BAE Systems Ground Combat Vehicle

Its not really UK related and therefore slightly outside of the remit of Think Defence but still interesting nevertheless, even though the future of the GCV programme seems uncertain.

BAE have released a few images of their solution…

BAE Systems Ground Combat Vehicle
BAE Systems Ground Combat Vehicle
BAE Systems Ground Combat Vehicle
BAE Systems Ground Combat Vehicle
BAE Systems Ground Combat Vehicle
BAE Systems Ground Combat Vehicle
Experience you can trust.
BAE Systems Ground Combat Vehicle

 

Click to enlarge

68 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
February 22, 2012 9:21 am

Externally it doesnt look much different from a Bradley – obvious difference is the two crew positions in the front, possible due to its Hybrid power plant?

Found this information:
“Among the benefits of hybrid drive: enormous torque; huge power supply for the vehicle and to power other equipment; 50 percent fewer parts so maintenance costs are lower; 10 percent fuel savings over comparable vehicles; added protection because the hybrid drive allows them to add some 4 tons of armor compared to a traditional engine.”

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/07/30/first-looks-northrops-new-ground-combat-vehicle/#ixzz1n6Iuu1a7
Defense.org

Peter Elliott
February 22, 2012 9:37 am

There are now a lot of buses running around London and other UK cities with BAe’s diesel-electric transmission. With no gearbox the ride is very smooth, the fuel savings are real, and regenerative braking is used. Unsurprisingly however it is not cheap to buy!

A bit like modern warships changing from steam to electric propulsion this also makes a lot of sense in terms of supplying modern electrically powered weapons systems (rail gun anybody?).

wf
wf
February 22, 2012 10:04 am

I think hybrid electric is great for armoured vehicles: the savings on all that stop start rushing between cover are good, but the ability to relocate engine components within the envelope is great for volumetric efficiency.

So, it is with regret I say that BAE North America have absolutely no fucking imagination. If I found myself designing a Bradley replacement and I ended up with a base weight of 53 tonnes, I would go and get drunk, insult some hefty footy fans, get beaten up, spend the night in an A&E corridor getting no sleep, then walk into the office so everyone could laugh at me: just so I could remember not to be a twat.

Starting with the obvious: the US has been successfully utilising CROWS for nearly a decade. BAE came up with a Bradley Advanced Technology Demonstrator in 2008 with a remotely controlled turret, which allowed it to carry a 9 person squad as well as the crew, since the turret no longer protruded into the crew compartment. And after all this…they picked a manned turret!

This vehicle looks like all the people in BAE with a clue left, and/or that whichever general who came up with the spec was talking about how optical slip rings were shit in the 80’s and so “he wanted a goddammit manned turret, for chrissakes!”

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
February 22, 2012 10:28 am

In the last image,is BAE advertising their Armadillos (behind the GCV)?

Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
February 22, 2012 10:36 am

@ wf – I’m a fan of Hybrid Electric as well and was surprised/dismayed by the weight of the vehicle. However, the article above does say the US army top brass is not sure about the reliability of hybrid electric; perhaps BAE didn’t want to be too ambitious with the turret and risk losing the contract for being too “advanced”?

Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
February 22, 2012 10:38 am

@ ACC – I think there turretless variants of the Bradley chassis.

Wooden Wonder
Wooden Wonder
February 22, 2012 11:02 am

A very high profile vehicle with many flat armour plates and shot traps. Plus i imagine clearing out mud/snow clogged around the tracks a bit trickey.

Are you sure the turret is manned with all that gear on top?

wf
wf
February 22, 2012 11:18 am

@Wooden Wonder: you can see the vision blocks on the left of the turret as you look at it. To see what could be done if not drunk…

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_10722620158.html

http://defense-update.com/products/b/bradley.htm

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
February 22, 2012 11:25 am

Hi wf,

Do you know if they are thinking of 40mm supershot with
“Bradley TD as demonstrated at AUSA features:

Upgunned to 30/40MM Mk 44 Cannon (based on the current Bradley turret structure)”
in your first link, that means just a barrel change, or is there a 40mm Mk 44?

wf
wf
February 22, 2012 11:39 am

: as I understand it, the Bushmaster can be converted from 30 to 40mm with a barrel change. No idea if there are plans to use it or what round it uses

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
February 22, 2012 11:45 am

Hi wf, that’s right. I was interested as there have been no takers, so far

Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
February 22, 2012 11:56 am

As most of the advancements are internal, such as HED and the Mounted Soldier System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounted_Soldier_System) are internal, wouldn’t a phased evoultion of the Bradley be a better route? It risks creating fleets within fleets if budgets are cut, etc, but allows technical risk to be lowered and any bugs worked out.

wf
wf
February 22, 2012 12:06 pm

@Gareth Jones: I wish the silly FCS had been cancelled 10 years back, something like this would be in service now :-(

Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
February 22, 2012 12:28 pm

Well I’m confused. The link in SNAFU’S post says the turret is unmanned in text and “man-accessable” in the stats, whatever that means. It also says it has three crew. With two crew positions upfront then is the third crew member under the turret? In the turret?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82420230/GCV-0112

Observer
Observer
February 22, 2012 12:42 pm

53 tons? Bradley MBT?

Manned turrets do have some advantages, especially with regards to situational awareness and a higher profile for a better view, so they’re not totally brain dead, though I’m with you on the superiority of the CROWs layout. Can the CROWs take a 40mm? Thought the CROWs limit was a 50 cal? Once you hit 30mm+ you were better off with an enclosed turret due to weapon size?

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 2:04 pm

Sounds like an aoptionally manned turret like the one used by the VBCI- if it is that is a very sensible solution- best of both worlds. Looking at the spec sheet, the vehicles range is pathetic.

IXION
February 22, 2012 3:18 pm

The rising APC has met the falling mbt.

Time for chassis compatibility?

Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
February 22, 2012 3:24 pm

@ IXION – I was thinking the same thing. Three “families” of common chassises – Light, Medium, and Heavy?

B.Smitty
B.Smitty
February 22, 2012 4:24 pm

IXION,

Good question. At least engine, transmission and running gear. Perhaps a different chassis to support front- vs rear-mounted engines.

Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
February 22, 2012 4:34 pm

Could go down the Merkava/TAM route and have a front mounted engine? Would allow space in the back for other roles/more ammo?

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 5:03 pm

The historic problem with having an MBT with a front mounted engine is that it raises the vehicles overall height thus increasing the frontal area that needs armour protection and increasing the frontal target size thereby increasing weight and making the vehicle harder to see and shoot at. That is why is why there are so few successful MBT derived SPH’s.

However, during the Crusader programme it was decided to give Crusader and the M1 a common powerplant and drivetrain- something which could be applied to a heavy IFV like this one for instance.

The trend towards heavier IFV’s is neither new or suprisimg, anything acompanying an MBT would inevitably end up with MBT levels of protection as economic expansion allowed. Marder 2 and the subsequent Puma programme demonstrate how this growth has happened. Of course for GCV it is not just a protection issue but one of growing equipment vcarrying requirements and the requirement for a 9 man dismount team.

wf
wf
February 22, 2012 5:20 pm

@Observer: agreed. A manned turret has advantages, but they are probably not worth the additional weight now that remote vision has improved to the degree it has now. I was advocating an enclosed turret, CROWS was mentioned purely as an example of the acceptance of remote vision and aiming. There was a experimental “3 crew in line in hull, remote control turret” test in the 90’s in the US, inspired by Richard Simpkin’s work, but the users said they didn’t like it. I suspect the users might have a different opinion today

wf
wf
February 22, 2012 5:33 pm

@Bob: I suspect we are going to have to revisit the “9 man squad” requirement. I think it severely embarrasses the designers!

Given that we still require a robust infantry component, and that we see MBT’s and IFV’s requiring the same protection levels, why not combine the two into a single vehicle with a fire team on board rather than a full section?

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
February 22, 2012 7:22 pm

The Bushmaster 30/40 is chambered for 30x173mm but Atk and GD OTS have been developing a 40×180 (actually about 39×180) round that requires a few minor changes to the gun and feed ways but otherwise fits in the same envelope. They basically neck out the case to the full width of the cartridge so it looks like a giant .22 rimfire.

An unmanned but accessible turret would be one that has the opening in the hull top but no basket or seats that traverse with it. This way you have no crew in the turret to be hit, but you have crew access to the weapons for reloading or clearing stoppages.

The hybrid drive, allowing dispersed generation is a good idea, IMHO, as you lessen the issue of where to put the engine – you put it where your other kit is not.

A common chassis for MBT/IFV armoured battlegroup is something that I have espoused in the past. Retaining the split between infantry vehicles and gun vehicles makes sense because:
1) Large guns and ammo are heavier (and commensurately more bulky) than light to medium autocannon. The 120mm smoothbores weigh about 3 tonnes compared to 156kg for the Mk44
2) The gun tanks need to be able to jockey into and out of firing positions without having to worry about infantry, more so than the IFVs.
3) The guns of the gun tanks are suited to long range gunnery while the autocannon are shorter ranged. You have to get closer to the objective to deploy the infantry.

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 7:44 pm

Mr Fred,

Hybrid propulsion: actually it offers very little flexibility in where to put the engine, an AFV has only so many places an engine can go- CofG issues mean it needs to be on the floor and that leaves you with front, middle and back, with only the front and back being practical. If you look at the the FCS Manned vehicles and this BAE offering you will see that the engine compartment is in the front as with most other conventional IFV’s.

Common Chassis: This is a design nightmare as MBTs have very different internal volume requirements to IFV’s and SPH’s etc, usually leading to the engine in an MBT being placed at the rear but in the front for everything else. A Common chassis has been tried more times than I care to remember (notably by the British on about 3 seperate platforms in the 50s) and almost always fails. A far better approach is to keep to common drive-train and suspension components as far as possible but allow the designers to create the required bespoke chassis.

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
February 22, 2012 8:08 pm

Bob,
I suspect that there is more choices than you think. With a hybrid, you have batteries and fuel to move about the place too. When you can run an engine at its most efficient or not at all, due to the battery buffer, you can use more weight efficient engines otherwise eschewed due to throttle response or idling efficiency concerns such as gas turbines. Because some hybrids do not require a mechanical drivetrain between the generator sets and the drive motors you can have multiple small engines across the platform than you can switch in as required. AIUI the BAEsystems hybrid system is not a decoupled one, so a mechanical link to the drive wheels is still required, hence the conventional layout.

For a common chassis, the ideal is to use the same hull. If not that then the same drivetrain, same construction technique, same hull form (basic ballistic/blast protection, same optics, electrical and electronic architectures and generally as much as possible to attain economies of scale for production, training and support.

Brian Black
Brian Black
February 22, 2012 8:13 pm

GBP 275m to develop a whole new IFV doesn’t sound too bad.

Unfortunately for the UK taxpayer, if the US Army plumps for a hybrid drive GCV, the MoD will look unhappily at its ASCODs and upgraded Warriors chugging around on olde worlde diesels and want a brand new toy to play with.

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 8:24 pm

Mr Fred,

Suspect all you like but there are not. Which is why both the FCS vehicles and this new offering have the engine in a convetional location. The only way round it is to use multiple engines as the SEP did (and mounted them in the sponsons)but as soon as you take them off the floor you run into issues with the centre of gravity whilst multiple engines bring their own issues in terms of power distribution. And the batteries bring their own issues being as they are heavy, large and temperamental under some extreme environmental conditions.

Hybrid drive is interesting and ultimately the way forward but it is an evolutionary step not a revolution and does not solve all the problems that people think it does. There are also real questions about long term costs and the maturity for military applications at this time.

You can use a common hull for pretty much everything except an MBT, as FRES-SV should prove, but MBT’s have some quite specific features that make a common hull less than ideal.

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 8:27 pm

Brian Black,

Where did you get GBP275 from? GCV development cost is expected to be $7.6 billion through to 2017.

IXION
February 22, 2012 8:41 pm

Bob

When I talk about shared chassis I suppose I mean Shared components.

I mean engines, transmissions, suspension, tracks, controls etc. In effect all the bits that fit to the hull that have to be built fixed or swapped, by the RLC.

I am not sure if it matters if the actual hull boat is the same, although as much as possible should be.

BTW there is absolutely nothing new about using the engine-generator – electric motor transmission of power; Tilling Stevens were building lorries powered that way in the 1920′!

It does actually mean smaller higher revving engines, can be used to power alternators, which can be mounted for example sideways. It would allow for easier mounting of an engine in the middle, not impractical at all after all some Russian vehicles have had mid mounted engines.
It also allows using say 2 small engines such as 2 of the larger 250hp plus car engines driving 2 alternators, the reduction in such size can allow them to be rear mounted, even in apc’s.

I am not suggesting it’s necessarily the best thing to do, just that it opens lots of potential doors.

Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
February 22, 2012 8:45 pm

Interesting proposed variant of M-1 which carries troops whilest retaining chassis/running gear of original. Pages 24 and 25.

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/armormagazine/content/Issues/1999/ArmorJanuaryFebruary1999web.pdf

Check out the FSCS as well; three crew positions upfront as mentioned above and a 30/40mm cannon in an unmanned turret which can also double as a sensor tower. Pages 11 -19.

IXION
February 22, 2012 8:51 pm

Bob you are right about some disadvantages with multiple engines, is was done quite a lot in WW2 as a design short cut. But it was considered to increase workload maintainance wise. Given such a reduction in engine cost, if we buy 2 engines from Ford production line, rather than from a specialist supplier, it would be a lot cheaper.

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 8:52 pm

Ixion,

Egnines have been mounted middle rear and front before, nothing to do with hybrid versus conventional. Engine location is determined by the desired internal layout and moving to a hybrid system does not change that. Hybrid certainly offers advantages but there has been a tendency to overplay them. Germany actually deployed a “hybrid” AFV in WW2 in the form of the Porsche Elefant.

Re commonality, I agree entirely, but for the actual hull design one needs to remain flexible to avoid excessive compromise.

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 8:57 pm

IXION,

Not sold about the cost difference- doubling the engines also means you have to have double the support infratsructure within the vehicle (fuel system, power transfer, engine mounting etc) and most modern AFV diesel engines are actually commercial anyway being used for construction and engineering vehicles, boats and the like.

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 9:02 pm

TD,

Tehoretically yes to smaller engines but also no to putting batteries anywhere. Batteries are still large and heavy which limits where in the vehicle you can put them (CofG again), what we really need is a revolution in battery technology to allow electricity storage inmuch smaller and lower weight systems than today- perhaps we could integrate the energy storage into the protection package, all a very long way and many billions of $ away but interesting to muse.

wf
wf
February 22, 2012 9:05 pm

@TD: the power required is still the same, possibly a little more. A generator isn’t that smaller than a gearbox, but the transmission can be replaced with a wire, and the engine can be mounted without regard to the transmission as well

Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
February 22, 2012 9:25 pm

A video of the BAE HED demonstrator showing the internal layout. Warning – as its based on a MTLV it is posted by the “Gavin”-istas, but ignore that and enjoy the video.

http://www.solarpowertechnology.net/high-technology-m113-gavins-real-future-combat-system/

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 9:27 pm

wf,

Transmission is the gearbox. I believe TD was reffering to physical size not power?

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
February 22, 2012 9:30 pm

The maths are what would have the final say on the hybrid arrangement, along with the precise system chosen. It is my impression that military procurement is somewhat conservative and the switch to complete disassociation of the engine with the drive train (other than by electrical means) is a bit of a jump too far.

What would be interesting is the breakdown of where the power is needed. AFVs, especially heavy ones, tend to have large engines to attain mobility – mostly using torque. Electrical motors are very torquey and batteries iron out the peak demand. Therefore you should be able to use a consistent but lower power output engine to keep the batteries topped up. As a result the generating engines are lighter while additional mass is placed lower down (drive wheel(s)).

Cost may be higher, but bear in mind that most modern AFVs have two engines in them anyway. If the hybrid proves more efficient you might be able to make the savings in fuel. If you have smaller engines you reduce the maintenance burden by reducing the physical effort needed to move them around. The immediate benefit to the ground situation would be that a vehicle would still be viable with one engine out of commission, albeit perhaps at a reduced capacity.

Lots of ifs in there, but plenty of reason to go looking at it in detail.

Peter Elliott
February 22, 2012 9:43 pm

Certainly in the buses where BAE’s hybrid transmission is fitted the engine is smaller than the conventional equivalent. Required spikes in torque (for acceleration, hill climbing etc) are handled from the batteries and the diesel engine just chugs away at optimum revs recharging the batteries, which is where the fuel saving comes from.

Smaller, lighter batteries are a holy grail for a lot of applications – and would certainly help here too.

The point about layout is with three components: engine, batteries and traction motors which are only connected by electric cables, not by drive shafts, then you can move two of them around the hull more easily than a mechanical engine & gearbox combo which all need to be placed more or less adjcent to the driven wheels.

Peter

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 9:54 pm

TD,

Emphasis on “potential” hybrid vehicles, especially 60+ ton ones still need fuel, and lots of it. Batteries are still incredibly expensive and only last a fraction of the life of the vehicle, another cost that has to be factored in.

The gain interms of component location is also limited due to the CoG issues related to heavy components (Batteries and engines especially) and the fact that AFV’s are just not that big and people have been moving the engine/transmission around since they were invented in order to optimise internal volume for a given purpose. That is why the layout of this vehicle is so similar a standard IFV.

Peter Elliott
February 22, 2012 10:02 pm

Having said that the capital cost of a hybrid drive train is still higher than conventional.

On average a new bus costs around 150K and one with this kit on it costs around 250K. At the moment the fuel savings across the vehicle’s life don’t quite fill this gap, addtional governemnt grants are still needed to make the business case fly.

For AFVs the equation might be different – particularly as the traction package must be a much smaller percentage of the total cost and ‘in theatre’ fuel costs so much to deliver an protect.

Peter

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 10:05 pm

With the quasi-exception of SEP, Yes.

Bob
Bob
February 22, 2012 10:07 pm

Peter Elliot,

Excellent post again, what should be remembered though is that the batteries still need to be replace (relatively) frequently and cost a small fortune each and 60+ ton vehicles still burn allot of fuel even if they are hybrid.

Chris.B.
February 22, 2012 11:15 pm

I think it needs more aerials ;)

Blacktail
Blacktail
February 23, 2012 12:47 am

I suggest you all curb your enthusiasm for the GCV, because this thing is a disaster.

Has anyone else noticed that this vehicle is a cosmetically-altered MCV (Manned Combat Vehicle) from the Future Combat Systems project? You know, the one whose development targets included an empty weight of 20 short tons that ended up instead being 30 short tons? (Imagine if the Challenger II ended up being 30% heavier than specified!)

Basically, the Army just changed the name of the MCV, put a funny hat on it, and they now pretend it’s a new project.

To give you an idea of the level of engineering competence that went into the GCV, it’s currently projected to weigh 75 tons at combat weight — when you have that many tons, it doesn’t matter whether they’re short, long, or metric, because an infantry carrier basically becomes useless. And no matter how you may try to rationalize this as allowing for “Protection”, the Israeli Namer that’s built out of a *Merkava* chassis is still more than 10 tons lighter.
Also, note those two huge hatches that jut upward from the hull glacis plate — that’s a shot trap for autocannon and RPG rounds, which they will funnel upward into the turret ring.

This heap is also supposed to cost $200/mile to operate; http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/January/Pages/Army%E2%80%99sGroundCombatVehicleStirsConfusionInIndustry.aspx
Compare to a $75/mile M2A3 Bradley and a $2/mile M113A3

The notion of having a turret without a basket underneath is sheer madness. It will fall off easily, there is no “Degraded Mode” in which to crank the turret or gun manually, and it denies the crew unobstructed all-round top vision (they can’t see behind them when the vehicle is unbuttoned, because the turret is in the way).

Don’t be fooled by the smoke-and-mirrors of the Empty Turret Lobby — see from an AFV engineer’s perspective why EGTs (“External Gun Turrets”) are 100% WORTHLESS;
http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.1996.jf/1xturret96.pdf

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.1997.mj/3tkplant97.pdf

They don’t call it an EGT anymore, do they, even though that’s indisputably what it is? Always a sign of trouble.

And in case you still think this concept is anything other than madness, the GCV is supposed to carry a crew of 3 and 12 dismounts. That’s not a typo — TWELVE dismounts. How many vehicles do you know with a turret-to-hull size ratio that large, that can carry this many passengers? Even the M113A3, which has a whopping 300 cubic feet of interior volume (and NO turret), can only catty 10 passengers, and it has a crew of only 2.

There’s more — so much more — that’s wrong with the concept, but I think you guys have figured that out that the GCV is a lemon by now.

Brian Black
Brian Black
February 23, 2012 1:09 am

Bob, USD 449,964,969 x 0.611 (Aug ’11) = lovely new tank.

GBP 275m (give or take) is meant to build an ‘operationaly effective’ demonstration vehicle. Bear in mind though, the GCV programme has been running for some time and has already been re-imagined; then there is the General Dynamics demo vehicle at another USD 440m, and likely a third team and possibly a forth, so maybe another USD 900m just for demonstration vehicles; then there is the appraisal of the various vehicles at USD?m; and then there is still a manufacturing development phase before the production line can begin rolling… so yes, billions, but only GBP 275m to create a whole new -from top to bottom- hybrid drive IFV.

Bob
Bob
February 23, 2012 1:25 pm

Brian,

Rubbish on multiple levels. A lot of the technology being used is recycled from the MCV programme and the demonstrators will be just that demonstrators, a million miles from an operational vehicle.

IXION
February 23, 2012 2:11 pm

Bob

On the engines thing

You can use smaller engines because a Generator requires power rather than Torque to turn it. In the same way as modern passenger ships are turning to Diesel electric drive rather with medium speed engines rather than direct drive with prime movers the size of a house.

You can use a car based diesel Like say one l of VW Audi’s, turning out say 250hp X 2 as opposed to a cummins commercial engine turning out 500 the unit cost would be less but the maintenance burden is somewhat higher. Batteries don’t necessarily enter into it.

paul g
February 23, 2012 2:23 pm

I mean engines, transmissions, suspension, tracks, controls etc. In effect all the bits that fit to the hull that have to be built fixed or swapped, by the RLC.

fixed by who? fixed by WHO, sir you have disgraced the corp of the royal electrical mechanical engineers i demand satisfaction, adopt the pressup position and do not stop until your eyeballs bleed, fixed by the rlc my arse

paul g
February 23, 2012 4:07 pm

ooo you can go off people so quickly

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
February 23, 2012 7:20 pm

Blacktail,
I understand the fun of being controversial, but don’t you think that you are taking it a bit far? I agree with most of your comments but I think that you polarise the issues. Quite apart from anything else, if you take such a strong stance then if you make any errors (like shot traps for RPGs) then you make yourself look like a bit of a fool.

63t for an IFV is pretty heavy, but you don’t necessarily know what that covers. That could be chassis capability with modular protection fits as required with the standard battleweight being much less.

The published arguments against the “EGT” are compelling, but are mitigated by:
Date: those articles are form the late 1990’s. Technology has progressed somewhat since then.
Design detail: the EGTs discussed are not the unmanned turrets proposed. In the latter case the weapons are accessible from under armour, the interior space is available for stowage and since the controls are all electronic anyway, remoting them only increases the size of the slip ring.
Silhouette: it’s a light autocannon, not a large calibre gun. The height of the turret is not so enforced by the gun.
Not to say that the unmanned turret is a great solution, just that they are far from 100% WORTHLESS!!!1!! and in certain situations they are the better solution.

Your arguments are grounded less in reality. I shall specify where I think you are being daft:
“The notion of having a turret without a basket underneath is sheer madness”
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it so.
“It will fall off easily”
Sorry, what? How exactly do you think that turrets are attached to vehicles? I’ll give you a hint, it isn’t a 13-turn left-hand thread. Baskets are generally not structural components.
” there is no “Degraded Mode” in which to crank the turret or gun manually”
So sure of this are you? I suspect that I could fashion such an arrangment

Now, I said at the start and I’ll say it again, I agree that the GCV presented (bearing in mind that there is another one in the works) looks like a less than ideal AFV.
The forward crew stations protrude through the glacis armour and are pretty much centre of mass for anyone shooting at the front of the vehicle
The coaxial machine gun is heavily offset from the gunner’s sight, increasing parallax errors at close range
The coaxial machine gun is in a separate slot, increasing holes in the frontal protection system
The amount of turret-top systems impedes the tertiary armament and commander’s sight
They used a 25mm Bushmaster rather than the only a little bit bigger, very slightly heavier but more powerful and with greater growth potential 30mm Mk44.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
February 23, 2012 8:10 pm

I thought it was Bob coming on, when I read the leading in line
“I understand the fun of being controversial”
– where is Bob when you need him?
– this GCV does not seem to make much sense
– I am not a fan of the Namer either, but those hulls are produced new, in the good old USA, and they are meant for a certain type of environment (wading through fire, often in a built-up environment)… so starting from there might make a good spec for more general uses

bad_steve
March 20, 2012 8:30 am

So when someone blows off a track (or two, with an IED, RPG, etc) exactly what is going to recover it?

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
April 22, 2012 5:18 pm

Spied this on Army-technology – some more views of the BAE/Northrop GCV concept, particularly side, plan and rear views.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv1.html

Still looks silly.

Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
April 22, 2012 5:34 pm

@ Mr Fred – do you know where the engine goes? In front of the two crew positions? there appears to be two vents at the back…

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
April 22, 2012 7:16 pm

AIUI it’s a hybrid system on the BAE/Northrop concept, so the drive motors are electric and at the front of the vehicle, where the drive sprockets are and the generators are driven by engines elsewhere on the vehicle, probably down the sponsons, where the vents are.

It’s probably the thing I like best about the concept. The crew space is not particularly defined by the automotive layout.

Gareth Jones
Gareth Jones
April 22, 2012 7:39 pm

Yes, I knew it was a HED vehicle but didn’t realise that was the layout.

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
April 22, 2012 7:55 pm

I don’t know for sure if that is how it is, but it’s a reasonable inference given what we can see and what has been released on the Qinetiq electric drive system.

Chris.B.
April 22, 2012 8:36 pm

I think it needs a few more aerials.

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
April 22, 2012 9:12 pm

Voice comms, long range and local
Data Comms
Gunshot locator
Meteorological sensor
Wire cutters
ECM

Certainly makes for a little forest of antennae.
One wonders if it wouldn’t be possible to surface mount some of them?