I was monitoring the conversation on the K-21 Fighting Vehicle and the discussion turned (predictably) toward the Bradley IFV. I have always thought highly of this vehicle. When used in its intended role...as an IFV, I haven't seen better. Reference the 1st Gulf War and the Invasion of Iraq. The vehicle was a beast! It didn't perform well in a nation building role but quite honestly NO vehicle did. Even the much lauded MRAPS were impractical. They were much too tall, much too wide, much too long and not very agile on Middle Eastern city streets.
But back on task. Is the Bradley the best IFV in the world today? Consider the statement by Gunner...
To compere it with what? Are you sure?Thats being said in comparison to that old favorite the M113.
First of all my friend, we are talking about IFVs.
But I will play your game.
Firepower.
The M2A3 has the most sophisticated FCS in the World, with hunter-killer mode, auto tracking capabilities advanced thermal cameras ect. What of the above the M113 MRV has?
Let's move to the weapons now. The M242 is one of the most successful IFV weapons ever fielded. It is capable to destroy tanks from the sides. Against personnel the weapon offers more ready to use ammo than any other modern IFV with bigger caliber. Size matters but quantity of ready to use ammo matters more. This gives Bradley the advantage of more engagements with the enemy. The weapons of Bradley do not end with M242. It is equipped with a double TOW launcher. I don't have to tell you more I suppose. Of course the vehicle has a standard M240 coaxial MG.
Speed.
One of the main reasons the US army is dumping the M113 for the Bradley for the roles of Mortar Carrier ect. is speed. No need for me to say more. But lets go back to compare M113 MRV with Bradley on speed, are you sure the M113 MRV with the 2 man turret and it's ammo has the same speed as the standard M113?
Range.
M113 and M2Bradley have more or less the same Operational range. The M113 MRV has smaller Operational range range than the standard M113 because it carries the 2 man turret and it's ammo.
Let me add the final factor, Protection.
M113 MRV has protection level STANAG 4569 level 1. M2A3 Bradley as it is, has STANAG 4569 level 5, not counting ERA tiles.
But the K-21, Puma, BMP series and others only at best match it...and they don't have the combat record of the Bradley.
So having said all that is the Bradley the standard that all others still try to meet?
If so, then why do only the US and Saudi Arabia operate Bradleys?
ReplyDeleteThey aren't that good. We have thousands in storage that we could have sold to interested allies, but nobody else wants them.
no one is buying the Puma or the K-21 either.
Deletelets face it. we've reached a new era. quality and performance are taking a back seat to affordability. its the only thing that can explain the popularity of wheeled vehicles.
they're trash off road but they're relatively cheap and maintenance is easy. i'll leave off the fact that govts around the world seem obsessed with internal security where wheeled vehicles are again superior but there you have it.
affordability is counting for more than combat power.
Greece wants Bradleys. Iraq is going to purchase 200 if I am not mistaking.
DeletePuma is brand new and you can bet it will get its share of customers as its probably the no.1 IFV at the moment. Having TOW is not something others haven't considered its just a compromise of firepower vs troop capacity. Soviets started with the ATGM on BMP1 ,BMP3 probably has the best armament package 30mm-100mm-7.62 coaxial
DeletePuma is extremely expensive. Only middle eastern Countries can afford to purchase it. Even Germany reduced the number of vehicles to purchase. No 1 IFV at the moment it is not the Puma but the M2A3. Puma is still under development. Bradley did not compromise troop capacity for TOW ammo.
DeleteBMP-3 armament package is a danger first of all for the vehicle the crew and the troops it carries. We are talking about a lightly armored IFV, packed with canons and ammo, with minimum space for troops and ridiculous if not dangerous doors for the troops to use.
The performance of M2Bradley during the 1st Gulf War, was the reference point for the IFV builders wordwide. M2Bradley was the first western IFV with main Gun stabilization. NO other western IFV had. Before the ODS they criticized the US Army for that. After ODS they started upgrading their Vehicles. One example the CV9040 of the Swedish Army. First batches had no main Gun stabilization.
ReplyDeleteinsert a new engine into the M113, and it'll be fine.
ReplyDeleteFine for what? The Australians did that and know they are looking for a new vehicle to replace M113.
DeleteYou could put a Bradley turret on it like the egyptians have. For better allies like Australia we could give them the better FCS and the new TOWireless missiles.
DeleteWell the iraqi desert is one thing, european terrain is another, that is why all soviet IFVs were light and could swim, the bradley seems a bit to heavy.
ReplyDeleteAnd with all that Pacific pivot talk, how do you think the bradley will operate in south east asia.
i've said it before and i'll say it again.
Deletewe don't need US Army vehicles to swim. we need them tough enough to absorb RPG after RPG...heavy machine gun fire, artillery splinters etc...additionally it amazes me but people act like they don't know SE Asia today. its not all jungles! what worries me for future Soldiers and Marines is the big ass cities! can you imagine trying to fight inside a population center that has upwards of 10 million people in it? the humanitarian situation alone would require a couple of Army Corps...and to actually fight an win in that type situation would require several Field Armies. but thats what we're facing in the Pacific. multiple megasized cities that will swallow up Brigades and Battalions like there is no tomorrow.
you want to talk about lost? imagine the drama when you have entire battalions get classified as missing in action???
one last thing. you can talk about light weight IFVs but the Puma isn't and neither is the new CV90. weight gain is just a fact for modern armored vehicles.
Sol, you got that right on major military engagements of red on blue. The world is now highly urbanized, cities are now mega cities of 5-10 million heading towards 15-20 million by 2050.
DeleteI don't see any modern manned military being able to handle such an engagement as it will be a black hole.
You can easily handle megacities with millions of population. There is already a precedent of it. All you have to do is wilfull ignorance of UN charter on Human rights and the Geneva convention. Then you can go about killing people like those WW2 Germans, Japanese did, like those mongols did, like Rome did to Carthage etc. etc. etc. But if You want to follow all international conventions and come out looking likea good guy liberator.....i am sorry but no technology or IFV will allow you to take take over and maintain megacities with 10 million population and above. Even domestic police forces with decades of experience, local intelligence, local informer base, connect with people, same culture etc. cant handle these cities. Let alone a foreign invader who actually wants to "care" for the people and "liberate" them.
DeleteI don't know if the bradley is really well protected...No IFV resist to ATGM. I don't know if bradley resist to OGV7, even with tiles...
ReplyDeleteThe force of bradley is his Electronic and weapon systems.
Now, for IED ( and mines) resistance and swimming, many nations choose wheels and V-Hull
And remember Pentagon wars...
It's like if we say that killing AQMI in Mali proved that we have the best army in the world...
i don't know what the OGV7 is but i have seen the threat breifing on the RGP-29 and 29 with some weird designation attached. it was flashed out to all units when the 3rd Abrams got pinned in a weird place and everyone was going crazy got the thing melted through.
Deletethats what the tiles are for. thats what trophy is for. all IFV will need it, not just the Bradley.
OGV7 is the ammo of RPG7...
DeleteRPG 29 Has tandem charges, to avoid explosive tiles... it's like a dual charge.
OG-7V Fragmentation rocket exists, OGV7 it is not known to me.
DeleteNo European IFV is amphibian. Not even wheeled ones, except polish and Czech wheeled IFVs.
ReplyDeleteI think the question about the Bradley should be investigated from the three main foundation stones for IFVs: Mobility, Firepower and Protection.
ReplyDeleteMobility-wise, Bradley started its life in 1983 its weight was 24.5tons. A2 weighed 33 tons; A2ODS 34 tons. And M2A3 peaked at 39.5 tons! And all this weight increase came without any increase in engine power, this meant the HP-per-tonne ratio constantly dropping down. So that the A3 now has 15.2 HP/ton ratio. Spz Puma with its soaring 43.5ton Max Combat Weight has 25.6 HP/ton (thanks to its 1.100HP engine); Danish CV9035 with 35tons Max Combat Weight has around 22 Hp/ton (with 800HP Scania engine). The reduced HP/ton results in reduced acceleration performance and dash speeds.
On the other hand the 39 tons of the A3 results in premature breakdowns and fatigue loading on the torsion bars, road arms and dampers that are probably not designed for 39 tons. The ground pressure is also increased thanks to the increased weight without any increase in track width.
Firepower-wise: the fire control system on A3 is quite good with its commander's sight (CIV), improved thermals on the gunners sight and auto-tracking capabilities. The drawback for BFV is its 25mm M242 cannon, it as probably an over-kill for the Iraqi BMPs and T55s, but the today most of the IFVs on the market are immune against 30mm APFSDS from the frontal aspect. The lethality of the M242 is not on par with Mk44 & Mk30-2 30mm and especially the Bush III 35mm autocannon on the CV90s and of-course Bofors 40 and CTA 40. Another drawback is there is no programmable munition capability in the M242.
Protection-wise, with BUSK upgrade the Bradley is probably among the best protected IFVs in the world, with its ERA and ballistic armor. The mine protection is also greatly increased.
So I cannot ofcourse say Bradley is not a good fighting system, but it desperately needs an upgrade to one again make it the worlds premier fighting machine.
From 30X165 AP ammo all weastern IFVs are immune, from western 30X173 AP ammo no one. Russian 30X165 AP ammo are inferior to 25X137 AP ammo. Do not forget that the US army uses DU AP ammo.
DeleteIf I remember correctly, M2A2/3 have an 600HP engine.
M2A2ODS and M2A3 have a Weight, Combat Loaded of 61,000 pounds without ERA and 67,000 pounds with ERA. M2/3A2 has Weight, Combat Loaded of 60,000 pounds pounds without ERA and 66,000 pounds with ERA. M2 has a Weight, Combat Loaded of 50,259 pounds.
You forgot the main thing carrying troops ,bradley defienetly lowered the standards to 6 man troop while previously it was 8-11 ,in that respect CV90 is well ahead but new 40mm main guns will make for less space. Designers should definetly take a peek at how BMP3 turret is designed as it packs incredible firepower for its size http://www.kurganmash.ru/en/turrets/turret_bmp3u/ ,that 100mm gun defineitly sounds like something to have in urban fight,but i would full expect unmaned turrets to solve the problem to a degree
DeleteBradley is carrying 7 troops. CV90 is carrying 7 troops also, despite the Company’s brochures. Puma only 6.
DeleteDesigners took a peek at how BMP-3 turret is designed and started laughing. Υου must understand, we are talking about IFVs, we do not talk about Tanks. The armament of BMP-3 is good for light tank, not for IFVs. That amount of ammo stacked inside an IFV means only one thing, Death to the occupants if the armor gets penetrated.
CV9030 carries 8 swedes elected to go for 7 ,in any case these are decades newer designs with better mobility ,initial protection,firepower (- TOW) and growth potential .
DeleteAs for ammo inside hull where do you think TOWs go http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45111 if they carry any then is down to 2 or 3 dismounts.
BMP3 turret is no worse than typical IFV turret ,100mm gun is a low pressure gun + missile launcher so good for blasting buildings and ocassional tank at extended range.altough i doubt missile was used in combat to date.
ATGM is probably not going to be used in futures most likely 40mm IFV turrets
don't confuse the cav model with the ifv version. typically the cav version will carry additional rounds because they are (at least were when i saw them operate) designed to fight for information if necessary...that means having to maybe mix it up with heavy tanks.
Deletemy point is simple. if you were to design a brand new IFV for the US Army it would essentially look like the same vehicle only a bit bigger and with more modern widgets.
the Puma, CV90 are just variations on a theme. actually what i expected everyone to toss in my face was the Namera. but i class that as a tank chassis modified to perform the job and it looks like the Israelis are abandoning it in favor of a Stryker type vehicle..still trying to run down info on that.
In the back. BMP-3 carries 40 100mm HEF artillery shells!!!! inside + 8 ATGW + 500 30X165 rounds + 7,62X54R ammo. 3 of the troops sit on top of 18 100mm HEF shells!!!
DeleteI understand your point Solomon but consider the fact that new gen vehicles are starting form where Bradley and Warrior is being stretched too in terms of weight,armor,mobility,firepower. Same goes for Marder 1 that is now in A5 variant .
DeleteNamer type IFVs probably do not have a bright future as a main IFV as logistic footprint is simply to large and armor vs missile race is going for active protection as simply throwing in more armor in is not viable.
New engine would be great, I'd lean towards a new cannon too though the guy makes a good point about ammo capacity. The Brad still has a lotta life left in the design.
DeleteThe final version of the PUMA has a 920 kW engine (1,250 HP!). The 1,100 HP version was pimped. So the PUMA has 29 HP/ton at 43 tonnes maximum weight with add-on armor! English Wikipedia is not up to date.
DeleteAlso the German version has only six seats for dismounts due to German squad strength. The space beneath the unmanned turret is just occupied by a rack.
http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/puma8.jpg
So there is no problem to carry at least 8 dismounts. Maybe the squad leader could be squeezed between the gunner and TC: 9 dismounts.
http://www.psm-spz.com/typo3temp/pics/aed4ad9654.jpg
Now compare that with the M2:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/bfv-l.gif
Remember that the turret is moving inside the hull.
In PUMA‘s back is a sliding hatch for a gunner or observer with a railing mount for a machine gun.
http://www.y-punkt.de/resource/resource/MzEzNTM4MmUzMzMyMmUzMTM1MzMyZTM2MzEzMDMwMzAzMDMwMzAzMDY4NzE2NTc4MzIzNDYxNmEyMDIwMjAyMDIw/image_popup.jpg
On some current pictures you will find the SPIKE-LR starter on the left side of the turret. The right side of the turret is still unused. Maybe for some reserve SPIKEs. No ammunition for the IFV is stored inside. All is stored above the hull.
http://cdn.pressebox.de/a/1e075e740a32a840/attachments/0215512.attachment/filename/SPIKE+and+PUMA.jpg
Back to the Australian M113 MRV: 275 HP at 12.3 tonnes. That is a power to weight ratio of over 22 HP/tone. Far better than the M2A3.
http://www.vostokstation.com.au/australian_army.pdf
Those are all nice comments.
ReplyDeleteSome remarks that I would like to say:
- Namer is not an IFV, it is an Armored Personnel Carrier with self protection RWS that can take either a .50cal/40mm AGL, or 7.62mm. So the Namer is not expected to go toe to toe with the enemy IFVs. Of course this does not mean you can convert a Namer to an IFV by putting a turret on top. But you have to sacrifice some of the protection to compansate the added weight of the turret. Even in that case, Namer would still be better protected than the other IFVs.
- BMP3, although a good system, is an ergonomical nightmare compared to Western vehicles. And none of the weapons it carry has better lethality -namely penetration of armor- than for example the Bofors 40/70 or Bushmaster III 35mm. And no programmable/air burst munitions.
I think the combination of few tanks and tons of wheeled armored vehicles is better than Tanks and tracked IFV. Tanks can take direct hits and face other tanks in the open battle fields but their main problem is they are to heavy to transport, their logistic and maintenance is a nightmare, and they can't follow and protect the convoys. The LAVS are cheaper, during 40 x times more than track vehicles, can go any where, crossing rivers and light bridges, they can have a decent fire power and decent protection against some RPGS and even direct hits with systems like the trophy and can support the troops any where, in the unprepared routs of Mali or Afganistan or in the streets of Bagdad or Kabul. Their main disadvantage, they are not great off road vehicles. The battle of Khafji was a great example of how to defeat battalions of tanks combining few tanks, Artillery and Lavs with Tows, or the Debecka pass battle, where special forces with Lavs using havellins defeat tanks. All that was many years ago, today the combination Lavs deploying UAV to locate the enemy and stand off weapons is even more lethal.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=wT2mUSIkD1s&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR2mseKQkmY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Khafji as an example? are you shitting me? Marine Recon gets detected, gets trapped, calls in tremendous amount of airpower, artillery and then when the Iraqi's bug out the Saudi National Guard rolls in to claim credit for a rescue??????
Deletetell that story to someone that don't know!
the Saudi National Guard would have been shredded like dog meat if they went up against the battle hardened Iraqis! those V-150's they were using would just end up smoking hulks!
That's exactly the point The Marines direct the air power and artillery attack from their LAVs and the Saudis finished the Job with their Lavs. No tanks vs tanks to win the battle.
DeleteLAVs? maybe my history is wrong but Humvees firing TOWS...arty going crazy and the gun bunnies sweating like pigs....planes zooming all over the place, M60's rolling forward and the attached M1's itching for a fight but LAVs? i'll have to check but i don't recall them being involved. (of course some dude from LAI battalion will come correct me...thats what they were called Light Armored Infantry Battalions until it became obvious that they couldn't actually carry infantry!)
DeleteYou don't always pick who in your force runs into who of the enemies force. If you must choose between escorting your motorized INF around with tanks (not a bad option) or risking their thin skins against most adversaries they may run into versus having the most flexible troops around who can drive relatively fast, take on just about everything up to and including tanks and Then still drop off the dirt teams to hold ground or clear buildings while still being able to send your tanks off to do something else, I know which one I'd pick.
DeleteTalking about Khafji, I put that example as how with the use of coordinated attacks using the Marines recoignosance, artillery and air strykes against batallions of tanks yoi can win a battle. I'm not 100% sure if the Marines were in Lavs or Humvees but that only reinforce the point. In the debecka pass they where not even in those vehicles but in small trucks. Fragmentation artillery can even knock out tanks destroying the tracks, sensors and cannons and blow them up with direct hits or with fused sensor shells, the same for missiles..
DeleteThat's why UAV Lavs and Humvees are so pupular today as well as stand off missiles like the Javelin or Spykes, or Hellfires from airplanes or helicopters.
I've heard from folks who were there the BMP infantry had to throw all their equipment out before they debarked, seems the area around the BMP's was always strewn with misc. gear after a battle that left the vehicle burning and the crew and infantry killed or EPW.
DeleteIf you have to dump crap out of the way just to get out the door it must be one cramped little vehicle. The ones I've seen were small as hell inside.
It is very good, but it is heavy, and you either have al the toys and protection or you do without one, the other, or both. There is that footage on YouTube of Bradley floundering in the snow in trials against ths CV90. But I don't think it is a test whose lessons can be applied everywhere. The majority of the world is hard ground.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe the UK's warrior is best. The new upgraded version has a 40mm cannon and a new lock head martin turret, now it can acculturate fire on the move. The only thing I feel it lacks is a missile system for anti-tank usage. My old teacher was a tank commander and said that the Bradley was too big. The warrior has a lower profile, which again goes in its favor. The only thing that lets it down in my mind is that it can only carry 7 troops, the British army fights in 8 man sections so I (think) believe that one of the passengers acts as a gunner on the way in.
ReplyDeletetoo big is a matter of perspective. if you're a 95th percentile Marine or Soldier then the Bradley is hardly big in back! add gear and the thing is downright cramped (i imagine).
DeleteA comparison of M2 vs Puma vs K-21.
ReplyDeleteFirepower : K-21 > Puma > M2
K-21 : The K-21 has a naval 40 mm CIWS gun lifted from Korean warships. Accordingly, the K-21 has the most firepower of three, and is the only one of three to be able to shoot down attack helicopters and low-flying attack jets.
Puma : A 30 mm gun.
M2 : A 25 mm gun.
Armor : Puma > M2 > K-21
Puma : Puma has the best armor of three.
M2 : Has 30 mm shell protection all-around.
K-21 : Has 30 mm shell protection in front but not sides. This is because the K-21 was required to swim.
Mobility : K-21 > Puma > M2
K-21 : This is the only one of three able to swim.
Puma : High hp to weight ratio.
M2 : M2's showing its ages.
Global Market share of new vehicles : K-21 > Puma > M2
K-21 : The ROK Army alone has orderd 900 units and wouldn't have trouble selling several hundreds in Southeast Asia where swimming is important. It is the best selling IFV of the western world.
Puma : German army ordered some 300 units with possible European orders.
M2 : No longer in production. Only refurbished old units are available for sale to foreign customers.
Where did you find a 30mm rund allround protection ,most IFVs sport less 30mm protection over glacis and 14.5mm alround at best(in reality hulls itself without spaced armor take only 7.62 AP to the sides and rear) , above that is add-on armor . And from what i can read that is 30mm glacis and 14.5mm but from 1000m ,even BMP3 can take that at 300m range
DeleteFirepower
DeletePuma uses programmable ammo. It is capable to deal with helicopters. Bradley can deal with helicopters to. Don't forget that Bradley has the highest elevation. I don't think that the K-21 can engage low-flying attack jets, with the exception of A-10, a plane that both the Puma and Bradley can engage.
Armor
M2 with the BUSK III package has the same protection level or better with the Puma
Mobility
M2A2/3 can swim.
http://oi57.tinypic.com/2h6x99y.jpg
As you can see, the Koreans got the idea from the Americans on how to make a heavy IFV to swim.
M2A2/3 with a proposed 800Hp engine, regains it's mobility.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/October/Pages/Bradley%20Makeover%20to%20Continue%20For%20Years.aspx
The Bradley was built for World War three in the Fulda Gap, it did well in the desert.
ReplyDeleteIt was well thought out at least.
Made to carry Infantry through nuked and chemical weapons drenched battle fields and keep up with the M-1 Tank.
Now? City fighting, it could be better.
The Italians have some of the best vehicles out there...
ReplyDeletehttp://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.ca/2011/07/medium-weight-brigade-and-8x8-italian.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xe3ZkkvUjo
http://digilander.libero.it/en_mezzi_militari/html/ei/profilo-centaurofreccia01.png
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApologies for double post, accidentally clicked publish.
ReplyDeletell the M2 Bradley needs, is just to be able to transport a full army squad. The latest Bradley variants added an additional seat making a total of 7, that is progress but 2 more is needed.
When I look at the M8 AGS with the thunderbolt variant upgrade, I wonder if the same could be done for the Bradley. The thing had some redesigning which created space in the back to be used for stuff like storing extra ammo or seats to transport up to 4 troops. This upgrade included a change in gun from a 105mm to a 120mm as well as a smaller hybrid electric engine replacement.
If something similar can be done to the Bradley, it can have the 2 extra seats it needs and extra ammo space to compensate for the gun upgrade.
As for further changes to the Bradley. If it can easily be implemented(doubtful), I wonder if the turret can be redesigned to be smaller and fit the commander only, and then have the gunner inside the vehicle sitting next to the driver much like the HSTV(L) light tank prototype. The decreased weight from a smaller turret would be helpful.
some little info on the HSTV(L) as well as an image to demonstrate what I mean with the crew image.
http://tanknutdave.com/the-american-hstvl-tank/
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-hotel/hotel/hstvl_series/hstvl-series.html
http://i.imgur.com/gbeJOAr.jpg
Some pictures from Bradley TD
ReplyDeletehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/eleki_j/3404017633/in/set-72157616232688192/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eleki_j/3404828672/in/set-72157616232688192/
Bradley interior
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eleki_j/3404018713/in/set-72157616232688192/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eleki_j/3404829662/in/set-72157616232688192/
I see 8 seats on the passenger side. I recall the turret carrying 2 men and judging by the other pictures, the driver is much closer to the front of the vehicle. It says the capacity is 7 men, what is that 8th seat for?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI assume you've met mike sparks.
ReplyDeletenever have but i have scoured his website. like i've said, i don't agree with everything he's said but he's been spot on with more concepts than his critics would like. additionally his cry for more humility and less blind faith in certain institutions rings true to me. i'd be thrilled to talk to him. i might not come away converted, i seriously doubt i will, but it would be fascinating.
DeleteI do admit that he's quite a devoter, some of his concepts of the airbone tactics were exceptionally impressive to me at the time. of course he disgusts bureaucracy and that's what makes all the difference.
Deletewas just wondering beacause the substances are almost same as what he has claimed at his previous youtube releases.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDDB13487B03615F5
he hasn't updated his website in quite awhile. people evolve on positions (i hate that evolve term...how about change their minds?) and if you look at my site i was once a fevered supporter of the F-35 and now i hate the plane with every ounce of my spirit. he could have had the same change of mind. since he doesn't post as much as he once did i just don't know.
Deletei wish he got back in the game. hell i wish you would get in the game. we definitely need more people in the military blogging sphere.
despite many biased reputations he has, the guy deserves certain level of respect and recognition. Although he's not correct all the time, but still compared to the vast pages they're still trustworthy.
Delete