First, Namer is not an IFV and it does not serve for the role, and Israel is different from US.
Second, you should learn about IFV concept and it's role as infantry support, it has to meet most important requirements of mobility and firepower. If you look at world practice you'll realise attention is paid at increase of firepower for infantry, Warrior, Puma, BMP...
And where I said that Namer is IFV? I ask again, are you capable to read with understanding? Do you even learned english in school? Because it seems that you do not understand even simplest, basic argumentation.
I know what is concept of IFV, or rather concepts, because there is no one, single universal concept, as well as there is no, one single universal concept of MBT, attack helicopter etc. etc. etc.
As I said, why Americans should mimic others, when they have their own, perhaps even unique experiences from real battlefield.
Main IFV should be this heavy GCV with less than desirable armament and mobility in replacement of current ligher vehicles. AMPV is not supposed to perform same IFV role but more as second line transport, you understand the difference ?
No, you do not understand, GCV is not ready yet, neither this document represent how the final products from both GDLS and BAe will look like. You are making bald conclusions based on document, that has nothing to do with final product, it only shows some patterns, some requirements, and some possible but not nececary solutions, neither it represents how vehicle will be in the end. And of course that AMPV will not be IFV, where I said so? I said that AMPV will perform also role of lither armored multipurpose platform, which means it will be also capable to carry soldiers, thats all, so it will supplement GCV IFV.
You seems to misunderstood anything your adversary says, then create your own fantasies, and then you start to fight with these fantasies.
Current squad is 6-7 and not only in US, and it is optimal number with no need to increase. GCV will have to increase number of passengers as they probably could not afford to replace all current fleet completely. And your AMPV is also 7 dismounts, so they are not really switching, it is just they have to save.
Now, current squad is 9 soldiers, check US Army structure, the standard squad is 9 soldiers, but there is problem because currently used IFV can carry only 6 or 7 dismounts, which means that squads are needed to be divided by several vehicles, which is not optimal.
AMPV will carry as many dismounts as choosen design will permitt, Non-IFV M2 based platform can also carry approx 9 dismounts (no turret), Tracked Stryker can carry 9 dismounts just like wheeled version, simple as that.
Do you understand that there are no 6 or 7 soldier squads in US Army anymore? Neither US Army needs to follow other nations solutions, as they have their own experiences from real battlefields, not some pure theory guess work.
It is notable that on each programme, article they always talk about non-existing APS as main protection improvement, for instance in Russia they never rely (keyword) on them to achieve main requirements.
No, you do not understand. There is no APS choosen yet, there are promising designs that are tested, but none is choosen yet, neither these drawings represent protection levels of final products armor. This is only projection, what can be expected but is not nececary to be expected. You realy do not understand such simple things?
Besides this, GCV is designed to have better survivability against IED and mine threats, which means thick and heavy belly armor.
Yes, but it does not mean that much lighter plattform with simpler armament is not able to meet protection requirement with additional armour and not rely on APS, but another thing is weight increase due to bigger number of crew and another issues as seen in GCV (heavier than tank).
Russians made a more correct approach. There will be heavy IFV, transport based on Armata, analogue to GCV, but also on medium weighted plattforms, Kurganets-25 and Bumerang, fulfilling their niche. It is not efficient to switch just to heavier vehicle, and problems would appear
- Costly, not possible to entirely replace current fleet => increase of passengers to 9 to meet number => increase in weight, cost, reduction in mobility and overall efficiency.
But nobody says that GCV IFV will completely replace M2 series, are you not understanding this? If not then go back to school to learn english, because you have problems even with the most basic text it seems.
There will be fleet of GCV IFV, M1 ECP1 MBT, M2 ECP1 and ECP2 IFV, CFV and Non-IFV, Stryker and AMPV. Now you understand? GCV will not replace all other platforms, it will be supplemented by them.
All developement works were made, it actually existed in metal as well as all systems. It would be more correct to say not cancelled, but transferred to new programme, as Armata will base on all developements under better management and readied production base.
There are actually no such developements in rest of countries, they either ceased decades ago and/or were cancelled before becoming anything as FCS because of early conceptual error.
But do you understand that neither other countries might see nececity, nececity yet, or they might have different concept, do you understand that world is not dancing around Russia?
1) Not everything should be private, and there is always need of state control of strategic sectors and of more efficient coordination.
2) Because same as FCS was, it is not more than insecure concept without solid technical work, GCV was cancelled, delayed, restarted...
1) And not everything is private in USA, there is a term GOCO - Goverment Owned Contractor Operated, which means that critical developments, technology, R&D, objects, programs are goverment owned but contractor operated which means more efficent work.
2) You do not know that, FCS was cancelled for other reasons, not understood by you. FCS was cancelled because concept of lightweight armed forces had been deactualized by Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.
And ob 195 was beyond the rest of the world. Main problems are not always technical, but related to management, cooperation, etc, but what was set in requirement was realised almost in totality, that is why new programme Armata was started. In fact all developements may appear in future, we do not know. For example current matrixes of thermal cameras, based on better materials (3rd generation and on) which will be in Armata are more advanced than what was intended for T-95 as well as probably many fire control system components.
