Register here

Author Topic: Bradley Replacement - OMFV  (Read 3162 times)

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2018, 08:10:20 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.

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

You still need a mechanical safe and arm element as well, no matter where you program the fuze.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2018, 04:48:24 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.

You still need a mechanical safe and arm element as well, no matter where you program the fuze.

Sure. But that typically only guarantees safe separation; the concern is firing over the heads of friendlies
with a round incorrectly programmed to detonate over them.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2019, 11:57:41 pm »
It seemed the Army was very interested in cased-telescoping ammunition for a time as evidenced by the 45mm ARES XM295. I wonder what swayed their interest back to more conventional cased ammunition?
"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 #33 on: January 15, 2019, 04:57:07 am »
It seemed the Army was very interested in cased-telescoping ammunition for a time as evidenced by the 45mm ARES XM295. I wonder what swayed their interest back to more conventional cased ammunition?
In this particular instance, they arrived at the current configuration after starting with the in-service 30mm Bushmaster II and then bumping up to the 35mm bushmaster III given the "supershot" treatment to 50mm. So it doesn't so much indicate a change in interest away from the potential for CT weapons as much as a desire to use derivatives of in-service gear as much as possible in this program. If they were running a clean-sheet program, CT might have been th3 favored option.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2019, 11:15:03 am »
Given the emerging threats a NGCV will face, especailly being increasing outnumbered by swarming ground air and IED/mine threats, the USArmy should consider reverting to the larger from scratch GCV design. Whether it is 84 tons or not.The new budget battles could yield sufficent resource for this vehicle. Deployment is an issues, but additional military lift must be a priority.

The current NGCV competiors are simply not armored enough to survive regardless of threat. Regardless of APS developments the threats justifiy a larger and heavier vehicle w/ more capability.