TOPICS
TOPICS
Army makes progress on plan for next combat vehicle
Six months after the demise of the $160 billion Future Combat Systems, the Army's latest effort to modernize its fighting forces is well under way, hitting two milestones last week that ultimately will define what the service's next combat vehicle will be and how the Army will buy it.
More than 650 representatives from about 60 companies gathered in Dearborn, Mich., Friday to hear and provide feedback on the service's preliminary plans for the ground combat vehicles that will replace the vehicles that formed the hardware core of FCS.
The meeting marked the first outreach to industry officials, who signed nondisclosure forms barring them from discussing any of the Army's preliminary specifications and requirements for the vehicles. They now have until the end of the month to submit "white papers" to the Army in advance of another meeting next month.
The goal, according to Army officials, is to get feedback from the industry on what is technologically feasible and affordable before the service rolls out a formal request for proposals early next year, which would mark the official start of the competition.
"We want to bring industry early into this process so we're not just providing them a fait accompli" when the request for proposals is released, Col. Brian McVeigh, product manager for manned systems integration, said during a teleconference Monday.
Rickey Smith, director of the Washington, D.C.-area office of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, added that setting a requirement for the vehicles "without resourcing or the ability to achieve it is a fantasy."
As industry representatives gathered in Michigan, senior Army officials met Friday at the Pentagon with Defense Department acquisition chief Ashton Carter, who evaluated the service's post-FCS modernization strategy.
Topics at the high-level Pentagon meeting included the Army's plans to develop and field the ground combat vehicle, which service officials hope will be ready in five to seven years, an Army source said.
Officials also discussed the Army's strategy for integrating the electronic network designed for FCS into its force. They also reviewed plans to develop and field many of the other technologies that had been developed under the FCS program.
Sometime in the next several days, Carter is expected to sign off on a memo endorsing the Army's plans or providing recommendations on how officials should proceed, the source said.
Smith, whose office participated in a task force created this summer to draft the Army's path forward, signaled he was optimistic that Carter wants the Army to "continue to march in the approach that we're taking."
The Army has been scrambling to devise modernization plans since Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced in April his decision to kill the FCS ground vehicles - whose price tag was expected to total $87 billion -- because of concerns the Army had not adequately incorporated lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan in their design.
In June, the Pentagon formally ended the FCS program and directed the Army to devise a modernization strategy made up of separate programs. The service still is pursuing many of the other technologies developed under FCS, but those efforts will now be called Army Brigade Combat Team Modernization.
The first batch of those technologies -- including small unmanned air and ground vehicles and unattended ground sensors -- underwent an intensive "critical design review" in St. Louis last week.
The Army source indicated that there are some lingering technical questions from the design review, but it was generally considered to be a success.
COMMENTS
- Hey Tipoff: Do you really think the engineers at Ford cant figure this out that our engineers would be better at designing something for this arena. Give me a break. Your arrogence demands this you sited all the obvious for mission capable vehicle thats all you have? And of course the big 3 could never cover those requirements. Yes Osh Kosk builds a nice piece but lets get real when you blow it up alls that left is the steel box the soldiers ride in so lets simplify F350 chassis 7.3 stick 4X4 crew cab build steel box pretty much the same thing for a quarter of the cost and you would get high back leatherseats and A/C for that price. But really Tipoff I understand what you are saying I am in this business I do understand its just the money we have poured into the hummer and now this giant thing that cant get out of its way the sustainment of these alone is very costly since you cant get the parts at the corner store. some vehicle may need to be these huge heavy bohemoths but most small manuverable and fast is needed. One wont fit all not today from jungles to deserts we need to be diverse for sure but we still need to be good custodians of the taxpayers dollars. LC Posted November 20, 2009 1:25 PM
- “heck, an F350 pick up is perfect and parts are readily available at every corner in America” and “Hey genius the standard 1 ton trucks our AMERICAN let me stress AMERICAN companies build can be armored and put tons of material in them and sustainment can be obtained right at your local Auto Zone or NAPA everyone wins.” LC, I don’t like doing this but your vehement attitude almost demands it. You appear to be not only clueless on military vehicle requirements but also have quite an attitude. Know anything about vehicle weight limits? Reactive armor? Assault squad gear? High speed assault vehicles? Manuevering? Command and control systems? Snorkel systems? Bugging out under fire? I must admit thinking that if you had ever spent ANY time in the military or on the current beach front, you must have forgotten everything you learn from those mean streets. BLUF, there is NO one-size-fits-all, or rather there is NO one-truck-fits-all; unless, of course, you’d rather ride sitting on your helmet like the chopper crews did in ‘Nam, and that won’t save your arms and legs. Military vehicles are required to meet standards and missions no civilian vehicle can match. A personal fan of the Fords, having had both an F-150 (long bed, 4X4) and and E-350; yes, I will agree, a lot could be done with them but even an armored-up camo vehicle from some backwoods hunting club couldn’t save your derriere in THIS sand box. Either get a grip on yourself, or get a clue. Tip off Posted October 26, 2009 4:37 PM
- how much net payoad would an F350 have after loading 3000lb of armour on it? is the weight of the armour on the deployed hummers public info? if so, what is it? not detracting from ford trucks, but the Hummer is designed for a different job than the F series pickups, extreme all-terrain with a reasonable payload, the Hummer will go places the Ford just can't. The Fs used as designed do just fine, hard surface and some all-terrain. b. t. Posted October 22, 2009 10:25 AM









