Category: Defense Procurement

The Cat Food Commission* is At It Again

No Comments

Well, we already know that the Republicans on Obama’s “Deficit Reduction Commission” are marching lock-step against any meaningful tax increases, and now we know that when push comes to shove, they will cut military pay and benefits over any sort of sanity in weapons systems procurement:

A source familiar with the proceedings of the working group on discretionary spending tells TPM that some commissioners, including one military contractor, would prefer to save money by freezing military pay and scaling back benefits, rather than by eliminating waste in defense contracting.

……

According to the source, [Honeywell CEO David] Cote and other members, including the commission’s co-chair Alan Simpson, are focusing instead on “freezing military pay, making military people pay for their health care.”

Because that waste is what this “military contractor” calls his “annual bonus.”

It’s all about someone else taking the hit on this.

On the brighter side, this makes any adoption of any proposals from Cat Food Commission* that much less likely to be adopted, because this is a completely clueless move.

I would also note that the uniformed military personnel levels are near a post WWII low, so the reason that the budget is exploding is not that we have 8 million active duty servicemen.

One wonders though, who is leaking all of this to Brian Beutler, and why are they doing so?

*In the interest of health, I would suggest that people eat dog food, and not cat food. Cats because they are one of the few true carnivores, do not need the complex carbohydrates and fats that people, and dogs do. As such, dog food is better for you than cat food because it provides carbs and essential fatty acids. A dog can go blind if it is fed on cat food, but a cat lives just fine on dog food. The phenomenon is known as rabbit starvation.

Dutch Defer JSF Decision Again

No Comments

It looks like they might buy a 2nd test aircraft, in order to preserve some workshare for Dutch firms, but that it’s unlikely that they will sign a deal for a production run at this time.

Not surprising, they are undergoing austerity cuts to meet Euro zone budget guidelines, cutting, “education, healthcare and social security spending,” so why purchase an aircraft that costs (at least) 5 times as much as the F-15, and costs (at least) twice as much to operate?

H/t ELP Defens(c)e Blog:

What a Remarkably Unambitious Goal

No Comments

After much study, the Congressionally mandated to review the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review has determined that it takes too long to develop and deploy new weaopons, and so there should be a 7 year limit to developing weapons systems:

To avoid this problem in the future, Perry and co-chair Steven Hadley want defense contractors to be held to a tight five to seven year development phase. “Past experience indicates that, with proper management authority and accountability, it is possible to deliver relevant military capabilities for current operations in weeks and months, and to deliver longer-term and broader increments of military capability in 5 to 7 years,” noted the pair in the report. “The 5- to 7-year time span is consistent with the march of technology, changes in the operational environment, and changes in operational needs to shape and respond to that environment.”

Sorry, but that is at least twice as long as it should be.

This is a remarkably timid conclusion, kind of like saying that you should not exceed 70 mph in a school zone.

US Aerospace/Antonov Out of KCX Competition

No Comments

Rather unsurprisingly, they missed the deadline, which is not surprising, since they seemed not ready for prime time.

Equally unsurprising is the fact that they have filed a protest with the GAO.

The cynic in me wonders if that was not the intention the whole time, to kinda file, and then use a GEO protest as a way to generate some ransom money.

Then again, now that the details have come out, the messenger showed up at the gate at 1:30, was delayed there, and then given bad directions by the gate guards, resulting in a 2:05 stamp, 5 minutes late, perhaps it is incompetence, or maybe the USAF had enough of this crap, and decided to play some hardball as US Aerospace claims.

Pass the popcorn.

You might as well watch. Your tax dollars are paying for this.

Israel’s Iron Dome Completes Testing

No Comments
Click for full size


Launcher

Israel has completed tests on its Iron Dome defense system, successfully intercepting rockets and mortar targets:

Iron Dome is developed and produced by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. During the final testS in Southern Israel, Iron Dome successfully engaged salvos of live rockets and mortar shells. With participation of teams from the IAF Iron Dome air defense battalion, the system repeatedly engaged rocket salvos and mortar shells in increasingly complex scenarios.

The system demonstrated effective detection and intercept of targets above and below cloud cover, while maintaining “keep-out zones” for integration with air traffic over the protected area. Iron Dome detected, tracked and selectively engaged only those targets presenting a threat to the area being protected. This feature – unique to the Israeli active defense system – is attributed to the multimode radar (MMR) and battle management and weapon control (BMC) system developed specially for the Iron Dome.

Obviously the first two locations for deployment would be on the Gaza border, near Sderot, and the Lebanese border.

Then again, it may not be deployed, because it is so damn expensive:

Yet, the IDF is reluctant to buy it, grumbling over the cost of each Iron Dome intercept, estimated at nearly $50,000, compared to the estimated $500 cost of a Palestinian rocket. Press reports put Iron Dome development costs at $250 million, with each battery costing about $50 million.

Truth be told, I think that the number for a Katyusha or Kassam is a bit high, and the mortar round is probably under %59.

There are also rumors that the system was actually developed for export to Singapore, with defense to be conducted by installations of land based Phalanx Gatling guns. (See also here for more on export customers, as well as a potential co-installation with Spike-NLOS SSMs, which I assume are for counter-battery fire)

Once again, we have missile defense running into a very simple brick wall: It’s something on the order of 100 times more expensive than the threat it is intercepting.

53 Tons? What are They Smoking????

No Comments

BAE* has released its proposal for the ground combat vehicle program, it’s a tracked vehicle with hybrid electric propulsion which weighs 53 tons in base configuration, though with bolt on armor, this can get as high as 75 tons, or more than an M-1 tank.

That is more than 10 tons more than a T-80 tank, and about 20 tons more than a Bradley, the vehicle which it is supposed to replace, before you bolt on the extra armor:

The base version is 53 tons. Going into a highly lethal environment? Then commanders may well want their troops to bolt on modular armor and storage pods that bring the weight up to 75 tons. Powering this vehicle that looks an awful lot like a tank, is a hybrid electric drive, technology that worries some in the Army who don’t believe it is sufficiently tried and true yet.

They are promising greater reliability and fuel economy, which is a lie.

The running gear needs to be designed for 75 tons, and the maintenance and fuel needs, even if marginally ameliorated by a hybrid propulsion system are going to be huge.

This is just nuts.

It’s unsupportable, and the logistical trail will be huge.

*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.

House Calls Obama Veto Threat on JSF Engine

No Comments

The House Appropriations defense subcommittee has voted to fund the F136 alternate engine for the JSF (see also here) which runs full face into the implied threat of an Obama veto (SecDef Gates has said that he would recommend a veto, but that is different from Obama himself threatening a veto).

I’m of mixed emotions on this matter.

I think that the F-35 is over priced, behind schedule, and useless for any likely future war, but I remember the history of Pratt & Whitney’s F-100 before GE started competing with them with their F-110 engine, and it was not pretty, so I think that the engine is a good idea.

I think that the Pentagon is worried that any dollars spent on this will drive up the front end costs, making it more likely that the program will be canceled, and they are willing to eat the additional costs of P&W being the soul source on the back end.

This is Not A Serious KC-X Bid

No Comments

Stephen Trimble has their PowerPoint, (the link is no good) and it is simply not a credible proposal.

As you can see, it is a twin turbofan variant of the An-70 quad turboprop transport, and I would note that the rough/austere capabilities shown on slide 8 include a an AN-70 crashed in the snow, which is a pretty good indication of the fact that the bidders are “not ready for prime time”.

Additionally, as I have noted before, a high wing aircraft is 50+ kts slower, which means that getting on station takes more time, and the advantages, austere field capability and the ability to paradrop people and cargo, are not a part of a requirement.

Ah, This is Obviously Some Strange Usage of the Phrase “Not an Aircraft Carrier” With Which I Was Previously Unfamiliar

No Comments
Click for full size

This is not an “Aviation Destroyer”
(Background)

The next generation of Japanese naval aviation will be the 22DH ships, which are the size of the Essex Class fleet carriers of World War II.

The kicker here is the fact that they are looking at deploying the F-35B STOVL fighter on the ship.

I understand why the Japanese are leery of saying that they have an aircraft carrier.

It makes them nervous.

Hell, it makes me nervous.

That being said, this is not a helicopter carrying destroyer.

In the Annals of Troubled Military Programs, This One Takes the Cake

No Comments

As I have mentioned a number of times that I spent some time working on the recovery and maintenance vehicle for the now-canceled Future Combat Systems (FCS).

Well, no matter how misbegotten, it appears that the program reappears with a different name a few years later.

Case in point is the replacement for the FCS, the Ground Combat Vehicle, GCV, which is different largely in only one area, it no longer needs to fly on a C-130, so the 20 ton maximum weight for shipping has gone by the wayside.

This is not surprising. After all replacing the 30 ton weight class M2/M3 with a vehicle with superior mobility and protection is difficult to do in ⅔ the weight of its predecessor, all while reducing the cost of operation, is a tough nut to crack.

It’s clear that they will be going with a remotely operated turret, and without the space for the gunner and commander and the turret penetration, it makes it rather simple to fix a rather prominent shortcoming of the Bradley, its inability to carry a full 9 soldier infantry squad.

So the Pentagon is are back to square, which means fighting the wheels/tracks war yet again, though it appears that the military is favoring a tracked vehicle.

The advantages of tracks are better off road mobility, better performance in an active city conflict, since it can go over a road block made from cars or trucks, and a wheeled vehicle cannot, and more volumetric efficiency, since the wheel travel is less, and you do not need to accommodate the swept volume of the wheels which pivot to steer.

The disadvantages are operating costs, noise, weight and speed on roads.

That being said, one huge advantage for tracks is that if your infantry fighting vehicle grows into a 70 ton behemoth, wheels just won’t work at all:

The U.S. Army’s chief of staff wants to put the service’s Ground Combat Vehicle program on a diet.

Gen. George Casey said he thinks the future replacement for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle needs to be much lighter than the estimated 70 tons program officials are projecting that the new GCV will weigh.
Related Topics

“I keep saying, ‘Look, man, an MRAP [mine-resistant ambush-protected] is about 23 tons, and you’re telling me this is going to be 70 tons, which is the same as an [M1] Abrams. Surely we can get a level of protection between that, that is closer to the MRAP than it is the M1,’ ” Casey said June 7. “It’s not going to be a super heavyweight vehicle.”

It would also be unaffordable. I would suggest that if the army really needs a better vehicle, that it procures new-build/rebuilt Bradleys, with the crewed turret replaced with something like the CTI tele-operated turret, and with enhanced armor based on the non-homogeneous armor technologies developed for the M-1 Abrams and the original FCS program.

You would still probably end up with less than a 40 ton weight, and you would get the capability you need at a much lower cost.

Meanwhile in the somewhat less sexy areas of folding in a few drones and an advanced network-based radio called JTRS as part of what is now called the, “Brigade Combat Team Modernization, the House Armed Services Committee is cutting this because of poor performance and cost escalation.

Once again, it’s over budget, behind schedule, and not performing.

So on the little things, where the Pentagon knows what needs to be done, they are not executing, and on the big programs, they don’t have a clue as to what they want.

Count me in Barney Frank’s and Ron Paul’s corner. We need to slash military spending.

I would also add that we need to somehow or other put adults in charge of the procurement process.

I’m a Bit Late in the Game on This

No Comments

But I do want to note that there is a program out there in defense procurement land that is:

  • On or ahead of budget.
  • On or ahead of schedule.
  • Appears to have no technical issues on the horizon.

It is the upgraded CH-53K, which has now had its schedule delayed by over two years.

What is going on here, I think is that the helicopter matches the V-22 in every capability except for speed, it carries more over short distances, and about the same over longer distances, it is more maneuverable in hover, and safer because it can autorotate.

Additionally, it is , and cheaper to buy and operate, and occupies less deck space than the Osprey, and the Marines with some justification, see it as a threat to their MV-22:

Slowing CH-53K development will keep the new helicopter out of the air (and prevent real-data comparisons between platforms) until after a second multi-year MV-22 contract gets signed in FY 2013. Even worse, slowing the CH-53K schedule raised the program price by at least $1.1 billion dollars, raising the per-unit price. The delay may also may dampen the enthusiasm of potential international buyers and give competing firms an opening to exploit this as yet unexplained delay in what was, once, a procurement showpiece. Why slow a program that stands to be a high-demand showpiece with potential markets in Israel, Germany, France, Turkey, Singapore and Taiwan?

Seriously, if we really care about our fighting men, and not about the future contracting gigs of generals, we have to put an end to this corrupt bullsh$#.

When the Going Gets Tough, the Ukrainians Gets Weird

No Comments
An-124 Ruslan (NATO Designation: Condor)

Yes, it appears that Antotov is serious about bidding on the KC-X tanker contract, and they have just asked for a 60-day freeze on the competition so that they can get their bid together.

These folks haven’t even decided what plane to submit, with reports of their considering, “three potential offers based on the An-124-KC and two new aircraft designs – the An-122-KC and An-112-KC.”

The AN-124 is clearly too big for the competition, it’s bigger than the C-5, and the competition is for a medium tanker, the KC-10 is the big boy, and according to the Wiki, the An-122 appears to be a 2 engined variant of the of the Ruslan, and lord knows what the AN-112 is.

On the plus side of the bid, Russia’s mega transport does appear to have much better rough field capabilities than the competition, both because of the multi axle main and nose gear, and because its high wing is makes engines less likely to suck debris off an unprepared strip.

Still, this is so silly as to be surreal.

I think that someone, possibly on the side of their US partner might be playing both ends against the middle, and the money is heading to Lichtenstein.

Barack Obama In Trying for Credibility in Defense, Destroys Our Military

No Comments

Because Barack Obama and His Stupid Minions™ are terrified about being accused of being soft on defense,* that his future budgets will by expensive high tech weapons systems at the expense of operations, maintenance, and readiness:

U.S. spending on weapons through 2016 likely will grow faster than the overall defense budget, which will have annual increases of only about 1 percent above inflation, according to Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale.

“Our goal would be to get forces and modernization to grow by 2 or 3 percent,” Hale said in an interview, while saying that “it’s not a given.”

So Obama intends to spend money on crap we don’t need, thereby diverting money from the crap we do need

Of course, the fact that we are already spending more money on defense than at any time since the end of the 2nd World War, and he’s still trying to increase the defense budget in real terms just buggers the mind.

Republicans support wasteful defense spending because:

  • It’s easy to demagogue.
  • They find defense contractors an easy touch for donations.
  • They want to ruin our finances so that we have to make cuts in social programs.

The Democrats support wasteful defense spending because:

  • They are afraid that Republicans will call them names.

Truth be told, I am not sure which one is more pathetic.

*It won’t work, the Republicans will run against you as soft on defense anyway. As the saying goes, “The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man only one.”

OK, Good News For Me

No Comments

The US Army is upping its order of ground penetrating radars for deployment in Afghanistan:

To counter the threat, the Army is nearly doubling the number of NIITEK-produced Husky Mounted Detection Systems in theater.

The main component of the Husky is ground-penetrating radar called the VISOR 2500. One of the enduring frustrations with IEDs in Afghanistan is that often components are nonmetallic and nonmagnetic, making them difficult to detect using conventional methods. NIITEK says the radar system allows soldiers to detect threats through the ground that metal detectors wouldn’t pick up.

The most recent contract, awarded June 2, cost the Army $106.5 million for the 76 systems to be installed on Husky tactical support vehicles, as well as for spare parts, maintenance support and training for soldiers.

Yes, I work there, and no, I am not going into any details about what I do there, but obviously this means that there is work to be done.

Another Navy Ship Building Program Has its Cost Soar

No Comments

The CBO looks SSBN(X), the successor to the Trident boats, and estimates that the cost will increase from $7.2 billion to $8.2 each:

The Congressional Budget Office is out with a new estimate of the Navy’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan, issued in February. While that new plan reduces the total number of ships purchased between 2011 and 2040, and thus shipbuilding costs, CBO says the annual price tag is still much higher than the total shipbuilding funds the Navy has received in recent years.

The Navy’s new plan calls for buying 276 ships between now and 2040; the previous 30 year plan called for 296 new ships. Still, with the annual shipbuilding budget at around $15 billion (the average for the past three decades), the Navy can’t afford to buy all of those ships, CBO said.

We need to start with cost targets as the most important driving requirement for defense procurement programs, followed by schedule, and any other issues must be secondary, or this sort of cost creep will continue ad infinitum.

The GCV Looks Like the Troubled Child of FCS

2 Comments
Click for full size

Yes, I know that this is a 1/24 plastic model

When the Future Combat System was canceled, it was done for cost growth, schedule slips, and concerns about a number of the technologies.

The army still feels that it needs a vehicle to succeed its Bradley, and so we now have the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV).

Well, the military has begun the source selection process.

Here’s the kicker, they are expecting it to weigh 50 tons, as versus the 30-35T of the current Bradley.

There are some improvements, most notably the ability to carry a full 9 person infantry squad, but you could do that with the Bradley if you were to retrofit a remotely operated turret, as the current turret takes up about 1/3 of the usable internal space, you could fid a full squad.

With weight comes cost, fuel consumption, and, in the long run, fewer vehicles.

What’s more, it appears that the 50 ton IFV is actually a 70 ton IFV:

Two days before industry proposals were due, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, provided new details about the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program, saying the new vehicle could weigh up to 70 tons, but only if the threat environment required it.

“We’re looking at a vehicle that ranges in weight between 50 and 70 tons,” Chiarelli said May 19 at the Army’s armor conference.

What he is suggesting is that in a high threat environment, and we know now that this means IEDs, not enemy tanks, you would bolt on armor to improve the survivability of the platform.

This is complete and utter bullsh%$.

If you add 20 tons to a 50 ton vehicle, it means that you have to size the propulsion, transmission, fuel stowage, etc. to accommodate that weight, which means that your 50T vehicle is going to get even heaver.

Otherwise, the vehicle at 70T will have the mobility of a motorized wheel chair.

Just go and fit the Bradley with the CTI 40mm remotely operated turret, and use advantages in non-metallic armor to improve the survivability.

You will probably end up at around 40T, so there would need to be a bit of an upgrade to the engine and suspension, but you will still save at least half the cost.

Once again, the US Army is well into a development death spiral.

Well, Obama is In a Conundrum

No Comments

The Defense appropriations bill that recently passed the Senate has a (sort of) repeal of the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law.

It also has funding for the F136 alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the White House opposes, so now the Pentagon staff is throwing around a veto threat on this issue:

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program: The Administration strongly objects to provisions of the bill which could limit the procurement of the 42 aircraft requested in the President’s FY 2011 Budget. The onerous restrictions impose unacceptable schedule and budget risks on the JSF program. While the Department believes the restructured development schedule is achievable, failure to achieve any one of the criteria would affect the procurement decision with significant impact on unit cost, production ramp, and TACAIR force structure. The Department’s F-35 procurement request is in line with independent manufacturing studies, risk review recommendations, and the FY11 request reflects an optimized production. If the final bill presented to the President contains provisions that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.

(emphasis original)

If Obama is looking for an excuse to kill DADT because of cowardice, this would be it.

If Obama really wants to repeal DADT this year, than he has a decision to make.

So, which is it, the lady or the tiger?

Dutch Hammer First Nail in JSF Coffin

No Comments

The Dutch Parliament has voted to cancel its procurement of the F-35 Lightning II JSF (also here):

Proposal 1 (SP):
The government not be permitted to contract any new obligations with the JSF program

Proposal 2 (Labour)
Cancelling the contract for the First LRIP3 test aircraft and get the money back from the US for the long lead items. Not buying/ signing contract for the Second LRIP4 test aircraft. Cancelling the participation in the MOU-IOT&E (Initial Operational Test and Evaluation)

Proposal 3 (Green Left)
Because the Evaluations of the F16 replacement in 2002 and in 2008 were based on wrong estimates and unreliable data, there needs to be a new evaluation done with new RFPs (Requests for Proposal).

All three proposals were approved by the Netherlands Parliament.

The Dutch were perhaps the heavily involved nation after the British on this program, and the fact that these motions passed, at least passed a 1st reading is telling.

This happened because the MPs believe that they program is late and over budget to such a degree that any program of offsets or technology transfer does not matter because the cost and schedule issues puts them in a situation with a hollow force that they cannot afford to actually operate the aircraft, or, for that matter, their military.

They understand the budget requirements of the Euro zone, and they realize that they are not willing to cut their social safety net, among the most generous in Europe, to support mindless wasteful military spending.