Army vague on new ground combat vehicle

[unhappycamper]

A Stryker moves out to a new patrol base near Kandahar, Afghanistan. The Army has given defense contractors few details for its desired next generation of combat vehicles.


Army vague on new ground combat vehicle
By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Jan 10, 2010 8:37:21 EST

By next fall, Army officials intend to award up to three competitive contracts for the service’s new ground combat vehicle, slated to debut in 2017.

But in the spirit of keeping the concept wide open — and not be locked into a vehicle “family” as in the defunct Future Combat Systems — the Army has given industry scant guidelines.

“We’re not even sure this is going to be a family,” said Paul Mehney, spokesman for the Program Executive Office for Integration. “Right now, the requirement is for an infantry fighting vehicle — an IFV. We have not looked beyond that.”

The highly mobile vehicle must have room for nine infantrymen and three crew; be transportable by C-17 cargo aircraft, rail and ship; and be as safe from blasts as a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected truck. It must also be able to carry nonlethal weapons.

Requests for proposal go out in February, but no requirements for either tracks or wheels are expected.


Rest of article at: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/01/army_vehicle_010910w/



unhappycamper comment: This should be fun to watch. No requirements is a clusterfuck in the making.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Sounds like a redux of the Bradley Fighting Vehical...

and a bizarre method of development. It is as if they are asking corporations to screw the U.S.

[Captain Hilts]

2. What a mess that was. nt

[PavePusher]

3. Actually, that was as much the brass peeing in the soup pot as anything....

The amazing thing is that the Bradley came through as effective as it is. Yes, it's got issues, lots of them, but it is an effective weapon system.

[jmowreader]

4. Easy solution: Pandur II with a V-shaped bottom

Pandurs were created in Austria, but a US company already has a license to make them. They hold 12 grunts plus a two-man crew without a turret, or six with one--fiddling with the turret shouldn't be a huge problem. They are C-130 transportable, and they're very safe--the US Army Special Operations Command already has fifty of them, and the crews like them a lot.

Of course, you KNOW what's going to happen: all the M-113 apologists are going to come out of the woodwork. Apparently the term "maintenance nightmare" is not in their vocabularies.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.