You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Land of the Free
General Dynamics to Compete for Contract Worth Billions to Replace Bradley Fighting Vehicle
2023-07-03
[Times of San Diego] The U.S. Army said this week that it had selected General Dynamics and American Rheinmetall to compete to replace the Bradley fighting vehicle.

The deal could be worth more than $45 billion to the winner.

The two, narrowed from an original field of five, will get contracts to develop detailed digital designs and later prototypes for testing. The total award value for both initial contracts is approximately $1.6 billion.

A single competition winner will be given a production contract in 2027, Army officials said, with fielding of the first vehicles in 2029. The Army said it will decide by 2027 how many of the vehicles it will buy.

Replacing the Bradley is part of a broader modernization plan across the Army, including efforts to improve firing precision over long distances, upgrading missile defenses and development of a new combat vehicle and a new helicopter.

Dubbed the XM30 mechanized infantry combat vehicle, the new tracked vehicle is expected to have a hybrid-electric engine, carry up to six passengers and include a 50-millimeter turret-mounted gun, as well as other machine guns and anti-tank weapons.

Ultimately, some of the functions of the vehicle would be autonomous, Army officials said.

The Army has struggled to replace the Bradley over a number of years, with a previous attempt abandoned.
Posted by:Frank G

#22  Yeah, getting around the spam filter is a fun game :)

The 50mm will be in the next version of whatever IFV/AFV and it will be the XM193 at this point. The real challenge will be to make a vehicle that can deliver more than the old Bradley can and that is where programs will die. They will have the gun, replacement to the TOW-2 and active defense systems.

The real challenge will be getting a cheap and effective drone killer in some form.
Posted by: DarthVader   2023-07-03 22:35  

#21  I consider it a fun game when one of my comments doesn't take.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2023-07-03 20:18  

#20  learning curve. I've been here since the start and still on it
Posted by: Frank G   2023-07-03 20:15  

#19  Yeah, Frank G, it really doesn't like X_X_X without the blanks. Seems rather obvious once I look at it.
Posted by: magpie   2023-07-03 20:13  

#18  Re: #11.
What I would want is one of Bolo Mk.37 *Grin*. Why kill when you can overkill?

...maybe this was what got spamcopped? Okay, does it hate Roman Numeral '37' for *cough* reasons...
Posted by: magpie   2023-07-03 20:10  

#17  That read fine?
Posted by: Frank G   2023-07-03 20:10  

#16  Re: #11.
Infantry Fighting Vehicle vs. a mini-Tank? The 50mm cannon seems a classic road to the Program being cancelled for producing a vehicle that is too big, too heavy and too expensive for its role. Add some Javelin-like missile tubes if some longer-ranged firepower is needed and keep a smaller weapon with lots of ammunition (while leaving enough room for the dismounts).
Posted by: magpie   2023-07-03 20:07  

#15  Pr0n. T0rd@do.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2023-07-03 19:43  

#14  Alternative spellings?
"That foking 50mm is too golldarn short on range and shallow on load."
Posted by: Skidmark   2023-07-03 19:42  

#13  There are words you can't use. Copy your comment to the clipboard and try altering words you think (should know by now if you are a regular) are the offenders.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2023-07-03 19:39  

#12  ??
Posted by: Frank G   2023-07-03 19:35  

#11  Funny, my comment keeps getting spamcopped for some reason
Posted by: magpie   2023-07-03 18:20  

#10  @magpie

That is currently what is needed to punch through IVF and AFV currently. The old 30mm Bushmaster just isn't enough anymore to get the job done (unless you run Russian or North Korean versions). Would you rather have 250 rounds that reach out farther and gets a kill with a couple shots, or 500 rounds that don't reach as far and are as effective as a spitball?
Posted by: DarthVader   2023-07-03 15:40  

#9  ...include a 50-millimeter turret-mounted gun
WTF? The M4 Sherman had a 75mm gun because a 56mm shell just doesn't have enough volume for an effective HE charge. Besides the larger the calibre the fewer the shells that can be packed in the vehicle and remember there are still supposed to be infantry dismounts, yes? Are we reprising the movie The Pentagon Wars(1998) ??
Posted by: magpie   2023-07-03 14:53  

#8  $45 billion

However, you are unwilling and incapable of defending our own southern border. Why do you exist? /rhet question
Posted by: Procopius2k   2023-07-03 13:56  

#7  include a 50-millimeter turret-mounted gun

The company just did its first torture test of the prototype last month. They expected some hang ups as they are still getting the bugs out with jams or software goofs.

To their surprise, it rattled off 500 rounds nonstop without a single issue.

Next up they will put it on some type of chassis and see if it works bouncing around a field.
Posted by: DarthVader   2023-07-03 10:54  

#6  I am leaning toward the Israeli practice of using tank hulls for AFV's.

I am leaning toward the Ukraine practice of using tank hulls forIED's.
Posted by: Skidmark   2023-07-03 10:02  

#5  I am leaning toward the Israeli practice of using tank hulls for AFV's.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2023-07-03 09:41  

#4  How long until the AI robots unionize?
Posted by: Glenmore    2023-07-03 09:30  

#3  Autonomous functions? Robot driven, robot personnel? Must be, otherwise the vehicle will be obsolete.
Posted by: Tarzan Grolump8219   2023-07-03 09:14  

#2  Of course, of course.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2023-07-03 08:51  

#1  "[GD] to compete..."

LOL, "compete". Sure, sure.
Posted by: DooDahMan   2023-07-03 07:24  

00:00