Full Steam Ahead: Army Vehicle Systems
By Scott W. Clay, Bishop & Associates Inc.

Even in a shaky economy, one sector in the electronics market is assured of growth in 2009 and for the next several years: the Army vehicle area. No other sector of equipment has been as heavily used as the military vehicle force in the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Add to this the fact that most of the equipment in current operation was manufactured at least 10 years earlier, and in many cases, well before that, and it’s clear that the opportunity to update and augment this equipment is now upon us.

For example, there were no new M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks when the Iraq war started in 2003. Actual production in Lima, Ohio, had stopped in the 1990s. Except for some special tank retrieval models and a few other prototypes to keep the line in trim, there were no new Abrams built. However, the first Iraq war and the subsequent invasion in 2003 showed that what was once considered the best main battle tank in the world is in need of some upgrades. The same proved true of almost every vehicle in the military’s inventory, from the addition of a simple .50 caliber turret ring and gun on the top of the cab of a HEMET prime mover built by Oshkosh Truck, to the very difficult and complicated addition of major amounts of armor and protection to the venerable Humvee built by AM General. Thousands of U.S. casualties were suffered in this lightly protected vehicle. It’s noteworthy to observe that there was little change in the vehicle’s platform following the 1992 combat in Mogadishu in Somalia, where the Humvee showed a very limited ability to protect its occupants.

In that battle, the lack of heavy door and armor protection, even in the glass areas, allowed even 7.62 rifle rounds to penetrate and kill and injure troops. In several cases, Soviet-made RPGs penetrated one door and flew directly out the other. Yet no major improvements in armor or personal protection were implemented. Even the simple solution of bringing back the armor “cupola” to give some side protection to the gunner’s position on the top of the vehicle was not done. The Army had done this on some trucks and the M-113 APC during the Vietnam conflict. It took over a year for engineers to start adding side and back protection to the gunner position. It has taken almost four years to begin installing full “remote” weapon stations that allow the gunner to operate his weapon completely from inside the vehicle, without exposure to his body.

Trucks and convoy vehicles went mostly unarmed, unarmored, and were subject to serious damage from IEDs and RPGs for months. And as the U.S. added armor in key areas, the insurgents started using larger bombs and newer, more destructive technology. In the case of the Humvee, the additional weight from plate-armor bolted on various flat surfaces overtaxed the suspension, tires, and drive train. The Humvee moved from a patrol and recon vehicle into a light combat vehicle, which in Iraq could and did come under fire in almost every situation it was used in. But the forces in theatre were stuck with them, and while they moved to replace them in combat with Strykers and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the demands for a greater number of vehicles meant that the venerable Humvee had to continue on patrol, roadblock duty, scout and recon, and even re-supply and personnel movement.

Now the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is moving in two directions to replace the Humvee, or better yet, to return it to its scout and recon non-combat duty, for which it was originally intended. One program is the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, a more focused combat vehicle that will come in three versions. This vehicle is to be delivered in three variants; a general purpose mobility vehicle, an infantry carrier, or command-and-control vehicle, and a payload truck and ambulance. This competition was held at the end of 2008, and three teams were selected to receive 27-month contracts for development of a technology demonstrator. Another formal evaluation will be done at that time, and formal contracts will be awarded. There could be as many as 200,000 of these built for the military. While the Army will not confirm that this vehicle is a replacement for the Humvee, it seems apparent that with the new armor protection, v-shaped hull, range, fuel economy, and up to 10 configurations, it would probably put the Humvee online for second-level service, homeland defense, and certainly a non-combat role.

The three firms who won these awards were:

• BAE Systems/Navistar

• General Tactical Vehicles, a joint venture of General Dynamics Land Systems and AM General

• Lockheed Martin/BAE Systems

The companies that did not make the final three were encouraged to continue working and would be welcome to offer their versions at the System Design and Development awarding of contracts. The odds are quite good that the Army will not select a single source as they did with the Humvee. And with the large quantities projected, a single maker would not be able to produce the numbers the military wants to incorporate by 2013-2015.

Another new project is the development of a small version of the famous Mine Resistant Ambush Protection (MRAP) vehicle. While the military did an especially good job of getting these vehicles into service, the pipeline is now full, with over 8,000 already in Iraq and Afghanistan. Problems have emerged as these large vehicles falter on road worthiness issues. The vehicles are top heavy, with a very high center of gravity, and with the poor condition of most roads (even main highways in theatre), there have been a series of rollovers and accidents resulting in some causalities. The Army has revisited the training for drivers of these vehicles, to make them more aware of the handling characteristics of the MRAPs, and DoD has ordered a smaller version of this vehicle. One problem has been the high weight for the larger models, and they are encouraging manufacturers to build and propose a 14- to 24-ton vehicle. Typical of these smaller size MRAPs are:

• Reduced center of gravity

• Better torque-to-weight ratio, with lower weight

• Better cross country and off-road performance

• Smaller size allows better handling in urban and city environments

• Standard air conditioning, better engine cooling, and more room for radios, command and control equipment, etc.

• Builders of these vehicles are Navistar, BAE Systems, and Force Protection.

The Army, Marines, and Special Operations Command have requested proposals from several companies on a new lightly armored, rugged, high-tech, high-speed, highly maneuverable all-terrain vehicle. These vehicles would weigh 4,000 to 6,000 pounds, reach speeds up to 80 mph, and carry at least four fully equipped soldiers. It could easily be air-lifted far behind enemy lines, carry in all of the transport aircraft the Army uses, and could give small patrols and scout forces faster access to rear areas and special operations activities. Some of these resemble “dune buggies,” or other civilian all-terrain vehicles. Indeed, some of the companies who are working on proposals are makers of such equipment. American Growler, General Dynamics Land Systems, Blackwater, and several others have expressed interest and are working on prototypes. Other interested parties are Integrated Concepts and Research, TAC Systems, and Millen Works. These vehicles would be carried by V-22s, CH-53s, CH-47s, and even UH-60s. The services envision several thousand of these could be ordered by the various interested parties. With the implementation of Future Combat Systems, these types of vehicles would fit the description of a fast-moving, rapidly deployed force carrying out special operations or scout or reconnaissance assignments.

With all of these programs, there is still a very active “reset” program for existing military vehicles that will, by necessity, continue to serve for the next 15-30 years. The Army in the late 1990s wanted to replace the M1A1 Main Battle Tank, the M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M-109 Self-Propelled Howitzer, and most of all, the M113 APCs, which are some of the oldest vehicles in the inventory. But with the wars and the use factors, plus the huge cost of the conflicts, the new replacement vehicles based on FCS ideas has been delayed, if not completely cancelled. The result is that these existing vehicles must be upgraded to various degrees to assure their ability to serve for at least the next 25 years. BAE York is upgrading the Bradley and M-88 Tank Recovery vehicles, GD is doing several upgrade systems to the M1A2 Tank, BAE also is giving the M-109 howitzer a full “modernization,” and even the Humvee continues to drive on, with AM General building a better armored and more useable version for the Army.

The Connector Outlook
The result of all these changes and improvements is that the connector use, from the old standards such as 26482 to 5015, and all the associated wiring, harnesses, and wire devices, will continue to see steady business for the next three to five years. There will be additional higher density systems needed for interface with the new displays, electronics, and various weapons systems upgrades that these companies are putting into these platforms. The harness houses and upgrade locations (Anniston Army Depot, for example), will need more of the existing products and will need to integrate new, more modern connectors into the vehicles for the embedded computers, upgraded control boxes, aiming and targeting programs, and especially the new self-protection systems being designed-in to help protect the vehicles from IEDs, mines, RPGs, and other threats.

The full future of all the Armed forces vehicle programs will depend greatly on the overall economy for 2009. Many of the upgrades are already underway, and many are funded, at least for the next two years. How and if these programs are continued will depend on the new defense budget and the impact the various “bailouts” and social programs will have on the defense budget. One thing that is certain is that the existing platforms, upgraded to any level, will have to continue to serve the armed forces for at least the next 25 years.

Scott Clay
Director Military & Aerospace, Bishop & Associates Inc.
Scott Clay has worked for more than 25 years in the connector and wiring systems markets. He has held various positions in field applications and marketing for Molex, Tyco, Methode, and ITT. For the past 15 years, Clay has focused on the military/aerospace sector, and five years ago formed his own company for consulting and application engineering. He has worked on design-in and electronics on F/A-18E/F, F-22, F-35, C-130J, C-5M, C-27, P-8, A-10, and numerous other aircraft. Some of the Navy programs Clay has participated in are SSN-774 Virginia class subs, CVX, DDG-1000, and the Littoral Combat Ship class. He has extensive expertise in land vehicle systems, and has worked closely with the worldwide locations of GD, BAE, AM General, and other key manufacturers. He is currently working on variations of MRAP, JLTV, upgrades for the Bradley fighting vehicle, M-88 recovery vehicle, FMTV, and other platforms in the wiring and systems areas, plus portions of the future combat systems.