via Defense Media Network...
“The most expensive components on a Bradley are the turret and turret components – the lethality components that are not included in AMPV. And our projections say that a Bradley-based AMPV would have about the same operating cost as an M113 does. So the Army is going to get sort of ‘improved performance for like money.’”That is a bold statement.
It does however make you wonder. The turret and components are the most expensive parts of an APC/IFV?
Really?
With blast seats, reinforced hull, modern suspensions/engines and comm systems?
Additionally is he talking about procurement or operating costs...in the statement it seems like he switches from talking procurement to operating costs without missing a beat...so which is it? I'm gonna e-mail the writer of this story for a clarification on a few things.
The turret includes the Bushmaster, night sights, and TOW pod with it's own thermal sights. All that adds up really fast in terms of money.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would have chosen something bigger than an M2/Mk19 RWS system to replace the turret.
Why? It's not an ICV, it's an APC, an armored taxi not meant to go toe to toe with anything. Adding something bigger would only only give its crew and occupants a false sense of security as it would be moved up on the opposing side target list and there for engaged more quickly. Though I wonder, assuming it's going to have 360 degree multi-spectral camera coverage, do you still need the sights to be on the RWS? You should be able to make a "virtiual" sight using the 360 coverage. That way you should be able to lower the height of the RWS by about a foot (guessing from the picture). And while you are at it, add one or more RWS for multiple direction defense/supression, something that would be very useful in an urban environment I think. Say 1 with a Mk19, 1 with an M2, and 2 with 7.62mm on the four corners of the vehicle.
DeleteI kind of like the idea fro AM's site better, the upgunned brads combined with the unmanned turreted Brads to cary more troops. I always wondered why we didn't reorganize mech units around either big six man fire teams or little six man squads instead of having to leave part of third squad with the hq platoon half the time
DeleteOggie, we found out the hard way that 50 cal doesn't do so hot against mud huts in Afghanistan, so as an Infantry Carrying Vehicle it makes more sense to provide a heavier weapon than a Ma Deuce to turn "cover" into "concealment" when it comes to supporting the Infantry as they make their assault onto the objective.
DeleteAlso, a remote operated cannon has already been fielded on ICVs by other nations, which gives it better punch against things like armored cars, or older generation COMBLOC fighting vehicles. If you have a platoon of 4 vehicles, it would be nice for them to be able to kill threats beyond the range of the 50 cal, just saying.
He is correct.
ReplyDeleteThe Bradley thermal fights and computerized fire control systems are very expensive.
Removing the turret will also make the Bradley AMPV finally able to carry 9 men
Well, I always wondered why the APC sans turret couldn't just drop an anti tank team on the go and allow them to take out the offending IFV/Tank while the APC sans turret just hid and slide drawing fire.
ReplyDeleteHell I recall the M-113 in Vietnam carrying a mounted 106 RR on a corner for just such events.
AMTRACS in days of yore would drop DRAGON team also for events.
The RWS with MG/Thump gun should do everything demanded of it.
why not, by removing the expensive turret, you save the cost and get an APC
ReplyDeleteA new Zippo... See Pentagon wars, Flat Floor... Perhaps better without all hese 25mm rounds !
ReplyDeleteI think the M113 is cheaper and better.
ReplyDeleteCare to explain why you think that?
DeleteThe design of the M2 Bradley is owned by BAE System any company can build a version of the M113 without royalties.
ReplyDeleteThe basic M113 vehicle is far lighter even with the same armor class like the Bradley.
Therefore with the same power to weight ratio the M113 needs a less powerful engine and gets more range for the same amount of fuel. With a bigger tank the Bradley may have the same range but also bigger fuel trucks.
Any vehicle based on the Bradley will never fit inside the C-130 due to weight and size.
Does the Bradley run on external fuel tanks only?
Trying to design American armor around the lift-capacity of the C-130 is a pipe-dream at this point. Aside from building a deliberately bare-bones vehicle intended to support paratroopers, rapid air-mobility of armored vehicles simply isn't realistic. The debacle that was the Future Combat System should teach us that, if anything.
DeleteEven uparmored, the m113 can still be penetrated by .50in/12.7mm machine gun fire. Bradley can take a 14.5mm machine gun on the sides and front as well as resist a 30mm cannon on its front. Now imagine removing the Bradley turret and the weight it brings, you have spare weight to add extra armor, which means even more protection. Can't really uparmor the m113 without completely redesigning the whole thing.
DeleteM113 can't keep up with an Abrams tank like the Bradley can.
People trained to operate and/or maintain an M2/M3 Bradley can do the same to a Bradley styled APC. M113 is a separate vehicle with little to no parts commonality to any vehicle currently in service and different controls. So from a logistical and training cost standpoint, AMPV Bradley is a better option.