BAE Proposes Rail Guns for US Army’s Future Fighting Vehicle

[AMDR]

BAE Proposes Rail Guns for Army's Future Fighting Vehicle | Defense Tech

BAE Systems officials said an electromagnetic rail gun firing a kinetic energy warhead could be a real option for the Army’s next generation Future Fighting Vehicle, which the service hopes to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

Following the cancellation of the Ground Combat Vehicle, Army officials said they want the defense industry to offer a wide range of technologies before the Army decides whether to pursue the Future Fighting Vehicle, or an additional Bradley upgrade.

BAE Systems presented a host of possible technologies at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference last week. Among those was a model of the electromagnetic rail gun the company is developing for the Navy.

The rail gun, which can hit ranges of 100 miles or more, uses electricity stored on the ship to generate a high-speed electromagnetic pulse sufficient to propel a kinetic energy warhead. The result is an inexpensive, high-impact and long-range offensive weapon, service officials said.

The Navy, which has been testing the rail gun at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va., plans to integrate it aboard a ship by 2016, service officials said.

The 23-pound hyper-velocity projectile can be fired from a rail gun as well as from Navy 5-inch guns and even 155mm artillery weapons, Klunder added. The round currently has what’s called command guidance but may be engineered for self-guidance in the future.

BAE Systems officials said the rail gun would have to be scaled down if it were to be mounted on top of the turret of a Future Fighting Vehicle. However, the officials on the AUSA show floor were confident it was possible.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Still a bit too big for ground vehicles, sans for flat-beds, but the tech is maturing rapidly so with the next couple of years it's foreseeable that rail-guns could find their way onto tanks and other heavy armored vehicles. I still think we are a ways from seeing a Bradley type being armed with a rail gun. Also too add a bit, JHSV-3 Millinocket will be conducting testing of two competing rail guns from General Atomics Electromagnetics and BAE US sometime within the next couple of years.

The GAE competitor on-board JHSV-3

The BAE Competitor on-board JHSV-3

 

[C130]

next best thing would be the 35mm Bushmaster or CT 40.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

next best thing would be the 35mm Bushmaster or CT 40.

The 35mm Bushmaster would be my choice if a rail-gun wasn't an option. Same rate of fire as the M242 currently on the M2/M3, but with better ballistic performance all around. The only issue is that these systems are commonly used on IFVs so the larger round will be carried in smaller quantities to accommodate for a number of soldiers and the size of the vehicle. A reduction in troop capacity is probably the only major issue with this proposal.

 

[C130]

The 35mm Bushmaster would be my choice if a rail-gun wasn't an option. Same rate of fire as the M242 currently on the M2/M3, but with better ballistic performance all around. The only issue is that these systems are commonly used on IFVs so the larger round will be carried in smaller quantities to accommodate for a number of soldiers and the size of the vehicle. A reduction in troop capacity is probably the only major issue with this proposal.

wonder if they could lengthen the Bradley by half a meter if that would make room.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

wonder if they could lengthen the Bradley by half a meter if that would make room.

I'm sure it could be done, but at this point I'd rather see the Bradley's done away with all together. They are nice vehicles and great in the anti-armor role, but their limited armor (the armor can't resist anything above .50) and focus on offense has been an issue since day one. I'd rather see an armed MRAP than another Bradley analog, though I'm sure the Army is looking at more mobility and less protection, just as they did with the HMMWV (and every other armored vehicle). The Army's the one branch (well there is only one branch, the Navy) that can't get its s*** together and focus on doing something right.

 

[C130]

I'm sure it could be done, but at this point I'd rather see the Bradley's done away with all together. They are nice vehicles and great in the anti-armor role, but their limited armor (the armor can't resist anything above .50) and focus on offense has been an issue since day one. I'd rather see an armed MRAP than another Bradley analog, though I'm sure the Army is looking at more mobility and less protection, just as they did with the HMMWV (and every other armored vehicle). The Army's the one branch (well there is only one branch, the Navy) that can't get its s*** together and focus on doing something right.

Bradley can't withstand .50 BMG? whatttt it can take 30mm across the front no problem

i cherish speed and surprise more than brute armor. baby just needs a APS like trophy or iron fist, and a passive IED finder or jammer to stop it from detonating.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Bradley can't withstand .50 BMG? whatttt it can take 30mm across the front no problem

i cherish speed and surprise more than brute armor. baby just needs a APS like trophy or iron fist, and a passive IED finder or jammer to stop it from detonating.

Alright, maybe I was being a bit hyperbolic with the armor (without armor upgrades resistance was originally for 14.5mm and less), but won't budge on the mobility front. How important has mobility been to recent and projected US fights? Most of our combat these days is in urban centers and not the open desert. Mobility is great if there is room for it, but the streets of Baghdad don't allow for it. Much can be said about the tactics of using the M3s in urban environments in the first place, but with the way they are now they are not appropriate for what they are being used for. I value mobility to, but like the Navy's LCS the right combination of mobility, survivability and fire power must be found and the Bradley just doesn't match up.

With an APS system we would see a reduction in mobility as well, unless a better engine can be found as this is more weight added to the system. I like the idea and it should be implemented if it can be, within reason, but a new system would still be my preferred choice.

 

[C130]

Alright, maybe I was being a bit hyberbolic with the armor, but won't budge on the mobility front. How important has mobility been to recent and projected US fights? Most of our combat these days is in urban centers and not the open desert. Mobility is great if there is too for it, but the streets of Baghdad don't allow for it. Much can be said about the tactics of using the M3s in urban environments in the first place, but with the way they are now they are not appropriate for what they are being used for. I value mobility to, but like the Navy's LCS the right combination of mobility, survivability and fire power must be found and the Bradley just doesn't match up.

so what we need is something like this?

use the M1 Abrams hull
special turret for 2 30mm Bushmaster and 8 Tows 4 on each side.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

so what we need is something like this?

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/bmpt.jpg

Yes, something like that. One other problem I wanted to mention, but forgot until about right this instance was that the Bradley is too vertically oriented (so too are MRAPs, but they are better protected) and this also presents problems as it makes the Bradley a larger target, and especially from an enemy behind a wall or attacking from an elevated position where the turret would present an easy target. Something more compact, well armed, well armored and just as mobile would be nice. I don't like the turret on the BMPT though, too many things sticking out.

Equally important is ease of transport and with the Bradley's size, especially vertically, it limits what can carry one. The smaller and more compact the IFV, the more transportation options that become available.

 

[BestUsernameEver]

Better pictures:

BAE Sytems

General Atomics

Also, General Atomics has developed another, smaller and less powerful railgun called the Blitzer:

In the front: 32 mj, in the back 3 mj "Blitzer"

On a sidenote, I'm a little surprised that Germany and France aren't developing rail guns.

Even moreso given that, historically speaking, both were leaders in rail gun development up to 1945: Railgun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to wiki, it's even a French invention...