Military Review

US Army awards contracts to build hybrid combat vehicles to replace Bradley

15
US Army awards contracts to build hybrid combat vehicles to replace Bradley

This summer, a request for proposals was published in the US for industry to develop and build prototypes for a program of new (hybrid) combat vehicles. Applications are due in early November, said Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, executive director of the Army's Ground Combat Systems Program.


Last year, the US Army awarded contracts for the development of preliminary designs within 12 months. Five companies took part in it: Oshkosh Defense, BAE Systems, General Dynamics Land Systems, American Rheinmetall Vehicles and Point Blank Enterprises.

There are vehicle suppliers who did not participate in the first stage, but theoretically could compete. We think that all five current competitors will be bidding. Each must make their own business decision about the likelihood of success in the next step.

Major General Glenn Dean said.

The Army has adjusted its RFP several times based on industry feedback, Dean said. In September, the Army issued an amendment requiring every company that applied to complete a "task" for a modular open systems architecture, he said.

The Bradley replacement could be the US Army's first hybrid combat vehicle.

The original concept called for 12, but the army required 7 vehicles with the possibility of delivering four more. The change allows the service to manage the high cost of prototypes.

The optional manned combat vehicle program team is working with the Army's Test and Evaluation Command to test digital systems, which could enable earlier and faster testing with fewer prototypes, Dean said. The Army also allows industry teams to suggest when they are ready to review a project, rather than having the service set hard and fast deadlines.

He added that the army expects to award a contract with three manufacturers around April 2023. The detailed design phase will take place in FY 2023 and 2024, and the prototype phase will begin in FY 2025.

Washington expects to select one company in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2027 to produce small-scale cars. Commissioning of the first such machine is scheduled for fiscal year 2029, and full-scale production should begin in fiscal year 2030.
Author:
15 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 11 October 2022 08: 07
    -1
    US Army awards contracts to build hybrid combat vehicles to replace Bradley
    Move, islanders, stop smoking dope.
  2. lucul
    lucul 11 October 2022 08: 12
    -4
    Ours also need to proceed from the concept - an infantry fighting vehicle should weigh at least 20 tons, and not "no more" than 20 tons as it is now.
    Only with a weight of 20-25 tons can you create an infantry fighting vehicle acceptable in terms of characteristics (weapons, dimensions for landing, and armor).
    As the experience of military operations in Ukraine has shown, the ability to swim does not belong to the primary functions of the BMP.
    1. Konnick
      Konnick 11 October 2022 08: 25
      +2
      As the experience of military operations in Ukraine has shown, the ability to swim does not belong to the primary functions of the BMP.

      Therefore, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are trying to establish crossings

      "On the Krasnolimansky direction, units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine unsuccessfully tried to force the Zherebets River in the areas of the settlements of Makeyevka and Raigorodka of the Luhansk People's Republic. All attempts by the Armed Forces of Ukraine to establish crossings across the river were thwarted by concentrated fire from rocket troops and artillery"

      And there were classic armored vehicles, floating armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles and tanks with a snorkel, and not all sorts of fashionable armored cars on 4 wheels, they would have crossed the river long ago.
      1. lucul
        lucul 11 October 2022 08: 30
        0
        Therefore, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are trying to establish crossings

        They had a bunch of infantry fighting vehicles 1-2, and still they used crossings for infantry fighting vehicles even then, and did not cross the rivers by swimming.
      2. vadimtt
        vadimtt 11 October 2022 08: 38
        +4
        Floating equipment floats relatively well. But forcing is not only about swimming. The problem of landfall in rivers is noticeably more acute than on the sea coast. So self-propelled and towed pontoons are the key to the success of any operation. And heavy infantry fighting vehicles will definitely take most of the motorized infantry to the right place, unlike floating counterparts with armor from a nail gun.
      3. cold wind
        cold wind 11 October 2022 08: 43
        +1
        Quote: Konnick
        And there were classic armored vehicles, floating armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles and tanks with a snorkel, and not all sorts of fashionable armored cars on 4 wheels, they would have crossed the river long ago.

        This all works only in theory. In reality, such forcings are impossible. Bridges or pontoons are needed.
        Let me remind you from May 7 to 11, at the crossing near Belogorovka, our BTG was completely destroyed.
        In total, the losses of the RF Armed Forces were confirmed by the photo:

        - BMP / BMD - 38 units;
        - armored personnel carrier - 4 units;
        - Tank T-72 - 6 units;
        - Trucks - 3 units;
        - MT-LB - 4 units;
        - Boats - 2 units;
        - Machines for the construction of pontoon crossings - 5 units;
        - BREM - 1 unit;
        - Other AFVs - 9 units.

        Naturally, all this floated, but on the move, forcing even such rivers is impossible. I consider the preservation of the buoyancy requirement for armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles of the ground forces to be sabotage.
        1. bayard
          bayard 11 October 2022 10: 27
          +1
          Quote from cold wind
          I consider the preservation of the buoyancy requirement for armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles of the ground forces to be sabotage.

          Well, one should not rush to extremes either, especially since at the moment in our Armed Forces all infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are floating. In addition, the BMP-3, and especially the BMP-3M "Dragoon" in full body kit (with side screens from the "Kurganets") both swims and is armed better than any light tank, and 30 mm. the projectile holds both on the forehead and on the side.
          But the fact that total buoyancy for armored vehicles is not needed for nothing, you are absolutely right. I think the ratio of floating / non-floating equipment 1 / 3 would be optimal. And it is necessary to equip the floating vanguard units and reconnaissance units. The rest of the infantry should be equipped with heavy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers based on tank chassis. Moreover, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle can be completely abandoned - its place in the attacking formations will be taken by the BMPT (it is better if it is the "Terminator-2", aka BMPT-72), TBTR on a tank chassis and with the same level of tank protection, spacious (for 14 - 16 people), but simple and armed with a light uninhabited combat module.
          But these are all dreams of the future, but for now, old BMP-1 \ 2, BTR-80, MTLB are taken out and brought back to life from storage bases. And I would like to at least strengthen the armor of the BMP-1 and BMP-2.
          But for the future, it is necessary to categorically reconsider the attitude of the Ministry of Defense towards armored vehicles for infantry. We have too little of this infantry (as well as the male population suitable for it) to put it in the "mass graves of the infantry". The TBTR should be as simple as possible, made on the chassis of a serial MBT, have tank-level protection, including dynamic, light combat module (of the class that is on the BTR-82A) and a spacious troop compartment for 14 - 16 troops. All shock and tank formations should switch to such TBTRs and get into service BMPT (ShMPP).
          1. cold wind
            cold wind 11 October 2022 10: 53
            0
            Have you seen the BMP-3 "Manul"? A dragoon with an uninhabited Boomerang module, in my opinion, is an ideal infantry fighting vehicle for us, the optimal combination of landing capacity and firepower. You can make an armored personnel carrier based on them by replacing the BM with a cheaper one. You can get a line of light tank (Dragoon) / BMP (Manul) / armored personnel carrier.

            The same BMP-1/2 can be upgraded by strengthening the chassis.
            Bradley once knew how to swim.

            Now it has become almost 2 times heavier and meets all modern requirements.
            1. bayard
              bayard 11 October 2022 11: 48
              +1
              Quote from cold wind
              Have you seen the BMP-3 "Manul"? Dragoon with uninhabited Boomerang module,

              A good version of the BMP-3 with a cheaper module and a roomy troop compartment. At the same time, waterfowl is preserved.
              But the need for an TBTR remains relevant, its survival and landing survival will be an order of magnitude higher. And put the same "Berezhok" on such a TBTR and voila - we have TBMP. And the waterfowl "Dragoons" and "Manulas" are used by reconnaissance and vanguard units. But this is for the future.
              Quote from cold wind
              The same BMP-1/2 can be upgraded by strengthening the chassis.

              The "Afghan" upgrade option would be the most relevant for extending the service life of the BMP-1M \ 2M. But I am afraid that in the current conflict there simply will not be the necessary production capacities for such work. And it would be necessary.
  3. cold wind
    cold wind 11 October 2022 08: 17
    -9
    Everything will end with a hybrid version of Bradley. There is nothing fundamentally better in the world than this BMP. If there is nothing qualitatively better, there is no point in changing.
    And the hybrid power plant, ideal for modern technology, has been proven by Belazs.
    1. lucul
      lucul 11 October 2022 08: 20
      +1
      There is nothing fundamentally better in the world than this BMP

      What ? Do you think that Bradley is better armed than our BMP-3? )))
  4. Fizik13
    Fizik13 11 October 2022 08: 24
    +1
    Oh, these green Abrams and F-35s will soon be transplanted to batteries. The main thing is to be in the trend of today.
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 11 October 2022 08: 50
      0
      Quote from Fizik13
      The main thing is to be in the trend of today.

      Whatever the child is not amused, if only he hangs himself faster.
    2. ZuekRek
      ZuekRek 11 October 2022 19: 44
      +1
      So what's wrong with their concept of war? Email stations or "camping" windmills / solar panels that charge batteries at the bases. And no hemorrhoids with fuel logistics. I don't think they should be treated with disdain. If they do something, this is an occasion to at least think about it.
  5. Buyan
    Buyan 12 October 2022 23: 02
    0
    And why is there no ROSTECH among the participants? wassat they would have muddied like a first aid kit wassat