Ground Combat Vehicle

[Waylander]

Errrh, what?
I understand that for the Israelis such a factory is benefitial. They may loose some jobs at home but are able to use FMS for procuring their Namers.

But the US buying a complete off the shelve design?
Using a normal Namer would mean that the HBCTs have to change the employment of their mech infantry back to M113 times just with better armor.

After their experiences in '91 and '03 I doubt that the US Army goes back to using pure (H)APCs instead of IFVs.
IMO this would be a step back for the Army.

But maybe they speculate that with a Namer production line being active in the US they get an advantage over the other bidders.

Billions of dollars spent and now such an idea...

 

[eckherl]

With the versatile design concept inregards to Namer I would not be surprised that some of the platform benefits/capabilities will not be used for our future projects nor would I not be surprised in the very least if we did not implement the Namer in our force structure as a specialized tactical vehicle platform. With General Dynamics building them outright in the U.S on a logistical stand point it may not be too painful. I have had plenty of what are they thinking kind of moments in the last few years in regards to where the U.S Army wants to be as a force structure. Yes, billions of dollars squandered without major advancements as far as serial production, that project shelf is running out of room and its time to implement.

 

[Feanor]

There's nothing stopping GD from designing a combat module for the Namer... effectively turning it from a haevy APC into an IFV.

 

[eckherl]

Yes, this is something that General Dynamics is fully capable of doing.

 

[SuperP]

Well, building the Namer in the US would help sustain jobs. Also, the US production lines offer better production and tighter tolerances than what the israeli's have.
I have been arguing (in my circles) for some time that we should look at implementing a limited number of HAFVs into our formations for very specific high threat tactical situations (breaches, urban, etc.) and make the GCV just a better Bradley (not a 75ton IFV). Sure, we are tlaking about adding another vehicle to the formations, but with a right strategy, we could involve commonality of parts within/across the formations to reduce the logistical trail. Commander's will have the flexibility to use the different platforms as necessary.

 

[Waylander]

A Namer with an unmanned turret on it is going to be nearly as heavy as a M1A2 while the dismount capacity is going to be reduced.
I doubt that a non penetrating system like the 30mm/Spike combo from Rafael is an option so I expect a real unmanned or manned turret like the Lance from Rheinmetall.
So there will be a penetration into the crew compartment, even if it's just a small one. Add to that the needed gunner and commander and you could very well be down to 7 dismounts.

So you got an extremely well protected but heavy and big IFV.
Nothing bad but one has to be aware that if such an IFV is not able to enter certain areas due to weight and/or dimension issues the next best thing the army has is the Stryker...

Maybe a more modular design is the better solution for the US Army.

Nevertheless they could choose worse designs as a base than the Namer.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A few points on the topic of American Namer and the GCV. The project to build Namers in the USA is a lot more than just using American FMF to pay for it. Tel Ha Shomer can not meet the demand the IDF currently has for Merkavas and Namers (another 300 + 700). It would take them far to long (decades) to build them all without substantial investment in new production capital. Lima on the other hand has all the plant you could need and no shortage of labour.

As to GDLS offering the Namer for GCV if they want to they could easily meet the requirements of GCV within the Namer design. Weight is not an issue because most of this is in variable protection levels which are a lot higher in the IDF than the baseline for GCV. Also every Merkava has a few pounds it could easily lose by going from steel spring suspension to hydrogas. Rubber band tracks would also save more weight. These running gear changes would save around 5-6 tonnes per tank. The advantage of the Namer over Puma and XM1200 spin offs is in scaling down rather than scaling up so you can’t overload the platform. You just have to look at that BAES dog’s breakfast to see what overloading means.

Namer could also easily be fitted with a manned turret. There is more than enough space inside for a two man turret and nine dismount seats. Currently the Namer only has eight dismount seats in two inwards facing rows but they are so far apart you can lie down between them. You can’t do that in a Puma or Bradley.

As to its mobility it would be the same as a tank. Weight is less of a problem than width. Namer is wider than most IFVs being a full tank width. But this is the price for survivability and enough under armour volume to do the mission without compromise.

 

[Feanor]

What kind of combat module are we talking about, that would make a non-penetrating turret impossible? Something similar to the current 25mm Bushmaster on the LAVs? Or something bigger then that?