"The new US Bradley Fighting Vehicle" Topic

"At AUSA 2016, the Association of the United States Annual Meeting & Exposition, BAE Systems has launched demonstrator of Next Generation Bradley Fighting Vehicle The concept vehicle features an upgraded chassis that allows for significantly increased underbelly protection, improved force protection for mounted troops, compartmentation of fuel and ordnance, and more space and electrical power for future technology growth.

The goal of this project is to extend the live time of the current Bradley IFV used by the US Armed forces offering more protection and increase the mobility of the vehicle.

The Bradley demonstrator concept features an upgraded chassis that allows for significantly increased underbelly protection, improved force protection for mounted troops, compartmentation of fuel and ordnance, and more space and electrical power for future technology growth…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

They wisely got rid of the Firing Port Weapons system. And covering the flanks with more armor. They did that a while back … And with all these other upgrades, she looks very much more effective when it comes to do it's job.
And praise the God(s) of War, that most M113s are out of US service … Replaced by Bradleys, is appears …

Replaced by Bradleys, is appears …

Weren't many replaced by Strykers?

Still too small to hold a whole squad, right?

that most M113s are out of US service … Replaced by Bradleys, is appears…

Actually, the M113s (those used for all those non-combat roles and some combat roles (like mortar carriers)) have been replaced by another vehicle altogether (AMPV). It uses the same powerpack and track system as the Brad, the MLRS and the new variant of the M109. Rationalizes the logistics tail hugely (and just makes sense).

See (all you who constantly rag on US procurement programs). The Army CAN make good programs that WORK….

Yea, can hold about 4 – 5 guys as passengers, reasonably well.

Any more than that and they're packing them in like sardines if they're carrying much gear.

Just how many YEARS (decades) did it take the army procurement program to do the replacement.

Just how many YEARS (decades) did it take the army procurement program to do the replacement.

Initial request for proposals went out in 2013 with the final contract issued in 2015. TWO YEARS. Not decades…

Weren't many replaced by Strykers?

No Strykers were a different animal. They were designed to make some Light Infantry units more mobile on the ground with more firepower and easier to deploy than actual APCs/IFVs. They really are not Mech, but more like "Motorized" Infantry.

Actually, the M113s (those used for all those non-combat roles and some combat roles (like mortar carriers)) have been replaced by another vehicle altogether (AMPV). It uses the same powerpack and track system as the Brad, the MLRS and the new variant of the M109. Rationalizes the logistics tail hugely (and just makes
sense).

Yes that does make sense. Good to see that.

Still too small to hold a whole squad, right?

That IMO was one of it's "failings". The Infantry squad was reduced from 11 to 9. And of those 9 when dismounted, 3, the driver, gunner and Commander stay with the track. Leaving only 6 dismounts. That seems a bit small to me. As my Inf Squads, Light or Mech were 11, '79-'90.

Yes, the M2 has much more firepower and armor than the M113. But you always can't take an AFV along with you. When Infantrymen to their best work dismounted on the ground. But if given a choice … I'd rather have my Mech Squads in M2s. We'd make the lack of dismounts work. The Infantry always does …

Well, a fireteam plus of 6 soldiers backed up by a Bradley means you could boost the squad size to 18 – two fireteams of 6, plus Bradley crews – and massively multiply the firepower of the squad, and thus the platoon, right?

I mean I know that's not how it works, but it seems to be the best answer to the problem…

Yes and no … But again, in many cases you can't take the M2 with you in dismounted ops based on terrain and situation. M2s are not MBTs, they are armed and armored Infantry carriers.

A Mech Plt has 4 M113s or in this case M2s. Your dismounts only total about 18. Since the Command track does not carry an Infantry Squad but the Plt HQ. That is a very understrength Plt by previous standards.

But yes the added firepower and survivability is a very nice edge. So like many things in warfare you have make "trade offs". As I said we'd make it work regardless … But again, 18 dismounts only makes a reinforced squad, based on previous MTO&Es.

Vs. the M113 which would have 9 dismounts per squad/track. Totaling 27 … So again, you may have to make some trade offs.
And remember a M113 only requires a Driver and Track Commander. Where again with the M2 it requires both of those + the Gunner.

Personally I'd double the size of the platoon – 7 Bradleys. 3 squads of 18 (carried in 6 Bradleys) and a Plt HQ group in the 7th.

But then I have no experience or influence but like I say a platoon of 36 dismounts plus HQ group feels like a better bet than a platoon of 18!

Amen my friend … amen …

That is why the Corp carried so many in the back of the AAV.

In an interesting bit of history. That goes along with what we are talking about. I remember being very much involved with this MO&E conversion. In the mid-80s, the US ARMY reduced both Armor and Mech Plts. From 5 to 4 Vehicles. Using the extra AFVs, etc., to make a 4th Company. So the US Tank or Mech Bn went from 3 Line Companies to 4. And in Mech Bns, the Combat Support Co.(CSC) became an AT Company.

7 Bradleys. 3 squads of 18 (carried in 6 Bradleys) and a Plt HQ group in the 7th.

PMC … the US ARMY reduced their Mech Plt size, not make it bigger !

Well that was silly of them.

Some may believe the same. I still say 18 dismounts is too small to be really effective, in many cases, IMO. But I was a civilian by '90. And not in Iraq or A'stan …