Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:26 AM Apr 2013

CBO To Army: Scrap Ground Combat Vehicle, Buy German Puma (BREAKING)

http://defense.aol.com/2013/04/02/cbo-to-army-scrap-ground-combat-vehicle-buy-german-puma-break/?icid=trending2



German's new Puma troop carrier

CBO To Army: Scrap Ground Combat Vehicle, Buy German Puma (BREAKING)
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: April 2, 2013

(updated) WASHINGTON: The Army's proposed Ground Combat Vehicle would offer less combat power, at a higher cost, than buying the German-made Puma already in production or even just upgrading the Army's existing M2 Bradley, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO issued a report today assessing different alternatives to upgrade Army heavy brigades' infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), tank-like war machines with tracks and turrets designed to carry troops into combat.

The non-partisan CBO, Capitol Hill's in-house thinktank, has slammed the Ground Combat Vehicle program before, but never this hard. The office's analysts took the Army's own criteria and created a grading system that scored different combat vehicles for effectiveness. Using a scoring scheme that prioritized protection above all, followed by firepower, mobility, and passenger capacity, in that order, the CBO rated the Puma highest, followed by a notional upgrade to the Bradley, followed in distant third place by the GCV. (The Israeli-built Namer came in fourth). Even under an alternative grading scheme that weighted all four criteria equally -- putting much more emphasis on the capacity to carry troops -- the 6-passenger Puma still edged out the 9-passenger GCV, largely because of its superior firepower.

Add in the cost and risk of developing a new vehicle, and the analysis swings even farther in favor of the Puma. Since the Germans already have the Puma in production -- the vehicle entered Bundeswehr service in 2011 -- there's no untested technology to cause problems. And even after buying 25 percent more Pumas to make up for its smaller carrying capacity, the Army would spend half as much as to develop, test, and build the GCV, according to CBO's estimate: $14.5 billion for 2,048 Pumas as opposed to $28.8 billion for 1,748 GCVs.

~snip~

There is room to argue with CBO's scoring system. To start with, since the GCV does not yet exist, CBO grades the vehicle based on the Army's 2010 "Design Concept After Trades"; the actual GCV might be better or worse. For example, CBO assumes the GCV will have only a 25 millimeter cannon, rather than the Puma's 30 mm, but Army officials I spoke to were still hoping for the larger caliber.
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CBO To Army: Scrap Ground Combat Vehicle, Buy German Puma (BREAKING) (Original Post) unhappycamper Apr 2013 OP
I think it would be wise Sherman A1 Apr 2013 #1
Scoring system reflects modern military JayhawkSD Apr 2013 #2
Is there any doubt the GCV's actual production cost would double? bluedigger Apr 2013 #3
Keep Lima open era veteran Apr 2013 #4
I had a mechanized platoon when I was in Iraq Victor_c3 Apr 2013 #5
Love your pic. unhappycamper Apr 2013 #6
Thanks Victor_c3 Apr 2013 #7
Great Image era veteran Apr 2013 #8

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
1. I think it would be wise
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:34 AM
Apr 2013

to simply do a refurb/upgrade on the M2. Any vehicle that is just to worn out could be replaced and those with life still in them could be rehabbed. I think either the new GCV or the Puma alternative are simply silly.

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
2. Scoring system reflects modern military
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 09:25 AM
Apr 2013
"scoring scheme that prioritized protection above all, followed by firepower, mobility, and passenger capacity, in that order,"

This is why the British are reluctant to fight with American forces in Afghanistan and German forces flatly refuse to do so. American forces place "force protection" as a priority over accomplishing the mission. They are so unwilling to take casualities that they will not attack a building, but will sit back and call in artillery or air strikes, even when they know that noncombatants are in the building. Britain, and even nore so Germany, find that objectional, since it violates several provisions of the Geneva Conventions for the conduct of war.

If our military placed the mission as priority, as we did in the wars we used to win, the scoring for the Ground Combat vehicle should be mobility first, then firepower, protection and capacity. in that order.

bluedigger

(17,153 posts)
3. Is there any doubt the GCV's actual production cost would double?
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 09:40 AM
Apr 2013

Has that ever not happened in a DOD procurement program? Buy the Puma.

era veteran

(4,069 posts)
4. Keep Lima open
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:23 AM
Apr 2013

What in the fuck is the Army doing. Down to only a couple of full tank battalions. Rest all Stryker trucks with 105's mounted. Too cheap and too wasteful at the same time. The M1 Abrams is the best armored vehicle ever fielded. A true Jedi tank that protects the crew from DEATH. These trucks with big guns are fucking targets.
Army/Infantry Ringknocker Bund steals the Armor School and mixes in at Benning with the grunts who are always real glad for a 'heavy' to be around.
I guess this way they can wheel and deal on this stuff and soak us again when we need heavy tank formations again.
What are they doing?

Victor_c3

(3,557 posts)
5. I had a mechanized platoon when I was in Iraq
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:54 PM
Apr 2013

My platoon was given up to a combat engineer battalion and then I was reorganized and ended up a platoon leader for a platoon made up of 2x tanks, 2x brads, and 1.5 squads of dismounted Infantry. I never bought the argument that our heavy armor wasn't an asset in an urban environment. To an undisciplined enemy, the tanks always drew the majority of the enemy fire (and most enemy fire did nothing to my tanks, but it would have messed up my bradley or my dismounted sections).

I loved having heavy armor in my platoon. I'm so thankful that I didn't have to do a stint ever as a Light Infantryman. I had enough close calls when I was dismounted, but I always knew I had a tank and/or a brad close by to cover my ass.

[IMG][/IMG]

Speaking of covering our asses, the above picture is a platoon picture that we took just before we left Iraq in March of 2005.

Victor_c3

(3,557 posts)
7. Thanks
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 04:47 AM
Apr 2013

I figured it showed off our best feature!

I just keep thinking about 200 years from now some military historian will be going through the unit archives and will come across this picture...

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Veterans»CBO To Army: Scrap Ground...