Personally I think the CV-90 series is on the mark. If only we could figure out how to make them in Michigan.

2) add on armor is good, the AGS and M-113 upgrades were good ideas. Perhaps a variant to replace the strykers?

3) The “come to jesus” moment should be why electronics/weapons are tied to the platform?
Unbolt what works and put it in whatever vehicle that works.

4) Keep the MRAP and strykers in reserve. We paid for them, keep them. Use them in place of HMMWV/JTV for command posts, medevac, etc.

5) Bite another bullet and buy more C-17’s/C-130’s and maybe a C-5 replacement. Stuff ain’t getting lighter…

6) real networking, vehicles crews should be able to call in artillery or Predator/F-35 strikes without calling layers of command, just point and click.

1) For payload and weight…Use a monocoque structue. (single shell) This is where the outside skin of the vehicle is also part of the structure. (think hollow inside) This type of design gives maximum internal room for cargo/personnel/equipment, and minimizes redundant framing and crossbars. The soviets used a titanium monocoque hull to keep down the weight of the HIND-D attack helicopter. That’s why that beast can get off the ground and fly.

2) The armor upgrade answer is the TACOM A kit / B kit armor designs. The Europeans have actually been doing this for years. (except they upgrade the INSIDE armor , not the surface armor) The A kit is the vehicle’s skin. It has armor properties of anything from small arms 7.62mm to .50 cal resistant. The B kit is an applique (or applied armor) you attach on top of the A kit. (you can even use reactive tiles for RPG threats)

3) The solution to the gear problem is simple.…GET RID OF ALL THOSE PROPRIETARY CRAP. Keep the radios, and even some basic positioning/locator gear and ditch the rest. If you can’t do without it then you need to have a serious come to Jesus moment about integration.

Don’t let your contractors sell you an “open architecture system of systems engineering” and all that nonsense. It comes into play, but its oversold. Besides you probably already paid them to do it on an aviation platform or other vehicle.

Finally….Use more commercial parts where you can. Good packaging will do 90% of what all this “ruggedized” stuff will do. Whenever you get shown a box for only $10K ask yourself if you reallly need this stuff waterproof or ARTIC RATED in the desert? Espeically when you could buy 4 for the price of 1 uber component.

Bring the various component providers into a room, put a smart guy in charge, and tell them what you want. Then tell them their due date. Inform them that if any of them play turf war or is uncooperative they’ll be replaced that day. (if you don’t they’ll drag feet and then come to you one at a time to say they could do this faster themselves if it was sole source..)

Some of them will play ball, some of them won’t. The ones that don’t you don’t want to do business with in the first place. Never forget that half of what they’re selling you is already in the other guy’s stuff, they just don’t want to use/share his component because they’re on a cost + contract…..

Finding a balance between protection and mobility is always a difficult task, but I believe once all the dust has settled we’ll have a awesome product.

The FCS technology of sensors should be incorporated into the new system aswell, the problem of insurgents not showing up on it is why UAV’s go ahead and spot the guys holding guns, and hopefully the sensors can be replaced easily as they become better, maybe a IED/mine detector? Science fiction is for the most part reality today.

As with the manned guns on the vehicles, I might be missing something, but they should be remotely controlled from inside the vehicle, having someone sit ontop of a vehicle and shoot a gun is so stone age like and not to mention extremely vulnerable.

The brass that is studying this concept of the Army’s new vehicle needs to take into account the current airlift capability to get some of these vehicles into combat..and maybe purchase new airlifters for the air force along with vehicles for the army. These vehicles will still need to be airlifted into places like central Asia where overland supply routes are under danger of attack. And as for add on armor…why not stick with vehicles designed along the lines of the Bradley, and the Abrams. The Abrams for one has heavy armor and protection already. As for the turret…manned systems still out perform auto loaders. And there lies the problem.

You have to have a balance between protection and survivability and thereis the problem. And as for power needs on vehicles…install generators on them. And yes, this is an easy fix.

Sorry about the acronyms, clearly I’m spending too much time at military briefings. I’ve made some edits that hopefully clarify a bit.

Thanks and great suggestions!

Greg

As for the issue of protection, the network is critical, but as Greg points out, what happens if your enemy isn’t as high tech and they blend in the shadows or they don’t have massive armored formations to detect, what then? You have to have an inherently tough armor suite on the vehicle to sustain those Kornet missiles that may pop out of nowhere.

On the issue of protection still, i’d argue that we should be going towards front engines like the Israelis do on their Merkavas and look into moving towards the unmanned gun turret that is much more slender than that hunking monstrosity that was on the FCS even though it was an unmanned turret.

Keep the push for electric vehicles as it increases range, achieves the power exportability issue and is stealthier.

Or rich media link each acronym to the database.

Great post btw.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com