Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 59

Thread: Army Cancels GCV Competition

  1. #1
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default Army Cancels GCV Competition

    Military.com has a link to an article about the U.S. Army canceling the competition for the GCV. What I am not getting is why there's such a push for a new IFV when the Brad has proved itself in combat? I know the Brad is old and the Iraq War has worn out equipment, but would it not be cheaper, more efficient to upgrade the Brads with new engines, transmissions, band tracks, etc - then going out and spending billions on a new vehicle that we all know will run way over budget? Heck, remove the turret and put on a remote gun with javelins - free up space to move a 9-man squad.

    Also, it the Stryker really that bad? I read the U.S. Army report from 2002 or so, I read the M113 to Stryker comparison, I read the Washington Post or Times articles about the vehicle in Iraq and I read the the more recent article where soldiers referred to it as the Kevlar Coffin. I have also read books such as Killing Time and Kaboom and the Stryker received favorable reviews - especially in regards to it's stealth (noise signature) and speed. Is there anyone posting on this site with combat experience in the Stryker? Anyone know of a no b.s. combat analysis of the Stryker combat vehicle?

  2. #2
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    There's such a push because the Army takes decades to complete a development program. Look at the similar AAAV/EFV saga.


    And yes, the Stryker is bad (as a combat vehicle). It's a transportation vehicle, not a combat vehicle.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Near the Spiral, New Zealand.
    Posts
    134

    Default

    A few years back, a working group I was on had as one of the members an O-5 who had recently returned after a tour in Iraq with the first SBCT to be deployed there. Although the focus of the brief he delivered was on the C2 systems within the SBCT, he spoken quite highly of Stryker and the capabilities it brought to the brigade. As he didn't pull his punches in other parts of his presentation, I always saw that as some validation of the vehicle for THAT operating environment. Toss it into the Fulda Gap and it is clearly not going to be as suitable as a 'proper' IFV that weighs twice as much...

    Before they were bitching about the "kevlar coffin" (and Stryker isn't made from kevlar, just for the record), they were bitching about the M113 as the "aluminium coffin" and before that probably about the M2/M3/M5 half-track series...

    At the moment, while we dither between MCO or COIN or both or a blend of both being the war of the future, maybe it is a better move to zero hour and upgrade the Bradley series...it has worked with the 113 - look how many armies persist in keeping this 50 year old design in service - although like the AH-1 Cobra there might not be too many similarities between the original and what trundles around now - so it must offer greater utility than just the cheapest option...

  4. #4
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    Also, it the Stryker really that bad? I read the U.S. Army report from 2002 or so, I read the M113 to Stryker comparison, I read the Washington Post or Times articles about the vehicle in Iraq and I read the the more recent article where soldiers referred to it as the Kevlar Coffin. I have also read books such as Killing Time and Kaboom and the Stryker received favorable reviews - especially in regards to it's stealth (noise signature) and speed. Is there anyone posting on this site with combat experience in the Stryker? Anyone know of a no b.s. combat analysis of the Stryker combat vehicle?
    I just took over (2 months ago) as XO of a Stryker Reconnaissance unit. The Stryker is what it is - an eight wheeled personnel carrier. It's fast, carries a lot of troops, has good sights and sensors, and is reliable. It is also lightly armored by design, and does not possess stabilized gun systems. It is under-gunned in general, with only a .50 cal remote turret or a Mk19 mounted for firepower. We have 3x MGS Strykers per infantry company (9 PLTs in all) which mount a 105mm cannon. It's more of an infantry support gun than a tank killer, but that is what it is meant to be, although it can be effective in the anti-tank role. We have a Stryker TOW missile company as well. We have towed M777 howitzers in the Brigade and Stryker mounted 120mm mortars (with digital fire control) in our Squadron.

    BLUF, it can transport lots of infantry to the battlefield and then provide overwatching fires against light/medium threats. It suffers all the mobility advantages (speed, efficiency) and disadvantages (off road performance) of wheeled APCs. It is also fully networked with FBCB2 and other systems, and the command variants are well equipped to conduct on the move C4I. Pound for pound, a Stryker unit has more dismounted infantry than any other formation in the Army. But it's not a mechanized force that can effectively oppose a heavy mechanized enemy without significant augmentation.

    As far as soldier reviews, there are many vets in this unit with x2 tours in Iraq on Strykers. All praise the vehicle (with qualifications). They performed well in Iraq, but took significant hits in Afghanistan (as the CDN LAV3s did) due to increased canalization of terrain limiting mobility routes and options, and unfavorable cross-country terrain for wheeled vehicles. It wasn't designed like the MRAP for C-IED purposes, and suffers when large subsurface munitions detonate underneath it.

    The Army is considering production of an upgraded double hulled version for Afghanistan.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  5. #5
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
    I just took over (2 months ago) as XO of a Stryker Reconnaissance unit. The Stryker is what it is - an eight wheeled personnel carrier. It's fast, carries a lot of troops, has good sights and sensors, and is reliable. It is also lightly armored by design, and does not possess stabilized gun systems. It is under-gunned in general, with only a .50 cal remote turret or a Mk19 mounted for firepower. We have 3x MGS Strykers per infantry company (9 PLTs in all) which mount a 105mm cannon. It's more of an infantry support gun than a tank killer, but that is what it is meant to be, although it can be effective in the anti-tank role. We have a Stryker TOW missile company as well. We have towed M777 howitzers in the Brigade and Stryker mounted 120mm mortars (with digital fire control) in our Squadron.

    BLUF, it can transport lots of infantry to the battlefield and then provide overwatching fires against light/medium threats. It suffers all the mobility advantages (speed, efficiency) and disadvantages (off road performance) of wheeled APCs. It is also fully networked with FBCB2 and other systems, and the command variants are well equipped to conduct on the move C4I. Pound for pound, a Stryker unit has more dismounted infantry than any other formation in the Army. But it's not a mechanized force that can effectively oppose a heavy mechanized enemy without significant augmentation.

    As far as soldier reviews, there are many vets in this unit with x2 tours in Iraq on Strykers. All praise the vehicle (with qualifications). They performed well in Iraq, but took significant hits in Afghanistan (as the CDN LAV3s did) due to increased canalization of terrain limiting mobility routes and options, and unfavorable cross-country terrain for wheeled vehicles. It wasn't designed like the MRAP for C-IED purposes, and suffers when large subsurface munitions detonate underneath it.

    The Army is considering production of an upgraded double hulled version for Afghanistan.
    Do you think this is something that should remain in the active force or be moved to the National Guard? What I mean is quite this, the Guard has two roles natural disasters, etc and war. We are a country with a well developed road system. Seems to be a vehicle that would be quite useful for something like Katrina, Tornados, etc. As far as war, the Guard played a huge part in Iraq, but a stablization role seems better suited and it seems that's when the Stryker is at it's best. Plus, the Stryker would come in handy for civil disturbance - I'm just saying

    CavGuy thinks for the post that was the kind of stuff I am looking for.

    Does the 1BCT 1st Armor still change to a SBCT as well as the 3rdACR?

  6. #6
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    And yes, the Stryker is bad (as a combat vehicle). It's a transportation vehicle, not a combat vehicle.
    Having campaigned in one for 7 months, I'd disagree.

    As CavGuy said, the endorsment comes with qualifications, but that's the truth with anything. It is light (hence the L in LAV) and it isn't intended for heavy combat, but it is a superb vehicle with excellent fighting capabilities. As well, our Canadian version has a stabalized 25mm chain-gun.

  7. #7
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    It's a target in mechanised combat.

    No matter against whom you've campaigned in Strykers, their most modern weapon was likely a 1980's technology man-portable RPG-29.

    Some 1930's armoured cars were superior to most Stryker versions in vehicle/vehicle combat.


    It's a transportation/utility vehicle, and an expensive one.

  8. #8
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    It's a target in mechanised combat.
    Anything is a target if employed poorly.

    No matter against whom you've campaigned in Strykers, their most modern weapon was likely a 1980's technology man-portable RPG-29.
    Well, since that's what 90 percent of the world is armed with, I guess I'm cool with that.

    Needless to say, we can conceptualize what we want, but the vehicle has saved lives, killed lots of bad guys and has given me and my soldiers the 90% solution so far, so I'm happy with it.

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default Just some personal opinions/observations

    Believe we have an opportunity here. It depends on the veracity of several assumptions that are arguable, but not unrealistic. Assumptions:

    1) The current plan to buy 573 EFVs may not be affordable. An EFV costs $20 million and a ship-to-shore connector LCAC replacement is just $50 million and can carry two Infantry vehicles plus all the other Marine and Army non-amphibious equipment and supplies....and aid for disaster victims, etc. We already have 90 LCAC and plans for 80 newer replacements. Smarter positioning of both faster-than-EFV air-cushioned vehicles combined with amphibious ship stowage launching farther from shore would be a complete solution when added to about 150 EFVs and 500+ cheaper, non-amphibious squad carriers.

    2) The Army can't afford large numbers of new super-heavy GCVs either. It would require more engineer equipment, HETs, air and sealift, heavy recovery vehicles, and far more fuel trucks, plus greater operational/training costs. If GCV was intended as a common vehicle for other applications, every tracked vehicle on the battlefield would be the size and weight of a tank!

    3) The Marines still must get to shore if they don't buy all 573 EFVs. They also want a LAV replacement. Army forces also need to get to shore and cannot always rely on deep water ports. If the weight of their respective vehicles is in the 75 ton weight range without troops, an LCAC or future ship-to-shore connector can carry two infantry vehicles, and more will fit aboard JHSV. Conceivably, a few could even fit aboard LCS.

    4) If their respective vehicles weigh around 80,000 lbs with troops, two can fit aboard a C-17 and three aboard a C-5M.

    5) Marines need a vehicle that can carry a 13-man infantry squad. The Army needs to carry its 9-man squad. The crew number and location in the vehicle as well as the need for a full or remote turret is debatable.

    6) IED/mine protection, the largest killer on today's battlefield that is not going away, is non-negotiable. Full all-around 30mm protection is required. RPG and ATGM protection is a given but how much and how to provide it? Ability to withstand a main tank Sabot round is NOT a given. That capability did not exist against the far more formidable USSR, M113s led M1A1 during one thunder run, Bradleys did not suffer disproportionate casualties in either Iraq war, nor did LAV/AAV on the road to Baghdad. Despite hybrid threat claims, the Israelis lost only 121 dead...hardly an earth-shattering lesson compared to lessons learned by our ground forces facing IEDs/EFPs.

    Possible solution? A Joint Ground Combat Vehicle (JGCV). If it makes sense for F-35, M1A1, M777, etc,, it could be a solution for IFVs despite the parochial concerns it would raise.

    Possible course of action?

    1) Marine IFV version: 13-man squad carry achieved by three rows of 4 troops and the squad leader sitting next to the vehicle commander adjacent to the turret housing only a gunner.

    2) Army heavy IFV version: 9-man squad carry achieved by three rows of 3 troops and a tenth spot available next to the vehicle commander as with the forward-part-of-vehicle on Marine version

    3) Army heavy CFV version: 4-man scout carry (even if only two usually used) with two outer rows of 2-men and telescoping sensor in the middle between scouts as well as other unmanned systems carried.

    4) Air-deployable Marine and Army IFV version: 13-man or 9-man squad carry versions with remote turret on both to reduce weight Only one combined arms battalion would have these vehicles per HBCT and it would include just 3 JGCVs and 3 M-ATVs per infantry platoon and just a single larger armor company with 19 tanks (4 platoons +3 in HHC). The CAB with sea-deployed full-turreted JGCV would have a full 2 companies of infantry with 4 JGCVs and 4 M-ATVs per platoon (vs. 3 of each in air-deployed) and 2 armor companies with 14 tanks each.

    5) Mortar, anti-armor, FIST, C2V, engineer, and ambulance version with higher roof to allow standing and opening roof. The opening roof would allow mortar firing, line-charge launch, and an elevating Joint Air-Ground Missile launcher for those vehicles.

    The front part of all vehicles would be identical. The rear of each would be slightly longer dependent on whether the three rows of 4, 3, or 2 dismounts were being carried. The track length of all vehicles could be identical offering an opportunity for a rear platform for unmanned ground vehicles on the shortest scout version.

    The JGCV would need to be 12' wide with a 10' wide interior (2' row+2' aisle+2' row+2' aisle+2' row) and troops sitting partially over tracks. If you assume the bottom of the vehicle starts 18" off the ground, then has another foot of clearance to the cabin floor above the middle ridge to allow V-armor, then another 18" above that to suspended shock-resistant seats, the troop seats are four feet above the ground over 3' tall tracks. That still allows another foot on either side of the cabin for additional armor and active protection systems.

    The Marines would use a combination of EFV and JGCV aboard LCAC to get to shore. Marines probably should reconsider sending 20 Marines inside an EFV to get to shore given the difficulty in getting out of the vehicle...MV-22 could carry them to shore where they would link up with respective vehicles.

    Just food for thought/debate.
    Last edited by Cole; 08-28-2010 at 02:47 AM. Reason: Clarification

  10. #10
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    Anything is a target if employed poorly.
    Well, since that's what 90 percent of the world is armed with, I guess I'm cool with that.
    My problem is of course that while 95% of unimportant annoyances might not have better weaponry, 100% of those who would really dare to attack my country seriously (at least in scenarios) are playing five leagues higher.

  11. #11
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    Believe we have an opportunity here. It depends on the veracity of several assumptions that are arguable, but not unrealistic. Assumptions:

    1) The current plan to buy 573 EFVs may not be affordable. An EFV costs $20 million and a ship-to-shore connector LCAC replacement is just $50 million and can carry two Infantry vehicles plus all the other Marine and Army non-amphibious equipment and supplies....and aid for disaster victims, etc. We already have 90 LCAC and plans for 80 newer replacements. Smarter positioning of both faster-than-EFV air-cushioned vehicles combined with amphibious ship stowage launching farther from shore would be a complete solution when added to about 150 EFVs and 500+ cheaper, non-amphibious squad carriers.

    2) The Army can't afford large numbers of new super-heavy GCVs either. It would require more engineer equipment, HETs, air and sealift, heavy recovery vehicles, and far more fuel trucks, plus greater operational/training costs. If GCV was intended as a common vehicle for other applications, every tracked vehicle on the battlefield would be the size and weight of a tank!

    3) The Marines still must get to shore if they don't buy all 573 EFVs. They also want a LAV replacement. Army forces also need to get to shore and cannot always rely on deep water ports. If the weight of their respective vehicles is in the 75 ton weight range without troops, an LCAC or future ship-to-shore connector can carry two infantry vehicles, and more will fit aboard JHSV. Conceivably, a few could even fit aboard LCS.

    4) If their respective vehicles weigh around 80,000 lbs with troops, two can fit aboard a C-17 and three aboard a C-5M.

    5) Marines need a vehicle that can carry a 13-man infantry squad. The Army needs to carry its 9-man squad. The crew number and location in the vehicle as well as the need for a full or remote turret is debatable.

    6) IED/mine protection, the largest killer on today's battlefield that is not going away, is non-negotiable. Full all-around 30mm protection is required. RPG and ATGM protection is a given but how much and how to provide it? Ability to withstand a main tank Sabot round is NOT a given. That capability did not exist against the far more formidable USSR, M113s led M1A1 during one thunder run, Bradleys did not suffer disproportionate casualties in either Iraq war, nor did LAV/AAV on the road to Baghdad. Despite hybrid threat claims, the Israelis lost only 121 dead...hardly an earth-shattering lesson compared to lessons learned by our ground forces facing IEDs/EFPs.

    Possible solution? A Joint Ground Combat Vehicle (JGCV). If it makes sense for F-35, M1A1, M777, etc,, it could be a solution for IFVs despite the parochial concerns it would raise.

    Possible course of action?

    1) Marine IFV version: 13-man squad carry achieved by three rows of 4 troops and the squad leader sitting next to the vehicle commander adjacent to the turret housing only a gunner.

    2) Army heavy IFV version: 9-man squad carry achieved by three rows of 3 troops and a tenth spot available next to the vehicle commander as with the forward-part-of-vehicle on Marine version

    3) Army heavy CFV version: 4-man scout carry (even if only two usually used) with two outer rows of 2-men and telescoping sensor in the middle between scouts as well as other unmanned systems carried.

    4) Air-deployable Marine and Army IFV version: 13-man or 9-man squad carry versions with remote turret on both to reduce weight Only one combined arms battalion would have these vehicles per HBCT and it would include just 3 JGCVs and 3 M-ATVs per infantry platoon and just a single larger armor company with 19 tanks (4 platoons +3 in HHC). The CAB with sea-deployed full-turreted JGCV would have a full 2 companies of infantry with 4 JGCVs and 4 M-ATVs per platoon (vs. 3 of each in air-deployed) and 2 armor companies with 14 tanks each.

    5) Mortar, anti-armor, FIST, C2V, engineer, and ambulance version with higher roof to allow standing and opening roof. The opening roof would allow mortar firing, line-charge launch, and an elevating Joint Air-Ground Missile launcher for those vehicles.

    The front part of all vehicles would be identical. The rear of each would be slightly longer dependent on whether the three rows of 4, 3, or 2 dismounts were being carried. The track length of all vehicles could be identical offering an opportunity for a rear platform for unmanned ground vehicles on the shortest scout version.

    The JGCV would need to be 12' wide with a 10' wide interior (2' row+2' aisle+2' row+2' aisle+2' row) and troops sitting partially over tracks. If you assume the bottom of the vehicle starts 18" off the ground, then has another foot of clearance to the cabin floor above the middle ridge to allow V-armor, then another 18" above that to suspended shock-resistant seats, the troop seats are four feet above the ground over 3' tall tracks. That still allows another foot on either side of the cabin for additional armor and active protection systems.

    The Marines would use a combination of EFV and JGCV aboard LCAC to get to shore. Marines probably should reconsider sending 20 Marines inside an EFV to get to shore given the difficulty in getting out of the vehicle...MV-22 could carry them to shore where they would link up with respective vehicles.

    Just food for thought/debate.
    I think you are reading my mind. I like the idea of a joint GCV and I think both services have much more to gain from this then lose. Based on our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as our allies) we should be able to get this design right. But, again, cost is a concern - I mean 20 million for an EFV - that's nuts. That's why upgrading the Brads might be the best way to go, but I do not have experience with the Brad to defend that opinion. Maybe the Brad has hit its ceiling and going with a new vehicle is the best way to go - that will be up to people smarter then me.

  12. #12
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    My problem is of course that while 95% of unimportant annoyances might not have better weaponry, 100% of those who would really dare to attack my country seriously (at least in scenarios) are playing five leagues higher.
    Your point on employment is valid. If my country was attacked, we'd likely be mounting SAR missions to find all the frozen invaders....

  13. #13
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    Your point on employment is valid. If my country was attacked, we'd likely be mounting SAR missions to find all the frozen invaders....
    Nobody ia gonna invade Canada except South Park.

    Everybody likes the Canadians.

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Sounds like some of the exercises we had in Northern Australia. The SAR chopper was always busy picking up the enemy who had come down with heat stress.

    More importantly, and meant as no criticism, Cole your idea sounds very similar to what Richard Simpkin was advocating in the late 1970s/early 1980s with his modular AFV concepts. From my translation of a recent article, the Chinese are impressed with the German Puma IFV, especially with its armament and protection levels.

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GI Zhou View Post
    From my translation of a recent article, the Chinese are impressed with the German Puma IFV, especially with its armament and protection levels.
    What exactly impresses them?

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    South of Camp Pendleton
    Posts
    8

    Cool 54º40' or fight

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    Nobody ia gonna invade Canada except South Park.

    Everybody likes the Canadians.
    We (US) tried twice, but it ended badly both times.
    Ingrates.

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    99

    Default Puma IFV

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    What exactly impresses them?
    They are particularly impressed with the turret as a whole; the vehicle ergonimics of the vehicle and modular arnmour upgrading. The fire control system, especially the commander's independent sight along with the sensor system itself; the smoke grenade dischargers at the rear of the turret enabling modular uparmouring; and the location of the Mk-30-2 automatic cannon and co-axial 5.56mm MG4 machine gun come in for special mention.

  18. #18
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    ... 100% of those who would really dare to attack my country seriously (at least in scenarios) are playing five leagues higher.
    I'll never forget when as a lieutenant I went on a training exercise with 21 Battaillon Feld Artillerie at Munster Lager in January 1979. That's when a storm dumped about two feet of snow on Hamburg and Hannover. I couldn't decide whether I was in the Ardennes or on the Russian Front. The maps we had were cross-hatched in red to show where persistent chemical agents remained in the ground from experiments during the First World War.

  19. #19
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GI Zhou View Post
    They are particularly impressed with the turret as a whole; the vehicle ergonimics of the vehicle and modular arnmour upgrading. The fire control system, especially the commander's independent sight along with the sensor system itself; the smoke grenade dischargers at the rear of the turret enabling modular uparmouring; and the location of the Mk-30-2 automatic cannon and co-axial 5.56mm MG4 machine gun come in for special mention.
    The armament is nothing special, rather weak indeed. A CV9035 has clearly superior firepower.
    The MK30-2 uses only two cartridges;
    * ABM, air burst munition - AHEAD type. Minimal bursting charge.
    * APFSDS
    There we have two munitions, both with serious issues. ABM has no explosive power to eat its way through a wall, for example. It can only defeat exposed soft targets.
    APFSDS has the old problem of discarding sabot ammunition for IFVs; the discarded SABOTs create a dangerous zone, so it's tricky to have infantry ahead.

    Modular armour: Looks fine.

    Electronics and sensors; up-to-date, but I would argue that an IFV does not need a CITV at all. That's gold-plating.

    Mobility: As far as I know the engine has its issues with lack of torque at low rpm.

    Dismount element: Too small.


    The only really, really good thing about the Puma (except probably the modular armour) is that vibrations and noise inside have been reduced by 10 dB thanks to a decoupled suspension (the suspension is mounted on a longitudinal element that's itself mounted on the hull with dampeners).

  20. #20
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    I think you are reading my mind. I like the idea of a joint GCV and I think both services have much more to gain from this then lose. Based on our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as our allies) we should be able to get this design right. But, again, cost is a concern - I mean 20 million for an EFV - that's nuts. That's why upgrading the Brads might be the best way to go, but I do not have experience with the Brad to defend that opinion. Maybe the Brad has hit its ceiling and going with a new vehicle is the best way to go - that will be up to people smarter then me.
    If it is joint, there is probably less probability of calls for upgraded Bradleys and AAVs. Don't know anything about European, BMP-3, or even Bradley designs other than cursory research...except they all are much, much lighter than 53 tons. The FCS manned ground vehicle also would have been even in overweight form. In Europe's case, AFVs also seem tied to A400M lift capabilities so the U.S. has an advantage there given larger C-17 payloads and numbers...yet we don't seem ready to exploit that capability. Allied A-400M could augment that early airlift of their lighter vehicles.

    The BMP-3 design shows you can even add a main gun +30mm and keep the weight down. Interesting how they created a rear engine under the floor and put two dismounts next to the driver to still have 7 dismounts.

    The BMP3 has a pretty big turret, too. With no engineering background, just playing around using 100 lbs per square foot of armor, it is amazing how quickly the weights add up for a large turret or even 33 cubic feet of fuel pods on the rear if you tried to put them there. A wider, shorter vehicle seems to give you more penalty on lighter bottom and top armor but less penalty on heavier side armor...and it allows fuel and other assets under main vehicle armor and troops to sit next to the turret.

    Bottom line, seems like smart design can manage weight without excessive tech that may not be ready. Could you fill the V-bottom with water once in country to get by with less armor?

Similar Threads

  1. Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success
    By Shek in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-16-2010, 06:27 AM
  2. Capstone Concept will change Army doctrine
    By SWJED in forum TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 12:42 PM
  3. Army Training Network
    By SWJED in forum TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-20-2009, 03:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •