Army's Ground Combat Vehicle: the saga continues.

• Author: Erwin, Sandra I.
• Position: Combat Vehicles

The Army's quest for a new combat vehicle is one of the Pentagon's longest running, most drama-filled procurement soap operas.

The award in August of nearly $900 million in research contracts to two contractor teams to develop a new Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) is the latest chapter of an epic tale spanning more than a decade. It began in October 1999 when then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki shocked the arms industry and announced that heavyweights like the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M-1 Abrams tanks would be phased out and replaced by faster, lighter, more fuel-efficient alternatives.

A dozen years, $18 billion in research costs and countless acquisition milestones later, no new vehicle is yet on the horizon. Bradleys and Abrams very much remain the mainstays of the heavy force, and with the Defense Department facing potentially drastic cuts in weapons programs, the Army's dreams of a new vehicle may come crashing down.

Amid uncertainties over the extent of projected defense spending cuts that could begin in 2013, the Army still proceeded Aug. 18 with the award of two contracts of $445 million and $439 million to BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems for "technology development" of the GCV variant--the infantry fighting vehicle--that is intended to replace the Bradley. The program currently is on hold pending the resolution of a protest by the losing bidder, a team of SAIC and Boeing.

The goal is to acquire about 1,800 new IFVs at a cost of no more than $13 million each, and to have the first batch ready for deployment seven years from now.

But even before it gets off the drawing board, the GCV already is under fire for its anticipated rising costs. Pentagon accountants have come up with their own estimates of $16 million to $17 million per vehicle.

The higher price tag--calculated by the Pentagon's cost assessment and program evaluation office--is raising eyebrows because it approaches the cost estimates of the Future Combat Systems' tracked combat vehicle, which was cancelled in 2009, among other reasons, because of its rising price tag. The FCS vehicles were expected to cost $18 million each.

The FCS program--which included a new combat vehicle as well as other pieces of equipment--began in 2003 and was terminated by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2009. It morphed into the GCV, which the Army listed among its top two modernization priorities, after a tactical information network. Among the ills that plagued FCS were its soaring costs and its failure to "adapt" to emerging enemy tactics such as roadside bomb attacks.

Army leaders have insisted since the cancellation of FCS that the new vehicle would be put on a fast track, and not allowed to wallow in dysfunction as its predecessor did.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The Army's new chief, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, assured senators during his confirmation hearing that the mistakes of the past would not be repeated.

One of the toughest critics of military procurement, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., reminded Odierno that over the last decade, the Army "embarked on a number of developmental, procurement and modernization programs that were subsequently de-scoped, rebaselined or canceled outright." Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Odiemo to explain the "operational urgency" to field a new combat vehicle in seven years.

Odierno did not offer a downright endorsement of GCV, but said it was one of the "potential vehicles" that are being considered for the future Army. "What we have to do is continue to assess, look at the requirements that we have established for the Ground Combat Vehicle to see if it will meet the future requirements that we see for our Army," Odierno said.

At the same time that Odierno was addressing senators' concerns, the Army's GCV program was moving full-speed ahead. The Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board gave the program a green light July 21, and an "acquisition decision memorandum" was signed by the Pentagon' senior procurement executive Ashton Carter on Aug. 17.

While these go-ahead reviews were important hurdles that the program cleared, GCV remains caught in a vortex of funding uncertainty. Carter's memo says that "continuing approval" of the program will be contingent on the Army meeting "affordability and schedule targets." The Army also must conduct a new "analysis of alternatives" and a market study of comparable infantry fighting vehicles that already exist and potentially could meet the requirements of the GCV program. Both studies were due Sept. 23.

The recent cost estimates of up to $17 million for the infantry variant of the GCV appear to have alarmed Pentagon budget officials, said James McAleese, a defense industry consultant and principal of McAleese and Associates. "OSD [office of the secretary of defense] is very concerned" about the affordability of GCV, he said.

Despite the Pentagon's decision to allow the Army to move forward with technology development contracts, the program "is going to be very challenged," McAleese said.

"There is clear disagreement between Army and CAPE [cost assessment and program evaluation] on GCV cost estimates," McAleese said. "There is also clear OSD concern that current 'non-development vehicles' such as upgraded Bradleys or Strykers may ultimately be more-affordable, while still meeting most of Army's big four GCV criteria: carry a full-squad; full-spectrum operations; $13 million procurement unit-cost and seven-years to production."

Based on clues found in Carter's memo and on the budget out-look for the Army, McAleese gives GCV only a 50 to 60 percent probability that is will reach engineering development in fiscal year 2013.

Army officials recognize the fiscal realities ahead, and acknowledge that GCV faces tough times.

"There are some big ugly decisions ahead," said Rickey Smith, director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center Directorate. "With the budget drill that's been going on, we have our...