US Army cancels current Bradley replacement program...

[Slater]

Heck, just buy the German Puma or British Ajax off-the-shelf. At least they seem to know how to run a reasonably successful program:

“Today the U.S. Army will cancel the current solicitation for the Section 804 Middle Tier acquisition rapid prototyping phase of the [optionally manned fighting vehicle]. Based on feedback and proposals received from industry, we have determined it is necessary to revisit the requirements, acquisition strategy and schedule moving forward,” said Bruce Jette, the Army’s acquisition chief."

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/01/16/army-takes-step-back-on-bradley-replacement-prototyping-effort/

[mack7.62]

Hell have SIG build them one they are winning everything else.:haha:

[Grand58742]

Seems like even more money wasted by the Pentagon when viable alternatives are right there.

[BoringGuy45]

Seems like even more money wasted by the Pentagon when viable alternatives are right there.

I think that's the point. I'm pretty sure that most of these "competitions" are nothing more than getting rid of surplus to avoid budget cuts.

[Slater]

"Some major failed programs in the past, Jette noted, were canceled after spending large amounts of money and still moving along even though problems were identified as the service proceeded. Crusader cost about $2 billion, Comanche about $6.9 billion and Future Combat Systems about $19 billion, Jette said."

The Army's certainly not alone in the "failed programs" category, but it's procurement history hasn't been encouraging. Even multiple attempts to replace the OH-58 Kiowa have flopped. I'm far from an aviation expert, but I would think that a scout helicopter wouldn't be stretching the boundaries of technology to any great extent.

[Grand58742]

"Some major failed programs in the past, Jette noted, were canceled after spending large amounts of money and still moving along even though problems were identified as the service proceeded. Crusader cost about $2 billion, Comanche about $6.9 billion and Future Combat Systems about $19 billion, Jette said."

The Army's certainly not alone in the "failed programs" category, but it's procurement history hasn't been encouraging. Even multiple attempts to replace the OH-58 Kiowa have flopped. I'm far from an aviation expert, but I would think that a scout helicopter wouldn't be stretching the boundaries of technology to any great extent.

I wasn't limiting that to the Army, FYI. All services are guilty of wasting a metric butt-ton of money on projects that don't go anywhere.

However, when it comes to stupidity and utter waste, I think the ACU still stands head and shoulders above everything since it was so public a failure.

[Slater]

I would agree that the ACU was a flop. I would also include the Air Force's embarrassing "tiger stripe"ish ABU and the Navy's "blueberry ripple" camo patterns. The Marines seem to have gotten it right from the beginning.

[Grand58742]

Agree 1,000,000% on the absurdity of the other services trying to outdo each other. Especially the USAF with the "92% of the USAF doesn't need a camouflage pattern" nonsense they came up with.

I've always been of the mind that when you need camouflaging, you tend to need it pretty badly. And that isn't the time to say "well, we messed that one up..."

ETA: Also agree the USMC got it right by going with two patterns.

[Alpha-17]

However, when it comes to stupidity and utter waste, I think the ACU still stands head and shoulders above everything since it was so public a failure.

You're probably right here, for a number of reasons. For one, anyone that ever looked at the UCP pattern could have guessed it wasn't the best camo pattern. The widespread issuance for UCP gear also hurt it; if it was all in CB or OD, it may have been ignored, but when every piece of kit is being issued in a glow in the dark pattern, it gets pretty obvious, fast, even to people who only occasionally see military photos.

Later, when the details of the trials program came out, and it was found that the basis for UCP scored dead last in the tests, and was still chosen, for no apparent reason, the sheer level of waste and stupidity involved in the program becomes mindboggling.

[Grand58742]

You're probably right here, for a number of reasons. For one, anyone that ever looked at the UCP pattern could have guessed it wasn't the best camo pattern. The widespread issuance for UCP gear also hurt it; if it was all in CB or OD, it may have been ignored, but when every piece of kit is being issued in a glow in the dark pattern, it gets pretty obvious, fast, even to people who only occasionally see military photos.

Later, when the details of the trials program came out, and it was found that the basis for UCP scored dead last in the tests, and was still chosen, for no apparent reason, the sheer level of waste and stupidity involved in the program becomes mindboggling.

If memory serves, Crye Precision was asking for a royalty for each time their Multicam pattern was used. Which would have ended up being all sorts of financially awesome for them.

There were good alternate patterns out there (Hyperstealth or Roggenwolf for example) other than Multicam that came along during that time and in the aftermath, but the Army/USAF/USN decided to pass them over.

Regardless, the USMC had the right idea in the woodland vs desert battle with two uniforms and solid tone gear.

[Slater]

If you look at many of the major weapons systems in use by the Army today, i.e. M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, M109 series tracked howitzer, Apache, Blackhawk, Chinook, etc, these were originally designed in the 1960's and 1970's. And they've been upgraded/modified over the decades. I guess it speaks well of the original designs that they've held up over this many years.

I watched an interview with Jim Sullivan on the History Channel some time ago. He was on the original design team that essentially downsized the AR-10 into the M16, and is a talented engineer with many gun designs to his credit. When talking about the fact that today's infantry is armed with basically the same rifle that his son carried in Vietnam, he called it a "disgrace". I guess the Army's procurement system isn't moving fast enough for his liking. :D

[Grand58742]

I guess the Army's procurement system isn't moving fast enough for his liking. :D

Need more Phased Plasma Rifles in the 40 watt range.

[HardToHandle]

I hate to bring in actual history, but it was the Corps that created the uniform fiascos of 2000s. They stopped working on collaborative uniform update programs, trademarked their pattern and were General a-holes. That said, serious trolling of the other services.

The procurement system is always broken, but seems to find ways to become more inefficient. The rotary wing efforts of the DOD have been about one for ten in the last decade, all while under unprecedented use.

[vicious_cb]

That fact that they would even try to replace the most well designed armored fighting vehicle in service today, blasphamy. :rolleyes:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

[Averageman]

I seem to remember that originally this thing was supposed to ford water and the scout version had firing ports.
Both which caused casualties early in fielding.

[lowprone]

Crye overpriced ripoff rags !

[ST911]

Crye overpriced ripoff rags !

Thread drift is common, but we should try to stay closer to the main topic- the Bradley.

And consistent with longstanding rules, posting negative feedback is fine but it needs to be substantive and should be from personal or directly observed experience. This is especially true of more premium product of some note.

[Diamondback]

I watched an interview with Jim Sullivan on the History Channel some time ago. He was on the original design team that essentially downsized the AR-10 into the M16, and is a talented engineer with many gun designs to his credit. When talking about the fact that today's infantry is armed with basically the same rifle that his son carried in Vietnam, he called it a "disgrace". I guess the Army's procurement system isn't moving fast enough for his liking. :D

Considering that many WWII fighters went from blank paper to first flight in a matter of a few months... the P-51 Mustang and Kelly Johnson's first P-80 jet prototype both in 180 days or less IIRC.

[Alpha-17]

If memory serves, Crye Precision was asking for a royalty for each time their Multicam pattern was used. Which would have ended up being all sorts of financially awesome for them.

There were good alternate patterns out there (Hyperstealth or Roggenwolf for example) other than Multicam that came along during that time and in the aftermath, but the Army/USAF/USN decided to pass them over.

Regardless, the USMC had the right idea in the woodland vs desert battle with two uniforms and solid tone gear.

Crye didn't ask for a ton of money until the switchover in the early teens. Before that, it worked out. The problem was that by that point Crye and built a business for itself around MC and then the Army wanted the rights to let anyone and their dog produce it. That would have wrecked Crye's business, and the Army didn't want to pay enough to make it worthwhile for Crye. Thus, we ended up with the Scorpion pattern that could have been adopted in 04/05, but instead, we had to wait a decade. Yay, Army.

Thread Drift: I will disagree on the USMC approach, however. Specific uniforms for an environment is fine, but I've never cared for solid color gear, especially in an era of Plate carriers and full torso coverage. That means that the biggest chunk of a person is a solid color, not the cool guy expensive camo that undoubtedly works better for concealment. The newer idea of a "universal" pattern for standard uniforms and gear, supplemented by environmental specific uniforms is probably the way to go, and an improvement over the USMC's approach. That's likely more opinion than scientific fact, but that's the internet for ya.

On Topic:

The Bradley really does need to go. It was a committee designed Cold War relic that has outlived its usefulness. It's hard as hell to fit 6 guys in kit in one these days, and uncomfortable as hell, let alone if you need to evac a casualty or bring extra equipment. Heaven help a driver caught in one trying to make his way out the "hell hole" if the troops have assault packs in the way. At the very least, having one that can hold a full squad would be excellent, and having one with ammo storage that doesn't require the entire troop compartment be emptied to reload would also be great.

[Slater]

Remember the USMC's Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle? $3 billion was sunk into that one before they pulled the plug. A decade or so later the Marines finally settled on an Italian design with wheels instead of tracks (the losing design was from Singapore, IIRC).

[Averageman]

One of the biggest issues regardless of design or manufacturer is that young men are not as mechanically inclined as they were in decades past.
Things as simple as changing tires, checking oil levels and basic operation of mechanical systems are alien to this generation of both civilian and military members.
If you want an OR rate, if you want crew survivability, you not only need a very basic, simple system of operation and maintenance, you really need to learn a totally new way to teach it.
When lug nuts, oil levels and checking fuel levels are a mystery to young and inexperienced operators, you've got some systems design and training challenges ahead.

[Slater]

It does seem that other NATO countries are having a bit more success with their designs than we are. I would also include countries such as Israel and Singapore in that conversation.