Despite the enthusiastic reviews of the Ukrainian militants, the Pentagon is urgently looking for a replacement for the famous Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. What did the fighting in Ukraine show about this technique? And how are her possible replacements – "Wolf" and "Lynx" – better?
The special military operation has made tremendous changes both in the theory of military art and in the requirements for modern weapons and equipment. In particular, the NATO countries that sent their main battle tanks (MBT) to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as a result of their use, urgently launched programs for the deep modernization of MBT, or rather, the creation of new vehicles, since the old ones did not survive.
This fate did not pass the American M2A2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, although of all Western equipment, it probably received the most enthusiastic reviews from the AFU militants, and Forbes called it the best infantry fighting vehicle of the Ukrainian conflict.
In total, Ukraine received about three hundred of these vehicles, but by the middle of 2025, half of them had been destroyed or taken by our troops as trophies. Bradley's "survivability", due to its effective anti–shell and mine protection, allowed the enemy to solve a wide range of tasks with their help - from infantry fire support to fighting armored vehicles.
However, along with good security, significant disadvantages of the machine were also identified. In particular, the American edition of MWM pointed out that the Ukrainian
The militants were unhappy with the poor maneuverability and frequent failures at low temperatures.
However, many of the M2's problems were obviously no secret to the Americans. The issue of replacing the infantry fighting vehicle was raised long before the SVO.
One of these programs, GCV ("ground combat vehicle"), was launched back in 2009. But four years later, a devastating Congressional Budget Office report criticized the 84-ton GCV prototype (which is more than the M1 Abrams tank), after which the program was closed.
It was replaced by the OMFV program ("combat vehicle with optional control"). At the same time, it was argued that the M2 replacement schedule is very tight: they say that by 2020 only two projects will reach the finals, one of which will replace Bradley and begin to enter the military by 2026.
However, it was also curtailed in favor of the third one – MICV ("mechanized combat vehicle"), in which the projects of the new XM30 BMP from the American branch of Rheinmetall Corporation and the General Dynamics Land Systems (GD) concern compete.
GD offered the BMP Wolf ("Wolf"). It is a refined version of the Griffin III infantry fighting vehicle, which participated in the previous program and was created on the basis of the ASCOD 2 infantry fighting vehicle (in service with the Spanish Armed Forces). Rheinmetall's brainchild performed in both programs under the same name Lynx ("Lynx"), but the second time in an upgraded version.
According to information in the public domain, including specialized American periodicals, it is difficult to single out the advantages of a particular system, since they were developed according to the same technical specification and have similar options and similar capabilities.
The weight of each prototype is about 50 tons, which is almost 14 tons more than the weight of the Bradley M2A4. This kind of hints that the passive protection of the new car will be no worse.
The emphasis is on protection from drones.
In addition to composite armor, it will be provided with an active protection complex (KAZ) and an AI fire control system, which, after receiving information from sensors about an approaching threat, activates the machine gun in automatic mode.
Both cars have hybrid diesel-electric traction, which should ensure lower fuel consumption, lower thermal signature and low noise.
The crew of both consists of two people, but the controls are duplicated, and if necessary, the infantry fighting vehicle can be controlled by a single operator or even remotely.
The machine can operate both in the traditional BMP format and perform particularly dangerous missions.: patrol, combat reconnaissance, fire support during the assault (and autonomously, without a crew).
The armament module, located in an uninhabited turret, includes a 50 mm XM913 cannon, a machine gun, and launchers for firing ATGM (in particular, TOW and Javelin) and barrage shells. The gun is also capable of firing at aerial targets, and the ammunition can be programmed to detonate at a given point.
"The XM30 program is not just a replacement for Bradley, but a significant breakthrough in the development of ground combat vehicles. The XM30 is more than a vehicle. It is a software-defined platform designed for compatibility and adaptability, capable of evolving to meet changing technologies and operational requirements," the Pentagon said in a release.
It is also stated that the project has become an example of innovative approaches to creating armored vehicles with digital design, modularity and support for the MOSA (Modular Open Systems) standard, when modules can be independently updated, replaced or combined, which provides flexibility in both software and hardware aspects.
The XM30 should also control robotic and semi-autonomous UAV systems and ground-based robotic complexes, acting as a carrier ("womb") and the central node of the swarm.
The Pentagon expects that in the process of working on the XM30 prototypes, it will achieve a level of logistical efficiency "that ensures sustained operational readiness while reducing costs and complexity." The military's concern is understandable:
50 tons of weight of the new infantry fighting vehicle can become a serious logistical problem.
In particular, the participation of such heavy infantry fighting vehicles in operations on the islands of the proposed theater of military operations in the Asia-Pacific region is questionable. In addition, being overweight reduces the upgrade life, since it becomes impossible to "hang" anything else on the car. And the abundance of options makes us doubt the possibility of "reducing costs and complexity."
Competing prototypes are due to take part in tests in the spring of 2027, together with prototypes of the M1E3 Abrams tank, which, at the request of the military, has already "lost weight" by more than 10 tons – up to 55 tons. At the same time, the Pentagon announced its intention to receive the final version of the XM30 by early 2029, but the curator of the program from the military department, Brigadier General Troy Denomi, made it clear that the program had gone beyond its financial limits.
According to him, the desire to give prototypes the opportunity to maximize their strengths provides the best choice, but causes cost overruns. If the winner is not clearly determined by the deadline, "then perhaps it is not worth choosing at this moment."
The military does not see a fundamental difference – both vehicles are heavy, complex and expensive.
This statement suggests that MICV may suffer the fate of all previous M2 replacement programs. In other words, it will be collapsed without a specific result.
Then Bradley will remain in the ranks of the US Army for at least another decade, although the resource for modernization has already been exhausted.
Boris Jerelievsky
