Com-Central.net

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:17 pm Post subject: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) news

Hi Folks!

Ran acrossed this news story.

www.army-technology.co...programme/

So the Army is going to test a General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) built Namer AIFV, a BAE Systems Swedish CV90, turret-less Bradley M2A3
and GD Stryker double-V-hull vehicle.

Interesting!

Anyone what to take bets on what willl happien?

Here is mine:
1. The GCV program will not get funded after the testing is completed.
2. The Stryker double-V-hull will be selected because it will be the cheapest.
The one bad point I can think of is this one would require new vehicles.
3. My last pick would be the turret-less Bradley.
Sense the GCV will replace some of the Bradleys, this one might be the cheapest becasue those Bradleys taken out of service could be used to build the new GCVs.
4. The CV-90 and the Namer will not be selected.
I know the US has been buying foreign equipment for a number of years. I just don't think during this time of high unemployment, Congress would buy a foreign build vehicle. Now if GDLS or BAE could build a plant in the US, then maybe they could get Congress to go with it.

That my 2 cents on the GCV program!
Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts out!

JimWeb

The GCV prototypes currently in low rate production are based on much modified Abrams hulls - probably why the Namer is in the test program

Pzkpfw-e · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jul 21, 2010 Posts: 1202

Let's hope for the sake of the troops, that they pick the right one and don't just think of pork-barrelling.

Smashy · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Aug 05, 2010 Posts: 112

The foreign kit is just there to have its best features cherry-picked

Neil_Baumgardner

BAE just released some graphics of its GCV concept

www.flickr.com/photos/...otostream/

www.baesystems.com/pro...ehicle-gcv

My take is I wouldnt be surprised if GCV got caught in the changing requirements cycle dilemma just like the FCS MGVs.

FCS was designed/developed for rapid deployment requirements in the pre-9/11 pre-COIN era. FCS lasted from ~1999 (contract award in 2003) until 2009, well into the 9/11 COIN era - cancelled in large part due to the need for more survivability in a high IED environment.

GCV started in ~2009/2010, focused on delivering just an IFV (despite Gates' comments about a fleet a vehicles) based on lessons learned from Iraq & Afghanistan. Now just two years later, the COIN era has already been declared to be over/ending and DOD is shifting focus to the Pacific - where, guess what, rapid deployment capabilities are a priority...

And meanwhile there is absolutely no stated plan for replacement of:
M1 Abrams, M3 Bradley CFV, M109 family. The first two are approaching 25 years in service, with no replacement on the horizon for another 10-15+ years. They're talking about shutting down Lima for Abrams upgrades (actual production of new hulls ended decades ago). Meanwhile, the M109 family is approaching 45 years in service, with yet another upgrade now underway...

Wouldnt be surprised if the GCV requirements/acquisition strategy undergo another shakeup - but hopefully it wont take 10 years and billions down the drain before that happens...

Neil

Pzkpfw-e · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jul 21, 2010 Posts: 1202

It's a government procurement, for the military.
It's bound to be
a) Years late
b) Hugely over budget
c) Not really what's required
Or am I just too cynical?

JimWeb

- Pzkpfw-e

It's a government procurement, for the military.
It's bound to be
a) Years late
b) Hugely over budget
c) Not really what's required
Or am I just too cynical?

Sounds about right Smile

bsmart

Given the budget cuts that are coming because Congress can't agree on a budget so the automatic budget cuts will kick in I don't see any major programs being funded in the next few years

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big