News

Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — Rheinmetall is teaming with Textron Systems to pitch the Lynx KF41 vehicle as a Bradley replacement to the U.S. Army, the company announced Tuesday. The campaign marks the second time that the Düsseldorf, Germany-based company is targeting the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program following an unsuccessful attempt last year that eventually saw the ground service halt the race. This time around, Rheinmetall is putting greater emphasis on a U.S. footprint, led by its growing American Rheinmetall Vehicles subsidiary based in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Textron, as the newcomer on Team Lynx, is meant to be front and center when it comes to manufacturing and robotics capabilities. “Textron Systems' Slidell, Louisiana, vehicle production facility has supported more than 15 armored vehicle programs of record supporting over 20 countries,” Henry Finneral, senior vice president and general manager of Textron Systems' Marine and Land Systems business, said in a statement. “We stand ready to support the team and the US Army and deliver a trusted platform for the future.” Matt Warnick, managing director at American Rheinmetall Vehicles, said the “teaming agreement brings together two of the world's leading providers of defense industry solutions." Raytheon remains part of the team. Executives hope the new Army competition will give all bidders more leeway in fine-tuning their eventual offers to the service's requirements. That marks a contrast to the previous acquisition attempt, where the ground service essentially wanted specific features already built into prototype vehicles, with little time for companies to adjust. This time around, the Army plans to downsize to five bidders, then three, before picking an eventual winner. A final request for proposals is expected late this year or early next. Service officials have put competitors on notice that an open architecture in the vehicle design will be at a premium, a feature that Rheinmetall touted in its bid notice. “The network is almost more important in some ways than building the combat vehicles,” Maj. Gen. Brian Cummings, program executive officer of ground combat systems, told Defense News in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army's virtual conference, which ended last week. Rheinmetall previously planned to present the teaming arrangement with Textron at this year's AUSA show if the event had taken place in person. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/10/20/rheinmetall-eyes-do-over-in-new-pitch-of-its-lynx-vehicle-to-the-us-army/

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has raised to $95.8 billion the estimated cost of fielding a new fleet of land-based nuclear missiles to replace the Minuteman 3 arsenal that has operated continuously for 50 years, officials said Monday. Robert Burns The estimate is up about $10 billion from four years ago. The weapons, known as intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, are intended as part of a near-total replacement of the American nuclear force over the next few decades at a total cost of more than $1.2 trillion. Some, including former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, argue that U.S. national security can be ensured without ICBMs, but the Pentagon says they are vital to deterring war. The Trump administration affirmed its commitment to fielding a new generation of ICBMs in a 2018 review of nuclear policy. “The ICBM force is highly survivable against any but a large-scale nuclear attack,” the review concluded. “To destroy U.S. ICBMs on the ground, an adversary would need to launch a precisely coordinated attack with hundreds of high-yield and accurate warheads. This is an insurmountable challenge for any potential adversary today, with the exception of Russia.” The current fleet of 400 deployed Minuteman missiles, each armed with a single nuclear warhead, is based in underground silos in Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska. Their numbers are governed in part by the 2010 New START treaty with Russia, which is due to expire in February. Russia wants to extend the treaty but the Trump administration has set conditions not accepted by Moscow. The U.S. also is building a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines to replace the current Ohio-class strategic subs; a new long-range nuclear-capable bomber to replace the B-2 stealth aircraft; a next-generation air-launched nuclear cruise missile; and a new nuclear command and communications system. It also is working on updated warheads, including an ICBM warhead replacement for an estimated $14.8 billion The nuclear modernization program was launched by the Obama administration and has been continued by President Donald Trump. Democrat Joe Biden has said that if elected in November he would consider finding ways to scale back the program. The Pentagon's $95.8 billion cost estimate for the Minuteman replacement was first reported by Bloomberg News. The Pentagon provided the estimate to Congress last month but had, until Monday, refused to release it publicly. Last month the Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $13.3 billion contract for engineering and manufacturing development of the new missiles. The total “lifecycle” cost, including operating and sustaining the missiles over their expected lifetime into the 2070s, is set at $263.9 billion. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/10/19/estimate-of-new-nuclear-missiles-to-replace-minuteman-3-arsenal-increases-to-958b/

Steve Trimble Lee Hudson Finding ever new and efficient ways to sink enemy ships is usually assigned to the U.S. Navy and, to a lesser extent, the Air Force, but not anymore. Though still focused on its primary role of maneuvering against land forces and shooting down air and missile threats, the Army is quietly developing an arsenal of long-range maritime strike options. As the Army carves out an offensive role in the Pentagon's preparations for a mainly naval and air war with China, service officials now seek to develop a capacity for targeting and coordinating strikes on maritime targets with helicopter gunships in the near term and with long-range ballistic missiles by 2025. The Project Convergence 2020 event in September focused the Army on learning how to solve the command and control challenge for a slew of new land-attack capabilities scheduled to enter service by fiscal 2023. The follow-on event next year will expand to include experiments with the Army's command and control tasks in the unfamiliar maritime domain. “I think we have a long way to go in terms of partnering with the Navy for some of the maritime targeting [capabilities],” says Brig. Gen. John Rafferty, the Army's cross-functional team leader for Long-Range Precision Fires. “And I think that'll be a natural evolution into Project Convergence 2021,” Rafferty says, speaking during the Association of the U.S. Army's virtual annual meeting on Oct. 15. The Army operates a small, modest fleet of watercraft, including logistics support vessels and Runnymede-class large landing craft, but service officials have been content to respond to attacks on enemy ships at sea with the Navy's surface combatants and carrier-based fighter squadrons. Last year, the Air Force also revived a maritime strike role by activating the Lockheed Martin AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile on the B-1B fleet. But the Army's position has changed. The AH-64E Capability Version 6, which Boeing started developing in 2018, includes a modernized radar frequency interferometer. The receiver can identify maritime radars, allowing the AH-64E to target watercraft at long range for the first time. Meanwhile, the Defense Department's Strategic Capabilities Office started working in 2016 to integrate an existing seeker used for targeting ships into the Army Tactical Missile System (Atacms), which is currently the Army's longest-range surface-to-surface missile at 300 km (162 nm). Beginning in fiscal 2023, the Lockheed Martin Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) is scheduled to begin replacing the Atacms. The Increment 1 version will extend the range of the Army's missiles to 500 km. A follow-on Increment 2 version of PrSM is scheduled to enter service in fiscal 2025, featuring a new maritime seeker now in flight testing by the Army Research Laboratory. “As we begin to develop the PrSM [Increment 2] with the cross-domain capability against maritime and emitting [integrated air defense system] targets, obviously we'll be partnering with the Navy on that,” Rafferty says. Targeting ships from land-based artillery systems is not unique to the Army. The U.S. Marine Corps plans to introduce the Raytheon-Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile, firing the ground-based anti-ship cruise missile from a remotely operated Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. To strike a moving target at ranges beyond the horizon, the Army needs more than an innovative new seeker. A targeting complex linking over-the-horizon sensors with the Atacms and PrSM batteries is necessary. Moreover, the Army will need to adapt command and control procedures to an unfamiliar maritime domain. The annual Project Convergence events offer a laboratory for the Army to prepare the targeting and command and control complex before new weapons enter service. With the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, a medium-range ballistic missile and PrSM also set to enter service in the next three years, the Army is seeking to adapt quickly. Last month, the Army used the first prototype of the Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node ground station. An artificial intelligence (AI) program named Prometheus sifted through intelligence information to identify targets. Another AI algorithm called SHOT matched those targets to particular weapons with the appropriate range and destructive power. An underlying fire-control network, called the Advanced Field Artillery Data System, provided SHOT with the location and magazine status of each friendly weapon system. A process that would otherwise take minutes or even hours dwindled—in an experimental setting—to a few seconds. The first Project Convergence event last month focused on the Army's traditional mission against targets on land. The next event will seek to replicate that streamlined targeting process against ships possibly hundreds of miles away. These experiments are intended to help the Army familiarize itself with new tools in the command and control loop, such as automated target-recognition systems and targeting assignments. The event also helps the Army dramatically adapt, in a few years, institutional practices that had endured for decades. “In order for a bureaucracy to change, [it has] to understand the need, and we have to create the use case in order for a bureaucracy to change,” says Gen. Mike Murray, the head of the Army Futures Command. “I think in Project Convergence, what we're able to demonstrate to the senior leaders in the army will further help drive that change.” In a way, the Army is seeking to achieve in the maritime domain a networked sensor and command and control system that the Navy introduced to its fleet nearly two decades ago. To improve the fleet air-defense mission substantially, the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) generally develops a common, shared database of tracks from the multiple airborne, surface and subsurface sensors available to a carrier battle group. But the Navy also is building on the CEC standard. In 2016, a Lockheed F-35B demonstrated the ability to develop a target track of an over-the-horizon enemy warship. The track information was sent via the CEC to a launcher for a Raytheon SM-6. Although primarily an air- and missile-defense interceptor, in this case the SM-6 demonstrated an anti-ship role. A follow-on development SM-6 Block 1B is expected to optimize the weapon system as a long-range, anti-ship ballistic missile with hypersonic speed. More recently, the Navy has been quietly experimenting with its own series of Project Convergence-like experiments. Known as the Navy Tactical Grid experiments, the Navy and Marine Corps organized a series of demonstrations in fiscal 2019, according to the latest budget justification documents. Building on the common operating picture provided by the CEC, the Navy Tactical Grid is possibly experimenting with similar automation and machine-learning algorithms to streamline and amplify the targeting cycle dramatically. A new initiative is now replacing the Navy Tactical Grid experiments. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday tapped Rear Adm. Douglas Small, the head of Naval Information Warfare Systems Command, to lead the effort known as Project Overmatch. Small must provide a strategy, no later than early December, that outlines how the Navy will develop the networks, infrastructure, data architecture, tools and analytics to support the operational force. This includes linking hundreds of ships, submarines, unmanned systems and aircraft. “Beyond recapitalizing our undersea nuclear deterrent, there is no higher developmental priority in the U.S. Navy,” Gilday wrote in an Oct. 1 memo that revealed the existence of Project Overmatch. Aviation Week obtained a copy of the document. “I am confident that closing this risk is dependent on enhancing Distributed Maritime Operations through a teamed manned-unmanned force that exploits artificial intelligence and machine learning.” While Small is tasked with creating the “connective tissue,” Gilday directs Vice Adm. James Kilby, deputy chief of naval operations for warfighting requirements and capabilities (N9), with accelerating development of unmanned capabilities and long-range fires, Gilday wrote in a separate Oct. 1 memo outlining the details of Project Overmatch. Kilby's assessment must include a metric for the Navy to measure progress and a strategy that appropriately funds each component. His initial plan is also due to Gilday in early December. “Drive coherence to our plans with a long-term, sustainable [and] affordable view that extends far beyond the [future years defense plan],” Gilday wrote. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/missile-defense-weapons/us-army-flexes-new-land-based-anti-ship-capabilities

Mark Pomerleau WASHINGTON — On the heels of its capstone March report, the Cyberspace Solarium Commission has released a detailed follow-up with recommendations for how to secure the information and communications technologies supply chain. The commission is a bipartisan organization created by Congress in 2019 to develop a multipronged U.S. cyber strategy. It delivered a report in March, advocating for multiple cyber deterrence efforts. The whitepaper, released Monday, is one of several add-ons to the original report that go into greater depth on a particular topic or recommendation from the March report. This specific whitepaper solely focuses on the recommendation that Congress should direct the U.S. government to develop and implement a strategy for the information and communications technology industrial base to ensure more trusted supply chains and the availability of critical information and communications technologies. The whitepaper frames in stark terms that the United States lacks a strategy vis-a-vis China. “Over the past two decades, China has mobilized state-owned and state-influenced companies to grab a dominant position in markets for several emerging technologies, including the market for telecommunications equipment,” the report noted. “This is no accident but rather the result of a concerted, strategic effort by the Chinese government to capture these markets through a mix of government-led industrial policy; unfair and deceptive trade practices, including state-led intellectual property theft; the manipulation of international standards and trade bodies; a growing network of influence built on the back of diplomatic and trade negotiations; and significant investments in research and development in ICT.” As a result, the whitepaper is the commission's effort to help lay out a strategy for the government to better compete in this space, become less reliant upon manufacturing and resources in Asia, and thus spur greater security. “We're doing a lot but we lack a north star or a strategic approach that weaves or stiches it all together,” Robert Morgus, senior director for the commission, told C4ISRNET ahead of the whitepaper's release. “Without that north star, U.S. federal government efforts are uncoordinated.” The paper lists a five-pronged strategy to build trusted supply chains: Identify key technologies and equipment through government reviews and public-private partnerships to identify risk. Ensure minimum viable manufacturing capacity through strategic investment. Protect supply chains from compromise through better intelligence, information sharing and product testing. Stimulate a domestic market through targeted infrastructure investment, and ensure the ability of companies to offer products in the United States similar to those in foreign markets. Ensure global competitiveness of trusted supply chains, including American and partner companies, in the face of Chinese anti-competitive behavior in global markets. Moreover, the paper lists a series of recommendations to achieve the strategy, which include a variety of ways to streamline information sharing and efforts that could be taken within the federal government. The report couches supply chain security in both economic and national security terms, which Morgus noted cannot be decoupled. “The simple fact that we aren't competing with China on that front creates that security issue. ... The economic issue here is leading to a national security and a cybersecurity issue, and the two issues really can't be disentangled,” he said. “The fact that we don't have trusted suppliers or a robust network of trusted suppliers that can compete has created a security issue where we are reliant on Chinese manufacturing or companies with manufacturing presence in China, which is a potential security issue from the trustworthiness and the availability of those goods and services.” Among one of the key pillars of the strategy to build a stronger supply chain, the report suggests greater intelligence sharing between allies and partners to disseminate intelligence on risks, which is also beneficial to the private sector. The paper recommends Congress direct the president to create or designate a national supply chain intelligence center that would integrate supply chain intelligence efforts from across the government with other members of the public and private sectors. It would also serve as the shared knowledge center for threats to the supply chain. https://www.c4isrnet.com/cyber/2020/10/19/cyber-solarium-commission-outlines-recommendations-for-strengthening-the-supply-chain/

Andrew Chuter LONDON — British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has announced a new science and technology strategy aimed at competing with potential adversaries. “We are in a very real race with our adversaries for technological advantage. What we do today will lay the groundwork for decades to come. Proliferation of new technologies demands our science and technology is threat-driven and better aligned to our needs in the future,” Wallace said Oct. 19 during a visit to the British Army's Salisbury Plain training ground in the west of England ahead of a war-fighting experiment there. The latest strategy launch comes weeks after the MoD rolled out a new integrated operational concept to shape how Britain adapts its future military effort to the changing security threat posed by the likes of China and Russia. With the rollout of a defense and security review fast approaching, the MoD has been revealing busy some of the key supporting strategies that will likely underpin what is being touted as Britain's most fundamental military shakeup in generations. Both the science and technology strategy and the integrated operational concept are key elements of an integrated defense and security review planned to link defense, security, foreign policy and international development aid. The review, expected by the end of November, is meant to signal big cuts to conventional capabilities as the Conservative government invests in high-tech areas like space, cyberspace, artificial intelligence and undersea capabilities. The initial response from industry appears positive. “I welcome this MoD innovation initiative and hope that it translates into more conversations and activity with industry,” said Steve Beeching, the managing director of the U.K. arm of American communications company Viasat, which has a growing defense presence in Britain. "We want to work collaboratively in supporting the rapid implementation of future mission capabilities to empower our defense and security forces in the constantly evolving adversarial environment.” Future military development would focus on five emerging technology areas that have posed the most significant enduring capability challenge, according to the new S&T strategy document. Technology areas listed are: Pervasive, full-spectrum, multidomain intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Multidomain command and control, communications, and computers. Improvement of the U.K.'s ability to compete against adversaries below the threshold of conventional conflict while addressing vulnerabilities, especially in the information environment. Develop systems to target adversaries in new ways across all domains. Generate affordable, survivable capabilities that can rapidly address evolving threats and can operate within a denied electromagnetic environment. “They have been recognized as the key drivers for science and technology and research and development within the MoD," the document read. "The Department will continue to have an enduring requirement to maintain investment in science and technology capabilities and programs beyond these.” The country noted it isn't dismissing other equipment areas; it has also pledged to invest in the areas of cyberspace; chemical, biological and radiological technology; novel weapons; and system of systems integration. The document does not mention how Britain will afford the strategy, but it does talk about new approaches to funding. The MoD said it plans to invest in new, riskier activities in hopes of developing technologies by using demonstrators, experimentation and better exploitation processes. It also hopes to make rapid progress on the strategy by the end of the first year. The progress includes creating a strategy implementation plan, giving clear policy positions on the critical capabilities that the government must sustain, providing direction to academia and industry on priority areas, and revitalizing the government's technology incubation program. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/10/19/britain-unveils-strategy-to-gain-a-technological-advantage-over-adversaries/

Todd South With the addition of artificial intelligence and machine learning, the aim is to make every soldier, regardless of job specialty, capable of identifying and knocking down threatening drones. While much of that mission used to reside mostly in the air defense community, those attacks can strike any infantry squad or tank battalion. The goal is to reduce cognitive burden and operator stress when dealing with an array of aerial threats that now plague units of any size, in any theater. “Everyone is counter-UAS,” said Col. Marc Pelini, division chief for capabilities and requirements at the Joint Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office, or JCO. Pelini and Maj. Gen. Sean Gainey, JCO director, who spoke Thursday at the virtual Association of the U.S. Army conference, told reporters that the original focus was on smaller Tier I and II threats. But that has now extended to Tier III threats, traditionally covered by the Army's air defense community, such as Avenger and Patriot missile batteries. Some of that work includes linking the larger threat detection to the smaller drones that now dot conflicts across the world, including the hot zone of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. In June, the Department of Defense conducted a “down select” of existing or in-the-pipeline counter-drone systems from 40 to eight, as Military Times sister publication C4ISRNET reported at the time. That was an effort to reduce redundancy in the flood of counter drone programs taken on in the wake of a $700 million funding push in 2017 to get after problems posed by commercially available drones being used more frequently by violent extremist organizations such as the Islamic State to harass, attack and surveil U.S. and allied forces. Those choices, in the down select, included the following, also reported by C4ISRNET: Fixed/Semi-Fixed Systems * Fixed Site-Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft System Integrated Defeat System (FS-LIDS), sponsored by the Army * Negation of Improvised Non-State Joint Aerial-Threats (NINJA), sponsored by the Air Force * Counter-Remote Control Model Aircraft Integrated Air Defense Network (CORIAN), sponsored by the Navy Mounted/Mobile System * Light-Mobile Air Defense Integrated System (L-MADIS), sponsored by the Marine Corps Dismounted/Handheld Systems * Bal Chatri, sponsored by Special Operations Command * Dronebuster, no sponsor, commercial off-the-shelf capability * Smart Shooter, no sponsor, commercial off-the-shelf capability * Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD-C2), sponsored by the Army (includes FAAD-C2 interoperable systems like the Air Force's Air Defense System Integrator (ADSI) and the Marine Corps' Multi-Environmental Domain Unmanned Systems Application Command and Control (MEDUSA C2)) The four areas evaluated to determine which systems stuck around for use or further development were effectiveness, integration, usability and sustainment, Gainey said Thursday. A kind of virtual open house with industry is planned for Oct. 30, in which JCO will evaluate what options are out there. Some of what they're learning is being gathered through a consortium, of sorts, that involves regular meetings between service branch representatives during monthly sessions at the two-star level, Gainey said. That goes into a real-time, updated “common threat library” that helps those in the field identify trends and changes that can be met across forces. They use those sessions to share what each component is seeing in theater as far as drone use and changes. But it's more than simple intelligence gathering, he said. They also form rapid response teams. "My operations team works with the warfighters, [the] intelligence community” and others, he said. They “triangulate” common problems with drones and send the rapid response teams to the area of operations most affected. https://www.armytimes.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2020/10/17/with-artificial-intelligence-every-soldier-is-a-counter-drone-operator/

ARMY Brockington and Associates,* Atlanta, Georgia (W912P9-21-D-0001); New South Associates Inc.,* Stone Mountain, Georgia (W912P9-21-D-0002); Southeastern Archaeological Research Inc.,* Orlando, Florida (W912P9-21-D-0003); and Environmental Solutions and Innovations Inc.,* Cincinnati, Ohio (W912P9-21-D-0004), will compete for each order of the $83,000,000 hybrid (firm-fixed-price, labor-hours) contract for providing multidisciplinary cultural resource-related services for projects undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District. Bids were solicited via the internet with five received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 21, 2025. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri, is the contracting activity. NAVY Yahata Marine K.K., Yokohama, Japan, is awarded an estimated $61,000,000 under previously awarded Request for Proposal N68171-20-R-0001 multiple award of firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts to provide husbanding, management and integration services consisting of general charter and hire, utilities, force protection, communications and land transportation services to support maritime forces of the Department of Defense, other U.S. government agencies, and other nations to include Navy ships, Marine Corps, Military Sealift Command (MSC), Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and other foreign vessels participating in U.S. military or NATO exercises and missions. The contracts on the multiple award will run concurrently and will include a five-year base ordering period with one five-year option with individual requirements performed under task orders when specific dates and locations are identified. If the option period is exercised, the total estimated value of the contracts combined will have a ceiling value of $2,122,000,000. The ordering period of the contract is expected to be completed by October 2025; if all options are exercised, the ordering period will be completed by October 2030. This company will perform work in three geographic regions: Southeastern Asia 1 (49%); Oceania (26%); and Japan (25%). Due to the fact that the specific requirements for husbanding support cannot be predicted at this time, more specific information about where the work will be performed cannot be currently provided. Fiscal 2021 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $3,000 will be obligated to fund the contract's minimum amount, and funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Additional funds will be obligated at the task order level with the appropriate fiscal year funding as issued by the main type commanders for each area of responsibility. Typical funding issued by each of the customers include operations and maintenance (Navy) funds from U.S. Fleet Forces Command; and working capital funds (Navy) from MSC. The requirement was competitively procured for the award of multiple contracts with the solicitation posted on beta.SAM.gov, Navy Electronic Commerce Online (NECO) and Euro NECO with 36 offers received. The Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center, Sigonella, Naples Detachment, Italy, is the contracting activity (N68171-21-D-0036). Alabama Shipyard LLC, Mobile, Alabama, is awarded a $17,902,644 firm-fixed-price contract (N32205-21-C-4010) for a 76-calendar day shipyard availability for the regular overhaul and dry-docking of USNS Washington Chambers (T-AKE 11). The contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the total contract value to $19,278,302. Work will be performed in Mobile, Alabama, and is expected to be completed by March 20, 2021. Funds in the amount of $17,902,644 are obligated in fiscal 2021 using working capital funds (Navy). This contract was competitively procured with proposals solicited via the beta.SAM.gov website and two offers were received. The Military Sealift Command, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY The National Industries for the Blind,** Alexandria, Virginia, has been awarded a maximum $8,728,339 modification (P00008) exercising the second one-year option period of a one-year base contract (SPE1C1-19-D-B043) with four one-year option periods for moisture wicking t-shirts. This is an indefinite-delivery contract. Locations of performance are Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas, with an Oct. 30, 2021, ordering period end date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2021 through 2022 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency, Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. *Small business **Mandatory source https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2386753/source/GovDelivery/

Already fielded in Sweden — and mounted on a Volvo truck — BAE's 155 mm Archer will compete in a US Army “shoot off” early next year. SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. WASHINGTON: The Army is seeking a self-propelled replacement for its venerable towed artillery pieces. The old ones can't keep up with mechanized Stryker units and lack armor protection. BAE Systems says its Archer armored howitzer is the quickest cannon on the draw — a life-or-death factor in fast-moving future combats. The US is experimenting intensely in how to speed the process from detecting a potential target to sending accurate target coordinates to a specific gun. Once Archer receives such target coordinates, it can come to a stop and open fire within 20 seconds, said Henrik Knape, a BAE exec based in Sweden, where the gun is already in service. Within two minutes from that first shot, Knape went on, the truck-mounted 155mm howitzer can fire another five to seven rounds, get back underway, and put 500 meters (a third of a mile) between itself and the location it fired from. That's a long enough distance in a short enough time that retaliatory fire from the enemy's artillery is probably going to miss. Even for an advanced adversary (pronounce that “Russia”), which uses specialized counter-battery radars to track the trajectory of incoming rounds and calculate the precise position of the unit firing them, it will take multiple minutes to bring its own guns or drones to bear. In US operations, the time from detecting a target to firing on it is typically “tens of minutes.” Experimental artificial-intelligence systems can cut that to tens of seconds, but those are years from being battle ready. Archer has other advantages as well, Knape and his US-based colleague Chris King told a small group of reporters: It's been in Swedish service since 2016, with the Defense Ministry asking Parliament to fund another 24 guns, so it's already extensively field-tested. It's armored against shrapnel and small arms, in case the enemy does get close. Its long barrel – 52 calibers, a third longer than the standard US howitzer – gives it extended range, comparable to the tracked ERCA howitzer entering service with US armored units in 2023. That gun is already qualified in US testing to fire precision-guided projectiles like Raytheon's Excalibur and BAE's own BONUS. And it's mounted on a six-wheel-drive, articulated Volvo chassis with enough cross-country mobility to keep up with the Army's 8×8 Strykers, which currently have only towed guns to accompany them.There are smaller wheeled artillery vehicles on the market than Archer, which doesn't fit on the standard C-130 turboprop transport, Knape and King acknowledged. (We check out a Humvee-mounted 105 mm cannon here).But none of them, they argue, has Archer's combination of firepower, protection, and quickness. The secret to that speed is automation, BAE says. While the US Army's current systems – both towed howitzers and the armored M109 Paladin – still rely largely on human muscle to manhandle heavy shells into the gun, Archer has a built-in autoloader. While well-trained human crews can actually fire faster than autoloaders for brief periods, the mechanical systems don't get tired or injured, and they allow for a much smaller gun crew. Archer can theoretically operate with a single soldier aboard, although it's designed for a crew of three – all of whom can stay inside the armored cabin while the weapon fires and reloads.https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/bae-offers-truck-mounted-howitzer-for-army-stryker-units/

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. SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. 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/