BAE Banking on Hybrid-Electric Combat Vehicle

BAE Systems just put out a new infographic detailing the benefits of the hybrid electric drive system the company has developed for the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle competition. If selected, it would be the first hybrid combat vehicle ever fielded. The graphic illustrates how BAE’s hybrid system will ensure its GCV offering is faster, quieter and more fuel-efficient than standard 70-ton combat vehicles.

To view a larger version of the graphic, click here.

BAE’s release of its hybrid-electric infographic comes on the heels of a Congressional Budget Office report that states that the Army’s GCV may have to weigh as much as 84 tons for the vehicle to meet the service’s list of requirements. This would make the GCV heavier than the 64-ton M1A2 Abrams tank and more than twice as heavy as the 33-ton M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle its replacing.

It has been difficult for Army officials to refute such estimates since the service didn’t set a weight limit for the new vehicle to avoid trade-offs in soldier protection, lethality and survivability.

The requirement that the GCV carry a nine-man squad and the remaining crew inside the vehicle’s protected volume is a primary factor in setting the size, weight, and cost of the GCV, the CBO maintains.

The Army announced an initial acquisition goal of 1,874 vehicles with production of the vehicle starting in 2018. The Army issued a revised RFP in November 2010 after the initial solicitation were deemed too ambitious and created a real possibility that high technical risks and immature technologies would lead to spiraling costs and schedule delays.

The revised RFP left some flexibility in how the contractor could address the requirements and designated a manufacturing cost of between $9 million and $10.5 million per vehicle, an average procurement unit cost of $13 million per vehicle, and a sustainment cost of $200 per mile of operation. In August 2011, the Army awarded contracts valued at about $450 million each to BAE and General Dynamics Land Systems.

 

49 Comments on "BAE Banking on Hybrid-Electric Combat Vehicle"

  1. 84-tons is ridiculous.

    If you are that worried about someone getting hurt why send anyone into harms way at all. Make the vehicle remotely controlled and have a flat bed that a couple small unmanned vehicles could roll off of.

    What type of vehicle pulls a 84-ton vehicle out of a ditch?

  2. Looks like a nice graphic, would like to see a bigger view, too bad the link is for this page..
    (up to 84 tons!!! Guess the AF will have to cook up plans for a new giant transporter)

  3. It's hard to offer soldiers protection when you were left back at base because you were too heavy to deploy.

    I hear good things about the Polish APC from my friends who have been to Afghanistan

  4. 84 tons? Well,I see YET ANOTHER program headed for cancellation after pouring billions of “research” dollars down the “Milititary-Industrial Complex” black hole. 84 tons is telling me that the Pentagon is not taking this seriously,but someone is getting rich off of this boondoggle.

  5. Has reactive armor ever been implemented to the 'belly' of flat bottom APC's? Such as the Bradley or even the Stryker? I know they have a new DVH and V-hull Strykers.

  6. DoDBuzz has all the discussion on the 84 tonner GCV.

    In re hybrid, didn't they have that Thunderbolt prototype a while ago?

    Hybrids aren't necessarily lighter, especially when you want to armor up a large internal space to carry nine men.

  7. With this hybrid vehicle we could avoid wars by having a carbon credit advantage.

  8. Porche designed a hybrid drive in WW2.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant

  9. At 84 tons, I guess they aren't planning to drive it over any developing world bridges.

  10. If this thing at 84 tons is any less well armed then a Mammoth tank from Red Alert I will be severely disappointed.

  11. Obama is making the new APC into a OD version of a Toyota Prius!!! LOL

    Overall GCV maybe headed down. Waste a APC slower alot heaver and now with hybrid parts less reliable than the M-2/3s in service. AMC is already upgrading Bradley s so like the AH-66 attack helicopter this bloated program imploded. And 84 tones hate to have to use 2 C-5s to lift one GCV have to be BIG too. makes airlift look hard for such a vehicle.

  12. This is just completely absurd. We are doomed.

  13. There is no fuel cost savings if the weight of the vehicle goes out the door. Also, if a tank was needed, make it remote control. No need to man it. No need to supply food to the solsiers. Have one or two crew as a mechanic to maintain it. The rest can be driven by drivers in the US. No need to ship soldiers over seas.

    I personally think the Us needs to not get involved with other countries conflicts. If the country has a problem with its neighbor, let them be grown men and deal with it. KEEP OUR TAX DOLLARS AT HOME NO MORE DEBT!

  14. Now this is one hell of a practical innovation! No more long and vulnerable fuel convoys located a few miles behind the front lines. This is something that can change logistics into something less of a headache.

  15. Is there any tactical advantage to running off the battery, with no engine noise? Can they double as generators?

  16. The best armor we can employ for our troops is a sound foreign policy that doesn't involve us getting sucked into foreign sh**holes that have no impact upon our national security.

    the more this becomes another delayed R&D project, the less success it will have.

    The intention was for an Off-the-Shelf vehicle with good protection and an early incep. date as opposed to acquiring more IED-vulnerable Bradleys.

    More delays, the more studies, the more research, the less chances we will see it fielded.

  17. I'm sorry but I fail to understand the true puprose of this vehicle. It seems like a MRAP with mounted guns would be more effective in todays battlegrounds.

    Is this a gun support for a convoy of tanks?

    As a blocksde breacher or penetrator it seems flatnosed with the treads.

    I would think making any tread vehicle it should all have the same capabilities and widths .

  18. While this is an interesting looking "Battlefield Taxi", there are some things that don't seem right. 1. While I support alternative energy, an electric drive vehicle can be disabled by the use of an EMP weapon (unless part of that 84 tons is protection for the powepack). 2. The chin of the crewless turret looks like a shot trap (rip off the turret violently and the occupants are SOL). 3. Missles to back-up the 40mm? 4. If you have a "silent hybrid", wouldn't a non squeeking rubberized track help reduce the noise signature? 5. Some have suggested a modified Bradley, perhaps a Bradley XL to support the crew and 9 grunts (you can't put the crew up front in a Bradley because of the location of the engine). 6. This vehicle looks well protected on the sides with stand-off armor, what about top/ bottom attack ? Let the debate begin.

  19. When I saw the proposed weight for this vehicle,my first thought was that the military was not serious at all about actually fielding it. Based on all of the other weapon systems that we have poured money down a black hole for,only to cancel production at or before the time to actually build them,I see this as no different. Upgrade the Bradley to be hybrid electric. You can buy the Swedish CV90,or if you really need an 84-ton “glorified taxi” for our troops,then just get the Namer from Israel. Why are we reinventing the wheel? I was told that the reason the Crusader was canceled was because it was TOO BIG to effectively transport,how is it going to be any easier with this vehicle? Also,what size “gun” are you going to put on such a big body? I’d hate to have such a big (vehicle) body & a tiny gun to go with it. Telling you wife or girlfriend that “size doesn’t matter” may work for some of you,but come on……….

  20. Ex cav scout here……good idea until they said 62+ tons. No way. It's nice to be protected but a vehicle that weights that much cannot go so many places they will be needed so what will the Army use? Up gunned/armored HMWVVs again…..LOL. Most wars in the future will be against terrorists in some sheeeet hole that have to be rooted out. You need boots on the ground after precision strikes by drones and missiles. Light fast vehicles with enough gadgets to find th IEDs and destroy them not let them explode under the vehicle. Lighter armor made of new materials, faster lighter vehicles and yes with electric power, it's much better. There's materials that can make the whole outside of the vehicle into a battery powered by the sun. Until we have made a Major leap in technology the M2/3 is fine, it needs upgrading and there should be a version without that hideous turret to carry more troops. Scouts out!!!

  21. The procurement-related debate about the proposed new Bolo (the GCV) is at:
    http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/11/15/bradley-replace

    Also, the CBO has reshuffled website. New doc is at:
    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/a

    (Though I need someone to verify that there have not been subtle word changes in the file)

  22. As others have already said, but this just can't be said too many times, 84 tons is ridiculous. Actually, it's completely unacceptable.

  23. Lighter, faster, more agile, more lethal, more accurate, un-manned. You want American public support it will need to be un-manned, pin-point accurate, sustainable long term, and visible as a deterrent. Soldiers need a massive infrastructure to be supported. Even austere environments pose problems for soldiers exposed long term. Un-manned equipment does not need any of that, cost savings would be huge. You will always need some soldiers for certain specifics but the dragon is outliving it's relevance. I love the services, The services have given countless milllions of people a wonderful career but we need the funds to go into other things like job training for returning veterans, veteran medical programs to help re-habilitate those who have served in this long war. Let the enemies field soldiers against hardware and un-manned equipment. A real morale deflater to look across the field at things without feeling, or life, grinding up populations of troops.

  24. I AM wondering if, somewhere in the milspeak powerpoint translations and briefings, someone got lazy and misunderstood that maybe originally they meant “equivalent protection of 84 tons”, rather than sheer weight of 84 tons…?

    Remember, folks used to have this notion that the FCS would deliver around 40-50 “equivalent tons’ worth” of protection in a 20-ton hull,…and we all saw how that panned out…

    I’m starting to think this ~new~ GCV program is

    just another defense industry make-work program like FCS and numerous others before it (all the way back to pre-Sheridan days of vehicle family commonality)

    solely to struggle to keep our knowledge base alive…?

    (or maybe I should call it a “maybe-work” program…?)

  25. Maybe they'll be able to make a sequel to "Pentagon Wars", that movie about the boondoggle that was the early Bradley.

  26. Many bridges just can’t take 60 ton vehicles. LCAC can carry 75 overload top. Forget about air lifting too. It doesn’t look like amphibious either. Spend that money for veterans please…

  27. Seems like propaganda to make voters hate military spending/ not support new innovative U.S. technological edge over others. Read between the lies. Hybrid is cool if you live in some other world. I suppose if NASCAR had a hybrid series it might peek more interest. Make a Juggernat of it loaded with oddball hunterkillers specifically designed to seek destroy guy on the hitlist. Standoff war is the only one that is barely reported (witnesses only saw a flash), politically viable and priced for to please budgetary constraints.

  28. 84 tons, a flat bottom, narrow track, Not air transportable, how stupid can you get. The mail gun should be a rapid fire 57 mm flat firing gun with HEAT rounds. In the gulf war many targets presented themselves that the Bradley could not engage because the 20 mm popgun had no ammo that could do the job. 30 mm is marginal for aircraft and had to be upgraded to depleted uranium to make it almost work.

  29. Its too bad technology isn't where needs to be. Does the Army realize their piling on needs is driving the vehicle's coast in the first place? They need work on making lighter and stronger form of armor plate. Question is: Is there way make something better version of what we have? I say yes, but i'm not thrilled with hybrids. Their necessary to help power more energy demanding systems. However, i'd be weary on these vehicle's life spans. Aside from EMP concerns, hybrid batteries themselves cost big money. Cost these batteries are pretty high right now, some domestic battery makers went under. I rather have mechanic, not-software driven powertrain thats realiable and cheap to fix.

  30. this does look more like WWII Germans with their Tiger tanks, each evolution gets bigger and heavier and fewer produced due to their complexity and they were defeated by mass numbers of the alleys with their more robust, cheaper and easier to build Shermans, T34….. and now China/Russia producing cheaper easier to build machines, is history repeating itself?

  31. Big Daddy nailed it. As a US Army veteran, I served as a 19D Cav Scout and my son is in the same MOS. Back in the 80’s I drove a M113 and one of the good things about it was you could manuver it very quickly to get out of trouble…..air attack, incoming missiles ,Artillery attack, whatever just whip it into the nearest treeline.

    Try manuvering with that 84 ton monster, it will end up being a very expensive coffin.

    Gabriel

  32. Yep, no combat vehicle has EVER used hybrid drive. Like, say, a diesel engine and a battery. Nope, never happened…. unless, well, submarines… but yeah, never… ;)

  33. Weighing even more than an M1A2 isn't exactly a sales pitch the DoD wants to hear when its trying to shorten its logistical load.

    Are we so casualty averse that we're going to start making armored vehicles so big that we can't taken 'em anywhere to fight? Or cross bridges when/if they get there? This thing is supposed to replace the M113 which weighs 12-13 tons, but weighs nearly 4 times that. Where we certainly need something safer than an M113 to carry the troops around – this isn't a very useful solution.

  34. And in other news… the Chinese have landed a jet on their carrier… came here to read a better, detailed report…

  35. 6 days without new posts? Wow…

  36. Might as well make this a monthly publication DT what happened?

  37. You know, I can’t help but find this rather strange.

    Everyone is extremely willing to believe one part of the government: That this might weigh 84 tons.

    But isn’t willing to believe another part of the government: Namer style APCs are needed.

    Coudl you all please make up your minds about whether parts of the government are reliable or not.

  38. At that weight, perhaps we'd be better off to let our M1's pull an armored trailer loaded with grunts. A 120mm smoothbore sure beats the heck out of a 25mm cannon.

  39. Looks like counterinsurgency APC with MBT level of protection. You don't need 120-mm gun to fight IED and guerillas with ak-47's.

    Pro:
    Good 360 degrees armor protection level vs RPG, IED and low caliber munitions up to 0.50 caliber it seems.
    Significant frontal protection, most likely capable defeat AP or HEAT shells from T-54/55 and similar outdated tanks. Capable of carrying small fire team, unlike MBT. Can evacuate injured under heavy fire of low caliber weapons and outdated missile launchers.

    High rate of fire cannon capable of defeating insurgents both in basement holes and in windows of upper stories of the buildings — the reason why rossiani during Chechen war have deployed poorly armored AAA-vehicles Shilka's to support tanks in urban combat environment to deal with targets at high elevation angles.

    Con:
    Lacks mortar-like weapons in turret it seems — unable to fling grenade on the roof of the building from the street. Soviets during late years WW2 campaign, with horrendous urban battles in Germany, sometimes mounted mortars on tanks to reach targets at high elevation angles and fling mortar shell on the roof of the building from the street if needed.

    Tracked vehicle. If caterpillar will be broken with IED, it would be impossible to move even on very slow speed until it would be repaired under possible enemy fire.

  40. Why not a hundred tons? Make it extra safe! And put in a bar and a big flat panel.

  41. 12 years in Armor and 4 working with Armor development this is one of the worst Idea I have heard yet. Armor of any type is based on Speed, Fire power, Maneuverability and Survivability. This things weight alone destroys at least two of these requirements. Speed unless the Hybrid engine can put our one hell of a lot of horse power and the have the horsepower to track ratio all most 1:1. Maneuverability because moving this thing over any area which does not have firm hard packed land is going to be a major issue these people are looking planning for war only in the middle east not world wide if needed. These thing would not work in South America, Central America, Europe, Asia and many parts of Africa. So it looks to me like they are planning on have them city in the middle the desert and hope the fit comes to them (NOT).

  42. Wow, amazing blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?

    you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is fantastic,
    as well as the content!

  43. This is the kind of thing you get when you get rid of the smart guys in the cadre. It will be too heavy, too slow, too expensive and there won't be enough of them to get the job done. This admin. has destroyed our military. The dregs left will not cut the colonel mustard.

  44. The Israeli's already have a tank that works now and is cheaper to build and repair , tha anything we field…. and can be used as an APC …

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*