GCV RFP Released

BOOMER February 25th, 2010 at 2:47 pm

As usual this thing is full of loopholes. This one is even worse because it is open to overseas mfg and importing which doesnt do anything for our sinking economy and does not call for single location assembly of components which means oversight by the government will be dificult. Unfortunately the people who write these are so educated they have no common sense and dont realize that they way they wrote it doesnt lock in a price cap per unit that is non negotiable. or that this thing could wind up being built in India or South America by $2.00 a day employees.

BOOMER February 25th, 2010 at 3:28 pm

yeah, but unfortunately I have never seen the actual contract go to anyone other than the actual developer. The Govt should have listed more spec requirements and design that they themselves had developed which would have left propriatary ownership with us rather than develope this for us with no mandated propriatary requirement for the US solely. I only read through it quickly but dont like most of what I saw, such as allowing overseas production negates all of the additional requirements of the FAR, because our laws do not apply outside the US even in contracts. We fight this battle constantly with GD canada.

Byron Skinner February 25th, 2010 at 9:52 pm

Good Evening Folks,

Yawn, seven years away for delivery of prototypes. It would appear that this serves little more then new designs for plastic model kits.

Seven years ago we were watching the 3ID roll over Iraq, perhaps histories last major armor attack.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

daniel February 26th, 2010 at 4:19 am

good thing your not important

John King February 26th, 2010 at 2:54 pm

See. This is exactly how we keep funding the defense-contractors-full-employment act gooney birds. I know there must be an Army study somewhere that says we need such a vehicle. But does it says that they existing vehicle don’t work well? Can’t take a round? Are moving caskets? Why does something need to be designed from the ground up? There needs to be some serious thought applied here. And why not just newer technologies on the same frame? Or is this also a mid-grade-officer-needs-full-employment act too?

There’s nothing wrong with the Bradleys and Strykers. And there’s not much out there being fielded that is a threat. So why are we wasting money on this? Kill it off and use the money to buy more of the current vehicles.

John King February 26th, 2010 at 6:53 pm

Agree on some points. Marines used old aluminum hulls for their AAV upgrade.

But a ground up design will suffer the same under estimated, under budgeted fate as any other major system. And the Army doesn’t have a very good track record. Which I guess means that we should really do a fly-before-you-buy. No rush to get it field, and we won’t be committed to procurement before its ready. So, maybe this is the pattern breaker? Want to make a bet?

Here’s an idea! Let’s get Toyota to make it for us! May not work, but it won’t be over budget and behind schedule!

daniel February 26th, 2010 at 9:16 pm

i think you mean that you cant, try a dictionary

William C. February 26th, 2010 at 9:47 pm

It is easy to be discouraged by recent truck and MRAP contract details, but I don’t think that is a valid reason to decide not to develop a new AFV. Some disagree with the selection of the Stryker but with the exception of some early problems, production has gone smoothly. The Crusader was canceled not for technical reasons, but rather the whole FCS concept it did not fit into.

The EFV is by far the worst offender, but it was a risky program to the star due to the configuration required for such high speeds in the water. The GCV won’t have to deal with such a host of issues.

pennst98 March 2nd, 2010 at 4:46 pm

I think John King was right, this is surely the contractor/mid-grade officer full employment act. Think about the concept of this vehicle; it’s supposed to be a fairly affordable (realize that never happens) replacement for an overly complex and expensive Bradley (O&M costs on this beast are killing the Army), and possibly a replacement for some of the M113’s which are on their last legs. YET, it will take almost a decade before we start really seeing these in theater, meaning they’ll be outdated and irrelevant once they roll off the production line.

They need to build a robust, maintainable, and versatile tracked vehicle with the “best of breed” chassis/engine technology from the past few decades. Let all the subcontractors and weapons-guys hang crap off it later. Instead we’re once again setting up an everything-to-everyone vehicle which will be neither affordable nor capable. Meaning we’ve essentially spend more money than it costs to reset the force designing vehicles no one can afford to build/maintain.