For the better part of a decade, the Army has tried to come up with a new infantry vehicle. They’re going to have to wait just a bit longer. A new request for proposals for the Ground Combat Vehicle is “imminent,” says program spokesman Paul Mehney. Ask him about it any which way; try to parse the meaning of the term with him — it doesn’t matter. “Imminent” is the answer he’s sticking with.
On August 25, the Army abruptly yanked its original solicitation for the next-generation infantry vehicle — a replacement for the aging Bradley Fighting Vehicle — after a review determined that the original specs relied on too much unproven technology to “ensure an achievable, affordable and timely” new vehicle. The Ground Combat Vehicle is supposed to carry a nine-man infantry squad (which the Bradley can’t); be resistant to roadside bombs; and use lightweight armor that hasn’t really been developed yet.
But now the announced 60-day delay period — in which the Army revamps what it wants the Ground Combat Vehicle to be in a more realistic way — is at an end. That prompted the Army’s leaders, Secretary John McHugh and chief of staff General George Casey, to say on Monday that a new solicitation is almost-but-not-quite on hand, citing what Casey called an “abundance of caution.” The Army wants the new vehicle to be in the field seven years after the contract is awarded. It really doesn’t want failure or cost-overruns on a high-priority vehicle, especially after both plagued its last big weapons/vehicle priority, the now-defunct Future Combat Systems.
So what to expect from Ground Combat Vehicle Plan B? Mehney demurs on specifics, but rattles off a few general basic ideas. It doesn’t have to be too heavily armored, but the soldiers inside have to survive even if an attack disables the vehicle. (Or, as Mehney puts it, “Force protection, vice vehicle protection.”) The demonstration phase for its technology is going to shrink to “months” rather than years, but the engineering, manufacturing and development phase is going to expand so as to get better prototypes. It’s got to be affordable (whatever that means). And it’s got to be delivered in seven years.
Generic enough for you? More specifics are, well, “imminent.”
Posts
