The Congressional Budget Office yesterday released a report that said there are better options for the Army’s desired new $29 billion Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) after evaluating four alternatives.
“Although none of those alternatives would meet all of the Army’s goals for the GCV program, all are likely to be less costly and less risky (in terms of unanticipated cost increases and schedule delays) than CBO anticipates will be the case under the Army’s plan,” the report said.
For the past few years, the Army has consistently said it needs a new infantry fighting vehicle, with the ability to protect itself from threats from all directions, be able to operate after an attack, be effective as a weapon against the enemy, be mobile on and off road, and able carry a full nine-member infantry squad as well as the vehicle crew of three (Defense Daily, Feb. 23, 2012).
Such evaluations are not new. In 2011, the Army Analysis of Alternatives supported the Army’s GCV program over alternatives such as the baseline Bradley, an upgraded Bradley, GCVV design concepts, modernized Stryker, variants of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles and two foreign unnamed non-developmental systems “vehicles X and Y” (Defense Daily, April 14, 2011).
The new CBO report examined four options.
One option is to buy the Israeli Namer armored personnel carrier, developed by the Israeli Ordnance Corps.
A second option would be to upgrade the BAE Systems‘ Bradley.
The Army could also buy the German Puma, produced by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall Landsysteme.
The fourth option would be for the Army to cancel the GCV that teams led by BAE and General Dynamics [GD] are currently working on under technology development contracts awarded in 2011 (Defense Daily, Aug. 22, 2011). This option would retain the current Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
CBO assessed the options on two metrics. The first were improvements in categories compared to the current Bradley IFV based on soldier’s preferences. The second metric emphasized the vehicle’s ability to reach Army goals by giving more weight to the capacity for carrying passengers and giving additional credit to vehicles that could carry a nine-member squad.
Using the improvements metric, the Puma and upgraded Bradley IFV would be “significantly” more capable than the GCV, the report said.
“In addition, fielding Pumas or upgraded Bradleys would cost $14 billion and $9 billion less, respectively, than the Army’s program for the GCV and would pose less risk of cost overruns and schedule delay,” it said. Namer would be less capable “overall” than the GCV, but would still carry nine passengers.
Measuring the ability of the vehicles to carry a nine-member squad, CBO found only GCV and the could carry that number, with the Namer “slightly” more capable.
Even by this metric, “fielding a fleet of Pumas would give the Army slightly more capability than a fleet of GCVs and at only half the cost of the GCV.” There also would be less risk of cost overruns and schedule delays.
Choosing option four, canceling the GCV and relying on the current Bradley IFV until additional capabilities are more urgently needed and new technologies were available, would be “$24 billion less than the GCV projected cost,” and there would be “essentially” no programmatic risk.
Defense analysts and policy makers have challenged the Army’s GCV program for its goals, schedule and how it applies to the current global environment.
Last month, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) President Andrew Krepinevich said the GCV program needed scrutiny because it offered “marginal” capability improvement, in light of restricting finances and looming sequestration (Defense Daily Feb. 14).
The top Pentagon acquisition official Frank Kendall said in January that “fiscal pressures” and the need for more development time led to a GCV program restructure and six-month delay for the program (Defense Daily, Jan. 18).
In November, CBO issued a companion working paper on technical challenges to the GCV program. It examined things such as the need for 360 degree protection against threats, meaning more armor or a high technology solution, both of which increase weight. That makes the vehicle more difficult to transport and it also would consume more fuel. A heavy vehicle also damages roads and bridges. Its size–able to carry a full nine-member squad–makes it difficult for the vehicle to traverse narrow urban streets or country roads.