Army Shapes Long-Term War Vision With New Infantry Vehicle

Essay: Will the Army “Stay the Course” on OMFV?

By Kris Osborn – Warrior Maven

While the particular state of the Army’s Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle competition may seem somewhat tangled and uncertain, there does appear to be an unambiguous, aggressive Army intention to field a new infantry fighting vehicle that breaks new ground — when it comes to lethality, protection, deployability, speed, firepower and AI-enabled sensing. Of equal significance, the Army seeks a vehicle “soon,” which can be upgraded effectively.

Some are raising the question as to whether the clarity or focus of this vision could be impaired by the apparent disqualification of the Raytheon-Rheinmetall Lynx vehicle. If, according to reports, the Army disqualified the Lynx for missing the delivery deadline, then only General Dynamics Land Systems remains as the sole bidder. Some are raising the question about having just one vendor initially bidding and submitting early prototypes for the program will compromise its success. This criticism, however valid, merits further exploration given the significance of the program for Army modernization.

Initially, there are several pressing or self-evident elements to this. First, competition for the program will not disappear. The Army plans a full and open production competition for 2023, so no vendors will be discouraged or limited when it comes to evolving, testing and maturing a vehicle. Secondly, the Army asked industry to invest, innovate and engage in dialogue — something which may have been done to varying degrees. It introduces a pertinent question: should Army or industry progress be stalled or complicated in some way when there might not be full clarity regarding vendor participation may change?

Furthermore, timing on the program, per Army strategy, is very significant; remember, this program was initially envisioned as an effort to deliver vehicles as far away as the early 2030s. However, the speed and danger of emerging threats inspired the Army to move up the timeframe for operational status by as much as a decade. Executing this accelerated vision of course hinges upon leveraging promising new innovations and commercial off-the-shelf available technologies — in the near term.

The strategy, as refined by the Army, seeks to both introduce unprecedented combat capability while also bringing many “available now” and “ready to be produced” technologies. With this in mind, many vendors such as General Dynamics and Raytheon-Rheinmetall have “dug deep” to leverage innovations. For instance, General Dynamics innovators, engineers and weapons developers have been spending recent years building prototype Griffin vehicles and other combat subsystems to engage in dialogue with the Army about what they would most like to see. Much of this GD strategy was aimed a soliciting and incorporating the Army’s vision for the new platform. The service has conducted a clear and open competition, and, for their offering, GD developers sought to emphasize the key priorities outlined by the Army, to include 3rd-gen FLIR, Lethality, Optics, Growth Potential, Protection and Transportability.

There are many merits to an approach of this kind, not the least of which are the efforts to demo, test and refine promising near-term technologies. Secondly, a nearer term, produceable vehicle such as the offering General Dynamics and R&R have evolved makes a lot of sense for several reasons. Essentially, many of the most impactful and yet-to-exist combat vehicle technologies are already here in some respects…. and, of even greater relevance, many of the anticipated future breakthroughs such as new AI-empowered algorithms, advanced sensors, autonomy, EW and cyber weapons developments and other weapons adaptations – “can” be added quickly as part of an evolving modernization trajectory for vehicle that is built “now.”