Does GCV Death Let Army Think Bigger?

From Aviation Week’s DTI

By putting its $40-billion ground combat vehicle (GCV) procurement plan on hold, the U.S. Army is giving itself a breather to come up with a new strategy for its ground vehicle force.

The Army canceled the GCV request for proposal (RFP) this summer and froze funding and development for all major ground-vehicle programs — even Block 2 work on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which the GCV is supposed to replace.

Army ground programs — particularly the GCV — are victims of the Pentagon’s obsession with reviewing and revamping the Defense Department procurement mindset for big-dollar programs. The Army and Pentagon also want to put the brakes on the service’s ground-vehicle programs to ensure it buys the right equipment for the mission. The Army and Defense Department are analyzing whether they are buying — even developing — the right vehicle for the job. Indeed, the military could move away from tracked vehicles, except for specific missions.

“Tracked vehicles are not necessarily the best option for what we plan to be doing,” says John Gresham, a defense analyst and author of books on military equipment and operations. That would be a point of departure for the Army, whose doctrine and checkbook has heavily favored tracked vehicles.

The Pentagon reported about $13.7 billion in transactions for those vehicles in 2008, a 57% increase from 2007, according to an analysis of data provided by the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting. Procurement of those vehicles ranked 10th in Pentagon expenses in 2009 and second in 2008, racking up $16.8 billion in contracts and modifications, the analysis shows.

Read the rest of this story and other great content from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.

23 Comments on "Does GCV Death Let Army Think Bigger?"

  1. As to that picture…. it's BOLO junior!!! Or maybe a BOLO Mark 1?

    Somewhere Keith Laumer is smiling…

    Rifle308

  2. I applaud any decision to slow down and think about where we will be deploying, and what we will be doing. We knew 20 years ago we would be in the fights we are in right now, and we did pretty close to zero to prepare for this fight. We have a very good idea of where we will be in 20 years and what we will be doing, or wanting to do. It would be swell if we would match our procurement to our needs. I think we are somewhat, but I also think there are dinosaurs in DoD wanting to continue to arm for fights that already happened, or never did and never will.

  3. Nice imagination but not impossible. How about this: Perhaps man of the future will explore the universe and create its own space Odyssey exploratory ship. Just sayen…peace!
    http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2388329497/

  4. I wasn't aware tanks had avionics.

  5. Maybe with the recent advances in solid state, fiber, and other high power lasers, the Army might just be interested in putting one on a new GCV in a couple years.

  6. There is a GCV out there that has wheels, but also uses removable tracks that are fitted onto the wheels. I think thats an idea we should seriously consider for our next gen GCV.

  7. An honest analysis of what kinds of fights we will be in, and potentially where would be a great first step in determining what to buy. At the end of the Cold War all the experts were talking about low intensity conflicts in the third world. We knew the middle east was a powder keg.

    So what kinds of systems did we buy/develop? The F22, the F35, Comanche, Crusader, and we wanted to get rid of the A10s. Essentially few of the procurement decisions at the time took heed of the predictions. I've read pieces from sitting generals/admirals now, Mullens I think was one, talking about we won't know the next war, to which I say baloney. Everything I ever heard anyone talk about was low intensity back in the day, and with the exception of the Stryker we bought practically nothing that was really suited to the last nine years of combat we have been in. We came up with rapid fielding programs, because clearly the plain ol procurement system was broken. We knew what we needed and we bought little of it.

    So without getting into some 'ditch the USMC' debate or 'tracks or death' or 'the F35 is crummy and the F22 is God' drivel, I would like us to just take a look at what we will be doing in 20 years. I know we can make very accurate predictions of what we will need to be able to do in order to maintain stability in the world. Lets just do that.

  8. We can't do that! Why…… you'll ruin everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. Yeah dude, that thing is practically identical to the ground hunter-killers..

  10. To a bean counter looking at masses of Cold War hardware and being asked to throw it out early is borderline anathema. That and fiscal realities are what will tie down innovation. A major reason why armies didn't mechanize before WW2 was sheer cost, and especially during the depression experimentation is an expense nations would attempt to minimize.

    However, as long as we continue to support small development projects and have the willingness to grow the ones that demonstrate potential (with potential not being measured by generals with turf to defend) we will have an idea of what tech can do for defense.

  11. That looks like a transformer rorbot of somekind. Interesting imagination.
    http://www.transformersmovie.com/

  12. It never ceases to amaze me how the MI Complex is always pushing "the latest and the greatest" with all the bells and whistles, when what we already have (with incremental upgrades) will do just fine in most cases. I'm for big defense budgets, but much of what is spent is wasted on Rube-Goldberg schemes, all for one purpose: keeping the defense companies profitable and in business.

  13. First priority must be absolute air dominance, period. That means developing, building, deploying aircraft like F22 and the generation after that. Expensive, yes.

    Does counter-insurgency really make sense. Endless, low-medium intensity war ? Should we consent to fight war in environments where time can be used against us so effectively ? What are the alternatives ? What was our national security/policy goal in Afghanistan in the context of the war against islam ?

    I think the idea of moving more of the heavy mission to ARNG is interesting…

    Navy and Air Force are keys to the future as US global commitments and basing freedom shrink.

  14. "That would be a point of departure for the Army, whose doctrine and checkbook has heavily favored tracked vehicles."

    Sounds like someone's trying to rewrite history, especially when it comes to the FCS disaster.

  15. whoops, just confused gcv with weird robot, my bad, ignore previous commetn

  16. And yet who says we won't fight a conventional war. All of those projects you listed were key in ensuring we maintain the ability to defeat a more "conventional" opponent.

  17. I think DanF is on the money.

  18. That is the "Ground Apache" concept that was in Carlton Meyer's book about future warfare. just take the proven Apache attack helicopter system and mount it on tracks.

  19. Why not just develope the "Hover Tank" from Sgt. Bilko…LOL

  20. We should just buy the new German IFV.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_(IFV)

    Negotiate a license build here to put Americans back to work and give the middle class workers soemthing back (pay,) spend less than the billions the taxpayer would pay in reasearch and development.

  21. At this recession time I think e need to be realistic. I do blieve the imagination is great but we still have a war in Afghanistan and on the whereabout of Osama to take care of. Its been 10 years now ever since we are fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. It looks like we are fighting a superpower yet still unwon. I think this wars should be taken care of first before jumping on the next ambitions.

  22. The F-22, Comanche and Crusader began life in the Cold War and were already extant (start dates in the period 1984-86), so it is not fair to state that that they were ineffective because they did things with a particular mission set in mind.

    Indeed, the A-10 which began life as a Vietnam Skyraider replacement was -always- a lousy tank buster and remains a lousy CAS platform, with no weather penetration, limited standoff ordnance, a massive volume penalty inherent to the gun and next to zero loiter or altitude performance. When CAS was called for in OEF, it was always the Marines with their Cardinal Point system who were preferred exponents because they would run in from a FAC-A or SCARs direction and drop and come off even as the next jet was slotting into the wagon wheel. Much faster and more precise than an A-10 with direct, overhead, CAS.

    An F-22 can fly legs of 600nm each at 600-700 knots which is to say, if you have a 1,200-1,500nm radius, you can make it compatible with just a few, staged, tankers and X8 GBU-53. This is _not_ possible with the wandering circus that is a Gorilla strike package, 'Navy style' with all the fixins', including SEAD, EA and Escort. As you have to literally drag them all the way there and back and minor differences in loadout, let alone platforms, make a total hash of their SFCs and necessary tanking points.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*