Posted on 05/01/2018 6:32:10 PM PDT by Simon Green
The U.S. Army's top official said Tuesday that the service's Next Generation Combat Vehicle program will focus first on fielding a replacement for the Bradley fighting vehicle.
Building a fleet of NGCVs to replace the M1 tank and the Bradley is the Army's second-highest modernization priority.
Over the last six months, Army leaders have stressed that NGCVs will have to be manned as well as unmanned, but Army Secretary Mark Esper revealed that the service will focus first on the "new infantry fighting vehicle, which is what the first Next Generation Combat Vehicle will be."
"It should provide us with a great deal of capability with our armored formations," Esper told an audience at the Atlantic Council.
This is not the first time the Army has attempted to replace the Cold War-era infantry fighting vehicle. It was four years ago that the service killed its last effort to replace the Bradley, known as the Ground Combat Vehicle program.
The Army launched the GCV program in 2009 shortly after the Pentagon canceled the service's Future Combat Systems program -- a multi-billion-dollar modernization effort that included manned ground vehicles designed to replace the M1, Bradley and other legacy combat vehicles.
Replacing the Bradley then became the Army's top modernization priority. The first prototype was designed to carry a nine-soldier squad; it featured a hybrid drive engine for greater power and an active protection system designed to defeat enemy missiles. It was heavy, though, with a base weight of approximately 53 tons.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
First question. Is it IED proof?
Are they as wide as a small Toyota pickup. If not they’ll only be good in the US.
At 53 tons it seems it could easily get stuck in mud or sand.
Almost 20 years ago, the army was pushing the Future Combat System which included many new armored vehicles. It ran into trouble and seemed terribly expensive, so it was cancelled by Rumsfeld.
I wonder if maybe that was a mistake.
But, bottom line — DOD acquisition is really broken and anything they try to buy is going to cost too much and take too long. I know Trump is a little busy at the moment, but if he could reform acquisitions it would be huge.
How will this take? Ten years until a prototype is developed, five years after that for tests, another eight years until it’s mass-produced?
There is no such thing. You build one to withstand 50# they use 75#, etc, etc.
The Miners are always ahead of the ant-Miners!
Have you ever seen a M1 hull upside down in the middle of the road with the turret in a ditch? There is no such thing as an IED proof vehicle.
In the case of the Bradley, from proposal to the first units being equipped took 11 years.
It cannot be IED proof. Iran, putin’s ally, used shape charges to kill many Americans in Abrams tanks. A nations state, like Iran, allied with a state prostrated to the will of an autocrat like putin, can dedicate its resources to produce many IEDs that will defeat armor. The mad mullahs, allied with putin, will get plenty of support in the political arena too from the putinista bitch brigade.
There’s a place for armor still, but there sure are a lot of new things that can neutralize it.
Leftovers from FCS moved on, for example the Ground Combat Vehicle, which too was cancelled. Before FCS, the Army tried Armored System Modernization, cancelled when the cold war "ended." A good system was cancelled just before product; the XM8 Armored Gun System. It was to replace the M551 Sheridan, which is gone without a replacement.
The Army hasn't done well with major ground systems since the end of the Reagan/Bush era. Don't count on that changing.
If I remember correctly, the South Africans had some great wheeled APC’s that were almost land mine proof.
At some point you are going to have to fight another conventional war against a standing army with MBT’s... not every war will be against insurgents with IEDs.
Not saying MBT’s are the best to use against insurgents either, but tank crews still had a much higher survival rate than lesser armored vehicles against IEDs.
You know that’s a lot bigger than an early WWII tank.
How will this take?
Get a copy of “the pentagon wars” movie.
“If I remember correctly, the South Africans had some great wheeled APC’s that were almost land mine proof.”
The keyword is “almost”.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.