View Full Version : US Army Bradley Replacement
Payload of C-17: 170,900lb = 85 short tons.
Better not pack any in-flight rations or have to go very far....
Bradley Replacement to Outweigh Abrams Tank (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/11/15/bradley-replacement-to-outweigh-abrams-tank/)
The Army’s high-priority battle wagon, the Ground Combat Vehicle, is likely to weigh as much as 84 tons, making it the heaviest armored vehicle on the battlefield.
The new weight estimate, released by the Congressional Budget Office, mean that the service’s replacement for the outdated Bradley fighting vehicle would be heavier than an M1 Abrams tank and weigh more than two current Bradleys.....
Wensleydale
16th Nov 2012, 15:39
The figures probably include the weight of the crew.....
Lonewolf_50
16th Nov 2012, 15:51
Just how many brigdes in the world will support those vehicles?
Something isn't adding up. :ugh:
VinRouge
16th Nov 2012, 15:58
Someone has designed by the looks of it with the intention of staying in afghan. I would say we were coming to the end of our Silly little obsession with coin so why no go for something less armoured and more manoeuvrable?
Pontius Navigator
16th Nov 2012, 16:45
Wasn't weight the achilles heel of the Conqueror tank? Biggest gun, biggest tank, biggest army and TOO heavy at 65 tons and heavier even than the Challenger 2.
racedo
16th Nov 2012, 17:40
Another movie gotta be in the offing then as saw the original involving the story of the Bradley and was funny.
The Pentagon Wars (TV 1998) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/)
Given how they screwed up the development of the Bradley I don't see this new vehicle in action before 2020 and even then it will sink into anything other than a reinforced road................infantry get ready to get out and push.
JFZ90
16th Nov 2012, 18:27
An 84 ton APC for 9 troops.
Basically, I don't understand, at all.
What threats are driving such a mass? Isn't the future with innovative design & hard kill das etc.?
NutLoose
16th Nov 2012, 20:01
Sort of self perpetuating, more armour means need for bigger engine and larger fuel tanks to haul it around and give it the range.... that means a larger vehicle to fit it in, which of course means more armour and weight and that means.....
I thought they were looking at a redesign built on the Bradley's chassis, or a tracked version of the Stryker that was in the offing.
5645andym
17th Nov 2012, 03:25
I seem to remember that the designer of the A4 Skyhawk, Ed Heinemann, came up with a 1-10 rule for aircraft design i.e. every extra kilo of equipment would add 10 kilos to the final design weight.
I wonder if there is a similar rule for tank/afv design. . .
Buster Hyman
17th Nov 2012, 04:14
Ha! And the M113 (http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipment-and-clothing/Vehicles/M113AS4) will soldier on down here until 2050!