# America's next tank unveiled.



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 6, 2016)

BAE Systems has unveiled its prototype for the massive tank that could one day replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

The Next Generation Bradley was debuted today at the Association of the United States Army annual meeting in Washington DC, revealing improvements in space, electrical power, and force protection.

This new concept is a high-tech upgrade to previous design, incorporating targeting sensors and network connectivity and allowing for the addition of future technologies as these systems continue to grow.








The prototype has been fitted with upgrades in the suspension to enhance the vehicle’s mobility for maneuvers within the Armored Brigade Combat Team.

It is equipped with armor, fuel tanks, and the driver’s hatch from the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, along with 600 volt electronics and final drives from the M109A7 Self-Propelled Howitzer seen in the current Bradley systems.

According to BAE, the new design will allow for faster development, and significant cost savings.


The Next Generation Bradley uses a modernized version of the turret seen in the current system, with suspension improvements, targeting sensors, and network connectivity.


The unveiling of the prototype comes just days after it was revealed that BAE Systems will begin construction on new nuclear submarines for Britain, with roughly $1.7 billion of investment from the British ministry of defense.

http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/bae-systems-debuting-next-generation-bradley-prototype


----------



## Easo (Oct 6, 2016)

That... is not a tank.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 6, 2016)

tank
taŋk/
_noun_

*1*.
a large receptacle or storage chamber, especially for liquid or gas.







*2*.
a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.
synonyms: armoured vehicle, armoured car, combat vehicle; 
Panzer
"they made use of tanks, artillery, and heavy weapons"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 6, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> tank
> taŋk/
> _noun_
> 
> ...



Well, it isn't a main battle tank, and those in addition to "light" tanks are basically what "tank" really refers to today. Wikipedia only addresses common, colloquial understandings of the term. Would it be appropriate to call a .50-armed M113 a tank?

Not really America's "next tank" as the article suggests..........more like a M2A4 or M4 Bradley if it ever is introduced into service. The aforementioned Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle slated to replace the venerable M113 is literally a Bradley hull, so with this "new Bradley" taking improvements from the AMPV it just means that it's an improved Bradley. I can't think of any fundamental changes that might be brought onto this vehicle, in terms of construction (moving beyond aluminum would cause a massive increase in weight and complete change in the vehicle's characteristics), armament (from the image it looks like the M242 is here to stay, and it's plenty between the M791 and M919, and how much Russian 2A42s suck), and protection (ERA in the exact same configuration as the M2A3, perhaps improved ERA?).

So just another update to the Bradley IFV family, the same way that the M1A2 SEP v3 is just a host of improvements in lethality/protection/communication to the existing M1A2s.

Hell, it's pretty damn clear that the likes of General Dynamics and BAE are fully aware of how reluctant the US military is in adopting new platforms, so they just spit out small improvements of the same damn thing and brand it as America's "all-new" or "next" fighting machine. Take the M1A2 SEP v3 for example. Aside from the new "armor package" that's supposed to provide improved protection against IEDs (which, if I'm not mistaken, was already introduced with a TUSK package or something in the form of a thicker belly plate) and a newer CROWS and perhaps better battlefield management system, the only real noteworthy change on the SEP v3 is the ability to fire the M829E4/A4, which was a completely separate development, and there's no reason why the same M256 guns of the Army/Marine M1A1s and Army M1A2s can't fire the M829A4 as well when it's introduced to the inventory. I think we all know which tech companies this "rebranding" reminds us of 


In terms of the MRAP being enough, it definitely is (and is, might I say it, superior to older versions of heavier IFVs and tanks that have not been modified for asymmetrical threats). But I suspect that with the recent focus on the unconventional, urban environment (MRAPs, ERA and heavier belly armor on Bradley and Abrams, CROWS, etc.), the US Army now feels that there is a need to turn back to the conventional side of the equation, especially with Russia flaunting its new and ultimately mysterious Armata / Kurganets / Bumerang / Koalitsiya-SV systems. In the form of rebranded products (which, to be honest, are more than enough).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 6, 2016)

Bradley is technically an IFV: Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

The US Army has been looking at replacing it for a while now but I have a suspicion this prototype will be rejected just like those before it.  The Army's expectations are too varied and too strict.  I think one iteration, they wanted it to hold like 11 guys (8 from the squad and 3 that stay with it), had a bigger cannon, and better protection from IEDs which a contractor built one and it was behemoth: too costly to produce and not mobile enough to deploy.  It's been a swing and miss ever since.

In my opinion, this BAE prototype doesn't offer enough advantages over the current Bradley.  The US Army might be more inclined to take some of the good ideas off it and just do an M2A4 revision of those Bradley's in service.

I get the distinct impression that the MRAP is adequate enough for current Army needs.  Yeah it doesn't have a big gun on the roof and it isn't tracked for operating off road but it is nimble, serviceable, and cheap.

I dunno, I wouldn't get my hopes up about anything new going into production any time soon.


I think they should looking to main battle tank/infantry fighting vehicle combo.  It'll be huge and ridiculously heavy but when one vehicle takes the place of two, it might work out.


----------



## redundantslurs (Oct 6, 2016)

Easo said:


> That... is not a tank.


You are correct.  I worked on these for years in the Army, I wouldn't call em tanks either.  They're classified as APC (Armored Personnel Carrier)/IFV.  Nonetheless still badass .


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 6, 2016)

I think the days of heavy vehicles with heavy armament are gone. They may find purpose in rare cases, but today, technology and finesse is what makes vehicle a good fighting machine. Basically, it won't be the tank that will deliver the payload, it'll just be a "painter" with laser that designates the target and then you fire the payload from assault ships from nearby sea or you use drones. Times are changing.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 6, 2016)

Easo said:


> That... is not a tank.



You are correct.  As an Army vet, I can tell you it is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).


----------



## BirdyNV (Oct 6, 2016)

Hmmm, interesting. Looks much taller than the Bradley


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 6, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> I think the days of heavy vehicles with heavy armament are gone. They may find purpose in rare cases, but today, technology and finesse is what makes vehicle a good fighting machine. Basically, it won't be the tank that will deliver the payload, it'll just be a "painter" with laser that designates the target and then you fire the payload from assault ships from nearby sea or you use drones. Times are changing.


a) those systems are extremely expensive--use 4 cruise missiles and you paid for a Bradley which has a much longer service life.
b) those systems are useless in an urban environment.  Bradley is effective in anti-terror because it can safely get a squad into and out of the hot zone and provide heavy fire power while doing it.  The problem is Bradley armor isn't thick enough to save it from an IED (terrorist's cowardly weapon of choice).

The 105-120mm guns on main battle tanks are rather obsolete, yeah.  Bradley doesn't have one but can still kill a tank with a TOW missile.  I think this is why the Army is pursuing M1A4 instead of replacing them entirely.  M1s are only really necessary in a fight that involves a significant number of opposing tanks or armored vehicles.  That's few and far between.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Oct 6, 2016)

Tanks for the read.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 6, 2016)

EPIC ^^^^^^^^


----------



## BirdyNV (Oct 6, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> a) those systems are extremely expensive--use 4 cruise missiles and you paid for a Bradley which has a much longer service life.
> b) those systems are useless in an urban environment.  Bradley is effective in anti-terror because it can safely get a squad into and out of the hot zone and provide heavy fire power while doing it.  The problem is Bradley armor isn't thick enough to save it from an IED (terrorist's cowardly weapon of choice).
> 
> The 105-120mm guns on main battle tanks are rather obsolete, yeah.  Bradley doesn't have one but can still kill a tank with a TOW missile.  I think this is why the Army is pursuing M1A4 instead of replacing them entirely.  M1s are only really necessary in a fight that involves a significant number of opposing tanks or armored vehicles.  That's few and far between.


The idea that MBT's will eventually be obsolete is true. Because weapon systems will become more advanced, but as with the B-52, MBT's will be around for a lot, lot longer.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 6, 2016)

What ground wars does America actually fight in?

The perplexity of human warfare astounds me.  Spend billions of dollars on archaic hardware (it's an armored car) while we watch North Korea develop ballistic Nuclear weapons - because that armored car will really help.  Or sit passively by and watch Russia annex Crimea (though it really was theirs anyway) and rattle some sanction sabres.  I genuinely think the defence budgets are abstractions of ideology rather than a militaristic strategy.  Multinational arms dealers get wealth and countries can puff their chests out.  But really, when the shit goes down it seems to be an attitude of, 'can we afford to do this?' to which the answer is always a resounding, 'not if they're a real threat'.

Military vehicles are like playground toys.  Until the crazy kid with a bloody stick starts hitting people and the people with the real hardware sit idly by.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 6, 2016)

Here's the 84 ton (by CBO estimates), 2012 BAE GCV (ground combat vehicle) concept:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/bae-systems-gcv-is-140000-pounds-of-hybrid-military-might-178805/

Heavier than Abrams, seats 12 (9 squad, 3 crew).  They should seriously just slap an 80mm auto cannon on it and order enough to replace the Bradley and Abrams and call it a day.



the54thvoid said:


> Military vehicles are like playground toys.










...I think they deliberately left the cleats off...


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 6, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> a) those systems are extremely expensive--use 4 cruise missiles and you paid for a Bradley which has a much longer service life.
> b) those systems are useless in an urban environment.  Bradley is effective in anti-terror because it can safely get a squad into and out of the hot zone and provide heavy fire power while doing it.  The problem is Bradley armor isn't thick enough to save it from an IED (terrorist's cowardly weapon of choice).
> 
> The 105-120mm guns on main battle tanks are rather obsolete, yeah.  Bradley doesn't have one but can still kill a tank with a TOW missile.  I think this is why the Army is pursuing M1A4 instead of replacing them entirely.  M1s are only really necessary in a fight that involves a significant number of opposing tanks or armored vehicles.  That's few and far between.



With (financially strapped) Russia still flexing its muscles somehow with the Armata family, these systems are staying for longer. We've made significant advances in the ability to conduct precision strikes almost anywhere we want, anytime we want, but what has been describes a few posts ago is still pretty far in the future compared to current needs.

I don't believe that the Bradley's capabilities overlap with the current M1A1 and M1A2 inventory. Sure, in the Persian Gulf War, the ODS Bradleys may have tallied a lot more kills than the M1A1s, but that was down to a few important reasons:

1. All the T-72M1s and "Asad Babils" were terribly outdated even in the T-72 lineage. Read: no properly advanced composite armor and definitely no ERA. Bradleys had a field day with their TOWs.
2. IIRC at the time the Abrams were inferior when it came to battlefield management systems (don't quote me) and weren't simply a do-it-all weapon.

Now, with Russia's (and China's) ridiculously heavy reliance on advanced ERA, the Bradley is not going to continue to have a field day if it is deployed against Eastern armor, considering that the initial "WOW" of the shaped charge has largely subsided due to the advancement of ERA (and that the TOW has barely made much progress save for the addition of the tandem warhead since then). The Bradley will continue to be good against and will continue to be used against lighter vehicles such as the BTR-82A and BMP-3, whose 30mm shipunovs honestly cannot hold a candle to the upgraded Bradley's protection and its highly performing rounds.

And with the upcoming M829A4 APFSDS for tanks and new AMP round for everything else, the M1 will definitely continue to play a large part in the US arsenal. 

Furthermore, the importance of MBTs on the asymmetrical battlefield has been emphasized many times by a whole host of ISAF nations; a Bradley is intimidating but when any old insurgent can get their hands on modern RPG-7 rounds and IEDs, it doesn't mean a lot for crew protection and "intimidation factor". When a Leopard 2A6 or Marine M1A1 rolls along an Afghan road, it's quite a different story. Obviously such a conflict will only require the deployment of a dozen tanks to do the work, but we get the point.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 6, 2016)

thats an IFV/FFV ,or a bradley "re-skinned" technically it might be a tank, but its 25mm AP/HE cannon, and thin armor (compared to the M1A1's 120mm Maingun and 350mm-700mm Armor) makes it much Less "tanky" , but i suppose thats just semantics, the title doesnt say new "MBT" just tank, so it is likely technically correct, and im FAR to lazy to search definitions, and info .

pretty cool looking.


----------



## BirdyNV (Oct 6, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> What ground wars does America actually fight in?
> 
> The perplexity of human warfare astounds me.  Spend billions of dollars on archaic hardware (it's an armored car) while we watch North Korea develop ballistic Nuclear weapons - because that armored car will really help.  Or sit passively by and watch Russia annex Crimea (though it really was theirs anyway) and rattle some sanction sabres.  I genuinely think the defence budgets are abstractions of ideology rather than a militaristic strategy.  Multinational arms dealers get wealth and countries can puff their chests out.  But really, when the shit goes down it seems to be an attitude of, 'can we afford to do this?' to which the answer is always a resounding, 'not if they're a real threat'.
> 
> Military vehicles are like playground toys.  Until the crazy kid with a bloody stick starts hitting people and the people with the real hardware sit idly by.


We aren't spending billions of dollars on archaic hardware, we are updating and getting rid of our archaic hardware. And the nuclear weapons thing? Well look at stuxnet, and ask the Iranians what they think.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 6, 2016)

tabascosauz said:


> With (financially strapped) Russia still flexing its muscles somehow with the Armata family, these systems are staying for longer. We've made significant advances in the ability to conduct precision strikes almost anywhere we want, anytime we want, but what has been describes a few posts ago is still pretty far in the future compared to current needs.
> 
> I don't believe that the Bradley's capabilities overlap with the current M1A1 and M1A2 inventory. Sure, in the Persian Gulf War, the ODS Bradleys may have tallied a lot more kills than the M1A1s, but that was down to a few important reasons:
> 
> ...


But how many tank kills are actually performed by aircraft (especially helicopters and Thunderbolt IIs)?  I think the GCV being bigger than an Abrams would have as much, if not more, intimidation factor than the Abrams--especially considering the fact that a large auto cannon cannot only kill medium tanks quickly, it can destroy cover and anything behind it just as fast.


I'm interested to see what the DOD makes of this prototype.  It's no doubt better than Bradley but is it good enough to bother investing billions in to replace the Bradley fleet.  I'd argue not but Bradley is showing its age.  Something has to be done about it sooner or later.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 6, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> but i suppose thats just semantics, the title doesnt say new "MBT" just tank, so it is likely technically correct, and im FAR to lazy to search definitions, and info .
> 
> pretty cool looking.



when your squatting in your foxhole and this is coming at you  " its a Tank"    especialy as your Kaftan has turned brown below the waist.


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 6, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> But how many tank kills are actually performed by handheld missile launchers or aircraft (especially helicopters)?  I think the GCV being bigger than an Abrams would have as much, if not more, intimidation factor than the Abrams--especially considering the fact that a large auto cannon cannot only kill medium tanks quickly, it can destroy cover and anything behind it just as fast.
> 
> 
> I'm interested to see what the DOD makes of this prototype.  It's no doubt better than Bradley but is it good enough to bother investing billions in to replace the Bradley fleet.  I'd argue not but Bradley is showing its age.  Something has to be done about it sooner or later.



IIRC in response to your first question, it is a question regarding conventional rather than asymmetric warfare, so my answer would be "many" and "probably the majority", but that doesn't mean that the MBT force can be neglected simply because it doesn't tally as many kills. Russia may be poor but they were the OG when it came to air defence (due to NATO's switch to the "tank-killing" attack helicopter) and they still field a large number of pretty deadly anti-air systems for all ranges and altitudes. In such a scenario, I don't imagine that it will be like the Persian Gulf where a bunch of different weapons were taking turns having a field day. Iraqi air defence was neutralized in the blink of an eye.

The second question I imagine would be a question relating to asymmetric warfare. I think insurgents would be pretty smart to realize which target is the autocannon-resistant vehicle (GCV, Bradley) and which one is the 125mm APFSDS-resistant target (Abrams), and thus, which one would more easily fall prey to a PG-7VR warhead. Just because the GCV is taller doesn't mean it is "bigger" or better protected or better armed than the Abrams. IIRC the Abrams, compared to its other MBT counterparts, is much better suited to an anti-infantry role because it carries a billion rounds for its coax and MGs. I don't think either the Bradley or GCV can match that. An 80mm autocannon would probably sacrifice much of the "auto-" aspect as few rounds would be carried due to the sheer size. The biggest autocannons currently fitted/proposed are the Bofors 40mm on the CV9040 and the modernized 57mm on the "Atom" prototype, and it's safe to safe that neither would be able to a) carry enough rounds as the Bradley or b) be able to effectively engage enemy MBTs. There are no "medium tanks" still around, only armoured vehicles that aren't tanks like the BTR and BMP; the currently M242-armed Bradley does just fine, considering that it's a 25mm gun that far surpasses 30mm 2A42 and 2A72 guns.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 6, 2016)

BirdyNV said:


> Well look at stuxnet, and ask the Iranians what they think.



Bingo baby! Hardware is secondary. We should be developing softwarfare. And we are. And EMP style weaponry. The days of tanks rolling across the ground are over. APC's are for civil unrest, not balls out warfare.  But people get filthy fucking rich by selling 'iron' hardware and the senate loves it.
I watched 'The Watchmen' last week (again). We need a reality check to stop us being dicks to each other.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 6, 2016)

I did some digging...

Desert Storm had about 3700 tank kills...
Over 1000 were killed by A-10 Thunderbolt II.  Apache killed about 500.  Apparently F-111 scored 1500 kills.

So that's about 3000 of 3700 from three aircraft types.  Doesn't leave much for the ground vehicles...



tabascosauz said:


> Iraqi air defence was neutralized in the blink of an eye.


On the fourth day, Iraq was incapable of fending off medium-high altitude sorties (A-10 would kill anything that shot at it in low altitude ).  USA is very, very, very good at claiming the skies and then exploiting that advantage.  The weakness is urban warfare where I think a hybrid MBT/IFV would be ideal.



tabascosauz said:


> I think insurgents would be pretty smart to realize which target is the autocannon-resistant vehicle (GCV, Bradley) and which one is the 125mm APFSDS-resistant target (Abrams), and thus, which one would more easily fall prey to a PG-7VR warhead.


The 2012 BAE GCV was 125mm APFSDS-resistant.  That vehicle was all about armor...and 12 dudes.



tabascosauz said:


> There are no "medium tanks" still around, only armoured vehicles that aren't tanks like the BTR and BMP; the currently M242-armed Bradley does just fine, considering that it's a 25mm gun that far surpasses 30mm 2A42 and 2A72 guns.


The Bradley itself can be considered a medium tank.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 6, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I did some digging...
> 
> Desert Storm had about 3700 tank kills...
> Over 1000 were killed by A-10 Thunderbolt II.  Apache killed about 500.  Apparently F-111 scored 1500 kills.
> ...



But they look macho in parades.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 6, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> when your squatting in your foxhole and this is coming at you  " its a Tank"    especialy as your Kaftan has turned brown below the waist.


They're always.brown


----------



## Easo (Oct 6, 2016)

Tanks are far, far from becoming irrelevant. Missiles have advanced, true, but so has protection. Abrams has frontal armour equivalent of, what, close to one meter of steel? Merkava IV boasts the most advanced antimissile protection ever deployed (emphasis on the word deployed, as in actual use, not on paper and internet boards). Armata could, in theory, be considered the most safe tank for the crew due to unmanned turret.

Chinese, Russians, others are still developing new models, and so does the West (though the deployment of a truly new tank is quit far due to multitude of reasons).
You can argue that in urban territories it is of less use, but so is everything else on wheels.
And APCs and IFVs doesnt have the same intimidating factor as tanks.


----------

