Key Points and Summary – After four decades, the Bradley IFV is still lethal, but age and modern threats are catching up.
-The Army’s XM30 effort aims to finally deliver a successor after the failed FCS, GCV, and OMFV attempts.
Engineers with the 116th Brigade Engineer Battalion conduct M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle gunnery qualification on March 27, 2018, Orchard Combat Training Center, south of Boise, Idaho. Combat engineers with the 116th BEB trained through gunnery table XII, evaluating their ability to execute collective platoon-level tasks in a tactical live-fire environment; including integrating dismounted soldiers with their assigned BFV. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by 1LT Robert Barney)
U.S. Army Soldiers with the 3rd Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, participated in a battalion wide training event consisting of attacking and defending Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, on Fort Riley, February 4, 2024. The defending teams dug hasty trench defenses to further conceal and provide cover for their tanks. (U.S. Army Photo by Spc. Kenneth Barnet)
-Two finalists remain: GDLS’ Griffin III, an unmanned-turret, hybrid-electric design aligned with Abrams digital upgrades, and Rheinmetall’s KF41 Lynx, a larger, modular platform emphasizing automation and sensor fusion with U.S.-made partners.
-Until XM30 arrives, the Army is upgrading Bradleys, including the M2A4E1 with Iron Fist active protection and improved sights. The outcome will hinge on cost, weight, and whether the program avoids past acquisition pitfalls.
Will the XM30 Finally Replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle?
Forty-four years after making its operational debut with the U.S. Army, the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) keeps soldiering on.
The Bradley was named for the legendary General Omar Bradley, “the G.I.’s General,” and it has demonstrated its effectiveness in the crucible of combat time and time again.
During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the M2 variant of the IFV destroyed more of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s tanks than the vaunted M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT).
During the current Russia-Ukraine War, a Ukrainian Bradley crew destroyed one of Russia’s ultramodern T-90M MBTs.
But the Bradley is old. Efforts to find a viable replacement for it have fallen short repeatedly, but there are hopefully signs that the XM30 program will finally succeed where other would-be Bradley successors failed.
XM30 Program Basics
As noted by Kyle Gunn for Task & Purpose, the Army has set out the following key criteria for the XM30 candidates:
–A hybrid-electric powertrain to provide greater fuel efficiency, reduced thermal and acoustic signatures, and the ability to run sensors on “silent watch” (vitally important to conceal the vehicle from drones carrying thermal cameras).
U.S. Army soldier from the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division pulls security next to a M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle during Decisive Action rotation 13-03, Jan. 19, 2013, at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, Calif. Decisive Action rotations are geared toward an adaptive enemy in a complex environment. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Eric M. Garland II/ Released)
M2 Bradley
Soldiers fire a 25mm tracer round from an M2A3 fighting vehicle during an integrated night live-fire exercise at Camp Adazi, Latvia, Nov. 25, 2021.
–Open-architecture digital systems that allow rapid upgrades without redesigning the entire vehicle. Everything could be updated, from sensors and radios to active protection and autonomy packages.
–The most notable leap is in lethality. The XM30 is expected to field the XM913 50-mm cannon or a 30-mm gun with an upgrade path, giving it far greater range and the ability to fire programmable airburst munitions designed to counter both light armored threats and aerial drones.
There are two finalists for the XM30 bid.
XM30 Candidate #1: General Dynamics Land Systems Griffin III
General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) is the current producer of the M1 Abrams, which means they have a track record of building effective armored fighting vehicles for the Army. Indeed, the Griffin III platform is compatible with the digital architecture envisioned for the M1E3 variant of the Abrams. Other desirable features include an unmanned XM913 50-mm turret that places the crew in a protected capsule within the hull, hybrid-electric drive, and modular armor.
As Gunn notes, “With a weight of around 40 tons, Griffin III is similar to the latest Bradley variants, heavy but potentially more familiar to Army logisticians. Critics say it looks more evolutionary than revolutionary, though that may be exactly what the Army prefers after years of failed moonshot programs.”
There is, however, a red flag waving in front of the Griffin III: This same platform was submitted for the Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower program, which became the M10 Booker. And as we know, the Booker was an embarrassing failure.
XM30 Candidate #2: American Rheinmetall Vehicles KF41 Lynx
American Rheinmetall Combat Vehicles is the U.S. subsidiary of Rheinmetall AG, Europe’s fifth-largest arms manufacturer. Congress is adamant about the XM30 selectee being “Made In The USA,” and accordingly American Rheinmetall is partnering with Raytheon, Textron, and L3Harris to build the vehicle.
The KF41 Lynx has already established some degree of credibility and is being fielded by the Hungarian Defense Forces. Among its desirable features are a more modular and spacious design and a Lance 2.0 turret that carries a 30-mm cannon with upgrade potential. The standard variant carries a crew of three and eight infantry, but the U.S. version could be configured to match the Army’s two-crew, six-dismount requirement.
Kyle Gunn adds that, “The Lynx is heavier at around 44 tons depending on configuration, but emphasizes automation, sensor fusion, and optional integration of loitering munitions. While transportable by C-17, it may require preparation to fit the weight and dimension limits.”
Previous Failures
Previous attempts to find an adequate replacement for the Bradley IFV are cynically summed up in the pun-laden title of a damning March 2020 report by Mark Thompson of the Project On Government Oversight: “The Army’s Lousy Tracked Record.”
–The Armored Systems Modernization collapsed in 1992 (the year after the Bradley proved its worth in Operation Desert Storm) when the Cold War ended and costs skyrocketed.
–Next came the Future Combat Systems (FCS) in 2003 which promised a fleet of networked lightweight vehicles. Billions of taxpayer dollars later, none of the promised systems could withstand the realities of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the FCS was ignominiously canceled in 2009.
–Then came the Ground Combat Vehicle, a fortified armored personnel carrier for a new era of mechanized warfare. Alas, the prototypes were so bloody heavy they could barely fit on a C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane and cost more money than the Abrams. That program died in 2014.
As for the XM30, it is a 2020 reset of the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle that was part of the 2018 Next Generation Combat Vehicle initiative, which faltered due to a lack of qualifying contractors.
In the Meantime
We cannot yet know whether the XM30 program will succeed, the Bradley has not remained frozen in time. In May 2024, the Army unveiled the M2A4E1, which it touted as “ the “most modern and survivable version.” Amongst the upgrades and improvements are:
–The Iron Fist active protection system to detect and intercept incoming missiles and rockets using radar and infrared trackers and explosive projectiles
–An improved high-definition forward-looking infrared gunner’s sight and an environmental control unit to prevent heat stress
About the Author: Christian D. Orr, Defense Expert
Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor. He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU).
