Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 103

Thread: New M2 Bradley IFV variant?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default New M2 Bradley IFV variant?



    It seems that US Army is testing a new M2 IFV variant with unmanned Kongsberg turret, exactly the same turret is tested on new Stryker APC variant.

    It might be attempt to unify armament between both vehicles, but also solve some problems with M2, by use of unmanned turret, more space is avaiable inside hull, thus M2 should be capable to carry 3 men crew and 9 dismounts.

  2. #2
    Sheep dog standing before wolves The Dane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fyrkat-Jutland
    Posts
    16,467

    Default

    Interesting! Does it still use the 25mm Bushmaster?

  3. #3
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    Nope, this turret is armed with 30mm Mk44 or derivative, and is capable to be rearmed with 35/50mm Bushmaster variant if nececary.



    Here you have video from tests of the new Stryker variant with the same turret.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Kaiser Prussotroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Failing art school, writing a book about invading Russia
    Posts
    1,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    Nope, this turret is armed with 30mm Mk44 or derivative, and is capable to be rearmed with 35/50mm Bushmaster variant if nececary.
    A 30mm Mk44 really only seems like a side-grade compared to the 25mm Bushmaster. The 35mm and 50mm would be a different story.

  5. #5
    Sheep dog standing before wolves The Dane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fyrkat-Jutland
    Posts
    16,467

    Default

    Go for the Bushmaster III 35mm.. Danish CV9035's have proven it self very well in Afghanistan. Goes through almost every things.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Good lord, that turret is U-G-L-Y. Don't get me wrong, I think greater firepower on Strykers is an essential update to persue, but seriously, does it have to be that ugly-magugly?

  7. #7
    Field Marshal Smartass Sousuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HKDan View Post
    Good lord, that turret is U-G-L-Y. Don't get me wrong, I think greater firepower on Strykers is an essential update to persue, but seriously, does it have to be that ugly-magugly?
    It's military hardware, not a Ferrari. The only thing that matters is how well it can do the job.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Alpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Observe Overreact Destroy Apologize
    Posts
    4,955

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HKDan View Post
    Good lord, that turret is U-G-L-Y. Don't get me wrong, I think greater firepower on Strykers is an essential update to persue, but seriously, does it have to be that ugly-magugly?
    Is it just me or does it look quite a bit bigger then the current turret?

  9. #9
    Senior Member J도so's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpheus View Post
    Is it just me or does it look quite a bit bigger then the current turret?
    Everything from optics to ammo must fit inside the turret since it's not taking any space inside the hull.

  10. #10
    Member IronLionZion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    ! إسرائيل تعيش
    Posts
    570

    Default

    I always thought that the bradley was too high. And this new turret isn't going to make things better.

  11. #11
    Senior Member flanker7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cyprus
    Age
    37
    Posts
    8,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J도so View Post
    Everything from optics to ammo must fit inside the turret since it's not taking any space inside the hull.

    True that but somehow other turrets manage this in a smaller package, or by the looks of it.

    Kuka E8 and Lance turrets come to mind

  12. #12

    Default

    GCV program was cancelled, so it could be an upgrade or new variant...

  13. #13
    Senior Member KillerBD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,040

    Default

    The standard Bradley turret if fudging cramped, also with the high-offset turret it has a pretty high center of gravity. You sure this 'remote controlled' turret doesn't extend down into the hull? That seems pretty hard to believe...

    Oh and bigger is better, as long as they can keep the 'auto-cannon' portion. Even better, lets one-up the Russians and make something reminiscent of the BMP-3... 40mm Bofors + 155mm Howitzer +12.7mm coax. All on an auto-loading system

    Don't tell me it can't be done.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    You sure this 'remote controlled' turret doesn't extend down into the hull? That seems pretty hard to believe...
    Yes I am sure, the same turret was choosen for new Stryker variant that is required to still carry 9 dismounts. How you want to carry 9 dismounts when part of their space is occupied by turret.

    Unmanned turrets for IFV's in general don't require any space inside, everything is kept outside in turret.

    GCV program was cancelled, so it could be an upgrade or new variant...
    GCV program in reality was not cancelled, it is not named GCV anymore, but R&D work is still performed by GDLS and BAE.

  15. #15
    Senior Member ~UNiOnJaCk~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    6,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
    It's military hardware, not a Ferrari. The only thing that matters is how well it can do the job.
    As i understand from members here though, the US Army has already expressed concerns about the profile of the Stryker height wise when it came to the addition of remote weapon stations. Adding that turret on the top and you have produced a veritable tower block!

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    GCV program in reality was not cancelled, it is not named GCV anymore, but R&D work is still performed by GDLS and BAE.
    Indeed, albeit with a reduction in funding and an ease up on the time scale. That said i have always maintained that the GCV, certainly as is at any rate, is a fool's programme. I often think it would be better just to cancel it outright and start afresh with a more realistic set of goals.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •