Register here

Author Topic: Bradley Replacement - OMFV  (Read 3175 times)

Offline GWrecks

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • Big Wingy Thingy
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2018, 07:36:53 pm »
I heard something about a weight range of "40-50 tons" and a "50mm" cannon armament...no idea if that's still on paper but somehow I imagine putting a 50mm cannon into an IFV isn't a great idea.

Though a 40~50 ton IFV might have an easier time fitting heavy weaponry and armor. Haven't they been wanting to create a "heavy IFV" since the FIFV? Though I forget how much the FIFV would have actually weighed. Either way, it kind of begs the question to me of why lighter IFVs exist in the first place. Aren't they supposed to operate with tanks? Because tanks generally weigh 40~70 tons, so why you'd need a 25-ton IFV doesn't make much sense to me.
↑↑↓↓LRLRBA

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2018, 07:48:04 am »
I heard something about a weight range of "40-50 tons" and a "50mm" cannon armament...no idea if that's still on paper but somehow I imagine putting a 50mm cannon into an IFV isn't a great idea.
My understanding is the 50mm is essentially a done deal for OMFV. The Army is telling prospective competitors to put it on their vehicles, and in press coverage it's among the most reported-on features. The "fallback option" to 30mm is seen as insurance against delays, the winning vehicle would need the ability to upgrade to XM913 once it and the budget were ready.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2018, 10:08:01 am »
I heard something about a weight range of "40-50 tons" and a "50mm" cannon armament...no idea if that's still on paper but somehow I imagine putting a 50mm cannon into an IFV isn't a great idea.
My understanding is the 50mm is essentially a done deal for OMFV. The Army is telling prospective competitors to put it on their vehicles, and in press coverage it's among the most reported-on features. The "fallback option" to 30mm is seen as insurance against delays, the winning vehicle would need the ability to upgrade to XM913 once it and the budget were ready.
50mm or larger 55mm supershot and even a 60mm CRAM (maybe too large for storage) has been a conclusion by the ARDEC for sometime. The Russians seemed to be headed in that direction as well as well as their time tested 100mm.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2018, 06:26:53 pm »
The 50x228mm is a necked-out NATO 35x228mm so a 55mm or 60mm cartridge would have to be something new.

40mm CTA might be a good choice but it hasn't gotten much interest from the Army, perhaps due to the NIH factor.

Has there been any consideration of using the "fallback option" XM813 but converted to use the 40x180mm which appears to be a necked-out 30x173mm?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2018, 07:23:40 pm »
It seems to me that using a "necked-out" round means that velocity (and it's inherent AP capability) is not it's primary concern.  Are they looking for more explosive mass for infantry support?
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2018, 08:50:43 pm »
The 50x228mm is a necked-out NATO 35x228mm so a 55mm or 60mm cartridge would have to be something new.

I think he's referring to the cartridges explored under EAPS. The 50x228mm PABM is still envisioned as having a C-UAS role.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2018, 08:00:00 am »
EAPS kicked off interest in the straight-walled 50mm adapted Bushmaster III, but as shown in jsport's PDF link they were much longer than 228mm and the program eventually went with a much larger conventionally necked 50mm cartridge to get the performance EAPS was looking for. That of course creates problems for ammunition storage and weapon design, the basic long cartridge required an modified B III and the bigger EAPS cartridge required a new chamber + receiver compared the the B III. I have not seen updates on the EAPS optimized weapon in a bit, it may have been killed in favor of Lockheed's MHTK mini-missiles or simply scaled back to a slow burn.

XM913 is an outgrowth of the Advanced Lethality and Accuracy System for Medium Caliber program which originally sought to create an enhanced 30mm Bushmaster II system they labeled XM813. I'm not sure when ARDEC hopped on the 50mm wagon or how much they were influenced by the EAPS work, but ALAS-MC eventually decided to upgrade their objective weapon to an enhanced Bushmaster III with a 50x228mm. So XM813 gave way to XM913. Although we're mostly seeing just the full-caliber round right now, the development path originally included(PDF warning) both a Programmable Air Bursting Munition (PABM) and a saboted Armor Piercing munition (APFSDS-T).

50x228mm can't meet the EAPS requirements, at least as they were, but with GD showing off the extremely high-angle mount and the improvements in FC+guided projectiles, I could see it be relevant in an EAPS-lite type of role.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2018, 05:31:58 pm »
The XM813 is already seeing use on the Stryker Dragoons though I believe.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2018, 06:22:50 pm »
The XM813 is already seeing use on the Stryker Dragoons though I believe.
Yeah, sorry left that out. The XM813 upgrade is actively offered. Along with Dragoon, it's the 30mm "fallback" for OMFV.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2018, 07:53:58 pm »
It seems to me that using a "necked-out" round means that velocity (and it's inherent AP capability) is not it's primary concern.  Are they looking for more explosive mass for infantry support?
I'd guess that is indeed the main reason for the development of the 40mm and 50mm "straight-walled" cartridges due to experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. There might not be too much of a velocity loss in the AP variant since they are actually APFSDS.

That bigger 50mm cartridge for the for the EAPS program is interesting but might be a bit too big for an IFV to carry enough ammunition. In past studies the Army thought that 30mm was the ideal middle-ground between performance and ammunition size for use on IFVs but perhaps the increasing armor levels on this class of vehicles has made them reconsider that.

Why so little apparent interested in cased-telescoping ammunition for any of these requirements?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2018, 10:40:23 pm »
Tricky to reliably and quickly program a CT round through its case. Especially if you want to confirm that you've programmed it correctly.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #27 on: November 29, 2018, 08:34:24 pm »
Match ups

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2018, 02:40:01 am »
Tricky to reliably and quickly program a CT round through its case. Especially if you want to confirm that you've programmed it correctly.

Not impossible though. 40mm CTA offers programmable air burst munitions, for starters.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2018, 08:46:44 pm »
Tricky to reliably and quickly program a CT round through its case. Especially if you want to confirm that you've programmed it correctly.

Not impossible though. 40mm CTA offers programmable air burst munitions, for starters.

It gets programmed as it's leaving the barrel. Not the best time to find out that you've set it to detonate short.