Army GCV: The Bigger They Are, The Harder They Fall

Last week, one of my typical mornings of sipping coffee, listening to smooth jazz, and scanning interesting articles recently posted on the Defense Tech Blog was interrupted when I stumbled upon something extraordinary.  What caught my eye was a picture of a monstrous tank that resembled a Bradley and an article titled, “Army: GCV Needs to Be Big and Tracked.”  I immediately got excited and delved into the article, thinking to myself “Ah yeah!  A new tank, this thing is gunna be B.A.”   Several lines into the article I learned that the Ground Combat Vehicle being developed by DARPA is destined to be the replacement armored fighting vehicle in Heavy and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams…and that it is projected to weigh 84 TONS!!!!  I nearly spit out my coffee when I read that.  That's a really heavy vehicle.  Here are some facts to put 84 tons into perspective.  The M1A2 Abrams weighs 68 tons, the M2 Bradley weighs 28 tons, and the Stryker weighs only 18 tons.

The GCV’s increased size allows it to accommodate a nine man squad instead of just 6 soldiers that the Bradley can carry.  Extra weight is also added on because of a new floating floor design that protects the crew and passengers from direct IED hits.  Still, though.  84 tons?  That must have some affect on the ability to transport the vehicle.  Colonel Rocky Kmiecik, director of Mounted Requirements Division at Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, defended the vehicle when asked how the vehicle’s weight affects deployability.  He responded, “It doesn’t because it takes the same amount of planes the same amount of times to deploy Bradleys as it does Ground Combat Vehicles.  If you are moving tanks to a place those planes are going to be able to support the Ground Combat Vehicle.”  My immediate thoughts were how large the disconnect between the developers of this program and logisticians must be.  What about contingency operations that do not require tanks, but maybe require a lighter fighting vehicle?  I also question Colonel Kmiecik on the deployability of the GCV.  The C-17 can carry up to 85 tons, and can carry 3 Bradleys at once.  With weighing 84 tons, a C-17 would only be able to transport only one GCV at a time.  That means it would take three times as many flights to move a force into theater using the GCV, using up valuable time, space, and money. 

The GCV would also increase the number of support assets required to keep the unit moving.  The increased weight of the vehicle would probably also increase fuel consumption, increasing the number of tankers required to be flown into theater.  Also, a good question is whether the Army has a recovery vehicle capable of towing an 84 ton GCV.  Who knows what would happen if a GCV were to go down far away from a FOB.  I imagine it would look something like an Imperial AT-AT going down on Hoth. 

A tracked vehicle is also much harder to maintain than a wheeled vehicle.  Putting on a spare tire after one is blown off by an IED is a much easier fix than putting on whole new set of tracks.  

           The size and weight makes the use of this vehicle seem impractical.  If the GCV is to be the replacement system for Heavy and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, the logistical footprint of those units would become exponentially larger, decreasing their deployability.