>>61558093
At least for the next 15 years. Rheinmetall and GDLS were only recently narrowed down to produce the bradley's successor. Also the supply chain for parts is still strong with the AMPV program entering production which is just a turretless bradley.

>>61558188
theyll end up cancelling it and just putting all the fancy new shit on the M2A4E2

>>61558093
this variant will probably be the ultimate upgrade package for the vehicle. the benefit of making things for the m2 hull is that you're also making it for the M1283

>>61558093
ROLL ETERNAL

I bet eastern europeans will get a lot of 2nd hand Bradleys and just work on some upgrade programs.

Why do euros call them bradley like theyre a collective conscious?

>>61558093
yes it's going to kill aliens when we invade alpha centauri in the year 12k.

>>61558093
B-52 of the land.

>>61558093
It's to make fun of Pentagon Wars

>>61558093
How come endless requirements for unnecessary things made all of those suddenly necessary in the end? Did those drunk generals look satan in the eye and say: fuck off?

I can't fucking comprehend how contradicting my impression of the thing was before and after the war.

Is this a one off scenario? Are we going to see such gems in the future?

If it works it works I suppose.
>"Look at all of our new IFV technologies! Engine, electronics, weapons, material etc!"
>"Ok so we can just stuff it into the bradley and call it a day?"

>>61558322
>Generals know more than civilian engineers about what a combat vehicle needs
How is this at all surprising?

>>61558093
No, you could build a better M113 with diesel, armor and a turret. You just need to be make it better than a Bradley and fit within the procurement budget.

>>61558093
Yes, for literally ever and ever. The Army has TRIED to replace it several times and each time the MIC has only managed to offer incremental improvements not worth the cost of acquiring. So new capabilities continue to get piled on. Armored vehicles as direct fire fighting systems are on the way out / already obsolete anyways so there;s no real loss. If the Army really wants a next-gen replacement they’ll probably have to fund the development from scratch because the MIC isn’t into taking on massive risky development programs on their own dime which is why it can only offer reheated crap over and over.

>>61558364
Calm down Mike Sparks

>>61558364
stfu, Sparkytard

>>61558093
This variant is will be the current best IFV in the world. Sorry puma bros

>>61558093
It’s proving effective in Ukraine. They only had 187 of them originally and have put them to great use. I think the next logical step would be to replace the TOW launcher with something fire and forget.

>>61558369
You're just spouting off bullshit dispellable with simple google searches.

>>61558590
Yeah, I don't get why they don't just replace it with a Javelin. See a tank, pop the Jav, hide.

>>61558663
To replace every tow box on every Bradley would be a bitch but the vehicles being upgraded should not be a problem. CROWs-J would probably save weight over the TOW box and could be slaved to the vehicles optics

>>61558358

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgPmWopkVF4

very

>>61558604
Why has the Army failed to acquire a replacement up until now?

say it with me
>BRADLEYS ON MARS

What other in service IFVs have APS?

>>61558754
Budget priority

File: headlights.png (2.64 MB, 1920x1080)

2.64 MB PNG

>>61558093
there will be bradleys with legs on Mars

File: 600px-PWM16A1Elwes.jpg (43 KB, 600x328)

43 KB JPG

>>61558293
Despite the irl Burton being a dipshit (I liked Cary Elwes in the film), the point still remains the same from the film about government procurement.

https://youtu.be/wNpGBTU_jt4?feature=shared&t=5360

File: OMFV finalists.jpg (132 KB, 1567x693)

132 KB JPG

>>61558188
>produce the bradley's successor
AMPV is not the Bradley successor, that would be the OMFV

>>61561642
my bad, i misread your post

>>61558674
Dumb idea. TOW is a better missile than Javelin

File: 613WnXGIyrL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (114 KB, 708x1000)

114 KB JPG

>>61558093
>so bradley will just remain in service forever?

So it seems. So it seems...

>>61560409
There's all those turreted mt-lb's with drozd

>>61558093
At their core these are just a steel box on tracks. Whatever would replace them are also likely to be a steel box on tracks so it's not actually any better than just bolting the new toys to your old box on tracks.

>>61561597
>despite all the evidence I presented being wrong, Your Honor, my case is ackshually still correct
no

>>61561777
So the M16 didn't have issues early in Vietnam? The meetings in Washington investigating the failures the rifle had were all made up? Wow. Cool.

>>61561770
There is a point if the new steel box can either carry more people or if it's faster but doing either is hard while still keeping a similar profile, size and of course range.

>>61559688
>>61560549
Lunar Bradleys all painted white with gold foil heatsinks

>>61558590
>I think the next logical step would be to replace the TOW launcher with something fire and forget.
That seems like it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than developing and fielding an entirely new IFV. What exactly is wrong with the vehicle itself that couldn't just improved instead of replaced?

>>61562124
MIC handout. The Bradley is the superior IFV because 25 is just the best general purpose IFV round.
>but we need to make IFVs shoot down drone!
Nope, you travel with purpose built SHORAD vehicles

>>61561597
government procurement will never not be fucked up. It is universal.

>>61558093
Can anyone itemize this turret for me

>>61562173
>25 is just the best general purpose IFV round.
then why are they using 50mm on the bradley replacement?

>>61562227
There is a vehicle in development with a 50mm. It might not get canceled
>Bradley replacement
lmao

>>61562259
They just dropped a new Bradley upgrade. It’s so over for OMFV

>>61562259
true, but it looks like we're switching to 50mm either on a new vehicle or as part of yet another bradley upgrade

>>61562274
We might but I doubt they would replace the gun on legacy Bradleys.

>>61562285
I don't think they will if the replacement program goes through. what I meant is if the replacement program fails (again) a gun upgrade would probably get rolled into a future upgrade package along with other toys they developed during the replacement program

>>61562303
Maybe. I can see the gun being useful in the point air defense role.

Well yes

>>61564300
This isn’t a warriortard thread schizo

>>61558220
they are a collective consciousness.

>>61558093
Bradley is just a box APC/IFV with good characteristics. You can keep upgrading it like the ship of Theseus and keep the same general form.

I think Bradleys are too loud.

couldn't they just ditch the TOW for brimstone instead??

>>61564506
No brimstones are absolutely massive

>>61564519
i guess i'm wrong about thinking that it's just an improved hellfire then huh.

>>61564528
No that’s pretty much what they were designed to be. They are meant to be fired from aircraft and I think the ground launched version probably adds a booster or significantly shortens the range. I would go with Spike instead of the TOW and keep the main gun

>>61561719
I’m serious about what makes you think that

>>61564571
Curious* holy fuck

>>61564530
then a 4 pack javelin lawnchair would work.

>>61564730
Absolutely. I think 2 would be more realistic. But I love the idea of mounting javelins because the troops in the back already carry some. This would ease logistics a bit because the company would only have to stock 1 ATGM type and vehicles could borrow from the infantry in a pinch or vise versa

>>61564571
Bigger warhead with more penetration plus options for different warhead natures.
Longer range (4.5km with the TOW 2B Aero RF)
and it's all-weather.
Overfly Top-Attack versions can also hit targets behind obstacles, without line-of-sight
Javelin's seeker can and does reject tracking if the view of the target isn't perfect.
It's excellent for a shoulder-fired ATGM, but there are many better missile systems for killing tanks that aren't constrained by portability.

Spike ER is what Javelin could be if it was actually optimised for vehicle use as a proper TOW replacement, instead of being a shoulder-fired ATGM that now gets strapped to a CROWS

File: 1703479363701.png (109 KB, 440x299)

109 KB PNG

>>61561642
The AMPV is actually the M113's successor. Basically same concept and ideia behind it's tactical niche (muh battle taxi) but with more armor and more space for troops. The M113 kinda fell into a weird spot because the Bradley replaced it in front line usage when it came out, while MRAPs would later replace them in urban scenarios and rear line usage due to their greater mine resistance and mobility/visibility on cities.

>>61564754
i'd even go so far as to add a coaxial gmpg to the main gun.

>>61558369
>If the Army really wants a next-gen replacement they’ll probably have to fund the development from scratch because the MIC isn’t into taking on massive risky development programs on their own dime
That is literally how it has worked since before any of us were born.

>>61562124
There's limits to how much stuff you can add to an existing chassis and the Bradley is on the verge of it.

>>61565106
You'll never believe this, anon...

>>61565217
You can remove the TOW launcher and replace it. Maybe even cut down on the weight

>>61565378
Who fucking cares? If you don't want to talk about Bradleys, simply fuck off to another thread.
This isn't some boomer forum where anybody gives a wet shit about your opinions.

>>61565547
This may amaze you, but I don't give a wet shit about your opinions, dumbfuck.

>>61558093
WTF didn't they finger out a common chassis for new MPF and new IRV, especially if reason for new MPF was lite-on-logisitics VS MBT.

PS-make the turrets the same size for decoy reasons. The IFV would just use extra room for extra IFV shit like video screens for ATGM or anti-drone AAA/SHRAD or WTF, ammo boxes for auto-mortar. Cooler for drinks for the dismounts, IDK.

>>61565626
Common chassis is the wrong theory. You want common repair parts.

It doesn't matter if vehicle 1 has 12 road wheels and 500 track links and vehicles 2 has 16 road wheels and 700 track links. What maters is if the track links are interchangeable. What matters is if engine parts are common.

>>61558093
>so bradley will just remain in service forever?
We're gonna drop ramps on Mars.

File: 99120101247_SMPredator01Alt.jpg (55 KB, 669x691)

55 KB JPG

>>61565810

Iron fist

>>61565810
Yes

>>61558093
The actual article:

https://defence-blog.com/elbit-systems-to-upgrade-u-s-army-next-gen-bradley-fighting-vehicle/

>>61566788
Stop bumping warriortard

>>61558093
>so bradley will just remain in service forever?
Of course, Bradley's will be gunning down Xenomorph's with rail guns in the future for sure.

File: Screenshot_20240505_195434.png (10 KB, 194x126)

10 KB PNG

>>61565692
:^)

File: 1711231341163280.jpg (6 KB, 251x241)

6 KB JPG

>>61567986
My man, I literally left the house, bought and ate dinner, had a nap, and came back to your seething.
By all means, continue though.

>>61561597
And yet the Bradley has been punching above its weight for decades despite its history
Curious!

>>61568001
It was literally my second post in this thread and the one in your screeshot wasn't my first.

>>61558220
his name was Bradley Paulson

>>61558322
because pentagon wars is a parody, not a documentary, the bradley was always an IFV and IFVs are doctrinally sound

Based Bradley

>>61558093
yes

Oh no. Oh well guess we will just have to stick to on topic posting.

>>61558093
It’s stabilized dual feeding chain gun is really good

>>61558093
the US military has a surprisingly decent track record when it comes to hardware longevity. M1911, Browning M2, Huey, Cobra, B-52, F-16, F-15, M113, Chadley, Abrams.
And even if you account for stuff of US origin remaining in use with other countries; Shermans, Pattons, Mustangs, the US just had a knack for making shit that kept on working

File: M2-643513216.jpg (426 KB, 1800x2000)

426 KB JPG

>>61558093
>so bradley will just remain in service forever?

Why not? Baring some revolutionary development in material technology, (pro tip: ain't gunna happen) any new vehicle would have the same capabilities but cost far more due to Wall Street Military-Industrial Complex shenanigans.

It’s just that good

File: fingercurls.jpg (27 KB, 512x384)

27 KB JPG

>Mike Sparks: "I wish the Army would choose an APC that was cost effective and traditional."

File: 1697536406735002.jpg (33 KB, 536x537)

33 KB JPG

>>61558093
I hope we get some of these in the future. We're getting the NZLAV which has the same gun as the Bradley.

>>61565679
is they?, and WTF can't a buy a cheap trailer that uses the most common pattern of car wheels, and WTF is there like two dozen "of the most common" car battery sizes, with connectors on diff sides?

butt I fig a box is a box and Booker is based on a IFV, so I guess its not like you even want a "clean sheet design" for a tank VS IFV.

FMC that makes M113 used to be called "Food Machine Corp" because that is what they made. Then they figured "We can tip these meat lockers over, paint'em GREEN and sell'em to the Army for 20X as much! PROFIT! They will still be meal lockers, more or less."

>>61558093
Yes, but with a namechange
Chadley, aka the CHAD

>>61558093
>tank is a tank
if it does the tank things its good enough to field

>>61558093
they have way too much shit bolted onto the turret. just redesign the damn thing at this point.

>>61558093
Probably

>>61558322
the only unnecessary thing was the portholes

>>61558093
Of course. 25 is OP

>>61558093
Why hasn't the army replaced the TOW with something that can be fired on the move or fire-&-forget?

>>61574665
There have been attempts to, but like with most weapons replacement programs, they were put on hold or canceled when the Cold War ended. It seems the they are trying again with a new program to develop a TOW replacement by 2028.

>>61574665
Main tank killers in us mil doctrine are planes, fire and forget antitank for missiles on chadley is very low priority and budgets are finite

>>61574484
>>61574665
Brads in general have a lot of outdated shit. 25mm is mediocre and lacks air burst. TOW is inferior to a lot of modern ATGMs.

But when you already have them and enough ammo to last years it's just 3x cheaper than alternatives. US Army is not expected to fight massive land wars anyways. Even with China it's going to be mostly navy and air force.

>>61574694
>budgets are finite

This is the truth rest is cope.

>>61558093
Does the natty guard have these and if so how hard would it be for patriots during a civil conflict to end up with them?

Brads in general are the gold standard. The gun has proven to be the best in current gen warfare. The TOW is alright but it still gets the job done. Where it really shines is survivability, even moreso now that the US is procuring new variants with APS as standard

>>61562124
Energy to run systems, which is the main issue with our current fleet and why DCGX is a thing. And if you are getting a new 40mm which we need for smart ammo, to combat drones, that means your getting a new turret, new turret as stated needs more power for shit, so then you have a new powerplant, now you are replacing the turret and the powerplant, so you basically are already engineering a new vehicle. So no it wouldnt be cheaper. The bradley is only doing extremely well because hilariously its effectively still fighting what it was designed to fight the soviet union.

>>61564850
look at us not being autistic shit flingers. So basically we should investigate a lightweight, but still heavier than javelin tow replacement.

>>61574776
The TOW requires a good bit of energy. It can be swapped 1 for 1 with a different ATGM that requires the same amount of energy

>>61558093
There really is a pretty solid upper limit for new designs. Once you get a really good one it's hard to build something to replace it without some revolutionary leap. That same revolutionary leap can probably also just be applied to the thing you've already got which is guaranteed MUCH cheaper than building a whole new thing from the ground up based around that leap and other advancements. Your new vehicle has to be so much better it's actually worth it to go through the whole process of replacing the old one.

It's a problem I run into on sprocket all the damn time. I could waste hours to days designing a whole new vehicle based around some neat trick I read about like oscillating turrets as custom gun mantlets, ghost turrets, or whatever... or I could just do it to an already successful design much quicker making that WAY deadlier with a relatively simple upgrade.

The thing is advancements these days aren't really going to change the actual hull, turret, and whatnot that much on successful designs beyond giving her a nice set of bolt-ons. It's going to be new tech rather than some revolutionary new armor, geometry, or whatever like it was from WWI to shortly after Vietnam. In the end what you get is an old proven designs covered in new doohickeys like the Brad in your pic. In my opinion the most likely oldschool upgrades would be better engines and a 30mm cannon, probably some variant of the M230. Everything else will be tech.

All that said eventually a successor will absolutely be crowned, but probably not for a while. It's also probably going to be super modular and in service for a VERY long time.

>>61574791
ya everything from EW suites to new gens of thermals are all hogging energy its not 1 thing. I mean literally just having plugs to charge the infantry guys phones/other comms gear is something the bradley was never designed for.

>>61574802
But all of that stuff is on there with the TOW as well. Swap the TOW

>>61574744
It shines in survivability because it's fighting vatnik shitboxes weighing half of a Bradley. 25mm is good at killing 40y old soviet designs with crap armor it's not going to do well against 24 ton chinese IFVs or anything else.

>>61574923
Source?

>>61574811
bruh its like the navy wants spy6 on the arliegh burke, its like no we cant not enough energy you get spy4. You get what I am saying its not that a zero sum game necessarily. No single thing is enough to scrap the platform but combined it becomes cheaper to replace it than retrofit everything you need to do.

>>61558093
Thread theme: https://youtu.be/vQbZjvAxhIk

>>61558220
>he doesn't know about the Bradley Gestalt Project

File: file.png (380 KB, 775x328)

380 KB PNG

>>61562217
ERA blocks on manlet are just a theory, might be some kind of counterweight because they increased the weight of the breach or something idk

>>61575904
Thanks

>>61558093
Ajax will replace the whole bradley fleet

>>61575904
Nta but thanks

>the actual wunderwaffle of the war ended up being an IFV
Warthunder predicted this
Autocannons good
Mobility good
Having less explosive smaller calibre ammo inside your tank is better armor than actual armor

>>61558283
B-52 is peak strategic bomber

>>61564850
Ok what about a bigger Javelin then?

>>61561813
No but if we look at a graph of the number of issues the m14 issues was still greater than m16 early on.

>>61561770
>Steel box on tracks

Aluminum

>>61558093
Yeah it’s the current best IFV fielded by any nation

On mars

>>61579292
>bumping his thread after the rest got nuked

>>61579303
Seethe.

>>61579303
What brand of schizo did I just come across?

>>61579358
That dudes been on a spree all day. Some guy broke him by repeatedly making fun of some obscure British armored vehicle

Most likely, it’s too good to retire.

File: 1700452010583513.webm (3.99 MB, 540x960)

3.99 MB WEBM

>ka-chunk-ka-chunk....ka-chunk-ka-chunk-ka-chunk-ka-chunk

>>61577276
Doesn’t exist