By Ann Roosevelt
The results of the Army’s Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) of the Ground Combat Vehicle support the service’s design concepts over other possibilities, such as Bradley Fighting Vehicle variants.
The service is currently evaluating proposals for a GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) from teams led by BAE Systems, General Dynamics [GD] and SAIC [SAI].
The March 2011 report, delivered to the congressional armed services committees, examined a variety of alternative vehicles to the GCV, to include the baseline Bradley M2A3 IFV, an upgraded version of the current Bradley M2A3, Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) GCV IFV design concepts, modernized Stryker vehicle, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) variants and two unnamed foreign non-developmental systems, referred to as Vehicles X and Y.
Specifics of the AoA may reassure some congressional skeptics. The pending FY ’11 omnibus appropriations bill includes a $473 million cut for Army manned-ground-vehicle funding attributed to a “pricetag adjustment.”
The AoA initial findings in August 2010 compelled subsequent trades that were completed in November 2010, the analysis said.
The analysis led to the service reconsidering the GCV acquisition strategy and request for proposals. At the same time, the service initiated a trade assessment of GCV threshold requirements and optional technology solutions comparing GCV to Bradley M2A3 alternatives–constrained by a cost target for a medium risk program. Additionally, the study team conducted performance and effectiveness analysis to support the assessment.
Among key points are: the initial draft Army Cost Position was established at $15.3 million–a reduction from $18.2 million due primarily to the refinement of sensor payloads. And, following cost-informed design trades, the GCV design concept average unit manufacturing cost is $10.1 million or less compared to $6.3 million for M2A3 BLK II “and is judged to be affordable commensurate with other comparable Acquisition Category (ACAT) 1 programs,” the AoA writes.
Operationally, the trade assessment also found that the GCV design concept force, compared to M2A3 variants, was “more effective, more lethal, survived as good or better and suffered fewer soldier casualties across full spectrum operations–as much as 20 percent to 40 percent better than M2A3 BLK II and up to 80 percent better than M2A3 OIF.”
Additionally, the assessment found the GCV design concept had as good or better than “MRAP like” protection against the widest spectrum of threats compared to M2A3 variants, the best off-road mobility and cross-country speed, and much greater growth potential.