From Aviation Week’s DTI
By putting its $40-billion ground combat vehicle (GCV) procurement plan on hold, the U.S. Army is giving itself a breather to come up with a new strategy for its ground vehicle force.
The Army canceled the GCV request for proposal (RFP) this summer and froze funding and development for all major ground-vehicle programs — even Block 2 work on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which the GCV is supposed to replace.
Army ground programs — particularly the GCV — are victims of the Pentagon’s obsession with reviewing and revamping the Defense Department procurement mindset for big-dollar programs. The Army and Pentagon also want to put the brakes on the service’s ground-vehicle programs to ensure it buys the right equipment for the mission. The Army and Defense Department are analyzing whether they are buying — even developing — the right vehicle for the job. Indeed, the military could move away from tracked vehicles, except for specific missions.
“Tracked vehicles are not necessarily the best option for what we plan to be doing,” says John Gresham, a defense analyst and author of books on military equipment and operations. That would be a point of departure for the Army, whose doctrine and checkbook has heavily favored tracked vehicles.
The Pentagon reported about $13.7 billion in transactions for those vehicles in 2008, a 57% increase from 2007, according to an analysis of data provided by the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting. Procurement of those vehicles ranked 10th in Pentagon expenses in 2009 and second in 2008, racking up $16.8 billion in contracts and modifications, the analysis shows.
Read the rest of this story and other great content from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
As to that picture…. it's BOLO junior!!! Or maybe a BOLO Mark 1?
Somewhere Keith Laumer is smiling…
Rifle308
Accually the first BOLO was simply a M1A2 with a massive intelligence upgrade. So….
Yup, definitely too small for a Bolo Mk1. However when Laumer wrote, it's likely he didn't think teleoperated vehicles was the way to go.
Bolos were souped up tanks before they turned into unmanned fighting machines. More specifically, the Mk1 was:
"The General Motors Bolo Mark I, Model B, was little more than an upgrade of the Abrams/Leopard/Challenger/LeClerc/T-80-era main battle tank of the final years of the Soviet-American Cold War. (At the time the first Bolo was authorized, GM decided that there would never be a "Model A" or a "Model T", on the basis that the Ford Motor Company had permanently preempted those designations>) Equipped with a high-velocity main gun capable of defeating the newest Chobham-type composite armors at virtually any battle range and with a four-man crew, the Mark I was an essentially conventional if very heavy (150 metric tons) and fast (80 kph road speed) tank in direct line of descent from World War I's "Mother" via the Renault, PzKpf IV, T-34, Sherman, Panther, Tiger, Patton, T-54, M-60, Chieftain, T-72, and Abrams."
The one feature the Bolos did have which I found odd was speakers. Hilarious visions of an Abrams with loudspeakers blaring the national anthem aside…
I applaud any decision to slow down and think about where we will be deploying, and what we will be doing. We knew 20 years ago we would be in the fights we are in right now, and we did pretty close to zero to prepare for this fight. We have a very good idea of where we will be in 20 years and what we will be doing, or wanting to do. It would be swell if we would match our procurement to our needs. I think we are somewhat, but I also think there are dinosaurs in DoD wanting to continue to arm for fights that already happened, or never did and never will.
Ah but enemies dont just fight the way YOU think they should. The moment we lose those abilities then our enemies will adapt to that way of fighting.
So the "we will only fight this way in the future no more of _ ever again!" will once again be wrong.
So what you're saying is we should immediately field 3 regiments of horse mounted lancers, since we clearly lack that capacity at the moment…………
No, captain smartass. What im saying is that only the most arrogant believe they KNOW the future. You dont design your military to do one thing if you have the vast amount of potential battlefields and types of warfare as we do. You design it to be good at a large number of operations, theaters of conflict and capable of defeating a range of oponents.
The point is as you posted lower Admiral Mullens "we do not know the next war" which is true. Remember assume makes a ass out of you. But in this case it would mean dead men and women . Dead fathers, mothers, sons, sisters, brothers, uncles, etc.
But hey remember after WW2 when we said we wouldnt need carriers again? I mean we didnt did we? And no fighters needed guns? Of course missiles are like Chuck norris left foot they never miss right?
We don't know the time and place of the battlefield but an intelligent assessment of the current geo political realities can lead one to a pretty good idea of where the problems are going to be. Looking back at the last 20 to 25 years of history there really isn't anything surprising about where we are right not. Had the leadership paid closer attention to those warnings we would have already had vehicles and capabilities to counter IEDs in a COIN environment. We would have had plenty of COIN aircraft. We would have cut the numbers of F22s far earlier. The NGB would probably already be under construction. We would have realized a long time ago the USMC is not going to storm Iwo Jima again, because there is zero need to conduct warfare like that anymore.
It's real easy to say things like 'vast amount of potential battlefields", but the reality when one looks at the actual situation in the world is there really aren't a 'vast" number of theaters we are going to be involved in. There is actually a pretty narrow field. We can afford one military and it falls to us to pick one. The one we will need, or the one we want, can't afford both anymore. 'Because we need the capability' doesn't cut it in these economic times. The bottom line is what we need probably isn't as expensive as what the defense industry wants us to buy.
If anyone thinks for one moment that those pushing for some of these over expensive, Cold War leftover systems, is doing so from a firm belief they are necessary for US security, and not because some defense company has assured them of a job post retirement, or dropped cash in the campaign box, then those people are hopelessly naive. George Washington and Eisenhower both essentially warned us of the mess we are in right now in regards to the military and finances, we should have paid more attention.
welp, we have made use of special ops dragoons in the recent past. And I wouldn’t be surprised if a couple of them carried big sticks, so I ‘spect you’re a day late there, ST. Fortunately BigDef didn’t see a buck in it soon enough or they’d still be researching destrier development.
Spec Ops riding horses to Northern Alliance camps hardly qualifies as Dragoons. Particularly when some had to be helped out of the saddles.
I think COTS is the way to go with the new GCV program. I really think if the US needs to replace the Bradleys, the CV90 is the way to go. BAe has US plants, just plug in some US-designed systems (domestic 30mm gun, maybe a Javelin launcher on the turret, US commo gear) and you’ve got a pretty good replacement for the Bradley with enough expandability to see us through the forseeable future.
In regards to force structure, I wonder if it might help us if we pushed more of the heavy forces to the ARNG. In the current threat environment, would it be more useful for us to have additional Stryker brigades or the large number of armored/mech units we have? It takes something like 90 days to deploy an HBCT from the States from scratch. An ARNG HBCT could use that time to mobilize, train and then mate up with their equipment. Of course, we’d keep some active duty HBCTs for contingencies, but I think spinning off at least half the armor force to the Guard might be a good thing in the long run – and would probably save money.
The problem with that is that armored forces are expensive to train and maintain-and not all states (or combinations of states) can afford, or would be willing to pay that kind of money to do so. If anything, states have preference towards aviation units which can be useful in the disaster relief context.
You are still correct when it comes to the time lag between mobilization and deployment. However, it has been cheaper to pre-position supplies overseas and to push equipment towards the destination independently of troops, who can train in the states on one set of equipment and fly out to meet up with new equipment being shipped from pre-positioned stocks much closer. This cuts transportation costs, and also eliminates the awkward issue of shipping green trucks from the states to a desert country. I've seen the parked NG equipment that has returned from overseas return in a mixture of green and tan vehicles.
Having spent over 20 years in the Guard, I can tell you that they have been moving toward the "Light Side" since the mid 90's. Cost of maintaining the heavy equipment is one reason, as well as the difficulty in training on the equipment close to Home Station. Most Light Infantry Battalions can train within 50 miles of their Home Station which helps. Right now the states seem to favor aviation, engineer, infantry, and MP units.
Which, strangely enough are just the sort of units that’d be useful in civil emergencies, who’da thunk it?
Nice imagination but not impossible. How about this: Perhaps man of the future will explore the universe and create its own space Odyssey exploratory ship. Just sayen…peace!
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2388329497/
A Bolo? No…it's an Ogre:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Ogre_GEV_l...
I wasn't aware tanks had avionics.
Since avionics is an hybrid word of aviation and electronics, you are correct. electronics will do. the things people do for nomenclature…
Maybe with the recent advances in solid state, fiber, and other high power lasers, the Army might just be interested in putting one on a new GCV in a couple years.
There is a GCV out there that has wheels, but also uses removable tracks that are fitted onto the wheels. I think thats an idea we should seriously consider for our next gen GCV.
We can't do that! Why…… you'll ruin everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah dude, that thing is practically identical to the ground hunter-killers..
Good common sense apporach. Unfortunately Common Sense is very un-common in DC. Debates on vehicles, aircraft and future directions of branches will not be worked out on the ground at NTC, on the beach at Camp Pendelton or over Alaska's skies. No these will be controlled in back room deals between Congressmen, Senators and Lobbyists of BIG Defence. Most assuredly the best defence of the Nation and Safety of our fighting men and women will be minor forgotten footnotes of these deals.
To a bean counter looking at masses of Cold War hardware and being asked to throw it out early is borderline anathema. That and fiscal realities are what will tie down innovation. A major reason why armies didn't mechanize before WW2 was sheer cost, and especially during the depression experimentation is an expense nations would attempt to minimize.
However, as long as we continue to support small development projects and have the willingness to grow the ones that demonstrate potential (with potential not being measured by generals with turf to defend) we will have an idea of what tech can do for defense.
That looks like a transformer rorbot of somekind. Interesting imagination.
http://www.transformersmovie.com/
Transformer? It's not even a mecha. It's Cameron's HK-Tank.
http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/HK-Tank
It never ceases to amaze me how the MI Complex is always pushing "the latest and the greatest" with all the bells and whistles, when what we already have (with incremental upgrades) will do just fine in most cases. I'm for big defense budgets, but much of what is spent is wasted on Rube-Goldberg schemes, all for one purpose: keeping the defense companies profitable and in business.
Sigh i had been away so long forgot all the "Evil military industrial complex!" people that were here.
Guess what if you vote in better people the evil military industrial complex has no teeth to do basically what ALL buisnesses do. So basically the ones who feed it arent evil corperate fat cats. Its you.
And if you believe getting ride of our own military industrial complex is a great idea and that all would be fixed think again. Plenty of othernations would love the buisness.
Military Industrial Complex = simple words for a complex problem that isnt military in its entirety but sinse its simple is easy for those who wish to see things in a simple light. Its childish.
You do a swell job of insulting people here. If I am counted in such company as George Washington or Dwight Eisenhower in regards to seeing the issue of a corporate industry trying to control the agenda in Congress, and not with the likes of surly insolent folk such as yourself I think Ill sleep just fine sir.
First priority must be absolute air dominance, period. That means developing, building, deploying aircraft like F22 and the generation after that. Expensive, yes.
Does counter-insurgency really make sense. Endless, low-medium intensity war ? Should we consent to fight war in environments where time can be used against us so effectively ? What are the alternatives ? What was our national security/policy goal in Afghanistan in the context of the war against islam ?
I think the idea of moving more of the heavy mission to ARNG is interesting…
Navy and Air Force are keys to the future as US global commitments and basing freedom shrink.
your so right.
"That would be a point of departure for the Army, whose doctrine and checkbook has heavily favored tracked vehicles."
Sounds like someone's trying to rewrite history, especially when it comes to the FCS disaster.
IN and all its interesting but not exactly fitting to current and near future conflicts. i mean it looks damn cool and in concept is pretty nice but with our programmes already bloated and mostly small key conflicts many people are questioning conventional tacticcs and arms. I believe we should continue on with heavy tracked vechicles since our competitors are certainly are. stopping to pause and rethink is a sound idea but remaking doctrines is almost plain funny
whoops, just confused gcv with weird robot, my bad, ignore previous commetn