Army’s Hybrid Ground Combat Vehicle Ready To Roll

Editor’s note: This headline and text of this story have been changed to more accurately describe this vehicle. We thank our readers for their insights into the distinction between a tank and an armored personnel carrier.

As per its focus in recent years on greening its operations and technologies, the U.S. military will be making use of a hybrid electric Ground Combat Vehicle design (which comes to us via Autoblog Green). This armored personnel carrier, under development by BAE Systems and Northrup Grumman for the last four years, is said to be as much as 20 percent more fuel-efficient than conventional diesel-powered models. It weighs 70 tons and offers room for 12 personnel.

Utilizing what BAE calls “a mature, advanced propulsion system that has proven to be highly reliable across transportation sectors,” the hybrid Ground Combat Vehicle was designed to help the Army accomplish a number of tasks. One, to cut down on its fuel consumption—a key factor, considering that the average Army soldier uses 22 gallons of fuel a day, according to a Deloitte study [PDF]; and two, to help protect soldiers, as a significant number of military personnel are harmed each year in the act of protecting fuel supply vehicles.

BAE hybrid Ground Combat Vehicle

image via BAE Systems

By focusing on hybrid powertrains, the Army is looking to use hybrid tanks as a way to reduce the number of fuel supply lines to areas of combat, and put  fewer lives at risk in the process of keeping its vehicles rolling.

The New York Times reports that while most civilians would call the hybrid-electric Ground Combat Vehicle a tank, its platform and powertrain could be used in other military vehicle applications, which opens the door to a diverse array of hybrid electric vehicles for the military over the coming years. As of March 1, the vehicle has been approved for development, with production contingent on a formal order from the Defense Department. The Ground Combat Vehicle pictured is expected to run around $11 million per vehicle.

Susan DeFreitas has covered all manner of green technology for EarthTechling since 2009. She is a graduate of Prescott College for the Liberal Arts and the Environment, and has a background in marketing green businesses. Her work on green living has been featured in Yes! Magazine, the Utne Reader and Natural Home.

    • Chrisdeady

      11 million per tank thats crazy  I bet i could build them for under 1 million !

      • THX1138

        Gimme a break… What are you, like 14?  Hey Dude, go on & do it!   Put your money where your mouth is…  I’m sure the Army will fly a Chopper to your home & pay you a billion dollars now that they know you can do it for less!  Will Rogers said it best… “Better to be silent and thought of as a fool… than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!”

      • Mike Mathew

        If you land the contract, you must take that other 100 percent for fundraisers and “donations”

    • Arak

      it’s only taxpayer money

      • bevel450

        Chris is like many people who have no idea what it costs to build a military vehicle and all that that entails.

      • Netdriver9

        Your right! And there are fewer and fewer taxpayers every day.

    • Jjfab

      do you have any idea how much steel costs, especially 30 tons of it?  get educated
      before you make dumb posts chris

      • Mike Mathew

        High carbon steel, porcelin, kevlar. These are not some soccer moms ride.

    • Suprjohn

      in addition, the article really doesn’t say what comprises that $11 mil figure; if you figure in all the R&D, all the testing, prototyping, and contract management costs, that figure gets more reasonable. keep in mind, military vehicles are not like a vehicle for the civilian market; they have to be overbuilt, they have to be built to be serviced in primitive conditions, and have to be made “soldier proof”. they have to be upgradeable to extend their service life, and they have to meet political considerations where their factories are located. they also have to be built with sales in foreign markets in mind. they are very different from a typical car or truck for the civilian market.

    • Pancho Villista

      what happened to the cannon? the cannon is very important to defeat other tanks at long range. 

    • Drevas2528

      It’s an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, not a tank.I hate when people write articles who think anything with a turret is a tank.

      The Merkava, an Israeli vehicle, is a tank that carries troops and it has a large main gun.

      Otherwise, 30 mil these days is a bargain.

    • Razflik7

      Cutting corners, costs lives. military equipment has high costs for a reason.
      I would rather trust my life to this vehicle than one some knucklehead says he can build cheaper.

    • Joe White

      Pretty clearly not a tank but an armed transport for a squad of infantry (12 mnus the vehicle’s crew). What’s the size of the mounted gun? Must be lightly armored? Do we know the thickness or the material? What’s the length & width? How many will fit in a C-5 Galaxy cargo plane?
      Other than calling it a tank, looks like a good idea. Running out of fuel at the end of an over-stretched supply line is bad tactics, worse strategy.
      And it looks like a handy size for moving troops into urban areas under fire. The appropriate comparison would be to the existing infantry combat vehicle, which I guess I’ll go look up now. I seem to remember they teach green infantry lieutenants to drive these things……

      Joe White

    • Cugel

      That ‘cannon’ looks more like a .22 cal popgun. What is it, really?

      • Mike Mathew

        We probably bought it from the Chinee, developed for the US military, like their tools, god buy, unless you use them.

    • rebal57

      it runs on farts

      • Mike Mathew

        Cow paddies, we can hire 200,000 federal employes, like the TSA, to collect cow paddies, to run our military vehicles. $50,000 starting pay, 100% at retirement, after 50 yrs. old, unless a bad back, then 4 yrs, + SSI, no age limit. English as a second language prefered.

    • rebal57

      Juat shows what Obamas green power will mean to our future and protection of our country prity mickey mouse also shoots flowers and peace signs

      • Netdriver9

        I bet Obama’s tanks will have “sails”. Every thing will be run by wind power or solar. That IDIOT OBAMA, needs to be run out of office, before we all have to pay!

        • Mike Mathew

           I was going to reply, we are trying to see some humor in this, it is not. It is insanity, at the expence of the American people and our national security.

        • Eualliav

          better yet, lets use this “thing” to “guard” BO and see how fast it is replaced “for his safety”

        • Aaron9a

          Uh…..Approved for development by Bush + Chenney you fool.

      • David Sanders

        Hey Idiots,,,under Developement for 4 years??? Obama’s been in office for 3.
        That means this was Bush’s baby!! LOL. Besides, You’d rather have fighting men die than cut into Exxon’s profits! I understand you completely. You’re all a bunch of hate-blinded morons. ANY release would be greeted by you trolls the same way!

        “Army developes tank that uses more fuel than before” (Troll example reply) “Look at the hipocrit obbumer!!!” “Gives millions to Solyndra, then makes a gas-guzzler!!”

        You’d gripe when it’s dry, then bitch about the rain. (and both would be the “gubments” fault) 

        They designed it in response to “Market forces” that’s what private companies do..Ya’ll like Market forces? right?

        Will your next car get 30 mpg or 5 mpg? bet it helps your a$$ decide which one to choose! That’s what BSA is doing,,,Morons.

    • Lonewolf

      It’s already runing people down great.

      • Jereamiah


    • Netdriver9

      I think Obama needs to take his “Big GREEN tank”  and park it in his “Big BLACK Butt”!

    • Khaendiges

      Put your “green” systems into transports if you like, but when our soldiers go into battle they deserve a proven reliable propulsion system to help keep them mobile and safe. The gas turbine engine that powers the Abrams tank is robust, powerful, and makes the Abrams the safest tank to be in. Stop compromising our troops over eco fantasies!

      • Kstewiee

        Yep it is one the of the safest tank to be in until the gas drinking mother fucker runs out of gas then what??? How do you get it more gas, a thin skinned gas truck that is like a big ass bomb on wheels. …Smart…. 

        • T

          While the “gas drinking mf” needs resupply with – gas, we have, and do resupply it with fuel bowsers – but the engine for the M1 series is adapted from that used in helicopters – the “turbine” is a jet engine and that limits the type of fuel they can use a bit perhaps?  As it is the tank works just fine – through 2 wars

    • James Clancy

      Looks perfect for Main St. USA………..

    • Saber 6

      Will it take a Super Sabot at 2500 meters ?
      Can it see thru a Shamal and lance the target thru a 6 foot sand berm ?
      Looks like the best feauire is the hatches to un-ass and E and E.

      Saber 6

      • Mike Mathew

        It,s not a tank.

    • tim mcnally

      I’m no military man or builder of military hardware. . . that said it makes me angry when the political agenda seems to compromise the safety of those men and women who DO ride into combat in a vehicle built.. . to save gas. . . not their lives.

    • Redleg1_101

      carries 12?  Not so much a tank as an armored personnel carrier .. a replacement for the Bradley?

    • Kjblakely

      Some of you should learn to read because the article say this,
      This tank, under development by BAE Systems and Northrup Grumman for the last four years, therefore, Bush started the ball rolling on this hydrid

    • Kjblakely

      It looks like a hybrid Bradley.

    • Ron

      To me it looks like something the government will use domestically as this country becomes more government controlled & socialistic.  It will be used for riot & uprising control here in the USA.  The turret gun looks like a 50 cal.   Don’t need more than that to kill citizenry.  Don’t know what the materials of construction are but I bet an RPG or hand-held surface to surface missle  will take it out.  A shot to the tracks will disable it or a well placed shot to the gun, so much for green power. 

      • Sgt Smith


        You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. That is very obviously a 25 mm bushmaster to anyone with military experience. That looks NOTHING like a 50 cal. And as for the RPG, I wouldn’t bet on it, the bradley can stop an RPG pretty reliably, I’ve seen it first hand, and as this is replacing the bradley I guarantee it will have at least the same armor if not better, because since the bradley started [production in 1981 there has been amazing breakthroughs in armor and rpg defeat. And while you are right, a shot to the tracks of the gun COULD disable it, good luck hitting them. They are both extremely robust and small targets. With any training at all you would know exactly where to hit this thing to disable it with a much higher chance at success, but that is something I am not going to share. 

    • imran alwageeh

      11 million dollars for an inferior tank that will be used to fight a war were not supposed to be in, against an enemy that doesnt exist, with money we dont have. this is  absolute corruption. 

    • Ron

      Just another addition.  Look to the left & right sides of the turret gun there are 4 launch tubes on each side.  These are already installed on some riot control vehicles.  They can be used for smoke grenades, tear gas, incindiaries, etc.  I would not be concerened wether it is green or not, it’s where the government will use it.  Again I say these will not be used in war zones they are for domestic & foreign population control and uprisings.  At the rate the government is going here in the USA they are going to need alot them. 

      • Sgt Smith

        Ron, the bradley infantry fighting vehicle and m1 abrams already have these they are nothing new, and their primary purpose is to throw out smoke. This is for concealment purposes because it obscures both thermal and regular vision allowing these vehicles to ‘hide’ in the open if they come under fire unexpectedly. By looking at the main gun of this it appears to have the same 25 mm bushmaster that the bradley has which, in case you don’t know your weapons, would be USELESS in crowd control but excels at punching holes in light armored vehicles. There are vehicles designed specifically for population control, this just doesn’t happen to be one of them. So I say as someone who has worked out of both the abrams and the bradley (the vehicle this is supposed to replace) that this will without a doubt be used in a war zone.

        • Timothy Crain

          I also believe that some of the wheel vehicles, such as several of the Stryker configurations also have these, for years . 

    • Sweeney_steven_p

      O’Bummer ordered them in advance of January, to put down civil unrest caused by his refusal to give up power to the newly elected president.

    • 236

       Eco friendly nonsense aside, having powerful armored IFVs, MBTs that require less fuel means shorter logistical chains. Which is a great thing, but if the equipment is unreliable or unproven junk than what is the point? 11 million for a vehicle that can get destroyed by a 50,000 dollar T-72 tank, or a 1,500 dollar shoulder fired rocket. Abrams costs about 1/4 the cost of this Prius GCV, and as it is like most cars over hybrids; more vehicle for less money already.

    • RUKdnMe

      Working hard to outsmart ourselves…You f-ing idiots..

    • Air2Grnd

      1st – looks like a 30mm bushmaster cannon, not real big unless its shooting at you.
      2nd – the “grenade launchers” are primarily used for smoke, we love bad viz as we have thermal capability and most bad guys don’t.
      3rd – this is an APC not a main battle tank, it will not replace the Abrams
      4th – by the time it gets through test and eval it will work and be effective for our troops, we hate losing our folks green or no green.
      5th – we’re flying “Green Hornets”, F-18s using bio fuel already with huge success.
      6th – if they’re saying $11 M per copy, plan on $20M.
      Finally, I’m sure BAE will get some sweet “financing” from The Prez, course then go bankrupt.

    • vetwithsense

      The level of military ignorance expressed in these comments is sad.  People will you PLEASE go learn something.  (1) It is NOT a tank, it’s a reconaissance/fightign vehicle. (2) It runs on diesel AND electricity meanign it uses LESS diesel and so is a more effective fightgin vehicle.  Ask Rommel what needing less fuel means if you’ve eve read any military history  (3) Being battery capable it can run silent meanign that it is harder to hear harder to locate and so harder to kill.  This means our troops can be more effective.

      Being a vet myself and an independent voter I ahve to say the reflexive right wingers bashing anything scientifc, sensible and effectiv ejust makes me wonder when you’re goignto get your heads out your collective Axxxs and act like sensible human beings.    Get over your civil war era thinking people.  We’re a UNITED STATES not a set of independent states.

      • Sgt Smith

        as a scout who uses a bradley and former armor crewman who used the abrams I agree 100% with the first half of this comment. If we can travel further on less fuel we can advance faster and have less of a support convoy to protect as we advance. And anyone who has spent time around a bradley knows how loud they are and how much a “whisper mode” that an electric motor could provide would help in the scout mission.

      • Mike

        With all due respect; I am surprised that a veteran would suggest any armored, tracked vehicle, be it an MBT, an IFV or any other sort of APC/etc, could run “silently,” regardless of the propulsion system.  That having been said, your wink at Rommel is spot on.  

        • Jereamiah

          Again, it’s called JP8. That’s the fuel we use in the vehicle I crew. M1A2 SEP. The only vehicle I can see being eveen remotley “silent” is the Stryker. Im going to be gunnin on the MGS sytem later this summer and even having the 105mm doesn’t make it a “tank.” LOL.  Most everyone on this page, with a few exceptions, have no clue what the hell they are even talking about. 🙂

      • Patriot1jmc

        attn vetwithsence the units cost 2 million more apiece, you could modify twice the size gas tank for a cool  million  and have another 500,000 for optics and armour. wouldnt that make more sense still leaves you500,000 for fuel. 

    • J. Q. NoThanks

      I’ve hit IED’s/Landmines in a 14 ton Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) and let me tell you:  the more armor the better.   You couldn’t pay me enough money to roll around a combat zone in a humvee. 

    • Qnique

      This was in development before Obama you twits. Americans are surely on the way downhill with your negative attitudes. Heads up andbacks straight you bunch of losers!

      • Patriot1jmc

        hows this for negitive   obama is a damn comunist

        • blindbear

          At least he spelled “damn” correctly.

    • harley040

      This is a APC that is lightly armoured compared to a Main Battle Tank. The price seems outrageous compared to a M-2/ M-3 class APC. So the taxpayers pay an extra $2mil per unit for a green APC? That is just crazy! Your will never make up the difference in fuel saved based on $4-$5 a gallon diesel cost. As for the folks talking green fuels that he military is currently testing, It costs more to make the biofuels for jet aircraft than the price of conventional fuels. So lets stop kidding oursleves.

      • Fletcherl1nd

         Key point –  when you get the fuel to the site of conflict it is no longer $4-5 per gallon.  It can run $400-500 per gallon (Wall Street Journal Estimate) and this does not take into account the cost in lives of the contractors hired to get it there or the political costs of keeping places like Pakistan and the former soviet republics friendly enough to let the supplies through their territories.

        If you think this is insane check what happened to the Nazis after their tanks ran out of gas.  See if they think fuel economy is something to be considered.

    • Stephen C

      Harry Truman showed the world how to stop and end war in a day. One RPG will stop this on its tracks. Cost 1000 or per round. 

    • Salty Marine

      I spent six years as a M1 A1 tank crewman.  The Abrams weighs 69 tons.  This thing weighs about that same and it is NOT a tank as others have pointed out.  This is too heavy for a troop carrier / scout vehicle.  The Abrams has a 1500 hp turbine engine that gets us down the road at a governed 45 mph and it’s very quiet.  You hear the tracks way before you hear the engine.  If this thing can’t out run the heavies it’s worthless as a scout ie the LAV 25 can hit over 60 mph.  A scout must be able to get in and get out before it gets killed.  I don’t see this heavy vehicle with a little bushmaster main gun doing that.

    • Slobo

      It’s not a “tank”…it’s an “armored vehicle” similar to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

    • MiamiEddy


    • MiamiEddy


    • Fairview1

      “As per its focus in recent years on greening its operations and technologies, the U.S. militarywill be making use of a hybrid electric Ground Combat Vehicle”.   The utter absurdity of an environmentally “friendly” killing machine oxymoronic in spades.  War is about killing and destruction, and those who do it the best usually win. Give our troops whatever works best and increases surviveability.  The only thing green on a military vehicle should be the paint.

      • calhou

        They are not doing this to save the environment, but to win battles. A tank, APC, Mobile artillery, truck, Humvee – all use gobs of fuel. Reduce that and you will be less vulnerable to supply line disruption. An armored column without fuel is just……target practice.

    • Robert Frano

      As a weekend, (‘arm-chair’), tank-buff, I’d like to note that the ONLY M.B.T. on earth that stands a chance, (…in ‘gladiatorial’ contest), against an M1-A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank, (given equally experiecenced crews), is another M1-A2 Abrams!
      With 8,000+ M1-A2 Abrams, I fail to see a need for a new, (…’green’ or otherwise) tank/other ground combat vehicle!!
       … (Slaps head w/ palm!!);
      …Oooooppps! …What-ever-was I thinking?
      How can we expect the children of the war profiteers to cope with the (‘implied’), social stigma of going to this year’s prom in last year’s corporate business jet?!
      I SO…apologise for my thoughtless cruelty!
      I’ll enroll in the nearest Cistercian Trappist monastery for life, thereby making amends for so harming humanity with my anti-social (‘peacenik’) thought(s), immediately!
      I hope the (horny, old…) abbot has the willow switch all oiled up & ready for my soul-cleansing chastisement!

    • E69strangher

      fuel prices including transport and security average $40 a gallon in the field. This vehicle is a good idea one is already in service it can run almost totally silent for 2 hours. The hybrid drive also results in higher acceleration rates than standard diesel. This is not an experimental system, but a well designed and well tested system. SIASSL

    • nolesfan

      Thats not a tank!

    • NapaRick

      If this is the Pelosi tank it would use millions of gallons of gas to take her and 200 friends back and forth twice a week to Washington DC with lots of booze.  All the parts would come from China assembled by Chinese workers like the Bay Bridge. Sponsored by the government it, of course, would have monstrous cost overruns and not be anywhere close to competitive but what the hell that’s better than having Solyndra build it and all the money disappear into friends pockets with no tanks produced at all. It really should be painted green though so at least they could claim there was SOMETHING green about it and China would probably want to put their flag on it or “Made in China” at least. And I guess we couldn’t expect to get their top quality line so it would be Chinese seconds. Am I getting cynical?   

    • gary

      Does anyone remember the Battle of the Bulge?  German tanks ran out of fuel, unable to cross the Meus river by the 4th day.  They started the battle with 1/4 of the minimum requirement to reach Antwerp.  Their infantry had to lug siphoners and they were trying to refuel Tiger II tanks with 5 gallon Jerry cans at time.  Fuel resupply, in modern warfare plays a critical role sooner or later.  I don’t understand what the calamity with extending range or improving fuel efficiency is.  Every branch in the US military wants it.  It reduces vulnerbility.

    • 89Citadel

      First off, its not a tank – its an armored personell carrier (APC) with a 25 mm gun that I’m sure will replace the current bradley fighting vehicle (M2/M3). The front slope of the hull looks remarkably similar to the bradley. As a HQ Commander for a Scout Troop, being able to push deeper into the enemy at a faster rate – as long as its range is 20 percent greater than the bradley – is a great tactical advantage. Also protecting the POL/PLL field trains is difficult (especially when refueling at the FLOT), so exposing them less to the battlefield can save lives.

    • OnGMann

      This thing weighs as much as an Abrams, ridiculous!  More concern here for “green” than fighting I am concerned.

      • Rick

         Agreed.  The Bradley Fighting Vehicle weighs less than half as much.  It seems they could find a way to make the Bradley more fuel efficient.  It would be much less costly and much easier to transport to the battlefield.


      Nice but the article is flawed yet again. The military doesnt use Gasoline in hardly anything anymore with the exception of ATV’s and some generators. So saying that the average soldier uses 22 gallons of gasoline per day is just a bit skewed. Nice try though.

      • Pete Danko

        Good point. The story we had linked to used the term “gasoline,” but the actual Deloitte study that made that estimate used the term “fuel.” We adjusted the story to reflect that.
        Pete Danko
        Managing Editor, EarthTechling

        • Jereamiah

          JP8. look it up. Im a gunner on the M1AV2 SEP and I’ve never put “gasoline” in anything.

    • Rosed987

      If they designed it for fire team instead of squad, it might have a chance at being under 30 tons and actually deployable and useful as an all terain vehicle.  What could they be thinking?   

    • Bob

      nice picture. Has anyone ever seen the REAL thing?
      hmm.. Think about that!

    • Jereamiah

      Lame. That pic is a Brad with an extra cupola next to the drivers hatch and no mounted TOW. Again, lame. It will STILL run on JP8 and a Main Battle Tank it is not. Nor will a MBT EVER run on electricity. LOL. That photo is just some ridiculous artists conception. Skirts anyone? Where are they? How ya gettin to the roadwheels? Remove the ridiculous one-piece chunk of armor on the side? How? With the help from an 88? What, are there two drivers now? LOLOL. All these comments about how it looks and how it will be used and so on…Get real. Who says the proposed “vehicle” will even be a tracked vehicle? Because the lame image depicts one with tracks? The heads will probably just take the Brad, add a plug in, and call it a breakthrough, all the while still relying almost totally on JP8. Im a gunner on the M1A2 SEP and Ive got news for ya: korea remains one of the only theaters where the MBT is the primary weapons platform. I am being retrained now on the Stryker MGS. The new “Green” system will most likely follow that template. Bet my mid-month pay on it.

    • Jereamiah

      The more I read this article, the more I laugh. No effective weapons platform will ever, I MEAN, EVER, be truly hybrid. The M1A2 SEP needs alot of battery power just to light up the D.I.D. The CITV? TURRET POWER? C,mon, one or two folks on here will even know what those acronyms stand for. Half the time, our batteries go dead just powering up those systems. Electric power moving something as light as, say, a Stryker? Not going to happen. Might as well get a “Flux Capacitor” to run the thing….LOL. “Cold Fusion,” Anyone? This “Green” crap is a someone gettin tossed a bone. Pure and simple. Anyone who has spent time in a motorpool knows that. “Big” Army has difficulties developing and choosing effective camo. LOLOLOLOLLOl. Again, the Army’s answer to saving the money it takes to deploy and maintain the Abrams is the Stryker MGS. Look it up, noobs. AND AGAIN, the image is an artists lame, no clue conception , of what a hybrid might look like, RON! Educate yourself about miliatary hardware (smoke grenade launchers) before you spout off. I’ve been a Tanker for a hot minute now. I kinda know what im talking about

    • Jereamiah

      GREAT ARTIST’S RENDITION!. Totally accurate. NOT! BAE systems, please explain to me how, as a crewman, I would go about getting to the front sprockett? By removing what looks to be the 13 ton single piece of armor covering the side of the vehicle? 🙂 Skirts anyone? Do half of you commenting on the image even know what a skirt is? Does this vehicle need two drivers? Why then, for the love of Patton, are there two drivers cupola’s? By the way, anyone who has any CLUE as the most dangerous threat we face as crewmen, knows that it’s comin from underneath, or above. What is that on the side of BAE’s artists rendition? 3 FEET Of ARMOR?? LOL., Idiotic. The #1 skirt on my TANK has what, not even 2 inches of DU, classified armor as protection? and people on here are going off as if this is what the Army will be deploying? LAME! Get a clue, Educate yourselves. Im talking to you, RON!

    • Army Mom

      hate to say it, but agree with Khanendiges – and how exactly are these guys going to plug in this hybrid vehicle in the middle of nowhere? Don’t put my sons at risk for ‘positive press’. – Army Mom

    • Army Mom

      also, spend that money outfitting my children, instead of making them pay for their own stuff. – more from Army Mom

    • Amadinejad's Nightmare

      If it helps our troops to survive and win battles, Obama and Pelosi will block it in order to force more socialist legislation through Congress.

    • USMC76


    • CoxEmperor

      They need to strip the “green” notion from it, triple the thickness of the armor, make it twenty times larger and nuclear powered, with thirty additional gun turrets.

    • CoxEmperor

      They need to strip the “green” notion from it, triple the thickness of the armor, make it twenty times larger and nuclear powered, with thirty additional gun turrets.

    • All we have now are financiers and weapons makers. What ever happened to us? Why do we have to live in a world of fear and greed? Can’t we grow up?

    • Nigel Rassbassthard

      $11 million per vehicle.You gotta be kidding.  Every single vehicle would have to be in service for 45 years to pay for itself. There is something really wrong here.

    • Jt_lotus

      where does it plug in?  Another waste of US dollars.

    • T

      the image provided is of the M2/M3 series of Bradley fighting vehicles – their average weight is about 26-30 tons