	Introduction

In April 2009, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced he intended to significantly restructure the Army's Future Combat System (FCS) program. The FCS was a multiyear, multibillion dollar program that had been underway since 2000 and was at the heart of the Army's transformation efforts. As part of this restructuring, the Army was directed to develop a ground combat vehicle (GCV) that would be relevant across the entire spectrum of Army operations and would incorporate combat lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Initial GCV Request for Proposal (RFP)10

On February 25, 2010, the Army released the RFP for the GCV as described in the following DOD press release:
Army Ground Combat Vehicle Request for Proposal Released
The Army released last Thursday a RFP for the technology development phase of the Infantry Fighting Vehicle being developed under the GCV effort. The Army reportedly planned to reissue the RFP within 60 days of the cancellation. Revised GCV RFP Issued

On November 30, 2010, the Army issued a revised GCV RFP. The first contract for $439.7 million went to the General Dynamics-led team and the second contract for $449.9 million went to the BAE Systems-Northrop Grumman team. Program Activities

		DOD Initiates Major GCV Program Changes34

On January 16, 2013, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L) Frank Kendall issued an Acquisition Decision Memorandum and an accompanying information memorandum detailing major changes to the GCV program to "enable a more affordable and executable program." The Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) plan is to award both EMD and production options to a single vendor. DOD Announces the Termination of the GCV Program37

On February 24, 2014, during a news conference outlining his recommendations to the President for DOD's FY2015 budget, Secretary of Defense Hagel stated:
I have also accepted the Army's recommendation to terminate the current Ground Combat Vehicle program and re-direct the funds toward developing a next-generation platform. Discussions with Army officials suggest, however, while the GCV program will not move forward, unspecified funding will be provided by DOD to continue certain GCV-related engineering efforts. FY2014 Budget Activity

		FY2014 Budget Request41

The FY2014 budget request for the GCV was $592.2 million for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E). 113-66)42

The FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act recommended fully funding the Administration's budget request. Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2014 (P.L. 113-76 appropriated $100.2 million for the GCV program for FY2014—a $492 million cut to the President's FY2014 budget request. Potential Issues for Congress

		What Are the Army's Plans for a Bradley Replacement? As the Army will essentially be "going back to the drawing board" to develop a new fighting vehicle, it might also be a potential consideration to reexamine foreign-developed infantry fighting vehicles that were evaluated during the GCV's Analysis of Alternative phase. What Is the True Status of the GCV Program?45

Despite Secretary of Defense Hagel's statement that the GCV program is to be "terminated," reports suggest that the GCV program will continue on as part of still to be defined science and technology effort. This situation could raise a number of issues for Congress.
In April 2009, then-Secretary of Defense Gates announced he intended to significantly restructure the Army's Future Combat System (FCS) program. The FCS was a multiyear, multibillion dollar program that had been underway since 2000 and was at the heart of the Army's transformation efforts. In lieu of the cancelled FCS manned ground vehicle (MGV), the Army was directed to develop a ground combat vehicle (GCV) that would be relevant across the entire spectrum of Army operations and would incorporate combat lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Army reissued a request for proposal (RFP) for the GCV on November 30, 2010, and planned to begin fielding the GCV by 2015-2017. On August 17, 2011, the GCV program was approved to enter the Technology Development Phase of the acquisition process and, a day later, the Army awarded two technology development contracts: $439.7 million to the General Dynamics-led team and a second contract for $449.9 million to the BAE Systems-Northrop Grumman team.
Starting in May and running through June 2012, the Army tested a number of foreign candidates during a Network Integration Exercise. This test informed the Army's Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), which is a requirement before the GCV program can progress to the next developmental phase. The AoA reportedly found no suitable existing, less expensive combat vehicles that could meet the Army's GCV requirements. On January 16, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) initiated a series of major GCV program changes which, while slipping the program schedule to the right and going to a single competitor during Engineering and Manufacturing Development, could save over $4 billion from FY2014 to FY2019.
The Administration's January 26, 2012, Major Budget Decision Briefing not only introduced a new Asia-Pacific strategic focus, but also delayed the GCV program for a year due to the SAIC-Boeing protest.
On February 24, 2014, Secretary of Defense Hagel announced the termination of the GCV program. Army officials contend that this decision was strictly a budgetary one as the GCV program was not experiencing any developmental problems at the time of termination. The Army also notes that some funding might be provided to continue unspecified GCV engineering-related efforts.
The Administration's FY2014 GCV Budget Request was $592.2 million in RDT&E funding. The FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 113-66) recommended fully funding the GCV budget request. The FY2014 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-76) appropriated $100.2 million for the GCV program for FY2014—a $492 million cut to the President's FY2014 budget request. Because DOD concluded the GCV program, there was no FY2015 GCV Budget Request.
Potential issues for Congress include the Army's plans for a Bradley replacement vehicle and whether a previously evaluated foreign vehicle could be a suitable replacement. Another potential issue is the precise program status of the GCV, as DOD pronounced the program was "terminated" but reports suggest the Army will fund and continue selected unidentified GCV science and technology activities in FY2015.