October 21, 2020 | International, Land

MPF: Light Tank Competitors BAE & GD Head For Soldier Tests

BAE and General Dynamics are vying to build 504 Mobile Protected Firepower vehicles to support light infantry units, especially in places the massive M1 Abrams cannot go.

WASHINGTON: After 24 years without a light tank in Army service, soldiers will climb aboard brand-new Mobile Protected Firepower prototypes this January.

“It's not just PowerPoint” anymore, Maj. Gen. Bryan Cummings, the Army's Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems (PEO-GCS), told me in an interview. “On Jan. 4th, we will have ... vehicles arriving at Fort Bragg.”

Army experts have already started safety testing on prototype MPF vehicles, officials told me. Actual combat soldiers will start training on two platoons of prototypes in January – four MPFs from BAE, four from rival General Dynamics – with field tests scheduled to begin in April. A formal Limited User Test will start in August or September, with the Army choosing the winning design in 2022 and the first operational unit of MPF entering active service in 2025.

A General Dynamics spokesperson told me they've already delivered five MPF prototypes to the Army, with two more in final checkouts and another five being built for delivery by the end of the year. BAE Systems is also building 12 prototypes, but they declined to say whether they'd delivered vehicles yet or not.

While the Army can't comment on either contractor while the competition is ongoing, Cummings said, “both are on track to meet the major milestones” – despite the disruptions of COVID-19.

After three months of training, the troops will start what's being called the Soldier Vehicle Assessment (SVA): four to five months of intensive field testing, including force-on-force wargames. It's all part of the Army's new emphasis on getting real soldiers' feedback on new weapons early and often.

“The soldiers actually get to drive the vehicles around, shoot them, train with them,” BAE business developer James Miller told me. “Their feedback [is] likely to be the most critical factor ... in the decision the Army's going to make about who wins this contract.”

The soldier assessment isn't just testing out the vehicles, however, Cummings told me: It's also a test of the Army. Specifically, how can light infantry brigades, which today have few vehicles or mechanics, sustain and operate a 20-plus-ton tank?

The crucial distinction: MPF is not going to the Army's heavy brigades, which have lots of support troops and specialized equipment to take care of tracked armored vehicles. Instead, 14 MPFs per brigade will go to airborne and other light infantry units, which haven't had tracked armor since the M551 Sheridan was retired and its replacement cancelled in 1990s.

Now, MPF won't be as fuel-hungry or maintenance-intensive as the massive M1 Abrams, America's mainstay main battle tank. Even with add-on armor kits for high-threat deployments, it'll be less than half as heavy as the M1. That's because MPF isn't meant to take on enemy tanks, at least not modern ones. Instead, it's designed to be light enough to deploy rapidly by air, simple enough to sustain at the end of a long and tenuous supply line, but potent enough to take on enemy light armored vehicles, bunkers, dug-in machineguns, and the like.

That's a tricky balance to strike. In fact, the Army has never found a light tank it really liked despite decades of trying. Only six M22 Locusts actually fought in World War II, the M41 Walker Bulldog was too heavy for airborne units, the M551 Sheridan was plagued by technical problems throughout its service from Vietnam to Panama, the M8 Armored Gun System and the Future Combat System were both cancelled.

So how do BAE and General Dynamics plan to square this circle?

General Dynamics emphasized lethality in their interview with me. Their Lima tank plant builds the M1 Abrams, and while the MPF is smaller – though the company didn't divulge details, GD's version reportedly has a 105mm cannon, compared to the Abrams' 120mm – it will have the same fire controls and electronics as the latest model of its big brother.

“If you sat in a Mobile Protected Firepower turret, you would think you were sitting in a [M1] SEPV3 turret,” a GD spokesperson told me. “It's all the same displays, architectures, power distribution, etc.”

GD's design evolved from their Griffin demonstrators, prominently displayed for several years at AUSA annual meetings. It's got automotive components derived from the ASCOD/Ajax family widely used in Europe and an 800 horsepower engine. GD didn't tell me how much their vehicle weighed, but, depending on the armor package installed, the demonstrators ranged from 28 tons to 50 tons. Those figures would give horsepower/weight ratios ranging from 28 hp/ton, better than any model of the Abrams, to 16, which would make MPF much more sluggish.

BAE, by contrast, emphasized their design's compactness and ease of maintenance – considerations as critical as firepower for a light infantry unit. BAE actually built the M8 AGS cancelled in the '90s drawdown, and while they've thoroughly overhauled that design for MPS with a new engine, new electronics, and underbody blast-proofing against roadside bombs, they've tried to preserve its airborne-friendly qualities.

“The old M8 fit inside a C-130; in fact, it was air droppable,” Miller told me. “There's no requirement for that in the current MPF program, but we decided to stick with that as a design constraint: [Our MPF can] fit inside a C-130; we can do three on a C-17.”

BAE's engine is less potent than GD's, with only 550 horsepower. With the base configuration coming in at under 30 tons, that equates to over 18 hp/ton, with heavier armor packages reducing performance from there.

But the big selling point of the engine is ease of access, Miller argued. Engine maintenance on a tank requires a crane and partially disassembling the armor, but a mechanic can slide the BAE MPF's engine in and out of the chassis with a hand crank. If the MPF breaks down or gets stuck, it can be towed away by a truck, without requiring a special heavy recovery vehicle as an M1 does.

“The infantry brigades are light. They don't have long logistics tails. They don't have a ton of mechanics and recovery vehicles,” Miller emphasized. “The vehicle has to be as mobile as them and fit inside their organization.”

The Army estimates the life-cycle cost of MPF, from development to procurement to maintenance and retirement, at $16 billion. Whichever vehicle wins the Army contract will have an edge in sales worldwide – including, potentially, to the Marine Corps, which is retiring its M1s as too heavy for modern amphibious warfare.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/mpf-light-tank-competitors-bae-gd-head-for-soldier-tests/

On the same subject

March 4, 2020 | International, C4ISR

EXCLUSIF Défense : le leader français de la vision nocturne va passer sous bannière américaine
La société d'électronique californienne Teledyne est entrée en négociations exclusives pour reprendre Photonis pour près de 500 millions d'euros, de sources concordantes. Le dossier divise au plus haut niveau au sein de l'Etat. Par Anne Drif Publié le 3 mars 2020 à 6h14 Le leader mondial de la vision nocturne est sur le point de perdre son pavillon français. Donné favori, l'Américain Teledyne est bien entré en négociations exclusives pour racheter Photonis au fonds Ardian pour une valeur d'un peu moins de 500 millions d'euros, de sources concordantes. Ce dossier, qui divise au plus haut niveau au sein de l'Etat, serait déjà en procédure d'examen par la direction générale du Trésor. C'est à Bercy que revient l'arbitrage ultime en faveur de la cession au titre du contrôle des investissements étrangers, a réagi en janvier le Premier ministre sous le feu des critiques de 17 députés de tous bords . Les parlementaires, mais aussi un pan du ministère des Armées, lié aux technologies d'application militaire et des services de renseignement, s'opposent au passage sous bannière étrangère de cet actif jugé « critique » pour les opérations de terrain souvent nocturnes. « Après le rachat du fabricant des appareils de mesure des rayonnements nucléaires Canberra et Premium Analyse, spécialiste français de la détection du gaz tritium, par l'Américain Mirion, nous sommes en passe de créer de nouvelles dépendances technologiques vis-à-vis d'acteurs étrangers très proches du ministère américain de la Défense », critique un proche du dossier. Le groupe américain a réalisé plus de 60 acquisitions ces dernières années pour un total de 3,6 milliards de dollars avec l'objectif de se développer dans l'imagerie, les infrarouges, les rayons X, les instruments de contrôle pour la marine ou encore l'électronique pour la défense et le spatial. Il cherche désormais à se déployer hors de ses bases américaines pour réduire sa dépendance aux opérations extérieures menées par les Etats-Unis. Bercy plutôt ouvert Un opposant du projet pointe la mise en cause de Teledyne par le bras armé du Trésor américain en matière de sanction (OFAC) pour des exportations au Soudan. A ce stade, cependant, le ministre de l'Economie Bruno Le Maire s'est montré plutôt ouvert. « Aucune décision n'a encore été prise, a-t-il déclaré sur Sud Radio mi-février. Nous regardons toutes les options, pour intégrer Photonis dans une chaîne de valeur industrielle, qui permette le développement de l'emploi et la protection de cette technologie, et nous serons très attentifs au respect de nos intérêts de souveraineté. » Ancrage en France Un partisan du projet souligne l'ancrage de Teledyne en France au travers de deux filiales, e2v vers Grenoble dans les semi-conducteurs et Oldham Simtronics dans la détection de gaz vers Arras. « Qu'est ce qui doit primer ? La poursuite de l'approvisionnement technologique aux armées françaises ou risquer de rendre l'entreprise moins viable faute de repreneur et créer un incident politique en cas de rejet officiel ? Ces logiques doivent aussi être prises en compte », nuance-t-on au sein du ministère des Armées. Sur le plan industriel, l'absence de vente imposerait simplement au fonds actionnaire de garder l'entreprise plus longtemps, réagit un opposant. Le temps de trouver une alternative française ? Interrogé par les sénateurs, le directeur général de l'armement, Joël Barre, a affirmé avoirdemandé à Safran et Thales de se pencher sur le dossier. Sans succès à ce stade. https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/exclusif-defense-le-leader-francais-de-la-vision-nocturne-va-passer-sous-banniere-americaine-1181289
January 12, 2021 | International, Naval

Lockheed Martin delivers HELIOS laser weapon to U.S. Navy
Jan. 11 (UPI) -- A long-awaited seaborne defensive laser weapon system known as HELIOS was delivered to the U.S. Navy for testing, builder Lockheed Martin announced on Monday. The Navy is scheduled to test the 60kw High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance, or HELIOS later this year, and will go to sea aboard an unnamed guided missile destroyer assigned to the Pacific Fleet. HELIOS, designed in a $150 million contract with Lockheed Martin, is designed to "burn the boats," or unmanned drones, with a high-energy laser beam. It follows a 2019 demonstration of laser power, although with half the wattage of the device announced on Monday, aboard the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce. The scalable laser design architecture combines multiple kilowatt fiber lasers to attain high beam quality at various power levels, according to Lockheed officials. HELIOS was designed as a weapon capable of burning small speed boats, notably of the type the Iranian military deploys in armed groups, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles. It can also merely "dazzle" a UAV's electro-optical sensors, damaging them and preventing them from performing their missions. The system can be used as an alternative to firing missiles or other projectiles at enemy craft, and can theoretically fire an unlimited number of laser blasts at targets. HELIOS is one of a number of laser weapons the Navy is currently working to develop. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2021/01/11/Lockheed-Martin-delivers-HELIOS-laser-weapon-to-US-Navy/2291610385689/
August 24, 2020 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR, Security

FAA issues guide to Tactical BVLOS waivers to assist first responders with emergency drone operations
To support the approval of “Tactical Beyond Visual Line of Sight” operations, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a guide to TBVLOS waivers, aimed at first responders with emergency drone operations. The FAA introduced TBVLOS to support drone operations which take place away from busy locations and where the safety case can be supported by factors such as a particular location or application. In a time of extreme emergencies to safeguard human life, first responders require the capability to operate their unmanned aircraft (UAS) beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) to assess the operational environment such as a fire scene at a large structural fire, to conduct an aerial search on a large roof area for a burglary in progress, or to fly over a heavily forested area to look for a missing person (see diagram below for a visual perception). To support public UAS operators acting in an active first responder capacity, the FAA may approve “First Responder Tactical Beyond Visual Line of Sight” (TBVLOS) waivers to 14 CFR 91.113(b). These temporary BVLOS flights are flown to both reduce risk to first responders and to ensure the safety of the communities they serve. The FAA will issue in advance, upon receipt of a complete and accurate application, a 14 CFR 91.113(b) waiver that will allow temporary UAS TBVLOS operations within specific conditions and requirements. These requirements are listed in the guidance document, along with the application and approval process. The guide can be accessed here: https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/public_safety_toolkit/media/TBVLOS_Waiver_Final.pdf For more information visit: www.faa.gov/uas https://www.unmannedairspace.info/latest-news-and-information/faa-issues-guide-to-tactical-bvlos-waivers-to-assist-first-responders-with-emergency-drone-operations/

All news