The U.S. Army Wants More GM Defense ISV Units
24
Sponsored Links
General Motors’ military vehicle and technology division, GM Defense, has announced that the U.S. Army has given the go-ahead for full-rate production of the GM Infantry Squad Vehicle, or ISV. GM Defense secured the initial $214.3 million vehicle development contract in June of 2020, and has since delivered more than 300 vehicles the the U.S. Army, many of which already fielded to the Army’s 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. The GM ISV is based on the Chevy Colorado ZR2 midsize pickup truck.
“Our flexibility during the pursuit of the ISV helped us win the early stages of the contract award and has since played a pivotal role in delivering the best value solution to the U.S. Army,” said GM Defense vice president of Product Development and Advanced Engineering, Rick Kewley. “Not only did customer feedback make the ISV better at an accelerated pace, but it also helped us bring to bear the engineering and manufacturing expertise from our parent company, General Motors, to add new capabilities while fulfilling the Army’s design and performance requirements. We remain confident in our ability to meet higher production quantities in the future.”
The GM ISV is based on the Chevy Colorado ZR2 architecture and incorporates 90 percent commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) parts, including components from the Chevrolet Performance catalogue. The high percentage of COTS parts provides customers with greater flexibility to support evolving mission requirements.
In terms of capability, the GM ISV can rapidly deploy a nine-Soldier infantry squad and their associated equipment over a variety of challenging terrain. Weighing in at 5,000 pounds, the ISV is also light enough to be sling loaded from a UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter, and it is compact enough to fit inside a CH-47 Chinook helicopter as well.
Looking ahead, GM Defense is developing the ISV into a family of different vehicles offering a range of configurations, including fire support, command and control, electronic warfare, counter-unmanned aircraft systems, reconnaissance and logistics, and casualty evacuation.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM Defense news, GM business news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Sponsored Links
Oh my! An ICE vehicle?
Worse! A diesel 😱
Ice, ice baby. Word to your mother…
How about some armor for the doors, hello IEDs
That’s not what this vehicle is for
Correct Charlie. This thing is for use in mobile warfare. It’s fast and will be almost impossible to track with even advanced missiles.
Really the only country IED’s work in is Afghanistan. Country has few roads, impossible mountains everywhere so you must take said roads. Lots of pinch points to concentrate mines/IED’s.
IED’s/mines are useless in Ukraine/Taiwan, except for maybe right before a bridge, where the army will send in a MRAP first and these will be in the back to slice up enemy forces.
In WW2 the US defeated tiger tanks all the time with tank destroyers, unarmored open top tanks that were fast and had huge guns. During operation Luttich, 6 hellcat tank destroyers obliterated a German battalion with 25 panzers loosing only 1 hellcat. Speed kills
Under $714,333 per vehicle. What a bargain!
Like the original Humvee, I’ll be interested to see what happens to its durability and mobility after the Army decides they need to start hanging 3000 lbs of ballistic material off the thing to help protect it’s occupants.
The big question is are they still making the diesel for it or are they switching to the 2.7l turbo gas engine?
Diesel.
Mraps/humvees/JTLV’s/APC’s all use diesel. They’ll keep a common fuel supply. It’s been an ongoing argument to switch the abrams tank to diesel for that reason, and the argument keeps loosing to the fact that they share fuel with helicopters.
Likewise I’m wondering what will happen with the army’s new 270 short round. Will they phase out the 308 and 30cal as this round is a tweaner between the 2? They already are replacing the 223, and the M16 and SAW shared rounds for interchangeability. Will they go like WW2 and use 1 round for everything?
Makes a lot of sense. I wasn’t sure, because they discontinued use for the Colorado, if they still have access to the engine or if it’s going to be discontinued as well. (I don’t know if that engine is still used in other markets or not)
Where would these be used?
Certainly not on the battlefield.
Most likely in recruiting videos!
On a certain type of battlefield. The Ukraine war as we see it has nothing in common with Afghanistan, which in turn had very little with operation desert storm or Iraqi freedom. The purpose of this kind of vehicle is to Cary a squad deep behind enemy lines in a fast moving battle (think iraqi freedom) as saboteurs or to capture a strategic position before the enemy does. It’s small enough that it won’t draw as much attention as a column of humvees and carry’s as many troops and their equipment as 2 humvees. The only time it would be used as a weapons platform is against lightly armored targets such as a bunker or maybe an unescorted convoy of land rovers.
This would do similar runs to what we see in Vietnam movies with Blackhawks, but way less vulnerable and more discreet.
The military wrote a scathing review of the ISV last year and the year before that, blaming it for endangering lives. I’m rooting for GM just as much as the next guy here, but if these problems have not been fully addressed, then it would be better to go back to the drawing board. Two excerpts from the military report are below:
“The Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) is operationally effective for employment as a troop carrier and can accomplish air assault missions in a permissive environment. The ISV is not operationally effective for employment in combat and engagement, security cooperation and deterrence (ESD) missions against a near-peer threat. The ISV is not operationally suitable because of poor developmental test reliability and deficiencies in training, maintenance, safety, and human system integration identified in IOT&E. The program has a corrective action plan to address failures identified in testing that should be verified prior to the full-rate production decision scheduled for May 2022.”
“The vehicle lacks the capability to deliver effective fires, provide reliable communication, and force protection. The rifle company equipped with the ISVs did not successfully avoid enemy detection, ambushes, and engagements during a majority of their missions. In order to traverse cross country routes and wooded terrain, the unit was forced to reduce their speed, resulting in slowed movement, or maneuvered on improved routes, negating any element of surprise. During missions, the unit experienced numerous casualties, delaying mission accomplishment and degrading its combat power for follow-on missions. The unit concealed their ISVs and drivers close to the objective and dismounted eight soldiers per vehicle to accomplish missions before recovering their ISVs. This action reduced their combat force, exposed the ISVs and drivers to opposing force attacks, and increased the risk of additional combat losses.”
The report concludes with a recommendation for the Army to develop a plan to address the aforementioned problems.
What’s funny is GM was the winner out of 3 OEM’s competing for the ISV, and the ISV was built to army requested specifications. This to me seems like another example of the army requesting a resource, and a couple years in realizing they screwed up the request. Go figures.
Army can dump them in Ukraine or another US aid recipient
I see and understand your point, and what they are saying in this report, but what is the difference in this vehicle and the thousands of RZR’s that we have? We can’t use personnel protection as a factor when these two platforms are pretty much built the same, one is just bigger than the other is. Also, I personally know that the RZR’s have been used in combat situations so what’s the big difference. These will just probably allow you a faster means of movement with the same capabilities.
Granted the applications of use with RZR’s wasn’t a infantry squad use, it was with a much smaller scale of service members. Had to add that in.
That’s good news crank ‘em out!
Their order may not be picked up for 8 months then they will need to wait for 11 months for delivery
Unsafe at any speed…
GM Defense & Bright Drop should increase profits and compensate for any lost sales as GM goes EV far too early.
I get Barra sees EV as a way to reinvent GM brands & long-term building costs, after retooling, are lower; however, Toyota is taking it’s time and has built a hydrogen combustion engine that may be a perfect solution.
Have GM (& Ford) become too ambitious given that the future may not only belong to electric? Ultium is solid but China’s Neo allows drivers to swap out batteries instead of charging which will be needed in cities
The new Jeep!