Home » Weapons » Armor » First Look: BAE’s New Ground Combat Vehicle

First Look: BAE’s New Ground Combat Vehicle

by Greg on July 30, 2010

By Colin Clark
Defense Tech Chief Pentagon Correspondent

It’s wide. It’s not light. It’s learned lessons from MRAPs and is survivable. It manages bandwidth so big fat transmission pipes like the doomed T-Sat satellites aren’t needed. It’s BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman’s offering for the Ground Combat Vehicle (a larger pic can be found here).

The base version is 53 tons. Going into a highly lethal environment? Then commanders may well want their troops to bolt on modular armor and storage pods that bring the weight up to 75 tons. Powering this vehicle that looks an awful lot like a tank, is a hybrid electric drive, technology that worries some in the Army who don’t believe it is sufficiently tried and true yet.

Mark Signorelli, BAE’s vice president and general manager for ground combat vehicles, told reporters that the decision to go with hybrid technology –“key enabling technology for the vehicle” — was one of the most “painful I’ve gone through.” The drive, produced by QintiQ NA, is the same as was proposed for BAE’s FCS offering. Signorelli said he knows the Army is split on the technology’s risk and benefits but argues that the commercial sector has used them for almost a decade in heavy construction equipment. Hybrid technology has “gone from being a radical idea to something we all ride” in on America’s streets, he said.

Among the benefits of hybrid drive: enormous torque; huge power supply for the vehicle and to power other equipment; 50 percent fewer parts so maintenance costs are lower; 10 percent fuel savings over comparable vehicles; added protection because the hybrid drive allows them to add some 4 tons of armor compared to a traditional engine. Will Army leadership buy BAE’s arguments and will testing bear out their claims? Wait and see time.

The GCV also uses something that Signorelli called a “hit avoidance system.” It is a combination of “hard kill protection” — something like what the FCS program called “active protection” — along with “soft kill” protection, a combination of jammers and decoys. Readers will remember that the active protection system was one of the failed promises of FCS. This will be an area to watch closely as the program develops.

Among the other attributes of the BAE’s GCV offering are a crew compartment designed for today’s larger soldiers who also carry larger and heavier loads. Signorelli said the new vehicle was designed to keep troops as rested as possible so they could go into action with minimal fatigue incurred by the miseries of riding in a cramped and bouncy ride.

Share |

{ 109 comments… read them below or add one }

Simester July 30, 2010 at 2:37 pm

Errr.. it looks like a complete mess. Like one of those pictures children draw when asked to imagine a car that can fly and also be a boat. You just get a comically bizarre design full of added-on bits and ungainly appendages. Why not just put a set of wheels on a 13th century English castle and roll that around Afghanistan?


Johns381 July 30, 2010 at 3:10 pm

It looks like a massively overbuilt bradley. Why not just keep the MRAP for what it's built for?


salem July 30, 2010 at 3:33 pm

Isn't the new army supposed to be light? They should be designing vehicles with mobility. They are acting as if we are charging into East Germany against a soviet armada.


Donny D July 30, 2010 at 7:21 pm

Lightness went out the window when IED proved effective. Even with active protection, more passive armor is still needed. An airlift never made sense in real life, for the army as a whole. 30 tons of armor is a minimum.


Riceball July 30, 2010 at 3:37 pm

I'm wondering how wide that thing is going to be with all of that add on armor and storage, there's definitely no way you're going to be driving around on some 3rd, and even some 1st world, streets with all of that extra junk on the sides not without risking getting stuck in between buildings. And what's with all that junk on the turret roof? How well will all of that junk withstand shrapnel or a bullets for that matter, all of that stuff looks awfully vulnerable to me; if I were an insurgent or some enemy grunt and I saw that thing the first thing I'd be shooting or launching my RPG at would be all of those doodads.


Larry July 30, 2010 at 4:14 pm

I think they misunderstood something as they were told to construct a vehicle to replace Bradley and Stryker.

Now we have a vehicle that in the !base version! weighs more than Bradley and Stryker TOGETHER.


Will July 30, 2010 at 5:32 pm



Bob July 30, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Sounds like a great idea, if it were to shed about 40 tons of weight.


Jeff July 30, 2010 at 4:49 pm

er…. right….

Ah, 53 TONS being Air transported? Space on the Navy transport ships?

Come on guys… We're trying to fight smarter, faster, lighter… No need to weigh down the load with additional load.

Gawd, I'm slowly invisioning a true Land Battleship lovingly though of at the turn of the 19th century… seems like its coming true…


MatR July 30, 2010 at 5:27 pm

This thing is so awesomely insane it has to work. Why, the alternative would be that it was a complete ****-up, and the DOD doesn't do those…


Uncle Bill July 30, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Is this the new COIN vehicle?


Topper July 30, 2010 at 7:35 pm

No, but an Urban war ass kicker.


Patriot93 July 30, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Wow…. That's a bloated mess. I hope the other developers' vehicles are better than that. The drive train is the only good thing about it. I'm most interested in seeing what team "General Dynamics Land Systems, Lockheed Martin, Detroit Diesel and Raytheon" are developing.


Sev July 30, 2010 at 5:44 pm

So is it a tank or a IFV? IFT? Infantry Fighting Tank


Rick W July 30, 2010 at 6:56 pm

I like that


ArtofWhore July 30, 2010 at 3:41 pm

The US is not going to build a new MBT. Just upgrade the M1 to SEP2 and TUSK2, so the utility of a super IFV seems like a good idea.


Big Daddy July 30, 2010 at 5:46 pm

As a driver of M-113/M-577/ITV vehicles, I was discharged right before we got Bradley's I have some experience with this type of vehicle. It's too heavy, too big and does not have enough firepower to protect itself. Paint a red bullseye on it for the RPGs if the IEDs don't completely blow it up. Don't even get me started on the possibilities of issues with maintenance, that is going to be a nightmare. The best way to avoid IEDs and ambushes is good Intel, move quiet and move fast, never fall into habits for the enemy to figure out. Never use the same times and road ways when you go on an Op, common sense. Scouts out.


ohno July 30, 2010 at 5:54 pm

What the hell is that? Looks like a Bradley with random boxes attached and a huge turret. And what's up with that CROWS mount? It looks like it will have a very limited traverse with the antennas and crap getting in the way.

Finally, where's the AT launcher? I mean, for 73 tons you'd like for it to be able to kill armor if it needed to, and not have to rely air power.


Ewan July 30, 2010 at 11:01 pm

That maybe how it go so bloated in the first place. "If it already ways 30 tons, may as well put a CROWS on it…if it already ways 40 tons, may as well put a divisions worth of supply boxes on it…if it already ways 50 tons…lol. But I know what you're saying ohno, heavier than an Abrams!?! Where is that kind of tonnage coming from when it doesn't even have to lug around a main battle tank sized turret?


WTFHISTHATPOS July 31, 2010 at 5:02 am

I think the AT launcher is next to the Starbucks that is installed on the right side of that Porky Pig.


Tim July 30, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Dang! It looks like a middle-aged Bradley with a huge beer belly and other baggages, not to mention the triple chins… LOL.. How could they calculate the base weight of only 53 tons and adding on extra armor would amount to a whopping 75 tons? Is that thing just going to crawl slowly like an unstoppable force? :-)


STemplar July 30, 2010 at 3:13 pm

Looking at the pic l think this is with the additional gadgets and boxes and such hung on it, l hope anyway. We are ramming too much into one vehicle. Do you want one to assault in a massed conventional fight? Are you looking for a patrol vehicle in an occupation? ls this for peacekeeping work? l think we are trying to make this thing do too much frankly and that's why it is huge and weighs like an MBT. Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer designs a car….


STemplar July 30, 2010 at 7:18 pm

A wee bit overdone IMO.


Protoplasm July 30, 2010 at 3:33 pm

I like the active armor and storage pods on the outside, but I see many of you hate it. I hope this new hybrid engine puts out at least 1500lbs of torque. I would like to see a bigger autocannon too, 40-50mm, telescoped ammo.

I think it is cool, but haven't see the other competitors either. It does suck to have a 5 million dollar IFV destroyed by a 500-1000pound IED, that cost a few hundred dollars. Hope they solve that problem. Damn thing better be safer than a M1 and MRAP 2.


Tom September 6, 2011 at 7:10 pm

Just a note: the Army is targeting a price of about $10M for this vehicle - and we all know how that will actually turn out. So imagine a $20M APC that can't be airlifted (at least not in numbers), or bought in the numbers needed to replace M2 Bradley (much less other AFV/IFV/APCs).


Gab July 30, 2010 at 8:14 pm


The TOW launcher is still there, its that iddy-biddy little box on the side of the turret; that really gives you a sense of scale of this thing if you were to compare it to the regular Bradley.


Fil July 31, 2010 at 1:51 am



Andrew Lubin July 30, 2010 at 8:43 pm

It's heavier than an Abrams tank yet BAE and the Army think it's good for a COIN fight???? Clearly what's good for BAE is not good for the troops.


Donnell July 30, 2010 at 8:49 pm

WOW! Thank god that, they don't design cars. That thing better be the best ITV ever to make up for the ugliness of it.


Greer July 30, 2010 at 8:58 pm

What a load of crap! A giant Infantry Tank like some Soviet pre-WW2 T-28?

Bigger, more soft protection. . .listen, to get a mobility kill and unass the poor Army guys inside so you can subject them to something else won't take that much of an IED. You don't have to blow the thing to smithereens. . .Someone needs to get the knack. . .

I did enjoy the "middle-aged Bradley" comment someone made. That was excellent!


m167a1 July 30, 2010 at 9:09 pm

We are so sensitive to casualties that "light" forces are probibily a thing of the past. This is particularly ironic as we are at a time where we can't afford the sea-lift to carry all this stuff where we need it to go.


Matt July 30, 2010 at 9:55 pm

Why not just slap quick kill, reactive armor, better networking, a CROWS turret, a V hull, and more troop room to a Bradley. Normally i hate the "cheap way" but why build a 75 ton (abrams like wieght) thing? I think the army should just do what its planning to do with the abrams and paliden to keep it relevent; add some FCS tech and put A-somethin or Letter-IM on the end of the name…


Riceball July 30, 2010 at 10:32 pm

Because by doing that you're essentially completely redesigning the vehicle and it would probably be cheaper and easier to do it from scratch than to try to completely redesign an existing one. Still, I do have to agree that this thing seems to be way overkill for the intended and much too heavy, with everything on it actually outweighs an Abrams by nearly 15 tons. Stripped down to its base weight and configuration that means 2 of these things in a C-17 at best and then you'd need another C-17 to carry all of the add on junk for them.


Carl J. Armstrong Jr. August 1, 2010 at 1:22 am


If you're going to go the heavy route, make an Abrams (or M88)-based BTR-T knock off.


Riceball July 30, 2010 at 10:07 pm

At 53 tons base weight this thing had better have tank grade armor on it because it's heavier than a WW II German Panther and with all the extra armor and storage pods it's heavier than a Tiger I and nearly as heavy as a Tiger II! That's one heavy IFV, if it can even be called that at that weight.


chaos0xomega July 30, 2010 at 11:01 pm

Please for the love of God I hope the Army does not end up with these things. I mean if its looking for a COIN Abrams replacement… this is probably it, but as others have said, this thing will never make it through an urban environment in one piece, and chances are it won't make it through densely wooded areas either "uh, Sarge, I think our periscope masts and other doo-dads are caught in a tree."

And I'd love to see how they plan on getting these to a combat zone. It would suck if the Army had to fight its first week or two of a war without these sings because the Navy had to ship 'em from half-way across the world, because the AF doesn't have a big enough plane to carry these things (and the AF has some pretty big planes…) or did I miss the memo about us having teleportation technology?


Nasdaq7 July 30, 2010 at 11:05 pm

You want something that can withstand the blast of an IED and that can take out tanks and that is fast. What you lose in firepower, you make up in numbers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUbB9fjMCxM


Drew July 30, 2010 at 11:20 pm

You've got to be kidding. This is either a big joke or a sad turn. You know what they say about being designed by a committee.


Maxtrue July 31, 2010 at 12:33 am

The logic here is stunning.

I've got an idea as a layman outside the box. Get a system together that can deal with RPGs and another than can detonate explosives. The latter can ride in front of the convoy and be big enough to carry the required power for the likely energy beam, but the RPG defense can be added to each vehicle, something trophy like, but far more reloadable. I bet that's much cheaper than thousands of these things.

At this rate, the next increase in RPG and IED power will result, using this logic, in 100 ton vehicles and a lack of fuel to move them through roads too small or soft for their berth. Forget about air lifting them more than a few at a time.

Who thinks this stuff up?

Some here laughed at the Israelis for placing much faith in tanks. Well, this is bigger than a tank with far less bite.


chaos0xomega July 31, 2010 at 2:00 am

I had the same idea a while back (a heavy antimine vehicle at the head of the convoy whose sole purpose is to make stuff go boom), the problem is, most explosives are remotely detonated rather than pressure/tripwire rigged, and I dont think the required energy beam will be ready in the near future.


Maxtrue July 31, 2010 at 12:38 am

There have been some good break though with lasers directing electrical discharge. An IED zapper. Sure, we have some way to go, but the money these boxes cost must be quite large. Why not increase R and D. Wired did have an article recently on the military’s ability to detonate explosives. In convoys, we are talking about a quarter mile or so to zap.

Of course blimps could hover over highways and provide 24/7 counter to insurgents placing IED.


Carl J. Armstrong Jr. August 1, 2010 at 1:34 am

RPG defense is easy, put something disposeable about a foot or two off the vehicle's skin to detonate them early (that's probably what the big boxes on the side above does). Chain link works, cheap metal plate less than a quarter inch thick works, and so on.

ATGM's and kinetic-kill weapons (like tank guns with sabot) are more difficult. Things that screw up guidance packages or set off fuzes on HE/HEAT/HESH rounds can work better. More than likely, that's what part of that antenna farm on top is for. The concept being a bullet that never hits you is better than a bullet that doesn't penetrate your armor.


Carl J. Armstrong Jr. August 1, 2010 at 1:34 am

IED is difficult because-unlike conventional mines-IED's can be command detonated and do not need to go off for the first one in a line. You can mitigate a blast using a V-hull or enough hull armor, but sucking up a hundred-pound plus of command-detonated explosives under your tracks (especially with the tamping effect of the soil below it) is no easy task. Detection of potential IED-detonators and their elimination might be a better tactic if at all possible. (Another probable function of something in that antenna farm on the roof.)


jsallison July 31, 2010 at 12:48 am

So, is that an Ogre, Mk I or a Bolo, Mk I?


BoredMatt July 31, 2010 at 2:51 pm

John Ringo should sue for copyright infringement :D


OMFGWHATAPOS July 31, 2010 at 4:59 am

Haha who designed that abortion? It looks like concept art for a Transformer movie titled 'Rise of the BS'. Ok seriously do not move forward unless it can also be configured to conduct a river crossing. Does it come with a Star Trek replicator to make it's own pork?


STUPIDFPOS July 31, 2010 at 5:03 am

I think it can carry an entire infantry battalion.


@Earlydawn July 31, 2010 at 5:30 am

This looks like the vehicle equivalent of a fiirearm pieced together in one of those "make your own gun!" games put all over teenager websites. Do not want. Whatever happened to block upgrades?


CavMan July 31, 2010 at 5:39 am

Unfortunately all those little doodads are the latest and greatest lessons learned from Iraq. Boomerang (Counter Sniper), CREW and Duke Systems (Counter IED), CMR (Counter IDF), Drive-by-wire, Pope Glass, list goes on…Here's my two cents, it looks like someone took the FCS body, attached the Paladin turret, Bradley 25mm Bushmaster, as many CROW and remote weapon systems as they could stack, and then came up with some crap selling points as to why this THING (use that word lightly, ha, a pun) is awesome. I do one thing in the Army, thats ride in a Tank. A real Tank. Bradleys are baby Tanks, and this is one fat ugly baby that mommie should abort.


Dino-rider July 31, 2010 at 5:49 am

Anyone here ever see the movie "The Pentagon Wars?"


Carl J. Armstrong Jr. August 1, 2010 at 1:35 am

Actually watched it last night… Then saw this article.


Chimp July 31, 2010 at 5:58 am

Looks like it has a weather station on the turret. Apart from that, it looks like a WW2 Cromwell tank. Gun is about the same calibre, too. Jerry was dead scared of Cromwells, wasn't he….


GIZhou August 3, 2010 at 3:54 pm

I was going to say a Crusader with its 2pdr but we both get the drift. In fact thinking a bit further back it looks a lot like an enlarged version of the Medium Mark I witha Crusader Mark I turret lopped on it.


rob July 31, 2010 at 7:03 am

it looks like the perfect vehicle for the urban enviroment.


STemplar July 31, 2010 at 7:04 am

It looks like everyone put what they wanted on to one frame and made no compromises at all. I think the do all things mentality is at work.

Once again, I think a lot more thought should be put into what fights are we really going to be in. We knew we'd be in places like Iraq and Stan 20 years ago when l left the military. We didn't have dates and times but we knew we would be doing a lot of what we are. We need to do that now with what the services buy. Maybe we need some of these kind of uber IFVs, but I'll wager we don't need as many as industry is pitching.


Riceball July 31, 2010 at 7:26 am

That thing isn't an uber IFV, it's more of an underarmored and undergunned tank than it is an IFV. Without add ons it's already heavier than the old M60s and with all of the extras it outweighs an Abrams, since when do IFVs outweigh main battle tanks?


blight July 31, 2010 at 9:12 am

Well, then MBTs are due for some bloat? They'll probably weigh more than the Maus tank soon enough.


blight1 July 31, 2010 at 1:13 pm

Then tanks are slated to get heavier, like WW2 Maus?


Carl J. Armstrong Jr. August 1, 2010 at 1:39 am

Casualty prevention.

Simply, the public is tired with knowing about all the casualties.

The problem is-in "nation building" and Counter-insergency-it's the amoung of "face-time" with the population and restriction on offensive action that drives up casualties. Although most US soldiers die from IED's, it's the whole "playing nice" and "winning hearts and minds" that put them on predictable routes and limit the ability to "recon by fire".


Special Ed July 31, 2010 at 7:14 am

If this thingamajig makes it to production, it should be named Obamma. Both have much in common.


Mburumba July 31, 2010 at 10:50 am

If a heavy APC is what the US Army is looking for its GCV requirement why not go for a proven, combat-tested vehicle like Israeli-made NAMER. Or the new German PUMA IFV with its hi-tech unmanned turret. Both are modern, survivable and off-the-shelf solutions probably at a fraction of the cost of this BAE monstrosity.


WTQ July 31, 2010 at 11:21 am

A modified PUMA is already being offered by Boeing team as a GCV contender. As for the NAMER, well it's a good IFV but Israel doesn't have the problem the US has, the IDF can make its armored vehicles as heavy as it likes as they just drive them a few miles into enemy territory, they don't have to airlift them thousands of miles away. The PUMA is not more than 40 ton, while the NAMER and BAE's monstrosity are in the 60 rank, it's a no-no


blight July 31, 2010 at 1:09 pm

We might as well re-engine the M1 with a hybrid engine, and figure out a way to turn it into an APC like the Achzarit. There are plenty of extra M1's sitting around somewhere from our 10+ division days…

Maybe Congressmen are impressed by more doodads. Maybe more doodads is "supporting the troops".

Maybe a tank with high ground clearance and an reasonably armored V-bottom is good enough. I suspect that the designers have armored the sides against EFPs and IEDs, the bottom against IEDs in addition to armoring up the front. You can't armor everything…

Starting with high ground clearance and a V-bottom might be good enough. How likely are we to fight an enemy in a failed-state environment saturated with old artillery shells a la Iraq? I don't see the Taliban using IEDs big enough to topple tanks (or flip Strykers/M113s/Humvees), or using EFPs built out of copper bowls. Their expertise and available materials is kind of meh…is IED-hell on the level of Iraq a one-time thing?


lecoq July 31, 2010 at 1:58 pm

If its got to be that heavy, just buy the Namer from the IDF, aren't they going to make them in the states anyway?


@meeware July 31, 2010 at 2:54 pm

Not pretty, and certainly not light or manouvrable (as in it'll be limited as to what routes it can actually get along) but, and it's a big but, this is not a million miles from what the IDF are specifying for the hardest toughest missions and environments. Granted we'd all want fights to light, quick, surgical and brief, but sometimes they're not. Infact sometimes whole wars aren't as quick as we'd all like.


roland July 31, 2010 at 11:13 am

We should remember every time we place a machinery or tank in the field, we place it there to support and protect our soldiers on the battle field against harms way. We should make sure we create this things to win the war against the bad guys.


Tad July 31, 2010 at 6:46 pm

If this is purchased, or even if prototypes get into serious operational testing, keep an eye on who retires from the army and gets hired by BAE. Also, I've gotta' wonder how it would do if there's an EMP.


nraddin July 31, 2010 at 7:07 pm

Does it still only hold 6 troops? If we are looking at 10+ then many… No No I am sorry, it's 75tons. The Abrams is only 80 with full battle rattle. All the complaints about looks and antenna and the like I don't get, I only see that it's 75tons and still is basically a Bradley.


Blight July 31, 2010 at 4:26 pm

if this vehicle can exceed Abrams level armor protection from conventional threats and IEDs while being reasonably compact while doing better than seven gallons per mile it’s an improvement…

I guess we will still need strykers to transport troops around.


Carl J. Armstrong Jr. August 1, 2010 at 2:01 am

What I would like to see is a modular system. Take-say-three different unit-body chassis forms:

High profile (Troop transport/ medical/ command)
Low profile (Small turret)
Low profile (Large turret)

The chassis are set up with a modular vetronics/control system and are base-level armored with spall lining and proof against small-arms. Picture a shallow-V floor with connection points for all other components.

To this, you bolt one of two power packs. One would bolt on front (and allow rear-doors). The other would bolt on rear (and allow front door). The components would be as standardized as possible and connect to the standard vetronics system. Assume a hybrid or turbine engine feeding to a (seperate) electric drive.


Carl J. Armstrong Jr. August 1, 2010 at 2:02 am

The actual drive system would also be one of three:

Low profile tracked
High profile wheeled (with a second, sharper-V floor)
High profile tracked (wider, for heavier builds)

These connect to the powerplant at whichever end it bolts to, are electric-drive, and electrically or hydraulically controlled. To these basic frames, you would bolt another "layer" of fuel, ammo, aux power unit, storage, or electronic components in armored boxes. (Perhaps top-"vented" like the ammo on the Abrams). Remote sensors and remote weapons would be part of this layer. These boxes would also serve as protection in case the outer layer of armor (bolted over it) is penetrated.


Carl J. Armstrong Jr. August 1, 2010 at 2:04 am

Wow, they deleted the middle part of the reply.

I guess you guys will just have to guess what I said.


Carl J. Armstrong Jr July 31, 2010 at 10:02 pm

The outer armor-tailored for the mission-would be bolted over the payload boxes. Depending on mission and/or threat levels, you could upgrade it to approximately MBT level or leave it light.

Turrets would come in two "footprints". The larger model would allow a large, kinetic-energy gun like a 120mm cannon or a 155mm howitzer. Alternately, a 3-man turret with a smaller weapon or sensor package. The smaller model would be intended for either manned, cannon or ATGM use or a remote-system like the old TOW hammerheads or the package on many IFV's from other countries. Only the ring size and the vetronics connections would have to be standardized.


Carl J. Armstrong Jr. August 1, 2010 at 2:02 am

Finally, you bolt on the outer armor packs and "applied" items like a remotely controlled machine gun or electronics package. Standardize the bolt patterns and the control/power connections and you switch out what's needed.

The advantages would be:
-Simplified maintenance with standardized parts.
-Ease of upgrades as long as connections/vetronics are kept universal.
-Mission tailoring.
-Training standardization for drivers and mechanics
-Damage repair is simple-remove damaged part, ship it to be replaced/rebuilt, and standard part bolted on.

That's what I would like to see.


Maxtrue August 1, 2010 at 2:39 am

That was similar to the eventual plan suggested years ago for transforming the auto business. Standardize chassis (types for trucks, construction etc.), electronic motors, transmissions, controls, fuel cells -all modularized for universal application. Variations are customized. Bodies can be customized and simply connected to chassis.

Also a concept for all electric navy.


Seerov August 1, 2010 at 2:57 am

"Signorelli said the new vehicle was designed to keep troops as rested as possible so they could go into action with minimal fatigue incurred by the miseries of riding in a cramped and bouncy ride." (from article)

I'm wondering how this will be achieved? How will this vehicle allows soldier to rest? I'm asking this as an ex-infantryman who served in Iraq and sat in a Bradley for 20 hours straight. What will the soldiers be sitting on?


Asiahand August 1, 2010 at 5:18 am

Maybe this is intended to be an heavy APC/IFV COIN vehicle.
Much like the Isrealis have done with old T55 and Centurion tanks. They’ve stripped them of turrets and added crew compartments , CROWS and other anti RPG and IED technologies like composite armour slabs and jamming gear. However it does look like an oversized Bradley with too many “Buck Rogers” gadgets that may or may not work in the real world.


pedestrian August 1, 2010 at 9:55 am

I knew it was going to be like this (dozens of electronics on the roof). Not gold plated, it's platinium plated lol.

Let's see what it is on top of the roof:
commander's shield with bullet proof glass
Boomerang accoustic fire detection system
Watch Keeper fire infrared detection system?
Active Protection System?

and a swiss knife lol

but I still feel all neccessary.


ElevenBravo August 1, 2010 at 11:03 am

Imagine how long the training is for the crew! This is a ridiculous attempt to have one vehicle do everything and get stuck anywhere…


eyes_up August 1, 2010 at 2:58 pm

It looks like the designers actually took into account add-ons from the start. Remember how the stryker looked prior to all the added armor, wpns, tarps and cages? I recall looking down the street in Balad and thinking the stryker resembled a self-propelled dbl wide trailer. It took up most of the two lane road. I would hope by the time this vehicle made it to prototype, that most of the add-ons would be more advanced and condensed not to look like that. My vote is for an imperial walker though.


JJ August 1, 2010 at 12:23 pm

This looks like a drawing of a five-year old.
Some swiss-army knive do-it-all? Designed to do everything but not particularly good at anything is what it’d turn out, I guess.
And, btw, 75t, really? That’s way too heavy to be used (or transported), imho.


Dave Sayre August 1, 2010 at 2:41 pm

It reminds me back several years ago when the DOD decided that computer technology was going to bring the Services paperless. Instead of the latter we found ourselves in more weight by adding paper copies to everything we did. Which meant the need for more storage. Then finding somewhere to store it for 7yrs while we kept an inventory specialist busy.

More weight isn't the answer. I agree with Drew, committees never come with the right answer but always come up with answer that helps their future.


Scathsealgaire August 1, 2010 at 11:06 pm

Get apple to design one. It would be lighter, better looking, more flexible, but with signal problems and proprietary software (not really a problem as most software for the military is proprietary).


Mike August 2, 2010 at 4:40 am

I'll ride in that thing any day of the week… all these arm chair critics don't know a thing.


crashonhead August 2, 2010 at 5:48 am

How hard can this be? Take a Bradley or Stryker/LAV, add electric armor, This was posted in December 2004. Presumably this needs a high voltage power source to produce enough umph for the capacitors, so a theoretical upgrade would be for the hybrid powerplant to get installed in either type of vehicle.

British 'force field' protects tanks by zapping grenades
By Michael Smith

LONDON � An electric "force field" for armored vehicles that vaporizes anti-tank grenades and shells on impact has been developed by scientists at Britain's Ministry of Defense.

The "electric armor" has been developed in an attempt to make tanks and other armored vehicles lighter and less vulnerable to grenade launchers such as those used by Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.
It could be fitted to the light tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs) that will replace the heavy Challenger II tanks and Warrior APCs in one of the two British armored divisions.
The ubiquitous RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade, can be picked up for a mere $10 in many of the world's trouble spots and is capable of destroying a tank and killing its crew.
When the grenade hits the tank, its "shaped-charge" warhead fires a jet of hot copper into the target at about 1,000 mph. It is capable of penetrating more than a foot of conventional solid-steel armor.
The new electric armor is made up of a highly charged capacitor that is connected to two separate metal plates on the tank's exterior. The outer plate, which is bulletproof and made from an unspecified alloy, is grounded, and the insulated inner plate is live.
The electric armor runs off the tank's power supply. When the tank commander feels he is in a dangerous area, he simply switches on the current to the inner plate.
When the warhead fires its jet of molten copper, it penetrates both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate. This makes a connection, and thousands of amps of electricity vaporize most of the molten copper. The rest of the copper is dispersed harmlessly against the vehicle's hull.
Despite the high charge, the electrical load on the battery is no more than that caused by starting the engine on a cold morning.
In a recent demonstration of the electric armor for senior army officers, an APC protected by the new British system survived repeated attacks by rocket-propelled grenades that would typically have destroyed it several times over.
Many of the grenades were fired from point-blank range, but the only damage to the APC was cosmetic. The vehicle was driven away under its own power.
Professor John Brown of the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, which developed the "pulsed power system," said it was attracting a lot of interest from both the British Defense Ministry and the Pentagon.
With the easy availability of RPG-7 rocket launchers, "it only takes one individual on, say, a rooftop in a village to cause major damage or destroy passing armored vehicles," he said.


Kayaker August 2, 2010 at 6:07 am

Keep what we got now. It works. You want new tank technology ? Look at the Leo 2A6. The current version of the Bradley IFV works just fine. This depiction looks like something out of Star Wars. You want a new chain gun for the Bradley ? Make the main gun 30 mm. At the end of the day, you had better have enough CLASS IX Monies (US ARMY) to support your mech forces in the field or every vehicle will sit deadlined in the bone yard or out on some lonesome tactical assembly area. Been there done that.


quiri9 August 2, 2010 at 3:34 am

It was time to evolution military vehicles that are waiting for the outbreak of World War III.


roland August 2, 2010 at 1:49 pm

I hate to say it, but this looks like somebody's kid mess up with his daddy's designs.
Maybe it's time for our tank engineers to watch starwars to change their design conceptual ideas.


Whiskey6 August 2, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Let's see if we can make it amphibious too. Thirty knots and able to come ashore in a 15 ft plunging surf!


Sarge-Retired 67/10 August 2, 2010 at 1:35 pm

Well, Well, Well, The fat cats are at it again! When are you DUMB ASSES, gonna Understand, The best reaction to IED’s is not with this GARBAGE, & Waste of TAX DOLLARS, This might have been a Great Vehicle in the 19th century, For A Heavy Manuaver Division, Fighting Conventional War against the Ziegfreid Line, or the Plains of Siberia, Us of EMF-JAMMERS is one way, followed by the time old tradition, heavy roller THUNDER RUNS, and the intuition of the Armor Drivers and Crew, and the ability, to DROP the Horse **** R.O.E. Politically Correct Bull**** and ALLOWING Road Security RECON BY FIRE, when the crews need too. The people on the ROAD day after day, dealing with the “locals” Best understand, what is happening, Use of Strong Point Security Teams and un-announced Thunder runs would lessen and catch, more Hajis playing in the dirt at night, UAV are suppose to be so effective, USE THEM as NIGHT TIME ROAD SECURITY, anyone playing in the dirt after DARK, is FAIR game, HELP THEM FIND all 72 Virgins they are looking for. For gods sake Have YOU NOT LEARNED THE LESSONS OF NAM………..DON’t EXPECT to win a fight where our people are FIGHTING with their hands TIED, FIGHT TO WIN, or GET THE HELL-OUT!


political_observer August 2, 2010 at 6:47 pm

This is going to be another money pit which like the SGT York and some other ground systems suck up money and turn out to be a flop. At 50 it would be better to build more M1A1's than waste with this designers nightmare. If this systm become operational there will be so many additional anncillary support items required the total page price might well exceed 10 times the original estimate.

Where have all the people with brains gone!


Infidel4LIFE August 2, 2010 at 7:19 pm

wats this? looks like an IFV to me, and we have plenty of heavy brgds for this new kinda war. Wat a waste of $$ this will be.


Chris August 2, 2010 at 7:44 pm

Did someone dust off the drawings of the Matilda and add some antenna and bolt on armor?


Observer August 2, 2010 at 8:00 pm

What a hog. Good luck taking that into confined areas. The electronic geegaws don’t require something that big. If we want to ensure our vehicles are too big to follow the troops we can stick to MRAPs.


weber army vet August 3, 2010 at 5:14 am

why not put the hybrid tech in the Bradly and Striker and keep what works and upgrade the armor.


blight August 3, 2010 at 2:27 pm

'cause it'll still cost about 80% the price tag of a new vehicle, and you still need a SLEP to keep the old vehicles going.


OldCavSGM August 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm

As an old retired 19Z, ROFLMAO. Seriously, will it float and swim?


RMW Stanford August 3, 2010 at 3:50 pm

It kind of looks the unholy bastard offspring of M1A1, a Bradly and a windmill. How they hell is something that weighs that much suppose to be air mobile?


StevenDDeacon August 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm

What are we going to do with all the Armored Personnel Carriers and Armored Fighting Vehicles such as the Bradley, Stryker, MRAP Cougar, MRAP, Buffalo MRV, up-armored HMMWV, a meriad of MRAP II candidates how does the BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman’s offering for a Ground Combat Vehicle fit into the grand scheme of things? Can we afford to design, develop, service, and facilitate this Armored Fighting Vehicle with all the other in service Armored Vehicles and the development of new APC's and AFV's?


blight August 5, 2010 at 1:55 pm

They'll join the old M60's, the old M1's, M113s, Humvees and the like in a storage yard somewhere. Hooray for new band-aids that aren't needed in World War Three…

That or they will all be expended as range targets, like we did with our Navy post WW2. Smart move, right smack into the Cold War…


Soapmaker August 5, 2010 at 1:47 pm

That's what it-


blight August 5, 2010 at 1:58 pm

I think it's asking too much to put every system onto one vehicle? Maybe only every other vehicle in a force needs an IED jammer, or a counter-sniper system? Or we should aim for integral antennas that instead of a protruding mast are a strip along the hull for clearer fields of fire?

Still doesn't address weight, however. Unless you want to build out of aluminum; considering how unlikely it is that these things are deploying /without/ slats, ERA and what have you to protect from RPGs.


Pessimist August 5, 2010 at 6:52 pm

Great for the military-industrial complex! You don't move these behemoths to the theater. You buy enough of them to pre-position them in Korea, Europe, and SWA. Oh, by the way, you have to buy another set for states for training of the troops. Better buy stock in whatever contractor(s) win! It will a bonanza!


William C. August 5, 2010 at 6:58 pm

*Sigh* The Army drew up the requirements, not the defense industry? Would you rather have all of those people unemployed BTW?


Soapmaker August 5, 2010 at 11:34 pm

Here's Russian APC BMP3, which us 25 years old development
photo: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D…
Drives 9 men at 70kmph on-road, swims at 10kmph,
Armoured to take 300m at 400m front
Has 2 cannons 100mm+30mm+3x7mm machine-guns
Yeah, it can launch rockets thru the main gun too.
weight under 20t
video: http://rutube.ru/tracks/731237.html?v=e0ecdd82f57…
Sold to Quwait, Greece, Indonesia, South Korea et al.


talkmoreprogram August 10, 2010 at 10:59 am

lol, i have none, but i guess you can ask those poor russian soldiers who got their a$$ kicked so badly in Grozny


Chaboss August 6, 2010 at 5:33 am

The new CentCom Commander Gen. Mattis wants to remold ground forces, especially as far as COIN is concerned, into a large number of networked but independently operating, specialized squads each in turn following their own objective or assisting one another (for a larger operation), but essentially operating more like special forces. That seems to be the direction that military theory is moving in, especially as conflicts with heavy casualties, both friendly and foreign/civilian become increasingly unpopular domestically and thus harder to initiate and maintain. Politics has as much to do with war as war itself, after all. And technology too allows one man to project much more power and be far more effective than several men with lesser technology, so I have to agree with Gen. Mattis' thinking. My point is, if that all holds true as a future trend, then this lurking MRAP-happy moving boulder- regardless of the looks, or the weight, or the delicate electronics array, or any other design cellulite, but just as a concept- is about as innovative and conducive to the fast-evolving military needs of the times as a TRENCH.

What we need looks like a redesigned MRAP-capable Stryker. Keep it light, mobile and modular, but add armor just to the V-shaped chassis and the crew compartment. Give it a sparkly new hybrid drive, why not, the torque will come in handy, even with an overkill 10 more tons of armor a Stryker would still only weigh in at around 30 tons or so. But keep it cheap, wheels are better than tracks anyway at least in the Middle East theater. If an IED goes off, the crew lives, that's the main concern. That taken care of, you need deployment logistics and speed/mobility, two things this BAE/NG triceratops crumpled under-tread as it tried to smash its way into a Taliban cave. I say kill the program. It's almost like a (bad) joke.


bosbro November 7, 2010 at 1:17 am

this ia joke right? haha..they gotta be kidding..


ameri c u n t s January 21, 2012 at 9:42 am

F u c k homo ni gg er s h i t t y usa


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: