XM30 enters prototyping phase: Bradley successor taking shape

In June 2025, both contenders for the US Army’s XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) programme passed the Critical Design Review and advanced into the competition’s prototyping phase. If all progresses according to schedule, a production contract for the M2 Bradley’s successor could be awarded in late 2027.

The M2/M3 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) entered service with the US Army in 1981, and has undergone several major modifications during the ensuing decades. While still capable, the Bradley platform has largely reached the limits for accommodating new electronics, sensors, armour and defensive systems. The US Army has chosen to develop and procure a new IFV more suited for the challenges of tomorrow’s battlefield.

Development of the Bradley’s successor was initiated in 2018, following two failed efforts launched in 1999 and 2010, respectively. It was designated the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV), reflecting the requirement that the new system be able to operate either with an onboard crew (standard operational mode) or unmanned via remote control. In January 2020, the Army cancelled the programme after only one bid met the entry criteria, prompting a complete requirements reset. The Pentagon restructured the programme into a five-phase acquisition with an emphasis on digital design and broader industry participation; the Army describes the XM30 is the service’s first ground combat vehicle designed using modern digital engineering tools and techniques. In 2023, the developmental vehicle was redesignated the XM30 MICV.

Like the Bradley, the XM30 is designed for combined arms operations, and will serve alongside main battle tanks in Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs). It will engage ground targets (including certain categories of enemy fighting vehicles) with its medium-calibre automatic cannon, as well as with machine guns, while carrying infantry soldiers into battle. It will also be designed to control robotic and semi-autonomous systems.

MICV requirements

In addition to optional manning, the Army has presented industry with several other required or desired attributes and capabilities, all of which have been satisfied by the two competing designs. The MICV is being developed as a Modular Open Systems Architected (MOSA) platform utilising Army-defined and -owned open standards. This will facilitate rapid integration of new hardware and software over the course of the M30’s service life, and could free the military from excessive dependence on original contractors for future upgrades.

The XM30 will be equipped with Northrop Grumman’s XM913 50 mm autocannon as the primary armament, chambered for the 50×228 mm ‘Supershot’ cartridge, representing a significant upgrade in firepower from the Bradley’s M242 Bushmaster autocannon chambered in 25×136 mm. Both competing XM30 designs also include a mount for two anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) on the side of the turret. An AI-assisted fire control system and an advanced 3rd generation FLIR (forward-looking infrared) will enhance the main gun’s engagement speed, accuracy and range. Ammunition natures for the 50 mm gun include an armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) round for defeating light and medium-armoured targets, including, according to the Army, “typical infantry fighting vehicle targets”. The weapon will also fire programmable high-explosive air-bursting (HEAB) rounds suited to engaging infantry and aerial targets such as helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS). The cannon will be mounted on an unmanned turret, permitting reduction of the vehicle crew from three on Bradley, to two on the new vehicle.

In addition to the two crew, the XM30 can transport six dismounts. The XM30 will be equipped with an integrated active protection system (APS) utilising hard-kill and soft-kill countermeasures for defence against ATGMs and other projectiles. In April 2025, the Army awarded Duality AI a contract to develop a counter-drone AI target detection and recognition (AiTDR) system to support drone countermeasures. Given the recent proliferation of drones, the MICV will likely incorporate organic counter-UAV measures beyond the main gun and machine guns. These could include electronic warfare capabilities. Other defensive attributes will include modular armour, as well as innovative signature management technologies to minimise detection.

A hybrid electric propulsion system is expected to improve fuel efficiency and range, and provide tactical advantages such as reduced acoustic and thermal signature and a ‘silent watch’ capability (being able to operate the main vehicle systems with the engine off) via battery power.

Five-phase programme

The five phases of the OMFV/XM30 programme are:

• Market research and requirements development, initiated in late 2020.
• Concept design, including a modelling, simulation, and analysis (MS&A) component to inform requirements and support the (completely digital) design activities. Phase 2 contracts were awarded to five competing contractors in July 2021. All five firms submitted their completed digital design packages prior to the 1 November 2022 deadline. Following evaluation of the designs, the Army proceeded to downselect for Phase 3 of the programme.
• Detailed (again fully digital) design phase to mature the competing XM30 designs. Using ‘full and open competitive procedures’, the Army simultaneously awarded Phase 3 and Phase 4 contracts to two of the five original competitors in June 2023. These were General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. (GDLS), which is basing its XM30 design on a modified version of Griffin 3 (itself a shortened derivative of the ASCOD 2 design), and American Rheinmetall Vehicles LLC (ARV), which is presenting a modified variant of the KF41 Lynx. In addition to continued digital engineering design work, Phase 3 also encompassed ongoing virtual testing and subsystem integration experiments. Virtual prototype testing was augmented by numerous soldier touchpoint events, during which active duty infantry soldiers and Bradley crewmembers tested physical models of the designs, overlaid with augmented reality, to assess their viability for real-world operations as well as maintenance. Army officials confirmed that user feedback resulted in the realignment of some design elements. In early June 2025, both firms announced that their designs had passed the Phase 3 Critical Design Review (CDR).
• Prototype build and test (June 2025–mid-2027).
• Production and fielding, beginning with down-select to a single vendor and approval of low-rate initial production (LRIP) slated for late 2027.

Phase 4/prototyping phase begins

The CDR decision in June 2025 represents the programme’s Milestone B and the beginning of the engineering and manufacturing design (EMD) process. Both GDLS and ARV had already been awarded Phase 4 contracts in June 2023, simultaneously with the Phase 3 selection. Of course, actual transition to the prototyping phase was contingent upon successful completion of the CDR.

During Phase 4, fully integrated, production representative prototypes will be built to the final design baseline to verify that the system meets all operational requirements before production. The prototype manufacturing process is divided into various subphases. Prototype hull fabrication was slated for the June–August 2025 timeframe. Full system integration is scheduled for September 2025 through March 2026, with prototype rollout and delivery to the Army expected in late 2026. Overall, this translates to an 18-20 month period between beginning of fabrication and final delivery of the completed prototypes.

Under the current schedule, both GDLS and ARV are expected to deliver seven prototypes each by the fourth quarter (Q4) of FY 2026. The firms will also provide two ballistic hulls and turrets, armour coupons and digital engineering data. The government retains an option for an additional four full prototypes of each design. The prototypes will undergo an intensive Army testing and evaluation process through mid-2027, including a Limited User Test (LUT) late in the evaluation cycle.

Phase 5 – production and fielding

The Milestone C decision is expected in late FY 2027, marking the transition to the production and fielding phase. This schedule is contingent on no significant delays during prototype evaluation, and on a successful outcome of the LUT and survivability testing. The Army will downselect to a single vendor’s design, and award an LRIP contract. Actual production under the LRIP contract is expected to begin in FY 2028.

After the production and fielding decision is made, the MICV’s designation will advance from XM30 to M30. Initial operational fielding of the first unit-set is planned for FY 2029. A full-rate production (FRP) decision is expected by FY 2030, with initial operational capability (IOC) expected in FY 2032.

Army statements indicate that the service wishes to field the M30 and the developmental M1E3 Abrams main battle tank variant simultaneously to upgrade combat power at the brigade level in a concerted manner; this implies that the M30 will be fielded as brigade assets. No target year for completion of the Bradley replacement cycle has been announced.

Moreover, the Pentagon has not officially set a total procurement goal for the M30. According to Congressional Research Service calculations, the US Army currently has circa 2,400 M2 Bradley IFVs assigned to the service’s 16 ABCTs. Factors affecting the ultimate M30 procurement figure could include organisational changes to the Army structure, such as an increase or decrease in the number of armoured formations or adjustments to their table of organisation/table of equipment. Over and above the direct allocation to fighting formations, the service will need to procure an as yet undetermined number of additional vehicles for training purposes, as well as for overseas prepositioned stockpiles.

Minimum viable product?

While the Pentagon continues to express confidence in the programme’s progress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has cautioned that the timeline has not left adequate opportunity to ensure full technological and design maturity.

A focal point of these concerns is the fact that the CDR review was accomplished in June 2025, one quarter later than originally planned. An Army spokesperson stated in April 2025 that the three-month delay of the CDR would not impact the overall programme timeline. “The [new] Milestone B date will allow the two competing contractors to complete a more comprehensive Critical Design Review prior to the milestone decision,” the spokesperson said. “The program continues to meet key events to deliver on schedule.”

While the Army’s statements to the press downplayed the significance of the delay, the GAO’s Weapon Systems Annual Assessment published in June 2025 reported that “program officials said the delay resulted from both contractors failing to develop MOSA-compliant software and hardware” due to insufficient proficiency using a models-based engineering approach. “Building and maturing the system architecture model resulted in significantly more growth in data and specifications than programme officials anticipated. Programme officials stated, however, that “this approach has yielded a greater understanding of the vehicle than they anticipated for a development contract”. Despite the Army’s optimistic assessment, the GAO cautioned that “identifying critical technologies this late in development risks XM30 not reaching maturity before it transitions to the [Major Capability Acquisition] pathway” during the course of program Phase 4. “Using immature technologies further increases the risk of redesign,” the assessment report warned.

In this context, the GAO’s report cited programme officials who stated that the programme identified a minimum viable product (MVP) during the Phase 2 concept design. As defined by the US military’s joint Defense Acquisition University, MVP refers to an early version of a product which can “deliver or field basic capabilities to users to evaluate and provide feedback on. Insights from MVPs help shape scope, requirements, and design.”

Balancing technical risk and accelerated development

While neither the Army nor the GAO have outlined this specifically, it would seem likely that the MVP of the XM30 would need to include the core lethality suite (turret with integrated XM913 and coaxial machine gun), the survivability suite with the baseline armour and the APS, the mobility baseline (engine, transmission and suspension), as well as the open architecture vetronics incorporating key mission systems and network interfaces in order to meet minimum requirements for LRIP. The GAO report specifically noted that “the [programme] officials stated that the Phase 3 and 4 contract award would lead to a fielded MVP, and that they plan to add more capabilities to the system in the future, such as the ability to detect uncrewed aerial systems.”

Responding to the GAO concerns, the Army stated that it was pursuing an iterative approach that refined capabilities over time to identify technically-achievable attributes and specifications. “[The Army] stated that this iterative, collaborative approach provided the ability to balance risk for the Phases 3 and 4 contract award and ensure that it did not direct high-risk requirements on an unachievable schedule.”

That position is consistent with the recent drive to streamline development and acquisition programmes. With the pace of technological development increasing significantly, it is no longer viable to spend 15 or more years to field new systems. ‘Exquisite’ weapons may still be the ultimate goal, but ‘good’ systems in the field will beat ‘great’ systems which are still in the laboratory. The XM30 would not be the only currently developmental programme in which the US military plans to field a first iteration which does not meet all of the objective criteria. On the one hand, early fielding will provide a limited but palpably upgraded capability when compared to currently operational IFVs. Secondly, initial tranches will serve as a field laboratory to guide upgraded capabilities in follow-on production batches. Since LRIP, by definition, involves comparatively small numbers of vehicles, a calculated decision to field the XM30 as early as responsibly possible need not prevent the full-rate production tranches from displaying the full objective capabilities profile.

 

Sidney E. Dean