US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Not really next generation more of systems improvement. They added the Iron Fist APS on the A4 hence the designation M2A4E1. The A4 is entering service now. The E1 is likely to be added to new production vehicles soon much as how the Abrams is getting Trophy. Longer term this is one of the last modifications likely to happen to the M2.
Unless they don't replace it with anything. Didn't the US Army only just reboot the IFV replacement program?
Though not "next-gen", is the Bradley M2A4 not a significant upgrade over the M2A3/M2A2? According to Wikipedia, the M2A4 contains a, "enhanced drivetrain (larger engine, a new transmission, and a smart-power management system), digitized electronics, a new fire suppression system, and a new IED jammer."
Some of these military system see so much change over their lifetime that they are almost completely new platforms. I am not sure that the Bradley qualifies for that, but it seems like it has received some pretty significant upgrades between the M2A3 and M2A4 variants.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
That reboot was 3 years ago. As can be seen with the NGSW which went through its own reboot or VH92. A reboot isn’t always a death sentence. Even the USAF ARRW seems to have a comeback in the works.
Next for your consideration the M2A5 concept. It was studied until calculation in 2019. So what? Well its calculation shows why it is that not replacing Bradley isn’t an option.
So let’s start at the top.
Current M2A4 are rather busy on top but they still use the two long standing weapons of the Bradley dating to its start. The 25x137mm M242 Bushmaster and the Tow II missile launcher. The known M2A5 would have replaced the M242 with a version of the Bushmaster III the M813 30x178mm gun now on Stryker Dragoon, Stryker MCWS A2, ACV 30. Doing so could have taken two routes using the Stryker Dragoon turret was demonstrated back in 2014 that turret the Kongsberg MCT 30 lacks an ATGM launcher. A javelin on a CROWs is offered by the manufacturer but vs TOW launcher based missile options that’s inferior. BAE has demonstrated a set of modified Bradley turrets with the gun but if you look at the A4E2 it’s covered in equipment and ends up with little growth potential. For a lethality you could try the 40mm Super-forty (pin in this) upgrade to the M813 but it’s unlikely that the ammunition system would happily accommodate such a change.
Added to this since 2019 the threat of drone systems and the want to both UAS and CUAS. Bradley’s turret doesn’t have provisions for that. So you likely would have had to start fresh. A new turret
The you have the hull. Hull weight would have jumped to 39.7 tons. Bradley is already at 39 with its turret this was just the hull. This would’ve come with a major overhaul of the drive systems and power system. Now the AMPV and…
Much of what A4 has dones particularly with the Engineering design Changes is buy back power and torque that had been lost as the Bradley family evolved from the very lightweight M2 to the M2A3. These changes though are reaching the point of being little return for the investments. Much like on the Turret. A4 is though where Bradley should be A4E2 even more so should have been what A4 was on launch but Iron fist has had integration issue.
AMPV can last longer due to the fact it’s doing support work. Replacing M113s and serving alongside Strykers and Trucks and not on the bleeding edge of armored combat.
With the rise of want of increased fuel economy more electric and torque power plus computer, situational awareness and survival… those demand hybrid power systems, batteries and more electronics that in turn changes the shape and form of what you need in the vehicle hull. So new hull.
Now Why OMFV/XM30 makes sense not to be canceled and makes more sense to move forward. It would have taken a 5 year program to do the M2A5 but… it would have either been the turret or the hull due to budget. When really a case for both was needed. And if you need both to be modified like that then why not just start a clean sheet.
Hence OMFV. In the turret they are minimum demonstration phase a M813 gun with ATGM and CUAS but optimally a 50x228 XM914, ATGM and CUAS.
The 50mm gun is following a trend in IFV that could be argued back to the BMP1’s 73mm gun but really finds its roots in the CV9040 with the 40x311mm Bufors gun.
When in the 60s the Soviets launched the BMP1 the 73mm gun was a big dramatic weapon vs the few other “proto IFV” of the time which were generally using 20mm guns. However the BMP1’s 73mm gun range and performance proved poor and the Soviets introduced the BMP2 by the late 70s at the same time the Bradley rolls out. By the late 1980s a number of countries are looking bigger and the CV90 appears recycling the 40mm L40 gun in a modern (for the time) IFV.
At the same time in about 1988.
The West Germans were interested in a 35x228mm IFV gun for Marder II well the U.S. was looking bigger. They and Rhinemetall developed the 50mm Super shot. A straight walled 228mm case with a 50mm shell semi telescoped down it. The Rheinmetall gun developed to fire it was the Rh503. The project was ended in 1992
Marder II was scrapped and eventually the Puma emerged. The 30x173mm gun it sports as well as the 35mm gun in the Skyranger system are both descendants of the Rh503. The U.S. army shelved the 50x228mm cartridge until 2010 as part of the EAPS program of counter Rocket, Artillery and mortar deployment. in the intervening years The U.S. was in partnership with the UK and France on what became the 40CTA gun in the late 1990s. However the U.S. left the program as its vision of the future shifted to FCS and Stryker vehicles designed for peacekeeping and low intensity operations. The U.S. did some work and development of Super 40 40x180mm in the early new millennium but it seemed to go back burner then shelved due to 9/11. Bushmaster II was aimed for FCS until its cancellation. Then GCV until its cancellation. EFV until it’s cancellation.
In 2010 the Super shot 50mm came off the shelf due to asymmetrical attacks on US occupation forces in garrison bases. the 50mm shell being viewed as a possible counter.
Things went quiet again until the 2014 Invasion of Ukraine. Tensions in Europe on the rise and Armored warfare back on the Menu. Stryker and ACV both get Bushmaster II with the adoption of the XM813. There are pitches of Super 40 and the 40CTA to the U.S.. Finally OMFV with the 50mm and ATGMs justified by the U.S. Army to counter the 100mm gun on BMP3 turrets.
FCS was a boondoggle. It was basically designed to fight small wars with air transported vehicles.
You can see how well that works by looking at how the Russian VDV has fared in recent conflicts. They did fine with the CSTO mission in Kazakhstan. But their vehicle movement operations in Ukraine were a huge failure. To transport vehicles you need a huge cargo plane and a long airstrip to land in. If the airstrip is not available, or there are active opposing air defenses, then you cannot air transfer vehicles.
Against China and Russia, which are the pacing challenges for the US right now, such feeble lightweight vehicles are also kind of pointless.
The US needs to develop next generation anti-tank weapons to replace the Javelin and the TOW missiles. And yes the M2 needs a higher caliber main gun. I have nothing against the transmission and engine upgrades they did. But the changes to the turret in M2A4E1 are just pointless. A vast increase in cost for little extra capability. We saw how well Israeli APS worked in city fighting in Gaza.
You can see how well that works by looking at how the Russian VDV has fared in recent conflicts. They did fine with the CSTO mission in Kazakhstan. But their vehicle movement operations in Ukraine were a huge failure. To transport vehicles you need a huge cargo plane and a long airstrip to land in. If the airstrip is not available, or there are active opposing air defenses, then you cannot air transfer vehicles.
Against China and Russia, which are the pacing challenges for the US right now, such feeble lightweight vehicles are also kind of pointless.
The US needs to develop next generation anti-tank weapons to replace the Javelin and the TOW missiles. And yes the M2 needs a higher caliber main gun. I have nothing against the transmission and engine upgrades they did. But the changes to the turret in M2A4E1 are just pointless. A vast increase in cost for little extra capability. We saw how well Israeli APS worked in city fighting in Gaza.
I've never seen this drone before, but apparently it is called ULTRA (Unmanned Long-Endurance Tactical Reconnaissance Aircraft).
EDIT: According the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL)
EDIT: According the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL)
Last edited: