This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The U.S. Army is moving forward on its ground combat vehicle (GCV) program with an aggressive timeline and highly defined requirements for survivability, mobility and versatility.
The service wrapped up the last of three industry days in Michigan Dec. 3. The first, held Oct. 16 in Dearborn, presented high-level requirements and an acquisition strategy to more than 600 industry participants. The second industry day, held Nov. 23–24 in Warren, presented 325 industry participants from 247 companies with a statement of work and briefs on classified survivability requirements and a detailed acquisition schedule.
The last event targeted the government research and development community, and the requirements, acquisition, resourcing and contracting communities, according to Paul Mehney, the Army’s representative for its Brigade Combat Team Modernization (BCTM) program. Attendees were provided a detailed statement of work, a detailed schedule including major milestones and the overarching capabilities document requirements.
The BCTM helps replace the now-defunct Future Combat Systems (FCS), a multifaceted super-program that included the erstwhile Manned Ground Vehicle. The new GCV is the MGV’s successor.
“We stressed that the three most important requirements [for the GCV] are survivability, mobility and versatility,” Mehney said. “Industry has to bring us a holistic survivability solution,” to include armor, active protection systems and countermeasures. Concerning mobility, the vehicle must “have the urban mobility of a Stryker and the off-road mobility of a Bradley,” he added. The versatility piece focuses on the vehicle’s ability to accept easy upgrades post-production.
Although the Army has not placed weight or size restrictions on the future GCV, the vehicle will have to satisfy requirements that will end up dictating weight and size.
The GCV must be transportable by rail, C-17 or ship. It must hold a crew of three and a squad of nine. Additionally, there is an improvised explosive device (IED) survivability requirement and a high-level technology maturity requirement.
Read the rest of this story, read about the German plan for Afghanistan, see the inside scoop on the Kandahar mystery drone and watch the countdown to the A400M first flight from out friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Oh boy!
If this goes anything like any of the recent American defence procurement contracts it will become another hillarious series of blunders to follow for our amusement.
I'm guessing the program will come in around five to ten times expensive than it was meant to, the vehicle will be seriously overweight and not air transportable, it will have protection less than that the Bradley offers, it will be slower and less effective in terms of weaponry too. The vehicle will be over complex and a maintanence nightmare with over complex and unnecessary computer systems bugging up and crashing, it will be using new unproven technologies which will fuck up whenever possible and it will come complete with a massive shortage of spare parts.
Meanwhile Russia and other nations will produce an equally effective vehicle that actually works as advertised for a tenth of price, they will then sell them and make a tidy profit.
Prove me wrong America, prove me wrong…. (just kidding there , i really don't expect to be proven wrong on this and the chances i am are extremely remote if not non existant.)
Are you another anti-american troll?
No, just someone who watches American defence contracts fuck up very very often, come to think of it care to name a contract that went right? No thought not,
Oh I forgot to add, once production starts to ramp up it will be cancelled by some douche in congress or similar, thats another great trait of American defence contracts too!
You can be 100% sure this program will be a screw up, sorry if that blows.
can you name examples of these great Russian vehicles?
There are many Russian vehicles that do what American vehicles do, often just as well and even sometimes better, always cheaper too. This gold plated blunder of a project won't have a foreign market due to cheaper alternatives, thats my point with regards Russian kit which will sell due to not being a gold plated joke.
Obviously foreign markets aren't the reason for this new blunder mobile but it sure helps to recoup some of the losses, an oh boy are there going to be losses with this.
Just read this article and then try not to either laugh or vomit.
Here are some quotes.
" a multifaceted super program "
" a holistic survivability solution "
The sooner the USA takes the nose dive into the tank of history the better it will be for everyone.
Fully agree and looking at the disaster the F-35 has been SO FAR* I'm thinking the same about American combat aircraft. You still seem to be able to produce good naval craft though so maybe you're not dead and buried yet…
*that could change, but i doubt it. It will get cut after a few hundred orders therefor each unit cost of those produced will be insane.
Sigh when will the army realize that you cant have it all. Look at the abrams a great main battle tank. And thats its job it not a rec/arty/infantry carrier/ mechanized bj machine it just blows the crap out of everything.
You ever had a swiss army kinfe? I have it sucked compared to my gerber.
Anyways what is it they want. And wasnt stryker supposed to be the answer?
this doesn't make sense its practically what FCS
Good Evening Folks,
Ah another Stryker story. Lets see that last time we posted on the Stryker the 5-2ID has been deployed to Afghanistan. As I predicted before the 5-2ID were deployed how they would be used. I was on the money.
They are operating in the most secure role that the Army could find and that would be as convoy escorting trucks between Kabul and Kandahar with side trips to secure FOB’s such as leatherneck, Spin Boldak, Tarin Kowt etc.and the secured areas of Helman provence.
They are working for the Maine National Guards 286th 154th. Combat Support, Sustainment Battalion and the 737th. and 154th. Transportation Companies commanded by Lt. Colonel. Diane Dunn.
I know they have taken a lot of hits and have had more then their share of KIA’s, looking at the DoD KIA reports it appears most of the troopers died in their vehicles from roadside IED’s and EFP’s. This not a strong endorsement to the survival characteristics of the vehicle. So what is the Army going to do?
Yesterday the Army gave a contract to General Dynamics to see how to make the Stryker more survivalable in combat, well they decided already to make a third engine change to a 450 HP from the current 350 HP motor, OK, and then decided to remanufacture the Stryker giving it a more blast resistant hull and “V” shaped underside, providing a weapons station that works, and that was only on the first day.
The next rotation of the Stryker will be from the 2nd. Cavalry Regiment. They are not an Infantry unit and hide bound to narrow tactical thinking of Mech. Infantry and perhaps the 2ACR have devised a Tactical Doctrine that makes the Stryker more useful the being a $1.4-$2.5 million police cruiser.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Sorry B.S.
The 2nd SCR (Stryker Cavalry Regiment) is configured the same as every other Stryker BCT. Last time I checked SBCTs were considered Infantry formations.
Dammit Byron. Are you a "M113" fanboy too? Don't tell my you call it the G***N, do you?
"The sooner the USA takes the nose dive into the tank of history the better it will be for everyone."
-JimboJones
Damn Jimbo, never go full retard!
LOL! Very fair point, looks like i sucked at reading that post though i wouldn't actually agree with what he said after re-reading it with my brain engaged.
I will stick by what i said in my response to what i thought he wrote though if you can follow that…
Its ok jim though at first i had a small heart attack thinking "Zandors" rabies spread.
F18 baby best damn naval aircraft out there.
Dont forget our helicopters, cargo aircraft (whats better than a C130), and various other stuff. Its not that we arent good at weapons production its just that when the congress critters etc. get there hands stuck it in gets stupid and we fail HARD.
It's great to see DARPA's robot car races bearing such awesome fruit. Skynet, here we come.
Oops, I got lost in a bunch of searches and forgot this wasn't about Black Knight.
If the army had all these retarded demands then they never would have built the Abrams (reduced C-17 mobility), Bradley (reduced survivability) or the Humvee (doesn't carry enough people).
Thanks for painting yourself into a corner, and then costing the taxpayer billions as General Dynamics tries to meet your demands, and comes up with something that looks more like a Bolo than a "ground combat vehicle"
Charles,I wish that we had a Bolo
This is insane. I understand the Bradley probably needs a follow-up by this time, and that's fine, but why are we trying to push the multi-billion dollar MRAP fleet out of primary use into "specialized roles"? It's nuts. Healthcare costs aren't going to get any lower for wounded Soldiers and Marines – need to find a way to work them into the general military arsenal, not an astronomically-expensive temporary solution to a problem we had.
Relax. The Army is will buy the IDF NAMER – and the chassis will be made in the USA. This vehicle is big, holds 10 infantry, has heavy armor, and a grunt friendly M60 powertrain. No wimpy hybrid for this sucker! Not to mention that it's been fighting the same guys that we are. In a pinch, you can mount a cannon on it and call it a Merkava.
No it won't by the NAMER because it weighs 60 tons, though i don't doubt it would do the job, at 60 tons its to big to stand a chance of selection.
Besides it holds 10 people, thats one more than the US want and thats enough on its own to be left out the running even though 10 is arguably better than 9 seats…
Got to admit defense procurement in the USA is a mystery.
You have manufactures who can turn out simple, low risk, soldier proof nas affordable equipment. Somehow the services end up with expensive, high maintenance and unsuitable equipment.
As ant service ( well maybe not Air Force) and KISS is the guiding principle.
Take the Bradley. The original version was a complete nightmare for the embarked squad. At the same time there was the AIFV 80-90% mechanically compatible with the M113, not a hugh step change but based on practical ' customer feedback' (don't you love those S&M terms). USArmy never got it but the Netherlands and Turkey (amongst others) adopted it.
I like Russian kit, it soldier proof, may not have every 'bell and whistle' but it can do the job. I wonder sometime that 'gucci' features matter more to politicians than practical use.
Thinking about the AIFV, it had limitations but they where known and you planned accordingly. I'm a Brit (in case you missed earlier posts) and you may be aware we have had some crap kit offloaded on use. In our case you just ahve to promise the (Labour) government that their favorite union gets jobs then your in; they have no understanding o the military)
I thought procurement had settled on about 1500 of the Aussie's Bushmasters, which hold 10 men plus 3 crew and laugh off IED's and EFP's, to the extent the British, Dutch, Poles and Canadians are lining up to buy them.
I think the Aussies were to supply thre first few hundred, all built in Australia and we would make the rest here, under licence, with some modifications to suit our needs but still mostly the same truck.
Good Evening Folks,
To sorry. Well I wasn’t exactly referring to the TO&E of the 2ACR vs. an Infantry BCT but to the tactical doctrines which is very different, but now that you mentioned it, yes there will be a change, at least in one squadron of the 2ACR when it deploys to Afghanistan to relieve 5-2ID. At least some platoons (9-12) with have three Stryker with an M2HB or a Mk. 19 and one 105mm Stryker for it four vehicles. The current 5-2 ID TO&E is four Regular Strykers per platoon.
The tactical difference here is that in an Infantry BCT the 105mm gun would be assigned to a HQ element not to a company, let alone a platoon. The deployment and tactical use of the 105mm in the platoon will be in the hands of 2nd. Lt. who is on the scene of the action, and not a Lt. Col. or Colonel who is either in a HQ far away from the action or up in the sky trying to understand what is happening down there. This is a huge difference.
Armored Calvary doctrine is quite different for Mech. Infantry. The infantry want’s to stay on the road and dismount and not use the direct fire weapons on the vehicle in the assault, but consider the vehicle weapon as a defensive weapon. The ACR units like to travel off road, travel light, expect to see the nine man squad reduced to five or six men and use the vehicle as an offense weapon and to use the dismounts for clean up and to dig out entrenched fighters. Calvary doctrine is much more aggressive then Mech. Infantry.
Did anyone else notice that the lead Stryker in the picture has it right hand suspension blown out? To much weight.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Did anyone else notice that the lead Stryker in the picture has it right hand suspension blown out? To much weight."
I think you'll find its a little thing called 'turning' that has caused the front right side to dip..
The Stryker: it boils down to tracks vs wheels coupled with firepower, mobility and armour protection. tThe LAV/ Stryker fails on items 2 and 3. The next iteration is the MGS: what a piece of junk. Trying to be all things to all people.
If you want a tank, get one, if you want an APC get one with a decent gun ssytem and tracks so it can get off road and thereby dodge the mines. Stick to the roads so your vvehicle will not get stuck and you get killed. Fairly simple process. (Armour 101 circa 1939-45 etc)
The LAV/ Mowag was designed to fight Russians in Europe where there are lots of roads and tracks. Not in dusty places with no roads. They bog in the mud, sink in the sand and are bloody uncomfortable. It might just be easier to get out and walk, accompanied by great beastly tanks that can kill people. Oh, and hang some farm implements off them so they can preform route clearence and also kill things! Did I say tanks can kill things?
Cheers,
Byron you are right. Stryker units have a tradition to serve in safe AOs like Mosul, Baqubah and Bagdad. And now it is Helmand. I guess that is simply another vacation for principal skinner. Where else do you expect Strykers? Patrolling the Hindu Kush?
I’ve been quite interested in starting an e-store and such. Thanks for your site! It is now in my favorites