Israeli defense: thousands of Bradley will not receive ADZ

February 4 2020

In the face of an increasing threat to armored vehicles on the modern battlefield, the Pentagon decided to bet on giving its combat vehicles active dynamic protection. To help in this endeavor, Israel spoke out. However, the improvement process went far from smoothly. About it writes The War Zone.

Problem protection

According to the publication, the Pentagon has noted the ever-growing threat of anti-tank weapons in recent years, especially in the event of a conflict with a great power such as Russia. At the same time, Israel is a pioneer in the development of anti-ATGM technologies. His KAZ Trophy from Rafael is already being installed on tanks Abrams M1 US Armed Forces.

In these conditions, the U.S. Army in December 2018 chose the Israeli company Elbit to equip the Bradley BMP with an active protection system (ADZ) Iron Fist Light. However, in 2019, the Pentagon discovered problems with its placement on this type of military equipment.

Bradley A3 does not generate enough power to operate ADS

- said in the report of the DOT & E department, which noted that the A4 modification is suitable for equipping with Israeli protection, but only after its completion.

At the same time, a limited number of the Bradley fleet is being upgraded to level A4, which has an auxiliary power unit. The company BAE Systems, responsible for improving the BMP, was tasked to improve only 641 units of equipment. This represents less than 15% of the total number of Bradley currently in operation.

Israeli defense: thousands of Bradley will not receive ADZ

Arrangement of the various components of the Iron Fist Light system on the Bradley

"Bradley" with active dynamic protection will be released during the upgrade in the amount of only four "brigade sets." They are not intended for specific units and will be available to the units in need. One of these “kits” is supposed to be constantly kept in Europe.

The Bradley family currently has two main options: "the M2 infantry fighting vehicle and the M3 cavalry fighting vehicle." Among the American units, about 4,5 pieces of equipment of these two types are scattered, and about 2 thousand are in storage. Some of them were brought to version A3, which is not suitable for the placement of the Israeli defense.

According to The War Zone, the limited scale equipment of the "Bradley" ADZ can be dictated by the Pentagon's desire to say goodbye to this BMP. The U.S. War Department intends to focus on creating a combat vehicle of the future - OMFV. Especially considering that Bradley, developed many years ago, is getting worse at updating its capabilities. This proves история with the installation of Israeli protection.

Photos used:: https://www.thedrive.com/

Military Reviewin Yandex News

Military Reviewin Yandex Zen

Victor_B 4 February 2020 03: 47
0

2

2
Pleasure is expensive even for warriors of the world!
I think around this and the installation of KAZ on our armored vehicles stalls ...
At the same time, it seems that the Israelis successfully tested the Trophy system in battle.
In general - money rules ~~a tank~~ the world!
1. Private-K 4 February 2020 09: 36
  -1
  
  1
  
  2
  Expensive, yes. Even very expensive. And it requires special maintenance. Which is also additional to the existing one.
  But if we talk about the Russian Ministry of Defense, then, as soon as it found out that it is possible to make such a KAZ, that it will bring down subcaliber crowbars, only such a KAZ wants it.
  
  And do not forget about the laws deduced by Clausewitz, who, in our case, will get the following reading: the sooner one side begins to equip its BTZ KAZ, the faster the other side takes care of the development and delivery of means to overcome this KAZ. Dialectic, unified.
  Therefore, from a certain point of view, it is simply advantageous to bustle-twist-twirl-confuse, and then it’s quick and easy to equip BTZ KAZ.
  
  Yes, still, I can, here, be mistaken, but it turns out that one of them was growing. KAZ manufacturers are better at one element and another at the other. Combining them is a non-trivial task - but it seems that they are doing it.
  
  PS By the way, let us note that, again, the American high-tech mega-corporations again "did not schmog", and the key components of KAZ were created, according to unverified data, by small Israeli firms - in fact, by engineering clubs.
  1. stone 4 February 2020 10: 03
    
    +3
    
    4
    
    1
    
    small Israeli firms - in fact, clubs of engineers? So you are interested in the revenue of these firms at your leisure, that is, the Internet. More than many Russian corporations will be!
Uncle lee 4 February 2020 03: 52
+4

6

2
Beautiful cartoons! The fly will not fly ....
1. Lexus 4 February 2020 05: 14
  +4
  
  5
  
  1
  I dare to express doubts that the reaction time of the rotary launcher contributes to the confident interception of the BOPS (it’s the last one in the video) ... Unless it is preliminarily aimed at the identified source of danger or laser radiation, for example, a tank rangefinder.
2. Victor_B 4 February 2020 07: 02
  +3
  
  4
  
  1
  Quote: Uncle Lee
  Beautiful cartoons!
  
  Well, you are a padded jacket!
  Cartoons from Putin, and here are super weapons!
  1. Uncle lee 4 February 2020 07: 06
    
    +2
    
    3
    
    1
    
    Quote: Victor_B
    padded jacket!
    
    You know better ! Although, I have this item of clothing for special occasions ...
    1. Victor_B 4 February 2020 07: 08
      
      -1
      
      0
      
      1
      
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      I have this item of clothing for special occasions ...
      
      But I do not have ....
      Sorrow ...
      1. Karaul73 4 February 2020 07: 57
        
        -6
        
        0
        
        6
        
        Horse Get it.
eklmn 4 February 2020 04: 00
-2

1

3
“The Pentagon in recent years has noted an ever-growing threat of the use of anti-tank weapons, especially in the event of a conflict with great power such as Russia. ”
And these are the words of the Pentagon? “Great Power”? Unbelievable! I got scared, I guess! It’s just a good time to bomb it!
1. Krasnodar 4 February 2020 04: 19
  +5
  
  9
  
  4
  Only after the fall of the dollar and the eruption of Yellowstone!
  1. bessmertniy 4 February 2020 05: 45
    
    +1
    
    3
    
    2
    
    The vulnerability of armored vehicles is today's reality. The point here is not whether the Pentagon was scared or not. We need modern protection systems so that in the event of a serious conflict, they do not lose their armor in a matter of days, as has happened more than once in modern history. The fact that the problem has seriously affected the US Army is significant. Probably, this is not without a tip from the ISIS, who successfully burned Abrams in Iraq. Well, we also need to keep up with this issue.
    1. Krasnodar 4 February 2020 06: 45
      
      +5
      
      7
      
      2
      
      Good morning!
      Abrams punched from the side or from the back - so you can burn any technique that exists in the world today. The question is, what is more expensive - training a new crew + equipment repair (if it is to be repaired after being hit) or KAZ.
letinant 4 February 2020 04: 30
+6

9

3
At the same time, Israel is a pioneer in the development of anti-tank missile defense technologies.

Sfigali! The development of KAZ in Israel began in the late 90s. Development in the Soviet Union began in the 70s and resulted in the Dozhd complex, then, in the 80s, Drozd, then, in the early 90s, in the Arena.
1. stone 4 February 2020 10: 08
  -1
  
  3
  
  4
  So what?! Was there anything in the series? The question is, who on serial tanks, in the army has been introduced KAZ for many years? Israel has Merkava, and now they have gone to other Western armored vehicles, and very actively!
  1. Xenofont 4 February 2020 10: 56
    
    -2
    
    2
    
    4
    
    Thrush stood on serial in limited quantities. Take an interest first, and then say out loud. It was produced for 6 years and was installed on the T-55A. So, screwed up!
    1. stone 4 February 2020 14: 43
      
      +1
      
      3
      
      2
      
      How many divisions? Where, as shown, there is nothing! In limited quantities, is it like 2 pieces or 3? Well assigned the name T-55AD and so what? So you yourself ...
      1. Xenofont 4 February 2020 15: 15
        
        -1
        
        1
        
        2
        
        Look and find ... 6 years of the series are not impressive. Then further is pointless.
        
        stone 4 February 2020 17: 32
        
        -1
        
        1
        
        2
        
        Previously, everything was pointless for you too
        
        Xenofont 4 February 2020 17: 35
        
        -2
        
        0
        
        2
        
        Just decided to scratch your tongue without arguments and facts? They found a good place ... Divorced you ...
        
        stone 5 February 2020 08: 54
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        And how much you got divorced! 6 years of production - how many thousands, or at least hundreds of produced tanks? Where in and in what units in the troops were these tanks operated? Will the answers or scratch your tongue?
The comment was deleted.
honest people 4 February 2020 05: 02
-6

2

8
The article is just about nothing.
rocket757 4 February 2020 05: 06
+2

5

3
And yet, what are the Yankees preparing for?
If suddenly the war with the "Great Power" the variety of means of destruction of armored equipment will be great, there is not much to protect from everything, and these "firewood" Bradley will burn, like everything else, however.
But for use in a small, small-town conflict, it can all be more, less effective.
Thrifty 4 February 2020 05: 32
+2

7

5
Firstly, an obvious lie - Israel is by no means a "pioneer in the development of KAZ" !!! He is still the leader in the number of installed and sold KAZs! Secondly, so far, there are no exact facts, except for a video of the most impressive quality, and statements by the Israeli military confirming the effectiveness of these Israeli-made complexes. And polygon tests are for show, they cannot simulate a real battle. ..
1. Krasnodar 4 February 2020 05: 37
  +4
  
  6
  
  2
  Come on you - Americans want to buy - so let them buy
  Maybe they were given a rollback ..
rotmistr60 4 February 2020 06: 23
+1

2

1
One of these "sets" is supposed keep constantly in Europe.
So it is clear - next to a great power, with which the Americans are still planning to fight sooner or later. I doubt that they think about Russia's plans to seize Europe (nevertheless, there are sensible people in the Pentagon). So they themselves are waiting for the opportunity that our country vryatli provide them.
Bradley A3 does not generate enough power to operate ADS
Then the question is - why start an expensive event if it requires additional improvements? Or really pressed, or corruption component.
Vitaly Tsymbal 4 February 2020 06: 35
+3

5

2
Thoughts aloud ... A lot is written about the need to install the newest, complex and MOST IMPORTANT EXPENSIVE IN THE FINANCIAL PLAN of active protection systems for armored vehicles, although they forget that the current generation of the same BMP (in all armies) was developed on the concept of frontal combined arms combat, and not on raid operations, which (apart from military clashes in Donbas) are the main tactical actions of ground units. The Israeli system is quite suitable for raid tactical actions, when a group of militants of 3-7 people is firing at armored vehicles (fired and escaped), but how such a defense will lead in a frontal battle is difficult to say. It's one thing when 1 ATGM (or RPG) crew fires against BT, another thing if the fire is fired not only from ATGMs or RPGs, but also from artillery systems (including MLRS) by the battery or battalion on the "long lines" - march , and in close combat, except for ATGM (RPG), large-caliber rapid-fire small arms that do not penetrate armor, but are capable of knocking out sensors, sights, etc. hung on the armor, turning military equipment into a tractor or "armored bus". Whether modern systems are able to actively resist to be effective in frontal combat is a question to which today, in proven combat, there is no answer. Therefore, all these troubles with active means of protection are quite suitable only for raid ground operations. Therefore, the Americans do not equip all BMPs with such systems, probably realizing that a strong enemy (Russia, China, India) cannot be defeated by raids.
1. Maki Avellevich 4 February 2020 06: 59
  -1
  
  2
  
  3
  Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
  It's one thing when 1 ATGM (or RPG) crew fires against BT, it's another matter if the fire is fired not only from ATGMs or RPGs, but also from artillery systems (including MLRS) by the battery or battalion on the "distant" - march
  
  there are statistics of defeats. repel from it.
  I think so! (from)
  1. Vitaly Tsymbal 4 February 2020 07: 15
    
    +1
    
    4
    
    3
    
    Dear Dmitry, statistics is not a military science ... If statistics are to be believed, then the Houthis with their primitive drones should not have "penetrated" American "patriots" in Saudi Arabia ....
    1. Operator 4 February 2020 10: 13
      
      +3
      
      5
      
      2
      
      Dmitry is right - the statistics of successful / unsuccessful use of anti-tank weapons is the basis for the development of a particular defense.
      
      Incomplete equipping of the available BMP "Bradley" fleet with "Iron Fest" is due to the limited capabilities of the latter to intercept the attacking ATGMs and RPGs - a relatively long reaction time to turn the launcher towards the incoming ammunition.
      
      The U.S. Army is clearly expecting a better solution.
      1. Vitaly Tsymbal 4 February 2020 14: 47
        
        0
        
        2
        
        2
        
        Dear Andrey! At one time, I had to shoot a lot from the RPG-7 range and a couple of times from the 9M14M Malyut ATGM on the BMP 1, so I know that the successful or unsuccessful use of the RPG-7 and ATGM largely depends on the experience of the grenade launcher, and not from the grenade launcher itself. The human factor, unfortunately, statistics are not able to fully take into account. This is the first. The second - the tank and infantry fighting vehicles for combat use, and armor are completely different vehicles. It is much easier to create a tank with an airborne squad than an infantry fighting vehicle with tank armor ....
        
        Operator 4 February 2020 15: 11
        
        +1
        
        4
        
        3
        
        From the moment the KAZ is designed to intercept RPGs, ATGMs, homing aviation ammunition and BPS, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles will need armor that can withstand small-caliber shells and fragments of large-caliber shells.
        
        In the late 1980s, the Soviet KAZ "Shater" was already intercepting caliber artillery shells at a speed of 900 m / s.
        
        The developers of "Afganit" and "Iron Festa" claim that they have already learned to intercept BOPS - they are lying, aren't they?
        
        Vitaly Tsymbal 4 February 2020 16: 17
        
        -1
        
        1
        
        2
        
        All my only "life experience" with active tank protection was in 1990 (T-55a modernized in Czechoslovakia with active protection installed). When the deputy chief of the regiment (and he had just arrived from the academy) I asked - "How does it work?" He replied: "Who knows. Better not press this red button, from sin on further. "But we are not talking about the KAZ itself, but its need for an infantry fighting vehicle, is it worth protecting what is penetrated by a large caliber of small arms, detonated on a mine or land mine, burns not only from a flamethrower, but also bottles with a Molotov cocktail and quite simple way - scrap in the drive wheel So is it worth spending huge funds on something that can be hit or disabled except for ATGMs by other types of weapons or improvised means ?????? BMP, as I wrote earlier, is a technique created for frontal combat, and not for raid operations. If the BMP is used for a raid against small groups of "barmaley" - KAZ may come in handy, but in a frontal battle - no protection will help .... sorry, but I'm a fatalist. You can't run away from fate and even KAZ won't help.
        
        Operator 4 February 2020 16: 21
        
        +2
        
        5
        
        3
        
        BMP T-15 is not penetrated by bullets, small-caliber artillery and fragments of artillery shells / min.
        
        Maki Avellevich 5 February 2020 07: 32
        
        +1
        
        1
        
        0
        
        Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
        important Andrey! At one time, I had to shoot a lot from the RPG-7 range and a couple of times from the 9M14M Malyut ATGM on the BMP 1, so I know that the successful or unsuccessful use of the RPG-7 and ATGM largely depends on the experience of the grenade launcher, and not from the grenade launcher itself.
        
        dear Vitaliy.
        we will chew in place.
        at the end of any war / operation, data analysis is carried out. soot is knocked down (how) the table is lost (how?)
        All aspects of military operations are checked. databases were also built from which you can often draw a lot of useful information.
        you probably shoot well from RPGs and babies, but you probably weren’t an analyst in the army, although you speak very categorically on topics you don’t know.
        
        Vitaly Tsymbal 5 February 2020 13: 51
        
        -1
        
        0
        
        1
        
        Dear Dmitry! Yes, you are right, when I served in the army, I did not hold positions of either military analysts or military analysts ... But I know well how the military creates information from the bottom. Example. Afghan. Column of fillers. Kamaz with a trailer. Two wheels are jammed on the trailer. Repair is possible only at the place of permanent deployment, and it is impossible to drag. We push the trailer off the road and shoot it from the PC (caliber 7,62 - if suddenly there is and wants to check for holes) - well, do not leave a gift to the spirits - a trailer and aviation kerosene ... And on the radio we report that we have come under enemy fire as a result of which " lost "trailer with kerosene. So much for the statistics !!!! According to statistics, it will be indicated that the trailer was "destroyed" as a result of enemy fire from small arms - which one is not known (the spirits did not report to us what they fired at the shuravi), no one will check. They did this because it is much more "troublesome" to write off a trailer with fuel that was out of order for "peaceful" reasons than to write off on spirits.
        At the same time, read the information of company commanders about how many enemies were destroyed during the battle. It so happens that during the fighting of the enemy’s personnel and equipment, 2-3 times more were destroyed than this enemy was actually .... So, according to military statistics, I can speak out quite specifically. Yes, about analytics and statistics. After he retired from the army, he worked as a civilian analyst, and also taught statistics to students ... This is so that you, dear Dmitry, understand why I can express my attitude to statistics at the expert level.
    2. Maki Avellevich 5 February 2020 07: 24
      
      +1
      
      1
      
      0
      
      Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
      Dear Dmitry, statistics is not a military science ...
      
      as well as optics, psychology, history, etc., etc. Yes?
      statistical analysis is applied (successfully) also in the military industry, you comment without thinking.
eklmn 4 February 2020 07: 32
+2

3

1
Blah blah blah...
The editors are trolling readers.
Article almost a year, June 2019:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28454/army-hits-setbacks-in-search-for-active-protection-system-to-go-on-its-strykers
“... developed many years ago by Bradley copes with updating its capabilities worse and worse. The story with the installation of the Israeli defense proves this. "
And from this they would start talking right away - Bradley is impossible to improve, so the Army, right now, is in full swing looking for a replacement for them (on Google there are a lot of options for a new car). But what systems will be put there, then ... then the classic “when they replace it - then we'll talk ...!”
Zaurbek 4 February 2020 07: 37
-1

0

1
Complexes may not be enough for a war with the Russian Federation. The main goal is to reduce losses in local conflicts. The main threats are RPGs, Soviet anti-tank systems and their licensing options, Tou 1 and 2.
1. Viktor Sergeev 4 February 2020 08: 02
  -3
  
  0
  
  3
  And what is there to be enough if the RPG 30 is already in service, he has active protection on the drum.
  1. borberd 4 February 2020 08: 25
    
    +2
    
    3
    
    1
    
    Trophy was tested on tandem ammunition, he destroys them. So do not "over the drum"
    1. Zaurbek 4 February 2020 09: 48
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      There are two ammunition. One small-caliber, the second tandem. I don’t know how to shoot from all this. First shoots the first, then the second at some interval. KAZ reacts to the first, the second affects DZ and Armor.
Viktor Sergeev 4 February 2020 08: 01
0

3

3
We shoot simultaneously from two, three RPGs and a kaput tank, no KAZ will help.
Viktor Sergeev 4 February 2020 08: 03
-3

1

4
RPG 30 and no Bradley or Abrams.
letinant 4 February 2020 11: 02
-2

0

2
Quote: stone
So what?! Was there anything in the series? The question is, who on serial tanks, in the army has been introduced KAZ for many years? Israel has Merkava, and now they have gone to other Western armored vehicles, and very actively!

For those who are in the tank! We read carefully!
At the same time, Israel is a pioneer in the development of anti-tank missile defense technologies.

It is time.
Complexes "Drozd" were installed in the 80s on the T-55, which are in service with the regiments of the Western District. True, they were already being actively replaced by T-64, T-72 and T-80, so the number is small. For the T-80 they developed the "Arena", but why it did not go into series in the "golden 90s" (curl them to the left!), You probably do not need to remind.
Grading 4 February 2020 16: 55
-1

1

2
Quote: bessmertniy
The vulnerability of armored vehicles is today's reality. The point here is not whether the Pentagon was scared or not. We need modern protection systems so that in the event of a serious conflict, they do not lose their armor in a matter of days, as has happened more than once in modern history. The fact that the problem has seriously affected the US Army is significant. Probably, this is not without a tip from the ISIS, who successfully burned Abrams in Iraq. Well, we also need to keep up with this issue.

Change the training manual
The comment was deleted.
lvov_aleksey 6 February 2020 01: 31
0

0

0
the mustache understood everything, I like it, I hope it will not happen again