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

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Where is the General Dynamics model? I don't think BAE has a chance of winning this unless GD totally screws up.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
It seems that GDLS is strangely silent, and they have an ace hidden in a pocket as well. GDLS plan is to unify it's GCV with M1 tanks fleet, to make logistics cheaper and easier. So they have big chances to win. And I support GD in this. BTW this year US Army will tests at Yuma Proving Grounds Israeli Namer HAPC and CV90 (variant unknown), interesting, probably they not bought them but see the all goodies inside and decide what can be usefull for them.
 

pack leader

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
626
Likes
513
namer is better by far then this ugly American monstrosity
4 tons lighter
better armored
has aps
costs only 3.5 million $
the" Samson" version is also better armed (30 mm atk + 2 spike lr / er )
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
namer is better by far then this ugly American monstrosity
In what?

4 tons lighter
Because do not have any turret.

better armored
How do You know that? Did You done any tests? ;)

Not yet, and GCV (any design choosen by US Army) also will have also APS that is developed under separated program so it can be integrated on any US Army vehicle. Besides this US Quick Kill will have far better capabilities than any Israeli made APS... VLS launchers, acting as separated units with radar and electrooptical sensors, You get the idea? ;)

costs only 3.5 million $
So easy to compare costs of something that is manufactured and something that is not. And tell me how much US will spend on spare parts for Namer? Or how much they spend to redesign it? For example suspension?

the" Samson" version is also better armed (30 mm atk + 2 spike lr / er )
And? It is written in PDF document that armament of BAe GCV can be changed to higher callibers if customer wish to. It is only proposal for Christ sake... besides this Israeli RWS modules were unable to hold on in low temperatures tests in Poland, so I have a serious doubts if vehicle with this RWS could perform well in colder climates, and US Army will not only operate in hot climates do not forget.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
It seems that GDLS is strangely silent, and they have an ace hidden in a pocket as well. GDLS plan is to unify it's GCV with M1 tanks fleet, to make logistics cheaper and easier. So they have big chances to win. And I support GD in this. BTW this year US Army will tests at Yuma Proving Grounds Israeli Namer HAPC and CV90 (variant unknown), interesting, probably they not bought them but see the all goodies inside and decide what can be usefull for them.
If you're going to make a tank sized IFV, it might as well be a tank chassis.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
AUSA: U.S. Army To Test Israeli, Swedish Tanks in New Mexico

As part of its Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program, the U.S. Army plans to test Israeli and Swedish tanks this spring at White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

Specifically, the Army will take the Israeli Namer armored personnel carrier and the Swedish Combat Vehicle 90 (CV90), Col. Andrew DiMarco, GCV project manager, told reporters at the Association of the U.S. Army winter symposium in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The assessments are part of the Army's look at existing vehicles that may meet the service's need for a new infantry fighting vehicle.

A team from the Army's Training and Doctrine Command has been in Israel for the last month doing user assessments of the Namer, which is built by General Dynamics Land Systems for the Israeli military, DiMarco said.

"We've gotten a lot of great insight into how the Israelis designed that particular [armored personnel carrier]," he said. The TRADOC team has also put U.S. soldiers in the vehicle to get a better sense of it, he added.

Next, the Army will bring the Namer to White Sands Missile Range for further training and a user assessment this spring.

Along with the Namer, the Army will try out the Swedish CV90, which is built by BAE Systems. It will also assess the Bradley M2A3 fighting vehicle, another BAE Systems vehicle, and the Stryker double-V-hull vehicle, built by General Dynamics.

The Army will also assess a Bradley without a turret, DiMarco said.

Other options the Army is considering include the German Puma infantry fighting vehicle. The Army wanted to bring the Puma to White Sands Missile Range this spring, but it did not work out in time, DiMarco said.

The idea is to take advantage of the infrastructure that has been set up there as part of the Network Integration Evaluation.

"It's a great opportunity to reduce some cost and take advantage of the systems out there," DiMarco said.

Assessing existing vehicles is just one of three efforts the Army is working on simultaneously as part of the GCV program. The service is requesting $640 million for GCV in 2013.

The one that receives the most attention is its competitive technology development program, for which the Army awarded contracts to teams led by General Dynamics Land Systems and by BAE Systems.

A third team, led by SAIC, did not receive a contract and protested the Army's decision.

In December, the Government Accountability Office announced it had denied the company's protest. The basis of the SAIC bid was the Puma. The industry team included Boeing and Germany's Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall.

The 90-day delay resulting from the protest has pushed the program's schedule to the right, slipping production further into the future.

Earlier this month at the Pentagon's rollout of its 2013 budget request, DoD officials said this delay would amount to $1.3 billion in savings.

The third GCV effort is what the Army is calling an analysis of alternatives (AoA) update.

Before launching the technology development program, the Army conducted an AoA. However, the Army canceled its first request for proposals and subsequently changed its GCV requirements without updating the alternatives analysis.

The new study is supposed to provide a more thorough picture of what the Army's options are besides buying an entirely new vehicle.

All of these efforts are supposed to provide the Army with more cost data and technical information before the service moves into the engineering and manufacturing development phase, DiMarco said.

The Army could change its requirements for the vehicle based on what it learns over the next several months.

AUSA: U.S. Army To Test Israeli, Swedish Tanks in New Mexico | Defense News | defensenews.com
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Google TÅ‚umacz

Interesting, it seems that GCV will be now intended to replace M2 IFV's and combat variants of M113 in HBCT's, while AMPV will replace M113 overall as a platform for specialized vehicles currently based on M113 platform.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
I am waiting for our own version for replacing the BMPs in IA.

4 companies are in the fray and two prototypes will be built out of the 4. The two prototypes will undergo field tests by the user and one will be selected. They say they will start serial production in 2018.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top