GCV on the Block

[lookieloo]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/10/21/army-considers-killing-ground-combat-vehicle-other-programs/

Twas never really a fan of this program.

 

[Damian]

Twas never really a fan of this program.

Why? It was a really well tought program, especially later when requirements were more refined. Not to mention that for example some reports were spoling lies about the program and vehicle requirements, especially that latest, big report from CBO I think. Which Army pointed out that vehicle presented there as notional GCV IFV was in fact vehicle represented by older, less refined requirements.

In fact it is pity that Obama's administration is forcing military to reduce budget and in the same time increase money waste on some idiotic social programs.

 

[pmaitra]

From the picture, it looks like a good successor to the Bradley. The side armours are enviable. I would, however, prefer a bigger gun, than the one I can see in the picture.

What is that "palm-tree" shaped instrument at the back?

 

[lookieloo]

Why?

Damn... I was hoping the first reply would be from some fanboy who just hates everything American, someone who'd save me the trouble of explaining what's wrong with the entire Bradley concept and why it doesn't need to be replaced with a similar vehicle.

In any case, here's my opinion (based in no small part on personal experience): The entire idea of an "Infantry-Fighting-Vehicle" seems overwrought, and I see little reason to have so much offensive capability in a platform for which the fundamental purpose if moving troops from point-A to point-B. Here's the rough version on what IS needed.

- Ability to carry 9 dismounts (a full squad) with adaptible levels of protection
- Ability to keep up with M-1 and other MBTs
- Ability to provide necessary electrical power for future subsystems (comms, sensors, and active-defense)

Here's what's not needed (in my opinion anyways).

- A manned turret (perhaps not any turret)
- Integral protection superior to the Bradley (perhaps not even equal)


PS. Full disclosure: guys like me tend to view ALL armored vehicles as Javelin-meat, leaving me somewhat biased in favor of lighter options that provide only basic protection from small-arms.

 

[lookieloo]

What is that "palm-tree" shaped instrument at the back?

I've seen them before. I believe it's some kind of sensor to detect the direction of incoming fire.

Edit: Yup, found it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_(countermeasure)

 

[pmaitra]

PS. Full disclosure: guys like me tend to view ALL armored vehicles as Javelin-meat, leaving me somewhat biased in favor of lighter options that provide only basic protection from small-arms.

That is a very pragmatic way to look at things. There is merit in the thought that investing too much and over-engineering a troop carrier is a waste of resources. I personally am a great admirer of the weasel based concept, although, that would be even smaller and more basic compared to the Bradley or GCV.

 

[lookieloo]

I personally am a great admirer of the weasel based concept, although, that would be even smaller and more basic compared to the Bradley or GCV.

Yeah, that's taking things a bit too far I think. GD is currently marketing a version of the Stryker with tracks and a V-hull; seems that would be good enough (to me at least).

 

[Damian]

Damn... I was hoping the first reply would be from some fanboy who just hates everything American, someone who'd save me the trouble of explaining what's wrong with the entire Bradley concept and why it doesn't need to be replaced with a similar vehicle.

There is nothing wrong with M2 Bradley concept. It is IFV - Infantry Fighting Vehicle, a next step in evolution of APC, and a very good step forward.

In fact there is no need for APC's any more as IFV do everything that APC is intended to do, and even more.

In any case, here's my opinion (based in no small part on personal experience): The entire idea of an "Infantry-Fighting-Vehicle" seems overwrought, and I see little reason to have so much offensive capability in a platform for which the fundamental purpose if moving troops from point-A to point-B.

No, the fundamental purpose for IFV is to move troops and support them in fight, APC can't do it, in fact APC's are obsolete for modern manouver warfare because of their low survivability and offensive capabilities compared to IFV's.

Here's the rough version on what IS needed.

- Ability to carry 9 dismounts (a full squad) with adaptible levels of protection
- Ability to keep up with M-1 and other MBTs
- Ability to provide necessary electrical power for future subsystems (comms, sensors, and active-defense)

And GCV will be designed with these things in mind.

Here's what's not needed (in my opinion anyways).

- A manned turret (perhaps not any turret)
- Integral protection superior to the Bradley (perhaps not even equal)

GCV IFV will not have manned turret, one of requirements is to have unmanned turret so 9 men squad can fit inside.

As for protection, why the hell you want to design a death trap for troops inside?

I completely do not understand this sort of strange obsession some people have to make every vehicle ultralight death trap for soldiers only for the same of being lightweight.

PS. Full disclosure: guys like me tend to view ALL armored vehicles as Javelin-meat, leaving me somewhat biased in favor of lighter options that provide only basic protection from small-arms.

Again wrong. FGM-148 is not a superweapon, in fact it is possible to have reliable and effective protection against such threats. Also there are active protection systems allready avaiable that can provide reliable protection against top attack threats.

And there is more, we can even make vehicle camouflaged in thermal vision, so Javelin will not be even capable to lock on to it, and the solution is allready there, cheap and simple in form of multispectral camouflage paints manufactured by Intermat, or multispectral camouflage nets like Saab Barracuda.

GD is currently marketing a version of the Stryker with tracks and a V-hull; seems that would be good enough (to me at least).

No, GDLS is both developing a GCV IFV of their own, that is competing against BAE GCV, while tracked Stryker is proposal for AMPV program to replace these obsolete coffins designated M113.

From the picture, it looks like a good successor to the Bradley. The side armours are enviable. I would, however, prefer a bigger gun, than the one I can see in the picture.

It is very early concept image of BAE GCV, final product will look different.

Also GCV will be armed with a more potent main armament. Currently US Army informed that it will be 30mm automatic cannon, but because GCV use unmanned turret, even bigger automatic cannon can be installed.

Also it is unknown if GCV IFV will have ATGM, if yes, then it could be a TOW, or a new Javelin variant with extended range that is currently in development phase.

As for the GCV itself, people also do not understand that in basic configuration, GCV IFV will weight not that much, approx 40 to 50 metric tons, but vehicle will be designed with scallable modular armor, so when addon armor will be installed, it's weight will increase slightly above 60 tons, and the maximum weight that suspension will be able to handle, will be around 65 to 70+ tons.

Besides this, after Iraq and Afghanistan, it become obvious for US Army high command that lighter vehicles does not provide any survivability both in conventional and assymetric conflicts, this is why there is so much emphasiz on survivability improvements.

M1 received armor upgrades, and new armor package is in development.
M2 received armor upgrades, currently with whole addon armor package installed, M2 weights more than 30 tons.
Stryker also received armor upgrades, from a relatively lightweight vehicle weighting below 20 tons, it's weight will increase above 20 tons.
M113 will be replaced with heavier, better protected AMPV.
HMMWV will be replaced with heavier, better protected JLTV.
Even trucks are receivining survivability improvements to reduce casualties among logistics.

 

[lookieloo]

Again wrong. FGM-148 is not a superweapon, in fact it is possible to have reliable and effective protection against such threats. Also there are active protection systems allready avaiable that can provide reliable protection against top attack threats.

And there is more, we can even make vehicle camouflaged in thermal vision, so Javelin will not be even capable to lock on to it, and the solution is allready there, cheap and simple in form of multispectral camouflage paints manufactured by Intermat, or multispectral camouflage nets like Saab Barracuda.

Have you even looked through a CLU before? As for "deathtraps"... As I've already mentioned, that term applies to all armored vehicles so far as I'm concerned, even if they're heavier than an M-1 like the GCV is. As for thermal-camouflage, the laws of thermodynamics say "no"; and those neat thermal-cloaking systems you read about on the gadget websites will only work until whatever's being used as a heat-sink is saturated... and they're heavy (yet more weight). As for active protection systems... well, that actually validates my points about vehicle weight; it's not really necessary to be so damn heavy when you can just shoot-down incoming ordnance.

Also, I'd like to have your source about the GCV's turret.

 

[Damian]

Have you even looked through a CLU before?

I know the principle, and it is nothing spectacular.

As for "deathtraps"... As I've already mentioned, that term applies to all armored vehicles so far as I'm concerned, even if they're heavier than an M-1 like the GCV is.

No, the term applies only for lightweight vehicles with non existing protection.

Oh and BTW, if you served in US Army, you should know the nomenclature of your own armed forces, where alfanumeric designation codes with letter M, are written without "-" so it is M1 not M-1.

As for thermal-camouflage, the laws of thermodynamics say "no"; and those neat thermal-cloaking systems you read about on the gadget websites will only work until whatever's being used as a heat-sink is saturated... and they're heavy (yet more weight).

Again you know nothing about vehicles protection systems.

And solutions I am talking about are not from some gadget websites but from serious manufacturers.

Both multispectral camouflage paints or nets do not require any power and are very lightweight.

Here are results of tests:

These shows one vehicle coated with standard camouflage paint, and second coated with intermat multispectral camouflage paint.

Intermat Stealth

Here is manufacturers website.

Here is Saab (another serious manufacturer) multispectral camouflage net "Barracuda", as you can see, Barracuda reduces vehicle thermal signature in a very significant level.

Such camouflage net can be applied for various vehicles:

Cheap, reliable, not depending on any powersource, simple like a stick.

And there is more similiar designs like Russian "Nagidka", Ukrainian "Kontrast", Polish "Berberys".

As for active protection systems... well, that actually validates my points about vehicle weight; it's not really necessary to be so damn heavy when you can just shoot-down incoming ordnance.

No, the heavy protection is still nececary for several reasons.

First is that active protection system can simply malfunction. Second reason is that APS have limited "shots" capability, it does not have unlimited ammunition. Third is that even if shaped charge warhead will be intercepted with sucess, shaped charge jet can still form properly and hit vehicle, so heavy protection is still nececary.

Also there are other threats, you can't stop APFSDS ammunition with active protection system, again even if interpected, APFSDS rod is just a chunk of metal propelled to supersonic speeds, I would not want to sit in a lightweight death trap hit by such thing.

Besides this, why you call it so damn heavy? In fact the weight up to 60 tons is still reasonable and acceptable. And weight can be reduced by other means than reducing vehicle survivability and protection, but these other means are mostly hardly to understand by people lacking proper knowledge about AFV's and their design.


Another aspect is that vehicles survivability should not be treated as there is one single super solution. Proper vehicle protection is realized by the system composed from several different solutions, each supporting others, in other words it is:

1) Don't be detected
2) If detected, avoid hit
3) If hit, avoid armor perforation
4) If armor is perforated, reduce post perforation effects

And so on.

 

[asianobserve]

If the GCV is to be axed then where are they going to install this new tech?

Alcoa to Forge an Single Piece Aluminum Hull for a Tracked Armored Vehicle
Tamir Eshel Defense-Update
October 21, 2013

Aluminum manufacturer and processing company Alcoa has teamed with the US Army Advanced Research Laboratory (ARL) to develop a hull for a Ground Combat Vehicle armored vehicle hull made of a single piece of aluminum. Today, such hulls are manufactured from several metal plates welded together to form the hull structure. The seams are often becoming weak areas, becoming susceptible to blast damage. Replacing today's assembled plates hulls, a single piece aluminum hull would offer a lighter, better protected structure, offering higher resistance to IED blast, be more durable to deformation, offering overall lower acquisition and life cycle cost.

"Our collaborative effort to develop a continuous and seamless aluminum hull has the potential to become a game changer for how armored vehicles are designed and made, to better protect our soldiers." Dr. Ernest Chin of the ARL said.

The single hull structure will eliminate the use of welded armor plates, providing a single structure covering the entire vehicles' lower hull. Alcoa plans to use advanced blast absorbent alloys, to further improve the structure's tolerance to damage. The forging process will also enable designers to tailor the three-dimensional design and the structure's width to meet specific protection and strength requirements in certain areas, while reducing the overall weight of the entire structure.

Reduced weight also means lighter vehicle weight, which further contributes to lower fuel consumption, and wear over the entire life cycle of the vehicle, thus contributing to lower life cycle cost. Once production processes are proven, it can be expected that the production of a single piece hull will become more economical and faster, further improving manufacturing cost.

ARL and Alcoa Defense have launched the program after Alcoa has modeled the advantages of the single piece large aluminum hull. The company already has the capabilities to forge the largest aluminum structures. Under the 18 month program ARL will coordinate the research efforts at the Alcoa Technical Center, to refine the hull design and develop the alloy requirements. Alcoa Defense will then work with Alcoa Forging and extrusions in Cleveland to produce a 20 by 7 foot demonstrator hull with the company's 50,000 ton forging press, one of the two heaviest forging presses in the USA, to validate the performance benefits of the new hull.

Alcoa to Forge an Single Piece Aluminum Hull for a Tracked Armored Vehicle - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News

 

[lookieloo]

I know the principle, and it is nothing spectacular.

Ah, so you know principles and I know real-experience, notwithstanding pedantic sputtering about whether to use a "-" or not... nuff said COD troll.

 

[Damian]

Ah, so you know principles and I know real-experience,

Real experience with what? Did you ever trained against targets with modern protection systems?

This is a typical arrogant stance to treat a weapon you like, like some sort of wunderwaffe by using it against obsolete solutions.

Javelin is nothing special really just a good weapon system, and treating it like a some sort of super weapon can be dangerous.

And I proved that it is possible to camouflage vehicle thermal signature by cheap, simple and reliable means. There is no nececity for overexpensive, complex, electrical power hungry and unreliable solutions like "ADAPTIV" or "Black Fox" systems.

notwithstanding pedantic sputtering about whether to use a "-" or not... nuff said COD troll.

Nomenclature is very important and created for a reason, which is obvious for people like me who are close to such things.

And I am not someone who plays computer games, especially such piece of junk like CoD.

 

[Damian]

If the GCV is to be axed then where are they going to install this new tech?




Alcoa to Forge an Single Piece Aluminum Hull for a Tracked Armored Vehicle - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News

This is interesting, because it seems that hull is not cast, but made from rolled plate later forged in to a desired shape.

If we could manufacture such structures not only from alluminium, but also different types of armor steel it could be very beneficial.

We could form single piece basic hull and turret structures to later which it would be possible to weld or attache other way, different types of armor modules.

 

[asianobserve]

Interesting facts on casting versus forging:

FORGING
Advantages of Forging

Structural Integrity – development of grain flow through beating of the metal leads to increased product strength and a high level of material predictability.

Costs – materials are generally less expensive than the materials required for casting. Limited scrap and rework. Reduced labor costs and lower tooling equipment expenses than casting.

Reliability – consistent ductility, known yields, and increased strength due to grain development.

Forging Weaknesses

Tolerance Levels – products formed through forging may not meet requirements for high tolerances.

Secondary Operations – many forged products require secondary processes to refine and finish to exact specifications.

Limitations & Defects - forged products may be limited in shape and may include defects from die failure.

CASTING
Advantages of Die Casting, Investment Casting and Sand Casting

Higher Tolerances – the metal molding process offers an opportunity for a higher level of detail and meeting of exact specifications.

Few Secondary Operations – casting provides a primary product that will require very few secondary machining operations.

Production Rate – once a casting mold is created, the production process can allow for a high production rate.

Casting Weaknesses

Structural Integrity – products formed by casting are more porous than forged products.

Costs – tooling costs are generally higher for die casting than for forging. Tooling costs for other casting methods may vary.

Process Control – the casting process requires frequent monitoring and inspection to maintain quality and prevent defects.

Forging & Casting – Compass & Anvil: Forged Steel vs. Cast Steel | Advantages of Die Casting or Forging - Compass & Anvil
Limitations & Defects - forged products may be limited in shape and may include defects from die failure.

 

[pmaitra]

Here are results of tests:

These shows one vehicle coated with standard camouflage paint, and second coated with intermat multispectral camouflage paint.

Not getting into a debate about whether these are light or heavy, but I gotta love these images. I can see significant improvement when it comes to thermal-imagery guided missiles. I might add that spectral images can yield very different results though. This is my area of familiarity.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Damian]

Not getting into a debate about whether these are light or heavy, but I gotta love these images. I can see significant improvement when it comes to thermal-imagery guided missiles. I might add that spectral images can yield very different results though. This is my area of familiarity.

Thanks for sharing.

IMHO the thing is that most thermal sights and optics today is more aimed at improving resolution, but the principle is the same, lock on specific heat signature, if we eliminate heat signature, we can avoid lock on.

 

[lookieloo]

Not getting into a debate about whether these are light or heavy, but I gotta love these images. I can see significant improvement when it comes to thermal-imagery guided missiles. I might add that spectral images can yield very different results though. This is my area of familiarity.

Thanks for sharing.

The picture provides no context (how long each vehicle had been running, been left in the sun, daytime/nighttime, ground temperature, etc). I already know of several ways to manipulate the results of such tests. On a clear winter night, you can watch mice crossing pavement from kilometers away; on a summer day during a sand-storm, you can't see cars past 300m, so don't underestimate the significance of conditions.

 

[pmaitra]

The picture provides no context (how long each vehicle had been running, been left in the sun, daytime/nighttime, ground temperature, etc). I already know of several ways to manipulate the results of such tests. On a clear winter night, you can watch mice crossing pavement from kilometers away; on a summer day during a sand-storm, you can't see cars past 300m, so don't underestimate the significance of conditions.

You are correct about the conditions.

From the researchers' point of view, I would trust them to be ethical in the way they test or have tested. Researchers usually try to test under similar conditions. Now, doctoring the test conditions, to suit the demands of those funding the research, is not unheard of.

I would like @Damian to share more on the research related to those pictures. I am interested to know whether it has been published, and where.

 

[lookieloo]

I would like @Damian to share more on the research related to those pictures. I am interested to know whether it has been published, and where.

Well, he did state it was from the manufacturer.