Back to news

November 14, 2018 | International, Land

BAE Systems Leverages Industrial Network As Ramp-Up Of Armored Vehicle Production Approaches

Loren Thompson

In the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, production of heavy armored vehicles like tanks and troop carriers almost became a lost art in America. The Army and Marine Corps repeatedly deferred development of new vehicles, leaving industry with little work besides upgrading combat systems developed during the Reagan years. As a result, there are only two integrated manufacturing sites left where new heavy vehicles can be produced -- one for tanks, the other for almost everything else.

I wrote about the nation's sole surviving tank plant on November 2. Today's piece is about the plant where almost everything else is produced -- the sprawling BAE Systems manufacturing complex at York, Pennsylvania. BAE Systems is a contributor to my think tank and a consulting client, so I have a fairly detailed understanding of what goes on there. At the moment, York is in the midst of a renaissance, having recently won orders for a new Army troop carrier and a new Marine amphibious vehicle.

It is also upgrading the Army's Bradley fighting vehicle and Paladin self-propelled howitzer. The company is investing heavily in new machining systems and other capital equipment to sustain an expected surge in output, and is hiring hundreds of workers who must be trained to a high level of proficiency in specialized skills such as the welding of aluminum armor. This is all good news for the local economy, but to a large degree what BAE Systems is doing at York involves building back capacity that was lost during the Obama years.

BAE Systems has been highly successful at booking new business in the armored-vehicle segment of the military market as Army and Marine leaders have become increasingly worried about their reliance on Cold War combat vehicles. An industrial-base study released by the White House in September stated that over 80% of new armored-vehicle production for the two services will occur at York. The study speculated that all the new work might stress the production capabilities of the site.

However, that issue was thoroughly analyzed by the Army before it awarded recent contracts for Paladin howitzer upgrades and a new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle to replace Vietnam-era troop carriers in its armored brigades. The Army found no significant capacity constraints so long as BAE makes suitable investments and hires skilled workers. The findings of the Army's industrial-base analysis are not reflected in the White House report. Here are a few reasons why capacity concerns are overblown.

First, although York is the final assembly point for diverse armored vehicles, it is only one part of a nationwide manufacturing network on which BAE Systems relies to produce combat vehicles. The company operates other manufacturing facilities in Alabama, Oklahoma and South Carolina, including one of the nation's largest integrated forges for producing track components. It also works closely with Army depots (as does the tank plant), and has a supplier network containing over a thousand industrial partners.

Second, preparation of the White House report predated release of some details concerning how BAE Systems plans to invest in robotic welding, advanced machining technology and other cutting-edge capital equipment. The combination of these investments and programs with schools near manufacturing sites to train the necessary workforce will provide BAE Systems with more production capacity than it requires to address projected levels of demand.

Third, the current level of production capacity at York is the inevitable result of uneven demand from U.S. military customers over the last decade. The White House report identifies lack of stable funding as a key factor explaining the fragility of the military supplier base, but fails to explicitly make the connection in explaining why York is facilitized to its current capacity level. BAE Systems is now investing heavily to meet future demand, but it is understandably wary about building capacity much beyond what it expects to need.

The latter factor is critical in understanding why there are only two sites left in America capable of integrating heavy armored vehicles. There were many more in the past when high levels of demand were sustained for decades, but industry can't carry capacity indefinitely if no customer is prepared to fund the resulting costs. The reason the workforce assembling Abrams tanks at the Ohio plant dwindled to less than 100 personnel during the Obama years was that nobody was buying tanks. This is not a hard connection to grasp.

York has some advantages over the tank plant because it produces a diverse array of vehicles for multiple customers, and the industrial skills required are fungible across its portfolio. But if the Army or Marine Corps were to trim their production objectives for ground vehicles as they have repeatedly over the last decade, it is inevitable that production capacity will adjust to match the reduced level of funding. That's how an efficient industrial base works: supply matches demand.

At the moment, the York plant is generating products that satisfy all customer technical standards. There are no outstanding issues -- which is a good thing, because BAE Systems and its legacy enterprises have been the sole providers of Marine amphibious vehicles since World War Two and today manufacture a majority of the combat vehicles in the Army's armored brigades. Company executives do not anticipate problems as they gradually ramp up to two shifts per day at the site.

But the point they stressed to me is that York is the central node of an industrial network scattered across the nation, and there is adequate capacity going forward not only to meet expected demand, but also to cope with potential surges. The company estimates that combined demand from the Army and the Marine Corps will be the equivalent of one-and-a-half armored brigades worth of equipment per year, and that should be easily manageable within the limits imposed by planned capacity.

They are confident the company can deliver what warfighters need, when they need it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/11/13/bae-systems-leverages-industrial-network-as-ramp-up-of-armored-vehicle-production-approaches

On the same subject

  • US Army picks 5 innovators to help increase its howitzer firing rate

    April 20, 2021 | International, Land

    US Army picks 5 innovators to help increase its howitzer firing rate

    The Army has picked five innovative small businesses to help improve the rate of fire in artillery systems as it continues to work on an internally funded and developed autoloader for its future Extended Range Cannon Artillery system.

  • US Army leaning into launched effects for modernized battlefield

    March 26, 2024 | International, Aerospace

    US Army leaning into launched effects for modernized battlefield

    The Army is rapidly pursuing launched effects to deliver surveillance, reconnaissance, targeting, network and lethal capabilities to a modern force.

  • Macron kicks off French race to build a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

    December 9, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval

    Macron kicks off French race to build a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

    By: Christina Mackenzie   PARIS – French President Emmanuel Macron announced on Dec. 8 that his country's next aircraft-carrier will be nuclear-powered and should be operational by 2038 in time to replace the Charles de Gaulle, which entered active service in 2001. The new aircraft carrier is expected to be the biggest warship France has ever built. Florence Parly, the armed forces minister, said in October that the ship, whatever its propulsion, would be designed to deploy the future combat aircraft system (FCAS) and today her ministry confirmed that the vessel would deploy about 30 of these aircraft “which will be bigger than the Rafales.” The ministry said the ship would be in the 75,000 tonne class (82,673 tons), be around 300 meters long (984 feet) and be able to sail at 27 knots (31 mph), even bigger than the second aircraft carrier that Naval Group was working on in the early 2000s until that program was shelved by the government for lack of money. In comparison, the Charles de Gaulle is 261m (856 feet) long and weighs 42,000 tonnes (46,297 tons) fully loaded. The new ship will have a crew of about 2,000, including the air group. Speaking at Framatome, France's principal nuclear-power company headquartered at Le Creusot in the centre of France, Macron announced just four minutes before the end of his 28 minute speech that he had “decided that the future aircraft-carrier which will serve our country and our navy will, like the Charles de Gaulle, be nuclear-propelled.” It will have two K22 power generators each generating 220 megawatts (hence the 22) derived from the K15 (that generate 150 MW each) that currently power the Charles de Gaulle. Naval Group, which is the prime contractor for these major ship-building projects, immediately issued a statement hailing the decision, pledging to work with its major industrial partners Chantiers de l'Atlantique, TechnicAtome and Dassault Aviation. Pierre Eric Pommellet, chairman and CEO of Naval Group, said, “We are delighted with the announcement (...) which will enable France to maintain its position in the very restricted circle of major powers holding a nuclear aircraft carrier.” Echoing what Macron had said in his speech, Pommellet stressed the importance of projects like this to “ensure the continuity of our skills” and of developing innovative solutions “in the fields of propulsion and high added-value military systems, thus maintaining France's technological lead and its position as a key geostrategic player.” Now that the nuclear option has been chosen to power France's new aircraft carrier, other major decisions will have to be taken, notably concerning the catapults which are a vital part of the project. France has no expertise in this highly specialized technology and so will have to import the catapults from the United States, as it has done for the past 60 years. Those on the Charles de Gaulle are steam-powered, but those on the new aircraft carrier will be electromagnetic. Naval Group and its partners will now start a two-year preliminary design study, which sources said may use a number of the ideas that had been worked on for the aborted second aircraft carrier. That will be followed by more detailed plans with the development phase expected to finish at the end of 2025 at which point the ministry will order the ship. The design phase up to the end of 2025 is expected to cost some €900 million ($1.09 billion) of which €117 million ($142 million) will be spent in 2021. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/12/08/macron-kicks-off-french-race-to-build-a-new-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carrier/

All news