Military Review

GCV program and its alternatives

47
GCV program and its alternatives



The United States is currently developing the ground combat vehicle GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle). For the new technology, there are rather high requirements, the fulfillment of which forces developers to apply new technical solutions uncharacteristic of previous infantry fighting vehicles. The use of non-standard solutions entails the need for additional research and design work, which directly affects the cost of the entire program. In this regard, there are proposals to save on the new GCV program and provide the armed forces with a decent fighting vehicle.

Requirements for a promising BMP boil down to four main points. It is the combination of these four qualities, according to the Pentagon, that will help provide the army with modern equipment, ready to work in the conditions of a modern war. From the GCV machine is required:
- Vserakursknaya protection against various threats, such as small weapon, small-caliber artillery, anti-tank grenade launchers / missiles and mines of various types, including improvised. A prospective BMP must withstand not only the entry of ammunition or the detonation of an explosive device, but also be able, after sustaining some damage, to continue combat work;
- combat effectiveness. This means firepower sufficient to attack a large range of targets, from manpower to lightly armored vehicles and fortifications;
- high mobility on the highway and in off-road conditions;
- troop compartment for nine soldiers with weapons and equipment. The own crew of an infantry fighting vehicle GCV in this case should consist of three people.

It is easy to see that none of the armored vehicles currently available in the American army meet such requirements. For example, M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles are capable of carrying only seven paratroopers and cannot protect them from weapons more powerful than small-caliber or small-caliber artillery. In addition, in accordance with the requirements of the past years, the side and aft armor of this machine is significantly inferior to the frontal in terms of protection, which accordingly affects combat capabilities in urban combat. Also in the context of the protection of the BMP "Bradley" should mention the lack of anti-mine tools. As for the armament of the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, in this parameter it almost meets the requirements for the GCV.

To date, the main technical requirements for the projects of the promising BMP of the GCV program have been determined and it is already possible to speculate about the specific appearance of this vehicle. So, the combat weight must be within 50-65 short tons (45-59 tons metric). It is necessary to enter anti-bullet and splinter armor and means of protection against anti-tank weapons within these limits. Behind the armor, the car must carry the airborne troop compartment and the complex of modern electronics necessary for communication with other infantry fighting vehicles and command. The armament of the GCV infantry combat vehicle, as required by the Pentagon, will consist of one 25 or 30 mm automatic cannon and a large-caliber machine gun paired with it. It is noteworthy that among the requirements of the military department there is also a point regarding remote control of armaments.

Based on the available information about the appearance of a promising BMP, one can draw appropriate conclusions about the cost of the entire program as a whole, and about the price of each car in particular. The specific requirements of the Pentagon, some of which have not previously been presented to the technology being developed, transparently hint at the complexity of the project, and this fact will entail corresponding financial consequences. Recently, the US military has been forced to cut costs and carefully evaluate projects for financial prospects. In this, the Pentagon is assisted by Congress and some of its administrations. For example, in April of this year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a report by The Army's Ground Combat Vehicle Program and Alternatives (“The GCV Army Program and its Alternatives”), which carefully considered the financial side of creating a new BMP and possible cost reduction methods.

In view of the impossibility of accurately predicting the final price of GCV combat vehicles, the Budget Office has taken up several alternatives for consideration, the cost of which is either known or can be determined on the basis of the data currently available. GCV competitors in the report were the new modernization project of the American BMP M2 Bradley, the Israeli heavy armored carrier Namer and the German machine Puma. As an alternative to all of these options, the CBO also considered the option of completely abandoning the new infantry fighting vehicle and maintaining the existing Bradley-type fleet.

Sizes of Bradley BMP and GCV, April 2013.


If the Pentagon chooses the latter option, then before 2030, the US Army will have a sufficient number of infantry fighting vehicles. At the same time, this technique will not meet some of the requirements for a promising infantry fighting vehicle, primarily in terms of the level of protection and the number of soldiers transported. In addition, the abandonment of the GCV program and any of its alternatives will only be a temporary solution, since the ground forces still need new armored vehicles and its development will simply be postponed for several years. Thus, the rejection of any existing programs to create a promising infantry fighting vehicle will only reduce costs without solving the existing technical problems.

The proposed modernization of the M2 Bradley BMP implies the installation of a new engine of higher power, additional reservation modules, as well as dynamic and active protection systems. In addition, there is a proposal that this combat vehicle should receive new surveillance systems and an additional machine gun caliber 7,62 mm. With such a modernization, according to analysts, Bradley’s combat effectiveness will increase by 60%. For such an increase in performance will have to pay. The entire program of upgrading or purchasing 1700 and more combat vehicles will cost the Pentagon about 19,5 billion dollars. Approximately 2,7 billion will need to spend on the development of the project, and the rest of the money will be spent on the construction of new BMP or retrofitting of old ones. One new car in this case will cost about 9,6 million dollars.

Features Selected Combat Vehicles, including GCV Alternatives, April 2013


The M2 Bradley update has both advantages and disadvantages. The former include the comparative cheapness of the program (approximately 9-10 billions cheaper than the GCV project), the relatively short implementation timeframe due to the absence of the need to set up production, as well as lower risks that can affect the timing and the final cost of updating the fleet. However, this project is not without flaws. First of all, it is his compromise nature. It is unlikely that on the basis of an armored vehicle that does not fully meet the requirements, it will be possible to make a new BMP that fully meets all the wishes of the customer. An example of this is the size of the troop compartment. Even after the upgrade, the Bradley will not be able to transport nine paratroopers, as the Pentagon wants. In addition, additional booking over the native bulletproof will not be a complete solution to the problem of protection.

The Israeli Namer heavy armored personnel carrier is devoid of almost all the flaws inherent in the other vehicles discussed in the report. This armored personnel carrier was made on the basis of the main tank Merkava Mk IV, which accordingly influenced its main characteristics. Of all the armored vehicles budgeted by the Budget Office, Namer has the most serious protection and also meets the current military requirements regarding the number of soldiers transported. However, the Israeli armored personnel carrier is also the heaviest of the considered vehicles: depending on the configuration, its combat weight varies between 60-65 tons, and this greatly complicates the transfer of such equipment by air. In addition, in the current state, the Israeli armored vehicle has insufficient firepower, since it is equipped with only two machine guns of 12,7 and 7,62 mm caliber.

One Namer armored personnel carrier, according to the CBO, is worth 11 million dollars. However, despite the higher price compared with the M2 Bradley upgrade, the total cost of purchasing 1700 more than combat vehicles will be about the same - about 19,5 billion, which is noticeably cheaper than the GCV project. In this case, due to the relatively weak weapons, the Israeli armored vehicle has less advantages over the existing equipment. According to analysts, Namer will provide a reduction in infantry losses by a third, but at the same time, the ability to destroy enemy personnel and equipment will fall by 36%. Thus, the purchase of Namer armored personnel carriers will be an ambiguous step, giving no guaranteed benefits. Perhaps, it would be possible to reach an agreement with the Israeli defense industry on upgrading the combat vehicle and equipping it with a new armament complex, but this will certainly affect the cost of the project.



The planned GCV armament will include an 25 automatic cannon and a remote-controlled installation with a 12,7 mm machine gun. The landing is planned to increase from 7 to 9 people, which is considered an important requirement. Weight 50-65 short tons.


Another option for equipping troops with existing equipment is the purchase of a German Puma BMP. Due to the lower price, the Pentagon will be able to buy more than two thousand cars worth about 14 billion, which is significantly less than in the case of other options. Moreover, two thousand “Pumas” will cost the US budget about twice as cheap as the completion of the GCV program. In the future, due to unforeseen expenses, the difference in the price of programs is likely to increase.

However, the lower cost hides the corresponding problems with meeting the requirements. For example, the German BMP Puma is capable of carrying only six paratroopers, which is one and a half times less than their required number. In addition, the native booking of this machine provides protection only from bullets and shrapnel, although this disadvantage can be eliminated by installing additional booking modules. The existing cons of the German technology are also compensated by interesting fighting qualities. In the uninhabited tower "Pumas" mounted 30-mm automatic gun and 5,56-mm machine gun. It is also possible to install an anti-tank missile system. According to CBO estimates, the firepower of the German BMP is 103% higher than that of the American M2 Bradley in its current form. The reduction in personnel losses when using Puma is estimated at 28%, and the increase in mobility is estimated at 22%. The overall advantage of Puma over Bradley in all combat and technical characteristics is 45%.

All the options for reducing the cost of upgrading armored vehicles proposed by the Congressional Budget Office have a common characteristic. None of the armored vehicles reviewed in the report fully complies with the requirements for the prospective BMC GCV. For example, the Israeli Namer armored personnel carrier has the highest level of protection, but its weapons leave much to be desired. The German BMP Puma, in turn, is equipped with a good weapon system, but its troop compartment is one and a half times less than the customer requires. Finally, maintaining the existing state or upgrading the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles will also not have the expected effect, since the main reason for the start of the GCV program was the fact that Bradley is not fully suitable for operation in the conditions of modern war.

Thus, at present, the program Ground Combat Vehicle simply has no alternatives. Probably, other infantry fighting vehicles of existing projects could compete with the one being developed, but the specific requirements of the customer actually leave them outside of a possible competition. As a result, the GCV program will continue and cost the Pentagon approximately 28 billions of dollars. For this money, the American army will receive modern infantry fighting vehicles adapted for conducting combat operations under various conditions and fully satisfying the military.


On the materials of the sites:
http://cbo.gov/publication/44044
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://army-guide.com/
CBO report: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44044-GCV.pdf
Author:
47 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Nayhas
    Nayhas 3 July 2013 08: 59 New
    +3
    "Namer has the highest level of protection, but its armament leaves much to be desired" - there are no problems installing the module with the necessary armament, but you will have to pay for it by reducing the landing. The claims regarding the mass of Namer are also not clear, because promising GCV will weigh even more, in the region of 70 tons, because it is impossible to combine a large landing force, powerful weapons and a high level of protection within 40-50 tons ... If the Americans want the landing to be as protected as possible, then you should choose Namer and work on the BMP weapon block so that it has a minimum volume and weight at high enough firepower, it will not be difficult to agree with Israel on licensed production with amendments ... Although, of course, the American military-industrial complex will not give up such a fat piece without a fight, but if it wins in the future, the costs of GCV will be significantly revysyat planned 19,5 billion. dollars ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 July 2013 09: 05 New
      +5
      Quote: Nayhas
      Although, of course, the American military-industrial complex will not give up such a fatty piece without a fight

      This is precisely what claims to "Namer" are due to.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 3 July 2013 09: 29 New
        +2
        Well here, of course, the chances of the American military-industrial complex are not so clear, Obama took up the reduction of the military budget quite seriously and the Congress does not really resist him in this, and amid the recent scandals with the increase in the cost of armaments (unplanned of course), they may not believe them ...
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 3 July 2013 12: 07 New
        +1
        There are generally stocks. The cost of Nomer is not 11 million, but about 3.
        Production is localized in American factories.
        1. Jin
          Jin 3 July 2013 12: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: Pimply
          The cost of Nomer is not 11 million, but about 3.
          Production is localized in American factories.


          Strange, somehow. Zhenya, what are they (the Americans), if that's the case, they’re racking their brains? The re-equipment of Namer will increase its value, but what did they want? But there is a ready-made, highly protected platform! No need to sculpt everything from scratch. If we take into account that 11-3 = 8, and 8x1700 (with more than cars) = 13600000000 billion Baku. What to fasten the guns with the towers (simplify of course) is not enough?
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 July 2013 13: 02 New
            +1
            I think just the figure in the article is wrong.
            What can be hung on it - I showed below.
            With Namer, in theory, there is also the Iron Fist - KAZ, which, during tests in the States, shot down a tank shell.
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 3 July 2013 13: 59 New
            0
            I think the main problem is the weight of the car.
            1. Jin
              Jin 3 July 2013 14: 41 New
              +1
              Quote: Pimply
              What can be hung on it - I showed below.


              Yes, I read, especially since the "kit" is already ready.

              Quote: Pimply
              I think the main problem is the weight of the car.


              Other advantages, at least, balance this disadvantage, in my opinion.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 5 July 2013 21: 55 New
                0
                Quote: Jin
                Other advantages, at least, balance this disadvantage, in my opinion.


                Yes, no, the USA is a maritime power and its army is largely dependent on maritime and air transportation. To transfer to the same Iraq / Iran / Syria / Afghanistan (underline as appropriate) Abrams or another BM with a large weight is expensive and difficult. For some reason, it seems that they or "Namer" will make it easier on armor and weight, or "Puma" will strengthen on security and landing.
            2. Nayhas
              Nayhas 3 July 2013 18: 41 New
              +1
              Quote: Pimply
              I think the main problem is the weight of the car.

              The above pictures show that the American version is larger than the Namer and if it is booked in a circular, it can not be easier than the Namer, moreover, large dimensions, more problems with air transportation ...
    2. Rider
      Rider 3 July 2013 11: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      If the Americans want the landing to be as protected as possible, then Namer should be chosen and work on the armament of the BMP so that it has the minimum volume and weight with sufficient high firepower


      This can be achieved only by reducing the seats, or by increasing the length of the hull.

      you can of course put an uninhabited module from an automatic grenade launcher, and a groats, but in this case, the BC will mess around outside, outside the main reservation, since the control and guidance mechanisms will be hidden inside the case.

      and again the weight is annoying.
      BMP which weighs more than a tank, and firepower like that of an infantry squad.
      in that case, it’s better to let the Jews buy carrots.
      and tank and infantry fighting vehicles in one bottle.

      laughing
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 3 July 2013 12: 15 New
        0
        Heavy weapons were not specifically installed on Namer
        1. Rider
          Rider 3 July 2013 13: 14 New
          0
          Quote: Pimply
          Heavy weapons were not specifically installed on Namer


          Is it not tempting to put him on the attack?
          it is truth too.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 July 2013 13: 39 New
            +1
            That is why. Namer's task is to deliver infantry as safely as possible to the landing point. They were afraid that with heavier weapons the temptation would be too great to throw the car into a clash and forget about the main task.
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 4 July 2013 01: 07 New
              -1
              The army lives according to the charter, and not to temptations. There is a charter of application, whoever violates is under the tribunal.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 5 July 2013 22: 00 New
                0
                Quote: Avenger711
                The army lives according to the charter, and not to temptations. There is a charter of application, whoever violates is under the tribunal.


                I do not agree. Situations are different.
            2. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 5 July 2013 21: 59 New
              +1
              Quote: Pimply
              That is why. Namer's task is to deliver infantry as safely as possible to the landing point. They were afraid that with heavier weapons the temptation would be too great to throw the car into a clash and forget about the main task.


              But the situation can be different - the same BTR-82 is far from a good life - you never know when fire support will be needed. So (at least in my opinion) the “Namer” has a lack of firepower. Although, on the other hand, Israel now has no enemy capable of throwing tanks and infantry fighting vehicles into battle, the infantry, at the very least, will support the machine gun.
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 4 July 2013 01: 03 New
          0
          Yes, yes, what for him a gun, a gun is bad! Just say that he no longer pulls.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 4 July 2013 02: 19 New
            0
            It is based on the Merkava, which pulls a 120 mm cannon. AND?

            I gave a photo below with a 30mm gun.
    3. Pimply
      Pimply 3 July 2013 12: 14 New
      +2
      In fact, these issues can be solved by installing a tower, for example. Or such a module
      1. Rider
        Rider 3 July 2013 12: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: Pimply
        Or such a module


        it (apparently) something will be ok 30mm.
        as I said, the BC is outside, and the control mechanisms (electro, or hydraulics?) are open. although the remote control itself (internal)

        It looks a little like a full-fledged module, but it’s pretty decent.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 3 July 2013 12: 45 New
          +2
          This is a test. Here in the booked form.

          "The Samson Mk2 system allows you to install primary and secondary weapons of eastern and western origin, including 30/40-mm automatic guns, a 40-mm AGL grenade launcher (optional) and a 7,62-mm twin machine gun. An additional launcher can be mounted , for example, for ATGMs. The Samson Mk2 system is equipped with a double axis, gyrostabilized, is able to extend / hide, has two sights.

          The new 30mm Samson Mk2 system improves crew survival by reloading the system under armor.

          The Samson Mk2 system provides improved surveillance during combat missions day and night and has all the capabilities for precision shooting, supported by two sophisticated stabilization systems: Degrees Of Freedom (DOF) and Line-Of-Sight (LOS) - “ Free Angle ”and“ Direct Visibility ”- and has a 3rd generation closed-loop automatic control system (FCS) for conducting effective firing while driving.

          The Samson Mk2 remote-control weapon system has increased survivability without sacrificing performance, as well as the ability to load ammunition from under armor, which it loads from the platform with a specially patented mechanism. "

          Plus video of an earlier version.
          1. Rider
            Rider 3 July 2013 13: 12 New
            +1
            Quote: Pimply
            Here in the booked form.


            Well, that’s another matter.

            By the way, I noticed that the spring suspension is on the merkava.
            and that from torsion bars have refused? do not know ?
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 3 July 2013 13: 51 New
              +3
              Quote

              “When analyzing the choice of the suspension, it was noted that the torsion can be damaged as a result of a mine explosion to such an extent that replacing it in the field is fraught with considerable difficulties. The Merkava tank has a suspension with coil springs, which eliminates the disadvantages of more old trolley-type suspensions and ensures the track rollers travel more than 120 mm, which has a positive effect on rough terrain driving conditions.In addition, one of the positive aspects that determined the choice for this type suspension was that the suspension assembly attached to the body by four bolts and can therefore be easily replaced if damaged. "

              The torsion bar has advantages, but the spring one too. Spring is cheaper to manufacture and operate, has a higher degree of maintainability, it is easier to replace it by an order of magnitude. Plus - improved ride.
              1. Rider
                Rider 3 July 2013 14: 19 New
                +1
                Quote: Pimply
                The torsion bar has advantages, but the spring one too.


                x, mmm and really.
                it’s even better than the torsion on the T-72.
                since the full speed of the rink is 64 centimeters, against 36 on Teshka.
                loses a bit in security, but noticeably in the plus on the maintainability.

                http://armor.kiev.ua/Tank/design/suspension/
                By the way (if you are interested) a good article to familiarize yourself with the types of tank suspensions.
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 3 July 2013 14: 31 New
                  0
                  The main disadvantages of the spring were that it is more bulky. She was carried out in Merkava for the reserved space, which increased the likelihood of defeat and the width of the tank. Partially there is compensation due to the on-board screens. But there are many pluses too - it is much cheaper to manufacture and repair in the field is easier.
    4. Avenger711
      Avenger711 4 July 2013 00: 57 New
      +1
      Another 20 tons of weight, this is a khan typewriter.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 4 July 2013 02: 19 New
        0
        Now justify.
    5. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 5 July 2013 21: 51 New
      0
      Isn’t it easier for them to develop something like "Namer" based on Abrams?

      Quote: Nayhas
      Although of course the American military-industrial complex will not give up such a fatty piece without a fight, but if it wins in the future, the costs of the GCV will significantly exceed the planned 19,5 billion dollars ...


      I read somewhere that this program has already been covered. And then, after all, the Yankees produce and exploit the Strikers, which are a lightweight version of the LAV-25 Canadians - and haven’t impoverished anything.
  2. USNik
    USNik 3 July 2013 10: 09 New
    +1
    One Namer armored personnel carrier, according to the CBO, costs $ 11 million.

    Well done Jews, BMP for that kind of money the US army will protect worse than raptors hi For comparison, the cost of one BMP-3 is 800-850k ye, and the Kurgan superior to the Israeli craft will be two more expensive. drinks
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 July 2013 10: 15 New
      +3
      Quote: USNik
      Kurgan superior Israeli craft

      ??
      Sorry, but the "Namer" tank-based machine. "Kurganets" will not be able to surpass him in security.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 3 July 2013 11: 02 New
        +4
        And in general, how to compare a production car with a yet unrealized project whose characteristics are only speculations of the curious?
      2. user
        user 3 July 2013 11: 21 New
        -1
        That's exactly what is based on a heavy tank.
        In addition to enhanced protection, he, in addition, acquires all other disadvantages - throughput, transportation, maintenance, operation of heavy equipment
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 4 July 2013 01: 49 New
          0
          You tell the customers of TBMP on the basis of Almaty, otherwise they do not know such a valuable truth suggest the development of this ... wink
      3. Jin
        Jin 3 July 2013 13: 00 New
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        "Kurganets" will not be able to surpass it in security


        Yes, Namer is cool. What is there to argue. Truly an excellent unit.
      4. cdrt
        cdrt 4 July 2013 01: 47 New
        +1
        Is it not clear that any domestic product (even a throwing cap) is completely superior to any crafts of Israelis, Americans, Germans, and French. For it is so customary here wink
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 3 July 2013 12: 15 New
      +1
      The cost there is much lower. Where did the figure come from - I have no idea.
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 3 July 2013 20: 54 New
        -1
        Well, what are you going to cool? Come on order for 5000 cars
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 4 July 2013 14: 41 New
          0
          I explain, the alternative to money, apparently this: 1 merkava + 1 intent = 2 teshki + BTR
  3. Pimply
    Pimply 3 July 2013 12: 23 New
    +2
    A lot of stocks in the article and unverified data.

    Photos from the test
  4. combat192
    combat192 3 July 2013 13: 44 New
    +1
    wizel2
    wiesel
    In my subjective opinion, APCs in the classical sense of these machines have outlived their own. That is, both transport and fire support on the battlefield.
    It is irrational to use a huge armored (but unprotected from modern weapons) vehicle for transporting the entire 5-6 infantry (excluding the crew).
    As transport it is better to use something like BM "Tiger" or "Shot". And for fire support on the battlefield to use small, highly mobile armored vehicles with heavy weapons (something like the FRG-shny "Wiesel").
    Well, and of course, the future is for heavy infantry fighting vehicles with armor and weapons similar to a tank.
    Accordingly, the tactics of using one and the other should be different.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 3 July 2013 13: 53 New
      +1
      Well, in general, Americans with relatively heavy armored personnel carriers came to the same conclusion. So they are testing now.
      1. ed1968
        ed1968 3 July 2013 14: 16 New
        +1
        when it’s interesting and our generals will dawn
        1. Rider
          Rider 3 July 2013 14: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: ed1968
          when it’s interesting and our generals will dawn


          keep the korman wider, after Chechnya, they’re the only thing worthy of this is hanging boxes of active armor on tanks in South / Ossetia.
          and the rest of the armor is so bare and walks.

          the truth is that BMP 3 turned out successfully.

          but still I think the future belongs to TBMP.
          1. combat192
            combat192 3 July 2013 18: 29 New
            +1
            The tactics of using this BMP-3 have not yet been developed.
            1. Rider
              Rider 3 July 2013 19: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: combat192
              The tactics of application have not yet been developed.


              Yes, there is not much difference in the application with old models.

              you just need to know that the BMP / BTR is a means of delivering infantry to the battlefield.
              and not a tank or self-propelled guns, and the code they need, then they should be resorted to, and not go on the heroism and unpretentiousness of our soldiers.
      2. cosmos111
        cosmos111 3 July 2013 14: 28 New
        -1
        Quote: Pimply
        in general, Americans with relatively heavy armored personnel carriers came to the same conclusion

        Heavy armored personnel carriers, to yankers, are not needed. They need armored vehicles, only aircraft.
        1. Rider
          Rider 3 July 2013 14: 31 New
          +2
          Quote: cosmos111
          Heavy armored personnel carriers, to yankers, are not needed.


          why then all the fuss?

          I also heard about their "striker" brigades (mobile light armored vehicles + artillery systems based on it).
          but with all the luck of the striker, he won’t replace heavy armor.
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 3 July 2013 14: 32 New
          +3
          They declare that they are needed - and put forward this in the conditions of the competition, but you say no 8) Are you not funny?
        3. Lopatov
          Lopatov 3 July 2013 14: 37 New
          +2
          Dear, the Americans have three types of motorized infantry brigades - "Heavy", "Striker" and "Light". And it’s for the first ones that are kind of heavy and necessary. To replace the obsolete BMD "Bradley"
          1. combat192
            combat192 3 July 2013 18: 32 New
            0
            Is Bradley outdated? Okts! This machine has not yet reached a modernization resource.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 3 July 2013 18: 39 New
              +1
              The modernization potential of “Bradley” came out at the time of its appearance. That is why they have long been puzzled by the creation of a new BMP. Ever since the closed FC program
            2. Rider
              Rider 3 July 2013 20: 01 New
              +2
              Quote: combat192
              Is Bradley outdated? Okts!


              even the Yankees themselves filmed a film about the creation of Bradley

              "Pentagon Wars" are called.
              take a look at the case, very coolly.
        4. cdrt
          cdrt 4 July 2013 01: 50 New
          0
          Well, they’re thinking differently wink
  5. Akim
    Akim 3 July 2013 14: 34 New
    +2
    And it seems to me for the Americans. The best choice is either the Swedish CV90 or the German Puma
  6. Prohor
    Prohor 3 July 2013 18: 34 New
    +3
    You know, men ... In Tambov, on a T-34 pedestal stands a sample of 1942 commercials. Today, in the case, I met under him, looked at him and thought a little ... Squaty, such, wide caterpillars, the gun - too small, perhaps beautiful, so neat. Your mother !!! Yes, we rolled out half of Europe with these same half meter caterpillars, there would have been a team - we would have rolled the whole world !!! If anyone doesn’t believe in the power of Russia, thinks that there is nobody else except corrupt fagots in the Moscow Region, come to Tambov, stand under our “thirty-four” from Stalingrad to Hungary, just wait. You will understand a lot ...
    1. Rider
      Rider 3 July 2013 20: 12 New
      +4
      Quote: Prokhor
      If anyone does not believe in the power of Russia



      we believe, we believe.

      but the next time it’s really better “with little blood, on foreign territory” than Stalingrad and Grozny.




      1. Rider
        Rider 3 July 2013 20: 14 New
        +1
        the photo was not riveted



        http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2013/432/sodx728.jpg
  7. castle
    castle 3 July 2013 23: 44 New
    +1
    And it’s better not to fight at all, and then, suddenly, new mothers do not give birth to new ones because of radiation.
    Guys, explain to me the meaning, in which the minuses are being distributed here.
    Someone does not like the generals? order? or untreated post-traumatic syndrome?
    1. combat192
      combat192 4 July 2013 02: 35 New
      0
      Well, someone didn’t like that someone wrote something wrong in his opinion! I just didn’t like it ... That's the minus.