Ground Combat Vehicle Programme: Issues and Possible Alternatives

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.