Per US Army’s M2A4 product manager, the active protection system is ~70% effective.
That seems an impressive improvement given the early tests had the older version Bradley’s w/APS at ~50% effective per video.
2 Likes
A bobble-head turret?
2 Likes
It sure looks like one! Just when you thought that the Russians couldn’t possibly bolt any more sh!t on a T-72 turret and call it a T-90, the US comes up with this encephalitic monstrosity. If it works, more power to them, but man that’s fugly!
2 Likes
All joking aside, the Brad is bad-ass, and this makes it a lot more bad-ass.
1 Like
Is this sort of vehicle sustainable? How many drones and/or anti-tank missiles can I purchase for the price of one Bradley?
1 Like
The US Army constantly improves on its AFVs based on lessons from the Real World and feedback from officers, Project Managers, Subject Matter Experts, Defense industry, allies, and soldiers.
In order to protect lives and equipment, the M2A4E1 is the result.
“Iron Fist” isn’t the best Active Protection System (APS) that the US Army tested (I think “Trophy” was), and most of the APS have a fault or flaw, but it’s light enough to mount on the Bradley.
“Iron Fist” supposedly has a defense against overhead drones because it can swivel up.
3 Likes
My knowledge of modern military matters is limited to the contents of a few books and internet finds, read sporadically. If I understand correctly, current western military thinkers want to preserve the force while inflicting maximum damage on an enemy. Super expensive machines like this one make sense in asymmetric battles as casualties erode public will to remain in a contested region.
It seems like military and political leaders in the United States are now very focused on China as a future opponent. What happens in a war against an economically and technologically equal enemy? If the enemy can build 4 high end drones and/or missiles for far less cost than each Bradley, how can the force survive?
In another discussion, it was noted that Russia is losing tanks faster than Russian industry can replace them. Material shortages are a huge problem. Won’t the United States face exactly the same problem in a large, lengthy war? How does a machine like this new Bradley fit into that?
2 Likes
FWIW - One should consider the key difference in Ukraine’s ground war and the USA getting into a ground war.
-
US Army normally fights on someone elses land w/air superiority, at a time and place of our choosing and according to our doctrine.
-
Ukraine desperately fights for it’s survival as a free nation on its frontyard with it’s back against the wall at Russia’s time and choosing.
-
US doesn’t have an enemy with peer equal or near equal technology at this time.
-
Over 64% of Ukrainian’s older 2003 spec ODS Bradley’s have survived for over one year on a modern battlefield. They aren’t fully optimized to operate without air superiority.
-
In all out war, the US military has a history of throwing the rule book out the window and quickly becoming an optimized killing machine.
Example in WW2 American unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan. Back breaking results that literally stopped the Japanese war production. In a real conflict with the USA, China’s maritime life line could be shredded in a similar manner.
4 Likes
My first thought was “What happened? A bad case of mumps?”
2 Likes
How is this vehicle going to survive when someone launches 4 modern weapons at it, with those weapons costing much less than the Bradley?
Let me put it another way. If a Bradley costs $3,000,000, a modern ant-tank weapon costs $100,000, and both sides have equivalent economies, what happens when the enemy launches 30 modern weapons at each Bradley?
2 Likes
Bradley go boom
2 Likes
Fortunately, unlike an SFODA Bradleys do not operate independently and by themselves on the battlefield.
1 Like
Forbes-2024: the-american-made-m-2-bradley-is-the-best-fighting-vehicle-of-the-ukraine-war
Many others are far more qualified than myself to address specifics etc but I believe US Army doctrine would avoid that sort of situation in general with battlefield preparation and shaping operations.
On previous occasions the US Army asks the US Air Force to bomb and blast the bejesus out of the enemy army and logistics chain…for a few months to degrade the enemy and prevent that sort of scenario. It’s hard to have 200 drone operators acting with coordination when the enemy command and control centers have been shredded by things with wings and by our little friends like this ~23 ton bomb.
1 Like
Okay but…what if the enemy has fighter planes to shoot down your bombers so the battlefield is not prepared and you actually need to fight your way in?
As I wrote earlier, this sort of vehicle makes perfect sense when you hold almost all the cards. However, if the United States military is restructuring to fight China, a nation making rapid economic and technological gains with 4 times the population of the United States, is this plan going to work? If the United States builds super expensive tanks, it seems obvious to build super cheap, smart, anti-tank weapons, then use my massive manpower advantage to flood your force.
This reminds me of Germany trying to simultaneously fight Russia and the United States with super (expensive) weapons. That did not go so well for Germany.
1 Like
War with China from the US prespective would be 95% air & sea plus information, cyber & propaganda in all likelihood.
Fairly recent (last few years) US wargames show a difficult US victory with heavy losses. 20+ ships, 2 carriers, ~1,000 aircraft & 10,000 to 20,000 US casualties in a hot war with China defending Taiwan 
. Previously ~2018, same wargames implied a likely US defeat.
Sea Power Breaks China’s Back
China is a paper tiger if you take the gloves off and hit the tender vulnerable maritime trade routes the US has protected and guaranteed for the last ~80 years. China can’t feed itself, imports vast majority of its energy supply and raw materials by maritime trade routes. The Chinese navy despite size can’t operate ~1,000+ miles from home in any significant capacity.
Cutting the Chinese maritime life line has been estimated to create sustained famine, destabilize and destroy China’s war making capacity. Some estimates imply cutting those life lines would eliminate ~400 million Chinese in approximately one year.
Hitting the maritime choke points, pretty much any major Western nation with a navy is capable of crippling China in short order with conventional means. All Western nations acting together could quickly destroy the Chinese navy and strangle China into submission. Without trade China’s economy implodes in months and with their population imploding in the resulting chaos.
US strategy requires support from our allies worldwide etc. As the US military is thin in certain areas. NATO, Japan, Australia and so on. Future US Presidents would be wise to remember we are much stronger with our NATO allies than without because a two front confrontation at same time would be very demanding on US capability. Good relationships with NATO countries are critical to shore up as being able to borrow 5,000 air to air missles etc from NATO stocks might be needed in a long conflict with China etc.
2 Likes
A lot of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) in the military are Classified, hence one has to join the military to learn them.
That is why China is actively seeking US and NATO pilots to hire to train TTPs to Chinese pilots, but that is another story.
The US Army doesn’t fight alone. It fights as a Joint Force. It has NATO allies to help too although there are numerous articles that state that NATO is weakened due to years of low military budgets that is just beginning to ramp up. Some in NATO still don’t see China as a threat, but they do participate in Pacific exercises. Then there are the Asian partners who are against China.
The M2A4E1 still has smoke dischargers to confuse laser-guided ATGMs. If the enemy launches a drone swarm to attack M2A4E1, then chances are the Bradley will be overwhelmed. But the Bradleys fight in platoons of four so there might be a chance to radio for help.
That is why the US has a program to replace retired JSTARS airborne ground radar with UAVs with AESA side-scanning radar to determine where ground launches are coming from.
2 Likes
“War with China from the US prespective [sic] would be 95% air & sea plus information, cyber & propaganda in all likelihood.”
And economic, too. I would argue that China is already actively engaged against America in information, cyber, and propaganda fronts. The so called “soft war”. Add to that the flow of undocumented migration into US over the southern border, you have the means for destabilization internally that is difficult to detect, deter, or defeat.
How do you model that? This is a modelling site after all.
1 Like
By modeling the demographics of the People’s Republic of China?
According to the United Nations, China’s population is projected to decrease from 1.426 billion in 2022 to 1.313 billion in 2050, and then fall below 800 million by 2100. This decline is due to a combination of a decreasing birth rate and an aging population.
China is in long term trouble thanks to population decline due to the old one child policy, declining birth rates and so many folks moving to the city were kids are a liability not an asset. China faces very serious challenges in the near future. Slowing economy with high labor costs etc that if handled poorly could cause China to implode and destabilize due to it’s shrinking population.
The US should start phasing in more aggressive tariffs on Chinese goods as North America’s (Canada, USA & Mexico) manufacturing regains it’s capability when China doesn’t cooperate & coordinate with the US in dealing with outlaw states like North Korea, Iran etc.
Vigilance, better cyber security & critical thinking skills (ie fix the US education system).
There’s also a better understanding of what it means to be Chinese that needs to happen in the West. An acquitance who’d spent his professional career on South East Asia studies explained the West needs to understand Chinese mind set. Basically Imperial China or Communist China, it makes no difference the Chinese see themselves as the Empire at the center of the universe and think in terms of centuries. They play chess while the fool politicians in the West play checkers.
Likewise, he said the majority of folks from China see themselves as “from” China regardless of where they grew up. They teach similar values in their family to the next generation. So one will find families that left China ~100 years ago and five generations in their new homeland that see themselves as Chinese first and foremost even if their ancestors moved away over a hundred years ago. This is very beneficial to the Chinese government as first loyalty to China frequently ends up as the mind set.That’s very different than how most Westerns think about heritage.
Anyway, I probably need to get back to Bradley’s before this goes into Off-Topic.
From what I gather the Bradley had made an excellent showing in the Ukraine war.
3 Likes
Brilliant response! Absolutely nailed it. But seriously, back to modelling now… Yes, the Bradley has proven it’s worth in theatre and there is myriad examples out there for weathering and damages.
1 Like
Too kind but thank you, just sharing info that I’ve see from various sources.
One can’t help but wonder what “reformer” USAF Lieutenant Colonel James Burton would have to say on the Bradley today.
2 Likes