Army’s GCV Not Just MGV Warmed Over

I wrote up an interview I did last week with Col. Bryan McVeigh, program manager for the Army’s new Ground Combat Vehicle program on companion site DOD Buzz and wanted to post it here for DT readers.

I asked McVeigh why the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) request for proposal was held up by the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer Ashton Carter. Carter and his senior staff wanted to make sure that the Army was truly opening up competition for the GCV and that was made clear in the RFP, said McVeigh.

The GCV acquisition program “is focused on competition,” with up to three contractors selected for the technology development phase. The Army hasn’t kept two builders going head-to-head through early development since the Abrams main battle tank program, McVeigh said.

The Army wants companies other than armored vehicle builders BAE and General Dynamics to pitch proposals. “We want to be able to look at other American companies to allow them to break into this niche market. This isn’t just MGV warmed over. I just don’t want one or two companies that were deep in MGV have a competitive advantage in this,” he said.


OSD did not make any major changes to the Army’s plans, McVeigh said. Industry proposals are due in late April, then the source selection process begins, culminating in September with a “Milestone A” decision from Carter’s office, allowing the Army to award the actual production contract.

The Army is trying to build on six years of development work on the FCS Manned Ground Vehicle, and months ago it gave industry that development “body of knowledge,” which laid out the preliminary design, to incorporate into their proposals for the GCV.

Where the Army’s plans for GCV differ most significantly from the ill-starred FCS program is they don’t want “revolutionary” technologies this time around. FCS was all about pushing the technological envelope in everything from high-tech armors to automotive components to sensors, which resulted in a lot of time and money spent with very little to show for it. Its all about program “risk” avoidance this time around, all GCV technologies must be at technology readiness level 6, which means they’ve proven to work in a simulated operational environment.

“Our goal is to make sure we get something out to the soldiers within seven years… if we wait for the perfect solution we’re never going to get it into the hands of soldiers,” McVeigh said. We need their feedback to continue and improve the design.

The biggest changes over the original FCS vehicle design is in the armor package and other “survivability” fixes. The GCV will be significantly heavier than the FCS MGV, which started out at 20 tons and ultimately grew to around 34 tons before it was cancelled. McVeigh wouldn’t specify the vehicle’s weight exactly, because he wants to give industry bit of latitude. This is the first vehicle, at least since the Abrams tank, that from the beginning is built to be readily upgradeable, McVeigh said, which means the ability to add more armor.

It will come with a base level, “Level 0,” armor protection for irregular fights of the kind found in Iraq where the big threat is IEDs, explosively formed penetrators and mostly small-arms up to heavy machine guns. While the MRAP is a great vehicle for specific battlefields, he said, it doesn’t have needed cross-country mobility. “Based off the lessons we’ve learned in theater, survivability doesn’t just come from armor, it doesn’t just come from active-protection systems, it comes from not allowing the enemy to channel you into one area.”

The GCV must have mobility equivalent to an Abrams tank. Although McVeigh refused to say so, cross-country mobility, especially on any kind of soft ground or snow, only comes from tracks. In urban areas, tracked vehicles have the advantage of being able to pivot steer, which is a huge advantage over wheeled vehicles.

The “Level 1” armor package, will add appliqué armor that also protects up to auto-cannon, along the lines of the current Bradley. An active-protection (APS) system will be included on the vehicle to provide 360 degree protection against RPGs, which is the threshold requirement; the objective requirements, are an APS that can defeat heavier anti-tank guided missiles and sabot rounds. But McVeigh says builders must demonstrate how they’ll improve on the existing APS architecture the ability to defeat those heavier threats down the road as technology improves. “I don’t want two different computers running it. I don’t want two different radar systems running it.”

The Army is developing an improved version of Raytheon’s Quick Kill APS system. The Army is continuing to develop its APS, contractors can bid any system they want, McVeigh said, as long as they meet the GCV holistic requirements.

The FCS vehicles were designed to fit inside a C-130. That is not the case with the GCV. Transportability requirements are that it must be C-17 and C-5 transportable. “It allows us the weight flexibility,” he said. Trying to keep the FCS vehicles inside that C-130 box forced designers to dump too much armor protection and other important components.

The GCV must carry a 12 man team, a 9 man rifle squad and a three man crew. Cooling the interior of the GCV will be a big challenge, because the vehicle will carry many more computers and video panels than any other vehicles. Built into the design will be a 30 percent margin for growth in cooling and at least a 20 percent growth in propulsion.

I asked McVeigh how the GCV would match up against the current Bradley, which it is intended to replace:

“It will have significantly better mine and IED protection, it will have greater lethality, it will have a bigger cannon. It will allow us to carry more men… a complete squad. It will have about the same mobility of the Bradley but the ability to carry significantly enhanced communications and electronics so I don’t have to divert power from the propulsion system for cooling. It will have significantly improved reliability than the Bradley. It will have integrated non-lethal capabilities, which none of our vehicles have today.”

– Greg

Army solicits proposals for new combat vehicle
Mar 2, 2010
By C. Todd Lopez


WASHINGTON (Army News Service, March 2, 2010) -- The Army released a request for proposal for the Ground Combat Vehicle Feb. 25 -- marking an official start for defense contractors to begin competing for the right to build the service's next combat vehicle.

Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli said the new vehicle will not be simply a rehash of the cancelled Future Combat Systems, but a relevant combat vehicle based on Army experiences in combat.

"This is a vehicle here that takes into account the lessons of eight years of war. It is not just FCS warmed over," said Chiarelli, during a video teleconference, Feb. 25, with attendees at the Association of the United States Army's Institute of Land Warfare Winter Symposium and Exposition in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The general said key performance parameters for the vehicle include, among other things, full-spectrum capability, net-readiness, and mobility. It should have the operational mobility of the Stryker and underbelly protection of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, or MRAP, according to the Brigade Combat Team Modernization Plan released Feb. 19.

Chiarelli said the Army is hoping for "three solid proposals" on the RFP -- those proposals must be in by April 26. The Army will then award technology development contracts to bidders in September -- marking milestone A in the GCV development process. Contract awardees will then enter the technology development phase that runs through December 2012.

Ultimately, Chiarelli said, the Army expects to award a low-rate initial production contract for the GCV by March 2016, and achieve initial operational capability in the second quarter of 2019.

Chiarelli said adaptability to the operational environment is key for the GCV.

"It will allow commanders to make a determination on what level of protection they need on that vehicle based on the enemy situation they find themselves in," he said.

Chiarelli also discussed the nature of America's enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, countering claims they are less than capable adversaries.

"They are truly formidable adversaries," Chiarelli said. "But because they are not state-sponsored, many dismiss them as not being worthy opponents. There are those, and I'd argue too many, who somehow think because they are terrorists, they are not as capable opponents as we have fought in past conflicts."

The general also pointed out the enemy's adeptness at passing information to its lowest foot soldiers.

"The enemy is very, very good," Chiarelli said. "In fact, he has done a much better job, in some instances, in pushing information down to the tactical edge -- his tactical edge. He doesn't have the same security requirements that we do, in doing that. But he has been more than willing to push that information down, using technology."

The enemy's lack of information security, however, is a weakness that can be exploited by the Army, Chiarelli said.

"The fact that he lacks some of that security has in many ways allowed us to track him down," he said. "We end up catching or killing many of his fighters as a result. But he is willing to accept those losses."

The general also said the way the Army has operated has changed, as Soldiers at the farthest reaches of the battlefield are today providing as much information upstream to commanders as commanders are pushing information downstream. The change has resulted in a need to move decision-making responsibility closer to the Soldier.

"I believed you had a period (in the past) when decision making basically flowed from the top on down," he said. "Orders were given to the different levels of the chain of command. Today, we see as much information being passed up, from the edge, as we see being passed down from above. Whereas before we had decision making, very strict decision making, today, we have commanders who provide intent to Soldiers that are down on the edge."

Facilitating the faster, more secure flow of information is something Chiarelli said the Army is working on by developing its information network, including the "Everything over Internet Protocol" concept.

Es scheint als hätte man die ehrgeizigen Pläne für den Lufttransport endlich verworfen. Die Gewichtsfrage lässt die US Army völlig offen.

Sind solche Ausschreibungen nur national in den USA?

für den Puma/Igel/Panther gab es ja auch keine Ausschreibung mit zb Warrior, CV90 und Ulan als Teilnehmer.

Wo kommt denn jetzt schon wieder die Idee her, dass der M1 suboptimal ist?

Wo kommt denn jetzt schon wieder die Idee her, dass der M1 suboptimal ist?

Klar ist guter Schutz wichtig, aber man sollte sich auch überlegen, dass ein so großes Monster als SPz auch seine Nachteile hat. Mit Grennis will ich ja schließlich auch mal Ortschaften und das eine oder andere Wäldchen freikämpfen. Je größer da der SPz desto öfter muss man auf dessen direkte Unterstützung verzichten.

Da halte ich die Schutzklasse eines Puma (in Zukunft unterstützt durch soft- und hardkill Systeme) eigentlich ausreichend.

@last Dingo
Welcher Panzer außer vielleicht einem Merk Mrk.IV ist den nicht ohne zusätzliche Ausstattung für ein Szenario wie Irak schlecht ausgestattet?

Vom übertriebenen Spritverbrauch, der Notwendigkeit ihn wesentlich upzugraden für den Einsatz gegen erbärmlichst ausgerüstete Gegner oder der Tatsache, dass das Design so alt ist wie ich?

@harmlos:
Ich habe nicht "ausschließlich" geschrieben, also bitte kein Stohmannargument hier.
Wer jedoch einen KPz für "LIC" auslegt, der legt ihn gegen Infanterie und anderen Widerstand zu Fuß aus - also gegen 95% der gegnerischen Armee.
Der Panzervernichtungsfokus der 70er und 80er Jahre Entwürfe ist suboptimal an sich.

Welche Armee besteht denn zu 95 % aus Infantrie? Und wieviel Prozent der Kampfkraft hat die Infantrie? Der ist so gut wie vernachlässigbar. Mit Infantrie gewinnt man weder Schlachten noch kriege, deswegen sind Panzer auch nicht zur reinen Infantriebekämpfung ausgelegt. Das können Sie gut genug, auch ohne Modifikationen.

GCV shortlist revealed
May 21, 2010

Contenders for the technology development (TD) phase of the US Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) programme have been confirmed as the Request for Proposals (RfP) reached its deadline today.
[..]
General Dynamics has confirmed that it has teamed up with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Company and MTU Detroit Diesel while other contenders include a BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman teaming agreement, which was announced on 2 March; and a SAIC-led consortium which includes Boeing, Krauss Maffei Wegman and Rheinmetall Defence Systems. With Northrop Grumman providing C4ISR elements, BAE Systems told LWI that its offering would comprise an ‘integrated electronic network capability and embedded intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets to connect warfighters’. Meanwhile, General Dynamics said its design drew on ‘mature technologies to provide survivability, soldier capacity, network interoperability, mobility and lethality that is unmatched by any existing ground combat vehicle’. Lockheed Martin will design the turret while Raytheon will concentrate on sensor integration. MTU Detroit Diesel will be responsible for the propulsion system. Finally, the SAIC-led consortium will offer a variation of the KMW and Rheinmetall Puma IFV with Boeing providing mission systems capabilities and lethal and non-lethal precision engagement systems.
[..]
Parties now have a 27-month period in which to test and mature subcomponents and other material elements of the designs prior to a Milestone B decision in FY 2013. The subsequent Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase would run through the first quarter of FY 2016, and include delivery of the first prototype vehicle in FY 2015.
[..]

Aut T 55 wurde der BTR-T entwickelt. Das ist HAPC der mit div. Bewaffnugen einschl Zwillingsanordnung für 30mm MK bestückt werden kann.

Falls es doch noch jemanden interessieren sollte:

Deutsche greifen erstmals mit Panzer in US-Rüstungsmarkt ein
Im amerikanischen Rüstungs-Milliardengeschäft wollen die Deutschen künftig kräftig mitmischen. Der neue Schützenpanzer der US-Streitkräfte könnte auf Basis der Technologie von Krauss-Maffei und Rheinmetall entstehen. Die Konzerne sehen ihre Fahrzeug im Vorteil.
Der künftige Schützenpanzer der USA könnte auf der Basis deutscher Militärtechnik gebaut werden. Die Rüstungsunternehmen Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) und Rheinmetall wurden vom US-Konzern SAIC zusammen mit Boeing für eine Bewerbung um den Milliardenauftrag für das Ground Combat Vehicle der US-Streitkräfte ausgewählt. Grundlage für die Neuentwicklung könnte der deutsche Schützenpanzer Puma sein.
(...)

Wir driften ab. Die Anforderungen an das GCV bestätigt doch nur, das Fahrzeuge, die gemeinsam eingesetzt werden, den gleichen Schutz bieten und über die selbe Mobilität verfügen müssen. Und das Panzerung und Feuerkraft durch nichts zu ersetzen ist - außer durch mehr davon.

Kann mich jemand aufklären, warum man unbedingt neun, zehn oder gar 12 Mann in den Heckbereich eines SPz quetschen will? Wäre es da nicht Gewichtsmäßig wesentlich besser und flexibler wenn man die Gruppe auf 2 Spz aufteilt?

IMO zeigt der Einsatz auch gerade gut, dass z.b. kompakte Ausmaße und Flexibilität auch wichtige Kriterien sind und der große Vorschlaghammer nicht immer das bessere Werkzeug ist.

BAE’s GCV Weighs 53 Tons, Hybrid
By Colin Clark Wednesday, July 28th, 2010 4:52 pm
Posted in Land

UPDATED: EXCLUSIVE First Picture of BAE’s GCV

It’s wide. It’s not light. It’s learned lessons from MRAPs and is survivable. It manages bandwidth so big fat transmission pipes like the doomed T-Sat satellites aren’t needed It’s BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman’s offering for the Ground Combat Vehicle.

The base version is 53 tons. Going into a highly lethal environment? Then commanders may well want their troops to bolt on modular armor and storage pods that bring the weight up to 75 tons. Powering this vehicle that looks an awful lot like a tank, is a hybrid electric drive, technology that worries some in the Army who don’t believe it is sufficiently tried and true yet.
Click here to find out more!

Mark Signorelli, BAE’s vice president and general manager for ground combat vehicles, told reporters that the decision to go with hybrid technology –“key enabling technology for the vehicle” — was one of the most “painful I’ve gone through.” The drive, produced by QintiQ NA, is the same as was proposed for BAE’s FCS offering. Signorelli said he knows the Army is split on the technology’s risk and benefits but argues that the commercial sector has used them for almost a decade in heavy construction equipment. Hybrid technology has “gone from being a radical idea to something we all ride” in on America’s streets, he said.

Among the benefits of hybrid drive: enormous torque; huge power supply for the vehicle and to power other equipment; 50 percent fewer parts so maintenance costs are lower; 10 percent fuel savings over comparable vehicles; added protection because the hybrid drive allows them to add some 4 tons of armor compared to a traditional engine. Will Army leadership buy BAE’s arguments and will testing bear out their claims? Wait and see time.

The GCV also uses something that Signorelli called a “hit avoidance system.” It is a combination of “hard kill protection” — something like what the FCS program called “active protection” — along with “soft kill” protection, a combination of jammers and decoys. Readers will remember that the active protection system was one of the failed promises of FCS. This will be an area to watch closely as the program develops.

Among the other attributes of the BAE’s GCV offering are a crew compartment designed for today’s larger soldiers who also carry larger and heavier loads. Signorelli said the new vehicle was designed to keep troops as rested as possible so they could go into action with minimal fatigue incurred by the miseries of riding in a cramped and bouncy ride.

Heißt das, dass der Puma dann als das Leichtgewicht in den Wettbewerb geht?

The Army has canceled the Ground Combat Vehicle competition because the current Requests for Proposal (RFPs) do not accurately reflect Army requirements and a changing acquisition strategy.

A contract for the new vehicle was close to being awarded, we’re told. A restart of the GCV competition is expected fairly soon, a new RFP may be out within 60 days, and the Army intends to stay within the original seven year timeline to field a new vehicle.

The GCV competition was cancelled so the Army can “better ensure an achievable, affordable, and timely infantry fighting vehicle,” according to an emailed Army announcement. The cancellation will result in a six month delay of the program, although the service intends to field a vehicle within seven years after a contract is awarded. The statement says:


“In May 2010, the Army partnered with OSD (AT&L) to conduct a thorough study of the Ground Combat Vehicle program, referred to as a Red Team analysis. The Red Team review recommended that the Army prioritize the planned vehicle’s capabilities to meet achievable goals within the program’s acquisition schedule. This holistic review included an examination of vehicle capabilities, operational needs, the acquisition strategy, program schedule and technology readiness.

In conjunction with the Red Team recommendations, the Army determined that it must revise the acquisition strategy to rely on mature technologies in order to reduce significant developmental risk over a seven year schedule following the initial contract award. The refined RFP will result in a vehicle that provides soldiers with critical armored protection in the modern combat environment.”

The emailed announcement says details of the specific RFP are still being finalized and the service expects to issue a new solicitation within the next 60 days. Lawmakers were notified of the GCV cancellation this morning

Ist das Squad mit 9 Mann eigentlich vorgeschrieben, wenn ja währe eine Teilname am Wettbewerb von KMW wohl sinnlos, oder irre ich mich da.