It could be so easy, but they never do that now, do they.
Alongside the constant Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)-smorgasbord-hiccups, there are three major new ground combat vehicle programmes the Armys new Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) and Armored Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV), and the USMCs Amphibious Combat Vehicleand one will not survive.
Shifting strategies and looming budget constraints may force the US Department of Defense (DoD) to put one of its ground combat vehicles on the chopping block, what might pit the Army against the USMC in the budget battles.
According to a Frost & Sullivan study, project sales will decrease to $3.19 billion by 2017. About $1.1 billion was spent in 2012 on modifications and upgrades to ground combat vehicles. The study forecast an average decrease of 5-10% each year until 2017.
The new vehicles will likely to be based on existing commercial or government off-the-shelf platforms. Upgrades take a preference over building vehicles from-the-ground-up, as we all know.
And this is already happening, as just recently US Army combat vehicle experts were looking to engineers at General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) to upgrade the power, communications, embedded computing, electronic warfare, and targeting vetronics systems aboard the M1A2 ABRAMS SEP v2 main battle tank (MBT).
The Army Contracting Command-Warren in Warren, MI., announced plans in September to award a $383 million sole-source contract to General Dynamics (GD) to enhance ABRAMS tank systems to enable the front-line combat vehicle to keep pace with more modern combat vehicles such as the GCV, to which GDLS is also a prime contractor.
And with increased interest in the Asia-Pacific region, heavy ground combat vehicles could become increasingly less necessary; favouring the USMC.
The BAE Systems GCV offering includes a hybrid electric drive propulsion system that enables force protection and mobility in a lighter vehicle, while accommodating future growth in power requirements and new technologies. With BAE Systems being the lead, Northrop Grumman will serve as the C4ISR lead, responsible for integration of hardware and software, computers and communications equipment, sensors and sensor suites, and other functionality that enables plug and play, access across external networks and full spectrum situational awareness. QinetiQ will provide the hybrid electric drive transmission, or E-X-Drive for the GCV. MTU manufactures the Series 890, which is an extremely power dense family of 412 cylinder diesel engines. Within this series, we have selected the R6 engine for this GCV offering. Saft will provide the GCV energy storage system using proven Lithium-Ion batteries. The L3 Hydropneumatic Suspension Units (HSUs) and long stroke track tensioner provide improved ride quality at lower weight than a torsion bar equivalent. The HSUs are also completely externally mounted, preserving internal volume for the crew and squad.
Not too much is known about the GDLS offer. In the first 2010 offer, it included GDLS as the prime contractor, with GDC4IS responsible for network integration, communications, computing and information assurance. Major subcontractors included Lockheed Martin for the turret, lethal and non-lethal effects and embedded training; Raytheon for the RPG protection system, indirect-vision systems, and sensor integration; and MTU/Tognum America for the power pack.
BAE has offered a stripped down version of its M2 BRADLEY, without the turret and heavy weapons, which would obviously meet the requirement to keep up with existing M2s. GD's eight-wheel drive STRYKER is less mobile offroad than the BRADLEYs (though better than MRAPs), but it has the advantage that it's already being produced in multiple variants, from troop carrier to command post to ambulance.
A formal RfP from industry may come as early as the first quarter of 2013. The Army originally planned to start production in 2017, but it's hopeful it could begin buying the vehicles in bulk in 2015 if it can find an off-the-shelf design -- like the STRYKER or a modified BRADLEY -- to meet its needs at $1 million to $1.7 million per vehicle.So far AMPV is a study project, a relatively modest $74 million in the FY13 budget.
Interestingly enough, there is an Armoured Multi Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) developed by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetall Defence. This AMPV is specifically designed for out-of-area operations, meeting the full range of requirements for mobility and ruggedness.
Also interesting to see that KMW and Rheinmetall, alongside US partners SAIC and Boeing handed in a proposal for the GCV tender, but were thrown out immediately, while all other contenders got ahead...
AM General, $64 million (BRV-O [Blast-Resistant Vehicle Off Road] vehicle), Lockheed Martin, $66 million (a JLTV model already proven in government testing to create its EMD design; the Lockheed Martin-led JLTV team includes BAE Systems, Allison Transmission, Cummins Engine, L3 Combat Propulsion Systems, Meritor Defense, Robert Bosch, and Vehma International of America), and Oshkosh, $56 million (L-ATV). These awards are incrementally funded, firm-fixed price contracts for the 27 month EMD effort. The Army plans to buy at least 50,000 vehicles and the USMC plans to buy 5,000 more. The EMD contracts will provide for fabrication, assembly, integration, testing and test support, and related requirements in accordance with the contract and the JLTV purchase description.
It should be noted that it is surprising that the US DoD only picked one team that participated in the TD phase as well. This again makes one think about what will happen at the end of the EMD phase. Let us not forget, there is another phase, the production and deployment phase, which will follow normal acquisition policies and processes, which is to conduct full and open competition absent proper justification to restrict competition. For the initial production contract, which is currently planned to be solicited in FY15, the US government intends to award one firm fixed price contract consisting of a base three year Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract with an option(s) for five years of Full Rate Production (FRP) deliveries. Mind you, the government hasn't finalised the evaluation criteria for the production phase.
Meaning, if a company did not receive an EMD award, but wishes to proceed at its own risk and at its own expense, it can notify government of its intentions, and may be in place for production source selection. And just like we have now seen, it might just pay off.
This should shed some light on the issue...until probably after the US elections, when everything can be reshuffled, and maybe we'll go back to FCS?
Alongside the constant Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)-smorgasbord-hiccups, there are three major new ground combat vehicle programmes the Armys new Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) and Armored Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV), and the USMCs Amphibious Combat Vehicleand one will not survive.
The JLTVcompetition has been turned on its head by a change to the programmes requirements, schedule and cost. The winners of the EMD phase fltr: AM General, Lockheed Martin, and Oshkosh Defense. Navistar bid a variant of its SARATOGA light tactical vehicle, which the company launched in October last year at AUSA, after conducting its own automotive and blast testing, but was not chosen. (Photos via the respective companies)
Shifting strategies and looming budget constraints may force the US Department of Defense (DoD) to put one of its ground combat vehicles on the chopping block, what might pit the Army against the USMC in the budget battles.
According to a Frost & Sullivan study, project sales will decrease to $3.19 billion by 2017. About $1.1 billion was spent in 2012 on modifications and upgrades to ground combat vehicles. The study forecast an average decrease of 5-10% each year until 2017.
The new vehicles will likely to be based on existing commercial or government off-the-shelf platforms. Upgrades take a preference over building vehicles from-the-ground-up, as we all know.
And this is already happening, as just recently US Army combat vehicle experts were looking to engineers at General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) to upgrade the power, communications, embedded computing, electronic warfare, and targeting vetronics systems aboard the M1A2 ABRAMS SEP v2 main battle tank (MBT).
M1A2 ABRAMS SEP v2
The Army Contracting Command-Warren in Warren, MI., announced plans in September to award a $383 million sole-source contract to General Dynamics (GD) to enhance ABRAMS tank systems to enable the front-line combat vehicle to keep pace with more modern combat vehicles such as the GCV, to which GDLS is also a prime contractor.
And with increased interest in the Asia-Pacific region, heavy ground combat vehicles could become increasingly less necessary; favouring the USMC.
The Programmes
GCV
The GCV is the Armys programme to replace armoured vehicles attached to its brigade combat teams. Plans are to begin fielding a platform by 2017 that can carry at least nine soldiers, plus crew in improvised explosive device (IED) threat environments. The Army wants eventually to purchase about 1,800 IFVs.The BAE Systems GCV offering includes a hybrid electric drive propulsion system that enables force protection and mobility in a lighter vehicle, while accommodating future growth in power requirements and new technologies. With BAE Systems being the lead, Northrop Grumman will serve as the C4ISR lead, responsible for integration of hardware and software, computers and communications equipment, sensors and sensor suites, and other functionality that enables plug and play, access across external networks and full spectrum situational awareness. QinetiQ will provide the hybrid electric drive transmission, or E-X-Drive for the GCV. MTU manufactures the Series 890, which is an extremely power dense family of 412 cylinder diesel engines. Within this series, we have selected the R6 engine for this GCV offering. Saft will provide the GCV energy storage system using proven Lithium-Ion batteries. The L3 Hydropneumatic Suspension Units (HSUs) and long stroke track tensioner provide improved ride quality at lower weight than a torsion bar equivalent. The HSUs are also completely externally mounted, preserving internal volume for the crew and squad.
Not too much is known about the GDLS offer. In the first 2010 offer, it included GDLS as the prime contractor, with GDC4IS responsible for network integration, communications, computing and information assurance. Major subcontractors included Lockheed Martin for the turret, lethal and non-lethal effects and embedded training; Raytheon for the RPG protection system, indirect-vision systems, and sensor integration; and MTU/Tognum America for the power pack.
BAE Systems' GCV Concept
AMPV
The AMPV is slated to replace the M113 family of armoured personnel carriers (APC) of which the Army has about 6,000. Contracts will go out to replace the 3,000 currently attached to heavy brigade combat teams in the current fiscal year.BAE has offered a stripped down version of its M2 BRADLEY, without the turret and heavy weapons, which would obviously meet the requirement to keep up with existing M2s. GD's eight-wheel drive STRYKER is less mobile offroad than the BRADLEYs (though better than MRAPs), but it has the advantage that it's already being produced in multiple variants, from troop carrier to command post to ambulance.
A formal RfP from industry may come as early as the first quarter of 2013. The Army originally planned to start production in 2017, but it's hopeful it could begin buying the vehicles in bulk in 2015 if it can find an off-the-shelf design -- like the STRYKER or a modified BRADLEY -- to meet its needs at $1 million to $1.7 million per vehicle.So far AMPV is a study project, a relatively modest $74 million in the FY13 budget.
Interestingly enough, there is an Armoured Multi Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) developed by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetall Defence. This AMPV is specifically designed for out-of-area operations, meeting the full range of requirements for mobility and ruggedness.
Also interesting to see that KMW and Rheinmetall, alongside US partners SAIC and Boeing handed in a proposal for the GCV tender, but were thrown out immediately, while all other contenders got ahead...
Amphibious Combat Vehicle
The Amphibious Combat Vehicle is scheduled to enter the USMC fleet sometime around 2030 and is a replacement to the Amphibious Assault Vehicles the Marines have been using since the 1970s. USMC officials have said the aging AAV fleet is undergoing a service life extension that will carry the vehicles to at least 2025.JLTV
The JLTV is comprised of two variants, a two-seat- and a four-seat variant, and a companion trailer (JLTV-T). The two-seat variant has one base vehicle platform: The Utility (UTL). The four-seat variant has two Base Vehicle Platforms: The Close Combat Weapons Carrier (CCWC), and The General Purpose (GP). Each base vehicle platform will be configured as a Mission Package Configuration through the installation of Mission Packages. JLTV Mission Package configurations are, Utility (JLTV-UTL), Close Combat Weapons Carrier (JLTV-CCWC), General Purpose (JLTV-GP), and Heavy Guns Carrier (JLTV-HGC). Three awards were made for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the JLTV programme. The value of these awards include both the base contract effort (capped at $65 million) and an evaluated, unexercised Level of Effort (LOE) option price.AM General, $64 million (BRV-O [Blast-Resistant Vehicle Off Road] vehicle), Lockheed Martin, $66 million (a JLTV model already proven in government testing to create its EMD design; the Lockheed Martin-led JLTV team includes BAE Systems, Allison Transmission, Cummins Engine, L3 Combat Propulsion Systems, Meritor Defense, Robert Bosch, and Vehma International of America), and Oshkosh, $56 million (L-ATV). These awards are incrementally funded, firm-fixed price contracts for the 27 month EMD effort. The Army plans to buy at least 50,000 vehicles and the USMC plans to buy 5,000 more. The EMD contracts will provide for fabrication, assembly, integration, testing and test support, and related requirements in accordance with the contract and the JLTV purchase description.
It should be noted that it is surprising that the US DoD only picked one team that participated in the TD phase as well. This again makes one think about what will happen at the end of the EMD phase. Let us not forget, there is another phase, the production and deployment phase, which will follow normal acquisition policies and processes, which is to conduct full and open competition absent proper justification to restrict competition. For the initial production contract, which is currently planned to be solicited in FY15, the US government intends to award one firm fixed price contract consisting of a base three year Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract with an option(s) for five years of Full Rate Production (FRP) deliveries. Mind you, the government hasn't finalised the evaluation criteria for the production phase.
Meaning, if a company did not receive an EMD award, but wishes to proceed at its own risk and at its own expense, it can notify government of its intentions, and may be in place for production source selection. And just like we have now seen, it might just pay off.
This should shed some light on the issue...until probably after the US elections, when everything can be reshuffled, and maybe we'll go back to FCS?
No comments:
Post a Comment