Oshkosh M-ATV
(click to view full)

M-ATV will add CROWS weapon systems. (March 10/10)

“The Government plans to acquire an MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV). The M-ATV is a lighter, off-road, and more maneuverable vehicle that incorporates current MRAP level [bullet and mine blast] protection. The M-ATV will require effectiveness in an off-road mission profile. The vehicle will include EFP and RPG protection (integral or removable kit). The M-ATV will maximize both protection levels and off-road mobility & maneuverability attributes, and must balance the effects of size and weight while attempting to achieve the stated requirements.”
  —US government FedBizOpps, November 2008

Oshkosh Defense’s M-ATV candidate secured a long-denied MRAP win, and the firm continues to remain ahead of production targets. The initial plan expected to spend up to $3.3 billion to order 5,244 M-ATVs for the US Army (2,598), Marine Corps (1,565), Special Operations Command (643), US Air Force (280) and the Navy (65), plus 93 test vehicles; but FY 2010 budgets and purchases have pushed this total higher.

• MRAP ATV: Requirements and Contenders
• Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings [updated]
  
  Continue Reading… »

BCTM B-Kit in Hummer
(click to view full)

The GAO tells Congress BCTM Increment 1 technologies are “immature” and “unreliable.” (March 10/10)

Concerns about cost overruns, vehicle design, and contract structure prompted the Pentagon to cancel the US Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) program in June 2009.

Instead of a single FCS contract, the Pentagon directed the Army to set up a number of separate programs to undertake parts of the FCS program. One of those programs is the Brigade Combat Team Modernization (BCTM) Increment 1. The BCTM Increment 1 capabilities – which include ground robots, UAVs, ground sensors, and vehicle (B-Kit) network integration kits – are planned to be fielded to 7 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams beginning in 2011.

A Boeing/SAIC team recently received a $138 million contract from the Army for low-rate initial production of the brigade sets for the BCTM Increment 1 capabilities…

Continue Reading… »

MQ-1C Sky Warrior
(click to view full)

360-degree Hellfire tests, support contract, Milestone C/LRIP approval, FY 2011 budget request. (Feb 19/10)

In August 2005, “Team Warrior” leader General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in San Diego, CA won a $214.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) of the Extended Range/ Multi Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System (ER/MP UAS).

The Sky Warrior ER/MP program is part of the US Army’s reinvestment of dollars from the canceled RAH-66 Comanche helicopter program, and directly supports the Army’s Aviation Modernization Plan. ER/MP could be a $1 billion effort, and recently strengthened its position when a 2007 program restructuring cut the Future Combat Systems Class III UAV competition. Now, in FY 2010, the MQ-1C Sky Warrior ER/MP prepares to move into low-rate production, following tentative resolution of the first big “Key West” battle of the 21st century between the USAF and US Army.

• The MQ-1C Sky Warrior, and its Band of Brothers
• The Army’s Sky Warrior Program
• ER/MP UAS – Enter the Warrior: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Appendix A: US Army et. al. vs. USAF Over UAVs
• Appendix B: Additional Readings – Who Controls the UAVs?
• Appendix C: Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

Much better on pavement
(click to view full)

One complaint heard about the 8×8 wheeled Stryker armored vehicles in Afghanistan was that they had difficulties with the rough, mountainous off-road terrain. The Canadian forces in particular found that their Strykers’ mobility limitations created unacceptable difficulties.

Another complaint about Stryker vehicles is that upgrades designed to address combat needs have been done in a piecemeal fashion. This has resulted in significant inefficiencies, including having to turn off some systems to operate others.

To address Stryker vehicle limitations and overcome the piecemeal approach to vehicle improvements, the US Army TACOM Lifecycle Management Command has undertaken a Stryker modernization program…

Continue Reading… »

Fort Lewis’ 3rd Brigade
on the move
(click to view full)

The US Army is planning to spend $589 million on new construction to accommodate the conversion of existing brigade combat teams (BCTs) to modern BCTs at Forts Wainwright, Carson, Bragg, and Lewis.

US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District is already moving ahead with construction at Fort Lewis in Pierce and Thurston Counties, Washington, awarding a $26.9 milion firm-fixed-price contract to M.A. Mortenson Co. in Minneapolis, MN. The contract was issued under a maximum $450 million multiple award task order contract (MATOC) for company operations facilities in the US Northwest and Southwest (W912HN-08-D-0021).

This is a design/build project for company operations facilities supporting the BCT complex increments 3 and 4 at Fort Lewis…

Continue Reading… »

Base infrastructure contracts are a quietly substantial portion of defense spending in any country, including the USA. Which is why DID covers them on a semi-regular basis, and notes trends in key areas, even though this coverage are only a fraction of the contracts issued. A December 2007 announcement by the US Army has significant implications for base infrastructure projects at a number of locations, however, as the push to grow the US Army by 74,200 troops and 6 brigade combat teams (BCTs)/ 8 support brigades continues, and so does partial relocation of US troops deployed abroad. A June 2009 announcement cut the number of new BCTs in half to 3, and will affect construction and stationing on 3 important Army bases.

The following lists offer updated breakdowns of the associated relocations and new unit stand-ups, first by timeline, and second by location:

Continue Reading… »

On Sept. 22, 2006, a ceremony marked the launch of U.S. Army Sustainment Command at Rock Island Arsenal, IL, under US Army Materiel Command. It will be commanded by Maj. Gen. Jerome Johnson, who said at the ceremony that “Our mission is clear-cut and crucial: improve Soldier support at the tactical level… rapid research solutions, quicker acquisition and faster delivery to the battlefield…. sustaining, maintaining and accounting for materiel, freeing Soldiers to fight with better equipment to protect them and be more lethal to our enemies.”

ASC will continue the missions of the former Army Field Support Command (AFSC), including Army Prepositioned Stocks management, administration of the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program and the Logistics Assistance Program. Key emerging ASC missions include Reset synchronization (see DID coverage of RESET and related programs), distribution and materiel management services, contingency contracting and training equipment management. Seven deployable Army Field Support Brigades (AFSBs) are assigned to the ASC in strategic locations around the world including Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, and Europe as well as in the U.S. at Forts Bragg, Lewis and Hood. See full story at ARMY.MIL; the US Air Force also launched a dedicated sustainment command recently.

Continue Reading… »

Technical innovation is present in all militaries, but America’s combination of do-it-yourself types, large defense budgets, and a gadget-happy national character makes it particularly fertile ground. Now add a global war and its challenges, plus a defense sector with a strong small business component made up of ex-military types. The overall innovation transmission belt may not be as tight or as effective as Israel’s or Singapore’s, but the scale of the US defense establishment more than compensates in terms of the sheer number produced.

Adoption, of course, is another matter. One way to improve it is to raise the profile of sucessful innovations through awards. Along those lines, the US Army recently recognized some special innovators by naming its “Top 10 inventions of 2005,” a list that should be of interest to many militaries around the world.

It includes…

Continue Reading… »

The US Army is preparing its FY 2008 – 2013 program objective memorandum (POM), due Aug. 15 to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Inside Defense reports that the Army is considering a number of possibilities, as the April 2006 fiscal guidance handed down by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England directed the Army to eliminate $25 billion across the POM including a total of $17 billion from its FY-12 and FY-13 budgets. Cutting the Army by a division, canceling the Future Combat Systems program, and other options are on the table. Inside Defense reports.

Continue Reading… »

FCS Constellation
(click to view full)

DID has covered the USA’s $120+ billion Future Combat Systems program before, and recently noted questions regarding its survivability in urban warfare. Now the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued Report #GAO-06-478T (Defense Acquisitions: Business Case and Business Arrangements Key for Future Combat System’s Success). The key paragraph from the abstract reads:

“There are a number of compelling aspects of the FCS program, and it is hard to argue with the program’s goals. However, the elements of a sound business case for such an acquisition program – firm requirements, mature technologies, a knowledge-based acquisition strategy, a realistic cost estimate and sufficient funding – are not yet present. FCS began product development prematurely in 2003. Since then, the Army has made several changes to improve its approach for acquiring FCS. Yet, today, the program remains a long way from having the level of knowledge it should have had before starting product development. FCS has all the markers for risks that would be difficult to accept for any single system, much less a complex, multi-system effort. These challenges are even more daunting in the case of FCS not only because there are so many of them but because FCS represents a new concept of operations that is predicated on technological breakthroughs. Thus, technical problems, which accompany immaturity, not only pose traditional risks to cost, schedule, and performance; they pose risks to the new fighting concepts envisioned by the Army.

Many decisions can be anticipated that will involve trade-offs the Government will make in the program. Facts of life, like technologies not working out, reductions in available funds, and changes in performance parameters, must be anticipated. It is important, therefore, that the business arrangements for carrying out the FCS program – primarily in the nature of the development contract and in the lead system integrator (LSI) approach – preserve the government’s ability to adjust course as dictated by these facts of life. At this point, the $8 billion to be spent on the program through fiscal year 2006 is a small portion of the $200 billion total. DOD needs to guard against letting the buildup in investment limit its decision making flexibility as essential knowledge regarding FCS becomes available. As the details of the Army’s new FCS contract are worked out and its relationship with the LSI evolves, it will be important to ensure that the basis for making additional funding commitments is transparent. Accordingly, markers for gauging knowledge must be clear, incentives must be aligned with demonstrating such knowledge, and provisions must be made for the Army to change course if the program progresses differently than planned.”

Continue Reading… »