The Case Against the New Army Ground Combat Vehicle
By Scott Clay, Military Consultant for Bishop & Associates Inc.

Despite the current need for a new ground combat vehicle (GCV) in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the program is not likely to proceed. The HUMVEE, pictured right, will likely be in production for years. There are many arguments against the development of the new GCV: 

1. A multi-needs vehicle is difficult to incorporate into one platform. During the heyday of Future Combat System vehicles, the Army planned as many as 16 variants to carry out the various missions and assignments. In the end, they even had problems deciding on hybrid or traditional diesel/gas power. While the goal of this vehicle is to replace only the M2A2 Bradley, there are five versions of the Bradley in service, and it is augmented in the field with Strykers, M-113s, and other vehicles.  

2. The five versions of the Bradley were built by United Defense, with over 4,000 vehicles fielded. They also made a version for the British called the Warrior, which is still in service. BAE Systems now owns the former U.D. locations, and the York Pennsylvania plant is the prime site for rebuilding and upgrading the M2A2 force vehicles. It is planned for the Bradley platform to be realigned and in service for at least the next 20 years.

3. Among the various specifications required for the new GCV, a key goal is to make the vehicle impervious to common and deadly IEDs (improvised explosive devices). Experience in Afghanistan has proven that even the most robust MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected), those of the Category 3, which can weigh as much as 60,000 pounds, and can carry up to 25,000 pounds more, can still be taken out of action by these new IEDs. The design of the v-shaped hull of the MRAP raised its center of gravity two feet higher than standard Army trucks and their increased weight makes them more difficult to handle, especially icross country. The focus of “survive the blast” was the objective, and early in Iraq, some commanders wanted to replace all their HUMVEEs with MRAPS. MRAPs soon proved not to be the cure all, especially in close quarters and urban settings, where their weight, high sides, and large turning radius proved to be a detriment.

4. Putting v-shaped hulls to better handle IEDs has even been suggested as an upgrade for the Stryker, which already has a higher center of gravity and more suspension and drive train space than the Bradley. This has proven to be complicated due to engineering and cost issues. This would be even more difficult on the track-driven Bradley. In fact, a v-shaped hull on a track-driven vehicle may not be an engineering possibility, and the Army has now decided that the new GCV will be a tracked chassis. It remains to be seen how they would design a tracked-drive system on such a hull.

5. Another threat that would face a new vehicle is the latest version of the RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenades). The initial armor answer to this threat goes back to World War II, when the Germans hung plate armor on the sides of their tanks to explode the Russian and American rockets before they hit the hull or main surface of the vehicle. For early versions of RPGs, this was added on to various American vehicles in Iraq, where they used plate armor, sheet steel, and eventually an ingeniously designed “slat” armor that looks like Venetian blinds. This improved the visibility from within the vehicle while providing improved protection. Thousands of kits were ordered and sent to both theaters, especially for the Strykers. They have installed a version of “reactive” armor packages on the Bradley, which have had mixed reviews in the field. They were effective against RPGs and grenades, but they add weight and put additional strain on the engine, suspension, and transmission. Also, damaged panels have to be replaced, as that spot offered a weak point on the hull of the vehicle. They also cannot be used everywhere on the chassis. There is, however, a new generation of these deadly weapons that is designed to defeat this type of armor, with shaped charges, multiple warheads, sabot rounds—a penetrating rod of hardened steel or even depleted uranium—that pierces the slat armor, and then slams into and through the hard steel hull. These can even penetrate the hull of an M1A2, which has two to three inches of armor in its least protected areas. The newest generation of these weapons is being provided to the Taliban in Afghanistan by Iran and Syria.

6. All of this armor, and the target weight of 50-70 tons for the GCV, will make it unmanageable in many areas. This has been proven in Afghanistan, as the first thing that became apparent was the larger MRAPs were too big for the narrow, mountain roads that are prevalent in the country. A new, smaller MRAP was needed, and a rush program was implemented to buy smaller, but a similarly well protected vehicle for that theatre. Oshkosh Truck received a contract for over 6,000 of these M-ATVs and has delivered well over 2,000 to Afghanistan. However, it was found that weight and size reduction efforts made the vehicle vulnerable to the newest IEDs, and several contracts were given to provide “up armor” kits for the M-ATVs. These kits were ordered by TACOM (Tank-Automotive and Armament Command) from Oshkosh for 1,080 RPG protection kits for the M-ATV. This, of course, adds weight and expands the overall dimensions, which again cuts its usefulness in urban areas and defeats the purpose for which the vehicles were ordered.

7. Weight is an enemy in Afghanistan. Weight, in the form of added armor protection, just makes vehicles less mobile and more easily targeted. The Army has a vision or weight goal for the GCV of 50 to 70 tons, but a recent Defense News article quoted another Army general that they needed “weight reduction” to make the vehicle air transportable. The Army has given up achieving a weight low enough for a C-130, which was always the goal for the vehicles and could not weigh more than 16 to 18 tons. As the design weight exceeded these limits, they pushed aside the C-130 requirement and aimed at being able to put two vehicles in a C-17 airlifter.

8. The most combat-proven, and possibly the best vehicle, is already in existence: the Israeli Defense Force [IDF] 60-ton NAMER, an infantry vehicle built on the Merkava Tank Chassis. It has the latest self-protection and armaments. It can carry up to 12 troops, has a remote weapons system, and even has the Rafel Trophy anti-RPG/rocket system used on the Merkava Main Battle Tank. This tank, now in its fourth version, has been battle proven. It would cost far less than developing an entirely new vehicle and its production could be outsourced to General Dynamics, Oshkosh, or BAE Systems. This would be a departure from past practices, as almost all previous vehicle systems were “U.S. made” only, but would make sense from a cost standpoint.

In conclusion, I believe that the Army will simply not be able to afford this new vehicle. The cost of the Future Combat System program grew from $70 billion to an estimated $160 billion in just a few years. With defense budgets being cut here and abroad, there is not the money or the political will to fund the GCV program.

---

Scott Clay Military & Aerospace Consultant, Bishop & Associates Inc. Scott Clay has worked for more than 25 years in the connector and wiring systems markets. He has held various positions in field applications and marketing for Molex, Tyco, Methode, and ITT. For the past 15 years, Clay has focused on the military/aerospace sector, and seven years ago formed his own company for consulting and application engineering. He has worked on design-in and electronics on F/A-18E/F, F-22, F-35, C-130J, C-5M, C-27, P-8, A-10, and numerous other aircraft. Some of the Navy programs Clay has participated in are SSN-774 Virginia class subs, CVX, DDG-1000, and the Littoral Combat Ship class. He has extensive expertise in land vehicle systems, and has worked closely with the worldwide locations of GD, BAE, AM General, and other key manufacturers. He is currently working on variations of MRAP, JLTV, upgrades for the Bradley fighting vehicle, M-88 recovery vehicle, FMTV, and other platforms in the wiring and systems areas, plus portions of cockpit avionics on rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft.