrofitted to EE-9 and EE-11 wheeled vehicles, and to tracked M113s, as part of their refurbishment programs. Initial systems under this contract will be delivered in June 2014, and Brazilian firms and depots will be trained to perform most maintenance thereafter. Sources: Thales, “Brazilian Army selects Thales’s intercom systems for vehicles”.

VBTP fires UT30-BR
(click to view full)

Dec 16/13: 26 more. A contract for BRL72 million ($31M) adds 26 Guaranis in Lote de Experimentação Doutrinária (LED – i.e. evaluation) configuration to the 86 ordered in August 2012.

Oct 24/12: REMAX RWS. Elbit’s Brazilian subsidiary Ares Aeroespacial e Defensa Ltda. announces a $25 million contract to supply its stabilized REMAX remote weapon stations to the Brazilian Army. This is the 1st production order, and deliveries will be made from 2012-2014.

REMAX was designed to be part of the VBTP program, and seems to be characterized by a simple and easy to maintain design. The small-caliber RCWS has already completed testing, and can be mounted on a range of suitable vehicles. Elbit Systems.

Sept 13/12: UT-30 RWS. Elbit’s Brazilian subsidiary AEL Sistemas S.A. receives an initial $15 million production order for UT-30BR 30mm remotely operated turrets, to equip VBTP Guarani vehicles. It’s an order under the Jan 6/11 umbrella contract. Elbit Systems | AEL [in Portuguese].

May 10/12: REMAX RWS. ARES light RWS turret is featured in the Independence Day parade, mounted on a Guarani armored vehicle. ARES.

VBTP mockup, LAAD 2009
(click to view full)

Sept 7/11: UT-30 RWS. Elbit Systems announces that the 1st UT-30 unmanned turret has successfully completed VBTP acceptance testing in Brazil.

Aug 18/11: REMAX RWS. Elbit subsidiary ARES announces that the first phase of tests for the REMAX 12.7mm Remote Weapon Station have been successful, with a follow-on round of firing tests beginning later in the year. REMAX was developed by ARES under CTEx requirements, and would become the first Weapon Station manufactured and developed in Brazil.

April 7/09: Iveco announces that they will will present a mock-up of the new Brazilian 6×6 VBTP-MR at the April 14th Latin America Aero & Defense (LAAD) Exhibition. The company promises that a prototype will be delivered by the end of 2009, for army testing beginning in April 2010. Another 16 additional units are slated for production and testing up to 2011, when a decision is expected on a final VBTP-MR fleet order for the Brazilian Army.

Iveco’s production plan would produce the initial 16-17 vehicles using imported components, but local content would gradually increase to over 60%. The company already has a growing supplier base in Brazil, where it produces around 15,000 trucks per year plus diesel engines. Iveco release at Defpro | Defense Update LAAD 2009 report.

VBTP with UT30-BR
(click to view full)

April 13/09: UT-30 RWS. Elbit Systems Ltd. announces a contract to supply its UT-30 unmanned turrets to the Brazilian Army, for installation on the VBTP-MR. The company says they were selected as a result of a competition including leading global manufacturers in the field, but adds that the contract amount for the program’s first phase is not material to Elbit Systems overall results. That would change, of course, once orders are confirmed for full-rate VBTP production.

The ORCWS UT-30 unmanned turret is a complete system, incorporating an automatic cannon up to 30mm, a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun, a Laser Warning System (LWS), commander panoramic sights, and smoke grenade launchers. A fully stabilized dual axes and an automatic target tracker keep weapons on target from the remote weapons station inside the vehicle. The turret does not crowd out space inside the vehicle, and offers light weight and a fold-flat capability for air transport.

Elbit’s ORCWS systems have been sold to a number of customers around the world, and equip several models of wheeled and tracked APCs. The Israeli firm is also an important local supplier to Brazil’s defense force, through its Brazilian subsidiary Aeroelectronica Industria de Componentes Avionicos S.A (AEL). The firm’s avionics equip most of Brazil’s fighter fleet, and it also sells and services a variety of defense-related electronics and optronics.

Elbit’s UT-30 turret picked

Additional Readings

• Army Guide – UT 30 Remote controlled weapon station
• Elbit Systems – UT-25, UT-30
• AEL – UT30BR – Sistema de Armas Remotamente Controlado
• ARES – REMAX. RCWS for 12.7mm and below.
• Thales – Sotas Vehicle Communications System
• DID (Jan 4/11) – Tracked RESET: Brazil Sticks With its M113s. The tracked fleet will also get some attention, but there will be just 150.

FMTV Family
(click to view full)

The 14 variants in the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) form the core of the USA’s new state-of-the-art medium military transport truck fleet. Which in turn forms the core of the “mature logistics capability” seen in the Iraqi theater and elsewhere. FMTV trucks are all automatic transmission, and range from 2.5-ton cargo and van models to 5-ton cargo, tractor, van, wrecker, tanker, specialty, and dump-truck models in various 4×4 and 6×6 configurations. Some models also have attached trailers that increase their carrying capacity. Even so, the use of common engines, transmissions, drivelines, power trains, tires, cabs, etc. create over 80% parts commonality between FMTV models. Where possible, commercial components are used for added savings.

There have been 3 main phases of the FMTV program, including the last “SO23” open competition in 2003. All told, more than 50,000 FMTV trucks in various models have been delivered to the US Army. A bridging order to BAE continued production in Sealy, TX from 2008 through 2010, but the 4th phase re-compete saw a new firm begin FMTV production – alongside heavy truck production for the Army (FHTV) and Marines (LVSR), and medium trucks for the US Marine Corps (MTVR).

FMTV Program & Production

FMTV 8×8 ILHS
(click to view full)

Under the new contract, Oshkosh Corp. has been awarded a competitive, 5-year requirements contract to build up to 12,415 trucks and 10,926 trailers, and provide associated support and engineering services. The total estimated contract value at award was $3.023 billion.

BAE Systems subsidiary Stewart & Stevenson won the initial FMTV competition to begin producing these trucks, and has retained the manufacturing contract through previous rebuy competitions, a merger with Armor Holdings, and Armor Holding’s absorption into BAE. The current FMTV rebuy program is a 5-year requirements contract award for up to 23,000 vehicles and trailers, as well as support services and engineering. The addition of support services is significant, and can amount to a notable portion of the contract’s full value over time.

Subsequent reports indicate that for this re-buy program, BAE Systems submitted a bid 20% lower than the current FMTV price, despite a supply chain for FMTV that is 60% directed source (i.e. sub-contractors and parts specified by the government). Oshkosh’s bid was reportedly 33% below the current FMTV price.

In addition to their role as the backbone of the US Army’s truck fleet, FMTV trucks serve as the base for key weapons systems like the future MEADS air-defense system and the new HIMARS air-portable multiple rocket launchers, and as the base for some blast-resistant vehicles like BAE’s Caiman. These designs are excluded from the FMTV re-buy.

Even without these specialty variants, FMTV production has ramped up sharply over the last few years. Initial rates of production were approximately 2,400 trucks per year, but that rate has now accelerated to 7,200 (about 32/day) and was expected to reach over 8,000 per year (about 42/day) at BAE’s plant in Sealy, TX during FY 2009.

Heavy use in theater and casualties of chance or battle have contributed somewhat to this production ramp-up, but other factors also play a major role. One is the desire to grow the US Army by over 60,000 soldiers. The importance of logistics means that more soldiers will need more trucks, especially as the regular army focuses on assuming more of the sustainment role that has traditionally been assigned to the National Guard and Reserves. Meanwhile, those military reserve forces are driving 30 and even 40 year old trucks that are reaching the end of any useful life cycle, and must be replaced quickly.

These factors mean that the FMTV’s production pace is unlikely to abate much, creating high hurdles for Oshkosh to meet. Fortunately, intellectual property rights are not an issue, as the government owns the blueprints. On the other hand, even “build-to-print” contracts usually end up accommodating contractor-specific systems and improvements. FMTV design had been frozen at the A1P2 version prior to this recompete, in order to ensure a level playing field, but a successful award opens the door to a new development and enhancement schedule. That was part of initial and ongoing discussions with the US Army, as Oshkosh prepared to ramp up its own FMTV production. So far, the transition is going well.

Budgets and production orders under this new contract include:

• FY 2010: $1.438 billion ($5.5M RDT&E, $1.344 billion procurement for 8,637).
  
• FY 2011 request: $1.438 billion ($3.7M RDT&E, $1.435 billion procurement for 4,652).
  
• FY 2012 request: $ 448 million ($4.0M RDT&E, $ 432.9M procurement for 2,390, $11.1M supplemental funding for 32 more to make 2,442).

Contracts and Key Events

Oshkosh FMTV
(click to view full)

The current FMTV rebuy program is a 5-year firm-fixed-price requirements contract award that was originally intended for up to 23,000 vehicles and trailers, as well as support services and engineering. It has now surpassed those totals. Unless otherwise noted, US Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command in Warren, MI, manages the contracts, and Oshkosh Corp. in Oshkosh, WI is the contractor. Bids for the original contract were solicited on the World Wide Web, with 3 bids received.

January 18/17: Israel’s Defense Ministry has contracted Oshkosh Defense to provide 200 FMTV tactical trucks. Valued at $200 million, the deal comes after vigorous field testing by Israel of six trucks to ensure the firm’s Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) meets Israeli requirements. It’s expected that this order will be added too, as Tel Aviv begins the replacement of the nearly 60-year old tactical trucks currently used by its logistics branch.

September 24/15: Oshkosh Defense has been handed a $47 million modification to add an additional 184 medium tactical vehicles to a $4.7 billion Foreign Military Sales order in 2009, with the new vehicles headed for Iraq. The vehicles are scheduled for delivery by February 2017.

April 13/12: A $60.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for FMTVs. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/14 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

April 2/12: A $294.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for FMTV support services. Oshkosh, on the other hand, says the contract will buy “more than 2,500” FMTV trucks and trailers for the U.S. Army, and adds that the US Army has now ordered “more than 29,000” FMTV trucks and trailers from them. From a program standpoint, that would be on top of previous orders to Armor Holdings and its eventual buyer, BAE Systems.

Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/14 (W56HAV-09-D-0159). See also Oshkosh release.

March 30/12: The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 31/11 includes FMTV, and isn’t good news for Oshkosh:

“Program costs decreased $1,965.7 million (-10.5%) from $18,731.4 million to $16,765.7 million, due primarily to a quantity decrease of 7,463 trucks from 87,839 to 80,376 trucks (-$1,266.1 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations

• (-$504.1 million). The quantity decrease also lowered estimates for non-recurring engineering, specifically, program management, non-recurring testing, and in-house and contractor engineering costs (-$135.2 million). There were additional decreases for unit cost savings from Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) definitization (-$146.8 million). These decreases were partially offset by the application of revised escalation indices (+$80.4 million).”

Feb 23/12: Oshkosh Defense unveils its “FMTV Enhanced Protection & Mobility Demonstrator” (EPMD) at AUSA Winter. The prototype vehicle utilizes the same Oshkosh TAK-4 independent suspension system that equips USMC trucks, and which is retrofitting many Army MRAPs. That change will improve mobility, while a custom-fitted Oshkosh Underbody Improvement Kit (UIK) improves protection against land mines.

These changes are important on a business level, because Oshkosh was depending on sales of upgrades and improved versions, in order to offset its unprofitable base bid (vid. Jan 9/12). Now the question becomes whether the US Army will bite.

Feb 3/12: Proxy battle win. Oshkosh’s 8-K/A filing says that all 13 of the corporation’s nominated Board members were elected, and all 6 of the Icahn Group’s nominees were defeated.

Icahn came close to getting a seat on the Board for his group, and that 13th seat had to wait for the full count, but overall, it’s a pretty stinging rebuff. The company nominee with the fewest share votes was Harvey N. Medvin, at 40,619,097; 5 of his 12 colleagues received over 79 million share votes. The Icahn nominee with the most share votes was Samuel Merksamer, at 39,016,262; 3 of his 5 colleagues received less than 15.5 million share votes, and those 3 were the only nominees to have more “withheld” votes than affirmative votes.

Jan 17/12: A $17.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy FMTV air conditioning install kits. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Oct 31/13 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

Jan 17/12: Oshkosh touts endorsements of its Board of Directors slate from independent proxy advisory firms Glass Lewis & Co. (Glass Lewis) and Egan-Jones Proxy Services (Egan-Jones). Voting is Jan 27/12.

Jan 9/12: Proxy battle – I choose you, Pikachu! The proxy skirmish with Icahn turns into a war – and the FMTV contract is a prominent feature. Icahn’s SEC DFAN14A materials express concern about the coming FHTV re-bid, and identify Oshkosh’s FMTV win strategy as 1 of 2 devastating strategic mistakes (the 2006 JLG acquisition being the other) that have consumed management’s attention and driven down profitability, even as other business segments have floundered and need focus:

“We believe that the FMTV represents the single largest problem with the future of this company… We believe this unprofitable contract represents management’s unrealistic attitude and poor planning, as well as the board’s lack of oversight on a product that represents over half of segment revenue.”

Oshkosh management’s filing points to the JLG acquisition as key to its M-ATV MRAP win, cites growing market share in defense, and asks for shareholders to wait for its markets to pick up. It directly attacks Icahn’s Board candidates as, in effect, a bunch of dependent puppets with little relevant experience in its key segments of defense or construction, and poor records with other companies. Management adds that Mr. Icahn has tried to circumvent Wisconsin’s business combination statute for shareholder protection, alleges that he had offered no substantive ideas to Oshkosh management when asked (though his DFAN14A has clear positions), and states that he refused to discuss his analysis behind the Navistar merger recommendation. In its 8-K filing, however, Oshkosh management make a concession, by pledging to “report profit on its Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles contract for the first quarter of fiscal 2012.”

The facts of the matter do make it appear that the Army played its FMTV hand well, and Oshkosh chose a strategy that failed at every point. As BAE surmised at the time, given the value of Army-specified sub-contracts, Oshkosh’s bid could not be profitable, and has not been. Worse, the Army chose not to be interested in enhancements, which would have restored some profit for Oshkosh; they also front-loaded FMTV purchases, before price-escalation clauses in the contract could kick in. Though this acquisition approach drove down short-term costs, in the long term, it could actually backfire on the Army by destroying 2 key suppliers. With BAE’s Sealy, TX truck plant largely emptied of work and staff, an analysis from the Lexington Institute sounds a cautionary note for the US Army, and wonders if its procurement victory will prove as pyrrhic as Oshkosh’s:

“[Oshkosh] finds itself in this predicament because it made some ill-timed acquisitions at the top of the sub-prime real estate boom (most notable lift-maker JLG), and then sought to compensate for its error by bidding very aggressively on Army truck contracts… workers would not be the only victims of the [proposed Navistar merger]… [A commercial suppliers strategy] ignores the loss of control implied for the Army customer. When you are by far the biggest source of demand for a company’s products, then you can pretty much dictate the terms of the relationship. When you are only one of many customers, you have less influence… The fact that submerging Oshkosh into the Navistar culture will give the Army fewer competitive options in the future is fine with [Icahn]; that’s how you get pricing power.”

It all comes to a head on Jan 27/12. See: Oshkosh 8-K | Oshkosh management’s SEC DEFA14A filing (see esp. pp. 38-44) | Icahn Group DFAN14A arguments | The Street | Reuters | Lexington Institute analysis.

Jan 5/12: A $27.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for more FMTVs. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of June 30/13. The original bid was solicited through the Internet, with 3 bids received by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

Jan 5/12: A $7.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to support FMTVs. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Oct 13/13. The original bid was solicited through the Internet, with 3 bids received by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W58HZV-09-D-0159).

Dec 6/11: Navistar/Oshkosh merger? Billionaire Carl Icahn owns 10% of Navistar, and 9.51% of Oshkosh, so his comments that the 2 companies should merge draws a lot of attention. He tells CNBC:

“I definitely think it would be a good merger. I think there would be a lot of synergy. I own stock in both and I think shareholders of both companies would benefit.”

Both Boards of Directors are maneuvering defensively around Icahn. Navistar agreed to put its Board up for election each year, but agreed not to propose his own slate of directors at the annual meeting. Things are a bit more open at Oshkosh, where Icahn is proposing Board slates, and has been increasingly critical of existing management.

Nov 10/11: A $19.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for 129 FMTVs; 11 armor B-Kits; 20 FMTVs; and 20 FMTV “High Mobility Artillery Rocket System B-Kits; with install for United Arab Emirates.” Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of June 30/13 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

The wording above is somewhat unclear, but Oshkosh has now confirmed that the UAE order is just 20 trailers and armoring B-kits. The UAE has an active HIMARS program, which began with their September 2006 DSCA request. As a Feb 3/09 announcement from BAE suggested, the UAE had already bought its FMTV chassis.

Sept 29/11: A $30 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 452 FMTV family trucks, and 86 up-armoring B-kits. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of June 30/13 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

According to DID’s records, based on announced contracts, this brings the total number of FMTV trucks ordered under this new contract to 23,665, plus 2,806 trailers, and 127 up-armoring B-kits, at a cost of about $3.69 billion.

Aug 1/11: A $904.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to procure 6,963 FMTV truck variants. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of June 30/13 (W56HZV-09-D-0159). See also Oshkosh release.

Aug 1/11: James Hasik’s new research service offers a timely memorandum, asking how much money Oshkosh is losing on its FMTV contract: “Just how much money is Oshkosh losing on the FMTV contract? And should the customer care?.”

That has long been suspected, as over 60% of the FMTV truck’s cost is fixed-price, mandatory “directed source” items from subcontractors, and Oshkosh’s bid was reportedly 33% below the SO23 contract’s FMTV price. Using information from past orders, such as those listed here, he gets average current contract costs of $181,000 per truck and $71,000 per trailer, which seems to match up with order totals so far. Further estimates involving relative truck production rates, relative value, and announced margin rates for the defense division:

“…give us estimates of -21% as the FMTV margin in Q2 2011, -15% as the FMVT [sic] margin in Q3 2011… with some slightly different assumptions, I got margins of -10% and -6%.1 As the FMTV contract will account for at least $150 million of Oshkosh Defense’s business over the next five years, taking losses can’t be shrugged off… as Charlie Szews has taken personal control at Defense, the problem has clearly been recognized. And indeed, if the overall margin is improving with increasing volume, then they’re not losing money on every truck. It’s not as though the value of the bill of material exceeds the sale price. There’s a positive contribution margin, so there’s hope that things might work out… Today, we have the beginnings of ex post measures – actual, if inferred, performance on the contract. Losing 15 percent on a $295 million gig means that you’re spending $347 million to get that 295; in short, that’s a $52 million quarterly loss. Yet quite apart from the commercial business, Defense is still grossing about a billion dollars quarterly, and the bonanza of the M-ATV work is almost at an end. So that bid on the FMTV contract, which now seems to have been hazardous, should still not prove fatal. Oshkosh may yet turn it around, but even if it doesn’t, only Oshkosh’s shareholders will suffer.”

While Hasik’s concern is focused on whether the contract would endanger Oshkosh as a company, there’s also an industrial base issue, wherein a supplier bids below cost, in order to drive a competitor out of business and secure a monopoly or near monopoly position with respect to American production facilities. That’s precisely the situation in the Boeing/Airbus tanker competition, which will also cost taxpayers above and beyond the bid price. It’s likely that as the defense business contracts under spending cuts, we’ll see more of this behavior. It isn’t clear that the US DoD has thought about this issue, and determined the best guidelines for responding.

July 25/11: A $30.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 185 FMTV trucks and 1 armor B-kit. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of April 3/13 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

June 14/11: A $7 million firm-fixed-price contract for 44 FMTVs. The contract runs until March 31/12 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

April 20/11: A $71.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 417 FMTVs of different types. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of March 31/12 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

April 15/11: The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 30/10 includes FMTV program changes – but they cost adjustments are downward:

“Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) – Program costs decreased $1,895.2 million (-9.2 percent) from $20,626.6 million to $18,731.4 million, due primarily to reductions in costs resulting from the award of a new competitive re-buy contract (-$2,308.6 million), acceleration of the procurement buy profile (-$328.9 million), and a change in the model mix (-$230.4 million). There are additional decreases for fielding and non-recurring costs (-$236.7 million) and other support (-$149.1 million) due to early completion of the program. These decreases are partially offset by a quantity increase of 4,654 trucks from 83,185 to 87,839 trucks (+$786.5 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations

• (+$588.8 million).”
• Note: Quantity changes are estimated based on the original SAR baseline cost-quantity relationship. Cost changes since the original baseline are separately categorized as schedule, engineering, or estimating “allocations.” The total impact of a quantity change is the identified “quantity” change plus all associated “allocations.”

Feb 28/11: A $25.2 million firm-fixed-price contract for 315 FMTV medium trucks, 3 B-Kits, and program support. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of March 31/12 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

According to DID’s records, based on announced contracts, this brings the total number of FMTV trucks ordered under this new contract to 15,604.

Feb 14/11: The Pentagon issues its FY 2012 budget request, even as the new 112th Congress is forced to debate a FY 2011 budget, in order to repair the failure of the 111th Congress to pass one. The FY 2010-2011 requests were around $1.4 billion, but FY 2012’s request drops sharpy to $448 million for a total of 2,442 more FMTV trucks).

Dec 3/10: A $413.2 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,800 family of medium tactical vehicles for the US Army National Guard. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI with an estimated completion date of March 12/13 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

Dec 3/10: A $100.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,800 family of medium tactical vehicles for the US Army National Guard. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI with an estimated completion date of March 12/13 (W56HZV-09-D-0159). DID is investigating the discrepancy in these figures.

Nov 19/10: As final deliveries from BAE Systems continue, and initial deliveries from Oshkosh begin, the U.S. Army is busy testing the new FMTV trucks at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. Lt. Col. Shane Fullmer, the Army’s product manager for medium tactical vehicles:

“Testing is going very well. The process involves 20,000 miles of reliability and durability testing – plus performance testing which is everything from [performance on] slopes to speed, endurance and payload capability… Given what we’ve seen to date, we are in good shape to easily meet our reliability requirements.”

The trucks are also subject to live fire blast testing, and performance testing including fording, hill grade/ payload tests, pull capability for tractors, etc. Testing is expected to conclude in the spring of 2011. US Army.

Nov 19/10: A $797.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 4,773 FMTV trucks – though the Oshkosh release says that 590 trailers are part of that total, meaning truck orders are just 4,183. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of March 31/12. Oshkosh is more exact: deliveries are scheduled to begin in September 2011, and finish in August 2012. (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

Based on announced contracts listed in this article, the current rebuy program has issued $2.1 billion in contracts so far, to buy 13,239 trucks, 1,156 trailers, and 37 armoring b-Kits.

Sept 10/10: A $260.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for the production of 2,060 FMTVs. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI with an estimated completion date of March 31/12. (W56HZV-09-D-0159). Oshkosh release

Sept 3/10: A $20.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 122 FMTV vehicles by March 31/12, with work to be performed at Oshkosh, WI (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

Aug 16/10: A $201.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,288 FMTV trucks. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of March 31/12 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

July 2/10: A $105.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 621 FMTV trucks, and 43 trailers. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of March 31/12 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

July 2/10: A $30.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 167 FMTV trucks, 37 armor b-kits, and 119 trailers. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of March 31/12 (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

May 27/10: Oshkosh Defense ships its first FMTV trucks and trailers to the U.S. Army, including a Long-Term Armor Strategy (LTAS)-compliant cab. The 2 trucks represent 2 different FMTV variants and their trailers, and were shipped ahead of schedule. The original timeline had Oshkosh Defense beginning to deliver full production units in October 2010. Oshkosh Defense.

May 10/10: Oshkosh Corp. in Oshkosh, WI receives a $410.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for 2,230 FMTV family trucks, and 404 trailers, for deliveries scheduled between March and December 2011. To date, Oshkosh Corporation has received orders valued at more than $690 million under the new FMTV contract, and the company will begin supplying initial trucks to the Army this month for performance and durability testing. Production deliveries will begin in October 2010, and the contract’s formal completion date is March 31/12. (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

As part of its efforts, Oshkosh Corporation has also broken ground on a new 150,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art electrocoat (E-coat) facility in Oshkosh, WI, to support the FMTV program, and possibly other programs. The E-coat facility will help ensure corrosion protection, one of the FMTV fleet’s key attributes in order to meet its demanding time-of-service requirements; competitor BAE Systems had an operational E-coat facility of its own in Sealy, TX, but that may now be closed. Start-up of Oshkosh’s facility will begin in late summer 2010, and the firm is also moving into a new building in Warren, MI for FMTV System Technical Support (STS) work. The firm expects to hire up to 190 new employees. See also Oshkosh Defense release.

April 27/10: The Oshkosh award may end up complicating life for the M142 HIMARS rocket launcher program, fielded by the US Army and Marines, and by several foreign militaries. The Army has 2 more years of buying HIMARS, but there’s a 14-month lag from contract award to delivery. The Army planned to procure its last 44 BAE chassis for the HIMARS system in FY 2011 under its bridging contract, but BAE is expected to discontinue FMTV production during the period of time it would take to build the chassis.

Col. Dave Rice, program manager for precision fires, rocket and missile systems, added that BAE’s Increased Crew Protection (ICP) cab for the HIMARS is a proprietary design. The Army will “have to see if the cab changes are militarily significant,” and then decide what to do. Gannett’s Army Times.

April 23/10: A bnet columnist criticizes Michigan for awarding Oshkosh a tax break, in order to do what it had to do anyway:

“As part of the contract, Oshkosh Defense agreed to establish a technical center in Michigan that will eventually employ up to 200 people. The office will be located on the site of the closed Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant. The Army office that manages vehicle acquisition is located in the area, so it makes sense for Oshkosh to have people nearby.

And there’s the rub. The state gave Oshkosh a $6.4 million tax credit to help build the facility. This is part of a “renaissance zone” program to revitalize older, existing industrial sites. Oshkosh won’t pay taxes until 2011 at the earliest and then it might well be at a reduced rate.

The question is: Does Oshkosh need the help? The company would have needed an office, anyway, to manage both the MRAP-ATV and the FMTV contracts. So it appears that Michigan is essentially paying some of Oshkosh’s costs. Considering that the state is running a $1 billion budget deficit (after $1 billion in spending cuts), it’s hard to justify giving Oshkosh tax breaks to do something it was already planning to do.”

New / Old kid in town

Feb 12/10: Oshkosh keeps the award. US Department of Defense:

“The Department of the Army announced today that it has re-evaluated the contract award decision for its Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) originally made on Aug. 26, 2009. This change was based on Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recommendations. Accordingly, Oshkosh Corp. has been awarded a competitive, five-year requirements contract for production of up to 12,415 trucks, 10,926 trailers, and associated support and engineering services. The total estimated contract value at award was $3.023 billion… From Dec. 21, 2009, to Jan. 22, 2010, the Army re-evaluated the proposals in accordance with the GAO’s recommendation. Subsequently, there was an Office of the Secretary of Defense peer review affirming the Army’s reevaluation process.”

Oshkosh celebrated the award in a corporate release, while BAE Systems was forced to notify its investors:

“…the Group will include in its 2009 accounts an impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets amounting to [GBP] 592 million relating to the Armor Holdings Inc. transaction and specifically the FMTV product line.”

The news is a major blow to BAE Systems’ $4.53 billion acquisition of Armor Holdings. With its core FMTV business about to end, MRAP production finished, and the M-ATV competition lost to Oshkosh, much now rides on the JLTV competition. At the same time, BAE Systems’ UK facilities recently announced potential job losses in its submarine business, and a minor trimming of its Nimrod-related workforce.

Dec 14/09: Congress’ Government Accountability Office issues its decision, recommending that the Army reevaluate the offerors’ capability evaluation factor, and make a new selection decision. GAO managing associate general Michael Golden said that:

“Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Army’s evaluation was flawed with regard to the evaluation of Oshkosh’s proposal under the capability evaluation factor, and the evaluation of Navistar’s past performance… We also denied a number of Navistar’s and BAE’s challenges to the award to Oshkosh, including challenges to the evaluation of Oshkosh’s price.”

By statute, the Army now has 60 days to inform the GAO of its response to the GAO’s recommendations. BAE Systems welcomes the decision, while looking forward “to reviewing the full GAO report and its recommendations so we can fully consider the implications for our business and our options…” Oshkosh Corporation Chairman and CEO Robert G. Bohn said in their corporate release that challenges to the evaluation of the Oshkosh Corporation price had been denied, adding that:

“It is important to realize that today’s decision did not recommend proposal revisions nor did it recommend termination of our contract… We believe that when these narrow issues are reconsidered, the Army’s decision to award Oshkosh Corporation the FMTV contract will be maintained.”

See: Redacted GAO decision [PDF] | Navistar release | Oshkosh release | The Hill.

Nov 19/09: Oshkosh discusses its efforts to secure tax breaks from the city of Oshkosh, as it plans to expand its manufacturing facilities by adding a new 150,000-square-foot electrocoat (E-coat) painting facility for FMTV production. The company plans to break ground on the new E-coat facility in December 2009, with start up beginning late summer 2010. Oshkosh | The Northwestern.

The financing package would have the city provide up to $5 million in tax incremental financing (TIF), while the state would provide $35 million in tax credits and other assistance for the plant. The TIF district is pending approval by the Oshkosh Common Council. BAE Systems promptly weighs in, of course:

“BAE Systems has two electrostatic E-Coat stations at our Sealy, Texas facility, one for large parts and one for small parts. As outlined on p. 41 of the redacted second supplemental protest document, the Army’s FMTV re-buy solicitation provided that: “An offeror that currently has existing facilities that can be utilized, or modified to build FMTV vehicles may be determined to be less risky than an offeror that has to acquire facilities to produce vehicles on the contract.” E-Coat is a requirement to build FMTV and is at the heart of its corrosion protection. Parts must be completely immersed in electrophoretic paint emulsion, at which point an electrical charge is run through both and then the parts are drained entirely.

As we read of our competitor seeking taxpayer assistance to build a new E-coat facility – in a very short time frame – to meet the requirements of the FMTV contract, we find it totally inconsistent with the source selection criteria to believe that BAE Systems, with two E-coat facilities in current operation, is considered equal in risk with a company that doesn’t have this essential capability and is looking for the taxpayers to pay for it.”

Nov 18/09: BAE Systems holds a teleconference to discuss their protest, and the recent GAO hearings. A GAO decision is expected by Dec 14/09, which is the 100th day, in conformance with GAO rules.

One clarification up front is that FMTV variants used as part of other weapons system, such as HIMARS rocket launchers, SLAMRAAM air defense systems, MEADS air defense systems, and the FMTV Low-Velocity Airdrop version used by airborne forces, were all removed from the re-buy competition in February 2009. Program managers for those systems will apparently make those decisions, but BAE does have some unique intellectual property in those vehicles’ current designs. If lack of production orders causes BAE to shutter their Sealy, TX facility, the firm would have to begin production of those variants elsewhere at added cost; alternatively, any competitor selected instead would have to replicate and test the vehicles’ mission-specific design features, either at its own expense or at the government’s. The derivative Caiman MRAP was never part of the FMTV re-buy, and remains BAE’s intellectual property.

In response to questions from DID regarding the applicability of Oshkosh’s rapidly fielded and produced M-ATV MRAP as a risk-evaluation precedent, BAE representatives made several points. The core of those points was that M-ATV was an internally-held design, whereas FMTV is a government-held TDP (technical documentation), which does not include all of the know-how needed to build the vehicle, and has a much longer and more involved process for changes. In conjunction with a production schedule that resembles M-ATV’s aggressiveness, and the production of only 1 FMTV prototype from Oshkosh to date, BAE believes this represents added risk.

BAE Systems also believes there’s a question around the FMTV A1 LTAS-compliant (Long Term Armoring Strategy) cab design, which is currently BAE’s design. Competitors must re-design that cab, and replicate and test the A1P2 cab’s level of protection, which is just being fielded now. An Aug 13/09 Oshkosh release says that Oshkosh has done this design work at its own expense, but the release does not mention testing; BAE’s protest includes their observation that a design which requires testing and verification adds production and design risk.

Finally, with respect to reports from sources like the Lexington Institute (vid. Nov 4/09 entry), BAE representatives confirmed that Oshkosh’s $3 billion total evaluated price bid underbid the current FMTV price in the neighborhood of 30%, but add that BAE’s re-buy bid price was lower, too. The government, “for whatever reason,” published Oshkosh’s contract bid on their web site, down to variant level pricing. BAE systems knows the trucks very well, and fully 60% of the trucks’ value is directed source, which means the winning contractor must use those suppliers. BAE representatives do not believe that Oshkosh’s prices are realistic, and display similar skepticism regarding some of the elements of Oshkosh’s insourcing claims.

Oshkosh Defense was contacted regarding BAE claims, but chose not to respond.

Nov 18/09: The Greater Houston Partnership business advocacy umbrella organization releases the results of their study, which claims that the region would lose 3,400 direct jobs and 6,766 indirect jobs if Oshkosh retains the contract, with other effect spreading beyond to the state of Texas. The Partnership is joining other Sealy FMTV Task Force members in calling on the Army to put the contract out for a re-bid – in effect, a do-over. PR Newswire release.

Nov 17/09: BAE Systems releases a redacted version of its protest to the public, following agreement from the GAO and even Oshkosh. Its core allegation is that the buy was not best value, but became a solely price-based competition that disregarded risk factors. The protest also cites other past GAO cases that it believes to be analogous. Redacted FMTV Protest [PDF, 6.5 MB].

Nov 9-10/09: The GAO holds hearings regarding the FMTV protest. GAO hearings usually held when there are conflicting factual issues, and the dispute cannot be resolved merely from submissions. This is longer than usual for such hearings, but reports indicate that an array of Army witnesses were called.

Nov 4/09: Loren Thompson of The Lexington Institute predicts that the GAO will overturn the Army’s decision:

“Let’s revisit what happened in that competition, and ask whether a protest seems warranted…[The Army] made the award after concluding that incumbent BAE Systems and Oshkosh were essentially equal in all non-cost selection criteria, but that Oshkosh offered a more attractive price… On price, the Army accepted a bid from Oshkosh that is 30% below the price BAE Systems is currently charging for the vehicle – even though Oshkosh, with no direct experience in manufacturing the product, must turn out a vehicle with the same performance specifications and features, using many of the same suppliers. When challengers to an established producer offer such huge price reductions to win a contract, it is standard procedure to conduct a rigorous analysis of how realistic the challenger’s price is. Yet there is little evidence the Army made any such effort… leveling of non-cost factors… allowed… a “best value” award solely on the basis of price. But unlike BAE, Oshkosh did not have all production facilities or tooling in place; its workforce was not experienced in building FMTV trucks; it did not have established relationships with all suppliers; and it did not have a validated design for the required armored cab in the vehicle. So to say the rivals represented equivalent risk is simply not believable – especially given the very aggressive price targets Oshkosh’s bid required it to meet. GAO will see this award for what it was, and act accordingly.”

See: Issue Brief | Subsequent elaboration.

Oct 16/09: BAE Systems files another supplemental protest to the GAO:

“…after finding additional concerns with the source selection process during the U.S. Army’s Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) rebuy competition… BAE Systems is increasingly convinced the service’s source selection evaluation was flawed and that the Army did not follow its own stated objective to conduct a best-value FMTV competition based on a clear-cut set of criteria… BAE Systems is requesting that a redacted version of the supplemental protest be made available publicly. In order for release of a redacted supplemental protest, all parties involved in the matter must agree to its release.”

Sept 11/09: BAE Systems files a supplemental protest.

Sept 4/09: Both BAE Systems and Navistar Defense file GAO protests (file# 401865.2, 401865.1) regarding the FMTV award to Oshkosh. BAE:

“BAE Systems has filed a protest with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), asking the agency to review the decision by the U.S. Army to award a contract to a competitor for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) rebuy program. After a detailed analysis of the information provided by the Army, before and during the formal competition debrief, the Company believes that the Army did not properly evaluate the proposals, consistent with the Government’s stated requirements, and the Army failed accurately to assess the various risks associated with the different proposals.”

The GAO protests will put the FMTV re-buy contract on hold until a decision is rendered. A decision is expected by Dec 14/09.

Aug 26/09: Oshkosh wins the FMTV production re-compete, and an initial $280.9 million order for 2,568 trucks and trailers, plus OY 01 data, additional care and storage, component first article test, first production vehicle inspection test, production verification test, live test family medium tactical vehicles winch, armor B-kits, and federal retail tax. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with initial test vehicle deliveries are planned for mid-2010, followed by production vehicle deliveries later in that year. With an estimated completion date of April 30/10 for this order. Bids were solicited on the World Wide Web with 3 bids received by TACOM LCMC Warren, AMSCC-TAC-ATB in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0159).

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle is quoted as saying that the total contract could be worth up to $2.6 billion and create 2,000 production jobs in the state. That’s definitely conservative, with other analysts placing the value closer to $4.5 billion, plus maintenance. Through the state’s Enterprise Zone program, Wisconsin will provide up to $35 million in tax credits over the next 12 years to support the project. In response to the win, Oshkosh CEO Robert Bohn reportedly said that “We’ve been known for a long, long time as a manufacturer that delivers on time and I think that helped us.” While it certainly didn’t hurt, BAE Systems had its own strong delivery record, including the top ranking among MRAP vehicle suppliers. It is very likely that the key differentiators lay elsewhere; tellingly, Oshkosh would not comment on pricing.

Over the past 17 years, Armor Holdings/BAE Systems has delivered more than 56,000 FMTV trucks and trailers, which have maintained a 94% average operational readiness rate in both Iraq and Afghanistan. BAE’s financial planning assumed FMTV-related sales and maintenance activities of about $2 billion in each of 2009 and 2010, dropping to less than $1 billion per year from 2011 onward. BAE announced that it “will continue to fulfill these commitments and consider its options as it carefully reviews the Army’s latest decision.” Translation: a protest is possible. Its absence would be surprising in the current climate, given the contract’s potential value.

FMTV bridge buys and maintenance efforts will continue using BAE Systems on Sealy, TX over 2009 and 2010, per the existing bridge-buy contract and partnership with Red River Army Depot. During this period, Oshkosh will make preparations, discuss final design details with the US Army, and ramp up production.

The long-term earnings hit, and implicit questions regarding the current value of its $4.5 billion Armor Holdings acquisition in 2007, sent BAE’s stock sliding. With MRAP production ended, MRAP-ATV going to Oshkosh, and its FMTV mainstay removed, BAE Systems’ American land vehicle strategy has taken a series of body blows that make the future JLTV competition even more important to the firm. Oshkosh stock has gone in a different direction, in the wake of a sole-source award to continue producing the US Army’s FHTV heavy trucks, its status as the ongoing manufacturer of the US Marines’ medium (MTVR) and heavy (LVSR) truck fleets, and a recent multi-billion win in the blast-resistant M-ATV competition that will also make them a contender for the larger JLTV Hummer replacement buy. See: Oshkosh Defense | BAE Systems | Milwaukee Business Journal | Bloomberg | UK’s Financial Times | Reuters.

May 27/09: BAE Systems submits its bid for the FMTV re-compete. Their corporate release touts over 17 years of experience, during which their 2,700 person facility in Sealy, TX has manufactured more than 53,000 FMTV trucks and trailers in 21 variants.

BAE is touting the strength of its workforce and its embedded knowledge that goes beyond the blueprints, and into production processes, efficiency, and proven flexibility. The delivery record for FMTV and its derivative Caimin MRAP vehicles has been excellent; indeed, Caimin was the #1 MRAP vehicle in its ratio of on-time to promised deliveries. Then, too, there is the specialized infrastructure like BAE’s Sealy e-coat facility, and privately developed off-blueprint additions like “miles to go on this tank” indicators and other enhancements.

May 27/09: Oshkosh submits its bid for the FMTV A1P2 re-buy contract. Their main competitor is a Sealy, TX incumbent with a formidable performance record of its own. In that situation, Oshkosh’s required priorities are twofold: (1) Avoid anything that might tip the scales against them, even slightly. That means driving perceived performance risk as close to zero as possible, and creating a net zero for political risks; and (2) produce a proposal that offers credible improvements in price and/or performance, against a very strong competitor.

In discussions with DID, the firm outlined the core of its case. Assuming a level playing field, the key criteria for this contract are price and past performance. Oshkosh believes they have a very credible, fact-based price derived from their own experiences building about 10,000 MTVR medium trucks for the Marines, and the fact that almost 90% of FMTV suppliers are already Oshkosh suppliers.

In terms of past performance risk, they pointed to the fact that their integrated production line has conducted simultaneous production of 10 models, totaling 29 variants – a record that matches well with the FMTV re-buy’s high mix/ low individual volume schedule. Oshkosh also touts its performance in the area of engineering and logistics support, which has become an integral aspect of the FMTV program. Their work with MTVR and the Army’s FHTV heavy truck family gives them a very wide field support network, and the firm cites its fast delivery and fielding of up-armored heavy trucks after the Army confirmed its LTAS armoring strategy. They’re building on that record with their FMTV related risk-reduction investments, which include an internally-financed design for an LTAS-compatible FMTV cab.

If Oshkosh wins, production would mostly take place on the firm’s existing campus in Oshkosh, WI, with some sub-contracting to current subcontractors. That kind of concentration generally improves price and efficiency numbers, but lowers political leverage. The other potential political strike is the “industry consolidation” card, which notes the risks of placing all medium and heavy truck production (Army’s FMTV & FHTV, USMC’s MTVR & LVSR) with one supplier and, for the most part, one campus. Oshkosh’s response is to cite the number and range of large firms involved in the MRAP and JLTV programs, and to state their belief that there has been a fundamental industry change over the past few years. Oshkosh Defense release.

Additional Readings

• Global Security – FMTV

Pandur II w. RCWS-30
(click to view full)

In January 2006, the Czech Republic selected General Dynamics’ European Land Combat Systems subsidiary Steyr-Daimler-Puch Spezialfahrzeug GmbH of Austria to supply its army with 199 new eight-wheeled Pandur II armored personnel carriers (APCs) between 2007-2012. The KBVP vehicles would replace Soviet-era OT-64 SKOT APCs, and would be produced in Austria and the Czech Republic.

In 2005 the contract included an option for 35 additional vehicles for a total of 234, and had a potential value of Koruna 23.6 billion ($1-1.4 billion). Steyr’s Pandur II was a finalist, and eventually won the competition. But questions arose, the deal became a political football, and delivery issues jeopardized the deal into oblivion. Or so it seemed. Despite the economic crisis gripping Eastern Europe, the Czechs reinstated a scaled-down version of the deal in late February 2009.

Selection and a Winner

Old OT-64C, Kosovo
(click to view full)

After the original April 2005 tender had been winnowed down to 3 semi-finalists (Patria’s AMV, Steyr’s Pandur-II, and Rheinmetall’s Boxer) the Czech testing program included crossing open water, test drives on paved and off-road surfaces, boarding of soldiers, and loading on to and unloading from a C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft. The Boxer failed the water crossing tests, however, leaving just the AMV and Pandur-II as contenders by the end of November. Czech Ministry of Defense spokesman Andrej Cirtek listed the three main criteria for the final decision as “the price, the participation of Czech industry, and the technical and tactical quality of the engines.”

In January 2006, the government announced the Pandur-II as their preferred choice.

Like Patria’s AMV and MOWAG’s Piranha, Steyr’s[2] Pandur II is a vehicle family of mission-specific variants. Common design elements include two steered axles, an independent suspension system and run-flat tires for advanced mobility, a high level of embedded armor protection, spall liners for the crew compartments, and drive train and steering linkages within the hull for superior survivability. A computer-based interactive maintenance and repair diagnostic system enables complete power pack changes in approximately 30 minutes.

The Pandur II is equipped with a Cummins ISC 350 diesel engine rated at 285 hp with an electronic engine management system, and a ZF 6HP 602C fully automatic transmission. A 400 horsepower engine is available as an option, and a water heater provides engine preheating for cold starting and for heating the crew compartment.

Current customers for the Pandur and Pandur II include Austria (68 Pandur, “requirement for”[1] 129 Pandur II), Portugal (260 Pandur II), Belgium (60 Pandur), Gabon (20 Pandur), Kuwaiti National Guard (70 Pandur), Slovenia (72 Pandur), the United States (50 Pandur 6×6 AGMS).

Pandur II Industrial Arrangements

Who’s driving?
(click to view full)

Industrial offsets for national firms are a common requirement in defense projects, and the Czech APC competition was no exception. The first 17 vehicles under this contract are slated for delivery from Steyr’s Austrian plant, but vehicles 18-107 are slated for final assembly in the Czech republic, with a number of local firms participating.

Steyr says that Czech subcontractors will contribute between 40-60% of the Pandur II vehicles’ components once serial production begins. Overall, approximately 12 Czech companies are participating in production, including:

• Defendia CZ, a Steyr subsidiary. Produced the main components of the first 17 vehicles in conjunction with the Vienna factory.
• Vojensky opravarensky podnik companies, incl. 025 Novy Jicin and 026 Sternberk. Main partners, and main assembly lines for remaining vehicles. Retooled a production hall and have opened their first process line at Novy Jicin to begin vehicle hull production, and built an entirely new production hall at Sternberk. VOP 025 is responsible for Czech production of the baseline vehicle, components for other versions, part of the logistics and documentation, and servicing. VOP 26 Sternberk will handle part of the logistics, as well as production of specialized Pandur II variants and weapon system production/ integration for the RCWS-30.
• BOIS: Summer and winter camouflage nets
  
• COLORLAK: Special finish paints
  
• DICOM: Communication systems
  
• E-COM: Simulators for comprehensive crew training
  
• Letecke Pristroje Praha: Diagnostics, navigation, command systems
  
• MEOPTA Prerov: Surveillance and sighting equipment, optical electronic components
  
• MESIT: Communication equipment, digital and analogue electronics
  
• Rayservice: cable harnesses and electro mechanical assemblies
  
• T-CZ: Microwave technology, antennas

Note that special characters do not render correctly in all browsers, so DID has used their unaccented English equivalents.

Contracts & Updates

KVBPs, Afghanistan
(click to view video)

February 7/17: Tatra Defense Vehicles will provide additional Steyr Pandur II trucks to the Czech Republic, adding to the 107 Pandurs already operated by Prague. The $82 million contract will see the provision of 20 vehicles, six of which will be fitted as command-and-control trucks and another 14 vehicles configured as communications platforms.The Pandur II 8×8 armored vehicle is an updated all-wheel drive version of the Pandur 6×6 armored personnel carrier.

May 18/11: Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) announces that it has delivered its new 8.5 kg MiniPOP surveillance & targeting turret, in a deal worth “several millions of dollars.” A pair of MiniPOPs equip each Rafael’s Samson 30 RCWS(Remote Controlled Weapons Station) installed on the Czech Army’s KBVP PANDUR 8×8 CZ, serving as the commander’s and gunner’s sights. The Pandurs are currently operated by the Czech Army in Afghanistan.

The Czech MiniPOPs features a thermal imager, a CCD camera, a laser rangefinder and a laser pointer. They can add an optional laser designator, for targeting work. IAI.

Jan 14/11: Czech MoD:

“The live fires of four wheeled PANDUR II CZ M1 armoured personnel carriers were held at the Black Horse Base close to Kabul on the second January week. Vehicles reinforce the military part of the Czech Provincial Reconstruction Team in Logar, where Czechs have been serving together with Americans at the Shank Base since January 2008… Pandurs replace BVP-2 armoured personnel carriers, which served at PRT Logar from January 2008 to December 2010.”

Feb 22/10: A critical witness in the Czech Pandur-II controversy cannot help, because he has no memory. Czech arms dealer Pavel Musela was crippled by a hunting accident in October 2008, just as new contract talks between Steyr and the Defence Ministry were coming to a head. As for Musela’s head, the accident caused severe brain damage. He is able to communicate and recognizes his family, but has lost many of his memories. Prague Daily Monitor.

Feb 19/10: Czech Chief of police Oldrich Martinu has decided to establish a team to probe alleged corruption in the Czech Pandur-II purchase, following media reports. The Prague-based DNES recently published a transcript of a hidden-camera interview with 2 former Steyr managers who mentioned bonuses from the deal for political parties, as well as the names of several politicians. The Czech daily The Mlada fronta Dnes (MfD) also reports that Steyr signed a CZK 1 billion lobbying contract with Czech entrepreneur Jan Vlcek in December 2002, but the contract reportedly ended in less than a year, and Vlcek reportedly believed he was expected to pay bribes.

Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer has also shown interest in the probe. Ceske Noviny | Prague Monitor re: lobbying contract | Radio Prague | Defense News | Ceske Noviny re: political interest.

Pandur II & RCWS-30,
water trials
(click to enlarge)

March 2/09: The Czech government announces that it has approved a buy of 107 Pandur IIs, for CZK 14.4 billion (about $650 million), with an agreement for 153% value of industrial offsets, and a firm agreement on maintaining the average unit price. Prime Minister Topolanek adds that the program delay has caused the military “marked problems with operation capabilities at home and mainly in foreign missions.” Ceske Noviny.

Feb 26/09: Czech firm VOP-025 in Novy Jicin, north Moravia, signs an agreement with General Dynamics. VOP believes that an order for 107 APCs would be worth about CZK 2.1 billion (about $95 million) to the company, and will allow them to continue employing about 120 new military equipment specialists, whom they would otherwise have to lay off.

The firm expects to produce 90 APCs between 2009-2013, in 4 versions. Prague Monitor.

Feb 26/09: The Czech government announces that the economic crisis will delay a number of military projects. Among other moves, modernization of 10 Mi-171S helicopters to enable them to fly in dangerous areas like Afghanistan will be shifted from 2009 to 2010, CZK 200 million in installment payments for the planned purchase of 107 Pandur APCs will be delayed until 2011, and CZK 60 million will be deferred from the planned construction of an avionics laboratory to modernize the country’s L-159 light attack aircraft. Ceske Noviny.

Land Rover Defender
(click to enlarge)

Feb 26/09: According to Czech Defense Ministry sources, the military is interesting in buying a new batch of 79 Land Rover Defender jeep-class vehicles by the end of November 2009. This vehicle type already serves with Czech forces. The new vehicles will replace older Russian designs like the UAZ-462 and UAZ-469B in the Czech rapid-deployment unit that serves with ISAF in Afghanistan, as well as by the joint Czech-Slovak EU battlegroup. The Land Rover purchase has been given an early estimate of CZK 384 million (about $17.3 million).

The Czech Republic has purchased a handful of mine-resistant Dingo-2s and Iveco MLVs to accompany these lightly protected off-road vehicles, and the Pandur IIs would form the a heavier high end for international deployments, with better protection relative to the Dingo-2s, and much better firepower. The Forecast International report adds that approval is imminent for a CZK 12 billion order of 107 Pandur II APCs. Forecast International | Prague Daily Monitor.

Feb 8/09: The Czech cabinet is considering a reduced order of 107 Pandur-II APCs, and Czech firms are calculating the expected benefits. The weekly Euro estimates the value at CZK 5.3 billion, expecting that direct offset programs involved in vehicle production should make up 60% of an CZK 11.5 billion order, while indirect offset programs should account for 90% of the order’s value or around CZK 10 billion, over 10 years. Approval for a revised contract with Steyr is expected to come to a head in February.

VOP-025’s chief executive Ales Truxa confirmed to Euro that his firm is already supplying components for the 260 Pandur IIs ordered by the Portuguese Army. Prague Monitor.

January 2009: Steyr is given an opportunity to bid a lower number of APCs, and possibly keep the Czech contract. Source.

April 9/08: Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that senior officials from the Czech Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Steyr Spezialfahrzeug (SSF) signed a deal on this date to allow testing of 2 SSF Pandur II 8 x 8 armoured vehicles at an independent facility.

“Industry sources said the tests would probably take place at the VOP-026 Sternberk military repair depot in the coming weeks, with the objective of demonstrating to MoD officials that SSF has successfully corrected a small number of technical deficiencies.”

Dec 11/07: The Czech Government cancels the Pandur contract. Czech Defence Minister Vlasta Parkanova says that “At first glance, it is perhaps a radical solution… But we are convinced that it is a correct one.” The Ministry did say that it will wait for Steyr’s response before taking any further steps, and sources indicate that the company will attempt to save at least part of the bid in discussions with the MoD. Since the contract was concluded between the Ministry of Defence and a Czech company (Defendia CZ), international arbitration is a very unlikely response.

The issues behind the government’s conclusion vary depending on whom one talks to, but they fall into 3 broad categories: delivery and acceptance dates, force mix, and domestic politics.

Czech Defence Ministry spokesman Andrej Cirtek, for instance, disagreed with Steyr’s assessment, saying that the 17 initial APCs would not have been delivered until mid-2008. While Steyr claims the vehicles are ready, the Czechs will not consider them ready, and will not accept delivery, until all failures to meet specifications are fixed. This was the issue that broke the contract, and allowed the Czechs to legally abrogate the deal.

Jan Vidim, the head of the Czech Chamber of Deputies’ defence committee, also criticized the deal on political grounds. Defence Minister Karel Kuenhl actually signed to contract shortly after the Paroubek coalition he served in had lost the general election, acting on the advice of the Czech General Staff. The Civic Democratic Party, who won those elections, were less than thrilled by this. Some believe they have bided their time ever since, until issues arose that would give them an opening. This is possible. In addition, however, Jan Vadim also argued from the force mix perspective:

“I am simply convinced that the Czech Army cannot make good use of those 199 carriers. What we need is six-wheelers, armoured four-wheelers and a number of different types of vehicles. Buying 199 eight-wheeled vehicles was just wrong.”

See Nov 22/07 entry for a glimpse at what those “different types of vehicles” may entail, and note that follow-on orders are expected. Of course, buys of that nature are not incompatible with higher-end and more heavily armed wheeled or tracked APCs for use in more serious situations. Sources: Radio Praha | Ceske Noviny | Deutsche Presse-Agentur | Houston Chronicle.

Nov 29/07: General Dynamics Steyr-SSF confirms that the Czech military will include Spike-LR anti armor missiles on the RAFAEL RCWS-30 unmanned turrets, and announces that that the first 17 Pandur II wheeled armoured vehicles for the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic (AFRC) are “fully operational, combat-ready and ready for delivery from the Steyr facility in Vienna.” Of course, the release later adds that “Steyr and AFRC are discussing plans to implement several minor modifications to the vehicles, requested as a result of opportunities identified during readiness testing, in the near future.”

All 199 vehicles will be delivered to the AFRC before the end of 2012 – provided that the Czech government accepts them. Steyr-SSF release.

Nov 29/07: Given recent remarks from the Czech Defence Ministry’s deputy minister Jaroslav Kopriva, Steyr follows up with a second press release that begins:

“The Czech subcontractors involved in the manufacturing of the Pandur II armoured wheeled carriers for the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic (AFRC) have invested more than CZK 300 million in the production of the first 17 vehicles and in preparation for serial production.”

Nov 22/07: The Prague Monitor reports that the Czech Republic has ordered 4 Dingo-2 mine-resistant vehicles from KMW of Germany, and 4 smaller MLV mine-resistant vehicles from Italy’s Iveco. These vehicles are slated for immediate deployment to Afghanistan, but larger competitions in these categories are in the offing.

Nov 7/07: The Prague Daily Monitor reports that Pandur II deliveries will be delayed as the APCs have failed to meet a 24 of the required 93 military test criteria. The Spring 2006 contract’s deadline requires the first 17 vehicles under the contract to be supplied by the end of November 2007.

The Czech Defence Ministry’s deputy minister Jaroslav Kopriva has said that Steyr reaction to the defect fell short of expectations, and no definite time for a correction has been communicated. The Ministry is considering financial sanctions, or even withdrawing from the contract in part or in full.

Steyr’s PR official Jan Piskacek said the company would “be prepared for transfer by the end of November,” which is not the same thing as delivering test-ready vehicles that have corrected all identified issues. He added the Steyr position that most of the missed criteria were “of a formal character,” and that most had been redressed. (Tip thanks: David Vandenberghe)

Aug 28/07: Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that:

“Technical complications are continuing to delay the delivery of two Steyr-Daimler-Puch Spezialfahrwagen (SSF) Pandur II 8 x 8 armoured vehicles to the Army of the Czech Republic (ACR) for in-field testing prior to the November delivery date of the first production in-service vehicle to the ACR. The Czech Ministry of Defence (MoD) has acknowledged that the communications suite, satellite global positioning system (GPS) and Rafael Armament Authority Remote Overhead Weapon Station with ATK Bushmaster 30 mm cannon, could prevent the on-schedule delivery of the first two testbeds for extensive military evaluation.”

Pandur II, firing
(click to view full)

June 9/06: Czech Minister of Defence Karel Kahnl formally signs an agreement with the Steyr Company of Austria to supply 199 Pandur-II wheeled armored personnel carriers.

April 17/06: Czechs Formalize Gun Contract for New APCs. It’s ATK’s Mk44 30mm chain gun.

The Czechs had tested the RCWS-30 with an ATK Mk 44 dual-feed 30mm auto-cannon on both the PANDUR II and Patria Armoured Modular Vehicle (AMV) in open-water crossings (note picture); test drives on paved and off-road surfaces; and tested the fold-flat features for on-loading and off-loading in a C-130 Hercules aircraft. Now Alliant Techsystems, who has a long-standing defense relationship with RAFAEL, has formally received a contract valued at approximately $20 million for Mk 44 30mm cannon weapon systems that will equip the Czechs’ RCWS-30.

The Mk 44 system is part of ATK’s well-known Chain Gun family. ATK 30mm Mk 44 guns are already used in nearly 2,000 land vehicles, aircraft, and ship-board weapon systems for the United States and allied nations including Finland, Norway, Poland, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; these weapons will also be part of the US Marines’ new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle amphibious APC.

Patria AMV & RCWS-30
(click to view full)

Feb 7/06: The Pandurs’ main weapon has been finalized. Czech APCs to Carry RAFAEL’s RCWS-30.

The RCWS-30 gun system pictured up top is RAFAEL’s RCWS-30 Remote Controlled Weapon Station, which can be operated from inside a vehicle. It was included in the official Steyr release, and was part of the Czech trials on both Patria’s AMV and Steyr’s Pandur II. The pictured system includes a 30mm cannon, a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, and two Spike-LR multi-purpose missiles, as well as various sensors and defensive systems. There is a patent pending on the mechanism it uses to fold down for air transport, and the system includes stabilization, auto-tracking and slaving features.

January 25/06: The Czech government endorses procurement of Austrian Steyr Pandur-II APCs, and commences negotiations.

Nov 9/05: The competition narrows to 2 finalists, as Rheinmetall’s entry fails the river crossing tests. Only Steyr’s Pandur-II and Patria’s AMV are left.

Sept 20/05: BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P. withdraws from the tender, without revealing which vehicle was on offer. DID suspects either its new SEP developed by BAE Hagglunds, or the new Turkish FNSS Pars II (Leopard) 8Ö8 wheeled armoured vehicle, developed with General Purpose Vehicles LLC (GPV) of the USA. BAE owns 49% of FNSS.

BTR-80: out
(click to view full)

Aug 17/07: The Czech government announces its shortlist from among the 7 bidders. Czech firm Globtrade Air s.r.o. (probably a BTR-80 variant), Poland’s BUMAR Sp. Z o.o. (probably a BTR-80 variant), and Italy’s Iveco Fiat OTO Melara, S.c.r.l. (the complementary Puma and Centauro vehicle families) are eliminated.

BAE Systems Land & Armaments (SEP or FNSS Pars II), GD Steyr Spezialfahrzeug (Pandur II); Patria Vehicles Oyj (Armoured Modular Vehicle), and Rheinmetall Landsysteme (Boxer MRAV most likely) advance to the semi-finals. See full DID coverage.

April 2005: Invitation for the provision of up to 234 wheeled armored personnel carriers is made public.

Footnotes

fn1. Defense journalist Vanja Moskaljov of Croatia’s Vecernji List newspaper drew our attention to the fact that no contract has been signed in Austria for Pandur IIs, and suggests that even Army Technology’s listing of a requirement for 129 Pandur IIs may be too strong a statement: “The Steyr people often said that they would like it if the Austrian Army used Pandur II, because it would help them to promote the vehicle on other markets, but that the Austrian government told them that they didn’t have enough money for a new APC purchase.”

fn2. Both Pandur and Piranha wheeled APCs are General Dynamics vehicles. General Dynamics European Land Combat Systems is based in Vienna, Austria, and consists of 3 subsidiaries: General Dynamics Santa Barbara Sistemas of Madrid, Spain; Piranha maker MOWAG GmbH of Kreuzlingen, Switzerland; and Pandur II manufacturer Steyr-Daimler-Puch Spezialfahrzeug GmbH of Vienna, Austria.

Additional Readings

• Army Technology – Pandur II
• Czech Ministry of Defence: Modernization Projects – Wheeled Armoured Personnel Carriers. Doesn’t have all of the announcements, etc., but does have a good timeline.
• Czech Ministry of Defence – Life Tenders: Wheeled Armoured Personnel Carriers for ACR
• Czech Ministry of Defence – Armoured Personnel Carrier Pandur II 8×8
• DID (Sept 23/05) – Czechs Issue APC Bidders Shortlist, Exclude Czech Firm

LAV-III, FOB Robinson
(click to view full)

The Government of Canada recently awarded “EODC Engineering, Developing and Licencing Inc.” of Ottawa, Canada C$ 81.5 million (about $65.5 million ) worth of contracts to provide for add-on-armour kits, modules and spares for its LAV III wheeled armored personnel carriers. LAV-III vehicles are known as Piranha-III in Europe, and are the base platform for the USA’s Stryker family of vehicles. Canadian LAV-IIIs have seen extensive use on the front lines of Afghanistan, where they have both achieved important successes and demonstrated key limitations.

The first, C$ 68 million contract, includes kits, modules, and spares for LAV III supplemental armor, as well as the repair and overhaul of their current modules and kits. An additional contract estimated at C$ 13.5 million was also awarded to EODC to provide “an Improvised Explosive Device Protection Kit.” The government release adds that EODC is the sole-source supplier because it owns the intellectual property rights. As the CASR think tank points out, Engineering Office Deisenroth Canada (EODC) is a subsidiary of Germany’s IBD Deisenroth; and IBD Deisenroth’s site makes it clear that Canadian LAVs have already started to use AMAP-IED armor.

AMAP-IED armor
(click to view full)

Deisenroth makes the MEXAS armoring that has outfitted Canadian LAVs and Leopard 1A5 tanks. Its more advanced AMAP line offers greater protection against medium-caliber small arms fire, fragmentation, and rockets. There’s also a dedicated AMAP-IED product, whose combination of materials and spacings provides good side protection against a range of threats that include land mine blasts and even EFP(explosively formed projectile) side-attacks. Under-belly armor is also part of the kit and offers additional land mine protection, though the LAV-III’s base design is not optimized against this threat in the same way as the v-hulled MRAPs. Government of Canada release | CASR.

Note that even perfect armor may not solve the problem completely. AMAP-IED may be an important step forward in general protection, and offers insurance against a casualty spike if EFP mines become more prevalent in theater. Past casualty reports, however, indicate that many of the LAV-III’s mine-related casualties were blast pressure injuries to soldiers who are riding with part of body outside a vehicle hatch. This is the result of a tradeoff between the need for all-around awareness, and the benefits of having locals see your faces and presence; versus the need for protection.

Update

February 13/17: Canada’s Light Armored Vehicle III (LAV III) Upgrade Program will see General Dynamics Land Systems upgrade 141 Light Armored Vehicles. Valued at $308 million, the upgrades will bring the vehicles up to the latest LAV 6.0 standard, improving the vehicles’ performance and survivability while reducing long-term maintenance costs. Based on the Swiss MOWAG Piranha III, the LAV III is the third generation of light armored vehicles used by Canada’s army.

3BCT-101st, Iraq-
no Chavis turrets?
(click to view full)

Navistar subsidiary International Military and Government LLC (IMG) in, Warrenville, IL has won billions of dollars in MRAP program contracts, to produce several variants of its blast-resistant vehicles. The Category I MRUV vehicle’s role is similar to a Hummer’s, albeit with more carrying capacity and much more protection. That has become a staple for IMG’s entry, dubbed the “MaxxPro” by its manufacturer. Their collaboration with an Israeli firm who provides up-armored vehicles for the Marines successfully overcame lukewarm initial interest, but even successful survivors of Aberdeen’s tests where challenged to offer enough protection against the ERP class of land mines that began to appear in Iraq.

Nevertheless, the MRAP program became a production race – and Navistar did very well under those competitive terms. In the end the military’s desire for standardization of its fleets exerted something of a gravitation pull on the competition. A July 2007 order vaulted Navistar into 1st place for initial MRAP Program vehicles ordered, but the US Army is divesting many of its vehicles – creating opportunities for foreign buyers…

MRAP Competitors, Navistar Totals

Dash Ambulance
(click to view full)

Navistar ended up leading the initial MRAP competition, with the highest share of any competitor at 38.3%. Additional orders for Afghan-adapted vehicles ensure that this total has crept higher vis-a-vis their original competitors, but They’re still just one competitor among many, and beyond the MRAP competition, trucking rival Oshkosh’s M-ATV has now achieved very close production figures in the follow-on, single-award M-ATV program.

To date, Navistar has produced 7 MaxxPro variants under contract: the original MaxxPro, MaxxPro Air Force, the MaxxPro Plus with improved protection, MaxxPro ambulance (production orders were for the Dash variant), MaxxPro MEAP, the MaxxPro Dash for Afghan operations, and the MaxxPro Recovery Vehicle (MRV), for towing out stuck vehicles. The firm has also developed Cargo flatbed and Tractor (18-wheeler truck’s front end, but mine-protected) variants.

A number of these MaxxPro vehicles have also received independent suspension upgrades, in order to improve their off-road performance. The MaxxPro DXM upgrade kits are delivered through Boler’s Hendrickson subsidiary, and marry Hendrickson’s advanced engineered sub-frames, sway-bars, coil springs and shocks with GD AxleTech’s 5000 Series Independent Suspension Axle System.

Participants in the MRAP and related programs, and their vehicles, have included:

Based on awarded contracts, MaxxPro’s price per base vehicle is around $520,000 – $550,000. The vehicles must then be fitted with electronics, IED jammers, and other equipment. That can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to that base price, before they’re sent to the front lines. Announced production orders to date include:

• #001: 4 initial testing vehicles
  
• #002: 1,200 MRAP CAT I vehicles
  
• #003: 16 larger MRAP CAT II vehicles
  
• #004: 754 CAT I
  
• #005: 1,000 CAT I
  
• #006: 1,500 CAT I
  
• #007: 743 CAT I
  
• #008: 4 CAT I – not publicly announced
  
• #009: 822 CAT I MaxxPro Dash
  
• #010: 400 CAT I MaxxPro Dash
  
• #014: 1,050 CAT I MaxxPro Dash DXM with improved suspensions. Modification added 1,222 DXM retrofits.
  
• #015: 250 MaxxPro MRV recovery/tow variants
  
• #016: 175 CAT I MaxxPro Dash DXM with ECP I/II
  
• #018: 250 MaxxPro Dash Ambulance with DXM and ECP IV
  
• #019?: 471 MaxxPro Dash DXM with ECPs
  
• #020: ISS retrofit kits: 650 DXM Plus
  
• #021: 140 MaxxPro MRV recovery/tow variants
  
• #023: Full “rolling chassis” retrofits: 2,717

Total production is currently 8,779 vehicles. Beyond American buys, Navistar informs DID that their production totals include a 2009 order from Singapore for 15 MaxxPro Dash vehicles, and they have also announced a May 2010 order for a pool of 80 MaxxPro Dash vehicles to support “coalition forces” in Afghanistan, which has reportedly included Albania, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Solvakia, and South Korea.

As the USA withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan, they decided not to keep many of their MRAP vehicles. Quite a few Oshkosh M-ATVs and Navistar MaxxPros will still remain in the force, but many MRAPs of all types won’t remain. The question is where they end up. Some have been destroyed outright, in order to avoid paying to ship them home. A number of MRAPs, including MaxxPros, have been diverted to local government organizations in the USA. Giving mine-protected, heavily armored vehicles to entities like school districts and non-violent towns of under 10,000 people has caused no small amount of controversy, and citizen protests have even forced a small handful of local governments to cancel these “1033 program” giveaways, which are not centrally tracked or accounted for. Other MRAPs have been given or sold to foreign operators, reportedly including:

• Croatia: 40
  
• Hungary: 42
  
• Jordan: 100
  
• Pakistan: 22 deployed, 160 requested
  
• Slovakia: ??
  
• UAE: 3,375 requested
  

A Note on MRAPs

DID refers to the MaxxPro as the top finisher in the MRAP competition, despite greater sales by Oshkosh’s M-ATV (MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle).

That’s because the M-ATV wasn’t part of the initial MRAP program; instead, it’s a follow-on competition that aimed to bridge the gap to the future JLTV winner. Navistar’s MaxxPro competed, but Oshkosh won, and their M-ATV was also very popular. In June 2010, its order totals narrowly surpassed the Navistar MaxxPro’s. DID defines “MRAP orders” as orders placed under the original MRAP multi-vendor contracts, however, and considers the single-vendor M-ATV competition to be a separate but related effort.

MaxxPro Contracts & Key Events

MaxxPro MRV
(click to view full)

Unless otherwise specified, all contracts are issued to Navistar subsidiary International Military and Government LLC (now Navistar Defense LLC) in Warrenville, IL. Unless otherwise noted, the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA buys MRAP vehicles on behalf of 2008 requests from the US Army (12,000 by 2008), USMC (2,225), Air Force (558), Navy (544), SOCOM (344), and production verification testing (100). Those numbers rose further, via additional awards in 2010 and 2011, but the US military

February 19/17: Navistar Defense has been contracted $35 million by the US DoD to provide 40 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected MaxxPro Dash DXM vehicles. The deal supports foreign military sales for the government of Pakistan and work is expected to be complete by the end of October 2018. MaxxPro Dash DXM vehicles feature a V-shaped hull to deflect IED explosions away from the vehicle and are built to withstand ballistic arms fire and mine blasts. Pakistan will use the vehicles to protect troops against attacks from jihadist militants and other insurgents operating between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

September 11/15: US firm Navistar Defense has been contracted to supply the Afghan National Security Forces with nearly 2,300 mine resistant, ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles, based on the company’s 7000-MV platform, according to a company press release. The US Army Contracting Command handed the company a $369 million contract for the vehicles, which will bring the total number of Navistar vehicles sent to the Afghan government to nearly 9,000. The company has also exported the 7000-MV platform to Iraq. The new MRAPs will reportedly serve in a variety of roles, including ammunition, fuel and troop transport.

MaxxPro & Lonestar
(click to view full)

Sept 26/14: UAE. The US DSCA announces the United Arab Emirates’ official export request for the refurbishment and modification of 4,569 used Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles:

• 729 Navistar MaxxPro Base
  
• 283 MaxxPro MRAP Expedient Armor Program (MEAP) without armor
  
• 264 MaxxPro Base/MEAP capsules without armor
  
• 29 MaxxPro Long Wheel Base (LWB)
  
• 1,085 MaxxPro LWB chassis
  
• 970 MaxxPro Plus
  
• 15 MaxxPro MRVs (MRAP Recovery Vehicles)
  
• 1,150 BAE Caiman Multi-Terrain Vehicles “without armor,” which are based on the FMTV truck chassis. Note that the V-hull is not “armor,” it’s an intrinsic part of the vehicle.
  
• 44 Oshkosh M-ATVs; they would be added to the UAE’s existing order for 750.
  
• Plus Underbody Improvement Kits, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, Field Service Representatives’ support, and other US Government and contractor support.

They’re being sold as Excess Defense Articles (EDA) from US Army stock, pursuant to section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended. Notification for the sale from stock of the MRAP vehicles referenced above has been provided separately, pursuant to the requirements of section 7016 of the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and section 516 of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. The estimated cost is up to $2.5 billion, which isn’t all that far from the cost of buying new.

To date, the UAE’s biggest patrol vehicle fleets have been its own Nimr design (1,700 total), which has also been exported within the region. Its Oshkosh M-ATV fleet (750) was second. This request would completely change the force’s configuration by adding 3,375 MaxxPros and 1,150 Caimans, giving the UAE a patrol vehicle fleet that is overwhelmingly protected against mines as well as weapons of urban unrest.

The principal contractors will be Navistar Defense in Lisle, IL (MaxxPro); BAE Systems in Sealy, TX (Caiman); and Oshkosh Defense in Oshkosh, WI (M-ATV). If the sales are concluded, implementation will require multiple trips to the UAE involving “many” US Government and contractor representatives for 3+ years to provide program support and training. Sources: US DSCA #14-26, “UAE – Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles”.

DSCA request: UAE (3,375 MaxxPros of 4,569 MRAP vehicles)

Sept 12/14: Ambulance upgrades. Navistar Defense LLC in Lisle, IL receives a $44 million contract modification to buy MaxxPro Long Wheeled Base Ambulance Medical Equipment Set A-Kits, MaxxPro Survivability Upgrade Kits, and Spring Suspension System Kits. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 and FY 2014 US Army budgets.

Work is expected to finish by Aug 31/15, and will be performed in Lisle, IL. The US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI manages the contract (W56HZV-12-G-0006, PO 0002).

July 25/14: Survivability upgrades. Navistar Defense LLC in Lisle, IL receives a $27.6 million contract modification for kits to upgrade MaxxPro Dash and long-wheel base ambulances to their final configuration. $21.7 million in FY 2012 and FY 2014 US Army budgets are committed immediately.

Work is expected to finish by May 30/15, and will be performed in Lisle, IL. The US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI manages the contract (W56HZV-12-G-0006, PO 001).

Dec 23/13: Support. Navistar Defense LLC in Lisle, IL receives a $6.9 million contract modification for MaxxPro field service support in the continental United States and overseas. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Army O&M budgets.

Work is expected to finish by Dec 31/14, and will be performed in Lisle, IL and Afghanistan. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 1 received by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-10-C-0011, PO 0086).

Nov 4/13: Support. Navistar Defense LLC in Lisle, IL receives a $7.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, covering MaxxPro M1235A3 Dash MSU (MaxxPro Survivability Upgrade) engineering, logistic and travel support for the acquisition of the contract data requirements list, and program and logistics support. The contractor shall include MSU content as well as variation in vehicle content for both the objective gunner protection kit manned turret and M153 CROWS remote-controlled weapon turret. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 US Army budgets.

Work will be performed in Lisle, IL, with an expected completion date of December 2014. One bid was solicited, with 1 received by the US Army TACOM in Warren, MI (W56HZV-10-C-0011). Note that the exact same award was announced on Oct 31/13.

June 18/13: Survivability upgrades. Navistar Defense LLC in Lisle, IL receives an $18.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, increasing the funds available for the MaxxPro Survivability Upgrade to $152.3 million. FY 2011 & 2012 Procurement funds are being used by Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-12-C-0404, PO 0013).

June 3/13: Report. Navistar Defense LLC in Lisle, IL receives an $8.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, multi-year contract modification, for MaxxPro field services representatives. The cumulative total face value of this contract is now $49.8 million. Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI manages the contract (W56HZV-10-C-0011, PO 0071).

Jan 7/13: Survivability upgrades. Navistar Defense LLC in Lisle, IL receives a $10.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for MaxxPro maintenance services.

Work will be performed in Lisle, IL; Yuma, AZ; Aberdeen, MD; and Afghanistan; with an estimated completion date of March 25/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-10-C-0011).

MaxxPro, Farah PRT
(click to view full)

Sept 24/12: Survivability upgrades. Navistar Defense LLC in Lisle, IL receives a $138.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy MaxxPro Survivability Upgrade Kits, Vehicle Emergency Egress Windows, and MaxxPro support services.

Work will be performed in Lisle and Springfield, OH, with an estimated completion date of Sept 13/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-12-C-0404).

Sept 19/12: Survivability upgrades. Navistar Defense, LLC announces a maximum $282 million delivery order to provide more than 2,300 survivability upgrade retrofit kits for their MaxxPro Dash MRAP vehicles, plus parts and service. Work for the survivability upgrade will be done in Afghanistan beginning in December 2012, and is scheduled to be complete by July 2013.

Navistar says they have now delivered nearly 9,000 MaxxPro units in 9 major variants to all customers.

July 30/12: Spares. Navistar Defense in Lisle, IL receives a maximum $8.6 million fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract from the US Army for MaxxPro spares. Work will be performed in Illinois and Kentucky, using FY 2012 Army Working Capital Funds. There was 1 proposal with 3 responses. The date of performance completion is July 29/13. The Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime in Columbus, OH (SPM7LX-12-D-9007).

July 13/12: RPG nets. Navistar Defense in Lisle, IL receives a $59.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,357 rocket propelled grenade net kits, which means QinetiQ’s Q-Net. Work will be performed in Springfield, OH, with an estimated completion date of Oct 31/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-12-C-0201).

March 13/12: A $21.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for “the long wheel rolling chassis upgrade with independent suspension on the MaxxPro [MRAP] and transportation fixtures.” Vid. Jan 9/12 entry for the full explanation; this the installation work associated with its January order to upgrade 2,717 vehicles.

Work will be performed in West Point, MS, with an estimated completion date of May 20/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received, by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-12-C-0130).

Feb 20/12: Sub-contract. Boler subsidiary Hendrickson in Kendallville, IN and GD subsidiary AxleTech International in Oshkosh, WI get a sub-contract from Navistar Defense, LLC, to equip 2,717 MaxxPro Long Wheel Base (LWB) MRAP vehicles with independent suspension systems, per the $900 million Jan 9/12 contract.

Deliveries began in January 2012, and will be completed in October 2013. GD release.

Jan 24/12: A $109.5 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for 650 MaxxPro DXM Plus kits. Orders #002-008 add up to 5,217 vehicles. These kits, plus the “rolling chassis” order, add up to 3,367 retrofits.

Work will be performed at the MRAP Sustainment Facility in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by the end of October 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0020).

Jan 17/12: DOT&E – MRV issues. The Pentagon releases the FY2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The MaxxPro Dash ISS and MaxxPro MRV are both included, but get very different grades. While the MRV towing and recovery vehicle passed blast and live fire testing:

“…the Navistar MRV is not operationally effective and not operationally suitable for recovery operations on cross-country terrain. The Navistar MRV has poor mobility and poor combat towing to recover damaged MRAP vehicles in Afghanistan. The vehicle could not maneuver in soft sandy soil and had difficulty accelerating on hilly terrain. The Navistar MRV demonstrated 271 MMBOMF [Mean Miles Between Operational Mission Failure] versus its operational requirement of 600 MMBOMF. These problems should have been resolved… prior to the [Limited User Test]. The Navistar MRV is [only] capable of recovering and towing damaged MRAP vehicles on flat improved roads.”

The MaxxPro Dash ISS, on the other hand, is declared to be both operationally effective and reliable. Its figure of 1,259 MMBOMF was way above its operational requirement of 600.

Jan 9/12: An $879.9 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for the procurement of 2,717 MaxxPro “rolling chassis”; 10 engineering change proposals; and 25 contract data requirements lists, for MaxxPro MRAPs.

This is the 3rd step in commonizing the MaxxPro fleet. The first step was the addition of DXM independent suspension in February 2009, which has appeared on all orders after #0014. It was followed in March 2010 by 1,222 DXM retrofit kits. Now, the rolling chassis is the 3rd step, which upgrades most of the earlier MaxxPros with the latest vehicle capabilities. We asked Navistar, who explained that “rolling chassis” replaces the chassis base, adding the DXM independent suspension, a new MaxxForce 9.3 engine, and a 570 amp alternator and driveline. The crew cab is essentially lifted off the old chassis, and bolted on to a new one.

Work will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete by the end of October 2013. All funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (M67854-07-D-5032, DO #0023).

Jan 9/11: Oshkosh control fight. Icahn’s proxy skirmish at Oshkosh turns into a war, with hard-hitting submissions to shareholders from both Icahn’s group and Board slate, and from Oshkosh’s existing management and Board. If Icahn gets his Board slate elected, spinoffs and a merger of Oshkosh Defense with Navistar become far more likely.

In that scenario, it’s likely that the Maxxpro would take a back seat to the M-ATV in the future firm’s lineup. Oshkosh 8-K | Oshkosh management’s SEC DEFA14A filing (see esp. pp. 38-44) | Icahn Group DFAN14A arguments.

Dec 20/11: A $133.7 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract for 514 field service representatives to support Navistar’s MRAPs. Queries to Navistar confirmed the contract’s size, and their response noted that it included supplies as well as personnel.

Work will be performed in Afghanistan and Kuwait (94%) and the United States (6%), and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/12. FY 2012 operations and maintenance appropriation funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0022).

Dec 19/11: $9.6 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for MaxxPro MRV recovery vehicle contractor support, esp. re: the contract data requirements list (CDRLs).

Work will be performed in Warrenville, IL, and is expected to be complete by the end of February 2014, but all funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. The original contract was competitively procured (M67854-07-D-5032, Delivery Order 0015 under Modification 16).

Dec 6/11: Navistar/Oshkosh merger? Billionaire Carl Icahn owns 10% of Navistar, and 9.51% of Oshkosh, so his comments that the 2 companies should merge draws a lot of attention. He tells CNBC:

“I definitely think it would be a good merger. I think there would be a lot of synergy. I own stock in both and I think shareholders of both companies would benefit.”

Both Boards of Directors are maneuvering defensively around Icahn. Navistar agreed to put its Board up for election each year, but agreed not to propose his own slate of directors at the annual meeting. Things are a bit more open at Oshkosh, where Icahn is proposing Board slates, and has been increasingly critical of existing management.

MaxxPro Dash DXM
(click to view full)

July 15/11: A $142 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for 140 MaxxPro Recovery Vehicles (MRVs), plus sustainment, spares and support. That brings total MRV orders to 315. Work will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete by the end of November 2011 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0021). See also Navistar release.

July 14/11: Boler subsidiary Hendrickson, and General Dynamics’ AxleTech International, announce 2 contracts from Navistar Defense, LLC to equip 471 MaxxPro blast-resistant vehicles (vid. June 13/11 entry), and 250 MaxxPro Dash ambulances (vid. May 4/11 entry), with independent suspension systems. Their DXM solution uses AxleTech’s 5000 Series Independent Suspension Axle System, and Hendrickson’s engineered sub-frame.

Production work began in June 2011 at Hendrickson in Kendallville, IN, and AxleTech in Oshkosh, WI. Deliveries will be complete in September 2011. GD-ATP.

June 13/11: Navistar Defense:

“Navistar Defense, LLC today announced that it received a $357 million delivery order for an additional 471 International MaxxPro Dash vehicles with DXM independent suspension. The order from the U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command follows last month’s delivery order for 250 MaxxPro Dash Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) ambulances.”

Subsequent events indicate that this is probably delivery order #0019.

May 16/11: An $18.6 million delivery order modification for installation of ambulance engineering change proposals (ECP) and Dash Phase IV ECPs on the recent order of 250 ambulances. Work will be performed in Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2011 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0018, mod #0001).

May 4/11: A $183.3 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for 250 MaxxPro Dash Ambulance vehicles, with improved DXM independent suspensions. Work will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0018).

This is the 1st order for the ambulance variant, which was unveiled in October 2010 at AUSA (vid. Oct 25/10 entry). These Maxxpros will serve alongside the similar Oshkosh M-ATV ambulances in theater, and will be supplemented by BAE’s heavier 6×6 RG-33 HAGA MRAP. These vehicles are a component in the Pentagon’s broad ‘Golden Hour’ initiative, which aims to begin providing life-saving care within the critical 1st hour of major trauma. See also Navistar Defense release.

April 28/11: Navistar Defense, LLC in Warrenville, IL received a $13.2 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for field service representatives (FSR) in Kuwait, to sustain operation of the MaxxPro Dash MRAPs in Afghanistan.

Work is expected to be completed by the end of November 2011, but all contracted funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0017).

March 4/11: Navistar Defense, LLC in Warrenville, IL receives a $32.5 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order to buy MRAP Recovery Vehicle contractor logistics support for spare parts, basic initial issue tool kits and training support. Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (96%), and Warrenville, IL (4%), and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2011 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0015 Mod 005).

Dec 9/10: A $123.4 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for 175 CAT I MaxxPro Dash vehicles with improved DXM suspensions, plus MaxxPro Dash Engineer Change Proposal (ECP) Phase I & II kits; and support items including associated unique base issue items for the fleet; and independent suspension system deprocessing parts kits. The order raises Navistar’s total orders for the MaxxPro family to 8,014.

Work will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete by the end of June 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 31/10 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0016). See also Navistar release.

Nov 19/10: A $252.8 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 250 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected recovery vehicles (MRV) and contractor logistics support (CLS). Work will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0015).

A blast-protected recovery vehicle makes a great deal of sense, in an environment where a leading cause of disabled vehicles is IED land mine explosions. Navistar originally unveiled the MRV/ wrecker variant in February 2009, and had competition in this area from BAE’s RG-33 MRRMV. See also Navistar release.

Oct 25/10: Navistar Defense, LLC announces 2 new variants at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Annual Meeting and Exposition: the MaxxPro ambulance kit, and the MaxxPro Tractor variant.

The ambulance kit will fit into any MaxxPro variant, and include a litter assist system that helps load stretchers. The MaxxPro tractor, meanwhile, is not a farm implement. It’s the truck half of a blast resistant tractor-trailer rig.

Oct 7/10: The Romanian Ministry of National Defence announces that the first 8 MRAPs have just been supplied to the 811th “Dragonii Transilvani” Maneuver Battalion and the 812th “Soimii Carpatilor” Maneuver Battalion, deployed in Zabul Province, Afghanistan.

These are the first of 60 vehicles provided by the USA, and the lot reportedly consists of 20 new and 40 refurbished MaxxPro Dash vehicles, with improved DXM suspensions. Romanian MND | defpro | Jane’s.

MaxxPro Dash
(click to view full)

Sept 23/10: A $9.9 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order modification (M67854-07-D-5032, #0011) for field service representatives (FSRs)/instructors/mechanic services outside the continental United States (OCONUS) to sustain operation of the Dash vehicles in Afghanistan, and FSR/instructors inside the continental United States for replacement center training in Fort Benning, GA.

Work is expected to be complete by the end of September 2011, and all contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10.

Sept 23/10: A $13 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order modification (M67854-07-D-5032, #0014) that pays federal retail excise tax on 148 MaxxPro Dash vehicles being used in the continental United States for training purposes. Work will be performed in Warrenville, IL, and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10.

Sept 17/10: A $25.2 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order modification for instructor and field service representative (FSR) support in the United States (CONUS), outside the continental United States (OCONUS); The objective of the FSRs/instructors is to sustain operation of the Dash vehicles in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Navistar will also send more FSRs and instructors to Mine Resistant Ambush Protected University and CONUS Replacement Center Training.

Work will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2011 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0011).

Aug 24/10: The US Congressional Research Service releases the latest version [PDF] of its report “Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress. Excerpts:

“As of June 28, 2010, more than 8,500 MRAPs had reportedly been shipped to Afghanistan, with over 3,500 of those being the newer M-ATVs. The Army has recently said that it will begin development of yet another MRAP version – the “Ultra-Lite MRAP” – which raises questions about possible vehicle redundancies. The Marines, although voicing support for the M-ATV program, have retrofitted a number of MRAPs with new suspension systems and reportedly are satisfied with the results. This apparent success calls into question not only if the Marines need all of the M-ATVs allocated to them by DOD but also if the Marines’ retrofitted suspension system might be a more cost-effective alternative for the other services… Among potential issues for congressional consideration are the status of almost 5,000 MRAPS in Afghanistan that are reportedly not being used because of their size and weight.”

In terms of overall budgets:

“Through FY2010, Congress appropriated $34.95 billion for all versions of the MRAP. In March 2010, DOD reprogrammed an additional $3.9 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operations fund to MRAP procurement. Congress approved an additional $1.2 billion for MRAP procurement, included in the FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-212). The full FY2011 DOD budget request of $3.4 billion for the MRAP Vehicle Fund has been authorized by the House (H.R. 5136).”

June 29/10: A $13.4 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order, modification #03 under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0014) to buy spare parts related to the order for 1,050 improved suspension MaxxPros. These include suspension system authorized stockage list parts, prescribed load list parts, battle damage assessment repair, and deprocessing; the DASH engineering change proposal (ECP) Phase III upgrade; the remote weapon station system upgrade; and unique collateral material/BII. Work will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete by the end of January 2011.

June 14/10: A $60 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for spare parts to maintain the DXM off-road independent suspension system that is being retrofitted to the entire fleet of 1,222 MaxxPro DASH vehicles. The new DXM systems are provided by Hendrickson Truck Suspension Systems and AxleTech International.

Work will be performed in Warrenville, IL, and is expected to be complete by the end of March 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0013).

June 14/10: A $17.2 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for Navistar field service representatives in the Central Command area of responsibility. Work will be performed in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq, and is expected to be complete by the end of June 2011.

May 28/10: Stolen IP? ATS litigation controversy. Armor Technologies, Inc. of South Africa launches the “MRAP Ripoff” web site, and issues a statement, after 3 years of litigation with Navistar. The ancillary web site details the company’s claims, which are summed up via these chosen excerpts from its statement:

“ATS believes it was tricked into transferring unique knowledge, technology and IP about mine-protected vehicles (MPVs) to Chicago-based Navistar Defense, during their relationship from March 2005 to January 2007… At issue is ATS’ belief that it has been hoodwinked into providing critical knowledge and technology on MPVs to Navistar, which before the start of its relationship with ATS in March 2005 had no such expertise… Navistar later claimed in the International Court of Arbitration that Plasan Sasa was the origin of the MaxxPro vehicle, but its own staff admitted to the court that the same team that worked with ATS on the ATS Oryx design, had secretly worked on MaxxPro simultaneously. Navistar can’t have it both ways: either the company illegally shared ATS’ knowledge with Plasan Sasa, which also had no previous MPV expertise, or it acted in exceedingly bad faith in terms of its agreements with ATS – which it then [summarily] broke once it had what it needed: the wherewithal to build a world-class mine-resistant troop carrier… In the meantime, Navistar has won U.S. Government tenders and funding… awarded tens of millions of dollars in U.S. Taxpayers’ money, and it is receiving lucrative foreign orders… none of which would have happened had the U.S. Government heeded its own policy not to do business with defense companies involved in related litigation… ATS’ matter has been taken up by the South African government, which in March [2010] formally requested an explanation from the U.S. Government on the matter.”

May 3/10: A $102.3 million firm-fixed- priced delivery order modification under a previously contract will buy various MaxxPro kits and parts to support operations in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete by the end of October 2010. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (M67854-07-D-5032, #0013). Parts include:

• 937 gunner restraints
  
• 3,251 120V wiring harnesses
  
• 5,722 rear ramp hydraulics, rear ramp hydraulic – non-reoccurring equipment (NRE)
  
• 3,251 rear ramp storage
  
• 2,630 fire support systems kits, fire support systems kits – NRE
  
• 5,716 air conditioning circulation switches
  
• 822 heating, ventilation, and air conditioning kits

March 15/10: A $178.3 million modification to delivery order #0013 under previously awarded firm-fixed priced contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for 1,222 independent suspension system kits and aluminum catcher plates for MaxxPro vehicles. MaxxPros use the DXM independent suspension solution provided by Hendrickson Truck Suspension Systems and AxleTech International.

Work will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete by the end of March 2011. Navistar release

Feb 16/10: Looks like the new suspension system worked. Navistar Defense, LLC in Warrenville, IL receives a $751.5 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0014. This order will also be used to buy 1,050 MaxxPro Dash vehicles for Afghanistan, with the new DXM independent suspension solution provided by Hendrickson Truck Suspension Systems and AxleTech International.

Other improvements reportedly include door and insulation upgrades, as well as the addition of an inclinometer to act as a level and measures side slope during vehicle operation. The higher center of gravity involved with V-hull vehicles can make them tippy, so that’s definitely something for the driver to watch.

Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS and the contract is expected to be complete by the end of August 2010. The work is expected to add back 400 jobs at the company’s West Point, MS facility, following multiple layoffs in 2009 that had cut staffing to 120. All procurement funds will expire on Sept 30/12. This contract was competitively procured (M67854-07-D-5032 / D.O.0009). Since May 2007, Navistar says it has received orders for a total of 7,494 MaxxPro MRAPs. Navistar release | Daily Times Leader | Aviation Week Ares.

Dec 29/09: A $7 million firm-fixed-priced contract for “CAT III technical labor hour” work to support for the design and development of “the Maxxpro Dash vehicle independent suspension system,” later revelaed to be the Hendrickson/Axletech DXM. Work will be performed in Warrenville, IL, and is expected to be completed by the April 30/10 (M67854-07-D-5032).

The MaxxPro isn’t alone here. Oshkosh’s TAK-4 off-road independent suspension system has recently been used to retrofit MRAP vehicles from BAE Systems and Force Protection, in order to improve their mobility in Afghanistan’s rough terrain.

Nov 9/09: Navistar announces a 4-year System Technical Support (STS) contract worth up to $78 million to provide engineering support for its MaxxPro MRAP. Navistar’s STS award includes work to improve vehicle reliability, support combat issues encountered in theater, add new kits and hardware, as well as provide new vehicle enhancements. The STS award includes up to 143,000 annual labor hours, as well as parts, to be used within 12 months, with the option to renew the contract for 3 additional years.

MaxxPros: Tawillah, Iraq
(click to view full)

Sept 09/09: A $48 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previous delivery order (M67854-07-D-5032, #0004) for procurement of MRAP OCONUS field service representatives (FSRs), OCONUS senior instructors, FSR instructor/mechanics, and various contract data requirements lists.

Work will be performed in the United States and Iraq and will be completed in September 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $48 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The base contract was competitively awarded, and the new requirements are sole source additions to the contract.

Aug 10/09: A $7 million firm-fixed-priced modification under contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0010) for the procurement of engineering change proposals and tire chains in support of MRAP MaxxPro Dash vehicles. Work will be performed in West Point, MS and is expected to be complete by the end of December 2009. The base contract was competitively awarded, and the new requirements are sole source additions to the contract.

Aug 7/09: A $7.8 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previous delivery order (M67854-07-D-5032, #0006). It adds vehicle modifications (engineering change proposals), ambulance sustainment parts, and ambulance head clearance retrofit kits for Category I MRAP vehicles.

Work will be performed in West Point, MS and is expected to be complete by the end of December 2009. The base contract was competitively awarded, and the new requirements are sole source additions to the contract.

Aug 6/09: An $8.6 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previous delivery order (M67854-07-D-5032, #0004) for MRAP OCONUS (Outside the CONtinental US) field service representatives (FSRs), new equipment training instructors, CONUS FSR instructors, and senior FSRs.

Work will be performed in the United States and Iraq, and will end at the end of September 2010. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, at the end of September 2009. The base contract was competitively awarded, and the new requirements are sole source additions to the contract.

July 16/09: A $21 million firm fixed priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #009) for additional initial sustainment items in support of 882 MaxxPro Dash vehicles.

Work will be performed at the Red River Army Depot in Texarkana, TX, and deliveries are expected to be complete by Nov 30/09. Contract funds in the amount of $687,470 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

July 10/09: A $71.1 million firm-fixed- priced delivery order modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #006) for the procurement of battle damage assessment and repair (BDAR) kits for its MaxxPro Base and MaxxPro Plus vehicle variants.

Work will be performed at the Red River Army Depot in Texarkana, TX and deliveries are expected to be completed by Aug 1/09. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The new requirements are sole source additions to the original contract.

June 30/09: Navistar announces its disappointment at their M-ATV loss, while reiterating their firms’ strong points for investors. The firm did not enter a MaxxPro variant, choosing a derivative of the MXT Husky instead.

June 19/09: A $6.4 million modification to a previous delivery order (M67854-07-D-5032, #004) for the procurement of MRAP field service representative mechanics, back ramp retrofit kits, and several contract data requirement lists outside the USA. Despite the order’s size, the Pentagon release states that: “Contract funds in the amount of $7,291,171 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.”

Work will be performed in West Point, MS and in Iraq, and work is expected to be complete in August 2010. The base contract was competitively awarded, and the new requirements are sole source additions to the contract.

June 18/09: A maximum $42.9 million firm-fixed-price, sole-source contract for sustainment spare parts in support of Army MRAP vehicles. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/09, but the contract will run until Nov 9/09. The Defense Logistics Agency Warren (DSCC-ZG) in Warren, MI manages this contract (SPRDL1-09-C-0088).

June 1/09: A $44.7 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previously awarded delivery order (M67854-07-D-5032, #0004) for the renewal of Field Service Representative services in the Iraqi and Afghan theaters of war.

Work will be performed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the final deliveries associated with this delivery order are expected to be completed by Sept 30/10. The Basic contract was competitively awarded and the new requirements were sole source additions to the contract.

April 27/09: A $16.5 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #004), for field service representatives for the Mine Resistance Ambush Protected vehicles in theater, Contract Data Requirement Lists (CDRLs), and ECP vehicle modifications.

Work will be performed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the final deliveries associated with this delivery order are expected to be complete by Aug 16/10.

Feb 25/09: Navistar Defense, LLC unveils 3 new MaxxPro variants at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Winter Symposium and Exposition. The MaxxPro Wrecker MRAP vehicle is designed to retrieve damaged or mission-disabled MRAPs, winching them out of trouble and towing them away. Since breakdowns usually involve mined areas, a high level of blast protection is very important.

Navistar also added the MaxxPro Cargo, and the MaxxPro Tractor for towing trailers under full protection. All 3 utility vehicles are built on the company’s International WorkStar platform, with a MaxxPro Dash cab and MaxxForce D 9.3L I6 engine.

Dec 17/08: Navistar Defense LLC in Warrenville, IL received an $8.9 million modification under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #009) Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) upgrades for Enhanced Maneuverability and associated Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) costs.

In English, it buys initial spare parts support packages for MaxxPro Dash vehicles, which have been modified for use in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in West Point, MS and is expected to be complete by the end of May 2009.

Dec 10/08: Navistar continues to pull away from its MRAP competitors, via a $362.3 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for 400 more MaxxPro Dash vehicles, which have been modified for service in Afghanistan. Manufacturing under this previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0010) will be performed in WestPoint, MS and work is expected to be complete by the end of May 2009. Navistar will complete delivery of all 400 units while the testing and evaluation of vehicles for the MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) program is underway.

Navistar’s release adds that delivery of the September 2008 order for 822 MaxxPro Dash vehicles is set to finish at the end of January 2009, a full month ahead of schedule.

Dec 4/08: A $53.6 million firm fixed priced modification to delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0004: 754 CAT I MRAPS for $413.9 million) for spares and equipment items needed to support Category I MRAP vehicles in theater. This order will also be used to support the renewal of Field Service Representative contracts within the CENTCOM area of responsibility. Work will be managed in WestPoint, MS, and is expected to be complete in November 2009.

Nov 14/08: The US government issues a pre-solicitation notice for a subsidiary competition called M-ATV, essentially an “MRAP Lite” bridge buy to the JLTV. FBO pre-solicitation #W56HZV-09-R-0115. The MaxxPro Dash is likely to be a prime contender for the buy(s), which begins an expected order of just over 2,000 vehicles but could reach up to 10,000.

A subsequent Defense News article places M-ATV’s top weight at 12.5 tons empty, adding that the RFP still demands significant protection against conventional and EFP land mines. That’s likely to help the heavier MaxxPro Dash, while putting competitors like Force Protection’s 7-8 ton Cheetah at a disadvantage.

The RFP was issued in December 2008. A draft issued on Nov 25/08 stated that M-ATV would receive the same top-priority DX production rating employed by the original MRAP program, adding that the first vehicles are expected to be fielded in the fall of 2009.

UPDATE: By Q2 2009, Navistar had submitted its choice – but it wasn’t their Dash, it was a variant of their MXT light truck.

Nov 7/08: Another $24.8 million for 2 firm-fixed-priced delivery order modifications under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) The modifications would add gunner restraints, and cover funding costs associated with accelerated MRAP Category I production. Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS.

See Sept 4/08 entry for the $752 million order for 822 of Navistar’s lighter MaxxPro Dash vehicles, whose design has been lightened and modified for the Afghan front. On Nov 6/08, Navistar announced that by working around the clock, they were able to meet the military’s request to deliver all vehicles one month ahead of schedule. Originally scheduled to be completed by the end of February 2009, the company has leveraged its extensive relationships with its supply base to provide deliver all units by the end of January 2009. The firm delivered 70 vehicles on Nov 4/08 – 2 weeks in advance of its already aggressive delivery schedule.

That extra commitment isn’t free; the MRAP contract is structured to compensate manufacturers for their extra costs if the government needs vehicles faster.

Oct 29/08: Navistar Defense LLC (ND) in Warrenville, IL received a $56.4 million firm fixed priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0007) for engineering changes and spares to support MRAP Category I vehicles currently in theater. Delivery order #0007 covered 743 MRAP CAT I vehicles.

Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS, and is expected to be complete by the end of November 2008. This contract was competitively procured.

Oct 29/08: Navistar Defense LLC (ND) in Warrenville, IL received $8.3 million for a firm-fixed-priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0006) to fund additional Maintenance Workshop Blocks to support MRAP Category I vehicles currently in theater. Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS and is expected to be complete by the end of February 2009. This contract was competitively procured.

See also Dec 18/07, June 19/08, and Oct 7/08 entries re: delivery order #0006, which was for 1,500 vehicles.

Oct 24/08: Defense News reports that more mine-resistant vehicles could be in the order pipeline. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps reportedly plan to rapidly develop and buy a fleet of lighter 7-10 ton vehicles that offer better mine resistance than Hummers, but better off-road mobility than MRAPs. Afghanistan is seen as an especial focus for these vehicles.

Oshkosh’s Sandcat and Force Protection’s Cheetah vehicle are mentioned as potential candidates for that bridge buy. Other competitors are likely, and Navistar’s MaxxPro Dash must also be placed in this category given recent the MRAP orders for deployment of this lightened variant to Afghanistan (vid. Sept 4/08 entry).

Defense News places potential military demand at 2,000- 5,000 bridge buy vehicles – assuming that issues with JLTV issues don’t lead to the bridge becoming the road. Navistar may be covered either way, however; its partnership with BAE won one of the 3 JLTV development contracts.

Oct 7/08: A $35.9 million firm-fixed-priced modification to delivery order #0006 under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for sustainment items needed to support Category I MRAP vehicles in theater. This order will also be used to support several engineering change proposals to increase the vehicles’ capabilities. Work will be performed in West Point, MS and is expected to be complete in April 2009.

See also Dec 18/07 and June 19/08 entries re: delivery order #0006, which was for 1,500 vehicles.

Tire Kicker
(click to view full)

Sept 4/08: A $752 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order for 822 MaxxPro Dash MRAP CAT I vehicles, under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0009). Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS and is expected to be complete in February 2009.

Pentagon references to “production vehicles with engineering change proposal upgrades for enhanced maneuverability” refer to the MaxxPro Dash, a new variant which is optimized for Afghan operations. The Dash variant is 16” shorter and has an 8″ smaller wheel base, giving it a smaller turning radius of 54 feet. It’s also up to 5,000 pounds lighter, but can accept add-on armoring that will increase its weight. These changes, and the use of Navistar’s MaxxForce D engine, also give it a higher torque to weight ratio for better off-road operations. See also Navistar release.

Navistar already had a strong presence in Afghanistan, as the main truck supplier to the Afghan National Army. Despite earlier Pentagon comments that tagged the BAE OMC/ General Dynamics RG-31 as the favorite for Afghanistan, all vehicles in this MaxxPro order are tagged for Operation Enduring Freedom, and as yet there are no corresponding orders for other MRAPs. DID’s spreadsheet also shows that the 15,771 vehicle program ceiling is now maxed out.

July 4/08: An $84.8 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0004) for sustainment items needed to support Category I MRAP vehicles in theater. This order will also be used to support several Engineering Change Proposals to increase the vehicles’ capabilities. Work will be performed in West Point, MS and is expected to be complete in April 2009.

Aug 1/08: A $29.3 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0007) for sustainment items needed to support Category I MRAP vehicles in theater. This order will also be used to support several Engineering Change Proposals to increase the vehicles’ capabilities. Work will be performed in West Point, MS and is expected to be complete in April 2009. Deliver order #0007 involved 743 MaxxPros.

Aug 1/08: A $27.4 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0002) for sustainment items needed to support Category I MRAP vehicles in theater. This order will also be used to support several Engineering Change Proposals to increase the vehicles’ capabilities. Work will be performed in West Point, MS and is expected to be complete in April 2009.

July 8/08: A $27.7 million firm-fixed price contract for MRAP spare parts. Work will be performed primarily in Springfield, OH and Springfield, MO as well as locations across the USA, and is expected to be complete by Jan 29/10. One bid was solicited on June 26/08 from the manufacturer (W56HZV-08-C-0522). Read Navistar’s “Army Awards Navistar Defense Seven Contracts For Parts And Support:
Contracts Total $125 Million for MRAP Support,” which adds:

“Navistar has shipped more than 185,000 parts pieces to the military for use in Iraq and Afghanistan and has more than 100 field service representatives in theater.”

July 7/08: A $56.9 million firm-fixed price contract for an assortment of automotive parts, including wheels, axles, air conditioners, engines, compressors, generators, and transmissions. Work will be performed primarily in Springfield, OH, with limited production in various cities across the nation, and is expected to be complete by May 4/09. One bid was solicited on April 2/08 (W56HZV-08-C-0494).

July 7/08: A $21.4 million firm-fixed price contract for wheels and pneumatic tires. Work will be performed in Trenton, NJ and is expected to be complete by Jan 30/09. One bid was solicited on June 25/08 (W56HZV-08-C-0520).

MaxxPro CAT I
(click to view full)

June 27/08: A $15.1 million firm fixed price contract for 1,426 air conditioner compressors [NSN 4120-01-555-5459] option priced at $556.11 each; 1,500 condensers for refrigeration [NSN 4130-01-562-3925] option priced at $1,653 each; and air conditioner blowers [NSN 6105-01-562-3922] option priced at $4,378 each. Riding in an enclosed vehicle through 100/40 degree plus heat, while wearing layers of heavy equipment, requires air conditioning as a matter of necessity. At present, 59% of the total condenser and blower options are being exercised, and are considered part of the base award when calculating the contract totals above.

Work will be performed at Dallastown, PA with an expected completion date of Aug 29/08. One bid was solicited with one bid received by the U.S. Army Tank & Automotive Command (TACOM) Life Cycle Management Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-08-C-0483).

June 27/08: Navistar Defence, LLC in Warrenville, IL received a $6.8 million firm fixed price contract for 2,000 pneumatic tire wheels [NSN 2530-01-555-5456, PN 2596798C91L]; 18 electric engine starters [NSN 2920-01-555-5458, PN 3610516C92[]; and 16 AC generators [NSN 6115-01-555-5460, PN 3819829C91].

Work will be performed in Trenton, NJ, and Belvidere, IL with an expected completion date of Aug 29/08. One bid was solicited with one bid received by the U.S. Army Tank & Automotive Command (TACOM) Life Cycle Management Command (W56HZV-08-C-0500).

June 19/08: International Military and Government LLC in Warrenville, IL is awarded a series of contracts amounting to about $707 million.

The modifications cover both MaxxPro Category I MRAP support and spares, and also “engineering change proposals to increase the vehicles’ capabilities.” Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS under contract M67854-07-D-5032, and are expected to be complete August 2008. The contract modifications include:

• To delivery order #0002 (1,200 for $632.1 M), adds $29.5 million
  
• To delivery order #0004 (754 for $413.9 M), adds $84.8 million
  
• To delivery order #0005 (1,000 for $537.2 M), adds $146.8 million
  
• To delivery order #0006 (1,500 for $1.18 B), adds $211.6 million
  
• To delivery order #0007 (743 for $405.9 M), adds $234.3 million

June 10/08: A $28 million firm-fixed-priced modification to delivery order #0005 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for the accelerated production of 1,000 MRAP Low Rate Initial Production vehicles.

Delivery order #0005 was for $509.2 million (now $537.2 million), and ordered 1,000 vehicles in October 2007. This is an infusion of funds to speed up production by covering added expenses like overtime et. al., rather than an order for another 1,000 vehicles. Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS and “work is expected to be completed by the end of April 2008.”

May 29/08: The Aug 14/07 entry notes that DynCorp had become Navistar’s in-theater MRAP support network. Now, a DynCorp International release confirms the figures involved:

“Navistar Defense LLC, a division of Navistar International, Inc., awarded DynCorp International (NYSE:DCP) a five year indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity Logistics Support Contract to provide field service support and training for its recently awarded Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle production contracts. DynCorp International’s Logistics Support Contract has a potential value of up to $500 million over five years with an initial award of $60 million to support deployments to Iraq.”

April 16/08: A $261.3 million for firm-fixed-priced contract modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for engineering change proposals to upgrade its MRAP low rate initial production vehicles. The government will procure several engineering changes to provide additional armor protection to increase the survivability of the MRAP Category I (CAT I) vehicles. The order also includes ambulance kits for the vehicles.

Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS and is expected to be complete in November 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity.

March 14/08: A $405.9 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order (M67854-07-D-5032, #0007) for 743 Category I vehicles. Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS and is expected to be complete November 2008. To date, they have received 5,214 orders under the MRAP program (5,198 CAT-I, 16 CAT-2), 36.9% of the vehicles ordered.

N.B. Amount corrected by DefenseLINK on March 18/08.

Jan 19/08: The NY Times reports that “a gunner was killed and three crew members were wounded” on this day in an IED land mine attack. The soldiers were riding in a MaxxPro MRAP. Read “Hopes for NY Times Reporting Questioned After MRAP Story” for more details.

Jan 10/08: Israeli firm Plasan Sasa announces a $200+ million order to supply Navistar’s International Military and Government, LLC with armoring systems for an additional 1,500 armored MRAP blast-resistant vehicles, to be delivered by the end of July 2008. The Plasan Sasa release says that this armor contract continues and builds on the US military’s June 2007 order for 1,200 MaxxPro vehicles, and notes their investment in US manufacturing facilities.

MaxxPro CAT-I, Iraq
(click to view full)

Dec 18/07: IMG had submitted a variant of its MaxxPro for the MRAP-II competition. It aims to field vehicles that can protect against EFP(Explosively formed Penetrator) land mines, which are more akin to instant tank shells being fired into your vehicle than they are to a conventional explosion. After initial tests, however, only 2 vendors received contracts for additional testing at Aberdeen: BAE Systems (RG-33) and the team of Ideal Innovations, Ceradyne, and Oshkosh (The Bull).

Dec 18/07: A $1.18 billion firm-fixed-priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #0006) to purchase an additional 1,500 MaxxPro CAT-I MRAP Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) vehicles. This order also includes sustainment items needed to support the vehicles in theater, as well as several Engineering Change Proposals to increase the vehicles’ capabilities. Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS and is expected to be complete by the end of July 2008. This contract was competitively procured. Navistar release.

As this accompanying DoD release notes, the Marine Corps issued a number of MRAP orders on this day. Navistar’s IMG remains on top, and even widened its lead slightly. To date, they have received 4,471 orders under the MRAP program (4,455 CAT-I, 16 CAT-2), for 37.6% of 11,862 vehicles ordered.

Dec 7/07: The Rakkasans of the 3rd BCT, 101st Airborne Division in Iraq received 18 MaxxPro CATR-I vehicles. Sgt. Rian Terry, a welder in Co. B, 626th BSB, from Clarksville, TN:

“I like it. It feels safe with all the additional armor. It’s much roomier and easier to access equipment, especially with all your gear on.”

Pfc. Cedric Miller, a grenadier in Co. A, 1-187th Inf., from Blakely, GA, was more direct: “It’s an all-around good truck. We need more.”

American units preparing to receive MRAP vehicles send their maintenance Soldiers attend a 5-day, 40-hour course. During the course, drivers and vehicle commanders participate in both day and night, on- and off-road driving exercises, and obstacle course-like exercises where they maneuver through jersey barriers. Soldiers who complete the 40-hour training are operationally familiar with the equipment. It is up to the unit to make them tactically familiar.

Meanwhile, each battalion is assigned a field support representative and a team of mechanics to continue training the Soldiers. Having civilian representatives and mechanics at the battalion level gives the Soldiers subject-matter experts who are available during maintenance, but will allow the Soldiers to do the hands-on work. US Army

Dec 7/07: A $152 million firm-fixed-priced modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for Maxxpro “sustainment items” (spares) under the MRAP program. Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS and is expected to be complete in February 2008.

Nov 28/07: A $24 million firm-fixed-priced modification to delivery order #0004 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for procure field service representatives to provide support for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in theater. Work will be performed in Iraq, and work is expected to be completed November 2008. Note our Aug 14/07 entry – this work will be done by Dyncorp.

Oct 30/07: $68.8 million attached to firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0005 under previously contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle sustainment items. The Government shall purchase MRAP University requirements including field service representative-instructors, instructional material, course outlines, and special tooling, and additional sustainment items. Work will be performed at Red River Army Depot in Texarkana, TX, and is expected to be complete by the end of October 2008.

Oct 18/07: $509.2 million for firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0005 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for 1,000 MaxxPro MRAP CAT I Low Rate Initial Production vehicles. Work will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete April 2008. This contract was competitively procured.

Navistar remains in the lead for MRAP orders to date, with 2,971 vehicles (2,955 CAT-I, 16 CAT-II) contracted to date, or 33.8% of the 8,746 MRAP CAT I/II vehicles ordered so far. Force Protection is currently in 2nd place with 30.9%, and BAE/Armor Holdings come in 3rd with 26.3%.

MaxxPro concept
(click to view full)

Sept 21/07: International Military and Government LLC in Warrenville, Ill. received $7.2 million firm-fixed-priced modification to delivery order #0002 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for field service representatives (FSRs) to serve in theater. The FSRs will provide support for MRAP Category I MaxxPro vehicles in Iraq. Work will be performed in Camp Liberty, Iraq, and is expected to be complete in September 2008.

Sept 13/07: International Military and Government LLC in Warrenville, Ill. received a $71.5 million firm-fixed-priced modification to Delivery Order #0002 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for sustainment items and data requirements for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in theater.

The US government is buying 1-Year Forward Deployment Blocks, 1-Year Maintenance Work Blocks, training, training materials, and several contract data requirement lists for International’s MaxxPro MRAP CAT I vehicles. Work will be performed in West Point, Miss., and the deliveries are expected to be complete in October 2007.

Aug 14/07: DynCorp International LLC announces that they have been selected by International Military and Government LLC to provide field-service support and training for its MRAP vehicles. This effectively makes them Navistar’s in-theater support network.

July 20/07: $413.9 million for firm-fixed-priced, delivery order #0004 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032), covering an additional 755 Category I (CAT I) Mine Resistance Ambush Protected (MRAP) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) patrol vehicles. Work will be performed in WestPoint, Miss., and is expected to be complete by February 2008. Navistar release.

This contract places Navistar in the lead for MRAP orders to date, with 1,971 vehicles (1,955 CAT-I, 16 CAT-II) contracted to date, or 34.8% of the 5,621 vehicles ordered so far under the 7,774 vehicle MRAP program. Force Protection is currently in 2nd place with 31.7%, and BAE/Armor Holdings come in 3rd with 30.3%

MaxxPro CAT-I,
earlier version
(click to view full)

June 18/07: An $8.5 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0003 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for an additional 16 of the larger Category II MRAP JERRV squad vehicles. Note that this works out to about $530,000 per vehicle. Work will be performed in WestPoint, Miss., and work is expected to be complete by February 2008. The DoD release adds, mysteriously, that “Contract funds in the amount of $9,547,248 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.”

May 31/07: A $623.1 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (M67854-07-D-5032, #002) for 1,200 additional Category I (CAT I) Mine Resistance Ambush Protected (MRAP) Low Rate Initial Production vehicles. Work on the MaxxPro MPV contract will be performed in West Point, MS, and is expected to be complete by February 2008. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Which leads us to the next question… will existing MRAP vehicles be enough? They may not, and ironically, International may have declined to submit an offering of its own that could have survived in the new environment.

Footnotes

fn1. A shaped charge ‘squishes’ and detonates when it hits, focusing the blast into a cone with a point that’s like a plasma torch – with a wallop behind it. The immense focused energy converges right on the armor, cutting through the steel and/or blowing chunks off the back in a spray of molten metal of fragments, killing the occupants and/or damaging machinery.

Cage armor can prevent some types of warheads from detonating, especially those with a piezo-electric ‘crush’ fuze. Those of you thinking that metal screens are not 100% certain to prevent warhead detonation, depending on the angle at which the piezo-electric crush fuze hit, and other warhead characteristics, are correct. In general, one can expect cage armor of any sort to turn only about 50-60% of rounds into duds.

The other option “cage armor” provides is to start that process away from the armor, so the shaped charge cone’s focal point is moved out in front of the armor it’s designed to penetrate. Instead of a precisely focused cutting/blasting point, you get an less focused blast. Depending on how big the warhead is, how far away the detonation is, and how strong the vehicle’s armor protection is, its occupants may or may not be saved.

Additional Readings & Sources

• Thanks to Navistar for working with DID to help verify vehicle totals.
• Navistar – MaxxPro Dash DXM.
• DID (Dec 16/13) – High Afghan Exit Costs Force US Military to Contemplate End of Era. Which includes getting rid of many MRAPs.
• DID (Oct 23/13) – Choices, Changes & Opportunities: Corporate Lessons from the Afghan R4D Exit. Understanding the difficulty helps to explain some aspects of subsequent decisions about the MRAP fleet.
• US Army (May 5/11) – ‘Golden hour’ initiative pays off in Afghanistan. Aeromedical units play a big role – but so does having nearby vehicles that can travel in dangerous areas, and carry initial medical facilities with them.
• Plasan Sasa (June 3/07) – Plasan Sasa Will Supply International Military and Government, LLC with Critical MRAP Vehicle Protection for the US Marines [PDF format]
• Navistar (May 31/07) – U.S. Marine Corps Awards $623 Million Contract for Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles to International Military and Government, LLC
• Reuters (June 21/07) – U.S. Gen.: Iranian Weapons Still Flowing into Iraq. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch: “What I try to do is stick to the facts. And I know that inside of my battle space, there are munitions clearly marked with Iranian markings, and I am losing many of my soldiers to EFPs… It is clear that the EFP technology and munitions is coming from Iran. We have to stop that.”
• USA Today (May 31/07) – MRAPs can’t stop newest weapon
• DID (Oct 6/06) – Dispatches from Afghanistan: Armored vs. Blast Resistant
• DID (July 21/06) – GD-RAFAEL’s Reactive Armor Equips US Military (updated)

Appendix A: The MRAP Story, and the MaxxPro Story

Dingo 2 (via CASR)

In 2005, military manufacturers began to plan for the end of the US military’s Hummer orders, and the associated battle to replace it with a new vehicle. By this time, land mines had already been the #1 killer in Iraq for some time, and a few manufacturers were also looking to break into the American market with solutions to this problem. The technology was not new; indeed, it had been in use for over 40 years. The US military had just been very slow to adopt it, aside from some limited orders the 101st Airborne had placed for South African RG-31 vehicles, limited purchases of Force Protection’s Cougar and Buffalo vehicles for Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams, and M1117 Guardian ASV armored cars for US military police units. Worse, the ASVs were produced in New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina interrupted production just as it was ramping up.

By 2006, 3 years into the war in Iraq, realization began to dawn that the Hummers and their blast-catching flat bottoms needed a supplement in theater now, rather than waiting for the Humvee’s successor. The US Army and Marines began taking a closer look at mine-resistant vehicles on the market, and key manufacturers began maneuvering for position.

The new Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) program would include a smaller Category I MRUV patrol vehicles that seated at least 6 people in total, including the driver and front seat. Category II JERRV vehicles would seat at least 10, and would be large enough to hold bomb-disposal robots and other useful gear.

The expected MRAP requirement quickly began to mushroom in size, as IED land mine attacks intensified on the front lines. A large July 2007 order came hot on the heels of US Secretary of Defense Gates’ request to Congress for an extra $1.2 billion in FY 2007 to fund an additional 2,650 MRAP vehicles, on the grounds that manufacturers were ramping up production more quickly than original forecasts. Meanwhile, key inputs such as steel and tires which might have become production bottlenecks were expedited under a DX rating that give the MRAP program priority over almost all other military programs. Sen. and VP-elect Biden [D-DE], who often heard responses re: lack of industrial capacity when he began asking why more MRAP vehicles weren’t in theater, found that his “put the money together, issue the contracts, and let’s find out” speech [MS Word], embodied in Amendment #739 to the FY 2007 military budget, became the US military’s go-forward plan.

Cougar at Aberdeen
(click to view full)

By the time the competition began Force Protection, whose v-hulled Cougar vehicles had catalyzed this realization with their performance in Iraq, was set with their Cougars for MRAP CAT I/II.

General Dynamics was already partnered with BAE OMC of South Africa and the Canadian government to offer the RG-31, which was already in service with airborne and SOCOM customers. Then they signed another deal with Force Protection to share production of Cougar vehicles.

BAE Systems was busy developing their RG-33 family, an update of their proven RG-31s that incorporated new technologies and lessons learned. Meanwhile, Armor Holdings, who supplied the US military’s FMTV medium trucks and up-armoring for its Hummers, worked on an up-armored design based on the FMTV. They would eventually be acquired by BAE in a multi-billion dollar deal, after establishing an MRAP order foothold for their “Caiman” vehicles.

Lacking ready designs or American plants, others chose partnerships as their path to market. Navistar’s truck-building competitor Oshkosh entered the fray with a pair of Partnerships, signing a deal with PVI for their new Alpha MRUV vehicle, and Thales Australia for the larger Bushmaster vehicle that was already serving with Australian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Protected Vehicles, Inc. (PVI) also submitted the Golan, designed in partnership with RAFAEL and the Israeli military.

German firm KMW’s Dingo had also demonstrated front-line performance with German forces in Afghanistan, but their American partner Textron elected to offer their own M1117 instead, eliminating KMW before the competition had even started.

That left Navistar considering what to do.

MV 7000 as tanker
(click to view full)

Navistar subsidiary International Military and Government LLC (IMG, now Navistar Defense) didn’t have expertise in armored vehicles, but they did know trucks. The firm is used to substantial production numbers, and has a field maintenance network on the front lines. In addition to to being one of North America’s largest producers of civilian commercial trucks and mid-range diesel engines (161,000 vehicles in 2006), it is producing and supporting 2,781 vehicles for the Afghan National Army, and claims 9 additional contracts with the U.S. government for more than 1,000 units each. These contracts encompass include service trucks and buses that have been used in the Iraq reconstruction effort. Production facilities include Garland, TX; Springfield, OH; West Point, MS; Melrose Park, IL (diesel engines); and Tulsa, OK (buses).

The key for Navistar would be finding the right partner, with the aim of developing an armored MRAP-candidate vehicle based around IMG’s WorkStar 7000 truck chassis. In 2005, the firm contracted with South Africa’s Armour Technology Systems (ATS), which has design rights to several mine-resistant vehicles used in South Africa, and had also developed blast-resistant SAMIL armored cab solutions for South Africa’s trucks.

MTVR + PS armor
(click to view full)

During the course of that relationship with ATS, Navistar also opened relations with the Israeli firm Plasan Sasa, who had been designing and manufacturing up-armoring kits for the Marine Corps’ MTVR trucks for several years. That gave them a solid relationship with the MRAP competition’s key client. The Kibbutz Sasa firm also had experience developing full vehicles; its own light protected vehicle called the Caracal was under review by the US Marines for a different role. Navistar decided that they had found their partner – and in January 2007, they summarily canceled their agreement with South Africa’s ATS.

The question of what ATS knowledge may have been transferred or used by Navistar remains in the hands of lawyers, and also a PR campaign by ATS that publicizes its specific allegations of bad faith and unethical dealings.

The key characteristics of Navistar’s final vehicle contender are clearer. Unlike the HMMWV‘s auto-derived frame, IMG’s heavy-duty truck chassis would have the load capacity required to handle the weight of additional armor etc., without wearing out early. The final design positions a v-shaped crew compartment on top of that truck chassis, allowing maximum production commonality while using the compartment’s armoring and shape to channel blasts around the crew area. Extensive use of components from IMG’s trucks, including predictive maintenance features, would ensure that their entry was both producible in large numbers and maintainable in the field.

In return for this positioning, Navistar’s IMG received a test vehicle production contract for their vehicle – and nothing more. IMG/Plasan Sasa’s MPV was not featured among the early-stage orders [1st set | 2nd set] from the US military for low-risk designs, which went to rivals Force Protection (Cougar), BAE (RG-33, RG-33L), General Dynamics (RG-31), Oshkosh/PVI (Alpha CAT I), and PVI (Golan CAT II).

MaxxPro Dash & Plus
(click to view full)

Yet Navistar went on to become the winner in the initial MRAP competition, with the highest share of any competitor. So why was Navistar initially shut out?

One logical conclusion is doubts about its performance. The biggest downside to capsule-mounting a blast-resistant hull on top of a frame is the danger that a mine blast will separate the capsule from the frame, or (more likely) destroy the chassis and immobilize the vehicle in an ambush zone. Moving a v-shaped blast pan beneath the chassis reduces that danger, but that solution creates issues with ground clearance; and – since it offers less of a gap from the blast – with crew survivability.

What changed? Two things.

One was the Biden Amendment in the Senate, which accelerated funding for MRAPs, even as the desired number of vehicles for the FY 2007-2008 program rose again from 4,100 to 7,774 vehicles. At that volume, existing vehicle manufacturers would be very hard-pressed to deliver the required quantity in time. Which in turn lent a higher value to producibility, as long as the vehicles offered substantially better protection than a Humvee. Especially with the US Army reportedly looking for 17,000 blast-resistant vehicles of its own by 2010 – a number that would be borne out, and more, by subsequent events.

The second thing that happened was the testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground, which appears to have quieted doubts concerning IMG/Plasan Sasa’s design. Navistar received just the 2nd post-testing order to emerge from Marine Corps Systems Command, behind Force Protection’s early 1,000 vehicle order in April 2007. A May 31, 2007 report from Defense News claims that Navistar officials heard about their win from the offices of minority leader Sen. Trent Lott [R-MS] and Rep. Roger Wicker [R-MS], and Navistar spokesman Roy Wiley added at the time that “We did extremely well during the tests [at Aberdeen], and we are extremely pleased.”

Plasan Sasa does make composite armors for vehicles, and whatever it used apparently survived the trials at Aberdeen. Navistar would go on to produce its MaxxPro for MRAP orders, as well as the MaxxPro Air Force, the MaxxPro Plus with improved protection, a MaxxPro ambulance (production orders were for the Dash variant), the MaxxPro MEAP, the MaxxPro Dash for Afghan operations, and the MaxxPro Recovery Vehicle (MRV) for towing other vehicles out of danger zones.

In contrast, Navistar’s trucking competitor Oshkosh failed with both of its purpose-designed vehicles. The firm received 100 advance low-risk orders for the Alpha vehicle, which then failed testing and was removed from the competition. Despite its successful service on the front lines, the v-hulled Australian Bushmaster design never saw a single production order during the MRAP program. It would join Textron’s M1117 on the sidelines, until Oshkosh’s big win in the subsequent MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) competition.

Appendix B: MPV or APC to Face EFPs? (June 2007)

HMMWV, IEDed
(click to view full)

A May 31/07 USA Today article titled “MRAPs can’t stop newest weapon” explains the dilemma:

“The military plans to spend as much as $25 billion for up to 22,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles by 2009. Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared that buying the new vehicles should be the Pentagon’s top procurement priority.

But the armor on those vehicles cannot stop the newest bomb to emerge, known as an explosively formed penetrator (EFP).”

Stryker ICV with
Anti-RPG Slat Armor
(click to view full)

An EFP is just another type of land mine, where the explosives are arranged to shape a metal disk into a kind of instant high-caliber tank round as they detonate, launching it at nearby objects. This is not a new approach; the USA’s Sensor-Fuzed Weapon, a.k.a. “cans of whup-ass,” uses this exact approach but is dropped from an airplane so it can attack through the top, where armor is usually weakest. An EFP’s mode of operation when used as a land mine is a ballistic side attack rather than a conventional land mine’s explosion, which means a v-hull won’t necessarily offer much protection.

These weapons have also been among the land mines causing problems for heavier Stryker/LAV-III wheeled armored personnel carriers in Diyala Province. The Strykers lack the level of underbelly protection found in MRAP vehicles, and their “steel cage” armor designed to defeat [1] the shaped-charge warheads on anti-tank rockets will not stop large-caliber shells – or a reasonable imitation created by an EFP land-mine.

Iran has been heavily involved in shipping these weapons into Iraq for some time now, and training both Shi’ites and Sunnis to make them. A January 13, 2007 document from the USMC says that as the USA fields vehicles with MRAP-class protection against buried mines, Iraqi insurgents’ use of EFPs “can be expected to increase significantly.”

While the US has been testing new armor compositions designed to break up EFP slugs, there is a commonly-available solution on the market. It’s called “reactive armor,” and already equips American Bradley fighting vehicles, M1 tanks, and other armored platforms.

In a sense, it’s the reverse of the EFP concept – instead of using an explosion to create a killing weapon, it reacts with an outward explosion when hit. This either blows the rocket/ tank round/ or EFP projectile completely off-course, or tips it into an easily-absorbed ‘slap hit’ rather than the precise, focused strike required to penetrate steel.

The armor is manufactured in a cooperative venture between Israel’s RAFAEL and General Dynamics, and already has a strong production base. The only counter to it would be a anti-tank missiles that use a dual-warhead charge, like Russia’s AT-13 Metis or AT-14 Kornet. Some of these weapons even have remote-firing capability. That kind of equipment can only come from a state sponsor, however – a fact that sharply ups the ante on its use as a definitive act of war in theaters like Iraq or Afghanistan.

PVI/RAFAEL Golan
(click to view full)

There is already an MRAP contender designed from the outset to use this kind of armor to its maximum effectiveness. Protected Vehicles Inc. MRAP CAT II Golan vehicle was designed in conjunction with RAFAEL and the Israeli MoD’s Merkava tank project office. Unsurprisingly, it was also designed from the outset to carry reactive armor as an option, without changing its outward appearance. The result of this design feature is that the enemy can’t tell if reactive armor is present or not, and must therefore assume “yes” for all vehicles of its type.

The US military ordered 60 Golan vehicles for immediate deployment to the front lines back in March 2007, in addition to its order for test vehicles.

IMG APC Concept
(click to view full)

The interesting thing is, IMG had its own vehicle designed from the outset to use reactive armor. The “International APC” was a definite CAT II sized vehicle at 30,000 pounds curb weight. Based on an International MV-7000 heavy truck cab, the APC promised a vehicle equipped with explosive reactive armor from the get-go.

For whatever reason, IMG chose not to enter this vehicle in the MRAP competition. Their APC could never have won a CAT I MRUV order, of course, as the MaxxPro just did. What it might have offered is an additional purchase option for the US military, when EFP land mines begin taking their toll on MRAP vehicles fielded in theater.

Postscript: DID predicted that a number of MRAP vehicle manufacturers were about to start showing much more interest in reactive armor solutions for their vehicles. It’s always more difficult to integrate later, of course, rather than as a design-in option. Still, it was immediately available – and better than nothing. That prediction proved false, as the Army began development of anti-EFP metal armor/add-on kits instead.

AAAV/ EFV, swim mode
(click to view full)

The US Marine Corps’ AAVP7 Amtracs have been their primary ship to shore amphibious armored personnel carrier for a long time; the AAV7A1 was initially fielded in 1972, and underwent a major service life extension program and product improvement program from 1983-1993. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was the USMC’s plan to replace the aging AMTRACS (lit. AMphibious TRACtorS), which saw extensive service deep inland during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The personnel version of the new EFVs would carry a crew of 3, plus a reinforced rifle squad of 17 combat-loaded Marines. A high-tech weapons station would provide firepower, via a stabilized ATK 30mm MK 44 Bushmaster cannon with advanced sights to replace the AAV’s unstabilized .50 caliber machine gun. A command variant would carry an array of communications and computer systems and staff personnel. The EFV remained the U.S. Marine Corps’ top land acquisition priority, even as its price tag and development issues cut its buy sharply. Push finally came to shove in 2010, however, as the USMC realized that it simply couldn’t afford the vehicle, or its performance.

That begat a new program called the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), designed to be a more realistic version of the EFV. A Marines version designed for only light water use was called the MPC, which was iced in June 2013. That program was resurrected under increased capabilities pressures as the APC 1.1, which had its coming out party during an industry day in July 2014. A draft RFP was released in November, with hopes that a final RFP would be issued in spring 2015.

$105.7 million was requested for ACV 1.1 research, testing and evaluation.

The APC 1.1 has been examined by the Congressional Research Service, producing this report, which – in a nutshell – says that the program has a few issues, the primary one being the strategic lack of “connectors” allowing equipment onshore. Current options (LCAC, JHSV and LCU 1600) are relatively unprotected.

Amtracs Replacement, Take 1: The EFV

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: Capabilities & CONOPS

The New: EFV Features
(click to view full)

The EFV was expected to come in 2 main variants: EFV-P infantry fighting vehicles, and EFV-C command vehicles. Even after the program’s demise, its characteristics and associated Concept of Operations remain relevant. They were developed in response to what the Marines think they need, and early 2011 indications suggest that the service’s view hasn’t changed all that much.

The EFV-P personnel carriers have a stabilized turret[1] with advanced TV, laser and thermal imaging optics for accurate fire under all conditions out to 2 km (1.2 miles). Primary firepower is provided by an ATK 30mm MK 44 Bushmaster cannon and 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, with a maximum elevation of 45 degrees (high elevation is useful in urban warfare) and maximum depression of -10 degrees (useful for enfilade fire). The Bushmaster cannon will use HEIT(High-Explosive Incendiary Tracer) rounds with a super-fast fuse for maximum shrapnel, and MPLD (Multi-Purpose Low Drag) tungsten-tipped rounds against harder targets. The MPLDs offer an advantage over current 25mm rounds because they penetrate before exploding, instead of just pock-marking the walls of fortified bunkers and buildings.

Rounds are selectable on the fly, and Col. Brogan of the EFV program office has said that the cannon would defeat any vehicle short of a main battle tank up to 2 km away. The EFV program has also completed foreign comparative testing for programmable fuse rounds similar to those slated for the XM307 machine gun, and those rounds were found to be more lethal. The goal was to qualify them as an additional standard ammunition choice.

The current AAV7 Amtracs, in contrast, offer only low-light vision optics, in a non-stabilized manned turret, firing a .50 caliber machine gun and a 40mm GMG grenade launcher. Some Amtracs have added thermal sights, but other vehicles are sporting far more advanced manned turrets – and these days, unmanned RWS systems as well.

Additional firepower comes from the EFV’s onboard Marines, which is meant to include a full reinforced Marine rifle squad of 17 (13 Marines + 4 additional or specialists, including Javelin anti-tank teams) in addition to the vehicle’s crew of 3. The AAV7 listed a capacity of 22 and a crew of 3, but in practice its limit was also a combat-loaded reinforced rifle squad. The AAV7’s original design parameters even included an M151 Jeep or trailer, or 2 supply pallets from an LKA ship, as holdovers from its role as a mere LVT (Landing Vehicle, Tracked) before USMC doctrine began emphasizing its role as an armored personnel carrier. The EFV dispenses with that.

EFV: Command variant
(click to view full)

A command EFV-C variant carries an array of communications and computer systems and staff personnel. Indeed, all EFVs were slated to carry an array of communications equipment and electronics including GPS/INS navigation systems and C2PC (Command and Control, Personal Computer). C2PC is similar to the Army’s “Blue Force Tracker,” showing an overlay of friendly units and detected enemies on a common map. The two systems aren’t interoperable yet, though things are moving that way. C2PC is used in the US Army at brigade level and information can be shared through that command structure.

Electronics and salt water don’t exactly mix, however, so the EFV program has had to take precautions. All electronics must be fully sealed, all cables have shielding & protection, and design efforts were made to remove voids and enclosures where salt might become trapped. On the outside, a series of enviro-friendly coatings were used that avoided the use of carcinogenic hexavalent chrome, and areas where dissimilar metals are mated need barriers to prevent electricity-producing galvanic reactions. If that sounds more complex and exensive than standard IFVs, well, it is.

The Old: AAVP7, ashore
(click to view full)

Beyond the difference in these variants, however, all EFVs had broad similarities in a number of areas.

The EFV was designed to have positive buoyancy, and the program office has confirmed that the vehicle will float when at rest. Waterjet propulsion gives an amphibious speed of more than 20 knots – 3 times that of the AAV7. An underwater explosion survivability requirement is incorporated, and EFVs are also meant to move at high speed up to Sea State 3, and transition/low speed up to Sea State 5 (up to 8 ft. waves). This sea state capability would match the older AAV7s, and this level of unassisted armored landing capability in high sea states is reportedly unique to the AAV7 among present-day vehicles.

Those EFV water speed and sea state requirements have driven a number of design decisions, however, raising the vehicles’ cost and increasing its vulnerabilities. For instance, the need for hydroplaning at speed forces a flat bottom, which limits the hull’s potential protection against IEDs and other land mines. It also leads to an engine bigger than a 70-ton M1 tank’s, as well as very high vibration levels in transit that aren’t very friendly to onboard equipment.

Once on land, keeping up with the USMC’s M1 Abrams tanks imposes land speed requirements that must also be addressed. EFV top speed after landing will be about 45 miles per hour, which is comparable to the land speed of a modernized AAV7 RAM/RS, and enables the vehicles to keep up with a USMC’s M1 Abrams tank’s cruising speed. An engine almost twice as powerful as the ones in the 70-ton M1 tanks they’ll be accompanying certainly helps. Maintenance and readiness are meant to be similar to vehicles like the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley, though they never even got close to that goal before the program was terminated.

Bradley reactive armor

On the protection front, the EFV has done what it could within its specifications, but it will not reach the level of the US Army’s Bradley or similar IFVs.

Measures have been taken to make EFV detection harder, including moving thermal giveaways to the rear, reducing telltale dust via side skirts, etc. NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protection is also included. For direct protection when maneuver or concealment become impossible, its LIBA SURMAX silicon ceramic composite armor is expected to provide protection from 14.5mm rounds and 155mm shell fragments. The previous AAV7’s base was 12.7mm/.50 cal weapons and 105mm fragments, though add-on armor could raise that to the same 14.5/155mm levels. The LIBA SURMAX armor adds high resilience under multiple hits from armor piercing projectiles, easy field repair, and lightness to the protection equation.

Having met that “same as” standard, the EFV program does not officially plan to include armor-up kits of its own. Reactive armor like that fitted to M2/M3 Bradleys, M113s, etc. for defense against higher-caliber autocannon and/or RPG rockets was not initially planned for the EFV; the Marines believed the its weight and hydrodynamic issues would destroy the EFV’s amphibious capabilities, and had no initial plans for “add-on ashore” kits. Nor was the “cage” slat armor fitted to Army Strykers etc. under consideration as RPG protection, for the same reasons. Some minor casualty reduction would have been provided by improved fire suppression, and by spall linings that narrow the ‘casualty cone’ of a rocket’s blast fragments in the hull from the 90-110 degree spray of the AAV7 Amtracs, to 10 degrees or so.

In response to pressure from Congress, ideas have now been floated re: removable applique armor, but no official decision was taken.

Over the longer term, the EFV had reserved computing power, a card slot, and memory to integrate “active protection systems” like the RAFAEL/General Dynamics “Trophy” being fielded in Israel, or the Raytheon APS system contracted before the Army’s FCS ground vehicle family was canceled. The EFV program office never formally evaluated any of these systems, however, as no funding or requirements were provided to do it.

Cougar 6×6, IEDed
– the crew lived.
(click to view full)

EFV protection varies against the IED land mines that have already destroyed several Amtracs in Iraq. The EFV’s flat bottom remains a hazard when facing mines. Detonations underneath will remain a challenge, however, because the need for hydrodynamic lift forces a flat bottom design – and the same design that catches the full force of the water to provide lift, will also catch the full force of a mine blast. Given the amphibious distance and speed requirements, however, the EFV program office noted that blast-deflecting V-hulls were not an option. Shock-absorbing seats that reduce spinal injuries were the best they could do, given the specifications.

On the other hand, its low side skirts offer very better protection from side blasts than current Amtracs, especially since the SURMAX armor is good at absorbing “dynamic deflection.” The front is helped by the presence of the extensible plate for water travel, while the back features armor levels comparable to the sides.

This last vulnerability, to the #1 in-theater killer from America’s last 2 major wars, attracted sharp political scrutiny, and was a factor in pressure to cancel the program.

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: The Case in Favor

EFV exit
(click to view full)

Given these uncertainties, the increasing use of AAV7 Amtracs as armored personnel carriers deep inland, and the trends toward urban warfare and IED threats, the EFV has attracted some criticism. We begin with the USMC’s case for the EFV – and since the follow-on ACV seems to share similar underlying requirements, possibly the future ACV as well.

The biggest underlying requirement concerns the Navy, not the Marines. The Marines contend that advances in anti-ship missiles and surveillance, and the spiraling cost of US Navy’s designs for amphibious ships, made protecting those ships via long-distance launch a critical requirement. Rather than buying extra hovercraft or LCUs, the Navy and Marines wanted these waterborne abilities to be part of the vehicles themselves, so that amphibious assaults could introduce armor support very quickly. The EFV’s high-speed, long-distance swim capabilities, which have so influenced its design and execution, were seen as the best option for meeting that goal, while maximizing tactical flexibility in both Small Wars and high-intensity conflicts.

That speed has 2 major tactical rationales. One is protection. The other is flexibility. Col. Brogan of the EFV Program Office noted in our June 2006 interview that the “over the horizon” launch capability (about 25 miles out to sea) requirement of 25-mile swim capability in an hour. requirement was handed down in order to give friendly forces 2 opportunities to take down enemy missiles before they could hit the Navy’s amphibious ships, assuming AEGIS-equipped ships on station plus Cooperative Engagement Capability on the Navy’s amphibious assault vessels.

Staying afloat
(click to view full)

To illustrate the implications of flexibility, imagine a release point 15 miles offshore. At 25 mph swim speed, Pythagoras tells us that a 40 mile long stretch of coastline is at risk within an hour, complicating the defender’s options. The EFV’s speed, shared software and communications means that the vehicles can modify and share plans while still in the water; instead of having to look for a 1 km wide beach where they can all land in a wave, they can come ashore in dispersed fashion to re-form nearby, or exit in column through places as narrow as a boat ramp. Faced with this array of options, the defending commander must either disperse and hence weaken his defenses, try to anticipate the vehicles’ exact moves and risk being wrong, or accept the initial landing and plan to deal with the beach-head via counterattack.

Once on land, keeping up with the USMC’s M1 Abrams tanks in particular impose land speed requirements that must be addressed, even as the situations the US Marines face sometimes require far more protection than lighter vehicles like the BvS-10 can provide. The U.S. Marines must be able to operate in a wide variety of situations and environments, contend the EFV’s advocates, and their breadth of amphibious capabilities define them. With the EFV, the USMC argues, firepower, detection and flexibility are much improved over the AAV7, while amphibious and tracked mobility are maintained or improved. This combination makes the EFV an important tool that’s required in order to maintain the Corps’ full capability set.

The EFV’s amphibious capability remains tactically useful inland, however, reducing dependence on destroyable and easily-targeted bridges. As long as the opposite bank has a shallow enough slope for the EFVs to climb out within a few miles, EFVs can swim up rivers and cross water obstacles. Of course, accompanying USMC M1 Abrams tanks would not have this option. A Marine commander with a mixed vehicle set could split his forces, possibly assigning Javelin infantry teams, amphibious LAV-ATs with TOWs, Cobra helicopters, etc. for anti-tank punch. He could also use the EFVs in security operations as a bridgehead and guard force, until engineers could bring the tanks across.

Col. Brogan added that the USMC could always elect to put fewer than 17 Marines in an EFV depending on the mission, and noted that other vehicles in inventory from armored HMMWV jeeps and MTVR trucks, to LAV-25 wheeled APCs, to V-hulled RG-31 and Cougar vehicles, are available for commanders where lack of numbers or niche capabilities make the EFV an inferior mission choice.

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: The Case Against

RAF CH-47 w. BvS10,
Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Critics note the EFV’s number of Marines carried and cost, contending that the USMC is simply building a very expensive, casualty-maximizing IED land mine/RPG trap, whose required protection levels against mines and incoming fire were sacrificed to the requirement for improved water speed. Despite this water speed, they won’t be useful as fire support in the littorals, either, leaving that mission largely unaddressed. EFVs will be tied to heavier and less flexible forces because they cannot handle enemy tanks or IEDs independently, and they will be too vulnerable in the urban warfare scenarios that will be common features of future conflicts.

Options to improve these capabilities, they say, will only turn a very expensive system that has demonstrated serious reliability problems, into an extremely expensive system that is even less reliable, and requires more support than before.

Other Marine forces like the British and Dutch, they note, are relying instead on smaller amphibious vehicles like the BvS-10 Viking. These vehicles are also fully amphibious, but trade less water speed and slightly less protection for more vehicles per dollar, fewer soldiers per vehicle to minimize casualties, and ground footprints that can cross all terrains and won’t set off pressure mines. When trying to keep the Navy ships safe, they argue, why not opt for systems like these that offer heliborne air mobility, giving the Marines even greater operational speed and over-the-horizon reach, and offering naval defenses even more shots at enemy missiles? Systems like the BvS10 would be equally useful in “small wars,” where their heliborne insertion and all-terrain capabilities would give the Marines new options against lightly-armed but very mobile enemies.

K21 KNIFV concept
(click to view full)

Alternatively, the Marines could buy a more conventional IFV with some amphibious capabilities, and depend on extra hovercraft, vessels like the proposed and landing ships to get them ashore. South Korea produced the K-21 KNIFV for about $3.5 million each, with better firepower and protection options than the EFV, at a cost of carrying only 9 crew and reducing water speed to 4-5 mph in low sea states.

Once built, those extra hovercraft and LCUs could even find new roles in the world’s littoral regions. Armed with rockets, bolt-on RWS turrets, or even rolled-on armored vehicles, they would have new life as impromptu littoral and riverine patrol craft, policing terrain that the US military sees as high threat while keeping larger ships out of the picture. LCT-As were used this way in World War 2 landings, and LCU/LCMs with low gunwales have mounted M48A3, M67A2, and M60A1 tanks in Vietnam and Grenada.

These options, say the critics, plus other vehicles in the Marines’ current force mix, are more likely to be appropriate in more of the situations that US Marines are likely to face going forward. They’re also far easier to buy in numbers when the EFV isn’t sucking the budgetary oxygen out of the room, a situation that tends to turn arguments that could be made as “both/and” into something of an “either/or” rhetorical proposition.

The arguments continue; indeed, they are likely to gain in intensity and strength as the USMC works to define the EFV’s successor.

Amtracs Replacement, Take 2: After the EFV

The USMC’s EFV replacement strategy rests on 3 pillars. DARPA may have added a 4th option, but like all DARPA projects, it will have to overcome significant technical hurdles in order to become even a potential production program.

Replace Me: ACV Amphibious Combat Vehicle

EFV: electronics inside
(click to view full)

The USMC hopes it can keep its Amphibious Combat Vehicle to $10-12 million per vehicle, compared to $16.8 million for the EFV. Even so, that’s still far above other Marines forces around the world. The expected schedule was an ACV technical demonstration vehicle by the end of FY 2012, and a fully operational demonstration vehicle done by the end of 2013 or 2014. Re-use of some EFV systems might help meet those deadlines, but reliability issues make that a riskier strategy than it might otherwise be. A competition between contractors will give several of them 3-4 years to build their offerings, followed by a chosen ACV around 2020.

The USMC acknowledges that their desired schedule is aggressive, which often creates testing surprises, delays, and rising costs. Their acquisition strategy isn’t set in stone, but they seem to be leaning on multi-way competition and a drive-off to offset those risks, even as that format also complies with recent defense acquisition reform directives. They’d better hope it works, because $10 million was touted for the EFV part-way through the program – and another episode of ballooning costs and delays will cripple the Marines for a generation. Even if it does work, and costs are within budget, a $10-12 million per vehicle program would be a prime target for cuts if rising interest rates cause the USA to hit a fiscal wall.

More ominously, Kurt Koch, the combat vehicle capabilities integration officer for Fires and Maneuvers Integration Division, says “the ACV will be operationally mobile in the water, capable of ship-to-objective maneuver from over the horizon.” That’s the same requirement that doomed the EFV to be a super-expensive water taxi, that wouldn’t protect its crew against cannon fire, rockets, or the #1 killer in recent wars: land mine attacks.

Extend Me: the AAV7 SLEP

AAV7s, Somalia
(click to view full)

Until the ACV is ready, the Amtracs will soldier on. The AAV Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) aims to add better protection, a modern power-train, and higher capacity suspension components. Another gap in the current force is the current turret, which is unstabilized, and can’t be fired accurately on the move. Costs and scope are still under evaluation, but the goal is to run the AAV7 SLEP program from 2012-2021.

With the ACV not even slated to begin production until 2020, and even the MPC not slated to make a difference until 2018-2020, the AAV7 SLEP becomes critical to the corps. During the next decade, any serious problems in the Amtracs fleet could leave the US Marines in a difficult position indeed.

If AAV7 Amtracs had to be built new, the last AAV7 Amtracs were produced for Brazil in the 1990s. The cost range in those-year dollars was $2.2 – 2.5 million per vehicle. Without factoring in production restart costs (or any capability upgrades for the modern battlefield), that figure translates into about $3.5 million per vehicle in today’s dollars.

Complement Me: The MPC Marine Personnel Carrier

MPC concept
(click to view larger)

The wheeled Marine Personnel Carrier program is really a replacement for the LAV fleet, and has always been seen as a separate budgeted item. The EFV program’s failure doesn’t change that, but it does mean that MPCs may end up performing some EFV roles. They may end up in a bigger substitution role if the ACV also sinks, or the USA’s slow-motion fiscal wreck starts hitting the interest rate wall, and drastic cuts follow. If so, tactical changes will follow, because MPCs won’t be designed to come ashore through surf, even in low-medium sea states.

MPCs are expected to cost up to $4.5 million each, with a buy decision in 2013 and Initial Operational Capability in 2018. Declared MPC competitors already include BAE Systems/ Iveco with their SUPERAV), and Lockheed Martin/Patria with their Patria AMV. The current incumbent, General Dynamics, won’t be sitting out. They’re expected t bid their Piranha-III, or similar vehicles.

Test Me: DARPA’s FANG

DARPA’s FANG. The Fast, Adaptable, Next-Generation ground vehicle projects aims to develop a new heavy, amphibious infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) “with functional requirements intended to mirror the Marine Corps’ Amphibious Combat Vehicle.”

That’s unusual. The approach is even more interesting, and unusual: “The contractor will stage a series of FANG challenges, prize-based design competitions for progressively more complex vehicle subsystems, culminating in the design of a full IFV.” DARPA has had good luck with competitions before, but they generally involve more than 1 vendor.

EFV: Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise indicated, all EFV program contracts are issued by US Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA to General Dynamics Amphibious Systems (GDAMS) in Woodbridge, VA.

February 22/17: The Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1 by Science Applications International Corporation and BAE Systems for the USMC has been unveiled for the first time. Developed to replace an aging fleet of amphibious assault vehicles, the Marines will receive a total of 16 vehicles with deliveries to commence in March. The earlier stages of the ACV 1.1 production effort were stalled by a contract protest by General Dynamics after the company was defeated in the Marine Corps’ bidding process.

July 27/15: The Marine Corps is reportedly scheduled to downselect two designs for its Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program in late 2015, with five designs currently on offer. The requirement calls for a 8×8 armored vehicle capable of transiting over open water as well as operate ashore. The five designs have been undergoing testing, with the USMC planning to progress the two downselected bids through a development phase.

May 25/15: BAE Systems has submitted a bid for the USMC’s Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) competition, with the company teaming with Italian firm Iveco Defence to develop the ACV 1.1 design.

Beached.
(click to view full)

June 10/11: Aviation Week reports that the USMC is looking to cut its analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the EFV replacement from 18 months to 9, or even 6 months. Areas of interest include “habitability” inside the vehicle, added features like an artificial horizon, and reaching out to shipbuilders for a better hull design.

The good news is that the USMC is reaching to a logical and related industry for help. The bad news is that an appetite for more and more based on notional requirements, rather than cost-driven limits that may force rethinks of what one can expect, is what sank EFV in the first place. Further bad news? The USMC say they need 38 amphibious ships, and might make do with 33, but will get 29. That will push them toward a long-swimming IFV design, as a way of compensating at sea. The question is whether that will create fatal vulnerabilities on land, or whether the shipbuilding sector can offer an EFV idea that squares the circle.

March 22/11: Plans B, C & D. The USMC outlines the 3 different vehicle programs that will replace the responsibilities the EFV would have held: AAV7 life extension from 2012-2021, wheeled Marine Personnel Carrier in service from 2018, and an Amphibious Combat Vehicle EFV replacement entering production by 2020. See above for more details.

Jan 12/10: Inside Defense reports that the US Marine Corps will pursue 3 contracts, in the wake of the EFV’s cancellation.

The first, required response involves life extension for the existing AAVP7 Amtracs fleet. The 2nd response will be to accelerate the LAV-II replacement Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) program. Like its predecessor, MPC is required to have some amphibious capability, albeit less than the Amtracs. The 3rd response is the direct EFV replacment, currently known as the New Amphibious Vehicle (NAV) program.

Nov 16/10: No Plan B. WIRED Danger Room says there is no Plan B for the EFV, which means the vehicle had better pass its tests by February 2011:

“After years of delays and cost overruns, Senate appropriators voted in September to put the $24-million-per-tank EFV program out to pasture if it can’t pass its final round of tests. The chairmen of the White House deficit commission marked it for termination in their cost-cutting proposal last week. At this point, the swimming tank is a pinata for defense reformers… But a September study from the Government Accountability Office [DID: sctually. the Congressional Research Service] found few alternatives to the swimming tank (.PDF). Either the Marines could continue to use their decades-old Amphibious Assault Vehicles, or they can modify their planned Marine Personnel Carrier for ship-to-shore operations. (One option for the carrier, GAO writes, is the Italian Supernav 8×8 tank, “a 24-ton vehicle that can carry 13 Marines and their equipment and can travel up to 500 miles nonstop on land and 40 miles on water.”) But the carrier won’t be ready until 2015 as it is.”

Sept 17/10: Inside Defense reports that: “The Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee has provided funding to cancel the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program in its mark of the fiscal year 2011 defense budget.”

Sept 9/10: Carley Corp. in Orlando, FL wins a $35.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price contract to produce the EFV training system for USMC accession training, as well as for training fleet and reserve forces. The contract contains options that could boost it to $36 million. The training system will include several sub-systems: training courseware on a Learning Management System, simulators, devices, mockups, and training aids.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, and is expected to be complete by September 2015. This contract was a 100% small business set-aside posted in the Navy Electronic Commerce Office, with 3 offers received (M67854-10-C-0036).

Aug 24/10: Testimony. USMC Commandant Gen. James Conway defends the EFV capability, while distancing himself a bit from the current program. Defense Tech quotes him:

“It is not the platform it’s the capability… It’s not necessarily the EFV made by General Dynamics that goes 25 knots, its the capability that we need to be wed to… if that program were canceled outright we would still be looking to come up with that capability.”

He said the new batch of eight EFVs provided by General Dynamics for extensive testing are more reliable than the original prototypes and the Marines hope they’ll show marked improvement. “It has been a beleaguered program,” Conway said today at a Pentagon presser. “We are looking at affordability of the program in the out years… we have to ask ourselves are 573 (EFVs) affordable.”

Aug 19/10: Testing. The SDD-2 version of the EFV is undergoing testing at Camp Pendleton, CA, whose Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch (AVTB) at Camp Del Mar is well suited to the task. The team has also tested the EFV at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center, and DoD facilities in Alaska and Hawaii. The AVTB is staffed by 53 Marines and 25 civilians who are currently conducting testing on 8 EFVs manufactured in Lima, OH.

The USMC release says that to date, more than 400 engineering design improvements have been implemented since AVTB became involved with testing the first EFV prototype in 2003. One is a “whale-tail” exhaust system that disperses heat down and outward from the vehicle, instead of straight upward. USMC.

July 9/10: Defense Tech reports:

“Yesterday at a reporter’s roundtable, House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Ike Skelton said he expects SecDef Robert Gates and his merry band of program killers in OSD will try to terminate the Marine Corps armored amphibian, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). Skelton said he’s pretty agnostic on the EFV and that the HASC would give the Marines time to conduct further tests on the vehicle.”

See also Aviation Week | Reuters.

July 2/10: GAO still dubious. GAO Report #GAO-10-758R’s title understates its tone: “Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Program Faces Cost, Schedule and Performance Risks” was provided to Rep. Norman D. Dicks [D-WA], n his role as Chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee. Some excerpts:

“In 2006 we reviewed the EFV program to determine how it was performing… and reported that the program faced significant risks… In 2006 and 2007, the EFV business case broke down… The program was restructured in June 2007.” [With respect to SDD-2], Reliability growth approach and other performance issues present significant challenges and risks, [the] nature of development, test, and procurement schedules add unnecessary risk… Costs could increase due to concurrency, redesign effort, and final procurement quantity… [and the program’s] history of cost growth, schedule slips and performance failures and the current challenges (including changing threats) raise the question of whether the business case for the EFV program (in terms of cost, schedule, and performance) is still sound.”

The rest of their review is quite detailed and specific. It cites serious ongoing issues with capacity and weight, reliability, and maintainability, and sees the overlapping schedule for testing and early production as especially worthy of concern. See also Eric Palmer of DoD Watch.

May 4/10: Roll-out, Take 2. The USMC rolls out the SDD-2 EFV prototype at a ceremony, and continues to press their case for the vehicle amidst rumors of its cancellation at what turned into a mini pep rally for the vehicle and its supporters. Taking direct aim at some of the concerns raised recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that Marines may not need the EFV or that the vehicle could prove too costly, program and Marine Corps officials said the vehicle is exactly what they need to conduct operations from the sea. The EFV is meant to serve as a vehicle bridge for Marines, carrying them from Navy ships through the surf and sand and miles deep into enemy terrain. Program officials extolled the vehicle’s prowess and promise at a ceremony at the National Museum of the Marine Corps here, with the museum’s unique skyline sculpture in the background and a newly minted prototype EFV in the foreground.”>Aviation Week Ares.

May 3/10: Gates’ grumps. US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates delivers a speech at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space Convention, in National Harbor, MD. It’s widely seen as casting doubt on the future of the EFV. Excerpts:

“The more relevant gap we risk creating is one between capabilities we are pursuing and those that are actually needed in the real world of tomorrow… Two major examples come to mind. First, what kind of new platform is needed to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore under fire – in other words, the capability provided by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. No doubt, it was a real strategic asset during the first Gulf War to have a flotilla of Marines waiting off Kuwait City – forcing Saddam’s army to keep one eye on the Saudi border, and one eye on the coast. But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again – especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore. On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?

…And that bring me to the third and final issue: the budget… it is important to remember that, as the wars recede, money will be required to reset the Army and Marine Corps, which have borne the brunt of the conflicts. And there will continue to be long-term – and inviolable – costs associated with taking care of our troops and their families. In other words, I do not foresee any significant increases in top-line of the shipbuilding budget beyond current assumptions. At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can really afford [the current force structure and platforms].”

March 30/10: GAO – what’s next? The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. With respect to the EFV, it cites a 132% jump in the program’s R&D budget from December 2000 – August 2009, a 45% rise in the procurement budget, and a 42.1% drop in planned orders. When you actually crunch those numbers, that means a 249.8% rise in per-vehicle procurement costs. With respect to the program’s structure:

“The EFV’s design will continue to evolve into low- rate initial production… until 2014 as it executes its reliability growth and testing strategy. The program is addressing 180 design actions raised during its critical design review in December 2008 and plans to incorporate many of them into seven new prototypes currently under construction… An operational assessment is scheduled for April 2011. At that time, the program expects to demonstrate on average at least 16 hours of operation between operational mission failures, which will keep the EFV on the reliability path needed to reach its minimum requirement of 43.5 hours. Additional testing and design revisions are scheduled to continue through the fourth lot of low-rate production, and the program will commit to all four low-rate production lots before conducting initial operational test and evaluation to validate the performance and reliability of the EFV.

…the program will introduce new friction-welding processes during low-rate production that are expected to increase the strength of the hull and reduce weight… The Marine Corps recently formalized the IED requirement for the EFV, but did not make it a key performance parameter… If the NBC system were removed, warfighters would still be protected using mission-oriented protective suits, which they currently use on the AAV-7 legacy platform. No decision has been made on this proposal, but it is being held as an option for later in the program.”

Feb 2010: USMC Commandant Gen. James Conway tells the House Armed Services Committee that the EFV performed “about the same” as a 6-wheeled, Category 2 MRAP blast-resistant vehicle in blast tests. A single EFV prototype was subjected to 4 blasts, including 2 that simulated land mines, without its additional armor kit installed.

What the reports don’t say is whether the blasts were set to the side, where the EFV’s protection is strong, or underbody blasts, where the EFV is expected to be weak. Caveat governor. Defense News | Gannett’s Marine Corps Times.

Dec 2/09: EG&G Technical Services, Inc. in Dumfries, VA receives a $5.7 million task order for EFV support services. “Technical support under this effort includes the support services to advance the use of technology to improve system performance and operations, achieve design-to-unit production cost objectives, and to define mature production and manufacturing processes.”

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA, and is expected to be complete in December 2010 (M67854-02-A-9011, #0087).

Dec 1/09: EG&G in Dumfries, VA receives a $5.2 million for task order for EFV support services to US Marine Corps Systems Command’s PM Advanced Amphibious Assault (PM AAA). “Technical support under this effort includes the support services to advance the use of technology to improve system performance and operations, achieve design-to-unit production cost objectives, and to define mature production and manufacturing processes.”

Work will be performed in Quantico, VA, and is expected to be complete in December 2009 (M67854-02-A-9011, #0070).

Dec 1/09: CSBA ix-nay. The non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) issues a study that recommends cancelling the EFV in favor of an armored vehicle with beter land capabilities and less focus on independent water travel, which would be provided by hovercraft.

It also recommends scaling back MV-22 buys, in favor of a mix of MV-22s and more standard, less expensive helicopters. Aviation Week Ares.

EFV, testing
(click to view full)

May 15/09: The EFV team conducts more EFV tests at the Potomac River training area just off the Quantico, VA. Work includes water maneuvering tests and a gunnery test of it 30mm Mk44 and 7.62mm M240 guns, and is taking place before field testing begins. USMC.

Jan 18/08: General Dynamics Amphibious Systems in Woodbridge, VA received an $12 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-05-C-0072) for the advanced procurement of long lead materials for Systems Development and Demonstration 2 phase of the EFV program.

Work will be performed in Michigan (37%), Indiana (20%), Arizona (13%), Maryland (5%), Louisiana (3%), Florida (2%), Mississippi (2%), New Jersey (2%), New York (2%), Ohio (2%), and Germany (12%), and is expected to be completed by November 2009.

Jan 17/08: General Dynamics Amphibious Systems (GDAMS) in Woodbridge, VA received a $19.5 million modification under a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for the spares material under the systems development and demonstration phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program.

Work is expected to be completed by September 2008, and will be performed in Woodbridge, Va., (24.654%); Indianapolis, IN (18.727%); Muskegon, MI (11.437%); Salisbury, MD (3.234%); Spokane, WA (2.669%); Anniston, AL (2.625%); Lapeer, MI (2.612%); Tallahassee, FL (2.581%); Broomfield, CO (2.368%); Slidell, LA (2.045%); Houghton, MI (1.994%); Tuscon, AZ (1.772%); Springfield, VA (1.647%); Black Mountain, NC. (1.619%); Minneapolis, MN (1.345%); Duluth, GA (1.241%); San Diego, CA (1.223%); Tempe, AZ (1.123%); Plainview, NY (1.12%); Ottawa, Canada (1.875%); Freidrichshafen, Germany (0.988%); Calgary, Canada (0.144%); and several other locations within the United States, each with %ages lower than 1% (totaling 10.957%). The contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity.

Jan 9/08: The US House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee is casting a skeptical bipartisan eye on the EFV program. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD, ranking subcommittee minority member] spoke to Inside the Navy after speaking at a conference in Arlington, VA. According to information released by his office, he and subcommittee chair Gene Taylor [D-MS] have ‘a lot of serious questions’ about the idea for additional applique armor to help remedy the EFV’s poor resistance to mines. The idea itself was spawned in reaction to the subcommittee’s pointed questions re: the EFV and its lack of resistance to IED land mines. Congressman Bartlett:

“…they would get a really thin, strong Marine who could scoot underneath that thing, because there’s only about 18 inches of ground clearance, and he would bolt on an applique of some special aluminum which would now protect them… the enemy has to be very cooperative and not shoot them while they’re affixing the armor applique, and that the Marines have to find hard terrain free of mines to do this re-jiggering [the USMC] told us that they would know that the beach wasn’t mined. I said, ‘If you can know the beach was not mined, how come our people in Iraq can’t figure out whether the road is mined or not’?”

Oct 22/07: A $10 million contract modification to previously awarded contract M67854-01-C-0001 to develop an alternative drivetrain subsystem preliminary design for the continuation of Systems Development and Demonstration phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. Work will be performed in Augsburg, Germany (81%), Friedrichshafen, Germany (1%) and Woodbridge, VA (18%) and is expected to be complete by April 2008.

Pushing hard
(click to view full)

Aug 22/07: The Pentagon releases its Selected Acquisition Reports for the June 2007 reporting period, and the EFV program is listed:

“The SAR was submitted to report schedules slips of approximately two years since the December 2006 SAR. In February 2007, the program experienced a critical Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach due primarily to system reliability challenges and a quantity reduction. The department certified a revised program to Congress in June 2007. Program costs increased $4,069.4 million (+34.2 percent) from $11,902.7 million to $15,972.1 million.”

DID’s follow-on article “Costing the Marines’ EFV” explains what’s going on, delving into current and past program cost growth, why it happened, and what it means for the price per vehicle. The short answer is that each EFV will cost $16-21 million.

$21 million per?!?

Aug 15/07: A $15.5 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for System Integration Laboratory Hardware, during the SDD phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (45%); Tallahassee, FL (30%); Lima, OH (20%); and Scranton, PA (5%). Work is expected to be complete by September 2008.

On the beach
(click to view full)

Aug 1/07: In reply to the July 12/07 Jane’s article, the EFV program office had this to say to DID:

“We plan to compete future contracts for certain EFV program efforts, where feasible, to increase performance or reduce program costs. However, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has been the sole EFV vehicle designer and developer since 1996 and as a result, the main design development and production efforts are planned as sole source to GDLS because no other firm can perform the requirements of development and production without substantial duplication of cost and additional, unacceptable delays to the EFV program.

GDLS has taken positive action to demonstrate their commitment to the EFV program and improve the probability of success in meeting EFV program requirements. GDLS implemented a major reorganization in early 2007 to transfer technical expertise to the EFV program and to align Director-level technical positions with their parent company, GDLS in Sterling Heights, MI.

In Jan 07, GDLS transferred their best Systems Engineer from GDLS to Woodbridge, VA to be the Director of Systems Engineering for the EFV program. In addition, they created a Director of Programs position and appointed a senior GDLS employee with proven success on numerous Defense programs to the position. GD then aligned key EFV positions with their corporate organization to provide corporate expertise and continuity across Defense programs. This included instituting a direct reporting relationship for the EFV SE Director to the GDLS Senior Director for SE and for the EFV Technical Director to the GDLS Senior Vice-President for Engineering Design & Development (ED&D).”

July 31/07: A $6.2 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001). It covers sustaining program management, as well as technical and engineering support for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Drive train components, during the extended Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the EFV program. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and work is expected to be completed by September 2008.

July 17/07: A $10.6 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for the sustaining equipment manufacturing, technical, and engineering efforts in support of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) engine, during the extended Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the of the EFV program.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (12%) and Friedrichshafen, Germany (88%) and is expected to be complete by September 2008.

July 12/07: Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that the USMC will consider alternative designs for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and plans to compete out future components of the $2.3 billion EFV contract currently solely held by General Dynamics. “The news follows continued scrutiny of the programme by the US Congress, which has sharply questioned the EFV’s flat-bottomed design, cost over-runs and production problems.”

Rep. Gene Taylor [D-MS], Chair of the House Armed Services Seapower & Expeditionary Forces subcommittee, is reportedly seeking legal opinions re: ownership of the vehicle design, in order to determine whether the EFV project could be turned over to another firm if Congress’ patience snaps.

June 8/07: A $5.7 million modification to previously awarded contract M67854-01-C-0001 for the redesign of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, using an alternate architecture in place of Spraycool technology, during the Systems Development and Demonstration phase. SprayCool will be kept for the more computing-intensive EFV-C command variant, but is being designed out of the infantry carrier vehicle in favor of a more modular architecture. This is bad news for SprayCool Corp., who touted their liquid cooling system for electronics in a success story release:

“In 2000, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), being developed at that time as the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), was experiencing significant difficulties in their command and control electronics suite due to overheating. Moreover, the program office realized that this problem would only get worse as their C4I roadmap called for more electronics, increasing the number of software programs, and numerous technology insertions of faster processors to transfer the required data.

By chance the program manager for the Command Variant of the EFV saw a SprayCool Technology demonstration and consulted with SprayCool. Using a Small Business Innovative Research contract and funding from DARPA, SprayCool built a prototype multi-processor unit, called the Command and Control Server (CCS). This prototype solved the overheating conditions and has evolved into the heart of the EFV’s electronic suite where it links ten operating stations with information from the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System, Command and Control Operations (C2PC for situational awareness), Intelligence Operations System, and other C4I SR (command, control, communications, and computers intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems.

In developing the Multi-Processor Unit (MPU) for the Marine Corps, SprayCool won the Department of Defense Value Engineering Award for 2003 by enabling Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) technology insertions, saving the Marines over $350 million dollars over a thirty year life span.”

Work on finding a replacement cooling approach will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (34.2%), Spokane, WA (20.7%), Colorado Springs, CO (14.6%), Tallahassee, FL (11.5%), Calgary, Canada (9.5percent), Ottawa, Canada (4.2%), Los Angeles, CA (2.1%), Salisbury, MD (2.0%) and Sterling Heights, MI (1.2%) and is expected to be complete by September 2008. Contract funds in the amount of $3.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

May 2/07: House Appropriation Committee chair Henry Waxman submits formal requests to Secretary of Defense Gates and to General Dynamics Land Systems President David K. Heebner. He requests a long list of reports, assessments, and other documentation related to the EFV, by May 18/07, while citing several reports the program’s ongoing difficulties. House Appropriations Committee | Full Letter to DoD [PDF] | Full letter to General Dynamics Land Systems [PDF].

April 30/07: A $43.8 million contract modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for spares and material for the continuation of Systems Development and Demonstration phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program.

Work will be performed in Germany (38.61%); Michigan (13.38%); Indiana (7.56%); Virginia (6.04%); Colorado (5.37%); Florida (4.61%); California (4.2%); Canada (4.26%); Maryland (3.94%); Washington (3.72%); Arizona (2.52%); North Carolina (2.49%); Louisiana (2.21%); New York (0.27%); South Carolina (0.24%); Massachusetts (0.20%); Missouri (0.19%); Minnesota (0.16%); and Pennsylvania (0.02%); and is expected to be complete by September 2007.

March 19/07: A $144 million modification to previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (M67854-01-C-0001) on Mar. 16, 2007, for design for reliability efforts for the continuation of Systems Development and Demonstration phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. In other words, this money will be used to address the reliability issues covered in “The US Marines’ EFV Program: Current State Report, November 2006“,” in order to get the EFV to a point where it’s ready for low-rate production.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (40%), Indianapolis, Ind., (24%), Sterling Heights, MI (10%), Friedrichshafen, Germany, (10%), and various other states (16%), and is expected to be complete by September 2008.

Waterjets on!
(click to view full)

May 25/06: An $18.8 million cost-reimbursable modification under a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for the continuation of Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (50%); Aberdeen, MD (25%); and Camp Pendleton, CA (25%).

April 3/06: A $44.4 million cost-reimbursable addition modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for the continuation of Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. GDAMS will provide all required materials, services, personnel and facilities to complete the design and development of the EFV, perform studies and analyses, manufacture and test all SDD prototypes, prepare for production, initiate logistics support of the EFV, and successfully complete the SDD phase.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (38%); Camp Pendleton, CA (22%); Sterling Heights, MI (21%); Aberdeen, MD (9%), and undetermined location(s) (10%), and is expected to be complete by September 2009.

July 22/05: A $42.9 million cost-reimbursable addition to a previously awarded contract (N67854-01-C-0001) to extend the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle’s systems development and demonstration (SDD) phase. Full-up system live fire testing will be included. General Dynamics will provide all required materials, services, personnel and facilities to complete the design and development of the EFV, perform studies and analyses, manufacture and test all SDD prototypes, prepare for production, initiate logistics support of the EFV, and successfully complete the SDD phase.

Work will be performed in Virginia (21.22%); Indiana (12.47%); Germany (10.47%); Michigan (8.87%); North Carolina (6.81%); California (5.31%); Ohio (5.21%); Washington (5.20%); Maryland (4.38%); Minnesota (4.38%); Colorado (2.95%); Canada (2.53%); Illinois (2.37%); Arizona (1.07%); New York (0.87%); Alabama (0.54%); Florida (0.48%); Georgia (0.14%); Texas (0.13%); and undetermined (4.61%). Work is expected to be completed by September 2009.

Nov 1/04: A $136 million cost-reimbursable addition modification under previously awarded contract M67854-01-C-0001 for the continuation of system development and demonstration (SDD) phase of the expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV) program. GDAMS will provide all required materials, services, personnel and facilities to complete the design and development of the EFV, perform studies and analyses, manufacture and test all SDD prototypes, prepare for production, initiate logistics support of the EFV, and successfully complete the SDD phase.

This contract was not competitively procured. Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (59.02%); Indianapolis, IN (10.43%); Lima, OH (1.94%); Liberty Lake, WA (1.64%); Sterling Heights, MI (1.46%); Scranton, PA (1.38%); Linthicum, MD (1.20%); Tempe, AZ (1.18%); Arlington, VA (0.78%); Pittsfield, MA (0.69%); San Diego, CA (0.55%); Tallahassee, FL (0.53%); Frederick, MD (0.43%); El Centro, CA (0.37%); Muskegon, MI (0.02%);and Freidrichshafen, Germany (15.61%); Ottawa, Canada (1.82%); and Calgary, Canada (0.95%). Work is expected to be complete by September 2008.

EFV on land
(click to view full)

Feb 10/03: $15.9 million under a previously awarded cost-reimbursable contract (M67854-01-C-0001), exercising an option for the Live Fire Test Vehicle and initial spares for the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV).

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, Va. (30.9%); Indianapolis, Ind. (6.4%); Freidrichshafen, Germany (5.8%); Muskegon, Mich. (4.6%); Tempe, Ariz. (4.6%); Tallahassee, Fla. (4.1%); Scranton, Pa. (4.1%); Lima, Ohio (3.1%); Slidell, La. (2.2%); Lapeer, Mich. (2.2%); Boulder, Colo. (1.9%); Hebron, Ohio (1.9%); McKinney, Texas (1.9%); Boca Raton, Fla. (1.4%); Ottawa, Canada (1.3%); Jacksonville, Mich. (1.3%); Imperial Valley, Calif. (1.2%); East Aurora, N.Y. (1.1%); Tuscon, Ariz. (0.9%); Frederick, Md. (0.8%); Wayne, N.J. (0.8%); Calgary, Canada, (0.8%); Anniston, Ala. (0.7%); Clarkston, Wash. (0.6%); San Diego, Calif. (0.4%); Westbury, N.Y. (0.4%); Marlboro, Md. (0.2%); Sterling Heights, Mich. (0.1%); and all other states (14.3%). Work is expected to be completed by June 2005.

April 5/01: General Dynamics Land Systems, Woodbridge, VA, under their subsidiary General Dynamics Amphibious Systems, is being awarded a $6 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for long-lead material for the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) as part of the systems development and demonstration phase. The work will be performed in Woodbridge, Va. (40%), Lima, Ohio (20%), Tallahassee, Fla. (15%), Muskegon, Mich. (10%), Scranton, Pa. (10%), and Imperial Valley, Calif. (5%) and is expected to be completed by June 2001 (M67854-01-C-0001).

Footnotes

fn1. Remote Weapons Systems turrets like the RCWS-30 equipping the Czech Army’s river-amphibious Pandur II APC fleet were considered at the program’s outset, but they had not developed to their present capability levels. In addition, Col. Brogan noted that Remote Weapons Systems made crew nausea issues worse during amphibious testing. Money has not been allocated for current studies, the design is well advanced, and the EFV office has no plans to recommend reconsideration.

fn2. The GAO estimates $12.3 million per vehicle. See GAO report item in the “Additional Readings & Sources” section for deeper background.

Appendix A: Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle – The Program

Previous timeline
(click to view full)

The US Marines originally hoped to replace 1,322 AAV7s with 1,013 EFVs: 935 EFV-P Personnel Variants, and 78 EFV-C Command Variants. Initial Operating Capability (IOC) was supposed to happen in 2010, and was defined as a platoon of 13 EFV-P and 1 EFV-C vehicle, ready for Marine Expeditionary Unit deployment workups, including the associated support and sustainment package. Plus a 2nd EFV platoon delivered and in New Equipment Training. Plus a 3rd EFV platoon in production. Full Rate Production was scheduled for the FY 2011-2020 period. Full Operational Capability (FOC) was scheduled for FY 2020.

It eventually became clear that 2010 wouldn’t even see the end of testing, and IOC was a long way away at FY 2017 or so, if everything went well. Even Low-Rate Initial Production wasn’t expected until FY 2013 – assuming that testing didn’t reveal additional problems, and the program survived that long. Which it did not.

The EFV nevertheless remained the Corps’ top land combat priority, right up until its cancellation by the Marine Corps – with a very hard push from the Pentagon. EFV budgets in recent years have included:

FY 2005: $291.7 million ($239.2M R&D, $52.5M procurement)
FY 2006: 272.7 million ($243.9M R&D, $28.8M procurement)
FY 2007: $348.7 million (all shifted to RDT&E following testing issues and cuts)
FY 2008 req.: $288.2M RDTE (Research, Development, Testing, & Evaluation)
FY 2009: $256.0M RDT&E
FY 2010: $292.2M RDT&E
FY 2011 request: $242.8M RDT&E, but the program was shut down.

The danger signs began when the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review resulted in a significant cut to the USMC’s EFV plans, as the service considered their total package of ground vehicles, and the schedule has foundered in the wake of serious performance and reliability problems. In contrast, blast-resistant wheeled patrol vehicles appears to have made large gains within the envisioned force mix, per the MRAP program etc.

Muddy ground
(click to view full)

Then, there were the EFV’s costs.

In 2000, the EFV program was expected to cost about $7.3 billion, including $1.6 billion for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E). By 2006, that figure had risen to $12.5 billion, including $2.5 billion for RDT&E. At 1,013 EFVs, the final cost per vehicle had grown to $10.1 million[2] – but even this figure was true if, and only if, all planned vehicles were bought. By August 2009, the program’s estimated cost was $14.29 billion, including $3.74 billion in RDT&E; and this 14 billion dollar figure was so despite a 42.1% cut in the expected order, to just 593 EFVs. Overall, the cost per vehicle has risen almost 250% from its December 2000 baseline.

In a 2006 discussion, the program office estimated that a cutback to 573 vehicles could increase costs by up to $2 million per vehicle, to $12-13 million. Other reports have placed the cost as high as $17 million average.

Why is this? Much of it is a factor of the vehicle’s requirements. A 20 knot plus water speed, with that much carrying capacity, plus even a questionable level of protection on land, is a contradictory set of imperatives that creates a very expensive vehicle. Some of the cost jump a product of the vehicle’s rising complexity, as it gets redesigned. Some of it is also self-inflicted, and stems from cuts in the program.

Buying fewer vehicles means that the R&D is paid for and vehicles are bought earlier in the production learning curve, when the cost higher. If fewer vehicles are also bought over the same time frame, then fixed costs per vehicle increase for that reason as well. The EFV program office’s preliminary analysis showed that a reduction to 800 vehicles would raise the final average cost per vehicle by at least $1 million.

Of course, costs that rise during the R&D/SDD phase tend to lead to more production reductions, and the whole scenario can spiral very quickly. In an attempt to avoid that spiral, the EFV Program Office tried a number of improved project management techniques and procurement innovations. It was hoped that these efforts would help keep the program on its current schedule, and they did help. What they can never do, is fix a fundamental requirements set problem if one exists, or completely remove the unexpected surprises from a difficult technical journey.

Sunset battle
(click to view full)

In the end, however, the biggest killer was issues with EFV performance, as detailed in test results and GAO reports.

Full up EFV System Level Lethality testing began with an Operational Assessment between January-September 2006. Milestone C approval was expected to be followed by low-rate initial production (LRIP) vehicles in FY 2007 – 2008 for use during Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). Unfortunately, the assessment revealed some serious issues with performance, capacity, and reliability.

LRIP production was delayed while the program was restructured, and the problems were not confined to just one sub-system, or just a few. In the end, the vehicle kept its basic outline, but got a major makeover that is still in progress.

The first step was a Design For Reliability phase, followed by what is in effect a do-over of the Systems Design & Development phase (SDD-2). Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) was delayed from 2008 until FY 2013 or so. Initial Operational Capability, meanwhile, was pushed from the original 2010 to 2016-2017 at the earliest.

As risky as that was, the US GAO cited an additional risk of overlap. EFV testing wasn’t supposed to be done until the end of FY 2014, but LRIP would start before that’s done. With up to 96 vehicles planned under the 4 LRIP production lots, problems discovered in late testing could become very expensive retrofits very quickly.

This schedule, and the growing risk of EFV program cancellation,made it clear that further upgrades and/or life-extension programs may be required for the AAV7 Amtracs fleet, in order to keep the heavily-used vehicles available to the Marines until replacements do arrive. During that interim, any serious problems in the Amtracs fleet could leave the US Marines in a difficult position indeed.

Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources

EFV Data

• Marine Corps EFV Program Site. See their official program timeline. DID also interviewed EFV program personnel.
• Army Teechnology – Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) – Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle, USA
• GlobalSecurity.org – Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle
• DID (Oct 24/07) – Costing the Marines’ EFV. With a bit of help from the Program Office.

Official Reports

• US Congressional Research Service (latest update Sept 17/10) – The Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV): Background and Issues for Congress
• US Congressional GAO (#GAO-10-758R, July 2/10) – Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Program Faces Cost, Schedule and Performance Risks. Quite a lot of them, says the report.
• US DoD (Aug 22/07) – Department of Defense Releases Selected Acquisition Reports. For the June 2007 reporting period. EFV changes require a report in this SAR.
• US DoD (April 9/07) – SAR Program Acquisition Cost Summary As Of Date: December 31, 2006 [PDF format] Reports that acquisition costs have increased by nearly $4 billion, from $8.7 billion in December 2000 to $11.9 billion in December 2006.
• US GAO (#GAO-06-349, May 1/06) – Defense Acquisitions: The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Encountered Difficulties in Design Demonstration and Faces Future Risks. The report calculates $12.3 million as the EFV’s price per vehicle, and also lists a number of program risks. Col. Brogan takes especial exception to the 3rd risk mentioned, as it comes from following Pentagon acquisition policy. The GAO critized the EFV for not meeting all key performance parameters before low-rate production, but Pentagon procurement regulations state that they must be met only at IOTE(Initial Operational Test and Evaluation), just before full-rate production. Reliability requirements require time to accumulate data, and interoperability/net-ready requirements with not be met until IOTE around 2010, in order to avoid “freezing in” an obsolete system or spec.
• U.S. Defense Technical Information Center, Navy Program elements for 2005 (0603611M) – EXHIBIT R-2a, RDT&E Project Justification re: EFV.

Other Readings

• James Hasik (Jan 22/14) – Rethinking the problem of the next amphibious assault vehicle—an update
• Aviation Week Ares (March 3/11) – Marine Amphib Upgrades Coming Fast and Furious. Describes some options in the wake of the EFV’s cancellation.
• DoD Buzz (Nov 24/10) – Cancel Marines’ EFV Already: Analysts
• USMC (March 12/09) – Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle – Failure not an option. By Lt. Gen. George J. Flynn, Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, Marine Corps Base Quantico.
• Information Dissemination (March 19/09) – To EFV or not to EFV, That is not the Question
• USNI Proceedings magazine (November 2008) – A Poster Child for Next-War-Itis
• Defense News (March 14/07) – US. Marine EFV Delivery Delayed to 2015 and Costs Double
• Washington Post (Feb. 7/07) – Problems Stall Pentagon’s New Fighting Vehicle. Discusses some of the reliability issues: “The Marine Corps has tried to deal with some of its development problems by lowering its expectations for the vehicle. The service originally wanted a craft that could operate 70 hours between major breakdowns, but it cut that target to 43.5 hours after tests revealed the vehicles were struggling to meet the higher goal. But even the lower targets have been hard to hit. Marine Corps officials were distressed to discover that the prototypes encountered an “operational mission failure” on average every 4.5 hours in tests last year. There were 645 failures within the subsystems, overwhelming the three-man maintenance crew, according to a report by the service’s testing agency. “It’s a very complex vehicle; when it breaks, it’s difficult to repair,” said Col. Michael Bohn, director of the Marine Corps testing agency.”
• DID (Nov 7/06) – The US Marines’ EFV Program: Current State Report, November 2006. Describes the OpEval issues with the EFV in more detail, and discusses changes in the number of EFVs planned, based on interviews with the program office.
• DID (April 6/06) – $44.4M more to Complete EFV Amphibious Vehicle’s SDD Phase.
• Philadelphia Inquirer (Aug 4/05) – Vulnerable: Vehicle lacks armor in undercarriage. They’re talking about the Amtracs, and note the issues this has presented in Iraq.
• DID (May 25/05) – New Embedded Computing Architecture Addresses Obsolescence. If you plan to keep the EFVs around for 30 years, the computing architecture inside them will need to keep up. This proposed approach created some difficulties, however, as our update explains.
• DC Military (Jan. 9/04) – Latest Version of Marine Corps’ Amphibious Fighting Vehicle Goes Further, Faster
• U.S. Navy League, Sea Power Magazine (Nov. 2003) – EFV Brings Improved Range, Lethality to Marines
• D-N-I (July 11/01) – Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle: Cold-War Dinosaur or Techno Revolution for the 21st Century? In large part, a criticism of the EFV that sees a flawed concept, and its travails as the inevitable result of its basic performance requirements.
• Marine Corps University Command and Staff College (1995) – Can We Afford the AAAV? by Major M. M. Brogan, United States Marine Corps.
• Mofet Etzion – Heavy Vehicle Armor. Their LIBA ceramic composite vehicle armor mostly reaches customers through General Dynamics Land Systems, who uses variants of it in the Stryker and Pandur vehicles as well as the EFV. It is also available for BAE Systems’ M113, among others.
• US MARCORSYSCOM – Marine Personnel Carrier
• Globalsecurity.org – AAV7A1 Assault Amphibian Vehicle (AAV RAM/RS). Describes the previous modernization program.
• DID FOCUS Article – Double-Jointed & Popular: The Bv Family of Infantry Support Vehicles. Covers the Bv206 and BvS-10 family of vehicles, which are used by a number of forces worldwide and serve as the British and Dutch Marines’ primary amphibious armored vehicles. These vehicles are not competitors to the EFV; rather, they represent a different philosophy.

Doosan K21 concept
(click to view full)

South Korea is steadily becoming a force to be reckoned with in the global defense market. Its world-leading shipyards are successfully building and and delivering vessels that include KDX-III AEGIS destroyers and Dokdo Class LHD amphibious assault ships. Its aerospace firms are beginning to see orders from the ROKAF and beyond for trainer (KT-1, T-50) aircraft, are partnering with Eurocopter to create a new medium helicopter (KHP), and will soon offer a compelling lightweight fighter (F/A-50). On land, the indigenous K1A1 tank was followed by the XK-2 “Black Panther,” which was exported to Turkey as the Altay. The K9/K10 mobile howitzer offering is expected to grab a significant chunk of that global market over the next decade. Now, a modern Infantry Fighting Vehicle looks set to round out those offerings.

Doosan is a large Korean conglomerate, whose best known brand is probably Bobcat construction equipment. Other offerings range the gamut, including South Korea’s Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets, Doosan Feed agricultural supplies, franchised “Donga” private schools; and the new Doosan DST subsidiary, which manufactures the K21 KNIFV(Korea Next-generation Infantry Fighting Vehicle). October 2008 saw the first major order placed, and now the first deliveries have taken place…

• K21 KNIFV: Characteristics
  
• K21 KNIFV: Contracts and Key Events
  
• Additional Readings
  

K21 KNIFV: Characteristics

The competition: M2
(click to view full)

The K21 leans toward the light end of the IFV spectrum, at 26 tonnes (about 28.67 tons), thanks in part to a chassis that will reportedly be built out of fiberglass. In addition to weight savings, this may avoid some of the mine lethality problems experienced by vehicles that use aluminum, which quickly becomes molten and creates additional hazards. As a point of comparison, the Bradley M2A3 and its aluminum chassis weigh about 33.5 tons, before reactive armor tiles are added. Doosan states that the K21 can travel at speeds of up to 70 km/h (about 42 mph) on land and 7 km/h (about 4-5 mph) in water, about the same as BAE’s M2 Bradley.

It will carry a crew of 3, plus up to 9 troops.

The vehicle is expected to share some systems with its companion, the new K2 Black Panther tank. An improved version of the K21’s D2840LXE V-10 turbocharged diesel engine is expected to equip the K2, and the vehicles are expected to share a semi-active in-arm suspension. Other expected commonalities, aside from standardized C4I equipment like Korea’s chosen battle management system, include an “active defense” system against incoming rockets ad anti-armor missiles. An unspecified armoring system that is expected to use a layered composite made of multiple different materials, but little is known except the fact that Doosan’s goal was a vehicle that could match the survivability of America’s M2 Bradleys and Russia’s BMP-3s. The fuel tanks are reportedly soft and self-sealing, in order to help absorb the impact of a projectile or blast. Automatic fire suppressors and other standard equipment will also be fitted.

Armament will include a stabilized 40mm cannon and coaxial 7.62mm machine gun for fire-on-the-move accuracy, along with the ability to mount 2 anti-tank missiles in a side box launcher. Doosan, which also plans to make missiles, refers to a “third generation Korean-made tank-to-tank missile in the future, which will allow it to attack tanks and helicopters.” That armament will be controlled by a “hunter/killer” arrangement that uses independent sensors and sights for the commander and the gunner, similar to Germany’s Puma IFV and the M2A3/M3A3 Bradley.

Wikipedia reports the current estimated cost of the vehicle at approximately KRW 3.2 billion. Exchange rates fluctuate, but if true, and if that price remains stable, it would be about $2.3 million per vehicle at March 2009 rates.

The firm intends to seek exports around the globe, which means it will compete with BAE’s powerhouse M2/M3 Bradley and CV90 offerings, Russia’s BMP-3, Singapore’s Bionix, and to some extent with Germany’s Puma at the high end of the tracked IFV market. It will also compete indirectly with wheeled APC/IFV options like General Dynamics MOWAG’s Piranha/LAV family, General Dynamics Steyr’s Pandur II, Patria of Finland’s popular AMV, France’s VBCI, and the German-Dutch Boxer MRAV.

K21 KNIFV: Contracts and Key Events

K21 in Seoul, 2007
(click to view full)

February 26/17: L-3 Technologies has won a $17.3 million contract to provide South Korea with 800-horsepower transmission kits. The kits will power Seoul’s next-generation K21 infantry fighting vehicles as well as their fleet of light recovery vehicles. Designed by Hanwha Defense Systems to replace the current fleet of K200 armored transport vehicles, the K21 weighs 20% lighter than its predecessor and is armed with a 105mm turret weapon.

Nov 27/09: Doosan DST holds a ceremony at its Changwon Plant to mark the first shipment of K-21 infantry combat armed vehicles. The vehicles are scheduled to enter service by the end of 2009. Doosan DST CEO Um Hang-seok has high ambitions for the vehicle, and said in the release:

“We are very proud that the K-21 infantry armed vehicle, a state-of-the-art weapon that has been developed and produced exclusively by us, will take root as the mainstay of the Korean military’s combat capability. We will seek to export the K-21 to many countries around the world, and develop Doosan DST into a leading global defense supplier that is representative of Korea.”

March 23/09: Northrop Grumman’s LITEF navigation systems subsidiary in Freiburg, Germany announces a contract from Doosan DST Co., Ltd. to deliver LLN-G1 inertial navigation units for the K21 IFV.

LLN-G1 is a hybrid land navigation system based on state-of-the-art fiber optic gyros and LITEF’s micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) accelerometer. Combining inertial sensors with an odometer and GPS data, the LLN-G1 provides accurate and unjammable three-dimensional position and attitude data for vehicle commanders and crews.

Jan 5/09: Doosan DST, which was established in December 2008, has its inaugural ceremony. The new spin-off, which is 100% owned by Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd., has been founded at a 200,000 square meter property in Seongju-dong, Changwon, Gyeongsangnam-do. The new firm has 650 employees, 100 billion won in paid-in capital, a 58% debt ratio, and 495.2 billion won in annual sales.

Doosan DST looks set to focus on combat vehicles, ground-to-air and guided weapons, and precision equipment. The firm intends to be an active exporter. Doosan release.

Nov 12/08: Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. announces that it plans to split its defense business off into a separate company. The firm plans to finish the procedure of splitoff and incorporation registration, through the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, by the end of 2008.

Oct 30/08: Doosan Infracore Co., Ltd. announces a 457.8 billion won ($327 million equivalent) contract with South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration, to supply the first batch of its K21 armored vehicles. Under the deal, the Company is set to begin deliveries in 2009.

Um Hang-seok, head of Doosan Infracore’s Defense Business Group, states the firm’s intentions:

“The K21 is far superior in performance to other equipment of its kind produced in advanced countries, and is competitive in terms of price. As such, we plan to actively seek its export to the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America.”

2005: A total of 11 defense equipment suppliers in Korea, including the government’s Agency for Defense Development and Doosan Infracore, work to produce 3 XK21 prototypes early in the year. Source.

Additional Readings

• Doosan DST – K21 (Infantry Fighting Vehicle)
• Wikipedia – K21

YouTube Video

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 5/17: The Turkish government has cancelled an engine development contract for the Altay main battle tank (MBT) with Tümosan after the company’s failure to secure a new design and development partner to replace AVL List GmbH from Austria. Tümosan’s need to find a new partner came about in January after they were forced by Ankara to cancel the deal with AVL List GmbH due to Turkey’s concerns with emerging political and regulatory issues in Austria, namely the Austrian government’s insistence on issuing export licenses with conditions. Speaking on the announcement, Tümosan cited reluctance from supplier governments to transfer technology and intellectual property and Turkey’s post-coup political events as major challenges in their ability to secure a new partner.

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.

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

March 21/17: Poland’s Jenoptik Defense & Civil Systems has been contracted $11.38 million to work as a subcontractor in support of Poland’s Leopard 2 main battle tank modernization program. Under the agreement, Jenoptik will provide 126 17-kilowatt auxiliary power units to Polish company ZM Bumar Labedy S.A., and an additional seven units to Rheinmetall Defense. Rheinmetall will receive ten electric turret and weapon stabilization systems that will be used to replace the hydraulic systems currently used to reduce heat generation inside the tank. Warsaw began the upgrade of their 126 Leopard 2 tanks in February 2016. Elsewhere, Polish and US tank operators recently began a series of tactical maneuvering exercises in preparation for an upcoming NATO training event, aimed at improving participants’ ability to shoot, move, and communicate with one another on the battlefield.

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.