Ramlaen Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 AMPV with a turret but for arguments sake yeah. Clan_Ghost_Bear, LoooSeR and Laviduce 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 1 minute ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said: It appears to be the updated Bradley chassis they showed off in 2016, judging by the position of the headlights. Still hard to see this competing with the Lynx or another clean-sheet design. Cost and simplified logistics will likely be their primary advantages. Lord_James and Clan_Ghost_Bear 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-L-M Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 Broke: The Brad is the worst IFV and can't do any mission properly. Woke: the Brad is the best of all the IFVs of its vintage and is de facto the yardstick by which all others are measured. Bespoke: The Brad is such an unbelievably good design that it can only be replaced by another Bradley. Serge, Ramlaen, alanch90 and 4 others 3 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 That makes 4 contenders. Clan_Ghost_Bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 5 now Clan_Ghost_Bear and Serge 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarshipDirect Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 For the love of god no more Bradley variants. Why is BAE even wasting their time with this nonsense. Clan_Ghost_Bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_James Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Insomnium95 said: For the love of god no more Bradley variants. Why is BAE even wasting their time with this nonsense. Because, despite the army being a huge money sink, they’re very cheap when it comes to their equipment, and will go with what’s less expensive 9/10 times. Many nations are like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AssaultPlazma Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 If they want to use the Bradley chassis that bad why not just stick that 30MM Stryker turret on it? It's already been made and means ammo commonality.... Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 1 hour ago, AssaultPlazma said: If they want to use the Bradley chassis that bad why not just stick that 30MM Stryker turret on it? It's already been made and means ammo commonality.... To replace the Bradley, we must become the Bradley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-L-M Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 3 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said: If they want to use the Bradley chassis that bad why not just stick that 30MM Stryker turret on it? It's already been made and means ammo commonality.... Ideally, using the AMPV hull, which also has mine protection improvements and a revised internal layout among others. But on the whole, if you're sticking with a "medium weight" IFV, you could do much worse than a Brad derivative with a RWS 30mm (especially one that's already in service!) and the improvement offered by newer options like the Lynx may not be a sufficient gain to justify their cost. With the AMPV, latest M109s, and the like, the US Army is committed to the Bradley automotive components for the next 40 years or so. Makes sense to me to at least try and leverage that. Ramlaen and Lord_James 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AssaultPlazma Posted April 18, 2021 Report Share Posted April 18, 2021 21 hours ago, N-L-M said: Ideally, using the AMPV hull, which also has mine protection improvements and a revised internal layout among others. But on the whole, if you're sticking with a "medium weight" IFV, you could do much worse than a Brad derivative with a RWS 30mm (especially one that's already in service!) and the improvement offered by newer options like the Lynx may not be a sufficient gain to justify their cost. With the AMPV, latest M109s, and the like, the US Army is committed to the Bradley automotive components for the next 40 years or so. Makes sense to me to at least try and leverage that. I keep forgetting that's the AMPV and the Bradley hull. Seems like a easy enough solution. But alas funding and money n stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINDALOS Posted April 18, 2021 Report Share Posted April 18, 2021 On 4/17/2021 at 1:01 PM, AssaultPlazma said: If they want to use the Bradley chassis that bad why not just stick that 30MM Stryker turret on it? It's already been made and means ammo commonality.... Isn't that a single man turret? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINDALOS Posted April 18, 2021 Report Share Posted April 18, 2021 On 4/14/2021 at 12:57 PM, AssaultPlazma said: I'm shocked MPF hasn't been canceled yet.... Even if it passes trials I wonder if in the end the Army will actually buy them. And they came up with those "medium tank" concepts... Seriously, whats wrong woth these people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaronTibere Posted April 19, 2021 Report Share Posted April 19, 2021 The entries all seem somewhat phoned-in but that doesn't really surprise me considering how many failed programs to replace the bradley have preceded this one. BAE's entry seems lazy but perhaps the easiest to implement; GD's perhaps the most capable and at least the chassis has been well developed and paid for by other nations. The Lynx seems like Rheinmetall isn't even trying and i don't know enough about the other 2(?) options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted April 19, 2021 Report Share Posted April 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, BaronTibere said: The Lynx seems like Rheinmetall isn't even trying How so? They're developing a unique variant of the Lynx and involving some of the biggest defense contractors around for their bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackvony Posted April 19, 2021 Report Share Posted April 19, 2021 Turret Weight M1A1 : 23.1 tons (21 metric tons) M1A2 : 26.9 tons (24.4 metric tons) M1A2 SEPv3 : 31.5 tons (28.6 metric tons) Quite the weight jump for the SEPv3. More of an increase over the M1A2 than the M1A2 over a non-DU M1A1. alanch90, Ramlaen and watch_your_fire 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted April 19, 2021 Report Share Posted April 19, 2021 For reference, other turret weights: 105 mm M1 -> 19,1 metric tons. Arjun Mk1 -> 17,5 metric tons Leclerc S1 -> 18,5 metric tons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-L-M Posted April 19, 2021 Report Share Posted April 19, 2021 Why is the image for the last,most relevant bit, cut in half? The paranoid amongst us would suspect we're being had by a bait-and-switch. Even if we assume that weight includes a factored-in Trophy system just in case it's fitted, that's still only around 2.5-3 tons including the ballast on the turret front (which is effectively built in on the M1A2C). Where is all the extra weight coming from, if we assume this is genuine? Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 20, 2021 Report Share Posted April 20, 2021 https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/omfv-why-small-biz-mettleops-has-a-shot/ Clan_Ghost_Bear, Serge, Jackvony and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted April 21, 2021 Report Share Posted April 21, 2021 11 hours ago, Ramlaen said: https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/omfv-why-small-biz-mettleops-has-a-shot/ My reply in that interview would be a very dry and sarcastic - "Well BAE thinks a warmed over bradley is good enough, how could we possibly not at least match that?". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleb Posted April 21, 2021 Report Share Posted April 21, 2021 Hanwha and Oshkosh OMFV participation and partnership confirmed: https://www.hanwha-defense.co.kr/eng/media/news-view.do?idx=2610 https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/omfv-koreas-hanwha-is-officially-in/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted April 26, 2021 Report Share Posted April 26, 2021 @Ramlaen 6 proposals now. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/04/26/2216925/0/en/Point-Blank-Enterprises-Company-Submits-Proposal-for-the-Concept-Design-of-the-Optionally-Manned-Fighting-Vehicle-for-the-U-S-Army.html Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 26, 2021 Report Share Posted April 26, 2021 Scant on detail but it does say they intend to use a hybrid electric drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted April 28, 2021 Report Share Posted April 28, 2021 The Cottonmouth ARV, the Textron’s bid for the USMC. Ramlaen and Clan_Ghost_Bear 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 28, 2021 Report Share Posted April 28, 2021 This thing is quite good looking. Lord_James, Scolopax and Beer 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.