FRES-U finalists: There
can be only one…
(click to view full)

Many of Britain’s army vehicles are old and worn, and the necessities of hard service on the battlefield are only accelerating that wear. The multi-billion pound “Future Rapid Effects System” (FRES) aims to recapitalize the core of Britain’s armored vehicle fleet over the next decade or more, filling many of the same medium armor roles as the Stryker Family of armored wheeled vehicles and/or the Future Combat Systems’ Manned Ground Vehicle family. Current estimates indicate a potential requirement for over 3,700 FRES vehicles, including utility and reconnaissance variants. Even so, one should be cautioned that actual numbers bought usually fall short of intended figures for early-stage defense programs.

The FRES program was spawned by the UK’s withdrawal from the German-Dutch-UK Boxer MRAV modular wheeled APC program, in order to develop a more deployable vehicle that fit Britain’s exact requirements. Those initial requirements were challenging, however, and experience in Iraq and Afghanistan led to decisions that removed a number of FRES requirements including weight. The UK MoD has taken some criticism for its selection of wheeled APCs as its FRES-U infantry fighting vehicle finalists, and even more criticism for making the Boxer MRAV one of those finalists after spending all that time and sterling on FRES development. The MoD is defending its choices, however, and has now declared a winner…

• FRES: The Program (Continue reading…) [updated]
• FRES: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings
• Appendix 1 – The British Army’s Armored Vehicle Fleet, late 2006
• Appendix 2 – A New Procurement Approach: System House Challenges
• Appendix 3 – FRES: Key Challenges for the Contractors
• Appendix 4 – FRES Experiments: Electronic Architecture Contracts
• Appendix 5 – FRES Experiments: Vehicle-Related Contracts
  
  Continue Reading… »

A Viking comes ashore
(click to view full)

The BvS-10 is the successor to the wildly popular Bv206, 11,000 of which have been sold to 40 countries around the world – including the USA (M978). It is in use in both Britain and the Netherlands as a key armored vehicle for their respective Marines, and is under evaluation elsewhere. Singapore has developed and manufactured an improved variant of its own called the Bronco ATTC, and Finland and Norway also have their own local Bv-206 variants.

What makes this unusual-looking vehicle family so popular? They aren’t like Hummers or similar wheeled mainstays. They aren’t full armored personnel carriers, either – they’re armored, but Bv family vehicles can’t take the kind of punishment that a Bradley or LAV can absorb. Instead, the secret to their success lies in a remarkable all-terrain capability, and their ability to fill a rare and critical role: air-portable and amphibious infantry enhancement.

These success factors are discussed below, along with contracts and key developments related to this vehicle family. The latest development involves a bulletin from the Dutch, who are finding that they need to fix some issues with the BvS-10 Vikings headed for duty in Chad…

• The Bv Family of Vehicles (i.e. Continue reading…)
• Bv Family: Why So Popular?
• Bv Family: Performance in Afghanistan [updated]
• Contracts and Key Events
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

M1A2 SEP
(click to view full)

America’s M1 Abrams tanks come in a number of versions. In addition to the M1A1 that is now standard, the US Army is beginning to field its M1 TUSK for urban warfare. It also operates the M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP), currently the most advanced standard variant.

The M1A2 SEP is builds on the digitized M1A2 platform with an improved armor package of third generation steel-encased depleted uranium armor, a new command and control system, second-generation FLIR thermal sights that include a Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) for “hunter-killer” operation, the Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit (UAAPU) that lets crews run key electronics without running the engine, and a Thermal Management System (TMS – i.e. air conditioning for crew & electronics). The M1A2 SEP also features enhanced electronics like color maps and displays, improved networked communications, high-density computer memory and increased microprocessing speed, a more user friendly “Soldier Machine Interface (SMI)”, and an open operating computing system that will make future upgrades and additions easier.

This DID article covers the M1A2 Abrams SEP upgrade program, and will be updated and backfilled as new contracts are issued and key events take place. New materials will be noted in green. The most recent addition is a long-lead materials contract…

• M1A2 SEP: Additional Background
• M1A2 SEP: Related Contracts, 1996 – Present
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Pandur II w. RCWS-30
(click to view full)

In January 2006, the Czech Republic selected General Dynamics’ European Land Combat Systems subsidiary Steyr-Daimler-Puch Spezialfahrzeug GmbH of Austria to supply its army with 199 new eight-wheeled Pandur II armored personnel carriers (APCs) between 2007-2012. The vehicles would replace Soviet-era OT-64 SKOT APCs, and would be produced in Austria and the Czech Republic.

As DID noted in its coverage of the initial contenders, the contract includes an option for 35 additional vehicles for a total of 234, and has a potential value of Koruna 23.6 billion ($1-1.4 billion). Steyr’s Pandur II was a finalist, and eventually won the competition. But questions arose, the deal became a political football, and delivery issues jeopardized deal. Steyr recently issued a pair of releases that aim to put the Czech government in a tight spot, while detailing the project’s industrial arrangements… but it wasn’t enough. In the end, 3 issues killed the contract… or did they?

• Selection and a Winner
• Pandur II Industrial Arrangements
• Contracts & Updates [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

M1A2 Abrams TUSK
(click to view full)

TUSK stands for “Tank Urban Survival Kit,” and represents the American approach to the problem of employing tanks in urban situations where weapons elevation, protection placement, and other design elements aren’t designed to cope with key threats. The Leopard 2 PSO (Peace Support Operations) is another example of this kind of adaptation, albeit with a different combat engineering slant and camouflage improvements. France has its AZUR program for the LeClerc, and other vehicles as well. Israel’s Merkava tanks are seeing their own modifications, including a rear sniper porthole to go with its traditional under-armor mortar and space for infantry; now dedicated APC versions are also in the mix. What is certain is that combat in urban terrain is the way of the future, as demonstrated by trends over the last 15 years of major military engagements.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article for this important new tank variant. Recent additions include a minor contract for TUSK equipment…

Continue Reading… »

NLOS-C CTD, Yuma
(click to view full)

The USA’s $160+ billion Future Combat Systems faced a mild restructuring in February 2007, and in July 2007, work began on Phase 1 spinouts to the active force. In order to speed replacement of the M109 mobile howitzers, some members of Congress had been pushing to speed up fielding of the M1203 NLOS-C 155mm mobile howitzer as a replacement for the USA’s aging M109s, even if this meant breaking Future Combat Systems’ unitary acquisition model by making NLOS-C a separate program. That didn’t happen, thanks in part to FCS critic Senator McCain’s [R-AZ] interesting intervention, but the message was clear.

Unfortunately, even NLOS-C will break the C-130’s 20-ton cargo weight limit by a considerable margin (estimate: 27 tons, which works well in an Airbus A400M but not the C-130J Hercules). As such, FCS’ armored vehicle core is unlikely to ever deliver its most important touted benefit: deployability. On the other hand, NLOS-C does offer new and fully modern mobile howitzers, an aim that has clear Congressional support. As such, the FCS program is making the NLOS-C the lead example for FCS’ tracked Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) family.

With long-lead production orders beginning to arrive, this will be DID’s Spotlight article covering the NLOS-C…

• The XM1203 NLOS-C [updated]
• Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

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

As DID’s past coverage has noted, 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, et. al., and even attack 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 this would be a wise measure regardless. A July 2006 Washington Times article noted the effect age and wear have had on the USA’s vehicle fleet, a subject DID has also covered under the wider rubric of the coming 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; DID will seek to backfill its roster as opportunities arise, and all newly-added materials will be presented in green as a reader convenience. Recent additions include a reset contracts for over 1,000 M113 family vehicles, long-lead materials for M1 Abrams RESET work, and growing awareness of this issue in Britain…

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

M3A3 Bradley CFV: Charge!
(click to view full)

In the 1970s, middle eastern wars demonstrated that tanks without infantry screens were vulnerable to infantry with anti-tank missiles. Unfortunately, armored personnel carriers were easy prey for tanks, and sometimes had trouble keeping up with newer behemoths like the M1 Abrams which boasted top speeds over 50 miles per hour. In response, the Americans rethought the armored personnel carrier, taking a page from the Soviet book and creating a more heavily armored, faster “Infantry Fighting Vehicle” with an offensive punch of its own. Named after WW2 General Omar “the soldier’s general” Bradley, America’s M2/M3 tracked, armored IFVs can carry infantry – but they also have 25mm Bushmaster cannons, networked targeting sensors, and even TOW anti-armor or Stinger anti-aircraft missiles at their disposal.

Bradley puts on wear
(click to view full)

Even for upgraded and well-serviced vehicles, however, age and wear will take their toll. The US Army plans to keep its Bradley fleet for some time to come, and new technologies have made it wise to upgrade part of that fleet while renewing the vehicles. Hence the remanufacture program, which complements the restore-only RESET programs DID has covered elsewhere. This DII Q.V. Spotlight article explains the Bradley variants currently in service and involved in remanufacture programs. It also covers the remanufacture process and associated contracts…

• Bradley Variants and Sub-Variants: A Quick Guide
• Bradley Remanufacture Program: Details & Contracts
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Yak-130
(click to view full)

In an earlier February 1, 2006 report, DID noted that a $4 billion arms sale was brewing between Algeria and Russia involving fighter aircraft, tanks, and air defense systems, with the possibility of additional equipment. Those options would appear to have come through, as numerous sources are now reporting that a high-level Russian delegation in Algeria has closed $7.5 billion worth of arms contracts. The Algerian package would be post-Soviet Russia’s largest ever single arms deal, and compares to annual Russian weapons exports to all customers of $5-6 billion per year over the last couple of years.

T-90 tank
(click to view full)

Reuters South Africa quotes Rosoboronexport chief Sergei Chemezov as saying that “Practically all types of arms which we have are included, anti-missile systems, aviation, sea and land technology.” Reports regarding the exact composition of the deal vary, and many don’t add up when measured against a $7.5 billion total. DID has found reports that seems closer to the mark based on the package’s value, however, and the structure of the deal itself and Algeria’s past pattern of arms acquisitions are highly consequential and so worth discussing.

So, too, are recent developments, as Algeria’s complaints over weapon quality are causing something almost unheard-of in the global arms market: a refund request. The rumors are flying. What’s going on? Could a large chunk of Russia’s arms order book be in jeopardy? What’s really behind it? And how does this tie in to larger industrial issues for Russia’s arms industry, as shown in contracts like the Gorshkov carrier refit? DID explains, as the MiG-29 deal crashes, and the ripple effects begin stalling other elements of the arms package…

• Detailing the Deal: The Algerian Package [updated]
• Structuring the Deal: Anatomy of a Euro Squeeze Play
• Updates & Developments [updated]
• Appendix A: Algeria’s Appetite for Advanced Arms
• Appendix B: Russia’s Arms Industry Woes
• Appendix C: Additional Readings [updated]
  
  Continue Reading… »

(click for full report)

The UK’s Parliamentary Defence Committee has released its 2007-08 Session report that looks at the UK’s new merged Defence Equipment & Support organization (formerly DPA and DLO), and assesses Britain’s major procurement programs. The “Tenth Report of Session 2007-08, Defence Equipment 2008, HC 295” offers conclusions on a number of fronts, beginning with this general philosophy and then moving on to specific programs:

“We note that the MoD is preparing advice to Ministers about the defence budget for the three years 2008-09 to 2010-11 and that the MoD acknowledges that there are likely to be cuts or delays to projects in the Equipment Programme. The MoD needs to take the difficult decisions which will lead to a realistic and affordable Equipment Programme. This may well mean cutting whole equipment programmes, rather than just delaying orders or making cuts to the number of platforms ordered across a range of equipment programmes. While it is the natural inclination of all governments and departments to avoid bad news by “moving programmes to the right” rather than by cutting out an entire capability which has many supporters, such an approach can cause in the long run more financial and operational damage than confronting the perennial problem of an over-ambitious Equipment Programme. A realistic Equipment Programme will give confidence to our Armed Forces that the equipment programmes that remain will be delivered in the numbers and to the timescale required, and will also allow industry to make informed investment decisions.”

With respect to individual programs and issues…

Continue Reading… »