I was on a reporter’s conference call yesterday with Army Maj. Gen. Keith Walker, the service’s Future Force Integration Directorate Commander, who discussed Army modernization post FCS. I asked him about new Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Infantry Fighting Vehicle and how he sees it fitting into the future force. The GCV is intended to replace the Bradley, he said, and will also be used as a battlefield medical vehicle.
The number one priority of the GCV, according to what’s written in the initial capabilities document and the capability development document, he said, is to provide armored protection to the soldier, particularly against IEDs. Close behind it is mobility. “The MRAP is not mobile off the roads… protect the individual soldier, having a mobile off-road capability and having it networked… are the three [priorities] that come to mind.”
I asked him about GCV strategic mobility, which back in the day was the main goal of the FCS manned ground vehicles (seen above in an artists rendering), to be light enough to fly full brigades to distant battlefields. To be useful in a place like Afghanistan the GCV would have to be lighter than the 30 ton Bradley which is too heavy to fly there in any real numbers.
“We would hope that it would be lighter [than a Bradley], but there are some mathematics here. To survive an IED you’ve got to heavy up,” Walker said. The Army’s goal is to build an off-road mobile, heavily armored infantry fighting vehicle, but build it in such a way that it can be made lighter over time. Hence, the modularity concept that figures so prominently in GCV design.
“It’s written in the requirements that as technology changes and allows the vehicle to lighten up, that we can do that. The exact opposite of what we’ve done the last eight years where we’ve taken a Humvee and slapped appliqué armor on them and they’ve gotten heavier and heavier… to be able to take advantage of technology to make it lighter over time.”
“I suspect it would be heavier than a Bradley to start with and the idea is that we would be able to lighten up over time as technology enables us to,” Walker said.
With the Army talking about replacing the Bradley fleet, I can understand, as one industry source told me, why Bradley builder BAE Systems is right nervous. They stand to miss out on serious recapitalization money if the decades old Bradley fleet is retired. Although, some think GCV will face long development delays if for no other reason than the country’s rather dire fiscal situation will put a crimp on major new weapons programs. Best case scenario for BAE is GCV gets delayed and Bradley fleet is recapitalized over the next decade, and they wrap up the GCV contract if that program ever gets going.
When I spoke to BAE executives last fall, they sounded pretty confident they would win GCV because, as they said, they’re the premier infantry fighting vehicle builder. To boost their chances, BAE announced this week that they’ve teamed with Northrop Grumman to leverage the latter’s networking and sensor expertise.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Are we looking at this war or the next? Shouldn't we be looking at the next although if we are going to stay it will take 10 more years so I guess it is the next war.
Both, the idea is to build a vehicle that is adaptive.
again, the US military has lost its mind, lock, stock and barrel.
Lighten up over time? I'm old enough to remember that the first Bradleys rolled in to APG for initial testing at 46,000 lbs. And that was overweight by 4,000 lbs!. They were faster back then, too. If we really think that armored vehicles will ever get lighter, then let's start with the Bradley.
Yeah… with modular armor the heaviest component can be switched out with what ever new armor becomes available up the road. The Bradley lacks that feature so it could never really benefit from that type of technologic growth. Thats what he's talking about. Other countries have started implementing this type of setup on newer vehicles of a similar nature.
I assume this is referring to modular vehicle components. Are modular vehicle units such as illustrated by the ST Kinetics Bronco modular connection also under consideration? Unmanned vehicle units can be much lighter as there is no crew to protect. The unmanned vehicle unit running in front of the crewed unit can be sacrificed.
The bits in the unmanned vehicles have shown that they generally take up more room than a man takes and need the same protection if you want it to actually survive in combat. They also take more people in uniform to maintain, just different job skills. Unmanned systems are false economy.
The Bronco isn't a fighting vehicle either and the articulated drive train is not able to be protected from IEDs.
Sure, right now the greatest threat to any armored vehicle are the IEDs buried in roads. Simply building a new armored fighting vehicle with off-road capabilities, allowing it to not have to rely so much on prepared surfaces, is not the answer.
Looking at this GCV I see nothing new that will allow it to survivie a massive IED blast nor for that matter direct hits from RPS. Even if this vehicle has thicker armor on the bottom it still will not protect the occupants from the pressure wave caused by an IED blast.
Ever since the Second World War armored vehicle designers marveled at the protective capatbilities of sloped armor. Sloped armor on the botom would not only protect the crew from the blast but from the pressure wave as well; dispersing the blast effects to the sides and away from the vehicle. Plus sloped side armor on both the gun turret and chasey would significantly increase its survival rate against hits from RPGs.
The IDF knew this, just look at their Merkava tank. The South Africans knew this, just look at their different models of APCs with high suspension clearances and sloped under armor.
The idea of designing the lower hull of the vehicle to withstand IED's is part of this effort. The EFV has shown you don't need to slope armor to achieve protection against IEDs. As of now this effort is pretty open ended to allow as many options as possible. So when you say you see nothing new I have to question what you are looking at? This is a request for bids. No designs have been submitted. This just lists requirements that include modularity, survivability against IEDs, and a level of armor on the sides of the vehicles.
EFV was very concerned about the lower hull because it had a powerful design constraint, it had to operate like a boat at relatively high speeds. Freed of that constraint it isn't clear that you would want to choose the EFV approach, even if you could.
It would be interesting to see how its performance would improve if the Army went that route and removed its amphibious systems. Its significantly less than the 50 tons they were looking at. It can deffinitely hold a good number more soldiers. While it might make General Dynamic's day, the high than expected price tag might be more than the army wants. Factors like a non-amphibious version or joint purchasing would definitely have a positive impact on price.
Somebody please tell me that WWI escapee pictured at the top isn't suppose to represent the GCV and is rather, somebody's idea of a sick joke.
Yeah, its so pig ugly that when the enemy see they will die choking on thier own vomit.
I can't see anything getting built new off the shelf since Obama killed the FCS (Future Combat System) Vehicles that BAE was getting ready to build. IT would take basically the same chassis and apply it to different vehicles. So you could build off one type and cut down on alot of different chassis parts.
When folks talk about being “IED proof” what sized IED are they speaking of? I’m not convinced we need every tactical vehicle to be IED proof – I also worry we waste too much energy on this single issue at the expense of other more likely, and more lethal, battlefield threats like proliferating antiarmor missiles. This extreme focus on ied proofing could well prove more detrimental to future operations than any ied itself ever could.
There are different classes of IEDs, classified by what they're intended to take out. So IED proof really just means the vehicle is designed to protect and survive against an IED tintended to normally destroy a comprable but non-resistant vehicle. In this instance the majority of IED's are being made out of artillery shells and similar munitions, so it comes down surviving a directed charge from something similar.
The proliferation of anti-armor missiles isn't as large of a threat by a long shot. Their cost makes them prohibative to use on a level wide spread enough to impact the current situation. Far more have been killed by IED's which accomplish the same goal for less cost. Currently active defenses are being worked on to defeat missiles, but unlike them IED protection must be integral to the vehicles structure. Active defenses are being developed but are more easily added as an upgrade.
RE: "…isn't as large a threat"
I disagree – the missile threat is far easier to encounter because it doesn't require occupation – IEDs are a threat right now because the enemy is poor, unsupplied, and we are an occupying force. In terms of actual military conflict, the missile threat is far greater because its easier to employ.
I guess the issue is do we foresee the US military occupying more, or engaging other military forces more?
As to my question regarding IED proofing – I am asking specifically what type of blast are folks referring to as "IED Proof" – numbers please. I am well aware of what IEDs are, how and what most are made of, etc….
But wait! Didn't Rumsfeld say the Army should become lighter, faster and more lethal? (but Rumsfeld's version of "lethal" turned out to be more lethal to our own troops rather than the enemy fighting with roadside bombs)
Hmmm, looks like Rumsfeld's ideas have finally gotten the attention they deserved: in file C. It's about time.
That looks like a Maus
http://www.vincelewis.net/maus.html
What a nice big target
It looks like something out off WWII. The design looks significantly less battle worthy than the Bradley.
ww2? lol more like ww1. not that bradley has horrible touch en vouge..
Well said sferrin, John, and Mike; I hope that isn't what it's going to look like. I could see that tipping over all the time.
I think if we look back at the history we maybe able to save on cost and become again the world most powerfull and not spend too much on our resources if we just upgrade most of our US oudated arsenal and upgrade it to a modern-advance equipment and fighting defense tool. Say AC-130 Spectre and Sperman Tank. We have mass production this in WWII. The Sherman Tank was mass produce at 45,000 units in WWII and the And that was just thrown away to junk today. What if we just upgrade these arsenal. We can become again the worlds most powerfull nation.
The whole front of that picture is one shot trap after another… Yechh
How will this very huge heavy piece to run on Russian roads and muddy terrain that is just plain fens, which instead should be easy vehicle that would float over the terrain? American defense planning seems desperate and ignorant – like when Lockheed Martin developed the Joint Strike Fighter, which is not good enough in the battle.
For someone that served on a Bradley and taught soldiers as a contractor, I can definitely argure that had there been 1500 to 2000 Bradleys manning more check points and covering more terrain by owning the open terrain there would have never been an IED threat the size that our boys faced in 2004-2006. More troops more security. But we went in there on the cheap and our sons and daughters paid the price. Brads and M1 Tanks were designed to fight frontal fights and work with Combat Engineers to clear obstacle belts.