MCG said:I think somewhere a requirement is going to have to slip.
Army Considers Trading Armor for Speed
For the past decade, enemy forces in Iraq and Afghanistan relied heavily on improvised explosive devices -- roadside bombs that wreaked havoc on U.S. military vehicles. The tactic forced the Pentagon to rely more on heavy armor protection, sacrificing mobility of ground forces.
(...)- SNIPPED/EDITED
Heavy armor works well in heavy brigade combat teams, but it has no place in the light infantry formations of the IBCT of the future, said Lt. Col. Kevin Parker, branch chief of Light Systems in the MCoE's Mounted Requirements Division.
(...)- SNIPPED
Maneuver officials maintain that the ULCV is not competing against the JLTV. The ULCV is designed to fill a capability gap of being large enough to carry a nine-man squad but light enough -- at 4,500 pounds -- to be sling-loaded by a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.
Maneuver officials maintain that the ULCV is not competing against the JLTV. The ULCV is designed to fill a capability gap of being large enough to carry a nine-man squad but light enough -- at 4,500 pounds -- to be sling-loaded by a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.
"Dismounted infantry move by UH-60 because that is the vehicle that the tactical commander can get his hands on, so you want to make sure that the vehicle that is supporting that dismounted infantry can also be moved around by that platform," Parker said.
The only way to achieve this weight and meet the capability is to trade armor protection for speed and mobility, Parker said.
Currently, IBCTs can still move only as fast as a heavily burdened infantryman can walk.
"The guy has nothing right now; he's walking at four miles an hour, vulnerable, on his feet," he said.
The ULCV would also be air-droppable from C-130 and C-17 aircraft in combat configuration. It would have to carry up to 3,200 pounds, which is equal to a fully equipped, nine-man squad. It would have a range of up to 300 miles on internal fuel. Maneuver officials are also interested in the vehicle performing on high-altitude terrain such as ridges and summits.
(...)- SNIPPED
Given the US size/budget, they have more options than we do when juggling the speed-protection-firepower Venn diagram.... as discussed elsewhere *cough* CCV *cough* with the attendant logistic tail and training bill that comes from mixed fleets. It would be wonderful to have a lot of options, but let's not get too focused southwards, and try and keep our LAV and B-vehicle fleets running."I am not trying to refight Afghanistan and Iraq," Parker said. "With any high-speed avenue of approach, particularly a road, it's a very easy thing to target. ... If I am gonna drive down the road, I probably want to be in MRAPs because that is where [the] enemy can target me with IEDs."
The ULCV instead would be designed to travel 75 percent of the time across country and on rough trails.
Journeyman said:One of the key bits in the article is this:Given the US size/budget, they have more options than we do when juggling the speed-protection-firepower Venn diagram.... as discussed elsewhere *cough* CCV *cough* with the attendant logistic tail and training bill that comes from mixed fleets. It would be wonderful to have a lot of options, but let's not get too focused southwards, and try and keep our LAV and B-vehicle fleets running.
I now return you to discussing US stuff.
tomahawk6 said:I am not holding out much hope on this.We couldn't even build an air deployable Mobile Gun platform without uparmoring the thing to the point where it almost didnt fit on a C-130.
Maneuver officials maintain that the ULCV is not competing against the JLTV. The ULCV is designed to fill a capability gap of being large enough to carry a nine-man squad but light enough -- at 4,500 pounds -- to be sling-loaded by a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.
GnyHwy said:Carry 9 (I will assume adults with bullets and water) and weigh less than a standard pick up truck; and be armoured? :rofl:
Matt_Fisher said:ULCV has no requirement for armour. The concept of operations is for it to be primarily used off-road/cross-country so as to avoid likely IED emplacement areas (i.e. roads) and provide a mobility platform for light infantry.
James Hasik has probably the best synopsis which I've come across so far:
http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2014/01/the-ulcv-vertical-motorization-for-the-us-armys-light-infantry.html
It does look like we were closer than we might believe. The secret to success might be not redesigning it ourselves.Kirkhill said:I was amused to discover that given the flavour of the month for light troops (side by side ATVs) and the multi-million dollar Internally Transportable Vehicle the CF already had that capability covered. But then we ditched it.