Hi,
Just saw something about the army looking into a replacement for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

The proposed replacement weighs 84 TONS(!) twice as much as the Bradley, and about 20 tons more than an Abrams tank.

The thought is that it will be more IED resistant, and it probably will. But it's gonna be a big honker. It will carry 9 troops wearing armor, supposedly with room between them to minimize blast effects.

I worry that it will be very limited in where it can go. I would also think that it could easily get bogged down.

hj

 

really. a 168,000 lb vehicle. it will get stuck on anything but asphalt, and probably get 4 gallons to the mile.

 

There are always proposed defense items like this, it's a good way to make a living if you can get the right money from the defense budget. You may or may not end up selling something in large numbers.

The Pentagon wants to stop making Abrams tanks because they have enough. Politicians won't let them:

Budget Cuts: Army Plan to Halt Abrams Tank Production Draws Bipartisan Fire in Congress - ABC News

The item you describe sounds like a perfect "make work" project for General Dynamics or other defense contractor.

 

People said that about the Abrams back when I was an engineer on that program at Chrysler Defense, Inc. Later we were sold to General Dynamics. With the right size track they do VERY well in the soft and gooey stuff. But they can still get stuck. And the Abrams as I remember uses 2.75 gallons/mile cross country. And no, I didn't mean 2.75 miles/gallon.

I used to have to go through all the test reports while the prototypes were undergoing testing. One time a tank commander had the driver stop on the top of a ridge and get out to check a noise at the rear of the tank. When the driver went to the rear he found the rear grill wasn't secured, but before he could do anything the tank slid sideways down the ridge into a ravine. It took two tank recovery vehicles (think tank sized tracked wreckers) 8 hours to get it out of there and over to a wash rack to get the mud off. Then it took 8 hours to get all the mud out and cut the tracks off. They had come off and were jammed in the suspension.

 

i would not doubt that at all mark.
i have done a few recoveries after bulldozers threw a track in a swamp.
it ain't pretty.

i also had to do a recovery on a cat 235 excavator that broke the swamp mats it was on, and sank 8 feet into a salt marsh.
it took two weeks to get that 95,000 lb machine out.
i ended up having to cut a road through the woods to access the area, build a coffer dam, pump and muck it out, then get a crane in to lift the arm, then cable it up to 2 D-8's and a D-9 to drag it out of the dam, across 1/4 mile of high ground to the road, and on to my lowboy to get it back to the shop to get cut up for scrap.

 

OT but I remember one of my dad's WWII stories. I don't know what island it was, but they were making an airstrip in a swamp it seems. Some of the equipment got so mired and sunk so low they just left it and filled in over it.

If I had to invest money on the future of ground combat, I would bet on drones vs. 84 ton vehicles. The drone is perfect. Hellfire the obvious, draw out the hidden, survail the area, radar or sonar the roads--all before one life is put on the line. You're still going to need armor, but not overweight, probably top-heavy, bridge-busting, possible death trap mobiles.

 

Here is some reading on it:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/03/01/ar...sequestration/


GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

There's no doubt about it - there WILL BE a lot of Unmanned Vehicles in increasingly diverse areas. SEA/AIR/LAND, and all sizes. I expect the cost of remote robotic survey and other purpose devices will decrease as competition rises, too

And I guarantee that the coolest ones we won't even be allowed a glimpse of the technology by the government for a long time...