Here’s some (relatively) new eye candy from BAE Systems who posted the a bunch of renderings of its bid for the Army’s new Ground Combat Vehicle program on Flickr recently. The vehicle looks and sounds an awful lot like the trac that BAE offered in the last go-round to replace the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.
BAE’s vehicle features a hybrid drive designed to be 10 to 20-percent more fuel efficient than the current crop of armored vehicle engines and armor that will give troops inside the GCV more protection than an MRAP, claims the company.
Remember, BAE — along with rival General Dynamics — was awarded a contract last year to come up with a concept vehicle for a new GCV. The last effort to field the GCV was cancelled in 2010 after Army officials decided the RfP called for a vehicle that didn’t match the service’s needs.
The Army launched a revised competition to replace its Bradleys in November 2010, calling for an armored vehicle that can do everything from counterinsurgency ops to armored warfare.
Anyway, click through the jump to see more images of the vehicle. Sound off in the comments after checking it out.
{ 171 comments… read them below or add one }
No TOW launcher? I thought that was one of the requirements.
I'd say A Hellfire launcher would be better. Probably on the A1 version when it comes. Experience is the best teacher after all.
Just make more modern M1 Abrams with long range rockets and speed for future defense.
Abrams can't carry infantry.
They can if the infantry learn to ski, skateboard, or rollerblade
The exhaust from an Abrams is so hot that you would need a very long ski rope.
The Army FM has some notes on how to carry infantry desantiniki, but they have to be carried on the turret. Gas turbine engine too hot.
Some eye candy for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M1A1_desant.JPE…
I worry about the height on this sucker. Low profile mean safety and keeping your head down is difficult with as tall as this looks to be.
Interesting that there's only 1 hatch on the turret and 2 positions in front (is the gunner next to the driver ?).
Perhaps the TC is next to the driver & linked to the LRAS3/CROW hybrid looking thing behind the turret hatch, with gunner in the turret.
According to Biff's link, the turret is crewless. That creats a heavy worload for the 2 in the hull.
According to Biff's link, its a 3-man crew
FDD, Where is the 3rd crew member located ? It's interesting to note that the side skirts in the CGI show a nominal stand-off plate and then the significant Box like protection.
This is one offering for a new system. I've lost count on how many existing platforms they are doing an AoA on for this same program. Then there is the concurrent program that hasn't gotten quite the attention of the AMPV or M113 replacement program.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120223/DEFRE…
For a service that supposedly got hit hard with cuts procurement sure doesn't sound like it.
There seems to be only two contenders for the GCV
New build, they are looking at 3 or 4 existing systems as well.
I stand corrected.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/11/defense-arm…
They could always take the Bradley hulls and use them for whatever the M113 does: ambulance, M577 command vehicle…we already use a BFV derivative for the M270. It's not un-kosher. They're bigger, they're steel instead of aluminum, there would be massive commonality gains and moneymoneymoney for United Defense. What's to say no to?
General Dynamics disagrees.
This vehicle reminds me of a song that went like this:
"I like big butts and I cannot lie…"
YESS!!
such heavily armoured vehicle and they couldn't even fit the 40mm CTA gun… (even if it has tow for anti-tank work, 3x the amount of HE from 30mm comes in handy)
oh yeah, the tow launchers. i thought something was missing.
any idea on the weight of the baseline/ uparmoured vehicle? 30/50t?
According to the brochure, this thing will weight 70 tons. That's as much as an M1A2.
Jesus. That's one per C-17.
How much will future abrams weigh? 100? Do we need that Soviet heavy lifter aircraft to move 'em…?
We don't move armor by air, we can in an emergency but most just gets prepositioned on ships or sites in specific theaters.
Indeed. But we used to have that immediate ready company with Abrams and Bradleys to be moved by air. However the heavier these things get, the emergency units can't be moved by air…or we keep legacy units around for strategic mobility.
I don't know what the price of this vehicle is, but if its gonna be a lot I think the Bradley's are more than good enough.
Regardless of price, why do the Bradleys need to be replaced? (I don't know much about them)
Pat has a good point and Mr. Hall posted a viable approach (e.g. install hybrid engine, remove turret replace w/robotic weapons station)
The downsides to the Bradley are they don't carry enough Infantry (6 grunts vs. a 9 man squad), have been in constant battle for a decade needing a refit, some want a gun with a little more punch (debatable. It's an Infantry Fighting Vehicle not a tank destroyer) and some feel it needs to defend better against IEDs (again debatable, IED proof doesn't exist, you can always build bigger bombs).
If we fix the grunt capacity and give them a facelift they have decades of life left but a key problem is America's ridiculous belief that one can have a light, highly protected Infantry carrier on the cheap. Our casualty aversion is driving the train on making the GCV too big and expensive to fulfill its role.
This new vehicle must have survior abilitiy for the troops inside (i.e., incoming rocket anit-system like the Roland which can detect incoming missles/rockets. Also, I agree with the rest of the readers: it dose need to have the ability to detect IED's and a blow back protection system to protect our troops from harms way. Not mounting a TOW like system on this vehicle is a big mistake. 'What the commander of this vehicle in counter a armor threat or a low flying Copter armed with rockets. I think this company needs to rethink this on the drawing borad.
the US needs a lot more (millions if not more) of this Bradley …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__nAjSHvrYI&fe…
You should be ashamed comparing a great man like Omar Bradley to some pathetic traitor like Bradley Manning.
The "soldier's general" would have given his life for this country, Bradley Manning would just sell us out because his boyfriend dumped him.
passingby – Please keep going. You're a troll for comparing Omar Bradley with Bradley Manning. Your other posts prove you're just a political provactuer.
Damn… makes the Bradley look like a work of art.
How many sensors are they trying to shove onto this thing?
All of them
Judging from the images, that sounds legit.
Who needs separate C2I and reconnaissance vehicles when you can fit everything in one? *sigh*
That was the thinking behind the Bradley (for better or worse). Combine a troop carrier, scout vehicle, and anti-tank platform into one hull.
As far as systems go, this thing appears to incorporate everything the Bradley has (except a TOW) and everything we put on the MRAPs as well as the new tactical network.
They made a movie about the Bradley development called The Pentagon Wars. It was quite funny, especially Richard Schiff's role as guy just trying to get the thing built, but constantly dealing with mission creep. Some of the circular logic illustrated is really funny.
The Bradley did mature into an effective vehicle however. It was certainly comparable or better than most of the other IFVs of the time (BMP series, Warrior, Marder, etc.)
But when you have to enlarge a portion of the back just to jam in every sort of sensor and electronic system they could think of, something's wrong.
Seriously, what is all of this stuff. I've seen the same insane number of antennas and such on photos of Strykers in recent years too.
Looks like they have crammed so many systems & sensors they forgot space for the most important early warning, fire control, manuver control and command sensor we have. A well trained team of 19D Cav Scouts. Go ahead and make this thing, we will just have to recruit legions of techs and mechanics to keep it rolling.
nice
Read the glossy brochure information here: http://www.teamgcv.com/
Turret unmanned. 63.5tonnes!
Are you kidding me??!! Where do I start on this monstrosity? To high (WAY too high), too narrow, too short, huge overhand on the back. This has more systems on it than the Death Star.
It looks like a Bradley (one of the most poorly conceived vehicles to ever see production and an absolute mediocrity in service) with about 40 "good ideas" tacked on. Does it even carry infantrymen? If so, how many? 5-6? Who is supposed to use all the sensors and optics?
This is the best BAE can offer? A warmed up portion of leftovers from a meal that wasn't very edible the first time around?
Those systems sticking up everywhere are currently on MRAPs.
If you take of the roof you have a Bradly, how is that for an 64 ton suv Death Star?
Don't know why I got downgraded, just stating a fact. That GCV mockup has a BFT, 4 FM or HF antennas, a CROWS, a Boomerang, a Duke, and what appear to be 2 satellite domes on the back. Everything but the network domes on the back currently sit on a MATV.
It's because fans of MRAPs have bought all the propaganda and almost to a man don't r5ealize how roadbound they are.
Might it because most MRAPs are wheeled instead of tracked? Thought tracks tended to have lower ground pressures and were better offroad…at least until you threw a track.
Scott – examples of it's mediocrity? As a former infantry company commander my only problem was it didn't carry the nine man squad.
What are your issues and based on what experience? Name a better combat proven vehicle…
He has no valid examples of it's "mediocrity". The Bradley has an excellent combat record with multiple confirmed MBT kills. Too many people post here that have no practical experience on what they are complaining about. If they knew so much, you would think all of today's problems would have long since been solved, if only we would all just listen to them!
“too narrow, too short”
It has a wider hull (by about 4 feet) and a longer hull than an Abrams. Narrow and short are not words I would use to describe it.
Seriously wtf. I forsee another bradley at best. We need what 5,000 of these well you'll ony get 1,000. You need to seat 10men well you'll only get 7 really friendly troops.
Sigh. Why not just build a light tank for fire support infantry and just build a good APC for the infantry one that can carry 10 people with enough room to actucally do more than wiggle. Oh and it wouldnt need to be the size of a house.
Is this still gonna mass as much as a heavy tank at 52 tons?
Really……….
Looks like a regurgitated M-3 Bradly. Prof this whole GCV is a waste of money and time a upgraded can make a Bradly same as this thing. The lack of sloped armor is a major safety concern over this and it has a broad flat belly making susceptible for mines. Total waste. Upgraded the M-2/3
Still early in the design, but looks better than version 1.0 ever did.
Considering we have good camera’s and 3D glasses now, I was hoping that the driver and commander could be moved away from the front of the vehicle, or at least get rid of the usual vision blocks and hatches (read; potential weaknesses).
Could’ve saved a few pounds or added additional armor or just to create a smoother vehicle if crew positions are more ‘embedded’ in the vehicle, like driving it with an Xbox controller from the rear compartment.
And still a lot of antennas – one (light) explosive and the vehicle might be blind, deaf and dumb.
some of those aren't antennae they're microphones
The one with the multiple legs sticking out is called the Boomerang. It detects the location of a gunshot fired nearby.
Still an awful lot of crud sticking out of this vehicle, I'm guessing that nobody is going to be entering this vehicle from turret roof, at least not without breaking an antenna/mic or two. Still, I agree with Marcase, one light explosion and this thing is going to be blind, deaf, and/or dumb.
Do you think there might be a slightly logical fallacy in suggesting it is a good idea to bury the crew in the interior without vision blocks while at the same time criticizing the potential for 'blind, deaf & dumb' due to over reliance on electronic sensors?
And the cameras are not fully ruggedized – only one company manufactures fully MILSPEC camera systems and its not BAE.
It doesn't look like the turret can provide 360 degree coverage; can't the Bradley's spin completely around, firing the whole time?
All-in-all, the GCV doesn't appear to be all that bad. The only glaring shortcoming is the main gun only being a 25mm caliber; this is a virtual joke. Even on a vehicle of this size, a 25mm main cannon is grossley underpowered to offer sufficient protection. A Soviet BMP with its 73mm smoothbore cannon would have the GCV for lunch in a few seconds. Our designers need to go back to the drawing board with the GCV. Seriously, at 52 tons with only a 25mm cannon; the old M-60 tank at 48 tons sported a 105mm rifled cannon – now that's a real armored threat!
Patrick, The low pressure cannon on the BMP-1 was apparently very unsatisfactory, or it would have been included on the 2 and 3 models.
The 73 was dumped on the 2 (for twin 30's). BMP-3 has a 30mm/100mm.
However, the 73 does have an ATGM…
the -3's 100mm also launches the AT-10 Stabber
blight – The BMP2 had a single 30mm.
Correct.
Though apparently, BMP-2 had an external ATGM. Not sure if it can be operated while buttoned up, which presents its own problems.
Pat – Having fought against BMP1's and operated them I can safely say you don't know what you're talking about. The BMP's 73mm has less range, poor staibilization and inferior optics/sensors even compared to an M2 BASIC Bradley.
BTW, an M60 is a TANK. Different mission.
You can say to add more armor scrap the light armored Striker Gun System and put M-60A3s back into service but some dumb General who wants his pet project wont allow that.
Strykers can't handle any more armor. The suspension can barely handle the RPG cage and keeps it from going off road.
Or the UD Thunderbolt prototype. But hybrid tanks don't meet the IFV need.
Perhaps they'll let the next tank contract to be a tank/IFV contract. Use the same chassis for an IFV. It would require moving the engine to the front (where it is for most IFVs and the Merkava).
I always liked that feature of the Merkava. Sounds like a good idea to me……
So do I but it doesn't carry a full squad and is too heavy.
To clarify, I meant the tank/IFV as in two separate vehicles, not necessarily one that can do both. So it would be like Merkava and Namer: two heavy vehicles built on the same basic chassis. Maybe pull a page from the old days and give the IFV a dummy main gun so from afar it looks like the MBT?
Then again, If I recall correctly the Merkava's internal stowage came as a tradeoff between ammunition carry and personnel carry. It was meant for escape and rescue of tank crewmen, but if you wanted to carry more then it you would carry less ammunition?
army-technology simply says:
"The tank is capable of carrying eight infantry soldiers, a command group or three litter patients (stretcher casualties) in addition to the tank crew of commander, loader, gunner and driver. The tank is capable of firing on the move at moving targets and has demonstrated high hit probability in firing against attack helicopters using conventional anti-tank munitions."
What is worg with buying more Strykers?
Strykers make for a great infantry taxi, but that's about all. They weren't designed to protect against anything more than small arms. The anti-RPG cage on the Stryker put it at its weight limit.
They're so top-heavy that they need outrigger training wheels? They weigh so much, yet don't provide enough protection and can't go offroad very well?
They're top heavy, too light to offer adequate protection and too heavy to go seriously off-road….and you cannot fit it into anything smaller than a C-17.
They have much less cross country capability than tracked vehicles. They'll never keep up with the M1s.
For a force driving towards a more mobile and easier to rapidly relocate force, I see a major issue. The tonnage of this vehicle is problematic in the extreme.
Am I the only one that see's similarities with the XM-8?
Yep, agree weight is a deal killer for me also but I don't think the Army has the moral courage to explain to America you can't make light vehicles that protect against just about every threat out there.
This thing will compete with the Abrams for heaviest track ever (currently advertised as 140,000 pounds), and the hybrid engine they're so happy about will give it .73 miles per gallon. A Bradley needs to be refueled every 300 miles and an Abrams every 250. This GCV will have to be refueled every 186 miles. It can go 100 miles more on the same amount of fuel, but will have to refuel more often.
I'm all for hybrid engine technology, but what good is a vehicle that may save maintenance and gas money over the long term, but needs to stop in the middle of a battle to refuel twice as often as its predecessor? Blight, I hope they find that weight savings magic wand, this thing needs it.
It's carrying an awful lot of whizbang for a battle-taxi.
It might even make sense for a division to have "combat" vehicles and "occupation vehicles" for situations like in Iraq. I guess now we will turn our IFVs into MRAPs too, though to be fair some degree of mine resistance will have to be required in the near future.
Take the MRAP requirement away from the GCV and just swap them out when the need arises? Our however-many thousand fleet of MRAPs will probably just sit in warehouses after the war is over until we find a need for them. Imagine if after defeating the Iraqi Army in 2003, our Bradley fleet was driven back to Kuwait and replaced by MRAPs? $11 million to replace a $4 million vehicle on a 1 for 1 basis with a $1 million COIN vehicle sitting on the sidelines.
Our fleet is going to sit in warehouses right now.
In the end it depends on costs. Replacing an entire division set of bradleys and the like with MRAPs would be pretty costly and would cut into training effectiveness of soldiers training on both Bradleys and occupation vehicle. Then again, the lion's share of the action in OIF was Humvees, so the vehicles that really need to be MRAPs are the humvee replacements.
With magical expensive weight reduction tech, it'll probably be 35-40 tons. Without, closer to 50 tons.
How 'bout we buy more heavy-weight airlift, because it seems like tanks will get heavier before they get lighter.
I really hope somebody else is putting in a GCV bid, this thing looks like crap.
General Dynamics is bidding, but they're keeping their bid design out of the public eye thus far.
It's so freaking tall ( in addition to a whole lotta ugly)! It looks like Bradley Part Deux.
If they are admitting it is going to weight near 70 tons, why spend so much reinventing the Namer?
General Dynamics already builds the Namer for Israel here in the states. Just buy the Namer and save yourself development costs.
That vehicle is undergoing evaluation at White Sands actually.
Yeah, I wish the US would just buy some of that nice Israeli kit, instead of trying to build the death star every time it's asked to build an IFV
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110131/DEFFE…
"While awaiting final government approval for the licensed production program, Ministry of Defense leaders last week endorsed a multiyear contract following months of intense negotiations between the Tank Production Office and GDLS. In October, the Sterling Heights, Mich.-based firm won the contract over BAE Systems and Textron Marine and Land Systems.
According to defense and industry sources, the multiphase contract ultimately could surpass $800 million and involve many hundreds of tanks if all options are exercised.
MoD's Tank Production Office will serve as prime contractor and lead systems integrator, with GDLS as exclusive U.S. production partner. The program is expected to include dozens of local and U.S. subcontractors and suppliers, government and industry sources here said.
During the initial phase for the first couple of hundred tanks, GDLS will produce Namer hulls and kit sets, with integration and final assembly to take place in Israel. Later on, GDLS will ramp up to much higher production rates of hulls and kits for integration and final assembly in Israel. GDLS will perform its work at its Lima, Ohio, plant."
It sounds like a plan to keep Lima Tank Plant alive. Best of luck to them. Lima was the factory for the Abrams, and once it goes under we lose that skillset and infrastructure to make tanks en masse in the United States. Detroit Arsenal is gone. There's UD and others, but they don't make tanks…
Namer – TOO heavy to deploy (so is this) but I like that it de-emphasizes tank killing capability and emphasizes troop carrying capability.
It's not like this beast will get any better. And it can't be any heavier than the Abrams it was meant to escort.
Kinda looks like a big flat bottom on it.
I thought this was supposed to be a V hull.
Just buy the Israeli Merkava tank.
Or a design based on it.
Cranky
Not even born yet, and already has reached the "terrible toos" stage:
Too tall, too heavy, too fuel hungry, too sophisticated, too expensive, too hard to produce quickly, too lightly armed (needs at least a 30 mm gun) and too flat bottomed.
@hikerguy I agree wih you, just too…and too.
This thing reminds me of the saying that ; if it looks good, then it is good, but if it looks bad, then it is bad. How about the pentagon take a very hard look at the new German IFV called the PUMA that is to replace there MARDER ICV and liscense build it here with an american engine and systems. because thats what we're doing with the Marine Corps LAV-25 and the Army's STRIKER which are based off the Swiss MOWAG family of wheeled armoured vehicles. I'm just saying, lets save some money and not reinvent the wheel.
Where are the ATGMs??? I would've figured we could easily & inexpensively integrate current generation Hellfires by now…
I think this might be BAE's subtle way of telling the DoD that the current requirements are stupid, and that no contractor is going to deliver anything worthwhile until the military un-asses its collective head and figures out a doctrine with vehicles that make sense.
I was going to ask the same thing. Are we talking about a battlefield between regular armies, with tanks and missiles, or about asymetric warfare in the Third World? Wouldn't a lighter and faster wheeled vehicle do as well when the enemy has no more than RPGs?
Its just their GCV from the cancelled FCS program. No real new design here. Clear Coke
What WON'T get damaged on this thing by a lot of even small arms fire and machine guns?
Against auto cannon (20-40mm), forget it.
Where DOESN'T this thing have a shot trap?
Where did these people learn about ballistic shaping?
Does no one ever study the successful AFV designs?
Slab sides like the broad side of a barn, REALLY?
General concensus has always been: the engineers and commitees who design these things are never the folks who actually have to go to war in them. Otherwise this thing wouldn't look like some throwback to pre-WW2 days where bolted-together AFVs were often far too heavy and undergunned at the same time.
And its designation will be what, exactly? The M9 WOFTAM?
What unfortunate General gets the shame of having his/her name slapped on this thing?
I give it an F. Weight is a deal killer for me but I realize the Army does not have the moral courage to explain to America you can't make vehicles of a reasonable weight that protect against just about every threat out there.
If something doesn't change drastically. We are going to have heavy BCTs that aren't deployable.
Eh looks like a load of fail to me.
1. Poor defense / Offense in urban terrain, lack of machine guns. For crew or infantry. What no lessons learned from the last 2 conflicts … Duh
2. Amphibious? yes or no, probably not
3. Too F’n big = Easy target,
3a. Logistical issues how can we fly it to X location and deploy it? One per C-5 lift … fail
4. Poor field of fire for main gun.
5. Needs more fire power how about missile racks for anti tank and anti aircraft? Up that main gun to something that can deal with Armor. 25mm bushmaster is great until you face real armor. How about a 70mm+ fast firing gun or a bump up tp 40mm at least?
6. Who needs frontal armor? Naw, that’s not important.
7. Tracks need to be wider for many reasons.
8. Poor visibility for everyone.
9. How about Drone support? vehicle based drone for scouting and security?
10. No IED / Mine resistant lower hull? WTF again?
11. Driving optics need to be higher and better protected.
12. Driver positions seem too large and poorly protected
13. If this is based on a 113 body I’m gunna f’n puke.
Sounds like you're the same guy that wrote the FCS infantry carrier requirements.
Keeping in mind, would I would put my life on the line and feel that it is combat effective and keep up with what the rest of the world is producing. So with that said it has to be superior in every way to what it may come up against. That means no limitations, no P.O.S. like the Bradley, better than the Stryker who had a serious design flaw against Mines / IEDs. I cannot believe we pay these people for their lack of vision when it comes to future designs.
Why is the Bradley a POS exactly? Seems to have a pretty good operationat history for coming on 40 years.
No, you can't put everything on a vehicle. Only works in the video games.
Your list shows a basic lack of understanding of armored vehicle design, what tech is capable of and what's overkill. E.G. Have you heard of video cameras?
Heh, you cannot put everything on tanks in video games, silly old timer. It’s taken 40 years to make the Bradley sort of right. From what I understand the older ones burn up nicley into a **** heap. No one I served with said to many nice things about them. The point being Rod is that it is possible to make something with the much needed defense and offense capabilities a vehicle needs to survive in todays ever changing conflicts. But why make something sub par? Thats old school thinking that get people killed. Like driving unarmored Humvees into war zones.
Very good punisher1. But poorly designed, vulnerable combat vehicles tend to make more money for the manufacturer. Money is more important than the lives of soldiers – same principles used in the pharmaceutical, processed food, liquor, cigarette … industries.
I don't know about that. The Humvee's reputation is probably souring because it was light and shoved into roles it was never meant to fill.
reputation is no barrier to making money with government contracts.
you just build an "upgraded" vehicle at 10%, 15%, or 20% more cost and charge the government 50% 100% or 200% more. It's tax payer's money.
I know US gear is shit in your eyes. How would you rate the BMP-1 then? You know, the whole death to the entire crew/infantry load whenever it got hit thing
.
I'm wishing that Puma derived IFV was still in the competition.
Not much better than a souped up Bradley.
it is.
Looks like a Dalek…
Don't the Germans and Israelis (and/or others) make good GCVs? If so, why not just manufacture those under license? Why reinvent the wheel?
The German vehicles don't carry a nine man squad and the Israelis don't have to deploy their over 60T behemoths.
nine man squad requirement will produce a 40-60t behemoth in any scenario.
unless you satisfy with the paper armour like BTR
Piranha V might have 8 passengers. 28 tons. Yeech, for something so lightly armored.
WHY would we go with Piranhas when we have Strykers?
No. The driving requirement causing higher weight is the IED canard. You can't protect against IED's. The enemy will just build bigger ones. Even the M1 is susceptible to large IEDs.
The Army must explain that ICV/IFVs aren't tanks to the majority of "enthusiasts" that think anything with tracks is a tank.
The nine man squad requirement won't drive the weight up. The canard that we have to provide IED level protection is driving the weight up. It's a ridiculous expectation. Bigger IEDs will defeat even an M1 tank.
Tracked vehicles' forte is cross country. Much harder to plant IEDs in every field. We are making the age old mistake of expecting the next war to be like the last one.
I like that pea shooter. So cute.
I've got to ask why it has a 25mm M242 chain gun instead of the newer 30mm Mk.44 the Army wanted on the FCS vehicles. The Navy and Marine Corp are already fielding some.
The 35mm Bushmaster III is another option, as is the 40mm CTA.
CTA should definitely be there, but NIH…
They couldn't make it uglier if they tried.
I wonder how many CV90 based vehicles we can get for the price of one of these? Actually I just want the twin tube AMOS version for our 11Cs.
I have a better idea. Take our existing Bradley hulls, strip them down, put in a hybrid electric powertrain. Then replace the existing turret with an unmanned overhead weapons mount with a 40mm CTA automatic cannon, a coaxial machine gun and an external four missile pod. This gets all of the ammunition outside of the fighting compartment and the vulnerable infantry inside. It will probably even make enough space inside to put a couple more infantrymen there. Put a couple of active anti-RPG/ATGM mounts on the hull and then add applique armor over all. It will save money, give us a much more capable vehicle that is also lighter and more mobile as well.
With the hybrid drivetrain, you're going to introduce a giant lithium battery pack to the interior of the vehicle. And I'm not sure how you propose to move all of the ammunition out of the hull, especially since the TOWs are manually reloaded by someone in the rear compartment using a hatch.
If you wanted more personnel, I guess you could stretch the Bradley by another roadwheel…
That said, many of the extant Bradleys already have applique/ERA packages on them. The upgrades you propose involve re-engining, introducing an additional potentially dangeorus lithium battery pack and a hypothetical RO turret, while assuming that putting the vehicle crew and the dismounts in the same interior compartment is better than the present arrangement.
Cynically, a hit to the turret may kill the crew but allows the dismounts to escape. If this new Bradley isn't hull down, a hit in the crew compartment kills everyone. And if the hull isn't sufficiently well-armored, then an explosion in the turret may still kill everyone in the vehicle.
It isn't a bad idea to consider re-turreting and re-engining the Bradley if we want to test out new update ideas…but adding an extra road wheel might not be a bad idea either (just as we did with the MTVL version of the M113).
The original Bradleys had FPWs, but they're not as great as they sound at first glance. Firing through vision blocks isn't perfect…but beats the enhanced SA of fighting from open-topped vehicles, especially since it interferes with the turret being able to traverse to the rear. Getting clipped by a 25mm barrel or having a Bushmaster go off near your head is likely unpleasant.
Moving the crew from the turret to the hull won't give you much net room savings for dismounts. Additionally, your Bradley turret reloads from within the hull by hand via a hatch, so you'll still carry TOWs inside the hull.
Post keeps disappearing. In short, Bradleys reload their TOW launchers from stores in the main compartment. Can't have a remote turret with TOW unless you either keep TOWs in the passenger compartment or totally re-engineer some sort of auto-loader, which increases the cost of the turret by a lot. Also, by moving the crew into the passenger compartment, you eat into any potential additional dismount space. Additionally, the use of hybrid electric means you're adding a lithium ion battery just feet away from the crew. Not safe?
The turret crew is actually in the passenger area already. An unmanned turret should be freeing up a lot of space. As for antitank capability, stowing four rounds in the launcher frees up more interior space. An M2 only carries four TOW rounds anyway (2 in launcher, 2 in a rack in the troops area).
Then the only point of the original sub-reply is to suggest re-engining the Bradley and a re-turreting. Potentially promising, but it means starting another R&D project from which we have little previous experience and going from there.
We have experience with small profile turrets on the RDF prototype. There might've been a couple of other remote turret prototypes; and perhaps MGS might count for this as well.
That said, if we developed a four-pack TOW it would probably go on the next upgrade for the Bradley already?
If they do go with a new vehicle I hope the engine can form the basis for a new engine on the M-1
Leaving us room for 2 dismounts….
It'll be MBT, CFV, APC.
We still have a lot of BAE we still need to bring home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Save the budget and use it on green energy like algae fuel farm, pond plant and processing centers. This will help us become self sufficient on foreign oil, help lower the deficit and help the economy in the process.
It looks like it has a weather station on it. I guess a balloon will be on the upgrade.
Or a drone, like in C&C Generals.
This is gonna be the best for Indian Army !!!
I'll take two…
Am I the only one that thinks this thing looks like a WWII Sherman (without the big gun – and the same much-hated high profile)? And I'm always worried when they try to stick one vehicle with so many missions. And feature creep is a sure thing given the inglorious history of our sad "procurement system".
Some valid comments here. But commenting that it's ugly – really? Who cares? Even if you have a shiny streamlined hull it's going to look like a dog in the field when it's covered with bar/applique armor. Plus it's irrelevant.
As for blast-resistance, we really can't see from these pictures what the hull looks like underneath. Is it flat? It might incorporate shaping, or blast ducting, which also may account for the height of the vehicle (can't really complain about both lack of V-hull AND excess height).
Ugly, ugly, ugly. If your a commander you at least want to have your troops charge into battle on a war machine that is well suited to the requirments you want. That heavy piece of junk will be more of a nuisance than anything else. Why is it all the successful IFVs have always had the same capabilites, a auto cannon, a machine gun, a ATGM launcher, and carries a full 8 to 12 man squad. Don't break whats neaver had to be fixed. Better alternative is to buy more Strykers and Bradleys. But don't get me started on the scrapped EFV program for the Marines.
looks like the Army design team is learning from the Navy design team
LCS=GCV=LCS=GCV
-design massive vehicle
-poorly armed
-poorly protected
-lots of fancy gatgets
-very high tech and automation
-poor gas mileage and range
-doesn't scare anybody
-very very very expensive
Lots of shot traps to magnify the effect of the RPG rounds it will surly face. Way too many vulnerabilities in the antennas/sensors, no room for troops (it is supposed to carry troops right?), no ATGM, very heavy, side armor looks like it was designed for an up-armor pack once in theater.
This looks just about perfect for production!
Shot traps don't apply to HEAT rounds which is how the RPG works.
Do you want to armor the antenaes and sensors? Uh, I think not.
How do you know how many troops fit on the inside? X-ray vision?
Isn't the IDF fielding an IFV based on the Merkava tank? Considering the Merkava already has troop transport ability.
The Namer vaugly looks like a Merkava without a turret.
It weighs SIXTY tons!
So will this when it is tricked out to match the force protection offered by a Namer as well. That's the drawback to the Namer though I think, is that it can't get lighter. I think the Army probably wants something it can scale up or down as needed, whearas one size fits all with the Namer.
However having said that when you look at the no compromise list of tier 1 requirements in the GCV the Namer does meet them all.
It may also ease cost of repair. Unbolt old armor set, rebolt replacement armor. Reload and send vehicle out again.
looks weird….id take an abrams anyday
Awesome! Looks almost as lethal, affordable and practical as the Imperial AT-AT walkers in Star Wars.
It's even nearly the same height…
Looks like those Antennas and sensors are going to get shot off, lol.
The contract should include that it will mandentory for the design staff and corporate managers of this armored fighting vehicle to man the lead vehicles when they first go into combat to insure that they are absolutely confident in this product that they are trying to sell to the American people. If they come back alive after participating in actual combat, toe-to-toe with a real enemy, then the government will concider if the vehicle actually performed as promised, Then the government will decide if they will procede with full planned production and actually pay for them. The vendor must fund all prototype developement work and fund the vehicles that will be tried out in combat test. The government will only pay when all the bugs have been worked out and verified in a real combat test utilizing vendor personell as the testing crewmen. Until proven worthy, the government will not spend one thin dime. Our servicemen deserve the very best in the way of equipment as their very lives depend on what these civilian contractors try to sell to our government. It's cheaper and more cost effective to modify proven designs to fit our needs as the Marines did with the LAV-25, etc. I also like what DB-1 said!!
Except the humvee replacement for occupation duty was the MRAP. The JLTV almost became another MRAP until they eliminated some of the armor requirements to keep the costs down. The JLTV will probably be better than a humvee, but not as good as an MRAP. Agreed that the Bradley and Abrams training needs to be a high priority. I can only imagine how much those skills have atrophied over the years of non-use.
Except they've been quite specific that the JLTV won't replace the armor protection provided by MRAPs. That's how they claim they cut the cost down from $500k to $250k per JLTV. The humvee was replaced by the MRAP because the humvee wasn't designed for what we used it for. I definitely concur that Bradley and Abrams training has diminished over the years with the entire army being on occupation duties in OIF/OEF.
The MRAPs in our employment are like the gun trucks of Vietnam. Road-bound, as noted elsewhere. Humvees have a modicum of off-road mobility.
However, we keep lots of Humvees around for utility and shoehorned them into roles in Iraq. If we'd had more MRAPs, we could keep lighter Humvees around, but on the FOB and inside the wire.
Yah, a company, that's nothing. Again, that's an emergency. Some were talking about logistics and not being able to move them by air, but that is not how we move large amounts of armor. This thing is an assault vehicle for your typical force on force high end combat.
We are still going to have MRAPs, the JLTV to follow. We are going to have the AMPV vehicles as well. We are going to have Strykers, this is not going to be replacing anything other than the Bradleys.
In the end, I guess they assume since the Abrams can't exactly cross every bridge out there that they need bridge layers…may as well make the IFVs the same weight.
I wonder if the CFV variant will be equally bloated. Then again, it'll likely just carry less people while being effectively the same chassis.
It can be fired while buttoned up but not reloaded
Ah, like the RWS mount on a Stryker? Or did they fix that…?
Stryker is based on the Piranha III. The LAV is based on the even older and lighter design.
Perhaps extending the Bradley would be a good place to start.
Uh, check your sources. The Stryker is based on the LAV III (we borrowed a bunch to test the concept back in the late 90's/early '00s. The LAV III is based on the Piranha.
LAV-25 derives from Piranha I, LAV III derives from Piranha III, Stryker derives from LAV III which has few modifications from the Piranha. I don't think anybody is going to deny the origins of these vehicles from the MOWAG vehicle (though MOWAG is now GDLS Europe, LAV III is now made by GDLS Canada, which is also making the Strykers).
They may also be looking at Israeli experiences using heavy IFVs and their 65t merkava's troop compartment.
Gilad Schalit was fished out of a Merkava when they ripped a hole into the troop compartment via RPG. Whereas if he had been in an Abrams, it might be harder to get into a buttoned-up Abrams…