Jump to content

Bradley Fighting Vehicle


jonte72

Recommended Posts

Har ni hört talats om M2 Bradley? APC som introducerades på 80-talet?. Massor med pengar (biljarder) lades på utväcklingen av fordonet under 20års tid. Allt detta bara för att ta fram en enkel APC. De var inte ens bra och hade väldigt många brister. Finns en film om dess utväckling och hur man genomförde "tester". De klarade inte ens vanliga gamla RPG:s och man ersatte bränslet med vatten under testerna då det började brinna annars :navy:. Till slut tillsatte man mer pansar på den, flyttade tankarna utanför APC:n och gjorde andra ändringar. Detta efter att man har kasktar väldigt mycket pengar i sjön under utväcklingstiden då fordonet inte var stridsduglig förran man gjorde dessa ändringar i slutskeddet.

M2/3 är ingen enkel APC - utan ett avancerat stridsfordon som i de senaste varianterna har mycket hög skyddsnivå.

 

Hur tror du grundversionen av stridsfordon 90 mår av RPG.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Har ni hört talats om M2 Bradley? APC som introducerades på 80-talet?. Massor med pengar (biljarder) lades på utväcklingen av fordonet under 20års tid. Allt detta bara för att ta fram en enkel APC. De var inte ens bra och hade väldigt många brister. Finns en film om dess utväckling och hur man genomförde "tester". De klarade inte ens vanliga gamla RPG:s och man ersatte bränslet med vatten under testerna då det började brinna annars :winner:. Till slut tillsatte man mer pansar på den, flyttade tankarna utanför APC:n och gjorde andra ändringar. Detta efter att man har kasktar väldigt mycket pengar i sjön under utväcklingstiden då fordonet inte var stridsduglig förran man gjorde dessa ändringar i slutskeddet.

M2/3 är ingen enkel APC - utan ett avancerat stridsfordon som i de senaste varianterna har mycket hög skyddsnivå.

 

Hur tror du grundversionen av stridsfordon 90 mår av RPG.......

Menade inte att Bradleyn är/var dålig utan att hela utväcklingsstadiet var omsusat av skandaler, projektet blev mycket dyrare är beräknat och det fuskades mycket vid säkerhetstesterna. I slutskeddet fixade man dock till det hela efter att en specielltillsatt kontrolleringssoldat avslöjade de många problem som projektet kantades med. Många höga officerare fick antingen sparken eller blev nedgraderade i samband med fusk och otillåten verksamhet osv vilket resulterade i att han som avslöjade allt också fick avgå. Dvs inget fel på fordonet efter att den fixades till i slutskeddet av testerna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art Man: jag har också sett filmen och jag hoppas att du har några mer källor än endast denna eftersom att det du säger är som i filmen. Filmen bygger ju på verkligheten men att det skulle ha gått till exakt som i filmen låter ju inte speciellt troligt. "Based on a true story" är ett väldigt vitt begrepp när man kommer till Hollywood. Det kan t.ex. täcka med att det har funnits ett fordon som har hetat Bradley för att det skulle kunna kallas "based on a true story" med hollywood mått.

 

Nu finns det ju säkert viss sanning som att Bradleyn hade stora problem men det där med soldaten som avslöjar allt skulle jag inte vara bered att tro på genom att bara se filmen.

Edited by Gaelgannon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"THE STORY OF THE UNSINKABLE BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE

 

Like the Sergeant York Gun, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle was a classic example of the Pentagon's "buy now, fix later" philosophy that was so prevalent during the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s. In fact, when the decision was made in December 1979 to begin full-rate production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, limited test results had shown that the vehicle's armor couldn't even protect its occupants from hostile fire. 14 Full vulnerability testing did not begin until 1980, a year after the go-ahead to buy the system was made.15

"This information [on the weapon's vulnerabilities] was not reported to key decisionmakers," the General Accounting Office said in a 1986 report. "Even though the system had been deployed, the vehicle's vulnerability is still a major concern as demonstrated by test results."16

Once again, a lack of independent testing allowed an unsafe weapon to be placed in the hands of the nation's fighting men and women.

The Bradley, named after the famous World War II general Omar Bradley who led the D-Day assault on Normandy, is an armored carrier that transports cavalry units and infantry units to and from the battlefield and acts as a scout vehicle for reconnaissance and security missions. Ironically, the Bradley was intended to replace the M-113 whose armor wasn't thick enough to protect a squad of troops from anything larger than small arms fire. For that reason, many soldiers refused to ride inside the M-113, instead choosing to ride to battle atop the vehicle.17

But the Bradley, first deployed in 1983, wasn't put though any live-fire testing to determine if it would be better able to protect its occupants than the M-113. Live-fire testing wasn't done until 1985 when it was discovered that the Bradley was highly vulnerable to anti-armor weapons.

It also was having performance problems with its "swim capability" (some Bradleys were sinking while attempting to transport troops over bodies of water), transmission, electrical systems, and integrated sight unit.18 From 1980 to 1987, a total of 11 Bradleys sunk or swamped during swimming training operations. In 1987, after a Bradley sunk at Fort Benning, Georgia, the Army suspended Bradley training swims worldwide until problems could be corrected later that year.

"The Army has been testing certain modifications designed to increase the vehicle's survivability," General Accounting Office Associate Director Mark E. Gebicke told a House Subcommittee in 1987. "As a result of these tests, the Army has decided to modify the approximately 3,200 Bradleys still to be produced and to retrofit many of the vehicles already produced with certain survivability enhancements."19

Since it was live-fire tested in the late 1980s, the Bradley's reliability has improved - but only after it has undergone a number of fixes and upgrades totaling billions of additional dollars. Yet, as late as 1992, nearly a decade after the Bradley was first deployed, studies by the U.S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratory had still not drawn any firm conclusions on the vehicle's survivability.20"

 

källa: http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-020701-bmdb.html

 

Detta står på baksidan av filmen "THE PENTAGON WARS, HBO 1998"...

 

"Kelsey Grammer and Cary Elwes star in a movie based on the extraordinary true story of the outrageous lengths the Pentagon goes to defend our country...at any cost. For over 17 years - and almost as many billion dollars - military time, energy and lots and lots of cash have gone into devising THE BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE. There's only one problem...it doesn't work. Now a new kid on the block, Colonel Burton (Elwes), has been assigned to oversee the BRADLEY'S development - and cover-ups. Rigged tests and altered documents are rising to the surface as fast as General Partridge (Grammer) can bury them. Burton discovers a monumental scandal that could break careers - which is why General Partridge will do everything in his power to keep a lid on it. And when these two opposing forces meet head-to-head in the Pentagon, you can be sure of one thing. It may get ugly, it may cost you a whole lot of tax dollars, but it will be very, very funny."

 

Här uttalar sig en militärhistoriker om filmen och om dess trovärdighet. Kan säga att filmen är en komedi så självklart gjorde de en parodi av hela händelsen :sniper:.

 

http://yarchive.net/mil/bradley.html

 

Hittar jag mer rena fakta lägger jag in det här. Vill hälst hitta en recension av rapporten om Bradley-projektet dock verkar inte mina google kunskaper räcka till för det :}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menade inte att Bradleyn är/var dålig utan att hela utväcklingsstadiet var omsusat av skandaler, projektet blev mycket dyrare är beräknat och det fuskades mycket vid säkerhetstesterna. I slutskeddet fixade man dock till det hela efter att en specielltillsatt kontrolleringssoldat avslöjade de många problem som projektet kantades med. Många höga officerare fick antingen sparken eller blev nedgraderade i samband med fusk och otillåten verksamhet osv vilket resulterade i att han som avslöjade allt också fick avgå. Dvs inget fel på fordonet efter att den fixades till i slutskeddet av testerna.

Jag hittade följande i en tråd på TankNet:

 

"I participated in several joint working groups for the XM723/MICV and the XM2/XM3/Bradley over the years. We did a detailed affordability scrub of the QMR (Qualitative Materiel Requirement) in 1969. In 1971, we converted the QMR to the Materiel Need (Engineering Development) format and performed a detailed scrub of the requirements at that time. We rewrote the MICV MN(ED) to update the requirement for the two-man TOW/Bushmaster Armored Turret (TBAT). During that time, the protection requirements remained constant.

 

I am not sure if these requirements are still classified, so I will be generic. There were four requirements for protection: sides and rear, front glacis, top, and belly. The sides and rear were to be protected against a given threat direct fire weapon at a stated range. The front glacis was to be proof against a slightly more potent DF weapon at a stated range. The top was to be proof against an airburst of a given size artillery round at a certain distance. The belly had protection against a stated mine over the front third and against a lesser mine on the after two thirds.

 

At no time was there ever a requirement for the armor to protect against HEAT rounds or tank main gun rounds. The requirements pretty much remained the same from 1965 to fielding. After fielding commenced, an Air Farce LTC in the office of the Defense Director of Operational Test and Evaluation decided that the Bradley was not operationally effective or suitablebecause it was vulnerable to HEAT rounds.

 

That is the problem with DOD DOT&E, they don't evaluate systems against the stated, documented, and approved user requirements, but by their own feeling and ideas as to what the system should be."

 

http://63.99.108.76/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/posting...is+Is+Troubling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...