Quantcast
Channel: Land Equipment | Defense Industry Daily
Viewing all 126 articles
Browse latest View live

TPQ-53 Counterfire Radars: Incoming… Where?

$
0
0
TPQ-53 concept
EQ-36 concept
(click to view full)

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

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

The TPQ-53 Counterfire Radar System

AN/TPQ-53 components
TPQ-53 components
(click to view full)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contracts and Key Events

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

FY 2014 – 2017

13 more for USA under MYP; Singapore’s export request.

AN/TPQ-53 vehicles
TPQ-53 system
(click to view full)

April 2/17: The US Army has awarded Lockheed Martin a $1.5 billion contract to produce and deploy the AN/TPQ-53 Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar System. Developed as a replacement for existing AN/TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder radar systems, the new radar is designed to detect, classify, track and determine the location of enemy artillery assets such as mortars, cannons and rockets. The service claims that once in place, the radars will provide increased mobility, reliability and performance.

June 29/16: Lockheed Martin’s AN/TPQ-53 counter-battery radar has proven that it can be used to detect unmanned aerial vehicles alongside its usual task of detecting incoming artillery and rocket fire. The company announced the success following testing carried out by the US Army as part of its Maneuver and Fires Integration Experiment (MFIX) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Conducted annually, the MFIX exercise brings together military, industry and academia to assess solutions to future warfighting needs in a live environment.

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

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

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

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

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

Oct 8/13: Singapore. The US DSCA announces Singapore’s export request for up to 6 AN/TPQ-53(V) Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar Systems (CTARS) with 120 degree sector scan capability, along with generators, power units, a simulator, a live fire exercise (!), tool and test equipment, spare and repair parts, repair & return services, software support, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, communication support equipment, personnel training, and other forms of US Government and contractor support. The estimated cost is up to $179 million.

Singapore would be the radar’s 1st export customer. Their forces do deploy abroad, where CTARS capability will be very useful. At home, the city-state’s small size also makes them inherently vulnerable if problems in neighboring countries should allow local terrorists to acquire ballistic rockets.

The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin in Syracuse, NY. If a sale is negotiated, they’ll need Government and contractor representatives in Singapore for 6 weeks to support equipment deprocessing/fielding, systems checkout and new equipment training. Source: US DSCA, Oct 8/13.

DSCA: Singapore

FY 2012 – 2013

Multi-year contract; Milestone C approval; Initial fielding; Future competition?

AUSA 2011
(click to view video)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 13/12: Multi-year contract. Lockheed Martin Mission System and Sensors in Liverpool, NY receives a $166 million firm-fixed-price contract for 12 “enhanced AN/TPQ-36” (now called AN/TPQ-53) radar systems, including spares, testing, and training materials.

This means that Lockheed Martin will be the producer for the EQ-36 program of record, which could rise to 136 systems. It’s also the 1st installment of a larger $881 million contract, which could end up buying up to 51 low-rate production systems, plus Limited User Test (LUT) and Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) services.

Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY, with an estimated completion date of Feb 28/17. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received. The US Army Contracting Command at Fort Monmouth, NJ manages the contract (W15P7T-12-C-C015). See also US Army PEO IEW&S, Aug 15/11 entry | Lockheed Martin.

Multi-year contract

February 2012: Despite the issues noted in the DOT&E report, the TPQ-53 radar receives Milestone C clearance, allowing it to go ahead to Low-Rate Initial Production. Source.

Milestone C

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

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

FY 2008 – 2011

1st delivery. New name.

EQ-36 on truck
TPQ-53 on truck
(click to view full)

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

Designation change

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

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

Aug 15/11: +3. A $91.5 million firm-fixed-price cost-plus-fixed-fee award modifies Lockheed Martin’s April 14/10 contract, raising it to 20 EQ-36 systems: 4 EQ-36 radar systems with armored Sustained Operation Group (SOG) and Mission Essential Group (MEG) equipment, and 16 EQ-36 systems with standard SOG and MEGs.

Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY, with an estimated completion date of July 30/12 (W15P7T-06-C-T004). By our records, this appears to raise the order total to 54 systems, though DOT&E figures place QRC buys at just 38 systems.

3 more systems

Oct 26/10: Deployment. Lockheed Martin announces that the U.S. Army has deployed the first AN/TPQ-36 (EQ-36) radars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Deployment

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

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

April 14/10: +17. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Syracuse, NY receives a sole-source $108.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 17 enhanced AN/TPQ-36 (EQ-36) radar systems, plus associated sustained operational group and mission essential group (MEG) non-recurring engineering and MEG installation. Work is to be performed in Syracuse, NY, with an estimated completion date of Oct 8/10. The US CECOM Acquisition Center in Fort Monmouth, NJ manages the contract (W15P7T-06-C-T004).

This award is made under an unfinalized contract, and commits 49% of the estimated final value. Lockheed Martin has confirmed to DID that this is a new radar order, which would make 34 radars ordered so far.

17 more Radars

July 2/09: 1st delivery. Lockheed Martin delivers the first EQ-36 Radar System to the U.S. Army on time, following successful live-fire performance testing against indirect fire from mortars, artillery and rockets this spring at the Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The effort also included engineering, contractor and government acceptance testing.

To accelerate the fielding of the EQ-36 radar, the U.S. Army in June 2008 exercised contract options with Lockheed Martin for 12 additional systems, which will include enhanced performance capabilities. With production for both orders now running in parallel, and the 12-radar order accelerated, all 17 of the EQ-36 systems are expected to be delivered by fall 2010. Lockheed Martin.

1st delivery

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

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

FY 2006 – 2008

SDD; CDR.

EQ-36 at Yuma
EQ-36 at Yuma
(click to view full)

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

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

March 2008: EQ-36 program successfully completes its Critical Design Review. Source.

CDR

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

October 2007: EQ-36 program successfully completes its Preliminary Design Review. Lockheed Martin.

Oct 9/07: Lockheed Martin unveils an EQ-36 prototype.

Rollout & PDR

Sept 27/06: Development + 5. Lockheed Martin’s contract win of up to $120 million, issued by the Army’s Program Executive Officer-Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors (PEO-IEW and S).

The original release says that the company is directed to provide the Army with 5 Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 radars, within 36 months (W15P7T-06-C-T004). Subsequent conversations with Lockheed Martin reveal that this stage included just 4. The firm uses key technology from the MMR ATO program, especially the antenna/ emitter. Lockheed Martin release.

SDD

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

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

Additional Readings

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

Competitors and predecessors include…


Despite Problems, UK Moves Ahead with $376M Bowman Radio Upgrade

$
0
0
ELEC_Bowman_Radios_on_British_Army.jpg
Bowman radios
(click to view full)

The UK’s Bowman tactical communications system, which replaced the aging Clansman system, has encountered some problems with troops deployed in Afghanistan. The Bowman radios carried by the soldiers have a short battery life and are heavy. There is also a shortage of ancillary equipment, such as antennas and speakers, according to a May 14/09 report by the UK National Audit Office (NAO).

As DID reported earlier, a 2006 NAO report had identified a number of serious problems with the Bowman system resulting from the radical changes in communications technology and needs since the program was conceived in the 1980s. The report identified as issues the vast growth in bandwidth requirements due to UAVs et. al. transmitting video, the need for far greater capabilities without providing more money, the lack of robustness and modifiability in its closed architecture software systems, the effects of Bowman’s lack of definition on training and doctrine, and the effects of the program on the decimated British tactical radio industry.

Despite these problems, the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) recently awarded 2 contracts worth £231 million ($376 million) to prime contractor General Dynamics UK to upgrade the Bowman system.

DID has more on the Bowman system upgrades…

The Bowman system has been developed and integrated by General Dynamics UK into over 13,000 British Army vehicles, together with headquarters, ships, and helicopters. The MOD recently purchased an additional 2,139 radios, with an option for a further 437, in order to meet the demands of current operations and their associated training needs.

Under the new contracts, General Dynamics UK will provide improved performance and sustainability, increased quantities of equipment to meet shortages, improvements to planning and system management applications, improved interoperability with other UK and allied systems, and improved combat infrastructure platform (CIP) support.

The first contract, known as Capability Release 1.5, is worth £119 million ($194 million) and will update and refresh the system’s capabilities over its lifetime to reflect advances in technology. The second contract, valued at £112 million ($182 million), will provide longer term technical support for the Bowman program, including repair, field services and provision of spares. The work will help sustain several hundred jobs at the General Dynamics’ Oakdale site in South Wales, UK.

To beef up the ancillary equipment, General Dynamics last month ordered $16 million worth of radios and equipment from subcontractor ITT Defence. The company supplies VHF and UHF radios, associated networking equipment and the data backbone for the Bowman system. The radios are manufactured at ITT’s Basingstoke, UK facility.

Updates

April 9/17: General Dynamics has been picked by the UK to design and develop next-generation battlefield communication systems. The $409 million contract is part of the MoD’s Morpheus Project, an effort launched to address critical system obsolescence and procure more advanced Tactical Communication and Information Systems for the British Army; allowing British warfighters to integrate new radios and other communication platforms faster and more easily. Under the agreement, GD will implement the Evolve to Open approach, which will modify existing Bowman communication systems into an open, modular platform.

June 23/15: The British Ministry of Defence is looking to develop a replacement for the problematic Bowman radio system. The MoD has invited academics and industry to suggest new solutions to land and littoral communications, with the project known as Morpheus. The hope is that innovative solutions will be borne from the open discussion and collaboration, with this likely to form the basis of the MoD’s procurement strategy for the UK Armed Forces’ new communications system over the next three decades.

FMTV 2010-2017: Pyrrhic Victories? Oshkosh Wins The Re-Compete

$
0
0
medium tactical vehicles
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 8x8 ILHS
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

FMTV Oshkosh
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.

FY 2015-2017

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.

FY 2012

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.

FY 2011

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.

FY 2010

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.”

FY 2009

GAO Logo

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

Turkey & South Korea’s Altay Tank Project

$
0
0
XK2 demo
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

Altay testing
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

Otokar

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 Flag

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.

2016 – 2017

Altay unveiling
Altay unveiled
(click to view full)

April 13/17: Despite issues with gaining certain technology transfers for the Altay, Turkey could begin serial production of the main battle tank as early as this May, according to Defense Minister Fikri Isik. Pakistan and some Gulf nations are believed to be lined up as potential customers for the vehicle. Talk of potential delays to the Altay surfaced when local contractor Tümosan was unable to continue working on providing a domestic diesel engine for the tank, after Austria’s AVL List GmbH, which it had as a technical support partner, ceased working with the Turkish firm amid concerns that the Turkish government were sliding on human rights issues. It now looks like Ankara may instead turn to Ukraine for help, with the Altay possibly adopting the Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau’s (KMDB) 1,500 hp 6TD-3 diesel engine.

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.

2011 – 2014

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.

Nov 15/12: With about $500 million invested in development to date, Otokar officially rolls out its first 2 Altay tank prototypes at its Sakarya plant. Prototype #1 is already in use for mobility tests, with over 2,000km of mileage under its treads. Prototype #2 will be used for firing tests. Any changes will feed back into the design and construction of prototypes #3-4.

Kudret ONEN, Head of Koc Holding Defence Industry Group and Otokar’s Chairman of the Board, says that the project currently has 550 engineers (260 at Otokar), and nearly 100 subcontractors. Mass production is still promised for 2015. Otokar [in Turkish].

Rollout

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

2005 – 2010

XK2 demo
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.

July 30/08: Representatives of the Turkish and South Korean governments sign the $400 million System Design & Development Memorandum of Understanding, making the Altay tank project a reality. This contract does not include the mass production process. The South Korean Defense Ministry added that:

“The signing of the contract on the ROK-Turkey technology cooperation in tank development is expected to greatly help boost the cooperation between the two countries in the defense industry sector, while the Ministry of Defense and the DAPA plan to provide full support to ensure smooth technology cooperation throughout the entire process of tank development from designing to production and testing.

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Lee held ministerial talks with his Turkish counterpart in Ankara on July 28/08, in which the two agreed to continue building a cooperative relationship between their militaries…”

See: ROK Ministry of Defense | Otokar Aug 1/08 release | KOIS | Korea Times |Turkish Daily News (beforehand) | Turkish Daily News (post-deal) | Today’s Zaman (Turkey) | Aviation Week Ares | Agence France Presse.

Altay Development MoU

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.

July 2006: RFP bids are submitted by Otokar’s team, and by the BMC-FNSS Consortium.

FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.S. makes some of Turkey’s armored personnel carriers; it is a joint venture between BAE Systems and the Turkish Nurol Group. BMC Sanaye Ve Ticaret A.S. makes wheeled vehicles and trucks for the Turkish armed forces, and is part of the large Turkish conglomerate Cukurova Holding.

February 2006: SSM issues the project’s Request for Proposals.

RFP

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

I Am Iron Man…?

$
0
0

Most military programs don’t coordinate news releases with major motion pictures. With Iron Man in theaters and getting reviews that may get DID’s staff to go see it, Raytheon is taking the time to promote its US Army-funded exoskeleton suit. Originally funded under a 7-year, $75 million DARPA program, the suite has now gone on to the next stage under a 2-year, $10 million follow-on Army grant:

The problem they’re trying to address is no stunt. The weight of a soldier’s equipment easily approaches 80-100 pounds, far higher than the 30 pounds recommended for maximum mobility. As we load our soldiers down with more technical gadgets, that weight tends to go up, not down. The USA and Japan are only a couple of the countries working on aspects of a mechanical exoskeleton that would give its wearers vastly improved strength and endurance. While Japanese demographic and cultural trends in particular are giving concepts like individual soldier augmentation a push, we can still expect a very long wait before we see exoskeletons that can deliver the required performance to justify their cost, can handle military conditions, and can be maintained in the field at reasonable cost. It’s far more likely that first fielding, if there is one, will involve more limited use by disabled soldiers, or be used like Cyberdyne Japan’s HAL-5 in private, para-public, and first responder roles. Raytheon release | Raytheon feature | Popular Science [PDF].

Updates

April 13/17: Lockheed Martin has secured legal permission to explore the potential use of exoskeleton technology for the military market. The firm secured licensing of bionic augmentation technology from B-Temia and will incorporate it to supplement its FORTIS industrial exoskeleton project. Designed to make labor easier by transferring pressure through the exoskeleton to the ground in a process that makes heavy tools “weightless,” the system requires no external power to operate, and can boost military capabilities by enabling soldiers to carry more equipment over longer distances. The product can be used in standing or kneeling positions, and uses a tool arm to reduce muscle fatigue and boost productivity.

Vietnam’s Restocking: Subs, Ships, Sukhois, and Now Perhaps F-16s and P-3s?

$
0
0
SSK Kilo
Kilo Class cutaway
(click to view full)

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

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

Vietnam’s New Military Buys: Considerations & Conclusions

short SEO-friendly description
Southeast Asia
(click to view full)

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

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

Key Platforms

Submarines

Kilo to China
Kilo Class for China
(click to view full)

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

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

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

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

Other Naval

HQ-011: Gepard Class SuW frigate
Dinh Tien Hoang
(click to view full)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air Force: SU-30MKs, and…?

Su-30MK2 weapon options
SU-30MK2 weapons
(click to view full)

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

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

Contracts and Key Events

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

2014 – 2017

April 18/17: A delegation from Vietnam’s Defense Ministry has visited the Kazan Helicopter plant in Russia, amid expressions of interest in procuring a number of civilian and military model helicopters for the South-east Asian nation. Models being sought include the Mi-17V-5, Mi-38 and Ansat helicopters, and the visit to the plant was in order to discuss terms of delivery. Vietnam has been in talks with several nations, including India and the US, over acquisitions of new defense platforms and training, as it looks to beef up capabilities to deter against neighboring China.

June 28/16: While the lifting of the US arms embargo on Vietnam may have led some to believe there would be an immediate rush to purchase US hardware, Hanoi seems more interested in acquiring weaponry from Japan instead. Kawasaki Heavy Industries’s P-3C maritime patrol aircraft, a license built version of the Lockheed Martin P-3 Orion, is currently being swapped out for the newer indigenous P-1 and offers a cheaper alternative to getting them second-hand from Lockheed Martin. Another advantage Vietnam hopes to tap into is Japan’s expertise in operating the P-3. The JMSDF has deployed its P-3s to Danang, Vietnam for exercises, and the Vietnamese have experience working with Japanese crew.

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

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

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

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

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

Testing “Lightning” ships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feb 27/14: Frigates. Vietnam has reportedly ordered 2 more Gepard Class/ Project 11661K frigates from Russia’s Gorky Shipyard, which will bring their fleet to 6.

None of the announcements discuss terms, or mention which variant Vietnam is buying this time. The small 2,100t frigates have space limitations, which forces some role-based equipment tradeoffs. Current orders involve 2 Gepards ordered in 2006 and optimized for surface strike with anti-ship missiles (q.v. March 5/11), plus 2 frigates ordered in 2011 and equipped as anti-submarine specialists (q.v. Dec 7/11). There have been unconfirmed reports that subsequent ships would add Russia’s SA-17 derived 3S90E Shtil-1 naval anti-aircraft missile system, providing much wider air defense out to 50 km. Sources: Vietnam.NET, “First of a New Class Patrol Ships Laid Down at Zelenodolsky Shipyard in Russia” | Defense Update, “First of a New Class Patrol Ships Laid Down at Zelenodolsky Shipyard in Russia” | Defense Studies, “Second Batch of Gepard Equipped with Sthil-1 Missile”.

2 more frigates

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

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

T-90 tank firing
T-90
(click to view full)

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

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

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

Jan 3/13: Submarines. HQ-183 Hanoi is unloaded from the Dutch Rolldock Sea carrying vessel into Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam. Sources: Vietnam.NET, “In pictures: Hanoi submarine arrives at Cam Ranh port” | Thanh Nien, “First Russian-made submarine arrives in Vietnam” (also several pictures) | Vietnam.NET, “Vietnam’s most modern submarine launched” | Taiwan’s Want China Times, “Vietnam receives its first Russian Kilo-class submarine”.

1st sub arrives

2012 – 2013

12 more SU-30MK2s; Kh-35 anti-ship missile partnership; Singapore partnership for submarine rescue; Vietnam will need help with training and maintenance.

Kh-35 MAKS 2009
Kh-35E/ SS-N-25
(click to view full)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sept 6/13: Submarines. Singapore and Vietnam sign a Memorandum of Agreement regarding submarine rescue. If there’s an accident involving a Vietnamese submarine, Singapore’s 85m, 4,300t submarine rescue and support ship MV Swift Rescue will steam over with its submersible rescue vessel, Deep Search and Rescue Six (DSAR 6).

Singapore operates its own set of ex-Swedish diesel-electric submarines: 4 old but modernized and “tropicalized” Challenger/ Sjoormen Class boats, and 2 modern Archer/ Vastergotland Class Air Independent Propulsion boats that received similar treatment. Sources: RSN – Assets – Ships | RSN – Assets – Submarines | Singapore MINDEF, “Republic of Singapore Navy and Vietnam People’s Navy Sign Submarine Rescue Memorandum of Agreement”.

Submarine rescue agreement

August 21/13: SU-30s. Interfax and RIA Novosti report, and Vietnam confirms, that a new contract signed earlier this month will lead to the delivery of another batch of 12 SU-30MK2s by 2015. When added to 2 earlier contracts, Vietnam’s SU-30MK2 fleet will rise to 32 fighters.

Sources differ in their reporting of this contract’s value, worth $450 million or $600 million depending on whom you ask. The higher value is similar to the previous batch of 12 planes, and is probably the fully-loaded cost with support and parts, but excluding weapons. This is about the level of detail you can publicly expect from such countries. Communist Party of Vietnam.

12 SU-30MK2s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feb 15/12: Kh-35. RIA Novosti reports that Vietnam will begin joint production of a modified SS-N-25 Switchblade/ Kh-35 Uran subsonic anti-ship missile, whose base characteristics are similar to the American xGM-84 Harpoon. The project is described as similar to joint Russian-Indian production of the PJ-10 BrahMos missile, which was derived from the supersonic SS-N-26 Yakhont.

The Kh-35 can be launched from Ka-27 naval helicopters, ships, or shore batteries, but haven’t been integrated with Vietnam’s new SU-30MK model fighters, or its forthcoming Kilo Class submarines. Even so, this joint venture will give Vietnam assured low-cost production and support for an important element of naval deterrence in the South China Sea.

The Kh-35 looks set to become Vietnam’s mainstay anti-ship missile for its navy, and a joint project also gives them a base to make changes. India undertook to integrate Brahmos with its Su-30MKI fighters, for example, and Vietnam’s air force may have similar plans for their modified Kh-35 project. The urge to use locally-built weapons in new ships also seems to be deep-seated. Kilo Class submarines are already configured for 3M54 Klub family (SS-N-27) missiles, and only time will tell what the Vietnamese plan to do with this shared technology.

KH-35 missile partnership

2009 – 2011

Vietnam orders 6 Improved Kilo Class subs, 12 SU-30MK2 fighters, 2 Gepard Class ASW frigates; 2 Gepard/ Dinh Tien Hoang Class surface warfare frigates delivered; Vietnam begins building Molniya FACs locally; China’s underwater neighborhood getting crowded.

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

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

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

2 more Gepard Class frigates

Oct 25/11: FACs. Vietnam is beginning to get assembly kits and components for its Molniya/ Project 12418 missile-armed fast attack craft. They’re working under the technical supervision of the “Almaz” Central Maritime Design Bureau in St. Petersburg, and the OJSC Vympel shipbuilding plant. Russia has built 2 for Vietnam, and Vietnam is building its first 4 boats of class, with an option for 4 more. The ships are small, at just 550t full load, but they pack a very dangerous set of 4 Moskit/ SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missiles, or 8 of the sub-sonic Kh-35E anti-ship missiles.

Deliveries of parts to Vietnam, which began in 2010 under a $30 million contract, will continue through 2016. ITAR-TASS (Google Translate).

Vietnam begins assembling FAC boats

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

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

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

March 5/11: Frigates. The Vietnamese Navy officially accepts the 1st Gepard class frigate from Russia, naming it the Dinh Tien Hoang, after the first Vietnamese emperor. Vietnam became the class’ 1st export order with a contract for 2 ships in December 2006, and the HQ-011 Dinh Tien Hoang was launched in August 2009. HQ-012 Ly Thai To, the 2nd frigate in the order, was launched in March 2010, and has been in sea trials since August 2010.

The Gepard 3.9 ships are a combined diesel-turbine export version of Russia’s Project 11611 (Tartarstan) frigates, which serve in the Caspian fleet. The 102m/ 2,100t design sits in the grey area between small frigates and large corvettes, and despite their 5,000nm endurance, they’re best suited to local maritime patrol and interdiction. Their stealth-enhanced ship design and sub-sonic Kh-35E anti-ship missiles make them potentially dangerous adversaries in littoral regions, and other armament includes 76mm and 30mm guns, 533mm torpedoes, depth charges, and a 9K33M “OSA-M”/SS-N-4 missile system for air defense. This size and weapons array may not be much to get excited about, relative to other international frigate designs, but it will make them Vietnam’s most capable combat ships. DatViet report [Google translate] | AvWeek Ares.

Gepard Class frigate accepted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 SU-30s & 6 Improved Kilo submarines

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Readings

News and Views

France Finally Kickstarts Scorpion Land Vehicle Acquisition

$
0
0
Griffon 2014 concept - MINDEF
Griffon

In 2009 France was planning to start delivering by 2015 new multirole armored vehicles to replace a variety of aging infantry vehicles starting, within a large modernization program called Scorpion. But the 2010-14 multiyear budget relied on a number of rosy assumptions that were soon disproved by reality, and the Scorpion program was one of the mismatch’s casualties, along with plans to start working on a second aircraft carrier.

Promises were made again in the next 5-year budget plan, while maintenance costs kept increasing to sustain vehicles offering an underwhelming mix of limited protection, autonomy, and mobility. French defense manufacturers also started to sound the alarm as Scorpion became increasingly vital to prevent factory closures. The French DGA defense procurement agency paid heed to their plea and issued a tender limited to national manufacturers. By the end of 2014 the ministry of defense finally initiated the 1st procurement tranche of a program expected to last beyond 2025.

On one hand, the expected turnaround from prototype to delivery in 4 to 6 years is tight and will put pressure on contractors, though they started some early conceptual work in 2010. On the other hand this still amounts to a late and light production schedule for the rest of the decade.

The Scorpion Acquisition

VAB Ultima

This major program intends to rationalize a hodgepodge of aging land vehicles and systems while preserving France’s industrial base. The 2 main vehicles in this program share a common chassis and will offer protection from mines and IEDs and ballistic threats at NATO’s STANAG 4569 Level 4. There’s been no public information on engines yet.

Scorpion launch (in French)

The main components of the planned, full acquisition are:

  • 1,722 véhicules blindés multi rôles (VBMR)

Dubbed “Griffon”, VBMRs will replace Véhicules de l’avant blindé (VAB) 4×4 infantry carriers acquired starting in 1976 and upgraded in the late 90s. While the ubiquitous VAB turned into 36 variations, no more than a handful of VBMR variants should be created, between troop transport, medical, command/control, and artillery observation purposes.

The 6×6 designs will weight between 20 and 24 tons, with a remotely-operated 7.62mm or 12.7mm machine gun or a 40mm grenade launcher. Deliveries should reach 780 units by 2025. The infantry transport version will carry 8 troops in addition to the crew of 2.

  • 248 engins blindés de reconnaissance et de combat (EBRC)

Dubbed “Jaguar”, EBRCs will replace AMX10RC and Sagaie light tanks, as well as VABs in their HOT antitank configuration, to perform combat and reconnaissance missions. These legacy vehicles lost mobility and autonomy with upgrades, but their design remains vulnerable to current threats, and they have become expensive to maintain given their average age. VABs for instance grew from an initial 13 tons to about 16 tons in the latest Ultima configuration.

Jaguar is a 6×6 wheeled 25-ton design with a crew of 3. For armament it will be fitted with a 40mm cannon jointly developed by Nexter and BAE with a 1,500m reach, a remote-controlled 7.62mm machine gun, and MBDA’s MMP (3,500, reach). Deliveries should reach 110 units by 2025.

  • 358 lightweight VBMRs

This 10-ton 4×4 design will replace 4-ton Véhicules Blindés Légers (Light armored vehicles) procured since 1990. Deliveries between 2021 and 2025 should reach 200 vehicles.

  • The Système d’information du combat SCORPION (SICS)

This common communications platform will replace 6 separate legacy systems, starting in 2016.

  • 200 overhauled Leclerc XL tanks

This looks somewhat like an extraneous graft in this program, so that France doesn’t give up entirely on what’s left of its battle tank fleet.

Contracts and Events

April 26/17: The French government has placed orders for two types of newly-designed armored vehicle platforms as part of the SCORPION program. Thales, Nexter, and Renault Trucks Defense will deliver over 300 models of the Griffon, a 6×6 multi-role personnel carrier, and the 6×6 Jaguar, which is armed with a 40mm gun and anti-tank missiles. The exact order by the French procurement agency, DGA, for 319 Griffons and 19 Jaguars, comes just after 27 months of vehicle development. Paris is likely to use the Griffon to replace the VAB Hot personnel carriers currently used by the French Army, while the Jaguar will replace the army’s wheeled light tanks.

June 14/16: The French government has pledged $6.7 billion over 11 years for the Army’s Scorpion modernization program, with more being sought by both the Army and industry members involved. Aspects of the program include the delivery of 780 Griffon multirole troop carriers and 248 units of the light multirole Jaguar combat vehicle by 2020. Also included is an upgrade of the Leclerc tank, a battle management system, crew training with onboard 3D simulation, and maintenance.

Dec. 5/2014: Development contract. French Defense Minister Jean-Yves le Drian announces the phase 1 award in the Scorpion program, in line with commitments made in the 2014-19 defense budget planning law known as LPM. This 1st tranche, worth €752 million ($932M). Deliveries will start in 2018. Nexter, Thales and Renault Trucks Defense (RTD) have partnered to form a temporary consortium for the purpose of this program. Safran will provide optronics, and as noted above, CTA International (a Nexter-BAE joint venture) and MBDA will contribute the most significant weapon systems.

Phase 1

Jan. 16/2014: Préférence nationale. Les Echos reports that the DGA procurement agency restricted its tender to French manufacturers, and cited article 346 of the European Union Treaty to exclude bids from other member states.

Sources: Les Echos: Blindés : l’armée lance un appel d’offres de plus de 2 milliards d’euros | EDA: Article 346 of the TFEU.

Nov. 9/2011: industrial team. Nexter and Renault Truck Defense sign a cooperation agreement to jointly manufacture VBMRs.

Feb. 22/2010: initial decision. An inter-ministerial investment commission approves the start of Scorpion’s research and development phase.

Readings and Sources

Flexible G/ATORs: The USMC’s Multi-Mission AESA Ground Radars

$
0
0

G-ATOR Multiradar Diorama

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.

CH-53E HMMWV Underslung

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

Schiebel S-100 & FASGW-L missiles

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

AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR: Program Dashboard

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.

AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR: Program Timeline

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

AN/TPS-63 TASR

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

AN/APG-81

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

AN/TPS-80 G/ATor, Full System

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.

gold

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

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.

EQ-36 on truck

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.

FY 2014 – 2017

LRIP contracts begin; Tracking works well, but TPS-80 has reliability issues; 3DELRR loss is appealed; Contract to examine TPS-80 as a ship radar; G/ATOR to get BMD capability?

TPS-80 G/ATOR team

Oorah!
(click to view full)

May 11/17: The USMC has received external link its first low rate initial production (LRIP) AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) system. Developed and produced by Northrop Grumman, five additional systems will be delivered under the terms of the October 2014 contract. G/ATOR will replace five legacy systems operated by the Marines, providing significant improvements in performance when compared with the legacy radar families in each of its modes. The systems take advantage of Northrop’s expertise in C4ISR, and includes software loads that optimize the multi-mission capabilities of the radar to perform each mission.

December 6/16: As part of efforts to upgrade USMC radar capabilities, Saab has received an $18.6 million contract to provide supporting AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar components. The contract was awarded by lead contractor Northrop Grumman, work will include major subsystem delivery and assembly in addition to software for the next 9 low-rate initial production units. Saab delivered the first six systems for the program in previous contracts. Its next deliveries are expected to begin in 2018.

September 8/16: Northrop Grumman is to produce and deliver nine AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) AESA air defense radar systems to the USMC. The manufacturer already had an order for six G/ATORs under the low rate initial production (LRIP) phase, this latest contract brings the total number ordered to 15. It’s expected that the first AN/TPS-80 will be delivered in February 2017.

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 23/14: A $207.3 million contract modification for 4 G/ATOR low-rate initial production systems, including operating spares, contractor engineering services and support, developmental and operational test support, and transition to production. $175.6 million is committed immediately, using FY 2013 and 2014 USMC RDT&E and Procurement funds; $94.7 million will expire on Sept 30/15.

Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, Maryland (55%); East Syracuse, NY (24%); Stafford Springs, CT (5%); San Diego, CA (5%); Big Lake, MN (3%); Londonderry, NH (2%); High Point, North Carolina (2%); Wallingford Center, CT (2%); Camarillo, CA (1%); and Woodbridge, IL (1%), and is expected to be complete by October 2017 (M67854-07-C-2072).

4 LRIP radars

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”.

Oct 6/14: Raytheon wins. Raytheon is on quite the radar streak lately, adding the USAF’s 3DELRR area air and missile defense radar to its naval AMDR win.

3DELRR loss, and appeal

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.”

January 2014: Milestone C approval is given to the AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR Block 1 radar, which allows low-rate initial production contracts to begin. Sources: GAO-13-294SP, “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” (q.v. March 31/14).

Milestone C

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.

FY 2010 – 2013

System development extended; Testing begins; Increment II begins.

AN/TPS-80 G-ATOR REG

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).

May 24/13: SAR. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/12 Selected Acquisitions Report [PDF]. The news isn’t good for the G/ATOR program, which is shrinking sharply, again, even as the number of Marines has risen. G/ATOR numbers have now shrunk by about 30% since the program’s inception:

“Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) – Program costs decreased $912.1 million (-27.4%) from $3,325.9 million to $2,413.8 million, due primarily to a decrease in quantity of 12 systems from 57 to 45 systems (-$464.0 million) and associated estimating allocation (+$0.9 million) and a revised cost estimate for anticipated production efficiencies associated with funded design investments (-$447.0 million). Other decreases were attributable to a reduction in support costs (-$52.2 million) and initial spares requirements (-$12.9 million) resulting from investment in efficiencies and economic order discounts. These decreases were partially offset by increases to the cost estimates for investments in the production efficiency initiative (+$33.3 million) and technology refresh assumptions and associated potential future change orders (+$18.8 million), and the application of revised escalation indices (+$27.5 million).”

SAR – another radar cut

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 7/11: Testing. Northrop Grumman announces that they’ve integrated all subsystems of the AN/TPS-80 Ground / Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) system. This 1st complete system is currently undergoing system-level integration, performance, and live target testing at the company’s Electronic Systems sector engineering and manufacturing complex, located next to Baltimore’s Washington International Marshall Airport.

As noted above, G/ATOR’s subsystems include the Radar Equipment Group (REG, AESA antenna and all associated control and processing electronics) mounted on a lightweight tactical trailer, the Communications Equipment Group (CEG) and the Power Equipment Group (PEG).

1st complete G/ATOR I

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.

January 2010: G/ATOR program is re-baselined due to cost and requirements growth. Source: GAO.

Re-baselined

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).

Nov 16/09: More SDD. A $44.5 million modification under previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract. It increases the estimated cost ceiling for the G/ATOR’s SDD phase, target cost, and target cost plus target fee of contract line item number 0001 by $17.5 million to reflect “undefinitized change orders for the UPX40,” which is an identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD (75%), and Syracuse, NY (25%), and is expected to be complete on Sept 15/11. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

That alternation also confirms a change in G/ATOR’s intended towing vehicle, from Humvee jeeps to up-armored MTVR medium trucks. Experiences in Iraq caused the Marines to re-think their intended use of Humvees, and their MTVR trucks with TAK-4 suspension for all-terrain mobility were the natural next step up. The change would improve the radar’s mobility and survivability, at the cost of added weight and limited helicopter portability. The radar module itself will remain helicopter-portable, but its accompanying vehicle will not be – unless the USMC decides to mount G/ATOR on a modified M-ATV MRAP, or future vehicles like the JLTV Category C.

Another contract modification increases the estimated cost ceiling, target cost and target cost plus target fee of contract line item number 0001 by an additional $27 million, to reflect the estimated cost increase associated with the 9-month schedule extension (M67854-07-C-2072).

New vehicle platform

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.

FY 2006 – 2009

SDD re-award, after initial award canceled; Additional funds and cost overruns, incl. early finding for interaction design.

G-ATOR on Humvee

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 26/08: PDR. Northrop Grumman announces that G/ATOR has completed its 3 1/2 day Preliminary Design Review (PDR) at Northrop Grumman Corporation’s Electronic Systems sector headquarters, granting approval to proceed to critical design. The PDR involved an extensive U.S. government review and subsequent approval of the G/ATOR system and subsystem design for both hardware and software, including a program management review of cost and schedule.

The PDR was attended by more than 70 Marine Corps, Navy, Army, and other Department of Defense officials and civilian subject matter experts. NGC release.

PDR

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.

March 30/07: Northrop Grumman wins again, with a $256.6 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for System Development and Demonstration of the USMC’s Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR), Increment I. The contract includes a Radar Environmental Simulator (RES); alternative generator; the G/ATOR Technical Data Package; Model Driven Architecture Models; interim contractor logistics support; and performance based logistics; Other direct costs and travel; and engineering services and support.

The Pentagon DefenseLINK’s announcement also cites production of 2 G/ATOR Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) systems, and 13 full-rate production (FRP) G/ATOR systems. Northrop Grumman’s release cites 2 LRIP and 15 FRP systems. A 2012 change revised that to just 8 LRIP systems.

Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD (75%) and East Syracuse, NY (25%) and is expected to be complete in March 2016, if all options are exercised. This contract is a result of a full and open competition solicitation available to industry via the Navy Electronic Commerce Office, with 5 offers received (M67854-07-C-2072).

Main System Development

Sept 16/05: Initial SDD. A $7.95 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for the Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) Increment I system development and demonstration. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD (75%) and East Syracuse, NY (25%) and is expected to be complete September 2009. The award is a result of a full and open competition solicitation that was available via the Internet, with 5 offers received (M67854-05-C-2000).

Northrop Grumman’s Sept 22/05 release estimated the total value of the contract at $125 million over 4 years and 4 system capability increments. It doesn’t matter, because the award is protested, and the Navy decides to re-compete it.

Canceled SDD

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.

 

News & Views

 

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.

Israeli “SPYDER” Mobile Air Defense System – First India, now Vietnam

$
0
0

Spyder schema

SPYDER Mobile Firing Unit
(click to view full)

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

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

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

The SPYDER System

SPYDER SR/MR

SPYDER Systems
(click to view full)

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

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

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

Contracts and Key Events

SPYDER SR/MR

SPYDER MR vs. SR
(click to view full)

May 15/17: India has also tested the first of its newly acquired Spyder air-defense system. Three rounds of firing were conducted during the May 11 test, where both Surface-to-air Python and Derby (Spyder) missile system were fired against a Banshee unmanned aerial target made by Meggit PLC. New Delhi made moves to acquire a number of Spyder systems in a deal with Rafael and Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) after their indigenous system, the Akash, fell out of favor with military officials.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Readings

The Fighter Still Remains… The Boxer MRAV APC Family

$
0
0

Boxer MRAV Snow

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 MRAV Module Concept

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

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.

Boxer land trials

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

Boxer MRAV Ambulance

MRAV Ambulance
(click to view full)

July 7/17: Rheinmetall MAN Vehicles expects to receive a contract from ARTEC—the consortium behind the Boxer 8×8 vehicle—to modernize 38 of the armored vehicles for the German Army. ARTEC, a joint venture of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH, Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles GmbH and Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles Nederland, received the order from OCCAR, the European procurement agency in late June, in a deal that is in excess of $23.8 million. The deal will see the vehicles upgraded from the command variant to the A2 level, which requires changes to the vehicles’ chassis and mission modules. Other enhancements include advanced driver visualization technology, new weapon systems, IT equipment modules and new communication systems.

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

The US Army’s Bradley Remanufacture Program

$
0
0

M3A3 Bradley Charge

M3A3 Bradley CFV: Charge!
(click to view full)

In the 1970s, middle eastern wars demonstrated that tanks without infantry screens were vulnerable to infantry with anti-tank missiles. Unfortunately, armored personnel carriers were easy prey for enemy tanks, and sometimes had trouble just keeping up with friendly tanks like America’s 60+ ton, 50+ mph M1 Abrams. In response, the Americans rethought the armored personnel carrier, taking a page from the Soviet book. They created a more heavily armored, faster “Infantry Fighting Vehicle” named after WW2 General Omar “the soldier’s general” Bradley, and gave it an offensive punch of its own. M2/M3 tracked, armored IFVs can carry infantry – but they also have 25mm Bushmaster cannons, networked targeting sensors, and even TOW anti-armor or Stinger anti-aircraft missiles at their disposal.

M2 Urban Range

Bradley puts on wear
(click to view full)

Even well-serviced vehicles must suffer the pangs of age and wear, however, and the pace of electronics breakthroughs is far faster than the Army’s vehicle replacement cycle. The US Army plans to keep its Bradley fleet for some time to come, and new technologies have made it wise to upgrade part of that fleet while renewing the vehicles. Hence the remanufacture program, which complements the restore-only RESET programs.

This free-to-view DII Spotlight article explains the differences between the Bradley variants involved, details the re-manufacture process, offers additional research sources, and covers associated contracts from FY 1999 to the present.

Bradley Variants and Sub-Variants: A Quick Guide

Bradley Fighting Vehicles: Origins and History

M3A2 Bradley, Ad-Dwr Iraq

M3A2 CFV: Ad-Dwr, Iraq
(click to view full)

Introduced in the 1980s during the Reagan defense build-up, the Bradleys were a departure from the usual mold of lightly armed Armored Personnel Carriers. They were heavily criticized for their expense, and accused of being both too heavy for rapid transport to crisis points and too lightly armored to hold their own against serious opposition. Even so, over 6,700 were produced. Most were for the US Army, but there was also a minor order on the side from the Saudis.

The Bradley IFV/CFV was finally thrust into battle during the 1991 Desert Storm campaign, where their combination of firepower, mobility, and protection made them a valuable asset, and largely laid the effectiveness controversies to rest. A widely upgraded fleet of Bradleys would reprise this role in Operation Iraqi Freedom, both during the deep in-country push that culminated in the “Thunder Run” into Baghdad, and during subsequent stabilization operations. The 2nd Battle of Fallujah also made heavy use of the Bradley, as documented in Staff Sgt. David Bellavia’s (retd.) excellent book “House to House: An Epic Memoir of War.”

Today, many other nations employ IFVs, from older Russian BMP/BRDMs to modernized and up-gunned M113 APCs, to more modern options like BAE’s popular CV90 family and Germany’s new Puma IFV from KMW & Rheinmetall.

The Bradleys’ high level of protection against anti-tank rockets has proven to be a significant plus, and operational readiness has reportedly exceeded 94%, during urban and cross-country missions that have covered more than 8 million miles. Its major weakness is a 175 gallon fuel tank in the belly, which is typically protected only by aluminum armor, and can become a source of severe burns during land mine attacks. Unfortunately, the Bradleys are not being redesigned to carry fuel externally as part of the remanufacture and upgrade process. Instead, a number of Bradleys are receiving improved mine-resistant belly armor as a stopgap measure, plus BFSS that use a new, lower, fuel cell bladder

Bradley Family Variants

M6 Linebacker

M6 Linebacker
(click to view full)

Bradley vehicles carry a crew of 3 (commander, gunner and driver), plus additional soldiers in some variants. Overall, the Bradleys fulfills 5 critical mission roles for the US Army’s Heavy Brigade Combat Teams: infantry fighting vehicle – carries 6-7 troops (M2); cavalry fighting vehicle – carries 2 scouts (M3); fire support vehicle (A3 BFIST or M7 BFIST based on A2-ODS); battle command vehicle; and engineer squad vehicle (EBFV, or M2A2-ODS-E).

The M-A3s are the most modern variants of the Bradley, with fully digitized computing, navigation, and communications equipment. On-board subsystem monitoring, diagnostics/ prognostics, and segregated electrical power are included in this upgrade, as are improved NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protection and the addition of a 7th troop seat in the M2A3 variant. The A3 then adds enhanced sensors including IBAS 2nd generation FLIR (thermal imaging) with significantly greater range. Armor Magazine’s March 2005 issue relates this story from Iraq:

“Staff Sergeant Brian Flading, a 19D Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, remembers an incident when his platoon was mortared one night in Balad. With the new FLIR, the crew was able to see the enemy shooting the mortars. His crew sent rounds downrange within three seconds of the mortar shot…”

The US Army plans to have more than 2,000 total Bradley A3s in its future fleet. Most of those vehicles will be converted to that standard through the remanufacture process.

M-A2-ODS vehicles lack the full electronics, sensor set, and future upgradeability of the M-A3s; instead, they have their own set of off-the-shelf improvements over the base M-A2s that duplicate many of the A3 variants’ essential capabilities, without the cost of a full A3 upgrade. Many remanufactured vehicles are being brought to the “Operation Desert Storm – Situational Awareness” standard, from the base A2 or A2-ODS.

Navigation that allows ODS vehicles to maneuver with more modern variants is provided by the addition of PGS/POSNAV. For ODS – Situational Awareness vehicles, the new laser range-finder is integrated into both the new GPS system, and new FBCB2 (aka. “Blue Force Tracker”) equipment, significantly improving their ability to designate and hand off targets. Survivability gets a boost via the integration of Battlefield Combat Identification System and a Missile Countermeasure device, as well as applique reactive armor from the General Dynamics-RAFAEL partnership. Bench seats help the crew mount up and dismount faster. Finally, a 7th seat has been added to the ODS to support the 3×9 Mechanized Infantry Platoon organization.

M7 Bradley BFIST

M7 Bradley BFIST
(click to expand)

M6 Linebacker. This variant carried Stinger missiles and related sensors to serve as mobile short-range air defense for US armored formations, but for good or ill most Linebackers have been converted into M2A2-ODS vehicles under a February 2005 contract.

The M7 BFIST (Bradley FIre Support Team) is a variant of the M2A2-ODS Bradley. It is used as an artillery forward observer vehicle and laser designator, providing major improvements in first-round artillery accuracy on a platform whose mobility and survivability is the same as the armored maneuver units it rides in. BFIST’s performance during Operation Iraqi Freedom was reported to be impressive. The M7’s successor is simply referred to as the Bradley A3 FIST or A3 BFIST, and incorporates all Bradley M-A3 features in addition to its suite of advanced targeting sensors and electronics.

Beyond the listed variants, the Bradley Urban Survivability Kit (BUSK) III offers a useful set of bolt-on improvements: an Emergency Ramp Release (ERR) to get out of battle damaged vehicles; Bradley Fuel Cell Survivability (BFSS) which increases protection against land mine blasts by using a new, lower, fuel cell bladder; Bradley Advanced Survivability Seats-Driver (BASS-D) energy absorbing seats and foot rests; and a Turret Advanced Survivability System (TASS) that adds floor plates and energy-absorbing foot rests for the gunner and commander.

Bradley Remanufacture Program: Details & Contracts

M2A3 Bradley

M2A3 Bradley
(click to view full)

BAE Systems works through its Public Private Partnership with Red River Army Depot (RRAD) in Texas to remanufacture and upgrade these vehicles. Initial disassembly and subsystem rebuild is performed at RRAD. Further disassembly and structural modifications is performed by BAE Systems in Fayette County, PA, with some work done in Aiken, SC. Final assembly, integration and test is conducted at the BAE Systems facility in York, PA.

Unlike RESET programs, designed to replace all defective or worn parts and restore/service a vehicle back to pre-combat condition, remanufacture is a complete rebuild designed to return it to full “zero miles” condition, and install upgrades.

Unless otherwise specified, the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Warren, MI manages the contract, and BAE Land Systems and Armaments is the recipient.

FY 2017

July 19/17: The US Army has awarded LOC Performance a $49.1 million contract modification to an existing order for Bradley Fighting Vehicle modification kits and installation. Under the terms of the deal, LOC will produce and supply 276 additional Bradley Engineering Change Proposal 1 kits and two sets of spare parts, which will be used to upgrade Bradley Fighting Vehicles weight-bearing systems and underbelly armor. Work will be conducted at Plymouth, Minn. with a completion date scheduled for April 30, 2019. The Engineering Change Proposal 1 installs heavy load-bearing tracks, torsion bars to restore ground clearance and improved underbelly armor on the Bradleys. This in turn improves the vehicle’s capability to handle the stress placed on its chassis caused by the installation of armor upgrades and Bradley Urban Survivability Kits.

FY 2013

 

March 21/13: CAV – IFV. BAE Systems Land & Armament LP, York, PA receives a $16.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to convert Bradley Reset Vehicles from M3A3 to M2A3 configuration. In other words, to change them from cavalry scout vehicles with a crew and 2 scouts, to infantry fighting vehicles that carry their crew + 7 soldiers.

Work will be performed in York, PA; Lemont Furnace, PA; and Aiken, SC; with an estimated completion date of Aug 29/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-10-G-0003).

FY 2011 – 2012

Orders, including BUSK urban warfare kits; Slow funding forces a furlough at York.

M2 ERA

M2 & BUSK armor
(click to view larger)

Aug 14/12: +353 various. BAE Systems in York, PA receives a $306.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to upgrade 353 Operation Desert Storm M2A2, M3A2 and M7 Bradley Fire Support Team vehicles to Operation Desert Storm Situational Awareness (ODS-SA) configurations. This production contract is the flip side of $340 million in funding to purchase upgrade materials, bringing the full contract total for the 353 vehicles to $646 million.

Work will begin in August 2012, with final delivery expected in April 2014, but the contract runs until May 30/14. The upgraded Bradleys will be provided to the Minnesota and Pennsylvania National Guard units, and to Combined Armed Battalions in the Kansas, South Carolina and Ohio National Guard units (W56HZV-10-G-0003). See also BAE Systems.

Aug 13/12: The furlough ends at BAE’s York, PA plant. Source: BAE personnel.

Furlough ends

May 10/12: A $68.7 million cost-reimbursement, no-fee contract modification to reset, and if necessary to convert, Bradley ODS vehicles to the ODS-SA standard. Subsequent conversations with BAE personnel reveal that it did not avert the planned furlough (vid. May 2/12 entry), and was just additional funding for parts due to delays in getting the main contract award. That award came through in August 2012.

Work will be performed in York, PA, with an estimated completion date of May 31/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-10-G-0003).

May 6/12: A $31.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification will supply material and labor for Bradley ODS (Operation Desert Storm) vehicle conversions. This would appear to be the installation and labor bookend to the Dec 7/11 contract.

Work will be performed in York, PA, with an estimated completion date of Oct 31/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W56HZV-10-G-0003).

May 2/12: Layoff. BAE furloughs 210 employees from mid-July to Mid-August 2012, pending the release of more Bradley funds. Furloughed workers will be covered by their company benefits during the 30-day period, and can also choose to apply vacation time to this period and be paid. The firm expects to have everyone back by Aug 13/12. York Daily Record.

Furloughs at York

Dec 7/11: BAE US Combat Systems in York, PA receives a $30.4 million cost-no-fee and firm-fixed-price contract, to buy materials for 247 Bradley ODS-SA vehicles. It looks like this boosts the Oct 5/11 contract.

Work will be performed in York, PA with an estimated completion date of Oct 31/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by the US Army’s Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-10-G-0003).

Oct 5/11: +245 ODS. A $270.8 million cost-no-fee contract will buy the materials and equipment needed to bring 245 Bradleys to the Operational Desert Storm Situational Awareness (ODS-SA) standard. Work will be performed in York, PA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 30/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W56HZV-10-G-0003).

Aug 25/11: BUSK. BAE Systems in York, PA receives a $23.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for Bradley Urban Survivability Kits. Work will be performed in York, PA, with an estimated completion date of March 9/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W56HZV-10-G-0003)

April 25/11: BUSK. BAE Systems receives a $53.3 million contract to provide 3,034 Bradley Urban Survivability Kits III to outfit the Bradley Fighting Vehicles to the BUSK III configuration.

Work will be performed in York, PA with an estimated completion date of June 30/11. One bid was solicited with 1 bid received by the Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-05-D-0005).

March 22/11: Components. A $47.7 million cost-reimbursement, no-fee contract for M2A2 ODS-SA(Operation Desert Storm – Situational Awareness) components, to be used to convert Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Work will be performed in York, PA, with an estimated completion date of Oct 31/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-10-G-0003).

Nov 9/10: long-lead. A $250.1 million cost reimbursement – no fee contract. It covers long lead time materials to make up 247 M2/M3 Bradley Operation Desert Storm Situational Awareness (ODS-SA) conversion kits, with 202 used under the contract to convert vehicles from Bradley ODS to ODS-SA configurations, and the other 45 kept for future requirements. The main buy of ODS-SA kits and conversions is expected in April 2011.

Work is to be performed in York, PA, with an estimated contract completion date of Feb 28/12, but BAE Systems places the end of production work at September 2012. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-10-G-0003). See also BAE release.

FY 2008 – 2010

Orders slow down.

M2A3 Bradley & Squad, Iraq

M2A3 & squad
(click to view full)

April 1/10: Sub-contractors. L-3 Communications Combat Propulsion Systems in Muskegon, MI received a $16.1 million firm-price with incentive and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for 221 remanufactured Bradley transmissions, 2 control tests and incentive fee pool. Work is to be performed in Muskegon, MI (54%), and Texarkana, TX (46%) with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/13. For the order, 1 bid was solicited with 1 bid received by the US Army TACOM Contracting Center in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-C-0098).

Sept 23/09: Sub-contractors. L-3 Communications Combat Propulsion Systems in Muskegon, MI received a $33.1 million firm-fixed-price with Incentive and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for 94 remanufactured Bradley transmissions and parts, 20 new Bradley transmissions, 87 repaired Bradley transmissions, 979 parts kits to rebuild Bradley transmissions, 20,000 hours of system technical support, and $5.2 million in management support.

Work is to be performed in Texarkana, TX (43%), Muskegon, MI (42%) and Huddersfield, UK (15%) with an estimated completion date of Dec 30/11. One bid solicited with one bid received by the U.S. Army TACOM LCMC in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-C-0098).

April 6/09: Sub-contractors. Raytheon Network-Centric Systems in McKinney, TX announces $163.5 million worth of contracts from BAE for 822 advanced thermal sighting systems: a $123 million order for 620 Commander’s Independent Viewer block 1 units on Feb 20/09, and a $40.5 million award for 202 units on Feb 26/09. The systems will be installed on Bradley M-A3 vehicles.

Raytheon’s CIV is a 2nd-generation infrared vision system that provides the commander with a 360-degree battlefield view. It complements sub-systems like DRS’ IBAS (Improved Bradley Acquisition System), and has the same extended-range capabilities. By providing the commander and gunner with independent sights, it allows the vehicle to operate in “hunter-killer” mode, with the gunner engaging one target while the commander surveys the situation and queues up the next victim.

Sept 22/08: +326 various. BAE announces a a $742 million U.S. Army contract to remanufacture and upgrade 326 Bradley vehicles. The award exercises an option in the contract announced on July 8/08, and brings the total value of BAE Systems’ 2008 Bradley remanufacturing contracts to $1.3 billion for 578 vehicles.

Under this award, BAE Systems will remanufacture another 189 M2A3 IFVs (51 of which which will covert to M3A3 cavalry vehicles), 115 M3A3 cavalry vehicles, and 22 M3A3 Bradley Fire Support Team (BFIST) vehicles.

These Bradley vehicles will be equipped with improved armor designed to resist land mine attacks, Bradley Urban Survivability Kits, and several engineering changes designed to increase soldier survivability. The company will also provide more than 200 different types of spare parts in varying quantities. Work under the contract will begin immediately by the existing workforce, with deliveries ending in February 2011.

July 8/08: +252. BAE announces a $538 million U.S. Army contract to remanufacture 252 Bradley vehicles: 160 M2A3 vehicles, 60 M3A3 cavalry vehicles and 32 M3A3 Bradley Fire Support Team (BFIST) vehicles in conjunction with the Red River Army Depot. The company will also provide 200 different types of spare parts, in varying quantities.

Work under the contract will begin immediately, with deliveries ending in June 2010.

Sept 15/08: IED kits. BAE Systems announces an $11 million contract from the U.S. Army to purchase and install Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Mine Armor Kits on 433 Bradley Combat Systems vehicles. This award also includes the installation work for 116 kits previously purchased under this contract. When combined with previous awards, this modification brings the total contract value to $96 million for Bradley IED Mine Armor Kits.

Work under the contract will be conducted at various field installation sites with deliveries scheduled from December 2008 through March 2009.

March 31/08: Sub-contractors. L-3 Communications Corp. received a $20.8 million firm-fixed price contract for remanufactured Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems transmissions. Work will be performed in Muskegon, MI and is expected to be complete by Aug 4/09. Web bids were solicited on Oct 17/07, and 1 bid was received by U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-08-C-0119).

FY 2005 – 2007

Heavy orders, as wars take their toll.

M2s, Sadr City

M2s, Sadr City
(click to view full)

July 23/07: +172 various. BAE announces a pair of contract modifications from the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command, totaling $411.7 million.

Under the first contract, BAE Systems will upgrade 172 Bradleys to the A3 baseline: 108 M2A2 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, 60 M3A2 Cavalry Fighting Vehicles and 4 M7 FIST Fire Support Team Vehicles. The second contract calls for BAE Systems to provide spare parts for Bradley A3 Combat Systems. Deliveries for both contracts are scheduled to begin in October 2009, and continue through February 2010.

These contracts, when combined with the $1.16 billion contract awarded in November 2006 for the remanufacture and upgrade of 610 Bradley Combat Systems, bring the total value of BAE Systems Bradley work to $3.9 billion for Fiscal Years 2005 – 2007. BAE Systems release.

Feb 14/07: +8 A3. The full delivery order amount of $16 million as part of a firm-fixed-price contract for the remanufacture and upgrade of 8 Vehicles to M2A3 standard, and return to 0 Mile Condition. Work will be performed in York, PA (60%), Fayette, PA (8%), Santa Clara, CA (28%), and Aiken, SC (4%), and is expected to be complete by May 31, 2009. This was a sole source contract initiated on Feb. 10, 2006 (W56HZV-05-G-0005). See also BAE Systems release.

Nov 27/06: +490 various. BAE Systems in York, PA receives the full delivery order amount of $1.01 billion as part of a firm-fixed-price contract to remanufacture of 490 total Bradleys into M2A3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle, M3A3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle scouts, and A3 BFIST targeting and fire control vehicle configurations. Work will begin immediately, and will be performed in York, PA (60%), Fayette, PA (8%), Santa Clara, CA (28%), and Aiken, SC (4%). Deliveries are scheduled to begin in April 2008, and the contract is expected to be complete by May 31, 2009. This was a sole source contract initiated on Feb. 10, 2006 (W56HZV-05-G-0005).

Nov 27/06: +120 ODS. BAE Systems in York, PA receives the full delivery order amount of $118.7 million as part of a firm-fixed-price contract to remanufacture 120 total Bradleys to M2A2-ODS and M3A2-ODS configurations. Work will begin immediately, and will be performed in York, PA (60%), Fayette, PA (8%), Santa Clara, CA (28%), and Aiken, SC (4%), and is expected to be complete by May 31, 2009. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in April 2008, and the contract is expected to be complete by May 31, 2009. This was a sole source contract initiated on Feb. 10, 2006 (W56HZV-05-G-0005). See BAE release re: its Nov 27/06 contracts.

July 28/06: +96 various. The 2 orders announced on this day included full delivery order amounts of $192.6 million and $30.9 million [TL.= $223.5 million] as part of a firm-fixed-price contract for FY 2006 remanufacture and upgrade of Bradley vehicles. Work will be performed in York, PA (83%), Aiken, SC (5%), San Jose, CA (8%), and Fayette, PA (4%), and is expected to be complete by Dec. 31, 2008. This will be performed under a sole source contract initiated on May 17, 2006 (W56HZV-05-G-0005).

BAE Systems, in partnership with Red River Army Depot (RRAD), will remanufacture and upgrade a total of 96 vehicles whose final configurations will be: 57 Bradley A3 vehicles in infantry (M2A3) and cavalry (M3A3) configurations, 16 Bradley A3 Fire Support Team (FIST) vehicles, and 23 M7 BFIST vehicles based on the M2A2-ODS. See also BAE’s release.

June 27/05: +533. See BAE’s June 27, 2005 release covering all of the remanufacturing work announced on DefenseLINK June 23, 2005. DID also covered this set. Over $1.1 billion worth of contracts encompassed:

  • 450 older Bradleys remanufactured to Bradley A3 status – the total value of this delivery order also incorporates 55 vehicles and $71.5 million awarded in March, 2005.
  • 50 vehicles remanufactured to Bradley A2-ODS status, plus kits to convert 100 more vehicles to the A2-ODS configuration.
  • 33 vehicles remanufactured to Bradley Fire Support Team (BFIST) vehicles
  • Spares for Bradley A3 vehicles (not noted below, as not part of the remanufacture program)
  • BAE Systems will also provide 120 Commander’s Independent Viewers for 120 Bradley vehicles ordered under a contract modification.

June 23/05: A3. United Defense LP (now part of BAE Systems) in York, PA receives a delivery order amount of $896.4 million as part of a $967.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for the remanufacture of Bradley A3 vehicles. Work will be performed in York, PA (83%), San Jose, CA (8%), Aiken, SC (5%), and Fayette, PA (4%), and is expected to be complete by Jan. 31, 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on March 1, 2005 (W56HZV-05-G-0005).

June 23/05: ODS. United Defense LP (now part of BAE Systems) in York, PA receives the full delivery order amount of $78.4 million as part of a firm-fixed-price contract for the remanufacture of M-A2 Operation Desert Storm vehicles and conversion kits. Work will be performed in York, PA (83%), San Jose, CA (8%), Aiken, SC (5%), and Fayette, PA (4%), and is expected to be complete by Jan. 31, 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on March 1, 2005 (W56HZV-05-G-0005).

June 23/05: M7 BFIST. United Defense LP (now part of BAE Systems) in York, PA receives the full delivery order amount of $31.4 million as part of a firm-fixed-price contract for the remanufacture of M7 Bradley Fire Support Team Vehicles. Work will be performed in York, PA (83%), San Jose, CA (8%), Aiken, SC (5%), and Fayette, PA (4%), and is expected to be complete by Jan. 31, 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on March 1, 2005 (W56HZV-05-G-0005).

June 23/05: Components. United Defense LP (now part of BAE Systems) in York, PA receives a $30.6 million modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for the commander’s independent viewers. Work will be performed in York, PA (83%), San Jose, CA (8%), Aiken, SC (5%), and Fayette, PA (4%), and is expected to be complete by Jan. 31, 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on March 1, 2005 (DAAE07-01-C-M016).

FY 1999 – 2004

123 vehicles – but this list may not be exhaustive.

M2A3 and Dismounted Squad Iraq

M2A3 & squad, Iraq
(click to view full)

Sept 24/99: +53. United Defense LP (now part of BAE Systems) in York, PA receives a $43.8 million modification to cost-plus-fixed-fee contract DAAE07-96-C-X036, to acquire the effort necessary to remanufacture/ convert 53 Bradley Fighting Vehicles from an M3A0 configuration to an M3A2-ODS configuration. Work will be performed in York, PA and is expected to be complete by Nov. 30, 2001.

Dec 21/98: +70. United Defense LP (now part of BAE Systems) in York, PA receives a $114.6 million modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for the remanufacture of 27 M2A2 vehicles to the upgraded M2A3 configuration, remanufacture of 43 M3A2 vehicles to the upgraded M3A3 configuration, and the purchase of material/support for 3 M2A3 vehicles (the price for an option to build these three vehicles is not included in this contract action). Work will be performed in York, PA and is expected to be complete by March 31, 2001. This is a sole source contract initiated on Jan. 30, 1998 (DAAE07-96-C-X036).

Additional Readings & Sources

Double-Jointed & Popular: The Bv Family of Infantry Support Vehicles

$
0
0

BVS-10 Viking Ashore

A Viking comes ashore

The BvS10 is the successor to the wildly popular Bv206, 11,000 of which have been sold to 40 countries around the world – including the USA (M978). Readers may have seen these vehicles elsewhere, too, as a number of Bv206s have post-military careers at ski resorts, in industries like mining and logging, etc. The new BvS-10 is larger and more heavily armored; it’s in use in Britain, France and the Netherlands as a key armored vehicle for their respective Marines, has been bought by Sweden, and is under evaluation elsewhere. International interest includes imitators: Singapore’s Bronco ATTC is a BVS10 competitor, and Finland and Norway have their own local Bv206 variants.

What makes this unusual-looking vehicle family and design so popular? They aren’t like Humvees or similar wheeled mainstays. They aren’t full armored personnel carriers, either – they’re armored, but Bv family vehicles can’t take the kind of punishment that a Bradley or LAV can absorb. Instead, the secret to their success lies in a remarkable all-terrain capability, and their ability to fill a rare and critical role: air-portable and amphibious infantry enhancement. These success factors are discussed below, along with contracts and key developments related to this vehicle family.

The Bv Family of Vehicles

Bv206 and Bv206S

Bv206S vs. Bv206

Hagglunds Bv family vehicles are really two separate chassis working together. Hydraulic cylinders that push or pull one chassis segment relative to the other do all the steering. The central articulation point also allows the two segments to twist and turn in different planes, accommodating the most difficult terrain from high slopes to winding forest trails. Meanwhile, wide band tracks ensure good traction, with a low “footprint” pressure that lets these vehicles move across all terrains, and can even avoid tripping anti-tank mines. Amphibious conversion is quick.

The Bv206S is a slightly larger (10-tonne/ 11 ton full combat weight), armored version of the Bv206 that retains helicopter air-portability inside a CH-47 Chinook, or can have its 2 sections airlifted separately by a pair of medium utility helicopters like Britain’s EH101 Merlins.

BvS10 Mk.II and ARTHUR C-RAM radar

BvS10 Mk.II & ARTHUR
(click to view full)

BAE Haaglunds’ new BvS10 differs from its Bv206 predecessors by adding a bit more weight at 7.6t/ 16,300 pounds empty, with a maximum designed weight of 10.6t/ 23,350 pounds. Fortunately, a more powerful Cummins 5.9 litre diesel engine gives it 80 kph/50 mph performance on class A roads, and a 300 km/ 180 miles range. The improved ground clearance and newly developed chassis, power train and steering units give the vehicle considerably enhanced speed and comfort, as well as greater load carrying capability (up to 5 tons for some variants), and the ability to add various modular sub-systems such as add-on armor, weapon-mounts, a load-changer, and cargo platforms. The Viking can operate in temperatures from -46C/-51F to 49C/120F, can ford through water up to a depth of 1.5 m/ 5 feet without preparation, and is fully amphibious with 5kph/ 3mph water speed on a full load, after less than 2 minutes’ preparation by the crew. BAE data places the existing Viking’s reliability in theater at 88%.

BvS10s have been performing well, but various up-armoring additions mean that they have also been working beyond their maximum designed weight for months. Hence BAE Hagglunds’ BvS10 Mark II, whose maximum designed weight is 14.2t/ 31,300 pounds, with a payload of 6t/ 13,250 pounds. It incorporates a larger and more powerful engine, a bigger alternator which gives more electrical power, an improved steering unit, uprated suspension and brakes, a shallow v-hull for extra mine protection, and the ability to carry more armor. Despite the extra armor, the Mk II fulfills all the original Viking requirements, such as the ability to swim. Variants include:

  • BvS10 MkII APC. Carry 3 crew, and up to 6 fully-equipped soldiers.
  • BvS10 Ambulance. Just 2 crew, and space for 2 stretchers & 2 paramedics.
  • BvS10 C2. Carry a command & control system and up to 4 staff.
  • BvS10 Logistics. Have a flatbed in place of the standard back cab. Slide-on modules for the flatbed include a 10-foot container, the ARTHUR artillery locating radar, or a communications module.
  • BvS10 Repair & Recovery (RRC). Crew + 4 technical specialists. The rear cab is fitted with a full mobile workshop, as well as a HIAB crane and capstan for recovery work.
  • BvS10 UAS. Used as an equipment transporter for the UK’s new Mk450 Watchkeeper UAV system.

Imitation, the Sincerest form of Flattery

ATTC Bronco Parade

Singapore’s Bronco ATTC
(click to view larger)

A larger vehicle is currently in service with Singapore as ST Kinetics’ Bronco ATTC (All-Terrain Tracked Carrier), and as the Warthog in Britain. Gross Vehicle Weight is 18t/ 40,000 pounds, including a 6.8t/ 15,00 pound total payload, or space for up to 16 troops. Its Caterpillar C7 engine delivers up to 350 bhp, driving it up to 65 km/h on smooth surfaces, or allowing it to handle 60% gradients and 30% side slopes in all conditions and terrains. Singapore is a Bv206 customer, and when the ATTC was introduced, Haaglunds launched a lawsuit claiming that ST Kinetics had copied their design. That lawsuit was later dropped, leaving ST Kinetics with a similar but heavier competitor.

The Bronco is fully amphibious, and its versatility has made it very useful in post-tsunami relief efforts. An up-armored, non-amphibious “Warthog” variant was picked by the British Army to replace borrowed Royal Marines’ BvS10s in Afghanistan, with the BvS10s returning to the Royal Marines for future use.

Bv206

Bv-206S, side view
(click to view full)

The smaller Bv206 has also received its share of international flattery. Finnish firm Patria Vehicles’ NA-140 and its variants are very similar, and more than 300 have been manufactured since 1985 to equip the armies of China, Turkey and Finland.

After 20 years of using the Bv206, Norway is also introducing up to 1,000 units of the Natech (Narvik Technology AS) P6 in P6-300M and other variants, as part of Project 5085; it is reported to be very similar to the Bv-206S.

Bv Family: Why So Popular?

Bv-206S Ambulance Articlulated

Bv-206S ambulance
(click to view full)

The BvS vehicle family’s popularity boils down to:

Key Virtue #1: Outstanding air transportability. These vehicles can be carried in many tactical and even light air transports, carried inside a CH-47 Chinook, or slung underneath other medium-heavy helicopters. The Bronco ATTC is an exception, but all of these vehicles can also be broken into their 2 component sections to be loaded into or slung beneath many helicopter types due to their low height, width, and weight.

Key Virtue #2: True all-terrain capability. These vehicles are designed to operate in conditions ranging from the heat and humidity of the jungle to dry desert and the frozen Arctic, and have done so. Their low weight and extra-wide tracked distribution make even snow and marshy ground passable, thanks to very low ground pressure. That same low ground pressure offers more safety against anti-tank mines, who may not receive enough pressure to detonate. They can quickly be made fully amphibious, and this combination of mobility advantages has made them popular with a number of countries’ Marine Corps.

Bv206 Mortar Carrier Norwegian Firing Per Thrana

Per Thrana: Bv206
mortar carrier, Norway
(click to view full)

Key Virtue #3: Specialized variants. This family of vehicles offers a wide array of variants, including models with cranes for load handling and recovery, ammunition resupply vehicles, ambulance functions, deployable command posts, mortar carrier versions, and artillery hunting radar (the Bv206 ARTHUR). In addition, several countries are developing their own indigenous variants.

The result: Infantry enhancement. This family of vehicles offers instant air-portable infantry mobility with small arms protection (Bv206S and later); additional carrying capacity over all terrains to reduce soldiers’ burdens; and firepower overmatch via its weapon mount (medium-heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, anti-armor missiles, mortars, etc.), via extra weapons inside (ammunition, anti-armor missiles, etc.), , and via its towing capabilities (mortars, howitzers etc.). They are not designed for major combat, and are not a substitute for full-size armored personnel carriers (APCs). What they can do is bring a combination of APC and Jeep benefits in a more mobile, all-terrain, platform – one capable of 3rd-dimension envelopment, and rapid ground response into the most difficult terrain.

Contracts and Key Events

At present, the BvS-10 is in operation with the British Royal Marines, has been delivered to the Dutch Royal Marines and begun deliveries to France and Sweden, and is reportedly under trial and evaluation in Finland (who already operates Bv206 variants). All BvS10 customers share operational information, and co-operate on support through a multi-national user group that BAE Systems co-ordinates.

2014 – 2017

 

BvS10 Mk.II

BvS10 Mk.II
(click to view full)

July 26/17: BAE Systems has teamed with Italian firm Goriziane Group SpA to offer joint support of the BvS10 Beowulf armored all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Gorizioni Group, who have already worked with BAE on the older BV206 ATV, are specialists in the engineering and maintenance of vehicles and other heavy equipment, and this extended agreement is part of BAE’s dedication to “work closely with industries in the countries we do business in to support government programs and local economies,” according to Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, general manager of BAE Systems Hagglund. The Italian military is one of the largest users of the BV206 and BV206S vehicles, and the vehicle is also in use with the militaries of Austria, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

July 7/16: Austria is to join France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK in operating BAE System’s BvS10 Beowulf military vehicle after signing contracts with the Swedish government for the delivery of 32 vehicles. While the value of the contract is unknown, deliveries are expected to begin in the second half of 2017 and conclude in 2019. Designed to operate in rugged terrain to deliver personnel or cargo in combat and disaster relief situations, the BvS10 will play a role in Austria’s European Union Mountain Training Warfare Initiative where it will host schools, training and support to enhance military effectiveness in mountain terrain.

May 27/14: Canada. Rheinmetall Canada displays a BvS-10 at its CANSEC booth, in the wake of a teaming agreement that has them cooperating with BAE on a future bid for Canada’s Marginal Terrain Vehicles (MTV) program. the Canadians already possess Bv-206 vehicles, and have used them in Afghanistan (q.v. Appendix A). Sources: BAE Systems, “BAE Systems and Rheinmetall Team to Offer Go-Anywhere Vehicles to Canada”.

2011 – 2013

 

BvS10 French

French VHM/ BvS10
(click to view full)

Dec 19/13: Sweden. The Swedish FMV procurement agency exercises part of their Jan 5/12 contract option, via a SEK 800 million ($120 million) contract for 102 more BvS10 Mk.IIBs, raising their order total to 150. That leaves them with 25 more options.

The 102 vehicles will be delivered in the same 4 variants: troop carrier, ambulance, C2 command vehicle, and “logistics” (cargo carrier). They will continue manufacturing in BAE Systems Hagglunds’ refurbished production facility in Ornskoldsvik, Sweden, with deliveries beginning in 2014 and ending in 2015. Sources: BAE, “Sweden Buys 102 More BvS10 All-Terrain Vehicles From BAE Systems” | Swedish FMV, “FMV bestaller ytterligare 102 bandvagnar av Hagglunds”.

Sweden: 102 more BvS10 Mk.IIB

June 2013: Refit report. Britain’s Battlespace magazine offers an update on the refits, even as BAE Systems discusses more comprehensive Viking support arrangements with the UK MoD. Phase 1 Refits, which handled existing Mk.IIs and the Mk.Is with upgraded hulls, were finished in May 2013.

Phase 2 deliveries have now started, and installation of the required improvements plus the latest v-hull bottom will continue until April 2014. The exceptions will be rear cars for Repair & Recovery variants, which are unmanned while in transit.

Phase 3 involves the Mortar and Crew Served weapon variants (TL: 27). They also receive the latest v-hull, except for the mortar version’s rear cars. The new variants will undergo testing this summer, and deliveries aren’t expected to begin until March 2014.

Phase 4 involves new blast protection kits, which began delivery in April 2013. All upgrades will be available to other BvS10 operators, if they request it. Battlespace

Oct 3/12: UK upgrades. Britain will overhaul the Royal Marines’ BvS10 vehicles to a common Mk.II standard. Under BAE’s GBP 37 million ($61 million) contract, the fleet will be given a major overhaul, brought closer to to a common configuration, and certified for a 14 tonne gross weight. The changes are the result of BAE’s modular bid, which involved a common core set of work, plus a range of options that let the UK MoD pick what it most wanted within its budgetary limits.

To get there, a number of modifications for land operations in Afghanistan will be removed, restoring the vehicles’ amphibious capability. The Vikings will receive general inspections, new front and rear car hulls, a shallow v-hull underbody, braking and suspension upgrades, and other improvements stemming from Dutch and French experiences. A new engine and alternator would be required for full Mk.II compatibility, but Britain’s budget squeeze has deferred this key upgrade. New wiring and mounts will prepare the fleet for the larger engine, if Britain decides to add it later.

Beyond these upgrades, 19 Crew Served Weapon variants will add Platt’s 7.62mm crew-served machine gun mounts on top of the rear cars as well, and another 9 will become mortar cars fitted with 81mm internal mortars. Work at BAE’s new production line in Ornskoldsvik, Sweden will last until 2014, and all parties expect a mid-life upgrade at the end of the decade. The Royal Marines plan to keep their Vikings in service until 2031. UK MoD | BAE Systems.

Britain: BvS10 refurbishment & Upgrades

Jan 5/12: Swedish Vikings. Sweden’s FMV has picked BAE Hagglunds’ BvS10 Mk.IIB over Singapore’s larger Bronco ATTC, as their military’s next all-terrain vehicle. Sweden already fields a number of Bv206s, and the initial SEK 700 million (about $101 million) contract will supplement them with 48 BvS10 vehicles in 4 types: 19 APC, 17 Logistics, 10 Ambulance, and 2 Command & Control. Delivery is scheduled to be done by autumn 2012, for operational use in Afghanistan by spring 2013.

The Swedish vehicles include some modifications, including improved crew ergonomics, internal volume, and protection, plus integration of Kongsberg’s Protector remote weapon station up top. Smoke grenade launchers are fitted front and back, to give 360 degree coverage. Swedish government-furnished radio and battlefield management systems are also different, as one would expect.

The Swedish acquisition process took a bit less than a year, including tests of the 2 competitors. Additional buy options could push Sweden’s total order to 175 vehicles, via up to 127 more BvS10 MkIIs in up to 3 more batch orders. Swedish FMV | BAE.

Sweden: 48-175 BvS10 Mk.IIB

Nov 25/11: France. France’s DGA announces [in French] that it has formally accepted delivery of its 1st 14-tonne, v-hulled BvS10 Mk.2/ VHM under the 53 vehicle contract (vid. Dec 22/09 entry). This is not the same thing as the 1st delivery by the manufacturer (vid. March 29/10 entry). Before it could receive formal acceptance, the Véhicule a Haute Mobilité had to be qualified for operational service during 8 months of trials, which ended in September 2011.

2009 – 2010

 

BvS10 in Chad 2009

Dutch BvS10
in Chad 2009
(click to view full)

May 21/10: Dutch. The Netherlands is looking to upgrade 127 of the Dutch Marines’ Bv-206Ds with a mid-life upgrade (MLU) package to extend their operational life to 2020, the same as the Marines’ new BvS10 Vikings. The MLU budget is estimated between EUR 25 – 50 million, and the main risk involves the vehicle frame. If the glassfiber reinforced plastic has become fragile due to sun exposure, full replacement will make the upgrade much more costly. Kamenbrief [in Dutch].

March 29/10: UK. BAE Systems delivers the last of 24 BvS10 Viking Mk.II mine-protected vehicles ordered by the British Royal Marines (see Sept 30/09 entry). The vehicles will be deployed to Afghanistan in the near future. BAE Systems’ release adds that deliveries on France’s December 2009 order for BvS10 MkIIs have begun.

Dec 22/09: France. BAE Systems announces that it won the VHM contract from France’s DGA procurement agency to supply 53 BvS10 Mark II vehicles (q.v. Sept 30/09 entry). If all options are exercised, BAE says that the total value of the contract could reach EUR 220 million ($317 million) for 129 vehicles.

France already operates their Bv206 predecessors, and this contract covers 3 BvS10 vehicle variants (APC, C2 and Logistics), as well as a comprehensive support package. The vehicles will be produced in cooperation with BAE’s French partners, including Panhard and EADS. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2010.

France: 53
BvS10 Mk.II

Nov 19/09: UK. The British Army announces that the first ST Kinetics Warthog has been manufactured and shipped to the UK. It will be fitted with electronics and armaments , and must then be fully tested and certified as safe to use. Steps after that are its issue to troops for pre-deployment training, and then deployment.

Sept 30/09: UK. BAE Systems announces a GBP 24 million (currently $38.2 million) British contract for 24 BvS10 Viking Mark II vehicles: 22 standard troop carriers and 2 command variants. They will be delivered to the UK MoD in early 2010, so that they can be deployed to Afghanistan with the Royal Marines in the spring of 2010.

To this point, BAE says that the UK MoD has bought 166 Vikings, adding that the BvS10 Mark II is also in contention for the 124 vehicle French VHM competition. BAE Systems release.

Britain: 24
BvS10 Mk.II

Feb 16/09: BAE Systems announces a British order for 9 more BvS10 vikings, in order to maintain their operational capability in Afghanistan while the Army waits for the new ATTC Warthogs. See Dec 2/08 entry.

The latest vehicles will include 7 infantry carriers and 2 mobile command and control vehicles, and will be built to the Mk.I configuration standard, which includes new mine protection kits. The current fleet will also receive Mk.I retrofits, under a December 2008 contract. The first vehicle in the new-build contract is anticipated to be delivered directly from stock in February 2009, and the whole contract is expected to be delivered during the first quarter of 2009. The mine protection upgrades will be fitted after the base vehicles have been manufactured.

Britain: 9 BvS10

2007 – 2008

 

ATTC Bronco

Bronco ATTC
(click to view full)

Dec 18/08: Broncos for Britain. Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd’s similar but heavier Bronco beats BAE’s BvS10 Mk.2, as they win a GBP 150 million (about S$ 330 million/ $230 million) contract from the UK Ministry of Defence for 100 Bronco ATTCs. These 20-ton “Warthog” vehicles will be supplied to the British Army’s Royal Armoured Corps, for use in Afghanistan.

A total of 4 Warthog variants will be built under the contract – APC/Troop Carrier, Ambulance, Command, and Repair & Recovery. Vehicle deliveries will commence in Q3 2009, with the majority to be delivered in 2010. UK MoD Programme Manager Simon Cox had this to say:

“We appreciate the close, flexible and constructive working relationship with ST Kinetics. They are a great company to work with and the Bronco has exceeded our expectations in terms of quality, capability and performance. We are delighted with their product, attitude and the progress jointly made in a very short time indeed.”

The Army had been using BvS10s on loan from the Royal Marines. Those vehicles will remain in service, and will be rotated back to Britain and the Marines once they are replaced in theater. UK MoD | ST Kinetics | Defense News.

Britain’s Army: 100 ATTC Broncos

Royal Marines BvS10 Afghanistan

Awaiting extraction
(click to view full)

Dec 2/08: Defense News reports that the UK MoD has ordered 22 more Vikings this year, bringing the total number of BvS10s they’ve bought to almost 150 vehicles. It adds that a number of these have been destroyed in combat, and the UK MoD has said that they are in negotiations with BAE for a mine blast protection kit. Delivery is expected to be complete by mid-2009.

Over the longer term, however, a larger vehicle may be necessary. BvS10s have been performing well, but various up-armoring additions mean that they have also been working beyond their maximum designed weight for months. Candidates for the folow-on “Warthog” buy of up to 100 vehicles reportedly include the BvS10 Mk II, and Singapore’s Bronco ATTC.

Britain: 22 BvS10

Oct 29/08: UK Defence Secretary John Hutton announces a package worth GBP 700 million (then $1.56 billion equivalent, but only $1.05 billion by late November), which will pay for over 700 new armored vehicles for use in Afghanistan. They include over 100 brand-new “Warthog” cross-country vehicles, which will have greater protection levels. Contracts remain to be negotiated.

March 30/08: Dutch issues. In “Marine heeft nu al pech met Vikings“, De Telegraaf reports that Dutch Marines have been working for weeks install new drive shafts in their 74 BvS10 Viking vehicles (see June 1/05 entry), after problems were discovered during exercises in England and Norway. 10 Vikings required for operation in Chad have been repaired.

On April 24/08, the Dutch MvD answered questions regarding the vehicles [Dutch, PDF], stemming from the De Telegraaf article.

LAND_BvS10_Viking_UK_Trials.jpg

BvS10, UK trials
(click to view full)

August 2007: Sub-contractors. A second order of 26 MR555 weapon ring mounts with accompanying gunshield protection is shipped from Australia’s Plattmounts to the UK, for installation on BvS10 Viking vehicles. These mounts also equip British FV432 Mk 3 Bulldog tracked APCs, as well as many of the USA’s RG-31 Charger mine-resistant patrol vehicles.

May 2/07: BvS10 UAV. New role for the Viking. The UK Ministry of Defence has awarded BAE Systems Hagglunds a contract for another 21 BvS10 Viking armored all-terrain vehicles. This order is in addition to an earlier batch of 108 that began delivery to the UK’s Royal Marine Commandos in July 2003.

The armored all-terrain vehicles will be used as an equipment transporter for the UK’s new Mk450 Watchkeeper UAV system. Prototype vehicles are scheduled for delivery at the end of 2007, with production deliveries to commence in the second half of 2008.

Britain: 21 BvS10 for UAVs

2005 – 2006

 

Bv206 Dutch Norway Torbjorn Kjosvold

Dutch Bv-206, Norway
by Torbjorn Kjosvold
(click to view full)

June 12/06: Sweden. BAE Systems Hagglunds AB announces a SKr 260 million ($35 million) rush order from the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for 52 additional Bv206S vehicles, with an option for more. The order amounts to 52 vehicles with an option to acquire additional vehicles, bringing the Swedish Armed Forces up to a total of 93 Bv206S. With this order, 479 of BAE Hagglunds’ Bv206S vehicles have now been sold to Sweden, Germany, Italy, France and Spain.

The goal driving the FMV is the coming activation of the EU’s Nordic Battle Groupas of January 1st 2008, and led by Sweden. The FMV release notes that “…Bv206S can be transported by air with several of the smaller airplanes and helicopter models, which makes it a very suitable vehicle alternative for rapid forces with high demands on tactical and strategical mobility and troop transport under protection.”

Sweden: 52 Bv206S

Nov-Dec 2006: Sub-contractors. The initial order of 43 MR555 weapon ring mounts with accompanying gunshield protection is shipped from Australia’s Plattmounts to the UK, for installation on BvS10 Viking vehicles.

Jan 26/06: Dutch. Just 8 months after the contract was signed, BAE Systems Hagglunds has delivered the first of 74 armored BvS-10 Viking armored all terrain vehicles to the Dutch Army. The purchasing process was accomplished in less than 3 months, and the lead-time between contract and serial delivery has been only 8 months. Brig. Gen. Paul Opgenort:

“We are very content with Hagglunds and the company’s ability to keep to the time agreed for the first delivery. A key to the success has been the unconventional but flexible way of working, regarding the processes of development, purchase and production.”

June 1/05: Dutch. Like the British Royal Marines (who bought 108), the Netherlands Defence Materiel Organisation went directly to the source and signed a contract for 74 BvS10 “Viking” All Terrain Vehicles with BAE Systems Land Systems Hagglunds, in a June 2005 deal valued at approximately SEK 570 million (approximately EUR 57.9 million, or $71.3 million). The DMO will purchase four variants of the BvS10: 46 troop carriers, 20 commander vehicles, 4 recovery vehicles and 4 ambulance vehicles; with deliveries to take place from January 2006 – April 2007.

These Viking armored vehicles will supplement earlier Bv-206 vehicles in service with the Dutch Royal Marines since the early 1990s. In parallel with the BvS10 order, BAE Hagglunds continues to produce heavy CV90-35 Infantry Fighting Vehicles for the Netherlands, which will be delivered from 2007-2010.

Netherlands: 74 BvS10

Appendix A: Bv Vehicles’ Performance in Afghanistan

Bv206 Backing into CH-47D Afghanistan

Bv206, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Canadian Bv206s performed well with the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group during Afghanistan’s Operation Anaconda. Attached to the U.S. Army’s 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division as part of a joint force, they were airlifted inside US Army CH-47D Chinooks to an objective called “The Whaleback” as part of the subsidiary Operation Harpoon. Their experience, and the British experience in Afghanistan, are illustrative.

Senior Analyst Mordica’s “High Altitude Operations” report from the US Center for Army Lessons Learned (no longer publicly available) noted:

“DISCUSSION: The Canadian Army air assaulted small unit support vehicles (SUSV) into the mountains during offensive operations against the al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. The vehicles were used to move distances over the rough terrain at high altitudes, allowing the infantry to ride or transport their loads into battle. These vehicles allowed the infantry some small arms protection and helped them beat the fatigue associated with mountain operations. The SUSV is helicopter transportable and provides all-terrain mobility. The vehicle performed well in combat.”

StrategyPage has a more publicly accessible March 19, 2002 follow-up, with an interesting twist:

“Major Chuck Jarnot, 101st Airborne Division Liaison Officer in Afghanistan, noted that the greatest risk to vehicle movement in Afghanistan is not Taliban/Al-Quedas Rocket Propelled Grenades, but rather the millions of land mines laid throughout the country. The Canadian BV-206 AMV used in Anaconda mitigates this risk by virtue of the very light weight and tracked suspension that results in extremely light ground pressure.

This not only contributes to its excellent terrain agility, but makes anti-tank mine detonation a very small probability since the BV-206 ground pressure is far below the minimum necessary to set off a typical anti-tank mine.”

The larger BvS10 entered the Afghan theater of operations as a key vehicle for the British Royal Marines, complete with anti-RPG slat/’birdcage’ armor. The British Army borrowed some, then replaced them with their “Warthog” derivation of ST Kinetics’ larger Bronco ATTC. The Royal Marines also bought a larger vehicle for use in Afghanistan, but their follow-on buy was the BvS10 Mk.II. In 2013, they will be joined in theater by similar Swedish vehicles. Some experiences from 2006-2008 are illustrative of the platforms’ advantages and tactical employment:

BvS10 Under RAF CH-47

RAF CH-47 w. BvS10,
Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Feb 13/08: Nothing subtle about this UK MoD article: “Marines back in the Vikings – “They are phenomenal”.” One expects that sort of tone from a Ministry of Defence. The key is how well they back that tone up with examples from the field, and whether offsetting problems have surfaced. To date, DID is not aware of performance below expectations in any respect. On to more thoughts from the front lines:

“…due to their popularity the demand for their use is high amongst all troops patrolling and conducting operations in Helmand. Consequently, the demand on the Marines trained to drive them is high too. To help alleviate the pressure… a third unit, from the Queen’s Royal Lancers A Squadron, has been trained and recently deployed to Helmand. They are the first Army unit to operate the Viking on their own.”

Growing demand across service boundaries is always a positive sign. Major Jez Stemp, the Officer Commanding the Royal Marines’ Armoured Support Company:

“Their greatest asset is their all terrain mobility. The Taliban tend to mine known routes, but the Vikings can manoeuvre around them and go off road.”

Royal Marine Tom Aylett, back in Afghanistan for the second time:

“We put the lads in the back of the wagon, drop them off to do operations and attacks with the Vikings. I drive it and man the gun on top… They provide us with a lot of protection and allow us to get closer to the enemy. It’s very reliable, can go up a hill and never gets bogged down like other vehicles.”

Royal Marine Lance Corporal Dean Walker concurs:

“The Viking opens up a lot more operations. We can move where, with and who we want.”

BvS10 w Platt MR555

BvS10 Viking w.
MR555 gun shield
(click to view full)

Jan 28/08: The UK MoD’s “Keeping the Vikings on the move (VIDEO)” is focused on the soldiers who maintain its BvS10 vehicles, but it also offers some observations from tactical experience. Corporal Kev Walker of 1 Battalion Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers works with Vikings in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan:

“The Royal Welsh got contacted by an anti aircraft gun. My troop went in with the Vikings to create a screen, allowing them to get out. We put down heavy fire from the Viking’s General Purpose Machine Gun (It is also fitted with .50 calibre guns), and before we left, having taken no casualties, it looked like all the Taliban had left. If we didn’t have something like the Viking it wouldn’t have been such a happy ending. It was pretty heavy terrain too and I’m not sure any other vehicle could have got in there. We know the Taliban don’t like them…”

Staff Sergeant Chris Hanks of the Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers adds:

“They can cope with the terrain because they have track mobility, which is much better than wheeled vehicles and gets bogged down less. “

Sept 12/07:Viking vehicles prove their worth in volatile Helmand” contains quotes from Maj. Jez Hermer of the Royal Marines’ Armoured Support Company at Bovington, Dorset:

“Since the beginning of the Afghan conflict everyone has woken up to the success of Viking. It is now very important to Operation HERRICK. It has opened up Helmand province and given commanders a broader range of options than they would have had available to them… I see it remaining in Afghanistan and I don’t see it coming back until the end of the commitment.”

“The forces’ inventory of armoured vehicles has come under serious examination in Afghanistan and Iraq. With excellent protection, an ability to operate in all weathers across all terrain, including to ‘swim’ in water, and to withstand a range of threats, Viking has performed well…”

The British Army, meanwhile, is using tracked Spartan vehicles to similar effect.

Jan 23/07: Some of the lads in theater seem to like the new Platt MR550 weapon mounts and gunshields. This was forwarded to us [name and profanities redacted]:

“been busy but got time to tell your mount is f

  • brilliant, the lads love it. been out and about and without a doubt it has stopped some lads becoming casualties. its stable as hell and the lads are big fans of the extended ranges we reach when firing. had a few problems with little bits but got them sorted in no time at all… say a big thankyou to all your staff for getting them out here as they have been a life safer in some of the s** situation we have found ourselfs in. well mate got to go and get ready for anthor trip out.”

Other comments from Royal Marines about their new gunshield:

”Took hits with no worries!”… ”RPG hit the vehicle and we moved on”… ”On the Platt we were shooting out to 2300m on GPMG and tracer burned out… continual shooting on same target watching the splash”

LAND_BvS-10_Viking_Afghanistan_Aerial.jpg

BvS-10, Afghanistan –
note anti-RPG armor
(click to view full)

Jan 10-11/07: A pair of releases from the UK MoD covering operations in Afghanistan speak very highly of the BvS10 Vikings’ performance, noting their battle-ready helicopter transportability and their success in combat against small-arms fire, mortars, and even single-warhead RPGs thanks to their slat armor. The vehicles are already credited with saving a number of lives; one expects to hear this from official sources, but the level of enthusiasm from front-line soldiers without an investment in the vehicle program is a very positive sign.

Oct 31/06: The first ever operation involving the new BvS-10 Viking armored vehicle is successfully completed by Royal Marine Commandos in the rugged terrain of southern Afghanistan. Operation Zina saw 33 Vikings complete a 10-hour combat move into Helmand province from their base in Kandahar airfield, moving through notorious areas of Kandahar City and Gereshk. During the journey Royal Navy Harriers provided force protection and helped clear the route ahead of the convoy, which was also supported by armored fighting vehicles from Denmark and Estonia. Despite some heavy surveillance from suspected Taliban, the journey was completed without incident. See video [Windows Media, 1.87 MB].

The UK MoD release notes that “Being able to operate over deep sand and boulder fields, the Vikings have the mobility to operate anywhere in Helmand province and carry a section of Marines into battle… The Vikings are now patrolling throughout Helmand province and their ability to go anywhere at speed will be a tremendous asset to the Royal Marines.”

Additional Readings and Sources

Thanks to Benelux subscriber David Vandenberghe for his tips and translation assistance.

Background: Bv Family of Vehicles

Background: Similar and Related Vehicles

News & Views

Namer: Israeli Leopard; Troop Carriers

$
0
0

Namer APC

Namer
(click to view full)

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

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

Contracts & Key Events

2016-2017

 

Namer at US GCV Assessment

Namer, GCV trials
(click to view full)

August 2/17: An upgraded prototype of the Namer heavy armoured personnel carrier (APC) has been unveiled by the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Developed by the ministry’s Merkava Tank Administration in conjunction with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Ground Forces, the vehicle includes a new turret with Trophy radars fitted to either side of the gun and countermeasures dispensers on both sides. It also has two sets of electro-optics: one mounted coaxially to the left of the gun and a second that appears to be able to rotate independently of the turret. A 30mm gun, thought to be an Orbital ATK Mk44 Bushmaster has also been included, and will give “significant firepower to infantry units, allowing the soldiers to be more independent on the battlefield, and to reduce the dependency on support from other units.” The vehicle is expected to undergo trails this week.

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

2013 – 2014

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010 – 2012

 

Merkava-4 Moving Turret Slewed

Merkava Mk4
(click to view full)

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

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

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

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

Looks like General Dynamics’ bid was successful.

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

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

Additional Readings

Digital Abrams: The M1A2 SEP Program

$
0
0

M1A2 SEP Motoring

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

M1A2 SEP Upgrades

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

M1 Tank Commanders Display Unit

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.

FY 2011 – 2017

 

August 03/17: General Dynamics Land Systems has been awarded a $270.2 million contract to provide System Enhancement Package (SEP) components for upgraded US Army M1A2 SEPv2 and SEPv3 Abrams main battle tanks. According to the work order, GD will provide, install, and integrate System Enhancement Package v2 legacy components for 45 M1A2 SEPv3 tanks and 60 additional sets of SEPv2 and SEPv3 parts, as well as providing tooling, test, and support equipment. Work will be carried out primarily at Lima Army Tank Plant in Ohio, and other sites in the United States, and is scheduled to run until Aug. 21, 2019. The SEPv2 includes upgraded computers, improved front and side armor, a improved transmission, new infrared sensors and a Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station (CROWS) for the .50 machine gun. While the SEPv3 has improved power generation, networking capabilities and possesses a lower-profile CROWS system.

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).

FY 2008 – 2010

 

M1A2 SEPv2, Mansuriyah-al-Jabal

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).

Feb 7/08: Multi-Year SEP contract. A $39.5 million firm-fixed price contract to upgrade 20 Abrams tanks to M1A2 SEPv2 standard. Work will be performed in Anniston, AL; Tallahassee, FL; Sterling Heights, MI; Lima, OH; and Scranton, PA. The upgrade program is expected to be completed by June 30/13. One bid was solicited on Oct 5/07, and 1 bid was received by the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-06-G-0006). General Dynamics says that this award is in addition to the Jan 15/08 award to fund parts for the upgrades.

General Dynamics announces that this is just the first increment of a $1.5 billion multi-year contract to upgrade 435 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks to M1A2 SEPv2 configuration. They add that this multi-year procurement contract “will complete the modernization of all remaining M1A1 tanks which have been in the US Army’s inventory for more than 20 years.”

Multi-year contract: 435

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.

FY 2005 – 2007

 

M1A2 Abrams Down the Barrel

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

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.

FY 1996 – 2004

 

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

US Army Moves Ahead with V-Hull Strykers

$
0
0

M1126 IEDed

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

Stryker stuck

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

Cougar Explosion Test

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 MGS

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

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.

FY 2017

 

M1126 ICV, DVH

M1126 DVH
(click to view full)

August 11/17: A team combining Boeing and General Dynamics Land Systems will enter a US Army short-range air defense (SHORAD) shoot-off next month. The team will build a short-range air defense system by placing a modernized Avenger air defense system on the back of a Stryker combat vehicle reconfigured to accommodate the system on a turret. The new Avenger is designed to shoot a multitude of different missiles, can be equipped with a 30mm gun and potentially even directed energy weapons down the road. A need for a new SHORAD capability surfaced last year, when the Army noticed a requirement for such platforms in the European theater and has been moving quickly to fill it by developing a system that will give maneuver forces the capability to defend against air threats from peer adversaries on the forward edge of the battlefield.

April 3/17: Latin American governments may soon be operating the Stryker combat vehicle as the US contemplates selling the vehicle to several modernization efforts. Brazil, Colombia, and Peru are all looking to upgrade their armored fleets and the Stryker is seen as an attractive capability that will help with countering threats from “illicit networks” within their borders. If an agreement is secured, it will be the first foreign military sale of the vehicle. Typically armed with either an M2 .50 caliber machine gun or an MK19 40mm grenade launcher mounted in a Protector remote weapon station, the Army has been investing in upgunning and improving the Stryker vehicle by giving it an optional 30mm cannon for anti-air missions and a v-shaped hull to increase protection from explosives.

January 27/17: A US Army Stryker armored vehicle fitted with a 30mm cannon has been tested for the first time. Testing of the cannon, part of a series of upgrades designed to increase the mission capabilities of US Stryker vehicles, was undertaken in order to verify its combat abilities and make future determinations on the vehicle’s armament. The Pentagon’s decision to upgun a number of its Stryker’s – nicknamed the Dragoon – was taken in response to Russia’s 2015 invasion of Ukraine to close a ground vehicle capability gap, according to service leaders. The Army plans to field first of 83 Dragoons by the end of Fiscal 2018.

December 8/16: The US State Department has cleared the sale of 178 reconditioned Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles to the government of Peru. Valued at $668 million, the deal also includes supporting weapons, Remote Weapon Stations, Global Positioning System navigation capabilities, special tool sets, and testing equipment. Once delivered, the vehicles will be used to support border security, disaster response, and counter-terrorism missions.

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.

FY 2016

 

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.

FY 2013 – 2015

 

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”.

Sept 10/13: 3rd brigade. The Project Manager for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team received the approval from the Army Acquisition Executive to begin buying a 3rd brigade of Stryker DVH vehicles to switch with an existing brigade. The initial 66 vehicle conversions of an eventual 337 have been awarded via a $118 million contract to GDLS. Deliveries will begin in July 2014, and the initial 66 will be complete by February 2015.

As of this order, the DVH Exchange pilot program had wrapped up in April 2013 after delivering 52 vehicles on time and under budget. Remaining brigade orders will be based on the availability of funding, using an incremental approach over FY 2014-2016. Sources: US Army, “Army gives green light for procurement of 3rd Stryker Double-V Hull brigade” | GD, “General Dynamics Awarded $118 Million for Stryker Double-V Hull Vehicles” | Yellowhammer News, “80 Anniston Army Depot jobs preserved with DVH Stryker announcement”.

Orders for 3rd brigade begin

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.

FY 2012

 

M1126 DVHs, Afghanistan

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.

FY 2011

 

M1126 ICV Mosul Traffic Jam

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).

FY 2010

 

M1130 Stryker MV

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


FRES: The Future of British Armored Vehicles

$
0
0

FRES-SV PMRS prototype in Spain

FRES-SV PMRS
(click to view full)

Many of Britain’s army vehicles are old and worn, and the necessities of hard service on the battlefield are only accelerating that wear. The multi-billion pound “Future Rapid Effects System” (FRES) aims to recapitalize the core of Britain’s armored vehicle fleet over the next decade or more.

The best one can say is that FRES has gone far better than America’s comparable and canceled “Future Combat System.” That doesn’t mean the rise has been smooth. FRES was spawned by the UK’s withdrawal from the German-Dutch-UK Boxer MRAV modular wheeled APC program, in order to develop a more deployable vehicle that fit Britain’s exact requirements. Those initial requirements were challenging, however, and experience in Iraq and Afghanistan led to decisions that changed an already-late program. So, too, have subsequent budgetary crises…

FRES: The Program

Program Goals

CVR-T Scimitar

CVR (T) Scimitar
(click to view full)

The UK Ministry of Defense’s FRES Integration Project Team described it this way:

“FRES will be the central pillar of a capable and highly deployable medium force which will be able to project power rapidly world-wide, complementing our existing heavy and light forces. The key drivers are the need for a rapid effect land capability, the ability to meet a wide number of operational roles, maximum interoperability with other UK forces and our allies, and addressing the obsolescence of existing vehicles. It is a challenging project, faced with the conundrum of balancing capability, affordability and early delivery.”

The roles FRES-Utility and FRES-Scout vehicles will undertake, and the number of vehicles to be bought, were determined by initial Assessment Phase studies. FRES is expected to provide Britain’s future medium-weight armored vehicles, and may replace current British armored vehicles such as the CVR (T) Scimitar/ Sabre/ Sultan/ Striker light tanks (1,255 vehicles), FV 430 family tracked Armored Personnel Carriers (1,492), and Saxon wheeled APCs (622) in the Army’s inventory.

The original plan for the FRES fleet involved as many as 3,000-3,500 vehicles, including as many as 2,000 wheeled Utility APCs. It began as the largest ever British Army program, with an expected cost of around GBP 16 billion for purchases, and through-life costs of about GBP 60 billion.

Subsequent plans under Britain’s budget-driven Army 2020 plan look set to slash those numbers drastically. Britain’s MoD won’t just how drastically, but a total buy of just several hundred is a likely outcome.

Program History

FRES Program Logo

The first European Defense Agency head, Britain’s Nick Witney, may have made “reducing the number of national infantry fighting vehicles from 22 to 12” one of the EU’s Top 5 defense priorities – but his own government initially followed a very different script. FRES came to the fore after Britain pulled out of the MRAV “Boxer” Infantry Fighting Vehicle> project, which Germany and The Netherlands are still pursuing.

Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) contracts began the cycle in February 2005, and ran to late 2007. Their goal was in order to assess of what was possible, but changing battlefield requirements also elbowed their way into the process. MoD objectives for the vehicles solidified somewhat over this period, and included 4 main areas:

  • Survivability via armor and other self-protection systems; experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has influenced this requirement, and changed it somewhat.
  • Deployability by the A400M aircraft, which has a 35-tonne capacity. The original target vehicle weight of 17 tons, which would be deployable in the RAF’s C-130J Hercules, was abandoned; expected vehicle weight shifted to 20-27 tonnes (22-30 tons), and is likely to reach 30 tonnes/ 33 tons for FRES-UV. FRES-SV can carry up to 42t, but getting there would involve adding new equipment that could be removed for transport, or developing new variants.
  • Networked-enabled capability via digital communication technology.
  • Through-life upgrade potential throughout its anticipated 30 year service life.

Jane’s characterized FRES as a transformational system for the British armed forces, and the UK initially adopted a “Systems House” approach to its development, instead of having the military run it directly. The similarly-tasked U.S. Future Combat Systems program was also led and managed by Boeing and SAIC as Lead Systems Integrators, rather than by a military office. Under these systems, military reviews play a role at various pre-decided stage gates, and the military also plays an ongoing advisory role regarding changing requirements and capabilities, but a contractor is responsible for moving the program ahead and making key decisions, without the same level of red tape found in government programs. Under the UK’s approach, a Systems House who was “independent of product or manufacturing capability” led the initial Assessment Phase (iAP). Atkins played that role, which evaluated Britain’s options and issued technology development program (TDP) contracts. iAP lasted until 2008, when the Ministry of Defence itself stepped forward to declare finalists, conduct trials, and begin declaring its winners.

In total, 9 TDP contracts were issued, many of which are discussed in more detail in the Appendices. The FRES Technology Demonstrator Programs included:

  • Stowage & Capacity (placed Feb/05, complete May/06) – DSTL, the Defence science and technology laboratory
  • Hard Kill Defensive Aid System (placed May/05, completion due Dec/06) – Akers Krutbruk
  • Chassis Concept TDP1: AHED (placed Aug/05, due Feb 07) – General Dynamics UK
  • Chassis Concept TDP2: SEP (placed Dec/05, due Feb/07) – BAE Systems Haaglunds
  • Electronic Architecture TDP 1 (placed Aug/05, due March/07) – Lockheed Martin UK
  • Electronic Architecture TDP 2 (placed Aug/05, due March/07) – Thales
  • Electric Armour TDP (placed Dec/05, due June/07) – Lockheed Martin / Insys
  • Integrated Survivability (placed Dec/05, due Nov/06) – Thales UK
  • Gap Crossing (placed Dec/05, due Oct/07) – BAE Systems

FRES-UV finalists: Piranha-V, VBCI, Boxer-MRAV

There can be… none?
(click to view full)

Boeing and Thales UK won the competition to play a similar role as the system-of-systems integrator (SOSI) during the FRES program’s production phase.

In the end, however, changes on the battlefield and criticism over the pace of FRES led the UK MoD to reach for more of an off-the-shelf vehicle solution. Neither of the vehicles involved in the TDP efforts was among the 3 finalists announced in June 2007, all of whom participated in the ministry’s FRES-UV ‘trials of truth’ in late 2007.

The FRES-UV winner wasn’t announced until May 2008, when General Dynamics’ Piranha-V beat France’s VBCI and the German-Dutch Boxer MRAV program that had been FRES’ origin. Negotiations subsequently stalled, however, and FRES-U/Medium Armor is now on the backburner indefinitely.

The program’s focus is now squarely on the FRES-SV Specialist Vehicle family. It includes the FRES Scout SV, the turretless Protected Mobility Recce Support base variant for Ambulance, Command, and Engineer Recce roles, the Recovery SV model, and the Repair SV model. Instead of replacing Britain’s Warrior IFVs in the armored infantry battalions, Scout SV vehicles will initially serve alongside them in the armored cavalry niche. Britain’s Warriors are getting upgrades, but they’l have to retire around 2030. What happens after that isn’t clear yet.

Phase 1: FRES-SV

GD’s pitch: Part 1

The FRES integration and build contract remained up for grabs, and expected contenders included BAE Systems, General Dynamics UK, and Lockheed Martin UK. The FRES-SV reconnaissance version was also up for grabs, and was tied to a companion program a program to modernize Britain’s Warrior light IFVs.

General Dynamics UK eventually won FRES-SV, beating an upgraded model of BAE’s popular CV90 family with an ASCOD-2 variant of the infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) that serves in Austria and Spain. Modifications included a drive train designed to last the 30-year life of the vehicle, and the ability to support up to 42 tonnes/ 46.3 tons – a weight that would place FRES-SV at the low end for main battle tanks. A signed development contract followed in June 2010.

Variants will include Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS SV), a turretless variant that will be used for the Ambulance, Command, and Engineer Recce roles. Turretless Repair SV and Recovery SV variants are also planned, but their roles are so different that they become their own individual designs. The turreted Scout SV will be the most produced variant.

GD’s Pitch: Part 2

The turret’s novel design and impressive performance make it a key component for Scout SV. Indeed, the government mandated the use of BAE/Nexter’s 40mm CTAS gun system for both FRES-SV and Warrior WCSP. The core of its uniqueness resides in the “caseless telescoped” ammunition: the projectile is encased inside a cylinder, with the propellant packed around it instead of behind it. That cuts round length by about 50%, and improves space efficiency by about 33% for a given level of performance, which mitigates the natural space penalties that accompany a larger 40mm gun. Telescoped ammunition also allowed CTAI to replace the normal breech arrangement with a static ammunition feeder that feeds into a novel rotating breech, via a hollow trunion. That allows a more maintainable feeder that cuts the number of parts by over 50%, and can be located farther forward out of the crew’s way.

Best of all, the 1 kg HE (high-explosive) round has 3 times the hitting power of the Warrior’s previous 30mm Rarden shell, and its high explosive air burst (HEAB) capability allows detonation in mid-air at precise ranges. That’s very useful for firing into urban strongpoints, or over enemies hiding behind outside cover.

GD UK’s FRES-SV turret delivery team has a goal of 75% British content, and includes:

  • Rheinmetall Land Systems (turret structure, cannon mounting structure, CT40 integration)
  • Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill (fire control and training, turret integration authority)
  • Curtiss Wright (turret drives and stabilization control)
  • Defence Support Group (assembly integration and test)
  • Meggitt (ammunition handling system)
  • Moog (slip ring)
  • Ultra Electronics (power management)

FRES-SV: Plans

ASCOD SVs

SV: initial options
(click to view full)

The FRES SV requirement originally involved up to 3 “blocks” of up to 1,300 Reconnaissance, Medium Armour, and Manoeuvre Support vehicles, and a wide variety of potential variants. As of August 2009, the plan was down to 1,238:

  • Recce Block 1: 589 Scout, Repair, Recovery, and Protected Mobility variants. Seen as the highest priority.
  • Recce Block 2: up to 141 vehicles
  • Recce Block 3: up to 280 vehicles
  • Medium Armour: up to 193 vehicles
  • Manoeuvre Support: up to 35 vehicles

The current Army 2020 plan looks set to cut those totals significantly, with FRES-SV vehicles equipping just 1 armored cavalry regiment within each of 3 armored infantry brigades. FRES-UV numbers also look set to take a cut, equipping only each of the 3 brigades’ Heavy Protected Mobility battalion.

At the same time, the in-service date for FRES has slipped from 2009, and is now no earlier than 2015 for FRES-SV. FRES-UV remains without a contract, or a planned in-service date. A 2008 UK Parliamentary report conveyed the Atkins system house’s doubts that FRES vehicles would be operational in any significant numbers before 2017. That was seen as shocking when they said it – but it may prove to be optimistic.

FRES: Contracts & Key Events

2012 – 2017

CT40 gun qualified; FRES-SV
PMRS variant moving ahead; How secure is FRES-SV funding.

GD on SVs

September 19/17: General Dynamics Land Systems UK has commenced live firing trials for its AJAX armored vehicle program. The trials are being held in West Wales, Great Britain, and will last for approximately five months, starting with static firing positions against immobile point targets and gradually progressing to a moving vehicle engaging moving targets. It is armed with the CT 40 autocannon and a coaxial 7.62mm chain gun for lighter targets. Used by both the UK and French armed forces, the CT 40 ustilizes a type of telescoping 40mm ammunition designed to take up less space and reduce the necessary size of the gun. It can fire armor-piercing discarding sabot and high-explosive airburst ammunition out to an effective range of 2500 meters. It has a maximum rate of fire of up to 200 rounds per minute.

Sept 13/14: Industrial. Defense News reports that there’s a problem with the cost of assembling the FRES-SV vehicles in Britain, when compared to lower costs for vehicles from GD Santa Barbara Sistemas in Spain. That’s a problem for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that General Dynamics’ industrial proposals in Britain were reportedly a key element in their contract win (q.v. March 15/10). To make matters worse, the FRES-SV decision also led to closures at BAE that included their Newcastle armored vehicle plant in 2012 (q.v. May 31/12).

So much for promises that 80% of ASCOD SV’s full rate production and 70% of its total supply chain will be based in the UK, securing or creating “over 10,600 jobs.” The original plan was to build 100 vehicles entirely at GD Santa Barbara Sistemas, in order to efficiently reach Initial Operational Capability. After that, the Spanish plant would provide hulls only, with the remainder of assembly and manufacturing taking place at Britain’s state-owned Defence Support Group (DSG).

The whole thing begins to look like a very poor policy decision if DSG is very inefficient by comparison, or even a bait-and-switch. The government has asked General Dynamics to go over the figures again, but one could be forgiven for wondering what leverage the government actually has at this point. If the additional costs of DSG-built vehicles are too high, the size of the FRES-SV program would leave the government with a very unpleasant decision to make. Sources: Defense News, “British MoD Reconsiders Assembling Scout in UK”.

F-35A

Dunne in FRES-SV PMRS
(click to view full)

Sept 3/14: FRES-SV. The UK Ministry of Defence orders 589 FRES Scout-SV tracked vehicles, in 6 variants, to be delivered between 2017 – 2024. General Dynamics UK will also provide initial in-service support and training under the GBP 3.5 billion ($6 billion) contract.

The vehicles will be delivered in 6 variants. The UK MoD double-counts Engineer Reconnaissance, and omits the base turreted vehicle and the touted Ambulance variant. Correcting for those faults, one possibility looks to known variants promoted by General Dynamics, and lists:

  • Scout-SV base. Only variant with a full 40mm turret.
  • Turretless PMRS SV (Protected Mobility Reconnaissance Support) – incl. Ambulance role, and Engineering Reconnaissance carrying specialist engineering equipment and personnel.
  • Command and Control – derived from PMRS.
  • Reconnaissance – derived from PMRS, role includes targeting and fire control.
  • Repair SV – turretless, with crane.
  • Recovery SV – turretless, with winch and dozer blade.

The announcement is made on the eve of NATO’s Wales Summit, while Russian forces are fighting semi-openly in eastern Ukraine. It’s meant to underscore the fact that Britain is the only major NATO member other than the USA who is meeting the 2% of GDP target for defense spending, and Britain presses more allies to follow Poland’s example and commit to more defense spending. Sources: GD UK, “General Dynamics UK awarded £3.5 billion to deliver 589 SCOUT SV platforms to the British Army” | BBC, “NATO summit: £3.5bn armoured vehicle deal to be signed”.

FRES-SV: 589 vehicles in 6 variants

June 25/14: FRES-UV. The British Army will conduct renewed 8-month trials of a heavily-modified VBCI, as a follow-on to the The Lancaster House agreement (q.v. Nov 2/10) regarding the 2 countries’ defense industries. Activities will begin before the end of 2014 at France’s Canjeurs military base, before moving to Mourmelon. VBCI’s export version has some important changes:

“Speaking to IHS Jane’s at Eurosatory 2014 in Paris, Philip Dunne, UK Minister for Defence Equipment, Support, and Technology, said the VBCI had fallen down on three elements in the original competition: accessibility to the vehicle’s powerpack, the vehicle’s armour protection levels, and its growth potential…. “VBCI has undergone a significant upgrade”, he added…. [Nexter’s] new export variant of the VBCI…. included the ability to remove the vehicle’s powerpack in the field (a British but not a French requirement), and an improved suspension and transmission to increase the VBCI’s maximum weight from 29 tonnes to 32 tonnes – meeting the British need for growth potential and improved protection…. Other improvements include fourth-axle steering, a repositioned fuel tank, upgraded cooling and engine performance, and small hull reconfigurations to increase the vehicle’s internal volume.”

The bad news? Under the revised “Army 2020” plan, FRES UV has dropped from initial estimates of around 2,000 vehicles to just 1 Heavy Protected Mobility (HPM) battalion in each of 3 mechanized brigades. There’s no firm date for that buy, either, as relatively new 6-wheeled Mastiff v-hulled vehicles already occupy the HPM role. Sources: DID, “VBCI: France’s Wheeled APC” | IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “British Army to trial VBCI”.

June 16/14: Weapons. The WSCP’s 40mm Cased Telescoped Armament System has achieved qualification certification from the UK and France for the 40mm cannon and 2 tracer round types: APFSDS armor piercing and TP full target practice rounds.

CT40 qualification certification allows manned firing demonstration phases to begin for Britain’s FRES-Scout and WCSP programs, and for the French DGA’s EBRC wheeled light tank program. The program will work to certify the other initial ammunition types (A3B anti-aerial airburst, Point detonating and Airburst general purpose tracer rounds, and a low-cost reduced range TPPR-T training round) over the next 2 years, in time for the first delivery of the UK’s series production vehicles. The French EBRC program is expected to start full development in 2015. Sources: CTAI, “CTA International achieves Anglo-French qualification for the 40mm Cased Telescoped Cannon and Ammunition”.

April 28/14: PMRS CDR. The UK Ministry of Defence passes FRES-SV’s turretless Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) base platform through the Base Platform Critical Design Review (CDR). The review covered mine and ballistic survivability; human factors design; PMRS system architecture; its sub-systems, such as the running gear, suspension, auto controls and propulsion; and PMRS specific design interfaces, including for the vehicle’s electronic architecture, C4I equipment, towing and storage.

Note that when the demonstration contract was signed (q.v. July 1/10), full trials of the prototype vehicle were expected to begin no later than 2013. They’re a bit behind.

PMRS is the 1st variant-specific CDR for the SCOUT-SV program, and it will produce a turretless vehicle carrying 2 crew and just 4 soldiers. Variants will be used for Ambulance, Command, and Engineer Reece roles. Delivery of the first PMRS variant pre-production prototype is expected in 2014, following PMRS’ overarching CDR. The Scout SV infantry fighting vehicle, Recovery SV, and Repair SV will follow later. Sources: GD-UK, “General Dynamics UK completes Base Platform Critical Design Review for Specialist Vehicle variant”.

Feb 13/14: NAO Report. Britain’s National Audit Office releases their 2013 Major Projects Report, as well as their review of Britain’s 2013-2023 Equipment Plan. With respect to FRES Specialist Vehicles, the number of vehicles planned is redacted. The NAO report adds:

“It should be noted that Specialist Vehicles does not have a single Main Gate Approval. The size of the programme, together with previous lessons learned in other programmes, determined that a two stage Main Gate approach should be used; Main Gate 1 for entry into Demonstration for Recce Block 1 and Common Base Platform only, with a second Main Gate (2) for entry into production, the latter being the major investment decision. Later approvals (in effect sub- Main Gates) will approve Demonstration and Manufacture of the remaining Protected Mobility Recce Support roles and any future needs.”

Jan 29/14: Parliamentary Report. The House of Commons Defence Committee publishes a report regarding Britain’s fuzzy “Army 2020” plans. Key excerpts:

“We are surprised that such a radical change to the Army’s structure, reflecting a reduction of 12,000 personnel from that announced in SDSR 2010, was not discussed at the National Security Council (NSC)…. As well as setting out the proposed new structure for the Army, the plan announced there would be 17 fewer major units in the Army with a reduction of 23 units from the Order of Battle[51] in total by disbanding and merging several units….

We note that the Secretary of State for Defence accepts that Army 2020 was designed to fit a financial envelope. We are concerned that this consideration took primacy over the country’s abilities to respond to the threats, risks and uncertainties contained in the National Security Strategy. We were also concerned to hear that it was the Ministry of Defence’s Permanent Secretary who told the Chief of the General Staff the future size of the Army under the Army 2020 plan. We call on the MoD to explain the apparent lack of consultation and involvement of the Chief of the General Staff in the decision-making process that has affected his Service so fundamentally….

In its response to this Report, we recommend that the MoD provide us with an assessment of how the Army 2020 plans will affect the “Fighting Power” of the Army providing comparable assessments of both current fighting power and projected fighting power following the completion of the Army 2020 plans.”

Sources: UK Parliament, “Defence Committee – Ninth Report
Future Army 2020
“.

Jan 13/14: -SV plans. Britain’s MoD endorses an update to the FRES-SV Acquisition Strategy. The turretless Protected Mobility Recce Support vehicle variant will be used with minor sub-system changes for the Ambulance, Command, and Engineer Recce roles. Further studies have been contracted to assess requirements for the turreted Scout SV, and the Repair and Recovery variants. Sources: NAO Major Projects Report 2013.

Sept 10/13: -SV Testing. The lead contractor for FRES-SV touts testing efforts to date:

“Since [DSEI 2011], General Dynamics UK has been putting its Mobile Test Rig (MTR) – the precursor to a prototype Specialist Vehicle (SV) – through an extensive series of trials…. The MTR is similar in design to the Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) variant of SV, which itself is capable of carrying a crew of two and up to four dismountable troops.

The MTR began its tests [in June 2012]…. To date, the MTR has undertaken… cold weather and Operational and Tactical (O&T) mobility trials… over 1,800km. The O&T trials demonstrated the vehicles ability to withstand extreme lower temperatures and to meet the demanding mobility requirements of the SV programme, during which the MTR towed a total of 92 tonnes train weight over 300km. The next phase of trialling will be the grueling Accelerated Life Testing (ALT) schedule…. On completion of the ALT activities, MTR will have covered over 10,000km and will have provided crucial reliability and performance data to inform the design and manufacture of the six demonstration phase prototype SV platforms.”

Sources: GD-UK, “General Dynamics UK unveils Specialist Vehicle Mobile Test Rig at DSEI 2013”.

July 2013: Army 2020. The British MoD clarifies its reduced force structure plan under Army 2020. British armored forces will see an especial cut, with 3 mechanized brigades and 16 Air Assault Brigade in the “Reaction Force,” while the “Adaptable Force” would include 7 infantry brigades as its combat force.

The initial 2012 document (q.v. May 26/12) made it clear that FRES-SV would only have a role in the armored cavalry regiments. Each mechanized brigade has just 1 of those, which pairs FRES-SV and Challenger tanks. The rest of the brigade includes 1 full Challenger tank regiment, 2 armored infantry battalions with Warrior IFVs, and a Heavy Protected Mobility battalion with blast-resistant Mastiff vehicles. The HPM battalion might be outfitted with FRES-UV wheeled armored vehicles later on, but neither type of FRES armored vehicle was listed for the “Adaptable Force,” which will supposedly rely on standard wheeled patrol vehicles.

This structure seems to represent a drastic cut to the overall FRES program, but Britain’s government and ministry are avoiding those kinds of details. Sources: UK MoD, “Transforming The British Army: An Update – July 2013” and “Transforming The British Army, July 2012”.

June 19/12: Weapons. At the Eurosatory 2012 show, French operators give the Javelin anti-tank missile high marks for performance in Afghanistan, and the Javelin JV is in talks with 2 French firms to integrate Javelin with the BAE/Nexter CT40 turret. Nexter is the first firm, of course.

At the same time, Panhard General Defense is working with Lockheed Martin UK to develop its Sphinx medium 6×6 wheeled armored vehicle concept for France’s EBRC light tank competition. Lockheed Martin UK expects to leverage its turret work from the British FRES-SV and WCSP programs for EBRC, and the Javelin missile is already a mainstay in British service. Which means that any Javelin integration work performed for the French market could eventually filter back to those British armored programs. Sources: Army Recognition, “Lockheed Martin at Eurosatory 2012”.

May 31/12: Industrial. BAE closes its main armored vehicle production facility at Newcastle-on-Tyne.

“BAE said the proposal to close the Newcastle site at the end of 2013 followed a business review which concluded that there was no prospect of new UK armoured vehicle manufacturing work once production of the Terrier ends next year.”

Sources: Daily Mail, “Tank builder shuts after 165 years because of slump in orders” | Mirror, “Tanks and goodnight: Historic defence factory to close with loss of hundreds of jobs”.

May 26/12: FRES-SV delay? Defense News quotes unnamed British sources, who say that the new Army 2020 plan is likely to extend FRES SV’s GBP 500 million pound demonstration phase, cut the total number of planned vehicles, and delay operational introduction to 2020 or beyond. Excerpt:

“The MoD has never publicly acknowledged the expected in-service date for the Scout vehicle, although Army officers at last year’s DSEi exhibition in London said it was 2015…. A MoD spokeswoman said: …The funding for the [GBP 5.5 billion] vehicle pipeline, which also includes the Warrior Capability Sustainment Program, a [FRES] utility vehicle and improvements to Challenger 2, will be prioritized, according to the Army’s requirements. In the case of Scout, production numbers and delivery dates will be confirmed at Main Gate…”

Sources: UK MoD – Transforming The British Army, July 2012″ [PDF] | Defense News, “U.K. May Delay Major Vehicle Buy”.

May 14/12: Politics. The UK MoD confirms in its Planning Round 2012 (PR12) announcement that GBP 5.5 billion in funding is available for its future Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) pipeline, which includes the FRES-Specialist Vehicle program. GD-UK is predictably pleased:

“We welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence confirming that the SV programme is secure in the MoD’s future AFV pipeline and core programme of committed funding,” commented Dr. Sandy Wilson, president and managing director of General Dynamics UK…. A recent audit study by Ernst & Young concluded that the SV programme would generate total economic output of over [GBP] 9.8 billion, with a corresponding Gross Value Added1 (GVA) of [GBP] 4.7 billion over the life of the programme. To this end, General Dynamics UK recently invested £12 million in state of the art facilities in Wales, establishing a Centre of Excellence for Land Systems…”

Sources: GD-UK, “UK MoD confirms commitment to Specialist Vehicle programme in Armoured Fighting Vehicle pipeline”.

2010 – 2011

GD’s ASCOD 2 is preferred base design for FRES-SV; Sub-contractors picked; FRES-SV survives SDSR review; Testing contract for novel CT40 gun system.

ASCOD FRES-SV

ASCOD-2 Scout
(click to view full)

May 4/11: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Corporation announces a contract from Lockheed Martin to provide the Scout reconnaissance vehicle’s servo system for weapon stabilization.

The demonstration phase contract has an option for production deliveries, and continues through December 2013. Curtiss-Wright will design, develop and manufacture the turret drive servo system at their Motion Control facility in Neuhausen, Switzerland.

March 23/11: Industrial. Lockheed Martin UK announces 60 new jobs at their Ampthill site, now that they have secured a contract to deliver the turret for the new FRES SV.

March 6/12: Sub-contractors. ViaSat Inc. is picked by General Dynamics UK Ltd. to design and develop the on-board encrypted data storage systems for FRES-SV, scheduled to begin trials with the British Army in January 2013.

ViaSat has developed the only hardware based data encryption technology approved by Britain’s CESG for the protection of Top Secret data at rest. The system also includes purge controls to delete data encryption keys. Overall, its EDS systems will allow FRES-SV vehicles to securely capture, analyze, store, and share over 6 TB of intelligence data. The Specialist Vehicle Encryption and Purge Solution will be modular, able to be switched out as needed, and more easily upgraded over the vehicle’s lifetime. ViaSat.

Jan 17/11: Political. IHS Jane’s reports that:

“The biggest hit for the British Army in the Government’s economy package falls on what had been known as the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) programme, focused on delivering medium weight armour. Already long-delayed and effectively in abeyance, the programme has now seen army officers drop bids for funding to build both the medium armour [DID: FRES-U] and manoeuvre support FRES variants from the service’s 2011 spending and planning round (PR11) pitch…. “

Being left out of PR11 isn’t a death sentence in and of itself, but the more time FRES variants spend as a lower-priority item, the lower their long-term fielding odds become. Other programs expected to be on the “unfunded” list for PR11 include UOR electronic countermeasures for use against IED land mines, bringing satellite communication equipment into the core force, fielding blast-resistant Wolfhound/ Husky/ Coyote supply vehicles across the wider army, new chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear protective equipment; arming Watchkeeper MK450B UAVs, and funding ongoing improvements to the Bowman communication system beyond 2015.

Dec 2/10: Sub-contractors. Lockheed Martin UK announces that General Dynamics UK has issued a contract to deliver 3 turrets for the FRES Scout reconnaissance vehicle, to be used in the Demonstration Phase Integration and Test efforts.

As previous entries indicate, Lockheed Martin has been working on this for some time. Some of that happened during the bid phase. Other work was covered by UK MoD advance funding ahead of a full contract agreement with prime contractor General Dynamics UK, in order to ensure that the FRES-SV Demonstration Phase schedule remained fully on track. While contract negotiations continue between General Dynamics UK and the UK MoD, Lockheed Martin UK is also in negotiations with its suppliers, in order to finalize industrial arrangements for the turret.

Nov 2/10: UK-France. The “UK-France Summit 2010 Declaration on Defence and Security Co-operation” includes the intent to create “a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force suitable for a wide range of scenarios, up to and including high intensity operations.”

The VBCI may have lost the original FRES-UV competition (q.v. May 8/08), but GD’s Piranha V couldn’t hold on to its win (q.v. Dev 11/08). A combined JEF would benefit from armored vehicle commonality, if Nexter can fix the flaws that cause it to lose in 2008.

UK-France defense MoU

Oct 19/10: SDSR. Britain releases its Strategic Defence and Security Review. Heavy units take the brunt of land cuts, with Challenger tank forces cut by 40%, and AS90 Braveheart self-propelled artillery by 33%. FRES escapes obvious cuts, but the government does not give firm fleet size guidance. It says only that the future force will include:

“…a new range of medium weight armoured vehicles, including Terrier engineer vehicles and the Scout reconnaissance vehicles and in due course the Future Rapid Effects System Utility Vehicle (FRES UV) which will be the core of the Army’s armoured manoeuvre fleet;”

SDSR

July 1/10: A Conservative/Liberal Democrat alliance has become Britain’s government, and their comprehensive defense review isn’t done yet; even so, a major FRES-SV contract is signed by the UK MoD and General Dynamics UK. The GBP 500 million (about $760 million) contract covers FRES-SV’s demonstration phase. The firm will design and deliver 7 prototypes for the ASCOD-2 Scout reconnaissance vehicle, supporting variants built on the ASCOD SV Common Base Platform, and associated training equipment. The Common Base Platform can support variants such as the base Infantry Fighting/ Scout vehicle, a turretless Armored Personnel Carrier, Ambulance, Bridge-Laying, Command, Assault Gun/ Fire Support, Repair, and Recovery, as desired.

The trials of the prototype vehicles are expected to begin with the Army no later than 2013. If and when the demonstration phase is successful, the program can advance to the Manufacture Phase. UK MoD | General Dynamics UK.

FRES-SV Demonstration Phase

June 24/10: Sub-contractors. General Dynamics UK unveils its Scout SV turret for ASCOD SV at Britain’s Defence Vehicle Dynamics 2010 exhibition. The turret is designed around the CT40 Cased Telescoped Cannon System, which was successfully integrated and fired by turret provider Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill at the beginning of 2010. Over 75% of turret-related work will be done in the UK.

The ASCOD SV turret has a turret-ring diameter of 1.7m, which is wider than older vehicles such as the Warrior. The hull is also designed to accommodate a 2.1m turret ring, which would offer the ability to carry a 105mm or 120mm gun in order to field a fire support variant (the CV90 family has already fielded and tested the CV90-120). ASCOD SV’s turret design places the main ammunition feed under-armor, but outside the turret crew compartment. This gives soldiers in the turret more room, even wearing full body armour and future wearable systems, and offers room for additional systems (probably power) to be added inside. General Dynamics UK.

March 22/10: -SV preferred bidder. The UK Ministry of Defence announces that General Dynamics UK is the preferred bidder for FRES-SV, but doesn’t specify the amount. News reports describe a potential GBP 1 billion (about $1.5 billion) contract to provide 580 vehicles in both the Scout variant and the Common Base Platform for other specialty roles like recovery, command and control, etc. Note that Preferred Bidder status is not a contract yet – GD UK had the exact same status for FRES-U, but couldn’t come to an agreement and ended up losing the contract.

The base ASCOD design for FRES-SV is a collaboration between 2 General Dynamics subsidiaries: Santa Barbara Sistemas in Spain, and Steyr Daimler Pusch in Austria. Earlier versions of the ASCOD serve with the Spanish and Austrian militaries, where they are known as the Pizarro and Ulan, respectively. General Dynamics says that their FRES ASCOD-2 design can grow up to 42 tonnes thanks to its drive train – almost the weight of a Russian T-72 main battle tank, and heavier than BAE’s CV90. The firm adds that 80% of ASCOD SV’s full rate production and 70% of its total supply chain will be based in the UK, securing or creating over 10,600 jobs for British workers at headquarters in South Wales, and other regions. General Dynamics UK has sub-contracted Lockheed Martin UK INSYS to produce the Scout variant’s CTAS-based 40mm turret, and will transfer full rate production of the entire ASCOD SV program to DSG in Donnington.

The deal is not wholly out of the woods yet, however. The opposition Conservative Party is criticizing the awards just before a general election, whose aftermath is certain to feature a broad strategic review. The party says that existing programs will be assessed on 5 criteria: affordability, capability, adaptability, exportability and interoperability. UK MoD | General Dynamics UK | UK’s Daily Telegraph | UK’s The Guardian | UK’s The Independent | AP | Defense News.

ASCOD-2 picked for FRES-SV

March 15/10: -SV Competition. BAE Systems announces plans to save and create a total of 800 jobs (400 layoffs canceled, 400 jobs added) at its Newcastle manufacturing site, shifting away from its initial plans to build the base CV90 platform on the current manufacturing line in Sweden, and then fit it out and finish it in the UK. The move comes in response to a March 13/10 report in the Financial Times the British government is ready to award the FRES-SV contract to General Dynamics.

Media reports say that BAE was initially told it was in the “box seat” to win the order, after spending GBP 50 million and 5 years designing a CV90 variant that it believes to be technically superior to its competition, a General Dynamics ASCOD variant. Reports now indicate that the General Dynamics proposal had a more attractive industrial component. Defence Management | Defense News | IBTimes | Reuters | London Telegraph.

Feb 26/10: -SV Competition. Jane’s reports that the FRES-SV industrial programs have become an issue in the competition. General Dynamics UK reportedly said it expects to safeguard or create more than 10,500 jobs in 8 regions of the UK, if its ASCOD vehicle wins. This presumably includes jobs at component suppliers, and possibly economic multiplier effects.

At the same time, BAE Systems had warned that its UK military land vehicle concerns will become a “dwindling support services business” should the group fail to be selected to meet the UK FRES-SV and the Warrior Capability Sustainment Plan. In other words, significant layoffs.

Feb 25/10: -SV Competition. The MoD’s Investment Approvals Board (IAB) meets, with discussions including the GBP 1 billion Warrior Capability Sustainment Program upgrades to Britain’s Warrior IFVs, and MoD Defence Equipment & Support’s recommendation in the FRES-SV competition. Jane’s report | PURCON | Defense News re: IAB’s agenda.

Feb 22/10: Weapons. BAE Systems announces that they’re starting to build a GBP 4.5 million Turret Test Rig (TTR) for the FRES Scout and Warrior upgrade programs. The rig is closely modeled on BAE Systems’ Mission Equipment Vibration Table (MEVT) in Minneapolis, built for the US Future Combat Systems program. Indeed, systems modeling and analysis manager Vince Whelan relocated from Minneapolis.

The TTR is designed to take a turret through a 20-year life-span in 12-18 months by subjecting it to “shake, rattle and roll” tests under extremes of temperature. Electronic components in particular tend to dislike vibration, but the life of an armored vehicle makes a lot of vibration inevitable. Testing must be done, but field testing is inefficient and expensive. Hence the development of facilities like TTR/MEVT.

Feb 8/10: Weapons. The CTA International (CTAI) joint venture between BAE Systems and France’s Nexter signs a GBP 11 million contract with the French and British ministries of defence, in order to fund qualification of their 40mmm CTCA caseless cannon system. CT40 qualification will begin in early 2011, including freezing, baking, humidity, “shake, rattle and roll” trials, etc. The UK and France have already signed a Government to Government Technical Arrangement for a jointly-funded qualification program, which will require around 15,000 rounds.

The final ammunition requirements will be defined once the prime contractors are announced in the next few weeks. Nexter has secured an ammunition supply contract from the French government, while BAE Systems Global Combat Systems – Munitions (GCSM), recently submitted a proposal to produce that 40mm ammunition through Britain’s existing MASS munitions supply contract.

While the system has been passed for manned firing and considerable data has already been collected, these trials will formally pass the system for use by the British and French armies. CTCA will be used in the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP), the FRES Scout reconnaissance vehicle for the British Army and in the French Army’s future reconnaissance vehicle. In Britain, however, the WCSP/FRES turrets and the FRES Scout chassis will be selected through competition. BAE Systems release.

CT40 testing

2008 – 2009

GD’s Piranha V wins FRES-U, until FRES-UV is shelved; Boeing & Thales sign integrator contracts; FRES-SV competition bids are in.

cv90 urban camo

CV90, urban camo
(click to view full)

Nov 5/09: -SV Competition. General Dynamics UK announces that its FRES-SV bid is in, and cites the design’s weight and growth potential. Its ASCOD SV will use Lockheed Martin UK INSYS as its turret designer and provider.

Nov 1/09: -SV Competition. A BAE release adds more details about their bid for the initial GBP 2 million “Recce Block 1” FRES-SV phase, including information about expected production. The chassis will be built at the company’s existing production line at Ornskoldsvik, Sweden, using parts from a number of UK suppliers. The Scout turret and UK mission fit will be built in the UK, and integrated onto the chassis in the UK.

According to the release, BAE’s demonstrator vehicle has already begun mobility trials at Millbrook proving ground, and fired its weapon system at the Shoeburyness range.

Sept 9/09: -SV Competition. BAE unveils its FRES-SV Scout demonstrator at DESi 2009. It’s based on a lowered CV90 chassis, with upgraded electronics and the requisite stabilized CTAS 40mm turret.

CTAS will form the foundation for the FRES Scout and the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP), and its 40mm high explosive round has more than 3x the explosive power of the 30mm Rarden that equips the current Warrior vehicles. Testing is underway. The WSCP and FRES-SV turrets will be somewhat different, but will be based on a common gun and electronic architecture. Defence Management.

July 9/09: -SV Competition. The UK Ministry of Defence has announced that it will extend FRES-SV’s draft Invitation to Tender to BAE Systems Global Combat Systems, and to General Dynamics UK. Their competing models are intended to provide reconnaissance and reconnaissance support vehicles to replace the British Army’s existing CVR (T) Scimitar and Spartan vehicles. The final Invitation to Tender is expected to be issued later in July 2009, following this initial assessment phase.

BAE has at least 2 main choices for FRES-SV. Reports to date indicate that it is likely to offer its tracked SEP/Thor modular vehicle, a new design whose wheeled model could easily become the back-door choice for FRES-U/MA – if the tracked variant wins FRES-SV, and if subsequent negotiations go well. The other option is its popular CV90 series, which is already combat tested and in service with several countries. It offers a more proven solution, a wide array of developed variants, and allied interoperability benefits, at the price of having less cross-over potential.

General Dynamics is offering an upgraded ASCOD 2 IFV. This joint project of General Dynamics’ subsidiaries Santa Barbara Sistemas and Steyr-Daimler-Puch has been fielded by Spain (as the Pizarro IFV) and Austria (as the Ulan IFV); several specialty variants are already in service.

Dec 15/08: Industrial. Bloomberg News quotes BAE spokesman Mike Sweeny as saying that BAE will review the future of its UK Land Systems unit following the UK MoD’s FRES decision. BAE had lost 2 critical opportunities to participate in FRES so far, and had pinned its hopes on becoming the manufacturing contractor for the modified FRES- Utility Piranha V design. When talks collapsed between General Dynamics MOWAG and the UK over ownership of the vehicles’ intellectual property, and placed the FRES-UV vehicle on the back-burner, that opportunity evaporated.

BAE is also competing for the FRES-SV scout vehicle, offering its Thor/SEP vehicle which comes in wheeled and tracked variants. The SEP is designed by BAE’s Hagglunds unit in Sweden, however, and would not enter service until 2013 at the earliest.

In November 2008, BAE Land Systems said it would cut as many as 200 jobs because production work has dwindled to the Pinzgauer armored truck and Terrier general support engineer vehicle, plus an unspecified project for a Middle Eastern client. Upgrade and integration work on systems like the AS90 mobile howitzer, FV430 Mk3 Bulldog APC, Warrior IFV, and others wasn’t deemed sufficient. BAE has now said that it said it can’t rule out further plant closures and job cuts in Britain.

SEP: Tracked & Wheeled

SEP, tracked
(click to view full)

Dec 11/08: FRES-UV shelved. The UK Ministry of Defense announces a sweeping set of changes to a number of procurement programs. FRES is the most seriously affected, as GD MOWAG’s refusal to transfer its newest Piranha-V vehicle’s full intellectual property to the UK MoD ownership scuttles the deal. The firm’s preferred bidder status for FRES-Utility is revoked. At the same time, the SoSI integrator position is removed from the program.

The government also concludes that conditions in Afghanistan, which have not been kind to very similar wheeled vehicles, place a higher priority on the FRES-SV, which is very likely to be a tracked offering. UK Defence Secretary John Hutton:

“We have concluded that, in the context of current operations, and bearing in mind the considerable recent investment in protected mobility, the highest priority should now be accorded to delivering the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme and the FRES Scout vehicle as quickly as possible. Against that background, we have decided to restructure the FRES programme, giving priority to FRES Scout over the FRES Utility Vehicle.”

Hutton admits that this move will delay the FRES program, again. A government looking to move FRES out of the way of other needs would see that as a positive feature. UK MoD | Bloomberg.

SoSI removed, FRES-UV shelved, FRES-SV prioritized

Nov 3/08: FRES-UV. The Financial Times of London writes:

“Six months after selecting General Dynamics [MOWAG] to provide the design for the first variant of the new vehicles, the MoD has been unable to agree final contractual terms with the US group [DID: GD MOWAG is in Switzerland]…. the two parties have been unable to agree certain elements of the final contract. The protracted negotiations have also delayed the competition for the vehicle integrator, the job of assembling the vehicle, fitting it out and making sure it can work with all the other high-tech systems in the forces. BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Finmeccanica are all in the running for the role.”

The article reports that the UK MoD is revisiting the acquisition process, and that elements of FRES could be delayed as a result of the impasse.

Oct 16/08: Lockheed Martin UK announces an study contract from Atkins, the FRES program’s system house. The study will work to help the UK MoD refine the FRES-SV scout vehicle’s user and systems requirements, cost estimates and schedule to delivery, with a particular focus on integrating the FRES mission systems into a combat-effective, affordable and low-risk Scout turret concept. The work will also build upon the FRES Electronic Architecture Technology Demonstrator Programme (EATDP) that Lockheed Martin UK and its teammates delivered for MoD through Atkins in 2007.

Lockheed Martin’s principal sub-contractors will be SciSys and Ultra Electronics. Lockheed Martin UK release.

Piranha-V FRES concept

FRES-U:
Piranha-V concept
(click to view full)

May 8/08: FRES-UV. General Dynamics UK’s Piranha-V wins Britain’s FRES-Utility competition, beating Nexter’s VBCI and the ARTEC consortium’s Boxer MRAV. General Dynamics employs prople around the UK, including 1,000 in South Wales at Oakdale and Newbridge.

As noted below, even this win is still a development contract of sorts. Subject to satisfactory completion of the package of work on risk reduction, General Dynamics UK Limited and its team will develop the new Piranha-V 8×8 wheeled armored personnel carrier as the British Army’s FRES Utility Vehicle. The company will now enter negotiations with the MoD to determine the scope of development work required. A spokesman for the MoD said the risk-reduction phase was “aimed at increasing confidence in the maturity of the vehicle design across performance, cost and time issues.” At present, there is no schedule for this next phase; that will be one of the items negotiated. UK MoD release | General Dynamics UK release | Defense News | iCWales news site report | Forbes report.

FRES-UV picks Piranha V

March 11/08: Not Off-the-Shelf. The House of Commons issues its 2007-08 defence equipment report. With respect to FRES, the report describes the MoD’s go-forward approach – which is not about an off-the-shelf purchase:

“We note that the FRES Utility Vehicle design which has been recommended is a “developmental vehicle” and that the MoD considers that this is the best option as it can be upgraded and its capability increased over time. We also note that the MoD considers that acquiring an “off-the-shelf” vehicle would not provide scope for increasing capability and would have a very limited life. While we recognise that these are strong arguments for acquiring a developmental vehicle for the FRES Utility Vehicle, such an option is also likely to involve higher costs and increased risks to the in-service date because of unforeseen problems during the further development. If the recommended design is approved, the MoD needs to ensure that it identifies the key risks on the programme and how these are to be managed.”

Read: “Britain Releases Defence Equipment 2008 Report” for more information and links.

Feb 6/08: SoSI. Boeing and Thales announce that their System of System Integrators contract (see Oct 5/07) has been signed by the UK MoD. The initial 6-month contract is valued at GBP 4 million (about $8 million). It gets the process started, and defines the framework for the firm’s ongoing role in the subsequent phases of the FRES program. Boeing release | Thales Group release.

Integrator contracts

2006 – 2007

Initial study contracts; System integrator finalists & FRES-UV finalists picked, but program delayed.

Boxer MRAV Snow

Boxer MRAV:
in from the cold
(click to view full)

Nov 29/07: Delayed. Bob Ainsworth, the UK’s Minister of State for Armed Forces, announces a slight delay:

“The Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) has a vital role to play in the future of the British Army. We stated that we would announce the outcome of the utility vehicle design trials by the end of November. I am delighted to announce today that these trials have been successfully completed on schedule, and that a recommendation has been produced based on technical design considerations. Further work with all three possible providers will be undertaken over the next few weeks in order to clarify the commercial implications of their proposals. Following this, a definitive announcement will be made on the preferred design to be taken through the remainder of assessment phase of this part of the FRES programme.”

Nov 22/07: Competition. With the stakes growing after 2 losses in the FRES competition, BAE Systems unveils its bid team for the FRES integration and build contract: BAE Land Systems, BAE Insyte, SAIC, QinetiQ, SELEX S&AS, GE Aviation, and Cranfield University.

Nov 6/07: Competition. A Defense News report reads the tea leaves and believes the French VBCI has an edge in the FRES competition. Meanwhile, assessment-phase contracts have been awarded in the tracked FRES-Recon for BAE Systems’ CV90 (not SEP) and General Dynamics UK’s ASCOD for scout, indirect fire control, ground-based surveillance and other roles.

They quote BAE Systems Land Systems Managing Director Andrew Davies as saying that BAE, who has been eliminated from the FRES-Utility finals and Systems of Systems contracts, “must win the last piece of the FRES utility program – the integration-and-build contract – or consider shutting the Newcastle plant.”

Oct 5/07: SoSI. The UK MoD announces that Thales UK and Boeing’s Defence UK subsidiary have been selected as the preferred bidders for the role of System of Systems Integrator (SOSI) for the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) program. The SOSI team is supposed to act as an independent, honest broker between industry and the MoD to co-ordinate FRES procurement, providing service elements including: systems of systems engineering and integration; alliance development and management; development of the MoD’s SOSI competence; through-life capability management; and through-life technology management.

The selection represents the second important loss for BAE in the FRES program, the first blow being the elimination of its SEP wheeled/tracked vehicle family from the finalists’ roster.

The MoD announcement also mentions their appointment of the legal firm Herbert Smith to provide the FRES team with intellectual property, commercial and legal advice. Their role is to ensure that the Intellectual Property, Design Authority, and systems architecture for FRES will reside in the UK, per the government’s Defence Industrial Strategy. UK MoD release | Thales release | Boeing release.

Sept 13/07: Competition. Jane’s reports from DESi 2007 that General Dynamics UK is making an offer its competitors won’t be able to match:

“General Dynamics UK has confirmed that…. there is a potential export market for up to 2,000 Piranha Vs (8×8) over a 10-year period. These would all be supplied from the UK production line, because the UK would have a complete technology transfer package, as well as the full intellectual property rights as stipulated by the UK Ministry of Defence.”

Boxer MRAV Module Concept

Boxer modular concept
(click to view full)

June 14/07: Politics. 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.

LAND VBCI

VBCI
(click to view full)

June 8/07: FRES-UV Finalists. 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 V, Nexter (formerly Giat’s) VBCI – and the KMW-ARTEC Boxer, which program Britain abandoned 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 | Nexter DESi PDF brochure | KMW release.

FRES-UV finalists

June 5/07: SoSI. The UK MoD recently announced its intention to form a Ministry of Defence/ Industry Alliance for FRES. A key role in this Alliance is that of the System of Systems Integrator. Thales UK and Boeing Defence UK have now announced that they will jointly bid for the SOSI role. Thales UK will be the lead firm in the partnership.

If selected, Thales and Boeing would be partnered with the MoD to deliver a timely and coherent through-life capability to the British Army that would include both the vehicles and long-term support services, while meeting UK industrial goals under the Defence Industrial Strategy and retaining key intellectual property rights for the MoD. Thales UK touts its “excellent understanding of the Armored Fighting Vehicle domain,” systems integration skils, and “in-depth understanding of UK doctrine and concepts.” Boeing touts its “proven experience and expertise in successfully executing system-of-systems integration programs” (it’s one of the SOSI-type leads for the USA’s Future Combat Systems, with SAIC), and “world-class program management… and supply chain management skill.” Boeing release | Thales UK release.

March 19/07: Competition. BAE Hagglunds announced that its new SEP 8×8 modular vehicle system is now ready for the UK Ministry of Defence’s upcoming trials for FRES Utility Vehicles.

Feb 21/07: Report. The UK’s Parliamentary Defence Committee published its Seventh Report of Session 2006-07: The Army’s requirement for armoured vehicles: the FRES programme, HC 159 [PDF] | Committee release: “Make Up Your Mind On Army’s Armoured Vehicles, Defence Committee Tells MoD.” The report is highly critical of the UK MoD’s multiple plans over the years to replace Britain’s medium armor, expresses concern over weight requirements/ air transportability, lack of joint cooperation with any other country, a potential lack of soldier input, and expresses doubts that FRES vehicles can be fielded before 2017.

The UK MoD’s reply asserts that risk reduction requires the current pace, and alludes to the fact that past Parliamentary complaints re: the MoD have involved excessive risk and project overruns.

For a summary of February events, including links to and excerpts from these publications, see the DID article “Britain’s FRES Program has a Full February.”

Feb 19/07: Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that BAE Systems Hagglunds has completed the first of two new 8×8 Integrated Demonstrator armored fighting vehicles on schedule. These SEP-based vehicles were developed using company funding, in close co-operation with BAE Systems Land Systems of the UK. As noted above, BAE is competing against a General Dynamics UK vehicle to meet the British Army’s Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) Utility Vehicle (UV) requirement.

FCS MGV-T by BAE

BAE MGV-T

Feb 12/07: Competition. Following the endorsement of the FRES Acquisition Strategy and the publication of the EOI for the Utility Vehicle competitions, the latest FRES requirements documents are now being made available in order to keep industry informed as the requirements mature prior to final release later [in 2007]. See MoD bulletin.

Jan 26/07: Competition. Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that The UK Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) has begun seeking expressions of interest from companies for the delivery of the FRES-UV (Utility Vehicles) phase. The DPA release to industry, via the Defence Contracts Bulletin (DCB) on January 25th, offers an invitation to tender (ITT) for both the vehicle integrator and design packages of the UV programme. The move will end FRES’ initial assessment phase as it begins a transition toward acquisition.

July 31/06: Study contract. The FRES programme is part way through its initial assessment phase (iAP). One of the key objectives is to confirm the requirements for the FRES Initial Operating Capability (IOC) utility variants and enshrine these in an appropriate System Requirements document (SRD). The IOC Variant SRD (V-SRD) will not be finalised until the end of the iAP, but Atkins is “keen to ensure that industry has the opportunity to have sight of and influence the nature of the SRD well in advance of its finalisation.” As such, an initial draft release is available to industry for information and comment. See full release for details.

Initial study contracts

July 17/06: Industrial. Boeing announces that it is expanding its presence in the UK with the establishment of a new facility in Bristol, England, to support its growing defense business activities. The new facility is part of Boeing Defence UK, Ltd. and will support Boeing’s efforts on the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) program.

Jan 4/06: TD contracts. Thales UK, teamed with Boeing, was selected to lead the Integrated Survivability (IS) programme. “Integrated survivability” is a combination of vehicle design (stealth, shape, layout), sensors, armor, and active defensive systems inside and out. In this case, it also includes something called “electric armor.” Sources: UK MoD | DID coverage all received contracts in this area.

Initial study contracts

Appendix 1 – The British Army’s Armored Vehicle Fleet, late 2006

Vehicle Fleet Size Role
Challenger 2 385 Main battle tank
AS 90 Braveheart 146 Self-propelled 155mm artillery
Warrior 793 Infantry fighting vehicle
CVR [1] 1255 Variety of roles
FV430 series 1492 Roles include APC, recovery and repair vehicle, mortar carrier and radar
vehicle
Saxon 622 wheeled armored personnel carrier (APC)
Fuchs 11 Recon, incl. NBC
BvS10 Viking 108 Amphibious armoured all-terrain vehicle
Striker 48 Overwatch and anti-armour guided weapon
Spartan 478 Engineer reconnaissance vehicle
Challenger Armored Repair and Recovery Vehicle (CHARRV) 81 Heavy Repair & Recovery (R2) vehicle
Chieftain AVRE/AVLB/ARRV 119 Engineer recovery vehicles
Combat Engineer Tractor (CET) 73 Clear obstacles, dig gun pits, prepare barriers and tow vehicles
Shielder 30 Creates anti-tank barriers
Hippo 4 Beach armoured recovery vehicle
[1] = Spartan, Scimitar, Samson, Samaritan and Sultan are all variants of the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked)
Source: UK MoD, via Defense Committee Feb 2007 Report “The Army’s requirement for armoured vehicles: the FRES programme, HC 159”. Since that date, the army has placed orders for additional BvS10 vikings to act as UAV transports/launchers, 248 Mastiff mine-resistant vehicles, 130 Supacat MWMIK light recon vehicles, and 400 more FV430 Mk3 “Bulldog” builds/upgrades.

A New Procurement Approach: The System House Challenges

LAND_FV_432_Mortar_Carrier.jpg

FV432 mortar carrier

The crucial Systems House contract was placed with Atkins on Nov 16/04. Could Atkins cut the fat, successfully slim down the procurement process, and deliver the promised results?

In some ways, it’s hard to determine, because battlefield needs and other pressures ended up taking the entire competition in a very different direction. The broad aims of the Assessment Phase were:

  • To further define the FRES capability required given the military operational concepts that underpin the concept, and develop a series of affordable options for meeting the FRES requirement.
  • To develop optimum procurement and support strategies for future phases in order to present a robust case at the point of go/no-go decision.
  • To manage technology and supplier risk to acceptable levels.

FV430 Bulldog Mk3 Upgraded Iraq

FV430 Mk3, Iraq
(click to view full)

In the UK, some of these goals were certainly achieved. The FRES program has been criticized in Parliament for its delays, but the combination of very new technologies to evaluate and changing requirements on the customer end could hardly have produced anything else. In the USA, the capabilities and effects based (vs. specifications based), system integrator led FCS process has run into difficulties on the very points noted above, plus a couple of areas that are unique to the American program’s vast breadth.

In both cases, however, the countries involved are attempting to sidestep the disconnected and slow processes associated with developing each weapon in the system as an individual military-run project with detailed specifications at all stages. Given that conventional military design and procurement programs can take anywhere from 8-20 years on average, the speed of technology’s advance has made compressing this process something of a necessity.

These kinds of attempts are definitely an industry trend in Western countries. Whether FCS and FRES succeed or fail, procurement structure experiments will continue to be tried around the world as advanced armies embark on “military transformation” projects that tax both existing technology limits and military procurement systems’ ability to deliver.

FRES: Key Challenges for the Contractors

ELEC_BOWMAN_C4I_System.jpg

BOWMAN
(click to view full)

The contractors face two key challenges in designing the FRES. One has to do with its electronic architecture, an extremely important facet of any vehicle built with network-centric warfare in mind. The other challenge has to do with balancing the more conventional variables of weight, protection, and firepower in light of modern anti-armor threats that range from increasingly sophisticated anti-tank rockets to IED land mines.

Electronic Architecture Technology Demonstrator Programme (EA TDP) contracts are currently underway for the FRES system. Britain’s Ministry of Defense wrote that:

“The programme, which will last around 18 months, will define a scalable open architecture that may be a candidate electronic architecture solution at the core of the FRES fleet.”

In other words, it is possible that none of the presented electronic architecture solutions will be adopted. The challenging requirements may help to explain why.

The EA TDP solution must look at how FRES could be integrated within the MOD’s network enabled communications system providing enhanced Command and Control, Communications and Intelligence, local situational awareness via integrated sensors plus image and data handling, target acquisition and precision engagement, survivability and mobility. The Electronic Architecture must therefore integrate with the new General Dynamics UK-led BOWMAN communications system and the Bowman Combat Infrastructure and Platform Battlefield Information Systems Application (BCIP) program, providing seamless communications with all combat, combat support and combat service support systems. A sophisticated Health & Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) for the weapons systems is also envisioned, helping to reduce the logistical footprint, increase availability and ensure that the whole life cost for the FRES system is tightly controlled.

As if that wasn’t enough, mission-specific reconfiguration and the ability to grow the electronic system’s capabilities by incremental acquisition are also important target criteria.

Given the extent of these wished-for capabilities, it’s possible that re-prioritization of these electronics requirements will occur down the road.

On the physical side, advanced militaries are finding that their expensive systems need to be amortized over a long service life. In response, they’re beginning to plan for this. Meanwhile, demands for longer service life usually work to drive initial program costs even higher. The US Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) are looked at addressing this issue through steps like different hardware architectures, but the need to remain compliant with standard off-the-shelf commodity components became an issue. Given that long service life is likely to remain a budgetary necessity, more experiments are sure to follow.

Challenger 2

Challenger 2
(click to view full)

With respect to vehicle design, the British Ministry of Defence notes:

“The FRES requirement sets demanding targets including limits to weight and size to allow rapid deployment by air, while at the same time calling for the delivery of military effect and survivability in excess of that currently available from vehicles of this class. FRES will also seek to minimise the logistic footprint and through life support costs.”

In other words, they want something that can be flown in by their C-130J-30 stretched Hercules transports, but it has to be able to survive mine/IED, artillery, RPG, missile, and 25-30mm cannon attacks more effectively than existing modern vehicles like the British Warrior light tank, the U.S. Stryker family, et. al. Oh, and they’d also like a hybrid powered vehicle, rather than diesel or gas.

This, too, is a very challenging set of capabilities to deliver.

Finally, there have been some comments re: having FRES vehicles replace the Challenger 2 main battle tanks when those go out of service. The lessons of urban warfare encounters from the Global War on Terror have made that something of a fantasy, barring some major technology breakthroughs in lightweight armor protection (ACAVP isn’t it yet, and may never be).

In the end, these capabilities proved too challenging to deliver. The weight limits were lifted, the vehicles’ role shifted back to medium armor, and the engine/drive systems are likely to be far more conventional.

Appendix 4 – FRES Experiments: Electronic Architecture TDPs

FCS concept

In Britain’s “Anti-US” Procurement Policies – and the Future Dynamics of Global Procurement, DID looked at one example of political blowback from European defense integration efforts, and highlighted the importance of C4SI platforms to procurement decisions. One of the authors we used as an example was Dr. Richard North, who wrote, inter alia, The end of independence: The implications of the “Future Rapid Effects System” for an independent UK defence policy. He believed that C$SI decisions were forcing Britain toward a European platform.

In September 2005, FRES Systems House integrator Atkins placed two Electronic Architecture Technology Demonstrator Programme (EA TDP) contracts with teams led by Lockheed Martin (UK) Ltd, and Thales UK, plus one contract for vehicle chassis design with General Dynamics UK. Amounts were not disclosed.

For the electronic architecture TDP, placing 2 concurrent contracts was pitched as a better way to address program risks across the huge range of technologies and potential solutions. This may or may not be so; what is clear is the priority being placed on this aspect of the FRES program.

Gary Balthrop is Lockheed Martin’s FRES program director. He leads a FRES EA TDP effort that also includes UK companies Ultra Electronics, Smiths Aerospace, SciSys, PA Consulting and Cranfield University (Team ISIS).

The Thales UK Team includes BAE Systems and QinetiQ, and will be based at the Thales UK site in Staines.

Thales UK proposes to demonstrate the EA by integrating it into a candidate vehicle chassis, and simulation techniques will be widely employed as well through the use of System Integration Laboratories (SIL). This use of simulation is expected to save both time and money and allow for more rigorous de-risking. The Thales UK Team will also be undertaking a competitive selection of suppliers for the sub-systems and work packages that comprise the EA TDP, providing industry opportunities but also introducing potential schedule issues.

At this point, the project is clearly in early stages and it’s difficult to make strong predictions re: the direction of technical compatibility beyond integration with General Dynamics UK-led BOWMAN. The U.S. JTRS program, whose software-defined electronics would allow fast reconfiguration and addition of any communications waveform, is currently in trouble and doesn’t exist as a strong bridging option.

What is clear is that Dr. North’s expressed fears were not realized, and corporations with very strong American ties are participating at all levels in the critical electronic architecture definition process. The overall competition, however, has swerved sharply for reasons that have little to do with electronics. It will be interesting to see what emerges.

Appendix 5 – FRES Experiments: Vehicle-Related TDPs

AHED Cutaway

AHED Cutaway
(click to view full)

Meanwhile, the FRES Chassis Concept (CC) Technology Demonstration Program (TDP) is an 18-month effort to demonstrate the readiness of in-hub electric-drive engine, its ability to meet the FRES platform requirements, and the integration of a third party Electronic Architecture (EA) into the chassis. It’s also an opportunity for the teams to demonstrate their ability to work with SH Atkins, in order to help them meet both the program timeline and the information requirements for main gate go/no-go approval.

Hybrid power architectures are valued for a number of reasons. Lower fuel costs and fuel logistics loads, of course. The potential for lower lifetime maintenance via fewer moving parts, which could mean smaller spares inventories as well if reliability is good. Finally, there’s an important combat-related reason: stealth. While the U.S. Army’s new Stryker vehicle family doesn’t use hybrid engines, other modifications make them significantly quieter than the rival M113 or M2 Bradley APCs. As DID has reported, Stryker Brigade soldiers who served in Iraq considered this an important tactical advantage, and any armored vehicle with a hybrid engine and wheels or rubber band tracks would be quieter still. Indeed, some experimental projects report noise levels comparable to civilian vehicles. A hybrid engine would also reduce FRES’ thermal profile for infrared detection, no small benefit given the proliferaton of thermal sights on today’s battlefields.

The key question for the program to answer is whether the technology is sufficiently powerful and mature to be trusted in an armored vehicle of this size.

Notwithstanding Dr. Richard North’s contention that Rheinmetall DeTec was in the pole position, Atkins awarded the chassis concept project to General Dynamics UK Ltd., in partnership with General Dynamics Land Systems USA. Note that General Dynamics Land Systems was also selected by the USA’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) lead system integrators, forming an integrated design team with BAE Land Systems to create a similar class of FCS manned ground vehicles.

General Dynamics’ Advanced Hybrid Electric Drive (AHED) 8×8 vehicle will provide one baseline from which to evaluate the integration challenges and potential benefits of transformational technologies for the Future Rapid Effect System program. Its interchangeable modular in-hub electric drive, and hybrid power architecture, are intended to dramatically reduce the vehicles’ fuel logistics footprint. It is also hoped to reduce whole life cost of ownership, including costs associated with unique components, large repair part inventories, and training for both operators and maintenance personnel. The AHED vehicle already has over 4,200 km of road and cross-country testing, and General Dynamics intends to conduct over 4,500 km of additional reliability testing for the FRES CC TDP.

The General Dynamics UK FRES industry team comprises General Dynamics UK Limited (project lead), and General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI, USA.

SEP Tracked and Wheeled

SEP: tracked, or wheeled
(click to view full)

A second option was pursued via a January 2006 award to BAE Systems for its own chassis concept technology Demontration program (TDP). It will build on work done on the Swedish SEP program by BAE Hagglunds. SEP is a family of modular vehicles, utilizing emerging technologies like hybrid drives and allowing different role modules to be configured on either a wheeled or tracked chassis. The purpose of the TDP is to examine the ability of the electric drive system developed for SEP to meet the requirements of some or all of the envisaged FRES roles.

The BAE Systems Chassis TDP effort will be led from facilities in the UK in close co-operation with BAE Systems colleagues in Sweden, and will be focused primarily on reducing risk to allow a successful transition to the next phase.

BAE also received a “Gap Crossing” TDP for combat bridge-laying.

Additional Readings

Background: FRES Program

Background: Existing Platforms

Background: FRES Competitors

FRES-SV

FRES-U

News & Views

Future Army 2020. See also Written submissions.

tag: fresvehicles, fresapc

Israeli “SPYDER” Mobile Air Defense System – First India, now Vietnam

$
0
0

Spyder schema

SPYDER Mobile Firing Unit
(click to view full)

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

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

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

The SPYDER System

SPYDER SR/MR

SPYDER Systems
(click to view full)

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

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

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

Contracts and Key Events

SPYDER SR/MR

SPYDER MR vs. SR
(click to view full)

June 6/17: India has successfully test-fired its Quick Reaction Surface-to-Air Missile (QR-SAM). Developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Bharat Electronics Limited, testing was conducted from a truck-mounted canister launcher at the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur—the location of last month’s test-firing of the Surface to air Python and Derby (SPYDER) Missile system. The QR-SAM system is equipped for quick reaction engagement of aerial threats in all-weather conditions and is capable of search-on-the-move.

May 15/17: India has also tested the first of its newly acquired Spyder air-defense system. Three rounds of firing were conducted during the May 11 test, where both Surface-to-air Python and Derby (Spyder) missile system were fired against a Banshee unmanned aerial target made by Meggit PLC. New Delhi made moves to acquire a number of Spyder systems in a deal with Rafael and Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) after their indigenous system, the Akash, fell out of favor with military officials.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Readings

Turkey & South Korea’s Altay Tank Project

$
0
0

XK2 demo

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

Altay testing

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

Otokar

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 Flag

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.

2016 – 2017

Altay unveiling

Altay unveiled
(click to view full)

September 27/17: Turkish Defence Minister Nurettin Canikli has accused US and German defense suppliers of a “covered” [indirect] arms embargo on Turkey. Canikli said that the firms were either halting shipments of spare parts of weapons systems to Turkey, or deliberately delaying them, while a Turkish diplomat dealing with NATO matters confirmed that some Turkish requests for systems and subsystems have not been addressed by the US and Germany. However, the British-based European division of US company Caterpillar—engine-maker Perkins—is in talks with Ankara to produce and supply an engine for the Altay, Turkey’s indigenous Main Battle Tank. Austria’s AVL List GmbH had initially been contracted to supply the power pack (engine and transmission) for the Altay, but this deal was cancelled after Austria’s parliament unanimously adopted a non-binding motion that imposed an arms embargo against Turkey in November 2016.

September 08/17: Turkey’s timetable for its Altay main battle tank hopes to have a winner selected by mid-2018, with bids from BMC, Otokar and FNSS expected for this November. The initial phase of the indigenous Altay tank program aims to initially serial produce a batch of 250 units, with military officials hoping that the program would eventually reach 1,000 units. Earlier this year, Otokar’s Altay prototypes successfully completed qualification tests including mobility and endurance testing on rough terrain and climatic conditions, firing tests with various scenarios, and survivability testing. However in June, the government procurement agency SSM, citing an unsatisfactory offer from Otokar for the serial production of the tank, canceled the contract and decided to go for an open competition.

July 20/17: Three Turkish defense firms will be asked to submit proposals to Turkey’s Altay tank program, which could reach beyond $10 billion. BMC, Otokar and FNSS—all private companies—will bid to secure a contract for the serial production of an initial batch of 250 Altay tanks, with Turkey planning to produce a total of 1,000 units. Ankara’s decision to include three bidders in the program comes after Otokar produced and successfully completed qualification tests of an Altay prototype, including mobility and endurance testing on rough terrain and climatic conditions, firing tests with various scenarios, and survivability testing. However, last month, the Turkish procurement agency deemed Otokar’s serial production sole-source offer as too expensive, instead opening up the competition to include other bidders.

June 16/17: Turkey has decided to ditch its sole-source negotiations with manufacturer Otokar for the serial production of the Altay tank, instead favoring to start an open bid for the same contract. Four prototypes were built by Otokar for developmental tests— successfully completed earlier this year—and clauses within the developmental allowed the firm, without competition, to make an offer for the serial production contract. However, Turkish procurement officials familiar with the Altay program, said that Otokar’s best and final offer failed to qualify for a single-source serial production contract. New bids are expected to be solicited by the end of the year, with FNSS and BMC expected to join Otokar in the new competition.

April 13/17: Despite issues with gaining certain technology transfers for the Altay, Turkey could begin serial production of the main battle tank as early as this May, according to Defense Minister Fikri Isik. Pakistan and some Gulf nations are believed to be lined up as potential customers for the vehicle. Talk of potential delays to the Altay surfaced when local contractor Tümosan was unable to continue working on providing a domestic diesel engine for the tank, after Austria’s AVL List GmbH, which it had as a technical support partner, ceased working with the Turkish firm amid concerns that the Turkish government were sliding on human rights issues. It now looks like Ankara may instead turn to Ukraine for help, with the Altay possibly adopting the Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau’s (KMDB) 1,500 hp 6TD-3 diesel engine.

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.

2011 – 2014

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.

Nov 15/12: With about $500 million invested in development to date, Otokar officially rolls out its first 2 Altay tank prototypes at its Sakarya plant. Prototype #1 is already in use for mobility tests, with over 2,000km of mileage under its treads. Prototype #2 will be used for firing tests. Any changes will feed back into the design and construction of prototypes #3-4.

Kudret ONEN, Head of Koc Holding Defence Industry Group and Otokar’s Chairman of the Board, says that the project currently has 550 engineers (260 at Otokar), and nearly 100 subcontractors. Mass production is still promised for 2015. Otokar [in Turkish].

Rollout

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

2005 – 2010

XK2 demo

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.

July 30/08: Representatives of the Turkish and South Korean governments sign the $400 million System Design & Development Memorandum of Understanding, making the Altay tank project a reality. This contract does not include the mass production process. The South Korean Defense Ministry added that:

“The signing of the contract on the ROK-Turkey technology cooperation in tank development is expected to greatly help boost the cooperation between the two countries in the defense industry sector, while the Ministry of Defense and the DAPA plan to provide full support to ensure smooth technology cooperation throughout the entire process of tank development from designing to production and testing.

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Lee held ministerial talks with his Turkish counterpart in Ankara on July 28/08, in which the two agreed to continue building a cooperative relationship between their militaries…”

See: ROK Ministry of Defense | Otokar Aug 1/08 release | KOIS | Korea Times |Turkish Daily News (beforehand) | Turkish Daily News (post-deal) | Today’s Zaman (Turkey) | Aviation Week Ares | Agence France Presse.

Altay Development MoU

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.

July 2006: RFP bids are submitted by Otokar’s team, and by the BMC-FNSS Consortium.

FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.S. makes some of Turkey’s armored personnel carriers; it is a joint venture between BAE Systems and the Turkish Nurol Group. BMC Sanaye Ve Ticaret A.S. makes wheeled vehicles and trucks for the Turkish armed forces, and is part of the large Turkish conglomerate Cukurova Holding.

February 2006: SSM issues the project’s Request for Proposals.

RFP

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

LAV-AT: Modernizing the USMC’s Wheeled Tank-Killers

$
0
0

LAV-AT Iraq 1991

LAV-AT, 1991:
Desert Storm
(click to view full)

General Dynamics’ wheeled LAV A2 family is the US Marine Corps’ backbone armored personnel carrier, and the LAV-AT (anti-tank) is one of the most interesting sub-types. A pop-up M901 Emerson turret rises out of the vehicle like the head of a robot, tracks opponents using visual and thermal imaging, and fires up to 2 BGM-71 TOW(Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire guided) anti-armor missiles, before dropping back inside to re-load under armored protection. The result is a more mobile tank-killer that can strike from long-range, and remains effective even under heavy artillery shelling. It’s also handy for fire support against enemy strongpoints, serving in the same role as an assault gun.

Unfortunately for the Marines, their LAV-ATs are facing 2 separate threats to their long-term viability. Hence the USMC’s ACAT-III Light Armored Vehicle Anti-Tank Modernization Program.

LAV-AT Modernization: The Program

M1134 Stryker ATGM

Army Stryker ATGM
(click to view full)

The overall program is a USMC ACAT class III effort, but will be managed by the US Army’s TACOM. TACOM has experience with their own modern M1134 Stryker ATGM, which is based on the non-amphibious LAV-III platform; Canada operates a very similar system as the LAV TUA (TOW Under Armor).

The overall program will involve 4 Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) systems, plus 114 operational systems that will be retrofitted to USMC vehicles.

Why bother? As TACOM explains [MS Word]:

“The LAV-AT Modernization Program is designed to counter two converging obsolescence issues on the LAV-AT platform. First, the M901 Emerson turret is no longer in production and has been retired from the U.S. Army inventory. Second, the M220A3 TOW system is being replaced by the M41 SABER [DID: TOW ITAS firing] system in the infantry and the tank battalions of the Marine Corps which will leave the LAR (Light Armored Reconnaissance) Battalion as the only unit employing the legacy TOW system. The Program objective is to improve the supportability and mission effectiveness of the LAV-ATA2s by providing the following mission suites upgrades: improved reliability, availability, maintainability, multi-shot capability, the ability to acquire targets while on-the-move with an improved thermal sight and advance fire control system capable of firing the current and next generation heavy anti-armor missiles and will provide training commonality.”

The USMC aren’t the only force using LAV-ATs, which could make the results of this modernization program an attractive export to countries like Saudi Arabia.

Contracts & Key Events

USMC LAV-ATs

USMC LAV-ATs
(click to view full)

November 27/17: Deliveries Having successfully completed its initial operational goals during field tests in September, the US Marine Corps (USMC) has started rolling out its upgraded Light Armored Vehicle Anti-Tank (LAV-AT) weapons system to troops. Developed under the USMC’s LAV-AT Modernization program established in 2012, the upgraded ATWS includes a new turret that is unmanned, fires both wire-guided and radio frequency TOW missiles, and can acquire targets while on-the-move with an improved thermal sight. It also has a Far Target Location system, new commander/gunner video sight displays, and an electric elevation and azimuth drive system, which helps rotate the weapon system onto the target. Fielding will be completed by the end of 2019.

April 26/12: Raytheon in McKinney, TeX receives a $19.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the LAV-AT modernization’s engineering and manufacturing development phase.

Work will be performed in McKinney and in Goleta, GA, with an estimated completion date of April 15/19. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 2 bids received by the US Army’s Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-12-C-0046). See also FBO solicitation.

Additional Readings

TPQ-53 Counterfire Radars: Incoming… Where?

$
0
0

TPQ-53 concept

EQ-36 concept
(click to view full)

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

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

The TPQ-53 Counterfire Radar System

AN/TPQ-53 components

TPQ-53 components
(click to view full)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contracts and Key Events

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

FY 2014 – 2017

13 more for USA under MYP; Singapore’s export request.

AN/TPQ-53 vehicles

TPQ-53 system
(click to view full)

June 7/17: The US State Department has cleared the sale of Lockheed Martin’s AN/TPQ-53 counter-battery radar to Saudi Arabia. Valued at at estimated cost of $662 million, the deal marks the first export order of the radar outside of the US. Included in the deal are 26 AN/TPQ-53(V) Radar Systems to include Solid State Phased Array Radar with KN-4083 Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) enhanced Land/Sea Inertial Navigation System (INS) and automatic leveling system, as well as various equipment, training and materials. Riyadh reportedly intends to use these radars to support its border security requirements and modernise its armed forces with a more current capability to locate and counter the source of incoming ballistic artillery, rockets, and mortars.

April 25/17: Lockheed Martin has won a $1.6 billion contract to continue manufacturing the AN/TP-Q-53 counterfire radar for the US Army. The Q-53 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar will eventually replace older systems like the Q-36 and Q-37, and is capable of detecting incoming indirect fire like rockets and mortars, allowing response time for troops to reach cover, but they can also detect the location of the launch site. This allows counter battery fire to triangulate and respond with fire of their own. Lockheed Martin remains the only supplier of such systems to the Army.

April 2/17: The US Army has awarded Lockheed Martin a $1.5 billion contract to produce and deploy the AN/TPQ-53 Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar System. Developed as a replacement for existing AN/TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder radar systems, the new radar is designed to detect, classify, track and determine the location of enemy artillery assets such as mortars, cannons and rockets. The service claims that once in place, the radars will provide increased mobility, reliability and performance.

June 29/16: Lockheed Martin’s AN/TPQ-53 counter-battery radar has proven that it can be used to detect unmanned aerial vehicles alongside its usual task of detecting incoming artillery and rocket fire. The company announced the success following testing carried out by the US Army as part of its Maneuver and Fires Integration Experiment (MFIX) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Conducted annually, the MFIX exercise brings together military, industry and academia to assess solutions to future warfighting needs in a live environment.

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

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

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

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

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

Oct 8/13: Singapore. The US DSCA announces Singapore’s export request for up to 6 AN/TPQ-53(V) Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar Systems (CTARS) with 120 degree sector scan capability, along with generators, power units, a simulator, a live fire exercise (!), tool and test equipment, spare and repair parts, repair & return services, software support, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, communication support equipment, personnel training, and other forms of US Government and contractor support. The estimated cost is up to $179 million.

Singapore would be the radar’s 1st export customer. Their forces do deploy abroad, where CTARS capability will be very useful. At home, the city-state’s small size also makes them inherently vulnerable if problems in neighboring countries should allow local terrorists to acquire ballistic rockets.

The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin in Syracuse, NY. If a sale is negotiated, they’ll need Government and contractor representatives in Singapore for 6 weeks to support equipment deprocessing/fielding, systems checkout and new equipment training. Source: US DSCA, Oct 8/13.

DSCA: Singapore

FY 2012 – 2013

Multi-year contract; Milestone C approval; Initial fielding; Future competition?

AUSA 2011
(click to view video)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 13/12: Multi-year contract. Lockheed Martin Mission System and Sensors in Liverpool, NY receives a $166 million firm-fixed-price contract for 12 “enhanced AN/TPQ-36” (now called AN/TPQ-53) radar systems, including spares, testing, and training materials.

This means that Lockheed Martin will be the producer for the EQ-36 program of record, which could rise to 136 systems. It’s also the 1st installment of a larger $881 million contract, which could end up buying up to 51 low-rate production systems, plus Limited User Test (LUT) and Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) services.

Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY, with an estimated completion date of Feb 28/17. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received. The US Army Contracting Command at Fort Monmouth, NJ manages the contract (W15P7T-12-C-C015). See also US Army PEO IEW&S, Aug 15/11 entry | Lockheed Martin.

Multi-year contract

February 2012: Despite the issues noted in the DOT&E report, the TPQ-53 radar receives Milestone C clearance, allowing it to go ahead to Low-Rate Initial Production. Source.

Milestone C

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

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

FY 2008 – 2011

1st delivery. New name.

EQ-36 on truck

TPQ-53 on truck
(click to view full)

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

Designation change

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

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

Aug 15/11: +3. A $91.5 million firm-fixed-price cost-plus-fixed-fee award modifies Lockheed Martin’s April 14/10 contract, raising it to 20 EQ-36 systems: 4 EQ-36 radar systems with armored Sustained Operation Group (SOG) and Mission Essential Group (MEG) equipment, and 16 EQ-36 systems with standard SOG and MEGs.

Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY, with an estimated completion date of July 30/12 (W15P7T-06-C-T004). By our records, this appears to raise the order total to 54 systems, though DOT&E figures place QRC buys at just 38 systems.

3 more systems

Oct 26/10: Deployment. Lockheed Martin announces that the U.S. Army has deployed the first AN/TPQ-36 (EQ-36) radars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Deployment

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

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

April 14/10: +17. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Syracuse, NY receives a sole-source $108.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 17 enhanced AN/TPQ-36 (EQ-36) radar systems, plus associated sustained operational group and mission essential group (MEG) non-recurring engineering and MEG installation. Work is to be performed in Syracuse, NY, with an estimated completion date of Oct 8/10. The US CECOM Acquisition Center in Fort Monmouth, NJ manages the contract (W15P7T-06-C-T004).

This award is made under an unfinalized contract, and commits 49% of the estimated final value. Lockheed Martin has confirmed to DID that this is a new radar order, which would make 34 radars ordered so far.

17 more Radars

July 2/09: 1st delivery. Lockheed Martin delivers the first EQ-36 Radar System to the U.S. Army on time, following successful live-fire performance testing against indirect fire from mortars, artillery and rockets this spring at the Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The effort also included engineering, contractor and government acceptance testing.

To accelerate the fielding of the EQ-36 radar, the U.S. Army in June 2008 exercised contract options with Lockheed Martin for 12 additional systems, which will include enhanced performance capabilities. With production for both orders now running in parallel, and the 12-radar order accelerated, all 17 of the EQ-36 systems are expected to be delivered by fall 2010. Lockheed Martin.

1st delivery

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

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

FY 2006 – 2008

SDD; CDR.

EQ-36 at Yuma

EQ-36 at Yuma
(click to view full)

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

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

March 2008: EQ-36 program successfully completes its Critical Design Review. Source.

CDR

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

October 2007: EQ-36 program successfully completes its Preliminary Design Review. Lockheed Martin.

Oct 9/07: Lockheed Martin unveils an EQ-36 prototype.

Rollout & PDR

Sept 27/06: Development + 5. Lockheed Martin’s contract win of up to $120 million, issued by the Army’s Program Executive Officer-Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors (PEO-IEW and S).

The original release says that the company is directed to provide the Army with 5 Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 radars, within 36 months (W15P7T-06-C-T004). Subsequent conversations with Lockheed Martin reveal that this stage included just 4. The firm uses key technology from the MMR ATO program, especially the antenna/ emitter. Lockheed Martin release.

SDD

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

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

Additional Readings

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

Competitors and predecessors include…

Viewing all 126 articles
Browse latest View live