via Janes.
Combat weight could be more than 60 tonnes because of the high levels of protection required as a result of operational experience in Iraq and more recently Afghanistan. With such a heavy platform, there will be constraints as to where the vehicle can be deployed. It is expected that the GCV will be fitted with a remote-controlled turret armed with a 30/40mm ATK MK44 cannon and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.I am so happy to see the "experts" finally weighing in on this concepts extreme weight. Foss is the first of (I believe others will join him) many voices raising concerns about the strategic mobility of this vehicle.
As a side note, I wasn't aware that the Puma was 42 tons...a better option might be to simply upgrade Bradley's. This GCV concept is sounding more and more like a terrible idea.
The armor can be added and replaced on site. This also allows the armor to evolve independently yet alongside the vehicle itself, much like the Merkava concept.
ReplyDeleteAPS would help too.
modularity is a joke and a sad selling point. the reality of the situation is this. even before loading it up with weapons/fuel and the gear that the infantry will be carrying you're going to be around 50 tons.
ReplyDeletea 50 ton infantry vehicle is huge. a 50 ton fighting vehicle lacks strategic mobility and the current ships, aircraft and logistics chain is not capable of sustaining it.
you're going to have to redesign every aspect of the US military transport infrastructure to transport it and the logistics of this will be insane.
my prediction. in its current form this ain't happening.
Modular armor has been Merkava's proving point since 1980's.
ReplyDeleteWeight restriction only matters in transport and in crossing large body of water.
Modular armor and, to greater extend, APS have been designed and fielded specifically to address both the evolving threat & the 'weight gain'.
My predictions: These two are the leading trends of the future combat vehicle design.
well lets talk about the logistics of adding on that armor in theater...
ReplyDeleteeven if you transport this vehicle at its lightest...50tons or so and you decide that you have to add the "modular" armor then when you get to theater you're going to have to establish a logistics chain just to add that stuff to your vehicles...and not every environment is going to have a Kuwait available to do this stuff on ....
so you're transporting (lets be generous) an additional 10-15 tons of extra armor separately from the vehicles themselves but you're having to add it ...that takes manpower if they're small plates or it takes a depot if its large...those are all non starters...
looks like we agree to disagree...but remember this. 10 years ago everyone thought the Stryker was a good idea too.
Vehicles [and soldiers, aircraft, etc] are geared and armored in proportion to the nature and level of threat that they are likely to face in theater.
ReplyDeleteThat's whole point of being modular.
geez guy you're not making any sense. that's a given.
ReplyDeleteby your way of thinking we can have armored vehicles that weigh 100 tons.
its a freaking balance between mobility, protection and firepower.
that's been the case since armored vehicles were first developed.
sorry Rickover, but arguments for arguments sake don't make sense. that's APA nonsense.
AT threats are evolving; so are passive and active protection systems. Think big, but be realistic. Cheers man.
ReplyDeleteand how exactly are AT threats evolving? they've been static for the last 20 years if you're talking missiles.
ReplyDeletewhats new is IEDs....and the fact of the matter is this. COIN fails when it comes to dealing with the threat because the doctrine doesn't allow you to go after the bomb makers in a coherent and effective way.
COIN places your forces on the defensive and that's why they're so hard to win...you don't go after the enemy, you wait for their best shots on your forces....the GCV plays into that thinking.
it lacks strategic mobility, it will strain logistics and it will lead to bigger bombs being used by the bad guys...even M1's have been knocked out by IEDs...
Cheers.
I doubt its possible but can we go the way of the IDF and modify the chassis of a turret-less Abrams? Maybe put a diesel power pack in instead of the gas turbine.
ReplyDeletei'm not sure but i think the turret of an abrams comes in at around 20 to 30 tons.
ReplyDeleteonce you move the engine, make the structure taller (to allow the carrying of infantry) and add in a RWS, i'd bet you'd gain about 10 tons back.
the expense of it would be outrageous and a new built dedicated vehicle would probably be cheaper and be more effective but that's just my thoughts....you might be right.
There are in fact a few turretless Abrams variants (eg Grizzly CMV, Assault Breacher Vehicle), suggesting that there's enough room inside the chassis for modification. Dismounting such a troop carrier under fire would probably be hazardous, though: over the top vs from the rear.
ReplyDeleteRe-engining a modern MBT has been easier than before. The power pack (engine + transmission) is essentially a modular and easily replaceable unit.
Oops....
ReplyDeleteAssault Breacher Vehicle has a turret, a huge one.
A 60-ton IFV is a joke, why not just go the Israeli way and use a tank chassis? Hell why not just buy a bunch of Namer's? Fire support in the 60-ton category could be far better provided by simply using full size tanks which wont be far ahead in weight. What is the point of the GCV then? Its not air-mobile, and at 60-tons it sure wont be too ground mobile either without serious engine hardware. Waste of money...almost as much as the useless blimps they've just dropped half a billion on....
ReplyDeletehey Anonymous...the Namer is in the contest!
ReplyDeletebut i agree with 100%...you're exactly right.
if US refused trophy before, what makes you think they will consider namer. dream on.
ReplyDeleteone reason is if the Army actually follows through with this program then its the only vehicle that fits out the box...
ReplyDeletesecondly, Israel is transferring production of the Namer to the US ... thats why you see the Merkava being sold at Eurosatory.
lastly trophy was deemed too unreliable and not yet proven. it performed better than comparable US systems but not good enough. from what i understand they perfected it since then.
The Puma seems to actually be a fairly innovative design. But with all the problems the Europeans seem to be having with getting equipment off the drawing board and into production its too risky until the Germans get their hands on substantial numbers and prove their reliability. Btw can anyone shed light on the European's recent troubles in defense equipment tech? I am personally inclined to point fingers at the Thales in particular and the French in general but would love to know the root cause of the problems...
ReplyDeleteThe Germans have been building effective and innovative armoured vehicles for a long time and the Puma is no different.
ReplyDeleteWhen they started the Puma project they looked at their transport infrastructure which was going/is going to be largely based around the A400. Hence the modular armour. It allows the basic configuration to be air transportable in the only large aircraft they have, yet can be up armoured in theatre using follow on transport.
Its an elegant and sensible solution that looks at practical considerations and builds around them.
As the commenter says above, you can also develop armour independently to the vehicle, there is a lot of research going on with electric armour at the minute.
The remote turret allows the crew (inc driver) to sit in a single space, unlike most other similar vehicles. This reduces complexity and improves situational awareness.
The vehicle is packed with other innovations and given the track record (no pun intended!) of its forebears, I can't see any reason why it will not be a success. Reliability wise, it uses a proven off the shelf transmission and powerpack.
It does have a small passenger capacity though, reflective of German doctrine.
I like it, I think it would have been a much more appropriate vehicle for the UK FRES Scout than the ASCOD2 that won.
It would seem strange that the US is going for a vehicle that seems to fly in the face of its logistic reality but if you look at the weight of a Theatre Entry Spec (TES) UK Warrior you are looking at just over 40 tonnes so who knows!
You can bend the edges of the law of mobility/protection/firepower but in general, it stands so in going for protection you are self evidently limiting one of the the other two.
i get what you're saying ThinkDefence but 70 tons? and how do you put that armor on the vehicle once you're in combat if you're in a nonpermissive environment?
ReplyDeletewhat if we don't have huge bases like in Afghanistan or a friendly nation just over the border like a Kuwait?
it means that you either transport it heavy or you leave the armor behind...either way turns into a pain...you're transporting an IFV as heavy as a tank...
or you're transporting an IFV almost as heavy as a tank...and still have to transport its bolt on armor.
its a mess.
There are, of course, alternatives to armored or HH steel that would lighten the vehicles, but those materials are a lot more expensive.
ReplyDeleteNo IFV will weigh up to 70 tons, Sol. That is an exaggeration.
ReplyDeleteArmor adds weight, but not in the same manner as old-fashioned steel plates. Besides, APS is a sound attempt to reverse the weight-gain spiral.
Trophy and IronFist are both mature APS currently being adapted across IDF armor fleet.
MT883 Ka500 (aka EuroPowerPack) is a beaut: compact, modular and powerful.
ReplyDeleteMerk4/Namer, Challenger 2E and the proposed Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle all use derivatives of the 880's.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1486.html
Rickover....
ReplyDeletefollow the story on the Army's GCV. they've said themselves that it will weigh up to 70 tons.
no exaggeration.
no inflation of numbers.
thats the planning. sorry but that's the facts.
Perhaps a better interpretation on the '70 ton' requirement:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/05/army_gcv_weight_052010w/
now you're trying to play word games.
ReplyDeletethe vehicle will weigh 70 tons when needed is a twisting of facts.
it will weigh 70 tons, it will be a bitch to move and it doesn't make sense.
the article doesn't give a better explanation it just confirmed what i said.
Word game? Let me know if you have anything better to say.
ReplyDeleteoh i did....
ReplyDelete