US Army cancels current Bradley replacement program...

[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.

[Grand58742]

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

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.

[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.

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).