Tuesday, March 26, 2013

DOD comes up with another questionable AFV scheme

The DOD could be taking a Stryker approach toward replacing the M-113 in service.

What is the "Stryker" approach? Make up a story to market a new product. Historically, in the case of the Stryker, a defective product.

Read this AOL piece, in order to get funding for the next great contractor event, they have to fear-monger the M-113.

In Iraq, however, M113s proved so under-armored against roadside bombs that commanders restricted them to base. As the Army rebuilds its capability for mobile armored blitzkrieg after a decade of relatively static counterinsurgency work, it needs a support vehicle that can survive and keep up with the tanks.

Well, while building in crew survivability against IED's is a good thing, IED's have taken out everything. They will always be a bigger IED somewhere. Styker and MRAPs have good crew survivability against various IEDs but they are stuck to very good ground (the Stryker is heavy with worse ground pressure than tracks) and roads. Tracked vehicles can approach an objective from a variety of points, well assuming roads are not the only choice.

Apparently the M-113 can be made with some IED crew survivability.

The second part of the quote above is also funny. That would be the job of the Bradley, which we already have. Also, losses are part of war. How many billions in R and D do you put into a new vehicle?

Fear-mongering the M-113 in Iraq is a bad idea because well, where do you think some of our M-113s have gone as part of foreign military sales? Iraq.

On Sept 15/10, the US DSCA announced [PDF] Iraq’s formal request to buy 440 refurbished M113A2 tracked Armored Personnel Carriers, which would be transferred from American stocks as Excess Defense Articles. The total contract value could be up to $131 million, and would also include 440 M2 .50 caliber machine guns mounted up top, 607 AN/VRC-90E Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radios Systems (SINCGARS), plus M259 Smoke Grenade Launchers, Combat Vehicle Crewmember Helmets, publications and technical documentation, tools and test equipment, spare and repair parts, support equipment, site survey, construction, personnel training and training equipment, and U.S. Government and contractor support.

The prime contractor will be BAE Corporation in Rosslyn, VA, and implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of multiple additional U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Iraq for a period of 2 years, with an option for additional years.

Iraq’s neighbors in Jordan and Saudi Arabia already operate M113s, whose light weight and tracks given them good all-terrain mobility. The M113A2 variant lacks the power train and transmission upgrades of the most modern M113A3 variants. Iraqi Order of Battle compiler DJ Elliott believes this order is part of an ultimate pool of 1,026 M113 APC, command, and mortar variants, which will accompany Iraq’s M1 tanks and serve is some of its mechanized divisions.

And this.

ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT, Ala. - Vehicle production began here Jan. 12 on a Foreign Military Sales case facilitated recently by the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command to provide refurbished M113 armored personnel carriers and M88 recovery vehicles to the government of Iraq.

"These vehicles will help the government of Iraq be more self-reliant in the defense of their country, enabling our troops to come home," said Phillip Dean, chief of Integrated Logistics Support at Anniston Army Depot.

ANAD is planning to produce a total of 586 M113s, which are of the A2 variant. The FMS calls for 21 M88s.

ANAD's M113A2 work, estimated to be worth $60 million, is to be conducted here in partnership with defense contractor BAE Systems, said Carol Funderburg, depot business management specialist. BAE Systems is providing supply chain management under a Federal Acquisition Regulation contract. The vehicles to be repaired are from an excess stock of M113s at Sierra Army Depot in California.

"This M113 program is another excellent example of the continued success of the partnership ANAD has had with BAE Systems since 1995," said Funderburg.

This isn't the first time ANAD has performed work under a Foreign Military Sales case for Iraq, and more programs are expected, said Dean. Most recently, between November 2009 and December 2010, ANAD refurbished 140 M1 Abrams tanks for Iraq in partnership with General Dynamics Land Systems. ANAD will begin another M1 program in May to provide tanks for Saudi Arabia and is working now to develop business with Australia.

While the local community will be impacted by continued revenue flow, no new jobs were created for the M113 and M88 refurbishment work. "The benefit of this work to ANAD is the sustainment of our core capabilities," said Funderburg, "and it could serve as a model for additional M113 FMS workload."

Workers will be repairing the M113s at a rate of 50 vehicles per month throughout fiscal year 2011 until all are completed, said Dean. The first delivery of M113s to Iraq is set for July.

But yeah, somehow M-113s are bad for the region. Imagine how much value refurbished M-113s would provide for the U.S. in a Pacific Pivot. Given that they can actually swim.

9 comments:

Perplexed said...

No doubt they will be seeking the expertise from DMO on how to run a successful M113 refurbishment program

NGF said...

According to the following, the upgraded Australian version of the M-113, the M-113AS4, has improved protection against IED's, as well as add on ceramic armour:

http://www.military-today.com/apc/m113as4.htm

Anonymous said...

If an insufficient M-113 is needing replacement, why not then just evaluate and study the ACV-S (stretched and widened M-113 derivative) -- innovated by Turkish/BAE joint-venture -- which can defeat 30mm ammo, travel at over 75kph and can accommodate 75 more load??

Seriously.

Why reinvent from scratch at billions of $R&D and 5+ years?

It could be license produced in the US, is powered by a Detroit tubro diesel (up to 400hp) and come configured in any number of roles including air defense (w/ Oerlikon 35mm).

That could be a cheap, effective, and 'sufficient' replacement option worth a test drive.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/acv-s/

Blacktail said...

There is, in fact, an upgraded M113 available that in the 1990s was planned to become the M113A4 --- the MTVL.

MTVLs are used by Canada, Australia (as the M113AS4), and Egypt (as the EIFV). The Turkish ACV-S and Pakistani Saad also both follow this formula.

The stretched MTVL boasts an improved and stronger suspension (with more suspension travel than the M113A3), more stowage space, a 400hp Diesel V6 engine,

Here are the specs on the MTVL;
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product313.html


Also, in the base-configuration of the MTVL, it only weighs about 15 short tons, and all of it's variants are fully-amphibious without preparation. There are people who claim that it's too heavy to swim, but there are photos that prove it's true. Skip of 0:29 in this video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvh693TQmnY

The vehicle you see swimming across a water obstacle of considerable depth is an IFVL, which is an MTVL with a 25mm turret on top --- that's significant, because that turret makes it MUCH heavier than a standard MTVL. Here's the manufacturer's data on the IFVL;
http://www.udlp.com/www.m113.com/ifvlcharac.html


For reference, here are photos of the MTVL and IFVL;
http://www.network54.com/Realm/ModCdnVehs/MTVL_1.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/mav-image4.jpg

A basic MTVL only costs about $500000, BTW; each Stryker costs over $10 Million ($45 Billion / 4000 = $11.25 Million).

Bushranger 71 said...

It is just not cost-effective to try and cocoon warriors against harm. The bottom line is acquiring platforms that are affordable, can be pretty easily maintained, have modest operating costs and, most importantly, are air transportable by C-130. Bigger airlifters will not always to be able to airland armour sufficiently close to scenes of action.

The unsolicited proposition by Tenix/BAE Systems to upgrade Australian M113 APCs should never have been countenanced by DoD and it would have been far smarter to just progress the simpler and modest cost enhancements initially intended. The BAE mods, including stretching of the vehicle, have arguably made the heavier platform less versatile than previously.

IEDs were common in Vietnam and we lost a few APCs to that threat; but overall, they did a fantastic job and nothing really adequately replaces them for Australia's regional wet tropics needs. Somewhat like the forfeited Iroquois!

The Pentagon should be forcing the US Army to simply upgrade its M113 fleet instead of going along with yet another arms manufacturer program that does not adequately replace well-proven hardware in service.

Bushranger 71 said...

See this overview of the Australian M113 upgrade program: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-m113-apc-family-upgrades-05133/

Bushranger 71 said...

Another snippet.

Major General John Cantwell (Retired) espoused on ABC TV this evening that the enemy introduced a new weapon in Iraq and Afghanistan, the IED. Seems the current crop of military leaders have skinny awareness of military history, especially the Vietnam conflict!

Anonymous said...

If my memory serve me a number of tanks were lost on Okinawa to what were essentially IED made from artillery shells.
But seriosly if you confine your operation to roads because your vehicles are too heavy you are asking for trouble.

Anonymous said...

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/m113-low-availability-due-to-lack-of.html
Discussion on the audit