Bradley Replacement - XM30 MICV

"The AMPV program calls for vetronics and software that adhere to the U.S. military's Vehicle Integration for C4ISR/EW Interoperability (VICTORY) open-systems standards, which use an adopt-adapt-author approach independent of specific hardware or software"

Leads to the question how much a threat could the AMPV possibly pose as an alternative to the XM30 MICV program if costs not controlled, BAE showed a AMPV configured with the External Mission Equipment Package (ExMEP) at the 2024 AUSA Global Force Symposium with its unmanned 30mm turret
 

Attachments

  • AMPV_ExMEP_30mm.png
    AMPV_ExMEP_30mm.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 141
jsport said:
Exit omfv.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/06...oduction-line-new-variants-foreign-customers/
Click to expand...
What an ugly turret. And that is the one they selected for the Stryker Dragoon to replace the Kongsberg one used on early production vehicles? The higher profile makes it seem like a step backwards.

I'm not sure if they are trying to sell this as an alternative to the XM30 or just as a way of up-gunning AMPVs that would otherwise just have a .50 caliber MG but I think it would be a poor choice for the former. The M2 Bradley already has a high profile and putting a turret on the AMPV results in an even taller vehicle than that.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
What an ugly turret. And that is the one they selected for the Stryker Dragoon to replace the Kongsberg one used on early production vehicles? The higher profile makes it seem like a step backwards.

I'm not sure if they are trying to sell this as an alternative to the XM30 or just as a way of up-gunning AMPVs that would otherwise just have a .50 caliber MG but I think it would be a poor choice for the former. The M2 Bradley already has a high profile and putting a turret on the AMPV results in an even taller vehicle than that.
Click to expand...
"Wait a minute you're telling me lock down shoot down is only an air force concept???"
 
Colonial-Marine said:
What an ugly turret. And that is the one they selected for the Stryker Dragoon to replace the Kongsberg one used on early production vehicles? The higher profile makes it seem like a step backwards.
Click to expand...
The Dragoon still has the Kongsberg turret, the new MCWS Stykers will have the new turret but it won't be backfit to the Dragoon. The Elbit turret seems to have won due to having greater growth potential, having room to add an APS, though there's not been a detailed breakdown of the decision released publicly.

And yes, it's ugly as all get out
 
  • Piranha V
    In November 2007, the Piranha V was selected as the preferred bidder, but budget constraints prevented orders from being placed. By December 2008, the Piranha V was no longer the preferred bidder due to the lack of a contract.


  • Piranha Heavy Mission Carrier (HMC)
    In April 2024, General Dynamics unveiled the Piranha HMC, a 10-wheel armored vehicle designed for cross-country mobility and trench-crossing. The HMC has a multi-link suspension system, all-wheel-power drivetrain, and a payload capacity of up to 17 tons. It has a total weight of up to 40 tons and a turning cycle of less than 18 meters (60 feet).

    why not discussed as the wheeled carrier partner to Bradley replacement, the StrykerQB is only suitable for unmanned c2




    According to Google AI
 
jsport said:
  • Piranha V
    In November 2007, the Piranha V was selected as the preferred bidder, but budget constraints prevented orders from being placed. By December 2008, the Piranha V was no longer the preferred bidder due to the lack of a contract.
  • Piranha Heavy Mission Carrier (HMC)
    In April 2024, General Dynamics unveiled the Piranha HMC, a 10-wheel armored vehicle designed for cross-country mobility and trench-crossing. The HMC has a multi-link suspension system, all-wheel-power drivetrain, and a payload capacity of up to 17 tons. It has a total weight of up to 40 tons and a turning cycle of less than 18 meters (60 feet).

    why not discussed as the wheeled carrier partner to Bradley replacement, the StrykerQB is only suitable for unmanned c2




    According to Google AI
Click to expand...
1725271197344.png 1725271015962.png 1725270991423.png 1725270888670.png 1725270835025.png
 
Difficult, really difficult, I think !
In a perfect world, you would ask the AI „Tell me something about the Piranha MICV“, maybe you could additionally say „But don‘t use information from sources X, Y and Z !“ and you would get a decent report, perhaps even with at least some sources given. And all this without having to search by yourself !
Not giving the sources of an information degrades the trustability of a statement, and if it comes from an AI, the loss of trust perhaps even is bigger, than when it‘s just mentioned as „I read somewhere on the net….“ , or without a mentioned source, but without the AI mentioned either.
And to be honest, I won‘t be surprised, if even principally reliable websites, mags, or other sources, are using AI in the meantime, of course, always after cross-checking the results !
And to be honest again, I probably won‘t notice, if an information comes completely from an AI, maybe just with an asserted source … or maybe, it‘s really from that source, but that source used AI ….
I have no other idea in the moment, than to treat information from AI the same way, as from other sources : Cross check, maybe cross check again, and try to find at least some „real“ sources, as that probably could prevent at least falling victim to a hallucinating AI … though not falling victim to a source, that itself had fallen for such an incident.
No other idea, sorry !
 
regardless the Pir V is far larger thus a more capable platform for the mods planned for the Styrker..was once in a LAV and was stunned how small it was. If there is to be a ever expanding APSs & armor so therefore powerful powerplants are not an issue. Any sort of mission has logistics and even evacuation demands, the larger the better.. seems to be a wrapped around the axle in this discussion. Surly, someone in the Army requirements world has brought this up.
 
Assuming it’s the Google AI Overview it does link the sources it’s drawn from, though obviously you have to give them in your post if you’ve used it (and, imo, it should only really be used like Wikipedia, a place where you can find sources from to do your own work).
 
LightningFan1959 said:
Assuming it’s the Google AI Overview it does link the sources it’s drawn from, though obviously you have to give them in your post if you’ve used it (and, imo, it should only really be used like Wikipedia, a place where you can find sources from to do your own work).
Click to expand...
The risks of relying on AI in two simple sentences:
"In 2022, the US spent about 3% of its GDP on defense. Forecasts predict that this could increase to about 2.8% by 2033."

(Bit late, but just noticed this).
 
View: https://youtu.be/qQ0VUsdYqv8


It would appear XM-30 will be long & unstable program if it survives. IMO the Griffin 3 could fullfill the past Future Scout Cavalry Veh. (FSCV) program's goals while Bradley upgrades could continue to evolve the Bradley in the MICV role.

..6x pax Fire Teams inside one Griffin 3 makes more sense then 8x pax squad vehicles like Lynx. Yes, Squads should be 12xpax at least given the prevalent requirement organic drones, AT weapons, and other additional firepower, not to mention medics and the need to operate semi-autonomously as unit.
 
jsport said:
..6x pax Fire Teams inside one Griffin 3 makes more sense then 8x pax squad vehicles like Lynx. Yes, Squads should be 12xpax at least given the prevalent requirement organic drones, AT weapons, and other additional firepower, not to mention medics and the need to operate semi-autonomously as unit.
Click to expand...
7-8pax really works out to 1 fireteam plus add-ons.
 
jsport said:
Bradley upgrades could continue to evolve the Bradley in the MICV role.
Click to expand...
Bradley is kind of like the Burkes, it's long in the tooth and has run out of growth ages ago. There's a reason we're on attempt... 5? to replace it. The US Army's current modernization push (ATI) is, in my bluntest opinion, divorced from reality and going to result in thousands of excess combat deaths of US Soldiers if we get into a real war using its force structure. But the light infantry delusion is in vogue and the Army wants to ride into battle in CUCV-2, now without a roof.

That all said, I think Lynx is pretty neat and if nothing else a new chassis is needed for the IFV role. Bradley derivatives are fine for APCs these days, AMPV shows that.
 
Like people said, for so long everyone knows this line.

Best time to do something, is yesterday. The second "best time" is today.

Just do the frigging thing instead of haggling around like headless chicken.
 
As you are well aware, Bradley upgrades are continual, plus there is the evolution of the Bradley based AMPV especially turret mounts and overall mission capability enhancements. AMPV is a program of record w/ an ever growing logistical infrastructure. All this seems to be arguing for the return of AMPV based GCV by default. If subcomponents (hybrid propulsor, band tracks et al) weight can be brought down this higher number troop compartment beast will make a return for BAE. in a slow progression from Bradley.

Agreement on the CUCVs. ..used to drive those things.. Allegedly they have much better engine/transmission. Hope so. standoff engagement takes on whole new meaning.:}
 
jsport said:
As you are well aware, Bradley upgrades are continual, plus there is the evolution of the Bradley based AMPV especially turret mounts and overall mission capability enhancements. AMPV is a program of record w/ an ever growing logistical infrastructure. All this seems to be arguing for the return of AMPV based GCV by default. If subcomponents (hybrid propulsor, band tracks et al) weight can be brought down this higher number troop compartment beast will make a return for BAE. in a slow progression from Bradley.

Agreement on the CUCVs. ..used to drive those things.. Allegedly they have much better engine/transmission. Hope so. standoff engagement takes on whole new meaning.:}
Click to expand...
Agree on reusing the Brad. Again, cost efficiency prevails here. A whole new fleet that's probably still 5 years away from bending metal and assembly the pieces together for a meager improvement is not worth justifying unless it's a jobs program. Which DLP and AMPV already do quite well.

This forum seems to have a quite uniform opinion on ballistic defense, bar some notable inviduals. Wonder why can't we do the same for more mundane things.
 
I think AMPV will be excellent for the roles expected of it, but going the "lazy" route of throwing a turret on the top and calling it our new MICV probably won't cut it. AMPV current lacks an integrated active protection system and is probably missing many of the improvements incorporated into the newer designs. Because the height of the AMPV hull is higher than the regular M2 the whole vehicle has a taller profile with the turret. Even BAE didn't think the M2/AMPV was suitable for the requirements for the program since their submission was a mostly-new hull design.
 
Western acquisition authorities are far from any long term APS decision, and likely leaning toward DE and those development cost & SWAP issues.

Hope folks have been paying attention to all the AMPVs mods being offered up to full 50mm turret w/ other SHORAD capabilities included. There are many arguments the public is not privy to. Many at BAE likely realize offering any vehicle other than GCV was a losing prospect until wiser Army folks come around to their way of thinking (about the AMPV based GCV ) and reduced subsequent spending. Growing pax & equipment demands will continue to argue for a larger GCV form factor.

PS Have you viewed the height of the Griffin III?
 
They already ruled out a larger squad complement with the prior iteration of the program because they say weight crept up to unacceptable levels. Last I checked they also still want to fit two vehicles inside a C-17 so that is a consideration.

A few different turrets have been put on the AMPV, that's the benefit of many of those unmanned turret designs. Stuff like a SHORAD variant is entirely in-line with what the hull can be used for. But for the role of MICV aka IFV, it's still not going to be as capable as something designed around that mission.

APS is a requirement and directed-energy solutions generally aren't mature enough besides for soft-kill items like jammers. I believe both competitors have hybrid-electric drives which AMPV does not. We don't know exact protection requirements for either, but one can assume AMPV is equivalent to the latest M2A4 while XM30's requirements might be more demanding. A few of the unmanned turrets showcased on the AMPV had the 30mm XM813 but I don't recall any with the 50mm XM913.

To do it right you'd have to spend a whole lot of money changing the AMPV to better fit requirements and whatever cost savings you are imagining probably aren't going to be worthwhile once all is said and done. There are a few XM30 requirements I find pointless like the "optionally manned" stuff but a lot of the other things make sense.

I don't think many would argue now that the Army made a mistake when they went with the M2 over the cheaper M113-derived AIFV, hopefully this will play out similarly.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom