The ULCV: vertical motorization for the US Army's light infantry

On 21 January, the US Army’s Manuever Center of Excellence (MCoE) at Fort Benning, with the support of Army Contracting Command in Warren, Michigan, issued a sources-sought request (rather a request for information, or RFI) for something it calls an “Ultra Light Combat Vehicle” (ULCV). The issue is mobility for the Army’s infantry brigades. Today, their transport options are MRAPs, Humvees, and cargo trucks. The former are very good for fighting urban insurgencies, but all options largely restrict the infantry to 'road marches’. This desired ULCV would be air-droppable, air-portable, and an excellent hill-climber—vertical mobility modes that light infantry crave.

In the past week, several journalists and commentators have picked up this story, but with a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Matthew Cox at Military.com announced that the US Army is looking to build an “air-droppable armored vehicle”. Dan Gouré at the Lexington Institute never mentioned armor, but criticized the ideas as “Stryker Light”, saying that "the ULCV is not yet even an R&D program.”

After reading those stories, I have two points of order:

1. The ULCV is not to be armored.
2. There will be no R&D program: it’s intended as an off-the-shelf procurement.

I know these things because I read the announcement fully, and then called Carl Pignato, the Army’s point of contact  at Fort Benning, to confirm my understanding. Honestly, the man sounds almost exasperated that the press can’t understand what he wrote. I can understand his frustration: the US Army has been having trouble getting its story out lately, and misinterpretation doesn’t help.

So that we can analyze the idea, let’s summarize the requirements. According to that RFI, the ULCV should be able to 

• Carry a squad of nine troops, their equipment, and their body armor (about 3,200 lbs.)
• Survive a rollover
• Drive off-road with ease (that’s 75 percent of the foreseen usage profile), up to ridges and summits
• Carry at least a machinegun, and ideally a “medium-caliber weapon” (unspecified)
• Ride internally on a Chinook, sling under a Blackhawk, and drop out of a Hercules
• Cruise at least 250 miles (though it’s not clear if that’s on- or off-road)

All that off-road driving and summit-climbing strongly suggest to me a tracked solution. After thinking of this for some time, I remembered how the Royal Marines, before they got their BvS10 Vikings from Hägglunds, used to drive militarized Snowcats. The RM needed a vehicle to transport troops and weapons across snowy mountains in Norway, and to get it ashore by landing boat and helicopter. Add some modern roll-bars and seat-belts to meet the US Army’s request, and we may have a ULCV.

I must say that I’m delighted that the Army is thinking modestly, about what can be done now, rather than about what possibly could be done someday with enough money. I’m thinking, of course, about the FCS and GCV programs that Gouré was appropriately lamenting. In contrast to the FCS program, this is not about providing motor transport to a bunch of Starship Troopers who eschew heavy armor for their supposedly fog-of-war-lifting electronics. In contrast to the GCV program, this isn’t about creating an Israeli-style behemoth which will stress the Army’s logistics like an Abrams tank. Rather, this is just about motorizing the light infantry off-road. That’s all, it’s important, and it’s eminently doable.

While I do think that the Army is for now appropriately thinking small, I want to suggest where this concept could go. In the past few weeks, both the Army’s vice chief of staff and its head of training and doctrine have speculated about replacing tens of thousands of soldiers with robots and avatars (avatars!). I find that chatter crazy, but I can readily imagine either robotic or optionally-manned artillery, anti-tank, assault gun, surveillance, and logistics vehicles based on this ULCV. As we might remember from the campaigns in Grenada and Panama and the Tora Bora, the benefits of adding even a little mobile firepower to light infantry can be impressive. If the vehicle needn’t carry troops under armor, then the Army might ask only for a little armor around ammunition boxes and electronics.

Of course, at no point should these be considered a substitute for actual tank troops, and the MCoE isn’t suggesting so. It’s just that there are plenty of places that Abrams and Bradleys and Paladins can’t go. Off-road motorization of the light infantry is a real need for the US Army, and an RFI for a ULCV is a great start.

Comments

[Thinkdefence]

James, in your comments about the Royal Marines Snowcats and BVS10 Vikings you missed out a vehicle that is exactly what I think you might be referring to

The BV206, the UK still has some in service and there are many nations that also have them in service. I actually thought the US 86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team used them but not sure

Anyway, they are internally transportable by Chinook and there are loads of variants, recovery, mortar, flatbed logistics, tippers and even fire tenders.

Chinook transportability
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isafmedia/3202745501/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isafmedia/3202734639/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/73614187@N03/6859233377/
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/503/Offloading_Bv206_from_Chinook.jpg
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_Bv206_Backing_Into_CH-47D_Afghanistan_lg.jpg

Variants
http://army-uk.com/stock/fotobig/69_BV206CARGO8.jpg
http://www.bv206.co.uk/images_old/BVCCS/BV206%20CARGO%20CARRIER-18.JPG
http://safetyoneinc.com/specsheets/misc_img/misc.hag.16.gif
http://www.bv206.co.uk/images_old/BVDROPS/BV206%20DROPS%20VEHICLE-18.JPG
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/508/The_Hagglund_BV206_105mm_ontow.jpg

There is even a VIP version?

http://army-uk.info/equip.php?ID=226

They can go anywhere and can swim as well

Do you need to reinvent the wheel?

[James Hasik]

ThinkDefense,

Thanks much for the information. I too thought of the Bv206—just without as much supporting detail! It's clearly a vehicle that has served in many armies with a great record in the field.

The trouble, I think, is that requirement for sling-loading under a Black Hawk. If I understand correctly, the empty weight of an unarmored Bv206 is 9,900 pounds. The maximum load on the sling of a UH-60L/M is 9,000 pounds.

This leaves two options. If Hägglunds were to offer something, I imagine that they could find a way to cut the vehicle's weight by 10 percent or more. Even then, we have the Stryker-on-the-Hercules problem: it can't fly very far with a maximum load. Alternatively, I can imagine the crew decoupling the two sections in the field, and hooking up two Black Hawks. But that's probably not what the Army has in mind.

Besides, the Army wants to carry a single nine-man squad. I don't think that's essential, as I've written in this column in the past, but that's what the Army's asking for. Against that requirement, the Bv206 is too big. So, to be competitive, Hägglunds would need to create something slightly different, based on the technology, with probably just a single unit (no trailer). I'll be delighted if the company jumps into this.

And yes, you're correct: the US Army does have some Bv206s, which they call Small Unit Support Vehicles (SUSVs).

[Thinkdefence]

Ah, now that makes it double interesting

Internal carriage in a Chinook and sling load from a UH60 so no more than 4.5 tonnes, a big ask I think

If you ease of on being tracked then Supacat have the 4x4 Extenda, a bit of a monster off road, internally carried and able to be converted into a 6x6 by adding a module

http://www.supacat.com/files/gallery/750_constW/090618143941-supacatentersCH47.jpg
http://www.supacat.com/files/gallery/750_constW/090618143824-supacatinsideCH47.jpg

They are 7.5 tonnes though

The Supacat ATMP is another one worth looking at

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp9107xAaf1qlcxqlo1_500.jpg

I always wondered why the people that make ski slope machines never got into the military market

Have a look at the Pisten Bully website

http://www.pistenbully.com

Am sure you could use narrower tracks and add in a cab for some of their smaller models and still come in under 4 tonnes

I do get the feeling we are into wheel reinventing territory a bit !