Nouvelles

ByEd Adamczyk Oct. 9 (UPI) -- BAE Systems announced a $148.3 million contract with the U.S. Army on Wednesday to upgrade M88A1 heavy-lift vehicles. A total of 43 vehicles will be rebuilt with increased power, maneuverability and survivability features to increase their configuration to M88A2 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift System, or HERCULES, status. The Army intends to acquire 933 such vehicles -- with the upgraded M88A1s, it will have 914. "The HERCULES is an invaluable vehicle for the Army's recovery missions," said Dennis Hancock of BAE Systems. "We are proud to support the Army's recovery needs and we will continue to work alongside the Army to provide upgraded solutions as their missions and requirements change." Twenty-eight feet long and carrying a crew of three, the M88A2's specialty is the recovery of tanks mired to different depths, its capability in removing and installing tank turrets and power packs, and its ability to upright overturned heavy combat vehicles. The main winch on the M88A2 can move 70 tons, compared to the M88A1's 56 tons, allowing it to recover a 70-ton M1A2 Abrams tank. The upgraded vehicle can also be anchored for earth-moving purposes to prepare a recovery area and can refuel Abrams tanks from its own fuel tanks. Work on the program will be conducted at four BAE facilities in the United States, with deliveries scheduled to start in February 2021. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/10/09/BAE-Systems-wins-1483M-Army-contract-to-upgrade-M88A1-vehicles/5411570639391

Byron Callan During upcoming earnings conference calls, expect some defense contractors to again state that they are well-positioned in high-priority programs and markets that fully align with customer priorities. In addition, planners and analysts are going to be asking a lot more questions about contractor positioning and the outcome of the 2020 U.S. election. Who will be best positioned if President Donald Trump is reelected or if there is a Democrat in the White House in 2021? On the first assertion of “well-positioned,” to a degree it is axiomatic. Defense requirements are validated, so by that very process, they take priority over emerging and yet-to-be-funded requirements. However, if one accepts the premises that Defense Department budgets may be flat for a multi-year period and that demand signals for security are going to rise, the sector will be entering a far more dynamic period in the 2020s than the past 4-5 years. Instead of being “well-positioned,” a broader set of filters may need to be applied. Posture may be a better way to assess contractor outlooks. There are five attributes on which this may be assessed. 1. The priority and relative safety of programs matters both in U.S. and international markets. But that needs to be assessed and reassessed against changed defense needs. Today's major programs of record are likely to change. If there is doubt on that issue, a reading of the U.S. Marine Corps Commandant's Planning Guidance released last July may dispel notions that the next 10 years are going to be stable and predictable. 2. One contractor can disrupt others through new product and service offerings or even a new business model. Examples of the former include Boeing's T-X/T-7 aircraft, which, if evolved into a fighter/attack aircraft, may be good enough for some missions. Kratos' Valkyrie is another example, which could affect demand for manned combat aircraft. On the latter, the Pentagon now intends to purchase launch services instead of expendable launch vehicles. Where else might these sorts of “as a service” models be applied? 3. The pipeline of bid opportunities: There are some large programs that are in competition and for which decisions are pending. The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, Long-Range Standoff, Army aviation and ground-vehicle modernization and Navy FFG(X) programs are some of the larger ones that could be decided, but there also are classified ones and swaths of opportunity in unmanned systems, hypersonics, software for data and artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. International opportunity also clearly matters in assessing how a contractor is postured. 4. The ability to execute within cost and schedule is essential. Human capital, technology application and risk, contracting and supply chain management are critical attributes. This also will tie into the bid pipeline and the degree to which a contractor is postured to pursue new opportunities or if the contractor will have challenges managing its current portfolio of products and services. From the outside looking in at contractors, this attribute may be difficult to measure. Open job position data can be sketchy, but it is one metric to consider. Performance on current programs is another. 5. Contractor culture will be critical in the 2020s. One aspect of culture is how well a contractor anticipates potential changes in defense and security needs. Another is how receptive company leaders are to positioning or repositioning to capitalize on those changes. There will not be solid metrics here, although there are plenty of good questions to ask. In order to anticipate change, contractors are going to have to be wired to understand when and where change is occurring. This has to allow perspectives that may differ from the consensus view to reach leaders so they can assess whether ideas are worth pursuing or if there is a threat to be addressed. Part of this posture entails a willingness to create top cover and breathing space for conflicting views. There will be a natural tendency of company leaders to continue to exploit current business models and protect major products and services. There will likely be very strong pressure from shareholders to sustain or increase operational margins and cash flow and stay within current business lanes. Posture, however, may also include a willingness to take some short-term or even intermediate-term pain and risk in order to better position for the future. Innovation is an overused term these days, and it may be like former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's assertion on obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Be that as it may, contractors must dedicate time to innovation every week in order to achieve it. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-how-assess-defense-prospects-future

October 8, 2019 - The U.S. Army has awarded BAE Systems a contract modification worth up to $269 million for continued production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV). The award for an additional 168 upgraded Bradley A4 Infantry Fighting Vehicles is part of the Army's combat vehicle modernization strategy and helps ensure force readiness of the Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT). The Bradley A4 is equipped with an enhanced powertrain that maximizes mobility and increases engine horsepower, providing rapid movement in reaction to combat or other adverse situations. Wide angle Driver's Vision Enhancer, improved Force XXI Battle Command Bridge and Below (FBCB2) software integration improves friendly and enemy vehicle identification, enhancing situational awareness. The addition of a High Speed Slip Ring, greater network connectivity and Smart Displays that simultaneously display classified and unclassified information also improve situational awareness. “The Bradley is one of the most critical vehicles in the Army's ABCT today because it allows the Army to transport troops to the fight, and provide covering fire to suppress enemy vehicles and troops,” said Scott Davis, vice president of combat vehicle programs for BAE Systems. “Upgrading to the A4 configuration provides soldiers with more power to increase their speed and ability to integrate enhanced technology to ensure they maintain the advantage on the battlefield.” Previously awarded funding for initial production of 164 Bradley A4 vehicles allowed BAE Systems to begin production. The award of this option brings the total production funding to $578 million. It includes upgrades and associated spares of two Bradley variants: the M2A4 Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M7A4 Fire Support Team Vehicle. BAE Systems is a premiere supplier of combat vehicles to the U.S. military and international customers. The company has an extensive manufacturing network across the United States and continues to invest in it. Work on the program will take place at Red River Army Depot in Texarkana, Texas, and BAE Systems' facilities in Aiken, South Carolina; Anniston, Alabama; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Jose, California; Sterling Heights, Michigan; and York, Pennsylvania. View source version on BAE Systems: https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/u-s--army-extends-contract-for-bradley-fighting-vehicle-upgrades

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: Oshkosh and Polaris both have lots of civilian customers alongside their extensive military business. Flyer is a subunit of a modest aerospace and defense components-builder called Marvin Group. SAIC is a systems engineering and service firm rather than a traditional Original Equipment Manufacturer. And GM of course is one of the biggest civilian manufacturers in the country. “We make upwards of nine million cars a year,” Albritton told me, each put together out of roughly 30,000 different parts. 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/

By: Kelsey D. Atherton On screen, the small robot slides perfectly underneath the textureless tank. It is a modern iteration of an old promise in remote warfare, rendered with all the processing power of a desktop PC from 1994. Can a small, cheap robot prove useful against the vehicles of an enemy at war? A recent exhibition of unmanned ground vehicles by Iran suggests that the possibility, if not the reality, is already in development. Designed by the Research and Self-Sufficiency Jihad Organization of the Iranian Army, the Heidair-1 is almost certainly bound for life as an expendable battlefield platform. “There are many countries and forces using small [unmanned ground vehicles] for ISR and other roles — many belligerents in the Middle East have them, including several DIY models made by non-state actors,” said Samuel Bendett, an adviser at the Center for Naval Analyses. The Islamic Republic of Iran Army Ground Forces, or NEZAJA, shared pictures of the new machine on Twitter Oct. 3. The default body of the robot is a six-wheeled tan box, with a pair of antenna sticking out toward the rear of the machine. Of the six Heidair-1 platforms featured, two were models with assault rifles mounted on top of the little rovers, magazines pointed skyward. “NEZAJA had an expo in Tehran where it unveiled several concepts, including this small UGV, Heidar-1. It appears to be a proof of concept, and there is no evidence of this UGV taking part in combat,” Bendett said. In the same video, NEZAJA shows one of the robots driving toward a rough tank-like shape. It explodes, fulfilling the promise of the simulation, and hearkening back to an earlier era of anti-tank warfare. In World War II, Germany fielded thousands of Goliath remote-control anti-tank mines, designed to crawl under parked tanks and detonate through the softer armor below. “This is the first time we have seen Iran unveil such a vehicle,” said Bendett, a fellow in Russia studies at the American Foreign Policy Council. “Equally interesting is their claim that this will be a ‘networked' system of vehicles that can presumably function in more or less autonomous mode. At this point, however, they are remote-controlled devices.” In a video demonstration, the rovers are either single-use mines or armed with machine guns. They are shown being used as combined arms with flying multirotor scouts. Whatever the guts of the new rolling rovers, the ability to guide them remotely to targets spotted by drone adds to the range of threats small robots can pose to armored vehicles. “This Heidair-1UGV may act ... as a kamikaze vehicle that may sneak up on its target much faster given its overall small size,” Bendett said. “We may not see this UGV operate in Iranian Army, but we may see such a vehicle operated by Houthis in their campaign against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its aligned forces.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2019/10/08/beetle-like-iranian-robots-roll-under-tanks/

By DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN The Canadian government says it is examining video footage which appears to show Canadian-made light armoured vehicles captured by rebels in Yemen. Yemen's Houthi rebels released the footage Sunday of the aftermath of a battle with Saudi Arabian forces. The fighting started as an ambush inside Saudi Arabia but then turned into a major cross-border battle, according to the rebels. The footage of the battle was shown on Houthi-run Al Masirah TV and Al Jazeera. Saudi Arabia has not acknowledged the fighting and the Houthi claims have not been independently verified. The footage shows the captured and destroyed light armoured vehicles as well as Saudi troops taken prisoner. Over the years, Saudi Arabia has purchased light armoured vehicles from Canada's General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada in London, Ont. In 2014, the then Conservative government announced a deal worth an estimated $15 billion to sell Saudi Arabia more than 700 light armoured vehicles. That controversial deal was later approved by the Liberal government. Besides the armoured vehicles, the video shows large amounts of captured small arms. It is not clear whether the Houthi forces took possession of some of the armoured vehicles or left them at the ambush site. Houthi spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree told Al Masirah TV that the captured soldiers were moved to “secure places.” Doug Wilson-Hodge, spokesman for General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada, said the company is declining to comment on the footage. Global Affairs Canada spokesperson Adam Austen said Friday that department officials are reviewing the footage. It is unclear what would be done after the footage is examined. Austen also noted the government is reviewing all export permits to Saudi Arabia but no final decision has been taken. “During this review, no new permits have been issued,” Austen added. A March 21, 2016 Global Affairs Canada memo released under the Access to Information law noted that officials in the department pushed for the sale of the light armoured vehicles to the Saudis despite concerns about human rights abuses and the possibility such equipment could be captured by rebels from Yemen. The memo pointed to the appearance of a Canadian-made LRT-3 sniper rifle photographed in the hands of a Houthi rebel in Yemen. More than 1,300 sniper rifles have been exported from Canada to the Saudi Arabian military and security forces, including several hundred of that particular model, the document added. “Canada's Embassy in Riyadh assesses that this rifle, along with other Saudi military equipment, was likely captured from Saudi fighters by Houthi fighters during military operations along the Saudi-Yemeni border,” then Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion was told. The Liberal government launched the review of the light armoured vehicle contract after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey. Earlier this year a United Nations report determined that Saudi Arabia was responsible for the killing of Khashoggi who was a critic of that country's regime. A dozen organizations sent Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a letter earlier in August, questioning the status of the review and pointing out that no updates on progress have been provided. The lack of such information has brought “the sincerity of the effort into question,” according to the letter endorsed by organizations such as Oxfam Canada and Amnesty International. Relations between Canada and Saudi Arabia soured last year after the Canadian government called for the release of two jailed Saudi human rights activists. The Saudis have also fallen behind in their payments for the light armoured vehicles received from General Dynamics. It was revealed in December that the Saudis owed Canada more than $1 billion for vehicles already delivered. A Saudi-led coalition, which has been provided with arms and intelligence from the U.S. and other western nations, intervened in Yemen in 2015 after the Houthis overthrew the government. Saudi Arabia has faced severe criticism for its role in the ongoing war in Yemen, with allegations it has conducted unlawful airstrikes on civilians. Screen shots below of light armoured vehicles were taken from the Houthi video aired Sunday: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canada-reviews-footage-of-destroyed-and-captured-canadian-made-saudi-armoured-vehicles

ARMY Brasfield & Gorrie LLC, Birmingham, Alabama (W912HN-20-D-3000); Gilbane Federal JV, Concord, California (W912HN-20-D-3001); Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Orlando, Florida (W912HN-20-D-3002); Caddell Construction Co. (DE) LLC, Montgomery, Alabama (W912HN-20-D-3003); Archer Western Federal JV, Chicago, Illinois (W912HN-20-D-3004); and M.A. Mortenson Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota (W912HN-20-D-3005), will compete for each order of the $249,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for design, build, construction, rehabilitation, maintenance, repairs, mechanical systems, plumbing, utility systems, structural, electrical, heating and air conditioning, instrumentation, security and safety areas of Government facilities. Bids were solicited via the internet with 20 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 3, 2024. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia, is the contracting activity. AIR FORCE New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico, has been awarded a $92,980,000 cost-reimbursement, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for Playas Electronic Attack & Cyber Environment research and development. This contract will define, develop and deploy cyber electronic warfare (EW) capabilities for research and development, evaluation, test and training in support of employment of cyber EW effects. This effort will provide a unique and enduring environment to support Department of Defense assets for the employment of cyber and EW effects. Work will be performed in Playas, New Mexico, and is expected to be completed by Oct. 7, 2026. Fiscal 2019 research and development funds in the amount of $5,298,000 are being obligated at time of award. The Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8650-20-D-1888). Linde Services LLC, New Providence, New Jersey, has been awarded a $77,000,000 hybrid firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (FA7022-20-D-0002) with a cost reimbursable line item, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the processing separation, and radio assay of atmospheric gas samples for elemental determination of sample components. This contract provides for laboratory analytical services and support services, including but not limited to, sample analysis, analytical technique advancement, special projects, computer software support. The location of performance is New Providence, New Jersey. The work is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2027. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funding in the amount of $6,998,924 is obligated at the time of award. Headquarters Air Combat Command, Acquisition Management and Integration Center, Detachment 2 Operation Location, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Olgoonik Technical Services LLC, Anchorage, Alaska, has been awarded a maximum $13,314,408 modification (P00033) exercising the fourth one-year option period of a one-year base contract (SP3300-16-C-5001) with four one-year option periods for warehousing and distribution support services. This is a fixed-price-incentive contract with cost-reimbursement line items. Locations of performance are Alaska and California, with an Oct. 15, 2020, performance completion date. Using customer is Defense Logistics Agency. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. NAVY Schuyler Line Navigation Co. LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, is awarded an $11,803,500 modification under a previously awarded firm, fixed-price contract (N32205-18-C-3508) to fund the first one-year option period. The option will continue to provide one U.S. flagged vessel (SLNC Goodwill) in support of the Department of Defense Logistics Agency Energy for the transportation of clean petroleum products in the Far East region. The current contract includes a 12-month base period, three 12-month option periods and one 11-month option period. Work will be performed in the Far East region, and is expected to be completed by Oct. 14, 2020. Fiscal 2020 working capital funds in the amount of $2,950,875 will be obligated at time of award and each quarter thereafter and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Fiscal 2021 working capital funds will be funded for the remainder of the option. Military Sealift Command, headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N32205-18-C-3508). https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/1983019/source/GovDelivery/

With the surprise disqualification of the Raytheon-Rheinmetall Lynx, the Army has effectively left itself with one competitor for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, General Dynamics -- unless the Pentagon or Congress intervene. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. WASHINGTON: Experts fear the Army has undermined a top priority program, the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, by disqualifying one of the only two remaining competitors for not delivering its prototype on time. “I cannot believe that is the reason,” said a baffled Thomas Spoehr, a retired three-star who headed the Army's program analysis & evaluation office. There must be, he told me this morning, some more profound problem driving this decision: “Nobody wants to have this major program go forward with only one competitor.” The news was broken by our colleague Jen Judson on Friday and confirmed to us by several sources. The Army declined official comment. Manufacturer Rheinmetall could not physically ship their Lynx-41 prototype from Germany to the US — which is strange, since they've managed to do so before — by the October first deadline. While some Army officials were willing to offer them an extension, the recently created Army Futures Command refused. That leaves General Dynamics, offering an all-new design we describe below, as the sole competitor for the Engineering & Manufacturing Design (EMD) contract to be awarded early next year. A crucial caveat: Winning EMD does not guarantee General Dynamics will win the production contract, which will be awarded in 2023 in a competition open to all comers. But any 2023 contender would have to refine their design at their own expense, without the constant feedback from the Army that comes with being on the EMD contract. That's a hard risk for a board to justify, given GD's advantage. And without a second competitor, all the Army's eggs are in the basket of GD succeeding, with no backup. “I strongly suspect that [General Dynamics] has done a great job of tailoring a solution, developed over time through successes in other programs, for exactly what the US Army wants,” as expressed in roughly 100 detailed and rigid requirements, said George Mason scholar Jim Hasik. But, he said, that doesn't mean what the Army thinks it wants is the right solution, or that GD will deliver on budget and schedule. “I would prefer that two or three contractors were proceeding to some trials of truth at Aberdeen in some months,” Hasik told me. “I do not single out GDLS; I just expect lower likelihood of success in non-competitive contracting. Any given bid may have problems of which even the bidder does not know.” The timing of this news is particularly painful for the Army, because thousands of soldiers, contractors, and media will be heading to Washington for next-week's huge Association of the US Army conference. One of the highlights of last year's show was the Lynx prototype. Why? Disqualifying the Lynx doesn't make sense, said Spoehr, who as head of national defense studies at the Heritage Foundation has long urged the Army to replace its M2 Bradley troop carrier and other 1980s-vintage armored vehicle designs. “I have to believe the Army will take another look at this situation,” Spoehr said. Or, maybe not. The decision to disqualify the Rheinmetall-Raytheon team for missing the deadline is arguably, “the correct one when you consider schedule is the priority,” an industry source told me. But maybe schedule shouldn't be the priority, the source went on, because the current timeline — fielding the first combat-ready unit by 2026 — doesn't permit much innovation. “The vehicle they are asking for will not be significantly better than the current Bradley.” (General Dynamics disputes this hotly, not surprisingly, as we detail later in this story). “I think the Army is pretty short-sighted,” the industry source said. “Personally, I don't see how the program survives in future budgets.” Even before this news broke, skeptical Senate appropriators had already cut funding for Army Next Generation Combat Vehicles in their draft of the defense spending bill, although the House has not. But with the Hill so roiled by impeachment that it's unclear legislators will even be able to pass the annual defense bills — which were already headed for closed-door conferences in any case — we've not been able to get any but the most noncommittal comment from Congress. We'll update this story or write a sequel when we hear from the Hill. The underlying anxiety here is that the Army has tried and failed repeatedly to modernize its Reagan-era arsenal over the past 30 years — the problem Army Futures Command was created to fix. Armored fighting vehicle programs, above all replacements for the Bradley troop carrier, have been particularly fraught. The Future Combat Systems family of vehicles, which included a lightweight Bradley replacement, was canceled in 2009, while the Ground Combat Vehicle, a better-armored and correspondingly heavier Bradley replacement, was cancelled in 2014. The Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle is the Army's third swing at this ball. That puts tremendous pressure on Army Futures Command and General Dynamics to deliver. Their balancing act is to make something different and better enough it's worth replacing the Bradley instead of just upgrading it again, without taking on so much new technology that the program risks major delays and overruns. The Army's modernization director for Next Generation Combat Vehicles, Brig. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman, spoke to me Friday just before the news broke about Rheinmetall. While he didn't speak to the number of competitors, he did emphasize that a company that doesn't win an Engineering & Manufacturing Design contract can still compete for Low-Rate Initial Production. “The LRIP award is FY23,” Coffman said. “That's a free and open competition. So let's say you didn't have the time or didn't feel you had the money ... to compete starting on 1 October, you can further mature your product, you can test that product, and then enter back in to the competition in '23.” We Have A Winner (By Default)? Assuming General Dynamics does win the production contract in 2023, what will their vehicle look like? It will not resemble the Griffin III concept vehicle that vied with the Lynx on the floor of last year's Association of the US Army mega-conference, company officials told me. In fact, they said, the GD OMFV shares no major components with the ASCOD/Ajax lineage of combat vehicles, widely used in Europe, on whose proven chassis and automotive systems GD build its Griffin series, including its offering for the Army's Mobile Protected Firepower light tank. “The suspension is a totally new design. The engine and transmission are totally different. Drive train is different. Exhaust placement is different,” Keith Barclay, director of global strategy for General Dynamics Land Systems, said in an interview. (The core of the engine is the same as MPF, but not the configuration, cooling, or transmission). That's remarkable because Army leaders had said they were willing to go with a proven, pre-existing chassis to reduce risk, as long as the weapons and electronics were cutting-edge. As with many weapons programs, the Army plans to field OMFV in successively more advanced increments: Increment 1 will only have to meet minimum or “threshold” requirements, while Increment 2 will go after higher “objective” requirements. “One of the problems we had with previous ground vehicle programs was we always tried to reach for technology that wasn't mature,” Coffman told me. “Now we've set the objective to those technologies that are on the cusp of maturation, so that if it does mature ... we can achieve[it] in Increment 2.” Barclay and other GD execs told me this morning that the prototype they just delivered to the Army already meets some of the objective requirements for Increment 2, particularly for the gun and fire control. (They declined to offer more specifics). Meeting those requirements was what drove the all-new design. “It had to be designed from the inside out,” Barclay told me. “Modifying an existing platform would not work.” That said, Barclay went on, this is not new unproven tech. “These are very high Technological Readiness Level (TRL) components that have been through quite a bit of testing, and we've just packaged them and designed them... into a new configuration.” (Of course, “quite a bit of testing” isn't the same as actually being deployed on hundreds of vehicles in Spanish, Austrian, and — soon — British service, as was the case for many of the Griffin's components). While the GD OMFV's components aren't the same as those on the ASCOD/Ajax/Griffin series, they do build on that experience, Barclay said, as well as on decades of General Dynamics R&D for the cancelled FCS and GCV programs. What's New? So what are the innovations in the GD OMFV that make it a significant improvement over an upgraded Bradley? Most visible from the outside is the weapon, the one component the OMFV shares with the Griffin III prototype at AUSA last year. It's a new 50mm quick-firing cannon, largely developed by the Army's Armaments Center, which is many times more powerful than the 25mm on the Bradley or the 30mm weapons on many Russian vehicles. Whereas the Bradley gunner and commander sit in the turret, the OMFV's turret is unmanned, remote-controlled from a well-protected and well-connected crew compartment in the hull. In fact, from the crew's perspective inside the vehicle, the most visible difference will probably be how much better their visibility is. Traditional armored vehicles rely on narrow viewports and periscopic sights, making them half-blind behemoths on the battlefield. But massive investments by the automotive industry — from backup cameras to self-driving cars — have driven down the cost and size of sensors. GD boasts their OMFV design offers “360 degree situational awareness” from cameras all around the vehicle. The sensor feeds are visible from screens at not only the crew stations but in the passenger area, so the infantry can know what kind of situation they may have to clamber out into. Currently, the vehicle is configured for three crew and five infantry soldiers, the same as the Bradley and the Army's minimum requirement for OMFV. (The seats are designed to buffer blasts from mines and roadside bombs). But all eight seats are together in the hull, rather than having some in the turret, and each crew station can control any function, rather than each being specially hard-wired for the commander, gunner, and driver respectively. So GD expects that, as automation technology improves, it'll be possible to go down to just two crewmembers, freeing up a seat for a sixth passenger. That ability to upgrade electronics is perhaps the single most important, if subtle, improvement over the Bradley. Designed in the 1970s and repeatedly upgraded since, the Bradley has repeatedly run into the limits of its electrical system. Troops in Iraq often had to turn equipment on and off because they couldn't run all of it at once. The Army is now increasing the Bradley's power, and they're even retrofitting it with an Active Protection System that uses electricity-hungry radars to detect and shoot down incoming anti-tank missiles. But the OMFV will have Active Protection as standard equipment, rather than tacked on. And the all-new design lets GD build in the power, wiring, and — most crucial — the standardized interfaces (aka a Modular Open Systems Architecture) to make future electronic upgrades much easier, from anti-missile jammers to reconnaissance mini-drones to AI-assisted targeting systems. “We have looked to the future about what power requirements will be,” Barclay told me. Their vehicle, he said, has “electrical power, both high voltage and low voltage, that will allow myriad capabilities that you could not put onto an existing combat vehicle today in the Army's inventory.” https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10/bradley-replacement-army-risks-third-failure-in-a-row

By: Jeff Martin WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is now at an inflection point: After years with little urgency to extend the range of ground-launched missiles and cannons, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty is no more and countries like Russia, China, and North Korea have built up capabilities of their own systems. That's led to what many call a “range gap." Find out more below. More details : https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2019/10/07/outgunned-and-outranged-why-the-army-must-get-more-from-cannons-and-missiles