Fighting obesity: why Americans can’t build a modern infantry fighting vehicles

For the past 14 years, the Pentagon is trying to find a replacement for the infantry fighting vehicle Bradley, which was adopted in 1981. However, the US failed to create a prototype of the BMP that would meet the requirements of modern warfare. At the moment Washington is funding for a third program for the development of new types of light armored vehicles, but experts believe that in this case the Americans will not develop a competitive car. Why can’t the US design a new generation of infantry fighting vehicles at RT.

The armed forces of the United States for many years trying to create a replacement for the infantry fighting vehicle Bradley, adopted in the early 1980-ies. Bradley many times have modified, and in each case, the designers set new goals. In particular, the leadership of the US army wanted a machine that could withstand contact with heavy ordnance, but because Bradley was equipped with additional armor modules.

In the end, the most armored models M2A3 amounted to 34.5 tons, which, of course, could not affect the mobility of the BMP. Military operations in the middle East showed that Bradley was extremely vulnerable to antitank weapons. Despite the fact that the tank brigades, which are armed with Bradley infantry fighting vehicles were not made independent raids, and only clear out the area after preliminary air strikes, the loss of two of the campaign («desert Storm» and «Shock and awe»), according to various estimates, ranged from 120 to 130 cars.

In this experimental design work (OKR) when you create a Bradley U.S. Department of defense spent $5.7 billion the Cost of one machine was $3.2 million to cover the expenses at the expense of exports to the United States failed machines purchased only by Saudi Arabia. Kuwait has also considered the possibility of buying the Bradley, but later made a choice in favor of less expensive ($800 thousand), but a more versatile Russian BMP-3.

«In 1970-80-ies in General Bradley was a classic, a commonplace example of bad implementation of military-technical programs. The us military is a hundred times changed the terms of reference and the requirements of the military machine. Hence the two main problems with the BMP cost overruns at its creation, and contradictory features,» — said in an interview with RT military expert Vasily Kashin.

War concepts

The Pentagon has funded several programs which aim to develop a replacement for the Bradley. One such program was the GVC (Ground Combat Vehicle — the «Ground combat vehicle»). Her task was to create tailorwikirules machines support with the option for safe transfer of troops.

When designing engineers were made the same error as when developing Bradley: combat capabilities were increased at the expense of mobility and weight. In the end, the experts BAE Systems has submitted a design for a hybrid combat vehicle, the mass of which can reach up to 78 tons. For comparison, the mass of the tank Abrams can go up to 63 tons.

«It is difficult to understand what guided the military, laying in TK a car that weighs more than the tank M1», — said in an interview with RT military expert Yury Lyamin.

In addition, the cost of one machine would have amounted to about $13 million US Troops need about 1,700 to 1,800 of these machines. Thus, the rearmament, given the OCD, would cost the Pentagon $30-35 billion In total funding for the project was terminated, and the leadership of the US army switched to the quest for combat vehicles «lightweight».

In addition, in the United States was trying to develop a lightweight combat vehicle on a single platform track program FCS (Future Combat Systems — «Combat systems of the future»). Experts have repeatedly expressed the assumption that a promising platform may take a «middle position» between tanks M1 Abrams and infantry combat vehicles Bradley. However, this program was phased out.

There is another program NGVC (Next-Generation Combat Vehicle), but it is in the early stage of development, and yet accurate data on its characteristics no. However, the new machines should go into service already by 2035.

«Americans have shifted to the BMP type Bradley in the framework of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV). The fact that the modification of Bradley М3А2 and М2А3 not satisfied with the Pentagon. They demanded to increase the troop compartment to increase firepower and to work on the overall reliability of the machine, which already does not meet the requirements of modern warfare,» — said in an interview with RT military expert Alexei Leonov.

Bad and very bad decision

According to experts, the creation of new platforms for armored vehicles may take about ten years. However, the situation around the land military equipment of American manufacture are so complex, experts say that «good» decisions out of it at the moment does not exist — there is only «bad» and «very bad».

«Very bad» decision, according to analysts, is that the American army can simply abandon the creation of armored vehicles of the new generation, which would have good mobility, protection and armament.

«Abrams and Bradley are quite satisfied with the army and for a very long time in service. With regard to programmes for the development of promising platforms — it is a legal way to support the developers and producers, as well as working on solutions for upgrading and maintaining the technological level. In reality the new platform they certainly do not need,» — said in an interview with RT, the independent military expert Alexei Cares.

The «bad» solution would be to repeat the mistakes made during the design process, Bradley. In the end, huge sums will be spent on a fighting machine with a much more modest relative to competitors characteristics.

«While there is a risk to create a product exclusively for internal use allies, as well as potential buyers of such equipment have long been aware that for a much more sane money can buy BMP in excess of the combat capabilities in two or three times all that is offered on the exports of the United States», — said Lyamin.

Fighting obesity: why Americans can’t build a modern infantry fighting vehicles 31.10.2017

Share this news

Опубликовать в Google Plus
Опубликовать в LiveJournal
Опубликовать в Одноклассники