US Army's combat vehicle strategy seeks capability, not platforms

BLACKEAGLE

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 5, 2014
Messages
3,627
Reaction score
1,982
Country
Jordan
Location
Jordan
US Army's combat vehicle strategy seeks capability, not platforms
Daniel Wasserbly, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
10 August 2015

M1A2 Abrams main battle tank. (IHS)
Key Points
  • The army's Combat Vehicle Modernisation Strategy is seeking a broader set of attributes
  • Officials are considering various options, such as hosting main guns on an autonomous vehicle
The US Army is taking a new approach for developing and fielding combat vehicles, hoping a broader capability requirement - which could include unmanned weapons - nets more success.

Previously the army approached vehicle acquisition by outlining the "things" it wants to buy, but has not had "a strategy for capability", General David Perkins, head of army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), said during a briefing at the Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium in Novi, Michigan.

Recent major combat vehicle developments have ended in failure, with the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) terminated in last year's budget, the Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) family of systems in 2009, and the Crusader self-propelled howitzer in 2002. The army now hopes a new Combat Vehicle Modernisation Strategy can achieve success by focusing more on an 'end state' rather than certain equipment types.


M2A3 Bradley IFV. (IHS)

"The strategy is a combination of ends, ways, and means" and ultimately is meant to deliver an 'end' that is "a combination of mobility, protection, and lethality," Gen Perkins said earlier this month.

In the US political system it is often easier to secure funding for specific equipment or for addressing a specific threat; it is much harder to sell Congress on investing in something amorphous, such as a general combination of attributes.

"The product of our combat vehicle modernisation strategy is not a tank, it may not even be a combat vehicle as we know it now," he said. "The end of our strategy is a capability to apply mobility, protection, and lethality" that provides the army a competitive advantage.

M113 armored personnel carrier. (IHS)

Many observers expect that the end product will be an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) - especially given the need to replace ageing Bradley IFVs - but Gen Perkins stressed a need to look at this differently.

An IFV or a main battle tank is "merely a way to get at an end state", he suggested, "maybe the lethality [weapon system] is not organic to the vehicle, maybe the vehicle is plugged into something else, some other autonomous capability that can deliver lethality."

Over the next five years the army hopes to recapitalise its M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks, Bradley IFVs, and Stryker combat vehicles, while working towards slowly introducing Armoured Multi-Purpose Vehicles (AMPVs) to replace ageing M113-series armoured personnel carriers.

From fiscal year 2021-29 the service plans to prioritise lethality improvements for its Infantry and Stryker brigade combat team (BCT) formations with "a Mobile Protected Firepower platform" and for its Armoured BCTs with "the addition of third-generation Forward Looking Infrared [3G FLIR] technologies". Moreover, in that timeframe the army expects to invest in "Active Protective Systems [APS]/and Hostile Fire Detection [HFD]", according to its modernisation blueprint.
US Army's combat vehicle strategy seeks capability, not platforms - IHS Jane's 360
 

HeliArmy

MEMBER
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
73
Reaction score
14
Country
France
Location
France
I am happy to see this! And Congress would be stupid to not understand, but Congress seriously tends to compete against Military instead of helping each other.

I mean, this is nice to hear that because it seems it will lead to a path of innovation. Focusing on Objectives are pure Military mentality in my opinion. I am a bit amazed by the speed and range of all these vehicles as well. However, I don't understand this limit around 300 mi. What's happening? They can't do more or they don't think it's relevant to go over? If yes, why?

I wonder if EV would be usable too. Well, I don't know what range they are able to do with EV and I know this is pretty new but they have the freedom to have heavy vehicles and usually, the problem is either weight and space for EV.
 

Similar threads

Top