Hubbry Logo
United DefenseUnited DefenseMain
Open search
United Defense
Community hub
United Defense
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
United Defense
United Defense
United Defense
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

United Defense Industries (UDI) was an American defense contractor which became part of BAE Systems Land & Armaments after being acquired by BAE Systems in 2005. The company produced combat vehicles, artillery, naval guns, missile launchers and precision munitions.

Key Information

History

[edit]
Evolution of the BAE Systems Land and Armaments division

The company started as a division of the agricultural machine business, Food Machinery Corporation (FMC), when they won a US Federal Government contract to build the Landing Vehicle Tracked (LVT) and became a weapon manufacturer during World War II. In 1964, FMC broadened their defense business by purchasing Northern Ordnance Company (formerly Northern Pump Company) in Fridley, Minnesota which specialized in Naval shipboard guns and missile launchers.

Bowen McLaughlin York (BMY), which became the BMY division of Harsco Corporation, was a separate business involving design and manufacture of various combat vehicles and other defense hardware. Following a massive decline in orders for tracked combat vehicles between 1983 and 1994, FMC and the Harsco Corporation agreed in January 1994 to combine their defense businesses to form United Defense. The new company owned the former FMC California-based Ground Systems Division, the former FMC Minnesota-based Armament Systems Division and Harsco's Pennsylvania-based BMY Combat Systems Division. The new company restructured its operations to concentrate final assembly and testing of combat vehicles to Pennsylvania.[1]

In September 2000, UDI purchased Bofors Weapon Systems AB of Sweden, subsequently renamed Bofors Defence.[2]

In 1997 UDI was subject to a takeover bids by rival General Dynamics and The Carlyle Group. It chose the lowest bid from private equity firm The Carlyle Group, which floated the company in 2001 but retained a share of the company.[clarification needed]

BAE Systems acquisition

[edit]
Main article: BAE Systems Land and Armaments

On March 7, 2005 UK-based defence contractor BAE Systems announced it was to acquire UDI for US$3.974 billion (£2.1 billion). This followed expressions of interest from companies including Northrop Grumman.[citation needed]

BAE Systems' bid was referred to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to ensure there were no national security implications of the sale. The CFIUS granted approval of the deal in April 2005. BAE completed its acquisition of United Defense on June 24, 2005 and announced plans to merge the company with its existing land systems businesses to form BAE Systems Land and Armaments.[citation needed]

Products

[edit]

United Defense products included:[citation needed]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

United Defense

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
United Defense Industries, Inc. (UDI) was an American defense contractor founded in January 1994, specializing in the design, development, and production of combat vehicles, artillery systems, naval guns, missile launchers, and precision munitions for military applications. The company served as a primary supplier to the U.S. Department of Defense, acting as the sole-source prime contractor and systems integrator for several critical programs, employing approximately 5,300 personnel at its peak. Key products included armored fighting vehicles and weapon systems integral to U.S. Army operations, such as components for tracked military vehicles produced at facilities like the former FMC site. UDI underwent significant ownership changes, including acquisition by The Carlyle Group in 1997, going public on the New York Stock Exchange in 2001, and purchasing Bofors Weapons Systems in 2000 to expand its artillery capabilities. In 2005, British defense firm BAE Systems acquired UDI for $4.2 billion, integrating it into BAE Systems Land and Armaments to bolster land systems expertise amid growing demand for artillery and armored vehicles. While UDI contributed to major defense initiatives, it faced scrutiny in programs like the Army's Crusader self-propelled howitzer, where competitors alleged procurement irregularities favoring costlier alternatives, though the system was ultimately canceled in 2002. Post-acquisition, UDI's technologies continued under BAE, supporting ongoing U.S. military modernization efforts without notable independent controversies beyond standard defense contracting disputes.

History

Formation and Early Operations

United Defense was established on January 1, 1994, as a resulting from the combination of FMC Corporation's Defense Systems Group and Harsco Corporation's BMY-Combat Systems division. FMC retained a controlling 60 percent interest in the new entity, United Defense, L.P., which aimed to streamline operations by merging complementary capabilities in armored vehicle production and systems. This merger addressed the sharp decline in U.S. defense procurement for tracked combat vehicles between 1983 and 1994, driven by post-Cold War budget reductions that fragmented the industry and pressured non-core defense units of diversified conglomerates. Headquartered at 1525 Wilson Boulevard in Arlington, , the company initially concentrated on consolidating manufacturing and engineering resources to support sustainment of existing military platforms rather than new developments, reflecting the era's emphasis on cost efficiencies amid shrinking orders. Early revenue derived predominantly from U.S. Army contracts for maintenance, upgrades, and overhauls of legacy systems, such as those inherited from FMC and BMY, which provided stable income in a procurement-constrained environment. In 1997, acquired United Defense for $880 million, shifting it to ownership and enabling further operational restructuring. The firm pursued an in December 2001, marking its return to public markets after the Carlyle period and capitalizing on renewed defense spending trends. These foundational steps positioned United Defense as a specialized provider of ground systems, prioritizing reliability and adaptability to evolving U.S. sustainment needs.

Key Developments and Contracts (1994–2004)

In January 1994, and Harsco Corporation merged their defense businesses to form United Defense L.P., combining FMC's Defense Systems Group with Harsco's BMY Combat Systems Division, creating a focused entity for armored vehicle production and upgrades. This structure positioned the company to capitalize on post-Cold War U.S. modernization efforts, emphasizing sustainment and upgrades over new production amid shifts toward cost efficiency. During the 1990s, United Defense secured significant contracts for upgrades, including enhancements to the M2/M3 series for improved survivability and firepower, contributing to overall program revenues as production transitioned to refurbishment. The company also advanced M88 recovery vehicle programs, producing and upgrading variants like the M88A1 to support heavy armored forces, with these efforts aligning with Army sustainment priorities. Involvement in the M6 Linebacker air defense variant, a Bradley-based system integrating missiles for short-range protection, further expanded its portfolio in divisional air defense adaptations. United Defense participated in early development of the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), precursor to the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), through inherited FMC programs, though it later lost the full production contract amid competitive bidding and program restructurings. By the early 2000s, following its 2001 initial public offering and acquisitions like United States Marine Repair in 2002, the company adapted to rising demand from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Revenues grew 19% to $2.05 billion in 2003, driven by Bradley upgrade volumes and sustainment needs, reaching $2.29 billion in 2004 with Bradley-related sales comprising 16% of total. This surge reflected broader defense spending increases, boosting stock performance amid heightened procurement for vehicle maintenance in Iraq.

Acquisition by BAE Systems

BAE Systems announced its acquisition of United Defense Industries (UDI) on March 7, 2005, agreeing to purchase all outstanding shares for $75 per share in cash, valuing the equity at approximately $3.97 billion, plus the assumption of about $189 million in net debt, for a total transaction value of around $4.2 billion. This deal marked a significant expansion for the British firm into the U.S. ground combat vehicle sector, where UDI held key contracts for systems like the armored vehicle. The strategic motivations centered on bolstering BAE's foothold in the American defense market, which was experiencing heightened demand for armored vehicles following the 2003 U.S. and subsequent operations requiring rapid deployment of protected mobility platforms. UDI's specialized capabilities in designing and producing wheeled and tracked armored systems complemented BAE's existing strengths in European land platforms and naval systems, enabling synergies in technology integration and supply chain efficiencies without overlapping core competencies. Regulatory approvals, including from the U.S. Department of Justice under antitrust review, were secured by June 23, 2005, reflecting confidence that the merger would not substantially lessen competition in relevant markets. The acquisition closed on June 24, 2005, after shareholder approval, with UDI integrated into as part of a newly formed division, BAE Systems Land & Armaments, which combined UDI's operations with BAE's prior U.S. and international land systems units from the , , and . This structure preserved UDI's manufacturing facilities in locations such as , and , ensuring continuity in U.S.-based production critical for domestic defense contracts and export controls. The immediate effect enhanced BAE's capacity to bid on and fulfill large-scale programs, leveraging UDI's proven track record in armored sustainment and upgrades.

Products and Technologies

Armored Ground Vehicles

United Defense developed and produced a range of tracked armored vehicles tailored for transport, , and support roles, leveraging chassis derived from proven designs like the M113 and Bradley platforms. These vehicles emphasized mobility across varied terrain, integration with squads, and modular upgrades for evolving threats, with production rooted in the company's of FMC Corporation's defense assets following its 1994 spin-off. The upgrades, particularly the M2A3 variant, represented a core focus, enhancing the platform's capabilities for troop-carrying and in armored brigades. Introduced in the late , the M2A3 incorporated second-generation (FLIR) sensors and improved fire control systems to boost against armored targets, while spall liners and reactive armor kits increased survivability against kinetic and shaped-charge threats. Networked integration via the module enabled digital data sharing for reconnaissance and command coordination, addressing limitations in earlier A2 models. United Defense served as the primary contractor for these upgrades, delivering over 3,000 kits to the U.S. Army by the early 2000s. The family formed another pillar, with United Defense sustaining production and variant development from FMC's original design adopted in 1960. Over 80,000 units were manufactured across variants, providing reliable troop transport for mechanized units with aluminum armor offering protection against small arms and fragments. Key adaptations included the M901 Improved TOW Vehicle, mounting the system on an for and defensive anti-armor roles, with production exceeding 1,600 units equipped for launches. These vehicles supported dismounts while enabling overwatch, with diesel powertrains ensuring logistical commonality in armored formations. Specialized support vehicles like the M88 Hercules recovery tank underscored United Defense's expertise in sustainment for high-threat operations. Based on an enlarged M113-derived with a 1,050 horsepower , the M88A2 variant—produced starting in the late —featured a 35-ton hydraulic boom, 140,000-pound capacity, and armored dozer blade for entrenchment and obstacle clearance, enabling recovery of up to 70-ton main battle tanks under combat conditions. United Defense integrated these enhancements post-merger of predecessor firms BMY and FMC, prioritizing reliability through redundant hydraulics and protection to operate in contaminated or fireswept environments. Over 1,500 M88 series units were built, bolstering armored unit resilience.

Amphibious and Naval Systems

United Defense served as a key manufacturer of the Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV-7A1), a fully tracked amphibious landing platform designed for the U.S. Marine Corps to transport up to 25 troops or cargo from amphibious assault ships to shore at speeds exceeding 7 knots in water and 45 mph on land, while providing armored protection and suppressive fire via a .50-caliber machine gun and grenade launcher. Introduced in the 1980s as an upgrade to earlier LVTP-7 models, the AAV-7A1 emphasized reliability in contested littoral environments, with aluminum armor offering resistance to small arms and artillery fragments. In support of ongoing enhancements, United Defense secured a $12.8 million contract modification on June 23, 2005, to upgrade the AAVP-7 RAM/RS variant, focusing on improved reliability, availability, and maintainability for sustained ship-to-shore mobility in expeditionary operations. These systems integrated fire control mechanisms for precise targeting during amphibious assaults, enabling seamless transitions from sea-based launch to land-based maneuver. On the naval side, United Defense developed the 5-inch/54-caliber Mark 45 (Mk 45) lightweight gun mount in the 1960s as a more maintainable successor to the Mk 42, featuring full automation, reduced weight under 24 tons, and a firing rate of up to 16-20 rounds per minute with 127mm projectiles for surface and air targets. Deployed on U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, Ticonderoga-class cruisers, and later littoral combat ships, the Mk 45 provided extended-range naval gunfire support—up to 13 nautical miles with standard rounds—crucial for shore bombardment in amphibious scenarios. United Defense's mounts incorporated stabilized turrets and advanced fire control for integration with shipboard sensors, enhancing precision in dynamic sea-to-land fire missions.

Artillery and Weapon Mounts

United Defense served as the prime contractor for the program, initiated in the mid-1990s to deliver a next-generation 155 mm self-propelled for U.S. Army support. The system incorporated a 52-caliber gun with an automated loading mechanism enabling a sustained fire rate of 6-10 rounds per minute, significantly exceeding prior systems, alongside a liquid-cooled paired with an electric drive for enhanced mobility and reduced thermal signature. Integrated battle management and fire control systems facilitated rapid and precision strikes, with the design emphasizing crew survivability through armored protection and automatic ammunition handling that minimized exposure during reloading. Complementing the Crusader effort, United Defense's Ground Systems Division produced the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled , entering service in 1994 with upgrades focused on digital fire control and improved lethality. These modifications included a stabilized gunner's sight and computerized ballistic computation enabling compatibility with precision-guided munitions, such as GPS-assisted projectiles, to achieve accuracies under 50 meters at extended ranges up to 30 kilometers. The upgrades also enhanced mobility with a reinforced and improved suspension, supporting fire-on-the-move capabilities while maintaining NATO-standard 155 mm ammunition interoperability. In the domain of modular weapon mounts, United Defense developed remote-controlled systems like the Mark 38 Mod 2 25 mm mount, contracted in 2004 for stabilized, unmanned operation on naval and adaptable land platforms. This system featured electro-optical sensors, joystick controls, and servo-driven stabilization for accurate from .50 caliber to 25 mm weapons, reducing crew risk by enabling operation from inside protected vehicles and integrating with vehicle power and data networks for modular caliber swaps.

Military Applications and Impact

Deployments and Combat Effectiveness

The Fighting Vehicle, with upgrades provided by United Defense, exhibited strong performance in the 1991 Gulf War's open-desert engagements, where it destroyed more Iraqi tanks than the in several documented instances, leveraging its 25mm and TOW missiles for effective anti-armor capability while sustaining low vehicle and crew losses relative to enemy contacts. Crews reported high reliability and mobility, enabling scout variants to outmaneuver and neutralize threats in battles like those preceding the Medina Ridge assault. In the from 2003 to 2011, the Bradley faced increased threats from urban improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), with its aluminum armor proving inadequate against explosively formed penetrators, resulting in higher fatality rates among U.S. Army tracked vehicles—though still superior to unarmored HMMWVs, where IED strikes often caused total crew losses. Empirical data from operations indicated that while 17 Bradleys were lost in 1991 with light casualties, Iraq deployments saw greater vulnerabilities, prompting reactive armor add-ons that improved survivability against RPGs but highlighted limitations in base design for . The , sustained and variant-upgraded by United Defense, demonstrated exceptional longevity and adaptability, originating in operations where it reliably transported infantry through dense jungle thickets and supported firebases, with production exceeding 80,000 units enabling service across 50+ militaries for over 55 years. Its aluminum construction balanced weight and protection, allowing track life extensions to 14,000 km under maintenance, facilitating roles from troop transport to modern without full fleet replacement. United Defense-led upgrade programs for both Bradley and M113 platforms extended operational service life by decades, incorporating engine overhauls and modular enhancements that reduced mission-critical failures and annual maintenance costs by up to 50%, thereby mitigating replacement expenses amid fiscal constraints while preserving readiness.

Contributions to National Defense

United Defense's armored and amphibious systems played a pivotal role in bolstering U.S. military power projection capabilities, particularly through the production and sustainment of vehicles designed for rapid deployment across contested environments. The company's (AAV), manufactured for the U.S. Marine Corps, facilitated ship-to-shore operations essential for expeditionary forces, allowing forces to maneuver from amphibious ships to inland objectives while countering armored threats from peer competitors. These platforms supported deterrence by maintaining a credible ability to project power overseas, sustaining readiness against large-scale mechanized adversaries during the post-Cold War era when reductions in force structure risked capability gaps. By operating key domestic facilities, United Defense contributed to the resilience of the U.S. , preserving manufacturing expertise and supply chains for heavy combat vehicles. The plant, a primary site for armored vehicle production, employed thousands of workers and anchored regional economic stability while averting reliance on foreign suppliers for critical tracked systems. In , the company overall supported approximately 6,000 jobs across its operations, fostering skilled labor in welding, assembly, and systems integration vital for sustainment. This ensured surge capacity for armored production, reducing vulnerabilities in the supply chain during periods of fiscal constraint. Pre-acquisition innovations by United Defense enhanced joint operational effectiveness through early integration of command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) elements into ground platforms. Upgrades to systems like the incorporated digital architectures for real-time data sharing and , enabling synchronized operations across Army units without dependence on nascent network-centric alternatives. These advancements improved in networked environments, supporting broader deterrence by allowing U.S. forces to operate cohesively against numerically superior foes.

Challenges and Criticisms

Program Cancellations and Cost Issues

The self-propelled program, developed by United Defense Industries (UDI) as the U.S. Army's next-generation system, was terminated on May 8, 2002, by Secretary of Defense . The decision followed extensive review amid concerns over the program's projected $11 billion total cost, which Rumsfeld argued was incompatible with the Army's shift toward lighter, more deployable forces in the post-9/11 era emphasizing rapid global response over traditional heavy mechanized warfare. Despite UDI having delivered prototypes that met performance specifications, including enhanced lethality and mobility after redesign efforts to reduce weight, the cancellation prioritized cheaper, existing alternatives like truck-mounted systems over new heavy platforms. This termination reflected broader fiscal debates within the Department of Defense (DoD), where the Crusader's unit cost—estimated at over $6 million per vehicle—drew criticism for diverting funds from network-centric warfare initiatives suited to counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than indicating fundamental technical deficiencies in UDI's design. Prior to cancellation, the fiscal 2002 budget had allocated nearly $500 million for continued development, underscoring congressional support that clashed with Rumsfeld's vision for procurement reform. Empirical evidence from subsequent conflicts validated the pivot, as lighter artillery proved adequate for urban and asymmetric threats, though some Army advocates contended the Crusader's automation and precision fire capabilities addressed enduring needs unmet by legacy systems like the Paladin. UDI mitigated sunk costs from Crusader by redirecting engineering expertise to upgrades on existing platforms, notably securing a $191.1 million in summer 2004 to remanufacture and enhance 131 M3A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles with improved and drawn from prior R&D. These adaptations, informed by early deployment lessons, extended the Bradley's service life without the full-scale risks of new programs, demonstrating how cancellations enabled resource reallocation to proven assets amid budget constraints averaging 2-3% annual DoD growth in the early . Overall, such decisions underscored causal trade-offs in defense spending, where high development costs for advanced systems yielded to operational priorities favoring over heavy hardware.

Ethical and Regulatory Scrutiny

United Defense Industries (UDI) engaged in efforts consistent with industry norms during the and , primarily to advocate for contract opportunities in armored vehicles and related systems amid competition from larger contractors like . These activities focused on influencing Department of Defense procurement policies rather than exceeding typical sector spending levels for mid-tier firms. UDI faced no major convictions for , bribery, or export control violations, maintaining compliance with the (ITAR) and the (FCPA), unlike some peers in the sector that incurred significant penalties. Sector-wide critiques of the "revolving door" phenomenon—where former DoD officials transition to contractor roles, potentially biasing decisions—applied to UDI, as certain executives held prior government affiliations, though no specific instances of were documented. Procurement processes involving UDI benefited from competitive requirements that enhanced transparency, particularly following key programs, yet regulatory oversight have been linked to broader escalations in defense acquisitions, with programs averaging nearly 50 percent over and two years behind schedule due to compliance reviews. analyses underscore how such extended scrutiny, while aimed at accountability, contributes to inflationary pressures in the without evidence of systemic abuse at UDI.

References

  1. https://mergr.com/united-defense-industries-overview
  2. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/industry/udi.htm
  3. https://www.company-histories.com/United-Defense-Industries-Inc-Company-History.html
  4. https://dtsc.ca.gov/fmc-corporation-united-defense-l-p/
  5. https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/United_Defense_Industries
  6. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-mar-08-fi-bae8-story.html
  7. https://www.washingtontechnology.com/2005/06/bae-systems-unit-completes-udi-acquisition/328514/
  8. https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/2001/02/talking-about-defense-a-struggle-for-the-armys-soul/8451/
  9. https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/12387-52
  10. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/37785/0000950131-94-001770.txt
  11. https://www.company-histories.com/Harsco-Corporation-Company-History.html
  12. https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=423
  13. https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/united-defense-lp
  14. https://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/united-defense-industries-inc-history/
  15. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2001/10/23/united-defense-files-for-ipo/6a12ddb0-43a5-4120-90d0-ca9d087b46ef/
  16. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1008284423863543720
  17. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/27/business/military-contractor-sold-to-buyout-firm.html
  18. https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/united-defense-industries-inc
  19. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/linebacker/
  20. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1051719/000095013304000588/w93578e424b3.htm
  21. https://www.militaryaerospace.com/home/article/16712451/bae-buys-united-defense-for-4-billion
  22. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7115592
  23. https://www.washingtontechnology.com/2005/03/bae-unit-to-buy-udi/329446/
  24. https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/bae-spends-4-billion-to-acquire-us-counterpar-0001
  25. https://www.wilmerhale.com/insights/news/bae-systems-acquires-united-defense-industries-for-4-2-billion-june-23-2005
  26. https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/bae-completes-united-defense-purchase-xn8klvr87pr
  27. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bae-completes-united-defense-industries-acquisition?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqchAWwCqya-JHNx16AOJaIP_AI3sXy53XYRYK4MGHMUjoqN22w23YuI&gaa_ts=68febeb7&gaa_sig=qRlEim9YkXklmtbz8L0oLNJfOODKIGWf_wibZ27_7zgrq8dX_qoPxAO8BUEBHcHBBsuYuRwhWo_pJeZdk-8LpA%253D%253D
  28. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2a3.htm
  29. https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.php?armor_id=6
  30. https://www.military.com/equipment/m88a2-hercules-recovery-vehicle
  31. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/herculesrecoveryvehi/
  32. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/aav7a1assault/
  33. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_175.html
  34. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk45.php
  35. https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167864/mk-45-5-inch-5462-caliber-guns/
  36. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/
  37. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/paladin/
  38. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_25mm_mk38.php
  39. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/armys-bradley-has-seen-more-combat-abrams-tank-184448
  40. https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.php?armor_id=125
  41. https://www.thearmorylife.com/m2-bradley-infantry-fighting-vehicle/
  42. http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10040/upfile/200911/20091111165052.pdf
  43. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/m113-armoured-personnel-carrier/
  44. https://www.keymilitary.com/article/track-changed-tactics
  45. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1424.html
  46. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_briefings/DB600/DB648/RAND_DB648.pdf
  47. https://www.army.mil/article/277657/first_batch_of_armored_vehicles_arrives_at_powidz_aps_2_worksite
  48. http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/13/130499/reports/AR2002.pdf
  49. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/03/11/threatened-site-sustains-most-of-u-s-combat-vehicle-industry/
  50. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley-m2-m3/
  51. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rumsfeld-kills-the-crusader-08-05-2002/
  52. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/us/11-billion-artillery-system-is-dead-officials-say.html
  53. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/artillery-battle-the-crusader-weapons-system
  54. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/05/what-the-crusader-cancellation-really-means-to-the-army.html
  55. https://www.govexec.com/defense/2002/05/rumsfeld-defends-decision-to-dump-crusader-weapon/11685/
  56. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA414123.pdf
  57. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2004/10/1/2004october-bradley-vehicle-improvements-reflect-war-lessons
  58. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/background?cycle=1990&ind=D
  59. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/raytheon-company-pay-over-950m-connection-defective-pricing-foreign-bribery-and-export
  60. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/the-pentagons-revolving-door-keeps-spinning-2021-in-review
  61. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/defense-budgeting-and-the-dilemma-of-lost-time.html
  62. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61018
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.