Bradley Replacement - XM30 MICV

The mine boxes on the back of the Bradley, where the Claymores and anti-tank mines go, were going to be replaced by little VLS silos for SIDS.

Yes, the actual BAE OMFV literally does not exist. It won't exist for some years, so why are you talking about it? The only thing that exists is the RB301 which is a Bradley with a "stuff moved around"/restowed hull and the UT30 turret. BAE is offering that to the Army as a phased-in design, while they actually figure out what the 50mm turret is going to be, because the timetable is a bit too tight for an actual new wagon...

Then again given that BAE's crude computer renderings don't include stowage boxes, hinges for the side armor skirts, or mounting points for troops' rucksacks and whatnot, should you assume it won't include those either? The BAE RB301, the closest thing to the actual OMFV that exists right now, has a coaxial literally right next to the gun. The OMFV will be pretty much identical, except possibly with a new design 50mm gun, or a Bushmaster III in a slightly larger turret.

I'd imagine the most difficult and more important thing would be the functional robotic driving and teleoperation features tbh.
 
Last edited:
The UT50 appears to have a coax on the right side of the main gun.

elbit-systems-reveals-ut50-unmanned-50mm-turret-for-us-army-optionally-manned-fighting-vehicle-4.jpg


I suppose that little hole could also be for a backup periscope but that seems a bit silly.
 
For a better view, see this video at ~58 seconds. You can see the mantlet for the 50mm gun set well back between the two protruding sponsons on the turret front. To the right of the main gun barrel are two openings -- one round that I would guess is the coax MG (or at least a port for one) and another oblong below it that probably houses some kind of boresighted optics.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXms4oR1XgE&ab_channel=ElbitAmerica
 
TomS said:
For a better view, see this video at ~58 seconds. You can see the mantlet for the 50mm gun set well back between the two protruding sponsons on the turret front. To the right of the main gun barrel are two openings -- one round that I would guess is the coax MG (or at least a port for one) and another oblong below it that probably houses some kind of boresighted optics.
Click to expand...
Screenshot 2023-01-30 at 17-07-35 The Future of U.S. Army Combat Next-Generation Unmanned Turr...png
 
It's SLID, not SIDS, because my brain is turning into mush (right on schedule). From the image it only seems to replace a single mine box.

slidb.jpg


From page 7 of this thread there is a link to it.

It's far too old at this point to be of any useful value, but just an example of a very light vehicle (25-ton M2A0) with a multiple-shot VLS system (4-round launcher) in a very tiny space (the mine box only holds like two Claymores or two M19s, some spare 5.56mm magazines, and road flares, and IIRC they're differently shaped inside typically) without much issue.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
..from Military Intelligence and Field Artillery Magazine and a twitter account.
Click to expand...
The latest conflict displays the centrality of swarming drones and artillery. CRAM is in order, and the US Army is finally realizing the need for Multi-purpose air-burst ammo and at least 35mm. Bofors 40mm Trinity. 1686229595468.png
 
www.defenseone.com

Army Picks Two Finalists to Replace Bradley

The two competitors will now turn their digital designs into prototypes.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
The XM30 will be armed with a 50mm cannon, machine guns, and anti-tank missiles, and will be protected by “integrated active protection systems and signature management capabilities.” Integrated active protection systems use sensors and projectiles to intercept incoming anti-tank missiles, while signature management capabilities seek to reduce an enemy’s ability to see a vehicle through the use of infrared, thermal, or other sensors.
A crew of two will man the vehicle, taking on the duties of commander, gunner, and driver. Infantry vehicles typically have three crew members.
Bush said the reduction in crew size is due to the use of automation to take over tasks. While past officials have noted that current crews might feel uncomfortable with a two-man crew, Bush doesn’t anticipate that problem.
“Eighteen-year-olds operating this vehicle will probably be pretty comfortable with a lot of technology enabling what they’re using the vehicle for,” he said.
The vehicle will be able to carry six soldiers—the same number as the Bradley. The crew and passenger number was selected after 11 studies that sought to achieve the optimal vehicle weight and armor, said Brig. Gen. Geoff Norman, director of the Army’s Next-Generation Combat Vehicles Cross Functional Team.

The vehicle will also be designed so one C-17 can carry two of the vehicles. The aircraft can carry three Bradleys.
While billed as an “optionally manned fighting vehicle,” current plans stop short of a killer robot. At present, automation is reserved to navigating from point to point, although more autonomous functionality may come as designers develop the vehicle. “This is not something in 2029 that we anticipate fighting completely without personnel,” Dean said.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I like the fact that the Lynx can fit a full infantry squad in back, I thought Iraq had highlighted how useful that was with the Stryker, Army can't seem to make up their mind.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I still can't belive the Army isn't demanding a full 9-man or bigger squad in the back. Dunno what they're smoking, it's not like the Bradley doesn't have a long-chassis variant in the MLRS. Use that, put a stretched Bradley like upper hull on it.

Colonial-Marine said:
jsport I imagine such an IFV using some of the technologies trialed in the CATTB would have been part of the ASM program, shame the Army went off chasing FCS wondertech instead.
Click to expand...
The FCS was a very salient point that the Abrams is too (expletives deleted) heavy. It has zero strategic mobility, sending a division someplace is measured in months because you need to load them onto trains and then onto ships. FCS was intended to be as protected as an Abrams via APS but light enough to fit in a C-130.

But the APS tech wasn't there yet. Frankly, I'm not sure it's there now.
 
Rickshaw said:
Why is the US Army opposed to simply utilising a modified tank chassis as their MICV? That way it could be armoured as well as the MBT and be automativelly the same as the MBT and be as maneuverable as the MBT. An MBT hull is large enough to carry almost any weapon and a section of infantry.
Click to expand...
Ends up way too heavy. The Abrams itself is way too heavy, it's suffered something like 20% weight growth since it was introduced and it was one of the heaviest tanks in the world at introduction.

The Israelis do it because they have a very specific need to not lose crew as much as possible, they cannot replace losses easily. And they have issues with where the Merkava and Namer cannot go because they'll collapse sewers and stuff.
 
Strategic mobility is decided by warships not airplanes. FCS's lighter weight vehicles were to improve its tactical mobility through use of short-range heavy helicopter airlift. Abrams fit in fine with the paradigm with the exception that it wasn't able to rapidly redeploy itself 100 miles south in the required hour or so the U.S. Army thought it would need to counter multiple armored divisions in the Middle East.

If you're wondering why the U.S. Army wanted such a thing, so do lots of other people who have asked this question over the past 25 years.

I guess if the Army wanted the helicopter that could lift Saturn V boosters instead of a VTO C-130 it would have gotten that with the M1.

jsport said:
jsport said:
..from Military Intelligence and Field Artillery Magazine and a twitter account.
Click to expand...
The latest conflict displays the centrality of swarming drones and artillery. CRAM is in order, and the US Army is finally realizing the need for Multi-purpose air-burst ammo and at least 35mm. Bofors 40mm Trinity.View attachment 701136
Click to expand...

Is this a weird DIVAD or FAADS thing?
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
bobbymike said:
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
Click to expand...
That would go nice on an AC-130 too.

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

View attachment 620392
Click to expand...
Needed a bigger receiver than the 50x228mm, which only needed a Bushmaster III. The 50x330mm CRAM guns ended up with a Bushmaster IV receiver due to how long that guided shell was (and yes, I know that the CRAM guns had a much longer shell overall than the basic 50x330mm).

Basically, didn't add enough oomph in APFSDS for the increased size, not when the x228mm could punch >140mm RHAe. The HE round was not going any faster.
 
Rickshaw said:
Kissinger appears to subscribe to the George W. Bush manner of thinking, "if you're not with us, you're against us." Western European democrats have their own way of thinking about problems. Kissinger obviously believe it is better to be dead than Red. Silly really...
Click to expand...
So does every member of NATO joined since 1991. The Baltics, Poland, etc. They all decided that they would rather be an irradiated crater under Article 5 than a Russian "client" (read: slave) state again.
 
shin_getter said:
In any case, without effective AI, a "radioman operated" teletank is just hopeless as all one manned tanks in history. If effective AI enables a tank to be operated with one man effectively, the "manned tank" could be operated with one man as well. (or at most two, if it has even far more weapons and sensors than the teletank)


A teletank is the UGV form factor with the least impact on combat operations. The concept may be easiest but the tech requirement (reliability/reaction time/etc) is actually quite hard. There are a lot of UGV concepts that has lower tech requirement and higher impact. If one is talking about urban combat, it is complex (terrain, tactical and even non-military human factors), demands good situation awareness and delicate use of force, all great difficulties for AI.
Click to expand...
I would argue that World of Tanks etc have demonstrated that remote control of a tank could be combat effective, with enough improvement in field of view from the remote vehicle. Enough sensors to make the "glass armor" effect on both the manned tank and the unmanned.
 
jsport said:
If 15 is the correct number for a Squad then 5 per Bradley could work till a new vehicle is introduced. Squads are split in Bradley deployments already so a fire tm per Bradley would not be that novel.


Various technical developments could have a semi/auto 105mm reaching 75-80-100km in the 2030 timeframe.
Click to expand...
Apparently the new Mechanized Assault platoon is doing just that. 6 Bradleys per mechanized platoon, which is 50% more than current TO&E.
 
shin_getter said:
Add armor protection for the tank desant guys on a 30~40ton vehicle with 50mm gun is what counts for as innovation in the 21 century~ :)

----------
Speaking of tank desant, why is it that no one attempted at adding "side armor" to the rear engine deck behind the turret, especially on something front turreted like the T-34?

Pluses:
1. Can use existing tanks, doable with minimum investment
2. Mine protection from seating over the engine

Minus
1. Roof armor do not fit
2. Lose 360 transversal turret
3. Mounting/Dismounting takes time
4. Not a lot of seats per vehicle
Click to expand...
Tank desant in the US Army requires turning turret stabilization off, so that you don't feed a rider to the Turret Monster.
 
jsport said:
Since the research now shows the the best squad size is 15 it would make sense to spread the squad amoung 3 vehicles. That being the case then, a Bradley/AMPV derivative would seem to make the most sense, economies of scale and all. There seems to be no real innovation on offer to justify a brand new vehicle. Rubber tracks and composite roller wheels are not a revolution in hypermobility foreseen by the GVSC, so why not wait. Since new electronics ,now fairly mature, and drone developments seem to be the only real innovation in the near term. Maybe better armed drones (not suicide drones) should be the emphasis.
Click to expand...
Got a link to that?

I mean, I know the Marines are doing some odd things with their organization, 3 fireteams plus a command team with a drone controller and maybe a medic makes an easy 16-17 bodies. But I hadn't heard anything about the Army doing research like that.

GTX said:
Keyboard Commando said:
even better if it's adopted in Australia and the UK (if the Ajax cancellation rumors are true it would be the logical choice) to leverage a common logistical support network.
Click to expand...
Which ever company (RDA or HDA) wins the Land400Ph3 competition in Australia (due to be announced about mid next year) will be in a good position for the OMFV requirement. I would love to see the US, UK and Australia all settle on a common platform (another AUKUS deal?) with production/sustainment lines in all 3 countries. This would result in a combined need for something in the vicinity of 5000 - 10000 vehicles potentially.
Click to expand...
That would probably be good, but how do you make sure that spare parts made in Aus fit the vehicles made in UK? (or for that matter, the parts made in US fit the vehicles made in countries that exclusively use metric?)

Bruno Anthony said:
jsport said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

How top brass blew £3.5billion on a dud that is a menace to troops

The noise and vibrations that members of the British Army trials team endured while trying out the latest high-tech vehicle were insufferable.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

en.wikipedia.org

General Dynamics Griffin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

DEVCOM needs to be careful w/ these vehicles.
Click to expand...
How the hell could this have been this badly botched? Gun stabilization for one isn’t exactly new tech.
Click to expand...
That one belongs to the Cult of "That'll do". The freaking vehicles are not even square!!!
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Anyone have any idea of the height of the different competitors? I was somewhat hoping they'd be a bit lower than the M2 but this doesn't look to be the case. I guess trying to cram six or more infantrymen, two or three crew, and enough munitions inside armored vehicle is just as much a challenge as it ever was.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's always going to be a tall vehicle. Because BMPs don't give enough space for the current western troop plus all equipment, they'd need to be at least 12"/30cm taller to fit all the crap that a western soldier carries.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Strategic mobility is decided by warships not airplanes. FCS's lighter weight vehicles were to improve its tactical mobility through use of short-range heavy helicopter airlift. Abrams fit in fine with the paradigm with the exception that it wasn't able to rapidly redeploy itself 100 miles south in the required hour or so the U.S. Army thought it would need to counter multiple armored divisions in the Middle East.

If you're wondering why the U.S. Army wanted such a thing, so do lots of other people who have asked this question over the past 25 years.

I guess if the Army wanted the helicopter that could lift Saturn V boosters instead of a VTO C-130 it would have gotten that with the M1.

jsport said:
jsport said:
..from Military Intelligence and Field Artillery Magazine and a twitter account.
Click to expand...
The latest conflict displays the centrality of swarming drones and artillery. CRAM is in order, and the US Army is finally realizing the need for Multi-purpose air-burst ammo and at least 35mm. Bofors 40mm Trinity.View attachment 701136
Click to expand...

Is this a weird DIVAD or FAADS thing?
Click to expand...
Bofors trinity 40mm advertisement
 
Scott Kenny said:
jsport said:
Since the research now shows the the best squad size is 15 it would make sense to spread the squad amoung 3 vehicles. That being the case then, a Bradley/AMPV derivative would seem to make the most sense, economies of scale and all. There seems to be no real innovation on offer to justify a brand new vehicle. Rubber tracks and composite roller wheels are not a revolution in hypermobility foreseen by the GVSC, so why not wait. Since new electronics ,now fairly mature, and drone developments seem to be the only real innovation in the near term. Maybe better armed drones (not suicide drones) should be the emphasis.
Click to expand...
Got a link to that?
Click to expand...
www.armytimes.com

How algorithms and primate research can help decide the best size for your squad

'Ape politics' shows that warfighters may be most effective in groups of 5, 15 and up to a max of about 150.
www.armytimes.com www.armytimes.com
 
Scott Kenny said:
GTX said:
Which ever company (RDA or HDA) wins the Land400Ph3 competition in Australia (due to be announced about mid next year) will be in a good position for the OMFV requirement. I would love to see the US, UK and Australia all settle on a common platform (another AUKUS deal?) with production/sustainment lines in all 3 countries. This would result in a combined need for something in the vicinity of 5000 - 10000 vehicles potentially.
Click to expand...
That would probably be good, but how do you make sure that spare parts made in Aus fit the vehicles made in UK? (or for that matter, the parts made in US fit the vehicles made in countries that exclusively use metric?)

Click to expand...
They already do this with programs such as the F-35 where parts are made across even more countries and assembled )and used as spares) in multiple.
 
If issue is if the Army finally does the right thing and goes to 5 person fire tms then 2 aircraft will be needed to carry a single squad and their OMFVs. Another reason the why the NGCV vision as a whole needs a different perspective.

Fires supporting maneuver vs now maneuver supporting fires.. tanks which are like SPHs, SPHs which are like tanks. only unmanned tanks should be risked at a front.. tanks able to deal both the direct fire threats and the indirect fire threat and even be able to engage indirect fire threats.. whether tanks should carry their own 5 man fires primarily to protect tanks, and is this the primary infantry mission not even a separate IFV..and on and on.. Insight is not being perceived..,, Policy and purchasers are short termists/uninspired.

the appearance of a lack of more comprehensive APS and individual vehicle NGCV counter-mine strategies seems gaping as well..
 
They're either gonna buy a foreign vehicle or end up with a GDLS monopoly on AFVs. Not great.
On the topic of passengers, the Army has been insistent for the past few years that 6 is the way to go. Their last experience with trying to fit a 9 man squad resulted in an absolute behemoth that weighed up to 80 tons. There are merits to the 6 man approach, for instance, it reduces the risk of the whole squad being killed if one vehicle is hit. It also increases firepower by allocating two vehicles to a squad while also increasing vehicle protection for the same weight.
 
njiiaf said:
They're either gonna buy a foreign vehicle or end up with a GDLS monopoly on AFVs. Not great.
On the topic of passengers, the Army has been insistent for the past few years that 6 is the way to go. Their last experience with trying to fit a 9 man squad resulted in an absolute behemoth that weighed up to 80 tons. There are merits to the 6 man approach, for instance, it reduces the risk of the whole squad being killed if one vehicle is hit. It also increases firepower by allocating two vehicles to a squad while also increasing vehicle protection for the same weight.
Click to expand...
Yes, the 9pax sqd GCV is a well known mess so of course must mention again why Bradley mods are not a better option given the uninspiring OMFV competition developments, hybrid drive & rubber tracks (really?) as the M-2 can house 6xpax and plenty are already around to be updated w/ much more pressing tech worth the spending such as a much more comprehensive APS suite along the lines of the original FCS APS strategy,
telescoping sensor turret,
individual IFV DEW-APS/countermine,
autonomous operation,
CRAM-50mm Auto,
advanced modular RWS (javelin, AGL, even a separately aim-able Autocannon) etc

A squad w/ two 5pax fire tms w/ the fifth being the tm ldr
and a sqd leader tm
1. Squad Ldr,
2. Asst Sqd Ldr/C3ISR specialist,
3. unmanned ground system operator,
4. unmanned aerial system operator
5. Messenger/resupplier.
Yes 50pax plts as mentioned above referenced Army research & study. Intensely trained and thus capable squads able to accomplish plt missions. Just filling out bns because it looks better-- not good..
 
I'm a bit disappointed the BAE offering is out of the running, that looked rather promising to me.

I understand the Army wants to avoid some of the challenges GCV faced had but when some of designs like the Lynx KF41 the Rheinmetall offering is based on already have the capability to carry eight soldiers in back why not take advantage of that? What's going to take up that space if not those two infantrymen? More ammo? Drones?
 
I wonder if the time has not come to return to separate vehicles in the fire support role and troop carrying role?

A vehicle armed with quick firing cannon and missiles but with only its crew to carry around can be a more manageable size as can a simple "battle taxi" for infantry and their kit. The 60s UK CVR(T) family comes to mind.

Infantry need to embark or disembark as quickly and easily as possible. Once aboard the taxi they need the best protection available.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I'm a bit disappointed the BAE offering is out of the running, that looked rather promising to me.

I understand the Army wants to avoid some of the challenges GCV faced had but when some of designs like the Lynx KF41 the Rheinmetall offering is based on already have the capability to carry eight soldiers in back why not take advantage of that? What's going to take up that space if not those two infantrymen? More ammo? Drones?
Click to expand...
Two possibilities, one is that the chassis has shrunk a bit compared to KF41 in order to reduce weight and make transport easier. The other is the hybrid drive takes up more space than the regular diesel and, combined with everything else the US Army is looking to put in it, they ended up with room for 2+6.
 
njiiaf said:
They're either gonna buy a foreign vehicle or end up with a GDLS monopoly on AFVs. Not great.
On the topic of passengers, the Army has been insistent for the past few years that 6 is the way to go. Their last experience with trying to fit a 9 man squad resulted in an absolute behemoth that weighed up to 80 tons. There are merits to the 6 man approach, for instance, it reduces the risk of the whole squad being killed if one vehicle is hit. It also increases firepower by allocating two vehicles to a squad while also increasing vehicle protection for the same weight.
Click to expand...
IIRC that was more due to the insane amounts of protection the Army required for GCV. Several IFV can already carry 9 pax (or close to it) while weighing half that amount. I see no reason why it wouldn’t be possible to design a ~40 ton 9-man IFV with STANAG level 6 ballistic protection and STANAG level 4 mine/IED protection.
 
www.armadainternational.com

US Army Next Generation Combat Vehicle: A Perspective from AUSA 21 - Armada International

Replacing the M-2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle is one of the top priorities of the US Army modernisation programs.
www.armadainternational.com www.armadainternational.com
General Dynamic Land Systems
General Dynamic Land Systems showed a tracked chassis turreted design with a much different look than those displayed at previous AUSA shows.
BAE Systems showed its RB301 technology demonstrator
BAE Systems showed its RB301 technology demonstrator – a physical platform that allows for the integration and testing of potential systems and technologies in an environment closely representing the actual field use.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom