The Army wants a tactical truck that works as a mobile power plant. Ford is bidding the Super Duty, which makes less exportable electricity than any other truck in its lineup.
The U.S. Army awarded prototype contracts on June 30, 2026 to GM Defense, Ford and BC Customs for the Infantry Squad Vehicle-Heavy, a hybrid tactical truck spec’d around onboard power generation for drones and command-and-control systems. Each vendor delivers three prototypes by March 30, 2027. The program covers 606 vehicles. Ford is bidding a militarized F-Series Super Duty, GM is bidding a Silverado HD 3500. The revenue is small enough to be a rounding error for both automakers. The reason they showed up is that the Army is now buying the exportable-power capability that American truck buyers refused to pay a premium for, and it is buying it at defense margins on production lines that consumer volume already paid off.
Ford ended production of the F-150 Lightning in late 2025 and took a $19.5 billion charge as it pivoted away from battery-electric passenger trucks toward hybrids. The Lightning carried a 9.6 kW Pro Power Onboard system, the most exportable electricity Ford has ever put in a pickup. Nine months later, the Army handed Ford a contract for a truck whose defining requirement is exportable electricity.
What Happened
The Army confirmed on Monday that it awarded other transaction agreements to GM Defense, Ford and BC Customs to build prototypes of the ISV-Heavy, a bulked-up variant of the Infantry Squad Vehicle already in service. Breaking Defense reported that the awards were made on June 30 and that the nine vehicles, three per vendor, are due by March 30, 2027. The Wall Street Journal broke the news of the awards.
After delivery, Army Test and Evaluation Command runs operational assessments and limited developmental testing. The Army plans to award the production contract in September 2027, with first deliveries the following January.
Ford’s entry is a militarized version of its F-Series Super Duty. The company’s statement was thin on specifics: it said it looked forward to delivering prototypes that demonstrate what Ford can provide to the Army and soldiers. GM Defense is offering a militarized Chevrolet Silverado HD 3500, a platform it revealed in 2024 and that Army officials have already been field-testing. BC Customs, a small off-road vehicle manufacturer, is the third vendor.
This is Ford’s largest military program since the Cold War. The company sold Ford Aerospace in 1990 and has been out of the defense hardware business since.
The Backstory
The Infantry Squad Vehicle started as a light truck problem. The Army wanted something that could move a nine-soldier squad across rough terrain, fit inside a helicopter, and drop out of a cargo plane. GM Defense won it in 2020 with a Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 derivative, on a production contract worth $214.3 million for an initial objective of 649 vehicles. That works out to roughly $330,000 per truck. The Army holds about 1,105 of them today and its acquisition objective runs to 2,065, with FY2026 budget documents pointing at up to 9,282 systems across the family.
The ISV-Heavy changes the job description. The Army published a Commercial Solutions Opening on March 30, 2026 seeking up to three contracts for 606 heavy variants, and gave vendors ten business days to submit white papers. The solicitation named exportable power for on-the-move command and control as the capability it wanted. Military Times described the requirement as hybrid-powered and built around onboard power generation and mission system support rather than troop transport.
That is a different vehicle. The original ISV carries soldiers. The ISV-Heavy carries soldiers and runs their equipment: drone launchers, counter-UAS systems, radios, battle management computers. Every one of those loads draws current, and every one of them currently draws it from a towed or palletized generator that has to be fueled, maintained and hidden.
Ten business days for a white paper, prototypes inside nine months, production award in fifteen. Compare that to the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, which took the Army roughly a decade from requirement to fielding.
The Plan
Jim Farley said this spring that Ford was in talks with the Pentagon on multiple defense projects, and that he expected Ford to play a role in onshoring critical minerals and components including semiconductors. Ford’s line on Monday was that its ready-made, commercially available products can meet the military’s needs.
Mary Barra has been more explicit about the numbers. On GM’s Q2 2026 earnings call she guided GM Defense to roughly $700 million of 2026 revenue, positive EBIT, more than $1 billion in expected government contract awards, revenue growth above 30% annually for the foreseeable future, and double-digit margins. GM has also signed a general agreement with Lockheed Martin on munitions production, which is a heavier pivot than anything Ford has described.
The two companies are reading the same demand signal. Pentagon officials have spent two years pushing automakers and their suppliers to lend manufacturing capacity to defense production, driven by munitions and equipment shortfalls from the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
The Business Model Angle
Defense vehicle procurement used to reward a specific competence: running a low-volume, purpose-built production line while managing a compliance apparatus thick enough to survive a Defense Contract Audit Agency review. AM General, Oshkosh and Textron built businesses on that. The moat was never engineering. It was the ability to earn an acceptable return on a line that builds a few thousand units and then stops.
The ISV programs dismantle that moat. When the Army buys through a Commercial Solutions Opening and awards other transaction agreements, it is asking vendors to militarize something they already build. The winning asset becomes a commercial production line that consumer volume already amortized. Ford sells hundreds of thousands of Super Duty trucks a year. The tooling, the supply base, the frame engineering and the crash validation are sunk costs recovered through the F-Series business. Nine prototypes cost Ford close to nothing on the margin, and 606 production units would run down a line that is already paid for.
The specification is where it gets interesting for Ford specifically. Pro Power Onboard, Ford’s exportable power system, scales with electrification and nothing else. A Super Duty produces 2.0 kW from its engine. A gas F-150 produces 2.0 to 2.4 kW. The PowerBoost hybrid F-150 produces 7.2 kW. The Lightning produced 9.6 kW. The platform Ford is taking to the Army sits at the bottom of that list.
Ford spent four years and billions of dollars learning to build high-output electrified drivetrains for pickups, then concluded that retail buyers would not pay for them. Model e lost $4.8 billion in 2025 and is guided to lose $4.0 to $4.5 billion in 2026. Ford killed the Lightning, took the $19.5 billion charge, and said the next Lightning will be an extended-range electric vehicle: a battery pack with an onboard gasoline generator, targeting 700-plus miles of range and more exportable electricity than the current truck.
An EREV is a generator on a frame. So is the ISV-Heavy, as the Army has described it. Ford’s consumer retreat and the Army’s requirement converged on the same architecture within twelve months of each other, and the second one arrived with a customer who will pay for it.
The margin arithmetic explains the interest better than the volume does. GM North America ran an 8.6% EBIT-adjusted margin in Q2 2026. Ford Pro, the best business Ford owns, ran 11.4% in Q1 2026. Barra is telling investors GM Defense clears double digits at $700 million of revenue, which is roughly 0.4% of GM’s top line. Defense is not a revenue line for either company yet. It is a margin proof point and an option on a fleet the Army says could reach 9,282 systems.
The Risk
Start with the size. Priced at the original ISV’s $330,000, 606 vehicles is about $200 million of hardware, split across up to three suppliers, delivered over a program that runs past 2028. Ford guided full-year 2026 adjusted EBIT to $8.5 to $10.5 billion. Any investor treating this award as a Ford earnings event has the decimal in the wrong place.
Then the funding. GM’s $1 billion, 10,000-unit ISV opportunity is contingent on Congressional approval. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $274.172 million less than requested for the ISV line item in the FY2026 defense appropriations bill, while the Senate Armed Services Committee recommended $34 million more in a different line. Program-of-record math that assumes the Army gets what it asks for has been wrong before.
There is a capability gap too. If the Army wants meaningful exportable power, a 2.0 kW engine-driven system will not clear the bar, and Ford has not put a hybrid drivetrain in a Super Duty. Winning means bringing electrified content to a platform that does not have it, which puts Ford back into the cost structure it charged off. GM’s Silverado HD entry has been in Army hands for months and GM Defense has run the ISV production contract since 2020. Ford is arriving late to a competition against an incumbent.
The last risk is the one nobody discloses. Defense contractors trade at higher multiples than automakers. Ford trades around 4.5 times free cash flow with a dividend yield above 4%. Mentioning the Pentagon on an earnings call is free, and the market has already shown it will re-rate industrials that attach themselves to defense demand. Watch whether GM Defense revenue converts to the growth Barra guided, and whether Ford books an actual production award, before treating either as a defense business.
Quick Questions
How much is the Ford Army truck contract worth? Neither the Army nor Ford disclosed the prototype award value. Under the original ISV contract, GM Defense received $214.3 million for 649 vehicles, roughly $330,000 each. The ISV-Heavy program covers 606 vehicles, and the Army has not published a unit cost target.
What is the ISV-Heavy? A heavier variant of the Army’s Infantry Squad Vehicle, hybrid-powered, designed to generate and export electricity for drones, counter-UAS systems and on-the-move command and control, in addition to moving a squad over rough terrain.
Who is Ford competing against? GM Defense, which is bidding a militarized Chevrolet Silverado HD 3500 and already builds the original ISV, and BC Customs, an off-road vehicle manufacturer. Each vendor builds three prototypes.
Why is Ford entering defense now? Pentagon officials have been asking automakers to lend manufacturing capacity to defense production because of munitions and equipment shortfalls. Jim Farley said this spring that Ford was discussing multiple projects with the Pentagon, including onshoring of critical minerals and semiconductors. Ford last held a significant defense business before selling Ford Aerospace in 1990.
Does this fix Ford’s EV losses? No. Model e is guided to lose $4.0 to $4.5 billion in 2026. A 606-vehicle program cannot offset that. The connection is technical rather than financial: the exportable-power capability Ford developed for electrified pickups is the capability the Army is specifying.
When will the Army decide? Prototypes are due March 30, 2027. The Army plans to award the production contract in September 2027, with first deliveries in January 2028.
The Business Model Analyst Take
The easy read is that Ford is becoming a defense contractor. It isn’t, and 606 trucks will not change what Ford is.
The read worth having is about who pays for capability development. American consumers stopped paying for high-output electrified pickups. Ford responded by ending the Lightning and writing off $19.5 billion. That capability did not stop existing when Ford stopped selling it; it moved onto the balance sheet as sunk cost with no market attached. The Army then wrote a requirement that describes it almost exactly, and became the buyer for a capability that had lost its buyer.
Government procurement has always worked this way for aerospace, where military demand funded jet engines and composites that later showed up in airliners. The direction has reversed. Detroit developed the technology on consumer capital, failed to monetize it retail, and the Pentagon is picking it up at the point of maximum vendor desperation and minimum price. For the Army that is a good trade. For Ford and GM it converts a stranded asset into an option worth carrying.
Which is why the number to watch is not this award. It is whether GM Defense hits the 30% growth Barra promised and whether Congress funds the 9,282-system objective. If both land, Detroit will have found a second customer for electrified drivetrains that pays defense margins on consumer tooling, and the specialist truck primes will have a problem they cannot engineer their way out of. If neither lands, this was three prototypes and a press release.
