Defense Acquisitions:
Key Questions Confront the Army's Ground Force Modernization Initiatives
GAO-11-425T: Published: Mar 9, 2011. Publicly Released: Mar 9, 2011.
Additional Materials:
- Highlights Page:
- Full Report:
- Accessible Text:
Contact:
(937) 258-7915
contact@gao.gov
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov
From 2003 through 2009, the Future Combat Systems program was at the center of the Army's efforts to modernize. But in 2009, DOD canceled the program and instead laid out plans for development of a ground combat vehicle (GCV) program, multiple increments of brigade modernization, and a tactical network. GCV is intended to modernize the current ground combat vehicle fleet; the early infantry brigade combat team (E-IBCT) to continue previous Future Combat Systems efforts to stage and spin out emerging technologies to current forces; and the tactical information network to provide connectivity, communications, and data for the warfighter. Each of these is in various stages of implementation: GCV is to begin technology development in April 2011; E-IBCT increments have been terminated in early production based on test results; and development of the tactical network is poised to begin. This testimony focuses on the Army's recent efforts to prepare for a new GCV development program, E-IBCT program test results and decisions, and emerging plans for the tactical network, as well as questions the Army faces as it makes significant decisions in those areas. DOD reviewed a draft of this testimony and provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.
The Army is preparing to start a new GCV acquisition program by evaluating contractor proposals for technology development. The Army appears to be embarking on a more knowledge-based program than previously planned, focusing on costs and technical maturity. Yet, to deliver the first production vehicle in 7 years, the program must complete technology development in 2 years and engineering and manufacturing development in 4 years. Key questions on GCV pertain to how urgently it is needed, robustness of the analysis of alternatives, its cost and affordability, plausibility of its schedule, and whether mature technologies will be used. Addressing such questions is essential to getting a good start on demonstrating the match between GCV requirements and resources by the end of technology development. Most of the systems from the first increment of E-IBCT showed little or no military utility in recent tests. Several of the systems have since been terminated but two were approved for additional production. Several questions remain about the future of the remaining development efforts that were once part of the Future Combat Systems program. These questions relate to (1) whether additional procurement of the network integration kit--which includes a radio, computer system, and software--is justified in light of the Army's determination that it is not a viable, affordable, long term solution, and (2) how E-IBCT systems could have met many of their requirements, yet have so little military utility. The Army has also decided not to pursue Increment 2 of E-IBCT. Key questions remain on whether the Army will continue development or terminate other efforts from Future Combat Systems. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics recently designated the Army tactical network as a special interest portfolio, signaling a commitment to continued investment in this area, to meet the need for adaptive, evolutionary network approaches. To develop a clear understanding of the network requirements, strategies, and management of a number of disparate acquisitions, the Under Secretary has directed the Army to develop an integrated network architecture and a comprehensive acquisition strategy by this month. Key questions remain on whether the Army has yet clearly defined its internal roles and responsibilities for management of its tactical network, and how it will proceed with development of fundamental parts of the network--the advanced radios and waveforms.
Jan 21, 2021
-
Close Air Support:
Actions Needed to Enhance Friendly Force Tracking Capabilities and Fully Evaluate TrainingGAO-21-99: Published: Jan 21, 2021. Publicly Released: Jan 21, 2021.
Jan 19, 2021
-
GPS Modernization:
DOD Continuing to Develop New Jam-Resistant Capability, But Widespread Use Remains Years AwayGAO-21-145: Published: Jan 19, 2021. Publicly Released: Jan 19, 2021.
Jan 14, 2021
-
Columbia Class Submarine:
Delivery Hinges on Timely and Quality Materials from an Atrophied Supplier BaseGAO-21-257: Published: Jan 14, 2021. Publicly Released: Jan 14, 2021. -
Department of Defense:
Actions Needed to Improve Accounting of Intradepartmental TransactionsGAO-21-84: Published: Jan 14, 2021. Publicly Released: Jan 14, 2021.
Jan 12, 2021
-
DOD Critical Technologies:
Plans for Communicating, Assessing, and Overseeing Protection Efforts Should Be CompletedGAO-21-158: Published: Jan 12, 2021. Publicly Released: Jan 12, 2021.
Dec 10, 2020
-
Climate Resilience:
DOD Coordinates with Communities, but Needs to Assess the Performance of Related Grant ProgramsGAO-21-46: Published: Dec 10, 2020. Publicly Released: Dec 10, 2020. -
Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations:
DOD Needs to Address Governance and Oversight Issues to Help Ensure SuperiorityGAO-21-64: Published: Dec 10, 2020. Publicly Released: Dec 10, 2020.
Dec 2, 2020
-
Navy and Marine Corps:
Services Continue Efforts to Rebuild Readiness, but Recovery Will Take Years and Sustained Management AttentionGAO-21-225T: Published: Dec 2, 2020. Publicly Released: Dec 2, 2020.
Nov 20, 2020
-
GAO Audits Involving DOD:
Status of Efforts to Schedule and Hold Timely Entrance ConferencesGAO-21-185R: Published: Nov 20, 2020. Publicly Released: Nov 20, 2020.
Nov 19, 2020
-
Defense Acquisitions:
Joint Cyber Warfighting Architecture Would Benefit from Defined Goals and GovernanceGAO-21-68: Published: Nov 19, 2020. Publicly Released: Nov 19, 2020.
Looking for more? Browse all our products here