What successor for the M2 Bradley?

The US Army has entered a process of large-scale capability renewal. Very focused for more than two decades on the conduct of stabilization and counter-insurgency operations, the Ukrainian crisis associated with the constant strengthening of Russian and Chinese military capabilities have highlighted the US Army's shortcomings in terms of its capabilities. doctrinal, material and logistical to successfully conduct major air-land combat operations against an equivalent adversary. The informed observer will thus probably be aware of the many debates which have agitated for several years the establishment US military on the extent of organizational and capability transformations to be carried out in order to maintain superiority on future battlefields. The Bradley Replacement Program, associated more broadly with the broader reflections on the multi-domain battle, is part of.

Thus, if the US Army's budget for 2020 of $ 182 billion should be rather equivalent to the budget voted for 2019, the component of equipment acquisitions is almost exclusively dedicated to capacity renewal. The latter will be structured around six priorities: the LRPF program (Long Range Precision Fires) general renewal of the field artillery, the OMFV program (Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle) replacement for the Bradleys, the FVL (Future Vertical Lift) of a new generation helicopter to replace the UH-60, AH-64, CH-47 and OH-58, battlefield digitization, anti-aircraft defense and finally soldier lethality. About thirty systems, and in particular land combat platforms, will see their funding increase in order to accelerate an overall capacity renewal which should be completed around 2028. In particular, the replacement of the Bradley has become a priority since the abandonment of the M2A5 version. and the choice of the Army to quickly turn to a new platform: 387 million dollars are thus provided for this purpose for the year 2020 for the manufacture and testing of several prototypes. The information on the subject being quite abundant, it then seems particularly interesting to come back in detail on the possible successor of the Bradley in order to put things in perspective.

I - The Bradley: its genesis and its limits

Commissioned between 1981 and 1983 in the American mechanized regiments deployed in Europe against the Warsaw Pact, the Bradley is part of the 'Big Five', i.e. the series of major programs (M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, AH- 64 Apache, UH-60 Blackhawk and MIM-104 Patriot) initiated by the Americans following the Vietnam War. Counter-guerrilla operations having then become the dominant paradigm within the American military institution, the hypothesis of a high-intensity air-land engagement against the Soviets in Central Europe was largely abandoned, both in terms of doctrine and acquisition of new weapons systems. Logically, the observation drawn up at the beginning of the 1970s was no longer in favor of the Americans: the operations in Vietnam interrupted the development of numerous weapons systems for almost ten years, leaving the USSR to take a lead. advances in several areas (battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, combat helicopters, etc.). Compared to Soviet forces putting into service equipment of much better quality than previous generations, the American army in the mid-1970s found itself largely equipped with numerous equipment that was becoming obsolete.

It is generally considered that the introduction of the 'Big Five' during the 1980s bore fruit, since the technological balance was definitively restored in favor of NATO in the European theater. Concerning the specific case of the Bradley, this vehicle represented a certain upheaval in capabilities for the American mechanized infantry regiments, which at the end of the 1970s only had the M113 to try to compete with the Soviet BMP-1 introduced in 1967. In particular , its firepower was a breakthrough thanks to its chaingun M242 Bushmaster of 25 mm, very efficient to take on the masses of BTRs and BMPs of the Warsaw Pact, but also its twin TOW missile launcher in turret in the event of an encounter with MBTs. Thanks to its 903 horsepower Cummins VT500T engine which provided a sufficient power-to-weight ratio (around 21,7 hp/t), the M2 was fully capable of keeping up with the M1 tanks off-road. However, doubts were expressed regarding its survivability, the initial aluminum hull not being known for its ballistic resilience. However, thanks to high-performance optronics for the time to engage adversaries at long distances, this relative defect could theoretically be compensated for on the West European battlefield.

Since its introduction during this troubled period, the Bradley has been involved in every major post-Cold War American combat operation. Modernized accordingly for almost 30 years, the vehicle has today reached its limits in terms of architectural scalability:

• The torsion bar suspensions, even if they were reinforced during the life of the vehicle, are today at their load limit: initially, the M2 weighed 22,8 tonnes in combat order. With successive modernizations, the M2A3 in service today weighs 32,6, an increase of almost 42%. In addition to increased ground pressure at the expense of mobility on soft ground, ground clearance has decreased, from 0,46 to 0,39 cm. The vehicle has therefore become more vulnerable to buried mines and IEDs, which is paradoxical since the increase in the mass of the vehicle is notably due to the reactive armor tiles and the additional armor installed on the chassis and the turret.
• If the original 500 horsepower Cummins engine was boosted to 600 horsepower from the M2A2 version, this is not enough to compensate for the increase in the mass of the vehicle: of 21,7 hp/t., the weight/power ratio fell to 18 hp/t. barely on the M2A3s. Already becoming clumsy, with acceleration and top speed at half mast, the vehicle will not be able to withstand additional weighting while continuing to support the evolutions in tormented terrain of the M1 tanks in good conditions.
• The electrical power available on board is no longer sufficient for the installation of new additional equipment and new generation vetronics. Already during combat operations in Iraq, it was known that crews had to disable several vehicle functions in order to use their anti-IED jammers. The available power also remains a significant obstacle to the installation of an active protection system, the sensors and associated computers being very energy-consuming, in addition to adding some 500 kg to the combat mass of the vehicle (for the case of the Trophy-MV for example).
• Despite successive modernizations, ballistic protection cannot be adequate to allow the vehicle to operate on future battlefields with peace of mind. The Iraqi experience had already highlighted the vulnerability of the Bradley to RPG fire and buried IEDs, which had raised a number of questions regarding the survivability of the platform and even ultimately caused its withdrawal, around 2007. , combat operations for the benefit of the M1A2, MRAP and Stryker ICV which are more resistant due to their mass or their initial design (V-shaped hull).
• Finally since the A2 version, the Bradley can only transport 7 soldiers (in addition to the crew of 3 people), knowing that the American infantry squad is 9 personnel. Since its introduction, American mechanized infantry units have had to use four vehicles to transport three squads, which obviously poses problems of coordination of dismounted combat and significant additional budgetary costs.

Today, the Bradley modernization effort focuses on the M2A4 version so that the platform remains in service until around 2030 and its gradual replacement by the OMFV: it is planned that the engine, the cooling systems, the transmission and torsion bar suspensions will be reinforced, the available electrical power will be increased in order to accommodate additional equipment (C2 systems, sensors or even electronic warfare devices), while the vetronics will be modernized to optimize reception of these same elements by an architecture plug-and-play. Currently, a delivery contract for 473 M2A4 and M7A4 BFIST (support) is being completed by BAE Systems. For now, it appears to be 5 ABCT's equipment (Armored Brigade Combat Team), therefore 690 M2A4, which is on the agenda.

These vehicles are intended to be sent to Europe to equip the mechanized brigades prepositioned there. It is the same logic that prevails as for the M1A2 SEP V3 / M1A2C, namely the deployment of the most modernized versions in Europe and urgently. The Ukrainian crisis, during which Westerners were able to see the clear strengthening of Russian military capabilities which contrasted with years of stagnation, clearly played a shock role. Exactly as after the Vietnam War, major doubts then emerged as to the real capabilities of the American army to successfully conduct large-scale air-land operations on the Old Continent after nearly 15 years of counter-insurgency operations. in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Bradley M2A5, which was initially to be developed after the A4 version in the middle of the 2020 decade, was finally abandoned last year by the US Army in favor of the OMFV program, and therefore a new platform. In particular, it was a question of developing a new turret and/or a new complete chassis and integrating a 813 mm XM30 Orbital ATK cannon (the same as on the Stryker Dragoon) as well as a Trophy or Iron Fist active protection system. . Slow down the decommissioning of the Bradley in the face of its new Russian or Chinese competitors, equipped with heavy weapons and sometimes protection systems hard-kill, was thus very clearly the objective of this ultimate modernization. Remember that the Russian T-15, based on the Armata platform, has an Afganit active protection system capable of intercepting the TOW missiles used by the Bradley, very steeply inclined frontal armor probably capable of defeating the 25 x 137 mm projectiles, including the classic M791 APDS-T and the more recent M919 APFSDS-T. The main armament of the T-15 originally consists of a 2A42 KBP in 30 x 165 mm in a Bumerang-BM turret, as well as a twin Kornet-EM missile launcher. At the Army 2018 show near Moscow, the Russians also unveiled a version equipped with an AU-220M turret integrating a 57 mm cannon derived from the AZP S-60 anti-aircraft gun of the same caliber. We then easily understand the American desire to quickly give “oomph” to its infantry fighting vehicles.

II – The OMFV program

Launched in the summer of 2018, the OFMV program is in fact a subsidiary program of the NGCV program (Next Generation Combat Vehicle), which brings together several projects to renew the main combat vehicles of the US Army: we find in particular the AMPV program (Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle) to replace the M113 or even the DLP (Decisive Lethality Platform) dedicated to the successor to the M1 Abrams. Two other acquisition programs for new combat systems are also planned: the MPF light tank (Mobile Protected Firepower) and the RCV project (Robotic Combat Platform) of terrestrial drones. However, it is interesting to mention that this is no less than the third attempt, after the FCS (Future Combat System) between 1999 and 2009 and the GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle) between 2009 and 2014, to try to replace the Bradley (and not only). It is estimated that nearly $20 billion was wasted on the FCS and $1 billion more on the GCV. Financial pits like the relatively inefficient American military industry can produce many of them. Informed observers well remember the 84-ton GCV (more than twice the mass of the Bradley today!) at 19 million euros each which came out of the BAE Systems design offices and had been widely criticized for being totally unemployable in addition to being technologically immature.

Today, however, we note a clear ambition on the part of the US Army to learn lessons from past failures. If the FCS was based on employability and the GCV established survivability as a fundamental principle, the OMFV will above all be a system with low overall technological risk, which will be limited by the maturity of the components and subsystems used. As there are no real major technologies to develop in addition, the schedule has become very tight: the issuance of the Request for Proposal is expected in the last quarter of 2019, for a contract in early 2020, a launch of production in 2022 and the first operational vehicles in 2026.

Currently, the main specifications of the program are as follows:

• The vehicle will optionally be manned, and must therefore be able to be operated remotely.
• The crew should be two people if possible, while the vehicle should be able to carry at least six additional equipped fighters. This must be seen as a clear consequence of the failure of the GCV, which at the time was sized to transport a complete squad of 9 soldiers with a very high level of protection, which resulted in monstrous concepts and often heavier than the Abrams. The Army is therefore returning to the default configuration of the initial Bradley, which could transport 6 fighters equipped up to the A2 version. The goal is clearly to maintain a balanced platform, with good tactical, operational and strategic mobility. Employability thus seems to have the last word.
• Two OMFVs must be transportable by a C-17, which assumes an empty mass of approximately 38 tonnes per vehicle. If the protection requirement for the future vehicle is increased, it is entirely possible that this specification will be modified and move to a single vehicle per C-17, as is already the case for the M1 tanks for example. .
• The main armament must have a very significant elevation clearance for future operations in urban areas, in order to destroy targets located in the top floors of modern constructions but also close-up and sometimes underground targets (cellars, tunnels, vents, etc.). Which therefore requires a certain architectural ingenuity in the design of the turret. Especially since a cannon with telescoped projectiles, with a much more compact breech than a conventional model, is not on the program.
• The overall architecture of the vehicle must ensure the scalability of the platform throughout its lifespan. We are therefore talking about a very modular structure since it will be in service for at least 40 years.
• Additional specifications, providing additional points in the selection process, deal with the vehicle's ability to receive reactive armor tiles, an active protection system, to integrate artificial intelligence algorithms or even directed energy weapons.

III – The competitors

If the Pentagon would officially expect up to 6 or 7 competing companies for the RFQ phase of the OMFV, only three have already officially presented a complete system at a show: these are General Dynamics, BAE Systems and Raytheon – Rheinmetall Land Systems alliance. It is possible that other companies, such as the SAIC-ST Kinetics consortium which is already involved in the MPF light tank program, will also be involved. For the moment, only a few images of a concept resembling the new NGAFV (Next Generation Armored Fighting Vehicle) Singaporean leaked from them.

BAE Systems:

During the 2016 edition of the AUSA show, BAE Systems presented its Bradley Next Generation Prototype, which was in reality a completely redesigned Bradley designed to remain in service until around 2035. Developed with its own funds and completed in 9 months, this demonstrator in reality no longer had much to do with the original Bradley: its combat mass was increased to 45 tons, not to mention that the vehicle had more than 5 tons of additional payload to ensure its scalability over the remainder of its lifespan. Logically, almost all of the vehicle's mechanics had been redone to support these developments: for example, we noted a new transmission or the torsion bar suspensions replaced by hydropneumatic systems manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. To optimize internal space and vehicle survivability, in addition to responsive tiles and armor slats side, the self-sealing fuel tanks were now placed outside the vehicle. Finally, this demonstrator shared a certain number of common parts with the AMPV, such as tanks or on-board electronics, in order to optimize the costs of maintaining operational condition. But ultimately, with the US Army's decision to change the platform for the next generation of infantry fighting vehicles, it is clearly no longer in BAE Systems' interest to offer this demonstrator to compete in the OMFV program. .

Instead, BAE Systems now plans to offer its CV90 Mk4. Already exhibited at IAV 2018 then at Eurosatory 2018, the CV90 Mk4 is the latest iteration of the famous CV90 platform, already widely sold (more than 1.200 examples) for export since the end of the 1990s in Denmark, the Netherlands Low, to Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland or even Estonia more recently. The CV90 Mk4 is characterized above all as a very modular platform. As configured during these shows, the CV90 Mk4 can transport 8 equipped soldiers in addition to its crew of 3 men.

The entire running gear has been completely upgraded to maintain the same mobility as previous versions despite the continued increase in the mass of the vehicle during successive modernizations and which reaches 37 tonnes on this version. The engine was replaced by a new Scania 1.000 hp unit associated with a new generation Perkins X-300 transmission. We also note the arrival of active suspension to improve mobility on difficult terrain and the stability of the platform. The vehicle is also equipped by default with Soucy Defense flexible tracks (already in service with the Norwegians on their CV90 MkIIIb and soon the Danes), which reduce the total mass of the vehicle, vibrations, friction, and therefore consumption. fuel of the vehicle.

In terms of main armament, the CV90 Mk4 is equipped with the Bushmaster III chambered in 35 x 228 mm. The turret is now part of E-series, i.e. easily configurable according to the user's needs both in terms of the main armament and the additional modules. Thus, the turret can receive armament ranging from the 242 mm Bushmaster M25 to the 120 mm RUAG Compact Tank Gun, including 30, 40, 50 or even 105 mm cannon models. The mission modules are attached to the sides: the configuration exhibited at each show includes a module with a coaxial Mk52 7,62 mm ATK machine gun on the right of the turret and another with a dual SPIKE-ER missile launcher. on the left. At the Eurosatory 2018 show, BAE Systems also presented a side module with a 19mm Mk40 grenade launcher and another that can deploy mini-reconnaissance drones. Concerning protection, the CV90 Mk4 is equipped with the system hard-kill Iron Fist – Ligh Decoupled developed by the Israeli IMI, currently being installed on the Dutch CV9035NL by BAE Systems.

The CV90 also has a lot to offer in terms of data fusion and vetronics. It therefore has the latest digital architecture NATO-evolved Generic Vehicle Architecture (NVGA) which, coupled with the superior calculation capacities of on-board computers, has greatly increased the data fusion and processing capabilities, while allowing the integration of the first artificial intelligence algorithms. Thanks to these new information processing capabilities, BAE Systems is also in the process of integrating the BattleView360 augmented reality system into its latest version of the CV90. Working thanks to the Q-Sight integrated screen helmet, this system allows a visual representation of the information merged in the C2 software to be superimposed on the images from the vehicle's exterior cameras. Hence the need to have significant calculation capacities in the vehicle to avoid latencies. Thus, this should allow crew members to 'see' through the vehicle while remaining under armor. Targeting functions, by coupling the main armament to the head movements of the shooter or the commander as in certain combat helicopters, are also possible. It is a system which is ultimately completely comparable to the Iron Fist developed by Elbit Systems.

General Dynamics Land Systems:

For its part, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) exhibited its Griffin III demonstrator during the AUSA 2018 show. It is in reality a vehicle with the slightly modified chassis of the British Ajax and a new turret designed to the opportunity by the American group. The total mass would approach 40 tonnes. With a completely modular design, the Griffin III will be able to accommodate a crew of 2 or 3 men depending on the final request from the US Army. The rear compartment allows for 6 fully equipped fighters to be embarked while volume remains available to accommodate additional modules and equipment which will undoubtedly appear during the life of the platform. As is the norm today, the electronic architecture is largely open and scalable so that components can be easily installed or uninstalled depending on operational needs and technological progress.

In terms of armament, the Griffin III was presented equipped with a 50 mm cannon developed by ARDEC (Army Research, Development and Engineering Center). The name of this weapon is still difficult to know with certainty, but it is very likely that it is the Bushmaster III from Orbital ATK, in its version reworked by ARDEC and designated XM913 Enhanced Bushmaster III. It would fire 50 x 228 ammunition, a version very close to the 35 x 228 in dimensions. Experimental armor-piercing and explosive 50 x 228 munitions were unveiled at the same time as the AUSA 2018 show by Orbital ATK.

In addition to being relatively innovative in the current landscape, the 50 mm is a very interesting caliber which offers a very good compromise between firepower, rate of fire (between 110 and 200 rounds per minute), versatility of the projectiles and capacity of 'carry, and which would represent ultimately a clear leap in capability compared to the 242 mm M25 currently in service on the Bradley. ARDEC speaks of an engagement capacity at 5.300 meters for armor-piercing munitions (which seems somewhat overestimated), or around 3.000 more than the M242, and the theoretical capacity to take on heavy IFVs, and in particular the Russian T-15 and Kurganets-25 or even the new Chinese VN-17. The size of the 50 mm projectiles thus makes it possible to use not only armor-piercing projectiles with relatively long arrows and therefore good perforation capacities, but also programmable shells with a capacity air burst. The APFSDS-T (Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarded Hoof w/ Tracer), PABM-T (Programmable Air Bursting Ammunition) and TP-T (Target Practice w/ Tracer) are currently the only ammunition to have been revealed for the XM913. The unknown now lies in the ammunition carrying capacity of the armored vehicle and therefore its persistence on the battlefield. We can bet that it will be superior to the Swedish CV9040C and its 24 rounds of 40 mm ready for use only...

The main armament of the demonstrator finally has a particularly significant elevation clearance, the tube being able to rise to 85° and lower by 20°. An advantage that no longer needs to be demonstrated in urban combat. The first firing tests of the assembly are planned for summer 2019, while ARDEC is already testing the XM913. Furthermore, and this is quite interesting to point out, the Griffin III has several onboard mini-flying drones, which can be used under armor (tube launch), manufactured by AeroVironment Inc. for reconnaissance and attack: the Shrike 2 reconnaissance drone in VTOL configuration and the attack Switchblade, capable of carrying a light explosive charge around ten kilometers. Note that this company already manufactures light drones for the American forces, such as the famous RQ-11B Raven and RQ-20A/B Puma.

Vehicle protection is mainly provided by the system hard-kill Iron Fist – Ligh Decoupled developed by the Israeli IMI. The system's radars and infrared sensors, in addition to laser warning detectors, are installed on each side of the turret, while the two dual fragmentation charge launchers are installed on the turret roof to cover 360°. The basic passive armor is probably equivalent to that of the British AJAX and would therefore be at STANAG level 4 (B32 API ammunition of 14,5 x 114 mm at 200 meters) for the ballistic component over the entire opaque perimeter and STANAG 3a / 3b (8 kg of TNT) against explosives. There is no doubt that additional panels and ERA tiles could be installed on the vehicle depending on the operational context. Finally, to reduce its signature, the vehicle presented at AUSA 2018 was equipped with an original solution, namely the Tacticam 3D hexagonal camouflage tiles developed by Armorworks. This kit is renowned for reducing thermal and electromagnetic emissions through the irregular and raised patterns formed by the interlocking tiles.

Rheinmetall Land Systems – Raytheon:

Finally, the last competitor is the Lynx KF41 from Rheinmetall Land Systems, presented jointly with Raytheon. Unveiled at the Eurosatory 2018 show, the Lynx KF41 is the latest addition to the Rheinmetall group. This is a heavy IFV in the 40 – 50 ton segment which is currently proposed for the Land 400 Phase 3 program as part of the replacement of the Australian M113AS4 and in the competition in the Czech Republic for the replacement of the Czech BMP-2 . The American market which is opening up for the replacement of the Bradleys is therefore, for the moment, the third opportunity – and not the least – for Rheinmetall to sell its Lynx. In the latter case, it was necessary for the Germans to find a solid local partner, not only to give guarantees to the American government as to the solidity of the offer and the industrial benefits, but also to more easily penetrate the very twists and turns. complex of the system procurement from the Pentagon.

It is currently the heaviest platform in the competition: with a maximum mass of 50 tonnes, the Lynx has around 18 tonnes of payload, which would give us an empty mass of 38 tonnes for the chassis. This seems consistent, the lower segment Lynx KF31 also weighing 38 tonnes loaded. This significant payload allows the platform to be very versatile and configurable in numerous variants, dedicated to command, troop transport, engineering, troubleshooting and even fire support missions. For the IFV version exhibited at AUSA 2018, Rheinmetall speaks of a payload of 6 tonnes, and therefore an empty mass of some 44 tonnes. The German group has therefore chosen to present a heavy platform which seems, as it stands, not to respect the US Army's specification which requires the ability to transport 2 OMFVs in a single C-17. In reality, Rheinmetall has chosen a slightly different approach from its competitors: the Lynx is in fact larger than the other platforms presented by GDLS and BAE Systems. It is also longer than the Bradley by around 1,2 meters. Thanks to this additional space, the Lynx KF41 can carry 3 crew members but also a full 9-man infantry squad. In this way, the Lynx is designed to meet the final requirements of the American army which will arise later, at the risk of losing points on strategic mobility in particular.

In terms of main armament, the Lynx KF41 is equipped with the LANCE 2.0 turret with a characteristic fairing, probably intended to optimize the vehicle's radar signature. This turret integrates a Rheinmetall Wavoine 35 cannon chambered in 35 x 228 mm which has an elevation travel of +45 to -10°. The capacity to accommodate a 50 mm cannon was also mentioned by Raytheon, whether it was the the abandoned Marder 913 project in the 503s. In addition to its 50 mm coaxial machine gun, the LANCE 330 of the Lynx integrates a double missile launcher on its left side. Mainly intended for anti-tank missiles like the SPIKE LR2, Rheinmetall also spoke of the possibility of integrating Stingers to have a permanent SHORAD capability. At the AUSA 1980 show, Raytheon presented its TOW-ER missile, which abandoned its wired guidance system and can now reach a target at 7,62 meters. This model will likely be integrated into the “Americanized” Lynx.

In terms of protection, the Lynx maintains thick passive armor which would be at STANAG 6 level on the frontal arc and the sides (APFSDS ammunition of 30 x 173 mm at 500 m) and equivalent to STANAG 4 on the rest of the perimeter (as a reminder, B32 API of 14,5 x 114 mm at 200 m). For protection against explosives, we would speak of a STANAG 4a / 4b level, i.e. an explosive charge equivalent to 10 kg of TNT under the floor or a caterpillar. The Lynx also features Raytheon's Quick Kill active protection system. This is in fact the system developed in the second half of the 2000s for the FCS program and which has remained in demonstrator status until now. Its particularity is that it is supposed to offer complete hemispherical protection. Its operation is a little different from other devices hard-kill on the market, since the countermeasure launchers are arranged vertically. Once launched, they focus on the target using mini-vector thrusters to destroy it. Being ejected vertically before falling on the attacking targets and therefore concentrating their blast towards the ground, the countermeasures are supposed to produce fewer collateral effects than other competing systems.

En conclusion

The Bradley replacement program is of significant importance in the renewal of American capabilities following the stabilization commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It now seems relatively clear that the Bradley is in the process of rapid decommissioning, its armament, protection and architecture having reached their intrinsic limits in the face of new generations of Russian and Chinese infantry fighting vehicles. However, Russia and China appear to have played down their last cards in the field, and are unlikely to unveil new IFVs anytime soon. Thus, if the Americans now seem to be lagging behind, they now know, and for the next few years if not decades to come, the competing vehicles that they will perhaps face on future battlefields. We can bet that this will allow them to issue very precise requests and specifications and therefore move away from the specter of a “five-legged sheep” to concentrate on refined and efficient designs. For the moment, this is what seems to be happening: the technical maturity of the platforms that interest the US Army today bears witness to this. The origin of the three platforms currently proposed as part of this program is also revealing of one thing: the Americans would probably be willing to choose a foreign design, as long as it best meets the requirements of the Army. 'get the “best bang for the buck”.

More broadly, the OFMV program once again highlights two interesting trends, obviously completely linked, in the field of armored vehicles. First, we notice an increase in the calibers of the main armament: the 20 – 25 mm range was relatively standard in NATO forces from the 1970s. Today, the new Western platforms and turrets of medium caliber often integrate a main weapon in the 30 – 40 mm segment. The sole success of the Bushmaster II Mk44, more than 1.600 units sold in 20 countries, no longer needs to be demonstrated. Note also the popularity of the telescoped 40 mm, which will equip both the French Jaguar EBRCs but also the British AJAX and modernized Warrior (WCSP). By taking a direct interest in calibers like the 50 mm, the Americans are in reality part of a well-known trend of a permanent race between the sword and the armor. Logically, these choices have a clear impact on the increase in vehicle mass compared to previous generations. To accommodate a larger and heavier main armament, it was necessary to enlarge the turrets, and therefore size the chassis and engines accordingly. So, if we consider that the OMFV will have an empty mass of 38 tonnes, then it will still weigh almost 70% more than the Bradley it is supposed to replace. A general trend of increasing masses which is observed in all modern and future vehicles, and from which the OMFV will probably not escape.

Passionate about armored vehicles and military equipment, Nicolas Maldera is currently Bid Manager at Centigon France, a Breton SME well known in the manufacture of civilian armored vehicles for ministries, embassies, special forces and even internal security forces. Having worked at Nexter in competitive analysis, Defense contributor for the iFRAP Foundation, he is also the author of the work published on March 7, 2019 entitled 'Cooperation in Land Armaments Procurement – ​​An Empirical Study of Franco-German Projects' on the aborted Franco-German tank projects since the 1950s.