9 octobre 2019 | International, Terrestre
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
WASHINGTON: Three very different teams are vying to build the Army's Infantry Squad Vehicle, a truck tough enough to parachute out of an airplane and then drive away cross-country with nine heavily armed infantrymen. By Nov. 13th, each team owes the Army two vehicles for testing, with the winner getting a contract for 651 ISVs next year.
Let's meet the players.
The Oshkosh-Flyer team is the closest thing to an incumbent in the competition. The Army had earlier picked the Flyer-72 as an interim air-droppable transport, the A-GMV, and Flyer is offering an upgraded version for the follow-on program, ISV. Actual mass production will be done by Oshkosh, which makes a host of Army trucks — most prominently, the beefed-up successor to the Humvee, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), which the Army and Marine Corps plan to buy over 50,000 of in the coming decades.
What's more, Oshkosh plans to build the 5,000-pound ISV on the same assembly line as all its other vehicles, from the 14,000-lb JLTV to 10-ton FMTV dump trucks. (The earlier version of the Flyer-72 was mass-produced by General Dynamics). The ISV will be the lightest vehicle on the Oshkosh line, VP George Mansfield told me, but the company is confident it can build the air-droppable trucks more affordably than Flyer could — and at least as well. In fact, Mansfield said, he expects the Oshkosh-built version to be more reliable. That's in part because of Oshkosh's manufacturing expertise — it won the JLTV contract in large part because its offering broke down less than half as often as uparmored Humvees — and in part because of Flyer's extensive field experience with the earlier versions built for the Army and Special Operation Command.
As a team, Mansfield told me, “we've learned a lot about reliability, we've learned a lot about life-cycle cost, that now we can take here at Oshkosh with our extensive knowledge of all the other product lines we sell to the Army.”
Polaris and SAIC both have plenty of defense experience. Polaris's DAGOR did lose the earlier A-GMV contest to Flyer, but numerous DAGOR variants are in widespread service with Special Operations Command, the 82nd Airborne Division (shown in the video above), Canada, and other foreign customers the company can't disclose.
“The DAGOR is already certified” — by the Army itself — “for all of the transport requirements that the Army is looking for, whether that's internal air transport, sling-load transport, or air-drop,” Polaris VP Jed Leonard told me. And each of those prior customers required tweaks to the platform or special mission equipment — heavy weapons, sensors, radios — that the DAGOR could easily accommodate.
Integrating such high-tech kit is SAIC's core competency. While not a manufacturer itself, SAIC has done decades of integration work for the military, most extensively on the MRAP program, fitting other companies' vehicles with the sophisticated electronics that turn a truck into a weapons system. It also provides extensive maintenance and other support worldwide.
The two companies have worked together on and off, on small projects, for years, as various customers bought Polaris vehicles and then asked SAIC to equip them for specific military missions. But the current partnership is a big step up for both.
The odd man out is GM Defense, which giant General Motors created — in a sense, re-created — not quite two years ago after selling off most of its defense programs back in 2003. GM Defense president David Albritton just came aboard a year ago and has spent much of his time working with “Mother GM” on potential joint projects and spin-offs, from self-driving car technology to hydrogen fuel cells, he told me in an interview. “I'm not reporting any revenues at this point,” he said, although GM Defense does already have some contracts he can't disclose.
GM's offering is the only contender without a prior track record in the military. But their ISV is derived from the Chevrolet Colorado, of which US customers have bought more than 100,000 a year of since 2016, giving GM staggering efficiencies of scale no competitor can match. Specifically, the GM ISV a beefed-up, militarized version of the Colorado's offroad racing variant, the ZR2, with which it shares 70 percent of the same parts — parts that are available from Chevy dealers worldwide. GM builds over 10,000 ZR2s a year: a rounding error for General Motors but a megaprogram for the Army.
GM's scale advantage is not just in production and parts. It's also in engineering. The company spends over $7 billion a year on R&D, Albritton told me, and its ISV offering includes advanced suspension systems like jounce shocks and dynamic spooling. GM's challenge is overcoming its inexperience in the defense sector — especially, proving it can integrate military electronics onto its civilian-derived vehicle.
LRPF: Long-Range Precision Fires. NGCV: Next-Generation Combat Vehicle. FVL: Future Vertical Lift. AMD: Air & Missile Defense. SL: Soldier Lethality. SOURCE: US Army. (Click to expand)
The Big Picture
Overall, ISV is an especially interesting competition because none of the contenders is a classic defense prime:
Compare and contrast the Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program, which is de facto down to a single competitor — defense industry stalwart General Dynamics (which bought GM's previous defense business back in 2003). ISV shows the kind of variety that the Army wants to encourage and needs to infuse innovation and competition into its programs.
Yes, at 651 trucks — at least, in the initial 2020 contract — this is a modest program in both size and technological ambition. It's easily overshadowed by the hypersonic missiles, high-speed aircraft, and robotic tanks of the Army's Big Six priorities. By contrast, for the predecessor competition (the one Flyer won) back in 2015, we ran eight stories in three months because there was so little else the cash-strapped and acquisition challenged Army was buying at the time.
But the Infantry Squad Vehicle is still an important piece of the larger Army puzzle. The Army's infantry brigades — especially its 82nd Airborne parachutists — are its most strategically deployable units, easily packed into aircraft and flown around the world overnight, while heavy armored forces cram two tanks into one C-17 or, more often, go by ship. But once the infantry arrives, it moves on foot. (Although we bet everyone in the 82nd remembers being called a “speed bump” in this Defense Science Board study.)
The idea of ISV is a troop transport light enough to be air-dropped or, more often, delivered by helicopter. That way, the troops can land a long distance from their target — specifically, far enough their transport planes or helicopters aren't shot down by anti-aircraft missiles — and then advance quickly overnight before attacking on foot at dawn.
We expect to see all three competing vehicles on the show floor at the Association of the US Army megaconference next week.
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10/who-will-build-651-of-the-armys-parachuting-truck/
15 novembre 2023 | International, Aérospatial
Huntsville, Ala., November 14, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) today opened a $16.5M engineering facility at its Huntsville campus, introducing more capabilities for missile defense innovation in North...
8 juillet 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Autre défense
RACHEL S. COHEN The Air Force's top weapons development official says Raytheon's Small Diameter Bomb II, or “StormBreaker,” is ready for primetime despite needing to work out some lingering issues. “Getting them out into the field, right now I think that's the best way for us to wring this out,” Air Force Weapons Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. Anthony Genatempo said at a recent Air Force Life Cycle Management Center conference. “Get it into the hands of the people using it, figure out what they can do with it that we did not think of, figure out what things are happening in the operational environment that we were not able to replicate and test, and then feed that back into successive upgrades.” The Pentagon plans to buy 17,000 SDB IIs, split between 12,000 for the Air Force and 5,000 for the Navy, and will fly them on all current Air Force fighter and bomber aircraft as well as the A-10, AC-130J, and MQ-9. StormBreaker was designed as a precision munition that can communicate with nearby aircraft to attack moving and stationary targets in bad weather and notch “multiple kills per pass,” according to the Air Force. “The StormBreaker tri-mode seeker uses imaging infrared and millimeter wave radar in its normal mode to give pilots the ability to destroy moving targets, even in adverse weather, from standoff ranges,” Raytheon said in a press release. “Additionally, the weapon can use its semi-active laser guidance to hit targets.” As of October 2018, the service planned to spend $1.9 billion on development and $2.6 billion on procurement, the Government Accountability Office reported in May. StormBreaker's ability to communicate with its host aircraft needs more vetting, Genatempo said, and other fixes are already being added into the current production batch, Lot 4. Its radio may not be fixed until Lot 6 or 7, and the service plans to address parts that will be outdated in Lot 8. “Whether or not that is an issue that will prevent fielding, I don't think I can say that. I don't even think Air Combat Command can say that right now,” Genatempo said. “They very well may choose to take an initial delivery of these weapons at the capability they're at, knowing that one caveat. ... It certainly doesn't affect the entire envelope of operation of the weapon. It's a miniature part of one or two different scenarios.” The weapon is moving closer to being declared ready for initial operations afterfinishing operational tests in June and an overall test program that uncovered a range of performance issues that Raytheon and government officials say are routine in the course of vetting. When airmen are ready to receive the new bomb is ultimately up to Air Combat Command. “It's a very good conversation and dialogue with Air Combat Command about what they would like, when they would like it, what they're willing to take and employ,” Genatempo said. “I very much think that this weapon is ready to go out [to] operational use.” The Air Force now expects to reach its “required assets available” milestone, which has changed multiple times, from the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019 through the end of 2020. It was most recently slated for January 2019. To meet RAA, the service must arm 12 Boeing F-15Es with 144 weapons and own spare parts, support equipment, and more. The milestone was originally scheduled for July 2017. Genatempo said RAA was pushed back again to avoid punishing the program for having to wait its turn for testing ranges, as range availability is scarce thanks to several weapons programs simultaneously in testing. Delaying the milestone to later this year was “predominantly a paperwork exercise to make sure we didn't breach our [acquisition program baseline],” he said. http://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/USAF-New-Raytheon-Bomb-Ready-for-Real-World-Vetting.aspx
13 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial
By Michael Bruno As a multi-industrial manufacturer, Textron sells many transportation vehicles, from military helicopters to UAVs and even snowmobiles and recreational four-wheelers. But a new corporate review may indicate the conglomerate could be looking to become an aerospace and defense (A&D)-focused company similar to other large rivals, according to analysts. Earlier this month, Textron announced it is reviewing strategic alternatives such as a sale or spin-off of its German Kautex business unit, which produces fuel systems and other functional components. Kautex operates more than 30 plants in 14 countries and generated more than $2.3 billion in revenue in 2018. “Kautex strategic review suggests Textron wants to become an A&D ‘pure-play,'” Cowen analysts Cai von Rumohr and his team said Aug. 9. “The thesis is that ‘new Textron' could command a higher [valuation] multiple closer to A&D pure-plays; and it would have optionality for merger and acquisition (M&A) or stock repurchasing to leverage its new product-driven growth.” The Cowen analysts said they think that if Kautex is disposed of, so could golf cart maker Textron Specialized Vehicles or other units in Textron's Industrial division. In turn, the company could use proceeds and money saved to bolt on smaller A&D businesses, or it could continue active share repurchases to lever benefits of expected growth from new products such as Longitude, Sky Courier, Denali and V-280. “A third possibility is that free of Industrial, Textron could be of interest to larger primes, who would bring more lobbying clout to V-280,” the analysts said. Buying candidates could be Boeing or General Dynamics, they added. Separately, a well-known adviser to the A&D industry recently told Aerospace DAILY that Textron would make a good acquisition target for other A&D players. “Over the years I've had my clients take a hard look at that one,” the consultant said. This person listed Boeing and Lockheed for possible top-level consolidation, although getting Pentagon and Trump administration approval could be more of a challenge than for other recent M&A deals. To be sure, Textron is already an aerospace-focused multi-industrial. According to Cowen, it is the leader in Class 1-5 business jets (which make up 24% of annual total revenue), with positions in helicopters via Bell (26%), defense systems (12%), and then industrial products (25%). Defense as an end-market accounts for 29%. But conglomerates are increasingly breaking up and those with A&D elements continue to focus on those businesses. United Technologies is working to spin off its elevators and air conditioning businesses while adding Raytheon. General Electric is divesting major units but favoring aviation. Honeywell International in recent years has spun off units to focus more on A&D and related businesses. One reason for the portfolio shaping is because of pressure from major investors who want companies to be more focused, in part so they can balance their own investment portfolios rather than relying on a company to try to play in various industries. Goldman Sachs is advising Textron on its review. Textron reiterated that no decision has been made and there are no assurances that the process will result in any transaction being announced or completed. The company has not set a definitive timetable for completion of its review of strategic alternatives and does not intend to make any further announcements related to its review unless and until its board of directors has approved a specific transaction or Textron otherwise determines that further disclosure is appropriate. https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/could-textron-become-purer-ad-company-or-be-sold