Friday, December 07, 2012

US Army's Ground Combat Vehicle in trouble...

You could feel this one coming.

And it all started with the weight APC that weighs more than an Abrams Main Battle Tank?  No one could imagine that.  It might make all the sense in the world but no one could wrap their heads around that one little tidbit.  More than 80 tons.

But to be honest I really get the feeling that the Army is sacrificing the GCV to the procurement Gods in order to get the vehicle they really want.  No not the Double Vee Hulled Strykers.  The vehicle the Army is really lusting after is the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV).  The M-113 is the vehicle more than any other that the Army is ready to put to pasture and if the GCV must die in order to make that happen then so be it.  Check this out from Inside Defense.

The Army's Ground Combat Vehicle development is poised to be hit by massive budget cuts that could radically transform it from one of the service's most prized modernization efforts to an endangered program,Inside the Army has learned.A draft resource management decision from the Office of the Secretary of Defense would cut $150 million from the Army's $1.4 billion budget request for the GCV in fiscal year 2014, but deeper cuts are also being considered by OSD's cost assessment and program evaluation shop (CAPE) under a "ground forces program review" study. Sources said those cuts would slash between $600 million and $700 million annually from the GCV program between FY-14 and FY-18, according to a Defense Department official close to the matter."I think the writing on the wall is that the spigot is rapidly closing and we need to start dealing with that reality," the official said. "It's just overall bad timing for a new and expensive vehicle program."The coming drawdown in Afghanistan, coupled with cries for increased budget austerity at home, may make it impossible for the Army to fund the GCV's development to the extent it once wished, the official said.
Army GCV meet Marine Corps EFV.  We loved you both and you both could have been great.


  1. Well,is this a bad thing?In my belive your Bradley is already one of the best IFVs out why a new vehicle? Just upgrade it whit a new gun a new engine and be done whit it for the next 20 years.
    Now the M-113 really needs to be replaced.A turretless Bradley or a tracked Stryker makes sense...
    In my opinion the improved Bradley makes sense in bouth programs.What do you think Solomon?

  2. As soon as "80+ tons" was revealed it was SOL no matter what it's other qualities.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.