• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Bradley Replacement - OMFV

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
124
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.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
124
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
485
Reaction score
147
That would go nice on an AC-130 too.

What happened to the 50x330mm supershot? 3rd from left.

1571504464566.png
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
124
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.
 

Tony Williams

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
466
Reaction score
92
Website
www.quarryhs.co.uk
What happened to the 50x330mm supershot? 3rd from left.

1571504464566.png
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...
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
88
"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.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
124
"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.
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
88
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.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,138
Reaction score
221
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.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
975
Reaction score
13
That's the spirit!
Rumors among the chinese generals, they fear USA spirit the most; so much so that they fear all their rapid and successful acquisitions will all melt away in the fae of this spirit.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
124
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.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
485
Reaction score
147
Will 'optionally manned' be an excuse for a very cramped infantry compartment? I kind of thought the purpose was to carry infantry anyway?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
124
Will 'optionally manned' be an excuse for a very cramped infantry compartment? I kind of thought the purpose was to carry infantry anyway?
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
88
Will 'optionally manned' be an excuse for a very cramped infantry compartment? I kind of thought the purpose was to carry infantry anyway?
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.
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
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
88

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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
88
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.
 
Top