“Further evolution of the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle”: a new version of the AMPV platform is presented

BAE Systems presented a new version of the AMPV universal tracked platform, which the developer positions as “a further evolution of the M2A4 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.” This time it is made in the configuration of an infantry fighting vehicle.

The AMPV received a new modular upper hull called ExMEP (External Mission Equipment Package), which allows the integration of various types of equipment and turret systems, both in the form of a turret that requires human presence, and uninhabited ones.

In the presented version, the vehicle is equipped with an uninhabited turret designated UT30 from Elbit America. It is armed with a 44 mm Mk30S automatic cannon, a coaxial 7,62 mm machine gun and a Spike ATGM launcher.

The AMPV in BMP form could replace the M2 Bradley both in export markets and in the US Army, although the Pentagon is pinning its hopes on the promising XM30 BMP. Bringing Bradley to the level of AMPV is impossible, although it was created on their basis, since the new vehicle is being produced from scratch, which is associated with serious changes in the hull design and the use of new materials.

The AMPV in the BMP version can also serve as a heavy infantry fighting vehicle if equipped with modular main armor, which can be enhanced with reactive armor.

Comments

[Totor5]

Apparently even harder. We clearly need a 57 mm gun instead of a twin 100+30

[eskela]

57 is of course good, but the 100+30 module is more flexible and more powerful. In addition to landmines, 100 has guided missiles against tanks that fire through the barrel.

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: eskela

57 of course good

Why is it good? What they now carry around exhibitions shoots outdated C60 shells, huge and ineffective. At a minimum, it is necessary to come up with a telescopic ammunition ammo and develop powerful, programmable buckshot shells, like the Swedish ship-borne 57mm Bofors.

Quote: eskela

100+30 is more flexible and more powerful. In addition to landmines, 100 has guided missiles against tanks that fire through the barrel.

A 100mm high explosive from the BMP3 is not very effective, since this projectile is very thick-walled, therefore there is little explosive and also few fragments. In the program Large-caliber turmoil, these shells hit the side of a BMP2... the result amazed me, without penetration. In my opinion, when creating the BMP3, these shells were taken because there were no others and they never created a modern version. But because of these 100mm ammunition, if the armor of the BMP3 is penetrated, they scatter into molecules with an explosion like from the FAB 500, as I recently saw in Telega. Of course, the BC also includes ATGMs, like 6 of them, but I’ve never heard of anything, let alone seen how these ATGMs hit any equipment, or anything at all. In my opinion, when modernizing the BMP3, they should throw out this 100mm cannon along with the ammo, put a corset on the 2A72 for stabilization and increase the ammo for it. And move the ATGMs to the tower and increase their caliber to Cornet.

[Alexey G]

A 100mm high explosive from the BMP3 is not very effective, since this projectile is very thick-walled, therefore there is little explosive and also few fragments. In the program Large-caliber turmoil, these shells hit the side of a BMP2... the result amazed me, without penetration.

Yes, your arguments are bomb! That is, the 100 mm cannon and its shells are bad because they allegedly didn’t penetrate something in some transmission? Are you seriously?
Read:
Russia has created the high-explosive fragmentation projectile "Cherry-1".
Russia has created the latest high-explosive fragmentation projectile for a 100-mm cannon.
The projectile is intended for use in 100 mm 2A70 guns.
“We developed a special steel-crushing thin-walled projectile, added more explosives, and increased the affected area from approximately 168 to 360 square meters. The most important thing is that they were adopted. https://lenta.ru/news/2015/09/11/vishnya/?ysclid=luadow6z2u338324143. I don't think it's bad at all. And switching to 30 mm is somehow, well, not at all solid, having this! This Cherry can cover a mortar according to ballistics and crush a machine gun in a field fortification and seal up the crew of a gun.
Now about the rocket:
“Kastet” (GRAU Index - 9K116, according to the classification of the US Defense Ministry and NATO AT-12 Swinger) is a complex of guided anti-tank weapons of 100-mm anti-tank guns.
Firing range: 100-5500 m. Armor penetration: 600 mm (behind dynamic protection), for the 9M117M1 missile 750 mm behind the reactive armor.

I’ve never heard anything, let alone seen how these ATGMs hit any equipment, or anything at all.

Well, I'm sorry that the military correspondents didn't report to you! This missile will hit Bradley in all places, it will even give the tank a smoke! This is despite the fact that Bradley is tall like a elephant, and our 3rd is short and hits clearly and strikes with an accent! Like a light tank!

And move the ATGMs to the tower and increase their caliber to Cornet.

There, on the tower, the drones will hit her, and there they will detonate! And a 30mm cannon will take them out in those boxes! So-so solution!

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: Alexey G

Yes, your arguments are bomb! That is, the 100 mm cannon and its shells are bad because they allegedly didn’t penetrate something in some transmission? Are you seriously?

Yes, of course, an excellent argument, because this is not empty chatter, but a visual video, well, just a fact. You can adequately refute and prove, also with the help of video tests, 100mm HE shells are very effective. Naturally, and in addition to that broadcast, I periodically encountered criticism of the insufficient power of the 100mm BMP3 cannon and someone else clearly showed it.

Quote: Alexey G

Russia has created the high-explosive fragmentation projectile "Cherry-1".

I am above for this Cherry, which may or may not be seen by the troops, I didn’t write anything, we are talking about the standard BMP3 armored vehicle, and not some plans for the future, in the “made by us” style.

Quote: Alexey G

Well, I'm sorry that the military correspondents didn't report to you! This missile will hit Bradley in all places, it will even give the tank a smoke! This is despite the fact that Bradley is tall like a elephant, and our 3rd is short and hits clearly and strikes with an accent! Like a light tank!

Well, since you tell it so convincingly, then of course I will believe you. And I’ll forget that on Google you can find a lot of criticism of both the gun and the bookmaker for it. And even that in this SVO, certainly everything that shoots and explodes has already shot and exploded and one can draw conclusions, of course, if one follows reality and not propaganda. And it doesn’t matter that you have no idea about the experience of using BMP3 ATGMs for anything, I’m not even talking about Bradley, the main thing is that you know how to colorfully describe a hypothetical battle.

Quote: Alexey G

There, on the tower, the drones will hit her, and there they will detonate! And a 30mm cannon will take them out in those boxes! So-so solution!

Yes, I actually noticed that all over the world there are only idiots and only in the Russian military-industrial complex they know how to do it. Not a single infantry fighting vehicle in the world except the BMP3 carries a hundred or two kilograms of explosives in the combat area, which the landing party sits hugging. And the drone is not able to penetrate the BMP3, and the fact that last week another BMP3 like the FAB 500 detonated along with the crew and troops (which I wrote above, but you apparently decided to ignore), apparently the AI ​​tried.

[ROSS_51]

Quote: karabas-barabas

A 100mm high explosive from the BMP3 is not very effective, since this projectile is very thick-walled, therefore there is little explosive and also few fragments. In the program Large-caliber turmoil, these shells hit the side of a BMP2... the result amazed me, without penetration. In my opinion, when creating the BMP3, these shells were taken because there were no others and they never created a modern version. But because of these 100mm ammunition, if the armor of the BMP3 is penetrated, they scatter into molecules with an explosion like from the FAB 500, as I recently saw in Telega.

Oh, the experts from YouTube have arrived.))
Drawing conclusions based on the Trouble channel is very smart! Especially when they hit armor with landmines. Run and look, they shot a Belaz there with a BMP-2. Then come back with the story that Belaz is a bad armored personnel carrier.
Meanwhile, our fighters from the Northern Military District say that it is precisely because of the firepower of the BMP-3 that it copes well with the task of supporting assaults during the capture of oporniks.
And the fact that now any infantry fighting vehicle cannot withstand an ATGM hit is not a secret at all. You haven’t discovered the truth about FPV drones yet.

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: ROSS_51

Drawing conclusions based on the Trouble channel is very smart! Especially when they hit armor with landmines.

So this is just a visual video, a fact, reality. You can not refute it with empty, but colorful phrases, but also provide videos, facts, or reports on incredibly successful applications. You don’t know what and what kind of an expert I am and from what I draw my conclusions and it seems you’ve never been interested in the topic, otherwise you would have known what’s wrong with the 100mm BMP3 cannon and its ammunition. This was known long before this program even appeared. I'm waiting for facts about the delight of the 100mm BMP3 on the front line, not general chatter about firepower and infantry support, for which the 2A72 is more effective, but about the 100mm and its incredibly effective ammunition.

Quote: ROSS_51

And the fact that now any infantry fighting vehicle cannot withstand an ATGM hit is not a secret at all. You haven’t discovered the truth about FPV drones yet.

Maybe I’ll tell you a secret: in addition to the fact that an ATGM penetrates an armored personnel carrier, it may or may not cause the detonation of a weapon. In Bradley it’s hard to achieve this, since there’s nothing to detonate there, but in BMP 3 with a full ammunition, on the contrary, it’s hard to avoid detonation. Again, thanks to countless eyes on the battlefield, everything I’m writing about here can be clearly seen with your eyes. I see TV Zvizda fans absolutely don’t care about the reality on the front line and about losses due to the lack of modern technology, or company mistakes that no one wanted to correct before the war, and even more so now.

[Alexey G]

It’s hard to achieve this in Bradley, since there’s nothing to detonate there

Of course there is nothing to detonate there! It's filled from top to bottom with Snickers and Mars, as well as Coca-Cola and Kinder Surprises! That's what he shoots with!
Read the Western Waffle Panzer's takeaway:
To combat enemy tanks, the M2 Bradley uses TOW ATGMs. "The launcher (PU) is located on the left side of the tower. The ammunition load is 2 ATGMs, two of which are in the launcher, and the rest in the troop compartment." https://ru.wikipedia.org wikiM2_!
I would like to note that our soldiers especially praise the pneumatic doors of the Bradley airborne squad, which can easily jam in battle and then the landing party will enjoy the fireworks inside from exploding ATGMs!
"The M2 Bradley's armament consists of a 25-mm M242 Bushmaster cannon/ The shot is unitary, the ammunition load is 900 rounds, 300 of which (225 OFZT + 75 BOPS-T) are in the turret, another 600 in the hull's ammunition rack."
Well, as they say, there are only gaskets inside!
Well, one more opus. “It is also recommended to fight American infantry fighting vehicles by mining roads. The fact is that the Bradley fuel tank is located under the bottom of the vehicle, which means armored cars are very vulnerable to anti-tank mines.” https://voennoedelo.com/posts/id37024-ef9jsihvkdvqqcqyjfln
Needless to say, super-technique of the Americans, specialists in land warfare!

[ROSS_51]

Quote: karabas-barabas

I'm waiting for facts about the delight of the 100mm BMP3 on the front line, not general chatter about firepower and infantry support, for which the 2A72 is more effective, but about the 100mm and its incredibly effective ammunition.

Your opinion of the “interested person” is so inverted that I won’t even waste time - you don’t think with your brain.
Absolutely ALL equipment currently used in the war was made for ANOTHER war. Leopards cannot even move into the line of fire, tanks shoot from closed positions, the key to success is whoever gets out of position faster, drones with grenades are chasing single fighters, the level of reconnaissance and situational awareness on the battlefield is God mode.
And in this new war, the very concept of using this or that technology is changing, adapting to what we have. There is no other one and there won’t be another one for a long time.
You propose to make a sub-Terminator out of the BMP-3. You want to pierce armor with a low-pulse landmine (well, with Trouble it’s clear, they need views and spectacular videos), but you cannot understand that each weapon has its own tasks.
You think with the criteria of a schoolboy who has played a tank simulator.
As I already said, it’s a pity to spend time communicating with you. Goodbye.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Both hands for your approach, but the 57mm is worth a try. What if the Epoch module with a 57 mm cannon and missiles turns out to be effective.

[Aleks88]

Yes, the tank biathlon clearly showed how I shoot through the barrel of a Reflex ATGM. I wonder if at least one hit from the “best” crews was recorded? I saw on live television how missiles were flying FAR from the target, and the commentator was enthusiastically talking nonsense on the air “they hit, but... no, close” only 8-10 meters next to the target, motionless and from a place.

[spirit]

BAE Systems, which means the price tag will be crazy. If a hypothetical war with China is a war of attrition like the SVO, then all these expensive infantry fighting vehicles will run out very quickly and Uncle Sam will return to the good old M113 and Bradley))) Infantry fighting vehicles for the most part should be mass-produced and cheap ( relatively) but for this one they’ll probably ask for money like for Abrams, I’m sure

[Murmur 55]

In exercises and in commercials, everything looks good, but how it is in real life and with an equal enemy, you have to see.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It should be noted that Bradley was unpleasantly surprised by the high quality of gun stabilization and the rigidity of the gun barrel.

[Aleks88]

Bofors on Bradley has not been canceled, it’s like GOST in the USSR, or OTO Melara Italy. Can't compare with our 30 mm 2A42. Look at the performance characteristics of the 35 mm Marder gun, with specially trained shells it penetrates up to 110 mm of homogeneity at 1000 m.

[Skobaristan]

Quote: Totor5

Apparently even harder. We clearly need a 57 mm gun instead of a twin 100+30

What for ? If it's purely economic, it makes no sense. Spent 30mm ammunition is sufficient against light fortifications and light vehicles of the MAV type. OFS 100 mm against more solid fortifications and ATGMs are sufficient against the same infantry fighting vehicles. So why 57 mm? The high explosive effect is lower than that of 100 mm, the ammunition load is lower than that of 30.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The ammunition load of the 57-mm cannon will be moved outside the hull, which should reduce losses from ammunition detonation. In some way, a reduction in firepower in favor of security. But additional missiles should appear.

[Serhio250381]

Some kind of undertank and underpowered vehicle. Too big, too heavy and too slow for an infantry fighting vehicle. Isn't it easier to make a new tank then? The latest Bradley variations drive 10 km/h slower than the previous ones, where the BMP will clearly be even slower.

[Fatalist]

There is an even heavier version, with a 120mm mortar.)

[Fatalist]

The vehicle was designed to combat small-sized air targets. The weapons are modular. It is a 30mm cannon, 2 blocks of 4 stingers, a machine gun, a machine gun, hemispherical radars from Leonardo.

[cmax]

But for me, it’s a good technique, the main thing in battle is not only to hit the enemy, but also, in case of defeat, the crew remained alive. The rest is secondary.

[bone1]

If you don't tune crap, it will remain crap

[cmax]

Of course, the 1,2 BMP is more comfortable than this one, right? It remains to be understood why everyone rides on armor and not inside. They are modernizing their equipment, taking Ukraine into account. Read other sources, different Defens.... the world is full of sites on military topics. It was the old Bradleys that showed themselves well, especially in the area of ​​crew and landing preservation. Taking into account the battles, improved versions from different companies appeared.

[Yuri L]

The question is essentially, can the armor of the new supermachine withstand the same grenade from an RPG-7, dropped from a height of, for example, 30 m (and on this machine there is even nowhere to fry kebabs, there is not even a barbecue, so the kebabs will be from the crew, alas .) It seems that the machine does not correspond to the ultra-modern realities of war, so immediately - to Vtorchermet, to the furnace.

[Boris Ibragimov]

BMPs are swelling from generation to generation. Soon they will become the size of a mining dump truck))

[Totor5]

Quote: eskela

57 is of course good, but the 100+30 module is more flexible and more powerful. In addition to landmines, 100 has guided missiles against tanks that fire through the barrel.

Infantry should not ride around with landmines.

BMPs have literally no armor at all, but because of the 100mm cannon, BMPs are used as a tank. Therefore, there are not many people who want to ride inside - just like in the old days, everyone rode in armored vehicles.

The 30mm cannon is rather weak, everything new in NATO has been keeping this gun in its head for a long time, so a larger caliber cannon is needed. But we only have 57mm, we don’t have anything else.

This gun will increase range, armor-piercing, will allow you to fight infantry in the trenches due to programmable detonation, and most importantly, will eliminate the detonation of ammunition, which right now smashes the BMP3 into dust from a banal drone.

[Totor5]

Quote: ROSS_51

Quote: karabas-barabas

A 100mm high explosive from the BMP3 is not very effective, since this projectile is very thick-walled, therefore there is little explosive and also few fragments. In the program Large-caliber turmoil, these shells hit the side of a BMP2... the result amazed me, without penetration. In my opinion, when creating the BMP3, these shells were taken because there were no others and they never created a modern version. But because of these 100mm ammunition, if the armor of the BMP3 is penetrated, they scatter into molecules with an explosion like from the FAB 500, as I recently saw in Telega.

Oh, the experts from YouTube have arrived.))
Drawing conclusions based on the Trouble channel is very smart! Especially when they hit armor with landmines. Run and look, they shot a Belaz there with a BMP-2. Then come back with the story that Belaz is a bad armored personnel carrier.
Meanwhile, our fighters from the Northern Military District say that it is precisely because of the firepower of the BMP-3 that it copes well with the task of supporting assaults during the capture of oporniks.
And the fact that now any infantry fighting vehicle cannot withstand an ATGM hit is not a secret at all. You haven’t discovered the truth about FPV drones yet.

This is because during an assault the role of a tank is played by an infantry fighting vehicle... only an infantry fighting vehicle without armor

[Skobaristan]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The ammunition load of the 57-mm cannon will be moved outside the hull

I don’t have enough imagination to imagine how the entire ammunition load of 57 will be moved outside the hull. Where can you see this?