Finally US Army Reveal Bradley M2 Replacement
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2023
- Finally US Army Reveal Bradley M2 Replacement. The M2 Bradley has been a workhorse of an infantry fighting vehicle for the US Army since the 1980s but over 40 years later it’s time for a change. Enter the XM-30, the next generation of IFV that promises to take thousands of troops to the battlefield in the next generation of warfare. As of this year, the companies behind the project have been given the green light to continue with the development phase of the XM-30 project, so it won’t be long before we see these fighting transporters in action. Let’s have a look at the project so far.
Check out to our science channel ► Brain Impact: / brainimpact 
Авто/Мото
![Штурм села тремя Т-90М "Прорыв" 2-серия [Полная версия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BYka-xTxszg/mqdefault.jpg)
It should have a 3-man crew: the Commander, the Gunner, and the Driver. Doing more with less always ends bad. You need to talk to the Soldiers/Marines who actually have to take the thing into combat.
President Jimmy Carter ...........
ruclips.net/video/37azeXBjYJc/видео.html
Not necessarily. All functions can now be automated, so the crew has a different role. A more tactical role. And it brings its own infantry, in safety and at speed, and they can integrate with the vehicle, too, operationally.
It's a new concept, do not be held back by old ideas.
I'm Australian, whatever the US army chooses, it will have a great vehicle, but it's interesting that in Australia the AS21 RedBack (OshKosh's/Hanwha bid for XM30), beat out Rheinmetall Lynx in the Australian Land 400 bid, but the Lynx was prefered over OshKosh in America. Australian soldiers prefered the AS21 over the Lynx and from a supply chain standpoint it was a no brainer for Australia to go with the AS21 as it has parts commonality with the K21 Korean IFV. America has no such supply chain constraints because anything they make will be the largest in the world.
The AS21 won the bidding in the Land Warfare 400 tender because Hanwha was willing to setup production in Australia (read: Geelong) as part of the contract, therefore contributing to job creation and the local economy. Lynx was unwilling to do this so it was a no brainer for the DoD really! Also, the AS21 shares some commonality with the AS9 program (engine, transmissions, driver electronics etc and also manufactured in Geelong) so this also played an important part!
@@andrewtreloar7389 Yes however, that doesn't sound right to me. All defence ground vehicles have to be manufactured locally because in a time of war, Australia will be isolated from foreign manufacturers. It would have been a requirement in the tender process to build locally as it has been for every Australian vehicle in recent history. Rheinmetall manufactures Boxer vehicles locally (also part of Land 400) and it would have been just as easy to do so for Lynx in the same plant.
Australia's Tiger Attack helicopter purchase ended up as a negative for Australia, because there are no new updates planned for the Tiger. This experience would have factored in as Lynx at the time of the bid did not have a major customer, whereas the Republic of Korea wants to produce domestic arms so as to not be left in the same position they were in during the Korean war; left without good kit as the US did not want to send them advanced arms. This means that the AS21 will get updates as the K21 is revised in future Korean programs.
@@andrewtreloar7389 This was from a Rheinmetall spokesman Gary Stewart in 2021 "The Australian Army will benefit from the Lynx IFV that will be designed, built and supported from Rheinmetall’s Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence, with an expanded Australia-wide military vehicle industry network,"
@@dexterplameras3249 the difference was the terms and conditions. Rhienmetal bid was to be built by Rheinmetal wholly rather than using local industry like the Hanwha bid. There was a lot of money heading offshore ( Germany) with the Rheinmetal bid.
@@andrewtreloar7389 The Perun channel released a video last Sunday titled: 'How Incentives & Interests Shape Armies - Competition, Consolidation & Procurement Policy' that describes why non-military concerns are so influential in the selection of weapons. Domestic jobs are a major issue that influences these decisions. Just as ensuring that there are competing companies in your defense industries are a reason the second-best option is purchased simply to keep that company in the defense industry. (IMO - the NGAD for the Air Force and Navy will likely go to Boeing and General Dynamics in order to keep them in the combat aircraft industry.)
I am an old Chemical Soldier who spent over half my 11 1/2 years assigned to the infantry. We had 113's than Bradley's. Which ever vehicle the Army choices. Make sure it can survive a Chemical or EMP attack. Remember saving the solider is key.
I would honestly not worry about this in Rheinmetalls bid.
The US doesn't give a shit about its soldiers, sailors, marines or airmen. Our woke military is a joke now.
Survive an attack. Might want to look up just how toxic those batteries are when burned. They are literally worse than what the armies of WW1 were using in gas attacks. Survive a chemical attack, haha, the XM30 is a chemical attack.
Not the cold war anymore 😂😂😂😂
I'm an old Bradley Commander and I really valued my gunner. It left me with other duties to perform while my gunner did his job of acquiring and eliminating the threats. I could find the next target and slave him to the area. Relay that info to command and direct the driver to my next defilade. Putting all the on one person may very well decrease the lethality of the vehicle. I seem to recall a conversation I had with a BAE guy in Korea about putting the crew in the hull and packing the turret with ammo and other equipment. I get that BAE isn't in the running but damn, I guess my idea was a hit.
They are trying to go that route with the Abrams X. I hate it as manpower trumps autoloader and turretless crews any day of the week. Imagine trying to do services on your vehicle with only two crewmembers? Thats a skeleton crew on the tank. Military trying to cut corners when it comes to manpower is a fatal mistake.
@@CCM1199 Beat me to the comment CCM. Agreed 100% + like SG stated: Division of duties/work load...
Like engineers often do, sometimes drifting to thinking in best case scenarios, as to being nearby proximity to decently equipped workshops & competent mechaniacs for damage, refits & repairs. This is not always the case with armor, its nice having a bare minimum of @ least THREE men & the muscles they possess for lighter weigh/duty field repairs & in-theater vehicle emergency improvs/field mods....
~But TWO?!...Oh man!
I can see having multiple deck stantions sockets for small winches to assist with swapping out road-wheels/sprokets/idlers & other heavier items in situ (Kindve like the late model Tiger 1's 'pilze' sockets on the turret that could mount a 3 point jib-2 ton crane boom, or the two up above the drive sprockets near glacis. Inverted 'L' shaped steel tubing could be inserted into the socket w/a chain winch or snatch block attached to assist with drive sprocket/final drive work & that was with 5 crew members assisting)
Sure, hi-tech is NICE for ballistics computers n' targeting suites/comms/real-time info data streams, but letting computers take the place of our own organic human CPU's can be fraught with issues that are usually stumbled upon all too late, often with dire consequences for the crewmen as a result...
Take 'er easy....
@@CCM1199 The Abrams X has an armored crew capsule like the Armata tank. I'm sure they're not the first to do it, but it does improve safety and networking of the crew, they're right beside each other. Armor can be decreased in other parts of the tank so long as that capsule is adequately protected and so long as it can deal with common threats. The active protection system and some slat armor would go a long way in protecting a tank with reduced armor. Overall, it's a good concept and could make the vehicles smaller and easier to transport.
Remember, this will have systems that will identify, react, and communicate with no human interaction needed.
FWIW I would happily operate as RTO if it came to that. Un-lumber my betters! ^5
There was no mention of capability to employ or integrate with drones. Lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine should make this capability a requirement.
some kind of dual station drone control station would be nice, however there is sooo little room in any armored vehicle. perhaps almost a drone station in tow that is lightly armor, easy drop/pickup, connects to many vehicles for tow so it could be dropped a mile from where the bradley is about to recon and do overwatch
I'd expect that an armored support vehicle will be the one operating the drones. Having one person be both the TC and the gunner is going to risk him becoming task overloaded in a combat situation. The other person's driving. Everybody else on board is a dismount.
Operating a drone requires somebody who is flying the drone and only flying the drone. Far better to keep them a terrain feature behind the tanks and IFVs. And it appears that electronic warfare is the way to defeat drones. And this is something that can be automated and be supervised by, but not controlled by, humans. And APS is going to render the suicide drones obsolete (just like it's going to make the Anti-Tank Guided Missile go the way of the antitank gun).
Just like I expect to see automated EW/ESM/ECM/ECCM sets on all armored fighting vehicles.
This may true, but we’re talking about a design from 2016, 2019 at the latest. You’re about four years too late.
anti drone - drones , attach and deployed from exterior.
We should be developing fighting drones. Arm them with 32acp haha. Use the cz scorpion action ..... and go!
No mention of capability doesn't mean much.
so the army HAS NOT ACTUALLY REVEALED THE M2 REPLACEMENT THEN?
Are you not able to watch a video and comprehend it??? Uhhh duhhh!
@@BobbyJardine-vs8yc thanks for saying that u didnt watch the vid or comprehend . i like your honesty
Indeed, the title is a lie
Final selection will be in 2027. The title is click bait. Send the author a message by thumbs down the video.
They still want that FCS. What a waste of thousands of chassies.
These new IFV's look more and more like tanks that carry some soldiers along for the ride. In my time in the Royal Dutch Army I was a group commander in the 41st Armoured Engineer Company, stationed at Hohne, Germany. A group consisted of 12 enlisted solders, 1 enlisted group commander and 1 driver. We used the M-113 as transport, packed to the gunnels with tool boxes, explosives cases, wooden planks and whatever else we thought we might need. For fighting purposes we had the standard M2 pintle gun and that was it. The basic motto was "Engineers don't do combat because they are too rare and too precious". If we encountered enemy forces we would engage, unless there was too much resistance, in which case we would call for infantry support. I think it is a strange decision to reduce the amount of soldiers carried per vehicle.
Agreed. I might miss the target with this but ... _doesn't _*_50mm autocannon_*_ increase the blur of APC/IFV/MBT?_
Totally agree with you on the role of dismounted troops. *_Combined arms, folk!_* Let's get integrated!
_Addendum:_ This video just popped up here: *"This IFV Will Change Battlefield"* ruclips.net/video/HXcH_RZzhjY/видео.html
I could be wrong here but iirc US doctrine calls for them to be operated in pairs, 2 crew per IFV with 6 dismounts each. So two XM-30's per squad.
@@Esoterrible Sounds good. My thinking is oriented to fireteam movement, but yaaa I'd onboard one of those!
This thing is already outdated. It needs to be able to carry 8-9 dismounts, mine protection, anti-drone defense, and the ability to take plenty of damage. The war in Ukraine shows that anti-mine warfare, drone defense, and the ability to carry large assault squads will be critical. Carrying only 6 dismounts is a joke.
@@Esoterrible And if one gets taken out, you have to retreat. War is changing fast; this thing is outdated already. The war in Ukraine is showing what a future, peer on peer, fight would be like. All our tech canceled out, and trench warfare returns to being the norm.
It's worth noting that the Army was expected to pick THREE competitors to move into phase 3-4 of the OMFV (XM30) process.
which private company do you prefer to send your taxes to?
@@kjererrt7804 whichever one can deliver the greatest product to protect our troops, both now and in the future.
@@DarkHorseSki your troops where? this is the question. think about your civilian population that may one day reap what these troops sow.
@@kjererrt7804 My troops, wherever they may be. MY civilian population will be protected by those troops some day even against our own government if it comes to that because the vast majority of the folks who would be in control of that equipment are US Constitution loving, gun toting, courageous folks who put the liberty of the people before the desires of any leftist government that wants to tread on those liberties.
@@DarkHorseSki Good answer! 👍
The Klingon Empire is impressed with these designs even though they are not equipped with Disruptors.
Dude...not Rheinmetall is not "rhine-metal", it's "rhine-mett-ALL"
Such a well done video! Thank you. That is such a cool vehicle.
If they are going to develop a new type of APC, they need something that can survive both Improvised Exploding Devices, or anti tank mines, as well as to be able t take down drones that come in to take them out, as far as I know I don't think I seen anyone thinking about that treat, you can how effective drones are in Ukraine against both Tanks and APC.
So far, I swear, it looks like a 30 cal. shot shell would be adequate if it had a tracking system. It's not like the drones have any resilience, allowing a tremendous amount of ammo to be retained -- which is great -- bc some attempts to take out Russian tanks for instance have involved over 30 drones by the nazis. Now, how it's going to survive IED is only have the problem. The other half is DEI ... bc nothing can survive incompetence. But seriously ... there's only so much you can do if they use an EFP. Bc mines WILL be made however large is required to penetrate the armor its facing. The only solution is MCLICs and mine rollers, etc ... bc you just can't endure the weight of requiring massive armor everywhere. Which is precisely why they want to use active protection for anything above a certain sized munitions ... while it seems the "turtle tanks" do a decent job surviving snotzee attacks ... and that includes the use of what looks like chainlink fencing around it (which I like the most) ... they still ultimately get through. And that's even with EW, also. So I just don't know how they're going to accommodate either of those goals. Instead, I think this project should be delayed until they understand how drones warfare will settle and not make the next series until they actually come up with an idea that will give the US overmatch for 20 years. Which I think will have to consider the T14, too.
The launcher needs to be loadable from inside and needs to be able to hold Switchblade drone launch tubes of various sizes (300/600) aside from missiles, perhaps even have a tethered drone with a spool (like a powered kite) since it'll have a nice electrical setup and batteries. Then it will be able to send that up to provide overwatch for the troops, identify targets from miles away, range them, attack directly, or send the appropriate Switchblade drone or missile to deal with whatever pops up.
What's the point of Switchblades on vehicles that'll try to enter direct combat ?
You launch those from the vehicles behind your forces that are in direct combat.
Same reason why HEROs on Kf51 make no sense.
Tanks are used to engage in direct combat at the biggest problem spots.
What would make sense is direct top attack gun launched ammo. 130mm = bigger EFP.
@@dwwolf4636 A tank still can't shoot through a hill or mountain, a drone can fly over it or attack anti-tank teams looking to ambush it, and a drone is a top attack weapon.
That's a good point. They should check out the new Polish ZSSW unmanned turret, it has a clever solution that makes it possible to reload its SPIKE ATGM's both from the outside and from the inside of the vehicle.
Absolutely, a dual load system for ATMs is a great idea. And the ability to ALSO use Switchblade drones is good for "armed recon." @@johnnyenglish583
@@mattycakes1161which is why stuff like that is done from the line not in direct comtact with the enemy.
Expect AMPV variants with integrated drones/loitering munitions.
Or a Brimstone or 2
I fear the program with founder under the weight of "feature creep" The never ending temptation to add just one more "critical" feature will cause delays and huge cost increases.
Isn't that the pattern of almost all US defence programmes? Huge sets of goals which can only be met at great expense if at all?
This is why I think the AS21 Redback IFV should be what the US Army chooses. It's already been under development for a few years now and is pretty much ready to be distributed to combat units as-is without need for further modification. The KF-41, on the other hand, doesn't seem quite like a fully-finished product yet, with more development required.
really love that digital jigsaw pattern I've saw the same pattern on the Panther KF51
Well, I'm glad (?) to know it is not just Canada whose military procurement projects go through development hell.
A 2 man crew isn't feasible. The commander will be overwhelmed with everything he has to do.
Lots of requirements by the army, but not much has been said about any of these prospective vehicles being able to carry a full squad of infantry. At the end of the day, being able to safely deliver infantry units to the battle is the most important function of these vehicles.
Whatever they do they better have a defense against drones .. wether that’s jamming or a radar controlled mini-gun - cannon.. I feel drone defense is a must have for any future battlefield… just my opinion
Or to defend against drones, I'm thinking if ever we have a technology for the tanks to have individual anti drone signal generator that will cover the tank like an invisible force field for any drone within a certain distance either loses its signal from the drone operator or has difficulty targeting the tank coz its being jammed. I think that's better than having extra weapon to defend against drones, adding more weight compared to a small signal jammer emitting signals against drones.
maybe, but an image lock could be obtained quite a distance out. Im not sure if that can be broken so eaisly on a 30 mph or less vehicle.
It's only better if it works. Maybe your idea would work, but maybe not. It has to be proven first.
@@d.b.6240 That's the thing... apparently some drones already use image based guidance for the final trajectory, as maintaining a good signal from/to drones that are close to the ground is problematic. No jamming, just a line-of-sight issue. The technology required isn't particularly advanced, nor does it require heavy sensors or compute power. A natural development for suicide drones or other guided munitions. I don't think modern fighting vehicles can get around the need for a weapon that can actually engage drones.
Automated drones will be similar to ATGMs, but with longer flight times and capability to locate targets after launch. One of the best methods for evading ATGMs is a decades old technology: smoke grenade launchers.
IMO using EASA radars to disrupt the electronics on the drone is a better alternative. The issue will be the cost of the system and its electrical consumption.
How are two tank personnel supposed to fix a broken track on their own?
T4 Time Tools Training and Tenacity
a. It's not a tank. It's an Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
b. It can carry infantry, not just the gunner and driver.
I wonder if this program had a knock-on effect on the just cancelled M1 upgrade. They're saying the M1 upgrade basically "didn't go far enough based on what we're seeing today" so instead of spending on full production they're going back to the drawing board.
A 50 mm auto cannon is a good start.
Right. The XM913 ... it has (if I recall) 700,000 lb-ft of energy.
The M1296 Dragoon offered (on a Stryker) choice of a 30mm (not the dinky M230 on the Apache, but the 30mm x 173mm used in the GAU-8) OR ... the 105mm M68A2. No need for a light tank unless you need the VERY light armor instead of the infantry. For context:
- 12.7mm x 99mm (50 BMG).................= 13,500 lb-ft of energy
- 30mm × 113mm (M230 chaingun)......= 80,000 lb-ft of energy
- 30mm × 173mm (aka GAU-8).............= 160,000 lb-ft of energy
- 50mm × 228mm (XM913)...................= 764,000 lb-ft of energy (1.5kg at ~1140m/s)
- 120mm M256 round.............................= 4.1 million lb-ft
I know they've been harping on about the "Development" of the 50mm XM-913 gun since 2012...it's still in development stage 12 years latter, so who knows what's going to come out of this program 😮
U don't need a high tech gatling gun to take out a drone. The Ukraines shot down a missle or drone with a machine gun. It's all about our military having the most expensive military stuff they can have. Thats not reality based. They act like kids who want some new toys to play with. That's the problem with our military. They waste a lot of money in that way.
@@paulzink2492 I agree. However, it should be noted that Congress mandates much of that waste, then points the finger at the military procurement people.
Time to start requiring the makers to show their cards. Each system is trying to out-do the other. When we reach this semi-final stage, isn't the endgame to provide the best for our warfighters? The infighting and pissing contests need to end.
Don't forget an anti-drone tracking system that integrates seamlessly with that 30mm cannon! And make that 30mm cannon dual feed so that both HE airburst munitions and armor piercing rounds can be accomodated with ease.
LOVE IT!!!
Imagine have this tank with advance robotics AI to be able to ride it!! In this way no chemical warfare or stormy high impacts could kill so many soldiers in the battle field.
if I am not totally blind, then this xm-30 is almost an exact copy of the german KF 41 Lynx..
Если вспоминать историю с YF-22 и YF-23, то навряд ли в конкурсе выберут лучшее.
SICK 🔥
Why does the CV90 vehicles keep being shown without being mentioned?! Like sure, they are a product of BAE-systems but at least mention the vehicles familytree name
Just by the CV 90 and be done
It also needs self protection systems like the Trophy self protection system and anti air assault systems against aircraft, drones, UAV's, and missiles. Adisional Laser cannon and electronic warfare in the turret is also recommended.
At Curtiss Wright Santa Clarita we designed a FCP replacement box with only one 3U VPX CPU board. It went nowhere, even though it passed all testing. That was reset 2.
"If the Army can learn from its mistakes..." Sgt. York, M2..."
The “less is more” approach to manufacturing a more efficient fighting vehicle is as prevalent as the building of more Arleigh-Burke destroyers. Both vehicles have multiple weapons and radar capabilities and they are fast. Speed is definitely what will be needed on a battlefield(or ocean). The M-1 and M-2 Abrams tanks are still needed. They not obsolete. They can still fight.
Stealth may probably be the next issue for the new fighting vehicles.
M1 has been phased out or the last of it is being phased out to the national guard. The M1A2 Abrams is the active duty's primary tank.
Lets go!!! New IFV for US Techtree in War Thunder!
So your article is deliberately misleading they still haven't picked between the two contenders.
i would put a second gun synchronized in addition the profile needs to be wider the striker look is the premier top shelf
so look at all the combined options and build around 7 to 9 factors of application i see 3 feet wider with a retractable
wheel carriage for terrain modulation
So basically the xm-30 is just the extremely long way to get to the Lynx IFV vechicle.
Atack drones needs to be added, plus drone anti jamming hardware...thats the future.
Laser weapons for air defense
Important have anti drone with gatling 7.62mm and testing hit with HIMARS, test with 10 ATGM javelin and test with nuclear with kru inside if just scratch for sure good IFV
So this and the booker are going to be the quick strike while the Abrams X is the Hammer
Honestly 2 gears backwards is not going to be a enough for an IFV.
Its an electric drive. It generates the same torque at all rpm. The only two gears it needs are "go fasta" and "climb to the moon".
I like the mentioned inverter technology to generate power - maybe for a laser. But I doubt it.
The XM 30 reminds me soo much of the PL-01 concept which is based off of the CV-90T light tank. the only difference between the XM-30 and the PL-01 are the guns (PL-01 can equip a 105mm or 120mm gun). I get that less is good. but have we not learned from a certain nation that having less men on the vehicle is not a good thing? they said the same thing about the Abrams X program but me being a retired tank commander and having been on the Abrams and seen every iteration from the M1 with the 105 until the SEPv2's, I will say this and continue to say this: Man power will always beat out autoloaders or turretless crews. What happens when that autoloader jams or malfunctions? or something in the turret goes down? No one is taking into account on those factors. the end result would be a vehicle that is combat ineffective. we load faster than an autoloader and with manpower we can troubleshoot and get our tanks and IFV's back in the fight faster than a turretless crew. trying to reduce manpower in a frontline vehicle is a recipe for disaster. this is not like a UAV or UGV that you can self destruct at a push of a button. A Tank goes down or IFV goes down with the skeleton crew it already has and thats bad news waiting to happen. Then what? outside the wire that happens, you might as well send the 88 for recovery and a QRF to conduct area security while they conduct recovery ops. as far as the XM-30 project, for ATGM's I wouldnt mind seeing them go from the TOW2B to at least a Javelin setup OR more like the M-SHORAD....Hellfire II missles as they are able to lock onto a target and it is a fire and forget missle. that eliminates the tracking time that a TOW 2B will have and has longer range. (the AGM-114L). The AGM 114L has a range of 7-11KM depending on trajectory. the Javelin which is also a fire and forget missle has a range of 4000M which is more than the 3750M that the TOW2B has...Thats my two cents. Im pretty sure its going to be down to the overall performance of both GDLS and Rheinmetal...GL Gentlemen and may the org win.
And thats when they should've used the CV90
Nah we like our own shit
@@user-ji9tb6wq9w Bae systems is our own
Like how long it took to build the Bradley.
How the fuck does that Army plan to charge these? Wait I've got to charge it, and I'll wait for combat
XM30 looks a lot alike with Lynx KF41
Well the Rheinmetall prototypes will be a modified Lynx and they probably got better promo-videos out than GD.
Oh My Fuxxxx God I like the Name Should have gone with the Existing and Proven CV90
Exciting.
The Ukrain conflict demonstrates the importance (understatement) of the IFV. There are clips where Bradleys engage a T-90 and beat it. What future IFV need are drones as well for eyes in the sky. The battle field is now 3 dimensional and who can see first can shoot first.
It’s worth noting that they didn’t destroy the Russian tank it, they disabled it by destroying its optics. The crew then bailed out after they drove into a tree but the tank remained intact. But I’ll call it a win for the two Bradley’s.
A hybrid so you don't feel left out taking a break from the war for a quick trip through your local battlefield Starbucks.
As someone who knows first hand about riding in the back of a Bradley.......its not a friendly vehicle to 6'4" tall man.
meh. they'll park the prototypes next to the M8 Ridgeway and the marine's EFV with a big sign that states "STUFF WE DIDN'T BUILD"
I love that green digital camo.
What is the metal shield around the barrel?
barrel support and/or protection
Exactly what you said it is.
Definitely must have Drone Link!!!
Maybe should have included a method for drone defense
Xm30 sounds amazing
Iraq Bradley crews just laughed at the six passengers part.
Australia should have sequenced it’s decision for an AFV and aligned with the US. There’s benefit in alignment re spare parts and logistics in a theatre of combat
Not a bad idea, maybe standardize the design for ease of manufacturing.
It needs to have robust drone countermeasures and self-defense. It's an emerging threat today, and they are going to proliferate and get more sophisticated. IRS&T and automatic self-defense against drones is a necessity.
It needs laser gun. Ukraine videos has convinced me RC toy planes are an absolute menace in the modern battlefield. It calls artillery strikes, spots troop movement and can drops bombs by itself while cost nothing and is flying. The weapon is terrifying. If drones are not kept in check you are at a massive advantage. Laser gun is critical to counter these weapons.
Cool beans!
It can be the star of a new movie - "Pentagon Wars 2." Bring back Kelsey Grammar!
Great video. Mahalo! With electric motors and quiet ruining, the vehicle will have to carry batteries, no?
Thank you for watching! I believe there would be fast charge, extended range and fast mounted batteries. I’m sure it will be hybrid of some sort
What's the weight of the battery pack? And what happens if a round penetrates and hits the batteries?
its all good and fun, but drone protection should a top priority
The companies should design and build their entry vehicles at their own cost …
Silent running capabilities (noise from these behemoths come not just from the engine) will prove advantageous.
These better come with pop-up Drones for over-sight targeting. Like a parascope on a sub, but much better. Reliant on drone targeting (like what we do with Spec's in the field, laser targeting!). And another small feature...Drone swarm! (I hate trench warfare), packs of 24 at a time, no target??? move to next :) Talk about SDB's.
*periscope, not parascope
I think the Ukrainian war is going to make us rethink some of things we think we need. I can see a future with drone launchers and drone counter measures. I would like to see some sort of counter mine launcher pod. Put it on as needed, just my $.02
This is going to interesting replacing the Bradley.
I wonder about provision for defense against modern top attack ATGW and LATW.
Shouldnt be an issue.
@@MornomgirWhy wouldn't that be an issue?
@@pike100 I am assuming that they will stick one or more of the various self defense/proximity defense systems on it. Most new(ish) CV´s and MBT´s have a layered defense where the vehicle itself detects, tracks and determines if an incoming projectile is a threat and then deals with it. They can track multiple incoming targets and defeat them before hitting the vehicle. Naturally you can oversaturate this but since the system is also wired to the main armament of most such vehicles not only will the tank/cv deal with incoming drones/atgms but it will also should the crew decided to do so engage the targets or the target zone from where the projectile was fired. In cases like the Abrams or the Leo the target engagement window is around 2 seconds. Which means if you shoot at it the tank fires back at you in 2 seconds. Or is technically capable of doing so atleast.
Army has cancelled the prior three "family of vehicles" programs. This is the fourth. Now, how will it deal with what we're seeing in Ukraine: massive mine fields. drones from bird size up to TB2s.
Massive minefields have always and forever been a part of the calculations. Birds sized drones wont do anything and there are already anti-drone capabilities on most modern vehicles today. What the war in ukraine has shown however is that these needs to be upgraded. For I thnink that drones on future battlefields will be in much, much larger numbers than what we are seeing in ukraine.
Hope that this machine will be number 1 when it comes to air defence..thophy..
Thanks, SPOTLIGHT.
The title is misleading. It does not show the Army’s final choice
There is also a whole lot of cv90 prototype variants in picture here
RM really is one of the best military ground vehicle manufacturers
PUMA is a sad story, but turn out become the new standard of next gen IFV
It seemed like they wanted to pick one of the two that failed in the beginning so they decided to do a do-over. The military asks a lot but I just can’t wrap my head around a company handing over a final vehicle that was overweight knowing that would disqualify them.
It would be hoped that any new design would be capable of transporting a whole squad.
Our defense companies know what drones are. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.
People online think they are smarter than the best engineers and scientists out there...
The defense companies only want to build big ticket items. Not something that's simple,and works. Get it. U are naive about how defense companies actually work. Something simple that works. Isn't something they want to build. The military needs to be restricted completely with a different mind set. In that deals with simple but gives your military assets the protection they need on the reality battlefield.
They really will call this anything but a light tank.
What is the basic combat unit in the US Army? A Squad? How many soldiersare in a Squad? How many does this thing carry??
They will restructure the squad around the vehicle, like they did with the Bradley and the striker
At this point, every armored and unarmored military vehicle needs to have anti-drone capabilities.
If ever the U.S. government wish to change its Bradley tanks, they should consider also the Armed Forces of the Philippines as its next buyer because we are strengthening our armor division with more tanks,armored personnel carriers and light tanks.
Hopefully electric hybrid motors have come a long way, because I remember there was a fleet of taxis in a town I lived in that had no end of problems with the motors.
An idea that goes back to WWII at least.
@@fredbecker607 Right. I hope it works as advertised. The idea sounds great. A quiet motor on an armoured vehicle would be great, I remember being on exercises and hearing armoured vehicles in the distance. You always knew where they were. What if you couldn't hear them how much more of a advantage would that be to them? I know the New York taxis at the beginning of the 1900s were electric but not hybrid.
Can IFV has a canon that can penetrate the armor of an MBT ? Or is too heavy for IFV ?
Too heavy in most cases. Which is why IFV's use missiles for dealing with MBT's. The cannons are mainly used against APC/IFV lvl threats.
And don't forget the microwave. Must cook hot pockets under 2 minutes.
There isn't really a hurry to replace it. The M2 is still a good IFV and a proved the design.
I am a non-combat military disabled vet so take that as you may with what I'm about to say. What I feel the military should do is stop putting such harsh demands on when something is going to be deployed and/or phased out. If the Bradly has reached the end of it's life cycle then it's time for something new. It just seems that greed gets in the way of production and WE THE PEOPLE are left to suffer. Research and Development are key to any successful military and right now America has a plethora of other issues it needs to address before replacing vehicles that are still very capable such as the Bradly and/or Abrams. I was in the Military when the Abrams was introduced and it was an awesome vehicle back in the 80s. All things considered it's upgradability keep it a current and extremely relevant vehicle to have at ones disposal so there's no real rush to replace it. Yes other MBTs are catching up the the Abrams and one day it won't be the best of the best, but you'd be hard pressed to defeat it easily if at all; even several more years down the road. Take the torsion suspension, for example, the concept stems from the WWII German Tiger I tank and here we are some 80 plus years later and we're still using that tech. Some things are worth keeping a bit longer before plunging yourself into further debt. There are very few Armies that can rival the US let alone defeat it at it's borders so Americas needs should not be towards future weapons at this time. Sure, there's always a need to update and upgrade, but not always a need to replace what's already working. Yes the XM-30 seems like a wonderful next Gen Tech, but is it REALLY NEEDED or is it simply WANTED; that's the real question that needs answered. And if we rush to get the XM-30 what do we overlook that could be even better if we just waited a year or two. Americas borders are being overrun by immigrants and no one seems to care, yet we're supposed to worry about the next, best, IFV or MBT, come on, get real, fix other issues first while you still have a country to work with. What good is this tech if we lose it due to being overrun by a passive non combat situation???
How long until these are R.C. or Self-driving?
no air or drone counter measures ?
Was in armor cavalry scout, we got this, but air cavalry scout put us out of business, sad day
I like the new Canadian concept of armored personnel carriers. But what for does he need a tower again if he needs a bunch of machine guns in all directions.
It should have a 3 man crew but can operate on two,the 50mm is a good choice and missiles and the airborne can use them also