Comments on: Army Wants Tough GCV Battle

By: Bill R.

Bill R. — Thu, 13 May 2010 14:29:04 +0000

The Army Modernization Plan has the GCV replacing all Bradley variants, but takes the Stryker forward to doomsday. In the meantime, they are changing out one heavy brigade for Strykers. In response to the latter question, there were some really revolutionary ideas embedded in the FCS Brigade Combat Team. Those ideas will eventually come to the fore, but not in a light force context — they require networked battle command and lots of ground vehicle mobility to work. In the end, we’ll probably reach a happier medium, but the current acquisition strategy makes it much harder to pull together, and Army leadership has pretty much been beaten senseless for having original and innovative ideas and trying to bring them to fruition.

By: Bill R.

Bill R. — Thu, 13 May 2010 14:22:08 +0000

There is this law of diminishing returns problem to contend with. Not just economies of scale associated with equipment purchases, but old fashioned principles of war like mass and economy of force. I defy anyone here to try and defend using the reserve components to round out the active force — that has never really worked out for us — or increased reliance on the reserves. If anything, we will have less time, not more time, to do force generation. The Army leadership really needs to draw a line in the sand and say (in effect), if you cut force structure below 10 divisions, we are all quitting. I defy anyone to tell me how a 350K Army, a 200 ship Navy and a two active division Marine Corp is a fair and balanced force structure. To the devil with politics, the Marines need to belly up and pay their fair share of any force structure cuts.

By: DHB

DHB — Wed, 12 May 2010 19:46:31 +0000

I worked on the M8 program, and it was very close to production. At the time of the cancellation we were bidding the Low Rate Initial Production program. The explanation we were given was that the Army had to pay for the Bosnia effort out of their own money, as Congress was not going to give them any additional money. They shelved the M8 project. We had built and tested 6 vehicles, including an air drop from a C-130, which it survived just fine. Since then UDLP, now BAE, bought the remaining 5 vehicles and up-gunned them to a 120mm and converted them to Hybrid-Electric drive, which opened up additional space for carrying infantry, and tried to market them that way. Nothing ever came of it.

By: jarheadtalker

jarheadtalker — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:13:39 +0000

OK, so is there something wrong with the Abrams and the Bradley and the Stryker? I’m a Marine foot guy, so it’s a half-honest question.

If I remember, we recently put a whole bunch of former “foot mobile” infantry into MRAPS. Not a tank, but certainly better than a 2.5-ton truck.

Are we just looking for new stuff because we can, and not because the enemy has something better?

By: DK_Ramakers

DK_Ramakers — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:16:03 +0000

Don’t mind Byron. He’s long on words but short on facts. See his rant above about “Reaganenomics.”

By: SogOne0

SogOne0 — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:58:03 +0000

Ooops! This is going to be very interesting and extremely expensive. I will even bet that the mechanicals drivetrain, engine, controls etc. will be old outdated design, cheap or refurbished parts!

By: Rodney

Rodney — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:19:23 +0000

Pete,
I would be happy to assist you; however, I’m not a subject matter expert on IED’s. I can perhaps give you a sanity check from my past experiences. email is rodney.crenshaw@us.army.mil

By: William C.

William C. — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:21:15 +0000

That drawing up top isn’t the GCV, rather it is a concept drawing for the earlier XM1206 which was part of the FCS MGV program. The final proposal for the XM1206 looked a bit more realistic than that however.

Puma could work with some major modifications. New turret and capacity for 9 dismounts. The current Puma design only carries 6 dismounts.

By: Bill R.

Bill R. — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:51:54 +0000

I’m tempted to put a copy of the GCV schematic drawing on my private blog right nrxt to the Puma with the question — “which vehicle would you rather go to war in” ?

Harumph — I’ve not read the ICD, but reading the RFP, they really want post-PDR maturity designs going into the bid. Now where would one find that ? Either in a mod to the MGV ICV design, or the specs for a vehicle that has already been built. So — KMV can come in with the Puma CAD drawings, send in a note saying — this design meets all your essential specfications. What would you like us to change ? But why would I buy a top-heavy vehicle with a high silouhette and lots of ground pressure, even if I could put in a hybrid engine, bolt on an APS, and maybe stick some short range video cameras inside.

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:08:17 +0000

The big thing to watch out for here and should be put into legal documentation is that BAE/ GD or any of the other big guys hoarding all the contracts cannot purchase the winner during the contracted period. I say this because more than once they ( big guys ) have back doored the system sponsoring and funding a small business under the table in order to get a contract and then buy them out before building begins. It’s not just BAE and GD doing this either. The selection board need to make sure who ever they choose is actualy financialy as well as mechanicly able to perform the job, other wise the big guys swoop in and the budget goes out the window.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:15:49 +0000

Hi MAJ Crenshaw. I have developed (seriously) a vehicle system and C-IED devices for use by coalition forces. Would it be possible to communicate with you via e-mail to run it by you for your opinion before I submit it to JIEDDO?

Regards,
Pete
MAGIC-Concepts@Paradise.net.NZ

By: sw614

sw614 — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:58:21 +0000

Yeah, those type of futuristic force levels have been floating around for 20 years, I think I first saw something similar just before ODS, so early 1990 or so. One set force level at well below a million for all AD components. What was actually proposed and partially implemented was Base Force which set total,manning at 1.63 million. BF was scrapped after President Clinton took office and Les Aspin’s Bottoms Up Review was done and it just happened to coincide with what the President campaigned on.…imagine that.

I doubt Congress will ever go along with that level of cuts.

By: tanksaway

tanksaway — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:47:44 +0000

Byron, you don’t know anything about GD. It is not a private equity holding company, it is a defense company that is traded on the exchange. With the exception of their Gulfstream division, their entire portfolio is defense related, i.e. ships, subs, combat vehicles, defense IT stuff. There is no relationship between GD and BAE except possibly some teaming that goes on inside of specific programs. Both BAE and GD went through a significant acquisition effort from the late 90’s through 2008. Lately they have both been watching the defense market to see where this administration is headed.

By: TMB

TMB — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:14:42 +0000

Byron, the 7th and 24th Divisions were inactivated as deployable units in the mid-1990s. Their division headquarters, and I use that term loosely, remained as the command elements of Fort Carson and Fort Riley with a National Guard training mission until a few years ago. With the resettlement of 4th ID and 1st ID in the last couple years, the 7th and 24th are gone for good.

By: FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:14:20 +0000

Byron, if you wish, you may continue to make your case on the status of 7th IN DIV with the historians over at First Army Division West; "The establishment of Division West eliminated the requirement for the 7th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, which was inactivated in a ceremony at the Mountain Post on August 22, 2006." http://www.hood.army.mil/div_west/history.html

By: FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:15:56 +0000

Wow, I hate to have to explain this. But, 2006 comes after 2005, at least in the universe I reside in. And, both the 7th and 24th Infantry Divisions were deactivated in 2006.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:50:29 +0000

Good Afternoon FormerDirtDart,

Me thinks if you look you will find that the 24th. Division has an HQ/HQ Div. at Ft. Riley and that the 7th. has a HQ/HQ Div. at Ft. Carson. I believe that during the course of the war in Iraq both 7th. and 24th. Div. HQ’s did a deployment as a HQ Command.

I personally know that in 2005 the 7th. Div. at Ft. Carson was organizing and training NG battalions and forming a brigade for deployment to Iraq. The “7th. Division” Commander attended a meeting I was attended and did a power point on what they were doing at Ft. Carson.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:08:46 +0000

Byron, you really must keep up with things. Both the 7th and 24th Infantry Divisions were deactivated in 2006.
Having been assigned to the 101st during the mid ‘90s I know for a fact that there was dialog on the development of a training/round-up relationship with an M1 tank battalion from the KYNG, which was also stationed at Ft. Campbell. This was eventually discarded because the 101st already had an almost unmanageable air load-out requirement due to the massive logistic tail of the divisions aviation brigade. This was also around the same time the 82nd replaced all of their AH-64s with Kiowa Warriors to reduce it’s air force lift requirements, which had already been greatly reduced by the deactivation of the 3/73 Armor Bn.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:10:10 +0000

Good Morning Folks,

Although I was using the M-8 as an example of a problem with numbers, I will not disagree with anything about the specifics that FormerDirtDart brought up, with the possible exception of the 101st., The 101st. and the other then light Divisions (10th. and 25th.) under one of the pre 9/11 reorganization schemes were to get an armored Battalion attached to the Division HQ’s.

The basic problem with this type of planning will be the predictable of a post Afghanistan personal drawdown or RIF. Some of the futurests at DoD are predicting the Army at 350K, The Navy, Marines and Air Force at 150K active strength each.

The Army will keep one heavy Division active, most likely the 1st. Armored Divison at Ft. Bliss, the rest of what ever manned, perhaps 8, Divisions will be a mixture of Stryker Division and Light Infantry. The plan for the Army is to keep some active Division size HQ’s like the current 7th. and 24th. to be filled out with NG Battalions. as needed. Most of the Heavy Units, Armored and Mech. (MRAP) Infantry Battalions will be in the National Guard Divisions.

The National Guard will have a small personal increase from pre 9/11 numbers because of increased Homeland Security duties that be assigned to Guard units.

I won’t get into the projected size of the other forces, but a 200 ship Navy is almost a certainly and a two active Division Marine Corp, with the third active Division being a heavy Brigade in the Pacific. The Air Force will exist mostly in the Air National Guard.

One use for the Air Force will be to take over the what is now Army Combat Support Brigades currently, 1 active (Ft. Polk La.), 2 Reserve and 30 in the National Guard. Under this plan the AF would be assigned with the tasks of setting up, securing and running base camps, maintaining C4ISR and logistics in forward areas.

Future Armor buys almost certainly will not be at the Abrams, Bradley or even Stryker levels.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 06:10:36 +0000

Stewart & Stevenson’s Tactical Vehicle Systems originally produced the FMTV, which was bought by Armor Holdings in 2006(?), which in turn was acquired by BAE in 2007.