Army Cancels GCV Competition

[Cole]

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.