Navistar Logo | Navistar Wins Two DoD Truck Contracts (click for larger image)

In each case, the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) is the contracting activity.

Both projects involve modified trucks — in the first case general transport trucks, in the second fuel trucks and water trucks — that will be Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. MRAPs is the designation for various vehicles modified with heavy armor to to survive IED attacks and ambushes.

In one assignment, International Military and Government LLC of West Point, MS, a Navistar Defense operating unit, will outfit 248 general transport trucks. This project is valued by DoD at $35.9 million, according to a “firm-fixed-price three-year requirements contract.”

This work order is scheduled to be finished by the end of April 2011.

The second assignment involves 55 fuel trucks and 23 water trucks and is valued at by DoD at $10.9 million according to a firm-fixed-price three-year requirements contract.

Navistar Defense will complete the project at Jacksonville, TX, by the end of September, DoD stated.

Related Posts

• Navistar Wins New Defense Vehicle Contracts — Afghanistan | MaxxPro | MRAP | Navistar | NYSE:NAV | sustainment | TACOM
• Navistar Defense Receives New Vehicle Orders — Army | automotive | Defense | Military | MRAP | news | TACOM
• Oshkosh Wins Contract to Upgrade Armor Trucks — Armor | Army | Defense | Military | news | NYSE:OSK | Oshkosh | safety | Survivability | trucks

“The Class I UAV is an essential asset for identifying improvised explosive devices and other hazards facing soldiers,” said Vicki Panhuise, Honeywell Vice President, U.S. Defense Customers. “It is the only unmanned system with hovering capability to identify opposing forces located on roof tops, within buildings and along maneuver routes well in advance of the Army unit.”

The Class 1 Unmanned Aerial System, branded by Honeywell as T-Hawk™ micro air vehicle, is a 17-pound vehicle that can hover and stare with an option of electro optical and infrared camera for real-time surveillance without exposing soldiers to enemy fire.

The T-Hawk can take off and land vertically and can fly more than 40 minutes. In addition, the vehicle can move at more than 40 knots of airspeed and operates at density altitudes of more than 7,500 feet. Other versions of the T-Hawk have been fielded in Afghanistan and Iraq with the U.S. Army and Navy, and are on order for the U.K. Ministry of Defense. Each vehicle is small enough to carry in a backpack, weighing less than 20 pounds when fueled and measuring 14 inches in diameter.

Low-rate initial production will allow for the capabilities to be fielded to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Armored Division for initial operational test and evaluation beginning in 2011.

The contract award follows a successful production review by the Defense Acquisition Board in December.

A key element of BCTM, Increment 1 will provide soldiers with enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as increased survivability and lethality.

Related Posts

• Boeing: BCT Modernization Increment 1 Capabilities — Army | BCT | Boeing | Defense | news | SAIC | Survivability | UAV | Unmanned
• E-IBCT Capabilities Complete Critical Design Review — Army | BCT | Boeing | CDR | E-IBCT | GCV | ICD | NYSE:BA | NYSE:SAI | SAIC | Survivability | UAV | UGS | UGV | Unmanned
• Army Receives Go-Ahead for First Modernized BCT — AETF | Army | BCT | Defense | E-IBCT | FCS | Unmanned

permalink: Honeywell UAV Included In BCTM Increment 1
topics: Contractors, Defense, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
tagged: acquisition, Afghanistan, Army, BCTM, Boeing, Brigade Combat Team, Combat, contract, Defense, Infrared, Iraq, Logistics, Measuring, optical, Production, support, Survivability, training, UAV, Unmanned, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

The Army on Wednesday announced it would revamp the terms of the competition after a review done together with Pentagon acquisition officials showed risks in proceeding as planned.

The unexpected change to the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program threatens jobs as well as revenue for the competing teams of companies and marks another setback for the Army’s effort to develop new infantry vehicles.

The new program was developed to replace the ground vehicle part of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) modernization program, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled in April 2009, saying it had not kept up with changing wartime demands.

The prime contractors bidding for the program are: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC, Inc.) [NYSE:SAI], Britain’s BAE Systems [LON:BA], and General Dynamics Corporation [NYSE:GD], and their subcontractors include many of the largest U.S. defense contractors, such as Lockheed Martin Corporation [NYSE:LMT], The Boeing Company [NYSE:BA], and Raytheon Company [NYSE:RTN].

The companies submitted bids in May and expected a contract award next month. They were notified about the Army’s decision to early on Wednesday, according to several industry and government sources familiar with the program.

“The Army seems to be losing its way on vehicle modernization and undercutting the ability of its suppliers to meet future needs,” said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.

Thompson, who has close ties to industry and defense officials, told Reuters the decision effectively amounted to a one-year delay in the Army’s largest acquisition program at the same time that it was also rethinking plans for a major program to replace its workhorse Humvees.

Now a contract award is unlikely before mid-2011, jeopardizing engineering jobs at the companies bidding for the work, Thompson said.

He said Pentagon could also still decide to put its increasingly scarce dollars into modernization and upgrades of existing tanker and Stryker vehicles instead of proceeding with the new ground combat vehicle program, he said.

Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Jimmie Cummings said the Army and Pentagon acquisition officials conducted a holistic study of the GCV program in May 2010, examining proposed vehicle capabilities, operational needs, the acquisition strategy, program schedule and technology readiness.

The study concluded that Army needed to prioritize the planned vehicle’s capabilities to meet achievable goals within the program’s acquisition schedule, he said.

That prompted the Army to conclude that it needed to revamp its plans for the program to reduce developmental risk and keep the program on track to deliver a new armored vehicle for groups troops in about seven years.

The Army’s decision to postpone the ground vehicle acquisition — a deal valued at tens of billions of dollars over the next years — comes just days after the U.S. Navy said it was putting off a contract award in its biggest new acquisition program for a new coastal warship.

A decision on the Air Force’s biggest acquisition program, for new refueling tankers, has also been delayed, fueling speculation among some industry executives that the Obama administration is trying to postpone potentially controversial contract decisions, and possible job losses, until after the mid-term elections in November.

Related Posts

• GCV Shortlist Revealed — AM General | Armor | Army | assets | BAE Systems | Boeing | C4ISR | Combat | detroit | Electronics | Engineering | GCV | General Dynamics | IFV | industry | LON:BA | Manufacturing | Mobility | Navistar | news | NYSE:BA | NYSE:GD | NYSE:LMT | NYSE:NAV | NYSE:NOC | Oshkosh | Precision | protection | Raytheon | RFP | SAIC | Stryker | Survivability | systems | technology | weight
• Army Abruptly Cancels, Delays GCV Competition — acquisition | Army | Combat | contract | Defense | GCV | leadership | protection | RFP | service | Strategy
• US Army Delays GCV Deadline — Armor | Army | Boeing | Bradley Fighting Vehicle | Defense | GCV | IED | IFV | LON:BA | Manufacturing | Mobility | MRAP | Navistar | news | NYSE:BA | NYSE:GD | NYSE:LMT | NYSE:NOC | NYSE:OSK | Oshkosh | Stryker | Survivability

A contentious debate has taken place among Army officials regarding the new infantry fighting vehicle’s lengthy requirements list, a debate fed by an Army and OSD staffed “Red Team” analysis which scrutinized vehicle proposals and the lethality of modern and future battlefields, as well as disagreement among leadership about the service’s GCV acquisition strategy. The new RFP will reflect the Red Team’s findings as well as the Army’s analysis of alternatives.

The proposed GCV, which is intended to replace the Army’s Bradley fleet, was getting a bit unwieldy, sources say, as builders attempted to meet the many requirements. The Army will issue a formal announcement this afternoon. Lawmakers (the few who are available in late August; more like their secretaries) were notified of the GCV cancellation this morning.

The GCV competition was cancelled so the Army can “better ensure an achievable, affordable, and timely infantry fighting vehicle,” according to an emailed Army announcement. The cancellation will result in a six month delay of the program, although the service intends to field a vehicle within seven years after a contract is awarded.

“In conjunction with the Red Team recommendations, the Army determined that it must revise the acquisition strategy to rely on mature technologies in order to reduce significant developmental risk over a seven year schedule following the initial contract award. The refined RFP will result in a vehicle that provides soldiers with critical armored protection in the modern combat environment.”

The emailed announcement says details of the specific RFP are still being finalized and the service expects to issue a new solicitation within the next 60 days.

Army Abruptly Cancels Ground Combat Vehicle Competition (Updated) | Defense Tech.

Related Posts

• Fears Raised Over Army GCV Costs, Delays — Armor | Army | BCT | Brigade Combat Team | Combat | Defense | FCS | future combat systems | GCV | integration | Littoral | Navy | NLOS | NLOS-LS | plans | Procurement | Production | research | sensors | service | Services | Survivability | systems | Unmanned | vehicles | weapons
• Army to Issue GCV RFP — Armor | Army | Combat | FedBizOps | GCV | pentagon | TACOM
• US Army Delays GCV Deadline — Armor | Army | Boeing | Bradley Fighting Vehicle | Defense | GCV | IED | IFV | LON:BA | Manufacturing | Mobility | MRAP | Navistar | news | NYSE:BA | NYSE:GD | NYSE:LMT | NYSE:NOC | NYSE:OSK | Oshkosh | Stryker | Survivability

When fully developed, the IBCS battery engagement operations center will enable an Army air defense battery to establish common battle command of air defense assets that are fully integrated with other Army and joint IAMD systems.

The initial system consists of common hardware and software housed in a rigid wall shelter and mounted on a 5-ton M1085 Medium Tactical Vehicle, the company said.

“This initial system will be used as a test bed to support the IBCS critical design review and the IBCS software development and coding,” said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Genaro “Gino” Dellarocco, program executive officer, Missiles and Space, Redstone Arsenal, Ala. “This prototype will allow the warfighter to interact early and influence the design to ensure we provide them this critical capability.”

Northrop Grumman and its team were awarded a $577 million, five-year contract last December for the development of a common battle command system.

Systems that will be integrated via IBCS include the Patriot, the Surface-Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile and the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor.

Related Posts

• Defense News: Northrop Grumman — Defense | news | Northrop Grumman | NYSE:NOC
• Northrop to Move Corporate Office to Washington, D.C. — Aerospace | Army | Defense | Northrop Grumman | NYSE:NOC
• BAE and Northrop Announce GCV Teaming Agreement — Army | C4ISR | Defense | GCV | LON:BA | news | Northrop Grumman | NYSE:RTN

permalink: Army Receives Northrop IBCS
topics: Contractors, Defense
tagged: Army, assets, Company, contract, Defense, IAMD, IBCS, Northrop Grumman, NYSE:NOC, support

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

The report, which was mandated by Congress in the explanatory statement accompanying the 2010 defense appropriations bill, broadly outlines the Army’s acquisition strategy for tactical wheeled vehicles. It was first reported by InsideDefense.com.

Citing concerns that the Army lacked an overall strategy for procuring trucks, Congress required the service to submit a report on its plans. In the report, the Army admits that the document submitted is not the full picture.

One missing piece of information is the number of Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs) the Army plans to buy. A chart in the report outlines the Army’s procurement goals for 2025. For JLTV, the report says, “to be determined.”

It’s been reported that the U.S. Marine Corps is expected to purchase 5,500 of the Humvee replacements, and the Army has said it could buy 60,000 or so. However, Army officials have acknowledged that number could change as the tactical wheeled vehicle strategy evolves.

The overall number of light, medium and heavy trucks is expected to fall between now and 2025, according to the report. Today, the Army has 260,000 trucks, and in 2025 it plans to have 244,000.

The Army explains how it plans to manage and armor its fleet, but the service is waiting on a number of other reviews to wrap up or be approved before it can provide more information, according to the report.

Under “constraints,” the report says, “There are several key [tactical wheeled vehicle] documents that are currently not approved and are being worked that have influenced the Army’s overall [tactical wheeled vehicle] acquisition strategy.” These are the draft tactical wheeled vehicle long-term protection strategy, a G-8-initiated tactical wheeled vehicle strategy update, phase two of a truck study being done by the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), and a Defense Department Cost Assessment Program Evaluation study for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV).

TRADOC is also leading a major force-mix and force-design study to help shape the next two program objective memorandums. Changes to the Army’s force structure will directly affect the number of trucks and associated armor kits the Army plans to buy.

“Changes to the Army force structure and how the Army equips the new force structure continues to mold TWV requirements with respect to quantity and quality metrics,” the report reads.

The Army’s truck portfolio is unwieldy to manage because it is so big and because there are several variants of each type of vehicle. The Army plans to buy new vehicles, repair and upgrade existing trucks, and retire older ones across the fleet to ensure the best mix of vehicles is available, the report says.

For example, the Army plans to shed 4,000 of its 19,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) and MRAP-All Terrain Vehicles by 2025.

In addition to how many, the Army is also trying to answer questions about how to armor and how much to armor its giant fleet of trucks. Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, armor protection was not a priority for the Army’s tactical wheeled vehicles, the report says. Instead, performance and payload were paramount.

Cold War assumptions about linear battlefields were made obsolete by roadside bombs and the complex terrain in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of a sudden, light trucks designed to operate behind front lines were fitted with heavy armor packages, which take a toll on the trucks’ engines, suspension systems, transmissions and axles, the report explains.

To avoid this situation in the future, the Army wants to maintain some flexibility in its fleet so that it can adapt to emerging threats. One way it plans to accomplish this is through scalable armor packages for its vehicles. It also wants vehicles to share armor kits, so that the Army can buy fewer and use the leftover dollars to invest in research and development in advanced armor solutions, the report says.

The Army also wants to continue using competition to drive down costs. According to the report, the contest for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles resulted in a new contract award that represents 28 percent in savings over the old contract.

The report also indicates the Army intends to shift resources from buying brand new vehicles to efforts to upgrade the existing fleet and do service-life extension programs. These types of activities keep production lines warm, but don’t lock the Army into inflexible schedules that it has trouble modifying, the report says. The goal is to have more flexibility to respond to emerging requirements.

Related Posts

• Army Abruptly Cancels, Delays GCV Competition — acquisition | Army | Combat | contract | Defense | GCV | leadership | protection | RFP | service | Strategy
• Officials Report Progress With JLTV — Army | AUSA | Defense | JLTV | marine | MRAP | news | Survivability | umv
• Army Budget Shows 30% Drop in Combat Vehicle Funds — Armor | Army | Boeing | Defense | documents | GCV | LON:BA | news | NYSE:BA | NYSE:OSK | Oshkosh | TACOM

Based on the lessons learned from nine years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the GCV is intended, first and foremost, to be a highly survivable, maneuverable troop carrier that can also fight. The requirements laid down by the Army for the initial design of the vehicle include better protection than the vaunted MRAP, capability to carry a squad of 12 plus crew, a lot of power generation capability and heavy armament. With all these requirements the GCV is almost certainly going to be big and heavy.

Depending on who you talk to in the Army, the GCV is either just the next step in an evolutionary process for armored vehicles or a revolutionary leap forward based on taking in all the lessons of the recent past. The Army’s current plan is to replace the existing Bradley Fighting Vehicles in its Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (HBCTs) with the GCV. This is fine as far as it goes. But there are a lot of other armored vehicles in the Army’s inventory. For example, there are also over 5,000 M-113 armored personnel carriers in the HBCTs and at higher echelons. Then there are the Stryker wheeled combat vehicles in the uniquely designed Stryker Brigade Combat teams, the M-1 Abrams tank and, of course, around 20,000 MRAPs and M-ATVs.

The Army has made some efforts to enhance its other armored vehicles even as it planned for the introduction of new vehicles. There have been survivability upgrades to the Bradleys and the M-1s that made them the best protected vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan, better than the MRAPs. There is a program for the relatively new Strykers to, among other things, modify them with a v-shaped plate on their underside to defeat IEDs.

Unfortunately, the Army seems to be so fixated on the GCV program that it has had a “brain freeze” with regard to creating an overall plan for the future of its armored vehicle fleets. Additional planned upgrades for both the Bradley and the M-1 have been put on hold. More important, the Army has not made a decision regarding replacing the obsolete M-113s. Will it be Bradleys, Strykers, MRAPs or, more likely, some combination? What about the thousands of Bradleys that will remain in the inventory for decades while the GCV is slowly introduced? Should the Army create additional Stryker brigades? Oh yes, will there be any effort to finally replace — or at least significantly upgrade — the Paladin self-propelled howitzer now that the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon has been cancelled?

The Army appears to be repeating a mistake it made with the FCS program, specifically acting like this is the only program or system it has. The Army needs to figure out for itself what it wants to do with its armored vehicle fleets and then let the rest of us in on the secret.

Daniel Goure, Ph.D.

Related Posts

• Army Readies Draft of Modernization Plan — ARCIC | Army | BCT | BCTM | Brigade Combat Team | Defense | FCS | Homeland Security | Unmanned
• Army Chief Of Staff Wants Lighter GCV — Armor | Army | BCT | EFV | FCS | GCV | M1 Abrams | MRAP
• U.S. Army’s New Ground Combat Vehicle — Aerospace | Armor | Army | BCT | BCTM | Defense | FCS | GCV | IED | MGV | Mobility | news | Survivability

TACOM, headquartered in Warren, Mich., and located in the Michigan National Defense Corridor and Alley is one of the Army’s largest research, development and sustainment organizations.

It has 24,000 employees worldwide, of which 200 are active-duty military members, said TACOM spokesman Don Jarosz. For 2010, the agency’s budget for contracting is $15 billion, he said.

According to a TACOM slogan, “If a Soldier eats it, wears it, drives it, or shoots it … we develop, provide, or sustain it.“

To do this, TACOM brings together all of the organizations that focus on soldier and ground systems, including the Integrated Logistics Support Center, Program Executive Office (PEO) Combat Support and Combat Service Support, PEO Ground Combat Systems, PEO Soldier and PEO Integration.

It also works closely with the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC), TACOM Contracting Center, the Armaments Research, Development & Engineering Center, Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC) and the Joint PEO for Chemical and Biological Defense.

By tapping into a wealth of expertise, TACOM and TARDEC have helped guide the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program in its initial stages, said Paul Mehney, spokesman for PEO Integration.

“TARDEC research-and-development efforts heavily influenced what we eventually asked industry for,” he said. “They helped inform the program community what was in the realm of the reasonable, which really guided us as we looked at proposals and looked at requirements definition.”

The Warren location near Detroit – home of the American auto industry – was selected as the site of Army Tank Arsenal in 1940 to build tanks for World War II. It officially became the Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) in 1967 and added armaments to its name in 1994.

“There are research and development programs, which, frankly, don’t exist in other places in the country,” Mehney said. “Think alternative energy, hybrid systems, power management and looking at the human level of unmanned systems and how soldiers interact with them.

“As we move through the Ground Combat Vehicle program, TARDEC will play a pivotal role in systems engineering expertise and integration expertise, as that vehicle continues to morph into what it eventually will be,” Mehney said.

PEO Ground Combat Systems now manages the GCV program, having taken it over from PEO Integration. The PEO is under the leadership of Scott Davis, who took charge of the office in June. Previously, he worked as deputy program executive officer for PEO Integration and before that was part of the Future Combat Systems team.

TACOM also changed leadership this year, with Maj. Gen. Kurt Stein taking command in January. Stein previously served in Iraq as the deputy chief of staff, Multi-National Force – Iraq, Combined Joint 1/4/8.

TACOM is part of the Army Materiel Command, while the associated program executive offices report directly to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.

Related Posts

• Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Industry Day II 2009 — Army | Events | GCV | TACOM | TARDEC | W56HZV-GCV
• Army Budget Shows 30% Drop in Combat Vehicle Funds — Armor | Army | Boeing | Defense | documents | GCV | LON:BA | news | NYSE:BA | NYSE:OSK | Oshkosh | TACOM
• TACOM Reset Program — Afghanistan | Army | environmental | lcmc | Maintenance | RECAP | RESET | TACOM | tank-automotive

permalink: TACOM Guides Combat Vehicle Development Since WWII
topics: Land Forces
tagged: ARDEC, Army, Arsenal, automotive, Combat, DATP, Defense, detroit, ECBC, Engineering, future combat systems, GCV, guides, industry, integration, Iraq, leadership, Logistics, Management, materiel, Military, NSSC, organizations, PEO, research, service, support, sustainment, systems, TACOM, tank-automotive, TARDEC, Unmanned, wwii

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

Operations today and as envisioned in our future operating concepts take place among populations, on distributed battlefields, by Soldiers organized in small units. Infantry Companies, Reconnaissance Troops, and the Soldiers who support them are at the point of the spear. Developing the Infantry Fighting Vehicle as the first variant provides the best capability to conduct wide area security and combined arms maneuver in offense, defense and stability operations. Characteristic of these is the need to conduct decentralized operations.

The Ground Combat Vehicle provides force protection that enables close operations among the people. Its armored protected mobility is critical to moving Soldiers to positions of advantage on the battlefield. It is the capability of the Ground Combat Vehicle to transport and deploy cohesive squads that sets it apart from the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. This cohesive squad is critical to successful execution of future operational concepts.

The discussion that follows examines our emerging operating concepts, describes the Infantry squad in an operational context, and highlights the contribution of the Ground Combat Vehicle in the conduct of future operations.

Operational Concepts

Future warfighting concepts describe the broad capabilities required for the Army to be successful on tomorrow’s battlefields. These concepts describe how Army forces conduct operations as part of the joint force to deter conflict, prevail in war, and succeed in a wide range of contingencies. These concepts also serve to focus force development efforts.

The Army Capstone Concept describes the conduct of full spectrum operations in an environment of uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity.

The Army Operating Concept describes combined arms maneuver and security operations as central themes for the conduct of decentralized operations.

The Movement and Maneuver Warfighting Functional Concept describes how Brigade Combat Teams, Combat Aviation Brigades and Battlefield Surveillance Brigades conduct combined arms maneuver and security operations under the mission command of Divisions and Corps. Agile and adaptive leaders are essential to the successful execution of combined arms maneuver and security operations. Their execution of mission command- exercising dutiful initiative to accomplish missions within commander’s intent is critical to success in decentralized operations. Units that are a versatile mix of tailorable and networked organizations are the foundation of our warfighting concept. And Infantry Squads are the foundation of our Brigade Combat Teams.

Infantry Squad in Operational Context

It is the purpose of the Ground Combat vehicle, with its protected mobility and firepower, to deploy squads to the decisive point on the battlefield. Once deployed the Infantry squad is fundamental to combined arms maneuver. Squads are the lowest tactical unit capable of conducting fire and maneuver. They can sustain operations over time, absorbing losses while maintaining effectiveness. The squad and fire team leaders execute mission command, exercising dutiful initiative to accomplish missions within commander’s intent, and collaborating to solve tactical problems via the NettWarrior and Mounted Warrior Systems. This is the level where the Army leader, the Squad leader, employs his cohesive squad from the Ground Combat Vehicle.

The squad is essential to effective security operations, operating at the tactical edge of decentralized operations. Squads conduct patrols and man combat outposts, enabling continuous engagement with local populations and allied forces. The size of the squad affects its resiliency and its capacity to sustain operations over time.

The human dimension of our Army is manifest in small tactical units like the Infantry squad. Social aspects of trust and understanding are central to highly trained and competent squads. Trust is enhanced in smaller groups, but too small a group will be ineffective.

Learning and adapting are essential to developing required knowledge, skills and attributes from riflemen to squad leaders. Individual cognitive load in problem solving is increased as the size of the squad decreases. Distribution of human senses reduces as squad size is reduced, decreasing collective situational understanding and overall organizational effectiveness.

The physical aspects of shared burden and endurance are critical to the squad’s effectiveness and resiliency. They distribute the load of squad and platoon equipment across the formation. Squads of sufficient size can endure casualties and continue to be effective. Management of work and rest is more difficult as squad size is reduced, with fatigue resulting in less mental flexibility, ingenuity, and creativity.

GCV in Operational Context

The mission of the Infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy by fire, maneuver and close combat. Given the Infantry Squad as the foundation of our Brigade Combat Teams, the Ground Combat Vehicle concept of operation enables squad deployment with unit integrity, providing coherent combat power on the ground immediately. Squads close on the enemy under the armor protection of the Ground Combat Vehicle, dismounting as integral squads. Squads are transported in each of three vehicles, while the platoon medic, forward observer, RTO and other attachments (such as an interpreter or Provincial Reconstruction Team member) are deployed with the platoon leader’s vehicle. This maintains squad integrity in vehicles and platoon integrity in its four vehicles. This small unit integrity is vital for rapid deployment, redeployment and transition to follow-on missions on the battlefield. This improved operational capability comes with no increase in the density of platforms in the platoon, company, battalion, or Brigade Combat Team. As a Fighting Vehicle the GCV enables deployment of squads in close contact with the enemy, minimizing their exposure. Infantry carriers and tactical wheeled vehicles, on the other hand, cannot close with the enemy and must deploy their Soldiers at greater distances, exposing them to enemy action for longer periods of time.

In the current Bradley Fighting Vehicle platoon individual Squad members are distributed across all four platoon vehicles, with medics, Forward Observers, and RTOs pushed up to company headquarter vehicles. In addition to the four platoon vehicles the company headquarters vehicles are required to deploy platoon combat power.

Individuals are deployed from separate vehicles and must join together on the ground to form squads. Unit integrity is violated within squads and platoons. Squads must form-up under fire after dismounting, risking greater exposure to the enemy.

The Ground Combat Vehicle design supports the conduct of decentralized operations, fundamental to our future operating concepts. Platoons are dispersed across the company area of operations, deploying squads as integral units and deploying their entire combat power with organic vehicles. The company commander and his headquarters can deploy to the location from which he can best command operations without the burden of delivering individual Soldiers to each of his dispersed platoons. This freedom of movement among small units enables the rapid deployment, redeployment and task-organization of combat power across a distributed, ever-changing battlefield.

The smaller capacity of the Bradley requires consolidation of combat power across separate units and leads to centralized operations. Squads are consolidated at the platoon level, and platoon combat power is consolidated at company level. Company headquarters vehicles must augment the carrying capacity of the platoons. This consolidation restricts the area across which a unit can deploy and extends the time required to deploy combat power as vehicles must move to multiple locations to deliver individual Soldiers. With this restriction in deploying combat power the company in essence becomes the lowest level capable of conducting decentralized operations.

Summary

The capability of the Ground Combat Vehicle supports future concepts of operation. At the individual vehicle level the GCV maintains unit integrity of the squad. This squad integrity enables squad awareness and planning while moving mounted, and facilitates synchronization during dismounted operations.

At the platoon and company collective level the capability of the GCV enables effective deployment of combat power in the conduct of decentralized operations. Combined arms maneuver and security operations over wide areas are enabled by the freedom of movement among small units provided by the GCV. Company commanders and platoon leaders can focus on command of operations. Their movement and positioning is not constrained.

The GCV provides force protection that enables close operations among the people. Its armored protected mobility is critical to moving Soldiers to positions of advantage on a distributed battlefield. And it is the capability of the GCV to transport and deploy cohesive squads and small units that is critical to successful execution of future operational concepts.

Related Posts

• U.S. Bid for New GCV on Track — Army | Brigade Combat Team | Defense | GCV | government | Manufacturing | Military | MRAP
• BAE, Northrop Add Members to GCV Team — Armor | Army | BAE Systems | BCT | Brigade Combat Team | C4ISR | Combat | Electrical | Electronics | energy | fuel | GCV | IED | innovation | integration | LON:BA | Management | Mobility | MRAP | North America | Northrop Grumman | NYSE:NOC | Production | QinetiQ | Saft | storage | support | Survivability | sustainment | systems | vehicles
• GCV — Tracked, Auto Guns, 40 Tons? — Armor | Army | Bradley Fighting Vehicle | Defense | FCS | GCV | IED | marine | Mobility | MRAP | Stryker | Survivability | Unmanned | W56HZV-GCV

permalink: GCV in the Conduct of Future Operational Concepts
topics: Armored Vehicles, Land Forces
tagged: Armor, Army, BCT, BfSB, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Brigade Combat Team, Capstone Concept, CONOPS, GCV, IED, Mobility, PEO, Strategy

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

Improvements the company will make to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle include installation of Bradley Urban Survivability Kits III.

Emergency egress improvements will be made to enable soldiers to lower the vehicle’s ramp; energy-absorbing seats and footrests will be installed; and turret gunners and commander positions will receive more protection against improvised explosive devices, the company said.

Field support service for the Bradleys and integration of a mission support system for M113A3 armored ambulances will also be performed.

“The recent Bradley and M113 awards will help to ensure that these proven vehicles will continue supporting out troops for years to come,” said Joe McCarthy, vice president and general manager of the Heavy Brigade Combat Team at BAE Systems. “Both platforms have a long history of effectively performing for our men and women in uniform during combat missions overseas and play key roles on the Heavy Brigade Combat Team.”

Related Posts

• Army TACOM Contracts for Bradley Resets — Army | Bradley Fighting Vehicle | LON:BA | RESET | TACOM
• BAE, Northrop Add Members to GCV Team — Armor | Army | BAE Systems | BCT | Brigade Combat Team | C4ISR | Combat | Electrical | Electronics | energy | fuel | GCV | IED | innovation | integration | LON:BA | Management | Mobility | MRAP | North America | Northrop Grumman | NYSE:NOC | Production | QinetiQ | Saft | storage | support | Survivability | sustainment | systems | vehicles
• BAE Awarded Contract Mods from TACOM — Army | automotive | BAE Systems | environmental | LON:BA | Maintenance | Military | news | Survivability | TACOM

permalink: BAE to Upgrade Bradley Survivability
topics: Armor, Armored Vehicles, Land Forces
tagged: Army, BAE Systems, BCT, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Brigade Combat Team, Combat, integration, LON:BA, protection, Survivability, systems, vehicles

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010