Serge

Le Ground Combat Vehicle est lancé pour 2017.

Recommended Posts

En même temps vu le poids du monstre il doit coûter un max, consommer un max,  presque impossible à déployer donc pas de regret.

 

Pour moi un véhicule de 25-30 tonnes équipé de système de défense actifs, accompagné de véhicules à très forte puissance de feu (genre le Terminator) serait un bon mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On aurait dit un Bradley modernisé :

 

- bourré d'équipement électronique d'observation et de brouillage

- doté d'un blindage composite lourd protégeant les flancs de la caisse.

- ainsi que d'une nouvelle tourelle monoplace.

 

Mais dans aucun cas,  ce véhicule tel qu'il est illustré n'aurait atteind le poids d'un Abrams. -_-

 

 

Qu'en est-il du Fast, Adaptable, Next-Generation Ground Vehicle (FANG) de la DARPA ? :huh:

 

 

FANG.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

La fin du GCV permet de viabiliser les dépenses pour d'autres programmes :

Tank goodness: Armor programs will recover despite GCV kill, sequester

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on March 21, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Sometimes dark clouds really do have silver linings. The winding down of two wars and the automatic spending cuts called sequestration have been brutal for the Army budget. The service recently had to cancel its top-priority weapons program, the tank-like Ground Combat Vehicle. But even if sequestration continues, said one leading analyst, ground vehicle spending has at the very least bottomed out — and it may well rebound impressively.

“Hey, there’s actually kind of a little growth profile, and actually a pretty robust growth profile if that plan can get achieved,” said Byron Callan, defense analyst at Capital Alpha Partners LLC. The budget the president submitted earlier this month — which relies on a politically unlikely roll-back of the sequester — would increase ground vehicle spending from $1.5 billion in 2015 to $5.5 billion in 2019. Realizing even a fraction of that planned growth would be great news for the Army and the industrial base.

In fact, the Ground Combat Vehicle’s cancellation may have been a blessing in disguise, because the Army sacrificed the controversial GCV to free up funds for other, more modest programs. As Callan put it to me this morning, “instead of the turkey, you’ve got a lot of sparrows, and maybe turkeys are easier to shoot at than sparrows.”

The Army no longer has one “big, iconic program” with the sort of big, iconic problems that have led to a 15-year string of failures: the sheer weight both of the freshly killed Ground Combat Vehicle and of the Crusader artillery vehicle cancelled way back in 2002; the complexity and cost both of the Comanche helicopter, cancelled in 2004, and of the Future Combat System, killed in 2009.

Instead, said Callan, “they just kind of redistributed” the money. First, just as the Army took the savings from canceling Comanche and reinvested them in modernizing existing helicopters, they’re using the savings from GCV to upgrade existing vehicles: the M1 Abrams main battle tank, the M2 Bradley troop carrier, and the M109 Paladin artillery vehicle.

“It’s not a lot of money for new-vehicle build,” Callan said, but “it’ll keep the depots busy” — (always popular with Congress) as well as the BAE facility in York, Penn., which works on M2 and M109. (The Army has proposed temporarily shutting down the government-owned, General Dynamics-operated M1 tank plant in Lima, Ohio, but Congress roundly rejected the idea).

Second, the Army is still buying two new vehicles, and while they’re less ambitious, costly, and politically vulnerable than GCV was, they are still big potential prizes for whichever company wins them. “The two jump balls are AMPV [the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle] and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle [JLTV],” Callan said.

AMPV is a tracked support vehicle to replace an array of aging mobile command posts, armored ambulances, and the like that are built on the Vietnam-vintage M113 chassis. The only two competitors are BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems, both of whose ground-vehicle sectors have suffered what Callan calls “eye-popping rates of decline,” even by defense industry standards. With AMPV estimated at an $11.7 billion procurement — much of that to be spent after sequestration ends — it’s “an absolute must-win,” he said.

“AMPV is kind of BAE’s to lose,” said Callan. BAE’s proposal is basically a less heavily-armed version of its current Bradley, which would let the Army share parts and maintenance personnel across a wide portion of its armored vehicle fleet, especially since the upgraded M109 Paladin uses Bradley components as well. General Dynamics had proposed a tracked version of its eight-wheel-drive Stryker vehicle, as we reported in 2012, but there’s been almost no news of that initiative since.

By contrast, the uparmored Humvee replacement known as Joint Light Tactical Vehicle is wide open. The stakes vary widely among the three different competitors. For aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, winning JLTV would be nice. For truck company Oshkosh, it would be important to sustaining the military side of their business. For Humvee manufacturer AM General, it’s do or die.

Whatever happens with sequestration, Callan told me he can’t see the ground combat vehicle budget going even lower: “There’s some growth. It’s just a question of what,” he said.

Ultimately, the defense budget has to fund a modern armored force alongside sexier high-tech programs like cyberwarfare, submarines, missiles, and lasers, Callan said: “I just don’t think all our military problems can be solved by air and naval power.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Un sympathique concept de petit blindé agile étudié par la DARPA et plutôt focalisé sur les menaces asymétriques >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIzU4bU9DcA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Papi Pépite said:

L'industrie terrestre US est devenue un bourbier si je comprends bien ? Autant de programmes annulés c'est révélateur....

Au USA il y a une croyance telle dans la toute puissance de la technologie et de l'industrie ... que ça aboutit a réclamé des capacité absolument délirante. Résultat des monceau de pognon déversé pour sponsorisé l'industrie d'armement sur des programmes qui débouchent sur de jolis slides...

Sauf qu'un jour il faut bien s'équiper d'un truc... alors qu'ils ont déjà annulé les deux programmes précédents.

Pour le moment ils sont incapable de définir une stratégie de combat "futur" et d'en ordonnancer les contraintes pour une conception ... ils font l'inverse, ils empilent tout un tas de contraintes délirantes ... et se demandent comment il vont bien pouvoir combattre avec le mammouth issu de le specs délirantes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Méchammment je dirais que le programme est ok si c'est pour faire gagner du pognon aux industriels par contre s'il s'agit de concevoir un véhicule valable et utilisable je suis dubitatif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Je poste ici, car je n'ai pas trouvé de fil général sur les IFV mondiaux (y en a un sur le fil europe seulement)

 

Le 02/02/2018 à 13:15, Philippe Top-Force a dit :

La US Army fait appel au savoir-faire de ses alliés  http://forcesoperations.com/la-us-army-fait-appel-au-savoir-faire-de-ses-allies/

Dans le même temps, l'US Army prévoit un "MLU" pour le Bradley, un M2A5 qui pourrait être rallongé pour augmenter l'emport en fantassin, et systèmes de protection divers (hard kill?)

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/us-army-decide-bradley-upgunning-upgrade/ (paywall)

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18064/heres-the-armys-plan-for-a-larger-and-more-deadly-bradley-fighting-vehicle (résumé)

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 10 heures, rogue0 a dit :

Je poste ici, car je n'ai pas trouvé de fil général sur les IFV mondiaux (y en a un sur le fil europe seulement)

 

Dans le même temps, l'US Army prévoit un "MLU" pour le Bradley, un M2A5 qui pourrait être rallongé pour augmenter l'emport en fantassin, et systèmes de protection divers (hard kill?)

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/us-army-decide-bradley-upgunning-upgrade/ (paywall)

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18064/heres-the-armys-plan-for-a-larger-and-more-deadly-bradley-fighting-vehicle (résumé)

Tiens on veux 8 pax embarqué comme sur les stryker :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quelques nouvelles proposition pour les upgrade des engins terrestre de l'US army. On note la proposition d'un VCI avec un canon de 50mm, et l’élévation a 85° ...

Le camouflage épais et 3D est sympa aussi.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/gdls-griffin-iii-next-generation-combat-vehicle-ngcv-concept/

Quote

General Dynamics’ Griffin III For US Army Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV)

AUSA: In a promising sign for the US Army’s Big Six modernization plan, not one but three different companies have invested their own money in full-up working vehicles for the Army’s Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) project:

  • BAE Systems, which makes the current M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, a heavily armed and armored troop carrier that NGCV aims to replace;
  • General Dynamics, featured in this video, which makes both the massive M1 Abrams main battle tank and the (relatively) lightweight eight-wheel drive Stryker; and
  • an upstart team of Raytheon, best known for electronics, and Germany’s Rheinmetall, which they’re calling the Lynx (click here for our video tour).

These aren’t prototypes, but the military equivalent of concept cars, designed to show off their manufacturers’ technology and get discussion going on what the final mass-produced product should like like.

General Dynamics Griffin armored fighting vehicle from two years ago, a light tank.

Griffin: Long Lineage, New Design

In this video, General Dynamics Land Systems’ Mike Peck walks us around the Griffin III, the latest in a series of GDLS demonstrator vehicles for the Army. The hull is a distant descendant of the British Army’s Ajax vehicle, but there’ve been extensive changes both visible and internal. The previous Griffin was a pure tank — offered for the Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program — without any passenger capacity. This version, while similar in weight, scales down the main gun from 120 mm to 50, while adding room for six fully equipped infantry in back.

Now, a full US Army infantry squad is nine men. But after the cancelled Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) went north of 60 tons trying to accommodate that many humans under heavy armor, the Army’s been willing to consider splitting the squad between two vehicles, as it has to do with the current M2 Bradleys anyway. The Rheinmetall-Raytheon Lynx, by contrast, can fit a full nine-man squad in back but weighs significantly more. That’s the kind of tradeoff the Army will have to wrestle with as it tries to make its future vision a reality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Le 09/10/2018 à 12:26, kalligator a dit :

Ils repartent de zéro ou reprennent le monstre de 80 t annulé ?

Du passé faisons table rase :) Oui, la première proposition à était enterré sans même un prototype construit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben non pas de char "diplodocus" il sera transportable par avion (même par C130). Les ricains sortiraient-ils du marasme ? espérons-le

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Le 09/10/2018 à 06:29, g4lly a dit :

Quelques nouvelles proposition pour les upgrade des engins terrestre de l'US army. On note la proposition d'un VCI avec un canon de 50mm, et l’élévation a 85° ...

Le camouflage épais et 3D est sympa aussi.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/gdls-griffin-iii-next-generation-combat-vehicle-ngcv-concept/

Apparemment l'US Army pousse méchamment le canon de 50mm pour le programme de remplacement du Bradley (Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle OMFV).

Ils en sont au point de prêter les canons XM913 aux industriels, pour qu'ils s'assurent de la compatibilité avec les tourelles, et d'un upgrade futur plus facile:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28310/need-a-50mm-cannon-for-your-bradley-fighting-vehicle-replacement-design-just-ask-the-army

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Encore annulé ? ils avaient un véhicule avec un canon de 50 mm des panneaux de camouflage et tout plein d'avantages sur le vénérable Bradley, mentionné dans Raid je crois.

Vont tirer leur bonnes vieilles boîtes de conserve encore combien de temps ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Le temps passe et ce fil somnole, un peu comme toutes la section "armées de terre Amérique",  je ne trouve pas grand chose dans les revues...pourtant ils ont le budget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Member Statistics

    5,488
    Total Members
    1,550
    Most Online
    VilGredin
    Newest Member
    VilGredin
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    20,848
    Total Topics
    1,302,118
    Total Posts
  • Blog Statistics

    3
    Total Blogs
    2
    Total Entries