Talk:Future Combat Systems Infantry Carrier Vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] Bradley Replacement

The FCS manned ground vehicles have gotten negative press lately for being overweight, no longer C-130 transportable, etc. I just want to point out that the ICV clearly illustrates why: The Army has required that the contractors violate physics. Consider:

• This vehicle is meant to carry infantry and have similar weaponry as the M2 Bradley, and will likely replace the Bradley eventually.
• The ICV must carry 11 soldiers, more men than a Bradley.
• The ICV must have better armor protection than a Bradley, and carry more survivability subsystems (e.g. active protection).
• The ICV must have more C4ISR equipment than a Bradley (this is FCS after all).

But at the same time:

• The ICV must be smaller than a Bradley, to fit in a C-130.
• The ICV must be lighter than a Bradley, so a C-130 can carry it.
• Contractors must use existing technology that will be mature in time for production; no R&D allowed, no new technology development.

In light of the above, it's hardly surprising that the ICV and other manned ground vehicles have gotten heavier to meet the combat performance requirements while sacrificing C-130 transportability. -Amatulic 03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not all that unreasonable on the face of it to expect materials science to develop sufficiently in twenty years for an APC to be made that does more with less. (They do want so much more that it is unreasonable, but they aren't exactly totally ignorant of physics.) -Toptomcat 18:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

You are using the wrong tag at the bottom of the page! That's only for images. Enochlau 00:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Differences

How are the variants expected to be different? -Toptomcat 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm... read the articles. Some are carriers, some are shooters, some are a combination. I'm not sure I understand the question. -Amatulic 18:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

...not the FCS Manned Ground Vehicles- the Platoon Leader, Weapons Squad, and Rifle Squad variants of the ICV. -Toptomcat 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. When you wrote "variant" I assumed you meant one of the MGV variants (ICV, NLOS-C, C2V, etc.) because that's how we refer to them where I work. I should have known (in the context of this article) you were referring to the specific models of ICVs.

I'm not altogether certain of the differences other than in number of soldiers on board and detachable equipment on the exterior. That isn't to say you can convert one into another; I believe there will be some permanent differences. I can ask one of the ICV guys I work with and find out, but would also need to know if the information has been "approved for public release" before I can post anything. -Amatulic 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)