09 June 2011
Is the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle At Risk? The U.S. Army can’t seem to catch a break. Its new Chief of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, was barely in the job a month before President Obama nominated him to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Retired Army General, Malcolm O’Neil, currently that service’s reform-minded Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, suddenly announced his retirement for personal reasons after only a year in office. Then there was last year’s fiasco involving Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal. The only good news is that General Raymond Odierno, the outgoing head of the disestablished Joint Forces Command, has been nominated to take Dempsey’s place as Chief of Staff.
The same may be said about Army acquisition programs. In recent years the Army has suffered from one failed acquisition program after another. There was the cancellation of the Comanche helicopter program followed by the collapse of its replacement, the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter. Defense Secretary Robert Gates pulled the plug on the Rumsfeld-era, system-of-systems, network-centric Future Combat System (FCS) back in April, 2009. Most recently, the Army decided to cancel virtually all the spin out technologies from the FCS when it was determined in field testing that they performed poorly. The M-ATV program specifically designed for conditions in Afghanistan may not be providing adequate protection absent additional armor that compromises vehicle performance.
As a result, the credibility of the Army’s entire acquisition enterprise rests on a single program, the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV). It is intended as a replacement for the venerable Bradley infantry fighting vehicle with the ability to carry a full squad of nine soldiers plus crew and sufficient power generation to handle all the modern electronics festooning Army vehicles. The singular nature of the GCV program to the Army is reinforced by the fact that this is the second time the Army issued a request for proposals (RFP) to design such a vehicle. The second RFP is supposed to be a demonstration of the Army’s new approach to major acquisitions. It drastically reduced the number of key performance parameters and specified a cost ceiling for the vehicle and a target for operating costs. By the way, it was Assistant Secretary of the Army O’Neill who was responsible for the withdrawal of the first GCV proposal and the design of the second.
Now stories are circulating that the GCV may be in deep trouble. The Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office has been raising concerns regarding the program’s cost and schedule. Initially, the CAPE raised doubts about the program’s ability to meet a design-to price of around $10 million a copy. More recently, the CAPE began questioning the requirement that production of the new vehicle begin in seven years, believing ten is a more reasonable goal. According to some, relations between the program office and CAPE officials have turned testy.
If the GCV program cannot meet its target for cost and schedule it is almost certainly doomed to follow the FCS into oblivion. This would be too bad for a number of reasons. GCV contenders have proposed a number of very significant innovations including a range of electronics enhancements, a variety of cost-lowering maintenance and support techniques and, in the case of BAE Systems, a hybrid electric drive that would improve vehicle performance and lower fuel costs.
Part of the problem may be analytical. The CAPE uses historical data to project likely cost and schedules. This does not allow for any improvements in the way programs are managed, systems are built or work forces trained. But if the proposing companies or the program office want to argue that they have broken with history it is up to them to explain how this feat is going to be accomplished.
Unfortunately, the argument over GCV’s cost and schedule has already delayed the awarding of initial development contracts. The companies that bid are paying the month-to-month costs of keeping their teams together waiting for an award. If outstanding issues cannot be resolved soon, the future of the program could be seriously compromised. (Source: Lexington Institute)
Dynamic landing for army vehicles - POORAKA-based General Dynamics Land Systems Australia has won a five-year contract servicing army vehicles used in Australia and Afghanistan.
The deal is potentially worth up to $100 million.
Managing director Gary Stewart welcomed the announcement by Defense Materiel Minister Jason Clare saying work on the army's fleet of Abrams tanks, light armored vehicles and Hercules recovery vehicles would be spread across sites in Darwin, Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide.
A total of $44.8m will be paid to cover maintenance support of the units, mostly in Brisbane and Darwin, with the balance to be paid for supply of spare parts, repairs and tasking based on need.
The Australian company, a business unit of General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada, in London, Ontario, had its headquarters based in Pooraka and of the 70 staff based at the site about 40 would directly support the Through Life Support contract.
"The long range focus of this program also presents the opportunity for Australian industry to participate in General Dynamics' global supply chain," Mr. Stewart said.
"We look forward to engaging with Australian companies as part of our design, manufacturing and sustainment transfer initiatives for this contract and other programs."
The contract was expected to mean about 30 new jobs but Mr. Stewart said this was unlikely to affect numbers at the Adelaide site where there is a depot repair workshop.
"This is where we do our supply chain management and engineering," he said.
Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been awarded a $4.9m contract from Elbit Systems to upgrade 777 military vehicles as part of the Australian Army's Land 200 Program. BAE will prepare the vehicles for the installation of a Battle Group and Below Command, Control and Communications system.
Work on the M113 armored personnel carriers will be carried out at the new 7RAR facility at Edinburgh Parks in northern Adelaide, and on other vehicles in Brisbane. (Source: The Advertiser)
Panetta Sees ‘Difficult Choices’ Ahead on U.S. Defense Spending - Leon Panetta, President Barack Obama’s nominee to succeed retiring Defense Secretary Robert Gates, says he expects that “difficult choices will have to be made” to rein in defense spending and reduce the federal deficit.
“If confirmed, I will work to make disciplined decisions in ways that minimize impacts on our national security,” Panetta, who is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said in a 79-page set of answers to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee in advance of his confirmation hearing, scheduled for tomorrow.
“But it must be understood that a smaller budget means difficult choices will have to be made,” he said.
Gates has said that to save money for new weapons, it may be necessary to cut personnel costs -- including troop pay, benefits and the size of the force.
Panetta told the committee that if confirmed, he would play a “large role” in the comprehensive review begun by Gates to assess options for reducing defense spending by $400 billion through 2023 beyond the $78 billion already planned through 2016. The review, ordered by Obama, will be a “strategy-driven approach” that is “essential to ensuring we preserve a superb defense even under fiscal pressure,” he said.
“I will not hesitate to provide my views on the potential consequences of proposed future changes in the DoD’s budget,’ he said.
Many of Panetta’s answers repeat administration policy or don’t provide specifics. Still, they will be parsed by defense industry and strategy analysts for insights into his priorities, especially on weapons programs. (Source: Bloomberg)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment