Ground Combat Vehicle: The Impact of Modernity on the Future
In the middle of last May, four samples of infantry fighting vehicles created by various companies were delivered to Fort Bliss military base (Texas). This armored vehicle was brought in to conduct comparative tests, the purpose of which was to identify the BMP that was most suitable for the Pentagon. Specifically, these tests, conducted from 17 to 25 in May, were part of the NDV (Not-Developed Vehicle) technique, which, in turn, is part of the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program.
The GCV program was launched in 2009 year after the cessation of work on Future Combat Systems (FCS). Cancellation of the previous program did not affect the need to re-equip the ground forces and the US Marine Corps with new equipment. Therefore, the developments in the relevant section of the FCS program were saved and used in the GCV. At the same time, these two programs have a serious difference. So, FCS implied the uncontested creation of a completely new infantry fighting vehicle. GCV, in turn, involves three options for the development of BMP. The first of these concerns rethinking the experience and practice of using this class of technology. The implication was that in some cases, the role of an infantry fighting vehicle could be taken on by armored personnel carriers with appropriate weapons. True, over time, Pentagon analysts have come to the conclusion that it is too early to abandon this type of armored vehicles. The second way of development of infantry fighting vehicles is to consider and, in the long term, the start of large-scale production of a combat vehicle that has already been created and meets the requirements of the customer or can be quickly and simply brought into line with them. The third section of the GCV program is the most difficult, expensive and time-consuming: the creation of a completely new infantry fighting vehicle.
The tests that took place a month ago are part of the second direction. Since the new BMP should go into the troops already in 2017, and the development of a new machine may take much longer, it was decided to once again compare and check the existing types of equipment. Five companies were invited to participate in the program, representing five armored vehicles. This is an Israeli Namer BMP based on tank Merkava Mk4, Swedish CV9035 developed by BAE Systems Hagglunds, General Dynamics Stryker SDVH and BMP M2A3 Bradley, with which they removed their native turret with an automatic gun at BAE Systems. In addition, documents on the German Puma BMP were transferred to the commission responsible for the GCV NDV program, but the real model did not reach America.
For obvious reasons, the details of the course of the nine-day tests were not announced. Nevertheless, it is known that all four delivered vehicles overcame specially prepared tracks with obstacles of various kinds, after which they were transported to the White Sands training ground, where assessment shots were made. It is worth noting that the comparative tests of the four infantry fighting vehicles presented are far from simple. All of them have quite different designs, which entails a lot of consequences. For example, you can compare the Israeli car Namer and the Swedish CV9035. Thus, the “Namer”, being a reworking of the main battle tank Merkava Mk4, has anti-rigging composite armor. CV9035, in turn, is able to protect the crew "only" from 14,5-mm armor-piercing bullets. But in the field of armament, the Swedish development is breaking free: its 30- or 40-mm automatic cannon greatly surpasses the 12,7-mm M2HB machinegun or Mk19 automatic grenade launcher mounted on the "Inner". The same instability among the contestants is observed with their fighting masses. The lightest of the contestants is the Stryker SDVH with its 18 tons. In turn, Namer, as a clear "descendant" of the tank, weighs all sixty.
In general, the comparison of such different machines, although they belong to the same class, is quite complicated. However, in a sense, this is even a plus. The large variation in characteristics, both in running gears and in combat gears, allows drawing appropriate conclusions and, with much greater efficiency, developing the appearance of the BMP of the future. Of course, it is unlikely that any of the presented machines will become the benchmark for all indicators for a promising design, but it will turn out to choose the general direction of development. In addition, in case of failure of the planned development period of a completely new BMP, the NDV program will have one more positive consequence in the form of the purchase of already existing armored vehicles for infantry, meeting most of the requirements currently available. But such a development will only happen if BAE Systems and General Dynamics fail to cope with their obligations.
Back in 2009, these companies were instructed to develop their projects for promising infantry fighting vehicles for equipping ground forces and marines. Regarding the exact course of work, BAE Systems and GD do not yet apply, although they occasionally share various computerized images and diagrams on the subject. At the moment, the available information gives the impression of the continuation of the current development trend of American BMPs. The images presented by BAE Systems and General Dynamics clearly show the characteristic outlines of the tower of the Bradley machine and weapons similar to it. As for the chassis, in its case, you can observe the classic scheme of an infantry fighting vehicle with an engine compartment in the front of the hull and an amphibious assault vehicle in the rear. Obviously, such a layout - by the way, used on all participants of the NDV subprogram except “Stryker” - will be the basis for the machine that will eventually be adopted.
It’s too early to talk about arming new GCV machine projects, but from the published materials it follows the fact that it will also continue the “tradition”. Main weapon in the form of a 30- or 40-millimeter automatic cannon and an additional machine gun (caliber 7,62 or 12,7 millimeter) has long established itself in the best way and it is unlikely that the US military will make a serious change to this set. Is that the requirements for the barrel weapons will be added to the wishes of the automatic grenade launchers or anti-tank missiles. But this area is not something revolutionary new.
It should be noted that the tested and developed infantry fighting vehicles are not the sole purpose of the GCV program. In addition to the BMP itself, this program involves the creation on its base of self-propelled howitzers and so-called. secondary car. Regarding self-propelled guns, it is known that the caliber of the gun will be at least 100 millimeters, but almost nothing is known about the “secondary machine”. At the moment, the military and engineers did not publish detailed information about this type of equipment. Most likely, such a strange term is understood as a universal platform for command-staff, ambulance, evacuation and similar machines. However, confirmation of this version has not yet been. But the customer and the developer say quite a lot about the requirements for the electronics of the promising BMP. The communication, navigation and targeting systems of the vehicle must be fully compatible with the unified communications and control system BCT Network that is being created.
There is evidence that by the end of June, the analysis of the information obtained in comparative tests will be completed. Further, all the data will be transferred to the relevant departments of the Pentagon, as well as companies engaged in the development of new infantry fighting vehicles. Accordingly, the appearance of projects can change significantly. At the same time, the adjustment of projects is unlikely to be long and laborious. It is obvious that the developers themselves, represented by GD and BAE Systems, have long been working with the military on the requirements for their developments. However, unfortunately, the degree of adjustment of projects in accordance with the results of comparative tests under the NDV subroutine can be discussed only when the customer and developers deign to show the world not only finished BMP, but also working materials on projects.
On the materials of the sites:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
http://army.mil/
http://bctmod.army.mil/
CV9035 BAE Systems on the tests of the GCV program of the US Army at the White Sands range. May 2012 of the year
The GCV program was launched in 2009 year after the cessation of work on Future Combat Systems (FCS). Cancellation of the previous program did not affect the need to re-equip the ground forces and the US Marine Corps with new equipment. Therefore, the developments in the relevant section of the FCS program were saved and used in the GCV. At the same time, these two programs have a serious difference. So, FCS implied the uncontested creation of a completely new infantry fighting vehicle. GCV, in turn, involves three options for the development of BMP. The first of these concerns rethinking the experience and practice of using this class of technology. The implication was that in some cases, the role of an infantry fighting vehicle could be taken on by armored personnel carriers with appropriate weapons. True, over time, Pentagon analysts have come to the conclusion that it is too early to abandon this type of armored vehicles. The second way of development of infantry fighting vehicles is to consider and, in the long term, the start of large-scale production of a combat vehicle that has already been created and meets the requirements of the customer or can be quickly and simply brought into line with them. The third section of the GCV program is the most difficult, expensive and time-consuming: the creation of a completely new infantry fighting vehicle.
Three samples tested by the US Army GCV program at the White Sands range. From left to right: Turretless Bradley, CV9035, Namer. May 2012 of the year
The tests that took place a month ago are part of the second direction. Since the new BMP should go into the troops already in 2017, and the development of a new machine may take much longer, it was decided to once again compare and check the existing types of equipment. Five companies were invited to participate in the program, representing five armored vehicles. This is an Israeli Namer BMP based on tank Merkava Mk4, Swedish CV9035 developed by BAE Systems Hagglunds, General Dynamics Stryker SDVH and BMP M2A3 Bradley, with which they removed their native turret with an automatic gun at BAE Systems. In addition, documents on the German Puma BMP were transferred to the commission responsible for the GCV NDV program, but the real model did not reach America.
For obvious reasons, the details of the course of the nine-day tests were not announced. Nevertheless, it is known that all four delivered vehicles overcame specially prepared tracks with obstacles of various kinds, after which they were transported to the White Sands training ground, where assessment shots were made. It is worth noting that the comparative tests of the four infantry fighting vehicles presented are far from simple. All of them have quite different designs, which entails a lot of consequences. For example, you can compare the Israeli car Namer and the Swedish CV9035. Thus, the “Namer”, being a reworking of the main battle tank Merkava Mk4, has anti-rigging composite armor. CV9035, in turn, is able to protect the crew "only" from 14,5-mm armor-piercing bullets. But in the field of armament, the Swedish development is breaking free: its 30- or 40-mm automatic cannon greatly surpasses the 12,7-mm M2HB machinegun or Mk19 automatic grenade launcher mounted on the "Inner". The same instability among the contestants is observed with their fighting masses. The lightest of the contestants is the Stryker SDVH with its 18 tons. In turn, Namer, as a clear "descendant" of the tank, weighs all sixty.
Israeli heavy BTR Namer on the tests of the GCV program of the US Army at the White Sands range. May 2012 of the year
In general, the comparison of such different machines, although they belong to the same class, is quite complicated. However, in a sense, this is even a plus. The large variation in characteristics, both in running gears and in combat gears, allows drawing appropriate conclusions and, with much greater efficiency, developing the appearance of the BMP of the future. Of course, it is unlikely that any of the presented machines will become the benchmark for all indicators for a promising design, but it will turn out to choose the general direction of development. In addition, in case of failure of the planned development period of a completely new BMP, the NDV program will have one more positive consequence in the form of the purchase of already existing armored vehicles for infantry, meeting most of the requirements currently available. But such a development will only happen if BAE Systems and General Dynamics fail to cope with their obligations.
Back in 2009, these companies were instructed to develop their projects for promising infantry fighting vehicles for equipping ground forces and marines. Regarding the exact course of work, BAE Systems and GD do not yet apply, although they occasionally share various computerized images and diagrams on the subject. At the moment, the available information gives the impression of the continuation of the current development trend of American BMPs. The images presented by BAE Systems and General Dynamics clearly show the characteristic outlines of the tower of the Bradley machine and weapons similar to it. As for the chassis, in its case, you can observe the classic scheme of an infantry fighting vehicle with an engine compartment in the front of the hull and an amphibious assault vehicle in the rear. Obviously, such a layout - by the way, used on all participants of the NDV subprogram except “Stryker” - will be the basis for the machine that will eventually be adopted.
Machines presented by BAE Systems for testing under the GCV program of the US Army at the White Sands test site are in the foreground of Turretless Bradley, followed by the modified M2A3 Bradley. May 2012 of the year
It’s too early to talk about arming new GCV machine projects, but from the published materials it follows the fact that it will also continue the “tradition”. Main weapon in the form of a 30- or 40-millimeter automatic cannon and an additional machine gun (caliber 7,62 or 12,7 millimeter) has long established itself in the best way and it is unlikely that the US military will make a serious change to this set. Is that the requirements for the barrel weapons will be added to the wishes of the automatic grenade launchers or anti-tank missiles. But this area is not something revolutionary new.
It should be noted that the tested and developed infantry fighting vehicles are not the sole purpose of the GCV program. In addition to the BMP itself, this program involves the creation on its base of self-propelled howitzers and so-called. secondary car. Regarding self-propelled guns, it is known that the caliber of the gun will be at least 100 millimeters, but almost nothing is known about the “secondary machine”. At the moment, the military and engineers did not publish detailed information about this type of equipment. Most likely, such a strange term is understood as a universal platform for command-staff, ambulance, evacuation and similar machines. However, confirmation of this version has not yet been. But the customer and the developer say quite a lot about the requirements for the electronics of the promising BMP. The communication, navigation and targeting systems of the vehicle must be fully compatible with the unified communications and control system BCT Network that is being created.
Modified BMP M2А3 Bradley on the tests of the GCV program of the US Army at the White Sands range. May 2012 of the year
There is evidence that by the end of June, the analysis of the information obtained in comparative tests will be completed. Further, all the data will be transferred to the relevant departments of the Pentagon, as well as companies engaged in the development of new infantry fighting vehicles. Accordingly, the appearance of projects can change significantly. At the same time, the adjustment of projects is unlikely to be long and laborious. It is obvious that the developers themselves, represented by GD and BAE Systems, have long been working with the military on the requirements for their developments. However, unfortunately, the degree of adjustment of projects in accordance with the results of comparative tests under the NDV subroutine can be discussed only when the customer and developers deign to show the world not only finished BMP, but also working materials on projects.
Stryker on the tests of the GCV program of the US Army at the White Sands range. May 2012 of the year
On the materials of the sites:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
http://army.mil/
http://bctmod.army.mil/
Information