https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHckJxWRB-A
GFS CMF #2: Next Generation Combat Vehicle
Gen Abrams may say NGCV is not FCS, but as long as there is RDECOM/TARDEC PM/PEO, a NGCV CFT and TRADOC which has not delivered a operational NGCV concept yet combined w/ a stated reluctance to formalize a requirement (based on future threat and limited funding). This program looks worse than FCS.
Saying we are "nested" and not stepping on each tows. HA Need not to be more leaderless group discussion.
TARDEC needs to run the vehicle, (because it will, in the end, anyway) and Soldier Center the dismounts. TRADOC can work on the future when it all goes robotic ie Talos suits with or w/o humans.
There seemed to be only passing reference to a need to engage targets a max range ie 152/155mm Tardec slides show an In/direct fire vehicle. This should be the first emphasis. Gun launched max range munition/UAS.
BG Lesperance mentioned SWAP+Protection that should be the second emphasis. Plenty of modularity as sensor tech will contine to change but the powerplant/gearbox is the likely the program driver.
NGCV will be obsolete before it enters service if some radical engine/generators aren't explored. Opposing pistons will not cut it. Circular detonation is the only means to shrink and lighten a burner while simultaneously eliminating most of the Gearbox. Shocking to hear GEN Abrams say possibly vehicles w/o fuel. Even supercapcitors mostly yikes.
Third emphasis should the not discussed multiple UGV/UAS lethality and mobility. We hear RCVs will require two operators. the RCV operators are not the crew. OK, that is two members of the squad already taken up. The rest of the squad will need to operate other UGV/UAS ? The vehicle's combat traverse protection needs and infantry's need to support its own dismount could well be often conflicting to UGV/UAS operators. What if there needs to be a separate UGV/UAS operator vehicle.
Soldier issues in and out of the NGCV should be under Soldier Lethality CFT. Soldier Interface w/ the vehicle and UAS/UGVs is Soldier Lethality issue. When the infantry school works it out they fill the vehicle's hull. Otherwise bringing Infantry into vehicle requirements will confuse.
To the infantry NGCV is a taxi w/ benefits. To the crew it is the main show.
If the multi-decade developed Mobile Protected Fire Power (MPF) and these Playstation Play-dates, otherwise called AWEs are example of effective programs, than the US Army is in big trouble. When is real risk and real development.
