Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bradley Offspring, GCV, May Top 84 Tons, Heavier Than M1 Tank
AOL Defense ^ | November 8, 2012 | Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

Posted on 11/12/2012 1:49:28 PM PST by JerseyanExile

What may weigh more than an M1 Abrams tank and carry 12 soldiers? The Army's Ground Combat Vehicle. New weight estimates for GCV, released this week by the Congressional Budget Office, will likely go over like a lead ballon with the program's critics in Congress and in the Army itself.

Depending on the model and add-on armor package, an M1 weighs 60 to 75.5 tons. According to the CBO report, the General Dynamics design for the GCV weighs 64 to 70 tons. BAE s proposal is still heavier, at 70 to 84.

Two years ago, when the Army withdrew its original Request for Proposals for the GCV and revised its requirements, part of the reason for the change was shock at the sheer weight of the proposed designs: 50 tons for just the basic vehicle, up to 70 with all the optional add-on armor packages for the most dangerous missions. "You're telling me this is going to be 70 tons, which is the same as an Abrams," Gen. George Casey, then Army Chief of Staff, said incredulously at the time, in an interview with Defense News. Now it looks like the revised requirements have led to a vehicle that's even heavier.

(Excerpt) Read more at defense.aol.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: defenseprocurement; nationaldefense; pentagon; usarmy
The full CBO report is here.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43699-GroundCombatVehicles.pdf

1 posted on 11/12/2012 1:49:37 PM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

The gas milage isso poor on the Abrams tank that it has to be hauled to the battle site on a trailer. big waste of money use drones instead.


2 posted on 11/12/2012 1:52:41 PM PST by tom paine 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

This sounds like a replay of the Sgt York anti aircraft weapon. Sometimes the Army Ordnance people do the strangest things.


3 posted on 11/12/2012 1:56:44 PM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tom paine 2

It was more of the wear and tear on the tank tracks and track pads that requires HETT units. The M1 meets the required 300 mile range, but that’s still a lot of movement on the tracks.

And drones can’t hold real estate.


4 posted on 11/12/2012 2:00:38 PM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Land dreadnought not unlike the German King Tiger.

Too heavy for bridges, especially in the Turd World. Too heavy to get into theater.

This is what happens when you design stuff by committee of contractors and risk-averse politicians.


5 posted on 11/12/2012 2:00:59 PM PST by SargeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Looks like a Bradley on steroids.....

6 posted on 11/12/2012 2:02:12 PM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Mission Creep gone horribly wrong??


7 posted on 11/12/2012 2:02:43 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

FORD was responsible for that mistake.
They used the radar from the F-16, and during one demonstration, the Sgt York tuned in on the rotating fan blades in a nearby outhouse, sweeeping it’s twin 40mm canons across the spectator’s grandstand.


8 posted on 11/12/2012 2:04:27 PM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tom paine 2
That's because the M1 uses a gas turbine instead of the piston diesel that is made in our factory in Muskegon Michigan.

The gubmint was sold a bill of goods and fell for the BS that the GE turbine was better than the Continental piston engine.

9 posted on 11/12/2012 2:04:44 PM PST by exnavy (Got ammo, Godspeed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

They need to fire the people who wrote the specs.
They’re trying to build an invulnerable APC - and it just isn’t doable.
And building the Maus as an APC with a piddling 30mm cannon and an MG is simply ludicrous.


10 posted on 11/12/2012 2:08:57 PM PST by Little Ray (I have VOTED AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

Diesels have a lot more power now than they used to back in the 1970s.


11 posted on 11/12/2012 2:10:31 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

wasn’t there a movie about this? Kelsey grammar was in it?


12 posted on 11/12/2012 2:12:52 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
If we would carpet bomb the snot out of them before we sent in troops we wouldn't need to worry about IEDs!

Most of the middle east is a waste of sweat!

13 posted on 11/12/2012 2:13:02 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Cancel those. We need more money fo free cell phones


14 posted on 11/12/2012 2:13:02 PM PST by showme_the_Glory (ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

At 70 tons perhaps they’re planning to crush enemy formations under its wheels of terror.


15 posted on 11/12/2012 2:16:46 PM PST by agere_contra ("Government creates nothing" - Romney, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
Merkava
16 posted on 11/12/2012 2:22:03 PM PST by reluctantwarrior (Strength and Honor, just call me Buzzkill for short......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Cancel those. We need more money fo free cell phones


17 posted on 11/12/2012 2:22:03 PM PST by showme_the_Glory (ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

I thought the M1 used the Honeywell AGT1500.


18 posted on 11/12/2012 2:23:21 PM PST by Glennb51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Can’t we just nuke our enemies and leave the boys out of this?
We know who they are. We know where they live. We know that nothing good ever came out of their turd-world ratholes and probably never will...


19 posted on 11/12/2012 2:25:56 PM PST by Bon mots (Abu Ghraib: 47 Times on the front page of the NY Times | Benghazi: 2 Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reluctantwarrior

while it has been stated the MERKAVA can load and unload infantry from the rear doors, these are specifically designed for fast reload of ammunition. to load infantry would require removal of much of the main gun ammo so it is not a heavily armed/armored infantry carrier, nor was it intetnded to be.


20 posted on 11/12/2012 2:48:25 PM PST by bravo whiskey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

“It was more of the wear and tear on the tank tracks and track pads that requires HETT units. The M1 meets the required 300 mile range, but that’s still a lot of movement on the tracks.”

agreed. the turbine sucks more fuel at idle but is more efficient at higher speeds.

have they even looked at shipping requirements for this POS GCV? one of the reasons the sherman was the size it was was due to cargo handling capacities of current era freighters.


21 posted on 11/12/2012 2:54:16 PM PST by bravo whiskey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
Panzer Maus:


22 posted on 11/12/2012 2:57:14 PM PST by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reluctantwarrior

crew from enemy attack. This configuration also cleared room at the rear section for a safe exit and enough space to carry a few fully armed infantrymen, in addition to the crew. The rear access hatch allows for the quick and safe exit of injured crewmen or pickup of wounded soldiers f


23 posted on 11/12/2012 2:57:37 PM PST by reluctantwarrior (Strength and Honor, just call me Buzzkill for short......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: reluctantwarrior

crew from enemy attack. This configuration also cleared room at the rear section for a safe exit and enough space to carry a few fully armed infantrymen, in addition to the crew. The rear access hatch allows for the quick and safe exit of injured crewmen or pickup of wounded soldiers f


24 posted on 11/12/2012 2:57:57 PM PST by reluctantwarrior (Strength and Honor, just call me Buzzkill for short......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

I wonder if the Chinese will provide financing for these “investments?”


25 posted on 11/12/2012 2:58:47 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots

The problem is that the enemy is now in your own midst. Nuking them will be difficult, except maybe for DC itself.


26 posted on 11/12/2012 3:00:56 PM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (I will fear no muslim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tom paine 2

The Abrams uses a fuel sucking gas turbine.

Chrysler basically got the contract for political reasons back in the late 70s.

The GM version had a diesel and was a better performer in most all respects.


27 posted on 11/12/2012 3:04:39 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's bankruptcy: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

Actually the turbine engine was from Lycoming, and is now Honeywell.


28 posted on 11/12/2012 3:08:29 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's bankruptcy: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade
The problem is that the enemy is now in your own midst. Nuking them will be difficult, except maybe for DC itself.

True, true.

So tell me again, who won the last world war?


29 posted on 11/12/2012 3:08:39 PM PST by Bon mots (Abu Ghraib: 47 Times on the front page of the NY Times | Benghazi: 2 Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tom paine 2
Tanks have often been trailered to close to the FEBA since WWII. That is nothing new.

Bridges are a real issue here.

I suspect what is driving the weight is protection from IEDs.

30 posted on 11/12/2012 3:10:20 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
When dealing with Sand People:


31 posted on 11/12/2012 3:50:32 PM PST by CtBigPat (Free Republic - The grown-ups table of the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

The Pentagon Papers. It needs reviewed by all who posted here. It was the first thing I thought of when I just now saw this.


32 posted on 11/12/2012 4:08:06 PM PST by BipolarBob (As long as Bronco Bawma is in office I'm on strike.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

Looks like that movie came true.

Of course with new technologies, you never know.


33 posted on 11/12/2012 4:15:29 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
They need to fire the people who wrote the specs. They’re trying to build an invulnerable APC - and it just isn’t doable.

No matter how thick the armor, there will be a missile or IED which will kill it. The name of the game is being able to get there first with the most. That means being easily transportable into theater, and being able to cross available bridges and roads without wrecking them.

What's the point of having an invulnerable troop transport, when you can only afford to buy a few dozen, and the rest of the troops have to arrive on foot?

34 posted on 11/12/2012 4:22:11 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (political correctness is communist thought control, disguised as good manners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tom paine 2

Tanks are primarily hauled to their FOBs and combat areas to keep the wear and tear down on their drive trains.


35 posted on 11/12/2012 4:36:13 PM PST by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
might's well build this one and be done with it...

36 posted on 11/12/2012 5:27:10 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reluctantwarrior

I thought that too.


37 posted on 11/12/2012 6:03:34 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
No matter how thick the armor, there will be a missile or IED which will kill it.

Another case of designing a future weapon to fight the previous enemy. Right now protecting crews from IED blasts has lead to massive armor. But future attacks may well come from other directions, and we might end up fighting a technologically sophisticated adversary. Against a sophisticated enemy with intelligent, guided air to ground missiles or 30mm or larger cannons the GCV looks like a rolling coffin.

38 posted on 11/12/2012 6:05:04 PM PST by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: reluctantwarrior
While the Merkava can be used as a troop carrier, there is a version of it dedicated as such, the 60 ton Namer
39 posted on 11/12/2012 7:04:21 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

84 tons?? It wouldn't stand a chance against the Nazi "ratte" -- 10000 metric tons, baby!

40 posted on 11/12/2012 7:19:12 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (Global Warming is a religion, and I don't want to be taxed to pay for a faith that is not mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

twitchy finger with my zeroes! Only one thousand tons, not ten thousand tons.


41 posted on 11/12/2012 7:20:17 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (Global Warming is a religion, and I don't want to be taxed to pay for a faith that is not mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
60 is a bunch less than 84
42 posted on 11/12/2012 7:45:11 PM PST by reluctantwarrior (Strength and Honor, just call me Buzzkill for short......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey

They added an APU to the M1A2 to eliminate the need to idle the turbine for vehicle power, but that 72-ton monster is still a beast.

The C-5 can handle the “outsized” cargo requirements for Abrams deployment, but they’re getting old and there isn’t enough. Transport by ship and pre-positioning have been the primary modes for such cargo.


43 posted on 11/13/2012 6:07:54 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

The Pentagon Wars.

Somewhat unfair, because the press looked at the Bradley as a tank, when it was nothing of the sort. Sure, some things like the swim curtain were stupid, but the Bradley has EASILY proven itself in multiple wars. When the Marines took Fallujah, 1/3 of the combat personnel were Army Cav soldiers and Bradley’s for support. The Marines just didn’t have anything comparable, not even the LAV. I don’t know if they’ll get their new EFV, but they could have used it then.


44 posted on 11/13/2012 6:18:28 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

Close.
“The Pentagon PAPERS” was the movie about Daniel Elliberg’s release of classified RAND documents about the Vietnam War.

The Pentagon Wars.


45 posted on 11/13/2012 6:22:09 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Chode

I think there’s one of those outside the Armor Museum at Ft. Knox. Freaking HUGE.


46 posted on 11/13/2012 6:23:30 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

You’re correct. I curse my poor memory. Thanks.


47 posted on 11/13/2012 7:46:57 AM PST by BipolarBob (As long as Bronco Bawma is in office I'm on strike.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
i'd love to see it... the Armor Museum might make a vacation trip someday
48 posted on 11/13/2012 3:10:59 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson