Tuesday, January 28, 2014

US Army's Ultra Light Combat Vehicle Solicitation.

Thanks Michael..this is EYE OPENING!

via FBO.gov
Below are the threshold ULCV general requirements providing enhanced mobility for IBCT Soldiers.

a. Payload. Vehicle must carry Infantry Squad (9 Soldiers) with equipment (3200 lbs).

b. Protection. Base level of protection is provided by high mobility to avoid enemy contact and Soldier Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) (since the vehicle supports dismounted Soldiers).

c. Survivability. The ULCV (at GVW) shall provide a crashworthy vehicle structure capable of maintaining structural integrity in a rollover; quantified as a crush resistant roof structure or rollover bars capable of supporting 100% of its own GVW after a dynamically applied impact load.

d. Mobility.
a) Provide mobility with 10% on primary roads, 10% on secondary roads, 75% cross-country and trails, and 5% in urban, rubble environment.
b) Perform in Terrain level III (ridges/summits)
c) Routinely tasked to hold position on cross-country and trail conditions.

e. Lethality. Provide threshold capability to host crew served weapons assigned to an IBCT Infantry squad. Objective is to incorporate a medium caliber weapon into squad operations.

f. Transportability.
a) Internally transportable by CH-47 (in combat configuration under High/Hot conditions).
b) Sling load transportable by UH-60 (in combat configuration under High/Hot conditions).
c) Air drop from C130 on 463L pallet (in combat configuration).
d) Air drop from C17 dual row 463L pallet (in combat configuration).

g. Sustainability. Maintain high operational readiness rates through rugged construction and modular component replacement under field conditions.

h. Protection. Vehicle will provide FMVSS compliant restraints to Soldiers riding inside the vehicle and storage capability for individual equipment and squad equipment.

i. Range. 250-300 mile range on internal fuel.

j. No add-on communication equipment requirement.
Read the entire posting here.

THE US ARMY CAN'T BE SERIOUS!  They want to be able to transport 9 Soldiers with an internally carried vehicle (inside a CH-47)...want it light enough to be sling loaded by a UH-60....and they've essentially said screw land mines because we're going to use off road mobility to be where the mines ain't!

This tells me everything I need to know.

The US Army is in a tailspin over the pivot to the Pacific and they see themselves in a real deal fight for relevancy.

Its really unfortunate for not only the Army but the nation.  The US needs a credible Army to fight wars.  Not another expeditionary force.   


  1. Closest you can get to this specs is with the Mungo from KMW ,but i think its off road preformance is quite limited. Maybe they improved that in Mungo 2 and 3


    1. The Mungo is a POS and a rolling death trap. Far to small wheels therefore off road performance laughable.

      According to size and weight I could imagine an unarmored Wiesel 3 with roll cage.
      Here some design studies:

  2. The BV206? It shows to be internally transportable, but having really 2 platforms I wonder if it could be sling loaded or for that matter air drop able.

  3. Crack. It's what Big Army is smoking. It's the only way I could explain it.

  4. Toyota Hilux? Already used by many rebel groups in Africa so it's combat proven....


  5. Think "dune buggy" meets "Ford Econoline Van" for rapid deployment in support of Light Infantry forces. What is interesting is that the HMMWV already meets the requirements in M998 Troop Carrier configuration with one man to spare. Driver, VC, 8 guys in the back is ten men. Simply adding a gun ring for an M2 or M240 and a gun position between the Driver and VC that extends back into the cargo area. With the upgrades to the 6.5 turbo diesel engine it is a very good off road platform. And in case you are wondering, thin skinned HMMWVs are what Soldiers and Marines did most of their patrolling with in Iraq between 2003 and 2005 before the IED became a widespread terrorist TTP.

    Fit inside a Chinook? Check
    Slung under a Blackhawk? Check
    Capable of transporting a 9 man squad? Check
    The only thing missing is a rollover cage.

  6. US definition for medium cal. weapon is at least 20mm.

  7. The most likely candidate is the Supacat HMT licensed to Lockheed Martin as the 'Common Vehicle Next Generation' (CVNG) http://lockheedmartin.com/us/products/commonvehicle.html
    LM recently had the vehicle partake in the the US Army's 'Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiment' (AEWE) Spiral I; Spiral I technology quad charts can be viewed here: http://www.benning.army.mil/mcoe/cdid/aewe/content/pdf/SpiralTech.pdf
    The LM CVNGs description matches several of the characteristics described in the FBO solicitation:
    11 pers capacity
    CH47 internal transportability
    310 mile operational range on internal fuel

    1. Looks like a Kraka on steroids:
      folded: http://up.picr.de/3902044.jpg
      I prefer tracks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier

  8. adaptus primus,

    Go ahead and back up your "medium caliber is 20mm" statement, I need a good laugh.

    Seriously, even wikipedia says you are full of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_machine_gun

    1. Please check out this site before you open up your lousy mouth


  9. adaptus primus,

    That was a good chuckle. Now pull out your copy of "Operational Terms and Graphics" and point to the "medium machine gun" http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/fm101-5-1/f545-c5b.htm

    This ain't WWII any more, although if you want to go by the historical definition you drug up, then a Mk19 would suffice as a "medium caliber weapon" as it launches 40mm projectiles, except if you refer back to your copy of "Operational Terms and Graphics" you'll see that the Mk19 is considered a "heavy."

    Although it would be cool to put something like an M39 on a vehicle, then you would need a sighting system, and some sort of control mechanism (CROWS for example) and it would just get heavy.

    Seriously, we don't even bother to put small cannons on Strykers, it's M2/Mk19 only until you get to 105's and TOWs. Why in the world would we put a 20mm Cannon on something designed to support a squad?

    But give us your expert opinion, what have you got to lose?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.