Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ClubsBabySeal t1_jd9ajvr wrote

Reply to comment by Dreadedvegas in U.S. will speed transfer of Abrams tanks to Ukraine, Pentagon says by Just_A_Dogsbody

Right, so ten plus years. I guess that's soon on some time scales. Yeah, the 113 replacement is going to take a decade plus, right? Or am I misremembering?

−1

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9cz0n wrote

M113 replacement is literally in service right now.

Its the AMPV.

How do you get a decade out of prototyping next year and low rate production in 26 to full rate in 28?

5

ClubsBabySeal t1_jd9deu8 wrote

I'm aware. Production is slated to continue for the next 10+ years. Correct? It's not like we make things a battalion at a time.

−2

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9dogc wrote

They already have 300 vehicles. They want 3,000. First 3 years of procurement was slated for low rate production

Edit: 3 years of low production followed by 10 years of full rate production with a target of 300 vehicles / year and the option to scale / increase production at will.

The army specifically chose this procurement timeline so the production facility didn’t end immediately if the army decided it needed more 5+ years for now so they specifically slowed down production to be steady over a period of time so the option to scale it to a larger procurement was available.

4

ClubsBabySeal t1_jd9ezxb wrote

What I'm asking is what is the full rate of production going to be? At 300 per year that'd be unusually large. The Bradley replacement hasn't even been finalized. So that's a decade or probably more even if it's rushed. A decade plus is not soon, certainly not in the context of the current war.

1

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9grg7 wrote

For the AMPV they chose to lower the numbers per year so the initial order of 3000 full production vehicles kept the factory line going for a decade in case they wanted to acquire more later on because it would be easier and cheaper to just increase production or keep the line going for longer. So they decided on doing 300 vehicles / year for full production with every year the option to increase production numbers if a new order was done.

With this OMFV program until the prototypes are selected we cannot say. If one of the existing vehicles wins it can obviously go into production much quicker than a fully brand new prototype can. Those details won’t be announced until whoever wins the prototyping stage

With the MPF, the army expects its first unit to be equipped by 2025 (2 years after the winner being announced) from Low rate initial production.

Edit: the army has decided to get its shit together when it comes to procurement. MPF went from bids to prototype to production in 3 years and should realistically be used as the framework for how omfv is going to go.

3

ClubsBabySeal t1_jd9ievb wrote

Yeah, the mpf was an impressive turnaround time. Then again it's pretty much a role that isn't adequately being filled. I can't imagine a Bradley replacement entering full production that quickly. But maybe not. Maybe it'll be so superior that they'll go full no fucks given. And yes, keeping production lines going is of huge importance. It's why we kept ordering tanks we didn't need. Thankfully congress had the wisdom to do that.

1

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9j1z5 wrote

With the Lynx, the Redback, and the Griffin II modified variants apart of the proposed submissions for the replacement… its pretty likely it goes into production fast since all 3 variants are in production. Only the BAE / Front Point submittals will be truly new vehicles that would have teething issues.

The army has realized its mistakes in the 2000-2014 era of DoD procurement. Both the army and the navy are showing a preference for modifications to proven systems from other partners (MPF, Constellation-class )

1