Jump to content

Us Army Restarts Bradley Replacement Effort...


Dawes
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You still end up with much of the cost of an MBT without the ability to carry out all the missions of an MBT, which is at least part of the problem with the stryker equipped with the 105mm gun (that and it tips over). You may as well max out automatic weapons, and leave the other missions for the MBT I think.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are light remote weapon stations the future, or do we need heavy firepower? 40mm HEDP is kinda nice for everyday work, but as soon as enemy hides in buildings with thick walls you're dependent on the availability of guided missiles, or tank cannons.

Actually, there's an old proposal to use ATGM launchers (specifically TOW) to fire unguided large calibre demolition rockets. I understand it's rarely touched upon because it was also propagated by the quickly expelled devil incarnate of Tank-net, but it makes sense.

 

I would add a simple inertial navigation-based autopilot. Components of existing missile designs could be used for the rudder actuators and so on. The whole munition could be fairly cheap, yet still able to accurately blow up a building at 1,000 m from a mere (and quite lightweight) ATGM launcher.

 

The case to give an infantry transport vehicle such potentially extremely hazardous munitions onboard is a rather weak one, though.

A bit redundant. In the pure ATGM role, the TOW needs to be replaced by something like the Spike LR 2 or MMP, or by a loitering munition (trades speed for loitering capability).

 

The US Army knows the TOW needs to be replaced at some point, so using TOW missiles as they are, with 0 modifications, for bunker busting is a very good idea.

 

Some ATGMs come with an option for an HE warhead. Some allow active switching of warhead modes on the same warhead (can turn a HEAT into a multipurpose warhead at the cost of some penetration).

I think the latter is better, since ATGMs no longer need that much penetration with top attack technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone recommend good books which describe how contemporary IFVs were used in recent conflict(s)?

Which brings my question as to who is the enemy of these IFVs were designed to battle? The Soviet Army? Countries who follow Soviet doctrine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather equip each IFV company with a CV90 dual mortar carrier section, and STRIX for the anti-tank role.

That is also a good one for FS platoon, and can be used in direct fire as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IFV solution is suboptimal, because you are paying for a sophisticated FCS and ideally a weighty gun and turret, but cannot bring sufficient ammunition to make it fully effective.

I would recommend a mixed platoon with 3 ACP optimised for protection and troop carrying capacity, and with some anti infantry capability and 2 fire support vehicles with some general armament with anti-vehicle, anti-armor, and anti-air capability. A 57mm gun with high max elevation and a VTF airburst round + 7.62 mm and/or AGL coax + ATGM would work here. An ATGM with secondary capability vs helicopters and buildings would be ideal.

Edited by KV7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Can anyone recommend good books which describe how contemporary IFVs were used in recent conflict(s)?

Which brings my question as to who is the enemy of these IFVs were designed to battle? The Soviet Army? Countries who follow Soviet doctrine?

Which IFVs in specific? The M2 definitely was designed for the possibilty of fighting the Soviets and comrades in West Germany. The huge number of tanks the Soviets had was the main reason they went to the two man turret with TOW launcher. The M2A2 had additional armor intended primarily to counter the threat of the BMP-2's 30mm autocannon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Can anyone recommend good books which describe how contemporary IFVs were used in recent conflict(s)?

Which brings my question as to who is the enemy of these IFVs were designed to battle? The Soviet Army? Countries who follow Soviet doctrine?

Which IFVs in specific? The M2 definitely was designed for the possibilty of fighting the Soviets and comrades in West Germany. The huge number of tanks the Soviets had was the main reason they went to the two man turret with TOW launcher. The M2A2 had additional armor intended primarily to counter the threat of the BMP-2's 30mm autocannon.

 

I presume the NATO and Soviet ones were/are for each other. The Swedish one? The newer German ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a nutshell:

 

The CV90/40 was literally built around the stockpile of surplus Bofors guns. "We need a new IFV, and we have these guns for its armament. Do something."

 

The Puma was designed to complement the A400M. "We need a shooty-protecty IFV that fits into that future transport plane. Build something tracked with the highest protection level possible that has a 30mm autocannon or better, and an ATGM launcher like the Bradley. Shoot, we can't afford the missile. Build it in a way that we can add the missile later. Yes, I don't care if that makes the vehicle more expensive later, I want to save money now. Can you, like, develop it slower so that we pay a bit later? What? What did I just say about the consequences of saving money now? I. Don't. Care."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a nutshell:

 

The CV90/40 was literally built around the stockpile of surplus Bofors guns.

No...not really. It was a tad more complicated than that...the CV90 development was in fact based on one of the most complex and thorough studies and evaluations for any afv at that time.

Google translate this:

https://www.ointres.se/projekt_strf90.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they going to restart the Gavin line as well? :D

 

No, those are to be replaced with the various Bradley variants from AMPV line. Only three decades behind the original Bradley program.

 

 


 

 

 

If I was King Of The World, we'd just buy Ajax or Puma off-the-shelf and be done with it.

 

Nah not the Puma. Too contrained by "must fit a A400M" making it expensive and still has regular rebooting shutting it down for five minutes. Still far from combat ready. And only six dismounts that are cramped into the rear. The KF-31 (okay that is just a modernised Marder 2.0) and KF-41 look like more sensible options. The ASCOD series as well. And there is always a CV90xy variant.

Edited by Panzermann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ASCOD is very conventional, and also very cramped. It's about as compact as you can get with a manned turret and still transporting six soldiers. Documenting the vehicle was no fun, and required leaner, younger men than me (with better eye sight at short distances). Maybe not quite as snug as a formula 1 racing car, but designed for about exactly one position of your body ("sleep as you fight"). Forget resting while mounted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah not the Puma. Too contrained by "must fit a A400M" making it expensive and still has regular rebooting shutting it down for five minutes. Still far from combat ready. And only six dismounts that are cramped into the rear. The KF-31 (okay that is just a modernised Marder 2.0) and KF-41 look like more sensible options. The ASCOD series as well. And there is always a CV90xy variant.

When the OMFV will be ready for service, Puma hopefully would be fixed. The USA likely isn't going to buy Puma for various reasons, but it seems to be matching the rough idea of what the US Army has been looking the closest (being willing to take a smaller vehicle for improved air-deployability). A Puma built to US specs (turret and electronics from local industry, military not buying spare parts only when needed) probably would not suffer the German issues.

 

Ajax isn't really available as an IFV, ASCOD 35 and ASCOD 42 are less easy to airlift. KF41 is a more capable option, but the US focus of requirements seems to have changed quite a bit from the GCV, where the KF41 Lynx's three crew + nine men dismount configuration would have rocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time someone calls the M-113 a Gavin, sparky gets another oak leaf cluster

 

 

In a nutshell:

The CV90/40 was literally built around the stockpile of surplus Bofors guns.



No...not really. It was a tad more complicated than that...the CV90 development was in fact based on one of the most complex and thorough studies and evaluations for any afv at that time.
Google translate this:
https://www.ointres.se/projekt_strf90.htm

 


This. They actually spent a lot of thought and effort on it.

The fact that they were able to cram that monstrosity of a cannon into a platform that small and still have room for 8 dismounts (7 in latest variants) was remarkable, even moreso that there enough room for growth and modernization after all that, ending up with a fully stabilized gun and protection on par with its contemporaries, while retaining it's superior cross country mobility and lower silhouette. As far as the traditional "IFV" concept goes, flawed or not, it was as close to optimum as any IMO with the exception of lacking hunter-killer capability early on (since rectified)

Edited by Burncycle360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presume the NATO and Soviet ones were/are for each other. The Swedish one? The newer German ones?

 

When it comes to the Swedish ones lets put it like this. Historically there existed three war plans, basically UK, Germany and Russia/USSR. Only one of them has been updated after WW2...

 

In all the exercises during the cold war the enemy was an unnamed "great power". Somehow it always attacked from the east or southeast...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...