Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Serge

NGCV/OMFV. Forwarding to... the past

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

If MPF counts as new enough

Nah, not really new - based on AJAX which is a tart up of ASCOD.  1980s tech at best.  One of the reasons AJAX did not make down select for LAND 400 in Australia was its actual age.  Lots of lipstick, still a pig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

Because I cannot honestly see how an IFV in the ~52t range meets the very demanding passive armor requirements.

Considering how we don't know what those actually are, that's a very strong statement to make but ok.

7 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

Otherwise there was nothing stopping Rheinmetall from just offering a heavier bolt-on kit for the Lynx (which Rhm states has 6t of growth capacity at its full 44t weight)

Apart from yknow 52 being a larger number than 50, and 55 being even larger, as well as leaving no growth margin.

7 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

(which is implying an armor kit more than your 13t hypothesis as that would happily fly on a C-130, which they *would* have touted as there are a *lot* of C-130s and that was even a firm requirement back in the FCS days)

Fair enough, I suppose.

7 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

40-50% passive armor fraction and virtually all of that being bolt-on. (And yes, vehicles with such high armor fractions *have* been built before, it's not impossible).

Good luck building any vehicle, let alone one with any semblance of mine protection, without a substantial weight invested in the hull body, which cannot be detached for obvious reasons.

7 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

Lynx simply would have been entered with a heavier add-on kit,

Which would do terrible things to its growth margins, which is something the US Army has put emphasis on. Also Rheinmetall didnt really use timing as an excuse to bow out, as others have pointed out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

without a substantial weight invested in the hull body, which cannot be detached for obvious reasons

Absolutely agreed.  Mine blast protection is fundamentally built in.  Yeah, there are belly plates bolted on too, but the protection level is the result of the combined system performance.  The hull structures in the belly of things like LYNX are massive and permanent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Considering how we don't know what those actually are, that's a very strong statement to make but ok.

What we know about the protection requirement in the public sphere is that it was very high, both from industry source comments and the fact that their last IFV program just a few years ago fell apart along almost identical lines do to a combined protection rating that was absurd. They may have scaled back since the GCV slightly, but it would seem not too much. The GCV requirement specified better overall protection than even the then-current SEPv2 Abrams, and over a full 360 degree arc according to their graphs given out late in the program.

 

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Apart from yknow 52 being a larger number than 50, and 55 being even larger, as well as leaving no growth margin.

52 isn't *that* much larger, raytheon/rheinmetall may well have invested in efforts to try to shave weight off here and there if they felt they were only 2t away from meeting the threshold protection and weight requirements - but they didn't, they consciously decided not to bid at all - like everyone else but GDLS. After all if they win by default on a multibillion dollar contract, even the costs of redesigning things to scrape out every last gram of weight are worth it. (Such as replacing steel interior fittings with titanium - a very expensive option but one of those 'we gotta kill weight at any cost' things)

 

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Good luck building any vehicle, let alone one with any semblance of mine protection, without a substantial weight invested in the hull body, which cannot be detached for obvious reasons.

I mean, I didn't say the skeletonized hull was a foolproof surefire success (it reminds me of some of the more crackpot aspects of FCS all too well) - it just seemed to be the only way to cut the gordian knot of the contradictory requirements.

 

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Which would do terrible things to its growth margins, which is something the US Army has put emphasis on. Also Rheinmetall didnt really use timing as an excuse to bow out, as others have pointed out.

The army may well have liked growth margin, but if the only vehicle that meets requirements has low margins and the competition is held under normal rules, it wins by default. Now if there was a mandatory growth margin tonnage or percentage in the detailed sections of the requirements that's a different story but only making the weight requirement even more hopeless (as the margin means an inherently heavier hull with overbuilt mechanicals as I'm sure you know). Timing sort of ended up as an excuse as that was the official reason given both by the DoD to the public and to other government groups when they were questioned for going ahead sole-source, and the official reason given by Rheinmetall when they were asked as a corporation; I fully understand the reason for the shipping failure was a conscious decision not to bid weeks beforehand but as far as the award decision stated Raytheon/Rheinmetall were officially DQ'd for failure to ship test articles, not failure to bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

mandatory growth margin tonnage or percentage in the detailed sections of the requirements that's a different story but only making the weight requirement even more hopeless

There was and it did.

 

The Raytheon (Rheinmetall) bid - plan was to bid.  As bid progressed, it became obvious that there was no way to bid compliant so decision made not to bid.  DoD not happy as were facing prospect of only a single bidder.  Applied gentle pressure to Raytheon, please bid regardless.  By the time Raytheon manned up to the inevitable, there was no time for Rheinmetall.  Rhinmetall definitely did not plan to fail.  News of the cancellation was massive relief.  Assuming DoD are less, well lets not go there, next time, I expect Rheinmetall, BAE Hanwha and GD will go in hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“We’re going to reset the requirements, we’re going to reset the acquisition strategy and timeline,” Gen. McConville said about OMFV on Tuesday. But, when he discussed Army modernization overall, he repeatedly emphasized that “we need transformational change, not incremental improvements.

Transformational change is how we get overmatch and how we get dominance in the future,” the Chief of Staff said. “We aren’t looking for longer cords for our phones or faster horses for our cavalry.”

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/bradley-replacement-did-army-ask-for-unobtainium/

 

So in other words, the reset will still ask the impossible to be delivered yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW. A modern 50 tonne, 6 wheeled offroad mining vehicle can have a payload of between 80-96 tonne.  So a wheeled vehicle with bolt on armour fraction of over 50% - 60% is not a difficult challenge using steel.

 

How this applies to tracked vehicles? I dont know.  But having a 1.5 tonne payload for every tonne of offroad truck seems like a COTS benchmark.

https://elphinstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Elphinstone-3900-Series-Specalog.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kal said:

A modern 50 tonne, 6 wheeled offroad mining vehicle can have a payload of between 80-96 tonne.  So a wheeled vehicle with bolt on armour fraction of over 50% - 60% is not a difficult challenge using steel.

Thats a little bit of exaggeration... 

In the case of Volvo A60H:

Unloaded weight is 43750kg, payload 55000kg, total weight is 98750kg. Straight from the brochure.

Mining trucks are vastly different than military vehicles, with completely different distribution of weight. Apples to oranges I think.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weight discussion is silly. Just pulling a random value out of somewhere leads nowhere.

 

Requirement was to transport two IFVs in the C-17 with full armor kit. The fact that none met this requirement only states that with armor kit (and presumably fuel, ammunition and potentionally even crew) weight had to be kept below 39 tonnes. If this requirement factored in growth potential, the weight limit per vehicle might have been even stricter.

 

Comparing OMFV to the old GCV prototypes also makes not much sense. For the GCV a crew of three and a capacity of nine dismounts was specified. The OMFV was only required to seat a crew of two (though a crew of three seems more likely to be implementedd) and transport six dismounts. That alone can lead to a massive difference in weight. The GCV protection levels were comparable with Puma based on the data supplied to the CBO, yet Puma weighs only 43 tonnes (which still would be too much for two vehicles inside C-17). It is also noteworthy that the BAE Systems' propsal for the GCV had a weight of 53 short tons without add-on armor, 69 short tons with full armor kit and 75 short tons is the weight including built in growth potential.

 

The Griffin III has a basic combat weight of 39 short tons (35 tonnes) and a gross vehicle weight of 50 short tons (45 tonnes), suggesting that the up-armored variant would fall into the 40-ish tonnes region (as the GVW will include the growth potential for the future).

  

On 1/17/2020 at 2:26 PM, Serge said:

This post is an old one. 

I found very strange the gap into the call of the US-Army. Calling for an « at least » 6 but 9 « is better » means they don’t have a clear picture of what they want. 

 

Sorry, I didn't notice the age of the post.

 

I don't think the gap is strange. It is the gap between an optimal solution and the minimum acceptable solution - pretty normal. They have the same gap between threshold requirement (30 mm gun) and objective (50 mm gun) in regards to firepower. West-Germany asked for 12 dismounts capacity when developing the Marder IFV and settled for a design with only seven dismounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The weight discussion is silly. Just pulling a random value out of somewhere leads nowhere.

 

Requirement was to transport two IFVs in the C-17 with full armor kit. The fact that none met this requirement only states that with armor kit (and presumably fuel, ammunition and potentionally even crew) weight had to be kept below 39 tonnes. If this requirement factored in growth potential, the weight limit per vehicle might have been even stricter.

 

Comparing OMFV to the old GCV prototypes also makes not much sense. For the GCV a crew of three and a capacity of nine dismounts was specified. The OMFV was only required to seat a crew of two (though a crew of three seems more likely to be implementedd) and transport six dismounts. That alone can lead to a massive difference in weight. The GCV protection levels were comparable with Puma based on the data supplied to the CBO, yet Puma weighs only 43 tonnes (which still would be too much for two vehicles inside C-17). It is also noteworthy that the BAE Systems' propsal for the GCV had a weight of 53 short tons without add-on armor, 69 short tons with full armor kit and 75 short tons is the weight including built in growth potential.

 

The Griffin III has a basic combat weight of 39 short tons (35 tonnes) and a gross vehicle weight of 50 short tons (45 tonnes), suggesting that the up-armored variant would fall into the 40-ish tonnes region (as the GVW will include the growth potential for the future).

 

Unless my memory serves me wrong, doesn't the Army designed 50mm turret have independent sights? That would mean a three man crew is essentially mandatory, as the 50mm is effectively mandatory (all 30mm entries *have* to demonstrate a path to the 50mm, and the Army is going to want its turret used). You do save on three dismounts, but you're only going to save so much weight there (I.e. comparing to GCV you would need to knock more than 10 tons off, or >20% of total vehicle weight just by removing three dismounts - I remain doubtful that the dismount reduction allows that level of savings). I use the GCV for comparison because it is the closest requirement that matches the OMFV reqs, and because it was designed with essentially the exact same technology/industry base. As to the Puma, as much as I genuinely believe that would have been the most satisfactory solution, the Army disputed CBO's reckoning about the Puma's survivability (they are likely using different matrixes for calculating scores) and it needed more equipment added on to meet specs anyhow (particularly now with the 50mm).

 

Griffin III was never bid, and simply does not have the protection to meet the requirements or GD would have bid it. Honestly, Griffin III is just a tarted up system almost as old as the Bradley (good ole ASCOD).

 

13 hours ago, DIADES said:

“We’re going to reset the requirements, we’re going to reset the acquisition strategy and timeline,” Gen. McConville said about OMFV on Tuesday. But, when he discussed Army modernization overall, he repeatedly emphasized that “we need transformational change, not incremental improvements.

Transformational change is how we get overmatch and how we get dominance in the future,” the Chief of Staff said. “We aren’t looking for longer cords for our phones or faster horses for our cavalry.”

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/bradley-replacement-did-army-ask-for-unobtainium/

 

So in other words, the reset will still ask the impossible to be delivered yesterday.

 

Transformational change is how they got LCS, Zumwalt, and EFV or did they memory hole that?

Edited by TokyoMorose
Added extra reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

Transformational change is how they got LCS, Zumwalt, and EFV or did they memory hole that?

 Seriously, their obsession with Wundewaffes that get systematically canceled (or totally downscalled in service numbers) is the cause they get stuck with older equipment that is not on par with the latest the potential enemies field.

At this point the most rational thing the Army could do in terms of time and money, as a stopgap measure until the Bradley replacement starts fielding in some decades, is modernize the M2 (there are several demonstrators and examples) and replace the turret with an unmanned one with the 50mm. That should free enough space in the vehicle to carry at least 2 more infantrymen. Simmilar to what the brits did with the Warrior and the russians with the BMP-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

As to the Puma

Yep, I reckon we will never see a PUMA in service anywhere except Germany.  Unless.... it is a PUMA not a PUMA by which I mean, an AMERICAN PUMA like an AMERICAN HARRIER is a HARRIER.  If you squint, they look the same but aside from the concept, nothing in common.  PSM could man up, find a US partner and re-birth PUMA.  Big ask - Germany has very aggressive defence tech/data export laws plus it would want to be a brave American Prime - PSM have right royally stuffed up the introduction into service of Puma.  As punishment for its part, Rheinmetall just got given 110 mill Euro to upgrade Marder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

Unless my memory serves me wrong, doesn't the Army designed 50mm turret have independent sights? That would mean a three man crew is essentially mandatory, as the 50mm is effectively mandatory (all 30mm entries *have* to demonstrate a path to the 50mm, and the Army is going to want its turret used).

 

The US Army did not specify any turret as mandatory, so trying to make any judgement based on the turret fitted to the Griffin III demonstrator is questionable. Specifically given that this turret was not fully functional and included mock-up fittings of several components (like the Iron Fist Light Decoupled hardkill active protection system, which was only attached to the turret because General Dynamics has the licence to produce it for the US market).

Furthermore there is the option to have the vehicle commander (or the man who operates the panoramic sight, if one decides to change role names) to be part of the infantry squad. This was a solution proposed for the Puma when it became clear that seven men won't fit into its dismount compartment and I've heard that such a system was proposed/is used by the French with the VBCI.

 

Also the 50 mm autocannon is not mandatory. The mandatory requirement is a 30 mm autocannon, using a 50 mm gun was seen as desired objective (and this wasn't limited to the XM913 specifically, as Rheinmetall's efforts were focused on a 50 mm variant of its homegrown WOTAN chain guns). I've also never heard/read that proving growth potential of the gun was mandatory, more like a bonus to increase attractiveness of the offer.

 

19 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 I use the GCV for comparison because it is the closest requirement that matches the OMFV reqs, and because it was designed with essentially the exact same technology/industry base.

 

GCV and OMFV had completely different requirements, hence it is silly to pretend armor protection requirement was not changed. Same happened with Future Combat Systems and GCV programs - both programs followed directly on each other, yet requirements were extremely altered between the programs. Or NGP/NeSPz and Puma - original requirement asked for modularity, 8 men dismount squad (95th percentile male), 50 mm gun, ballistic protection against 125/140 mm APFSDS and hardkill active protection system - yet requirements were changed during development just like the name of the program.

 

Assuming that the US Army officials are dumb enough to demand the ability to transport two OMFVs fully armored to GCV levels in a C-17 that could not even transport two of BAE Systems' proposed GCV vehicles with all add-on armor removed is silly.

 

The Griffin III was designed by General Dynamics based on its contact with the US military and their detailed knowledge of the thinking process regarding possible requirements for the OMFV - they did the same with the Griffin I & II demonstrators, which were built (or in case of the Griffin I mangeled together form existing products).

 

A good idea about possible US Army requirements can be seen by looking at the US Army's own concepts created when thinking about how the NGCV/OMFV could look, what was technologically feasible and how it all could come together. Several renderings, drawings and models were made, of which quite a few have found their way onto the web. There also have been designs by DARPA, but they always seem to be rather questionable,.

 

US Army concept with two men crew:

 

 


ngcv-5wqfz7x9-1536166577.jpgUG1CyeM.jpg
 

 

 

Same model updated with a three men crew:

gE0BvZtr.jpg

 

 

Note that side armor is just a new generation of ERA (probably with improved anti-EFP characteristics) and behind that a layer of (ceramic) composite armor (red) for ballistic protection. At the front section of the hull flanks there is only slat armor. I don't think that such an armor layout would meet the GCV's protection requirements and/or warrant a weight north of 40-45 tonnes for an IFV with six men dismount squad. The US Army isn't dumb, they looked at what was feasible with the available technology and made demanding requirements; potentially exceeding the performance showcased in their own tests/analysis a bit to account for industry always working on new generations of technology.

2016041913200580742600.jpg

 

The requirement that killed OMFV (or rather: put it back into an earlier stage of conceptioon) is the requirement to transport two of such vehicles in a C-17 without having to remove the applique armor. That isn't even possible with Puma and Puma features tons of weight reduction measures that end up hurting its performance in some ways and are not considered acceptable by US standards (like limiting height of the dismounts to 75th percentile male, using only a 5.56 mm co-axial machine gun or using only a 30 mm gas-operated autocannon).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2020 at 11:23 AM, SH_MM said:

 

The US Army did not specify any turret as mandatory, so trying to make any judgement based on the turret fitted to the Griffin III demonstrator is questionable. Specifically given that this turret was not fully functional and included mock-up fittings of several components (like the Iron Fist Light Decoupled hardkill active protection system, which was only attached to the turret because General Dynamics has the licence to produce it for the US market).

Furthermore there is the option to have the vehicle commander (or the man who operates the panoramic sight, if one decides to change role names) to be part of the infantry squad. This was a solution proposed for the Puma when it became clear that seven men won't fit into its dismount compartment and I've heard that such a system was proposed/is used by the French with the VBCI.

 

Also the 50 mm autocannon is not mandatory. The mandatory requirement is a 30 mm autocannon, using a 50 mm gun was seen as desired objective (and this wasn't limited to the XM913 specifically, as Rheinmetall's efforts were focused on a 50 mm variant of its homegrown WOTAN chain guns). I've also never heard/read that proving growth potential of the gun was mandatory, more like a bonus to increase attractiveness of the offer.

 

BD's comments from Coffman are relevant "That said, Coffman added, if a company comes in with a 30mm weapon, “they have to show us a path to 50.” " Again, the 50mm is effectively mandatory - and given the way the army works they are going to prefer the XM913 they have already paid to design and proof over the WOTAN gun to the point the XM913 may as well be considered mandatory. Same deal with the turret, on paper you could offer a different gun and turret but Army brass already have those programs deep under way. It's like the M4 replacement contests where you didn't *have* to submit a 5.56mm gun, but it'd be stupid to think the Army wouldn't choose their existing solution.

On 1/28/2020 at 11:23 AM, SH_MM said:

 

Assuming that the US Army officials are dumb enough to demand the ability to transport two OMFVs fully armored to GCV levels in a C-17 that could not even transport two of BAE Systems' proposed GCV vehicles with all add-on armor removed is silly.

 

I am not saying that I expect the armor levels to be identical to GCV, I am saying that the margin of armor level scale-back from that was not big enough to make the tens-of-tons difference needed to make things work.

 

On 1/28/2020 at 11:23 AM, SH_MM said:

 

The Griffin III was designed by General Dynamics based on its contact with the US military and their detailed knowledge of the thinking process regarding possible requirements for the OMFV - they did the same with the Griffin I & II demonstrators, which were built (or in case of the Griffin I mangeled together form existing products).

 

A good idea about possible US Army requirements can be seen by looking at the US Army's own concepts created when thinking about how the NGCV/OMFV could look, what was technologically feasible and how it all could come together. Several renderings, drawings and models were made, of which quite a few have found their way onto the web. There also have been designs by DARPA, but they always seem to be rather questionable,.

 

Clearly the Griffin III was not based on terribly detailed knowledge as *GD never even attempted to bid it*. I take the Griffin III to be more of GDLS demonstrating what they can have ready in the short term with existing components or components already in development. It was not aimed at the OMFV requirement or GD would not have bid a totally clean-sheet solution.

 

On 1/28/2020 at 11:23 AM, SH_MM said:

The US Army isn't dumb, they looked at what was feasible with the available technology and made demanding requirements; potentially exceeding the performance showcased in their own tests/analysis a bit to account for industry always working on new generations of technology.

 

The Army does not have to be dumb as a whole to write a totally dumb specification. The DoD has done this many times before.

 

On 1/28/2020 at 11:23 AM, SH_MM said:

 

The requirement that killed OMFV (or rather: put it back into an earlier stage of conceptioon) is the requirement to transport two of such vehicles in a C-17 without having to remove the applique armor. That isn't even possible with Puma and Puma features tons of weight reduction measures that end up hurting its performance in some ways and are not considered acceptable by US standards (like limiting height of the dismounts to 75th percentile male, using only a 5.56 mm co-axial machine gun or using only a 30 mm gas-operated autocannon).

 

And again, I never said the Puma would meet the US's requirements. I am saying it is the *closest* to meeting the requirements. There is in fact no IFV in the world that meets their requirements which is why they had to restart.

 

On 1/28/2020 at 1:06 AM, DIADES said:

Yep, I reckon we will never see a PUMA in service anywhere except Germany.  Unless.... it is a PUMA not a PUMA by which I mean, an AMERICAN PUMA like an AMERICAN HARRIER is a HARRIER.  If you squint, they look the same but aside from the concept, nothing in common.  PSM could man up, find a US partner and re-birth PUMA.  Big ask - Germany has very aggressive defence tech/data export laws plus it would want to be a brave American Prime - PSM have right royally stuffed up the introduction into service of Puma.  As punishment for its part, Rheinmetall just got given 110 mill Euro to upgrade Marder. 

 

They could always try to restart their efforts to Americanize the Puma that they had going with SAIC years ago... (and for full pedantry, the American Harrier II is very similar to the UK Harrier IIs, but I do get the fact that the Harrier II vs Harrier Is is pretty much totally different planes)

 

On 1/27/2020 at 10:32 PM, Ramlaen said:

Of those three programs only the EFV actually fits what you are trying to describe.

 

Come on Ram, Zumwalt was loaded down with so many "transformational" ideas that most of them had to be cut out to fit the budget (composite deckhouse, AN/SPY-4, pretty much all of the flush-mounted electronics that are now replaced with scabbed-on systems) and suffers crew fatigue from the 'transformational' manning scheme. And you could write entire novels on how the LCS has failed to deliver on its promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

Come on Ram, Zumwalt was loaded down with so many "transformational" ideas that most of them had to be cut out to fit the budget (composite deckhouse, AN/SPY-4, pretty much all of the flush-mounted electronics that are now replaced with scabbed-on systems) and suffers crew fatigue from the 'transformational' manning scheme. And you could write entire novels on how the LCS has failed to deliver on its promises.

 

Sorry but no, the EFV failed because the technical requirements were not realistic.

 

Of the 'transformative features' of the Zumwalt class you listed (which barely scratch the surface);

-two of the three ships retain a composite deckhouse

-SPY-4 was not transformative, switching from the PESA SPY-1 to the AESA SPY-3 was

-concept art of the Zumwalts aside their external antennas do not void their relative low RCS

-Zumwalts have not shown themselves to be understaffed like LCS were with their original manning scheme

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/army-reboots-omfv-2026-deadline-dropped/

 

At 12:01 today, three weeks and a day after the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program derailed in its rush to replace the Reagan-era M2 Bradley by 2026, the Army launched a new lower-pressure, lower-cost approach to OMFV, one it hopes will embolden more companies to compete.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like theyre actually looking for industry feedback on the requirements.

IMO biggest deal would be relaxing the protection-transportability requirements as we've discussed previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>digital design

:(

Last time they did that (with proposals for GCV), information available to general public was very limited. IIRC there are like one single render published on GDLS proposal, and no pictures at all on SAIC-Boeing-KMW-Rheinmetall Puma-based proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Here we will discuss all topics related to the LAND program, including, but not limited to, LAND 400 which is the flagship project of the entire program.
×
×
  • Create New...