The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are running out of fighters. Heavy wear and tear over nearly a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan has depleted the two services’ combined fighter force. Purchases of new planes have been delayed by controversial planning decisions. As a result, U.S. maritime forces operate at elevated risk. Robotic systems could help mitigate this risk, but the Navy has resisted adopting pilot-less aircraft.
The U.S. Navy also has shortage of fighters, primarily F/A-18C/Ds. Together, both services are currently short by around 50 aircraft, but this so-called “fighter gap” could deepen to an estimated 125 aircraft by 2017 before the new Lockheed Martin F-35 enters service in large numbers. The naval fighter gap first appeared around 2006, when the Marines decommissioned two fighter squadrons flying F/A-18D and AV-8B, owing to unexpected fatigue issues. The Hornets, in particular, were worn out from repeated deployments to western Iraq, where the two-seat jets were in high demand for forward air-control missions. The Marines planned to recommission the squadrons once their F-35Bs fighters become operational.
Some analysts argue that the drones could represent a radical improvement over existing capabilities. A Unmanned Combat Aerial System (UCAS) like the X-47, scheduled to perform carrier deployment evaluation in two years could deliver more firepower over greater range and with fewer losses than the F-35 – and could do it sooner, and potentially more cheaply. The Air Force has already realized this advantage – in 2010, the Air Force will buy more armed drone aircraft than it buys fighters.
To help the Navy through the widening fighter gap, Congress doubled F/A-18E/F production for 2010, to 18 copies. More new Hornets could follow as older planes are decommissioned or transferred to the Marines. Some analysts have proposed the Navy advance plans for unmanned fighters, as another alternative to the F-35. The Marines don’t fly the E- and F-model Hornet, and have no concept of operations for drone fighters. Realistically, the Marines can only wait for the F-35, while their existing fighter force continues wasting away.
Defense Update and War is Boring (WIB) have recently embarked on editorial exchange. We welcome WIB and its founder David Axe and are looking forward for further cooperation in the future. Defense Update readers are welcome to explore the interesting features published by WIB.
BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman Corporation have announced a teaming agreement to pursue the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program. BAE Systems will serve as the prime contractor in this partnership. This is the first teaming announced for the program. The Army intends to award contracts to as many as three competitors this fall with production expected to begin in 2017.
BAE Systems along with General Dynamics Land Systems were the two developers responsible for the now cancelled Mounted Ground Vehicle (MGV), which the GCV will succeed. The company is the top supplier to the U.S. Army’s Heavy Brigades. Northrop Grumman will serve as the lead for vehicle electronics and C4ISR.
“Together we bring an experience level of combat platform production and C4ISR integration capabilities to the GCV program that is unsurpassed by our competitors.” Said Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Joe G. Taylor, Jr., vice president, ground combat systems at Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman’s role in the team will be responsible for integration of command and control hardware and software, computers and communications equipment, sensors and sensor suites for intelligence gathering and force protection, and other functionality that requires ‘plug and play’ with the internal network or provides situational awareness across external networks.
Participating in the U.S. Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiment (AEWE) at Fort Benning, Ga. Last month, Northrop Grumman’s MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned system demonstrated new mission capabilities provided by rotary-wing UAVs. Among the missions demonstrated by the Fire Scout were cargo delivery, force protection, area surveillance reconnaissance, and target acquisition (RSTA), broadband networking and communications relay. AEWE is an annual Army exercise designed to give soldiers a look at emerging battlefield technologies and concepts of operation.
Hovering 4,000 feet above the battlefield, Fire Scout offered soldiers both high fidelity video imagery produced by its electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensor, and assured, Internet-like chat, file sharing and data transfers enabled by a Raytheon-produced communications payload.
One of the missions combined autonomous aerial and ground surveillance, performed by the Fire Scout and a Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUG-V). On one such mission the Fire Scout flew to a specific area of interest, surveyed the area to ensure it was clear, and landed autonomously within its pre-planned landing point. When Fire Scout’s on-board skid sensors detected contact with the ground, a command was sent to release the unmanned ground vehicle. Once the SUGV deployed, the Fire Scout ascended and then loitered at a higher altitude to observe and provide a relay for commands between the UGV and its controller.
“Use of an unmanned system to carry other unmanned systems into battle could improve the speed of operations while protecting U.S. lives,” said Al Nikolaus, program manager of land-based Fire Scout at Northrop Grumman’s Aerospace Systems sector. “This demonstration provides another example of Fire Scout’s maturity, reliability, flexibility, and its ability to operate successfully with currently deployed systems.” said Nikolaus.
In addition to Fire Scout’s communications relay demonstration, the VUAS was used to support cargo resupply missions and to ferry other types of unmanned systems to troops operating in remote areas. For the communications relay missions, Fire Scout was equipped with a Mobile Ad hoc Interoperability Network GATEway (MAINGATE) communications payload. Installed in a pod attached to Fire Scout, the payload relayed communications among ground troops, allowing them to share high quality video, voice and data communications in real time. EO/IR surveillance imagery from the Fire Scout sensors was also fed into the MAINGATE network in real time, allowing soldiers to benefit from the VUAS’ “perch and stare” view of the battlefield.
On of the most significant aspects of the communications relay demo was how fast the payload was integrated on Fire Scout and flown successfully on multiple AEWE missions: ‘from start to finish, the process took less than three months; installation, check-out and first flight of the MAINGATE hardware at AEWE took just one day. The success of the MAINGATE demo reinforces the maturity and versatility of Fire Scout’s modular design” said Nikolaus.
The autonomous K-MAX unmanned helicopter will provide air transportation of the UGV and will also provide an aerial watch of the target area. Photo: Lockheed Martin
The Marine Corps is nearing a decision about the deployment of unmanned air systems to resupply forward units in Afghanistan, replacing some of the convoys moving on the dangerous roads there. The Marines are evaluating three platforms – the Kaman K-MAX helicopter or Boeing A160 Hummingbird. The MQ-8B, which was not included in the preliminary evaluation, could also be considered, given the platform’s maturity with the U.S. Navy. The cargo carrying capability of the FireScout was recently performed by Northrop Grumman, demonstrating an autonomous resupply capability for the army.
The three platforms differ considerably in their cargo lifting capability. Hummingbird has the largest payload capacity, lifting over one ton of cargo (1,134kg). As a manned helicopter, K-MAX has demonstrated track record operation in high altitude (it is commonly used in the forestry industry) where it can lift over half a ton (690 kg. at an altitude of 12,000 ft). The FireScout will be able to lift about 400 kg cargo. Yet, the MQ-8B will have the advantage that, being a program of record with the Navy and Marine Corps, it will have all the logistical support in place, therefore reducing life cycle cost. The Army has recently cancelled the planned procurement of MQ-8B as part of the future ‘Brigade Modernization Program’, leaving the Navy and Marine Corps the only future users for the FireScout.
Following its plan to expand the former Killer-Bee platform it acquired from Swift Engineering in 2009 into a family of UAVs, last month Northrop Grumman flew the first in a new series of BAT unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The unmanned vehicle that flew in January 2010 was the BAT-12, a new, 12-foot wingspan (3.65 m’) version powered by a German engine made by Göbler-Hirthmotoren, originally designed for ultra-light aircraft. The BAT-12 uses a five-blade propeller, contributing to low acoustic signature of the platform. The system was also tested with a new mission payload, comprising stabilized Short Wave Infrared (SWIR) and miniature Synthetic Aperture radar (NanoSAR).
The BAT 12 cought in the arresting net after at the completion of the mission. Given the BAT's robust blended Wing Body (BWB) design, net recovery is considered a viable option, unlike conventional UAVs, where multiple net recoveries caused excessive damage to the wing, tails and props. Photo: Northrop grumman
Recently, the BAT has been integrated and tested with new payload comprising the T2 Delta dual payload micro-gimbal from Goodrich Corporation’s Cloud Cap Technology Inc, mounting the short wave infrared (SWIR) camera from Goodrich and the Sentient Vision Systems’ Kestral real-time moving target indicator. In February 2010 payload integration and testing was expanded to include ImSAR’s Nano-SAR-B fused with Cloud Cap’s T2 gimbal in a cursor-on-target acquisition mode.
During recent testing, the 12-foot and 10-foot (3.04 m’) wingspan Bats were successfully launched from a transportable launcher used for the AAI Shadow. The BATs were autonomously operated from a single ground control station before recovery via net. As a communications relay using Northrop Grumman’s Software Defined Tactical Radio, BAT has also demonstrated its capacity to provide beyond line-of-sight tactical communications relay for ground forces in denied environments, a critical role in irregular warfare.
The agreement between Diehl BGT and Tata Industrial Services strengthens the German technology transfer offering weaponry associated with the European Typhoon, considered by India as one of the leading contenders for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) and its weapons. Photo: Tata Industrial servcies
Tata Industrial Services of India and the German defense manufacturer Diehl BGT Defence have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for industrial cooperation and offsets support in defense and security. The agreement paves the way for Tata Industrial Services to develop supply solutions for major aerospace and defense projects, supporting the Indian offset requirements. For the German side, the MoU established a channel allowing Diehl BGT Defence to introduce relevant technology and products in the strategic Indian market, strengthening their position for cooperation with Indian partners, participating in key domestic programs.
The agreement between Diehl BGT and Tata Industrial Services strengthens the German technology transfer offering weaponry associated with the European Typhoon, considered by India as one of the leading contenders for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) and its weapons. Photo: Tata Industrial servcies
The agreement opens technology transfer opportunities associated with the European Typhoon, considered by India as one of the leading contenders for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) and its weapons.
The product spectrum ranges from guided missiles for Army, Air Force and Navy, intelligent munition solutions up to reconnaissance, self-protection and training systems.
Signing the agreement were Mr. Kamesh Gupta, the Chief Operating Officer of Tata Industrial Services and Mr. Christian Haun, Vice President International Sales at Diehl BGT.
Viewed within the many actions against the “war on global terror”, there is now one less arch-terrorist among the living. No one in his right mind should cry over the demise of this mastermind in murderous terrorism. Of course Mossad was immediately “credited” with the hit, same as it was blamed by Hezbollah in assassinating the notorious “most wanted” terrorist, Imad Mughniyah in central Damascus a few years ago.
Archi-terrorist and businessman, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Above, as a member of Hamas paramilitary groups, he was the Co-founder of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.
Both operations were carried out by professionals, and whether Israeli Mossad, or others, is of little importance. The fact is that none of the suspects remained on the scene in Dubai, while the target Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, was eliminated quietly, without fuss in a luxury Dubai hotel room, a mere five hours after arriving in the Arab Gulf State.
Israeli officials say that Mabhouh, a veteran Hamas operative well versed in operating clandestinely, was in charge of procuring weapons and explosives for Hamas, which receives arms and funding from Iran.
In spite of his melodramatic TV appearances, Dubai’s Police Chief, General Dahi Khalfan Tamim, has sofar nothing definite to show, apart from the display of surveillance camera photos of “suspects” seen present on the spot. In fact, nor has General Tamim resolved how Mabhough actually died – thus unable incriminating Mossad, or any other organization of the assassination. The continuous presentation of faked passports and names can prove nothing, but speculation, on this still mysterious ‘who-dun-it’ soap opera, which the Arab general is offering daily on TV.
As chief procurement officer of Hammas. Targeted and eliminated in Dubai, 2010.
No doubt, that Mabhough’s death sparked bitter recriminations among the rival Palestinian factions. Astonishing is that Hamas and Fatah are actually blaming each other for security breaches, which led to the killing in Dubai. This fear and confusion should stem from the possibility that someone in the upper ranks and close to the victim may have leaked valuable information on Mabhough, either willingly or by negligence.
So ‘who-dun-it? Well, from the right perspective, no one should really care. The fact is that a bad person, with lots of innocent blood on his hands is not with us anymore. Of course there are others, no less dangerous than the late Mabhough, but his death should ring an alarm bell among the terrorists – that they are not immune to a similar fate.
Of course the assassination of such a senior Hamas leader, the co-founder of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the notorious paramilitary wing of the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas was blamed on Israel’s Mossad intelligence service may well trigger a surge of eye-for-an-eye bloodshed – and not only in the Middle East. The fundamentalist Hamas, the Palestinian group controlling the Gaza Strip, has vowed to retaliate against Israel for the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in the Gulf emirate of Dubai.
Lebanon’s Hezbollah is also still bent on avenging the 2008 killing in Damascus of its leader, Imad Mughniyeh. The Mossad was blamed for that, too. Israeli sources claim that Hezbollah has already made 10 attempts to attack Israeli targets inside and outside the Jewish state since Mughniyeh was blown up by a booby-trap inside the high-security zone in central Damascus. Israeli security authorities expect Hezbollah to try again marking the second anniversary of the death of Mughniyeh, who until Osama bin Laden came along was the most wanted terrorist fugitive on the planet.
Imad Mughniyeh seen during the TWA hijacking in 1985.
It is a common “secret” that Israeli and many foreign intelligence services are thought to cooperate closely in a variety of areas of common interest – including on the Iranian nuclear program, and in the fight against Sunni ‘Global Jihad’ organizations. So the warnings of major diplomatic fallout may probably be blown out of proportion.
Retired general Jacob Amidror, a veteran intelligence officer has given a rare insight into the general decisions taken to mount such an operation.
Imad Mughniyeh, Targeted and eliminated in Damascus, 2007
According to Amidror, the first starting point is to have sufficient reliable intelligence of the target, which remains effective for the time, required for in-depth preparation of the mission. The “hit team” should arrive on the scene, without being detected and without danger to the participants – at best, leave the scene undetected, before the victim has actually been identified. Collateral damage avoidance – or casualties among innocents – are paramount in making a decision to mount such a highly sensitive and dangerous operation. Finally, keeping the mission under a dense cloak of secrecy, before, during and after, is of utmost importance. Most important: the decision-makers, if in doubt that these criteria cannot be met in full, should not attempt ordering such an operation at all.
General Amidror stresses that in the War on Global Terrorism, eliminating high-ranking terrorist leaders or top professionals preemptively becomes imperative, if innocent lives be saved, before the terrorists can carry out their plans. Terror and counter terror are fought under remorseless conditions, leaving little over for niceties by either side in this dangerous game.
Whether Mossad was involved, or not, may never be known. Like so many of the mysterious deaths that occur in this never-ending war against global terrorism, the executioners of Mabhouh and Mughniyeh may never be known. But it should be noted that Mossad’s old motto: “By way of deception thou shalt make war” is still striking fear among the “bad guys” around the Arab world.
The armored, blast protected capsule designed by Granite Tactical Vehicles for the HMMWV. Photo via: Textron Marine & Land Systems
In February 2010 Textron Marine & Land Systems and Granite Tactical Vehicles Inc. have won the first order for three modified High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) for evaluation by the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab. The three vehicles will demonstrate upgraded configurations of HMMWVs with armored, blast-protected capsules mounted on an M1114, M1151-A1/REVB and M1165. The Marines will test the vehicles’ mobility, thermal and durability performance in March 2010. The corps have already completed blast and ballistic testing on the vehicle.
The armored, blast protected capsule designed by Granite Tactical Vehicles for the HMMWV. Photo via: Textron Marine & Land Systems
The vehicles are modified with blast-protected armored capsules developed by Granite, to increase the vehicle’s survivability, while maintaining the high mobility and payload capabilities, the HMMWV had in the past. The Granite capsule for the HMMWV was designed by former Navy S.E.A.L. Christopher Berman, founder of Granite Tactical Vehicles. Berman’s idea is to retrofit existing HMMWVs with the armored, blast-protected V-shaped capsule.
Since the fully protected monocoque capsule replaces the passenger compartment of the HMMWV, including the add-on armor, the weight distribution and gross vehicle weight are within the vehicle’s limits, maintaining the HMMWV’s mobility and stability. As can be seen from the photos on this page, the modufied vehilce is slightly wider and higher than a standard unprotected HMMWV.
Textron Marine & Land Systems and Granite Tactical Vehicles Announced their teaming agreement in January 2010.
February, 2010: As U.S. military operations in Iraq are winding down, the services are considering what to do with those assets, specially developed for Operation Iraqi Freedom, that cannot be ‘ported’ to other theaters of operations- like Afghanistan. The High Mobility, Multi-Role Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles are two examples. Both are too heavy for real military missions, since add-on armoring was added layer onto layer, to endure through years of escalating threats, exhausting the vehicle’s automotive systems and payload-carrying reserve. The latest, most protected configuration of the Up-Armored HMMWV is over-weight, under-powered, and under performing even on the least demanding missions.
As a result, HMMWV are directed to missions where troops are exposed to low threat levels. Nevertheless, the Army and marine Corps are always looking for protection enhancements, and are currently evaluating a new armored, blast protected capsule developed by Granite as a potential improvement for the HMMWV. Eventually, the Joint Tactical Light Vehicle (JLTV), when fielded in few years, will introduce a highly maneuverable and more protected alternative to the HMMWV.
The MRAP is the heaviest armored wheeled vehicle in the U.S. inventory. While providing excellent protection to the crew, passengers and mission systems, MRAP is too heavy to travel off-road. The high ground-pressure of the 19 ton vehicles (either 4×4 and 6×6 wheeled configurations) causes mobility issues when traveling on soft terrain (deep sand, mud, bridges etc), limiting the vehicle’s movement to hard (paved) roads. Difficult steering, rigid suspensions (rigid axles), and high center of gravity, negatively affecting vehicle stability even in slow speed, limiting turn rate, turn speed, movement on narrow roads and traveling on side slopes. In short, this vehicle must be fixed before it is sent out of the Middle-East.
A number of new platforms, recently introduced in Europe and India, are pushing the limit of the MRAP concept – from the RG-35 8×8 monster vehicle, the all-protected British Ranger, developed by a British industry consortium as a solution for future requirement, for an all protected combat vehicle, and new concepts like the Ocelot from Force Protection or the new British Total Mobility Vehicle (TMV) – both highly protected, yet versatile and efficient vehicles. A different approach to a modular design is represented by the French Aravis all-protected vehicle, while mine and blast protection is still being implemented with a wide range of vehicle families, among them the Indian developed mine protected combat support vehicles (MPV). All these designs could be available for production within the next year or two, anticipating the growing requirements by military users from all armies, considering mine, blast and armor protection a basic and mandatory requirement for a military vehicle.
Two years ago the Pentagon was spending over $15 billion on buying the MRAP vehicles. Billions more are still invested in operating and maintaining the vehicles in the Iraq and Afghan theaters. As U.S. troops begin to withdraw from Iraq, more billions are spent on reconstituting and repairing these vehicles, primarily adding independent suspensions enabling the vehicles to travel off road in Afghanistan. The three manufacturers of MRAP vehicles – Force protection, Navistar Defense and BAE Systems have each received contracts to upgrade existing MRAP vehicles with independent suspensions.
Last week Navistar Defense was awarded a $752 million contract to produce 1,050 enhanced ‘MaxxPro Dash’ 4×4 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. Force Protection has already converted hundreds of Cougars adding independent suspensions to prepare them for Afghanistan. More recently, General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada has also announced a contract of over $220 million to deliver 250 new RG-31A2 vehicles. The company will also upgrade over a hundred existing RG31Mk5EM, installing TAK-4 independent suspensions form Oshkosh.
The US Army plans to maintain these MRAP in service for many years, and is currently looking into different operational and organizational frameworks to integrate these vehicles into the order of battle of the combat brigades. Unlike the HMMWV, which was designed as a tactical vehicle and outgrew its mission and capacity, MRAP was never intended to operate as a fighting vehicle. The name reflects its rather passive nature – protecting troops from mines and ambushes, rather than an ‘infantry combat vehicle’ that should fight the enemy. This differentiation is not merely semantic.
The requirements set for the MRAP were to protect the passengers at all cost – mobility, weight, ergonomics, while, dismounting and access, supportability, recovery – all were dwarfed by the sheer mass used for protection. Converting this Behemoth into a combat vehicle will not be a simple task. Nevertheless, with over 15,000 vehicles in service, and as the Army is expecting a short supply of combat vehicles, in absence of the new Ground Combat Vehicle, the military is expected to be using MRAP vehicles for many years to come.
If they stay in service, what roles could these vehicles be used for? As converting them into combat vehicles seems highly unlikely, MRAP could be useful for missions benefiting from their high-level of protection, like secured transport, where the armor will contribute to the survivability and safety of combat support elements, such as, combat engineers, MEDEVAC teams, essential network support (signal) elements, even ammunition resupply vehicles, capable of supporting forward elements over unsecured routes. Despite their challenged space, MRAP could become important vehicles for forward command elements, protecting critical command and control nodes, operating in the combat zone.
Offering crews a relative safe operating-environment, within a chaotic combat zone, MRAP vehicles could also become useful for operators of unmanned systems, which are now common within the tactical land forces elements. Some of these missions could require reconfiguration and adaptation of the basic MRAP, trimming the internal space for cargo, loaded on flat bed, or introducing external mounts for mission systems. Typical examples are the MRAP recovery vehicles and Tactical Support Vehicles, already introduced by Navistar and Force Protection.
And, what will be the fate of the Up-Armored HMMWV? The US Army is preparing for a projected March 2010 release of a draft Request For Proposals (RFP) for the recapitalization of thousands of Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs). Recapitalization of some 60,000 Up-Armored HMMWV worth over $1 billion will be open for industry participation. The first phase was a request for information distributed to industry in December 2009. The formal request for proposals is expected this month (March 2010).
A major issue with the Up-Armored HMMWV is the extremely limited payload and deteriorated mobility available with these vehicles, and insufficient protection they provide, leave the military no other choice but to phase them out for the two newcomers – MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV), which is a beefed-up interim solution for an all-terrain, mobile and survivable vehicle, and the JLTV – the future vehicle that will introduce true, all-terrain mobility, survivability and versatility (load capacity, access, reconfiguration) at a size and performance the Army could be comfortable with.
A new option currently being evaluated by the Marines is to replace the HMMWV’s cab with an armored, blast protected capsule developed by Granite Tactical Vehicles. Three such capsules are being prepared for testing with the Marine Warfighting Lab, following ballistic tests performed earlier in 2010. The new capsule is marketed by Textron Marine & Land Systems, under cooperation with Granite announced in January.
The increased availability of C-17 air transports, and rapid sea-lift and ship-to-shore transfer capability, will also contribute to the Army’s and Marine Corps content with heavier vehicles. In the past, weight and size limits, imposed by C-130 air mobility, have dictated the maximum weight of armored vehicles transportable, which significantly challenged their survivability.
MATV Utility vehicle. Below Right: MATV Ambulance derivative. Both vehicles were unveiled at the AUSA Winter exhibition, February 2010. Photos: Oshkosh Defense.
Ft Lauderdale, Feb 24, 2010: Oshkosh Defense has unveiled today two new variants of the M-ATV – an ambulance and a utility vehicle. The vehicles are on display at the AUSA Winter exposition in Ft. Lauderdale. The utility and ambulance M-ATVs were developed to allow military operations to provide critical casualty care and resupply services in unforgiving landscapes where tactical missions must operate. The M-ATV has provided superior off-road mobility for harsh mountainous terrain and unimproved road networks in places like Afghanistan.
MATV Utility vehicle. Below Right: MATV Ambulance derivative. Both vehicles were unveiled at the AUSA Winter exhibition, February 2010. Photos: Oshkosh Defense.
The company will deliver 625 add-on armor kits worth $84 million, to defend the M-ATVs against explosively formed penetrators (EFP). These kits are derivatives of armor modules battle tested on MRAP and MTVRs in Iraq. The other contract, worth $24 million provides for assemblies of electronic equipment and modifications of the electrical to support ‘silent watch’, allowing the vehicles to operate the radios, computers and jammers for extended periods of time with reduced noise and heat signatures from the vehicle.
Oshkosh Corporation also announced it will deliver additional 1,460 M-ATV vehicles under a new $640 million contract awarded by the U.S. Army. With this recent award the company’s order book for M-ATV is valued at more than $4.74 billion for 8,079 M-ATVs, add-on armor and spare parts kits and aftermarket in-theater support.
In addition, Oshkosh unveils the medium truck produced under contract for the U.S. Army. The Army awarded Oshkosh with the FTMV competitive rebuy contract on Aug. 26, 2009, which was sustained by the Army on Feb. 12 following a GAO directed review. The FMTV is a series of vehicles consisting of up to 23 variants and 17 different models, ranging from 2.5-ton to 5-ton payloads. Oshkosh now has a five-year, firm fixed-price requirements contract for the production of up to 23,000 vehicles and trailers, as well as support services and engineering. Oshkosh is currently working on an initial FMTV delivery order valued at $280.9 million for the production and delivery of 2,568 trucks and trailers. Oshkosh already produces the Army’s Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles (FHTV).
BAE Systems has unveiled today the RG Outrider, an all-terrain armor protected vehicle based on the successful RG series, in service with the US special operations, Swedish forces and Spanish forces operating in Afghanistan. Outrider is a follow-on to the RG32M designed and built in South Africa. A light armored vehicle, RG Outrider is designed for first response situations and extreme off-road driving to meet special operations needs.
Photos: BAE Systems
This mine-resistant armor protected (MRAP) vehicle weighs 9.5 tons and features a widened and higher hull. The vehicle can be used for command, liaison and scouting roles, offering a spacious load bay and good all-round visibility through the blast and bullet proof windows.
The vehicle has a V shaped monocoque welded steel hull to deflect mine blast while externally mounted armor kit provides improved side-blast protection while also freeing up space inside the cabin. “Although the vehicle is a fully fledged light armoured vehicle it sacrifices none of the mobility, agility and ground clearance of its predecessor.” Says BAE Systems Global Tactical Systems president Dennis Morris.
The vehicle was first unveiled last month at the Nevada Automotive Test Center’s Vehicle Systems Demonstration Technology Rodeo at Carson City, Nevada.
Terrier Combat Engineer vehicle carrying fascines during the two-month performance trial conducted November-December 2009. Photo: BAE Systems
February 2009: The future combat engineer vehicle of the British Army has entered production at BAE Systems last month. The Army plans to field 60 Terriers. The first Terrier hull will be used for mine blast trials to demonstrate that the vehicle meets the designed protection levels. According to BAE Systems, the Terrier’s armor was improved based on experience gained on other vehicles during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The complete hull will be available for trials towards the end of 2010. Assembly, integration and test of the first production vehicle is scheduled to commence in the first half of 2011.
Terrier Combat Engineer vehicle carrying fascines during the two-month performance trial conducted November-December 2009. Photo: BAE Systems
In December 2009 two Terrier demonstrator vehicles finished a two-month performance trial designed to demonstrate the system’s reliability. During these trials the vehicles traveled 3,300km, on road, track and cross country, excavated over 170 pits and Warrior infantry fighting vehicles, and AS 90 self-propelled howitzers, and moved over 15,500 tons of spoil. The vehicles operated in manned and unmanned configurations, performing a range of route clearance and denial operations and placement of ditch-crossing fascines.
The new Intelligence Management System from Elbit Systems. All Photos: Noam Eshel, Defense Update
Elbit Systems is developing multi-sensor fusion and display system, integrated in a new ‘Intelligence Management Center’ (IMC), enabling users of unmanned systems to control missions involving multiple sensors. Elements of the new center have already been ordered by several customers, to enhance operational management of UAV assets, improve training and development of operational doctrine, and better integrate UAVs with other missions.
The new Intelligence Management System from Elbit Systems. All Photos: Noam Eshel, Defense Update
The IMC offers unique mission control capabilities, by providing the mission commander with presentation tools, that dynamically access data from multiple sources, formatted, rectified, fused and correlated to present sensor feeds within an integrated situational picture. The system is designed for operation by a single operator, drawing situational awareness and take tactical decision based on all the relevant sources and assets under his control.
As the mission unfolds, images from synthetic aperture radar (SAR), high and low altitude electro-optic (EO), as well as land observations, COMINT and SIGINT are displayed over a wide-area interactive scene, displaying the situational picture, as well as detailed views of the target, showing different views of the same target as seen by various sensors. Such presentation offers the mission commander capability to assess alternative scenarios of every view, avoiding tactical mistakes resulting in missed opportunities, or risk of inflicting collateral damage or fratricide.
The IMS is improving the flow of intelligence to and from the forward combat elements, streaming clear and detailed mission orders, dispatched from the user and mission commander, directly to the UAS operators, while video intelligence is displayed simultaneously on the mission-station screens and at the management center, in both two and three-dimensions. All data received from the UAS can be used by the ground forces’ C4I systems.
Above: One of two displays of the IMS, showing a composite view of different sensors (bottom line), teh main sensor being watched (upper right) and the situational picture with (upper left).
Below: the fused situational picture superimposed on an aerial image, with multiple sensor views embedded into the ‘footprints’ of each sensor, and targets and assets taking part in the mission depicted in red and blue.
February 25, 2010: The US Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC) released today the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Technology Development (TD) phase of the Ground Combat Vehicle program, designed to develop the next generation Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) for the U.S. Army. The Army has set aside $645 million in this year and FY11 budget to fund the program.
The development phase will span over seven years and include three phases. Through the 27 months first phase (TD) the Army will be able to test, evaluate and demonstrate Critical Technology Elements (CTE’s) and formalize a set of requirements, for the subsequent full system design phase. Later this year, the Army is planning to issue up to three cost-plus contracts for the TD phase, to be selected, used on ‘best value’ contracting strategy. This phase will evaluate three concurrent developments, designed to meet the Army’s requirements, based on relatively mature technologies (TRL 6+); prototypes of specific subsystems will also be evaluated. This phase will culminate with the preliminary design review and Milestone B scheduled for early 2013.
The next phase will be Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD), screening out one of the three TD contractors, based on ‘best value’ represented by the three proposals. This phase will include the prototype fabrication, ballistic survivability testing of armor coupons, turret and hull, followed by the delivery of first prototypes by the end of 2014. These vehicles will go through extensive safety, mobility and limited user tests, providing operational insights about the new platform’s performance.
By early 2016 the prime contractor for the Production and Deployment phase (P&D) will be selected. First production vehicles are scheduled to be delivered 7 years from the initial award of the TD contracts.
Initial operational capability of the first battalion, fielding 29 IFVs is expected by mid 2018, with a full brigade fielded within a year. In total, about 62 vehicles will be produced through the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) to equip combat units by the time the GCV enters full rate production in mid 2019.
The Army hasn’t limited the participation of international companies, although traditionally the Pentagon requires domestic prime contractors for programs of such magnitude. It is anticipated that at least some international cooperation could be achieved, at least regarding the survivability suite of the vehicle. While the Army has spent hundreds of millions on the development of advanced, lightweight armor for the FCS family of vehicles, these armor solutions have not yet reached maturity level required for the TD phase, at least regarding the threat levels considered for contemporary conflicts. Therefore, U.S. manufacturers could be relying on foreign technology to achieve the required protection. In past programs, including the Bradley reactive armor, the Stryker’s RPG protection and some of the MRAP vehicles, the U.S. is relying on foreign armor solutions, and the GCV could follow suit as well.
In its directives for industry about the GCV survivability suite, the Army has not specified a mandatory to of hit avoidance (soft and hard kill systems – APS) or advanced lightweight armor, developed by the Army, except for the Base Level EFP armor, Level 1 kinetic armor for front, skirts and roof and Level 1 EFP armor. All other protection means are open for suggestion by industry. The Army has recently completed the evaluation of seven APS systems – three domestically developed systems and four provided by international suppliers. This evaluation was mandated by congress.
Diehl Defence has teamed up with Skysec to develop a drone interceptor. Diehl works with Skysec’s subsidiary, Skysec Defence, to modify the original civilian-oriented net-arresting interceptor into a hard-kill system suitable for military missions....
Welcome to the latest episode of Defense-Update News Summary! In this episode, we dive into this week’s developments in defense technology, military acquisitions, and strategic partnerships worldwide.
Some of this week's highlights include:
Elbit Systems...
The French Ministry of Armed Forces has officially launched the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) program as part of the Rafale F5 standard development. This event marks the beginning of a new era in...
Army Air Defense Undergoes Significant Modernization to Counter Drone Threats
The U.S. Army's air defense branch has experienced its most substantial modernization and growth in over four decades, primarily driven by the need to counter...
Elbit Systems of America showcases the Sigma Next Generation Howitzer at AUSA 2024, where competing systems from Sweden, South Korea, France, and Germany are likely to be presented, some in models, others in full...
Welcome to the latest episode of Defense-Update News Summary! In this episode, we dive into this week’s developments in defense technology, military acquisitions, and strategic partnerships worldwide.
Some of this week's highlights include:
Elbit Systems...
Elbit Systems has signed a 1.5-billion-shekel (approximately $400 million) contract with Israel's Ministry of Defense to establish an aerial bomb manufacturing bombs for the Israeli Air Force. In the past, the government-owned IMI operated...
