BAe Systems PDF presentation of their GCV - Ground Combat Vehicle proposal.

[Damian]

http://www.teamgcv.com/userfiles/files/GCV 0112.pdf

Interesting, it looks like MGV (Manned Ground Vehicle) in XM1206 variant on steroids. Obviously BAe used what they managed to develop for Future Combat Systems program.

Look at specs, 3 man crew + 9 dismounts placed in hull, unmanned turret with main weapons that can be reloaded from vehicle inside, and look at weight, this thing have a weight comparabale to M1A2SEP v2 (63,100kg's)!

 

[methos]

This thing is interessting...
The turret size increased over the old Bradley, althoug being unmanned... why? There is no missile armament and they kept the old 25 mm caliber (while some other countries like the Netherlands thought that 30 mm is not enough against the next-generation of Russian IFVs). So the turret has to be under full armour or most store an increcibly huge amount of equipment/ammo. OTOH the fact that the main gun can be reloaded from inside could mean that there is enough space for a soldier and a magazine of 25 mm rounds.

I wonder why the U.S. wanted an enlarged dismount squad. They have to restructure their whole forces. I think that no country uses dismount squads of 9 men, and I never heard any critics about 6 - 7 men per vehicle being too few during operations.

Interesting is the following part:

Survivability–Our design matches or exceeds the mine and EFP protection of RG-33 MRAP. It employs tailorable combinations of armor packages on a tough, space efficient steel core hull.

Really comparing a 60+ tonnes IFV with a tiny 17+ MRAP?

Well, I don't want to be an asshole, but in my opinion choosing a heavyweight monster with obviosly some drawbacks for no understandable reasons (Why is a larger dismount squad required? Why 60+ tonnes? Higher protection than STANAG 4569 level 5 can be achieved at 30 - 40 tonnes) seems to be a failure.

 

[Damian]

9 man squad is new standard in US Army, and they have right, 9 man squad is very well balanced.

And remember that this is only BAe proposal, there is still GDLS in the buiseness.

Also remember that GCV have not only to provide high protection levels over front and sides but also against IED's, this is why in the max armor configuration, it have a such weight.

However I'am more a supporter of GDLS than BAe or other companys.

 

[Damian]

Hmmm, interesting, also note that BAe Systems was company responsible for developing XM1206 variant of MGV for Future Combat Systems program.

 

[methos]

I think there are a number of tasks which leads to the typical 6-7 man dismount squads. E.g. one carries an ATGM launcher, a further ATGM reloads, then one GPMG gunner and one with further 7.62 mm NATO ammo. Then there is one or two RPG gunners and sometimes a sniper (this is the typical dismount team at least according to German-language forums). Using LMGs the two people carrying the GPMG can both carry their own weapons and ammo. So, where exactly is the need for a larger dismount squad... tactical there is probably no need, as such a team can cause a lot of havoc and do all infantry tasks.
The idea to adopt a larger infantry squad is IMO not connected to the operational details ATM, unless you (or anybody liking the idea of a larger squad) can show me some reason why a larger infantry force per vehicle is necessary and which of these tasks are not possible to fullfill by 1 or 2 normal infantry squads.
It could be that the US just knows that due to costs they will not be able to replace their Bradleys 1 to 1 with GCVs.

Also remember that GCV have not only to provide high protection levels over front and sides but also against IED's, this is why in the max armor configuration, it have a such weight.

Seems still to be too much. The passive side protection for Leopard 2A7/Leopard Evolution/Challenger 2 weighs a little bit more than 10 tonnes, while covering both hull and turret. The hull of the GCV may be higher, but the turret should not need anti-EFP armour being unmanned. Puma claims protection against EFP and RPGs while the applique armour (covering also roof and turret) weighs again less than 10 tonnes. In case of the German Boxer 2 tonnes of armour where adopted to make it EFP proof and the FRAG-6 armour kit should also have a density less than anything that would lead to 60+ tonnes vehicle weight.

 

[Damian]

I think there are a number of tasks which leads to the typical 6-7 man dismount squads. E.g. one carries an ATGM launcher, a further ATGM reloads, then one GPMG gunner and one with further 7.62 mm NATO ammo. Then there is one or two RPG gunners and sometimes a sniper (this is the typical dismount team at least according to German-language forums). Using LMGs the two people carrying the GPMG can both carry their own weapons and ammo. So, where exactly is the need for a larger dismount squad... tactical there is probably no need, as such a team can cause a lot of havoc and do all infantry tasks.
The idea to adopt a larger infantry squad is IMO not connected to the operational details ATM, unless you (or anybody liking the idea of a larger squad) can show me some reason why a larger infantry force per vehicle is necessary and which of these tasks are not possible to fullfill by 1 or 2 normal infantry squads.
It could be that the US just knows that due to costs they will not be able to replace their Bradleys 1 to 1 with GCVs.

9 man squad means that You have a squad commander + 2 sections each 4 men strong, it is far more logical and balanced than smaller squads... and why to copy what Germans are doing? Because they are Germans and are ze ubermensh? Please...

Seems still to be too much. The passive side protection for Leopard 2A7/Leopard Evolution/Challenger 2 weighs a little bit more than 10 tonnes, while covering both hull and turret. The hull of the GCV may be higher, but the turret should not need anti-EFP armour being unmanned. Puma claims protection against EFP and RPGs while the applique armour (covering also roof and turret) weighs again less than 10 tonnes. In case of the German Boxer 2 tonnes of armour where adopted to make it EFP proof and the FRAG-6 armour kit should also have a density less than anything that would lead to 60+ tonnes vehicle weight.

Try to protect vehicle against IED's, EFP's + HEAT wahreads (also tandem) and kinetic energy ammunition (calliber not known), and this protection need to protect much larger surfaces because these vehicle is not only carring it's crew, weapons and ammunition for them but also squad of infantry. It would be rather difficult to do this in lighter vehicle, however we will see with what GDLS will come up.

 

[Armand2REP]

63.5t
300km range
25mm cannon
requires tank engine

 

[Damian]

Armand, BAe GCV is not powered by classic engine but by a hybrid Diesel-Electric powerpack.

It is just a tank sized Bradely

Nah, more proper is tank sized and redesigned XM1206 on steroids.

 

[Armand2REP]

It's too heavy to make effective use of batteries. With 300km range it far less efficient than similar sized tanks.

 

[Damian]

BTW, here is another proposal:



Claimed to be GDLS GCV.

It's too heavy to make effective use of batteries. With 300km range it far less efficient than similar sized tanks.

Mentioned weight and range is in maximum armor configuration, with less armor range increase, weight decrease, simple as that.

 

[Armand2REP]

The maximum armor configuration is 75t. This design is a disaster. What happened to APS so they can reduce weight?

 

[Damian]

The maximum armor configuration is 75t.

Where did You read such bollocks? it was in the first proposals, this PDF shows current proposal with reduced weight, weight in the technical data specifications is in the max armor configuration.

This design is a disaster.

Yeah right, did You made any tests to make such hard conclusions?

What happened to APS so they can reduce weight?

There will be APS, protection is just modular as it seems You did not notice it.

There will be several types of armor protection with different weight + APS.

It's so hard to even understand idea of scalable and modular armor protection?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

That driver and Commander position say please hit me here..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[Damian]

I agree Kunal, frontal hull stations are somewhat... strange.

 

[Damian]

Graphics of BAe GCV.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/baesystemsinc/6923487385/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/baesystemsinc/6923487499/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/baesystemsinc/6923487607/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/baesystemsinc/6923487673/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/baesystemsinc/6777376096/

 

[methos]

9 man squad means that You have a squad commander + 2 sections each 4 men strong, it is far more logical and balanced than smaller squads... and why to copy what Germans are doing? Because they are Germans and are ze ubermensh? Please...

I used the Germans as an example as I know their armament, but I am pretty sure (or I know in some cases) that other countries give their infantry squads weapons of the same category. Two sections of four man will mean different: I assume they will use then a different partition, something like one man with LMG, one with assault rifle + ATGM missile, one with assault rifle and ATGM ammo and a fourth with varying equipment (like sniper)...

 

[Damian]

In US Army 9 man squad there are Squad leader (rifleman), 2 automatic riflemans (M249), AT specialist (the guy who takes FGM-148 ATGM), rest are riflemans. In mech infantry there are no weapon squads with machine guns, these role is taken by IFV's, in Stryker units, there is a weapons squad with two sections of machine guns (M240's).

In vehicles are stored M136, FGM-148 and currently also will be stored M3 MAAWS.

Really US Army 9 men squads are well balanced. USMC have 14 men squads... this is firepower with all these upgraded M72's, M136's, Mk153's and FGM-148's and FGM-172's + all small arms and granade launchers.

 

[Armand2REP]

That driver and Commander position say please hit me here..

Its a mess of antennas. The first airburst that flies over it knocks out any communications.

 

[Damian]

These are radio antennas, there is probably hid somewhere FBCB2/BFT antenna, so no comunications will not be cut, not to mention that Americans are slowly starts to see radios as secondary communications, while FBCB2/BFT starts to be primary one.

Besides this why airburst should knock down antennas? Because You says so? Did You done any extensive tests to make such conclusion? Probably not... typical.