Bradley Replacement - XM30 MICV

..from Military Intelligence and Field Artillery Magazine and a twitter account.
 

Attachments

  • ETAS.jpg
    ETAS.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 101
  • ETAS1.jpg
    ETAS1.jpg
    132.2 KB · Views: 109
  • ETAS2.jpg
    ETAS2.jpg
    147.2 KB · Views: 113
  • ETAS3.jpg
    ETAS3.jpg
    69.1 KB · Views: 107
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Bradley Replacement: Army Risks Third Failure In A Row - Breaking Defense

With the surprise disqualification of the Raytheon-Rheinmetall Lynx, the Army has effectively left itself with one competitor for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, General Dynamics -- unless the Pentagon or Congress intervene.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
The article lays out that the GDLS vehicle is significantly changed from the "Griffin III" concept. In fact they describe it as no longer being of the Griffin/Ajax/ASCOD vehicle family. This could help explain the absence of players like BAE; if this has become a program where you need an all-new vehicle that fits inside the budget and schedule of an off-the-shelf solution, it would be pretty risky to burn a lot of company money trying to make your bid work.
 
www.defensenews.com

One step forward, two back

The latest news on the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle project doesn’t exactly fall neatly within that inspirational vision of a new approach to Army acquisition.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
breakingdefense.com

Northrop Unveils NGCV's 50mm Chain Gun At AUSA - Breaking Defense

AUSA: The Army is looking for more range, more punch, and more options for its Next Generation Combat Vehicle, and is turning to Northrop Grumman to provide the 50mm gun that can rip through armor, or reach out and touch targets that current infantry vehicles can’t.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Lots of Industry and Service people were saying "for god's sake, just pump the breaks enough that a few bidders can get their submissions into good shape" and Army Futures Command ignored them. Now, instead of a few months' delay we're looking at years, not to mention cost. Well done, AFC.
 
Forest Green said:
What happened to the 50x330mm supershot? 3rd from left.

1571504464566.png
Click to expand...

It died long ago but is being revived in a modified form. The US Army is working on a new ammo range which also takes the 35 mm case and necks it out to 50 mm - but retains about the same case length (i.e. 228 mm) so more of the projectiles are visible instead of being buried in the case.

PS the photo is from my website...
 
"But after decades of failed attempts, it has to convince industry it’s worth their time – and money – to try. "

BAE (can not beleive .. saying this) is the only that has used their nogin yet in this. DoD needs to pay for any prototype. One main reason to replace M2 a whole squad w/ gear doe not fit in the M2. Squads were being broken up. Eventually there will likely be exosuits on the troops.
 
jsport said:
"But after decades of failed attempts, it has to convince industry it’s worth their time – and money – to try. "

BAE (can not beleive .. saying this) is the only that has used their nogin yet in this. DoD needs to pay for any prototype. One main reason to replace M2 a whole squad w/ gear doe not fit in the M2. Squads were being broken up. Eventually there will likely be exosuits on the troops.
Click to expand...
This desire is fast running up against the demands for IFV loadout/equippage, fielding a 100t IFV isn't practical for a number of reasons. Might be at the point where each squad having 2 vehicles is just accepted as optimal, even if you can only afford for one of those 2 to be a full IFV.
 
As article seems to allude to, the Army needs to finalize a requirement, albeit that is going to be difficult. Given a real reruirement is needed is most likely BAE pulled out. The latest experience in HIC clearly displays the need for ~50t vehicle to survive the threats like those experienced in Ukraine and to keep the squad together. What Army leaders want if the politics are out of it. The idea of different vehicles seems complex and that one vehicle would be more protected than the other. I'll ride in the more protected vehicle..

or you rethink the need for squad all together and spend the money to develop robots that do the infantry work and just put three in vehicle like the Israeli Project Carmel.
 
defence-blog.com

U.S. Army has begun testing newest Bradley variant with new suspension system

The U.S. Army has begun testing an improved version of Bradley fighting vehicle at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, all to ensure it functions as it should wherever in the world it could be called on to serve, according to a KYMA report. The latest Bradley variant includes the advanced running...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
 
Well, some believe the infantry will be short lived so why spend the money on vehicles to cart them about the battlefield. Whether they believe a multiple sensor/remote weapons setup will do the job or not is yet to be explained.
 
And here we go again.
The Army is wading back into an effort to replace the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle with the release of a market survey on Feb. 7, tapping industry for ideas on what a future Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) might look like.
After receiving only one bid in its previous attempt to develop and procure the OMFV and subsequently deciding to cancel the existing solicitation last month, the Army has a new plan to move forward that seeks to avoid some of the pitfalls encountered during its first try.
The market survey itself asks companies to weigh in on what affected their decisions to participate, or not, in the previous OMFV competitive effort and how the Army might better engage with industry this time around.
Click to expand...
 
Will 'optionally manned' be an excuse for a very cramped infantry compartment? I kind of thought the purpose was to carry infantry anyway?
 
Forest Green said:
Will 'optionally manned' be an excuse for a very cramped infantry compartment? I kind of thought the purpose was to carry infantry anyway?
Click to expand...
To my understanding, "optionally manned" in an operational sense was that they wanted to be able to use it at times without the full 3-man crew onboard. Have it follow another OMFV by itself, have crew from one direct the turret from another, rollit into a high-threat spot with noone onboard to see if it takes an immediate hit, that sorta thing.
 
Moose said:
Forest Green said:
Will 'optionally manned' be an excuse for a very cramped infantry compartment? I kind of thought the purpose was to carry infantry anyway?
Click to expand...
To my understanding, "optionally manned" in an operational sense was that they wanted to be able to use it at times without the full 3-man crew onboard. Have it follow another OMFV by itself, have crew from one direct the turret from another, rollit into a high-threat spot with noone onboard to see if it takes an immediate hit, that sorta thing.
Click to expand...
a fighting vehicle is an expensive decoy that will be missed when it is disabled. Project Carmel uses suicide drone to ferret out urban threats, but they are single use. a hunting VTOL UAS w/ a 40mm AGL, for instance, ... IMHO
 
www.defensenews.com

Army sacrifices JLTV and guided rockets to pay for Army modernization in FY21

Here's a look at some of the programs the Army is canceling, truncating or delaying in order to pay for its ambitious modernization plans in FY21.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Glade to see Bradley upgrades will continue.

JTLV is its current form factor never had sufficient space and is to heavy. Oshkosh had some better cab forward designs.

APKWS, if it could not kill tanks at HV then it was always going to be too expensive for the payoff.
 
aonestudio said:

Advanced running gear for NGCV tested at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground | weapons defence industry military technology UK | analysis focus army defence military industry army

Advanced running gear for NGCV tested at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground
www.armyrecognition.com www.armyrecognition.com
View attachment 629719
Click to expand...
More reason for vehicle comprising of various technologies from varying companies but integrted by the gov. Once design is approved by the gov then components are subed out and if the final components dont fit then troubling subs start being penalized by the day.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom