USMC M1A1 settles a
firefight in Fallujah
(click to view full)

BAE gets $32 million order to RESET 417 M113 APCs. (Jan 26/10)

The RESET process takes used vehicles apart, inspects the parts, then replaces any defective parts and refurbishes the equipment to like-new condition. Sometimes upgrades are also performed. RESET and related processes like remanufacture/upgrades are being performed on M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley IFV/CFVs, HMMWV jeeps, and even helicopters. It usually takes place when the vehicles return from the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations, where sand damage and increased wear have taken their toll.

In truth, many of these vehicles were produced in the 1980s, and are reaching an age where “deep maintenance” is a wise and necessary measure. A July 2006 Washington Times article noted the effect age and wear have had on the USA’s vehicle fleet, and DID has also covered this subject under the wider rubric of the Army’s maintenance overhang. DID believes these efforts are sufficiently important that the consolidated visibility of a FOCUS Article is in order.

Note that this is not a complete list of RESET contracts; DID will seek to backfill its roster as opportunities arise, and newly-added materials will be presented in green as a reader convenience. Recent additions include a contract to reset FMTV medium trucks…

• RESET Programs and Procedures
• RESET Contracts, Delivery Orders & Developments, FY 2006-Present [updated]
• Vehicle Fleets and Maintenance Overhangs
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

General Dynamics Team
Trimaran LCS Design
(click to enlarge)

New RFP, FY 2011 budget request, Problems with ship survivability, LCS-2 commissioning, GAO costs report. (Feb 2/10)

Exploit simplicity, numbers, the pace of technology development in electronics and robotics, and fast reconfiguration. That was the US Navy’s idea for the low-end backbone of its future surface combatant fleet. Inspired by successful experiments like Denmark’s Standard Flex ships, the US Navy’s $30+ billion “Littoral Combat Ship” program was intended to create a new generation of affordable surface combatants that could operate in dangerous shallow and near-shore environments, while remaining affordable and capable throughout their lifetimes.

It hasn’t worked that way. In practice, what the Navy wanted, the capabilities needed to perform primary naval missions, and what could be delivered for the sums available, have proven nearly irreconcilable. The LCS program has changed its fundamental acquisition plan several times since 2005, and canceled contracts with both competing teams, without escaping any of its fundamental issues. This public-access FOCUS article offer a wealth of research material, alongside looks at the LCS program’s designs, industry teams procurement plans, military controversies, and contracts.

• LCS: Concept & Needs
• LCS: The Competing Teams
• LCS Solution = Standard Equipment + Mission Modules
• LCS: Controversies & Cautions
• LCS: Budgets and Program Structure [updated]
• LCS: Export Potential
• LCS: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• LCS Ancillaries: Mission Module & Weapon Contracts & Key Events
• Additional Readings & Sources [updated]
  
  Continue Reading… »

No worse enemy….
(click to view full)

While high-tech weapons items get a lot of billing, the Global War on Terror is very much an infantry war. Firepower overmatch matters in those situations, which explains the corresponding popularity of 40mm grenade systems on the modern battlefield. Enter, then, the US Marine Corps’ M-32 six-shot 40mm grenade launcher.

During an annual symposium several years ago, Marine gunners decided that they needed an option that was more powerful than the ubiquitous M203 one-shot launchers that mount under their M4 or M16 rifles. The M-32 won out as an experimental weapon for each marine battalion – and now a variant appears to have won a larger formal competition.

Continue Reading… »

RAAF C-130J-30, flares
(click to view full)

$146 million for another year of USAF fleet engine support. (Feb 1/10)

The C-130 Hercules remains one of the longest-running aerospace manufacturing programs of all time. Since 1956, over 40 models and variants have served as the tactical airlift backbone for over 50 nations. The C-130J looks similar, but the number of changes almost make it a new aircraft. Those changes also created issues; the program has been the focus of a great deal of controversy in America – and even of a full program restructuring in 2006. Some early concerns from critics were put to rest when the C-130J demonstrated in-theater performance on the front lines that represented a major improvement over its C-130E/H predecessors. A valid follow-on question might be: does it break the bottleneck limitations that have hobbled a number of multi-billion dollar US Army vehicle development programs?

C-130J customers now include Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, India, Iraq, Italy, Norway, Oman, Qatar, and the United States. American C-130J purchases are taking place under both annual budgets and supplemental wartime funding, in order to replace tactical transport and special forces fleets that are flying old aircraft and in dire need of major repairs. This DID FOCUS Article describes the C-130J, examines the bottleneck issue, covers global developments for the C-130J program, and looks at present and emerging competitors.

• The (Private) Labors of Hercules: the C-130J
• The C-130J and the 20-ton Bottleneck
• Turbulent Flight: The C-130J Program
• Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources, incl. emerging competitors & Special Operations requirements
  
  Continue Reading… »

C-17 over Hawaii
(click to view full)

The program will be restructured after 2012. (Jan 29/10)

While the C-17 may have limited production time in its future, the C-17 Globemaster Sustainment Partnership is likely to continue for many years. The rising cost of maintenance has made it a greater concern to the world’s militaries, and new contract vehicles are reflecting that. Under the C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership, Boeing has total system support responsibility for the big transport aircraft, including materiel management and depot maintenance, for fleets around the world. The goal is total aircraft sustainment support under a single contract, in order to achieve improvements in mission readiness, while reducing operating and support costs. The initial contract had an estimated total value of $4.9 billion, which is likely to grow as Boeing’s customer base grows in Australia (4), Britain (6), Canada (4), Qatar (2), and NATO (3).

This is DID’s in-depth, updated FOCUS Article covering this major international program, offering key statistics for the aircraft, explaining the GSP’s components, and detailing its contracts.

• The C-17 Globemaster III
• The C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership
• The C-17 PE/PI Program
• Contracts and Key Events, FY 2004-Present [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

New dawn?
(click to view full)

Implementation of Britain’s “future contracting for availability” approach of paying for machines in service, rather than parts and hours, generally involves a phased set of contracts and agreements. As each party’s understanding the risks and demands grow, the contract’s complexity and comprehensiveness grow as well, and the framework moves closer and closer to the desired goal of a full availability contract. “Britain Hammers Out Through-Life Support Framework for Tornado Fleet” described how this approach works on the ground, and talked about some of the keys to success. “UK’s “Contracting for Availability” Adds Hawks, Looks Ahead” mentioned the MoD’s March 2007 Long Term Partnering Agreement Foundation Contract with BAE Systems, which aims to place all British military aircraft under this kind of framework.

In late 2007, the UK’s Eurofighter Typhoon fleet entered Quick Reaction Alert service with the RAF, and began flying with new ground-attack capabilities [MoD | BAE]. In step with its growing operational responsibilities, the the Typhoon fleet began moving toward an availability contracting maintenance model. A 5-year contract signed in March 2009 accelerated that shift, and the Typhoon Availability Service has begun operations.

Recent events include the addition of a billion-dollar availability-based contract to maintain the fleet’s engines…

Continue Reading… »

CC-130 over BC
(click to view full)

US military has been coming to the realization that its aging aircraft fleet will begin posing serious challenges in the coming years. Canada is currently experiencing similar problems. In 2005, Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said that “Our [CC-130 E/H] Hercules fleet right now is rapidly going downhill. We know that three years and a little bit more than that, the fleet starts to become almost completely inoperational and we will have to stop supporting operations – or else, not be able to start them.”

The CC-130s are used in a wide variety of roles, from tactical transport to aerial refueling and even search and rescue. The Canadian Forces do not own any other aircraft in a similar class, which makes replacement essential. EADS tried to remain in the running with its Airbus A400M, and other alternatives were proposed, but the specific requirements set by Canada’s Department of National Defense (DND) tended to exclude alternatives. In December 2008, a program worth almost C$ 5 billion got underway to buy 17 of Lockheed’s privately-developed C-130J “Super Hercules” planes.

In this updated Spotlight article, DID can offer additional details regarding the Canadian procurement program, and the thinking behind it; some background that points up the parallels between the issues faced by the Canadians, and the experiences of other air services; and some insight into why the buy took so long, after the C-130J was declared Canada’s preferred choice in an “expedited” process. That initial buy has now added a large fleet support contract…

• The Transports and the Damage Done: Issues With the Fleet
• Live Rust: What To Do Until the New Planes Arrive?
• Bite the Bullet: Canada’s Procurement Approach and Process
• Comes a Time: Key Developments and Contracts [updated]
• Someday: Facing the Future, At Last?
• Appendix A: Are You Ready for the Country – Possible Competitors C-130J, C-130M, A400M… IL-76?
• Appendix B: Walk On – Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

RN CVF Concept
(click to view full)

In 1998, Britain’s Strategic Defence review (SDR) announced plans to replace the current set of 3 Invincible Class 22,000t escort carriers with 2 larger, more capable Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) ships that could operate a more powerful force. These new carriers would be joint-service platforms, operating aircraft and UAVs from all 3 services (Navy, RAF, Army) in roles that could include ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance), force projection and logistics support, close air support, anti-submarine/ anti-surface naval warfare, and land attack.

The scale of the CVF effort relative to Britain’s past experiences means that the program structure is rather complex. It has passed through several stages already, and is being run and conducted within an industrial alliance framework. There is also a parallel international framework, involving cooperation with France on its PA2 carrier as a larger derivative of the CVF design.

This DID FOCUS article covers that structure and framework, ongoing developments, and the ships themselves as they round toward final design, construction, and fielding. Reports that the next planning phase will see the carrier project in jeopardy, and Britain’s F-35 buy severely slashed, persist. Meanwhile, BAE has bought out VT group’s share in their surface ship venture, and Britain has issued over $500 million in sub-contracts…

• The CVF Queen Elizabeth Class (“continue reading…”)
• Program Team: The Aircraft Carrier Alliance
• CVF Program Management
• The CVF Program: Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• CVF-Related Contracts and Events
• Additional Readings & Sources: The Program
• Additional Readings & Sources: The Ships
  
  Continue Reading… »

LPD-17 cutaway
(click to view full)

LPD-17 San Antonio class amphibious assault support vessels are just entering service with the US Navy. Between 10-12 scheduled ships of this new class are slated to assume the functional duties of up to 41 previous ships. Much like their smaller predecessors, their mission is to embark, transport, land, and support elements of a US Marine Corps Landing Force. What changes are the ships’ size, their cost, and the capabilities and technologies used to perform those missions. Among other additions, this new ship is designed to operate accompanying platforms like the Marines’ MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle amphibious armored personnel carrier.

While its design incorporates notable advances, the San Antonio Class has also had its share of teething problems. So, too, has the New Orleans shipyard to which most of this contract has been assigned. The number of serious issues encountered in this ship class have been much higher than usual, and more extensive. The initial ships have been criticized for sub-standard workmanship, and it took 2 1/2 years after the initial ship of class was delivered and accepted before any ship of class was sent on an operational cruise. Whereupon the USS San Antonio promptly found itself laid up Bahrain due to oil leaks. Meanwhile, costs are almost twice the originally promised amounts at over $1.7 billion per ship – 2 to 3 times as much as many foreign LPD classes, and more than 10 times as much as Singapore’s 6,600 ton Endeavour Class LPD.

DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record. This is DID’s FOCUS Article for the San Antonio Class, detailing the ships’ unique features and capabilities, its program innovations and issues, ship timelines, and related contracts throughout the program’s history. As has become DID custom, the most recent additions are highlighted in green type. The latest developments include problems with the LPD 21 New York now, which contains steel from the destroyed World Trade Center…

• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Capabilities and Features
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Process & Issues
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Program, Budgets & Timelines [updated]
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Contracts and Events (1996-Present) [updated]
• Appendix A: Additional Readings & Sources – LPD-17 Ship Class
• Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources – News and Views
  
  Continue Reading… »

(click to view full)

In the 1970s, fighter aircraft began to appear with Head-Up Displays (HUD) that projected key information, targeting crosshairs etc. onto a seemingly clear piece of glass. HUDs allowed pilots to keep their eyes in the sky, instead of looking down at their instruments. Ever since, we’ve been wondering when we’d see them in our automobiles. In the 1990s, another innovation appeared: helmet-mounted displays (HMDs) put the HUD inside the pilot’s helmet, providing this information even when the pilot wasn’t looking straight ahead. The Israelis were already pioneering a system called DASH (Display And Sight Helmet) when a set of former East German MiG-29s equipped with Soviet HMDs slaughtered USAF F-16s in NATO exercises. Suddenly, helmet-mounted displays became must-haves for modern fighters – and a key partnership positioned Elbit to take DASH to the next level.

This DID Spotlight article offered insights into the rocky past, overall state, and future of a program that has experienced its share of snags and controversy – but went on to become the #1 helmet-mounted sight in the world today. It also details the JHMCS’ game-changing effects on air combat, its production sets and known customers, and all contracts since full-rate production began.

The latest items include Lot 6 Production, and an interesting set of gear for the US Navy that could become a popular ancillary option…

• JHMCS: A Combat Multiplier [updated] (i.e. Continue reading…)
• JHMCS: The Program to Date
• JHMCS: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Appendix A: JHMCS History & Challenges
• Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »