October 21, 2020 | International, Land
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/
March 14, 2023 | International, Aerospace
Norway's military plans to buy six Seahawk helicopters for 12 billion crowns ($1.14 billion) from Lockheed Martin's Sikorsky, the defence minister said on Tuesday, to boost its ability to monitor its vast seas and Arctic territory.
February 26, 2020 | International, Aerospace
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency submitted its report on unfunded priorities to Congress last week, which includes a number of priorities worth more than $1.1 billion. The list demonstrates the tangible consequences of a flat Pentagon budget request and provides a road map for lawmakers to ensure that the U.S. homeland and America's forward-deployed troops have sufficient missile defense protection. The Trump administration requested $705.4 billion for the Department of Defense for fiscal 2021, a level that fails to keep pace with inflation. Accordingly, the DoD is only requesting $9.2 billion for FY21 for the MDA — more than an 11 percent reduction from the FY20 enacted amount of $10.4 billion. The National Defense Authorization Act requires the MDA to submit a list to Congress of items not included in the administration's budget request but that are “necessary to fulfill a requirement associated with an operational or contingency plan of a combatant command or other validated requirement.” The list includes programs that combatant commanders genuinely need and would have included if additional resources were available. The MDA's top unfunded priority for FY21 is $231 million for 10 additional Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missiles. The SM-3 IIA missile is designed to intercept medium- and intermediate-range missiles. This additional purchase would bring the total number to 24 missiles a year, which MDA calls the “maximum sustainable production rate per year without further investment.” In addition to the SM-3 IIA's vital existing capabilities against medium- and intermediate-range missiles, the DoD believes that the missile could potentially be adapted to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles. In response to a mandate in the NDAA, the MDA plans to conduct a flight test this spring, known as FTM-44, to determine whether an SM-3 IIA could intercept an ICBM. If successful, the SM-3 IIA could then provide an additional and complementary layer of protection for the U.S. homeland against a limited ICBM attack from an adversary such as North Korea. Consequently, keeping the SM-3 IIA production line at full speed would enable the U.S. to meet combatant commander requirements for medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missile defense. And if the test this spring is successful, optimized ongoing production would also allow the DoD to more quickly field SM-3 IIAs for homeland defense against ICBMs. The MDA's second- and third-highest unfunded priorities relate to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. These include $319 million to procure an eighth THAAD battery for the United States and $30 million to procure trucks required to support THAAD systems. The THAAD is a rapidly deployable land-based missile defense system designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles during their terminal (or final) phase of flight. Since the program was initiated, the MDA reports, THAAD has completed 15 successful intercepts in 15 attempts. THAAD uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy an incoming warhead. It is effective against short-, medium- and some intermediate-range ballistic missile threats. The DoD can transport the THAAD system by air, land or sea. Iran's January ballistic missile attack on U.S. service members at two bases in Iraq highlighted the lack of sufficient U.S. ballistic missile defense capacity. With no U.S. ballistic missile interceptors in range, U.S. forces could only watch and wait for impact. Had a THAAD system been deployed in the region, the U.S. could have intercepted the Iranian ballistic missiles and better protected U.S. troops. Acquiring an eighth THAAD battery makes not only operational sense, but also financial sense. Saudi Arabia is purchasing a large quantity of THAAD systems. A U.S. and Saudi “synchronized” purchase would enable the U.S. to benefit from the associated economies of scale. The fourth priority on MDA's unfunded list is $39 million to “develop technology and advanced command and control to integrate networked sensors to detect and track advanced cruise missile threats.” As Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy, the commander of Northern Command, highlighted in congressional testimony on Feb. 13, the U.S. homeland remains incredibly vulnerable to a cruise missile attack. He testified that “advanced cruise missiles now carried by Russian aircraft and submarines present a growing challenge to our current sensor networks and have the range and accuracy to strike military and civilian targets throughout the United States and Canada.” O'Shaughnessy argued that investments in cruise missile defense capabilities “are necessary to defend our vital facilities and infrastructure, preserve our national ability to project power abroad, and help to safeguard our citizens and vital institutions.” That is exactly what MDA's unfunded priority would do, and the burden of proof should be on those who argue that it should not be funded. A fundamental responsibility of the federal government is to protect the American people. The MDA's report on unfunded priorities to Congress demonstrates that the agency requires additional funding from Congress to fulfill this important responsibility. Bradley Bowman is the senior director for the Center on Military and Political Power with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/25/insufficient-missile-defense-funding-would-leave-americans-vulnerable/
June 17, 2020 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR
Arlington, Va., June 15, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Intelligence and Space, a Raytheon Technologies business (NYSE: RTX), was awarded a multiple award IDIQ to participate in the Air Force's development of the Advanced Battle Management System, a future command and control network that will connect military platforms across the globe, giving military commanders the ability to make decisions faster. Under a multiple award, IDIQ contract valued up to $950 million over the next five years with options beyond, RI&S will participate in the support of the maturation, demonstration and proliferation of capability across platforms and domains to enable Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2). "ABMS will transform the future battlespace for the U.S. Air Force by delivering the right data at the right time to the right people so they can make the right decisions fast," said Barbara Borgonovi, vice president of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Systems, at Raytheon Intelligence & Space. "This is the first step to delivering the Air Force's vision of JADC2, which will link capabilities across all domains – air, land, sea, cyber and space." To support this effort, RI&S has the opportunity to contribute open systems design, modern software and algorithm development for the future system. Under the terms of the multiple award contract, the Air Force will run competitions under each category that will be issued as task and delivery orders. RI&S will be supported by Raytheon Missiles & Defense. About Raytheon Intelligence & Space Raytheon Intelligence & Space delivers the disruptive technologies our customers need to succeed in any domain, against any challenge. A developer of advanced sensors, training, and cyber and software solutions, Raytheon Intelligence & Space provides a decisive advantage to civil, military and commercial customers in more than 40 countries around the world. Headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, the business generated $15 billion in pro forma annual revenue in 2019 and has 39,000 employees worldwide. Raytheon Intelligence & Space is one of four businesses that form Raytheon Technologies Corporation. About Raytheon Technologies Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense company that provides advanced systems and services for commercial, military and government customers worldwide. It comprises four industry-leading businesses – Collins Aerospace Systems, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon Intelligence & Space and Raytheon Missiles & Defense. Its 195,000 employees enable the company to operate at the edge of known science as they imagine and deliver solutions that push the boundaries in quantum physics, electric propulsion, directed energy, hypersonics, avionics and cybersecurity. The company, formed in 2020 through the combination of Raytheon Company and the United Technologies Corporation aerospace businesses, is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. Media Contact Tamar Brill +1 520. 269.5697 Tamar.Brill@rtx.com SOURCE Raytheon Technologies View source version on Raytheon Company,: https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2020-06-15-Raytheon-Intelligence-Space-selected-to-participate-in-development-of-the-Advanced-Battle-Management-System