US army GVC ?

nashorn88 · Post by **nashorn88** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:20 am

I haven't been keeping up but whats the deal with this?
I seen so many pic online which one is going to be produce ?

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:05 am

I assume you mean the GCV, or Ground Combat Vehicle. That program was cancelled in early 2014 due to budgetary constraints (read Sequestration). The program was making good progress reasonably within budget and money was the only problem.

I think the Brits had a similar program (maybe even through the same company - BAE) and cancelled it for financial reasons also. The Russians, on the other hand,..

nashorn88 · Post by **nashorn88** » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:40 am

panzergator wrote:I assume you mean the GCV, or Ground Combat Vehicle. That program was cancelled in early 2014 due to budgetary constraints (read Sequestration). The program was making good progress reasonably within budget and money was the only problem.

I think the Brits had a similar program (maybe even through the same company - BAE) and cancelled it for financial reasons also. The Russians, on the other hand,..

Thanks
I didn't know that. With the price of oil at its current level let see how many the Russian will be able to make.

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:13 am

I would go with the Swedish vehicles as a substitute. For the US, primary infantry combat vehicle would be the 30mm version. Hopefully, GHQ will come out with the 120mm gun version soon.

Frankly, I think the concept of a single chassis with armor and gun packages to be installed as needed would work only for the bean counters and the Air Force haulers. GIs in 'em would pay the price for too much compromise.

We should keep in mind the dual-service concept of the F-111, which initially was supposed to be produced in both Air Force and Navy carrier versions until on admiral with a set he hauled behind him on a trailer stood up and told Robert McNamara there was no way that the FB-111 would fly off a carrier and do the job needed. Then, look at the gun-missile launcher on the Sheridan and the M60A2. Follow that with the M2/M3 versions of the Bradley/(Devers), a scout vehicle combined with an infantry fighting vehicle, requiring too much compromise for either mission - too big to scout, not enough capacity for dismounting infantry.

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:23 am

And for all we know, the Russian stuff is made of cardboard. Remember they did stuff like that in the '50s and '60s. And there were a lot of shenanigans the ACR guys used to pull in the border to make them think we had some odd equipment, too.