Talk:Next Generation Combat Vehicle

Requested move 12 June 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved    Calidum   15:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Next generation combat vehicle → ? – To change the name from Next generation combat vehicles to Next Generation Combat Vehicle Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle BigRed606 (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC) BigRed606 (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Note what I am proposing is that the name Next generation combat vehicle be changed to where all the first letters of each word are capitalized. Similar to how Ground Combat Vehicle is named.BigRed606 (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

*Support Because the proper way to write the title is that are all the first letters of each word are capitalized. Example title Ground Combat Vehicle. BigRed606 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I first said No, because LOWERCASE. But then I realised that the title might be a proper name. I looked at the sources: only the first one capitalizes it as a name. The second doesn't directly refer to the vehicle, and the last two both refer to it without capitals. All of them refer to the Next Generation Combat Vehicle Team that way, but not to the vehicle, apart from the first one. As Wikipedia follows the sources (COMMONNAME), I think it should stay put. But I won't lose any sleep if it gets moved. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Article titles Just because the subject is often referred to by an initialism does not mean it should have every letter capitalized. We have British thermal unit, NOT British Thermal Unit even though this is often kn own as a BTU. WE have Miles per hour, not "Miles Per Hour" to match MPH. We have Armoured personnel carrier, even though this is commonly known as an APC. We have Ground-effect vehicle in spite of the abbreviation GEV. Why should Next generation combat vehicle be an exception? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Note I found a source that Title the name as (Next Generation Combat Vehicle) and not (Next generation combat vehicle). Source https://defence-blog.com/news/army/u-s-army-released-declassified-images-of-next-generation-combat-vehicle.html BigRed606 (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (capitalization) says Manual of Style/Capital letters says:  Unless all or most sources effectively treat  "Next Generation Combat Vehicle" as a proper name, I don't think its use in one or a few sources should override the MOS, capitalization is style, not substance -- we follow sources for substance. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Update I just did some research and discovered that that the government changed (see sources at bottom), the name of the program to Operationally Manned Fighting Vehicle. I now request and Support the name being changed to Operationally Manned Fighting Vehicle. Sources: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R45519.pdf BigRed606 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Note DES, ColinFine would you also support the new name to be changed to Operationally Manned Fighting Vehicle? BigRed606 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would want to see multiple sources that indicate that this has now become the usual or common name for this equipment, as per WP:COMMONNAME, and even then I would support "Operationally manned fighting vehicle" not "Operationally Manned Fighting Vehicle", as there is still no reason for the extra caps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. If someone wants to debate the hyphen, please re-propose the move as soon as you wish. Do not take me to WP:MRV over this. Make a new request. Red  Slash  16:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Next generation combat vehicle → Next-Generation Combat Vehicle – It is the name of a U.S. Army program, and as such is a proper name. See, for example, Advanced Combat Rifle, Armored Gun System, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Future Combat Systems, Individual Carbine, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. Equally, it might be worth renaming it Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program, because, as the article says, it is a "program intended to procure a variety of armored vehicles", not just one model of vehicle. RadiculousJ (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~  Aseleste  (t, c, l) 16:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Consider MOS:HYPHENCAPS. —&hairsp;BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Like the examples given by the nominator, this is evidently a proper name of a program.      There does, however, seem to be fairly split use of the hyphen: the Army itself appears to use the non-hyphen version, so I have a preference for that one. — Goszei (talk)  02:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support  With hyphen. As a matter of editorial style, we can choose the correct form. Styling compound adjectives is a too-common error that we shouldn’t perpetuate. —Michael Z. 17:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would the correct form with a hyphen be ", per MOS:HYPHENCAPS? —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a proper name, so should be uppercase. RadiculousJ (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per hyphencaps, “Next-Generation Combat Vehicle,” capitalized because “except for proper names.” Normally, every major word is capitalized, so Next-Generation (but, e.g., Co-operative, because co is not a word on its own). —Michael Z. 17:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of whether the phrase as a whole is a proper name. The rule is well described at : "The general rule in English [is] to not capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hyphen is itself a proper name (as in post-Soviet)" (emphasis added). However, that also says that this rule "is often ignored in titles of works", and that for such works we should "Follow the majority usage in independent, reliable sources for any given subject (e.g. The Out-of-Towners but The History of Middle-earth)." Perhaps we should follow the same guidance here, so that if we can't find sources that use the hyphenated form with a lowercase 'g', then uppercase would be acceptable. I have checked all the sources cited in the article. I found the no-dash form, the dashed-capped form, and one that put the whole phrase in lowercase (as per the current article title) except for one instance in a photo caption. I did not find any that used a dash with a lowercase 'g' and uppercase for the other words. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terminology
"Mobile Protected Firepower"? "Decisive Lethality Platform"? Who comes up with these ridiculous names? They're even worse than "Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon/Mortar"! 104.153.40.58 (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Moved content from Army Futures Command
The Army Futures Command article had accumulated a lot of detail that better belongs here. PRRfan (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) portfolio:

The use of modular protection is a move toward modular functionality for combat vehicles.

At Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), Firestorm (a Project Convergence AI node)  sent targeting coordinates to Remote Weapons Stations, which were proxies for the Robotic Combat Vehicles and Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicles. A CROWS was slewed to the aimpoint, awaiting the human commander's order to fire. Firestorm aids and partakes of the Common operational picture (COP) shared by the AI hub at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. Satellite-based, F-35 based, and Army ground-based targeting data were shared in real-time during Firestorm's operation with the AI hubs to produce effects at YPG.

Firestorm was made possible by a mesh network—improvising a medium earth orbit (MEO, at 1200 mile altitude), and then a geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO, at 22,000 mile altitude) satellite link between Joint Base Lewis-McChord to Yuma Proving Ground. Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) has gained full-rate production approval. A ground mobility vehicle competition, bids closing 26 October 2018

The JLTV was approved for full rate production in June 2019. Joint Modernization Command (JMC) is supporting a TCM Stryker study on the optimum number of JLTVs for light infantry brigades. Electrification microgrid standards AFC's Futures and concepts center is proposing a strategy to guide the electrification of the GCVs, using the JLTV as an example for a step-by-step pathway and transition plan for electrification. Loren Thompson cautions that electrification per se could harm further fielding due to scope creep in specifications for the JLTV. The Army has not requested a hybrid electric JLTV.

The Maneuver CDID (MCDID) is undertaking the requirements development for electrification of Tactical and Combat Vehicles in September 2020; General Wesley had previously announced a plan in April 2020 for the modernization of Tactical and Combat Vehicles using the JLTV electrification plan as a prototype template of the electrification process. After prototype JLTV electrification, the Army is seeking ideas for an electrified Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (LRV) by 2025. The LRVs would complement the Infantry Squad Vehicles (ISVs), and electrified versions of Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle - Dragoon which are already fielded. GM Defense has since converted one of its bid vehicles for the ISV to an all-electric version. Mobile Protected Firepower approved by joint requirements oversight council. Two vendors were selected to build competing prototype light tanks (MPF), with contract award in 2022. A unit of 82nd Airborne Division will begin assessment of prototype MPFs beginning in March 2020. General Dynamics Land Systems will build 42 MPFs, a battalion of light infantry tanks by FY2025.

Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV): soliciting input, in requirements definition stage; the 2018 requirement was that 2 OMFVs fit in a C-17. A request for proposal for a vehicle prototype was placed 29 March 2019. On 16 January 2020 the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle solicitation was cancelled, as a middle tier acquisition in its early stage; the requirements and schedule are being revisited. The FY2021 budget request has been adjusted accordingly.

An Army development team will not be an OMFV competitor as of 17 September 2020. NGCV optionally manned fighting vehicle: OMFV is getting some industry silhouettes which may be incorporated in digital designs for 2023, prototypes by 2025. A fifth OMFV bidder (a small business) is still a contender in the competition, includes large consortia. However, Mark Cancian points out that OMFV might not be suitable for a pivot to the Pacific theater.

A hybrid electrified Bradley Fighting Vehicle is slated for January 2022 by RCCTO. Robotic Combat Vehicles (RCVs) are underway: General Murray envisions that by FY2023 critical decisions will be made on RCVs after years of experimentation. Russia's Uran-9 (Уран-9) is not a robotic tank; rather it is an unmanned radio-controlled drone tank. A Next Generation main battle tank   remains a § Future concept. PRRfan (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

More content from Army Futures Command
Perhaps this will be of more use here than in the Army Futures Command article. PRRfan (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

NGCV Next generation combat vehicle


 * Much smaller and lighter ground combat vehicles, optionally unmanned (Dedicated short-range communications for robotic vehicles SmallMultipurposeEquipmentTransportCandidates.jpg
 * If robotic combat vehicles (RCVs) do not need to be manned, neither would they need to be armored (see Uran-9); use of sensors and batteries could replace the armor. Soldiers have learned to remotely operate the weapons on such RCVs in several days; the CCDC RCV Center and CFT are placing RCV prototypes and the Soldier's vehicle prototypes in company-level scenarios in Europe, in 2020 and forward. Modified Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M113s at Fort Carson went through unit-level operations to gain experience with RCVs in July and August 2020. Future breaching operations will be affected in detail by the robotic breaching concept, according to the panel at the AUSA October 2020 meeting.
 * Robotic warfare, as a concept or capability at the Joint Corps echelon, was demonstrated at the operational level using Joint Warfighting assessment (JWA) 18.1 in April 2018.
 * JWA 19 (April–May 2019): I Corps, at Joint base Lewis-McChord, is getting modernization training on the robotic complex breaching concept (RCBC), and the command post computing environment (CPCE) from Joint modernization command (JMC) training staff.
 * Create decisive lethality:  Robotic experiments
 * Jen Judson reports that Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley is proposing that the brigades begin to electrify their vehicles using hybrid, or all-electric propulsion.
 * Smaller brigades and stronger division-level maneuver, with robotic aerial reconnaissance vehicles, robotic combat vehicles (RCVs), and long-range precision fires (LRPFs) are under consideration.
 * Modified M2 Bradleys (MET-Ds) and other RCVs operating at Fort Carson, and in Europe have used robotic software to operate the vehicles, for both logistics and also for combat maneuver. As of August 2020, the RCVs are able to perform limited waypoint navigation; multiple vehicles can be controlled by one human operator.

software framework
https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/robotics/2024/04/03/anduril-to-supply-robotic-combat-vehicle-software-to-us-army/ The U.S. Army and Defense Innovation Unit selected Anduril Industries to develop a software framework thought foundational to testing and deploying future robotic combat vehicle payloads. 178.203.114.103 (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)