The same way he showed a picture of a Bradley with soldiers in ACUs and labelled it "1991 Gulf War" even though that uniform wasn't a thing until 2005.
The Redback from Hanwha along with the Lynx is currently being trialled by the Australian army to replace the tracked APC fleet which is currently fulfilled by the M113 ( yes I saw the eye rolls from everyone haha)
I rode M2s for several years and quite frankly, it has been one of the most successful systems in the inventory over time. It took years to learn how to "fight" a heavy M2 equipped force, but once those concepts were worked out, it was superlative. No IFV will be perfect. Trade offs will have to be made to fit a workable package of mobility, transportability, lethality, protection, and carrying capacity and that means no "perfect" system can ever exist. Also, the more lethal you make it, the more it masses, and the more it masses, the less transportable it becomes.
Perhaps the future will be with directed energy weapons then. This will free up loads of other weight and capacity issues which former systems were limted by, that can be redistributed into other purposes.
i was wondering how the m2 will do against drones.. in the future, we might see a change in which most of the combat is not vehicle vs vehicle, engaging with line of sight. but instead mobile weapon platforms connected to drones that then precision-fire rockets and missiles like a long-range version of the javelin etc. just my thoughts..
Griffin 3 built around the 50mm like the Army needs,but the industry will try to get them to field the 30-35mm in order to get the contract. The Army need to keep the 50mm from the start and if the companies can’t meet that need then drop them make them rise to the Army’s standard instead of the Army lowering to theirs
You are wrong companies would like to sell 50mm because they are get more money selling completely new gun and new ammo it's much more money then selling 30-35mm in other hand army could choose 30mm because it's cheaper and they already have ammo for it
Really! Ok agree to disagree, so explain to me how other nations ate jumping past the 30mm to 40 and 57mm systems for their IFV's and those companies benefit from the sale of 30/35 mm because they are the ones who make the weapons that fire them,like duh! My point is screw them ser the standard for our warfighters and let the 50mm be the go to weapon for the OMFV the industry will retool itself and Mass produce the ammo to include smart ammo which that caliber will be better at than smaller ones due to it's size,this is the future and the Army best to head into with force instead of playing catchup like they did in WW2, again the US Army should be the trend setters and forward thinkers when it comes to fielding effective and upgradable platforms period!
@@bennuredjedi I would like to know what country has 40mm/57mm guns on them for their future IFV's? Puma from German has 30mm, CV90 from sweden has a 40mm Bofors which also has a 3 man crew, Borusk IFV from poland is a 30mm with a 3 man crew, The Turkish Tulpar has a 30mm and only 4 have been produced. I can track only Sweden as having the 40mm on their IFV. Every other nation either has the 25mm (at the minimum)to 30mm gun system on their IFV's. Enlighten me on who else other than sweden has a 40mm or 57mm....And you think the U.S. Army should be trend setters....Thats cute. this is not a U.S. Thing when it comes to setting vehicle standards and effective/upgradable standards. This is about the ever changing evolution of armor as a whole The Abrams has been around and I have had the honor and privilege to have been on the abrams from the 105 M1 Abrams and every variant of the A1 up to the A2 SEPv2's. If you thought that it upgraded its platform significantly...I hate to tell you, It hasnt. they were all minor upgrades until the SEPv3's came out. But ill leave you to think that the U.S. Army are trend setters and forward thinkers when there are other countries (like germany) who can exceed past the U.S.
@@CCM1199 And the 40mm Bofors has been around for decades - hardly something new. Besides, there is always the age old trade off - the bigger the calibre the less rounds you can carry.
Isn't the Swedish one called the CV 90? Its a very impressive kit allready in active service and has a 120mm varient. Its currently the fastest tracked Multipurpose APC in service from my understanding. The only downside is that its crew compartment is smaller. Gotta hand it to Rhinmetal, the lynx is looking mighty fine as well.
I agree with you. Why hasn't the US looked at the CV90 family? It's proven in the rugged terrain Sweden as well as their adverse conditions and for lethality it has a 40mm and I'm sure they could figure out to mount whatever ATGM the US wants as their's a version of the CV90 with TOW's out there already. I feel like we could save a bit of money with that system.
The MOD should have selected CV90 for the British Army rather than the GD Ajax death trap. Stay clear of General Dynamics and anything you choose will be better than that piece of crap. CV90 has undergone continuous development since it was first introduced. It's practically a completely new vehicle now and is fully integrated into the digital battle space.. Take a look at the latest production version for the Norwegian Army. As you say there ,are 120mm and 105mm direct fire support variants. The double barrelled 120 mortar system is very impressive too. As Mike has said. There are huge savings involved with choosing an off the shelf product.
the 120mm variant is no personal carrier tho atleast not the 8 + 3 like in the 40mm version. i think there would be close competition between the lynx and the cv90
If an infantry squad consists of nine men then this vehicle must carry nine fully equipped soldiers. That's its primary mission - transport a squad into battle. Everything else is a secondary consideration, something that quickly gets forgotten during the gold plating process.
The more sardines you try and squeeze into a can the bigger the can. Size (along with add on armour) and weight (55t is getting up there!) penalties are valid considerations in their own right as no point carrying a full squad if it can't then get the full squad anywhere. It's about finding the happy compromise.
@@regregan6852 keep in mind Lynx can go down to 37 tons, however you are right, and to add on losing the vehicle means losing an entire squad of infantrymen, thus i think 6-8 is actually a bit reasonable
Why? The Bradley doesn’t carry 9. There is a massive Difference between an APC like a Stryker an an IFV like a Bradley. Honestly an IFV carrying a team instead of a squad doesn’t seem like an unreasonable trade off.
Oshkosh sounds like they will win. They may use some parts like the trucks making supply issues non existent. They may allow more future modules to be added to their design and tanks.
They tested replacements for it in 99 and here we are 22 years later still using the Bradley. Like the A-10 it's too good at what it does to be replaced.
Most of us understand that new designs and technology are needed to keep an army up-to-date. The replacement for the M2 Bradley IFV is exciting to contemplate, and we hope the army will not take too long in its evaluation or add too many options or extras that slow development. The IFV is the essential ‘Swiss Army knife’ for our ground troops, so we hope the army evaluators will keep moving forward-and that the Congress finally passes a full fiscal year budget that allows normal program development and testing too.
The as-21 redback is a Hanwha Defense developed vehicle with Oshkosh joining later on as a partner. I don't know if it was done on purpose or just a result of lazy research but giving Oshkosh primary credit over Hanwha for the redback is wrong. Even the footage use for the redback were mostly of the K-9 self propelled artillery. I don't know if this channel just half assed it or has some sort of bias because god forbid a small Asian country is a contender for a US military contract.
"One of the reasons the Bradley needs to be replaced is a squad is 9 men and it can't hold that many" And none of the replacements according to this video can either... how is this hard? If you need it to hold 9, something has to give somewhere, either its going to be heavy, or have light armor or less weapons. Why not upgrade the airframe and engines of the transport plane so it can carry two 60 ton vehicles?
driver gunner tc is 3(crew) 3 down the left side and 2 pairs of 2 back to back on the right. that's 10 not nine keeping the Bradley at 7 dismount seats. granted the one behind the driver was easier to access via the drivers hatch
I'd pick the BAE (A) and Rheinmetall (B): (A) because it's a multi-purpose vehicle and (B) because of it 3-8 complement, both have room for future technology and weapons
Adaptability is key for this. I'd be looking for the following: +Modular turrets with different primary weapon systems (direct fire cannon, mortar, air defense, gatling guns, anti-rocket lasers, drone-killer system, et cetera) and secondary weapon systems (CROW-type anti-personnel/coaxial guns, antitank missiles). +Lots of electrical power. +Sturdy chassis that's easy to maintain, repair, replace, and modify without depot-level support.
We have the Rheinmetal Boxer AFV fully operational in Australia in total we are manufacturing 211 Boxers by 2026 right here in Brisbane. The first 25 prototypes were manufactured in Germany before we assembled the rest here in Brisbane.
Just don’t bother with General Dynamics judging by the shocker they are having trying to provide the British army with its new vehicle it wouldn’t be wise to go down that road.
Why don't they just get one that will carry 4.5 troops? Who says they all need to get killed at once, and what's wrong with having another weapons platform? Why do grunts have to do all the shooting? Put the squad leader in one, and put the medic and the second in the other vehicle. The new 50mm will fit the same turret diameter as a 35mm because the 35 is necked down from the same cartridge case that the 50 is derived from. The 50mm is a done deal. The decision has been made. The sabot penetrator can achieve a higher velocity than the necked down 35mm.
What’s point of optionally manned platform? Need is for infantry to accompany armor for protection against other dismounted troops. That’s the threat to tanks.
That's why IFV's are the hunters and Tanks are the killers, not the other way around. You show me where in doctrine the IFV's are always behind the tanks. IFV's are always out front conducting screen line operations/probing or movement to contact as the tanks are usually 1K behind the IFV's in the even something hits the fan. Unless a company of mechanized is conducting screen line defense the tanks will never be close to the IFV's. If tanks are worried about dismounted troops engaging them, then the crew is fucked up since the tank can have 360 degree security with loader/TC on tank. Always has been that way and hasn't changed in this day and age. If the IFV's let the enemy dismounts get past them, someone is messed up.
"1991 Gulf War"- shows US Soldiers in uniforms 1st issued in 2006... "2003 invasion of Iraq"- shows US Soldiers in MILES training gear at FT Irwin California... could 1, just 1, millennial who produces videos for youtube ever be even remotely correct with the video clips and still photographs in just 1 video, once???
Ever heard of B-Roll ??? and who the fuck has the time to google " what camouflage was used in 2002 by "x" " and then try to verify the pictures or video they are using is actually correct ESPECIALLY when it's not actually the topic of conversation , hey guys iv got a great idea lets add another 6 hours of work to our video even tho it isn't relevant just to please the 0.1% who give a fuck.
I'm rather suprised to learn that the CV90 isn't among the competing designs. The CV90 - especially in its most modern mk.4 increment - is by all accounts an outstanding design and combat proven. Especially when armed with the Busmaster 35-50mm gun, Spike LR/ER launcher and 7.62 coaxial MG it's well suited to engage most current threats. And the growth potential doesn't stop there. But maybe the incremental approach isn't revolutionary enough for the US Army, which seems to be hellbent on hanging so much balls on to this christmas tree, that the programme eventually will fall sideways again and get cancelled.
The secretary of defense used to work for the opponent corporation what designed the replacement vehicle and that's why he cut the project. When the warlord says "Give us all your money or your going to die" that tracks, but when the warlord says "Hold on those weapons are too expensive" then you know another issue is at play. You'll learn. Hopefully before it's too late.
LYNX was the only one that seemed to take the term APC seriously. Though a carryweight of 8 is still rather low I imagine 1 or 2 extra seats could be worked in, The rest of them are still missing the whole point of what this machine is actually supposed to be used for.
its an IFV not an APC. APCs are battle taxies. an IFV needs to also fight and be mobile while mounting a gun and good enough armour. arguebaly the lynx is too heavy, missing the point of an IFV.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 It seems like all military vehicles keep gaining weight the older they get. But I am curious what is different on a 30 ton lynx and a 50 ton lynx.
Yep, definitely a Huntsman, not a Redback. Unforgivable considering how much footage there is of the Redback being tested against the KF-41 for the Australian Army contract.
lmao, scouts are not just passive recon troops. and even if they were, where the hell are you going to put the thermals, radar, etc that modern passive reconaissance requires on dirt bike. we are not liveing in ww2 anymore, binocs and mk1 eye balls are not good enough for recon.
the M1128 Stryker MGS is being retired and they are already modifying the IFV Stryker to be the Dragoon Stryker with the 30mm. They also have the MSHORAD Stryker.
The M2 is a great platform, but it is seeing the end of its operational capabilities. The proliferation of Light AT with the problem of lacking integratabilify for newer digital systems, the fact that peer-adversary IFV’s are being up-gunned with the M2 chassis no longer able to withstand being up-armored, and just generally that the Bradley has relatively light armor for the heavier platform that it is, it’s a wise idea for the US military to invest into a replacement. The Bradley is still serviceable, obviously, but it’s reached an apex.
Massive difference between a good APC - such as a Stryker, and a IVF like a Bradley. A team of infantry on an IVF is not unreasonable, because an IFV brings big guns, & armor that an apc can’t.
My man said in the 1970s and then showed a black and white picture😂😂😂 these Millennials are hilarious they probably really think that pictures had no colors in the 1970s
All current Bradleys can be refitted with octuple javelin missiles on roof quad racks. The main gun can be reffited with the new Army modular 30mm auto cannon, and a 30-06 MG as a suppressing weapon. These existing Bradleys should not be sold and be issued to all Army National Guard units. A variant of refurbished Bradleys should mount a modular simplified short tubed gun for the new Army 50mm anti-drone (proximity seeking) shell. It can augment a suppressing MG and a pair of javelins in a variant. Many existing Bradleys should also serve ss combat area supply vehicles.
Why does the mandate for the new combat vehicle NOT REQUIRE space for a FULL PLATOON or 9 fully equipped soldiers or Marines⁉️ ANYTHING LESS seems like a waste of time and money. This is tunnel visioned MADNESS‼️‼️‼️
with GLDS taking the MPF contract and Oshkosh the AMPV contract, one of them should win the OMFV simply for supply/logistics management. parts commonality is a huge factor.
I would choose non, because they do not solve the main issue of the bradley. Which is that a full platoon of nine troops can't be carried by a single vehicle. And you would still have to mix platoons together in more vehicles then originally intended. That makes no sense in that regard!!! The two vehicles which could carry only six soldiers make it even worse, because the bradley can carry at least seven soldiers. Which means that you would need five IFWs, instead of four like now with the bradley to carry three platoons of nine troops, that is completly dumb.
the reason for the M2 carrying one fire team plus attachments was a nod to lethality on the battlefield. The idea was to not lose and entire squad in the loss of one vehicle. That thinking is sound and may be even more important today than in the 70s and 80s when the M2 was in development. Also, IFVs tend to fight as their own systems and the 3 crew members were initially thought to be part of the carried squad. However, tactical use by units deviated from that design approach because the vehicles were far more lethal than the dismounted squad. This has led to many tactical situations in which the dismounted squad was really just local security for the vehicles. To overcome this, the vehicle may have to mass too much to be air transportable giving heavy infantry formations the same fuel constraint that armor units have. There will have to be compromises and the most likely compromise will likely be the number of dismounts. Remember, the more lethal you make the vehicle with heavier weapons and systems, the more it becomes a missile magnet itself.
One BFV mechanized platoon has 4 BFV's, 2 BFV squads consisting of 4 drivers, 4 gunners and 4 commanders including the LT an Platoon Sgt....2 dismount squads totalling 2 alfa an 2 bravo teams, one squads alfa an bravo team will ride in two Bradley's an the other squads teams in the other two Bradley's, don't need one squad in one vehicle
Isn't BAE's entry also based off the CV90 series of swedish IFVs? If im not mistaken both the M2Bradly and the CV90 share similar designs so it would be easy to see why, however since the Bradly wasn't built to take a hit from IEDs and the CV90 was I can see it being a huge contender, and if the turret becomes unmanned then it frees up space for troop carry capacity as it would reduce manned crew to 2 or 3 from a standard 4 allowing a near full squad to be carried out. Right now I would say the main contenders for the 3 prototype contracts will most likely be BAE systems Land, Hanwha/Oshkosh, or Raytheon/Rheinmetall as these companies already have a prototype ready to go and are undergoing fine tuning. Now this can change in the future when General Dynamics Land Systems releases to the public their entry into the competition before the end of 2022. Now i don't know anything about Point Blank Enterprises entry as nothing is known but it could be the dark horse in this competition as no major contract concerning Vehicle manufacturing has ever been awarded to this company until recently so we shall see.
CV 90 looks more like the German Puma IFV. The lynx however looks like the Polish PL-01 concept tank which is also a light tank. BAE systems and Raytheon/Rheinmetall are guarantee 2 contracts....GDLS may take the last unless PBE pulls a rabbit out of their ass and introduces something that is jaw dropping as this will be their first contract if they win the last slot...
@@CCM1199 true dat, we shall see at the end of the year since all concepts must be submitted to the Army for inspections before the new year of 2023, which by then for all of 2023 stress tests and mobility tests as well as equipment and electronics will be tested. After that i believe the army wants the first units to be attached to an mechanized infantry Battalion by 2025 or 2027.
@@CCM1199 The PL-01 IS A CV90-120, The Lynx is a mostly Rheinmetall product, while the Puma is mostly an MKW product, the same company that makes the Leopard.
I would definitely go with the LYNX on this one. It seemed to check all the boxes for troop capacity, mobility and firepower. I'm sure it's also very hi-tech as well.
I agree and I say this with experience I was 19D cav scout stationed at Ft. Hood and we used the same vehicles but ours were built for scouting if that makes sense.
And yet, the lynx suffers from ananemic electrical system that in a training exercise less than a year ago mission killed ALL BUT TWO of the *entire* Lynx fleet delivered so far... to the Bundeswehr!😬 One of them burned out completely, one caught fire but was saved by quickly reacting crew and the rest shut down before the cables got hot enough to ignite. No long term crew injuries, but all the kit and posessions in the burned out vehicle got destroyed. As far as I understand it, there was a total factory recall and retrofit with a new cable system of the surviving vehicles as well as the nessesary reconfiguration of the production lines.
The partnering of these international companies is an example of why Russia is doomed to fall further behind in technology, manufacturing and operations.
The red back is a beast go with firepower did you see what that baby can do South Korea makes some great equipment North Korea better be careful South Korea has it going on great job SK proud of you I am glad we are friends rock on
I think ALL of these companies better be planning on mounting the new 50mm chaingun or they are wasting their time. The Army is already testing it and they like it. Mount the 50mm or lose the competition. That's how that is going to go.
Ukraine is not a real modern war. Russia is very backwards. They figured out how to destroy drones, so there goes that revolution. It was short and sweet though. They got HIMARS and are begging for fighter jets. That speaks volumes. The autonomous fighter jets don't seem to be anywhere close to reality. What a joke.
Lynx is the little brother (looks similar) to the PL-01 Concept tank which btw is also a light tank for Poland. While lynx is made by Raytheon Rheinmetall, The PL-01 Concept tank is made by BAE systems. Its too early to make a determination as everything at this point is hearsay. when the verdict is out and they introduce actual prototypes, Im pretty sure that they will be tested at a gunnery range...say oh Fort Benning's DMPRC or one of the prototype gunnery ranges that the company's may have. Hell, they may even take them to Fort Irwin's Granite pass Live fire ranges (i.e. FOB Reno/FOB Vegas) and test them out there since the range is in the middle of the desert and away from prying eyes. If Any vehicle that was on this video, I couldve sworn I seen the PUMA IFV, That would be a vehicle that the U.S. should have their IFV's based off of.
The Lynx is the futher developement of the German Bundeswehr IFV the Marder (both IFVs are/were built and designed by Rheinmetall). Just compare both hulls and you will see that the Lynx has the shape of the Marder.
@@arejee3380 No it´s not. The Lynx is developed and built by the same company which also designed the IFV Marder (Rheinmetall). The Lynx and the Marder share the same hull design. Put the Lance turret on the Marder and you get the Lynx. The Puma on the other hand was developed for the Bundeswehr by KMW (Kraus-Maffei-Wegmann) and Rheinmetall.
The PL-01 *IS* a CV90120 light tank with a fancy skin of extra armor that also further mask and break up thermal and radar signature compared to the CV90mk2 hull it's based on. The extra armor package of the PL-01 is comparable that's fitted to the the CV90mk3/4 and Strf9040C/D IFVs. Of which 50ish Strv90C, I presume including a number of the Bgbv90C (recovery vehicle) Lvkv9040C(SPAAG) and DristBv90C(maintenance support) in addition to the Strf9040C IFVs, is beeing/have recently been delivered to Ukraine.
Why the devil we just don't license build the Swedish CV-90 series I will never know. They are Modulaire, Modern, infinitely updateable as well as being combat proven.
Although not confirmed, i believe the Army is looking towards General Dynamic's Griffin 3 IFV. The reason being is because the Army already accepted the Griffin 2 Light Tank that General Dynamics also makes. However they share more than just the same manufacturer, both the Griffin 2 Light Tank and the Griffin 3 IFV use the same hull and chassis. Meaning less diverse parts selection, as well as part sharing. Having two different vehicles with the same manufacturer and shared parts and designs means cheaper costs and easier maintenance. Now any of the 5 participants could win this contract, but knowing the Army keeping logistics and parts the same and cheap, it would make sense to use an IFV derived from an active operational vehicle already in service
@@CCM1199 true. But still means it would be easier to have vehicles with common parts and designs. Which in my opinion makes sense to pick the Griffin 3.
Warfare is evolving faster than vehicles can keep pace. By the time a whole new system is developed it will be out of date... So any new system would be best to be modular in that different systems could be fitted depending on how warfare does evolve. I think The Ukraine war has certainly pushed this idea of evolving warfare faster than the Gulf war has , along with Arab-Israeli conflicts which seemed to pivot around certain aspects as opposed to full spectrum...
The Ukraine War might not be a real indication of how a real modern war between two peers will take place. Russia's air power is a joke. If it were at the capabilities the US has, or even the UK, Russia would have won in March.
I would choose the one with the least electronics in it or one with a good analog back up as emp weapons will come along and do nasty things to your beautiful electro tank.
How can you get the Redback confused with the K9......one is an IFV and the other's a 155mm artillery system.
Lack of accessible footage.
The same way he showed a picture of a Bradley with soldiers in ACUs and labelled it "1991 Gulf War" even though that uniform wasn't a thing until 2005.
The Redback from Hanwha along with the Lynx is currently being trialled by the Australian army to replace the tracked APC fleet which is currently fulfilled by the M113 ( yes I saw the eye rolls from everyone haha)
For a RUclipsr posting this is a serious fucking OOPS! 😎
As a former Bradley driver, gunner, and dismount. Keep it simple and give it air conditioning.
I rode M2s for several years and quite frankly, it has been one of the most successful systems in the inventory over time. It took years to learn how to "fight" a heavy M2 equipped force, but once those concepts were worked out, it was superlative. No IFV will be perfect. Trade offs will have to be made to fit a workable package of mobility, transportability, lethality, protection, and carrying capacity and that means no "perfect" system can ever exist. Also, the more lethal you make it, the more it masses, and the more it masses, the less transportable it becomes.
Perhaps the future will be with directed energy weapons then. This will free up loads of other weight and capacity issues which former systems were limted by, that can be redistributed into other purposes.
@@discipleaj direct energy weapons would make it MUCH heavier due to all the batteries
@@bamaman6478 Always trade offs isn't there. Then the next step is to find a better energy source with more bang for buck so to speak.
@@discipleaj yep lmao
i was wondering how the m2 will do against drones.. in the future, we might see a change in which most of the combat is not vehicle vs vehicle, engaging with line of sight. but instead mobile weapon platforms connected to drones that then precision-fire rockets and missiles like a long-range version of the javelin etc. just my thoughts..
Used a self propelled howitzer for General Dynamics entry lol
yea, major derp.
Alot of Australian Red back pictures..awsome..
I hope the Army does a better job on this than the Navy did on their LCS.
I had heard that the original Bradley had aluminum siding for armor. Wow.
Aussies are getting it perfect, already
ruclips.net/video/-IAvWa0-mFU/видео.html
Griffin 3 built around the 50mm like the Army needs,but the industry will try to get them to field the 30-35mm in order to get the contract. The Army need to keep the 50mm from the start and if the companies can’t meet that need then drop them make them rise to the Army’s standard instead of the Army lowering to theirs
You are wrong companies would like to sell 50mm because they are get more money selling completely new gun and new ammo it's much more money then selling 30-35mm in other hand army could choose 30mm because it's cheaper and they already have ammo for it
Really! Ok agree to disagree, so explain to me how other nations ate jumping past the 30mm to 40 and 57mm systems for their IFV's and those companies benefit from the sale of 30/35 mm because they are the ones who make the weapons that fire them,like duh! My point is screw them ser the standard for our warfighters and let the 50mm be the go to weapon for the OMFV the industry will retool itself and Mass produce the ammo to include smart ammo which that caliber will be better at than smaller ones due to it's size,this is the future and the Army best to head into with force instead of playing catchup like they did in WW2, again the US Army should be the trend setters and forward thinkers when it comes to fielding effective and upgradable platforms period!
@@bennuredjedi which countries are jumping from 30mm to 40/57mm?
@@bennuredjedi I would like to know what country has 40mm/57mm guns on them for their future IFV's? Puma from German has 30mm, CV90 from sweden has a 40mm Bofors which also has a 3 man crew, Borusk IFV from poland is a 30mm with a 3 man crew, The Turkish Tulpar has a 30mm and only 4 have been produced. I can track only Sweden as having the 40mm on their IFV. Every other nation either has the 25mm (at the minimum)to 30mm gun system on their IFV's. Enlighten me on who else other than sweden has a 40mm or 57mm....And you think the U.S. Army should be trend setters....Thats cute. this is not a U.S. Thing when it comes to setting vehicle standards and effective/upgradable standards. This is about the ever changing evolution of armor as a whole The Abrams has been around and I have had the honor and privilege to have been on the abrams from the 105 M1 Abrams and every variant of the A1 up to the A2 SEPv2's. If you thought that it upgraded its platform significantly...I hate to tell you, It hasnt. they were all minor upgrades until the SEPv3's came out. But ill leave you to think that the U.S. Army are trend setters and forward thinkers when there are other countries (like germany) who can exceed past the U.S.
@@CCM1199 And the 40mm Bofors has been around for decades - hardly something new. Besides, there is always the age old trade off - the bigger the calibre the less rounds you can carry.
Redback. Resemblance of modern bradley.
American Rheinmetall? LOL. Never laughed that hard before.
Isn't the Swedish one called the CV 90? Its a very impressive kit allready in active service and has a 120mm varient. Its currently the fastest tracked Multipurpose APC in service from my understanding. The only downside is that its crew compartment is smaller. Gotta hand it to Rhinmetal, the lynx is looking mighty fine as well.
I agree with you. Why hasn't the US looked at the CV90 family? It's proven in the rugged terrain Sweden as well as their adverse conditions and for lethality it has a 40mm and I'm sure they could figure out to mount whatever ATGM the US wants as their's a version of the CV90 with TOW's out there already. I feel like we could save a bit of money with that system.
BAE systems is better
@@yeoshenghong4802 The CV90 is made by BAE Systems.
The MOD should have selected CV90 for the British Army rather than the GD Ajax death trap. Stay clear of General Dynamics and anything you choose will be better than that piece of crap.
CV90 has undergone continuous development since it was first introduced. It's practically a completely new vehicle now and is fully integrated into the digital battle space.. Take a look at the latest production version for the Norwegian Army. As you say there ,are 120mm and 105mm direct fire support variants. The double barrelled 120 mortar system is very impressive too. As Mike has said. There are huge savings involved with choosing an off the shelf product.
the 120mm variant is no personal carrier tho
atleast not the 8 + 3 like in the 40mm version.
i think there would be close competition between the lynx and the cv90
If an infantry squad consists of nine men then this vehicle must carry nine fully equipped soldiers. That's its primary mission - transport a squad into battle. Everything else is a secondary consideration, something that quickly gets forgotten during the gold plating process.
The more sardines you try and squeeze into a can the bigger the can. Size (along with add on armour) and weight (55t is getting up there!) penalties are valid considerations in their own right as no point carrying a full squad if it can't then get the full squad anywhere. It's about finding the happy compromise.
@@regregan6852 keep in mind Lynx can go down to 37 tons, however you are right, and to add on losing the vehicle means losing an entire squad of infantrymen, thus i think 6-8 is actually a bit reasonable
You're confusing an APC and an IFV. If you want to carry 9 blokes no more no less, get an APC
Hanhwa (Sp?) is the favourite in the Australian competition, over Lynx.
Why? The Bradley doesn’t carry 9. There is a massive
Difference between an APC like a Stryker an an IFV like a Bradley. Honestly an IFV carrying a team instead of a squad doesn’t seem like an unreasonable trade off.
Oshkosh sounds like they will win. They may use some parts like the trucks making supply issues non existent. They may allow more future modules to be added to their design and tanks.
They tested replacements for it in 99 and here we are 22 years later still using the Bradley. Like the A-10 it's too good at what it does to be replaced.
Well that and there wasn't a near peer threat to deal with.
Why show self-propelled howitzers for Hanwha IFV entrant?
I wouldn’t choose either. A squad has 9 soldiers. None of competitors carry a full squad. The problem isn’t solved.
If youre going full mechanized. If you decided to go 3/3 combination (3 Brads/3 wheels, that would be a different story.
Most of us understand that new designs and technology are needed to keep an army up-to-date. The replacement for the M2 Bradley IFV is exciting to contemplate, and we hope the army will not take too long in its evaluation or add too many options or extras that slow development. The IFV is the essential ‘Swiss Army knife’ for our ground troops, so we hope the army evaluators will keep moving forward-and that the Congress finally passes a full fiscal year budget that allows normal program development and testing too.
The Lynx is so modular you can even fit a 120mm tank gun on it
The as-21 redback is a Hanwha Defense developed vehicle with Oshkosh joining later on as a partner. I don't know if it was done on purpose or just a result of lazy research but giving Oshkosh primary credit over Hanwha for the redback is wrong. Even the footage use for the redback were mostly of the K-9 self propelled artillery. I don't know if this channel just half assed it or has some sort of bias because god forbid a small Asian country is a contender for a US military contract.
"One of the reasons the Bradley needs to be replaced is a squad is 9 men and it can't hold that many" And none of the replacements according to this video can either... how is this hard? If you need it to hold 9, something has to give somewhere, either its going to be heavy, or have light armor or less weapons. Why not upgrade the airframe and engines of the transport plane so it can carry two 60 ton vehicles?
driver gunner tc is 3(crew) 3 down the left side and 2 pairs of 2 back to back on the right. that's 10 not nine keeping the Bradley at 7 dismount seats. granted the one behind the driver was easier to access via the drivers hatch
I'd pick the BAE (A) and Rheinmetall (B): (A) because it's a multi-purpose vehicle and (B) because of it 3-8 complement, both have room for future technology and weapons
Adaptability is key for this. I'd be looking for the following:
+Modular turrets with different primary weapon systems (direct fire cannon, mortar, air defense, gatling guns, anti-rocket lasers, drone-killer system, et cetera) and secondary weapon systems (CROW-type anti-personnel/coaxial guns, antitank missiles).
+Lots of electrical power.
+Sturdy chassis that's easy to maintain, repair, replace, and modify without depot-level support.
Everyone listening to the requirements: Okay, okay, right, uhuh.... Did you just say directed energy weapons?
Send some to Ukraine they can test them out and see how tough they really are
We have the Rheinmetal Boxer AFV fully operational in Australia in total we are manufacturing 211 Boxers by 2026 right here in Brisbane. The first 25 prototypes were manufactured in Germany before we assembled the rest here in Brisbane.
Aussie army already invested in the Korean Red Back, go check it out!!
So no one is going to win this contract then. They all fall short of the required 9 man capacity.
It doesn't need replacing upgrade again and again it carries troops that is all it suppose to do.
no that is not all its supposed to do.
Just don’t bother with General Dynamics judging by the shocker they are having trying to provide the British army with its new vehicle it wouldn’t be wise to go down that road.
Lynx probably will win tbh. It's a fantastic design
Every concept you’ve shown me is pitiful
Epic
The Armoured Multi-Purpose Vehicle,sounds like the best option!!
You said the Bradley only carries seven men and now they want to make a vehicle that carries only five that doesn't make any sense
Anybody remember "The Pentagon Wars"? Seems like this is every much a sequel to that debacle.
I’d choose the one that keeps more Americans employed.
ACU's worn in the 90's and olive drab in the 2000's? Not quite.
Why they wanna drag old 7.62 technology Into Ballistics Alignment efforts?
Why don't they just get one that will carry 4.5 troops? Who says they all need to get killed at once, and what's wrong with having another weapons platform? Why do grunts have to do all the shooting? Put the squad leader in one, and put the medic and the second in the other vehicle.
The new 50mm will fit the same turret diameter as a 35mm because the 35 is necked down from the same cartridge case that the 50 is derived from. The 50mm is a done deal. The decision has been made.
The sabot penetrator can achieve a higher velocity than the necked down 35mm.
What’s point of optionally manned platform? Need is for infantry to accompany armor for protection against other dismounted troops. That’s the threat to tanks.
That's why IFV's are the hunters and Tanks are the killers, not the other way around. You show me where in doctrine the IFV's are always behind the tanks. IFV's are always out front conducting screen line operations/probing or movement to contact as the tanks are usually 1K behind the IFV's in the even something hits the fan. Unless a company of mechanized is conducting screen line defense the tanks will never be close to the IFV's. If tanks are worried about dismounted troops engaging them, then the crew is fucked up since the tank can have 360 degree security with loader/TC on tank. Always has been that way and hasn't changed in this day and age. If the IFV's let the enemy dismounts get past them, someone is messed up.
"1991 Gulf War"- shows US Soldiers in uniforms 1st issued in 2006...
"2003 invasion of Iraq"- shows US Soldiers in MILES training gear at FT Irwin California...
could 1, just 1, millennial who produces videos for youtube ever be even remotely correct with the video clips and still photographs in just 1 video, once???
Ever heard of B-Roll ??? and who the fuck has the time to google " what camouflage was used in 2002 by "x" " and then try to verify the pictures or video they are using is actually correct ESPECIALLY when it's not actually the topic of conversation , hey guys iv got a great idea lets add another 6 hours of work to our video even tho it isn't relevant just to please the 0.1% who give a fuck.
I'm rather suprised to learn that the CV90 isn't among the competing designs. The CV90 - especially in its most modern mk.4 increment - is by all accounts an outstanding design and combat proven. Especially when armed with the Busmaster 35-50mm gun, Spike LR/ER launcher and 7.62 coaxial MG it's well suited to engage most current threats. And the growth potential doesn't stop there. But maybe the incremental approach isn't revolutionary enough for the US Army, which seems to be hellbent on hanging so much balls on to this christmas tree, that the programme eventually will fall sideways again and get cancelled.
This and the new light tank are just wasteful spending, we are not having a tank war again. Utilize your budget better for higher tech weapons
I will choose Redback.
7:30 yep that definitely looks like a 30mm canon
The secretary of defense used to work for the opponent corporation what designed the replacement vehicle and that's why he cut the project.
When the warlord says "Give us all your money or your going to die" that tracks, but when the warlord says "Hold on those weapons are too expensive" then you know another issue is at play.
You'll learn. Hopefully before it's too late.
LYNX was the only one that seemed to take the term APC seriously. Though a carryweight of 8 is still rather low I imagine 1 or 2 extra seats could be worked in, The rest of them are still missing the whole point of what this machine is actually supposed to be used for.
Better then Bradley’s 7 ..
its an IFV not an APC. APCs are battle taxies. an IFV needs to also fight and be mobile while mounting a gun and good enough armour. arguebaly the lynx is too heavy, missing the point of an IFV.
Is not amphibian
@@edwardvalivonis23
Armored Personnel Carrier, 😆
@@matthiuskoenig3378
It seems like all military vehicles keep gaining weight the older they get. But I am curious what is different on a 30 ton lynx and a 50 ton lynx.
Dude you've got self propelled artillery in this video as an infantry fighting vehicle, you even put in the loader loading doing loading.
Yep, definitely a Huntsman, not a Redback. Unforgivable considering how much footage there is of the Redback being tested against the KF-41 for the Australian Army contract.
Testing Well of US Super Fighting Vehicles M-2 Bradley, From India.
15 minutes isn't fast enough... how fast if you skip the checks?
The quietest one wins in my opinion. Scouts should use electric dirt bikes with M240's mounted.
lmao, scouts are not just passive recon troops. and even if they were, where the hell are you going to put the thermals, radar, etc that modern passive reconaissance requires on dirt bike. we are not liveing in ww2 anymore, binocs and mk1 eye balls are not good enough for recon.
I figure this is a joke, but I should offer a question. What about enemy thermals?
They are all better than walking.
I would modify all current Stryker models, and that would save a lot of taxpayers money!
the M1128 Stryker MGS is being retired and they are already modifying the IFV Stryker to be the Dragoon Stryker with the 30mm. They also have the MSHORAD Stryker.
So where is new super fighting vehicle the US army is testing. Change the title to “US requirement for new super fighting vehicle” Clickbait.
Nothing wrong with the m2 just upgrade the tow and e gine sensors
The M2 is a great platform, but it is seeing the end of its operational capabilities. The proliferation of Light AT with the problem of lacking integratabilify for newer digital systems, the fact that peer-adversary IFV’s are being up-gunned with the M2 chassis no longer able to withstand being up-armored, and just generally that the Bradley has relatively light armor for the heavier platform that it is, it’s a wise idea for the US military to invest into a replacement. The Bradley is still serviceable, obviously, but it’s reached an apex.
Seems to me that if an infantry squad is 9 personnel, the vehicle needs to carry crew plus 9 personnel. How is this not a requirement?
Massive difference between a good APC - such as a Stryker, and a IVF like a Bradley.
A team of infantry on an IVF is not unreasonable, because an IFV brings big guns, & armor that an apc can’t.
Usa should really send these armor vehicles to Ukraine and field test them there.
The U.S. is back to using 9men squads now?
they do not load into 4 tracks. the 4th track is the platoon leaders. 3 squads and an hq squad. 11m vet
All of course. Adaptability is just as important as mobility.
My man said in the 1970s and then showed a black and white picture😂😂😂 these Millennials are hilarious they probably really think that pictures had no colors in the 1970s
Where is there a shroud around the main weapon barrel?
All current Bradleys can be refitted with octuple javelin missiles on roof quad racks. The main gun can be reffited with the new Army modular 30mm auto cannon, and a 30-06 MG as a suppressing weapon. These existing Bradleys should not be sold and be issued to all Army National Guard units.
A variant of refurbished Bradleys should mount a modular simplified short tubed gun for the new Army 50mm anti-drone (proximity seeking) shell. It can augment a suppressing MG and a pair of javelins in a variant.
Many existing Bradleys should also serve ss combat area supply vehicles.
Why does the mandate for the new combat vehicle NOT REQUIRE space for a FULL PLATOON or 9 fully equipped soldiers or Marines⁉️ ANYTHING LESS seems like a waste of time and money. This is tunnel visioned MADNESS‼️‼️‼️
with GLDS taking the MPF contract and Oshkosh the AMPV contract, one of them should win the OMFV simply for supply/logistics management. parts commonality is a huge factor.
I would choose non, because they do not solve the main issue of the bradley.
Which is that a full platoon of nine troops can't be carried by a single vehicle.
And you would still have to mix platoons together in more vehicles then originally
intended. That makes no sense in that regard!!! The two vehicles which could
carry only six soldiers make it even worse, because the bradley can carry at least seven
soldiers. Which means that you would need five IFWs, instead of four like now with the
bradley to carry three platoons of nine troops, that is completly dumb.
Nine troops is a squad not a platoon. And vehicles can carry 9 soldiers look up the Stryker ICV.
@@koalaseatleaves1277 OK, but then it's wrong in the Video too, because I Just retold the Info from it!!!
the reason for the M2 carrying one fire team plus attachments was a nod to lethality on the battlefield. The idea was to not lose and entire squad in the loss of one vehicle. That thinking is sound and may be even more important today than in the 70s and 80s when the M2 was in development.
Also, IFVs tend to fight as their own systems and the 3 crew members were initially thought to be part of the carried squad. However, tactical use by units deviated from that design approach because the vehicles were far more lethal than the dismounted squad.
This has led to many tactical situations in which the dismounted squad was really just local security for the vehicles. To overcome this, the vehicle may have to mass too much to be air transportable giving heavy infantry formations the same fuel constraint that armor units have. There will have to be compromises and the most likely compromise will likely be the number of dismounts.
Remember, the more lethal you make the vehicle with heavier weapons and systems, the more it becomes a missile magnet itself.
One BFV mechanized platoon has 4 BFV's, 2 BFV squads consisting of 4 drivers, 4 gunners and 4 commanders including the LT an Platoon Sgt....2 dismount squads totalling 2 alfa an 2 bravo teams, one squads alfa an bravo team will ride in two Bradley's an the other squads teams in the other two Bradley's, don't need one squad in one vehicle
Isn't BAE's entry also based off the CV90 series of swedish IFVs? If im not mistaken both the M2Bradly and the CV90 share similar designs so it would be easy to see why, however since the Bradly wasn't built to take a hit from IEDs and the CV90 was I can see it being a huge contender, and if the turret becomes unmanned then it frees up space for troop carry capacity as it would reduce manned crew to 2 or 3 from a standard 4 allowing a near full squad to be carried out. Right now I would say the main contenders for the 3 prototype contracts will most likely be BAE systems Land, Hanwha/Oshkosh, or Raytheon/Rheinmetall as these companies already have a prototype ready to go and are undergoing fine tuning. Now this can change in the future when General Dynamics Land Systems releases to the public their entry into the competition before the end of 2022. Now i don't know anything about Point Blank Enterprises entry as nothing is known but it could be the dark horse in this competition as no major contract concerning Vehicle manufacturing has ever been awarded to this company until recently so we shall see.
CV 90 looks more like the German Puma IFV. The lynx however looks like the Polish PL-01 concept tank which is also a light tank. BAE systems and Raytheon/Rheinmetall are guarantee 2 contracts....GDLS may take the last unless PBE pulls a rabbit out of their ass and introduces something that is jaw dropping as this will be their first contract if they win the last slot...
@@CCM1199 true dat, we shall see at the end of the year since all concepts must be submitted to the Army for inspections before the new year of 2023, which by then for all of 2023 stress tests and mobility tests as well as equipment and electronics will be tested. After that i believe the army wants the first units to be attached to an mechanized infantry Battalion by 2025 or 2027.
@@CCM1199 The PL-01 IS A CV90-120, The Lynx is a mostly Rheinmetall product, while the Puma is mostly an MKW product, the same company that makes the Leopard.
In this case, the difference lies in GD's Spanish SAPA transmission, assembled on Pizarro series II vehicles with excellent results.
Its just another Bradley with a bigger gun and a different name.
Oh boy new US Toptier can't wait to grind it.
I would definitely go with the LYNX on this one. It seemed to check all the boxes for troop capacity, mobility and firepower. I'm sure it's also very hi-tech as well.
I agree and I say this with experience I was 19D cav scout stationed at Ft. Hood and we used the same vehicles but ours were built for scouting if that makes sense.
And yet, the lynx suffers from ananemic electrical system that in a training exercise less than a year ago mission killed ALL BUT TWO of the *entire* Lynx fleet delivered so far... to the Bundeswehr!😬
One of them burned out completely, one caught fire but was saved by quickly reacting crew and the rest shut down before the cables got hot enough to ignite. No long term crew injuries, but all the kit and posessions in the burned out vehicle got destroyed.
As far as I understand it, there was a total factory recall and retrofit with a new cable system of the surviving vehicles as well as the nessesary reconfiguration of the production lines.
They all fail because none can transport 9 passengers and all are over weight.
You would think that BAE would be the CV-90 or at least a modified version of it
Just but Dragon 8x8 fighting vehicles from Spain 🇪🇸, they have the lastest technologies
Omar Bradley was The GI General.
The partnering of these international companies is an example of why Russia is doomed to fall further behind in technology, manufacturing and operations.
Yup, typical Russian paranoia lol, they gotta have the nicest coolest stuff and u gotta have the oldest useless stuff so u bow down to ur dictator
Tax payers shouldn't pay anything until a design is accepted.
The last one fulfills more needs that will be put upon the force in training or conflict
Pentagon Wars Future Combat Systems 3.0
The red back is a beast go with firepower did you see what that baby can do South Korea makes some great equipment North Korea better be careful South Korea has it going on great job SK proud of you I am glad we are friends rock on
I think ALL of these companies better be planning on mounting the new 50mm chaingun or they are wasting their time. The Army is already testing it and they like it. Mount the 50mm or lose the competition. That's how that is going to go.
im rooting for the rheinmetall
Either one would be cool parked on my driveway!!
New US squads should be 5 men with a minigun and a M32-A1 per squad.
It is like they aren't watching Ukraine. If it can't take out drones and incoming missiles, it is a waste of money.
Ukraine is not a real modern war. Russia is very backwards. They figured out how to destroy drones, so there goes that revolution. It was short and sweet though. They got HIMARS and are begging for fighter jets. That speaks volumes. The autonomous fighter jets don't seem to be anywhere close to reality. What a joke.
Watched it until your into at about a minute in freaking deafened me.
just get an M1 to tow an armored trailer!
If the squad is nine guys shouldn’t that be requirement #1? Seems like transportation of troops is lower down on the list.
Of course, it still will not carry a squad. We will never learn
Lynx is the little brother (looks similar) to the PL-01 Concept tank which btw is also a light tank for Poland. While lynx is made by Raytheon Rheinmetall, The PL-01 Concept tank is made by BAE systems. Its too early to make a determination as everything at this point is hearsay. when the verdict is out and they introduce actual prototypes, Im pretty sure that they will be tested at a gunnery range...say oh Fort Benning's DMPRC or one of the prototype gunnery ranges that the company's may have. Hell, they may even take them to Fort Irwin's Granite pass Live fire ranges (i.e. FOB Reno/FOB Vegas) and test them out there since the range is in the middle of the desert and away from prying eyes. If Any vehicle that was on this video, I couldve sworn I seen the PUMA IFV, That would be a vehicle that the U.S. should have their IFV's based off of.
The Lynx is the futher developement of the German Bundeswehr IFV the Marder (both IFVs are/were built and designed by Rheinmetall). Just compare both hulls and you will see that the Lynx has the shape of the Marder.
@@FrancisJoa No the Lynx is a bigger version of the Puma which is the successor of the Marder and already in service in the Bundeswehr.
@@arejee3380 No it´s not. The Lynx is developed and built by the same company which also designed the IFV Marder (Rheinmetall). The Lynx and the Marder share the same hull design. Put the Lance turret on the Marder and you get the Lynx. The Puma on the other hand was developed for the Bundeswehr by KMW (Kraus-Maffei-Wegmann) and Rheinmetall.
The PL-01 *IS* a CV90120 light tank with a fancy skin of extra armor that also further mask and break up thermal and radar signature compared to the CV90mk2 hull it's based on.
The extra armor package of the PL-01 is comparable that's fitted to the the CV90mk3/4 and Strf9040C/D IFVs.
Of which 50ish Strv90C, I presume including a number of the Bgbv90C (recovery vehicle) Lvkv9040C(SPAAG) and DristBv90C(maintenance support) in addition to the Strf9040C IFVs, is beeing/have recently been delivered to Ukraine.
Why the devil we just don't license build the Swedish CV-90 series I will never know. They are Modulaire, Modern, infinitely updateable as well as being combat proven.
General dynamics is absolutely useless at producing IFV/AFV
What IFV is on the thumbnail of this video?
The Last one !!😎👍
Like our new IFV?
Although not confirmed, i believe the Army is looking towards General Dynamic's Griffin 3 IFV. The reason being is because the Army already accepted the Griffin 2 Light Tank that General Dynamics also makes. However they share more than just the same manufacturer, both the Griffin 2 Light Tank and the Griffin 3 IFV use the same hull and chassis. Meaning less diverse parts selection, as well as part sharing. Having two different vehicles with the same manufacturer and shared parts and designs means cheaper costs and easier maintenance. Now any of the 5 participants could win this contract, but knowing the Army keeping logistics and parts the same and cheap, it would make sense to use an IFV derived from an active operational vehicle already in service
The only reason why GDLS has the griffin 2 being lined up is the fact that BAE was disqualified which eliminated the BUFORD 2 light tank.
@@CCM1199 true. But still means it would be easier to have vehicles with common parts and designs. Which in my opinion makes sense to pick the Griffin 3.
CV90 is the best Choi for the US👍🏻
Warfare is evolving faster than vehicles can keep pace. By the time a whole new system is developed it will be out of date... So any new system would be best to be modular in that different systems could be fitted depending on how warfare does evolve. I think The Ukraine war has certainly pushed this idea of evolving warfare faster than the Gulf war has , along with Arab-Israeli conflicts which seemed to pivot around certain aspects as opposed to full spectrum...
The Ukraine War might not be a real indication of how a real modern war between two peers will take place. Russia's air power is a joke. If it were at the capabilities the US has, or even the UK, Russia would have won in March.
I would choose the one with the least electronics in it or one with a good analog back up as emp weapons will come along and do nasty things to your beautiful electro tank.
does this one come with phone charging ports? lol but really modern upgrades
British Areospace Systems and German Rheinmetall products are always excellent quality.