If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Army may purchase a hybrid infantry fighting vehicle to replace the Bradley. Because nothing says green, sustainable transportation like a vehicle that gets .72 miles per gallon and can take out enemy armor   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 141
    More: Unlikely, Timothy Bradley, combat vehicle, fighting vehicle, sustainable transportation, fuel efficiency, vehicles, power storage, energy storage  
•       •       •

8114 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 May 2013 at 7:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-28 07:31:22 PM
I'm not sure I'd put much faith in a military analyst who seems to think a Bradley is a "tank."
 
2013-05-28 07:36:01 PM
The new tank will ideally seat nine passengers instead of the seven who can fit in a Bradley, and it will probably weigh around 70 tons. That's about twice as much as the Bradley and around the same as the Abrams.

You already called the "tank" thing. However, doubling the weight pretty much eliminates it's use as a Scout Vehicle. Great idea! I'm sure they'll roll with it. 70 tons? For a CFV/IFV? Someone hasn't seen Pentagon Wars.

Do I see two driver's hatches? Yay! Two hellholes!
 
2013-05-28 07:47:05 PM

NewportBarGuy: The new tank will ideally seat nine passengers instead of the seven who can fit in a Bradley, and it will probably weigh around 70 tons. That's about twice as much as the Bradley and around the same as the Abrams.

You already called the "tank" thing. However, doubling the weight pretty much eliminates it's use as a Scout Vehicle. Great idea! I'm sure they'll roll with it. 70 tons? For a CFV/IFV? Someone hasn't seen Pentagon Wars.

Do I see two driver's hatches? Yay! Two hellholes!


One Abrams and its spare parts and whatnot pretty much maxes a C-17's gross cargo weight.  It's going to take twice as much airlift to transport one heavy cav squadron.
 
2013-05-28 07:56:47 PM

Sgt Otter: I'm not sure I'd put much faith in a military analyst who seems to think a Bradley is a "tank."


What they see is revenue from video games.
It's an upgrade.
A neat feature.
 
2013-05-28 07:59:19 PM

Sgt Otter: I'm not sure I'd put much faith in a military analyst who seems to think a Bradley is a "tank."


Definitely this. Not all tracked vehicles are tanks.And what the hell is this thing made of that it weighs 70 tons, just to accommodate two extra passengers? Did nobody think to incorporate modern materials into this thing?
 
2013-05-28 07:59:19 PM
So, it's the same weight as an Abrams, but with less firepower? Who thought this was a good idea?
 
2013-05-28 07:59:33 PM

Sgt Otter: It's going to take twice as much airlift to transport one heavy cav squadron.


Well, we obviously need to green light the Spruce Goose II in order to account for the extra weight. What's another $300 billion?

It's a tank with, what looks like the same 25mm main gun and M230C coax. Oh, notice anything missing? No TOW launcher. So, it looks like a tank, weighs as much as a tank, but can't take out a tank.

I think that's just brilliant.
 
2013-05-28 08:01:11 PM
Well on one hand the less fuel you need to move around the better, on the other hand you've just made life that much harder for the motor pool.  At the end of the day if your IFV is sitting there because no one can figure out how to fix the hybrid system (or just disconnect it and go pure diesel) it is exactly as mobile as if it has no fuel.
 
2013-05-28 08:01:27 PM

NewportBarGuy: M230C


240... Dammit so much.
 
2013-05-28 08:03:28 PM
dear congress,

can we reduce the budget for these tanks by 0.0001% and start funding PBS again, so that the Koch brother cant suppress documentaries?

thanks,
someone who isnt necessarily always an asshole.
 
2013-05-28 08:04:00 PM
Oh great, they're replacing the Bradley with something that looks exactly like the Bradley. Wasn't the Stryker supposed to replace the Bradley? Sheesh, the Bradley was new in what, the 80s?
 
2013-05-28 08:04:39 PM
Is there a need for new equipment like this? Honestly asking.
 
2013-05-28 08:04:56 PM
oooh! or i know! we could reduce it by 0.00005%, and make sure underprivileged kids can get breakfast at school and have some basic chance at getting an education and breaking the cycle of poverty.
 
2013-05-28 08:06:25 PM
Actually as I think about it, I wonder if you could make a removable hybrid system that could be installed for drills.  Drop some of the armor and add batteries since you're not actually in combat and wire it up.  For the military, the labor is a sunk cost, you pay your guys no matter what, so the savings just need to exceed the cost of the unit.  With the units that you use only for training you could permanently convert them over, place the battery packs where the armor is to produce the same mass distribution as a combat vehicle and go from there.
 
2013-05-28 08:06:50 PM
Why not just make a couple more Abrams?  Maybe an armored trailer it can tow.
 
2013-05-28 08:07:21 PM
I don't get how a 70-ton IFV isn't a complete non-starter.
 
2013-05-28 08:10:42 PM

Mr. Holmes: Oh great, they're replacing the Bradley with something that looks exactly like the Bradley. Wasn't the Stryker supposed to replace the Bradley? Sheesh, the Bradley was new in what, the 80s?


I believe the Stryker has a slightly different mission than the Bradley, so it was never supposed to be a direct replacement.
 
2013-05-28 08:12:56 PM

blipponaut: Is there a need for new equipment like this? Honestly asking.


Honestly the new IFV is somewhat useful.  The tracked vehicle will have superior off road capability to the Stryker and MRAP, while the new design should handle IEDs and the like better (in theory).  The Bradley at least offers protection for infantry and you always need at least some boots on the ground.  An Abrams replacement is less useful in that tanks are just becoming giant flashing lights that say "Blow me up with your much cheaper drone."  Heavy IFVs are going to suffer the same fate, but they offer more right now in terms of protection for infantry and fire support.

/although I'm not sure if we need a new Bradley or just a M3A4 version of the Bradley to replace the old M2s with
//get rid of the damn TOWs already
 
2013-05-28 08:13:40 PM
Can't we just outsource future wars to the Chinese?
 
2013-05-28 08:14:09 PM

blipponaut: Is there a need for new equipment like this? Honestly asking.


Did China and/or Russia release a new generation IFV? If so, the answer is yes.

But don't worry. Cheaply made Russian and Chinese stolen knock-off versions will be on the market in a few years.
 
2013-05-28 08:18:26 PM

eventhelosers: Can't we just outsource future wars to the Chinese?


So for the war starting in 2027 they will fight themselves?
 
2013-05-28 08:18:53 PM

MFAWG: Mr. Holmes: Oh great, they're replacing the Bradley with something that looks exactly like the Bradley. Wasn't the Stryker supposed to replace the Bradley? Sheesh, the Bradley was new in what, the 80s?

I believe the Stryker has a slightly different mission than the Bradley, so it was never supposed to be a direct replacement.


There are some missions for which Stryker isn't considered qualified for.

www.moviepilot.de
 
2013-05-28 08:22:31 PM
What's the big deal? Almost every single military vehicle is green. How often do you see them in any other color?
 
2013-05-28 08:22:38 PM
What's next in line for American IFVs?

strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us
 
2013-05-28 08:22:54 PM

hardinparamedic: blipponaut: Is there a need for new equipment like this? Honestly asking.

Did China and/or Russia release a new generation IFV? If so, the answer is yes.

But don't worry. Cheaply made Russian and Chinese stolen knock-off versions will be on the market in a few years.


Frankly, I can't see why they'd want a version of this. It's too big for their doctrine, and frankly, there are better IFVs on the market. This thing is just another poorly thought out boondoggle like the LCS
 
2013-05-28 08:23:51 PM

Sgt Otter: NewportBarGuy: The new tank will ideally seat nine passengers instead of the seven who can fit in a Bradley, and it will probably weigh around 70 tons. That's about twice as much as the Bradley and around the same as the Abrams.

You already called the "tank" thing. However, doubling the weight pretty much eliminates it's use as a Scout Vehicle. Great idea! I'm sure they'll roll with it. 70 tons? For a CFV/IFV? Someone hasn't seen Pentagon Wars.

Do I see two driver's hatches? Yay! Two hellholes!

One Abrams and its spare parts and whatnot pretty much maxes a C-17's gross cargo weight.  It's going to take twice as much airlift to transport one heavy cav squadron.


Perhaps they're going to use African swallows...
 
2013-05-28 08:25:59 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: Frankly, I can't see why they'd want a version of this. It's too big for their doctrine, and frankly, there are better IFVs on the market. This thing is just another poorly thought out boondoggle like the LCS


The Russian IFVs are not really known for their survivability, you know. There's a reason why a Bradley can survive an RPG-7, while a Russian BMP gets disabled with a blast of wind.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-28 08:26:52 PM
Sgt Otter:

One Abrams and its spare parts and whatnot pretty much maxes a C-17's gross cargo weight.  It's going to take twice as much airlift to transport one heavy cav squadron.

I think there's a name for that among defense contractors.....

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-28 08:26:53 PM
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-05-28 08:27:10 PM

Mr. Holmes: Oh great, they're replacing the Bradley with something that looks exactly like the Bradley. Wasn't the Stryker supposed to replace the Bradley? Sheesh, the Bradley was new in what, the 80s?


Damnit you beat me to the punch.  thats exactly what the stryker does, given that the ICV does seat 9 plus a crew of two, comfortably, but you can squeeze in another 3 people if you really need to.  and the stryker has a 105mm variant, and a tow variant, and gets better mileage, like 2.5 mpg in training environments, probably less in combat when it gets extra armor and equipment..

And I haven't even mentioned the other variants like engineering, medic, command, FiST, etc.  truly a good replacement, and it gets better speed too...

I hate to say this, but this sounds like an obama special, support a green idea that is useless out of principle.
 
2013-05-28 08:29:25 PM

NewportBarGuy: Do I see two driver's hatches? Yay! Two hellholes!


Yeah, I don't see the point...since it's a hybrid they will already be allowed to go in the HOV lanes.
 
2013-05-28 08:31:05 PM
I'm no expert, but I see absolutely no value in an APC that weighs 70 tons, can only transport 9 (including crew), and gets less than 1mpg. I'm of the opinion that helicopters have made armor obsolete (yes, I'm sure there's a million what ifs you can argue, it's an opinion, I'm not a farking military analyst). Blackhawks will get troops to the front quicker, safer, and with more economic efficiency. Apaches can cover the armored assault, and the Okiwa (probably mispelled) can handle scouting duties. In the rare event that an air approach is just completely impossible, then use a humvee variant. I think armor in todays army exists because the will of politicians, not because there is any tactical advantage to having it.
 
2013-05-28 08:31:21 PM

Dwangerous: What's the big deal? Almost every single military vehicle is green. How often do you see them in any other color?


When they're fought in environments that aren't naturally green. Like, say, deserts...

cdn2.planetminecraft.com
 
2013-05-28 08:35:30 PM

Bender The Offender: I'm of the opinion that helicopters have made armor obsolete (yes, I'm sure there's a million what ifs you can argue, it's an opinion, I'm not a farking military analyst).


Vietnam would like to have a word with you, Airpower Mafia.
 
2013-05-28 08:35:49 PM
"take out enemy armor"

Hey there, baaaaaby! Whatcha doin' tonight?
 
2013-05-28 08:35:58 PM
Since some people here seem to know something about tanks and not-quite-tanks, do any of them use an electric drive train already?  i.e., a diesel or other IC engine turns a generator, and the treads or wheels are driven by electric motors?  Diesel locomotives work this way, as do some earthmovers, so I was wondering if it had been applied to military vehicles.  Anyway, going "hybrid" is not such a leap for a vehicle that is already using electricity to deliver power to the wheels.
 
2013-05-28 08:37:13 PM
75 years since WWII and the designs for tanks/AFVs look pretty much the same.

WWII-era British Crusader
imageshack.us

Proposed GCV
imageshack.us
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-28 08:38:57 PM
strykerman:

I hate to say this, but this sounds like an obama special, support a green idea that is useless out of principle.

Actually, the military and the Army is particular has been pushing for technology to reduce it's logistical burden.  Nothing to do with Obama.
 
2013-05-28 08:40:13 PM

ha-ha-guy: At the end of the day if your IFV is sitting there because no one can figure out how to fix the hybrid system (or just disconnect it and go pure diesel) it is exactly as mobile as if it has no fuel.


No way we have our top people on this  i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-28 08:41:32 PM
For shame.  No one linked this yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
 
2013-05-28 08:43:42 PM

ha-ha-guy: blipponaut: Is there a need for new equipment like this? Honestly asking.

Honestly the new IFV is somewhat useful.  The tracked vehicle will have superior off road capability to the Stryker and MRAP, while the new design should handle IEDs and the like better (in theory).  The Bradley at least offers protection for infantry and you always need at least some boots on the ground.  An Abrams replacement is less useful in that tanks are just becoming giant flashing lights that say "Blow me up with your much cheaper drone."  Heavy IFVs are going to suffer the same fate, but they offer more right now in terms of protection for infantry and fire support.

/although I'm not sure if we need a new Bradley or just a M3A4 version of the Bradley to replace the old M2s with
//get rid of the damn TOWs already


Your point about drones is funny, but do you really think they're an end-all be-all armor burniators?

Drones have done well against the Taliban and Al Quadea, but they have no anti-air or air power.

In a war against two evenly matched powers, drones would have to worry about the opposing Air Force, anti-air fire, and jamming.

Most wars are like a chess match, with different pieces counterbalancing each other. This war is like whack-a-mole. Hasn't been this unsporting since the '39 winter war.
 
2013-05-28 08:44:17 PM
70 tons?

s10.postimage.org

/would rather a Catapult k2
 
2013-05-28 08:47:44 PM

fozziewazzi: 75 years since WWII and the designs for tanks/AFVs look pretty much the same.

WWII-era British Crusader


Proposed GCV


Yeah, you know what we need today? A stealth tank!
 
2013-05-28 08:47:54 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: So, it's the same weight as an Abrams, but with less firepower? Who thought this was a good idea?


Activists (and/or those on the take) in the Department of Energy.
 
2013-05-28 08:49:37 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: So, it's the same weight as an Abrams, but with less firepower? Who thought this was a good idea?


Probably the guy whose district it will be built in.
 
2013-05-28 08:49:39 PM

Mr. Holmes: Yeah, you know what we need today? A stealth tank!


images1.wikia.nocookie.net

WITH SNARKY COMMENTS AND ADORABLE VOICES!
 
2013-05-28 08:51:16 PM
We new a new tank like we need more nuclear weapons. Unless of course were planning another large scale land invasion sometime soon. Which of course, we are. There's no sense in building it unless you plan to use it. And if that's the case what are we waiting for, nothing bolsters an economy like a good expansionist war.
 
2013-05-28 08:51:26 PM

Mr. Holmes: fozziewazzi: 75 years since WWII and the designs for tanks/AFVs look pretty much the same.

WWII-era British Crusader


Proposed GCV

Yeah, you know what we need today? A stealth tank!


fark that.  Bolos or bust.  Want REAL green armor?  Nuclear powered planetary siege platforms are where it's at.

/because what's a few dozen trillion dollars between friends?
 
2013-05-28 08:54:02 PM

DubtodaIll: We new a new tank like we need more nuclear weapons. Unless of course were planning another large scale land invasion sometime soon. Which of course, we are. There's no sense in building it unless you plan to use it. And if that's the case what are we waiting for, nothing bolsters an economy like a good expansionist war.


I'd like to take "Multi-billion dollar giveaways to defense contractors in my state/district" for $500, Alex.
 
2013-05-28 08:56:21 PM
glad this whole sequester thing hasn't affected the DoD at all.
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report