Army Bradley Replacement Safe from Sequestration

Army Bradley Replacement Safe from Sequestration

 The painful defense cuts under sequestration may last for a decade, but it’s a good bet that that spending cuts won’t threaten top Army programs such as the Network and the Ground Combat Vehicle.

Senior Army officials, and their counterparts in other services, have talked a great deal over the past few months about the negative impacts of sequestration, a set of mandatory defense spending cuts slated to go into effect March 1.

The Army’s $18-billion share of this year’s $46 billion of across-the-board cuts to the Pentagon is projected devour money for home-station training for about 80 percent of combat units and force the senior leadership to cut another 100,000 personnel from the ranks.

Rapid acquisition efforts that have kept combat troops well equipped over the past decade of war are also likely to dry up, Gen. Robert Cone, commander of Training and Doctrine Command, said recently at the Association of the U.S. Army’s winter meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“We will not have the funds available to come up with those kinds of quick solutions that have a half life of about two years and then are thrown away,” Cone said.

But the future of high-profile Army programs such as the Network, GCV and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle has been discussed very little.

The reason is simple. Even if sequestration lasts the projected 10 years, the drastic cuts to every spending area will only occur in fiscal 2013, said Lt. Gen. James Barclay, Army G8, at AUSA winter.

The Army already decided in January to extend the Technology Development phase of the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle program. Delays are a reality for many of the Pentagon’s major acquisition programs as a strategy to survive the planned budget cuts.

Leaders will have more control over which programs will suffer at the beginning of the next fiscal year, Barclay said.

“This year it is a straight nine-percent cut” across the service, Barclay said. “For 2014 and beyond, the Army has the ability to take that nine percent and decide where the cuts go.”

Join the Conversation

Don’t know about this… How does “delaying” a program protect it from getting cut? If sequester delays GCV (like eveything else) it gets more expensive. When that happens, things don’t tend to stick around too long…

Spreading the costs may help them get through, but sounds like its going be slow goings for long time. If wasn’t for the fuel costs, i’d say they’d need refit existing fleet if the bodies are good enough in shape. Hopefully they won’t change the specs for the vehicle program again or they may not be able to recover the program with the Sequestration going at full steam in few years.

It’s not just costs, it’s opportunity costs.

We’re at the early development stages, so chances are the costs are salaries of scientists and engineers fiddling around with stuff. It’s less painful than stopping a program that is production-oriented: For example, a sudden halt to JSF production for a year would probably kill off a number of subcontractors who would need to be replaced.

cut troops, cut training, keep stuff that has not been invented yet

must make sense to somebody, but not to me

Makes sense to the corporations that are getting money to build these systems, and the generals, aka future advisers to those companies, that are lobbying for them. They only care about the $$$ not our country or the men and women that defend it.

“Over-grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particulary hostile to republican liberty”

–George Washington

They sure aren’t like the old corps! They are all just “lobbyists-in-training”! Such a shame!

To many freakin officers, to many reguard aholes and generals, to many new shit that aint worth a crap and now.…fewer infantry. Of course when your no longer in the war winning business but policing business that makes sense.

DoD its supposed to be the department of defense instead its the department of state.….…with guns.

Simple, cheap, quick solution: GDLS is already building components in the US; it meets the requirements of protecting the troops inside as well as similar armament; the BCT system can easily and simply replace the Isreali version… Just buy/build the Isreali Namer! None of these obscene development costs!

the first area that should be cut is the salaries of the legislature and executive dept which got us into this trouble

You nailed it they have to unofficially kill it ofr now but keep the millions in paper work for a weapon program we wont need.

You nailed it jerks like the SOA will keep program for companies who pay them to make programs for weapons we dont need. Over it will be past 2020 to see any M-2 replacement.We dont need this crap the Bradley is being upgraded for another 7+ years and no foreign APC matches it. Its more Bull crap politics from Pentagon beurocrates who made this crisis in the first place.

I think Mr. Cox is being too optimistic over GCV and ICC they are not or never produce any machine worth adopting its politics and pork waste. Too bad the Pentagon has him brainwashed otherwise. For me with the Government shutdown coming now these programs for dead for years t to come, as they should be.

Wouldn’t it be better to come up with a JLTV concept that makes sense — i.e. tradeoff between the old HMMWV and MRAP — then make it cost effective and field it as expeditiously as possible. Do we really need a combat vehicle against the current or future threat? Has anyone done a threat analysis to validate this decision?

The U.S. is finally looking for a heavy APC/IFV (think Namer class) in their GCV program. As far as I see it has two options:

1)- Just buy the damn Namer. General Dynamics is already building half of them for Israel, so it is not a problem to pass it by congress. It’s also a bargain at $3 million vs. the Bradley at $5.8 million or the proposal for the GCV calling for a $10+ Million dollar vehicle (holy hell!).

2)- Convert the thousands of M1’s sitting in graveyards. Get the Israeli’s on the project (they have a long history of converting tanks to heavy APC’s and get the project in for minimal costs while also taking care of a bunch of old hulls rusting away.

Just look at 40.201477,-120.144179 in Google maps to see what I’m talking about. The U.S. has around 2,000 M1’s sitting in this depot alone doing nothing.

Here’s how it looks from the ground: http://​security​.blogs​.cnn​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​1​0​/​0​9​/​a​r​m​y​-to–

It does take time to develop new vehicles you know. Come 2020 we can’t just snap our fingers and have a Bradley replacement.

Actually, total program cost could well go up. You cut from the program baseline this year, and nine consecutive years. That stretches out the cost per year, but you end up paying more in constant dollars.

And all costs rise. The cost of producing a Bradley today is undoubtedly higher than it would’ve been in the ‘80s or ‘90s.

I think the fear is that going heavy tanks means a greater demand on air and sealift. You can move two Bradleys or one Abrams in an airlift; and when it goes to one Abrams or one Bradley, in addition to presumably increasing fuel consumption (since a Namer consumes more fuel than a Bradley?)

Chances are the M3 Bradley will live on, and chances are the new infantry/armor team could be a triad: Abrams, Bradley and Namer-type.

Kind of feels like going back to the 1970’s where dismounts are a priority over another ersatz tank to fire TOWs at waves of T-72s in Eastern Europe…

Regrettably, if we had to bootstrap a tank-hull APC we’d have to go the way of the Achzarit: since most tanks are rear-engine and rear-engine is the only safe place to dismount under fire. Shoehorning a rear corridor and side doors into a tank chassis comes with penalties.

On the plus side, we do have plenty of Abrams in storage…

Right. In fact, if you look at major program acquisitions, it almost never happens that we don’t end up buying the program at its “minimum sustaining rate”. It’s absolutely the least efficient way to buy things, but it’s the only one that doesn’t require someone to give up a favorite toy.

Forget development costs; development costs are less than 5% of life cycle costs. It’s the procurement and O&M costs that break the bank.

Of course, Namer is cheaper there too…

No, but we could spend small dollars (tens of millions per year) over the next 15 years to actually do technology development and risk mitigation, so that when the time comes we know what to build and how. Instead, we leap into a major procurement program as soon as the political will to fund it exists, and waste billions learning that the shiny toy we were promised can’t actually be built, or will cost three times what we were told it would cost. And in the end, we don’t actually get them any faster than we would have if we’d done it the smart way.

Blight — FYI, the M2 Bradley is the IFV. The M3 is the cavalry version (less room for troops, more ammo stowage).

The Namer is 60T and has no anti armor capability.

Weight is an issue both for deploying an mobility. Anti Armor becomes very important depending on who the advesary is and what armor is available. Increased weight impacts the total deployed force package. A heavier IFV is going to mean less tanks are going to go.

Wheels don’t have the mobility or protection of a tracked vehicle. If wheels are good enough we already have the Stryker.

We dont need the Namer and the fact with US-Israeli relations crashing I doubt soon they want to sell us one. Over the Bradley can do the same mission anyway. Its a waste of money in a era with very little DoD funds.

DOnt matter we spent billions on M-2/3 upgrades to keep Bradley top line for another decade so GCV makes no sense till 2020.

r0d, I’m wondering if Namer will replace the IFV as a personnel carrier and carry full squads, then M1’s will be paired with M3’s while Namers carry the infantry further back.

That said, doing so creates a gap between tank and infantry that would be dangerous. And it becomes three vehicle types instead of two.

…which we would just as well leave as intact M1s.

For the cost in unionized GDLS engineers and time to redesign the platform to accomodate “Achzarizing” it, and tooling up a production line and training the personnel to build it (what condition/capacity is Lima in right now? Red River? Anniston? Letterkenney?),
we might as well just buy Namer.
But there again, that also means an overabundance of TRADOC job-justifiers stepping in to develop new doctrine in using it, let alone establishing a new logistics supply footprint for it. Recap/re-utilize as many current vehicle components as possible? Sure, but that takes engineering money and test & eval time also: the parts aren’t as simple at plug-and-play like Legos.

Then, much like with the various MRAPs, eveybody and their brother not involved with the actual vehicle rebuilds will be scrambling to justify their additions: new CROWS, new commo and nav systems, etc…
We only wish “simple fix” was the word of the day here, but “simplicity in choice” isn’t even part of the equation, or at most is a vey low-value variable in it.

blight — doesn’t make sense.

What do M3s in the organization buy you?

The only formations that used M3s were cavalry units (real cavalry units, not infantry bn’s in armored divisions which are flagged cavalry in name only but manned and equipped with Infantry as an Infantry organization. I commanded one.). The M3s provided scouts for recon but not enough strength to protect tanks from ATGMs or conduct Infantry type ops in mid to high intensity ops. An M3 platoon of four M3s can field ONE infantry strength 9 man squad.

Agree on the increased maintenance but heck, if you’re going to have M3s you don’t really need Namers. Just stretch M2s and roll.

If the Army goes with Namers it’s not the armor that will suffer. They will have Infantry support. It’s the Infantry that will suffer because there will be less tanks to go around and provide anti armor protection to Namer companies. Namers don’t have an anti-armor capability.

Lance — What upgrades did we install that keep the Bradley “top line”?

Your shade tree analysis on what the Army needs in regards to an IFV has no rational or support. You don’t know the threat. You don’t know how mechanized infantry is employed or even how many infantrymen dismount in a mech platoon. You don’t know the issues that were rediscovered when you split squads across tracked vehicles or why the nine man squad is so important. You don’t know the Bradley’s capabilities, pros and cons. Stop embarrasing yourself.

I always wondered how much it would cost to add a roadwheel or two to the Bradley stretchwise. Akin to MTVL for M113.

An additional road-wheel worth of stretch might barely give a Bradley the nine man squad. I suspect it would push the weight into the 43–47 ton weight range, though. Something about armoring and then more gizmos…

majr0d — You really have to research stuff before you comment.

The Namer has the ability to be equipped with the Rafael Samson 30mm and 2x SPIKE LR turret, which would give it far superior anti-armor capability (combined with its amount of armor which is superior to most tanks) than the Bradley.

In addition, there is a lower logistical burden due the reduction in the amount of spare parts that you need to cart around for additional units of Bradley’s. A single Namer can hold about double the infantry compliment of a Bradley, or in other words; one Namer vs. two Bradley’s.

Not to mention the Namer is far cheaper at $3 million each vs. the Bradley at roughly $5.8 Million each. If you decide to equip the Namer with Trophy or Iron Fist hard kill system and a Samson RCWS turret, you are still talking about under $4 million each for capabilities that far exceed a vehicle costing far more.

In fact, the IDF is planning on equipping the Namer’s with an APS and the Rafael Samson 30mm with 2x SPIKE LR as soon as the budget frees up a little. Here is a video showing the Samson undergoing testing on the Namer:

Fact is some here think they know everything but the Bradley got new target systems and new armor upgrades. Its fine the Namer is a waste of money since its doesn’t do much of anything else a M-2/3 can do its just BIGGER target, slower too. This is just bull crap some general who has his pet project to work on because he like how a foreign machine looks not operates face it idiots at the pentagon are killing themselves financially.

You’ve pointed out the thing Americans like to do these days: add stuff. The Achzarit is mind-numblingly simple, for better or for worse. Like the Soviets, there’s a question of how to field the most stuff and not be caught with insufficient stuff in wartime, especially if industry cannot build fast enough to replace lost stuff.

Are you referring to this upgrade program? http://​www​.armytimes​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​1​2​/​0​7​/​a​r​m​y​-​b​r​a​dle

“The Bradley Urban Survivability Kit, or BUSK III, was installed on vehicles belonging to the South Korean-based 1st Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, part of Army Materiel Command’s pre-positioned stocks. The work took place between January and June, and the vehicles became the latest in the fleet to receive modifications designed to increase their performance in urban environments.

John Tile, BAE’s director of Bradley programs, said the BUSK III program began several years ago — BAE Systems received a $53.3 million contract to provide 3,034 BUSK III kits in April 2011 — after experiences in urban combat in Iraq revealed several capability gaps the Army needed to fix. A company spokeswoman added that the kits have been installed on vehicles “in the Southwest Asia theater of operation starting in late 2010 and concluding with the installation in Korea.”

The BUSK III upgrades come in four areas: a blast-proof fuel cell; a blast-resistant driver seat; a turret survivability system; and an emergency ramp release.”

Or perhaps you are talking about the A3 upgrade?

Additionally, I found word of the old Bradley Tech Demonstrator from 2006/2007: http://​defense​-update​.com/​p​r​o​d​u​c​t​s​/​b​/​b​r​a​d​l​e​y​.​htm

Teleoperated turret, room for nine man squad. Probably vaporware?

Joe — The Namer is not equipped with an anti armor capability. Can it be? Sure! Just like you can with ANY vehicle if you are willing to give up space, add cost AND weight.

The equipping of the Namer with a remote turret is going to decrease the squad strength between 2–4 toops tp accomodate the remote station, gunner and additional ammo stowage. Also a basic Namer weighs about the same as two bradleys. That’s a “heavy” price to pay to get the squad in one vehicle (something I strongly support) along with giving up 50% of the firepower (two cannons/4 missiles vs. one cannon/2 missiles).

The Spike missile has half the range of the TOW or less depending on the version and is about equal to the Javelin. Why buy foreign when we have a domestic solution? To characterize the 30mm/Spike combo as “far superior” is inaccurate.

Don’t understand how there is a logistical reduction. Instead of Bradley parts you have to carry Namer parts. Replacement isn’t equal to reduction.

Did you research this info before you posted?

Prefer a modernized version of the StG-3 with a 120mm gun/mortar, 6 man crew (4 dismounts) and .50 cal MG turrent and coax.

Could be 1.5 meters tall, so small, fast, front engined, rear exit, with antitank capability and pounding infantry support capability.

Building a brand new anything always incurs major risk and costs.

It might be cheaper to overall/refit M1 & M2 to be better/different. It might be interesting to ask industry what they could do.

Think out of the box. Take the turret off some M2, add different kinds of turrets on others, modify the hull shape, etc. We tend to over standardize .… an infantry unit could have a mix of M2 configurations.

Our new infantry carrier has to hold a squad of nine dismounts. Your idea sounds more like a light tank.

And that’s the beauty of an RCWS like the Samson, it does not take up any internal volume aside from the gunners station (which is a one mans station that can also be occupy the current commanders space, where the hell are you getting 2–4 troops!?). They are not planning on going down the same preposterous route the U.S. did with the Bradley and it’s turret and losing internal volume for ammo storage and turret space (as well as the risk to the troops inside).

And you continue to spout incorrect information:

1)- The SPIKE LR or ER (the versions mounted in the Samson station) have a range of 4,000m and 8,000m respectively, which far out-range the 3,750m of the TOW.

2)- The SPIKE is a non-line of site system with lock on after launch ability (both of which the Javelin lack). How you don’t consider this superior to the Javelin (and definitely TOW which is an ancient SACLOS system).

3)- Where does the Bradley have two cannons!? (Unless you are counting the 7.62mm, which the Samson station also has in conjunction with the 30mm).

I can take the turret off the Bradley (BAE has a version like this), are you now going to tell me the Bradley has no Anti-Armor ability as a whole? We are talking about a version the U.S. will buy that will be equipped with a weapons station, so what’s your point?

And we’ve already been over the cost route. A Namer with an Active Protection System and a RCWS will cost LESS than a modern Bradley brand new and less than half what the U.S. is looking for in the GCV (~$10-$11 Million USD!).

You are just biased against the system since it is not domestically designed and is superior.

Which by the way is the same thing that happened to Trophy.

The U.S. Army tested the system and it passed with above flying colors, but the MIC and pride stood in the way of soldiers lives and they decided to wait for your domestic system, “Quick Kill”.

Tell me, how is your domestic system looking, eh? Must be nice seeing the foreign system which you decided not to buy shooting down missiles in the field in combat while your own system is still not out of testing even after all this time.

Maybe you should think of the soldiers lives for once and swallow your pride of it being built or designed “domestically” or not.

The problem with most of today’s large RCWS is that they are awfully vulnerable to enemy fire that would otherwise do nothing to a more conventional turret. What’s needed is something that provides a bit more protection for optics and weapon systems, like the unmanned turret of the Puma IFV or those planned for the FCS manned ground vehicles. Ammunition storage is also rather limited. Just 300 rounds for the 30mm and 460 for the coax IIRC.

There is no chance a Namer with a proper weapon system, active defense systems, and all of the communications and sensors the Army wants will cost less to build or operate than the Bradley. Especially when you consider that most of our current Bradleys are rebuilt from older variants. But the increased armor protection (on the level of a main battle tank) would make it worth the cost in theory.

If an appropriate weapon system is selected and other changes made to meet Army requirements, a modified Namer is certainly worth considering for GCV.

I think Spike-ER is only for attack helicopters, but the Spike-LR is worth considering as an alternative to TOW. Yet historically, programs intended to succeed the TOW among ground forces haven’t done well. Fire-and-forget is a huge advantage against a conventional armored threat, but TOW being a relatively cheap SALCOS system has made it a useful weapon against other targets.

The Samson RCWS is armored against weapons fire, and since it would be launched on a platform containing an Active Protection System, the threat against it from missiles in negated. Remember, the reason that turrets usually need so much protection is because they contain a human that needs to move around inside of them. An RCWS negates that disadvantage.

And let’s go down the cost list:
Namer: $3 Million USD
Trophy: $250,000-$350,000 USD
Samson RCWS 30mm: ~$750,000-$1 Million USD

If the Army wants to throw even more nonsense on it and drastically drive up the cost then it’s their problem, not the system in question.

SPIKE LR is about 30%-40% more expensive than a base TOW missile (not the more advanced ones), but offers far great capability and a greater hit probability on the target in question. SPIKE-ER is also not just for helicopters but also for land, Spain just ordered a bunch.

And remember, SPIKE isn’t a system in development to succeed the TOW, it’s an actively fielded system for the last 16 years (26+ if you count the SPIKE NLOS) by dozen of countries. The Samson RCWS-30 has also been fielded by other militaries as well and is a proven system. The Trophy APS is also in the field and has shot down even Kornet-E’s (the best Russian man portable AT system in existence) in the field in combat.

There is just no risk or room for cost growth here.

And I think that’s the most important point.

Out of all the options on the table, only the Namer+Samson RCWS-30+Trophy is the only option with all of the elements already fielded and proven; which also translates in the lowest risk for cost growth and growing pains.

Everything else on the GCV program list costs a large amount more and has unproven elements.

Joe Schmoe – this is the problem when folks with “book learning” try and tell folks that have been there why they are wrong. Let me try and help you.

How am I getting 2–4 people to fit an RCWS? Have you ever been or work/lived/fought on a Stryker, Bradley or CROWS equipped HMMWV? I have. You NEVER put the commander in the gunners seat. The gunners tasks require all of his attention and a commander in that position is no longer commander that’s why ALL vehicles that have an RCWS consisting of a cannon & missile have three man crews. Research it. Second, the electronics alone of RCWS take up the space of a person. That’s two people’s worth of space. Third, ammo stowage. The ready boxes of an automatic cannon typically carry 200 rounds but the vehicle carries an additional 400 rounds. Add missiles and you’ve taken up another 1 more likely two people. Again, this is based on experience operating Bradleys for a decade. Those spike missiles don’t just appear. The link I’ve attached below has a picture of two of the lighter version carried on a man’s back. You’ll have at least 3–4 rounds inside the vehicle. There you go, 3–4 people cost to mount an RCWS on a Namer.

The Spike ER is equivalent to our Hellfire missile. It weighs in excess of 70 lbs. While it can be carried on an armored vehicle (just like the domestic Hellfire) it is not because of the difficulty of reloading the system in combat. http://​www​.rafael​.co​.il/​m​a​r​k​e​t​i​n​g​/​S​I​P​_​S​T​O​R​A​G​E​/​FIL… Most modern armored vehicle missiles weigh 30-50lbs each so they can be reloaded quickly in combat. (Again, experience talking.)

The Army started replacing it’s TOW missiles with the TOW 2B Aero in 2004. I was working with the technical data at the time. The unclassified range is 4.5km. The Army has been shooting the older missiles since then in training and stockpiling the TOW 2B Aeros and the TOW 2B RFs for combat. http://​www​.army​-technology​.com/​p​r​o​j​e​c​t​s​/​t​ow/

You need to specify which Spike you are talking about. The Javelin is a fire and forget missile as is the Spike MR. The TOW 2B RF removes the wire.

The Bradley doesn’t have two cannons but if it takes two Bradleys to carry a squad well then there’s two cannons.

The Namer is still a very heavy solution. Israel doesn’t have to worry about deploying nor crossing bridges. We do. I’m not biased because it’s foreign made. I just understand the different requirements our infantry and Army have vs. the Israelis. It’s not a pride issue. Sounds like you’re projecting…

Back to the books dude.

“If the Army wants to throw even more nonsense on it and drastically drive up the cost then it’s their problem, not the system in question.”

Joe Schmoe, no. You can’t say the Namer is cheaper than the Bradley and then write off that the Namer can’t integrate into our battle command systems. Well you can if you don’t know what you are talking. Heck, why not have the Infantry driving aroungd the desert unable to share information with the rest of the force. Brilliant.

I’d also hardly call it nonsense since the Israelis launched their own effort to integrate battle command systems (TORC2H) into their armored vehicles half a decade after we started. Must not be too nonsensical?

space to the fact that

I actually have served inside a RCWS equipped HMWWV, I served my three years and am currently active in the reserves, so take care who you condescend to.

There is a vast difference between how a HMWWV equipped with an RCWS is used an how an armored vehicle is used. Hell, the Israeli’s are experimenting with the concept of a two person tank right now for example.

And if you want to make a dedicated gunner, fine. Now instead of 11 crew load you have have 10. And in regards to the ammo, that is not a problem, there is plenty of room in the Namer for that. Remember, we are not talking about a relatively tiny Bradley interior here, just compare:

Bradley interior: http://​static​.ddmcdn​.com/​g​i​f​/​b​r​a​d​l​e​y​-​1​2​.​jpg

Namer prototype (just to give you an idea of the room inside: http://​www​.israeli​-weapons​.com/​w​e​a​p​o​n​s​/​v​e​h​i​c​l​e​s/a

If you can’t find room in there to stick two more missiles and some gun ammo then I don’t know how to help you.

And just to further prove you wrong, here is the inside of a Pandur II equipped with an RCWS-30. Oh wow, look at how many people they had to take out and who is controlling the RCWS: http://​www​.army​.cz/​a​s​s​e​t​s​/​t​e​c​h​n​i​k​a​-​a​-​v​y​z​b​r​o​j​/​p​oze

And the point of it taking two Bradley’s (and thus double the cost, which is already more than a Namer) is invalid. We are talking about a per vehicle basis, I can also say just take two Namer’s for two cannons and a spare vehicle to carry the squad in case something happens to the first.

Your only point, which is the weight of the vehicle, is also invalid based on the basis of the GCV program which is calling for a heavily armored vehicle in that exact weight range. And Namer is going to be going into the thick of the combat with M1’s, if you do not need such heavy vehicle to protect you from enemy fire, then just use a M-113. If you are expecting heavy 21st century asymmetric combat, then you need the armor of a heavy APC. even Russia and India are going this route (along with many other countries who have faced asymmetric warfare). The U.S. have finally woken up with the GCV program.

I respect your opinion as a former Bradley commander, but I see you as very biased towards a very narrow doctrine.

Actually, the Namer comes with a battle command system, even the IDF HMWWV’s have them; did you not look at the interior picture and see it?

The Israeli system was being fielded around the same time as the U.S. system (otherwise, enlighten me), so I don’t know what you are getting at here.

One more point I failed to address, the weight of the SPIKE-ER.

The British used for years the Swingfire which weight 27kg, the Shershen weighs 30kg and is man portable, the Russians use the Kornet-E which they deem man portable and weigh 29kg each. So if your complaining about a missile that is transported inside a vehicle that weighs 33kg that a person briefly has to load and then never has to address it again, it’s quite unreasonable.

And here is the brochure showing it in use just as such a vehicle based weapon: http://​postimage​.org/​i​m​a​g​e​/​z​7​n​r​3​b​t​dd/

Condescend? I give what I get. Remember who told who to research before they comment?

I know there’s a difference between a HMMWV and an armored vehicle. I didn’t just command a Bradley. I commanded a company of them with a tank platoon attached.

Ammo’s not a problem? How many vehicles have you been on that had to stow anti tank missiles and ammo 25mm and above? It’s not a small consideration.

There are many versions of Pandur and it’s a wheeled vehicle without the armor protection we want. I don’t see any missiles and it’s down to eight already in the picture. Our infantry squad is nine. What’s your point? An RCWS is going to take space, require a gunner and need ammo stowage space.

The weight of the GCV is yet to be announced and the CBO report that forecasted a top weight of 84T is taking a lot of heat. We know being that heavy hurts deployability something the Israelis don’t have to worry about. There’s no need to go to M113s. We would just stay with Bradleys that have been accompanying M1s into the fight since the mid 80’s. There’s little need to revert to the absurd.

Again, no bias. I just know our requirements are different. It’s far from a narrow doctrine. The Israelis have a “narrow doctrine” if you want to call it that since the threats are well defined. You have incompetent arab countries with export armor and guerillas in urban terrain. The US must be able to fight those same types of forces potentially equipped with any weapons system in the world as well as the Russians or Chinese directly in everything from jungles, to deserts, to mountains to woodlands all hundreds of thousands of miles away. We have to have a very varied doctrine.

BTW, reference “heavy IFV’s” the Russians are the only ones that have a similar system and guess what? They don’t have to deploy their forces either. Chechnya is right next door. What other countries are you talking about?

I’m not the biased one or operating from a narrow doctrine.

“The Israeli system was being fielded around the same time as the U.S. system (otherwise, enlighten me), so I don’t know what you are getting at here.”

LOL, HARDLY!!! You should really research before you post. We were experimenting with battle command in the mid 90’s. FBCB2 was approved in ’98. We used it in combat in ’98 in Yugoslavia.

You’re pretty arrogant to think you got there first.

What I was getting at was your “nonsense” comment. Look it up above.

It’s amazing how the U.S. Army seems to disagree with you with this GCV program.






And there are several others I missed here.

“Ammo’s not a problem? How many vehicles have you been on that had to stow anti tank missiles and ammo 25mm and above? It’s not a small consideration.”

I showed you how much more room you have inside of a Namer (in addition to the infantry) if you want to stow more ammo and missiles. Are you telling me that you can’t find room in there for such?

You keep saying the RCWS is going to take space, and I keep showing you that it doesn’t. The Pandur II for example uses the commander has a gunner, and there are many other IFV’s out there that do the same. You are just resistant to trying it out, and that’s fine. So now you are still able to fit a full squad in there even with one down as a gunner, so what’s the problem?

And you arguing “deploy, deploy!”, but for some reason the Army doesn’t consider that a problem in regards to the GCV; and neither is that a problem for the M1 (and other heavy armored vehicles).

I think this article shows very well with the Bradley’s in modern warfare: http://​strategypage​.com/​h​t​m​w​/​h​t​a​r​m​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​2​0​120

You have obviously never had to load these systems under combat conditions.

Any system is man portable if you put enough troops to the task. The Kornet is considered man portable with three man crews. They are in no condition to fight immediately upon arriving at their fighting position after carrying the system several miles.

BTW, guess what the Brits replaced the swingfire with? Yep, the Javelin. :)

So it was half a decade (I did say otherwise enlighten me and I never claimed the Israeli’s fielded theirs first), but I still don’t get what this has to do with the issue in question?

No, I had to carry a 50kg+ pack on my back for dozens of miles, sorry about not being able to hold the 33kg missile for a minute or two.

You made it a point to show that the SPIKE-ER is tot heavy to reload the way you want, I’m pointing out that your expectations are ridiculously low.

This is not mentioning that the Israeli system is somewhat more advanced at the time of its fielding (it didn’t take 5 minutes to refresh positions, etc).

No, the Army doesn’t disagree. None of those countries have to deploy their forces.

You are misconstruing my point about ammo stowage and the RCWS. It’s not that it can’t be done but it will cost you the numbers of troops that can be carried.

The Pandur is one vehicle. I have seen no refernce that says it has a two man crew with the RCWS. The driver sits far forward to the left with the engine to his right. The picture you shared of an unspecified vehicle has the gunner and commander sitting next to each other. That’s a three man crew.

Deploy is an issue which is why we are having the debate here about size and weight. You can’t compare the M1 TANK to an IFV. I know deploying must be a very hard concept for you to understand since the Israelis have never had to do it.

The Bradley has challenges with IEDs the biggest killer. We used MRAPs primarily to overcome that challenge and since we didn’t have the need to provide the firepower a Bradley provides. We won’t always face that threat. Obviously MRAPs aren’t the answer to replace the Bradley. Neither is the Stryker which renders your Pandur point mute.

Do you own stock in the Namer?

You can’t read your own posts?

“If the Army wants to throw even more nonsense on it and drastically drive up the cost then it’s their problem, not the system in question. ”

You were trying to portray the Namer as cheaper and US requirements like electronics as nonsense. They aren’t. The Israeli system isn’t compatable with our system and no changing the whole Army to the Israeli system isn’t a solution.

BTW, you may want to check the capabilities of the two battle command systems. You get what you pay for. A computer screen doesn’t make the systems equal.

I’m a former Infantryman and done the same. Being able to load the missile launcher quickly is a do or die task. You obviously haven’t had to do it.

When I see a Namer with a Spike LR installed come back and talk to me. If it’s a great idea I’m sure the Israelis will do it.

You seem to be pretty desperate to make a sale.

The Israeli’s want to do it, it’s just that they don’t have the funds available to (unlike the U.S.); it’s the same reason an APS hasn’t yet been mounted on all their tanks and armored vehicles.

But that is in no way a reflection of the systems capabilities.

You keep saying that the RCWS will cost you troops, BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY PROOF OF SUCH!!!

I have shown you many points against that, including the more spacious interior of the Namer which has plenty of room for more ammo (if you wish such) and a vehicle deployed with the RCWS that does not detract from its crew compliment. The Namer currently has a Mini-Samson station deployed on it.

I’m actually almost insulted by you accusing me of posting an “unspecified vehicle” when I specifically said it was a Pandur-II. Don’t believe me? http://​www​.army​.cz/​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​d​e​t​a​i​l​.​p​h​p​?​i​d​=​5​3​5​0​3​&​a​m​p​;am

And heavy-apc’s like the VIU-55 show that a commander can also be the gunner if you so wish it. And it doesn’t matter in any case since there is a dedicated gunners position in the Namer already (right side, left side is commander), so we’re arguing over a moot point.

And I wasn’t referring to the BCS, I was referring to systems like “Quick Kill”, some unknown RCWS, etc.

Yeah, sure you were.

Funny, the fella you were responding to, William, didn’t mention “Quick Kill” and neither did you in your post but communications, and electronics were.

“You keep saying that the RCWS will cost you troops, BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY PROOF OF SUCH!!!”

No proof? Did you forget the Stryker? There’s a reason the mini samson has the word “mini” in it.

Feel free to be insulted. I’ve been correcting your posts the whole thread. You shouldn’t be surprised your credibility suffered.

The VIU-55 is an engineer vehicle and doesn’t have a cannon/missile weapon station as I stated is the standard previously. BTW, neither does the current Namer. (there’s another example of being corrected and not doing your research)

He was talking about costs associated with the systems, and I quote:
[[“There is no chance a Namer with a proper weapon system, active defense systems, and all of the communications and sensors the Army wants will cost less to build or operate than the Bradley.”]]

And my quote:
[[“And let’s go down the cost list:
Namer: $3 Million USD
Trophy: $250,000-$350,000 USD
Samson RCWS 30mm: ~$750,000-$1 Million USD

If the Army wants to throw even more nonsense on it and drastically drive up the cost then it’s their problem, not the system in question. ”

And remember, SPIKE isn’t a system in development to succeed the TOW, it’s an actively fielded system for the last 16 years (26+ if you count the SPIKE NLOS) by dozen of countries. The Samson RCWS-30 has also been fielded by other militaries as well and is a proven system. The Trophy APS is also in the field and has shot down even Kornet-E’s (the best Russian man portable AT system in existence) in the field in combat.

There is just no risk or room for cost growth here.]]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

You are seriously something… stop being so obtuse.

1)- VIU-55 not enough for you, well here is another heavy-APC with a commander/gunner: Temsah. It fits a 20mm with 4x AT missile RCWS and still holds a 10 man squad in addition to the two crew.

Face it, it has been done and proven already; you are the only one obstinate here in the face of facts.

2)- What the heck are you on about the Stryker and Mini-Samson now?

3)- The Namer currently has one fitted on as a prototype. The godamn IDF even said that they plan to mount the RCWS-30 once the budget frees up. If shown you a video with the damn thing mounted on the Namer and firing.

Would you suddenly be all pliable if the IDF had the money to mount it on THEIR vehicles? We are talking about a U.S. order here and a U.S. order would come already with a weapons station and an APS since both of these options would still come in under half what they are talking about for a new GCV vehicle.

The only one who is not being honest here is you. You are clearly to stuck up in the narrow mindset of the Bradley, which itself was one of the most screwed procurement’s in history and which the godamn U.S. Army themselves say that they can’t use on a modern battlefield.

Here is the inside of a Temah fitted with an RCWS 20mm with 4x AT missiles.

And look at all the space they lost inside! Oh wait, that’s right; they lost no space! And this is a vehicle who’s interior is smaller than that of the Namer.

Now it’s your turn to show the proof.

Dude — Wow, you found the one armored vehicle and ONE prototype with a two man crew on a cannon/missile RCWS and you think you’ve proved your point. Yeah, let’s ignore 30+ years of experience. The Bradley family, BMP family, Warrior, Marder, ASCOD, CV90, Puma, the K21, ZBD2000, ZBD97 etc. all got it wrong. Research Schmoe, research… (or listen to those that have been there)

The Army didn’t say it can’t use the Bradley on a modern battlefield. The article described a decision to use MRAPs & Strykers because the enemy’s primary weapon was the IED. This is hardly every modern battlefield unless you are Israel. Again, I’m not the narrow minded individual here.

BTW, unless you show the two vehicles with and withoutt he RCWS you aren’t proving your point that RCWS don’t take any room. I’ve proven my point and given numerous examples. You’re the only one that doesn’t get it. I can explain but I can’t make you understand.

The cussing is unnecessary except to demonstrate you’ve lost the argument.

No, I’m sick of you being obtuse and equating everything towards an ancient cold war mindset and a horribly flawed vehicle; a vehicle so flawed it even earned a movie about it (Pentagon Wars).

All of the vehicles you just listed have MANNED turrets standard, you didn’t list any with unmanned turrets/RCWS’s standard, what a surprise.

And the Army did say that. I’m sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but they took them off the battlefield because they couldn’t survive and are looking to replace them with the GCV, or didn’t you get the memo?

And here is the Temsah without the RCWS, spot the differences: http://​www​.army​-guide​.com/​i​m​a​g​e​s​/​t​e​m​s​a​h​_​o​r​w​e​o​i​w02

And you were the one who started with the ad-hominem, so don’t start calling the pot black, Mr. Kettle.

It proves you can’t believe anything until it’s in full on mass production.

Schmoe — Specify what part of my argument is “ancient cold war mindset”. The fact that we have a variety of threats, have to be able to fight in different environments or have to deploy to get there? “Ancient cold war mindset” is code for “you just beat the pants off me”.

As for the vehicles I listed whether they are manned or not makes no difference to the workload of the operator or crew. Do RCWS have automated target recognition software? Automattically track and fire on targets? Prioritize engagement choices? Nope. BTW, the Marder had an RWS on the back.

No the Bradley was not removed because it was not survuvable. It was removed because there were more survivable systems that didn’t have the same firepower nor was the need for cross country performance still required.

Please quote where I cursed? You should also reread the thread. You’ve been attacking me from your first post. I’m not whining about it.

Great observation. A shake up of our elected officials is order.

First of all, “ad-hominem” has nothing to do with cursing, start reading books.

I’m going to end this discussion here because you are being deliberately obtuse and fallacious.

Here is the bottom line of which you have been unable to disprove with any facts:

==1)- An RCWS-30 mounted on the Namer does not have to mean any loss of internal volume unlike a manned turret.
–Proof: Pandur-II, Temsah

==2)- The Bradley is not survivable on a modern battlefield.
–Proof: The U.S. Army retiring them from a modern battlefield for that reason and looking for a replacement vehicle in the GCV.

==3)- The Namer is far cheaper than any of the alternative GCV vehicles put forward so far, even with all the add-ons.
Namer costs $3 Million
Trophy: $250,000-$350,000 USD
Samson RCWS 30mm: ~$750,000-$1 Million USD

The closest vehicle in the GCV program is the CV90 which STARTS at least over $7 Million. The U.S. is willing to go to $11-$13 Million per vehicle, which makes the Namer a bargain.

4)- SPIKE-ER is a far more capable system than any version of TOW put forward so far. Even SPIKE-LR is (besides the 500m less range).
–Proof: Non line-of-sight, lock on after launch, no need for the vehicle to hang around after launch, allows observation of the target area and target throughout the flight.

5)- Namer is the only option which has had all of it’s components (RCWS, APS, vehicle itself) tested in field combat and be proven to work. No room for cost growth.
–Proof: RCWS-30 in Afghanistan. Namer in Gaza. Trophy has shot down RPG’s and Kornet-E’s in combat in the field. All systems are fully deployed and are not in any form of prototype stage.


Now go argue with those facts.

I know what “ad-hominem” means. Examples are when you tell folks to research before posting or tell them their reading comprehension needs work. Do I need to post the quotes from your posts?

1)Never challenged that RCWS occupy less space than a turreted system. I’ve actually commented a Bradley with an RCWS might be the cheapest solution possible. You haven’t proved the RCWS on a Namer doesn’t take away from its 12 troop capability.

2)The Bradley is survivable on a modern battlefield. Only a few battlefields have EIDs as the primary weapon system and even then the Bradley can defeat smaller ones. BTW, we removed HMMWVs from ops outside the wire. It doesn’t mean the HMMWV is obsolete. Look up survivable and read that article again. You’re trying to interpret it to mean what you want.

3)The Namer may be cheaper. You don’t have the cost of electronic systems. It’s also much heavier which impacts deployment something the US must do and Israel has little experience with. The CV90 weighs less than half what a Namer weighs.

4)The SPIKE ER is a great missile though it’s heavy for a manual reloading system. It’s marginally better than the TOW and about equal to the Hellfire.

5)The Namer isn’t a solution unless the US isn’t planning on fighting the next war out of the continental US or has an enemy that will allow us months to deploy a force.

I don’t need to argue facts anymore. I’ve contested yours the whole time with more facts. You’re welcome :)

YIKES. Huge graveyard. Can’t believe we’re not either 1) using the equipment; 2) repurposing equipment; 3) rebuilding/taking parts for other equipment; or 4) recycling the millions of tons of steel, etc.

Cuts to our military are NOT acceptable.

“The Samson RCWS is armored against weapons fire“–994-en/Mark

Armored against what? Shrapnel?

As an RCWS it’s definitely pretty nifty, but..

It’s rated up to STANAG level 4.

Remember that it doesn’t need thick and heavy armor to protect anyone inside the turret because, well, there is no one inside the turret. :)

Which saves a lot on weight, survivability, etc.

It’s not about people. When a weapon system is knocked out. a vehicle full of crew is out of the fight.

That said,
“Level 4

Kinetic Energy
14.5x114AP / B32 at 200 meters with 911 m/s
Protection cover:
Angle azimuth 360 degrees
Elevation 0 degrees
155 mm High Explosive at 30 m
Protection cover:
Angle Azimuth 0 — 360 degrees
Elev. 0 — 90 degrees
[edit]Grenade and Mine Blast Threat
10 kg (explosive mass) Blast AT Mine:
4a – Mine Explosion pressure activated under any wheel or track location.
4b – Mine Explosion under center.

Sounds like Stryker level protection…?

Not at all. This is a battle taxi first and foremost, whether or not it has the overhead weapons station working is irrelevant to the ability to safely transport a squad+ of troops in a heavy fire area. An APC like the Namer is not going to be alone in a heavily contested area.

Don’t forget, it’s only since the M2A2 does the Bradley have STANAG 5 protection rating, previously it was level 4. And if you honestly want to up the protection rating for the RCWS, I’m sure the Namer has enough expansion capability to add more armor on the RCWS if that’s such a concern. This is a rather minor point that can be easily solved.

P.S. — Don’t forget that the STANAG level 4 only applies to the weapon station, not the vehicle itself.

This is exactly what the Marxist Maggot in the White House wants …

Weaken the US to the point of no return.

Let’s hope we survive this POS.

Oh please, the U.S. Military is way overdue for a major budget cut.

It’s absolutely insane that the U.S. Military spends 10x more than the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED (!) and still cries out that it can’t do its mission or that it can’t come up with answers to threats.

And they have the nerve yet to cry out about their funding…

Anyone who says the Pentagon budget can’t be cut needs to go through the more than 2,500 programs in the budget. The US military has way too much force structure for the threats out there. 1.3 million men and women on active duty and another 860,000 in the reserves and guard. To protect us from what? Wal Mart’s business partner (read: China)?

We need to shift out of the military entitlement / corprate welfare business and back into manufacturing stuff here in the U.S. of A. so we can create more jobs.

Latest in local news from the York, PA area says the Bradley IS in jeopardy,
that BAE was told to halt production:

(if link fails, try http://​www​.abc27​.com
and search thru the video clips for 13March2013)


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

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.