US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

An explosion at a military ammunition storage facility in Nevada during a Marine Corps training exercise killed seven U.S. Marines and wounded several others, military officials said.

The soldiers with the 2nd Marine Division were killed late Monday when a 60-millimeter mortar exploded during a live-fire training exercise at Hawthorne Army Depot as Marines were preparing to fire it, NBC News reports.

The cause of the incident remains under investigation. The identities of those killed were not released pending notification of their families, officials said.

"We send our prayers and condolences to the families of Marines involved in this tragic incident. We remain focused on ensuring that they are supported through this difficult time," said Maj. Gen. Raymond C. Fox. "We mourn their loss, and it is with heavy hearts we remember their courage and sacrifice."

Stacy Kendall, a spokeswoman for Renown Regional Medical Center, told NBC News the facility was treating eight people wounded in the blast. Three were listed in serious condition; five were listed in fair condition. Kendall said the injuries included traumas and fractures.

Earlier, Russ Collier, an official at the facility, told KRNV-TV that the explosion was an accident unrelated to the ammunition that is stored at the military facility near the small desert community of Hawthorne.

The 147,000-acre depot, established in 1930, is about 140 miles southeast of Reno. The facility stores and disposes of ammunition, and provides long-term storage for industrial plant equipment. It is comprised of nearly 3,000 buildings — including igloos, supply warehouses and munitions sheds — throughout more than 230 square miles.

The facility had an operating budget of $270,000 and a payroll of $2.88 million in fiscal year 2009, according to its website.

Messages seeking comment from Hawthorne Army Depot officials were not immediately returned.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Blanket suspension of mortar system after blast
Families identify 2 of 7 Marines killed
By Hope Hodge - Staff writer Military times
Posted : Wednesday Mar 20, 2013 11:04:05 EDT
The Marine Corps will announce the identities of the seven Marines killed in a training accident late this evening, officials with II Marine Expeditionary Force said today.

Capt. Binford Strickland, a spokesman for II MEF, said in a release that all the families of the deceased have been notified, and officials plan to release the identities and unit information for the troops this evening following a 24-hour waiting period.

Strickland also updated the total of those injured in the blast to eight, saying another Marine had come forward Tuesday to report minor injuries from the explosion.

The six Marines and a sailor hospitalized after a 66mm mortar shell exploded in its tube are improving, Renown Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nev., reported Wednesday Morning.

Following the tragic accident at Hawthorne Army Depot, Nev., that killed seven Marines from 2nd Marine Division, the injured were taken to Renown, where six remained Wednesday, with three upgraded from very serious to serious condition, and three improved from serious to fair condition. One Marine was discharged with minor injuries, the medical center reported on its website. The general types of injuries sustained included trauma, vascular injuries, and fractures, Renown officials reported.

The Marines have issued a Deadline Safety of Use message suspending all use of the 60mm mortar system in training and downrange after a Monday explosion killed seven Marines, Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Richard Ulsh confirmed Wednesday morning.

The decision was made just before 10:30 p.m. Tuesday to issue a blanket suspension of the system. Ulsh said that the suspension comes with an exception: General officers in combat theater can still authorize use of the mortars if they choose.

The mortar system is likely to remain offline until the investigation of the fatal accident at Hawthorne Army Depot in Nevada has been completed.

In a press conference Tuesday aboard Camp Lejeune, 2nd Marine Division Commander Brig. Gen. Jim Lukeman told reporters the training accident that killed seven Marines was the result of a malfunction when a 60mm mortar round exploded inside a tube prior to firing.

In total, Lukeman said, seven Marines were killed and seven troops injured in the accident.

Lukeman said a team of investigators is working to learn exactly how the Marines were positioned when the explosion occurred and what went wrong in firing the mortar.

“We mourn the loss of these brave Marines who gave their lives to defend the nation,” he said.

The Marines were assigned to 1st Battalion, 9th Marines, out of Camp Lejeune. The accident occurred just before 10 p.m., said Capt. Binford Strickland, a spokesman for II Marine Expeditionary Force, the battalion’s parent command.

Marine officials have not identified anyone involved in the incident. However, family members have told The Associated Press that Lance Cpl. Josh Taylor, 21, of Marietta, Ohio, and Roger Muchnick, 23, a Connecticut native, were among those killed.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Click to expand...

Top U.S. commander makes overtures to Karzai
By Kimberly Dozier - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Mar 18, 2013 16:23:49 EDT
KABUL, Afghanistan — The top U.S. military chief in Afghanistan said Monday that his team is working as fast as possible to resolve issues that have infuriated Afghan President Hamid Karzai, including the delay in handing over a U.S.-run detention center and the withdrawal of American special forces from a troubled province neighboring Kabul.

The efforts illustrate the growing tensions between the commander, Gen. Joseph Dunford, and an Afghan ally who is struggling to break free from international influence and establish independence after more than a decade relying on a foreign military force for security.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE

• Dunford: Karzai’s comments threaten U.S. troops (3/14)

• Karzai alleges U.S., Taliban are colluding (3/10)

• NATO: No evidence for Afghan misconduct claim (2/25)

The two latest stumbling blocks in the relationship have delayed a round of talks on a pivotal U.S.-Afghan security agreement to govern the American troops expected to stay past the end of 2014, when the NATO-led coalition ends its combat mission. Talks on the unfinished pact were supposed to take place in Kabul last week.

“We’re working issues with a sense of urgency,” Dunford told The Associated Press in his first one-on-one interview since he took command. “But the issues are complex, and they’re fundamental ... so you have to get it right.”

Speaking in his office in the capital, Kabul, Dunford would not say when the detention center would be handed over.

Dunford is trying to address a series of increasingly strident decrees that Karzai has laid down since the commander took charge five weeks ago. It started just days after he arrived, when Karzai insisted that the coalition cease all airstrikes after another NATO airstrike caused civilian casualties. More recently, Karzai has demanded that U.S. special operations forces leave Wardak province, after allegations that U.S. commandos and their Afghan partners abused local citizens — a charge Dunford denies.

Dunford would not set a date for the withdrawal of U.S. commandos from Wardak province, just outside the capital, saying he’s working with the Afghan defense and interior ministers to come up with a plan.

Throughout, Karzai has kept up a steady stream of invective in public remarks, even accusing the U.S. of complicity with the Taliban in keeping the country unstable, as an excuse to stay longer. That has spurred anger on Capitol Hill.

“What to do about President Karzai? Isn’t he making success more problematic? He sure is,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, in a speech Monday to the Council on Foreign Relations. “Karzai’s absurd remarks weaken the support of the American people ... and they raise doubts in many if not most American minds about the wisdom of a long-term strategic relationship with Afghanistan, with all of its costs and risks.”

Last week, Dunford warned his commanders to raise their security levels, saying Karzai’s comments could stir more anti-American sentiment and spur more insider attacks.

But he has remained circumspect and studiously polite in public, seeking to use face-to-face meetings with Karzai to ease tension and temper Karzai’s angry demands for immediate change. Dunford, a Marine Corps general with a master’s degree in government from Georgetown University and another in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, said it’s simply a matter of “working the issues.”

“In all honesty, it hasn’t been that contentious on a personal level,” Dunford said.

To resolve the airstrike issue, Dunford agreed to limit but not end them, after 10 civilians were among the 14 Afghans killed in a coalition airstrike against insurgents on Feb. 13 in eastern Afghanistan.

In the case of the Parwan Detention Center, next to the huge U.S.-run Bagram Air Field, Dunford said that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had asked for a week to resolve the handover problems during a phone conversation with Karzai on Saturday, but the general said that did not mean there was a seven-day clock ticking to a new handover date.

Dunford said the U.S. must still figure out an acceptable way to monitor what happens to the detainees after the handover.

“We have to be assured that ... detainees will have humane treatment ... in accordance with international conventions,” he said.

“What we have to do is do that in a way that is consistent with Afghan sovereignty.”

U.S. officials also want to make sure that some 30 to 40 detainees they consider dangerous will not be set free. Dunford said Karzai has promised to comply, but the challenge has been “coming up with the right legal framework to do that.”

Dunford also insists the eventual transition of U.S. special operations forces from Wardak will happen, but only after he and Afghan security officials agree on a plan to safely hand over the province, considered a gateway for insurgents to stage attacks on Kabul.

Karzai’s deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. commandos from Wardak expired early last week, but the president relented temporarily when Dunford asked for more time.

“What I told the president was that I understood his intent and wanted to comply with it, and that we were going to draw down in Wardak in a manner that was consistent with transition,” Dunford said. “What I believe he agreed to let us do is work with the Afghan national security forces to make sure ... the security is maintained.”

“It’s not a question of we’re being recalcitrant and not coming out of Wardak. It’s just like everywhere else in Afghanistan, we’re in a process of transition,” he said.

But Karzai’s patience is wearing thin, according to his spokesman Aimal Faizi.

“There should be some sort of respect for the president of a country, but his demand is not being taken seriously,” Faizi told the AP on Monday.

Afghan officials contend that rogue Afghan militias in league with U.S. forces in Wardak province kidnapped nine local men, and they tortured and executed others.

U.S. officials reject charges of torture, kidnapping or extrajudicial killing. They said four of the men reported missing had been detained in joint U.S.-Afghan security force raids, but they don’t know what happened to the other five.

Faizi said the Afghan defense ministry further investigated the charges and concluded in a report to the National Security Council on Sunday that a man he described as an Afghan-American had conducted torture and extradition of locals on behalf of U.S. special operations forces. He said the man was videotaped torturing a suspect, with other Afghan forces watching the interrogation. Faizi said U.S. forces promised but failed to turn the man over to Afghan authorities.

Dunford said the Afghan-American in question did at one time work for U.S. special operations forces, but not at the time the alleged abuses occurred.

He said a senior military officer concluded a third U.S. investigation into these allegations on Sunday.

“I can tell you authoritatively, at the time of the incident, the detainees were not in a U.S. facility,” he said. “There were no U.S. forces in or around that incident, and the interpreter was not in our employ at the time of the incident.”

Dunford’s confrontations with the Afghan president are set against an early and ferocious start to the traditional Afghan spring fighting season. Unseasonably warm weather has melted snow on mountain passes and on dirt roads and paths in remote areas, making it easier for insurgents to plant roadside bombs.

U.S. officials say the Taliban already are focusing the majority of their firepower on Afghan forces — many of which are operating mostly independently across the country for the first time.

Dunford said he had confidence the Afghan forces would perform well.

“Can the Afghans this summer assume the lead? Yes,” he said, predicting they would emerge a more confident force by next fall.

Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed from Washington.

Click to expand...

Atlas V launches missile-warning satellite
By Todd Halvorson - Florida Today
Posted : Wednesday Mar 20, 2013 10:12:07 EDT
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — A new-generation U.S. missile-warning satellite is climbing toward a top-secret location 22,300 miles above Earth after launching aboard a powerful Atlas V rocket on Tuesday.

The launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station came just four days after Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel countered a growing threat from North Korea with a $1 billion bid to shore up ballistic missile defense on the U.S. West Coast.


The timing is coincidental — preparations for Tuesday’s launch were ongoing for months. But it is clear the threat from intercontinental and short-range missiles is of great concern for both homeland security and U.S. military operations around the world.

“I would argue that the nation’s missile-warning system is critical now, or perhaps even more so, than it was even during the Cold War,” Col. Jim Planeaux, director of the Air Force’s Infrared Space Systems Directorate, said during a media teleconference last week.

“Certainly strategic and tactical missile threats have proliferated in both number and type, and the number of countries that own these systems has increased.”

Planeaux said the new satellites would enable the U.S. to deal with evolving threats.

“We’re modernizing the nation’s systems so that we remain highly capable against today’s threats,” he said. “And we’ll continue to meet the needs of our national leadership, decision-makers, our war-fighters and our allies.”

Mounted atop the 189-foot-tall United Launch Alliance rocket, the second in a series of Space Based Infrared System spacecraft blasted off at 5:21 p.m. Tuesday at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

The advanced early-warning satellites use powerful telescopes and infrared sensors to detect high-temperature exhaust from missile launches.

Known by the acronym SBIRS, the spacecraft determine the trajectories of enemy missiles in flight and then predict where they will hit. The early alert gives U.S. military commanders time to launch interceptors — U.S. missiles designed to track down and destroy the enemy boosters before they can threaten troops.

Recent North Korean provocations prompted Hagel to increase to 44 from 30 the number of interceptors in Alaska and California by 2017.

“The United States has missile defense systems in place to protect us from limited ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) attacks, but North Korea in particular has recently made advances in its capabilities and has engaged in a series of irresponsible and reckless provocations,” Hagel said Friday.

Built by Lockheed Martin, the missile-warning satellites have scanning sensors that can provide sweeping coverage of wide swaths of Earth.

The new satellites also have sensors that can stare at specific targets for more directed coverage. They also can detect dimmer exhaust plumes from shorter-range missiles that threaten U.S. and allied troops engaged in military operations around the world.

The threat from missile attacks is increasing. Gen. William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, told Congress last year that nearly 200 missile launches were detected in 2011.

“We’re seeing an increase in number of global missile launches,” Planeaux said.

In his congressional testimony, Shelton said, “Our ability to provide strategic missile warning is critical to the nation’s survival.”

Click to expand...

After the Aircraft Carrier: 3 Alternatives to the Navy’s Vulnerable Flattops
BY DAVID AXE03.20.136:30 AM


The carrier USS Ronald Reagan tests a flight deck sprinkler system last week. Photo: Navy
The U.S. Navy’s huge, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers — capital ships that have long dominated military planning and budgeting — are slowly becoming obsolete, weighed down by escalating costs, inefficiency and vulnerability to the latest enemy weapons.

But if the supercarrier is sinking, what could rise to take its place? Smaller, cheaper flattops; modified tanker ships; and missile-hauling submarines are three cheaper, more efficient and arguably more resilient options.

Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix, a historian, analyst and futurist, caused a stir by making the case against the Navy’s cherished supercarrier fleet. Hendrix’s recent study ”At What Cost a Carrier?” (.pdf), published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for a New American Security, urges the Navy to begin drawing down its 10-11 Nimitz-class flattops and follow-on Ford-class vessels.

A single new carrier costs $14 billion to build plus $7 million a day to operate. “Not a good use of U.S. taxpayer money,” Hendrix asserts. Moreover, he contends that huge carriers with their five-acre flight decks and scores of warplanes are ill-suited to the American way of war, in which precision and avoiding civilian casualties are more important than overwhelming firepower. Worst, Hendrix warns, the carriers — major symbols of American military might — are increasingly big targets for China’s DF-21D ship-killing ballistic missiles.

The Navy is unlikely to decommission its giant flattops, to say the least. But should it start taking Hendrix’s advice, one or more of the following vessels could sail in their place.

The future USS America under construction. Photo: Huntington Ingalls
Flattop Lite
Hendrix alludes to “light amphibious carriers” as possible replacements for the supercarriers, but fails to mention the specific vessel type best suited to this role. The future USS America, nearing completion at a shipyard in Mississippi, is roughly half the size of today’s Nimitz class and less than a third the cost.

Though technically a transport for Marines and their helicopters, America also supports Harrier jump jets and the still-in-development F-35B model of the stealthy Joint Strike Fighter, which like the Harrier can land vertically on small flight decks. Hendrix also called for the development of a long-range, armed drone able to launch from ships such as America. The Pentagon has already taken steps toward that goal.

In theory, the Navy could acquire and operate dozens of America-class vessels for the price of the 10 current carriers — and therein lies the smaller ships’ key advantage. According to one popular theory of naval warfare, it’s better to deploy large numbers of smaller ships than small numbers of bigger ships.

The idea is that a more numerous and spread out “distributed” fleet is harder to disable with weapons such as the DF-21D. By this way of thinking, the supercarriers represent single points of failure, whereas a larger fleet of “flattop lites” means redundancy and resilience amid combat losses.

If there’s a downside to the gas-powered America class, of which the Navy has ordered two, it’s the type’s limited speed and range compared to a nuclear-powered vessel — plus its lack of a steam catapult. It’s the absence of a catapult that prevents America from launching F/A-18 Hornets, X-47B jet-powered drones and other high-performance aircraft and instead compels it to wait for the troubled F-35B and brand-new drone types.


The new dock ship Montford Point. Photo: Navy
Everything’s a Carrier
Taking the notion of a distributed fleet even further, the Navy could potentially replace the aviation capability of today’s supercarriers with … most other ships in the fleet. Increasingly, all new warships — from the small Littoral Combat Ships to the latest Lewis and Clark-class supply vessels — come with extra-large flight decks. More and more, every ship is partially a carrier.

The Navy’s latest support vessel stretches this concept to the extreme. The Montford Point, a modified oil tanker launched late last year, is primarily meant to transport hovercraft for beach assaults. But a future version of the $500-million ship will include a roughly 500-foot-long flight deck that could support helicopters, drones and potentially even F-35Bs.

But like the America class, the Montford Points will not have catapults. And as modified tanker ships, they lack armor and defensive systems, making them potentially more vulnerable to enemy attack once located. (Although again, a distributed fleet could have greater overall resilience.) Plus, they’re slow, capable of just over half the speed of a supercarrier.

Still, as part of a widely distributed fleet of aviation-capable ships, future flight-deck-equipped Montford Points could support all but the biggest planes. And since they cost just 4 percent the price of a supercarrier, the Navy could afford lots of them.

The missile submarine USS Georgia. Photo: Navy
Underwater Arsenal
One thing supercarriers do better than other ships is deliver tons of high explosives onto distant pinpoint targets fast. The means of delivering this firepower is, of course, the flattop’s 40-plus fighter-bombers. But as Hendrix points out, the Navy possesses another method of blasting targets at long-range: precision-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles.

No vessel packs more Tomahawks than the sailing branch’s four Ohio-class guided-missile submarines. Converted from their original role carrying nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, the so-called SSGNs each pack as many as 154 cruise missiles in vertical tubes and can fire them stealthily from underwater.

The SSGNs are getting on in years and could begin retiring in the mid-2020s. The cash-strapped Navy says it can’t afford to build new submarines with an equivalent missile load, and instead is planning on slightly increasing the much more modest Tomahawk loadout on some of the smaller Virginia-class attack subs.

But if the pricey supercarriers go away, the Navy could find itself with money to spare for a new class of missile subs or more of the enhanced Virginias with extra cruise missiles. Compared to today’s fleet balance, that would mean a radical shift in resources from the surface force to the subsurface force. But if the big flattops end up being replaced by smaller, cheaper aviation vessels — however numerous — more subs could be the best way to maintain the Navy’s overall striking power.

In any event, the Navy has options. Sinking the super carriers, as Hendrix advises, does not mean giving up on naval aviation or on the ability to strike targets at long range. Indeed, the hundreds of billions of dollars the sailing branch would save over a period of decades with the flattops’ retirement could lead to new ships, new methods and new attitudes — and, effectively, a revolution in naval warfare.

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON — The White House is preparing to submit a fiscal 2014 federal budget that would partially offset across-the-board sequestration cuts by reducing the Pentagon budget by $100 billion, but not until later this decade, according to a senior defense official and budget documents.

Obama administration officials are pushing these Defense Department spending cuts, along with an additional $100 billion in nondefense discretionary spending — for a total of $200 billion in cuts — as part of a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan that has been offered to House Republican leadership.

The $100 billion in defense cuts would not begin until 2019, according to Frank Kendall, the Pentagon acquisition chief.

“The president’s budget … does deal with the deficit, it does do the things that need to be done, if it were passed, to avoid sequestration,” he said Wednesday at a National Defense Industrial Association conference in Springfield, Va.

The White House is planning to submit its fiscal 2014 spending plan to Congress on April 8, according to sources.

Click to expand...

It appears that the USAF is getting very serious about the passive detection threat posed by modern infra-red search and track (IRST) systems, most notably against aircraft optimized for minimal radar observability (see F-22, B-2, F-35, RQ-170 etc). The sensor shown in the photo above, shot during RED FLAG 13-3 that concluded just days ago, is clearly a chin mounted variant of Lockheed Martin’s very capable and ever evolving AN/AAS-42 IRST which originally was fielded on the F-14D and is now an integral part of the latest F-15 Strike Eagle “Tiger Eyes” targeting and navigation sensor suite.

Click to expand...

Not your grandfather's jersey: Navy testing new fire-resistant clothing
March 5th, 2013 By Dylan Leckie

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) is answering a Sailor's request for delivery of new flight deck clothing that could significantly boost personnel safety on aircraft carriers across the Navy.
Sponsored by both ONR's TechSolutions rapid-response program and Naval Air Systems Command, new flame-resistant jerseys and trousers could be worn by Navy flight deck crews across the fleet as early as 2014. The evaluation of the prototypes began in December on USS Stennis (CVN 74); prototypes will also be tested on USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and a third carrier yet to be selected.
The obligation to ably equip Sailors is a guiding principle in the Chief of Naval Operations' Sailing Directions.
"The safety of our Sailors and Marines is Job One," said Master Chief Charles Ziervogel, who heads the ONR TechSolutions program. "We must always be looking for ways to evolve and improve our Sailors' equipment and gear."
The rapid response and delivery program accepts recommendations and suggestions from Navy and Marine Corps personnel on ways to improve mission effectiveness by applying new and improved technology capabilities. Typical turn-around time for a working prototype is approximately 12-18 months.
The quick-drying, flame-resistant uniform is designed as an upgrade to today's flight deck clothing, and is more comfortable for personnel.
"It's like putting on your grandfather's jersey and then putting on Under Armour—there's no comparison," said Force Master Chief Gary McClure at Naval Air Forces Atlantic, the Sailor who submitted the request for an updated flight deck uniform. "The positive feedback has been overwhelming."
The upgraded apparel is made of moisture-wicking, fire-resistant fabric and intended to replace the all-cotton flight deck jerseys issued to personnel today. Prototype jerseys in five different fabrics are being evaluated by Sailors on deployment through July of this year.
The new trousers are also manufactured with fire-resistant capabilities built into the fabric. Current flight deck trousers have to be treated with fire-retardants before they are issued, making trousers heavy and uncomfortable, and the treatments wear off as they are laundered.
The new program requirements call for the enhanced garments to last not less than one sea deployment under daily flight deck wear over six months—with the objective being 12 months durability, to include a sea cruise and work-up period.
"The longer durability could provide a real potential for cost savings," said Ziervogel. "Feedback from Sailors is that current flight deck uniforms need to be replaced several times during each cruise."
At the end of the evaluation period, all the fabrics deemed suitable will be forwarded to the Defense Logistics Agency for possible procurement.
Provided by Office of Naval Research

Click to expand...

Army Issues RFP For $6 Billion M113 Replacement: Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Program
Aol Defence
WASHINGTON: After 53 years in service, the Army's M113 armored transport might finally get replaced. Last night, the Michigan-based Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) issued a draft Request For Proposals for a new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle. The final RFP is expected in June and the contract award in mid-2014. Variants of the General Dynamics Stryker and the BAE Bradley are the leading contenders. Our industry sources are still poring over thousands of pages of documentation, but here are the highlights.

The bottom line: almost $1.5 billion for over 300 vehicles -- for a start. The RFP proposes a $1.46 billion contract in two phases: design, develop, and build 29 prototypes over four years -- the $388 million engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase, 2014 through 2017; and then build up to 289 production models over three years -- the $1.08 billion low-rate initial production (LRIP) phase, 2018-2020.

Beyond 2020, the Army plans to buy another 2,618 AMPVs over 10 years, for a total of 2,907, at an average manufacturing cost not to exceed $1.8 million per vehicle. (Weapons and electronics will add more, depending on the variant). That's about another $4.7 billion.

Of course, these are all pre-sequestration figures. President Obama has still not released his 2014 budget request. With Congress having just passed the 2013 spending bills yesterday -- halfway through the fiscal year -- and the automatic cuts of the sequester still set to happen, it's up in the air whether any big programs will survive intact, or at all.

Already the Army has had to slow down development of the AMPV's big brother, the Ground Combat Vehicle, and give up on competitive prototyping. So for AMPV, as with the revised GCV program, the Army will award just one development contract to one company. This saves money in the short run while raising the long-term risk that you won't like what you've bought but won't have an alternative.

How will the Army pick a winner? The exact requirements are largely classified, although the public documents make clear that "Underbody Force Protection/Survivability" -- i.e. resistance against IEDs -- is a non-negotiable top priority. Overall, the Army will grade the bidders on the technical design, their program management abilities, the cost, their past performance, and how much small business participation they have, in that order of importance.

Replacing the M113 is a big deal. First introduced in 1960 to carry foot troops into battle in a tracked and armored transport, it was replaced in combat units by the M2 Bradley in the 1980s but has since taken on a host of support roles. 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.

Hence AMPV. The Army plans to buy 2,907 vehicles in five variants: 522 general purpose models to haul supplies and whatever else needs protected transport; 386 mortar carriers for quick-reaction fire support; 993 command vehicles packed with radios and computers; and two types of medical vehicle, 790 armored ambulances (or medical evacuation vehicles) for up to six patients and 216 mobile mini-clinics (medical treatment vehicles) to conduct life-saving surgeries as close to the front line as possible.

Will the Army get all of these, or will the venerable M113 keep limping on until its 70th birthday in 2030? That's ultimately up to the budgeteers, both in the Pentagon and in Congress.

Click to expand...

asif iqbal said:

Well no doubt this months Warship magazine was filled with news about the US sequestration

It's resulted is massive cuts and 13% cut in the USN naval budget, a vast array of ships have been effected with USS Harry Truman and the rest of carrier strike group ten is on hold until further notice, which means USS John C Stennis is going to be the only carrier in the Persian Gulf

There's a massive number of ships which are based at Naval station Norfolk, all thier deployments have been cancelled

Obama wants more revenue and modest cuts, the Republicans want permanent cuts and no new revenue and there is no compromise yet reached, the situation is very dire for the USN due to ts self imposed sequestration act

Click to expand...