Category: Defense Procurement

Brazilian Defense Minister Doubts Sincerity of US Technology Transfer Promises

No Comments

He talks about extensive difficulties in getting essential technology transferred as a part of contractual obligations:

According to the minister, the most controversial matter among the suppliers is the technology transfer issue and he emphasized that, in this area, the United States doesn’t a have a favorable history.

“The trouble with the United States,” he stated, “are past issues. The past is a big example of technology transfer embargo. We experience this here today at the Cetex.”

Jobim revealed that during his visit to the technological center he heard reports by military men stating that American companies would supply technology for the finishing of military equipments, such as batteries and propellers, only in ten years.

While the quote is unclear, and I think intentionally so, I believe that this is a shot across the bow regarding the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet’s AESA radar, the APG-79.

Truth be told, with the obvious issues with the Superbug’s aerodynamics, it’s the slowest of the three finalists, and the under-wing environment is noisy, hence the “splayed” arrangement of its stores pylons (see picture), required for safe stores separation, which increases drag.

Additionally, it’s significantly larger size vs. its competitors, about 20% more than the Rafale, and about double the Gripen, which necessarily increases the cost per flight hour, makes it clear that its sensor suite, and the ability for Brazil to modify these systems to meet its needs, becomes paramount to Boeing’s bid.

USAF Tanker is Still Moving Target

No Comments

It looks like the U.S.A.F. is still open to making changes in the requirements and evaluation of proposals for the tanker program:

Halfway through the comment period for a draft request for proposals (RFP) for the U.S. Air Force’s KC-X aerial refueling tanker competition, the top civilian overseeing the armed service says it is open to making changes where needed.

The draft RFP, released Sept. 24, puts heavy emphasis on cost and includes 373 pass/fail threshold requirements for participants. It further marks a shift from previous attempts to procure the 179 tankers needed to begin replacing Eisenhower-era KC-135s, as the Pentagon is pursuing a fixed-price development contract and production profile.

Isn’t this what got the last contract award thrown out, moving targets that were deemed unfair?

Dutch Report: F-35 Numbers to be Cut

No Comments

A Dutch report is saying that the total number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to be produced may be half of estimates, largely because of changes in warfare (UAVs) and cost escalation.

This is particularly significant for the Dutch, because one of the selling points for the aircraft to the RNAF is that the cost of their purchases will largely be offset by the revenue that Dutch companies will derive from sales of aircraft to other countries.

If the numbers go down, the price goes up, and the ratio of revenue takes a decided turn for the worse:

Rising costs, changing threats and rival aircraft — manned and unmanned — could cut nearly in half the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that ultimately are built, a Dutch defense analyst said in a report to the Dutch parliament. And if fewer planes are built, the price for each, already $100 million or more, will undoubtedly increase, analyst Johan Boeder warned.

A “likely estimate” is that 2,500 F-35s eventually will be built, Boeder wrote in a report delivered to Dutch lawmakers in September. The Netherlands, one of nine countries financing the development of the F-35, was expected to buy 85 planes, but maycut that to 57, Boeder said.

I think the idea that the aircraft will cost less than $100 million at current procurement numbers is delusional, and if the numbers go down, the price goes up.

To procure a meaningful aircraft, you must with start with purchase and life-cycle costs as a primary requirement, and work back from there.

Update on Saab Bribery Donations in Korea

No Comments

The allegations are rather different from the run of the mill bribery cases, where someone pays a government official to buy their products.

Instead, it is alleged that Saab paid bribes to get information on Korea’s indigenous fighter program, so as better to compete for business.

SAAB is denying this.

The core of the allegations is that the president of the Security Management Institute (SMI), a private research company, was invited to a trade seminar in Sweden, and that SAAB covered his expenses, to the tune of $17,200.

Me, I’m just confused.

Earlier post.

OK…….Count Me Dubious

No Comments
Click for full size

Slat Armor


TARIAN


RPG-30


RPG-30 in Action

There are a number of systems to deal with RPGs and similar threats, such as the US and Israeli active protection systems that shoot down incoming rounds, the slat armor used to predetonate HEAT rounds (shown, top), the cloth based TARIAN armor also used to predetonate armor (shown, Bottom), and now Textron has come up with the Tactical Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) Airbag Protection System (TRAPS), which uses sensors to detect an incoming round, and than uses an airbag to detonate the warhead far enough away from the hull to minimize damage. (no pictures, sorry)

There are a number of reasons that I am dubious.

The first is that it combines all the disadvantages of a passive system (single use) with those of an active system (expensive sensors), and also because it would appear to be particularly vulnerable to the tandem round system used in the RPG-30. (bottom 2 pictures)

I would also note that it does seem to suffer the same problem as all such systems developed under the Aegis* of the Pentagon:

The progress of TRAPS has not been as fast as one might expect. It was first unveiled at an Army trade show back in October 2006, after spending $3.5 million in Pentagon cash the previous year. Phase II testing is still to take place, and an operational system will be some way down the line. Janes notes the timing of the latest tests –- Textron is bidding to be part of the Army’s new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program.

It’s running late, and it appears to be over budget.

Jon Stewart is a F%$#ing Genius, He Should Get a Peabody Edition

No Comments

I have a call into Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye’s office regarding reports that there may be changes to Al Franken’s amendment prohibiting the writing of new contracts to contractors who use binding arbitration in discrimination cases, including, “any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.”

While I am waiting for his office’s response, let’s have Jon Stewart put it all in perspective:

MEADS CDR Set for 2010

No Comments
Click for full size


Note 4 Separable Canisters


Defense Pamphlet Pr0n

Over a decade ago, I did some very preliminary work with the Medium-Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). Nothing major, just taking PAC-3 munition boxes and slapping them together in a way that the “4 pack” could be made separable.

At the time, I figured that nothing would come of it, because it was a joint program with significant foreign involvement, which looking at history, seems to be the kiss of death for weapons’ systems.

There just ain’t enough pork in a joint venture for either the Pentagon or Congress.

Well, it appears that I may (emphasis on the may) have been wrong, because there is a scheduled Critical Design Review scheduled for next year.

Then again, I may have been right:

Brig. Gen. Genaro Dellarocco, the U.S. Army’s program executive officer for missiles and space, says the service is frustrated that Washington is paying 58% of the cost of the program, but only has equal say with Germany and Italy on management matters. Germany contributes 25% of the funding with Italy handling the remaining 17%.

Paul Schneider, former deputy secretary at the Homeland Security Dept., conducted a review of the program and possible alternate management structures. Options included increasing U.S. control over the program, but industry sources suggest that option was discarded.

It does look like the transmit-and-receive modules for the radar (German) is on track, as the PAC-3 MSE (Missile Segment Enhancement, basically a bigger and longer range dual pulse motor) will be the interceptor, for now at least.

Army Looking for Compact Weapon for Tankers Etc.

No Comments

It appears that the US Army is looking for a subcompact personal weapon system for people like tankers and truck drivers.

Seeing as how this is a niche weapon, there are basically two cartridges taht make sense, 5.56 NATO, and 9mm parabellum (used in the Baretta pistol).

I would recommend the former, because if you are carrying more than a 50-100 or so, you have less weight, and even out of a short barrel, you have longer range.

I think that a Bullpup makes sense, because you start getting to absurdly short barrel lengths for the weapon (<10 in).

So, you have existing weapons like the MTAR-21 Tavor, the AUG carbine, etc,

If you want to go to a different round, then something like the FN P90, with its 5.7x 28mm cartridge (as compared to the 5.56x45mm NATO) makes more sense than a 9mm round.

Note that all the Bullpups have integral optical sites, which for someone with little experience shooting a personal in a combat situation is a real advantage.

Additionally one of the arguments against a Bullpup, that slinging a grenade launcher under the barrel become problematic, is not an issue here.

If the army is serious, they would buy something off the shelf, but I expect that there will be instead some sort of new weapon developed, so that some General can get a cushy job on retirement.

LCS-2 Breaks 50 MPH

No Comments

Say what you will about the LCS, and I agree with a lot of them, over priced, behind schedule, under-armed for their displacement, and under-crewed, but when you stomp the throttle, they go like a scorched cat:

The Navy’s need for speed is being answered by a pair of warships that have reached freeway speeds during testing at sea.

Independence, a 418-foot warship built in Alabama, boasts a top speed in excess of 45 knots, or about 52 mph, and sustained 44 knots for four hours during builder trials that wrapped up this month off the Gulf Coast. The 378-foot Freedom, a ship built in Wisconsin by a competing defense contractor, has put up similar numbers.

I have no clue as to their endurance when going this fast, but my guess is that they would need to refuel if they wanted to cross the Pacific at this speed.

Video from an builder’s trials after break:


Ready, Fire, Aim

No Comments

The USAF is looking at how new technologies might provide a diction for the service’s future:

The study will look 20 years ahead, with an eye toward implementing near-term investment decisions aimed at producing relevant military systems. “We are not talking about pie in the sky,” Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said last month.

The problem ain’t technology, it’s the contracting, and cost control. At the rate things are going, all of the USAF’s budget will go to just buying one aircraft somewhere around 2075.

After all, the F-22 already costs almost ½ as much as the first nuclear aircraft carrier, the Enterprise.

Their future is bleak until costs come under control, which is true of most of the military, but the US Air Force appears to be in the worst position regarding this.

Denmark Defers Fighter Choice

No Comments

Denmark is now deferring by a decision at least a year on its choice for a new fighter to replace its F16 fleet.

The decision will be some point in 2010, at the earliest.

Technicality, it is a competition between the F-35, F/A-18 E/F, and the Gripen, but until now, it has generally been assumed that the JSF had the inside track.

I think that any delay in orders will work against the JSF, as it is patently clear that the cost of the aircraft will continue to escalate, making selection of the F-35 that much more difficult.

Also, it appears that they are talking about downsizing their fighter fleet from 48 to somewhere in the 25-35 range.

Here is the original article and the Google translation.

Well, Here’s a Shocker

No Comments

It appears that Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the favorite rent-a-crowd for corporate interests, like Microsoft, Tobacco, and Jack Abramhoff, has now weighed in against the GE/Rolls F136 alternate engine for the JSF:

The group is lambasting congressional funding for a second F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine, made by General Electric and Rolls-Royce.

In the process, the nonprofit watchdog organization is spending as much as an estimated $2 million on advertising that includes posters in D.C. Metro trains, paper and digital ads in Capitol Hill publications and billboards in several districts across the country.

But wait, there’s more:

CAGW refuses to disclose the campaign’s expenses, but it appears to represent a sizable chunk of its total budget.

In 2008, CAGW’s total revenue, which includes the nonprofit and its lobbying arm, the Council of Citizens Against Government Waste, was $5,158,515.

…

Pratt & Whitney spokeswoman Erin Dick said that her company “is not paying for the CAGW ads.” When asked whether Pratt & Whitney donated to CAGW, Dick said that the company does not disclose the public interest groups it supports.

CAGW and Pratt & Whitney share the same ad agency, Sullivan Higdon & Sink, based in Wichita, Kan., according to a Bloomberg report in August.

That same month, Pratt & Whitney said that it was erroneously [“erroniously”, Ha!] named the paid sponsor of a video made by the agency on behalf of CAGW. Since then, the paid sponsor reference has been changed, and the advertising group said that CAGW and Pratt & Whitney are separate customers, according to Bloomberg.

….

A 2006 Finance Committee report, published by the minority Democratic staff but backed by the Republican chairman at the time, tracked how convicted ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff enlisted tax-exempt groups on behalf of his clients. The report documented how Abramoff got CAGW, among other groups, to publish articles and news releases on behalf of his clients, and then directed tens of thousands of dollars to the taxpayer groups.

(emphasis mine)

Seriously, why anyone takes CAGW seriously is completely beyond me.

Son of FCS Infantry Combat Vehicle to Be Unveiled

No Comments

And it looks a lot like the old FCS-ICV, coming in a bit heavier, 30+ tons, with a greater reliance on armor than the FCS, where the concept, as laughable as it now seems in the days of the IED, was that the network was the armor.

So the army has gone old school:

The major departure from the FCS vehicle design in the new vehicle effort will be “integral survivability,” said Mark Signorelli, BAE vice president for new combat vehicles. The FCS vehicles were supposed to rely on situational awareness provided by electronic sensors and speed to survive on the battlefield and were not heavily armored for close combat.

The Army now says networking and sensor technology can improve a vehicle’s survivability, but real survivability must be inherent in the vehicle, he said. In other words, the vehicle must be able to take and survive a hit. MRAP-like survivability doesn’t get you combat survivability, which means the ability to survive kinetic hits from auto– and larger cannon, Signorelli said. For that you need heavy armor.

As for weapons systems, to fit both a turret bustle, such as that on BAE’s Bradley fighting vehicle, and a squad into a vehicle, would require a very large vehicle. That may push industry into going with an unmanned turret, Signorelli said. The most likely weapon is an auto-cannon and coaxial machine gun, and probably anti-armor missiles.

It appears that the vehicle will, “be required to have the mobility of a Bradley, the sustainability of a Stryker and the lethality of a Bradley,” which makes one wonder, why not just upgrade the Bradley?

There are unmanned turrets that would allow a Bradley to carry a full 9 man squad by freeing up interior space, such as the CTA International 40mm telescoped round auto-cannon.

As to getting the sustainability to that of the Stryker, I’m not sure that this would be possible on a tracked vehicle, tracks require more maintenance than wheels, and at over 30 tons, I see mobility issues with a wheeled vehicle.

An all new vehicle might be cheaper and more fuel efficient than an upgraded Bradley, but it will undoubtedly also be more expensive than a new-build Bradley, and much more expensive than an refurbished Bradley.

It just does not make sense to develop a new vehicle.