AUSA 2017 Association of United States Army Exhibition and Conference Washington DC Day 3 part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 жов 2024
- Day 3 for Army Recognition editorial team with its Defense and Security Web TV news channel at AUSA 2017, the Association of United States Army defense exhibition and conference in Washington D.C. On this video we focused to the new military technologies and combat vehicles for US Army program.
Summary of the video :
00:41 First production vehicle General Purpose of BAE Systems AMPV Armoured Multi Purpose Vehicle family at AUSA 2017
07:00 BAE Systems Bradley M-SHORAD Mobile-Short Range Air Defense first premiere at AUSA 2017
10:54 Rafael Trophy LV Active Protection System (APS) mounted on JLTV Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Oshkosh Defense
Read more news about AUSA 2017 at this link www.armyrecogn...
Army Recognition Group
Global Defence & Security News
Defense & Security News Web TV
Online magazine for defence and security industry
Worldwide Defense & Security News
Marketing and advertising for Defense & Security Industry and Exhibition
Land Forces equipment, weapons and vehicles
www.armyrecogni...
Contact mail: marketing@armyrecognition.com
Interesting. A bunch of us old 16R and 14R series would have loved to have that M-Shorad in the early 90's instead of the Vulcan and/or BSFV. Combined with the Stryker ADA concept that looks like the son of the Chaparral, it seems like everything old is new again.
m113 can,t go away its been replaced since the 80's but stills find away of getting a new niche
The music on 10:40 was great! More like this please
The Israeli systems with Trophy APS are currently the most battlefield tested systems. Vehicles like like the AMPV will not protect against tandem warhead RPG and ATGM threats. As such, I see such systems as a huge waste of money unless they fall under the category of "Heavy APC" such as the Israeli Namer where it's passive armor does have some hope of defeating tandem warheads when paired with ERA. This is because in some areas the Namer is actually more heavily armored than the Merkava MKIV tank that it is based upon due to the weight savings from not having a large turret and cannon. It relies instead on lightweight remote turrets. They also have high IED protection and even special shock-absorbing seats.
Regarding the Trophy system, the only weakness I see on the Trophy system shown is that this particular model seems to lack the ability of 360 degree defense unless it also has explosives that fire upwards as well to protect the vehicle from rooftop/bridge fired RPG's or from helicopter and aircraft fired ATGM"s.
The other weakness I see is the vulnerability of many of it's components to artillery shrapnel and small arms fire. That would have to be beefed up as well as made highly modular with sensors indicating to the crew if part of the system has been compromised either due to battle damage or just from usual wear and tear caused by weather and vehicle vibration.
Regarding the new air defense version of the Bradley, I am very skeptical about it's radar and cannon system. The U.S. military heavily lags behind the Russians and even other European allies when it comes to mobile short range air defense systems.
Unless the radars aid the gunner in predicting the point of aim and impact of munitions, then the system is inferior to something like the Russian Tanguska or similar systems used by some NATO nations such as the German Gepard. The only improvement I see here over the M6 Linebacker is the larger gun with proximity munitions, better range of short range SAM systems to choose from, and the enhanced optical sensors. But other than that... America could do much better
ok first off AMPV is a brand new vehicle we don't know how it would perform in battle and it in low rate production if changes needed to be made they will be, don't just right something off as a waste of money like that, also you don't necessarily have to have a heavy apc to provide protection against current threats anyway this is a vehicle designed to serve a different set of requirements than the Namer, and there is nothing to say it can't be made into a heavy apc variant or APS can't be added. I will admit America hasn't really invested much into short range air defense systems relatively speaking but again we can't right it off yet, also the Gepard was is being taken out of service by the way. Also don't forget America never really had a pressing need for short range air defense until recently and they haven't had a clean sheet design since the 60's or 70's I believe so it makes sense to use current technology only time will tell how effective it will be.
No doubt the AMPV can be upgraded with APS systems. But it is doubtful that it could be turned into a heavy APC unless the chassis is purposefully created for that purpose. Meanwhile the Namer is built from the ground up as a heavy APC as its built upon the chassis of one of the most heavily armored tanks in the world. The Namer likewise can already integrate the Trophy system as well as ERA. Even without APS in Operation Protective Edge, IDF Namers were hit with several RPG and ATGM variants including at least one hit by a Kornet ATGM, one of the deadliest in the world. None penetrated. This was WITHOUT the use of the Trophy APS. That is quite an accomplishment.
Now perhaps the U.S. Army reasons that all that extra armor is not needed if it already intends to integrate an APS system on it. If not, well then they're gambling on the lives of soldiers hoping that superior battlefield management systems, intelligence, and superior tactics will win the day. But given how rapidly Russian and Chinese electronic warfare technology is evolving and gradually being sold to hostile nations, I am very worried about the state of the U.S. Army and its over-reliance on hi-tech systems as well as it's snail-like pace of equipping vehicles with APS systems. Even when this happens, it will be only a matter of time before anti-APS jammers will be adopted along with other tactics (volley fire) and weapons (such as guided anti-tank/top attack mortar systems) are employed even by insurgents.
Regardless, in the short-term, it is clear that insurgent warfare has changed radically in recent years with the heavier usage of advanced tandem warhead ATGM's being now quite common with such groups in the Middle East. Hence why we don't deploy heavy armor their anymore. If you see the Turks losses of heavy armor in Syria (to include Leopard II and Sabra MKII tanks), it becomes very clear why we don't do this anymore.
Another possible weakness is that it's completely unclear whether or not the U.S. Army and USMC use the latest generation of ERA or whether they are still using 1st generation ERA. Given the layout of ERA bricks and their size on deployed vehicles, it seems that these are likely using early generation ERA. To me it seems that we have fallen far far behind Russian ERA technology that includes the ability to counter tandem-warheads as well as reducing the effectiveness of APFSDS cannon munitions. But then again, to my knowledge that information is classified so I may be completely wrong on that. I definitely hope so.
As for the Gepard, it was an old but also very effective system. The Germans are currently trying to replace it with the SysFla / LFK NG air defence system that will including the MANTIS gun system capable of shooting down mortars and incoming missiles. Key to any new system will be their ability to resist ECM jamming to network and radar systems as well as shielding to EMP weapons. All of that unfortunately is still under development.
Meanwhile, the closest thing we have is a handful of trailer based (stationary) modified Phalynx systems that had questionable effectiveness in Iraq.
So when you look at the situation of the U.S. and NATO and then you look at many of the well developed armor, APS, ERA, ATGM, SPAAG's, and ECM systems of the Russians, it is very very worrying.
There are other things to bear in mind regarding the AMPV: it already is a battle-tested platform in that it is a Bradley without a turret and a few new extras added on. So there's very little that is new or untried or needs testing on it.
Plus, look at the aggregate effects of using a modified Bradley:
Crews are already trained and familiar with it.
Maintenance teams are already familiar with it and needs no new logistics chain.
Its weight, speed, handling, and other tolerances are already known factors.
Eliminating the turret lowers its profile, long a complaint about the Bradley series.
Compared to what it is replacing (M-113) a massive upgrade for the troops
I love the Namer concept and the Merkava, but it is important to bear in mind that these vehicles work well the way they do because of their physical layout: engine in the front, clamshell doors in the back. That is not a standard layout for US tank doctrine and while it could be changed (I would argue it's worth looking into) it would mean a whole new vehicle, so we're back to development cycles, delays, overruns, etc. And you'd have new crew training, new logistics requirements, (all our battalion and brigade level tank maintenance docks are built to pull engine packs from the aft, not the side, etc) and so on.
The costs of building an all-new Merkava-style tank & APC tag team from scratch are astronomical, especially when the M1 and Bradley work just fine and there's no pressing flaws that can justify fleet replacement. Cheaper all around to just modify and Brad and soldier on.
Cost wise, you are definitely correct. Likewise with the logistical complexity of adding in a new vehicle. But it's been done before. But already I think that such armor, while vastly better than the M113, is already obsolete against modern ant-tank weaponry. But this has been a problem for a very very long time. We just have never gone up against a modern adversary similar to our own military in terms of training and equipment. Israel for example got one hell of a shock when they invaded Lebanon in 2006 fighting well trained Hezbollah soldiers employing with great skill anti-tank ambushes and bounding retreats with combinations of mines, IED's, RPG's, and ATGM's. When Hezbollah entered the war in Syria those skills were used against the FSA's captured armor. The FSA returned the favor and along with their Al-Nusra allies (and their ISIS enemies) very quickly saw however how powerful ATGM"s could be on the modern battlefield and began using them (often supplied by America) against all their enemies. Likewise over in Yemen, the Syrian Houthi rebels quickly adapted these ATGM tactics under the training of the Iranian revolutionary guard (the same people who trained Hezbollah) and inflicted severe casualties on Saudi Arabian M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley IFV's.
The bottom line is how many losses Americans will be willing to accept in future major conflicts.
Agree, flat sided armor, have we learned nothing? CROW's system without a coaxial javlin or stinger? Come on guys.
Nice stuff
Why does the M-50 turret not have a roof?!! Seems like a major weakneess from mortars or enemies on rooftops. All that armor and the gunner has just a thin steel plate??!
Not supposed to be in direct combat, it's 2022 they should have had at least 1000 of these ready to go,don't have even 50 in service.
They just took the Bradley turret off and selling it again??!
They should just do what Mexican law enforcement does and use dark blue ford f-150 trucks and stand in the bed of the truck hanging on a bed cage with one arm and shoot with the other hand. Like a downscaled Afghanistan version. minus the 13 Afghans usually in the back of a datsun truck.
อยากได้แบบนี้มาใช้ในประเทศไทยบ้าง
A crew of two with room for 4 people in the back? That's not enough.
Its just a bradley without the turret!!!
What’s up with the tacky music?
dc
looks heavily protected apc...👍
The negativity in these comments make me sick...
ㅋㅋㅋ