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 has 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… »

TCOM 17M RAID Aerostat
(click to view full)

The RAID program is a combination of cameras and surveillance equipment positioned on high towers and aerostats. Aerostats differ from blimps in that blimps are powered, while aerostats are anchored to the ground via a cranked tether that also supplies electrical power. Because the aerostats are not highly pressurized, bullets won’t burst them and they can actually remain buoyant for hours after suffering multiple punctures.

The RAID concept used a smaller TCOM 17M instead of the TCOM 71M JLENS aerostats used for cruise missile and air defense, and has sensors optimized for battlefield surveillance rather than powerful air defense radars. The result is a form of survivable and permanent surveillance over key areas that has been deployed to Afghanistan & Iraq. It can also be deployed as a tower system, and this “Eagle Eye/ GBOSS” deployment is turning out to be the preferred mode.

Raytheon recently received a contract from the US Marine Corps for more systems, which has now been followed by an additional US Army order…

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… »

(click to view larger)

As of July 2007, Raytheon Technical Services held the US Army contract for live training support, Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC) carries the contract for virtual training (simulators), and General Dynamics the one for constructive training (computer models & game-like simulations). More than 3,400 contractors served more than 150 manned sites and 458 unmanned sites with training devices world-wide.

The U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office, Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO-STRI) office has been working for the last couple of years on a new approach that does away with the 3 domains, in order to put the full focus on delivering whatever training support is needed and appropriate, in whatever manner works best. The Warfighter Field Operations Customer Support (Warfighter FOCUS) contract would consolidate operations, maintenance, systems integration and engineering support services for the Army’s live, virtual and constructive training systems into a single 10-year, $11-12 billion package once existing contracts expire on Oct 31/07.

On one side was the Warrior Training Alliance (WTA), led by prime contractor Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC and Computer Sciences Corporation. One the other side was the Warfighter FOCUS Alliance (WFA), led by General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Saab. Each team had a roster that included other major and minor players, and DID details both teams below. The winner was the Raytheon-led WTA, and integration is now proceeding…

Continue Reading… »

FSF-1 Sea Fighter
(click to view full)

The 262 foot long, 950 ton displacement FSF-1 Sea Fighter experimental ship was once called the X-Craft. It’s a high speed, shallow draft catamaran that was built to demonstrate and validate many of the Navy’s operational concepts for littoral warfare, and many of its experiments fed into the Littoral Combat Ship program. Sea Fighter can launch and recover surface and sub-surface vehicles up to the size of an 11 meter Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB)from its rear ramp, can carry specialized equipment in its mission module bay, and can support up to 2 MH-60 helicopters on its deck. The ship currently has 4 stations for .50 caliber machine guns, some of which could be converted to Mk38 remotely-operated 25mm cannon. Missiles other than crew-operated Stingers would likely create a deck hazard, but more advanced weaponry such as the SBOC chaff dispensers, Phalanx 20mm CIWS, or the 35mm Millennium Gun tested on the similar Sea Slice vessel in 2002 would be possible with additional work. The vessel is already paid for, and has been available for service since 2005. An armed Sea Fighter could function in a variety of limited roles, depending on the equipment set provided. Possibilities include a coastal or shallow water patrol vessel, special forces or riverine support vessel, short-range “connector” supply vessel, or even specialized functions like minesweeping or submarine detection.

May 2/08: International Systems LLC, DBA L-3 Communications Advanced Systems Division in San Diego, CA received a $20 million cost plus fixed fee contract to modify the FSF-1 Sea Fighter experimental ship. They will design, integrate, and implement modifications that will improve ship survivability, and also improve various hull, mechanical and electrical capabilities. This award stems from one of Rep. Duncan Hunter’s [R-CA-52, ranking Republican on House Armed Services Committee] FY 2008 earmark initiatives, which passed through the appropriations committee process.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete in April 2009. This contract was competitively procured under Office of Naval Research Broad Agency Announcement 08-001, and the Office of Naval Research in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00014-08-C-0625).

General Dynamics Team
Trimaran LCS Design
(click to enlarge)

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is the U.S. Navy’s newest surface combatant class. Optimized for shallow seas and operations within 100 miles of shore, but deployable across the ocean, LCS ships are a centerpiece of the USA’s new focus on littoral warfare. They will help to counter growing “asymmetric” threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, global piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats. They will also perform intelligence gathering and scouting using helicopters and UAVs, offer some ground combat support capabilities, and share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units. Swappable “mission modules,” UAV robot aircraft, and robotic UUV and USV vehicles will give these small ships the specialized capabilities they require for each of these roles – and the quick-replace adaptability they need to keep up.

At present, 2 teams are competing for the final LCS design. The General Dynamics team is offering a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran based on Austal designs and experience. The Lockheed Martin team offers a high-speed semi-planing monohull based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records. Team Lockheed’s efforts have run into serious trouble, including cancellation of the contract for their second ship. The General Dynamics/Austal team hit the same rocks soon afterward, in part because of the US Navy’s unusual proposal for future business arrangements.

DID places recent developments in context by explaining a bit more about the US Navy’s new surface combatant; detailing the teams, key time line events, and contract awards under the program to date; and providing additional resources and links to complete our in-depth coverage. New material appears in green type. The latest updates include the launch of Austal/GD’s LCS 2 Independence…

• LCS = Standard Equipment + Mission Modules
• LCS: Budgets and Program Structure
• LCS: Designs & Teams
• LCS Controversies
• LCS: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• LCS Ancillaries: Mission Module & Weapon Contracts & Key Events
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

NETFIRES concept
(click to view full)

The basic concept of NETFIRES (a Future Combat Systems program) is to develop a family of artillery-like precision attack missiles based upon a vertical launcher design. Yet the idea goes far beyond that simple description. The NETFIRES CLU box launcher is intended to be be fully autonomous, meaning it can be dropped off anywhere and operate on its own without a support vehicle. The launch unit includes power generation and control systems as well as a total of 15 missiles, each with a warhead similar in size and capability to a 155mm artillery shell.

The system is also known as Non Line-Of-Sight, Launch System, or NLOS-LS, and remains one of Future Combat systems’ most promising programs, slated for early fielding to the Army and even for integration with US naval forces.

This will be DID’s focus article for the NETFIRES program, and it will be updated as new events and contracts enter the picture. The latest news involves successful logistics and field tests for the platform, as it gears up to be part of FCS Spinout Phase 1.

• The NETFIRES Concept
• NETFIRES Missiles
• Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• Appendix A: Lockheed’s Successful Design Improvement Workshops
• Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

X-ray vs. ZB
(click to view full)

American Science and Engineering’s Z Backscatter Van™ (ZBV) is a low-cost, extremely maneuverable screening system built into a commercially available delivery van. The ZBV employs AS&E’s patented Z Backscatter technology, which reveals contraband that transmission X-rays miss – such as explosives (including car bombs), plastic weapons, and people – providing photo-like imaging for rapid analysis.

The Z-Backscatter Van is also capable of identifying low levels of radioactivity from both gamma rays and neutrons with optional Radioactive Threat Detection (RTD) technology. Here’s how it works…

Continue Reading… »

(click to view full)

The WGS program is actually a set of 13-kilowatt spacecraft based upon Boeing’s model 702 commercial satellite. These satellites will support the USA’s warfighting information exchange requirements, enabling execution of tactical command and control, communications, and computers; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR); battle management; and combat support information. The program name has been changed for some reason to “Wideband Global SATCOM,” presumably to avoid the (correct) suggestion that it fills an emerging gap. Readers should be aware that references to either title in documents, archives, or the media denote the same program.

Upon its first launch into geosynchronous orbit, WGS Flight 1 will become the U.S. Department of Defense’s highest capacity communication satellite. Each satellite can route 2.4 to 3.6 Gbps of data – providing more than 10 times the communications capacity of the predecessor DSCS III satellite. Indeed, One WGS satellite will provide more throughput than the entire Defense Service Communications Satellite (DSCS) constellation currently on station. Using reconfigurable antennas and a digital channelizer, WGS also offers added flexibility to tailor its coverage areas, and to connect X-band and Ka-band users anywhere within the satellite’s field of view. Unlike programs like AEHF or T-SAT, however, WGS offers wideband communications that are “unprotected” against jamming and nuclear effects.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article covering the WGS program. The most recent development is early handover and full operation of the first WGS satellite…

• WGS: Capabilities & Role
• The WGS Program & Schedule
• WGS Program: Contracts & Key Events
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

F-22 and F-16s
(click to view full)

The fifth-generation F-22A Raptor fighter program has been the subject of fierce controversy, with advocates and detractors aplenty. On the one hand, the aircraft offers full stealth, revolutionary radar and sensor capabilities, dual air-air and air-ground SEAD capabilities, the ability to cruise above Mach 1 without afterburners, thrust-vectoring super-maneuverability… and a ridiculously lopsided kill record in exercises against the best American fighters. On the other hand, critics charge that it’s too expensive, too limited, and cripples the USAF’s overall force structure. Meanwhile, close American allies like Australia, Japan and Israel, and other allies like Korea, are pressing the USA to abandon its “no export” policy. Most already fly F-15s, but they’re interested in an export version of the F-22 in order to help them deal with advanced – and advancing – Russian-designed aircraft, air-to-air missiles, and surface-to-air missile systems.

This DID FOCUS Article covers both sides of the F-22 controversies in the USA and abroad, and it will also be updated over time to cover and backfill contracts and events related to the F-22A Raptor program. As a result of reader feedback, the newest material has been made more visible by putting it in green type. Recent additions include a multi-year contract for the F-22’s navigation & communication sub-systems, and the damaging bombing of F-22 airfields by stealthy attackers…

• The F-22 Raptor: Background & Controversies (aka. Continue reading…)
• F-22 Raptor: Program and Events
  • Events: 2008 [updated]
  • Events: 2007
  • Events: 2006
  • Events: Pre-2006
• F-22 Raptor: Contracts & Production
  • Contracts: FY 2008 [updated]
  • Contracts: FY 2007
  • Contracts: FY 2006
  • Contracts: Pre-FY 2006
• Additional Readings & Sources
  • The F-22 & Key Components
  • The F-22 Program
  • Official Reports
  • Controversies & Events
    
    Continue Reading… »