A commenter made this statement on a previous post.
H.G. Rickover said... No IFV will weigh up to 70 tons, Sol. That is an exaggeration.He also used this Army Times article to back up his assertions...
Armor 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.
“We’re looking at a vehicle that ranges in weight between 50 and 70 tons,” Chiarelli said Wednesday at the Army’s armor conference.The Army has been walking back the weight on this vehicle ever since people got wind of it and collectively said WTF!!!!
He said he’s been involved in some heated discussions lately about the GCV and the debate “always comes down to the weight of the vehicle.”
Critics point out that at 70 tons, the GCV would be the heaviest infantry fighting vehicle in existence and as heavy as the Abrams tank. Chiarelli said the extra weight in armor protection would be used only when needed.
“We’re not talking about a 70-ton vehicle, we’re talking about a 70-ton vehicle when we need it,” Chiarelli said.
As a matter of fact, my buddy Johnathan (it would be nice if you included the author and publication!) sent me an article where the Army Chief of Staff is quoted as saying that he wants the GCV to weigh less than projected.
Parts of the Army is aware that this is a non-starter. Parts of the Army is disturbed by the possibility of having a vehicle that will not be strategically mobile.
Parts of the Army (it appears) wants a different set of requirements.
The curse of FCS strikes again.
But back to the point of this entire exercise. The GCV is slated to weigh up to 70 tons. That my friends is a fact.
70t is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThe GCV PEO should read up on the CV90 Armadillo variant -
"CV90 Armadillo has horizontal ballistic protection well above the NATO STANAG 4569 Level 5 standard and can withstand a mine blast of significantly above 10kg. It also features the Saab LEDS-150 hard kill device and an external fire suppression system."
- and all that at <30t !!!
i'm with you.
ReplyDeletei'm in love with the CV90 armadillo and to be honest i'm anxious to see what they could do to upgrade new built AAV's...maybe evolution might be a better way than revolution (EFV)
oh and the CV90 would make an ideal Marine Personnel Carrier!
Glad to be mentioned by name, Sol.
ReplyDeleteThe picture you post is an IAI Nammer, by the way.
the Namer is one of the vehicles being placed in contention for the GCV contract.
ReplyDeletei'm well aware of the vehicles that are posted on my page.
Sorry about that. If you're referring to "U.S. Army Chief Casey: Make GCV Lighter" from last Monday, it was in the electronic version of Defense News, so there's no link. The author - who was included, by the way - is Matthew Cox.
ReplyDeleteUnless I forget, I always include the link to the articles I send, except for the electronic DN articles that go out on Mondays.
thanks Johnathan...i've been wanting to highlight that bad boy all week!
ReplyDeleteIf they really have a 70 ton vehicle it HAS to hold a full squad inside. Otherwise it will be a waste of resources. How much more evidence to we need that Pentagon planners have no demonstrated capacity to think? We seem to be getting back to Soviet philosophy of "Simplify, Add Weight" as the solution to all problems...
ReplyDelete