By Marina Malenic
The Army’s top military leader wants a new combat vehicle effort to set the standard for successful development and acquisition in a time of shrinking defense procurement budgets.
“One of the things that we’re focused on is making the Ground Combat Vehicle a model of acquisition reform,” Gen. George Casey said yesterday at an event sponsored by the Association of the United States Army.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates last spring terminated a vehicle effort that was part of the Army’s multibillion dollar Future Combat Systems. He asked the service to create a separate Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) development program that would take into account lessons the military has learned during the counterinsurgency campaigns of the past decade, such as the need for protection against roadside bombs and other types of large explosives.
Casey said that the cancellation of all but a few FCS component programs has awakened the Army to the difficulties of technology modernization in a rapidly changing and resource-constrained environment.
“As I look back over the Future Combat Systems and the history of that program, we learned a lot,” he said. “For one, the requirements kept changing.”
He added that an overly long development timeline risks fielding outdated or “technologically irrelevant” equipment.
To remedy these problems, the Army last year conducted an internal review of its requirements process that resulted in a report with 64 recommendations for reform. Casey said the recommendations have led to changes in the purchasing process such as more detailed discussions with industry on what kinds of technologies are feasible before any development even begins.
“We need to have greater dialogue on what the tradeoffs are,” Casey told reporters. “For example, if we are looking at a turreted vehicle, we need to find out how much weight that turret might add, and how will that then affect other areas.”
The general also noted that cost, while one of the most significant factors in any acquisition, cannot be the only driver of a program because it could stifle innovation. Instead, the service must better manage projects. To that end, Casey said a chief management officer would be appointed.
Further, better management is needed beyond the acquisition realm. As the Army moves toward reestablishing normal dwell times–two years stateside for every year deployed–the service needs to better manage its force structure, Casey said.
“We need to better synchronize the supporting resources to organize, train and equip forces for an Army operating under rotation model,” he explained. “How do you get the people to the right place at the right time for training and deployment? We have been scrambling to make that happen…This is a big internal change for us.”
Over all, Casey said, better management will mean constantly asking, “Putting our money here, does that give us best value for the Army?” He said that, as defense budgets shrink, service officials “must consider this more and more.”
Regarding the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review and upcoming fiscal year 2011 budget proposal, the general said he was “pleased with the outcome of both.” He said he expects the QDR to emphasize the need for the Army to be “versatile” and “adaptable” to a wide range of contingencies already emerging in the new decade.