Serge

Le Ground Combat Vehicle est lancé pour 2017.

Recommended Posts

http://www.defense-update.com/features/2010/january/gcv_army_100110.html

2010 sera l'année des choix et du lancement de Ground Combat Vehicle.

Son objectif est le remplacement des Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

Initialement, guidée par l'esprit de la RMA (Révolution dans les Affaires Militaires) qui fait la part belle au mythe de la "domination informationnelle" et le combat info-centré, la totalité des véhicules US devait être remplacée par le FCS.

Les Etats-Unis qui, jusqu'en 2003, ne pensaient l'adversaire que comme un "peer competitor" a entamé une remise à plat de son approche doctrinale. Ainsi, elle revient vers la pertinence d'une véritable force lourde. Son représentant pour l'infanterie sera le GCV. Sa définition exacte tant doctrinale qu'industrielle est un cours.

A la volée, il faut voir:

- l'effet sur l'empreinte logistique du GCV? Il connaitra la fin des énergies fossiles.

- l'industrie allemande va-t-elle prendre part?

- quelle sera l'influence du SPz Puma,

- quelle place pour la modularité? Une mission un châssis ou un lot de châssis portant un lot de modules.

- quelle influence sur l'articulation de la section et l'instruction des hommes? Y aura-t-il un simulateur combat tourelle integré? Quelle taille pour les groupes?

- son rapport avec les chars? Le GCV n'est pas un blindé offensif. Son armement (non défini) est décrit comme "défensif". Que signifie "défensif" pour les américains?

- l'équipage est décrit à 3 hommes. La technologie ne permet-elle pas de réduire à deux?

- quelle place pour Israel dont le Mantak (cellule en charge des programmes blindés) annonce depuis deux ans que l'après Namer/Merkava sera un châssis unique classe 45t?

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Source: www.defense-update.com

February 25, 2010: The US Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC) released today the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Technology Development (TD) phase of the Ground Combat Vehicle program, designed to develop the next generation Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) for the U.S. Army. The Army has set aside $645 million in this year and FY11 budget to fund the program.

The development phase will span over seven years and include three phases. Through the 27 months first phase (TD) the Army will be able to test, evaluate and demonstrate Critical Technology Elements (CTE's) and formalize a set of requirements, for the subsequent full system design phase. Later this year, the Army is planning to issue up to three cost-plus contracts for the TD phase, to be selected, used on 'best value' contracting strategy. This phase will evaluate three concurrent developments, designed to meet the Army's requirements, based on relatively mature technologies (TRL 6+); prototypes of specific subsystems will also be evaluated. This phase will culminate with the preliminary design review and Milestone B scheduled for early 2013.

The next phase will be Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD), screening out one of the three TD contractors, based on 'best value' represented by the three proposals. This phase will include the prototype fabrication, ballistic survivability testing of armor coupons, turret and hull, followed by the delivery of first prototypes by the end of 2014. These vehicles will go through extensive safety, mobility and limited user tests, providing operational insights about the new platform's performance.

By early 2016 the prime contractor for the Production and Deployment phase (P&D) will be selected. First production vehicles are scheduled to be delivered 7 years from the initial award of the TD contracts.

Initial operational capability of the first battalion, fielding 29 IFVs is expected by mid 2018, with a full brigade fielded within a year. In total, about 62 vehicles will be produced through the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) to equip combat units by the time the GCV enters full rate production in mid 2019.

The Army hasn't limited the participation of international companies, although traditionally the Pentagon requires domestic prime contractors for programs of such magnitude. It is anticipated that at least some international cooperation could be achieved, at least regarding the survivability suite of the vehicle. While the Army has spent hundreds of millions on the development of advanced, lightweight armor for the FCS family of vehicles, these armor solutions have not yet reached maturity level required for the TD phase, at least regarding the threat levels considered for contemporary conflicts. Therefore, U.S. manufacturers could be relying on foreign technology to achieve the required protection. In past programs, including the Bradley reactive armor, the Stryker's RPG protection and some of the MRAP vehicles, the U.S. is relying on foreign armor solutions, and the GCV could follow suit as well.

In its directives for industry about the GCV survivability suite, the Army has not specified a mandatory to of hit avoidance (soft and hard kill systems - APS) or advanced lightweight armor, developed by the Army, except for the Base Level EFP armor, Level 1 kinetic armor for front, skirts and roof and Level 1 EFP armor. All other protection means are open for suggestion by industry. The Army has recently completed the evaluation of seven APS systems – three domestically developed systems and four provided by international suppliers. This evaluation was mandated by congress.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Ça y est, les candidats viennent de déposer leur dossier.

The U.S. Army closed the industry Request for Proposal (RFP) submission process today, effectively launching the formal Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) contractor selection process. The Army will award up to three competitive contracts in late fourth quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 to build and test GCV 'Technology Demonstrator' vehicles, over a period of 27 months. "We have had good response from industry and now the source selection process will begin immediately. Due to the sensitive nature of this procurement and the Federal prohibition on the release of procurement information, the program office will not release further source selection details until the close of the process," said COL Bryan McVeigh, program manager GCV.

Image IPB

The Technology Development Phase involves risk reduction, refinement of requirements, competitive sub-system prototyping activities, and planned technical reviews leading to a Preliminary Design which demonstrates the maturity to enter into Engineering and Manufacturing Development EMD phase.

Following the completion of the Technology Demonstration phase the subsequent EMD phase would run through the first quarter of FY 2016, and include delivery of the first prototype vehicle in FY 2015. The Army is approaching the GCV’s development in an incremental fashion -- designing it for adaptability, modularity and scalability to adjust to and incorporate technological change. The source selection process is used during competitive, negotiated contracting to select industry proposals that offer the best value to the Army.

Among the teams submitting proposals are General Dynamics, teamed with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Company teamed with MTU Detroit Diesel and BAE Systems teamed with Northrop Grumman. SAIC and Boeing, the team that have  led the Future Combat Systems program, which included the predecessor of the GCV is also believed to be competing for the new program. Two foreign companies, Krauss Maffei Wegman and Rheinmetall Defence Systems are also participating.

Source:http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0510/gcv_rfp_closed_21052010.html

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Sitôt lancé, sitôt stopé.

Je viens de lire dans DSI d'octobre que le programme est stopé. Il est déjà vu comme une usine à gaz alors même qu'il se devait de tenir compte de l'échec du FCS.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Sitôt lancé, sitôt stopé.

Je viens de lire dans DSI d'octobre que le programme est stopé. Il est déjà vu comme une usine à gaz alors même qu'il se devait de tenir compte de l'échec du FCS.

Mort de rire, j'ai pensé à toi Serge et me disant que tu allais mettre ça dès ta lecture  :lol:

Faudra faire le point, un de ses jours sur par quoi les US vont enfin remplacer les Paladins, les IFV Bradleys ...

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Mort de rire, j'ai pensé à toi Serge et me disant que tu allais mettre ça dès ta lecture  :lol:

Faudra faire le point, un de ses jours sur par quoi les US vont enfin remplacer les Paladins, les IFV Warriors ...

Tu veux dire les bradleys? les warriors c'est chez les britons,je crois ?

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Faudra faire le point, un de ses jours sur par quoi les US vont enfin remplacer les Paladins, les IFV Bradleys ...

C'est pour l'artillerie US que j'ai le plus mal.

Je me demande si le plus simple ne serait pas la résurrection du Crusader.

Maintenant, je dois avouer ne pas comprendre en quoi la multiplication des versions fut un défaut du programme. L'intensité technologique, oui, mais les versions, non. Je comprends pas.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

By putting its $40-billion ground combat vehicle (GCV) procurement plan on hold, the U.S. Army is giving itself a breather to come up with a new strategy for its ground vehicle force.

The Army and Pentagon also want to put the brakes on the service’s ground-vehicle programs to ensure it buys the right equipment for the mission. The Army and Defense Department are analyzing whether they are buying — even developing — the right vehicle for the job. Indeed, the military could move away from tracked vehicles, except for specific missions.

“Tracked vehicles are not necessarily the best option for what we plan to be doing,” says John Gresham, a defense analyst and author of books on military equipment and operations.

http://defensetech.org/2010/10/15/does-gcv-death-let-army-think-bigger/

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

ça va très mal pour le GCV : le coût par unité dépasse de loin les prévisions.

If an estimated cost of $17 million for the U.S. Army's Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) is accurate, the service might have to cancel the program, the GCV program manager said.

Col. Andrew DiMarco made the comments the day after the Army announced it awarded two technology development contracts worth a total of $890 million and two days after Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter ordered a simultaneous review of alternatives.

The Army acquisition arm estimated an average procurement cost of $13 million and a manufacturing cost between $9 million and $10.5 million. Army leaders have emphasized that in this budget environment, the service can't afford spiraling costs for the program. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Army vice chief of staff, listed GCV as the Army's No. 2 modernization priority.

When asked if a ceiling existed for the program, DiMarco said the service would have to consider canceling it if the price per vehicle crept above the $13 million marker predicted by the service. But the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office said the program is already $4 million above that ceiling and would cost the Army an additional $7.2 billion if the service buys the planned 1,800 copies of the next-generation infantry fighting vehicle.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7434142&c=AME&s=LAN

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Voici quelques éléments par Defense-Update!:

U.S. Army Awards Two Contracts for Technology Development of the Ground Combat Vehicles

Published on August 19th, 2011

Written by: tamir_eshel

The U.S. Army awarded two contracts for the technology development (TD) of the Ground Combat Vehicle Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The winners are General Dynamics Land Systems GDLS, awarded $440 million and an industry team lead by BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman (awarded $450 million). “These contractors have been selected to develop competitive, affordable and executable designs for a new Army Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) over the next 24 months.” the Army announced. The Army plans to buy around 1,800 GCVs to replace the aging Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The research and development associated with the program is expected to cost $7.6 billion.

A third team competing for the program was lead by SAIC, a company that joined the Boeing Company as lead system integrator of the deceased Future Combat Systems (FCS). The SAIC team also included Boeing, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall Defence as subcontractors. GDLS is the developer and manufacturer of the M-1 Abrams main battle tank and the Stryker light armored vehicles (based on the Swiss Piranha design); BAE Systems is the developer and manufacturer of the M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M-113 Armored Personnel carriers, the vehicles that are supporting all U.S. Army and Marine Corps land combat elements.

“Given the economic environment the nation currently faces, the Army recognizes that it is imperative to continually address requirements as we build a versatile, yet affordable, next-generation infantry fighting vehicle.” Secretary of the Army John McHugh said. The full development program will span over seven years. The purpose of the 24-month GCV TD phase is to complete the preliminary design of the GCV and to reduce the risk of performance of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase of the program. “The Army remains committed to a seven-year schedule as the appropriate amount of time necessary to design, develop, build and test the next-generation infantry fighting vehicle.” Army officials confirmed.

The two contractors are expected to pursue different approaches, one feature a conventional diesel propelled armored vehicle with the other offering a hybrid-electrically propelled platform. Both manufacturers will also provide armor protection segments for testing Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) and mine blast protection. The Army wants the GCV to provide blast protection at a level equal to the MRAP. The Army also expects ‘hit avoidance’ (A.K.A. Active Protection Systems) to be featured as an integrated part of the system. The GDLS lead team will feature a system developed by Raytheon, the company responsible for the QuickKill system originally developed for the U.S.Army Ground Combat Systems program. The BAE/Northrop Grumman team has yet to introduce such system, but BAE has developed similar systems in the past.

“The General Dynamics team’s design is focused on delivering an affordable ground combat vehicle that provides optimal Soldier protection and operational effectiveness. Our design draws on affordable, mature technologies to provide protection, capacity for a nine-soldier squad, network interoperability, mobility and lethality that is unmatched by any existing infantry fighting vehicle,” said Steve Schultz, vice president, Ground Combat Vehicle Program for General Dynamics Land Systems.

General Dynamics Land Systems leads the first team as the prime contractor and has overall responsibility for program management, vehicle design and integration. General Dynamics also is responsible for vehicle structure and chassis, squad and crew environments and integrated survivability and safety. Lockheed Martin has responsibility for the turret, lethal and non-lethal effects and embedded training. Raytheon is responsible for the RPG protection system, indirect-vision and sensor integration. Tognum America has responsibility for the MTU based power pack, which comprises the engine, transmission and generator. General Dynamics C4 Systems leads the network and communications integrated product team and has responsibility for network integration, communications, computing and information assurance.

Work is being done at General Dynamics Land Systems sites in Sterling Heights, Mich., and Lima, Ohio; Lockheed Martin in Grand Prairie, Texas; Raytheon in McKinney and Plano, Texas; General Dynamics C4 Systems in Scottsdale, Ariz., Taunton, Mass., and Fort Wayne, Ind.; and Tognum America in Detroit, Mich., Aiken, S.C., and Friedrichshafen, Germany.

The BAE/Northrop Grumman team is pursuing an “affordable design that provides for maximum force protection and is built to accommodate future technological enhancements,” said Mark Signorelli, vice president and general manager of Weapon Systems at BAE Systems. He added that the team’s vehicle features an adaptive platform that will remain relevant for decades to come, bringing more survivability, mobility and versatility to the Army and with levels of protection scalable to the demands of a variety of missions. The team’s offering includes a hybrid electric drive propulsion system that enables exceptional force protection and mobility in a lower weight vehicle while provisioning for growth in power requirements as new technologies are matured and integrated into the platform. “This technology allows for GCV to meet the demands of near term operations while providing a robust platform for future technology integration and growth at low risk and cost.” The company’s announcement said.

BAE Systems is leading the team responsible for overall program management, systems integration, vehicle design, structure and logistical support as well as readiness and sustainment of the platform. Northrop Grumman serves as the C4ISR lead. QinetiQ provides the key component of the E-X-Drive hybrid electric propulsion system. iRobot serves as the unmanned ground vehicle integrator and will enhance future autonomous operations. MTU provides the diesel engine and power generation units for the vehicle with Saft providing the battery and energy storage component of the hybrid-electric system.

Work under the technology development phase will be performed at BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman sites in Sterling Heights and Troy, Michigan; Santa Clara and Carson, California; York, Pennsylvania; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Huntsville, Alabama.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

ça devient la même merde que l'EFV : ils veulent le truc tip-top qui sait tout faire et ultra-technologique qui coûte 10 fois plus cher que n'importe quel autre IFV dans le monde. Je ne sais pas si c'est juste parce que ça fait bander les généraux d'avoir le plus gros et le plus cher IFV du monde, armé comme un cuirrassé et capable de transporter les plus obèses des soldats américains ou si c'est parce que 50 % du prix final servira a verser les gros pots de vin à toutes les putes du congrès qui soutiennent ce projet. 

Le pire c'est que tu peux pas arrêter la machine infernale, si tu t'oppose au truc t'est forcément un mauvais américain (quasiment un traitre) qui met en danger la vie de nos vaillants soldats et bla bla bla !  >:(

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/19/the-armys-gcv-fait-accompli/

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

trois remarques:

- l'équipe "allemande" s'est faite virée (préférence nationale, arrogance habituelle germanique sur le thème "le Puma est ce qu'il vous faut, nous avons pensé à tout", prix, technologies sensibles non accessibles ?)

- le prix en dollars ramené en euros au taux de change actuel n'est que 20% supérieur à celui du Puma, donc pas si déconnant que ça si le système de protection active est inclus.

- tout tournera finalement autour de la masse de l'engin, critère qui a déjà planté une première fois le programme. l'histoire ne fait que commencer ;).

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

ça va très mal pour le GCV : le coût par unité dépasse de loin les prévisions.

If an estimated cost of $17 million for the U.S. Army's Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) is accurate, the service might have to cancel the program, the GCV program manager said.

Col. Andrew DiMarco made the comments the day after the Army announced it awarded two technology development contracts worth a total of $890 million and two days after Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter ordered a simultaneous review of alternatives.

The Army acquisition arm estimated an average procurement cost of $13 million and a manufacturing cost between $9 million and $10.5 million. Army leaders have emphasized that in this budget environment, the service can't afford spiraling costs for the program. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Army vice chief of staff, listed GCV as the Army's No. 2 modernization priority.

When asked if a ceiling existed for the program, DiMarco said the service would have to consider canceling it if the price per vehicle crept above the $13 million marker predicted by the service. But the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office said the program is already $4 million above that ceiling and would cost the Army an additional $7.2 billion if the service buys the planned 1,800 copies of the next-generation infantry fighting vehicle.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7434142&c=AME&s=LAN

Col. Andrew DiMarco made the comments the day after the Army announced it awarded two technology development contracts worth a total of $890 million and two days after Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter ordered a simultaneous review of alternatives.

The Army acquisition arm estimated an average procurement cost of $13 million and a manufacturing cost between $9 million and $10.5 million.

collectionneur

Même au cout demandé d'origine, il est plus cher qu'un char Leclerc

Pas tout à fait quand même! Sourire éclatant  =)

On ne sait d'ailleurs pas si c'est un prix 2011 ou plus tard.

le Leclerc T 10 valait 8 millions d'euros au coût marginal il y a 10 ans, soit 11,2 millions de $ (rajouter la R&D divisée par le nombre de chars et on dépasse 15).

Avec 10 ans d'inflation à 3% dans l'armement, ça ferait 15 millions de $ aujourd'hui pour un Leclerc au coût marginal (et plus de 20 avec la R&D!) .

Donc l'IFV américain est dans les 60 à 70% d'un Leclerc à un prix actualisé, ce qui n'a rien de surprenant si on évoque des véhicules de 40 à 70 tonnes (sic) , bourrés d'électronique, au blindage exotique, et faisant papa maman !

Mais on peut se demander si cette course au blindage (et donc au prix) pour un IFV a un sens quand on a un stock de 7000 M1 et pas mal de M2 à moderniser.

A 4 millions de $ (ou 3m€) au coût marginal, je trouve notre VBCI pas si mal et pas cher.

Comme toujours le prix d'un système d'arme dépend du nombre de pertes que tu es près à accepter.

Comme je l'ai souvent dit, le trade off sur la vie d'un soldat OTAN est inférieur à 1 million d'euros (plus chez les américains), ce qui n'est pas si mal vu le prix de la vie humaine dans pas mal de pays.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Un gain pertinent pourrait être la mise en place d'une famille cohérente de blindés, pas dans l'esprit du FCS mais au-moins en proposant à partir du GCV un dépanneur et peut-être un char. Le minimum pourrait être la bascule de certains composants vers les M1.

On peut se rappeler que le XM-2000 Crusader devait permettre l'arrivée d'un moteur commun avec le M1. A voir.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Un gain pertinent pourrait être la mise en place d'une famille cohérente de blindés, pas dans l'esprit du FCS mais au-moins en proposant à partir du GCV un dépanneur et peut-être un char. Le minimum pourrait être la bascule de certains composants vers les M1.

On peut se rappeler que le XM-2000 Crusader devait permettre l'arrivée d'un moteur commun avec le M1. A voir.

L'ont-ils pas annulé ce XM-2001 Crusader?

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPvMWDw93go

Les américains vont finir par avoir des Ascod 2, des Piranha V et des Léopard 2 A7+ évolution  :lol:

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

L'ont-ils pas annulé ce XM-2001 Crusader?

Oui, oui.

Il est arrivé trop tard. Son prix était trop élevé et sa période de developpement prenait pied dans celle du FCS. Une époque où le lourd n'avait plus sa place. L'Irak tira d'autres enseignements.

Cette vidéo est très sympa. Même si la corner-stone du Col Cuff a fait plouf.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Créer un compte ou se connecter pour commenter

Vous devez être membre afin de pouvoir déposer un commentaire

Créer un compte

Créez un compte sur notre communauté. C’est facile !

Créer un nouveau compte

Se connecter

Vous avez déjà un compte ? Connectez-vous ici.

Connectez-vous maintenant

  • Statistiques des membres

    5 278
    Total des membres
    1 132
    Maximum en ligne
    polo03
    Membre le plus récent
    polo03
    Inscription
  • Statistiques des forums

    20 422
    Total des sujets
    1 171 405
    Total des messages
  • Statistiques des blogs

    3
    Total des blogs
    2
    Total des billets