Bradley Replacement - OMFV

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
967
Reaction score
6
The Next Generation Combat Vehicle program has begun to firm up its desires for the Bradley replacement, which it has now dubbed the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. Similarly to MPF, the Army is accelerating this program massively and now wishes to begin fielding it in 2026 rather than in the mid-2030s as it envisioned after GCV was killed. Breaking Defense has a decently comprehensive article giving a rundown of what the Army's looking for and who the likely bidders are. Here's some highlights.

General Dynamics looks like the early favorite to replace the Army’s 1980s-vintage M2 Bradley troop carrier. That’s my personal assessment after talking at length to officers and contractors at last week’s Association of the US Army conference, where months of uncertainty finally gave way to some real clarity about both what the Army wants and what industry can offer.

In brief, GD’s Griffin III demonstrator seems to hit the sweet spot between innovative and proven technologies that the Army wants to start fielding a Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) as soon as 2026. Of the three vehicles on display at AUSA,

  • BAE System’s CV90 Mark IV is the latest upgrade of a 25-year-old vehicle widely used in Europe;
  • the Rheinmetall-Raytheon Lynx is an all-new design, although individual components have a good track record;
  • but the General Dynamics Griffin III is in the middle, combining a new gun and new electronics with the time-tested chassis from the European ASCOD family.
Schirmer offered more specifics. “We have a pretty challenging test schedule… very similar to MPF, (so) we really can’t afford a clean sheet design,” he said. The more mature the component technologies, the better, he said, but what’s best is that those individual components have been proven as an integrated system.

Specifically, Schirmer said, “for the Bradley replacement, we are going to be buying vehicles that are based on a mature architecture — powertrain, track, suspension — that’s already in service somewhere in the world.”
While the Army wants a proven hull, however, Schirmer says there is one area where technology is advancing fast enough for it be worth taking some risk: lethality, i.e. the gun and sensors. In particular, while the Bradley has a 25mm chaingun, the Army really wants NGCV to have a 50mm cannon — firing shells about four times as big — that’s now in development at the service’s Ammunition Research, Development, & Engineering Center (ARDEC).

That gun, the XM913, is currently integrated on just one competitor, the Griffin, although both the Lynx and CV90 turrets could accommodate it. All three vehicles, like the Bradley, also have room in the turret to mount anti-tank missiles of various types. The Griffin on the show floor also mounts a launcher for AeroVironment Shrike mini-drones, while the Lynx will have the option to launch Raytheon’s Coyote: Both mini-drones can be configured either with sensors to scout or with warheads to destroy.
Besides gun caliber, the other easily measured aspect of an armored vehicle is its weight, which is very much a two-edged sword. There’s been no breakthrough in armor materials since the 1980s and none on the horizon, so the only way to get better armor is to make it thicker. So a heavier vehicle is probably better protected, but it also burns more fuel, wears out more spare parts, and has more trouble getting places: Bridges and transport aircraft in particular can only take so much weight.

Having just left Poland…and traveled to Korea and elsewhere, the infrastructure doesn’t support a heavy vehicle,” Coffman said. “At this stage, before the RFP is written, we’re looking at everything as options, (but) the idea is we have a smaller vehicle that is lighter, but survivable.”
Even as the Army tries to maximize the number of passengers the Bradley replacement can carry, it’s trying to minimize the number of crew required to operate it. In fact, while NGCV is still the name of the overall program, which also includes unmanned Robotic Combat Vehicles, the Bradley replacement specifically is now officially known as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV). That’s because the Army foresees future advances in automation making it possible to conduct at least some missions by remote control, starting with simpler tasks like convoys but expanding over time.

But even when the human crew is aboard, the Army wants a limited Artificial Intelligence to help them out. The machine might find its own way around obstacles to reach a destination set by the crew, for instance, so they can rest or focus on scanning for danger. Or it might pull together sensor data to pinpoint threats: heat and sound might warn of an approaching enemy tank, for instance, or reveal where an hidden anti-tank missile team just fired from.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,049
Reaction score
15
An optionally manned troop carrier? Uh huh.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
Moose said:
The Next Generation Combat Vehicle program has begun to firm up its desires for the Bradley replacement, which it has now dubbed the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. Similarly to MPF, the Army is accelerating this program massively and now wishes to begin fielding it in 2026 rather than in the mid-2030s as it envisioned after GCV was killed. Breaking Defense has a decently comprehensive article giving a rundown of what the Army's looking for and who the likely bidders are. Here's some highlights.

General Dynamics looks like the early favorite to replace the Army’s 1980s-vintage M2 Bradley troop carrier. That’s my personal assessment after talking at length to officers and contractors at last week’s Association of the US Army conference, where months of uncertainty finally gave way to some real clarity about both what the Army wants and what industry can offer.

In brief, GD’s Griffin III demonstrator seems to hit the sweet spot between innovative and proven technologies that the Army wants to start fielding a Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) as soon as 2026. Of the three vehicles on display at AUSA,

  • BAE System’s CV90 Mark IV is the latest upgrade of a 25-year-old vehicle widely used in Europe;
  • the Rheinmetall-Raytheon Lynx is an all-new design, although individual components have a good track record;
  • but the General Dynamics Griffin III is in the middle, combining a new gun and new electronics with the time-tested chassis from the European ASCOD family.
Schirmer offered more specifics. “We have a pretty challenging test schedule… very similar to MPF, (so) we really can’t afford a clean sheet design,” he said. The more mature the component technologies, the better, he said, but what’s best is that those individual components have been proven as an integrated system.

Specifically, Schirmer said, “for the Bradley replacement, we are going to be buying vehicles that are based on a mature architecture — powertrain, track, suspension — that’s already in service somewhere in the world.”
Mature architecture was developed some time ago and would tweaking but surly is not "on the market"

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cattb.htm

"The CATTB chassis was a modified M-1A1 tank hull. It featured a new propulsion package, new track and suspension designs and the Army's new "Vehicle Electronic System (called Vetronics). The turret was redesigned to carry two crew members instead of the three required in the MlA turret. There was a commander and gunner but no loader. The turret was designed to accommodate an advanced tank cannon system that included a new lightweight 120mm gun and an automatic loader.

Several changes were made in the hull: floor blow off panel removed; reduce hole in middle bulkhead; extending hull casting plate; reduce hight of rear bulkhead. The M1A1 hull was used and modified where necessary to assure strength and space utilization. However "modern" APFSDS (which means that ammunition, that was availble to Soviet-Russia back then) does "bounce" at angles below 10°. This is why the glacis was considered safe, despite being only ~310mm thick. The fuzes of shaped charges warheads as used on ATGMs, HEAT ammo and RPGs have problems with fuzing at high angles of impact. Even modern fuzes as used on the Panzerfaust-3 RPG from Germany have trouble at fuzing at angles below 15°.

The CATTB's power was provided by the diese1 version of the Army's Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS) developed by the Cummins Engine Company. It was one of two competing propulsion systems then under development for use in the next generation of heavy combat vehicles. The other concept used a gas turbine engine and was developed by General Electric.

The Cummins AIPS engine was a V-l2, l682-cubic-inch turbocharged diesel that developed 1450 horsepower. It differed from existing diesels in several ways. For one thing, it used advanced heat-resistant materials that enabled it to retain part of the combustion heat, normally rejected to the cooling system, which appeared as additional energy in the exhaust gas entering the turbocharger. Another important difference was that this engine is cooled by oil rather than water. The same oil that provideed lubrication was pumped through the engine where necessary to cool it. Then it flowed through a radiator, where it rejected the heat just as a water-based coolant does in a conventional system.

The oil was a special high-temperature diesel lubricant that can withstand higher temperatures than other types of oil. An important advantage of these difference wa that the amount of heat rejected to the cooling system was reduced substantially and was easier to transfer to the atmosphere. As a result, the cooling system was much more compact. The 240 horsepower normally needed to run cooling fans in a 1500-horsepower diesel tank engine was cut in half. Fuel economy is also improved because there was more power available to move the vehicle for the same rate of fuel flow.

The transmission in the Cummins concept was a seven-speed automatic built by the Allison Transmiion Diviion of Germany's Zahnradfabrik Friedrichshaten AG (formerly a General Motors division). It provides three more gear ratios than the Ml-series tank's four-speed gearbox, and it was designed to allow the engine to be mounted transversely rather than longitudinally to make more efficient use of engine-compartment space.

Another CATTB feature was a new track design that had 50 percent fewer parts than the standard M1 track and was expected to provide longer life and reduce operating and maintenance costs. In the current design, two 9-inch- wide track shoes are mounted side by side and span the width of the track pins. Track guides (prongs that extend between dual sets of road wheel to keep the track properly aligned as it rotates around the wheels) are bolted between the hoes. The new track, on the other hand, uses a single 25-inch-wide shoe to pan the pins, and the track guide is an integral part of the shoe.

This track was designed as a high-durability track. By using a single shoe to span the full width of the track pins, the design uniformly distributed pin loading and bushing pressure, which helped to increase track life. Designers hoped to get 5,000 to 6,000 miles of track life, compared to about 2,000 miles with the standard track.

The CATTB has a new suspension concept that represeted a dramatic departure from the traditional design. Tanks currently use a torsion-bar suspension. In such a system, one torsion bar for each road wheel is mounted transversely inside the hull. One end of each bar is anchored to the hull, while the other end is attached to a road arm, which extends downward from the hull and is connected to a road wheel and shock absorber. As the track encounters a bump, each road wheel is kicked upward, and the torsion bar end of each arm pivots. This causes the bar to twist, and the bar's resistance to being twisted creates the opposing spring force that provides the needed cushion between the vehicle and the terrain.

In the new design, all components were outside the hull. The concept had no torsion bars, but instead fea tured a different type of spring that, along with the shock absorber, was located within each road arm. The system was thus referred to as the external suspension. The external suspension spring differed from conventional mechanical leaf, coil, and torsion-bar systern in that it was hydropneumatic. It consisted of a cylinder filled with nitrogen under high pressure and a piston situated at the top of the cylinder. When the vehicle track encountered bumps, each piston, which was mechanically linked to the vehicle hull, remained stationary while each road wheel forceed its respective cylinder to move upward. This causes the nitrogen to compress and act much like a mechanical spring, The CATTB was set up to test two versions of the system, one by Cadillac Gage, which was tested first, and tbe other by Teledyne-Continental Motors.

The concept would have two significant advantage over conventional designs, First, elimination of torsion bars would mean designers could either provide more space inside the hull, or lower vehicle silhouette to make enemy detection more difficult. Also, it would mean a weight saving of about 1,000 pounds in a heavy combat vehicle.

The SAVA was developed by Armored Vehicle Technology Associates (AVTA), a joint venture comprising FMC Corporation and General Dynamic Land Systems, in conjunction with General Electric and Texas Instruments. It was designed as a computer- controlled system with common hardware and software modules that would be suitable for both combat and tactical vehicles. It integrated the electronic subsystems and simplified the complex vehicle wiring harnesses now in use. The control and display functions were standardized and common for ali subsystems, thereby making vehicle operation easier.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
3
I like the fact that the Lynx can fit a full infantry squad in back, I thought Iraq had highlighted how useful that was with the Stryker, Army can't seem to make up their mind.

jsport I imagine such an IFV using some of the technologies trialed in the CATTB would have been part of the ASM program, shame the Army went off chasing FCS wondertech instead.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,881
Reaction score
5
Why is the US Army opposed to simply utilising a modified tank chassis as their MICV? That way it could be armoured as well as the MBT and be automativelly the same as the MBT and be as maneuverable as the MBT. An MBT hull is large enough to carry almost any weapon and a section of infantry.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
3
Kadija_Man said:
Why is the US Army opposed to simply utilising a modified tank chassis as their MICV? That way it could be armoured as well as the MBT and be automativelly the same as the MBT and be as maneuverable as the MBT. An MBT hull is large enough to carry almost any weapon and a section of infantry.
Well that seemed to be the plan for the ASM program. It's probably better to design a new family of AFVs to account for the fact that you'll want the engine in front in some configurations (IFV) and in back in others (MBT) instead of a conversion of an existing design.

There are many who'd argue a MBT-weight IFV is too heavy but considering that you already have to be equipped for those MBTs in logistics matters perhaps those concerns are overstated. They will admittedly be more expensive than a lighter design however.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
702
Reaction score
5
"Why is the US Army opposed to simply utilising a modified tank chassis as their MICV? That way it could be armoured as well as the MBT and be automativelly the same as the MBT and be as maneuverable as the MBT. An MBT hull is large enough to carry almost any weapon and a section of infantry".

The engine installation would require significant hull reworking and require a different engine. It might work but is by no means a certainty. A new hull with equivalent protection would cost about the same.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
If the Army is truly committed to NGCV Class III a large caliber (152mm or 155mm) Direct Fire/Indirect fire 40ton vehicle then there will need to be a new 20ton base vehicle (The most important vehicle and replacement for the M1 in the Army's future is a NGCV Class III IMHO.) It would only make sense that a baseline vehicle be used for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OPMFV).

If the Army can not pay for a new design which can house a 9 person exoskeleton equipped squad plus yet to evolve squad small UGVs (certainly not yet close to evolved and need to be DoD development based not the COTS toys) then they should just look at an extended hull, enhanced turret Bradley mounting armed VTOL UAVs (also needing a DoD development as current COTS is crap) until they are ready for new vehicle. A new propulsion strategy will cost more as well and is also is not on any "on market" vehicle.

A half measure "on the market" OPMFV would be cheaper than a new baseline vehicle and it would also obsolete before it enters service. Overall that is a more expensive strategy than just waiting to afford a decent vehicle. No 'on the market vehicle" is "Next Generation". That is a joke.

Page 6 shows family of vehicles appearing to maximize commonality.
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2018/science/Singleton.pdf
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
Example for common chassis vehicle seems to be of the Army's NGCV Plans. Why the choose a
'on the market" non common chassis.
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,881
Reaction score
5
Foo Fighter said:
The engine installation would require significant hull reworking and require a different engine. It might work but is by no means a certainty. A new hull with equivalent protection would cost about the same.
A (relatively) minor technical difficulty. Many nations have moved the engines around in their AFVs in the past, why can't the US do the same? It might lead to an MBT with better protection as well, with the engine forward, rather than rearward. It seems to have worked quite well for the Israelis with their Merkava MBT.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,881
Reaction score
5
Colonial-Marine said:
There are many who'd argue a MBT-weight IFV is too heavy but considering that you already have to be equipped for those MBTs in logistics matters perhaps those concerns are overstated. They will admittedly be more expensive than a lighter design however.
Not necessarily more expensive. Economies of scale come into play. When you order a thousand of one vehicle, it costs usually "x". When you order two thousand, it usually costs "x+0.5". When you order three thousand, it costs usually "x+2.5" and so on down the track. Your logistics costs are reduced as well, as you only have to carry one set of spares, instead of two or three. Overall, an MBT based MICV becomes much cheaper, the more you produce of the same hull.

As already suggested, in the field, the commander has an easier time. He needs only one route for his force, which the one type of vehicle can use. He only has to carry one sort of supplies and one set of spares. His infantry carriers can keep up with his MBTs. His MBTs are not handicapped by his infantry being in a different sort of vehicle.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
3
Using common chassis and components with the MBT would immediately raise the question of "how heavy and well armored do you want your MBT to be" and I don't think the Army is prepared to decide yet after so many false starts.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,881
Reaction score
5
Colonial-Marine said:
Using common chassis and components with the MBT would immediately raise the question of "how heavy and well armored do you want your MBT to be" and I don't think the Army is prepared to decide yet after so many false starts.
The US Army is a beast with many heads, it would appear.

It is quite willing to adopt removable armour modules for airborne tanks but appears to dislike the idea for MBTs for some reason. I wonder why?

You do realise that the whole idea of using an MBT chassis for an MICV is that it protects the infantry as well as the crew in the MBT are?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/general-dynamics-griffin-takes-lead-to-replace-m2-bradley/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2010/16/18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Military%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

"The current Bradley, by contrast, is cluttered with screens and controls from 40 years of upgrades. That puts a heavy burden on both the electrical system — many Bradleys can’t actually use all their upgrades at once — and the cognitive capacities of the three-man crew: driver, gunner, and commander."
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
7
jsport said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/general-dynamics-griffin-takes-lead-to-replace-m2-bradley/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2010/16/18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Military%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

That puts a heavy burden on both the electrical system — many Bradleys can’t actually use all their upgrades at once
ECP2 does correct this but I don't think it's entered the inventory in quantity yet.
 

GWrecks

Big Wingy Thingy
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
77
Reaction score
1
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.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
967
Reaction score
6
GWrecks said:
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
Moose said:
GWrecks said:
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.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
3
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?
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
6
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?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
7
Colonial-Marine said:
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2012/armaments/Wednesday14018luciano.pdf
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
967
Reaction score
6
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.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
3
The XM813 is already seeing use on the Stryker Dragoons though I believe.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
967
Reaction score
6
Colonial-Marine said:
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.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
3
SpudmanWP said:
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?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
7
Tricky to reliably and quickly program a CT round through its case. Especially if you want to confirm that you've programmed it correctly.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,049
Reaction score
15
marauder2048 said:
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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
7
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
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.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,049
Reaction score
15
marauder2048 said:
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
7
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
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.
 

Attachments

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
3
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?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
967
Reaction score
6
Colonial-Marine said:
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
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.
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
571
Reaction score
1
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
The U.S.Army and USMC have failed in every single armoured combat vehicle and battlefield helicopter program that wasn't about mere road-bound MRAPs or a modification of an existing (typically foreign) design after they introduced the Abrams/Bradley/Apache/Blackhawk generation of vehicles in the 80's (and '70) that had its roots in the relatively tight budgets of the 70's.
Even that generation had major development hiccups (especially the Abrams and Bradley, but to not rest the AH-64 on the dynamic design of the H-60ß series for commonality was quite a mistake as well). The Pentagon bureaucracy is hard-pressed to get a light scout helicopter based on an existing helo type right. They are incompetent at big ticket development program execution.

I've seen program after program both of the USMC and U.S.Army for new AFVs and to pay attention was a waste of time every single time.

This program will almost certainly amount to nothing else but waste of taxpayer money just as were FCS, GCV, Crusader, FSCV, Comanche, RST-V, LVA, LVT(X), AAAV and EFV.
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2014/08/will-marine-corps-apc-racket-ever-end.html
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
lastdingo said:
The U.S.Army and USMC have failed in every single armoured combat vehicle and battlefield helicopter program that wasn't about mere road-bound MRAPs or a modification of an existing (typically foreign) design after they introduced the Abrams/Bradley/Apache/Blackhawk generation of vehicles in the 80's (and '70) that had its roots in the relatively tight budgets of the 70's.
Even that generation had major development hiccups (especially the Abrams and Bradley, but to not rest the AH-64 on the dynamic design of the H-60ß series for commonality was quite a mistake as well). The Pentagon bureaucracy is hard-pressed to get a light scout helicopter based on an existing helo type right. They are incompetent at big ticket development program execution.

I've seen program after program both of the USMC and U.S.Army for new AFVs and to pay attention was a waste of time every single time.

This program will almost certainly amount to nothing else but waste of taxpayer money just as were FCS, GCV, Crusader, FSCV, Comanche, RST-V, LVA, LVT(X), AAAV and EFV.
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2014/08/will-marine-corps-apc-racket-ever-end.html
There is no counter- argument , but what is/was LVA?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,049
Reaction score
15
jsport said:
There is no counter- argument , but what is/was LVA?
LVA is the Assault Landing Vehicle from the mid 1970s that eventually led to AAAV (and thus to nothing at all, in the end).

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3666.msg119548.html#msg119548 etc.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
0
I go on china defense forums just to feel what it's like living in the early 80's as an Western military enthusiast had we had internet.
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
571
Reaction score
1
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
jsport said:
lastdingo said:
The U.S.Army and USMC have failed in every single armoured combat vehicle and battlefield helicopter program that wasn't about mere road-bound MRAPs or a modification of an existing (typically foreign) design after they introduced the Abrams/Bradley/Apache/Blackhawk generation of vehicles in the 80's (and '70) that had its roots in the relatively tight budgets of the 70's.
Even that generation had major development hiccups (especially the Abrams and Bradley, but to not rest the AH-64 on the dynamic design of the H-60ß series for commonality was quite a mistake as well). The Pentagon bureaucracy is hard-pressed to get a light scout helicopter based on an existing helo type right. They are incompetent at big ticket development program execution.

I've seen program after program both of the USMC and U.S.Army for new AFVs and to pay attention was a waste of time every single time.

This program will almost certainly amount to nothing else but waste of taxpayer money just as were FCS, GCV, Crusader, FSCV, Comanche, RST-V, LVA, LVT(X), AAAV and EFV.
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2014/08/will-marine-corps-apc-racket-ever-end.html
There is no counter- argument , but what is/was LVA?
Follow the link, it mentions LVA and has a link to this for it:

1972: AAV-7 enters service

1973: Landing Vehicle, Assault (LVA) project,
no production

1982: LVT(X) project,
no production

1990's and 2000's: AAAV project,
no production

until recently: EFV project,
no production
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a058517.pdf
 
Top