US Army to Purchase 473 new Bradley Fighting Vehicles

[FJAG]

The move represents a key portion of a broader Army push to prepare its arsenal of armored combat vehicles for major power land war - and further pave the way toward a new generation of combat platforms for the 2030s and beyond.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/06/27/army-makes-massive-bradley-buy-up-to-473-vehicles-to-prep-for-major-power-war.html

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well if we need an IFV, likely we could lease a bunch of the older ones.

 

[tomahawk6]

The Brad with its 30mm gun fires DU depleted uranium.Its a vehicle killer for sure.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The US should change their mind (2012) about buying a bunch of IDF Namer's. Maybe the IFV version with a 30mm cannon and turret.  Those Namers weight more than an M1A1 tank.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Vehicles like the Namer would rightly belong in a specialist armoured division, along with other modified vehicles for Assault and urban warfare. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Would it be a fair assumption that the majority of combat the US will see in the near future will be in urban environments or close proximity?

Namers took part in Operation Protective Edge. During the fighting, Namers (which at the time were not fitted with an Active Protection System) were hit multiple times by RPGs and ATGMs, including suffering direct hits by 9M133 Kornet ATGMs, but the vehicles emerged undamaged and in no instances was the armor penetrated or injuries caused.

Crew survival is pretty good with these apparently.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes and no, areas like Iraq will have both, places like Mali, the Namer would create a massive logistical burden. The Styker would be better there. In Iraq, the units with Stykers would stay outside of the major urban areas and those areas, the heavier vehicles would fight. The US military is big enough to have some specialized equipment units. Sort of a 79th Amd Div 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well if we need an IFV, likely we could lease a bunch of the older ones.

If we only had a doctrine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs

 

[tomahawk6]

The Army wants to modernize its fleet of Bradleys.it acquires the newest generation of Bradley vehicles - something designed to lay key groundwork for longer-term high-priority ground vehicle modernization plans.“After a decade of modifications in response to threats in Iraq, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle is at or exceeds Space, Weight, and Power-Cooling limitations,” Ashley Givens, spokeswoman for Program Executive Office, Ground Combat Systems, told Warrior Maven.

 

[a_majoor]

How does the latest Bradley compare to newer vehicles like the CV-90, Puma or Lynx? The main advantage I see for the US continuing to use the Bradley is the already existing logistics base and sunk costs for training etc., but lets face it, the basic platform was fielded back in the 1980's (and the US has already had at several unsuccessful attempts to replace them, starting with the "Block III" program in the mid 80's).

 

[tomahawk6]

Over the years the Brad has been upgraded until it cant be anymore.

The service acquisition plan, advanced through a large-scale Army deal with BAE Systems, calls for the most modern Bradley M2A4 and M7A4 vehicles. These newest Bradleys are part of a strategic push to bring the Bradley platform into a new era with advanced computing, digital processors, long-range sensors and a range of new weapons applications.“These improvements buy-back lost mobility, as well as create margin to allow future technologies to be hosted on the platform. As an example, none of the Active Protection Systems currently being explored by the Army could be installed on the A3 Bradley due to its shortage of electrical power. The A4 corrects this shortcoming,” she added.
More on-board power can bring the technical means to greatly support advanced electronics, command and control systems, computing power, sensors, networks and even electronic warfare technologies.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yes and no, areas like Iraq will have both, places like Mali, the Namer would create a massive logistical burden. The Styker would be better there. In Iraq, the units with Stykers would stay outside of the major urban areas and those areas, the heavier vehicles would fight. The US military is big enough to have some specialized equipment units. Sort of a 79th Amd Div

Logistics win the war of course but if you've driven in something with pretty weak armor then logistics might not be at the for front of your thoughts.  But you could also point out poor logistics might mean someone's given even shittier protection.

The Namer and Israel have the obvious benefit of not having to worry about operating outside of their country or dealing with long distance logistics. 

Im not sure when the last time there was a significant armored battle in open terrain. It seems like an urban environment is where we operate most often. 

Maybe a bit less so with the US (no offense) but single didget deaths in the news can carry more and more political pressure. With anti armor weapons being flooded into the battle space I think vehicles should be looking at heavier armor and better active protection systems than lighter faster  vehicles.

There's probably only so much upgrading the US can do to an old frame. The article T6 posted mentions upgrading the A4 to deal with power problems but chances are they're still going to have a lot of short comings still.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I recently watched a French video of a resupply convoy in Mali going to a remote FOB. The terrian is a far more effective at taking out vehicles, than enemy action. Mali appears to make much of Afghanistan seem positively urban and happening. There are valid reasons the French invest in light wheeled armour  and it's all about Africa.

 

[brihard]

Im not sure when the last time there was a significant armored battle in open terrain.

Someone may be around to correct me, but I think the last real large scale tank battle was probably Battle of 73 Easting in Iraq, 1991?

 

[Underway]

Logistics win the war of course but if you've driven in something with pretty weak armor then logistics might not be at the for front of your thoughts.  But you could also point out poor logistics might mean someone's given even shittier protection.

The Namer and Israel have the obvious benefit of not having to worry about operating outside of their country or dealing with long distance logistics. 

Im not sure when the last time there was a significant armored battle in open terrain. It seems like an urban environment is where we operate most often. 

Maybe a bit less so with the US (no offense) but single didget deaths in the news can carry more and more political pressure. With anti armor weapons being flooded into the battle space I think vehicles should be looking at heavier armor and better active protection systems than lighter faster  vehicles.

There's probably only so much upgrading the US can do to an old frame. The article T6 posted mentions upgrading the A4 to deal with power problems but chances are they're still going to have a lot of short comings still.

Problem with the Namer is that they are not air deployable or I have heard even RAIL deployable.  Drive yourself there or take a boat only.  That's a deal breaker for the US Army.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I recently watched a French video of a resupply convoy in Mali going to a remote FOB. The terrian is a far more effective at taking out vehicles, than enemy action. Mali appears to make much of Afghanistan seem positively urban and happening. There are valid reasons the French invest in light wheeled armour  and it's all about Africa.

Yea maybe you're right. Or righter
It looks like they use the 1976 VAB APC quite a bit and since 2008 the VBCI.  I'm not sure how light I would consider the VBC, it's 10 or so tons heavier than our LAV3s.

Is what the French are doing in Africa comparable to how the US would operate in a built up area like Iraq or Syria?

 

[tomahawk6]

The key thing is that all US combat vehicles can be deployed by air.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Buy some Antonov's off Russia. With an airlifting payload 559,577 pounds that's 4x 60 tonne Namer APCs you fly around, providing you can cram em in    ;D

Okay so it's a bad idea. Still looks fearsome.

 

[tomahawk6]

Namer isn't going to be bought by the US or Canada.WE will stick with the Bradley.

 

[a_majoor]

Forecast of what the Army "wants" for their next generation vehicle. The wants list is rather fluid, and not clearly defined as of yet. Minor nitpick, this is the fourth attempt to replace the M2, with the Block III program in the early 1980's being the first (cancelled between the realization the Block III tank would be an 80,000kg monster and the "fall of the wall" rendering much of the program irrelevant, the FCV and the GCV programs described in the article). It is also interesting to compare the current Army wants list to the CV90, Puma and Lynx IFV's (or even the USMC Amphibious Combat Vehicle, for that matter).

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21992161/the-armys-next-fighting-vehicle-will-be-a-troop-carrier/

The Army’s Next Fighting Vehicle Will Be a Troop Carrier
A replacement for the M2 Bradley is next on the Army’s list of priorities
By Kyle Mizokami
Jun 28, 2018

The U.S. Army is concentrating its efforts on fielding a new infantry fighting vehicle. The new vehicle will replace the M2 Bradley, first fielded in 1981. The vehicle will incorporate new technologies that the Army has increasingly had to bolt onto the older vehicle, as well as be more lethal and survivable against modern threats.

The M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle was introduced in 1981 as a new type of vehicle, the infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). Unlike the earlier armored personnel carrier, a lightly armored and lightly armed vehicle which merely dropped off infantry troops at the edge of the battlefield, the infantry fighting vehicle was meant to carry troops into combat. Keeping soldiers onboard preserved a unit’s mobility, making mechanized units more agile and better able to respond to the fast-moving battlefield.

The Bradley aged well over the past four decades, fighting in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. But military technology has changed over the decades and it’s not easy to retrofit armored vehicles with new tech. Upgrades over the years have included improved armor, fire control and a new navigation system. Still, the Bradley is still limited to carrying seven dismounted soldiers (six until the Army rejiggered the interior to install a seventh, awkward-facing seat), has the same 25-millimeter chain gun, and carries two TOW anti-tank missiles.

A new infantry fighting vehicle would ideally carry more nine or more soldiers–a standard six man dismounted infantry squad plus an attached Javelin anti-tank missile team, machine gun team, anti-defense/anti-drone team, or air and artillery controllers. It would mount a heavier gun, probably a 40-millimeter gun firing compact case telescoped rounds, and mount smaller, lighter Javelin anti-tank missiles instead of the older TOW. It would be armored against 40-millimeter guns and buried improved explosive devices, and feature an active protection system designed to detect, track, and shoot down incoming rockets, anti-tank missiles, and even anti-tank shells.

This is the Army’s third try at developing a Bradley replacement. The first effort, Future Combat Systems, ran from 1999 until cancellation in 2008. The Army spent a staggering $18.1 billion without fielding a single vehicle. A follow-on program, the Ground Combat Vehicle, scaled back plans from an entire family of armored vehicles to just replacing the M2 Bradley. The concept vehicle, with its many jutting antennas looked like the car that Homer Simpson designed. That was cancelled in 2014.

The Army will have to face some difficult engineering choices. If it chooses to increase the number of dismounted soldiers the size of the vehicle quickly balloons to accommodate them, then protect them. It may end up keeping the dismount size at 6-7 and having other soldiers ride in a cheaper, less well armed, less well armored vehicle such as the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). It may choose a more robust electrical system to accommodate future energy-hog weapons such as railguns and lasers. The Army also has to decide whether it wants to value protection or speed, or spend the big money and enjoy both. Whatever decisions the Army makes it will likely have to live with for another forty years.