Leo C2s, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

It would seem that the Canadian Forces are taking some of the lessons re-learned during Operation Medusa in Afghanistan to heart. Canada’s DND:

“The heavily protected direct fire capability of a main battle tank is an invaluable tool in the arsenal of any military. The intensity of recent conflicts in Central Asia and the Middle East has shown western militaries that tanks provide protection that cannot be matched by more lightly armoured wheeled vehicles…. [Canada’s existing Leopard C2/1A5] tanks have also provided the Canadian Forces (CF) with the capability to travel to locations that would otherwise be inaccessible to wheeled light armoured vehicles, including Taliban defensive positions.”

In October 2003, Canada was set to buy the Styker/LAV-III 105mm Mobile Gun System to replace its Leopard C2 tanks. In the end, however, the lessons of war have taken Canada down a very different path – one that now has them renewing the very tank fleet they were once intent on scrapping with one of the world’s best tanks, and backing away from the wheeled vehicles that were once the cornerstone of the Canadian Army’s transformation plan. This updated article includes a full chronology for Canada’s new Leopard 2 tanks, and adds information concerning DND’s exact plans and breakdowns for their new tank fleet…

• Why New Tanks Now?
• Choices, Choices: Leopard 2s For Canada [updated]
• Next Steps and Updates [new]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

MSgt. Moreland: Fixed
(click to view full)

(Thanks to readers for pointing out the error in the previous version of this post.)

You’re in Afghanistan, at Bagram Air Base. The base needs water, which means drilling a well. The machine is shipped from Nellis AFB, NV to a port in Pakistan, but it’s loaded onto a flatbed trailer that gets the the 34-ton piece of equipment stuck in a tunnel. It’s put on a different trailer, but the transport breaks and during the transfer process the rig comes off the trailer and flips over on its side. Total estimated damage is $413,000, and it’s considered non-repairable – but the rig is one of just 2 in the USAF’s inventory.

The manufacturer doesn’t want to send its people anywhere dangerous to look at the device or fix it (note to self: find other manufacturer next time). The next step is the USA’s Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office, which will turn it into scrap. But Master Sgt. John Moreland, the 819th Red Horse Sqn. metals technology NCO in charge, insists that his team has the ability to attempt a fix. After 3 months, he is given permission to try – as long as no money is spent.

He succeeds.

CH-53E at work
(click to view full)

Stop us if you’ve had a laptop and heard this refrain before: your battery draws down when not being used. If it’s recharged, it may “remember” the level it was at and can’t be brought back to full capacity. The maximum level of charge also keeps dropping. This means more frequent battery replacements if you want them to be of much use. Turns out the US Navy has heard this one too, only the NiCad batteries weren’t in laptops. They were in F-5 “aggressor” aircraft at Top Gun, powering the inertial navigation system and emergency wingtip speed brakes on EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, running fire suppression and emergency exit lighting on H-53 helicopters, and offering last-chance backup for items like aircraft flight-control computers in case the main engine-driven generator should fail.

On the H-53 heavy lift helicopters, for example, 1 in 12 NiCad batteries failed every month because of poor design. Constant charging, maintenance to remove “memory effect,” and replacement was taking a costly toll in batteries. At 37,000 hours a year for the H-53 fleet, it was also taking a heavy toll on maintenance time. Something had to be done – and NAVAIR’s Propulsion and Power Department had an idea…

Continue Reading… »

Merry Xmas, K-Dog!
(click to view full)

The global proliferation of advanced, ultra-quiet diesel electric submarines has prompted a number of responses around the globe, from initial-stage efforts to mimic a shark’s senses in the USA, to the most obvious route of using more powerful active sonars. In Western countries, concerns have been expressed that these sonars may disorient or scare marine mammals, leading to decompression sickness or disruption of their biological sonar navigation systems. This has led to (unsuccessful) lawsuits aimed at curtailing submarine exercises by Western navies.

In December 2007, USN Rear Adm. Lawrence S. Rice, director of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness, discussed some of the measures that are being taken to investigate the issue, and also mitigate any possible effects. In January, a court battle erupted over undersea training off the coast of San Diego, CA, throwing the issue back into the limelight….

Continue Reading… »

The Capt. & The Sheikh
(click to view full)

Defense Industry Daily’s mandate is clear, and summed up well in our motto “daily news for defense procurement managers and contractors.” In most cases, our coverage limits itself to the events and issues around contracts that have already been issued, and/or key issues of doctrine and policy that are related to defense procurement. We also include reports from the field that bring home useful information about equipment performance, and serve as a reminder of what’s really important: usefulness to the people on the front lines.

Sometimes, news from the front lines also highlights important trends and force structure issues that go beyond the performance of any one system. “(Lt. Col. David) Labouchere of Mesopotamia,” which covered that British commander’s successful mobile/Bedouin approach in Iraq, was one. Now Noah Shachtman of WIRED’s award-winning defense blog Danger Room has written another. In the wake of the discussions in defense departments and ministries around the world concerning “network-centric warfare,” events like Israel’s recent Winograd Commission post-mortem of the 2006 war in Lebanon, and the Nov 28/07 security pact involving 6,000 Sunnis in Hawija, Noah’s article offers important food for thought to policy-makers and procurement managers alike. In his words…

Ramadi turnaround
(click to view full)

“It’s an attempt at explaining why we’ve seen such a drop in violence in Iraq in recent months, and why it took so long to see a shift. My short answer: the U.S. dropped its somewhat techno-centric approach to prosecuting the war—and started focusing on Iraq’s social, political, tribal, and cultural networks instead…. For the story, I scored a rare opportunity to spend time with a U.S. “psychological operations” team, getting into the heads of the people of Fallujah; hung out with an Army colonel who worked his tribal connections to bring stability to one of Iraq’s roughest towns; spent time with the heads of a controversial program to embed anthropologists into combat units; and interviewed General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq.”

“How Technology Almost Lost the War: In Iraq, the Critical Networks Are Social – Not Electronic” is worthwhile reading as one contemplates the future of net-centric warfare as it is currently sold – and what it might be turning into.

Strong’s JPADS,
Afghanistan
(click to view full)

The dilemma for airdropping supplies has always been a stark one. High-altitude airdrops often go badly astray and become useless or even counter-productive. Low-level paradrops face significant dangers from enemy fire, and reduce delivery range. Can this dilemma be broken?

A new advanced concept technology demonstration shows promise, and is being pursued by U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center at Natick, the U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command (USAF AMC), the U.S. Army Project Manager Force Sustainment and Support, and industry. The idea? Use the same GPS-guidance that enables precision strikes from JDAM bombs, coupled with software that acts as a flight control system for parachutes. JPADS (the Joint Precision Air-Drop System) has been combat-tested successfully in Iraq and Afghanistan, and appears to be moving beyond the test stage in the USA… and elsewhere.

• JPADS Systems
• The JPADS Program
• JPADS: Contracts & Key Events
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

MTRS: TALON IV
(click to view full)

In May 2005, DID covered the use of remote-control toys in Iraq, as improvised robots to check out possible roadside bombs. It would appear that someone took notice, because there has since been a flurry of activity on the robotic explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) front. Meanwhile, deliveries of smaller and cheaper MARCBOTs and BomBots are underway.

DefenseLink notes in its announcements that “The increase in production quantity is due to the urgent and compelling need for units that are forward deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.” So, what exactly is the MTRS program? DID explains, and covers the latest news and contract information for MTRS robots. It has been a while since our last update, with acquisitions, rising contract ceilings, new contracting agencies, and new robots all entering the mix. Per DID convention, new items are indicated in green type…

• MTRS: Why Send A Man to Do A Robot’s Job? (i.e. “Continue reading…”)
• MTRS: Contracts and Key Events
• MTRS’ Mini-Mes: MARCbot & BomBot
• MTRS Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Start with this…

“ROVER” is an unimpressive piece of equipment. Mostly, it looks like a ruggedized laptop with antennas. But SpaceWar.com quotes Lt. Col. Gregory E. Harbin, of the 609th Combat Operations Squadron at Shaw Air Force Base, SC, who says ”...the ROVER is bringing a phenomenal capability to our people on the ground.” ROVER is the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver, which receives camera images from nearby aircraft and UAVs (somewhat like Israel’s wrist-mounted V-RAMBO), then integrates them with other US positioning and targeting software.

Staff Sgt. Justin Cry, a Shaw Joint Tactical Air Controller (JTAC), has a job that’s an art form at the best of times. Describing features from the ground to a pilot looking down while flying at high speed is no easy task. According to a Dec 16/05 USAF article, he used the system in Iraq and in New Orleans, and says simply: “I can circle an area on my screen, drawing arrows for emphasis, and what I’m drawing appears on (the pilots’) screens as well.”

ROVER continues to evolve, and is becoming an unheralded but critical piece of equipment in America’s arsenal. This is DID’s FOCUS Article covering the system and its ongoing developments – the latest of which is a contract for next-generation ROVER III data links.

Continue Reading… »

Javelin, firing
(click to view full)

After a series of disastrous experiences in Vietnam trying to use 66mm M72 LAW rockets against old Soviet tanks, the US military developed a renewed seriousness about giving its soldiers shoulder-fired weapons that packed enough punch to face down enemy armor. A number of options like the Mk 153 SMAW and the AT4/M136 spun out of that effort in the 1980s, but it wasn’t until electronics had miniaturized for several more cycles that it became possible to solve the next big problem: the need for soldiers to remain exposed to enemy fire while guiding anti-tank missiles to their targets.

Javelin solves both of those problems at once, offering a heavy fire-and-forget missile that will reliably destroy any enemy armored vehicle, and many fortifications as well. While armored threats are less pressing these days, the need to destroy fortified outposts and rooms in buildings remains. Indeed, one of the lessons of the 2006 war in Lebanon was the use of guided missiles as a form of precision artillery fire by front-line combatants on both sides.

Javelin is not an ideal candidate for the latter role due to its high cost-per-unit; nevertheless, its performance in Iraq has revealed a clear niche on both low and high intensity battlefields, and led to rising popularity with international and American clients. This DID FOCUS Article covers the Javelin anti-armor missile system, and associated contracts and key events. The latest is a missile order from Australia…

Continue Reading… »

B-52H: to 2030?
(click to view full)

The current US Air Force fleet, whose planes are more than 23 years old on average, is the oldest in USAF history. It won’t keep that title for very long. Many transport aircraft and aerial refueling tankers are more than 40 years old – and under current plans, some may be as many as 70-80 years old before they retire. Indeed, even if the US military gets every plane it asks for in its future plans, average aircraft age will continue to rise. Nor is the USA the only country facing this problem.

As this dynamic plays out and average age continues to rise, addressing the issues related to aging aircraft becomes more and more important in order to maintain acceptable force numbers, readiness levels, and aircraft maintainability; avoid squeezing out recapitalization budgets; handle personnel turnover that becomes more and more damaging; and keep maintenance costs in line, despite new technical problems are arising that will present unforeseen difficulties. Like F-15 fighters under flight restrictions due to structural fatigue concerns. Or grounded entirely.

The biggest contracts aren’t always the ones deserving of the most attention. Enter the USA’s Joint Council on Aging Aircraft (JCAA) – and DID’s Spotlight article, which seeks to place the situation and its effects in perspective, via comments and articles that draw on senior sources within the US military and key outside observers….

Continue Reading… »