Common Combat Vehicle series [WIP]

[Virana]

Please present any orders to the main storefront and refrain from posting in this thread. Thank you.

Back to StorefrontBack to ProductsOverseas Military ProductionRestricted ProductsDiscounts

This article is a work-in-progress. Sorry for the inconvenience.

---

Introduction · Contents · Overview · Design · Variants · Purchase

The Common Combat Vehicle (CCV) is a family of lightweight tracked armored ground vehicles developed by Defense Dynamics and UAE Systems for the United Republic Army. The family's design focuses on producing an array of highly transportable combat vehicles for modern rapid maneuver warfare, placing an extensive emphasis on mobility, speed, and networking. As of 2013, 8 variants of the vehicle are utilized by the Army and several more are planned.

Developed as part of the Brigade Combat Systems (BCS) program, the CCV is an integral element of the U.R. Army's full-spectrum modernization effort. The overall program was initiated following the calls by then-Army chief of staff General Alan Paly for a lighter, more deployable, mobile, "objective-oriented" force in 1998. These came in response to a 1996 Quadrennial Defense Review report to the Department of Defense that highlighted repeated failures for Emmerian military forces to rapidly respond to regional crises. The rise of the digital era drove plans for a networked Army, where advanced reconnaissance assets (such as unmanned aerial vehicles and ground sensors) could provide an advanced, unified "picture" of the battlespace to every soldier, thus enhancing the capability for Army forces to conduct offensive and defensive operations.

The CCV was the main element of the BCS program, with the goal being to design a networked combat brigade centered around a versatile vehicle series. Almost all vehicles in the series can be transported in the Air Force's fleet of C-130 cargo planes and provide a far larger capacity for strategic and tactical mobility to the Army as compared to legacy armored vehicles such as the M9 Hunter main battle tank and M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.

BCS CCV-equipped brigade combat teams (BBCT) replace previous armored vehicles in favor of the CCV. The Army currently operates over 18,000 CCV variants in active service, although no CCV-equipped brigades have been deployed to a combat zone to date.

Contents

---

1. Overview
   1. Development history
   2. Service history
2. Design
3. Variants (including specifications)
   1. M201 infantry carrier vehicle
   2. M202 reconnaissance and surveillance vehicle
   3. M203 command and control vehicle
   4. M204 mounted combat system
   5. M205 medical vehicle
   6. M206 long range engagement system-cannon
   7. M207 long range engagement system-mortar
   8. M208 field recovery and maintenance vehicle
   9. Custom/other
4. Purchase

[Virana]

The Common Combat Vehicle series consists of a large number of variants to serve in a variety of roles on the modern battlefield. Conceptualized as a versatile, highly mobile vehicle series, the CCV forms the basis of highly mobile networked combat brigades in the United Republic Army and abroad.



In 1996, the United Republic Department of Defense released the 1996 Quadrennial Defense Review report, an analytical study that explored Emmerian strategic objectives, potential military threats, and challenges to evolving military doctrine. Although praising United Republic military forces for their lethality in conventional operations and counter insurgency, the report brought to light a key series of disadvantages in an evolving environment that could impact future doctrine.

The 1996 QDR analyzed the development of potential national security threats, and it determined that the United Republic had to modify its doctrine significantly in order to deal with crises around the region and world that sparked and concluded rapidly.

Responding to the issue, then-Army Chief of Staff General Alan Paly initiated a program in 1998 to massively restructure the United Republic Army into a lighter, more deployable force that maximized lethality in urban warfare, centered around combined-arms brigade combat teams rather than unitary divisions. Infantry BCTs (IBCTs) could handle lightweight urban operations and other unconventional infantry-intensive operations not requiring heavily armored vehicles, and heavy BCTs (HBCTs) could conduct operations with traditional main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and heavily mechanized mounted infantry to provide maximum firepower to an Army formation. However, General Paly determined that a medium-sized force was required to fill the gap between the two—being lightweight and providing heavy firepower.

Understanding conservative Army generals would shy away from replacing traditional heavy vehicles for a far lighter and mobile platform, General Paly approached the military's chief research and development agency, DRIPA. After lobbying for Congressional support, General Paly received defense funding for his program, which he termed Brigade Combat Systems (BCS).

The BCS program was very wide reaching, its goal being to serve as a complete full-spectrum modernization program for the Army. It centered around the versatile CCV, envisioned as a single vehicle chassis with several variants that could serve in a wide variety of roles for a brigade combat team.

1999 Acaema crisis

Army leaders were largely skeptical of replacing or supplementing heavy vehicles like the M9 Hunter main battle tank with such a lightweight platform, claiming that it couldn't provide the protection of heavier systems. Opinions largely shifted in the opposite direction following the 1999 Acaema crisis.

In 1999, Acaema was deep in the middle of its civil war, and Emmerian air units had provided logistical air support to government forces against rebel elements. In May, the Army was directed to rapidly deploy attack helicopters to the country in order to support a major loyalist campaign. Fearing that this move could potentially cause defected military forces to strike with armored units, Army leaders called for a heavily armored security force to support the strikes. However, there was no rapid way to deploy heavy armored units. It was determined that deploying an armored brigade by sea could take weeks, forcing the leadership to send a company-sized armored task force by air.

Because U.R. Air Force transports were tied up supporting the air campaign against various rebel groups and moving Apache battalions to the combat zone, it took a month to send a single armored company to provide security. A week later, the Acaeman government was overthrown by the country's military in a coup, resulting in the U.R. withdrawing all military support during the civil war.

The sudden withdrawal tarnished Acaeman public opinion regarding the United Republic. The civil war continued to intensify, but the Acaeman Army-led government came to dominate other factions. Martial law was instituted across the country as the military cracked down on various insurgent groups, some allegedly supported by the United Republic. These allegations led the Acaeman government to fund a terror cell that was responsible for the 2000 Chaleur terror attacks, a series of bombings in Emmerian financial and economics hub Chaleur, that left over 2,000 dead and many more injured.

In response, the United Republic launched the Invasion of Acaema and Operation Acaeman Liberty (OAL), the latter of which has continued to this day and sees at least 20,000 Emmerian troops deployed to Acaema until the end of 2014.

The 1999 Acaema Crisis showcased the inability for the United Republic military to rapidly deploy units with heavy firepower across the region and world, despite the presence of military bases in allied countries around the globe. The crisis garnered widespread controversy among Congress, prompting several influential lawmakers to push for further funding of the program.

CCV development and testing

Upon receiving the green light from a number of senior Army leaders to commence with the BCS program, the Department of the Army began to develop operational concepts and funded technology development and maturation. Awarding contracts of key components to various contractors and firms was a vital aspect of the technology maturation process.

In 2004, Emmerian defense contractor Rayzero Networked Systems, a subsidiary of Rayzero Company, won three awards to produce Network-Centric Sensors (NCS) for the BCS CCV. It received $75.3 million over four years to develop the Multipurpose Electro-optical/Infrared Sensor (MEIS) system, $29.6 million over three years to develop a combat vehicle identification system (CVIDS), and $118 million over four years to develop the CCV's Multipurpose Radar (MPR). Upon testing and evaluation, all three systems became integral elements of the program.

The Rayzero MPR was evaluated on a modified M9 Hunter MBT turret in 2009. The system demonstrated successful detection and tracking of munitions launched in the direction of the vehicle.

The MPR and MEIS became vital sensors for the Integrated Dual Active Protection System developed chiefly by UAE Systems. In 2005, Rayzero Networked Systems was given $70 million over five years by UAE Systems to develop a precision-guided hard-kill active protection system, which was integrated into the IDAPS's comprehensive "hit avoidance" suite. These systems were later integrated into the CCV through a sensor fusion computer developed by the CCV development group's systems integration team, led by UNADS.

In 2008, an early version of the IDAPS system, using a dedicated targeting radar and a shotgun-style hard-kill module developed by UAE Systems, was tested before Army observers. While a provisional system used during the period when Rayzero was developing its Missile Kill hard-kill module, the IDAPS met or exceeded Army requirements for threat detection, identification, and appropriate response countermeasures.

In 2009, a senior Rayzero official told reporters that a version of Missile Kill for light vehicles (such as Humvees) was cut, due to the high blast pressures associated with the launch of its projectiles, which could cause vehicle armor to buckle. The Army pursued other similar systems for use with light vehicles, such as Southard Eckerman's Interthreat, a rotating missile launcher capable of adjusting azimuth and elevation to intercept threats 5 to 15 meters away from the vehicle.

In 2014, the Army announced it was evaluating options for a second-generation "common hardkill APS" that could be mounted to all vehicles.

The selection of Missile Kill over existing commercial active protection systems was controversial because Rayzero encountered difficulties and delays that pushed the program back up to four years, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. In 2010, the Army performed a Non-Developmental Assessment with Trophy, an Israeli active protection system selected for the IDF's Merkava main battle tanks, often regarded the most matured hard-kill active protection system at the time. While the tests are generally considered a success, the Army stated it was not going to integrate Trophy into the CCV, rather choosing to continue funding Missile Kill despite the fact that Trophy could be fielded and retrofitted to existing vehicles within a shorter timeframe. Later that year, an Analysis of Alternatives report released by the Army stated that Trophy caused more collateral damage creating unsafe conditions around the vehicle for nearby infantry. This was cited as the prime reason why the Army opted away from the system.

In 2011, the Army conducted another six-week Non-Developmental Assessment of AMAP-ADS, a hardkill system operating on an entirely different principle. AMAP-ADS met or exceeded Army expectations. The evaluation was overseen by then-Secretary of Defense Aiden Lawson.

Later that year, Defense Dynamics Ground Systems, the company that produces and issues contracts for several parts for the Anemonian WMAV interim armored vehicle under license inside the United Republic, demonstrated a WMAV with Trophy APS at a defense exposition.

IDAPS with a Missile Kill hard-kill module underwent a successful evaluation in late 2011. The system demonstrated successful detection of launch, tracking, and engagement of numerous threats on a CCV technology demonstrator platform, destroying several types of munitions over an eight week evaluation period, including ATGMs, unguided RPGs, and tank shells, with an unprecedentedly high success rate. The system entered operational capability in 2013, rolled out with the fourth spiral of the Brigade Combat Systems modernization program.

[Virana]

[Virana]

Multipurpose Electro-optical/Infrared Sensor

A prototype MEIS sensor system in 2007. MEIS contains an infrared imager, a color daylight/low-light camera, and a multipurpose laser designator/rangefinder. A version of the MEIS system has been deployed as an upgrade to the Commander's Independent Sight (CIS) on the M9A3 Hunter main battle tank as well. Photo courtesy of the United Republic Army.

The primary sensor system utilized by the CCV vehicles is the Multipurpose Electro-optical/Infrared Sensor (MEIS) developed by Emmerian defense contractor Rayzero. The multipurpose system, which can be mounted to the roof of a CCV turret or onto a retractable telescoping sensor mast, contains a mid-wave imaging infrared system, color and low-light television, and a laser-illuminated imager. MEIS is stabilized in three axes, and can be remote-operated by the vehicle's crew, a dismounted control device, or by a separate external platform. In either case, the sensor's imagery is presented as color daylight/low-light or infrared video on the screen, in a high resolution panoramic field of view.

The infrared imager in the MEIS system is a 20 micron dual-aperture infrared camera based on a 640x512 matrix. This is accompanied by a dual-purpose laser designator/rangefinder.

Information from the sensor is processed by an automatic target identification system that identifies, prioritizes, and tracks potential air and ground targets picked up by the sensor in most weather and visibility conditions.

The system is usually used by vehicle commanders for identifying and selecting targets, as well as designating them (and thus providing their location) to the gunner for engagement. In two-crewed variants of the vehicle, the gunner serves the role of the commander, and thus can utilize the sight for target detection. It can be operated by any crew member inside the vehicle, by external control systems such as dismounted control devices utilized by supporting infantry, or set to automatic mode.

As a networked sensor, data from the MEIS is combined into a "common operating picture", or the amalgamated operational knowledge of the battlespace, providing significant situational awareness to an overall formation.

Rayzero was awarded a $75.3 million, four-year contract to develop the MEIS system in 2004 for the CCV program. The MEIS sensor was fully developed by 2008 and was an integral part of BCS technology demonstrators from that point forward. In 2013, Rayzero was awarded a contract to upgrade the Commander's Independent Sight (CIS) on the M9A2 and M9A3 Hunter main battle tanks with technology based on the MEIS system.

Multipurpose Radar

A version of Rayzero's Multipurpose Radar (MPR) on a M9 Hunter main battle tank demonstration platform for testing and evaluation in 2009. Formerly an independently traversing overhead system, the AESA radar was moved to the turret during testing. Current versions of the active protection system aboard BCS vehicles places four such systems—two on each side of the front and rear of the turret—on each vehicle for 360° coverage. The MPR provides active detection and tracking of incoming munitions, long-range surveillance, and serves other purposes. Photo courtesy of the United Republic Army.

The Multipurpose Radar (MPR) is a low-probability of intercept (LPI) active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar developed by Rayzero. The electronically-scanned solid state array radar scans for potential threats around the vehicle, and transmits the information to the vehicle's common C4ISR computer systems, providing the CCV series with an unprecedented level of situational awareness and survivability.

The primary objective of the system is to detect and track incoming munitions fired at the vehicle, especially anti-armor weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades. As a networked sensor, it serves as the tracking sensor of the Integrated Dual Active Protection System, allowing the vehicle to constantly track and target a projectile throughout its flight path and take hit-avoidance measures, such as launching a countermeasure missile to intercept the threat.

The radar also provides ground-to-air communication and long-range surveillance capabilities against the full spectrum of potential threats. Being a networked sensor, information from the MPR is transmitted to the network to add to the "common operating picture", or the amalgamated operational knowledge of the battlespace, providing significant situational awareness to an overall formation. All these capabilities are provided in a lightweight, compact package.

In 2004, Rayzero was awarded a $118 million, four-year contract to develop the MPR for the CCV family. After fighting through initial development issues, the radar was completed and became an important aspect of Rayzero's Missile Kill active protection system, a hardkill APS that was later integrated into the CCV's dual-purpose active protection system. In late 2012, Rayzero became the lead systems integrator to develop a version of IDAPS (including the MPR and Missile Kill) for the Army's M9 Hunter MBT and WMAV wheeled vehicle series. The first operational M9 Hunter tanks with IDAPS were deployed in mid-2013, and featured the MPR radar mounted on a deployable sensor mast above the tank.

Communications and networking

A prototype IDAPS system demonstrates successful hard-kill interception of a major RPG threat at Palmer Testing Grounds in Fort Marriott. IDAPS uses sensory data acquired from vehicle sensors to detect, track, and prioritize threats, and it automatically cues the use of soft-kill or hard-kill countermeasures to defeat the threat. Photo courtesy of Rayzero.

---

A prototype IDAPS system with components labeled.
Note that the hard-kill module consists of a
shotgun-like blast, rather than the precision guided
Missile Kill implemented later. Click to enlarge.

The Integrated Dual Active Protection System is a multifaceted active protection system designed to detect incoming projectiles and attempt to intercept them using soft-kill or hard-kill countermeasures. The vehicle's sensor fusion computer processing unit detects incoming projectiles using the vehicle's passive (electro-optical imaging and laser/radar warning receivers) or active (multipurpose radar) sensors and determines an appropriate response. The system first attempts to defeat the incoming munition using soft-kill systems, attempting to redirect the projectile from the vehicle. If it fails, the system employs Rayzero's "Missile Kill" hard-kill module to intercept the threat.

The entire system is modular; vehicles may be equipped with specific portions of the system while forgoing other elements. This is particularly common for militaries that cannot afford to maintain and operate the hard-kill portion of the system or consider it too high a threat to nearby infantry (due to the high blast pressures associated with the launch of a missile). In such cases, the soft-kill elements of the APS will be equipped, and the hard-kill system removed.

IDAPS's modular nature allows it to be attached to numerous types of vehicles. Existing tanks and armored vehicles can be retrofitted with an IDAPS system with the attachment of an AESA radar, laser warning receiver, an integrated sensor fusion-capable computer, and the appropriate countermeasures (for the hard-kill system, including a vertical-launch missile system).

The Army appointed UAE Systems as the lead developer of the IDAPS system. UAE Systems awarded Rayzero a $70 million contract over five years in 2005 to develop the integrated IDAPS system for the CCV series, focusing on the "Missile Kill" hard-kill system and its assimilation with the sophisticated sensors it developed concurrently under separate contracts. UNADS, the CCV program's lead systems integrator, worked closely with Rayzero in integrating the sensors and active protection system into the CCV's electronics suite.

Soft-kill countermeasures

Soft-kill countermeasures attempt to defeat incoming projectiles by interfering with their guidance suite to redirect them away from the vehicle. IDAPS is compatible with a number of different types of soft-kill countermeasures.

One of the primary soft-kill countermeasures is smoke grenades. While not inherently part of the IDAPS package, smoke grenades are launched from the vehicle's own grenade launching systems. The detonate a certain distance away from the vehicle and release a stream of smoke that cloaks the vehicle in both the infrared and visual spectrums, damaging the capability of an infrared-guided missile to hit the vehicle.

However, IR smoke is ineffective for modern focal plane array/imaging infrared seekers used in the latest generation of infrared-guided missiles. To deal with such threats, a Directed Infrared Countermeasures (DIRCM) module was developed for IDAPS. DIRCM, initially developed by an industry team of five companies to protect light aircraft from infrared missiles, uses lasers to confuse and overload an infrared-guided missile's seeker. The laser unit relies on other sensory components to provide targeting and tracking data.

Hard-kill module (Missile Kill)

---

A frame-by-frame demonstration of the Missile Kill
countermeasure intercepting an RPG threat. Click
to enlarge.

Missile Kill, produced by Rayzero, is the primary hard-kill module in the IDAPS system. While most modern hard-kill active protection systems intercept the projectile using an area blast (with shotgun-like pellets) or horizontally launched airburst grenades, Missile Kill launches a precision-guided munition launched vertically.

Missile Kill consists of a common launch container which can fit a number of cylindrical launch tubes in an array. Projectiles are loaded as inserts into the cylindrical tubes, after which they are automatically connected through the IDAPS's common interface; the projectiles are tethered to their cylindrical tubes. Upon launch, a gas generator built into the launch container propels the projectile vertically into the air. Thrusters on the projectile's base allow it to gain horizontal and lateral control. These thrusters place the projectile in a straight line pointing at the path of the incoming threat munition. Once aligned, a rocket booster accelerates the projectile into the path of the incoming threat (using a complex algorithm that analyzes the incoming munition's flight path), and it explodes at a predetermined location in the path of the threat.

Two different types of IDAPS projectiles are used, both of which utilize the same common launch container and tubes. A smaller munition is used to intercept close-in threats, such as RPGs, at shorter ranges, whereas a larger munition intercepts faster threats (such as anti-tank guided missiles or tank gun rounds) at longer ranges. The IDAPS system automatically differentiates between the two types of projectiles by analyzing the munition's launch signature and flight characteristics. The entire process takes fractions of a second, allowing enough time for successful interception before the threat impacts the vehicle.

The Common Combat Vehicle generally contains a launch container on either side of the vehicle, providing all round coverage and redundancy. Should one of the containers be disabled, the other container can still launch projectiles that can intercept threats in any direction, due to the vertically launched nature of the system.

Missile Kill's characteristic vertical launch projectiles are rare for hard-kill active protection systems. In 2010, the U.R. Army trialed the commercial Israeli Trophy active protection system, which utilizes shotgun-like blasts, and declared it a successful test but that it would not be adopted (instead opting to continue development for the Missile Kill system), despite being more cost-effective in the short term. One major complaint was the fact that stray pellets could impact surroundings, which could cause significant collateral damage to surrounding troops and buildings.

Rayzero received a five year, $70 million contract from UAE Systems in 2005 to develop Missile Kill and integrate the system with other components to form a networked active protection system.

In 2009, a senior Rayzero official told reporters that a version of Missile Kill for light vehicles (such as Humvees) was cut, due to the high blast pressures associated with the launch of its projectiles, which could cause vehicle armor to buckle. The Army pursued other similar systems for use with light vehicles.

A U.R. Army Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) report released in 2010 analyzed the potential to use a commercially developed APS using horizontal precision-guided munitions, such as the Israeli Iron Fist countermeasure (whose funding was later cut by the Israeli Defense Forces in favor of Trophy). However, the report confirmed that vertically launched projectiles would be more ideal, because they could intercept incoming threats at any orientation around the vehicle.

The report also compared collateral damage from projectile countermeasure systems (such as Missile Kill) and shotgun style methods (such as Trophy). The report concluded that despite producing less collateral damage close to the vehicle, shotgun style hard-kill systems have pellets that can travel a few hundred yards and still prove lethal over a wide space, despite a narrow target zone. Additionally, though the blast of a focused lethality warhead like that on the Missile Kill interceptor seems larger than that produced by Trophy, its lethal blast radius is very small. The major difference in the two systems is the angle at which the threat is impacted; Missile Kill intercepts threats on a downward angle, limiting the distance the resulting fragmentation can travel by directing it downwards, whereas more common shotgun style systems impact the projectile on a more or less horizontal plane. This, the report said, "presents a more dangerous environment surrounding an armored vehicle than a precision guided system." This, combined with Trophy's inability to destroy threats with tandem-charge shaped warheads, such as the RPG-29 and RPG-30, were stated as the primary basis for the Army's decision not to adopt the system. The report concluded that while Missile Kill is the ideal system, other precision-guided hard-kill systems, like Iron Fist or LEDS-150, would be more desirable for the U.R. Army's requirements than shotgun based systems like Trophy or the original IDAPS prototype. It is important to note that the AoA did not analyze AMAP-ADS, a system operating on an entirely different principle, though AMAP-ADS was later tested in 2011 onboard an armored security vehicle, overseen by the Secretary of Defense.

[Virana]

Reserved for Design.

[Virana]

---

M201 ICV M202 RSV M203 C2V M204 MCS M205 MV M206 LRES-C M207 LRES-M M208 FRMV Custom/other

Description - Contents - Design - Purchase - Back to Top

An M201 Infantry Carrier vehicle in standard configuration, armed with a 30 mm autocannon and a remote-operated overhead weapons system. The M201 features extensive networked capability and can transport infantry squads of up to 9 troops in a protected, armored platform.

M201 Infantry Carrier Vehicle

---

Role: APC/IFV
National Origin: United Republic of Emmeria

---

Production history

---

Designer: U.R. Army Research Laboratory, Defense
Dynamics, UAE Systems, and others
Manufacturers:
• Defense Dynamics
  
• UAE Systems

---

Specifications

---

Weight:
• 18.2 t (20.1 short tons) (standard)
  
• 28.7 t (31.6 short tons) (up-armored)
Length: 6.55 m (21.5 ft)
Width: 2.9 m (9.5 ft)
Height: 2.6 m (8.53 ft) (without RWS)
Crew:
• 2 (driver, gunner/commander)
• 9 passengers

---

Main armament:
• 30 mm M851 autocannon (can be modified
  to 40 mm) (mounted on remote turret)
Secondary armament:
• Remote weapons system (roof-mounted)
  • 7.62×51mm M72 medium machine gun or
  • 12.7×99mm M302 heavy machine gun or
  • 25×59mm M304 automatic grenade
    launcher or
  • 40×53mm Mk. 19 automatic grenade
    launcher
Engine:
Assad HED4000 5.5 liter, 5-cylinder
diesel-electric hybrid drive
371 kW (500 hp)
Power/weight:
• 20.38 kW/t (27.5 hp/t) (standard)
• 12.93 kW/t (17.4 hp/t) (up-armored)
Transmission: Automatic
Suspension: Hydropneumatic active suspension
Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)
Speed: 90 km/h (55 mph)

The M201 Infantry Carrier Vehicle is an Emmerian armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicle used by the United Republic Army. Manufactured primarily by Defense Dynamics Ground Systems and UAE Systems, two of the largest defense contractors in the United Republic, the M201 is the lead vehicle of the Common Combat Vehicle program.

The M201 serves a vital role in the U.R. Army, where it is the primary personnel transportation vehicle in the Army's Mechanized Brigade Combat Teams (MBCTs). The objective of the vehicle is to transport infantry to and through the battlespace with protection while exhibiting exceptional lethality through its weapon systems to effectively suppress adversaries and support mounted and dismounted infantry. While not intended to replace the M2 Bradley IFV (which is used in the Army's Heavy BCTs) due to the fact that the Bradley provides far heavier protection, the M201 is one of the most ubiquitous modern armored personnel carriers in the United Republic Army.

As with all vehicles in the CCV series, the M201 shares a common chassis, design components, and sustainability parameters with other vehicles in the CCV line.