Safe Mode: On
Hope the new Army Tactical Vehicles are better than the Growler..((UPDATE))

How Does The Future Shape Up For Army Tactical Vehicles?
July 6 2010



The future of tactical vehicles remains unclear at the moment. In February, the US Army requested proposals for a new infantry fighting vehicle as it aims to find the next Humvee or MRAP.

This forms part of the technology development (TD) phase of the Ground Combat Vehicle programme (GCV), for which a sum of $645 million (£428.7 million) from this and next year's budget has been set aside. It is expected that this phase will span over seven years and include three stages.

Three-Stage Process

In the initial phase, the Army will test and evaluate the critical technological elements, plus formalise a set of requirements for the tactical vehicles. Military leaders are planning to issue up to three contracts in the fourth quarter of the year and a preliminary design review will be conducted by 2013.

The next phase - engineering and manufacturing development - will see the screening out of one of the three TD contractors and by the end of 2014, the Army expects delivery of the first prototypes which will go through extensive safety, mobility and limited user tests.

By early 2016, the main contractor for the production and deployment phase will be selected and the manufacturing of the tactical vehicles is scheduled to take place seven years after the initial award of the TD contracts.

Flexibility

The GCV programme is part of a holistic plan to modernise the Army's fleet. This includes incorporating MRAPs into the convoy while modernising current tactical vehicles like the Stryker. The infantry fighting vehicle, the first GCV, will offer a highly survivable platform for delivering a nine-man squad to the battlefield. It will also be the first tank to have been designed from the ground up to operate in an improvised explosive device (IED) environment.

Military leaders also intend for the tactical vehicle to have greater lethality and ballistic protection than a Bradley and better IED and mine protection than an MRAP, plus the cross-country mobility of an Abrams tank.

They want it to be highly mobile and versatile but have not set specific requirements like weight. Instead, they are allowing the industry to propose the best solution to meet the specification.

Competition

The Army has already spoken to industry leaders through a series of dedicated events to give them an idea of how the GCV programme will work, get their feedback and gauge the potential for competition between companies looking to secure the tactical vehicles contract.

When Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli first announced the plan to replace the M113 and Bradley with new armoured tactical vehicles in September, he said: "The GCV represents one of the most important combat development and acquisition decisions we are going to make in a long time.

"I can't tell you what the GCV will look like, but I will tell you that in the past 120 days, we have thought our way through how we are going to move forward," he added.

Joint Tactical Vehicles Venture

There are plenty of interested parties, with the likes of BAE Systems Land and Armaments, Advanced Defense Vehicle Systems, Boeing, General Dynamics Land Systems, Force Protection Industries, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Information Systems and QinetiQ all having expressed a desire to be involved in the tactical vehicles programme.

In fact, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman have announced that that they are joining forces to pursue the tactical vehicles programme. BAE will be the prime contractor in the partnership, while Northrop Grumman will serve as the lead in command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

"Collectively we bring the proven experience, the latest technology and cultures of innovation and service to the Army's effort to develop a new generation of fighting vehicles," said Mark Signorelli, BAE Systems' vice president and general manager of GCV.

(MORE)

Light Armored Vehicle Upgrade Vital for Marines in Afghanistan

http://www.idga.org/sponsor_article.cfm?externalID=1642

Loading the player ...
Embed CodeSwitch Player
Plays: 5367 (Embed: 0)

Added: Jul-13-2010 Occurred On: Jul-6-2010
By: GitErDoneDammit
In:
Afghanistan, Your Say, LiveLeaks
Tags: War, Missiles, Jets, Bombs, Military, Army, AirForce, Navy, Marines, SOCOM,
Views: 6590 | Comments: 28 | Votes: 3 | Favorites: 2 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
'
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Thanks to the Republicans the US also bough an inferior aircraft from Boeing for air refueling. The Airbus competitor beat it hands down... but nooooo, the best isnt good enough for the US, just the expensive shit is.

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (5) | Report

    • Yup
      Good point Sir

      By chance have you checked out my vid "War Is Good Business......period "?

      Lots of things go on with the procurement of weapon systems.Not just the Left and the Right.
      I will update vid as it seems appropriate to future posts on subject.

      Thanks fer watchin.

      Peace

      Posted Jul-15-2010 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Is this a joke? That growler concept is hysterical.

    Cutting edge technology from the late 1930's LMAO

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (3) | Report

  • How long did that take you to edit? *Note to self avoid lots of reading.

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (2) | Report

    • lol

      Hear ya man.
      It is an update from a older post on the same subject matter.
      Used the vid as a tie in to the text.

      Thank fer wacthin/readin.

      Peace

      Posted Jul-15-2010 By 

      (0) | Report

    • Hope you didnt think I was being a smart ass, not my intesions. You made great points and enjoyed the video. Cheers bro!

      Posted Jul-15-2010 By 

      (1) | Report

    • Not at all BD

      But it's a valid point...cuz...if im at the office and want to pop in while nobody lookin and scan the vids,The last thing you want to see is a bunch of flippin text to read thru.

      More links and let them read later.

      Peace
      T

      Posted Jul-15-2010 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Yeah , that is screwed up man... I don't know if you have seen it yet, but "The Pentagon Wars" highlighted the fiasco they went thru with the bradley..black comedy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Make them useful. Drop them out of a C-130.

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Whatever happens the US Marines will prevail. It wouldn't surprise me if all these dodgy dealings cost them lives on their road to victory, though.

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Other have beatned me to it, but yeah, the General was bucking for a sweet job in the defense industry when he retires. Its just part of the labatomy they all get at the Staff College, the one where they take the soldier bit of their brain out and replace it with careerist bureaucrat bits.

    There's more to that Boeing story, too. A company in Alabama actually won the design competition fair and square by best meeting the Air Force requirements. Boeing pitched a hissy fit and sued and cried to More..

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Can agree except for the last part. It doesn't matter what you field, your enemy WILL find a way to destroy it.

    Although it's pretty crappy to only be able to transport 36 mortar rounds, hope they didn't actually need that fire support...

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Marines are great fighters. At other functions, they are no better than any other government agency.

    Posted Jul-15-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

  • If there's one thing the British military learned from fielding vehicles such as this (though failed to act on) it's that they don't work.
    The idea behind it is that a small and fast vehicle with fuck all armour is needed to traverse the terrain in sand pits where heavy armour gets bogged down. A small and fast vehicle may be all very well and good ... if you're invading Poland while under nazi rule, but it is next to useless and down right dangerous to field it in an environment and conflict s More..

    Posted Jul-15-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

    • Good Point

      TY

      Posted Jul-15-2010 By 

      (0) | Report

    • MRAPS are way better than fast vehicles in IED territory..

      Anybody on here that thinks a jeep was good fighting vehicle in a warzone let me know. It was the mainstay common vehicle of ww2 for US to get around.

      Every single vehicle today we have is way better than anything in the past that we have had.

      You expect a vehicle to protect you from every threat. Well get over it thats never gonna happen EVER

      Posted Jul-16-2010 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Hey now... the stryker abrahms and f22 are all very accomplished and well designed vehicles... they are just REALLY F*CKING EXPENSIVE is all..

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (0) | Report

    • the stryker is garbage, the abrams is anachronistic and the f22 is prohibitive.

      oh and they're ALL out of production, anything else?

      Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • Your crazy.. The F22 is the most advanced fighter on the planet.

      List one fighter in production today thats better.

      :) You cant

      Posted Jul-16-2010 By 

      (1) | Report

  • Um, where is the U.S. military in their search for a replacement for the M-16? That's another fisaco.

    Posted Aug-16-2010 By 

    (0) | Report

  • typical pentagon spending spree's using rigged product competitions for brass planning a lucrative post service career/retirement.

    the sad part is it actually got worse during the W years under rumsfeld, who's only accomplishment seems to have been to "institutionalize" the corruption of pentagon procurement and give it a cool name "FCS".

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Comment of user 'OwenHiggins' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • lol
      Sorry didn't git to ya sooner "Pute Probs"

      Anyways.
      Was that comment directed to me or the comment section on this subject matter?

      Cuz I don't play man......period

      To use your own words Sir

      "Pissed off with how many stupid people there are in the world.. and willing to effect a change in perception".

      Thanks fer watchin.

      Peace

      Posted Jul-15-2010 By 

      (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'OwenHiggins' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • I feel as if we are not getting all the needed info here on this one... are these going to be used mainly in the US? Or only in the war? If they are used in the war you have to remember the TRANSPORTATION COSTS for moving 1000s of jeeps from the USA to the middle east... that is a HUGE cost compared to just importing them from France.

    Like I said, we need more info, as I dont think you have it all..... got any pentagon documentation or anything similar regarding this?

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (0) | Report

  • And I don't see why they don't just make the jeeps have a shorter body, and a wider wheel base.... BAM, there goes your roll overs.

    Wide wheels and a lower center of gravity would decrease rollover potential on those jeeps..... are you sure the engines are from Brazil though? That seems rather wasteful and not very quality controlled.... the uncompatiable mortar thing is kind of stupid as well!

    Posted Jul-14-2010 By 

    (0) | Report

  • insanely militarized society

    Posted Jul-15-2010 By 

    (-1) | Report