Key Points – The M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle has served the US Army effectively for over 40 years, proving its mettle in conflicts like the Gulf Wars and currently in Ukraine, where its firepower (Bushmaster cannon, TOW missiles) and mobility are highly valued.
-Despite its age, numerous attempts to replace or supplement the Bradley with new platforms—such as the recently cancelled M10 Booker, the Manned Ground Vehicle (part of the failed Future Combat Systems), and the struggling XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle—have largely faltered due to issues like excessive weight, cost overruns, or changing requirements.
-Ongoing upgrades ensure the Bradley remains a viable and hard-to-replace asset.
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle Won’t Go Away – Ukraine War Battle
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle has served the U.S. Army admirably for more than 40 years. While on loan to the Ukrainians, it has also put forward an excellent campaign against Russia. Indeed, the vehicle was designed with a war against the Soviets in mind.
The Bradley fought well during both Gulf Wars. It has great firepower with its Bushmaster chain gun and TOW anti-tank missile launcher. It also has surprising maneuverability, and it skillfully fulfills its job of depositing infantry squads on the battlefield.
M10 Booker Failed to Replace the Bradley Fighting Vechicle
Despite all this upside, the Army has worked to introduce armored personnel carriers or even light tanks to take the Bradley’s place. These efforts have often failed, and the latest example is the M10 Booker tracked armored vehicle.
The Booker was designed to be an infantry support vehicle with the ability to perform as a light tank. The Army decided to pass on the Booker, which is unfortunate given the M10’s potential as an armored cavalry regiment vehicle that would forge ahead to protect the flanks of tank columns and conduct reconnaissance missions ahead of the main effort.
Stryker Emulates But Does Not Replace
The Stryker combat vehicle has picked up some slack from the Bradley, but also never replaced it. This wheeled personnel carrier is fast and nimble. I saw it in action while in the Army, and I was extremely impressed. I was a light infantry officer and not a mechanized soldier, so I never rode on board. But the Stryker met expectations, even though it was controversial when it first arrived before the Second Gulf War.
The Stryker was used as a quick reaction vehicle against insurgents who attacked U.S. convoys in Iraq. Trucks and HUMVEEs were often ambushed by a combination of improvised explosive devices and combatants with rocket-propelled grenades. The Stryker was able to pursue the insurgents quickly and effectively to deliver extreme payback.
M247 Sergeant York Fought an Uphill Acquisition Battle
One less-known potential Bradley Fighting Vehicle sidekick was the M247 Sergeant York. The M247 was meant to protect armored columns from aerial threats such as attack helicopters and low-flying airplanes. Unfortunately, the M247 was built on an old M48 tank chassis and did not have the maneuverability, speed, and power that the Abrams tank and the Bradley boast. The Sergeant York was not going to be able to keep up on a fast-moving battlefield.
By 1985, the Army had procured 50 M247s, but the program was plagued by schedule slips and cost overruns, and the service eventually stopped procurement efforts. The M247 was never going to replace the Bradley.
Manned Ground Vehicle Can’t Do the Job
The Future Combat System of the late 1990s and early 2000s was designed to replace both the Bradley and the M1 Abrams with the so-called Manned Ground Vehicle. The Future Combat System aimed to revolutionize the battlefield with much-needed digital connections between manned and unmanned vehicles. The problem was that the unmanned vehicles were not ready to be networked. The Manned Ground Vehicle probably came the closest to replacing the Bradley – but it had numerous drawbacks.
“A significant obstacle was the vehicle’s design, which prioritized heavy armor and the capacity to transport a fully equipped squad of nine soldiers,” according to the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement. “While this addressed a key shortfall of the M2 Bradley, it resulted in substantial weight increases, raising concerns about the mobility and deployability in diverse operational environments. This issue was compounded by the Army’s insistence on incorporating advanced technologies that further increased the program’s complexity and cost.”
The Manned Ground Vehicle never made it past the proverbial Valley of Death between procurement and acquisition, and the expensive program was cancelled in 2014 after funding lapsed.
XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle Program Struggles
The Army did not give up. The service had another trick up its sleeve: the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle. The XM30 was going to have better armor than the Bradley, improving survivability. It would have improved sensors and altogether new weapons systems. General Dynamics Land Systems and American Rheinmetall are working on the XM30, but both contractors have struggled with the vehicle’s heavy weight. The program is held up by funding delays.
It is just difficult to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The platform’s upgrades have ensured its continued value, and the Bradley can still destroy tanks and armored personnel vehicles when needed. It is as good as any other platform for hauling soldiers.
There is an armored cavalry version for reconnaissance and enhanced firepower. Survivability could be improved, and it could use some digital networking updates, but the “Brad” just keeps chugging along. It could remain a viable combat option for another five to 10 years.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
What Are Europe’s Best Weapons of War?
Pingback: NATO Expansion: The Forgotten Reason Russia Invaded Ukraine? - National Security Journal
Pingback: NATO expansion: The forgotten reason Russia invaded Ukraine? – Emma Olive