View source for Engineering:GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle

{{Short description|None}}
[[File:GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Artist's impression of the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle]]
The '''Ground Combat Infantry Fighting Vehicle''' was an [[Engineering:Infantry fighting vehicle|infantry fighting vehicle]] being developed for the U.S. Army. The program originated as the lead vehicle of the U.S. Army's Ground Combat Vehicle program coordinated by TACOM and spawned a parallel program coordinated by DARPA. The purpose of the program was to replace existing armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles in U.S. Army service. <!--The TACOM project aims to produce a [[Engineering:Prototype|prototype]] by 2015 and begin fielding by 2018 and --> The DARPA project aimed to have the vehicle designed by 2015.<ref name="Crains resubmit">{{cite web|title=Contractors to resubmit bids for revamped military vehicle program|url=http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20100926/SUB01/309269952/contractors-to-resubmit-bids-for-revamped-military-vehicle-program|publisher=Crain Communications Inc.  |accessdate=27 September 2010|author=Chad Halcom|date=26 September 2010}}</ref> Derivatives of the vehicle based on a common [[Engineering:Chassis|chassis]]—such as tanks and ambulances—were expected to be manufactured. It replaced the previous attempt at a next-generation infantry transport, the XM1206 Infantry Carrier Vehicle.<ref name=replace>{{cite web |first=  |last=  |url= http://www.asdnews.com/news/21975/Army_Partially_Terminates_FCS_Manned_Ground_Vehicle.htm |title= Army Partially Terminates FCS Manned Ground Vehicle |work= asdnews.com |publisher=  |date= July 21, 2009 |accessdate= January 27, 2010 |archive-date= May 1, 2011 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110501092632/http://www.asdnews.com/news/21975/Army_Partially_Terminates_FCS_Manned_Ground_Vehicle.htm |url-status= dead }}</ref> The Ground Combat Vehicle program was cancelled in February 2014.<ref name="defensenews6april14">[https://archive.today/20140823190952/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140406/DEFREG02/304060009/US-Army-Marines-Struggle-Infantry-Vehicle-Replacements US Army, Marines Struggle With Infantry Vehicle Replacements] - Defensenews.com, 6 April 2014</ref>

== Design ==
The Army emphasized affordability, rapid deployment, and low risk technology for the GCV. The Army required that all aspects of the Ground Combat Vehicle be at [[Engineering:Technology readiness level|technology readiness level]] 6.<ref name="Greg">{{cite web|title=Army Wants Tough GCV Battle|url=http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/05/army-wants-tough-gcv-competition/|publisher=Military Advantage|accessdate=11 August 2010|author=Greg Grant|date=March 5, 2010}}</ref><ref name="contracting.tacom.army.mil">{{cite web|first=|last=|url=http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/majorsys/gcv/attach/Attch%200001_GCV%20IFV%20Statement%20of%20Work_RFP%20Amendments.pdf|title=Ground Combat Vehicle Infantry Fighting Vehicle Statement of Work|work=United States Army|publisher=|date=March 15, 2009|accessdate=April 7, 2010}}{{Dead link|date=November 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> The shortfalls of rapid deployment would be mitigated through an incremental addition of components as technology matures.<ref name=Optimizing>{{cite web |url=http://www.bctmod.army.mil/GCV_focus/GCV%20Narrative.pdf |title=The ground combat vehicle strategy: Optimizing for the future |publisher=U.S. Army |accessdate=December 14, 2009 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110430044607/http://www.bctmod.army.mil/GCV_focus/GCV%20Narrative.pdf |archivedate=April 30, 2011 }}</ref> The Army provided details from the Manned Ground Vehicle effort to utilize on the GCV.<ref name="contracting.tacom.army.mil"/> The GCV was required to have better protection than any vehicle in the military's inventory.<ref name="Industry day 1">{{cite web|title=Industry day #1|url=http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/majorsys/gcv/ID_1_Master_19Oct091.pptx|accessdate=19 September 2010|author=MT Kash|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722183427/http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/majorsys/gcv/ID_1_Master_19Oct091.pptx|archive-date=2011-07-22|url-status=dead}}</ref>

General Peter W. Chiarelli said that the "four main fundamentals" of the vehicle were: The ability to carry 12 soldiers and operate in all forms of combat; have significant protection; and deliver the first production vehicle by 2018.<ref name="$462 million" />

The IFV would be [[Modular design|modular]] and [[Engineering:BCT Network|networked]] and offer improved survivability, mobility, and power management functions. The GCV family would use technologies pioneered with the IFV lead vehicle effort.<ref>{{cite web|first=|last=|url=http://defense-update.com/newscast/0909/news/220909_ground_combat_vehicle.html|title=U.S. Army Defines Ground Combat Vehicles (GCV) Priorities|work=Defense Update|publisher=|accessdate=March 29, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100316211643/http://defense-update.com/newscast/0909/news/220909_ground_combat_vehicle.html|archive-date=March 16, 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Countermeasures ===
Thermal management and acoustic noise reduction would be utilized to avoid detection. The vehicle would be able to avoid threats by laying obscurants. An array of hit avoidance systems would be leveraged and the Army offered the various active protection systems developed for the manned ground vehicle program.<ref name="Industry day 1" /> The GCV enabled the detection and neutralization of mines at standoff ranges.<ref name="mine neutalizer">{{cite web|title=Towards a Comprehensive Vehicle Strategy|url=http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009combatvehicle/GeneralVane.pdf|date=13 October 2009|access-date=20 September 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120927173742/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009combatvehicle/GeneralVane.pdf|archive-date=27 September 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref> The vehicle was also to be equipped with an engagement detection system. The Army required the IFV to have the passive blast protection level equal to the MRAP.<ref name=GCVspecs>{{cite web |first= |last= |url=http://defense-update.com/features/2010/january/gcv_army_details_100110.html |title=U.S. Army Outlines Ground Combat Vehicles Priorities |publisher=Defense update |accessdate=January 26, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100116124203/http://www.defense-update.com/features/2010/january/gcv_army_details_100110.html |archive-date=January 16, 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The Army made available the composition of the armor of the manned ground vehicle program. A transparent armor shield would provide protection for the vehicle commander when exposed through the turret. Personnel would leverage harnesses and restraints to mitigate trauma. In addition, a Vehicle Health Management System would provide vehicle diagnostic monitoring systems for commanders. A fire suppression system and ammunition detonation protection would be utilized for damage control.<ref name="Industry day 1" />

The Mounted Soldier System would protect crew members from ballistic, thermal, and CBRN threats. The Mounted Soldier System incorporated [[Chemistry:Fire retardant|fire retardant]] systems such as the Improved Combat Vehicle Crewman Coverall and undergarments, facewear, gloves, and footwear. Ballistic protection would come from the Combat Vehicle Crewman Helmet, eyewear, a [[Engineering:Ballistic face mask|maxillofacial shield]], and improvements to body armor.<ref name="MSS">{{cite web |title=Mounted Soldier System (MSS) |url=https://peosoldier.army.mil/FactSheets/PMSWAR/SWAR_MSS_MSS.pdf |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/5sDUDTRYy?url=https://peosoldier.army.mil/FactSheets/PMSWAR/SWAR_MSS_MSS.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2010-08-24 |accessdate=9 August 2010 |date=May 2010 }}</ref> A secondary squad egress was to be provided for the squad to exit in emergencies.<ref name="Industry day 1" />

== Development ==
The Ground Combat Vehicle was envisioned to be a model of acquisition reform.<ref name="Case for GCV">{{cite web|title=Ground Combat Requires an Adaptable, Versatile Vehicle|url=http://www.bctmod.army.mil/GCV_focus/Case%20for%20%20GCV.pdf|accessdate=17 August 2010|date=August 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101011190145/http://www.bctmod.army.mil/GCV_focus/Case%20for%20%20GCV.pdf|archive-date=2010-10-11|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Initial program ===
[[File:GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle schedule (January 2010).png|thumb|right|300px|IFV schedule as of January 2010]]
[[File:Puma, first series.jpg|right|thumb|The German Puma is one of the best protected infantry fighting vehicles]]

In the initial plan, the first variant of the vehicle was to be prototyped in 2015 and fielded by 2017.<ref name="GCV PROGRAM PLAN" /> The U.S. military planned on procuring 1,450 IFVs at a total program cost of $40 billion.<ref name="1,450">{{cite web|title=Panel rejects bid to divert funds for Bradley upgrades|url=http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0810/080410cdam2.htm|publisher=NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC.|accessdate=4 August 2010|author=Megan Scully|date=4 August 2010}}</ref> The program was abruptly canceled in August 2010, before any contracts were awarded.<ref name=delay />

;Conception
[[File:BCT Ground Combat Vehicle industry day 2.jpg|thumb|right|Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army General Peter Chiarelli hosts the second Industry Day meeting]]

An Army presentation in March revealed that TARDEC, ARL, and TRADOC-ARCIC had partnered to analyze the survivability of the army's "Ground Combat Vehicle".<ref name="First mention">{{cite web|title=Advanced Planning Briefing to Industry|url=https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:f8sj5VSJUt8J:contracting.tacom.army.mil/future_buys/FY09/Bochenek.pdf+%22Ground+Combat+Vehicle%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShNA_mYsS0QLPUy6mlU7dIQhZ75P0JumKgbBYNYLZKyyuR3OtO6FnP85UAZkyS4Wg-DlWiM5Q1Ury6YGHaTd_YLa7pdTKUgEmIropLrNIDgUvMukH_oVX5y-_3jk9--p5YHuw4B&sig=AHIEtbQ612_P5ABuC4aXPAfDoQyKJIxHMw|accessdate=26 October 2010|date=19 March 2009}}</ref> Army Chief of Staff Robert Gates announced his intention of halting funding for the XM1206 Infantry Carrier Vehicle of the FCS manned ground vehicle program in April 2009.<ref>{{cite web|title= McHugh nervous about changes|url=http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090410/NEWS02/304109961|publisher=Watertown Daily Times|accessdate=9 August 2010|author=Marc Heller|date=10 April 2009}}</ref> In late May, Army and Department of Defense representatives outlined plans for the cancellation of Future Combat Systems and the initiation of the Ground Combat Vehicle program in its place.<ref name="28 May 2009">{{cite web|title=US Army outlines how it will 'devolve' FCS|url=http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw090528_1_n.shtml|publisher=IHS Global Limited|accessdate=9 August 2010|author=Daniel Wasserbly|date=28 May 2009}}</ref> On 15 and 16 June, a blue-ribbon panel convened in Washington D.C. to determine the requirements for the Ground Combat Vehicle.<ref>{{cite web |first=Gina |last=Cavallaro |url=http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/06/army_ground_combat_vehicle_061109w/ |title=Panel to discuss new ground combat vehicle |work=Army Times |publisher=Army Times Publishing Company |date=June 11, 2009 |accessdate=December 14, 2009}}</ref> It was concluded at this meeting that an Infantry Fighting Vehicle was to be the first vehicle variant fielded.<ref>{{cite web|title=U.S. Army Details Ground Combat Vehicle Plans|url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4271063|work=Army Times |accessdate=20 August 2010|author=Matthew Cox|date=10 June 2009}}{{dead link|date=August 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> Defense contractors were not allowed to attend but at least six in attendance were employed by defense companies that eventually bid on the GCV contract.<ref>{{cite web|title=Home / News / Nation The Boston Globe From the Pentagon to the private sector|url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/26/defense_firms_lure_retired_generals/?page=3|work=New York Times|accessdate=26 December 2010|author=Bryan Bender|date=26 December 2010}}</ref> On 23 June, Future Combat Systems was formally dissolved and many programs including the Manned Ground Vehicle program were canceled with it.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12763 "Future Combat System (FCS) Program Transitions to Army Brigade Combat Team Modernization"], US DoD, 23 June 2009.</ref> On 19 October, contractors turned up for a U.S. Army organized [[Engineering:Industry day|industry day]] event in Dearborn, Michigan to learn about the requirements.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bctmod.army.mil/news/pdf/GCV_Industry_Day.pdf |title=U.S. Army Announces Ground Combat Vehicle Industry Day |publisher=US Army |date=October 2009 |accessdate= |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110430044617/http://www.bctmod.army.mil/news/pdf/GCV_Industry_Day.pdf |archivedate=2011-04-30}}</ref> In late October [https://www.fcs.army.mil/Program_Executive_Office_Integration.html PEO Integration]{{dead link|date=October 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}} was established to oversee subsystems of BCT Modernization including the GCV.<ref>{{cite web|title=Army Establishes Program Executive Office Integration to Support Modernization|url=http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/10/02/28280-army-establishes-program-executive-office-integration-to-support-modernization/|accessdate=11 August 2010|author=Jimmie Cummings|date=2 October 2009}}</ref> On 24 November, a second industry day was held in Warren, Michigan.<ref>{{cite web |first=Margaret |last=Nelson |url=http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/11/25/31026-us-army-meets-with-industry-representatives-to-conceive-a-ground-combat-vehicle |title=U.S. Army meets with industry representatives to conceive a ground combat vehicle |work=US Army |publisher=US Army |date=November 25, 2009 |accessdate= }}</ref>

After much delay, reviews necessary for continuation were held throughout February, in Washington D.C.<ref>{{cite web |first=Kate |last=Brannen |url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4494373&c=AME&s=LAN|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120729031250/http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4494373&c=AME&s=LAN|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 29, 2012|title=DoD Postpones Ground Combat Vehicle Review |work=Defense News |publisher=|date=February 11, 2010 |accessdate=February 11, 2010}}</ref> The GCV review was officially passed on 25 February and a request for proposal (RfP) was issued the same day.<ref name=Kate>{{cite web |first=Kate |last=Brannen |url=http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/02/defense_army_gcv_rfp_022510w/|title=Army to issue Ground Combat Vehicle RfP today |work=Defense News |publisher=|date=February 25, 2010 |accessdate=February 25, 2010}}</ref> It was revealed in the RfP that the GCV would be a [[Finance:Cost-plus contract|cost-plus contract]].<ref name="Brannen RfP">{{cite web|title=Army launches Ground Combat Vehicle contest|url=http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/02/army_dn022610_GCV_web/|publisher=Army Times Publishing Company|accessdate=1 October 2010|author=Kate Brannen|date=26 February 2010}}</ref> Companies had 60 days to respond, but this offer was extended an additional 25 days.<ref name=Kate /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/landwarfareintl-com/us-army-delays-gcv-deadline/6155/|title=US Army delays GCV deadline|last=White|first=Andrew|date=19 April 2010|work=Shephard|publisher=Shephard Group Limited|accessdate=19 April 2010}}</ref> In May, a "red team" was formed to curtail the GCVs 7-year development schedule.<ref>{{cite web|title=Experts Study U.S. Army's GCV Plans, Schedule|url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4619649|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120729193615/http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4619649|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 29, 2012|publisher=Army Times Publishing Company|accessdate=11 November 2010|author=Kate Brannen|date=10 May 2010}}</ref> By the 21 May deadline, four proposals were submitted.<ref name="ADVS" /> On 1 July, management of the GCV was transferred from PEO Integration to [https://web.archive.org/web/20051113021252/http://www.peogcs.army.mil/index.html PEO Ground Combat Systems] with Andrew DiMarco as [[Project manager|project manager]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2010/07/mil-100727-arnews05.htm|title=The future of ground combat vehicles resides with PEO Ground Combat Systems|publisher=GlobalSecurity.org|accessdate=11 August 2010|author=Lori Grein|date=July 27, 2010}}</ref>

For fiscal year 2011, the U.S. Army intended to spend $934 million of the $2.5 billion allocated for BCT Modernization to develop the GCV.<ref>{{cite web |first=Matthew|last=Cox|url=http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/02/army_procurement_020110w/ |title=No more Humvees in 2011 procurement plan |work=Army Times |publisher=Army Times Publishing Company|date=February 1, 2010 |accessdate=February 2, 2010}}</ref> Reportedly, $100 million was removed from the yet to be approved budget but the budget continued to reported as $934 million.<ref>{{cite web|title=House panel risks veto by supporting funds for second F-35 fighter engine|url=http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/111145-house-panel-risks-veto-by-supporting-second-f-35-engine|publisher=Capitol Hill Publishing Corp.|accessdate=28 July 2010|author=Roxana Tiron|date=27 July 2010}}</ref>

On 25 August the Army retracted its request for proposals after the red team assembled in May recommended that the Army either upgrade the existing ground vehicle fleet or rewrite the requirements.<ref name="delay">{{cite web|title=Army delays Ground Combat Vehicle|url=http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/DN_army-army-delays-gcv-082510/|publisher=Army Times Publishing Company|accessdate=26 August 2010|author=John T. Bennett|author2=Kate Brannen|date=26 August 2010}}</ref>

;Projections
The Technology Development Phase (or Milestone A) was to begin with the award of up to three vehicle contracts awarded in late Fiscal Year 2010 under the Technology Development Phase Contract. A Preliminary Design Review would follow in mid FY 2012.<ref name="GCV PROGRAM PLAN">{{cite web|title=GCV PROGRAM PLAN|url=http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/majorsys/gcv/attach/Attch%200008_GCV%20Program%20Schedule.pdf|accessdate=5 August 2010|date=29 January 2010}}{{dead link|date=November 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}}</ref> The U.S. military planned to spend $7.6 billion during Milestone A.<ref name="Lucrative contracts">{{cite web|title=Contractors vie for lucrative vehicle work|url=http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/112959-top-contractors-vie-for-lucrative-vehicle-work|publisher=Capitol Hill Publishing Corp.|accessdate=6 August 2010|author=Roxana Tiron|date=6 August 2010}}</ref>

The Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase (or Milestone B) was to begin with two prototype development contracts awarded in the beginning of Fiscal Year 2013 under the Engineering & Manufacturing Development Contract. Shortly thereafter, an Interim Critical Design Review would follow in Mid-FY 2013. After a nearly two-year manufacturing period the first prototypes would be manufactured Mid-FY 2015 after which a Critical Design Review and a Production Readiness Review would occur in FY 2015 and FY 2016 respectively.<ref name="GCV PROGRAM PLAN" />

The Low Rate Initial Production Phase (or Milestone C) was to begin with a low-rate production contract awarded in mid Fiscal Year 2016 under the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract. Less than two years after the contract award LRIP would begin. After more testing a battalion-sized team would be attained in FY 2018 followed by a brigade-sized arsenal in FY 2019.<ref name="GCV PROGRAM PLAN" />

If a Full-Rate Production Decision was attained, full-rate production would begin. The U.S. military planned on procuring 1,450 IFVs at a total program cost of $40 billion.<ref name="GCV PROGRAM PLAN" /><ref name=1,450 />

;Competitors
There were four known competing contractors for the Ground Combat Vehicle contract.

[[File:BAE Northrop GCV.jpg|thumb|right|Concept image of BAE contender]]
*BAE Systems, [[Company:Northrop Grumman|Northrop Grumman]], QinetiQ and Saft Group were working jointly on development.<ref>{{cite web |work=BusinessWeek |url=http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9E62TB00.htm|title=BAE, Northrop to develop new ground combat vehicle|agency=The Associated Press|date=March 1, 2010|accessdate= }}</ref> The program was managed by Mark Signorelli.<ref name="BAE 1">{{cite web|title=BAE Offers Hybrid-Electric Combat Vehicle|url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/2010/06/bae-offers-hybridelectric.php|publisher=National Journal Group Inc|accessdate=18 June 2010|author=Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.}} {{dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref><ref name="BAE Businessweek">{{cite web|title=BAE, Northrop expand team to bid on Army contract|url=http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9H6UDBO2.htm|publisher=Bloomberg L.P.|accessdate=27 July 2010|date=26 July 2010}}</ref> The team believed it could field the vehicle up to two years sooner than projected.<ref name=ausa /> Development cost were "tens of millions of dollars".<ref name="GCV reform 2">{{cite web|title=Army sees new rules for combat vehicles soon|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69L55W20101022|publisher=Thomson Reuters|accessdate=23 October 2010|author=Andrea Shalal-Esa|date=22 October 2010}}</ref>

:*'''Work breakdown'''<ref name="BAE Businessweek" />
::*BAE would provide general vehicle design, program management, integration of the vehicle components.
::*Northrop Grumman would provide technology pertaining to command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
::*QinetiQ would provide the electric drive propulsion system.
::*Saft would provide the energy storage system.

:*'''Features'''
::*Tracked with an [http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/document/mdaw/mtew/~edisp/baes_102040.pdf E-X-Drive] hybrid-electric engine.<ref name="BAE Businessweek" />
::*Baseline weight of 53 tons with a weight tolerance of 75 tons for modular armor.<ref name="BAE GCV">{{cite web|title=Firm wants Army to use hybrid technology on GCV|url=http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/army_gcv_hybrid_electric_072610w/|publisher=Army Times Publishing Company|accessdate=27 July 2010|author=Kate Brannen|date=26 July 2010}}</ref>
::*Manned turret.<ref name="BAE GCV" />
::*Leveraged a [[Engineering:V-hull|V-hull]] and Hard-Kill and Soft-Kill active protection systems.<ref name="BAE shape">{{cite web|title=BAE-Northrop GCV Hybrid Drive A Gamble|url=http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/07/28/06.xml&headline=BAE-Northrop%20GCV%20Hybrid%20Drive%20A%20Gamble|publisher=The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc|accessdate=28 July 2010|author=Michael Fabey|date=28 July 2010}}{{dead link|date=December 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref name="BAE’s GCV">{{cite web|title=BAE's GCV Weighs 53 Tons, Hybrid|publisher=Military Advantage|author=Colin Clark|date=28 July 2010}}</ref>
::*Wider and taller than a Bradley. All or most of the storage was internal accounting for the extra size.<ref name="BAE shape" />

*[[Company:General Dynamics Land Systems|General Dynamics Land Systems]], [[Company:Lockheed Martin|Lockheed Martin]], [[Company:Detroit Diesel|Detroit Diesel]] and [[Company:Raytheon|Raytheon]] were working jointly on development.<ref name="General Dynamics">{{cite web|title=General Dynamics Team Submits Army Ground Combat Vehicle Proposal|url=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/general-dynamics-team-submits-army-ground-combat-vehicle-proposal-94578069.html|publisher=PR Newswire Association LLC.|accessdate=21 May 2010}}</ref>

:*'''Work breakdown'''<ref name="General Dynamics" />
::*General Dynamics Land Systems led the team as systems integrator and was responsible for soldier interfaces and chassis.
::*Lockheed Martin would develop the turret and weaponry.
::*Detroit Diesel would develop the propulsion system.
::*Raytheon would develop the active protection systems, sensors.

:*'''Features'''
::*Used conventional diesel.<ref name="BAE 1" />
::*Used active protection systems.<ref name="General Dynamics" />
::*Designers “paid a lot attention” to human accommodations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Waiting for the Ground Combat Vehicle|url=http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A945ac87c-0f86-4806-b5cf-8b45a959ad18&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest|accessdate=3 November 2010|author=Paul Mcleary|date=28 October 2010}}</ref>

*[[Company:Science Applications International Corporation|SAIC]] led a consortium called Team Full Spectrum which included [[Company:Boeing|Boeing]], Krauss-Maffei and Rheinmetall.<ref name="ausa">{{cite web|title=Ground Combat Vehicle|url=http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/archive/2010/8/Documents/SA_0810.pdf|publisher=AUSA|accessdate=21 August 2010|author=Scott R. Gourley|date=August 2010}}</ref> The SAIC consortium is using a derivative of the [[Engineering:Puma (IFV)|Puma]].<ref name="PUMA">{{cite web|last=White|first=Andrew|title=GCV shortlist revealed|url=http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/landwarfareint/gcv-shortlist-revealed/6378/|publisher=Shephard Group Limited.|accessdate=21 May 2010}}</ref>

:*'''Work breakdown'''<ref name="PUMA" />
::*SAIC would lead the team as project manager.
::*Boeing would supply the weaponry.
::*Both Krauss-Maffei and Rheinmetall's roles were unknown.

:*'''Features'''
::*Larger, reconfigured Puma chassis.<ref name="PUMA" />
::*Used conventional diesel and a six-road-wheel configuration.<ref name="BAE 1" />
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20090305065136/http://www.advs.com/Site/Advanced%20Defense%20Vehicle%20Systems.html Advanced Defense Vehicle Systems] (ADVS) submitted its wheeled proposal which was rejected for being non-compliant. A protest was filed by the company and assessed and ruled upon by September 27.<ref name="ADVS">{{cite web|title=U.S. Army GCV Protest Not Expected to Cause Delay|url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4679299&c=AME&s=LAN|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130121140948/http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4679299&c=AME&s=LAN|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 21, 2013|work=Army Times |accessdate=23 June 2010|author=Kate Brannen}}</ref> After cancellation of the RfP, ADVS withdrew its protest.<ref name="Crains resubmit" />

:*'''Work breakdown'''<ref name="ADVS" />
::*ADVS led the team.
::*Had undisclosed subcontractors.

:*'''Features'''
::*Wheeled.<ref>{{cite web|title=Michigan Company Protests Rejection Of Its Wheeled GCV Bid|url=https://defensenewsstand.com/Inside-the-Army/Inside-the-Army-06/28/2010/menu-id-288.html|publisher=Inside Washington Publishers|accessdate=6 August 2010|date=June 28, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110709010646/https://defensenewsstand.com/Inside-the-Army/Inside-the-Army-06/28/2010/menu-id-288.html|archive-date=2011-07-09|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Revised program ===
In September, Alion Science and Technology was awarded a $23,828,000 contract modification for the development of systems supporting GCV development. This contract was tendered by the U.S. Air Force and $2.18 million in funds was obligated at the time of the award.<ref name="1st contract">{{cite web|title=Contracts|url=http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4377|accessdate=30 September 2010|date=29 September 2010}}</ref> An industry day was held in October in Dearborn, Michigan.<ref name="Tiered">{{cite web|title=U.S. Army to Set Out Tiered Requirements for GCV|url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4826208&c=LAN&s=TOP|publisher=Army Times Publishing Company|accessdate=26 October 2010|author=Kate Brannen|date=5 October 2010}}{{dead link|date=August 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> The Army reduced its requested FY 2011 budget to $462 million.<ref name="$462 million">{{cite web|title=Fewer FCS Technologies for GCV Round Two|url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4787151&c=LAN&s=TOP|publisher=Army Times Publishing Company|accessdate=23 September 2010|author=Kate Brannen|date=22 September 2010}}{{dead link|date=August 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> Advanced Defense Vehicle Systems, General Dynamics Land Systems, and BAE Systems announced their intention of re-competing soon after the cancellation.<ref name="Crains resubmit" /><ref>{{cite web|title=Military vehicle maker drops protest, will try again for government contracts|url=http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20100827/FREE/100829898|publisher=Crain Communications Inc.|accessdate=30 August 2010|author=Chad Halcom|date=27 August 2010}}</ref>

The revised RfP was issued in November. ADVS announced that it would not submit a proposal due to the program's extended timeline.<ref>{{cite web|title=4th GCV team withdraws from competition|url=http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/defense-gcv-gets-go-ahead-081811/|publisher=Gannett Government Media Corporation|accessdate=19 January 2011|author=Kate Brannen|date=18 January 2011}}</ref>

Up to three [[Finance:Cost-plus contract|cost-plus contract]]s were to be awarded nine months after the RfP was released.<ref name=delay /><ref name="Ground Combat Vehicle Technology Development Phase Solicitation 2">{{cite web|title=10--Ground Combat Vehicle Technology Development Phase Solicitation|url=https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=3ca68abe44eae4d617512b7057977a18&_cview=0|accessdate=16 October 2010|date=8 October 2010}}</ref> An acquisition decision memorandum on 17 August allowed the program to award technology development contracts. It also initiated two reviews of alternatives including a revised analysis of alternatives and an analysis of non-developmental vehicles.<ref>{{cite web|title=GCV moves ahead, but more studies ordered|url=http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/defense-gcv-gets-go-ahead-081811/|publisher=Gannett Government Media Corporation|accessdate=11 September 2011|author=Kate Brannen|date=18 August 2011}}</ref> In August, the Army awarded technology development contracts to only BAE and GDLS. BAE was awarded $450 million while GDLS was awarded $440 million.<ref>{{cite web|title=BAE, GD awarded Ground Combat Vehicle contracts|url=http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/defense-army-gcv-contract-winners-announced-081811/|publisher=Gannett Government Media Corporation|accessdate=11 September 2011|author=Kate Brannen|date=18 August 2011}}</ref> SAIC followed up with a bid protest later that month.<ref>{{cite web|title=SAIC-Led Team Protests U.S. Army Combat Vehicle Contracts|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-26/saic-boeing-team-said-to-protest-army-combat-vehicle-contracts.html|publisher=Bloomberg L.P|accessdate=11 September 2011|author=Roxana Tiron and Brendan McGarry|date=26 August 2011}}</ref> SAIC said it believed the evaluations process was flawed and the evaluation took factors into consideration that were not stated in the request for proposal.<ref>{{cite web|title=U.S. Ground Combat Vehicle Work Put On Hold|url=http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/08/30/07.xml&headline=U.S.%20Ground%20Combat%20Vehicle%20Work%20Put%20On%20Hold|publisher=Bloomberg L.P|accessdate=11 September 2011|author=Paul McLeary|date=29 August 2011}}{{Dead link|date=December 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

;Projections
The Army requested $884 million to fund the GCV in FY 2012.<ref name="Kate FY 2012">{{cite web|title=Army seeks 30 percent less for overseas ops|url=http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/02/defense-army-overseas-ops-budget-021411/|publisher=Gannett Government Media Corporation|accessdate=15 February 2011|author=Kate Brannen|date=15 February 2011}}</ref> The technology development phase was to be a 24 months long, 3 months shorter than the previous plan.<ref name="Revised. Kate Brannen">{{cite web|title=U.S. Army To Host GCV Industry Day Oct. 1|url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4787079&c=LAN&s=TOP|publisher=Army Times Publishing Company|accessdate=22 September 2010|author=Kate Brannen|date=22 September 2010}}{{dead link|date=August 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> The Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase was to be 48 months long.<ref name="revised program Industry day">{{cite web|title=GCV Industry Day|url=http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/majorsys/gcv/GCV%20Industry%20Day%20Brief%20Oct%2010%20Charts.pdf|accessdate=13 November 2010|date=1 October 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722184210/http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/majorsys/gcv/GCV%20Industry%20Day%20Brief%20Oct%2010%20Charts.pdf|archive-date=22 July 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref> The Army planned on acquiring 1,874 GCVs to replace Bradleys in 16 active and 8 National Guard Heavy Brigade Combat Teams.<ref name="BAE">[http://www.armytimes.com/article/20120324/NEWS/203240316/Heavyweight-contender-BAE-offers-70-ton-GCV BAE offers 70-ton GCV] - Armytimes.com, March 27, 2012</ref>

;Milestone A
[[File:Namer in US.jpg|thumb|Namer APC during Non-Developmental Vehicle assessment]]
[[File:CV9035 assessment (cropped).jpg|thumb|right|A CV-9035 demonstrator vehicle for the Non-Developmental Vehicle assessment]] 
Testing of commercially available combat vehicles began in May 2012 at Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range to prepare the Army for Milestone B. The Non-Developmental Vehicle analysis assessed five vehicles, the M2A3 Bradley, [[Engineering:Namer|Namer]], [[Engineering:Combat Vehicle 90|CV-9035]], a double v-hulled [[Engineering:M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle|M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle]] and a turretless Bradley. The tests, completed on May 25, were carried out to determine what vehicle variants and configurations fulfill the Army's needs.<ref name="NDV Assessments">{{cite news |title=Army assesses current vehicles as part of Ground Combat Vehicle development process |author=Ashley Piper |url=http://www.army.mil/article/80185/The_Desert_Heats_Up_as_GCV_Kicks_Off_Non_Developmental_Vehicle__NDV__Assessments/ |newspaper=Army News|date=21 May 2012 |accessdate=8 June 2012}}</ref> The Army found that although the vehicles assessed met some GCV requirements, no currently fielded vehicle met enough without needing significant redesign.<ref name="response">[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/04/army-industry-slam-cbos-scathing-gcv-report/ Army, industry slam CBO’s scathing GCV report] - DoDBuzz.com, April 4, 2013</ref>

;Competitors
There were three known competing contractors for the Ground Combat Vehicle contract.

*BAE Systems, [[Company:Northrop Grumman|Northrop Grumman]], QinetiQ North America,  Saft Group, and iRobot were working jointly on development
*[[Company:General Dynamics Land Systems|General Dynamics Land Systems]] led a team that included [[Company:Lockheed Martin|Lockheed Martin]], and [[Company:Raytheon|Raytheon]]
*[[Company:Science Applications International Corporation|SAIC]] led a team that include [[Company:Boeing|Boeing]], [[Company:Krauss-Maffei Wegmann|Krauss-Maffei Wegmann]], and Rheinmetall Defence (not awarded EMD contract)

;Milestone C
A Milestone C decision could have been made in 2019.<ref name="weight">{{cite web|last=Cox|first=Matt|title=Army: GCV Needs to Be Big and Tracked|url=http://defensetech.org/2013/02/21/army-gcv-needs-to-be-big-and-tracked/|publisher=DefenseTech|accessdate=February 26, 2013|date=February 21, 2013}}</ref>

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|30em}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Gcv Infantry Fighting Vehicle}}
[[Category:Military technology]]

{{Sourceattribution|GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle|1}}