[Blindés] Les Bradley Fighting Vehicle

[Serge]

Ces banquettes sont anti-mines. Elles ne sont pas aussi efficace que certains sièges individuels mais sont suspendues et ont un amorti.

Sinon, pour leur histoire de 30/40mm, je commence à me demander si ce n'est pas eux qui ont raison. C'est un compromis plein d'avantage. De plus, l'abandon du TOW leur sera très bénéfique.

[Sovngard]

Ces banquettes sont anti-mines. Elles ne sont pas aussi efficace que certains sièges individuels mais sont suspendues et ont un amorti.

 

Elles servent à quoi les barres sous chaque banquettes ? Les deux gars devant ont l'air mieux installés ...et harnachés.

 

 

Les sièges du GTK Boxer peuvent-ils être considérés comme une référence dans le domaine ?

 

 

Sinon, pour leur histoire de 30/40mm, je commence à me demander si ce n'est pas eux qui ont raison. C'est un compromis plein d'avantage. De plus, l'abandon du TOW leur sera très bénéfique.

 

Un PDF sur le XM813 : http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday14027hart.pdf

J'ai entendu dire qu'ils envisagent une version modernisée du Javelin pour remplacer le TOW sur ce genre de véhicule.

Modifié le 16 octobre 2014 par Sovngard

[Serge]

Elles servent à quoi les barres sous chaque banquettes ?

Les barres sont des repose pieds pour le soldat opposé.

Les harnais 4 points sont démontés sur la photo.

Les sièges équipages ne sont peut être pas un modèle définitif.

Les sièges du GTK Boxer peuvent-ils être considérés comme une référence dans le domaine ?

Ils sont fabriqués par Schroth. Ce doit être des SU-61. C'est une référence dans le domaine.

Pour le Spz-Puma et les Leopard, c'est Autoflug qui fourni. 

Un PDF sur le XM813 : http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday14027hart.pdfJ'ai entendu dire qu'ils envisagent une version modernisée du Javelin pour remplacer le TOW sur ce genre de véhicule.

Pour le Javelin, c'est le fameux tire fait en Écosse il y a quelque temps avec un châssis Boxer.

[BPCs]

Celui-ci

Ce qui est fascinant avec la version hybride électrique , c'est l'espace intérieur que cela crée :

Pour fixer les esprits, un VBCI qui a aussi cette disposition à 2 homme s le long du GMP, avec un tel volume aurait 2 PAX de plus et pourrait même avoir un parebrise à la mode RG-35 pour le pilote et le chef de bord.

A ce moment, une version raccourcie à 6 roues aurait le même emport en PAX qu'une version 8 roues...

Et il devient alors très aisé de dériver une version surbaissée...

Bref toute une nouvelle famille avec une vieille carcasse !

Modifié le 17 octobre 2014 par BPCs

[Serge]

La vieille carcasse serait à refaire entièrement. Ce ne serait plus du tout le même véhicule.

[BPCs]

La vieille carcasse serait à refaire entièrement. Ce ne serait plus du tout le même véhicule.

Pourtant, avec l'Annulation du GCV après celle du FCS et avec la DARPA qui part vers un tout nouveau concept de véhicules, il apparait probable que ce passage à l'hybride électrique, entre le surcroit d'espace intérieur et le surcroit de puissance électrique pour les armes Laser, va faire du Bradley le vrai GCV US.

Finalement, ils vont appliquer aux Blindés leur recette de prolonger la sauce dans les mêmes pots qui a été utilisées pour leur hélo (Chinook, Cobra, UH-60...)

[Sovngard]

Ce qui est fascinant avec la version hybride électrique , c'est l'espace intérieur que cela crée :

 

En effet, le moteur peut être installé dans un déport de caisse.

 

[BPCs]

C'est encore mieux avec un schéma :)

Mais effectivement quand on calcule le nombre de Pax rajoutable, on arrive à 16 sièges... Bon evidemment il faut de la place pour le matos...

Ce genre de placement sur le VAB Mk3 règlerait le problème du couloir ...

Modifié le 17 octobre 2014 par BPCs

[Serge]

Pourtant, avec l'Annulation du GCV après celle du FCS et avec la DARPA qui part vers un tout nouveau concept de véhicules, il apparait probable que ce passage à l'hybride électrique, entre le surcroit d'espace intérieur et le surcroit de puissance électrique pour les armes Laser, va faire du Bradley le vrai GCV US.

Finalement, ils vont appliquer aux Blindés leur recette de prolonger la sauce dans les mêmes pots qui a été utilisées pour leur hélo (Chinook, Cobra, UH-60...)

Je peux me tromper mais il n'est pas prévu de monter cette motorisation sur les Bradley. Ce serait trop cher.

[BPCs]

Je peux me tromper mais il n'est pas prévu de monter cette motorisation sur les Bradley. Ce serait trop cher.

Pourtant quand on voit leur délire avec le GCV de 84 short Tons... on peut se demander qu'elle aurait son coût d'achat et de MCO ... :lol:

[BPCs]

Je peux me tromper mais il n'est pas prévu de monter cette motorisation sur les Bradley. Ce serait trop cher.

Pourtant quand on voit leur délire avec le GCV de 84 short Tons... on peut se demander qu'elle aurait son coût d'achat et de MCO ... :lol:

[Serge]

Ça n'a rien à voir.

Ce n'est pas parce que l'US-Army a eu un coup de chaleur avec le GCV que le Bradley va être transformé totalement.

Qu'ils introduisent une nouvelle tourelle, c'est cohérent. L'intégration est facile et cela va dans le sens d'une véritable amélioration de la puissance de feu mais surtout de la protection. Enfin, ils peuvent en profiter pour introduire une nouvelle arme qui sera le canon automatique américain des 50 prochaines années, donc valide pour l'après Bradley ou d'autres véhicules.

En revanche, on pourrait se poser des questions sur le programme de remplacement du M-113 où BAE semble avoir une longueur d'avance. S'ils veulent exploiter une nouvelle version du châssis du Bradley, pourquoi ne pas introduire une motorisation hybride. En effet, les châssis seront neuf donc on peut avoir une vrai modification de structure.

Enfin, pourquoi ne pas avoir ici la première application de bas de caisse monolithique de Alcoa. Ça ne me semble pas technologiquement risqué. Est-ce bon marché, cependant.

[Serge]

A propos des programmes blindés de l'US-army et les réélections sur le Bradley :

AUSA 2014: Army outlines upcoming combat vehicle choices

Daniel Wasserbly, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's International Defence Review

14 October 2014

A US Army M1A2 MBT is shown here during operations in Iraq. General Dynamics Land Systems is in the process of finalising ECP1A upgrades. Source: US Army

US Army planners will use the next several years to consider its next major vehicle investment - perhaps for infantry or Stryker units - and whether to proceed with a future combat vehicle.

With the cancellation of the ground combat vehicle (GCV) for budget reasons, the army had to choose whether to replace the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle across Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) formations with the GCV, or to bolster the overall ABCT. It determined in drawing up its five-year defence budget plan that the best move was the latter: to spread funding across the entire formation.

"Our number one task is to restore the ABCT", because the M113-series armoured personnel carrier is not used in combat anymore and M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzers are ageing badly, said Brigadier General David Bassett, the army's program executive officer for ground combat systems.

An ABCT's primary platforms include the M1 Abrams main battle tank, the Bradley, M113s, the Paladin (the new Paladin Integrated Management [PIM] variant was cleared for low-rate initial production in October 2013), the M1200 Armored Knight armoured security vehicle, and the M88 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift and Evacuation System (Hercules) vehicles.

To improve the ABCT's capability, the army now plans to field the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) as a replacement for the M113, and then do incremental upgrades through engineering change proposals (ECPs) to Abrams and Bradley so that those legacy vehicles can use the latest optics, munitions, and more.

Sometime around fiscal year 2019 (FY 2019) there will be a range of options for future investments, Brig Gen Bassett told reporters at the annual Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference.

For example, the army is examining if it should improve its Infantry Brigade Combat Teams through additional mobility, firepower, and protection with perhaps a light tank, or if it should give Stryker formations increased lethality with maybe a 30-mm cannon or a remote weapon station armed with Javelin missiles. The army could also start a new infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) development programme to replace the Bradley, which the former GCV was meant to do.

The time frame for such a decision is rather open, as the current plan runs through FY 2019.

"Sooner is better, but I don't know if there really is a too-late point", for deciding what path to take, Colonel James Schirmer, project manager for armoured fighting vehicles, said during the same briefing. He added, however, that FY 2016 is the first decision point when the army would either conduct a third ECP for Bradley or restart a separate IFV programme.

Either way, as part of the current plan the first ECP for Bradley is designed to restore SWAP (space, weight, and power) as well as add a new suspension and lighter track to increase ground clearance, and thereby survivability against underbelly blasts.

Bradley's second ECP is to then restore automotive power with a larger engine and a new transmission, as well as new electrical systems and means of passing data through the turret's slip ring.

After that work is complete, the army would then likely have to decide upon developing a new 'future fighting vehicle' as "a clean-sheet new build vehicle that would replace the Bradley", or it is also "possible that it could be something like the Bradley or the Bradley on steroids", Col Schirmer said.

Programme officials enjoy the commonality between the Bradley and Paladin, as the new PIMs are based on a Bradley chassis and so reduce the logistics tail for an ABCT.

Meanwhile, Andrew DiMarco, project director for main battle tank systems told reporters that the Abrams is progressing through its ECP1A programme that buys back SWAP but also seeks to ease the tank's sustainment.

ECP1A for Abrams, which just completed a 'critical design review', and includes design efforts to incorporate data links for future ammunition, increased protection, as well as on-board diagnostics and a shift from line replaceable units (LRUs) to line replaceable modules (LRMs). LRMs are easier to replace because there are fewer cables, boxes, and cards to handle.

Don Kotchman, vice-president of heavy brigade programs at General Dynamics Land Systems, told IHS Jane's that ECP1A also upgrades Abrams digital architecture to host a gigabit Ethernet data bus, and increase power generation with a new power management system and generator to add 7840 W. Moreover, ECP1A adds active protection against remotely operated, improvised explosive devices. Nine ECP1A prototypes have so far been delivered, he said.

Abrams ECP1B has not been fully defined yet, but Kotchman said it would focus on lethality and perhaps a third-generation forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensor.

Separately, DiMarco said ECP1B would likely begin next year and include sensor upgrades, and the ability to fire the 120-mm advanced multi-purpose (AMP) tank round that merges several capabilities into a single round.

In its FY 2015 budget request, the army has asked to fund PIM upgrades (USD247 million for procurement of 18 systems and USD83 million for development), Bradley infantry fighting vehicle (USD108 million), Abrams main battle tank (USD237 million), and Stryker wheeled combat vehicles (USD40 million for modifications and USD385 million for a third brigade of double-V hull variants - a fourth is to follow that).

Abrams M1A2 would receive USD349.6 million in FY 2015 (USD112.5 million for development and USD237 million for procurement) to buy modifications, such as the Data Distribution Unit, Blue Force Tracking 2, Ammunition Data Link to enable the use of new 'smart' rounds such as the AMP, and the Low-Profile Commander's Remote Operating Weapon Station.

Moreover, the Pentagon would fund research and development for the emerging AMPV (USD92 million to begin an engineering and manufacturing development phase with a contract award scheduled for early FY 2015), as well as for adding networking systems and automotive improvements to the Abrams and Bradley (USD205 million), and the Stryker (USD90 million).

Modifié le 20 octobre 2014 par Serge

[Serge]

Dans le cadre des évaluations de l'US-Army pour améliorer la puissance de feu du Bradley, n'oublions pas que des canons supérieurs au 25mm.

Je viens d'apprendre que les évaluations du Bradley en 1994 en Norvège (qui furent une catastrophe) l'avait été avec une version à canon de 30mm.

United Defense, ça date.

Voici avec du 35mm :

[BPCs]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/uparmored-bradley-could-be-tough-enough-for-ampv-testers/

Il y a ce lien de Janvier 2014 probablement déjà posté, rapportant les améliorations possibles de la coque du Bradley, lui permettant de postuler sereinement pour l'AMPV.

On y voit se dessiner une ligne d'amélioration techniques (et financière pour BAE) pas ininteressantes).

Modifié le 21 octobre 2014 par BPCs

[Serge]

Un point sur les programmes blindés :

BG Bassett: Upgrades new normal for armor in uncertain budget environment

(Source: US Army; issued Oct 20, 2014)

WASHINGTON --- If any journalists at the press conference expected to hear revelations of a major ground combat system acquisition on the near-term horizon, that notion was quickly dispelled.

"If you came today thinking we were going to describe the Future Fighting Vehicle, that we were going to tell you whether we were going to retain the nine-man squad in the back or that we were going to have a manned or unmanned turret, or whether we'd discovered some new armor technology ... I apologize, you're not going to get any breaking news on that front," said Brig. Gen. David Bassett, program executive officer for ground combat systems.

Bassett and his team spoke at the Association of the United States Army Annual Meeting & Exposition, Oct. 14.

The Army made the "difficult decision that it could do more good investing across the entire formation rather than in a specific vehicle," Bassett continued, adding that the current priority is restoring the armored brigade combat teams to their "relevancy so it can fight with all of its platforms across the entire formation."

That investment across the formation, he said, provides upgrades to current platforms and investments in science and technology.

A top priority, he said, is developing the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, which is a vehicle integration program that will replace the old M113 Armored Personnel Carrier

A second priority is improving the Paladin self-propelled howitzer, Basset said.

Col. James Schirmer, project manager for armored fighting vehicles explained that the problem with the current Paladin is that it's "severely underpowered at the weight we're operating at now so its speed of cross-country mobility is pretty restricted."

The forward maneuver force "needs that artillery umbrella ... and we really lost the ability to do that because it's one of the slowest vehicles in the formation," he explained.

The Paladin Integrated Management program is designed to address a number of weaknesses, he said. It's currently in low rate production and is "progressing very well."

One of the strengths of the Paladin, Schirmer said, is that its engine, transmission and suspension share a commonality of design and parts with the Bradley fighting vehicle. This commonality results in a reduced logistics footprint for the brigade on the battlefield. It also makes it easier to maintain and get parts when they're needed.

Regarding the Bradley, Schirmer, said there are a couple of important upgrades, notably the ECP1 and ECP2, meaning engineering change proposals.

ECP1 is all about restoring space, weight and power to the vehicle as Bradley has "grown pretty heavy over time and as that happened, the vehicle got lower and lower on its shocks," he said. As it got closer to the ground it not only lost clearance over rough terrain, it also became more vulnerable to IEDs.

ECP1 will put a new suspension system on the Bradley and a new, lighter track. This will allow the Bradley to carry more weight and "put reliability back where it ought to be and restore our ground clearance protection," he explained. The contract to do that was awarded to a small company this summer.

ECP2 is about restoring "automotive power" to the Bradley. It includes a larger engine and a new transmission. ECP2 is also adding a smart-power management system to provide better electrical distribution on the vehicle. The upgrades also prepare the vehicle to accept future networking upgrades.

Schirmer also oversees development of the Future Fighting Vehicle. "The FFV is intended to eventually be the new infantry vehicle of the future," Schirmer said, adding that it could eventually replace the Bradley. "It would resemble a Bradley on steroids."

Andrew DiMarco, project director for main battle tank systems, said the Abrams main battle tank and the M88 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift and Evacuation System, commonly called HERCULES, will get incremental upgrades to give the vehicles increased protection and lethality. Like the Bradley, they too will be configured for future changes in the network. Sensor upgrades will also be added.

Regarding the Stryker, Bassett said a fourth brigade of Strykers has been approved for conversion to double-V hull. Some other upgrades will occur to improve lethality, mobility, protection and reliability.

SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS

If sequestration continues in 2016, the cost of producing vehicles will climb as fewer units are ordered and the ordering-in-quantity discount is lost, Bassett lamented.

Bassett's strategy to this problem of the purse is: "Let's take a pause and learn."

Bassett's team is looking at a number of different maturing technologies that could affect various aspects of the FFV, such as its troop-carrying capacity. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is also working with Bassett's team. By the time sequestration ends, "we'll have a better idea of what Army wants and we'll have a range of technical options."

Besides the current investment in incremental upgrades, ground combat systems is focusing investments in the S&T area in an effort to bring down vehicle weight, improve firepower, and improve engine efficiency and power.

There's already a range of technical options that are now available to improve lethality, protection and maneuverability on just about all the vehicles. The problem, he said, is that with budget constraints, the Army simply can't afford some of the solutions, so it must calculate a cost-benefit analysis for every solution.

For example, he said there are some exotic metals out there that can bring down weight and provide good protection, but the prices are just too high.

-ends-

[Conan le Barbare]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ivi9K1Sj8

[Serge]

AMPV Program's EMD Contract Awarded to BAE

(Source: US Army; issued December 24, 2014)

WARREN, Mich. --- The U.S. Army announced, Dec. 23, that BAE Systems Land & Armaments, L.P. was selected for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development, or EMD, contract for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, or AMPV.

The AMPV is a replacement for many of the M113 armored personnel carrier in the coming years.

BAE Systems was awarded a contract under full and open competition worth up to $1.2 billion for the EMD and Low-Rate Initial Production of the AMPV.

The initial award is for a 52-month base term, valued at about $382 million. During that time, BAE Systems will produce 29 vehicles. "Integration of this vehicle will replace and improve upon capabilities lost with the obsolete M113 Family of Vehicles, while greatly increasing the Army's overall ground combat posture," according to PEO GCV officials.

In 2007 the M113 program was terminated, officials said, "due to inadequate force protection, its inability to incorporate future technologies due to maximized size, weight, power, and cooling, and ability to keep pace and fight" within the Army's armored brigade combat team fleet.

"The AMPV is anticipated to satisfy critical missions necessary to tackle ground combat situations alongside the ABCT [Airborne Brigade Combat Team] fleet," officials added.

The "announcement sets in motion a long-awaited and important modernization effort for the Army," officials said. The AMPV family of vehicles will fill critical force protection, survivability and mobility capability gaps inherent in today's ABCTs.

"As a team we've worked diligently to make certain we've taken the right steps early on to minimize risk and maximize commonality to ensure AMPV remains an affordable solution for the Army," said Brig. Gen. David Bassett, the Army's program executive officer for Ground Combat Systems.

During the 52-month EMD phase, Program Executive Office, or PEO, Ground Combat Vehicle, or GCV, BCE Systems will develop "an affordable, integrated system" to meet the Army's critical requirements. The Army will take the 29 vehicles produced in this phase and "put them through rigorous developmental and operational testing to ensure they are effective and suitable for today's mechanized warrior," an official said.

The award also provides an optional Low-Rate Initial Production phase. If awarded, the company would produce an additional 289 vehicles for a total contract value of $1.2 billion.

"AMPV will support the M1 Abrams and the M2/M3 Bradley to resupply the formation, conduct battle command functions, deliver organic indirect fires, provide logistics support and medical treatment, performs medical and casualty evacuation, and, most importantly, function as an integral part of the ABCT formation," said Col. Michael Milner, the Army's project manager for the AMPV.

The increased capability of the AMPV allows the ABCT to take full advantage of its force protection, survivability, mobility, situational awareness and sustainability by providing a highly survivable and mobile platform to accomplish operational support missions, PEO GCV officials said.

Units equipped with the AMPV will be able to move as rapidly as the supported primary combat vehicles during unified land operations over multiple terrain sets, they said. The combined protection and automotive performance capabilities of the AMPV will enable units to operate more securely and efficiently in the same operational environment as the combat elements.

The current AMPV program will only replace 2,897 M113 vehicles at the brigade and below level within the ABCT. There are an additional 1,922 M113s supporting echelons above brigade.

"The EAB [echelon-above-brigade] level replacements may have different requirements than the current procurement, and have not yet been developed. The Army is currently assessing how it will address these emerging requirements," said Milner.

-ends-

[collectionneur]

Un prix a l'unité pour un camion blindé aussi onéreux qu'un char de combat. Encore un programme qui fera la joie des actionnaires de BAE.

[Serge]

Les fonctions dont doit s'acquitter l'AMPV ne peuvent l'être par un simple camion.

A l'échelle américaine, cela va conduire à une simplification des chaînes logistiques.

Pour mémoire, la Norvège fait exactement la même chose.

[Serge]

Photo d'un Bradley arrivant pour un exercice OTAN en Espagne.

Est-ce une nouvelle norme le vert mono couleur ? Vont-ils abandonner le 3 tons OTAN ?

Modifié le 18 octobre 2015 par Serge

[Serge]

Personne n'en a parlé :

Citation

Rebuilding the M2 Bradley: same A4 turret but most is new 

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. 

on October 07, 2016 at 2:43 PM

BAE Next Generation Bradley demonstrator at AUSA

WASHINGTON: More horsepower. Higher suspension. A blast-resistant underbody. Safer fuel tanks. A*larger hull.*Take it all together and this may not just be another upgrade but more like a complete rebuild. The goal is allow the 1980s-vintage M2 Bradley to survive on the battlefields of the 2030s, contractor BAE Systems said. Since there is*no money in the budget for an all-new vehicle, the Army is listening.

“I’d love to have replacement programs today for Abrams and Bradley,” said Brig. Gen. David Bassett, the Army’s head of heavy vehicle modernization. “It doesn’t fit in this portfolio and this budget.”

So, just one floor up from the room where Bassett briefed reporters at the annual Association of the US Army conference, BAE showcased its Next-Generation Bradley. The concept vehicle certainly looks like the current Bradley to the untrained eye. The one obvious difference is the armored triangles jutting from the back, which hold the fuel tanks — relocated from inside the hull so a fuel explosion blasts outward, away from the crew. But there are so many other changes that, listening to BAE, I recalled the old parable of Lincoln’s axe. If you replace the handle and replace the blade, what’s left of what you started with?

The back of the Next Generation Bradley, showing the triangular reconfigured fuel tanks.

Plenty, said Deepak Bazaz, BAE’s director of Bradley programs. Most notably, he said, “we didn’t touch the turret.” The Next-Gen Bradley uses the latest-model A4 Bradley turret, complete with its expensive electronics, 25 mm cannon, and TOW anti-tank missiles. (That said, most currently Bradleys aren’t fully upgraded to the A4 standard). Other, less visible components carry over as well. Overall, rebuilding a current Bradley into a Next-Gen one should cost significantly less than buying an entirely new vehicle.

But how can it be the same vehicle when it has an all-new hull? I asked incredulously. Hulls aren’t actually a huge component of vehicle cost, Bazaz replied. They cost about the same as the transmission, and we don’t say we’re getting a new vehicle when we just get the transmission rebuilt.

The new hull is one piece of a ground-up redesign for survivability. The Bradley’s already being upgraded with a higher suspension, which both improves off-road mobility and gives more distance from a mine or roadside bomb. On top of this, the Next-Gen hull is thicker on the bottom and adds seven inches more headroom at the top: Headroom matters not just for comfort but because underbody blasts tend to slam soldiers’ skulls into the ceiling.

Inside the vehicle, the torsion-bar suspension has been redesigned so the bars don’t come loose in an explosion and rip upward through the floor of the troop compartment like oversized shrapnel. That troop-compartment floor is attached only at the sides instead of resting on the hull below it, so the bone-shattering shockwave travels up the walls instead of through the floor and into soldiers’ legs.

The redesign also relocates the fuel tanks — into those projecting triangles I mentioned above — and the spare TOW missiles, so a hit on either won’t cause an explosion in the crew compartment. Overall, BAE claims the upgraded protection against mines and roadside bombs is better than an MRAP, the Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles built for Afghanistan and Iraq.

These upgrades do add weight. A typical modern Bradley — itself considerably uparmored over the 1981 original — weighs about 40 tons, Bazzaz said. A Next-Gen Bradley weighs 45 tons, a 20 percent increase. But whereas the current Bradleys have no automotive or electrical power to spare, limiting future upgrades, the Next-Gen has a superior engine, transmission, and generator, Bazzaz says, allowing it to grow to 50 tons with no loss in performance.

The extra electrical power is particularly important. Modern sensors, targeting systems and communications take a lot of power. Radio jammers to prevent roadside bombs from detonating take even more. Bradleys in Iraq sometimes experienced brown-outs, forcing them to shut off one system to free up power for another.

Then there’s the next wave in survivability, so-called Active Protection Systems (APS), which use radars to detect incoming rounds and mini-rockets to shoot them down. APS adds a lot of protection, but it draws a lot of power — which the current Bradley doesn’t have to spare. The Army is testing off-the-shelf APS in 2017 and 2018, said Col. Glenn Dean, but it’ll test it on Bradley last because of the vehicle’s limits on available size, weight, and power.

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle at AUSA. AMPV pioneered the hull and many other components used for the Next-Generation Bradley.

The Army does have a program to upgrade the Bradley’s electrical power, suspension, engine, and turret, but its current plans don’t include any overhaul as radical as the Next-Gen Bradley. “What BAE has down there right now is basically an example of what you could do if you wanted to do an incremental improvement to the Bradley and incorporate some greater force protection,” said Col. Mike Milner, who manages the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle program.

AMPV is essentially an upgraded turretless Bradley — to be used as an armored transport, ambulance, and command post — and it pioneered many of the improvements used on Next-Gen Bradley. “The demonstrator they have down there is pretty much the AMPV hull with the Bradley turret on it, with the new drive train (and) a new transmission on the inside that offers a little better efficiency,” Milner told me.

So could you rebuild existing Bradleys as Next-Gen? “it’s something that could be done,” Milner said. As we go forward and look at the Bradley and where does the Army want to go in terms of its next generation fighting vehicle — does it want to do a clean-sheet design or does it want to do a major modification to the Bradley? — BAE has proposed one solution down there.”

Practically speaking, though, an all-new vehicle — that “clean-sheet design” — is something the Army can’t afford. Having canceled two previous attempts to replace the Bradley, the Future Combat Systems and the Ground Combat Vehicle, the Pentagon has pushed what’s now called the Future Fighting Vehicle out past 2030. Even if FFV materializes on time — and an Army-commissioned RAND study said there wasn’t enough money for it — it won’t be fielded fast enough to replace all the Bradleys until well into the 2040s.

“The way we’re affording all the things we’re affording is by producing things at really low rates,” said Brig. Gen. Bassett. It’s economically inefficient but at least gives the Army the option to ramp up if a crisis strikes and money starts to flow.

Brig. Gen. David Bassett

The Army is buying some new tracked vehicles, albeit ones built with largely off-the-shelf technology. It’s replacing its Vietnam-era M113 utility vehicles with those Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles (AMPVs), and it’s buying light-tank-like Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicles to reinforce light infantry. But it’s buying AMPV and MPF at low rates, Bassett emphasized. Likewise, the Bradley, M1 Abrams tank, M109 Paladin howitzer, and 8×8 Stryker are getting upgrades, , but at a rate of “certainly less than a brigade a year,” Bassett told reporters AUSA. Stryker upgrades “could be as little as one every three years.”

Today is “the only time since World War II when the Army hasn’t had a combat vehicle under development, a new combat vehicle,” said Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the Army’s top futurist, during a press call before AUSA. “You can only hang so much stuff on our existing tanks and Bradleys,” he warned. “If we don’t do something soon… the vehicles we have are going to be overmatched.”

 

[Banzinou]

Vieux spot publicitaire remis au goût du jour, avec M2A0 ou M2A1