bobdina
05-10-2010, 12:03 PM
Ground Combat Vehicle may be tracked
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday May 10, 2010 6:42:38 EDT
Army modernization officials say the Ground Combat Vehicle may have to be tracked instead of wheeled if it’s going to include the features combat units want out of the future Bradley replacement.
“When you start asking what you want this vehicle to do in terms of survivability, weight is a factor; the number of people that it carries, weight is a factor; do you want a turret on top, weight is a factor; and those kinds of attributes I think drive you to a tracked vehicle,” Lt. Gen. Robert P. Lennox, deputy chief of staff, G-8, told reporters April 29.
Defense companies have until May 21 to submit their design proposals for the GCV, a program the Army launched following Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision to kill the 27-ton Manned Ground Vehicles portion of the Army’s Future Combat Systems program in the fiscal 2010 defense budget, criticizing the design as ill-suited to survive current battlefield threats.
The first GCV will be an infantry carrier that the Army hopes to develop and begin fielding by 2016.
Lennox’s comments came a day after the release of the 2010 Army Modernization Strategy, a sweeping plan that maps out the service’s development and fielding goals for its futuristic fighting force.
The strategy discusses the path for developing and fielding new capabilities and procuring upgraded equipment and technology. It has a strong focus on cost-benefit analysis of all modernization programs.
One such program under heavy scrutiny is the Non-Line of Sight Launch System, also known as “rockets in a box.” Army acquisition officials recommended on April 22 that the NLOS LS program be canceled because it’s too expensive, unreliable and ill-suited for the current war.
The self-contained system, made by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, can be left unattended in remote areas to give commanders more options for destroying stationary or large moving targets.
NLOS LS was intended to arm infantry brigade combat teams with an unmanned, precision-firecapability as part of the Increment 1 Capability Set scheduled for fielding next year.
This became less certain when the system failed four out of six times during a flight-limited user test at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., between Jan. 26 and Feb. 5.
Even if the problem could be fixed, the Army concluded in early April that NLOS LS would not be issued to the 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, the first unit scheduled to be equipped with the Increment 1 set.
Army modernization officials refused to comment on the pending NLOS LS recommendation the service will make to the Defense Department, which oversees the program that was originally developed as part of FCS.
No recommendation had been made as of press time April 30.
There is no mention of NLOS LS, however, in the 91-page Army Modernization Strategy document.
While not speaking directly about NLOS LS, Lennox said that other precision-fires systems such as the Guided Multi-Rocket Launch System, Joint Direct Attack Munition, Hellfire missile and Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile could perform a similar mission.
“Each individual system seems to make sense when you look at it by itself, but when you look at the range of different systems you ... ask yourself, ‘Is there redundancy?’ ” Lennox said.
He also said that analysis has shown that precision indirect fire has not been in high demand in the current fight.
“The amount and expenditure of precision indirect-fire weapons has not been through the roof; it has been less than we expected,” he said. “I think we are informed a little bit by that in terms of the amount and the burning need of this.”
And then there’s the cost. The Army has spent $1.2 billion on NLOS LS and currently has requested $431 million for the program in the fiscal 2011 budget, said Paul Mehney, spokesman for the Army’s modernization effort. The missiles for NLOS LS cost about $388,000 each.
The Army will look at “a host of options” for precision fires, said Lt. Gen. William Phillips, principal military deputy for the secretary of the Army for acquisitions, logistics and technology.
“It’s important that the right systems are built into IBCTs as they go into combat,” Phillips said, talking about the capability packages effort.
Modernization officials have already killed two other pieces of equipment that emerged from the FCS program — the Class 4 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or Fire Scout; and Multifunction Utility Logistics Equipment vehicle, known as the MULE.
“If they prove to not be reliable or ready to be fielded to our soldiers ... we are not going to field those systems,” Phillips said.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/05/army_modernization_050810w/
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday May 10, 2010 6:42:38 EDT
Army modernization officials say the Ground Combat Vehicle may have to be tracked instead of wheeled if it’s going to include the features combat units want out of the future Bradley replacement.
“When you start asking what you want this vehicle to do in terms of survivability, weight is a factor; the number of people that it carries, weight is a factor; do you want a turret on top, weight is a factor; and those kinds of attributes I think drive you to a tracked vehicle,” Lt. Gen. Robert P. Lennox, deputy chief of staff, G-8, told reporters April 29.
Defense companies have until May 21 to submit their design proposals for the GCV, a program the Army launched following Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision to kill the 27-ton Manned Ground Vehicles portion of the Army’s Future Combat Systems program in the fiscal 2010 defense budget, criticizing the design as ill-suited to survive current battlefield threats.
The first GCV will be an infantry carrier that the Army hopes to develop and begin fielding by 2016.
Lennox’s comments came a day after the release of the 2010 Army Modernization Strategy, a sweeping plan that maps out the service’s development and fielding goals for its futuristic fighting force.
The strategy discusses the path for developing and fielding new capabilities and procuring upgraded equipment and technology. It has a strong focus on cost-benefit analysis of all modernization programs.
One such program under heavy scrutiny is the Non-Line of Sight Launch System, also known as “rockets in a box.” Army acquisition officials recommended on April 22 that the NLOS LS program be canceled because it’s too expensive, unreliable and ill-suited for the current war.
The self-contained system, made by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, can be left unattended in remote areas to give commanders more options for destroying stationary or large moving targets.
NLOS LS was intended to arm infantry brigade combat teams with an unmanned, precision-firecapability as part of the Increment 1 Capability Set scheduled for fielding next year.
This became less certain when the system failed four out of six times during a flight-limited user test at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., between Jan. 26 and Feb. 5.
Even if the problem could be fixed, the Army concluded in early April that NLOS LS would not be issued to the 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, the first unit scheduled to be equipped with the Increment 1 set.
Army modernization officials refused to comment on the pending NLOS LS recommendation the service will make to the Defense Department, which oversees the program that was originally developed as part of FCS.
No recommendation had been made as of press time April 30.
There is no mention of NLOS LS, however, in the 91-page Army Modernization Strategy document.
While not speaking directly about NLOS LS, Lennox said that other precision-fires systems such as the Guided Multi-Rocket Launch System, Joint Direct Attack Munition, Hellfire missile and Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile could perform a similar mission.
“Each individual system seems to make sense when you look at it by itself, but when you look at the range of different systems you ... ask yourself, ‘Is there redundancy?’ ” Lennox said.
He also said that analysis has shown that precision indirect fire has not been in high demand in the current fight.
“The amount and expenditure of precision indirect-fire weapons has not been through the roof; it has been less than we expected,” he said. “I think we are informed a little bit by that in terms of the amount and the burning need of this.”
And then there’s the cost. The Army has spent $1.2 billion on NLOS LS and currently has requested $431 million for the program in the fiscal 2011 budget, said Paul Mehney, spokesman for the Army’s modernization effort. The missiles for NLOS LS cost about $388,000 each.
The Army will look at “a host of options” for precision fires, said Lt. Gen. William Phillips, principal military deputy for the secretary of the Army for acquisitions, logistics and technology.
“It’s important that the right systems are built into IBCTs as they go into combat,” Phillips said, talking about the capability packages effort.
Modernization officials have already killed two other pieces of equipment that emerged from the FCS program — the Class 4 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or Fire Scout; and Multifunction Utility Logistics Equipment vehicle, known as the MULE.
“If they prove to not be reliable or ready to be fielded to our soldiers ... we are not going to field those systems,” Phillips said.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/05/army_modernization_050810w/