The shocking discontinuation of US Army
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) programme January this year has overwhelmed related
defence contractors with cold atmosphere. Defence industry giants namely BAE
Systems, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and
Tognum America were all in full throttle when the undesirable news emerged.
While the army is forecasting the need for better mobility solution for a nine-member
infantry squad, the US government however slashed 83% of the requested $592
million, leaving the army with only $100 million of total fund for the
programme’s research and development.
According to Chief of Staff of the US
Army Gen Ray Odierno, the Army is definitely in need of a new infantry-fighting
vehicle (IFV) but due to the economy downturn, could not afford to develop one.
Odierno added that the hope now is that the remaining fund will provide the
Army with sufficient capital to develop all required technologies so that in
years ahead when the programme is revived, things will get back on track to
replace their ageing Bradley.
Emphasising on full nine-member squad mobility
Infantry squads
of the US Army consist of nine men – a squad leader and two four-men
fire-teams. These people rely on IFVs as their main transportation during
battle. As a primary weapon and a means of transport for infantry squads, the
Army perceives the IFV as one of its most important asset in battle theatres.
The issue regarding the battle-worn Bradley is its lack of space, with the
capability to transport only seven soldiers thus necessitating a squad to be
divided among vehicles. This separation issue, according to strategic studies,
has all this while put these squads in a state of total vulnerability because
of the difficulties in communication as well as organisation.
The lack of
space does not only prevent a full-sized squad to move in unity, but also
disables a squad to take along the often-needed additional soldiers which may
include radio-operators, medics or forward observers. The Army is striving to
tackle this issue hence the introduction of the GCV platform.
Overcoming the challenges
Findings and
results of more recent war games have highlighted the need for rapid deployment
in small formations. The Army is anticipating a more expeditionary type of
operations in the near future. Through war games and recent international
operations, they learnt that every deployment has to be fast and to be
effectively mobile, having to move with minimal but optimal equipments and
supports. The Army too believes that future operations will tend to take place
in remote areas. Therefore, it is believed that the development of a more
rugged and mobile IFV or GCV will greatly contribute in the service’s future
deployments.
Though GCV
programme’s revival is possible, the Congress through its Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) report had earlier outlined some issues regarding the GCV itself.
A contrasting fact is that while the Army is striving for all-terrain mobility,
the GCV platform turns out to be way heavier than the Army’s current Bradley
IFV. While the ageing Bradley weighs no more than 39 tonnes, the GCV however
weighs approximately 50 to 65 tonnes. Though this excessive weight came as a
result of heavier and stronger armoury, this huge excess weight somehow will
affect the GCV’s logistic ability and mobility in and into battle theatres.
Weighing at 65 tonnes each, rapid deployment seems impossible. The C-17 is able
to transport three Bradleys at a single time but flying three GCVs in a single
flight is far beyond reality. Logistic cost is more than likely to skyrocket.
This has become a major drawback during its valuation stage, which later
brought to the programme’s dead end.
In addition to
that, the GCV programme too has faced several technical challenges which may
impact its performance later down the road. One issue that comes into question
is the vehicle’s ability to protect its passengers without having to overload
itself with heavier armour. Materials such as ceramic and other lightweight
armour are either too expensive or not suitable for the GCV; they require more
time for development. Another alternative is the utilisation of
active-protection systems - this kind of technology is not fully developed too.
Without being able to overcome these issues, developers may need to settle down
with the more conventional armour that brings to a concrete conclusion; more
weight and higher fuel consumption and therefore higher operating cost.
Budgetary issue
has and will always become a major concern from any government’s point of view.
In an effort to contain the programme within its target cost, the Army had to
allow some capability trade-offs. Unlike the Bradley, GCV had to give up
anti-tank missile launcher. To make things worst, the Army too had settled down
without the armour kits that was supposed to protect two-third of the vehicle,
smaller and less powerful 25mm cannon instead of the 30mm earlier planned and a
set of less sophisticated sensors and optical equipments.
Forking out alternatives
The CBO, post
evaluation process suggested a number of alternatives. First alternative is to
purchase the German Puma IFV. As one of the strongest option, Puma too lacks on
certain features. Another alternative suggested by the CBO is the Israeli Namer
APC. The Namer however has an issue regarding firepower. Third suggestion is to
upgrade the US Army current fleets of Bradleys to lengthen its service life for
years to come. The last and the least favoured option, which now has become
reality is to kill the GCV programme, retaining the current Bradley while at
the same time running a research for its life-extension programme.
While this
article focuses on the US Army GCV programme, ADJ also brings you about a
number of IFVs of similar class, which we believe share some distinct features;
especially with six or more seating configuration. We will examine each IFV’s
survivability (armoury), lethality (weaponry), mobility (engine capacity) as well
as maximum number of passengers. The proposed alternatives include other IFVs
namely the Puma, Namer, Turkish Tulpar, Bradley and its upgrade programme as
well as a few others.
M2 Bradley
First we look at the Bradley IFV, which
the Army initially opted to phase out due to its ageing issue as well as a part
of future capabilities development process. First entered service in 1981, the
Bradley IFV variant was manufactured under the Bradley family of fighting
vehicles by BAE Systems Land and Armaments, back then known as United
Defense.
The Bradley weigh falls between 35 to 41 tonnes,
depending on armour kits equipped on each vehicle. It is armed with a
Bushmaster M242 25mm chain gun as its primary weapon, a 7.62mm machine gun as
its secondary firepower as well as a missile launcher for TOW anti-tank
missiles. The IFV is powered by a Cummins VTA-903T diesel engine, capable of producing
600hp. Power to weight ratio is rated at 19.7hp/tonne. Therefore, despite its
relatively vintage-age, it is no surprise that the Bradley is able to reach a
top speed of 66km/h.
Under the GCV programme,
the upgrades of US Army current Bradley fleets are considered as one of the
cheapest alternatives for the US government. However, this alternative has
become an issue due to the Army’s main objective to acquire a nine-seater IFV.
It is worth mentioning that under the upgrade programme, the ageing Bradley may
possibly undergo quite a few modernisation initiatives including more powerful
engine, better sets of suspension, additional armour, advanced optics and an
additional 7.62mm machine gun.
Under the government
estimation, in order to upgrade and field all Bradley, a sum of $19.5 billion
of fund will be required beginning 2014 until 2030. Out of the $19.5 billion,
$2.7 billion will have to be allocated over integration process while the rest
goes for units purchase, amounting to 1748 in total numbers with a price tag of
$9.6 million each.
Schützenpanzer Puma
Development of the Puma IFV began in the
90s as a replacement plan of the German’s ageing Marder vehicle. The
development process took place between Rheinmetall Landsysteme and
Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW). Production started circa 2008 and the German Army
received its first Puma in the same year. In term of lethality, the Puma is
equipped with a dual-fed Rheinmetall Mauser 30mm cannon as its primary weapon
and a 5.56mm HK MG4 machine gun as its secondary. In addition to that, unlike
the proposed GCV that eliminates anti-tank missile, the Puma rolls out of
factory readily equipped with a launcher for Spike anti-tank missile. It is powered by
an MTU 892 turbocharged diesel engine, developing a huge 1073 horsepower with a
maximum speed of 70km/h.
The Puma is proposed with a 12-tonne
armour kits package, which gives the IFV a total weight of 43 tonnes when fully
armoured. Meanwhile, its underbelly is protected against mines and IED threats.
At 31.5 tonnes in its basic armour package, the Puma is readily fitted with
floating seats for six passengers excluding its crew of three. As an
alternative of the GCV, the lack of seat numbers has however become an issue
since the US Army is eyeing on a nine-seater solution.
At $6.9 million each,
the Puma is one of the cheapest options for the US Army IFV replacement
programme. Despite of its lack of passenger seats, the Puma under the CBO
evaluation turns out to be the most lethal and possesses higher survivability
due to its 450mm-high ground clearance. Moreover, since the Puma is already in
production, the US government estimated that integration process will only cost
approximately $500 million and they also estimated that the procurement of Puma
would cost a total of $14 billion less than the GCV programme’s target cost.
Namer
Born out of the Israel-Lebanon conflict,
the Namer, or earlier named Nammera is an armoured-personnel carrier (APC)
manufactured by Israeli Ordnance Corps. Designed and developed for the Israeli
Defence Force, Namer carries the DNA of its predecessor, the legendary Merkava
tank. It was built bottom-up based on Merkava tank chassis hence the large
size. Post Israel-Lebanon conflict has saw Israel Defence Force insisted on a
new armoured-vehicle to be fielded after the old M113 was proven vulnerable to
explosive type of threats. It was in 2008 when the Namer first entered service
and production numbers today has reached a total of 200 units.
Compared to Bradley and Puma, the Namer
weighs a whooping 60 tonnes, making it the heaviest option among the GCV
alternatives. However, it is important to stress that the excess weight comes
from a package of strong armour kits, which were made of classified composite
matrix of laminated ceramic-nickel-steel-alloy and underlaid reactive armour.
The Namer too, thanks to its large build-up is able to fulfil the Army’s demand
of a nine-seater IFV.
Despite the advantages of stronger armour
and larger interior capacity, the Namer too possesses some disadvantages, which
are seen as major drawbacks. In comparison with the Puma and Bradley, Namer is
left behind in term of firepower capability. It is only equipped with a 12.7mm
heavy machine gun and a 7.62mm machine gun as its secondary weapon. Though it
is armed with mortar and smoke grenade dischargers, the Namer is in a position
where its defensive capability greatly outweighs its offensive capability. Its
lack of offensive power puts the Namer as the weakest alternative under the CBO
evaluation. However, bear in mind that the Namer was designed as an APC not as
IFV hence the lack in firepower.
Tagged at $11 million each, procurement
of the Namer will cost the US government an estimated figure of $19.5 billion –
$9 billion less of that the GCV programme. Development and integration process
would take up only $300 million while the rest of the $19.5 billion goes to the
procurement of 1748 Namer vehicles.
Tulpar
Apart from the suggested alternatives of
the GCV programme, it is worth to mention a few other IFVs that have similar
capabilities that put them altogether into a similar class. To name one is the
Tulpar IFV by Otokar. This Turkish latest and most advanced IFV was designed
for the Turkish Armed Forces, unveiled during IDEF exhibition held last year.
According to Otokar, the Tulpar will comprise a number of variants including reconnaissance,
command-and-control, personnel carrier, mortar, recovery, launch rocket system,
air defence, ambulance and anti-tank vehicles. Though available in arrays of
variants, this article however brings you about the Tulpar in its IFV variant.
Comparable to the Puma, the Tulpar too is designed with a
high ground clearance of 450mm for better protection against mines and IED
threats. Looking at its firepower, Tulpar IFV operates with Mizrak 30 unmanned
turret, armed with a 30mm dual-fed cannon, L-Umtas anti-tank missile launcher
as well as a 7.62mm Browning machine gun as its secondary weapon system. In
term of survivability, the Tulpar IFV is offered with three armour packages.
Depending on its armour packages, the Tulpar will weigh somewhere between 25 to
40 tonnes.
At the heart
of the IFV is a Scania DSI
14/16 diesel engine. Known for its durability and reliability, Scania as one of
the biggest European diesel engine manufacturer helps to generate 810hp under
the hood, allowing the Tulpar to reach a top speed of 70km/h and a maximum
range of 600km. Moreover, this IFV is able to carry nine fully-equipped
soldiers, making it a suitable contender under the GCV programme alternatives.
Though the price tag is yet to be disclosed, Tulpar, under the IFV flag is a
strong contender for armed forces all over the world in search of a capable and
reliable IFV.
Anders
Anders history began in 2008 when it
first went into development stage following the Polish Army’s demand for a new
IFV to replace its Soviet-era BMP-1 IFV. OBRUM was responsible for the
development and manufacturing process of the Anders until its first prototype
was made public in 2010. Named after a WWII general, Anders’ weigh ranges from
25 to 35 tonnes. Its protection package consists of a set of modular armour,
providing all-around shield against 7.62mm rounds. In addition to that,
optional add-on armoury may provide further protection up against 25mm
projectiles.
In order to
enhance its offensive power, the Anders IFV is equipped with OTO Melara’s
Hitfist-30P turret, along a 30-mm cannon while its secondary weapon is a 7.62mm
machine gun. Anders spacious interior is able to hold three crew and eight
additional soldiers. Powering the IFV is a German-made MTU turbocharged diesel
engine, which is capable of generating 720hp. Thanks to its reasonable weight,
the Anders may reach a top speed of 72km/h and able to reach a destination as
far as 600km. Price announcement is yet to be done, but the Polish Army has
expressed an interest to purchase 1000 units of similar vehicle.
