Back to news

June 30, 2020 | International, Land

GM Defense wins Infantry Squad Vehicle production contract

By:

WASHINGTON — The Army has awarded GM Defense a $214.3 million contract to produce the service's new Infantry Squad Vehicle.

The contract covers the cost of the first 649 vehicles, with work to be completed by June 24, 2028. The service hopes to eventually procure 2,065 of the ISVs.

"Winning this Army award is well-deserved recognition for the hard work and dedication of our GM Defense team and their production of a fantastic vehicle. We are confident the GMD ISV will meet and exceed all of our customers' requirements," David Albritton, president of GM Defense, said in a statement. "It's indeed an honor to leverage our parent company's experience as one of the world's largest automotive manufacturers to design, build and deliver the best technologies available to the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces and our allies."

The ISV, designed to carry a nine soldier squad, was specifically put together to be light enough to be sling loaded from a UH-60 Blackhawk and small enough to fit inside a C4-47 Chinook, to provide maximum flexibility for deployment.

GM's design is based off the company's 2020 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 midsize truck and use 90 percent commercial parts, according to the company, including a 186-horsepower, 2.8L Duramax turbo-diesel engine.

The attempt to procure a light infantry vehicle goes back to 2015, but nothing truly materialized until Congress forced the Army to launch the competition as part of the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. Last August, the Army awarded $1 million contracts to three teams — GM Defense, a team-up of Oshkosh Defense and Flyer Defense LLC, and a SAIC and Polaris team-up — to develop their offerings for the ISV program.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/06/29/gm-defense-wins-infantry-squad-vehicle-production-contract/

On the same subject

  • The Navy’s acquisition boss has a plan to get fleet maintenance back on track

    June 20, 2018 | International, Naval

    The Navy’s acquisition boss has a plan to get fleet maintenance back on track

    David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The Navy's acquisition boss, aiming to get his arms around the long-term maintenance and ownership costs of the world's most complex fleet, has directed Naval Sea Systems Command to undertake an ambitious long-term plan for all the ships in the fleet. James “Hondo” Geurts, the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, has asked NAVSEA to compile a 30-year ship repair and maintenance plan that he intends to roll out alongside the annual shipbuilding plan. “The idea is, we have this 30-year shipbuilding plan, that's only as good as our ability to repair and modernize those ships once we build them,” Geurts told a gaggle of reporters Tuesday. “So what we'd like to do is create the companion plan that takes the shipbuilding plan and what we have in inventory, then forecast and plan for all the repair and modernizations that we'll have to do.” The Navy wants to have an idea, as it looks down to road, if it has the needed industrial capacity and infrastructure in place to meet the fleet's needs, which will become especially important as the fleet builds up. In fact, the Navy struggles to adequately maintain the smaller fleet it has today. In testimony last week, NAVSEA head Vice Adm. Thomas Moore told House lawmakers that the net capacity private shipyards that handle surface ship maintenance was only 75 percent of what the Navy required. During the past decade, the increasing demands on a smaller fleet drove deployment lengths to nine months or longer, which racked up a readiness deficit that the Navy is still working through. Deployment lengths have come back down closer to seven months, but the unpredictable operations tempo made it difficult for the Navy to plan yards periods and impacted the business of the private shipyards. Geurts conceded that operations will undoubtedly impact a 30-year maintenance schedule but said having it on paper was the right place to start when managing complicated schedules. “It's a very complex issue with inputs and outputs,” Geurts said. “But the only thing I know is the best way to get after a complex issue is laying out at least what you know and having that at least as a baseline so then when you have to do changes – for operational reasons of whatever — you are changing from a known baseline and you can understand quickly what the second and third order effects are. Like we do on new construction, I'd like to introduce that kind of rigor.” Ultimately the hope is that industry can plan better with a long-term plan in place, Geurts said. “My hope is if we can do that, industry can start planning resources, they can start hiring resources when they see the signal,” he said. “Right now we are not as well positioned in the future as I'd like to be.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/19/the-navys-acquisition-boss-has-a-plan-to-get-fleet-maintenance-back-on-track/

  • L3Harris Link 16 acquisition obtains all regulatory approvals

    December 21, 2022 | International, C4ISR

    L3Harris Link 16 acquisition obtains all regulatory approvals

    With U.S. regulatory and allied partner approval now obtained, the deal is expected to close by January 3, 2023

  • 4 questions with analyst and retired Marine Lt. Col. Dakota Wood

    September 24, 2018 | International, Naval

    4 questions with analyst and retired Marine Lt. Col. Dakota Wood

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Marine Corps is facing the same issue as the rest of the armed forces: figuring out how to fight inside the envelope of Chinese long-range missiles in what is known as the anti-access, area denial environment of the South and East China seas. As the Navy and Marine Corps seek to protect sea lanes, allies and U.S. interests, their solution to their shared problem is to spread out, cause chaos and put strain on China's ability to target U.S. forces and sustain operations on multiple fronts. Defense News caught up with retired Marine Lt. Col. Dakota Wood, now an analyst with The Heritage Foundation, to see how the Corps is tackling the issue. As the Marines confront the challenge of fighting in the Pacific again, what are the top priorities for modernization? There are two parts to that. What are their priorities? Well the amphibious combat vehicle, unmanned capabilities overall and completing fielding of the F-35B. So that's the easy stuff: air, ground and unmanned. They are pursuing upgrades for infantrymen — rifles, optics and communications — but that is always ongoing. What I think is more interesting is how do those relate to the unfolding vision of what future Marine Corps should be. I don't think we've figured that out yet. Just as in World War II, the Navy and Marine Corps are uniquely set up for operations in the Pacific theater, but you have to get close to fight. What progress are the Marine Corps and Navy making in solving that problem? The chief of naval operations has specifically stated the dependency the Navy has on the Marine Corps to create those opportunities. The question is: How do you disrupt the enemy's posture, present multiple dilemmas to the enemy? A Marine landing force on an island or feature has to present a problem to the enemy that is credible — anti-ship cruise missiles, short-range air defense, a sensor node contributing to the air or surface picture. It has to be able to thin out the enemy's fire power, sensor grid and attention span to give the Navy the chance to get inside the envelope, close and have an impact. So how does the Marine Corps get there? It has huge implications for organizational design to get these smaller units where they need to be in a distributed environment. So it's about connectors and how do you resupply those forces. Unmanned systems? Are amphibious combat vehicles relevant in that environment? It has an impact on ships as well. So far, the Navy has been building big ships. And in this budget environment, will they be able to build enough to support that kind of operation? How do you distribute a force to pose a dilemma for your adversary? There is a gap between current modernization efforts and what needs to be there. What's the answer? To get where you need to be requires extensive experimentation and trying new things. That's the critical shortfall for the Navy and the Marine Corps. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/modern-day-marine/2018/09/24/4-questions-with-analyst-and-retired-marine-lt-col-dakota-wood

All news