BAE's response to the GAO report....
"We continue to support the U.S. Army's efforts in developing the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program, which was created from the ground up to meet a specific set of requirements and an ever-changing threat on the battlefield. The Army's Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) completed last year supports the development of the GCV program and confirmed that there are currently no existing vehicles that would cost less and meet the GCV program requirements. The characteristics of the notional GCV used in the Congressional Budget Office study do not reflect the capabilities of the BAE Systems GCV design, which is significantly more lethal, survivable, and mobile than any of the alternatives discussed. In addition, the development work accomplished by BAE Systems under IRAD prior to and during the Technology Development phase has mitigated the development risk attributed to the GCV program in the report. We are focusing our efforts on building a highly survivable, lethal, mobile, affordable and adaptable platform that will serve our customer today and well into the future. We will continue to work closely with the U.S. Army as the program requirements continue to evolve."
We've already hit on the subject of how the GAO "messed up" with regards to the firepower assessment, I have no idea how they measured mobility...especially without being able to put the vehicles in the mud and survivability sounds like a wild ass guess too.
What I found interesting in the BAE response is that they didn't tout the savings in fuel costs that the Army would gain with their Hybrid engine. Quite honestly with all the Greenies in the current administration I would expect that to be a major selling point. If it works as advertised they could be looking at replacing the engine packages in all the heavy armored vehicles in the Army and Marine Corps...but they didn't bite. I wonder why.
The CBO did the report, not the GAO.
ReplyDeleteFuel savings will be a big deal for logistics as well, not just greenie issues! Seriously the amount of manpower dedicated to putting fuel into theatre and then to the frontline is insane.
ReplyDeleteCounter-insurgency tank with troops carrying capability is better describing it(high elevation auto-cannon and airburst munition to hit goat-herders on rooftops and everywhere, RPG and 0.50 cal protection from all sides, high mass and armored bottom to defeat IED's).
ReplyDeleteBig tank gun absence can be compensated by precision air strikes and artillery support. And additional space for troops can be used to carry fuel and ammo supply. Looks like true workhorse of future army.
CBO also made another error (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44044). CBO squeezed 7 additional soldiers in one Bradley and just used the number of additional soldiers a German PUMA can carry: six. Six is the size of a German Army fire team. Beneath the unmanned turret there is space filled with a rack on German PUMA. http://www.panzergrenadierbataillon52.de/imgdb/details.php?image_id=438 and http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/Puma.html.
ReplyDeleteTherefore the PUMA has at least space for 8 additional soldiers. By squeezing them in like 7 in one Bradley 10 are possible in one PUMA.
Hybrid technique is overrated. You can save gas in an urban stop-and-go traffic but just driving straight won’t save you any fuel with a hybrid engine. The advantage of an electric drive is you can put the engine anywhere and you can use easily more than one engine. BAE uses two engines at the back. For a real hybrid drive you need also batteries. Lead acid batteries are heavy and ask Boeing about the use of high power Lithium batteries on an aircraft. Even the latest submarines use lead batteries for some reason. The two engines sit on top of the track. The back gets higher and the turret will have a two big blind spot the back.
Well the BAE IFV uses techniques like a submarine. If this IFV can move short distance just on battery power only it is a submarine on tracks. No need for a bridge in open terrain but within a city FUBAR. Because on many occasions within cities you won’t even notice that you drive on a bridge. A heavy GCV will detect them easily.