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

  • Trump orders creation of independent space force - but Congress will still have its say

    June 19, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval

    Trump orders creation of independent space force - but Congress will still have its say

    Valerie Insinna and Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to sign an executive order directing the Pentagon to create a new ”Space Force,” a move that could radically transform the U.S. military by pulling space functions variously owned by the Air Force, Navy and other military branches into a single independent service. But while the president's support for a new military branch is notable, experts -- and a powerful member of Congress -- believe Trump still needs the support of Congress to make a space force happen. “I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” Trump said during a meeting of the National Space Council. “That's a big statement. We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force. Separate but equal. It is going to be something. So important,” Trump added. “General Dunford, if you would carry that assignment out, I would be very greatly honored.” Dunford responded in the affirmative, telling Trump, “We got you.” According to a White House pool report, the president signed the executive order establishing the Space Force at about 12:36 p.m. EST. However, a readout issued from the White House later that day of the executive order contained no language related to the creation of a new military branch, leaving open the question of whether Trump has actually issued formal guidance to the military. The Air Force referred all questions to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which did not respond immediately to requests for comment. However, a defense official, speaking on background, said “The Joint Staff will work closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, other DoD stakeholders and the Congress to implement the President's guidance." Trump's support for creating a separate branch for space is a break from his own adminsitration's stance last year, as well as that of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. “At a time when we are trying to integrate the Department's joint warfighting functions, I do not wish to add a separate service that would likely present a narrower and even parochial approach to space operations vice an integrated one we're constructing under our current approach,” Mattis wrote in a 2017 letter to members of Congress. But in recent months, Trump has signaled he was intrigued by the idea of a stand alone space force, saying in a May 1 speech that “We're actually thinking of a sixth” military branch for space. At the time, that statement confounded Air Force leaders who had publicly opposed the creation of a separate space service, leading them to adopt a softer tone when talking about the potential for Space Force to avoid being seen as out of step with Trump. This time, however, Trump's announcement tracks with the Pentagon's schedule for an interim report on whether to establish an independent space corps. Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said in April that it was on track to be wrapped up on June 1. The final report, which would be sent to Congress, is due in August. Trump's announcement was characteristically vague, but experts say that any new branch would have to come through an act of Congress. “The Congress alone has the power to establish a new branch of the military and to establish the positions of senior executive officials to lead such a department,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at Georgetown University's law school who has studied constitutional issues relating to the military. “While the Pentagon can informally create study or working groups, it has no such authority.” The president can have the military lay the groundwork for a future new branch, Turley said, which is close to what Trump seemed to be getting at. By: Kelsey Atherton “What the President can do is to order the study and proposal for a new branch, which would ultimately go to Congress of any authorization and appropriations,” he said. Todd Harrison, an expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed, tweeting Monday that “The president can't just create a new military service on his own. It requires congressional authorization..” “So the near-term practical effect of all this is that the president can direct DoD to come up with a plan and start preparing to create a Space Force, but he still needs congress to authorize it,” Harrison continued. And while sources on Capitol Hill said they believe Trump does have the authority to establish the new military branch, and that their attention will now turn to funding and missions for the new Space Force, at least one Republican member of Congress made his stance clear. “Establishing a service branch requires congressional action,” House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee chair Mike Turner, R-Ohio. “We still don't know what a Space Force would do, who is going to be in it, or how much is it going to cost. “The congressionally mandated report evaluating a Space Force to answer those questions is due in August,” Turner added. “After we get the report that we required as a legislative body and the President signed off on, then this issue can be appropriately evaluated for what's best for national security.” Congress reacts Trump's announcement also left it unclear whether this new space force will rest under the Department of the Air Force — much like the Marine Corps is a component of the Department of the Navy — or whether a new “Department of the Space Force” will also be created. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., the head of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, tweeted out his support for Trump's order. Rogers had previously proposed a separate space service as part of Congress' annual defense policy bill. However, lawmakers and experts also immediately registered their opposition to the announcement. Sen. Bill Nelson, (D-Fla.), the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee that oversees nonmilitary space programs, tweeted that now was not the right time to establish a separate space force. Harrison noted that the infrastructure may already exist to smooth the creation of a space force. “Creating a Space Force would not necessarily mean a huge increase in funding. We already have space forces within the military, this would just be reorganizing them under a single chain of command,” he tweeted. “Yes, there would be some extra overhead costs, but it doesn't have to be huge.” But David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and currently dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, questioned whether the administration had hammered down the details needed to successfully consolidate the military's space functions into a single service. “This is another case of ready, fire, aim,” he said. David Larter, Joe Gould, Tara Copp and Leo Shane III contributed to this report. This story is developing.

  • Aegis Ashore Poland enters maintenance period ahead of NATO acceptance

    January 22, 2024 | International, Naval

    Aegis Ashore Poland enters maintenance period ahead of NATO acceptance

  • Expansion into the Pacific must come with more defense funds, says British lawmaker

    October 6, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Expansion into the Pacific must come with more defense funds, says British lawmaker

    '€œBritain is only spending 2 percent of its [gross domestic product] on defense. But the threats ahead are collectively greater than the ones from the Cold War when we were spending 4 percent."

All news