New Ground Combat Vehicle RFP is out
This is extracted from a press release on the the DoD public web site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defense.Gov
The Army released last Thursday a request for proposal (RFP) for the technology development phase of the Infantry Fighting Vehicle being developed under the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) effort. The Army has worked extensively with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to develop this program. The GCV acquisition program will follow Department of Defense best acquisition practices and be a competitive program with up to three contract awards. The GCV development effort will consist of three phases: technology development, engineering and manufacturing design and low rate initial production. The Army anticipates awarding the first contracts for the technology development phase in the fourth-quarter of fiscal 2010.
The technology development phase involves risk reduction, identification of technology demonstrations, competitive prototyping activities, and planned technical reviews. Industry will have 60 days to submit proposals to the Army for this development effort.
The Ground Combat Vehicle effort is part of a holistic Army plan to modernize its combat vehicle fleet. This includes incorporating Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles into the fleet while modernizing current vehicle fleets including Stryker. The first Ground Combat Vehicle will be an Infantry Fighting Vehicle offering a highly-survivable platform for delivering a nine-man infantry squad to the battlefield. The GCV is the first vehicle that will be designed from the ground up to operate in an improvised explosive device (IED) environment. It is envisioned to have greater lethality and ballistic protection than a Bradley, greater IED and mine protection than an MRAP, and the cross country mobility of an Abrams tank. The GCV will be highly survivable, mobile and versatile, but the Army has not set specific requirements such as weight, instead allowing industry to propose the best solution to meet the requirements.
Put me in the Artificial Reef camp...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAH
Maybe MRAPs sit in depots/storage to await the next need.
Been my observation that machinery which sits tends to develop all sorts of expensive restorations to place back in service. Amazing how fast tubing, tires and track pads dry rot. Plus oxidation oxidizes...:wry:
Quote:
I feel there is a tactical niche for a vehicle like at MRAP in the convoy escort and route/MSR security role. We just need a proponent (branch) to step forward and say, I got this one.
Niche is correct. Won't work at all in MCO and there are better solutions in FID. The MRAP was a political answer to a political problem-- the American way, unfortunately -- and while they worked marginally well for the purpose, they are definitely one trick ponies. Overly complex, overly expensive, too many varieties cluttering up the supply system. poor x-country cape, poor mileage yet underpowered -- and a single piddly 85mm round, much less a Sagger, would ruin someone's day.
Armor is handy. It also can become a cocoon and folks can become reluctant to leave their cocoons. Armor stops hostile objects -- but you can only armor so much ; agility is better...
I'd note the last time the last time we had proponents step forward, Cavalry got the Bradley instead of the needed scout vehicle and the M8 got cancelled... :(
The Branch system and 'propency' needs to go. It's a relic of the 19th Century. We need to develop unit and service loyalty, branches interfere with that. I can recall one smart organizational move that was killed because implementing it would've meant the loss of an Armor Colonel space -- no matter it would have improved the Armor School's day to day ops and throughput. Wait and see what that branch proponency wrangle does to Information Ops... :rolleyes:
Sorry to dispense rain -- but you asked for thoughts...:wry:
Rear-Area and MSR Security
Ken:
The rain helps...
Really think someone/branch and/or "Center of Excellence" MCoE, MANCEN, CASCOM, needs to step forward and assume responsibility for this tar baby.
My thoughts are that it belongs over at MANCEN. They "own" MPs and the Maneuver Enhanved Brigades (MEBs). Don't know about the AC, but the RC MEBs are all including either an Infantry Bn, a Combined Arms Bn, or a Cav Sqdrn as their own organic Tatical Combat Force (TCF).
I think that TCF Bn is were MRAPs and their ilk belong. Lots of MSR patroling and convoy escorting. Some base/FOB defense tasks and only limited need to maneuver x-country extensively.
Talking to my son's Battle-buddy from BCT/AIT who deployed to Iraq last year as part of a "Theater Security Force BCT", he states that teh ASVs are sweet in this role.
At nearly a million buck a pop, seems like we should not let them just gather dust and rot.
TAH
You hit the wrong button...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAH
Really think someone/branch and/or "Center of Excellence" MCoE, MANCEN, CASCOM, needs to step forward and assume responsibility for this tar baby.
However, I'll spare you my stock rant about the smarmy and dipwad "Centers of Excellence" BS terminology. That irritates me almost as much as this 'warrior' and 'hero' gar-bahge...:mad:
And Branches in general do. Moving right along:
Quote:
I think that TCF Bn is were MRAPs and their ilk belong. Lots of MSR patroling and convoy escorting. Some base/FOB defense tasks and only limited need to maneuver x-country extensively.
We can disagree on that. I think that would be preparing for this war and not the future. I really question the long term viability of road convoys and if we end up in a vaguely linear major war, the armor wouldn't be needed in the rear and in any event doesn't provide any real protection against likley weapons in such a conflict.
If we end up doing more FID:
Quote:
Talking to my son's Battle-buddy from BCT/AIT who deployed to Iraq last year as part of a "Theater Security Force BCT", he states that teh ASVs are sweet in this role.
I hear and read the same thing. Shows what can happen when you buy the right tool for the job...;)
The MRAP has a job (sort of...) today but it is / was really just a quick fix for a political problem that was necessitated by an Army and a series of Congresses that did not adapt to known and obvious equipment requirements due to ineptitude in high places in the Army and to political expediency in Congress during the 1990s. Militarily, tactically, it is a bullet magnet which can be defeated by the right weapon. It is large, slow, not agile, too heavy for the load it can carry (and for many roads and bridges...) and fills no real tactical need. It breeds tactical ineptitude and a vehicle bound mentality.
That's for MRAPs, the M-ATV and the JLTV are not MRAPs and are acceptable IMO. But only barely :D
Quote:
At nearly a million buck a pop, seems like we should not let them just gather dust and rot.
We waste a lot of money on more -- and less -- important stuff. Still, I agree, no sense in letting 'em sit somewhere. We can give them to the Iraqis and the Afghans (and other nations with similar problems). Let them deal with a solution bought for their conditions and that is not really tactically viable for most all US purposes.
I have visions of an MRAP trying to move down a jungle trail -- or in the mud at Ft. Campbell, Germany, Korea or some such place. Even better, in the snow of the high latitudes. Even worse, in a convoy somewhere, anywhere that is suddenly hit with dozens of ATGMs from an ambush two or three clicks off the road and that didn't get spotted by the patrolling Ravens...:(