Budget limits efforts to add, upgrade vehicles - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

Budget limits efforts to add, upgrade vehicles

The Army’s various vehicle-development efforts are in flux. Flatlining defense budgets may end some of the big-ticket technology development programs, but may also create opportunities for less ambitious upgrade efforts. Meanwhile, the Army is still figuring out how to use lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan to shape its future force.

Analysts who track military vehicles say there will be a lot to watch in the coming months. The rollout of the 2012 budget, tentatively scheduled for Feb. 14, will provide many of the details. More will depend on whether Congress decides to pass an appropriations bill for 2011 or merely extend the continuing resolution for a full year.

A congressional source said the 2012 budget will lay out the path for Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and Stryker wheeled vehicles, including the planned addition of a double V-hull. But the source added that many Army and Defense Department programs will be in trouble if Congress fails to pass an appropriations bill for 2011.

The current continuing resolution extends funding at 2010 levels until March 4.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that some of the Army’s $29 billion in savings over the next five years will go to modernize the service’s vehicles.

“The key driver of armored vehicle developments in 2011 will be budget trends, not new technology,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.

The combination of budget pressures and the lack of breakthrough technologies does not bode well for the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle program, which accepted the second round of industry bids Jan. 21 after issuing a revised request for proposals in November.

Bids were received from a SAIC-led team that includes Boeing, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall; a BAE Systems-Northrop Grumman-led effort; and a General Dynamics Land Systems-led group that includes Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

The Army plans to award up to three contracts in April. If a continuing resolution, rather than a full appropriations bill, is passed for 2011, the GCV contracts could be delayed.

The Army says it wants to develop a vehicle in seven years that has built-in growth potential. In theory, the vehicle would offer modest improvement over the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle in the near term, while leaving room to grow for the future.

The Army has set the cost target for the vehicle at $9 million to $10.5 million.

With the technologies available, this price won’t cut it, Thompson said.

“I expect GCV to suffer the same fate as the [Marines’] Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and for much the same reason,” Thompson said. “The political system is unwilling to pay revolutionary prices for evolutionary products.”

James Hasik, a defense consultant who writes an industrial analysis blog, agrees that there do not appear to be any technology breakthroughs that make the GCV program necessary.

“The apparent technological trajectories of the basic components of armored vehicles — armor, engines, cannons, missiles — don’t suggest that some portentous breakthrough will be available in the next seven years,” he said.

Hasik said he would watch the Marine Corps’ efforts more closely.

“If the Marine Personnel Carrier is really to be accelerated, then it will be one of the biggest near-term armored vehicle programs anywhere, worldwide,” Hasik said.

With the requirements more modest compared to those of the Army’s GCV program, several off-the-shelf vehicles could be in the running, he said.

Similarly, the Army’s effort to upgrade its Humvees is shaping up to be an intense competition for similar reasons: requirements are not overly ambitious, industry has options ready to go and the large number of vehicles means a lot of money is at stake.

The Humvee upgrade effort, as well as the 8,500 mine-resistant, ambush-protected all terrain vehicles purchased, leads to the question: Will the Pentagon pursue the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program?

Currently competing in the program are Lockheed Martin; a BAE-Navistar team; and General Tactical Vehicles, formed by General Dynamics Land Systems and Humvee maker AM General.

Technology development contracts were awarded in October 2008; the teams delivered prototypes in May.

The program plans to complete this phase of testing by March, with a milestone B decision is planned for the fourth quarter. The program intends to reopen the competition for the engineering and manufacturing development stage.

While the budget is a primary driver of vehicle development, so too are the lessons from war, not just from the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Israel Defense Forces fighting in Lebanon and Gaza.

“I think what you’ll see are designs that are protecting against the spectrum of threats, unlike the MRAP, which fundamentally is designed to deal with one specific threat,” said Dave Johnson, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corp.

This means protection against improvised explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank guided missiles.

These threats also lead to a renewed appreciation for off-road mobility, Johnson said, pointing to the Marine Corps’ recent deployment of M1 Abrams tanks to Afghanistan.

“Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza dragged every army in the world back to this understanding of how lethal even irregular warfare environments can be and how ubiquitous the threat can be,” Johnson said.