The Army announced today that it has begun the process of selecting from industry proposals for its Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program. The Army will award up to three contracts for preliminary designs of the new infantry fighting vehicle that will then enter the technology development phase by late fourth quarter FY 2010, according to a press release.
The delivery date for the first prototype GCV is scheduled for 2015. “The Army is approaching the GCV’s development in an incremental fashion – designing it for adaptability, modularity and scalability to adjust to and incorporate technological change,” the release says. The infantry fighting vehicle variant will carry a three man crew and a 9 man rifle squad.
The Army hopes to build on the six years of development work it paid for on the FCS manned ground vehicle program, GCV program manager Col. Bryan McVeigh told me back in March. The GCV will be significantly heavier than the planned for FCS vehicles, likely weighing in at 50-tons, plus add-on armor packages. The base level armor package will combine Bradley equivalent protection against auto-cannon and high-explosive fragments and MRAP level protection against IEDs.
I asked McVeigh how the GCV would match up against the current Bradley, which it is intended to replace:
“It will have significantly better mine and IED protection, it will have greater lethality, it will have a bigger cannon. It will allow us to carry more men… a complete squad. It will have about the same mobility of the Bradley but the ability to carry significantly enhanced communications and electronics so I don’t have to divert power from the propulsion system for cooling. It will have significantly improved reliability than the Bradley. It will have integrated non-lethal capabilities, which none of our vehicles have today.”
– Greg Grant
{ 65 comments… read them below or add one }
WTF? When did Yoda join the DefTech staff?
When nine hundred years old you reach, criticise his grammar then you may.
they forgot to add It will have significantly higher cost and use It will have significantly higher fuel requirement right?
If its like the old GCV, it will be a hybrid…
How much are they trying to cram into that Bradley replacement?
Sometimes an APC oughta stay an APC. Next it'll have UAV carriers, rocket artillery. Sometimes it seems like the procurement department has been watching too much Iron Man.
If a Bradley can currently take out a tank, as shown in the Gulf Wars, why do we need a replacement?
A Bradley can't carry an entire infantry squad. It was originally (1970s) supposed to replace the M113. When it finally came out, it became an infantry carrier that doesn't carry enough men, an anti-tank vehicle that's screwed if it doesn't win on the first shot, and the tallest and heaviest recon vehicle ever built.
So who are we going to be fighting with these new super expensive vehicles?
If an IFV can't survive ever long on a modern battle field then why have it at all, maybe the infantry would be better off in jeeps and such, at least they would have a speed/small target advantage over a huge sitting duck like this IFV.
I always wondered why they didn't build the Bradley to have greater squad capacity in the first place. The built the vehicle knowing they had to reduce squad size to 6, which was dumb. So what if the weight goes to 50 ton's, you're generally not airlifting these things anyway. Hell, they could've used the Abraham's chassis and engine and simply added on a squad compartment. Would've saved some on parts, etc…
And that's what they're getting now, but maybe they'll get smart and build out the next generation tank on GCV chassis. They really need to stop thinking that everything needs to be 100% perfect. 85% is good enough and saves millions.
SB
Abrams APC for the win. Though if you wanted to keep TOW capability it means a whole new turret for the Abrams, which will end up costing more than the turret for the M1A1.
I was wondering if they ever look into that UD Thunderbolt prototype. It had hybrid propulsion and room for dismounts in the back.
Sounds kind of like the BTR-T concept – essentially a 'spare' T-55 rebuilt into an APC. The problem is that such a vehicle will struggle to carry even the same manpower as a bradley. Plus, as noted, no deployment ramp
The problem, as ever, is trying to make a vehicle do everything. If you want a bradley with double the troop capacity, a heavier gun, and better all-around armour, it's going to be bigger, and it's going to be heavier, and it's going to be less flexible. You quickly approach the point where, assuming actually intend to dismount from the vehicle at some point, you might as well just embed a couple of M1A2s into each and every platoon.
Design a vehicle to do one or two things well, not everything.
MRAPS have their problems, but they do what they say on the tin – drive you through an area without letting you get killed. Yes, they lack massive armament but they're not supposed to have that – if you need that, you bring along air support or another vehicle which carries heavy armament but doesn't have the disadvantage of space for large numbers of warm bodies inside. They've been put into service quickly and (for the DoD) pretty efficiently.
Abraham's? You mean Abrams?
Anyway, good idea.
Isn't Merkava's engine in the front, thus making it easy to have a rear ramp? But with the M1, I would think that the only place you could have a ramp is the front…wait a minute, how about the M1 chassis re-designed to be driven backwards, so the ramp would be rear-facing? Or is the redesign not worth the expense?
This is like a rebirth of the Sherman Tank from WWII. Look at the design. It had to come from someone who's never been in combat. It makes a great target and is now an even bigger threat to the crew because the weight distribution shows an obviously top heavy unbalanced throwback to the 1940's. Great for fitting in smaller 3rd world roads until the tilt is exceeded by 20 degrees. Call it the "M6A1 Humpty Dumbty". That'll put the fear of God into the enemy.
When watching a show about Omaha Beach, a German Tanker was interviewed about how the richest country in the world would would take it's soldiers lives so lightly by putting out such a poor tank. (The Sherman vs. his Tiger)
We can do better than this. The whole concept is to at least get the crew and passengers to the fight alive. You might as well put up a politically correct neon sign that says "Aim here".
I wonder if Gates will be able to push the Army to speed up the timeline?
They need to go with OTS equipment now, and just build it with an eye towards upgrades.
Give it a ton of redundant electricity generation, a smart exterior for the easy addition of applique upgrades, roomy internal set up for troops, and give it a solid big f-ing gun, and l think over time it will do fine if it is built in the first place with upgrades in mind.
Bolo HCT of the Line active! I will defend humanity against its enemies! I will be delivered on time and under budget! I am a piece of science fiction!
Dumb question but I will ask it..
Why don't we take some of the older M1's and covert them to APC's like the Isreali's do with a lot of their old tanks?
We gotta have plenty of the old 105's and A1's sitting around and in this time of bugetary weightwatchers I would think be a good bang for the buck for one heck of a urban assult apc?
Abrams' power pack is in the back. That's where the infantry squad should be (for best protection). Israel's Namer IFV is based on the Merkava tank which has its engine in the front.
I understand armoring these things like a tank with the huge emphasis on reducing causalities and 12 troops on board. However, what is the point of the bigger gun. I assume they are talking about a 30mm to 50mm auto-cannon. Are we running into threats on the battlefield that the 25mm Bushmaster cannon on the Bradley can't handle? Do the Taliban have BMP 3's with add on armor? Or are they planning on putting a 105mm on these things and having them be mobile artillery as well.
They should give the troop carrier variant a low profile turret with a light 20mm cannon and an anti-tank missile and make a separate variant that has the proposed light tank turret.
Yes, the 25mm can deflect off of masonry walls in urban fighting. A large caliber direct HE round doesn't have that issue.
The Pandur II CZ does all that (including the non-lethal part, as it's got an integrated grenade launcher that could use any number of non-lethal round types) and it's already in production. Why not buy some?
To big/heavy, to expensive, to complicated, to fuel hungry and who are we going to use it against? The U.S. military of the near future is not going to be an expeditionary force. It will be a small, highly mobile, lightly armed homeland defense force, backed up by a small reserve/national guard. Many current duties/obligations of the federal military will be shifted to state militias, or state guard units. Our relations with other countries are in the process of change. Change that will allow us to disband 75% of our current military.
Uhhhh, no.
Some of us would rather not seen the US military dismantled…
We've just fought WW1, there will be no more wars…
We've just fought WW2, there will be no more wars…
We've just fought Desert Storm, there will be no more wars…
your outline is a recipe for disaster- learn about task force smith or the BEF in 1940. We still need the ability to project heavy armored forces onto distant battlefields. You can debate wether 50 tons is too much for an IFV, but there is no doubt we need more than a lightly armed homeland defense force- we are not Costa Rica
C'mon Bob, disband 75%. Our current relations are getting worse according to Syria's leader. And what NK & SK are now close to war. Obama will make it worse before hell make it better.
Is there anything other then a C-17 that can deliver a 50-ton vehicle by air? …
For that matter, can a C-17 do that?
Given the apparent change in design priorities that separate the manned FCS from the forthcoming GCV (mobility and networked-ness then, protection now) getting a prototype in five years sounds almighty optimistic.
A C17 could move it, although typically we don't deliver by air anyway.
Almost thirty years ago it took a joint service panel overloaded with flag rankers to decide on a mediocre PISTOL. Do you really think it’s gotten any better since? Defense acquisition is {RonWhite=1}Brooo-o-o-o-o-o-ken{RonWhite=0}
I wonder how this will all play out??
To be honest, it sounds like they want a Israeli Namer. Interesting direction for them to take as it confirms what Israel was saying that heavy IFV's are the future.
Army Leaders do tend to suffer a lot from the "Iron Man" syndrome. Every vehicle should have an intelligent onboard computer with a cool mockingly sarcastic voice with lots of rockets and guns, more guns. Does it have a stealth system or shield? No, why not? The technology is only 3-7 years away right?
The problem with trying use an M1 series chassis for an IFV is that the engine is not in front. And turning it around it not the answer as there is almost 12 inchs of armor on front and only a few inches around the rear, which means you have to strip and replace. Very costly. The area where the turret normal is can hold 6 guys, if you don't have a turret.
The funny thing is, an infantry squad is normally nine guys. So if you need 3 for a crew…and room for 6…the problem is what again? Yeah those 6 are crammed in there but they fit. And there's always room for one more. And yes those crewmen are pulled from the same infantry company as the 6 dudes in back.
Does the Bradley need an upgrade? Yes, desperately. The engine is still under powered despite a previous upgrade, the armor is inheritently light, and soon the standard 25mm will be way undergunned. The TOW can last for another decade or so, but another option needs to be looked at, especially since the Brad can not be moving when firing and tracking targets. What we need is not a new vehicle but a M2A4 upgrade
Sure, everybody wants an upgrade to their fav system but wishes are different from needs.
Again I ask, who are we going to be fighting with these new super expensive vehicles? We already outclass any current and future enemy with the Bradley.
"and soon the standard 25mm will be way undergunned. "
…. way undergunned for what exactly???
I keep hearing this and I am yet to hear a good rational for that claim.
What exactly do people think combined arms means….
Did I not get the memo on that being obsolete theory or something…
Many IFVs and APCs these days are being designed to withstand 25mm autocannon fire. Also larger ammunition has a greater HE effect (so better for dealing with enemy cover) and more variety of ammunition (such as smart airburst rounds).
The 30mm Bushmaster II, 35mm Bushmaster III, and 40mm CTA cannon seem the most likely candidates, although other weapons in these same calibers are likely to be offered.
Hi William,
Thanks, it was good to get your reply.
Was interested to read your comments about IFV and APC.
Although I think my comments still stand
Who's IFV and APC's are getting up armoured?
What expectation is there that there would be a realistic chance of these systems coming into conflict?
Why would you try to up-gun a Troop taxi, that is a misapprehension of the purpose of an APC is it not?
If you have protected your squad against rifle and .50 fire then the carrier is primarily there to transport.
the fighting is a function of other units.
If you can add some offensive firepower on, for little penalty, that is nice to have, but it really isn't what the vehicle is for.
the cannon is for suppressive fire.
heavy hitting is the job of other units. (tanks, helis, air, arty…)
Particularly as putting heavier armament on just makes it a more urgent target and pretty much inevitably makes it slower and less maneuverable.
Then when it gets hit by heavy enemy fire, you lose 9+ mean instead of 3-4.
Or am I missing something?
Cheers
Peter
Who’s IFV and APC’s are getting up armoured?
What expectation is there that there would be a realistic chance of these systems coming into conflict?
Why would you try to up-gun a Troop taxi, that is a misapprehension of the purpose of an APC is it not?
If you have protected your squad against rifle and .50 fire then the carrier is primarily there to transport.
the fighting is a function of other units.
(or your squad)
If you can add some offensive firepower on, for little penalty, that is nice to have, but it really isn’t what the vehicle is for.
the cannon is for suppressive fire.
heavy hitting is the job of other units. (tanks, helis, air, arty…)
Particularly as putting heavier armament on just makes it a more urgent target and pretty much inevitably makes it slower and less maneuverable.
Then when it gets hit by heavy enemy fire, you lose 9+ men instead of 3-4.
Or am I missing something?
An IFV has become more than a battlefield troop taxi like the concept behind the APC initial was. It is tough to explain the differences in doctrine, but the Bradley was expected to be doing much more than dropping off infantry.
There may be indeed be a place for "plain and simple" APC in the Army, and the M1126 Stryker in lighter Army units is a good example. However it is good to have some IFVs due to the extra flexability they provide.
Maybe a stretch Bradley? Kind of like MTVL for M113's, make the thing a little bigger and put more junk in it. Perhaps devise a new drop in turret?
In my opinion the GCV should be clean sheet design in order to incorporate the latest armor advancements. It should feature modular armor with different levels of protection like the German Puma. The basic vehicle with the lowest level of armor would weigh about 40 tons, enough to allow two to be carried by a C-17A. Yet with the heaviest armor package it would weigh in at over 50 tons, with armor protection comparable to that of an Abrams.
Armament would be an autocannon in the 30mm-40mm range, coax MG, and fire-and-forget ATGM like an extended range version of the Javelin or the Spike LR. The turret would likely be an unmanned design in order to save hull space. The armor would be a modern composite design, although ERA could be a possibility for one of the armor configurations. The vehicle should also incorporate both active and passive defense systems designed to destroy RPGs, ATGMs, and other munitions. The engine could be either a modern diesel design or a hybrid-electric configuration such as that tested on the Future Combat Systems demonstrators.
Hopefully the hull or chassis could be adapted to other roles, including an engineering vehicle, a replacement for the Paladin, and eventually a new main battle tank.
We could ditch my goal of a 40 ton weight for the vehicle in it's lightest configuration, and design a family of heavy AFVs such as that proposed by the Armored Systems Modernization program of the 1990s.
Sounds smart to me.
I think we are at the point that any kind of 'upgrade' to the Bradley would probably cost as much or more and not deliver as much vehicle.
Buying something new isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as they keep the reqs reasonable and focus on the fundamentals. For instance the FCS MGV's Diesel hybrid engine was going to give it something like an 800km range, thats a good thing. Plus a lot more electricity for comm and networking which would increase situational awareness, also a good thing.
If they stick to basic stuff, include room for upgrading, but don't hold the program up with immature technologies it could be a good thing. If they try to make it swim, fly, burrow, shoot around the planet, and have Xray vision, it will probably cost way too much.
Integrated non-lethal capability? Definitely Iron Man syndrome. There's a time and a place for non-lethal effects, but not sure why every vehicle must have it at all times.
The picture they got here makes this thing look like an old M3A1 (pre WWII) Stuart light tank…
Apparently there wasn't much imagination with the artist here…
Do a Google search and see if I'm wrong here…
spot on, though its 3x heavier…
Will this thing wash the dishes, too?
Seventy-tons and growing. A Bradley that weighs almost as much as an Abrams. Wow! Wasn't the Bradley originally meant to fit comfortably in a C-130? These colors don't run, they don't fly, and they don't even make it to the nearest port, for weeks, or maybe months. Then they have to be hauled to battle on a flatbead Semi driven by a civilian contractor from another country. Meanwhile, the Taliban have fought us to a stalemate, with small arms and RPGs while riding Honda dirt-bikes. Remember the FAV?
Good Evening Folks,
Lets see the United States already has Abrams and Bradley, whos total inventory is greater the the sum of all the modern battle tanks and APC’s of all the rest of the countries in the world, and both are in a modernization process. There is no better AFV’s by demonstration in combat of armored vehicles in vehicle on vehicle conflict in the world.
In a recent analysis of the worlds militaries with projections into 2040 by the DoD the United States has no peer rival or near peer rival. In our current wars armor is of little or no use. When we do put out heavy armored vehicles the enemy easily defeats them as happened last week when five American Soldiers were killed in Afghanistan including a Colonel and two Lt. Colonels in the newest MRAP.
These orphans of the multi billion dollar FCS folly are only just legacies of the 20th. Century, they have little or no use in the current wars or in evolving conflicts into the future. Just who are we going to fight with these things?
These are very expensive multi million dollar targets, yes they will all cost in excess of $5 million each, for cheap weapons that can be constructed out of material literally bought in a visit to Home Depot and manufactured in a mud hut.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
First of all, your figure that we have more Abrams and Bradleys than the rest of the world has tanks and APCs is simply false.
Now the Bradley would require heavy modification and redesign in order to meet the Army's needs for the next several decades. A clean sheet design would simply be more cost effective for the extra performance gained. The Abrams has more potential for future upgrades, and I am sure we will see a M1A3 Abrams. Yet I hope that the GCV will lead to a chassis suitable to a new main battle tank further down the road.
GCV is not an orphan of the FCS MGV program, the focus on armor protection alone should signal that. Also, the enemy does not easily defeat our heavy armor. Those MRAPs which shouldn't be compared to "real" AFVs anyway, have saved countless lives from IED attacks. The Abrams has proven extremely survivable, and the Bradley has armor protection, far better than a M113 or other light APC.
Even if the price tag was $5 million per vehicle, it is worth it for a cutting edge IFV. Homemade bombs made in mud shacks aren't very effective against our heavy armor and MRAPs. It is heavy IEDs often made out of multiple artillery shells that threaten these vehicles. The enemy has managed to get their hands on more modern AT weapons than the common RPG-7V as well.
Globalsecurity reports ~9000 Abrams built, probably to man all of our cold war units that were shut down during "the peace"; with 6k in the Army and 3k in storage. WP tank inventories and export volumes are obviously more plentiful, but to find another country that can operate six thousand tanks is difficult.
If we are to do new things with the Bradley, maybe new engine and dropping in a modern turret might be worth putting on that list.
I think it's time to give up trying to carry things on the C-17 and C-5. Tanks will get heavier with each technological revolution, just as the 20 ton "cruisers" of pre-WW2 gave way to 50 ton MBTs of the Cold War and the present.
We must ask the air force to design new airlift capacity. Maybe ground-effect planes, which carry quite a bit. Airships probably won't ever carry an economical amount of equipment. Maybe we should use lifting-body aircraft which use aircraft body volume as lifting volume as well. Burnelli lifting bodies might give us better cargo volumes without scaling up to absurdly large tubes with gigantic wings that can't land anywhere.
So maybe we lack the tech to minaturize everything we want into the weight we want. So should we accept that weight creep is inevitable and build heavier-lift aircraft? Then pray that we aren't held up at bridges like Sava River of the '90s?
Globalsecurity reports ~9000 Abrams built, probably to man all of our cold war units that were shut down during "the peace". I ponder if we should instead invest in new airlift like ground effect or Burnelli-lifting body plans to carry more stuff.
We should then attempt to split the IFV back into a tank support vehicle and a personnel carrier. The vehicle that eventually supports the tanks would probably be like the CFV-focus on tank support and carry reduced number of dismounts. The personnel carrier might hopefully use a common chassis, but have a smaller turret and carry more troops (making it more like a LAV or Stryker on tracks than anything).
The IED that took out those Colonels would've destroyed an Abrams. It was a car bomb with 1600 pounds of explosives. Armored vehicles are important, but there are some days no amount of armor plating will work.
EXACTLY!!!
There is no safety on a battle field, and "more armour" is but an illusion.
Get used to the idea you are going to take casualties in a war, accept it, move on and then do something useful with your time and money.
50 ton APC/IFV's are nonsense.
Good Morning Folks,
Two issues here.
First numbers. The Russian Federation stated in 2009 that it would reduce its active tank force to 2,500 T-90 tanks and keep a small reserve of T-72′s. The approximately 22,500, mostly of T-54/55, T-60/62 and early T-72′s, held in reserve would be scrapped and not sold internationally.
In the Spring of 2010 about half of the old reserve tanks have been dismantled and scrapped, The Russian Federation then reduced the number of tanks to be in active tank units to 1,500 and about 2,500 in reserve. The tank “new” will be a modified T-90 which has a T-72B hull, diesel power plant, (that as yet to be identified) and a T-165 redesigned turret for the 125mm smooth bore gun. There were design problem with the existing when converting to a smooth bore weapon in turret balance. The redesigned tank has yet to go into production but the initial production for The Russian Federation Security Forces is 216.
Earlier this year The Russian Federation approached the French regarding the purchase of the Leclerc Series II Main Battle Tank. The quality requested was not given but the Russian Federation did recently order from Italy 1000 light armored vehicles. One would have to assume a similar number of Leclerc’s are being asked for. The US and the rest of NATO is against this sale, but the US and NATO are also against The Russian buying French LHD’s and that deal is still very much alive. The French are it appears exercising their sovereignty.
The offer of the purchase of Leclerc Series II tanks from the French would be a strong indicator that progress on the “new” T-90 is not going well.
The Chinese. The Chinese have been, as always kind of veige on tanks and their future plans. Official US sources available to the public and Chinese public sources estimate the PRC’s PLA Tank force to be about 2,500 mostly aging Type 80′s. The Chinese have a reserve tank force of about 10,000 mostly old Korean War Soviet tanks and failed Chinese efforts.
The PRC has shown in parades and to visiting foreign military the Type 99 Tank, but little is know about it. The Type 99′s were offered to Pakistan, a main military partner for Beijing, but Pakistan opted for Soviet Era Russian/Ukraine diesel T-80′s. The production of the Type 99, is likely to be very small, 200-500, since the PRC has indicated that they are designing a newer tank.
The estimate of 9k Abrams Tanks might be on the high side, there have been a small number of combat loss in Iraq, but is in the neighborhood, the number of Bradley’s minus combat loses is said to be about 7,500.
The next issue is rapid deployability, which was a huge selling point for the lighter vehicles in the FCS. Well if there were any doubts about US lift capacity Haiti answered those questions. With about 220 +/- C-17′s due to be made the US currently can’t do a combat life of a single battalion. The original order for about 500 C-17′s would have provided a combat lift capacity that could have justified lighter armored vehicles.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
seems like weight is the issue. solution? why not just remove the main gun and replace with some sort of automatic missile javelin launcher? that way the you get rid of the heavy breach, main gun and the turret and add 360 degree optics to spot and destroy threats which the missile will maneuver to destroy. with the weight savings you can still have alot of armor for protection. maybe even have a tiered armor system in which you add more depending on your mission type. you can still have crows with mg for taking out light units.
I sat in the back of a BFV for 20 hours without getting out during OIF I. I sure hope the designers think about the troops when they're designing this new APC? I have a feeling however, that troop comfort is not a priority?
What is wrong with joining in the British FRES program and adapting the ASCOD for use. You would achieve economies of scale to make it affordable. You could also have multiple versions to handle everything from arv, avlb, combat engineering vehicle, command, atgm carrier, mortar, self-propelled howitzer, apc, ifv, and medium tank. In adapting the vehicle the focus would be on excess power and modular construction to allow future upgrades.
Good Morning Folks,
To joining the British in joint purchases and getting some economy of scale. The problem is that the UK and EU buys a few hundred vehicles, like 500-600. The US buys in the thousands. The UK might save some money on the deal but the US wouldn’t.
Recent example of how the United States but Armored Vehicles.
The US’s invantory of 9,500 M-1A1′s Abrams Tanks is greater then the sum total of the rest of the worlds active military tank forces.
The US has about 7,500 M-2/M-3 Bradleys, again more the the total of the rest of the world.
The US has over 20,000 M-113′s
The US “officially” has 3,121 Strykers and the vehicle is still in production.
The US has over 25,000 MRAP’s in its various forms, and we are still producing these vehicles.
The US has over 35,000 up-armored HUMVES that we are tying to GIVE AWAY to the Afghans, Iraqis, Mexico or any other friendly country that will take them.
The question must be asked, when is enough, enough.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"What is wrong with joining in the British FRES program and adapting the ASCOD for use"
Well, we used to have a program called USCS/TRACER with the Brits until it was cancelled to free up funding for Farcical Combat Systems and Stryker brigades. I would think with the cancellation of USCS/TRACER and the problems with the JSF, the Brits would be leary of cooperating with us on such a project. With the new Tory coalition gov't saying they want to reduce UK defence spending by 25%, I don't see the Brits working with us as we seem to be unreliable.
Personally, I'd like to see an updated PUMA selected with the possible of add-on armor kits. They claim better mine-protection, but how it is in relation to a Bradley, I don't know.
Byron brings up a good point : With all those Bradleys in storage, why not find a new turret for the them? Up gun it to a 30mm or the new 40 CTS the Brits have? Casemated turret to reduce height?
Dear all
The above new GCV i belive will have the following problems:
1. with the futuer equipment that will be installed it will be too heavy,- 40-45 mt with this size of engine , realy sorry but – it will not have the power to operatre saftly to the crew .
2. It looks like it is wider to much and it will not have the capbility of trasport by trains , in South America , Middle East ,Asia , Europe , U.S.A the bridges in the country side are not wide as much.
3. i strongly suugest to think on configuration and to give it the capability of 81 mm mortar with GPS shells .
4. in order to solve some of its futuer fighting capabiliies let them think about using the new W.J.Engine(TM) the highest rate of power to weight
effecency of up to 97% more than double than any diesel engine.
light weight ,and low thermic influence !! and more!!!!!
Yours Faithfully
J.W
Rumor has it that there is a protest looming, anyone else have any insight.
Save the billions and just buy the Puma. Then for lighter forces get the Rosomak, 3 tour in Afghanistan and I know the Rosomak is the best you can get and still move it with C-130s. So give the taxpayer a break and buy off the shelf. Or all this is is another Money Orgy by the big Defence Contractors. Quite Frankly we could have excellent fighting vehicles at great prices if we banned the top 50 biggest Defence contractors from buys for a few years. The Russians know whats right and the are buying Le Clerc II and Italian 8×8,6×6,and 4×4 Armor vehicles. Currently the Russians are testing Rosomak and Dardo upgrade in Russia.