Here are some slides from Center For Strategic and Budgetary Assessments presentation this morning that illustrate the seven major trends that the think-tank envisions American ground forces will encounter on battlefields for the next 30 years or so. These trends, argues CSBA, should be taken into account when the Pentagon selects the vehicles that will replace the fleet of M2 Bradleys, amphibious assault vehicles, Humvees and LAV-25s.
Click through the jump to view the slides (the trends start on slide 7). Enjoy.
{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }
I'd be curious to know which munition pentrated the Bradley above. The hole is way too large for sabot or "my perception" of a HEAT impact …
Sabot doubtful. Maybe an EFP though likely HEAT based on the larger scorch marks around the hole (above the last roadwheel) which would result from an explosion. HEAT penetrations are characterized as being larger at the begining as the jet narrows as it penetrates armor.
Large Iranian made EFP or modern tandem warhead RPG. (RPG29?) I doubt anything else.
the EPF were not made in iran, that was just a hoax to keep the public happy (focused on an external enemy). it was all proven.
"it was all proven"
Please present this proof for review.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
Shaped charge of some sort, would suspect something man-portable. From the position it missed the skirting and hit the hull directly. I'mna thinking RPG or suchlike. From the position of the turret it would appear that someone was in what one would call an untenable situation.
What do you mean position of the turret? Wherever/whenever this photo was taken was long after the attack that destroyed it. It's been looked over and marked, and was stripped of many systems to include the 25mm.
The vehicle may have been hit twice. If you look up and to the left, a tarp appears to have been stuffed into another hole.
Straight into where the dismounts sit. Yeech.
Really all of the GCV are reinvented 113s and Bradleys so whats they point. Upgrade's are far cheaper and cost effect especially when sequestration will hit next year. the Army like usual is wasting time and money.
In the end you're probably right in that the next GCV is going to be based off of some old UD product. We should probably be testing the basic technologies immediately before we run off to build things from scratch. Re-turreting the Bradley might not be a bad way to test out new firepower concepts, nor would re-engining. If we need more room, it might be worth thinking about extending Bradleys by another road wheel
The main problem is that these vehicles are so old. To remodel them even the best conservative estimates are higher then buying a new vehicle. (According to the military at least).
The fact is Thunder350 the military always says they have to go new its a General pet project they want. Simply updating a 113 or M-2/3 would save millions compared to scrapping all the current APCs and scrapping all there spare parts and scrapping all the old manuals and then buying all the same thing for millions more than they are worth yes you can trust some greedy general who wants his name on a new toy or look at the paper this group sent who agrees with my side of things. Keep current APCs in and studies new techs in ten or fifteenth years use new techs to make a new capability all together.
Then we should pay UD to give us the Thunderbolt so we can test what UD can offer in terms of tomorrow's drivetrain technology.
That is true. There's only so much you can do to a Bradley, and really, it's reputation is basically still riding off it's stellar performance in the Gulf War 20 years ago. It hasn't done quite as well in recent years and there are better designs out there. I suggest that people check out the South Korean K21 and the German Puma.
As horrifically messed up our acquisition process has been lately, that doesn't change the fact that we do need new equipment to replace the old in many areas. We need to change the way we buy weapons, not give it up altogether.
Is someone paying you to get all these negatives or are you failing to learn from the thoughtful responses you get?
The M113 is a worthless POS that has been obsolete for 20 years. Period. There is absolutely NOTHING special or effective about them that warrants keeping them around any longer or trying to shoehorn modern tech into a 60 year old design.
They are versatile, sure, but have ZERO protection from mines, IEDs, or anything bigger than machine gun rounds, they are slow, old and worn. Anything spent on upgrading them is a complete waste of money.
The M113's do the roles that haven't really justified a Bradley chassis. Mortar platform, ambulance, command vehicle, assigned to engineer units…
I guess they might just take surplus Bradleys, de-turret them and give them to a variety of units to use as they will. But you still need to replace the Brads someday.
That's exactly BAEs approach.
Does the graffiti say NO RAD?
No Radiation. Assumptively it wasn't hit by a DPU.
Ah. Makes one wonder when this image was taken.
When will the grown-ups leading discussions about procurement and deployment stop using the archaic terms "blood and treasure". It is a gross oversimplification of the results of using our military to project power abroad and the consequences that our country faces by doing so.
It's a press briefing. We all know press peons love that term.
Interesting brief though it's plagued with "fighting the next war like the last one" think.
Thanks for sharing.
No one can predict the next war. All you can do is see what worked well and what failed in the last war, and try to mitigate it so it cannot be exploited again. You can make assumptions, always dangerous, but urban is a no brainer, hybrid war is a no brainer, budget constraints a no brainer, force protection a no brainer. Africa and the Mid East is still a hot theater for another few decades. Asia, is an Air/Sea domain, Heavy armor is useless. JLTV are good anywhere.
Heavy armor got us into Baghdad.
Indeed. In the '90s our armor predictions were based on the Russians getting mauled in Grozny. The Abrams did strangely well.
I suspect Nasiriyah was a early test to see how American forces would operate in urban environments. If we couldn't figure it out by then, then Baghdad would probably have been encircled and jammed to neutralize command and control while the rest of the country was subjugated in detail.
Then again, we should've had the 4th coming in from the north, and we would have a chance to test tanks in Kirkuk before the big show in Baghdad.
Heavy armor also got into Fallujah, Samara, encircled Sadr City, and would have been useful going into Baquba instead of the dozen Strykers that ended up being mobility kills on the drive in.
The JLTV is still a prototype.
Max – Agree to a point but you can't fixate on one system (IED/EFPs) especially to the point that it opens up other weaknesses (e.g. too heavy to deploy, too expensive to have in quantity). That's how the french got the Maginot Line.
Hah, we are so ready to fight yesterday's war, that we will leave this convenient gap through the Ardennes that cannot be exploited by our foes infantry armies…!
the iraquis also thought that any enemy would get lost in the desert anyway, so they didn't protect their flanks all that good.
gps proved them wrong.
Heavy armor is useless
heavy armour is the only deal in afg actually (or was) – helmand for example. they didn't let the bradleys near there afaik
The Marines requested the M1's…and they don't have Bradleys.
They were foresighted to not request AAAV's. It would also be kind of silly to have them around…especially since the compromises required to make them amphibious make them poor fighting vehicles.
Marines don't have Bradleys, and using their AAAV's would be silly…they're also quite vulnerable to attack.
Maybe we should give the Marines some Bradleys. And perhaps the Army could get some Bradleys; especially since the Europeans had some Leopards.
$43.5 Billion on MRAPS? Now we are going to junk them? Great…..
If the trend in IEDs turned from fertilizer explosives and obsolete warheads to upward facing HEAT devices buried in roads it would render these vehicles designed to face conventional but extremely large unfocused blasts useless…..exactly what they predict to face from non-state actors.
The main selling point of an MRAP is the V-hull and usually high ground clearance which disperses explosive blasts. If a shaped charge comes out of the ground, it'll rip an MBT a new one. It's possible we may face suboptimal IEDs again in the near future, so they'll likely go into storage for now, or be limited in issue.
Then again, if we find ourselves fighting in countries that aren't brimming with warehouses of 152mm artillery shells that we lack the manpower to secure, then IEDs will bounce back and we'll just pull MRAPs out of storage. The military isn't going to scrap them…
those types of munitions would render just about any combat vehicle useless.
When will the grown-ups leading discussions about procurement and deployment stop using the archaic terms "blood and treasure". It is a gross oversimplification of the results of using our military to project power abroad and the consequences that our country faces by doing so.
Blood and treasure have nothing to do with the winning the hearts and minds of those terrorists/ foreign youth. With the world's population a considerably younger demographic than our country's perhaps American politics should focus on articulating our foreign policy in a way that doesn't isolate people under 40 by using language that conjures images of men in tri-corner hats, colonial warfare, and piles of gold coins.
As I said, interesting brief but has some major faux pas. 1st, consider the authors & their agenda. Being cheap is their forte. On one hand they state we won’t be able to minimize our appetite for "force pro" followed by talking how wpns are going to be more lethal than conclude we have to get what we can from the current fleet. Duh! How do more lethal wpns enable our current fleet to provide the same "force pro"?
2nd they discuss issues w/zero implications on vehicle modernization. Partners? The premise is we have to supply vehicles to meet “partners” needs. HUH? Next, how do cruise and ballistic missiles impact vehicle modernization? Vehicles now have to protect against them? Get real! They also "shrink" anti-armor capability into two categories by separating warhead lethality and precision munitions into separate categories. Same thing folks, anti-armor capability!
Lastly the brief whines about no tech solution to less permissive environments (think deployment). Uh, what about lighter vehicles so you spend less time at debarkation? Woops, that conflicts with force protection and 40-60T vehicles. Brilliant!
I'm surprised they didn't try to push a tele-operated vehicles agenda. air-droppable tanks to open up the probability of bypassing an enemy's coast-centric surveillance/strike complex?
Though most people assume that the only vehicles that can be air-dropped are light Sheridans, the scrubbed AGS, the BMD and perhaps whatever else the Russians have going. Getting something Bradley sized to airdrop would be pretty interesting.
I doubt western forces will see ATGM in large numbers. What will remain the dominant threat for armor the foreseeable future is IED, VBIED, EFP, RPG(more advanced kinds), and recoiless rifles. Those theats can be mitigated with current tech.
That will depend on the involvement of other technologically advanced nations. A few well-placed ATGMs can be devastating, as the Israelis have discovered with Kornet E missiles in the hands of their terrorist opponents.
That being said, I agree that simple weapons such as IEDs and RPGs will continue to see the most use. Those at a minimum we must be prepared to face if we are to compete on the world's battlefield….
IEDs/EFPs are a defensive weapon requiring restrictive terrain. We are overly focused on "preparing to fight the next war like the last one".
You mean like occupying some territory. IEDs are not a problem until you accomplish your main task and then hang out. How, and when has there never been a ground war with no occupation? Anyone who wants want a ground war will have to hold it until someone hands it off. The concept of a perpetual blitz is ridiculous. I remember the fast and light force doctrine BS before the Iraq. That is all well on the attack…but not about holding.
Greg – Desert Storm? Korea?
Obviously if we have to occupy a country IEDs/EFPs could become a problem should an insurgency develop (another characteristic for the employment of that weapon). Your comment is symptomatic of the brief and a lot of defense thought forgetting that war existed before 911. Don't take me wrong. I'm not wishing away IEDs but this is monopolizing our defensive thought.
BTW, still need restrictive terrain. An IED out in the middle of a field isn't very effective.
the blitz and the holding will all be robots soon anyway.
I see little point in creating a new tracked APC unless some major new development in armor Makes the alternatives seem pretty lame.
There have been tons of developments in vehicle technology since 1981 (or 1960).
Define "major new development"?
ERA, chobham/DU armor? All of which swung the ATGM/armor balance back into stalemate-land. Though top-attack, soft-launch, fire-and-forget-ATGMs might swing things more towards ATGMs again…
And then you get the soft and hard kill protection systems which swung them back to stalemate…
Granted they are not 'armor' per say, but the basic idea remains as a way to enhance protection.
An observation about IED/EFPs. Many discuss their effectiveness based on past experience with little or no thought about the circumstances necessary to make these threats effective in a wholesale manner.
These are stationary weapon systems requiring restrictive terrain, supportive population, and an enemy with a defensive mindset. I can’t think of one scenario where we are looking at engaging in a protracted occupation of a future enemy.
Seems many are extremely focused on this threat without thinking about how we get in a position to encounter them. Classic “preparing to fight the next war like the last one”.
More like fight the only fight currently being waged against you…..What would be the next war? Purely cyber…..then what…..complete civillian infrastructure removal/take over….. war has always been about what to do with the enemy when you're done.
We have entrenched ourselves on the moral high-ground. We use precision munitions and avoid civilian casualties to a fault. We will be fighting this asymmetrical type of battle until full scale open war breaks out with a opponent.
Paraphrasing the briefing….The US has never openly fought battles with a nuclear power.
The reason being all of those horrible scenarios where entire battalions, regiments, or battle groups are vaporized by tactical or theater scale nukes.
At what point in major conventional war does the nuclear option become a probable outcome? Keep in mind the Chinese know that the only Nuclear weapon used in anger was used against civilian centers in an Asian nation purely to bring the war to a quick end with a casualty free invasion.
No, you're making the mistake of only looking at the world through the prism of the last ten years. You fail to consider a punitive strike or defense of an allied state or any other potential conflict.
Nukes aren't going away. We've had them for 60 years. They haven't been used (not saying they will never be used). IEDs/EFPs are the weapon of the weak. One can't assume we'll only be fighting the weak next time.
…and that more of those casualties would have been their civilians as compared to our troops…….
Here's an idea. Let's stop getting into these stupid wars in the first place. Neither Iraq nor the country of Afgan threatened our national security. And Iran and Syria haven't. Let Israel deal with their neighbors. Isn't that the reason we taxpayers send them billions of dollars every year and give them our advanced tech? Enough of our brave sons and daughters have died for stupid politicians since the 60s.
Slide 21 says it all.
I can find no original or unusually smart thoughts in the entire briefing. It's all utterly simple stuff, and they do in fact not even appreciate the most promising ADS developments.
I wrote this http://preview.tinyurl.com/7l7tce8 with peer vs peer conflicts in mind and for free.
I expect some really original, really good thought when some actually paid think tankers get attention for a 22 page ppt file !
Interesting article, lots of good points in there.
spam?
I guess we can obviate the argument with properly placed nukes. This whole argument only makes sense if we continue to fight like passive-aggressive 'nice guys'. At this point I'm all about "you even pretend to threaten my granddaughter I nuclearly erase your sorry @$$. And I absolutely will NOT apologize for it. FWIW the soviet union considered nuclear weapons nothing more than mo betta artillery. And I see no reason to disagree with them. Turn the eastern territories of Pakistan into smoking, radioactive glass and we'll hear no more from them. This far into it that seems a good thing, and a salutory message to the Persians, thorn in the side of Western Civ that they've been for millenia.
And what about the role of UGV on these scenarios?
It's too bad so much political BS has to prvaile. Let people that know how to run a war decide how and what wepons to build and deploy.
The battlefield is getting increasingly hostile to IFVs. I think the future lies in a mix of cheap APCs with mine and IED protection to ferry infantry around fast and smallish 2-men IFVs Jeep-sized, that could move around in an urban environment and provide suppressing fire with a decent autocannon (20 mm max) and a grenade launcher or thermobaric weaponry under enough armor protection to make it to the next corner.
Israel and Russia seems to think in different direction to that with heavy APC and support tank instead which are still cheap enough thanks to their base chassis being just a regular tank.
APC with protection equal to a tank since they are built from one, and tanks with protection one expect from a real tank but with weaponry tailored specifically for supporting urban combat.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that option one is you can build huge heavy expensive high-tech vehicles that are going to be slow and difficult to deploy and are going to be easily beaten by any sophisticated enemy or eventually beaten by unsophisticated enemies. The second option which is less likely is you build as cheaply as possible unmanned lightly armored vehicles that hopefully you can make in bigger numbers and deploy more easily. Any actual troops can be brought in by air or in heavily armored transports protected by unmanned vehicles.
Looking like a house, with no chance to miss even without aiming, and yes uncertainty, and how to deal with that, good luck.
I wondered if that anecdote were true. I imagine the truth of it was that Saddam couldn't afford to disperse his reserves to hold an entirely border so tenuously anyways. If he'd tried, we would've just schewerpunkt'd him with local superiority, then double-envelop his armies while rushing headlong for Nasiriyah. Coalition forces had enough overmatch for the westward turning action while defending the Kuwait/Saudi border.
Most of the units in ODS still used a map and compass. PLGRS were brand new and not nearly as available as they are now.
True. They were a company level asset.