Ground Combat Vehicle
|Ground Combat Vehicle|
Ground Combat Vehicle logo
|Type||Tracked or wheeled armored fighting vehicles|
|Place of origin||United States|
|In service||mid-to-late 2010s (projected)|
|Designer||Industry and U.S. Army (Government Furnished E/I/M and synchronization)|
|Variants||Infantry fighting vehicle|
The Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) is the U.S. Army's replacement program for armored fighting vehicles in Heavy and Stryker brigade combat teams. The GCV is organized under the Follow On Incremental Capabilities Package of the BCT Modernization program. The first variant of the vehicle is to be prototyped in 2015 and fielded by 2017. It replaced the canceled Future Combat Systems, manned ground vehicles program.
Specific design elements of the GCV will be contracted out, though the army will design the architecture and retain overall responsibility for synchronization. This contrasts with the former FCS manned ground vehicles program where contractors had more control over the design. The GCV will be networked and offer improved survivability, while using the state-of-the-art mobility and power management functions. The military is releasing classified details of the FCS Manned Ground Vehicles program to interested contractors to be utilized in design proposals for the GCV. The GCV family will be built around a common chassis.
The GCV will be operable with the current battle command control and communications suite but would gradually use a more state-of-the-art networked integration system known as the BCT Network. It will provide exportable electrical power, and a battery charging capability for external hardware including vehicles and electronics from the BCT Soldier subsystems. The system would be capable of integration with unmanned systems and dismounted soldiers.
The GCV must be transportable by cargo aircraft, rail and ship. The army requires it to meet the availability rates of the current Stryker. The army is not limiting the vehicle by the dimensions of the C-130, which, in the past, has constrained many designs. Air mobility will be provided by the more spacious C-17. The GCV will have good cross-country mobility, with a baseline requirement of 30 mph off-road speed. The GCV should deliver higher sustainability levels and consume less fuel than the Bradley or other vehicles of similar weight and power. The military is accepting both tracked and wheeled designs.
Offensive capabilities 
In June 2009, a blue-ribbon panel met in Washington, D.C. to discuss requirements for the Ground Combat Vehicle. In October and November 2009, more than 100 defense contractors turned up for two U.S. Army-organized industry day events in Michigan to express interest in bidding on the vehicle. A review required for continuation was held and passed in February 2010 in Washington D.C. A request for proposals (RFP) was issued on February 25, 2010 to which companies had 60 days to respond, but was extended an additional 25 days. A committee is currently examining the current schedule for the GCV to "shave a little time off". For fiscal year 2011, the U.S. Army wishes to spend $934 million of the $2.5 billion allocated for BCT Modernization to develop the GCV.
Up to three competitive contracts were to be awarded by early fall. A prototype development contract decision would have followed by 2013. The Technology Development Phase (or Milestone A) would begin in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 with the award of up to three vehicle contracts. This will be followed by an Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase and Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phase before full production could start.
Nine vehicles were evaluated in the Analysis of Alternatives (AOA). The four primary vehicles included in the AOA were the M2A3 Bradley II, a modernized Stryker, an M2A3 Bradley variant used in Iraq, and a XM1230 Caiman Plus MRAP. The five secondary vehicles included two unnamed foreign-made platforms, the M1126 Stryker Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the M1A2 SEP TUSK Abrams, and a modernized M1 Abrams. Vehicles included the The AOA were determined to be inferior to the planned GCV.
On 25 August 2010, the U.S. Army canceled the current RFP to revise the requirements. A new RFP was to be issued 60 days later. When Peter Chiarelli was asked if the army was developing an alternative to the GCV, Chiarelli replied "We're totally committed to GCV." The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform suggests deferring development of the GCV until after 2015.
In August 2011, technology development contracts were awarded to BAE Systems Land & Armaments for $449.9 million and General Dynamics Land Systems for $439.7M.
Budget concerns and proposed cuts 
In December 2012, it was reported that the army may need to cut $150 million from the GCV program in 2014, with deeper cuts between $600 million-$700 million between 2014 and 2018. This puts the program, one of the Army's highest priorities, at serious risk. With the drawdown of the War in Afghanistan and budgetary concerns, the expensive development of a new combat vehicle is not seen as feasible. BAE Systems and General Dynamics were each awarded engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase contracts in August 2011. The EMD phase is to last 48 months for both contractors, but there were arguments for only one to proceed as a cost-saving measure. This would present the problem of selecting a vehicle based on design outlines, rather than on real prototypes. Another suggestion was to lengthen the EMD period to allow for smaller contract awards over time. This might delay the operational deadline beyond the planned 2018 date. The underlying concern is the fact that the army plans to spend 80% of its ground combat vehicle budget on GCV development from 2013-2018. With 1,847 GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicles expected to be acquired, they would make up only 10% of the Army combat vehicle fleet. Redirected funds could be shifted to modernization efforts for the combat-proven Stryker, M1 Abrams, and Bradley families of vehicles.
The GCV aquisition strategy was revised on 17 January 2013 to further reduce risk and maintain affordability of the program. The revision extended the technology development phase by six months to give industry more time to refine vehicle designs. Milestone B will occur in 2014, with the selection of a single vendor for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) and production phases of the program. This will initiate critical design and testing activities in anticipation of vehicle production. Budgetary pressures caused the reduction of number of vendors to be selected from two to one.
On 2 April 2013, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report on the progress of the GCV program. The report questioned the program, estimated to costs $28 billion from 2014-2030, with the possibility of alternate vehicle options. While none will meet overall Army goals desired in the GCV, they offer advantages in being less costly and delayed. Planned GCV prototypes are heavy, weighing up to 84 tons, to be better protected and seat a 9-man squad. Officials have said that a vehicle of that size would not be well suited to operations faced in Iraq or Afghanistan. Alternate vehicles would be cheaper and more maneuverable in urban settings. The CBO report analyzed four alternative options:
- Purchase the Namer APC - Seats 9 soldiers with combat survival rates expected slightly higher than the GCV, and costs $9 billion less. The Namer has less ability to destroy other enemy vehicles and is less mobile. Production would be conducted in part domestically, but fielding would require collaboration with foreign companies and governments.
- Upgrade the Bradley IFV - An upgraded Bradley would be more lethal than the GCV against enemy forces and would probably survive combat at about the same rates as would the GCV, saving $19.8 billion. Upgrading the Bradley would make it "significantly more capable" than the GCV. The Bradley still only carries a 7-man squad and has less mobility.
- Purchase the Puma (IFV) - More lethal than the GCV, combat survival and protection at better rates, and just as mobile. Pruchasing the Puma would save $14.8 billion and is considered the most capable of the vehicles. Puma IFVs only carry six infantrymen, which would require five vehicles to replace every four Bradleys. Development and production would require collaboration with foreign companies and governments.
- Cancel the Ground Combat Vehicle - If the Army reconditioned its current Bradley instead of replacing them, the current capability of the IFV fleet could be maintained through 2030. The Army could continue to investigate ways to improve the current Bradleys, but it would not field any new or improved vehicles. The $24 billion saved in funding could be used on other programs.
General Dynamics and BAE Systems, who have received contracts in the Ground Combat Vehicle program, have criticized the CBO report, saying they used the wrong vehicle in its analysis. Officials from both companies said they used the wrong notional model of the GCV that did not account for the change in requirements made by the Army or the advancements made in the technology development phase of the program. They also criticized the comparisons of the other vehicles. The report factored cost, survivability, mobility, and lethality, ranking the GCV's capabilities as lower than all others. The Army's response was that none of the vehicles meet the requirements to replace the Bradley. An Army test of currently fielded vehicles in 2012 revealed that some met critical GCV requirements, but none met enough without needing significant redesign. They also note that lethality was judged with a 25 mm cannon for analysis, before the Army planned to mount a 30 mm cannon. The CBO report does give credit to cost, assuming the Army's goal of $13 million per vehicle. However, Pentagon cost assessments estimate the price at $16-$17 million per vehicle.
The army is using an incremental approach to combat vehicle modernization, centered on the Ground Combat Vehicle. The deployment will be synchronized with upgrades, reset and divestiture of existing vehicles. Vehicles displaced by the IFV may then replace selected M113 family of vehicles such as command and control, medical evacuation, and mortar carrier, allowing the army to begin divestiture of the M113 family of vehicles. Upgrades to existing Bradley and Stryker vehicles may be considered as risk mitigation based on the rate at which the GCV is introduced. Although upgraded, the Bradley and Stryker would also be replaced in the midterm.
Infantry Fighting Vehicle 
The Infantry Fighting Vehicle supersedes the previous infantry carrier replacement effort, the XM1206 Infantry Carrier Vehicle of the FCS MGV program. It is the U.S. Army's intention that the IFV replace the M113 APC by 2018, the M2 Bradley later, and the Stryker ICV in the midterm. The IFV will hold a crew of three and a squad of nine.
See also 
- Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles, a recently canceled American family of tracked vehicles
- Marine Personnel Carrier, wheeled U.S. Marine Corps counterpart
- Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, tracked/amphibious U.S. Marine Corps counterpart
- Stryker, a recent American family of wheeled vehicles
- Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, a future American family of light vehicles
- Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked), an earlier but similar British family of vehicles
- Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Wheeled), an earlier but similar British family of vehicles
- MRAP (armored vehicle), Mine Resistant Ambush Protected light vehicles
- "Ground Combat Vehicle Infantry Fighting Vehicle Statement of Work". United States Army. March 15, 2009. Retrieved April 7, 2010.
- "Army Partially Terminates FCS Manned Ground Vehicle". ASD News. July 21, 2009. Retrieved January 27, 2010.
- Ramienski, Dorothy (July 8, 2009). "Army Implements New BCT Modernization Quickly after FCS". Federal News Radio. WFED. Retrieved December 14, 2009.
- "U.S. Army Defines Ground Combat Vehicles (GCV) Priorities". Defense Update. Lance & Shield Ltd. Retrieved March 29, 2010.
- "U.S. Army Outlines Ground Combat Vehicles Priorities". Defense Update. Lance & Shield Ltd. Retrieved January 26, 2010.
- Chavanne, Bettina (December 4, 2009). "New Combat Vehicle for U.S. Army". Aviation Week & Space Technology. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Retrieved January 25, 2010.
- Cavallaro, Gina (June 11, 2009). "Panel to Discuss New Ground Combat Vehicle". Army Times. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved December 14, 2009.
- "U.S. Army Announces Ground Combat Vehicle Industry Day". United States Army. October 2009. Retrieved October 2009.
- Nelson, Margaret (November 25, 2009). "U.S. Army Meets with Industry Representatives to Conceive a Ground Combat Vehicle". United States Army. Retrieved November 2009.
- Brannen, Kate (February 11, 2010). "DoD Postpones Ground Combat Vehicle Review". Defense News. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved February 11, 2010.
- Brannen, Kate (February 25, 2010). "Army to Issue Ground Combat Vehicle RfP Today". Defense News. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved February 25, 2010.
- White, Andrew (19 April 2010). "US Army delays GCV deadline". Shephard. Shephard Group Limited. Retrieved 19 April 2010.
- Brannen, Kate (10 May 2010). "Experts Study U.S. Army's GCV Plans, Schedule". Defense News. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved 11 May 2010.
- Cox, Matthew (February 1, 2010). "No More Humvees in 2011 Procurement Plan". Army Times. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved February 2, 2010.
- Scutro, Andrew (January 10, 2010). "Army Vague on New Ground Combat Vehicle". Army Times. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved January 26, 2009.
- Halcom, Chad (February 7, 2010). "Budget cuts for vehicles hit defense contractors". Crain Communications Inc. Retrieved February 8, 2010.
- "GCV PROGRAM PLAN". United States Army. January 29, 2010. Retrieved March 29, 2010.
- "Army Evaluated Nine Vehicles Against GCV In Analysis Of Alternatives". Inside Washington Publisher. January 2010. Retrieved 12 January 2011.
- Bennett, John T. (August 25, 2010). "U.S. Army Delays Ground Combat Vehicle". Defense News. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved September 20, 2010.
- Brannen, Kate (August 27, 2010). "U.S. Army's GCV Delay: Lesson Unlearned?". Defense News. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved September 20, 2010.
- Brannen, Kate (September 6, 2010). "Malcolm O'Neill, Acquisition Executive, U.S. Army". Defense News. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved September 20, 2010.
- Kate Brannen. (25). "Gen. Peter Chiarelli". Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
- "$200 BILLION IN ILLUSTRATIVE SAVINGS". 10. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- "Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)". army-technology.com. Retrieved 15 May 2012.
- "Massive GCV Cuts On The Table As Army 'Reviews' Program". Insidedefense.com, 5 December 2012.
- US Army (18 January 2013). "Army Ground Combat Vehicle Acquisition Strategy Revised". Defense-aerospace.com. Retrieved 22 January 2013.
- Report: GCV is worst choice to replace Bradley - DoDBuzz.com, April 3, 2013
- The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle Program and Alternatives - Defense-Aerospace.com, April 2, 2013
- Army, industry slam CBO’s scathing GCV report - DoDBuzz.com, April 4, 2013
- "The Ground Combat Vehicle Strategy: Optimizing for the Future". United States Army. Retrieved December 14, 2009.
- Cox, Matthew (September 10, 2009). "U.S. Army Details Ground Combat Vehicle Plans". Defense News. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved December 13, 2009.
- Cox, Matthew (September 10, 2009). "U.S. Army Details Ground Combat Vehicle Plans". Defense News. Army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved December 13, 2009.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Ground Combat Vehicle|
- Official U.S. Army Ground Combat Vehicle page
- TACOM page
- GCV Program Schedule as of 29 January 2010
- GCV on Defense-Update.com