Longer, more expensive, harder: the USA signed the impossibility of getting the desired Bradley replacement


It's not that



History the development of the famous American BMP M2 is full of surprises and metamorphoses, which can be found in the comedy widely known in narrow circles The Pentagon Wars. Recall that work on the creation of a new BMP for the US Army began in 1964 and ended only in 1981, by adopting the Bradley directly.

No less surprising is the story of the search for a replacement for this BMP, which, by the way, has become a worthy representative of American weapons and gave US fighters reliable protection in modern warfare. Nowadays, few people remember the existence of such a program as Future Combat Systems, which envisaged the creation of a whole family of new equipment for the ground forces, including the Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) XM1206 infantry fighting vehicle. It would not be a great exaggeration to say that the program ended in nothing, while, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), at the time of the freezing of the project in 2009, it cost US taxpayers more than $ 18 billion.


In the same 2009, a new GCV program (Ground Combat Vehicle, "Ground Combat Transport") began, which became the de facto successor to the FCS. It is known that in the framework of the program, the US Army intended to replace the M113 armored personnel carrier by 2018, the Bradley M2 a little later, and the M1126 Stryker infantry armored personnel carrier in the medium term. You would think that the Americans took into account the negative experience, but this is not so. Already in 2014, the Ground Combat Vehicle program was closed.

Longer, more expensive, harder: the USA signed the impossibility of getting the desired Bradley replacement

Attempt number three


After the actual failures of Future Combat Systems and Ground Combat Vehicle, the United States launched the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) in 2018, now known as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV). We can say that the Pentagon somewhat tempered the ardor, abandoning the "complete" rearmament of ground forces. Now the Ministry of Defense wanted to get an average tracked infantry fighting vehicle capable of operating in controlled and unmanned versions, while having the ability to interact widely with different robots. They wanted to make it in a relatively short time and take it into service in 2026.

However, soon the new OMFV program itself turned into an epic stretching for many years, full of contradictions. At the beginning of 2020, it became known that the U.S. Army canceled the comparative testing phase of the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program. The reason was that ... there was only one offer. This is a General Dynamics Griffin III combat vehicle. The Germans with their futuristic BMP KF41 Lynx were disqualified due to the fact that they did not timely provide a modified sample for testing: at least that was the formal reason. And even earlier, the British from BAE Systems and the South Korean Hanwha refused the competition. They were not satisfied with either the timing or the costs.


Needless to say, many managed to call the competition engaged? In this confusing story, you can give the floor to the Americans themselves.

“The army demanded great opportunities in a very aggressive schedule and, despite an unprecedented number of working days and efforts to develop requirements for two years, to help industry generate competitive proposals, it is obvious that the combination of requirements and schedule was excessive for the industry’s ability to satisfy the army deadlines. The need (in the new BMP. - Approx. Auth.) Remains obvious. OMFV is a critical area for the army, and we will move forward after the revision (program. - Approx. Aut.) ",

- quotes the words of the Deputy Secretary of the US Army Procurement Bruce Jett's bmpd blog.

Simply put, "there is nowhere to retreat - Moscow is behind!" The third setback will be almost a disaster for the prestige of the US ground forces. A replacement for the Bradley is needed, and as soon as possible.

A New Twist


In April 2020, the story received a new development, and it turned the OMFV program upside down. The Breaking Defense website in the article "OMFV: Army Revamps Bradley Replacement For Russian Front" talked about the new requirements that the US military makes for a promising infantry fighting vehicle. “No requirements from the first request for proposals remain valid. This is a new request for proposals, ”the publication cites the speaking lines of the US Army document.


It is noteworthy that the requirements for transportation by air have softened. As part of a previous request, the military wanted two OMFVs to be transported on the same S-17A. In other words, the infantry fighting vehicle should have been comparable with the Bradley in mass, but significantly superior to its predecessor in terms of security.

Now in the first place in the list of requirements is precisely security. The machine should not be too heavy: mobility put in second place. In addition, the promising BMP should have a "moderate" size and have sufficient firepower. An important aspect was the revision of the deadlines. The tender for the updated program will start in the fall of 2021: the US military expects to select up to five proposals. Then the number of participants will be reduced to three: they will have to build prototypes of infantry fighting vehicles by July 2025. The winner will be chosen in 2027, in the same year they want to begin pre-production. Start full-fledged serial production is calculated in the second half of fiscal year 2029.


Perhaps the Pentagon’s decision was influenced by Russian developments, in particular, the promising Armata tracked platform and the T-15 infantry fighting vehicle built on its basis. Or perhaps a unified medium tracked platform and infantry fighting vehicles, known as the “Object 695”. One thing is certain: American military theorists did not get what they originally wanted. Confirming more than once voiced the thesis that the best (in comparison with earlier models of armored vehicles) security with almost one hundred percent probability will entail a further increase in the mass of the combat vehicle.

On the other hand, the current situation confirms that the Americans as a whole are satisfied with the current armored vehicles and are ready to operate it for more than one year. While directing additional funds to develop a fundamentally new weapons, in particular, promising hypersonic missiles that can increase the potential of both ground forces and the United States Air Force and Navy.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. missuris April 22 2020 05: 51 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    The machine should not be too heavy: mobility put in second place. In addition, the promising BMP should have a "moderate" size and have sufficient firepower.

    Clear requirements) or the US military is inadequate than the Soviet / Russian military. Or journalists, as usual, rejected the important thing in such applications, the ultimate performance characteristics.
    Is it so hard to write:
    1) The machine should not be heavier than 40 tons to withstand the bridges. eg!
    2) The machine should fit in an xx-model airplane. The car can be transported by train.
    3) The machine must shoot at xx distance. The machine must penetrate armor xx-thickness. And so on.
    4) The machine must withstand splinters from xx-shells. The machine must keep sub-caliber cores away from xx shells. The machine must operate in conditions of electromagnetic radiation, nuclear fallout, chemical weapons, etc.
    1. Alexey RA April 22 2020 10: 51 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: missuris
      Clear requirements) or the US military is inadequate than the Soviet / Russian military. Or journalists, as usual, rejected the important thing in such applications, the ultimate performance characteristics.

      Yes, everything is fine - this is a classic task for a new technique, which, moreover, will change a few times. Remember the design history of the predecessor - M2:
  2. Doctor April 22 2020 06: 45 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    The issue of replacing the BMP, like many other things, is no longer relevant for the United States.
    As well as for us.
    1. Mitroha April 22 2020 06: 50 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Arzt
      The issue of replacing the BMP, like many other things, is no longer relevant for the United States.
      As well as for us.

      Deep thought ... Share?
      1. Doctor April 22 2020 07: 22 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Deep thought ... Share?

      2. Doctor April 22 2020 10: 09 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        Deep thought ... Share?

        For some reason, a deep thought was cut out. I repeat.

        The USA is again restless. Over the past day, 2,804 (!) People died from coronavirus in the United States, and 25,985 new infections were detected.

        The total number of COVID-19 victims in the country has grown to 45,318. 818,744 people were infected, 14,016 of them in serious condition.

        This number of victims is a record, both for the United States and for any other country in the world. What is the reason for such a sharp increase after a certain period of declining dynamics is not very clear yet. This also takes place against the backdrop of reports by the authorities about the imminent lifting of quarantine in some states.

      3. volodimer April 22 2020 18: 35 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        The initial concept of the use of infantry fighting vehicles was relevant as "delivery of infantry through the territory contaminated with radiation to the place of hostilities"
        It is clear that at the present moment, and especially for the United States, "providing conditions to fight under the influence of atomic weapons" is long overdue.
        The problem for them is that they cannot determine what degree of crew protection should exist. If the bar is high, then we have something close to a heavy tank, in the other region we get a striker, whom RPGs, landmines and other improvised means simply beat.
        1. Mikhail3 April 23 2020 14: 39 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Something you are right about. Well ... a little bit. What determines the success of a military operation? First of all, by logistics. The troops can be arbitrarily trained, powerful, armed and cool, but if they are not corny at the battlefield, breakthrough, then the operation is frustrated and the battle is lost.
          So the concept of the use of infantry fighting vehicles is the delivery of infantry to the place provided for by the command in a hostile environment. There is no need for an atomic explosion to scratch a large machine-gun caliber on a car body, incapacitating fighters. Shell vehicles from an ambush. Mines to impose on the trees!
          So the atomic explosion here is the tenth thing, the question is any hostile effect, and the BMP is very useful. And the question of which level of security to choose is relevant not only for them, but for everyone. The truth for us, and many more, is not too relevant. We do not have money for large-scale replacements, so we can only look from the side.
          However, in general, that is, money ...
          1. volodimer April 23 2020 18: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Michael, this is what I’m talking about. When we created the BMP1-2, and the Americans our Bradley, the possibility of action under the conditions of exposure to weapons of mass destruction was provided. Accordingly, they received a system of protection against its effects. At the moment, this is not so relevant, because the option of military operations between us with the exchange of attacks with at least tactical nuclear weapons is not really considered. Accordingly, why equip the BMP with protection equipment from what will not happen. After all, you can spend the saved weight on additional protection against simpler devices, such as RPGs and HEs. But the fact that "in any hostile attack, and the BMP is quite out of place" no doubt.
            1. max702 April 23 2020 22: 42 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Our infantry fighting vehicles were made to break through the enemy’s layered defense .. BMP armor perfectly held artillery shrapnel, which covered the attack of troops with a fire shaft.
            2. Mikhail3 April 24 2020 10: 47 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Uh ... A BMPs are equipped specifically with anti-nuclear protection ?! And which one, sorry for the strange question? You offer to save on it (by the way, you can not repeat it twice, I understood the first time), apparently an expensive thing. Is there a lead layer? What kind of composites? Passion is how curious.
              1. Sniper Amateur April 24 2020 23: 03 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                PRHR, FVU, antineutron breakdown (not at all).
                1. Mikhail3 April 27 2020 09: 33 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  A device, a pair of ventilation filters and a piece of plastic? Well, of course you can save on this ... Compared to the price of the BMP itself, it’s not even a penny. For the sake of this vehicle started up their posts above ?! Type BMP under these three things was developed? Hehe ...
  3. Graz April 22 2020 07: 45 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well, Americans have priority on a contactless war, and BMP is already a very contact war
    1. Viktor Sergeev April 22 2020 08: 24 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      It is contactless when you are fighting a obviously weak enemy, when you are in no hurry and you have an overwhelming advantage in firepower. But any war ends with the seizure of enemy territory and here contact takes place, even during the war with the barmalei.
  4. Vladimir_2U April 22 2020 08: 19 New
    • 4
    • 9
    -5
    That Bradley's ugliness, that Griffin,
  5. Viktor Sergeev April 22 2020 08: 22 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    And who said that the first two projects failed? a budget cut has been made, the money has been spent, and this is the main goal with a new order. Do Americans really need a new BMP? In reality, no, in the wars that the United States leads, Bradley has nothing to do with himself, but you need to do something with your grandmother.
    1. voyaka uh April 22 2020 16: 47 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Bradley performed well in wars.
      She lacks a full-fledged KAZ, and everything is in order: and the gun is accurate
      Bushmaster with armor-piercing shells, and TOW launchers, and two machine guns.
      1. Private-K April 23 2020 21: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Forced you minus. request
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Bradley performed well in wars.
        She lacks a full-fledged KAZ, and everything is in order: and the gun is accurate
        Bushmaster with armor-piercing shells, and TOW launchers, and two machine guns.

        Bradley showed herself so “well” in wars that NOBODY, ANYWHERE, and NEVER wanted to buy her.
        A 25-mm autocannon is such a machine gun exclusively for hitting light-armored armored vehicles. It is not capable of at least with some efficiency working on infantry, etc., or breaking walls / fences. Those. anti-personnel characteristics are close to the usual APCs with a heavy machine gun and conventional machine guns.
        PU TOU mounted on Bradley - horribly disgusting. Imagine an offensive situation. Bradley rides. An armored gun appeared. Bradley must: 1) stop; 2) raise the launcher from traveling to combat; 3) shoot. It is noteworthy that you can not raise the PU in motion - only on the spot! What a wonderful PU.
        In addition, the chassis of the car is too heavily weighed in armor, etc. The car is barely creeping - the situation is worse than it was with the A3 Marders. It is necessary to keep the engine at high speeds, which leads to premature breakdowns and complication of general maintenance.
        1. voyaka uh April 23 2020 22: 00 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          1) Bushmaster shoots exactly at 3000 m, three times further,
          than the popular Colt 0.5 machine gun.
          Her armor-piercing shells are miniature OBPS, tungsten arrows.
          They pierced the Iraqi infantry fighting vehicles right through.
          2) Bradley actively used their TOW in both Iraqi wars.
          On their battle account, several dozen Iraqi tanks.
          Shooting from a place did not bother them at all.
          3) There is some tension. But the armor, not bulletproof cardboard,
          like on an enemy infantry fighting vehicle.
          4) Bradley dear - not for poor buyers.
          1. Private-K April 23 2020 22: 21 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            So I’m saying - the Bradley gun is suitable only for fighting light and weakly protected armored vehicles. tongue And leave stories about ultra-high accuracy for impressionable girls love without forgetting to add the awesome word "tungsten", and even better "uranium". lol

            In the circumstances in which Bradley filled frags, half-track armored personnel carriers of WWII times with TOU pins mounted could be used instead. wassat The effect would be the same. tongue
            The beating of a retreating army that has lost control always has impressive pictures. fellow

            BMP-1 - 1965. Bradley in the basic version - 1982. The war in Iraq-1 - 1991. The war in Iraq-2 - 2003. Why cling to the old BMP-1 car? These machines are divided by time for an entire generation!

            In the 1990s, when Clinton shortened the army, the Americans were ready to sell Bradley cheaply. This time. They buy cars at the cost of approximately equal to Bradley, and much more expensive than Bradley. But not Bradley herself! stop
            1. voyaka uh April 24 2020 17: 39 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              "So I’m saying - the Bradley gun is only suitable for fighting light and
              weakly protected armored vehicles "////
              ----
              Naturally. To deal with MBT need a caliber of 120 mm. 105 at least.
              Only MBT has such calibers.
              The infantry fighting vehicle must:
              1) have good armor to protect
              transported infantry. This Bradley provides.
              2) to be able to fight with BMP and armored personnel carriers of the enemy.
              This Bradley also provides. To knock out a tank from TOW is already a bonus.
              3) tanks provide better support for dismounted infantry than infantry fighting vehicles.
              A high-explosive projectile must be of a large caliber in order to have an effect.
              In this application, 25 mm is also small, and 60 mm is also small.
              1. Sniper Amateur April 24 2020 23: 12 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                A high-explosive projectile must be of a large caliber in order to have an effect.
                In this application, 25 mm is also small, and 60 mm is also small.

                You are wrong here. The modern 57-60-mm thin-walled and equipped with OFS hexatol even surpasses in its power the action of a steel-cast-iron ammatol 3 "grenade for ZiS-3 of some kind from 1942-1945.
  6. alexmach April 22 2020 09: 45 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Hmm .. it turns out they have a dead end in the development of BMP-BTR. But they have one advantage - that is now in service is relatively modern.
    1. Doctor April 22 2020 12: 06 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Hmm .. it turns out they have a dead end in the development of BMP-BTR.

      The impasse is contrived.
      For a long time there was no big war with heavy losses, so when a couple dozen soldiers die in local conflicts inside the BMP-BTR, the imperfection of the equipment is blamed.
      They begin to build up armor and fire, the mass grows, the external dimensions increase, the internal volume decreases.
      As a result, we have a large passenger light tank with an increased crew, with weaker armor and fire than a normal tank.

      They forgot the work of their specialist Richard Simpkin, who after the war wrote the monographs "Tanks" and "Motorized infantry". It clearly states what a tank is and what an infantry fighting vehicle (BTR) is.
      1. qobnvmog April 22 2020 12: 40 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Arzt
        As a result, we have a large passenger light tank with an increased crew, with weaker armor and fire than a normal tank.

        As a result, we have a large passenger easy normal tank, with a full landingwith more weak and fire strong armor than a normal tank, and without gun. As a result, we have "Name"
        1. Doctor April 22 2020 12: 43 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          As a result, we have a large passenger normal tank, with a full landing, with stronger armor than a normal tank, and without a gun. As a result, we have "Name"

          This is acceptable. The main task is the relatively safe transportation of l / s. Just do not try to put the gun there.
          1. qobnvmog April 22 2020 13: 06 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: Arzt
            This is acceptable.

            Those. no need to reinvent the wheel, everything goes to the point that the Israelis are right who turned the tank into an armored personnel carrier.
            Actually, Namer in the USA was tested just for the GCV program voiced in the article.
            Intent on tests in the USA for the needs of the American army.
            Intent on tests in the USA for the needs of the American army. (Wikipedia)


            Perhaps the refusal to continue the program was influenced by the tests of Namer. The US Army realized that in order to meet their priority requirements, they needed no less than a tank without a gun. Actually, Namer passed all the tests on the GCV. The formal reason was called the high cost of adapting (whatever that means) Israeli systems to the standards of the US Army. In my opinion, it is also likely that local manufacturers lobbied for failure, so as not to fly past a defense order of such proportions.
            1. voyaka uh April 22 2020 16: 51 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              For the airborne forces, the Americans adopted the wheeled Stryker.
              And for ordinary infantry, apparently, they decided to construct a heavy infantry fighting vehicle.
              But the price of TBMP will be matched to the price of the tank. There are no miracles.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Albert1988 April 23 2020 13: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: qobnvmog
          with weaker and stronger fire armor than a normal tank,

          Only if at the expense of KAZ ...
          1. qobnvmog April 23 2020 22: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Albert1988
            Only if at the expense of KAZ ...

            No. The intent was created on the basis of the Merkava4 tank and has a higher level of protection than the Merkava4 tank. Due to the fact that freed from the tank turret and guns with ammunition, the weight was allocated to additional reinforcement of the armor.
            With KAZ, of course, even higher.
      2. alexmach April 22 2020 12: 52 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        For a long time there was no big war with heavy losses, so when a couple dozen soldiers die in local conflicts inside the BMP-BTR, the imperfection of the equipment is blamed

        it is logical that weapons are created for the nature of hostilities that takes place.
      3. 3danimal April 24 2020 20: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        On the other hand, we recall Afghanistan and Chechnya, where BMPs made their way from the DShK and KPVT to the side and not only. And the fighters preferred to sit "on the armor" (because of the great trust in it).
        The machine must keep at least its caliber and heavy machine gun on board. Otherwise, how will it effectively support fire and transport soldiers more or less safely?
        1. Doctor April 24 2020 20: 50 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          On the other hand, we recall Afghanistan and Chechnya, where BMPs made their way from the DShK and KPVT to the side and not only. And the fighters preferred to sit "on the armor" (because of the great trust in it).
          The machine must keep at least its caliber and heavy machine gun on board. Otherwise, how will it effectively support fire and transport soldiers more or less safely?

          Everything is true, with the exception of the concept of "your caliber." It has nothing to do with the caliber of the enemy. If you put a 100 mm gun on an infantry fighting vehicle, this does not mean that the frontal armor should hold the same projectile. The enemy will hit from what he has in any case.
          1. 3danimal April 24 2020 20: 59 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The BMP-3 100mm gun can hardly be called the main one, like the TOW ATGM on the Bradley.
            It, of course, was about a quick-firing small-caliber gun, which has become an integral part of most modern infantry fighting vehicles. good
            Wanting to attach more powerful armor, we get Israeli TBMP based on MBT, and this is a different class ..
            1. Doctor April 24 2020 21: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It, of course, was about a quick-firing small-caliber gun, which has become an integral part of most modern infantry fighting vehicles.

              Yes, a maximum of 23 mm + a grenade launcher is all that is needed there.

              Wanting to attach more powerful armor, we get Israeli TBMP based on MBT, and this is a different class ..

              Yes, and another cost, which means quantity.
  7. Alexey RA April 22 2020 10: 47 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    In the same 2009, a new GCV program (Ground Combat Vehicle, "Ground Combat Transport") began, which became the de facto successor to the FCS. It is known that in the framework of the program, the US Army intended to replace the M113 armored personnel carrier by 2018, the Bradley M2 a little later, and the M1126 Stryker infantry armored personnel carrier in the medium term. You would think that the Americans took into account the negative experience, but this is not so. Already in 2014, the Ground Combat Vehicle program was closed.

    The funny thing is that the army did sign the M113 replacement contract as part of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program. The place of the honored old man will be taken by armored personnel carriers made by remaking ... M2 and M3 "Bradley".
    The U.S. Army made the final choice under the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program, which provides for the replacement of 2897 M113 tracked armored personnel carriers and vehicles based on them in Armored Brigade Combat Teams - ABCTs. The choice cannot be called unexpected, because it was made in favor of the only remaining proposal in the AMPV program - the project put forward by BAE Systems Corporation of a tracked armored personnel carrier, which is actually a crazy version of the standard M2 / M3 Bradley American Army BMP.

    BAE Systems' proposal for the program is to remake the surplus fleet of BMP M2 and BRM M3 Bradley into AMPV cars. In total, the U.S. Army previously received 6785 BMP M2 and BRM M3, deliveries of which were completed in 1995. Of this amount, up to 2000 M2 / M3 cars (modifications A0 and A2) are now at long-term storage bases and can be used for conversion.
    © bmpd
    1. Lopatov April 22 2020 12: 09 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The place of the honored old man will be taken by armored personnel carriers made by remaking ... M2 and M3 "Bradley".

      Ironically.
  8. Operator April 22 2020 14: 11 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    From which such a hangover do Americans direct sufficient funds to develop new types of strategic and tactical weapons?

    They just smear the remnants of porridge (budget financing) with a thin layer, and the further, the more - they are already engaged in cannibalism: reducing the number of strategic bombers and aircraft carriers.
  9. Mikhail3 April 23 2020 11: 08 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Military engineering as a working system in the USA is breaking up. And this is natural and natural. In a situation where no one believes in a serious military conflict, and those who decide for themselves and not for the country (a natural reaction to capitalism) have finally won the power, the development of new weapons is simply not more possible than a hammer.
    The last swan song of the American military-industrial complex was F 35 and Zumvolty. Then there was an abundance of money in the treasury, and these projects allowed literally thousands of people to form enormous fortunes. But now budget items have started to run out, and so what?
    At the design stage, there is constant lobbying pressure - shove our piece. And ours. And ours. And ours ... And there is no end and edge to this. Everyone with connections in Washington is trying to get into this BMP! The resulting land cruiser, to which they screwed absolutely everything that they could come up with (but not to increase the performance and installation speed, leave it!), Doesn’t go anywhere. Neither in the empty budget, nor in the plane.
    Among the generals there is not and cannot be a person who would stop this bacchanalia. All generals are someone's lobbyists, everyone has leverage over each other, everyone shoves not what is needed, but what will bring profit to their partners. In the structures of the State Department the same situation. And the budget employee is bursting, there is no more money for the next F 35!
    Capitalism has long been exhausted. This is a dead end ...
  10. Freedim April 23 2020 14: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The film, of course, is gorgeous ..
    - We have achieved impressive success!
    - Name them.
    - This is classified information.
    :)
  11. Lara Croft April 23 2020 22: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Beautiful pictures .... Bradley will never become easier. now the weak security of the crew and the landing is not in fashion ...
  12. aloleggry April 24 2020 01: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In this choice of performance characteristics, it is not entirely clear to me the purpose of military equipment. A tank is a weapon for breaking through well-fortified lines. Infantry - a must, to clean the area. They will arrive on the armor, as in the Second World War. Little infantry - Ural onboard to help you. They themselves will reach. BMP (BTR), a breakthrough weapon of easily fortified lines, light protection of personnel and serious support for the infantry. Recall the artillery and air. TTX is ready. Do not need BMP (BTR) serious armor, its meaning is speed. She jumped, threw the landing and back. The main thing is that the infantry brought.
    1. Mikhail3 April 24 2020 11: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Then the armor is not needed at all. You can significantly win in maneuverability and speed. By the way, you can simply throw the resulting open chassis onto the battlefield - an iron frame with seats, an engine and four wheels, you can do this all at once.) The question is how to understand the need for technology.
      When conducting a competition for a Russian rifle, a requirement was announced about an aiming range of 2 km, and Mosin formally complied with it. True, it turned out that for fights in which it was necessary to participate, such a range is fantastically excessive, and other requirements should be applied to the armament of the fighter. In an ideal world, it would be necessary to organize mass filing of mosquitoes directly under the trenches, in order to attack and trench fights.
      Requirements should be formulated in general for all equipment, taking into account the modern tactics of current wars, in which, for example, there are no more field battles, as in world wars of the past. But how to do that? Requirements will be formed not under real need, but under "industry requirements", more precisely, under the vile greed of the military-industrial complex. What does the same experience of the same Worlds tell us? Even in the USSR, Yakovlev managed to ...
  13. Sniper Amateur April 24 2020 22: 52 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    which gave US fighters reliable protection in a modern war.

    Nonsense nonsense. The lack of security "Bradley" was considered its main drawback at the development stage.