Defense News
Nearly a year after the US Army canceled the Ground Combat Vehicle, officials defended the program as on-budget and called the decision to scuttle it a pragmatic move to improve further-along armored vehicle programs with available money.
On Tuesday, Brig. Gen David Bassett, commander PEO Ground Combat Systems, noted that the Future Fighting Vehicle (FFV) program, a follow-on to the GCV, is largely a science-and-technology development effort, meant to help the Army explore its options while it pursues various engineering-change proposals for its existing armored vehicles.
Bassett had some fun with reporters who may have thought the FFV was at this point more than notional.
“If you came today thinking we were going to describe the future fighting vehicle, that we were going to tell you whether we would retain the nine-man squad in the back, and have a manned or unmanned turret, or that we had discovered some new armor technology, I apologize. You’re not going to get any breaking news on that front,” Bassett said.
Program officials repeatedly mentioned the reality of shrinking defense budgets. Bassett said the decision to cancel the GCV was the best way to ultimately provide airborne brigades with better ground vehicles.
“I think it reflected a different budget environment than when the program was initiated,” he said, “an acknowledgment that we faced either an investment with the GCV or a set of investments across the entire [brigade] formation.”
Next Steps
The future of the Bradley and the FFV are intertwined. In 2016, the Army plans to decide whether to turn the FFV program into an effort to produce actual vehicles, a potential Bradley replacement, or lead to a third round of improvements for the Bradley.
If the Army sticks to its current schedule, then the two major Bradley upgrades are a variety of mobility improvements that would include a new power pack, a new suspension and possibly up-gunning to a 30mm or larger cannon.
Meanwhile, the service has promised to release about $50 million in funding that it had left over from the GCV in order to finance further concept development from the two competitors, BAE Systems and General Dynamics, which likely will receive about $20 million each, with another $10 million going to Army research laboratories for further in-house work.
The program office is monitoring technology development at the Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center, searching for breakthrough armor technologies and other advancements. That includes an advanced combat engine, a modular active protection system and new hull manufacturing.
“If GCV represents the technology that was available and affordable, by the time you get to this new program start, it might take a 70-ton vehicle and bring it to 60 tons,” Bassett said.
Bassett offered the caveat that the FFV must be achievable and affordable.
“We ran into this in the GCV program where we looked at armors that were lighter, but the cost was a multiple of what we ended up adopting,” Bassett said. “It doesn’t do us any good to adopt something we can’t afford.”
 |
| M2A3 Bradley IFV |
Nearly a year after the US Army canceled the Ground Combat Vehicle, officials defended the program as on-budget and called the decision to scuttle it a pragmatic move to improve further-along armored vehicle programs with available money.
On Tuesday, Brig. Gen David Bassett, commander PEO Ground Combat Systems, noted that the Future Fighting Vehicle (FFV) program, a follow-on to the GCV, is largely a science-and-technology development effort, meant to help the Army explore its options while it pursues various engineering-change proposals for its existing armored vehicles.
Bassett had some fun with reporters who may have thought the FFV was at this point more than notional.
“If you came today thinking we were going to describe the future fighting vehicle, that we were going to tell you whether we would retain the nine-man squad in the back, and have a manned or unmanned turret, or that we had discovered some new armor technology, I apologize. You’re not going to get any breaking news on that front,” Bassett said.
Program officials repeatedly mentioned the reality of shrinking defense budgets. Bassett said the decision to cancel the GCV was the best way to ultimately provide airborne brigades with better ground vehicles.
“I think it reflected a different budget environment than when the program was initiated,” he said, “an acknowledgment that we faced either an investment with the GCV or a set of investments across the entire [brigade] formation.”
Next Steps
The future of the Bradley and the FFV are intertwined. In 2016, the Army plans to decide whether to turn the FFV program into an effort to produce actual vehicles, a potential Bradley replacement, or lead to a third round of improvements for the Bradley.
If the Army sticks to its current schedule, then the two major Bradley upgrades are a variety of mobility improvements that would include a new power pack, a new suspension and possibly up-gunning to a 30mm or larger cannon.
Meanwhile, the service has promised to release about $50 million in funding that it had left over from the GCV in order to finance further concept development from the two competitors, BAE Systems and General Dynamics, which likely will receive about $20 million each, with another $10 million going to Army research laboratories for further in-house work.
The program office is monitoring technology development at the Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center, searching for breakthrough armor technologies and other advancements. That includes an advanced combat engine, a modular active protection system and new hull manufacturing.
“If GCV represents the technology that was available and affordable, by the time you get to this new program start, it might take a 70-ton vehicle and bring it to 60 tons,” Bassett said.
Bassett offered the caveat that the FFV must be achievable and affordable.
“We ran into this in the GCV program where we looked at armors that were lighter, but the cost was a multiple of what we ended up adopting,” Bassett said. “It doesn’t do us any good to adopt something we can’t afford.”
No comments:
Post a Comment