Twitter Facebook Google RSS
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Undeterred By Possible Delays, BAE Continues Ground Combat Vehicle Development
Undeterred By Possible Delays, BAE Continues Ground Combat Vehicle Development
By Valerie Insinna

BAE Systems' Ground Combat Vehicle

Despite statements from top Army officials alluding to possible delays to the ground combat vehicle program, BAE Systems is chugging along to meet technology development requirements.
The GCV, which is slated for production as early as 2018, is planned to be the service’s replacement for the Bradley fighting vehicle. However, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said in July that the program might be pushed back because of budget cuts. The Army already delayed it in January when the service extended the technology development phase by six months.

"Our focus is getting to preliminary design review and delivery,” said Deepak Bazaz, who is leading GCV design and development for BAE. “As far as what the Army position is, I know there's a lot of things that need to be sorted out from the budget standpoint and the impacts of sequestration and whatnot."

The company this week announced it had completed 2,000 hours of testing of its hybrid-electric system using an automotive test rig that simulates the terrain of Army test tracks. Engineers can vary the speed and incline on the “hotbuck” test rig, and can also control the vehicle in order to introduce driver error.
“It's one thing to just have it spinning on a loop,” Bazaz told reporters at an Aug. 27 media day at its Sterling Heights, Mich.-facility. “It's another thing to do it and actually have the user … make an abrupt left turn and then auto correct. The vehicle actually senses and feels all that and adjusts its steering and its torque to be able to correct for that.”
BAE will continue to use the hotbuck until technology development wraps up in June 2014, he said. The company has also created a system integration lab to simulate how the vehicle’s electronic components will work together.
The technology development phase kicked off in January 2011, when General Dynamics and BAE Systems were awarded $439 million and $449 million contracts, respectively. The Army is expected to downselect to a single vendor by the end of fiscal year 2014, when it awards an engineering and manufacturing contract.

The ground combat vehicle is intended to be more mobile than its predecessor and more survivable against landmines and improvised  explosive devices. Unlike the Bradley, which can hold only seven soldiers, the GCV is designed to hold a nine-member infantry squad.
Critics of the program see the GCV as too expensive and risky for the Army to build during a fiscal downturn. The Congressional Budget Office in April released a report weighing the pros and cons of four other options to the ground combat vehicle, including maintaining the current Bradley fleet, buying new, upgraded Bradleys, or purchasing either Israel’s Namer Armored Personnel Carrier or Germany’s Puma Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
The report found that the Puma was more lethal, survivable and mobile than the ground combat vehicle, but because it carries only six troops, the Army would have to buy five Pumas to replace four Bradleys.

Some in Congress have also said the vehicle should incorporate an active protection system to intercept rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles. The Army, however, is not requiring initial vehicles to have that capability, Bazaz said.

BAE is considering integrating Artis LLC's Iron Curtain active protection system into its ground combat vehicle. It conducted tests using it in April. Such systems use a radar to detect an incoming projectile, then fire an intercepter to destroy it before it reaches the vehicle.

“We demonstrated what we needed to do, we met the requirements, but still the system from an integration standpoint ... is still something that needs to be matured," Bazaz said.  

BAE is also testing the vehicle in low visibility conditions.

The company drove a humvee with blacked-out windows though a smoke-filled mock town in Fort Benning, Ga. Even though troops’ visibility was completely obscured, the prototype system of sensors and cameras on the vehicle allowed them to drive safely, Bazaz said.

Photo Credit: BAE Systems


Re: Undeterred By Possible Delays, BAE Continues Ground Combat Vehicle Development

What I'd like to know where the majority of the GCV development  will be done, Santa Clara, CA or Sterling Heights, MI? Will the point of BAE being foriegn owned versus GD being American owned affect the decision process? It is my opinion that BAE will develop the better vehicle but the merits of the vehicle will probley not be a major factor in the decision who gets the contract. In closing I think the army wants a "swiss army knife on steriods" in there vision for the GCV.
Victor Valdez JR at 8/31/2013 12:41 PM

Re: Undeterred By Possible Delays, BAE Continues Ground Combat Vehicle Development

ditto, the services generally want 'swiss army knives on steriods' for just about everything. But they are being encouraged in that direction by budget limitations.., which is really better. It has always been true, tell them you want the moon, they tell you fine, here is less money, and men then you'll need. Make it happen. Then?  Well, it usually occurs.  Necessity is the mother of invention.., not more money then necessary.
gehard at 9/25/2013 11:02 PM

Add Comment

Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *



Name: *

eMail *

Comment *


Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *


Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.



Bookmark and Share