Army Cancels GCV Competition

Army Cancels GCV Competition

The Army has canceled the Ground Combat Vehicle competition because the current Requests for Proposal (RFPs) do not accurately reflect Army requirements and a changing acquisition strategy.

A contract for the new vehicle was close to being awarded, we’re told. A restart of the GCV competition is expected fairly soon, a new RFP may be out within 60 days, and the Army intends to stay within the original seven year timeline to field a new vehicle.

The GCV competition was cancelled so the Army can “better ensure an achievable, affordable, and timely infantry fighting vehicle,” according to an emailed Army announcement. The cancellation will result in a six month delay of the program, although the service intends to field a vehicle within seven years after a contract is awarded. The statement says:


“In May 2010, the Army partnered with OSD (AT&L) to conduct a thorough study of the Ground Combat Vehicle program, referred to as a Red Team analysis. The Red Team review recommended that the Army prioritize the planned vehicle’s capabilities to meet achievable goals within the program’s acquisition schedule. This holistic review included an examination of vehicle capabilities, operational needs, the acquisition strategy, program schedule and technology readiness.

In conjunction with the Red Team recommendations, the Army determined that it must revise the acquisition strategy to rely on mature technologies in order to reduce significant developmental risk over a seven year schedule following the initial contract award. The refined RFP will result in a vehicle that provides soldiers with critical armored protection in the modern combat environment.”

The emailed announcement says details of the specific RFP are still being finalized and the service expects to issue a new solicitation within the next 60 days. Lawmakers were notified of the GCV cancellation this morning.

Join the Conversation

That was quick…

Doesn’t address replacing the Bradley and other vehicles however.

slightly more information on this story at defensetech​.org

When you don’t know what you’re doing, any road will get you there.…or not.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. An RFP for something other than what they wanted.

Other than who wanted?

They don’t truly consider all the time, effort, and money that contractors put into preparation of such an extensive and demanding proposal package.

“prioritize the planned vehicle’s capabilities to meet achievable goals within the program’s acquisition schedule”

That sucks — Looks like money for the vague unachievable capabilities gravy train just dried up.

MIC ( Military Indrustrial Complex) the rescession is here, your turn to feel it. We have too much personal and national debt to sustain our nation and lifestyles. The interest on your formaldehyde laced McMansion and those grainite coutertops did what the former Soviet Union could not do! You fools have hung your selves on the debt rope. Now pay up. This is the first of many programs to disappear.
Debt is Un-American and always has been.

Interesting. In a quick search I couldn’t find out much about your proposal other than it was wheeled. Good luck in the next go-around.

In other words the Army based RFP does not reflect Army based Requirements, thus more contractor proposal (B&P) money will be spent chasing another poorly managed procurement process, and the proposal costs (per DCAA cost reconigition procedures) will be added on to a more expensive vehicle through the contract Overhead — good Pentagon cost saving !! What happended to “do it right the first time!”

Yay Adam! The Inside Defense News article that came out this afternoon made mention of the ‘big 3′, but no mention of us, when the writer clearly knew of our protest from previous correspondence. It’s all political.…and rigged…sad to say.

It never ceases to amaze how many times our DOD/military can change its mind, yet expect our troops to keep faith in it regardless of that fact. It would seem to most that designing requirements for the next generation fighting vehicle would seem straigtforeward. What are the threats, the projected threats, and the overall general capabilities needed. hat____I am a former operational tester. I have witnessed many designs that met the challenges and quite a few that didn’t yet were fielded regardless. That being the point (Defense contractor profit over troop safety), I am not at all surprised by the Army’ s new decision. Obviously some major contractor couldn’t meet the requirement and cried to the Army“s senior leadership. I will only be disproven if the Army stiiffens the requirements rather than lower them.

You are right on look at FCS now Boeing is laying off tons of program people so who is going to do the work not the citzen side of the army

right on about FCS Gates is clueless

This would be what it is called Epic Fail. Keep in mind that the Germans are pressing forward on fielding Puma to their ONE deployable division and the good ole’ USA just keeps marking time with 80s technology. Admittedly the BAE design was pretty horrid. Maybe this will learn Chiarelli that you don’t write operational requirements by calling in a bunch of retired generals down to Fort McNair and throwing up ideas on butcher paper charts. Noch einmal — the ICV design wasn’t that bad. It could have been executed with (relatively) minor relief on the weight requirement. It is not that hard to design a V-shaped hull. I keep harping on Puma, because it shows you what you can do when you let the engineers do engineering, and you have management that insists on getting what it paid for.

This has OSD (AT&L) DDR&E written all over it an I love it. For the longest time Army G8 has been having to be specific about their requirements because the Systems Engineers are incapable of writing Technical Specifications. The break down is when the Soldier are tasked with writing Technical Specifications and they do not possess the Knowledge or skill set to convert USER REQUIREMENTS into technical specifications. To many program office are full of Left over engineers that end up in the Systems Engineering group to justify their salaries and stay close to their PM buddies. The User Requirements outlined in the old ORDs, CDD, ICD, should be vague then the details are added in the conversion to Technical Specifications to be added to the RFP. “To let the engineers do engineering you need to have qualified Systems Engineers doing Requirements Derivation and System Synthesis. DDR&E Systems Engineer is attempting to provide oversite of this function.

Maybe they are waiting to develop a ‘lazer cannon type tank ‘seems the testing of the lazer cannon have been tried by the Navy with great reuslts and that would be a ballpark changer! UMT.

You need an education. Are you blind to what the current administration is doing?

Army

The real story will emerge soon enough, but you’ve all missed the real reason. Sorry, you’ll have to wait…

Anybody remember the Armored Gun System? It could be stuffed into a C-130 and had a 105mm main gun.
As the saying goes, if you want a new idea–read an old book.

That is an interesting comment. In my simplistic tanker brain the world should be like this. Warfighters (this would be TRADOC) write operational requirements. Normally, this is where modeling and simulation helps you most, but if you have to chunk out an ICD in six to nine months, that leaves little to no opportunity for a proper analysis of alternatives. Strike One. I happen to think that the government does not need a host of engineers to write an A spec. This was the part that Rumsfeld had right. Let industry respond to your operational requirements, and have your government-side engineers assess the proposed design. Strike Two. When you put out an RFP, make sure that you’ve done your homework so that what you get back from industry is affordable and achievable. Strike Three and you’re out.

Obviously, FCS pretty followed the process I laid out above. Was it costly ? Yes. Were there problems? Most definitely — and most of those problems stemmed from faulty operational concepts rather than poor engineering. Yes, some of the engineering defied common sense, but the current administration’s approach is to make sure that everyone who participates in writing the A Spec is a government employee, and so all the contractors need to do is turn off their higher cognitive functions and work like chipmunk to circle the square and solve the problem — through a bid-proposal mechanism — of responding to faulty requirements. You could float the RFP in draft and get comments from industry, and if industry has any sense, they’ll tell you the facts. None of that was done here. So if OSD (AT&L) is driving this train, I guess they get to share out some of the blame, don’t they ?

You know, it would have been far to easy to have:
1. Built the NLOS-C (oh, excuse me, we already did build six)
2. Build at least one of the other MGV prototypes, and most importantly
3. Test them all to failure.

This would have put money in the pockets of hardworking Americans and given the Army at least a shred of dignity here. As long as these silly paper drills continue, nothing at all will ever be proven one way or the other. A lot of money wasted for nothing. The score is Bundeswehr — 2 (SPH2000, Puma), United States — 0.

You need to get a clue, we aren’t in a recession because the administration. We are running 10% unemployment. We need sustainable jobs, not just wet dream jobs.

They are going to upgrade the bradley’s watch and see. More powerful engine, unmanned torrent, new tracks more armor, external fuel tanks. It is the only common sense thing to do since we built 1000’s of them.

Supportability is a budget nightmare and the Army had allowed Honeywell to own the bag of tricks on the supportability requirement (PS-MRS) on the FCS Manned and unmanned Ground Vehicles. Many authorities in the Army learned this 3–4 years into the program and did not understand early on that you can’t have the “back-end” of the design drive the front-end design requirements — but they now learned that this should true for multiple reasons.… Honeywell was very sharp.… because Honeywell would position itself into forcing all designs to ultimately be worked into its PS-MRS and it would keep sucking development funds in the form of perpetual, monopolistic support of its PS-MRS software.

This PS-MRS software support scheme would also require Honeywell to ultimately get the compatibility diagnostic “incorporation” work from every contractor on the FCS program over time by changing their PS-MRS software database, and thereby its requirements spawning from adding/fixing software (in)capabilities — This was a totally avoidable High-Risk / High and Uncontrollable Cost direction for the Army.…. The Army is now more familiar with a very LOW — Risk approach that allows the Army to use PS-MRS, if affordable and desired, or walk away .… this ought to save hundreds of millions .….

And building new vehicles doesn’t count as a “real job?”

Supportability is a budget nightmare and the Army had allowed Honeywell to own the bag of tricks on the supportability requirement (PS-MRS) on the FCS Manned and unmanned Ground Vehicles. Many authorities in the Army learned about this 3–4 years into the program and did not understand early on that you can’t have the “back-end” of the design drive the front-end diagnostic design requirements — but they now learned that this should true for multiple reasons.… Honeywell was very sharp.… because Honeywell would position itself into forcing all designs to ultimately be worked into its PS-MRS and it would keep sucking acquisition, development and support funds in the form of perpetual, monopolistic support of its PS-MRS software.

I never said they weren’t real jobs what I said was it’s not sustainable. I do agree we need to buy or upgrade, but honestly wouldn’t upgrading also give you the same jobs? The vehicle needs to be re-engineered to accommodate new technologies. Or we could also buy new if it is cheaper…On that note though, it makes more sense to me to just have a major systems upgrade.

They worked on a mortar carrier varient, they could also put the ags torrent on it to make the Bradley a modular family. If you remove the manned turret, then you have room to accommodate 9 troops.

Back to the sustainability question job question, no I don’t feel these jobs are sustainable because programs end these people are going to be unemployeed just like the people at boeing.

What I mean by sustainable jobs is US infrastructure upgrades that are in dire need. Almost every Highway in the north east needs to be repaved. Our internet is abysmal compared to the rest of the first world countries. Our bridges are falling down, evident by the few that have collapsed in the last 3 years most famous is the one in Mississippi. Our power grid is getting antiquated and lines need to be buried so they are less susceptible to the elements. Our comunicaiton grid which is basically the same as the internet I talked above needs to be moved more towards fiber. I work in Center City philadelphia, and we still have to buy ancient t1 lines because the fiber ring is not downtown. So to get 4.5 megs it costs us roughly 1500 a month, where if we had fiber for the same price we would have at least a 10 meg pipe.

Among other sustainable jobs are energy jobs, clean coal, gas to liquid conversion, solar, wind, you know our future, something we can sell to the rest of the world…Even our not so friendly partners like China.

We need to getting back to making things here in the USA, but we can’t step back to the 50’s and start making lunch boxes again. We are a higher tech society, and we need to tool our society around that so we can cater to the 1.6 billion in China and 1.4 billion in India. If we make the right products the whole world will buy.

In conclusion, yes we need to look at whether its cheaper to buy or upgrade the vehicles, and we do need to upgrade the bradleys with a more modular system. We should do it A. economically. and B. Like many others have said not spend money to reinvent the wheel. These defense contractors well they just don’t provide that many jobs. For example lockhead martin just expanded its missile making factory in Alabama yet it only provided 100 or so jobs, with millions unemployed its just not enough.

I never said they weren’t real jobs what I said was it’s not sustainable. I do agree we need to buy or upgrade, but honestly wouldn’t upgrading also give you the same jobs? The vehicle needs to be re-engineered to accommodate new technologies. Or we could also buy new if it is cheaper…On that note though, it makes more sense to me to just have a major systems upgrade.

They worked on a mortar carrier varient, they could also put the ags torrent on it to make the Bradley a modular family. If you remove the manned turret, then you have room to accommodate 9 troops.

Back to the sustainability question job question, no I don’t feel these jobs are sustainable because programs end these people are going to be unemployeed just like the people at boeing.

What I mean by sustainable jobs is US infrastructure upgrades that are in dire need. Almost every Highway in the north east needs to be repaved. Our internet is abysmal compared to the rest of the first world countries. Our bridges are falling down, evident by the few that have collapsed in the last 3 years most famous is the one in Mississippi. Our power grid is getting antiquated and lines need to be buried so they are less susceptible to the elements. Our communication grid which is basically the same as the internet I talked above needs to be moved more towards fiber. I work in Center City philadelphia, and we still have to buy ancient t1 lines because the fiber ring is not downtown. So to get 4.5 megs it costs us roughly 1500 a month, where if we had fiber for the same price we would have at least a 10 meg pipe.

Among other sustainable jobs are energy jobs, clean coal, gas to liquid conversion, solar, wind, you know our future, something we can sell to the rest of the world…Even our not so friendly partners like China.

We need to getting back to making things here in the USA, but we can’t step back to the 50’s and start making lunch boxes again. We are a higher tech society, and we need to tool our society around that so we can cater to the 1.6 billion in China and 1.4 billion in India. If we make the right products the whole world will buy.

In conclusion, yes we need to look at whether its cheaper to buy or upgrade the vehicles, and we do need to upgrade the bradleys with a more modular system. We should do it A. economically. and B. Like many others have said not spend money to reinvent the wheel. These defense contractors well they just don’t provide that many jobs. For example lockhead martin just expanded its missile making factory in Alabama yet it only provided 100 or so jobs, with millions unemployed its just not enough.

Well, go out to Valley Forge and King of Prussia and ask those engineers whether or not they have “real jobs”. Heck, ask the Boeing guys in Philly who worked FCS — if any of them are still around now. What’s not to like about the Bradley — well start with the monster turret, high profile (makes a bigger target) and nothing special design. You make vehicles like that “modular” by adding things on, not taking things off. Otherwise you’ve really got to do a new design. Oh — but we already have a new design !! Well there you go. We can’t help you with the economies of scale issue. Crusader — cancelled. AGS — cancelled. Grizzly — cancelled. MGV (all 8 prototypes) — cancelled. Read the Army report on tactical wheeled vehicles (e.g. trucks) Sez hear that you make money by keeping the production line warm.

All the things you mention are fine and dandy, but they don’t resolve the structural unemployment problem induced by drastic cuts in one sector and hell-for-leather stimulus spending in all the places you mention. I can hardly get to work driving through all the darned road construction these days. How “high tech” is that ? Nope, I’m smelling a double standard here. And some day we will need these systems we’r not buying.

DANG! Greg! I must admit you make sense! Just a power grid infrastructure upgrade would propel us not only farther toward energy self reliance, but save money too! You could pay for the work with the savings in re-gained power losses! Small communities have been doing this for years and have more room to improve. All power upgrades were paid for with the savings in power loss; we even had money left over to literally build another power plant.

A smart grid could make it possible for folks buying electric vehicles to pay for their batteries by selling the stored power that would have gone up in smoke as idle time power loss, and also save the power company money on expensive power plant expansion. Something the bigger power companies here avoid like the plague!

Without repairing our technical foundation, we will not compete with China and India, and we will become a second if not third world country.
Now this would be a no brainer for O’Bama — he wouldn’t have to make excuses that it was just more deficit spending — because it wouldn’t — I guarantee!

What does a ‘light tank’ have to do with IFV?

Because the Army/DOD/US government already knows that the NLOS-C nor the MCV have any chance of meeting new requirements.

I do not have a double standard at all thank you. I very much support the military and the need to keep the high tech jobs. Hell, my friend from college is the lead systems engineer on the ddg-1000. I am a rutgers comp sci grad, most of my friends went to work for one defense contractor or another. The point i was trying to make wasn’t to rob Peter to pay Paul, because that is stupid. The point I am trying to make is it has been happeneing for years. The said construction you talk about slowing you down would not be nearly as bad if we upkept the road.

The point you are missing is without a good economy there is no military. Also if the masses aren’t working , well then there isn’t such a need for an expiditionary force.

What I am saying is to stay on top we either need to evolve or we will be surpassed. There is more to defense then military, and we have produced too many high tech failed projects of a late. If we could secure our energy maybe we won’t bleed out so much money. I am really for a strong military though so please don’t use what I am saying to push another agenda.

The FCS jobs were going no matter what, the program was ridiculous and unrealistic. They required a next generation satellite that probably isn’t going up. We don’t have the bandwidth to do all oft he things in the FCS. That is the real reason it was dropped and a seperate program was made for parts they wanted to keep like the gcv for example.

You comment on the hight torrent of the bradley, did you miss the part where I said it needs to be automated thus can be lower profile. Read what I say in context instead of picking out little tid bits.

We need to evolve as a country to understand that we need these upgrades though. We need people to really start learning things, it seems like everyone is so one tracked, no pun intended. How can we compete with 3 billion people in the world market? The answer is technologically. I love military tech thus I am on this forum, but we can’t just make blind military decisions without thinking of the whole.

If you consider NLOS-C to be the descendent of Crusader, that would be the third instance of requirements creep — though requirements “jitter” would be more like it. And Crusader’s big issue was the liquid propellant gun that the government-side engineers mandated in the technical requirements. I remember when we were huffing and puffing back in 1988 to the Germans how much better range AFAS would attain. Twenty two years later, they’ve had their advanced howitzer in the field for ten years, and we are still arguing which end is up. But Networked Fires is a great concept. With the proper equipment, it will revolutionize artillery tactics. Even with inferior equipment, there is goodness there, but why not build the right system for the job ? I don’t know if you meant MGV or MCS — leaving the design of future tanks in the parking lot, exactly what how high was the bar in building the other seven variants off the same chassis ? If the USG ran some super secret simulation that proved the MGV design didn’t work — you can believe what you want; in my world, you would have at least have had to run a field test to gather the data you to make that call.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is how we live, and have done so for years. Personally, I have not noticed the roads around Philly to be substandard. You can argue all day about how FCS cudda, shudda, wudda been restructured. But the concept of the program, howbeit its gee whiz roots in DARPA, was not ridiculous. The basic operational requirements — centered around strategic mobility and force projection — those are REAL requirements. Enduring requirements that represent a cost if not met. This is what the Secretary of Defense does not understand. FCS was the culmination of the Army’s evolutionary development all the way back to the post-Vietnam reforms. If the Army goes back into the darkness, we can’t stop that, but the FCS CONOPS was and is fundamental to how we fight. Read Yale, White, and Manteuffel’s Alternative to Armageddon (written in 1970) and get a clue.

I totally agree!

Nice shoutout to my hometown– the good old KoP! Yes folks, there is actually a town called “King of Prussia”

Why is it that each new vehicle calls for new comps, radios and weapons? There goes the price cap. What about support units to go with this GCV? Oh wait that the contractor’s job.

What the army needs to do is upgrade existing M-1’s, Bradleys et al and get more logistics ASAP! Any new vehicle is worthless stuck stateside while contractors bid to haul them to the fight.

Why a new GCV at all? With the Stryke and M-RAPs, the Army *has* new combat vehicles. Once again the Guard gets stuck with’em while the line units will get a handful of GCV’s (or what ever they will be called).

Unlike aircraft or ships, tanks and APC’s can go decades before needing to be scrapped.

Is there a new tank on the horizon? (the Strykers will be eaten alive against a real army as will the M-RAPs) A new anti-armor threat?

The GCV will get it’s re-start only to either be a tracked F-22 (few built, it gets to serve alongside M-1’s and Brads) or get canceled as the economy continues to circle the drain.

Unlike the F-22, the GCV is not a leap forward, just a re-invented wheel.

Yes in the early years of Crusader, they tested the liquid propellant, and could not get it to work. Halfway through the program, they scrapped the liquid for solid propellant MAC charge. All of the design for both the Crusader and the NLOS-C was using MAC.

Well, BAE took one of the AGS vehicles and upgunned it to a 120mm, and proved that could work on a light chassis, then they removed the large diesel that propelled it and converted it into a Hybrid-Elec drive, which freed up a large area in the rear that they could use to transport troops. The upside, it was fuel efficient, small, easily transportable, had a large gun, add-on armor, and there was a working model. Downside, according to the current Army, it was probably too small, didn’t fit the System Of System approach, doesn’t include any of the MRAP lessons learned, tracked vs. wheeled (although not sure if this is still a problem with the Army).

I can’t help but ask:

1. Too small for what ? To load on a C-17 ? (Saracasm alarm activated) Basic load size is an issue, but if you have an area in the back to transport troops, you have room for more main gun rounds.

2. “MRAP lessons learned” — don’t get me started. Since when did dogma fit into a trade study ?

3. Didn’t “fit” the system of system approach. Now, are we talkin’ pre-FCS or post-FCS here ? If you can show me any sign of even a family of systems approach left in Army modernization, I will vote for your posting. (actually I did vote for this one).

Ok, I’ll try to answer your questions.

1. Too small. The AGS vehicle was not large, it fit in a C-130 and was air droppable. They actually air dropped one out of a C-130 during the what would be considered the EMD phase and it made it through the demo fine. Initially the AGS carried 21 rounds in the autoloaders magazine. Upgunning to a 120 I’m not sure what that did to the magazine as it wouldn’t be able to carry as many 120 rounds as it did 105’s. The area where the engine was would probably carry only 4 troops and equipment.

2. MRAP lessons learned. Every new vehicle program lately they want to captialize on the MRAP lessons learned, and want to improve surviveability. I applaud that effort. However, if you want a v-hull under a tracked vehicle, its going to raise the CG. During MGV there were movements to put a v-hull under one of those vehicles but would have raised the vehicle up about 2 –3 feet. They would have been a bit top heavy.

3. When AGS was designed, there was no system of systems approach, that was the big push during FCS. There is very little left of the FCS program, from what I’ve heard the BCTM program is all thats left, and that is minimal. Some computers, UAV’s, radios, not much past that. With the Army now cancelling the GCV program who knows whats going to come of it. A lot of money (yours and mine) has been spent trying to develop something that the Army wants, except the Army doesn’t seem to know what it wants. We will have to wait and see what the new GCV rfp says, hopefully they know what direction they are headed this time.

Learn how to spell idiot.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement