M-ATV: A Win, at Last, for Oshkosh

Oshkosh M-ATV

“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 (Explosively Formed Projectile land mine) and RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade panzerfaust) 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. FY 2010 budgets and subsequent purchases have pushed this total even higher, and orders now stand at over 8,800 for the USA, plus another 800 for the UAE.

ER/MP Gray Eagle: Enhanced MQ-1C Predators for the Army

ER/MP, armed

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). That was just the first step along the US Army’s $5 billion road to fielding a true Medium Altitude, Long Endurance, armed UAV, modified from the USAF’s famous MQ-1 Predator.

The ER/MP program was 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. Its position got a boost when a 2007 program restructuring cut the Future Combat Systems Class III UAV competition, in favor of ER/MP. Next, the US Air Force saw this Predator derivative as a threat and tried to destroy it, but the program survived the first big “Key West” battle of the 21st century. Now the MQ-1C “Gray Eagle” is moving into full production, as the US Army’s high-end UAV. This FOCUS article offers a program history, key statistics and budget figures, and ongoing coverage of the program’s contracts and milestones.

BCTM/E-IBCT: FCS Spinout Ramps up, Then Breaks Up

BCTM B-Kit in Hummer

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 – were planned to be fielded to up to 9 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams beginning in 2011. Now it’s more like 2015 for the 1st brigade, and it will happen without most of the original components.

• BCTM/ E-IBCT Increment 1
  
• Contracts and Key Events, FY 2007-2011 [updated]
  
• Additional Readings
  

Future Stryker: US Army to Address Mobility, Piecemeal Upgrade Issues

Much better on pavement

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…

US Army Moves Ahead with BCT Facilities Construction in CONUS

Fort Lewis’ 3rd Brigade
on the move

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…

US Army Stationing Decisions, FY 2008-2013

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:

US Launches Army Sustainment Command

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.”

US Army Awards for Top 10 Inventions of 2005

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…

US Army Mulling FY 2008-2013 Program Options

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.

FCS Procurement Structure Comes Under GAO Scrutiny

FCS Constellation

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.”