Advertisement

HMMWV, IEDed
(click to view full)

In an age of non-linear warfare, where front lines are nebulous at best and non-existent at worst, one of the biggest casualties is the concept of unprotected rear echelon vehicles that do not need to be designed for combat. That imperative is being driven home on 2 fronts.

One front is operational. IED land mines have been the #1 killer of American troops in Iraq, and up-armoring flat-bottomed Humvees proved to be an inadequate response. This finally led to the MRAP program at the end of 2006, which will have ordered and produced nearly 16,000 blast-resistant vehicles in less than 3 years. British experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has been similar, with 1/8 of all its casualties inflicted on troops riding in poorly-protected Land Rover Snatch jeeps. Those conditions have prompted several senior officer resignations in protest, including highly placed SAS commanders.

Ultra APV demonstrator
(click to view full)

The other front is buying trends. While some countries like Australia and Germany were foresighted enough to develop and field mine-resistant vehicles before 2001, a collective realization is sinking in across the board that up-armoring flat-bottomed vehicles with inadequate carrying capacity, in order to provide a level of protection that is better but still poor, simply will not do. Future patrol vehicles will need to be designed from the outset for blast-resistance against land mines and even car bombs.

These design imperatives found their way into the USA’s Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program, which aims to replace many of the US military’s 120,000 or so Hummers as its main tactical vehicle in combat zones. The military’s goal is a 7-10 ton vehicle that’s lighter than the MRAPs and easier to transport aboard ship, while offering substantially improved protection over existing up-armored Hummers. They’d also like a vehicle that can address front-line issues like power generation, in order to recharge all of the batteries troops require for electronic gadgets like night sights, GPS devices, etc.

DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record. JLTV certainly qualifies, though its future remains cloudy due to expected spending cutbacks and the possible presence of “good enough” substitutes. The end of October 2008 saw 3 contract awards out of 7 qualifying submissions, which will be developed over the next 27 months into rival designs for the JLTV’s systems design and development phase. The latest development is Britain’s non-participation – perhaps because they already have a JLTV-type vehicle on order…

• JLTV: Program & Risks
• JLTV: Goals and Constraints
• JLTV: Participants and Platforms
• JLTV: Contracts and Key Events
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

F-22: HPM emitter?
(click to view full)

Nov 5/08: SAIC Technology Services Co., of San Diego, CA received an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for $16 million for R&D under a Broad Agency Announcement entitled “Electro Magnetic Effects Research and Development.” This research will examine aspects of high power EM lethality, with missions that include survivability of military equipment high power microwave (HPM) environments, the development of HPM weapons, and the refinement of HPM-predictive modeling for inclusion into engagement and campaign-level models. The military woul like SAIC to make optimum use of available AFRL/RDH capital assets and to augment or complement AFRL/RDH capabilities, rather than pursuing its research alone. The Air Force Research Laboratory/RDKP, Det 8 Directorate of Contracting at Kirtland AFB, NM manages this contract (FA9451-06-D-0222, P00009).

EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) is a side-effect of intense radiation bursts, usually from a nuclear weapon. Its effect is to fry most semiconductor-based electronics within its effective range, which is to say most electronics these days. This gives EMP a potential offensive use via strategically placed nuclear airbursts. Rep Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD] has led the charge on this issue in Congress, working to establish an EMP Commission that has reported on the USA’s general vulnerability to such attacks, and further research continues. HPM includes EMP, but it can also be much less dramatic. As one example, there are claims that some modern AESA radars might be able to focus their arrays, in order to produce a very localized HPM effect that could impair or even disable enemy radars. With AESA radars set to deploy in Russian and European fighters over the next decade, a better understanding of the applied physics involved makes sense for both defensive and offensive reasons.

Advertisement

Class 1 MAV
(click to view full)

DID’s October 2005 article covering various new American Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) designs and contracts tended to focus on the larger Class II company and Class III battalion-level options, while our FOCUS Article covering the MQ-8B Fire Scout addressed the Class IV brigade-level UAV for the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. The smaller “Class I” platoon-level UAV options were addressed only in passing, largely because that aspect of the program wasn’t yet at the same level of development.

The FCS Class I UAV will be used for reconnaissance, security and target acquisition operations in nearly all terrain, including urban environments. Each system of two vertical take-off and landing air vehicles, a dismounted control device, and associated ground support equipment will be carried by selected platforms and dismounted soldiers, and will use autonomous flight, navigation, and recovery.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article for the Class I effort, which survived the 2007 reorganization of the FCS program. It’s now known as the T-Hawk, and has received an initial production contract…

• The Class I MAV
• The MAV Program
• Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

Raytheon: C4ISR Future?
(click to expand)

As video communications is integrated into robots, soldiers, and UAVs, and network-centric warfare becomes the organizing principle of American warfighting, front-line demands for bandwidth are rising faster than the US military can add it. The Transformation Communications Satellite (TSAT) System is part of a larger effort by the US military to address that need, and close the gap.

DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record – and TSAT is certainly significant. The final price tag on the entire program has been quoted at anywhere from $14-25 billion through 2016, including the satellites, the ground operations system, the satellite operations center and the cost of operations and maintenance. Lockheed Martin and Boeing have each won over $600 million in risk reduction contracts for the TSAT SS satellite system, and their respective bids are in. Both teams continue to await a decision, which was supposed to have been made in late 2007. TSAT’s $2 billion TMOS ground-based network operations contract is already underway.

The TSAT constellation’s central role in next-generation US military infrastructure makes it worthy of in-depth treatment – but its survival is not assured. Outside events and incremental competitors could spell its end, just as they spelled the end of Motorola’s infamous Iridium project. This FOCUS article examines that possibility, even as it offers an overview of the US military’s vision for its communications infrastructure, how TSAT fits, the program’s challenges, and complete coverage of contracts and significant events. New additions are highlighted in green for your convenience.

The latest item is yet another significant delay in the TSAT-SS contract, which was supposed to be awarded in 2007. That contract has now moved to FY 2010 – if it ever happens at all…

• Key Background – Why TSAT Is Thought to be Necessary (i.e. continue reading…)
• Key Background – The Big Picture: TSAT and the Transformational Communications Architecture
• Briefing – What Is TSAT?
• Briefing – TMOS: TSAT’s Ground Component
• Briefing – The AEHF Alternative, and Lessons Learned for TSAT
• Analysis – TSAT Program: Issues & Decisions
• Analysis – TSAT’s Competitors – and Its Fate
• News – TSAT: Timeline and Ongoing Developments [updated]
• Appendix A – Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

PCAPP Map
(click to view full)

In May 2006, “US Chemical Demilitarization: Expansion and Update” explained the underlying structure of the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency’s programs to safely store and dispose of chemical weapons. The CMA is responsible for a number of locations, each of which has its own prime contractor. Prime contractors hold the design, build, operation and closure portions of the contract, while subcontractors to the prime contractors vary by site. “Nerve Gas Stockpile Destruction at NECD in Newport, IN” shone a spotlight on one site’s efforts and contracts.

The U.S. Army’s Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado is another such site, which currently stores 2,611 tons of mustard agent contained in 155mm and 105mm artillery shells, and 4.5” mortar shells. Decontamination is supervised by the PM Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA), using a biochemical process rather than incineration; the CMA is still responsible for safe storage until the munitions can be decontaminated. This article discusses mustard agent’s effects and place in the history of warfare, and takes a look at the efforts underway to destroy the Pueblo stockpile between 2015-2023. An effort that recently featured a contract worth over half a billion dollars…

• Mustard Gas: A Quick Primer
• The Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP)
• Contracts and Key Events
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

Around 1997/98, the Defense Logistics Agency changed their business practices, and entered into Prime Vendor long term sustainment contracts with various suppliers to provide materials needed to support the maintenance, repair, and operation (MRO) of its facilities. Items such as plumbing, electrical components, heating/ ventilation/ air conditioning (HVAC), lumber, fixtures, other hardware supplies, etc. would be included. The Prime Vendors need not make these items; the idea is to use purchasing power and commercial purchasing practices to consistently get the US Department of Defense the best prices on these civilian items, delivering them quickly and with little overhead.

These contracts are not small; collectively, they represent billions of dollars each year. Unless otherwise stated, the contracts are issued by the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) in Philadelphia, PA. Specific purchases then take place via orders under the overarching contracts described below, up to the limits mentioned. The USA is divided into a number of regions, and these contracts also include locations abroad; DID has used the same geographical groupings in describing these contracts over the past couple of years, and the firms receiving them.

The latest addition includes large MRO contracts in the Northeast and Southwest regions…

Continue Reading… »

Science Applications International Corporation recently announced an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity, joint services contract from the U.S. Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN)—Installation Protection Program (IPP). The program was initiated in December 2003, and is managed by the Joint Project Manager Guardian (JPMG) for the Joint Program Executive Office (JPEO) for Chemical and Biological Defense, and the goal is to ensure that American military installations can continue operating after being hit with CBRN weapons.

The concept is nothing new. After all, that very motivation is what spurred the creation of the ARPANet – now the Internet. In Europe, NATO’s reliance on nuclear deterrence rather than conventional military parity made military operations in a nuclear environment a certain planning scenario. Meanwhile, Soviet doctrine emphasized heavy front line and second echelon use of chemical weapons in a major war’s opening offensive phases, forcing corresponding bio-chemical preparations. Biological weapon defenses were considered a secondary aspect, but that conceit was shaken after advanced, treaty-breaking Soviet biological weapons programs came to light through the post-Soviet revelations of scientists like Dr. Ken Alibek.

The need for JPMG’s IPP is nothing new, therefore. What has changed is the depth profile of the threat. A Soviet strike on the Pentagon would almost certainly have triggered global thermonuclear war, in a way that chemical or even nuclear strikes across and behind the front lines in West Germany and the Netherlands likely would not. On the other hand, it’s quite possible to launch a strike against the Pentagon in the modern era, using supported organizations that confer deniability. With the notion of restrictions on targets or means destroyed by 9/11’s example, modern planners are faced with a growing threat in the new era that extends to a much wider range of military installations.

SAIC worked with JPMG on the original contract, and the new contract has a one year base period of performance plus 4 one-year options, with a contract ceiling value of $500 million if all options are exercised. SAIC will provide program management and execution of all phases of the IPP’s design, purchases, integration and fielding. They will then support the system’s architecture, training and exercises, and logistics, while providing technical expertise, equipment, and services to meet current program requirements. Work will be performed primarily in Abingdon, MD.

Air strike… priceless
(click for relevance)

Back in August 2005, we noted that “ENCORE I.T. Contracts Raise Ceiling to $2.5B Until ENCORE II Arrives.” Services under ENCORE II will include high level enterprise IT policy, integration management, communications engineering, and asset management. According to the Encore II RFP, DISA intends to use the contract to support users in the military services and agencies as they transition from legacy systems to Net-Centric Enterprise Services (NCES), which embodies the new techno-organizational opportunities described above. Encore II will help them effectively use core NCES product lines, including collaboration and discovery tools, and a planned joint services knowledge portal. That’s the vision, anyway. In January 2006, we followed that up with “Pentagon’s $13 Bn “Encore II” RFP Gets Revised, Extended,” explaining the ENCORE vision, its origins, and its likely obstacles.

That wait ended on Jan 31/07, when 6 companies received indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity multiple-awards contracts. They include provisions for Firm, Fixed-Price, Time-and-Materials or Labor-Hour and Cost-Reimbursement (CPFF, CPAF, etc), and will run from March 12/07 through March 11/17. The maximum not-to-exceed value for the ENCORE II contract over a 5-year period, plus its 5 one-year option periods, is $12.225 billion. This is slightly less than the $13 billion projected. Performance will be at various locations within the Continental United States (CONUS), and also outside the CONUS (OCONUS), and each task order issued will be opened to competition among the ENCORE-II winners.

The solicitation was issued as a full and open competitive action with 16 large firm proposals received – but the Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization DITCO) at Scott AFB, IL picked just 6 large firm winners with small business awards to follow. Whereupon, the protests began. Now, the small business roster has been added, and the large business roster has been expanded…

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… »

(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… »