Forest Green
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 14,545
- Reaction score
- 31,628
What are we supposedly looking at here?
What lack of modern self-propelled short-range air defense support does to an armored fighting vehicle these days. Not a pretty sight.What are we supposedly looking at here?
Aka, desperation.What lack of modern self-propelled short-range air defense support does to an armored fighting vehicle these days. Not a pretty sight.![]()
Jeez, that's gotta do horrible things to crew situational awareness...
This probably deserves its own thread, whatever 'it' is.
https://www.twz.com/news-features/m...een-being-fired-from-bradley-fighting-vehicle
Back in 2022, however, an RFI had been released calling for input for a new Close Combat Missile System-Heavy (CCMS-H) which would “initially augment existing stockpiles of the TOW Family of Missiles,” with the new weapon required to be compatible with existing TOW platforms and launchers.
CCMS-H was required to defeat 'Tier 1' armoured targets equipped with soft and hard-kill defences, dual-command guidance and the ability to incorporate reprogrammable target prioritization, to enable semi-simultaneous engagements of multiple threats at distances of minimum 65 meters and direct, 4500 meters and beyond. With a cooperative engagement with cross-cueing between different platforms, the missile should be lethal out to 8000 meters, with its parabolic trajectory keeping below 3000 feet of altitude.
Also in 2022, experimental launches were observed of 'Ground Launch Effects', or GLE, a large drone-missile, fired from TOW launchers, optically-tracked, wire-guided which could loiter, providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, before striking. The GLE, a large tubular drone with prominent fold-out wings, was made by Raytheon.
'670' is very possibly a continuation, more or less direct, of those efforts.
So, this is not CCMS-H? I have to assume that incorporating those loitering, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities decrease the lethality of the warhead. Even if it is top attack a substantial warhead is still needed for dealing with targets up and including MBTs.
AFAIK they praised the survivability of the Bradley but they didn’t like the 25mm Bushmaster, saying it "lacks firepower" and is "less accurate" compared to the 30mm 2A72. I think they didn’t like the weapon system as a whole, much preferring the many armaments in the BMP.Has someone seen reports about how the Russians view the Bradley? I've heard everything from thinking it's obsolete cold war tech, to praising it's fire control systems and ergonomics. Would be cool if someone has links to provide them. As I think it would be interesting to hear/read these accounts, as by now they should be quite familiar with these vehicles from the receiving end but also from testing them themselves.
I vaguely remember hearing that, though I wonder where the TC and gunner ended up inside. You basically need to make 4 extra seats where the turret basket used to be in order to hold the 3-man Bradley crew plus 9 dismounts.Hi all,
Would anyone have more information on the "PHASIR" remote turret with the XM813 30mm mounted on the Bradley as a demonstrator? I believe the turret was salvaged from the Ground Combat Vehicle program? I am curious on the interior space gained on the Bradley when mounting a remote turret. I believe a full 9-man squad could be carried with the turret baskets removal.