Jump to content


Photo

Us Army Restarts Bradley Replacement Effort...


  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#1 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,746 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1226 PM

Looks like the Raytheon/Rheinmetall team may get another go at it (if they so choose):

 

https://www.defensen...radley-vehicle/


  • 0

#2 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,388 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1227 PM

Are they going to restart the Gavin line as well? :D
  • 0

#3 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,075 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1625 PM

It sounds like they want it to incorporate every possible feature, but be small and light, "be capable of growth without significant weight increases", but also "characteristics would change as the Army learned more down the road".

 

That reads like a textbook example of how to set up a project to fail.

They've combined Second-System Syndrome with a changing specification, both big project antipatterns.


  • 0

#4 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,746 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1839 PM

If I was King Of The World, we'd just buy Ajax or Puma off-the-shelf and be done with it. 


  • 0

#5 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,075 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1958 PM

This got me thinking.

If the Army can't competently run a procurement project, they should contract it out to a company which can.

But you shouldn't have the same defense companies which produce your equipment plan and manage procurement, obviously.  That's tantamount to letting them write their own checks out of your checkbook and enjoy a monopoly on new contracts forever.

That would suggest a niche for a company which -just- provides management and planning competence, and acts as a middleman between the Army and the manufacturers.

Do such businesses exist?


  • 0

#6 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,289 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 2034 PM

Again. For the nth time.
  • 0

#7 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,289 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 2037 PM

No consequence for failure. If a program is unsuccessful or overbudget everyone gets fired and forfeit their pensions AND get blacklisted when joining companies bidding for govt contracts.
  • 0

#8 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,864 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 0135 AM

It was never about the results, it's about the pork.
 


  • 0

#9 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 617 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 0223 AM

This got me thinking.

If the Army can't competently run a procurement project, they should contract it out to a company which can.

But you shouldn't have the same defense companies which produce your equipment plan and manage procurement, obviously.  That's tantamount to letting them write their own checks out of your checkbook and enjoy a monopoly on new contracts forever.

That would suggest a niche for a company which -just- provides management and planning competence, and acts as a middleman between the Army and the manufacturers.

Do such businesses exist?


Nice but flawed idea. Said company would need the basic info from you, like basic requirements. That's the one thing it cannot do on its own.
If the problem is with requirements, it won't fix anything.
  • 0

#10 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 0231 AM

This got me thinking.

If the Army can't competently run a procurement project, they should contract it out to a company which can.

But you shouldn't have the same defense companies which produce your equipment plan and manage procurement, obviously.  That's tantamount to letting them write their own checks out of your checkbook and enjoy a monopoly on new contracts forever.

That would suggest a niche for a company which -just- provides management and planning competence, and acts as a middleman between the Army and the manufacturers.

Do such businesses exist?

Yes, but imagine how Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, BAE and Ingalls would seek to corrupt it and how much revolving door personnel economics would rule it.


  • 0

#11 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 617 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 0235 AM

It sounds like they want it to incorporate every possible feature, but be small and light, "be capable of growth without significant weight increases", but also "characteristics would change as the Army learned more down the road".
 
That reads like a textbook example of how to set up a project to fail.

They've combined Second-System Syndrome with a changing specification, both big project antipatterns.


The growth capability think seems to suggest a certain desired level of modularity to be able to make some structural changes cheap, or some extra room in general, for example for a larger engine and larger batteries.
And of course, growth in non-kinetic capability.

It does not make sense, however, in their protection desires. Do they want an AFV already protected against the reference threats? Or perhaps consider the reference threats as too powerful anyway and go for the shoot first, kill first route?

I think they should go 2 routes here, which I've probably already written here.
One is a heavier vehicle with the desired protection with limited airlift capability and produced in greater numbers, and one with reduced squad size (6) and lower protection for quick response and for certain units only, produced in low numbers.
Component commonality via identical electronic suite.
  • 0

#12 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,864 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 0245 AM

Buy or license produce Namer for use in places that support MBT class weights, and CV90 series for when they cannot.

There. Saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions and gave significant improvements in capability
  • 0

#13 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 617 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 0609 AM

Buy or license produce Namer for use in places that support MBT class weights, and CV90 series for when they cannot.

There. Saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions and gave significant improvements in capability

CV90 is an ageing design, that if upgraded too much will no longer be able to leverage parts commonality and accumulated combat data.

I would advise the US to make a decision between Namer and Lynx, and supplement them with GD's 6-man, less protected prototype.

In such competitions, buying the Namer, or recently the calls to buy Eitan, are not very realistic. There is not one private company behind these vehicles that can act as a supplier. It has to be via a G2G route and then select a company to be prime contractor, which would then still be problematic in coordination of development between users.
So I think that either way, the Lynx is the top contender here.
  • 0

#14 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,388 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 1047 AM

I think they may as well max out the production on the 30mm stryker. Its cheap, mobile, NBC sealed, and fulfills the role. It cannot beyond them to put a launcher for Javelin on it.

 

Does the US really need a vehicle that can take on T15  or Kurganets? Not really, the Abrams and Dismounts im sure are more than capable of doing that.


  • 0

#15 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,075 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 1051 AM

It is no about taking on T15, it is a fact US army needs tracked IFV, period and wheeled one can not fulfill that niche.


  • 0

#16 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,388 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 1059 AM

I remember there being a discussion on here many years ago about whether IFV's were a good idea, being vulnerable to all antitank weapons and being unable to carry even a full infantry section. If you want a tank, buy a tank.  If you want to carry infantry, build an APC and max out the protection systems if you must.

 

There are undoubtedly many limitations with wheeled APC's. But when Russias operate BTR's in some of the worse terrain on the planet to operate wheeled vehicles, maybe the problem is less the wheels than the vehicles we are building.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 10 February 2020 - 1059 AM.

  • 0

#17 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,864 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 1238 PM

 

Buy or license produce Namer for use in places that support MBT class weights, and CV90 series for when they cannot.

There. Saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions and gave significant improvements in capability



CV90 is an ageing design, that if upgraded too much will no longer be able to leverage parts commonality and accumulated combat data.

I would advise the US to make a decision between Namer and Lynx, and supplement them with GD's 6-man, less protected prototype.

 


Emphasis mine, and disagree wholeheartedly.  The US has shown that it is incapable of running even a basic procurement program without gold plating it, and until they can demonstrate competence should go on training wheels.  Any fawning eyes glancing at the latest and greatest new designs needs to have their peepee slapped and told "no", then dealt with swiftly and ruthlessly.   Known, proven, working, and reliable options exist that are not just better than our current system but significantly so.
 


  • 0

#18 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 617 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 1319 PM

Lynx is, in itself new, but uses components that can hardly be described as "gold plated". Its niche is a cost effective vehicle with a new and modular approach to take on as many desired additions as possible.
  • 0

#19 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 1352 PM

I remember there being a discussion on here many years ago about whether IFV's were a good idea, being vulnerable to all antitank weapons and being unable to carry even a full infantry section. If you want a tank, buy a tank.  If you want to carry infantry, build an APC and max out the protection systems if you must.

 

A case can be made against the IFV.

https://defense-and-...ept-part-1.html

https://defense-and-...ept-part-2.html

https://defense-and-...ept-part-3.html

https://defense-and-...ept-part-4.html

 

It's interesting that the IFV doesn't bring much of anything to the table that an APC or MBT wouldn't have as well - except the autocannon.

Yet at the same time, the addition of autocannons to a MBT's armament was repeatedly and consistently considered a failure because a MBT can make do with main gun and coax machinegun and doesn't need a coax autocannon.


Edited by lastdingo, 10 February 2020 - 1357 PM.

  • 0

#20 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,864 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 1426 PM

Lynx is, in itself new, but uses components that can hardly be described as "gold plated". Its niche is a cost effective vehicle with a new and modular approach to take on as many desired additions as possible.


Aren't they all :D


Edited by Burncycle360, 10 February 2020 - 1426 PM.

  • 0