JAGM infographic
(click to view full)

The AGM-114 Hellfire missile remains a mainstay for the US military and its allies around the world, and efforts to replace it have repeatedly stalled. Oddly, the problems have been unrelated to successor cost or performance. Rather, the programs kept getting cut to pay for other things. The Hellfires were seen as good enough, even as guided 70mm rockets and small multi-mode glide bombs gained a foothold as alternative precision strike options.

The Joint Common Missile (JCM) returned from the procurement dead as JAGM, a program that has undergone several major changes within itself. While other air forces field fast-jet solutions like MBDA’s Brimstone, JAGM will initially be limited to helicopters and UAVs, as a dual-mode guidance upgrade to current model Hellfire missiles.

The JAGM Program

Timeline

Hellfire II: what’s next?
(click to view full)

The new missile has had a very rocky program history, despite good performance in tests. After enough cancellations and resurrections to make Lazarus give up, the US Army has decided to try squaring this circle using an incremental approach. The Continued Technology Development phase now aims to create dual-mode laser/radar guidance sections that can equip existing Hellfire II missiles. Essentially, JAGM Increment 1 would create a Hellfire III missile with dual-mode guidance, matched to the AGM-114R’s multi-role warhead and rocket. Budgets to date have included:

If JAGM can be delivered to the required cost targets, JAGM may add the originally-planned tri-mode (imaging infrared + semi-active laser + millimeter wave radar) guidance set, and interest in new rocket motor technology that would allow use from jets and helicopters may revive. Those kinds of advances sit beyond the current timeline, however:

Scope and Scale

F-16 fires Maverick

JAGM’s scope is much reduced, but it could expand again. The original Joint Common Missile (JCM) was seen as the next-generation, multi-purpose, air-to-ground precision missile that will replace AGM-114 Hellfire family, AGM-65 Maverick family, and airborne xGM-71 TOW missiles with a single weapon usable by the airplanes, helicopters and UAVs of the US Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. It was also being considered for use on some ground vehicles, and had naval potential.

In contrast, early versions of JAGM can’t replace the Mavericks. It will be limited to US Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs, and USMC AH-1Z attack helicopters, until at least 2019. USMC UH-1Ys and USN MH-60s can expect eventual integration at some point, since AGM-114 Hellfire deliveries are set to end in 2017.

The next big win for JAGM after that would involve vehicle-mounted solutions; fast jet use is possible, but unlikely. The Navy expects to follow the AGM-65 Mavericks on its jets with small GBU-53 SDB-II glide bombs, carrying a tri-mode IIR/laser/MMW radar seeker that may yet see derivative use in JAGM. The USAF will be doing likewise, instead of turning to JAGM or to similar fast jet missiles like MBDA’s Brimstone.

The original JCM had a goal of 54,000 missiles. JAGM was revised lower, and a 2010 GAO document estimated total JAGM’s total 20-year program cost at about $6.4 billion: $1.64 billion for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; and $4.74 billion to build 33,853 missiles. As of November 2011, the totals had reached reached $6.88 billion for 35,422 units.

Then the FY13 budget came in, grinding the program to a near halt as the Navy left. The program was restructured, and the USMC returned to the program in time for the FY15 budget submission. If the US Army and Navy have total program numbers for JAGM, however, they aren’t disclosing them in recent documents.

JAGM’s External Competition

Brimstones on GR4s
(click to view full)

While the JCM/ JAGM program has churned specifications and burned time, a different program has already produced an interesting competitor with many of the same specifications, and some of the flexibility.

AGM-114P/R Hellfire missiles are now qualified for use at high-altitudes on UAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper, but they’re not a solution for fixed-wing jets, and range limitations make Hellfire dangerous to use against even short-range air defenses.

MBDA’s Brimstone solves those problems. It has been integrated with Britain’s Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 strike aircraft and Harrier GR9 jump-jets, and is slated to add the Eurofighter Typhoon to that list. The Brimstone’s first combat use came in 2011 over Libya, where its man-in-the-loop option and attack profiles made it one of the few weapons that NATO commanders could use to attack enemy armor in urban areas.

With combat credentials and a significant head start, MBDA can be expected to make more market inroads. Nor is MBDA resting on its technical laurels. Their SPEAR project for Britain’s Complex Weapons program aims to take the Brimstone’s warhead and guidance, and mount it on a larger missile with a range of 75 – 100 km. SPEAR will be mounted in multiples on external hardpoints, or carried inside the weapons bay of Britain’s forthcoming F-35Bs.

As a less direct form of competition, existing market alternatives have also flourished in JAGM’s absence. Raytheon, for instance, has re-started production of their laser-guided Maverick for fixed-wing aircraft in 2009, in response to urgent requests.

Contracts and Key Events

The JAGM program will be managed by the U.S. Army’s Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL.

JAGM Inc 1
(click to view full)

March 4-11/14: Budgets. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. According to those documents, AGM-114 Hellfire orders stop in FY 2015 (USAF), and the last Hellfires will be delivered in April 2017. The Army’s documentation says nothing about JAGM production, except that the Milestone C decision for low-rate production is expected in Q2 FY17:

“The Army has depended on Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding to replenish [AGM-114] stocks since FY 2008. The Army continues to evaluate the transition strategy from HELLFIRE to Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM).”

Meanwhile, Navy documents indicate that they’re back in the program. They show JAGM integration on AH-1Z helicopters beginning in FY15, and orders beginning in FY19. JAGM will be re-using most of the AGM-114R Hellfire, which is already integrated on the AH-1Z, but Navy helicopters are used to the video interface that JAGM won’t have, and don’t typically carry fire-control radars. So, some changes will be necessary.

Feb 20/14: Lockheed Martin announces that its JAGM dual-mode guidance section has flown on a Hellfire missile and hit a moving laser-designated target. The missile was fired from 6km during an internally funded flight test at Eglin AFB, FL. Essentially, the missile acted like a normal Hellfire. Tests of the seeker in dual-mode are coming.

In a briefing, Lockheed Martin gives JAGM’s range as 8 km, whether launched low or high with its boost-only motor. The M299 launcher interface has a few changes from the basic Hellfire, and hews to the radar-guided AGM-114L Hellfire Longbow missile’s serial interface instead of a video interface. Otherwise, JAGM is basically an AGM-114R Hellfire missile with a new guidance section. System qualification is expected in Q4 2014, and JAGM will be integrated with the Army’s AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs. Sources: LMCO, “Lockheed Martin Demonstrates JAGM Dual-Mode Guidance Section in Recent Flight Test” | JAGM Media Briefing with LMCO VP Tactical Missiles/Combat Maneuver Systems Frank St. John.

May 3/13: Brimstone for Reapers? With JAGM fielding still some way off, if ever, the USAF’s 645th Aeronautical Systems Group rapid acquisition office is reportedly interested in adding MBDA’s longer-range, dual laser/ MW radar guided Brimstone missile to the MQ-9′s arsenal. It’s real attraction is a ‘man in the loop’ feature that lets the firing aircraft abort an attack after launch, or correct a missile that locks on the wrong target. In Libya, those characteristics reportedly made it one of the few weapons NATO commanders could use to hit enemy armored vehicles in urban areas.

Brimstone already serves on RAF Tornado GR4 strike jets, and was an option for Britain’s Harrier GR9s before the entire fleet was sold to the US Marines. With Britain’s MQ-9s deployed, they’ve reportedly asked for tests using USAF MQ-9s, and also hope to interest American armed services in the weapon. Defense News | Defense Update.

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage. For JAGM, there isn’t a lot of near-term funding, and there are a lot of milestones to hit on the way to funding it as a Hellfire upgrade beginning around 2017. Budget figures to 2018 are compiled above.

R/B JAGM pre-test
(click to view full)

Dec 11/12: CTD. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a “$10 million” firm-fixed-price contract for JAGM’s continued technology development. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ with an estimated completion date of March 31/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W31P4Q-13-C-0080). It appears to have taken longer than expected (vid. Aug 17/12 entry), but Raytheon has its CTD contract.

Raytheon’s Dec 3/12 release places the total value of both CTD phases at $65 million, just like Lockheed Martin. During the next 4 months, Raytheon will update its design and complete a delta (design changes) Preliminary Design Review. During the next 24 months, the team will focus on a Critical Design Review, guidance section qualification and testing, and delivery of JAGM guidance sections. The CTD phase will culminate with the US Army integrating Raytheon JAGM guidance sections to Hellfire missiles. Based on current schedules, Raytheon’s SDB II tri-mode seeker will be in its 2nd year of production by the time JAGM CTD concludes.

JAGM CTD contract

LMCO on JAGM
click for video

Aug 17/12: CTD. Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control in Orlando, FL announces a $64 million extended technology development contract from the US Army, in order to keep the JAGM program one notch above dead. The Pentagon follows with an Aug 27/12 announcement for $32 million to continue developing the seeker & guidance unit, but “50% award announcements” are common, and Lockheed Martin’s figure remains authoritative.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, with an estimated completion date of Nov 28/14. Two bids were solicited, with 2 bids received (W31P4Q-12-C-0003).

Observant readers may notice that $64 million is about half of the $127 million the GAO was talking about for FY 2012 (vid. March 29/12 entry). Raytheon’s head of JAGM business development, J.R. Smith, says that their own CTD contract is currently in negotiation, and expected within the next several weeks.

JAGM CTD contract

May 31/12: A March 2012 presolicitation from the US Navy for JAGM integration on F/A-18E/F aircraft may have sent mixed signals, but its cancellation confirms the Navy’s intent.

March 29/12: GAO report. In its 2012 Selected Weapons Program assessment report, the GAO underlines the uncertain nature of JAGM’s future – not quite cancelled but close. It notes that Hellfires have been working well in theater, weakening the case for an expensive replacement.

According to the GAO, $127M in funding for the current fiscal year will allow a 27-month extension of the technology development phase to hopefully address affordability issues and reduce risk. The Pentagon’s comptroller sizes up the savings from stalling on JAGM at $300M in FY2013 and a total of $1.6B over the FYDP.

Raytheon/ Boeing JAGM
(click to view full)

Aug 2011: JAGM AoA. The program office submits its Analysis of Alternatives, defending JAGM as a cost-effective solution. They will probably have to fight hard to make that case.

June 7/11: Testing. Lockheed Martin touts company-funded trials of a JAGM seeker mounted in a Sabreliner 60 executive jet flying at 20,000 feet, which was used to track small, fast naval targets in the Gulf of Mexico near Eglin AFB, FL. Targets included a Revenge Advanced Composites (RAC) state-of-the-art, low-signature, high-speed patrol craft performing evasive maneuvers.

The test was designed to highlight robust mid-wave infrared performance, fixed wing performance, high humidity performance, effectiveness against a challenging low-signature target, and EMD readiness – since captive flight isn’t required until the next stage.

May 2/11: Testing. The Raytheon/ Boeing team follows up their Oct 23/10 firing, and completes the series of government-funded JAGM tests. The latest firing uses the new rocket motor, but only after subjecting it to thermal cycling from -45F to 160F degrees.

The test was whether the new motor would still work after 5-20 cycles of that treatment. It did, and Raytheon VP Advanced Missiles and Unmanned Systems Bob Francois gets to point out that “Every single test of the Raytheon-Boeing JAGM has been an unqualified success, even those using EMD motors.”

March 21/11: Test equipment. US NAWCWD announces its intent to hand WINTEC, Inc. of Walton Beach, FL a contract for 5 M299/310 Launcher and Missile Emulator (LME) systems, Part Number JLE00010-4. The LMEs are existing Special Test Equipment used to support the integration, test, and verification of Launchers and missiles at the MIL-STD-1760 interface to host platforms. The LMEs have traditionally been used for AGM-114 Hellfires, but new launcher models/simulations and missile model/simulations have been added, to support the JAGM program objectives for planned laboratory and platform integration testing.

The sole source award is being done in accordance with FAR 6.302-1. Anticipated award is May 2011.

March 7/11: US FedBizOpps notice #N00019-09-P2-PC041:

“The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) intends to issue a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Order under NAVAIR Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) N00019-11-G-0001 for the engineering services of hardware integration analysis, wind tunnel tests, ground tests, flight test planning, aircraft/weapon system integration and instrumentation, ground and flight test technology support, data reduction, documentation, and reporting requirements for integration of the Prototype Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) Systems on F/A-18E/F aircraft. NAVAIR intends to negotiate this Order on a sole source basis with McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC), A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the Boeing Company, St. Louis, MO 63166-0516. MDC is the sole designer, developer, manufacturer and supplier of the F/A-18 Weapon System and MDC is the only known source capable of performing this effort within the required time frame.”

Feb 8/11: JAGM pre-solicitation #W31P4Q-11-Q-0006 issued:

“The Government plans to issue separate Request For Quotations (RFQ) W31P4Q-11-Q-0006 and RFQ) W31P4Q-11-Q-0007 to Lockheed Martin Missile Systems and Raytheon Missile Systems repectively [sic] to provide input, advice, and recommendations regarding JAGM System Engineering integrated product team activities… Solicitation from any other source is not feasible because only the recommendations and input from the two existing JAGM TD prime contractors Lockheed Martin Missile Systems and Raytheon Missile Systems can fulfill Government needs.”

Jan 3/11: Testing. Lockheed Martin has had some issues with its JAGM design so far, but continues to push to get where they want to be by the time a winner is picked. They announce successful flight tests aboard a Super Hornet from Oct 5/10 – Nov 2/10. This was a test of the missiles’ ability to handle conditions at various altitudes and speeds, as well as a test of the aerodynamic consequences of mounting the Lockheed Martin/ Marvin engineering JAGM triple rail at various points, with various load-outs.

Oct 23/10: Testing – rocket. A Raytheon/Boeing funded test fires a JAGM prototype equipped with the new Boeing-ATK rocket motor, which would be used on their production missile. The test is successful in collecting data to update the missile’s flight and simulation software, and allows the team to advance to engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) and a Preliminary Design Review.

This is the team’s 6th missile test, and the 3rd privately-funded test. All tests to date have met their objectives. Raytheon.

Oct 15/10: Testing. DoD Buzz reports that Raytheon isn’t using a production version of the JAGM missile in its firing tests, just the seeker. Raytheon replies that the tests’ terms are aimed at the seeker, and do not require production-ready missiles. DoD Buzz must concede the point:

“Here is what the RFP says: “The fly-off missile prototypes will represent PDR(Preliminary Design Review) level configurations using a Warhead Replacement Telemetry Unit. It will include a series of Tactical Missile Air-gun and/or Rail Test Firings with a Warhead integrated into a non-functional Tactical Missile to gain insight into Warhead /Fuze functioning.”

Lockheed Martin says that their JAGM test missiles have all been production ready configurations – but that will only help them in the short term if failings in their test firings are traceable to their missile design, rather than their seekers. Meanwhile, Raytheon & Boeing will continue component and higher-level testing of their missile design.

JAGM test (loud!)
click to play video

Sept 10/10: Testing fail. DoD Buzz reports that the cause of Lockheed Martin’s missile failure in its second test-firing was a bracket that holds one of the rocket motors. Unfortunately, they’re going to have to delve into more root cause analysis, because…

“The day before the deadline for official government testing, Lockheed Martin’s Joint Air To Ground Missile prototype missed the target, leaving the defense giant with two misses out of three in the competition for the $5 billion program. Raytheon struck the target on its third test, a company source said, giving them their third successful shot of three.”

That doesn’t end the team’s chances, it just means that further firing tests would have to come out of Lockheed Martin’s pocket, as the team moves toward its final submission model. Given the huge future stakes involved, there’s no doubt that Lockheed Martin will finance any tests required.

Sept 1/10: Testing. Raytheon announces success in the 2nd of 3 government-sponsored JAGM firings. Their missile used its uncooled imaging infrared (IIR) guidance system to hit an armored vehicle target at 4 kilometers/ 2.5 miles. During the most recent test, all three guidance systems operated simultaneously and provided telemetry data that enabled engineers to conduct further analysis of the weapon. The test is significant, because Lockheed Martin’s matching test was an overshoot, and Raytheon’s uncooled IIR sensor s generally seen as a tradeoff between lower cost and maintenance, in exchange for lower performance.

This is actually the Boeing/Raytheon team’s 4th test firing, as the team funded 2 of its own tests in April 2010.

Aug 16/10: Lockheed PDR. Lockheed Martin and teammates Marvin Engineering and Aerojet announce successful JAGM component and system Preliminary Design Reviews (PDRs). The team completed PDRs on Aerojet’s JAGM propulsion solution, which uses Roxel UK’s minimum-smoke propellant grain, and on launchers that included the U.S. Navy’s quad-missile helicopter (AH-1Z, MH-60R) and tri-missile fixed-wing (F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet) launchers. The team continues to increase the severity of environmental testing in preparation for engineering manufacturing development. Lockheed Martin.

Aug 9/10: SDB-II win. Raytheon wins the SDB-II competition against Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and cites its tri-mode seeker as a key reason. It remains to be seen whether their use of the same seeker for JAGM proves helpful.

Aug 6/10: Testing. DoD Buzz gets information from Lockheed and Raytheon concerning their manufacturer-financed test shots to date.

To date, Lockheed Martin has had 2 flight readiness checks in June & July. A Lockheed-funded check had a pre-launch malfunction. A government-funded check failed when range instruments malfunctioned, but that missile was later used on Aug 2/10 for a successful test shot at White Sands Missile Range, NM. The Aug 2/10 laser-guided shot tested the tri-mode seeker, but used the laser for targeting, and scored a direct hit from 16km. An Aug 3/10 IIR test against a tank target at 4km led to an overshoot. Team Lockheed says they’re confident they’ll have their 3 successful tests by the deadline.

Raytheon paid for 2 missile test shots in April 2010 to see if they were on the right path, and met their objectives. Their next test shot on June 23/10 tested the tri-mode seeker, but used the laser for targeting, and scored a direct ht from 16km. A 4th test shot is scheduled for Aug 13/10.

July 26/10: Testing. The Raytheon-Boeing team announces that their JAGM design has successfully completed the 1st of 3 government-sponsored firings, using its laser guidance system to hit an 8×8-foot target board from a distance of 10 miles/ 16 km. All 3 guidance modes were used during the flight for telemetry data, but the laser was used to final targeting. This is actually the 3rd test firing of their design, following 2 company funded tests in April 2010.

May 5/10: Testing. Raytheon announces that their partnership has completed wind tunnel testing of the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile from the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.

May 5/10: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces a successful end to JAGM wind tunnel tests involving the Navy’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet jet fighter.

The more than 200 hours of initial high-speed flying qualities wind tunnel tests were conducted at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, CA. The goal was to ensure minimal changes to the fighter’s handling characteristics with the missiles on board. After that, tests moved to 150 hours of work at the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) wind tunnel in Tullahoma, TN. Those tests further refined the structural requirements of the launcher and JAGM, and included safe launch and separation tests involving Lockheed Martin and Marvin Engineering’s triple-rail JAGM launcher. A final set of tests at the Boeing Vertol wind tunnel in Philadelphia, PA, demonstrated and validated low-speed flight characteristics of the Super Hornet when loaded with JAGM.

April 20/10: Testing. Raytheon/Boeing team announce the 1st successful test of its Joint Air-to-Ground Missile at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The weapon, fired from a ground-based rotary-wing launcher, reportedly performed a series of preprogrammed maneuvers and flew to a predesignated location, validating the flight control software and Brimstone airframe. Raytheon-Boeing release

April 13/10: Testing. Lockheed Martin concludes a series of static, tower-based and captive-carry flight tests of its tri-mode JAGM seeker in a limited dirty battlefield/countermeasure rich environment at Redstone Arsenal, AL. The seeker was tested against both active and passive countermeasure systems including white and red phosphorous, fog oil, smoke, millimeter wave chaff, flares, camouflage netting and mobile camouflage systems.

This test series was preceded by an array of successful captive-carry tests conducted by Lockheed Martin in clean, non-dirty-battlefield flight environments, during both favorable and adverse weather conditions including sun, rain, freezing rain, sleet and snow. Hady Mourad, JAGM program director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said that “the seeker performed precisely as designed.” Lockheed Martin release.

April 6/10: Testing – rocket. Lockheed Martin announces successful extreme temperature tests for its proposed JAGM rocket motor, developed in conjunction with Gencorp’s subsidiary Aerojet. The final completed tests were a series of cold temperature missile motor firings were conducted in Camden, AR, using the same rocket motor design planned for the tactical missile, with a composite motor case, with the system conditioned to -65F degrees in order to simulate high-altitude conditions.

The partners describe these tests as a “breakthrough,” which may not be an exaggeration. The rocket is one of the program’s most challenging technologies, because it has to do several things at once: smokeless/ low-smoke launch and flight, operation over a wide range of temperatures from searing deserts to extreme cold at fighter-jet altitudes, and a high enough turn-down ratio (flow variance from boost to sustain) to give the missile its required performance and range. The Raytheon/Boeing team is also working on this area, but their partner is ATK. Joint release: Lockheed Martin | Aerojet.

March 31/10: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces successful initial tests on the multi-mode seeker for its JAGM contender, demonstrating all of the sensor modes simultaneously. Program officials also recently held Kaizen events, or Structured Improvement Activity (SIA), to streamline the manufacturing process at Lockheed Martin’s seeker and electronics production facilities in Ocala, FL; and Troy, AL.

The Lockheed Team is a bit behind their competitors at this point. Upcoming captive-carry testing will verify performance in a flight environment, with thermal and vibration performance, and electromagnetic interference testing slated for later in 2010. Lockheed Martin release.

March 30/10: GAO Report. The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. With respect to the JAGM program, the GAO document is more an official fact sheet than an analysis, given the program’s early stages. Data from that document has been incorporated into this article.

The GAO adds that the program must also complete a “postpreliminary design review assessment” before it can be certified to enter engineering and manufacturing development.

Jan 29/10: Testing. Raytheon and Boeing announce the end of their captive flight tests for the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile competition, which test the missile’s ability to pick up targets, guidance, and ability to handle the stresses created by its platforms and their flight environments. The next step would be guided test shots.

Oct 6/09: Testing. Raytheon and Boeing announce that they’ve completed a series of captive-carry flight tests of their tri-mode JAGM seeker, within the same size dimensions as their planned JAGM missile. By demonstrating that the seeker fits, and will not be affected by the buffeting associated with carriage on a fast-moving aircraft, the way is clear for installation in prototype missiles and use in live firings.

Raytheon’s next-generation tri-mode seeker leverages technology used on their Small Diameter Bomb II (where Boeing is their main competitor) and the NLOS-LS/NETFIRES improved Precision Attack Missile.

Lockheed JAGM concept
(click to view full)

May 13/09: TD. Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in St. Louis, MO received a $7.4 million time and material delivery order against a previously issued Basic Ordering Agreement (N00019-05-G-0026) for wind tunnel testing of JAGM prototypes on their F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (92%); and Philadelphia, PA (8%), and is expected to be complete in March 2011. About $5.8 million in contract funds will expire on Sept 30/09, at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD will manage this contract.

Oct 8/08: TD. Lockheed Martin announces and details its JAGM team.

Oct 2/08: TD. The US military announces the initial contracts under the JAGM program, within each contracting team’s limit per earlier entries. Bids were solicited via the Web, and 2 bids were received by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL.

Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ receives an $18.7 million fixed price incentive firm target contract, for 27 months of technology development for the Joint Air Ground Missile Program. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (Boeing) and Tucson, AZ (Raytheon) with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10 (W31P4Q-08-C-A789).

Lockheed Martin Corp. in Orlando, FL received an $18.7 million fixed price incentive firm target contract, for 27 months of technology development for the Joint Air Ground Missile Program. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL; Ocala, FL; and Troy, AL, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10 (W31P4Q-08-C-A123).

Boeing JCM
(click to view full)

Sept 22/08: The Raytheon / Boeing team announces a 27-month, $125 million Technology Development contract for the JAGM program. The contract funds a program to develop and fire 3 prototype missiles with fully integrated tri-mode seekers.

Sept 18/08: Lockheed Martin announces that it has won a 27-month, $122 million competitive risk-reduction phase for the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) system. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control VP Rick Edwards:

“Our extensive risk-reduction tests have significantly mitigated risk on the three critical subsystems [seeker, warhead, rocket motor], our software and simulations are mature and proven, and we have made significant strides in developing low-risk platform integration solutions.”

See also the Orlando Sentinel: “Lockheed’s $122M missile contract could create 200 jobs in Orlando area.”

JAGM TD contracts

April 14/08: Competition. Raytheon Company and Boeing announce a teaming agreement to pursue the U.S. Army-U.S. Navy Joint Air to Ground Missile program, which has an intended in-service date of 2016. Raytheon will be the prime contractor within the team, and the move is significant in that Boeing will not be teamed up with Northrop Grumman this time around.

Raytheon makes existing TOW and Maverick missiles, and the team-up with Boeing creates commonality on a different level: integration with the manufacturer of many USAF and Navy aircraft, an area that Lockheed Martin covers on its own. Boeing is also part of the MBDA-led team that developed the Brimstone missile, Britain’s answer to the JCM program. Raytheon release.

Feb/March 2008: JAGM RFP. JAGM RFP re-issued, for May 19/08 turn-in.

JCM

Sept 26/07: Jane’s Missiles & Rockets reports that:

“A new Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) programme is expected to become the successor of the Lockheed Martin AGM-169 Joint Common Missile (JCM) programme. As with the JCM, the JAGM is to be a multiservice weapon able to replace all versions of the Lockheed Martin Hellfire, Raytheon Maverick and Raytheon TOW missiles that currently equip fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles in US service…”

September 2007: Original JAGM RFP rescinded.

June 17/07: Original draft of JAGM RFP issue.

Feb 21/07: The Lexington Institute think-tank wades into the controversy with “Joint Common Missile: Why Argue With Success?“:

“Here’s a fantasy. Imagine three military services agreed on the need for a versatile air-to-ground missile that could precisely destroy a wide range of elusive targets — everything from camouflaged armored vehicles to terrorist speedboats. Imagine they found a low-cost design that could do those things day or night, good weather or bad, even when enemies were trying to jam the missile. Imagine the services selected a company that developed the missile on time and on cost, meeting all of its performance objectives. And imagine the missile was fielded expeditiously, replacing four cold-war missiles with an easy-to-maintain round that saved military lives while minimizing unintended damage.

You’d have to be pretty naive to believe the Pentagon’s dysfunctional acquisition system could deliver all that, wouldn’t you? That’s right, you would — because the military actually has a program matching that description, and senior officials have been trying to kill it for two years. Why? Well, nobody really knows why…”

Jan 26/07: Inside Defense, “Pentagon OKs Funding For Hellfire Replacement Effort”:

“The Pentagon comptroller has directed the Army and Navy to pony up $68.5 million to fund missile research and development in an account that could be used to revive the Joint Common Missile — or something like it — more than two years after the Office of the Secretary of Defense moved to terminate the program…”

Dec 30/05: Inside Defense reports that when US House and Senate conferees reconciled the details of the FY 2006 defense appropriations bill, they restored $30 million to the Army-led JCM program to continue the missile’s development ($26 million in research, development, test and evaluation funding from the Army, and $4 million from the Navy).

They have also required a report by Jan 30/06 explaining how the Pentagon plans to fill the future gaps created by the missile’s demise, and a cost analysis of continuation vs. termination and buying existing missiles. Depending on what that study says, the JCM program could rise again.

Appendix A: The JAGM Missile – Original Concept

Technical Desires & Challenges

Lockheed’s UAV pitch
click to play video

The stakes have always been very big for the JCM/JAGM. Pentagon planners expected that standardization from the TOW, Hellfire, and Maverick families of missiles to 1 variant of JAGM would keep maintenance and supply costs lower. Integration with the F-35 fighter family was possible in future, and so were international contracts if the missile makes it through development to become a program of record. In industrial terms, that made JAGM the last big American missile competition for some time. So the stakes were huge, the genesis was long, and progress remains slow because of budgetary pressure.

The US military was looking for a missile that’s about 110 Lbs, 70″ long, and 7″ in diameter, with a range of 0.5 – 16 km when fired from helicopters, and 2 – 28 km if fired from fixed wing aircraft. The seeker would be multi-mode: active designation via semi-active laser or millimeter wave radar will duplicate all Hellfire variants in a single variant, and a passive imaging infrared option would add additional insurance and versatility.

On the seeker side, the program isn’t actually breaking a lot of new technical ground. The various seeker modes requested (laser, IIR, radar) have all been implemented on other missiles, and Raytheon’s GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II has already pioneered an accepted tri-mode seeker. Performance enhancements are always possible, but this will be a matter of refinement and integration, rather than groundbreaking development.

Instead, the big challenges involved the missile and its propulsion system, which was envisioned as a single rocket motor solution to be used on all platforms. That meant it had to have minimum smoke, in order to avoid smoke inhalation by by helicopter engines or easy tracking of the missile’s origin. It would also need to handle a much wider temperature range than Hellfire, from the hottest desert sun beating down to nap-of-the-earth helicopters to the Antarctic-class temperatures at high fighter jet altitudes. Just to make things interesting, it also had to meet the Navy’s unique requirements for insensitive munitions, in order to be safe enough for use in naval combat.

After meeting all of those requirement, it had to deliver the requested missile range, which is almost 2x the advertised range for its AGM-114 Hellfire predecessor when fired from a similar platform. The ability to fire from fast jets would extend that range even further, which is extremely important against defended targets.

If the US military could get all that, it would have an extremely valuable weapon system.

The Road Less Taken – JCM/JAGM’s Program History

Brimstone from Tornado
(click to view full)

In May 2004, Lockheed Martin was picked over Raytheon and a Boeing-Northrop Grumman team to conduct the Joint Common Missile’s (JCM) 4-year system development and demonstration (SDD) phase, which was to be worth as much as $1.6 billion. The long-term U.S. production estimate of 54,000 missiles would have brought the program to $5 billion, and the United Kingdom had expressed interest in the new weapon and participated in the development process.

The JCM program had made heavy use of modeling & simulation in its early phases, and was the first missile program ever to reach a Milestone B decision without conducting a live test. Subsequent live tests, including live fire tests against simulated urban targets, were also successful.

The missile reported less success on the budget front, however. In 2005, the Pentagon cut the Joint Common Missile (JCM) program in order to fund operations in Iraq. Canceling the Army-led JCM was estimated to save about $2.4 billion over the next 6 years ($928 million Army, $1.5 billion Navy). This triggered a counter-campaign by Congressional representatives, and created a controversy over the future of the program that never really went away. In June 2007, JCM was formally cancelled.

The UK ended up developing its own system. In November 1996, the UK had given MBDA the Brimstone contract, in order to create a fire-and-forget anti-armor missile that could be fired by fast jets as well as helicopters. Brimstone uses inertial guidance plus millimeter-wave radar, and has a terrain following mode as well. In October 2003, a successful series of test firings were carried out, and the missile entered service with the RAF in March 2005.

The Lazarus Missile: JAGM

JAGM schedule in 2009
(click for cutaway)

The need for a capability similar to the JCM remained clear even to the Pentagon, and so the U.S. Department of Defense’s Program Budget Decision (PBD) No. 753 directed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to commission a study for a very similar weapon system in time for the 2008 budget review. Meanwhile, the Alabama Congressional delegation and other members of Congress kept lobbying to keep something like JAGM going. It still made a great deal of sense, the program hadn’t suffered from cost overruns or major technical difficulties, and Britain’s fielding of the Brimstone missile offered external validation.

The original JCM requirements were really designed for the RAH-66 Comanche scout helicopter, however, and they were written before the Army’s Future Combat Systems mega-program. The new Joint Air-Ground Missile (JAGM) competition updated those requirements, and attempted to re-start the competition in 2008 under a new competitive approach, and with the planned number of missiles lowered to around 34,500. Pentagon acquisition czar Young introduced a prototyping requirement for JAGM as part of a wider-ranging set of acquisition reforms, hence the September 2008 Technology Development contracts to 2 teams.

By fall 2010, the JAGM program had wrapped up in a 27 month “risk reduction” development phase, leading up to a competitive flyoff between the 2 contractor teams. Program Management Reviews were held in Q2 of FY 2009, and a Milestone B decision that would begin full-scale System Design and Development for the winner was planned for Q1 of FY 2011 (November 2010). That deadline slipped, and for a while the next phase seemed likely to start at the end of Q4 2011 instead.

Instead, the program stalled again, and became an Army-only effort in 2012. A Continued Technology Development phase will carry it to 2014, at which point JAGM technologies may begin showing up in the next generation of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles.

JAGM: Original Plans & Platforms

TOW 2B missile
(click for cutaway)

Under the original plan, JAGM would begin supplementing – and eventually replacing – Lockheed Martin’s GM-114 Hellfire family of missiles on the Army’s AH-64D Apache attack helicopters, its scout helicopters, and its MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs. The Navy would make the same substitution on their new MH-60R/S Seahawk helicopters, and US Navy and USMC F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets would carry them in place of Raytheon’s AGM-65 Maverick missile. The Marines’ AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter would carry them in place of Hellfire missiles, or Raytheon’s xGM-71 TOW family.

Platform integration would occur during the 48-month Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase, and 2016 would have marked Initial Operational Capability (IOC) on USMC AH-1Z Viper and Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, as well as Navy F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets. IOC on the Army’s MQ-1C Predator-family Gray Eagle UAV, and the Navy’s MH-60R helicopter, was expected in FY 2017. This second wave of platform integrations would begin during the EMD phase, but continue into Low-Rate Initial Production.

The roster of platforms had a lot of expansion potential, since Hellfire missiles are already slated for a wide array of future UAVs, including the MQ-8 Fire Scout and A160 Hummingbird. Hellfires are even equipping some C-130J Hercules transport aircraft, thanks to modular quick-fit programs like Harvest Hawk. Existing foreign helicopters like the UAE’s AH-60M Battlehawks, French Tiger HAD, and Australia’s Tiger ARH helicopters would be another JAGM opportunity, alongside air force jet fighters like the F-15 Strike Eagle, F-16 Falcon, JAS-39 Gripen, etc. that have been qualified with AGM-65 Mavericks. Suitability for naval use, and extended range compared to existing Hellfires, could even make a full JAGM round a potential replacement for existing Griffin-B missiles on board patrol boats, and on the Littoral Combat Ship.

JAGM’s backers hope that success as a front-end bolt-on will eventually lead to contracts that would improve the missile as well, and restore the missile’s original concept.

The challenge is cost.

A role as a Maverick missile replacement is fairly straightforward, but the real volume and money is found in TOW and Hellfire replacement orders. Unfortunately, that’s also where the specifications for JAGM are significantly more challenging than the missiles they’d replace. A JAGM that’s more expensive than TOW or Hellfire won’t be a bargain for the US military, and would have a harder time selling abroad into the large helicopter and UAV markets.

Appendix B: JAGM’s Competing Industrial Teams

Team Lockheed

History repeats.

After JAGM rose from the dead, previous JCM incumbent Lockheed Martin came back with a team, in order to compete against the Raytheon/ Boeing team. In Team Lockheed’s design, The JAGM’s body and tri-mode sensors built on the existing body designs and sensors from Lockheed Martin’s AGM-114 Hellfire missile family, with its options of Hellfire II semi-active laser or millimeter wave Hellfire Longbow missiles. They also build on the cooled sensors used by the Lockheed/Raytheon Javelin imaging infrared (IIR) missile to add extra fire-and-forget insurance. Lockheed Martin will also push to leverage its incumbent status for both the current Hellfire missile family, and the M299 missile launcher that equips most helicopters.

Seeker improvements beyond the tri-mode features include extended range, “safing” that would allow carrier landings with live weapons instead of forcing planes to jettison their loads, and greater “fire and forget” capability. A single insensitive-munition rocket motor provides the required propulsion. Once it reaches the target, a multi-purpose warhead similar to the Hellfire II’s packs a shaped-charge designed to defeat the most advanced armored threats, along with a blast fragmentation capability to defeat ships, buildings, and bunkers with a two-phase warhead punch.

Team Lockheed included:

• LM Missiles and Fire Control (lead integrator, tri-mode seeker)
  
• Honeywell in Minneapolis, MN (inertial measurement unit)
  
• L3 in Cincinnati, OH (focal plane array infrared detector)
  
• EMS technologies in Atlanta, GA (millimeter wave antenna)

The following firms were also included, but aren’t likely to have much of a role under the new program structure:

• Aerojet in Camden, AK (rocket motor)
  
• Alliant Techsystems in Woodland Hills, CA (aircraft integration)
  
• General Dynamics OTS in Niceville, FL (multi-purpose warhead)
  
• Roxel in Summerfield, UK (propellant)
  
• Marvin Engineering in Inglewood, CA (JAGM launchers)
  
• Moog in Aurora, NY (control fin actuators)
  
• and Perkin Elmer in Miamisburg, OH (warhead firing module).

Raytheon & Boeing

Boeing JCM on F-18
(click to view full)

Raytheon and Boeing are working with rocket-maker ATK on their own offering, which leverages a variety of existing technologies. Some algorithms from Raytheon’s XM1111 Medium Range Munition guided tank shell were helpful, and the tri-mode laser/radar/ uncooled imaging infrared seeker would leverage Raytheon’s existing Common Tri-Mode Seeker (CTMS) program. For the full JAGM offering, MBDA and Boeing’s Brimstone missile is already designed and tested for use on fast jets like the Harrier, Tornado, and Eurofighter. It would serve as the body. The challenging specs for a new rocket motor would be addressed by ATK.

Raytheon’s uncooled infrared seeker currently offers less resolution than Lockheed’s cooled seeker, but it’s more reliable, lighter, and cheaper to maintain. The CTMS is already part of the NETFIRES NLOS-LS PAM, and helped Raytheon win the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb Phase II competition – against Boeing, no less – in 2010.

Despite all of this re-use, component assembly wasn’t the team’s focus. Raytheon’s Senior Business Development Manager Michael Riley flew AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters for 10 years. “What this is, is not a missile program,” he says. “It’s an integration program,” because that’s where many of the costs and challenges typically lie. To make this point, he drew a whiteboard picture of the Apache and of the F-18 during a planning session. “Who builds the helicopter? The black boxes that go in it? Who builds the fighter? Who performs missile integration for these platforms? Is there anything else I need to tell you?” The answer to these questions was “Boeing,” and discussions soon brought the firms together under a common vision.

Chief Engineers Emil Davidoff and Andy Hinsdale saw the F/A-18 Hornet as the toughest integration engineering problem, because of the conditions it faces: -65C temperature at altitude, shock, vibration and impact from carrier landings, plus supersonic buffeting underwing. All for a missile that was supposed to be similar in size and weight to the Hellfire, but with 2x range, a tri-mode seeker, and a similar cost target.

Even so, the most difficult challenges in these kinds of efforts are not technical, but human. “Coopetition” between firms that are competing on related projects is a difficult process at the best of times, and can feel like an arranged marriage even when it succeeds. Trust-building over time, a firewall between co-operating and competing teams, and other standard measures are always useful; but they do not guarantee success.

In business, as in rocket motors, there is such a thing as chemistry. The relationship between Chief Engineers Davidoff and Hinsdale has been part of that, and so has a joint belief that this competition is ideally suited for their partnership. Win or lose, therefore, the JAGM partnership between Raytheon and Boeing is flourishing, and may have long-term effects. Before the verdict on their main effort has even been rendered, both teams have said that they are looking for synergies in other areas, and other programs.

JAGM’s 2012 program shifts have changed the competition, so that integration is no longer the overriding focus it once was. Fortunately, the Raytheon/Boeing Team made a number of technical decisions that will keep them in the game.

So far, the team has managed “good enough” performance that has tested successfully and met specifications. They believe their uncooled infrared technology’s cost advantage could become important, and that fixed-price GBU-53 SDB-II orders will raise seeker and guidance production volumes to a level that can meet the Army’s new cost targets. Raytheon’s head of JAGM business development, J.R. Smith, notes that by the time the JAGM CTD phase is done in 2014, their SDB-II will be 75% of the way through Engineering & Manufacturing Development, with 2 years of production underway.

Raytheon remains partnered with AH-64 manufacturer Boeing, and has told DID that they still consider ATK to be a team member, even though their rocket motor isn’t currently a priority for the US military.

Additional Readings & Sources

DID thanks the personnel at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson for their time and cooperation in clarifying their JAGM bid.

Background: Missiles

• Defence-Update.com: JCM – Joint Common Missile
• GlobalSecurity.org: Joint Common Missile
• Boeing All Systems Go Magazine (Vol. 1 #6, 2003) – The Next Generation Weapon: Joint Common Missile
• Lockheed Martin – JAGM. 2011 snapshot. See also Feb 20/2014 media briefing [PDF].
• Raytheon – Joint Air-to-Ground Missile. It’s interesting to look at this 2009 snapshot, then fast-forward to 2011 and 2013 snapshots.
• Boeing – Brimstone Precision Guided Missile. Britain’s answer to the JCM’s demise; development was led by MBDA. Brimstone’s missile body was initially part of the Boeing/Raytheon team’s JAGM bid, when it was an entirely new missile.
• MBDA – Brimstone. The current version offers dual-mode laser and millimeter-wave radar guidance, just like the forthcoming JAGM Increment 1. Unlike JAGM, it can be fired from jet fighters.

News & Views

• DoD Buzz (Aug 6/10) – Last $5B Tac Missile Competition
• AFCEA Signal (June 2009) – Multipurpose Missile Program Accelerates
• Lexington Institute (Feb 21/07) – Joint Common Missile: Why Argue With Success?
• Huntsville Times (Mar 24/05) – Battle stepped up to save Redstone missile project.
• Spacewar.com (Mar 17/05) – Lockheed Martin Joint Common Missile Destroys Urban Targets
• Aerospace Daily & Defense Report (Jan 05/05) – Joint Common Missile’s Demise Spurs ‘Capability Needs’ Study
• Battle Command, Simulation & Experimentation Directorate (July 30/03) – SMART Lessons Learned Case Summary

Strong’s JPADS,
Afghanistan
(click to view full)

The dilemma for airdropping supplies has always been a stark one. High-altitude airdrops often go badly astray and become useless or even counter-productive. Low-level paradrops face significant dangers from enemy fire, and reduce delivery range. Can this dilemma be broken?

The US military believed that modern technologies could allow them to break the dilemma. The idea? Use the same GPS-guidance that enables precision strikes from JDAM bombs, coupled with software that acts as a flight control system for parachutes. JPADS (the Joint Precision Air-Drop System) has been combat-tested successfully in Iraq and Afghanistan, after moving beyond the test stage in the USA… and elsewhere.

The JPADS Program & History

How JPADS Systems Work

Sherpa-1200s, ready
(click to view full)

After being dropped from high altitude, The Joint Precision Airdrop System (JPADS) uses GPS and a guidance, navigation and control system to accurately fly itself to a designated location point on the ground. Its gliding ram-air parachute lets it land a significant distance from its point of release, while its guidance allows high-altitude airdrops to a single location or multiple locations at one time, within an accuracy of 50 – 75 meters.

Maj. Dan DeVoe, the US Air Mobility Warfare Center project officer for JPADS, says that the system has even improved traditional airdrops as part of the Improved Container Delivery System, or ICDS.

“Using their JPADS computer equipment, mission planners are now flying along traditional airdrop missions providing better aerial release points for those bundles as they are dropped from the plane. They’ve been able to increase air drop accuracy and altitude for traditional CDS bundles.”

Mission Planner
(click to view full)

The Mission Planner enables aircrews to plan and initiate load release at a precise Computed Air Release Point (CARP), or within a Launch Acceptance Region (LAR). Its basic hardware components include a high-pressure tolerant rugged laptop computer, dropsondes, and a roll-on, roll-off interface processor that is man-portable and can be installed aboard selected delivery aircraft in about an hour. Mission planning is done pre-flight and/or on-board the aircraft making use of the aircraft’s power, antennae, 1553 data bus when available, and secure data communications via wireless or plug-in options (when installed). The system’s key modeling parameters include aircraft position, altitude, airspeed, heading, ground speed, course, onboard load position (station), roll-out/exit time, decelerator opening time, trajectory to stabilization, and descent rate. The laptop’s Mission Planner software can input drop and target altitudes, steering waypoints, wind magnitude/directions as a function of altitude, opening altitudes, and GPS “hot start” information. It also receives updated near real-time wind speeds while in the air using hand-launched dropsondes (hand-sized, parachute-equipped wind indicators), to provide a final set of corrections.

Once the pallet is dropped, it’s independent of the aircraft, though the MMIST Sherpa does allow input from ground controllers once it gets close. The JPADS Airborne Guidance Unit (AGU) houses the battery power pack; GPS receiver; guidance, navigation and control (GN&C) software package; and the hardware required to operate the steering lines(s). Once the position is acquired, the AGU steers in accordance with the planned trajectory, making corrections in flight as necessary via an actuator system attached to the steering line(s).

JPADS is expected to be especially helpful to Special Forces, but also has wider military applicability. The overall program has been pursued as a joint effort by the US Army and USAF since 1997.

Several U.S. allies have expressed interest in JPADS systems, while others are developing comparable systems of their own.

JPADS: Systems & Contenders

Brochure
(click to view full)

The program has been an evolution in progress, as the US military gained experience with this new delivery option. Under the long term program plan, JPADS was envisioned as having up to 4 increments. Increment I was designed to handle loads up to 2,200 pounds (1 tonne), while Increment II would handle loads up to 10,000 pounds. Both of these increments have had a contract winner selected, the US/UK firm Airborne Systems. Increment III would involve JPADS for up to 30,000 lbs; and Increment IV would develop a JPADS system that can handle up to 60,000 lbs. Increments III and IV were to be pursued dependent upon funding, and also the technological success and after-action reviews associated with Increments I & II.

To date, some tests have been done using Increment III+ class systems, and they are now in service, but JPADS’ usefulness in practice has been skewed toward lighter weights. As of 2011, there are actually 5 JPADS versions, in a confusingly-named set that tilts strongly toward the light weight end:

• Micro-light: 10 – 150 pounds
  
• Ultra-light: 250 – 700 pounds
  
• Extra-light: 700 – 2,400 pounds
  
• Light: 5,001 – 10,000 pounds
  
• Medium: 10,001 – 42,000 pounds.

JPADS controller
(click to view full)

DID is aware of 3 contenders within the USA’s JPADS program. All JPADS products from the same manufacturer use a common software platform and user interfaces on the Autonomous Guidance Units and the Mission Planer.

Airborne Systems in Pennsauken, NJ supplies the current JPADS 2K and JPADS 10K. They field systems ranging from the MicroFly (100-700 lbs/ 45-315 kg) to the multi-use FireFly and single-use FlyClops (500-2,200 lbs/ 225-1,000 kg) and DragonFly (5,000-10,000 lbs/ 2,200-4,500 kg). The FireFly won the US military’s JPADS 2K/Increment I competition, while the DragonFly won in the 10,000 pound class. Above those systems, the MegaFly (20,000-30,000 lbs/ 9,000-13,500 kg) set the world record for the largest ram air canopy ever flown, until it was broken in 2008 by a 40,000 pound flight using the even larger GigaFly.

Boeing subsidiary Argon ST in Fairfax, VA supplies the JPADS Ultra Light Weight (JPADS-ULW), an aircraft deployed steerable canopy system for 250 – 699 pounds rigged weight.

MMIST in Ottawa, Canada offers the Sherpa 250 (100-265 lbs/ 46-120 kg), Sherpa 600 (265-600 lbs/ 120-270 kg), Sherpa 1200 (600-1,210 lbs/ 270-550 kg), and Sherpa 2200 (1,210-2,200 lbs/ 550-1000 kg). These systems have been bought by the USA and used by the US Marines, as well as several NATO allies.

Strong Enterprises in Orlando, FL offers the Screamer 2K in the 2,000 lb. class, and the Screamer 10K in the 10,000 lb. class. They have worked with the Natick Soldier Systems Center on JPADS since 1999. In 2007, the firm had 50 of their 2K Screamer systems used on a regular basis in Afghanistan, and another 101 on order for delivery by January 2008. Strong Enterprises told DID that they currently have no plans to develop larger versions.

WAmore in Phoenix, AZ advertises guidance systems, and JPADS systems in the 2,000, 10,000, and 42,000 pound class.

JPADS: Contracts & Key Events

JPADS-eye view
click for video

April 22/14: JPADS 10k. Airborne Systems North America in Pennsauken, NJ receives a $30 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity contract for up to 110 JPADS 10k (“DragonFly”) systems, to include the Parachute and Autonomous Guidance Unit. Funding and work performance location will be determined with each order.

The contract will run until April 20/19. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 2 received by US Army Contracting Command in Natick, MA (W911QY-14-D-0014).

JPADS 10k buy

May 20/13: JAPDS 10K. Airborne Systems delivers the final JPADS 10K to the U.S. Army under the initial Full Rate Production contract. Sources: Airborne Systems, “Airborne Systems Delivers JPADS 10K To The U.S. Army”.

May 4/13: RIP. A parachute company has related occupational hazards. To wit, its employees tend to be skydivers. It’s a lot of fun, but no-one with any sense forgets for even a second that this is a dangerous sport.

Unfortunately, respected Airborne Systems team member John Scott dies after a recreational skydive near his home in Alberta, Canada. The company is very classy about honoring John’s value, returning the faith and loyalty he showed them. Sources: Airborne Systems, “In Memory Of John Scott”.

April 12/13: An Airborne Systems JPADS 2K Parachute Guidance Unit is part of of an exhibition at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum: “Time and Navigation, The Untold Story of Getting from Here to There.” Sources: Airborne Systems, “JPADS 2K On Display At The Smithsonian National Air And Space Museum”.

July 26/12: Support. Charles Stark Draper Laboratory in Cambridge, MA receives an $8.75 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for services in support of the JPADS 2K (the 2,000 pound capacity version). Looks like their software (vid. July 13/11) is about to see wider use.

Work will be performed in Cambridge, MA, with an estimated completion date of July 23/17. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by U.S. Army Contracting Command in Picatinny Arsenal, NJ (W15QKN-12-C-0131).

July 22/11: Airdrop stats. During the During the 2011 International Airdrop Symposium at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, airdrop statistics show a sharp increase. Half-way through 2011, more than 39.5 million pounds of cargo have been airdropped in Afghanistan. In 2006, the year of the first JPADS airdrop, only 3.5 million pounds was airdropped for the entire year.

JPADS is part of that, but not a driver in and of itself. Cheap low-velocity cargo parachutes are bigger contributors, but JAPDS is advancing, too, and Richard Benney of the U.S. Army’s Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center says that interest in JPADS is growing among other militaries. USAF. See also end-of-year report at Pentagon DVIDS.

July 13/11: Software improvement. Charles Stark Draper Lab touts its JPADS software, the product of a $1.5 million US Army rapid development program in February 2010 for an improved precision airdrop capability that could avoid difficult ground terrain. Aero News:

“The Army recently deployed an initial increment of JPADS 2K systems utilizing the Draper software to Afghanistan for use in Operational Enduring Freedom, and is currently developing plans to convert future deployed systems to Draper’s software. Results for all systems exceeded the Army’s goals during the first operational mission in May.

The Draper-developed JPADS guidance, navigation and control software is non-proprietary, owned by the government, and applicable to a wide variety of hardware platforms…”

April 11/11: Canada. HDT Global announces a new office in Ottawa, Canada for business development, including Airborne Systems Canada Ltd.’s experience and existing business with the Canadian Department of National Defence. HDT will also add shelter system service to ASCL’s Belleville, ON, facility, which is about a 3 hour drive from Ottawa. Airborne Systems:

“Through this new location, HDT Global will be able to further facilitate current and future Canadian DND programs and initiatives, such as the upcoming Arctic military exercise, Operation Nanook, in August 2011… “Large shelters will need to be delivered to remote Arctic locations, where there are no roads, and where weather may be severe. Airborne Systems Guided Precision Aerial Delivery Systems (GPADS) are the perfect delivery system for HDT shelters as they can precisely deliver any type of payload to remote locations from high altitudes. This enables us to provide a complete solution to the customer.”

GPS-Guided Supplies

July 24/10: Tech R&D. Airborne Systems announces the first drop test of a large canopy built using Dyneema materials developed by Cubic Tech Corporation of Mesa, AZ. Airborne Systems says the result provides G-12 cargo parachute capability and performance, but with a canopy size and 32 pound weight equivalent to a personnel canopy.

The test canopy was constructed to the same platform and diameter as the 42 pound, 62.2 foot main canopy used on the US Airforce BQM-167A aerial target, and initial testing was completed with a test vehicle weighing over 1,000 pounds. The goal is a payload limit of 2,000 lb, with a reduced pack volume – or the ability to use larger parachutes in a given pack volume, in order to increase payload weight. Parachutes for spacecraft and UAVs would benefit most, but the technology may have spinoffs for applications like JPADS as well.

June 18/10: Combat report. An account from Afghanistan makes it clear that even with JPADS, airdrops aren’t always antiseptic high-altitude operations:

“…a small unit of coalition ground forces traveled a great distance to support an operation aimed squarely at the Taliban and exhausted their food and water. While, navigating through a deep gorge in a mountainous river valley, the situation was quickly deteriorating… Rugged mountain sides rising up from the valley created a narrow ‘V’ and supplying the ground forces with food and water meant flying a C-130 through this narrow path… Complicating the already hazardous airlift mission was the weight of the load that had to be dropped–too heavy for the C-130 to split the ‘V’ and climb out. So the crew decided to halve the load and make two flights…”The entire mission probably lasted more than eight hours,” Major Dolan said. “It was sort of complicated. We had to fly between the rocks, find the drop zone, deliver the load and turn around and do it again.” “I couldn’t actually see the mountains or the drop zone,” Captain LaBarbera said… And on top of that, we had a malfunctioning anti-icing system which meant ice was building heavy on the left wing.”… Both flights of the mission were conducted with ‘bingo’ fuel, meaning as little fuel as possible, to avoid any extra weight… If enemy fire started coming in, Sergeant Snider said they had a plan for it. “It’s called, hope they don’t hit us,” Sergeant Snider said.”

May 27/10: JPADS-ULW. The USMC issues their solicitation for JPADS-ULW, as FedBizOpps solicitation #M6785410R1004. This follows the Feb 23/10 pre-solicitation:

“The Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC), PG-13 Infantry Weapons Systems (IWS), PMM-131, Reconnaissance and Amphibious Raids (R&R) currently has a requirement to procure Joint Precision Airdrop System (JPADS) Ultra Light Weight (ULW), interim logistic support, spare items, and training which will be awarded competitively as Best Value on a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) five (5) year contract. Once the solicitation has been posted, all responsible sources may submit a proposal, which shall be considered by the agency. The Marine Corps anticipates the IDIQ Contract to have a minimum Government obligation to procure 30 JPADS – ULW under CLIN 0001 while all other remaining CLINS having no minimum procurement obligation by the Marine Corps. Additionally, the Marine Corps anticipates an IDIQ Contract value not to exceed (NTE) amount of approximately $45 million for the life of the contract. The solicitation will include the clause at 52.209-3, First Article Approval — Contractor Testing, in order to demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the ILWS performance specification. MCSC plans to award one (1) firm-fixed price contract…”

April 6/10: JPADS 2k parafoil. The U. S. Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center in Natick, MA issues sources sought Request for Information (RFI) #WARPADD-RFI-LCP, related to a new parafoil for JPADS 2k. Their problem is that it’s very hard to recover the parafoils from drop zones, which are far off-road by their very nature, and usually require a helicopter for any equipment recovery. They usually get the electronics guidance unit back, but not the parafoil, which is a 1,025 square foot semi-elliptical parafoil that is deployed by a static line initiated drogue parachute. So, they’re looking for a less expensive parafoil that they can expect to throw away. The result would be of interest to the USAF and the Army alike, and the Army is looking for design ideas and cost/schedule estimates for initial orders of 10, 100, or 500 parachutes.

The Army does recognize that a less expensive throw-away parafoil may have lower performance than the one they have, but it can’t fall below the current JPADS 2K Concept of Operations (CONOPs). A replacement system must be capable of being deployed at up to 18,000 – 25,000 feet MSL, with a lift to drag ratio of 3.2 to 1 and the ability to to safely deliver a 1,000-1,850 pound (threshold) payload with a reliability of 92% survival and 90% confidence, using the JPADS 2K Airborne Guidance Unit (AGU). Ideally, it would deliver 500-2,200 pounds (objective). Just one more complication:

“Achievement of the cost and schedule goals can be attained by development or use of inexpensive textiles and innovative construction techniques that will produce a ram-air parachute capable of meeting the aforementioned performance requirements. Offerors need to be cognizant of the Berry Amendment, which precludes the Department of Defense from procuring textile or textile end products that are not produced or manufactured in the United States. Therefore, any parachute material or end product must be made in the United States.”

Nov 6/09: JPADS-ULW. FedBizOpps solicitation #M6785410I1004 announces a Dec 1/09 Industry Day for JPADS Ultra Lightweight (JPADS-ULW), which will be hosted by US Marine Corps Systems Command’s Program Manager for Reconnaissance and Amphibious Raids (PM RAR) Infantry Weapons Systems (IWS) directorate. The notice also provides the draft System Specification minimum requirements to industry – but there is no government R&D funding for this.

JPADS-ULW would deliver loads of 250-700 pounds within 50-150m CEP, when airdropped from between 4,500 – 24,500 feet. Desired range from maximum altitude would be 8-20 km, and the load should survive 85% of the time in wind speeds up to 17-25 knots. The systems must use the government’s MC-5 parachute assembly.

GigaFly test
(click to view full)

Nov 19/08: Gigafly test. Airborne Systems announces [PDF] a successful test drop deploying 40,000 lbs. of payload under a single GPS-guided GigaFly ram-air parachute, surpassing the previous payload record of 33,000 lbs. set in September 2008. The cargo landed fully autonomously at a gentle 14 feet per second, about 100 meters from the intended point of impact. GigaFly’s test was conducted as part of a US Army Natick Soldier Research Development & Engineering Center development program, which aims to develop a system for use beyond Airborne Systems’ JPADS 2k/ FireFly and JPADS 10k/ DragonFly offerings.

GigaFly’s 10,400 square foot canopy and 195 foot wingspan when deployed give it up to 22 miles range, when dropped at maximum altitude of 25,000 feet. By comparison, a Boeing 747 has a wingspan of about 211 feet. See also GPS World | Frontier India.

New record

Feb 12/07: Testing. USJFCOM personnel with the help of U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center, the U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command, the U.S. Army Project Manager Force Sustainment and Support, and industry recently concluded the 2nd of 3 joint military utility assessments (JMUA) at Yuma Proving Ground in Yuma, AZ. The JPADS JMUA used Strong Enterprises’ Screamer 10K system, and assessed air drops of cargoes from 6,000 – 10,000 pounds, including simultaneous drops of 2-3 loads to separate drop zones. Read “JPADS Continues to Improve the Way it Delivers Aerial Drops to the Warfighter.”

March 26/07: Canada. The Canadian Forces Land Advanced Warfare Centre Airborne Trials and Evaluation Section (ATES) have undertaken trials of the Canadian Joint Precision Aerial Delivery Standoff System (CJPADSS) at the Primrose Lake Evaluation Range in Cold Lake, Alberta. The CJPADSS system is being tested using the Sherpa 2200, with the aim of possibly fielding operational systems in late 2007. Canadian Forces Army News report | Armed Forces magazine.

Feb 9/07: MMIST announces [PDF format] a strategic C$ 30 million investment from Industry Canada’s Technology Partnerships Canada to assist in the development of “next generation products designed to reduce the risk of cargo delivery in remote and hostile environments.” MMIST will use the funding to build upon MMIST’s successful CQ-10A SnowGoose cargo UAV, and family of Sherpa GPS guided parafoil systems.

December 2006: As of December 2006, 120 ICDS airdrops and 9 JPADS airdrops have been completed, delivering more than 1,000 bundles to troops on the ground. Source.

out the door
(click to view full)

Aug 31/06: A C-130 Hercules from the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron dropped supplies to a U.S. Army unit in Afghanistan using Strong Enterprises’ Screamer 2K JPADS system. The plane had an Air National Guard crew deployed from Alaska’s 144th Airlift Squadron. A total of 4 bundles were dropped, and all 4 bundles arrived at the drop zone, resupplying Army troops on the ground with ammunition and water.

“This was the first Air Force employment of the joint precision airdrop system in an operational or combat airlift mission,” said Maj. Neil Richardson. See USAF story: “Bagram C-130s drop high-tech cargo delivery system.“

1st combat drop

April 6/06: The 96th Airlift Squadron, Minneapolis-St. Paul IAP ARS, sent 2 aircrews to participate in JPADS training at the U.S. Army Proving Grounds in Yuma, AZ from Feb 25/07 – March 2/07. The cadre, comprised of members from 934th Operations Group, 934th Operations Support Flight and the 96 AS, were the first in Air Force Reserve Command to go through such training. USAF story.

November 2005: US Air Mobility Command opened a JPADS “Tiger Team” that included representation from dozens of agencies at command headquarters, especially the Combat Operations Division and Plans and Programs, as well as people from the Air Mobility Battlelab and the Air Force Mobility Weapons School. The team was chaired by Col. Charles Stiles, the AMWC vice commander.

June 8/05: Mist Mobility Integrated Systems Technology (MMIST) Inc. in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada received an unspecified contract from Defence R&D Canada (DRDC) to conduct science and research that will lead to improved landing accuracy of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) to within 25 meters. A key part of the research will be the development of near real time airborne wind modelling, novel sensor packages, and improved landing algorithms that will control the UAV’s landing process while under a recovery parachute.

The research is aimed at improving the operational effectiveness of the Sagem Defense Securite Sperwer UAV fleet as a part of a larger market agreement between MMIST and Sagem, and applying an improved landing performance package to its SnowGoose CQ-10A UAV and Sherpa cargo delivery system products.

MMIST President Sean McCann said in the MMIST release that: “There are presently no GPS guided cargo delivery systems capable of better than 50 metres accuracy in real world conditions. The advances made during this project will ensure MMIST’s products keep more than one step ahead of international competition.”

May 13/04: JPADS 1k concept approval.

Oct 23/03: Strong Enterprises, of Orlando FL announces US Patent No, 6,622,968 B1 for “Guided Airborne Vehicle, Cargo and Personnel Delivery System”.

Appendix A: JPADS Early Program History

multi-drop concept
(click to view full)

JPADS has been a joint US Army/USAF program since 1997. The Air Force is responsible for the mission planning computer and wind collection, while the Army is responsible for the guidance unit and decelerators. The advanced concept technology demonstration was pursued by U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center at Natick, the U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command (USAF AMC), the U.S. Army Project Manager Force Sustainment and Support, and industry.

The Marine Corps Warfighting Lab was the first regular force into the fray, when they purchased 5 of MMIST’s Sherpa systems in 2001 for evaluation. Earlier MMIST Sherpa versions including the body, canopy, riggings, remote control, rechargeable batteries and software, cost $68,000, vs. $11,000 for a standard military cargo parachute. The systems were maintained and tested by the Marines of 5th Air Delivery Platoon, which is now disbanded, but that early usage was successful enough to lead to JPADS.

The JPADS Sherpa has been used in Iraq since August 2004, when U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center fielded 2 units to the Marines of 1st Air Delivery Platoon. Previous versions of JPADS like the Sherpa 1200s had load limits of about 1,200 pounds, while the Marine riggers’ typical pack bundles weigh about 2,200 pounds.

This was OK with the US military, who saw the Sherpas etc. as a “60% solution” that would let them refine the tactics, techniques and procedures associated with GPS-guided paradrops, and improve their stated requirements based on actual field use. Waiting until FY 2008-2009, when the final system JPADS system anticipated to reach a Milestone C full production decision, would have benefited no-one.

Based on the use of fielded Sherpa systems, an Urgent Universal Needs Statement was submitted to Headquarters Marine Corps, and the Marine Requirements Oversight Council awarded $2 million to purchase 20 of the 1,200 pound capacity Sherpa 1200 systems, 10 of which were fielded in Iraq with 2nd Air Delivery Platoon out of Camp Lejeune, NC; and by 1st Air Delivery Platoon from Camp Pendleton, CA. The plan was to keep these systems in Iraq through the different troop rotations.

USJFCOM also stepped in, using its limited acquisition authority to spearhead the development of a 2,000 pound variant of JPADS that was not contemplated under the original advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) for Special Operations Command. Those contracts went to Strong Enterprises for its Screamer systems.

Usage in Afghanistan, and additional contracts for both larger and smaller versions, followed. So, too, did other vendors, as the segment’s potential grew.

Additional Readings & Sources

• U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center – Joint Precision Airdrop System Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (JPADS ACTD). See also JPADS brochure [PDF].
• US Army Posture Statement 2009 – JPADS
• GlobalSecurity.org – Joint Precision Airdrop System [JPADS]
• QinetiQ North America – US JPADS Support.
  

“QinetiQ North America provides hardware support for the UHF Dropsonde Receive Subsystem (UHF-DRS), GPS Retransmit Subsystem (GPS-RTS), Dropsondes, and various other ancillary components. We provide access to warranty and depot-level repair services for all the JPADS-MP MSE Hardware.”

Vendors

• Airborne Systems – Precision Guided Aerial Delivery Systems. Includes listings for their DragonFly and FireFly products.
• EADS Defence & Security – Aerial Delivery Systems: ParaFinder and ParaLander “Smart” Parachutes. ParaLander received its UAV category I certification, and approved for operational deployment by the Bundeswehr in Afghanistan, in March 2011.
• MMIST – Sherpa. The Canadian firm supplies the Marines, the Canadian Forces, and some NATO allies. The firm also makes a UAV variant called the CQ-10A Snow Goose.
• Strong Enterprises – SCREAMER Cargo Delivery System. A better overview can be found at their dedicated Screamer JPADS web site.
• Military.com – Up in the Sky: Sherpa Guided Parachute Cargo System. Excellent overview, and see Eric Daniel’s analysis at the end.
• WAmore – JPADS 42k

Other News

• USAF (June 18/10) – Bagram C-130 crew airdrops GPS-guided supplies in Afghan valley
• CASR (November 2008) – Sherpa Precision Aerial Delivery System – Guided Parachutes for Logistics Air Drops in Afghanistan – MERX ACAN Notice. Canada orders 18 of MMIST’s Sherpa systems.
• US Army (Feb 15/08) – Yuma Testing Systems for War on Terror.
  

“Tests of the Family of Joint Precision Airdrop Systems, or JPADS, has resulted in limited fielding of the Screamer, Firefly and the Affordable Guided Airdrop System, or AGAS, in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters.”

• DID (Nov 8/07) – EADS ParaLander Enters Precision Paradrop Market. Ordered for German forces supporting ISAF in Afghanistan.
• US Army (June 14/07) – Precision Airdrops Deliver Directly to Battlefield Soldiers
• USAF, Dyess AFB (June 6/07) – JPADS makes aerial delivery precision science
• Defense Update (March 2007) – JPADS – The Way Ahead
• USAF (Jan 18/07) – JPADS continues ‘revolution in airdrop technology’
• Flight International (Nov 9/06) – US Army flags stepped up UAV aerial logistics requirement
• Pentagon DefenseLINK, Transformation (August 2006) – Airdrop System Resupplies Ground Troops
• DVIDS.NET (May 5/06) – GPS-guided Parachutes Increase Safety in Re-supply. Good field testimonials for the Sherpas; but they have weight limitations, and aren’t good for everything. The same article was also carried in Marine Corps News.
• Special Operations Technology Magazine (March 2006) – Industry Interview: Ted Strong. Discusses the Strong Screamer system.
• USJFCOM (June 6/05) – JAPDS to change the future of joint aerial deliveries for warfighters. “The U.S. Army Natick Center has also just begun an Army Technology Objective (ATO) for the next JPADS weight increment for payloads up to 30,000 pounds.”
• US Army AL&T (Jan – Feb 2005) – Two Sherpa 1K Systems Fielded in Iraq [PDF format]. The Sherpa 1K systems are part of the Joint Precision Airdrop System 2K (JPADS 2K) program managed by Product Manager Force Sustainment Systems (PM FSS) at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, MA, under the command and control of Project Manager Force Projection and Program Executive Officer Combat Support and Combat Service Support (PEO CS & CSS). Includes the initial fielding timeline up to May 14/04.
• Quartermaster Professional Bulletin (Winter 2004) – Precision Cargo Air Drop – Coming to Your Servicing Theater
• The Warrior, SSC Natick (Nov – Dec 2004) – NSC Wins 2004 Lab of Year. Natick Soldier Center (NSC) at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, MA won the Department of the Army Research and Development of the Year Award (Small Development Lab Category). The lab had chosen JPADS ACTD to highlight as a significant technical accomplishment.
• GPS World (September 2004) – Precision Drop: GPS Guides Supply Parachutes to Iraq Combat Zone
• Marine Corps News (Aug 16/04) – GPS-guided cargo chutes touchdown after first combat drop in Iraq
• Summit Magazine (April 2004) – Good for the Goose [PDF format]. Describes how MMIST bet the company’s existence to win a US Special Operations Command contract for its Snow Goose para-UAV. By early 2004, SOCOM had purchased 9 UAVs under its ALERT(Air Launched Extended Range Transporter) program.
• Special Operations Technology (Feb 9/04) – Gently to Earth. Covers advances in several parachute delivery systems, and goes into detail re: the components and related programs for JPADS.
• The Warrior, SSC Natick (May – June 2003) – Joint Drop

CH-53K concept
(click to view full)

The U.S. Marines have a problem. They rely on their CH-53E Super Stallion medium-heavy lift helicopters to move troops, vehicles, and supplies off of their ships. But the helicopters are wearing out. Fast. The pace demanded by the Global War on Terror is relentless, and usage rates are 3 times normal. Attrition is taking its toll. Over the past few years, CH-53s have been recalled from “boneyard” storage at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ, in order to maintain fleet numbers in the face of recent losses and forced retirements. Now, there are no flyable spares left.

Enter the Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) program, now known as the CH-53K. It aims to offer notable performance improvements over the CH-53E, in a similar airframe. The question is whether its service entry delay to 2018-2019 will come too late to offset a serious decline in Marine aviation.

The HLR Program Lifts Off

Up, up, and…
(click to view full)

The $25.5 billion, 200-helicopter CH-53K program will define the long-term future of the US Marine Corps’ medium-heavy lift capabilities – and may be needed to save Marine aviation in the medium term.

On average, existing CH-53E aircraft are more than 15 years old, have over 3,000 flight hours under tough conditions, and are becoming more and more of a maintenance challenge with a 44:1 maintenance man-hours:flight hours ratio. Not to mention the resulting $20,000 per flight-hour cost ratio. According to Jane’s Defense Weekly, a 1999 analysis showed that the existing fleet has a service life of 6,120 flight hours, based on fatigue at the weakest point where the tail folds. The USMC expected that the existing fleet would start to reach this point in 2011, at a rate of 15 aircraft per year. The funding profile below suggests a problem for the Corps:

Excel
download

The Marine Corps itself is the source of the disconnect. The HLR program initially called for 156 new-build helicopters derived from the CH-53E Super Stallion design, with initial flight tests in 2010-2011, and initial operating capability (IOC) in 2014-2015. IOC was defined as a detachment of 4 aircraft, with combat ready crews, and prepared to deploy with all required equipment and spares.

In 2010, however, the Marines grew the program plan to 200 helicopters, even as they pushed its initial flight back to FY 2013, and IOC back to FY 2018. The program wasn’t experiencing problems, and no reasons were given, beyond statements concerning the program’s aggressive schedule. Further slippage has occurred since. Here’s the full timeline:

The current schedule creates a number of risks for the Marine Corps. There’s no question that pushing the CH-53K program back will leave the Marines with a dwindling heavy-lift helicopter fleet, whose size, capability, and safety are governed by mechanical realities rather than political diktat. In April 2010, the US military ran out of stored CH-53D/E airframes to refurbish and return to the front lines. In February 2011, the USMC retired its CH-53D fleet altogether.

The other risk is political. On the one hand, the CH-53K is a large program, and the farther the Marines push it away, the easier it is to cut amidst budget crises. With its heavy-lift fleet dwindling, that could be disastrous for the force. On the other hand, budgetary crises also look for programs that are late or experiencing problems, and the CH-53K is big enough to earn a lot of attention if it’s seen as screwing up. That fact that the original schedule was overly aggressive wouldn’t be remembered.

Was the move to push the CH-53K back an act of political negligence, to protect less critical programs like the V-22? Or was it an act of supreme prudence, which will lead to a strong program that survives precisely because it goes out and meets its targets? Opinions vary. Time will tell.

Current Status

Some assembly required
(click to view full)

US Navy PMA-261 is responsible for the CH-53K program. Sikorsky is currently working under a $3.5 – 4 billion System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract, to include 4 SDD flight test helicopters, 1 ground test airframe, and associated program management and test support. As the development timeline stretched out, 6 System Development Test Aircraft were added to to that mix. To date, Sikorsky’s industrial partners include:

The CH-53X / CH-53K

Mission example
(click to view full)

The CH-53K’s maximum gross weight (MGW) will increase to 88,000 pounds with external loads, versus 73,500 pounds for the CH-53E. MGW with internal loads will be 74,000 pounds, compared to 69,750 pounds for the CH-53E. It’s being designed to carry a cargo load of 27,000 pounds (13.5 tons) 110 nautical miles, operating at an altitude of 3,000 feet and an ambient temperature of 91.5 degrees Fahrenheit. This is nearly double the capacity of the current CH-53E Super Stallions, all in a helicopter that’s roughly the same size.

Those altitude and temperature qualifications matter, too, because “hot and high” conditions lower aircraft load carrying capabilities and combat radius – especially for helicopters. This reduced performance has recently been a factor during operations in Afghanistan and relief efforts in Pakistan, for instance, and has been a factor with earlier models of the C-130 Hercules as well. Figures for the CH-53K operating entirely around sea level and in cooler temperatures would be higher, but would not be double that of existing CH-53Es.

As an example of these variables at work, Sikorsky’s CH-53K brochure states that the improved CH-53K will have a maximum external load of 16.3t/ 36,000 lbs. On the other hand, an operation that carries an externally-slung load from sea level to a point 3,000 feet above sea level, with a total range there and back of 220 nautical miles/ 407 km, and 30 minute loiter at the landing zone, would have a maximum mission load of only 12.25t/ 27,000 lbs.

MRAP: RG-31, IEDed
(click to view story)

Even at sea level, however, increased lift capacity will be important. As the Hummer’s fundamental lack of survivability began to marginalize it on the battlefield, the Marines led the charge to field “MRAP” blast-resistant vehicle designs instead. While an up-armored HMMWV weighs about 9,100 pounds empty, the lightest Category 1 MRAP patrol vehicles check in at weights ranging from 16,000 – 31,000 pounds, and even the “light” JLTVs that will replace a large segment of the HMMWV fleet are expected to weigh 14,000 – 20,000 pounds.

Those weights mean that tactical operations to airlift mobile forces ashore beyond the beach, or within the zone of operations, will have only one helicopter available that can get the job done: the CH-53.

If the Marines think their CH-53 fleet is seeing heavy use now, just wait.

New Technologies

CH-53K concept
(click to view full)

In order to meet those requirements, the CH-53K will be depending on a number of new technologies. No one technology constitutes a big stretch, which is good news for the program. Instead, a host of technologies that have been developed since the CH-53E program will be refined, and used in inter-related areas. For the basic outlines of many low-risk CH-53X/CH-53K improvements, read “An Affordable Solution To Heavy Lift” [PDF] by Lt. Col. James C. Garman, an H-53 family pilot and Senior Preliminary Design Engineer in Sikorsky’s New Product Definition Group. See also this interview with former HLR program manager Col. Paul Croisetiere.

The most important new addition to the CH-53K will be its 7,500shp class GE38 engines, which have already hit 8,300 shp in ground tests. The military is hoping for 18% better specific fuel consumption than the similarly sized T64 engine, even though the engine would produce 57% more power. To improve maintenance and reliability, the GE38 is also expected to have 63% fewer parts.

Other technologies slated for the CH-53K include a “glass” [digital] cockpit that has high commonality and interoperability with existing Army and Navy helicopters, high-efficiency rotor blades with anhedral tips that have 12% (main) and 15% (tail) more surface area, plus different construction to handle higher loads; a composite cuff attachment that attaches the main blades directly to an elastomerically-articulated titanium rotor head, without the need for specialized tools or multiple redundant fasteners; a cargo rail locking system; external cargo improvements, survivability enhancements, and enhancements designed to extend service life.

Changes will be made as the program progresses, and engineers get a better sense of which technologies are ready, and which would create risks to the program. For example, the CH-53K was going to use a “viscoelastic lag damper” for the rotors, in order to minimize vibration and stress. It was removed in order to speed up deployment, and a modified version of standard linear hydraulic dampers will be used instead. The Navy hopes to achieve 2x reliability compared to the existing CH-53Es, but gave up the potential for 4x reliability, in exchange for less development risk.

Given the CH-53E’s large maintenance ratio, reliability will matter. As former HLR program manager Col. Paul Croisetiere put it in a NAVAIR release:

“Given the CH-53E’s operational costs and maintenance demands, heavy lift has built its reputation for excellence on the backs of our maintainers… We are going to take our maintainers somewhere they’ve rarely been before. Home for dinner.”

Several decades of weapon program history suggest that the odds of meeting this goal are low. Instead, the trend is that these promises are made, but more advanced and complex weapons wind up having more points of failure, and require even more maintenance. If the CH-53K program can break that cycle, it would represent a landmark success in Pentagon weapons acquisition.

Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts are issued by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD.

Takeoff?
(click to view full)

May 5/14: Naming. Sikorsky officially unveils their CH-53K flight test helicopter EDM-2, and the USMC officially names the type “King Stallion”.

One can see the natural extension from the CH53A/D Sea Stallion and CH-53E Super Stallion, but there comes a point where one can push the boundaries in unintended directions. Maybe they were thinking of the 1942 movie with Chief Thundercloud. In the modern era, people are more likely to think that somewhere, an adult entertainer wants his name back. Sources, Sikorsky, “Sikorsky Unveils CH-53K Helicopter; U.S. Marine Corps Reveals Aircraft Name” | South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Sikorsky introduces new ‘King Stallion’ helicopter” | Stamford Advocate, “Sikorsky unveils its new King Stallion heavy lift helicopter”.

“King Stallion”

May 1/14: Testing. Sikorsky announces that full testing is finally moving ahead with the non-flying GTV, including powered “light-off” with all 7 main rotor blades and 4 tail rotor blades spinning, and powered by its three 7,500 horsepower class GE engines. This begins a rigorous 2-year test program of the rotor blades, transmission, engines, and all subsystems using the GTV. Sources: Sikorsky, “Sikorsky Begins Powered Ground Tests of CH-53K Helicopter with Rotor Blades”.

March 31/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2013, plus time to compile and publish. With respect to the CH-53K, their top concern is that the USMC is scheduled to begin ordering helicopters before testing is done. Beyond that concurrency worry:

Nearly 9 years later the program’s two critical technologies – the main rotor blade and main gearbox – are approaching maturity. The program expects these technologies to be demonstrated in a realistic environment by its planned February 2016 production decision, a delay in 6 months over last year’s schedule. Program officials reported that they conducted a three-blade whirl test that produced results that exceeded required outcomes. Flight testing is expected to begin in late 2014.

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. The current Navy plan will begin buying production CH-53Ks with an order for 2 in FY 2017, followed by 4 in FY 2018 and 7 in FY 2019. That means production has been pushed back by about a year, because:

“Late delivery of components into qualification, and subsequent qualification challenges, have delayed Ground Test Vehicle (GTV) delivery, Flight Readiness Reviews (FRR – GTV & 1st Flight), Engineering Development Models (EDM) delivery and CH-53K 1st Flight, and have moved Milestone C (MSC) and other associated events to 3Q 2016. Budgetary constraints delayed start of the Aircraft Procurement (APN) program by one year. As such, Advanced Acquisition Contracts (AAC) and LRIP awards have been adjusted accordingly. In order to procure aircraft that effectively demonstrate manufacturing processes are both mature and under control, two (2) additional RDT&E,N-funded System Demonstration Test Articles (SDTAs) in FY15 with delivery in 4Q 2018 and 1Q 2019 were added to the program.”

Sources: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF] and detailed budget documents.

Oct 31/13: Rotors. Sikorsky has completed initial tests of the CH-53Ks new rotor blades, including fatigue tests and whirl-tower balance tests. Additional blade qualification testing will continue for several years, in order to validate aspects like aerodynamic stability, tip deflection, and rotational twist. The next steps involve installation and testing on the stationary CH-53K GTV.

There’s a lot to test, because the rotors are new technology. The 35 foot span, 7-bladed main rotor has blade of almost 3 foot chord width, with new airfoil designs, twist, and taper to handle the engines’ 71% power increase. The new blade tips are designed to improve hover performance, and a composite cuff attachment allows attachment of each blade to the elastomerically-articulated titanium rotor head, without tools or redundant fasteners. The rotor hub itself is almost 9 feet in diameter, and the blade radius will be 39.5 feet when assembled, with 12% more total surface area than the CH-35E.

The 4-blade tail rotors are also new, with 10 foot blades and 15% more surface area compared to the CH-53E. Sikorsky says that the CH-53K tail rotor produce as much thrust as the main rotor blades on Sikorsky’s 5.5 ton S-76 medium helicopter, which is used in the offshore oil industry. Source: Sikorsky via PR Newswire, “Sikorsky Completes Initial Tests of First Rotor Blades for CH-53K Helicopter”.

Oct 11/13: EVM penalty. Bloomberg News:

“Sikorsky was notified Sept. 6 of three deficiencies on a contract for the Navy’s CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter related to guidelines for the recording of direct costs and material accounting, Navy Commander William Urban, a Pentagon spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. A corrective action plan is expected from the company by Oct. 21, he said.”

While Bloomberg doesn’t say so, the issue in question relates to a quantitative approach to project tracking called Earned Value Management. Until they’re satisfied, the Pentagon is withholding the maximum 5% on payments. Sikorsky responds that 2 of the 3 issues are already resolved, and they don’t expect this to affect the program. Sources: For Dummies.com, “Earned Value Management Terms and Formulas for Project Managers” | Bloomberg, “Pentagon Withholds Sikorsky Payments for Business System Flaws”.

Oct 1/13: Sub-contractors. Kratos Defense & Security announces that an $8.5 million contract from Sikorsky to design and develop CH-53K maintenance trainers. The full-fidelity Maintenance Training Device Suite (MTDS) is meant to provide a true-to-life environment for maintenance training; as well as remove-and-replace training for avionics systems, electrical systems, hydraulic systems and many other mechanical subsystems.

The Helicopter Emulation Maintenance Trainer (HEMT) uses a 3D virtual environment to support maintenance training scenarios: functional tests, fault isolation, troubleshooting, and remove and installation for 27 subsystems. Sources: Kratos Oct 1/13 release.

CH-53K GTV
(click to view full)

Sept 27/13: Sensors etc. Raytheon in El Segundo, CA receives a $20 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for:

CH-53K, using FY 2013 USN RDT&E budget…

• 5 AAQ-29 day/night surveillance turrets
  
• 2 Memory Loader Verifier System cables
  
• Software update, system integration, and test support

USAF HH-60 search & rescue helicopters, using FY 2011 procurement budget…

• 25 AAQ-29 day/night surveillance turrets
  
• 25 L2G multifunction control units and 35 L2G system control units
  
• 1 technical data package
  
• 1 repair of repairables analysis

All funds are committed immediately, and $16.2 million expires on Sept 30/13. Work will be performed in McKinney, TX (92%) and El Segundo, CA, (8%), and is expected to be complete in September 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-G-0018).

Sept 23/13: IG OK. The Pentagon’s Inspector General submits a non-public report concerning the CH-53K program. Their public statement: the program has been managed appropriately, but it may not meet its February 2016 Milestone C decision date, or its revised costs.

The Acquisition Program Baseline was updated on April 24/13, to address cost growth and schedule delays. Contractor manufacturing delays and component testing failures, hence the risk of not being ready in time for the low-rate production decision, and not meeting even its revised costs. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is aware of these issues. Sources: OIG, “CH-53K Program Management Is Satisfactory, but Risks Remain (Project No. D2013-D000CD-0095.000)”.

July 17/13: Engines. General Electric Co. in Lynn, MA receives a $15.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to buy “time critical parts” for incorporation into the CH-53K’s T408-GE-400 gas turbine engine. All funds are committed immediately by the US Navy.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA, and is expected to be complete in December 2016. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-2-1(a)(1) by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-13-C-0132).

June 27/13: Sub-contractors. Boeing spinoff Spirit Aerosystems announces a $60 million sub-contract, as a result of the #435 million order for 4 System Demonstration Test Article helicopters (q.v. May 30/13). Spirit makes the base cockpit and cabin, essentially the body of the helicopter.

Spirit will begin work during 2013 at its Wichita, KS facility, with deliveries to Sikorsky’s CH-53K prototype assembly line in West Palm Beach, FL to begin in 2014. When the helicopters are finished, they’ll enter Operational Evaluation in 2017, to verify that their performance meets projections. The contract follows over $150 million in work on 7 structures, for the first 5 prototype test helicopters and the 2 ground test frames.

Spirit recently announced work with Spintech Ventures, of Xenia, OH on a set of trademarked products called Inflexion/ Smart Tooling. The technology uses re-formable, reusable mandrels that can change states through the layup and cure phases. That helps form complex, highly integrated composite structures into large and/or unusual shapes and configurations – like full integration of skins, stringers, and frames or ribs in one step. Spirit | Wichita Eagle | Spirit re: Inflexion.

May 31/13: Hostile IG Report. The Pentagon’s Inspector General issues a report under Audit Project No. D2012-D000CD-0037.000, telling the USMC that the CH-53K’s program increase to 200 helicopters isn’t justified. The Marines politely tell the IG to stick it where Chesty can’t find it.

The Inspector General’s statement that “the Marine Corps risks spending $22.2 billion in procurement and operating and support funding for 44 additional aircraft” is a blatant error – that’s the entire 2011 program cost for 200, plus R&D. Beyond that, they complain that the USMC:

• did not follow the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System Instruction and obtain Joint Requirements Oversight Council [DID: JROC] approval for the increase;
  
• did not have requirement studies prepared to determine a procurement quantity in consideration of program affordability;
  
• incorrectly relied on a 2008 memorandum from the Deputy Commandant for Aviation directing the increase of the procurement quantity to 200 aircraft, without support;
  
• incorrectly used the 2010-2011 Force Structure Review’s war-gaming scenarios as justification for the quantity increase; and
  
• did not justify or appropriately consider the impact of the Marine Corps personnel reductions effect on Heavy Lift quantity requirements.

In response, the USMC Deputy Commandant says the existing analyses do justify it, and JROC approved the 200. Then the Milestone Decision Authority approves the Marine Corps’ request to rebaseline the program with a 54% procurement cost increase over the 2005 baseline (a jump from Dec 2011 figures, if true) and formally push the Milestone C decision from December 2012 to February 2016 (later than the current August 2015). The IG wants additional comments re: the re-baselining. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but the whole process seems like an ad for the Lexington Institute’s Daniel Goure, who argues that the Pentagon’s procurement processes are an out of control overhead burden. It’s all about paper, rather than the soundness of the conclusion. And you can’t use what you learn in war games to change procurement decisions? What idiot thinks that’s a good idea? Pentagon IG Report.

May 17/13: General Electric in Lynn, MA receives a $7.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order to buy critical hard tooling required to support the manufacture of the CH-53K’s GE38-1B engines. The current order involves GE38s for the CH-53K System Demonstration Test Article (SDTA) helicopters, and they’re the engine’s inaugural platform.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (20%); Morristown, TN (20%); Groton, CT (20%); Hooksett, NH (10%); Fort Wayne, IN (10%); North Clarendon, VT (10%); and Albany, OR (10%); and is expected to be complete in November 2014. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 RDT&E budgets (N00019-10-G-0007).

March 28/13: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2012, plus time to compile and publish. Overall, expected costs have risen (q.v. March 30/12 entry), though the added cost per helicopter is only 5.6% above the baseline. The “ground test vehicle” non-flying model has been delivered, but issues with a test stand are delaying progress.

GAO points out that the design is released, but not necessarily finished. The big break in the program remains the April 2011 shift from a cost-plus award fee to cost-plus incentive fee contract, tied to specific cost and schedule goals, and associated with a much-delayed schedule. The next big event will be the beginning of system-level prototype testing in 2013.

CH-53E lifts M113 APC

May 6/12: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT receives a $7.8 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification to incorporate CH-53K live fire test and evaluation. This is exactly what it sounds like – the Navy will shoot lots of holes in test platforms, and assess damage resistance.

Work will be performed at Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, CA (80%), and Stratford, CT (20%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2018 (N00019-06-C-0081).

April 12/12: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT receives a $25.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification, to provide detailed maintenance plans in support of the CH-53K helicopter program. Work will be performed in Stratford, CT, and is expected to be complete in December 2015 (N00019-06-C-0081).

March 30/12: GAO report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2012. With respect to the CH-53K:

“Program officials reported that in July 2011, the contract’s estimated cost was increased by $724 million to $3.4 billion. According to Defense Contract Management Agency officials, the estimated contract costs increased because of several factors including the need for additional flight test hours and spare parts, increased material costs, and design complexity. The contract was also changed from cost-plus award fee to cost-plus incentive fee for the remaining period of performance. The incentive fees are tied to specific cost and schedule goals… According to Marine Corps officials, a force structure review has been conducted to assess the required quantity of aircraft and that review determined that the requirement for 200 aircraft is still valid despite the proposed manpower reduction.”

Feb 28/12: Avionics. Northrop Grumman announces a $5.6 million Phase II contract from US NAVAIR to modify existing software for the CH-53K’s LN-251 embedded GPS/fiber-optic inertial navigation system (INS). Northrop Grumman’s Navigation Systems Division will provide updated software and engineering support for platform integration and flight tests, to both NAVAIR and Sikorsky Aircraft.

Feb 24/12: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT receives a $15.5 million cost-plus-incentive-fee CH-53K contract modification. The program needs a condition-based maintenance plus software toolset (almost certainly ISS – vid. Oct 26/11), to integrate the helicopter’s onboard prognostics and the Navy’s fleet common operating environment maintenance computers. The contract includes installation, operation, and recurring data analysis.

Funds and work will be assigned if and as needed, and work will be performed in Lexington Park, MD (90%), and Stratford, CT (10%). The contract is expected to run until February 2018. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-06-C-0081).

Dec 19/11: Sub-contractors. Northrop Grumman announces a follow-on contract from US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD to define system requirements for the integration of its LN-251 embedded global positioning system (GPS)/fiber-optic inertial navigation system (INS) on the new CH-53K.

The firm touts the LN-251 system as “the world’s smallest, lightest navigation-grade embedded GPS/INS unit in its class… [whose] modular, open architecture supports additional applications and evolving requirements.”

Oct 26/11: Recognition. The CH-53K Helicopter Systems Engineering Team wins a Department of Defense Systems Engineering Top 5 Programs Award, at the annual NDIA Systems Engineering Conference Award Luncheon in San Diego, CA. US NAVAIR.

Oct 26/11: ISS Patent. Sikorsky Aerospace Services’ Integrated Support System (ISS) aftermarket software suite has received a patent. ISS integrates onboard diagnostics (vid. Sept 26/08 HUMS entry) and usage data with ground-based troubleshooting and service information. This technology is part of Sikorsky’s efforts to move toward proactive diagnostics, and ISS platforms for the Sikorsky CH-53K and S70i are under development. Future plans include expansion to other aircraft types. Sikorsky.

Oct 11/11: Sub-contractors. Thermoplastic composites firm Fiberforge announces the addition of Njord A. Rota as its CH-53K Program Manager. They explain that the Lockheed Martin veteran will lead all management aspects of Fiberforge’s work for DRS Technologies Inc. Their work includes the design, development and production of the carbon fiber composite components within the CH-53K’s Internal Cargo Handling System. Helihub.

GE38 engine
(click to view full)

Aug 4/11: Engine. GE has delivered the 1st GE38 engine, for use on the Sikorsky CH-53K Ground Test Vehicle. After 2 years of testing, GE touts 57% more power and 18% lower specific fuel consumption than the CH-53E’s similarly-sized GE T64, while using 63% fewer parts.

In addition to the CH-53K SDD program’s 20 flight engines, the GE38 testing program includes 5 factory-test engines that will accumulate more than 5,000 engine test hours by 2013. GE is pushing ahead on its engine despite CH-53K delays, and expects it to have applications in the fixed wing and naval markets, alongside its helicopter potential. They see a total civil and military market potential of $4+ billion. GE.

June 21/11: Industrial. Sikorsky announces that they’ve begun assembly of the CH-53K Ground Test Vehicle (GTV), which is currently in position 4 on the line. It’s the 1st of 5 prototype CH-53Ks to be assembled at the Sikorsky Florida Assembly and Flight Operations (FAFO) facility in West Palm Beach, FL, which opened in March 2011.

Another 2 GTVs will be assembled at Sikorsky’s main manufacturing plant in Stratford, CT, making 3 ground test and 4 flight test helicopters. CH-53K ground testing is scheduled to begin in early 2012, and flight testing during FY 2014. To give one a sense of the CH-53K, its rotor hub and transmission alone weigh 15,000 pounds – about the empty weight of a UH-60 Black Hawk.

March 22/11: Industrial. Sikorsky officially opens its new 60,000 square foot Florida Assembly and Flight Operations (FAFO) campus, establishing experimental assembly line operations for the new CH-53K heavy lift helicopter. The FAFO line introduces a set of new manufacturing technologies. It’s equipped with wireless data connections to all operator plasma data screens, uses digital operation sheets, and is outfitted with overhead power and air dropdowns, new aircraft work stands, and overhead cranes. Sikorsky, incl. video.

Feb 16/11: Sub-contractors. Donaldson provides an update regarding its Engine Air Particle Protection System, which is a critical piece of equipment in desert or dusty environments. They received the contract in September 2007:

“We built the first full-scale EAPPS in just three months following the CDR, [DID: which was August 2010]” said Sheila Peyraud, General Manager, Aerospace and Defense at Donaldson. “Developmental testing began in November 2010 to support testing of the helicopter’s GE38-1B engine in 2011. We are pleased that initial results in this phase of the program are exceeding expectations originally set during the conceptual design phase. Qualification testing will begin in May 2011.”

Jan 14/11: Industrial. Sikorsky unveils a state-of-the-art virtual reality center for the CH-53K heavy lift helicopter program, attempting to help identify production and maintenance issues before the initial build takes place by using a 3-dimensional digital environment.

Located within the engineering labs at Sikorsky’s main manufacturing facility in Stratford, CT, the virtual reality center uses sophisticated software, along with 12 cameras, a head-mounted display headset, gloves, and a gripping tool. All devices are linked to 3 computers, which comprise the “command center” for operating the system.

Nov 19/10: Sub-contractors. ITT Corporation (formerly EDO) announces that after nearly 3 years of advanced design, development, testing and manufacturing, they’ve delivered the first pair of CH-53K sponsons to Sikorsky. Each sponson is 25 feet long by 4 feet wide and 5 feet high, and fits on the helicopter’s side to house landing gear, fuel, and other mechanical and electrical assemblies.

ITT used composite materials instead of traditional sheet metal for the sponsons, and hopes they’ll provide benefits in weight, corrosion resistance, and in-flight stress tolerance. To make that work, ITT has to use advanced manufacturing technologies like electronic model control, laser-ply projection, 5-axis computer numerically controlled machining, automated trimming and drilling, and laser and ultrasonic inspection of all subassemblies. The CH-53K parts will be built at ITT’s Electronic Systems facility in Salt Lake City, UT.

CH-53Ds in Hawaii
(click for video)

Sept 6/10: Sub-contractors. GKN Aerospace delivers the first major CH-53K structural assembly to Sikorsky – an aft transition fuselage section that measures approximately 20′ x 9′ x 9′, built of an advanced hybrid composite, aluminum and titanium structure covered with external composite skins.

GKN Aerospace was accorded full design authority and manufacturing responsibility for the CH-53K helicopter aft transition fuselage section, cargo ramp, and overhead door structural assemblies in 2007. Structural design is carried out by the GKN Aerospace Engineering Development Center in Nashville, TN, and manufacturing of over 1,000 separate components takes place at the Company’s plant in St. Louis, MO. GKN Aerospace is employing manufacturing technologies including automated fibre placement (AFP), automated trim and drill, and digital inspection. GKN Aerospace.

Aug 16/10: CH-35D plans. DoD Buzz looks at the shifting plans to replace the USMC’s 30 CH-53D Sea Stallions. The original plan was to replace them with MV-22s. At some point in 2007/08, the Marine Corps formally decided replace their aging CH-53Ds with CH-53Ks. But now USMC Lt. General Trautman is saying that he wants an east coast and a west coast MV-22 squadron to replace the CH-53Ds in Afghanistan, and “When I can do that, that’ll be the start of getting CH-53 Delta out of the way.”

Exactly what “out of the way” means is ambiguous. If it means out of service, DoD Buzz correctly notes that this raises questions about the USMC’s support for the CH-53K, and would seem to be better news for the MV-22. If it means “shifted back to Hawaii while MV-22s serve in Afghanistan,” that would be something else. The exact meaning isn’t 100% clear in the article.

June 28/10: Sub-contractors. Raytheon Co. in El Segundo, CA received a $26.5 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 50 forward looking infrared devices that will be fitted to CH-53E (42) and CH-53K (8) helicopters. Discussions with corporate representatives confirm that these will be AN/AAQ-29 turrets, using a 480 x 640 element, 3-5 micron wavelength indium antimonite infrared detector, and a 2 field of view telescope on a 12-inch diameter turret.

This is a follow-on to a previous order. Work under this basic ordering agreement will be performed in El Segundo, CA, and is expected to be complete in June 2012. $530,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (N00019-10-G-0018).

May 10/10: Engine. Flight International reports that even though the CH-53E is delayed, GE remains committed to delivering the 7,500 shp class GE38-1 engine on schedule. The firm sees re-engining opportunities and related sales beyond the CH-53K, so they’ve begun delivering GE38s for ground tests years before airframes become available for flight test.

As of Feb 15/10, GE had recorded 176 engine starts and 177 operating hours, with sustained power of 7,760 shp and peak power of 8,300 shp. April 2010 saw delivery of a 2nd engine for ground tests.

The article is less positive about the CH-53K’s odds of winning the German/French heavy-lift helicopter program. Apparently, Germany wants a helicopter that will fit key vehicles internally, not underslung. Ultimately, the question will be whether Germany can afford to develop what it wants, can find it elsewhere, or is forced to remove some requirements.

April 29/10: Why the delay? DefenseTech reports that the USMC has pushed back the initial flight date of the CH-53K by 2 years to FY 2013, and Initial Operational Capability by 3 years to FY 2018, “with little concrete justification beyond an ‘overly aggressive initial program schedule’ “, and while stressing that the program has not run into technical problems. Craig Hooper writes:

“The CH-53K was an unsung showpiece for those preaching the virtues of incremental development, and, as a result, appetite for the platform has grown by about 30 percent, with the program of record expected to increase from 156 aircraft to 200. But, in the process, the CH-53K has become something of a MV-22-killer. Is this the problem?… In late 2009, the Marine Corps decided to go with the CH-53Ks to replace their 40-year old CH-53D fleet (MV-22 Ospreys were originally slated to replace the CH-53D). At about the same time, Israel decided to forego the Osprey for the CH-53K, killing the Osprey’s best hope of snaring an international buyer. And with the Osprey 65% availability and the MV-22s high operating costs of about $11,000 dollars an hour… worse, studies from the Pentagon demonstrated that a CH-53K-equipped big-deck amphib provided a lot more logistical support for embarked Marines than the MV-22… Slowing CH-53K development will… prevent real-data comparisons between platforms… [until] 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… Why slow a program that stands to be a high-demand showpiece with potential markets in Israel, Germany, France, Turkey, Singapore and Taiwan?”

Asked for a response, US MARCORSYSCOM said that US NAVAIR was the only agency that could respond; NAVAIR did not respond to DID’s simultaneous inquiry.

April 1/10: SAR – Program grows. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. The CH-53K is included, because the Marines want more of them – but there’s a self-imposed catch:

“CH-53K – Program costs increased $6,817.8 million (+36.4%) from $18,708.3 million to $25,526.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 44 aircraft from 156 to 200 aircraft (+$3,108.9 million), and increases in other support costs (+$749.7 million) and initial spares (+$456.2 million) associated with the quantity increase. Costs also increased due to a three-year delay in the procurement profile shifting initial purchases from fiscal 2013 to fiscal 2016 (+$1,148.4 million), schedule growth attributable to funding constraints (+$669.6 million), and an increase in the cost estimate for the development contract (+$611.2 million).”

Feb 22/10: Sub-contractors. Cobham announces [PDF] a sub-contract from Sikorsky to manufacture all leading and trailing edge details and precisely locate and bond the details onto the CH-53K’s main rotor blade spar.

The work will be done by its Antenna Systems unit, which has consolidated all composites-related operations within the company. Depending on how many CH-53K helicopters are eventually built by Sikorsky for the US Marine Corps, the contract could be worth up to $25 million.

Jan 22/10: Industrial. Sikorsky formally opens its new $20 million Precision Components Technology Center, as part of United Technologies Corp.’s $130 million investment the CH-53K program.

The center currently employs 8 people, and was designed to allow the development of new product lines with “zero setup time” and quick changeover from one component to another. The center will produce major dynamic components of the CH-53K helicopter such as rotating and stationary swashplates, main and tail rotor hubs, and main rotor sleeves. The equipment in the center has the capability to produce any precision rotor and drive system dynamic component, including earlier-model configurations, and forgings machined there can be up to double the size of previous on-site limits. Sikorsky release.

Jan 7/10: IDR. Sikorsky announces the wrap-up of its Integration Design Review for the CH-53K, in preparation for the Critical Design Review coming in 2010. The event included industrial team members , and personnel from US NAVAIR and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Risk reduction initiatives on the critical split torque main gear box and the advanced main rotor blade are done, and 2010 will also hold a Technology Readiness Assessment. Initial Operational Capability is currently slated for early 2016.

Established features of the CH-53K helicopter currently include a joint-interoperable glass (digital screens) cockpit; fly-by-wire flight controls; 4th generation rotor blades with anhedral tips; a low-maintenance elastomeric rotor head; upgraded engines; a locking cargo rail system; external cargo handling improvements; survivability enhancements; and design for reduced operation and support costs. Sikorsky release.

CH-53E, Cobra Gold 2002
(click to view full)

July 28/09: Engine. The GE38 team holds a ceremony at General Electric in Lynn, MA, celebrating the completion of the first full GE38 engine test. This first engine test, which began June 24/09, focused on basic engine checkout and risk reduction. All engine test parameters were within predicted values.

SDD phase testing will include 5 ground-test engines that will accumulate more than 5,000 engine test hours, plus production of 20 flight-test engines for the CH-53K development helicopters (each helicopter carries 3 engines). NAVAIR release.

May 7/09: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Corporation announces a contract from Sikorsky to develop and supply data concentrator units for the CH-53K. Curtiss-Wright’s system consists of 2 data concentrator units (DCUs) that will receive and provide various avionic and air vehicle discrete, digital and analog inputs for monitoring, processing data and controlling various CH-53K subsystem components.

Curtiss-Wright’s Motion Control segment will develop and manufacture the DCU systems at its newly-opened City of Industry, CA, facility. The initial contract runs through 2011 with the production phase starting in 2013. The contract has a total potential value of $22 million when development and all aircraft production options and phases are completed.

April 21/09: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Controls Inc., announces a contract from United Technologies subsidiary Claverham Ltd. (a Hamilton Sundstrand Flight Systems business unit) to provide multi-channel linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) for the fly-by-wire (FBW) systems controlling the main rotor and tail rotor on the Sikorsky UH-60M Upgrade and CH-53K helicopters.

The LVDTs are special pressure sealed linear displacement transducers that are embedded in Claverham’s Primary Flight Control Actuators. The transducers provide electrical signals that are proportional to the position of the hydraulic actuator rod, and the actuators change pitch angles on the main and tail rotors in response to the pilot’s commands.

These two programs have a potential contract value in excess of $20 million over a 15-year period, with shipments expected to begin in 2009. The company will supply these products from its Christchurch, UK operation.

March 30/09: GAO. The US GAO audit office delivers its 7th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report, which looks at 47 programs including the CH-53K HLR. The CH-53K stands out, as one of the few programs to show lower R&D projections (from $4.23 billion to $4.17 billion) and estimated delivery time (2 months early) since its 2005 baseline. The truth is, the Marines have little choice. The time crunch has already begun:

“According to program officials, all available decommissioned CH-53E helicopters have been reclaimed… Currently deployed CH-53E aircraft are flying at three times the planned utilization rate… The program intends to manufacture up to 29 of the 156 total [CH-53K] helicopters (19 percent) during low-rate initial production at the same time that it is conducting initial operational testing. While concurrent testing and production may help to field the systems sooner, it could also result in greater retrofit cost…”

That’s likely, since a number of requirements and systems have been shelved, in order to deliver the helicopter on time:

“Both of the CH-53K’s current critical technologies, the main rotor blade and the main gearbox, are immature and are expected to be fully mature following the low-rate initial production decision in 2013. The program replaced a third technology, the viscoelastic lag damper, with a modified version of an existing [linear hydraulic damper] technology. During preparations for the preliminary design review, it was discovered that maturing system engineering tasks would potentially require additional cost and time. As a result, the program eliminated noncritical requirements to contain costs and delayed the preliminary and critical design reviews and low-rate initial production decision.”

Feb 8/09: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems announces contracts from Sikorsky Aircraft for development and initial deliveries of CH-53K Cockpit Seats and Cabin Armor Systems, and for integration of the CH-53K’s fly-by-wire flight controls. BAE Systems efforts will include design, development, testing, qualification, and delivery of initial systems to support the flight test and ground test aircraft. Follow-on contracts would be placed for production orders and spares.

The seats will be based on BAE Security & Survivability Systems S7000 armored, crashworthy seats, and first deliveries of both seats and cabin armor are scheduled for 2010. The total value of the programs is estimated at approximately $90 million through 2022, if 156 CH-53K aircraft are built.

Iraq: CH-53E lifts UH-60
(click to view full)

September 2008: PDR. The CH-53K program conducts a successful Preliminary Design Review. Source.

PDR

Sept 26/08: Sub-contractors – HUMS. Goodrich announces that it has been picked to supply its IVHMS Health Usage and Monitoring Systems (HUMS) for the CH-53K. HUMS are embedded sensors within the aircraft’s key components, like engines. They monitor these systems, and can often tell if things are beginning to wrong inside before something actually breaks.

Avoiding breakdowns, and helping to pinpoint problems faster if something does break, saves money. Further savings can be had by using HUMS in conjunction with advanced maintenance and fleet management software. Once a baseline of good data is available, it becomes possible to switch from “do it just in case” maintenance and overhaul checklists, to “condition-based maintenance” that’s performed only when necessary, based on a combination of HUMS readings and predictive software.

Goodrich has carved out a strong market position in this area, supplying HUMS systems of varying complexity for a number of US military helicopters. IVHMS will supposedly build on earlier IMDS systems implanted in the CH-53E, but will be broader in nature, monitoring “the CH-53K helicopter’s entire mechanical drive train from the engines to the rotor system, and hundreds of aircraft systems.”

Sept 2/08: Sub-contractors. Breeze-Eastern Corporation announces that Sikorsky has picked them to provide the CH-53K’s Internal Cargo Winch System. The initial contract requires the delivery of 5 units for the System Design and Development phase.

Breeze-Eastern has worked with Sikorsky in this area to supply the S-92, and to retrofit USMC CH-53Ds. Bloomberg.

May 30/08: Camber Corp. in Huntsville, AL received an $8.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for program management, acquisition management, and engineering and technical services in support of the CH-53D, CH-53E, MH-53E, and CH-53K.

Work will be performed in Patuxent River, MD and is expected to be complete in November 2008. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, MD (N000421-08-C-0044).

Feb 18/08: Sub-contractors. Northrop Grumman Corporation announces that U.S. Naval Aviation Systems Command has picked their APR-39BvX radar warning receiver (RWR) integration program for the Navy’s CH-53K helicopter fleet. The APR-39 BvX upgrade, scheduled for completion and flight testing in late 2009 or early 2010, builds on the recently completed AvX program and includes new, faster processors and “massive” memory expansion.

Under the terms of the $17 million phase Phase 2 contract, Northrop Grumman will incorporate all electronic warfare (EW) integration capabilities of the APR-39Av2 and APR-39Bv2 versions, which are variants of the same system tailored to the kind of aircraft computer and cockpit interfaces in Navy/USMC aircraft. The APR-39BvX program will create one interoperable version for the forthcoming CH-53K fleet. This phase 2 program will include electronic warfare controller and integration interfaces to multiple missile and laser warning sensors, and also tie the APR-39 into Northrop Grumman’s Directional Infrared Countermeasures (DIRCM) systems onboard each of the helicopters. The intended result is a system providing warning and protection against electro-optical, infrared, and radar guided missiles, and electronic warfare threats. NGC release.

Nov 6/07: Sub-contractors. Sikorsky has selected fellow United Technologies Corporation subsidiary Eaton Corporation to design, develop and supply the CH-53K’s integrated fuel system. This is in addition to the contract for the helicopter’s hydraulic power generation system and fluid conveyance package awarded to Eaton in July 2007.

During the development phase of the program, which runs through 2014, Eaton will provide the integrated fuel system support hardware for 5 helicopter shipsets in addition to a number of system development test sets. “Based on expected production of more than 156 helicopters for the U.S. Marine Corps, the contract value is approximately $96 million and, when combined with anticipated foreign military sales, is expected to exceed $160 million over the approximate 12-year life of the program.” Eaton release.

CH-53E Super Stallions:
2 HMMWVs, to shore
(click to view full)

Sept 25/07: Sub-contractors. Donaldson Company announces that Sikorsky has picked them to provide the CH-53K’s engine air particle protection system (EAPPS), which helps keep blown sand and other contaminants from gumming up the helicopter’s engines.

Sept 17/07: Sub-contractors. Fellow United Technologies’ subsidiary Hamilton Sundstrand announces that they’ve been selected to supply integrated secondary power systems for the CH-53K, consisting of the environmental control system, auxiliary power unit and main engine start system. The environmental control system (flight deck and avionics air conditioning, cabin ventilation and heating, engine bleed system, and supply air for the onboard inert gas generation system) and main engine start system will be built at Hamilton Sundstrand’s Windsor Locks, CT facility. The Auxiliary Power Unit will be built at the company’s San Diego, CA facility.

The contract includes design, development and production work; design and development will begin immediately with first hardware deliveries scheduled for 2009. Hamilton Sundstrand says that this agreement has a potential value of more than $400 million. The firm already holds contracts to supply the CH-53K’s fly-by-wire flight control computers, and primary main and tail rotor actuators. Hamilton Sundstrand release.

Sept 4/07: Sub-contractors. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation has selected Goodrich Corporation to act as integrator for the CH-53K’s input and tail drive shaft system, as well as supplying the electrical power generation and distribution system (q.v. June 17/07).

July 12/07: Sub-contractors. Sikorsky Selects fellow UTC subsidiary Eaton to supply the CH-53K’s Hydraulic Power Generation System and Fluid Conveyance Package. During the development phase of the program, which runs through 2014, Eaton will provide support hardware for 10 aircraft shipsets. Based on expected production of more than 156 aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as anticipated foreign military sales, the potential value of the contract over the life of the program is expected to exceed $200 million. Eaton release.

June 20/07: European HTL. France & Germany confirm their heavy-lift helicopter program, known as HTL in France and FHT in Germany. A full set of specifications have not been created yet, and the countries involved are still trying to decide whether to pay the price of a full R&D program to get exactly what they want, or base their helicopter on an existing design. Possible contenders include the CH-53K, Boeing’s CH-47F, and Rosvertol’s super-giant Mi-26T helicopter.

June 18/07: Sub-contractors. Canadian aerospace manufacturer Heroux-Devtek Inc.’s Landing Gear Division received a contract from Sikorsky to design, develop, fabricate, assemble, test and deliver the CH-53K’s landing gears and tail bumper during the SDD phase, which includes the production of landing gears and tail bumper assemblies for 8 systems. Total revenue for the SDD and the Production Phase, which will be awarded in a separate contract, is expected to exceed C$ 95 million (about $89 million). Rotor News.

June 17/07: Sub-contractors. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation has selected Fortune 500 firm Goodrich Corporation to supply the electrical power generation and distribution system for the CH-53K program. Goodrich’s Pitstone Green, UK and Twinsburg, OH facilities will be involved in the development and delivery of a complete electrical power system for the aircraft, consisting of generators and controls; primary power distribution; AC/DC converters; battery; and external power controls.

Goodrich currently supplies power generation for the Sikorsky S-92/H-92 Superhawk, and has recently been selected to supply the DC power generation for the Sikorsky’s upgraded S-76D civil helicopter. Rotor News | Goodrich press kit release incl. pictures

May 9/07: Sub-contractors. Sikorsky Aircraft announces its selection of 4 subcontractors to design and fabricate the CH-53K’s major fuselage sections, “following an extensive solicitation and evaluation of multiple bids over a 12-month competition”: They include Aurora Flight Sciences in Manassas, VA; Bridgeport, WVA; and Columbus, MS; R&D in Cambridge, MA (main rotor pylon). EDO Corp. composites in Salt Lake City, UT; select resin transfer molding parts from Walpole, MA; and final assembly in North Amityville, NY (tail rotor pylon & side sponsons). GKN Aerospace in Nashville, TN & St. Louis, MO (aft transition). Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, KS (cockpit and cabin).

Design will be conducted in a collaborative environment between supplier sites and Sikorsky’s Heavy Lift Development Center using model management systems linked to Sikorsky IT and data systems. Composite and titanium materials are being employed extensively to provide superior fatigue and corrosion durability at minimum weight, and state-of-the-art manufacturing processes such as co-curing, automated part fabrication, super high speed machining, and determinant assembly are being pressed into service to keep costs down. Sikorsky release.

Assemblies will initially be built for 7 test and certification aircraft (4 Engineering Development Models, 1 Ground Test Vehicle, 1 Static Test Article and 1 Fatigue Test Article.) The CH-53K SDD program schedule runs through the end of September 2015.

ADDENDA: GKN Aerospace’s release says that they’re contracted to deliver their 7 development ship sets to Sikorsky between 2009 – 2012, and estimates that this deal could be worth up to $70 million to them. Aurora Flight Sciences’ release clarifies that the Main Rotor Pylon (MRP) is one of 6 major fuselage sections; it is mostly made of composite materials, and houses the CH-53K’s Main Rotor Head, the No. 2 engine and other aircraft subsystems. EDO Release [PDF]

Feb 12/07: Manufacturing. Sikorsky Opens the CH-53K Development Center. The CH-53K program’s new Heavy Lift Development Center is a 106,000-square-foot office building in Stratford, CT, about 5 miles from Sikorsky’s main facility. It houses the CH-53K Program and Engineering staff, co-locating 500 team members consisting of Sikorsky, Naval Air Systems Command, Defense Contracting Management Agency personnel and subcontractors. These members work in Integrated Product Teams to design, develop, test and manufacture major systems and subsystems within the CH-53K.

Dec 22/06: Engine picked. Sikorsky Aircraft has selected General Electric Aviation to provide the new CH-53K heavy lift helicopter’s main engines. The GE38-1B engine planned for the CH-53K is a derivative of the CFE738 commercial turbofan engine used in the Falcon 200 business jet; the CFE738 was in turn derived from the T407 turboprop intended to power the US Navy’s updated P-7 Orion (that program was canceled and a competition restarted that left the 737-derived P-8A MMA as the winner). See also GE’s Feb 7/07 release.

According to this Flight International article, GE’s engine beat out Pratt & Whitney’s PW150 and a derivative of Rolls Royce’s AE1107 that powers the V-22 Osprey.

Oct 30/06: Rotor. Sikorsky Aircraft has submitted test results for its 4th Generation(TM) rotor blade, which builds on the work done for the Growth Rotor Blade(TM) (GRB) currently used on their new UH-60M and S/H-92 helicopters, using anhedral tips. The CH-53K model wind tunnel testing performed late in the summer of 2006 has reportedly shown a significant improvement in forward flight efficiency over the GRB. Earlier in the year, similar model rotor hover testing indicated large gains in hover efficiency. Read Sikorsky’s release.

CH-53D at work
(click to view full)

July 19/06: European HTL. Jane’s reports that EADS Eurocopter is seeking partners for a “super lift” helicopter to be fielded around 2020 with the French & German militaries, and confirms that talks have been held with Sikorsky regarding a modified CH-53K with European avionics and a larger cabin.

The Germans apparently want to replace their CH-53Gs (actually modified CH-53Ds) around 2020, and will look for upgrade programs to bridge the gap. The French currently lack heavy-lift helicopters in the CH-53 or CH-47 class, though the supergiant Russian Mi-26 was evaluated recently. Eurocopter and Sikorsky recently partnered on the successful $3 billion LUH program, but the firm has said it is keeping all its options open and is making no commitments.

UPDATE: Germany is updating their CH-53Gs, and the 2 countries are also going ahead with the heavy lift helicopter program. The CH-53K is still a competitor. Where does it stand? Read “The European Heavy Lift Helicopter Program?”

Dec 22/05: Green light. A formal decision by the Honorable Kenneth R. Krieg, US Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, gives the estimated $4.4 billion HLR program the green light to proceed to the System Definition and Development (SDD) phase.

CH-53E Super Stallion
(click to view full)

August 25/05: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT received a $43.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previous basic ordering agreement to perform requirements definition and engineering studies in support of the Marine Corps’ Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) Program. Work on the requirements definition and engineering studies will be performed in Stratford, CT and is expected to be complete in April 2006.

Jan 6/05: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT received an $8.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for preliminary design work in support of HLR, as part of the initial system development and demonstration of the Marine Corps’ CH-53X Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) program. Work on the preliminary design contract (N00019-06-C-0081) will be performed in Stratford, CT and is expected to be complete in January 2008 (N00019-03-G-0003).

Dec 23/04: A $34 million time and materials delivery order, issued against basic ordering agreement N00019-03-G-0003, to perform requirements definition and engineering studies in support of the Marine Corps’ Heavy Lift Replacement Program. Work was performed in Stratford, CT, and was expected to be complete in May 2005.

This contract number is not exclusive to the CH-53K. Other awards under this particular contract covered the Presidential Helicopter program (Sikorsky lost) and other helicopter engineering.

Appendix A: Flying Between Scylla and Charbydis: Navigating the Political Shoals

JHL: QTR Concept
(click to view full)

DID’s coverage of the HLR program has also included a report about HLR’s potential merger with the US Army’s futuristic JHL program. The Joint Heavy Lifter (JHL) is imagined as an aircraft with cargo capacity that approaches a C-130 Hercules transport (about 20 tons), but with the ability to take off and land like a helicopter. No current US military helicopter platform even comes close. JHL’s competitors are deploying some radical and different technologies in their attempt to achieve these goals – from quad tilt-rotors to coaxial skycranes and even compound helicopters.

Marine Corps acquisition officials also weighed the option of participating in JHL. While Congress could always step in to force the issue – and may still do so – the Marine Corps note that this would be deeply unwise for a number of reasons:

“The Army’s proposed heavy lift requirement to transport the Future Combat System greatly exceeds our requirement,” said program manager, Col. Paul Croisetiere. “The actual aircraft hasn’t been designed yet, but initial analysis suggests the joint heavy lifter will be too large to operate from current and programmed amphibious shipping. We may have a use for it, but in more of a logistical role as a possible KC-130J [air tanker] replacement – we still need the CH-53K for tactical heavy lift.”

Joint Heavy Lifters may not be available any sooner than 2025, according to Croisetiere, which is more than 10 years after the Marine Corps will be forced to start retiring its current CH-53E fleet. Even if the Marines could use it, Croisetiere pointed out that as currently envisioned, JHL will be too big to operate from the Marines’ amphibious ships.

V-22 Osprey

This is a logical argument. However this rationale might sell better if the USMC hadn’t spent the last decade describing tilt-rotor technology as the necessary wave of the future that would make helicopters obsolete, in its quest to sell the $100 million per plane V-22 Osprey.

When budgets are also being squeezed hard by multiple cost overruns on a wide swath of programs, programs that appear to be similar to each other will become big targets for Congressional cuts and pressure to merge. The US Marines have been the leading service advocates of tilt-rotor technology as a transformational necessity. Having invested so much of their prestige and credibility in the V-22, some people on Capitol Hill seem inclined to view the Marines’ rejection of a program that includes similar Quad Tilt Rotor and OSTR (Optimum Speed Tilt-Rotor) options as inconsistent, and hence mere territoriality. If this view spreads, it will not bode well for the HLR Program’s political survival.

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time in US military procurement history that the promise of the shiny new thing has found itself in the way of fulfilling military necessities with cheaper, proven options.

MH-53J Pave Low IV
(click to view alt.)

The natural response to such pressures would be twofold. One track would emphasize the comparatively speculative nature of the JHL Program’s technologies and their uncertain development timelines. The other track would tout the value of cheaper builds of proven helicopters, in order to meet immediate needs and an uncompromising timeline for fleet airframe life. This is exactly what Col. Paul Croisetiere has done.

Making that argument, however, flies in the face of almost everything the USMC said when some in Congress pushed for immediately available conventional helicopter options to replace the Marines’ extremely aged Vietnam-era CH-46 Sea Knights. Options that would also have cost about half the price per aircraft. If the CH-46s could be patched together via life extension programs and extensive maintenance while the V-22s sorted out their difficulties and eventually reached production many years late, why not the CH-53Es? Especially if pursuing a similar tilt-rotor technology like the JHL’s QTR would reduce the V-22′s per-aircraft costs while increasing overall interoperability, and therefore easing long-term maintenance and logistics costs as well?

These arguments may or may not be considered valid. Nevertheless, they should absolutely be expected as the Global War on Terror, unexpected future contingencies, and a looming demographic shift put increasing pressure on US defense budgets. The US Marine Corps has certainly prepared the ground well.

The HLR program may have an eventful political journey ahead of it.

Appendix B: Interesting Ideas: The CH-53X Skycrane Concept

CH-53X Skycrane Concept
(click for details)

As a point of interest, this is one of the more innovative suggestions we’ve seen re: the next-generation CH-53X. It proposes turning the CH-53 into a “Skycrane” variant, and using it in conjunction with the trend toward “battle box” containerized forces, plus underslung light armor & vehicles.

The idea is that this would improve both the CH-53E’s capabilities (via reducing aircraft weight but not power) and the USA’s transformational deployability (via faster and more versatile load and ship that would also improve tactical surprise).

Additional Readings & Sources

• GlobalSecurity.org – Heavy Lift Replacement [CH-53X]
• Sikorsky – CH-53K.
• SLD (Oct 16/10) – Adding a Core USMC Capability: The CH-53K As A Logistical Force Multiplier. An Interview with Major Jeff “Kingpin” Davis.
• Sikorsky Frontlines, via WayBack (Q3 2009) – CH-53K Update [PDF]
• American Helicopter Society’s Vertifile Magazine, via WayBack (Spring 2002) – An Affordable Solution To Heavy Lift [PDF] by Lt. Col. James C. Garman, MH-53E pilot in HMH-772 and a Senior Preliminary Design Engineer in the New Product Definition Group, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. It describes the basic outlines of many low-risk CH-53X improvements.
• Naval Technology – CH-53E Super Stallion – Heavy-Lift Helicopter, USA
• GE Aviation – GE38. CH-53K’s Engine.
• MTU – GE38. The firms are partnering to develop it, with the German firm having an 18% stake; MTU will be licensed to offer it for any European FTH helicopter program.
• DID – Incoming & Hostile: The USN’s JATAS Aircraft Warning System. ATK picked, will be used on the CH-53K.

News & Views

• Flight International, via WayBack (May 10/10) – CH-53K delay will not hold up GE38 engine programme. Its potential uses go beyond helicopters, to include things like hovercraft, and GE sees its market potential as $4+ billion.
• Flight International, via WayBack (June 25/08) – GE plots GE38 engine’s future in emerging heavylift market. Offers further details re: the CH-53K’s planned engine.
• US DoD DefenseLINK: Transformation, via WayBack (Jan 9/06) – New Heavy Lift Helicopter Starts Development
• US Navy NAVAIR, via WayBack (April 5/06) – $3B CH-53K contract awarded to Sikorsky
• Jane’s Defense Weekly, via WayBack (Feb 24/06) – US heavy-lift aircraft will stretch state of the art. Full subscriber’s article includes JHL Program coverage as well.
• DID (Jan 9/06) – CH-53X (HLR) Program Moves Into SDD, Preliminary Design. An $8.6 million preliminary design contract is issued to Sikorsky, beginning the SDD phase. The CH-53X program is also redesignated CH-53K. Has the HLR program dodged the bullet?
• DID (Sept 27/05) – CH-53X HLR & JHL: Future Heli Programs on Collision Course? The shiny new (expensive, uncertain) thing may become the enemy of the necessary, proven thing in the US military’s procurement culture. Again.
• DID (Sept 21/05) – CSAR-X: And Boeing Makes 3…. The HLR program may be affected by the choices Sikorsky makes in the CSAR-X competition.
• DID (Aug 29/05) – HLR (CH-53X) Helicopter Program Moves Toward Milestone B Approval
• Aviation Today, via WayBack (July 1/05) – Future Heavy Lift for the Marine Corps. An interview with Col. Paul Croisetiere, program manager for the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command H-53 Heavy Lift Helicopters Program PMA 261.
• Hill News, via WayBack (June 1/05) – House language could create friction over chopper programs
• USMC, Leatherneck Magazine, via WayBack (May/05) – Heavy Lift Replacement: A Vital Marine Corps Program
• American Helicopter Society’s Vertifile Magazine, via WayBack (Spring 2002) – From The Past To The Future Of Heavy Lift Part Three: Heavy Lift Helicopters [PDF]

AAV7 to LHD 2
(click to view full)

The USMC needs to keep its 40+ year old AAV Amtracs in service, after destroying the EFV amphibious armored personnel carrier replacement program in 2011 with over-ambitious requirements. Iraq taught the USMC that the Amtracs didn’t offer enough protection, and so the latest refurbishment effort plans to improve the AAVP-7A1 personnel carrier’s protection levels. Deliveries are expected to take place between 2018 – 2023…

Contracts & Key Events

AAV7P1 Amtracs
(click to view full)

As things stand now, the follow-on Armored Combat Vehicle Phase 1.1 will involve 300 commercial off-the-shelf wheeled armored vehicles. A true swimming AAV replacement won’t arrive until ACV Phase 1.2, but the USMC is still estimating a Phase 1.2 cost of $12-14 million per vehicle, even after reducing the EFV’s requirements. Phase 1.2′s timing will coincide with the beginning of a demographic fiscal crunch, in parallel with increased operations and maintenance costs for the high-maintenance platforms (esp. MV-22 and F-35B) the USMC has been buying lately. That doesn’t augur well, and implies that the AAV7 fleet will remain important for a long time.

Oct 29/13: RFP. The USMC issues their AAV Survivability Upgrade RFP, covering up to 396 AAV7s. An initial development phase will be followed by upgrades to 396 AAV7s.

The USMC wants basic internal systems improvements, along with better protection of the underbelly and sides, blast attenuating seats that hang instead of jarring with every blast to the vehicle’s bottom, and spall liners that keep enemy fire from blasting lethal metal shards out of the vehicle’s inside walls. The systems need to be in production or close to it, with a Tech Readiness Level of 6 (tested prototypes) at the outset. The vehicles still need to be seaworthy when everything is done, and the USMC also hopes to improve on corrosion resistance.

Test vehicles will need to demonstrate adequate performance, including 75% vehicle availability. Low-Rate Initial Production deliveries would begin in Q1 2018 at 4 vehicles, with deliveries rising to 24 per quarter in Q2 2021. The program would end at the end of FY 2023. The government will receive either unlimited data rights, or government-purpose rights to the final design. The difference between those classifications may matter, because the US military aren’t the only ones using the AAV7.

Additional Readings

• FBO.gov (Oct 29/13, #M67854-14-R-0001) – AAV Survivability Upgrade.
• DefenseMediaNetwork (Nov 6/13) – AAV Survivability Upgrade Moves Forward: Select fraction of aging AAVs will undergo upgrade to hold the line until ACV fielding.
• DefenseMediaNetwork (July 16/13) – Marine Corps Explores AAV Reset Options.

LPD-17 cutaway
(click to view full)

LPD-17 San Antonio class amphibious assault support vessels are just entering service with the US Navy, and 11 ships of this class are eventually slated to replace up to 41 previous ships. Much like their smaller predecessors, their mission is to embark, transport, land, and support elements of a US Marine Corps Landing Force. The difference is found in these ships’ size, their cost, and the capabilities and technologies used to perform those missions. Among other additions, this new ship is designed to operate the Marines’ new MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, alongside the standard well decks for hovercraft and amphibious armored personnel carriers.

While its design incorporates notable advances, the number of serious issues encountered in this ship class have been much higher than usual, and more extensive. The New Orleans shipyard to which most of this contract was assigned appears to be part of the problem. Initial ships have been criticized, often, for sub-standard workmanship, and it took 2 1/2 years after the initial ship of class was delivered before any of them could be sent on an operational cruise. Whereupon the USS San Antonio promptly found itself laid up Bahrain, due to oil leaks. It hasn’t been the only ship of its class hurt by serious mechanical issues. Meanwhile, costs are almost twice the originally promised amounts, reaching over $1.6 billion per ship – 2 to 3 times as much as many foreign LPDs like the Rotterdam Class, and more than 10 times as much as Singapore’s 6,600 ton Endurance Class LPD. This article covers the LPD-17 San Antonio Class program, including its technologies, its problems, and ongoing contracts and events.

LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Capabilities and Features

Roles and Innovations

LPD-17 Class & ATF
(click to view full)

The LPD-17 Class featured both an innovative development process, and 21st century features that optimize them for a number of roles. These range from an assault ship that carries and sustains Marine Expeditionary Units, to use as a US Navy command node, the ability to play the lead roles in disaster relief operations, etc.

The ships will operate as part of larger Amphibious Task Forces (ATFs) in conjunction with a full set of airpower, additional assault ships, and air and sub-surface defense vessels. They can also be parceled out as the keystones of smaller three-ship Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs)/ Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs). At minimum, they can operate independently in low-threat scenarios during “split-ARG” operations, helping the group cover multiple areas of responsibility and respond to more than one contingency simultaneously.

A total of 11 ships of this class are slated to assume the functional duties of up to 41 previous ships, including the USA’s older LSD-36 USS Anchorage class dock landing ships (all decommissioned as of 2004, LSD-36 and LSD-38 transferred to Taiwan) and its LPD-4 USS Austin Class ships (12 built and serving, LPD 14 Trenton now India’s INS Jalashva). The San Antonio class ships may also replace 2 classes of ships currently mothballed and held in reserve status under the Amphibious Lift Enhancement Program (ALEP): the LST-1179 Newport class tank landing ships, and LKA-113 Charleston class amphibious cargo ships.

MV-22 Osprey

The San Antonio Class will also serve in a number of roles beyond combat.

While LPD-17 vessels will have their own helicopter contingent for patrols and transport operations, their large deck also makes them useful inshore “lilly pads” that can quickly refuel and turn around rotary aircraft from elsewhere in order to keep them on station longer. The ships are also designed to function as casualty receiving and treatment vessels, with 24 beds and two operating rooms. With communications capabilities that surpass most US and foreign vessels,

San Antonio Class vessels are potential command ships for US and joint task forces, and should make excellent UAV hosts and/or controllers.

Their 72,000 gallon per day reverse-osmosis water production certainly improves onboard creature comforts. It also allows the ship to operate in a critical lifesaving role in the wake of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the 2005 Asian tsunami, when fresh water is often the most urgent and difficult requirement.

Yet the ships’ combat role remains top-of-mind, and reminders of their purpose are deeply embedded in the names – and in some cases, the very fabric – of these ships. The USS New York [LPD 21] incorporated bow steel cast from salvaged remains of the World Trade Center. Later vessels in its class include USS Arlington [LPD 24], named after the section of the Pentagon that was also hit by an airliner on September 11. USS Somerset [LPD 25] is named in memory of United Flight 93, whose passengers’ heroic struggles with al-Qaeda hijackers crashed the plane in a Somerset County, PA field instead of the intended targets of the Capitol building or White House.

Basic Specifications

Specs

More Fun Facts

• The US Navy has taken a tip from the cruise ship industry, and relied on heavy automation to bring down crew size. That frees up more space for troops, but these systems’ performance and resilience have become an issue.
• The ship auxiliary systems are all electric, including electric heating and water heaters, 7 big York air-conditioning units (which will be appreciated by many troops), and a 72,000 gallon per day reverse osmosis water-generating plant.
• A new high-power “low-drag” propeller hub design provides improved propeller efficiency, and helps them power the ship to speeds above 20 knots.
• Within the ship, passageways are 25-30% wider than previous LPDs so combat-loaded Marines can move in full gear inside the skin of the ship just as if they were topside.
• Those L-shaped berthing spaces have an extra 1-2 feet of headroom, enough for sailors and Marines to sit up in their racks. Personal storage space in all the berthing areas has gone up by 40%, compared to past LPDs.
• The ships are also designed from the outset to accommodate the modern reality of mixed-gender sailors and Marines.
• Food service has been modeled for maximum efficiency on both ends via simulation and task/traffic flow analysis that aim to keep both chow line waits and food production humming along.
• San Antonio Class ships also feature amenities such as a ship services mall to ease long deployments, a fitness center, and learning resource center/electronic classroom enabled by the ship’s improved bandwidth and computing capabilities.

Self-Defense & Survivability: Options & Issues

AN/SPS-48E on LPD 17

In order to survive both their missions and the need for upgrades during their long service lives, LPD-17 ships have incorporated significant advances in ship self-defense, survivability, and C4I systems. The question is whether they will be enough, given the ships’ size and cost.

Step 1 involves making detection and lock-on harder. The San Antonio Class was intended to have a significantly reduced radar cross section signature (1/100th of the LSD-41 Class). Indeed, the San Antonio Class works to minimize its signature across a number of spectra. It optimizes radar cross-section by streamlining topside layout, and incorporating reduced radar signature technologies and design. Relevant design features include a boat valley instead of a boat deck, removable coverings over the rescue boat and fueling at sea stations, and accommodation ladders that fold into the ship’s hull. Meanwhile, the advanced composite-enclosed mast/sensors, which cover the ship’s SPS-48E and SPQ-9B radars and its communications antennas, give the ship its distinctive profile. In the end LPD-17 designs do have a smaller signature than the ship classes that preceded them, but a July 2007 article in the San Antonio Express-News points out that the ship’s radar signature won’t be reduced as much as planned, compromising its survivability in near-shore regions.

A minor consolation of the class’ stealth design is that there are fewer edges and seams to collect rust, and corrosion-resistant paint and composite building materials were expected to reduce future maintenance and painting costs. Unfortunately, serious construction flaws in several ships of class are quickly piling up maintenance costs in other, unexpected areas.

RIM-116 RAM Launch

Step 2 is active defense. The class will use Raytheon’s SSDS combat system, which will control and partially automate a set of air, surface, and navigation radars, as well as electronic countermeasures systems, towed torpedo decoys, missile decoy systems, and air defense that will include the short-range RAM missile system. That single layer of active protection has been highlighted as a weakness in Pentagon reports, which state that the ship’s radar and defensive systems can’t defend the ship reliably against the most advanced anti-ship missile threats. That may prompt the Navy to add bolt-on launchers for the medium-range RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles that equip many advanced NATO warships. For close-in defense, the LPD-17 class will use the MK46 stabilized 30mm autocannon with advanced sensors, as well as traditional .50 caliber machine guns mounted about the ship.

Step 3 involves the ability take a punch and keep fighting. The ship’s design worked to optimize the separation of redundant vital systems, and possesses a diverse suite of fire-fighting options. Fiber-optic wiring throughout the ship is designed for high-bandwidth SWAN (Shipboard Wide Area Network) applications, and features long-term upgradeability, redundancy, and durability. It will also help the automated ship control systems manage ship systems, and quickly make changes in the event of damage. It is also used as part of an advanced lighting system that improves visual stealth, lowers power requirements, and makes it easy to switch the entire ship to specified lighting modes.

Unfortunately, these features have not lived up to their promise. Pentagon reports cite reliability and effectiveness issues with the Engineering Control System (ECS), the electrical distribution system, and the SWAN, saying that they may magnify the effects of a crisis, instead of helping the crew save the ship.

Other shipboard vulnerability upgrades include improved fragmentation and nuclear blast protection, and a shock-hardened structure with upgraded whipping resistance and structural connections.

Overall, Pentagon reports rate the class as more survivable than previous LPDs, but question whether they are survivable enough for the modern environment. This reflects the horns of their basic design dilemma. If a ship is made very large, it offers peacetime efficiencies and better capability per ton, but its cost will rise to a level that pushes it toward the addition of advanced radars, defensive systems, etc. These additions improve the odds that one’s ship won’t be lost and destroy the entire naval mission, but they also drive each ship’s price even higher.

The other classic approach to this problem is to build more but smaller ships, which tends to add costs by using more raw materials and building more hulls. On the other hand, cost per ship drops sharply – foreign LPDs tend to be somewhere between 1/3 to 1/10 the price of an LPD-17. With more hulls in the water, the loss of one ship is less likely to destroy an entire mission, and less expensive defensive systems can be used.

LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Program, Budgets & Timelines

Full flight deck view
(click to view full)

The original December 1996 US Navy contract was awarded to an industrial alliance led by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (formerly Litton Avondale, now Huntington Ingalls Industries), with General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Raytheon Electronic Systems and Intergraph Corporation, to design and construct the first of an anticipated 12 ships under the Navy’s LPD-17 program.

Avondale was supposed to build 8 of these ships, while Bath Iron Works would build 4 ships. In June 2002, however, a revised Memorandum of Understanding was signed with Northrop Grumman and Bath Iron Works. Northrop Grumman would be responsible for the construction of all LPD-17 San Antonio Class vessels, but they would trade construction of 4 of the USA $1.5 billion DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers to Bath Iron Works.

LPD-17 production, originally authorized for 11 or 12 vessels as functional replacements for 41 1960s-era ships, dropped to just 9 as cost spirals took their toll, and was eventually forced back up to 11 with extra spending. 2013 Navy budget documents show an average cost per ship of over $1.6 billion through all vessels, which offers the unusual phenomenon of no reduction in cost vs. the first ship of class.

According to official Pentagon budget documents, recent funding for the LPD-17 class has included:

San Antonio Class budgets, 2002-2012
(click to view full)

Excel
download

Even by 2002, Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E) was mostly complete for this class, and the vast majority of funds spent under the program have been focused on building ships. Note that requests for a given year generally include both funds to finish building a ship, and funds for long lead-time items like engines, “government-furnished equipment” that isn’t bought by the shipbuilder, and other items that must be ordered early so construction of the next ship can start on time.

FY 2010 funding would technically buy 0 ships; it finishes LPD 26, and buys long lead time items for LPD 27. FY 2011 funding was the bare minimum, and the LPD 27 order hung on passing a FY 2012 budget. The final shipbuilding contract was placed in July 2012.

Timelines

Current and planned ships in this class, and key milestones include:

San Antonio Class LPDs – Timelines
(click to view full)

For some ships still in progress, we’ve noted discrepancies between announced or estimated dates earlier in a contract, and completion dates for key milestones. For ships that are already in service, noticing the time lapses between key stages for an individual ship, and in the progression of ships through a given stage, provides its own indication of problems that have arisen. The effect of August 2005′s Class 5 Hurricane Katrina can certainly be seen in several of the ship timelines above. So, too, can the effect of manufacturing quality problems.

Flight II: What’s Next

LPD Flight II changes
(click to view full)

The LPD-17s aren’t quite done production yet, but unless the shipyard receives new orders, that time is coming soon. HII’s response has been to look ahead, and look beyond amphibious ships.

An LX(R) competition looks to replace existing LSD-41/49 amphibious ships with up to 10 new amphibious support vessels, in the unlikely event that programs like the F-35 and SSBN(X) don’t gut US Navy procurement. The stated goal is 10 ships, with the 1st ship delivered between 2018 – 2022. HII’s response is the LPD Flight II, which keeps the same basic hull, but carries fewer Marines, holds less cargo, and removes a number of elements that add costs. Their stated target is a 30% cost reduction; unfortunately, that still makes their 23,000t design about twice as expensive as a foreign 17,000t LPD like the Dutch Johann De Witt. The benefits of using a mature production line and many common elements are real, but a $1.1 billion price tag per ship simply may not be affordable amidst hugely expensive programs and fiscal crises.

Fortunately for Huntington Ingalls, they didn’t stop there. Once they had stripped the LPD-17 design down and removed the hangar and some superstructure, they realized that they had a platform for other roles as well.

Joint Command and Control. The US Navy currently operates 4 dedicated command ships, all of which are over 30 years old. At some point soon, the Navy must either replace them of forego them. The LPD Flight IIs begin with advanced communication suites, and contain all the space one might require to house and run a full theater command. HII would have some decisions to make about organic on-board helicopter capability, but otherwise, most of the modifications would involve internal layouts and wiring. The big question remains the same: could this be done more cheaply by using another platform?

Hospital Ship. The USNS Comfort and USNS Mercy are converted oil supertankers, originally launched in 1975 and 1976. The San Antonio Class has an internal hospital with 24 beds; in contrast, the USA’s hospital ships can hold and care for up to 1,000 patients, complete with a full pharmacy, advanced tools like radiology, optometry, testing lab, etc. The LPD Flight II is far smaller than these 65,000t+ behemoths, but it does have a good deal of internal space that could be put to good use, and that capacity may be more than adequate for most deployments. Innovative approaches could even modify the Flight II’s enhanced deck space to stack containerized TransHospital systems, for medical satellite deployments ashore.

USNS Mercy actually sat pierside from 1991 – 2004, whereas a platform that could operate at lower cost would be easier and more tempting to deploy. If the Navy can get beyond its steeper acquisition cost.

LPD Flight II for BMD?
click for video

Ballistic Missile Defense. This seems like the most radical change, but it isn’t if you think of the ship as specialized for this air and space defense role. A Flight II BMD ship would remove the well deck, in favor of a deck elevator that leads down to a helicopter hangar. It would also add a superstructure with the 21′ AMDR-S radar that the Navy considers ideal for ballistic missile defense, but which current destroyers cannot carry. The AEGIS BMD combat system would be installed, and the space cleared by the removal of most LPD-17 Class superstructure would be used to mount vertical launch cells around the edges. Notional designs show a nearly-ridiculous 288 Mk.41 VLS cells, or they could cut the number of cells and improve survivability by switching to the same Mk.57 PVLS on board the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class battlecruisers.

Effectively, a FLT II BMD aerospace warfare cruiser would create a more potent air and missile defense platform than current American destroyers, at a similar cost, in exchange for less versatility. US Navy 2009 estimates pegged a similar arsenal ship concept at around $2.55 billion, which still seems about right as a starting point. The Flight II BMD design would be more costly than existing LPD-17s, or existing DDG-51 Flight IIA BMD destroyers (around $1.8 – 2 billion). It might be cheaper than the $2.5 – 3 billion estimates rumored for DDG-51 Flight III destroyers, but it would have limited versatility. It has enough VLS cells to act as an air defense ship, but it would lack the speed required to perform the “plane guard” role for carriers on calm days. It’s possible to load some cells with VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles, and deploy an MH-60R helicopter from the under-deck hangar, but the ship itself wouldn’t have the systems needed to detect and track submarines. It would be a very effective arsenal ship for land attack with cruise missiles, but other ships and submarines can do the same thing, without putting such high-end BMD capability at risk.

That might be an acceptable trade, depending on the Navy’s commitment to leadership of American missile defense efforts. With discussions regarding DDG 51 Flight IV focusing on power-hungry rail guns and lasers, the Flight II’s power generation capabilities could give them a unique defensive niche. On the other hand, Flight II BMD ships would probably have to be paid for by sacrificing DDG-51 destroyers. The class’ lead shipyard Bath Iron Works needs those destroyers to remain a major shipbuilding concern, which means HII would be cannibalizing its own DDG-51 production.

LPD-17 Program: Performance Problems

(click to view full)

The LPD-17 program has done some things well. Reduced operational costs and an improved capability to incorporate technological advances over its 40-year service life were essential design objectives for LPD 17. In working to accomplish these objectives, the design team incorporated hundreds of suggestions and recommendations from more than 1,000 sailors and Marines in the “Design for Ownership” process. Simulation and modeling were used heavily, and virtual crews drawn from other areas of the US Navy took “virtual tours” of the design zones of the ship via a 3D model at initial reviews, at 50% design reviews, and at 90% design reviews. Cargo functions received particular attention.

Meanwhile, the entire project alliance worked together at the same location along with the project sponsor, in order to maximize communication. Those efforts show through in many aspects of the ships’ design.

Unfortunately, the LPD-17 Class has experienced a number of long-running problems, particularly those ships built at the Avondale shipyard near New Orleans.

Financial. Overall, the class’ financial and budgetary performance has been a long-running failure. The LPD 17 San Antonio was initially budgeted at $954 million, but ended with a final price tag of about $1.76 billion. The LPD 18 New Orleans was budgeted at $762 million, but finished at a similar cost to LPD 17.

Northrop Grumman isn’t solely to blame for these overruns. The need to tear down and rebuild completed sections of the LPD 17 San Antonio was a major cause of its cost increases, while workforce attrition rates as high as 35% annually led to its construction delays. According to San Antonio Express-News, a less obvious but equally consequential source of trouble was a computer design program dubbed 3D CAD, which was touted for its ability to give 3-dimensional views, but was not up to the task of designing an entire ship.

What’s far more disturbing is the fact that these massive cost increases over the original $800 million projections have continued throughout the class’ lifetime. Indeed, they showed no improvement at all. That’s never supposed to happen, but FY 2013 budget documents show an average $1.6 billion cost over the full 11 ships.

Workmanship. The 2nd performance failure has involved ship quality. Northrop Grumman delivered the 1st ship, USS San Antonio [LPD 17], in the summer of 2005, but difficulties with her INSURV inspections and acceptance sea trials forced a delay of almost 3 years before her 1st mission, which featured a major mechanical breakdown. A similar fate befell the USS New Orleans [LPD 18], and those delays are clearly visible in the timelines, above.

In contrast, USS Mesa Verde [LPD 19], which was built at Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls yard in Mississippi instead of its Avondale yard near New Orleans, performed well in sea trials, and has been reliable in service.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t the end of the class’ problems. In 2010 a number of ships of class, especially the Avondale-built ships, discovered very serious problems that took them out of service for difficult repairs. They included USS San Antonio [LPD 17], USS New Orleans [LPD 18], USS Green Bay [LPD 20], and USS New York [LPD 21].

Once again, the bright spot was USS Mesa Verde, built at the Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, MS, which moved to substitute for USS San Antonio on a recent deployment.

Governments have generally ignored this shipyard quality problem. A $50 million grant from the state of Louisiana did help Northrop Grumman modernize production at Avondale, and another $98.6 million in federal funding has also filtered down to local NGSS shipyards in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Nevertheless, scathing Navy inspector general reviews that detailed shoddy construction and basic workmanship problems at Avondale are cause for legitimate concern in areas that will not be fixed by modernization alone.

Eventually, Northrop Grumman spun off its shipbuilding units as Huntington Ingalls Industries, and moved to close the Avondale, LA shipyard. That may finally resolve the issue – after more than $15 billion had been spent on a supposed cornerstone of the future amphibious fleet.

DID will continue to spotlight this issue, in “LPD-17 Reliability Issues Surface Again.”

The Vicious Cycle

The San Antonio class’ problems fit into a larger set of trends. The Navy and Congress make life very difficult for American military shipbuilders, who also operate in ways that come back to bite them. Key challenges include yo-yoing political budget projections and military requirements. That problem leads to “binge and purge” hiring cycles, impairs shipyard effectiveness, and ultimately raises costs, while lowering quality. The growing costs of US Navy ships then feed back into this phenomenon, as budgets and projections break, and require drastic changes to fix.

On the contractor side, lowball initial prices, followed by cost increases once projects begin, leads to inevitable build reductions part-way through. Which means fewer ships per dollar, as R&D dollars are amortized over fewer ships. The Pentagon is often a collaborator in these games, assuring lawmakers of the initial contract’s reasonableness long after outside reports question their realism. Such approaches may ensure shipyard work in the near term, but they also feed into yo-yoing federal budgets, as cost growth makes it impossible for the Pentagon to fund all of the programs it has started.

Poor accountability and oversight can compound these issues, and has, but good oversight alone won’t remove them.

Ultimately, the US Navy loses the most. These escalating requirements and costs mean fewer ships overall. While the resulting fleet may be more capable, the number of contingencies it can cover, and the setbacks that it can safely absorb, drop. Even as the entire process shrinks a US industrial base that no longer builds many civilian vessels, and so has little resiliency.

It’s a vicious cycle – one that is damaging American global power.

LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Contracts & Key Events (1996-Present)

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts were issued by the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in Washington, DC.

LPD 25 trials
click for video

May 23/14: Politics. The Senate Armed Services Committee has completed the mark-up of the annual defense bill, which passed by a 25-1 vote. The section relevant to the LPD-17s is explained this way:

“Provides authority for the Secretary of the Navy to use unobligated funds from underperforming programs to transfer up to $650 million for the acquisition of a 12th ship of the USS San Antonio – class of amphibious ships. Acquisition of this ship would enable the Marine Corps to better support the Asia – Pacific defense strategy. Provides permissive authority to incrementally fund LPD-28.”

Sources: US Senate Armed Services Committee, “Senate Committee on Armed Services Completes Markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015″.

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The short version re: the LPD-17s:

“The Navy is working to correct deficiencies identified during IOT&E that led DOT&E to assess the ship not operationally effective, not operationally suitable, and not survivable in a hostile environment. However, correction of a number of these deficiencies has not yet been verified by follow-on operational testing and some deficiencies have not been corrected [including issues from Shock Trial Reports].”

DOT&E says that some critical systems have been improved, but “the Navy has not yet demonstrated the Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence capabilities needed to support LPD-17 when performing amphibious assault operations,” and the Shipboard Wide Area Network continues to attract scrutiny. they also maintain an interest in “reliability problems with amphibious support equipment and propulsion equipment,” “integration problems with self-defense in multiple warfare areas,” and want demonstrations of improvements re: performance issues created by the AN/APS-48Es radar mast shroud.

Reliability is also an ongoing issue, and DOT&E wants measurements for the ships as a whole, while flagging the gun systems, Magnetic Signature Control System, and SSDS Mk 2-based combat system.

Dec 6/13: LX-R. The US Navy and Marine Corps are working with HII and GD’s NASSCO to understand what’s driving costs for the proposed LX(R) follow-on amphibious ships, after the March 12/13 approval of LX(R) as a pre-major defense acquisition program. The first ship wouldn’t be ordered until FY 2019, and wouldn’t arrive until FY 2025.

CBO and Navy reports of $1.4 – 1.6 billion per ship have to be alarming. First, that’s almost as much as the 27,000 ton LPD-17s, which are already far over budget, to produce a 16,000 ton ship. Second, other countries are building similar 16,000 ton LSD/LPD ships for a bit more than a quarter of that amount. It’s well and good to jaw about a $15.4 billion, 11-ship program for medium size amphibious ships, but its future looks bleak if you project demographic effects, and overlay the other shipbuilding programs that will be underway and competing for limited funds.

The LX(R) alternatives being explored reportedly include resuming production of the LSD-41/49 ships, a modified San Antonio-class LPD-17 ship per HII’s “Flight II” pitch, a wholly new ship design, and an assessment of foreign-designed dock landing ships. Using cheaper commercial components, including propulsion systems, is also a possibility. Sources: Inside Defence, “Eying New Amphibious Ship, Navy Conducts LX(R) Affordability ‘Deep Dive’” | DoD Buzz, “Navy Considers Commercial Technology for New Amphib”.

Dec 6/13: LPD 21 moves. It’s December – time for New Yorkers to head to Florida! USS New York [LPD 21] continues this tradition, as she changes her home port from NNS Norfolk, VA to NNS Mayport, FL.

The entire 3-ship Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) will eventually be based there, as a replacement for the decomMSioned FFG-7 Class frigates USS Underwood and USS Klakring. USS Iwo Jima [LHD-7] and USS Fort McHenry [LSD-45] are slated to join USS New York in 2014. Sources: USN, “USS New York Changes Homeport to Naval Station Mayport”.

Dec 6/13: Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS receives a $39.1 million modification for LPD-17 life cycle engineering and support services: planning, repairs, spares, upgrade work, etc.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2014 (N00024-10-C-2203).

Nov 27/13: Support. Raytheon IDS in San Diego, CA receives a $32.4 million contract modification to deliver ongoing engineering and support services for LPD 17 class integrated shipboard electronic systems. the Pentagon’s descriptive hairball includes:

“…lifecycle engineering and support services, including post-delivery planning, logistics and engineering, homeport technical support, integrated product data environment, data maintenance, equipment management, systems integration and design engineering, software support, research engineering, obsolescence management (both technical and logistics), material readiness support, emergent repair planning, training and logistics support; Planning Yard support of integrated electronic systems, including fleet modernization planning, ship alteration development and installation, material management, configuration data management, research engineering, logistics documentation, and other logistics and executing activity coordination, and management; performance-based logistics support, including providing sustaining engineering and obsolescence management support for unique LPD 17 class integrated shipboard electronic systems.”

$6.2 million is committed immediately, and the award uses a hodgepodge of Navy budget lines: FY 2005, 2012, and 2014 shipbuilding and conversion; and FY 2014 operations and maintenance. $1.8 million will expire on Sept 30/14 (N00024-10-C-2205).

Nov 20/13: LPD 25. General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, CA receives a $12.1 million contract modification, exercising the option for Somerset’s [LPD 25] fitting-out availability. The ship hasn’t been commissioned yet.

$730,431 is committed immediately, and $215,383 will expire on Sept 30/14. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. This contract was competitively procured, with 4 proposals received (N00024-12-C-2400).

Nov 15/13: LPD 17. General Dynamics NASSCO-Earl Industries, Portsmouth, VA receives an $11.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for the USS San Antonio [LPD 17] phased maintenance availability. They’ll conduct miscellaneous structural and mechanical repairs. All funds are committed immediately, and will expire on Sept 30/14.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA, and is expected to be complete by May 2014. This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 3 offers received by the Norfolk Ship Support Activity in Norfolk, VA (N50054-14-C-1401).

Oct 18/13: LPD 25 delivered. Somerset is formally handed over to the US Navy at the Avondale shipyard. Sources: HII, Oct 18/13 release.

LPD 23 & LPD 24
(click to view full)

Sept 20/13: LPD 25. Somerset returns from successful US Navy acceptance sea trials. Sources: HII, Oct 10/13 release.

Aug 19/13: LPD 25. Somerset returns from 3 days of builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico. Sources: HII release, Aug 19/13.

April 12/13: Naming. The last San Antonio Class ship is among the 7 named by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who actually stuck to class naming conventions this time instead of veering into political partisanship.

LPD 27 will become USS Portland, becoming the 3rd ship in the fleet’s history to beat that name. CA-33 was a World War II heavy cruiser, named after Portland, ME. LSD-37 was also an amphibious assault ship, which was decommissioned shortly after Operation Iraqi Freedom began. It was named for Portland, ME and Portland, OR. LPD-27 is named after Portland, OR. Pentagon | Oregon Live.

LPD Flight II
click for video

April 9/13: LX(R)? USMC Commandant Gen. James Amos publicly recommends that the Navy replace its 16,360 ton LSD-41 Whidbey Island Class ships with a San Antonio Class derivative, provided it can be made affordable. The question is whether HII’s stripped-down LPD Flight II proposal drives enough costs out of the base platform to make sense. $1.5 billion per ship won’t cut it for LSD replacement, and even HII’s touted 30% savings of $1 billion for a 23,165t ship would be about double the cost of capable foreign LSDs like the 17,000t Rotterdam/JDW Class.

The Navy is currently conducting an Analysis of Alternatives for its notional 10-ship LS(X), which aims to deliver its first ships to the Navy between 2018 – 2022. It’s called LX(R) because they may want configurability for a wider range of missions than the existing LSDs. The AoA is due in September 2013. Sources: DoD Buzz, “Amos: Replace LSD amphib fleet with LPDs” | Defense News, “Different Missions Might Await New USN Amphib” | USNI News, “Second Act for San Antonio?”.

April 9/13: UAV test. Insitu Inc. announces a successful 1st maritime flight for the RQ-21A UAV from LPD 19, the USS Mesa Verde. The RQ-21A is based on Insitu’s Integrator platform, and was picked as the USMC’s small UAV back in July 2010.

The flight comes after 3 months of land-based development testing and operational assessment, and the RQ-21A’s outstanding endurance for its size will make it an important part of the San Antonio Class’ onboard equipment.

April 6/13: LPD 24 commissioned. USS Arlington is commissioned at Naval Station Norfolk, VA. US Navy Live blog.

Jan /13: Flight II?

Dec 14/12: Weapons. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $12.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 4 refurbished and upgraded Rolling Airframe Missile MK 49 Mod 3 guided-missile launch systems and associated hardware. these 21-missile launch packs will equip LPD 27 John P. Murtha (2 systems), and the Freedom Class ships LCS 9 and LCS 11 (1 each). All funds are committed on award, and there are options for 4 additional launch systems.

At the time of award, a $5.5 million option is also exercised for 2 remanufactured MK 49 launch packs, with Mod 3 updates and associated hardware. They’ll equip the Freedom Class ships LCS 13 and LCS 15.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by December 2015. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304c1 (N00024-11-C-5448).

Dec 7/12: Support. Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS receives a $54.5 million contract modification, to exercising the 3rd of 4 options associated with the Feb 16/10 award. HII will perform Life Cycle Engineering and support services on San Antonio Class ships, with $12.9 million obligated at contract award. The total value of this contract is now $157.9 million.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2013 (N00024-10-C-2203). See also HII.

Dec 7/12: LPD 24 delivered. Huntington Ingalls Industries delivers LPD 24 Arlington to the U.S. Navy. HII.

Dec 3/12: LPD 24. BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair in Norfolk, VA receives an $11.1 million contract, exercising options for the USS Arlington’s fitting-out and post shakedown work.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA (90.53%), and Chesapeake, VA (9.47%), and is expected to be complete by May 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $2.8 million will be obligated at time of award. This contract was competitively procured via FedBizOpps, with 4 proposals received (N00024-10-C-2204).

Nov 27/12: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $41.9 million modification, exercising Option Year 4 for LPD-17 class Integrated Shipboard Electronic Systems life cycle engineering and support services. Last year, it was $40 million.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (98%) and Norfolk, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2013. $7.3 million is committed on the contract’s award, and $703,893 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-10-C-2205).

Nov 5/12: LPD 24 trials. LPD 24 Arlington successfully completes US Navy INSURV acceptance trials. She is now set to be commissioned in Spring 2013. HII.

Osprey onto LPD 21
(click to view full)

Sept 17/12: LPD 23 delivered. HII delivers the amphibious transport dock ship Anchorage [LPD 23] to the US Navy. HII.

Aug 24/12: LPD 24. LPD 24 Arlington returns from successful builder’s sea trials in the Gulf of Mexico. The real key is US Navy sea trials, which are next. HII.

July 28/12: LPD 25 christened. Nearly 1,800 guests attend the christening of LPD 25 Somerset, at HII’s company’s Avondale shipyard near New Orleans. LPD 25 is named to honor the courage of the passengers and crew members of United Airlines Flight 93, who fought the hijackers and brought their plane down near Shanksville in Somerset County, PA. US Navy | HII.

June 25/12: LPD 23 completes INSURV. HII announces that LPD 23 Anchorage has returned to her Avondale, LA shipyard, after successfully passing 3 days of Navy trials in the Gulf of Mexico. Delivery to the US Navy is set for Q3 (summer) FY 2012.

May 21/12: LPD 23 trials. LPD 23 Anchorage returns to Avondale, LA from successful builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico. The ship will now prepare for acceptance sea trials by the U.S. Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV), in preparation for delivery later in 2012. HII.

May 15/12: LPD 27 lead-in. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a maximum $133.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for advance buys of LPD 27 long-lead-time materials and pre-construction activities. HII confirms that this is their 5th long-lead materials contract for LPD 27. This brings total long-lead contracts for this ship, from all contractors, to $419.6 million.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to complete by June 2017 (N00024-06-C-2222).

April 13/12: LPD 19. Small business qualifier MarineTec, a joint venture between Marine Hydraulics International, Inc., and Tecnico Corp. in Norfolk, VA, wins a $10 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for USS Mesa Verde’s [LPD 19] phased maintenance availability (PMA). They’ll perform miscellaneous structural, mechanical, and electrical repairs, and the contract runs until September 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11.

This contract was competitively procured via the Norfolk Ship Support Activity’s solicitation website, with 4 proposals solicited and 3 offers received (N50054-12-C-1203).

March 27/12: LPD 21 deploys. The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (IWO ARG) and 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (24 MEU) depart for deployment from Norfolk and Camp Lejeune, NC, headed to the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf/ Indian Ocean areas.

The IWO JIMA ARG/24 MEU includes the amphibious assault ships USS Iwo Jima [LHD 7], USS New York [LPD 21], and USS Gunston Hall [LSD 44]; and is manned by Battalion Landing Team, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment (BLT 1/2); Aviation Combat Element, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 261 (Reinforced); and Combat Logistics Battalion 24. USS New York.

March 19/12: General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, CA receives a $29.3 million contract modification for post shakedown work on USS San Diego [LPD 22] and fitting-out work on USS Anchorage [LPD 23]. Work will include program management, planning, engineering, design, liaison, scheduling, labor, and procurement of incidental material.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by December 2014. US Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, is the contracting activity (N00024-12-C-2400). See also Oct 7/11 entry.

March 14/12: LPD 22 captain relieved. Rear Adm. Gerard Hueber, commander of Expeditionary Strike Group 3, relieves Cmdr. Jon Haydel as captain of the “Pre-Commissioning Unit San Diego,” 1 day before it was due to leave its Pascagoula, MS shipyard for San Diego. Haydel was reportedly well-liked, and the Navy did not disclose the reasons. He was reassigned to Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet headquarters, pending an investigation into the “personal misconduct” allegations. Stars and Stripes.

March 1/12: LP 27 lead-in. Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA wins a $55.1 million contract modification, exercising the option for LPD 27′s integrated shipboard electronics. That’s actually a long list of items, including the engineering control system; magnetic signature control system; ship control system; navigation data distribution system; shipboard wide area network; wireless portable communication system; integrated voice communication system; sensors; Marine Corps support equipment; and AN/SPS-73 surface search radar.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by February 2018 (N00024-11-C-2404).

Feb 23/12: LPD 27 lead-in. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a not-to-exceed $70 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification for advance procurement of long-lead-time materials in support of LPD 27. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by April 2012 (N00024-06-C-2222). This pushes announced LPD 27 long-lead contracts to $230.8 million.

HII notes that this is the 4th advance procurement contract for LPD 27 since October 2010, adding that these contracts are used for items like main engines, diesel generators, electrical switchboards, deck equipment and fire extinguishing systems. If they’re not ready in advance, they won’t be on hand when HII needs them, which would delay the build.

Dec 20/11: LPD 22 delivered. The US Navy takes delivery of LPD 22 San Diego. The crew will move aboard the ship on Jan 4/11 to begin the certification process, before a short Caribbean sail in mid-March 2012, followed by passage through Panama and then a sail up to San Diego for commissioning in May 2012.

The ship will be homeported in San Diego, alongside USS New Orleans [LPD 18] and USS Green Bay [LPD 20]. Mississippi Press-News.

Dec 6/11: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $60.4 million contract modification to make and test LPD 26′s Integrated Shipboard Electronics, with an option for LPD 27 that would raise it to $111.3 million. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by February 2017 (N00024-11-C-2404).

Nov 22/11: Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS received a $51.3 million contract modification, to provide life cycle engineering and support services for LPD-17 San Antonio Class integrated shipboard electronic systems. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2012. $104,981 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00024-10-C-2203).

Nov 22/11: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $40 million contract modification, exercising an option to continue providing life cycle engineering and support services for LPD-17 San Antonio Class integrated shipboard electronic systems.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (98%), and Norfolk, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2012. $719,252 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00024-10-C-2205).

Nov 18/11: LPD 22 passes INSURV. The US Navy’s future USS San Diego [LPD 22] completes US Navy INSURV acceptance trials. Delivery to the Navy is slated for mid-December 2011. HII.

Oct 7/11: Defense News reports that LPD 22 San Diego was damaged in late September 2011, during builder’s sea trials. A relief valve was installed backwards, causing part of the ship’s ballast system to overpressurize and damage 3 ballast tanks. The ballast tanks are used to lower the ship in the water, in order to flood its well decks.

Despite this mishap, the ballasting and de-ballasting tests were completed successfully, and Navy INSURV acceptance trials are expected to take place in November 2011.

Oct 7/11: General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, CA receives a $37.4 million cost-plus-fee contract for USS San Diego’s final fitting-out work, which could rise to $134.5 million if all options are exercised. That’s an unusually large figure.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 2 offers received (N00024-12-C-2400).

LPD 24 Arlington launch
(click to view full)

Sept 7/11: BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair in San Diego, CA receives a $12.1 million contract modification for the USS Green Bay’s [LPD 20] FY 2011 phased maintenance availability (PMA). PMAs provide for an extensive renovation and modernization of an LPD class ship, including alterations and repairs as well as inspection and testing to all ships systems and components ensuring safe and dependable operation of the ship. the Pentagon says that it won’t require a dry-docking.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by May 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. The US Navy’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-10-C-4407).

July 13/11: LPD 20 XO relieved. Gannett’s Navy Times reports that USS Green Bay’s Executive Officer was relieved of duty by the Commodore of Amphibious Squadron 1 “after an investigation substantiated allegations of personal misconduct”. The ship is on deployment in the Persian Gulf, and Jones is being reassigned to temporary duties in San Diego with Expeditionary Strike Group 3.

The report also confirms LPD 20′s 1st mission, which began in February 2011.

July 12/11: LPD 27 long-lead. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a maximum $98.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for advance procurement of long-lead-time materials in support of LPD 27, the 11th ship of the LPD class. This pushes LPD 27 long-lead contracts to $160.8 million, and HII notes that the category covers “main engines and diesel generators and other equipment, including electrical switchboards, deck equipment and fire extinguishing systems.”

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by January 2012 (N00024-06-C-2222). See also HII release, Oct 20/10 entry.

May 25/11: LPD 26 begins. The official start of fabrication on LPD 26 signifies that 100 tons of steel have been cut and fabricated, using Ingalls’ robotic plasma arc cutting machines. Huntington Ingalls says that the next milestone will be the ship’s keel laying, scheduled for the first quarter of 2012. LPD 26 is scheduled to be launched in Q3 of 2014, and delivered to the Navy in Q4 of 2015.

With respect to other ships, LPD 22 San Diego will undergo sea trials later in 2011; LPD 23 Anchorage is currently 82% complete, and is expected to be delivered in Q2 2012. LPD 25 Somerset is more than 50% complete, and will be launched “in 2012.” HII.

May 6/11: Maintenance termination. NAVSEA announces that it has terminated Earl Industries, LLC’s multi-ship, multi-option (MSMO) maintenance contract for the San Antonio Class. The move comes in response to:

“…Navy findings of improper work performed and concern regarding Earl Industries’ quality assurance program and the company’s ability to control the quality and documentation of work it performs. Those concerns were triggered by the number and severity of corrective action reports issued… “The company’s performance on this contract was not in keeping with the type of quality work the Navy expects from our industry partners,” said NAVSEA Commander Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy. “These failures are unacceptable, and we have lost confidence in Earl’s ability to continue successfully performing this same type of work… under the MSMO contract.”

It’s the most severe option – a complete termination of all work in process by the Norfolk, VA contractor, as well as all options for future scheduled and unscheduled maintenance work on the class over a 5-year period. In place of Earl’s contract, the Navy plans to compete scheduled Chief of Naval Operations availability and all necessary Emergent Maintenance/ Continuous Maintenance work for the San Antonio-class ships homeported in Norfolk, among all eligible contractors in the Norfolk area.

The Virginia Pilot’s “Earl Industries’ $75M Navy contract: What went wrong?” has a pertinent examination, which notes that Earl won the contract, despite having a higher bid, on the basis of Navy evaluations of “exceptional” performance on past contracts. The firm retains maintenance contracts involving the USN’s carriers.

March 26/11: LPD 24 christened. Northrop Grumman Corporation’s shipbuilding sector, with the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps participating, christens LPD 24 as Arlington, in memory of those who lost their lives during the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon. NGC.

March 8/11: US Senate Armed Services Committee hearings get a spotlight on the LPD-17 program, as ranking member Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] says in his opening statement:

“From the first ship in this class, this program has displayed major problems in terms of safety, engineering, and the quality of workmanship. Those problems have been so widespread that they give rise to concern about a broader readiness problem afflicting our surface fleet. I am gratified by the leadership of the Atlantic Fleet Commander Admiral Harvey in starting to turn these problems around. But, I am perplexed by how we got to this point. And, as to the LPD-17 class of ships, how (with five delivered and four under construction) we have been left with a class of ships that, according to the Pentagon’s chief tester is ‘not effective, suitable and not survivable in combat.’ In addition to addressing this point, I would also like our witnesses to also address what I see as an overall downward trend in maintenance funding – with the negative impact falling more heavily on the Navy’s surface combatants than on carriers and submarines.”

See: Sen. McCain statement | Hearings Transcripts, etc. | Hearings video [Flash 10].

Feb 12/11: LPD 23 launch. LPD 23 is launched into the Mississippi River. She is about 78% complete, and some new pre-launch installations include items like mechanical completion of the anchor windlass hydraulic system. US Navy.

Building LPD 23 Anchorage
(click to view full)

Dec 12/10: The Washington DC area Sun Gazette reports that LPD 24 Arlington is tentatively scheduled for christening on March 26/10, and is now expected to be commissioned into service as USS Arlington in “mid-2012″ after trials.

Nov 30/10: NAVEA issues a pair of contracts for “LPD 17 class integrated shipboard electronic systems.” Services will include planning yard support of integrated electronic systems, including fleet modernization program planning, plus: post-delivery planning, logistics and engineering, homeport technical support, integrated product data environment, data maintenance, equipment management, systems integration and design engineering, software support, research engineering, obsolescence management (both technical and logistics), material readiness support, emergent repair planning, training and logistics support, ship alteration development and installation, material management, configuration data management, research engineering, logistics documentation, and other coordination, and management. The contractors will also provide performance-based logistics support, including obsolescence management support for out-of-production electronics, for “unique LPD 17-class integrated shipboard electronic systems.”

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $43.7 million contract modification. It’s the 1st of 4 annual options associated with the contract referenced in the Feb 16/10 entry, which could grow to $249.4 million. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2011; but $109,947 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00024-10-C-2203). See also NGC release.

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA received a $38 million contract modification. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (98%), and Norfolk, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011; but $1,134,760 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00024-10-C-2205).

Nov 23/10: LPD 24 launched. Northrop Grumman’s Pascagoula, MS shipyard launches Arlington [LPD 24]. The ship launches at 77% complete, and upgrades over previous ships-of-class include a new water purification system, and a new operating system for the ship’s computing environment. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding’s LPD 17 program manager, Doug Lounsberry, says that: “This ship was the most complete LPD to date at time of launch and the schedule was also the shortest time from keel laying to launch.” If that has resulted in lower build costs, however, the budgets don’t indicate it.

Arlington is named for the county in which the Pentagon is located, as a memorial to the heroes and victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The ship’s christening is tentatively scheduled for spring of 2011. US Navy | Northrop Grumman.

Oct 29/10: LPD 26 long-lead. Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $7.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the long-lead-time materials in support of LPD 26′s integrated shipboard electronics.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by March 2012. This contract was not competitively procured, since Raytheon is set as the contractor responsible for that aspect of the ships (N00024-11-C-2404).

FY 2009 DOT&E report
(click to read)

Oct 28/10: Survivability, quality questioned by Pentagon. Bloomberg News reports on a classified report sent to Congress in June 2010, outlining Pentagon testing that found serious issues with the LPD-17 San Antonio Class’ ability to survive combat situations. Their report is based on an unclassified summary of that report, and an email response from Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation, who described the ships as “not effective, suitable and not survivable in a combat situation.” The core of those reports is that the ships continue to experience widespread, persistent engineering problems, and couldn’t continue to operate reliably after being hit by enemy fire, in part because of the engineering problems mentioned. From the Pentagon’s DOT&E FY 2009 Annual Report:

“Chronic reliability problems associated with critical ship systems across the spectrum of mission areas reduces overall ship suitability and jeopardizes mission accomplishment… Emerging results from [Navy] trials indicate the ships could not demonstrate the required levels of survivability, largely because of critical ship system failures after weapons effects.”

“…Reliability problems related to well deck ramps, ventilation, bridge crane, and Cargo Ammunition Magazine (CAM) elevators… [and] Engineering Control System (ECS), including frequent failures and high false alarm rates, and the electrical distribution system, including unexplained loss of service generators and the uncommanded opening of breakers… The Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) identified similar deficiencies in identical areas (propulsion, auxiliaries, electrical, damage control, deck) during both acceptance and final contract trials across all four of the first ships of the class. Catastrophic casualties recorded prior to the Full Ship Shock Trial in LPD-19 and during LPD-17′s deployment revealed serious fabrication and production deficiencies in the main lube oil service system. The ship is capable of supporting [C4I] requirements in an ESG environment; however, reliability problems with the SWAN(Shipborne Wide Area Network) and the Interior Voice Communications System degrade command and control and are single points of failure during operations.

The LPD-17 exhibited difficulty defending itself against several widely proliferated threats, primarily due to… Persistent SSDS Mk 2-based [DID: link added] system engineering deficiencies… The ship’s RAM system provided the only hard kill capability, preventing layered air defense [DID: in fairness, the ships were designed this way]… Problems associated with SPS-48E and SPQ-9B radar performance against certain Anti-Ship Cruise Missile attack profiles [DID: also a known design limitation]… Degraded situational awareness due to Mk 46 [30mm remotely-operated] Gun Weapon System console configuration… The survivability of the San Antonio class ships appear to be improved over the LPD class ships they will replace. However, problems encountered with critical systems during testing (particularly with the electrical distribution, chilled water, SWAN, and ECS) and difficulty recovering mission capability may offset some of the survivability improvements and have highlighted serious reliability shortcomings.”

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor and SPQ-9 radar provider, while Raytheon provides some of the items mentioned above, such as the SSDS combat system, shipboard network, etc. ITT makes the SPS-48E radar. The report comes as various firms are considering buying all or part of Northrop Grumman’s shipbuilding business. Pentagon DOT&E FY 2009 [PDF] | Bloomberg | DoD Buzz | Reuters.

Testing troubles

Oct 20/10: LPD 27 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $62 million cost-plus-fixed-fee not-to-exceed contract modification, to buy long lead time materials for LPD 27. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by August 2014 (N00024-06-C-2222).

Oct 18/10: BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair in San Diego, CA receives an $11.1 million contract modification for the USS New Orleans’ [LPD 18] FY 2011 phased maintenance availability. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by March 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. The Us Navy’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages this contract.

Oct 15/10: LPD 19 switch-in. U.S. Fleet Force Command (USFF) Commander Adm. John C. Harvey Jr. announces that USS Mesa Verde [LPD 19] will replace USS San Antonio [LPD 17] in the USS Bataan’s [LHD 5] Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) in the summer of 2011. Mesa Verde, which was built in Mississippi instead of the San Antonio Class’ primary yard at Avondale near New Orleans, returned from a 7-month deployment to the Persian Gulf in August 2010, and wasn’t expected to deploy again until late 2012.

San Antonio is currently scheduled to conduct comprehensive crew certification and sea trials in early spring 2011, but Adm. Harvey would only say that: “San Antonio will deploy when it is operationally sound and ready to go.” The ship’s overhaul at Norfolk was expected to take about 4-5 months and cost $5 million, but bolts in the foundations of the diesel engines and the main reduction gears were improperly installed at the shipyard. That created vibrations in the drive train that could have completely destroyed the propulsion system over time, and repairs are now expected to take about 11 months and at least $39 million, possibly more. USFF | Defense News.

Oct 3/10: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding loads 100,000 gallons of fuel aboard the San Diego [LPD 22]. That step requires that all of the machinery spaces are prepared and ready, and helps flush the fuel system ahead of the upcoming generator light off in November 2010.

San Diego was christened in June 2010, and is scheduled for sea trials in Q2 2011. NGC.

LPD-17: Welcome to Norfolk…
(click to view full)

July 29/10: Flaws. Gannett’s Navy Times reports on testimony before the House Armed Service Committee’s readiness panel, indicating unique problems with USS Green Bay’s [LPD 20] steering system. That’s in addition to other problems generic to the class involving metal shavings polluting the lube oil systems and damaging the engines.

Like her sister ships San Antonio, New Orleans, and New York, all of which have experienced major post-delivery problems on top of their cost overruns, USS Green Bay was also built at the Avondale shipyard near New Orleans. Read “LPD-17 Reliability Issues Surface Again” for more.

June 12/10: LPD 22 launched. San Diego [LPD 22] is christened. That ceremony formally gives the ship its designated name, but she does not become USS San Diego until later. Biloxi-Gulport Sun-Herald | Mississippi Press | LA Times.

June 2/10: General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. in Woodbridge, VA receives a $22.3 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed fee contract for the MK46 MOD 2 gun weapon systems (GWS) and associated hardware, spares and services. There are several Mk46s in the US Navy, but this one is a 30mm enclosed turret packing a Mk44 Bushmaster chain gun and advanced sights. The turret is operated from a console inside the LPD-17 San Antonio Class amphibious ships, and the Littoral Combat Ship’s surface warfare package. This contract covers both naval platforms.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (69%); Tallahassee, FL (12%); Lima, OH (12%); Westminster, MD (4%); Scranton, PA (2%); and Sterling Heights, MI (1%). Work is expected to be complete by May 2013. $812,412 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command, in Washington, DC (N00024-10-C-5438).

LPD-22 launch
(click to read)

May 7/10: LPD 22 launched. The future USS San Diego [LPD 22] is launched from Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding’s Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, MS. US Navy.

April 30/10: LPD 26 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives an $184 million cost plus fixed-fee advance procurement contract modification that will provide long lead materials for LPD 26. Equipment bought under this contract includes main engines and diesel generators and other equipment including electrical switchboards, deck equipment and fire extinguishing systems, and the contract is expected to be complete by August 2012 (N00024-06-C-2222). Northrop Grumman release.

This is the second advance procurement contract for LPD 26, totaling $397.8 million; see also June 23/09.

April 14/10: USS John P. Murtha?!? The Navy announces the proposed name for LPD 26. Gannett’s Navy Times:

“Navy Secretary Ray Mabus notified Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead that he had selected “John P. Murtha” for the previously unnamed LPD 26. It’s the latest example of the Navy breaking a convention for naming its warships; the previous ships in the San Antonio class have been named for American cities.

Capt. Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for Mabus, who is traveling on the West Coast, said she had no comment on the memo… [which] appeared to reflect both [Murtha's] support in Congress for more of the gators and his service in the Marine Corps… But Murtha might also prove to be a controversial pick: He was accused of ethics violations several times over the course of his career and he caused outrage among Marines in 2005 when he accused troops of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, of “killing innocent people” in a shooting in Haditha, Iraq.”

As of April 14/10, 6 of the Marine defendants had their cases dropped, 1 was found not guilty, and SSgt. Wuterich, the last defendant, is scheduled to stand trial Sept 13/10.

April 13/10: BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair in Norfolk, VA won a $29.6 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for post shakedown availability of LPD 21, the USS New York. PSAs fix last-minute issues that are found on the initial shakedown cruise, after a ship’s commissioning. BAE will perform program management, planning, engineering, design, liaison, scheduling, labor, and procurement of incidental material required.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA (91%), and Chesapeake, VA (9%), and is expected to be complete by July 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $5,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities Web site, with 4 proposals received (N00024-10-C-2204).

Marines Help Evaluate
click to play video

April 1/10: SAR to 11 ships. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. The LPD-17 program qualifies:

“Program costs increased $4,417.5 million (+31.0%) from $14,241.7 million to $18,659.2 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of two ships from 9 to 11 ships (+$2,075.5 million) and associated schedule, estimating, and other allocations[1] (+$1,291.7 million), and additional full funding and outfitting and post delivery increases associated with the quantity increase (+$484.2 million). Costs also increased due to the addition of cost to complete funding for ships 22 through 25 (+$239.0 million), Hurricane Katrina supplemental funding for ships 20 through 24 (+$192.7 million), and special transfer authority and outfitting and post delivery requirements for ships 21 through 25 (+$132.0 million).”

More ships

Feb 16/10: Northrop Grumman announces that it received a $41.3 million cost-plus-fixed fee contract for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program. If all options are exercised, the contract has a potential value of $249.4 million.

Under the contract (N00024-10-C-2203), Northrop Grumman will provide the following services: post-delivery planning and engineering, systems integration and engineering support, research engineering, material support, fleet modernization program planning, supply chain management, maintenance and training for certain LPD 17-class shipboard systems. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2010. This is a follow-on contract to one awarded in 2005 (see Feb 11/05 entry), and beyond this year, there are 4 more option years that could increase its total value.

Dec 11/09: LPD 23 keel. Keel-laying ceremony for LPD 23 Somerset. USN PEO Ships.

Nov 2/09: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives an $8.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee sole-source contract covering life cycle engineering and support (LCE&S) services for LPD 17 Class integrated shipboard electronic systems. This contract includes options which could bring the cumulative value of this contract to $197.1 million.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (95%); Chula Vista, CA (3%); and Norfolk, VA (2%), and the base period is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-10-C-2205).

LPD-21, sea trials
(click to read)

July 23/09: LPD 21 passes INSURV. LPD 21 New York returns to its Avondale shipyard in New Orleans July 23 flying 3 brooms, signifying a successful sweep of its U.S. Navy Acceptance Trials. The ship demonstrated a variety of systems including main propulsion including a full power run, engineering and ship control systems, combat systems including self defense detect-to-engage exercises, damage control, food service and crew support. During the tests, its ballast system for flooding the ship’s well deck test setting a new LPD ship record for time to ballast down. Northrop Grumman release.

July 2/09: Northrop Grumman Corporation announces that the New York [LPD 21] successfully accomplished its builder’s sea trials this week in the Gulf of Mexico.

LPD 21 is under construction at the company’s Avondale facility in Louisiana. The ship is especially notable for the fact that its bow stem contains 7.5 tons of steel recovered from the World Trade Center following the terrorist attacks of Sept 11/01. NGC release | NGC video.

June 23/09: LPD 26 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $213.8 million contract modification for long lead time materials (LLTM) in support of LPD 26, the 10th San Antonio class ship. The award covers early procurement or manufacture, inspection, test, storage and maintenance of these items, which include main engines and diesel generators. A contract for the detail design and construction of LPD 26 is anticipated in mid-2010. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS and is expected to be complete by December 2013.

See also Dec 19/08 entry, and the accompanying NGC release for this contract. The total cost of announced LPD 26 long-lead materials contracts so far is $223.8 million.

May 12/09: LPD 18 fixed. USS New Orleans [LPD 18] prepares to return to sea after completing dry dock repairs at the Arab Shipbuilding and Repair Yard (ASRY) Shipyard dry dock in Bahrain. US Navy photo release.

April 14/09: BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair in San Diego, CA received a $24.7 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-2200) for LPD 20 Green Bay’s post shakedown availability tasks, and acceleration of fleet required ship alterations. Work will include:

“…completion of government responsible deficiencies; correction of LPD 19 [Mesa Verde] shock trial related deficiencies, class pipe hangers deficiencies, and FCT trials cards; and the acceleration of fleet required ship alterations such as upgrades to the SWAN GiGE (Gigabit Ethernet) Upgrades, MK46 [30m RWS] Gun System Upgrade, HF-SAR, SSEE Inc E, Joint Biological Point Detection System (JBPDS) and SLQ-32 [ship electronic countermeasures system] ICAD.”

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be completed by Jan. 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

April 6/09: LPD 27 postponed. US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announces his FY 2010 budget recommendations. They include postponement of LPD 27 funding to build the 11th ship of class.

March 20/09: LPD 18 collision. A collision between the USS Hartford [SSN 768] and the USS New Orleans [LPD-18] in the Strait of Hormuz, slightly injures 15 sailors. Both vessels are able to proceed under their own power after the incident, although the New Orleans suffered a ruptured fuel tank, releasing 25,000 gallons of diesel fuel into the strait. US Navy | US Navy repairs photo.

Dec 19/08: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS received a $10 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to a previously awarded contract, in order to buy long lead-time materials for LPD 26. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2010 (N00024-06-C-2222).

Dec 4/08: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in New Orleans, LA received a $16.8 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217) for Life Cycle Engineering and Support services on the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (60%) and New Orleans, LA (40%); the contract period will end the end of the fiscal year on Sept 30/09, but contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Oct 31/08: Major breakdown. The USS San Antonio [LPD 17] is forced into to a Bahraini shipyard for at least 2 weeks of repairs. On Oct 9th and 17th, leaks were discovered in the pipes that deliver lubricating oil to the ship’s 4 diesel engines. The fault is classified as hazardous, because the leaks drip flammable oil into open spaces. When the ship pulled in, it was greeted by a large team of 30-40 engineers, pipefitters and welders flown to Bahrain from the U.S.

It is rare to find such serious faults in a new ship. Many analysts, including former 3-star rear admiral Rep. Joe Sestak [D-PA], see the problems as further evidence of systemic workmanship flaws.

Oct 22/08: Raytheon announces that the U.S. Navy has exercised the 3rd of 3 one-year options, paying Raytheon up to $23 million for San Antonio Class life cycle engineering and support. The original contract was issued in 2005.

Raytheon’s work on the LPD 17 program is performed at the Expeditionary Warfare Center in San Diego, CA; the Seapower Capability Center in Portsmouth, RI; and by Raytheon Technical Services Company in New Orleans, LA and San Diego, CA. Raytheon release.

LPD-22 construction
(click to view full)

Aug 28/08: A mission, at last. The USS San Antonio [LPD 17] becomes the first ship of class to deploy on a mission, over 2 1/2 years after the ship was commissioned into service.

The ship will be part of the USS Iwo Jima’s [LHD-7] Expeditionary Strike Group, and is en route to the 5th Fleet (CENTCOM area/ Middle East) and 6th Fleet’s (Mediterranean) areas of responsibility. The Iwo Jima ESG also includes the dock-landing ship USS Carter Hall [LSD 50], the guided-missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf [CG 72], the guided-missile destroyers USS Ramage [DDG 61] and USS Roosevelt [DDG 80], and the Improved Los Angles Class fast attack submarine USS Hartford [SSN 768]. US Navy.

1st mission for the class

Aug 1/08: LPD 20 passes INSURV. Green Bay [LPD 20] passes its sea trials and INSURV inspection, clearing the way for the Navy to accept her.

During the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) Acceptance Trials, LPD 20 successfully demonstrated a variety of systems including main propulsion, engineering and ship control systems including the Shipboard Wide Area Network, combat systems, damage control, food service and crew support. Among the highlights of the trial, Green Bay successfully completed a full power run, self-defense detect-to-engage exercises, ballasting, deballasting, and steering and anchor handling demonstrations. US Navy | Raytheon.

May 8/08: Raytheon announces a $32 million contract to develop and integrate the total ship electronics systems for LPD 25, the 9th ship of the U.S. Navy’s LPD 17 class. Under the contract, awarded by Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Raytheon continues its role as the total ship electronics systems integrator for all ships of this class. Raytheon IDS will provide the Shipboard Wide Area Network, integrated product data environment, total ship information management, and integrated ship electronics architecture.

May 23/08: CRS on LPD-17s. The US Congressional Research Service releases an updated version of “Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress” [PDF]. See also Information Dissemination’s excerpts at “Thinking LSD (X) and Motherships“.

March 1/08: LPD 21 launch. The US Navy christens and launches LPD 21 New York at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in New Orleans, LA. The ship is named New York in honor of the state, the city and the victims of Sept 11/01. A unique characteristic of the ship is the use of 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center wreckage that was incorporated into the construction process. The steel was melted and formed to make the bow stem of the ship. US Navy | DefenseLINK.

Dec 15/07: The crew of the USS New Orleans [LPD 18] executes the ship class’ first amphibious launch and recovery of the USMC’s new expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV). US Navy release.

Dec 7/07: LPD 19 Mesa Verde receives LCAC certification. The ship has already received a newly modernized hovercraft [LCAC 39], which has been through the service life extension program upgrades. See US Navy story.

Nov 26-30/07: LPD 17 passes INSURV. An INSURV (Board of Inspection and Survey) underway material inspection examines San Antonio for the 3rd time, and finds her fit for sustained combat service in the Fleet. US Navy | MarineLink.

Mesa Verde, trials
(click to view full)

Sept 28/07: Raytheon Co. in San Diego, CA received a $27.1 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-2207) to exercise an option for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on select electronic systems for the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by September 2008. Raytheon release.

Sept 28/07: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in New Orleans, LA received a $13 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217) to exercise an option for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (60%) and New Orleans, LA (40%), and is expected to be complete by September 2008.

Sept 20/07: LPD 19 passes INSURV. Northrop Grumman announces that its 3rd San Antonio Class ship, the Mesa Verde [LPD 19], has successfully completed its acceptance trials for the U.S. Navy. The ship will be delivered later in September 2007, and is scheduled to be commissioned as USS Mesa Verde in Panama City, Fla. on Dec 15/07. Northrop Grumman gave no further specifics, noting only that “the ship performed well”; U.S. Navy Cmdr. Shawn Lobree, LPD 19′s prospective commanding officer, said that the ship “passed all major testing events.” Northrop Grumman release.

Aug 13-16/07: LPD 19. Mesa Verde [LPD 19] successfully completes builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico, in a collaborative effort involving the U.S. Navy and Northrop Grumman. The ship’s compartments were 100% complete, and all systems and certifications were completed and tested 100% to pre-trial requirements. Testing was performed on the ship’s main propulsion, communications, steering, navigational, radar and other systems. Other exercises included anchor handling, flight operations, compartment air balancing, and ballasting/de-ballasting of the well deck that launches amphibious landing craft.

Note that unlike her predecessors, Mesa Verde was built at the Pascagoula, MS shipyard, rather than at Avondale near New Orleans. Next month, the U.S. Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) team will conduct acceptance trials aboard LPD 19, which will involve more rounds of extensive testing of the ship’s major systems. Northrop Grumman release.

LPD 18 New Orleans
(click to view full)

March 10/07: LPD 18 commissioned. USS New Orleans is commissioned at a ceremony in New Orleans. The ship’s sponsor is Carolyn Shelton, wife of Gen. Henry H. Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. See USN release | Northrop Grumman release. As of December 2007, the ship has yet to be assigned to an operational mission.

USS New Orleans

Feb 27/07: BAE Systems in San Diego, CA received an $11.3 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for accomplishment of the Fitting-Out Availability (FOA) for the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship New Orleans [LPD 18]. The contract includes performance of specified work items inclusive of tests and post repair sea trials. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by July 2007; contract funds in the amount of $1.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was competitively procured and posted on Federal Business Opportunities website, with 3 offers received (N00024-07-C-2200).

Dec 22/06: LPD 18 delivery. Northrop Grumman representatives and Navy officials signed documents officially transferring custody of the LPD 18 New Orleans at the company’s New Orleans facility. The ship is scheduled to be commissioned in March 2007. See Northrop Grumman release.

LPD-17 commissioning
(click for full size)

Sept 29/06: Raytheon Co. in San Diego, CA received a $26.7 million cost-plus award fee modification under previously awarded contract N00024-06-C-2207, exercising an option for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on select electronic systems for the LPD-17 Class as ships are delivered and commissioned. Under this contract, Raytheon will establish integrated support services for sustainment of the complete shipboard mission systems suite that the company delivers to this class of ships. Raytheon is the prime contractor for life cycle engineering and support for electronic systems on the LPD-17 Class; see this article’s June 27/06 contract entry. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by September 2007. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., issued the contract. See Raytheon’s October 18 press release.

Sept 29/06: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, New Orleans, LA received a $13.3 million cost-plus award fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217) to exercise an option for continued Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on the LPD-17 Class. Services include: post delivery planning and engineering, homeport technical support, Class Integrated Product Data Environment (IPDE), data maintenance and equipment management, systems integration and engineering support, research engineering, obsolescence management, material readiness team operations, emergent repair provisions (including warranty enforcement), training and logistics support. Support services include: Fleet Modernization Program planning, ship alteration development and installation, material management, operating cycle integration, availability planning, configuration data management, research engineering, logistics documentation, and other logistics and executing activity coordination, and management of all related data within the Class IPDE. LPD 17 Class Engineering: engineering, logistics, and technical studies of shipbuilding requirements and design change development. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by September 2007. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract.

July 15/06: LPD 20 christened. Christening ceremony for LPD 20 Green Bay at Northrop Grumman Ship Systems’ Avondale operations in New Orleans, LA. As one might imagine, the famous Green Bay Packers American football team featured prominently in the ceremonies.

June 27/06: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems is subcontracted by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems to provide the electronic systems and integration for the next 3 ships in the LPD-17 class: USS San Diego [LPD 22], USS Anchorage, and USS Arlington [LPD 24]. Work also includes the shipboard wide area network, voice and video systems, et. al. The $218 million subcontract extends Raytheon’s role as the ship electronic systems integrator for the class. See Raytheon release.

Jan 27/06: Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corp. in Norfolk, VA received a $6.8 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2224) to exercise an option for the Post-Shakedown Availability (PSA) of the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship USS San Antonio [LPD 17]. The contract is for services and material for total fitting-out availability (FOA) and PSA efforts for LPD 17. Specific efforts include: engineering and management, labor and procurement of material to correct government responsible deficiencies and accomplish system upgrades; perform specified FOA/PSA work items inclusive of tests and post repair sea trials; task additional man-hours and material in order to complete emergent repairs. Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA and is expected to be complete by April 2007.

Nov 1/05: Raytheon Co. in San Diego, CA received a $19.2 million cost-plus award fee contract for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on select electronic systems for the LPD-17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program. Work will be performed at San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by September 2006. Contract funds in the amount of $250,000, will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C. issued the contract. (N00024-06-C-2207)

Oct 18/05: LPD 22 & 23 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $50.7 million modification to previously awarded contract N00024-01-C-2224. It covers additional long lead-time materials in support of two Amphibious Transport Dock Ships, LPD 22 San Diego and LPD 23 Anchorage. The contractor will procure long lead material necessary to prepare for construction of LPD 22 and LPD 23. The effort will include not only procurement but also inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long-lead material. Contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. Limited advance construction activities for LPD 22 San Diego are also included. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (88%) and Pascagoula, MS (12%), and is expected to be complete by January 2010.

Sept 30/05: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $22.4 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217). It exercises an option for life cycle engineering and support services on the LPD-17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (80%) and San Diego, CA (20%), and is expected to be complete by September 2006.

Aug 30/05: Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., Norfolk, VA, received a $5.2 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for the Fitting-Out Availability (FOA) of the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship LPD 17 San Antonio. The contract will provide services and material for the total FOA and Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) efforts for LPD 17. Specific efforts include: engineering and management in support of the FOA/PSA; labor and procurement of material to correct government responsible deficiencies and accomplish system upgrades; performance of specified FOA/PSA work items, including tests and post repair sea trials; task additional manhours and material to complete emergent repairs. Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA, and is expected to be complete by February 2006. This contract was competitively procured and advertised via the Internet, with three proposals received (N00024-05-C-2224).

April 19/05: Raytheon Co. Integrated Defense Systems’ (Raytheon IDS) role as a mission systems integrator for the LPD-17 San Antonio Class of amphibious warfare ships took another step forward, thanks to a $12.5 million subcontract from lead integrator Northrop-Grumman. Raytheon IDS will “provide performance-based logistics and establish integrated support services for sustainment of the complete shipboard mission systems suite” that the company delivers to this class of ships. Raytheon is also creating battle management systems for the Navy’s new DD (X) destroyer and CVN-21 future aircraft carriers. This will provide all three classes of vessel with a common system, improving coordination among different types of ships in the U.S. fleet. See DID coverage.

Feb 11/05: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $26.9 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for LPD-17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program Life-Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services. The LPD 17-class life-cycle engineering and support contract, worth $26.9 million, combines the expertise of shipbuilder Northrop Grumman and electronic-systems integrator Raytheon to manage critical life-cycle cost/performance ship-class drivers such as technology upgrades, software support and ship-systems integration by managing ship-class hardware and software as a single entity.

Services will include: post delivery planning and engineering, homeport technical support, Class Integrated Product Data Environment, data maintenance and equipment management, systems integration and engineering support, research engineering, obsolescence management, material readiness team operations, emergent repair provisions, and training and logistics support. Work will be performed at Pascagoula, MS (58%) and New Orleans, LA (42%), and is expected to be complete by September 2005. This contract was not competitively awarded (N00024-05-C-2217). See corporate release.

LPD 17, Dockside

Jan 15/05: LPD 19 christened. Christening ceremony for LPD 19 Mesa Verde at Northrop Grumman Ship Systems’ Ingalls Operations in Pascagoula, MS.

Dec 23/04: LPD 22 & 23 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $165.1 million maximum-priced modification to existing letter contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for to procure additional long lead-time materials necessary to prepare for construction of two Amphibious Transport Dock Ships, LPD 22 San Diego and LPD 23 Anchorage. The effort will include inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. In addition, contractor will provide subcontracting and risk management. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by December 2008.

Dec 11/04: LPD 18 launched. New Orleans [LPD 18] launched. Note that this does not mean the ship is finished, and indeed the ship was not yet ready to leave the New Orleans yard when Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast in 2005.

Nov 19/04: LPD 19 launched Mesa Verde [LPD 19] is launched, at Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, MS.

From WTC to LPD-21
(click to view full)

Sept 10/04: LPD 21 keel. Keel-laying ceremony for the New York [LPD 21]. The ship will include steel in the bow section cast from salvaged portions of the World Trade Center in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Aug 17/04: LPD 23 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $107,121,910 letter-contract modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for additional long lead time materials necessary to support build preparation for the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship LPD 23 Anchorage. The effort shall include not only procurement but also inspection, testing, storing and maintaining the long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance, and will provide the management efforts including subcontract and risk management. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to complete by December 2008.

May 26/04: LPD 22 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $100,414,220 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for long lead material and associated effort for LPD 22 San Diego. Work will be performed in Avondale, LA, and is expected to be complete by October 2008.

Aug 11/03: Keel-laying ceremony for the Green Bay [LPD 20]

Feb 25/03: Keel-laying ceremony for the Mesa Verde [LPD 19].

Oct 14/02: Keel-laying ceremony for the New Orleans [LPD 18].

July 30/02: LPD 21 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $171.05 million modification to previously awarded letter contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for long-lead time materials for the New York [LPD 21]. Work will be performed in Avondale, LA and is to be complete by February 2003.

March 28/01: Litton Avondale Industries, Inc., Shipyards Division, New Orleans, LA, received an $11.3 million modification to previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00024-97-C-2202) for 159,065 man-hours of engineering services in support of the LPD 17 Program. The contractor will provide product engineering, logistical analysis, and technical studies to support the LPD-17 Class ships. Services will be provided to support the integrated product data environment, engineering change analysis, life cycle support planning, and total ownership cost reduction efforts. This contract contains four options, which if exercised, will bring the total cumulative value of this contract to $41.6 million. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by March 2005.

July 19/01: LPD 21 & 22 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $113.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for advance procurement long lead time material in support of amphibious transport ships New York [LPD 21] and San Diego [LPD 22]. The effort shall include procurement, inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (50%), and Bath, ME (50%), and is expected to be complete in October 2002. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-01-C-2224).

LPD-17 construction.
(click to view full)

May 30/00: LPD 20 ordered. Litton-Avondale Industries, Inc. in New Orleans, LA, received a $477.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee option for the construction of the Green Bay [LPD 20], the fourth LPD-17 Class amphibious transport dock ship. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (83%); San Diego, CA (12.2%); Waynesboro, VA (4.6%); and Bath, ME (.2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2004. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-97-C-2202).

LPD 20 main order

April 28/99: AlliedSignal Technical Services Corp., Columbia, Md., received an estimated $5.9 million indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, delivery order contract to provide systems engineering and integration support services including design, development, integration, installation, test and evaluation, certification, maintenance, modification and logistics support on a wide variety of electronic equipment, systems, and subsystems. These systems are communication systems installed on LPD 17 San Antonio, CVN 76 Ronald Reagan, and TADC (X) & JCC (X) class ships. Work will be performed in Charleston, SC and is expected to be complete by April 2000. The contract contains options, which, if exercised, will bring the cumulative value of the contract to $30 million. This contract was competitively procured with 107 proposals solicited and 3 offers received by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Charleston in Charleston, SC (N65236-99-D-3813).

Dec 4/98: Raytheon Systems Co., Naval and Maritime Systems Div. in San Diego, CA received a $22.5 million cost-plus-award-fee letter contract for three ship self-defense systems (SSDS) for MK 2 equipment shipsets in support of CVN 76 Ronald Reagan, LPD 17 San Antonio, and LPD 18 New Orleans. The SSDS implements an evolutionary development of improved ship self-defense capabilities against high-speed, low-flying, anti-ship cruise missiles for selected non-AEGIS ships including the US Navy’s new Nimitz Class carriers (CVN 76 USS Ronald Reagan and CVN 77 USS George H.W. Bush). SSDS will be an integration of all the ship’s self-defence systems including sensors, weapons, radars and electronic warfare, data links, the ship’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) with the rest of the fleet, and the Shipboard Wide Area Network (SWAN) which is a fiber-optic ship wide area computer network including both classified and unclassified components.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (90%), and Portsmouth, RI (10%), and is expected to be complete in February 2000. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00024-99-C-5108).

Aug 4/98: Avondale Industries, Inc. in New Orleans, LA received a $9.7 million modification to previously awarded contract for research, development, test and evaluation of new technologies potentially applicable to the LPD-17 Class ship. This modification will cover the exploration of various emerging innovative production processes, shipboard automation techniques, and system design concepts with emphasis on reducing maintenance, manning, and radar cross section and improving structural design concepts, electronics integration and habitability.

Work will be performed in Bath, Maine (38%), San Diego, CA (32%), and New Orleans, LA (30%), and is expected to be complete in July 1999. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00024-97-C-2202).

Oct 2/97: TRW, Information Services Div. (ISD), Fairfax, VA received a $11.6 million modification to a previously awarded contract N00024-91-C-6456 to provide for technical and management services to support PMS 377, Amphibious Warfare Program Office and PMS 317 LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Docking Ship Program Office. This contract contains options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $24.8 million.

Work will be performed in Fairfax, VA (62%); Arlington, VA (22%); Alexandria, VA (5.5%); Chantilly, VA (4%); McLean, VA (3.5%); Severna Park, Md. (2%); and Fredricksburg, VA (1%), and is expected to be complete March 1998. This modification combines purchases for the US Navy (99%), and the Government of Japan (1%) under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract.

Additional Readings & Sources

LPD-17 Class Ship Background

• US Navy PMS 317 – San Antonio Class: 21st Century Amphibious Assault Ships. Lots of interesting development information, note that snapshot is from 2005.
• Us Navy Fact File – Amphibious Transport Dock – LPD
• HII Ingalls Shipbuilding – LPD
• HII – LPD Flight II. A stripped-down version that aims to cost less, and serve as a common base platform for everything from LSD amphibious ship replacement, to a hospital ship, to ballistic missile defense.
• Naval Technology – LPD 17 (San Antonio Class) Landing Platform Dock, USA.
• Federation of American Scientists – LPD-17 San Antonio-class.
• US Navy – USS San Antonio [LPD 17]. Official web site.
• US Navy – USS New Orleans [LPD 18]. Official web site.
• US Navy – USS Mesa Verde [LPD 19]. Official web site.
• US Navy – USS Green Bay [LPD 20]. Official web site.
• US Navy – USS New York [LPD 21]. Official web site.
• US Navy – USS San Diego [LPD 22]. Official web site.
• US Navy – USS Anchorage [LPD 23]. Official web site.
• NavSource Online: Amphibious Photo Archive – LPD-17 San Antonio. Also has detail data, but it isn’t accurate.

Background: LPD-17 Ancillaries & Issues

• DID – LPD-17 Reliability Issues Surface Again. And again. Serious issues have now affected LPD 17, 18, 20, and 21 – all built at Avondale shipyard near New Orleans.
• DID – RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) Systems: Contracts & Events.
• GlobalSecurity.org – AN/SPS-48 Radar.
• US Navy All Hands Magazine (November 2006, pp.14-21) – Smart Design [PDF]. Talks about some of the interior features.
• US Navy Research Lab (2002) – LPD-17 Ship Protection. Good description of various measures undertaken.

Official Reports

• US Congressional Research Service (updated May 23/08) – Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress. Note the dramatic decline in naval troop carriage/ support goals from 1980 – 2008: from 66,252 troops in 1980, steadily declining to 23,016 in 2008.
• US GAO (July 14/07, #GAO-07-943T) – Defense Acquisitions: Realistic Business Cases Needed to Execute Navy Shipbuilding Programs. Specifically addresses ongoing issues with LPD-17 construction and quality.
• US GAO (March 30/06, #GAO-06-587T) – Defense Acquisitions: Challenges Associated with the Navy’s Long-Range Shipbuilding Plans.

News and Views

• CDR Salamander’s LPD-17 archive. A naval milblogger has been tracking the LPD-17 program for a couple of years. Archive includes INSURV reports from public sources and even back-channel sources. Not a professional industry publication, but interesting in its own way and has some informative material.
• CDR Salamander (Nov 29/10) – LPD-17: How much to change out a diesel again? Chart and records show a shipyard that simply is not performing.
• TIME Magazine (Nov 12/09) – The Navy’s Floating Fiasco.
• Information Dissemination (May 15/08) – Thinking LSD (X) and Motherships. Most interesting for its tracing of shifting/declining US Navy ship buying plans, in order to meet an unchanged goal of transporting 2 Marine Expeditionary Brigades.
• Virginia Pilot (June 30/07) – Navy ship $840 million over budget and still unfinished.
• Virginia Pilot (April 14/07) – New Navy ship San Antonio found to be rife with flaws. Reports on a 2007 test that couldn’t even be completed.
• San Antonio Express-News (Dec 22/05) – Ship has drained off an ocean of money [dead link].
• Navy Times (Dec 19/05) – Smoother Sailing for San Antonio; after being battered by Hurricane Katrina, the ship is finally ready to join the fleet.
• DID (Oct 19/05) – Long-Lead Materials Bill for 2 San Antonio Class Ships Rises to $536.6M.
• DID (Sept 1/05) – LPD 17 USS San Antonio in Fitting Out Stage.
• San Antonio Express-News (July 31/05) – Assault ship never had smooth sailing. Details problems with the LPD-17 Class, and specifically with the construction of the LPD 17 USS San Antonio.
• DID (July 27/05) – $9.8M to Upgrade & Maintain 2 Naval Radar Systems.
• San Antonio Express-News (July 22/05) – Report on USS San Antonio (transcript re: acceptance trials). Accompanies the same-day article “Report paints USS San Antonio as lemon.”
• The Times of London (May 22/05) – Warship built out of Twin Towers wreckage. Refers to the USS New York [LPD 21].
• DID (April 21/05) – Raytheon Gets $12.5M S.I. Subcontract for LPD-17 Ships.
• DID (March 18/05) – Cost Overruns, Budget Uncertainties Hurting USN and Contractors. Documented some of the problems with LPD 17 and LPD 18, as well as more general issues faced by US naval contractors.
• New Orleans Times-Picayune (March 16/05) – Budget Broken on Navy Vessels [link dead].

ScanEagle launch
(click to view full)

ScanEagle’s base Insight UAV platform was originally developed by Washington state’s Insitu, Inc. to track dolphins and tuna from fishing boats, in order to ensure that the fish you buy in supermarkets is “dolphin-safe”. It turns out that the same characteristics needed by fishing boats (able to handle salt water environments, low infrastructure launch and recovery, small size, 20-hour long endurance, automated flight patterns) are equally important for naval operations from larger vessels, and for battlefield surveillance. A partnership with Boeing took ScanEagle to market in those fields, and the USMC’s initial buy in 2004 was the beginning of a market-leading position in its niche.

This article covers recent developments with the ScanEagle UAV system, which is quickly evolving into a mainstay with the US Navy and its allies. Incumbency doesn’t last long in the fast-changing world of UAVs, though. Insitu’s own RQ-21 Integrator is looking to push the ScanEagle aside, and new multiple-award contracts in the USA are creating opportunities for other competitors. Can Insitu’s original stay strong?

The ScanEagle Family

ScanEagle BCAS launch
(click for alternate view)

The ScanEagle is solidly based on Insitu’s original “Insight” platform, with different variants distinguished by their payloads and accompanying equipment rather than their aerodynamic design. The UAVs are launched by catapult, and autonomously recovered using a folding “skyhook” and catch-line. These UAVs fill a niche between hand-launched mini-UAVs like Aerovironment’s RQ-11 Raven or Elbit’s Skylark I, and runway-capable tactical UAVs like Textron’s RQ-7 Shadow, Aeronautics DS’ Aerostar, or IAI’s Searcher II. Its long endurance is actually superior to its tactical UAV competitors, but its payload weight limit is significantly smaller.

ScanEagle has been demonstrated or used from a wide variety of ship classes and types, and the family includes a number of specialty variants from sniper locator, to bio-warfare agent detection (BCAS). A NightEagle conversion kit adds a different front end with thermal imaging sensors, and allows field conversion of ScanEagle aircraft in 2-3 hours. More drastic modifications are found in the ScanEagle Compressed Carriage (SECC), whose smaller fold-out wings allow it to be launched from an aircraft pylon, or a submarine.

Setup & use
click for video

That combination of versatility, long endurance, and small size appears to be succeeding in the global defense marketplace, without really impairing the market for tactical UAVs.

Boeing has had field representatives in theater for a few years now to support and operate the ScanEagle UAV from ships and ashore, receiving high battlefield praise and a fairly regular stream of contracts from the USA and Australia. Canada and Malaysia have signed on for battlefield surveillance services, the Dutch are using ScanEagle as an interim UAV, Poland and Singapore have purchased the platform, Japan is testing it, and a US Navy presentation suggests that the Colombian, Iraqi, and Tunisian navies are using it. Other customers wait in the wings, with reported interest from Kuwait, and Pakistan, among others.

Competition from Without – and Within

Aerosonde 4.7
(click to view full)

The UAV field continues to change quickly. The latest US Navy ISR contract will have ScanEagle competing against the Aerosonde-G for naval buys of UAV services, and against both AAI’s Aerosonde G and Arcturus’ T-20 for land-based surveillance missions. SOCOM’s MEUAS contracts have also become a de facto competition with AAI’s Aersonde.

Insitu’s flagship product will also have to contend with an internal competitor. The firm has begun to offer a next-generation “Integrator” platform, which was picked as the US Navy and Marine Corps’ next-generation RQ-21A Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (STUAS-II). It’s also reported that service contracts with other countries will begin incorporating the RQ-21, either as a main UAV or as a switch-in option.

The RQ-21A Integrator boosts endurance to over 24 hours, and raises maximum payload from about 13.2 pounds/ 6 kg to about 50 pounds / 23 kg. Wingspan rises from about 10.2 feet/ 3.1m to 15.8 feet/ 4.8m, and body length rises from 3.9 feet/ 12m to 7 feet/ 2.1m. Its sensor package will be a bit more versatile, too, with TV zoom and mid-wave infrared cameras, plus an infrared marker and a laser rangefinder (but not, yet, a target designator), all in a single package, instead of the ScanEagle’s swap-in options. Launch and recovery methods are the same as the ScanEagle’s, and use the same equipment.

Integrator will not be covered in this article except for contracts that shift away from the ScanEagle to the new platform, and equally significant milestones that affect ScanEagle’s future.

Contracts and Key Events: 2008 – Present

Eye in the Sky

Unless otherwise noted, contracts are issued by the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD. As of July 2008, Insitu Inc. is a Boeing subsidiary. Note that RQ-21A Integrator contracts won’t be covered here, unless they have a substantial impact on the ScanEagle’s future.

Australian report
click for video

June 22/14: UK. The Royal Navy is now using drones from its ships on operations:

“Just 7 months after the Ministry of Defence ordered the system from Boeing Defence UK, footage released today, 22 June, shows ScanEagle taking flight from [the Type 23 frigate] HMS Somerset in the [Persian] Gulf.”

Sources: UK MoD, “Royal Navy’s new eyes in the sky”.

June 2014: USCG. The ScanEagle’s performance with the US Coast Guard may yet make it the service’s 1st ship-borne UAV, after successful drug busts aboard one of the new frigate-sized National Security Cutters:

“At a joint House Transportation and Foreign Affairs Committee hearing looking at maritime drug interdiction efforts, Adm. Robert Papp, commandant of the Coast Guard prior to his retirement in May, said the service is continuing to test ScanEagles…. The Coast Guard will pursue an acquisition program, he confirmed.”

Sources: NDIA National Defense magazine, “Coast Guard Closer to Acquiring Ship-Based Drones”.

Jan 12/14: Japan. Japan’s Maritime Self-Defence Force is looking for ways to improve surveillance, in the wake of Chinese provocations and aggressive territorial claims. Their constitution bars aircraft carriers, but they’d like to try small UAVs that can be launched from destroyers. ScanEagle is already being trialed in Japan, which makes it the natural choice if Japan wants to trial live flights during the FY 2014 budget request’s YEN 2 million research (about $23,600) research phase.

If the JMSDF goes ahead, they’ll buy up to 19 systems. Textron’s Aerosonde can offer a competitor, Northrop and Raytheon have BAT UAVs, and even Boeing has a 2nd UAV up their sleeve in the RQ-21 Integrator. Sources: Japan Times: “MSDF looks to deploy drones on destroyers”.

Jan 7/14: Iraq. Now that Prime Minister Maliki’s sectarian approach to governing has produced predictable rebellion and insurgency in Sunni areas, the USA is shipping Iraq some weapons and equipment, even as heavier equipment finds itself blocked by Sen. Menendez [D-NJ], and many other senators are voicing concerns. Army Col. Steven Warren:

“We’re expediting delivery of 10 operational ScanEagles for part of the original purchase, as well as an additional four nonoperational ScanEagles, which will be sent to help facilitate maintenance of the original 10.”

They’ll act as Iraq’s high-end UAV, compared to the 48 Raven mini-UAVs slated for delivery in the spring. Sources: Pentagon, “DOD Speeds Delivery of Surveillance Assets to Iraq” | The Daily Beast, “Congress to Iraq’s Maliki: No Arms for a Civil War”.

Nov 19/13: UAE. Tawazun subsidiary Abu Dhabi Autonomous Systems Investments (ADASI) expands on a previous marketing and training teaming agreements with Boeing Insitu (q.v. Feb 18/13, Nov 15/11), and taken the next step: they’ll be able to operate and maintain Boeing’s ScanEagle and its larger Integrator UAVs as a service for the UAE military, and for “neighbouring allies.” That gives them complete service authority with the UAV, from marketing, to training, to operation.

ADASI aren’t newcomers to the UAV world. Under the UAE’s Al Sabr program, the firm performed final assembly of the country’s Schiebel S-100 Camcopter small helicopter UAVs, have been conducting R&D to expand the VTUAV’s range of carrying platforms, and service the UAE’s fleet. Sources: ADASI release, Nov 19/13.

Small boat pickup
(click to view full)

Sept 17/13: Poland. Insitu Inc. in Bingen, WA receives $7.3 million for a firm-fixed-price delivery order covering ScanEagle system hardware repairs and modifications for Poland. It includes spares, operations and maintenance training, and technical UAS publications.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA and is expected to be complete in September 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD acts as Poland’s agent within the FMS framework (N00019-12-G-0008, #0016).

July 12/13: Industrial. Insitu breaks ground on a new 120,000-square-foot production facility near its headquarters in Bingen, WA. The building is expected to be done in August 2014. Sources: Insitu, July 12/13 release.

July 2/13: USCG. The Coast Guard has been pondering its UAS options and requirements for years (vid. Dec 1/09 entry). They recently completed the 2nd of 3 planned demonstration phases. They used a ScanEagle during a 2-week deployment aboard the Bertholf cutter. That led to 90+ hours of flight time, during which the UAV helped with a the interception of a cocaine-loaded vessel. That gave them the opportunity to test the daytime camera, the combination electro-optical/infrared camera, and auto detection software.

The 3rd phase will gather quantitative data aboard a National Security Cutter in early 2014. USCG.

May 14/13: Japan. Insitu Pacific delivers a ScanEagle Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) to its partner Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) of Japan, for a 12-month operational evaluation by the Japanese Ground Self Defence Forces (JGSDF, see July 11/12 entry). Insitu.

April 24/13: OEF, etc. A $7.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to exercise an option for ScanEagle/ Nighteagle services until March 2014, in Afghanistan and around the world. $3.6 million is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, using FY 2013 Navy wartime supplemental operations and maintenance funds (N00019-11-C-0061).

April 24/13: NanoSAR next. ImSAR LLC in Springville, UT receives an $8.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, for “research services in support of the ultra-small aperture radar” (q.v. May 29/12 entry). This brings the contract’s cumulative value to $32.8 million.

ImSAR are the makers of the NanoSAR and Leonardo radars. US Army Contracting Command in Natick, MA manages this contract (W911QY-12-D-0011, 0006).

March 8/13: OEF. Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA receives a $7.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for ScanEagle operational and maintenance services in Afghanistan, including both day and night operations.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in January 2014. $3.6 million is committed immediately, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30/13 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Feb 18/13: UAE. Boeing broadens their ScanEagle support and sustainment agreement with the UAE’s ADASI (vid. Nov 15/11 entry), adding marketing services within the Middle East and North Africa, training services, and the new Integrator UAV. Boeing VP Debbie Rub reiterated to Gulfnews that this is:

“Not a contract but an agreement to work together. No particular value right now but the region needs this capability so they are working together so that we can grow this sort of business. There are intensions [sic] with Adasi to establish this as the centre in the Middle East for the ScanEagle and Intergrator contracts.”

See: Boeing | Arabian Aerospace | Gulfnews.

Feb 8/13: Iranian copies. The regime’s PressTV is now showing photos of a production line for ScanEagle UAV knock-offs.

Back on Dec 17/12, Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi had said that Iran was producing copies of the ScanEagle, based on drones it had captured. The Iranian regime says a lot of things about its military capabilities, most of which are fodder only for comedians and the credulous. This report, on the other hand, was plausible.

Iran has significant aerospace reverse engineering expertise, which it has built up to keep its fleet of American fighters and helicopters in the air. They also have some UAV expertise, and Iranian UAVs launched from Lebanon have been shot down over Israel. Iranian copies may not have the same performance and features as ScanEagle, but it’s reasonable to conclude that for once, Iran is making a military claim in line with its demonstrated capabilities. Iran’s PressTV.

Nov 16/12: OEF. Insitu Inc. in Bingen, WA receives a $12.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for pre and post deployment operations and services involving ScanEagle UAVs in Afghanistan. The contract mentions both electro-optical and mid-wave infrared imagery, and in 2013 the new MWIR/EO turret will let the company offer both of those options, without requiring the UAV to land and switch (q.v. Aug 7/12 entry).

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in August 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Nov 16/12: AOL Defense calls attention to Insitu’s business model of providing turnkey services, as the US military prepares to cut in-theater deployments and surveillance, standardize its UAVs, and bring operations and maintenance in house.

Meanwhile, the civilian market isn’t ready yet. That’s partly because of issues around certification in civil air space, and partly because all Insitu UAVs must be sold as weapons through the USA’s ITAR process. As an example, oil companies who want to use ScanEagle are told that they can’t have any non-US citizens aboard the operating platform. Things are going well in Australia with government agencies and civil fight authorities, but that won’t be enough.

Insitu is trying to get a version of the ScanEagle designated as a commercial commodity, and they estimate that the RQ-21A Integrator program will be worth $500 million over 10 years. Even so, AOL Defense is probably right that the Boeing subsidiary is about to take a financial hit.

Oct 30/12: UAV + UGS. Insitu Pacific in Queensland, Australia announces that integration between ScanEagle and McQ’s iScout Unattended Ground Sensor (UGS)/ OmniWatch technologies is complete. McQ’s UGS is in widespread service with the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Energy and “a range of international customers.”

The project enables UGS target detection alerts to be automatically displayed within ScanEagle’s Insitu I-MUSE multiple UAS controller software. The iScout sensor automatically sends a notification to I-MUSE, displaying the target location, detection type (seismic, magnetic, acoustic or infrared) and other relevant information. The operator is then able to automatically focus the ScanEagle’s sensors on the new contact to verify the data provided by iScout and OmniWatch, and to continue to track the target once it has moved beyond the OmniWatch camera range. Insitu.

Oct 10/12: Compact CLRE. The US Office of Naval Research is funding tests of the ScanEagle Compact Launch and Recovery System (CLRE), which combines the Skyhook recovery system with a compressed air launcher for the UAV. The end result is more compact than the traditional piston launcher/ skyhook combination, which is a big advantage for smaller boats and ships. ONR adds that:

“The system currently is trailer mounted for testing and ease of towing behind ground vehicles, but Insitu is exploring modifications of this version for rapid deployments. Its turntable base allows for mounting to a variety of integration structures.”

Skyhook recovery
(click to view full)

Sept 26/12: Upgrades. Boeing subsidiary Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA receives a $12.4 million delivery order for the hardware required to modernize the ScanEagle and its ancillary equipment. See Aug 7/12 for more details of what the upgrades entail; the hardware contract also includes replacements, using upgraded air vehicles and components.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in May 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, which is almost immediately. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-12-G-0008).

Sept 17/12: OEF. Insitu Inc. in Bingen, WA receives a $7.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for pre and post deployment operations and services involving ScanEagle UAVs in Afghanistan. The contract mentions both electro-optical and mid-wave infrared imagery, and in 2013 the new MWIR/EO turret will let the company offer both of those options, without requiring the UAV to land and switch (q.v. Aug 7/12 entry).

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in August 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Aug 21/12: OEF. Insitu in Bingen, WA, is awarded a $23.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for additional ScanEagle operations and maintenance in Afghanistan, using both daytime EO and IR night sensors. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA and is expected to be complete in August 2013 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Aug 9/12: Netherlands. A Dutch ScanEagle is launched on its first anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden, from the amphibious ship HNLMS Rotterdam. The LPD embarked the UAVs, catapult, and command station, plus a 19-soldier Army contingent. Dutch MvD [in Dutch].

Aug 8/12: Comms. relay. Boeing touts a smaller, lighter version of its Tactical Compact Communications Relay (TCCR). The 1.6-pound TCCR extends the range of line-of-sight military handheld radios from under 10 nautical miles to more than 150, and has been operating in Afghanistan. The new 1-pound version does the same, and will fit into a 5″ x 5″ x 1″ slot in the ScanEagle’s payload bay.

The new TCCR has been tested on several other UAVs, including the Schiebel Camcopter S-100, and Boeing plans to demonstrate a civilian set that could support emergency response or other commercial applications.

Aug 7/12: Netherlands. Insitu Inc. announces that the Dutch military can now fly the ScanEagle under a limited military aircraft type-classification certificate from the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) of the Netherlands.

The Dutch needed that, because they intend to operate the UAVs over their own country as well as abroad. Both sides were motivated, so the certification milestone was achieved in just 4 months. Note that this isn’t a full civilian certification, but it will definitely help. Insitu.

Aug 7/12: Sensors. Insitu Inc. announces that it’s conducting field evaluations of 2 new turrets for ScanEagle. Both turrets will be available in the first half of 2013, and better power draw will help make switch-ins easier.

The new Hood Technology Corp. Vision MWIR/EO turret means customers won’t have to choose any more between zoom cameras or mid-wave infrared thermal imaging on their ScanEagles. Insitu’s larger RQ-21A Integrator was already offering both modes, and competitive pressure makes it an important advance.

Hood’s SuperEO turret has already been in service for about a year, providing 5x better stabilization than its predecessor. The newest SuperEO Enhanced turret lets operators track, zoom and focus while maintaining positive identification, thanks to a sophisticated gimbal mechanism and a picture-in-picture display. Losing the target of interest when the camera moves has long been an annoying problem for many UAVs, especially small ones.

July 11/12: Japan. Insitu Pacific in Queensland, Australia announces a contract from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI), to deliver ScanEagle systems for comprehensive operational evaluation by the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force (Army).

It’s more than just an evaluation, as the ScanEagles will be operated by the JGSDF during this period to assist in disaster recovery, as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. Having said all that, it isn’t a long-term win yet, either.

May 29/12: NanoSAR next. ImSAR LLC in Salem, UT receives a $24 million firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to build, test, and assess a lightweight ultra wideband Synthetic Aperture Radar for use on small unmanned aerial vehicles. ImSAR makes the NAnoSAR, and this looks like the contract to develop its successor.

Work will be performed in Salem, UT with an estimated completion date of May 31/17. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Natick, MA (W911QY-12-D-0011).

May 15/12: Insitu, Inc., Bingen, WA receives a $35.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for additional ScanEagle and NightEagle services in Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and will run to December 2012. All Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0061).

May 4/12: Over in Australia. The ScanEagle has made its last flight for Australia, and its leased services are being replaced with Textron’s RQ-7B Shadow UAVs bought under Project JP129.

While Boeing contractors provided assistance and operational services, about 180 Australian Defence Force personnel deployed in support of the ScanEagle, mostly from 20th Surveillance and Target Acquisition Regiment, with elements from 16th Air Defence Regiment, Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, 1st Topographic Survey Squadron and 16th Aviation Brigade. During its 5 years in operation in Afghanistan, ScanEagles flew about 32,000 hours in more than 6,200 missions. Australian Army | Ottawa Citizen.

April 4/12: Hydrogen-powered. Boeing’s Insitu announces that the ScanEagle has completed a hydrogen-powered test flight, using a 1,500-watt fuel cell by United Technologies and a hydrogen fueling solution by the US Naval Research Laboratory. They add that this ScanEagle is lighter than the traditional model, which means more room for equipment. On the other hand, the release didn’t discuss the effects on range and endurance, which are more critical traits for this UAV. Earth Techling.

Feb 9/12: Exports. An AOL Defense report offers an expanded list of ScanEagle operators, as well as 3 more potential export clients:

“Navy leaders are considering foreign military sales of the Scan Eagle to Kuwait, Pakistan and the Netherlands, according to a presentation by Marine Corps Col. James Rector, head of the small tactical unmanned aerial systems division at Naval Air Systems Command. Aside from the U.S. Navy, the Scan Eagle is being flown by naval forces in Colombia, Tunisia, Poland and Iraq, according to PowerPoint slides from Rector’s speech at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International’s annual program review in Washington yesterday.”

The Netherlands is already using ScanEagle as an interim UAV; presumably, Dutch discussions represent long-term lease or purchase options. Previous reports have suggested that Boeing is offering ScanEagle leases with provisions to switch part-way through, and use the larger and more advanced RQ-21 Integrator platform (vid. June 16/10 entry).

Jan 25/12: NightEagle. Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA receives an $20 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for ScanEagle operational and maintenance services. These services will provide electro-optical/infrared and mid-wave infrared (NightEagle) imagery in support of Marine Corps operations in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in May 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Jan 22/12: Closing time approaches. First flight of an Early Operational Capability (EOC) RQ-21A STUAS Integrator UAV at the USMC’s Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, CA, 16 months after the contract is awarded. USMC UAV Squadron VMU-3 will deploy the RQ-21A within the USA, while a government-contractor team works with the system, and develops tactics, techniques, and procedures on the way to formal Initial Operational Capability (IOC), and then Full Operational Capability (FOC).

As those milestones are reached, Insitu’s ScanEagle will fade from use. US NAVAIR: “RQ-21A will eventually replace the Navy and Marine ISR services contract in which current ISR missions are conducted in Iraq, Afghanistan and shipboard.”

Aussie ScanEagle
(click to view full)

Nov 28/11: Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA receives an $12 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for ScanEagle operational and maintenance services. These services will provide electro-optical/infrared and mid-wave infrared (NightEagle) imagery in support of Marine Corps operations in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in January 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Nov 15/11: UAE. Insitu Inc. announces a partnership with Abu Dhabi Autonomous Systems Investments Company (ADASI), to perform joint support and sustainment activities on Insitu’s ScanEagle and Integrator UAS.

Oct 6/11: Canada. Insitu Inc. announces that its Canadian clients have successfully used ScanEagle UAVs during Operation Nanook in Canada’s Northwest Passage. The exercise focused around an Arctic major air disaster (MAJAID) simulation, and ScanEagle was deployed by Insitu and its partner ING Engineering to identify traversable ground routes, watch for polar bear threats, and monitor day-to-day iceberg movements. Insitu and ING UAS operators launched and retrieved the aircraft, then handed control over to the Canadian Forces and stood by to provide technical assistance as needed. Commanders in tactical operations centers (TOC) at 74 degrees north and troops on the ground received real-time video.

The exercise itself is not as significant as ScanEagle’s proof of use in polar environments. Insitu | Canada DND on Operation Nanook 11 | Canada DND Nanook 2011 photos.

Sept 30/11: Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA received a $7.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for major end items and parts to be used in the ScanEagle system. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete by January 2012. This contract was not competitively procured by the US Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division in Panama City Beach, FL (N61331-11-C-0011).

May – August 2011: Comm relay. Boeing announces successful May and August demonstrations of ScanEagle’s new narrowband communications relay, using an Insitu ScanEagle and AeroVironment’s Puma AE mini-UAV. During the multiservice demonstrations, held in California, the UAVs flew at a variety of altitudes while linking handheld military radios dispersed over mountainous regions, extending the radios’ range tenfold.

Larger RQ-7B Shadow UAVs have also been used in this role, but those are generally controlled at the battalion level or above. Narrowband relays small enough to work on mini-UAVs would represent an important step forward, especially for Special Operations forces.

May 31/11: Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA received a $46 million firm-fixed-price-contract to provide deployment services and flight hours, including electro-optical/infrared and mid-wave infrared imagery in support of Marine Corps operations in Afghanistan. In practice, this means both ScanEagle and NightEagle platforms; looks like the April 9/11 short-term contract went well.

Services will encompass both operation and maintenance of the ScanEagle UAS, to provide real-time imagery and data to USMC personnel. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA and in the field, and is expected to be complete in May 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-2 (N00019-11-C-0061).

June 2011: Insitu’s inception. The Smithsonian Institute’s magazine profiles the story behind Insitu and the ScanEagle, as part of a feature describing the evolution of UAVs toward civilian roles. Boeing bought the firm for about $400 million, in July 2008. Read “Drones are Ready for Takeoff“.

May 26/11: Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA received an $83.7 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite- quantity contract for operations and maintenance services to support government-owned ScanEagle systems, including: multiple training courses ranging from system pilot training, maintenance and operations, to mission coordinator and payload operator; multiple kits for sustainment, payload and engine module kits; and multiple spare parts.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and will run until May 2012. $62.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. There’s only one ScanEagle manufacturer, and this contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-2 (N00019-11-C-0012).

April 14/11: Insitu awards small business qualifier ArgenTech Solutions a contract to provide field service representative (FSR) services, at locations worldwide. It’s an initial 1-year contract that includes options for 2 additional years.

April 9/11: Boeing receives a $12.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for “additional Mid-Wave Infrared Unmanned Aerial Systems, intelligence reconnaissance surveillance services in for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force combat missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.” Sounds like an order for NightEagle services in Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (65%), and St. Louis, MO (35%), and is expected to be complete in May 2011. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages this contract (N00019-08-C-0050).

Feb 22/11: Boeing receives a $5.7 million firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification for “additional persistent unmanned aerial vehicle intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services in support of naval maritime missions.” ScanEagles featured prominently in the April 2009 rescue of an American vessel from Somali pirates, for example.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (65%), and St. Louis, MO (35%), and is expected to be complete in November 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-08-D-0013).

SECC test
(click to view full)

Dec 30/10: Boeing receives a $14.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for additional “persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle services in support of Marine Corps combat missions.”

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (97%), and St. Louis, MO (3%), and is expected to be complete in February 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-09-C-0050).

Dec 28/10: A $68.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for “full-motion video from commercial un-manned air intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms across Iraq. Work will be completed in Baghdad, Iraq, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/11. The bid was solicited through the Internet with 2 bids received by U.S. Central Command in Baghdad, Iraq (M67854-07-D-2052).

Dec 3/10: Weapons? Aviation Week reports that the US Navy is working on weapons that could give even the ScanEagle UAV hunter-killer capability. The 2 pound next-generation weapon management system (WMS GEN2) has been tested in the lab, and the development team is now looking at using the WMS GEN2 with the 5 pound NAWCAD Spike mini-missile, the Scan Eagle Guided Munition (SEGM), and a GPS-Guided Munition (G2M, likely the RCFC).

Sept 27/10: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $5.7 million not-to-exceed indefinite-delivery /indefinite-quantity contract modification for 2,100 hours of persistent UAV intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services in support of US Navy and USMC missions.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (94%, Insitu subsidiary) and St. Louis, MO (6%), and the contract will end in September 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 20/10 (N00019-08-D-0013).

Integrator platform
(click to view full)

July 29/10: No ScanEagles for STUAS-II. Boeing subsidiary Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA wins a $43.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to provide its new Integrator UAVs under the USMC’s the small tactical unmanned aircraft system/Tier II unmanned aircraft system III (STUAS-II) competition. But the UAV that beats competitors like Raytheon’s KillerBee 4 is not a ScanEagle. Instead, it’s Insitu’s new Integrator UAV – which may herald the beginning of the end for ScanEagle. Integrator also uses catapult launch, and is recovered using the same Skyhook recovery systems as ScanEagle.

We won’t be covering other Integrator contracts in this article, just milestones that are relevant to ScanEagle’s future.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (46.7%), Hood River, OR (45.6%), and Melbourne, FL (7.7%). Work is expected to be completed in September 2012, but $788,931 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals, with 4 proposals received by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ (N68335-10-C-0054). Insitu.

June 16/10: Poland. Reports surface that Poland has joined the customer list for Boeing’s leased ScanEagle UAV services, but details are scarce. At 15-20 hours endurance, ScanEagle offers longer on station time than leased Aeronautics DS’ Aerostars’ 8-12 hours. On the other hand, the Aerostar offers 110 pounds of payload, while ScanEagle offers just 13 pounds.

Shepard Group adds that Insitu has qualified a Mk4 catapult launcher, which will be compatible with both ScanEagle and Integrator, and is “ready to ship the launcher to an undisclosed customer in Afghanistan.” The Insitu spokesperson told them that around 35 ScanEagle systems of 5-10 UAVs each were operational with Australian, Canadian, Polish and US forces.

Aviation Week reports that Boeing is also in talks with a number of European countries to lease ScanEagle UAV services, with the option of an upgrade to their Insitu subsidiary’s slightly larger and more advanced Integrator UAV later on. Aviation Week | Shepard Group | StrategyPage.

June 12/10: Boeing receives a $59.5 million ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0050) to provide 3,300 flight hours of persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance UAV services to the U.S. Marine Corps.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (97%), and St. Louis, MO (3%); and is expected to be complete in December 2010. $29.75 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10.

June 8/10: FAA tests. Boeing subsidiary Insitu Inc. signs a cooperative research development agreement with the USA’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in order to guide the development of recommendations for UAV use in civil airspace. The research will be managed by the FAA’s Research and Technology Development Office and conducted at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ. Insitu | FAA Fact Sheet.

Insitu will provide a ScanEagle system, related support hardware and data, and UAV training for FAA pilots and maintenance staff. Insitu will also supply documentation related to ScanEagle, including an open invitation for FAA personnel to visit Insitu.

June 2/10: Canada. Insitu announces that its ScanEagle has logged more than 17,000 combat flight hours and 1,700 sorties with the Canadian Forces, as part of a “rent a drone” service operated by their Canadian partner ING Engineering. ScanEagle has been deployed with the Canadian Forces in theater since 2008 and has completed a successful maritime flight demonstration aboard the Kingston Class patrol vessel HMCS Glace Bay.

May 13/10: Insitu Inc. announces that it has demonstrated its heavy fuel engine-configured ScanEagle UAS to the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence, in conjunction with the Joint Systems Integration Laboratory (JSIL). The tests at Fort Rucker, AL demonstrated interoperability between ScanEagle video with metadata and the U.S. Army’s One System Remote Video Terminal (OSRVT), a digital video encrypted data feed, a mid-wave infrared (MWIR) sensor for night scans, and Insitu’s stabilized airborne target tracking system.

May 12/10: SECC. Boeing tests its ScanEagle Compressed Carriage (SECC), whose 132-inch wingspan and folding aero surfaces let it be carried in a container and launched from an aircraft pylon, or a submarine. It’s recovered using the same SkyHook system as a regular ScanEagle.

ScanEagle SECC is powered by a 6 hp heavy-fuel engine. The test launched it from a ground vehicle, whereupon it flew an autonomous 75 minute flight plan at various altitudes, and provided streaming video to a nearby ground station. Boeing | Boeing feature w. video.

April 29/10: Insitu Inc. announces that its ScanEagle UAS recently exceeded 300,000 combat flight hours since its 1st operational flight in 2002, and accounted for approximately 22% of the 550,000 hours that American UAVs flew in 2009.

April 14/10: An $11 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0050) to provide 6,600 flight hours of persistent ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) unmanned aircraft vehicle services in support of naval maritime missions. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (97%), and St. Louis, MO (3%), and is expected to be complete in June 2010. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

March 16/10: Boeing subsidiary Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA received an $8.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for technical services, to support intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services. In addition, this contract covers 6 critical spare kits and 9 SkyHook recovery system modifications.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in December 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $8.4 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-2 (N00019-10-C-0045).

Feb 19/10: A $6.1 million not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-08-D-0013) to provide 300 hours of persistent UAV intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services in support of naval maritime missions.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (65%) and St. Louis, MO (35%), and is expected to be complete in July 2010. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

ScanEagle UAV
(click for alternate view)

Dec 18/09: Bandit datalink. Boeing subsidiary Insitu Inc. announces that a flight test with L-3 Communication Systems-West’s Bandit digital data link worked “well in excess of range requirements.” Insitu is integrating the Bandit digital data link into its ScanEagle, NightEagle and Integrator UAVs. Bandit is Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) capable and ROVER 4/ 5 compatible. This test was conducted using the Integrator UAV, but tests also happened on a ScanEagle earlier in 2009.

Dec 1/09: USCG. Aviation Week reports that the US Coast Guard is still considering its UAV options:

“As part of its ongoing analysis, the service has participated in numerous exercises with other platforms [beyond the MQ-8B]… including Boeing’s A160 Hummingbird, an AeroVironment vehicle and ScanEagle tested on board a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship.”

Nov 25/09: The University of North Dakota (UND) receives its ScanEagle UAS, to be used in Department of Defense (DOD) contracted research providing data for UAS national airspace integration. UND is a designated State Center of Excellence for UAS Research, Education and Training, and funds for this project were provided by a USAF research contract. UND Associate Professor of Aviation and Director of Program Development for the UAS Center of Excellence, Douglas Marshall, in Insitu’s Press release:

“To date, the university’s only fully trained operators and maintenance technicians are UND employees and primarily flight instructors. We hope to integrate a ScanEagle system into our curriculum and allow students to fly the system against a radar test bed, while learning to operate the UAS itself.”

Nov 24/09: Canada. Boeing subsidiary Insitu Inc. announces a successful ScanEagle flight demonstration aboard Canada’s Kingston class coastal patrol vessel HMCS Glace Bay [MM 701]. The demonstration was conducted by the Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare Centre (CFMWC), and included an in-flight handoff of the ScanEagle by Canadian Navy personnel aboard HMCS Glace Bay to a ground control station (GCS) operated by Canadian Army personnel at Naval Base Halifax.

Oct 19/09: ScanEagle wins C4ISR Magazine’s 2009 C4ISR Platforms Category Award. Insitu release | C4ISR Magazine.

Sept 28/09: Sensors – MagEagle? Boeing receives a $275,000 contract from the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) to study of the magnetic noise associated with the heavy-fuel propulsion system on Boeing’s MagEagle Compressed Carriage (MECC) ScanEagle variant. The MagEagle is being designed and built to be magnetically quiet, in order to help it locate, track and attack submarines using a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) system that picks up the changes in earth’s magnetic field caused by large metal objects.

Boeing envisions MECC as another UAV extension of the manned P-8A Poseidon aircraft, launchable from the aircraft itself. They will begin testing the MECC sensor system, vehicle integration, and magnetic noise reduction in 2010. Boeing.

Aug 11/09: Insitu announces that ScanEagle recently surpassed the mark of 200,000 operational flight hours since 2004.

Aug 5/09: Insitu marks more than 2,500 combat flight hours and more than 300 shipboard sorties with its heavy fuel engine (HFE) ScanEagle since flight-testing began in 2006, which. ScanEagle HFE has been deployed aboard the destroyers USS Mahan and USS Milius, and uses the same JP-5 kerosene-based diesel fuel commonly used in jet aircraft engines, as opposed to the more flammable and dangerous auto gas. Other advantages include simple starting and operation, a wider weather envelope, improved reliability and increased endurance.

Insitu developed the engine in partnership with combustion system experts Sonex Research, Inc. in Annapolis, MD.

July 9/09: #1,000. Insitu Inc. marks delivery of its 1,000th ScanEagle, and announces that it is expanding its UAS manufacturing capacity.

May 27/09: Canada. Boeing announces $25 million in contracts to Canadian industry, as part of its $30 million industrial offsets commitment following Canada UAV services order. See also April 6/09 entry.

Winners include: ING Engineering Inc. (field services), MKS (MKS Integrity software and consulting services for program life-cycle management), and NovAtel (ScanEagle GPS).

April 13/09: The Boeing Co. in St. Louis, MO received a $45.4 million ceiling-priced, unfinalized contract to provide persistent UAV services from land bases on the Afghan front.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (65%) and St. Louis, MO (35%), and is expected to be complete in December 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $22.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR(Federal Acquisition Regulations) 6.302-2 (N00019-09-C-0050).

April 6-12/09: During this week, ScanEagle UAVs flew their 150,000th hour in service with the U.S. Marine Expeditionary Forces, U.S. Navy, U.S. Special Operations Command, Australian Army and Canadian Forces. Boeing release.

April 1/09: Boeing subsidiary Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA received a $20.9 million firm-fixed-price contract to supply ScanEagle hardware for 4 operational sites, 3 spare/operational float packages, and critical spares kits in support of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in July 2009. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-2 (N00019-09-C-0005).

March 16/09: Australia – AWACS compatibility. Boeing’s two-fer. Australia’s Project JP129 failure has created an opening for Boeing’s ScanEagle UAV, but its flagship “Wedgetail” E-737 AWACS faces questions. Boeing responded by linking 2 birds with one datalink: a live demonstration in which a not-yet-delivered Wedgetail aircraft flying over Washington State, USA controlled and received sensor data from 3 ScanEagle UAVs.

The 3 ScanEagles were launched from Boeing’s Boardman Test Facility in eastern Oregon, approximately 120 miles/ 190 km away from the airborne Wedgetail. Using the company’s UAS battle-management software, airborne operators issued NATO-standard sensor and air-vehicle commands via a UHF satellite communication link and ground-station relay. Operators tasked the UAVs with area search, reconnaissance, point surveillance and targeting, while the UAVs sent back real-time video imagery of ground targets.

Boeing will conduct a follow-on demonstration for the Australian government in early May 2009 at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales. A Wedgetail will take control of ScanEagles operated by Boeing Defence Australia personnel at Woomera Test Facility in South Australia, approximately 1,080 miles/ 1,730 km from Williamtown.

March 2/09: Singapore. Boeing announces that Singapore has been putting their ScanEagle UAV through ship-based trials, including flight from the helicopter decks of an LST amphibious support ship and a frigate. Boeing Defence Australia provided a complete maritime ScanEagle system for the successful trials, including a ground control station, communication links, launcher and SkyHook recovery system. They were complemented by a Boeing/ Insitu support team that was deployed to Singapore.

Jan 21/09: EnerLinks datalink. Viasat subsidiary Enerdyne Technologies Inc. signs an agreement with Insitu Inc. to supply its EnerLinksII DVA digital data link technology for use in the ScanEagle UAV. The EnerLinksII DVA is a small 3″ x 5″ x 1″ module that’s placed between the ScanEagle’s sensors and the RF transmitter, using less than 8 watts and weighing under 0.5 pounds.

The concept of a DVA (Digital Video over Analog) system involves simple conversion of older FM analog video links to encrypted digital links, without replacing any of the RF equipment in either the aircraft or the ground. EnerLinksII’s improved digital performance improves both UAV video link range and bandwidth use by a factor of 4, and can transmit 2 Mbps of IP data simultaneously with compressed FMV (Full Motion Video). Features include H.264 compression, IP multiplexing, AES encryption, FEC coding, and modulation waveshaping.

Jan 7/09: Boeing subsidiary Insitu announces that its ScanEagle unmanned aircraft system has just completed its 1,500th shipboard sortie in service with the U.S. Navy.

ScanEagle returns
(click to view full)

Nov 26/08: Sensors – shot locator. The US Office of Naval Research and Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division discuss a Navy Expeditionary Overwatch (NEO) program exercise, which involved US Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) sailors deploying a ScanEagle UAV, a manned Humvee with “Gunslinger” shot location and counterfire system, and an unmanned surface vehicle (USV) on a successful mission to detect and engage fictional insurgents over a 10 square mile radius.

The Gunslinger Humvee’s remote-control gun is operated by a gunner who sits at a control panel in the back seat. The Mk 45 weapons system is hooked up to video and infrared cameras connected to a set of sensors designed to detect gunfire, including a device that watches for muzzle flashes and listens for gunshots. It then points the remote-controlled weapons system on the Hummer’s roof at the source of fire.

At the Potomac River NEO demonstration, warfighters in the Humvee used the Gunslinger’s acoustic detection package and infrared sensors to determine the location of hostile fire and automatically move the weapon in the direction of the fire for friendly force response. The 36-foot-long semi-autonomous USV was also equipped with a Gunslinger payload and a range of sensors and communications systems. US Navy release | The Register re: Gunslinger..

Nov 12/08: Boeing receives a $65 million estimated value modification to a previously awarded indefinite delivery indefinite quantity “Interim UAS” contract, exercising an option for “persistent unmanned aerial system intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance services in support of Global War on Terror, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom sea-based deployments and land-based detachments.” That’s milspeak for contractor operation and maintenance of ScanEagle UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (65%); and St. Louis, MO (35%), and is expected to be complete in November 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $6.8 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-08-D-0013).

Nov 6/08: Canada. Canada issues a MERX solicitation (W8486-09MGSL/A) for a leased small UAV service. Canada is already leasing ScanEagle UAVs that can fulfill the MERX requirements: 90% operational availability, 12 hours on station, ability to gather and transmit high quality imagery from a distance of 50km.

Aug 6/08: Sensors – SWIR. Boeing and Goodrich Corporation announce that they have successfully flight-tested a ScanEagle unmanned aircraft equipped for the first time with a short-wave infrared (SWIR) camera. A SWIR camera can see more effectively in fog, rain or when little or no heat is radiated, which makes it especially useful for maritime surveillance. Boeing release.

May 28/08: NanoSAR. The NanoSAR test program continues, as Boeing, ImSAR and Insitu Inc. achieve real-time processing of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data aboard a ScanEagle UAV which is also equipped with a standard inertially stabilized electro-optical (EO) camera. The tests marked the first time SAR and EO capabilities have flown together on such a small, lightweight platform, and involved real-time SAR processing with streaming radar images displayed on the ground station. Creating real-time images onboard ScanEagle eliminates the requirement of either processing imagery on the ground after flight or using high-speed data links to a ground station. Insitu release.

April 29/08: Insitu announces that the ScanEagle has now surpassed 50,000 combat flight hours with the U.S. Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEF) in Iraq and 1,000 shipboard recoveries with the U.S. Navy.

April 22/08: Testing. Insitu announces that it has flown Heavy Fuel Engine (HFE) equipped ScanEagles in Iraq, in cooperation with the US Navy. Heavy fuel refers to the kerosene-based fuel used in diesel and/or jet aircraft engines such as JP5, JP8, or Jet-A. ScanEagles flying in Iraq are using naval JP5 fuel, which is designed to be safer aboard ships.

The effort involved Insitu, Boeing, and Sonex Research Inc. in Annapolis, MD. The effort took 2 years of development and included over 2000 hours of testing, including a new ScanEagle flight endurance mark of 28 hours, 44 minutes using JP5. Insitu release.

Feb 7/08: US AFSOC. Air Force Special Operations Command, as the lead command for small unmanned aircraft systems, highlights the capabilities of the Scan Eagle during a demonstration at the Eglin Air Force Base test range. AFSOC has been training with the 820th Security Forces Group from Moody Air Force Base, GA since September 2007, to employ the system. AFSOC release.

Feb 7/08: USN SEALs. A Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle is launched from a MK V naval special warfare boat off the coast of San Clemente Island. This is the first time a Scan Eagle, used for various applications such as intelligence gathering and battle damage assessment, has been launched from this kind of platform. Insitu photo links.

Jan 14/08: USN’s Interim UAS. Jane’s reports that:

“Industry rivals are waiting to hear if they have ousted the Boeing/Insitu ScanEagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) from its role as provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support for US Navy ships at sea. A decision on the interim UAS contract, which will provide ISR imagery services to warships and to the US Marine Corps into the next decade, is expected in late January or early February 2008.”

Other competitors are thought to include AAI Corporation’s long-endurance Mk 4 Aerosonde, Aurora Flight Sciences’ vertical take-off and landing GoldenEye 80, BAE Systems’ Skylynx II, MTC Technologies’ Spyhawk T-16 and Raytheon/Swift Engineering’s Killer Bee. Insitu link.

UPDATE: the decision took until June 2008, and ScanEagle won.

NanoSAR on ScanEagle
(click to view full)

Jan 7/08: Sensors – NanoSAR. Boeing, Insitu, and ImSAR conduct a successful flight-test for the tiny NanoSAR Synthetic Aperture Radar aboard a ScanEagle UAV. The NanoSAR is a 2-pound system about the size of a shoebox, which is a couple orders of magnitude lighter than most SAR systems. As a sign of the times, “import to Google Earth” is an option for the system.

As a comparison, the I-Master SAR aboard Britain’s new Watchkeeper UAVs is considered small at 65 pounds. SAR radars aren’t an all-purpose replacement for ScanEagle’s existing electro-optical sensors, but they’re a very important complement because of their ability to see through fog, dust, et. al. The issue for NanoSAR will be providing acceptable resolution and coverage despite its tiny size.

Targets for the 1.5 hour test flight at the Boardman, OR test range included vehicles, structures and corner reflectors. Data collection worked as planned, and SAR imagery was later created on the ground. The next step in flight testing will be to create imagery aboard the UA in real time. Boeing release | ImSAR on NanoSAR | Insitu re: NanoSAR.

Additional Readings

• Insitu – ScanEagle System. ScanEagle is closely derived from the “Insight” base platform.
• Smithsonian Magazine, via WayBack (June 2011) – Drones are Ready for Takeoff
• DoD Buzz, via WayBack (Oct 6/09) – FAA Acts or Drones Stop Flying. “Army drones will have to curtail training and operational flights by fiscal 2012 in the United States unless the FAA approves some form of UAS deconfliction, a top Army UAS official says.”
• IEEE Spectrum, via WayBack (January 2009) – Winner: Radio Eye in the Sky. Covers the concept of ultra-small SAR surface-looking radars.
• DID (June 12/07) – Boeing Operating ScanEagle UAVs for Australia. The rent-a-UAV concept gains another customer. See also corporate site.
• Flight International, via WayBack (June 6/07) – Evergreen alliance with Insitu for civil UAV market. “Semi-civil” might be a better way of putting it. They will use Insitu’s Insight platform.
• DID (Jan 26/07) – ScanEagle + ShotSpotter = Sniper Spotter
• Inc. Magazine, via WayBack (June 1/06) – How I Did It: Steven Sliwa, CEO and president, The Insitu Group
• DID (June 8/06) – ScanEagle to Detect Biological Agents. The program is called ScanEagle BCAS.

USMC KC-130J
(click to view full)

Special Operations Command’s AC-130H/U gunships can lay down withering hails of accurate fire, up to and including 105mm howitzer shells, in order to support ground troops.

The Marines also wanted heavy aircraft that could support their Leathernecks on the ground. The bad news was that the Corps could field about 45 KC-130J aerial tankers for the price of a 12-plane AC-130J squadron. Lighter options like the AC-27J “Stinger II” would probably tally similar costs, once R&D dollars were distributed among such a small fleet. Could the Marines change tack, and offer a modular weapon package that would let them arm their existing tankers as needed? Could armed KC-130Js offer limited fire support, while loitering over the battlefield and using their unique speed envelope to refuel helicopters and fast jets alike? The Harvest Hercules Airborne Weapons Kit (HAWK) program aims to do just that. It gives the USMC a far less capable convertible gunship option in Afghanistan, but the cost is about 2 orders of magnitude below a dedicated gunship fleet. Unsurprisingly, the next service to show interest in this concept was SOCOM itself.

Gunships R Us: Equipping The Hercs

The US Marines: KC-130J Harvest HAWK

AC-130H Specter
(click to view full)

The Marines’ initial Harvest HAWK plan is to field 3 kits, but the eventual plan is to have 3 roll-on/ roll-off kits per squadron. That would mean about 9 kits by 2011, and 12 kits when the last KC-130T aerial refueling squadron converts to KC-130Js after 2012. All USMC KC-130Js are expected to receive the wiring needed to carry the kits, which will be improved and refined over time.

Harvest HAWK Capability I involves a roll-on/roll-off set of surveillance displays and fire control electronics, plus “Blue Force Tracker” to keep tabs on friendly troops, and ROVER to communicate with them. Outside the cabin, a modular surveillance and targeting unit takes up the rear portion of the inboard left external fuel tank, or may simply be mounted below that tank as a surveillance turret. The sensor choice was said to involve 2 candidates. Lockheed Martin’s AN/AAQ-30 TSS, which is also used in the Marines’ AH-1Z attack helicopter and has been installed in some SOCOM AC-130s, won. L-3 Wescam’s popular MX-15 surveillance and targeting turret was the competitor, but competing against the Harvest Hawk’s integrator is not a promising position.

Harvest HAWK Capability II involves mounting an M299 missile rack for 4 AGM-114P Hellfires and/or up to 16 DAGR laser-guided 70mm rockets to the left wing, in place of the left-hand outboard aerial refueling pod. This leaves the left wing carrying the weapons and some fuel, while the right wing retains full aerial refueling capabilities. Capability IV (see below) was also moved up, and the 10-tube rear ramp “Gunslinger” system and precision weapons were effectively added to this increment.

After early testing for Capabilities I & II took place, initial orders and testing followed. Deployment to Afghanistan started in summer 2010.

M230 30mm
(click to view full)

Harvest HAWK Capability III involves a modular 30mm cannon linked to the fire control, which is expected to be rolled in and mounted in the troop door. Daniel Watters of The Gun Zone writes to say that the Marines’ choice of 30mm gun is interesting, and explains the tradeoffs:

“While the Mk 44 Bushmaster II [30x173mm] and M230 Chain Gun [30x113mm] are both nominally 30mm, their cartridges are very different…There is a major difference in size, power, and range. The Mk 44 Bushmaster II has already been adopted by the US Navy and USMC for other applications… The 30x173mm uses a heavier projectile with a larger explosive filling, and is fired at a higher velocity [which] should have a noticeable maximum range advantage. Perhaps it would be easier to fabricate a stable mount for the less powerful M230 than the Mk 44… M230 and its ammunition are also lighter and more compact.”

US Special Forces tried fitting 30mm cannon to their AC-130U “Spooky” gunships, but found that the gun’s accuracy level wasn’t suited to their missions. In response, they implemented a “retrograde” to their earlier 25mm and 40mm weapons. The Marines say that the 30mm cannon will suit their objectives. Time will tell, but either way, the lack of pinpoint-accurate, extreme-volume gunfire will be one of the principal differences between SOCOM’s AC-130s, and kit gunships like the KC-130Js or MC-130Ws.

Capability III has yet to even select a gun at this point, much less test and integrate one. According to US Navy NAVAIR: “…capability III [will begin] when funding becomes available.” ATK finalized a roll-on/off palletized kit for the GAU-23 cannon in mid-2012, which may help funding become available.

Viper Strike
(click to view larger)

Capability IV originally involved adding additional Standoff Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGMs) to the Harvest HAWK, but that got moved ahead to Capability II. They’re dropped out of a 10-tube “Gunslinger” launcher that fits on the rear ramp, but their future involves a new pressurized “Derringer Door”. That 10-tube launcher switches in for the regular paratroop door, allowing Harvest HAWK planes to drop weapons without depressurizing the cabin, and/or asking those inside to don oxygen masks.

Efforts were already underway to incorporate and test Northrop Grumman’s (now MBDA’s) GBU-44 Viper Strike laser/GPS-guided weapons on the KC-130Js, and they were under consideration by SOCOM for its AC-130s. Raytheon’s small “Griffin” missiles were also added. The rocket-powered Griffin B can replace Hellfires on an M299 launcher, on 3 for 1 basis. For the C-130 fleet, however, the unpowered, gravity-dropped Griffin A seems to be the mainstay. Other weapons are likely, especially from US SOCOM. One weapon they have confirmed funding for is Textron’s cylindrical 64-pound C-LAW, whose airburst devastates soft ground targets over an area the size of a football field.

Specifics regarding additional weapon plans are thin at the moment, but other options could conceivably include 81mm or larger mortars, using General Dynamics’ RCFC GPS guidance kits; tiny missiles like the NAVAIR/DRS Spike; and spinoffs from the explosion of small precision-guided bombs entering the market: Lockheed Martin’s Scorpion, MBDA’s Saber, etc. Later Harvest HAWK phases will reportedly add stations for Hellfire laser-guided missiles on both wings, instead of just the port wing. The M299 launchers would be mounted on the outside of the plane’s outboard aerial refueling pods.

US AFSOC: MC-130W Combat Spear/ Stinger II

MC-130W Combat Spear
(click to view full)

A similar effort is emerging from US Special Operations Command.

US Navy NAVAIR PMA-207 has been working with US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to share information on Harvest Hawk, and a US SOCOM program is now converting its MC-130W Combat Spear aircraft along Harvest Hawk lines. Similar kits could also be fielded for SOCOM’s forthcoming HC-130J Combat King II and MC-130J Combat Shadow IIs, and they may even spread beyond that.

MC-130W. In the near term, their MC-130Ws are newly-converted C-130H aircraft, with 12 delivered as combat replacements from 2006-2011. MC-130W base roles include infiltration/ exfiltration of special operations teams, aerial refueling including combat search-and-rescue support, and psychological operations. Key additions above the based C-130H include a strengthened tail to cope with low-level drops; improved avionics and navigation that integrates GPS, AN/APN-241 radar, and AN/AAQ-38 Infrared systems; a full suite of top-of-the-line threat detection and countermeasures gear; and a communication suite that includes satellite communications with data burst, making it hard for enemies to locate the plane by tracking its transmissions. A UARRSI dorsal receptacle lets any boom-equipped aerial tanker refuel it in the air, while the MC-130W can itself act as a refueler for hose-and-drogue equipped aircraft or helicopters, using its Mk 32B-902E refueling pods.

The other difference from previous AFSOC gunships involved precision ranged weapons. MC-130Ws will have a 4-rail wing-mount for laser-guided AGM-114P Hellfire missiles or 70mm laser-guided DAGR rockets, and a 10-tube “Gunslinger” system that can launch small precision-guided weapons.

“Gunslinger”
(click to view full)

All 12 MC-130Ws will soon be converting to “Project Dragon Spear” aircraft, which add roll-on, roll-off kits featuring added sensors, communications systems, the Adaptive Carriage Environment (ACE), and weapons. Some sources refer to those as “AC-130W,” but the official USAF designation remains MC-130W.

Dragon Spear weapons will include a GAU-23 dual-feed 30mm gun with about 500 rounds, with the assembly bolted to the floor of the plane. It fires single shots or short bursts, instead of the “wall of lead” that’s associated with an AC-130H/U gunship, or the Vietnam-era C-47 “Puff the Magic Dragon” whose upgraded descendants still serve in Colombia and Indonesia.

The MC-130W represents an acquisition departure for SOCOM, who stood up its 1st Joint Acquisition Task Force in June 2009 to handle the initial MC-130W conversion and buy. The project had a minimum capability model in less than 90 days, and deployed a working aircraft within 18 months. The experience has gone well enough that SOCOM is reportedly considering using JATFs on other projects.

It has also led to a shift in mindset, wherein a government-owned “Precision Strike Package” will sit at the core of SOCOM’s new gunships.

AC-130J. Up to 32 new AC-130Js are now expected to serve alongside the 12 new AC-130W Dragon Spears, replacing existing AC-130H/Us. Initially, the AC-130Js will use roll on/off kits from the Dragon Spear project in an HC-130J airframe. Eventually, they’ll install their own “Precision Strike Package” that includes a side-firing 30mm GAU-23A chain gun, wing-mounted GBU-39 GPS-guided SDB-I bombs, and laser-guided AGM-176 Griffin missiles launched from a “Gunslinger” attachment on the read cargo door. It may eventually add a side-firing 105mm howitzer like existing AC-130H/Us, and AGM-114 Hellfire missiles like the Marines’ KC-130J Harvest Hawks, but those aren’t currently funded. These weapons will be controlled from a dual-console Mission Operator Pallet in the cargo bay, which will include multiple video, data, and communication links.

Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise indicated, these contracts are managed by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD.

AC-130J
(click to view full)

Sept 16/14: G-CLAW. Textron advertises that its G-CLAW area effect weapon, designed as a cooperative research and development agreement with US Special Operations Command’s Program Executive Office (q.v. Aug 27/12), has succeeded in a live-fire demonstration, striking within 4m of the target.

What’s especially interesting is that the final test dropped it from an altitude of 10,000 feet out of a Cessna 208B Caravan, using USSOCOM’s Common Launch Tube (CLT) dispenser. Militarized variants of the C-208B has now been provided to or ordered by several countries (Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Mauritania, Niger), which expands the weapons potential market and prospects of being proven in combat. Textron is also touting a hardpoint variant of this weapon on its Scorpion ISR/strike jet, Beechcraft’s AT-6, and UAVs. Sources: Textron Systems, “Textron Systems G-CLAWTM Precision Guided Weapon Achieves Successful Live-Fire Demonstration”.

May 22/14: AC-130 Upgrades. At the annual SOFIC conference, SOCOM’s systems acquisition manager for standoff precision-guided munitions, Erich Borgstede, says that they are just beginning to fir AGM-114 Hellfire missiles on the AC-130W/Js. They’ve also developed a laser-guided small diameter bomb [SDB-I is a 250 pound GPS-only weapon] that will be fielded this summer.

“According to slides presented at the briefing, SOCOM is also looking at the potential of using helmet mounted displays, digital map upgrades, and using mobile devices to help do mission planning in the near future.”

Those changes would also apply to their HC/MC-130 fleet. Sources: Defense News, “SOCOM soon getting more capable, deadlier Ospreys and C-130s”.

March 28/14: AC-130W support. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a sole-source $14 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for contractor logistics support of the AC-130W’s precision strike package. Contractor logistics support employees also deploy with aircraft in support of special operations Missions.

$10.9 million is committed immediately, using FY 2014 O&M funds. Work will be performed at Cannon Air Force Base, NM, and is expected to be complete March 31/15. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center’s Special Operation Forces Contracting Division, at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract (FA8509-14-C-0001).

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). Their focus is on US SOCOM’s variants: HC-130J/MC-130J Combat King II CSAR/ Commando II transports, and AC-130J “Ghostrider” gunships. The USAF intends to field 37 HC-130J Combat King IIs developed to Increment 2 capability, 57 MC-130J Commando IIs developed to Increment 3 capability, and 37 AC-130J Ghostrider gunships that will be converted from MC-103Js (TL: 94 MC-130Js produced).

The AC-130J program conducted a Preliminary Design Review in March 2013 and a Critical Design Review in August 2013, and 1st flight was expected in January 2014. The PSP weapon set is planned in 3 increments, and both development and the Live Fire Alternative Test Plan (ATP) will leverage some data from the C-130H-based AC-130W. The core problem across this fleet involves the enhanced electrical system and in 400 Amp power supply, which is required for Increment 3 upgrades and AC-130J gunship conversions. At present, the fleet is limited to a 200 Amp system. This was also concerning:

“Armor requirements and the amount of armor differ significantly between the AC-130U and AC-130J aircraft. The AC-130U armor was designed to provide protection to the aircrew stations, personnel, ammunition, and critical systems against a single 37 mm high-explosive incendiary round at a range of 10,000 feet, while the AC-130J’s primary crewmember positions and oxygen supplies should be protected against single 7.62 mm ball projectile at 100 meters [DID: just 330 feet, where bullet velocity is higher] …. The planned armor layout on the AC-130J does not include the Mission Operator Pallet, which should be considered a “primary crewmember” position and protected in accordance with the associated Force Protection Key Performance Parameter (KPP).”

The 37mm criterion isn’t random: most AC-130 kills over Vietnam involved 37mm guns. It isn’t rare for gunships to face enemies that can deploy 14.5mm – 23mm guns, to say nothing of the common .50 cal/ 12.7mm caliber. Even an unarmored C-130J would be a difficult kill for a 12.7mm machine gun. With that said, it sounds like they’ve left the crew nearly unprotected, in an aircraft that’s designed to go where the enemy is shooting. That does require an explanation.

KC-130J-HH, Kandahar
(click to view full)

June 4/13: AC-130J Sub-contractors. The AC-130J Ghostrider will be equipped with a configuration of QinetiQ’s enhanced LAST lightweight composite armor. Protection will depend on how much they use, and LAST’s aerial density is 37 kg/m2. Protection up to 7.62mm armor piercing is the minimum useful level, and seems to be the AC-130J’s standard. SOCOM could certainly justify higher levels, especially in critical areas, but they’d rather make the weight tradeoffs in an airplane that’s already packed with heavy gear. Jane’s adds that:

“A total of 37 AC-130J aircraft will replace AFSOC’s eight ageing AC-130H platforms, a significant increase from the 16 originally planned. It is understood that the procurement of the additional platforms will allow the 12 AC-130W Dragon Spear/Stinger II platforms currently performing gunship duties to revert back to their baseline MC-130W Combat Spear [multi-role] configuration.”

Sources: QinetiQ NA, “QinetiQ North America’s LAST Armor to Protect C-130 Aircraft” | IHS Jane’s, “New armour for AC-130J gunships”.

March 20/13: Hellfire? US SOCOM fixed-wing PEO Col. Michael Schmidt (USAF) confirms that they’re looking to add AGM-114 Hellfire II missiles to the AC-130W’s “Precision Strike Package,” using F-15 racks mounted on the AC-130W’s hard points. Money has to be found in the budget, but he’s confident that it will happen at some point.

Since the AC-130J Ghostrider will initially be fielded with the same Precision Strike Package, AC-130W integration could end up extending to the new fleet. Sources: Defense Tech, “Air Force set to arm AC-130W with Hellfire missiles”.

Dec 20/12: AC-130W Support. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a $7.9 million contract modification for “logistics support of the Precision Strike Package on the AC-130W aircraft, Stinger II Program.”

The location of the performance is Cannon Air Force Base, NM. Work is expected to be completed by Dec 31/13. The AFLCMC/WIKAA at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract (FA8509-12-C-0001, PO 0006).

“Derringer Door”
(click to view full)

Aug 27/12: G-CLAW. Textron Defense Systems announces a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with U.S. Special Operations Command’s Program Executive Office – Fixed Wing, focused on Textron Defense Systems’ Guided Clean Area Weapon (G-CLAW). The GPS-guided cylinder will be integrated into SOPGM launch tube dispensers, and receive flight and weapon safety certifications. From there, Textron Defense Systems and USSOCOM will conduct inert and live-fire demonstrations from a tactical carrier aircraft such as the MC-130W Dragon Spear. Integration activities will culminate in an end-to-end, live-fire demonstration.

The 64-pound CLAW was actually designed as a safe sub-munition for cluster bombs, like the GPS-guided CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon. Instead of releasing hockey-puck shaped guided explosives to take out tanks, the entire tube is a weapon, whose air-burst is lethal to troops and unarmored vehicles over an area the size of a football field. A number of safety features ensure that it never becomes an unexploded ordnance hazard.

July 23/12: AC-130J. Production begins in Marietta, GA, but the gunship is actually built as an MC-130J Commando II. It will become an “AC-130J” (vid. Feb 19/12 contract) when it’s equipped with a “Precision Strike Package.” When queried, Lockheed Martin representatives said that:

“The initial contract is to cross-deck the current MC-130W equipment to the new AC-130Js. The PSP referenced here is a new package.”

AC-130J Initial Operating Capability is scheduled for 2015, and AFSOC expects to order 16. Lockheed Martin.

July 9/12: MC-130W. ATK announces that a rapid prototyping effort has created a modified variant of their Mk44 Bushmaster Automatic Cannon for MC-130W Combat Spear aircraft. The 30mm gun is now officially known as the GAU-23, and uses ATK’s PGU-46/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) ammunition for its missions.

ATK adds that in June 2011, the U.S. Air Force announced the conversion of 12 of its MC-130W Combat Spear aircraft to the Dragon Spear configuration.

The US Marines may also be interested, now that the technology is mature (vid. Aug 17/11). The MC-130W Dragon Spear will bolt the GAU-23 in, but ATK has developed a Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO/RO) pallet and weapons mount for use on other aircraft, like the USMC’s KC-130Js.

May 2012: Naming. The MC-130W Dragon Spear is renamed the AC-130W Stinger II, while the AC-130J picks up the designation “Ghostrider”. Sources: USAF Fact Sheets.

May 14/12: Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives an $18.4 million firm-fixed-price contract that buys 3 Harvest HAWK sets, and pays to modify 7 KC-130Js with Harvest HAWK installations.

Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA (90%), and Marietta, GA (10%), and is expected to be complete in June 2014. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304c1. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-12-C-0094).

April 16/12: Viper Strike. MBDA announces that its GBU-44/E Viper Strike scored “multiple direct hits”, after being launched from the KC-130J’s new “Derringer Door” during developmental testing at China Lake, CA. Viper Strike also proved out its new fast attack software load, designed to improve performance against time sensitive targets.

Feb 23/12: Derringer Door. US NAVAIR announces successful testing and fielding of a Harvest HAWK “Derringer Door” pressurized launcher, which will be used instead of the “Gunslinger” system on future aircraft. The 10-round set replaces the plane’s paratrooper door, and lets the plane launch small precision-guided munitions like Griffin, without depressurizing the cabin and forcing the crew to use oxygen gear. By freeing up the cargo ramp, it also lets KC-130J Harvest HAWKs continue to perform cargo missions, while keeping the weapon launcher on board.

Like the rest of the Harvest HAWK kit, the Derringer Door system is removable.

Nov 7/11: KC-130J-HH stats. Inside the Navy reports [subscription] on Griffin usage in Afghanistan:

“Less than a year after first introducing it to the fleet, the Marine Corps has already used the Harvest Hawk… to fire 74 Hellfire and 13 Griffin missiles… while also providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, a Marine aviation official said here recently.”

KC-130J Harvest HAWK
at FOB Dwyer
(click to view full)

Aug 22/11: Viper Strike. Northrop Grumman announces an unspecified additional contract to deliver “multiple” GBU-44 Viper Strike GPS/laser guided mini glide bombs to the Joint Attack Munition Systems (JAMS) Project Office at Redstone Arsenal, AL. Deliveries will begin in 2011, for eventual integration onto the KC-130J Harvest Hawk. See also June 2/10 entry.

All the Viper Strike munitions on Harvest Hawk will now carry the latest software load, which greatly enhances the weapon’s effectiveness against moving targets. In recent testing at China Lake, CA, Viper Strike scored multiple hits against moving vehicles in various scenarios.

Aug 17/11: KC-130J-HH. The USMC is looking at upgrading its KC-130Js for better close-air support to address known limitations (vid. July 28/11 entry). Maj. Richard Roberts told National Defense magazine the addition of a 30mm GAU-23 cannon to Harvest Hawk is again under consideration, which if confirmed would let the program meet its Capability III milestone. The possibility of this graft was reviewed back in 2009, but the integration tech was deemed too immature back then.

According to National Defense, as of last month the 1 Harvest Hawk deployed in Afghanistan had fired 42 Hellfire and 11 Griffin missiles and identified 8 IEDs. A 2nd unit will soon be rotated in so that the 1st one can be used for training purposes.

July 28/11: KC-130J-HH. The USMC discusses Harvest Hawk operations, noting that the Harvest Hawk contingents don’t yet have close-air support experience, so the Marines are drawing fire-control officers from its F/A-18 Hornet fighter, AV-8B Harrier II fighter, and AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter units. With respect to the aircraft’s usage:

“One Harvest HAWK flew for about 10 hours and fired its entire compliment of Hellfire missiles during combat operations in Afghanistan, March 14. An F/A-18 Hornet can only fly for an hour and thirty minutes without tanker support, according to [VMGR-252 fire control officer Capt. Thane A.] Norman. “Currently, we have a Harvest HAWK temporarily assigned to our detachment with 2nd MAW (Fwd.),” said [VMGR-252 commander Lt. Col. Charles J.] Moses. “It provides coverage for eight to 10 percent of joint tactical air requests in their area of operations, which is a significant number considering it’s only a single aircraft.”

Feb 25/11: MC-130W. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a $22.3 million contract modification for interim contract support under the Dragon Spear program, to help provide and install precision strike packages in 12 MC-130W Combat Spear aircraft. At this time, $10.4 million has been committed by the WRALC/GRUKA at Robins AFB, GA (FA8509-10-C-0013; PO0003).

Feb 8/11: MC-130W & lasers. Defense News quotes SOCOM chief Adm. Eric Olson, who says the MC-130W Dragon Spear went from concept to flying with a minimum capability in less than 90 days, and deployed in 18 months. It has already deployed to Iraq, and is now flying in Afghanistan. Defense News adds that:

“The four-star admiral also touted a system used in Afghanistan that involves an “airborne-mounted overt laser that projects a beam that illuminates a spot on the ground.” Commanders “are finding more and more uses for an illuminated spot on the ground,” he said. “It can prevent fratricide, it can cause people to muster against a target, it can have a powerful psychological effect if you are standing in the beam.” SOCOM officials are currently building tactics, techniques and procedures for the system.”

While Adm. Olson was not specific, C-130s are certainly natural platforms for that kind of system.

Feb 4/11: KC-130J-HH stats. Marines of Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 352, Detachment A, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward), are preparing to return from a 6-month deployment at Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan to their home at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. VMGR-352’s KC-130J Super Hercules aircraft performed a number of transport and aerial refueling missions, while pioneering the “Harvest HAWK” kit’s use on the front lines.

Overall VMGR-352 crews completed 7,852 sorties and reached 7,897 flight hours. They also tracked 25,190 assault support requests, 65,815 additional passengers and 23,629,371 pounds of cargo. The Harvest Hawk completed 93 sorties, flew more than 565 hours and completed 191 joint tactical airstrike requests. USMC.

Nov 23/10: KC-130J-HH Action Report. Official report of a USMC KC-130J Harvest HAWK supporting 2 squads of Marines with India Company, 3rd Bn., 5th Marines. The squads ran into an attempted ambush, and the USMC explains what happened after that:

“The Marines immediately began firing at the enemy and gained superior firepower. The fight intensified as Marines were under fire from medium-machine-gun and small-arms fire. The Marines then played their trump card, calling in 60 mm and 120 mm mortars and close air support. An UH-1 Huey and an AH-1W Super Cobra fired hundreds of rounds, and a KC-130J ‘Harvest Hawk’ fired a Hell-Fire Missile. Artillery Marines played their part as well, firing multiple GPS-guided shells. The firefight lasted about two hours and killed an estimated 8-10 enemy fighters, said 1st Lt. Stephen Cooney, the executive officer with India Company, 3rd Bn., 5th Marines.”

MC-130W
(click to view full)

Sept 24/10: MC-130W. L-3 Communications TCS, Inc. in Warner Robins, GA receives a $29.4 million contract which would modify up to 4 MC-130Ws to install a precision strike package. At this time, no funds have been committed by the WR-ALC/GRUKA at Robins Air Force Base, GA (FA8509-20-C-0027).

Sept 21/10: MC-130W. L-3 Communications TCS, Inc. in Warner Robins, GA adds $15.8 million to a previous contract to install the Precision Strike package in 8 MC-130Ws. That’s on top of $45.2 million that had been committed before, raising the contract to $61 million. The WR-ALC/GRUKA at Robins Air Force Base, GA manages this contract (FA8509-09-C-0037; Action Under PZ0001).

Sept 14/10: MC-130W. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a $12.5 million contract which will provide consoles for integration onto MC-130W aircraft. At this time, all funds have been committed by the ASC/WISS at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8629-09-C-2445).

June 17/10: Scorpion drop. One of Lockheed Martin’s Scorpion precision glide-bombs is successfully flight tested in a 5,000 foot drop from a C-130. The small glide bomb uses a combination of GPS/INS and semi-active laser (SAL) guidance to hit a target 1.65 miles away, at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. These Scorpion weapons have already been used in combat by CIA drones, but the C-130 test is new.

Scorpion was developed under the Small Smart Weapon program, which began in 2006. It’s just 21.5″ long and 4.5″ wide, with a range of up to 10 miles if it can glide from altitude. The system is modular, and the front guidance section will be switchable between a human-directed laser seeker, self-guiding imaging infrared (IIR) matched to pre-programmed target sets, or semi-autonomous millimeter wave radar. The warhead section is also a module, with multiple options. Overall weight is under 35 pounds. The weapon is carried by fitting up to 3 Scorpions on a conventional Hellfire rail, or up to 2 in a tube launcher. Lockheed Martin release | Scorpion product page | CBS News | Tactical Life | Washington Post | Comparison with Hellfire II.

June 3/10: MC-130W. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a $20.9 million contract to provide interim contractor support of MC-130W modifications to install “a precision strike package” in support of US SOCOM’s “Project Dragon Spear.” At this time, $10 million has been committed by the 580th ACSG/GFKAA at Robins Air Force Base, GA (FA8509-10-C-0013).

June 2/10: Viper Strike. Northrop Grumman announces a contract to deliver 65 SOPGM/ GBU-44 Viper Strike munitions to the Joint Attack Munition Systems (JAMS) Project Office, within the Program Executive Office Missiles and Space at Redstone Arsenal, AL. The Viper Strikes will be delivered in 2010, for integration onto the KC-130J Harvest Hawk.

March 25/10: SOCOM Plans. Aviation Week DTI reports that U.S. Special Operations Command will base its future AC-130J gunship on the government-owned “Precision Strike Package” design used in the MC-130W. The February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review will replace 8 AC-130H Spectre gunships with 8 new “AC?130Js,” based on the C-130J, instead of the earlier model C-130H that forms the core of the MC-130W. Another 8 AC-130Js will be added on top, giving SOCOM 17 AC-130U Spookys, 12 MC-130W Combat/Dragon Spears, and 16 AC-130Js.

SOCOM officials also hope that a modular design will let them easily add new capabilities to the fleet in future, creating what US SOCOM Deputy Acquisition Director James Geurts describes as “a family of precision strike capabilities that we can port onto different [Special Operations Forces] platforms.” The difference between SOCOM’s approach and the USMC’s Harvest Hawk will involve a greater emphasis on precision strike, instead of suppression.

Specific AC-130J requirements are still in flux, but FY 2011’s budget asks for $9.9 million in initial funding. The first serious funding is reportedly slated for FY 2012.

March 17/10: KC-130J-HH. A Harvest HAWK equipped KC-130J from USMC VMGR-352 squadron “The Raiders” arrives at NAVAIR’s Patuxent River, MD facilities from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA for testing. Source.

Jan 29/10: MC-130W. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a $32.7 million contract to provide consoles for integration onto the MC-130W “Combat Spear” aircraft. At this time, the entire amount has been committed by the 667th AESS/SYKA at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8629-09-C-2445).

Nov 17/09: MC-130W Gun. ATK announces a $20 million contract to:

“…provide 30mm PGU-46/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) ammunition for the ATK-produced Mk44 30mm cannon on the multi-role, MC-130W Combat Spear gunship, which will support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Contracting Office at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio awarded the contract.”

It would seem that AFSOCOM has made its 30mm gun choice. ATK will produce the ammunition at the company’s facilities in Radford, VA and Rocket Center, WVA. Deliveries will be complete in December 2010.

M299 on KC-130J
(click to view full)

Sept 30/09: KC-130J-HH. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA receives a $21.3 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0053) for 2 Harvest HAWK capability I and II kits for the Marine Corps KC-130J aircraft. Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA, and is expected to be complete in December 2010. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, which is technically this very day.

June 4/09: Gunslinger. An AFSOCOM pre-solicitation notice [FedBizOpps MS Word format | WIRED Danger Zone] discusses one option for mounting precision guided weapons on the MC-130Ws:

“The goal for Gunslinger is to have 10 or more Standoff Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGMs) loaded and ready to fire in rapid succession, reload in flight, and not modify the SOPGMs or their Common Launch Tube (CLT). The Gunslinger system must be interoperable with the Government’s SOPGM Battle Management System (BMS)… If only one qualified source responds the Government reserves the right to issue a sole source contract to that qualified source.

The Air Armament Center Capabilities Integration Directorate (AAC/XR) proposes to procure Gunslinger System Engineering which will include; design and ground demonstration of the Gunslinger system using a surrogate aircraft provided by the Government or a contractor provided mock up representative of the MC-130W. The design is allowed to include both permanent and removable portions. The installation as designed shall not prevent the aircraft from performing the cargo/transport mission when the removable portion is not in place. The permanent portion shall maintain cabin pressure when the removable portion is installed as well as when it is not installed. The time to install and uninstall the removable portions shall be minimized. The goal is less than five (5) minutes. The contractor shall develop an aircraft modification package with drawings and supporting data for installing the Gunslinger system and submit it to the aircraft OSS&E authority for approval to proceed with the aircraft modification.”

May 15/09: AFSOCOM’s analogues. Gannett’s Air Force times reports that Air Force Special Operations Command’s plan to buy 16 C-27Js under the Joint Cargo Aircraft program, for conversion to AC-27J Stinger II gunships, has fallen apart with the removal of Army C-27J funding in the FY 2010 budget.

In response, they’re investigating a “Plan B” that would add roll-on, roll-off kits to its MC-130W Combat Spear fleet. The MC-130W program began in 2006 to replace combat losses of the MC-130E/H Combat Talon, but it’s based on converted C-130H models, rather than new “J” version of the Hercules.

May 8/09: HH R&D. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA received a $22.8 million firm-fixed-price contract to develop a roll-on, roll-off armed targeting capability for the Marine Corps’ KC-130J.

Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA and is expected to be complete in December 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $15.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured (N00019-09-C-0053).

May 4/09: SOCOM PSP 360. The USAF is also interested in this concept, and issues a PIXS solicitation for a “Precision Strike Pkg 360 Degree Situational Awareness Camera System.” The solicitation adds that:

“This system would operate at altitudes at or above 10,000 feet and act as a hostile fire indicator system to provide aircrew with the ability to virtually scan the outside of the aircraft for hostile ground threats that would possibly target them. This system is part of a broader Persistence Strike Package (PSP). The purpose of the PSP program is to add a modular PSP to a medium lift cargo aircraft, to include a medium caliber gun and Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM).”

Additional Readings and Sources

Background: Projects & Aircraft

• FedBizOpps solicitation (April 13/09) – Harvest Hawk modification to KC-130J Aircraft. The initial solicitation involves 3 kits, and adds “As the sole source designer, developer, and manufacturer of KC-130J aircraft, LM is uniquely qualified to meet the United States Marine Corps (USMC) summer 2009 deployment schedule.”
• Lockheed Martin – KC-130J Super Tanker
• USAF Fact Sheet – AC-130H/U Gunship
• USAF Fact Sheet – AC-130W Stinger II. Formerly the MC-130W Combat Spear/ Dragon Spear. Aircraft cost lists around $150 million: $108 million for the fully equipped plane + $39 million for the PSP weapon package. The PSP lists ATK’s 30mm GAU-23/A cannon, Boeing’s GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, and Raytheon’s AGM-176 Griffin-B missile.
• USAF Fact Sheet – AC-130J Ghost Rider. Will include a 105mm gun as well as the PSP. “The first AC-130J aircraft is scheduled to begin developmental test and evaluation in January 2014. The first squadron will be located at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., while other locations are to be determined. Initial operational capacity is expected in fiscal 2017 and the last [37th] delivery is scheduled for fiscal 2021.”

Background: Associated Equipment & Weapons

• Lockheed Martin – TSS
• Jane’s – Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-30 Target Sight System (TSS) (United States)
• L-3 Wescam – MX-15Di
• DID – A Spookier Spooky, 30mm at a Time. That was the idea, anyway.
• ATK – M230 30mm Chain Gun Automatic Cannon
• Designation Systems – Boeing/Lockheed Martin (Rockwell/Martin Marietta) AGM-114 Hellfire
• DID Spotlight – Raytheon’s AGM-176 Griffin Mini-Missiles.
• DID Spotlight – GBU-44 Viper Strike: Death From Above
• Defense Update – Griffin Small Tactical Munition. Griffin and STM are actually 2 separate weapons. Explains the difference between Griffin A (used on the MC-130W) and Griffin B.
• Lockheed Martin – Scorpion. Small precision glide weapon similar to NG’s Viper Strike and Raytheon’s Griffin. No longer listed on the Products page.
• DID – Mortars from Aircraft? The Shadow Knows… Small RQ-7 UAVs could soon carry GPS-guided mortars, and other weapons.

Competitors

• DID – Pocket Gunship: From AC-XX to the MC-27J Praetorian. Italy is the 1st customer, after US SOCOM declined.
• DID – Jordan’s Pocket Gunships: Converted CN-235s. The buy was announced at IDEX 2011, and could create a light gunship analogue to SOCOM’s proposed AC-27Js.

News & Views

• Strategy Page (Feb 16/11) – Gunships Come Out Of The Darkness.
• Defense News (Feb 8/11) – SOCOM Moved Quickly To Create Daytime Gunship.
• NDIA National Defense (August 2010) – Special Operations Aviators Gear Up for Aircraft Upgrades .
• Aviation Week DTI (March 25/10) – Socom Refines AC-130J Gunship Plans.
• Flight International (April 2/09) – US Marine Corps plans to convert KC-130J tankers into gunships.
• Aviation Week (Aug 18-25/08) – Marine Gunship.
• Gannett’s Marine Corps Times (April 24/08) – Corps weighs gunship firepower options.

Westpac, Expressin’
(click to view full)

The Westpac Express fast ferry ship has been instrumental in changing the way the US Navy approaches sealift in the Western Pacific. It’s fast enough to substitute for airlift in many cases, and large enough to move a Marine battalion with its gear. Early trials went very well, and the innovative designs and performance of Australian shipbuilders Austal and Incat laid a foundation of manufacturing experience and customer comfort that led to the innovative GD/Austal trimaran design for the new Independence Class “Flight 0″ Littoral Combat Ship, while spawning a major acquisition program in the Joint High-Speed Vessel (JHSV).

HSV Westpac Express isn’t a Navy-owned ship; technically, it’s a chartered vessel. In July 2005, we noted an 18-month extension to its charter. In 2006, that service period was extended still further via a new charter, lasting up to 5 years. During that charter’s period, a bankruptcy in Hawaii created an opportunity to buy the Austal-built catamaran Superferry MV Huakai, which will replace Westpac Express in the Pacific. Until then, the USMC needs one more contract extension.

Contracts & Key Events

Loading in Australia
(click to view full)

Originally described as a Theatre Support Vessel (TSV), the 101 meter, 970t deadweight MV WestPac Express is now more commonly referred to as a High Speed Connector (HSC), and was first chartered to the III MEF in July 2001 for a proof of concept period. That was the first time the US military had contracted a commercial vessel of this type for military support. The charter was so successful that after competitive tenders, Military Sealift Command signed a 3 year charter in January 2002 that was subsequently extended to February 2007. A follow-on charter extended its service to September 2011, and what appears to be its last charter could extend her service to 2016.

The ship will continue to transport the Marine Corps’ Okinawa-based III Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) and their equipment to other countries in the Western Pacific in support of USMC operations, training and exercises. It has seating for up to 900 Marines on the personnel deck, 2,490 m2 cargo space on the cargo deck that can fit 152 HMMWV’s or take on 12 tracked AAVP and 20 wheeled LAV APCs, and a 1,100 nautical mile range at 36 knots.

HSV-4676
(click to view full)

Oct 3/14: Still extending. Austal Hull 130 Chartering LLC in Mobile, AL receives a $14.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for the charter of “a U.S.-flagged passenger/cargo vessel… [to] support the U.S. Marine Corps Third Marine Expeditionary Force in the Far East. In other words, Westpac Express. $14.7 million in US Navy working capital budgets are committed immediately for 2015. This contract includes a pair of 2-month option periods and a FAR 52.217-8 option period, which could bring the contract to $29.9 million.

Work will be performed in the Far East, and under the new contract, the initial charter period has been extended for 10 months, to August 2015. If all 3 options are exercised, the contract would end in May 2016. Note that the repurposed Hawaii Superferry USNS Guam was meant to replace Westpac Express in the Pacific theater some time in FY 2015, but there are some planned modifications underway to the former Hawaii Superferry Huakai. The options appear to be a safeguard.

This contract was competitively procured via the FBO.gov and more than 50 companies were solicited, but just 1 offer was received by US Military Sealift Command in Washington, DC (N00033-15-C-5303). See also Austal, “US Navy Extends Charter of High Speed Vessel”.

July 1/13: Another extension. Austal announces that their charter has been extended again, until February 2014. They are claiming “technical availability levels exceeding 99%” since they signed the initial contract with the US Marines.

Jan 14/13: Extension. Austal Hull 130 Chartering, LLC in Mobile, AL receives a $7 million firm, fixed-price contract modification, exercising a 6-month option period for “the worldwide charter of one U.S.-flagged passenger/cargo ferry [to] support the Marine Corps, Third Marine Expeditionary Force… out of Okinawa, Japan.

There has probably been an unannounced 6-month extension before this, from August 2012 – January 2013. All contract funds are committed immediately, and work is expected to be complete by August 2013. US Military Sealift Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00033-12-C-5504).

Dec 21/11: Bridging charter. Well, that was fast. Austal Hull 130 Chartering LLC in Mobile, AL receives an $8.2 million fixed-price contract for the worldwide charter of “one U.S.-flagged passenger/cargo ferry [to] support the Marine Corps Third Marine Expeditionary Force.” In other words, HSV Westpac Express. This contract runs to August 2012, by which point Huakai could be ready; but it includes 3 more 6-month option periods, which could raise the contract to $30.3 million and extend the contract to January 2014. Initial contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12.

This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online and FBO.gov, with 3 offers received by US Military Sealift Command in Washington, DC (N00033-12-C-5504).

Additional Readings

• Austal – Westpac Express.
• DID FOCUS – The USA’s JHSV Fast Catamaran Ships. The ship design that evolved out of experience with Westpac Express and some Incat HSVs. Won by Austal.
• DID – Hawaii Superferry’s Bankruptcy = US Navy Opportunity. They were also Austal ships, and will become USNS Guam and USNS Puerto Rico.

LCAC versatility
(click to view full)

The US military calls them Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC). They’re high-speed, fully amphibious hovercraft capable of carrying a 60-ton payload (75 tons in overload) over water and land at speeds in excess of 40 knots and a nominal range of up to 200 nautical miles. Carrying equipment, troops, and/or supplies, the LCAC launches from inside the well deck of an amphibious warship, then travels the waves at high speed, runs right through the surf zone near the beach, and stops at a suitable place on land. Its cargo walks or rolls off. The LCAC returns to the surf to pick up more. Rinse. Agitate. Repeat.

LCAC, ashore
(click to view full)

A total of 91 LCACs were built between 1984-2001, and their design itself dates back to the 1970s. They require regular maintenance, refurbishment, upgrades, and even life extension programs to keep them operational into the future. This free-to-view Spotlight article will covers the program from 2005 forward, tracking contracts and key events.

The LCAC Program and its SLEPpers

LCAC into LPD-9
(click to enlarge)

Many militaries rely on slower and less expensive LCM (Landing Craft, Mechanized) boats, LCUs, and related small landing craft. By using hovercraft, however, the US military gives itself additional options for traversing difficult terrain like marshes, broadens its potential landing zones, and buys fast ferry services that can build up a landing zone more quickly. These same traits make LCACs extremely well-suited to humanitarian missions, as shown after the South Asian tsunami and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Contracts for 91 LCACs were approved through FY 1997, with 91 craft delivered to the Fleet by the end of 2000. Of the LCACs in service, the US military’s EXWAR.ORG reports that 7 have reportedly been disassembled for FGE, 10 are in deep Reduced Operation Status (ROS), 2 are held for R&D, and 36 are in use on each coast.

LCAC SLEP extends the expected service life of the LCAC by 50%, from 20 years to 30 years. The program began in late 2000, and includes two sub-programs:

The “C4N” (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Navigation) sub-program replaces the LN-66 radars with modern, high-power P-80 radar systems. The SLEP will also include open-architecture electronics relying on modern commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment, which allows much easier incorporation of precision navigation systems, new communications systems, et. al. LED screens and LED keyboards use less power than the old Cathode Ray Tubes and the bulb-type indicators, and generate less heat. When coupled with the air-conditioning that has been added to the LCAC command modules, the hovercraft’s crew and electronics are given a better environment.

Other improvements are more “hardware-oriented,” and include:

• Engine upgrades to ETF-40B configuration that will provide additional power and lift (especially in environments over 100 degrees), reduced fuel consumption, reduced maintenance needs, and reduced lift footprint.
• Replacement of the LCACs’ “buoyancy box” to solve corrosion problems, incorporate hull improvements, and extend their fatigue-limits.
• A new deep hovercraft skirt to reduce drag, increase the performance envelope over water and land, and reduce maintenance requirements.

LCAC-related Contracts, 2005 – Present

USN on LCAC

Oct 2/14: WinXP bites. The LCAC fleet is the latest platform to be bitten by Microsoft’s decision to end support for Windows XP. The Navy completes the Critical Design Review for a new Command, Control, Communications, Computers & Navigation (C4N) suite, “System Baseline Configuration 4″:

“In order to address software obsolescence in the C4N suite, the LCAC Software Support Activity is transitioning from embedded Windows XP to Windows 7 for the Windows-based nodes of the system. The C4N software re-host from SBC3 to SBC4 is also leveraging off of newer [Modular Open Scalable Approach USN specifications] technology in order to reduce the required number of processing units to support the new modular, open-scalable architecture approach.”

This approach seems to create the same problem down the road, but at least they weren’t crazy enough to use Windows 8. The hardware shifts are actually the bigger benefit, lowering volume, weight and power requirements. It also switches the hardware from front I/O connectors to swappable and testable line replaceable unit boxes. That should cut maintenance time nicely.

The LCAC C4N suite provides the 3-person crew with 6 sunlight readable, Night Vision Device compatible LCD displays in the Command Module. Feeds include 4 sensor interface units that provide the signal conditioning and conversion for 190 different sensors and alarms. The navigation system integrates with a 25 kW surface search radar, a primary and secondary GPS system, and an inertial navigation system. A common data recorder is used to transfer mission plans, while recording of real-time navigation, audio, and engineering data/actions. Beyond the screens, a fly-by-wire control system with 2 fully redundant engineering control system processing units is used to pilot the craft. The Navy calls them pilots, because LCACs “fly” on a cushion of air. Sources: NAVSEA, “New LCAC C4N Suite Completes Critical Design Review”.

Landed.
(click to view full)

Sept 26/13: +2 SLEP. L-3 Unidyne, Inc., Norfolk, VA, is being awarded a $13.7 million firm-fixed-priced contract for 2 LCAC Service Life Extension Program craft in FY 2013. All funds are committed immediately.

This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 1 offer received by US NAVSEA in Washington, DC. No contract number was given, but it’s likely to be part of N00024-12-C-2402.

April 1/13: Engines. Vericor Power Systems LLC in Alpharetta, GA receives a $12.1 million contract modification for the manufacture, testing and delivery of 8 LCAC ETF40B Marine gas turbine engines as well as the repair/refurbishment of 8 output group modules for LCAC engines. Each LCAC uses 4 turbines, so this will provide for another 2 overhauled LCACs. That makes 8 hovercraft worth since the February 2012 award that specified 8 SLEPped LCACs. Guess funds are a bit tight with everything going on in Washington.

Work will be performed in Alpharetta, GA (90%), and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (10%), and is expected to be completed by February 2014. All funds are committed immediately. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contracts (N00024-12-C-4154).

April 1/13: Engines. Vericor Power Systems LLC in Alpharetta, GA receives a $12.1 million contract modification for the manufacture, testing and delivery of 8 LCAC ETF40B Marine gas turbine engines as well as the repair/refurbishment of 8 output group modules for LCAC engines. Each LCAC uses 4 turbines, so this will provide for 2 overhauled LCACs.

Work will be performed in Alpharetta, GA (90%), and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (10%), and is expected to be completed by February 2014. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 Shipbuilding and Conversion budgets. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contracts (N00024-12-C-4154).

May 7/12: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC in Alpharetta, GA receives a $23.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for the manufacture, testing, and delivery of 16 ETF40B marine gas turbine engines in support of the LCAC SLEP program, and the repair/refurbishment of 16 output group modules for LCAC engines. That would cover 4 LCACs.

This contract includes options, which could bring its cumulative value to $60.7 million. Work will be performed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and is expected to complete by June 2013 (N00024-12-C-4154).

Feb 27/12: +8 SLEP. L-3 Unidyne, Inc. in Norfolk, VA receives a pair of contracts worth $68.2 million, to SLEP a total of 8 LCACs – 4 on each coast. This brings the number of announced LCAC SLEP orders to 30 hovercraft between April 2005 and the present.

Contract #1 is a $31.4 million modification to SLEP 4 of Assault Craft Unit Four’s hovercraft in Virginia Beach, VA, and is expected to complete by February 2014 (N00024-12-C-2402).

Contract #2 a $26.8 million modification to SLEP 4 of Assault Craft Unit Five’s hovercraft in Camp Pendleton, CA, and is expected to be completed by February 2014 (N00024-12-C-2403).

Sept 26/11: Support. GE Aviation Systems, LLC’s Dowty Propellers in Sterling, VA receives a not-to-exceed $6.7 million unfinalized contractual action against an existing basic ordering agreement to repair marine propellers used aboard LCAC vessels. Work will be performed in Sterling VA (85%), and in the United Kingdom (15%), and is expected to be complete by February 2014.

One company was solicited for the non-competitive requirement, and 1 offer was received. $3.35 million is committed. NAVSUP Weapons System Support in Mechanicsburg, PA manages the contract (N00104-11-G-A004).

Jan 20/11: Engines. Vericor Power Systems LLC announces a firm fixed-price contract for up to 34 of its ETF40B marine gas turbine engines, and overhaul of related hardware for the US Navy’s FY 2010/2011 LCAC Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). This would cover 8 LCACs, plus 2 spares.

The firm adds that they will be offering their TF60B for the US Navy’s new Ship-to-Shore Connector LCAC replacement program. The new engine is based on the TF40/ETF40B, but adds improvements. For instance, its power-producer is mounted to a heavy duty marine inlet module on the craft, which aims to eliminate major alignment and maintenance problems on the LCAC. The TF60B engine test schedule continues, with performance testing slated for spring 2011 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD.

Nov 15/10: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC in Alpharetta, GA receives a $16.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for 12 of the LCAC’s ETF40B marine gas turbine engines. Work will be performed in Winnipeg, Canada, and is expected to be complete by July 2012. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-11-C-4113).

Nov 4/10: Support. L-3 Services, Inc.’s Unidyne Division in Norfolk, VA wins a $473,469 contract for LCAC 55 Continuous Maintenance Availability (CMAV), including miscellaneous electrical, mechanical, and structural repairs. Work will be performed at a government facility.

It is a good illustration of the fact that the LCAC fleet is also maintained and overhauled using a number of smaller contracts which do not reach DefenseLINK’s $5 million announcement threshold. An Oct 27/10 solicitation for LCAC 51 is similar, but is a small-business set aside. US FedBizOpps.

LCAC in Haiti, 2009
(click to view full)

Sept 29/10: +3 SLEP. L-3 Services, Inc.’s Unidyne Division in Norfolk, VA wins a $14.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for service life extension program on LCACs 63, 72 and 74. This contract includes provisions for over and above work, which could bring its cumulative value to $17.5 million. Work will be performed in Camp Pendleton, CA, and is expected to be complete by August 2012. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with 5 proposals solicited and 2 offers received. The Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages this contract (N55236-10-C-0012).

Aug 11/09: +3 SLEP. Oceaneering International, Inc.’s Marine Services Division in Chesapeake, VA receives a $13.6 million contract modification to extend the service life of 3 LCACs via repair and upgrade of the buoyancy box, gas turbine engine replacement, installation of a new skirt, installation of an integrated C4N equipment package, craft alterations, and repair work.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA, and is expected to complete it by August 2012. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-09-C-2240).

May 26/09: +3 SLEP. Oceaneering International’s Marine Services Division in Chesapeake, VA won a $14 million firm-fixed-price contract to extend the service life of 3 LCACs via repair and upgrade of the buoyancy box, gas turbine engine replacement, installation of a new skirt, installation of an integrated C4N equipment package, craft alterations, and repair work. This contract includes options which would bring its cumulative value to $38.9 million.

Oceaneering will perform the work in Norfolk, VA and expects to complete it by November 2012. This contract was competitively procured via FedBizOpps.com, with 4 offers received by the Naval Sea Systems Command at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC (N00024-09-C-2240).

April 20/09: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC, in Alpharetta, GA received a $32.1 million firm-fixed-price modification to a previously awarded contract, exercising an option to build, test, and deliver 24 ETF40B marine gas turbine engines for the FY 2009 LCAC SLEP program. That would equip 6 LCACS. Work will be performed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and is expected to be complete by August 2010. The US Naval Sea Systems Command (NVSEA) in Washington, DC issued the contract (N00024-08-C-4117).

Oct 2/08: Support. Gryphon Technologies LC in Greenbelt, MD received a $17.2 million cost-plus fixed fee contract on Sept 30/08, for the procurement of Expeditionary Warfare Program and LCAC maintenance, modification, repair, and trial support engineering support services. The contractor will provide all personnel, materials, equipment, services for the engineering, & technical support required to provide logistics and material support for the LCAC Program.

Work will be performed in Panama City, FL, and is expected to be complete by October 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $300,000 expired at the end of FY 2008, on Sept 30th. This contract was competitively procured and advertised via Navy Electronic Commerce On-line and Federal Business Opportunities website, with one offer received by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division in Panama City, FL (N61331-08-D-0021).

LCAC & CH-53 exercise
with FS Tonnerre
(click to view full)

Aug 27/08: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC in Alpharetta, GA received a $20.5 million firm-fixed-price contract to build, test, and deliver 16 ETF40B marine gas turbine engines for the FY 2008 LCAC Service Life Extension Program (SLEP), which would cover 4 LCACs. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $57.8 million.

Work will be performed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and is expected to be complete by October 2009. This contract was not competitively procured, but the solicitation was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC (N00024-08-C-4117).

April 2/07: +3 SLEP. L-3 Communications Titan Corporation’s Unidyne Division in Norfolk, VA received a $22.9 million modification to under previously awarded contract to exercise options for preparation and accomplishment of the FY 2007 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) availabilities of landing craft air cushions (LCAC) 36, LCAC 50, and LCAC 69, at assault craft unit 4.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA and is expected to be complete March 2009. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract (N00024-06-C-2203).

March 30/07: +3 SLEP. L-3 Communications Titan Corp’s Unidyne Division in Norfolk, VA received a $22.9 million modification to a previously awarded contract, exercising options for preparation and accomplishment of the FY 2007 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) availabilities of LCAC 36, LCAC 50, and LCAC 69, at assault craft unit 4.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA and is expected to be complete in March 2009. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-06-C-2203).

Feb 20/07: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC in Alpharetta, GA received a $29.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order to previously awarded contract for the manufacture, testing and delivery of 24 ETF40B marine gas turbine engines, which would equip 6 LCACs. This covers LCAC SLEP requirements for FY 2007.

Work will be performed at Standard Aero Energy in Winnipeg, Canada under a 2005 partnership agreement, and is expected to be complete by November 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract (N00024-06-D-4107).

Oct 18/06: The LCAC community holds its annual Fleet Support Conference at Camp Pendleton, CA. Assault Craft Units (ACU) 4 and 5, as well as representatives from Washington, D.C., Little Creek, VA, and Boston Planning Yard discussed maintenance and upgrades, mission planning factors and manning issues, including the training pipeline and detailing. Chief Operations Specialist (SW/AW) David L. Lessenberry:

“During this conference, we look at all the major issues with the functions and operation of LCACs… This year we’re talking about funding, man hours and maintenance because we want to extend [the LCAC's] service life. The LCACs have a service life of 20 years, but we can extend that by 10 years with maintenance and upgrades.”

Incoming…
(click to enlarge)

Aug 21/06: +2 SLEP. L-3 Communications Titan Corporation’s Unidyne Division in Norfolk, VA received a $16.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for the SLEP of LCACs #29 and #32. The LCAC provides heavy lift capability to perform amphibious assaults and operational maneuvers from the sea. This contract includes options for SLEPping LCACs # 31, 48, and 33 as well, which would bring the cumulative value of this contract to 5 craft and $40 million if exercised.

Work will be performed at Assault Craft Unit Five in Camp Pendleton, CA and is expected to be complete by August 2008. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website with 29 proposals solicited and two offers received. The Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA issued the contract (N55236-06-C-0001).

Mar 16/06: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC in Alpharetta, GA received a $28.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for the manufacture, testing and delivery of 20 ETF40B marine gas turbine engines and 4 Pack-Up Kit spare engines for the Landing Craft-Air Cushion Service Life Extension Program.

Work will be performed at Standard Aero Energy in Winnipeg, Canada under a 2005 partnership agreement, and is expected to be complete by December 2008. The contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-06-D-4107).

Nov 22/05: +3 SLEP. L-3 Communications Titan Unidyne in Norfolk, VA won an $8.8 million firm-fixed-price contract to upgrade landing craft air cushion (LCAC) hovercraft 62, 64, 65, and 76. Work will be performed in Camp Pendleton, CA and is expected to be complete by October 2006. This contract was competitively procured and advertised via the Internet, with two offers received. The Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA issued the contract (N55236-06-C-0002).

April 14/05: +5 SLEP. Titan Corp.’s Unidyne Group in Norfolk, VA won a $26.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for 5 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) hovercraft.

Work will be performed in Camp Pendleton, CA (80%) and Norfolk, VA (20%), and is expected to be complete by August 2007. The contact was competitively awarded and advertised via the Navy Electronic Commerce on Line website, with three offers received. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC manages the contract.

Additional Readings

• US Navy Fact File – Landing Craft, Air Cushioned – LCAC
• Textron Marine & Land Systems – Landing Craft Air Cushion
• Global Security – Landing Craft, Air Cushion
• Vericor – TF Series Gas Turbines

Follow-on Ship to Shore Connector

• DID – Ship to Shore Connector: the USN’s New Hovercraft

Other Fast Landing Options

• Naval Technology – Zubr Class (Pomornik) Air Cushioned Landing Craft, Russia. Included as a point of comparison; the Zubr is a significantly larger craft than LCAC.
• Naval Technology – CNIM. Their L-CAT is the French EDA-R catamaran landing craft: 30m long and 12m wide, and can carry a payload of 80t at a cruise speed of 18 kts. EDA-R is a fast catamaran in transit mode, but features a central elevating deck that makes it become a flat-bottomed ship to beach, or enter an amphibious ship’s well deck.

AN/TPS-75
(click to view full)

The US Air Force’s AN/TPS-75 radar has been in service since 1968. Threats have evolved, and they want to replace it as their main long-range, ground-based radar for detecting, identifying and tracking aircraft and missiles, then reporting them through the Ground Theater Air Control System. The US Marines are considering a similar move, to replace their own AN/TPS-59s. Hence the USA’s Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar (3DELRR, pron. “Three Dealer”).

3DELRR is intended to provide up to 35 radars for long-range surveillance, air traffic control, and theater ballistic missile detection. It will correct AN/TPS-75 shortfalls by being easier to maintain, thanks to AESA technology, and by detecting and reporting highly maneuverable and/or stealthy targets. Its improved resolution may even allow it to classify and determine the type of non-cooperative aircraft that cannot or do not identify themselves – a trait that allows faster engagement of hostile planes, and reduces the odds of friendly fire incidents. As long as the program itself can avoid friendly fire from the USA’s budget wars.

3DELRR: Mission & Program

The FBO.gov solicitation for 3DELRR defines its purpose as follows:

“The primary mission of the 3DELRR will be to provide long-range surveillance, control of aircraft, and theater ballistic missile detection. The 3DELRR will provide air controllers with a precise, real-time air picture of sufficient quality to conduct close control of individual aircraft under a wide range of environmental and operational conditions. In the case of theater missile defense operations, the new radar will have the capability to detect, track, and disseminate target information to respective command and control nodes such as the USAF Control and Reporting Center to disseminate for warning and engagement. Similarly, the joint targeting process will benefit from trajectory information provided by the 3DELRR, which will include launch and impact location. The 3DELRR will correct current radar system shortfalls by providing the capability to detect and report highly maneuverable, small radar cross section targets as well as discriminate the type of a non-cooperative aircraft. It will also mitigate most of the sustainability and maintainability concerns which plague the current system.”

Once the Technical Development Phase was complete, the USAF initially intended to award the System Design & Development (SDD) to the winning team around 2011, but a combination of budget cuts and new procurement philosophies forced a shift.

(click to view full)

By September 2011, that shift had become pronounced. By March 2012, the entire acquisition plan had changed, all the way through development of the operational system (EMD), and initial production & fielding (LRIP). The design and development award didn’t take place until 2014.

2012: A Change in Plans

Old Plan, New Plan

Click here for the full-size graphic of plan changes.

Instead of awarding a Technology Development (TD) Phase 2 contract to either Sensis or Lockheed Martin, with built-in options to take the radar all the way into production, a contract around the end of FY 2012 threw the competition open again, awarding 3 fixed-price TD contracts worth $106 million in total.

That fixed-price type contract approach will continue in the next 2 phases, after a single contractor has been chosen in the project’s 3rd competition, and given a contract to take the project beyond Milestone B into production and fielding. That winning choice was based on “lowest price technically acceptable” criteria, rather than “best value.”

In sync with that shift, one of the TD Phase’s goals was to understand the cost/capability tradeoffs. Most cost is always tied up in design, which is to say in specifications. The Requirements Analysis in SOW Para 1.9.19 tried to reorder or change specifications, in order to eliminate requirements that drive high costs but don’t change the radar’s capabilities enough. The Army sees the cost drivers as “Mobility, Accuracy, False Alarms, Surveillance Volume, and Range,” but they’re prepared to be surprised by industry offerings.

This may push the competition toward existing designs and technology, given the need for assured costs inherent in a fixed-price bid. Northrop Grumman certainly hopes so, as they believe that their existing USMC G/ATOR battlefield radar solution could be upgraded to handle 3DELRR as well. A solution that could replace the Marines’ existing AN/TPS-59 radars with the same technology used by their shorter-range G/ATOR companion might be very appealing, and other competitors may also find ways to incorporate commonalities into their solutions.

The program’s doors will be open to them. Once this new “TD Review E” is done, a final specification will allow final Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase bids to be solicited from any qualified source, not just the TD Phase 2 winners.

These decisions were significant, because they opened the door for Raytheon to win.

The Milestone B decision to begin EMD development of the final 3DELRR system didn’t take place until Q1 FY 2015, and was delayed by a GAO protest. The Critical Design Review is expected in after a winner has been picked, instead of at the end of a single-contractor TD Phase.

The single EMD winner is expected to continue development into the end of 2017 (Q1 FY 2018), and the fall Milestone C decision that authorizes Low-Rate Initial Production. A new twist was introduced in early 2013 as the program office went beyond the EMD-LRIP scope of its RFP, and added a full rate production option that could raise the program’s value to $1.3 billion in total sales over the next 10 years.

Initial Operational Capability with the USAF is now tagged at fall 2019 (Q1 FY 2020).

Contracts and Key Events

Unless otherwise noted, contracts for the 3DELRR program are awarded by the Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force Base, MA.

Oct 21-22/14: GAO Protests. The USAF confirms that Northrop Grumman has formally issued a protest against the USAF’s 3DELRR award to Raytheon. The next day, Lockheed Martin confirms that they are also filing a protest.

That halts the program until the challenge receives a ruling, which could take up to 100 days. In order to succeed, the challengers need to show that either Raytheon’s radar isn’t technically acceptable, that it wasn’t the lowest priced – or that something in the process went awry, ensuring that that competitors were treated differently or criteria weren’t applied fairly. Sources: See DID’s GAO Primer | Defense News, “Northrop Challenges 3DELRR Contract Award” | Reuters, “UPDATE 1-Lockheed Martin challenges contract to Raytheon”.

ATREX Twilight zone…
(click to view full)

Aug 26/13: NGC. Northrop Grumman announces that they completed their 3DELRR demonstration back in July. They refer to it as “The U.S. Air Force system variant of the Department of Defense AN/TPS-80 radar…” but unlike the USMC’s current G/ATORs, this S-band radar uses Gallium Nitride transmit/receive modules. That technology is in the USMC’s plans, and the development work may pay off for the Marines, just as all the work on the USMC’s TPS-80 G/ATOR would offer dividends to the USAF.

As one might expect, given their design’s lineage, Northrop Grumman also touts “successful system ambient air cooling under extremely hot operating conditions,” as well as the radar’s well-developed system self-test and calibration capabilities. Sources: Northrop Grumman Aug 26/13 release.

July 29-30/13: Lockheed & Raytheon. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon announce that they’ve completed their 3DELRR radar demonstrations.

Lockheed Martin’s radar detected required targets of opportunity launched from the Syracuse airport and surrounding areas. They even hired additional test aircraft, in order to perform more advanced performance detection and tracking scenarios.

Raytheon’s C-band offering with GaN-based electronics was put through the same basic tests, and also demonstrated integration into the Air Force’s next-generation Command and Control system. Gallium Nitride electronics can get more performance from the same power inputs, which is an exceptionally helpful feature for radars. The flip side is that they cost more than conventional Gallium Arsenide electronics. Raytheon has made significant investments in GaN, and hopes to reap a competitive advantage by moving farther down the cost curve and higher up the performance curve than its rivals. Sources: Lockheed Martin July 29/13 release | Raytheon July 30/13 release.

March 29/13: Iterating through drafts. The program office is requesting participating contractors to review draft Revision F of their Technical Requirements Document (TRD), which supports Revision B of the draft RFP introduced in January. Sections L and M of this latest revision, reflecting instructions to offerors and evaluation factors for award, respectively, will be posted later. The TRD is available for parties under a Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement. So far, this looks in line with the plan they announced 2 months ago. FBO.gov.

March 27/13: NGC. Northrop Grumman touts a recent demonstration, in which a G/ATOR radar with some software modifications tracks 5 NASA ATREX suborbital rockets fired from Wallops Island, VA. The rockets release chemical tracer clouds into the high altitude jet stream, in order to exercise mind control through tinfoil hats help scientists study the jet stream’s flow 60-65 miles above the earth.

Northrop Grumman is touting G/ATOR’s ability to evolve into 3DELRR’s requirements (q.v. Readings), and this announcement is part of that campaign. The question that Northrop Grumman wouldn’t/ couldn’t answer for us involves whether the radar tracked the rockets as they were launched and boosting (easier technical problem, classic counterfire/ air defense, and Wallops is also a major radar test site), or picked up the rockets in mid-flight at high altitude (harder/ higher-power problem, classic BMD). NGC | NASA.

Jan 24/13: Draft RFP reshaped. In Industry Day briefing materials [PDF], program manager Lt. Col. Brian McDonalds explains that the scope of RFP R2278 (first released in June 2012) now includes Full Rate Production. With this new approach, the EMD+FRP RFP is expected to be finalized by July 2013, with an award in March 2014.

This resets the counter on draft revisions, with the most current material again dubbed Revision A. FRP would be contracted as Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPIF) with 6 priced options. 3 radars would be delivered during EMD, 3 others during LRIP (FY18-FY20), and 29 at the full rate pace (FY19-FY24). Requirements are expressed in TRD Rev E, another iteration to Ref F is expected by the time the request is final.

The program office acknowledges that funding remains uncertain, and that there’s a lot of work ahead in order to finalize the new RFP terms without blowing the schedule.

June 20/12: EMD-LRIP RFP. Air Force Materiel Command posts solicitation R2278 for the next stage of the program.

Sensis prototype
(click to view full)

April 2011: Tech review. An independent review team reports that 3DELRR successfully demonstrated its 8 critical technologies in a relevant environment during its initial prototyping effort. That’s a good sign; many Pentagon weapons programs don’t get to this point until late in System Design & Development/ EMD. Source: GAO.

Jan 6/11: Sensis. Sensis Corp. announces that its 3DELRR full-scale prototype have successfully completed testing, achieving all TD phase milestones after a development period of 19 months.

Sensis founder and CEO Jud Gostin was the principal system architect for the Marines’ AN/TPS-59. Raytheon IDS is responsible for the development and production of the team’s Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA). Moog Inc.’s Space and Defense Group, a leader in precision motion control solutions, is producing, testing and integrating the team’s 3DELRR’s motion control subsystems.

Jan 21/11: The USAF offers a program update:

“The Air Force plans to buy 35 new radars to replace the existing TPS-75s. As the 3DELRR is intended to be a joint materiel solution, the Marine Corps is also contributing to its development and looking at the system for future production buys. In fact, the earliest origins of the 3DELRR program can be traced back to the Marine Corps-led Highly Expeditionary Long Range Air Surveillance Radar (HELRASR) that was discontinued in the Fiscal Year 2008 budget cycle.

In February, two 20-month contracts for the initial technology development phase of the 3DELRR, which were awarded to Lockheed Martin Corp. and Sensis Corp., will conclude…. “We anticipate release of the RFP to occur at or near the end of March 2011,” said Major McDonald. “It will be a full and open competition with a single contract award…. if the government elects to exercise all options, the value could approach $740 million.”

Sources: USAF, “Long-range radar program moving forward”.

Dec 16-17/10: LMCO. Lockheed Martin completes the 2nd and final demonstration under its May 2009 3DELRR contract, following an initial demonstration of critical technology elements in March 2010, and a Preliminary Design Review in October 2010.

During the demonstration, Lockheed Martin unveils a functioning system prototype to USAF and Marine Corps officials, to prove the radar’s maturity. The firm says that their radar “addresses 100 percent of 3DELRR requirements, including critical extended air surveillance reach for early warning from threats, such as aircraft and ballistic missiles.” Lockheed Martin.

Dec 21/09: Sensis. Sensis announces that it has completed the System Requirements Review (SRR) for the US Air Force’s 3DELRR program. During SRR, the U.S. Air Force, along with industry organizations, conducted a comprehensive review of the Sensis 3DELRR systems engineering, integration and test processes against overall systems requirements to ensure that the program meets U.S. Air Force requirements.

Oct 29/09: RFP. The Air Force launches the THREE-DIMENSIONAL EXPEDITIONARY LONG-RANGE RADAR Solicitation Number: R2278 formal solicitation for 3DELRR.

3DELRR: LMCO concept
(click to view full)

May 12/09: The US Air Force awards [PDF] a firm-fixed-price $24.9 contract to Lockheed Martin in Liverpool, NY to provide radar engineering and design support to the government during the technology development phase of 3DELRR program. The Lockheed Martin team includes BAE Systems, Computer Sciences Corp., and ManTech. At this time, $9.9 million has been obligated (FA8722-09-C-0003). See also Lockheed Martin release.

May 12/09: The US Air Force awards [PDF] a $21.9 million firm-fixed-price contract to Sensis Corp. in East Syracuse NY to provide radar engineering and design support to the government during the technology development phase of 3DELRR program. The Sensis team includes Raytheon and Moog. At this time, $9.9 million has been obligated (FA8722-09-C-0001). See also: Sensis news release.

TD contracts

Additional Readings

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

• US FBO.gov (Oct 29/09, #R2278) – Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar. Very long-running solicitation, last update was March 2013. See esp. the March 2012 Industry Day slide presentation [PDF].
• USAF Electronic Systems Center – Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar [dead link].
• GlobalSecurity.org – Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar.
• Lockheed Martin – Three Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar (3DELRR).
• Northrop Grumman – Three-Dimensional Long-Range Radar (3DELRR) See also this 2012 snapshot re: G/ATOR for 3DELRR.
• Raytheon – Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar (3DELRR).
• Microwave Journal (July 2009) – Lockheed Martin to Develop Long-range Radar for US Air Force.

Silent Hawk Prototype
(click to view full)

Special Forces has had an abiding interest in silenced motorcycles as stealthy and quick insertion/extraction vehicles – and, not just from having viewed Chuck Norris’s 1986 cheesy Delta Force movie, where his trusty motorcycle was portrayed as a Batmobile-like source of plot moving tricks. Air force combat controller teams (CCTs) have been shoving dirt bikes out of airplanes at least since 2010. A 2012 Marine Corp report cited motorcycle use by MARSOC operators, and the Marines have been conducting dirt bike training by third party vendors contracted as early as February 2012. But the airdrop and landing can cause temporary fuel system issues at precisely the wrong moment.

Special Forces toyed with the electric Zero MMX concept a couple years ago, but ditched it due to battery concerns. That vehicle found a home at the LAPD a year later. The electric bike’s charge lasted for only a couple hours.

DARPA gave a grant to Logos Technologies around that time to develop a hybrid bike that could run on several fuels and also support an electric motor with about 50 miles of range. That grant was only $150,000. Things appear to have advanced adequately to have earned a second grant. A Logos representative contacted this morning indicated the new grant was for $1 million.

The bike, called now the Silent Hawk (not to be confused with the silenced SOF helicopters revealed in the aftermath of the 2011 Bin Laden operation), is based on an electric racing bike frame made by Alta Motors. The hybrid engine is Logos Technologies’ development, reportedly from one they developed for a secret drone project.

An example of the sound profile of current electric racing cycles can be seen in the video below. The bike used in the video is a Redshift model, the one employed by Logos for the first Darpa grant’s testing (although with a different engine than the one featured below):

AAAV/ EFV, swim mode
(click to view full)

The US Marine Corps’ AAVP7 Amtracs have been their primary ship to shore amphibious armored personnel carrier for a long time; the AAV7A1 was initially fielded in 1972, and underwent a major service life extension program and product improvement program from 1983-1993. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was the USMC’s plan to replace the aging AMTRACS (lit. AMphibious TRACtorS), which saw extensive service deep inland during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The personnel version of the new EFVs would carry a crew of 3, plus a reinforced rifle squad of 17 combat-loaded Marines. A high-tech weapons station would provide firepower, via a stabilized ATK 30mm MK 44 Bushmaster cannon with advanced sights to replace the AAV’s unstabilized .50 caliber machine gun. A command variant would carry an array of communications and computer systems and staff personnel. The EFV remained the U.S. Marine Corps’ top land acquisition priority, even as its price tag and development issues cut its buy sharply. Push finally came to shove in 2010, however, as the USMC realized that it simply couldn’t afford the vehicle, or its performance.

That begat a new program called the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), designed to be a more realistic version of the EFV. A Marines version designed for only light water use was called the MPC, which was iced in June 2013. That program was resurrected under increased capabilities pressures as the APC 1.1, which had its coming out party during an industry day in July 2014. A draft RFP was released in November, with hopes that a final RFP would be issued in spring 2015.

$105.7 million was requested for ACV 1.1 research, testing and evaluation.

The APC 1.1 has been examined by the Congressional Research Service, producing this report, which – in a nutshell – says that the program has a few issues, the primary one being the strategic lack of “connectors” allowing equipment onshore. Current options (LCAC, JHSV and LCU 1600) are relatively unprotected.

Amtracs Replacement, Take 1: The EFV

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: Capabilities & CONOPS

The New: EFV Features
(click to view full)

The EFV was expected to come in 2 main variants: EFV-P infantry fighting vehicles, and EFV-C command vehicles. Even after the program’s demise, its characteristics and associated Concept of Operations remain relevant. They were developed in response to what the Marines think they need, and early 2011 indications suggest that the service’s view hasn’t changed all that much.

The EFV-P personnel carriers have a stabilized turret[1] with advanced TV, laser and thermal imaging optics for accurate fire under all conditions out to 2 km (1.2 miles). Primary firepower is provided by an ATK 30mm MK 44 Bushmaster cannon and 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, with a maximum elevation of 45 degrees (high elevation is useful in urban warfare) and maximum depression of -10 degrees (useful for enfilade fire). The Bushmaster cannon will use HEIT(High-Explosive Incendiary Tracer) rounds with a super-fast fuse for maximum shrapnel, and MPLD (Multi-Purpose Low Drag) tungsten-tipped rounds against harder targets. The MPLDs offer an advantage over current 25mm rounds because they penetrate before exploding, instead of just pock-marking the walls of fortified bunkers and buildings.

Rounds are selectable on the fly, and Col. Brogan of the EFV program office has said that the cannon would defeat any vehicle short of a main battle tank up to 2 km away. The EFV program has also completed foreign comparative testing for programmable fuse rounds similar to those slated for the XM307 machine gun, and those rounds were found to be more lethal. The goal was to qualify them as an additional standard ammunition choice.

The current AAV7 Amtracs, in contrast, offer only low-light vision optics, in a non-stabilized manned turret, firing a .50 caliber machine gun and a 40mm GMG grenade launcher. Some Amtracs have added thermal sights, but other vehicles are sporting far more advanced manned turrets – and these days, unmanned RWS systems as well.

Additional firepower comes from the EFV’s onboard Marines, which is meant to include a full reinforced Marine rifle squad of 17 (13 Marines + 4 additional or specialists, including Javelin anti-tank teams) in addition to the vehicle’s crew of 3. The AAV7 listed a capacity of 22 and a crew of 3, but in practice its limit was also a combat-loaded reinforced rifle squad. The AAV7’s original design parameters even included an M151 Jeep or trailer, or 2 supply pallets from an LKA ship, as holdovers from its role as a mere LVT (Landing Vehicle, Tracked) before USMC doctrine began emphasizing its role as an armored personnel carrier. The EFV dispenses with that.

EFV: Command variant
(click to view full)

A command EFV-C variant carries an array of communications and computer systems and staff personnel. Indeed, all EFVs were slated to carry an array of communications equipment and electronics including GPS/INS navigation systems and C2PC (Command and Control, Personal Computer). C2PC is similar to the Army’s “Blue Force Tracker,” showing an overlay of friendly units and detected enemies on a common map. The two systems aren’t interoperable yet, though things are moving that way. C2PC is used in the US Army at brigade level and information can be shared through that command structure.

Electronics and salt water don’t exactly mix, however, so the EFV program has had to take precautions. All electronics must be fully sealed, all cables have shielding & protection, and design efforts were made to remove voids and enclosures where salt might become trapped. On the outside, a series of enviro-friendly coatings were used that avoided the use of carcinogenic hexavalent chrome, and areas where dissimilar metals are mated need barriers to prevent electricity-producing galvanic reactions. If that sounds more complex and exensive than standard IFVs, well, it is.

The Old: AAVP7, ashore
(click to view full)

Beyond the difference in these variants, however, all EFVs had broad similarities in a number of areas.

The EFV was designed to have positive buoyancy, and the program office has confirmed that the vehicle will float when at rest. Waterjet propulsion gives an amphibious speed of more than 20 knots – 3 times that of the AAV7. An underwater explosion survivability requirement is incorporated, and EFVs are also meant to move at high speed up to Sea State 3, and transition/low speed up to Sea State 5 (up to 8 ft. waves). This sea state capability would match the older AAV7s, and this level of unassisted armored landing capability in high sea states is reportedly unique to the AAV7 among present-day vehicles.

Those EFV water speed and sea state requirements have driven a number of design decisions, however, raising the vehicles’ cost and increasing its vulnerabilities. For instance, the need for hydroplaning at speed forces a flat bottom, which limits the hull’s potential protection against IEDs and other land mines. It also leads to an engine bigger than a 70-ton M1 tank’s, as well as very high vibration levels in transit that aren’t very friendly to onboard equipment.

Once on land, keeping up with the USMC’s M1 Abrams tanks imposes land speed requirements that must also be addressed. EFV top speed after landing will be about 45 miles per hour, which is comparable to the land speed of a modernized AAV7 RAM/RS, and enables the vehicles to keep up with a USMC’s M1 Abrams tank’s cruising speed. An engine almost twice as powerful as the ones in the 70-ton M1 tanks they’ll be accompanying certainly helps. Maintenance and readiness are meant to be similar to vehicles like the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley, though they never even got close to that goal before the program was terminated.

Bradley reactive armor

On the protection front, the EFV has done what it could within its specifications, but it will not reach the level of the US Army’s Bradley or similar IFVs.

Measures have been taken to make EFV detection harder, including moving thermal giveaways to the rear, reducing telltale dust via side skirts, etc. NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protection is also included. For direct protection when maneuver or concealment become impossible, its LIBA SURMAX silicon ceramic composite armor is expected to provide protection from 14.5mm rounds and 155mm shell fragments. The previous AAV7’s base was 12.7mm/.50 cal weapons and 105mm fragments, though add-on armor could raise that to the same 14.5/155mm levels. The LIBA SURMAX armor adds high resilience under multiple hits from armor piercing projectiles, easy field repair, and lightness to the protection equation.

Having met that “same as” standard, the EFV program does not officially plan to include armor-up kits of its own. Reactive armor like that fitted to M2/M3 Bradleys, M113s, etc. for defense against higher-caliber autocannon and/or RPG rockets was not initially planned for the EFV; the Marines believed the its weight and hydrodynamic issues would destroy the EFV’s amphibious capabilities, and had no initial plans for “add-on ashore” kits. Nor was the “cage” slat armor fitted to Army Strykers etc. under consideration as RPG protection, for the same reasons. Some minor casualty reduction would have been provided by improved fire suppression, and by spall linings that narrow the ‘casualty cone’ of a rocket’s blast fragments in the hull from the 90-110 degree spray of the AAV7 Amtracs, to 10 degrees or so.

In response to pressure from Congress, ideas have now been floated re: removable applique armor, but no official decision was taken.

Over the longer term, the EFV had reserved computing power, a card slot, and memory to integrate “active protection systems” like the RAFAEL/General Dynamics “Trophy” being fielded in Israel, or the Raytheon APS system contracted before the Army’s FCS ground vehicle family was canceled. The EFV program office never formally evaluated any of these systems, however, as no funding or requirements were provided to do it.

Cougar 6×6, IEDed
- the crew lived.
(click to view full)

EFV protection varies against the IED land mines that have already destroyed several Amtracs in Iraq. The EFV’s flat bottom remains a hazard when facing mines. Detonations underneath will remain a challenge, however, because the need for hydrodynamic lift forces a flat bottom design – and the same design that catches the full force of the water to provide lift, will also catch the full force of a mine blast. Given the amphibious distance and speed requirements, however, the EFV program office noted that blast-deflecting V-hulls were not an option. Shock-absorbing seats that reduce spinal injuries were the best they could do, given the specifications.

On the other hand, its low side skirts offer very better protection from side blasts than current Amtracs, especially since the SURMAX armor is good at absorbing “dynamic deflection.” The front is helped by the presence of the extensible plate for water travel, while the back features armor levels comparable to the sides.

This last vulnerability, to the #1 in-theater killer from America’s last 2 major wars, attracted sharp political scrutiny, and was a factor in pressure to cancel the program.

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: The Case in Favor

EFV exit
(click to view full)

Given these uncertainties, the increasing use of AAV7 Amtracs as armored personnel carriers deep inland, and the trends toward urban warfare and IED threats, the EFV has attracted some criticism. We begin with the USMC’s case for the EFV – and since the follow-on ACV seems to share similar underlying requirements, possibly the future ACV as well.

The biggest underlying requirement concerns the Navy, not the Marines. The Marines contend that advances in anti-ship missiles and surveillance, and the spiraling cost of US Navy’s designs for amphibious ships, made protecting those ships via long-distance launch a critical requirement. Rather than buying extra hovercraft or LCUs, the Navy and Marines wanted these waterborne abilities to be part of the vehicles themselves, so that amphibious assaults could introduce armor support very quickly. The EFV’s high-speed, long-distance swim capabilities, which have so influenced its design and execution, were seen as the best option for meeting that goal, while maximizing tactical flexibility in both Small Wars and high-intensity conflicts.

That speed has 2 major tactical rationales. One is protection. The other is flexibility. Col. Brogan of the EFV Program Office noted in our June 2006 interview that the “over the horizon” launch capability (about 25 miles out to sea) requirement of 25-mile swim capability in an hour. requirement was handed down in order to give friendly forces 2 opportunities to take down enemy missiles before they could hit the Navy’s amphibious ships, assuming AEGIS-equipped ships on station plus Cooperative Engagement Capability on the Navy’s amphibious assault vessels.

Staying afloat
(click to view full)

To illustrate the implications of flexibility, imagine a release point 15 miles offshore. At 25 mph swim speed, Pythagoras tells us that a 40 mile long stretch of coastline is at risk within an hour, complicating the defender’s options. The EFV’s speed, shared software and communications means that the vehicles can modify and share plans while still in the water; instead of having to look for a 1 km wide beach where they can all land in a wave, they can come ashore in dispersed fashion to re-form nearby, or exit in column through places as narrow as a boat ramp. Faced with this array of options, the defending commander must either disperse and hence weaken his defenses, try to anticipate the vehicles’ exact moves and risk being wrong, or accept the initial landing and plan to deal with the beach-head via counterattack.

Once on land, keeping up with the USMC’s M1 Abrams tanks in particular impose land speed requirements that must be addressed, even as the situations the US Marines face sometimes require far more protection than lighter vehicles like the BvS-10 can provide. The U.S. Marines must be able to operate in a wide variety of situations and environments, contend the EFV’s advocates, and their breadth of amphibious capabilities define them. With the EFV, the USMC argues, firepower, detection and flexibility are much improved over the AAV7, while amphibious and tracked mobility are maintained or improved. This combination makes the EFV an important tool that’s required in order to maintain the Corps’ full capability set.

The EFV’s amphibious capability remains tactically useful inland, however, reducing dependence on destroyable and easily-targeted bridges. As long as the opposite bank has a shallow enough slope for the EFVs to climb out within a few miles, EFVs can swim up rivers and cross water obstacles. Of course, accompanying USMC M1 Abrams tanks would not have this option. A Marine commander with a mixed vehicle set could split his forces, possibly assigning Javelin infantry teams, amphibious LAV-ATs with TOWs, Cobra helicopters, etc. for anti-tank punch. He could also use the EFVs in security operations as a bridgehead and guard force, until engineers could bring the tanks across.

Col. Brogan added that the USMC could always elect to put fewer than 17 Marines in an EFV depending on the mission, and noted that other vehicles in inventory from armored HMMWV jeeps and MTVR trucks, to LAV-25 wheeled APCs, to V-hulled RG-31 and Cougar vehicles, are available for commanders where lack of numbers or niche capabilities make the EFV an inferior mission choice.

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: The Case Against

RAF CH-47 w. BvS10,
Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Critics note the EFV’s number of Marines carried and cost, contending that the USMC is simply building a very expensive, casualty-maximizing IED land mine/RPG trap, whose required protection levels against mines and incoming fire were sacrificed to the requirement for improved water speed. Despite this water speed, they won’t be useful as fire support in the littorals, either, leaving that mission largely unaddressed. EFVs will be tied to heavier and less flexible forces because they cannot handle enemy tanks or IEDs independently, and they will be too vulnerable in the urban warfare scenarios that will be common features of future conflicts.

Options to improve these capabilities, they say, will only turn a very expensive system that has demonstrated serious reliability problems, into an extremely expensive system that is even less reliable, and requires more support than before.

Other Marine forces like the British and Dutch, they note, are relying instead on smaller amphibious vehicles like the BvS-10 Viking. These vehicles are also fully amphibious, but trade less water speed and slightly less protection for more vehicles per dollar, fewer soldiers per vehicle to minimize casualties, and ground footprints that can cross all terrains and won’t set off pressure mines. When trying to keep the Navy ships safe, they argue, why not opt for systems like these that offer heliborne air mobility, giving the Marines even greater operational speed and over-the-horizon reach, and offering naval defenses even more shots at enemy missiles? Systems like the BvS10 would be equally useful in “small wars,” where their heliborne insertion and all-terrain capabilities would give the Marines new options against lightly-armed but very mobile enemies.

K21 KNIFV concept
(click to view full)

Alternatively, the Marines could buy a more conventional IFV with some amphibious capabilities, and depend on extra hovercraft, vessels like the proposed and landing ships to get them ashore. South Korea produced the K-21 KNIFV for about $3.5 million each, with better firepower and protection options than the EFV, at a cost of carrying only 9 crew and reducing water speed to 4-5 mph in low sea states.

Once built, those extra hovercraft and LCUs could even find new roles in the world’s littoral regions. Armed with rockets, bolt-on RWS turrets, or even rolled-on armored vehicles, they would have new life as impromptu littoral and riverine patrol craft, policing terrain that the US military sees as high threat while keeping larger ships out of the picture. LCT-As were used this way in World War 2 landings, and LCU/LCMs with low gunwales have mounted M48A3, M67A2, and M60A1 tanks in Vietnam and Grenada.

These options, say the critics, plus other vehicles in the Marines’ current force mix, are more likely to be appropriate in more of the situations that US Marines are likely to face going forward. They’re also far easier to buy in numbers when the EFV isn’t sucking the budgetary oxygen out of the room, a situation that tends to turn arguments that could be made as “both/and” into something of an “either/or” rhetorical proposition.

The arguments continue; indeed, they are likely to gain in intensity and strength as the USMC works to define the EFV’s successor.

Amtracs Replacement, Take 2: After the EFV

The USMC’s EFV replacement strategy rests on 3 pillars. DARPA may have added a 4th option, but like all DARPA projects, it will have to overcome significant technical hurdles in order to become even a potential production program.

Replace Me: ACV Amphibious Combat Vehicle

EFV: electronics inside
(click to view full)

The USMC hopes it can keep its Amphibious Combat Vehicle to $10-12 million per vehicle, compared to $16.8 million for the EFV. Even so, that’s still far above other Marines forces around the world. The expected schedule was an ACV technical demonstration vehicle by the end of FY 2012, and a fully operational demonstration vehicle done by the end of 2013 or 2014. Re-use of some EFV systems might help meet those deadlines, but reliability issues make that a riskier strategy than it might otherwise be. A competition between contractors will give several of them 3-4 years to build their offerings, followed by a chosen ACV around 2020.

The USMC acknowledges that their desired schedule is aggressive, which often creates testing surprises, delays, and rising costs. Their acquisition strategy isn’t set in stone, but they seem to be leaning on multi-way competition and a drive-off to offset those risks, even as that format also complies with recent defense acquisition reform directives. They’d better hope it works, because $10 million was touted for the EFV part-way through the program – and another episode of ballooning costs and delays will cripple the Marines for a generation. Even if it does work, and costs are within budget, a $10-12 million per vehicle program would be a prime target for cuts if rising interest rates cause the USA to hit a fiscal wall.

More ominously, Kurt Koch, the combat vehicle capabilities integration officer for Fires and Maneuvers Integration Division, says “the ACV will be operationally mobile in the water, capable of ship-to-objective maneuver from over the horizon.” That’s the same requirement that doomed the EFV to be a super-expensive water taxi, that wouldn’t protect its crew against cannon fire, rockets, or the #1 killer in recent wars: land mine attacks.

Extend Me: the AAV7 SLEP

AAV7s, Somalia
(click to view full)

Until the ACV is ready, the Amtracs will soldier on. The AAV Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) aims to add better protection, a modern power-train, and higher capacity suspension components. Another gap in the current force is the current turret, which is unstabilized, and can’t be fired accurately on the move. Costs and scope are still under evaluation, but the goal is to run the AAV7 SLEP program from 2012-2021.

With the ACV not even slated to begin production until 2020, and even the MPC not slated to make a difference until 2018-2020, the AAV7 SLEP becomes critical to the corps. During the next decade, any serious problems in the Amtracs fleet could leave the US Marines in a difficult position indeed.

If AAV7 Amtracs had to be built new, the last AAV7 Amtracs were produced for Brazil in the 1990s. The cost range in those-year dollars was $2.2 – 2.5 million per vehicle. Without factoring in production restart costs (or any capability upgrades for the modern battlefield), that figure translates into about $3.5 million per vehicle in today’s dollars.

Complement Me: The MPC Marine Personnel Carrier

MPC concept
(click to view larger)

The wheeled Marine Personnel Carrier program is really a replacement for the LAV fleet, and has always been seen as a separate budgeted item. The EFV program’s failure doesn’t change that, but it does mean that MPCs may end up performing some EFV roles. They may end up in a bigger substitution role if the ACV also sinks, or the USA’s slow-motion fiscal wreck starts hitting the interest rate wall, and drastic cuts follow. If so, tactical changes will follow, because MPCs won’t be designed to come ashore through surf, even in low-medium sea states.

MPCs are expected to cost up to $4.5 million each, with a buy decision in 2013 and Initial Operational Capability in 2018. Declared MPC competitors already include BAE Systems/ Iveco with their SUPERAV), and Lockheed Martin/Patria with their Patria AMV. The current incumbent, General Dynamics, won’t be sitting out. They’re expected t bid their Piranha-III, or similar vehicles.

Test Me: DARPA’s FANG

DARPA’s FANG. The Fast, Adaptable, Next-Generation ground vehicle projects aims to develop a new heavy, amphibious infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) “with functional requirements intended to mirror the Marine Corps’ Amphibious Combat Vehicle.”

That’s unusual. The approach is even more interesting, and unusual: “The contractor will stage a series of FANG challenges, prize-based design competitions for progressively more complex vehicle subsystems, culminating in the design of a full IFV.” DARPA has had good luck with competitions before, but they generally involve more than 1 vendor.

EFV: Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise indicated, all EFV program contracts are issued by US Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA to General Dynamics Amphibious Systems (GDAMS) in Woodbridge, VA.

Beached.
(click to view full)

June 10/11: Aviation Week reports that the USMC is looking to cut its analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the EFV replacement from 18 months to 9, or even 6 months. Areas of interest include “habitability” inside the vehicle, added features like an artificial horizon, and reaching out to shipbuilders for a better hull design.

The good news is that the USMC is reaching to a logical and related industry for help. The bad news is that an appetite for more and more based on notional requirements, rather than cost-driven limits that may force rethinks of what one can expect, is what sank EFV in the first place. Further bad news? The USMC say they need 38 amphibious ships, and might make do with 33, but will get 29. That will push them toward a long-swimming IFV design, as a way of compensating at sea. The question is whether that will create fatal vulnerabilities on land, or whether the shipbuilding sector can offer an EFV idea that squares the circle.

March 22/11: Plans B, C & D. The USMC outlines the 3 different vehicle programs that will replace the responsibilities the EFV would have held: AAV7 life extension from 2012-2021, wheeled Marine Personnel Carrier in service from 2018, and an Amphibious Combat Vehicle EFV replacement entering production by 2020. See above for more details.

Jan 12/10: Inside Defense reports that the US Marine Corps will pursue 3 contracts, in the wake of the EFV’s cancellation.

The first, required response involves life extension for the existing AAVP7 Amtracs fleet. The 2nd response will be to accelerate the LAV-II replacement Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) program. Like its predecessor, MPC is required to have some amphibious capability, albeit less than the Amtracs. The 3rd response is the direct EFV replacment, currently known as the New Amphibious Vehicle (NAV) program.

Nov 16/10: No Plan B. WIRED Danger Room says there is no Plan B for the EFV, which means the vehicle had better pass its tests by February 2011:

“After years of delays and cost overruns, Senate appropriators voted in September to put the $24-million-per-tank EFV program out to pasture if it can’t pass its final round of tests. The chairmen of the White House deficit commission marked it for termination in their cost-cutting proposal last week. At this point, the swimming tank is a pinata for defense reformers… But a September study from the Government Accountability Office [DID: sctually. the Congressional Research Service] found few alternatives to the swimming tank (.PDF). Either the Marines could continue to use their decades-old Amphibious Assault Vehicles, or they can modify their planned Marine Personnel Carrier for ship-to-shore operations. (One option for the carrier, GAO writes, is the Italian Supernav 8×8 tank, “a 24-ton vehicle that can carry 13 Marines and their equipment and can travel up to 500 miles nonstop on land and 40 miles on water.”) But the carrier won’t be ready until 2015 as it is.”

Sept 17/10: Inside Defense reports that: “The Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee has provided funding to cancel the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program in its mark of the fiscal year 2011 defense budget.”

Sept 9/10: Carley Corp. in Orlando, FL wins a $35.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price contract to produce the EFV training system for USMC accession training, as well as for training fleet and reserve forces. The contract contains options that could boost it to $36 million. The training system will include several sub-systems: training courseware on a Learning Management System, simulators, devices, mockups, and training aids.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, and is expected to be complete by September 2015. This contract was a 100% small business set-aside posted in the Navy Electronic Commerce Office, with 3 offers received (M67854-10-C-0036).

Aug 24/10: Testimony. USMC Commandant Gen. James Conway defends the EFV capability, while distancing himself a bit from the current program. Defense Tech quotes him:

“It is not the platform it’s the capability… It’s not necessarily the EFV made by General Dynamics that goes 25 knots, its the capability that we need to be wed to… if that program were canceled outright we would still be looking to come up with that capability.”

He said the new batch of eight EFVs provided by General Dynamics for extensive testing are more reliable than the original prototypes and the Marines hope they’ll show marked improvement. “It has been a beleaguered program,” Conway said today at a Pentagon presser. “We are looking at affordability of the program in the out years… we have to ask ourselves are 573 (EFVs) affordable.”

Aug 19/10: Testing. The SDD-2 version of the EFV is undergoing testing at Camp Pendleton, CA, whose Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch (AVTB) at Camp Del Mar is well suited to the task. The team has also tested the EFV at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center, and DoD facilities in Alaska and Hawaii. The AVTB is staffed by 53 Marines and 25 civilians who are currently conducting testing on 8 EFVs manufactured in Lima, OH.

The USMC release says that to date, more than 400 engineering design improvements have been implemented since AVTB became involved with testing the first EFV prototype in 2003. One is a “whale-tail” exhaust system that disperses heat down and outward from the vehicle, instead of straight upward. USMC.

July 9/10: Defense Tech reports:

“Yesterday at a reporter’s roundtable, House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Ike Skelton said he expects SecDef Robert Gates and his merry band of program killers in OSD will try to terminate the Marine Corps armored amphibian, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). Skelton said he’s pretty agnostic on the EFV and that the HASC would give the Marines time to conduct further tests on the vehicle.”

See also Aviation Week | Reuters.

July 2/10: GAO still dubious. GAO Report #GAO-10-758R’s title understates its tone: “Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Program Faces Cost, Schedule and Performance Risks” was provided to Rep. Norman D. Dicks [D-WA], n his role as Chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee. Some excerpts:

“In 2006 we reviewed the EFV program to determine how it was performing… and reported that the program faced significant risks… In 2006 and 2007, the EFV business case broke down… The program was restructured in June 2007.” [With respect to SDD-2], Reliability growth approach and other performance issues present significant challenges and risks, [the] nature of development, test, and procurement schedules add unnecessary risk… Costs could increase due to concurrency, redesign effort, and final procurement quantity… [and the program’s] history of cost growth, schedule slips and performance failures and the current challenges (including changing threats) raise the question of whether the business case for the EFV program (in terms of cost, schedule, and performance) is still sound.”

The rest of their review is quite detailed and specific. It cites serious ongoing issues with capacity and weight, reliability, and maintainability, and sees the overlapping schedule for testing and early production as especially worthy of concern. See also Eric Palmer of DoD Watch.

May 4/10: Roll-out, Take 2. The USMC rolls out the SDD-2 EFV prototype at a ceremony, and continues to press their case for the vehicle amidst rumors of its cancellation at what turned into a mini pep rally for the vehicle and its supporters. Taking direct aim at some of the concerns raised recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that Marines may not need the EFV or that the vehicle could prove too costly, program and Marine Corps officials said the vehicle is exactly what they need to conduct operations from the sea. The EFV is meant to serve as a vehicle bridge for Marines, carrying them from Navy ships through the surf and sand and miles deep into enemy terrain. Program officials extolled the vehicle’s prowess and promise at a ceremony at the National Museum of the Marine Corps here, with the museum’s unique skyline sculpture in the background and a newly minted prototype EFV in the foreground.”>Aviation Week Ares.

May 3/10: Gates’ grumps. US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates delivers a speech at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space Convention, in National Harbor, MD. It’s widely seen as casting doubt on the future of the EFV. Excerpts:

“The more relevant gap we risk creating is one between capabilities we are pursuing and those that are actually needed in the real world of tomorrow… Two major examples come to mind. First, what kind of new platform is needed to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore under fire – in other words, the capability provided by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. No doubt, it was a real strategic asset during the first Gulf War to have a flotilla of Marines waiting off Kuwait City – forcing Saddam’s army to keep one eye on the Saudi border, and one eye on the coast. But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again – especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore. On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?

…And that bring me to the third and final issue: the budget… it is important to remember that, as the wars recede, money will be required to reset the Army and Marine Corps, which have borne the brunt of the conflicts. And there will continue to be long-term – and inviolable – costs associated with taking care of our troops and their families. In other words, I do not foresee any significant increases in top-line of the shipbuilding budget beyond current assumptions. At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can really afford [the current force structure and platforms].”

March 30/10: GAO – what’s next? The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. With respect to the EFV, it cites a 132% jump in the program’s R&D budget from December 2000 – August 2009, a 45% rise in the procurement budget, and a 42.1% drop in planned orders. When you actually crunch those numbers, that means a 249.8% rise in per-vehicle procurement costs. With respect to the program’s structure:

“The EFV’s design will continue to evolve into low- rate initial production… until 2014 as it executes its reliability growth and testing strategy. The program is addressing 180 design actions raised during its critical design review in December 2008 and plans to incorporate many of them into seven new prototypes currently under construction… An operational assessment is scheduled for April 2011. At that time, the program expects to demonstrate on average at least 16 hours of operation between operational mission failures, which will keep the EFV on the reliability path needed to reach its minimum requirement of 43.5 hours. Additional testing and design revisions are scheduled to continue through the fourth lot of low-rate production, and the program will commit to all four low-rate production lots before conducting initial operational test and evaluation to validate the performance and reliability of the EFV.

…the program will introduce new friction-welding processes during low-rate production that are expected to increase the strength of the hull and reduce weight… The Marine Corps recently formalized the IED requirement for the EFV, but did not make it a key performance parameter… If the NBC system were removed, warfighters would still be protected using mission-oriented protective suits, which they currently use on the AAV-7 legacy platform. No decision has been made on this proposal, but it is being held as an option for later in the program.”

Feb 2010: USMC Commandant Gen. James Conway tells the House Armed Services Committee that the EFV performed “about the same” as a 6-wheeled, Category 2 MRAP blast-resistant vehicle in blast tests. A single EFV prototype was subjected to 4 blasts, including 2 that simulated land mines, without its additional armor kit installed.

What the reports don’t say is whether the blasts were set to the side, where the EFV’s protection is strong, or underbody blasts, where the EFV is expected to be weak. Caveat governor. Defense News | Gannett’s Marine Corps Times.

Dec 2/09: EG&G Technical Services, Inc. in Dumfries, VA receives a $5.7 million task order for EFV support services. “Technical support under this effort includes the support services to advance the use of technology to improve system performance and operations, achieve design-to-unit production cost objectives, and to define mature production and manufacturing processes.”

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA, and is expected to be complete in December 2010 (M67854-02-A-9011, #0087).

Dec 1/09: EG&G in Dumfries, VA receives a $5.2 million for task order for EFV support services to US Marine Corps Systems Command’s PM Advanced Amphibious Assault (PM AAA). “Technical support under this effort includes the support services to advance the use of technology to improve system performance and operations, achieve design-to-unit production cost objectives, and to define mature production and manufacturing processes.”

Work will be performed in Quantico, VA, and is expected to be complete in December 2009 (M67854-02-A-9011, #0070).

Dec 1/09: CSBA ix-nay. The non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) issues a study that recommends cancelling the EFV in favor of an armored vehicle with beter land capabilities and less focus on independent water travel, which would be provided by hovercraft.

It also recommends scaling back MV-22 buys, in favor of a mix of MV-22s and more standard, less expensive helicopters. Aviation Week Ares.

EFV, testing
(click to view full)

May 15/09: The EFV team conducts more EFV tests at the Potomac River training area just off the Quantico, VA. Work includes water maneuvering tests and a gunnery test of it 30mm Mk44 and 7.62mm M240 guns, and is taking place before field testing begins. USMC.

Jan 18/08: General Dynamics Amphibious Systems in Woodbridge, VA received an $12 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-05-C-0072) for the advanced procurement of long lead materials for Systems Development and Demonstration 2 phase of the EFV program.

Work will be performed in Michigan (37%), Indiana (20%), Arizona (13%), Maryland (5%), Louisiana (3%), Florida (2%), Mississippi (2%), New Jersey (2%), New York (2%), Ohio (2%), and Germany (12%), and is expected to be completed by November 2009.

Jan 17/08: General Dynamics Amphibious Systems (GDAMS) in Woodbridge, VA received a $19.5 million modification under a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for the spares material under the systems development and demonstration phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program.

Work is expected to be completed by September 2008, and will be performed in Woodbridge, Va., (24.654%); Indianapolis, IN (18.727%); Muskegon, MI (11.437%); Salisbury, MD (3.234%); Spokane, WA (2.669%); Anniston, AL (2.625%); Lapeer, MI (2.612%); Tallahassee, FL (2.581%); Broomfield, CO (2.368%); Slidell, LA (2.045%); Houghton, MI (1.994%); Tuscon, AZ (1.772%); Springfield, VA (1.647%); Black Mountain, NC. (1.619%); Minneapolis, MN (1.345%); Duluth, GA (1.241%); San Diego, CA (1.223%); Tempe, AZ (1.123%); Plainview, NY (1.12%); Ottawa, Canada (1.875%); Freidrichshafen, Germany (0.988%); Calgary, Canada (0.144%); and several other locations within the United States, each with %ages lower than 1% (totaling 10.957%). The contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity.

Jan 9/08: The US House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee is casting a skeptical bipartisan eye on the EFV program. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD, ranking subcommittee minority member] spoke to Inside the Navy after speaking at a conference in Arlington, VA. According to information released by his office, he and subcommittee chair Gene Taylor [D-MS] have ‘a lot of serious questions’ about the idea for additional applique armor to help remedy the EFV’s poor resistance to mines. The idea itself was spawned in reaction to the subcommittee’s pointed questions re: the EFV and its lack of resistance to IED land mines. Congressman Bartlett:

“…they would get a really thin, strong Marine who could scoot underneath that thing, because there’s only about 18 inches of ground clearance, and he would bolt on an applique of some special aluminum which would now protect them… the enemy has to be very cooperative and not shoot them while they’re affixing the armor applique, and that the Marines have to find hard terrain free of mines to do this re-jiggering [the USMC] told us that they would know that the beach wasn’t mined. I said, ‘If you can know the beach was not mined, how come our people in Iraq can’t figure out whether the road is mined or not’?”

Oct 22/07: A $10 million contract modification to previously awarded contract M67854-01-C-0001 to develop an alternative drivetrain subsystem preliminary design for the continuation of Systems Development and Demonstration phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. Work will be performed in Augsburg, Germany (81%), Friedrichshafen, Germany (1%) and Woodbridge, VA (18%) and is expected to be complete by April 2008.

Pushing hard
(click to view full)

Aug 22/07: The Pentagon releases its Selected Acquisition Reports for the June 2007 reporting period, and the EFV program is listed:

“The SAR was submitted to report schedules slips of approximately two years since the December 2006 SAR. In February 2007, the program experienced a critical Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach due primarily to system reliability challenges and a quantity reduction. The department certified a revised program to Congress in June 2007. Program costs increased $4,069.4 million (+34.2 percent) from $11,902.7 million to $15,972.1 million.”

DID’s follow-on article “Costing the Marines’ EFV” explains what’s going on, delving into current and past program cost growth, why it happened, and what it means for the price per vehicle. The short answer is that each EFV will cost $16-21 million.

$21 million per?!?

Aug 15/07: A $15.5 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for System Integration Laboratory Hardware, during the SDD phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (45%); Tallahassee, FL (30%); Lima, OH (20%); and Scranton, PA (5%). Work is expected to be complete by September 2008.

On the beach
(click to view full)

Aug 1/07: In reply to the July 12/07 Jane’s article, the EFV program office had this to say to DID:

“We plan to compete future contracts for certain EFV program efforts, where feasible, to increase performance or reduce program costs. However, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has been the sole EFV vehicle designer and developer since 1996 and as a result, the main design development and production efforts are planned as sole source to GDLS because no other firm can perform the requirements of development and production without substantial duplication of cost and additional, unacceptable delays to the EFV program.

GDLS has taken positive action to demonstrate their commitment to the EFV program and improve the probability of success in meeting EFV program requirements. GDLS implemented a major reorganization in early 2007 to transfer technical expertise to the EFV program and to align Director-level technical positions with their parent company, GDLS in Sterling Heights, MI.

In Jan 07, GDLS transferred their best Systems Engineer from GDLS to Woodbridge, VA to be the Director of Systems Engineering for the EFV program. In addition, they created a Director of Programs position and appointed a senior GDLS employee with proven success on numerous Defense programs to the position. GD then aligned key EFV positions with their corporate organization to provide corporate expertise and continuity across Defense programs. This included instituting a direct reporting relationship for the EFV SE Director to the GDLS Senior Director for SE and for the EFV Technical Director to the GDLS Senior Vice-President for Engineering Design & Development (ED&D).”

July 31/07: A $6.2 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001). It covers sustaining program management, as well as technical and engineering support for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Drive train components, during the extended Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the EFV program. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and work is expected to be completed by September 2008.

July 17/07: A $10.6 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for the sustaining equipment manufacturing, technical, and engineering efforts in support of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) engine, during the extended Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the of the EFV program.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (12%) and Friedrichshafen, Germany (88%) and is expected to be complete by September 2008.

July 12/07: Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that the USMC will consider alternative designs for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and plans to compete out future components of the $2.3 billion EFV contract currently solely held by General Dynamics. “The news follows continued scrutiny of the programme by the US Congress, which has sharply questioned the EFV’s flat-bottomed design, cost over-runs and production problems.”

Rep. Gene Taylor [D-MS], Chair of the House Armed Services Seapower & Expeditionary Forces subcommittee, is reportedly seeking legal opinions re: ownership of the vehicle design, in order to determine whether the EFV project could be turned over to another firm if Congress’ patience snaps.

June 8/07: A $5.7 million modification to previously awarded contract M67854-01-C-0001 for the redesign of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, using an alternate architecture in place of Spraycool technology, during the Systems Development and Demonstration phase. SprayCool will be kept for the more computing-intensive EFV-C command variant, but is being designed out of the infantry carrier vehicle in favor of a more modular architecture. This is bad news for SprayCool Corp., who touted their liquid cooling system for electronics in a success story release:

“In 2000, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), being developed at that time as the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), was experiencing significant difficulties in their command and control electronics suite due to overheating. Moreover, the program office realized that this problem would only get worse as their C4I roadmap called for more electronics, increasing the number of software programs, and numerous technology insertions of faster processors to transfer the required data.

By chance the program manager for the Command Variant of the EFV saw a SprayCool Technology demonstration and consulted with SprayCool. Using a Small Business Innovative Research contract and funding from DARPA, SprayCool built a prototype multi-processor unit, called the Command and Control Server (CCS). This prototype solved the overheating conditions and has evolved into the heart of the EFV’s electronic suite where it links ten operating stations with information from the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System, Command and Control Operations (C2PC for situational awareness), Intelligence Operations System, and other C4I SR (command, control, communications, and computers intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems.

In developing the Multi-Processor Unit (MPU) for the Marine Corps, SprayCool won the Department of Defense Value Engineering Award for 2003 by enabling Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) technology insertions, saving the Marines over $350 million dollars over a thirty year life span.”

Work on finding a replacement cooling approach will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (34.2%), Spokane, WA (20.7%), Colorado Springs, CO (14.6%), Tallahassee, FL (11.5%), Calgary, Canada (9.5percent), Ottawa, Canada (4.2%), Los Angeles, CA (2.1%), Salisbury, MD (2.0%) and Sterling Heights, MI (1.2%) and is expected to be complete by September 2008. Contract funds in the amount of $3.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

May 2/07: House Appropriation Committee chair Henry Waxman submits formal requests to Secretary of Defense Gates and to General Dynamics Land Systems President David K. Heebner. He requests a long list of reports, assessments, and other documentation related to the EFV, by May 18/07, while citing several reports the program’s ongoing difficulties. House Appropriations Committee | Full Letter to DoD [PDF] | Full letter to General Dynamics Land Systems [PDF].

April 30/07: A $43.8 million contract modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for spares and material for the continuation of Systems Development and Demonstration phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program.

Work will be performed in Germany (38.61%); Michigan (13.38%); Indiana (7.56%); Virginia (6.04%); Colorado (5.37%); Florida (4.61%); California (4.2%); Canada (4.26%); Maryland (3.94%); Washington (3.72%); Arizona (2.52%); North Carolina (2.49%); Louisiana (2.21%); New York (0.27%); South Carolina (0.24%); Massachusetts (0.20%); Missouri (0.19%); Minnesota (0.16%); and Pennsylvania (0.02%); and is expected to be complete by September 2007.

March 19/07: A $144 million modification to previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (M67854-01-C-0001) on Mar. 16, 2007, for design for reliability efforts for the continuation of Systems Development and Demonstration phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. In other words, this money will be used to address the reliability issues covered in “The US Marines’ EFV Program: Current State Report, November 2006“,” in order to get the EFV to a point where it’s ready for low-rate production.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (40%), Indianapolis, Ind., (24%), Sterling Heights, MI (10%), Friedrichshafen, Germany, (10%), and various other states (16%), and is expected to be complete by September 2008.

Waterjets on!
(click to view full)

May 25/06: An $18.8 million cost-reimbursable modification under a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for the continuation of Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (50%); Aberdeen, MD (25%); and Camp Pendleton, CA (25%).

April 3/06: A $44.4 million cost-reimbursable addition modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for the continuation of Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. GDAMS will provide all required materials, services, personnel and facilities to complete the design and development of the EFV, perform studies and analyses, manufacture and test all SDD prototypes, prepare for production, initiate logistics support of the EFV, and successfully complete the SDD phase.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (38%); Camp Pendleton, CA (22%); Sterling Heights, MI (21%); Aberdeen, MD (9%), and undetermined location(s) (10%), and is expected to be complete by September 2009.

July 22/05: A $42.9 million cost-reimbursable addition to a previously awarded contract (N67854-01-C-0001) to extend the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle’s systems development and demonstration (SDD) phase. Full-up system live fire testing will be included. General Dynamics will provide all required materials, services, personnel and facilities to complete the design and development of the EFV, perform studies and analyses, manufacture and test all SDD prototypes, prepare for production, initiate logistics support of the EFV, and successfully complete the SDD phase.

Work will be performed in Virginia (21.22%); Indiana (12.47%); Germany (10.47%); Michigan (8.87%); North Carolina (6.81%); California (5.31%); Ohio (5.21%); Washington (5.20%); Maryland (4.38%); Minnesota (4.38%); Colorado (2.95%); Canada (2.53%); Illinois (2.37%); Arizona (1.07%); New York (0.87%); Alabama (0.54%); Florida (0.48%); Georgia (0.14%); Texas (0.13%); and undetermined (4.61%). Work is expected to be completed by September 2009.

Nov 1/04: A $136 million cost-reimbursable addition modification under previously awarded contract M67854-01-C-0001 for the continuation of system development and demonstration (SDD) phase of the expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV) program. GDAMS will provide all required materials, services, personnel and facilities to complete the design and development of the EFV, perform studies and analyses, manufacture and test all SDD prototypes, prepare for production, initiate logistics support of the EFV, and successfully complete the SDD phase.

This contract was not competitively procured. Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (59.02%); Indianapolis, IN (10.43%); Lima, OH (1.94%); Liberty Lake, WA (1.64%); Sterling Heights, MI (1.46%); Scranton, PA (1.38%); Linthicum, MD (1.20%); Tempe, AZ (1.18%); Arlington, VA (0.78%); Pittsfield, MA (0.69%); San Diego, CA (0.55%); Tallahassee, FL (0.53%); Frederick, MD (0.43%); El Centro, CA (0.37%); Muskegon, MI (0.02%);and Freidrichshafen, Germany (15.61%); Ottawa, Canada (1.82%); and Calgary, Canada (0.95%). Work is expected to be complete by September 2008.

EFV on land
(click to view full)

Feb 10/03: $15.9 million under a previously awarded cost-reimbursable contract (M67854-01-C-0001), exercising an option for the Live Fire Test Vehicle and initial spares for the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV).

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, Va. (30.9%); Indianapolis, Ind. (6.4%); Freidrichshafen, Germany (5.8%); Muskegon, Mich. (4.6%); Tempe, Ariz. (4.6%); Tallahassee, Fla. (4.1%); Scranton, Pa. (4.1%); Lima, Ohio (3.1%); Slidell, La. (2.2%); Lapeer, Mich. (2.2%); Boulder, Colo. (1.9%); Hebron, Ohio (1.9%); McKinney, Texas (1.9%); Boca Raton, Fla. (1.4%); Ottawa, Canada (1.3%); Jacksonville, Mich. (1.3%); Imperial Valley, Calif. (1.2%); East Aurora, N.Y. (1.1%); Tuscon, Ariz. (0.9%); Frederick, Md. (0.8%); Wayne, N.J. (0.8%); Calgary, Canada, (0.8%); Anniston, Ala. (0.7%); Clarkston, Wash. (0.6%); San Diego, Calif. (0.4%); Westbury, N.Y. (0.4%); Marlboro, Md. (0.2%); Sterling Heights, Mich. (0.1%); and all other states (14.3%). Work is expected to be completed by June 2005.

April 5/01: General Dynamics Land Systems, Woodbridge, VA, under their subsidiary General Dynamics Amphibious Systems, is being awarded a $6 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-01-C-0001) for long-lead material for the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) as part of the systems development and demonstration phase. The work will be performed in Woodbridge, Va. (40%), Lima, Ohio (20%), Tallahassee, Fla. (15%), Muskegon, Mich. (10%), Scranton, Pa. (10%), and Imperial Valley, Calif. (5%) and is expected to be completed by June 2001 (M67854-01-C-0001).

Footnotes

fn1. Remote Weapons Systems turrets like the RCWS-30 equipping the Czech Army’s river-amphibious Pandur II APC fleet were considered at the program’s outset, but they had not developed to their present capability levels. In addition, Col. Brogan noted that Remote Weapons Systems made crew nausea issues worse during amphibious testing. Money has not been allocated for current studies, the design is well advanced, and the EFV office has no plans to recommend reconsideration.

fn2. The GAO estimates $12.3 million per vehicle. See GAO report item in the “Additional Readings & Sources” section for deeper background.

Appendix A: Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle – The Program

Previous timeline
(click to view full)

The US Marines originally hoped to replace 1,322 AAV7s with 1,013 EFVs: 935 EFV-P Personnel Variants, and 78 EFV-C Command Variants. Initial Operating Capability (IOC) was supposed to happen in 2010, and was defined as a platoon of 13 EFV-P and 1 EFV-C vehicle, ready for Marine Expeditionary Unit deployment workups, including the associated support and sustainment package. Plus a 2nd EFV platoon delivered and in New Equipment Training. Plus a 3rd EFV platoon in production. Full Rate Production was scheduled for the FY 2011-2020 period. Full Operational Capability (FOC) was scheduled for FY 2020.

It eventually became clear that 2010 wouldn’t even see the end of testing, and IOC was a long way away at FY 2017 or so, if everything went well. Even Low-Rate Initial Production wasn’t expected until FY 2013 – assuming that testing didn’t reveal additional problems, and the program survived that long. Which it did not.

The EFV nevertheless remained the Corps’ top land combat priority, right up until its cancellation by the Marine Corps – with a very hard push from the Pentagon. EFV budgets in recent years have included:

FY 2005: $291.7 million ($239.2M R&D, $52.5M procurement)
FY 2006: 272.7 million ($243.9M R&D, $28.8M procurement)
FY 2007: $348.7 million (all shifted to RDT&E following testing issues and cuts)
FY 2008 req.: $288.2M RDTE (Research, Development, Testing, & Evaluation)
FY 2009: $256.0M RDT&E
FY 2010: $292.2M RDT&E
FY 2011 request: $242.8M RDT&E, but the program was shut down.

The danger signs began when the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review resulted in a significant cut to the USMC’s EFV plans, as the service considered their total package of ground vehicles, and the schedule has foundered in the wake of serious performance and reliability problems. In contrast, blast-resistant wheeled patrol vehicles appears to have made large gains within the envisioned force mix, per the MRAP program etc.

Muddy ground
(click to view full)

Then, there were the EFV’s costs.

In 2000, the EFV program was expected to cost about $7.3 billion, including $1.6 billion for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E). By 2006, that figure had risen to $12.5 billion, including $2.5 billion for RDT&E. At 1,013 EFVs, the final cost per vehicle had grown to $10.1 million[2] – but even this figure was true if, and only if, all planned vehicles were bought. By August 2009, the program’s estimated cost was $14.29 billion, including $3.74 billion in RDT&E; and this 14 billion dollar figure was so despite a 42.1% cut in the expected order, to just 593 EFVs. Overall, the cost per vehicle has risen almost 250% from its December 2000 baseline.

In a 2006 discussion, the program office estimated that a cutback to 573 vehicles could increase costs by up to $2 million per vehicle, to $12-13 million. Other reports have placed the cost as high as $17 million average.

Why is this? Much of it is a factor of the vehicle’s requirements. A 20 knot plus water speed, with that much carrying capacity, plus even a questionable level of protection on land, is a contradictory set of imperatives that creates a very expensive vehicle. Some of the cost jump a product of the vehicle’s rising complexity, as it gets redesigned. Some of it is also self-inflicted, and stems from cuts in the program.

Buying fewer vehicles means that the R&D is paid for and vehicles are bought earlier in the production learning curve, when the cost higher. If fewer vehicles are also bought over the same time frame, then fixed costs per vehicle increase for that reason as well. The EFV program office’s preliminary analysis showed that a reduction to 800 vehicles would raise the final average cost per vehicle by at least $1 million.

Of course, costs that rise during the R&D/SDD phase tend to lead to more production reductions, and the whole scenario can spiral very quickly. In an attempt to avoid that spiral, the EFV Program Office tried a number of improved project management techniques and procurement innovations. It was hoped that these efforts would help keep the program on its current schedule, and they did help. What they can never do, is fix a fundamental requirements set problem if one exists, or completely remove the unexpected surprises from a difficult technical journey.

Sunset battle
(click to view full)

In the end, however, the biggest killer was issues with EFV performance, as detailed in test results and GAO reports.

Full up EFV System Level Lethality testing began with an Operational Assessment between January-September 2006. Milestone C approval was expected to be followed by low-rate initial production (LRIP) vehicles in FY 2007 – 2008 for use during Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). Unfortunately, the assessment revealed some serious issues with performance, capacity, and reliability.

LRIP production was delayed while the program was restructured, and the problems were not confined to just one sub-system, or just a few. In the end, the vehicle kept its basic outline, but got a major makeover that is still in progress.

The first step was a Design For Reliability phase, followed by what is in effect a do-over of the Systems Design & Development phase (SDD-2). Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) was delayed from 2008 until FY 2013 or so. Initial Operational Capability, meanwhile, was pushed from the original 2010 to 2016-2017 at the earliest.

As risky as that was, the US GAO cited an additional risk of overlap. EFV testing wasn’t supposed to be done until the end of FY 2014, but LRIP would start before that’s done. With up to 96 vehicles planned under the 4 LRIP production lots, problems discovered in late testing could become very expensive retrofits very quickly.

This schedule, and the growing risk of EFV program cancellation,made it clear that further upgrades and/or life-extension programs may be required for the AAV7 Amtracs fleet, in order to keep the heavily-used vehicles available to the Marines until replacements do arrive. During that interim, any serious problems in the Amtracs fleet could leave the US Marines in a difficult position indeed.

Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources

EFV Data

• Marine Corps EFV Program Site. See their official program timeline. DID also interviewed EFV program personnel.
• Army Teechnology – Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) – Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle, USA
• GlobalSecurity.org – Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle
• DID (Oct 24/07) – Costing the Marines’ EFV. With a bit of help from the Program Office.

Official Reports

• US Congressional Research Service (latest update Sept 17/10) – The Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV): Background and Issues for Congress
• US Congressional GAO (#GAO-10-758R, July 2/10) – Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Program Faces Cost, Schedule and Performance Risks. Quite a lot of them, says the report.
• US DoD (Aug 22/07) – Department of Defense Releases Selected Acquisition Reports. For the June 2007 reporting period. EFV changes require a report in this SAR.
• US DoD (April 9/07) – SAR Program Acquisition Cost Summary As Of Date: December 31, 2006 [PDF format] Reports that acquisition costs have increased by nearly $4 billion, from $8.7 billion in December 2000 to $11.9 billion in December 2006.
• US GAO (#GAO-06-349, May 1/06) – Defense Acquisitions: The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Encountered Difficulties in Design Demonstration and Faces Future Risks. The report calculates $12.3 million as the EFV’s price per vehicle, and also lists a number of program risks. Col. Brogan takes especial exception to the 3rd risk mentioned, as it comes from following Pentagon acquisition policy. The GAO critized the EFV for not meeting all key performance parameters before low-rate production, but Pentagon procurement regulations state that they must be met only at IOTE(Initial Operational Test and Evaluation), just before full-rate production. Reliability requirements require time to accumulate data, and interoperability/net-ready requirements with not be met until IOTE around 2010, in order to avoid “freezing in” an obsolete system or spec.
• U.S. Defense Technical Information Center, Navy Program elements for 2005 (0603611M) – EXHIBIT R-2a, RDT&E Project Justification re: EFV.

Other Readings

• James Hasik (Jan 22/14) – Rethinking the problem of the next amphibious assault vehicle—an update
• Aviation Week Ares (March 3/11) – Marine Amphib Upgrades Coming Fast and Furious. Describes some options in the wake of the EFV’s cancellation.
• DoD Buzz (Nov 24/10) – Cancel Marines’ EFV Already: Analysts
• USMC (March 12/09) – Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle – Failure not an option. By Lt. Gen. George J. Flynn, Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, Marine Corps Base Quantico.
• Information Dissemination (March 19/09) – To EFV or not to EFV, That is not the Question
• USNI Proceedings magazine (November 2008) – A Poster Child for Next-War-Itis
• Defense News (March 14/07) – US. Marine EFV Delivery Delayed to 2015 and Costs Double
• Washington Post (Feb. 7/07) – Problems Stall Pentagon’s New Fighting Vehicle. Discusses some of the reliability issues: “The Marine Corps has tried to deal with some of its development problems by lowering its expectations for the vehicle. The service originally wanted a craft that could operate 70 hours between major breakdowns, but it cut that target to 43.5 hours after tests revealed the vehicles were struggling to meet the higher goal. But even the lower targets have been hard to hit. Marine Corps officials were distressed to discover that the prototypes encountered an “operational mission failure” on average every 4.5 hours in tests last year. There were 645 failures within the subsystems, overwhelming the three-man maintenance crew, according to a report by the service’s testing agency. “It’s a very complex vehicle; when it breaks, it’s difficult to repair,” said Col. Michael Bohn, director of the Marine Corps testing agency.”
• DID (Nov 7/06) – The US Marines’ EFV Program: Current State Report, November 2006. Describes the OpEval issues with the EFV in more detail, and discusses changes in the number of EFVs planned, based on interviews with the program office.
• DID (April 6/06) – $44.4M more to Complete EFV Amphibious Vehicle’s SDD Phase.
• Philadelphia Inquirer (Aug 4/05) – Vulnerable: Vehicle lacks armor in undercarriage. They’re talking about the Amtracs, and note the issues this has presented in Iraq.
• DID (May 25/05) – New Embedded Computing Architecture Addresses Obsolescence. If you plan to keep the EFVs around for 30 years, the computing architecture inside them will need to keep up. This proposed approach created some difficulties, however, as our update explains.
• DC Military (Jan. 9/04) – Latest Version of Marine Corps’ Amphibious Fighting Vehicle Goes Further, Faster
• U.S. Navy League, Sea Power Magazine (Nov. 2003) – EFV Brings Improved Range, Lethality to Marines
• D-N-I (July 11/01) – Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle: Cold-War Dinosaur or Techno Revolution for the 21st Century? In large part, a criticism of the EFV that sees a flawed concept, and its travails as the inevitable result of its basic performance requirements.
• Marine Corps University Command and Staff College (1995) – Can We Afford the AAAV? by Major M. M. Brogan, United States Marine Corps.
• Mofet Etzion – Heavy Vehicle Armor. Their LIBA ceramic composite vehicle armor mostly reaches customers through General Dynamics Land Systems, who uses variants of it in the Stryker and Pandur vehicles as well as the EFV. It is also available for BAE Systems’ M113, among others.
• US MARCORSYSCOM – Marine Personnel Carrier
• Globalsecurity.org – AAV7A1 Assault Amphibian Vehicle (AAV RAM/RS). Describes the previous modernization program.
• DID FOCUS Article – Double-Jointed & Popular: The Bv Family of Infantry Support Vehicles. Covers the Bv206 and BvS-10 family of vehicles, which are used by a number of forces worldwide and serve as the British and Dutch Marines’ primary amphibious armored vehicles. These vehicles are not competitors to the EFV; rather, they represent a different philosophy.

Oshkosh M-ATV
(click to view full)

“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.

MRAP ATV: Requirements and Contenders

BAE USCS M-ATV
(click to view full)

Monthly delivery rates of up to 1,000 vehicles were part of the solicitation; when combined with requirements around classified data and regulatory compliance, the only reasonable contenders were firms that already produced MRAPs, trucks, or tactical vehicles for American forces: BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Force Protection, Navistar, and Oshkosh.

M-ATV vehicles will hold 4 passengers, including the driver, and a gunner. That seems very similar to the MRAP Category I vehicles, and it is. On the other hand, a WIRED Danger Room story noted:

“As Captain Charles O’Neill, commander of B Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, told me, a few of the MRAPs had “gone into the wadi” – i.e., rolled over – during operations in Helmand. “The MRAP is an outstanding vehicle for force protection,” he said. “It would do great on paved roads. However, here in southern Helmand province, the roads don’t facilitate the MRAP necessarily that well.”

One option has involved refitting existing MRAP vehicles. Over 1,300 of Force Protection’s Cougars will receive Oshkosh TAK-4 independent suspensions, which are already in use on the Marines’ MTVR trucks, in order to improve their all-terrain handling. Other MRAP types are also receiving similar suspension refits from Oshkosh or from Arvin-Meritor.

LRAS3 in Fallujah
(click to view full)

The other response was the M-ATV competition, which aims to field a vehicle with an (empty equipped) curb weight under 25,000 pounds, and the protection and mobility characteristics described above. That’s still considerably heavier than a Hummer; the ubiquitous M1114 maxes out at 12,000 pounds with its add-on armor, and the top of M-ATV’s range is similar to a number of MRAP Category I contenders’ curb weights. Its mission is small unit combat operations in highly restricted, rural, mountainous and/or urban environments.

M-ATVs will be used for mounted patrols, reconnaissance, security, convoy protection, communications, command and control and combat service support. To that end, it will be qualified for fit out with a variety of equipment, from LRAS3 surveillance and targeting systems, to accompanying ROVER IV systems for working with UAV video feeds and TacAir support, to TOW ITAS anti-armor missiles, to CREW frequency jammers as land-mine protection, to Boomerang or Doubleshot anti-sniper systems, to CROWS II remote weapons systems, as required.

M-ATV Contenders

BAE GTS M-ATV
(click to view full)

A number of firms competed. Dave Hansen of JPO MRAP says that the initial competition involved about 10 candidates, which was narrowed down during source selection. Some known candidates include:

BAE’s Global Tactical Systems division submitted a model that is based on their Caiman Light MRAP, which in turn is based on the Army’s standard FMTV medium trucks. GTS M-ATV includes a number of changes, most notably a smaller crew compartment and a lengthened “nose” to provide better balance.

BAE U.S. Combat Systems’ M-ATV looked somewhat like its Valanx JLTV entry, but has greater protection levels, with a smaller and more protected crew capsule that was purpose-built to M-ATV requirements. The Arvin-Meritor suspension, the drive train, and the power train are shared with their Valanx, as is the 6 liter V8 engine. The firm has continued Valanx development, and submitted it for the JLTV competition.

Cheetah
(click to view full)

Force Protection teamed with General Dynamics to submit their Cheetah vehicle, which had been in development since 2005. The Cheetah has been evaluated by the US Marines, and had a curb weight of just 14,000 pounds when introduced. Subsequent variants have reportedly passed sponsored Army testing to MRAP I survivability levels, and has undergone initial mobility and durability testing at the Nevada Automotive Test Center. The Cheetah was a new addition for Force Dynamics, which had previously been confined to producing the Cougar vehicles that did so much to spark the MRAP program.

Force Dynamics, LLC added Raytheon to their team, in order to provide a comprehensive command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance system (C4ISR) plug-and-play ready architecture for the M-ATV Cheetah, using the C4ISR Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF). It would allow plug-and-play integration of a wide range of Army electronics, while also improving the vehicles’ monitoring capabilities. Cheetah failed to win the M-ATV spot, and was discontinued shortly thereafter. In 2011, Force Protection was bought by General Dynamics Land Systems.

Husky TSV at DVD 2009
(click to view full)

General Dynamics Land Systems attempted to field a variant of the RG-31. This vehicle, offered in partnership with BAE and the Canadian government, had been ordered by American units before the MRAP program began, received additional MRAP orders, and reportedly earned good reviews for its Afghan performance. GDLS initial 2 M-ATV prototypes were not accepted for testing, however leaving General Dynamics with its Force Dynamics partnership as its only M-ATV option. It eventually bought Force Protection in 2011.

Navistar led the original MRAP competition, and submitted an M-ATV design based on the MXT/Husky design that won one of Britain’s OUVS orders for future Tactical Support Vehicles. Their derived M-ATV prototype used a specially-designed, light-weight armor. That advantage is compounded by a smaller base that allows them to weigh significantly less than its MaxxPro Dash MRAP, while using the same MaxxForce D 6.0 liter V8 engine.

Navistar would be able to support its M-ATV units in theater through its existing dealer and parts and support network, which includes locations in Afghanistan. They didn’t win the M-ATV competition, but they have received orders for more of their MaxxPro Dash vehicles since M-ATV began.

MTVR + PS armor
(click to view full)

Oshkosh Defense won, but they had far less success to build on. In the MRAP competition, its PVI partnership entry for MRAP Category I failed testing, while its Bushmaster partnership with Thales for MRAP Category II received no orders, despite a successful record of front line service with Australian and Dutch forces. Its JLTV entry with Northrop Grumman was not among the initial round’s 3 picks, even as BAE participated in 2 of the winning entries, General Dynamics in one, and Navistar in one. A GAO protest failed to change that outcome, despite an attractive price for their entry. It had been a surprising series of setbacks for the firm that produces and supports the US Army’s FHTV heavy truck fleet, and the US Marines’ MTVR medium and LVSR heavy trucks.

Northrop Grumman was not a partner for M-ATV, but Oshkosh did leverage its long-standing relationship with Plasan Sasa of Israel to develop an armoring approach that could meet full MRAP protection levels. Plasan Sasa had up-armored Oshkosh’s MTVR trucks for the Marines, and was also Navistar’s armoring partner for the successful MaxxPro MRAP family.

Oshkosh’s M-ATV and Variants

M-ATV Ambulance
(click to view full)

At present, the winning entry is known only as the “Oshkosh M-ATV”. It has an empty “curb weight” of 25,000 pounds, and a Gross Vehicle Weight of 32,500 pounds, including the M-ATV objective maximum of 4,000 pounds of payload. A 2011 JROC decision allowed the curb weight to rise to 32,000 pounds, in order to handle improved underbody protection and other armor.

Oshkosh’s design bore many visual similarities to their JLTV TD Phase entry, but without the high-end systems like a hybrid drive, which would have required further development. The core of the vehicle is the US Marines’ MTVR medium truck chassis, and its TAK-4 suspension. TAK-4 is being used to refit Cougar MRAPs, and already exceeds M-ATV’s off road specifications by offering a 70% off road mobility profile (M-ATV specs: 50%), with more than 16 inches of independent wheel travel. An Oshkosh representative told DID that “generally speaking [TAK-4] will increase the speed of the vehicle by 1.5 – 2.5 times over the speed of the same vehicle with a straight axle suspension, without sacrificing ride quality.” The vehicle’s C7 engine is also broadly common to other vehicles, and was used in more than 18,000 vehicles fielded in Iraq and Afghanistan at the time of the award.

M-ATV’s Super Multi-Hit Armor Technology (SMART) armor is used in theater by NATO, and has since been augmented by “Underbody Improvement Kits” to improve mine protection.

Oshkosh has also created 3 variant M-ATV designs, apart from its base platform.

The M-ATV utility variant adds a flatbed to the basic M-ATV, and is suitable for light cargo duties in dangerous areas that need a lot of off-road travel.

The M-ATV tactical ambulance variant was unveiled in February 2010. It maintains the M-ATV’s TAK-4 independent suspension systems, 16″ of independent wheel travel with a 2-channel central tire-inflation system with 4 terrain settings. It uses a 370hp engine, with an Allison 3500 SP transmission, and seats 3 crew members plus 2 litters or 4 ambulatory patients. Feedback from the military led to a side-by-side litter layout.

The SOF M-ATV variant is designed for special forces. It features a modified cargo deck, intended to accept swap-ins of specialized equipment, with the rear storage accessible through an armored cargo access hatch in the passenger capsule. Reconnaissance equipment is likely to be a least one such specialized package. It will also have a larger front windscreens for better visibility. DOT&E testing has criticized its rear visibility, acceleration, and restricted internal space, and declared it “not operationally suitable” beyond standard transport and area reconnaissance missions. Fixes can be expected for the fleet of 421.

L-ATV
(click to view full)

Beyond M-ATV, JLTV beckons.

By winning the M-ATV competition, Oshkosh has secured 3 valuable prizes. One is significant representation in the USA’s MRAP-type buys, with its attendant near-term cash flow. The second prize is a success story in the tactical vehicle category, something Oshkosh has not been known for in the past. The 3rd prize stems from the other 2, and involves the JLTV competition that will follow M-ATV to replace a sizeable portion of the USA’s Hummer fleet. Since JLTV is designed as an open competition at each stage, the Oshkosh/Northrop Grumman team’s loss in round 1 just forces Oshkosh to spend its own development dollars if it wants to remain in the race. By securing the M-ATV tactical vehicle design win and attendant production funding, those improvements and investments became much easier to make.

That’s exactly what happened, as Oshkosh leveraged its win into a smaller L-ATV design that it submitted for JLTV’s Engineering & Manufacturing Development Phase.

Contracts and Key Events

M-ATV on the right,
HMMWV at left
(click to view full)

Under the M-ATV program, each competitor submitted 2 vehicles for initial testing, and some received a 2nd order for 3 more test vehicles. That was followed by a sole source contract, which could escalate to 10,000 vehicles. So far, US contracts for vehicle production alone have involved $4.47 billion for 8,800 vehicles.

Unless otherwise noted, Oshkosh Corp. in Oshkosh, WI is the contractor, taking orders from the U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Command Contracting Command in Warren, MI.

SOF M-ATV
(click to view full)

Feb 24/15: UAE. Oshkosh Defense announced an ambulance version of its M-ATV.

Sept 26/14: UAE. The US DSCA announces the United Arab Emirates’ official export request for the refurbishment and modification of 4,569 used Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles:

• 729 Navistar MaxxPro Base
  
• 283 MaxxPro MRAP Expedient Armor Program (MEAP) without armor
  
• 264 MaxxPro Base/MEAP capsules without armor
  
• 29 MaxxPro Long Wheel Base (LWB)
  
• 1,085 MaxxPro LWB chassis
  
• 970 MaxxPro Plus
  
• 15 MaxxPro MRVs (MRAP Recovery Vehicles)
  
• 1,150 BAE Caiman Multi-Terrain Vehicles “without armor,” which are based on the FMTV truck chassis. Note that the V-hull is not “armor,” it’s an intrinsic part of the vehicle.
  
• 44 Oshkosh M-ATVs; they would be added to the UAE’s existing orders for 800 (q.v. July 19/12).
  
• Plus Underbody Improvement Kits, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, Field Service Representatives’ support, and other US Government and contractor support.

They’re being sold as Excess Defense Articles (EDA) from US Army stock, pursuant to section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended. Notification for the sale from stock of the MRAP vehicles referenced above has been provided separately, pursuant to the requirements of section 7016 of the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and section 516 of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. The estimated cost is up to $2.5 billion, which isn’t all that far from the cost of buying new.

To date, the UAE’s biggest patrol vehicle fleets have been its own Nimr design (1,700 total), which has also been exported within the region. Its Oshkosh M-ATV fleet (750) was second. This request would completely change the force’s configuration by adding 3,375 MaxxPros and 1,150 Caimans, giving the UAE a patrol vehicle fleet that is overwhelmingly protected against mines as well as weapons of urban unrest.

The principal contractors will be Navistar Defense in Lisle, IL (MaxxPro); BAE Systems in Sealy, TX (Caiman); and Oshkosh Defense in Oshkosh, WI (M-ATV). If the sales are concluded, implementation will require multiple trips to the UAE involving “many” US Government and contractor representatives for 3+ years to provide program support and training. Sources: US DSCA #14-26, “UAE – Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles”.

DSCA request: UAE (44 more M-ATVs of 4,569 MRAP vehicles)

Jan 7/13: Support. A $10.8 million contract for M-ATV field service representatives in Afghanistan, which runs until April 30/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W56HZV-12-C-0281).

Dec 20/12: SOCOM. A $7.8 million firm-fixed-price contract buys Underbody Improvement Kits for M-ATV Special Operations Vehicles. Work will be performed in Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Dec 17/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W56HZV-12-C-0281).

M-ATV Utility
(click to view full)

July 19/12: UAE. Oshkosh announces that its Defense segment has been awarded a contract from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for 750 M-ATVs. The order’s value wasn’t revealed until February 2013, when it was reported as AED 1.4 billion (about $381 million).

This is the country’s 2nd buy, building on an initial June 16/11 order for 50 vehicles. Deliveries are expected to begin between January – August 2013. Oshkosh | Gulfnews.

750 for UAE

May 29/12: Support. A $7 million firm-fixed-price contract to install M-ATV underbody improvement kits for the Special Operations variant. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-12-C-0281).

April 25/12: Support. A $16.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for M-ATV support services in Afghanistan, Japan, Germany, and Oshkosh, WI, until Dec 31/12. Five bids were solicited, with 5 bids received for the original solicitation by U.S. Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

April 9/12: Support. A $25.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, for M-ATV support services. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/12. Five bids were solicited, with 5 bids received by U.S. Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Feb 28/12: Upgrades. A $30.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for SOF M-ATV underbody improvement kits. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Aug 15/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by U.S. Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Feb 22/12: Industrial. Oshkosh Defense announces the 3,900th Oshkosh MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) Underbody Improvement Kit (UIK) installed in theater, in less than 7 months.

The MRAP JPO established 10 UIK installation sites in Afghanistan, while Oshkosh designed the lean process flow and specified, procured, packaged and delivered the tooling required to support the installations. So far, 3,500 installed kits were achieved using the MRAP JPO’s universal workforce and Oshkosh technicians, and were applied in-theater without the need for welding or major fabrication. Another 400 M-ATV UIKs have been installed by U.S. military technicians in Afghanistan, and Oshkosh delivered more than 500 new M-ATVs with factory-installed UIKs, making a grand total of 4,400 equipped vehicles.

Beyond the M-ATV, The U.S. Army has ordered more than 400 UIKs, also known as C-Kit armor, for the Oshkosh Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) A4, and Oshkosh is developing a UIK for the Army’s FMTV medium trucks as well. Oshkosh Defense.

Jan 5/12: Support. A $24.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for M-ATV related services. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Jan 9/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Dec 23/11: Q-Net. A $10.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 465 M-ATV Rocket Propelled Grenade Net Delta kits. Similar orders have been placed to BAE, but the kits are actually QinetiQ’s Q-Net, ordered through the vehicle’s prime contractors.

Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of April 29/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Nov 10/11: Mufflers. A $9.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 8,011 M-ATV muffler kits. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of April 29/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Oct 3/11: JLTV. The latest Army-Marine Corps JLTV solicitation favors existing designs over new, and may lead to the program’s demise in favor of recapitalized and modified HMMWVs.

An opportunity for Oshkosh? The JLTV’s $250,000 target cost means the firm would have to drive down costs very sharply, compared to the M-ATV’s standard purchase cost near $500,000. The question is whether their new L-ATV might give them another option, and if so, whether Oshkosh wants to offer it.

By reducing expected JLTV production to just 20,000 vehicles over 8 years (3 LRIP, 5 full-rate), it becomes more difficult for firms to recover costs for new designs. On the other hand, demands to hand over technical data rights, and a plan to re-compete the production contract for the winning vehicle after several years, make it unattractive for firms to place a valuable existing design at risk. US Army TACOM Page | FBO.gov | Lexington Institute.

M-ATV
(click to view full)

Sept 13/11: Oshkosh unveils its smaller “L-ATV” protected patrol vehicle, which it describes as fully compliant with all JLTV program specifications. The firm was eliminated from the technical demonstrator contract phase, but the next phase will be re-opened to outside bidders. Oshkosh did the expected thing, and leveraged its M-ATV win to fund development of a JLTV variant.

The L-ATV will feature the improved TAK-4i independent suspension, which “uses a proprietary technology to deliver 20 inches of independent wheel travel – 25 percent more wheel travel than any vehicle in the U.S. military’s fleets.” It can also raise or lower the vehicle, ensuring transportability in ships and aircraft, while still offering enough height for all-terrain mobility and mine blast protection.

L-ATV derivative

Aug 2/11: Support. Oshkosh in Oshkosh, WI receives a $34.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for “services in support of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected All-Terrain Vehicle.” Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/11. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by the U.S. Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Announced contract totals for M-ATV ancillary items and services currently total just under $2 billion, though a large percentage of that involves protective bolt-on equipment.

July 20/11: Support. A $20.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 75 technicians, who will work for a year to will work to install underbody improvement kits on M-ATVs in Oshkosh, WI. The contract is expected to run to Dec 31/11. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

June 29/11: +400. A $218.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for 400 M-ATVs with the underbody improvement kits pre-installed. That’s about $546,500 per vehicle, plus communication systems, weapons, etc. which are extra.

Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of June 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. by U.S. Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

June 20/11: Upgrades. A $226.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for 5,131 M-ATV underbody improvement kits. So far, orders cover 8,011 of those kits. The M-ATV is very well regarded by troops in theater, but the fleet-wide scale of these refits suggests a weakness which the US Army is rushing to close.

Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of June 30/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56HZH-09-D-0111).

June 2/11: Sub-contractors. Skydex Technologies, Inc. in Centennial, CO announces “…multiple contracts valued at over a million dollars with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to provide its blast mitigating Convoy Deck product for the M-ATV vehicle. The purchase orders will allow DLA to have prepositioned replacement decking for 1,000 vehicles in service in Afghanistan.”

Think of 2 sheets of bubble wrap, facing each other, using advanced plastics, and varying layout, spacing, or materials to achieve the shock cushioning effect required. That’s the concept behind their patented SKYDEX, which has been shown to significantly reduce blast-related injuries by absorbing much of the initial shock that the blast wave transmits through the floor. SKYDEX has been installed on RG-31, Cougar, and M-ATV MRAPs, and on Stryker Double-V-Hull APCs.

May 25/11: +177. A $97.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for 177 M-ATVs, with underbody improvement kits pre-installed. The total contract could actually rise to $111.4 million, and it was listed as Delivery Order #10 in the May 24/11 version of this announcement.

Work will be performed in McConnelsburg, PA; Milwaukee, WI; and Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Jan 31/11. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by U.S. Army TACOM LCMC in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

May 25/11: Support. A $19.8 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for special tooling and subject matter experts. They’ll perform installation, and provide installation training, associated with M-ATV underbody improvement kits. The Pentagon has ordered thousands of them kits, but ordering them and installing them are 2 different things.

Work will be performed in Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. U.S. Army TACOM LCMC in Warren, MI solicited 5 bids, with five bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

April 4/11: Support. A $31.4 million firm-fixed-price indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity contract for 94 field services representatives for 12 months, in support of the M-ATV. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. Five bids were solicited with five bids received. The U.S. Army TACOM LCMC, Warren, MI solicited 5 bids for the original contract, with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Feb 21/11: MMV variant. Oshkosh Defense unveils an M-ATV 2.5 utility cargo variant called the Multi-Mission Vehicle, equipped with storage for Raytheon’s BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile systems.

Feb 9/11: Upgrades. A $101.9 million firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for 2,080 M-ATV underbody improvement kits – about $36,400 per kit. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, Wis., with an estimated completion date of May 3/12. One bid were solicited with one bid received (W56HZV-09-D-0111, corrected April 6/11 ).

Jan 31/11: Industrial. Oshkosh Defense announces that they’re opening a larger California Regional Logistics Center Temecula facility is scheduled to open in February 2011, and will provide vehicle operator and maintenance training to Marines and Navy Seabees. The old facility was mostly used for Navy and USMC training on the MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV), Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) medium truck, and Logistics Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR) heavy truck.

Jan 19/11: Support. A $22.6 million firm-fixed-price indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for 972 man-months of M-ATV support. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. Five bids were solicited with 5 bids received for the original contract (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Dec 29/10: Upgrades. An $80 million firm-fixed-price indefinite delivery/indefinite quality contract for 800 M-ATV underbody improvement kits. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of April 29/12. Five bids were solicited with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0001).

Dec 13/10: Support. A $30 million firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for 133 Special Operations Command (SOCOM) spares kits for M-ATVs, including 41 authorized stockage list kits; 33 prescribed load list kits; 42 battle damage and repair kits; and 17 deprocessing spares kits. The contract will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, and will run until May 31/12, but deliveries of the spare parts are scheduled to run from March – June 2011. (W56HZV-09-D-0111). See also Oshkosh release.

Dec 3/10: +46 SOCOM. A $28 million firm-fixed-price contract for 46 M-ATV Special Operations Command (SOCOM) variants with their SOCOM-specific enhancements. See also June 1/10 entry.

Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12, but vehicle deliveries are scheduled to take place in May 2011. Five bids were solicited with 5 bids received for the original competition (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Promo clip
click to play video

Sept 9/10: Turret fix. BAE Systems Survivability Systems, LLC in Fairfield, OH receives an $11.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,113 improved turret drive system/internal drive gears for the M-ATV. BAE makes a lot of land vehicle turrets, but the weight of their protection makes them hard to turn manually, especially if the vehicle is going uphill. A mechanical assist goes a long way in those circumstances.

Estimated completion date is Dec 27/11, with work to be performed at Fairfield, OH. One bid was solicited and one bid was received (W56HZV-10-C-0365).

Aug 31/10: Support. A maximum $14.2 million firm-fixed-price, sole-source contract for M-ATV sustainment spares to the US Army. There was originally one proposal solicited with one response and the contract will run to June 24/11. The Defense Logistics Agency Land in Warren, MI (SPRDL1-10-C-0173).

Aug 24/10: CRS Report. The US congressional Research Service releases the latest version [PDF] of its report “Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress. Excerpts:

“As of June 28, 2010, more than 8,500 MRAPs had reportedly been shipped to Afghanistan, with over 3,500 of those being the newer M-ATVs. The Army has recently said that it will begin development of yet another MRAP version – the “Ultra-Lite MRAP” – which raises questions about possible vehicle redundancies. The Marines, although voicing support for the M-ATV program, have retrofitted a number of MRAPs with new suspension systems and reportedly are satisfied with the results. This apparent success calls into question not only if the Marines need all of the M-ATVs allocated to them by DOD but also if the Marines’ retrofitted suspension system might be a more cost-effective alternative for the other services… Among potential issues for congressional consideration are the status of almost 5,000 MRAPS in Afghanistan that are reportedly not being used because of their size and weight.”

In terms of overall budgets:

“Through FY2010, Congress appropriated $34.95 billion for all versions of the MRAP. In March 2010, DOD reprogrammed an additional $3.9 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operations fund to MRAP procurement. Congress approved an additional $1.2 billion for MRAP procurement, included in the FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-212). The full FY2011 DOD budget request of $3.4 billion for the MRAP Vehicle Fund has been authorized by the House (H.R. 5136).”

Aug 17/10: DoD Buzz reports that the US Army’s latest Tactical Vehicle Strategy looks like bad news for the JLTV, with small buys spaced over time to equip deployed units. Bottom line?

“Here’s the basic plan. Overall, the Army will shrink its fleet of HUMVEEs, MRAPs and medium trucks to 244,000 by 2025 from its current 260,000. How? The service will rid itself of 4,000 of the hardest to maintain and most beat up MRAPS by 2025. It will scrap the 28,000-strong M35 fleet and replace it with new FMTVs for a fleet total of 76,000. That will mean a total reduction of 4,000 trucks. The HUMVEE fleet will shrink the most, going from 101,000 to 35,000 by 2025. But there appears to be one big hole in the Army plan. It does not project how many Joint Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles it will be. The strategy’s answer: TBD.”

The JLTV competes for a niche similar enough to the M-ATV’s that its loss could be the M-ATV’s gain. See the full Army Tactical Vehicle Strategy [PDF].

Aug 13/10: EFP kits. A $40.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 292 explosively formed penetrator M-ATV protection kits. EFP land mines use a shaped charge to instantly forge a metal penetrator jet that is fired into the side or bottom of a passing vehicle.

Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. US Army TACOM, AMSCC-TAC-ADCA in Warren, MI solicited 5 bids, with 5 bids received in the original program (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Aug 13/10: Support. An $18 million firm-fixed-price contract for 59 field service representatives for 708 months, to be located in Afghanistan and locations in the contiguous U.S. to support the M-ATV. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. US Army TACOM, AMSCC-TAC-ADCA in Warren, MI solicited 5 bids, with 5 bids received in the original program (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

August 1/10: Combat report. Voice of America reports that the troops like the M-ATV a lot, but adds that some of its design features create maintenance issues:

“Staff Sergeant Richard Green, an 82nd Airborne Division mechanic, found this out first-hand when he accidentally damaged his unit’s first M-ATV. “There’s a nut on the inside of the oil pan. The bolt came out. But the nut was not welded corectly to the oil pan, so the nut fell off. The bolt comes out and there was no way to hold the oil in the pan. So we had to take the engine pack out and replace it,” he said… The Pentagon transports them by air in order to meet the high demand, adding a 10-percent premium to the vehicle’s cost… On a 747 freighter, there are just centimeters of clearance between the M-ATVs and the plane’s sides. In combat, the frontline soldiers don’t care about the M-ATV’s logistical burden. They only care that it’s safer and better-protected than other vehicles.”

July 2/10: C4ISR/Power kits. An $8.75 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,750 kits (Command, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance suite and battery upgrade/silent watch) for Operation Enduring Freedom upgrades on the M-ATV. The silent watch kits allow M-ATV crews to run the vehicle’s advanced sensors and other electronics, without having to run the engine all the time in order to handle the current. That makes less noise, which is a big tactical improvement. It also saves fuel, in an environment where it costs $7 in fuel just to haul $1 worth of fuel to the front lines.

Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, Wis., with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. TACOM solicited 5 bids, with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111). See also Feb 19/10 entry.

June 1/10: Check-6. A trio of contracts worth about $46.6 million, covering the purchase and installation of 3,137 Check-6 rear view sensor systems to the M-ATV. Note that Check-6 is a BAE Systems product. In all cases, the estimated completion date is May 31/12. Five bids were solicited for the original contract, with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

A $20.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,400 systems. Work will performed in Oshkosh, WI.

A $15.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,039 systems. Work will performed in Oshkosh, WI.

A $10.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for 698 systems. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI (50%), and McConnellsburg, PA (50%).

May 20/10: RPG kits. A $72.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,460 M-ATV protection kits, designed to defend against the basic rocket propelled grenade anti-tank weapons. It also includes spares: 45 M-ATV prescribed loads lists and 8 deprocessing spares sets. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. Five bids were solicited for the original contract, with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

May 20/10: EFP kits. A $68.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 509 explosively formed penetrator protection kits, and 12 months of an M-ATV field service representative in the continental U.S. EFPs are specially-shaped mines that are best thought of as an instant, one-shot cannon attack. The shaped charge creates a metal dart when it explodes, and fires it into the side or bottom of a vehicle.

Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. Five bids were solicited with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

May 19/10: RPG kits. $93.2 million in firm-fixed-price contract orders for another 2,401 M-ATV protection kits, designed to defend against the basic rocket propelled grenade anti-tank weapons that are common in Afghanistan.

The day’s announcements divide the purchase into a $21.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for another 554 kits, and $71.7 million for another 1,847 kits. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. TACOM, CCTA-ADCA in Warren, MI solicited 5 bids, with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

April 27/10: Support. Oshkosh Defense announces a pair of awards for more than $19 million from the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC), to provide in-theater support for MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles (M-ATV) in Afghanistan. See the $9.3 million April 9/10 award for 29 Field Service Representatives; this announcement implies a similar 2nd award, as it describes “an additional 60 Oshkosh field service representatives (FSR) that will provide support in Afghanistan through May 2011.” See also Oshkosh Defense release.

April 20/10: CROWDS prep. An $11.1 million “firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of 1,037 Remote Weapon System / Crew Remote Operated Weapons System final production configuration for the Mine Resistant Ambush All Terrain Vehicle.”

What this actually means is that they’re paying Oshkosh Defense to set their M-ATV patrol vehicles up so that everything is in place to accept a CROWS remotely-operated gun system: power, electronic interlinks, structural support, etc. The CROWS systems themselves are provided independently, as Government-Furnished Equipment. US Army TACOM in Warren, MI says that 5 bids were solicited, with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111). See also Oshkosh Defense release.

April 14/10: RPG kits. A $68.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,770 rocket propelled grenade protection kits. Oshkosh will install these kits on the production lines, and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) will install the kits on previously delivered vehicles. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. Five bids were solicited with 5 bids received by US Army TACOM, CCTA-ADCA in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111). See also Oshkosh Defense release.

April 9/10: Support. A $9.3 million firm-fixed-price contract covers 29 field service representatives and 348 person-months of M-ATV services to support Afghan operations. Work will be complete in May 31/12. Five bids were solicited with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Check 6
(click to view full)

March 26/10: RPG kits. A $41.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,080 rocket propelled grenade protection kits. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. Five bids were solicited with 5 bids received by US Army TACOM, AMSCC-ASCA in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

March 26/10: Check 6. BAE Systems announces a $45 million multi-year contract to provide Oshkosh with Check-6 rear-view camera lights to equip 2,399 M-ATVs. See Dec 29/09 entry for the original contract.

March 22/10: Canada. Oshkosh Defense and General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada announce that they’ll offer Oshkosh’s blast-resistant M-ATV for Canada’s 500-600 vehicle TAPV competition, and Oshkosh’s Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) trucks in Canada’s Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS-SMP) truck program. Both vehicle types use Oshkosh’s proprietary TAK-4 independent suspension system, for off-road mobility. This consortium is considered to be a leading contender, in part because of GDLS’ existing armored vehicle plant in London, ON.

Oshkosh will serve as the prime contractor for both programs. General Dynamics Land Systems Canada will provide systems integration and testing support for the vehicles, as well as the complete spectrum of in-country sustainment support. Oshkosh uses Valley Associates to provide marketing and business development in Canada, which is why the vehicles display in the Valley Associates booth during CANSEC 2010 in June. Oshkosh | CANSEC announcement | Defence Watch.

UPDATE: Oshkosh lost to a heavier variant of Textron’s M1117.

March 10/10: CROWS prep. Oshkosh Corp. in Oshkosh, WI receives a $10.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,401 M-ATV RWS kits that will let the vehicles support CROWS remote weapon systems. CROWS systems pack advanced sensors and machine guns, and can be controlled from inside the vehicle using a joystick and screen.

Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. TACOM, CCTA-ADCA in Warren, MI solicited 5 bids, with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111). See also Oshkosh Defense release.

March 5/10: Support. Oshkosh Defense announces 3 awards valued at more than $35 million in total for M-ATV upgrades and in-theater support.

They include 2 awards totaling more than 6,400 M-ATV Self Protection Adaptive Roller Kits (SPARKS) upgraded interface brackets. The brackets allow soldiers to attach advance mine rollers to the vehicles. The US government has requested changes to SPARKS, and the new brackets will allow the upgraded systems to be fitted on M-ATVs. Upgrade kits will be shipped to the Defense Distribution Depot Red River in Texarkana, TX, in June 2010. The government will then ship the brackets to receiving units in theater for installation.

Those installations will be supported by an expanded roster of field service representatives (FSR) in-theater. A 3rd contract will place 18 additional Oshkosh in Afghanistan, and 6 in Iraq, at bases that require them. U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC) manages these contracts.

Feb 24/10: Oshkosh unveils 2 new M-ATV variants at the AUSA 2010 convention: an ambulance variant, and a utility variant designed to haul cargo. Oshkosh release

Feb 23/10: +1,460. A $640 million contract for 1,460 M-ATVs. Oshkosh says it has received awards valued at more than $4.74 bilion for 8,079 M-ATVs, as well as spare parts kits and aftermarket in-theater support.

Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI with an estimated completion date of May 2012. Five bids were solicited with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Israel’s Plasan secured a $170 million subcontract from Oshkosh to supply vehicle protection kits for the 1,460 M-ATVs, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports. The subcontract brings to 5,000 the number of vehicles Plasan has armored for the Americans since June 2009, for total revenues of $586 million. All told, Plasan has sold $940 million worth of armor kits to the U.S. military, for 8,079 vehicles. Oshkosh release | Ha’aretz report.

Feb 19/10: C4ISR/Power Retrofits. A $52.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for 1,451 retrofit kits for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance suite and battery upgrade/silent watch. Oshkosh says the total potential order is more than 2,090 upgrade kits, which will include communications hardware, jammer systems, tracking technology, driver vision enhancement for safer operation at night, and the aforementioned “silent watch” capability.

The latter item points to an ongoing issue with advanced long range day/night sensors in overwatch roles, and modern communications gear. They often consume so much power that engines have to be kept running, just to power all of the electronics. That’s fuel-expensive, in a theater where it takes $7 in fuel to deliver $1 worth to the front lines. It also tends to remove tactical surprise in key situations, especially in already-difficult urban terrain.

Work is to be performed in Ishkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. Five bids were solicted with 5 bids received by TACOM in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111). Oshkosh release.

Feb 5/10: EFP kits. A $84.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for the partial exercise of the option for 627 M-ATV explosively formed penetrator (EFP) kits. The Oshkosh-supplied kits will include EFP armor to protect against those shaped-charge land mines, base door armor, and a door-assist mechanism.

Delivery of the kits is expected to begin in April 2010, and be complete by the end of August 2010. The add-on armor kits will include EFP armor, base door armor and a door-assist mechanism.

Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. 5 bids were solicited with 5 bids received (W56HZV-09-D-0111). Oshkosh Defense release

Jan 25/10: Support. Oshkosh announces 2 delivery orders valued at $325.7 million from the U.S. Army TACOM LCMC to supply spare parts and repair kits for the MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV). Deliveries are expected to begin in August 2010, and to be complete by the end of January 2011. DefenseLINK breaks down the orders as:

A $258.2 million firm-fixed-price contract to exercise the option for 90 lots of authorized stockage list kits, 90 lots of prescribed load list kits, 23 each deprocessing spare kits, and 132 lots battle damage repair kits for the M-ATV. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI (50%) and McConnellsburg, PA, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. Five bids were solicited with 5 bids received by TACOM, CCTA-ADC-A in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

A $67.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for a partial exercise of an option: 2 lots of authorized stockage list kits, 2 lots of prescribed load list kits, and 65 lots of battle damage repair kits for the M-ATV. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI (50%) and McConnellsburg, PA, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. Five bids were solicited with 5 bids received by TACOM, CCTA-ADC-A in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

To date, Oshkosh says it has received awards valued at more than $3.9 billion to deliver 6,619 M-ATVs, as well as spare kits and aftermarket in-theater support.

Jan 21/10: Support. Oshkosh announces 4 awards from the US Defense Logistics Agency, valued at $89 million, for its M-ATVs and FHTV heavy trucks.

Oshkosh will supply M-ATV spare parts, including engines, transmissions, transfer cases and alternators. Work under the orders is expected to be completed by October 2010. Oshkosh is providing the M-ATV’s spare parts to the DLA to be used as in-the-field replacements after the original vehicle parts have been consumed. These parts will ship without delay, to help maintain readiness rates in theater. Discussions with Oshkosh representatives indicate that the M-ATV orders are worth about $50 million.

Jan 6/10: Radios. Harris Corp.’s RF Communications Division in Rochester, NY received orders totaling $119 million to supply Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)-approved Falcon III AN/PRC-152-C handheld radios with the RF-5980-SA001 vehicle amplifier adapters for the Mine Resistent Ambush Protected (MRAP) all-terrain vehicle (M-ATV).

Separate contracts for items like these help illustrate what is meant by the term “government furnished equipment.” The AN/PRC-152 [PDF] provides M-ATV users with multiband Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) and Demand Assigned Multiple Access (DAMA) satellite communications interoperability in the 30-512 MHz frequency bands. It is just one aspect of the communication suite that equips each M-ATV.

Jan 6/10: Delivery options. At a Pentagon press conference, Press Secretary Geoff Morrell provides an update regarding the M-ATV program. He says that higher-capacity sealift options aren’t being considered for getting M-ATVs that currently sit in the USA into Afghanistan (via Karachi or Gwadar, Pakistan, then overland), even though the drawdown from Iraq and surge to Afghanistan are straining available transport capacity:

“We are at now, as of January the 5th – and I want to double-check these – we were at 239 [M-ATVs] delivered, 164 fielded, 12 awaiting transport. And then there are obviously many more vehicles than that that have been produced. And as they vie for space for airlift and absorption in Afghanistan, they are being used, many of them, for training purposes domestically.

But we are now, as we are in the midst of this surge, going to be dealing with this herculean effort of trying to get not just 30,000 additional forces over to Afghanistan, but getting all their equipment as well. So this is going to be a real — a real test of our TRANSCOM [Transportation Command] folks, as well as CENTCOM. And they have a priority list based, you know, in terms of space available, what has the top priority to flow in at what time.

I can tell you this. It’s our goal that come this spring, we’ll be sending over about 500 a month.

Q. So when would sealift begin? Is it this —

MR. MORRELL: I couldn’t – no, I don’t think we would do – I don’t think we’re at the point where we’d do sealift, but we can check on that for you.”

Afghan winter delivery
(click to view full)

Dec 29/09: Check-6 install. Oshkosh Corp. in Oshkosh, WI receives a $33.9 million firm-fixed-price contract. This contract is for a change order modification for 2,277 Check-6 rear view sensor systems, to be fitted to M-ATV vehicles (q.v. March 26/10, Dec 29/09 entries). BAE’s Check-6 tail-light duplicates a feature found in some civilian cars, which uses a rear camera to show the rear of the vehicle and objects behind it on a screen. Unlike civilian camera-screen combinations, however, Check-6 tail lights are derived from BAE Systems’ expertise with weapon sights. They work in infrared as well as visible light, making them useful for noticing people as well as obstacles, and improving awareness in darkness, sandstorms, and other difficult situations. They install as a complete tail-light assembly, and require no drilling or welding.

Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI (50%), and McConnellsburg, PA (50%), with an estimated contract completion date of May 31/12. Work is actually expected to begin in March 2010, and be complete in May 2010. Five bids were solicited, with 5 bids received by TACOM, AMSCC-TAC-ADCA in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111). See also Oct 2/09 entry, plus Oshkosh release | “Check 6! Now a Possibility for Vehicles, Too.”

Dec 28/09: Sub-contractors. Ceradyne in Costa Mesa, CA announces that it received a multi-million dollar blanket purchase order from Plasan Sasa Ltd. in Israel for the production of armor components for the MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV). Ceradyne plans to produce these parts in its expanded armor assembly plant in Irvine, CA for delivery to prime contractor Oshkosh to assemble the components and deliver the M-ATV to the government.

All manufacturing procedures for these M-ATV components have been approved, and Ceradyne production commenced this month. It is anticipated that production and delivery will continue throughout 2010.

Dec 24/09: Support. Oshkosh receives a maximum $22.2 million total set-aside, sole-source, undefinitized delivery-order contract for M-ATV sustainment spare parts. The date of performance completion is Oct 2/10. The Defense Logistics Agency in Warren, MI manages the contract (W56HZV-09-D-0111-VD01).

Dec 24/09: EFP kits. Oshkosh Defense announces an order from the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command Life Cycle Management Command (TACOM LCMC) to supply “more than 170″ M-ATV explosively formed penetrator (EFP) armoring kits through April 2010, and 800 rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) kits through May 2010.

Uncharacteristically, Oshkosh’s release comes in advance of the Dec 29/09 Pentagon DefenseLINK announcement, which cites a $54.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for 800 RPG armoring kits and 172 EFP kits as “the partial exercise of an option.” It offers May 31/12 as the formal end of contract date. Five bids were solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army TACOM’s AMSCC-TAC-ADCA in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111). Oshkosh Defense is teamed with Plasan North America to provide the M-ATV’s armoring solutions.

The US military, and its contractors, will not discuss details regarding these kits. EFPs are a form of land mine that uses the explosion to form a slug from its copper lining, creating what is in effect an impromptu tank sabot shell that fires into the victim vehicle. Rocket Propelled Grenades like the ubiquitous RPG-7 are bazooka-like anti-tank rockets with a shaped charge warhead. The RPG threat are usually addressed by “cage armor” slats like BAE’s LROD, which are not 100% effective, or by Explosive Reactive Armor tile sets that are shaped to fit the vehicle. Less conventional approaches like Tarian cloth armoring are also beginning to emerge.

Dec 22/09: Industrial. Oshkosh announces that it has reached the production rate of 1,000 M-ATV vehicles per month, ahead of schedule. The milestone was reached on Dec 18/09, and Oshkosh reached the milestone by using production capacity at existing manufacturing facilities in Oshkosh, WI and McConnellsburg, PA. Production will continue at this rate of 1,000+ vehicles per month through May 2010, when all current orders would be filled.

Dec 10/09: +400. A $175.4 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract exercises an option on Delivery Order #0003, and buys another 400 M-ATV vehicles and associated basic items. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI (50%), and McConnellsburg, PA (50%), with a formal contract completion date of May 31/12. The original contract solicited 5 bids, and received 5 (W56HZV-09-D-0111). This is the option mentioned in the Nov 11/09 entry.

To date, Oshkosh has received 6 awards valued at about $3.33 billion; when a contract for 25 test vehicles is included, they will deliver a total of 6,644 M-ATVs. The company has ramped up production to achieve 1,000 vehicles per month in December 2009, and this new award will extend production into May 2010. See also Oshkosh release.

Nov 19/09: Training. The way Army vehicles must be driven, and where they must be driven, means that the ability to get out of a vehicle quickly matters almost as much as what the vehicle can do for while you’re in it. Oshkosh Defense announces received a $5.6 million firm-fixed-price contract from the U.S. Army for the procurement of 26 “egress trainer cabin modules” for the Oshkosh M-ATV, and initial spare parts for a stateside training and certification standard program.

The modules are simulators that can train soldiers to get out of an M-ATV vehicle, even if it is flipped or in otherwise abnormal situations. a shift in Army thinking has encouraged M-ATV training to take place stateside versus in theater. The M-ATV cabin modules will be manufactured at the company’s facilities in McConnellsburg, PA.

Nov 19/09: Industrial. Oshkosh meets the November M-ATV production requirement ahead of schedule, marking the 5th consecutive month. Oshkosh says that it will continue to increase production to meet December’s requirement of 1,000 vehicles, with output remaining at that high level through April 2010.

Nov 11/09: +1,000. Oshkosh announces an additional $438 million, 1,000 vehicle order from the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command Life Cycle Management Command (TACOM LCMC). This is the 5th award Oshkosh has received to supply M-ATVs, and brings total orders to 6,219 vehicles and more than $3.2 billion. An option for 400 more M-ATVs and Basic Items of Issue is also included in this delivery order, which would bring the production total to 6,619.

Nov 11th is the Veteran’s Day holiday, so the Pentagon doesn’t announce the firm-fixed-price contract until Nov 12/09. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. Five bids were solicited in the original contract, with 5 bids received by the U.S. Army TACOM Contracting Center AMSTA-TAC-ATBC in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Nov 11/09: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems announces a “multi-million dollar” sub-contract from Plasan North America to provide M-ATV armoring kit components. Work on the contract will begin this month at BAE Systems’ production facilities in Fairfield, OH. Tony Russell, president of BAE Systems’ Security & Survivability business, said:

“The partnership between BAE Systems and Plasan represents the first of what we believe will be many collaborative efforts between our two companies.”

Nov 10/09: Industrial. Oshkosh announces that it beat October 2009’s M-ATV delivery schedule of 385 vehicles, producing more than 435 vehicles during that month. This marks the 4th consecutive month Oshkosh has beaten the schedule, as it ramps up toward a planned production rate of 1,000 vehicles per month.

Oct 28/09: 2010 budget. President Obama signs the FY 2010 defense budget. That budget includes $6.656 billion in funding for MRAP vehicles, $1.2 billion above the Pentagon’s original request. Significant chunks of that funding will be devoted to M-ATV purchases. White House | House-
Senate Conference Report summary [PDF] & tables [PDF] | Pentagon AFPS article.

Oct 27/09: Support. Oshkosh announces 2 M-ATV contracts valued at more than $28 million. They include a $16 million contract from the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for spare parts, and a $12 million contract from rom the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command Life Cycle Management Command (TACOM LCMC) for field service representatives (FSR) to support the M-ATV program in-theater through September 2010.

Oshkosh expects to complete production of the current M-ATV contract for 5,219 vehicles in March 2010.

Kandahar: M-ATV arrives
(click to view full)

Oct 22/09: An initial 8 M-ATVs arrive in Kandahar by aerial transport. These vehicles will be used to train drivers and mechanics from units selected to receive M-ATVs.

Note that earlier Pentagon announcements indicated M-ATVs in theater at the end of September, whereas this release places the initial use date into late October and tags it as a training set. One possibility is that the initial shipments were Special Forces vehicles. Another is that this announcement refers only to one Afghan sector, and that eastern sectors may have received the vehicles first. Pentagon DVIDS.

Oct 12/09: Australia. Oshkosh announces that it will be submitting its M-ATV and Sandcat vehicles for Australia’s PMV-L component of Overlander. Their partners in these 2 proposals are Plasan SASA, Ltd., who supplies the armoring solutions for both vehicles and developed the Sandcat/ Caracal; and local Oshkosh division JLG Australia, who will assist in manufacturing the vehicles and handle through-life support.

Australia has also indicated that they will be continuing onto the next phase of the American JLTV competition, which does not presently include these Oshkosh vehicles. This is for the made-in-Asutralia option.

UPDATE: Oshkosh lost to Thales Australia’s Hawkei as the made-in-Australia contender.

Oct 9/09: +923. Oshkosh Corp. in Oshkosh, WI receives a $408.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for procurement of another 923 MRAP All Terrain Vehicles (M-ATVs) and aftermarket parts package that includes basic issue items. This brings total announced M-ATV orders to $2.76 billion for the full expected amount of 5,244 vehicles – a total that includes unannounced government orders for 25 test vehicles.

Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of May 31/12. The company plans to ramp production up to 1,000 vehicles per month in December 2009, and continue at that level through at least March 2010. Five bids were solicited for the original contract, with 5 bids received by TACOM, AMSCC-TAC-ADCA in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111). See also: Oshkosh release.

Oct 5/09: Sub-contractors. SCHOTT DiamondView Armor Products LLC exhibits its DiamondView transparent armor window technology at AUSA. The DiamondView windows were selected for Oshkosh’s M-ATVs, and use a transparent glass-ceramic combination. It is hoped that DiamondView windows will be able to reduce lifecycle costs normally associated with windows delaminating, discoloring or peeling. The firm has been a defense industry supplier for 40 years, and currently holds world records for producing the world’s thinnest piece of glass (0.025mm, for medical technology and electronics), and the world’s largest piece of glass (8m tall, for astronomy).

In order to fill the Oshkosh contract, SCHOTT DAP has ramped up manufacturing at both its Boothwyn, PA and Vincennes, IN production facilities. The Vincennes/ now County facility currently processes and finishes glass-ceramic cooktops and flat glass for the home appliance industry, but the firm will invest $7.2 million over the next few years to add the transparent armor line. The Indiana Economic Development Corporation offered SCHOTT North America up to $2.32 million in performance-based tax credits and up to $50,000 in training grants based on the company’s job creation plans, and the city of Vincennes will consider additional property tax abatement at the request of the Knox County Development Corporation. Hiring is underway, and the company expects to add more than 200 employees at peak production. SCHOTT DiamondView release | SCHOTT Vincennes release.

Oct 2/09: Check-6. Oshkosh announces a $33 million award from the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command Life Cycle Management Command (TACOM LCMC) to supply a rear mounted, infrared-enabled camera system on more than 2,200 MRAP All Terrain Vehicles (M-ATV).

The camera system has been deployed on other MRAPs. It integrates with existing vehicle video displays to provide a 40-degree vertical and 54-degree horizontal field of view. The system uses an infrared camera core in an LED-equipped tailgate assembly, and provides visibility through dust, obscurants and incremental weather in day and night operations. We all know drivers who could use one of these; on a battlefield they can save your life, as well as your vehicle bumper.

Oct 2/09: Industrial. A release from the Marines says that M-ATV vehicles have started to flow from Oshkosh to US Navy Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center (SSC) Atlantic. Oshkosh delivers the base vehicle, but modern military vehicles have a wide array of electronics and equipment to install, from jammers, to radios and other communications devices, to weapons like RWS turrets. The cost adds up, and so does the time required to install everything. According to M-ATV Joint Program Executive Officer, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, they’re using lessons learned from the MRAP program to speed up delivery to the front lines – something that became a problem early in the MRAP program:

“We were able to feed back to Oshkosh specific bracketry, racks and cabling so all that can be installed in the vehicle during manufacture; which means we dont have to do it at SPAWAR. The goal was to push as much of that work that was getting done at SPAWAR, particularly the touch labor, upstream into the manufacturing process. Because we knew it going into this, we were able to include it into the design. That clearly is one of the lessons learned from Baseline MRAP that will speed the process at Charleston.”

Oct 1/09: Industrial. Oshkosh announces that they have exceeded M-ATV delivery requirements for the 3rd consecutive month. The September 2009 production target of 100 vehicles was met on Sept 22/09.

Oshkosh M-ATV
(click to view full)

Sept 29/09: The Pentagon announces that the first Oshkosh M-ATVs have been deployed to Afghanistan.

Deployment

Sept 14/09: +352. Oshkosh Corp. in Oshkosh, WI receives a $189.1 million firm-fixed-price IDIQ contract for another 352 MRAP All Terrain Vehicles, and aftermarket parts packages that include Basic Issue items (35 LLO), Authorized Stockage (14 LO), Prescribed Load (14 LO), and Battle Damage and Repairs (14 LO). This brings total announced M-ATV orders to $2.31 billion for 4,296 vehicles.

Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion of May 31/12. Five bids were solicited, with 5 bids received by TACOM, AMSCC-TAC-ADCA in Warren, MI (W56HZV-09-D-0111). See also Oshkosh release.

July 31/09: +1,700. Oshkosh Corp. in Oshkosh, WI receives another M-ATV order. The $1.064 billion firm-fixed-price contract modification exercises an option for another 1,700 M-ATVs, Field Service Representative Support, and associated parts support packages to include Authorized Stockage Lists (ASL), Prescribed Load List (PLL), Reprocessing Spares, Battle Damage Repair parts (BDR) and Basic Issue Items (BII).

This order raises its total to $2.12 billion for 3,924 vehicles. They also announce that Oshkosh has exceeded the July 2009 delivery schedule of 45 M-ATVs by delivering 46.

Vehicles will be provided to the US Marine Corps, Army, Special Operations Command and US military testing. Vehicles and parts support packages will be fielded to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Field Service Representatives will be providing support in Kuwait and Afghanistan.

Work is to be performed in McConnellsburg, PA, with an estimated completion date of July 31, 2010. U.S. Army TACOM LCMC in Warren, MI manages this contract (W56HZV-09-D-0111, delivery order #0002, modification 02).

June 30/09: Navistar and Force Protection both announce their disappointment at their M-ATV loss, while reiterating their firms’ strong points for investors.

June 2/09: The Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council approves a plan for 5,244 M-ATVs to the US Army (2,598), Marine Corps (1,565), Special Operations Command (643), US Air Force (280) and the Navy (65). An additional 93 vehicles would be set aside for testing. Source.

May 15/09: USMC Commandant General James T. Conway speaks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank. An excerpt [PDF]:

“We are seeing an increasing sophistication on the part of the IED [land mines]… We are looking at an MRAP ha has greater off road capability because you do not have the road network hat you have in Iraq. You become fairly predictable, fairly easy to plot if you’re always going to be on those roads. Our MRAPs, and we have about 2,000 of them plus in the Marine Corps, don’t do that well off road. Now the favorite vehicle in Afghanistan today is the seven-ton truck, the MTVR. In an innovative fashion, our engineers and our people at Quantico said, let’s put the suspension of the MTVR on our CAT-1 MRAPs and see how it does. Well, it did pretty well… Now, when we went to blow it up it did not perform do well because we created additional space and surface area underneath the vehicle. We have now blown it up three times. The third time looked pretty good… We will have it in the hands of our troops potentially by mid-summer. It will cut cost. For the long-term utility of our CAT-I [4×4] MRAPs, which is mostly what we own… we have a much more multi-capable vehicle for the long term.

We are not divorcing ourselves from the MATV program at this point… We are going to follow both with interest, and we will see where we want to park our monies and our effort as both these vehicles continue to mature.”

May 4/09: The Force Dynamics partnership announces their delivery of 3 additional production M-ATV Cheetah vehicles to the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test and Evaluation Center.

The release adds that Force Dynamics, LLC and Raytheon have agreed to provide a comprehensive command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance system (C4ISR) plug-and-play ready architecture for the M-ATV Cheetah, using the C4ISR Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF). It provides immediate access to services including sophisticated radio switching, networked video, navigation systems, Blue Force Tracking, Counter-Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare, and weapons systems.

Under the original MRAP program, vehicles required extensive modifications, integration, and testing to fully integrate various C4SIR configurations. This new architecture is designed to make that process much simpler.

The system is also designed to assist with remote monitoring of integrated vehicle and C4ISR systems via one monitoring platform, to offer complete systems status in real time. Remote data transfer, monitoring of platform usage, and capture of failure information are all part of that element, and each M-ATV Cheetah is registered in Raytheon’s Force Logistics System II, which is electronically integrated to the DoD’s current force support systems.

May 1/09: BAE Systems’ entries pass initial testing, as it receives a follow-on contract for 3 more GTS M-ATVs and 3 more USCS M-ATV test vehicles of each type. Other firms that have passed testing and received orders for 3 more vehicles include Force Protection’s Cheetah, Navistar’s Husky, and Oshkosh’s entry.

April 2/09: Navistar Defense, LLC is in discussions with the government over a technicality in the evaluation of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) program. Navistar was required to formalize its request for a review of the evaluation within a certain period of time, and wants its vehicle to be considered for M-ATV. Navistar release.

March 11/09: A Bloomberg report quotes General Dynamics spokesman Ken Yamashita, who said that their M-ATV offer, based on its RG-31 partnership with BAE, “was not accepted… He didn’t say why, and Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said she couldn’t comment.”

That failure still leaves GDLS in contention, via the Force Dynamics partnership’s Cheetah vehicle.

March 6/09: Oshkosh Defense announces a $1 million contract with the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for government purchase of the 2 production-ready Oshkosh M-ATVs that were delivered on Feb. 23rd. This contract award is one of the required phases in the U.S. military’s evaluation of M-ATV submissions, and is awarded after the delivered vehicles are certified to meet the government’s initial design requirements.

All other M-ATV candidates also receive these awards, with 1 exception – General Dynamics (see March 11/09).

Feb 23/09: M-ATV candidate vehicles are due from vendors for 2 months of testing and evaluation. Several of them announce deliveries on this day: BAE Systems, Force Protection ($1 million contract), Navistar, and Oshkosh.

Feb 19/09: An Oshkosh release claims that its M-ATV team can produce the military’s most probable delivery order of 2,080 M-ATVs “within months of an awarded contract.” The Oshkosh team says that it is able to produce several hundred to 1,000 M-ATVs on a monthly basis, and Oshkosh Defense President John Stoddart adds that:

“Oshkosh’s warm production lines coupled with our mature M-ATV design allow us to ramp up production of this vehicle without impacting our current military programs.”

Of course, the same is true for competitors like BAE and Navistar, both of whom have MRAP production lines that are closing out, and substantial military truck production lines that continue to run.

Jan 15/09: Force Protection, Inc. and General Dynamics Land Systems Inc.’s Force Dynamics, LLC joint venture has focused on delivering Cougar MRAP vehicles, but Force Protection’s Cheetah vehicle had been excluded – until now. The joint venture announces that it has submitted the Cheetah for the U.S. Army’s MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) solicitation.

The Cheetah began development in 2005 has completed Force Protection-sponsored blast testing at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, and initial mobility and durability testing at the Nevada Automotive Test Center. It has undergone a range of enhancements since it was first developed, including the addition of independent suspension. Force Protection is commencing low-rate production at Force Protection’s Ladson, SC plant.

Jan 9/09: Oshkosh Corporation submits its M-ATV proposal, based on the combat-proven Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) medium truck chassis. The firm has produced about 10,000 of these trucks for the US Marine Corps, which have been deployed all over the world. Oshkosh release.

Additional Readings

• US FedBizOpps (Nov 13/08) – 23–JPO MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV)
• TACOM – JPO MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV). Competition page with all documents.
• Oshkosh Defense – Oshkosh M-ATV MRAP All Terrain Vehicle
• Oshkosh Defense – TAK-4 Independent Suspension
• Global Security – Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR)
• DID FOCUS – JLTV: Hummer v2.0, or MRAP Lite?
• James Hasik (Jan 17/14) – Between MRAPs and “a couple of Nobel Prizes” – reasonable priorities in armored vehicles in the US and the UK.
• IDGA (2010) – Dave Hansen of JPO MRAP on the M-ATV. Podcast interview.
• US Congressional Research Service (last update Aug 24/10) – Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress. Includes the M-ATV. Last update here [PDF].
• Voice of America (Aug 1/10) – For US Troops, New Armored Vehicle is Benefit, Burden. They do love the M-ATV, but there are a couple of design issues Oshkosh might want to look at.
• Oshkosh Defense (June 5/09) – Oshkosh Defense Global Aftermarket Capabilities Ready to Provide in-Theater M-ATV Support
• Motley Fool (May 7/09) – M-ATV Bids: The Pentagon Picks Its Winners
• Oshkosh Defense (Feb 26/09) – Mission-Proven Vehicle Components and Technologies Featured in Oshkosh M-ATV Vehicle Design
• Defense News (Dec 11/08) – In RfP, DoD Outlines Small-MRAP Needs
• WIRED Danger Room (Oct 16/08) – Afghanistan Diary: MRAPs Suck!

F-35B: off probation
(click to view full)

The $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike fighter program may well be the largest single global defense program in history. This major multinational program is intended to produce an “affordably stealthy” multi-role fighter that will have 3 variants: the F-35A conventional version for the US Air Force et. al.; the F-35B Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing for the US Marines, British Royal Navy, et. al.; and the F-35C conventional carrier-launched version for the US Navy. The aircraft is named after Lockheed’s famous WW2 P-38 Lightning, and the Mach 2, stacked-engine English Electric (now BAE) Lightning jet. Lightning II system development partners included The USA & Britain (Tier 1), Italy and the Netherlands (Tier 2), and Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Turkey (Tier 3), with Singapore and Israel as “Security Cooperation Partners,” and Japan as the 1st export customer.

The big question for Lockheed Martin is whether, and when, many of these partner countries will begin placing purchase orders. This updated article has expanded to feature more detail regarding the F-35 program, including contracts, sub-contracts, and notable events and reports during 2012-2013.

The F-35 Lightning II Fighter Family

F-35 Family Variants: Door A, B, or C?

Figure 1: F-35 Variants.

The above table illustrates the key differences between the baseline F-35A, the Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) capable F-35B, and the catapult-launched F-35C naval variant. Additional explanations follow.

The F-35A CTOL

F-35A, doors open
(click to view full)

The F-35A is sometimes called the CTOL (Conventional Take-Off and Landing) version. It’s the USAF’s version, and is expected to make up most of the plane’s export orders. It’s also expected to be the least expensive F-35, in part because it will have the largest production run. The USAF currently estimates its average flyaway cost after 2017 at $108.3 million, but early production models ordered in FY 2012 will cost over $150 million.

Its main difference from other versions is its wider 9g maneuverability limits, though its air-air combat flight benchmarks are only on par with the F-16. Canard equipped “4+ generation” adversaries like the Eurofighter, and thrust-vectored fighters like the F-22A, MiG-35, SU-35, etc., will still enjoy certain kinetic advantages. The F-35 hopes to mitigate them using its improved stealth to shrink detection ranges, the lack of drag from weapons in its internal bays, and its current electronic superiority.

The second major physical difference between the F-35A and the rest of the Lightning family is its internal 25mm cannon, instead of using a weapons station for a semi-stealthy gun pod option. The USAF removed guns from some of its planes back in the 1960s, and didn’t enjoy the resulting experiences in Vietnam. It has kept guns on all of its fighters ever since, including the stealthy F-22 and F-35. Many allies wanted the 27mm Mauser cannon installed instead, as it’s widely believed to offer the world’s best combination of firing rate and hitting power. In the end, however, ammunition standardization benefits involving 25mm land and sea platforms trumped pure performance.

The 3rd difference is that the F-35A uses a dorsal refueling receptacle that is refueled using an aerial tanker boom, instead of the probe-and-drogue method favored by the US Navy and many American allies.

The F-35A was the first variant to fly, in 2009. Unfortunately, it looks like it won’t reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC) until 2017 or 2018.

The F-35B STOVL (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing)

F-35B features
(click to view full)

The F-35B is expected to be the most expensive Lightning II fighter variant. According to US Navy documents, even planes bought after 2017 are expected to have an average flyaway cost of $135 million each. It will serve the US Marines, Royal Navy, other navies with ski-ramp equipped LHDs or small carriers, and militaries looking for an “expeditionary airplane” that can take off in short distances and land vertically. To accomplish this, the F-35B has a large fan behind the cockpit, and nozzles that go out to the wing undersides. Unlike the F-35A, it will use a retractable mid-air refueling probe, which is standard for the US Navy and for many American allies.

Those capabilities gives the plane a unique niche, but a unique niche also means unique challenges, and the responses to those challenges have changed the aircraft. In 2005, the JSF program took a 1-year delay because the design was deemed overweight by about 3,000 pounds. The program decided to reduce weight rather than run the engine hotter, because the latter choice would have sharply reduced the durability of engine components and driven life cycle costs higher. Weight cutting became a focus of various engineering teams, with especial focus on the F-35B because the weight was most critical to that design. Those efforts pushed the F-35B’s design, and changed its airframe. The F-35B gives up some range, some bomb load (it cannot carry 2,000 pound weapons internally, and the shape of its bay may make some weapons a challenge to carry), some structural strength (7g maneuvers design maximum), and the 25mm internal gun.

The F-35B completed its Critical Design Review in October 2006, and the 2nd production F-35 was a STOVL variant. Per the revised Sept 16/10 program plan, the USMC’s VMA-332 in Yuma, AZ must have 10 F-35Bs equipped with Block IIB software, with 6 aircraft capable of austere and/or ship-based operations, and all aircraft meeting the 7g and 50-degree angle of attack specifications, in order to declare Initial Operational Capability.

Flight testing began in 2009, and IOC was expected by December 2012, but flight testing fell way behind thanks to a series of technical delays. By 2013, the first operational planes were fielded to the USMC at Yuma, AZ. The USMC is currently aiming for a 2015 IOC, but it would involve just Block 2B software loads that will limit the F-35B’s combat capability. Even then, the Pentagon’s 2012 DOT&E report isn’t grounds for software schedule optimism. Planes with full Block 3 initial combat capability are unlikely to be fielded before 2018.

The F-35C carrier-based fighter

USN F-35C
(click to view full)

The F-35C is instantly recognizable. It features 30% more wing area than other designs, with larger tails and control surfaces, plus wingtip ailerons. These changes provide the precise slow-speed handling required for carrier approaches, and extend range a bit. The F-35C’s internal structure is strengthened to withstand the punishment dished out by the catapult launches and controlled crashes of carrier launch and recovery, an arrester hook is added to the airframe, and the fighter gets a retractable refueling probe. According to US Navy documents, average flyaway costs for F-35Cs bought after 2017 will be $125.9 million each.

The US Navy gave up the internal gun, and the aircraft will be restricted to 7.5g maneuvers. That’s only slightly lower than the existing F/A-18E Super Hornet’s 7.6g, but significantly lower than the 9g limit for Dassault’s carrier-capable Rafale-M.

The F-35C is expected to be the US Navy’s high-end fighter, as well as its high-end strike aircraft. This means that any performance or survivability issues will have a disproportionate effect on the US Navy’s future ability to project power around the world.

The F-35C will be the last variant designed; it passed its Critical Design Review in June 2007, and the first production version was scheduled to fly in January 2009. The F-35C’s rollout did not take place until July 2009, however, and first flight didn’t take place until June 2010. Initial Operational Capability was scheduled for 2014, but looks set to slip to 2019.

F-35s: Key Features

F-35 Variants
(click to view full)

Stealth. The F-35 is designed as an ‘affordable stealth’ counterpart to the F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter, one that can share “first day of the war” duties against defended targets but can’t perform air-air or air-ground missions to the same standard. The F-35 has a larger single engine instead of the Raptor’s twin thrust-vectoring F119s, removing both supercruise (sustained flight above Mach 1) and super-maneuverability options. The F-22A is also a much stealthier aircraft from all angles, and independent analysis & modeling has concluded that the F-35’s stealth will be weaker from the sides and the rear. Even so, the F-35 is an improvement over existing ‘teen series’ fighters and even beats Generation 4+ options like the Eurofighter, Rafale, and JAS-39 Gripen.

Engine. The F-35 was set to offer interchangeable engine options. That has been an important feature for global F-16 and F-15 customers, improving both costs and performance, and providing added readiness insurance for dual-engine fleets. Pratt & Whitney’s lobbying eventually forced GE & Rolls-Royce’s F136 out of the F-35 program, and made their F135-PW-100 engine the only choice for global F-35 fleets. A special F-135-PW-600 version with Rolls Royce’s LiftFan add-on, and a nozzle that can rotate to point down, will power the vertical-landing F-35B.

The US military had better hope that an engine design problem never grounds all of their fighters. While they’re at it, they should hope that maintenance contracts somehow remain reasonable in the absence of any competitive alternative.

F-35’s APG-81
AESA Radar
click to play video

Sensors. The Lightning II will equipped to levels that would once have defined a high-end reconnaissance aircraft. Its advanced APG-81 AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar is smaller and less powerful than the F-22A’s APG-77v1; but still offers the strong AESA advantages of simultaneous air-air and air-ground capabilities, major maintenance & availability improvements, and secure, high-bandwidth communications benefits. The F-35 also shares a “sensor fusion” design advance with the F-22, based on sensors of various types embedded all around the airframe. This sensor set is even more extensive than the F-22’s. Both planes will be able to perform as reconnaissance aircraft, though the F-35 will have superior infrared and ground-looking sensors. Both aircraft will also have the potential to act as electronic warfare aircraft.

These sensors are connected to a lot of computing power, in order to create single-picture view that lets the pilot see everything on one big 20″ LCD screen and just fly the plane, rather than pushing buttons to switch from one view to another and trying to figure it all out. As part of that sensor fusion, the F-35 will be the first plane is several decades to fly without a heads-up display. Instead, pilots will wear Elbit/Rockwell’s JHMDS helmet or BAE’s HMSS, and have all of that information projected wherever they look.

Maintenance. The F-35 has a large number of design features that aim to simplify maintenance and keep life cycle costs down. Since operations and maintenance are usually about 65% or more of a fighter’s lifetime cost, this is one the most important and overlooked aspects of fighter selection.

Stealth aircraft have always had much higher maintenance costs, but the F-35’s designers hope that new measures can reverse that trend. Some of the plane’s stealth coatings are being baked into composite airplane parts, for instance, in the hope that customers will need fewer “Martians” (Materials Application and Repair Specialists) around to apply stealth tapes and putties before each mission. Technical innovations like self-diagnosing aircraft wiring aim to eliminate one of the toughest problems for any mechanic, and the fleet-wide ALIS information and diagnostic system is designed to shift the fleet from scheduled maintenance to maintenance only as needed.

Despite these measure, March 2012 operations and maintenance projections have the F-35 at 142% O&M cost, relative to any F-16s they’ll replace. It remains to be seen if the advantages of F-35 innovations manage to fulfill their promise, or if projections that they’ll be outweighed in the end by increased internal complexity, and by the proliferation of fault-prone electronics, come true. That has certainly been the general trend over the last 50 years of fighter development, with a very few notable exceptions like the F-16, A-10, and JAS-39.

Pimp My Ride: Weapons & Accessories

Initial hopes – changed
(click to view full)

The F-35’s internal weapon bay gives it the ability to carry larger bombs and missiles, but the price is that F-35s can carry just 2 internal air-to-air weapons, instead of a maximum of 8 on the F-22A. As the F-35 variant table (Fig. 1) shows, development, testing, and software issues have also combined to give initial F-35 fleets a very narrow set of weapons. The initial operational set that comes with Block III software has about the same weapon options as the single-role F-22A.

That’s expected to change, eventually. A large order base, and a wide international client base, will provide considerable incentive for manufacturers to qualify their weapons for the F-35. MBDA has already pledged a compatible version of its long-range Meteor air-air missile, for instance, and Britain wants to add MBDA’s SPEAR medium-range strike missile as soon as possible. Other manufacturers can be expected to follow. Norway is already developing its stealthy Joint Strike Missile with the F-35 as its explicit target, including the ability to fit the missile into the plane’s internal bays. Denmark’s Terma has turned their 25mm gun pod into a multi-mission pod that can accept a variety of sensors and equipment. Lockheed Martin’s Israeli customer is already incorporating its own electronic counter-measures systems in their F-35i, and they are certain to push for a range of Israeli weapons, including the Python-5 SRAAM(Short Range Air-to-Air Missile) and various other smart bombs and missiles.

The bottlenecks will be two-fold.

The 1st bottleneck is American insistence on retaining all source codes, and having Lockheed Martin perform all modifications at their reprogramming facility. Unless Lockheed produces a full development environment workaround, dealing with the growing queue of requests can easily become a problem. The firm’s new Universal Armament Interface could offer the foundation for a way forward, if they decide to take it. The other question involves conflict-of-interest issues, in which Lockheed Martin or the US government decides to use the bottleneck as a way of shutting competitors out of a potential export market. These kinds of concerns have already led to pushback in Australia, Britain, and Israel.

The 2nd bottleneck involves testing resources. The F-35 testing program has fallen significantly behind schedule, and IOCs for some versions have already slipped by 5-6 years. Test time required to qualify new equipment is going to be a very secondary priority until 2018-2019, and even the few customers buying their own Initial Operational Testing & Evaluation (IOT&E) fighters are going to need them for their assigned training roles.

The F-35 Family: Controversies and Competitions

See me, hear me?
(click to view full)

The program’s biggest controversies revolve around 3 issues: effectiveness, affordability, and control. A 4th issue, noise, isn’t significant yet, but could become so.

Effectiveness: When the F-35 Lightning II is compared with the larger and more expensive F-22A, the Raptor is a much stealthier aircraft, and its stealth is more uniform. The F-35’s design is optimized for “low-observable” stealth when viewed from the front, with less stealth to radars looking at it from the sides, and less still when targeted from the rear. It also lacks the Raptor’s supercruise (sustained flight above Mach 1) and super-maneuverability thrust-vectoring options, which work with stealth to help the F-22 engage and disengage from combat at will. Lockheed Martin claims that the F-35 design is optimized for trans-sonic acceleration, but testing results question those claims, and the Raptor can cruise without afterburners at the F-35’s theoretical maximum speed. That’s important, because fuel usage skyrockets with afterburners on, limiting total supersonic time for fighters like the F-35.

These relative drawbacks have led to questions about the F-35’s continued suitability against the most modern current air defense threats, and against the evolved threats it can expect to face over a service lifetime that’s expected to stretch until 2050 at least.

F-35 EO DAS
click for video

Where the F-35 does come out ahead is internal carriage space. F-35A/C variants will offer larger capacity internal bays for weapons, allowing a wider selection of stealth-preserving internal ordnance. The price is that slight bulges were added to the production F-35’s underside profile in order to accommodate that space, making them less stealthy from the side than the original X-35 designs.

Sensors are another F-35 advantage. All F-35s also boast more embedded sensors than the F-22, with an especial advantage in infrared and ground-looking sensors. Though this feature has yet to be tested in combat, the F-35’s all-aspect Distributed Aperture Sensors (DAS) reportedly allow 360-degree targeting of aircraft around the F-35. If that works, the inertial guidance and datalink features of modern infrared missiles like the AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-132 ASRAAM can already take full advantage of it.

Which customers can live with these relative disadvantages as an acceptable trade-off, and which will be badly hurt by them? Will the F-35 be a fighter that’s unable to handle high-end scenarios, while also being far too expensive to field and operate in low-end scenarios? Even if that’s true, could countries who want one type of multi-role fighter still be best served by the F-35, as opposed to other options? That will depend, in part, on…

F-35 commonality
(click to view full)

Affordability: The F-35 family was designed to be much more affordable than the F-22, but a number of factors are narrowing that gap.

One is cost growth in the program. This has been documented by the GAO, and statements and reports from the US DoD are beginning to follow the same kind of “rising spiral of admissions” pattern seen in past programs.

The 2nd is loss of parts commonality between the 3 models, which the GAO has cited as falling below the level required to produce significant savings. In March 2013, the JSF PEO placed the figure at just 25-30%.

A 3rd is production policy. The US GAO in particular believes that the program’s policy of beginning production several years before testing is complete, only adds to the risks of future price hikes and operating cost shocks. It also forces a lot of expensive rewaork to jets that are bought before problems are found. Part of the rationale for accepting concurrency risks and costs involves…

The 4th factor: lateness. The program as a whole is about 5-7 years behind its ideal point, relative to the replacement cycle for fighters around the globe. F-35 program customers thus find themselves in the unenviable position of having to commit to a fighter that hasn’t completed testing, and doesn’t have reliable future purchase or operating costs, while buying the expensive way from early production batches. The program office hopes to drop the flyaway price of an F-35A to $90 million by 2020, but current Pentagon budget documents list an average production cost of $105-120 million per F-35A-C, from 2017 to the end of the program.

Control: This has been a big issue in the past for customers like Britain and Australia, and has now become an issue for Israel as well. Without control over software source codes, integration of new weapons and algorithms can be controlled by the whims and interests of American politicians and defense contractors. On the other hand, America sees wider access to those fundamental building blocks as a security risk. Arrangements with Britain and Australia appear to have finessed this debate, without removing it.

Noise: The F135 engine’s size and power are unprecedented in a fighter, but that has a corollary. Environmental impact studies in Florida showed that the F-35A is approximately twice as noisy as the larger, twin-engine F-15 fighter, and over 3.5 times as noisy as the F-16s they’re scheduled to replace. That has led to noise complaints from local communities in the USA and abroad, and seems likely to create a broad swathe of local political issues as customers deploy them. In some countries, it may add costs, as governments are forced to compensate or even to buy out nearby homeowners affected by the noise.

Each customer must weigh the issues above against its own defense and industrial needs, and come to a decision. In-depth, updated DID articles that address some of these issues in more detail include:

• The F-35’s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy. A comprehensive look at the issue, and its consequences.
• F-35: I am Fighter, Hear Me Roar. Noise could become a serious political issue for the F-35.
• The Great Engine War II The Pentagon finally canceled GE/RR’s F136 alternative engine project to rely entirely on Pratt & Whitney’s F135, over the objections of its GAO auditors.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: The Program

1st British F-35B
(click to view full)

Is the F-35 an industrial program for a fighter, or a fighter with an industrial program? Beyond the initial competition between Lockheed Martin’s X-35 and Boeing’s X-32, the Joint Strike Fighter was envisioned from the outset as a program that would make sense using either interpretation. A wide set of consortium partners and national government investments would form an interlocking set of commitments, drawing on a wide range of global industrial expertise and making the program very difficult for any one party to back out of or cancel.

The JSF program is ‘tiered,’ with 4 possible levels of participation based on admission levels and funding commitments for the System Design & Development (SDD) phase. All Tier 1-3 nations have also signed MoUs for the Production Phase. This is not a commitment to buy, just the phase in which production arrangements are hammered out – subject to revision, of course, if that country decides not to buy F-35s. Consortium partners and customers to date include:

• Tier 1 Partners: The USA (majority commitment), Britain
  
• Tier 2 Partners: Italy; The Netherlands
  
• Tier 3 Partners: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Turkey
  
• Security Cooperative Participants status: Israel (20-75), Singapore.
  
• Exports: Japan (42).

Italy has expressed an interest in a Lockheed-Martin Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) plant for European orders, and Fellow Tier 1 partner Britain is examining a FACO of its own for BAE. The Netherlands, meanwhile, wants to be a center for engine sustainment and heavy maintenance. The Dutch have signed an agreement with Italy to help each country get what it wants; Norway was added to that agreement in June 2007.

Lightning II official rollout
(click to view full)

The first test aircraft, an F-35A model AA-1, had its formal rollout on July 7/06. The F-35’s forced redesign for weight reasons has led to F-35 AA-1 being a unique airframe used to validate design, manufacturing, assembly and test processes. A total of 23 test aircraft will be built for various purposes (15 flight, 7 non-flight, 1 radar signature), but the exact order of build for the variants involved has shifted several times.

The testing phase was originally supposed to end in 2013, but is now officially scheduled to continue until 2018. Funding for the first sets of production-model aircraft is approved, parts fabrication began in June 2007, and component assembly began later in 2007. F-35As have already been delivered to the USAF – a sore point with the US Congress’ Government Accountability Office, which believes this dual-track approach overlapping testing with production increases project risks. Production will continue to ramp up year-to-year, and by the time the F-35 is expected to reach Full-Rate Production, the program intends to build 240 F-35s per year.

To do that, they’ll need orders. So far, only the USA, Israel, and Japan have placed orders for production F-35s that go beyond training & test aircraft.

Delays in fielding the initial set of test aircraft, fewer than expected flights, and questions about that ambitious ramp up schedule have reportedly led the Pentagon to re-examine these schedules. Development is now expected to last into FY 2019 or later.

Industrial Innovation

F-35B JSF Cutaway
by John Batchelor
(click to view full)

At present, F-35 production is led by Lockheed Martin, with BAE and Northrop-Grumman playing major supporting roles, and many subcontractors below that.

BAE Systems is deriving substantial benefits from Britain’s Tier 1 partner status, and Northrop Grumman is responsible for the F-35’s important ‘center barrel’ section, where the wings attach to the fuselage, and also provides many of the aircraft’s key sensors.

F-35 main production and final assembly is currently slated to take place in Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, TX plant. To cut F-35 production cycle time, the team produces major sections of the aircraft at different feeder plants, and “mates” the assemblies at Fort Worth. This is normal in the auto industry, but it’s a departure from the usual fighter-building process.

AF-1 center barrel
(click to view full)

The precise tolerances required for a stealthy fighter, however, are much more exacting than even high-end autos. In order to avoid subtly mismatched seams, which become radar reflection points, parts need to fit together so precisely that some machines are compensating for the phases of the moon!

Even the best machines won’t do any good if the various components aren’t already an excellent fit. To cope, Manufacturing Business Technology reports that the JSF manufacturing team has turned to an integrated back-end IT system. It begins with 3D engineering models (Dassault Systemes CATIA CAD), and extends into production management, where the company has rolled out a manufacturing execution system to handle electronic work instructions, workflow and process modeling, serialized parts data, quality records tracking, etc. (Visiprise).

This combination has enabled greater use of techniques like automated drilling, even as other software (Siemens PLM, TeamCenter) enables product record management and electronic collaboration around designs. On the back-end, the team uses a custom system it calls Production & Inventory Optimization System (PIOS) for manufacturing resources planning and supply chain management; it began using ERP software (SAP) in January 2008 for financials, and may eventually use it to handle supply-chain functions too.

This ‘digital thread’ has been very successful for the team, with part fits showing incredible precision, and successful coordination of plants around the end schedule for key events like the Dec 18/07 F-35B rollout. The system’s ultimate goal is to cut a plane’s production cycle time from the usual 27-30 months to about 12 months, and shrink a 15-20 day cycle to just 6-8 days from order creation to printed & matched manufacturing orders.

Testing, Testing

F-35C weapon carriage
(click to view full)

The F-35’s development and testing program was originally supposed to end in 2013. Current estimates involve a 2018 finish for all 3 models, with Block 3F software installed and a smaller set of integrated weapons than initially planned.

The F-35’s development schedule has steadily slipped, and a combination of development and production difficulties left Lockheed Martin significantly behind their planned testing schedule. The company has made a point of highlighting testing progress in 2012, as they finally got ahead of the annual curve:

F-35 JSF family: Testing statistics
(click to view full)

Excel
download

Staying ahead of planned testing points and flights is laudable, but it doesn’t guarantee that the fighter itself is ahead of where it should be on the development curve. Bringing test points forward from future years can keep the numbers even. It won’t solve issues like late software delivery, which is preventing F-35s from fulfilling a number of planned testing points, and makes any combat related testing useless. The F-35s will also need changes in a number of areas, from their horizontal stabilizers to the F-35B’s complex system of lift fans and doors. Those changes will require further testing afterward, adding more test points to the program each time an issue is found. The table below outlines key issues as of 2012, and both of these testing-related datasets are available for download by subscribers:

F-35 JSF family: DOT&E’s key 2012 findings
(click to view full)

F-35 JSF: Programs by Country

Joint Strike Fighter
(click to view full)

The F-35 is a multinational program, and one of its challenges involves keeping all of the program’s partners moving forward. Each partner has its own issues, and increasingly, its own timeline.

Since early-production fighters can add 50-100% to the cost of full-rate production planes, most of these timelines are determined by how cost-sensitive each customer is.

Home Base: The American Program

In many ways, the American F-35 program sets the tone for all others. Countries that want the F-35, like Japan, are already seeing price hikes because of American decisions to slow initial F-35 production. Current per-plane costs are over $120 million, with initial spares and training infrastructure added on top of that. That price is expected to come down, but it requires volume orders. That means someone has to spend the money, and right now, that someone is the USA.

This leaves the United States on the horns of a dilemma.

One nightmare scenario is a fate similar to the high-end F-22A Raptor, which was initially supposed to field 1,000 fighters, but ended up producing just 183 thanks to spiraling development costs, unexpected upgrade costs, and production costs that never benefited from full economies of scale. Cuts led to continued high prices, which led to more cuts. That scenario would spell disaster for other F-35 customers, who would end up paying far more per plane than they had expected. Some would then defect, driving up prices again for the countries who remained.

The other nightmare scenario for the USA involves significant problems discovered in testing, which then require costly and extensive retrofits to the 400+ F-35 fighters that will be produced before the test program ends. This parallel test/production model has been the subject of heavy criticism from the US government’s GAO auditors. It’s a form of “political engineering” designed to make cancellation too expensive for politicians, even if it leads to sharply higher final costs, or hurts the future fleet.

F-35A
(click to view full)

American purchase decisions can be described as a balancing act between these nightmares. If they spend too much money ramping up production, other countries are more likely to buy as prices drop, but the USAF could be on the hook for a huge retrofit bill that it can’t afford. If they throttle their efforts back too far in order to avoid retrofit risk, it makes defections by existing JSF partners more likely, and hurts the fighter’s chances of landing export sales.

Lockheed Martin has tried to thread this needle by getting multiple JSF consortium members to commit to a joint buy, in order to create a big enough pool of secure orders to drive down purchase costs for everyone. So far, they’ve been unable to get the signatures they need.

Excel
download

Meanwhile, past and planned American F-35 budgets for all variants are graphed below, with an Excel download as a bonus. Note that R&D forecasts aren’t yet published as a single figure beyond FY 2013:

USAF: F-35A
(click to view full)

USN: F-35B & F-35C
(click to view full)

Australia (Tier 3)

The legacy roster
(click to view full)

Australia was originally going to replace its long-range F-111 fighter-bomber and F/A-18 AM/BM Hornet fighter fleets with a single fleet of 100 F-35A aircraft. Current plans for the F-35 are less clear. A change of governing parties hasn’t shifted Australia’s long-term commitment to the F-35A yet, but rising costs could do so.

In November 2009, the Government approved funding for Phase 2A/B (Stage 1) to acquire 14 F-35As, at a cost of about A$ 2.75 billion. In October 2010, they formally submitted a Partner Procurement Request (PPR) to the US Government, and expect a FY 2012 order for 2 initial F-35As, for delivery in 2014-15. Those 2 planes will remain in the United States for testing and pilot training. The next 12 planes would have been based in Australia, and their Year of Decision will now be 2014-15, which may also cover the Stage 2 buy of 58 planes (TL: 72). Deliveries of operational fighters aren’t expected until 2017-2019 now, which means that RAAF F-35As won’t be flying in Australia until around 2020. The AIR 6000 Phase 2C decision to add another 24 F-35s or so, and raise Australia’s total buy to 96+, won’t happen until 2018-19 at the earliest.

As of 2014, The Royal Australian Navy will begin receiving Canberra Class LHD ships that could deploy F-35Bs, but at present there are no plans to host fighters on board. If those plans change, the AIR 6000 Phase 2C decision is the likely inflection point.

The inflection point for a single fighter fleet has already passed. In May 2007, delays to the F-35 program pushed the RAAF to buy 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornets as an interim capability. Those aircraft have all been delivered now, and 12 of them are set to convert to EA-18G Growler tactical jamming fighters. F-35 delays may push Australia to order more Super Hornets, and the hard reality is that each new Super Hornet bought probably subtracts an F-35A from future orders.

Britain (Tier 1)

RN CVF Concept
(click to view full)

Britain is the only Tier 1 partner outside the USA, and they have invested about $2 billion equivalent in the F-35’s development. They took delivery of their 1st IOT&E training and test aircraft in July 2012.

Britain’s original plan involved buying 138 F-35B STOVL planes for deployment on land and on their new aircraft carriers, but that will now shrink to an undetermined number.

The UK MoD has also switched back and forth between the F-35B and the catapult-launched F-35C. The F-35C’s range and weapon capacity give it significant time-over-target advantages in a Falkland Islands kind of scenario. On the flip side, the F-35B can fly from forward operating bases in situations like Afghanistan, allowing fewer planes to generate more sorties in the same time frame. The determining factor that switched Britain back to the F-35B was the cost of modifying its aircraft carriers.

Canada (Tier 3)

CF-18, 20-year colors
(click to view full)

In July 2010, Canada committed to buy 65 F-35As as its future fighter force, with an envisioned budget up to C$ 9 billion for the fighters, plus C$ 7 billion for 20 years of support. All without a competition. That decision has been beset by controversy ever since, and the Conservative Party government claims that they aren’t committed to buy the F-35A yet. On the other hand, they haven’t made any substantive concessions, or meaningful changes to their plans, aside from promising that if F-35 costs continue to rise, Canada will just buy fewer planes within its budget.

Canada will probably sign a contract by 2015, which would make it too expensive for any successor governments to cancel the program. If the Conservative Party government doesn’t sign a contract before the next election, they had better win again. Otherwise, the conduct of this acquisition program has so antagonized the opposition Liberal and NDP parties that the F-35 buy will be a priority target for cancellation.

In November 2012, the first cracks appeared in the government’s stone wall. The Public Works ministry took over the lead role from DND, and said that the military’s original statement of requirements would be suspended while the government reviewed fighter options. Read full coverage, including industrial participants, over at “Canada Preparing to Replace its CF-18 Hornets.”

Denmark (Tier 3)

Danish F-16 MLU
(click to view full)

Denmark is a consortium member, but they threw their F-16 fighter replacement order open to competition in 2007. The F-35A was competing against Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sweden’s JAS-39E/F Gripen, but an April 2010 decision delayed the competition. The Danes reportedly have about 30 operational F-16s in 2013, with another 15 stored in reserve.

The F-16 replacement process has started again as promised, with EADS’ Eurofighter Typhoon added to the mix of invitees. A decision to buy 24-32 fighters is now expected by June 2015.

Italy (Tier 2)

CVH Cavour
(click to view full)

Italy has made significant investments in JSF development, and the country intends to host a European Final Assembly and Check-Out (FACO) production line in Cameri, near Milan.

The navy’s ITS Cavour aircraft carrier will need at least 22 F-35Bs to replace its AV-8 Harrier fighters, but Europe and Italy’s slow-motion fiscal calamity makes the rest of its buy far less certain. The original plan involved 131 F-35s for the Army and Navy, but a February 2012 decision has scaled plans back to 90 fighters. The Italians are still discussing whether to buy a mix of F-35As and F-35Bs for the air force, but cost pressures are likely to push the Aeronautica Militare toward F-35As.

Given Italy’s rising borrowing costs, and the air force’s modern fleet of 96 Eurofighter Typhoons, further cuts in Aeronautica Militare F-35 purchases would be a reasonable expectation.

The Netherlands (Tier 2)

Dutch F-16s,
Afghanistan
(click to view full)

The F-35 is the Ministerie van Defensie’s choice, but instability in successive Dutch governments has prevented a clear decision. The Netherlands plans to buy up to 85 fighters, and as one of the two JSF Tier 2 partners, they want to place a European maintenance hub in the Netherlands. Industry benefits figure heavily in their decision, and participation in the JSF program was structured as a payback scheme. That has sometimes created a strained relationship between the government and participating firms.

Cost is a serious issue. A September 2009 media report revealed that Saab submitted a bid for 85 ready-to-fly JAS-39NL Gripen fighters, at a reported cost of EUR 4.8 billion. In contrast, a December 2010 report to the Dutch Parliament placed the expected purchase cost of 85 F-35As at EUR 7.6 billion, and the government has said that if costs continue to rise, the only change will be fewer fighters bought.

Costs have risen, even as budgets shrank. A 2012 Rekenkamer report revealed that the MvD was admitting a ceiling of just 56 F-35As, given their EUR 4.05 billion budget. That isn’t enough for their current responsibilities, and their notional EUR 68.6 million/ $89 million per plane figure is significantly less than the Pentagon’s post-2017 average cost projection of $108 million – which allows just 48 Dutch F-35As. Throw in the 21% Dutch Value Added Tax, and the real number could be as low as 33-38 F-35As.

Keeping its F-16s flying until the required 2027 date is expected to cost another EUR 335 million, and must be figured into the total cost, even if it comes from a separate budget item. A slip to 2029, or another fighter option that took that much more time, brings that total added cost to EUR 515 million.

Finally, F-35 maintenance and operating costs are expected to be higher than either the current F-16s (+42% American projection), or the Gripen. That affects the number that can be kept flying under future budgets. The 2012 Rekenkamer report says that estimates for 30 years of F-35A operations & maintenance, exclusive of fuel, have risen from EUR 2.9 billion for 85 planes in 2001, to EUR 14.2 billion. Buying 68 aircraft only drops this estimate to EUR 13.2 billion, and that non-linear drop makes it likely that O&M costs for a fleet of 42-48 F-35As, over 30 years, would be well over EUR 200 million per-plane.

A final decision is scheduled for 2015, but successive coalition governments have been pushing through contracts for initial F-35 test aircraft, as a way of entrenching their country’s commitment. A July 2012 vote left only the center-right VVD and Christian Democrats supporting an F-35 buy, and after the elections, a coalition with the opposition PvdA Labour party changed the process for reaching that 2015 decision. Whether it will change anything else remains to be seen.

Norway (Tier 3)

RNoAF F-16,
off to Libya
(click to view full)

Norway picked the F-35A in November 2008, after a competition that Wikileaks documents suggest was a sham. Parliamentary opposition finally caved in July 2011, and purchases began in 2012. They will buy 46-52 F-35s, with an initial 4 training aircraft slated to begin delivery in 2015. Another 42-48 planned fighters are slated to begin turning into contracts as of 2017, and the program’s official overall cost currently lists as NOK 60 billion/ $FY12 10 billion. Basing will be at Orland AB, with a satellite forward operating base up north at Evenes.

As part of their program, Norway’s Kongsberg is developing a stealthy, sub-sonic Joint Strike Missile (JSM/NSM) that will be able to hit ships or land targets, and can be carried inside the F-35A/C weapons bay. Its positioning as an internally-carried cruise missile will be unique, and Australia has already indicated interest. At present, however, there’s no firm date for integration.

Read “F-35 Lightning II Wins Norway’s (Fake) Competition” for full coverage.

Turkey (Tier 3)

TuAF F-16s
(click to view full)

Turkey had talked about ordering up to 100 F-35A fighters, as the long-term replacement for its 240-plane F-16 fleet. beyond the program’s industrial benefits, they also have a geopolitical rationale. Turkey’s main rival, Greece, has been crippled by its fiscal situation, and is not an F-35 program participant. They’re unlikely to field any fighters with technology beyond their existing F-16s for quite some time, and Turkey wants an edge. The Turks are also beginning to project influence into Central Asia, have neighbors in Syria, Iraq and Iran that bear watching, and are stoking a growing level of friction with Israel, an F-35 customer.

In the near term, a combination of new buys and upgrades will ensure a long life for Turkey’s F-16s. Current plans still involve 100 F-35s, and 2012 saw the first contract – but by January 2013, Turkey was postponing its purchase of 2 training and test aircraft. The overall program is expected to cost around $16 billion.

Israel (Security Cooperation Partner)

Israeli F-16C
(click to view full)

With 326 F-16s in the IAF (224 F-16A-D, 102 F-16i), Israel is the largest F-16 operator outside of the United States. Their commitment to regional superiority made them the first country outside the USA to commit to a production F-35 buy in October 2010, with a contract for 20 “F-35is” and options to raise that number to 75 planes. The F-22 Raptor had been their preferred choice, but America refused to export it.

The Israelis got some concessions from Lockheed Martin and the US government, including the ability to insert their own ECM(Electronic Counter Measures) defensive equipment. Their F-35i will also carry compatible communications equipment and some avionics, and the Israelis are expected to push for early integration of their own weapons, like RAFAEL’s Python 5 short-range air-to-air missile and Spice GPS/IIR guided smart bomb. F-35i system development contracts began in August 2012.

Read “Israeli Plans to Buy F-35s Moving Forward” for full coverage.

Singapore (Security Cooperation Partner)

RSAF F-16D
(click to view full)

Singapore expects to replace its 74-plane F-16 fleet with F-35s, but they have a lot of timing flexibility. A program of significant fleet upgrades to F-16V status is expected to begin within the next year, giving them a plane that’s more advanced than USAF F-16s. Their new fleet of 20 high-end F-15SGs are already more advanced than the USAF’s Strike Eagles, and their combined fleet size and quality is expected to keep them comfortably ahead of their neighbors for a while.

In the nearer term, their fleet of about 34 upgraded F-5S/T fighters will need replacement. Singapore is reported to be about to announce an order for 12 F-35Bs, as part of a larger export approval request that could go as high as 75 planes. Their alternative would be to order more F-15SGs as F-5 replacements, and wait until it was time to begin replacing their F-16s. An order of 12 Strike Eagles would cost less, and would offer a much wider array of capabilities until about 2025 or later. F-35Bs would offer more risk, and would enter service much later, in exchange for stealth and the ability to take off and land from damaged runways.

Japan

F-4EJ “Kai(zen)”
(click to view full)

The F-22 Raptor had been Japan’s preferred choice, but America refused to export it. In December 2011, therefore, Japan picked the F-35A over Boeing’s F/A-18E Super Hornet International, and the Eurofighter Typhoon. The F-35A was said to have the best capabilities, based only on mathematical analysis of the paper submissions Japan received. It eked out a narrow “Gilligan win” on overall cost by offering dorsal aerial refueling and finishing 2nd in both sub-categories, and was even with the others in terms of maintenance contracts offered. The only major category it lost was domestic industrial participation, but the winning Eurofighter bid had cost issues with that aspect of its submission.

The JASDF has an approved Foreign Military Sale request for 42 F-35As, and has committed to 4 so far. This set of 42 F-35As will replace its fleet of 91 upgraded F-4 “Phantom Kai” fighters. Eventually, Japan will also need to replace about 213 F-15J Eagle air superiority fighters with at least 100 new planes, but the F-35 will have to compete for that.

Past fighter orders from Japan have involved extensive license production. So far, reports and documents indicate that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. will be involved in work on F-35 aircraft bodies, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. on mission-related avionics, and IHI Corp. on F135 engines.

Read “Japan’s Next Fighters: F-35 Wins The F-X Competition” for full coverage.

Future Sales Opportunities

F-15 Silent Eagles
Boeing concept
(click to view full)

Lockheed Martin continues to promote the F-35 in the international market, but its priority is securing production orders from the countries that are already part of the JSF consortium.

South Korea’s F-X-III fighter competition is probably the F-35’s biggest near-term export opportunity. The F-35 is competing against Boeing’s stealth-enhanced F-15SE Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon for that 60-plane order.

A number of Middle Eastern countries are shopping for fighter jets, including the UAE, Oman, and Qatar. Kuwait is expected to join them soon. So far, the F-35 hasn’t featured prominently in reporting about these competitions. It isn’t a contender in Oman, and the UAE’s focus appears to be fixed on either France’s Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon.

In Europe, Belgium and Portugal will need to replace their F-16s pretty soon, but political and fiscal woes make such buys unlikely. Eastern European countries either have medium-to-long term commitments in place, or are too small and poor to be likely F-35 customers. Lockheed Martin’s brightest hope beyond its existing consortium partners is probably Spain. Like Italy, Spain will eventually need to either buy the F-35B as its only real option to replace the AV-8 Matadors (Harriers) on the Juan Carlos I, or downgrade the ship to a helicopter and UAV carrier. Europe’s slow-motion collapse has pushed its fiscal difficulties close to their limit, however, and there are no Spanish plans at present for an F-35 buy.

The F-35 has been promoted to India, especially as a naval fighter option for its new carriers. It was not a contender for India’s M-MRCA buy, however, and prospects for a future sale seem dim due to competition from a range of existing naval (MiG-29K, Tejas naval) and air force (SU-30MKI, SU-50i FGFA) program commitments.

F-35 Contracts & Decisions

LRIP = Low Rate Initial Production. Unless otherwise noted, US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) in Patuxent River, MD manages these contracts.

F-35A & F-22A,
Eglin AFB
(click to view full)

July 6/15: The Marine Corps conducted its first successful live ordnance drops from a F-35B in late June, the USMC announced on Friday. The Joint Strike Fighters dropped both inert and live ordnance, which consisted of JDAM GPS-guided munitions in both GBU-12 and GBU-32 configurations. The Marine Corps decided in May to push on towards the F-35B’s Initial Operating Capability (IOC) objective timetabled for 1 July, despite the unearthing of software problems. While it appears that the 1 July objective IOC date has now been missed, the jet has until December to achieve this milestone, with the dropping of live ordnance reportedly one of the last remaining items on a checklist of required capability tests required for IOC.

July 1/15: In a damning report obtained by War is Boring, the F-35A was out-performed by a F-16D in a mock dogfight in January. The newer jet failed to manoeuvre fast or agile enough to defeat the older fighter, despite the F-16 flying with two external fuel tanks. The unnamed pilot listed off numerous serious problems with the fighter, including a low nose climb rate and a cramped cockpit space, as well as other manoeuvrability issues reducing the ability of the pilot to see and kill the older jet, an issue that has come up before. On Monday Lockheed Martin was handed a $19.6 million contract modification to provide requirements development and maturation efforts for the Joint Strike Fighter.

June 29/15: With Naval Air Station Lemoore set to become the backbone of the Navy’s future strike capability, the Navy awarded a contract Friday for the construction of infrastructure to support the base’s fleet of F-35Cs. The $20.2 million task order covers the construction of new buildings to house JSF simulators, as well as classrooms and briefing rooms. NAS Lemoore beat out NAS El Centro last fall to become the Pacific Fleet’s F-35 base, with Strike Fighter Squadron 101 (VFA 101), the F-35C replacement squadron, set to relocate to the base in early 2017.

June 25/15: A US-UK team have successfully tested the F-35B’s short take-off capabilities from a replica carrier ski-jump, the British Ministry of Defence announced Wednesday. The testing is currently in its first iteration, with these tests designed to reduce risk before the JSF is launched from the deck of an actual carrier. The new Elizabeth-class carriers under construction for the Royal Navy will feature a ski-jump, in contract to the new Gerald Ford-class carriers which will feature electromagnetic catapults.

June 19/15: Not a single F-35A was downed by “hostile” fire during the Air Force’s recent Green Flag West exercise, the first exercise in which the Joint Strike Fighter has participated. None of the F-35s were shot down, whilst F-16s and A-10s were. The inclusion of the JSF in the exercises has been criticized as a public relations stunt; additionally, the level of operational pressure the F-35s were put under during the exercises compared with other aircraft has not been released. Whether the F-35 genuinely outperformed the other aircraft and as a result received no simulated destruction – or was just exposed to less severe operational testing – is hard to say.

June 4/15: Lockheed Martin saw a $920.4 million advanced acquisition contract on Thursday for the F-35 program. This award covers the production of 94 low rate initial production Joint Strike Fighters, with these spread across the three F-35 variants.. 78 F-35A models will be manufactured and delivered, with 44 of these destined for the Air Force and the remainder earmarked for international partners. The other 16 aircraft are split between the -B and -C models, with fourteen of the former going to the Marine Corps, as well as Italy and the UK, while two -C models will go to the Navy and Marines.

June 2/15: F-35As will take part in USMC exercises for the first time this week, with the fighter also set to drop live ordnance. The Green Flag West exercises will run to June 12, with the Marine Corps’ B model Joint Strike Fighter recently concluding trials aboard USS Wasp.

May 28/15: The Pentagon is currently determining what should be included in the F-35‘s Block 4 configuration, ahead of a review later this year. Weapons that could feature in Block 4 include the Small Diameter Bomb II and the Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile, as well as potentially the B61-12 standoff nuclear bomb.

May 20/15: As part of the Marine Corps’ F-35B trials currently taking place aboard USS Wasp, a F135 engine has been flown onto the ship to assess the aircraft’s ability to be repaired at sea. The engine uses a modular design to facilitate the swapping out of components, with this also making the entire engine transportable by a single MV-22 Osprey.

May 20/15: The Marine Corps has begun testing its F-35Bs aboard USS Wasp (LHD-1), with these tests set to last two weeks. Six of the aircraft are being tested for specific abilities as part of Operational Testing (OT-1); these include digital interoperability between aircraft and ship systems, something particularly sensitive given the aircraft’s recent software problems. The USMC decided to push ahead regardless of 2B software issues, with the intention of hitting IOC in July.

March 26/13: Singapore. AOL Defense is reporting that Singapore will order 12 F-35Bs within 10 days, while others take a more measured tone. Agence France-Presse cite Singaporean sources as saying they’re in the final stages of evaluating the F-35, which tracks with statements by Defence Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen. Even so, the plane’s very incomplete capabilities mean that part of Singapore’s evaluation is just paper and promises at this point. Singapore’s RSIS points out that the country has traditionally been cautious in its defense buys, restricting themselves to proven platforms.

Singapore’s fleet of about 34 upgraded F-5S/T fighters were bought in the 1970s, and they do need replacement. The RSAF’s alternative would be to order more F-15SG Strike Eagles as F-5 replacements, and wait several years before ordering F-35s. The Strike Eagles would cost less at present, and would offer a much wider array of weapons until about 2025 or later. F-35Bs would offer more risk, and would enter service much later than F-15SGs, in exchange for better stealth, and the ability to take off and land from damaged runways. Either way, a DSCA-approved export request would be required before any order can be placed. The most we can expect within 10 days is a State Department announcement. AOL Defence | AFP | Reuters | Eurasia Review.

March 26/13: UK. The Ministry of Defence announces that RAF Marham, which had hosted Tornados until the fighters were retired to save on support costs, will become Britain’s main base for F-35s. It will also act as a support center, performing depth maintenance. RAF | BBC.

March 25/13: Engine. Bloomberg reports that Rolls-Royce was an average of 160 days late with its F135-PW-600 LiftFan engine parts deliveries in 2012. Subcontractor errors were part of the problem:

“There have been issues such as corrosion on some of the gears and some undersized holes,” Jacqueline Noble, a spokeswoman for the defense agency, said in the [emailed] statement [to Bloomberg]. While London-based Rolls-Royce and its subcontractors have made progress, the need to fix fan parts that don’t meet specifications “is still a concern,” she said.”

March 25/13: Japan LRIP-8. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $40.2 million fixed-price-incentive (firm-target), contract to provide long lead-time parts, materials and components required for the delivery of 4 Japanese F-35As, as part of Low Rate Initial Production Lot 8. See also June 29/12 entry.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, and is expected to be complete in February 2014. All funds are committed immediately, and this contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD, who is acting as Japan’s agent through the FMS process (N00019-13-C-0014).

March 21/13: Netherlands. The 2 Dutch IOT&E F-35As are already slated to go into storage until 2015, because the jets aren’t fit for purpose yet (q.v. Feb 11/13). Now Reuters reports that the Dutch are looking to cut their planned order of 85 F-35As by 17-33 planes. On the surface, this isn’t exactly news, as the MvD was known to be looking at a 56 plane order (-29 aircraft) when the Oct 24/12 Rekenkamer report came out. Reuters gives a figure of 52-68 planes and a budget of EUR 4.5 billion, but full replacement of the RNLAF’s reduced fleet of 68 F-16s with F-35As doesn’t square with that budget. A “defense source close to the talks” is quoted as saying that an F-35A order could drop as low as 33-35 planes (-50 or more aircraft), based on Rekenkamer estimates.

That can’t be welcome news to the F-35 program, which expects to have foreign orders making up half of production after LRIP Lot 8 in 2014 (q.v. March 12/13). For the RNLAF, Defense Aerospace cites Dutch Parliamentary documents which size their operational F-16 fleet at just 24 / 68 planes, due to maintenance issues and lack of spare parts. That’s a bit of a crisis; meanwhile, the larger question is whether 24-35 fighters is even close to adequate for future needs.

The new coalition, sworn into office in November 2012, expects to finalize a new defense policy and fighter purchase plans later in 2013. Defense Aerospace reports that the Dutch Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence has already scheduled presentations from Boeing (F/A-18 Super Hornet family) and Saab (JAS-39E/F Gripen), and the Eurofighter consortium has told the publication that they’re keeping an eye on developments. Reuters | Defense Aerospace.

March 20/13: Australia. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives an unfinalized, not-to-exceed $9.8 million modification for Australian-specific non-recurring support activities. It includes ALIS equipment and sustainment and logistics support, and will be bought under the LRIP Lot 6 contract. $4.9 million is committed immediately.

Australia was set to buy 2 F-35As for IOT&E preparation under LRIP Lot 6. The timing of their follow-on buy of 12 F-35As may be uncertain, but this contract seems to indicate that they’ll buy the 2 IOT&E jets (see also March 5/13). Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%), and is expected to be complete in January 2019. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0083).

March 13/13: Denmark. The Danes pick up their fighter competition as promised, following their announced hiatus in April 2010. Invited bidders include the same set of Lockheed Martin (F-35A), Boeing (Super Hornet), and Saab (JAS-39E/F) – plus EADS (Eurofighter), who had withdrawn from the Danish competition in 2007. The goal of a 2014 F-16 replacement decision has been moved a bit farther back, and now involves a recommendation by the end of 2014, and a selection by June 2015.

The Flyvevabnet are reported to have 30 operational F-16s, with 15 more in reserve, out of an original order of 58. Past statements indicate that they’re looking to buy around 25 fighters as replacements, but there are reports of a range from 24-32, depending on price. Danish Forsvarsministeriet [in Danish] | Eurofighter GmbH | Saab | JSF Nieuws.

March 12/13: Issues & allies. JSF PEO Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan, USAF, offers a number of important pieces of information at the Credit Suisse/McAleese defense programs conference in Washington, DC. One is that he hopes to have unit cost, including the engine, down to $90 million by 2020 – about 10% lower than current Pentagon estimates beyond 2017. Allies “need to know where their money is going”, especially since orders after LRIP-8 (2014) are expected to be about 50% allied buys. Unfortunately there’s an issue with IOT&E processes, which has been left unaddressed until the issue became a source of buying uncertainty:

“Adding insult to injury, the JSF program office classified all documents as “U.S. only,” which upset partner nations. Even if they are all buying the same aircraft, each country has its own air-worthiness qualification processes and other administrative procedures that require they have access to the aircraft’s technical data. JSF officials are working to re-classify the documentation, Bogdan said.”

Regarding Operations & Support costs, which are over 2/3 of a weapon system’s lifetime cost: “If we don’t start doing things today to bring down O&S now, there will be a point when the services will see this aircraft as unaffordable.”

Most of those costs trace back to design, so changes at this point are possible, but difficult. One design and support issue is that the 80% commonality between variants envisaged at the program’s outset is now closer to 25-30%. That means more expensive non-common parts due to lower production runs, larger inventories for support of multiple types in places like the USA and Italy, more custom work for future changes, etc. Information Dissemination | National Defense.

March 11/13: GAO Report. The GAO releases its annual F-35 program report: “Current Outlook Is Improved, but Long-Term Affordability Is a Major Concern“. Some manufacturing indices like labor hours per jet delivery rate are getting better, but operations and maintenance costs are a serious problem, and F-35 acquisition funding requirements average $12.6 billion annually through 2037.

There’s much, much more. It’s difficult to summarize this report, and worth reading it in full.

March 9/13: Cost sensitivity. Reuters gets their hands on an advance draft of a GAO report, which looks at the F-35’s sustainment and purchase costs. The GAO’s estimate to refurbish produced F-35s to incorporate fixes required by discoveries during testing? $1.7 billion. That’s a lot, but it’s a decision that touches on the next area they examine: what happens if some countries don’t buy, or the USA buys fewer?

Current American plans will average $10.6 billion per year until 2037 [DID: it turns out to be $12.6 billion]. Average costs have already climbed from $69 million to $137 million, and would rise by another 9% if the USA dropped its orders from 2,443 – 1,500 (to $150 million). They would rise by 6% (to $145 million) if all 8 foreign partners cut their planned 697 orders, but the USA kept its own. The combination? More than additive, at 19% (to $163 million).

Here’s the thing. The GAO is calculating averages, but all F-35 partners including the USA, have a limited window of safe remaining life for their fighter fleets. That forces them to place earlier orders, which can cost a lot more than “average over all production” estimates. They’re also more price sensitive to production cuts, since fewer planes per year are being built at this stage. A design that isn’t done testing adds another disincentive, and the combination of unready planes and spiraling costs for near-term buys can force quite a few cancellations and reductions. Each cancellation may be minor in the long term, but it’s a larger cost hike in the short term, which ensures that the long term production figure never arrives.

One response just starts production earlier, and lets the main partner eat most of the concurrency costs. So, was the $1.7 billion concurrency cost worth it, in order to speed up the purchase schedule and production ramp-up by 5-6 years? That’s an individual judgement. Reuters | IBT.

March 6/13: DOT&E OUE. The POGO NGO gets its hands on a copy of the Pentagon’s Operational Utility Evaluation for initial F-35A training, dated Feb 15/13. While DOT&E cautions that you can’t draw any meaningful conclusions from a system this immature, some of their observations and trends are relevant and concerning.

Not training ready. To begin at the beginning, current F-35s aren’t even close to suitable for new-pilot training, and are very marginal even for experienced pilot training. This situation, and the long list of accompanying flight restrictions, is normal for an aircraft mid-way through its testing phase. What’s different is that continued program delays would leave the US military unable to stream new pilots to its production aircraft.

Touch screens. A notable but less urgent design deficiency involves the touch screen display, which may need to be used less. Using it to control radios, for instance, is a bad idea, especially at high Gs and under stress. To duplicate this feeling, have a jumpy 3-year old grab and flail at your arm while you’re trying to operate a computer mouse. MIL-STD-1472G already prohibits this sort of thing as a sole option, and voice recognition is intended to fix the problem. Until it’s ready, of course, we won’t know if it has its own issues.

Visibility. The most serious deficiency remains technical problems with the pilot’s ambitious Helmet-Mounted Display, coupled with a designed-in lack of rear visibility that HMDS needs to overcome using the plane’s embedded sensors. The visibility is poor in order to improve stealth vs. a full bubble canopy; and also to keep design commonality with the STOVL F-35B, which mounts its lift fan and doors behind the pilot. The OUE’s experienced F-16 and A-10 pilots were universal in their criticism, saying that poor to no rear visibility made basic tasks like keeping formation more challenging, and was a deficiency in combat situations.

It’s also a maintenance risk, of course, since all associated systems must be working or the planes will be at a large combat disadvantage. The likely result? Either lower readiness rates, higher maintenance costs, or both. Those are both areas where the F-35 remains behind the curve, with potentially dire fiscal consequences. POGO summary | Full Report [PDF]

March 5/13: LRIP-6. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a not-to-exceed $72.2 million unfinalized LRIP Lot 6 contract modification. It buys F-35A support equipment for Luke AFB’s Pilot Training Center 1. It also covers associated Data Quality Integration Management supplier support tasks, and all other sustainment data products for the USAF and the governments of Italy and Australia. The contract is split-funded by the USAF ($55.0M/ 76.2%); Italy ($10.3M/ 14.3%); and Australia ($6.9/ 9.5%).

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%), and is expected to be complete in August 2014. $36.1 million is committed immediately (N00019-11-C-0083). This brings total LRIP-6 contracts to $5.674 billion.

Feb 28/13: Block 8 long-lead. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $333.8 million fixed-price-incentive (firm-target), advance acquisition contract, covering early equipment buys for 35 LRIP Lot 8 planes: 19 USAF F-35As ($155.2M/ 46%), 6 USMC F-35Bs ($85.4M/ 26%), and 4 USN F-35Cs ($27.5M/ 8%); plus 4 F-35B STOVLs for Britain ($45M/ 14%), and 2 F-35As for Norway ($20.7M/ 6%). All contract funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, and is expected to be complete in February 2014. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-13-C-0008).

Feb 27/13: Unhappy relationship. F-35 PEO Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan criticizes some important decisions, such as concurrent testing and production, and he’s also unhappy with the vendors. There’s some back-and-forth in the news reports regarding production cost, which he pegs at about $120 million for a Lot 5 F-35A with engine, and whether cost reductions per lot have been adequate. His AuBC interview also includes this remark, which got less attention but is more important:

“The real big elephant is how much it costs over the life of this plane to maintain it, and sustain it…. I think today, looking at what we have, the cost to maintain and sustain this plane is too high…. What I’ve told Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney is “you have yet to earn the right to become the product support integrator for the life of this program.” So what I’ve done is, I’ve tried to take pieces of the life cycle, and I’ve tried to introduce some competition [from domestic and foreign companies]….”

The decision to use only 1 engine also comes into play, as he describes the 6 month negotiations to finalize the F135 engine LRIP Lot 5 contract (vid. Feb 6/13 entry), which began shortly after their F136 competitor had been eliminated:

“Now, you would think a company like Pratt & Whitney that was just given the greatest Christmas gift you could ever, ever get for a company would act a little differently…”

In truth, the full tone of Gen. Bogdan’s remarks isn’t fully captured in written reports. He’s adopting classic crisis management recommendations, acknowledging known problems rather than being dishonest, placing them in context when he can, then promising to fix what’s left and deliver a successful jet. The comments in Australia were made shortly after the DOT&E report (vid. Jan 13/13). They’re aired a month or so later in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Reach for the Sky” documentary on the program, just before Australia submits a formal request to buy another 24 Boeing Super Hornet family fighters. Center for Public Integrity | Fox News | TIME | AuBC’s Reach for the Sky.

Feb 13/13: Australia. Australian MP Dennis Jensen [Lib-Tangney, near Perth] chronicles the key assertions, decisions, and official reassurances made in Australia concerning the F-35, most of which have turned out to be somewhere between inaccurate and untrue. It’s a sobering account of how far program timelines and costs have gone awry, and effectively eviscerates the credibility of official ADF and DoD analysis.

The former defense research scientist also has the brass to point out that while the military has been busy missing the mark, independent analysts like Air Power Australia laid down key cost and performance markers that are now being vindicated by official reports.

Jensen is a long-time critic of the F-35. His 2009 guest article for DID focused on the F-22 as a better solution for Australia, and one wonders if he still has that view in light of recent events. His skepticism concerning the F-35 has remained, as evidenced by his March 2012 release, “Joint Strike Fighter lemon“. That release goes a step beyond most political releases, whose authors aren’t likely to confront a senior air force officer with step by step analysis of hypothetical 8 vs. 8 air combat engagements. Australian parliamentary transcript | JSF Nieuws has added sub-headers for easier reading.

Feb 13/13: Lot 6 Engines. United Technologies’ Pratt and Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, CT receives a $65 million cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to a previously awarded advance acquisition contract for ongoing sustainment, operations, and maintenance to LRIP Lot 6’s F135 engines. This contract combines purchases for the USMC ($43.8M / 69%); the USAF ($17.8M / 26%); and the US Navy ($3.3M / 5%). $55.3 million in FY 2012 and 2013 contract funds are committed immediately, and $11.8 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13.

Efforts include labor and materials required to maintain and repair F135 propulsion systems; sustainment labor consisting of fleet and material management, sustaining engineering, and joint services technical data updates; and material required to support fielded propulsion systems and support equipment after unit and depot activations at production, training, and operational locations.

Work will be performed in East Hartford, CT (54%); Indianapolis, IN (31%); and Bristol, United Kingdom (15%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-12-C-0090).

Feb 6/13: The Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office and Pratt & Whitney announce an agreement in principle regarding the final engine contract for LRIP Lot 5’s planes.

An unfinalized version of that contract was announced on Dec 28/11, and the new contract is reportedly about $20 million lower than the $1.122 billion quoted at that time. Even with that reduction, adding the engine contract to other fighter-related Lot 5 announcements would give an average Lot V flyaway cost across all types of around $170 million per plane. It’s important to note that the engine contract includes things besides fighter engines, but even with no engines at all, Lot V announcements sum to a cost per fighter of $137.5 million.

Final engine figures and divisions won’t be forthcoming until the official Pentagon announcement. Note that some media reports don’t match up with the 32 planes known to be in Lot V (vid. Dec 14/12 entry). American Machinist | Reuters.

Feb 2/13: A USAF presentation to Congress says that if sequestration takes effect, F-35 order will be reduced (duh). They add that the program may need to be restructured, too, along with the KC-46A aerial tanker and MQ-9 Reaper Block 5. That would make a few allies grumpy. Flight International.

Jan 31/13: Personnel. AviationWeek reports that Tom Burbage, the executive vice president and general manager of program integration for the F-35, will retire in March 2013, after 32 years at the firm. He had been appointed in that position in 2000.

Jan 30/13: DOT&E – Pilot views. Flight International interviews both experienced pilots and Lockheed Martin personnel, in the wake of the turning & acceleration performance downgrades announced by DOT&E’s 2012 report. One experienced pilot flatly says that those performance figures put the F-35 Lightning in the same class as the 1960s-era F-4 Phantom fighter-bomber, rather than modern high-performance fighters. The Lightning does retain some kinetic strengths, but the overall picture isn’t encouraging when examined closely.

Then a Lockheed test pilot with broad experience takes up the gauntlet, to say that the F-35 is actually kinetically better than other 4+ generation fighters. Some of his fellow test pilots question those claims. Read “The F-35’s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy” for in-depth coverage of this issue.

Jan 30/13: Japan problem. If Japan wants to make parts for all F-35s, they’re going to have to do something about one of their “3 principles” on arms exports. Those restrictions won’t allow exports to communist countries, countries subject to arms export embargoes under U.N. Security Council resolutions, or countries involved in or likely to be involved in international conflicts. Unfortunately, many potential F-35 customers, especially in the Middle East, fall into the 3rd category.

We’re sure Israel would be perfectly happy to simply have all of the affected parts made in Israel instead, but this is going to be a wider issue. The program could always go to a “second supplier” arrangement for all Japanese parts, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said maintaining consistency with the ban is “under discussion within the government.” Asashi Shimbun.

Jan 30/13: Industrial. Lockheed Martin says that there are 88 F-35s of all versions in various stages of completion on the program’s production lines. When it’s delivered, AF-41 (a USAF F-35A) will become delivery #100.

Jan 28/13: Fueldraulic fault found. Flight International reports that the failure of an F-35B’s Stratoflex fueldraulic line has been traced to a failure to properly crimp it. The F-35 Program Office says that Stratoflex, Rolls-Royce and Pratt &Whitney, have “instituted corrective actions to improve their quality control processes and ensure part integrity.”

The same problem was found on 6 other aircraft, and all 7 will need to be fixed. Until a Return to Flight plan is approved, however, all 25 F-35Bs will remain grounded.

Jan 13/13: DOT&E Report. The Pentagon’s Department of Operational Test & Evaluation submits its 2012 report, which includes 18 pages covering the F-35. The fleet continues to work through significant technical challenges, which isn’t unusual. What is unusual is the steady stream of deliveries that will have to be fixed later, in order to address mechanical and structural problems found during testing. A summary of the key statistics & challenges can be found above, in the Testing section, but 2 issues deserve special mention.

One issue is software, which may be more important to the F-35 than it is to any other fighter aircraft. Unfortunately, the software development program is late, and is straining to fix and test issues across several developmental versions. Block 1.0 software capability is only 80% delivered, and the Block 2A software for training is under 50%. Block 2B, which adds rudimentary combat capabilities for serious training, was under 10% as of August 2012. Test resources and personnel are both limited, so this problem is likely to get worse.

The other issue is weight. The F-35 was designed with little margin for weight growth, but new capabilities and fixes for testing issues often add weight. One frequent consequence is higher costs, as very expensive but lightweight materials are used to save an extra pound here and there. Another consequence reduced performance, as seen in the F-35B’s drop to 7.0 maximum Gs after its aggressive weight reduction effort. A third consequence involves ruggedness and survivability. The F-35B faced a suspension of structural fatigue life stress testing in 2012, after cracking was discovered in several places. Even this pales in comparison, however, to the fleet-wide problem created by saving just 11 pounds in all variants. Without fuelstatic flow fuses and Polyalphaolefin (PAO) coolant shutoff valves, DOT&E estimates that these flammable substances make the F-35 25% less likely to survive enemy fire. DOT&E report [PDF] | Lockheed Martin re: 2012 testing | Reuters | TIME magazine. | Washington Post.

Dec 28/12: LRIP-6 support. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a not-to-exceed $753.4 million unfinalized modification to the LRIP-6 advance acquisition contract, for one-time sustainment and logistics support. This modification also includes site stand-up and depot activation activities, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) hardware and software, training systems, support equipment, and spares.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2015. $375.2 million is committed immediately (N00019-11-C-0083).

Dec 28/12: LRIP-6 & 7 support. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a not-to-exceed $374.5 million unfinalized modification to the LRIP-6 advance acquisition contract. It covers initial spares in support of 60 F-35s from LRIP Lot 6 and LRIP Lot 7: 37 F-35As, 12 F-35B STOVL, and 11 F-35Cs.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%), and is expected to be complete in November 2015. Contract funds in the amount of $374,495,232 is committed immediately (N00019-11-C-0083).

Dec 28/12: Studies. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $48 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract to perform engineering, programmatic, and logistics tasks supporting investigations or studies covering various systems in the F-35 Lightning II.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, and is expected to be complete in December 2015. $7.2 million is committed at the time of award. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-13-D-0005).

Dec 28/12: LRIP-5 support. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a not-to-exceed $17.1 million unfinalized modification the LRIP Lot 5 contract. This modification buys initial air vehicle spares for LRIP-5 F-35As.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%), and is expected to be complete in November 2015. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13 (N00019-10-C-0002).

Dec 6/12: LRIP-6 lead-in. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a not-to-exceed $386.7 million contract modification for the LRIP Lot 6 Advance Acquisition Contract. This will ease some of Lockheed Martin’s cash flow concerns, and funds ground maintenance activities; depot activation activities; ALIS operations and maintenance; reliability, maintainability and health management implementation and support; supply chain management; action request resolution; activities to provide and support pilot and maintainer initial training; and procurement of replenishment spares and depot level repairs in support of flight operations.

Work will be performed in Eglin AFB in Orlando, FL (35%); and in Ft. Worth, TX (25%); El Segundo, CA (8%); Warton, United Kingdom (5%); and various locations throughout the United States (27%); and is expected to be complete in October 2013. $193.3 million is committed immediately, $58,378,517 of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-11-C-0083).

Nov 30/12: Reuters reports that the US government and Lockheed Martin have reached a preliminary $3.8 billion deal for 32 F-35s: 22 F-35As, 3 F-35Bs, and 7 F-35Cs. A deal would safeguard that contract from any sequestration cuts, but engines and some other items would still need to be bought separately.

Lockheed spokesman Michael Rein quoted a 14% reduction in labor costs from LRIP Lot 4 to Lot 5, and said that the overall cost would be lower in total. That second assurance is important, because materials costs are subject to inflation. He also said that Lot 5 aircraft would be over 50% less expensive than LRIP-1’s $220.8 million figure, which doesn’t square with the $118.8 million average cost of the reported Lot 6 deal. F-35B/C aircraft will push the price up, however, so Lot 1 vs. Lot 5 isn’t an apples to apples comparison.

Lockheed Martin has delivered 48 F-35s so far (19 development, 29 LRIP), and is pushing to meet its goal of 30 delivered in 2012. Near-term funding for Lot 6 remains a concern, however (q.v. Oct 25/12 entry).

Nov 22/12: Canada. Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose tells Canada’s House of Commons that Canada’s “review of options will not be constrained by the previous statement of requirements.” That seems minor, but it isn’t. DND’s requirements had been crafted to make the F-35 the only available choice, per the department’s standard pattern. Breaking that lock opens up other options like the Eurofighter, Super Hornet, etc.

Subsequent reports that Canada has canceled the F-35 are premature. Much will depend on the people picked to conduct the review of options. See “Canada Preparing to Replace its CF-18 Hornets” for full coverage.

Nov 16/12: ALIS. Reuters reports that ALIS is at 94% of final capability, but a changing computing landscape has bitten it. A Navy “Red Team” hacked into the ALIS system. ALIS reportedly includes both classified and unclassified data streams, and the 2001 specifications didn’t require separating them to prevent intrusions. That kind of failure to plan for computer attacks doesn’t reflect especially well on all concerned, and it was reportedly all the Navy team needed.

Lockheed Martin was surprised by the result, but say that they’ve developed a “fairly straightforward fix” that did not require major adjustments to ALIS. The bad news? The political exercise of choosing F-35 suppliers in nearly every U.S. state, and beyond the USA, increases general exposure to cyber attacks.

The latest version of ALIS has been in use at Edwards AFB, CA for several months. It’s also scheduled to be used by the Marines at Yuma, CA this year, and by Nellis AFB, NV when Lockheed delivers 4 F-35s for testing within the next month or 2. Meanwhile, The Pentagon is looking to compete ALIS operation, and F-35 maintenance, beyond Lockheed Martin, in an attempt to drive down rising Operations & Maintenance cost projections. Reuters.

Nov 5/12: Affordability. USN Rear Adm. (ret.) Craig Steidle pens an op-ed in Aviation Week. Steidle was the 2nd director of the JSF Program Office, from August 1995 – August 1997. He writes:

“…as the program moved on, the focus on affordability atrophied. Both the government and contractor were at fault. What began as a core pillar didn’t evolve into a culture… In 2008-10, I had the privilege to chair several Independent Manufacturing Review Team (IMRT) assessments of the F-35 program… The kind of cost-avoidance program that should have encompassed lean and producibility initiatives and other affordability improvements did not exist, nor was it asked for. The statements of work that we reviewed did not incorporate cost reduction. Difficulties were to be expected, but resolving development issues had diverted attention from cost control.”

He does say that the current F-35 program leadership has made progress, adding that the F-35 will have “a system performance beyond our initial expectations.” Time will tell.

Oct 30/12: Dutch delay. Instead of trying to gather a majority among the second-tier parties, the Dutch VVD and its largest opponent, the PvdA Labour Party, elect to form a national unity coalition with 79/ 150 seats.

They don’t agree about the F-35, but they do agree that the recent Rekenkamer report requires a full reconsideration of Dutch defense policy and commitments by the end of 2013. Once that’s done, there’s reportedly some language about a “competitive” evaluation of alternatives in 2014, leading to a contract in 2015 as planned. The parties agreed that the 2014 evaluation will include operations and support (O&S) costs, while a 2nd agreement will create a forensic inquiry into why Parliament wasn’t informed of the 390% cost explosion between 2001 and 2012 for 30 years of F-35 O&S (q.v. Oct 24/12 entry).

Depending on the exact wording of the coalition agreement, and on how vigorously the PvdA asserts itself, those agreements may just be a stalling tactic toward lock-in, and a drastically reduced fighter fleet with much smaller responsibilities. There are a number of ways to blunt the accuracy and impact of an O&S assessment, and true competition in 2014 requires a specific procedure. The forensic inquiry will put the MvD in the spotlight, and the VVD party is also at risk, but the VVD would not have accepted a suicide pact. The best bet is an inquiry that mirrors the recent farce in Canada: bureaucratic stonewalling, and refusal of responsibility by all parties. In the meantime, more contracts let to Dutch firms could have the effect of raising termination costs if the country pulls out of the F-35 program. Atlantic Sentinel | defense-aerospace.com

Oct 26/12: EVM penalty. The Pentagon is withholding $46.5 million from Lockheed Martin over Earned Value Management system deficiencies, subtracting 5% of periodic billings against the LRIP-4 and LRIP-5 contracts, and Israel’s F-35i development contract.

Lockheed Martin’s EVM certification at Fort Worth, TX was yanked in October 2010. They have a corrective plan to return to full EVM compliance, but haven’t restored their certification yet. Bloomberg.

Oct 25/12: LMCO 10-Q. Lockheed Martin’s 10-Q filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission says that they are still working to restore the Defense Contracting Management Agency’s (DCMA) earned value management system (EVMS) at the Fort Worth, TX facility. Relations with the US government are actually quite tense overall, and the firm mentions the ongoing failure of contract restructuring negotiations to tie fees to milestones. Not to mention disagreements between contractor and government assessments for the milestones that already exist. Then there’s the issue of payment risk hanging over the program:

“The development portion of the F-35 program is expected to continue into 2017 and currently has approximately $530 million of incentive fees remaining… While our customer has delayed funding for LRIP Lot 6 until the LRIP Lot 5 contract is negotiated, we and our industry team have continued to work in an effort to meet our customer’s desired aircraft delivery dates for the LRIP Lot 6 aircraft. As a result, we have approximately $400 million in potential termination liability exposure as of September 30, 2012. If we are unable to obtain additional funding by year-end, the potential termination liability exposure is estimated to be $1.1 billion and our cash exposure would be approximately $250 million… In the quarter ended September 30, 2012, 12 LRIP Lot 3 aircraft were delivered to the U.S. Government. We have received orders for 95 production aircraft, of which 26 have been delivered through the quarter ended September 30, 2012.”

Lockheed Martin received a $489.5 million contract for Lot 6 long-lead parts on June 15/12. It isn’t clear if those funds have been released, or are being held up over negotiations. See: 10-Q SEC filing | Reuters.

Oct 24/12: Dutch Report. The Dutch Rekenkamer national auditing office releases their report covering the proposed F-35 buy. A decision to buy or reject the F-35A must be made by 2015, per earlier agreements with the US government and Lockheed Martin, but the F-35A IOT&E and arrival of operational Block 3 software will take until 2019, which means another round of testing after 2019. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) would wait until 2022, and it would be at least 2027 (a 6-year slip from 2021) before the Dutch could retire their F-16s.

The bottom line is that even in a study that confined itself to unaudited figures provided by the Dutch government and industry, it’s clear that the planned EUR 4.05 billion Dutch buy won’t be able to afford 68 F-35s, let alone the 85 planned. The MvD is now talking about just 56 planes, and extrapolation using the report’s own charts and Pentagon figures suggests a figure closer to 42-48 F-35As. As the Rekenkamer points out, it isn’t possible to execute the Luchtmacht’s current responsibilities with those numbers. Which means the Netherlands will need to rethink and reduce its long-term defense and alliance commitments. Operations & support (O&S) projections, exclusive of fuel, add even more weight to that conclusion. The 30-year figure has risen from the initial 2001 figure of EUR 2.9 billion for 85, to the 2012 figure of EUR 14.2 billion. It only drops to EUR 13.2 billion at 68 aircraft, and that non-linear drop makes it likely that O&M costs for a fleet of 42-48 F-35As, over 30 years, would be well over EUR 200 million per plane.

Option #2, which involves withdrawing from the testing phase, gets a negative recommendation. The Rekenkamer thinks it wouldn’t make operational or financial sense, since monies “saved” would just create new costs later in the F-16 fleet. They’re almost certainly correct.

Option #3 would involve withdrawing from the F-35 program before 2015, and buying another fighter off the shelf. This could expose the government to termination claims, with Dutch firms filing claims against major F-35 contractors under US Federal Acquisition Regulations, who will go to the US government for payment, who would go to the Dutch government under the JSF program’s 2010 MoU (pp. 28, 117). The Rekenkamer believes that taking this option would also require a reconsideration of the Luchtmacht’s medium-term responsibilities, since it would require operating the F-16 fleet for longer.

That last conclusion may not be correct. The most likely alternative that could offer more fighters, the JAS-39E/F Gripen, isn’t scheduled to enter Swedish service until 2023. Which would push full retirement of the Dutch F-16s beyond 2027. The Swiss are getting leased JAS-39C/Ds as a bridge to their 22 JAS-39Es, however, and Saab could conceivably make the Dutch a similar offer that let them retire the Luchtmacht F-16s in 2027 as planned. The Eurofighter or Rafale would offer similar or greater costs compared to the F-35A, but either aircraft could be delivered and operational several years earlier than the F-35A or the JAS-39E/F. DID’s estimate is that a 2015 contract signing could give the Dutch a Rafale/ Typhoon IOC of 2018, and full retirement of Dutch F-16s by 2022-23. “Uitstapkosten Joint Strike Fighter,” incl. links to full reports [all in Dutch] | JSF Nieuws [in Dutch] | DID thanks VNC Communication for their assistance.

Dutch F-35 report

Oct 19/12: Engines. United Technologies’ Pratt and Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, CT wins an $81.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for services and materials for the preliminary design, detailed design, and engine performance testing in support of the F135 Fuel Burn Reduction Program. The objective of the program is to demonstrate a 5% mission weighted fuel burn reduction in a F135 experimental engine configuration.

Competition can produce the same kinds of benefits, of course, but the Pentagon has chosen not to do that.

Work will be performed in East Hartford, CT, and is expected to be complete in July 2016. This contract was competitively procured via Broad Agency Announcement, and 3 offers were received by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ (N68335-13-C-0005).

Oct 9/12: Italy. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX received a $28.6 million advance acquisition contract modification, buying long lead-time parts, material and components required to protect the delivery schedule of Italy’s 4 F-35As in LRIP Lot 7 (FY 2013).

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%), and is expected to be completed in June 2013. Note that El Segundo is Northrop Grumman’s work, and Warton is BAE’s (N00019-12-C-0004).

Sept 27/12: LRIP-7 Engine lead-in. United Technologies’ Pratt & Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, CT receives an estimated $89.2 million for long-lead components, parts and materials associated with the 37 engines in LRIP Lot 7. The rest of the contract will follow, but initial purchases involve:

• USAF: 19 F135-PW-100 base model ($38 million, 43%)
  
• Italy: 3 F135 CTOL ($6 million, 7%)
  
• Norway: 2 F135 CTOL ($4 million, 4.5%)
  
• Turkey: 2 F135 CTOL ($4 million, 4.5%)
  
• US Navy: 4 F135-PW-100 Carrier Variant ($35.2 million, 39% for US/ USMC)
  
• USMC: 6 F-135-PW-600 Short Take-off and Vertical Landing with Roll Royce’s LiftFan
  
• Britain: 1 F135 STOVL ($2 million, 2%)

Work will be performed in East Hartford, CT (67%); Bristol, United Kingdom (16.5%); and Indianapolis, IN (16.5%), and is expected to be complete in September 2013. This contract was not competitively procured (N00019-12-C-0060).

F-35A armed test
(click to view full)

Sept 26/12: LRIP-3 changes. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $25.9 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification to add authorized concurrency changes for USAF F-35As in LRIP Lot 3. Many concurrency changes are going to involve software, but they can also involve mechanical changes. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, and is expected to span multiple years (N00019-08-C-0028).

Sept 26/12: Simulators & RCS. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a not-to-exceed $79.9 million advance acquisition contract modification to buy 6 F-35 Lightening II Full Mission Simulators, and a radar upgrade at Hill AFB, UT to support of F-35 radar cross section testing.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%), and is expected to be complete in April 2015. $716,700 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-10-C-0002).

Sept 20/12: Sub-contractors. Northrop Grumman Corporation enters into a long-term agreement (LTA) with Denmark’s Terma A/S, worth more than $95 million through 2019. The LTA covers production of 34 unique F-35 Lightning II composite components, including doors, panels, skin assembly, and straps through 2019.

This is actually an extension of a partnership that began in 2006. Terma A/S has been producing F-35 components since the LRIP-1 order in 2007. NGC.

Sept 12/12: Dutch Elections. Elections leave the pro-JSF coalition slightly ahead in some respects, but the VVD (+10 seats) and CDA (-8 seats) end up needing 22 more votes to have a 76-vote majority in favor of the F-35. Support from Geert Wilders’ PVV, plus the Christian Democratic leaning CU and SGP, could get them to 77. Wikipedia.

Sept 6/12: Japan’s 4, for much more. More cost hikes for Japan, as Defense Ministry officials cite “lower production efficiency” as the reason its first 4 F-35As will soar again to YEN 15.4 billion (about $195 million) per plane. As a result, the ministry is looking to find the full YEN 30.8 billion, in order to cover the 2 fighters planned for the FY 2013 budget request. The Japan Times.

Aug 7/12: LRIP-5. United Technologies subsidiary Pratt & Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, CT receives a $9.6 million contract modification to LRIP Lot 5/ FY 2011 fixed-price incentive and cost-plus-incentive contract line items. It funds part of the cost of 2 F135 engines, plus associated engineering assistance to production, a mock-up engine, slave modules for engine depot test cells at Tinker Air Force Base, initial stand-up repair capabilities at Hill Air Force Base; and additional contractor logistics support. Support will take place at the Fort Worth, TX, and Palmdale, CA, production sites, and at Eglin AFB, Yuma AFB, Nellis AFB, and Edwards AFB.

Work will be performed in East Hartford, CT (67%); Bristol, United Kingdom (17%); and Indianapolis, IN (16%), and is expected to be complete in February 2014.Funding will be released as needed (N00019-10-C-0005).

Aug 6/12: LRIP-5. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a not-to-exceed $209.8 million contract modification for initial spares to support 32 F-35 LRIP Lot 5/ FY 2011 fighters.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%), and is expected to be complete in June 2015 (N00019-10-C-0002).

June 20/12: LRIP-7 Norway. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $20.1 million advance acquisition contract to provide long lead-time parts, material and components required for Norway’s 2 F-35As ordered in LRIP-7/ FY 2013.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%). Work is expected to be complete in June 2013. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-12-C-0004).

July 2-5/12: Netherlands. A parliamentary majority opposed to buying the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter has emerged in the Netherlands. Despite lobbying from the MvD, and 2 planes ordered already, the issue came to a vote, and the motion to withdraw from the program was upheld.

Because the government has technically dissolved, this vote doesn’t pull the Netherlands out yet. What it does say is that unless the VVD and SDA parties can form a majority in the next election, the Dutch F-35 buy is in serious danger. The cost of ending the country’s Tier 2 participation in the program could hit EUR 1 billion. Then again, if reported figures regarding Saab’s JAS-39E/F Gripen offer are true, Dutch government budgets could still come out ahead. Industry may be less happy.

June 15/12: LRIP-6. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $489.5 million advance acquisition contract to provide long lead-time parts, material and components required for the delivery of 35 LRIP-6 fighters. The order involves 19 USAF F-35As, 3 F-35As for the government of Italy, 2 F-35As for the government of Turkey, 6 USMC F-35B STOVL(Short Take-Off Vertical Landing) fighters, 1 F-35B for Britain, and 4 F-35Cs for the US Navy.

This contract also funds long lead-time efforts required for the addition of a drag chute to Norway’s F-35As, which will be ordered as part of LRIP-7 in 2013. Drag chutes are especially useful when landing in cold climates, where runways and tires may fail to provide the same level of traction.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%); and is expected to be complete in June 2013. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to US FAR 6.302-1, by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-12-C-0004).

June 14/12: Norway. Norway’s Storting (parliament) approves a significant increase in defense spending, with the F-35 purchase playing a central role. The country will also be making investments in modernizing and adding CV90 tracked armored vehicles, and purchasing UAVs.

Overall, Norway will see a budget increase of 7% by 2016. Monies spent of the Afghan deployment will be continued and redirected, while “significant” supplementary funds will be added for the F-35 purchase. Source.

June 14/12: US GAO Report. Congress’ Government Accountability Office delivers a report on the F-35 program. Key excerpts from GAO-12-437: “Joint Strike Fighter – DOD Actions Needed to Further Enhance Restructuring and Address Affordability Risks” :

“The new program baseline projects total acquisition costs of $395.7 billion, an increase of $117.2 billion (42%) from the prior 2007 baseline. Full rate production is now planned for 2019, a delay of 6 years from the 2007 baseline. Unit costs per aircraft have doubled since start of development in 2001… Since 2002, the total quantity through 2017 has been reduced by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365. Affordability is a key challenge… Overall performance in 2011 was mixed as the program achieved 6 of 11 important objectives… Late software releases and concurrent work on multiple software blocks have delayed testing and training. Development of critical mission systems providing core combat capabilities remains behind schedule and risky… Most of the instability in the program has been and continues to be the result of highly concurrent development, testing, and production activities. Cost overruns on the first four annual procurement contracts total more than $1 billion and aircraft deliveries are on average more than 1 year late. Program officials said the government’s share of the cost growth is $672 million; this adds about $11 million to the price of each of the 63 aircraft under those contract.”

June 13/12: Infrastructure. R.L. Reed, Inc. in Las Vegas, NV wins an $11.1 million firm-fixed-price contract, to build an F-35A aerospace ground equipment facility at Nellis AFB, NV. Work is expected to finish by Dec 10/13. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 15 bids received by The US Army Corps of Engineers in Los Angles, CA (W912PL-12-C-0010).

June 4/12: Support. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives an $111.6 million cost reimbursement contract modification, which adds more funding for recurring support activities such as initial training, aircraft maintenance operations, stand-up of sustainment capability at specified locations, technical data management, and sustaining engineering for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.

Work will be performed at Eglin AFB, FL (60%); and in Fort Worth, TX (15%); El Segundo, CA (5%); Warton, United Kingdom (5%); Orlando, FL (5%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%). Work is expected to be complete in October 2012, but $45.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-10-C-0002).

May 31/12: Norway JSM. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $19.8 million contract modification, funding a Joint Strike Missile (JSM) Risk Reduction Study for the Norway Ministry of Defence. Efforts include physical fit checks, wind tunnel tests, engineering analysis, and designing and building of an emulator and adapter to determine next steps in integrating the JSM into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

These monies will be applied to the fixed-price-incentive-fee, firm target F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter LRIP-4/ FY 2010 contract. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (70%); Arnold AFB in Tullahoma, TN (20%); and Kongsberg, Norway (10%); and is expected to be complete in May 2014 (N00019-09-C-0010).

May 7/12: LRIP-4 Concurrency. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $237,740,000 fixed-price-incentive-fee, firm target contract modification to the LRIP-4/ FY 2010 contract, in order to raise the limit for government-authorized changes to the plane’s configuration baseline hardware or software. This modification increases the concurrency cap for the USAF’s and Netherlands’ F-35As; USMC’s and Britain’s F-35Bs; and US Navy F-35Cs.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, and is expected to span multiple years, but $222.6 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. This contract modification combines purchases for the Navy ($153.2M/ 64.5%); USAF ($69.4M/ 29%); the United Kingdom ($8.2M/ 3.5%); and the Netherlands ($6.9M/ 3%), under contract N00019-09-C-0010.

April 24/12: LRIP-2 Concurrency. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $68.3 million modification to the previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) LRIP-2/ FY 2008 contract, to raise the limit for government-authorized changes to the plane’s configuration baseline hardware or software. This contract combines purchases for the USAF ($37.7M/ 55.2%) and the US Navy ($30.6M/ 44.8%)

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, and is expected to span multiple years. (N00019-07-C-0097)

April 24/12: LRIP-3 Concurrency. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $45.9 million modification to the previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee LRIP-3 contract, to raise the limit for government-authorized changes to the plane’s configuration baseline hardware or software. This contract combines purchases for the US Navy ($37.5M/ 77.8%) and the United Kingdom ($10.2M/ 22.2%).

At this point, both navies were still committed to the F-35C. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX and is expected to span multiple years (N00019-08-C-0028)

April 13/12: LRIP-5. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $258.8 million not-to-exceed undefinitized modification to the LRIP-5/ FY 2011 contract adding 1 USAF F-35A and 1 USN F-35C. The modification includes undefinitized line items, which will be finalized as fixed-price-incentive-firm contract line items.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%); and is expected to be complete in February 2014. Funds will be released as needed (N00019-10-C-0002).

April 2/12: The Future of Stealth? A Japan Today article goes straight to the main military point at stake: the future effectiveness of stealth technologies:

“As more nations develop stealth fighters, then the use of radar as the main target acquisition device will be taken over by infrared, wake tracking, electro-optics, and radio/electronic chatter detection – thereby side-stepping radar stealth features – in short order.”

It’s a bit more complex than that, especially given the fact that stealth tends to be optimized for certain frequencies, so radars will still play a role. Still, the falling cost of high-bandwidth networking, and the need for a counter to stealth technologies, does suggest a range of countermeasures over the coming decades.

March 30/12: Infrastructure. Small business qualifier Head, Inc. in Columbus, OH receives a $17 million firm-fixed-price contract to build 5 vertical landing pads and associated supporting taxiways at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC, which will base F-35Bs.

Work is expected to be complete by August 2013. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 12 proposals received by Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast in Jacksonville, FL (N69450-12-C-1758).

March 20/12: Infrastructure. Harper Construction Co., Inc., San Diego, CA wins a pair of firm-fixed-price task order under a multiple award construction contract, to build the 2-story aircraft maintenance hangars at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, AZ. The buildings will include a high bay space for F-35Bs, crew and equipment space, administrative space and Special Access Program Facility areas for the Automatic Logistics Information System (ALIS) fleet maintenance program.

Task order 003 for the south hangar is $33.2 million, and a planned modification could increase the contract to $35 million (N62473-10-D-5406, 0004).

Task order 004 for the north hangar is $36.7 million, and a planned modification could increase the contract to $38.6 million (N62473-10-D-5406, 0004).

Work is expected to be complete by May 2014, and 9 proposals were received for each task order by US Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest in San Diego, CA

March 12/12: LRIP-5. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $56.4 million cost reimbursement contract modification, adding funding for support efforts necessary to meet F-35 LRIP Lot 5’s requirements and delivery schedule.

Work will be performed in Eglin Air Force Base, FL (60%); Fort Worth, TX (15%); El Segundo, CA (5%); Warton, United Kingdom (5%); Orlando, FL (5%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%); and is expected to be complete in May 2012. $18.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-10-C-0002).

March 12/12: LRIP-6. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $38.6 million modification to the previously awarded low rate initial production Lot 6 advance acquisition contract to provide additional funding for the procurement of long lead items for F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter low rate initial production conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft for the USAF, and for the governments of Italy and Australia.

Work, which will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, is necessary to protect the delivery schedules of CTOL aircraft planned for delivery through January 2015 (N00019-11-C-0083).

March 9/12: Reprogramming Lab. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $24.1 million cost-reimbursement contract modification to develop a data farm for the Joint Strike Fighter US Reprogramming Laboratory at Eglin AFB, FL. It will take feeds from the lab’s existing equipment, and store software and data from the F-35’s mission data testing.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (95%), and Orlando, FL (5%), and is expected to be complete in November 2014. Contract funds will be released as needed (N00019-02-C-3002).

Feb 23/12: Turkey. Turkish Defence Minister Ismet Yilmaz says that they’re sticking to plans to buy 100 of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jets for $16 billion, but could change those numbers or the timing of their orders, depending on how negotiations go.

Turkey’s development phase payments have reportedly hit $315 million so far. Reuters.

Feb 9/12: LRIP-6. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $14.8 million contract modification, to buy long lead items for the USMC’s LRIP-6/ FY 2012 buy of F-35B fighters. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, and is necessary to protect the delivery schedules of STOVL aircraft planned for delivery through December 2014 (N00019-11-C-0083)

Jan 6/12: LRIP-6 engines. United Technologies subsidiary Pratt & Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, CT receives a $194.1 million advance acquisition contract with fixed-price line items for long lead components, parts, and materials required for the delivery of 37 LRIP Lot 6 engines. They will equip the USMC (6 F-135-600s with LiftFan, $84.7M/ 43.6%); USAF (18 F135-100s, $54.9M/ 28.3%); USN (7 F135-100 naval, $37.1M/ 19.1%); Italian Air Force (4 F135-100s, $11.6M/ 6%); and Royal Australian Air Force (2 F135-100s, $5.8M/ 3%); and associated spares.

Work will be performed in East Hartford, CT (64%); Bristol, UK (25%); and Indianapolis, IN (11%), and is expected to be complete in September 2012. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 USC. 2304c1 (N00019-11-C-0082).

USN F-35C & F/A-18E,
jet blast testing
(click to view full)

Dec 28/11: LRIP-5 engines. Pratt & Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, CT receives a $1.122 billion unfinalized, not-to-exceed contract modification for LRIP Lot V’s engines. The contract includes both fixed price incentive and cost plus incentive contract line items, and covers 21 F135 engines for the USAF’s F-35As ($520.7M / 46.3%), 3 F135 LiftFan engines for the USMC’s F-35Bs ($387.1M / 34.5% is the figure given), 6 F135s for the Navy’s F-35Cs ($166.7M/ 14.9%), plus the usual support and spares for the US and F-35 Co-operative Partners ($47.8M Co-operative Partner Participants/ 4.3%). A total of $358.6 million is committed immediately.

One wonders if the USN & USMC figures were transposed, but the finalized contract will offer more clarity. Work will be performed in East Hartford, CT (67%); Bristol, United Kingdom (16.5%); and Indianapolis, IN (16.5%), and is expected to be complete in February 2014 (N00019-10-C-0005).

Dec 27/11: LRIP-5. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $485 million not-to-exceed cost-plus-fixed-fee unfinalized contract modification, with $131.5 million obligated at time of award. The contract covers LRIP Lot 5 production requirements, including special tooling/special test equipment, and subcontractor technical assistance. This contract combines purchases for the USAF ($186.7M/ 38.5%); the US Navy ($186.7M/ 38.5%); and JSF Cooperative Partner participants ($111.5M/ 23%).

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (30%); El Segundo, CA (20%); Wharton, United Kingdom (20%); Turin, Italy (15%); Nashua, NH (8%); and Baltimore, MD (7%); and is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-10-C-0002)

Dec 27/11: LRIP-4. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $253 million cost-plus-incentive-fee and cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to finalize the previous LRIP-4/ FY 2010 support contract. This contract covers the US Navy ($140.3M/ 55.5%), the USAF (89.1M/ 35.2%), and the JSF “Cooperative Program participants” ($23.6M/ 9.3%).

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%); and is expected to be complete in May 2014. $169.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-09-C-0010).

Additional Readings & Sources

Aircraft Background

• DID FOCUS Article – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: 2009-2010. At present, there is no coverage for 2011.
• DID FOCUS Article – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Events & Contracts 2007-08
• DID FOCUS Article – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: SDD Contracts & Events FY 2006.
• F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program site. For other news that includes testing results and other areas not covered by contracts, see the news section.
• JSF Program Office – JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development MoU [PDF], update 4.
• Lockheed Martin – F-35 Lightning II. Includes sections covering topics such as Earned Value Management, testing, partnerships, manufacturing, etc.
• Air Force Technology – JSF (F35) Joint Strike Fighter, International
• Aerospaceweb – F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity. Good discussion of the 3 versions and their specific limiting factors.
• JSF UK Industry Team site.
• UK Parliamentary Defence Committee. An important source of information re: Tier 1 partner Britain’s future participation in the F-35 program.
• Pratt & Whitney – F135. The F-35’s current engine.
• DID – The F136 alternative engine was eventually terminated, over the objections of the government’s GAO auditors.
• Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine (May 15/08) – X to F: F-35 Lightning II And Its X-35 Predecessors.

Aircraft Ancillaries

• DID – You Can Track Your F-35s, At ALIS’ Maintenance Hub. Possibly the F-35’s most important ancillary system.
• Martin Baker – US16E – JSF. The plane’s ejection seat. See the “F-35 Program: Ancillary and Sub-contracts” section’s Nov 12/07 entry for further details that explain why this was such a challenging design.
• Lockheed Martin Code One magazine (Q2 2006) – The New Front Office: A Whole New View For Joint Strike Fighter Pilots. Describes the new cockpit and its related technologies.
• Vision Systems International – F-35 Gen II HMDS. Helmet Mounted Display System.
• Siemens – F-35 Case Study. Involves their FiberSim product, which helps with the design & coordination of composite parts.
• Fighter Country – Hundreds of F-35 aircraft suppliers coordinate with Teamcenter

Official Reports

• US GAO (March 11/13, #GAO-13-309) – Current Outlook Is Improved, but Long-Term Affordability Is a Major Concern.
• Pentagon OT&E (Feb 15/13) – F-35A Joint Strike Fighter: Readiness for Training Operational Utility Evaluation [PDF]
• Pentagon OT&E (Jan 17/13) – FY2012 Annual Report: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter [PDF].
• Dutch Rekenkamer Audit Agency (Oct 24/12) – Uitstapkosten Joint Strike Fighter,” incl. links to full reports [all in Dutch].

Other Perspectives

• War Is Boring (Jan 1/14) – Is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter the New F-4?
• Vanity Fair (Sept 16/13) Will It Fly? A long look at the F-35 program, and at issues with key components.
• ELP (July 19/13) – UPDATE – F-35 Gun Concerns. Links back to USAF Col. Charles Moore’s 2007 essay “The Need for a Permanent Gun System On the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter” [PDF], which includes analysis of front-line fighter gun use. An email from POGO’s Winslow Wheeler reiterates that the F-35A’s 25mm cannon has just 180 rounds, compared to the F-16’s 510 x 20mm or the A-10’s 1,174 x 30mm rounds, and references inherent gun pod accuracy issues from in Vietnam and Desert Storm.
• Offiziere.ch (March 6/13) – Jet Fighter Influence: How Lockheed’s Public Relations Efforts Keep the F-35 Sold. Offers a glimpse at Lockheed Martin’s lobbying beyond Washington, including mutually-referencing paid-for groups.
• US National Public Radio (Jan 3/13) – The F-35 Fighter Jet: The Cost And Controversy
• AOL Defense (Nov 27/12) – Will Stealth Survive As Sensors Improve? F-35, Jammers At Stake
• Aviation Week Ares (April 3/12) – JSF – SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip.

UH-1Y and AH-1Z
by Neville Dawson

The US Marines’ helicopter force is aging at all levels, from banana-shaped CH-46 Sea Knight transports that are far older than their pilots, to the 1980s-era UH-1N Hueys and AH-1W Cobra attack helicopters that make up the Corps’ helicopter assault force. While the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey program has staggered along for almost 2 decades under accidents, technical delays, and cost issues, replacement of the USMC’s backbone helicopter assets has languished. Given the high-demand scenarios inherent in the current war, other efforts are clearly required.

Enter the H-1 program, the USMC’s plan to remanufacture older helicopters into new and improved UH-1Y utility and AH-1Z attack helicopters. The new versions would discard the signature 2-bladed rotors for modern 4-bladed improvements, redo the aircraft’s electronics, and add improved engines and weapons to offer a new level of performance. It seemed simple, but hasn’t quite worked out that way. The H-1 program has encountered its share of delays and issues, but the program survived its review, and continued on into production and deployment.

DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record. This article covers the H-1 helicopter programs’ rationales and changes, the upgrades involved in each model, program developments and annual budgets, the full timeline of contracts and key program developments, and related research sources.

The H-1 Helicopters

TopOwl
(click to view full)

For pilots, both H-1 helicopters will incorporate a newly designed “Integrated Avionics System” cockpit designed by Northrop Grumman, including dual mission computers, GPS navigation, moving map displays, and other modern aids. Pilot workload will be improved further by using Thales’ TopOwl helmet-mounted display systems (HMDS), to offer flight and targeting data no matter where the pilot looks.

FLIR Systems’ BRITE Star NTIS will handle targeting and surveillance on the UH-1Y Venom. The UH-1Y is currently slated to use only machine guns and 70mm rockets, but a March 2012 decision has added laser-guided APKWS rockets to its arsenal.

The AH-1Z Viper will use the more advanced Lockheed Martin/ Wescam/ Kollsman AN/AAQ-30, which is fully integrated into the AH-1Z fire control system and TopOwl HMD. It provides range and optical line-of-sight data for all weapons, even AIM-9M Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. TSS features a large-aperture, 3rd-generation staring mid-wave FLIR derived from Lockheed’s fighter-borne Sniper targeting pod; a 640 x 512 day/night TV with automatic video tracker and continuous zoom from high magnification to wide field of view; a laser spot tracker; an on-gimbal inertial measurement unit (IMU) for accurate line-of-sight pointing and geolocation of targets; coupled with a Kollsman laser designator/rangefinder with an eyesafe mode. The AAQ-30’s wide Field-of-View (FoV) optics also provide a secondary navigation capability when light levels are low, and night vision goggles are ineffective. All of this is packed into a stabilized L-3 Wescam turret.

Overall, the AH-1Z Viper will have a wider array of weapons to choose from, and it will become the Navy’s initial platform for the dual-mode radar/laser guided JAGM missile if the weapon makes it into production.

Neither helicopter uses extensive armoring for protection, as is the case with the AH-64 Apache, for instance. Instead, efforts like infrared-reducing paint and exhausts, design for low profiles, and some protection to key systems like energy-absorbing landing gear, self-sealing fuel systems and a fuel vapor inerting system are used. Troops riding in the UH-1Y will especially appreciate the energy attenuating seats that reduce the effects of G-forces in the event of a crash, or hard landing; in the UH-1N, they just had to sit on the floor and receive the full shock. Both helicopters will also rely on a common set of advanced defensive systems:

• ATK’s AN/AAR-47 missile approach warning system – will become JATAS
  
• BAE’s AN/ALQ-144 infrared (IR) jammer and AN/ALE-47 decoy dispensing system, serves as central ECM hub
  
• Northrop Grumman’s AN/APR-39A(V)2 radar warning receiver
  
• UT Goodrich’s AN/AVR-2A laser warning receiver
  
• A Directed InfraRed CounterMeasures (DIRCM) system of some kind may be added to the AH-1Z in particular

UH-1Y & AH-1Z: Performance Issues

AH-1Z, testing
(click to view full)

Some issues do remain with the helicopters. One is that the 2 engines provide almost 3,660 shp, but the aircraft’s transmission is flat-rated for 2,350 shp. That doesn’t matter as much at altitude or in very hot weather, or above 180 knots airspeed where drag becomes the limiting factor, so it was deemed acceptable.

For the AH-1Z, potential issues include a lack of robust armor – a characteristic it shares with earlier AH-1 models, but not with the Army’s heavily armored AH-64 gunship. The exception is the flight controls and some engine sections, which can withstand cannon fire up to 23mm. This is more of a design choice than a manufacturing flaw, but it does affect the helicopter’s usage.

A second AH-1Z design issue involves communications. Statements by H-1 upgrade program manager USMC Col. Harry Hewson seem to indicate that the older AH-1Ws will initially be more advanced in this area. The AH-1Zs will have secure voice communications only, while the upgraded AH-1W includes the tactical video data link (TVDL) that can broadcast sensor data to a ground controller with a ROVER system, or receive video from other helicopters or Marine aircraft with LITENING pods. As of 2014, a full-motion video project is in the works for the AH-1Z, but hasn’t been fielded yet.

On the manufacturing side, as of December 2010, several rotor components were falling far short of the original 10,000 hour reliability goal. Unfortunately, efforts to redesign the rotor head’s cuff and yoke weren’t going to provide enough improvement to justify the costs. NAVAIR says that current efforts involve improved tooling design and manufacturing processes for the existing design.

The H-1 Upgrade Program

UH-1N, Iraq
(click to view full)

It seemed fairly straightforward: update a pair of old USMC standbys in the UH-1N and AH-1W, creating a transport (UH-1Y Venom) and attack helicopter (AH-1Z Viper) backbone with maximum commonality, and minimum risk.

It hasn’t quite worked out that way.

The H-1 program is designed to resolve existing safety issues in both aircraft, reduce life-cycle costs, significantly enhance combat capability, and achieve 85% commonality between the 2 versions. Bell Helicopter believes this commonality can save up to $3 billion in operating and support costs over a 30-year lifespan, and the stated goal is airframes that will last through 10,000 flight hours of service life. Common components include the tail boom, engines, drive train, rotor blade, software controls, avionics, and displays.

Many of these helicopters will be remanufactured from the Marines’ old UH-1N Hueys and its AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopters. Major modifications include a new 4-blade rotor system with semi-automatic blade fold, new composite main and four-bladed tail rotor, upgraded drive system and landing gear, and pylon structural modifications. The AH-1Z attach helicopter will also have 2,500 pounds of fuel instead of 1,900 (AH-1W), to extend strike range to over 170 miles. GE’s T700-401C engine will power both helicopters, giving them improved maneuverability, speed and range, and payload when compared to their UH-1N and AH-1W predecessors. The UH-1Y is touted as having 50% better range, a faster maximum speed, and 25% greater payload than its UH-1N predecessor. The AH-1Z is touted as almost doubling effective strike range over the AH-1W, or doubling weapons load carried to the same ranges. Maintainability is also being addressed, using embedded diagnostics that can provide warning of maintenance needs or impending faults.

H-1 Upgrade: Force Size & Structure Shifts

AH-1W, hard left
(click to view full)

The H-1 program has required substantial changes to both cost and schedule 4 times now, while addressing numerous technical issues. The UH-1Y/ AH-1Z upgrades program was originally structured as a remanufacturing effort, converting 180 AH-1W Super Cobras to AH-1Z Vipers, and 100 UH-1N Hueys to UH-1Y Venoms.

It didn’t stay that way.

The initial changes were prompted by 2 factors: effort and time.

The idea of remanufacturing the helicopters didn’t look so great once the true scope and expense of the work involved became clear. Worse, it involved taking each UH-1N Huey out of service for 2 whole years, in the face of ongoing demand from the front lines.

The program tried putting new UH-1Y nose sections into production earlier, and establishing a rotating pool of government-furnished equipment so a UH-1N doesn’t have to be taken out of service until a corresponding UH-1Y Venom is delivered. After the 1st 10 UH-1Y remanufactures, however, the rest were switched to new-build machines.

The next big change was the USMC’s Program Objective Memorandum for 2010, which raised the future fleet to 123 UH-1Ys and 226 AH-1Zs (58 new-build + 168 remanufactured), as part of a plan to grow the Marines by about 20,000 troops. Under this plan, the 58 new-build AH-1Zs would be delivered first, in order to maintain overall fleet availability by keeping existing AH-1Ws in service. Once the overall fleet had grown, AH-1Ws could be taken from the front lines and shifted into the remanufacturing program.

Subsequent shifts have pared back the number of AH-1Zs, and drastically reducing the number of remanufactured AH-1Zs, while increasing the number of UH-1Y Venoms. The legacy model is a USMC squadron of 18 AH-1Ws and 9 UH-1Ns, but the future will involve 15 AH-1Zs and 12 UH-1Ys in each squadron.

So, why the extra Venoms?

The UH-1Y’s extra power proved to be extremely useful in hot and high-altitude conditions, and the planned addition of guided 70mm rockets like APKWS and LOGIR would give them an attack punch comparable to previous AH-1 Cobras. The UH-1Y’s performance in Afghanistan using APKWS guided 70mm rockets has only reinforced these opinions.

The other question is, why did remanufactured AH-1Ws decline so sharply?

Heavy wartime use has increased the wear on existing AH-1Ws, which created a shortage of flyable attack helicopters, and made remanufacturing them more expensive. By FY 2013, cost estimates for new AH-1Z cabins offered an option that was now cheaper over the machines’ service life, while avoiding a critical USMC shortage by leaving AH-1Ws in the fleet.

H-1 Program: Budgets & Industrial Partners

Note that these years do not always correspond fully to Production Lot orders, though they can be used as a general guide. Since American supplemental funding bills are typically passed closer to mid-year, and not in conjunction with the baseline defense spending bills, aircraft appropriated under OCO/supplemental funding as war replacements are sometimes bought with the following year’s contract.

For instance, in 2009, the 11 baseline UH-1Ys, 5 baseline AH-1Zs, and 4 supplemental UH-1Ys were bought as Lot 6 (20 helicopters); but the program office didn’t have priced options for additional AH-1Zs negotiated for Lot 6. That’s why FY 2009’s 4 supplemental AH-1Zs were bought as part of Production Lot 7.

In FY 2010, those 4 Lot 7 supplemental AH-1Zs were added to FY 2010’s 18 UH-1Ys, 5 AH-1Zs, and 2 OCO funded new-build AH-1Zs, growing Lot 7 to 29 helicopters. The “29” total adds the 4 machines from FY 2009, but also omits the FY 2010 supplemental bill’s 1 UH-1Y and 1 AH-1Z. They’re part of Lot 8, because their bill’s timing prevented them from being added to Lot 7. And so it goes…

H-1 Upgrade Program industrial partners include:

Program Problems

UH-1Y & AH-1W,
in Afghanistan
(click to view full)

The original idea of remanufacturing existing helicopters, and adding some new performance enhancements, seemed like a low-risk program. Events have a vote, however, and the actual program has been much more challenging than expected.

In May 2005, the Navy warned Bell that the H-1 program was in serious jeopardy. The Texas-based company was described as failing to meet Navy needs, and the memo reserved the option of killing the program. It demanded “fundamental changes” in Bell Helicopter’s management processes as well as its production processes. Recertification in Earned Value Management, used to track program performance, was high on the list of “to-dos.”

Ultimately, changes were made – including some executive changes at the highest levels of Bell Helicopter Textron.

A May 31/06 Defense Acquisition Board process made the decision to proceed with the program. The UH-1Y and AH-1Z began Phase II of their Operational Evaluation (OpEval) in February 2008, and a full rate production decision was expected in August 2008.

After the management and process issues were sorted out, the UH-1Y did very well. Its Initial Operational Capability (IOC) came a month early, in August 2008, and it received a full production go-ahead in September 2008.

The AH-1Z has fared less well, thanks in part to issues surrounding the AAQ-30 surveillance and targeting system, and the TopOwl helmet-mounted display. Other issues included rocket gas ingestion by the engines, and problems with mission software. IOC for the AH-1Z was pushed back from FY 2008 to FY 2011, but the program is moving toward completion.

Contracts and Key Events

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts are issued by US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) in Patuxent River, MD to Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. in Fort Worth, TX.

August 19/15: The H-1 helicopter fleet of both the Navy and Pakistan will receive a boost through a $85.5 million contract to develop weapons systems for the aircraft as part of its system configuration set (SCS). The SCS intends to create prototypes for emerging operational requirements, with the majority of this contract covering acquisitions for the US Navy, with the contract set to run to 2020.

UH-1Y from LHD 4
(click to view full)

Sept 5/14: A $41.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 3 UH-1Y flight training devices (aka. simulators), 1 AH-1Z flight training device, aircraft and/or trainer driven revisions, aircraft common operational equipment, provisioned device spares, associated technical data required for operational and maintenance support, and 3 months of initial operation evaluation period for each flight training device. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 Navy reserve and FY 2014 aircraft budgets.

Work will be performed at Broken Arrow, OK (46%); Fort Worth, TX (33%); St. Louis, MO (15%); and Austin, TX (6%), and is expected to be complete in June 2018. The contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302.1 by the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL (N61340-14-C-1000).

Aug 4/14: UH-1Ns. The USMC plans to retire the last of its 205 UH-1N Huey helicopters in September 2015. Of that total, 10 were upgraded to UH-1Ys. Another 5 upgraded HH-1Ns will continue to serve at MCAS Yuma, AZ, but they will retire in 2015. Sources: Navy League Seapower, “Marine Corps to Retire UH-1N Helicopters in September; HH-1Ns in 2015″.

June 20/14: Support. A $44.7 million modification, finalizing a previously awarded contract to a cost-plus-fixed-fee price contract to repair various parts for the UH-1Y and AH-1Z Upgrade Helicopters. FY 2014 US Navy budgets will be drawn on as needed.

Work will be performed in Hurst, TX, and work is expected to be complete by January 2017. No funds will be obligated at the time of award and contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was a non-competitive requirement in accordance with 10 USC. 2304 (c)(1), managed by NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-14-D-015N).

May 29/14: Sub-contractors. Northrop Grumman Guidance and Electronics Co. in Woodland Hills, CA receives a $25 million delivery order for 119 H-1 upgrade tech refresh mission computers. Those have been broken out into a separate purchase by the US Navy, as a way to improve costs. $10.9 million in US Navy FY 2013 – 2014 aircraft budgets is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Woodland Hills, CA (79%); Salt Lake City, UT (13%); and Baltimore, MD (8%); it is expected to be complete in October 2017 (N00019-11-G-0016, DO 0002).

April 7/14: HMD. Thales Defense & Security Inc. in Clarksburg, MD received a $38.5 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for Optimized Top Owl (OTO) Helmet Mounted Sight and Display (HMSD) Sustainment Capability services. They’re replicating the facility, labor, materials, parts, test and tooling equipment from Bordeaux, France to the United States.

$1.8 million in FY 2014 Navy budgets is committed immediately. Work will be performed in Clarksburg, MD, and is expected to be complete in April 2019. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 by NAWCAD in Lakehurst, NJ (N68335-14-D-0014).

March 28/14: Lot 12. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. in Hurst, TX receives a $59.7 million contract modification, buying long-lead items for Lot 12’s 15 new-build UH-1Ys and 11 new-build AH-1Zs.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 Navy aircraft budgets. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (60%) and Amarillo, TX (40%), and is expected to be complete in September 2015 (N00019-13-C-0023).

March 28/14: Support. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. in Hurst, TX receives exercises an $11.4 million firm-fixed-price contract option for H-1 upgrade program systems engineering and program management support.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 USN aircraft budgets. Work will be performed in Hurst, TX, and is expected to be complete in December 2014 (N00019-12-C-0009).

March 4-11/14: Budgets. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. The numbers are featured in the charts above, and the detailed documents add this:

“FY 2015 Airframe cost increases account for prime contractor’s new Business System Modernization (BSM) accounting structure and increased internal research and development investment, Pension Protection Act pension harmonization and higher medical forecasts, and continued effects of large business base decline. Due to airframe cost increases and USMC priorities, the program… added one year of production. Compared to President’s Budget 2014, unit cost growth is a result of deferred aircraft to FY 2020…. electronics previously harvested from UH-1N and AH-1W aircraft at no-cost were procured new, at cost, for all future lots beginning in FY 2013…: CD-45/ALE-47(V) Chaff/Flare Programmer, ICS Boxes, MT-6711 TACAN Mount, RT-1798 TACAN Receiver, APR39 System, CP-1975/AAR-47(V)2 Central Processor, SU-211/AAR-47(V)2 Optical Sensor, AS-2728 Antennas AT-741B/A Antennas, EGIs, CV-20 Digital Converters. GFE Electronics increase in FY 2014 due to Mission Computer being provided as GFE instead of CFE.

All new engines are factored into the budget formulation for FY 2014 through the FYDP. The program prefers to procure new T-700-401C engines for higher maintainability and reliability, increased time on wing, and ultimately lower life-cycle costs. Refurbished T-700-401C engines are procured as budget constraints warrant and the H-60 B/F sundown schedule permits. An additional determining factor for refurb engine procurement is the repair (refurb) contract ceiling for H-1 with General Electric Engine Services (GEES), currently at sixteen engines per year. Due to funding constraints as a result of sequestration, program reductions, and airframe costs, 16 UH-1Y refurbished engines were procured in FY 2013.”

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The H-1 upgrade program is included, and as of July 2013, Bell Helicopter has delivered 79/160 UH-1Ys and 32/189 AH-1Zs.

The big issue with the H-1s is software, and to a lesser extent support. The SCS 6.0 software has a critical flaw: if it detects a failure in any electronic warfare component, whether real or a “false positive”, the helicopter loses the entire EW display for all threat detection systems. That cost 2 of 23 missions during testing. This problem was detected during developmental testing, but DOT&E blandly says that “the operational implications of this loss of electronic warfare situational awareness were not apparent until operational testing.” Really?

They’re testing SCS 7.0, which hopes to correct this problem, and DOT&E concludes that “H-1 Upgrades units remain survivable against small arms and automatic weapons fire (up to 12.7 mm) and legacy Man-Portable Air Defense Systems.”

Meanwhile, they note that the test helicopters had problems with readiness rates because of long waits for repair parts. Tail and rotor systems were an especial problem, in part because operational units quite properly have priority. What they don’t say is whether the level of problems encountered are an indicator of larger issues.

Jan 22/14: Support. A $13.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for repair/overhaul work on 5 high priority UH-1Y/AH-1Z items.

$6.7 million in FY 2014 USN funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Hurst, TX, and the contract runs until January 2017. US Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA manages the contract (N00383-14-D-015N, DO 0001).

Dec 19/13: Avionics. Northrop Grumman Guidance and Electronic in Woodland Hills, CA receives a $10.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for low rate initial production of 45 improved (“technical refresh”) AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopters mission computers, which are now being bought direct (q.v. Dec 29/11 entry).

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 USN aircraft procurement budgets, and will expire of Sept 30/14. Work will be performed in Woodland Hills, CA, and is expected to be complete in October 2015. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 by the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division in China Lake, CA (N68936-14-C-0020).

Dec 17/13: Sensors. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Orlando, FL receives a $34 million firm-fixed-price contract for the AH-1Z’s AN/AAQ-30(A) Target Sight Systems (TSS) and data. Based on past contracts, that’s about 12.

$31.2 million is committed immediately, using USN FY 2013 and 2014 aircraft procurement budgets. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL (80%), and Ocala, FL (20%), and is expected to be complete by May 2016. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.SC 2304(c)(1), as set forth in FAR 6.302-1(b)(1)(ii). The US Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, IN manages the contract (N00164-14-C-JQ65).

AH-1Z, fully armed
(click to view full)

Sept 27/13: Training. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Hurst, TX receives a $23.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to perform baseline configuration upgrades for 1 AH-1Z Full Flight Simulator, 1 UH-1Y Full Flight Simulator, and 1 UH-1Y Flight Training Device. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Broken Arrow, OK (49%); Fort Worth, TX (35%) and St. Louis, MO (16%), and the larger contract runs until March 2017. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, FL manages this contract (N61340-12-C-0030).

Aug 27/13: Sensors. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Orlando, FL received a $34 million firm-fixed-price contract for the AH-1Z’s AN/AAQ-30 Target Sight Systems (TSS). All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL (80%), and Ocala, FL (20%), and is expected to complete by November 2015. The US Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, IN manages the contract (N00164-13-D-JQ43).

Aug 26/13: Sensors. FLIR Systems Inc. in Wilsonville, OR receives a 5-year sole-source $136.6 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for BRITE Star Block II Systems (UH-1Y and MQ-8C), BRITE Star II’s class I engineering change proposal, plus BRITE Star I upgrades, cables, technical data, depot repairs, and engineering services. $4.2 million is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Wilsonville, OR, and is expected to be complete by August 2018. The work was sole-sourced on the basis of FAR 6.302-1, “only one responsible source…” provision. The Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, IN manages the contract (N00164-13-D-JQ08).

July 15/13: Support. A $17.9 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to add US Navy depot level maintenance infrastructure. Bell Helicopter will develop, test, and deliver 1 H-1 main rotor gearbox test stand, and 1 H-1 tail rotor/intermediate gearbox test stand. The contract includes logistics support, maintenance efforts, follow-on support, and associated data. This is unsexy, but experience in countries like Pakistan demonstrates that unless this infrastructure is in place and in use, helicopters will remain in place and not in use.

Work will be performed in Hurst, TX using FY 2011 procurement funds, and is expected to be complete in March 2017. All funds expire at the end of FY 2013, on Sept 30/13. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ (N68335-13-C-0302).

June 18/13: Lot 10. A $38.8 million option order for 2 more new-build AH-1Z Vipers in Lot 10, whose main order was Dec 12/12. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 procurement budgets. This brings that lot’s totals to 15 UH-1Ys and 12 AH-1Zs, with 1 AH-1Z option remaining.

Note that this doesn’t provide the full cost of 2 Vipers, and the USN places average flyaway costs for Lot 10 H-1 machines at over $26 million each. The difference will be made up via previous long-lead buys, and/or additional awards. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (60%) and Amarillo, TX (40%), and is expected to be complete in September 2013 (N00019-12-C-0009).

June 18/13: Weapons. US NAVAIR touts the work of their PMA-242’s Crew Served Weapons Integration team, who redesigned the UH-1Y’s weapon mount to improve maximum elevation. That’s useful if you’re on or near the ground, being fired on from hills. In effect, the UH-1Y door gunner’s field of fire is now on par with the UH-1N in terms of overall range, azimuth and elevation.

Testing began in May 2013, and will continue at Pax River, MD for another 6 months or so. The USMC expects to deploy the new mounts to Afghanistan by the end of 2013. US NAVAIR.

May 28/13: Lot 11. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $50.6 million advance acquisition contract modification for long-lead parts and components required for 25 Production Lot 11 helicopters: 15 UH-1Ys and 10 AH-1Zs, all new-build. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (60%) and Amarillo, TX (40%), and is expected to be complete in September 2014 (N00019-13-C-0023).

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage.

The H-1 program is cut slightly from 26 total helicopters to 25 this year, as part of a longer-term set of slight reductions that will stretch out the program. FY 2014 drops from 26 – 25, FY 2015 drops from 27 – 26, FY 2016 drops from 31 – 27, and FY 2017 drops from 30 – 28. An order of 30 helicopters in FY 2018 leaves just 30 more to close out the program.

The key will be where reductions are focused. The AH-1Z is behind due to delays, so these and other cuts at the end of the program will force the Marines to decide whether they want fewer attack helicopters in the future force, as they contemplate adjustments to the production split. Especially if future budget pressures cut these planned numbers again. The alternative is to stretch production into later years, but that will raise total costs because the fixed costs come due for more years of work.

April 1/13: Lot 11 long-lead. A $13 million advance acquisition contract to provide long-lead parts and components required for Production Lot 11’s 15 UH-1Ys and 10 AH-1Zs. All are new-build helicopters – Lot 9 held the last remanufactured helicopters.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (60%) and Amarillo, TX (40%), and is expected to be complete in September 2014. All funds are committed immediately, using the FY 2013 Aircraft Procurement, Navy budget line. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-13-C-0023).

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The H-1 program is only included in passing, but it’s an interesting reference:

“The U.S. Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate led a project to manufacture complex, curved ceramic armor for placement at strategic locations on aircraft, improving survivability with minimal weight impact. These installations protect flight-critical aircraft components that when damaged would lead to catastrophic aircraft loss. Due to their complexity, these structurally integrated panels required development of several cutting-edge material and processing technologies. Two implementations were demonstrated: the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior engine bay door and the AH-1Z Cobra helicopter flight control linkage bell-crank.”

Dec 20/12: Support. A $15.3 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee advance acquisition contract modification. Bell Helicopter will provide H-1 Upgrade Program systems engineering and program management services.

Work will be performed in Hurst, TX and is expected to be complete in December 2013. All contract funds are committed immediately (N00019-12-C-0009).

Dec 20/12: Support. A $12.3 million to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification to support of the H-1 Upgrade effort. Work will include logistics management support, technical material for maintenance planning, design interface, supply/material support; support of support equipment/technical data, distribution and inventory management/packaging; handling, storage and transportation; logistics management information; supportability analysis and technical manuals.

All contract funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, and is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-11-C-0023).

Nov 20/12: HUMS. Simmonds Precision Products Inc. (dba Goodrich Sensors and Integrated Systems in Vergennes, VT) receives a $6.9 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract, exercising an option for 28 integrated AH-1Z/UH-1Y mechanical diagnostic and health usage monitoring system kits.

This would appear to cover FY 2013 production: 13 AH-1Zs and 15 UH-1Ys. HUMS systems are undervalued by causal observers, but they pay for themselves very, very quickly via more cost-effective maintenance and higher in-service rates.

Work will be performed in Vergennes, VT, and is expected to be complete in May 2014. All contract funds are committed. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-12-F-4003).

Nov 6/12: Mission Computers. Northrop Grumman Guidance and Electronics Co., Inc. in Woodland Hills, CA receives a $9.3 million firm-fixed-price modification for 54 GEN II mission computers and trays, per the new buying arrangements (vid. Dec 29/11 entry). They’ll be used in Production Lot 10, which is mostly FY 2013 buys.

Work will be performed in Salt Lake City, UT, and is expected to be complete in January 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-11-G-0016).

UH-1Y & AH-1Z
(click to view full)

Sept 25/12: South Korea. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] South Korea’s request to buy up to 36 AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support. The cost would be up to $2.6 billion, but this isn’t a contract. It doesn’t even mean that the AH-1Z is the ROK’s choice. South Korea is conducting a competition to replace its attack helicopters, and the DSCA request will make sure that everything the ROK wants is available if the AH-1Z is picked.

They appear to have picked the AH-1Z as the American contender, even though the AH-64D Apache Block III’s fuselage is made locally by KAI. That still leaves 2 more strong contenders. EADS Eurocopter is already producing Surion medium helicopters under a Korean Joint Venture, and is offering their EC665 Tiger attack helicopter. It’s in service with France, Germany, Spain, and Australia. The other contender is AgustaWestland/TAI’s T129, which is now a joint Italian/Turkish venture. Turkey is South Korea’s biggest defense export customer by far, and a loss could ruffle some important feathers. As for the AH-1Z, the DSCA request includes:

• 36 AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters
  
• 84 T-700-GE-401C Engines (72 installed and 12 spares)
  
• Integrated missile launchers
  
• 288 AGM-114K3 Hellfire laser-guided strike missiles
  
• 72 AIM-9M-8 Sidewinder air-air missiles. The missile’s range and performance are superior to weapons carried on other helicopters.
  
• AN/AAQ-30 Target Sighting Systems (TSS)
  
• APX-123 Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) Mode-4
  
• Electronic warfare systems: AN/ALQ-136 Radar Frequency Jammers, AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning System, AN/ALQ-144 Infrared Jammer, AN/ALE-47 Chaff and Flare Decoy Dispenser
  
• Communication and support equipment, spare engine containers, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, and other US government and contractor support.

The prime contractors will be Bell-Textron Corporation in Amarillo, TX (helicopter), and General Electric in Lynn, MA (engines), though many of the ancillary items will come from firms like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BAE, et. al. Implementation will require multiple trips to Korea involving U.S. Government or contractor representatives on a temporary basis for program and technical support, and management oversight.

South Korea request

Sept 25/12: Training. A $44.7 million firm-fixed-price contract to buy 2 UH-1Y Flight Training Devices (simulators) for the US Marine Corps. In addition, this contract provides for the baseline configuration upgrade to create an AH-1Z FTD from the previous AH-1W simulator.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (46%); Broken Arrow, OK (32.4%); St. Louis, MO (16.2%); and Austin, TX (5.4%), and is expected to be complete in March 2015. $19.8 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304c1 by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL (N61340-12-C-0030).

March 2012: Laser-guided rockets. The APKWS laser-guided 70mm rocket is cleared for fielding by Marine Corps HQ, and shipped to Afghanistan. The rockets will initially be deployed in existing rocket launchers on USMC AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopters, and UH-1Y Venom utility helicopters. It will be the UH-1Ys first precision-guided weapon, dramatically increasing its firepower.