BAE’s GCV Weighs 53 Tons, Hybrid

BAE’s GCV Weighs 53 Tons, Hybrid

UPDATED: EXCLUSIVE First Picture of BAE’s GCV

It’s wide. It’s not light. It’s learned lessons from MRAPs and is survivable. It manages bandwidth so big fat transmission pipes like the doomed T-Sat satellites aren’t needed. It’s BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman’s offering for the Ground Combat Vehicle.

The base version is 53 tons. Going into a highly lethal environment? Then commanders may well want their troops to bolt on modular armor and storage pods that bring the weight up to 75 tons.  Powering this vehicle that looks an awful lot like a tank, is a hybrid electric drive, technology that worries some in the Army who don’t believe it is sufficiently tried and true yet.


Mark Signorelli, BAE’s vice president and general manager for ground combat vehicles, told reporters that the decision to go with hybrid technology –“key enabling technology for the vehicle” — was one of the most “painful I’ve gone through.” The drive, produced by QintiQ NA, is the same as was proposed for BAE’s FCS offering. Signorelli said he knows the Army is split on the technology’s risk and benefits but argues that the commercial sector has used them for almost a decade in heavy construction equipment. Hybrid technology has “gone from being a radical idea to something we all ride” in on America’s streets, he said.

Among the benefits of hybrid drive: enormous torque; huge power supply for the vehicle and to power other equipment; 50 percent fewer parts so maintenance costs are lower; 10 percent fuel savings over comparable vehicles; added protection because the hybrid drive allows them to add some 4 tons of armor compared to a traditional engine. Will Army leadership buy BAE’s arguments and will testing bear out their claims? Wait and see time.

The GCV also uses something that Signorelli called a “hit avoidance system.” It is a combination of “hard kill protection” — something like what the FCS program called “active protection” — along with “soft kill” protection, a combination of jammers and decoys. Readers will remember that the active protection system was one of the failed promises of FCS. This will be an area to watch closely as the program develops.

Among the other attributes of the BAE’s GCV offering are a crew compartment designed for today’s larger soldiers who also carry larger and heavier loads. Signorelli said the new vehicle was designed to keep troops as rested as possible so they could go into action with minimal fatigue incurred by the miseries of riding in a cramped and bouncy ride.

Join the Conversation

wish they had a real conceptual picture.

There’s a generic US Army one at http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​G​C​V​_​I​n​f​a​n​t​r​y​_​F​i​g​h​tin…

You’ve got to be kidding! 75 tons, and no mention of how many men it carries.
This will mean the only method of transport for a meaningful quantity of these
things will be by boat. The high power output is a good thing, apparently it will
put out a lot of auxiliary power for sensors, etc. But another huge vehicle just
doesn’t seem the road to follow.

Looks like something out of “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. Have we really come full circle?

How can hybrid electric drives be a radical idea when locomotives have been using them for fifty years?

Indeed, this wouldn’t even be the first armored vehicle powered by a hybrid electric drive.

Good Evening Folks,

Don’t we already have this, is it not called the M-2/M-3 Bradley IFV?

Was not the Future Combat Vehicles ICV’s suppose to be deployable buy C-130’s. This is just another brick on tracks and I’m sure the cost will exceed $25 million a copy.

What happened to light, fast and lethal?

This is exactly what the Army doesn’t need to fight insurgencies and terrorists. Hybrid drive at 53–75 tons what’s the difference beside price?

The US Army has plenty of of heavy armor it doesn’t need any more. Maybe BAE could peddle this IFV to the Russian or the Chinese.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Light died with MGV. Now it is all about armor, armor, armor. We have plenty of heavy armor yes, but there is always room to improve and replace older vehicles.

I personally think this is a bit too heavy. I was hoping for a vehicle 40–41 tons in lightest configuration (so you can fit two in a C-17A) and no more than 60 tons in it’s heaviest configuration. That is more than enough weight to provide an outstanding degree of armor protection.

I applaud BAE for sticking with a hybrid-electric drive however.

Good Evening Folks,
This what the US Army wanted just like the requirements for FCS. The government sets the parameters with all its bells and whistles and the defense contractors try to make it work. FCS was shoving 15 pounds of stuff in a five pound can. Now GCV calls for twentyfive pounds in a five pound can. Oh one other thing:

As we all have participated in forms regarding social, political, military, cultural affairs we always come across the “know it all” with his pretentious script. We feed his ego with our counter points for which the precocious adolescent now an adult either dismisses or fails to acknowledge, pontificates with opinion as truths. FOR THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY, NO CONSEQUENCE FOR BEING OBNOXIOUS AND ANONYMOUS. So if you want to continue bearing with his ego, continue to debate hoping to win the argument you have a better chance of winning the lottery.

ALLONS (translated: I’M REALLY FULL OF MYSELF)
vicgilroy

Read more: http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​0​/​0​6​/​2​5​/​c​a​r​t​e​r​-​c​o​s​t​-​fix…

In a hostile environment, where it’s known that there are mines, IEP’s rigged to blow, hard to identify hostiles with rpg’s, etc, what are we doing going from place to place to place along tracks and roads that give cover to an enemy anyway? Since we usually own the air, why aren’t we using it? Unless we’re planning on pitched battles in the open against conventional enemies, what good is all that heavy hardware and firepower? Keeping up as we are, we’re spending big money to create heavy junk that plays into the enemy’s hands. Not too bright.

I’ll stick with Bronco and William for this one. It will be to heavy to deploy fast.
This will be a very big target riding around the battlefield.

Thats why those parts are “bolt-on.” They would be brought to theater without those parts and have them mounted before being sent out.

Its a bigger than the Bradley holds double the number troops, well thats the goal. Its suppose to replace the Bradley so its no surprise that it would have strong similarities.

One of these is meant to replace 2 Bradley since unlike the Bradley it is expected to accomodate a full squad… the Bradley weighs in at about 30 tons. So as long as this is less than 60 its total weight is an overall reduction. It will also mean a reduced need for vehicle operators and maintainance teams.

Someone PLEASE tell me that the.…MONSTROSITY.…pictured with story isn’t what they (BAE) want it to look like!

Too much stuff cluttering up the turret.
Too much stuff that is too vulnerable to small arms fire (7.62–12.7mm MG fire, etc).
Broken optics, damaged sensors, and smashed antenna array equals mission kill.
What good is this AFV’s armored hull if everything necessary to enable it to see in battle is blown off the turret?

The picture is of the Reconaissance and Surveliance varient.

Atleast thats what it looks like. Seems they just lifted the turret layout from their Reconaissance and Surveliance FCS.

That really doesn’t look much different than the MGV chassis, which I guess doesn’t really surprise me, reuse what you’ve done in the past to cut costs. The weight is surprising though. Contractors bounce around at the whim of the Dept of Army regarding weight. In the early 90’s the Army wanted the Armored Gun System , a 3 man vehicle with a 105mm gun, that was C-130 deployable (just under 20 tons). Then came Crusader, a large (43 ton) vehicle. It was cancelled because of weight, and the fact that only 2 could fit in a C-17 or C-5. They wanted something lighter and faster, so along came MGV! It was to be lighter and faster, but was cancelled some say because of surviveability. Now they want something heavier, so we are back to the transportability issue of heavy equipment.

Geometry aside and whether it physically fits into C17s and C5s the general idea is that one vehicle is replacing the presence of two. So as long as the one bigger vehicle weighs less than the two ligher ones, the overall weight has been reduced. 53 ton < 60 ton (or 30*2).

The Wermacht would be proud. It’s like the Jager Panzer all over again.They ought to call this thing the the PARADOX. It has armor reducing solutions heaped on armor, combined with a weight that on average (heavy and “light”) weighs as much as an M1 Abrams. (… but makes up for it with a hybrid drive train that will supposedly save 10%. Verdict:: G A R B A G E)

If you’re going that heavy and ridiculous, steal a page from the Israeli Merkavah.

Thank goodness we won’t have to fight in third world countries with very poor infrastructure with bridges and ferries designed for Land Rovers. Thank goodness all of the places we need to go will have airfields designed for C-17A to land on and slam on the breaks… several hundred time. Mostly I am thankful we won’t have to fight an enemy who will figure out how to break it within a week.

Put a 10KW infrared laser turent on the thing and run it!

C-17A has an excellent short-landing capability and can operate from unprepared airstrips, though it is rarely used in such a manner. Besides, like the Abrams most of these would come by boat.

There isn’t a power supply that’s powerful enough, compact enough, reliable enough, and cheap enough to fit.

I thought BAE was bidding a modified version of their sleek CV90, but this thing is about 20 metric tons uglier than the CV90.

I applaud the hybrid drive, not only does it promote efficiency but it has the potential to make substantially more power available on demand for future weapons/sensors. If only the rest of the concept were as forward-thinking.

LMAO.….great point. I didn’t even take this FN garbage seriously enough to think that far ahead, but it does beg the question doesn’t it?

I always ask these clowns, “um.…sounds great, but how would you use that in Iraq or Afghanistan?” “Ok, how about Vietnam?.….Africa?” If they mumble I stop listening. We may fight again in modern European cities, but more than likely we’ll be in some underdeveloped and fragmented country no one wants to visit on holiday.

Yet this is built with the Afghan and Iraq experience in mind, which really equates to more armor than anything else. You can’t get something for nothing. In this case you can’t get the level of survivability they want without a high weight.

This may just come down to there being no middle ground. You get armor or mobility not necessarily both. Everyone complained the FCS didn’t have enough armor, but it had the same basic armor as a Bradley and people complained about the lack of mine resistance, now they’ve enlarged the concept to carry more troops and sacrificed mobility for armor and underside protection and end up with something heavyier. 53 tons or less than double a Bradley. The larger 75 ton mass is bolt on features that could simply be left off if a theater of operation demands it.
Everyone here is speaking in absolute terms without really addressing possible solutions. The simple fact was even without an extended crew compartment this vehicle was going to end up heavier starting at 30 tons if it followed the basics of the Bradley.

Its not radical to anyone other than the Army, who is risk adverse on a project that can’t affford any delays or cost overruns.

I am left wondering why is the turret so long now? Even BAE’s contender for the MGV didn’t have a turret that ran almost the entire length of the hull? Any insight as to why this was done? Especially since BAE also is working on an improved Bradley that keeps the turret, but makes it unmanned.

“Mostly I am thankful we won’t have to fight an enemy who will figure out how to break it within a week. ”

Ya know what’s really funny about that?
No matter how soldier-proof BAE thinks they make this thing and test it until they get all the bugs and kinks worked out,
it’s almost guaranteed our own soldiers will have figured out one more way to break it by the end of that first week!

Good Afternoon Folks,

How the ideologue man-boys love their big armor. Since none of them have ever been in combat with tanks, armor or for that matter anything other kind of combat they sure know a lot.

This is just a coffin on tracks. He** load it up with twice as many troops, it will give the enemy more US KIA’s. With the Taliban and al Qaeda already having good sources on RDX and the next generation of explosives…I don’t even want to think of the opportunities a brick like this will give them.

But it will make cool plastic models for you guys to build.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Byron,
As a fellow Cav guy, I have to say there is a certain je ne sais quoi to driving with impunity down a Baghdad street in an up armored Bradley or Abrams. At the same time, the GCV weighs as much as an M60A1. No culvert in a third world country is safe! I wonder if that torque is enough to climb a hill in Afghanistan or even Korea.

A lot of good points point out there. Are we really coming full circle on this type of thing? Using the air would be more to our advantage also. Why not use it???

It lacks presentation. It looks like it comes from hollywood. Did they look at the old bradley and make a comparison? The design is getting worse each year. This is why we eneded up buying russian equipments.

Yeah, afterall, nobody shoots down planes and helicopters…oh, wait.

What happens when those aircraft crash with people aboard?

I grant you it is ugly as sin, but it does have modular armor packages.

The reason they gave up on FCS was it was too lightly armored it wasn’t going to travel via C-130. There isn’t going to be any C-130 transportable GCV. Even the Strykers can’t travel via C-130, so forget about that as a goal.

So then the issue is survivability. It needs to survice IEDs, RPT/ATGMs, and small cannon fire. It looks like it does that except for its height., so what the heck are they thinking?

And if they want basically a Namer ICV with modular armor, then why not build a Namer? This thing is ugly.

The hybrid drive is smart because any vehicle is going to need substantial energy output for all the equipment and the gear the squad carry.

Did I mention this thing is ugly?

They forgot to add a canon or a missile launcher. This is only good for Afghanistan war but not in Korean war or bigger war.

I guess its time to hire a new designer.

The real issue here is that BAE has said that they will use a hybrid electric drive on their GCV. My understanding is that such technology really isn’t effective on a vehicle weight over ~40–42 tons. Considering that the base weight of the BAE GCV is 50+ tons, I’m curious how they have solved the issue. Also, the APS from the FCS MGV effort is one of the only things that is still being funded from that effort so I don’t think it’s accurate to say that it failed. The concept has been validated but the real trick will be weaponizing onto a vehicle.

Keep in mind it all comes down to requirements flowed down by the Army. What you see is the result of what may be conflicting or unclear requirements from them. The xx lbs of stuff in a x lb can is probably THE most accurate comment on this entire discussion thread. The army isn’t the only service to do this to their contractors…

I have to update a couple of things, first Crusader, according to a web site it was listed at 43 tons, however, when all was said and done, it was about 80 tons, so just one per C-17 opr C-5. Jeff you keep saying that the new vehicle will hold a complete squad therefore it does the work of two Bradleys. I thought the Bradley IFV held a squad of 9, the Bradley CFV only carried 5, so a one to one replacement is not that great a deal. The big issue with the Army at the time they cancelled Crusader was the transportabiliy. With vehicles approaching these sizes, there is no quick reaction force that can be deployed rapidly. If you don’t have boots on the ground, and you can’t send them out without some mechanized backup, you can’t deploy against a formidable opponent.

This is what you get when you try to meet all the requirements in one vehicle. You end up with a big, HEAVY box that is difficult to transport, can’t fit down normal streets or cross normal bridges. I’m all for adequate protection for our troops but I hope they are working on something else that will work better in the real world.

Looks like a Bradley with seven road wheels and heavy steel or even depleted uranium armor. What about the new tougher aluminum armor ina thicker plate with Titanium sheathing, and a 30mm remote control turrret. with the Hybrid drive and band tracks this thing might come in under 30 tons and carry 10+ troops plus crew in comfort.

Sir, have you been sleeping for the past year ? Now do you understand the ragequit when Gates canceled the original MGV ? I realize you are a kind of light fighter assymetric warfare bigot and you think that gets you cheap, but this is where your boy Gates’s policies have got us. You can bet the SAIC/KMW/Boeing team design will look nothing like this. How much you wanna bet the GD design looks like an EFV ? Puma is 30 tons stripped down, 40 tons fully loaded. You will have to stretch out the design to get 11 men in the back, and do something about active protection. But airtransportability in C130 is not a choice. Do we still want to cancel the C-17 ? Hmmh ?

“The real issue here is that BAE has said that they will use a hybrid electric drive on their GCV. My understanding is that such technology really isn’t effective on a vehicle weight over ~40–42″

Most big moving things use diesel electric drive, trains, 700 tonne dump trucks, 192 tonne Maus Tanks.

The difference between peak and cruising power get larger the heavier a vehicle is as a result the “range extender” for a 50 tonne armoured vehicle could well be a 500bhp automotive derived diesel weighting a few hundred kg and tanking up very little space. 1000bhp electric motors are generally no bigger than a gearbox for a diesel of that power rating.

Help from the engineer-types out there. Generally, combat vehicles are no wider than 12′ to fit typical road lanes, railway cars, and HET trailers. In this picture it looks like several feet stick out both sides which begs this question.

Why not seat 12 troops in 3 rows of 4 troops (fire team) in 10′ of vehicle width (2′ left seats + 2′ aisle + 2′ middle seats + 2′ aisle + 2′ right seats) by sitting above the tracks with two (or one large) rear ramps. You still have a foot of armor extending beyond the crew compartment on each side. Result is only 8 feet of internal cabin length requiring side and belly armor which when added to a 4′ cupola and 7–8 feet of engine and slope in front leaves only a 19′-20′ long vehicle.

Add a squad leader siting on the right of the cupola and driver on the left with vehicle commander in the cupola and you have the basis for a common armored vehicle for both the GCV and Marines…both carried by Landing Craft Air Cushioned or C-17 with a 75,000 lb. weight allowing two aboard either.

Since we are investing on these equipment for defense, why not look into the future of defense and adopt the concept. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TGS61dlat8U/S496mpNVaZI… http://​www​.energypublisher​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​.​a​s​p​?​i​d​=​302… http://​gizmodo​.com/​5​4​2​6​4​5​3​/​t​h​e​-​p​h​y​s​i​c​s​-​o​f​-​s​p​a​c​e-b… http://​www​.scribd​.com/​d​o​c​/​1​8​6​6​5​0​6​5​/​W​e​a​t​h​e​r​-​W​a​r​far… http://​www​.geekosystem​.com/​c​a​t​e​g​o​r​y​/​a​c​t​u​a​l​l​y​-​i​-am…

Or perhaps the best weapon is just not starting it all and comeback to God.

Perhaps the next futuristic tank is an anti-gravity tank with lasers on its turret. Who knows.
http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​p​J​J​-​4​l​n​w​r​c​k​&​a​m​p​;fe… http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​J​c​C​L​I​w​l​b​h​L​c​&​a​m​p​;fe… http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​C​H​1​N​9​f​j​2​I​Z​E​&​a​m​p​;fe… http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​2​4​8​U​K​Z​9​I​D​J​k​&​a​m​p​;fe…

The typical Marine LPD will be carrying 14 EFVs and 2 LCACs because they want other equipment and supplies ashore…hence the advertised 26 EFVs with 12 in the well deck won’t happen often.

Instead of 14 EFVs, a shorter IFV would allow four 30.6-foot EFVs and twelve 20-foot Marine non-amphibious, better-armored, and less expensive IFVs with 14 dismountable Marines aboard each LPD. With 14 EFVs you have 238 dismountable Marines. With 4 EFVs and twelve IFVs with 14 dismounts, you have 236 dismounts. The shorter IFV length allows extra equipment or a new smaller LCAC designed to move two 59,000 lb-75,000 lb IFVs. BTW, the original Marine AAV could carry 25 dismounts with a center bench…and weighed only 59,000 lbs despite its great length.

Marines and Army armor must get to shore. But pick safer landing locations, buy fewer EFVs and have a more survivable and fuel efficient IFV for 7+ months of land war…versus putting excessive weight, space, and power into a single hour of amphibious ship-to-shore and 573 costly EFVs when a fleet of 150 EFVs might suffice to secure the shore line when added to the first wave of IFVs getting to shore via LCAC and Marines lifted by MV-22 and augmented by airborne Army troops.

The base version is 53 tons. Going into a highly lethal environment? Then commanders may well want their troops to bolt on modular armor and storage pods that bring the weight up to 75 tons.

If it’s modular up to 75Tons, it’s meant for US deployment only, hence fighting here.

Have a great day.

I’m off to find a koranimal to chase…

*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