Cost and quantities are two of the issues Congress could consider as it continues its close scrutiny of the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), according to a new report by its research arm.
With fewer troops and a very tight fiscal environment, the April 17 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report offers members a succinct detailing of GCV background and potential issues. The report was obtained from the Federation of American Scientists Project on Secrecy.
A potential issue is the role and need for the GCV in a smaller Army with fewer armored brigade combat teams (ABCT) that are part of a focus now on the Asia-Pacific region, the 22-page report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) said.
The Army wants the GCV, which would have more protection, lethality and mobility than the M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles the service wants to replace in its 16 Active and eight National Guard ABCTs, the CRS report said. The Army has said it will cut at least eight active BCTs from the current force, and the service would be reduced by some 80,000 soldiers.
The report said, “Many experts believe the Army will cut anywhere from 10 to 15 BCTs and a portion of these will be ABCTs.” That could mean the service might not need the numbers of GCVs it now plans to procure.
Also noted was that with an Asia-Pacific focus, large numbers of Army forces might not be deployed there.
“In light of questions about the number of ABCTs the Army intends to field and the role of heavy ground forces in the future U.S. strategic construct, Congress might decide to require the Army to re-evaluate the GCV program in terms of numbers of vehicles required and the utility of ABCTs in the new Asia-Pacific strategic plan,” the report said.
The Defense Department’s Jan. 16 GCV program changes also might have a long-term overall program cost consideration from what the report said is “stretching out the program.”
The DoD changes could result in more than $4 billion in savings from FY 2014 to FY 2019. But there are other cost issues.
For example, “will extending the (technology development) TD phase by six months and delaying the Milestone C decision by up to a year add additional post-FY2019 program costs,” the report said. “Furthermore, will going from two to one competitors during the EMD phase–even though the Acquisition Decision Memorandum would permit other vendors from proposing non-U.S. (Non-Developmental Item) NDI GCV versions–eliminate cost savings associated with competition between vendors?”
There could also be a “less than efficient buy size” if the Army decides to buy fewer than 1,874 GCVs because of ABCT force structure cuts, CRS said in its report.
Congress might also consider a revised report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on GCV alternatives, using “more current data.” The report relied on data from 2010 and was challenged by General Dynamics [GD]and BAE Systems, both of whom are working under technology development contracts on the GCV.
CRS plans to update the report.