DefenseNews has an outstanding article on the direction of future Infantry Fighting Vehicle development in the US. Read it here.
After years of fighting side-by-side in MRAP armored vehicles, the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps are striking out in different directions.This whole issue is fascinating.
The Army is making vehicle and crew survivability its main priority in its Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program, while the Marine Corps is determined to reclaim its role as an expeditionary force that relies on lighter vehicles that can quickly be transported around the world.
The diverging paths return the two services to their definitional roles, but they also represent fundamentally different perspectives on how forces should fight - and could undercut the services' joint effort to build a replacement for tens of thousands of Humvee utility vehicles.
"We need to get lighter," Lt. Gen. George Flynn, commander of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, told reporters June 3 at the Pentagon. "And sometimes, when you look at your vehicle strategy, you have to take a look at the environment that you're going to operate in. There's a protection that comes from mobility. If you can move fast and if you can move on unpredictable routes, you can not necessarily armor up as much."
The Army, on the other hand, has set very aggressive protection requirements for its GCV, which is now expected to be tracked and weigh 50 to 70 tons.
There's really no way around 50-plus tons when a vehicle has to carry 12 soldiers, have a gun turret, and accept upgradable armor as IEDs get better, said one source familiar with the program.
Critics point out that at 70 tons, the GCV would be the heaviest infantry fighting vehicle in existence - as heavy as the Abrams tank.
A couple of points.
1. This is more proof that the Stryker concept is dead.
2. The US Army is serious about fielding an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that will weigh MORE than a LeClerc Main Battle Tank!
3. The EFV will be much smaller and lighter than the projected Army vehicle. There is no way that this program...as currently planned....can be joint. At one time Army officials stated that they would consider the EFV for this requirement. That didn't last long.
4. Wow.
Um, about that A400m/C-130J-30 thing again... :)
ReplyDeleteBoeing will be laughing all the way to the bank, if future combat vehicles turn out similar to the US Army's preference...
but isnt this kind of concept good, with the army and marines going on different paths, gives us different capabilities based on the situation.
ReplyDeleteSheez, 50-70t... Better keep that C-17 production line open...
ReplyDeleteAussie Digger...right you are. they're going to sell tons more of those if they actually follow through with this program. and the growth won't be with the US, it'll be with foreign services that attempt to switch to the new 'coolness' of it all.
ReplyDeleteJoe...i love the difference in the two services but i also think that where we can share equipment its a win for both and the budget.
Marcase...along with AD you're spot on...i wonder if Boeing had advance knowledge of this new direction?
The SAIC-Boeing-Rheinmettal GVC offering is based on the Puma IFV and will weigh full load about 50 tons.
ReplyDeletegood to know...thanks.
ReplyDeleteany idea who's going to be offering the NAMER for US service?