What should the US replace it's aging Bradley fleet with?
I don't see why would spend tons of money on research when we get an just get some fine export IFV's.
>Muh American made American developed
This needs to stop. I bet it's the reason they shitcanned the C-27J
Needs a heavy IFV on the abrams or next gen tank chassis.
Like the T-15
Then they need to fully mechanize all those useless light infantry brigades.
What the hell is the point of light infantry in 2016
You know its possible to build a tank that doesn't weigh over 70 tons and doesn't have a high velocity cannon meant for killing other tanks?
Big fucking difference between light infantry, and heavy MBT's
That is the primary reason the US military shifted to 30mm. The smallest caliber that is big enough to do the job so you can pack more ammo.
Remember that Bradleys carry 900 rounds of 25mm, jumping up to 40mm cuts that down to less than 200.
And then you see what a Bofors L70 or CT40 can do. (Video is Bof, image is CT40 vs a 30mm, so you can imagine how a 25mm is)
i dunno, i mean it has been one of the most popular autocannons of all times. look at US WWII warships for example. it was even used by germany aswell. might be a bit obsolete for AA roles today, but it will fuck up anything with armor short of an MBT very quickly
i support this. what kind of armor protection are we talking about on that thing though? also you know us, we'd have to put tow missles on it... maybe go full daka and throw a hydra rocket pod on there
I am a 2ic on a Swedish CV9040 platoon, our C models has some seriously beefed up armor and performed well both in Liberia and A-stan.
Bofors made tests with the RB56 BILL missile on it so putting TOWs should be possible.
The biggest advantage we have over the Bradley is mobility though, especially in snow.
The GCV ifv was going to be a 60+ ton vehicle, like the T-15
This fantasy of light & lighter vehicles is for COIN only.
Imagine if the Iraqi's had working tanks and working ammo
How many hundreds of Brads would have been lost?
>Why not just get rid of IFVs by your logic?
That's what they want though, apparently.
>Muh light tanks and APCs!
>Muh Pentagon Wars!
>Why does anyone NEED multi-role capabilities!?
The "Light Tanks and APCs!" guy is almost certainly the same guy as the battleships, gliders, VLS tank, submarine aircraft carrier and/or LST, and drone guy. I'm also somewhat certain it's Mike Sparks come to troll /k/.
Our mobility is better overall but in snow it's not even a contest.
Pretty funny that the US decided to field a IFV that get stuck in snow in the 80s when the Cold War was still on. I guess they forgot that if you are planning a war against Russia you should plan for snow.
>aging Bradley fleet
OP confirmed for not knowing shit.
The US's defense department's acquisition policy is fucked, no doubt about that. But one strategy they've started using to get around that is to buy comprehensive upgrade packages spread out across a few versions, so they're only ever "upgrading" rather than acquiring anything "new".
This very damn year they're starting to get the ECP1 upgrade package that changes a bunch of stuff in the hull, and in 2018 they'll start getting the ECP2 upgrades, at which point they will be essentially new hulls retaining the old bradley turret.
And then they'll change the turret, and it will be an entirely new vehicle.
They are doing it right now with the M109s, in the A6 and A7 version, the m109a7 is essentially a completely different version than the m109a5.
I'm not buying that video.
I'm not necessarily doubting your opinion overall, but that video seems fishy, as with other "x vs US gear" videos I've seen. Especially when it comes to snowy conditions. The HMMWV video comes to mind.
The video clip in question is from trials to decide what new IFV and MBT Sweden would buy to replace our aging PBV302s and Centurions.
The best armorguys we had at that time got to try vehicles to see which performed best.They also tried T-72s and MT-LBs.
I would doubt the trials if BAE/Hägglunds had performed them but it was impartial officers of the Swedish army who had a vested interest in getting the best gear for their job.
All the NATO CV90 operators apart from Norway, have 35mm guns. Other US allies that are looking at the vehicle, like Canada and Australia are also looking at the 35mm version
Japan's IFV is a 35mm. Korea's is 40mm.
Brits and French are both going 40mm CTA
Really it's only the Germans (Puma) and Spaniards (Pizarro) on tracks, and all the wheelshits that have a 30mm gun
Thanks for letting everyone know you are a balls to the wall, tongue to the window retard from the start.
Umm...I mean good bait friend.
The US is such a huge market that even if they adopted a Canadian LAV-3 they'd build factories to produce them domestically, as there's no fucking way General Dynamics could build enough of them for the US in London and the US would require domestic production as part of the contract.
LAV driver here. They really are. The main gun jams a lot, the armor feels like paper, and it's so old that it has gaps in the hull that let sunlight in. At least ours smells good because our gunner keeps on bringing fruit aboard and spilling it, so the whole thing smells like mangos and apricots.
>All the NATO CV90 operators apart from Norway, have 35mm guns.
Which makes for 144 30mm armed CV90s and 238 35mm armed CV90s.
>Other US allies that are looking at the vehicle, like Canada and Australia are also looking at the 35mm version
Canada and Australia are looking at a number of different vehicles and with both 30mm and 35mm weaponry.
>Japan's IFV is a 35mm. Korea's is 40mm.
>Brits and French are both going 40mm CTA
25mm and Russian 30mm users aside.
Germany, Austria, Poland, Spain, Belgium and Lithuania all use 30mm.
It really depends on the terrain.
Some areas are going to be all but impassable to vehicles, and this also opens up the problem of limiting your mobility to areas the vehicles can operate it.
But yeah, light infantry are pretty much worthless except for going places where vehicles aren't feasible.
What ever it is. It'll cost 17 billion dollars and take 20 years. Yet will still be shit until we upgrade it to the Israeli spec model.
No, i'm just an anon.
Riddle me this dipshit. Why did they not put wheels on the first tanks ever to grace this earth when they had to cross muddy, crater- filled moonscapes, if wheels are so mobile?
>posting Pentagon Wars unironically
How embarrassing you know so little.
Because the ability of round shaped rubber to traverse terrain that lacks enough integrity to even form a solid mass changed in the past 100 years.
Do you understand what KG/CM is? Or traction?
So you're saying that modern wheeled vehicles equal or exceed capability of tracked vehicles under adverse conditions, despite the fact that Tracked vehicles have drastically less ground pressure, which is essential for crossing compromised terrain with any traction? Not to mention modern tracked vehicles also have improvements over the tracks of yesteryear.
I laughed a lot more than i should have.
LAV Gunner/Crew Commander here, your turret crews sucks. The 25 is chain driven with a 1HP electric motor, if it's jamming they haven't done their inspections / preventative maintenance.
Source: the gun I was responsible for in 09 never failed to remove kebab when asked to do so in Pansheer.
RCR or PAT?
What if weather and locale dictates the normal offroad condition is in fact, Deep mud?
>actually defending memewheels
just a gentle reminder that wheeled vehicles have never been used in any serious capacity in a conflict that actually matters
they are little better than a drawing board concept at this point, not a proven vehicle.
>TFW you have to bail out your dumb friends who brought trucks
I don't see the Brad going anywhere any time soon. It works great in Combine Arms Battalions and can keep up with our tanks off road where the shitty Strykers can't.
It does it's job and it does just as well, if not better than almost every IFV out there.
Those Kongsberg turrets are shit. I have not in my 10years in the military met a piece of equipment that malfunctions so often as this POS. Granted it is a complicated POS but start up problems, thermal mode not functioning, can't shoot at specific angles for no reason is not acceptable when you depend upon it.
Best part is only fat Norwegian guys are certified to repair it.
Kongsberg can fuck off
>Needs a heavy IFV on the abrams or next gen tank chassis
Enjoy fighting next expeditionary war with mostly light infantry. Tank weight IFV or APC will require tank like amounts of fuel and will be much more expensive to airlift into shitholes like Afghanistan.
They could have built a road for off road testing.
>The video clip in question is from trials to decide what new IFV and MBT Sweden would buy to replace our aging PBV302s and Centurions.
It's from Norwegian IFV trials.
I will never understand why people like this so much, the one we have break ALL the time and can't drive in terrain for shit.
I have literally never seen one of them drive in terrain other than flat grassland since they get stuck as soon as there is a bit of mud.
I suspect whatever platform that will replace bradley would have the same footprints (roughly similar in weight, dimensions, maintenance cost, etc) while having sufficient increase in capability to justify the replacement.
Right now the only logical choices are K21 (Worst Korea) and CV-90.
Thanks, I needed that.
How much have you dealt with them? I've been curious about them. I had a friend who really liked the Bradley ones. It already has a better FCS than what is in the Brad now from what I understand.
I would bet on something entirely new or just based off of those rather than importing them. Either way I think they are going to milk the Brad for years to come. That's just the way the Army is going right now.
>Right now the only logical choices are K21 (Worst Korea) and CV-90.
I feel the General Dynamics ASCOD with a CTA 40 turret (like the Brits are using for their Ajax cavalry vehicles) would be more likely than K21 or CV90
>hey guys, tanks are obsolete and so are guns, lets take the guns off the tank, fill the hull with VLS vells then put the guns from the tank on an IFV hull
>hey, why are you all calling me an idiot
>>Muh American made American developed
>This needs to stop.
fuck off. its only pork when its not your district. there should be massively strict tariffs on anything imported made of steel right now.
Why are people saying to buy the LAV III when you guys already have the Stryker, isn't it basically the same vehicle?
Yep. Same hull different mission fit. They're even made in the same factory.
Strykers have some improvements over LAV III (better suspension and armour and some with a double-V hull) but they're heavier and slower IIRC
There actually was a Bradley replacement called the GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle) but they cancelled it in 2014.
Now Bradleys are in limbo until a decision is made later this year to proceed on FFV (Future Fighting Vehicle) by either BAE Systems or General Dynmics or upgrade the Bradleys further.
Those are the only options.
> Crammed into the back of a Bradley with the dismounts for 13 hours, 115° outside.
>Javelins behind the benches, can't sit up straight.
>NBC hose shoved into shirt, pumping in blow drier air.
>Turtle into body armor because 6'2" and no head room, even without helmet on.
>Have to reload for crew because I'm by the hell hole.
>Busted screen mount, constantly fending off bludgeonings.
You start to look forward to dismounts after one day, after two you crave a TIC so you can feel fresh air again.
Eventually you become a homicidal maniac.
Dat cannon is Priddy cool though.
How about a CV90 with a 120mm canon?
can you name IFV better than Bradley at anything, enough to justify replacement cost?
Only Bradey's issue is weight mostly due to all that armor, and the only comparable IFV, Puma, hit pretty much same weight when uparmored to Brad level,
It shouldn't be replaced. The U.S. military has decided to fight sandniggers like a mercenary army instead of being a force to be reckoned with against first world armies. Last I checked the Bradley fights sandniggers fine.
The M113 Gavin IFV can easily replace the Bradley and be a versatile multi-role platform, with better armor against IEDs a new v-shape hull, lower profile over the Bradley it can actually function as a scout vehicle like it was intended too, and they can have multiple variants that do the work of the Bradley but cost much much less.
It can also be airdropped.
>inb4 t. Mike Sparks
My dad was actually in acquisition corps as the project manager on trying to replace the Bradley not too long ago (2012-2013ish). The one we almost went with was the CV90, but the project got defunded. Thank you lobbyists for not letting us have nice things.
>The U.S. military has decided to fight sandniggers like a mercenary army instead of being a force to be reckoned with against first world armies.
>implying any of those first world armies you are thinking of want to tangle with the U.S. military