OMFV Downselected to 2 Firms.

[KevinB]

Well BAE is out, as I made sad CV90 type noises.

GDLS and Rheinmetal USA advanced.

Here’s who will move forward in the Bradley replacement competition

The Army has picked two teams to move into a detailed design phase of the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle competition.

www.defensenews.com

The Army hasn’t fully cemented its requirements, but is seeking a hybrid vehicle featuring a suite of lethal capabilities to include a 50mm cannon, a remote turret, anti-tank guided missiles, machine guns employed through an advanced third-generation forward-looking infrared sensor and “intelligent fire control,” Brig Gen. Geoff Norman told reporters during the press briefing.


Note: at this point only 2 crew positions and 6 dismount positions.
Which is rather shocking since the Infantry wants a 10-12 person Squad, and has been playing with 8 Bradley’s / Platoon in tactical development to accomplish that.

 

[GR66]

Well BAE is out, as I made sad CV90 type noises.

GDLS and Rheinmetal USA advanced.

Here’s who will move forward in the Bradley replacement competition

The Army has picked two teams to move into a detailed design phase of the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle competition.

www.defensenews.com

The Army hasn’t fully cemented its requirements, but is seeking a hybrid vehicle featuring a suite of lethal capabilities to include a 50mm cannon, a remote turret, anti-tank guided missiles, machine guns employed through an advanced third-generation forward-looking infrared sensor and “intelligent fire control,” Brig Gen. Geoff Norman told reporters during the press briefing.


Note: at this point only 2 crew positions and 6 dismount positions.
Which is rather shocking since the Infantry wants a 10-12 person Squad, and has been playing with 8 Bradley’s / Platoon in tactical development to accomplish that.

Assuming the bid vehicles end up being similar to the original Griffin III and Lynx K41 bids I guess I'd hope for a GDLS win. At least for Canada's options.

1. Opportunity for production (or at least component production/final assembly) in London which would be an advantage for a hopeful Canadian buy.
2. While I like the idea of a larger dismounted squad (Lynx K41 had 8 dismounts vs 6 I believe in the original prototype), six would match the LAV so you wouldn't have to change our section/platoon structure and TTPs to suit a new vehicle as we transition to the new ride.
3. Having the same basic chassis (and parts commonality) as the new M10 Booker (the new name for the MPF) would allow us to potentially obtain that platform as a DFS vehicle for our LAV Battalions/Cavalry Regiments.
4. I remember reading on the details of the MPF that there is significant commonality in controls, etc. between the M10 and the M1A2 such that the US Army was going to have a common Armor Crewman training stream for both vehicles. That would potentially work well for Canada if we purchase the M1A2 to replace our Leopards and M10's for DFS/Cavalry. You could even train on the cheaper/less costly to run M10s and save the hours on the M1A2's.

Edited to add:

Here's the Task & Purpose article that discussed the commonalities between the MPF and the M1A2:

MPF vehicles share many commonalities with the larger M1 Abrams main battle tanks. Both are built by General Dynamics and are configured to have three crew members in the body and one in the turret.

The vehicles are so similar that Abrams tank crew members can be trained to learn how to operate an MPF vehicle very quickly, said Army Lt. Col. Peter George, product manager for Mobile Protected Firepower.

“One of the benefits of this platform is it’s incredibly common with the Abrams,” said George, who also spoke to Task & Purpose at Saturday’s Army-Navy Game. “You take a 19K tank crewman; you train them on an Abrams, you get them set on an Abrams, and then you do a short transition where they can pick this vehicle up, move into the formation, and then work that teaming with infantry soldiers. “

Right now, the Army’s plan is that soldiers who operate MPF vehicles will attend the U.S. Army Armor School at Fort Benning Georgia to train in the same Military Occupational Specialty as M1 Abrams crews, George told Task & Purpose in a follow-up email.

 

[KevinB]

One time when reading the comments on some articles is informative

The Army Just Selected Its First Light Tank In Decades

The light tanks, known as as Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicles, will provide armored fire support for light infantry.

www.thedrive.com

 

[KevinB]

So neither the Griffin III or the M10 Booker use the AJAX/ASCORD chassis.


@GR66 yeah I am not thrilled with the 6 man dismount package.
The Army here has determined that 6 dismounts isn’t enough for a Squad.
The original Bradley cross load was a mess - and the attempts at 6 and 8 Bradley’s / platoon have been working to figure out what is the best way forward.
1) 8 vehicles: 2 vehicles / squad with 10 squad members and room for 2 attachments/ squad (medics, interpreter, humint, UAS op etc) this also provides some very limited ability to cross load if a vehicle goes down
2) 6 Vehicles / platoon.
A) Crossloaded Squads using 6 Bradley’s which reduces the debacle from the doctrinal cross loading jugfuck a bit.
B) Adding a Squad and Spt Team to the Platoon and sticking to 6 man

I suspect that either PM OMFV and the Infantry have a strained relationship, and just don’t care what TRADOC has been working on with the Infantry School, or have decided that 6-8 Vehicles / Platoon is new standard.

 

[Good2Golf]

I think it’ll go to RM. BAE got AMPV, Oshkosh got Stryker lethality upgrade, and GD got MPF and DVH Strykers. RM has a solid team: Textron, Allison, L3Harris, Raytheon…a who’s who of American defense interests.

We shall see.

 

[FJAG]

Well that takes me back to my youth. The last time I recall the MICV moniker being used was for the MICV-65/XM701. This little bugger which was an M109/110 chassis - the XM734 on the M113:

 

[KevinB]

I think it’ll go to RM. BAE got AMPV, Oshkosh got Stryker lethality upgrade, and GD got MPF and DVH Strykers. RM has a solid team: Textron, Allison, L3Harris, Raytheon…a who’s who of American defense interests.

We shall see.

Negative points for the Hungarian adoption..

Rheinmetall

Rheinmetall's Lynx is the most advanced infantry fighting vehicle worldwide: unbeatable mobility, massive firepower, modular and adaptable. Move. Sense. Strike.

www.rheinmetall.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Well BAE is out, as I made sad CV90 type noises.

GDLS and Rheinmetal USA advanced.

Here’s who will move forward in the Bradley replacement competition

The Army has picked two teams to move into a detailed design phase of the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle competition.

www.defensenews.com

The Army hasn’t fully cemented its requirements, but is seeking a hybrid vehicle featuring a suite of lethal capabilities to include a 50mm cannon, a remote turret, anti-tank guided missiles, machine guns employed through an advanced third-generation forward-looking infrared sensor and “intelligent fire control,” Brig Gen. Geoff Norman told reporters during the press briefing.


Note: at this point only 2 crew positions and 6 dismount positions.
Which is rather shocking since the Infantry wants a 10-12 person Squad, and has been playing with 8 Bradley’s / Platoon in tactical development to accomplish that.

So two men with a coffee pot staring at screens. They may, or may not, be on board. They may, or may not, be doing anything.

As to a bigger crew and more cargo... That would require a bigger box. A bigger box would require more armour resulting in more weight. Bigger planes, more ships...and then there are the bridges.

Dreams and reality, as I am constantly reminded by my friends here.

 

[Kirkhill]

Assuming the bid vehicles end up being similar to the original Griffin III and Lynx K41 bids I guess I'd hope for a GDLS win. At least for Canada's options.

1. Opportunity for production (or at least component production/final assembly) in London which would be an advantage for a hopeful Canadian buy.
2. While I like the idea of a larger dismounted squad (Lynx K41 had 8 dismounts vs 6 I believe in the original prototype), six would match the LAV so you wouldn't have to change our section/platoon structure and TTPs to suit a new vehicle as we transition to the new ride.
3. Having the same basic chassis (and parts commonality) as the new M10 Booker (the new name for the MPF) would allow us to potentially obtain that platform as a DFS vehicle for our LAV Battalions/Cavalry Regiments.
4. I remember reading on the details of the MPF that there is significant commonality in controls, etc. between the M10 and the M1A2 such that the US Army was going to have a common Armor Crewman training stream for both vehicles. That would potentially work well for Canada if we purchase the M1A2 to replace our Leopards and M10's for DFS/Cavalry. You could even train on the cheaper/less costly to run M10s and save the hours on the M1A2's.

Edited to add:

Here's the Task & Purpose article that discussed the commonalities between the MPF and the M1A2:

I think that there is likely to be very little in common between the C2 of a 4-man Abrams crew and the 2-man crew with RWS and coffee found in the OMFVs on offer.

They may be getting some kip in their seats while another crew in the platoon controls all three or four vehicles. Or the vehicles are playing follow the leader in convoy.

 

[Kirkhill]

So neither the Griffin III or the M10 Booker use the AJAX/ASCORD chassis.


@GR66 yeah I am not thrilled with the 6 man dismount package.
The Army here has determined that 6 dismounts isn’t enough for a Squad.
The original Bradley cross load was a mess - and the attempts at 6 and 8 Bradley’s / platoon have been working to figure out what is the best way forward.
1) 8 vehicles: 2 vehicles / squad with 10 squad members and room for 2 attachments/ squad (medics, interpreter, humint, UAS op etc) this also provides some very limited ability to cross load if a vehicle goes down
2) 6 Vehicles / platoon.
A) Crossloaded Squads using 6 Bradley’s which reduces the debacle from the doctrinal cross loading jugfuck a bit.
B) Adding a Squad and Spt Team to the Platoon and sticking to 6 man

I suspect that either PM OMFV and the Infantry have a strained relationship, and just don’t care what TRADOC has been working on with the Infantry School, or have decided that 6-8 Vehicles / Platoon is new standard.

Or maybe Armored Infantry will operate differently than Mech/Medium/Motorized/Light/Airborne/Heliborne?

Not without precedent.

 

[KevinB]

I think that there is likely to be very little in common between the C2 of a 4-man Abrams crew and the 2-man crew with RWS and coffee found in the OMFVs on offer.

They may be getting some kip in their seats while another crew in the platoon controls all three or four vehicles. Or the vehicles are playing follow the leader in convoy.

His point was the M10 and the M1A2 share FCS not related to the OMFV.

Or maybe Armored Infantry will operate differently than Mech/Medium/Motorized/Light/Airborne/Heliborne?

Not without precedent.

No disagreement— but considering the work being done with the Bradley - suggests that the CAB Mech Inf belief is that issue.

It’s a 40-50t vehicle, fitting 2-4 extra dismounts shouldn’t cause significant issues.

 

[Kirkhill]

His point was the M10 and the M1A2 share FCS not related to the OMFV.


No disagreement— but considering the work being done with the Bradley - suggests that the CAB Mech Inf belief is that issue.

It’s a 40-50t vehicle, fitting 2-4 extra dismounts shouldn’t cause significant issues.

Dr and CC and engine occupy 1/3 of the box or 33%. 6 GIBs occupy 2/3 of the box or 66%.

4 more GIBs expands the 66% to 66 + 44 or 110%. Add the 33% in the front and you now have a box that is 143% of the length of the 2+6 box. Your 7.2m Lynx just became a 10m Lynx.

Your mass won't increase by 43% but 20% wouldn't surprise me.

So your 40 to 50 becomes 48 to 60.
and you need a lot more JP8 to run the beast.

Unless you intend to reduce the space available to each troopie?

 

[KevinB]

Dr and CC and engine occupy 1/3 of the box or 33%. 6 GIBs occupy 2/3 of the box or 66%.

4 more GIBs expands the 66% to 66 + 44 or 110%. Add the 33% in the front and you now have a box that is 143% of the length of the 2+6 box. Your 7.2m Lynx just became a 10m Lynx.

Your mass won't increase by 43% but 20% wouldn't surprise me.

So your 40 to 50 becomes 48 to 60.
and you need a lot more JP8 to run the beast.

Unless you intend to reduce the space available to each troopie?

Except the rear ‘boxes’ on those are both significantly larger than the Bradley - and have the ability not to create a moronic seating setup based on the idea that 4 troops would be shooting out of gun ports with M231’s

 

[Kirkhill]

Except the rear ‘boxes’ on those are both significantly larger than the Bradley - and have the ability not to create a moronic seating setup based on the idea that 4 troops would be shooting out of gun ports with M231’s

True that - but how expensive would it have been to change the seating to hammocks on the walls of the Bradley?

In the meantime. for reference, this is a 10m long vehicle.




So it is not totally impractical. Although it would make for a bigger target with fewer places to hide.

On the plus side?

The increased internal volume would increase the reserve buoyancy and make it more likely to float. And the increased length with the same width could increase its speed in the water .... and make it more stable.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well BAE is out, as I made sad CV90 type noises.

GDLS and Rheinmetal USA advanced.

Here’s who will move forward in the Bradley replacement competition

The Army has picked two teams to move into a detailed design phase of the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle competition.

www.defensenews.com

The Army hasn’t fully cemented its requirements, but is seeking a hybrid vehicle featuring a suite of lethal capabilities to include a 50mm cannon, a remote turret, anti-tank guided missiles, machine guns employed through an advanced third-generation forward-looking infrared sensor and “intelligent fire control,” Brig Gen. Geoff Norman told reporters during the press briefing.


Note: at this point only 2 crew positions and 6 dismount positions.
Which is rather shocking since the Infantry wants a 10-12 person Squad, and has been playing with 8 Bradley’s / Platoon in tactical development to accomplish that.

I wonder if BAE wasn't willing to make changes or follow certain rules. The CV 90 has good sales already and likley more on the books in the near future. May have not been worth the squeeze to deal with the US?

 

[Spencer100]

I wonder if BAE wasn't willing to make changes or follow certain rules. The CV 90 has good sales already and likley more on the books in the near future. May have not been worth the squeeze to deal with the US?

BAE has the AMPV program. And the M109PIM.

GD just got M10, plus another order for 300 new stykers


Textron could use the work with Rheinmetall.

I drove by the Rheinmetall USA shop the other day. All three are in Sterling Heights just outside of Detroit. GD, and BAE too.

 

[KevinB]

I wonder if BAE wasn't willing to make changes or follow certain rules. The CV 90 has good sales already and likley more on the books in the near future. May have not been worth the squeeze to deal with the US?

I tend to doubt that. It’s a giant program, and BAE actively courted it this time around.
As @Spencer100 noted below their US facility got AMPV, but it’s not nearly the scope that OMFV is to be.

BAE has the AMPV program. And the M109PIM.

GD just got M10, plus another order for 300 new stykers


Textron could use the work with Rheinmetall.

I drove by the Rheinmetall USA shop the other day. All three are in Sterling Heights just outside of Detroit. GD, and BAE too.

Textron got the FLRAA, (Bell is part of that entity), and needs to expand their operations into other Textron facilities (as I understand it that was part of their submission) as Bell’s facilities aren’t nearly close enough to be large enough to support that contract.


The question to me is more will the advantage of a common platform for the M10 and XM30 be of a significant weighting or not.
Off the start the GD option already has the Army’s preferred cannon as well, and the RM most likely needs to change their design.

It will be interesting, and a lot of Bradley will be available at fire sale pricing (too bad the CA doesn’t like picking up stuff on the used market like the RCAF and RCN have done)

 

[FJAG]

(too bad the CA doesn’t like picking up stuff on the used market like the RCAF and RCN have done)

Our Leopards were used and bought at real good fire sale prices. Most of our Sperwer TUAVs were used.

 

[Spencer100]

I tend to doubt that. It’s a giant program, and BAE actively courted it this time around.
As @Spencer100 noted below their US facility got AMPV, but it’s not nearly the scope that OMFV is to be.




Textron got the FLRAA, (Bell is part of that entity), and needs to expand their operations into other Textron facilities (as I understand it that was part of their submission) as Bell’s facilities aren’t nearly close enough to be large enough to support that contract.


The question to me is more will the advantage of a common platform for the M10 and XM30 be of a significant weighting or not.
Off the start the GD option already has the Army’s preferred cannon as well, and the RM most likely needs to change their design.

It will be interesting, and a lot of Bradley will be available at fire sale pricing (too bad the CA doesn’t like picking up stuff on the used market like the RCAF and RCN have done)

Interesting about Bell. Are they going to use the (Cadillac Gage) Facility? The Louisiana location that build the TAPV is probably looking for work? Going from heavy automotive construction to aerospace. But they do build the LCAC too so a boat that flys

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we stay with the Leopard, it would be nice if we put in for 10 new tanks a year and donate the older ones to Ukraine. We would have to tag onto some of the current orders and those nations might be willing to allow it if we are giving armour to Ukraine.