Don’t know anything about the Puma, but brief research seems to indicate impressive stats except:

- carries only 6 dismounts and crew of 3, U.S. is looking for 11-man carrry…could explain the 6th road wheel
– 41 ton vehicle for 30mm all-around protection sounds good but that is for the 6-dismount version
– 6 + 3 crew version is already 24′ x 12′ x 10.075′ high, and is less than 1.5′ off the ground and 10 kg (22 lb) mine protection only
– 1.5+ foot steel track must be heavy vs. FCS band track
– 10 cylinder powerful engine probably guzzles gas and probably does not produce enough electricity
– Doubt Obama admin would allow us to buy an entire family of vehicles from overseas unless shared manufacturing ala GD and BAE in FCS
– Multiple cameras around vehicle sounds like the wave of the future

Rhyno, I hear you, but unlike the Leopard, the Abrams turbine burns 2 gallons per mile. It is hard to get lots of gas into theater and then around the theater without getting gas trucks/drivers blown up…one reason why FCS MGV were originally going to get 3 mpg using 6 times less gas. Abrams also would tear up the newly rebuilt roads and bridges and would only be effective in the flat south Helmand area.

Daniel, hopefully you aren’t talking about a heavy family of vehicle similar to Abrams size? A mech division in the offensive can use nearly one million gallons a day. Multiply that by $13 a gallon to get fuel into remote theaters…and try to keep those supplies matching the pace of maneuver elements.

Keeping up wasn’t easily accomplished by the Germans in WWII (and was a major reason for Blitzkrieg to finish fast), and isn’t simple with current heavy forces (it caused an OIF “tactical pause”)…let alone at an expanded heavy family gas-guzzling rate. Finally, it safeguards one group of combat arms Soldiers at the expense of another group of more exposed logisticians.

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/8472/

Picture confuses me though. Shows 6 roadwheels now, a taller commander’s pan sight, and possibly a 35mm Skyranger-looking cannon !!??

Any help here?

your diamond vehicle sounds interesting.

2)M-ATVs will not make a unit equally adept at anything, first they can only be used in low intensity counter insurgency, they would be death boxes in a shooting war.

a brad or abrams is tall yes but they also have the armour to back of the profile.

your underestimating the enemy if you think they will only attack the m-atvs, they will focus on that they can kill and if they have mildly advanced weapons they can kill the m-atv.

3) are you going to mount a bushmaster on the m-atv? it could be an okay mortar platform but an amos turret on an ifv body would be better. What good is a Non Line Of Sight going to be in a line plt?

my view of what fcs should look like is as follows

common heavy chassis consists of howitzer heavy tank mlrs wrecker and engineering vehicle.

howitzer would be the priority of the group the abrams is more than adequate for now so the heavy tank can go on the back burner, mlrs wrecker and engineer vehicle can come as need over time.

medium chassis would be infantry carrier mortar anti tank air defence c2 medium tank.
ICV would be first, followed by mortar then others as needed, anti tank and ada could possibly be the same vehicle with modular components. the chassis would be similar to german puma. the mortar vehicle would have a breach loaded 2 tube turret similar to AMOS. there would also be a medium tank variant based on the medium chassis this vehicle would be the organic direct fire support for the company

all the heavy tanks would be grouped together in battalions to allow the heavy armour to be massed.

Now THAT is underarmored (with no active protection), especially when you consider how much weight is tied up in getting to shore and that it has a thin flat bottom under all those troops

repy, no i totally agree with you i think the efv is an idea like the osprey that just wont die, but it seems the marines want something to get from ship to shore which rules out the fcs. i dont think it should be the efv however.
________________________________________________
Why would you worry about ATGM with active armor and strategically-located Chobham-like armor? Same for top attack. 30mm protection is doable as well.

rely ask the Israelis why one should worry about atgms, they have some merks that would tell you why. there moving to a tank chassis based ifv the namer by the way. active defense and reactive armour are great but you still want a good hull, like i said earlier we should be looking at something like the puma ifv the germans have.

your diamond vehicle sounds interesting.

_________________________________________

And it is an utter travesty that this underarmored $20 million EFV deathtrap (for 20 Marines) and maintenance headache in the making was allowed to survive while FCS manned ground vehicles were killed despite the fact that an angled V-armor kit was already planned against IEDs.

With existing and coming anti-ship missiles, those Marines had best be ready for a 4 hour trip to shore from 100 miles out…assuming the mother ship lasts that long before getting hit by a missile.

reply i totally i think the efv is a bunch of dead marines waiting to happen. the marines want a ship to shore vehicle however but it shouldnt be the efv
___________________________

Actually it makes the new BCT equally adept at full scale conflict or counterinsurgency. It also provides an organic resupply and unmanned vehicle carrier (or towed) capability for platoons. Suspect the heavier M-ATV will be every bit as survivable as the JLTV which obviously will end up being purchased in smaller numbers now if at all with 5200 M-ATVs out there.

If we must cut back somewhere to get new infantry, howitzer, C2Vs, and expeditionary tanks…ligher/smaller ambulances, mortar vehicles, and R&SVs are the way to go.

Suspect a Bradley and Tank are every bit as tall and far noiser than a M-ATV. So Mr. Cav who is trying to hide won’t do any better a job in a Abrams or Bradley than in a M-ATV. Have you seen the optics on the LRAS3?

Obviously, mines are a major threat for any kind of route, area, or zone recon and detecting mine-free routes is similarly important. Bring along some tanks and ICVs for guard BPs, but letting the M-ATVs lead them could save a lot of money. Would you rather lose a $1 million M-ATV or a $10 million ground combat vehicle that is your primary warfighting tool?

reply, not really, 3 of your vehicles can do both and 2 of them can only do coin. a hummvee of a jltv would be a death trap in the same situation also.

The JLTV will most likely have a smaller profile allowing it more survivability in shooting conflicts and less in blowing up situations.

We could cut back and use M-ATV’s or whatever other vehicle is around or we could simply build those vehicle last, so in 20+ years when we are replacing fcs the support component vehicles can be replaced last.

A brad or abrams would be tall yes but a 70ton tank can be taller it can handles the extra exposure.

______________________________

in your infantry line plt element what good is an NLOS-LS container? not to mention with the 3 real fighting vehicle you have if you loose one your now operating at 66% strength plus essential two blast resistant trucks. M-ATVs are a niche vehicle a more mobile blast bucket at this role they should do well but moving them out of that role will not end well.

a force based on a mix of medium/heavy chassis world work much better in my opinion.

common heavy with be heavy tank howitzer mlrs recovery vehicle engineering vehicle

common medium will be infantry carrier mortar anti tank air defence c2 medium tank ect

heavy tanks will be in battalion sized units of heavy tanks only + support vehicles. this allows the heaviest armour to be masses easily as the tip of the spear in an attack, held in reserve in defence or pieced out as needed.

the rest of the brigade minus artillery would be based around ifvs on the medium chassis with a plt of medium tanks organic to the companies similar to stykers organization. anti tank and air defence would be at battalion or brigade level. engineering and artillery units will you a mix of the respective vehicle needed. this allows for two chassis for nearly every vehicle that would be needed, lowering cost and allowing easier mass production if we ever get into another war that’s nation state conflict with a peer.

the german puma is what we should look at and try to emulate.

Daniel said: “1) three vehicle platoons drastically limits the capability of than unit not to mention a 40ton vehicle holding 15 dismounts is going to have very limited protect compared to contemporary ifvs.“
=====================================
reply: The 11-man FCS ICV was going to weigh 27 tons, why would you believe a 15-man infantry carrier weighing 40 tons would have inadequate armor when active protection is included? Are you aware that the EFV is around 40 tons and carries 17 + a crew of 3?

Now THAT is underarmored (with no active protection), especially when you consider how much weight is tied up in getting to shore and that it has a thin flat bottom under all those troops.
=====================================
Daniel said: “If you notice the other article about hybrid war and the proliferation of atgms, an under protected 40ton ifv with 15+ personal in it starts to seem fool hardy.“
=====================================
reply: Why would you worry about ATGM with active armor and strategically-located Chobham-like armor? Same for top attack. 30mm protection is doable as well.

Picture a hexagon with six 5.5′ sides. Place four troops seated along each of three of the six sides. Place the turret in the middle. The driver would access his station through the front hexagon side. Troops would enter and exit through two hexagon sides facing partially to side and rear over a floor atop low tracks.

The hybrid-electric engine and batteries would be in the rear behind the forward facing rear rows of seats. The result is 12 troops sitting around the hexagon (in 3 convenient fire team sections) and two Soldiers in the middle (to include Army VC or Marine SL and turret gunner)plus the driver.

That’s 15 total troops on board on a 12′ wide vehicle that is 22′ long. Keep in mind the heavy armor part of the vehicle is only about 12′ diameter in the middle.

Of course the beauty of a hexagon is now instead of a V-hull, you could have equally shaped/sized/manufactured angled armor leading up to the six hexagon sides from a center point to further disperse the blast in all directions.

Because you effectively end up with a diamond-shape hull facing the front/rear, you have angled armor facing both distance frontal and flank shooters to increase effective armor thickness against long range shots.

Because of the diamond-shape hull (with hexagon in middle), you could have very wide tires (or dualies) steering both in front and rear for road marches. You would have tracks in the middle on opposite sides of the hexagon with no side skirts to trap any IED blast. Thicker armor would be around the six, hexagon vertical sides each around 5.5′ x 4.5′ per side for ease of manufacturing.

Then (I’m stretching here) use a central tire inflation system to simply inflate tire with extra air to get the tracks up off the ground, or deflate the tires to get them on the ground for cross country movement (you want lower tire pressure off road anyway). You might need some hydraulics or adjustable torsion arms.

The advantage of both wheels and tracks is the potential to continue moving if tracks or wheels are blown off. Better fuel mileage would result when traveling on roads on tires only. The large front tire/dualies would detonate pressure-detonated mines to spare the tracks and crew in most cases.
=====================================
Daniel said: “The point of the EFV is that it can move from ship to shore on its own, regardless of the EFV itself that is what the Corps is looking for.“
=====================================
reply: And it is an utter travesty that this underarmored $20 million EFV deathtrap (for 20 Marines) and maintenance headache in the making was allowed to survive while FCS manned ground vehicles were killed despite the fact that an angled V-armor kit was already planned against IEDs.

With existing and coming anti-ship missiles, those Marines had best be ready for a 4 hour trip to shore from 100 miles out…assuming the mother ship lasts that long before getting hit by a missile.
=====================================
Daniel said: “1) I don think you adequately responded to my argument. If hybrid enemies is what we will be buiding our force to fight against, the M-ATV will be an Achilles heal.“
===================================
reply: Actually it makes the new BCT equally adept at full scale conflict or counterinsurgency. It also provides an organic resupply and unmanned vehicle carrier (or towed) capability for platoons. Suspect the heavier M-ATV will be every bit as survivable as the JLTV which obviously will end up being purchased in smaller numbers now if at all with 5200 M-ATVs out there.

If we must cut back somewhere to get new infantry, howitzer, C2Vs, and expeditionary tanks…ligher/smaller ambulances, mortar vehicles, and R&SVs are the way to go.

Suspect a Bradley and Tank are every bit as tall and far noiser than a M-ATV. So Mr. Cav who is trying to hide won’t do any better a job in a Abrams or Bradley than in a M-ATV. Have you seen the optics on the LRAS3?

Obviously, mines are a major threat for any kind of route, area, or zone recon and detecting mine-free routes is similarly important. Bring along some tanks and ICVs for guard BPs, but letting the M-ATVs lead them could save a lot of money. Would you rather lose a $1 million M-ATV or a $10 million ground combat vehicle that is your primary warfighting tool?
====================================
Daniel said: “40% of your mounted force can mount a weapon no bigger than a mk-19 it addition to being an efficient way to transport infantry 3 crew to get 2 or visa versa infantry on the ground. Furthermore the M-ATVs will be tall underaromured targets (compared to other vehicles in plt)“
====================================
reply: I bet you could mount some pretty substantial firepower in the turret of a M-ATV with a little R&D of existing weapons. Believe it has a 4,000 lb payload so doubt a mortar firing out the back end would phase the vehicle in the least, and it may be a perfect platform for carrying NLOS-LS container launch units.

I definitely agree the ied threat was not understood at the time and the new vehicle should be design with the intent of facing that threat.

While naval expeditionary warfare should and will remain the Marines responsibility, the efv is another subject and is more complex than simply putting an air cushion on a vehicle.

Im not debating the merits of the efv or the frontal beach assault however the vehicle the marines want is one designed for that, so the 40 ton vehicle you propose will not fill that bill.

If you want an air expeditionary force you would have to look more toward the german wiesal or the russian airborne vehicles sprut sd and bmd, which are air deployable but are to light to build a force around, another niche vehicle.

rebuttal to your numbered comments

1) I don think you adequately responded to my argument. If hybrid enemies is what we will be buiding our force to fight against, the M-ATV will be an Achilles heal. 40% of your mounted force can mount a weapon no bigger than a mk-19 it addition to being an efficient way to transport infantry 3 crew to get 2 or visa versa infantry on the ground. Furthermore the M-ATVs will be tall underaromured targets (compared to other vehicles in plt)

2)Northern Iraq was an Airborne Operation for all intents and purposes, (trust me i know my senior drill sergeant was there i had to hear about it all the time) therefore your unopposed landing would have to take place in a secured airfield of some quality not a Cessna strip but something that can handle a c-17 fully loaded.

3) The army should use MRAPS and M-ATVs in future forces but they come into play after the heavy units have put you in the position to be vulnerable to ieds, you say the stryker is more an insurgency vehicle, well the M-ATV is only an insurgency vehicle. The our future mortor should be something with an AMOS like turret not a truck mounted turret, that would work fine for the light forces.

The MV-22 is very close to being axed so it would be out of the equation. Going into a fight expecting not to fire and then not having the logistical tail to support yourself if you do get into a scrap is a recipe for a unit size massacre.

4)The hybrid electric drive is not the issue in a force on force engagement using a monster truck to deliver your scouts is not the best idea. how are you going to have an op in a vehicle this tall?

Maybe i just dont understand what your proposing but i was in iraq for several years and what you suggesting is something that would be fine for a COIN environment and would be detrimental if a nation state conflict. You mix would be something useful in OIF II but OIF I would put your force in serious danger. Look how dominant our Bradley/Abrams force was? This is something that should be emulated not moved away from. The M-ATV and the current crop of MRAPs are great vehicles just not for a front line unit on the intial push.

The Hummve bradly mix would ideally eventually be the fcs/jltv mix.

Wheels vs tracks?

Armored cars served a specific purpose. They were not a substitute for heavy armor.

We first up-armored our tanks under Gen. Patton and designed various chassis configurations to meet the threats we faced.

V-shaped hulls and composite armor are available now. As are new guns and crew protection.

Yet DoD prohibits commanders from buying better designed leather slings for our gunners.

NATO troops have periscope sights for MG’s, but an M60 gunner exposes himself to return fire.

When we needed a truck that could ford rivers and come ashore, we created the DUKW.

We need designers and procurement folks who are mission oriented.

If we find there is a need for 700 right hand drive scout cars, let’s build them, get them out to the field and be done with it.

If the Army finds it needs USMC type LAV’s for certain missions, get them out to the field.

That’s what depots are for. When the mission, or campaign is over, turn them back in.

Tailor the equipment to the needs of the troops.

Not the troops to the equipment.

Normally I’d agree, but “trimming the logistics tail” isn’t just about cutting costs. Ask the few remaining OKW people what happened when they ran out of POL and parts for the Tiger and Panther tanks near Bastogne. Those were highly capable weapons, but they couldn’t compete with the fact that a blown out Sherman could be reconstituted in less than a day.

The IED threat wasn’t understood at the time General Shinseki and others developed the concept. That threat will not go away but the rapid deployment and reduced logistics requirements remain intact. Look at some problems we have getting supplies into Afghanistan. We also know that fuel is getting scarcer and cannot ignore that reality or the future higher price of oil. Its hard to fight long wars at $13 a gallon which Ashton Carter cited as the true CURRENT price to get oil into theater for ground forces.

Expeditionary naval warfare would remain the Marine domain. The Marine version of the 15-man vehicle would have a new smaller air-cushioned capability that would be separate and used repeatedly. Why saddle combat vehicles with extra high speed sea-propulsion gear/weight that is barely ever used and remains a risky proposition at best.

Amphibious assaults of shorelines are unnecessary and outdated. Pull up to a friendly adjacent port or use the air-cushioned capability to get to a friendly or unopposed beach from closer to shore. After sea-deployed forces arrive, then cross the international border by land ala most recent warfare examples.

Air deployable expeditionary elements are already the Army forte. Airborne/air assault/light infantry BCTs are expeditionary air deployable forces. Stryker is more of a counterinsurgency force that can air deploy but only provides 14.5mm protection and is still vulnerable to IEDs. Save it for C-130s.

As for your numbered comments (thanks):

1) FCS Infantry platoons had 5 vehicles. With a new force design of 3 heavier 80,000 lb infantry fighting vehicles and 2–3 sea-deployed M-ATV, you would retain 5–6 vehicles. Remember that a M-ATV carries only 4 Soldiers and a turret gunner. You also could consider putting a space for 4 Soldiers in the rear of the new expeditionary tank. Once sea-deployed forces arrive you would still have only about 11 per infantry vehicle.

2) our forces would be neither outclassed nor a forcible entry force. You would airland into multiple uncontested remote (remember northern Iraq?)or allied territory airfields…then defend those airheads and nearby ports for follow-on forces with USAF protection overhead. Recall that with just 22 C-17s you could air deploy initial elements of a combined arms battalion task force with:

10 tanks
20 infantry fighting vehicles
6 howitzers
4 HEMTT LHS trucks with PLS capability for fuel and ammo
4 80,000 lb C2 Vehicles
Multiple NLOS-Launch System missile containers

If the enemy mounted a 100 km cross-border assault against the airfield, then airpower and long-range fires would be unleashed.

3) Secretary of Defense Gates has already strongly hinted that he wants the Army to figure out to use MRAPs and M-ATV in future forces. Don’t see much difference between the HMMWV ambulance and a M-ATV ambulance or a M113 mortar vehicle and M-ATV mortar vehicle except that the M-ATV is more survivable against IEDs and potentially .50 caliber.

Forget the automated heavy capability for mortars. Howitzers, NLOS-LS container launch unit missiles, and dismounted mortars would initially replace air-deploying mortar M-ATVs. Casualties would be airlifted out by MV-22 or C-17 from the airfield/port being defended. Armored vehicles not moving many kilometers a day and not firing ammunition (deterrent force) do not need as many trucks and supplies. Arriving C-17/KC-130 bring supplies and defuel.

4)The Recon and Surveillance vehicle is the sole platform that is questionable for use with M-ATV. Even it could be converted to hybrid-electric drive for quiet battery running for limited periods and LRAS3 sensors could be added [and its so tall you might not need a mast-mounted sensor ;)]. It transports 4 scouts for two dismounted Observation Posts and a driver turned gunner for a mounted OP.

The purpose of R&SV these days is reconnaissance…not cavalry. Use Infantry and Tank units for screen and guard, or augment M-ATV with them ala the current HMMWV/Bradley mix.

first drop the air deploy ability requirement thats what stryker was supposed to be.

base it around to chassis. common heavy and common medium.

common heavy with be heavy tank howitzer mlrs recovery vehicle engineering vehicle

common medium will be infantry carrier mortar anti tank air defence c2 medium tank ect

heavy tanks will be in battalion sized units of heavy tanks only + support vehicles. this allows the heaviest armour to be masses easily as the tip of the spear in an attack, held in reserve in defence or pieced out as needed.

the rest of the brigade minus artillery would be based around ifvs on the medium chassis with a plt of medium tanks organic to the companies similar to stykers organization. anti tank and air defence would be at battalion or brigade level. engineering and artillery units will you a mix of the respective vehicle needed. this allows for two chassis for nearly every vehicle that would be needed, lowering cost and allowing easier mass production if we ever get into another war that’s nation state conflict with a peer.

the german puma is what we should look at and try to emulate.

First off expeditionary warfare is the domain of the marines. If the Army is going to pickup that role there is no need for the marine corps to continue to exist.

1) three vehicle platoons drastically limits the capability of than unit not to mention a 40ton vehicle holding 15 dismounts is going to have very limited protect compared to contemporary ifvs. If you notice the other article about hybrid war and the proliferation of atgms, an under protected 40ton ifv with 15+ personal in it starts to seem fool hardy.The point of the EFV is that it can move from ship to shore on its own, regardless of the EFV itself that is what the Corps is looking for.

2) So this expeditionary BCT will have fewer vehicles fewer companies in a fight where they would likely outnumbered anyway? This unit may get to where it needs to but will be too small to be effective.

3)M-ATV’s are a very niche vehicle not something you base a bct around they are good at getting blown up and not killing everyone inside anything else they will become a death trap. Additionally if 40% of your vehicle with arrive by sea lift whats the point of airlifting the other 60%?

4) Once again the M-ATV is simply a better way to get around when ieds are the main weapon. if we convert into the perfect army to fight the previous war, many will not live to regret it. The M-ATV would possibly be the worst scout vehicle ever, would be difficult to use as a casevac vehicle, is not ideal as a mortar carrier unless its towing one, an engineering vehicle is not just something engineers ride in so it would not work in that role, if your thinking of sling loading a m-atv under a ch-53 for some kind of air assault that would be a bad idea, even if it were pulled off the rest of your vehicles with there 15 man dismount elements cant follow.

i dont mean to rain on your parade and your ideas show imagination but they show too much.

1) First, the Army must determine whether they will have a new expeditionary BCT (replacing FCS BCT) in addition to modernized heavy, infantry, and Stryker BCTs that get current FCS non-vehicle spin outs.

- Yes because the Stryker is valuable augmentation force but too weak an initial deterrent and cannot grow in weight,
– Yes, the heavy BCT needs to deploy by sea and wouldn’t arrive at places like North Korea, Taiwan, or Iran for months (and could be sunk).
– Yes, the Infantry BCT is for complex terrain and forcible entry, but cannot stand up against enemy armor.
– Yes, most Army BCTs will be in the U.S. and future relevance against China (Taiwan only), Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. requires an expeditionary Army capability beyond light infantry and Stryker air deployment

The expeditionary BCT would be for air deployment of SOME BUT NOT ALL EQUIPMENT. Air-deployed expeditionary BCT forces would defend ports and airheads rather than conducting offensives. That would reduce logistical trucks and supplies required to air deploy. Many trucks, M-ATVs, supplies would:

- sea deploy by joint high speed vessels
– be on prepositioning ships
– be in warehouses ala POMCUS in obvious theaters

2) If the answer is yes, to a reduced number of expeditionary BCTs (8?), identify vehicles common to both the modernized heavy BCT and the new expeditionary BCT. These vehicles would be bigger than Stryker AND Bradley at around 80,000 lbs to retain two deployed vehicles per C-17 at a survivable level.

3) My suggestion: infantry, howitzer, C2V on the same 80K lb chassis would be common to both 9–10 modernized heavy BCTs, and 8 new expeditionary BCTs. A new tank on the common 80K lb chassis would field ONLY in the expedionary BCT, while modernized heavy BCT would retain the Abrams.

BIG DILEMMA) How does the Army adjust the FCS BCT with new heavier vehicles in EIGHT expeditionary BCTs (instead of 15 FCS BCT…8 gives 2 per ARFORGEN cycle)while retaining air deployability and sustainability with an 80K lb vehicle?

1) ANSWER to BIG DILEMMA: Reduce numbers of armored vehicles per infantry platoon. Instead of 5 FCS Infantry Carriers per platoon weighing 27 tons, field just three 40 ton vehicles per platoon that carry 15 troops. Share this vehicle with the Marines (there squad has 13)and TERMINATE THE EFV! Result: fewer C-17s to air deploy Infantry Companies!

2) SECOND ANSWER TO BIG DILEMMA: Reduce numbers of armor companies in the expeditionary BCT. Go to a combined arms battalion (CAB) with just 3 companies. Within the expeditionary BCT, have 3 CABs: 2 mech-heavy (2 Inf Co/1 Armor Co) and 1 armor heavy (2 Armor Co/1 Inf Co). Result? Forty 80,000 lb tanks instead of sixty 54,000 lb. Mounted Combat Systems, both using 20 C-17 sorties.

3) THIRD ANSWER TO BIG DILEMMA: In addition to three 80K lb Infantry carriers per infantry platoon, add two M-ATVs that would arrive by sea giving platoons flexibility to use either or both types of vehicles for counterinsurgency/logistics and/or to spread Soldiers/supplies into more vehicles.

4) FOURTH ANSWER TO BIG DILEMMA: After Afghanistan, convert variants of the M-ATV into ambulances, mortar vehicles, reconnaissance and scout vehicles, and engineer vehicles to replace M113 and HMMWV variants in those roles. There was little reason to have 27 ton versions of these vehicles in FCS. Keep the vehicles at around 32,000 gross vehicle weight for CH-53K air deployment and to retain deployment of 5 M-ATV per C-17, and 1 per C-130.

I have another idea that sort of aligns with Zach’s (both wheeled and tracked on some vehicle)but will cover that later.

Ah, its fun to dream that the Army might actually get some money some day!

And a common chassis for multiple vehicles or at least sharing many of the same parts would reduce costs to some degree.

The Army could not afford a common chassis push as in the Armored Family of Vehicles (AFV) in the mid 1980s. And it can not afford a large production cost of a similar FCS mass vehicle insertion for 2010s. Its not transportability or survivability but total affordability that will be the issue.

We will see specific systems fielded only because that is what the budget can handle (MRAP example). So who is next in line?

The U.S. Army has never operated a “heavy” APC/IFV before in the weight range of a MBT. But I think such a vehicle could be useful for at least some heavy brigades. The Abrams chassis doesn’t seem well suited for such a role however.

Considering the limited time that they have to do the requirements review, it is highly doubtful that the new GCV will be wheeled. The risk entailed by wheeled vehicles would simply be too great. The Army will come down on the ability to go off road. That said, what folks are missing is that the Army will retain three basic organizational structures for combat brigades — Infantry, Stryker, and Heavy. That mix of forces will allow combatant commanders greater flexibility when requesting force packages.

Finally, regarding the survivability of FCS Manned Ground Vehicles…The FCS System of Systems Preliminary Design Review proved that the FCS BCT design, including the MGVs, met the Army’s requirements, including survivability. Simply because they weigh less than Bradleys or Abrams does not mean they are less survivable. Advances in armor development, design, and manufacturing processes means that the Army can design and build MGVs that are at a minimum, as survivable as current platforms. The only area of concern is the frontal 60 degree arc as compared to an Abrams. But when you factor in the APS (which is continuing despite the cancellation of the MGV effort), they provide greater 360 degree hemispheric protection.

And contrary to what Greg has written, the Army has conducted successful moving tests of the APS systems.

What is interesting is that Sec Gates has cited no analysis, no studies, nothing to back his assertions regarding FCS MGV survivability. If OSD had that information, they would have handed it out in bundles.

The decision to cancel the MGVs was about nothing more than harvesting dollars to pay for other DoD programs. The Army gets to be the bill payer for the AF and Navy…again.

I can’t help that another program for a light 20–30 ton vehicle would be a waste at this time. It will likely face the same problems MGV ran into to if the Army views it as a replacement for the Abrams and other vehicles.

We could go for a family of vehicles weighing a maximum of about 40 tons to allow two to be carried in a C-17A, but such a compromise could still not stack up to a heavier design in terms of armor protection.

What I envision would be something along the lines of the ASM program of the 1990s (back before FCS), but with a few significant changes. The program never made it very far before it was canceled however.

( http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3860.0 )

Obviously the new IFV would weigh quite more than the current Bradley, but it would be much more survivable and benefit from using many of the same parts.