Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Serge

NGCV/OMFV. Forwarding to... the past

Recommended Posts

Let us open a topic dedicated to the Optionally maned  fighting vehicle. 

 

What we know now is that we don’t know so much.

 

What is sure, the US Army :

- wants 9 men strong dismounted section ;

- doesn’t want to continue to share an IFV between two sections when mounted ;

- is awared that it’s complicated to fight with an IFV carrying a 9 men section.

 

Platforms showed available at AUSA 2018 were :

Griffin III from General Dynamic

Griffin-III-Concept-Tank-is-GDLS-Fresh-V

 

CV90 from BAE

p1295848_main.jpg

 

Lynx from Rheinmetall

KSP_KL_7489_lynx_brochure_Seite_5_480x32

 

Maybe a proposal from SAIC ?

 

 

My point here is the following : I have the strange feeling that there’s a misunderstanding. 

During last years, US Army spend lots of money to study new manufacturing process, new designs... and today, when we are looking at news, all we see is old concept. 

 

The Lynx is optimized to be a cost effective platform with proven components. But what is its upgrading capability to stay in services until 2070 ?

CV90 is very good but it got limitations too. It need a deep reworked of its hull. 

The Griffin was introduced as the response to the Army call but in fact there’s no other tracked other platform in the GD catalog. 

 

I may be wrong but I can’t see any real disruption.

What about monolithic forged hull ?

What about decoupled running gear ?

Are torsion bars still a solution for suspensions ?

 

I think, this is the very beginning of the story but it’s very strange. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Army wants a mature power train, it's the weaponry and electronics that has allowances to development.

 

Remember that the OMFV is a replacement for the Bradley, which the Army has been blueballed on multiple times. They are making the choice of 'good enough' instead of hoping the technology fairy leaves a gift (and fails to, like with FCS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

The Army wants a mature power train, it's the weaponry and electronics that has allowances to development.

 

Remember that the OMFV is a replacement for the Bradley, which the Army has been blueballed on multiple times. They are making the choice of 'good enough' instead of hoping the technology fairy leaves a gift (and fails to, like with FCS).

 

As much as I like to believe the army is finally going the route of "good enough" - they had that option with the modified Puma years ago and turned it down for the GCV wunderwaffe. I doubt the army's ability to resist feature creep as the program goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

As much as I like to believe the army is finally going the route of "good enough" - they had that option with the modified Puma years ago and turned it down for the GCV wunderwaffe. I doubt the army's ability to resist feature creep as the program goes on.

 

The FCS and GCV are the reason the Army has been doing "good enough" since then. For example, if it were still operating under the old mentality then Strykers would not be being armed with 30x173mm guns until after the airburst round was fully ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 11:54 PM, Ramlaen said:

The Army wants a mature power train, it's the weaponry and electronics that has allowances to development.

 

Remember that the OMFV is a replacement for the Bradley, which the Army has been blueballed on multiple times. They are making the choice of 'good enough' instead of hoping the technology fairy leaves a gift (and fails to, like with FCS).

I don’t call for any technology fairy. I just think the job is the following : providing a chassis able to do the job until 2070 (at least).

Considering the 40 years (50 ?) to come with the OMFV, it a mistake to look for a «good enough» power train because power train will be changed within a continuous upgrade process.

The critical part is the hull structure. This is the only one wich will stay unchanged. So, the quality of the OMFV in the long term will comes from to the hull. 

 

If the suspension is not good enough today, it will be changed tomorrow. But, if torsion bars are less safe than hydro gas suspension, it’s harder to change the hull configuration. It’s possible, but harder. 

 

This is why I’m worried by the contenders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you be a little more specific on what you think is wrong with the hulls of the 3-4 known contenders? As in when you say the CV90 mk4 needs a deep rework, what are you thinking needs to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Here we will discuss all topics related to the LAND program, including, but not limited to, LAND 400 which is the flagship project of the entire program.
×