Tank Talk

House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett has some questions regarding the viability of the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle program. According to his prepared opening statement at a hearing this afternoon:

The committee has and continues to support the Army’s goal of pursuing a modernized combat vehicle.  However, the committee needs to understand the rationale as to why the Ground Combat Vehicle should proceed as scheduled or if it should move to the right, in time?  How do we know that the GCV is the full spectrum vehicle that the Army needs?  Why did the Army not complete an analysis of alternatives before it issued the original requests for proposals as this committee had encouraged?  Can the Army afford to launch another program that could cost up to $30 billion to procure a vehicle that carries a squad of nine instead of the current six?  Why not consider as an alternative option, continuing to upgrade Abrams, Bradleys and Strykers; focus on the network and take part of the funds and apply it to lightening the load of the soldier?

Ten years ago we were told that the Paladin howitzer couldn’t be upgraded and that Crusader and then Non-Line of Sight-Cannon (N-LOWS-C) was the only solution.  And now that those programs have been terminated we are pursuing an upgraded Paladin howitzer, albeit with technologies from Crusader and N-LOWS-C.

To be clear, I am not saying that I don't support the GCV program. And to be fair, I believe the Army's requirements will become clearer to the committee once the results of the Analysis of Alternatives are submitted. However, as was the case with the FCS program, it is this committee's responsibility to ask the hard questions now, so that we don’t learn in five years that the Army can't afford the GCV or that it is based on 'exquisite' requirements.