So, as I have not been able to find a thread about the new planned US Army Ground Combat Vehicle I thought that it is worth a new thread. I know it's not nearly as interesting as the 10th thread about thr noise level of the F35 or the 15th thread about Australias SHornets but hey, let the ground guys have some fun too...
Let's first start with the contenders.
In other news the US Army stated that the weight has to be somewhere between 50-70 tons (don't ask me which kind of tons, I assume US ones).
After a decade of talks about the FCS and how this light and supernetworked platform is going to change the battlefield of the future we are back on track. I also remember some very intense discussions on this board between the "FCS strong" crowd and the ones who were sceptical about it.
Now it looks like the US finally realised that one doesn't get the desired protection and survivability without alot of armor.
With KMW and Rheinmetall the SAIC-consortium is the only one who has foreign expertise in the race. But at least this time the europeans have Boeing on their side...
I would expect that the experience with and maturity of the Puma system gives SAIC a distinct advantage to come out with a working prototype quite fast.
What I find interesting is that nobody tried to team up with the Israelis to bring in the Namer. In the end this baby is also quite close to the specs if one bolts an unmanned turret with an AC and some ATGMs onto it.
I for one welcome the new sense of reality in the US Army and look forward to an interesting competition with lots of fine prototypes.
Hopefully they don't try to goldplate the final product too much...
I like the idea of some heavy passive protection coupled with a good dismount capability and modern battlefield management systems. The only problem could be the size of the vehicle as it might slightly constrict it's maneuverability in confinded spaces like urban areas or heavy wood. Nevertheless I think that it is the right way to go.
What are your expectations and thoughts about this new program?
Let's first start with the contenders.
Source: GCV shortlist revealed | Shephard GroupGCV shortlist revealed
May 21, 2010
Contenders for the technology development (TD) phase of the US Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) programme have been confirmed as the Request for Proposals (RfP) reached its deadline today.
Despite the US Army being unable to comment on the final shortlist due to ‘federal regulations governing source selection’, LWI can confirm that there are at least three consortiums bidding for the contract.
General Dynamics has confirmed that it has teamed up with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Company and MTU Detroit Diesel while other contenders include a BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman teaming agreement, which was announced on 2 March; and a SAIC-led consortium which includes Boeing, Krauss Maffei Wegman and Rheinmetall Defence Systems.
With Northrop Grumman providing C4ISR elements, BAE Systems told LWI that its offering would comprise an ‘integrated electronic network capability and embedded intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets to connect warfighters’.
Meanwhile, General Dynamics said its design drew on ‘mature technologies to provide survivability, soldier capacity, network interoperability, mobility and lethality that is unmatched by any existing ground combat vehicle’. Lockheed Martin will design the turret while Raytheon will concentrate on sensor integration. MTU Detroit Diesel will be responsible for the propulsion system.
Finally, the SAIC-led consortium will offer a variation of the KMW and Rheinmetall Puma IFV with Boeing providing mission systems capabilities and lethal and non-lethal precision engagement systems.
Industry sources also suggested that Oshkosh trucks, Force Protection, Navistar and AM General could also be interested in the programme. However, none of these companies was available to comment on whether they were involved in any separate bids.
Parties now have a 27-month period in which to test and mature subcomponents and other material elements of the designs prior to a Milestone B decision in FY 2013. The subsequent Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase would run through the first quarter of FY 2016, and include delivery of the first prototype vehicle in FY 2015.
Initiated on 25 February, the RfP was delayed by 25 days in order to allow industry more time to provide the most ‘robust’ solutions for its next-generation of IFVs.
Requirements include a system capable of transporting an infantry squad with the protection of a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle or above; and increased off-road mobility compared to Bradley IFVs and Stryker infantry carrier vehicles. A tracked vehicle is also expected, according to industry’s interpretation of these requirements.
The winning vehicle will also comprise a modular armour solution and be transportable by C-17 and rail. The army would not comment on a gross vehicle weight and the spokesman said it would wait to see what technical solutions for survivability and transportability industry would put forward.
Andrew White, London
In other news the US Army stated that the weight has to be somewhere between 50-70 tons (don't ask me which kind of tons, I assume US ones).
After a decade of talks about the FCS and how this light and supernetworked platform is going to change the battlefield of the future we are back on track. I also remember some very intense discussions on this board between the "FCS strong" crowd and the ones who were sceptical about it.
Now it looks like the US finally realised that one doesn't get the desired protection and survivability without alot of armor.
With KMW and Rheinmetall the SAIC-consortium is the only one who has foreign expertise in the race. But at least this time the europeans have Boeing on their side...
I would expect that the experience with and maturity of the Puma system gives SAIC a distinct advantage to come out with a working prototype quite fast.
What I find interesting is that nobody tried to team up with the Israelis to bring in the Namer. In the end this baby is also quite close to the specs if one bolts an unmanned turret with an AC and some ATGMs onto it.
I for one welcome the new sense of reality in the US Army and look forward to an interesting competition with lots of fine prototypes.
Hopefully they don't try to goldplate the final product too much...
I like the idea of some heavy passive protection coupled with a good dismount capability and modern battlefield management systems. The only problem could be the size of the vehicle as it might slightly constrict it's maneuverability in confinded spaces like urban areas or heavy wood. Nevertheless I think that it is the right way to go.
What are your expectations and thoughts about this new program?