Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
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 someone summarise what we really know about what the US-Army want about its future armoured infantry platoon ?

 

I found the picture is still unclear. 

The only clear point is the 9 men strong squad. What about the rest of the problem :

- tactical autonomy of each squad ?

- accept one squad per IFV ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 11:43 PM, Serge said:

What is sure, the US Army :

- wants 9 men strong dismounted section ;

 

The requirement for the OMFV was at least six dismounts and a crew of at least two. This was not the reason for the failure/cancellation of the OMFV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is an old one. 

I found very strange the gap into the call of the US-Army. Calling for an « at least » 6 but 9 « is better » means they don’t have a clear picture of what they want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/bradley-replacement-did-army-ask-for-unobtainium/

Quote

The General Dynamics prototype for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle – the only competitor left after other companies bowed out or were disqualified – was too heavy to meet the Army’s requirement that a single Air Force C-17 cargo jet could carry two complete OMFVs to a war zone, we’re told. But the vehicle had to be that heavy, GD’s defenders say, to meet the Army’s requirement for armor protection.

Quote

One source says that two of the General Dynamics vehicles would fit on a C-17 if you removed its modular armor. The add-on armor kit could then be shipped to the war zone on a separate flight and installed, or simply left off if intelligence was sure the enemy lacked heavy weapons. But the requirements didn’t allow for that compromise, and the Army wasn’t willing to waive them, the source said, because officers feared a vehicle in the less-armored configuration could get troops killed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2020 at 8:37 PM, Ramlaen said:

feared a vehicle in the less-armored configuration could get troops killed.

 

Ah yes, as opposed to rolling around in the less-armored current Bradley and getting troops killed.

 

Furthermore, does this not allow us to basically guesstimate the full-up weight? It seems to be within a few tons of the infamous 84 ton BAE GCV IFV maximum weight. It seems the army just reused the nonsense requirement wholesale from GCV...

Share this post


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

It seems to be within a few tons of the infamous 84 ton BAE GCV IFV maximum weight.

Where are you inferring that from?

Theyre basically saying a fully armored one can be shipped in a C-17 and if you remove some armor then its 2. Hoe much armor could you possibly remove? Even if we assume that armor is 25% of the GVW (ToT says 50% for armor and structure, lets say half is removable), to pack 2 per C-17 youd need the bare vehicle to not exceed 39 tons (max payload being 78 (metric) tons)- and therefore, the loaded one cannot under said assumptions exceed 52 tons.

In order for an 80 ton vehicle to get 2-packed into a C-17, you'd need to dtrip over 50% of its weight, which is unreasonable to assume; much more likely that its in the 50-55 ton range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Where are you inferring that from?

Theyre basically saying a fully armored one can be shipped in a C-17 and if you remove some armor then its 2. Hoe much armor could you possibly remove? Even if we assume that armor is 25% of the GVW (ToT says 50% for armor and structure, lets say half is removable), to pack 2 per C-17 youd need the bare vehicle to not exceed 39 tons (max payload being 78 (metric) tons)- and therefore, the loaded one cannot under said assumptions exceed 52 tons.

In order for an 80 ton vehicle to get 2-packed into a C-17, you'd need to dtrip over 50% of its weight, which is unreasonable to assume; much more likely that its in the 50-55 ton range.

 

Because I cannot honestly see how an IFV in the ~52t range meets the very demanding passive armor requirements. Otherwise there was nothing stopping Rheinmetall from just offering a heavier bolt-on kit for the Lynx (which Rhm states has 6t of growth capacity at its full 44t weight), and Rheinmetall made no effort in that direction at all. Instead they just quietly dropped out under shipping errors as an excuse.

 

I find it quite likely that GD went for a radically pared-down base vehicle with virtually all of the armor being bolt-ons, and comments from industry suggest that the passive armor weight fraction is indeed very high, beyond what is normal due to the 360 degree protection requirements. I find it also telling that breaking defense said that GD's proposal was to ship the armor kits separately in other C-17s (which is implying an armor kit more than your 13t hypothesis as that would happily fly on a C-130, which they *would* have touted as there are a *lot* of C-130s and that was even a firm requirement back in the FCS days). I cannot say for certain obviously, but all of the info points more to a 40-50% passive armor fraction and virtually all of that being bolt-on. (And yes, vehicles with such high armor fractions *have* been built before, it's not impossible).

 

IMHO if modular armor was really capable of meeting the requirements at the weights you posit Lynx simply would have been entered with a heavier add-on kit, especially since Rheinmetall has its fingers deep in the manufacture and sales of modular armor kits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TokyoMorose said:

Instead they just quietly dropped out under shipping errors as an excuse.

Not what happened as I have posted earlier in a different thread.  So this via a contact in the right Raytheon office -

As I hear it, the failure to provide a sample came about as Raytheon decided not to bid (some time ago).  The decision was based on non-compliance with requirements.  About 10 days out from the closing date, that decision was reversed,  no idea why, seems unlikely that compliance could have changed much so I assume politics.  Problem, Rheinmetall, knowing the bid was off, began turret off deep maintenance on the proto.  The rest writes itself.

 

This was backed up by media reports.  The logistic problem was real.  But I do not think the outcome would have changed.  We need to remember that other large players decided not to bid at all.

 

I think people are over analyzing the GD bid.  It was non-compliant.  End of story.  If they had been compliant, we would not be having this conversation.  I bet there are a lot of DoD people pissed off with GD (as usual).  They comfortably rejected the Raytheon non-compliant bid because they had a GD bid in hand......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

(which Rhm states has 6t of growth capacity at its full 44t weight

yeah, except you need to change to a higher rated track to get to the 50t GVM.  The new track eats a tonne so real growth about 5t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bigger question.  What does this all mean for GD?  When was the last time they won work with a new platform?  Not upgrades, genuine new platform.  All their product is old.  But their competitors are making traction with new product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Not what happened as I have posted earlier in a different thread.  So this via a contact in the right Raytheon office -

As I hear it, the failure to provide a sample came about as Raytheon decided not to bid (some time ago).  The decision was based on non-compliance with requirements.  About 10 days out from the closing date, that decision was reversed,  no idea why, seems unlikely that compliance could have changed much so I assume politics.  Problem, Rheinmetall, knowing the bid was off, began turret off deep maintenance on the proto.  The rest writes itself.

 

This was backed up by media reports.  The logistic problem was real.  But I do not think the outcome would have changed.  We need to remember that other large players decided not to bid at all.

 

I think people are over analyzing the GD bid.  It was non-compliant.  End of story.  If they had been compliant, we would not be having this conversation.  I bet there are a lot of DoD people pissed off with GD (as usual).  They comfortably rejected the Raytheon non-compliant bid because they had a GD bid in hand......

 

That's kind of my point, Raytheon-Rheinmetall decided not to bid and the shipping issue was merely a side effect of a conscious decision to not bid. They decided not to bid because they knew they couldn't meet the impossible requirements, and Lynx can already grow to the ~50t number that NLM posits for the GD bid. Hence my supposition of the actual amount of weight needed to meet the requirement being much larger.

 

13 minutes ago, DIADES said:

A bigger question.  What does this all mean for GD?  When was the last time they won work with a new platform?  Not upgrades, genuine new platform.  All their product is old.  But their competitors are making traction with new product.

 

Supposedly, their tender was all-new. And considering their heaviest existing chassis cannot get anywhere *near* the required protection given its relatively low weight cap (42t) I am tempted to believe that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

which is implying an armor kit more than your 13t hypothesis as that would happily fly on a C-130

 

Or a C-17 was specified because 2 per C-17 was the unit of measure. The number of armor kits a C-17 could carry was never stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DIADES said:

So when did they last win new platform work?

 

If MPF counts as new enough. Though neither BAE nor GDLS has shown much of anything new in the ground vehicle world lately, mostly because there's been no necessity. I think BAE's last new showing was this:

e2RLRxw.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...