Category: Defense Procurement

Son of FCS-MGV* Looks Like a Repeat Fail

2 Comments

With the cancellation of the US Army’s FCS-MGV system, the 20 ton class (30 ton+ in operational use), the army has been cast about for a vehicle to fill the role, and they have found it in their ground combat vehicle (GCV) program, which is supposed to have, the “urban mobility of a Stryker, with the off-road capability of a Bradley and the survivability of an MRAP,” while being C-130 transportable. (see also here)

Truth be told, a slightly improved Bradley, particularly one that has the manned turret replaced with an external remotely operated one, which would allow for a single vehicle to carry a full 9 man squad, but the way that it is all phrased does seem to be an invitation to mission and cost creep juxtaposed with schedule slippage.

By “urban mobility,” they mean “road speed”, though I noted about 3 months ago that they were calling for the “sustainability of a Stryker”.

With improved tracks and propulsion, the road mobility can be achieved, though it would still be more maintenance intensive, and less fuel efficient than a wheeled vehicle.

In any case, the Army is looking to spend about a billion bucks on developing the GCV, and they have already delayed the review, though they are claiming, with some justification, I might add, that this was a result of the snowpocalypse.

My inclination would be to look toward improving existing systems, or purchasing and making minor modifications to foreign systems.

*Full disclosure, I worked on the Future Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle, FRMV, “wrecker” variant of the FCS-MGV† from 2003-2006 at United Defense (later BAE Systems after the Carlyle Group sold me to buy Dunkin Donuts).
†Future Combat Systems-Manned Ground Vehicle. These are the ones that are the tanks and APCs. As opposed to the various unnmanned vehicles, networking technologies, etc. that form the full FCS along with the MGVs.‡
‡Yes, I have worked everywhere. Maybe I can’t hold down a job, but more likely this has been my role as “technical hit man”, where you are parachuted in to take care of a specific need.

A Good Start

No Comments
Click for full size

H/t War is Boring

How do you know if a government policy is disastrous?

Well, there are any number of indicators, but the one that has a 100% record on predicting f%$#ed up policy is if it’s Dick Cheney’s idea.

Well, one of his ideas, back when he was Secretary of Defense was that “non core” military functions, like cargo transport, feeding the troops, and maintenance, should be outsourced to the private sector.

We all know how well that works. It’s so bad that even the US Air Force, the poster child for letting contractors run wild, is bringing its sustainment activities in house: (paid subscription required)

The U.S. Air Force is beginning to reclaim government management over upkeep of its large fighter, transport and, eventually, unmanned aircraft fleets, a move that could stunt efforts from companies looking to reap high profits from the maintenance business.

The Air Force is moving away from the contractor logistics support arrangements , popular in the 1990s, in which the government paid a premium for industry to handle product support duties, including oversight of touch labor and supply-chain management. During this post-Cold War period, the Pentagon downsized the workforce equipped with these skills in hopes that industry could oversee these tasks at lower costs and more efficiently. However, under Defense Secretary Robert Gates, this trend is reversing, and the government is now insourcing jobs in acquisition and sustainment; top Air Force officials say they expect savings.

If the policy has proved to be a disaster of such epic proportions that even the boyz from Colorado Springs* have decided that the possibility of plush jobs after they retire as generals cannot excuse it, then you just know that Cheney was part of the original decision.

Of course, the private contractors maintain that they will be cheaper (they aren’t), and that the government will find it tough to attract talent (Nope, once you take this in house, you get the people who previously worked for the government, then went to work for LockMartBoeinThrup, but have now been laid off), but mostly, they are screaming that they want their money.

Sorry, but you had your chance, and you f%$#ed it up. You’re fired.

*I mean the USAF, not Focus on the Family, though sometimes it is hard to tell them apart.

AESA Radar Enters Flight Test on F-16

No Comments

Northrop Grumman is now flying its Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) on a USAF F-16.

The interesting question here is how much this will influence current F-16 operators who are currently considering purchasing the F-35.

I think that it is likely that the capabilities of an avionics suite installed on an F-16 can come close to that installed in a JSF: Even with an advanced sensor suite, it’s clear that the F-16 will be less than ½ the price, and less than ½ the direct operating costs.

Additionally, any avionics package is far more open to the development of national systems and upgrades, and the ability to operate 2-3 times as many aircraft, particularly if the nation expects to operate largely in coalition action or counter-insurgency scenarios, might very well deliver superior results on the battlefield.

Brazil Fighter Competition Update

No Comments

We have a report from the Brazilian Newspaper Folha de S. Paulo reporting that there will be 36 Dassault Rafales purchased at $175 million each, ($6.2 billion) and this constitutes a $2 billion price cut in the deal.

On the other hand, the Brazil defense ministry had denied that any formal decision has yet been made.

$175 million each? Great googly moogly, for a few bucks more they could buy the F-22, if it could be sold, and if the production tooling still existed.

Death Spiral, JSF Edition, Chapter 2 of Many

No Comments

Well, this week, SecDef Robert Gates has just fired the program manager for the JSF program, Major General David Heinz, and is withholding millions of dollars in performance fees to the prime contractor, Lockheed-Martin, because of schedule and budget slips, citing a “troubling performance record.” (see also here, here, and here)

Lockheed-Martin’s response has been nothing short of delusional, at least as described by Steve O’Bryan, L-M VP for “business development and customer engagement” for the JSF, “:

Gates’ actions, in O’Bryan’s view, “reflected the commitment of the U.S. government to the F-35… the program is fully funded, with more development funding and more robust leadership.” The decision shows that the aircraft is “relevant today, and that the customer wants the jet right now.”

I’m beginning to think that part of the reason that this program is over budget and behind schedule is that Lockheed Martin has, and so the tax payer is paying for, a, “vice president for business development and customer engagement on the JSF program”.

It seems to me that this is a rather high falutin, and likely highly paid, position for what amounts to a PR flack with heavy duty knee pads.

Misapplication of resources may be a part of the problem, and Mr. O’Bryan’s continued employment does not seem to me to be an example of “spending smart.”

Of course, the USAF chief of staff is similarly sanguine, suggesting that the delays in the pro will only raise unit cost in the immediate term, because, like no other program before it, the delays will increast the cost only, “for a period,” and he does not see a Nunn-McCurdy breach in the costs.

It makes me want to quote that Samuel L. Jackson speech from Pulp Fiction again, because it’s clear that they want to f%$# the taxpayer like a bitch.

There are people who recognize the truth, like the Director Of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), who says that even with a flawless program, there will be a slippage of at least 18 months on the program, but that a flawless program is extremely unlikely, since things like the idea that modeling and simulation can reduce testing are unlikely to succeed.

Of note in the DOT&E report:

  • LRIP configuration is not yet defined.
  • Clutch heating on the STOVL variant
  • Increases in weight and landing speeds means that tires are running into their thermal limits for the carrier (F-35C) version.
  • Software instability
  • They aircraft is pulling out many of its survivability features, fuel check valves in the engine nozzle and fire extinguishers, to reach the specified weight.

Additionally, it now appears that the F-35C fuselage is under-strength:

Lockheed Martin Corp. is fixing a structural weakness in the Navy version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that limits the jet’s ability to launch from aircraft carriers, according to a company spokesman.

Engineers in July discovered a “strength shortfall” in an aluminum structure in the aircraft’s center fuselage that helps absorb stresses during a catapult takeoff, Lockheed spokesman John Kent said today in an e-mailed statement.

Additionally, it appears that the carrier model may be too hot, literally for carrier decks:

The Pentagon’s Gilmore said in his report that the engine and power-systems’ exhaust on the Navy and Marine versions is powerful enough to pose a threat to carrier personnel. The blasts also may damage shields used to deflect heat on the deck, including on the CVN-21 carrier, the Navy’s most expensive warship.

“Early analyses of findings indicate that integration of the F-35 into the CVN-21 will result in damage to the carrier deck environment and will adversely affect hangar deck operations,” Gilmore wrote.

<snark>Actually, it’s not a worry, since their new electromagnetic catapults don’t work anyway. </snark>

A Good Plan View of the PAK-FA

1 Comment
Click for full size

H/t ELP Defens(c)e Blog

What is apparrent from this view:
Edge Alignment.

  • Relatively flat central belly area.
  • Straight through engine air path (which implies radar blockers, as in the F-117 and F/A-18E/f).
  • The flaps on the leading edge of the leading edge extensions.
  • Metallic skin on rear portion of engines.
  • Su-27 style “stinger, with a relatively large radome.
  • Landing gear appears robust.
  • Trapazoidal (stealthy) air inlets with splitter plates.

I think that the metal on the rear fuselage around the engines are an indication that whatever signature reduction techniques that they want to apply, they are not all on this model, so it reinforces my earlier assessment that this is not a representative prototype, but rather more of a validation model for the configuration.

FCS-MGV* Successor to Have Tracks

No Comments
Click for full size

Tracks vs wheels


Linked band track

One of the lessons from Stryker in Afghanistan is that they are too road bound which creates regular predictable routes, which makes them more vulnerable to IEDs.

When juxtaposed with their relatively thin armor, the consequences are unfortunate:

What doesn’t work is the Stryker in Afghanistan, says Scales. The 5th Stryker Brigade, operating in southern Afghanistan’s Kandahar area, has taken heavy casualties, losing some 21 of the eight-​​wheeled vehicles and two dozen soldiers killed. “The vehicles have proven to be too thinly armored to survive the very large explosive power of Taliban IEDs and too immobile to maneuver off road to avoid them,” Scales writes.

I would also add that, for a given envelope, tracked vehicles are more space efficient, since the wheels on something like a Stryker are large, have significant travel, and the front (and sometimes rear) wheels sweep out a larger volume as an artifact of their pivoting to steer. (see picture)

Also, tracked vehicles are a lot better in urban conflict, because they can go over something like a junked car road block, while wheeled vehicles cannot, and because they can pivot steer, their maneuverability in close quarters is superior.

The downside of tracks is operational cost and road speed.

It’s why it’s rather cramped in Strykers.

Unfortunately, it appears that they are still fixated on some sort of “very quiet” track system:

“The lesson of contemporary wars is that IEDs can best be defeated by designing a vehicle capable of avoiding them,” he writes, in other words a vehicle that can go off road across rough terrain so that it isn’t limited to predictable routes. That means the future GCV must be tracked. It must also be quiet enough to be somewhat stealthy, Scales argues, which would imply a rubberized band track.

This is an area that I worked on extensively on the FCS-RMV, since, as a recovery vehicle, it would have to perform field repair, and from this perspective, band track, basically a continuous rubber band is a complete disaster.

First, with link track, every vehicle can carry a few extra links, and if there is damage to one, or two, they can repair it themselves. Additionally, they can short track, shorten the track by pulling links, and reroute the it so that one or more road wheels are not in the path.

By contrast, if a band track is broken, the crew can’t repair it, the replacement has to take part as a whole (as opposed to feeding the track a link at a time around the drive and road wheels), and it’s a unit, which when stored is huge, as in large enough that you need a truck to carry it to where ever you need to go to do the repairs.

There is a solution, called segmented band track, which splits the difference, so, for example, as opposed to rigid links, the tread would be made with (for example) 10 flexible treads that are linked together with pins (bottom pic), which splits the difference.

It is hoped that this will combine the simplicity of transport of link track with the light weight, lower noise, lower vibration, less wear on the road, and higher performance of continuous band track.

I will say that one of the things that should be avoided, at least on the basis of my experience with the FRMV specifically and the FCS-MGV generally, is to make a fetish of commonality between different vehicles performing different roles.

In the FCS program, almost every vehicle carried significant weight and cost penalties as a result of having a common chassis.

Commonality in systems is good, but if you take it to chassis design, you have start increasing weight and cost of the systems to attain this.

*Future Combat Systems – Manned Ground Vehicle.

Why I Prefer Working for the Marine Corps

No Comments
Click for full size

Launching the MICLIC

I have done worked for both the US Army, on the recovery vehicle for the now-canceled Future Combat System, and for the Marine Corps on the EFV (Called the AAAV when I worked on it) amphibious landing craft.

I found that the Marine Corps requirements, as well as their personnel, were much more straightforward and matter of fact.

A case in point is the Assault Breacher engineering and mine clearance vehicle, which clears a path through mines launching, the Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC), 1,750 lbs of C4 on a 100 meter rope to clear a path.

It was developed after the Army’s Grizzly was canceled.

The Grizzly was much more sophisticated, with a dozer blade/plough, which would automatically maintain the desired depth, and turn over and predetonate mines, it had an automated turret, and when reviewed by the military, they found over 50 flaws that they thought made the vehicle dangerous, and potentially life threatening.

There was also the problem that creating an automatic plough to clear a lane is a non-trivial operation. The Assault Breacher has a far less ambitious blade on the front, which is not intended for quite that level of speed or automation, and because of this, it actually works.

While the EFV is still a bit of a mess, I think that its goal was too ambitious, in general the Marines look for good enough, as opposed to the ultimate in whiz bang, so they get the job done.

Death Spiral, JSF Edition

No Comments

It appears that the UK’s order of JSF’s may be reduced by as much as 50% because of cost and schedule issues:

The Ministry of Defence may be forced to halve its order for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) at the next Strategic Defence Review, according to a report in the Guardian.

The UK had ordered 140 of the aircraft for use by the RAF and on the Royal Navy’s proposed new carriers, but the newspaper reports that “a consensus has emerged” that the number of fighters ordered is unsustainable. Delays and cost increases on the JSF programme are said to mean the MoD could be looking to order just 70 of the fighters.

Harrier and Tornado squadrons may also suffer further cuts, the report says, identifying a “huge shift” in spending that is being considered for the Strategic Defence Review following the next general election.

It’s really not surprising.

Given today’s fiscal environment, and the enormous cost of the JSF, it comes down to a choice of between buying the JSF for a military that lacks the resources to do anything with them, or cutting back and allowing the funds to go to things like ground forces.

Report: Brazilian Military Prefers Gripen

No Comments

According to this report, the Brazilian President’s first choice, the Dassault Rafale, is actually ranked 3rd:

Brazil’s F-X2 fighter programme could be the subject of further delays, after a summary of the air force’s 30,000-page evaluation report was leaked to one of the country’s leading newspapers.

The Folha de São Paulo newspaper reported that the air force’s F-X2 procurement programme committee has ranked Saab’s Gripen NG as its first-choice candidate for the deal, initially for 36 aircraft, due to its lowest acquisition and operating costs. It is followed closely by Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block II.

I think that part of this is higher level diplomacy, with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva believing that closer relations with France are more important than those with Sweden (that’s a no-brainer), and his belief that allying with Dassault will provide more opportunities to the Brazilian aerospace industry.

The Rafale is certainly not the low cost solution, it’s low production numbers mean that acquiring the aircraft will necessarily be expensive, and the Gripen is ½ the size of its competitors, with ½ the number of engines, so it will be much cheaper to operate.

I would also note that, given Swedish requirements for austere field operations, it would likely be better suited to operating from some hole-in-the-wall air strip in the Amazon jungle.

F-35 Update

No Comments
Click for full size

H/t ELP Defens(c)e Blog

So, the F-35 B has finally engaged its lift fan in flight, (video below) which is a step toward, but considering the fact the aircraft flew only 10% of the scheduled test flights in 2009, I guess you take what you can.

The bigger news is about the F-35 C model, where a study has been released showing that it will be significantly more expensive to operate than its predecessors:

Moreover, NAVAIR estimates the total of 680 short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs and carrier-variant F-35Cs, ordered by the US Marine Corps and USN, respectively, will cost $30,700 to fly each hour. This compares to $18,900 for the Boeing AV-8B Harrier II and Boeing F/A-18A-D, the aircraft types the Joint Strike Fighter will replace.

Although NAVAIR projects the F-35 will fly 12% fewer flight hours than the AV-8B and F/A-18A-D fleets, the agency expects the modern aircraft to cost as much as about 25% more to operate at peak rates, the briefing says.

The unexpected cost increases mean the F-35 “will have a significant impact on naval aviation affordability”, the NAVAIR document concludes.

Note that this is competing against an F/A-18 with 2 engines, and roughly the same level of installed thrust and weight.

In fact, it is more expensive to operate than the F-15 Eagle, which is significantly larger, but costs only $30,000/hour to operate and only slightly less than that of the F-22, which is nearly twice the size, and costs $44,000/hour to fly. (scroll down)

When the inevitable costs escalation is included, and part of the hourly cost is the amortization of the initial purchase, I think that the “smaller cheaper” F-35 will be nearly the cost of the F-22.

I do not consider this an argument for the F-22, just an argument for a 2nd tier that costs less (inflation adjusted) than an F-4 Phantom to operate.

The US has air dominance because it dominates the situational awareness in any potential conflict, which is done with things like advanced communications, AWACS, etc., not a plane that can break mach 1 in a vertical climb.

Lockheed-Martin’s response is that the study is “not definitive,” which is defense contractor speak for, “I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for your meddling kids.”

US Military 1 – Jesus 0

1 Comment
Click for full size


Picture h/t Dating Jesus

Remember Trijicon, the company that was busy painting targets on the back of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan included references to Christian bible verses on the optical sites (don’t call them sniper scopes) that are being used by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well, while the Army may have downplayed the importance, the Marine Corps, made it clear that these markings would materially effect their current and future contracts, and so the “Scopes for Jesus” company has agreed to stop engraving the bible references, as well as providing tools to remove the references on their existing sights:

Trijicon, the gunsight maker that has imprinted Bible verse numbers on its scopes, has announced that it will no longer imprint the verses on the sides of scopes intended for the U.S. military, and will also provide clients with the kits to remove the Bible verse numbers from existing scopes.

An ABC News report earlier this week revealed that the Michigan-based company, which has a contract to provide up to 800,000 scopes to the U.S. military, prints references to New Testament chapters and verses in code next to the model numbers of its scopes. The scopes are used by the U.S. Marine Corps and Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by U.S. allies in those countries, and for the training of Afghan and Iraqi troops.

There now, that wasn’t so hard, was it.

My original post on this.

Because It’s Not a War on Islam

4 Comments

Well, they have just discovered that sniper scopes purchased for the Marine Corps contain verses from the Christian bible:

Following an ABC News report that thousands of gun sights used by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan are inscribed with secret Bible references, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps said the Corps is ‘concerned’ and will discuss the matter with the weapons manufacturer.

“We are aware of the issue and are concerned with how this may be perceived,” Capt. Geraldine Carey, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps, said in a statement to ABC News. “We will meet with the vendor to discuss future sight procurements.” Carey said that when the initial deal was made in 2005 it was the only product that met the Corps needs.

However, a spokesperson for CentCom, the U.S. military’s overall command in Iraq and Aghanistan, said he did not understand why the issue was any different from U.S. money with religious inscriptions on it.

(emphasis mine)

Ummm………Because inscribing Christian verses on weapons that you kill Muslims with will make it that much more difficult for US troops to train with Muslim troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and because it’s likely to inspire more violence against American troops, because it is another piece of evidence that Islamic radicals will use to show that this is a war against Islam?

That kind of fits the definition of, “Contrary to good order and discipline,” doesn’t it.

The Marines get it, the US Army doesn’t.

Interestingly enough, it’s the the Army, along with the US Air Force in which the bulk of complaints about discrimination by aggressive Evangelicals have been reported.

It appears that this has been common knowledge among gun enthusiasts for about 4 years, but the military never noticed what the Trijicon corporation was doing.

Moscow Russians Working on a Next Generation Bomber in 2025-2030 Time Frame

No Comments

Unlike some of the other Russian programs (*cough* PAK-FA *cough*) which seem to have overly aggressive time frames, this program has a realistic time frame, and the technical requirements are rather modest (paid subscription required) :

“At the end of the first stage, we selected four options [for the future bomber] out of an initial 47 for further consideration and analysis,” [head of the Special Aircraft Division, Alexander] Bobryshev said during a Dec. 23 meeting with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Bobryshev committed to the design being completed in 2011-12, with development of the aircraft to be finished by 2017. Funding needs were not disclosed.

[Strategic aviation commander Maj. Gen. Anatoly] Zhikharev says the new bomber will be low-observable, using advanced materials and other technologies. However, he notes that it cannot be made “invisible,” signaling Russia will not pursue the all-aspect, multi-signature stealth performance the U.S. is considering for its next-generation bomber project.

Part of this is, I think, the understanding that if they were to go up against a highly integrated ground bases air defense system, it would be based on their technology, where they would have intimate knowledge of the technology and capabilities, as NATO relies more heavily on aircraft for this sort of defense.

Additionally, they are no doubt aware how expensive the full up stealth is, and they know how improvements in processing and the combination of signals from various sensors have the promise of negating stealth to a significant degree in the next few years.

Also, the Russians do not have the need for the extremely long range power projection capabilities that the US does. They are primarily concerned about their “near abroad”, basically former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact nations, with a special focus on Georgia and Ukraine, where NATO membership is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Japan Developing Supersonic Anti-Ship Missile

2 Comments
Click for full size

A translation from the Japanese would be appreciated


French ASMP from Wiki

The missile is supposed to have a 200 km range and supersonic speed.

Looks like the French ASMP, which has a similar range, and a Mach 3 speed at altitude, and Mach 2 down low, so my guess would be similar performance, though it appears to have a solid fuel, rather than a liquid fuel ramjet motor.

I have no clue as to what the blue windows are.

Saab Looks to Go Feet Wet on Indian Gripen Proposal

No Comments
Credit: SAAB CONCEPT

In an effort to improve its chances to sell its Gripen to India for the MMRCA competition Saab has once mooted the possibility of an aircraft carrier capable Gripen:

Saab believes modifying the Gripen NG to meet an Indian requirement for a carrier-borne fighter would add only 400 kg. (880 lb.), giving the aircraft—dubbed Sea Gripen—an empty weight of 7,500-8,000 kg.

…………

The Sea Gripen would require a new main undercarriage and nose gear, airframe strengthening in specific areas and a redesigned arrestor hook. Given the comparatively small size of the Gripen, this obviates the need for folding wings. The company is proposing Sea Gripen as a “partner program,” with the first target country being India.

Even for an aircraft as light as the Gripen, having a delta of only 400 kg (880 lb) is pretty impressive, so I’m wondering if they are trying the same thing that was proposed for the Eurofighter Typhoon, when it was proposed to create an auto-land system that allowed for a flare before landing to the need to reinforce the landing gear and structure.

[on edit]

There is also the possibility that Swedish operational requirements, which include the ability to operate from austere fields, such as roadways, may have already resulted in a landing gear that is rather more robust than those found on the normal western jet fighter.

F-35 News, 1 Good, 2 Bad

2 Comments
Click for full size

Finally!

On the good side, the F-35B, specifically air frame BF-01, has finally engaged the lift fan in flight, and everything was, as the flight test people say, “Nominal”:

The Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II stealth fighter engages its short takeoff/vertical landing propulsion system in flight for the first time, near Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., on Jan. 7. F-35 Lead STOVL Pilot Graham Tomlinson said afterward that the aircraft flew smoothly with the STOVL system engaged and was very easy to control.”

This is a good thing, though it is somewhat behind schedule, and Lockheed-Martin is thinks that it is necessary to add planes to the test program, so as to reduce the test schedule slippage from 2 years (!) to 6 months:

Lockheed Martin Corp. may add an aircraft-carrier model to a group of F-35 test planes as the company works to limit delays on the fighter jets to six months or less instead of the two-plus years expected by the Pentagon.

I’m not sure that this would help though, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has just ordered a delay in deliveries of the aircraft:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a delay in the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 program, cutting the Pentagon’s planned purchases by 10 aircraft in fiscal 2011 and a total of 122 through 2015, according to a budget document.

More than $2.8 billion that was budgeted earlier to buy the military’s next-generation fighter would instead be used to continue its development.

The delay is a setback for both Gates and Lockheed.

Setback is one way to put it.

So is clusterf%$#, death-spiral, shambles, snafu, and many other words I’m not in the mood to look up right now.