Back to news

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

  • "L'achat des F18 et Eurofighter par l'Allemagne est plutôt une bonne chose pour la France" (Eric Trappier)

    April 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    "L'achat des F18 et Eurofighter par l'Allemagne est plutôt une bonne chose pour la France" (Eric Trappier)

    Par Michel Cabirol Pour le PDG de Dassault Aviation la décision de l'Allemagne d'acheter 93 avions de combat Eurofighter et 45 F-18 américains est "paradoxalement plutôt une bonne chose pour la France. Au moins, l'Allemagne écarte le F35". Le patron de Dassault Aviation Eric Trappier a été très clair sur la décision de l'Allemagne d'acheter 93 avions de combat Eurofighter (BAE Systems, Airbus et Leonardo) et 45 F-18 américains (Boeing) pour renouveler sa flotte de Tornado. "C'est paradoxalement plutôt une bonne chose pour la France. Au moins, l'Allemagne écarte le F35", a expliqué jeudi le président du GIFAS lors d'une audition par la commission de la défense de l'Assemblée nationale. Clairement, ce choix, s'il est confirmé par un vote du Bundestag, permettra de poursuivre les travaux sur le futur Système de combat aérien du futur (SCAF), lancés par l'Allemagne et la France, et rejoints par l'Espagne. Ce qui n'aurait pas été le cas si Berlin avait choisi le F-35. "J'insiste sur la nécessité de prise en compte des différences de calendriers et d'organisation politique entre les deux pays. Les industriels doivent s'adapter aux calendriers politiques pour avancer. Un message peut être porté aux parlementaires allemands : il faut trouver un processus type LPM (Loi de programmation militaire, ndlr) pour cadencer avancement des projets communs. La pression des États-Unis Pour autant, pour diminuer l'appétence des pays européens à acheter américain, "il est nécessaire que l'on s'organise entre européens", a-t-il expliqué. Le chemin est très long encore en dépit de l'initiative commune entre trois grands pays européens sur le SCAF. Ainsi, la Bulgarie a signé des contrats pour des F16, la Belgique a signé des amendements pour des F35, a-t-il rappelé. "Il faut se poser la question du poids des européens face aux Etats-Unis dans l'OTAN", a-t-il également fait valoir. Et les États-Unis, qui n'ont qu'un objectif de vassaliser l'Europe en matière d'aviation de combat, ne l'chent vraiment pas les Européens. Ainsi, pour Lockheed Martin, tous les coups sont permis. Le géant américain vient d'embaucher en Finlande, l'ancien chef d'état-major des armées (CEMA) finlandais, celui-là même qui avait lancé la compétition pour l'acquisition de nouveaux appareils, a expliqué Eric Trappier. Ce qui a provoqué une polémique en Finlande. Ce projet d'achat vise à remplacer la flotte actuelle de 64 avions de combat F/A-18C/D Hornet achetés au début des années 90. Le ministre finlandais de la Défense a déclaré que le nombre de nouveaux appareils à acheter pourrait être supérieur ou égal au niveau actuel et espérait qu'il ne serait pas inférieur. Inquiétudes sur le Fonds européen de défense En tant que patron également de l'ASD (AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe), le président du GIFAS (Groupement des industries françaises aéronautiques et spatiales) a fait part de ses inquiétudes sur l'avenir du Fonds européen de défense (FED). "L'Europe de la Défense ne semble pas la priorité de l'ensemble de nos partenaires. Il faut veiller à le préserver. Elle est notamment utile pour développer de nouvelles technologies et d'abonder les programmes qui sont définis par plusieurs États européens", a-t-il rappelé. Et selon lui, un deuxième danger menace le FED. C'est "la persistance des États-Unis à vouloir faire accéder leurs sociétés à ces financements. Certains pays européens à l'Est du continent sont attentifs et sensibles aux appels américains". On n'est jamais trahi que par les siens... https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/l-achat-des-f18-et-eurofighter-par-l-allemagne-est-plutot-une-bonne-chose-pour-la-france-eric-trappier-846130.html

  • US Navy awards rocket motor contract to Ursa Major in supply push
  • Raytheon awarded $37M for Blackjack sensors

    June 16, 2020 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR

    Raytheon awarded $37M for Blackjack sensors

    Nathan Strout The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has awarded Raytheon $37 million to develop sensors for Project Blackjack, according to a June 12 contract announcement. Project Blackjack is a demonstration constellation being developed and fielded by DARPA to show the military utility of an on-orbit mesh network made up of satellites operating in low Earth orbit. The agency expects to launch flight demonstration satellites this fall before beginning to launch the full constellation of about 20 Blackjack satellites in 2021. As part of the June 12 contract, Raytheon will research, develop and demonstrate Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) sensors that will be integrated into the Blackjack constellation and the Pit Boss system, an autonomous, space-based command and data processor which is the brains behind Blackjack. Work is expected to be completed in April 2023. DARPA has awarded a number of Blackjack contracts as it prepares for its first Blackjack launches in 2021. In April, the agency selected SEAKR Engineering as the prime contractor to develop Pit Boss. That same month, Lockheed Martin announced that it has been awarded a contract for the first phase of satellite integration for Blackjack, which entails defining and managing interfaces between the bus, payload and Pit Boss. Blue Canyon Technologies was awarded a $14 million contract for phase 2 and 3 work on the Blackjack buses on June 9, and on June 10 was issued a $16 million contract for phases 2 and 3 work on the payload side of Blackjack. Blue Canyon had received a phase 1 award for spacecraft design work in 2018. The payload effort is expected to be wrapped up in March 2021, with the bus work completed in June 2021. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2020/06/15/raytheon-awarded-37m-for-blackjack-sensors/

All news