BMP "Bradley": the third attempt to replace?


Last year, the US Army once again began to move on the topic of replacing the same BMP "Bradley". This is the third attempt in the last 20 years, and no wonder, in general, since these BMPs have been in service with the US Army and the National Guard since 1981.


That is almost 40 years old.

It is clear that upgrades, modifications, and everything else can extend the life of a combat vehicle for a long time. You don’t have to go anywhere for examples, just remember the BMP-1 (in service since 1966) and the T-72 (since 1973), and everything falls into place. Armored vehicles in general can live a very long time ... There would be a desire.

The American army has a desire to change something. But there is definitely no certainty about what to change and how.

On the one hand, obsolete equipment must be changed. Any sane person would agree with this. Maybe not for something epoch-making, and God forbid, "having no analogues in the world", but simply for a new one.

And now, the third attempt. OMFV.


Photo: Nicholas Drummond

And again, the Stop command was given from Washington.

Not so long ago, many specialized media in the United States discussed everything related to this. The army canceled the previously announced competition for the new BMP and announced a review of its project requirements.

What is the reason for such a sharp turn?

It turned out that the matter was not at all in an overly complex design from the technical side and not even in the eternal compromise of armor and mobility. Everyone is silent about the combat component, it is known that the Bradley destroyed more armored vehicles in two Iraq wars than the Abrams.

The matter turned out to be in some nuances of the East European infrastructure.

But one should not even start with European problems, but what OMFV project was all about.

The first attempt was the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.

BMP "Bradley": the third attempt to replace?

It began in 2003 and was canceled in 2009. At its core, this program was not just a replacement program for the old BMP. It provided for the development of a whole line of new models of military equipment, and the equipment of the brigades was to include various types of robotic ground equipment and drones. All this required the creation of wireless high-speed combat control networks.

At the implementation stage at that time, most of these systems and technological solutions did not meet the established requirements. The FCS program was created with a reserve for the future, when all the innovations can be pulled to the required technical and technological level.

The second attempt is the Combat Vehicle Ground (CVG) program.


It was worked out from 2009 to 2014. The essence of this rearmament program was to develop a single combat platform. The main objective was to deliver the infantry squad to the front line and its support.

At its core, the new platform was supposed to be able to conduct the battle in the same ranks with the Abrams MBT.

The main reason for criticizing the CVG program was a serious increase in the mass and size of prototypes (up to 70-80 tons). This circumstance completely excluded or significantly limited the possibility of rapid operational deployment (including by military transport aviation) The abandonment of the program led to the next modernization of Abrams and Bradley.

The third attempt is just the OMFV program.


It was assumed that four firms would fight for the contract, General Dynamics Land System (GLDS), Rheinmetall & Raytheon (R&R), BAE Systems and Hanwha.

However, at the very beginning of October 2019, the British BAE Systems and the South Korean Hanwha voluntarily refused to participate in the competition.

Under the terms of the tender, only two organizations should participate in the final selection, which automatically became GDLS and R&R.

Basic requirements for a new car from the US Army:
- the weight of the new machine should not exceed the weight of the latest M2 Bradley modifications;
- in the transport aircraft S-17 should be placed two cars;
- a set of additional dynamic protection;
- modular active protection MAPS;
- Thermal sensors of the third generation FLIR;
- 50 mm automatic gun (in perspective).

The army wanted the OMFV to weigh no more than the heaviest armored versions of the Bradley, that is, about 45 tons. Logically, useful for the transfer using the Air Force. Alas, it did not work out, at least not yet.

But here there was a conflict between weight and protection against the ever-increasing calibers of armored vehicles of a potential enemy. It is clear who we are talking about when we talk about the actions of the American army in Europe. Not about Iran.

It became clear that something had to be done with the mass of infantry fighting vehicles. On the other hand, the US Army never deployed more or less large operations with the help of transport aircraft. Never. Just because it needed just a gigantic amount of aircraft, and the United States at all times operated to deliver equipment in large quantities by sea.

Yes, in all operations since World War II, the U.S. Army deployed military equipment by sea. It is cheaper and the quantities are quite appropriate. Something urgently could be thrown by air, nothing more.

In addition, do not forget that the bulk of military equipment is stored in warehouses at military bases around the world. Where the equipment is also delivered by sea. But the American brigades have everything they need in their warehouses, and even not far from potential conflict zones.

There is also a certain limiting factor for technology, but in reality fleet and warehouses is the volume.

And in the end, there is only one factor. The one that was discussed at the very beginning. East European geographical factor.

When the US Army fights (or pretends to be fighting) in the deserts of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan, there are their own requirements for technology. But when it comes to Europe ...

Europe differs from Iraq and Afghanistan (many other places in the world) by the presence of two unpleasant factors.

These are rivers and Russians. In any order.

If we talk about rivers first (let’s leave the most tasteless for later), then this is the Danube, Elba, Rhine, Vistula, Tisza, Prut ... And just a huge number of small rivers, rivers and streams, which are still an obstacle to technology.

And here either bridges or pontoons, ferries and so on arise. That is, again the weight.

What does this mean militarily? Well, this has been discussed so many times when it comes to tanks. “Abrams”, “Challenger”, “Leopard” ... They all stepped over 60 tons and far from everywhere they can confidently drive.

The lighter Bradley is able to drive infantry to the line of contact with the enemy, rush it, and perhaps even provide support to the infantry for some time. Till Tanks do not crawl.

But here is the second factor. Russians. No, they are, of course, almost knights, and perhaps even wait for the tanks to approach, but hardly in order to arrange a classic battle. Most likely, just to not beat the flies at retail, but to arrange a wholesale massacre.

And yes, it dawned on the Americans. What is the point of spending time and money developing a new BMP if it cannot be applied at the most promising theater of operations?

Of course, there are bridges that will not collapse under the weight of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. There are ferries. There are engineering parts that will lead ferries.

Everything rests on the capabilities of a potential adversary. That is us.

That's why the American army has such a difficult dilemma: either to build a heavy infantry fighting vehicle that can withstand fire, but will not pass everywhere, forgetting about efficiency, or think again.

Apparently, they will think.

Nothing, the Bradley will still fight.

Based on materials: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/omfv-the-armys-polish-bridge-problem/.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Pike 11 February 2020 07: 06 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    And so how long Bradley was created ...) The mass grew, the number of landing decreased ...)))
    An interesting film about this is: "The Pentagon Wars." A few frames from it:
  3. rocket757 11 February 2020 07: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Again and again ... wait for the end result, in general.
    I’d like to say that if they gave smaller “steroids” to this “baby”, it painfully swells from them.
    Although, this is their business.
  4. Lamata 11 February 2020 07: 44 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Okay so, bring the BMP to 60 70 tons !!!
    1. V.I.P. 11 February 2020 17: 36 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Well, what's wrong with that? Israeli BMP "Namer" weighs 60 tons. Armament - various DUM, including with a 30 mm gun. Installed KAZ "Trophy" Powerful protection. They consider it good and buy for themselves. They have limited human resources compared to their neighbors. That's why people are cherished ...
      1. 5-9
        5-9 12 February 2020 07: 12 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        They have a rocky desert under the tracks - in another locality, he, together with Carrots, will drown 2 meters from the asphalt .... well, they "take care of people" - announce how many Namers they have (Carrots as a base), what is their price how many people he takes and how many pihots of everything in the IDF, what proportion is provided by the BTR / BMP ... And then the Germans in Puma protected as much as 2 thousand people can seat, and the rest - in five ...
        For reference - in the Russian Federation there are no "infantry" at all (except for mountainous parts), only motorized rifle on an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle.
  5. Private-K 11 February 2020 08: 40 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    If we leave out the brackets of thought about cuts-kickbacks and other things like that, then, I think, the situation is in the military-technical plane like this: the new projected American infantry fighting vehicles did not provide the necessary growth rate of combat capabilities.
    Those. 20-30% growth was not achieved. Neither in terms of security, nor mobility, nor firepower. And if it was achieved, then the constructional price of increasing protection fell into exorbitant mass. The United States does not have new models for the main armament of the BMP or it is too buggy.
    At the same time, they had a huge cost - on a par with MBT, or even more. Moreover, the requirements for the level of maintenance sharply increased - the US Army cannot afford to have combat vehicles that are not repaired under internal army conditions, as European countries (BMP Puma) do in some cases.

    PS And senators and congressmen do not want to believe in the PR-proverbial verbiage of producers.
    1. psiho117 11 February 2020 09: 22 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Private-K
      The USA does not have new models for the main armament of the BMP or it is too buggy

      Yes, and for a long time. ATK BUSHMASTER III, fires 35x288 and 50x330 Supershot ammunition. By replacing the barrel and several components it turns from 35mm to 50mm.
      And the "European partners" have - Rheinmetall Rh503, a similar system of 35/50 mm.

      In general, these "Super Shots" are a great idea that allows you to upgrade the gun systems of combat vehicles without increasing the mass dimensions. 30mm turns into 40mm, and 35mm into 50mm. Brilliantly simple ...
      1. Private-K 11 February 2020 12: 22 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        What you bring no more than experimental development unprepared for one reason or another for deliveries to the troops.
        If the Amers really had something, then they would have long ago begun re-equipping Bradley - what have they wanted since the 1991 war!
        1. A.TOR 11 February 2020 16: 43 New
          • 4
          • 9
          -5
          Fortunately (for America) there are a fairly small number of psychopaths who run around the local Shoigu shouting "... the enemies are right on the doorstep! Now they will strike !! Everything is out of date with us !!!"
          They think first, then they count money and ... think again
          1. Winnie76 11 February 2020 17: 27 New
            • 7
            • 1
            +6
            Quote: A.TOR
            They think first, then they count money and ... think again

            Shaw seriously? Just a fabulous country Limpopo. Everything is smart, not like ours laughing What do these intellectuals flock to with the Russian Federation, having tenfold superiority in the military budget?
            1. A.TOR 11 February 2020 19: 06 New
              • 2
              • 6
              -4
              Those. if the RF had 10-fold superiority, then immediately crush the infection-ju ?!

              You will communicate and understand that the situation is good, just as it is
              1. Essex62 11 February 2020 19: 38 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                What good? We have to fear, splurge. Russian needy for another yacht is not enough. And so crushed and sleep peacefully on the bag stolen. The director does not bother; he does not need to unfasten his defense.
                1. A.TOR 11 February 2020 20: 03 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  I do not quite understand, but somehow it sounds hopeless ...
                  1. Essex62 12 February 2020 08: 13 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    The gap in perception, the sarcasm of Soviet people is not clear. You haven’t written to the subcortex “beyond the Berlin wall, the enemy, capitalism is a total evil.” And now the enemy of the house is steering and pretending to be overwhelmed with this evil. All these disassemblies concern us indirectly, moneybags, ours and others, share in whose pocket the broth from resources will go.
                    1. A.TOR 12 February 2020 15: 38 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      I am 60, but "to the core" I always wrote myself.
                      By the way, "obsalyutnoe" is written ABSOLUTE
                      In addition, I live in Russia no more than 3 months a year, so I see everything more real
                      1. Essex62 12 February 2020 15: 58 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        So that’s what we are talking about, you weren’t bothered with the same and we are now reaping the benefits. Unless of course you are born in the Union. You did not understand, because “let the situation is better” is natural for you. And you yourself couldn’t write to your subcortex, the child was born a clean file, then they’ll write it down. And you don’t need to poke me into mistakes, you can confuse, or even skip, a finger in the iPad with a finger.
                      2. A.TOR 12 February 2020 16: 26 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Sorry for the comment.
                      3. Essex62 12 February 2020 16: 38 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Is accepted.
                      4. A.TOR 12 February 2020 16: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Why did the admin destroy my answer during the writing process?
          2. Winnie76 12 February 2020 04: 39 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: A.TOR
            Those. if the RF had 10-fold superiority, then immediately crush the infection-ju ?!

            I recall a quote from Barak Huseynovich: There are three threats to peace. Isil, Russia and Ebolo. Naturally we would be crushed if we could
            Quote: A.TOR
            You will communicate and understand that the situation is good, just as it is

            Everything flows, everything changes
            1. A.TOR 12 February 2020 15: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I do not understand anything
      2. Private-K 11 February 2020 22: 20 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        And you write this in an article where you just said that the Americans have already BARRIED THREE programs to create new BMP spending tens of yards of dead presidents ???? good laughing Yes, they only spent more on these programs than the entire military annual budget of the Russian Federation.
    2. psiho117 12 February 2020 08: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Private-K
      nothing more than experimental development

      Mli-in .... Well, why do something stupid to write? fool
      this concept is already 30 years old, and guns and shells worked out a long time ago:
      Bushmaster 3 was a product of the 2000s, and the Germans developed their Rh 503 already in the 87th year, even for Marder, yeah, just the collapse of the USSR, plus East Germany, the closure of many programs ... In short - there was no money bully
      Everything is the same as ours. Well, the well-known conservatism of the generals.
      1. Private-K 12 February 2020 11: 29 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: psiho117
        this concept is already 30 years old, and guns and shells worked out a long time ago:
        Bushmaster 3 product of the 2000s, and the Germans developed their Rh 503, already in the 87th year, even for the "Marder"

        Explain on the fingers.
        Are you military. A blacksmith brought you a blacksmith (as he says). You look at the sword, try it - trash, not a sword. Unfit. But! To everyone in the district, you are telling me that you have a supermarket-swarmman.
        Those., autocannon data, experts of the Ministry of Defense of the USA, Germany, etc. recognized them unsuitable for adoption. Those. - weapons, in real life, no.
        The fact is that since 1981, the United States has not adopted a single new autocannon into service with the SV and ILC.
  • Vladimir_2U 11 February 2020 09: 19 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    What is the point of spending time and money developing a new BMP if it cannot be applied at the most promising theater of operations?
    Rather, a futile theater, completely hopeless. )))
  • Operator 11 February 2020 10: 30 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Long live the reincarnation of Future Combat Systems (which is expected to eat all the money to develop American hypersound) laughing
  • Cowbra 11 February 2020 11: 10 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    As I said, instead of BMP Bradley will be BMP Horseradish. SchA. I’ll only sharpen the saw ... And then the old one for 17 years of continuous replacements has faded
  • demiurg 11 February 2020 12: 42 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    It is not only a gain in performance characteristics.

    Roughly speaking, if the machine is protected from 14.5 and weighs 25 tons, and there is a Wishlist so that it can hold 30 mm, the mass of the machine will increase to 40-45 tons. But if you design a machine from scratch with protection from 30mm shells, it will weigh 5-7 tons less.
    That is, if from scratch to create a car with security at the level of modern Bradley, then it will weigh not 45, but 35-40 tons. And the saved weight can already be put on anything.
    There is rather an unsolvable dilemma. A big war machine and a Bantustan safari machine are two big differences.
    Marines rode around Iraq on their floating transporters. True, they were hung with all kinds of cast iron to such an extent that they had to forget about buoyancy. Nevertheless, the level of protection from the main means of destruction in the partisan war (mines and RPG-7) remained unsatisfactory.
    1. Private-K 11 February 2020 22: 30 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: demiurg
      Roughly speaking, if the machine is protected from 14.5 and weighs 25 tons, and there is a Wishlist so that it can hold 30 mm, the mass of the machine will increase to 40-45 tons. But if you design a machine from scratch with protection from 30mm shells, it will weigh 5-7 tons less.
      That is, if from scratch to create a car with security at the level of modern Bradley, then it will weigh not 45, but 35-40 tons. And the saved weight can already be put on anything.

      Exactly! BMP-3 weighs 19 tons in the basic version and has a lobeshnik from 30 mm.
      Now look. According to TTT of the United States Defense Ministry, the S-17 aircraft must transport two such vehicles. Those., one machine should not have a mass of more than 38 tons. At the same time, it must be fully operational.
      But American armored vehicles can not create a car with this weight and that it would have the required level of protection and new, more powerful weapons than Bradley’s.

      That's what an incident. wassat Ah trouble ... crying
  • honest people 11 February 2020 15: 37 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    US Army Bradley BMP at exercises in Bulgaria / M2 Bradley in Bulgaria
  • Oleg83 11 February 2020 16: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    There is still a tender involved in politics. If the Germans bought the F35, then the victory in the tender would have been won by Rheinmetall & Raytheon with the Lynx KF41 (it would have been produced in the USA with an American combat module). And so the Germans are not going to buy F35, plus Trump has a protectionist policy.
    Moreover, the Lynx KF41 is actually a ready-made machine and, according to the calculations of the American military economists, will cost much cheaper than developing an analogue from scratch
  • dokusib 11 February 2020 17: 34 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Something rivers and Russians reminded me of fools and roads. But seriously, it seems to me that only a heavy BMP will suit the Americans until they come to the realization of this fact that the replacement program will be canceled. It is not possible to put all their Wishlist into an acceptable framework for weight and size. Close amphibious compartments as on our BMP and armored personnel carriers are not for them. And these floating AAV7 “tracked houses” have tried many times to withdraw from service, but it doesn’t work out, they are modernizing and back in service. When they agree with the fact that one flight of an airplane is one tank or one BMP, things will go right at once. And the rivers will somehow teach him to force.
  • Narak-zempo 12 February 2020 09: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    not for something epoch-making, and God forbid, "having no analogues in the world"

    And what is wrong with "having no analogues"?