I imagine that some group in BAE Systems had a great party this last weekend. The news is that BAE Systems received several orders from the U.S. Army to remanufacture and upgrade Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles to A3 configurations. The total cost of these orders runs to more than $1 billion. Most of the work will be done at their plant at York, PA. The modified vehicles will be delivered to the Army between June 2006 and January 2008.
The A3 upgrade progam began back in 2001 with 389 M2A3 vehicles and 77 M3A3 vehicles to be upgraded by 2006. The upgrade includes an improved thermal imager for the TOW missile, a combat identification system, and other improvements to “provide commanders with outstanding situational awareness in the harshest urban fights.“
The Bradley vehicles have what is called ventilated facepiece collective protection, which provides fresh air through hoses into the crew’s M42A1 protective masks. The squad being transported has no collective protection and must rely on their protective masks and suits. Interestingly enough, the original M3 Bradley vehicle and M1 Abrams tank had no collective protection at all, despite knowledge that the Soviet armored tanks and vehicles did offer such protection. I used to get a kick by going to the AUSA annual meeting and asking defense contractors who were pushing armored vehicles what chem-bio survivability features their vehicles have. “Ahhh… let me get my boss… I don’t know that one.“
Hey, it’s been real, it’s been fun, but Noah’s back tomorrow and I’m outta here. Hope to see you readers at my blog sometime.
– Armchair Generalist
We Can Make Them Stronger… Faster… Better
Previous post: More on the Stealth Speedboat
Next post: Rapid Fire 06/28/2005
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
JS, I agree, but the hybrid collpro system you are describing, which was on the M60-series tanks and on the M1A1, was NOT on the original M1 tank model. That’s what I’m referencing. The Abrams tank was developed during late 1960s early 1970s, and the Army didn’t believe in CB warfare for modern combat then (until the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1973 and they got the lessons learned on Soviet vehicles that had collpro). By then it was too late to retrofit the M1 tanks so they punted upgrades to the M1A1 model. Ditto for the Bradley, they didn’t have room in the original model then decided they better do it for the A1 series. Bad planning by people that thought NBC warfare meant No Body Cares.
The good news is that the production lines for the Abrams and Bradley are being reopened and should be ready by the end of December, at a cost to the tax payers of about $40 Million.
The bad news is they will produce more Abram’s and Bradley’s. Both of these fighting vehicles are 1970′s era technologies and it has been demostrated in Iraq they are no longer suited for the battlefields of the 21st. Century.
I could go on about the short commings of the Abrams and Bradleys but all one has to do is read the daily newspaper with the pictures of an 86 ton Abrams laying on it’s side or a Bradley masqueraing as a pile of scrap metal, it’s not pretty picture. To get my point.
Since most Armor and Mech. Infantry is destined to be in the National Guard along with the Field Artillery why bother with the nest generation of these fighting dinasoures. The answer is of course China, with a tank force of 10K vehicles most of the Type-90 Tank and soon to be added Type-95′s, both advertisied as “Abrams Killers” China should be a major concern to the planners in the Pentagon.
I don’t see a shooting war between the U.S. and China, the economics of trade long ago took care of that, but the ability of the U.S. to infulence events between China and say India or Vietnam would be very limited without an amoured force that China would feel at least slightly intemidated by.
India is quickly becomming an economic rival to China and as a fromer client state to the old Soviet Union during the Cold War their is very little good will between the two countries. As to Vietnam the Chinese are still smarting over the out come of their 1979 conflict,and the issue of Hainan Island still is not settled to Vietnam’s satisifaction. With out a heavy armor force the U.S. would be compelled to sit on the side lines and watch on helplessly as events unfolded.
The $1.5 Trillion in the pipeline now for defense projects doesn’t even address this issue. The estimated to revive our heavy ground forces and modernize has been put at between $1.5 to 3.5 Trillion.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
Can’t speak to the prototype M1s or the Brads, but production first generation M1s did have the M13 collective system on board. Standard part of the drill was to attach the protective masks to the outlets at the crew positions. I signed for the very first M1 issued to 2ACR at Vilseck, FRG, summer of ’85 iirc. Also fired the first M1 in the regt, first qualified crew, also, but that and $0.75 will get you a coffee refill at 7-11… ;)
An armored vehicle, of any sort, represents a compromise as a single vehicle will never be all things for all missions. An M1′s armor is strongest in front, weakest in the rear, a compromise as to armor equally well all round would’ve rendered the vehicle immobile.
I found it somewhat amusing when Congress discovered that Bradleys are vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. Surprise! TANKS are vulnerable to anti-tank weapons…
Okay, at one point in my career I had the misfortune to be in a 17 ton Sheridan that overturned, accidents happen, your point?
On the “Abrams killers”, well, let’s wait and see what they do on a battlefield against a competent opponent. The T64 and later, the T72, were both the meanest predators on the battlefield, on paper. Little more than self-propelled targets in reality. They do look real mean if your goal is to intimidate an unarmed population… According to the professional naysayers the M1 was too big, too heavy, too expensive, too thirsty, etc, until everything else on the battlefield wilted before it.
Since the day after one of Sir Winston’s first battle buggies clattered onto a battlefield folk have been sounding the death knell for armored fighting vehicles, not gonna happen. They’re expensive and hard to haul around, but if you’re the only one at the dance that doesn’t have one, you’re screwed.
On moving heavy forces to the Guard and reserves, I’ve been on that pony for some time. The force mix between the active and reserve needs to be fiddled with. I’d like to see more, if not most, of the high-value, low-density forces in the active component. This would likely slow down repetitive callups of the same few units that are cursed with unique capabilities.