WHO IS THE CUSTOMER?
MORE ADVENTURES IN DEVELOPMENT Te Army canceled the FCS program in 2009 and embarked on the Ground Combat Vehicle program to replace the Bradley. I was one of the first prod- uct managers for the Ground Combat Vehicle effort, specifically charged to work with the requirements commu- nity to ensure the requirements for the newly envisioned Bradley replacement were technically achievable and afford- able. At the time, Fort Benning served as the home of the infantry, and Fort Knox, Kentucky, served as the home of armor. Te resources that had supported the over- sight and management of the development of a family of eight FCS manned ground vehicles were now applied to the devel- opment of the Ground Combat Vehicle. Te Army designated Fort Knox as the lead in the defining its requirements. Te program pushed for a materiel develop- ment decision and Milestone A in 2010 to begin awarding technical-maturation and risk-reduction contracts to industry. Te same two industry partners that were teamed together in the FCS engineering, manufacturing and development phase for manned ground vehicles now competed against each other in a technical-matu- ration and risk-reduction phase for the Ground Combat Vehicle.
Again, not clearly defining the customer plagued a Bradley-replacement acquisition effort. Te Army put the Armor School in charge of the Ground Combat Vehicle requirements. Based on the requirements, the program office, the interested industry competitors and engineers at the research, development and engineering center at
contracts based on schedule pressure and to protect the planned and programmed resources of the old FCS manned ground vehicle program.
WHO IS THE CUSTOMER?
This simple answer—the warfighter—fails to recognize the program manager’s balancing of a program’s cost, schedule and performance, and fails to acknowledge the complex acquisition environment.
Who was the customer of the materiel- development decision or Milestone A review for the Ground Combat Vehi- cle program? Four years later, the Army canceled the Ground Combat Vehicle program because the vehicle was going to be too big and heavy and had excessive requirements. Te effort was not focused on the mechanized infantryman—it was focused on other Army priorities.
the Tank and Automotive Command, all agreed that the Ground Combat Vehicle would weigh between 50 and 70 tons— nearing the weight of the 72-ton M1A2 Abrams tank and almost twice as heavy as the 30-ton Bradley or previously planned 30-ton Infantry Carrier Vehicle.
NEVERTHELESS, THE ARMY PERSISTED Te new vehicle had force protection, survivability and lethality requirements for a mechanized infantry vehicle written by non-infantrymen. In subsequent reviews with the Headquarters Department of the Army staff (including the vice chief of staff of the Army), the potential weight of the Ground Combat Vehicle and excessive requirements were highlighted. However, the Army pushed ahead and awarded two
In recent years, after several failed attempts at initiating the Next Generation Combat Vehicle, the Army is trying again—this time calling the Bradley replacement the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. I have doubts, however, that the Army has solved the problem of defining the customer.
Does a mechanized infantry vehicle really need to be operated remotely? What’s the benefit of driving it remotely? What are the tactics, techniques and procedures to fire the main gun remotely, and when, on the battlefield, would that ever occur?
Te vehicle crew is unprotected while outside the vehicle and firing the main gun. Tat’s a very inefficient lethality system because the parts of the vehi- cle used to protect the crew and protect the troops being transported are unnec- essary for that mission. So, in the end, the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehi- cle won’t be an optimized troop transport carrier or an optimized lethality system.
The collective group of hundreds of the most experienced acquisition professionals and researchers struggled to agree on a definition of the customer.
138 Army AL&T Magazine Winter 2021
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176
