Comments on: Army’s GCV Not Just MGV Warmed Over

By: John Kantor

John Kantor — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 04:06:46 +0000

Terrorism only works because of the News Media and the Left in this country. Get rid of them, and you won’t need to worry about IEDs ever again.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:03:45 +0000

“In urban areas, tracked vehicles have the advantage of being able to pivot steer, which is a huge advantage over wheeled vehicles.”

I guess you are not familiar with skid steered wheeled vehicles, such as all the FCS wheeled vehicles.

That doesn’t mean, however, that there isn’t tracked vehicle bias in this RFP.

By: wvumtneer35

wvumtneer35 — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:54:15 +0000

Agree with you here. The fact that 9 soldiers would perish if one vehicle were destroyed as opposed to having 3 vehicles with 3 troops each (with the 3 vehicles providing cover to each other…) would be more feasible and logistically sound. Having 3 big guns instead of one would give the troops more cover fire and if they were taking down a building, the 3 vehicles could provide perimeter assistance. While the smaller troop compartment would lead to more vehicles produced, it is a valid trade-off in the long run.

By: FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:13:06 +0000

The 82nd has not had M551s assigned since the mid ‘90s

By: wvumtneer35

wvumtneer35 — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:14:59 +0000

Also, to build on the 3 vehicle possey described above, if the vehicles could be manufactured with different turret arrangements that could be quickly transferred from one vehicle to another (i.e. a SPAAG-style AA gun, a Bradley-like 25mm auto cannon, a 120mm cannon, a missile launcher like the M-113 TOW vehicle, and a simple MG turret for Anti-personnel engagements) that would make this system more marketable as it goes back to the one-to-do-it-all concept, just not ONE to do it all. It would allow commonality of parts (as the hull and electronics would be the same) and only need a turret-changer vehicle (like the M-88) to switch from variant to variant. The extra turrets could be stored in a container-like crate and pulled out when needed.

By: wvumtneer35

wvumtneer35 — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:47:45 +0000

Ever done a search on youtube of airdropping gone wrong..? with the price tags these GCVs bring, air dropping would be far too risky. Best bet is develop a vertical takeoff transport that can carry 4 of these vehicles to a battlefield and build more than 50 aircraft to do it with. The current C-17 can land in a very short distance but a vertical takeoff C-17 would do the job a lot better.

By: Flapjack

Flapjack — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:21:21 +0000

The nature of the vehicle is modularity, so if something isn’t needed, they’ll probably remove it or keep it off until needed. The integration aspect is probably more along the lines of plug and play, so you don’t need to spend a week rewiring junk, instead a few hours are spend bolting and plugging the gear in place. However, a pain inducing speaker is really light, as is a laser dazzler. Although, the microwave pain inducer is huge and heavy.

Considering the beating vehicles can have, it makes sense to put this gear on a heavily armored platform that can take dozens of RPG hits and survive IEDs like an Abrams. The situations the Army finds itself in aren’t strictly combat, strictly peace keeping, it is what it is and all that kind of capability seems useful at the same time.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:06:25 +0000

Places like Kosovo and Afghanistan have favored the Bradley over the Abrams due to weight, and allies like South Korea, where the potential for armored combat is among the highest in the world are producing new armored vehicles closer in weight to the Bradley than the Abrams. Places where you have the most need for off road capabilities also tend to have weak infrastructure that can’t handle heavy vehicles. Even European bridges and roads can’t handle 70 ton tracked vehicles. The Hummer was built with an ability to go off-road to the extent of an Abrams as a primary design consideration, but they are driven mostly on roads anyway.

DOD procurement’s all-in-one disease has got to stop. It is a good idea to have vehicles with integrated non-lethal weapons capacity; it is a good idea to have vehicles that can defeat anti-tank armaments. It is not necessarily a good idea to put both, and the capacity to carry a nine man squad and the capacity to go off-road and a big canon in one package. The idea that it is crucially important to have 9 soldiers in one vehicle rather than two or three, seems particularly suspect.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:13:21 +0000

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Hep

Hep — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:42:41 +0000

Should make the non-lethal stuff an external self pwrd attachment; Easy to install and easy to jettison in a real fight.