The USA’s GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle: 3rd time the charm?

The US Army’s Heavy Brigade Combat Teams have relied on BAE’s 30+ ton Bradley family of M2/3/6/7 vehicles for a variety of combat functions, from armed infantry carrier and cavalry scout roles, to specialized tasks like calling artillery fire and even short-range air defense. The Bradley first entered US Army service in 1981, however, and the fleet has served through several wars. Even ongoing RESET, modernizations, and remanufacturing cannot keep them going indefinitely.

The Army’s problem is that replacing them has been a ton of trouble. Future Combat Systems’ MGV-IFV was terminated, along with the other MGV variants, by the 2010 budget. A proposal to replace it with a “Ground Combat Vehicle” (GCV) program raised concerns that the Army’s wish list would create an even less affordable solution. Now a revised GCV program is underway. Can it deliver a vehicle that will be effective on the battlefield? Just as important, can it deliver a vehicle that the US Army can afford to buy and maintain, in the midst of major national budgetary problems and swelling entitlement programs?

GCV: Concept & Requirements

The GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle is not a simple competition among existing vehicle types, though the global armored vehicle industry could easily have offered that. Instead, it was decided to run GCV as a clean sheet design for a new armored vehicle that would incorporate all of the lessons learned in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

“All” can be a dangerous goal for a military that needs on-time, on-budget, reasonably priced solutions. The initial GCV RFP resulted in design submissions that were reportedly in the 60-70 ton range. That’s almost double the weight of a 33 ton Bradley family vehicle, or of new designs like Korea’s K-21 KNIFV; and 50% higher than even heavy IFVs like Germany’s Puma and Britain’s FRES-SV. Indeed, it’s equivalent to a heavy main battle tank like the M1 Abrams.

The August 2010 GCV RFP cancellation resulted in a new RFP that emphasized use of “mature” technologies, but didn’t change some of the key requirements driving issues like weight, size and cost. Nor did it change the Army’s insistence on big performance increases in a number of areas.

Under the terms of its revised RFP, the GCV Program is driven to achieve a set of primary imperatives called the “Big Four”. These “Big Four” imperatives are defined as follows:

* Force Protection: Including protection against IED land mines. This is not a traditional strength of tracked vehicles lighter than main battle tanks, due to their flat bottoms.

* Capacity: vehicle crew and a fully-equipped 9 soldier Infantry squad. That’s relatively large. The Bradley carries just 6, and survivability needs and “space under armor” are the 2 requirement sets that do the most to determine vehicle size and weight. Which in turn affect costs.

* Full Spectrum: “A versatile platform able to adapt and/or enhance capabilities through configuration changes of armor and network while providing for growth over time in terms of size, weight, power and cooling.” This has been a steady trend in current IFVs over time, including the Bradley.

* Timing: A design that can have the 1st production vehicle delivered and accepted within 7 years of the TD phase contract award.

Under the revised September 2010 RFP, some requirements were “Tier 1”: specifically defined, and must be met. Tier 2 and Tier 3 requirements must be addressed, but the vendors are responsible for making tradeoffs among them. Vendors that DID talked to believe this left the Army with better solutions than they would otherwise have received.

GCV: Controversies & Comparisons

Intelligent tradeoffs within the RFP may have resulted in better design choices, but they won’t necessarily ensure a successful program. If the original requirements end up as major obstacles to fielding an affordable, tactically-relevant vehicle on time, as was the case with the recently-canceled USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle IFV, there are no competition rule changes that can fix it.

The key question for the program is whether the GCV fits that category.

The initial GCV RFP resulted in design submissions that were reportedly in the 60-70 ton range, and that has continued. The Army has retained the key specifications driving it toward that weight class.

That level of size certainly ensures the versatility that comes with added space and heft, as Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli explained in 2010:

“It is important to note that within the RFP you are not going to see a weight requirement. What you will see and what we are emphasizing is the Ground Combat Vehicle has to be a versatile vehicle. This will probably be one of the most versatile vehicles that the Army has ever designed. If you look at survivability or armor protection, we are going to have a modular design, meaning we can have scalable armor kits so the commander can decide how protected that vehicle needs to be for the mission… We are giving commanders the capability to tailor survivability for a given situation.”

If “versatility” means only tailorable armor kits, that is well underway in current American vehicle fleets, and in new offerings like KMW’s Puma IFV. On the other hand, if one is talking about functions and requirements, “versatility” has traditionally led American programs to very high cost solutions, and in some cases to program failure. The Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle IFV is just the most recent cautionary example.

Beyond purchase and operating costs, which both increase in tandem with size and complexity, there is also a penalty in supporting costs. A C-17 airlifter can carry 2 Bradley vehicles, but looks likely to handle just 1 GCV. That doubles the time for crisis response using airlift. Higher fuel and operating costs also mean a longer, larger logistics tail behind, which must be paid for.

South Korea controlled requirements for its 28 ton K-21 KNIFV. They appear to have a vehicle with some performance improvements and some tradeoffs vs. the Bradley, at a cost of under $5 million per vehicle. Germany’s new 36-46 ton Puma IFV, which is considered to be a top-end system, is much closer to the GCV’s target price, at around EUR 7.65 million ($11 million) each under Germany’s July 2009 contract for 405 vehicles.

Israel has a vehicle in the GCV’s weight class: its 60 tonne Namer APC/IFV, built on the hull of their Merkava 4 tank. The difference is that the Israelis aren’t looking for the same level of strategic mobility, and pursued much more of a ‘quick and dirty’ approach in order to keep costs down. The Israeli MoD is hired General Dynamics to produce some of their Namer vehicles in the USA, in order to take advantage of US aid dollars.

With the GCV, the USA appears to be hoping to deliver a much larger IFV than the Puma, with more sophisticated capabilities and systems than the Puma or Namer, at about the same or less cost than either alternative. Skepticism may well be warranted.

GCV: Program

At present, the US Army intends to order 1,874 GCVs, plus 30 test vehicles. The government’s average Unit Manufacturing Cost target for the GCV IFV Program is now $9 – $10.5 million per unit in FY 2010 constant dollars, which means that actual purchase costs will be higher due to inflation etc. That’s far lower than the original competition, whose limit was over $20 million. The targeted Operation & Sustainment cost is FY10$ 200 per mile, which is about 2x higher than the current Bradley family.

In a coming era of military budget cuts, both of those prices risk creating problems, even if the winning contractor meets the Army’s targets. If there are overruns, in either area, they are likely to cause budget and political problems in short order. Unfortunately, analysis done by the Pentagon’s own CAPE (Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation) office is closer to $16 – $17 million per unit, and examination of comparable vehicles and their costs gives credence to that view.

Planned Schedule

Meanwhile, the GCV Technology Development (TD) phase began issuing contracts in August 2011, and so began collecting political constituencies with a vested interest in continuing the program.

The TD Phase has 3 stated goals: 1. Create a basic vehicle design; 2. Refine and test key protective designs; and 3. Ensure a smooth handover for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase. Contractors are responsible for 100% of TD Phase overruns, but can keep 20% of any unspent contract monies.

Once a basic design is created, protective designs to be submitted and tested include the a Mine Blast Subsystem Prototype Test Article, and a Rocket Propelled Grenade Protection Subsystem Prototype.

The TD Phase’s key milestone is the Preliminary Design Review (PDR), to be held by February 2013. Upon completion of the PDR, TD phase contractors will continue to work on their designs, while refining the Unit Manufacturing Cost (UMC) estimates.

In preparation for EMD, TD Phase contractors will submit an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that contains planning packages through delivery of the Early Prototype vehicle, 12 months from award of the EMD contract. they also submit an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) through delivery of the First Full-Up Prototype Vehicle, which happens 30 months from winning the EMD contract.

The 4 year EMD Phase was planned to be solicited in FY 2013. It will focus on completing the detailed design, building integrated GCV IFV prototypes, and conducting key tests including Production Qualification Testing (PQT), a Limited User Test, and ballistic survivability testing. The original plan was to pick up to 2 contractors based upon price, schedule and technical performance, with awards going to both TD participants. Instead, a January 2013 change shifted the competition to a single winner, with the Army still waiting to decide whether it will be an entirely new design, or a modification of an existing vehicle.

GCV: Competing Teams

Team BAE

The GCV competition attracted 3 teams of competitors, but the Army took an important step to level the playing field. The cancelled FCS Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) program data, referred to as the MGV Body of Knowledge, was made available to all qualified TD Phase bidders.

One team is led by Bradley IFV manufacturer BAE Systems, who also makes the popular CV90 IFV, and had a major role in Future Combat Systems’ MGV. They are partnered with:

* Northrop Grumman – C4ISR (command, control, communications, computing, intelligence, surveillance & reconnaissance) integrator.
* iRobot – Integration of the SUGV ground robot, and other robotics, into the vehicle. SUGV is one of the few survivors of the Future Combat Systems program. Longer term contribution may include GCV autonomous driving capability.
* MTU/ Tognum America – Power pack (MTU engine, transmission & generator – Series 880?). Parent firm Tognum AG is in the process of being controlled by Daimler AG and Rolls Royce plc.
* QinetiQ North America – E-X-Drive electric drive propulsion system. Same partnership as MGV.
* Saft – Hybrid drive’s energy storage system. Same partnership as MGV.

The firm has conducted tests with Artis downward-firing Iron Curtain active protection system. Technically, the GCV doesn’t require an APS. In practice, the Congressional Research Service says that both qualifying teams are including APS systems on their designs.

Team BAE’s design has an extraordinary 70-ton base weight, which can rise to 84 tons with all add-on kits. By comparison, an M1A2 Abrams tank is 68 tons. Beyond the 360-degree protection levels and personnel carriage requirements that drove much of the GCV’s weight, BAE personnel told DID that the Army’s change of direction to emphasize mature technology, while requiring more than incremental increases in performance, was the key push behind their own design. Those requirements are forcing a very heavy system – but could BAE draw on experience with a wide variety of armored combat vehicle programs, including SEP and FCS MGV, to match mature best-of-breed technologies and give the Army what it wanted?

BAE’s most visible and daring choice involved a diesel-electric hybrid drive. It pays off in some weight savings, in superior power export capabilities, and especially in survivability and space under armor. A diesel-electric drive can mechanically decouple the drive shafts from the engine, creating tremendous layout flexibility for protective features like v-hulls, and better arrangement of internal space. The team touts its design as having better blast resistance than existing Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles like its RG-31 and RG-33.

The flip side of a hybrid drive involves technical risk and reliability, but in conversations with DID, BAE personnel explained why they didn’t see that as much of a risk. Civilian heavy equipment in industries like mining etc. is already using hybrid drive technology as a matter of routine, offering both a mature technical base, and a known path for scaling these systems up for very heavy vehicles. BAE provides hybrid drives for some civilian vehicles, and felt that their experience with MGV, SEP, etc. gave them a solid base to work from.

On the electronics side, Northrop Grumman has been working with the US Army’s “VICTORY (Vehicular Integration for c4isr/electronic warfare inTerOpeRabilitY) Architecture” of standards and specifications, in order to deliver a suite of internal electronics and sensors that can be upgraded easily over time.

Team General Dynamics

The 2nd team is led by General Dynamics, who 40-45t ASCOD 2 was picked in 2010 as Britain’s forthcoming FRES-SV infantry fighting/ scout vehicle. They’re also producing Israel’s 60t Namer IFV, in order to take advantage of US military aid dollars that must be spent in the USA. General Dynamics Land Systems is the prime contractor, with GD C4 systems responsible for network integration, communications, computing and information assurance.

The GDLS design for GCV is only marginally lighter than BAE’s, at 64 tons for the base vehicle (still a ton heavier than an M1A1 Abrams main battle tank), and 74 tons when all of the optional protection packages are added. Major subcontractors include:

* Lockheed Martin – Turret, lethal and non-lethal effects and embedded training. This is broadly the same partnership as FRES, though it may not be the same turret.
* Raytheon – RPG protection system, indirect-vision systems, and sensor integration. Raytheon’s “HTK” system received development contracts as the Active Protection System for FCS MGV.
* MTU/Tognum America – Power pack (MTU engine, transmission & generator – Series 890?). Parent firm Tognum AG is in the process of being controlled by Daimler AG and Rolls Royce plc.

Out? Germany’s Puma

A 3rd team, which did not receive an award, was led by Future Combat Systems’ Lead Integrator SAIC. It was explicitly based on Germany’s new Puma IFV, which weighs about 33 tons for the base vehicle, and 42 tons if all add-on protection kits are included. Their team included SAIC, plus:

* KMW and Rheinmetall – Puma IFV
* Boeing – C4ISR integrator. SAIC’s fellow FCS Lead Integrator.

Assembly in America was the team’s big capability gap, but the team proposed to fill it with small and medium sized manufacturing firms. SAIC’s GAO protest failed, but the Puma will get a 2nd look.

Contracts & Key Events

April 17/13: CRS Report. The US Congressional Research Service issues its latest version of R41597: “The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.” DID’s Google Drive service has the latest version. FAS [PDF] | OpenCRS (currently behind).

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. For the GCV, the FY 2014 budget announces the restructuring terms, and requests $592.2 million, with plans to move into the EMD system development phase in Q3 2013. To get a sense of the changes, the FY 2012 justification expected program spending of $1.963 billion in FY 2014.

Previous GCV budgets have included $435 million in 2012, and a request for $639.9 million in 2013. All funds to date have been for Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation.

Under the new arrangements, GCV’s Technology Development (TD) and Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) phases will be stretched by 12 months. See also DoD Buzz | DID budget coverage.

March 28/13: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2012, plus time to compile and publish. With respect to the GCV, their 1-page quick briefing says that the Analysis of Alternatives is due by March 2013, with a Preliminary Design Review for the TD Phase designs by June 2013:

“….at that point, according to an Army official, should be ready to determine whether GCV will be an entirely new vehicle or a modified existing vehicle. The Army plans to begin procuring GCV while also procuring other new and costly combat vehicle programs such as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle.”

Total program: $37,923.5 million
RDT&E: $7,025.6 million
Procurement: $25,365.8 million
GCVs: 1,904 = 30 development + 1,874 procurement

March 20/13: Army expectations. CSIS runs the “Ground Forces Dialogue: Major General H.R. McMaster /Ground Force Maneuver: Why It Still Matters” event with the US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence’s commander. He mentioned the advantages and limitations of existing M2 Bradleys, and some of the expectations for the GCV. Among them, it should be able to carry a squad of 9 (not 11 cut down to 6). See: Event video | Army doctrine documents.

Feb 15/13: EMD draft. The US Army’s Contracting Command-Warren publishes draft documents for the Ground Combat Vehicle Infantry Fighting Vehicle (GCV IFV) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase, including a draft Capability Development Document (CDD). Access is restricted with export controls and other conditions. They expect feedback from industry by March 13. The date for the GCV EMD RFP is not set yet.

November 2012: The Congressional Budget Office releases Working Paper 2012-15: “Technical Challenges of the U.S. Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle Program.” From the rationale for full squad carriage of 9 dismounts, to the key issues faced in defending against various kinds of threats from EFP mines to anti-tank missiles, this paper’s explanations are lucid, clear, and enhanced by informative illustrations. It also deals with the GCV’s key tradeoffs, especially around weight and cost. Highly recommended.

May 8/12: DoD’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) FY11 report [PDF] dates from February but was only released publicly today. Though the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is exempt from DFARS regulations, CAPE has started independently assessing the cost of their programs. They have focused so far on regular major programs (MDAPs) while they have worked mostly on the IT programs (MAIS) deemed to be in the worst shape. Also of note:

“There were two notable pioneering cases (the Ohio Replacement and the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)) where CAPE prepared independent cost estimates early in the program development as part of the Materiel Solution Analysis phase leading to a Milestone A DAB review. The Materiel Solution Analysis phase presents the first substantial opportunity to influence design through trade-off studies that balance requirements, performance, technology choices, schedule, and cost considerations. The CAPE independent cost estimate is now an important element of this process.”

CAPE is estimating a cost per vehicle around $15-16 million.

March 1/12: New entrants? Aviation Week Ares reports that the Army is using some of its technology development phase funds to invite more competitors to test at White Sands, NM. They include BAE’s existing M2 Bradley (A3 and turretless) and its popular CV90-035; and General Dynamics’ Namer (partnership with Israel) and new wheeled, v-hulled Stryker DVH. SAIC’s GAO protest was rejected, but its Puma will also get another look. Just not at White Sands. In addition:

“The Army has also confirmed to AvWeek that it is looking to conduct assessments of two other tracked European vehicles: the BMP, made by the Russian company JSC Kurganmashzavod; and the VBCI infantry fighting vehicle, produced by France’s Nexter [DID: which is wheeled, not tracked]… The Army requested $640 million in fiscal year 2013 to continue work on the technology development phase… the GCV program has been ordered to work two separate analyses of alternatives along with an additional non-developmental evaluation, all while BAE Systems and General Dynamics continue to refine their designs.”

The betting odds are that this is more of a “data to back our claim that existing gear isn’t good enough for us” exercise, rather than an effort to really rethink the direction of this program. Aviation Week later strengthens that belief by reporting on March 12/12 that:

“An official at the GCV office tells DTI that the data gathered during the NIE [exercise with the various platforms] will be used to validate existing capabilities against the planned capabilities of the GCV – especially potential capability trade-offs as the program drives toward Milestone B. Ultimately, an award is expected by the end of 2013.”

Aug 26/11: Protest. The SAIC team is launching a bid protest with the Congressional Government Accountability Office. That protest puts the release of contracted funding on hold, until it is resolved, which must happen within 100 days. AOL Defense:

“We believe the government relied on evaluation criteria outside its published request for proposal,” Koskovich said. “We also believe several aspects of the bid may have been discounted because of a lack of familiarity with their non-American origins.”

They didn’t win.

Aug 24/11: Sub-contractors. Tognum America announces that its Series 880 (880 – 2,016 kW) and Series 890 (410 – 920 KW) engines will be used in the BAE and GDLS designs. They do not say which engine is in which design, but BAE’s use of a hybrid drive strongly suggests that they’re the ones using the higher capacity V12 Series 880.

June 30/11: DAB Review coming. Defense News reports that GCV program will receive another Defense Acquisition Board Review on July 21/11, adding that even the cost target drop from $24 million (original RFP) to $10.5 million (current RFP) may not save GCV from budget issues.

March 9/11: Hard questions. U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD], the Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, releases a statement for the subcommittee’s hearing on the Administration’s FY 2012 budget request for the equipment modernization programs for the U.S. Army. Excerpts:

“In terms of this year’s budget request, the Army’s top two modernization priorities are the tactical network and the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) programs… the committee has and continues to support the Army’s goal of pursuing a modernized combat vehicle. However, the committee needs to understand the rationale as to why the Ground Combat Vehicle should proceed as scheduled… How do we know that the GCV is the full spectrum vehicle that the Army needs? Why did the Army not complete an analysis of alternatives before it issued the original requests for proposals as this committee had encouraged? Can the Army afford to launch another program that could cost up to $30 billion to procure a vehicle that carries a squad of nine instead of the current six? Why not consider as an alternative option, continuing to upgrade Abrams, Bradleys and Strykers; focus on the network and take part of the funds and apply it to lightening the load of the soldier?… To be clear, I am not saying that I don’t support the GCV program… However, as was the case with the FCS program, it is this committee’s responsibility to ask the hard questions now, so that we don’t learn in five years that the Army can’t afford the GCV or that it is based on ‘exquisite’ requirements.”

Jan 21/11: Bids in. The BAE/NGC team submits its RFP bid. Major sub-contractors include iRobot, MTU, QinetiQ North America, Saft.

MTU, now known as Tognum America, is also supplying the engine for General Dynamics’ team, which evidently submitted its own proposal.

SAIC’s “Team Full Spectrum” submits a Puma-derived design again. Boeing, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall Defence will be the key subcontractors. BAE Systems | Boeing.

Jan 18/11: ADVS out. Advanced Defense Vehicle Systems (ADVS) announces that it will withdraw as a competitor for the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Program:

“Under the current program, the contracting efforts have been divided into three stages. The first stage will not require producing a prototype demonstration vehicle and, in fact, the Army will wait a total of seven years to field a weapon system… While ADVS supports the Army’s concept, they encourage the U.S. Department of Defense to review the ADVS strategies and past performance and consider ways of developing and fielding vehicles quicker and more economically. Such a rapid process is counter to the current GCV strategy; though supportive of the philosophy of Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.”

Dec 3/10: Costs. Aviation Week quotes Gen. Cartwright says the US military must begin to value scale and numbers, not just capabilities. Even as the proposed GCV to replace the M2/M3 Bradleys has an expected price of up to $10.5 million per GCV – and a target of twice the Bradley’s per-mile operating cost.

Nov 30/10: TD competition. The US Army releases modified rules [PDF] for the GCV-IFV competition. Army GCV Program Manager Colonel Andrew DiMarco is quoted as saying that the Army expects to award up to 3 technology-development contracts, under a fixed-price model with incentives, in April 2011. Companies would get 20% of any money saved if they beat their budget.

Current plans call for eventual construction of 1,874 of the new vehicles, beginning in 7 years. Reuters.

Oct 26/10: BAE. The BAE/NGC team adds iRobot Corp:

“iRobot Corporation will serve as the unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) integrator and enhance the capability to detect pedestrians and obstacles of interest with growth towards an autonomous driving capability for the GCV. iRobot will also be responsible for integration of the U.S. Army’s Brigade Combat Team modernization program Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) robotic platform so that it can be operated from inside the GCV.”

Oct 1/10: The US Army holds its GCV Industry Day. FBO.gov.

July 26/10: The BAE/NGC team adds QinetiQ and Saft. QinetiQ North America will provide the E-X-Drive electric drive propulsion system, while Saft will provide the energy storage system. BAE Systems.

May 24/10: Puma bid. Future Combat Systems’ two Lead Systems Integrators, Boeing and SAIC, team with KMW in a bid for the US Army’s next-generation IFV: The Ground Combat Vehicle program. Boeing’s release states that:

“The team’s offering draws from the experience gained from the Manned Ground Vehicle and the Puma programs and will be built in the United States with a team of experienced American small and mid-tier supplier businesses.”

May 21/10: Bids. The BAE/NGC team, and the GD/Raytheon team, submit their bids for the GCV Technology Development phase. BAE Systems | GDLS.

March 10/10: BAE Systems teams up with Northrop Grumman Corporation, who will be the C4ISR systems integrator for their GCV team. They have a similar relationship with respect to the JLTV program to replace existing HMMWV jeeps. BAE Systems.

Oct 19/09: After the Pentagon terminates Future Combat Systems’ Manned Ground Vehicle program, the US Army releases solicitation #W56HZV-GCV-Spec_CDD: “Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Draft Specification/CDD”

Additional Readings

The GCV

* US Army TACOM – W56HZV-11-R-0001 Ground Combat Vehicle. Competition/ RFP site.

* US Army Stand To! (April 12/10) – Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle

* US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Command (TARDEC) – Vehicle Electronics and Architecture

* BAE – Ground Combat Vehicle. 70+ tons. This is progress?

Other News & Background

* CSIS (March 20/13) – Ground Forces Dialogue: Major General H.R. McMaster /Ground Force Maneuver: Why It Still Matters. The commander of the US Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence.

* COTS Journal (May 2011) – Open Standards and Phased Approach Benefit Ground Vehicle Modernization

* Defense Systems (2010) – PEO C3T Program Review & Vision Guide: VICTORY Over “Bolt-On” Integration

* DID – I Beg to Differ: The US GAO’s Bid Protest Process

Official Reports

* RAND Corporation (July 2013) – Understanding Why a Ground Combat Vehicle That Carries Nine Dismounts Is Important to the Army. Given the significant extra weight and costs involved, that’s a good 1st step.

* US CRS, via OpenCRS (#R41597, last update April 17/13) – The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

* US CBO (April 2/13) – The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle Program and Alternatives

* US CBO (Nov 6/12) – Technical Challenges of the U.S. Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle Program. Outstanding: accessible, clear, and informative.

* US GAO (June 16/11, #GAO-11-502) – DOD Weapon Systems: Missed Trade-off Opportunities During Requirements Reviews

* US GAO (March 9/11, #GAO-11-425T) – Key Questions Confront the Army’s Ground Force Modernization Initiatives

* US GAO (April 15/10, #GAO-10-603T) – Defense Acquisitions: Opportunities and Challenges for Army Ground Force Modernization Efforts