This aspect of the proposed Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) makes me happy:
For the first time, the Army unequivocally makes survivability the top priority, ahead of air transportability.
Now, that’s survivability against enemy Infantry Fighting Vehicles like the Russian BMP,-3 armed with anti-tank missiles and mid-calibre weapons, not against main battle tanks with 125 mm high-velocity cannon: “The OMFV must protect its crew and infantry from enemy IFVs,” the narrative states. But survivability is nevertheless central to the Bradley replacement’s mission statement (emphasis ours): “The OMFV will serve as the Army’s Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) tasked to maneuver through the enemy’s disruption zone and deliver Soldiers to their dismount point unharmed.”
And oh my God, I almost giggled like a school girl when I read this recognition of reality in the Army document about what it wants in a new infantry fighting vehicle:
The new document makes clear that, in the vast majority of both historical and projected conflicts, heavy armored units rarely move by plane. “The Army anticipates that Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT) will continue to deploy primarily via water and rail, but must maintain the ability to transport via air as an option for commanders,” the programmatic narrative says.
Slimming down our armored vehicles to make them air transportable has long seemed foolish to me, as I discussed in this Military Review article on the proposed FCS replacement for the Abrams tank (pages 28-33). It makes no sense to be able to rapidly airlift an armored fighting vehicle into a theater only to see it rapidly smashed up by whatever the enemy has.
Of course, despite being optimized for Europe, the new IFV will be equally valuable against the Chinese if the Army gets fully involved in INDOPACOM strategy on the mainland, as I wrote about in this Military Review article.
I have thoughts on the optionally manned part, too.
Fingers crossed. Our heavy armor is still good, but it is getting old.
