Army’s Pouring $7B Into GCV

Army’s Pouring $7B Into GCV

The Army plans to spend at least $7 billion over the next five years to develop its new Ground Combat Vehicle and is determined to get a jump on the project, with $934 million slotted for work in 2011 and nearly $2 billion the next year in an accelerated development. The GCV will replace the FCS manned ground vehicles, cancelled last year, as the base model for future combat vehicles; the Army has said the initial variant will be an infantry carrier.

At a briefing to reporters on Monday, Army budget chief Lt. Gen. Edgar Stanton, said the new combat vehicle’s ultimate design is still very much up in the air. Army budget documents released this week also say the new vehicle’s requirements are still being defined.

So where will the GCV money go in 2011? The Army wants builders to begin work on the GCV’s subsystems and modular components, such as the engine, drive train, suspension, armor, turret, weapons, active protection system and a “Mission Module” to carry an infantry squad. Prototypes of the various subsystems are to be ready for testing in early 2012.


To get the process moving, the Army plans to award two competitive contracts in the fourth quarter FY2010. The Army expects builders to use mostly mature technologies in an “evolutionary acquisition approach,” that allows for the “maximum affordable competition” documents say. A subsystem preliminary design review is scheduled for fourth quarter FY2011.

The Army believes a modular assembly approach will facilitate adding technological upgrades, weapons, armor, automotive components and communications networks, over time to the original GCV. How far along the various modular components are in development, their technological “maturity,” will be key to determining which company gets the GCV contract. “Building subsystems early will allow the contractors to validate key and critical portions of their vehicle designs and identify issues that can be addressed early and improve the robustness of the prototype vehicles,” the documents say. It would appear the Army has learned some valuable lessons from the FCS development fiasco.

Building a vehicle that can plug into the Army’s existing and future digital communications, surveillance and sensor architecture to provide soldiers “superior” situational awareness is a Key Performance Parameter (KPP). The vehicle itself will carry a variety of sensors to provide video feeds to crew and the infantry squad. The Army is also looking for a fuel efficient engine to power the GCV.

The GCV will come with a suite of non-lethal weapons in addition to a turret mounted cannon. Survivability against IEDs and mines will factor huge in the vehicle’s design and the hull must survive “Level 1 underbelly threats” and mitigate against “harmful accelerations” to crew and passengers.

Nothing in the budget material about vehicle weight, although there is a reference to “tracks” as a component part, so apparently it will be a tracked infantry fighting vehicle.

Share |

Join the Conversation

“Prototypes of the various subsystems are to be ready for testing in early 2102.”

Wow, that’s a long wait. Didn’t know it takes over 90 years to make a military vehicle. We will be talking about another GCV program by then to replace this one. :)

Onto the vehicle itself.

Love that they apparently are keeping the APS, once all the kinks are worked out, this thing will save lives. Also keeping true to the vehicles sensors is also a life saver.

Only thing I want to know is if the “turret mounted cannon” is going to be controlled VIA computer inside the vehicle, or if they going to throw some poor soul on top of the bullet magnet to get shot? This is the 21st century. Hopefully they use remote control. :)

Thunder350,

Thanks for the catch.

Greg Grant

Greg–with CROWS II, the technology for remotely operated weapon stations is pretty mature. Heck, other western services have been doing it for years. The FCS main tank was supposed to have a completely automated turret.

FCS II. I believe that the Army needs some increased capability in manned ISR, improved mine blast protection and an affordable APS. All of that is available for integration on today’s vehicles at an affordable cost (OK, expensive but within reach). GCV, like FCS, is expecting some technological advances that will make track vehicles light enough and track technology effecient enugh to keep the O&S costs reasonable. I think they will have to wait another 10–15 years for that to happen. In the mean time let’s invest in mature technology in block upgrades to Abrams, Bradley and Stryker. Focus R&D and production funding on JLTV.

Maybe you can tell us when the last time the US Army had a turret mounted cannon that wasn’t controlled at an internal crew station

I believe currently all the Humvees/MRAPs/ and Abrams, all have people mounting the guns. :)

FCS II. I believe that the Army needs some increased capability in manned ISR, improved mine blast protection and an affordable APS. All of that is available for integration on today’s vehicles at an affordable cost (OK, expensive but within reach). GCV, like FCS, is expecting some technological advances that will make track vehicles light enough and track technology effecient enugh to keep the O&S costs reasonable. I think they will have to wait another 10–15 years for that to happen. In the mean time let’s invest in mature technology in block upgrades to Abrams, Bradley and Stryker. Focus R&D and production funding on JLTV.

We have quite an opportunity with GCV. Unlike the Future Combat Systems MGV the higher weight of GCV will allow a much more capable family of combat vehicles, even if they aren’t as easily airlifted.

The first variant is supposed to replace the Bradley which has served us well, yet there are many ways we can improve on the Bradley. Superior armor, better weaponry, improved situational awareness, a 9 man squad as opposed to the 6 man squad the Bradley carried in back. GCV could pretty much improve on the Bradley in every possible way. Another role the chassis could be used for is as the basis for a M109A6 Paladin replacement.

Then there is the prospect of developing a “light” main battle tank. There are ways to improve on the Abrams, yet GCV is bound to be a somewhat lighter vehicle. Can a new MBT weighting 40–45 tons match the 65+ ton Abrams? Either way upgraded Abrams will no doubt serve alongside the GCV family for many years.
New developments by the Russians and Chinese could easily have an influence on our plans for future MBTs. It is possible the new “T-95″ and improved models of the Type 99 could spark work on a “true” successor to the Abrams using a heavier chassis than planned for GCV.

The Stryker, which was once the “Interim Armored Vehicle” (pending arrival of the MGV) will remain a key part of our lighter units like our current Stryker BCTs. Upgrades to the Stryker are already in the works and can improve on many areas.

Funny, I thought everyone was singing high praises to the Stryker as the “infantry carrier” of the 21’st century. So what happened? Buyers remorse? And please pardon my ignorance, but what is wrong with the Bradley? Is it not holding up to IED’s? And what about the MRAP? Just seems like the Army is always looking for the next best thing. I wish they would get their act together and put out one good vehicle that gets the job done rather than monkey around with new vehicles every few years.

Oh I don’t think anything is wrong with the Stryker. Yet the problem is some expect it to provide a level of armor protection outside of it’s class. And while a good vehicle, it was originally an interim buy before the MGV came online which would have supposedly been a far superior platform.

Bradley, even with it’s belly plate, only has M-ATV protection levels and mine-blast protection is the buzz word for OEF. M-ATV only has a portion of the mine-blast protection of MRAP because it had to be lighter and more off-road mobile.

Mine protection must be a concern with GCV but it should not override other factors such as protection against RPGs and other weapons. No use having excellent protection on the hull bottom if the front can be readily penetrated by your average RPG-7V rocket.

Good Morning Folks,

This is just a few bucks every year to keep the industrial base up. No decisions or RFP’s on any future combat vehicles is expected till the 2015/2016 budget or later, so go back…oops I can’t say that I might hurt some ones feelings according to management, so just go back to your silliness.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

The stryker has tons of problems. Tires that catch on fire (apparently the fixed this, but added more weight to vehicle). Easily flips (especially in Afghanistan). Armor (if you can even call it armor) is easily penetrated like a hot knife thru butter. The vehicle is already past its intended weight limits, and its still getting junk put onto it to fix all these issues only adding more weight. This vehicle is killing our soldiers. Oh, and its ofcourse not IED resistant. :)

If they fixed all these issues, I would love the Stryker, I think the concept is flawless. Just the current vehicles are full of flaws. :(

William C. .I read in past post that you work in defence.You think that we can make a M1 successor?I think that we need a leap forward in technology to make a M1 successor.

The Army has to stop trying to get 10 lbs into a 5 lb bag.

Case in point, I was a E-4 talking to a DA civilian from the Lower Teir Project office. Her bosses wanted a Patriot Battery command post to fit into a HMMWV-like vehicle.
THis is despite the fact that the M1113 BCP I drove was prone to roll-overs, was 250 lbs away fromt he max for the axels. We had a Link-16 radio, satcom, SINCARGS, routher, AMDWS, printer, air conditioner (for the computers), tac planner computer, Ethernet switch, intercom and a safe. Putting our rucks and duffles was not an option, if we did that we’d be overweight and a rollover hazard.

My SGT and I tried to talk her into a LMTV (deuce and a half) but she was adamant that it had to be a HMMWV to fit inside a C-130.

Never mind that a duce and a half would fit with room to spare and not roll over if we put our rucks in the shelter.

Either buy more C-5s/C-17’s & sealift or get used to being slow on deployments.

The leadership was these magical vehicles that can fit on a c-130 with the armor of and M-1.

Isn’t the M1113 a model of HMMWV? I don’t think GCV is planned to be anything similar, JLTV is the HMMWV replacement.

When the Bradley was first designed in the 1980s it came with a bunch of trade offs. It is an infantry carrier that can’t carry a full squad, it is anti-armor capable but doesn’t have enough armor to go head to head with a tank, and is a scout vehicle but is taller than most others of that class. It also wasn’t designed with mines and IEDs in mind and had to have an extra plate bolted to the bottom. Its served well, but there are plenty of places to improve upon.

I think chockblock was stating that the Army like its sister services tries to make their new toys do too much and end up with bad products.

I’m sure the army is going to do a rock-paper-scissors strategy, instead of the army trying to do a one size fits all approach. One vehicle would make up for the others weakness. While still sharing the same chassis and other key components of BCTM and GCV. Hence “modular”. Doubt they going to have a “modular” vehicle and not take advantage of it. :)

To be fair the Bradley ended up being somewhat similar to many later Cold War IFVs, including the BMP-2, Marder, and Warrior.

This goes to show that other nations also thought improved firepower was worth the cost of a smaller squad. This probably made sense against highly mechanized Soviet forces if war had broken out in Germany. Plus there were straight leg infantry units which could support divisions equipped with Bradleys.

However today there is much more focus on smaller scale infantry operations, and the greater number of dismount the GCV is supposed to carry shows this.

“Cannon” or are you ignorant?

TMB is right. I was trying to show how the Army wants steak on hamburger budgets. Weight, size and cost are at a premium depending on the mission, Cost is the big thing these days.

But the DOD leadership seems to believe that they can have it all three ways. CRAM stuff (comps, commo) into a smaller vehicle with less armor (we’ll bolt more on in theater) and expect it to survive like an M-1.

Now that they are daring to use the word “tracks” says that the leadership is considering that the GCV needs to be beefer than the FCS. But only time will tell.

Against the 1980’s soviet threat, yeah, FCS could have won. Against IED’s, the new generation of anti-tank/anti-material weapons and *hybrid threats? FCS and a GCV under 40 tons are dogmeat. Add on armor? We’ll see what road the army takes with that given the Stryker fiasco.

There have been dreams of an airdrop capable tank ever since WWII, they are still dreams.

hopefully the Army will realize that the GCV will probably be as heavy as the M-2 and M-1.

If we lose the F-35, GCV will be in dire need of ADA. More money and weight.

*by hybrid threat I mean an insurgency backed by conventional forces

You obviously have been drinking the POGO koolaid. The armor package on Stryker is equal to or greater than Bradley (14.5 AP 360), to my knowledge the only flips that have ocurred are a result of very large mines blowing them in the air, it has the same side armor that Bradley and Abrams have to protect from IED’s and there are many mobility upgrades available if the Army chooses to apply them. Make sure you do accurate research before you make statements like this.

I guess you failed to see in the news (and even on military​.com/​d​o​d​buz) that the Stryker only patrols on the ROADS in Afghanistan (which is pretty much between Kabul and Kandahar). Due to the Stryker being UNABLE to handle anything else as it FLIPS on the rocky roadside of Afghanistan. Multiple injuries happened until they forced them to stay on the roads. As for everything else. It is indeed a fact. It lacks the armor that is needed to protect itself from IED’s and RPG’s which is why they been rushing armor kits for them. Adding more weight to the already overweight vehicle. The tires also would catch on fire when a RPG/IED hit the vehicle. But this one has been fixed with new tires. As you said “Make sure you do accurate research before you make statements like this. ”

Interesting thread, but somewhat “all over the block”, I think. Mentioned elsewhere in literature but not here, is the Israeli experience with Merkava main battle tanks. Used against Hamas in built-up urban areas, these vehicles suffered serious casualties to irregular fighters armed with RPGs and pre-prepared IEDs. In Iraq, we’ve also lost vehicles to IEDs assembled from 155-mm artillery shells. There’s a lot of that sort of thing laying around in the world, folks.

However, we seem to continue debating whether the next generation of manned ground vehicles should be 40 tons or 70. This exercise strikes me as something of a “drunk under the lamp post” syndrome. Though I don’t expect the debate to be resolved overnight, my personal belief is that the ideological and practical battles between defensive armor and counter-armor weapons were fought at least ten years ago. Armored vehicles lost the contest to the current generation of smart stand-off counter-armor weapons — conclusively.

Robotics is not a perfect answer to these issues, especially in an age of ready availability for cheap network jammers. But the harsh reality is that, as counter-armor weapons become even cheaper and more widespread among insurgent forces, we’re going to take rising numbers of casualties whenever we try to occupy territory. The other guys are willing to die for the delusional fantasies they believe in, and so far they’ve accurately read the minds of a US public that is not.

Regards

Yeah.….I think YOU need to do your research before using the “you need to do your research” comment. I was at an industry conference on Armored Vehicles and the PM for Styker calmly noted that the ENTIRE ARMOR SYSTEM (MEXAS I) on the stryker needed to be replaced because 7.62mm could defeat it. (that’s AK ammo for the laymen)

The ENITIRE SUSPENSION system and most of the bearings had to be re-engineered because they broke on paved roads, and the drivers cabin was rearmored after they realized it was a death box. The new suspension and blast armoring has lifted the vehilce beyond it’s logical limits making an already top heavy vehicle unable to go over a speed bump without almost flipping.

The armor package needs to be replaced because there are better, lighter solutions available now (9 years after the original design was approved). It would very bad for Stryker Soldiers to think that the level of protection is not at the level the Army specs out. The current set meets or exceeds 14.5mm AP protection. If you have other conclusive, tested and validated results, you are obligated to ask the Army to investigate. Stryker’s are maintaining a 95% ORR in theater and are weighted well beyond the rated capacity for the suspension and drivetrain of 45K lbs. Yes, things break, but not because of inferior design or component defects, just the strain of pushing a 55K lb in difficult circumstances.

I would think (just my own opinion) that it would be more economical to otufit MP units or better yet stand up a couple of MP specific divisions who are better trained for policing duties in an urban area where a lot of the IED’s are placed in order to get collateral damage with the MRAPS and up armoured HUMVEES and let them pull convoy duty as well. And concentrate on a newer version of the strykers (4 wheel short body and 6 wheel long body variants) with better engines — trans and suspensions with modular armour. this would allow them to adapt to thier mission. But in reality a soldier does most of his fighting in his boots and not in a vehicle, if they dismount farther out rather than at the front door which has become the norm, then they wont have to worry as much about the armour of thier transport. No matter how you armour it up the bad guys will figure a way to take it out, if one RPG wont do it they will double up, if 3lbs of c4 wont do it they will use 50. Just as we would with what ever is at hand, they will find a way to complete thier task. basicly what I’m saying is if you put the USS New Jersey on axles and roll it down a highway they will evetualy figure out how to take it out. So why spend so much time — effort — money — brain power on something so futile to start with. but as I said this is just my opinion.

As far as the weak suspension issues with the stryker and MRAPS. If we stopped looking to BMW and Hybird driving engineers and ask a group of redneck 4x4 enthusiest for a soloution I bet they would come up with one real fast and on the cheap just for the ability of getting to drive the heck out of one.

I have a bad feeling some of you may have been drinking the Mike Sparks kool-aid.
Mention the M113 and I will know for sure…

And 7.62mm typically refers to 7.62x51mm NATO which is a full powered rifle cartridge. 7.62x39mm is what the AK uses and that is an intermediate assault rifle caliber.

It is difficult to get precise information on the nature of the MEXAS problems early in the Stryker’s service, but whatever they were, they have been fixed by now. MEXAS is a series of composite armor which is added to the base armor of a vehicle. Even with just the base armor the Stryker/LAV-III can deal with standard 7.62x51mm just like LAV II and LAV I variants.

It should be noted that even against the formidable AT-14 Kornet (comparable to our BGM-71E TOW-2A), the Merkava 4 was able to survive frontal hits. Really it was a matter of the tanks being overwhelmed by large numbers of such missiles and modern RPGs or side/rear hits to the vehicle.

A big enough IED can destroy anything, but this is rather unavoidable and dealing with this is more a strategic or tactical question. Yet the same amount of explosives will get used up much faster building large IEDs than smaller ones.

Armored vehicles have not lost the contest to anti-armor weapons. We have been hearing this since the 1960s if not earlier, and yet even with their vulnerabilities, tanks, APCs, and the like are just as important as ever. The greatest threat to a current generation MBT is probably from top-attack weapons which the enemy luckily has no access to. While it is important we keep our enemies from getting RPG-29s and such, the ones that have made it to Iraq haven’t had a huge impact.

There is always a race between a tank’s defenses and the weapons designed to destroy said vehicle. Yet with active defense systems maturing, the balance could swing back towards the defender for the time being.

Still leaves the problem of the Stryker being restricted to only road patrol/convoy escort in Afghanistan, instead of its intended scouting missions. Due to it flipping on rocky roadsides. (More then any other vehicle, except perhaps the MRAP junk).

As I suggested earlier, this debate won’t end overnight. Unfortunately for your premise, however, (1) modern tandem warheads can punch holes through a couple of feet of Chobham armor, and there’s nothing we know of presently that offers much better armor performance at acceptable weight and cost, (2) top attack weapons aren’t all that difficult to engineer, and (3) it is simply ludicrous to imply that Middle East combat engineers face any real limits on the amounts of high explosives available for use in IEDs. The latter is neither a strategic or tactical consideration, as long as our patrol patterns remain restricted to main roads and are therefore predictable and targetable. Explosives are cheap and modern combat vehicles aren’t.

We also deal with enemies who are funded by the opium trade and by Saudi government sympathizers from the Wahabi tradition of religious radicals. Thus we cannot assume that such enemies can be denied any weapon that offers advantages to irregular infantry. Money talks. Nor can we assume that they are stupid, even though they might be certifiably crazy by our standards.

Granting that MBTs and APCs will for a while remain important as *elements* of asymmetric warfare, such vehicles are not sufficient to win the battles we face. As the Israelis learned the hard way, even MBTs can be disabled and then killed in the close fight within towns. This I would again assert that — at least so far as manned armor is concerned — the conclusive battles have already occurred, and armor lost.

I think you have a few misconceptions here. Modern tandem shaped charge warheads can cut through feet of regular steel, but not Chobham and other advanced composites. It is estimated that the frontal turret armor of the M1A2 Abrams provides the equivalent of some 1,300–1,600 millimeters of rolled steel, while a RPG-29 for example could only handle half of that.

Top attack weapons do involve a degree of technical expertise that many nations lack, plus they are quite costly compared to an old wire guided ATGM for example. Even the Russians haven’t developed top attack ATGMs. It would be unwise to dismiss the possibility of a country supplying such weapons to our enemies, but luckily anything beyond the typical RPGs and old ATGMs in Iraq and Afghanistan have been rare.

Yes there are literal tons of explosives lying around in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere but a larger IED takes more time to set up and can’t be hidden and transported so easily. So it is probably better to be in a heavily armored vehicle and risk heavy IEDs than be in a truck and risk many more light IEDs that can be equally lethal.

Yet there is no way around the issue. The best option for vehicle designers is to provide better protected AFVs with systems like IED jammers. Meanwhile those who build the IEDs must be hunted down, weapon caches destroyed, and methods to prevent IED emplacement implemented. Other technologies like unmanned surveillance systems come into play here.

There is no need to comment on the questionable loyalty of our allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as that is something no vehicle can solve.

What is the alternative to MBTs and APCs? The vehicles may change but they will still be designed with similar roles. Unless there is some breakthrough development in the field of armor, it is possible new anti-armor weapons will lead us to the concept championed by the FCS program. Vehicles with light armor relying primarily on active defense systems and situational awareness to deal with enemy ATGMs. Yet for the time being it seems a more moderate approach like GCV is our best option.

WHY DON’T THEY THIS UPGRADE THE HUMVEES AND THEY WILL SAVE ALOT OF MONEY!

“The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adopting compromise solutions.“__Erwin Rommel, Field Marshall, German Army.

Here we go again! A weapon system hog that gobbles up fuel and ammo? Like Rommel, we will get beat because we run out of fuel. The Army is going to spend $7BILLION on the GCV, and find a “fuel efficient” engine? Recommend they save some of the money to pay for the diesel feul. Wasn’t the JLTV Program supposed to pave the way as a fuel pilot program to use the fully burdened cost of energy to find the most “fuel efficient” engine? See USD AT&L Memo, dated 10 April 2007

“The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adopting compromise solutions.“__Erwin Rommel, Field Marshall, German Army.

Here we go again! A weapon system hog that gobbles up fuel and ammo? Like Rommel, we will get beat because we run out of fuel. The Army is going to spend $7BILLION on the GCV, and find a “fuel efficient” engine? Recommend they save some of the money to pay for the diesel feul. Wasn’t the JLTV Program supposed to pave the way as a fuel pilot program to use the fully burdened cost of energy to find the most “fuel efficient” engine? See USD AT&L Memo, dated 10 April 2007

I’m pretty sure the GCV is fuel efficient. It is a hybrid, runs on diesel and is electric. Pretty sure that’s not a “fuel hog”. Atleast not compared to all of the other vehicles currently being used that the GCV is replacing.

The cancelled NLOS cannon had a diesel hybrid electric engine that I believe was near completion when the project was scrapped. Odds are they’ll take that engine and continue development for the GCV. The M-1 gets less than 1 MPG. Anything would be an improvement.

All they need is a “Displacement on Demand” V12 diesel… Sit there in standby idling on 4 cylinders to power the radios and keep watch, patrol down the road on 6 cylinders or cross country on 8, or use all 12 cylinders to accelerate out of an ambush and get to cover.

There is your fuel economy over the late 70’s gas turbine in the M1 right there! D-on-D is a current commercially available off-the-shelf capability, fitting it to a engine package for a new tank is not an enormous multi-billion dollar research project.

I can’t believe what I’m reading…what are these guys doing — planning on retrofitting an M109 with the hybrid engine ? Wait til I share this one with my systems engineering class ! I would have thought that the NLOS Cannon requirements were mature enough to just do it…if you spend the rest of the decade arguing how many infantrymen will fit on the head of a pin, you get no Bradley replacement. Let’s just get it over with and buy the SpH2000 and the Puma, shall we ?

The M1 has never been defeated nor even seriously challenged in battle. If you use proper combined arms tactics, the thread of explosively fomed projectiles is manageable. I don’t see the Germans pulling out of their Leo II modernization. The Brits are not obsoleting the Challenger. The Chinese are coming up the rail with their tank fleet. Yes, you kill tanks with guided missiles — show me the air force that has the staying power to do more than pinprick attacks. That does not mean tanks don’t do what tanks have always done. The US Army does not field an excellent light tank every day. In fact, it has not fielded one since the M41 Walker Bulldog of the 1950s. (Remember that leaves out the Sheridan and that I said “excellent” light tank) Enjoy deploying our current force vehicles onto that C-17 fleet, fellers…you don’t resolve America’s geostrategic problems by drinking hybrid war Koolaid.

Those tactics sound good to me.….a D-o-D V12 diesel COTS solution for the engine then. Note that the article said: “The Army is looking for a fuel efficient engine to power the GCV.” They can quit looking. If they send me any money, I’ll send you and Bill your shares.

My apology for the systems/logistics engineering drawing board what-ifing. I guess my original observation was: Two goals at odds with each other; AT&L is concerned about fuel efficiency, while the Army is busy building a “fortress” weapon system to protect the troops. And lessons learned, but never applied: Rommel captured tons fuel stores from the Brits in Africa, and he still ran out of fuel.

I doubt if the Army plans to retrofit the M109 any futher (but they did up-armor 10 different sub-variants, with one of those upgrades being an additional 15 gallon fuel tank). The original HUMVEE had a V8 diesel, a 25 gallon tank, weighed about 10k lbs, could average 16 miles to the gallon, was good for making runs to the PX, and was considered by some as the poster child of excess fuel consumption (40 to 60-ton tank performances were exempt from the green-earthers).

This new GCV sounds like its gonna be a lot heavier than the 20,000 lb JLTV. Somebody call TACOM; and have them use this D-o-D COTS engine to compute the size of the fuel tank to meet GCV range rqmts. Let’s say the average engine mission scenario will demand a conservative 10 miles to the gallon; with range rqmts of 400 miles. Fuel tank size solved. I don’t know the formula for the “fully burdened cost of delivered fuel”.….the JLTV bean counters are probably still working out the long division to satisfy AT&L.

A non-lethal weapons system and a fuel economy engine??? With IED protection and active armour. And a wide screen TV, maybe? Best mlitary vehicle I’ve ever seen was teh 1970–1980 Autrian Pinzgauer. 4 cylender, air cooled, gasoline engine-indepentant 4 wheels on front and rear trans axle, all mounted on a central aluminum tube and the body bolted onto thqt-no frame, per se. Seat 8, 2 up front-cab over-out performs the HMV. Cheap, easily maintained and overhauled. Reliable. Ambulance, troop, command modules can be attached. Gets you where you are going, and no, combat zones really aren’t drvie thrus-you have to eat in. Otherwise, you will get blown up.

It is absurd to compare the GCV family to JLTV in any respect whatsoever. Just goes to show how far down the spectrum of conflict the thinking has gone. The whole notion of general purpose forces is getting shot to hell. It is not unthinkable to put wheels on an infantry carrier or ambulance vehicle. Doing that on a light tank (shades of the Stryker MCS) or an armored howitzer is the epitome of monstrous “light fighter” dilettantish engineering. Anybody remember those 9th ID dune buggies ADEA was playing with back in the ‘80s ? And — would it be too much trouble to get a fully functional command and control vehicle out in the field that can operate under armor and provide sufficient workspace without having to expose itself by throwing out a tent extension ? This is what the idiots got to by throwing the FCS vehicle design, warts and all, under the bus. The excuses they made for not at least taking the prototypes they had built into test do not withstand the giggle standard. It will cost the Army big bucks in the long run to reset back to pre-Milestone B.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

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