https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/land/army-makes-massive-bradley-buy-up-to-473-vehicles-to-prep-for-major-power-war-kUkkm4iIWk6gIICyO5bLxw/

New hull looks different than the M2A3.

https://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/rebuilding-the-m2-bradley/

Maybe I missed it in those two articles, but why are they not upgunning it.....the Russians are already looking at a 57mm on there BMP-3. Even the Stryker Dragoon has a bigger gun.

First off, neither article is talking about an all-new Bradley. The pic of the BAE one in the rebuilding article is not an M2A4, but a concept BAE is trying to sell.




The M2A4 looks externally the same as an M2A3. The upgrades are pretty much all internal to electronics, engine, and transmission.

Also, the other article is misleading and/or just wrong. Most of the 400+ Bradleys are actually the new turretless Bradleys that are replacing the M113 as part of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program. The US Army is not increasing its total numbers of A3/A4 Bradley IFV/CFVs. Those numbers will remain pretty constant.

The reason it is not being upgunned is that it isn't needed and it would cost to much to do so. The 25mm Bushmaster is more than adequate for any threat it will face. Additionally, the Stryker Dragoon has a 30mm because that is what the existing Kongsberg Protector MCT-30 turret that was added to it came with.

Good info Gino.
Dan

Thanks, Gino.

Looks like Leonardo DRS won the SHROAD contest with their air defense turret that contains a 30mm M230, two Hellfire missiles, and a pod of four Stingers, missiles all enclosed.

http://leonardodrs.com/news-and-events/press-releases/leonardo-drs-down-selected-to-provide-us-army-with-im-shorad-prototypes/

Also, check out the Leonardo DRS RiWP turrets. That is so cool---dual or triple weapons on remote weapons turret---unlike CROWS II.

So if RiWP is installed, would there even be a roof hatch to escape from?

http://leonardodrs.com/media/6357/reconfigurable-integrated-weapons-platform_riwp_500-1176_0917.pdf

A new, larger gun would mean a new turret, plus new electronics for sighting and add top weight to the taller new hull. I'd be it would be on par with a new vehicle in terms of cost, which they specifically don't have.

Money, it's all about the money . And the shortage thereof.

IIRC, the 30mm Mk-44 Bushmaster shares 70% of its parts with the 25mm M242.

In fact they tested the Mk-44 on a Bradley A3 with minimal changes to the turret.

I really like the BAE Next-Gen Bradley concept. The new hull is larger and taller, not to mention that there are dedicated stowage racks in the front and dedicated fuel tanks and TOW missile stowage in the rear.

The 25mm is way too puny on the modern battlefield. Both AP and HE performance is inadequate against armoured threats. The UK decided 10 years ago that even the 30mm Mk44 wouldn't be adequate and reversed the previous armament decision for the Warrior upgrade in favour of the 40mm CTAS, shared with the Ajax scout.

ATK abandoned the "40mm" (actually 37mm) upgrade for the Mk44 about 10 years ago too, as that round was performance-limited by using the necked-out 30mm case (essentially a WW2 German design) to keep the round length the same to minimise weapon and feed changes.

Germany wanted a new 35mm cannon on Puma, with a 50mm upgrade path. But were forced to settle for a 30mm firing the same rounds as the Mk44.

Trouble is, 35 and 40mm weapons are large and powerful and really need to be incorporated by design, not added later. 30mm is about the largest that can be retrofitted.

While some CV90 users opted for the 30mm instead of the 40mm, the best of the breed is the Dutch 35mm version.

The 40mm Mk4 Bushmaster firing the Bofors round is an awesome but huge weapon, yet to be adopted by anyone.

At least that's my experience of working on the Ajax project for a few years during which the armament debate was raging.

I dont really see the need in upgrading the main gun anyway..for the Bradleys role, its sufficient as it is intended as a scout for the Abrams ,as well as along side in support of the Abrams, so the Bradley doesnt really need a 'big' gun anyway.

Just a thought. What is the purpose of the turret gun? If it is anti-tank then it is too small. Tow, hellfire, etc are designed for anti-tank. If it is to be an artillery piece, it's too small. If personal carriers, buildings, trucks, troops in the open and helo's are the prime targets then the 25 mm with DU can handle anything out there at reasonable ranges. As you increase the size of the gun, all things that pertain to the gun also grow. Ammo space is a premium. Larger gun, fewer round available. the larger turret and gun tub reduce the interior space and increase weight. We can build a larger target, I mean vehicle, to carry it all but we will need more horsepower and fuel. If the main purpose was to carry troops then they are being displaced by the weapon system. Look at the M113 and think about its size, cost and troop-carrying capacity compared to a Bradley. The more weaponry and defense-oriented you get, the more tank like you become. Do we want a stretched M1A2 Abrams that also carries 6 troops?

Exactly. The gun is for light targets and to support the infantry. That is why the 25mm is still adequate.

I agree with Gino on this one. Another thing I don't see mentioned in this thread is that normally IFVs work very close with tanks and the combined firepower is usually more than enough to handle any kind of threats.

Erik