GCV on the Block

Discussion in 'Land Forces' started by lookieloo, Oct 23, 2013.

  1. lookieloo

    lookieloo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    US
  2.  
  3. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    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.
     
  4. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,124
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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.

    [​IMG]

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

    lookieloo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    US
    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.
     
  6. lookieloo

    lookieloo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    US
    sob and pmaitra like this.
  7. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,124
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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.
     
  8. lookieloo

    lookieloo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    US
    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).
     
  9. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    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.

    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.

    And GCV will be designed with these things in mind.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2013
    sob likes this.
  10. lookieloo

    lookieloo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    US
    Have you even looked through a CLU before? :rolleyes: 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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2013
  11. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    I know the principle, and it is nothing spectacular.

    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.

    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:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

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

    Intermat Stealth

    Here is manufacturers website.

    [​IMG]

    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:

    [​IMG]

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

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

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2013
    sob, Known_Unknown and pmaitra like this.
  12. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    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
     
    Damian likes this.
  13. lookieloo

    lookieloo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    US
    Ah, so you know principles and I know real-experience, notwithstanding pedantic sputtering about whether to use a "-" or not... nuff said COD troll.
     
  14. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2013
    Known_Unknown likes this.
  15. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    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.
     
  16. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    Interesting facts on casting versus forging:


    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.
     
    Damian likes this.
  17. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,124
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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.
     
  18. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    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.
     
  19. lookieloo

    lookieloo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    US
    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.
     
    Broccoli and pmaitra like this.
  20. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,124
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  21. lookieloo

    lookieloo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    US
    Well, he did state it was from the manufacturer. ;)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    Broccoli and pmaitra like this.

Share This Page