MCKINNEY, TexasRaytheon [RTN[, which makes neither vehicles nor guns, is in talks with manufacturers of both in pursuit of the Army’s new light tank.

Mobile protected firepower, or MPF, ranks among the Army’s top modernization priorities and could be so important that it will pull resources from other ongoing vehicle upgrade efforts, said Michael Nave, business development director for land warfare systems at Raytheon.

“The priority that the government is giving to MPF, I think it is going to be the first one out of the gate – I think that the Abrams and Bradley and Stryker modernization programs are going to feel the effect of the pull of funds and priority that MPF seems to have,” Nave, a vehicle engineer by trade who has also worked on the M1 Abrams program at General Dynamics [GD], told Defense Daily during a visit to Raytheon’s facility here.

A light armored vehicle prototype fires an integrated 30mm cannon during a live fire demonstration July 15 at Fort Benning, Ga. Photo: Army.
A light armored vehicle prototype fires an integrated 30mm cannon during a live fire demonstration July 15 at Fort Benning, Ga. Photo: Army.

More than 60 industry representatives showed up to an MPF industry day earlier this month, unusually early in development of a major vehicle platform. It was open to any company interested in the program, not just vehicle and weapon manufacturers as is typical.

“Having an industry day at this phase in vehicle development is a rare thing to do,” Nave said.

The Army has taken an unusual and accelerated approach to soliciting information from industry and developing its requirements. It held a meeting of the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC) two months ago and was given the green light to pursue MPF. Since then it has published two draft versions of the capabilities development document (CDD) and held an industry day at Fort Benning, Ga.

“That’s a rare thing to do,” he said. “You create the CDD after milestone A and now they’ve got two draft versions out of it and they’re soliciting input. They’ve never done that before. It’s very new.”

Exactly what the Army wants in MPF is unclear, though industry seems to have a pretty good idea of what it needs to do if not exact specifications. It will be small and mobile enough to support a forward deployed light infantry brigade, be mobile on as diverse terrain as possible and have significant offensive firepower.

Industry sources suggest the vehicle itself will weigh about 30 tons at the most and could carry a cannon as large as 105mm, which the Abrams originally carried before it was upgunned to 120mm. 

Raytheon doesn’t make guns. It also doesn’t bend or cut metal to make combat vehicle hulls. That begs the question of how Raytheon expects to play prime on a contract for a new light tank. The company also is pursuing Stryker lethality upgrades, which would require the same skill set – mounting existing or upgraded weapons and sensors on an existing vehicle to create a capability that is greater than the sum of its parts.

“Raytheon is in discussions with various OEMs (original equipment manufacturers),” Nave said. “We’re having discussions with the various vehicle OEMs to determine how we can help them. What makes the most sense for us to work with you, not give me all this content and scope or I’m walking away…Perfect scenario is that we’re going to be on every vehicle in contention for MPF, because then we’re going to win something.”

Nave said Stryker is an instructive example of how a components manufacturer like Raytheon is set up to take on non-developmental acquisition programs as a prime. The vehicle, made by General Dynamics, likely will not change significantly other than possible automotive upgrades.

Strykers are equipped with TOW missiles, forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensors and plans are to mount Javelin missiles on them as well. All three systems are built by Raytheon.

“Does it make more sense to have Raytheon play a larger lethality integrator role?” Nave said. “Right now, we deliver these things as three separate capabilities that aren’t linked together. Being the expert on those three systems, does it make sense where we maybe take on a larger role to tie all this stuff together to not only increase the lethality of the vehicle…but the whole Stryker SBCT formation?”