Skip to comments.CBO To Army: Scrap Ground Combat Vehicle, Buy German Puma
Posted on 04/08/2013 11:12:18 AM PDT by 11th_VA
WASHINGTON: The Army's proposed Ground Combat Vehicle would offer less combat power, at a higher cost, than buying the German-made Puma already in production or even just upgrading the Army's existing M2 Bradley, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO issued a report today assessing different alternatives to upgrade Army heavy brigades' infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), tank-like war machines with tracks and turrets designed to carry troops into combat.
The non-partisan CBO, Capitol Hill's in-house thinktank, has slammed the Ground Combat Vehicle program before, but never this hard. The office's analysts took the Army's own criteria and created a grading system that scored different combat vehicles for effectiveness. Using a scoring scheme that prioritized protection above all, followed by firepower, mobility, and passenger capacity, in that order, the CBO rated the Puma highest, followed by a notional upgrade to the Bradley, followed in distant third place by the GCV. (The Israeli-built Namer came in fourth). Even under an alternative grading scheme that weighted all four criteria equally -- putting much more emphasis on the capacity to carry troops -- the 6-passenger Puma still edged out the 9-passenger GCV, largely because of its superior firepower.
(Excerpt) Read more at defense.aol.com ...
I hear the UN is available...
The Bradley does have a very good record, doesn’t it?
Why the need for a new design?
Did they figure in the cost for a set of metric wrenches?
It’s not just the Army. DOD procurement takes the price of everything into the stratosphere.
That was instrumental in Rome's fall too, using Foederati, Foreigners replaced the Roman Legionnaires.
Needless to say, they didn't work out as well as actual Romans with skin in the game.
Yeah buying the Fuchs from Germany really worked well < /sarcasm>
some times its better.. would love to have ad Panthers instead of Shermans ;)
Why not give the Army all those Father, I mean Homeland troop carriers?
Aye! The soldiers are all dead, but at least they died in an American made armored vehicle!
Kind of tough to choose side in this battle.
I know, I work them too ... it's just I hate to see jobs go overseas ...
Because we have a new generation of officers who need high paying jobs to go to when they leave the Army.
How about converting toilet seats to metric — that will cost LOTS of Euros.
At least in using and protecting our own technology (ex the Clinton era) we can control the design information leakage and give our allies only those features we want to release.
Buying from the Germans means the EU and most probably Russia and China already know how they are made and how to defeat them.
Don't forget to consider that DOD procurement also makes a troop carrier weigh 75 tons (or whatever).
I hear they are VERY ERY EXPENSIVE, and only a few left.....PERFECT for the future OBAMA Army!
I remember the Armored Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle competition to select a replacement for the underpowered M114. It took place during the summer of 1974 at Ft. Knox. The soldiers really like the British Scimitar and the Canadian M113 1/2 aka Lynx officially the XM800T.
There were several other competitors, to include a Sheridan chassis with rollbars. The Army ended up not selecting any of them. The argument against the Scimitar was that its engine was gasoline, not diesel.
the XM800T was also well liked:
I’ve got some pictures somewhere at home from this testing. Another vehicle tested was the Lockheed Twister, XM800W.
I don’t think the Dutch YPR-765(?) variant was included in the testing.
I'm sure there is more drama to come of this.