As was widely reported before the weekend, the Industry Day for #OMFV has revealed more detail on the latest attempt to replace Bradley. A few initial observations 
I did a very brief run through of the history of these attempts previously (bit.ly/3etUkdc) for those seeking background. Suffice to say its been a long and challenging road
Approach will notionally be 5 vendors providing initial designs, then 3 detailed designs & prototypes, followed by contract award to one vendor for LRIP/FRP. Can they get 5 bids? Last OMFV attempt couldn’t muster 3
Quite a demanding timeline, especially when considering the history of US ground procurement. Designs in FY23, prototypes in FY25, contract award FY27 and first deliveries in FY28
Can they achieve that? Maybe. To get a new IFV procurement done in 8 years is very fast. To achieve that requirements needs to be straightforward and solution needs to be as COTS/MOTS as possible to limit development and trials
On the subject of trials, they are using modelling and simulation as much as possible to keep cost and timescales down. Real-world trials are 18 months - Q4 FY25 through Q1 FY27. That’s quick for a new IFV-class platform
But with right outlook its possible. Compare to recent US Army acquisitions - JLTV was circa 3 years for a basic protected 4x4, but more recently USMC completed trials of the ACV in just a year with RfP to MSC in 4 years
They are firm that they want to reduce foreign barriers to involvement. This is critical, the most mature & compelling offerings in the IFV space are not US products, demanding US designs in this day and age is not credible
They have clearly set their priorities. Accepting that low weight and high deployability do now work alongside high survivability in the contemporary technological environment is a good sign
Deployment is to be pre-positioned forces rather than rapid contigent deployment capability. States deployment will be by rail or sea, with air limited to occasional C-17/C-5, eliminating some of the size and weight issues that plagued earlier attempts
One thing missing from the entire piece is cost, typically quite a big consideration in these sorts of procurements! Need to await further documentation to establish budget, but the list of requirements is not a cheap order, expect to be potentially pushing towards USD10m apiece
That said, high survivability and mobility tend to be non-compatible. This will require more detail to come out on what is meant by survivability. Passive/reactive armour of substantial capability is never lightweight
Survivability is stated as defence against pacing (Russian/Chinese) threat IFV at 1.5-2km. Remember Russia is equipping BMP-3/T-15/B-19 with new Epokha, mounting 57mm cannon, Kornet & Bulat ATGMs. Russia already has 100mm 2A70 with coaxial 30mm 2A72 on BMP-3
Note extensive use of ATGM by both threats. APS certainly required, but all current APS have limited efficacy against top attack, if any. Also recall IDF APS PM at IAV this year - "no tank today can protect against Kornet passively"
Firepower is not discussed in great detail beyond this statement. Given this platform will be operated until at least 2060 it needs to push the envelope on lethality. 50 mm cannon (XM913) per the prior OMFV, and an ATGM necessary to kill MBT
They're keen to foster innovation and build in a lot of growth from the outset. Growth has been defined as primarily being SWAP-C oriented, with further detail of a capability roadmap to come downstream
Positive actions, but many pitfalls to avoid. Trying to acquire a step-change new platform whilst staying MOTS and keeping timeframes short is a massive challenge., and it will near certainly need to be a foreign design. Interesting times /end
