At least for the next 15 years. Rheinmetall and GDLS were only recently narrowed down to produce the bradley's successor. Also the supply chain for parts is still strong with the AMPV program entering production which is just a turretless bradley.
The AMPV is actually the M113's successor. Basically same concept and ideia behind it's tactical niche (muh battle taxi) but with more armor and more space for troops. The M113 kinda fell into a weird spot because the Bradley replaced it in front line usage when it came out, while MRAPs would later replace them in urban scenarios and rear line usage due to their greater mine resistance and mobility/visibility on cities.
this variant will probably be the ultimate upgrade package for the vehicle. the benefit of making things for the m2 hull is that you're also making it for the M1283
How come endless requirements for unnecessary things made all of those suddenly necessary in the end? Did those drunk generals look satan in the eye and say: frick off?
I can't fricking comprehend how contradicting my impression of the thing was before and after the war.
Is this a one off scenario? Are we going to see such gems in the future?
If it works it works I suppose. >"Look at all of our new IFV technologies! Engine, electronics, weapons, material etc!" >"Ok so we can just stuff it into the bradley and call it a day?"
No, you could build a better M113 with diesel, armor and a turret. You just need to be make it better than a Bradley and fit within the procurement budget.
Yes, for literally ever and ever. The Army has TRIED to replace it several times and each time the MIC has only managed to offer incremental improvements not worth the cost of acquiring. So new capabilities continue to get piled on. Armored vehicles as direct fire fighting systems are on the way out / already obsolete anyways so there;s no real loss. If the Army really wants a next-gen replacement they’ll probably have to fund the development from scratch because the MIC isn’t into taking on massive risky development programs on their own dime which is why it can only offer reheated crap over and over.
>If the Army really wants a next-gen replacement they’ll probably have to fund the development from scratch because the MIC isn’t into taking on massive risky development programs on their own dime
That is literally how it has worked since before any of us were born.
It’s proving effective in Ukraine. They only had 187 of them originally and have put them to great use. I think the next logical step would be to replace the TOW launcher with something fire and forget.
To replace every tow box on every Bradley would be a b***h but the vehicles being upgraded should not be a problem. CROWs-J would probably save weight over the TOW box and could be slaved to the vehicles optics
Bigger warhead with more penetration plus options for different warhead natures.
Longer range (4.5km with the TOW 2B Aero RF)
and it's all-weather.
Overfly Top-Attack versions can also hit targets behind obstacles, without line-of-sight
Javelin's seeker can and does reject tracking if the view of the target isn't perfect.
It's excellent for a shoulder-fired ATGM, but there are many better missile systems for killing tanks that aren't constrained by portability.
Spike ER is what Javelin could be if it was actually optimised for vehicle use as a proper TOW replacement, instead of being a shoulder-fired ATGM that now gets strapped to a CROWS
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
look at us not being autistic shit flingers. So basically we should investigate a lightweight, but still heavier than javelin tow replacement.
>I think the next logical step would be to replace the TOW launcher with something fire and forget.
That seems like it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than developing and fielding an entirely new IFV. What exactly is wrong with the vehicle itself that couldn't just improved instead of replaced?
MIC handout. The Bradley is the superior IFV because 25 is just the best general purpose IFV round. >but we need to make IFVs shoot down drone!
Nope, you travel with purpose built SHORAD vehicles
true, but it looks like we're switching to 50mm either on a new vehicle or as part of yet another bradley upgrade
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
We might but I doubt they would replace the gun on legacy Bradleys.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't think they will if the replacement program goes through. what I meant is if the replacement program fails (again) a gun upgrade would probably get rolled into a future upgrade package along with other toys they developed during the replacement program
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Maybe. I can see the gun being useful in the point air defense role.
Energy to run systems, which is the main issue with our current fleet and why DCGX is a thing. And if you are getting a new 40mm which we need for smart ammo, to combat drones, that means your getting a new turret, new turret as stated needs more power for shit, so then you have a new powerplant, now you are replacing the turret and the powerplant, so you basically are already engineering a new vehicle. So no it wouldnt be cheaper. The bradley is only doing extremely well because hilariously its effectively still fighting what it was designed to fight the soviet union.
ya everything from EW suites to new gens of thermals are all hogging energy its not 1 thing. I mean literally just having plugs to charge the infantry guys phones/other comms gear is something the bradley was never designed for.
But all of that stuff is on there with the TOW as well. Swap the TOW
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
bruh its like the navy wants spy6 on the arliegh burke, its like no we cant not enough energy you get spy4. You get what I am saying its not that a zero sum game necessarily. No single thing is enough to scrap the platform but combined it becomes cheaper to replace it than retrofit everything you need to do.
At their core these are just a steel box on tracks. Whatever would replace them are also likely to be a steel box on tracks so it's not actually any better than just bolting the new toys to your old box on tracks.
There is a point if the new steel box can either carry more people or if it's faster but doing either is hard while still keeping a similar profile, size and of course range.
No that’s pretty much what they were designed to be. They are meant to be fired from aircraft and I think the ground launched version probably adds a booster or significantly shortens the range. I would go with Spike instead of the TOW and keep the main gun
Absolutely. I think 2 would be more realistic. But I love the idea of mounting javelins because the troops in the back already carry some. This would ease logistics a bit because the company would only have to stock 1 ATGM type and vehicles could borrow from the infantry in a pinch or vise versa
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
i'd even go so far as to add a coaxial gmpg to the main gun.
Who fricking cares? If you don't want to talk about Bradleys, simply frick off to another thread.
This isn't some boomer forum where anybody gives a wet shit about your opinions.
WTF didn't they finger out a common chassis for new MPF and new IRV, especially if reason for new MPF was lite-on-logisitics VS MBT.
PS-make the turrets the same size for decoy reasons. The IFV would just use extra room for extra IFV shit like video screens for ATGM or anti-drone AAA/SHRAD or WTF, ammo boxes for auto-mortar. Cooler for drinks for the dismounts, IDK.
Common chassis is the wrong theory. You want common repair parts.
It doesn't matter if vehicle 1 has 12 road wheels and 500 track links and vehicles 2 has 16 road wheels and 700 track links. What maters is if the track links are interchangeable. What matters is if engine parts are common.
is they?, and WTF can't a buy a cheap trailer that uses the most common pattern of car wheels, and WTF is there like two dozen "of the most common" car battery sizes, with connectors on diff sides?
butt I fig a box is a box and Booker is based on a IFV, so I guess its not like you even want a "clean sheet design" for a tank VS IFV.
FMC that makes M113 used to be called "Food Machine Corp" because that is what they made. Then they figured "We can tip these meat lockers over, paint'em GREEN and sell'em to the Army for 20X as much! PROFIT! They will still be meal lockers, more or less."
the US military has a surprisingly decent track record when it comes to hardware longevity. M1911, Browning M2, Huey, Cobra, B-52, F-16, F-15, M113, Chadley, Abrams.
And even if you account for stuff of US origin remaining in use with other countries; Shermans, Pattons, Mustangs, the US just had a knack for making shit that kept on working
Why not? Baring some revolutionary development in material technology, (pro tip: ain't gunna happen) any new vehicle would have the same capabilities but cost far more due to Wall Street Military-Industrial Complex shenanigans.
Why hasn't the army replaced the TOW with something that can be fired on the move or fire-&-forget?
Brads in general have a lot of outdated shit. 25mm is mediocre and lacks air burst. TOW is inferior to a lot of modern ATGMs.
But when you already have them and enough ammo to last years it's just 3x cheaper than alternatives. US Army is not expected to fight massive land wars anyways. Even with China it's going to be mostly navy and air force.
There have been attempts to, but like with most weapons replacement programs, they were put on hold or canceled when the Cold War ended. It seems the they are trying again with a new program to develop a TOW replacement by 2028.
Brads in general are the gold standard. The gun has proven to be the best in current gen warfare. The TOW is alright but it still gets the job done. Where it really shines is survivability, even moreso now that the US is procuring new variants with APS as standard
It shines in survivability because it's fighting vatnik shitboxes weighing half of a Bradley. 25mm is good at killing 40y old soviet designs with crap armor it's not going to do well against 24 ton chinese IFVs or anything else.
There really is a pretty solid upper limit for new designs. Once you get a really good one it's hard to build something to replace it without some revolutionary leap. That same revolutionary leap can probably also just be applied to the thing you've already got which is guaranteed MUCH cheaper than building a whole new thing from the ground up based around that leap and other advancements. Your new vehicle has to be so much better it's actually worth it to go through the whole process of replacing the old one.
It's a problem I run into on sprocket all the damn time. I could waste hours to days designing a whole new vehicle based around some neat trick I read about like oscillating turrets as custom gun mantlets, ghost turrets, or whatever... or I could just do it to an already successful design much quicker making that WAY deadlier with a relatively simple upgrade.
The thing is advancements these days aren't really going to change the actual hull, turret, and whatnot that much on successful designs beyond giving her a nice set of bolt-ons. It's going to be new tech rather than some revolutionary new armor, geometry, or whatever like it was from WWI to shortly after Vietnam. In the end what you get is an old proven designs covered in new doohickeys like the Brad in your pic. In my opinion the most likely oldschool upgrades would be better engines and a 30mm cannon, probably some variant of the M230. Everything else will be tech.
All that said eventually a successor will absolutely be crowned, but probably not for a while. It's also probably going to be super modular and in service for a VERY long time.
>the actual wunderwaffle of the war ended up being an IFV
Warthunder predicted this
Autocannons good
Mobility good
Having less explosive smaller calibre ammo inside your tank is better armor than actual armor
At least for the next 15 years. Rheinmetall and GDLS were only recently narrowed down to produce the bradley's successor. Also the supply chain for parts is still strong with the AMPV program entering production which is just a turretless bradley.
theyll end up cancelling it and just putting all the fancy new shit on the M2A4E2
>produce the bradley's successor
AMPV is not the Bradley successor, that would be the OMFV
my bad, i misread your post
The AMPV is actually the M113's successor. Basically same concept and ideia behind it's tactical niche (muh battle taxi) but with more armor and more space for troops. The M113 kinda fell into a weird spot because the Bradley replaced it in front line usage when it came out, while MRAPs would later replace them in urban scenarios and rear line usage due to their greater mine resistance and mobility/visibility on cities.
this variant will probably be the ultimate upgrade package for the vehicle. the benefit of making things for the m2 hull is that you're also making it for the M1283
ROLL ETERNAL
I bet eastern europeans will get a lot of 2nd hand Bradleys and just work on some upgrade programs.
Why do euros call them bradley like theyre a collective conscious?
they are a collective consciousness.
his name was Bradley Paulson
>he doesn't know about the Bradley Gestalt Project
yes it's going to kill aliens when we invade alpha centauri in the year 12k.
B-52 of the land.
B-52 is peak strategic bomber
It's to make fun of Pentagon Wars
Despite the irl Burton being a dipshit (I liked Cary Elwes in the film), the point still remains the same from the film about government procurement.
?feature=shared&t=5360
>despite all the evidence I presented being wrong, Your Honor, my case is ackshually still correct
no
So the M16 didn't have issues early in Vietnam? The meetings in Washington investigating the failures the rifle had were all made up? Wow. Cool.
No but if we look at a graph of the number of issues the m14 issues was still greater than m16 early on.
government procurement will never not be fricked up. It is universal.
And yet the Bradley has been punching above its weight for decades despite its history
Curious!
How come endless requirements for unnecessary things made all of those suddenly necessary in the end? Did those drunk generals look satan in the eye and say: frick off?
I can't fricking comprehend how contradicting my impression of the thing was before and after the war.
Is this a one off scenario? Are we going to see such gems in the future?
>Generals know more than civilian engineers about what a combat vehicle needs
How is this at all surprising?
very
because pentagon wars is a parody, not a documentary, the bradley was always an IFV and IFVs are doctrinally sound
the only unnecessary thing was the portholes
If it works it works I suppose.
>"Look at all of our new IFV technologies! Engine, electronics, weapons, material etc!"
>"Ok so we can just stuff it into the bradley and call it a day?"
No, you could build a better M113 with diesel, armor and a turret. You just need to be make it better than a Bradley and fit within the procurement budget.
Calm down Mike Sparks
stfu, Sparkytard
Yes, for literally ever and ever. The Army has TRIED to replace it several times and each time the MIC has only managed to offer incremental improvements not worth the cost of acquiring. So new capabilities continue to get piled on. Armored vehicles as direct fire fighting systems are on the way out / already obsolete anyways so there;s no real loss. If the Army really wants a next-gen replacement they’ll probably have to fund the development from scratch because the MIC isn’t into taking on massive risky development programs on their own dime which is why it can only offer reheated crap over and over.
You're just spouting off bullshit dispellable with simple google searches.
Why has the Army failed to acquire a replacement up until now?
Budget priority
>If the Army really wants a next-gen replacement they’ll probably have to fund the development from scratch because the MIC isn’t into taking on massive risky development programs on their own dime
That is literally how it has worked since before any of us were born.
This variant is will be the current best IFV in the world. Sorry puma bros
It’s proving effective in Ukraine. They only had 187 of them originally and have put them to great use. I think the next logical step would be to replace the TOW launcher with something fire and forget.
Yeah, I don't get why they don't just replace it with a Javelin. See a tank, pop the Jav, hide.
To replace every tow box on every Bradley would be a b***h but the vehicles being upgraded should not be a problem. CROWs-J would probably save weight over the TOW box and could be slaved to the vehicles optics
Dumb idea. TOW is a better missile than Javelin
I’m serious about what makes you think that
Curious* holy frick
Bigger warhead with more penetration plus options for different warhead natures.
Longer range (4.5km with the TOW 2B Aero RF)
and it's all-weather.
Overfly Top-Attack versions can also hit targets behind obstacles, without line-of-sight
Javelin's seeker can and does reject tracking if the view of the target isn't perfect.
It's excellent for a shoulder-fired ATGM, but there are many better missile systems for killing tanks that aren't constrained by portability.
Spike ER is what Javelin could be if it was actually optimised for vehicle use as a proper TOW replacement, instead of being a shoulder-fired ATGM that now gets strapped to a CROWS
look at us not being autistic shit flingers. So basically we should investigate a lightweight, but still heavier than javelin tow replacement.
Ok what about a bigger Javelin then?
Doesn’t exist
>I think the next logical step would be to replace the TOW launcher with something fire and forget.
That seems like it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than developing and fielding an entirely new IFV. What exactly is wrong with the vehicle itself that couldn't just improved instead of replaced?
MIC handout. The Bradley is the superior IFV because 25 is just the best general purpose IFV round.
>but we need to make IFVs shoot down drone!
Nope, you travel with purpose built SHORAD vehicles
>25 is just the best general purpose IFV round.
then why are they using 50mm on the bradley replacement?
There is a vehicle in development with a 50mm. It might not get canceled
>Bradley replacement
lmao
They just dropped a new Bradley upgrade. It’s so over for OMFV
true, but it looks like we're switching to 50mm either on a new vehicle or as part of yet another bradley upgrade
We might but I doubt they would replace the gun on legacy Bradleys.
I don't think they will if the replacement program goes through. what I meant is if the replacement program fails (again) a gun upgrade would probably get rolled into a future upgrade package along with other toys they developed during the replacement program
Maybe. I can see the gun being useful in the point air defense role.
There's limits to how much stuff you can add to an existing chassis and the Bradley is on the verge of it.
You can remove the TOW launcher and replace it. Maybe even cut down on the weight
Energy to run systems, which is the main issue with our current fleet and why DCGX is a thing. And if you are getting a new 40mm which we need for smart ammo, to combat drones, that means your getting a new turret, new turret as stated needs more power for shit, so then you have a new powerplant, now you are replacing the turret and the powerplant, so you basically are already engineering a new vehicle. So no it wouldnt be cheaper. The bradley is only doing extremely well because hilariously its effectively still fighting what it was designed to fight the soviet union.
The TOW requires a good bit of energy. It can be swapped 1 for 1 with a different ATGM that requires the same amount of energy
ya everything from EW suites to new gens of thermals are all hogging energy its not 1 thing. I mean literally just having plugs to charge the infantry guys phones/other comms gear is something the bradley was never designed for.
But all of that stuff is on there with the TOW as well. Swap the TOW
bruh its like the navy wants spy6 on the arliegh burke, its like no we cant not enough energy you get spy4. You get what I am saying its not that a zero sum game necessarily. No single thing is enough to scrap the platform but combined it becomes cheaper to replace it than retrofit everything you need to do.
say it with me
>BRADLEYS ON MARS
Lunar Bradleys all painted white with gold foil heatsinks
What other in service IFVs have APS?
There's all those turreted mt-lb's with drozd
there will be bradleys with legs on Mars
>so bradley will just remain in service forever?
So it seems. So it seems...
At their core these are just a steel box on tracks. Whatever would replace them are also likely to be a steel box on tracks so it's not actually any better than just bolting the new toys to your old box on tracks.
There is a point if the new steel box can either carry more people or if it's faster but doing either is hard while still keeping a similar profile, size and of course range.
>Steel box on tracks
Aluminum
Can anyone itemize this turret for me
ERA blocks on manlet are just a theory, might be some kind of counterweight because they increased the weight of the breach or something idk
Thanks
Nta but thanks
Well yes
Bradley is just a box APC/IFV with good characteristics. You can keep upgrading it like the ship of Theseus and keep the same general form.
I think Bradleys are too loud.
couldn't they just ditch the TOW for brimstone instead??
No brimstones are absolutely massive
i guess i'm wrong about thinking that it's just an improved hellfire then huh.
No that’s pretty much what they were designed to be. They are meant to be fired from aircraft and I think the ground launched version probably adds a booster or significantly shortens the range. I would go with Spike instead of the TOW and keep the main gun
then a 4 pack javelin lawnchair would work.
Absolutely. I think 2 would be more realistic. But I love the idea of mounting javelins because the troops in the back already carry some. This would ease logistics a bit because the company would only have to stock 1 ATGM type and vehicles could borrow from the infantry in a pinch or vise versa
i'd even go so far as to add a coaxial gmpg to the main gun.
Who fricking cares? If you don't want to talk about Bradleys, simply frick off to another thread.
This isn't some boomer forum where anybody gives a wet shit about your opinions.
This may amaze you, but I don't give a wet shit about your opinions, dumbfrick.
WTF didn't they finger out a common chassis for new MPF and new IRV, especially if reason for new MPF was lite-on-logisitics VS MBT.
PS-make the turrets the same size for decoy reasons. The IFV would just use extra room for extra IFV shit like video screens for ATGM or anti-drone AAA/SHRAD or WTF, ammo boxes for auto-mortar. Cooler for drinks for the dismounts, IDK.
Common chassis is the wrong theory. You want common repair parts.
It doesn't matter if vehicle 1 has 12 road wheels and 500 track links and vehicles 2 has 16 road wheels and 700 track links. What maters is if the track links are interchangeable. What matters is if engine parts are common.
is they?, and WTF can't a buy a cheap trailer that uses the most common pattern of car wheels, and WTF is there like two dozen "of the most common" car battery sizes, with connectors on diff sides?
butt I fig a box is a box and Booker is based on a IFV, so I guess its not like you even want a "clean sheet design" for a tank VS IFV.
FMC that makes M113 used to be called "Food Machine Corp" because that is what they made. Then they figured "We can tip these meat lockers over, paint'em GREEN and sell'em to the Army for 20X as much! PROFIT! They will still be meal lockers, more or less."
>so bradley will just remain in service forever?
We're gonna drop ramps on Mars.
Yes
Iron fist
The actual article:
https://defence-blog.com/elbit-systems-to-upgrade-u-s-army-next-gen-bradley-fighting-vehicle/
>so bradley will just remain in service forever?
Of course, Bradley's will be gunning down Xenomorph's with rail guns in the future for sure.
My man, I literally left the house, bought and ate dinner, had a nap, and came back to your seething.
By all means, continue though.
It was literally my second post in this thread and the one in your screeshot wasn't my first.
yes
Oh no. Oh well guess we will just have to stick to on topic posting.
It’s stabilized dual feeding chain gun is really good
the US military has a surprisingly decent track record when it comes to hardware longevity. M1911, Browning M2, Huey, Cobra, B-52, F-16, F-15, M113, Chadley, Abrams.
And even if you account for stuff of US origin remaining in use with other countries; Shermans, Pattons, Mustangs, the US just had a knack for making shit that kept on working
>so bradley will just remain in service forever?
Why not? Baring some revolutionary development in material technology, (pro tip: ain't gunna happen) any new vehicle would have the same capabilities but cost far more due to Wall Street Military-Industrial Complex shenanigans.
It’s just that good
>Mike Sparks: "I wish the Army would choose an APC that was cost effective and traditional."
I hope we get some of these in the future. We're getting the NZLAV which has the same gun as the Bradley.
Yes, but with a namechange
Chadley, aka the CHAD
>tank is a tank
if it does the tank things its good enough to field
they have way too much shit bolted onto the turret. just redesign the damn thing at this point.
Probably
Of course. 25 is OP
Brads in general have a lot of outdated shit. 25mm is mediocre and lacks air burst. TOW is inferior to a lot of modern ATGMs.
But when you already have them and enough ammo to last years it's just 3x cheaper than alternatives. US Army is not expected to fight massive land wars anyways. Even with China it's going to be mostly navy and air force.
Why hasn't the army replaced the TOW with something that can be fired on the move or fire-&-forget?
There have been attempts to, but like with most weapons replacement programs, they were put on hold or canceled when the Cold War ended. It seems the they are trying again with a new program to develop a TOW replacement by 2028.
Main tank killers in us mil doctrine are planes, fire and forget antitank for missiles on chadley is very low priority and budgets are finite
>budgets are finite
This is the truth rest is cope.
Does the natty guard have these and if so how hard would it be for patriots during a civil conflict to end up with them?
Brads in general are the gold standard. The gun has proven to be the best in current gen warfare. The TOW is alright but it still gets the job done. Where it really shines is survivability, even moreso now that the US is procuring new variants with APS as standard
It shines in survivability because it's fighting vatnik shitboxes weighing half of a Bradley. 25mm is good at killing 40y old soviet designs with crap armor it's not going to do well against 24 ton chinese IFVs or anything else.
Source?
There really is a pretty solid upper limit for new designs. Once you get a really good one it's hard to build something to replace it without some revolutionary leap. That same revolutionary leap can probably also just be applied to the thing you've already got which is guaranteed MUCH cheaper than building a whole new thing from the ground up based around that leap and other advancements. Your new vehicle has to be so much better it's actually worth it to go through the whole process of replacing the old one.
It's a problem I run into on sprocket all the damn time. I could waste hours to days designing a whole new vehicle based around some neat trick I read about like oscillating turrets as custom gun mantlets, ghost turrets, or whatever... or I could just do it to an already successful design much quicker making that WAY deadlier with a relatively simple upgrade.
The thing is advancements these days aren't really going to change the actual hull, turret, and whatnot that much on successful designs beyond giving her a nice set of bolt-ons. It's going to be new tech rather than some revolutionary new armor, geometry, or whatever like it was from WWI to shortly after Vietnam. In the end what you get is an old proven designs covered in new doohickeys like the Brad in your pic. In my opinion the most likely oldschool upgrades would be better engines and a 30mm cannon, probably some variant of the M230. Everything else will be tech.
All that said eventually a successor will absolutely be crowned, but probably not for a while. It's also probably going to be super modular and in service for a VERY long time.
Thread theme: https://youtu.be/vQbZjvAxhIk
Ajax will replace the whole bradley fleet
>the actual wunderwaffle of the war ended up being an IFV
Warthunder predicted this
Autocannons good
Mobility good
Having less explosive smaller calibre ammo inside your tank is better armor than actual armor
Yeah it’s the current best IFV fielded by any nation
On mars
>bumping his thread after the rest got nuked
Seethe.
What brand of schizo did I just come across?
That dudes been on a spree all day. Some guy broke him by repeatedly making fun of some obscure British armored vehicle
Most likely, it’s too good to retire.
>ka-chunk-ka-chunk....ka-chunk-ka-chunk-ka-chunk-ka-chunk