Casey Drops Hints on FCS Son

Casey Drops Hints on FCS Son

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey offered tentative details about the future Ground Combat Vehicle at the Association of the US Army conference, saying it would probably weigh around 25,000 pounds and carry nine to 10 troops.

The Army chief of staff told me when I asked how much a GCV would weigh that he had been to the Oshkosh plant in Wisconsin last week where he was told that a vehicle capable of resisting IED strikes would have to weigh around 25,000 pounds. This may be a mistake. He may well have meant to say 25 tons. We have contacted Army public affairs to check on this.

Regardless, Casey told reporters that the first version of the vehicle “would probably” be “too heavy” and he acknowledged those who say the Army is risking much as it plans to deploy the first vehicles within five to seven years. But he answered those critics, saying “it just makes sense that we ought to be able to do this.”


Also, the new vehicle will bear “nine to 10 troops,” Casey said, but he cautioned that “we are not at the point where we know what it will look like.”

The Office of Secretary of Defense will get its first detailed look Wednesday at the outlines of the revamped program when the Defense Acquisition Board performs an in process review of what the Army has done so far. No decisions are set to be made but Gates and his people will clearly be watching the Army’s initial decisions very closely.

Join the Conversation

Good Afternoon Folks,

The Daffy Army Chief of staff speaks again. Pounds/tons it’s all the same to him.

This is much of the reason that the militaries acquisition and procurement systems are so messed up. In any way, I don’t blame civilian contractors taking advantage of officers as, shall we say as unaware as General Casey.

Please Colin don’t ask him what type of vehicle you were talking about, I sure he doesn’t have a clue.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I think we need to wait and hear more. I don’t believe he meant to say 25,000lbs but you don’t know the context or setting he said it in. Whether he was hurried or not. We don’t know where that number comes from either; 25,000lbs could be the baseline weight for a limited lower level of survivability, protection at limited striking angles for example. I mean an M113 is 27,000 lbs and while this new system is likely to be heavier we’ve yet to see how emerging technology may come in to play.

Yeah. Emerging technology. Anti-gravity belts come to mind. Or maybe phase-shifting photonic nucleons. How about just writing the spec and then see what happens.

I am with Jeff. From the content of the post all we know is that the General repeated the comment of a official at Oshkosh without context. While it may have been clear in context or if you were there, from the post it is not even clear if the quote was regards to GCV or something else. It might have been a generic statement that a minimum size of 25,000lbs is required to get some sort of effective defense against IEDs. It may have been in regards to a different program all together (say something Oshkosh is actively working on, for instance medium trucks) and the General just used it as an example.

Hull geometry can already be used to mitigate the majority of an IED’s impact. The type of weight reduction technology that I’m talking about relates to past discussions by the Army to integrate advanced materials into vehicle interior, certain cross members, interior mountings, harnessing, and stowage system to reduce weight without compromising the survivability. When you consider Oshkosh was, in part, at the center of that effort it makes sense that they would apply it here. In the very least I also wouldn’t be surprised if 25000lbs is the pre-loaded vehicle weight.

That said is it too hard to imagine going from a M113 at 27000 lbs to something new almost 50 years later at 25000lbs?

Maybe the new vehicle will be built out of titanium and kevlar and weigh 25,000 lbs like he said?
This is another Bradley fiasco in the making.

Umm, the Bradley was a fiasco?

It all goes back to the same old arguement of speed vs. armor. Much of the complaints revolve around its use of hardened aluminum armor. This was a design choice made to accomodate the need for greater ammo stowage and speed, but it obviously compromises survivability from direct fire. It boils down to how much armor do you need in a vehicle, not everyone can sit in an Abrams since an Abrams can’t go every where. Lighter vehicles work right up until the point you get shot at.

I think one possibility is that the new FCS will take a hybrid approach by building a light speedy vehicle with scalable armor packages. This is something being utilized by a number of developement projects of other countries. This allows for the best of both, quick rapid deployment with the option for improved armor for protracted duty. It works as long as no one decides it easier to leave the armor at home. And it works best if the design consideration is made initially rather than as an after thought.

The Bradley was the ultimate in mission creep. The army needed an anti-tank platform, a troop carrier, and a scout vehicle. Instead of building all 3 they crammed them into one hull that does none of those roles particulalry well. Its too big to be a scout, not enough room to carry troops, and too lightly armored to go head to head with tanks. Just because it can do those things doesn’t mean something else couldn’t do them better and at less cost and time. They spent 20 YEARS developing it and spent $15 billion (in 1980) dollars before fielding.

25 tons? Umm how is this any different from the planned XM1206 ICV?

It probably isn’t that different. They probably just took the same list of requirements and added specification for IED survivability to the request.

I’m afraid nothing will be built as Obama has now nearly destroyed the economy. No money = no new toys, boys. The Chinese and russsians can now smell blood in the water and they won’t stop until we are officially bankrupt; then all hell will break loose.

To amplify my previous post, it is probably only an Interesting coincidence, but since it was a Oshkosh rep that said 25,000lbs was a minimum weight and they build trucks and the M-ATV, not tracked armored fighting vehicles. (“…the Oshkosh plant in Wisconsin last week where he was told that a vehicle capable of resisting IED strikes would have to weigh around 25,000 pounds”). The basic M-ATV from Oshkosh weighs… drum roll please
“The vehicle has an empty “curb weight” of 25,000 pounds, and a Gross Vehicle Weight of 32,500 pounds, including the M-ATV objective maximum of 4,000 pounds of payload”.
Coincidence, you decide. Personally, I think it is just a ballpark, minimum, low end figure and we can go up from there.

.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement