RAAF C-130J-30, flares
(click to view full)

The C-130 Hercules remains one of the longest-running aerospace manufacturing programs of all time. Since 1956, over 40 models and variants have served as the tactical airlift backbone for over 50 nations. The C-130J looks similar, but the number of changes almost makes it a new aircraft. Those changes also created issues; the program has been the focus of a great deal of controversy in America – and even of a full program restructuring in 2006. Some early concerns from critics were put to rest when the C-130J demonstrated in-theater performance on the front lines that was a major improvement over its C-130E/H predecessors. A valid follow-on question might be: does it break the bottleneck limitations that have hobbled a number of multi-billion dollar US Army vehicle development programs?

C-130J customers now include Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, India, Israel, Iraq, Italy, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Tunisia, and the United States. American C-130J purchases are taking place under both annual budgets and supplemental wartime funding, in order to replace tactical transport and special forces fleets that are flying old aircraft and in dire need of major repairs. This DID FOCUS Article describes the C-130J, examines the bottleneck issue, covers global developments for the C-130J program, and looks at present and emerging competitors.

The (Private) Labors of Hercules: the C-130J Family

C-130J Hercules
(click to view full)

Most American planes rely on their huge home market as their base, then seek exports. The privately-developed C-130J “Super Hercules” was different. Australia, Britain, Denmark, and Italy were all ahead of the curve, and have been operating this heavily redesigned upgrade of the popular C-130 Hercules transport aircraft for several years. By the time the C-130J finally reached “initial operating capability” for the US military late in 2006, these faster-moving foreign customers were already banding together to create a common upgrade set for their serving fleets. A number of variants are currently flying in transport (C-130J), stretched transport (C-130J-30), aerial broadcaster (EC-130J), coast guard patrol (HC-130J), aerial tanker (KC-130J), special forces (MC-130J), and even hurricane hunter weather aircraft (WC-130J).

The C-130J looks a lot like its predecessors, except for the new 6-bladed Dowty propeller. In reality, a number of changes have been made to its construction and components, and its internal systems are almost wholly new. Unlike most defense programs, however, the C-130J was not a government contract. Lockheed Martin spent almost $1 billion of its own funds developing the update, then began selling it in the USA and abroad.

Base Platform: The C-130J

Super Hercules Promo
click to play video

The C-130J’s improvements are mostly clustered around 2 key characteristics: performance, and operational costs. Instead of Rolls Royce 4,600 shp T56 Series III turboprop engines, it uses lighter Rolls-Royce AE2100D3 engines, coupled with a 6-blade Dowty R-391 propeller system made of composite materials. The overall system generates 29% more thrust, while increasing fuel efficiency by 15% and offering improved reliability and maintenance. Compared to the 1960s-era C-130E (note: there was an intermediate C-130H version), maximum speed is up 21%, climb-to-altitude time is down 50%, cruising altitude is 40% higher, and range is about 40% longer.

The enhanced capacity of the “J” variant is especially noteworthy in hot climates and/or high altitude operations, where the new plane can deliver 40% better payload/range performance than earlier versions. US experience in places like Afghanistan and Iraq indicates that as many as 3 C-130H models may be required to do the job of 1 C-130J in these “hot and high” conditions.

C-130J Cockpit
(click to view full)

The C 130J only requires 2-3 crew members for most missions instead of 4, and avionics have been changed to incorporate more advanced capabilities into the night-vision-system compatible “glass cockpit” (computer screens, not dials) and heads-up display. A pair of mission computers and 2 backup bus interface units provide dual redundancy. Equally important, they host an integrated diagnostics system to assist with maintenance and reduce long-term ownership costs.

The interior of the C-130J has also seen a number of improvements, simplifying and automating key cargo tasks. An automated airdrop system, for instance, delivers parachute loads more precisely. These kinds of additions have dropped the crew required for airdrops from 4 to 2 (pilot, co-pilot). In addition, innovations such as flip-over rollers allow loaders to reconfigure the cargo area in about 5 minutes instead of the traditional 25, getting planes out of airstrips quickly and maximizing overall loading/unloading efficiency during larger operations.

An optional dorsal aerial refueling system can extend the C-130J’s range significantly, while optional aerial taker kits can convert the C-130J into a flying gas station that offloads fuel faster than previous KC-130 versions, and can handle both helicopters and jets due to its range of flight speeds.

Finally, the C-130J Maintenance and Aircrew Training System (MATS) is designed to complement the C-130J, adding a high-tech simulation angle to both flying and maintenance training.

The worldwide fleet of C-130Js exceeded 355,000 flight hours As of August 3/07.

C-130J vs. C-130J-30
via CASR
(click to view full)

The stretched C-130J-30 adds 15 feet of fuselage length over its C-130J counterpart, most of which is placed forward of the wing as the plane stretches from 97’9″ (29.3 m) to 112’9″ (34.69 m). The extra cargo space allows it to add adds 2 standard pallets (to 8), 23 litters (to 97), 8 CDS bundles (to 24), 36 combat troops (to 128), or 28 paratroopers (to 92) over C-130H/J models, and the aircraft’s maximum weight increases by 9,000 pounds (to 164,000 pounds/ 74,393 kg).

Maximum allowable cargo payload rises by a ton over the C-130J, from 42,000 pounds to 44,000 pounds/ 19,958 kg); the 36,000 pound maximum normal C-130J-30 payload is 2,000 pounds higher than the C-130J, but 500 pounds lower than the C-130H’s 36,500 pounds. Even so, the extra space comes in handy. C-130J-30s can carry 33% more pallets of equipment or supplies, 39% more combat troops, 31% more paratroopers, or 44% more aeromedical evacuation litters than previous unstretched Hercules versions. The stretched C-130J-30 also shares the C-130J’s ability to use much more of its theoretical cargo capacity in hot or high altitude environments than previous C-130 versions.

In exchange, the stretched C-130J-30 suffers a speed drop of 7 mph (410 mph at 22,000 feet) vs. the C-130J, a 2,000 foot lower ceiling (26,000 feet with full payload), and maximum range at full payload that falls by 115 miles to 1,956 miles. It does outshine the smaller C-130J when carrying only 35,000 pounds of cargo, however: its 2,417 miles is a 576 mile increase over the C-130J, and a 921 mile increase over the C-130H.

Note that except for maximum normal payload, all of the C-130J’s figures remain significantly better than the C-130H, with statistics of 366 mph cruise speed at 22,000 feet, a 23,000 foot ceiling, and range at maximum normal payload of 1,208 miles.

C-130J Variants

As one might imagine, Special Forces variants are undergoing the most change, but the platform’s versatility is also pushing Lockheed Martin toward an advanced naval variant.

AC-130J “Ghostrider”. This new gunship will be based on the MC-130J, but it won’t carry hose-and-drogue refueling pods. It will have a 400 Amp power supply, added defensive systems, more surveillance sensors, terrain-following radar, and a Precision Strike Package (PSP).

The PSP 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 rear cargo door. It may eventually add a side-firing 105mm howitzer like existing AFSOC AC-130H/Us, and AGM-114 Hellfire missiles like the USMC’s 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.

Ghostrider surveillance equipment will include 2 day/night surveillance and targeting pods and a ground-looking synthetic aperture radar pod, tied into the pilot’s helmet-mounted display. Defensive systems will include the AN/ALR-56M radar warning receiver, AN/AAR-47(V)2 missile warning system, and AN/ALE-47 countermeasures dispensing system, along with standard options like fuel tank foam, system redundancy, and some armoring.

One sore point is its comparative lack of armor compared to the AC-130H/U, with no armoring for the Mission Operator Pallet and just 7.62mm level protection elsewhere. Most AC-130s brought down in Vietnam were killed by 37mm guns.

HC/MC-130J Increment 1. Modifications include additional defensive countermeasure dispensers, high-altitude ramp and door hydraulics, a 4th flight deck crew member station, an extra intercom panel and 60-Hertz electrical outlets in the cargo compartment.

HC/MC-130J Increment 2. Includes increased 28-volt direct current internal power capacity, crash-worthy loadmaster scanner-position seats, and provisions for Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures defensive systems. This is as high as the HC-130J Combat King IIs are expected to go, though they’ll also receive a T-1 communications modification with a Specialized Automated Mission Suite/Enhanced Situational Awareness system (SAMS/ESA: SADL data link, High Power Waveform, and Air Force Tactical Radio System-Ruggedized), Blue Force Tracker, and the Joint Precision Airdrop System.

HC/MC-130J Increment 3. Includes a 400 Amp power supply, dual special mission processors, and a secure file server. MC-130J Commando IIs will be improved to Increment 3.

SC-130J Sea Herc

SC-130J MPRA. A proposed maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, created by moving a number of P-3 Orion systems onto and into the C-130J. A Magnetic Anomaly Detector boom is installed in the tail for submarine detection, along with a sonobuoy storage pallet and 2 rotary launchers in the rear interior. A day/night surveillance turret goes under the nose, a 360 maritime radar is mounted under the fuselage, and ESM electronics for pinpointing and geolocating radars, communications, etc. are mounted via on wingtip pods and fore and aft fuselage points. A set of roll-in console modules would contain the necessary electronics and screens to manage it all.

Countries that wanted to go beyond surveillance would push further development to add wing hardpoints for torpedoes and missiles, and/or a weapons bay and torpedo racks in the front fuselage.

C-130J operator Britain is Lockheed Martin’s biggest SC-130J target, and the plane’s flexibility could appeal to others who see the value in fleet commonality and good mid-range performance, with easier upgradeability than standard MPAs. The downside is that the C-130J is designed for short-field performance first, and efficient cruising operation second. That will make it expensive to operate compared to smaller twin-engine competitors, which are typically derived from commercial light cargo and passenger aircraft. The Airbus ATR-72 MPA is an example of a larger competitor that also follows this pattern; ATRs have won significant share in the mid-range regional airline market on the strength of their operating efficiency.

The Value of Variants

KC-130J’s “gunslinger”
(click to view full)

These variants and kits give the C-130J an edge in the global market, and will help Lockheed Martin retain that edge as the 20-ton tactical transport market starts to get crowded in 2020 or so. The type’s strong Special Forces niche has already helped to close orders with export clients like India, who could easily have chosen additional orders of plane types already in its fleet (AN-32, IL-76). The second big edge for the platform is a related niche: multi-role armed transports that can deliver troops and supplies, then provide close-air support for counterinsurgency fights. The KC-130J’s Harvest HAWK kits, and C-130H-derived MC-130W Dragon Spear, offer prospective customers an important set of clip-on capabilities that none of its major competitors (A400M, KC-390, MRTA) are even designing, let alone fielding. The SC-130J maritime patrol option could become a similar kind of selling point.

Those “ecosystem strengths” are going to become more important in future. The C-130XJ, unveiled in December 2011 at the Credit Suisse aerospace and defense conference in New York, NY, may not offer enough savings by itself to prompt orders from target customers like South Africa. A cheaper base aircraft, plus existing modifications available on the market, is more appealing. Likewise, the C-130NG could sell among existing C-130J customers, but its changes by themselves might still leave it lagging behind the price of low-cost turboprop options like China’s Y-9, behind the performance of new jet-powered rivals like Embraer’s multinational KC-390 and HAL/Irkut’s MRTA, and very much behind the capacity of Airbus’ larger A400M.

The existence of clip-on kits and proven specialty variants may have to sell it, instead. Especially if the C-130NG also fails to resolve the biggest limitation in today’s medium tactical transport field…

Turbulent Flight: The C-130J Program

WC-130Js
(click to view full)

The privately-developed Hercules variant has been the subject of heavy criticism and a 2005 near-death budget experience, followed by its reinstatement by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on the stated grounds that canceling the contract would be almost as expensive as completing it – though a later government report established that its cancellation costs were wildly overstated.

In order to comply with the FY 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, however,Air Force Print News reported that the C-130J contract was converted from the existing commercial item procurement to a traditional military procurement in FY 2006. In technical terms, it was converted from a Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 to an FAR Part 15 contract, which includes much more extensive Congressional oversight and cost reporting requirements. In bottom line terms, this involved repricing 39 aircraft, resulting in net savings anywhere from $170-245 million (reports vary). Under the restructured contract, the Air Force said Lockheed cut the program cost by 8% for the remaining 26 Air Force C-130Js, and nearly 12% for 13 Marine KC-130Js.

The Wall Street Journal reported this as a decision by Lockheed Martin to cut its profit margins on the plane, after investing $1 billion in private funds to develop it. Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky was quoted as saying that “national defense outweighs the continued recovery of funds we invested in its development.” It’s widely suspected in reports from Associated Press et. al. that direct criticism of the FAR Part 12 contract by Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] played a role as well.

Excel
download

Since FY 2006, American C-130J orders have continued, and the aircraft has continued to expand its export successes as well. C-130J aircraft are now flown and/or under contract by the USAF and Air National Guard, US Marines, and US Coast Guard; and by Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, India, Israel, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Tunisia. DSCA requests that have yet to become publicly-announced contracts include Mexico (2012), Libya (2013), and Brunei (2014).

According to official Pentagon documents, the C-130J’s past and planned American budget breakdowns include:

Note that each year’s procurement budget almost always includes advance “long-lead time material” orders for the next fiscal year. That way, once the main contract is issued, construction isn’t delayed by long waits for predictable items.

The C-130J and the 20-ton Bottleneck

RAF C-130J & friends
(click to view full)

The C-130J offers a genuine improvement over past versions of the Hercules, especially in hot and/or high-altitude environments where all aircraft lose lift and carrying capacity. It has proven these capabilities during deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, where its additional reserves of power have come in very handy on the front lines.

On the other hand, the ability to fit into tactical transports is a very common requirement and benchmark for ground systems, including armored personnel carriers. Billions have been spent on R&D for the wheeled Stryker armored vehicle family, and for the USA’s $160+ billion Future Combat Systems MGV armored vehicle family. Both vehicle families were sold as options that would fit into US tactical transports, in order to meet the military’s timeframe goals for deploying units to crisis situations. Both projects failed to meet their goals after spending billions in R&D, leaving the USA’s expensive C-17 fleet overworked, and achievement of the USA’s strategic deployability goals unlikely.

Unlike the pending Airbus A400M, therefore, which offers a larger interior and a 33-35 ton vehicle capacity, the C-130J doesn’t solve the sub-survivable 20-ton armored vehicle limit that has stymied multiple US armored vehicle programs. As such, it represents an improvement that fails to address US tactical airlift’s key bottleneck limitation. Meanwhile, reports from the USAF indicate that C-130Js are often flying with very little weight and/or small cargo, because the demands of counterinsurgency airlift lead to more and smaller requests from a number of front line sources.

The C-130J thus finds itself in the odd position of offering capabilities that are both too great for many tactical needs, while being too small to meet important American strategic goals. Even Special Forces worry that future air defense threats will make the C-130 non-survivable in future gunship and insertion roles.

A400M
(click to view full)

That’s the bad news. On the other hand, its major competitor the Airbus A400M went through major delays and contract re-negotiation in System Design & Development, and has a production backlog of over 180 aircraft as deliveries are beginning. Future competitors like the Indo-Russian MRTA, and Embraer’s multinational KC-390 are currently in even earlier R&D stages. Which means that any nations needing to replenish a 20+ ton tactical airlift fleet any time soon are limited to a choice of buying the C-130J, or purchasing old designs like Russia’s AN-12 or China’s Y-8 aircraft.

As the A400M becomes available, and the 20-ton segment begins to crowd with new offerings, the C-130J will face a very different competitive environment. Without major American C-130J buys, or establishment of the C-130J as a market leader in key segments like Special Operations, recouping its $1 billion investment would have been challenging for Lockheed Martin. Fortunately for the firm, they’ve made considerable progress toward both of these goals.

Contracts and Key Events

C-130J: SIGINT roll-on
(click to view full)

The USA’s JMATS contracts for C-130J simulators and training are a critical but separate component, and are covered in their own article. International customers aren’t part of JMATS, so their arrangements may be covered here.

DID has covered C-130J buys in Canada, India, Israel, Iraq, and Norway; and the UAE’s potential buy, as dedicated articles. Important milestones from those purchases may also appear here.

DID also has a separate article covering training and simulators, under the MATS, JMATS, and JMATS-II programs.

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts are issued by the Headquarters Air Force Material Command (AFMC) in Wright Patterson AFB, OH; and the contractor is Lockheed Martin Corporation in Marietta, GA. Note that coverage is complete only from Jan 1/06 forward.

Kuwaiti KC-130J
(click to view full)

January 29/16: Rolls-Royce Corp has been awarded two contracts by the DoD for a combined total of $153 million. The first will see the company supply twenty-four engines for Saudi Arabia’s C-130J Super Hercules aircraft in a foreign military sale worth $77 million. The engines will be delivered by the end of this year. Rolls will also supply C-130J propulsion system sustainment to the USAF in a deal worth $76 million. Due to be completed by this time next year, they will provide logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares, and technical data for the system.

January 21/16: Pakistan’s C-130 fleet is set to get a series of upgrades with Rockwell Collins selected to carry out the work. The Pentagon awarded the company a $30 million contract to carry out the work including the design, manufacture, integration, training, provision of technical support during installation, and delivery of 11 C-130E model kits and five C-130B integrated avionics suites and kits to Pakistan. Furthermore, they are to develop, validate, and deliver consolidated B/E flight manual and associated checklists, and maintenance supplements required to operate, maintain, and sustain the PAF C-130 fleet. All work will be carried out in Islamabad, and will be completed by the end of 2020.

January 6/16: Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems have been selected to develop a new self-protection suite for Lockheed Martin’s AC-130J and MC-130J gunships. The two electronic super weights will equip the aircraft with next-generation radio frequency countermeasure (RFCM) systems that can “detect, disrupt and defeat” anti-aircraft weapons, radars and other threats that use electromagnetic signals. While the value of the contracts are worth $32.8 million and $20 million respectively, the potential earnings for both companies could rise to $400 million each if the eight potential follow-on contracts are activated. By 2021, the USAF is expected to have thirty-seven MC-130Js and thirty-two AC-130Js ready for combat duty.

January 5/16: France has confirmed that it is to buy four C130 Hercules transport planes from Lockheed Martin. Plans to procure that aircraft are said to have been in the works since May 2015, coinciding with the crashing of an Airbus A400M that month. France, along with several other European NATO members, are set to buy the European A400M, but production delays and technical errors have seen these governments become wary of the planned procurements. Deliveries of the C130s could start as early as 2017 and would see service in missions conducted by France in Syria.

January 4/16: Multi-year funding for orders of C-130 procurement by the Pentagon has been awarded to Lockheed Martin. The first thirty-two aircraft were ordered on December 30 in a deal worth $1 billion. Up to seventy-eight will be delivered by 2020 in contracts potentially worth $5.3 billion of the company. The total order will see the US Air Force receive thirty MC-130Js, thirteen HC-130Js and twenty-nine C-130J-30s. The Marine Corps will get six KC-130Js and the Coast Guard will have the option to buy five HC-130Js.

December 18/15: France is planning to purchase four brand new C-130Js after authorization was given from the French Defense Minister. The news comes as the option to purchase second-hand C-130s from the British RAF failed to get the green light. The deal is said to exceed the $357 million set aside for the acquisition, but the remaining funds will come from adjustments made to other portions of the budget. While it is unlikely that anything will be signed before early 2016, Paris is hoping to receive delivery of the aircraft as soon as possible. The order will fill France’s need for tactical transport and in flight fueling. Other European nations such as Germany and Sweden have been helping coalition air strikes in Syria by offering refueling and transport aircraft.

November 12/15: France is looking to buy four C-130J transport aircraft through the US’ Foreign Military Sales program, with the State Department approving the sale. Previous reports indicate that the sale could be intended to plug a gap in Airbus A400M delivery schedules to the French Air Force, with French officials meeting with Lockheed Martin in June. The French defense budget for FY16 includes the provision of $1.7 billion for four C-130s, with the FMS request running to $650 million, including communications and self-protection systems and support services.

Meanwhile, the US Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin a $968.7 million contract action modification for the production of 17 C-130J variants, including six C-130J-30, one HC-130J, nine MC-130J and one KC-130J aircraft. The Air Force and Lockheed Martin reached an agreement in October to fund a five-year deal for C-130Js, covering 83 aircraft for the Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard.

October 19/15: Lockheed Martin and the Air Force have reportedly reached an agreement on the acquisition of C-130J Hercules transport aircraft. The five-year contract will see 83 C-130Js delivered to the Air Force, Coast Guard and Marine Corps and is anticipated to be finalized by the end of this year. Lockheed Martin sunk nearly $1 billion into the development of the aircraft, with the type seeing significant export success; sixteen countries have purchased the C-130J, including Canada, India, Israel and Norway.

October 5/15: An Air Force C-130J transport aircraft came down in Jalalabad, Afghanistan early on Friday morning, killing the aircraft’s six crew members and five civilian contractors on board. The Taliban claim that they shot down the aircraft as it took off, with this assertion denied by the Air Force. The crash is the sixth loss of a C-130J to date and the second time the USAF has lost one of the aircraft; however this is the first time US service personnel have been killed in a C-130J crash.

October 1/15: Denmark is reportedly looking to buy a fifth C-130J transporter, rejecting the A400M in the process. Plans to buy the Airbus design were reportedly dropped on financial grounds, with operating costs deemed too high by the Danish defense ministry.

FY 2015

Requests: Brunei.

September 18/15: Air Force Special Operations Command is reported to be looking to acquire an expendable unmanned system capable of acting as remote sensors deployable from C-130 gunships. A Coyote UAV is currently being used as a concept-demonstrator, with a longer-term solution also reported to be underway. AFSOC also wants to see lasers incorporated into the gunship of the future, retaining some aging C-130s to use as test beds. The Air Force wants industry to come up with a solution for an electric-powered laser weapon to equip the AC-130J by the end of the decade, the first aircraft of which was delivered at the end of July.

July 29/15: The Air Force has reportedly retained some ageing C-130U Hercules aircraft for use as airborne laser testbed aircraft. Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) plans to use the aircraft to test both offensive laser weapons and defensive lasers designed to act as less-than-lethal options. DARPA has been field testing the use of lasers against hostile projectiles, with the Air Force expecting to field airborne lasers on larger cargo aircraft models from 2021. However, the further development of these capabilities could be hamstrung by sequestration and a lack of political will.

March 24/15: The Air Force is adding one HC-130J to its original 2012 contract, at a cost of $72.7 million.

Oct 7/14: The US DSCA announces Brunei’s export request for 1 C-130J aircraft, 6 AE2100D3 turboprop engines (4 installed and 2 spares), Government Furnished Equipment, communication equipment, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of US Government and contractor support.

The C-130J would become Brunei’s largest aircraft, far bigger than its 3 ordered CN-235MPA maritime patrol planes. why does such a tiny country need it? Not to haul the Sultan’s famous fleet of over 300 top-end cars, but:

“This proposed sale of a C-130J to Brunei will provide a critical capability to assist in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief missions. The aircraft will enable Brunei to provide aid and assistance in greater capacities to regional allies and partners in need. The aircraft will also provide the ability to execute maritime patrol missions and contribute to search and rescue missions in the region.”

The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin-Aerospace in Marietta, GA, and the estimated cost is up to $343 million. That’s over 5x the standard flyaway price for a C-130J, a huge differential given that the notice that no additional contractors will be needed in Brunei. Perhaps they plan to perform long-term support elsewhere; it’s hard to think of another explanation if the notice’s facts are correct. Sources: US DSCA #14-37, “Brunei – C-130J Aircraft”.

DSCA request: Brunei (1 C-130J)

C-130J at work
click for video

Sept 29/14: Engines. GE Aviation Systems (actually Dowty Propellers) in Sterling, VA receives a sole-source $20.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 42 C-130J propellers (P/N 69703900) and spare parts. All funds are committed immediately using FY 2012-2014 USAF aircraft budgets, and funds from Foreign Military Sales – but the announcement doesn’t identify the foreign customers.

Work will be performed at Gloucester, UK and is expected to be complete by May 31/15. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (SPE4A1-14-G-0009-RJ03).

Sept 29/14: Software. A $6.6 million contract modification to integrate system and Mission Computer (MC) software changes into SOCOM’s HC/MC-130J Increment 2 aircraft. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 USAF RDT&E budgets.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by March 31/17. Fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation and procurement funds in the amount of $6,568,120 are being obligated at the time of award (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0277).

Sept 26/14: Sensors. Raytheon in McKinney, TX receives an $18.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 12 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems (AN/AAS-54) and spare parts for the Air Force C-130 program. Short version: it’s for Special Forces HC/MC-130s. Long version: the AAS-54 combines long-range day and night cameras for high-altitude target acquisition, and adds tracking, range-finding, and laser designation for all tri-service and NATO laser-guided munitions. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 & 2013 USAF aircraft budgets; $7.7 million will expire on Sept 30/14.

Work will be performed in McKinney, TX, and is expected to be complete by September 2016. The US Navy’s Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Indiana manages the contract (N00164-12-G-JQ66).

Aug 6/14: FY15 long-lead. A $116.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy long lead parts for 14 FY 2015 C-130Js. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 USAF advance procurement budgets.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by June 30/15. The USAF Nuclear Weapons Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8625-14-C-6450, PO 0001).

July 23/14: Counter-fighter. Defensive tactics against enemy fighters isn’t the first thing you normally associate with a C-130, but a pair of 317th Airlift Group C-130Js had to do just that en route to Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base, TX. The exercise demonstrated C-130J capabilities that will be used during the multinational fighter meet at Red Flag-Alaska.

Here’s how it worked: The loadmasters sat high in the flight decks of their aircraft, looking through a bubbled window in the ceiling. They communicated to the pilots, who reacted and maneuvered to delay the fighter pilot’s ability to locate and lock on the C-130Js. 39th AS assistant director of operations for tactics Maj. Aaron Webb described the tactics as “pretty effective,” adding that a casual observer “doesn’t expect a 130,000-pound cargo plane to be able to maneuver as nimbly as the J-model does.” Sources: USAF, “Dyess C-130Js successfully evade F-16”.

April 25/14: Extended Life. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives an initial $27.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for extended service life center wing boxes [DID: the section of the fuselage that connects to the wings] on 5 C-130J aircraft. Aging C-130E/H planes have received replacements; USAF C-130Js only began entering service in February 1999, but it’s the mileage that matters. Lockheed Martin would say only that replacement decisions are “based upon the service life of the part”, which can be shorter if a plane is subjected to heavy operational use. Meanwhile, the ESL wing boxes are equipping production line aircraft as well.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 budgets. Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Dec 30/16. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition by the USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLKCA at Robins AFB, GA (FA8504-14-C-0003).

March 27/14: Korea. The ROKAF takes delivery of 2 of its 4 ordered C-130J-30s (q.v. Dec 2/10), in a Marietta, GA ceremony. This makes them the plane’s 14th customer. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Republic Of Korea Air Force Accepts First C-130J Super Hercules”.

March 6/14: Sensors. Raytheon in McKinney, TX receives a $10.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for 10 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems, to be installed on AFSOC HC/MC-130Js.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY12 aircraft procurement budgets. Work will be performed in McKinney, TX and is expected to be complete by April 2015. There’s 1 set source for these, so this contract was not competitively procured per FAR 6.302-1. The US Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division in Crane, IN manages the contract (N00164-12-G-JQ66-0045).

March 4/14: FY15 Budget. The USAF and USN unveil their preliminary budget request briefings. They aren’t precise, but they do offer planned purchase numbers for key programs between FY 2014 – 2019. The C-130J program is still waiting for the full FY 2014 contract (q.v. Dec 6/13, Feb 12/14), but that budget introduced a multi-year contract (q.v. April 10/13), which makes cuts in FY 2015-2018 very difficult.

The USAF’s FY 2015 budget request involves 13 C-130Js (7 regular USAF, 2 MC-130J, 4 HC-130J), while the USMC plans to buy 1 KC-130J. The overall effect will drop US annual production from 17 in FY 2014 (6 C-130J, 1 KC-130J, 5 AC-130J gunships, 1 HC-130J, 4 MC-130J) to 14 in FY 2015, but steady exports should cushion that.

The USAF’s initial materials don’t delve beyond FY 2015, but the USMC plans to order another 5 KC-130Js from FY 2016 – 2019. They’ll finish the FY 2014-2018 deal 1 KC-130J short of their maximum, though, with only 6 planes bought, and make up the 7th in FY 2019. Sources: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF] | USAF, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview.

Feb 28/14: Support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $54.3 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for depot level repair of 50 KC-130 aircraft engines, propellers and other propulsion system components for the US Marine Corps (47 planes/ $50.2M / 92%) and the government of Kuwait (3 planes/ $4.1M/ 8%).

$24.5 million is committed immediately, using FY 2014 Navy O&M budgets. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN (92%), Al Mubarak, Kuwait (2.1%); various locations in Japan (2%); Cherry Point. NC (1.3%); Miramar, CA (1.3%); and Fort Worth, TX (1.3%), and is expected to be complete in February 2015. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-14-D-0007). See also Rolls Royce, “Rolls-Royce supports US Marine Corps KC-130Js through $50 million contract”.

Feb 25/14: Support. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA receives a sole-source $12.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide spare parts that are unique to US SOCOM’s HC/MC-130Js, and can’t be drawn from general C-130J fleet spares.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 aircraft budgets. Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Feb 16/16. USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WISK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0209).

Jan 31/14: AC-130J. The USAF flies a fully-converted AC-130J gunship for the 1st time, at Eglin AFB, FL. They also appear to have scales the program back a bit:

“A total of 32 MC-130J aircraft will be modified for AFSOC as part of a $2.4 billion AC-130J program to grow the future fleet, according to Capt. Greg Sullivan, the USSOCOM AC-130J on-site program manager at Det. 1.”

The Pentagon’s recently-released DOT&E report for FY 2013 had placed the AC-130J program at 37 aircraft. Sources: USAF, “New AC-130J completes first test flight”.

Jan 31/14: Support. A $105.3 million indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity contract modification, exercising the 3rd option under the USAF’s C-130J Long Term Sustainment Program. It’s a 2-year ordering period for sustainment services including logistical support, program management support, engineering services, spares, and technical data. Funds will be committed as needed through task orders.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Jan 31/16. USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLKCA at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract (FA8504-06-D-0001, PO 0026).

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).

All: 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. Minor issues include Mean Time to Diagnose a Fault of 119 minutes (30 required), and just 83% probability of completing a 4-hour mission without a failure (95% required). The good news is that DOT&E deems the HC/MC-130J to be operationally effective and operationally suitable, with a 95% mission availability rate (89% required) and survivable in the low to medium threat environments it was meant for.

AC-130J: The 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. This was concerning, though:

“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.

Jan 27/14: Engines. Rolls Royce in Indianapolis, IN receives an $182.7 million firm-fixed-price, requirements contract modification, exercising the 7th annual option for AE2100-D3 engine logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares, and technical data.

Funds will be spent as needed. Work will be performed at Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete by Jan 31/15. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLKCA at Robins AFB, GA, manages this contract (FA8504-07-D-0001, PO 0023).

Jan 21/13: LM-100J. No, it’s not gamerspeak for iRobot’s “Looj” gutter cleaner, or for a fast sled. It’s Lockheed Martin’s new civil variant of the C-130J, and the FAA just received Lockheed Martin’s Program Notification Letter for a type design update. FAA documents refer to it as an L-382J, but it will be marketed at the LM-100J. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Lockheed Martin Files For FAA Type Design Update”.

Dec 26/13: Support. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA ereceives an $11,060,628 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for logistics and engineering services in support of the C/KC-130J Aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps/Marine Corps Reserve, U.S. Coast Guard and the Kuwait Air Force.

Work will be performed in Marietta, GA (65.3%); Afghanistan (12%); Palmdale, CA (9.2%); Kuwait (3.3%); Okinawa, Japan (3%); Miramar, CA (1.8%); Cherry Point, NC (1.7%); Elizabeth City, NC (1.6%); Fort Worth, (1.5%); and Greenville, SC (.6%); and is expected to be completed in December 2014. No funds are being obligated at time of award. Funds will be obligated against individual delivery orders as they are issued. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Marine Corps/Marine Corps Reserve ($8,886,223; 80.3%); U.S. Coast Guard ($1,423,148; 12.9%); and the Government of Kuwait ($751,257; 6.8%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.SC 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-14-D-0006).

Dec 6/13: long-lead. A sole-source, maximum $169.7 million firm-fixed-price advance procurement contract for funding related to 18 C-130Js. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 procurement budgets.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Oct 31/16. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages this contract (FA8625-14-C-6450).

Dec 3/13: long-lead. A $48.5 million advance procurement contract modification for funding related to 5 more C-130Js. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 procurement budgets.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 aircraft budgets. Work under this multi-year contract will be performed at Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA until Dec 31/16. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0230).

Oct 10/13: DMS Redesign. Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Ga., was awarded a $21.6 million contract modification to redesign the C-130J’s Color Multipurpose Display Unit and Multi-Function Color Display for C-130J aircraft. Computer equipment goes out of production quickly, and the CDU & MFCDs need new central processor and graphics processor chip sets, in order to cope with “diminishing manufacturing sources.”

Sure beats trying to source spares from grey traders whose supply chain includes Chinese counterfeits.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA and is expected to be complete by Sept 30/15. This contract actually includes 15% foreign military sales to C-130 customers Norway, Israel and Kuwait, on top of the $21.6 million in FY 2012 in USAF procurement funds that are committed immediately. USAF Force Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0228)y. (Awarded Oct. 10, 2013)

Saudi C-130
(click to view full)

July 25/13: Israel. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Marietta, GA receives a maximum $13 million unfinalized contract for the advanced procurement of a 4th Israeli C-130J-30 and field services representatives, out of an FMS case for up to 9 planes (q.v. July 30/08). The total cumulative face value of the contract it’s bought under is now $1.631 billion, but most of that contract doesn’t involve Israel.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Dec 30/15. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract as Israel’s FMS agent (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0172).

July 11/13: Engines. Rolls Royce in Indianapolis, IN a $22.4 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification for more USMC KC-130J Power-by-the-Hour support.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in February 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-09-D-0020).

July 2/13: Training. IKBI Inc. in Choctaw, MS receives a maximum $7.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for a Special Forces HC-130J Simulator Facility at Moody AFB, GA. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received by the Army Corps of Engineers in Savannah, GA (W912HN-13-C-0011).

May 31/13: LAIRCM. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives a $16.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to finish designing LAIRCM aircraft modification kits (A-Kits) for the USMC’s KC-130Js, to protect them against shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. This modification includes 10 LAIRCM A-Kits, a test kit installation of a LAIRCM A-Kit, and a validation installation of a LAIRCM A-Kit.

Work will be performed in Marietta, GA (51%); Greenville, SC (31%); and Rolling Meadows, IL (18%), and is expected to be completed in November 2015. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 and 2013 contract dollars. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-13-C-0017).

April 4/13: Tunisia. Lockheed Martin announces that they’ve delivered the 1st of 2 stretched C-130J-30 Super Hercules to the Republic of Tunisia, marking the first delivery to an African country.

Tunisia currently operates a fleet of C-130Hs and C-130Bs, but they were bought in the mid-1980s. Lockheed Martin’s 2010 contract involved 2 planes between 2013 – 2014, plus training and an initial 3 years of logistics support. The Tunisian government fell in the meantime, but the new government still needs the planes.

Feb 22/13: Engines. Rolls Royce in Indianapolis, ID receives a $16.8 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for more additional power-by-the-hour work in support of the USMC’s KC-130Js.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in July 2013. Funds will be committed by individual delivery orders, as needed. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-D-0020).

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 report covers the C-130J platform generally, as well as the HC/MC-130J special forces variants.

The biggest take-away is that the USAF is scrapping plans to field the Block 7.0 upgrade, or incorporate the set into the production line. Block 7.0 has been experiencing delays, and is expected to enter test & evaluation in early 2013, but the results will probably just be used to plan the USAF’s Block Upgrade 8.1.

On the bright side, the C-130J family’s DTADS maintenance support system is a “significant improvement” in multiple areas, but the Windows XP operating system means it can’t connect to government networks. Windows 7 is apparently the minimum.

With respect to the special forces platforms, the HC/MC-130J got a preliminary rating of being as good or better than previous variants, and availability/ maintenance rates were also improvements (vid. Nov 1/12 entry). Key strengths include better takeoffs from short or unimproved runways, expanding the flight envelope for aerial refueling, and improved cargo loading and unloading features. Despite that latter assessment, airdrops create very high workloads and head-down time for the pilot monitoring the drops. The new HC/MC-130Js may also have to do some retrofits to add standard search and rescue equipment: flare launcher tubes, large forward scanner windows, additional oxygen regulators, and intercom panels.

Survivability and situational awareness were another area mentioned, though the specific survivability issue wasn’t detailed. With respect to situational awareness, pilots would like a tactical datalink such as Link 16, so they’re more aware of what’s around them. Inside, the loadmasters want more control over cargo lighting, especially since the night vision lighting is a bit problematic for covert operations. On an audible level, the loadmasters want the intercom system to transmit system tones for diagnostic or defensive system alerts.

Jan 16/13: India support. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $6.7 million contract modification for Power by the Hour support to the IAF’s C-130Js.

Work will be performed at Hindan Air Station in New Delhi, India, and is expected to be complete by Jan 30/13. The AFLCMC/WLKCB at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract on behalf of their FMS client (FA8504-07-D-0001-0501-09).

Aug 6/12: Made in India. The Hindu reports that the offset program has begun to bear fruit, with some components now made in India:

“The latest feather in the Tata cap is that certain critical components for the C-130 are now being ‘Made in India’… on the outskirts of Hyderabad. That is the promise held out by Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures Ltd., (TLMAL), a joint venture between Tata Advanced Systems and Lockheed Martin. The Friday gone by was a landmark day with TLMAL delivering the first C-130 Center Wing Box (CWB) to Lockheed.”

Nov 1/12: MC/HC-130J. Lockheed Martin announces that their HC-130J Combat King II and MC-130J Commando II special operations planes have been formally certified as “Effective, Suitable and Mission Capable” by the USAF’s Operational Test and Evaluation Center.

Norwegian C-130J
(click to view full)

Sept 28/12: A $218 million contract modification to buy 3 more US Coast Guard HC-130J Long Range Surveillance aircraft, which will bring the USCG fleet to 9, and add 2 more roll-on mission suites. The 3rd plane will get its mission equipment from a future contract, scheduled for FY 2013. By 2016, the Coast Guard plans to accept these aircraft and base them at Air Station Barbers Point, Hawaii.

The HC-130J’s special mission suite is comprised of a 2-person mission system operator station located behind the pilot and co-pilot, a belly-mounted 360-degree Seaspray 7500 long range search radar, nose-mounted day/night surveillance turret, and an advanced mission communications suite. Work will be performed in Marietta, GS, and Greenville, SC. The contract runs until May 31/16 (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0069).

The current Coast Guard C-130 LRS fleet includes 23 HC-130Hs, and 6 HC-130Js based at Air Station Elizabeth City, NC. The USCG’s HC-130Hs are running out of useful service life, and by 2027, the USCG is planning to have a uniform fleet of 22 HC-130Js. See also USCG | Lockheed Martin.

3 USCG HC-130Js

Sept 21/12: The Air Force’s 19th Special Operation Squadron is retiring its MC-130E Combat Talon I simulator, and they are waiting for an MC-130J simulator to replace it. They do not quite seem to know what to do with it. Any takers? It would be quite the living room conversation piece.

Sept 10/12: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $9.7 million indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification, to meet increased requirements for the USMC’s “power by the hour” per-engine support contract. Translation: the USMC is flying its KC-130J fleet for more hours than the contract had expected.

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC, and is expected to be complete in February 2013. 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 (N00019-09-D-0020).

Sept 5/12: Iraq. The 1st of 6 C-130J-30 Super Hercules for the Iraqi Air Force has completed its first flight, at Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, GA facility. Lockheed Martin.

Aug 30/12: Oman delivery. The 1st C-130J ordered by Oman is formally accepted by the country at a signing ceremony in Marietta. Lockheed Martin initially told DID that the delivery of this plane was likely to happen in early November, but the Sultanate sped up the process and flew its plane home on September 12. Lockheed Martin.

Aug 28/12: Sea Hercules? Defense News reports that Lockheed Martin is working on an SC-130J Sea Hercules modification. It’s designed as a $150 million alternative, to be developed in 3 stages. Stage 1 will involve roll-on/ bolt-on radar and electro-optical sensors, and accompanying processing workstations. Stage 2 would add wing-mounted surface attack weapons, along with upgraded workstations and weapon control systems. Stage 3 would be a full anti-submarine conversion, including sonobuoys, a magnetic anomaly detector boom, extra fuel pods, and 2 added bays for 6 Harpoon missiles.

Lockheed Martin reportedly says they expect to sign at least one contract “in North Africa”. Tunisia, who already has a contract for 2 C-130J-30s that was signed shortly before their revolution, could certainly use that capability. So could Britain, which has its own fleet of C-130s, but no maritime patrol planes since they retired the Nimrod fleets.

Lockheed Martin will have no shortage of competitors around the world. Established competitors include EADS’ CN-235 Persuader, C-295 MPA, ATR-42 MP, and ATR-72 ASW turboprops; and Embraer’s P-99 MP jet. On the development front, Boeing is starting to look at options beyond its P-8A Poseidon, because their customers are saying that they don’t need its full versatility, and find its $200 million price tag prohibitive. Bombardier’s Challenger 600 seems to be the target platform. There’s also some talk in Britain of adding maritime patrol capabilities to its Sentinel R1 ground surveillance jets, based on Bombardier’s Challenger. Saab has options are in development based on the Saab 2000 regional turboprop and Piaggio P-180 executive turboprop, and Russia has a unique offering in development based on its Beriev Be-200 amphibious aircraft.

Aug 8/12: Oman. Flight testing begins for the 1st of Oman’s 3 ordered C-130Js (1 C-130J-30, 2 C-130Js). Oman currently operates a fleet of 3 C-130Hs purchased in the early 1980s, and their first new Hercules is scheduled for delivery later in 2012. Lockheed Martin.

June 4/12: Norway. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, ID receives a $14.3 million (face value) firm-fixed-price contract to purchase spares, field services support and program management, return and repair support, and engineering services support for the Royal Norwegian Air Force’s C-130J fleet at Gardermoen AFB, Norway. Work is to be complete by Jan 31/14. The WR-ALC/GRBKB at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract, on behalf of its Norwegian client (FA8504-07-D-0001-0602).

April 2/12: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $25 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification for contractor logistics support and technical engineering support of USMC KC-130Js’ AE2100-D3 turboprop engines, and R391 propellers.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in February 2013. All 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 this contract (N00019-09-D-0020). Navy/USMC C-130Js fall under a separate engine maintenance agreement than the USAF – see also April 6/10, Feb 27/09 entries.

Feb 29/12: AC-130J, etc. A $70 million firm-fixed-price advance procurement contract, buying long-lead items for US AFSOC: 2 AC-130J gunships, 1 HC-130J “Combat King” Combat Search And Rescue, and 4 MC-130J “Combat Shadow” transport aircraft. This is the FY 2013 budget request, but long-lead materials to ensure on-time construction are always in the previous year’s budget.

The AC-130J is new, and hasn’t been talked about much. The current AC-130H “Spectre” and AC-130U “Spooky” gunships remain vulnerable to even light defenses like anti-aircraft cannons, and are often restricted to night flying. On the flip side, they offer unparalleled fire support volume and accuracy, up to and including 105mm howitzer fire, to help special forces and friendly troops out of jams. SOCOM’s heavy gunship fleet has seen predictably heavy usage in recent years, and needs replacement. The hanging question is what capabilities a full C-130J gunship option might have.

Work will be performed Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete during calendar year 2016. The USAF/AFMC Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0081).

Feb 22/12: Support. A $7.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for C-130J and HC/MC-130J spares for at Moody Air Force Base, GA. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and the contract runs through Dec 31/13. USAF AMC’s Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0085).

Feb 22/12: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $45.2 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification, exercising an option for AE-2100D3 turboprop engine and R-391 propeller contractor logistics and technical engineering services, for the USMC’s KC-130Js.

Funds will be committed only as services are needed, and work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN until February 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-09-D-0020).

Jan 31/12: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $112.2 million firm-fixed-price, requirements type contract, exercising Option V/ Year 6 of the C-130J’s AE2100D3 engine and R-391 propeller support contract. That includes logistics support, program management support, engineering, spares and technical data are included.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN until Jan 31/13. The Warner Robbins Air Logistics Center at Robins AFB, GA manages this contract (FA8504-07-D-0001, #0600).

Jan 31/12: Support. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives a $63 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-award-fee, time-and-material, and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to support systems unique to the C-130J. Their work will include logistics support, program management support, engineering services, repairs, spares and technical data.

Work will be performed in Marietta, GA until Jan 31/14. The Warner Robbins Air Logistics Center at Robins AFB, GA manages this contract (FA8504-06-D-0001, PO 0020; Delivery order 0700).

Jan 31/12: Norway. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives a $7.8 million firm-fixed-price, time-and-material contract for spares, field support representatives, program management, return and repair support, and engineering services from the Royal Norwegian Air Force, to support their new 4-plane C-130J fleet.

Work will be performed in Marietta, GA until Jan 31/14. The Warner Robbins Air Logistics Center at Robins AFB, GA manages this contract (FA8504-06-D-0001, #0606).

Dec 28/11: Support. An $8.5 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for spares and material in support of the USMC’s KC-130Js. Funds will be obligated by individual delivery orders as they are issued. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete in December 2013. US NAVAIR manages this contract (N00019-09-D-0015).

Dec 13/11: Engines. A $10.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 9 spare C-130J quick change engine assemblies, under the terms of the Fiscal Year Orientation Committee IV contract. The units are a split buy: 5 units for the U.S. Air Force; and 4 as a Foreign Military Sales effort for Kuwait (q.v. May 27/10, July 20/09 entries). Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Nov 28/14 (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0068).

Dec 7/11: SIGINT kit. Lockheed Martin delivers the USAF’s 4th Senior Scout containerized roll-on, roll-off signals intelligence (SIGINT) system. Senior Scout was 1st fielded in Operation Desert Storm (Iraq) in 1991, but the latest model is enhanced to be structurally compatible with the newest C-130J, adds updated system interfaces and technology enhancements, and offers better maintenance access. Lockheed Martin considers Senior Scout to be part of its DRAGON Shield series of modular ro-ro ISR offerings.

Acceptance testing is about to begin, and if all goes well, the USAF’s other 3 Senior Scouts will be converted to the same standard over the next 2 years. Lockheed Martin.

Dec 2/11: New variants. Flight International reports on Lockheed Martin EVP Ralph Heath’s presentation to the Credit Suisse aerospace and defense conference in New York. The presentation mentions 2 new variants: the stripped-down C-130XJ, without the automatic loading system and other niceties; and a more streamlined C-130NG concept aimed at the market beyond 2020.

MC-130J enhancements
(click for video)

Sept 29/11: 1st MC-130J delivered. Lockheed Martin delivers the 1st of 20 MC-130J Combat Shadow IIs to United States Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), at Cannon Air Force Base, NM. Delivery had been scheduled for August.

While the HC-130J is the combat rescue model, the MC-130J is the standard special operations insertion and cargo plane. It’s also based on a KC-130J tanker, with the UARRSI boom refueling receptacle, Enhanced Service Life Wing, Enhanced Cargo Handling System, a surveillance and targeting turret, a combat systems operator station on the flight deck, and dual SATCOM. They’re more or less the same planes, actually, just with different roles, and different operators. Initial operational capability is planned for 2012.

Sept 24/11: 1st HC-130J delivered. US Air Combat Command officials receive their 1st HC-130J Combat King II, at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ. Delivery had been scheduled for August.

The new HC-130J will be flown by the testing squadron, then members of the 79th Rescue Squadron will complete the 8 months of training needed to fly and operate the new model. USAF officials expect HC-130Js to begin regular duty at the base in early 2013. USAF.

Sept 16/11: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification to increase the ceiling on engine support contract line items for the KC-130J fleet. They include power by the hour, which pays a fixed fee per engine flight hours, and spares. The KC-130J fleet are triple-role aircraft: cargo, aerial refueling, and on-call strike aircraft (with the Harvest Hawk roll-on kit).

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC, and is expected to be complete in February 2012. No funding is being committed at time of award, but it’s available if needed. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract, as the KC-130Js are USMC birds (N00019-09-D-0020).

July 11/11: A not to exceed $89 million firm-fixed-price contract modification commits FY 2011 Congressionally-mandated advance procurement funding for 9 C-130J family planes: 1 USAF stretched C-130J-30 aircraft, and 8 US SOCOM HC-130J/ MC-130Js.

These 9 planes will receive their main orders in FY 2012, but advance ordering ensures that manufacturing can start when that order does come in (FA8625-11-C-6597 PO 0029).

May 2/11: Qatar. The 1st of 4 Qatar Emiri Air Force C-130J-30s has completed production at the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, GA. It would make its first flight on June 8th. See also Oct 7/08 entry.

April 5/11: MC-130J i3. A $21.4 million contract modification for MC-130J increment 3, to develop 1 trial kit installation, and perform developmental tests of this capability on 1 MC-130J increment 2 aircraft. The overall scope of this effort is to add the C-130J Block 7.0 software upgrades, and “a special mission processor capability that include both developmental [work] and integration of known/low risk improvements.” The ASC/WLNNC at Wright Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597 PO0002).

March 31/11: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA receives a $10 million firm-fixed-price contract to obligate FY 2010 advance procurement funding for 1 FY 2011 C-130J aircraft. Work will be performed at Marietta, GA (FA8625-06-C-6456-P00243).

March 29/11: India. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an $8.5 million firm-fixed-price contract to provide “spares, fuser, and program management support” for the Indian Air Force, to support the arrival of their new C-130J fleet. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract (FA8504-07-D-0001-0501).

March 22/11: USAF Air Combat Command’s HC-130J personnel recovery aircraft, completes developmental testing by receiving fuel from an aerial tanker boom. This test point also applies to AFSOC’s MC-130J Combat Shadow II aircraft.

Rollout of the first MC-130J is later celebrated at the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, GA on March 29/11, and the first HC-130Js and MC-130Js started deliveries in September 2011, instead of August. Initial Operational Capability for both is scheduled for 2012.

March 18/11: Support. An $8.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide C-130J logistics support through Jan 31/12. Work will be performed at Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA (FA8625-11-C6597).

March 1/11: Australia – C-17 or C-130Js? Australian Minister for Defence Stephen Smith confirms that the government is looking into buying a 5th C-17, and has sent a Foreign Military Sale Letter of Request to the United States asking about costs and availability.

The tradeoff under consideration was whether to buy 1 more C-17A, or buy 2 more C-130J-30 Super Hercules tactical transports between 2013-2015 under project AIR 8000 Phase 1. One C-17A can carry up to 4 C-130 Hercules loads in a single lift, and cover twice the distance in three-quarters of the time. On the other hand, it costs over 3 times as much, and can’t be in 4 places at once. In the end, Australia chose to buy the C-17 instead.

Feb 14/11: The 1st MC-130J Combat Shadow II for US AFSOC completes manufacturing, and will begin flight tests after additional special mission equipment like the chin-mounted sensor turret is installed. MC-130Js work insertion missions, almost always at night. Their missions can include low-level aerial refueling missions for special operations helicopters, along with infiltration/ exfiltration, and resupply for special forces teams.

Feb 5/11: India induction. The 1st Indian C-130J-30 with Special Forces enhancements is inducted in a special ceremony at Air Force Station Hindon, India. There’s still work to do, however. IAF chief Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik says of the American communications and security systems that were left out: “We have our own communication system and yes, we will be integrating them on the aircraft. They are already being made and they will be put on the aircraft.” Andrha News | MSN India.

Jan 31/11: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $203 million contract modification to cover support services for the C-130J’s AE-2100D3 engines and R-391 propellers, under the Option Year IV (5th overall year) of their support contract. Sustaining services will include logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares and technical data.

At this time, $49.6 million has been committed by the Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center GRBKA, at Robins Air Force Base, GA (FA8504-07-D-0001, 0500).

Jan 31/11: Support. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA receives a $69.8 million contract modification to cover support for systems unique to the C-130J fleet, as opposed to systems that are common to C-130Js and earlier model Hercules. The contract exercises the 2nd option, covering years 6 through 8 of logistics support, program management support, engineering services, repairs, spares and technical data.

At this time, $20 million has been committed by the Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center GRBKA, at Robins Air Force Base, GA (FA8504-06-D-0001, PO 0015).

Jan 28/11: Iraq, Norway. A $16.9 million contract modification exercises an option to purchase support equipment and spares for Iraq, as well as logistic support services for Norway. Both are C-130J customers, and Norway has already received its 4 aircraft. At this time the entire amount has been obligated by the ASC/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8625-06-C-6456).

Jan 11/10: USA, Norway. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems in Marietta, GA receives a $13.3 million contract modification, exercising an option to purchase support equipment and spares for the United States and Norway.

While the platform is not named, the contract number is the C-130J contract. At this time, the entire amount has been committed by the ASC/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8625-06-C-6456).

Indian C-130J-30
(click to view full)

Dec 21/10: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services in Rockville, MD receives a $12 million contract for C-130J/J-30 Loadmaster crashworthy seats systems. The contract will buy 101 systems: 7 “first article” systems for testing, then up to 88 systems and 6 systems of spares. $8.5 million has been committed by the WR-ALC/GRBK at Robins AFB, GA (FA8504-11-D-0003).

Dec 17/10: India. India’s 1st C-130J is formally delivered in a ceremony at Marietta, GA.

Nov 30/10: Training. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Orlando, FL receives a $23.3 million contract for the HC/MC-130J Special Operations variant’s weapon systems trainer. At this time, $2,044,798 has been committed by the ASC/WNSK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8621-06-C-6300).

Nov 10/10: A $160 million contract modification that commits FY 2010 advance procurement funding for 16 C-130J aircraft that will have their contracts completed in FY 2011. At this time, the entire amount has been committed (FA8625-06-C-6456; P00174).

Nov 8/10: Production accelerating. Flight International reports that Lockheed Martin has entered the final 12 months of F-22A production in Marietta, GA, and details the shifts underway. They add that the plant is also working to treble the C-130J’s production rate, to about 36 aircraft per year.

Oct 7/10: Australian innovation. Australian Defence magazine reports that Australian software investments are about to benefit global C-130J fleets, thanks to strong support from RAAF No. 37 squadron and the DSTO. The software is estimated to save about $2 million in maintenance hours and fuel over the plane’s lifetime. How?

Multi-engine propeller planes need to “balance” their propellers, in order to reduce vibration levels. That’s normally a labor-intensive process involving up to 5 maintenance staff, and multiple ground runs, over 1-2 days. Australia’s DSTO decided to look into a software solution that drew on an existing advanced engine monitoring capability, and coupled it with algorithms that take the flight data. Balancing now takes 2 hours, without the need for engine ground runs.

Flight tests before and after were promising, and the UK, Italy, Denmark, Canada and Norway will begin using the software soon. The USA is still reviewing the software license.

Oct 6/10: India omissions. Indian defense journalist Shiv Aroor lists the technologies that he says will not be in India’s C-130J-30 special forces aircraft, as a result of India’s refusal to sign the USA’s CISMOA End-User Monitoring agreement: AN/ARC-222 SINCGARS radios, KV-119 IFF Digital Transponder (Mode 4 Crypto Applique), TACTERM / ANDVT Secure Voice (HF) Terminal, VINSON KY-58 Secure Voice (UHF/VHF) Module, and no SINCGARS/crypto features in the embedded AN/ARC-210v SATCOM Transceiver.

Oct 5/10: India. The 1st of 6 Indian C-130J-30 special forces aircraft takes flight from Lockheed Martin’s plant and airfield in Marietta, GA.

Danish C-130J
(click to view full)

Sept 13/10: A $59.8 million contract modification to buy 1 more FY 2008 OCO C-130J aircraft. At this time, $39.6 million has been committed (FA8625-06-C-6456; PO0193).

DID offers our readers the usual caveats, and reminds them that buying an aircraft doesn’t necessarily include “government furnished equipment” niceties like engines, etc.

Sept 2/10: A $315.6 million contract modification buy 3 FY 2008 “Overseas Contingency Operations” (supplemental wartime funding) C-130Js; 1 FY 2008 OCO KC-130J aerial tanker/ transport for the US Marines; and 1 FY 2010 HC-130J aircraft for US SOCOM. At this time, $250.8 million has been committed (FA8625-06-C-6456; PO0178).

Aug 31/10: Sub-contractors. UK firm GKN Aerospace announces that they have delivered the 1,000th C-130J engine nacelle. The firm has been supplying these since 1993, and plans to increase production from 18 aircraft sets (72 nacelles) per year in 2008 to “near double that” in 2011. GKN has set up a new state of the art production line at their Isle of Wight facility.

To meet this significant production rate increase GKN Aerospace has moved manufacture to an entirely new, state of the art production line at the Company’s site on the Isle of Wight, UK.

HC-130J
click to play video

July 29/10: The 1st production HC-130J personnel recovery variant flies at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Marietta, GA. It’s due for delivery to USAF Air Combat Command in September 2010, and is scheduled to reach initial operational capability in 2012. An Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOCOM) MC-130J variant of this aircraft will fly in early 2011.

June 18/10: Multi-year proposal. The Hill reports that Lockheed Martin continues to work on a multi-year C-130J buy, and that the current negotiations for 65 C-130Js would serve as a starting point. Lockheed Martin’s international VP for air mobility business development, Jack Crisler, says the key target is 10% savings demonstrated, adding that his firm plans to propose the multi-year contract in September-October 2010.

The proposal could also become more inclusive, potentially adding US Special Operations and US Coast Guard aircraft. If other multi-year deals serve as any guide, the deal might also end up including foreign buys, which would benefit from the US government’s volume pricing. USAF acquisition chief David Van Buren says the USAF is receptive to the idea, but past discussions haven’t shown that 10%+ savings over the existing year-by-year contracts. The USAF reportedly pegs the current price of a C-130J, without spares or Government-Furnished Equipment such as engines and some electronics, optional refueling pods, etc. at $57.6 million.

June 4/10: Canada acceptance. Canada formally accepts the first of 17 CC-130J Super Hercules aircraft, to the Canadian Forces 8 Wing in Trenton, ON, 6 months ahead of the original delivery schedule. The remaining 16 aircraft will begin delivery in winter 2010 as planned, with deliveries running into 2012. Canadian DND.

April 6/10: Engines. Rolls-Royce announces $51 million engine production and MissionCare services contract for the AE 2100D3 engines on the USMC’s KC-130J tanker. The award falls under a 4-year contract with US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), which is administered at NAS Patuxent River, MD.

Rolls-Royce will provide engines, engine management, support, trouble shooting, parts supply and logistics support for aircraft operating at 3 US Marine Air Stations: Miramar, CA; Cherry Point, NC; and Okinawa, Japan.

April 3/10: The first HC-130J combat rescue tanker leaves Lockheed Martin’s main assembly building in Marietta, GA. The plane next steps include a trip to the painting facility, production flight testing, and formal presentation to the USAF on April 19/10. The HC-130J will be delivered later in 2010, then undergo operational flight testing to meet an Initial Operating Capability target of mid-2012. Lockheed Martin release.

April 1/10: Support. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA received a $77.1 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-09-D-0015) to provide additional funding for logistics and engineering services in support of the US Marine Corps KC-130J aircraft.

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC (36%), Miramar, CA (36%), and Okinawa, Japan (28%), and is expected to be complete in December 2010. The Naval Air Systems Command manages the contract.

Feb 25/10: Australia upgrades. Australia’s government announces that they have approved AUD $45 million to upgrade and modernize their C-130J fleet, as part of a multi-national Joint User Group Global Project Arrangement with United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Canada and Italy. The “Block 7.0” upgrades will address system obsolescence, maintain international compatibility, and enable these aircraft to comply with new global air traffic standards. Defence minister Sen. Faulkner is quoted as saying that:

“Importantly, there is likely to be significant opportunity for Australian Industry to be involved in the national installation and support of the upgrade. Funding for these elements will be considered by Government following successful testing of the first modification kit on an Australian C-130J. [as a] risk management strategy.”

Feb 1/10: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. of Indianapolis, IN receives a $146 million firm-fixed-price contract, exercising Option III (year 4) of logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares and technical data in support of the C-130J propulsion systems. This includes the AE2100D3 engine, and the R-391 propeller as well.

At this time, $42.7 million has been committed by the 330th ACSG/GFKA at Robins AFB, GA (FA8504-07-D-0001, Delivery #0400).

Jan 22/10: Support. A $16.7 million contract completely funds an “engineering change proposal” (ECP) to replace the C-130J’s Star VII mission computer. (FA8625-06-C-6456).

Jan 13/10: Canada. The 1st Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules produced for Canada leaves the company’s paint facility in Marietta, Georgia.

CC-130J: just painted
(click to view full)

Dec 18/09: Canada support. The Government of Canada signs a C$ 723 million (currently $698 million) contract amendment with Lockheed Martin. This initial CC-130J fleet support funding covers an initial 5 1/2 year period ending June 30/16.

The contract also includes a mechanism to extend the period of in-service support throughout the fleet’s service life, to 20 years or more. Public Works Canada release.

Canada support

Dec 22/09: Support. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Orlando, FL receives a $14.5 million contract to provide FY 2010 operations and maintenance services for the C-130J. At this time, $3.5 million has been committed (FA8621-06-C-6300, P000046).

Dec 19/09: The 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein AB, Germany, flies its first C-130J Super Hercules mission in support of U.S. Air Forces Africa to bring home 17 American troops from a training mission in Mali. 37th Airlift squadron of the 86th Airlift Wing, 17th Air Force flew the mission.

The USAF release cites the C-130J’s increased range as a helpful factor in Africa, and also cites the aircraft’s improved cargo capacity, especially in hot and/or high-altitude conditions. A pickup of this nature exercises the former but not the latter, expanding operational familiarity with the aircraft, in return for higher operating costs to perform this particular mission.

Nov 9/09: Engines. Rolls-Royce announces an $8.5 million contract to provide AE 2100D3 spare engine parts to power the C-130J military transport aircraft for the US Air Force. As part of this order, deployable kits and initial provisioning spares will be delivered to Cannon AFB in NM, Dyess AFB in TX and Ramstein Air Base in Germany.

The contract, which is managed by Robins Air Force Base in GA, involves an initial 956 AE 2100D3 spare engines parts for delivery through 2011.

Oct 20/09: Industrial. Lockheed Martin CFO Bruce Tanner, discussing Q3 2009 earnings, reveals that global C-130J deliveries will grow from 12 aircraft in 2008 to 16 in 2009 and 26 in 2010. Q3 Earnings slides [PDF] | Flight International.

Oct 19/09: Shadow Harvest. Flight International reports that Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works division wants clearance to export its “Shadow Harvest” roll-on/roll-off suite of intelligence sensors for the C-130 Hercules, which was developed for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) with sponsorship from the Miami, Florida-based Southern Command.

Shadow Harvest is designed to identify targets concealed under camouflage or foliage, and reportedly includes BAE’s SPIRITT hyperspectral camera, and a low frequency/ multi-band synthetic aperture radar (MB-SAR), among other sensors, plus containerized roll on/off controllers and displays. It’s expected to become an official USAF program of record by 2012.

Oct 19/09: C-130 plans. Flight International has a video of 2 USAF Colonels who are answering questions regarding a number of C-130-related programs, including potential future gunships, programs to add weapons to C-130s beyond the USMC’s KC-130Js, SOCOM programs, etc.

Oct 16/09: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA received an $827.4 million contract for advance procurement funding for 3 FY 2010 C-130J aircraft, 4 FY 2010 HC-130J aircraft, and 4 FY 2010 MC-130J aircraft. An option is being exercised for the acquisition of 1 HC-130J aircraft to be fully funded with FY10 funds. Note that MC/HC-130Js are Special Operations aircraft.

At this time, $8.3 million has been obligated. The 657 AESS/SYKA at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH manages the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456, P00087).

Oct 5/09: Lockheed Martin officially launches production of its HC/MC-130J special forces search-and-rescue aircraft. Future upgrades involve an internal investment to design a retractable housing for the aircraft’s MTS-A turret, in order to reduce drag and extend range. Other possibilities reportedly include airframe changes to accommodate more equipment, possibly including an enlarged nose section, and a wider cross-section for the fuselage. Flight International.

AE2100 engine
c. Rolls-Royce plc 2009
(click to view full)

Sept 30/09: Support. Lockheed Martin Corp., of Orlando FL received a $9.9 million contract which will provide for FY 2010 C-130J maintenance and training, as orders are placed by the 677th AESG/SYK at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8621-06-C-6300).

Sept 10/09: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an $11.1 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-09-D-0020) from the U.S. Marine Corps, for 3 of the C-130J’s AE2100D3 turboprop engines. Work will be performed in Cherry Point, N.C., and is expected to be complete in May 2012. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract.

Aug 24/09: Engines. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA receives a $30.2 million modified contract to purchase the quick engine change assemblies for American C/KC/BC/HC/MC-130J aircraft, and Foreign Military Sale aircraft for Norway and India.

“At this time $31,972,726 has been obligated.” The US Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages this contract (FA8625-06-C-6456).

June 5-15/09: France? With the A400M program seriously behind schedule, and a fleet of C-160 and Lockheed Martin C-130H tactical transports that continue to see heavy demand, France is apparently looking at the one option its government had said would not be considered.

French Defense Minister Herve Morin is quoted as saying that the government has expanded its stopgap options to include lease or purchase of some C-130Js; and Bloomberg reports that France has officially requested C-130J availability and performance data for review. Other possibilities for France include stepped up per-hour leasing of Russian AN-124s under NATO’s SALIS pool, per-hour C-17 leasing under NATO’s SAC pool, acquisition or lease of EADS’ smaller C-295Ms, or advancing their planned Airbus 330 MRTT aerial tanker & transport buy. France has also approved the modernization of its 10 newest C160 Transalls so they can remain in service until the first A400Ms arrive, which is now expected to happen in 2014-15.

These options group themselves by tradeoffs. Some contenders (C-295M, A330 MRTT) lack the reinforced floors required for dense tactical loads like armored vehicles. Others (AN-124, A330 MRTT, C-17s to lesser extent) require longer runways to operate from, which removes some of their utility as front line delivery aircraft. Range and refueling capability are potential issues for some (C-295M, some C-130Js), while maintaining overall fleet strength and front line airlift availability is a concern in other cases (AN-124, C-17, A330 MRTT to some extent). The C-130J sits in the middle of many of these tradeoffs, which may be why it has climbed back into consideration. Bloomberg.

May 27/09: Engines. Rolls-Royce announces an $80 million contract to provide AE 2100D3 spare engines and parts to power the C-130J military transport aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, the Royal Norwegian Air Force and the Indian Air Force.

The contract, which is managed by Robins Air Force Base in GA, involves an initial 27 AE 2100D3 spare engines and parts for delivery through 2011.

May 8/09: Armed C-130Js. 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. The program is known as Harvest Hawk.

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: Armed C-130Js. The USAF is also interested in roll-on armament for its C-130 fleet, 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).”

April 30/09: The Air Force is modifying a fixed price contract with Lockheed Martin Corp., of Marietta, GA for $15.8 million. This contract modification will exercise options to purchase Special Forces configuration equipment for 6 MC-130J Global War on Terror aircraft. At this time, the entire amount has been obligated. 657 AESS, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (FA8625-06-C-6456).

March 5/09: Britain. Britain’s RAF is under strain, trying to sustain an aerial supply bridge for 8,000 deployed troops in Afghanistan. With its 20 C-130Ks (C1/C3) being forced toward retirement, Aviation Week reports [link now broken] that Britain is looking at the possibility of leasing 5 C-130Js as a potential “bridge” until the A400Ms can begin to arrive, and/or finding ways to add to their 6-plane C-17 fleet.

Senior British Defense Ministry officials are believed to have met on March 4/09 to examine proposals for the ministry’s next “Planning Round 09.” Airlift and budget issues would have been prominent within those discussions.

Feb 27/09: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $106 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for logistics support, technical engineering support services, and spare engines and associated parts for the U.S. Marine Corps KC-130J, which includes the AE2100D3 turboprop engine and Dowty R391 propeller.

The KC-130J MissionCare contract is a single contract line item number is used to pay a fixed price based on aircraft hours flown. Under the terms of the agreement, Rolls-Royce will provide engine management, support, trouble shooting, parts supply and logistics support for the aircraft, operating at 3 U.S. Marine Air Stations: Miramar, CA, Cherry Point, NC and Okinawa, Japan.

The contract covers a base year plus 3 option years, with the base year funded at $39.1 million and running to February 2010. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-09-D-0020).

Feb 26/09: Norway engine support. Rolls-Royce announces a $23 million MissionCare support services and spares contract for AE 2100D3 engines. The engines are installed on the Royal Norwegian Air Force’s (RNoAF) C-130Js.

The contract is modeled after the USAF’s Power By The Hour contract, providing a comprehensive support package to the RNoAF on a per-engine flight-hour basis. The contract covers on-site technical support, maintenance support, training, provision of spare parts, supply replenishment with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the engine, and supply of an R391 Dowty propeller.

Feb 25/09: UAE. The UAE announces an AED 5.9 billion (about $1.6 billion) deal for 12 of Lockheed Martin’s C-130J medium-range tactical transports, which will accompany a deal for 4 of Boeing’s larger C-17s. Abu Dhabi’s privately-owned Waha Capital usually finances airline purchases, and has been tapped to finance the C-17 and C-130J contracts.

Neither deal is finalized, and the C-17 contract takes a while. The C-130J contract remains unsigned as of September 2012.

Feb 2/09: Engines. The USAF is modifying a contract to Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN for $120 million, in return for spares, program management support, engineering services, and technical data in support of the C-130J’s AE 2100D3 engine and R-391 propeller. At this time $17.5 million has been committed, and the contract will be managed by 330 ACSG/GFKA at Robins AFB, GA (FA8504-07-D-0001, P00004).

Dec 16/08: Industrial. Reuters reports that Lockheed Chairman and CEO Robert Stevens told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington that the company expected to sell “hundreds [of C-130Js] domestically and hopefully hundreds internationally” in coming years. “We’re building one airplane a month and our goal is to maybe double that…” he said.

Dec 12/08: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $6 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract (N00019-03-D-0002). The Us Marine Corps is buying 2 more AE2100D3 turboprop engines for their KC-130Js.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and is expected to be complete in July 2010. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract.

Dec 3/08: Canada. The Ottawa Citizen’s defense reporter Davd Pugliese reports that Canada has signed a contract for early delivery of 2 of its 15 ordered C-130Js. One aircraft will arrive in June 2010, and the other will arrive in July 2010.

This still misses the RFP’s original must-deliver date of early 2009, but that was based on a contract being signed in 2006, instead of in 2008. Under the signed 2008 contract, the delivery deadline for the first Canadian C-130J would have been January 2011.

Dec 1/08: MC-130J mods. The USAF is modifying a firm-fixed-price not-to-exceed $74.9 million contract to Lockheed Martin Corp in Marietta, GA. It includes time and material and cost reimbursement, and covers an Engineering Change Proposal for one-time efforts to incorporate Special Operations Forces-unique modifications in the MC-130J. At this time, $19.6 million has been committed (FA8625-06-C-6456).

See also the related June 13/08 entry.

USMC KC-130J
(click to view full)

Aug 14/08: Sub-contractors. Rockwell Collins Aerospace and Electronics, Inc. in Portland, OR received a $7.2 (in total ceiling amount) firm-fixed-price, Basic Order Agreement (BOA) for spares, repairs, and engineering services and support of HGS-3000 heads-up display system for the C-130J aircraft sustainment program.

Work will be performed 100% in Portland, Ore and is anticipated to be complete at the conclusion of the BOA in August 2013. Funds will be obligated as each job order is identified. This contract was competitively procured via Federal Business Opportunities, Navy Electronic Commerce Online, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane website with one offer received by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division in Crane, IN (N00164-08-G-WT00).

July 29/08: Qatar. DACIS reports [link now broken] that The Qatari Ministry of Defense has awarded Lockheed Martin an undisclosed contract for C-130J Hercules transports. While no DSCA announcement has been issued, there are civilian versions of the C-130 that would not require a Foreign Military Sale request. Later announcements reveal that Qatar ordered 4 planes.

The move comes just a couple of weeks after Qatar signed deals with an estimated $1.5 billion value, acquiring 2 C-17 strategic transport aircraft, and 18 AW139 light/medium utility helicopters. The Persian Gulf sheikhdom doesn’t have a real military transport fleet at the moment, just a VIP flight of business and passenger jets. With these 3 contracts, Qatar has now modernized its aged utility helicopter fleet, and acquired longer-range military transports to back that up. See subsequent announcement on Oct 7/08.

July 17/08: Industrial. It was touch-and-go for a while, but the C-130J’s future now looks much more assured. Ross Reynolds, vice president of C-130 Programs for Lockheed Martin, announces that the company has notched 221 C-130J orders, with a current backlog of 58 aircraft. Flight International’s article adds that:

“Having dropped plans to upgrade its ‘Legacy Herks’ under Boeing’s troubled avionics modernization programme (AMP) the USAF has instead opted for new aircraft, based on a common airframe derived from the US Marine Corps’ KC-130J. The new requirement initially calls for 115 aircraft; initially comprising 78 HC-130Js for Air Combat Command and 37 MC-130Js for AFSOC. In anticipation of the huge new USAF requirement, Lockheed Martin says that it is ready to ramp up production to 24 aircraft per year from the current 12.”

July 15/08: Sub-contractors. Lockheed Martin holds a briefing at the Farnborough International Airshow 2008 concerning its new HC-130J and MC-130J configurations. In addition, Lockheed Martin discussed 3 new technologies that will become part of all future C-130Js: (1) a Global Digital Map Unit built by Israel’s Elbit Systems; (2) a TacView Portable Mission Display for mission planning and in-flight replanning, built by Canada’s CMC, who recently finished a delivery to US AFSOC for its AC-130H/U gunships; and CMC’s InegriFlight commercial GPS Landing System Sensor Unit to give the planes an Instrument Flight Rules and civil-certified Global Navigational Satellite System. CMC Electronics | Flight International re: TacView.

June 13/08: +6 SOCOM. The Air Force is modifying a firm fixed price contract with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company of Marietta GA by $470 million, as an unfinalized contract to buy 6 HC/MC-130J special operations aircraft. The aircraft will be bought in FY 2009, and this contract includes associated long lead material and non-recurring aircraft production efforts using FY 2008 advance procurement funding. At this time $75 million has been committed by the USAF/AFMC, Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8625-06-C-6456 P00037).

The new variant will add several features to the baseline KC-130J, including Block 6.5 flight-control software, an extended service life wing, an enhanced cargo handling system, a boom refueling receptacle, and electro-optical/infrared camera, a combat systems station and armor.

This move effectively abandons an earlier option of holding a competition to replace existing HC/MC-130s. The USAF is authorized to replace the 68 oldest HC/MC-130N/Ps, including some that entered service in 1964. Whether it chooses to replace its entire inventory with C-130J variants remains an open question at this point; a future competition is not impossible. See also USAF release | Flight International.

May 30/08: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $9.7 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-03-D-0002) for logistics support, technical engineering support services, and spare engines and associated parts for the U.S. Marine Corps KC-130J, which includes the AE2100D3 turboprop engine and R391 propeller.

Work will be performed at the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC and is expected to be completed in November 2008. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD is managing the contract.

May 9/08: Support. GE Aviation Systems LLC of Sterling, VA received a firm fixed price contract for $9.4 million to establish organizational level propeller repair capability for the C-130J aircraft at 8 different bases. At this time all funds have been committed. Robbins AFB, GA issued the contract (FA8504-080C-0002).

April 2/08: Lockheed Martin announces delivery of a 6th C-130J Super Hercules to 41st Airlift Squadron, 463rd Airlift Group, at Little Rock Air Force Base, AR. The 41st, also known as the “Black Cats,” is the first active-duty C-130J combat squadron in the Air Force.

March 18/08: +2 KC-130J. A $133.2 million “undefinitized contract action” (UCA) for 2 FY 2009 KC-130J aircraft and the associated long lead materials and parts. At this time $30 million has been obligated. Kirtland AFB in NM issued the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456 P00033).

March 11/08: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $6.5 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-03-D-0002) for logistics support, technical engineering support services, and spare engines and associated parts for the U.S. Marine Corps KC-130J, which includes the AE2100D3 turboprop engine and R391 propeller.

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC, and is expected to be complete in May 2008. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract.

Feb 1/08: Support. A firm fixed price contract for $103.1 million for services that include logistics support, program management support, engineering services, repairs, spares and technical data in support of systems that are unique to the C-130J. This modification exercises option 1 of the contract, covering years 3-5. At this time, $12.5 million has been committed.

Parts that are shared with the rest of the C-130 Hercules fleet tend to be bought through pre-existing maintenance programs – partly because this is easiest, and partly because more aggregation improves the military’s bargaining position. The 330th ACSG/GFKA at Robins Air Force Base, GA issued the contract (FA8504-06-D-0001, PO 0006).

Nov 30/07: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an $11.1 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-03-D-0002). It exercises an option for logistics support, technical engineering support services, and spare engines and associated parts for the US Marine Corps’ KC-130J aerial tankers/ transports, which are powered by Rolls Royce’s AE2100D3 turboprop engine and the R391 propeller.

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC, and is expected to be completed in May 2008. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD.

Oct 25/07: USA multi-year deal offer. The Hill reports that Lockheed Martin has offered the US military a 5-year, $6+ billion deal for 120 C-130J, KC-130J, and C-130J-S (short) aircraft. What are the deal’s parameters? Why now? Short answer: a rival’s delays make a lock-in possible that would guarantee the aircraft’s future.

Oct 12/07: Britain. The UK Parliament’s Defence Committee examines Britain’s airlift capacity in light of current usage, A400M schedule slippages, and future needs. Key C-130J related excerpts from the document’s Q&A and government responses include:

“We share the Committee’s concerns regarding the medium and longer term consequences of the current high levels of use of the C-17 and C-130 fleets. We wish to reassure the Committee that we already monitor very closely the impact that flying rates have upon the expected life of our aircraft. We constantly monitor the fatigue that our aircraft are subject to in order to reassess our ability to maintain military capability in the future and enable early action to be taken where necessary. In the long term, the MoD is taking account of the reduced life-expectancy of its aircraft as a result of increased flying hours… The Department agrees with the Committee that some aircraft are incurring additional maintenance and repair activity as a result of the conditions in which they are employed. For example, the use of the C-130 Hercules onto natural surfaces rather than paved runways results in some unavoidable damage to the under-belly surface of the aircraft… . While the replacement of [earlier version] C-130K with 25 A400M will, overall, result in a one-for-one replacement, the increased payload and range of A400M roughly doubles the relative airlift capability offered by C-130K.”

See the full report: “14th Special Report. Strategic Lift: Government Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report of Session 2006-07; HC 1025” [PDF]

Oct 9/07: Delivery. Lockheed Martin announces that it has recently delivered the first KC-130J Tanker to US forces in Japan. Aerial Refueling and Transport Squadron 152 (VMGR-152), Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, took delivery of its first KC-130J on Sept 30/07, representing the 27th KC-130J to be delivered to the USMC.

The USMC Air Expeditionary Force has had 6 KC-130Js in theater since February 2005, which have flown 8,854 sorties totaling 17,398 flight hours. August 2007 set a deployment one month record with 318 sorties, 621.9 flying hours, just over 6 million pounds of fuel offloaded, and 127,014 pounds of cargo carried.

Oct 3/07: Support. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems of Marietta, GA received a contract modification for $6.9 million, incorporating Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 06-0700076R1 entitled, “Block 6.0 Installations and Production Non-Recurring.” This ECP will retrofit and install Block 6.0 on all currently fielded US Air Force and US Air Force Reserve C-130J, EC-130J, and WC-130J aircraft. A separate ECP is currently in work at the 657th AESS for production incorporation of Block 6.0, which will enable C-130J aircraft to be produced in the Block 6.0 configuration. At this time all funds have been obligated. For more information please call (937) 255-4599. USAF/AFMC Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base OH (FA8625-06-C-6456, P00014).

C-130J-30
(click to view full)

Aug 3/07: +5. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems in Marietta, GA received a firm-fixed-price contract modification for $322 million. This contract modification is an unfinalized contract for 5 more C-130J aircraft under the US Congress’ FY 2007 Global War on Terrorism supplemental funding. At this time, $161 million has been obligated. Work will be complete in December 2010 (FA8625-06-C-6456/P00021). Note that this figure has not yet been added to the budgetary totals above.

Aug 3/07: Lockheed Martin announces delivery of a 3rd “C 130J Super Hercules” to the 41st Airlift Squadron “Black Cats” at Little Rock Air Force Base, AK. The Black Cats are the first active-duty C-130J combat squadron in the Air Force, and one of the most highly decorated airlift squadrons in U.S. military history.

This was a minor tidbit, but the release also quoted Lt. Gen. Donald J. Hoffman, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition at the Pentagon. He accepted the new C-130J on behalf of the “Black Cats” and said that: “As our aging intra-theater airlift and tanker fleets need replacing, we anticipate that the C-130J will be a competitive contender for those missions.”

Interesting. Note the use of the word “contender.”

June 28/07: Support. Lockheed Martin Simulator, Training and Support in Orlando, FL received a firm-fixed-price contract modification for $7.65 million for C-130J Training, Block 6.0 (USAF) and Block 6.5 (USMC) upgrades. This work will be complete by September 2009. To date, total funds have been obligated. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8621-06-C-6300/P00009).

June 18/07: +1 KC-130J. A firm-fixed price contract modification not to exceed $64.2 million, for 1 additional KC-130J aircraft for the United States Marine Corps. The aircraft is being added to those awarded under contract FA8625-06-C-6456 P00008, on Dec 8/06 – see below. To date $32.1 million has been obligated (FA8625-06-C-6456/P00015).

This additional aircraft is being funded entirely by dollar savings realized by the USMC as a result of the conversion of the C-130J Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) contract from FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) Part 12 to FAR Part 15. This total of 5 aircraft will now be specified under one single proposal, and work will be complete by March 2010.

Jan 31/07: Support. A $33.6 million firm-fixed-price with time & material and cost reimbursement contract modification. This contract modification will exercise period 2 options to purchase the following items: program and management data for 1-year, technical and engineering data for 1-year, engineering drawing for 1-year, logistics support data for 1-year, technical manual contract requirements data for 1-year, initial C-130J aircraft peculiar spares for 9 aircraft, reliability and maintainability program for 1-year, field service representative support for 1-year, ground maintenance station admin. support for 1-year. At this time, total funds have been obligated, and work will be complete January 2008. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456).

Dec 20/06: Support. A $37.5 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-04-D-0001) to exercise an option for logistics and technical engineering support and spares for the U.S. Marine Corps’ KC-130J aircraft and other Government C-130J aircraft. Work will be performed in Cherry Point, N.C. (85%); Miramar, CA (10%); and Okinawa, Japan (5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2007. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract.

Dec 8/06: +3 Js, +2 KC-130J. A $256.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to purchase 3 C-130J-30 transports and 1 KC-130J aerial tanker, as authorized and funded by the FY 2006 Global War on Terror (GWOT) supplemental authorization. This modification is an undefinitized contraction action (UCA) that will obligate 50% ($128.1 million) of the $256.2 million not-to exceed amount. These aircraft, slated for delivery in 2010, were authorized and funded by the FY06 Global War on Terror supplemental authorization. This contract brings the total number of C-130Js ordered to date to 186 (FA8625-06-C-6456/P00008).

A June 2007 modification brought the FY 2006 supplemental value to $320.4 million, for 3 C-130Js and 2 KC-130Js. See above. These figures have not yet been added to the budgetary figures above, pending question to the US military.

Nov 22/06: Canada. Ottawa Citizen – Lockheed wins $4.9B contract. The story contends that DND representatives did not seriously examine Airbus’ bid, and gives these details:

“The Conservative government has quietly named Lockheed Martin’s C-130J aircraft as the winner of a $4.9-billion bid to replace the military’s aging Hercules transport planes… The Canadian government will spend $3.2 billion to buy 17 of the aircraft and another $1.7 billion for a 20-year service contract for the planes. Lockheed, as the prime contractor, will be responsible for the maintenance contract as well. The contract for the planes is expected to be signed by the summer of 2007. The first aircraft will be required to be delivered three years after that.”

DID has a detailed, in-depth spotlight article covering Canada’s tactical airlift competition, its requirements, the proposed alternatives, and ongoing developments: “Canada’s CC-130s to Fail In 3 Years — $4B RFP for Replacements (updated)”

Nov 21/06: No JCA joy. Lockheed Martin’s JCA protest is not successful. The reason their “shortened C-130J” was disqualified from the finals?

Their bid wouldn’t have provided jam-resistant GPS instrumentation until 2012, and its incorporation required the USAF to sign on to the existing upgrade contract for the C-130J fleet (FA8625-04-D-6425). The RFP, on the other hand, wanted the planes delivered with those systems installed. The other competitors complied, and even a clarification request to Lockheed didn’t wake them up. The GAO seemed none too happy with Lockheed Martin’s protest, either, stopping just sort of calling its arguments dishonest.

Nov 3/06: Support. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Orlando, FL received a $17.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for C-130J training, FY 2007 contractor logistic support, aircrew, training system support Center and FY 2007 change management. At this time, $17.25 million have been obligated, and work will be complete September 2007. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8621-06-C-6300).

UK C-130 C5
(click to view full)

Oct 16/06: International block upgrades. Lockheed Martin announces a $110 million upgrade contract to bring the C-130J Super Hercules transports flown by Australia, Britain, Italy and Denmark to an agreed standard. See “C-130J Reaches USAF IOC, Adds $110M for Multinational Upgrades” for full coverage.

International upgrades agreement

Aug 14/06: JCA GAO protest. Lockheed Martin files a protest with the GAO and urges a freeze on the Joint Cargo Aircraft program until its complaint is resolved, following the exclusion of its shortened-fuselage C-130J from the JCA competition.

August 2/06: JCA loss. C-130J, CN-235 eliminated. The US Army informs Lockheed that its shortened C-130J does not qualify for the JCA, and also eliminates the EADS/Raytheon CN-235.

July 18/06: Support. A $10.5 million firm-fixed-price, time and material, and cost-reimbursement contract for production and installation of stepped frequency microwave radiometer modification kits for 10, WC-130J. This work will be complete August 2007. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456)

June 23/06: IG Report. The Washington Post reports on a Pentagon inspector general report, which claims that the purported $1.78 billion cancellation costs may have been overstated by up to $1.1 billion. According to the report, the estimate Rumsfeld was given was “incomplete and did not provide reliable information for making an informed decision,” leaving decision-makers incapable of rationally deciding the cost-effectiveness of continuing or terminating the contract.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had bowed to strong Congressional pressure when he decided not to terminate the C-130J program as he and the Pentagon had originally proposed. At the time, the cited reason was cancellation costs.

June 21/06: Support. The USAF issues a $112 million firm-fixed-price with time & material and cost reimbursement contract for:

• C-130J Peculiar Spares (Initial) Existing Bases: (8 kits)
  
• C-130J MATS Peculiar Spares: (1 Lot)
  
• C-130J Readiness Spares Packages Air Force (Little Rock): (1 Lot)
  
• C-130J Readiness Spares package ANG (Rhode Island): (1 Lot)
  
• WC-130J High Priority Mission Spares Kits USAFR Keesler AFBG: (1 Lot)
  
• EC-130J Quick Engine Retrofit Kit – FY06 (1 each).

At this time, $33.1 million has been obligated. Solicitations and negotiations were complete March 2006, and work will be complete January 2007. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456)

May 24/06: Training. Lockheed Martin Simulator, Training and Support in Kennesaw, GA received a $32.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for C-130J Training Device Fuselage Trainer #2, Loadmaster Part Task Trainer, Aircraft Interface Monitor, Visual Awareness Recognition Screen, Weapon System Trainer Local Networking, Training System Support Career (5-months), Contractor Logistics Support (5-months), aircrew training (5-months) Instructor Operation Stration course, ISO Computer Base Trainer, Premium Training Time, and U. S. Marine Corps proposal prep. At this time, $20.2 million has been obligated. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8621-06-C-6300).

Feb 1/06: Support. A $164 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price award-fee, cost-plus fixed-fee, time-and-materials, and cost-reimbursement contract for sustaining services including logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares and technical data in support of systems peculiar to the C-130J family.

At this time, $13.5 million has been obligated. Solicitations began August 2005, negotiations were complete in January 2006, and work will be completed by 2 years of sustainment service performance. The Headquarters Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base, GA issued the contract (FA8504-06-D-0001).

Feb 1/06: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $72.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for sustaining services in support of the C-130J propulsion system which includes the AE 2100D3 engine and Dowty’s R-391 propeller system. The contract includes logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares and technical data. At this time, $18.9 million has been obligated. The Headquarters Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base, GA issued the contract (FA8504-06-C-0004).

KC-130J refueling CH-53E

April 29/04: The U.S. Marine Corps announces that the commander of Operational Testing and Evaluation (OT&E) has “recommended full fleet introduction of the Lockheed Martin KC-130J [aerial tanker] for operational use.”

Additional Readings & Sources

• Lockheed Martin – C-130J Super Hercules
• Air Force Technology – C-130J Hercules Tactical Transport Aircraft, USA
• GlobalSecurity.org – C-130 Hercules. See also variants.
• Rolls Royce – AE2100 engine. Also used in Alenia’s C-27J, Japan’s US-1A/2 seaplanes, and Saab’s S2000 AEW&C platform.
• Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine – LM-100J: Airlifter For Hire. Includes the civil variant’s changes as of July 17/14. It will be registered with the FAA under the L-382J modified type certificate.
• Lockheed Martin – SC-130J Sea Herc. Proposed maritime patrol variant.
• Lockheed Martin – C-130J Maintenance and Aircrew Training System (MATS)
• DID – Simulating Hercules: The USA’s JMATS Contracts. Without the simulators, classroom materials, and training devices, the USA’s C-130J fleet wouldn’t be worth very much.
• DID – Harvest Hawk Aims to Arm USMC’s KC-130J Aerial Tankers. The modular weapons systems may soon find their way onto other C-130 variants, especially SOCOM’s HC/MC-130Js.

News & Related Developments

• Deutsche Welle (Nov 6/07) – Report: Half of Germany’s Military Planes are in Shambles. Germany isn’t alone with this problem, and: “…corrosion and wear and tear have turned over half of Germany’s [C-160] Transall planes into decrepit machinery. The sources apparently said that it was becoming more difficult to locate spare parts for the planes, some of which are more than 40 years old… Germany had originally planned to replace the remaining Transall planes with Airbus’ new A400M model by 2014, but that schedule may have to be revised due to recently announced delays in delivery.”
• Defense News (Oct 29/07) – Airplanes on Life Support. Moseley, Wynne Plead: Let USAF Pull the Plug [dead link]. They’re talking about aircraft that can’t fly but must be kept per Congressional directives, which includes a number of C-130E Hercules and KC-135E Stratotankers. “One C-130E Hercules from the 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, is so old and in such bad shape it cannot safely fly. Yet U.S. Air Force maintainers must tow it around the tarmac every so often to make sure its tires don’t go flat, and crank up the engines every month to make sure they still run… More than 20 percent of the service’s C-130Es are grounded or have significant flight restrictions…”
• Aviation Week’s Defense Technology International (Jun 13/07) – A400M Could Dominate Strategic Lift [link now broken]. Also covers the C-17 program, and C-5 AMP/RERP upgrades. “The trend in airlift demand is going to place a premium on aircraft that carry more than a C-130. The goal of carrying Future Combat Systems vehicles on the C-130 has been abandoned. Even the new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles are so heavy that a C-130 will carry only one of them. And plans call for the Army to get bigger. If there is an airlift crisis in 2015-20, you read it first here.”
• DID (April 4/07) – Keeping the C-130s Flying: Center Wing Box Replacements. On February 14, 2005, the US Air Force announced that they were grounding nearly 100 C-130E models because of severe fatigue in their wings, including a dozen that had been flying missions in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. By November 2006, the USAF had kept 47 aircraft under flying restrictions, plus another 30 completely grounded because of the cracks. Other aircraft are expected to wear out as they fly, however, and the replacement program doesn’t expect to get ahead of the “grounding-restriction curve” until 2012.
• National Defense Magazine (February 2000) – Industry Titans Vying for Early Lead in Cargo Aircraft Markets.

Competitors

• DID – Airbus A400M.
• DID – The JCA Program: Key West Sabotage? Covers maneuverings around the Joint Cargo Aircraft program and bids; Lockheed’s C-130J-Shortened was disqualified.
• DID – Embraer Launches KC-390 Tactical Air Transport Program. The jet-powered 20 ton transports may begin competing with the C-130J as early as 2015.
• DID – HAL and Irkut’s Joint Tactical Transport Project. Also discusses what seems to be the “cost per cargo ton constant” in military transport aircraft.
• NASA – Boeing X-48B
• Sino Defense – Y-9 Multipurpose Transport Aircraft. “The project aims to develop a multi-purpose turboprop transport aircraft that approaches or in some aspects exceeds the performance of the U.S. C-130J. The development is believed to have been assisted by The Ukraine-based Antonov Aeronautical Scientific-technical Complex (ASTC) aircraft company.”
• Sino Defense – Y-8 Turboprop Transport Aircraft. Based on the Russian AN-12 Cub.

Special Forces

• Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments: Robert Martinage, Senior Fellow – Stealthy Mobility & Support: Aircraft for US Special Operations Forces. [PDF] Feb 22/07 Presentation at CSIS – Future of SOF Aviation Project. Note payload requirements of only 20,000-30,000 pounds, less than the C-130.
• StrategyPage (Aug 22/09) – Fly Hard, Pay Later. “…adding $4 billion worth of new aircraft… over the next five years. The 1st Special Operations Wing… 37 new C-130J… converting 17 of the aircraft to AC-130 gunships, to replace the 25 currently available… The 1st SOW flew 3,200 combat sorties last year, each of these averaging about four hours over hostile territory. There were also 4,200 training sorties, which mainly served to provide 3,200 new air crew for 1st SOW aircraft.”
• Military Aerospace Technology (March 16/05) – Next Generation Gunships. Includes significant details re: Lockheed Martin’s MACK concept, which may have a significant influence on future SOCOM aircraft.
• Jane’s (Feb 7/03) – Concepts vie to win US special ops aircraft race. But the designs, including Lockheed’s MACK concept, are also aimed at the medium transport market.

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.

SAIC video

March 18/16: The USMC is to receive upgrades to their Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) as their replacement, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), will not be operational until the 2020s. 392 AAV7A1s are to receive an extensive survivability upgrade in a $194 million contract. The USMC has found that AAVs have been vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IED) and other weapons when operating in Iraq and elsewhere. Improvements to be made include flat-sided buoyant ceramic armor panels, new shock-mitigation seats, replacing benches in older AAVs, and a new transmission, increasing the vehicle’s top speed.

May 9/14: USMC Systems Command in Quantico, VA issues a pair of $27.8 million firm-fixed-price contracts to design and develop AAV7 protection improvements for the USMC’s existing APCs. Work is expected to be complete in February 2015, at which point the USMC will pick a design. The winner will receive an implementation contract option, raising the total value they receive to somewhere between $163.5 million and $206 million, and extending their individual contract until September 2019.

This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 4 offers received. The 2 development contract winners were:

BAE Systems Land & Armaments, Santa Clara, CA. Work will be performed in York, PA (65%); Santa Clara, CA (30%); Aiken, SC (4%); and Sterling Heights, MI (1%). Contract M67854-14-C-0001.

Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) in McLean, VA. Work will be performed in Charleston, SC (24%); Ontario, Canada (20%); Langley, British Columbia, Canada (15%); Lansing Charter Township, MI (7%); Oceanside, CA (7%); Sterling Heights, MI (5%); Columbus, Indiana (4%); McLean, VA (3%); Plymouth Township, MI (2%); Benton, AR (2%); Detroit, MI (2%); Minneapolis, MN (2%); Chandler, AZ (2%); San Diego, CA (1%); Baltimore, MD (1%); and various other locations less the 1% (3%). Contract M67854-14-C-0002.

Development contracts

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.

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. The Joint Common Missile (JCM) was meant to offer new guidance options, and use on fast jets as well as helicopters and UAVs. It performed well, but was canceled. It 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

JAGM Missile Increments

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

Oddly, the problems faced by Hellfire’s JCM and JAGM successors have been largely unrelated to cost or to performance. Rather, the programs kept getting cut to pay for other things. The Hellfires were seen as good enough to equip American helicopters and large UAVs like the Predator. To compete, new entrants had to fit into a new category. Smaller guided 70mm rockets gained a foothold because more of them could be carried in the same space, while small multi-mode glide bombs found a niche by being launched from the back ramps of cargo aircraft. JAGM was a straight substitute, and that wasn’t interesting enough.

After enough JCM/JAGM missile program cancellations and resurrections to make even Lazarus give up, the US Army looked at its Hellfire stocks, and realized that they’d need something new anyway. In response, they decided to try squaring this circle using an incremental approach, one focused on replacing the most at-risk AGM-114L radar-guided missiles first.

Initial. The JAGM 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. Initial Army platforms would include the AH-64E Apache attack helicopter, and MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAV. The USMC’s initial platforms will be the AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter and KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/ transport, for integration by FY 2019.

JAGM Increment 2. Intends to increase the maximum range to 12 km, and move to the full tri-mode seeker with semi-active laser, Imaging Infrared (IIR), and millimeter wave radar guidance modes. If Raytheon bids, they’d be offering the tri-mode seeker in Increment 1 as well.

JAGM Increment 3. This is the original JAGM concept, more or less. It would have a maximum range of 16 km that would likely force a new rocket motor, alongside other redesigns for carriage and launch from helicopters or fast jets. Initial fixed-wing platforms would include the USMC’s AV-8B Harrier and F-35B Lightning II STOVL fighters, but there’s no set schedule. The earliest F-35 integration slot involves Block 4 fighters, whose software isn’t likely to be ready before 2021-2023.

Timeline & Budgets

If JAGM can be delivered to the required cost targets, it may add the originally-planned tri-mode (imaging infrared + semi-active laser + millimeter wave radar) guidance set, and Increments 2 & 3 may revive interest in new rocket motor technology that would eventually allow safe launches from fighter jets. Those kinds of advances sit beyond the current timeline.

Budgets to date have included:

Scope and Scale

F-16 fires Maverick

If the US Army and Navy have total current program numbers for JAGM, they aren’t disclosing them in recent documents. We do know that JAGM’s scope is much reduced, but it could still 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. The original JCM had a goal of 54,000 missiles.

JAGM was revised lower, and a 2010 GAO document estimated the 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 $6.88 billion for 35,422 missiles.

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, but the program’s scope has been reduced further.

Part of the reason involves fewer platforms. “Increment 1 & 2” versions of JAGM can’t replace the Mavericks on fixed-wing jets. Until at least 2019, the missiles will be limited to US Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, USMC AH-1Z attack helicopters, US Army MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs, and USMC KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/transports.

SDB-II

Meanwhile, the US Navy and USAF have a substitute. 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 missiles like MBDA’s Brimstone.

US Navy MH-60s can expect eventual JAGM integration, since AGM-114 Hellfire deliveries are set to end in 2017. Farther into the future, the USMC wants to equip its AV-8B and F-35B fighters with JAGM Increment 3. Note, however, that there’s no set schedule for missile upgrades. On the export front, if JAGM is added to F-35Bs, it will be competing with the MBDA Brimstone and SPEAR missiles that Britain plans to integrate into its own F-35B fleet.

Other opportunities exist. Vehicle-mounted options for Hellfire-class missiles are springing up, but competition from dedicated anti-armor weapons like the shorter-range Javelin, MMP, and Spike, or the longer range Spike-NLOS, will be fierce. Naval options may be even more promising for fire-and-forget missiles, where JAGM could replace the AGM-114L Hellfire on the USA’s Littoral Combat ships, or fit out other vessels who need a deadly fire-and-forget counter to small boat swarms. In that arena, MBDA’s laser/radar guided Brimstone and Raytheon’s GPS/laser/IIR guided Griffin C will be its main competitors.

Competition: MBDA’s Brimstone/ SPEAR

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 aren’t a solution for fixed-wing jets, and range limitations make Hellfire dangerous to use against even short-range air defenses. MBDA’s Brimstone 2 solves those problems.

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. 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. F-35 integration was scheduled for F-35B Block 3 in 2018, but overall F-35 development problems look set to push the British effort back to Block 4 in 2021-2023.

SPEAR

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.

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)

April 15/16: The Redstone Test Center is playing host to the engineering and development phase of the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM). So far, the missile completed tests on its guidance section which included captive flight testing, tower testing, and environmental testing. The JAGM will now enter the Product Qualification Test (PQT) phase which will see the weapon carried on the Grey Eagle unmanned aerial system (UAS) and AH-64 Apache helicopter for flight testing.

Aug 3/15: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $66.4 million contract to further develop the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) for the Army and Navy. The company submitted its bid for the program in April and successfully test fired two JAGMs in mid-July. The JAGM is intended to replace AGM-114 Hellfire, AGM-65 Maverick and BGM-71 TOW missiles currently in service.

July 14/15: Lockheed Martin reported on Monday that the company has successfully tested two Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles (JAGM) during recent testing over Elgin AFB in Florida. The company is bidding for its missile to win the Army’s JAGM competition, delivering its proposal in April.

Nov 3/14: USMC Plan. The USMC’s Aviation Plan to 2030 deals with weapons as well. JAGM is mentioned, and its 3 planned increments are fully outlined. Under current plans, JAGM Increment 1 will begin integration with AH-1Z attack helicopters in 2015, and will achieve Initial Operational Capability on the AH-1Z and on KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/ transport planes in 2019.

Beyond 2019, the USMC plans to field JAGM Increment 3 on the AV-8B Harrier II and F-35C Lightning II. Note that the earliest available integration slot for the F-35 would involve Block 4 software, around 2021-2023. Britain, is likely to add its competing Brimstone missile to the F-35B in Block 4, after original plans to feature it in Block 3 fell through. Sources: USMC, Marine Aviation Plan 2015 [PDF].

Oct 13/14: Lockheed Martin is preparing its expected JAGM bid with the current dual-mode laser/radar seeker, following successful tests.

Raytheon, whose solution was dropped at the same time as JAGM dropped to a dual-guidance mode because of funding shortfalls (q.v. July 18/13), is deciding whether to bid at all. If they do bid, they’re going to stick to their original plan and use the same tri-mode laser/IIR/radar seeker from the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II. It’s a reasonable hedge against perceived risk, offering more capability for the same dollars. Of course, the level of perceived risk could be far more even if both designs had been funded through development.

Given the likely scope of future JAGM orders, and the tiny fraction of the procurement budget involved in JAGM development, there’s a legitimate policy question here re: the responsibility of the Pentagon to promote competitive tenders for significant weapon systems. Sources: Aviation Week, “Lockheed Martin Preparing JAGM Bid; Raytheon Unsure”.

May 13/14: FBO.gov, “14–JAGM ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT”:

“The U.S. Army Contracting Command – Redstone (ACC-R) intends to issue a Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP), W31P4Q-14-R-0107, for the purpose of supporting a full and open competitive procurement to fulfill the requirements for the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase with options for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)…. The JAMS project office plans to host a Pre-proposal Industry Day sometime in the June 2014 timeframe to present general unclassified information on the U.S. Army’s projected procurement strategy of the JAGM and the Army’s vision…”

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 pre-programmed 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.

A Viking comes ashore

The BvS10 is the successor to the wildly popular Bv206, 11,000 of which have been sold to 40 countries around the world – including the USA (M978). Readers may have seen these vehicles elsewhere, too, as a number of Bv206s have post-military careers at ski resorts, in industries like mining and logging, etc. The new BvS-10 is larger and more heavily armored; it’s in use in Britain, France and the Netherlands as a key armored vehicle for their respective Marines, has been bought by Sweden, and is under evaluation elsewhere. International interest includes imitators: Singapore’s Bronco ATTC is a BVS10 competitor, and Finland and Norway have their own local Bv206 variants.

What makes this unusual-looking vehicle family and design so popular? They aren’t like Humvees or similar wheeled mainstays. They aren’t full armored personnel carriers, either – they’re armored, but Bv family vehicles can’t take the kind of punishment that a Bradley or LAV can absorb. Instead, the secret to their success lies in a remarkable all-terrain capability, and their ability to fill a rare and critical role: air-portable and amphibious infantry enhancement. These success factors are discussed below, along with contracts and key developments related to this vehicle family.

The Bv Family of Vehicles

Bv206S vs. Bv206

Hagglunds Bv family vehicles are really two separate chassis working together. Hydraulic cylinders that push or pull one chassis segment relative to the other do all the steering. The central articulation point also allows the two segments to twist and turn in different planes, accommodating the most difficult terrain from high slopes to winding forest trails. Meanwhile, wide band tracks ensure good traction, with a low “footprint” pressure that lets these vehicles move across all terrains, and can even avoid tripping anti-tank mines. Amphibious conversion is quick.

The Bv206S is a slightly larger (10-tonne/ 11 ton full combat weight), armored version of the Bv206 that retains helicopter air-portability inside a CH-47 Chinook, or can have its 2 sections airlifted separately by a pair of medium utility helicopters like Britain’s EH101 Merlins.

BvS10 Mk.II & ARTHUR
(click to view full)

BAE Haaglunds’ new BvS10 differs from its Bv206 predecessors by adding a bit more weight at 7.6t/ 16,300 pounds empty, with a maximum designed weight of 10.6t/ 23,350 pounds. Fortunately, a more powerful Cummins 5.9 litre diesel engine gives it 80 kph/50 mph performance on class A roads, and a 300 km/ 180 miles range. The improved ground clearance and newly developed chassis, power train and steering units give the vehicle considerably enhanced speed and comfort, as well as greater load carrying capability (up to 5 tons for some variants), and the ability to add various modular sub-systems such as add-on armor, weapon-mounts, a load-changer, and cargo platforms. The Viking can operate in temperatures from -46C/-51F to 49C/120F, can ford through water up to a depth of 1.5 m/ 5 feet without preparation, and is fully amphibious with 5kph/ 3mph water speed on a full load, after less than 2 minutes’ preparation by the crew. BAE data places the existing Viking’s reliability in theater at 88%.

BvS10s have been performing well, but various up-armoring additions mean that they have also been working beyond their maximum designed weight for months. Hence BAE Hagglunds’ BvS10 Mark II, whose maximum designed weight is 14.2t/ 31,300 pounds, with a payload of 6t/ 13,250 pounds. It incorporates a larger and more powerful engine, a bigger alternator which gives more electrical power, an improved steering unit, uprated suspension and brakes, a shallow v-hull for extra mine protection, and the ability to carry more armor. Despite the extra armor, the Mk II fulfills all the original Viking requirements, such as the ability to swim. Variants include:

• BvS10 MkII APC. Carry 3 crew, and up to 6 fully-equipped soldiers.
  
• BvS10 Ambulance. Just 2 crew, and space for 2 stretchers & 2 paramedics.
  
• BvS10 C2. Carry a command & control system and up to 4 staff.
  
• BvS10 Logistics. Have a flatbed in place of the standard back cab. Slide-on modules for the flatbed include a 10-foot container, the ARTHUR artillery locating radar, or a communications module.
  
• BvS10 Repair & Recovery (RRC). Crew + 4 technical specialists. The rear cab is fitted with a full mobile workshop, as well as a HIAB crane and capstan for recovery work.
  
• BvS10 UAS. Used as an equipment transporter for the UK’s new Mk450 Watchkeeper UAV system.

Imitation, the Sincerest form of Flattery

Singapore’s Bronco ATTC
(click to view larger)

A larger vehicle is currently in service with Singapore as ST Kinetics’ Bronco ATTC (All-Terrain Tracked Carrier), and as the Warthog in Britain. Gross Vehicle Weight is 18t/ 40,000 pounds, including a 6.8t/ 15,00 pound total payload, or space for up to 16 troops. Its Caterpillar C7 engine delivers up to 350 bhp, driving it up to 65 km/h on smooth surfaces, or allowing it to handle 60% gradients and 30% side slopes in all conditions and terrains. Singapore is a Bv206 customer, and when the ATTC was introduced, Haaglunds launched a lawsuit claiming that ST Kinetics had copied their design. That lawsuit was later dropped, leaving ST Kinetics with a similar but heavier competitor.

The Bronco is fully amphibious, and its versatility has made it very useful in post-tsunami relief efforts. An up-armored, non-amphibious “Warthog” variant was picked by the British Army to replace borrowed Royal Marines’ BvS10s in Afghanistan, with the BvS10s returning to the Royal Marines for future use.

Bv-206S, side view
(click to view full)

The smaller Bv206 has also received its share of international flattery. Finnish firm Patria Vehicles’ NA-140 and its variants are very similar, and more than 300 have been manufactured since 1985 to equip the armies of China, Turkey and Finland.

After 20 years of using the Bv206, Norway is also introducing up to 1,000 units of the Natech (Narvik Technology AS) P6 in P6-300M and other variants, as part of Project 5085; it is reported to be very similar to the Bv-206S.

Bv Family: Why So Popular?

Bv-206S ambulance
(click to view full)

The BvS vehicle family’s popularity boils down to:

Key Virtue #1: Outstanding air transportability. These vehicles can be carried in many tactical and even light air transports, carried inside a CH-47 Chinook, or slung underneath other medium-heavy helicopters. The Bronco ATTC is an exception, but all of these vehicles can also be broken into their 2 component sections to be loaded into or slung beneath many helicopter types due to their low height, width, and weight.

Key Virtue #2: True all-terrain capability. These vehicles are designed to operate in conditions ranging from the heat and humidity of the jungle to dry desert and the frozen Arctic, and have done so. Their low weight and extra-wide tracked distribution make even snow and marshy ground passable, thanks to very low ground pressure. That same low ground pressure offers more safety against anti-tank mines, who may not receive enough pressure to detonate. They can quickly be made fully amphibious, and this combination of mobility advantages has made them popular with a number of countries’ Marine Corps.

Per Thrana: Bv206
mortar carrier, Norway
(click to view full)

Key Virtue #3: Specialized variants. This family of vehicles offers a wide array of variants, including models with cranes for load handling and recovery, ammunition resupply vehicles, ambulance functions, deployable command posts, mortar carrier versions, and artillery hunting radar (the Bv206 ARTHUR). In addition, several countries are developing their own indigenous variants.

The result: Infantry enhancement. This family of vehicles offers instant air-portable infantry mobility with small arms protection (Bv206S and later); additional carrying capacity over all terrains to reduce soldiers’ burdens; and firepower overmatch via its weapon mount (medium-heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, anti-armor missiles, mortars, etc.), via extra weapons inside (ammunition, anti-armor missiles, etc.), , and via its towing capabilities (mortars, howitzers etc.). They are not designed for major combat, and are not a substitute for full-size armored personnel carriers (APCs). What they can do is bring a combination of APC and Jeep benefits in a more mobile, all-terrain, platform – one capable of 3rd-dimension envelopment, and rapid ground response into the most difficult terrain.

Contracts and Key Events

At present, the BvS-10 is in operation with the British Royal Marines, has been delivered to the Dutch Royal Marines and begun deliveries to France and Sweden, and is reportedly under trial and evaluation in Finland (who already operates Bv206 variants). All BvS10 customers share operational information, and co-operate on support through a multi-national user group that BAE Systems co-ordinates.

BvS10 Mk.II
(click to view full)

July 7/16: Austria is to join France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK in operating BAE System’s BvS10 Beowulf military vehicle after signing contracts with the Swedish government for the delivery of 32 vehicles. While the value of the contract is unknown, deliveries are expected to begin in the second half of 2017 and conclude in 2019. Designed to operate in rugged terrain to deliver personnel or cargo in combat and disaster relief situations, the BvS10 will play a role in Austria’s European Union Mountain Training Warfare Initiative where it will host schools, training and support to enhance military effectiveness in mountain terrain.

May 27/14: Canada. Rheinmetall Canada displays a BvS-10 at its CANSEC booth, in the wake of a teaming agreement that has them cooperating with BAE on a future bid for Canada’s Marginal Terrain Vehicles (MTV) program. the Canadians already possess Bv-206 vehicles, and have used them in Afghanistan (q.v. Appendix A). Sources: BAE Systems, “BAE Systems and Rheinmetall Team to Offer Go-Anywhere Vehicles to Canada”.

French VHM/ BvS10
(click to view full)

Dec 19/13: Sweden. The Swedish FMV procurement agency exercises part of their Jan 5/12 contract option, via a SEK 800 million ($120 million) contract for 102 more BvS10 Mk.IIBs, raising their order total to 150. That leaves them with 25 more options.

The 102 vehicles will be delivered in the same 4 variants: troop carrier, ambulance, C2 command vehicle, and “logistics” (cargo carrier). They will continue manufacturing in BAE Systems Hagglunds’ refurbished production facility in Ornskoldsvik, Sweden, with deliveries beginning in 2014 and ending in 2015. Sources: BAE, “Sweden Buys 102 More BvS10 All-Terrain Vehicles From BAE Systems” | Swedish FMV, “FMV bestaller ytterligare 102 bandvagnar av Hagglunds”.

Sweden: 102 more BvS10 Mk.IIB

June 2013: Refit report. Britain’s Battlespace magazine offers an update on the refits, even as BAE Systems discusses more comprehensive Viking support arrangements with the UK MoD. Phase 1 Refits, which handled existing Mk.IIs and the Mk.Is with upgraded hulls, were finished in May 2013.

Phase 2 deliveries have now started, and installation of the required improvements plus the latest v-hull bottom will continue until April 2014. The exceptions will be rear cars for Repair & Recovery variants, which are unmanned while in transit.

Phase 3 involves the Mortar and Crew Served weapon variants (TL: 27). They also receive the latest v-hull, except for the mortar version’s rear cars. The new variants will undergo testing this summer, and deliveries aren’t expected to begin until March 2014.

Phase 4 involves new blast protection kits, which began delivery in April 2013. All upgrades will be available to other BvS10 operators, if they request it. Battlespace

Nov 25/11: France. France’s DGA announces [in French] that it has formally accepted delivery of its 1st 14-tonne, v-hulled BvS10 Mk.2/ VHM under the 53 vehicle contract (vid. Dec 22/09 entry). This is not the same thing as the 1st delivery by the manufacturer (vid. March 29/10 entry). Before it could receive formal acceptance, the Véhicule a Haute Mobilité had to be qualified for operational service during 8 months of trials, which ended in September 2011.

Dutch BvS10
in Chad 2009
(click to view full)

May 21/10: Dutch. The Netherlands is looking to upgrade 127 of the Dutch Marines’ Bv-206Ds with a mid-life upgrade (MLU) package to extend their operational life to 2020, the same as the Marines’ new BvS10 Vikings. The MLU budget is estimated between EUR 25 – 50 million, and the main risk involves the vehicle frame. If the glassfiber reinforced plastic has become fragile due to sun exposure, full replacement will make the upgrade much more costly. Kamenbrief [in Dutch].

March 29/10: UK. BAE Systems delivers the last of 24 BvS10 Viking Mk.II mine-protected vehicles ordered by the British Royal Marines (see Sept 30/09 entry). The vehicles will be deployed to Afghanistan in the near future. BAE Systems’ release adds that deliveries on France’s December 2009 order for BvS10 MkIIs have begun.

Nov 19/09: UK. The British Army announces that the first ST Kinetics Warthog has been manufactured and shipped to the UK. It will be fitted with electronics and armaments , and must then be fully tested and certified as safe to use. Steps after that are its issue to troops for pre-deployment training, and then deployment.

Bronco ATTC
(click to view full)

Dec 18/08: Broncos for Britain. Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd’s similar but heavier Bronco beats BAE’s BvS10 Mk.2, as they win a GBP 150 million (about S$ 330 million/ $230 million) contract from the UK Ministry of Defence for 100 Bronco ATTCs. These 20-ton “Warthog” vehicles will be supplied to the British Army’s Royal Armoured Corps, for use in Afghanistan.

A total of 4 Warthog variants will be built under the contract – APC/Troop Carrier, Ambulance, Command, and Repair & Recovery. Vehicle deliveries will commence in Q3 2009, with the majority to be delivered in 2010. UK MoD Programme Manager Simon Cox had this to say:

“We appreciate the close, flexible and constructive working relationship with ST Kinetics. They are a great company to work with and the Bronco has exceeded our expectations in terms of quality, capability and performance. We are delighted with their product, attitude and the progress jointly made in a very short time indeed.”

The Army had been using BvS10s on loan from the Royal Marines. Those vehicles will remain in service, and will be rotated back to Britain and the Marines once they are replaced in theater. UK MoD | ST Kinetics | Defense News.

Britain’s Army: 100 ATTC Broncos

Awaiting extraction
(click to view full)

Dec 2/08: Defense News reports that the UK MoD has ordered 22 more Vikings this year, bringing the total number of BvS10s they’ve bought to almost 150 vehicles. It adds that a number of these have been destroyed in combat, and the UK MoD has said that they are in negotiations with BAE for a mine blast protection kit. Delivery is expected to be complete by mid-2009.

Over the longer term, however, a larger vehicle may be necessary. BvS10s have been performing well, but various up-armoring additions mean that they have also been working beyond their maximum designed weight for months. Candidates for the folow-on “Warthog” buy of up to 100 vehicles reportedly include the BvS10 Mk II, and Singapore’s Bronco ATTC.

Britain: 22 BvS10

Oct 29/08: UK Defence Secretary John Hutton announces a package worth GBP 700 million (then $1.56 billion equivalent, but only $1.05 billion by late November), which will pay for over 700 new armored vehicles for use in Afghanistan. They include over 100 brand-new “Warthog” cross-country vehicles, which will have greater protection levels. Contracts remain to be negotiated.

March 30/08: Dutch issues. In “Marine heeft nu al pech met Vikings“, De Telegraaf reports that Dutch Marines have been working for weeks install new drive shafts in their 74 BvS10 Viking vehicles (see June 1/05 entry), after problems were discovered during exercises in England and Norway. 10 Vikings required for operation in Chad have been repaired.

On April 24/08, the Dutch MvD answered questions regarding the vehicles [Dutch, PDF], stemming from the De Telegraaf article.

BvS10, UK trials
(click to view full)

August 2007: Sub-contractors. A second order of 26 MR555 weapon ring mounts with accompanying gunshield protection is shipped from Australia’s Plattmounts to the UK, for installation on BvS10 Viking vehicles. These mounts also equip British FV432 Mk 3 Bulldog tracked APCs, as well as many of the USA’s RG-31 Charger mine-resistant patrol vehicles.

Dutch Bv-206, Norway
by Torbjorn Kjosvold
(click to view full)

June 12/06: Sweden. BAE Systems Hagglunds AB announces a SKr 260 million ($35 million) rush order from the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for 52 additional Bv206S vehicles, with an option for more. The order amounts to 52 vehicles with an option to acquire additional vehicles, bringing the Swedish Armed Forces up to a total of 93 Bv206S. With this order, 479 of BAE Hagglunds’ Bv206S vehicles have now been sold to Sweden, Germany, Italy, France and Spain.

The goal driving the FMV is the coming activation of the EU’s Nordic Battle Groupas of January 1st 2008, and led by Sweden. The FMV release notes that “…Bv206S can be transported by air with several of the smaller airplanes and helicopter models, which makes it a very suitable vehicle alternative for rapid forces with high demands on tactical and strategical mobility and troop transport under protection.”

Sweden: 52 Bv206S

Nov-Dec 2006: Sub-contractors. The initial order of 43 MR555 weapon ring mounts with accompanying gunshield protection is shipped from Australia’s Plattmounts to the UK, for installation on BvS10 Viking vehicles.

Jan 26/06: Dutch. Just 8 months after the contract was signed, BAE Systems Hagglunds has delivered the first of 74 armored BvS-10 Viking armored all terrain vehicles to the Dutch Army. The purchasing process was accomplished in less than 3 months, and the lead-time between contract and serial delivery has been only 8 months. Brig. Gen. Paul Opgenort:

“We are very content with Hagglunds and the company’s ability to keep to the time agreed for the first delivery. A key to the success has been the unconventional but flexible way of working, regarding the processes of development, purchase and production.”

Appendix A: Bv Vehicles’ Performance in Afghanistan

Bv206, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Canadian Bv206s performed well with the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group during Afghanistan’s Operation Anaconda. Attached to the U.S. Army’s 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division as part of a joint force, they were airlifted inside US Army CH-47D Chinooks to an objective called “The Whaleback” as part of the subsidiary Operation Harpoon. Their experience, and the British experience in Afghanistan, are illustrative.

Senior Analyst Mordica’s “High Altitude Operations” report from the US Center for Army Lessons Learned (no longer publicly available) noted:

“DISCUSSION: The Canadian Army air assaulted small unit support vehicles (SUSV) into the mountains during offensive operations against the al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. The vehicles were used to move distances over the rough terrain at high altitudes, allowing the infantry to ride or transport their loads into battle. These vehicles allowed the infantry some small arms protection and helped them beat the fatigue associated with mountain operations. The SUSV is helicopter transportable and provides all-terrain mobility. The vehicle performed well in combat.”

StrategyPage has a more publicly accessible March 19, 2002 follow-up, with an interesting twist:

“Major Chuck Jarnot, 101st Airborne Division Liaison Officer in Afghanistan, noted that the greatest risk to vehicle movement in Afghanistan is not Taliban/Al-Quedas Rocket Propelled Grenades, but rather the millions of land mines laid throughout the country. The Canadian BV-206 AMV used in Anaconda mitigates this risk by virtue of the very light weight and tracked suspension that results in extremely light ground pressure.

This not only contributes to its excellent terrain agility, but makes anti-tank mine detonation a very small probability since the BV-206 ground pressure is far below the minimum necessary to set off a typical anti-tank mine.”

The larger BvS10 entered the Afghan theater of operations as a key vehicle for the British Royal Marines, complete with anti-RPG slat/’birdcage’ armor. The British Army borrowed some, then replaced them with their “Warthog” derivation of ST Kinetics’ larger Bronco ATTC. The Royal Marines also bought a larger vehicle for use in Afghanistan, but their follow-on buy was the BvS10 Mk.II. In 2013, they will be joined in theater by similar Swedish vehicles. Some experiences from 2006-2008 are illustrative of the platforms’ advantages and tactical employment:

RAF CH-47 w. BvS10,
Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Feb 13/08: Nothing subtle about this UK MoD article: “Marines back in the Vikings – “They are phenomenal”.” One expects that sort of tone from a Ministry of Defence. The key is how well they back that tone up with examples from the field, and whether offsetting problems have surfaced. To date, DID is not aware of performance below expectations in any respect. On to more thoughts from the front lines:

“…due to their popularity the demand for their use is high amongst all troops patrolling and conducting operations in Helmand. Consequently, the demand on the Marines trained to drive them is high too. To help alleviate the pressure… a third unit, from the Queen’s Royal Lancers A Squadron, has been trained and recently deployed to Helmand. They are the first Army unit to operate the Viking on their own.”

Growing demand across service boundaries is always a positive sign. Major Jez Stemp, the Officer Commanding the Royal Marines’ Armoured Support Company:

“Their greatest asset is their all terrain mobility. The Taliban tend to mine known routes, but the Vikings can manoeuvre around them and go off road.”

Royal Marine Tom Aylett, back in Afghanistan for the second time:

“We put the lads in the back of the wagon, drop them off to do operations and attacks with the Vikings. I drive it and man the gun on top… They provide us with a lot of protection and allow us to get closer to the enemy. It’s very reliable, can go up a hill and never gets bogged down like other vehicles.”

Royal Marine Lance Corporal Dean Walker concurs:

“The Viking opens up a lot more operations. We can move where, with and who we want.”

BvS10 Viking w.
MR555 gun shield
(click to view full)

Jan 28/08: The UK MoD’s “Keeping the Vikings on the move (VIDEO)” is focused on the soldiers who maintain its BvS10 vehicles, but it also offers some observations from tactical experience. Corporal Kev Walker of 1 Battalion Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers works with Vikings in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan:

“The Royal Welsh got contacted by an anti aircraft gun. My troop went in with the Vikings to create a screen, allowing them to get out. We put down heavy fire from the Viking’s General Purpose Machine Gun (It is also fitted with .50 calibre guns), and before we left, having taken no casualties, it looked like all the Taliban had left. If we didn’t have something like the Viking it wouldn’t have been such a happy ending. It was pretty heavy terrain too and I’m not sure any other vehicle could have got in there. We know the Taliban don’t like them…”

Staff Sergeant Chris Hanks of the Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers adds:

“They can cope with the terrain because they have track mobility, which is much better than wheeled vehicles and gets bogged down less. “

Sept 12/07: “Viking vehicles prove their worth in volatile Helmand” contains quotes from Maj. Jez Hermer of the Royal Marines’ Armoured Support Company at Bovington, Dorset:

“Since the beginning of the Afghan conflict everyone has woken up to the success of Viking. It is now very important to Operation HERRICK. It has opened up Helmand province and given commanders a broader range of options than they would have had available to them… I see it remaining in Afghanistan and I don’t see it coming back until the end of the commitment.”

“The forces’ inventory of armoured vehicles has come under serious examination in Afghanistan and Iraq. With excellent protection, an ability to operate in all weathers across all terrain, including to ‘swim’ in water, and to withstand a range of threats, Viking has performed well…”

The British Army, meanwhile, is using tracked Spartan vehicles to similar effect.

Jan 23/07: Some of the lads in theater seem to like the new Platt MR550 weapon mounts and gunshields. This was forwarded to us [name and profanities redacted]:

“been busy but got time to tell your mount is f

• brilliant, the lads love it. been out and about and without a doubt it has stopped some lads becoming casualties. its stable as hell and the lads are big fans of the extended ranges we reach when firing. had a few problems with little bits but got them sorted in no time at all… say a big thankyou to all your staff for getting them out here as they have been a life safer in some of the s** situation we have found ourselfs in. well mate got to go and get ready for anthor trip out.”

Other comments from Royal Marines about their new gunshield:

”Took hits with no worries!”… ”RPG hit the vehicle and we moved on”… ”On the Platt we were shooting out to 2300m on GPMG and tracer burned out… continual shooting on same target watching the splash”

BvS-10, Afghanistan –
note anti-RPG armor
(click to view full)

Jan 10-11/07: A pair of releases from the UK MoD covering operations in Afghanistan speak very highly of the BvS10 Vikings’ performance, noting their battle-ready helicopter transportability and their success in combat against small-arms fire, mortars, and even single-warhead RPGs thanks to their slat armor. The vehicles are already credited with saving a number of lives; one expects to hear this from official sources, but the level of enthusiasm from front-line soldiers without an investment in the vehicle program is a very positive sign.

Oct 31/06: The first ever operation involving the new BvS-10 Viking armored vehicle is successfully completed by Royal Marine Commandos in the rugged terrain of southern Afghanistan. Operation Zina saw 33 Vikings complete a 10-hour combat move into Helmand province from their base in Kandahar airfield, moving through notorious areas of Kandahar City and Gereshk. During the journey Royal Navy Harriers provided force protection and helped clear the route ahead of the convoy, which was also supported by armored fighting vehicles from Denmark and Estonia. Despite some heavy surveillance from suspected Taliban, the journey was completed without incident. See video [Windows Media, 1.87 MB].

The UK MoD release notes that “Being able to operate over deep sand and boulder fields, the Vikings have the mobility to operate anywhere in Helmand province and carry a section of Marines into battle… The Vikings are now patrolling throughout Helmand province and their ability to go anywhere at speed will be a tremendous asset to the Royal Marines.”

Additional Readings and Sources

Thanks to Benelux subscriber David Vandenberghe for his tips and translation assistance.

Background: Bv Family of Vehicles

• BAE Systems Press Kit – BvS10.
• Army Technology – Viking (BvS10) Amphibious Armoured All-Terrain Vehicle, United Kingdom .
• UK Army – Viking BVS10.
• BAE Press Kit – Bv206S. 2012 snapshot.
• Army Technology – Bv206S Armoured, Articulated All-Terrain Vehicle, Sweden.
• CASR DND 101 – Canadian Forces Tracked Utility Vehicle – the Hagglunds Bv206.
• Arctic Tracks – The Hagglunds Bv206: Most versatile vehicle on earth. It shouldn’t be surprising that the vehicles also have a number of civilian uses.
• BV206 ATV’s Vehicles. Another outfit, this one selling used British military vehicles in a number of civilian configurations.
• One35th.com – ARTHUR – Artillery Hunting Radar on BV206. Better than nothing, but Canada trialed ARTHUR in Afghanistan and found that the number of false positives were an issue.
• One35th.com – Related Bv206-2. Includes information re: other countries’ local variants.

Background: Similar and Related Vehicles

• One35th.com – DSTA/ ST Kinetics Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier.
• Army Technology – Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier, United Kingdom. The country should, of course, be “Singapore,” who has ordered over 600.
• UK Army – Warthog. The British variant of the Bronco is called “Warthog.”
• ST Engineering – Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier.
• Wikipedia – Sisu Nasu. Also sold to France, Mexico, Taiwan, and Turkey. Finland is replacing some them with used Norwegian Bv206-D6N vehicles, via an initial order of 123 with an option for 150 more.
• Finnish Army – NA-140 GT. Still in use.

News & Views

• UK Army Kit! Magazine (Winter 2007) – The Striking Viking. Cover article for that issue, but the magazine is only available internally within the Army now.
• UK Ministry of Defence (Oct 31/06) – Vikings complete first convoy mission in Afghanistan (incl. VIDEO).
• Defense Talk (Jan 26/06) – First BvS10 Armoured all Terrain Vehicle for Dutch Army
• BAE Systems (June 1/05) – Holland Orders 74 BvS10 All Terrain Vehicles From BAE Systems
• The Adventures of Chester (Jan 5/05) – Singapore Military Tsumani Relief.
• Defense Week (April 8/02) – Canadians Put An Unusual Vehicle to the Test. Re: Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan.
• StrategyPage: Armor – March 19, 2002. Operation Anaconda…
• Canadian Department of National Defense (March 13/02) – Deputy-Chief of Defence Staff Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison Provides a Briefing on Operations of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. includes details re: Operation Harpoon.

Puma AE team
(click to view full)

The mini-UAV market may lack the high individual price tags of vehicles like the RQ-4 Global Hawk, or the battlefield strike impact of an MQ-9 Reaper, but it does have 2 advantages. One is less concern about “deconfliction” with manned aircraft, as described in “Field Report on Raven, Shadow UAVs From the 101st.” Mini-UAVs usually fly below 1,000 feet, and a styrofoam-like body with a 5 foot wingspan is much less of a collision threat than larger and more solidly-built platforms like the man-sized RQ-7 Shadow, or the Cessna-sized MQ-1 Predator.

The other advantage is mini-UAVs’ suitability for special operations troops, who are being employed in numbers on the front lines around the world. “Raven UAVs Winning Gold in Afghanistan’s ‘Commando Olympics’” details the global scale of this interest – and in July 2008, a $200 million US SOCOM contract for a breakthrough mini-UAV underscored it again. Now AeroVironment’s S2AS/ RQ-20A Puma AE is moving beyond Special Operations, and into the regular force.

Mini-UAVs: Evolution & Advantages

CL-227, pre-launch
(click to view full)

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) that can perform battlefield missions seem like a recent phenomenon, but countries like Israel and Canada have been building and using them for 3 decades now. Israel translated its early lead into a globally competitive UAV industry; Canada has not, as the early lead generated by projects like the CL-227 Sentinel/”flying peanut” withered on the vine.

As American forces began to adopt UAVs more widely, however, opportunities were created for domestic manufacturers to establish volume production, and become global leaders. The American penchant for technology, and the pressure of battlefield requirements, began to create another opportunity: greater UAV diversity. At the high-end, UAVs moved from brigade, fleet group, and division surveillance roles, and began to replace high-end national reconnaissance assets (vid. RQ-4 Global Hawk). At the brigade and division levels, armed UAVs began to give these devices important strike roles in counterinsurgency scenarios (vid. MQ-1/9 Predator family).

The next level down are tactical UAVs like Textron AAI’s RQ-7 Shadow, IAI’s Searcher II, Elbit’s Skylark II, or the Boeing/Insitu ScanEagle. They require additional support equipment for launch/recovery, and have the ability to cover “this sector” or even “this city”.

RQ-14 Dragon Eye,
Smithsonian NASM
(click to view full)

At the same time, the march of technology had made another new development possible: large numbers of “mini-UAVs” small enough for soldiers to carry, with electronic sensors that could capture good quality imagery, and then relay it to troops over expanding electronic networks.

The mini-UAV market focuses on flying devices that can be carried, launched, and recovered by soldiers. They generally have ranges up to 20 km, and an endurance of 1-3 hours in the air. These UAVs aren’t designed to do depth reconnaissance, but to look over the next hill, watch a neighborhood in a city before troops enter it, patrol a base’s outer perimeter, etc.

Even smaller micro-UAVs are in development, and focus more tightly on “this building” or “this engagement”.

Aerovironment’s Mini-Mes

Pointer UAV
(click to view larger)

The late Dr. McReady’s Aerovironment, Inc. has a history of aerial innovation, from human and solar-powered flight to early entries that helped define the mini-UAV market. Their main competition is Israel’s Elbit Systems (esp. the popular Skylark I), while their most advanced competitor may be Prioria’s Maveric, selected by the Canadian armed forces. As Aerovironment’s history shows, however, their own firm’s new designs are their most frequent competitors:

1990: Aerovironment delivers the first privately-developed FQM-151 Pointer hand-launched UAVs, for “extended evaluation” by the US military and Special Operations communities. Some are used in Iraq and Kuwait during Desert Storm in 1991.

The subsequent Puma UAV design, begun in 2001, can be fairly characterized as a Pointer UAV that incorporates most of the industry’s advances since 1990. It’s part of a long progression for AeroVironment, which has played a big role in the mini-UAV space’s evolution:

2003: Aerovironment’s Dragon Eye/Swift (RQ-14) wins the US Marines’ competition for a mini-UAV.

2004: A new Aerovironment mini-UAV, the RQ-11A Raven, is fielded under limited expedited orders with the US Army’s 10th Mountain Division, and some special forces. This is not a formal competition, however, but an outgrowth of a 2002 ACTD (advanced concept technology demonstration) project.

RQ-11, Iraq
(click to view full)

Fall 2005: The US Army’s RPUAV competition arises from the RQ-11’s success. SOCOM joins this competition, and the upgraded RQ-11B Raven wins.

The US Marines switched from Dragon Eye to the Raven B in 2007, and the US Air Force now fields them too. Raven has also proved popular with foreign militaries, and is in service with Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain, among others.

August 2006: The USAF picks another Aerovironment mini-UAV for its BATMAV UAV competition, and deliveries begin under the 5-year $45 million contract. The Wasp UAV began as a DARPA project, and the larger Wasp-III is a 1-pound vehicle with a wingspan just under 3 feet. It is called a ‘micro-UAV,’ but in truth it sits on the borderline between mini-UAV systems and true micro-UAVs.

Late 2007: The US Marines began buying and issuing Wasp-IIIs at the platoon level, complementing the RQ-11 Raven B, which is issued at the company and battalion levels. In January 2008, the USAF approved full-rate BATMAV production.

June 2008: SOCOM’s AECV program aims to select a mini-UAV that can be used by all branches, including Navy SEAL teams and USMC MARSOC. It picks the Puma AE, a new UAV from Aerovironment that adds a stabilized micro-camera, waterproofing, and the ability to land and recover the UAV on water. The “RQ-20” Puma subsequently finds a niche with route clearance minehunters, thanks to the advanced state of its optics, and ends up serving with the regular US Army, Marines & Air Force.

The Puma AE

RQ-20A Puma assembly
(click to view full)

Puma is slightly larger than Raven as is Aerovironment’s largest mini-UAV offering, but it’s still man-portable and hand-launched. The original Puma was almost 6 feet long, with a wingspan of 8.5 feet. Aerovironment pursued the typical young industry profile of build-field test-build as it developed the AE variant, issuing modified UAVs to units in the field for evaluation and feedback.

The US SOCOM contract has been the Puma program’s focus for a some time now, as SOCOM’s specifications led Aerovironment to conclude that its larger Puma platform was a better fit than the existing RQ-11B Raven. Along the way, Puma has been used for hybrid fuel cell experiments, and an “Aqua-Puma” driven by requests from the field served as an interim step along the road to the final Puma AE. In March 2012, it received the formal USAF designation “RQ-20A.”

AV on Puma AE
click for video

The hand-launched Puma AE’s most significant innovation is that it can land on both land and water, surviving near-vertical “deep stall” final approaches. In addition to the obvious special forces scenarios like river infiltrations, the ability to land on water and in very tight areas on land means that Puma can also be used from boats and ships, without vessel modifications for landing systems or vehicle storage.

The other big innovation is its sensor system. Previous mini-UAV systems tended to have micro-cameras that could be moved by the operator to pan, tilt, or zoom. What they usually have not had was a camera that was fully stabilized to fix on a designated point and provide a steady, constant image that compensates for aircraft movement etc. Recently, firms like Israel’s Bental Systems have begun to offer stabilized micro-payloads. Puma AE incorporates this innovation in an EO/IR day- and night-capable, waterproof sensor package that provides this kind of image tracking and stabilization. Other payload designs can be clipped in as they are developed for military or civilian applications.

Control is exercised from Aerovironment’s Ground Control Station (GCS) with a line of sight communications range of 15 km, and the system has its own internal GPS for positioning. The Ground Control Station is shared by the firm’s Raven and Wasp/BATMAV systems. Flight endurance is about 2 hours in the production version, and typical flight altitude is 100-500 feet. Like other mini-UAVs, Puma relies on its small size, small radar profile, and quiet engine to avoid detection.

Contracts and Key Events

Raven & Puma
click for video

August 16/16: A US Navy guided-missile destroyer has received an RQ-20B Puma UAV with a precision recovery system. Manufacturer AeroVironment stated that the recovery system enables the Puma to operate from a variety of vessels for rapid response reconnaissance. The multi-environment UAV is hand launched, and is programmed to autonomously glide back to the flight deck, but can also float; allowing for sea recovery.

July 26/13: FAA. The US Federal Aviation Administration issues its 1st UAV Restricted Category Type Certificates, which include the Puma UAV. The UAV will support emergency response crews for oil spill monitoring and wildlife surveillance over Alaska’s Beaufort Sea, within the Arctic Circle.

Experimental Airworthiness Certificates have been used for non-government UAV operations in the past, but they don’t allow commercial use. The FAA says that US military acceptance of the ScanEagle and Puma designs was an important factor in granting the new Restricted Category certificates, which do allow commercial operations.

That’s going to be a hotter area for UAV manufacturers over the next few years, and for the FAA as well. The Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 mandated that the FAA integrate UAVs into domestic airspace by 2015, but a key deadline establishing 6 pilot sites by August 2012 wasn’t met. These type certificates are a small step forward, within a larger framework. Sources: US FAA | AeroVironment | NDIA’s National Defense magazine | Seattle Times.

(Restricted) Commercial USA in USA

Oct 20/12: Support. The US government announces a woman-owned small business only solicitation for up to $25.5 million in SUAS support work, after soliciting interest and finding 3 such businesses who qualify. The FBO.gov solicitation adds that:

“…SUAS PdO must maintain the capability to support current and future Warfighter needs for SUAS systems in CONUS and OCONUS…. The objective of the SUAS Support Program is to support the Warfighter’s as well as other Governmental Agencies (OGAs) and Non-Governmental Agencies users’ SUAS-related sustainment needs. These needs primarily include SUAS training, maintenance, repairs, and engineering services. Additionally, the SUAS PdO will require various logistics, technical management, and program management services to support its SUAS customers.”

Moving launch,
Afghanistan
(click to view full)

June 12/12: Danish win. Aerovironment announces a $9.6 million win in Denmark. This competed win follows a $2.4 million Danish Army order for RQ-11B Raven systems in 2007.

Denmark

April 4/12: Plans. The US Army discusses its plans for a family of small UAVs again. They may actually be headed toward 2 Family of Small UAS contracts (1 products, 1 services), in an effort to “refine requirements.” After all this time, the Army is still working on a capabilities document outlining the parameters of the Family of Small UAS.

The Army is also hoping to develop a universal control station for the F-SUAS.

Feb 13/12: Sentient MTI. AeroVironment, Inc. announces an exclusive global distribution license with Sentient in Melbourne, Australia for its Kestrel Land MTI Tier I automatic target detection software, designed for full motion video for use with small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Kestrel software automatically detects moving objects, then places tracking boxes around them for easy monitoring. That’s especially helpful with mini-UAVs, because of the payload optics’ limitations, and better tracking of multiple moving objects fills an obvious need of front-line troops.

Over the past 18 months Sentient and AeroVironment have optimized and integrated the software with AeroVironment’s mini-UAS common Ground Control System for Puma, Raven, and Wasp UAVs. Sentient makes a number of Kestrel solutions used around the world. It’s worth noting that the AeroVironment deal doesn’t impair its Kestrel Land MTI Tier II/III used by larger UAVs like the ScanEagle, RQ-7 Shadow, and MQ-9 Reaper; and by patrol aircraft like the P-3 Orion; or its Kestrel Maritime products. What it does, is fence in the market for mini-UAS solutions with a desirable and hard-to copy capability. AeroVironment | Sentient.

Jan 31/12: Pentagon DVIDS discusses preparations by the “Lancers” of Second Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, who are “going into Operation Enduring Freedom with the most Raven [a small unit UAS] and Puma operators in the history of OEF combat,” according to AMCOM UAS specialist Tarah Hollingsworth. Sgt. Christopher Harris, a 2nd SBCT UAS operations non-commissioned officer, adds that:

“I was on the initial fielding of the Puma when it was first brought in about three years ago when I was in Afghanistan… We were able to use it on all kinds of patrols, whether it be presence patrols, recon or anything of that sort. I utilized it two times for a call for fire; it’s very accurate for that.”

Puma AE, pre-launch
(click to view full)

2011: The US Army assumes management of US SOCOM’s AECV contract, following its own October 2010 order for the UAVs, and interest from other services. Source.

AECV = Army

Aug 16/11: Comm relay. Boeing announces successful May and August demonstrations of its 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 hand-launched mini-UAVs like the Puma AE would represent an important step forward, especially for Special Operations forces.

August 16/11: AeroVironment, Inc. announces a $65.5 million firm-fixed-price contract delivery order for new digital Puma AEs, and initial spares packages. It’s another buy under the existing $200 million US SOCOM All Environment Capable Variant (AECV) contract (vid. July 1/08), and will be delivered in the coming months.

June 9/11: AeroVironment, Inc. in Monrovia, CA receives a $13.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for “Puma unmanned aircraft systems training and contractor logistics support.” Aerovironment has since confirmed that this is for the Puma AE. They now simply call it “Puma,” because the very different UAV they had formerly called Puma is not in production.

Work will be performed in Simi Valley, CA, and Kandahar, Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Oct 14/11. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by the U.S. Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-11-C-0004).

April 20/11: Training issues. The US Army currently equips each brigade with 15 RQ-11B Raven systems, but the 9 Afghan BCTs want to raise that to 35 each (105 UAVs). They’re also shipping larger Puma-AE UAV systems into theater, with 64 in and another 20 requested. So what’s the problem? Training.

Right now, the US FAA requires Federal Aviation Administration must issue a certificate of authorization, in order to fly UAVs in US air space. There are limits to that requirement, but it takes months to get that certification, and it’s hurting operator training. Commanders are complaining that some operators lack adequate pre-combat preparation, and must learn on the job.

In response, the US Army has instituted a buddy program, a tracking program for operators, and a ground-based technical solution. Under the buddy program, skilled mini-UAV operators will teach other soldiers. The web tracker will make sure that qualified operators don’t get lost in the shuffle when they move from one brigade to another. The technical solution involves a ground-based sense-and-avoid system that may help expedite FAA certification. NDIA’s National Defense Magazine.

April 21/11: AeroVironment, Inc. announces an $11.5 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for new digital Puma AE systems, initial spares packages, and training services.

The new UAVs were bought under the existing United States Special Operations Command All Environment Capable Variant (USSOCOM AECV) indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract, and deliveries are scheduled to be completed over the next several months.

Feb 4/11: Platoon mini-trio. Aviation Week reports that the US Army wants to beef up UAV availability down to the platoon level, in an environment where, as Army Operations Office aviation UAS director Lt. Col. James Cutting puts it, “there will never be enough multi-million-dollar systems to cover them.” Where now there are 17 RQ-11 Ravens in a brigade combat team (BCT), the Army plans to increase this to 49 “Small UAS family of systems”, initially made up of AeroVironment’s Puma at the high end, RQ-11B Raven mini-UAV as the core, and smaller Wasp III as the true “flying binoculars” micro-UAV.

Down the road, this set is expected to be a competition, and the numbers involved make it an attractive target. According to Cutting, the Army will push the new UAVs directly down to engineer, armor and infantry units, rather than forming more aviation units and adding their overhead. Since the UAVs in question are so small, and fly at under 1,000 feet, they can be used without worrying about “deconfliction,” and don’t really require the same planning & support overhead as, for instance, a unit of RQ-7B Shadows, or MQ-1C Gray Eagles. Aviation Week | Aviation Week Ares.

Jan 6/11: The US Army issues a stop-work order on the Class I Unmanned Aerial System (RQ-16 T-Hawk), as part of the E-IBCT next-generation brigades. Formal termination takes place on Feb 3/11. In light of the Oct 22/10 order, this could become a major opportunity for the Puma AE. Defense News.

Oct 26/10: Aerovironment announces a $7.2 million for an unspecified number of new digital Puma AE systems and training services, under the existing US SOCOM indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract.

Oct 25/10: More Army minis. The NDIA’s National Defense magazine reports that Puma AE is forcing its way into regular Army operations, due to a combination of unforgiving high-altitude terrain and roadside mission demands:

“The Army currently supplies 15 sets of Ravens (with three aircraft per set) to each brigade in Afghanistan. The current plan is to buy 3,000 Ravens, and the Army so far has acquired more than 2,000… [but units] have asked for a “larger small” unmanned aircraft that can carry more sensors and fly longer… So the Army is now tapping into the SOCOM contract and buying 72 Pumas to meet urgent demands, Gonzalez said. The Puma request came directly from the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus… The Army already is testing the concept of a “family” of three aircraft (Raven, Puma and Wasp) in combat. It fielded 15 sets six months ago to the 101st Airborne Division and will allow the unit to keep them for a year for further evaluation, said Gonzalez. One of the concerns is designing a controller that can operate all three aircraft.”

Puma AE concept
(click to view larger)

Sept 8/10: An additional order valued at $4.4 million for Puma AE payloads and retrofits. Work is scheduled to be performed “within a period of several months.” Source.

Aug 31/10: Aerovironment announces a $35.3 million delivery order for digital Puma AE systems, spares and training service, under the existing US SOCOM indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. Work is scheduled to be performed “within a period of several months.”

Puma fuel cell
(click to view full)

March 6/08: AeroVironment announces a 9 hour flight for a modified Puma powered by an onboard fuel cell/ battery hybrid energy storage system. During the flight, a 2-camera payload system provided a live, streaming video feed from the Puma. Aerovironment developed the battery pack, power electronics and controls portion of the hybrid energy storage system, which used London-listed Protonex Technology Corporation’s Pulse UAV fuel cell system.

This successful demonstration is not part of the SOCOM bid, but is conducted under Aerovironment’s separate small business innovation research (SBIR) Phase II contract with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). AFRL’s goal is to develop advanced energy storage and propulsion technologies for unmanned aircraft. The overall program advanced swiftly from kickoff in January 2007, to a 5-hour flight in May 2007, a 7-hour flight in July 2007, and then this 9-hour flight. Aerovironment release.

Additional Readings & Sources

• Aerovironment – UAS: Puma AE
• Aerovironment – UAS Advanced Development Center: Fuel Cell Puma
• Designation Systems – Aerovironment Puma. Differs in a number of significant respects from the Puma AE.
• Aerovironment – BATMAV. Also known as Wasp-III.
• USAF – BATMAV Micro Unmanned Aircraft System
• See DID’s coverage of the RQ-11 Raven, beginning in Feb 2005 with “Raven UAV Draws Raves From The Field” and including “Field Report on Raven, Shadow UAVs From the 101st“.
• DID (2005) – AeroVironment Given SBIR contract for New UAVs: Can They Do It Again?

Cougar 6×6, IEDed
– the crew lived.
(click to view full)

With the acquisition of Force Protection by General Dynamics in November 2011, future purchases will be covered under “General Dynamics MRAPs: Partners and Purchases.”

The Cougar family of medium-sized blast-protected vehicles is produced in both 4-wheel (formerly Cougar H) and 6-wheel (formerly Cougar HE) layouts. Eventually, the wisdom of using survivable vehicles in a theater where land mines were the #1 threat became clearer, and these vehicles have gradually shifted from dedicated engineer and Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) roles to patrol and route-proving/ convoy lead functions as well. Related variants and blast-resistant designs are also produced in response to country-specific requirements (Wolfhound, Mastiff, Ridgeback, ILAV Badger) and other designs cover different operational needs (Buffalo mine-clearance, Cheetah, Ocelot, and JAMMA patrol vehicles). To date, the firm has received orders from Britain, Canada, France, Hungary, Italy, Iraq, and Yemen; and Poland operates some on loan from the USA. Front line testimonials offer evidence of their effectiveness.

Cougar orders predate the USA’s MRAP program to rush mine-resistant vehicles to the front lines; indeed, the performance of Force Protection’s vehicles on the front lines was probably the #1 trigger for the MRAP program’s existence. This FOCUS article describes Force Protection’s vehicles and corporate performance, which became an issue in recent years. It also covers key events and procurements around the world related to Force Protection’s Cougar (MRAP CAT I & II), Buffalo (MRAP CAT III), and related blast-resistant vehicle families.

The Cougar Vehicles

Cougar 4×4
(click to view full)

Unlike the Hummer, Cougar vehicles are designed to withstand a 30-pound blast of TNT to either the front or rear axles, or a 15-pound blast to the center portion of the vehicle. Ballistic protection is also installed for the radiator, fuel tanks, and battery compartments. Each vehicle is equipped with weapons ports, a M-240G machine gun mount, engineer/ Explosive Ordinance Disposal tool storage, 2 spare tires, and a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical overpressure and filter system that also works very well as air conditioning. As their site puts it, 4 full inches of ballistic glass in the viewing ports et. al. “help you see what hit you.”

These are not small vehicles. The Cougar is substantially larger than a HMMWV, with heavier armor and features like a V-hull designed specifically to help it survive mine blasts. As the amusing web page by manufacturer Force Protection puts it: “Drop your purse, it’s not a Hummer.”

The M1114 up-armored Hummers have an empty “curb weight” of around 9,000 pounds, and a top weight of about 12,000 pounds. The comparable Cougar 4×4 MRAP CAT 1 weighs 31,000 empty (“curb weight”), with a maximum recommended weight when fully loaded of 38,000 pounds (“gross vehicle weight, or GVW). It usually carries 4 troops, plus the front 2 seats.

Cougar 6×6
click to play video

The larger Cougar 6×6 MRAP CAT II has a curb weight of 38,000 pounds, and a GVW of 52,000 pounds. They can carry 8 troops plus the front 2 seats, These vehicles can be customized for multiple tasks including troop transport, mine and explosive ordnance disposal, command and control, reconnaissance and as a lead convoy vehicle.

An even larger and more awe-inspiring relative, the Buffalo, is also deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan as a mine-disposal vehicle. Its signature feature has given it a nickname: “The Claw.”

Testing, testing…
(click to view full)

The Cougar family’s added weight, and designed-in protection, make a difference. As one June 2007 USMC.MIL story describes it:

“I’ve had two IEDs go off on me in the last two weeks,” said [Staff Sgt. Timothy Kessler of C Company, 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 6], whose unit has been hit at least six times so far since the beginning of his tour. The largest explosion detonated under the right front tire of the vehicle.

“It blew my fenders off, it blew the front bumper about 30 meters away. We never did find the fenders, but all the Marines inside the vehicle were OK.”

“The other blast was again under the right tire. We sustained minor damage and it fragged my window up a little bit,” said Kessler.

Although the MRAP vehicle Kessler was riding in survived the attacks, it is very likely that a humvee would have sustained catastrophic damage.”

Cougar interior
(click to view full)

On March 1/07, the Cougar’s success in theater led The Commandant of the US Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway to submit a Memorandum to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff [PDF]. It traces the history of program growth for MRAP vehicles, including a significant acceleration in 2006 from a request for 185 vehicles in May to 4,060 vehicles by November. It listed MRAP vehicles as his #1 unfunded priority, and added that:

“Based on the recognition of significantly reduced lethal and severe injuries in MRAP vs. the HMMWV, on 2 January 2007, commander, MARCENT requested support for a policy change that would provide MRAP level protection for all Marines operating outside the wire in MNF-W[1] . Under this policy, limited use of Armored HMMWV’s [sic] will be authorized in specific tactical situations where the operational characteristics of HMMWV are required. On 6 February 2007, the MROC (Marines Requirements Oversight Council) validated a Marine Corps requirement of 3700 vehicles in support of this policy.”

The USMC subsequently requested 3,700 vehicles under the 7,774-vehicle MRAP program (since expanded to 15,274 and then 15,771). They remain the lead acquisition service for MRAP, but Force Protection slipped from the US military’s #1 provider to #3 – and only became a more distant 3rd place as the competition continued. US MRAP candidates and orders included:

FP’s Cheetah:
a big hill to climb
(click to view full)

In order to maintain its momentum, Force Protection would need another success. It had invested some of its earnings to develop a smaller, lighter vehicle called the Cheetah. Weighing in at just 14,000 pounds empty, its size (89″ tall x 88″ wide x 212″ long) and mass allow a CH-53 helicopter to lift it from ship to shore, and also offer easier transport in amphibious ships. A cruise speed of 75 mph helps the Cheetah live up to its moniker, while its turning radius of 30 feet gives it the ability to maneuver in confined spaces like urban battlefields. Lighter, smaller vehicles do mean less protection, even with a v-hull design. Nevertheless, Force Protection claims that the Cheetah can withstand a 15 pound/ 7 kg TNT blast anywhere under the vehicle, 30 pounds/ 13.65 kg under the wheels, or 50 pounds/ 22 kg if detonated 6.5 feet/ 2 meters to the side.

The firm saw the Cheetah as its future, and several customers expressed interest or undertook evaluations. With funds and attention devoted to larger MRAP class vehicles, however, no-one bought any. Force Protection’s real goal was the JLTV program, which would replace many of the US military’s Hummers and could see orders for 60,000 or more vehicles. Cheetah had been ready for some time, much earlier than its competitors; its failure to secure an initial stage JLTV development contract in late 2008 was a shock to the firm. In response, Force Protection expanded its Force Dynamics alliance with General Dynamics to include the Cheetah, in order to compete for interim-buy MRAP-ATV contracts that seek lighter blast-resistant vehicles.

Unfortunately, that fell through as well, leaving the Cheetah with no initial customer.

FP’s JAMMA
(click to view full)

Efforts to develop vehicles for foreign customers have been more successful. Distinct Cougar 6×6 variants serve with Iraq as the ILAV/Badger, and with the British Army as the more heavily protected Mastiff or Mastiff 2. The British also operate smaller 4×4 “Ridgback” variants. The British also worked with Force Protection to develop a specialty 6×6 flatbed truck version called the Wolfhound, then served as the variant’s lead customer. Read “UK Land Forces Order Cougar Family Vehicles” for more.

Another follow-on vehicle called the JAMMA is optimized for Special Forces use, and has the distinction of being transportable in the V-22 Osprey‘s low compartment.

Ocelot modularity
(click to view full)

A British partnership has also developed the Ocelot, an entirely new vehicle design in the Cheetah’s weight class. Force Protection claims that its Ocelot exceeds the required LPPV mine protection level and offers protection similar to the 6×6 Mastiff Cougar variant, while still meeting LPPV targets for mobility, payload, size and gross vehicle weight. It is now the preferred bidder for that contract, continuing its remarkable strak of success in Britain.

Ocelot is a modular design with a core automotive armored spine or “skateboard,” and a composite special-to-role pod. Center of gravity is low, as all the heavy items are contained within the V-shaped skateboard: the Steyr 3.2 litre straight six diesel powerpack, propshaft, 6-speed ZF gearbox, AxelTech differentials, fuel tank and all the suspension gear, except for a torsion bar which is mounted alongside the hull. The V-shape design results in the running gear not intruding into the crew area, making movement from front to back easier and improving protection levels. Bulkheads between vehicle crew and dismounts, and between crew and electronic equipment such as radios and jammers, give added protection. Current add-on pods include patrol, fire support, or protected logistics vehicle, and the patrol vehicle pod seats 2 crew and 4 dismounts. The pods can be swapped out in the field as the need requires. Access is through large rear doors, 2 top hatches, or an oversize commander’s door. Ocelot can reportedly be airlifted in a C-130 Hercules aircraft, or even a CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter.

Winning either the British LPPV or Australia’s Overlander PMV-L competitions would allow Ocelot to establish a solid foothold in the light patrol vehicle market.

Cougar Family: Related Contracts & Events

Wolfhound TSV
(click to view full)

With the acquisition of Force Protection by General Dynamics, future purchases will be covered under “General Dynamics MRAPs: Partners and Purchases.”

Unless otherwise indicated, all contracts are issued by the Marine Corps Systems Command (MARSYSCOM) in Quantico, VA to Force Protection Industries Inc. in Ladson, SC. Note that many maintenance contracts are connected with specific American MRAP Program delivery orders. The first order was for test vehicles; subsequent orders under that contract (M67854-07-D-5031) include:

#002: 60 CAT I Cougar 4x4s and 65 CAT II Cougar 6x6s
#003: 300 CAT I and 700 CAT II
#004: 395 CAT I and 60 CAT II
#005: 25 CAT I and 100 CAT II
#006: 553 CAT I and 247 CAT II
#007: 178 CAT I and 180 CAT II
#012: 1,862 vehicles: Oshkosh TAK-4 suspension kits

These listed orders do not count Buffalo MRAP Class III mine-clearance vehicles, which are sole-sourced, or orders outside the USA. Both of those order types are covered below as they happen.

October 5/16: A second batch of mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles have been delivered to Egypt under the US Excess Defense Articles grant program. While the exact number of vehicles delivered remains unknown, the original shipment contained 762 MRAPs. First used for US operations in Afghanistan, the vehicles will give enhanced levels of protection to Egyptian soldiers tackling Islamist militants in the Sinai desert.

Sept 23/11: A $16.9 million firm-fixed-priced contract modification for 961 fuel protection kits, and 8 sets of MRAP Capability Insertion Enhanced and Inspect or Repair only-as-necessary tools. Work will be performed in Charleston, SC, and is expected to be complete no later than March 30/12. $5.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031). See also Force Protection.

Sept 1/11: Force Protection and CAE formally bid a modified Cougar 6×6 “Timberwolf” for Canada’s TAPV competition.

Aug 24/11: Force Protection bids a variant of its Ocelot vehicle for Australia’s Special Operations Vehicles – Commando (Project JP 2097 Phase 1B/ REDFIN competition. The Ocelot is also getting a look as part of Australia’s Overlander program, Phase 4, as a Protected Mobility Vehicle – Light (PMV-L) competitor.

Aug 5/11: Executive shuffles. Force Protection makes a a couple of leadership moves. Philip Ciarlo becomes Chief of Operations, after serving as VP, Sourcing at Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors. He also spent more than 20 years in GE.

COO Randy Hutcherson goes back to his roots as Chief of Business Development, a new position for the company. He joined Force Protection in 2009 as EVP, Programs, Global Sales and Business Development, after a career at EADS North America that included their aerial tanker bid. CEO Michael Moody said that:

“We have several large programs we are pursuing in which important customer decisions are expected in the coming months and expect that further requirements for the Company’s products and services are likely to be defined in the near to mid-term.”

June 29/11: A $63.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 56 Buffalo A2 mine-clearance vehicles, and 56 accompanying bar armor kits. Buffalos use BAE’s LROD aluminum bar armor kit.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, with an estimated completion date of Nov 1/12, though Force Protection expects to have them all built by July 31/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received by the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) in Warren, MI (W56HZV-08-C-0028). Force Protection release.

June 23/11: A $7.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 6-month renewal of 55 field service representatives to conduct general maintenance and upgrade operations in Afghanistan. Work is expected to be completed by Dec 31/11, but all contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031).

June 15/11: An $8.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 6-month renewal of 43 field service representatives to support operations at Vehicle Support Facility-Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Afghanistan, and is expected to be completed by Dec 31/11, but all contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031).

See also Force Protection release. Service and support contracts almost always exceed the value of the initial purchase contracts over time, and with production activities slowed considerably, support contracts like these are a critical source of revenue for the firm.

June 14/11: A $14.4 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification for a 6-month renewal of 87 field service representatives and accompanying equipment to install spall liner blanket kits, independent suspension kits, modernization safety kits and conduct general maintenance on the Cougar MRAP fleet in Afghanistan. Work is expected to be completed by Dec 31/11, but all contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031).

May 2/11: A $106.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 1,000 of Oshkosh’s TAK-4 Independent Suspension System kits: 650 for Cougar 4x4s, and 350 for Cougar 6x6s. Delivery of the kits is expected to begin in the Company’s Q3 2011.

Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI (95%, indicating that most of the contract’s value is Oshkosh’s), and Ladson, SC (5%), and is expected to be complete no later than Dec 31/11. $1.4 million in FY 2009 Other Procurement Air Force funds for the project will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (M67854-07-D-5031). See also Force Protection release.

April 29/11: An $18.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 1,103 Cougar fuel tank protection modernization kits.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete no later than Dec 31/11. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031). See also Force Protection release.

April 6/11: Force Protection announces a $46.6 million Foreign Military Sale (FMS) for 40 Buffalo MRAP-III clearance vehicles. All work under this contract will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete by September 30, 2011. US MARSYSCOM manages the sale on behalf of its FMS client, which is not named (M67854-11-C-5063).

March 30/11: An $11.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 10-month renewal of 46 field service representatives to install liner blanket kits, install modernization safety kits, and conduct general maintenance work on the Cougar Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle fleet. All work will be performed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and will be completed by Dec 31/11. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031).

March 9/11: Force Protection, Inc. releases its Q4 and full-year 2010 financial statements for the 12 months ended Dec 31/10. Lower spares and sustainment and vehicle sales were partially offset by increased modernization revenues. Net Sales were $656.0 million (2009: $977.1M), with Operating Income of $23.4 million (2009: $43.3M) and Net Income of $15.2 million (2009: $29.5M). Gross margin was 20.4% (2009: 16.5% without the Cheetah vehicle writeoff).

The firm’s year-end cash balance sits at $150 million, and more than $1 billion in new 2010 orders allowed them to enter 2011 with more than $560 million in funded backlog. Approximately three-quarters of this amount is expected to be recognized in 2011.

Separately, the board of directors has authorized Force Protection to repurchase up to $20 million of its common stock.

Cougar w. IED jammer
(click to view full)

Dec 16/10: Force Protection Industries, Inc. announces that it has broken the $1 billion mark for business in 2010. Of the orders received, approximately 53% were associated with modernization, spares and and maintenance for the company’s 4,500+ vehicles worldwide, while new vehicle orders accounted for about 47%.

Dec 15/10: A $13.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 87 MRAP field service representatives. Work will be performed in Kuwait, and the option runs until June 30/11. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (M67854-07-D-5031).

Dec 3/10: A $17.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 12-month renewal of 54 field service representatives to provide the full spectrum of support, modernization, and upgrade work on the Cougar Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle fleet. Work will be performed in Kuwait, and th renewal will expire on by Dec 31/11 (M67854-07-D-5031). See also Force Protection release.

Nov 29/10: As expected, Britain signs a GBP 180 million (about $300 million) contract with Force Protection Europe and their partner Ricardo plc, buying 200 Ocelot LPPVs. The vehicles will be known as Foxhounds in British service. UK MoD | British Forces News (video) | Force Protection | Defense News.

Nov 3/10: Force Protection, Inc. announces its Q3 2010 results. Full details can be found in the release, but net sales have dropped about 45% from Q3 2009, and the firm reports a slight net loss of $1.9 million for the quarter. FY 2010 9-month net income is $4.0 million so far.

As of September 30, 2010, the Company’s cash and inventories were $105.4 million and $85.9 million, respectively. In addition, accounts receivable was $186.6 million, including $105.8 million of earned but unbilled receivables, and accounts payable was $95.7 million.

Oct 1/10: Force Protection Inc. announces an agreement to settle 2 shareholder lawsuits, subject to court approval and certain other conditions.

A $24 million settlement covers the consolidated shareholder securities class action entitled In re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against the Company and a number of the Company’s former directors and/or officers. Most of the settlement will be covered by insurance.

A related shareholder derivative action pending in the same federal court, In re Force Protection, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:08-1907-CWH, is settled for $2.25 million from insurance, plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and expenses up to $2.3 million, and the adoption of certain corporate governance practices.

Sept 30/10: A $6.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 3 month extension of 55 field service representatives to complete independent suspension system kit installation on the Cougar MRAP fleet. Work is expected to be complete by Dec 31/10 (M67854-07-D-5031).

This brings announces Cougar ISS related contracts to $462.2M.

Sept 22/10: The UK MoD picks the Force Protection Europe partnership as their preferred bidder for its Light Protected Patrol Vehicle program, as its Ocelot beats Supacat/NP Aerospace’s SPV 400. Past reports have suggested an initial buy of around 200 vehicles, and Urgent Operational Requirements contract negotiations will now begin. Read “Blast Breakers: UK Land Forces Order Force Protection’s Vehicles” for the full report.

Sept 20/10: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC receives a $5.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a 3-month extension of 70 field service representatives to complete independent suspension system kit installation on the Cougar MRAP fleet. When DID adds up all of the announced contracts that directly revolve around Cougar ISS upgrades, they add up to about $457.7 million (158.1 + 21.9 + 58 + 58.6 + 26.2 + 82.3 + 17.25 + 19.6 + 10.2 + 5.5).

All work will be performed in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Dec 3/10. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (M67854-07-D-5031).

Aug 24/10: 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 19/10: A $64.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 1,946 seat survivability upgrade kits and the associated integration and installation on the Cougar CAT I A1 MRAP vehicles.

The installations will be performed in Afghanistan (80%), Kuwait (5%), and on vehicles at home stations in the U.S. (15%). Work is expected to be completed by February 2011 (M67854-07-D-5031). See also Force Protection release.

Aug 17/10: A $14.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) to purchase 43 field service representatives and standard consumable kits to support operations at Vehicle Support Facility-Afghanistan. All work will be performed in Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete by June 30/11. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. See also Force Protection release.

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.”

If Force Protection’s Cougars end up targeted in the 4,000, it would put a serious crimp in company revenues, which depend on maintenance and upgrade contracts to suport the existing fleet. See the full Army Tactical Vehicle Strategy [PDF].

July 28/10: A pair of $5.6 firm-fixed price contract modifications (total $10.2 million). Each covers a 5-month extension for 36 Field Service Representatives, who will help install Oshkosh’s TAK-4 Independent Suspension Systems onto Cougar MRAPs, to create Cougar ISS vehicles.

All work will be performed in Bagram (M67854-07-D-5031, #0016) and Kandahar (M67854-07-D-5031), #0017), Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete by June 30/11.

July 27/10: Force Protection partners with Canadian engineering & support firm SNC-Lavalin Defense Contractors, Inc. for the Canadian Government’s 500-600 vehicle Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (“TAPV”) program.

Their TAPV Cougar bid will be arrayed against Oshkosh & General Dynamics Land Systems Canada (M-ATV), and Thales and DEW Engineering (Bushmaster). Force Protection. Read “FLCV: Canada Looks to Upgrade Its Armor” for more.

July 20/10: Force Protection, Inc. announces that the Government of Canada has advanced their 2 Cougar variants beyond the 500-600 vehicle TAPV programs Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ) phase. In addition to the Cougar 4×4 and 6×6 variants, 7 vehicles from other equipment manufacturers were selected to move into the RFP phase, with a winner and contract expected in 2011. Force Protection.

July 2/10: In the wake of the May 26/10 announcement that its Ocelot is a candidate for Australia’s A$ 1 billion PMV-L component of Project Overlander, Force Protection meets with potential suppliers, as well as State Government ministers and industry representatives in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. Force Protection.

June 24/10: A $19.6 million firm-fixed-price modification to a previous contract (M67854-07-D-5031, delivery order #0012), for a 3 month extension of 216 field service representatives. These individuals will be used to complete TAK-4 independent suspension system installation on the Cougar Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle fleet at the MRAP sustainment facility in Kuwait. Work will be performed in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Sept 30/10. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. See also Force Protection release.

June 23/10: Defense News reports an announcement by the new coalition government’s Minister for Defence Equipment, Peter Luff, who says they will be buying another 28 Wolfhound TSV protected heavy cargo vehicles.

It’s one of a pair of contracts to different manufacturers, reported to be worth a total of GBP 65 million (about $96.8 million). The other manufacturer, Supacat, announces a GBP 45 million contract, leaving GBP 20 million (about $29.8 million) for the Wolfhound purchase. The UK MoD confirms this figure several days later.

June 23/10: Force Protection Europe in the UK announces a support product for its vehicle fleets. Karrus is a comprehensive closed-loop logistics software management suite. It analyzes complex logistics data using inputs from field representatives and other sources, in order to provide a fleet-wide maintenance snapshot. It can also be used to make projections, answering questions like what parts are needed, current fleet availability, projected fleet maintenance costs for the next 10 years, etc.

Force Protection Europe Ltd’s Managing Director, David Hind, sees the system as being useful far beyond Force Protection’s UK products, though it has been tested and used with those vehicles, and does fit well with British support trends. Karrus will be promoted on a global basis, including in the United States by Force Protection Europe’s parent company.

June 22/10: A $15.4 million firm-fixed-price modification to a previous contract (M67854-07-D-5031, delivery order #0015) for the services of 43 field service representatives to install spall-liner blanket kits and modernization safety kits, and conduct general maintenance to the Cougar MRAP fleet supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Spall liners use kevlar-type fabric, in order to either catch some shrapnel and bullet fragments that get past the outer armor, or narrow the coverage that any explosion can have in the vehicle’s interior. Work under this contract will be performed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it will end on June 30/11. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. See also Force Protection release.

June 11/10: A $10.8 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previous contract (M67854-07-D-5031, delivery order #0018) to buy 2,654 alternator modernization 570 amp kits for Cougar family vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. With all the gadgets and add-ons they have to run, more electric power is always a good thing.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete by March 31/11. $1,937,510 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. See also Force Protection release.

June 4/10: A $46.1 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previous contract (M67854-07-D-5031, delivery order #0018) for 2,451 enhanced Automated Fire Extinguishing Systems. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in July 2010, and be complete by February 2011.

Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI, and is expected to be complete in February 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. See also Force Protection release.

May 26/10: The Ocelot is one of 3 vehicles added to the competition for the Australian Overlander Program’s Phase 4 buy of up to 1,300 PMV-L blast-resistant patrol vehicles. Thales Australia, Force Protection Europe, and General Dynamics Land Systems will each receive 6-month contracts worth up to A$ 9 million, in order to develop “Protected Mobility Vehicle” prototypes. Those prototypes would compete against any winners from the American/Australian JLTV competition. Australian DoD | Force Protection | Thales Australia.

May 25/10: Force Protection Europe has been invited by the UK MoD to tender for Britain’s LPPV (Light Protected Patrol Vehicle) Demonstration, Production and Support Phases. The invite follows a recently awarded contract placed for 2 Ocelot vehicles, presumably for testing purposes. Force Protection release.

May 20/10: The US DSCA announces [PDF] Britain’s formal request to buy another 102 Mastiff 6×6 blast-resistant vehicles, along with associated tools and test equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related support. The estimated cost is up to $122 million.

The principal contractor will be Force Protection Industries, Inc., of Ladson, SC. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. The continued support of nine Field Service Representatives, currently providing in-theater maintenance support for the existing Mastiff vehicles until July 2010, will be extended until the UK can provide this support internally.

May 5/10: Force Protection, Inc. announces a $62.4 million modification to US Army TACOM contract W56HZV-08-C-0028 for 60 Buffalo mine protected clearance vehicles (MPCV), plus field support representatives, and technical data and manuals. The initial award is a firm-fixed-price $32.9 million contract. This contract modification is subject to finalization, so the end price may change somewhat.

Work is to be performed in Ladson, SC, with an estimated completion date of Nov 1/12, but Force Protection promises June 30/11 completion, with deliveries scheduled to begin in the 4th quarter of 2010. Unlike the rest of the MRAP competition, Buffalo MRAP-III MPCV vehicles are sole-source; 1 bid was solicited by U.S. Army TACOM in Warren, MI, with 1 bid received (W56HZV-08-C-0028).

May 4/10: $24 million for 30 Cougar 4×4 Category I MRAP vehicles including field service support. The contract is a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) for unspecified “coalition forces in support of US forces,” and is subject to adjustment.

The work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete by April 29/11 (M67854-10-C-5133).

April 19/10: $17.25 million for field service representatives to install the TAK-4 independent suspension system kits on Cougar MRAP vehicles in theater.

Work under these 2 $8.6 million each firm-fixed-priced delivery orders, issued under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (M67854-07-D-5031, #0016 and #0017), will be performed at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete by Jan 31/11.

April 2/10: $82.3 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of 755 Cougar independent suspension system (ISS) kits. The ISS kits are being manufactured by Oshkosh Defense in Wisconsin.

Work will be performed at the MRAP Sustainment Facility in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/10. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Force Protection release

March 8/10: Force Protection announces FY 2009 financial results for the year ended Dec 31/09. Net income was $29.5 million/ $0.43 per share (2008: $46.9M/ $0.69 per share), and operating income of $43.3 million (2008: $68.5M). That includes a $19.3 million write-down in Q3 2009, and also cost reduction activities that led to a 17% decrease in general and administrative expenses.

FY 2009 net sales were $977.1 million (all FP), compared to $1.3 billion in 2008 (about $920 million Force Protection + $479.5 million minimal margin pass-through sales to General Dynamics under the Force Dynamics MRAP agreement). The firm’s modernization, spares and sustainment business was a big 2009 contributor, growing by $461.6 million (over 180%). Of the firm’s 2009 shipments, 123 were its heavyweight Buffalo vehicles, a more than 50% increase over 2008. Overall inventories were down to $74.1 million (2008: $88.5M), but accounts receivable rose to $143.5 million (2008: $138.4M).

In a credit crunch environment, the firm’s year end cash and cash equivalents balance was $147.3 million (end 2008: $111.0M), thanks to annual net cash of $49.5 million (2008: $37.0M). Force Protection release.

March 8/10: A $26.2 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #0012) in support of the Cougar ISS program that upgrades vehicles with Oshkosh’s TAK-4 suspension. The contract will extend the work of 216 field service representatives, life support, and vehicle and equipment rental.

Work will be performed at the MRAP Sustainment Facility in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by June 30/10. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. See also July 2009 entries. Force Protection release

Feb 24/10: We be JAMMA. Force protection debuts its Joint All-Terrain Modular Mobility Asset (JAMMA) vehicle at AUSA Winter 2010. The vehicle is described as an armor-ready, four-occupant, hybrid powered (incl. 22Kw continuous exportable), high-performance off-road vehicle that can be transported inside the V-22 Osprey. JAMMA is equipped to handle high speeds, and is touted as a Special Operations suited vehicle whose modular system allows it to be up-armored easily. Force Protection release | Product Page.

Feb 23/10: Force Protection announces an order for 23 British Cougar Mastiff Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) variants, via a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) contract from Marine Corps Systems Command. The undefinitized contract has a value not to exceed $16.1 million.

The work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete before April 2010. Indeed, the first 5 Mastiff contracted vehicles were delivered on Feb 8/10, 20 days after contract award, thanks to long lead funding that was already in place.

Feb 22/10: Force Protection’s Board of Directors appoints Randy Hutcherson as Chief Operating Officer, effective Feb 18/10. He had been serving as Executive Vice President, Programs, Global Sales and Business Development, and will continue to report to Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Michael Moody. Announcement | Executive Profile.

Dec 30/09: Figures obtained by Britain’s Liberal Democrat party indicate that only 134 of Britain’s 271 delivered Mastiffs are considered “fit for purpose” due to maintenance and battle damage, and the new Ridgeback 4×4 vehicles being used for the first time by 11 Light Brigade have just a 60% rate at 73 fit for service of 118 delivered. The first Ridgbacks and Mastiff 2s were deployed in Afghanistan in June 2009. UK’s Times | defense aerospace.

Ocelot unveiled
(click to view full)

Sept 30/09: As vehicle production tails off, Force Protection, Inc. needs to lower its cash burn rate in order to remain viable. Today, the firm formally announces a program to reorganize itself and slash costs, which is expected to save at least $40 million annually and will be complete by the first half of 2010.

Th company will eliminate about 120 net jobs from its current workforce of 1,200 employees and contractors, involving Q3 2009 severance charges of about $2 million. Reductions in manufacturing and engineering will be partially offset by an increase in the Company’s support facility in Kuwait, and growth in support and and supply-chain management related jobs. The company is streamlining its spares logistics functions as a whole, including proposed freight management changes that are expected to yield significant cost savings and improved customer response times. The firm will also be pursuing “significant savings opportunities” in general corporate functions such as finance, consulting, legal and human resources, facilities management, travel, insurance, and other costs. Force Protection release.

Sept 28/09: Force Protection, Inc. announces a $52.8 million modification to US Army TACOM contract W56HZV-08-C-0028, ordering 48 Buffalo Mine Protected Clearance Vehicles (MPCV). This contract modification is subject to finalization, so the end price may change somewhat. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete prior to September 2010.

The Company adds that it continues to expect additional orders under this program, and to make total deliveries of over 100 Buffalos during FY 2010.

Sept 8/09: Force Protection Europe, Limited debuts its 7.5 ton Ocelot light protected patrol vehicle (LPPV) at Britain’s DSEi 2009 exhibition in London. It has 4-wheel steering, giving it a market leading turning circle of 39 feet. It is 17 feet long, 8 feet high and 7 feet wide.

The Ocelot was designed in conjunction with UK automotive engineering firm Ricardo plc, specifically to meet the requirements for Britain’s upcoming LPPV competition. Ocelot is based on a modular design with a core automotive armored spine or “skateboard,” and a composite special-to-role pod. Center of gravity is low, as all the heavy items are contained within the V-shaped skateboard: the Steyr 3.2 litre straight six diesel powerpack, propshaft, 6-speed ZF gearbox, AxelTech differentials, fuel tank and all the suspension gear except a torsion bar which is mounted alongside the hull. The V-shape design results in the running gear not intruding into the crew area, making movement from front to back easier while improving protection levels. Bulkheads between vehicle crew and dismounts, and between them and the vehicle electronic equipment such as radios and jammers, give added protection.

Force Protection claims that its Ocelot exceeds the required LPPV mine protection level and offers protection similar to the 6×6 Mastiff Cougar variant, while still meeting LPPV targets for mobility, payload, size and gross vehicle weight. Current pods include patrol, fire support, or protected logistics vehicle, and the patrol vehicle pod has seating for 2 crew and 4 dismounts. Access is through large rear doors, 2 top hatches, or an oversize commander’s door. The pods can be swapped out in the field as the need requires. Ocelot can reportedly be airlifted in a C-130 Hercules aircraft, or even a CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter. Force Protection release | Ricardo release | Ocelot product page.

Aug 24/09: $8.1 million for firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0010 modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031), for US Marine Corps field service representative support in and around Afghanistan. The contract will run until Dec 31/10.

July 27/09: Force Protection, Inc. announces a $52.8 million modification to contract W56HZV-08-C-0028 from the United States Army TACOM for 48 MRAP-III Buffalo Mine Protected Clearance Vehicles (MPCV). This contract amount is not exact, and will be finalized later. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete before Jan 31/10.

On the same day, as a result of this award and the Army’s continued commitment to the Buffalo program, Force Protection amends and extends its lease for building 3 at its Ladson, SC facility until June 30/14.

July 15/09: A $58.6 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (M67854-07-D-5031, #012). This contract amount is not exact, and will be finalized later. Support for the installation of TAK-4 independent suspension kits will will be performed in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/09.

Force Protection’s release describes this as a supplementary order that will convert another 545 Cougar vehicles, bringing the total number to 1,862.

July 2/09: A $58 million firm-fixed-priced modification to previously awarded delivery order #0012 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031), buying Phase 2 Field Service Representative Support, Equipment, Consumables, Bench Stock, and Training to install TAK-4 Independent Suspension Kits on 1,317 MRAP Cougar Vehicles.

This order brings the announced total for TAK-4 refit-related contracts to $237.5 (158.1 + 21.9 + 58.0) million. Work will be performed at the MRAP Sustainment Facility in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Feb 28/10. See also Force Protection’s release, and subsequent amendment.

July 1/09: Force Protection discusses the results of the US military’s M-ATV competition, which Oshkosh won:

“[M-ATV] did not select the Cheetah Mk. II vehicle submitted by Force Dynamics, LLC, the Company’s joint venture with General Dynamics Land Systems. The Company anticipates a relatively soft level of operating profit in its second quarter due to the timing of vehicle and other product shipments and costs related to the M-ATV competition. However, it expects a stronger second half and full year performance, due to expected life cycle support business combined with planned shipments of the Buffalo and the Wolfhound Tactical Support Vehicle (TSV).”

Michael Moody, Chief Executive Officer of Force Protection, added:

“We are grateful for the consideration given to our M-ATV submission by the customer, though of course we are disappointed to have not been selected. Even so, our business planning and ability to continue to generate growth and value for our shareholders was not dependent upon winning the M-ATV program… We have good near-term prospects, a highly active research and development organization and over $119 million in cash and no debt”

June 16/09: A $21.4 million modification of a firm-fixed-price delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #012), buying Phase 1 field service representative support for the installation of the new TAK-4 independent suspension kits on MRAP Cougar vehicles. See the April 8-9/09 entries.

Work will be performed at the MRAP Sustainment Facility in Kuwait, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/09. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (Sept 30/09).

June 10/09: According to the UK Ministry of Defence, the first batch of Mastiff 2 and Ridgback 4×4 vehicles have reached Afghanistan. A total of 300 are now operational.

Upgrades to the newest vehicles include explosive attenuating seats to reduce back injuries; improved armor; improved axles and suspension to cope with the difficult terrain; better thermal imaging for the drivers; and greater crew capacity. UK MoD | DID Spotlight: “UK Land Forces Order Cougar Family Vehicles.”

May 18/09: Force Protection announces that it has signed a lease in Mina Abdullah, Kuwait, and will soon open a total life cycle support facility that includes warehousing, administrative offices, and depot services. The facility is designed to shorten turnaround time for spare parts, modernization, service and repairs, and training for the Company’s deployed fleet of vehicles throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. The facility will provide maintenance and repair training as well as Operational New Equipment Training (OPNET) for new and upgraded vehicles.

April 9/09: Oshkosh announces a $122 million sub-contract from Force Protection, who is buying its TAK-4® independent suspension system for Cougar retrofits (see April 8/09 entry). The TAK-4 suspension systems are used in the US Marines’ MTVR medium truck fleet to improve their off-road capability, and have also been featured in Oshkosh’s JLTV and M-ATV entries.

April 8/09: A $158.1 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, #0012) to buy independent suspension kits for Force Protection’s Cougar MRAP vehicles. Work will be performed in the field, and in various locations within the United States, and is expected to be complete by Dec 30/10. See also Force Protection’s release, and a June 5/09 USMC article “MRAP modified from the ground up,” which adds that:

“The current MRAP has an issue with the axels bending and springs breaking when it hits harsher terrain… The independent suspension system virtually eliminates those problems…FPI field service representatives remove the old suspension system and prepare the hull surface for placing the independent suspension system… “We align the new suspension, permanently attach the brackets, and finally put the new suspension in their permanently… We only get one shot to align them correctly, so the whole process takes time.”

After FPI finishes with placing the new suspension, Oshkosh takes over and hooks up the brake systems, electrical wires and hoses, and makes sure everything is in working order… The process for conversion takes approximately six to seven days… Oshkosh’s central tire inflation system [which allows deflation for better traction on soft terrain]… is also being installed into the vehicles…”

April 7/09: The UK MoD signs a contract for 97 Wolfhound 6×6 heavy support vehicles, at a cost of about GBP 90 million ($122.6 million equivalent). These Cougar variants will be built by Integrated Survivability Technologies Limited (IST), a new 50/50 joint venture between Force Protection Inc., and their partner NP Aerospace in Coventry. The Wolfhound contract is expected to create 50 new jobs within NP Aerospace and its supplier base. In Force Protection’s words:

“The establishment of IST is intended to provide a single point of contact and design authority for future Force Protection business in the United Kingdom, including new projects, fleet upgrades and logistics support. The Wolfhound award represents the first direct sale to an overseas government of a Force Protection product. All previous Force Protection product orders for non-United States governments have been awarded through the United States Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.”

See: UK MoD | Force Protection.

April 7/09: Force Protection announces a $1.3 million Hungarian Ministry of Defence order for 3 Cougar vehicles, spare parts and training by June 2009.

Hungary currently fields an ISAF contingent of around 370 troops, and leads a Provincial Reconstruction Team at Pol-i-Khomri, north of Bagram.

April 7/09: A $21.9 million firm-fixed-priced modification to previously awarded delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #0007) to buy parts for the Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) for MRAP Category (CAT) I and II Prescribed Load Lists; CAT I and II Authorized Stockage Lists; CAT I and II Battle Damage Repair Lists; and the MRAP I and II Deprocessing Kit.

Work will be performed in Detroit, MI and is expected to be complete by Oct 30/09. The address appears to indicate work under the Spartan Motors contractor team arrangement.

French Buffalo
(click to view full)

April 4/09: Leased SALIS AN-124 cargo planes deliver 3 French Buffalos to Afghanistan, where they will serve with combat engineer detachments. They were accompanied by 4 SOUVIM (IVMMD Meerkat) vehicles, which serve as advance scouts for counter-mine operations. Once mines are detected, the Buffalo is used to dispose of anything that remains. DGA release [in French].

April 1/09: Force Protection, Inc. and Spartan Motors jointly announce a Contractor Team Arrangement to combine service capabilities and infrastructure for spare parts and field service of Force Protection’s fleet of Cougar vehicles. Each firm will commit key staff, facilities and information systems. Force Protection release.

March 26/09: Force Protection, Inc. (NASDAQ: FRPT) files its 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), within the prescribed period. That includes the audited results for the years ended Dec 31/08 and Dec 31/07, and the re-audited results for the year ended Dec 31/06.

Timely filing of accurate SEC statements has been a serious recent issue for the firm, so this timely filing is an important milestone for the firm. Force Protection release.

Feb 3/09: Spartan Motors, Inc. in Charlotte, MI received a $9.3 million firm-fixed-price, sole-source contract for 151 MRAP-III Buffalo Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle axle retrofit kits. Spartan is also a member of the Force Dynamics partnership that manufactures Cougars, in conjunction with Force Protection and General Dynamics.

Work will be performed at Charlotte, MI with an estimated completion date of May 18/09.The U.S. Army Tank & Automotive Command in Warren, MI manages this contract (W56HZV-09-C-0122).

Feb 3/09: A $17.3 million firm-fixed-priced modification to a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, order #10) for the purchase of 41 Joint Program Office, South West Asia ITC instructors for a 6-month period, and 55 Mobile Red River Army Depot training instructors for a 6 month period. Work will be performed in Operation Iraqi Freedom/ Operation Enduring Freedom’s of responsibilities, and various locations within the United States, and is expected to be completed by June 30/09.

Jan 16/09: A $6.9 million firm-fixed-priced contract for 8 MRAP Category III Buffalo Vehicles and associated items. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and delivery is expected to be complete by Sept 1/09, with sustainment support continuing through January 2012 (M67854-09-C-5000).

Jan 15/09: Force Dynamics, LLC, the Force Protection/ General Dynamics joint venture that has produced Cougar vehicles under the MRAP program, announces that they are submitting Force Protection’s Cheetah in response to the U.S. Army’s MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) solicitation. Force Protection.

Force Protection has refused to include the Cheetah under the original Force Dynamics agreement, which splits manufacturing and revenues on a 50/50 basis. Cheetah’s failure to secure an initial contact as one of the 3 JLTV program finalists apparently created a change of heart. The base vehicle has been ready for a couple of years now, but it needs a base customer to succeed in the global marketplace. M-ATV, which could end up ordering up to 10,000 vehicles, is now the Cheetah’s best chance of justifying its development costs, and becoming a sustainable global offering.

Jan 14/09: A $5.9 million firm- fixed-price modification to previously awarded delivery order #0005 under contract M67854-07-D-5031. the military is buying CDRL A043 PHST – Preservation and Packaging, CDRL A044 PHST – Validation Report, CDRL A045 PHST – Special Packaging Instruction, and 15 additional Field Service Representatives (FSR) – OCONUS to support MRAP Category I Cougar 4×4 vehicles in Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and in the Operation Enduring Freedom area of responsibility, and is expected to be complete by April 1/10.

Dec 23/08: Force Protection is informed by the SEC that, as a result of the October 2008 deregistration of prior auditor Jaspers + Hall, the Company should have its consolidated 2006 financial statements re-audited. The firm’s current auditors, Grant Thornton LLP, will play that role. Source.

Dec 18/08: A $10.4 million firm fixed priced modification to previously awarded under Delivery Order #0007 for armor kits (B-Kits) to be installed on 178 MRAP CAT I vehicles. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and in CENTCOM’s Area of Responsibilities. Work is expected to be complete by June 30/09 (M67854-07-D-5031).

Dec 16/08: Force Protection announces 2 contract awards from Marine Corps Systems Command for 188 Cougar Exterior Ballistic EFP kits. These kits are designed to deal with Explosively Formed penetrator land mines, which form the equivalent of a tank shell and then fire it into the triggering or targeted vehicle. These unfinalized contracts carry a combined dollar value not to exceed $30 million, with delivery scheduled for late 2008 and early 2009.

The Force Armor kits use layered composite materials and metal that are 11 3/4-inch thick, and can be cut to fit any vehicle capable of carrying the weight. It weighs about 102 pounds and costs about $2,000 per square foot. Force Protection | Defense News.

Nov 19/08: New Wolfhound variant. Force Protection’s Wolfhound, a flatbed truck variant of the Cougar 6×6, wins the UK’s Tactical Support Vehicle (Heavy) competition as the preferred bidder. Force Protection proposes to deliver these vehicles in conjunction with their UK integration partner, NP Aerospace; Chairman and CEO Michael Moody adds:

“We completed design work and built two prototypes for Wolfhound, which is based on our highly successful Cougar vehicle, in just 90 days. During this time we also carried out blast tests and mobility trials.”

The Wolfhounds will be used to carry supplies into the most dangerous areas, and will often operate alongside its Mastiff (6×6) and Ridgback (4×4) brethren. The exact number of vehicles and cost remain unfinalized. UK MoD | Force Protection.

Nov 19/08: Force Protection announces a not-to-exceed $15 million modification under contract M67854-06-C-5162 from Marine Corps Systems Command, to deliver 24 more Cougar Mastiff 6x6s to the British Ministry of Defence. The undefinitized contract includes vehicles and spare parts, and the vehicles are scheduled for delivery in 2009.

On Oct 29/08, the UK MoD mentioned that that they would buy another 30 Cougar family 6×6 and 4×4 vehicles, in order to improve their training fleet. This may well be part of that order. Force Protection release.

Nov 17/08: The Canadian Forces, which already uses a handful of Cougar (5) and Buffalo (5) vehicles in Afghanistan, submits a modification under contract M67854-07-C-5039 for 14 Buffalo A2 route-clearance vehicles, and 34 more Cougar vehicles. The undefinitized contract modification carries a dollar value not to exceed $49.4 million, and includes vehicles, spare parts and field support. The vehicles are scheduled for delivery in 2009. Force Protection release.

Nov 14/08: The US government issues a pre-solitication notice for a subsidiary competition called M-ATV, essentially an “MRAP Lite” bridge buy to the JLTV. FBO pre-solicitation #W56HZV-09-R-0115. Force Protection’s Cheetah is likely to be a prime contender for the buy(s), which could reach up to 10,000 vehicles.

The requirement for land mine and EFP protection, in a vehicle that’s lighter and more mobile than MRAP, may prove very challenging for anyone to meet with an off the shelf product. A subsequent Defense News article places M-ATV’s top weight at 12.5 tons empty, however, which is only slightly lighter than some existing MRAPs. That could put the 7-10 ton Cheetah at a disadvantage.

The RFP is expected by early December 2008. A draft issued on Nov 25/08 states that M-ATV would receive the same DX top-priority production rating employed by the original MRAP program, adding that the first vehicles are expected to be fielded in the fall of 2009.

Nov 13/08: Force Protection, Inc. announces 2 orders for its MRAP Category III Buffalo mine-clearance vehicles, worth $34.1 million.

The first is an not-to-exceed $15.5 million unfinalized order from the United States Army for 16 Buffalo A2 route-clearance vehicles (W56HZV-08-C-0028). It is connected with the requirement for the Ground Standoff Mine Detection System (GSTAMIDS) program of record. The vehicles are to be delivered no later than the end of June 2009.

The firm also received a modification to contract M67854-06-C-5162 from Marine Corps Systems Command for a Foreign Military Sales order of 14 Buffalo vehicles to be delivered to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. The not to exceed $18.6 million contract is also unfinalized with respect to its total amount, and represents the first orders for the Buffalo vehicle from the United Kingdom. The Buffalos will be part of Britain’s GBP 96 million Talisman program, which will also include a set of armored engineer-excavator tractors and other related equipment. Work, including vehicle deliveries and sustainment, is to be complete by October 2009. UK MoD announcement.

Cheetah
(click to view full)

Oct 28/08: Force Protection’s Cheetah has been in development for a couple of years now; the lighter (14,000 pound empty) vehicle has been positioned as a mine-resistant candidate for the US military’s touted JLTV program to replace its Hummers. Force Protection was partnered with Finmecanica’s DRS for the competition.

The US military announces its 3 winners on this day – and the Cheetah is not among them. A BAE/Navistar team, the General Tactical Vehicles partnership of General Dynamics and Hummer maker AM General, and a team led by Lockheed Martin won 27-month development contracts in preparation for the next down-select. Per the Oct 24/08 entry, however, the Cheetah might become a bridge “MRAP-lite” order candidate until JLTV is fielded – currently scheduled for 2013, if indeed that is what happens. US Army release.

Oct 29/08: An $11.8 million firm-fixed-priced modification to previously awarded delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #0007) for MRAP Vehicle EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) cages, increased quantities of prescribed load lists, authorized spares, Battle Damage Assessment repair kits, and deprocessing kits. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and in CENTCOM’s area of responsibility. Work is expected to be complete by Dec 31/09.

Oct 24/08: Defense News reports that more mine-resistant vehicles could be in the order pipeline. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps reportedly plan to rapidly develop and buy a fleet of 7-10 ton vehicles that offer better mine resistance than Hummers, but better off-road mobility than MRAPs. Afghanistan is seen as an especial focus for these vehicles.

Oshkosh’s Sandcat and Force Protection’s Cheetah vehicle are seen as potential candidates for that bridge buy, and Navistar’s MaxxPro Dash must also be placed in this category given recent the MRAP orders for deployment of this lightened variant to Afghanistan. Defense News places potential military demand at 2,000- 5,000 bridge buy vehicles – assuming that future issues with the JLTV program and Army funding don’t lead to the “bridge” becoming the road.

Oct 24/08: Force Protection announces an additional delivery order for 27 Buffalo A2 variant route-clearance vehicles. This unfinalized contract arries a dollar value not to exceed $26.2 million, and is submitted as an urgent operational requirement. These vehicles are to be delivered prior to June 2009 (W56HZV-08-C-0028).

Oct 20/08: The Alamagordo Daily News reports that the new A2 version of the Buffalo CAT-III MRAP mine removal vehicle is currently undergoing testing and evaluation by White Sands Missile Range’s Survivability Vulnerability Assessment Directorate. The vehicle is being evaluated for its ability to survive various electromagnetic environmental effects and threats – which correctly implies testing for nuclear scenarios. Alamagordo Daily News | Reprinted by Force Protection.

Oct 7/08: Force Protection, Inc. announces a letter from the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Hearings Panel, stating that it had determined to continue the listing of the Company’s securities because Force Protection has filed its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, and the Quarterly Reports for the first two quarters of 2008.

Father and Daughter
(click to view full)

Sept 30/08: Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza’s report “Polish Soldiers in Unwanted Vehicles” that Poland has selected Force Protection’s Cougar as a lease from the American military, with the first 30 to begin delivery in October 2008. Robert Rochowicz, a spokesman for Poland’s Ministry of Defence, is quoted as saying that “The Cougars will be delivered by US Army to a location of our choice.”

The move reportedly suspends Poland’s own MRAP buy for about a year, and the selection has caused some controversy in Polish military circles.

Sept 30/08: Force Protection announces that it has filed its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods ended March 31/08 and June 30/08. The Company also filed with the SEC its amended Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q/A, restated for the quarterly periods ended March 31/07, June 30/07, and Sept 30/07. Force Protection adds that it is now up to date with reporting requirements for the SEC and listing requirements for the NASDAQ market.

The firm’s Sept 30/08 release offers more details regarding its recent and past quarterly results.

Sept 24/08: A $41.8 million firm fixed priced modification to delivery order #0003 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of 90-day’s worth of spares per the Prescribed Load List (PLL); labor support and Authorized Stockage List (ASL). Work will be performed in, Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete no later than Oct 29/09. See also Force Protection release.

Sept 22/08: Force Protection announces an extension from the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel to file its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first and second quarters of 2008 on or before Sept 30/08.

Sept 19/08: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $6.8 million firm-fixed-priced modification to previously awarded delivery order #0006 under previously awarded contract M67854-07-D-5031. The modification covers an MRAP Field Service Representative Site Lead and welders outside the United States, and finalizes the cost for Battle Damage Assessment Repair (BDAR) Kits and Deprocessing Kits. Work will be performed in Ladson, S.C., and in Iraq and Afghanistan; his contact period will expire in Dec 31/09.

Sept 15/08: Force Protection files its 2007 10-K financial statement, and explains its financial disclosure plans. From its release:

“…announced results for the full fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 and filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company noted that this filing includes restated condensed consolidated financial statements for the periods ended March 31, 2007, June 30, 2007 and September 30, 2007. Additionally, the Company stated that it intends to file separate amended Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first, second and third quarters of 2007 and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first and second quarters of 2008 on or before September 30, 2008.”

The firm has also requested a NASDAQ listing extension to Sept 30/08.

Sept 4/08: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received $7.2 million for a firm-fixed-priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031 #0013) for the purchase of 5 test vehicles with “engineering change proposal upgrades for enhanced maneuverability and associated non-recurring engineering costs.” That’s the exact language used to describe the Pentagon’s same-day order for 822 Navistar MaxxPro Dash vehicles, a ighter variant optimized for operations in Afghanistan. Force Protection release confirms as much. If Force Protection’s modified vehicles pass testing could conversions of some existing stock, or future American orders, be in store?

Work will be performed in, Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete no later than Jan 31/09. See also Force Protection release.

Sept 2/03: General Dynamics Land Systems announces contracts from Force Protection Inc. that are worth $47 million. GDLS will provide supplies and support for Force Dynamics Cougar vehicles under the MRAP vehicle program. Work under these contracts will be performed in Anniston and Oxford, AL; Charlotte, MI; Ladson, SC; Lima, OH; Kings Point, NC; and Sealy, TX.

Aug 28/08: The corporation’s accounting books remain a very serious problem. The firm will now restate its previously reported financial statements for the 3 month period ended March 31/07 and the 3 and 6 month periods ended June 30/07, in addition to restating its previously reported interim financial statements for the 3 and 9 months ended Sept 30/07. Meanwhile, serious accounting weaknesses are proving difficult to clean up. From the company release:

“Management discovered accounting errors during its 2007 interim period and year-end review, including errors associated with recognizing the value of revenue, certain accrued liabilities, inventory and deferred taxes in the proper quarterly periods. The Company discussed the matters related to the restatement with Grant Thornton LLP, the Company’s current independent registered public accounting firm…

The Company intends to file an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or before September 15, 2008. The Company anticipates that its consolidated statement of operations included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 will report net sales of approximately $890 million, representing an increase of over $694 million from net sales of $196 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The increase in net sales was primarily due to contracts awarded under the United States military’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (“MRAP”) vehicle program. Although revenues increased in 2007, the Company expects that 2007 net income will be significantly lower than the $16.6 million of net income that the Company reported for the year ended December 31, 2006.

The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the matters described above on its internal controls over financial reporting and the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures. Management noted it had previously identified and described material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on November 13, 2007. As a result of these previously identified material weaknesses and other deficiencies identified during the review of financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007, management has concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2007. Additionally, management does not believe that the material weaknesses identified as of December 31, 2007 will be remediated by September 30, 2008 and anticipates that material weaknesses will be identified in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first, second and third quarters of 2008.”

Aug 20/08: An $18 million firm fixed priced modification to previously awarded delivery order #0006 under an existing contract (M67854-07-D-5031). The US military is buying MRAP parts, training equipment, training material, tool sets, field service outside the continental United States (OCONUS), continental United States, and administration.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC; Camp Lejeune, NC; Camp Pendleton, CA; Twenty-nine Palms, CA; Gulfport, MS; Port Hueneme, CA; Fort Story, VA; Texarakana, TX, and CENTCOM’s front lines, and work is expected to be complete in December 2009.

Aug 12/08: NASDAQ Letter. Force Protection, Inc. (NASDAQ: FRPT) must announce a notice from the staff of The Nasdaq Stock Market stating that the Company is not in compliance with Nasdaq rules, because it has failed to file its 10-Q form with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30/08, and that Force Protection is subject to having its stock delisted from the Nasdaq. This is not the first letter NASDAQ has sent FRPT on the subject of 10-Q filings.

At the Company’s request, a hearing on the Staff Determination was conducted before the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel. On May 29/08, the Company received a letter from the Nasdaq Hearings Panel granting its request for continued listing on the Nasdaq Stock Market until Sept 15/08, subject to certain conditions:

“These conditions include, without limitation, that on or before September 15, 2008 Force Protection shall file with the SEC its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, the Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 and any required restatements. As a result, the Company’s common stock may remain listed with the Nasdaq Capital Market until September 15, 2008.”

July 18/08: Force Protection, Inc. will produce 5 Buffalo mine-disposal vehicles for the French military, as a $3.5 million modification to contract M67854-07-C-5039. The order is scheduled for completion by November 2008. Since the Buffalo vehicle is not part of the Force Dynamics partnership, work will be performed solely by Force Protection Industries.

July 1/08: A $43 million modification to a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, Delivery Order #0006) for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Integrated Logistic Support sustainment parts, Training Equipment, Training Material, Tool Sets, Outside the Continental United States Instructors and Field Service Representatives.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and within CENTCOM’s area of responsibility, and is expected to be complete in December 2009. See also Force Protection Aug 8/08 release re: its support orders.

June 2008: The US Army names to Cougar 6×6’s Reconnaissance Vehicle System variant as one of the Top 10 military inventions of 2007. The RECCE adds a number of additional features including the Protector/CROWS gun that can be operated from inside the vehicle; ‘Blue Force Tracker‘ that shows identifies enemies and all friendly forces (sometimes found on other vehicles as well); Gyrocams; and a Robot Deployment System that lets the crew deploy and retrieve tracked MTRS robots without having to open the vehicle.

Read “US Army Awards Top 10 Inventions of 2007” to see the other winners.

May 29/08: A $28.5 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, #0003) to purchase welding services and spares under the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) effort. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete in October 2009.

May 29/08: A $15.2 million modification to contract (M67854-07-D-5031) Delivery Order #0006 to purchase field support services under the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) effort. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is expected to be complete in October 2009.

May 23/08: A $6.4 million firm-fixed-priced modification under delivery order #0001 to contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) MRAP instructors. Work will be performed in the combat area of operations until August 2008.

May 5/08: A $17.1 million modification to previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, #0005) for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle integrated logistic support sustainment parts and OCONUS(Outside the CONtinental US) field service representatives. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete in October 2009. The Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA issued the contract.

May 1/08: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC receives a not to exceed $91.55 million contract modification from the UK MoD under previously awarded contract (M67854-06-C-5162), in exchange for 151 vehicles and associated spares. Force Protection notes them as Cougar vehicles; the 4x4s are apparently named “Ridgebacks” in British parlance, and will complement the larger Mastiff vehicles. See also April 8/08 entry.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, with the first vehicle deliveries scheduled to begin in July 2008; work is expected to be complete in July 2009. Funds for this action are provided by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence and do not expire. The Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA handles the order on the American side. Force Protection release | DID coverage of Britain’s Mastiff/Rideback orders.

April 29/08: A $15.3 million modification to delivery order #0003 (See Jan 15/08 entry) under previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract M67854-07-D-5031 for “Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) sustainment parts.” Or, in English, for spares. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete in October 2008.

April 22/08: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $12.6 million firm-fixed-priced modification under a previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031, Delivery Order #0004) for MRAP Vehicle logistics support to include technical data, provisioning data, Outside the Continental United States field service representatives, a 1-year maintenance workshop block and a 1-year forward deployment block of services. Work will be performed in the combat area of operations and in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete by Nov. 2008.

April 8/08: The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notifies Congress of the United Kingdom’s formal request for another 157 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)Category I 4×4 Cougar vehicles, as well as tools and test equipment, maintenance support, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, support equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. This is not a contract, but past British requests have been consistently followed by orders.

The estimated cost is $125 million, and the proposed sale requires the continued support of 7 Field Service Representatives (FSRs), currently providing in theater maintenance support for Britain’s existing Mastiff Cougar 6×6 variants. An additional 8 FSRs will be added under the UK-P-LTR arrangement, and the United Kingdom has requested 1 additional FSR under this proposed sale to support the additional vehicles until July 31/09.

Note that any contract arising from this request will not be part of the Force Dynamics joint venture, which only applies to American MRAP sales. DSCA release [PDF] | Force Protection release.

April 8/08: Force Protection, Inc.’s Executive Vice President for Customer Relations Damon Walsh, and Vice President for Program Management Bill LaFontaine, have received a “Patriot Award” Certificate of Appreciation from the U.S. Department of Defense.

The Patriot Award recognizes employers whose policies and practices are supportive of their employees’ participation in the National Guard and Reserve. All awards originate from nominations by individual Reserve members, and are issued by the DoD’s National Committee of Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. Force Protection release.

Cougar-H 4×4 EOD
(click to view full)

March 24/08: Force Protection announces that NASDAQ has taken initial steps to de-list the company for failing to file its 10-K. Compounding the firm’s difficulties, its auditors resign, on the grounds that the company’s financial controls make it impossible for them to offer an opinion backing the company’s figures.

See “Force Protection: Blast-Resistant Manufacturer Headed for Implosion?” for more.

March 14/08: A $9.8 million delivery order under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for 12 Cougar 4×4 and 6 Cougar 6×6 vehicles. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete November 2008.

This order, coming as it does on the same day as orders for hundreds of vehicles from key competitors, and following on the heels of plant capacity expansion (q.v. Nov 30/07) and a small December 2007 order (q.v. Dec 18/07), is not good news for the firm. Indeed, a Bloomberg report claims that today’s orders were mainly for the U.S. Army, and quotes Force Protection’s vice president for government relations Michael Aldrich as saying that “This is the logical continuation of the course the Army set back in December… From December we stopped ramping up [as the US Army chose to focus on BAE and Navistar]. Force Protection remains in 3rd place overall within the MRAP competition, slipping to 21.8% behind Navistar (36.9%) and BAE Systems (35.7%), but remaining well ahead of partner General Dynamics’ collaboration with South Africa’s BAE OMC on the proven RG-31 (4.4%).

March 14/08: A $7.7 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5006, #007) for the purchase of 11 MRAP Category III (Buffalo) vehicles. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete in September 2008.

The Buffalo is a sole-source contract to Force Protection, and 117 have been ordered to date. Whereas its Cougars are designed to resist land mines, the Buffalo vehicle and its long-armed claw are designed to dig them up and dispose of them.

March 7/08: Force Dynamics, LLC, the joint venture company of Force Protection, Inc. and General Dynamics Land Systems announces that Damon Walsh has been named Chairman, and that Daniel Busher has been unanimously selected as new members of the Board, effective March 3/08. The remaining members remain: Mark Roualet as Vice Chairman; Susan Young as Treasurer; and Richard Hamilton and John Gonias as members at large.

Mr. Walsh is a Level III Certified Acquisition Professional as well as a Certified Professional Contracts Manager with more than 25 years experience in both the operational Army and Acquisition communities, who served as a career officer in a wide variety of U.S. Army staff and command positions before joining Force Protection.

Mr. Busher has more than 20 years of international business experience in the automotive industry, and was an executive of materials for North American Automotive Operations within Alcoa before joining Force Protection. Force Protection release.

March 3/08: Force Protection, Inc. announces that interim CEO Michael Moody will become the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chairman.

News is less good for the firm’s Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer positions; Raymond Pollard, the Company’s COO, departed effective this day, and the firm has determined not to fill the COO role in the near future. CEO Moody will assume immediate responsibility for Mr. Pollard’s direct reports, which include Executive Vice Presidents Damon Walsh, Daniel Busher (both of whom joined the Force Dynamics joint venture’s Board on this day) and Mark Edwards.

CFO Michael Durski departed the Company effective Feb 29/08 to pursue other interests, and the Board appointed Huron Consulting Group, LLC managing director Francis E. Scheuerell, Jr. as the Interim CFO while an external search is undertaken.

March 3/08: This isn’t going to help the firm on Wall Street. Force Protection, Inc. [NASDAQ:FRPT] announces that it will delay the filing of its Annual Report/ Form 10-K with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2007, waiting until an audit of the fiscal year’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended 2007 is complete. The firm will also restate its previously reported interim financial statements for the 3 and 9 month periods ended Sept 30/07, by filing a Form 8-K with the SEC.

“Management discovered significant accounting errors during its year end review, including errors specifically related to the recording of accounts payable related to inventory purchased from a sub-contractor as a result of a contract termination. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the matters described above on its internal control over financial reporting and the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures. Management noted it had previously identified and described material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filing dated November 13, 2007. As a result of these previously identified material weaknesses and other deficiencies identified during the review of financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007, management has concluded internal controls over financial report were not effective as of December 31, 2007. Additionally, management does not believe that the material weaknesses identified as of December 31, 2007 will be remediated by March 31, 2008 and anticipates that material weaknesses will be identified in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2008. Therefore, management expects that internal control over financial reporting is likely to be ineffective as of March 31, 2008.”

Feb 21/08: The UK contracts for 174 Mastiff vehicles (see Oct 8/07 entry) in a not to exceed $115.1 million contract modification under previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract M67854-06-C-5162. This order includes Mastiff 6×6 MRAP vehicles and associated test sets, spares and support services. Work will be performed in Ladson, S.C., and is expected to be complete in July 2009. Orders are placed via US MARSYSCOM. Force Protection release.

Feb 21/08: The Italian Ministry of Defense is buying 10 “MRAP” vehicles and associated support services and parts under a not to exceed $8.4 million modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-C-5039). Work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be completed in June 2009. Orders are formally placed through MARSYSCOM.

Italy has displayed interest in all of Force Protection’s vehicles at various times: the Cougar, the Buffalo mine-clearance vehicle, and even the Cheetah light patrol vehicle. Given Italy’s existing contract for several hundred Iveco MLV blast-resistant light patrol vehicles, however, the Buffalo seemed like the most likely choice. A later Force Protection release revealed that the order is for 4 Buffalo mine-removal vehicles, and 6 Cougar 6×6 vehicles.

Jan 15/08: Force Protection Industries Inc. in Ladson, SC received $74.1 million for firm-fixed-priced delivery orders #0003 and #0005 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of integrated logistic support (ILS) support. The sustainment ILS will consist of authorized stockage list category (CAT) I and CAT II, prescribed load list CAT I and CAT II, deprocessing, and special tools in support of Cougar MRAP vehicles in theater.

Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete by July 2008 (M67854-07-D-5031 / #0003 and #0005). Force Protection release.

Jan 8/08: Force Protection, Inc. announces that CEO Gordon McGilton will retire from the Company effective Jan 31/08. The Company Board of Directors has appointed President Michael Moody, age 61, as the Interim CEO, “while a search is conducted to select a CEO from internal and external candidates.” Corporate release | Statement from Michael Moody.

Jan 2/08: The Force Protection, Inc. and General Dynamics Land Systems joint venture Force Dynamics, LLC announces that they’ve produced 350 MRAP vehicles in December 2007: 343 Cougar 4×4 and 6×6 MRAP Category I/II vehicles, and 7 MRAP Category III Buffalo vehicles (vs. 6 called for in the contract). They also report that Force Dynamics finished 2007 56 vehicles ahead of schedule on all MRAP Category I and II delivery commitments, and 3 vehicles ahead of schedule on its sole-sourced Category III Buffalo contracts. Force Protection release.

Cougar 4×4
(click for full size)

Dec 18/07: A $377.8 million firm fixed priced delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #007) for 178 Cougar 4×4 MRAP CAT-I vehicles and 180 Cougar 6×6 MRAP CAT-II vehicles, which include engineer change proposals to improve the vehicles and Integrated Logistic Support. The sustainment ILS will consist of Authorized Stockage List CAT-I and CAT-II, Prescribed Load Listing CAT-I and CAT-II, Deprocessing, and Basic Issue Items. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete by July 2008. This contract was competitively procured.

The net result of this contract, however, is further competitive slippage, as Force Protection drops to 3rd place in total MRAP orders behind Navistar (37.6%) and BAE Systems (30.1%). To date, the USA has ordered a total of 3,053 Force Protection MRAP CAT-I/II vehicles (1,506 Cougar 4x4s, and 1,547 Cougar 6x6s), or 25.7% of total orders. That probably isn’t what investors wanted to hear, so Force Protection’s release added a pair of interesting tidbits:

“MARCORSYSCOM also advised Force Protection that its Cheetah vehicle proposal is in the competitive range for continued development and testing and will be further evaluated with modifications as part of the ongoing MRAP II competition… We are in the process of finalizing a contract for the Buffalo route clearance vehicles to be part of the Ground Standoff Mine Detection System (GSTAMIDS) program of record.”

That first item might be important, as Force Protection submitted a modified Cougar but did not receive a contract for additional vehicles under the MRAP-II competition, which aims to field vehicles that can survive the more advanced EFP(Explosively Formed Penetrator) land mines in theater. Rivals BAE Systems, and the i3/Ceradyne/Oshkosh team’s Bull vehicle, did. The follow-on question is whether a deployable vehicle like the Cheetah, with an empty weight of only 14,000 pounds vs. the Cougar 4x4s 31,000 pounds, can be fitted to resist the 30 and 50 pound land mines being detonated at Aberdeen – in addition to EFPs, which are more akin to cannon shells being fired into a vehicle.

Dec 14/07: Force Protection CEO Gordon McGlinton feels compelled to issue a press release in order to “address significant misinformation about the Company and to update our shareholders on Force Protection’s financial posture and dispel unfounded rumors amongst the shareholder base, the investment community, and elsewhere”.

Dec 3/07: Production capacity issues have been an ongoing refrain for Force Protection, as it moved from a start-up operation to a large industrial manufacturer over the 2004-2007 period. One response has been to provide more data re: monthly vehicle production records, and a corporate release covers the Force Dynamics joint venture’s November 2007 statistics.

According to Force Protection, the partnerships produced 288 Cougar 4×4 and 6×6 vehicles under the MRAP contract, and is now 68 vehicles ahead of schedule on all MRAP Category I and II delivery commitments for the year. Force Protection alone also produced nine MRAP Category III Buffalo vehicles in November, one more than the 8 deliveries called for in its sole-sourced CAT III contract. The firm is now 2 vehicles ahead of schedule on its sole-sourced Category III Buffalo contracts for the year.

The firm has publicly pledged to reach 400 vehicles per month by February 2008.

Nov 30/07: Force Protection, Inc. opens its new manufacturing facility in Roxboro, NC (q.v. July 12/07 entry). The 430,000 square foot state-of-the-art facility is expected to employ approximately 270 people upon reaching full capacity, and the total cost for the Roxboro facility’s assembly line was approximately $31 million. Force Protection release.

Nov 28/07: Force Protection holds a ceremony commemorating the delivery of its 1,000th vehicle for the MRAP program. The Ladson, South Carolina event features, inter alia, Senator Lindsey Graham, Captain Joe Manna from the Defense Contract Management Agency, and Mr. Paul Mann, MRAP Program Manager representing the U.S. Department of Defense. Source.

Nov 13/07: Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that:

“United States land systems specialist Force Protection is aiming to increase production of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to 1,000 units per month by July 2008 with the ultimate target of producing a total of 12,100 MRAPs by the end of next year. The announcement came after Force Dynamics – the joint venture production partnership of Force Protection and General Dynamics Land Systems – reported on 5 November that it had broken vehicle production records during October.”

Nov 8/07: Force Protection, Inc. announces a contract from the U.S. Army’s Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for an additional 29 Buffalo MRAP CAT III mine-protected vehicles. The approximate total value of the contract is $22.3 million. They add that “Force Protection has delivered more than 140 Buffalo vehicles to date in support of route clearance missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Nov 8/07: Force Protection, Inc. CEO Gordon McGilton testifies before members of the House Armed Services Committee. He says that the Force Dynamics partnership delivered 208 vehicles in October 2007, and plans to expand its maximum production rates to build, together with its partners, approximately 500 vehicles per month by April 2008 and approximately 1,000 vehicles per month by July 2008, for a total of approximately 12,100 MRAP vehicles by the end of 2008. As of Nov 1/07, 734 Cougar MRAP Category I and II vehicles have been delivered. Force Protection release.

Nov 1/07: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $91.8 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles University, new equipment training, integrated logistic support and OCONUS (outside of the continental United States) field service representatives support. Work will be performed at Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete November 2008. The Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA issued the contract.

Force Protection’s release adds that “Pursuant to Force Protection’s agreement with General Dynamics Land Systems, a portion of the work under this contract will be performed by General Dynamics Land Systems pursuant to a subcontract.”

Oct 18/07: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received $376.6 million for firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0006 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for the purchase of 553 Cougar 4×4 MRAP CAT I vehicles, 247 Cougar 6×6 MRAP CAT II vehicles, and vehicle sustainment Integrated Logistic Support. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be completed April 2008. This contract was competitively procured. by the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA.

Per the Force Dynamics partnership, General Dynamics receives 50% of the contract’s value; their Oct 22/07 release cites a value of $189 million, with work being performed at Anniston, AL and Oxford, AL; Charlotte, MI; Ladson, SC; Lima, OH; Kings Point, NC; and Sealy, TX. Force Protection release.

Wall Street analysts are not happy with the company’s loss of dominance in the MRAP competition, and Navistar’s consistently larger order totals. As of this date, Force Protection remains 2nd in the MRAP CAT I/II race with 30.9% of total orders – 1,338 Cougar 4x4s, and 1,367 Cougar 6x6s – behind Navistar (33.8%), but ahead of BAE Systems (26.3%) and General Dynamics (7.1%). MRAP CAT III is a sole-source buy of FP’s Buffalo vehicle, and 77 have been ordered to date.

Oct 15/07: The Pentagon’s DefenseLINK quoted excerpts a speech before the Center for a New American Security, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway talked about MRAPs, and may have shed more light on the picture at the top of our article:

“We had an incident the other day where an MRAP was hit with a 300-pound charge right under the engine. Now, I mention the size of the charge because we were testing them at Aberdeen against 30- and 50-pound charges. But a 300-pound charge went off right under the engine. It blew the engine about 65 meters away from the vehicle, caused a complete reversal of direction on the part of the MRAP, but of the four Marines inside, the regimental commander put one on light duty for seven days and the other three continued with the patrol. So it’s an amazing vehicle in terms of the protection that it gives to our people against these underbody blasts.”

Oct 8/07: UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown announces that Britain will buy another 140 Mastiff vehicles for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MoD intends to finalize the deal for this additional set vehicles “in the next few weeks,” and has set aside GBP 100 million for this purpose. MoD release.

NP Aerospace in Coventry integrates and up-armors delivered Cougars to create the finished Mastiff vehicle. A subsequent December 17/07 notification from the US DSCA submits an official request for up to 170 MRAP CAT-II vehicles, and values the contract at up to $147 million. In other words, more Mastiffs than planned, for less money (GBP 100 million = about $206 million).

Iraqi ILAV w. MCATS
(click to view full)

Oct 8/07: Force Protection, Inc. announces a purchase order from BAE Systems for an additional 45 Iraq Light Armored Vehicles (ILAV): 27 for Iraq under the existing 400 vehicle contract, and 18 for Yemen. The order is worth an estimated $3.5 million, and will be completed by February 2008. The firm also clarifies the ILAV’s current production status:

“The combined enterprise of Force Protection and BAE Systems previously received awards totaling $180 million in 2006 to build 398 4×4 ILAVs, based on the proven design of the Cougar vehicle. In total, the contract authorizes production of up to 1,050 Cougar ILAVs. BAE Systems is prime contractor on the ILAV program, with Force Protection as subcontractor. “

Oct 3/07: The Force Dynamics, LLC partnership announces production figures of “more than 115 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Category I and Category II Cougar vehicles” in September 2007, exceeding delivery objectives and MRAP contract requirements. To date, Force Dynamics is ahead of schedule on its Category I and Category II MRAP competitive contracts for 2007.

Are they ahead of projections made in June 2007 re: production capacity? That question was not answered.

Aug 10/07: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received $69.8 million for delivery order #0005 under previously awarded firm-fixed-priced, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract M67854-07-D-5031. The US military will purchase another 25 Cougar 4×4 MRAP CAT-I vehicles, and 100 more MRAP CAT-II Cougar 6×6 vehicles. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC; Anniston, AL; and Sealy, TX, and work is expected to be complete December 2007. The Marine Corps Systems Command, in Quantico, VA issued the contract.

The Force Protection release adds that the company has placed more than 60 Field Service Representatives (FSRs) in the field to assist the armed forces in training and vehicle maintenance in Iraq and Afghanistan.

July 12/07: Force Protection is expanding its own production capacity, via a new 430,000 square foot facility in Roxboro, NC. It will produce Cougar vehicles – and also FP’s new, lighter Cheetah. Meanwhile, General Dynamics is ramping up its own capacity within the Force Dynamics partnership via a new 80,000 square foot plant in Oxford, AL; and expansion of its workforce at Anniston, AL by 50 employees. See full DID coverage.

July 5/07: General Dynamics announces a $111 million contract for MRAP work associated with the $221.7 million order noted below on June 19/07. They will produce 235 of the 455 Cougar vehicles. Fabrication and assembly will be performed in Anniston and Oxford, AL; Charlotte, MI; Ladson, SC; Lima, OH; Kings Point, NC; and Sealy, TX.

June 29/07: General Dynamics announces the delivery of the first MRAP Cougar vehicles from its new production lines in Alabama, as part of the Force Dynamics partnership.

Two General Dynamics assembly operations are being created in Alabama. The 80,000-square foot main General Dynamics assembly site for MRAP vehicles will eventually employ 220 new workers in Oxford, AL, while a supporting production site at Anniston Army Depot, AL will employ 50 new workers, in addition to the 240 building Fox and Stryker combat vehicles and the Abrams tank gunner’s primary sight. General Dynamics also contracted with BR Williams to operate a warehouse in Oxford, AL to support the new production operations. GDLS says that the Alabama sites will build more than 350 of Force Protection’s Category I 4×4 and Category II 6×6 Cougar vehicles by January 2008.

June 20/07: Force Protection issues their release re: the recent 455 vehicle order. It included this statement:

“We are delighted to receive this most recent order,” said Force Protection COO Raymond Pollard. “It permits us in concert with General Dynamics Land Systems and other partnered contractors to continue to increase the rate at which MRAP vehicles are being delivered to our government customer. We, of course, anticipate more orders to sustain that rate, which is currently scheduled to exceed 400 vehicles per month by February 2008.”

June 19/07: A $221.7 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0004 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5031) for additional 395 Cougar 4×4 Category I MRUV patrol vehicles, and 60 Cougar 6×6 Category II JERRV squad vehicles under Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contracts for MRAP vehicles. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and by various subcontractors.

This order brings their total awards under the MRAP program to 1,780: 760 CAT I vehicles and 1,020 CAT II, to make up 48% of the vehicles ordered so far from the 9 (now 7) competitors.

Buffalo. Soldier.
(click to view full)

May 31/07: The US military orders 14 Buffalo MRAP Category III vehicles for $12 million. Unlike the other MRAP categories, there is only one type of CAT-III vehicle. Full DID coverage.

May 4/07: An $8.8 million contact award from Canadian Expeditionary Force Command (CEFCOM) to produce 5 Buffalo mine-clearance vehicles and 5 Cougars. Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA will administer the contract under a foreign military sales agreement (FMS). The sustainment will consist of 90-days worth of spares, forward deployment and maintenance workshop service blocks, field service representatives, and operator and maintenance training (M67854-07-D-5039).

There have been rumors that the Canadian order was smaller than originally intended, due to USMC delivery priority. Nevertheless, it was solicited as a sole source procurement under the terms of an “International Agreement” as cited under FAR 6.302-4. See full DID coverage: “Canada Bringing Buffalos, Cougars to Afghanistan”

April 24/07: Small business qualifier Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $481.4 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order (#0003) under previously-awarded contract #M67854-07-D-5031 for additional Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) vehicles. The order covers 1,000 of the firm’s Cougar vehicles: 300 of the 31,000 pound curb weight 4x4s in MRAP Category 1 (MRAP-MRUV), and 700 of the 38,000 pound curb weight 6-wheeled Cougars in MRAP Category 2 (MRAP-JERRV). See full DID coverage.

March 14/07: Britain Orders 22 More Mastiff Cougar Variants, bringing the total to 108 vehicles and about $70.1 million. Force Protection release.

Feb 14/07: The US military orders 125 Cougar vehicles for shipment to the front and support in theater, as advance orders under the new MRAP (Mine-Resistant, Ambush Protected) contract. The contract includes 60 Cougar 4x4s (MRAP Category 1) and 65 Cougar 6x6s (MRAP Category 2), and amounts to $67.4 million. There are still 9 vendors competing in the 2 MRAP vehicle categories, and testing of the contenders is still underway. Total MRAP program orders could hit 4,100 vehicles and $2 billion.

March 8/07: Armor Holdings, Inc. announces a $40.7 million contract from Force Protection Industries, Inc. to produce Cougar armored vehicles for delivery to the U.S. Marine Corps. The contract includes production of vehicles and technical support, and falls under their agreement with Force Protection to manufacture and assemble Cougar vehicles in support of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle program (see Nov 20/06 entry). Work will be performed in 2007 by the Armor Holdings Aerospace & Defense Group at its facilities located in Sealy, TX.

Armor Holdings and Force Protection are continuing discussions for follow-on Cougar production should Force Protection receive additional U.S. Marine Corps MRAP orders. Armor Holdings release.

Jan 11/07: Force Protection Industries Inc. in Ladson, SC received an estimated $9.4 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for 15 Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV, aka. Cougar) with associated manuals, deployment kits, and training. Vehicles will be deployed to and supported in Iraq. Work will be preformed in Iraq, and is expected to be complete April 2008. “This contract is a sole source award based on an urgent and compelling need for the government.” The Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA issued the contract (M67854-07-D-5015).

Jan 4/07: ManTech International Corporation announces a $159 million contract over 16 months from the US Army Communications Electronics Life Cycle Command, to support mine-clearing and other systems for the U.S. Army in numerous locations within Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. ManTech will provide services as ordered under the task including deployed sustainment management; deployed logistics and repairs management; unique system training and curriculum support; and resource management and acquisition. “ManTech will also support unique and specialized systems including the mine-clearing, Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Rapid Response Vehicle” (JERRV, aka. Cougar). Services will be provided in Southwest Asia – including Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait, for the Program Management Assured Mobility Systems and the U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Command. See DID coverage.

Nov 20/06: Force Protection signs a production agreement with Armor Holdings, Inc.’s Aerospace & Defense Group. Force Protection will be the prime contractor under the agreement, with Armor Holdings as principal subcontractor, using its Sealy, Texas based capacity and core expertise in the automotive integration and assembly of the vehicle.

Mastiff, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Nov 16/06: Force Protection delivers the first round of Cougar Mastiff Patrol Protected vehicles (Mastiff PPV) to the British Ministry of Defence 3 weeks early. See release.

Nov 11/06: Force Protection signs a production agreement with General Dynamics Land Systems. Force Protection will be prime contractor under the agreement, with General Dynamics as subcontractor, using available production capacity at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, OH to perform structure fabrication of the Cougar.

Nov 9/06: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $125 million letter contract for 100 Joint EOD Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV) and 44 Buffalo vehicles with associated manuals, deployment kits, field representative support and training. Vehicles will be deployed to and supported in Iraq, but work will be performed in Ladson, SC and is expected to be complete by November 2007; support will continue up to a year after fielding. This is a sole source award to Force Protection Industries, Inc., based on an urgent and compelling need for the Government by the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA (M67854-07D-5006).

This contract contains options, which if exercised, would bring the totals to 200 JERRV vehicles and 82 Buffalo vehicles, and the estimated contract value to $200 million. It is considered to be the first award made under the new MRAP(Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected) program. DID article.

Oct 16/06: USMC Orders for Gyrocam Products Continue to Rise. As DID’s article notes, these stabilized, triple-sensor gyrocams are often mounted on Cougars to assist in early detection of IEDs. This follow-on order brings Gyrocam Camera Systems’ orders for this product to about $95 million.

Cougar-H & EOD Team
(click to view full)

Sept 29/06: Force Protection, Inc. announces an extension of its agreement with Denel PTY of South Africa subsidiary Mechem. The deal extends the term of their relationship for an additional five years effective September 13, 2006. Mechem specializes in the supply of landmine detection, de-mining, and unexploded ordnance disposal equipment and services, and they will continue to work exclusively with Force Protection on all projects relating to the exploitation of their technology. See release.

Aug 11/06: UK Land Forces Order 86 ‘Mastiff PPV’ Cougar Vehicles for $62.9 million. The full contract was announced in Britain on July 25 and included 2 other vehicle types, but this is the date DefenseINK released an announcement with specific numbers and dollar amounts for the Cougar (US) portion. DID’s article also adds more background concerning Force Protection’s efforts & plans to increase production capacity.

May 31/06: BAE Delivering a Cougar Variant for Iraq’s $445.4M ILAV Contract. The contract could go as high as 1,050 Cougar vehicles if all options are exercised, and BAE will also be enagaged in production work.

May 31/06: GyroCam Systems LLC in Sarasota, FL received a $43.4 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum ordering quantity of 67 of their 360-degree camera systems plus associated manuals, installation, deployment blocks, field support, and training. Manufacturing will be performed in Sarasota, FL, with installation on the Cougar JERRV ehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Work on the GyroCam contract is expected to be complete by May 2007. This contract is a limited competitive commercial contract award to GyroCam Systems LLC by the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA (M67854-06-D-5034).

May 2/06: Force Protection Industries, Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $50.9 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum ordering quantity of 79 Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV) and associated manuals, spares, field support, and training. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC (60%) and Charlotte, MI (40%), and work is expected to be complete by May 2007. This contract is a sole source award to Force Protection Industries, Inc. by the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA (M67854-06-D-5042). As DID noteds in our article, this contract is in addition to the 27 Cougars purchased by the Marines for use in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 122-vehicle all-services order DID covered in May 2005.

May 18/05: Force Protection Industries Inc. in Ladson, SC received a $16.5 million firm-fixed-price delivery order under previously awarded contract M67854-05-D-5091. The delivery order is for 17 Cougar Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV), associated manuals, and spares. A maximum of 122 vehicles can be ordered off of the contract, and this contract brings the delivery order total to 88. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC (60%) and Charlotte, MI (40%), and is expected to be complete by May 2006 [DID note: it completed in June 2006]. This contract is a sole source award to Force Protection Industries Inc. by the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA. DID covered it.

Cougar HE in Iraq

May 16/05: Force Protection Industries Inc. in Ladson, SC received a sole-source $45.7 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum ordering quantity of 122 Cougar Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV) and associated manuals, spares and field support. The initial delivery order is for 71 out of the 122 vehicles available on the contract. Work on this contract will be performed in Ladson, SC (60%) and Charlotte, MI (40%), and is expected to be complete by May 2006. This contract is a sole source award to Force Protection Industries Inc., as they are the sole manufacturer. The Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA issued the contract (M67854-05-D-5091).

While the Cougar has been deployed with the Marines since the fall of 2004 when the Corps purchased 27 Cougars for use in Iraq and Afghanistan, the May 16th order marked the first time that the other services will receive the armored vehicle. Under the contract, funded by the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Task Force, Force Protection Industries will manufacture the vehicles and provide program management and logistics support. The Marine Corps are the lead procurement agency to buy the 122 Cougars, which are to be distributed among the US Marine Corps (38 vehicles), Army, Navy and Air Force. The first vehicles are expected to reach the field by early fall 2005.

Footnotes

fn1. MNF-W is the western region of Iraq, encompassing the western elements of the Sunni Triangle (esp. Ramadi) and the neighboring Al-Anbar region. The region is current a focal point for operations in Iraq, owing to a multi-tribal revolt against Al-Qaeda and an energetic, organized pursuit of vendettas against them that has significantly altered the balance of power in that critical Sunni region. It remains an extremely violent and dangerous place, of course, in part because of that revolt.

Appendix A: Ramping Up Production

Cougar assembly
(click to view full)

Force Protection has come a long way from its origins as Sonic Jet Performance, Inc., a boat maker who purchased Technical Solutions – and the accompanying rights to produce the South-African designed Cougar and Buffalo vehicles – from Garth Barrett in 2002. Initial interest was low, however, and the company has had issues with late delivery as it struggled to fill the initial orders it was given. At the beginning of 2004, Force Protection firm had just 12 employees.

At the same time, however, they were the only off-the-shelf, American-built, mine-resistant vehicle on the market – and the bottom line was, their product worked (see DefenseTech for an especially hilarious example). That positioning gave Force Protection the cushion it needed to ramp up production and grow the company from 2005-2007, as limited orders from the US military were supplemented by contracts for the British and Iraqis.

As of July 2006, more than 200 Buffalo and Cougar vehicles were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan without a fatality, despite more than 1,000 mine detonations and IED attacks. Force Protection, Inc. also hired its 500th employee in July 2006, and a July 17, 20006 release noted that they are engaged in efforts to triple their internal manufacturing capacity. A second and third Cougar production line is being put in place following $41 million of equity financing, and production of its Buffalo variant is also slated to double.

Buffalo: IED test
(click to view full)

An August 10, 2006 release reveals that the firm delivered 11 of the 12 Cougar Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV) requested, and both of the Cougar-derived Buffalo Mine Protected Route Clearance (MPCV) vehicles (aka. “The Claw”) to the U.S. government in July 2006. This compares to 19 Cougar and 3 Buffalo vehicles in June 2006, completing its May 2005 contract with the US Marine Corps for 122 vehicles one month after the expected end date.

Force Protection’s July 17/06 release said they will even make use of other companies’ capacity to fill present and future orders – and readers who peruse our coverage of Iraq’s 378-vehicle ILAV contract will note the addition of production at BAE Land Systems (York, PA and Anniston, AL) and fire truck manufacturers Spartan Chassis (Charlotte, MI) to the production network. By October 1, 2006, Force Protection could claim delivery of more than 30 Buffalo, Cougar, and Iraqi ILAV vehicles to the U.S. government.

The firm has stated that with the new measures in place, it believes that it can continue to expand production throughout the rest of 2006. Of course, its November 11, 2006 Force Dynamics co-production agreement with General Dynamics Land Systems (see below) also helps.

Then came the MRAP program. In November 2006, the MRAP program was slated to buy around 1,000 vehicles. But the US Congress was waking up to the fact that solutions offering far better protection than up-armored Hummers were available. Pressure steadily built on the US military, augmented by requests from the field. By January 2007, MRAP was a 4,100 vehicle program. By April, it was a 7,774 vehicle program that had added the USAF and Special Operations Command as customers.

That surge has meant competition from larger firms, as well as smaller entities like Garth Barrett’s new Protected Vehicles, Inc. For Force Protection, it has also meant continued expansion, including a new 430,000 square foot facility in North Carolina and additional production capacity from General Dynamics plants in Oxford, AL and Anniston, AL. Firms like Spartan Chassis in Michigan and Armor Holdings (now BAE) are also part of the Cougar’s production chain, and there are rumors that Textron may be added. With the MRAP program in full swing, Force Protection now says that it plans to have production capacity for up to 400 Cougar vehicles per month by February 2008.

As of September 2007, production per month has risen to 115 vehicles.

Appendix B: Additional Readings and Sources:

• Navistar moved to #1 in the MRAP competition with the MaxxPro, developed with Israeli firm Plasan Sasa.
• BAE’s MRAP orders, covering RG-33 family and Caiman orders, made them #2.
• Force Protection – Front Line Testimonials
• UK Forces Afghanistan Blog (April 13/11) – British-Australian co-operation helps deliver extra armour to Afghanistan. With the RAF fully engaged, an extra C-17 came in very handy, in order to get the Wolfhound into theater.
• Des Moines Register (March 24/11) – Brawny ‘buffalo’ helps Iowa Guard to hunt buried bombs
• UK MoD (June 17/08) – Cougar begins its transformation into the Ridgback
• Seeking Alpha (March 18/08) – What’s Behind Force Protection’s Significant Share Price Drop? An analyst llooks at how he got his predictions wrong.
• MarketWatch (Dec 19/07) – Force Protection loses ground to rivals. “MRAP orders were historically based on who could produce the number the DoD wanted, but greater concern was later based upon commonality with other existing vehicles in the fleet,” said Patrick McCarthy, an analyst for Friedman, Billings, Ramsey.”
• USA Today (Aug 2/07) – As explosives in Iraq get deadlier, makers of armored vehicles alter plans. Good history of Force Protection, and side-by-side comparison of the Cougar 4×4 with the M114 HMMWV. N.B. While FP has produced the most mine-resistant vehicles for US forces, at the time of publication they were in second place for MRAP program orders; the USA Today chart blurs this distinction.
• USMC (June 18/07) – MNF-W eyes MRAP. MNF-W stands for Multi-National Forces West in Iraq, covering the Sunni Triangle areas around Ramadi and Fallujah, and extending west into Al-Anbar province where Al-Qaeda’s heavy-handed actions resulted in an ongoing tribal revolt against them.
• USMC Commandant James T. Conway (March 1/07) – Memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff re: MRAP [PDF format]. Includes information re: a requested policy change that would use only MRAP class vehicles “outside the wire” (i.e. off-base) in MNF-W, barring special commander’s waivers.
• 10Q Detective (Aug 26/06) – Force Protection–Explosive Turnaround Story. In 2001, Force Protection looked like it might go out of business. Much has changed. An interesting business/stock analysis of Force Protection, Inc., with details the rest of DID’s coverage does not include. DID adds that we don’t do stock recommendations, that this is one source of information among many whose reliability you must evaluate entirely on your own, and that if you buy stocks that’s 100% your decision and your risk.
• US Marine Corps (April 8/06) – Cougar Roars Through Iraq
• US Marine Corps (Feb 2/06) – Cougar on Prowl for IEDs
• Force Protection Industries – Cougar family. Includes one of the best defense site tag lines we’ve ever seen, anywhere: “Drop your purse, it’s not a Hummer.”
• DoD report and Corporate News Release.
• GlobalSecurity.org – Cougar HEV [Hardened Engineer Vehicle]
• DID (March 23/06) – $191.9M more to AM General for M1151 & M1152 Humvee Jeeps (updated). Explains why the Cougar is important by illustrating the problems with the Hummer, and looking at how key design differences affect battlefield survivability.
• DID (Feb 10/06) – $18.6M for More Buffalo Mine Clearance Vehicles. If you think the Cougars are impressive… meet ‘The Claw’
• DID (June 29/05) – NY Times on Procurement Issues for Armored Vehicles to Iraq (Updated). A surprisingly good article from the NY Times, with solid background regarding the Cougar system’s difficult procurement start in the Pentagon bureaucracy and subsequent turnaround die to events in Iraq.
• Military.com (Sept 15/04) – New Cougar HEV to hit Corps soon

FOCUS Article search tag: cougarfocus

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.

February 22/17: The Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1 by Science Applications International Corporation and BAE Systems for the USMC has been unveiled for the first time. Developed to replace an aging fleet of amphibious assault vehicles, the Marines will receive a total of 16 vehicles with deliveries to commence in March. The earlier stages of the ACV 1.1 production effort were stalled by a contract protest by General Dynamics after the company was defeated in the Marine Corps’ bidding process.

July 27/15: The Marine Corps is reportedly scheduled to downselect two designs for its Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program in late 2015, with five designs currently on offer. The requirement calls for a 8×8 armored vehicle capable of transiting over open water as well as operate ashore. The five designs have been undergoing testing, with the USMC planning to progress the two downselected bids through a development phase.

May 25/15: BAE Systems has submitted a bid for the USMC’s Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) competition, with the company teaming with Italian firm Iveco Defence to develop the ACV 1.1 design.

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.

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.

SAIC video

March 18/16: The USMC is to receive upgrades to their Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) as their replacement, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), will not be operational until the 2020s. 392 AAV7A1s are to receive an extensive survivability upgrade in a $194 million contract. The USMC has found that AAVs have been vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IED) and other weapons when operating in Iraq and elsewhere. Improvements to be made include flat-sided buoyant ceramic armor panels, new shock-mitigation seats, replacing benches in older AAVs, and a new transmission, increasing the vehicle’s top speed.

May 9/14: USMC Systems Command in Quantico, VA issues a pair of $27.8 million firm-fixed-price contracts to design and develop AAV7 protection improvements for the USMC’s existing APCs. Work is expected to be complete in February 2015, at which point the USMC will pick a design. The winner will receive an implementation contract option, raising the total value they receive to somewhere between $163.5 million and $206 million, and extending their individual contract until September 2019.

This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 4 offers received. The 2 development contract winners were:

BAE Systems Land & Armaments, Santa Clara, CA. Work will be performed in York, PA (65%); Santa Clara, CA (30%); Aiken, SC (4%); and Sterling Heights, MI (1%). Contract M67854-14-C-0001.

Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) in McLean, VA. Work will be performed in Charleston, SC (24%); Ontario, Canada (20%); Langley, British Columbia, Canada (15%); Lansing Charter Township, MI (7%); Oceanside, CA (7%); Sterling Heights, MI (5%); Columbus, Indiana (4%); McLean, VA (3%); Plymouth Township, MI (2%); Benton, AR (2%); Detroit, MI (2%); Minneapolis, MN (2%); Chandler, AZ (2%); San Diego, CA (1%); Baltimore, MD (1%); and various other locations less the 1% (3%). Contract M67854-14-C-0002.

Development contracts

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.

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.

FY 2013 – 2017

F-35A & F-22A,
Eglin AFB
(click to view full)

March 7/17: Rheinmetall has been contracted by the USAF to supply several ten thousand round lots of their new 25mm x 137 Frangible Armour Piercing (FAP) round for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Valued at $6.5 million, the contract will see the company manufacture the rounds in four lots at Rheinmetall Switzerland and delivery will commence in December, 2017. Rheinmetall is marketing the ammunition as only not just for air-to-air superiority fights, but capable of destroying Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) at extreme slant ranges as well.

March 2/17: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $1 billion contract from the Pentagon to provide various support services for the F-35 aircraft. The deal covers ground maintenance, action request resolution, depot activation, supply chain management and other activities for F-35s operated by the USAF, Navy, USMC, and other foreign military sales (FMS) customers. Work will be carried out at the company’s plants in Forth Worth, Texas; Orlando, Florida; and other various locations, with a completion date set for December 2017. Lockheed also won a $427 million contract to continue production of the Hellfire II missile for the US Army. Work on the contract will continue until September 2020.

February 20/17: The US Navy is to test a potential fix for an issue regarding the F-35C’s nose wheel in order to see if the jet still suffers from excessive vertical oscillations during a catapult launch. Testing will begin tomorrow, Tuesday February 21, at the service’s land-base test facility at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. However, if the early fixes don’t work, the Navy will be required to do more extensive fixes to the nose gear and the helmet display, or even redesign the entire nose gear for the F-35C (which could take years and further delay the program).

February 15/17: An Israeli Defense Ministry report has revealed that Israeli manufacturers have earned about $1.03 billion since 2010 from projects related to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Last year saw a total of $258 million in contracts, mostly for fighter helmets, representing a 33% increase in procurement over previous years. Big winners in 2016 were Elbit Systems and its US partner Rockwell Collins, which are jointly manufacturing the state-of-the-art helmet for the F-35.

February 14/17: South Korean military officials have said the latest missile tested by North Korea was a new type of solid-fuel intermediate-range missile, the Pukguksong-2, using submarine-launched ballistic missile technology, not the older Musudan-class earlier reported. Pyongyang utilized a “cold eject” launch system, where the missile is initially propelled by compressed gas before its rocket engine ignites. In response, The US, Japan and South Korea requested urgent UN Security Council consultations on the test, with potential for further sanctions to be discussed. China said that they opposed North Korean missile tests that run contrary to UN resolutions, however they rejected suggestions from Washington and others that they could be doing more to rein in its neighbor.

February 6/17: The US Navy has successfully tested the Spike missile launcher, destroying a UAV target. Not to be confused with the Rafael version, the project aims at providing the sailing branch with an increased capability to defeat the growing threat of UAVs. The Spike launcher is first queued to the target via radar so that the operator can acquire the UAV and engage it. Another modification to the system involves the addition of a proximity fuze to the body, provided by the Army.

February 3/17: Negotiations between the Japanese government, Pentagon, and Lockheed Martin have secured a $100 million reduction in Tokyo’s bill for its participation in the F-35 JSF program. While the news comes shortly after Lockheed Martin slashed $600 million from the next round of F-35 production, defense analysts have downplayed the news of those cuts, saying the discount hailed by Trump was in line with what had been flagged by Lockheed for months and would apply to other countries committed to the program. According to Reuters, four sources confirmed that Japan had further trimmed the price for its latest order, largely on ground support costs such as parts, logistics and technical assistance.

February 1/17: While no contract details have been announced, US President Donald Trump has claimed that the Lot 10 production for 90 F-35s will be $600 million cheaper, thanks to his pressure. The comments come after weeks of hand wrangling with lead contractor Lockheed Martin over pricing. Trump had criticized the fifth-gen fighter during his election campaign, but during his recent comments called the F-35 a “great plane” that’s “now in good shape.” Despite the detente, Trump added that Boeing will still be asked to compete for orders against the F-35 saying “they [Boeing] will be competing during the process for the rest of the planes because there are thousands of more airplanes coming.”

January 26/17: Lockheed Martin has announced that it is close to signing a deal with the F-35 Joint Program Office on the next batch of the Joint Strike Fighter. The announcement was made by CEO Marilyn Hewson to investors on Tuesday, where the company also disclosed that it beat revenue estimates for fourth-quarter 2016/17. Hewson added that the defense giant plans to “drive affordability” in 2017, a reference to ongoing discussions between President Trump and the defense industry to get a “better deal” on government contracts.

January 20/17: Speaking of costs, the price of the F-35 looks set to take a tumble, as the US DoD and Lockheed Martin come close to an agreement on a new contract for the Joint Strike Fighter. While talks on the warplane’s tenth batch are still ongoing, sources close to discussions say the fighter will drop below its current $100 million per-plane price tag for the first time. Believed to be in the range of $9 billion, an official announcement on the 90-plane deal is expected to come at the end of the month.

January 19/17: A 62-page report by the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester has released sort of good news in relation to the F-35: that there has been progress toward fixing a safety issue with the aircraft’s ejection seat. The Martin-Baker manufactured US16E seat and escape system was found to pose a significant risk of neck damage or death during ejection of pilots in the lowest weight range, resulting in pilots weighing under 136 lb being barred from flying the aircraft. But a three-part solution posed by the company to protect a lightweight pilot’s head and neck during ejection is currently being tested with light-weight pilots. This includes a lighter helmet to ease strain on the neck during the first phase of an ejection, a lightweight switch on the seat to delay deployment of the main parachute, and a fabric panel sewn between the parachute risers that will protect the pilot’s head from moving backward during the parachute opening, called a “head support panel” or HSP.

January 17/17: Costs associated with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program could drop, according to Lockheed Martin’s CEO Marillyn Hewson. Hewson met with US President-elect Donald Trump for a second meeting last week, later telling reporters that her company is “close to a deal” to bring down the cost of the F-35 program. In addition to the fighter’s costs, Hewson committed the firm to increasing jobs at their Fort Worth, Texas, facility by 1,800.

January 9/17: Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James has dismissed an idea posed by the upcoming Trump administration to supplant the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with greater procurements of the F/A-18 Super Hornet. President-elect Donald Trump called the two fighters “comparable” in a tweet following a pow wow with Lockheed Martin and Boeing in December as part of an early effort to get a better deal for government defense spending. However James called the jets not interchangeable and that both fighters had been developed to fulfil different requirements. She added that any attempt by the Trump team to implement such a plan would be met with resistance from the Air Force.

January 3/17: Lockheed Martin has been contracted $450 million to perform additional Lot 10 F-35 Lightning II Air System integration work for South Korea. The deal will include non-recurring engineering work. Seoul plans to procure 40 of the next-generation aircraft, and expects deliveries to begin in 2018 and conclude in 2021.

December 21/16: The Pentagon’s man in charge of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program has responded to recent criticisms from Donald Trump. Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan stated on Monday that if he had an opportunity to speak with the Trump transition team, he would tell them that the program is now under control after years of delays. Bogdan also added that he understood the incoming administration’s desire to get better value for money saying “I applaud the new administration for that, because that is what we should all be striving for.”

December 15/16: Communication data links on all three variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have been tested by the USAF. The pilots focused on the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), a direct communications link that allows operators to transmit secure tactical information, and is beneficial for interoperability between the F-35 and the 4th generation planes it is meant to replace, such as F-16s and F/A-18s. MADL also allows for F-35s to share information on air and ground threats in order to more effectively target and engage them.

December 14/16: Israel has received their first two F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, making them the only Middle Eastern country to own a fifth-generation fighter. Greeting the arrival were Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the President of Israel Reuven (Ruvi) Rivlin, the Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and US Defense Secretary Ash Carter, currently on his last world tour as part of the Obama Administration. The USAF provided a KC-135 tanker to refuel the new planes.

December 13/16: Lockheed Martin is the latest defense firm to receive criticism from Donald Trump, after the US President-elect lashed out at the costs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Taking to his usual medium to the masses, Twitter, Trump stated “the F-35 program and cost is out of control,” and “Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.” Shares at Lockheed dropped 4 percent after Trump’s tweet, while shares of several other defense contractors also weakened. Trump also suggested that he was considering imposing a lifetime ban on US military procurement officials going to work for defense contractors, a move that could dramatically reshape the defense industry.

December 7/16: The Pentagon’s chief arms buyer, Frank Kendell, is hopeful that a three-year block buy of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will go ahead. Covering some 400 F-35 units for both the US military branches and partner nations, the agreement is expected to generate large savings through bigger economies of scale between the fiscal years 2018 through 2020. Negotiations with lead contractor Lockheed Martin, however, have been slow as seen in the year-long negotiations of the fighter’s ninth batch, while the government’s chief weapons tester, Michael Gilmore, has long argued about the need to test the planes before buying and building larger quantities.

November 29/16: 17 more F-35As will be making their way to Israel, bringing the total ordered by the government to 50. Speaking on the new order, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the decision by the cabinet on November 27 was unanimous. The additional fighter order comes just two weeks before the first two F-35As destined for Israel fly from the US.

November 23/16: The F-35B has reached another program milestone following the completion of weapons load testing during trials on board the USS America assault ship. During the trials, pilots intentionally conducted flight tests under unfavorable conditions to gauge the fighter’s limitations; international partners also participated. The tests were part of F-35 program lead contractor Lockheed Martin’s third developmental test phase for the fighter, which aimed to assess the aircraft’s combat capabilities in a maritime environment. In comparison to its A counterpart, the F-35B is designed to include a short takeoff and vertical landing capability to allow for operation on naval vessels.

Repairs on the last of 13 F-35A fighters affected by faulty insulation issues have been completed. In September, 57 aircraft suffered the coolant line glitch, 15 of which were already fielded, while the others were still in production. Both the company and the USAF maintain that the faulty parts were the result of a supply chain issue rather than a design flaw.

November 18/16: The Turkish Defence Minister Fikri Isik stated that the first two of a batch of 24 more Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft will be delivered in 2018. 24 of the Joint Strike Fighter will be ordered over the next three years, of which six, including the two expected in 2018, had already been ordered. Ankara has committed to procuring a total of 115 F-35s.

November 17/16: F/A-18 Hornet fighters operated by the Spanish Air Force will be replaced by a “system of systems” by 2030 external link. Known as the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), the prgram will see about 50 legacy Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 Eurofighter Typhoons upgraded to network with a fifth-generation aircraft; a new fifth-generation aircraft (type and numbers to be decided); and an unmanned combat aerial vehicle (type and numbers to be decided). While the fifth-generation aircraft will likely be the F-35, Spanish Navy plans to retire their AV-8B Harrier II will result in a joint procurement between the two branches.

November 14/16: Talks are being carried out between Lockheed Martin and President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team over a number of programs including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Trump had made disparaging comments about the F-35 last year on a conservative talk show, calling into question the fighter’s cost-benefit when compared to the capabilities of existing aircraft. Speaking on the talks, LM’s executive vice president for aeronautics Orlando Carvalho said, “We believe that in working with his transition team all the right information will get communicated and they’ll make the right decisions.”

November 10/16: A fire that erupted in the weapons bay of a USMC F-35B in late October is being investigated. The Naval Safety Center revealed that two systems were at fault, the Honeywell-made integrated power package (IPP) and a hydraulics system. Sensors onboard the aircraft detected the fire and failures of the IPP and a hydraulics system while the aircraft was flying in the airport’s landing pattern. While the fire is being classed as a Class A mishap, an IPP fire in 2011 on board an F-35A grounded the F-35 test fleet.

November 9/16: Britain has been selected as a global repair hub providing maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade services for F-35 fighter avionic and aircraft components. The move is expected to generate hundreds of millions of pounds for the UK defense industry with the potential to unlock more than 2 billion pounds of future F-35 support revenue over the lifetime of the program. Centered in Wales, the work will be conducted by a partnership enterprise between Defence Electronics & Components Agency (DECA), BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman, supported by key F-35 Original Equipment Manufacturers.

November 4/16: After much wrangling, Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon have concluded negotiations on the ninth lot of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program with a unilateral agreement that will see 57 jets produced for $6.1 billion. At $107 million per plane, this is the lowest price per plane thus far. The deal will give profit margin certainty to Lockheed and its partners who have been producing the jet under a placeholder agreement known as an “undefinitized contract action,” something the company would have preferred to not have to deal with. Lockheed said that the latest lot is “not a mutually agreed upon contract, it was a unilateral contract action, which obligates us to perform under standard terms and conditions, and previously agreed-to items.” Lot ten negotiations, for 94 aircraft, are still underway.

November 3/16: A number of F-35Bs will conduct developmental and operational testing aboard the USS America amphibious assault ship. Two of the Short Takeoff & Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant will be used in third phase development testing, evaluating the jet’s short take-off vertical landing operations in a high-sea state, shipboard landings, and night operations. Another five will undergo operational testing which involves the simulation of extensive maintenance on a ship. The USS America is the first ship of its class that incorporates design elements specifically to accommodate the new Joint Strike Fighter.

November 2/16: After rumors they would do so, Turkey has officially requested a second batch of F-35s under the Joint Strike Fighter program. A meeting of the Defense Industry Executive Committee (SSIK), Turkey’s procurement authority, brought top political and military officials together on Friday to make the decision. Officials are also hoping to build a new-generation, dual-fighter jet fleet by their country’s centennial, 2023, comprised of the F-35 and an indigenous aircraft, known as TFX, that Ankara has been designing.

October 31/16: US officials close to Turkey’s F-35 fighter procurement claim Ankara is considering a second batch of fighters, possibly as many as 24 aircraft. Turkey’s Undersecretariat for Defense Industries said they expected the new orders to be delivered in 2021 and 2022 and aims to eventually purchase a total of 100. A Lockheed representative said the company is “honored” by Turkey’s continued commitment to the F-35 program which was further demonstrated by the decision by the DIEC on Friday.

October 28/16: Negotiations over low-rate initial production (LRIP) lots 9 and 10 of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter look close to conclusion following the completion of supplier discussions between Northrop Grumman and lead contractor Lockheed Martin. The talks indicate that Lockheed may soon wrap-up its 15-month talks with the Joint Program Office (JPO). But both the JPO and Lockheed have said that negotiations were still ongoing and gave no comment as to when they would come to an end.

October 27/16: Issues with insulation found inside F-35 fuel tanks has resulted in slower 3rd quarter deliveries of the next-generation fighter, according to manufacturer Lockheed Martin. The comments were made during the release of the company’s third quarter profits, where the shortfall in deliveries was described as “light” this quarter. Fifteen F-35As belonging to the USAF and Norwegian Air Force were grounded in September due to the issue which also affected 42 models still on the production line. Grounded jets are due to return to the skies next month.

October 21/16: Norwegian F-35s grounded last month for repairs will be back in the air by November, sooner than expected. 15 F-35A Lightning II aircraft had been grounded in September due to peeling and crumbling insulation in avionics cooling lines inside the fuel tanks. The Norwegian Defense Ministry said the insulation is now being removed and extra filters installed to intercept any potential remains, although it has not yet been decided whether this fix should be regarded as temporary or permanent.

October 19/16: Contracts have been awarded to Lockheed Martin for the provision of the ninth batch F-35 Joint Strike Fighter totalling $743 million. The DoD allocation comes as negotiations for Lots 9 & 10 continue. One contract sets not-to-exceed prices for up to $385 million on a range of services for the US military’s F-35 customers, including redesign and development of components with diminishing manufacturing and material services while another $333 million is being allotted to set not-to-exceed prices for one F-35A and one F-35B on behalf of a non-US participant in the program. Another $25.4 million of the award comes from the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme to pay for “country unique requirements.”

October 17/16: A recommendation has been made by Australia’s Senate committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade that its defense department implement a “hedging strategy” against any delay with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program by 2019. While the committee stated that it had received evidence criticizing the F-35 and calls for participation to be scrapped, its members judged the F-35 as “the only aircraft able to meet Australia’s strategic needs for the foreseeable future.” The Australian Strategic Policy Institute told the committee the most sensible hedge would be procuring additional F/A-18F Super Hornets.

October 13/16: Twelve additional F-35A fighters have been requested by the Norwegian government. The proposal, if approved, would raise the total number of authorized F-35A purchases to 40 aircraft allowing Norway to participate in a proposed “block buy” for the F-35’s US and international partners. Unlike a multi-year procurement, a block buy does not lock the US or international partners into firm orders, but it gives Lockheed’s supply chain a long-term view of likely demand.

October 5/16: Singapore remains interested in purchasing the F-35, however it won’t be until a 2030s timeframe. While the country has long been linked to the F-35 program, Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen said his country’s crop of F-15s and F-16s will “last us well into the next one or two decades.” This is backed up by last December’s $914 million award to Lockheed Martin to upgrade Singapore’s 60 plane F-16 fleet, with work occurring through 2023.

September 28/16: The F-35 could be getting new engines by the mid-2020s, with the potential for either an upgraded version of the Pratt & Whitney F135 design currently in use or a new engine from a competitor. Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, head of the Joint Program Office, made the announcement at last week’s Air Force Association conference. The USAF is currently in the early stages of funding their Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) competition, with both P&W and General Electric Aviation securing contracts worth $1.01 billion to research if its possible to “demonstrate 25 percent improved fuel efficiency, 10 percent increased thrust, and significantly improved thermal management.”

September 23/16: A fix has been found for a recently discovered issue on a number of F-35 fighters involving tubing insulation crumbling between the wing tank and fuselage tank. The USAF revealed last week that an unnamed supplier used the wrong coating for the insulation which deteriorated when it met fuel. A total of 15 USAF and Norwegian warplanes along with 42 models on the production line were affected by the issue with manufacturer Lockheed Martin fixed to cover engineering and modifications for all affected aircraft.

September 19/16: 13 USAF and 2 Norwegian F-35As have been grounded due to “peeling and crumbling” insulation on cooling lines inside their fuel tanks. The discoveries were made during routine maintenance checks on the aircraft in order to have the fighter’s status upgraded to initial operational capability. While Lockheed Martin works with several suppliers that are responsible for manufacturing the coolant lines, the issue has been traced back to the insulated coolant tubes manufactured by one particular unnamed provider that have only been installed in the wing fuel tanks of the 15 aircraft in question.

September 16/16: A legal challenge has been launched by Boeing against the Danish Ministry of Defense for selecting the Lockheed Martin F-35A over the F/A-18E/F as the air force’s next generation fighter. Citing a “flawed” evaluation process, Boeing submitted a request for insight to the Ministry of Defence to obtain all materials related to the selection. Denmark’s parliament approved a recommendation by the MoD to buy 27 F-35As in June after the fighter beat out the F/A-18 in the military, strategic, economic and industrial judging categories.

September 14/16: Lockheed Martin has announced that the Aegis weapon system has been successfully live-fire tested on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. During the test, an unmodified Marine Corps F-35B acted as an elevated sensor and detected an over-the-horizon threat. The jet sent data through the aircraft’s Multi-Function Advanced Data Link to a ground station connected to Aegis on the USS Desert Ship, a land-based ship.

August 30/16: The words “weapons tester,” “memo,” and “F-35A” have seldom come with good news; and the latest memo on the F-35A from director of Operational Test and Evaluation is no different. Despite the USAF declaring initial operational capability on the fighter earlier this month, the memo highlights many significant limitations that remain on the aircraft, in particular with the aircraft’s new Block 3i software. However, the Joint Program Office remains confident that the capability gaps will be fixed on the aircraft in time and under the current budget parameters.

August 26/16: Issues with weapons integration on the F-35 have been found and could hinder an operational capabilities declaration, according to the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E) . Challenges include the possibility, when the jet fires its 25mm cannon, that the aircraft could yaw as the gun door opens, reducing accuracy. Testing last December also threw up issues with AIM-9X missiles on the F-35C. Here testers found excess stress on the carrier-variant’s wing structure during landings and certain maneuvers. This could have an impact on the wing structure and might warrant a redesign on that part of the wing.

$313 million is the price that Canada would have to pay if it is to exit from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The calculations were made by the Liberal government, and accounts for the difference of what Ottawa had contributed so far since 2006 and the $551 million it pledged to commit when it enrolled into the program. A Canxit from the program could occur with just 90 days written notice given to other partner nations.

August 25/16: After much waiting, trial and error, the F-35’s Block 3F software upgrade has speeded up testing of the new fighter’s weapons systems. Since it’s completion, Lockheed Martin has completed 30 weapons delivery accuracy tests in one month, compared to just three accomplished with the Block 2 software. These include Boeing’s Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and GPS-guided Small Diameter Bomb, and Raytheon’s AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9X Sidewinder.

August 22/16: Chemical and biological contamination testing is one of the few remaining tasks left to be ticked off on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter before certification for full-rate production. In order to do this, a decontamination system and facility has been constructed at Edwards Air Force Base in California and an F-35A attached to the 461st Flight Test Squadron will be the lucky volunteer. The late August tests will see the fighter (modified to be able to collect test data) contaminated several times and towed into the decontamination facility to see if it can be cleaned of chemical or biological weapons exposure.

August 17/16: The Pentagon has turned on the F-35 tap again, with the DoD approving another $1 billion in funding to go toward reimbursing Lockheed Martin for costs incurred on the ninth batch of aircraft. Last week’s decision offers some relief to the aircraft’s chief contractor who has been paying out of pocket for the fighter’s low-rate initial production (LRIP) lots 9 and 10. Meanwhile, contract negotiations over batch nine of aircraft with the Joint Program Office (JPO) rattles on after initial predictions had it wrapped up earlier this year.

British F-35Bs will be equipped with advanced short range air-to-air missiles (ASRAAM) from MBDA after London orders $238 million worth of the munition. Already in use on RAF’s Panavia Tornado GR4s and Eurofighter Typhoons, integration onto the F-35B is to be awarded in a separate MoD deal. MBDA, a European missile system conglomerate, has also been commissioned to support a Capability Sustainment Programme (CSP) for the development of the new variant of the weapon for the RAF Typhoons in a deal worth $388 million. A Block 4 software upgrade will integrate the CSP ASRAAM on the F-35B.

August 8/16: A survey of 31 F-35A pilots has given their full confidence in the upcoming fifth generation fighter. According to the report, all asked would choose the F-35A over their former fighters if they were to engage in a beyond-visual-range fight. Furthermore, despite its cost, the F-35 was deemed notably more effective and in many cases cheaper than any other four-plus-generation multirole fighter in the world.

August 4/16: It’s been a long time coming, but the F-35A has been cleared for service by the US Air Force’s Air Combat Command (ACC). As a result, the 34th Fighter Squadron of the 388th Fighter Wing has the honor of being the first unit declared operational. This follows the F-35B squadron which was passed for combat back in July 2015.

August 3/16: An F-35A has shot down its first aerial target with AIM-9X missiles off the coast of California. The kill test saw the fighter take down a drone, and test data confirmed the F-35 identified and targeted the drone with its mission systems sensors, passed the target “track” information to the missile, enabled the pilot to verify targeting information using the high off-boresight capability of the helmet mounted display (HMD), and launched the AIM-9X from the aircraft to engage the target. F-35s carry two AIM-9X missiles on their wings.

August 2/16: While it doesn’t seem so at first, an emerging problem for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is that it is almost too stealthy. Pilots flying the aircraft have discovered that they are unable to participate in certain training exercises such as evading surface-to-air threats. The inability on the ground to track the fighters had to be rectified by crews flipping on their transponders in order to be followed.

July 28/16: Plans are in motion for Israel to examine the contracting out of its F-35 fleet maintenance to domestic firms. Despite Lockheed Martin establishing a European regional maintenance facility at Cameri airbase in Italy, Tel Aviv maintains its desire to conduct as much maintenance as possible in house. Likely beneficiaries to such a move is Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) due to its experience in maintaining and upgrading existing IAF fleets.

July 25/16: Never mind the coup, it’s the F-35! Despite the recent attempt at political overthrow by certain cadres of Turkey’s military, Lockheed Martin is forging ahead with its planned production of the first two F-35As for Turkey. Assembly of the aircraft is expected to commence within the next six to twelve months and delivery scheduled for 2018. But could further political instability in an already volatile region put the deal into doubt, only time will tell.

July 22/16: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $241 million US Navy contract modification for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Under the deal, Lockheed will provide replacement electronic components for the aircraft with work to be completed by December 2018. The contract combines purchases for the USAF, USMC, Navy, foreign military sales customers and international partners.

July 11/16: Following the USAF’s desire to seek an alternative ejector seat for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Lockheed Martin has said it has not been approached for discussion over alternatives. Company officials said that they would be willing to assess any alternatives such as the favored ACES 5 seat if the government deemed necessary, although potential costs or integration issues were not mentioned. Last year, the Air Force found that pilots weighing less than 136 pounds were at risk of severe neck injury when ejected from the chosen F-35 using the selected Martin-Baker seat.

July 7/16: Martin-Baker, the supplier of the ejector seat to be used in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has refuted the suggestion that their design will not be sufficient to ensure pilot safety. On June 24, it was reported that the USAF was looking to certify rival United Technologies’ ACES 5 design as an alternative. The F-35 Joint Program Office has stood behind Martin-Baker in sticking with its selection, however this is in part due to the potential cost overruns it could cause to an already notoriously expensive program.

June 30/16: BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and the Defence Electronics and Components Agency (DECA) are to team up to bid for a significant long-term deal to become the avionics sustainment hub for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in Europe. The UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the involvement of BAE and Northrop Grumman, but declined to say anything about whether DECA, the British state-owned components repair operation, would have a role; however, due to US government insistence, some avionics repairs on the jet here are only undertaken by UK government employees.

June 29/16: The USAF has released an infographic revealing that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter scored an 8:0 kill ratio against the F-15E during mock air combat. Using combat-coded F-35As from Hill Air Force Base, the simulations were part of the evaluation process needed in order to declare the jet to be initially operationally capable. The seven fighters used also demonstrated their ability to carry out basic close air support and limited SEAD/DEAD missions with crews attaining a 100% sortie generation rate with 88 of 88 planned sorties and a 94% hit rate with 15 of 16 GBU-12 bombs on target.

June 28/16: The USAF has F-35 supply chain, impacting the workshare strategy that forms the backbone for the international fleet of the Lockheed Martin-designed fighter. Reasoning for inquiring about such a switch comes as the service looks to the ACES 5 as a potential risk mitigation step if additional things happen as we go through the testing of the Martin-Baker seat.

The US Navy is to conduct live-fire testing this September utlizing an F-35 to provide sensor data in order for an SM-6 anti-air missile to destroy its target. The demonstration comes as the service attempts to expand its Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) architecture with more sensors and weapons in order to tweak the system from a primarily anti-air sole to a secondary anti-surface capability.

June 21/16: Four Israeli pilots are to travel to the US next month to undergo F-35 training at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. The training will be ground-based and the men will only fly the real aircraft back in Israel. It is expected that 12 pilots will have completed their training by the middle of 2017.

June 13/16: The ongoing debacle over Canada’s exit from the F-35 program may see Lockheed Martin shift contracts associated with the fighter away from Canadian contractors. Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s election promise to not order the next generation fighter, and government plans to purchase F/A-18 Super Hornets as an interim solution, has resulted in Ottawa not placing any orders for the fighter despite being an original partner nation in the project. With the F-35 supply chain contracts tied to the number of aircraft purchased by partner nations, Canadian companies may see work shifted to other partner nations who have seemingly been pestering Lockheed to do so. To date, Canadian firms account for about $1 billion of the project’s development and production work.

June 10/16: Canada’s new fighter jet selection has started to cause a bit of a ruckus in parliament with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau slamming the F-35 as a fighter “that doesn’t work.” In response to the Liberal government’s plan to purchase F/A-18 Super Hornets as an interim fighter, Conservative Party leader Rona Ambrose accused Trudeau of selecting a fighter jet without the proper knowledge of what the Royal Canadian Air Force needs. By purchasing Super Hornets on an interim basis, Trudeau would keep his election promise of renewing the CF-18 replacement competition but also perhaps kicking the can on any new fighter competition well into the late 2020s.

Denmark has officially selected the F-35 as its replacement for its F-16 fleet. The official announcement follows early indications that Copenhagen would purchase the fighter following a government recommendation in May for 27 F-35A models at a cost of $3 billion. Earlier, competitors such as Boeing had hoped that they could offer their F/A-18 Super Hornets by calling into question the F-35’s questionable cost estimates, but these efforts did nothing to curry favor with the Danes.

May 26/16: It may have been coming for some time, but the Pentagon has finally admitted that the F-35 will not be cleared for full rate production until 2018. Frank Kendell, the program’s chief weapons tester, had been warning of delays for some time; however, it had been maintained by some that the jet’s initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) would occur as planned in August or September 2017. Now that reality has hit home, the extra six months will be spent retrofitting the 23 aircraft required for IOT&E with the full 3F software and hardware patches.

May 25/16: The first two Dutch F-35As have successfully landed in the Netherlands, marking the Joint Strike Fighter’s first eastbound transatlantic journey. Dubbed AN-01 and AN-02, the fighters were welcomed by a crowd of 2,000 including Minister of Defence Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert. The aircraft will now spend the next few weeks conducting noise and environmental tests over the country, designed to determine the levels of noise disturbance the residents experience. The jets will perform flights over the North Sea range and then appear and fly at the Netherlands’ Open Days in June.

May 16/16: Testing of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter‘s tailhook has commenced at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The JSF Integrated Test Force has been undertaking the tests, with stress tests being conducted on aircraft AF-04 at speeds up to 180 knots. On Air Force planes, tailhooks are only used to help the jet stop when landing distance is insufficient or if the jet has a brake malfunction or directional control issue. They are designed as a one-time use device, whereas Navy tailhooks like on the F-35C can deploy, retract and stow.

May 13/16: Denmark looks set to sign up for F-35 procurement with an order expected for at least 27 aircraft. The selection by the country’s minority Liberal government follows intense public debate about the cost of modernizing the country’s air force, but it can still be blocked by parliament, where opposition politicians are urging budget restraint. Alternatives offered to the government came from Boeing with their older F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

May 9/16: The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has announced that it has solved the next generation fighter’s glitch-prone combination of software and hardware called Block 3i. The patch may now clear the way for the USAF’s first Lightning II combat squadron to declare initial operational capability (IOC) between August and December of this year. Glitches in the Block 3i software have been causing problems since flight testing commenced in May 2014, with the most recent issue affecting the radar on F-35s with pilots having to turn the radar off and on again mid-flight.

May 4/16: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $1.2 billion contract for the production of 13 F-35 Lightning II aircraft. Delivery of the fighters will see six F-35Bs sent to the USMC, three F-35As for the USAF and four F-35Cs for the US Navy. Work on the fighters is expected to be completed by December 2019.

April 28/16: Israel’s eagerness to customize its orders of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters has already seen its first app created for the next generation jet. Utilizing the open-architecture software design found in the Lockheed Martin designed fighter, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has developed its own command, control, communications, and computing (C4) system which will be equipped on the aircraft in December. The software is an upgrade of an existing C4 system the Israeli air force flies on its F-15 and F-16 fighters.

April 27/16: Recent software glitches found in the APG-81 radar for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have not caused any problems for F-35Bs operated by the USMC. The comments were made by Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis as he appeared in front of the US Senate Armed Services seapower committee. Davis said that the glitches, which caused the fighter’s radars to reset mid-flight, only occurred on code found in the 3I software update which the Marine Corps never uploaded onto their jets, instead keeping with the older 2B version.

April 22/16: It doesn’t look likely that the F-35 will be sold to any Gulf nation within the next decade, allowing Israel regional exclusivity to the fifth-generation jet fighter. The widely held, but not often articulated belief by many Israeli officials, is that Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members will not have access to the fighter until Israel has fully integrated the F-35 into its arsenal. This belief has been given further weight after US Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work indicated such a move was unlikely, saying that “right now, we do not have any expectation for selling the F-35 in the near term, beyond the countries that have already bought into the program.”

April 14/16: A deal has been reached between the Pentagon and engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney to provide the ninth low rate production of F135 engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The $1.4 billion deal covers 66 engines, as well as spares, extra parts, and support. Part of the order will include engines for five of the F-35 partners, including Italy, Norway, Israel, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

March 31/16: The Pentagon’s joint program office (JPO) is expecting a slimmed down Gen-3 helmet by November for rollout in 2017. The announcement makes the Rockwell Collins design’s introduction sooner than initially expected. Earlier versions of the helmet were revised due to a potential for causing neck injury. Problems with the F-35’s ejector system had resulted in potential injuries for lightweight pilots, however fixes have been made including a switch on the Martin Baker US16E (MK16) ejection seat that delays the parachute’s opening “by milliseconds” when occupied by a lightweight pilot, plus a head support panel sewn between the parachute risers. However, a weight reduction for the third-generation helmet from 2.3kg (5.1lb) to 2.1kg (4.6lb) has also been required.

March 29/16: Despite the delays, spiraling costs, and cynics, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has gone on a global publicity tour to win over hearts and minds for the fifth-generation stealth aircraft. Two planes due for the Netherlands are expected in June, so that they “can tell their story.” This is followed by American and UK planes performing at UK’s Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough Airshow in July. The program has been questioned by several nations, including Australia where their Senate is leading an inquiry into the planned acquisition of up to 72 conventional A-models. The inquiry will report its findings on 29 June.

March 28/16: F-35s are going to be in the sky longer than expected with their service life now extended to 2070. After military branches made tweaks to the number of flight hours their fleets should log before retirement, it was announced that the program may be extended for an additional six years. Between all military branches operating the aircraft, a total of 1.6 million flight hours have been added, which will boost the operating and support (O&S) costs by $45 billion over the 2015 estimate (hiding the 2-4% drop in real 0&S costs over the life of the program).

March 25/16: Software troubles on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program may cause a key milestone for initial operational capability (IOC) to be delayed by up to four months, although that is an improvement over the Joint Program Offices’s projection a year ago. The schedule delay is primarily due to software “stability” issues, seen in both Blocks 3i and 3F, with Block 3F capabilities estimated not be ready for IOT&E until 2018 at the earliest.

March 25/16: Despite potential delays to the F-35 IOC, the Pentagon has dropped the estimated price of its acquisition of 2,457 fighters by $12.1 billion. The drop marks a 3% decrease on the expected costs declared a year ago. This could potentially dissuade the program’s nay-sayers who have often derided the program’s soaring costs, potentially persuading Denmark and Canada who are currently on the fence, to perhaps continue with their participation in the Joint Strike Fighter Program.

March 22/16: Delaying investment into a 6th generation fighter has been recommended by Lockheed Martin, who is instead favoring a “robust” modernization program to keep fifth-generation F-22s and F-35s capable against new counter-air threats. The comments were made by the company’s Skunk Works chief Rob Weiss, who claims such a modernization will achieve the air dominance that America desires for the next 30 to 40 years. Lockheed currently holds dominance in the fifth generation market, and looks to push block upgrades of existing aircraft as the USAF and Navy assess their fighter requirements over the oncoming decades. Meanwhile, competitors Boeing and Northrop Grumman would like to break back into the high-end combat jet market after losing the winner takes all Joint Strike Fighter competition.

March 16/16: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will test the new Generation III Helmet-Mounted Display System this month, as it aims to counter problems with the jet’s ongoing ejection seat issues. Since August, a ban has been placed on lightweight pilots from flying the aircraft, as the current helmet may cause neck injury during low-speed ejections. The later version of the helmet is 8 ounces lighter than its predecessor, and is one of several options being worked on to counter potential injuries. The other options involve modifications to the ejector seat, and are scheduled to enter the production line this November.

March 9/16: Bugs in the F-35A 3i software are forcing pilots to restart the AESA radars while in flight. The glitch represents one of the greatest threats to the USAF’s initial operational capability (IOC), expected sometime between 1 August and 31 December. The root cause of the problem has been identified by lead contractor Lockheed Martin, now in the process of running the software solution through lab tests. The patch is expected to be delivered to the USAF by the end of March.

March 8/16: Canada’s participation in the F-35 program continues to be shrouded in confusion. The government plans to pay an installment of $32.9 million in May to continue its involvement in procuring the Joint Strike Fighter. This runs contrary to promises made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to abandon the project during the run-up to the federal election in October. Trudeau had pledged that a cheaper alternative could be found as a replacement to the country’s aging CF-18 fighters, however, the F-35 has been allowed to participate in the latest replacement competition. The payment will ensure Canada’s place in the program until September 30, 2016, when a more concrete decision on the CF-18 competition may have been made.

March 2/16: Combat-coded F-35sdropped their first live munitons in testing last week. Laser-guided bombs were used by the USAF’s 388th and 419th fighter wings at the Utah Test & Training Range. While Air Force F-35s have dropped weapons in test environments, this is the first time it’s been done on jets designed to deploy once the Air Force declares initial operational capability planned for between August and December.

Lockheed Martin received a $769.5 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee, fixed-price-incentive-firm contract to provide recurring logistics sustainment services support for all delivered F-35 jets for the USAF, USMC, Navy, non-Department of Defense participants, and foreign military sales customers. Support provided includes ground maintenance activities, action request resolution, depot activation activities, Automatic Logistics Information System operations and maintenance, reliability, maintainability and health management implementation support, supply chain management and activities to provide and support pilot and maintain initial training.

February 17/16: Israel’s tanker procurement plan, and whether it will acquire more F-35s, will depend on how much assistance it will get from the US Foreign Military Funding package over the next ten years. Sources commenting on ongoing negotiations say that the Pentagon is likely to increase funding by up to $1 billion, which will set funds at $4.1 billion annually. The increase would see Israel commit to selecting the Boeing KC-45A tanker which is currently undergoing advanced testing under its Milestone C demonstration. The increase in funding could also see further purchases of the F-35I, adding to the current order of 33, the first of which are due this year.

The executive vice-president of the aeronautics business at Lockheed Martin, Orlando Carvalho, has indicated the Asia Pacific market may see another 100 orders of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over the coming years. With three regional allies; Japan, South Korea, and Australia so far ordering 154 of the aircraft across its three models, further additions could be added to these fleets, although no mention has been made about potential new customers. With Australia indicating that it may bring up its fleet from 74 to 100 and Japan potentially seeking to build more of their own under license, that number may be possible. Another potential purchase may be from Singapore, who is considering the F-35, although there has been no indication of the size of the order under consideration.

February 12/16: The head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program has played down reductions to the F-35A annual procurement quota to 48. Lt. Gen Christopher Bogden said that this would be upped to 60 units annually from fiscal 2018-2020. When adjusted for increased orders for the F-35B & F-35C procurement, the program will see 36 less F-35 aircraft procured overall between 2017-2021. Bogden has claimed however that the overall price per unit to the program will only increase fractionally by 1%. While warnings have been given that the forces aren’t modernizing quickly enough to counter Russia and China, the deferrals in production may come as a financial positive in the long run. With 20% of development testing yet to go in the program, reducing procurement at this stage will save on costly modernization of models produced in the next two years.

February 10/16: MBDA has started deliveries of a number of Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air missiles (ASRAAM) to the US for integration on the UK’s F-35B fighters. The ASRAAMs will be the first British built missiles to be used on the jet, and will be used during test flights and air launches later this year. The missile can be seen in use on the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoons and Panavia Tornados. The British contribution to the manufacture of the F-35 program stands at about 15% of every fighter, with BAE Systems responsible for the production of the aircraft’s horizontal and vertical tails, aft fuselage, and wing tips. 138 F-35Bs will be bought for use by the RAF and Royal Navy.

February 9/16: The first Italian-made, flown and supported F-35A has become the first in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program to complete a transatlantic crossing. The AL-1 took off from Portugal’s Azores islands and reached Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River in Maryland seven hours later after flying 2,000nm. The fighter was flown by former Panavia Tornado pilot, Maj Gianmarco who has accumulated over 80 hours of flight time in the aircraft since graduating to fly the F-35A type in November. Refueling of the jet also took place supported by an Italian crew manning a KC-767 tanker with Gianmarco noting a 100% success rate on all occasions.

February 8/16: The US Department of Defense will acquire 404 F-35 fighters over the next five years. That number is a decrease of 5-7% on last year’s plan. The order will see $40 billion in revenue going to manufacturer Lockheed Martin and engine maker Pratt & Whitney. The deviation from last year’s plan comes as the Pentagon is shifting orders away from models ordered for the Air Force instead giving preference to the Navy & Marine Corps models. The coming years will see a total of 2,457 F-35s spread around all three military branches.

February 5/16: USAF orders of the F-35A jet will drop from forty-eight to forty-three in Fiscal Year 2017. However, the budget will include increased money to purchase ten additional F-35C models for the Navy and three F-35B models for the Marines over what had been planned. It’s unclear whether the total number of total aircraft to be procured under the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program will decrease overall. The move has not been too surprising as analysts and government officials have hinted that changes to JSF procurement could change. The cutting of the F-35As in 2017 is expected to free up millions in savings over the next several years.

February 3/16: A recent report from the Pentagon’s top weapons tester has raised serious questions over the F-35 program’s “unrealistic test schedule”. Michael Gilmore’s annual F-35 report released on Monday follows a recently leaked memo from December 2015 that highlighted issues over the jet’s software development. The report flags these testing issues as potentially delaying the operational evaluation by up to a year, with flight testing not likely to be completed until at least January 2018. It had been initially hoped that testing would be completed by August 2017, after program re-baselining in 2012. As a result of these delays, Gilmore also warned against current block buying of the fighter with 250 planned to be locked-in before the (Initial Operational Test and Evaluation) IOT&E. At present, 150 fully operational jets have been delivered by Lockheed and will all require extensive modification to the Block 3F standard once development concludes.

Ahead of the Pentagon’s February 9 official budget release, Defense Secretary Ash Carter mapped out his spending priorities on Tuesday. Among the plans include a $13 billion plan in funding for a new submarine to carry nuclear ballistic missiles over the next five years. This would be broken down into $4 billion towards research and development of new submarines, with $9 billion spent on procurement funding. The Navy may also see twelve more Super Hornet’s procured to make up for shortages caused by delays to Lockheed’s F-35 program, and longer-than-expected repair times for current Boeing F/A-18 jets. The budget also outlines a total 322 F-35s across its A, B and C models but following the recommendations in Michael Gilmore’s most recent report, this could be more wishful thinking than the eventual reality.

January 27/16: Despite recent successful testing of missiles on the F-35, a DoD weapons expert has expressed concerns over the fighter’s software development. A recently reported December memo from Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation, expresses worry that plans to finish work on the F-35’s Block 3F software by July 2017 are unrealistic. Rushing the testing schedule for the software could result in a failure for the crucial IOC testing before the decison is made to put the jet into full production. The Joint Program Office, however, has dismissed the concerns, maintaining that the program is on track and that IOC dates for the Navy and Army will be met.

January 25/16: Falling oil prices and a weakening currency may effect Norway’s participation in the F-35 program. The increase in economic worries has seen Norway look to re-evaluate its defense spending commitments as the Krone falls against the US dollar, making the already expensive F-35 acquisition seem even more pricey. Alternatives to covering the costs of the fifty-two plane commitment may see the order reduced, or spending cut from elsewhere. The slash in other areas would force Norway to rethink its military strategy, and perhaps rely much more heavily on NATO.

January 20/16: The F-35 program will face one of its first live test challenges when a combat-coded F-35A will release an inert, laser-guided bomb at the Utah Test and Training Range between February and March. The releasing of the GBU-12 Paveway II will be the first one conducted outside of development or operational testing, and will mark a milestone in the development of a program plagued by delays, redesigns and spiraling costs. The full compliment of weapons will not arrive until late 2017. Until then, the Air Force will first operate with basic laser and GPS-guided weapons, as well as beyond-visual-range AIM-120 air-to-air missiles. It will also have advanced targeting, surveillance and radar-jamming equipment.

January 19/16: Engine makers Pratt & Whitney will make engines for the F-35 program. Details of the agreement have yet to be finalized, but two contracts will be issued to produce 167 engines to power Lockheed Martin’s latest jet within the next month. Further details of the deals have yet to be realized, but sources close to the deal revealed that the production of the engines alongside engineering support, spare parts and program management, would be worth more than $3 billion to Pratt, a unit of United Technologies Corporation. The USAF said that the latest contracts will help drive down costs of the program which makes it affordable for customers.

January 18/16: All variants of the F-35 fighter jet are to get design overhauls since the discovery that the fuel tanks could over-pressurize in certain flight profiles; 154 F-35s have been delivered to date. Lockheed Martin has already received contracts to implement fixes on F-35A and F-35B, and are currently putting together a proposal for engineering works on the F-35C. Fuel tank ruptures have potentially devastating consequences, especially for fast moving aircraft such as the F-35s, with the potential to cost millions of dollars worth of damage.

January 14/16: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $28 million concurrency modification contract to correct a fuel tank overpressure issue for the F-35A fighter. The award will see them provide services for air vehicle retrofit modifications associated with the F-35A fuel tank overpressure engineering change. Work will be carried out for the Air Force, and the governments of Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, and Norway. The modification in design is not expected to effect the IOC of the aircraft.

January 12/16: The USAF will not be lifting weight restrictions on F-35 pilots until at least 2018. The push back comes as ejector seat manufacturer Martin-Baker needs more time to conduct additional testing on the ejector seat safety features in the fighters. The program has been experiencing problems with this specific aspect of the plane’s development since the summer of 2015, but this has just been one of many issues to have dogged the program amid increased delays and spiraling costs. The Pentagon hopes to make the aircraft’s European debut at the Farnborough Air Show in the UK this summer after engine issues forced it to be omitted from last year’s show. No doubt foreign partners in the program will be following with interest.

A delegation from Israel’s defense ministry has visited a Lockheed Martin production facility in Forth Worth, Texas as the frames of their first F-35I’s enter their advanced production phase. Israeli procurement of the F-35 fighter, dubbed the AS-1, differs slightly from the standard model of F-35A to be exported to other nations involved in the program. Unique features include the integration of Israel’s own electronic warfare systems into the aircraft’s built-in electronic suite, as well as the ability to use indigenously produced guided and air-to-air missiles. Israel has ordered thirty-three F-35I fighters at a cost of $3.6 billion.

December 23/15: Canada’s recent exit of the F-35 fighter program may not be as cut and dried as promised on the campaign trail by the Liberal Party government. During a recent interview, defense minister Harjit Sajjan sidestepped answering questions on whether the Lockheed Martin F-35 jet would be excluded from a competition to replace the CF-18 fleet. The government hopes to replace the aging CF-18 flight before they become obsolete. Recent promises by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to back out of the F-35 development program and find a replacement that was more cost effective has resulted in a new selection process. However, it was unclear whether the F-35 could come under consideration again. Canada has yet to set the terms for the replacement competition, but Lockheed may just have a second chance in 2016.

Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $1.17 billion advance acquisition contract for the F-35 fighter. The contract includes the advance procurement of long lead time materials, parts, components and effort to maintain the planned production schedule for F-35 low rate initial production lot 11 aircraft. It will see the production of 80 of the F-35A variant, seven of the F-35B variant and four F-35C aircraft that are destined for the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps as well as sales to foreign allies.

December 18/15: It looks like a very merry Christmas for Lockheed Martin and Boeing, as they came out as the major winners in the announced $1.15 trillion spending bill announced on Wednesday. Funding will see eleven more F-35 Lightning IIs than requested by President Obama in February. The F-35 program will see $1.33 billion additional procurement money as production of the fighters will be ramped up. The F/A-18 production line will also be extended, with seven more EA-18G Growlers and five F/A-18E/F Super Hornets planned.

December 15/15: Israel may potentially increase their orders of F-35 fighters as it holds the option to purchase 17 more, enough for two squadrons. They have already purchased 33 of the F-35A variant which allows for conventional take off capabilities, while the F-35B allows for operations in more austere bases and a range of air-capable ships near frontline combat zones. It can also take off and land conventionally from longer runways on major bases. The Defense Ministry hopes that the addition will increase Israel’s offensive capabilities and qualitative edge amid regional threats.

Singapore is apparently in no rush to order some F-35s after Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen visited the Luke Air Force Base, Arizona on December 13. The minister was there for a demonstration of the fighters capabilities, and to see the Singapore Air Force’s (SAF) F-15s compete in training exercises. While speaking highly of the progress of the F-35’s development, he failed to commit to any future purchase of the aircraft for the SAF. Hen’s comments come at a time when several countries linked to the program are either renewing commitment to the F-35 program (Norway), or hesitating over costs and performance (Australia, Canada). Perhaps Minister Hen just wants to be wooed a little more.

December 14/15: The USS America has been the first west coast Navy vessel to receive upgrades to support F-35 operations. The modifications saw key areas of the flight deck have a thermal spray applied to key landing areas which will allow the ship to fully support the new fighter. The thermal coatings will allow the USS America to handle the new F-35’s thrust; reducing heat sent to decks below, allowing for longer time between deck maintenance. It is expected that other members of the America-class ships will undergo the application, to allow for facilitating the jets as part of the US Navy’s plans to increase air capabilities of fleets.

Norway is to order six more F-35 fighters after the government approved a new defense budget worth $5.6 billion. The approval sees an increase of 9% in defense spending. The move comes as a reiteration of Norway’s commitment to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, and will see the number of jets authorized for purchase increase to 28. Delivery of the jets is expected to take place in 2020.

December 7/15: Denmark has further postponed its selection of a new fighter to replace the F-16 until 2016. After it was initially reported that they would select the F-35 this month, funding issues around the acquisition have caused the new government to put further consideration into the commitment. After contributing an estimated $291 million into the project, issues surrounding technical problems and soaring costs may have the Danes looking elsewhere for their fighter needs. Denmark hasn’t been the only country having a wobble over the F-35. Canada announced last month that it was withdrawing from the Joint Strike Fighter development program, and last week, the Australian Senate voted in favor of an inquiry into their acquisition plans.

Italy has received its first F-35 fighter after it came off the assembly on Thursday. While six other countries have received the planes, Italy is the first to have the final assembly done outside of the US. The unveiling took place at the Cameri Air Base where the final assembly and check out (FACO) line is located. It is owned by the Italian government and operated by Italy’s Alenia Aermacchi and Lockheed Martin. Italy will also have the honor of taking the F-35 on its first ever trans-Atlantic flight in February 2016, when three Italian pilots are set to receive training at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.

Pakistan has announced plans to acquire 5th generation fighters internationally and still continue to develop its own line of JF-17 planes. The move comes as regional rivals have been upgrading military capabilities, with India recently purchasing 126 Rafale fighters from France. According to Pakistan Air Force (PAF) chief Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman, the desired choice for the PAF is the Lockheed Martin F-35, but they are also looking at other options. Pakistan will continue to export the JF-17 to other countries with Egypt the latest country to express interest in the plane.

December 4/15: The Australian Senate will launch an inquiry into its planned acquisition of Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters after a vote on Monday. The Senate foreign affairs, defence and trade committee will investigate how the fighter will integrate with the air force’s needs, its cost and benefits, performance testing and possible alternatives. The Royal Australian Air Force has planned to purchase 72 of the aircraft with the possibility of increasing to 100 fighters. At $11.7 billion, it is the most expensive defence acquisition program to date. Findings in the report will be presented to the Senate in May 2016.

November 30/15: The Australian senate is to vote on whether it to is examine the purchase of F-35 fighters in a deal worth $24 billion ($17.25 billion US). The vote comes in the aftermath of Canada announcing that it is to back out of its own orders last month. The investigation would look into the deal and what would be the best value for money for Australia and its defense requirements. Canada’s withdrawal from the F-35 program has brought about confusion over pricing as it was announced by US Air Force Lieutenant-General Chris Bogdan that costs of each aircraft were likely to increase by $1 million. This was contrary to previous assurances by the Australian Department of Defence that no extra costs would be incurred by Australia. Australia is one of eight nations working in conjunction with the US to develop and purchase the new fighter. The result of the vote will be watched with interest as the program could see a domino effect of cancellations as confidence in the program wanes.

November 23/15: US Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work has suggested that Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter will take part in Canada’s latest jet selection competition. The announcement comes after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that he would not be purchasing the jet as part of Canada’s replacement of older CF-18s. Work’s comments appear contrary to the Canadian administration but seems to be coming across as part of US efforts to rescue Canadian participation in the program.

While rumours continue over the fate of Canada and the F-35 program, Denmark is expected to confirm an order for the aircraft this December. It was reported last year that the order would be for 30 of the aircraft and would be replace the F-16s that are currently in service in the Royal Danish Air Force. Other European countries expected to make purchases include Norway and the Netherlands.

November 17/15: A crack has been found on the wing of the F-35C fighter during durability testing earlier this month. The crack was located on one of the 13 wing spars of the aircraft but the Pentagon has assured that the government and engineering teams are working on a solution and retrofits are being planned for existing aircraft. The US Navy does not see the setback impacting upon the planned Initial Operating Capability (IOC) of the C model set for August 2018. One does wonder will this impact upon Canada’s order of the aircraft which has been put into question since the election of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last month. Trudeau announced that he would put an end to their participation in the F-35 program for a more costly alternative during campaigning. This may increase the cost by US$1 million per aircraft.

November 9/15: Two Italian pilots have completed initial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter training at Luke Air Force Base, allowing them to return to Italy and form a bedrock for the Italian Air Force’s F-35 training program. Italy is a Tier 2 partner in the program, with a planned procurement of 90 F-35s.

November 5/15: Lockheed Martin has been handed a $5.37 billion contract action for 55 Lot IX Joint Strike Fighters, including 41 F-35As, 12 F-35Bs and 2 F-35Cs. Six of the F-35As are to complete foreign sales to Norway, while seven are headed for Israel and two for Japan. Half of the 12 F-35B variants are for the Royal Navy, with the remaining B and C models for the Marine Corps and Navy respectively.

November 4/15: The F-35A Joint Strike Fighter has fired its GAU-22/A internal cannon while airborne for the first time, following ground testing in July. The 25mm cannon was fired in three bursts above Edwards AFB, with further tests involving a production F-35A planned for next year. The Air Force will pass the F-35A’s Initial Operating Clearance (IOC) without the aircraft’s internal gun system, with the weapon scheduled to enter service in 2017 as part of the aircraft’s Block 3F upgrade.

October 23/15: The Pentagon says that the work to fix the F-35’s ejection seat could take another year, with the program office stating that the manufacturer of the seat – UK firm Martin Baker – will have to cover the redesign costs. Issues with the US16E ejection seat grounded lightweight pilots at the end of September, with the risk of serious neck injury in low-speed ejections deemed too high; however, the restrictions only affected one out of the 215 pilots trained to fly the Joint Strike Fighter. The program office intends to install a head support panel in addition to a switch designed to slightly slow deployment of the ejection seat’s parachute.

If Canada’s new Liberal government decides to pull out from the F-35 program, the per-unit cost across the international program could rise by $1 million, according to the head of the Joint Strike Fighter’s program office. While there would be no impact on the F-35’s development program – scheduled to end in 2017 – the loss of Canada’s previous 65-aircraft order could drive up the cost by as much as 1% for the remaining international partners, owing to the requirement to cover future maintenance and modernization costs.

October 21/15: With Canada’s Liberal party securing victory in the country’s national elections, the potential procurement of Canadian F-35 Joint Strike Fighters are likely to be dropped, with leader Justin Trudeau announcing in September that he would scrap the controversy-ridden program. He has promised an “open and transparent competition” to find a replacement for the Canadian fleet of CF-18 Hornets, with work guarantees for Canadian industry built into any future contract. The savings from buying a less expensive fighter are to be funnelled to the Royal Canadian Navy to shore up expensive shipbuilding plans, with Lockheed Martin standing to lose $6 billion from the decision. However, the decision to back out from the F-35 program – which Canada signed up to in 2002 – could see work for Canadian firms in the F-35 supply base disappear completely.

October 15/15: The problems grounding lightweight pilots from flying the F-35 are now thought to be centered on the Joint Strike Fighter’s sophisticated Gen III helmet. The helmet – designed and built by Rockwell Collins and Elbit Systems – is now thought to be too heavy to ensure a safe ejection at low speeds. The precise issue of whether the Martin Baker ejection seat or the helmet requires modification – or both – is currently under review by the Joint Project Office.

October 12/15: The Navy has completed testing of the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69). The two aircraft used in the trials carried out ‘high risk’, heavy launches, involving simulated weapons loads and low airspeeds. These trials build on previous testing (in November 2014) of the F-35C’s ability to land and take off from carriers. When the F-35Cs landed aboard the carrier in early October the trials were also slated to test the JPALS landing assistance system, with no word yet as to whether this was achieved. A third round of at-sea testing is scheduled for summer 2016, with the F-35C developmental testing now approximately 80% complete.

October 5/15: An F-35 released a weapon from its external rack for the first time in late September, according to a Lockheed Martin press release Friday. A test aircraft released four 500lb GBU-12 JDAM bombs over the Atlantic Test Range, building on testing conducted by the Marines in June when GBU-12 and GBU-32 JDAMs were dropped, presumably from the Joint Strike Fighter’s internal weapons bay.

Meanwhile an F-35C landed aboard USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) on Friday as part of the second round of at-sea testing for the F-35C known as DT-II. Following the first round of tests in November – which included a catapult launch – this set of trials will also test the fighter’s fancy helmet, the Joint Precision Approach Landing System (JPALS) and operations with a full internal weapons bay. The tests are slated to last two weeks.

October 2/15: An issue with the F-35‘s ejection seat has grounded lightweight pilots from flying the aircraft, according to a report by Defense News. The issue was uncovered during testing in August and the restriction (of pilots weighing less than 136lb) is reportedly only an interim measure until the manufacturer – Martin-Baker – can develop a solution to the problem in cooperation with the F-35’s Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin. Fighter ejection seats are supposed to be capable of accommodating pilots weighing between 103 and 246lbs.

September 25/15: The next set of testing on the F-35C will include new pilot helmets, integration with the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) and operations involving a full internal weapons bay, with these scheduled to take place during the first half of October. The Navy will build on tests conducted at sea in November, which saw the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter achieve 100% of its threshold requirements.

September 23/15: The Dutch Defense Ministry has penned an agreement with engine-manufacturer Pratt & Whitney for a Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul & Upgrade workshop in the south of the country to support future F-35 operations. The company’s F-135 engine powers the F-35, with the new workshop at the Royal Netherlands Air Force’s Woensdrecht Logistics Centre set to become a dedicated engine support facility from 2019. The country was selected by the DoD in December to support F-35 heavy engine maintenance, along with Norway and Turkey, and placed its first order for eight F-35A fighters in March.

September 18/15: The Dutch F-35 program could rise in cost by an additional half-million euros, bringing the program up to EUR5.2 billion ($5.9 billion). The rising cost has been attributed to the dollar’s exchange rate, something likely to continue altering the program’s costs as the Dutch place incremental orders to eventually fulfill their requirement for 37 F-35s, replacing their fleet of F-16s. The first tranche of eight F-35s was ordered in March, with these scheduled for delivery in 2019.

September 17/15: A leaked memo has uncovered serious concerns over the Marine Corps’ operational testing of F-35B aircraft aboard USS Wasp (LHD-1) in May, undermining the aircraft’s Initial Operating Capability in July. The memo, penned by the director of the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, cites a poor availability rate, a lack of realistic operational challenges and an absence of key mission systems. The first has been noted before, with this new memo as critical of how the tests were designed and supported as the aircraft themselves, including the discovery that the Wasp required software upgrades to communicate effectively with the F-35Bs.

September 16/15: The Air Force could deploy F-35As as soon as they reach Initial Operating Capability (IOC), according to the head of the aircraft’s Integration Program Office. With the Air Force scheduled to operate a squadron of operational F-35s by the beginning of August 2016, the three missions likely to be tasked to these 12 to 14 aircraft are close air support, interception of enemy aircraft and suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD). The first of these is becoming increasingly controversial, given the Joint Strike Fighter’s fist fight with the combat-proven A-10, while SEAD is closer to the original mission set intended for the F-35.

However, the Air Force first needs to rectify its current poor availability rate before IOC and deployment of its F-35s can take place. The Automated Logistics Information System (ALIS) is proving to be a problem for the Air Force and will likely be the most significant obstacle ahead of achieving IOC next year. Despite recent software upgrades, the ALIS system is proving to be a sticking point, with an accelerated production schedule likely to place increasing logistical demands on both the supply base and Air Force.

September 14/15: Lockheed Martin has unveiled a new Advanced Electro-Optical Targeting System for the F-35‘s Block 4 configuration. Designed to replace the current EOTS in operation with existing F-35s, the new version has been a priority for the program, while the Pentagon announced in May that it was to decide which weapon systems it would bake into the Block 4 configuration. A prototype of the Advanced EOTS is expected to make an appearance next year, while the Block 4 configuration is scheduled to be rolled out between 2019 and 2025.

September 11/15: An accelerated F-35 production schedule could stress suppliers, with the program office planning a three-fold increase in the number of Joint Strike Fighters produced each year over the next three years. The pressure on the production line’s supply base is also likely to be compounded by the requirement for incremental upgrades to in-service F-35s, along with a continued issues with the Automated Logistics Informations System (ALIS). Recently updated, the ALIS system saw problems earlier this year which built on persistent schedule delays in 2014. Lockheed Martin was awarded a $430.9 million contract at the end of August to further develop the system.

Aug 14/15: The Navy is reportedly considering reducing the number of F-35C fighters it plans to procure, alluding to budgetary concerns. The Navy is also less enthused by the Joint Strike Fighter compared to the Marines and Air Force because of the Service operating more modern aircraft, including new and upgraded Super Hornets.

Aug 3/15: The Marines May. The IOC was announced despite reports that the latter tests uncovered significant reliability issues with the aircraft.

July 30/15: The six Marine Corps’ F-35Bs which underwent testing on USS Wasp in May reportedly showed poor reliability performance, with the aircraft reportedly only achieving availability of around 50%. This is undoubtedly a factor Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joe Dunford has considered as he finalizes the jet’s paperwork for achieving Initial Operating Capability. A decision on whether the F-35B is ready for limited combat operations is expected imminently, with the USMC deciding in March to push on to a timetabled IOC target of fourth quarter 2015, despite issues with the fighter’s 2B software.

July 28/15: The F-35B’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) – the system designed to monitor and relay critical aircraft system data – has received its final software upgrade ahead of the fighter achieving Initial Operating Capability. The system has also received critical hardware modifications. IOC for the Marine Corps’ first F-35Bs is expected later this year, with the Corps deciding in March to push on according to schedule, despite issues with the jet’s 2B software.

July 24/15: The F-35’s GAU-22/A 25mm cannon has been tested on the ground at Edwards Air Force Base, with the General Dynamics-designed weapon having been developed for both internal and external gun systems of the Joint Strike Fighter. The cannon is mounted on an external pod for the F-35B and C variants, with the Air Force’s F-35A variant positioning the weapon internally. The four-barrel system allows the fighter to let loose just 180 rounds per reload, allowing for three short passes at best. That last problem featured heavily in criticism of the Air Force for floating the idea – since backtracked – that the F-35A could serve as the main ground forces protection platform. The program has been busy testing other weapons in recent weeks, including the Marines testing live JDAM bombs in early July. The Pentagon has been mulling what to include in future F-35 weapon tranches, with options including the Small Diameter Bomb II and Joint Strike Missile, as well as several others.

July 15/15: On Tuesday, Lockheed Martin was awarded a further $718.3 million contract modification for parts, support services and simulators in support of the F-35’s Lot 8 low rate initial production. The LRIP Lot 8 contract was agreed last year, with 43 of the fighters scheduled for production under Lot 8. Also on Tuesday, Lockheed Martin was awarded a $101.3 million advance acquisition contract for 383 Helmet Mounted Displays for use with the F-35 by the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, international partners and the governments of Japan and Israel through Foreign Military Sales.

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).

Modern U.S. Navy Amphibious Assault Ships project power and maintain presence by serving as the cornerstone of the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) / Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). LHA/LHD are a key element of the Seapower 21 doctrine pillars of Sea Strike and Sea Basing, transporting, launching, and landing elements of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) via a combination of LCAC hovercraft, amphibious transports and vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft.

Designed to project power and maintain presence, LHA-Replacement (LHA-R, aka. LH-X, and now the New Amphibious Assault Ship or NAAS) large deck amphibious assault ships were slated to replace the US Navy’s 6 LHA-1 Tarawa Class vessels. They are based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class design, with the LHD’s landing craft and well deck removed in favor of more planes and hangar space. While its LHA/LHD predecessors were amphibious assault ships with a secondary aviation element, it’s fair to describe the America Class as escort carriers with a secondary amphibious assault role.

The NAAS Program

The LHA-R program may have been in the works since PMS-377 was put in charge in November 2000, but it took several years to get underway as a major spending program.

LHA 6 America, the lead LHA-R vessel, was planned for delivery to the U.S. Navy in October 2013, though when that date came and went, sea trials had yet to take place. It and should be in service by 2015. The ultimate question is how many ships of class will be built. Support for the limited NAAS buy of 2 ships is already set, and LHA 7 Tripoli is due for delivery in June 2018. The question is the 3rd ship, and any ships after that.

The FY13-18 FYDP does feature a 3rd “LHA-R” ship in FY 2017, pushed back a year from the original plan. In April 2009, Gannett’s Navy Times revealed that the Marines were having second thoughts about the well deck removal, and the limitations this created for the total force. Altering ship plans for LHA 6 or LHA 7 would have been too expensive, but “LHA 8’s” planned cost, and these previous statements by the Navy and Marines, suggest that this ship will have a well deck. Low amounts allocated for LHA 8 design also indicate that any well-deck equipped ship is likely to be a fairly close derivation of an existing design. So, too, does the math inherent in the ships’ volume and internal layout limits. In other words, LHA 8 looks set to be a slightly updated variant of the all-electric LHD 8 Makin Island design. In effect, it would become “LHD 9”. This return of the well deck is later confirmed as the “Flight 1” configuration.

The ship’s timeline at the end of the FYDP makes it vulnerable to further budget cuts, and so does the higher price of a well deck equipped vessel. The FYDP has set aside $4.4 billion, compared to the Navy’s 2012 estimates of $3.2 – $3.3 billion per ship for the America Class. Time will tell whether the 3rd New Amphibious Assault Ship survives.

Note that even at that lower price, America Class ships already far exceed the cost of smaller LHDs like France’s 21,500t helicopter-only Mistral Class LHD (EUR 325M/ $485M), though the American ships are designed to naval survivability levels, and feature far more advanced defenses and launch capabilities.

A better comparison may be Australia’s 27,500t, jet-capable Canberra Class LHDs (AUD$ 1.6 billion/ USD$ 1.4 billion per), or Italy’s 27,100t Cavour Class escort carrier, which combines F-35B launch capability with housing for troops, and vehicle ramps for heavy vehicles stored inside (about EUR 1.5 billion/ $1.975 billion). Measured on a per-ton basis, their cost is not all that far off. The tactical tradeoff is that larger ships like the America Class gain new fighter spots and storage capacity faster than they grow in tonnage. On the flip side, they offer less survivability and mission flexibility than 2 Cavour Class ships might enjoy.

The LHA-R Ships: 21st Century Escort Carriers

LHA-R/NAAS design modifications aimed to optimize aviation operations and support activities. The end product is essentially a revival of the World War 2 escort carrier concept, with integrated berthing, cargo, and light vehicle spaces for Marines.

At 844 feet long and 106 feet wide, LHA-R ships will be almost 80 feet longer than USS Wasp and 10 feet wider, since they don’t have to fit through the Panama Canal. As a result, these ships will weigh in at 45,594 long tons fully loaded, rather than LHD 8’s 41,649t full load. The Navy prefers not to call their America Class ships carriers, but will admit that they’re an “aviation centric” design. In plain English, they’re really CVL/CVE aircraft carriers with crew space for 1,204, that can also berth up to 1,686 Marines, with a possible surge to 1,800 people for short periods of time. These NAAS ships will rely on a mix of fixed-wing and rotary aircraft for most of their tasks, from close air support, to transport, to helicopter coverage.

Protection comes in 3 layers, from the medium-range Evolved SeaSparrow launchers, to the short-range RAM missile system, to close-in defenses that range from radar-guided Mk.15 Phalanx 20mm gatling guns to a range of decoy systems. Few small carriers have defenses this comprehensive, and some full-size carriers in Britain and India will also fall short by comparison. Even so, advances in modern cruise missiles makes the Navy doubt LHA-R’s survivability against a determined multi-missile swarm.

DID uses the term “escort carriers” due to their relative size compared to America’s 95,000t+ nuclear-powered supercarriers, and also due to the size of their aerial complement, which is reduced by the ship’s amphibious mission. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the America Class’ overall displacement is larger than France’s 43,000t FS Charles De Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, or the American World War 2 Essex Class carriers’ 36,380t.

Like the Tarawa and Wasp classes, NAAS ships will have a flat flight deck, without a “ski ramp” on the front. With a ski ramp, V/STOL (Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing) fighters like the Harrier, STOVL (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing) fighters like the F-35B, UAVs, or tilt-rotor aircraft can all take off with larger loads, while using less fuel. On the other hand, a fully flat deck increases the number of deck locations available for landing or parking aircraft.

The US Navy thought hard about this choice. During the Analysis of Alternatives phase, they considered a 69,000 ton “Dual Tram Line” option with an LHD 8 sized well deck for hovercraft, an angled flight deck like an aircraft carrier’s, and a ski ramp that allows aircraft to take off with heavier loads. Existing F-35B-capable platforms that already use the ski ramp approach include Britain’s new 65,000t Queen Elizabeth Class carriers, Italy’s new 27,100t Cavour Class aircraft carrier/LHD, and Navantia’s 27,500t BPE / Canberra Class LHDs. The Navy eventually chose to pursue a design based on LHD 8 Makin Island instead, as the path of least risk and best cost containment. For good or ill, they also decided against adding a ski ramp.

Eliminating the ramp did give them a couple more “spot factors.” A ship’s possible aircraft combinations are calculated by totaling “spot factors” (SF), and amphibious ships use the CH-46E Sea Knight’s space requirements as their base (1.0). The aged Sea Knights are being phased out, however, and will not be part of the America Class’ 58.0 Spot Factor air wings. Instead, these air wings are expected to include MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotors (2.22 SF), CH-53E/K heavy transport helicopters (2.68/?), MH-60R/S multi-role utility helicopters (1.0), UH-1Y troop transport helicopters (0.94), and AH-1Z attack helicopters (0.92); and/or 6-23 fixed wing F-35B Lightning II STOVL fighters (2.0).

These new aircraft, and the MV-22 in particular, drove many of the ship’s key requirements. When one compares the “standard” complements of the LHA-R vs. the existing LHD Wasp Class, the result is about a 45% increase in required “spot factors,” for the same number of airframes: [1]

• 12 MV-22 vs. 12 CH-46 (+14.64 SF)
  
• 2 MH-60S vs. 2 UH-1 for SAR (+0.14 SF)
  
• 4 CH-35K vs. 4 CH-53E (assumed even)
  
• 3 UH-1Y vs. 3 UH-1N (+0.03 SF)
  
• 4 AH-1Z vs. 4 AH-1W (+0.36 SF)
  
• 6 F-35B vs. 6 AV-8B (+2.82 SF)

In single-role carrier configuration, America Class ships will embark 2 MH-60S helicopters for Search And Rescue, and take on 20 F-35B fighters plus all of the required spares, extra weapons, etc. Even so, the F-35B will have just 2 landing spots that can handle the heat from its engine: #7 and #9.

Floor footage wasn’t the only thing affected by the class’ escort carrier configuration. High-bay enlargement of the maintenance hangar in 2 areas was required in order to accommodate USMC MV-22s or AFSOC CV-22s, which can’t be brought in for full servicing on current LHA Tarawa and LHD Wasp Class ships.

A final aviation advantage comes from the addition of fuel tanks, in place of the ballast tanks used by the Tarawa and Wasp classes to offset the weight of a filled well deck. That more than doubles available JP-5 aviation fuel, from 600,000 gallons to a full 1.3 million gallons.

The Well Deck Issue

There’s a cost to these changes.

While it’s called an amphibious assault ship, the America class lacks those ship types’ characteristic feature: a floodable well deck for launching landing craft. The US Navy and Marines initially decided that there were enough other ships in the fleet with well decks, and contended that the use of LHA/LHD ships to transport and land heavy vehicles tends to be rare anyway. They eventually changed their minds, and “LHA 8” may now include a well deck, but LHA 6 America and LHA 7 Tripoli will be built without.

Removal of the traditional well deck offers some advantages. For starters, it provides America Class Flight 0 ships with an extended hangar deck and aviation support spaces. It also lowers LHA/CVL America Class maintenance costs. In exchange, the America Class can’t launch and land medium-heavy vehicles like the USMC’s AAV7 amphibious armored personnel carriers, their future amphibious APCs; or LCAC hovercraft that can carry vehicles like M1 tanks, LAVs, and mine resistant MRAP-type vehicles ashore.

Lift-on/ Lift-off cranes, which could have mitigated this shortfall by transferring cargo to other ships, are also absent from the design. If LHA-R Flight 0 ships decide to carry heavier vehicles, or require faster offload given the 14,000+ pound empty weight of even very light mine-resistant vehicles, their sole options will be their CH-53K heavy-lift helicopters, or offloading by ramp onto a port’s docks.

Power and Influence: Secondary Ship Features

Propulsion and power is the same hybrid system as LHD 8, which is a plus for the Navy. It involves 2 GE LM2500+ gas turbines, each rated at 35,290 shaft horsepower at U.S. Navy standard day conditions (100 degrees F), and a pair of 5,000 hp auxiliary propulsion motors. The hybrid propulsion system enables the ship’s propellers to be driven either by the gas turbines or by electric motors, which are powered from the ship service electrical system. This allows the ship to operate in a more fuel efficient mode throughout its speed range, while being able to generate far more electricity to power onboard electronics, etc.

Finally, the new class resembles its LHA/LHD predecessors in that will be able to operate as the flagship for a full expeditionary strike group. Its enhanced and reconfigurable command and control complex will be based on the US Navy’s directive to use open architecture electronics whenever possible, in order to lower costs and make future upgrades easier.

A hospital facility complements these advanced command and aviation capabilities when assisting in humanitarian operations, and serves the amphibious combat force. It’s about 67% smaller than USS Makin Island’s [LHD 8], as a result of expanding the hangar bay.

LHA-R: Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise specified, all contracts are awarded by the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in Washington, DC, to Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (now Huntington Ingalls, Inc.) in Pascagoula, MS. The company’s Ingalls operations in Pascagoula, MS is where the USA’s current fleet of Tarawa Class LHA and Wasp Class LHD amphibious ships were all built.

May 8/17: Shipyard Huntington Ingalls has launched the second ship in the America-class of amphibious assault ship 13 weeks ahead of schedule. The future USS Tripoli can carry 12 Osprey aircraft and six F-35s and is fitted with .50 caliber machine guns and 20mm CWIS cannons. It can also support AV-8B Harriers, Cobra attack helicopter, cargo carriers, and other equipment. More America-class vessels are expected to be built in 2018, with the next vessel to be named after the WW2 Bougainville campaign.

April 10/17: The Navy’s USS America has successfully shot down a UAV with the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), during live-fire exercises designed to verify the new amphibious assault ship’s defense capabilities. During the test, the UAV posed as an anti-ship missile threat while the RAM utilized its quick-reaction fire-and-forget capabilities to down the drone. The USS America is the first vessel of its class and is designed to accommodate modern fighters such as the F-35B, alongside other vertical and/or short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft and helicopters. It will support US Marine Corps aviation requirements, from small-scale contingency operations of an expeditionary strike group, to forcible entry missions in major theaters of war.

Feb 25/15: Navy to pit two yards against each other in duopolistic design competition for LHA-8, new oilers and LX(R) dock landing ship. Mindful of the trend of shipyards to consolidate to the point where there is barely the opportunity for real competition, the Navy is deliberately packaging three very different major defense acquisition programs together and selecting two shipyards to bid for each, with the explicit expectation that each will be rewarded at least one. General Dynamics NASSCO and Huntington Ingalls Industries will compete for the redesign of the LHA-8 (which sorely needs its well deck back now that Marines vehicles have plumped up); the T-AO(X) fleet oiler and the LX(R) dock landing ship replacement.

“Each shipyard will be awarded one detail design and construction contract for LHA 8 or one DD&C for T-AO(X) ships 1-6,” said a Navy representative. “This approach balances the Navy’s commitment to maintaining a viable shipbuilding industrial base while aggressively pursuing competition.” The arbitrary connection of three disparate programs and the automatic win that could go to a loser seems reminiscent of a kindergarten awards ceremony, but at least the creation and maintenance of this duopoly appears to be deliberate. It may shed light on the decision-making process as it happens for the Ingalls/BIW duopoly on the Arleigh Burke contracts and the ancient Newport News/Electric Boat rivalry for submarine work.

Aug 26/14: Visits, F-35B Prep. LHA 6 America is visiting around South America on its way to San Francisco, with 4 MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotors, 3 H-60 Seahawk helicopters, and a special purpose MAGTF (Marine Corps Air-Ground Task Force) on board. The ship hasn’t even been commissioned yet, and they’re treating the visits to Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Peru as a training cruise.

After PCU America’s commissioning and shakedown, a Post-Shakedown Availability visit to the shipyard expects to install modifications that will let the ship safely use F-35B fighters. To achieve that, intercostal structural additions will be inserted underneath flight deck landing spots numbers 7 and 9, in order to deal with the heat produced by the F-35B’s F135-PW-600 LiftFan engine. Those changes are currently being tested on the USS Wasp [LHD 8]. Sources: Defense Tech, “USS America Tours South America, Prepares for JSF”.

July 11/14: LHA 6. LHA 6 America leaves the Ingalls Shipbuilding division at Pascagoula, MS, sailing to the West Coast in preparation for her Oct 11/14 commissioning in San Francisco, CA. Sources: HII, “Ingalls Shipbuilding’s Amphibious Assault Ship America (LHA 6) Sails Away”.

June 20/14: LHA 7 keel. The official keel-laying ceremony for LHA 7 Tripoli takes places at HII’s Pascagoula, MS shipyard. Sources: HII, “Ingalls Shipbuilding Authenticates Keel of Amphibious Assault Ship Tripoli (LHA 7)”.

April 10/14: LHA 6 Delivery. HII’s Ingalls shipyard delivers the LHA 6 America to the US Navy in Pascagoula, MS. Commissioning is set for late 2014. Sources: US Navy, “Navy Accepts Delivery of the future USS America” | HII, “Ingalls Shipbuilding Delivers Amphibious Assault Ship America (LHA 6)”.

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. The report cites a high degree of rework on LHA 6, and the fact that they began construction with the design just 65% complete may have something to do with that. That has raised costs, and helped make the ship’s delivery 19 months late. Another $42.4 million will be spent on rework of the ship’s deck to cope with the F-35B’s exhaust and downwash (q.v. Jan 17/12). GAO adds that:

“Although not considered critical technologies, the program has identified an additional six key subsystems necessary to achieve capabilities. Five of these subsystems are mature. The sixth, the [GPS-guided] Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, is still in development, but LHA 6 can use backup aviation control systems to meet requirements. There are no new critical technologies expected for LHA 7 or LHA 8, but requirements for LHA 8 are still in development.”

Beyond the new deck design, design changes to LHA 7 will include a new firefighting system; and updates to the radar and the command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence systems. One hopes that key survivability upgrades (q.v. Jan 28/14) are also on this list. Design changes to LHA 8 will add a well deck that can accommodate 2 landing craft, and they’re considering designs that would allow compartments to be reconfigured in low-risk areas, in order to meet changing mission needs with less rework.

Jan 31/14: INSURV. LHA 6 America completes Navy acceptance trials off the coast of Pascagoula, MS. The Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) evaluated all of the ship’s major systems, including combat, propulsion, communications, navigation, mission systems and aviation capabilities. It passed with no major deficiencies, which is a real achievement for a first-of-class ship. Delivery is planned for spring 2014. Sources: US NAVSEA, “LHA 6 Completes Acceptance Trials” | HII, “Video Release — Ingalls Shipbuilding’s Amphibious Ship America (LHA 6) Sails the Gulf of Mexico for Successful Acceptance Trials”.

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 America Class is included, and some of its deficiencies aren’t really about the ship – but others are.

It has been known for some time that the SSDS combat system needs continued improvement, and test aboard Nimitz Class supercarriers indicate that some modern cruise missile attacks will overwhelm existing defenses. The technical term is “Probability of Raid Annihilation”, and LHA-R isn’t likely to meet the goal the Navy set (q.v. Jan 17/12). Some of that is traceable to the design, however:

“LFT&E analysis completed so far identified potential problems in susceptibility and vulnerability that would likely result in the LHA-6 being unable to maintain or recover mission capability following a hit by certain threat weapons, the details of which are classified. The Navy’s required updated analysis is behind schedule jeopardizing planning for follow-on ship survivability improvements…. In particular, some fluid systems need additional isolation valves, sensors, and remote operators to allow rapid identification and isolation of damage and reconfiguration for restoration of the mission capability they support. Additionally, the egress from some of the troop and crew berthing spaces may result in crew causalities and delay damage control actions. The Navy has plans to incorporate some corrective actions for follow-on ships.”

Nov 7-9/13: Builder trials for PCU America are conducted in the Gulf of Mexico. If all goes well she is to be delivered to the Navy in March 2014. LHA 6, the 4th ship named USS America, will join the Pacific Fleet and have San Diego, CA as its homeport. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is scheduled for September 2016. Sources: HII, Nov 14/13 release | US Navy PEO Ships, Nov 7/13 release | DefenseTech: First America-class Amphib Nears Completion.

June 2013: LHA 8. The Navy plans to complete the Preliminary Design of LHA 8 during FY13, finalize its Capability Development Document (CDD) and Concepts of Operations (CONOPS), and get started on contract design. The Senate Armed Services Committee is somewhat skeptical and recommends the addition of $20 million to the LHA-8 (i.e. flight 1) development budget because “[r]epeated Navy shipbuilding programs have shown that failing to complete a ship’s design before starting construction inevitably leads to cost growth and schedule delays.” Senate NDAA FY 2014 report 113-044 | PE 64567N budget justification [PDF].

April 2013: The FY14 President Budget still sets the order of a 3rd LHA ship to FY2017 as of the latest FYDP. The delivery of LHA 6 is however delayed by 6 months. Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mark Ferguson had testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services in February that this delay was one of the consequences of starting FY13 under a continuing resolution (CR) preventing the start of new programs.

November 2012: The Navy conducts an operational assessment of LHA 6, though they don’t release any results publicly.

Oct 20/12: The US Navy christens Pre-Commissioning Unit America [LHA 6] at HII’s shipyard in Pascagoula, MS. USN.

May 4/12: LHA 7 Tripoli. The Secretary of the Navy picks USS Tripoli as LHA 7’s future name. This isn’t a reference to recent events, but to the USMC’s early battles against the Barbary Pirates, immortalized in the Marines’ battle hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli…”

Appropriately enough, the 1st USS Tripoli was CVE-64, a World War 2 escort carrier that served in the Atlantic theater. The 2nd USS Tripoli was LPH-10, a helicopter carrier that served in Vietnam. US Navy.

April 4/12: A $50.3 million contract modification for additional long lead time material in support of LHA 7. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to complete by May 2013 (N00024-10-C-2229).

Feb 13/12: FY13 PB. The President’s budget request for FY2013 sets the contract award date for LHA 7 to May 2012, with construction to start in April 2013, and expected delivery in March 2018. A more expensive LHA 8 ship has also been added in FY 2017.

Feb 6/12: LHA 7 lead-in. A $9 million contract modification for additional LHA 7 long lead time materials. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS and is expected to be complete by May 2013 (N00024-10-C-2229).

Jan 26/12: LHA 7 delayed. Preliminary FY 2013 budget materials discuss coming shifts in Pentagon priorities, as the defense department moves to make future cuts. The America Class is involved:

“To ensure sufficient resources to protect these strategic priorities, we will reduce the number of ships by slowing the pace of building new ships and by accelerating the retirement of some existing ships. These include… Slipping a large deck amphibious ship (LHA) by 1 year.”

See: Pentagon release | “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices” [PDF]

Jan 17/12: DOT&E report. The Pentagon releases the FY2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The America Class is included, even though they haven’t conducted testing yet. Some of the ship’s systems have been tested elsewhere, however, and their problems affect the ship. At the same time, some aspects of the design itself are being questioned, and so is ship survivability.

The good news is that LHA 6 will likely meet its Key Performance Parameters for vehicular stowage space, F-35B capacity, vertical take-off and landing spots, cargo space, and troop accommodations; but it will have much less hospital capacity than other American LHA/LHDs. DOT&E wonders if it will be enough.

The bad news is that LHA 6’s 12,000 pound limit for the vehicle ramp from the hangar deck to the flight deck, is a serious problem. Since the America Class has no well deck and no crane, everything must be airlifted ashore. There’s no point in having a ramp that can support 70-ton tanks and 24-ton LAVs, but even an up-armored HMMWV would stress the ramp as currently designed. Worse, blast-resistant MRAP or JLTV vehicles that could be airlifted off by a CH-53K, and would be necessary for many operations, couldn’t be carried on the ship. Those limitations are magnified by DOT&E’s statement that the USN and USMC haven’t yet produced a concept of operations or concept of employment that accounts for the America Class’ lack of a well deck, or that takes advantage of its enhanced aviation capability. On which note:

“Jet blast from the F-35Bs is expected to produce unsafe forces on flight deck personnel up to 75 feet from the short take-off line. MV-22 operations produce heat levels that might damage the flight deck and overwhelm the environmental controls in the spaces immediately below the flight deck.”

A full survivability assessment report is due in FY12, but DOT&E is concerned that:

“Due to long-standing and previously identified legacy sensor limitations, LHA-6 may be vulnerable to certain airborne threat flight profiles. Based on combat systems testing on other platforms, it is unlikely that LHA-6’s Ship Self-Defense System Mk 2-based combat system (including Nulka, SLQ-32, and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) will meet the ship’s Probability of Raid Annihilation requirement against anti-ship cruise missiles.”

This is true, but worth deeper analysis. Part of the problem is that there’s only so much weaponry one puts on ships like this. Its armament is actually substantially stronger than foreign LHDs like the Mistral or Juan Carlos/Canberra Classes, and matches up evenly against the Italian Cavour Class light carrier and amphibious support vessel. If advances in enemy weapons create a problem, other ships will have to compensate, or the cost of each NAAS ship would become very high indeed.

In this case, however, DOT&E is citing performance shortfalls against certain threat types by the ship’s component weapons: RIM-162 ESSM, RIM-116 RAM, Nulka, SLQ-32, and the ship’s radars. The radar shortfalls are a known issue, but unless the USN opted for a foreign radar design, there’s no reasonably-priced radar option that would fix them. As for the weapons, they are a real problem for the fleet, but extraneous to this one program. The long term solution is for their capabilities to improve, or the Navy to adjust its tactics to address their weaknesses, if it can.

Aug 1/11: RAM. A $7.4 million contract modification for 3 refurbished and upgraded rolling airframe missile MK 49 Mod 3 Guided Missile Launch Systems with associated hardware, for use on LHA 7 (2 systems) and LCS 5 (Detroit, Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ship, 1 system).

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by March 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00024-11-C-5448).

April 15/11: SAR to 2 ships. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 30/10 includes the America Class under significant cost increases, for an obvious reason:

“LHA 6 – Program costs increased $3,458.9 million (+102.7%) from $3,367.9 million to $6,826.8 million, due primarily to the addition of one ship from one to two ships.”

March 31/11: LHA lead-in. A not-to-exceed $28.7 million contract modification for the procurement of additional long lead time material in support of “the LHA replacement flight 0 amphibious assault ship.” That could describe LHA 6 America, or LHA 7; timelines suggest that it probably means LHA 7.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (79.9%), and Pascagoula, MS (20.1%), and is expected to be complete by March 2014 (N00024-10-C-2229).

Oct 28/10: A $48.1 million contract modification for additional planning and advanced engineering services in support of LHA 7. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by May 2012 (N00024-10-C-2229). See also Northrop Grumman.

June 30/10: LHA 7 lead-in. A not-to-exceed $175.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for LHA 7 long-lead time material, planning, and advance engineering services. The as-yet unnamed LHA 7 will be an LHA-R Flight 0 ship just like America [LHA 6], which is now 25% complete. Long lead time materials include items like main reduction gears, which must be complete and ready to go very early in the build stage. With all contract options exercised, this contract could reach $193 million.

Work will be performed in Brunswick, GA (24.4%); locations yet to be determined (24.2%); Pascagoula, MS (23.1%); Los Angeles, CA (17.3%); York, PN (9.3%); and Brampton, Canada (1.7%), and is expected to be complete by March 2014. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-10-C-2229). See also Northrop Grumman release.

March 30/10: GAO. The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. With respect to LHA-R, it says:

“The LHA 6 began construction in December 2008 with mature technologies, but [only 65%]… of its design complete… Approximately 45 percent of the LHA 6 design is based on the LHD 8. The Navy conducted two production readiness reviews to assess the shipbuilder’s readiness to commence full construction. In addition, as of September 2009, the program office had conducted unit readiness reviews for 141 of the ship’s 216 assembly units. The LHA 6 is likely to experience further cost growth because postdelivery rework of the ship’s deck may be necessary to cope with the intense, hot downwash of the Joint Strike Fighter… The Navy is planning to conduct aircraft tests on the LHD 1 during the fall of 2010, and will then determine whether the LHA 6 [and other ships that will operate it] need to modify their flight decks. The program office does not expect the Navy to finalize a solution for the LHA 6 prior to ship delivery…”

March 22/10: Gannett’s Navy Times:

“More than two years before the amphibious assault ship America enters the fleet, Marine officials have already drawn up early plans for a version of the ship that includes a major component America is missing – a well deck. The “LHA 8 concept,” as it was called in a presentation Monday by Marine Corps Combat Development Command, would combine new aviation features the Marines want in the America class with a traditional big-deck capacity for landing craft and green gear… the Navy’s most recent shipbuilding program includes no plans for such a ship… Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has said it would be prohibitively expensive to alter the designs for America or the follow-on LHA 7, so they’ll be built as planned.”

Aug 28/09: Well deck rethink? Information Dissemination reports that the Marines may be rethinking the removal of this class’ well decks:

“When the Marines decided to remove the well deck on the LHA (R) for USS America (LHA 6), it was a decision to move towards specialization. No surprise then that this year the Marines testified in front of Congress that the well deck will be added to future LHA (R)s as soon as possible, because just the removal of the well deck turned the LHA (R) into too much of a specialization for the Marines to overcome shortcomings in necessary sealift throughput.”

July 17/09: LHA 6 keel laid. Northrop Grumman Corporation holds the keel authentication ceremony for LHA 6 at the company’s Pascagoula facility.

Per Navy and maritime tradition, ship sponsor Lynne Pace had her initials welded onto a ceremonial steel plate noting the ship’s keel had been “truly and fairly laid.” Ms. Pace is the wife of retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, the first US Marine to Chair the Joint Chiefs of Staff. NGC release.

Oct 20/08: LM2500. GE’s LM2500+ gas turbines will power the USS America, which surprises no-one. The same engine was used on LHD-8, and its use in LHA 6 was expected from the outset. Northrop Grumman’s formal selection merely makes it official.

The LHA 6 ship’s mechanical-electric propulsion system will consist of 2 LM2500+ gas turbines, each rated at 35,290 shaft horsepower at U.S. Navy standard day conditions (100 degrees F), and a pair of 5,000 hp auxiliary propulsion motors. The hybrid propulsion system enables the ship’s propellers to be driven either by the gas turbines or by the electric motors, which are powered from the ship service electrical system. This allows the ship to operate in a more fuel efficient mode throughout its speed range, and also gives it more electrical capacity to power sensors and onboard equipment. MarineLog.

March 20/08: LHA 6. Northrop Grumman’s Sperry Marine business unit has been selected to supply the Machinery Control System (MCS) for LHA 6, under a contract valued at approximately $47.6 million. The contract work includes hardware, software, design, engineering, logistics, training, testing and shipboard integration support. It also includes an option for continuing logistics support of the MCS and its land-based test facility through the end of the LHA 6 ship guaranty period. The work will be performed at Northrop Grumman’s Sperry Marine facility in Charlottesville, VA and at the Pascagoula shipyard.

The MCS for LHA 6 will be a completely integrated network for monitoring and controlling the ship’s main propulsion plant and auxiliary systems, and will include more than 50 data acquisition units located around the ship, 25 operating consoles, 10 electric plant and propulsion plant controllers, and multiple redundant local-area network switches. It is based on a similar system being supplied by Sperry Marine for Makin Island [LHD 8], which has the same gas turbine propulsion plant, zonal electrical distribution and electric auxiliary systems. NGC release.

Jan 30/08: SSDS. Raytheon Co. Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA received a $17.3 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5105) for FY 2008 production of 4 “Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) MK 2 Tactical Ship Sets. SSDS will form the core of the ships’ self-defense capabilities, tying together, coordinating, and even automating the sensors, weapons, and decisions involved from detection, to engagement, to kill against anti-ship missiles etc. Raytheon will also conduct a special study to define engineering changes to the SSDS MK 2 product baseline in support of the LHA 6 Combat System configuration.

Work will be performed in Portsmouth, RI, and is expected to be complete by Oct. 2009. This contract was not competitively procured.

June 15/06: LHA 6 lead-in. A $20.4 million modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2221) to exercise a cost-plus-fixed-fee option for special studies and procurement of additional long lead-time material, in support of LHA 6 ship construction. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS and is expected to be complete by December 2006.

Feb 13/06: A $93.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification under a previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2221) exercises options to initiate engineering and detail design for the LHA-R Flight 0 Amphibious Assault Ship, and procure additional long lead time material in support of ship construction. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS and is expected to be complete by December 2006.

July 15/05: LHA 6 lead-in. A $109.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for advanced planning, long lead time materials, systems engineering, and special studies for the first LHA-R Flight 0 Amphibious Assault Ship. Work on this contract will be performed at t Work is expected to be complete by December 2006. The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis (N00024-05-C-2221). The total contract value, if all options are exercised, will be $264 million.

Aug 6/04: LHA 6 lead-in. FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act includes $150 million for Advance Procurement related to LHA-R Flight 0

Aug 5/04: LHA-R CDD formally entered into JCIDS review process

June 17/04: Feasibility Design completed; results briefed to ASN (RD&A)

April 30/04: Required Capabilities Letter for LHA(R) Flight 0 issued by ASN (RD&A), CNO and CMC

Jan 23/04: ASN (RD&A) formally asks for additional cost vs. capability studies

September 2002: Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Report re: possible range of ship designs completed

July 20/01: MS A Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM)

March 5/01: Mission Need Statement (MNS)

Nov 20/2000: NAVSEA’s PMS377 designated as LHA-R Program Managers

Footnotes

fn1. Spot factor figures, MV-22 maintenance, and fuel capabilities given in US PEO-Ships briefing presentation to the NDIA. [return to article]

Additional Readings

Background: The America Class

• US Navy – Amphibious Assault Ships Fact File
• US Navy SURFPAC – LHD/LHA
• PEO Ships – Amphibious Assault Ships Replacement.
• HII – LHA
• Global Security – LH-X. LHA-R was the next step, and a significant change.

Background: Ship Ancillaries

• DID – CEC: Cooperative Engagement for Fleet Defense
• DID – RIM-162 ESSM Missile: Naval Anti-Air in a Quad Pack
• DID – Phalanx CIWS: The Last Defense, On Ship and Ashore. LHA-Rs use Phalanx Block IB.
• DID – RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) Systems: Contracts & Events
• DID – USN Ship Protection: From “Slick 32s” to SEWIP
• DID – NGC Contracted for USN/RAN SPQ-9B Radars & Support.
• DID – SSDS: Quicker Naval Response to Cruise Missiles. LHA-Rs use the combat system’s Mk.2 MOD 4B variant.

Background: Aircraft

• DID – CH-53K: The U.S. Marines’ HLR Helicopter Program.
• DID – Snakes and Rotors: The USMC’s H-1 Helicopter Program.
• DID – MH-60R/S: The USA’s New Naval Workhorse Helicopters. Any LHx ship could also embark MH-60R helicopters for added anti-submarine punch, but distributed hosting on destroyers and LCS ships is almost always a better idea for the fleet.
• DID – V-22 Osprey: The Multi-Year Buys, 2008-2017.

News & Views

• Sea Power 21 – Doctrine circa 2002.
• Naval Postgraduate School (June 2012) – Thesis on the effect of shipboard design decisions in amphibious warfare [PDF].
• US NAVSEA (June 2005) – LHA-R Cargo Handling System Trade Study Models [PDF]. Back when the ships were planned with a well deck; sets out options et. al for cargo functions within that space.
• Congressional Budget Office (Nov 1/04) – The Future of the Navy’s Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Forces. Notes that the Navy’s current plan risks industrial and capacity shortfalls.
• National Defense Magazine (August 2004) – Navy Downsizing Could Weaken Marine Corps Expeditionary Posture.
• Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Div (March 2004) – LHA(R): Designing the Next Generation of Big Deck Amphibious Assault Ships [PDF] with initial specs that are different from the final specifications.
• DSpace at MIT, Department of Ocean Engineering (May 30/02) – LHA-R: Amphibious Assault Ships For The 21st Century [PDF]. An initial set of modeled concepts and discussion the includes extensive modeling work on a notional trimaran hull design, as well as a thorough look at the LHA-R’s required capabilities and various trade-offs. Interesting read, and a thorough discussion document.

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. The Joint Common Missile (JCM) was meant to offer new guidance options, and use on fast jets as well as helicopters and UAVs. It performed well, but was canceled. It 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

JAGM Missile Increments

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

Oddly, the problems faced by Hellfire’s JCM and JAGM successors have been largely unrelated to cost or to performance. Rather, the programs kept getting cut to pay for other things. The Hellfires were seen as good enough to equip American helicopters and large UAVs like the Predator. To compete, new entrants had to fit into a new category. Smaller guided 70mm rockets gained a foothold because more of them could be carried in the same space, while small multi-mode glide bombs found a niche by being launched from the back ramps of cargo aircraft. JAGM was a straight substitute, and that wasn’t interesting enough.

After enough JCM/JAGM missile program cancellations and resurrections to make even Lazarus give up, the US Army looked at its Hellfire stocks, and realized that they’d need something new anyway. In response, they decided to try squaring this circle using an incremental approach, one focused on replacing the most at-risk AGM-114L radar-guided missiles first.

Initial. The JAGM 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. Initial Army platforms would include the AH-64E Apache attack helicopter, and MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAV. The USMC’s initial platforms will be the AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter and KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/ transport, for integration by FY 2019.

JAGM Increment 2. Intends to increase the maximum range to 12 km, and move to the full tri-mode seeker with semi-active laser, Imaging Infrared (IIR), and millimeter wave radar guidance modes. If Raytheon bids, they’d be offering the tri-mode seeker in Increment 1 as well.

JAGM Increment 3. This is the original JAGM concept, more or less. It would have a maximum range of 16 km that would likely force a new rocket motor, alongside other redesigns for carriage and launch from helicopters or fast jets. Initial fixed-wing platforms would include the USMC’s AV-8B Harrier and F-35B Lightning II STOVL fighters, but there’s no set schedule. The earliest F-35 integration slot involves Block 4 fighters, whose software isn’t likely to be ready before 2021-2023.

Timeline & Budgets

If JAGM can be delivered to the required cost targets, it may add the originally-planned tri-mode (imaging infrared + semi-active laser + millimeter wave radar) guidance set, and Increments 2 & 3 may revive interest in new rocket motor technology that would eventually allow safe launches from fighter jets. Those kinds of advances sit beyond the current timeline.

Budgets to date have included:

Scope and Scale

F-16 fires Maverick

If the US Army and Navy have total current program numbers for JAGM, they aren’t disclosing them in recent documents. We do know that JAGM’s scope is much reduced, but it could still 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. The original JCM had a goal of 54,000 missiles.

JAGM was revised lower, and a 2010 GAO document estimated the 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 $6.88 billion for 35,422 missiles.

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, but the program’s scope has been reduced further.

Part of the reason involves fewer platforms. “Increment 1 & 2” versions of JAGM can’t replace the Mavericks on fixed-wing jets. Until at least 2019, the missiles will be limited to US Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, USMC AH-1Z attack helicopters, US Army MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs, and USMC KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/transports.

SDB-II

Meanwhile, the US Navy and USAF have a substitute. 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 missiles like MBDA’s Brimstone.

US Navy MH-60s can expect eventual JAGM integration, since AGM-114 Hellfire deliveries are set to end in 2017. Farther into the future, the USMC wants to equip its AV-8B and F-35B fighters with JAGM Increment 3. Note, however, that there’s no set schedule for missile upgrades. On the export front, if JAGM is added to F-35Bs, it will be competing with the MBDA Brimstone and SPEAR missiles that Britain plans to integrate into its own F-35B fleet.

Other opportunities exist. Vehicle-mounted options for Hellfire-class missiles are springing up, but competition from dedicated anti-armor weapons like the shorter-range Javelin, MMP, and Spike, or the longer range Spike-NLOS, will be fierce. Naval options may be even more promising for fire-and-forget missiles, where JAGM could replace the AGM-114L Hellfire on the USA’s Littoral Combat ships, or fit out other vessels who need a deadly fire-and-forget counter to small boat swarms. In that arena, MBDA’s laser/radar guided Brimstone and Raytheon’s GPS/laser/IIR guided Griffin C will be its main competitors.

Competition: MBDA’s Brimstone/ SPEAR

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 aren’t a solution for fixed-wing jets, and range limitations make Hellfire dangerous to use against even short-range air defenses. MBDA’s Brimstone 2 solves those problems.

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. 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. F-35 integration was scheduled for F-35B Block 3 in 2018, but overall F-35 development problems look set to push the British effort back to Block 4 in 2021-2023.

SPEAR

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.

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)

June 6/16: The US Army has successfully fired Lockheed Martin’s multi-mode Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) from a UAV for the first time. Testing was conducted on an MQ-1C Gray Eagle at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. The Gray Eagle test was the seventh flight test for the JAGM missile. The missile was previously tested on Apache attack helicopters and Marine Corps Cobra helicopters.

April 15/16: The Redstone Test Center is playing host to the engineering and development phase of the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM). So far, the missile completed tests on its guidance section which included captive flight testing, tower testing, and environmental testing. The JAGM will now enter the Product Qualification Test (PQT) phase which will see the weapon carried on the Grey Eagle unmanned aerial system (UAS) and AH-64 Apache helicopter for flight testing.

Aug 3/15: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $66.4 million contract to further develop the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) for the Army and Navy. The company submitted its bid for the program in April and successfully test fired two JAGMs in mid-July. The JAGM is intended to replace AGM-114 Hellfire, AGM-65 Maverick and BGM-71 TOW missiles currently in service.

July 14/15: Lockheed Martin reported on Monday that the company has successfully tested two Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles (JAGM) during recent testing over Elgin AFB in Florida. The company is bidding for its missile to win the Army’s JAGM competition, delivering its proposal in April.

Nov 3/14: USMC Plan. The USMC’s Aviation Plan to 2030 deals with weapons as well. JAGM is mentioned, and its 3 planned increments are fully outlined. Under current plans, JAGM Increment 1 will begin integration with AH-1Z attack helicopters in 2015, and will achieve Initial Operational Capability on the AH-1Z and on KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/ transport planes in 2019.

Beyond 2019, the USMC plans to field JAGM Increment 3 on the AV-8B Harrier II and F-35C Lightning II. Note that the earliest available integration slot for the F-35 would involve Block 4 software, around 2021-2023. Britain, is likely to add its competing Brimstone missile to the F-35B in Block 4, after original plans to feature it in Block 3 fell through. Sources: USMC, Marine Aviation Plan 2015 [PDF].

Oct 13/14: Lockheed Martin is preparing its expected JAGM bid with the current dual-mode laser/radar seeker, following successful tests.

Raytheon, whose solution was dropped at the same time as JAGM dropped to a dual-guidance mode because of funding shortfalls (q.v. July 18/13), is deciding whether to bid at all. If they do bid, they’re going to stick to their original plan and use the same tri-mode laser/IIR/radar seeker from the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II. It’s a reasonable hedge against perceived risk, offering more capability for the same dollars. Of course, the level of perceived risk could be far more even if both designs had been funded through development.

Given the likely scope of future JAGM orders, and the tiny fraction of the procurement budget involved in JAGM development, there’s a legitimate policy question here re: the responsibility of the Pentagon to promote competitive tenders for significant weapon systems. Sources: Aviation Week, “Lockheed Martin Preparing JAGM Bid; Raytheon Unsure”.

May 13/14: FBO.gov, “14–JAGM ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT”:

“The U.S. Army Contracting Command – Redstone (ACC-R) intends to issue a Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP), W31P4Q-14-R-0107, for the purpose of supporting a full and open competitive procurement to fulfill the requirements for the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase with options for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)…. The JAMS project office plans to host a Pre-proposal Industry Day sometime in the June 2014 timeframe to present general unclassified information on the U.S. Army’s projected procurement strategy of the JAGM and the Army’s vision…”

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 pre-programmed 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.

The C-130 Hercules remains one of the longest-running aerospace manufacturing programs of all time. Since 1956, over 40 models and variants have served as the tactical airlift backbone for over 50 nations. The C-130J looks similar, but the number of changes almost makes it a new aircraft. Those changes also created issues; the program has been the focus of a great deal of controversy in America – and even of a full program restructuring in 2006. Some early concerns from critics were put to rest when the C-130J demonstrated in-theater performance on the front lines that was a major improvement over its C-130E/H predecessors. A valid follow-on question might be: does it break the bottleneck limitations that have hobbled a number of multi-billion dollar US Army vehicle development programs?

C-130J customers now include Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, India, Israel, Iraq, Italy, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Tunisia, and the United States. American C-130J purchases are taking place under both annual budgets and supplemental wartime funding, in order to replace tactical transport and special forces fleets that are flying old aircraft and in dire need of major repairs. This DID FOCUS Article describes the C-130J, examines the bottleneck issue, covers global developments for the C-130J program, and looks at present and emerging competitors.

The (Private) Labors of Hercules: the C-130J Family

Most American planes rely on their huge home market as their base, then seek exports. The privately-developed C-130J “Super Hercules” was different. Australia, Britain, Denmark, and Italy were all ahead of the curve, and have been operating this heavily redesigned upgrade of the popular C-130 Hercules transport aircraft for several years. By the time the C-130J finally reached “initial operating capability” for the US military late in 2006, these faster-moving foreign customers were already banding together to create a common upgrade set for their serving fleets. A number of variants are currently flying in transport (C-130J), stretched transport (C-130J-30), aerial broadcaster (EC-130J), coast guard patrol (HC-130J), aerial tanker (KC-130J), special forces (MC-130J), and even hurricane hunter weather aircraft (WC-130J).

The C-130J looks a lot like its predecessors, except for the new 6-bladed Dowty propeller. In reality, a number of changes have been made to its construction and components, and its internal systems are almost wholly new. Unlike most defense programs, however, the C-130J was not a government contract. Lockheed Martin spent almost $1 billion of its own funds developing the update, then began selling it in the USA and abroad.

Base Platform: The C-130J

The C-130J’s improvements are mostly clustered around 2 key characteristics: performance, and operational costs. Instead of Rolls Royce 4,600 shp T56 Series III turboprop engines, it uses lighter Rolls-Royce AE2100D3 engines, coupled with a 6-blade Dowty R-391 propeller system made of composite materials. The overall system generates 29% more thrust, while increasing fuel efficiency by 15% and offering improved reliability and maintenance. Compared to the 1960s-era C-130E (note: there was an intermediate C-130H version), maximum speed is up 21%, climb-to-altitude time is down 50%, cruising altitude is 40% higher, and range is about 40% longer.

The enhanced capacity of the “J” variant is especially noteworthy in hot climates and/or high altitude operations, where the new plane can deliver 40% better payload/range performance than earlier versions. US experience in places like Afghanistan and Iraq indicates that as many as 3 C-130H models may be required to do the job of 1 C-130J in these “hot and high” conditions.

The C 130J only requires 2-3 crew members for most missions instead of 4, and avionics have been changed to incorporate more advanced capabilities into the night-vision-system compatible “glass cockpit” (computer screens, not dials) and heads-up display. A pair of mission computers and 2 backup bus interface units provide dual redundancy. Equally important, they host an integrated diagnostics system to assist with maintenance and reduce long-term ownership costs.

The interior of the C-130J has also seen a number of improvements, simplifying and automating key cargo tasks. An automated airdrop system, for instance, delivers parachute loads more precisely. These kinds of additions have dropped the crew required for airdrops from 4 to 2 (pilot, co-pilot). In addition, innovations such as flip-over rollers allow loaders to reconfigure the cargo area in about 5 minutes instead of the traditional 25, getting planes out of airstrips quickly and maximizing overall loading/unloading efficiency during larger operations.

An optional dorsal aerial refueling system can extend the C-130J’s range significantly, while optional aerial taker kits can convert the C-130J into a flying gas station that offloads fuel faster than previous KC-130 versions, and can handle both helicopters and jets due to its range of flight speeds.

Finally, the C-130J Maintenance and Aircrew Training System (MATS) is designed to complement the C-130J, adding a high-tech simulation angle to both flying and maintenance training.

The worldwide fleet of C-130Js exceeded 355,000 flight hours As of August 3/07.

The stretched C-130J-30 adds 15 feet of fuselage length over its C-130J counterpart, most of which is placed forward of the wing as the plane stretches from 97’9″ (29.3 m) to 112’9″ (34.69 m). The extra cargo space allows it to add adds 2 standard pallets (to 8), 23 litters (to 97), 8 CDS bundles (to 24), 36 combat troops (to 128), or 28 paratroopers (to 92) over C-130H/J models, and the aircraft’s maximum weight increases by 9,000 pounds (to 164,000 pounds/ 74,393 kg).

Maximum allowable cargo payload rises by a ton over the C-130J, from 42,000 pounds to 44,000 pounds/ 19,958 kg); the 36,000 pound maximum normal C-130J-30 payload is 2,000 pounds higher than the C-130J, but 500 pounds lower than the C-130H’s 36,500 pounds. Even so, the extra space comes in handy. C-130J-30s can carry 33% more pallets of equipment or supplies, 39% more combat troops, 31% more paratroopers, or 44% more aeromedical evacuation litters than previous unstretched Hercules versions. The stretched C-130J-30 also shares the C-130J’s ability to use much more of its theoretical cargo capacity in hot or high altitude environments than previous C-130 versions.

In exchange, the stretched C-130J-30 suffers a speed drop of 7 mph (410 mph at 22,000 feet) vs. the C-130J, a 2,000 foot lower ceiling (26,000 feet with full payload), and maximum range at full payload that falls by 115 miles to 1,956 miles. It does outshine the smaller C-130J when carrying only 35,000 pounds of cargo, however: its 2,417 miles is a 576 mile increase over the C-130J, and a 921 mile increase over the C-130H.

Note that except for maximum normal payload, all of the C-130J’s figures remain significantly better than the C-130H, with statistics of 366 mph cruise speed at 22,000 feet, a 23,000 foot ceiling, and range at maximum normal payload of 1,208 miles.

C-130J Variants

As one might imagine, Special Forces variants are undergoing the most change, but the platform’s versatility is also pushing Lockheed Martin toward an advanced naval variant.

AC-130J “Ghostrider”. This new gunship will be based on the MC-130J, but it won’t carry hose-and-drogue refueling pods. It will have a 400 Amp power supply, added defensive systems, more surveillance sensors, terrain-following radar, and a Precision Strike Package (PSP).

The PSP 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 rear cargo door. It may eventually add a side-firing 105mm howitzer like existing AFSOC AC-130H/Us, and AGM-114 Hellfire missiles like the USMC’s 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.

Ghostrider surveillance equipment will include 2 day/night surveillance and targeting pods and a ground-looking synthetic aperture radar pod, tied into the pilot’s helmet-mounted display. Defensive systems will include the AN/ALR-56M radar warning receiver, AN/AAR-47(V)2 missile warning system, and AN/ALE-47 countermeasures dispensing system, along with standard options like fuel tank foam, system redundancy, and some armoring.

One sore point is its comparative lack of armor compared to the AC-130H/U, with no armoring for the Mission Operator Pallet and just 7.62mm level protection elsewhere. Most AC-130s brought down in Vietnam were killed by 37mm guns.

HC/MC-130J Increment 1. Modifications include additional defensive countermeasure dispensers, high-altitude ramp and door hydraulics, a 4th flight deck crew member station, an extra intercom panel and 60-Hertz electrical outlets in the cargo compartment.

HC/MC-130J Increment 2. Includes increased 28-volt direct current internal power capacity, crash-worthy loadmaster scanner-position seats, and provisions for Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures defensive systems. This is as high as the HC-130J Combat King IIs are expected to go, though they’ll also receive a T-1 communications modification with a Specialized Automated Mission Suite/Enhanced Situational Awareness system (SAMS/ESA: SADL data link, High Power Waveform, and Air Force Tactical Radio System-Ruggedized), Blue Force Tracker, and the Joint Precision Airdrop System.

HC/MC-130J Increment 3. Includes a 400 Amp power supply, dual special mission processors, and a secure file server. MC-130J Commando IIs will be improved to Increment 3.

SC-130J MPRA. A proposed maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, created by moving a number of P-3 Orion systems onto and into the C-130J. A Magnetic Anomaly Detector boom is installed in the tail for submarine detection, along with a sonobuoy storage pallet and 2 rotary launchers in the rear interior. A day/night surveillance turret goes under the nose, a 360 maritime radar is mounted under the fuselage, and ESM electronics for pinpointing and geolocating radars, communications, etc. are mounted via on wingtip pods and fore and aft fuselage points. A set of roll-in console modules would contain the necessary electronics and screens to manage it all.

Countries that wanted to go beyond surveillance would push further development to add wing hardpoints for torpedoes and missiles, and/or a weapons bay and torpedo racks in the front fuselage.

C-130J operator Britain is Lockheed Martin’s biggest SC-130J target, and the plane’s flexibility could appeal to others who see the value in fleet commonality and good mid-range performance, with easier upgradeability than standard MPAs. The downside is that the C-130J is designed for short-field performance first, and efficient cruising operation second. That will make it expensive to operate compared to smaller twin-engine competitors, which are typically derived from commercial light cargo and passenger aircraft. The Airbus ATR-72 MPA is an example of a larger competitor that also follows this pattern; ATRs have won significant share in the mid-range regional airline market on the strength of their operating efficiency.

The Value of Variants

These variants and kits give the C-130J an edge in the global market, and will help Lockheed Martin retain that edge as the 20-ton tactical transport market starts to get crowded in 2020 or so. The type’s strong Special Forces niche has already helped to close orders with export clients like India, who could easily have chosen additional orders of plane types already in its fleet (AN-32, IL-76). The second big edge for the platform is a related niche: multi-role armed transports that can deliver troops and supplies, then provide close-air support for counterinsurgency fights. The KC-130J’s Harvest HAWK kits, and C-130H-derived MC-130W Dragon Spear, offer prospective customers an important set of clip-on capabilities that none of its major competitors (A400M, KC-390, MRTA) are even designing, let alone fielding. The SC-130J maritime patrol option could become a similar kind of selling point.

Those “ecosystem strengths” are going to become more important in future. The C-130XJ, unveiled in December 2011 at the Credit Suisse aerospace and defense conference in New York, NY, may not offer enough savings by itself to prompt orders from target customers like South Africa. A cheaper base aircraft, plus existing modifications available on the market, is more appealing. Likewise, the C-130NG could sell among existing C-130J customers, but its changes by themselves might still leave it lagging behind the price of low-cost turboprop options like China’s Y-9, behind the performance of new jet-powered rivals like Embraer’s multinational KC-390 and HAL/Irkut’s MRTA, and very much behind the capacity of Airbus’ larger A400M.

The existence of clip-on kits and proven specialty variants may have to sell it, instead. Especially if the C-130NG also fails to resolve the biggest limitation in today’s medium tactical transport field…

Turbulent Flight: The C-130J Program

The privately-developed Hercules variant has been the subject of heavy criticism and a 2005 near-death budget experience, followed by its reinstatement by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on the stated grounds that canceling the contract would be almost as expensive as completing it – though a later government report established that its cancellation costs were wildly overstated.

In order to comply with the FY 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, however,Air Force Print News reported that the C-130J contract was converted from the existing commercial item procurement to a traditional military procurement in FY 2006. In technical terms, it was converted from a Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 to an FAR Part 15 contract, which includes much more extensive Congressional oversight and cost reporting requirements. In bottom line terms, this involved repricing 39 aircraft, resulting in net savings anywhere from $170-245 million (reports vary). Under the restructured contract, the Air Force said Lockheed cut the program cost by 8% for the remaining 26 Air Force C-130Js, and nearly 12% for 13 Marine KC-130Js.

The Wall Street Journal reported this as a decision by Lockheed Martin to cut its profit margins on the plane, after investing $1 billion in private funds to develop it. Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky was quoted as saying that “national defense outweighs the continued recovery of funds we invested in its development.” It’s widely suspected in reports from Associated Press et. al. that direct criticism of the FAR Part 12 contract by Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] played a role as well.

Since FY 2006, American C-130J orders have continued, and the aircraft has continued to expand its export successes as well. C-130J aircraft are now flown and/or under contract by the USAF and Air National Guard, US Marines, and US Coast Guard; and by Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, India, Israel, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Tunisia. DSCA requests that have yet to become publicly-announced contracts include Mexico (2012), Libya (2013), and Brunei (2014).

According to official Pentagon documents, the C-130J’s past and planned American budget breakdowns include:

Note that each year’s procurement budget almost always includes advance “long-lead time material” orders for the next fiscal year. That way, once the main contract is issued, construction isn’t delayed by long waits for predictable items.

The C-130J and the 20-ton Bottleneck

The C-130J offers a genuine improvement over past versions of the Hercules, especially in hot and/or high-altitude environments where all aircraft lose lift and carrying capacity. It has proven these capabilities during deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, where its additional reserves of power have come in very handy on the front lines.

On the other hand, the ability to fit into tactical transports is a very common requirement and benchmark for ground systems, including armored personnel carriers. Billions have been spent on R&D for the wheeled Stryker armored vehicle family, and for the USA’s $160+ billion Future Combat Systems MGV armored vehicle family. Both vehicle families were sold as options that would fit into US tactical transports, in order to meet the military’s timeframe goals for deploying units to crisis situations. Both projects failed to meet their goals after spending billions in R&D, leaving the USA’s expensive C-17 fleet overworked, and achievement of the USA’s strategic deployability goals unlikely.

Unlike the pending Airbus A400M, therefore, which offers a larger interior and a 33-35 ton vehicle capacity, the C-130J doesn’t solve the sub-survivable 20-ton armored vehicle limit that has stymied multiple US armored vehicle programs. As such, it represents an improvement that fails to address US tactical airlift’s key bottleneck limitation. Meanwhile, reports from the USAF indicate that C-130Js are often flying with very little weight and/or small cargo, because the demands of counterinsurgency airlift lead to more and smaller requests from a number of front line sources.

The C-130J thus finds itself in the odd position of offering capabilities that are both too great for many tactical needs, while being too small to meet important American strategic goals. Even Special Forces worry that future air defense threats will make the C-130 non-survivable in future gunship and insertion roles.

That’s the bad news. On the other hand, its major competitor the Airbus A400M went through major delays and contract re-negotiation in System Design & Development, and has a production backlog of over 180 aircraft as deliveries are beginning. Future competitors like the Indo-Russian MRTA, and Embraer’s multinational KC-390 are currently in even earlier R&D stages. Which means that any nations needing to replenish a 20+ ton tactical airlift fleet any time soon are limited to a choice of buying the C-130J, or purchasing old designs like Russia’s AN-12 or China’s Y-8 aircraft.

As the A400M becomes available, and the 20-ton segment begins to crowd with new offerings, the C-130J will face a very different competitive environment. Without major American C-130J buys, or establishment of the C-130J as a market leader in key segments like Special Operations, recouping its $1 billion investment would have been challenging for Lockheed Martin. Fortunately for the firm, they’ve made considerable progress toward both of these goals.

Contracts and Key Events

The USA’s JMATS contracts for C-130J simulators and training are a critical but separate component, and are covered in their own article. International customers aren’t part of JMATS, so their arrangements may be covered here.

DID has covered C-130J buys in Canada, India, Israel, Iraq, and Norway; and the UAE’s potential buy, as dedicated articles. Important milestones from those purchases may also appear here.

DID also has a separate article covering training and simulators, under the MATS, JMATS, and JMATS-II programs.

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts are issued by the Headquarters Air Force Material Command (AFMC) in Wright Patterson AFB, OH; and the contractor is Lockheed Martin Corporation in Marietta, GA. Note that coverage is complete only from Jan 1/06 forward.