Report: GCV is worst choice to replace Bradley

Report: GCV is worst choice to replace Bradley

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)  issued a report Wednesday that drove a stake into the Army’s argument for spending $28.8 billion to build and develop the Ground Combat Vehicle to replace the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle fleet.

Army leaders have listed the Ground Combat Vehicle as their top vehicle modernization priority above the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, the Humvee replacement program. However, in a report that compared the GCV to alternate replacement vehicles, the CBO consistently made a case against the GCV.

The CBO compared the GCV to an upgarded Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), the Israeli Namer Armored Personnel Carrier, the German Puma IFV, and the current Bradley IFV. The authors of the report said the GCV  is at least twice the cost of the Puma or an upgraded Bradley, and both are more deadly in combat.

Army officials have long feared the service would struggle to convince Congress to develop a vehicle that seemed quite similar to many armored personnel carriers around the world. Selling the program has been made even harder with sequestration and the forthcoming budget cuts the Army must absorb.

The service plans to spend $28.8 billion to develop and build 1,748 GCVs between 2014 and 2030, according to the CBO report. Despite that expenditure, the Puma and the upgraded Bradley would provide the Army a better vehicle while also saving it $14.8 billion and $19.8 billion respectively.

“The Puma would be the most capable of the vehicles, and both it and the upgraded Bradley IFV would be significantlyvmore capable than the GCV,” according to the report.

Army leaders would even be more wise to buy the Namer. Although it wouldn’t perform as well as a GCV on paper, the Namer could still carry the required nine passengers and cost $9 billion less.

Keeping a squad of nine soldiers in one personnel carrier has been one of the Army’s top priorities for the program. An upgraded Bradley could only carry seven. However, and upgraded Bradley IFV “would be more lethal than the GCV against enemy forces and would probably allow soldiers and vehicles to survive combat at about the same rates as would the GCV,” the report stated.

The CBO went as far to say that keeping the Bradley in its present state would be a better choice than the GCV because it could use the $24 billion in saved funding on other programs. Of course, Army commanders often refused to take the Bradley outside the wire in Iraq because the commanders didn’t trust them in combat.

To compare the alternative vehicles against the GCV, CBO used multiple factors to include the “protection of soldiers and survivability of the vehicle in combat; lethality; mobility to and around the battlefield; and passenger capacity.” The CBO is an independent agency that provides budgetary and economic reports for Congressmen and their staffs.

This is not the only CBO report that has poked holes in the Army’s case for the GCV program. CBO analysts had earlier estimated that the GCV would weigh 84 tons, making it heavier than the M1 Abrams tank and twice the weight of the Bradley.

Army acquisition officials have already awarded a pair of $400 million Technology Development contracts to General Dynamics and BAE Systems. The service had made plans to choose a company to build the Bradley replacement in 2019.

Tags: , , , ,

Join the Conversation

Oh.My.God…The *GCV*…???…~$28.BILLION…???…carries 9 casualties,um, I mean “troops”…???…
…weighs *84*TONS…???…to roll out in *2018~19*.…DAMN…!!!…Those Pentagon/DOD boys must be gettin’
their “smoking materials” straight from the Hindu Kush…
THAT’s STOOPID…DO THIS, INSTEAD…4-phase program, rolls out yesterday…
1. Start buying, then domestic-license-production, PUMAS…
2.UP-grade Bradleys, at a 4 — 7 crew limit…“Next-Gen” design criteria…
3.Buy a few Namers from Israel, at COST…they owe us, anyway…
4.SCRAP the GCV YESTERDAY, and up-grade/armor HMMWV’s, and it’s replacement, to be mobile
DRONE SUPPORT, and UN-manned “GCV“‘s support/deployment platforms…
Hopefully, Hagel ain’t a devout GCV BORG.….
Even the F’ing *ABRAMS* needs TUSK to NOT be TOOTHLESS in the fight…
At the rate DOD/Congress is going, we’ll be deploying Shermans to the Bocage by 2015…

They want to buy units through 2030? Won’t an IFV in operation today potentially be obsolete or lacking competitiveness by then and themselves require substantial upgrading/updating? Are those ‘incremental block upgrades’ also included in the procurement budget estimate? It seems like a pretty rigid acquisition process perhaps?

Anyway, I’m curious too if the Korean K-21IFV was ever considered and if not, why not? That model is apparently going for around $3m per unit. Same question might apply also for a 9-seat derivative Bionix vehicle of Singapore?

Given the US Army’s lousy procurement performance on new systems the last decade they should be simply told this is what you are getting because you are too damn incompetent to be trusted developing a new system.

One of the design criteria for GCV was ease of upgrade, so obsolecence isn’t guranteed at that point. Its reasonable to expect the GCV, like the Bradley or any other ground vehicle will see incremental upgrades and improvements over its service life.

Extend Bradley Hull to fit more troops?

Hey Michael, why didn’t you list the most important part:

Of the four options, the CBO said if the Israeli Namer was chosen, “soldiers and vehicles would probably survive combat at slightly higher rates than would be the case for the GCV” while still carrying nine soldiers. However, the Namer is much larger and heavier than what the Army is currently looking for.

So basically, the army is still in the mindset of the Bradley; which isn’t survivable; just so they can have their imaginary mobility (as if the Namer would go anywhere the M1A2 wouldn’t, FFS they are meant to work together and survive the same hostile environment).

I hate to say this, but Lance was right in a way for once. The GCV program is a sham being run by the same type of bureaucrats that pushed out the Bradley in the first place.

The Namer would cost an estimated $9 billion less than the GCV, the CBO said.

Of the four options, the CBO said if the Israeli Namer was chosen, “soldiers and vehicles would probably survive combat at slightly higher rates than would be the case for the GCV” while still carrying nine soldiers. However, the Namer is much larger and heavier than what the Army is currently looking for.

The second option, upgrading the Bradley IFV, “would be more lethal than the GCV against enemy forces and would probably allow soldiers and vehicles to survive combat at about the same rates as would the GCV.”

The drawback is that it only carries seven soldiers, which would break up squads.

Buying the Puma IFV, which only carries six passengers, would mean the Army would have to buy five vehicles for every four of its current Bradley IFVs. That said, the CBO writes that the vehicle “would be much more lethal than other vehicles that CBO evaluated, including the GCV. Its ability to protect passengers and survive combat would be slightly better than the GCV’s and it would be almost as mobile.”

The fourth option, of course, is to buy no new vehicles and instead spent $4.6 billion between 2014 and 2030 to maintain the fleet effectiveness of the Bradley through a life extension and modernization program.


I mean FFS, where do they expect such high intensity combat to occur that would warrant the armor and/or firepower of a GCV (or any of the other contestants) that M1A2 units wouldn’t be operating as well? So who cares about this damn nonsense about the weight. Otherwise you might as well criticize the M1A2 for being heavy and undeployable as well. Either you want a capability or not; if you don’t want the capability to survive a high threat environment, then just keep the Bradley and do away with this sham.

Finally! We have someone with some common sense say something before this turns into the F-35 program of armor!

It is not just the last decade. The Bradley was originally supposed to replace the M113. The Army has been making poor procurement decisions for a very long time.

And the Namer would do all this while saving a frikking $15.7 Billion USD from the taxpayers money with no risk (it’s already in production in the U.S.)

It’s funny, after 3 decades of development work suddenly, right before this vehicle is about to be produced, all of the sudden it has to die. 3 decades of work, and they want you, the US taxpayer to take it up the ass one more time — because all of the free money is gone. No one will be held accountable. Just, bam, kill this program and replace it with 2 more programs, and when those programs end without producing anything, then move on to yet another program. And what really gets me is that this happens at least half a dozen times every year and yet you people are still too stupid to figure out the scam. You f’ing hand over your money to these bastards, and then thank them for giving you nothing in return. Seriously, you are too stupid to keep your money. You should have to give it to defense contractors. They deserve it way more than you do.

This thing has been under development for 30 years, and they are going to cancel it and leave the dumbass US taxpayer holding nothing but an empty sack. How the f is that different from F-35?

It didn’t reach the hundreds of billions.

Considering that the Puma and Namer are both in production already, and are vastly less expensive than the projected costs of the GCV, it makes serious sense to opt for either.

However, given our Army and its gold-plated approach to acquisition (all the services are guilty of this), and the fact that the many billions of dollars for development wouldn’t be spent in the US, it would be less likely that the generals in charge of the program would get the super-lucrative and cushy job after retirement from the service than if we do whats best for the nation (and taxpayers) overall.

Hence — the Army will fight tooth and nail for the GCV.

That said — if they don’t and they actually opt for one of these proven options — I’ll be delighted.

You nearly always leave out the GS folks as if they aren’t the folks making the decisions and recommendations. The problem isn’t with one portion of the DoD, it’s with the entire DoD corporate culture, contractors, GS and military.

A suitable option.
Akin to the MTVL stretched variant of the M113, a Bradley with 7 road wheels instead of 6 could add about another 3 feet (length) to the back (ample space for 2 more dismounts).

Sharing commonality, ensure it utilizes the same road wheels and track links as the Abrams.
Take it a step further and resurrect the L100 engine that was to power the Crusader SPA and Abrams, but de-rate it to suit ther Bradley’s needs (doesn’t need over 1200hp, would throw tracks too easily).

Also, we need to shift away from the 25mm gun: in its heyday it was a good caliber, but uparmored vehicles proliferating the world suggest at least step up to 30mm, but greater performace yet can be had thru various 40mm systems (Bushmaster gun in ATK Super 40 (technically 39mm), or the 40CTAI gun the British Army wants to adopt in its Warrior upgrade: the technical knowledge base there ports over as both the Bradley and Warrior are now under the BAE name).

just curious…if the Bradley is SO BAD…why do we have it? What is the purpose of the Stryker and all it’s variants?…just asking, but then I am a former light infantryman who used LPC’s and never rode to battle, except for the crappy UAH’s we were issued in Iraq…

Everyone is making money from this scam except the US taxpayer. You’re the one’s getting screwed. You’re the one’s who should put a stop to it. If you’re waiting for the US government or the defense contractors to stop it, you’re double f’ed.

The K-21 was screened out of the running in a pre-AoA alternative reduction phase, on the grounds that it didn’t provide enough force protection. When the force protection requirement was later relaxed, the Army did not go back and reconsider the K-21. It is the only other existing vehicle that is competitive in all performance aspects and carries a squad of 9.

I would recommend that one and all take the time to actually read the CBO Report before commenting on this thread. Despite Hoffman’s provocative “everything beats the GCV design” slogan, the real bottom line for CBO is that they want to halt ALL new procurement of infantry fighting vehicles at the end item level until 2030. It is really the same logic as cancelling the MGV — kick the can down the road, save the RDA dollars. Accept the risks and the consequences. Oh, sure, CBO has some very conservative language favoring BFV upgrades — but if you truly go down that road, you end up reengineering the vehicle in order to make it net ready, provide for modular protection, inserting a hybrid engine, and the like. Have a nice day.

Saw this coming Army already upgrading M-2/3s and now reports say this works better and or buy the German IFV. Proves the competition is a waste in time and money. In the End the Bradley solders on for another few decades. in the end too you can stretch new Bradley’s to get two more solders added into it.

The CBO makes some very valid points but also the typical mistakes bean counters are famous for.

Namer? Great vehicle if you don’t have to deploy.

Puma, Improved Bradley, current Bradley all fail to carry the nine man squad, a self inflicted wound we accepted when we bought the Bradley. We learned this lesson in Infantry centric battle in Iraq and knew it was a problem after Desert Storm. Comparing the effectiveness of Stryker Infantry reminded us about the mistake of not fielding full 9 man squads in our mech infantry formations. Those promoting less than a nine man squad simply haven’t lived it or read all the documentation out there supporting why we need a nine man squad (actually we need a twelve man squad like the Marines but we HAVE compromised).

The GCV is expensive and the shortened timeline to produce something isn’t helpful to making good decisions. The most reasonable fallback (and it may have been the plan all along) if we can’t afford the GCV is a stretched Bradley that can carry a nine man squad and a larger gun if one must. Maybe even a remote weapon station (as long as you still carry the nine man squad and don’t steal from it for ammo stowage for the weapon system).

Mike Hoffman — reread your research . The Bradley isn’t obsolete nor was it left back at the FOB because it couldn’t defeat IEDs. HMMWV’s were doing much worse. The firepower wasn’t needed and MRAPs were providing more protection while not providing the cross country capability which wasn’t needed. Tanks were often left back at the FOB also. The M1 isn’t obsolete either. You and many are falling victim to the age old trend of fighting the next war like the last one. The enemy gets a vote. ALL armored vehicles are vulnerable to IEDs. You just have to make the IED big enough.

Mars — I like the K21 but I really suspect its protection. Aluminum and fiberglass can’t be much better than an M113. Not much out there on what it can defend against across the frontal arc and the flanks. Just sounds too good to believe.

One has to read the fine print of the report. Note that CBO’s datapoint is the 2011 AoA. They have not included the updated information from the 2012 technical and operational AoA which included the CV9035 as well as Stryker and Bradley variants. Also the Puma is only in LRIP and not fielded yet to my knowledge.

the special kind of “stupid is as stupid does” (a.k.a. US Navy Littoral Combat Ship) as infected the Army with it’s all or nothing approach to the GCV. Or was it the other was around ;-P

German army is taking possession of them. Details aside the point is development has gone crappy on nearly every system and there are plenty of OTS options that would be just fine and save us money at the same time. The concerns over weight are overblown because we are going to move armor by sea, we are not flying a division on C5/17s. If they went with the Namer and its a little heavy $9 billion will buy plenty of pre positioning ships. Go with the Puma and you need some more crew, big deal, the point is those are all known costs that can be easily budgeted in the out years.

While the industry fired back with “they used an older GCV” for the analysis, we’re still talking about billions in R&D and procurement. The difference between the 2011 GCV and 2013 GCV is probably in the margins and wouldn’t change the outcome of the CBO report by very much.

“The Bradley isn’t obsolete nor was it left back at the FOB because it couldn’t defeat IEDs.”

I don’t know how many more times we need to have this discussion on this site. We left the Brads back at the FOB because we didn’t need them anymore, not because the Brad was particulalry vulnerable. The last time I saw a Bradley in my division on the Iraqi streets was the beginning of 2008. Within a year it was almost entirely MRAPs.

Templar — True we’re not going to fly divisions. We may fly companies or even a BN as we did during Desert Shield.

The Puma doesn’t carry a nine man squad. If we are going to go after an OTS solution the CV90 comes closest to our requirements and is still a man short.

Thanks for reply above btw. I’m going to go back and suggest/ask why not reconsider the K-21. The CV90 would seem to be sufficient too, as would the Puma and upgraded Bradley, sure. But as was commented above, the K-21 was apparently originally disqualified and then not reconsidered once performance requirements were modified.

Furthermore, just by reading over some of the basic publicly available K-21 data, it would seem that the vehicle is being upgraded to adapt the added soft/hard-kill ATGM protection. The Frontal and all around protection would seem to equal the CV90?

That and an added bonus of it’s swimming-amphibious capabilities, highly powerful new-gen diesel not to mention decent fire power all at a similar discount (and not to mention a mutual-strategic relationship with Korea).

Just my opinion and p.s., no I’m not Korean… just curious if there’s any additional thought on that option. Thanks.

But it weighs 70 tons and is armed only with a machine gun. Keeping the Bradleys we have is a better option than Namer, IMO. I think the GCV program makes sense (the Bradley was designed in the late 70’s i think) in theory, but the requirements just have to be adjusted. Look to using mature technologies and reduce the requirements for protection until we get something reasonable.

Not really picking an OTS option, just pointing out they are there which would help us restore some sanity to the defense budget and long range planning. CV90, Namer, Puma, I got no dog in the fight for any, because all would do just fine.


Don’t blame us! The Air Force has been stuck with this kind of stupidity for years. They started it!

I have always had a problem with the combat use of the Bradley Fighting vehicle in that it is not a tank, but yet commanders want to use it in some anti tank role! An infantry vehicle that keeps up with the Abrams and delivers infantry troops safely to the immediate combat area is the true purpose! A larger Abrams with a ten person crew is not the answer! A commander wants more Abrams on the immediate combat area! Combined arms is a great concept but hard on the infantry! Remember it takes a tank to defeat a tank, the infantry just get in the way, and increase the body county! The Cavalry supports the Infantry, but they do not carry the infantry within the charge! The Infantry holds the ground after the Cavalry has cleared the other guys tanks from the immediate area!

It would only increase the Infantry body count!

The original deal was for the driver and gunner/commander to act as over watch while the two fire teams maneuvered against another infantry unit, not increase the unit size or engage tanks!

I have a feeling that some “retiring” high ranking General who’s pushing for this, will have a nice fat job with the contractor that gets the contract.

what strikes me in the heart is the “probably” would allow soldiers to survive. That should be the main reason to buy any vehicles, survivability for our soldiers. Sounds like also since the Bradley only carries 7 people, there would be a need to purchase two Bradleys for every one GCV. But what would I know, I am just a civilian like those weenies in CBO. They write good reports but it is not dosed with reality.

Majrod, you are exactly right. As of 2009 we were leaving all tracked vehicles at the FOB due to changes in mission requirements, and a evolving security agreement and SOFA.
Anyone who says the Bradley is obsolete or ineffective obviously has no contemporary knowloedge of a M2/3A3 BFV. Their Thermal & IR sights and FCS are superior to that of the Abrams (as much as it pains me to say it.) The introduction of BRAT, HAK and other improvements have drastically increased survivability as well. The lethatlity and survivability of the Bradley was also proven in the streets of Baqubah in OIF 06–08. This is all well chronicled in the book Battle for Baqubah:Killing Our Way Out.
Baqubah 06–08 is also a perfect example of a Stryker BDE coming in and taking serious casualties where a Mech battalion had been holding it’s own. This is a testamite to lack of survivability of the Stryker vs “real armor”

Any solid numbers to back that up, WRT combat conditions (or even training accidents) when the entire vehicle crew and dismounts were lost with no one escaping?

For the collective millions of hours that several hundreds (few thousand, even?) of Bradleys have served the US Army, I don’t recall that it’s ever been labeled a crew deathtrap that negates its effectiveness on the battlefeld (akin to the old “Ronson Lighter” adage attached to the Sherman in WW2) to the point troops just don’t feel safe going into combat with it.
Every armored vehicle has its strengths and weaknesses, and there is no perfect solution, but at the current (speculated) configurations of GCV, those are compromises that aren’t offering anything advantageous enough worth the logistics nightmare of supporting, and mobilizing, such a heavy platform.

The Bradly do have some anti-tank capabilities, Dragons…It will stop a tank, or slow it down if it can get off the first shot, but after that it should run like h-ll. A bradly going head to head with a tank is suicidal, if a Company Commander don’t know that, then the problem is not with the Bradley, the problem is with the commander.

“Army leaders would even be more wise to buy the Namer. Although it wouldn’t perform as well as a GCV on paper, the Namer could still carry the required nine passengers and cost $9 billion less.“________________________________________________________________________Sense when are we in the business of buying Military equipment from everybody else?? Army leaders would be wise to develope our owe Military equipment.….Let TACOM handle it.

The bottom line is, if you want a vehicle that can carry more troops with the proper troop protection and fire power, you’re just going to have to build a bigger vehicle.…we can do that ourselves.

DoD trying to reinvent the wheel again. What a waste…

TMB is right the M-2 is far better than any forgien APC and its worlds better than the BMP and Chinese copies of it.

The Pentagon Wars

Mars — The K21 sounds like the PERFECT solution but as I said before the K21 seems too good to be true. A 25T vehicle that carries 9 and has the same armor protection with fiberglass and aluminum? The S. Koreans have some revolutionary technology or there is a big “but”.

Strategypage may hint at a big weakness “The big difference between the K21 and M-2 is weight and that is mainly because the chassis of the K-21 is made of fiberglass. This material is as strong as metal but much lighter.” http://​www​.strategypage​.com/​h​t​m​w​/​h​t​a​r​m​/​2​0​1​2​0​5​1​2.a

Does the extensive use of fiberglass in the chassis make it even more vulnerable to IEDs than a Bradley? I don’t know but I can’t communicate to you how the 30% less weight is revolutionary IF it provides the same protection. I’m cautiously skeptical.

We went through this already, you can throw on top an armored RCWS 30mm+7.62mm+2x SPIKE which would give you superior firepower to even the Bradley.

A 25T vehicle that carries 9 and has the same armor preotection? Sounds like a Purple Unicorn to me.

hahaaha, so true, maybe they infected us (Army and Navy)

First of all, nobody knows that yet since such a vehicle does not exist — you are no longer talking about an existing vehicle but one that would require R&D like the GCV or an upgraded Bradley. Second, that adds yet more weight to a vehicle that is already too heavy. Third, there is something to be said for a vehicle designed and built in the US — our relationship with Israel has had its ups and downs and I am uncomfortable relying on them for a key component of our armored forces.

Can we wait for the Israelis to show us how its done before making promises?

Look at the list of “promises” that JSF hasn’t delivered. Then again, I have faith the Israelis can get things done.

It’s probably brittle as all hell. I wonder how it burns when hit by an RPG? The epoxides that hold the fiberglass together probably are nauseating as all hell. Aluminum redux?

I guess we could buy a K-21 and put an ATGM into it and see what happens.

Let’s buy Dinochrome Brigade Bolos and decrease the body count to zero.

General Motors Bolo Division approves.

Except that the R&D is all but done already, here you can see a RCWS-30 mounted on a Namer and it was already approved for use by the Israeli Ministry of Defense:

The total weight for the system, including both guns with all associated ammo and two missiles is 1,500kg; with 13kg for each additional missile.

And who cares who designed the system? It will be built in the U.S. (it is already being built in the U.S. for god’s sakes!). This is a perfect example where you let pride kill American soldiers; so you would rather they ride in a less protected vehicle just because it has “Designed in the U.S.A.” (not even made, it will be made in the U.S.A.) stamped on the side.… unbelievable.

Problem is the Israeli’s don’t have money for it anymore; which will not be a problem with this U.S. purchase.

It was originally supposed to be mounted, but the defense budget doesn’t allot for it anymore. The Israeli’s are already scrapping the bottom of the barrel digging up enough money for Trophy, etc.

Which is why in the interim they mounted the Mini-Samson.

Watch “The Pentagon Wars”, then you will have an inkling why.


When you begin to learn the difference between “sense” and “since”, then we can start to take you more seriously.

Not JUST because it is designed in the USA, but because it would be better adapted for our needs and not too heavy like the Namer. The Namer is not as heavy as it is because Israel places a higher premium on soldier protection, but because Israel has a limited defense budget which makes re-using the Merkava hull a priority, their forces do not perform expeditionary missions and Israel is an arid country with few bridges. I’m sure the Namer is a great solution for Israel, but I am not convinced it meets US requirements — it is too heavy.

It is in the same weight range as the M1A2 and is meant to withstand the same (or even higher) amount of enemy firepower.

If you don’t figure on such a high threat environment in the first place, then why replace the Bradley? The whole point of this program is because the Bradley wasn’t survivable in the modern asymmetric warfare environment.

The U.S. just tried to make their own vehicle, and initial projections saw it costing a frikkin $9 Billion USD more than the Namer. In other words, you can buy 4 namers for the price of a single GCV; or around three upgraded Namers with an APS and an RCWS for the price of a single GCV.

There are numerous reasons for the GCV project — all-aspect protection is just one of them, and admittedly, with the current designs there may very well be a weight problem that may have to be addressed with less protection. Others are the ability to carry a 9-man squad as well as an improved power plant to fuel more electronic systems, and keep the same mobility or improve it even with the higher transport capacity. The current proposals for the GCV design are very preliminary, and the CBO report used old information at that. Listen, if the Israeli design were something totally suited to American requirements and much better than we could design, I would be in favor of it. I just don’t think it is. It is too heavy, and though there may be a prototype of the Namer armed with a 30mm turret, it hasn’t been fielded and I am not convinced that it does not require more R&D. As I said, I’m sure the Namer is great for Israel. I just think the US has very different requirements, and that the Namer doesn’t really work for us (mainly due to weight).

And by the way, don’t expect me to apologize for preferring an American design calibrated to American requirements. If some other country has some vastly superior idea of what an IFV should be, I’m open to purchasing it. If the US were a second-rate power, we may be forced to purchase a design not entirely suited to our requirements. However, neither of those are the case. I agree that the original proposals for the GCV were too heavy and too expensive, but those issues can be remedied. I see nothing in the Namer that is superior to what the GCV can be, and in fact it seems too heavy and too lightly armed for the US requirement.

The Namer was designed from the start to carry the remote 30mm, it isn’t something in prototype or development it was always intended to carry it. In addition, the heavy argument isn’t an argument because $15 billion in savings would pay for ten more maritime prepositioning ships with savings left over.

Weight just isn’t an issue for any of the GCV alternative because the savings easily allow for additional lift capacity to be purchased and money still be saved. Weight is only an issue for the GCV because it is going to cost so much.

My issue with the GCV is an issue with the Army itself. I don’t think it is asking itself the right questions about what it should buy and how much. In addition they have pooch screwed every major system over the last decade and imo can’t be trusted.

ADMINISTRATOR — All my posts are being deleted by you. I have to post and edit and some of those are going away. If you don’t want my input just let me know.

“Namer? Great vehicle if you don’t have to deploy.”

Please take a look at the following websites:

Put weapon station like this on the deck of the Namer and you has an excellent GCV.

Do you understand what the word “deploy” means?

The German Army already has asked for future procurement of stretched Pumas, lengthened by one or two road wheels. CGIs have been in Der Spiegel and other Euro magazines. The USA has been selling various lengthened versions of the M-113 around the world for decades(think the Egyptian FMC fighting vehicle). Is the upgraded BFV longer? Cut a few of these machines in two, insert 30–36″ of filler, mount a torsion bar and a additional road wheel and test it. Its a APC for gods sake, we aren’t remaking the Starship Enterprise. But at these prices these damn things should fly.

Please explain your stance
1)How, from logical point of view, in one side you say the Namer is a great vehicle and in other side you say that you can’t deploy it, I think that you, logically, contradict yourself and is much more logical according to your point of view to say that the Namer is a poor vehicle because you can’t deploy it, by the way the Namer is currently deployed in the middle east.
2)If the Namer fulfills or can fulfill, as I showed in my previous post regarding the demand for lethality, the demands for: protection, lethality, passengers, mobility and cost then I suppose you think the problems with the Namer is its weight and size, if so you must have also problem with GCV as General Dynamics and BAE Systems are going to suggest, something around the weight of 65 tons.
3)The first and top priority is to return the soldiers to home, whole and in one piece then you have to play with the demands and you have to do compromises, if you want all the demands you end up with something around the weight of 65 tons. Another strategy is to split the demands and to employ them in more than one vehicle, each kind of vehicle and its missions.

The Namer IS a great vehicle. Israel hasn’t deployed the vehicle in its forces. It has not had to deploy it worldwide as our responsibilities are greater. No contradiction. You’re thinking “deploy” in a local sense while I mean it in the worldwide getting it to the fight sense.

The vehicle can have a 40gigawatt cannon. If we can’t get it to where we need it in the numbers necessary it may still be a great vehicle but wrong for our needs. The M1 is arguably the best tank in the world. Not everyone can maintain or supply it with fuel. Doesn’t make the M1 any less but it can be the wrong solution for a nation’s defenses.

I do have a problem with a GCV of 65T.

The first priority is to win. If the first priority is safety you just surrender.

ssg — The Bradley isn’t “so bad”. That’s the case being made by those who don’t take the time to understand the record or have their own agendas (the “buy my BFF vehicle” attitude). The Bradley will be in service for at least two more decades.

What we did learn is that 6–7 man squads don’t work well in Infantry type fights, nor does linking up a nine man squad spread across two vehicles in the middle of a firefight. Having commanded a company of Bradleys in combat I can say it is heads tails above anything it faced but its greatest weakness is not carrying that nine man squad. We made a foolish mistake when we adopted the Bradley that went against decades of mech infantry experience.

Everything before it carried at least the 9 man squad and we’ve relearned the lesson. That’s why the stryker carries 9 and we are so adamant the next behicle must do the same.

All said the reason we need a new vehicle is to get the 9 man squad into the fight and improve Bradley survivability if we can. Heck, when all is said and done we might have mix of the AMPV (Bradley without a turret) that has 18′ clearance, a “V” hull, bigger engine, better armor protection at a fraction of the cost.

There’s a vehicle that carries the crew of 3 and the nine man squad. Increases clearance 80% (10” to 18”). Can accommodate a “V” hull. Is no longer than the Bradley. Mounts a 30 or 40mm gun and is under 40T.

It’s strange that this post has been deleted over four times in two different threads.

BTW, how did the turretless Bradley do in the AoA?

“3)The first and top priority is to return the soldiers to home, ”

Actually, the first and top priority is winning the war. If your top priority is to show up and not die, you can skip to step two by not showing up in the first place. Survivability is very important, but it is not the top priority.

The Namer is “deployed” in the Middle East in that it’s in Israel and can drive to wherever the hell it wants to go. That’s not an option for us. The M1 is the best tank in the world, but the first questions that have to be asked when deciding whether or not it goes to war is 1) can the roads support its weight? and 2) can we keep it fueled? We can only ship one tank per C-17 so it’s a feat to move them somewhere in a hurry.

If GCV falls apart and we end up with a stretched Bradley, would that be a retrofit or a completely new build? I imagine even if it’s a brand new chassis it wouldn’t cost much more than the Bradley’s normal price since there’s little R&D to go into it.

We have thousands of hulls. it would be a retrofit. BTW, the above isn’t a stretched Bradley. Might be fatter though.

the military needs to spend this money to repay the politions for they’re help

Seems like the Army can’t decide if they want an “armored personnel carrier” or a “little tank.”

That’s why the decision is not made by one person alone and is subject to challenge by the loser. This isn’t some banana republic.


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+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.