Sequestration ‘manageable’ for Army’s heavy fleet

Sequestration ‘manageable’ for Army’s heavy fleet

The Army’s ground combat systems portfolio sits in a better position than their sister services if sequestration strikes and the military is forced to renegotiate contracts because of significant cuts to planned spending.

Air Force leaders don’t have the same confidence. They worry the Air Force will lose its fixed-price contract for the tanker program.

Scott Davis, program executive officer for ground combat systems, explained that the Army’s heavy vehicle fleet is at a point of transition giving him confidence that renegotiating those contracts are “manageable in our portfolio.”

Many programs like the Ground Combat Vehicle or the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle are at the early stages of their development meaning these programs do not have multi-year contracts. The Abrams program is the Army’s only ground combat systems multi-year contract.

“Given the speculation that there might be some reduction, I think it is manageable from the perspective that we are in developmental efforts and we may be able to accommodate the adjustments,” Davis said at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington D.C.

Army officials insist that they have done minimum planning in case of sequestration saying there are still to many unknowns. There is little flexibility to move money around and protect certain programs, said Army Secretary John McHugh.

Davis and other Army Ground Combat Systems leaders do worry about the defense industrial base if the sequestration cuts are executed on Jan. 2. They don’t worry as much about individual companies.

Col. Bill Sheehy, program manager of the heavy brigade combat team, explained that he’s most worried about niche departments inside companies that produce one-of-a-kind parts vital to legacy programs.

“You won’t see companies collapsing, but we are more worried about departments disappearing,” Sheehy said.

In order to cut costs, the companies could cut those departments if they are not needed to produce parts. Army officials worry they won’t exist if those parts are needed for future upgrades or replacements.

Join the Conversation

Bad move they keep thinking there money paid buddies in congress with save them. Overall Sequestration could stop some BIG projects like AMPV but GCV may survive but be delayed a few years. Overall a upgrade to current vehicles may prolong current vehicle lives for a few more years and SO GCV may be better a few years later.

AMPV sounds like it makes alot more sense to keep over the GCV. We can do incremental upgrades on the Bradley I know that is not optimal. The AMPV is replacing the M113 which has to go.

The US has no need of a standing army, much less one with a “heavy vehicle fleet .” The last time the US was invaded was when General Francisco Villa attacked Columbus, New Mexico in 1916, and Pancho is no more.

Incorrect, US territory was invaded in WW II.

The M113 chassis and parts are used on a number of vehicles. You can either replace them all or introduce another parts train without eliminating the old one.

Not completely M-113 still has a place. for a Infantry carrier I know your point. BUT for a Base defense security vehicle the M-113 be fine also for a ambulance and mortar carrier its fine waste going after it for all perposes. But agree I think a all M-3 Bradley APC fleet would solve the problem.

A upgrade for none APC M-113s is a better idea nice thought.

…and on 9–11.

We don’t use M113’s to protect bases. If they require armored protection they get Bradleys. If not, armored HMMWV’s or MRAP’s.

Don — Do you write for Ron Paul?

blight — you know the Bradley chassis is the most likely vehicle to be the AMPV?

Nope, wasn’t aware of it.

It would be the cheapest way to do it…almost as cheap as going MTLV, but one way or another it’s a United Defense contract.

If we go Bradley, the next question is if the Bradley chassis has room to grow (perhaps dropping in a new turret? Engine upgrades?)

good point.

The idea of dismantling our standing army is ludicrous.

Blight — FYI, the AMPV’s purpose is to create a vehicle that can keep up with the M1 & Bradley force for elements like mortar carriers, armored ambulances & aid stations, command posts etc. The turret would be removed for all these tasks and in some like command post and aid station the roof raised a little bit.

They are always looking at improving the engine and tend to apply improvements to the whole Bradley fleet when other upgrades go in like an indendent weapon station for the commander.

This sounds pretty much like what happened to the M-113, right down to the elevated roof for ambulance and command post vehicles.

Well you could cut cost hand have M-113 do base security and spend money for more Bradley and Strikers them ditch the Commando armored cars.

Yea as long as small uninhabited islands are threatened half a century ago and our enemies armed with no more than box cutters we will need the worlds largest land force to feel safe.


But Zak hit the nail right on the head, can you see him on tables at arbys ? …and gettign the orders right ? It would be a disaster. No as long as the threat of unemployment exists for the lowest and poorest educated tier of our society there will be a need for a assistance program to give thier lives some sort of meaning. Thats why we have the army.

You could, but then your MP units that would lose their ASVs couldn’t actually do the missions they are required to do.


Arby’s doesn’t have table service.

Lance — We don’t have forces dedicated to do base security (in the Army). We task existing units to do that mission. Keeping M113s around isn’t an answer. They’ve done their job for 50 years. Time to move on.

What’s good about it? The US was not invaded on 9/11. Obviously a heavy vehicle fleet was not required.

As I wrote above the US has no need of a standing army. One has only been used recently to fight losing efforts in Asia, which doesn’t need to be done again.

A standing army was never envisioned by the founding fathers, however a navy was.
The US Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 — Powers of Congress
–To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
–To provide and maintain a Navy;

Did you notice the plural of Army was used? Did you notice the comma after “Armies”? Do you understand the significance in grammer of both?

The founding fathers were suspicious of a large standing Army. They didn’t reject them if there was a need. An Army is singular. Raising armies is typically done in a state of war. The requirement to look at funding every two years is a check to ensure a larger than necessary Army is maintained. They had 13 states on the west coast to protect. Things have changed a bit and they were wise enough to provide for mechanisms to respond to changing conditions.

The founding fathers DID envision a standing Army. The 1st regiment has literally been in existence since before the constitutional convention. The Navy actually didn’t exist between 1790–1797…

You’ve got a fruit loop understanding of the constituion. BTW, it doesn’t mention an Air Force at all. Crap! Let’s shut those doors! Duh… (sarcasm)

Remember Pearl Harbor?

I think he’s alluding to the ASVs, which have been around for some time but aren’t really talked about?

Its too bad Army and other services keep having re-launch compedition to try get vehicle they can afford and fit what they need. What this is the..second time Army has to relaunch effort replace their fleet again? Hopefully congress won’t looking score political points and actually try do something constructive in this sequestration.


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

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.