Jump to content


Photo

General Dynamics Griffin Takes Lead To Replace M2 Bradley: Analysis


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 Special-K

Special-K

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western New York State, USA
  • Interests:All things military, Shooting, Cycling, Hiking and Camping.

Posted 16 October 2018 - 1451 PM

https://breakingdefe...ace-m2-bradley/

 

 

From the above link:

AUSA: General Dynamics looks like the early favorite to replace the Army’s 1980s-vintage M2 Bradley troop carrier. That’s my personal assessment after talking at length to officers and contractors at last week’s Association of the US Army conference, where months of uncertainty finally gave way to some real clarity about both what the Army wants and what industry can offer.
In brief, GD’s Griffin III demonstrator seems to hit the sweet spot between innovative and proven technologies that the Army wants to start fielding a Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) as soon as 2026. Of the three vehicles on display at AUSA,
BAE System’s CV90 Mark IV is the latest upgrade of a 25-year-old vehicle widely used in Europe;
the Rheinmetall-Raytheon Lynx is an all-new design, although individual components have a good track record;
but the General Dynamics Griffin III is in the middle, combining a new gun and new electronics with the time-tested chassis from the European ASCOD family.
The competitors do have a lot in common. All offer tracked vehicles with diesel engines — even BAE, which once touted its hybrid-electric drives as a key selling point. All three boast open-architecture electronics to ease future upgrades, an integrated Active Protection System to shoot down incoming anti-tank warheads, modular armor that can be layered on or stripped down depending on the mission, and a turret capable of mounting a 50 mm gun, the Army’s preferred caliber.
Only the Griffin actually has a 50mm installed right now, however. The others currently have 35mm cannon. It’s also the only vehicle that can point its gun almost straight up, at an 85 degree angle, to hit rooftop targets in urban combat, something the Army has worried about extensively. Details like this suggest that General Dynamics has been listening more closely to the Army than its competitors. In fact, even where the Griffin III underperforms its competitors, most notably by carrying fewer infantry, it does so in areas where the Army is willing to make tradeoffs.
 

 

 

 

There is more at the link, rather longish article actually.  Thoughts/opinions?  The 50mm thing surprised me for some reason.  

 

 

 

-K

 

 

 

 


  • 0

#2 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 October 2018 - 1652 PM

The 50mm thing surprised me for some reason.

 

 

50 mm SUPERSHOT uses the same cartridge case as 35 × 228 mm,  widened to take the bigger projectile. Prime example is the Rheinmetall Rh503 machine cannon, that can shoot both wiht a barrel swap. I think the big Bushmaster III can do so as well.

 

 

what is looking weird is that hexagonal camonetting(?) or whateever it is to break up the surface area and I guess reduce radar signature?

 

edit the sales guy says it is an IR and acoustic camouflage. Interesting. they have really thrown everything possible on the demonstrator.


Edited by Panzermann, 16 October 2018 - 1656 PM.

  • 0

#3 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,961 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 October 2018 - 1716 PM

dismounts

Lynx: 9

Griffin: 6

 

That should disqualify the Griffin right away.

You get a squad of 9 with Lynx on TO&E, 7 or 8 in practice (personnel unavailable, additional stuff stored, upgrades take up volume).

Griffin is merely an autocannon combat vehicle with ability to carry a fireteam.

 

Besides, I suspect the gun elevation is rather of interest for UAV killing, as common IFV gun elevations are fine enough for urban scenarios.


  • 0

#4 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,319 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2018 - 2021 PM

Anything under 13 should DQ it IMO to give more flexibility for cross loading and future TO&E / doctrine changes.

Damn thing is the size of a self propelled howitzer.

Edited by Burncycle360, 16 October 2018 - 2055 PM.

  • 0

#5 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 206 posts

Posted 17 October 2018 - 0344 AM

dismounts
Lynx: 9
Griffin: 6
 
That should disqualify the Griffin right away.
You get a squad of 9 with Lynx on TO&E, 7 or 8 in practice (personnel unavailable, additional stuff stored, upgrades take up volume).
Griffin is merely an autocannon combat vehicle with ability to carry a fireteam.
 
Besides, I suspect the gun elevation is rather of interest for UAV killing, as common IFV gun elevations are fine enough for urban scenarios.


The US Army is willing to compromise on the amount of dismounts, for a total of 6. Having 9 is by no means mandatory anymore.

This is in part because of the whole concept behind the OMFV - They should have enough vehicles for all tasks that repurposing one to carry additional troops should be a non-issue.
  • 0

#6 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,485 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 17 October 2018 - 0425 AM

I'm intrigued how they expect to fit even 6 crew and a turret for a huge gun breech like the Bushmaster 50 with that elevation capability in an ASCOD. Are they stretching it?

CF with Ajax, which doesn't match that with the CT40, which is more compact.
  • 0

#7 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 17 October 2018 - 0515 AM

I for one am thrilled that the 50 mm Supershot may actually see operational use 30 years on. Though I won't bet on the project coming to fruition any more than its half-dozen Future Awesome Fighting Vehicle predecessors.


  • 0

#8 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 October 2018 - 0804 AM

The US military is not interested in the Supershot round, (50 x 330 mm) but a slightly smaller catridge (50 x 228 mm).


Edited by methos, 17 October 2018 - 0804 AM.

  • 0

#9 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 17 October 2018 - 0816 AM

Oh, I hadn't even heard of that. Is it still meant to be fired from an up-bored gun though? Because the article mentions initially settling on a 30 mm before going to the 50 mm later.


  • 0

#10 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 17 October 2018 - 0850 AM

I'm intrigued how they expect to fit even 6 crew and a turret for a huge gun breech like the Bushmaster 50 with that elevation capability in an ASCOD. Are they stretching it?

CF with Ajax, which doesn't match that with the CT40, which is more compact.

 

Crewless turret i suppose. Hard to tell if the hull is longer.


  • 0

#11 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 October 2018 - 1222 PM

Oh, I hadn't even heard of that. Is it still meant to be fired from an up-bored gun though? Because the article mentions initially settling on a 30 mm before going to the 50 mm later.

 

The 50 mm gun seems to be a development from the Bushmaster III (where a simple barrel swap would allow changing the caliber from 35 x 228 mm to 50 x 228 mm), but is supposedly a new development meant to be primarily (or only) used with the larger caliber.

 

cxbVvv5.jpg?1

 

The 50 mm x 228 mm catridge (excluding the projectile) is barely bigger than the 35 mm x 228 mm catridge and quite a bit smaller than the Supershot.

 

 

OAJeazS.jpg?1

6AptF6q.jpg?1

 

The new 50 mm gun during tests.


  • 0

#12 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,493 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 17 October 2018 - 2027 PM

Super double extra good for killing crunchies.


  • 0

#13 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,485 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 18 October 2018 - 0539 AM

This ancient diagram illustrates the issue.
https://www.thinkdef.../40mm-ctas-gun/
  • 0

#14 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,043 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 18 October 2018 - 0545 AM

The larger diameter the round, the less efficient it is storagewise. If you want a good indication of the various options between 0.50 and 40mm L70 modelled really lovingly (down to a round counter on the Marder) with the correct optics and FCS, vs a wide variety of targets and in scenarios of yiur design, you could do a lot worse than check out Steel Beasts. Prepare to be horribly addicted though.
  • 0

#15 Hellfish6

Hellfish6

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,676 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 October 2018 - 1217 PM

Is the Army considering the new 40mm CTAS guns being used by the British and French, or is the choice between a 30mm and 50mm?


  • 0

#16 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 October 2018 - 1653 PM

Is the Army considering the new 40mm CTAS guns being used by the British and French, or is the choice between a 30mm and 50mm?


Havent seen any US interest in 40mm CTAS.
  • 0

#17 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,485 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 27 October 2018 - 1201 PM

There is not a chance in hell of the US going with CT 40. If for no other reason than "not invented here".


  • 0

#18 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 27 October 2018 - 1255 PM

There is not a chance in hell of the US going with CT 40. If for no other reason than "not invented here".


Given the AFV guns with a European origin like the M240, 105 mm, and 129 mm, I wouldn't be as confident. Even the original 40 mm in US service was European.
  • 0

#19 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 27 October 2018 - 1340 PM

 

There is not a chance in hell of the US going with CT 40. If for no other reason than "not invented here".


Given the AFV guns with a European origin like the M240, 105 mm, and 129 mm, I wouldn't be as confident. Even the original 40 mm in US service was European.

 

 

I think that had to do with nothing the US Army Ordnance Department (or the equivalent Navy bureau) or the private sector had to offer was comparable. Or anyhting offered at all.


Edited by Panzermann, 27 October 2018 - 1340 PM.

  • 0

#20 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 27 October 2018 - 1431 PM

I dunno about that.  The M60 could have been adapted as a coax and retained as a GPMG instead of the M240.  Is there an all-American 40 mm?


Edited by R011, 27 October 2018 - 1432 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users