Funding is being pursued for some limited upgrades to the Bradley, but there will be no A4. The original draft requirements are being transferred to the GCV requirements. The bradley does not really have any capability gaps, only limits in growth potential. I would agree though that a 40mm for both the upgrade and the GCV would be the better option. The CV90-40 has some incredible amunition with much increased lethality over our old 25mm (with 2 choices for ammo). The MK44 30mm has had alot of funding due to the FCS program and therefore is a favorite amongst bureaucrats, but it already becoming old news.
M1A3 Abrams Upgrade?
- Thread starter sgtgunn
- Start date
- Status
As much as I like a 40mm for it's hitting power and versality (3P) I am also sceptical of the ammo load one can carry. The CV9040 for example surfers from a relatively small amount of ready ammo with a clip system which is far from perfect.
It is telling that every export customer of the CV90 uses either a 30mm or a 35mm.
It is telling that every export customer of the CV90 uses either a 30mm or a 35mm.
Programmable ammo is indeed very interesting. It gives alot flexibility like delayed fragmentation after penetrating a wall or airburst to hit enemies behind cover. There is also ABM ammo available which ejects wolfram darts in a conical way rather than like ball (like 3P) which should be deadly for infantry and enemy optics.
But such ammunition is also available for 30mm and 35mm weapons. Nevertheless 40mm ammo still has more payload.
What should also be considered is that modern IFVs and APCs tend to become very hard to kill frontally with a 30mm or smaller. And one doesn't want to use an ATGM everytime one tries to kill an enemy IFV.
Right now I would think that a 35mm with a good dual ammo feeding system and enough ready ammo is the best compromise with the 40mm CTA looking also very promising due to it's relatively small footprint for a 40mm AC.
But such ammunition is also available for 30mm and 35mm weapons. Nevertheless 40mm ammo still has more payload.
What should also be considered is that modern IFVs and APCs tend to become very hard to kill frontally with a 30mm or smaller. And one doesn't want to use an ATGM everytime one tries to kill an enemy IFV.
Right now I would think that a 35mm with a good dual ammo feeding system and enough ready ammo is the best compromise with the 40mm CTA looking also very promising due to it's relatively small footprint for a 40mm AC.
Our new battle taxi will indeed initially start out with a 30mm auto cannon, one of the turret designs is close resemblance to Puma turret.
Are you referring to one of the prototypes to be included in the Analysis of Alternatives, or a prototype to compete for the contract? I am pretty sure draft requirements do not call for a specific material solution and a 30mm is not the end all be all of options(depending on the company). If the 30mm is indeed the initial option, it seems that there is a need to hold on to former FCS material solely. Possibly because of time and money spent.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Its kind sad but true and funny.That is sooooo true.
We will actually see a prototype up for evaluation, 30mm will not be the end all caliber, design more than likely will have option for caliber upgrades during the life of vehicle. Lets hope that some of the FCS technology advances end up being used, I will speculate that this indeed will be the case.
30mm auto cannon projectile advancements in performance should give us a level playing field for at least some time.
The Puma is an amazing new IFV. The only issue I see with the end user is the same as the MGV....Unmanned turret. With no ability to "prarie dog" or stick your head out with a set of binoculars. Though crew protection is paramount, there is the argument that no amount of sensors will substitute what the eye can see (the T-80 coming around the corner), also the redundancy in degraded ops. Also, crew interaction. No doubt internal comms will have issues when you least expect it. In a manned turret, the crew can still interact. How will the Puma-like turret overcome this?
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government
Then again, and playing devil's advocate, if a bad guy drills you right through the scone because you were heads out, you'll have a much bigger problem than muddy optics.
Many optical sights even drivers vision blocks have wipers to clear crap from lenses. The ability to look at something a long way off with decent magnification, image stapilisation so the image isn't useless whilst the vehicle is moving and that the image is available day and night via thermal or Ii technology has a lot going for it too.
Perhaps the ultimate combination would be something similar to the F35's DAS - whichever direction you look in the picture is presented as though you were able to see right through the vehicle.
There has always been much debate in regards to unmanned versus manned turrets due to situational awareness concerns, being an old tread head I would have to concur that I was most comfortable with my head out of the hatch in both defensive and offensive postures, the battlefield is a busy place with many things at both ground and air level that can kill you, but with wider advanced generation view optics and if one would consider the safety aspects of having primary weapon and ammunition loadout away from the crew I can see the importance of going to this next step though it may take some time to get used to it.
Maybe we stay long enough in A-stan to deploy the Puma. The reports from the crews are going to be very interesting as they will transit from relatively old tech Marders with traditional turrets to new tech Pumas with unmanned turrets. And all that in a combat environment.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #35
While all kinds of cool sensors are nice, I don't think they are the real reason driving the push towards remote weapon stations/unmanned turrets. It's force protection. A tank commander driving his M4 down the streets of Leipzig in WW2 was just (if not more) likely to get drilled in the head by a sniper as is an M1 TC in Afghanistan. The difference is that today, any fatality has a political impact far beyond it's tactical or operational impact. People freak out now when they here that 2 US serviceman are killed in one day in Afghanistan. God knows how they would deal with something like D-Day today. In WW2 it wasn't worth protecting a TC - I believe only the Germans came up with a remote controlled TC machine gun for their Hetzer tank destroyer.
(on a semi-related note - the War on Terror (Iraq & Afghanistan) the US has averaged about 2 fatalities a day. Vietnam it was 26 a day. 45 a day in Korea, 416 in WW2, 279 in WW1 and a whopping 599 a day in the Civil War! I wouldn't want to even guess the number of fatalities per day the Germans or Soviets took in WW2. *Shudder*)
The US military (and I suspect most western armed forces) has developed a bit of a fetish about force protection because of this. Especially after all the bad press about unarmored vehicles at the beginning of the Iraq War ( I never understood how using an unarmored HMMWV as a COMBAT vehicle in close terrain could possibly be considered a good idea...) Now don't get me wrong - as one of those being protected, the increase emphasis on keeping me breathing is nice most of the time. Some times it gets a little silly though - like loading people up with so much body armor that they can only pant and wheeze while they watch Taliban in robes and flip flops run up the side of mountains laughing at them (luckily the Army has acknowledged this problem and is issuing plate carriers to infantry in Afghanistan instead of full body armor).
So while many TCs would like a turret that lets them stick their heads out once and while to see whats going on, the Army doesn't want to risk them getting picked off and end up another bad statistic to get explained to an increasingly war weary public.
Plus fancy remote thingees make defense contractors more money. Am I a cynic or what?
(on a semi-related note - the War on Terror (Iraq & Afghanistan) the US has averaged about 2 fatalities a day. Vietnam it was 26 a day. 45 a day in Korea, 416 in WW2, 279 in WW1 and a whopping 599 a day in the Civil War! I wouldn't want to even guess the number of fatalities per day the Germans or Soviets took in WW2. *Shudder*)
The US military (and I suspect most western armed forces) has developed a bit of a fetish about force protection because of this. Especially after all the bad press about unarmored vehicles at the beginning of the Iraq War ( I never understood how using an unarmored HMMWV as a COMBAT vehicle in close terrain could possibly be considered a good idea...) Now don't get me wrong - as one of those being protected, the increase emphasis on keeping me breathing is nice most of the time. Some times it gets a little silly though - like loading people up with so much body armor that they can only pant and wheeze while they watch Taliban in robes and flip flops run up the side of mountains laughing at them (luckily the Army has acknowledged this problem and is issuing plate carriers to infantry in Afghanistan instead of full body armor).
So while many TCs would like a turret that lets them stick their heads out once and while to see whats going on, the Army doesn't want to risk them getting picked off and end up another bad statistic to get explained to an increasingly war weary public.
Plus fancy remote thingees make defense contractors more money. Am I a cynic or what?
At least with the Puma the implemention of the unmanned turret was driven by the restrictions of weigt and dimension the A400M enforced on the programm. With weight and dimension being a factor in other new designs unmanned turrets might become more proliferated. If we stay in Afghanistan long enough we might see our mech inf change from Marders to Pumas in the theater. This will be interesting as we can look at their judgement from inside a combat zone.
The idea of protecting the crew is one of the main reasons for all the smaller RCWS floating around (another one is the implemention of nice TIs, optics and stabs).
The big RCWS like the Israeli Sampson are IMO driven by the idea to easily beef up existing (H)APC designs without having to change the whole design. Putting a Sampson with a 30mm and a dual Spike launcher onto every 4th APC in your inventory really changes your hitting power without having to buy a knew vehicle.
The idea of protecting the crew is one of the main reasons for all the smaller RCWS floating around (another one is the implemention of nice TIs, optics and stabs).
The big RCWS like the Israeli Sampson are IMO driven by the idea to easily beef up existing (H)APC designs without having to change the whole design. Putting a Sampson with a 30mm and a dual Spike launcher onto every 4th APC in your inventory really changes your hitting power without having to buy a knew vehicle.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #37
If the Bundeswher does get Pumas into theater in Afghanistan, I suspect the US Army will be watching their performance very closey if they are being considered as a potential replacement for the M2/M3 Bradley.
Does anyone know if the US Army has tested unmanned turret (like the Sampson) on the M2/M3 platform? Could be a potential upgrade until a replacement is found.......
Adrian
We are not talking about the same 140 mm that Germany, France and the U.S have tested, we have come a long ways in regards to composites and metallurgy.
Last edited:
How is the transition going so far in Germany with units training on Puma, have any even been distributed yet to the units.
Yes we have tested unmanned turrets on Bradley platforms, do not expect us to place to much inregards to major upgrades, maybe, and this is a big maybe a bigger caliber auto cannon, secondary armor and FCS upgrades but that will be it. We are placing alot of emphasis on a new ground pounder taxi entirely. Whats scary is the fact that you may see this new platform with comparable weight as seen on a tank in full armor module mode, weight limit seems to not be a factor this time around.
- Status