Home » Land » SASC chairman Levin: There will be a GCV

SASC chairman Levin: There will be a GCV

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 9:09 am
Posted in Land

As we saw a little while ago, the Army has already had to change its thinking on the costs for its new Ground Combat Vehicle, because its own estimates have now exceeded its own top end targets. (DoD’s office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation gets even higher figures with whatever dark arts it uses.) This, given the grim budget projections for Austerity America, has led some observers and insiders to quietly conclude there’s a good chance GCV will go the way of so many major Army programs over the past 15 years — into oblivion.

Not if Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin has anything to say about it. The Detroit Free-Press asked the Michigan Democrat about the prospects for its home-state defense industry for a story Tuesday, and Levin assured the newspaper not only that its prospects were good, but specifically that GCV would play a major role.

Here’s how the Freep’s Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki broke it down:

Cuts will come first to U.S. bases abroad, said U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. The last to be cut will be research and development of weapons and other equipment aimed at the post-Afghan war military. And R&D is one of the biggest items Michigan sells to the defense industry, especially with the Army’s key research and development arms located here.
“The focus is going to be on a new ground combat vehicle with new technologies on it, and that’s where our great strength is,” Levin said.

She continues:

The Army’s main focus, despite any cutbacks, will be developing a new ground combat vehicle, said Levin. Both General Dynamics and BAE are expected to be major competitors for the contract to develop the next generation of vehicles. And even if neither company gets the contract, some of the subcontracting work almost certainly will come to local companies, Levin said.
“We’re going to have a couple of good competitors in that effort, and the parts suppliers will be involved as well,” Levin said.

With armed overwatch like that, it sounds like this program’s chances are pretty good after all

Join the Conversation

	Dfens August 30th, 2011 at 9:10 am Of course there will be a GCV. You didn’t think those military contractors would let a weapons development program slip through their hands, did you? Profit on development! It’s guaranteed free money, and if you milk it just right it can last for decades. FU US taxpayer! These defense contractors are going to get their money whether you like it or not.
	TMB August 30th, 2011 at 9:25 am Every time I read a story like this it makes me question whether members of Congress actually care about the health of the DoD and the country or if they’re just out to keep money flowing to their districts. We may certainly need the GCV, F-35, KC-X, etc, but it’s difficult to tell since the committee heads in Congress all directly represent the factories for these systems and everything they say has to be taken with that in mind.
	joe August 30th, 2011 at 9:54 am In previous years, if the Chairman SASC said something about Defense, you could take it to the bank. I don’t think that is true in the current congress, and probably will not be true for a long time. Chairmen have lost a lot of power.
	@7thwave August 30th, 2011 at 9:56 am I love the way some of these people who post on here like the 2 above me, actually know anything and nothing about defense, or what the military needs. And as for congressmen wanting big military projects in their districts, well if I was a congress fool, I sure would…jobs,and a happy voting base. Mean while, back on track… The Army needs to replace the Bradley, and quick. IEDs, will kill a lot more soldiers who ride in this IFV because the vehicle was designed for a totally different war…one of armor formations racing across the Fulda gap. Flat bottoms, and the inability to introduce new technology into this vehicle are its major down falls. Now, do not get me wrong… the Bradley is a great vehicle. How ever, there is only so much you can do with this vehicle. And with the proliferation of IED technologies, this vehicle is now limited in what it can do in the future battlefields. Personally, I do not want to see any more strykers introduced into battle formations to replace old tracked vehicles (M113 anyone?) these too are rolling coffins…too lightly armored for what they are being used for, and the loss of mobility is a big problem also.
	Sheepdog August 30th, 2011 at 10:00 am The Senate is at the root of what is wrong with America. The Presidency and the House of Representatives are sensitive to public opinion on their job performance. We have more frequent opportunities to vote them out of office. For some reason, people perceive their Senator as their rice bowl, and it must be other states’ Senators that are the problem. Incumbent Senators have too much staying power. Probably because their term is so long it is easy for them to escape accountability for doing a crummy job, or failing to do their jobs at all.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 30th, 2011 at 10:06 am Hmmmm.… M113’s, huh? Would that be with or without the 2X4 and chickenwire RPG shield? Maybe we can upgrade to 4X4’s and hurricane fence to take care of the ATGMs as well! Sadly, very sadly, not really LOL! There is one axiom that I think we need to learn at some point. Anything on the battlefield that can be seen can be killed. Big armored vehicles with “V” hulls (to protect against IEDs and land mines) end up being tall, easily seen and inherently vulnerable to APDS and HEAT rounds. Try to up-armor these tall vehicles to provide some kind of defense against anti-tank weapons, and they start looking more and more like heavy tanks and squatting down again on flatter hulls trying to reduce the presented area. Worst, no matter what compromise is struck between “hiding” and “armoring” and “transportability” and “mobility” and cost and schedule and.… there will be some critic with the infinite wisdom and ego to find fault.
	Sheepdog August 30th, 2011 at 10:14 am There are requirements and pros and cons for various ways that an IFV could be configured. With/without 20mm cannon, with/without missiles/rockets, C-130 transportable or not, <20 tons or >50 tons. Tracked or wheeled, or even half tracked. It is as impossible to divine what the future threat environment / next war will be like, as it is impossible to develop an optimal solution for strategic/tactical mobility, lethality, and survivability. Meanwhile there are plenty of non-developmental items for each permutation of above described characteristics. So rather then get ourselves locked into another decades long hopelessly constrained doomed to failure development boondoggle, and making contractors rich by the hour re-engineering our latest requirements change, why don’t we actually buy and deliver capability to our guys in the field, and start training properly? DoD leadership needs to embrace speed, agility, continual learning, and risk management through diversification. The status quo of committing ourselves to failed acquisition and depending on marketing and political instead of technical merit for program survival must go!!!
	TMB August 30th, 2011 at 11:53 am @7thwave, I’ve been in the Army for going on 13 years. I’ve fought from the inside of a Bradley. Do we need a replacement — probably. If you want to see my opinion on the matter, then read the “fait accompli” article. This article referenced a local news piece where saving local jobs was as much the subject as the Army’s actual needs — hence my stab at Congress.
	pennst98 August 30th, 2011 at 12:07 pm What seems to be missing from all the GCV debate is exactly what we need it for? As the Army Force Structure has evolved from heavily armored divisions to counter Soviet Motorized Rifle Regiments into an expeditionary stabilization/reactionary force; why would we be funding a new vehicle replacement for that heavy armor Cold War concept?
	pennst98 August 30th, 2011 at 12:07 pm The Bradley was an expensive embarrassment of engineering compromises when it was first procured, and even then was simply an armed/armored troop carrier (IFV) that could keep pace with the Abrams tank. Flash forward to Iraq and Afghanistan and after OIF the Bradley became pretty much irrelevant. It was too big and slow to navigate the streets of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan. About the only usage the Army got out of it was putting it at remote checkpoints where the 25mm gun and armor deterred would-be insurgents. Today we have the problem of mobility & protection, not firepower. In that regard most of the M-ATV and next-gen MRAPs are more than up to the task; they can traverse both the narrow city streets, as well as the unpaved roads of the mountains larger vehicles can’t. While far from perfect, with some tweaking an advanced MRAP/M-ATV/JLTV variant is likely to be 4x cheaper, and likely 2x as mobile, transportable, and fuel efficient. At best the GCV spending represents misplaced priorities, at worst it’s an indication that senior leadership still doesn’t “get it.”
	Sheepdog August 30th, 2011 at 12:22 pm OIF thunder runs evidence to the contrary, unless you know something different then the official story. and “putting it at remote checkpoints where the 25mm gun and armor deterred would-be insurgents” is pretty darn valuable. and what about the argument that tracked vehicles simply have some mobility capabilities that wheeled vehicles never will have??
	Sheepdog August 30th, 2011 at 12:24 pm all the senior strategy & planning documentation support there is a valid requirement for tracked heavy armored formations…
	Sheepdog August 30th, 2011 at 12:26 pm that’s a good thing
	pennst98 August 30th, 2011 at 1:41 pm And we have them, they’re called HBCT’s. We’ve spent like $50B on upgrading the Abrams and Bradley for that mission. NOW we’re going to buy ANOTHER vehicle to do the job of the one we just bought?
	Byron Skinner August 30th, 2011 at 1:42 pm Good Morning Folks, The time and warfare are changing. Like it or not the USArmy will fight in the future with fewer boots on the ground and a whole lot less of heavy metal. Senator Levin kind of reminds me of the late Rep. Murtha who said there will be a EFV’s for the marines. Old men with old ideas. As to Thinking Ex-USAF. It was not “chickenwire” we hung on the sides of our M-113’s in Vietnam but common old off the shelf Sears and Roebuck chain link fence. In the Summer of 1966 we cleaned out all that Sears had in the Baltimore DC area stores, we didn’t get any discount either. Also the underside blast pans that the M-113’s were suppose to have never showed up and two rows of half filled sandbags between the deck and stored ammo (appox 25,000 round and a 50lb. box of TNT) was what we used. The chain link fence worked against the B-40’s rather well and against anything smaller then the size of a CHICOM AT mine the sand bags worked they saved many a crew. For while the NVA had to resort to 57 mm recoilless rifles and their solid AP rounds. A point of honor for track crews was the number of 57mm hole in the side of their ACAVS. Forty five years later at reunion track crews compare picture and how many hole their tracks had. One M-48A3 from Delta Company survived eleven mine hits in six months, before being scrapped, for the mine hit title, needless to say some men lost their lives in that tank, after a while you lose count of that. Its TC was a SSg. Davis for New Orleans La. a proud 83 years old now. We don’t fight that way any more. Iraq and Afghanistan although with similar enemies are being fought differently. More armor was used in Vietnam the in either of the current wars. Less armor will be used in the future. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	pennst98 August 30th, 2011 at 1:47 pm Because we were engaged in a fight against another army. Once you’re not fighting armored tanks and vehicles the capabilities are rather limited. Besides they served their function just fine, and would again. Don’t see why we need a new vehicle program for THIS capability.
	Sheepdog August 30th, 2011 at 2:04 pm but obsolesence is killing us. The supply chain for the 80’s vintage electronics is long gone. As stuff breaks in the field, our guys have no spare parts, and the cannibalization and loss of mission capability that goes on is shameful. Bradleys, however flawed, have proven themselves to provide a lot of military utility in a lot of different situations. We cannot assume that this capability will last forever without recapitalization.
	Sheepdog August 30th, 2011 at 2:07 pm say you have a beloved 69 corvette stingray. you can only patch & upgrade for so long until it no longer makes sense to keep her as your daily driver..
	major.rod August 30th, 2011 at 3:14 pm penn — I’m open to questioning about the need for a Bradley replacement but your characterization of the vehicle as little more than a pillbox in Iraq lacks a factual foundation. Suggest you look up some AAR’s on lessons learned, articles in professional journals like Infantry magazine and the AAR about Op Al Fajr (joint Army/Marine ops in Falujah) or Red Dawn( capture of Saddam Hussein). There is a role for Bradley’s in low intensity combat. There are a slew of examples out there to include transporting operators to include delta on raids.
	major.rod August 30th, 2011 at 3:20 pm Great points Bryon. Don’t know if I can agree with your belief that we used more armor in Vietnam. We have constantly had at almost two heavy divisions in Iraq for much of the last eight years. Sheepdog — remember your comment about me overstating our aversion to casualties and its impact on vehicle design? I rest my case…
	Lance August 30th, 2011 at 3:48 pm From the sound of it the army will get to toy with a GCV. BUT they will have to scrap other programs in R&D for it it might be there only project for a few years.
	Gregory Savage August 30th, 2011 at 4:08 pm If people don’t work, then the there are new taxes. If there are no taxes then there will be no new weapons. The point of the article is not only that it is his district. He said that Research will be cut last, not only to preserve his bases jobs, but also to maintain a technical compentency. If you don’t make these items then you forget how to, and have to relearn.
	Gregory Savage August 30th, 2011 at 4:10 pm Didn’t see this from my post above. This is good to go.
	Araya August 30th, 2011 at 4:28 pm I can really not understand why the Army needs the GCV. The Bradley is battle prove and modern enough to stay another 20 Years in Service, the old M113 are momently replaced by the Stryker and the M1A2 stay one of the best MBTs of the World. A modernization Program for the old Bradley, Stryker’s and M1A2 will be need in the future. But why the Army will in this time of big budget cuts a Bradley replaces how will possible just a bit better them the Bradley and cost billions.
	TMB August 30th, 2011 at 9:32 pm If you do the math, military spending is actually a terribly inefficient way of employing people. I’m sure its great for the health of the local economy and that corporation, but if you compare dollars spent per person employed, it’s pretty low compared to other career fields particularly when you remember that taxpayers across the country are funding it. I will concede the need to keep the industrial and technical base going though.
	TMB August 30th, 2011 at 9:36 pm If the Army could come up with a better engine and better track for the Bradley, then that could probably kick the GCV need down the road by an extra decade.
	William C. August 31st, 2011 at 3:49 am There should be no question that we ought to get a GCV. The question should be what do we want out of the vehicle. My concern is that the Army will try to stuff too many features into one platform. Why should non-lethal weapons be a requirement? Such a thing should be considered as part of an upgrade once we get a working combat vehicle in service. How many electronic and communication systems do they want to jam into GCV? Should we really be trying to fit all of the stuff a dedicated reconnaissance or command vehicle carries into an IFV? Another consideration is if the hull or chassis should be designed with other roles in mind like with the common chassis used by the FCS or ASM programs. If this vehicle does end up being some 50–60+ tons the idea that it should also replace our (relatively new) Strykers would be foolish. Not everybody likes the whole IAV/Stryker/FCS lightweight concept but there are certainly benefits to keeping those Stryker brigades we do have around.
	Move_Forward August 31st, 2011 at 7:36 am Doing the math on F-35 for instance, if $383 billion creates 125,000 jobs, it comes out to about an unimpressive $3 million per job. However, those are jobs for at least 30 years which equates to just $100,000 per job. When you tax those jobs over 30 years, that investment easily repays itself. Similar benefits would apply to GCV. It stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s short-term stimulus that creates jobs for only a few years at a cost of $789 billion. Now shall we talk about the jobs that 787 production would bring to South Carolina if the Obama administration and unions were not obstructing it?
	Vitesse et Puissance August 31st, 2011 at 10:47 am Well, said., Major. We may have differences over the fine points of mech infantry ops, but I am entirely in agreement with you here. As is often the case, the best is the enemy of the good. In spite of the Bradley’s limitations, to set its value to zero is highly dishonest. It is a very capable vehicle.
	Vitesse et Puissance August 31st, 2011 at 10:55 am If you read Colin Clark’s twist on this in AOL Defense, something really interesting comes out. Levin is touting a tradeoff of forward basing to domestic GCV production. In my book, with a 60 ton vehicle, what Levin is proposing amounts to a “keep the boys home” strategy, whereby we won’t have our diminished ground forces close to the action, and it will take just that many more sorties to get ‘em there. And then you will have the EFV-like argument about whether the operation is even feasible from early entry on in. This is a double whammy for American military strategy. Now, for Major Rod, here is your chance to point out that if one halfs the vehicles carrying capacity, I have to halve the weight or better and still attain the same level of survivability, plus work within cube-out parameters on the airlift side of the house. Even so, pulling back from forward deployed bases and prepositioning stocks amounts to geostrategic capitulation. Don’t go there.
	Gregory Savage August 31st, 2011 at 11:58 am How is the Obama administrative obstructing Boeing from moving 787 production from WA to SC? As far as I can tell it’s the Washington State politicians not wanting to loose the jobs. Not that I agree or disagree with their perspective, but can you blame them. Everyone wants to keep jobs in there state going.
	Gregory Savage August 31st, 2011 at 11:59 am Do you believe in the US proccess or not? You live in the US. Congressional oversite is a core tenant of the US.
	Gregory Savage August 31st, 2011 at 12:03 pm More if you use a remote torent so it fits 9 soldiers.
	Gregory Savage August 31st, 2011 at 12:04 pm Why is there no question? Why not just upgrade the bradley to the TD level. Remote torrent, fuel cells moved outside, more belly armor, and more electronics.
	Sheepdog August 31st, 2011 at 12:13 pm I am a big supporter of Congressional oversight, not so crazy about the current committee structure & governance. The Constitution says nothing about the establishment of committees where ascendancy is correlated to seniority. I would wager quite a bit that the Founders, much like myself, would be horrified to see how the organization of the legislative branch has emerged, where one Senator has more power than other Senator. Personally I would love it if the American people were given additional votes on committee chairmanships as one possible solution.
	TMB August 31st, 2011 at 3:14 pm Move_forward, that $383 billion is just to buy the planes (doesn’t include lifetime support for the program). Will making the planes take 30 years and will it keep all 125,000 people employed the entire time? How much has been spent on the program so far and how many people has it employed? Not trying to debate the F-35 here, but figuring out money spent/people employed isn’t a simple equation. We’ve also had much worse money/jobs ratios on other programs in the past.
	TMB August 31st, 2011 at 3:18 pm Senator Ted Stevens was a committee chairman and was able to ram through $ billions in projects for Alaska to include the “bridge to nowhere.” His position somehow allowed him more power than he probably should have had. These committee chairman not only direct taxpayer money to their pet projects at the expense of others, but they openly brag about that ability.
	major.rod August 31st, 2011 at 7:03 pm I would characterize our differences as going far beyond the fine points but I appreciate the olive branch. The size of the Infantry squad is a pretty fundamental issue. Did you check out my last post in the other GCV thread and the recommended reading? It’s free (and I asked for clarification). It was a good discussion, I hope you learned something. I pray the GCV corrects the Bradley’s greatest disadvantage, breaking up the Infantry squad and addresses the Bradley’s second greatest disadvantage of turning Infantrymen into tankers with more demanding turret skills than expected of an M1 crew.
	Move_Forward August 31st, 2011 at 7:34 pm Greg, please Google “How Democrats Hurt Job Creation” from the August 22 New York Times…not exactly a bastion of conservative propaganda. In it, find how the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against Boeing back in April claiming that opening a SECOND (not closing one) plant in South Carolina was retaliation against unions. Work has stopped at the new plant as a result. Jobs are on hold.
	ms6 August 31st, 2011 at 8:26 pm Another Bradley farce.
	Sgy Jmack September 1st, 2011 at 2:29 pm TMB, the maintenance and upkeep/storage of these aircraft will also create/keep more jobs. Not to mention the pilots that fly them and the units to support them.
	vicgilroy September 3rd, 2011 at 3:40 am As we all have participated in forms regarding social, political, military, cultural affairs we always come across the “know it all” with his pretentious script. We feed his ego with our counter points for which the precocious adolescent now an adult either dismisses or fails to acknowledge, pontificates with opinion as truths. For there is no accountability, no consequence for being obnoxious and anonymous. So if you want to continue bearing with his ego, continue to debate hoping to win the argument you have a better chance of winning the lottery. ALLONS (translated: I’M FULL OF MYSELF) vicgilroy PS. You really don’t know what your are talking about. What you are writing is your opinion not truth. But thats what you do, is insite opinion, now I get it! You just bring up stupid statements just insite coments. Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/08/mattis-to-centc… DoDBuzz.com
	vicgilroy September 3rd, 2011 at 3:41 am k

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

DoD Buzz

SASC chairman Levin: There will be a GCV

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments