Designers do not like hearing that the most important test of a vehicle sometimes involves blowing holes in it.
The M2/M3 Bradley entered service with the U.S. Army in 1981 and has thus far earned its “battlewagon” nickname the old-fashioned way: by being mobile with tanks, transporting dismounts to the point of decision, and possessing enough organic firepower to keep the enemy’s armor and troops honest. This same combined arms formula—mobility, protection, and a turret that matters—is what every effort to replace the Bradley has centered around, even as the Bradley itself has become cluttered with upgrades and workarounds.
The one thing that the Bradley was not was subtle. It had a 25mm cannon and TOW missiles, which made it much more than an APC, and its true strength lay in its ability to work in conjunction with the Abrams tank. The Bradley had the ability to move scouts forward, provide cover for dismounted troops, and respond quickly when an enemy was made contact with, especially in open terrain where rapid movement and the use of a turret-mounted weapon could turn a glimpse into a destroyed enemy. In this way, the “Brad” was no longer simply an infantry transport, but a weapons system that happened to carry troops.
Its reputation was also influenced by the controversy surrounding survivability and the politics of testing. The current U.S. movement towards realistic live fire testing was given a significant push when Congress enacted the Live Fire Test Law in 1986, and this is closely linked to the question of how vulnerable major systems could be when they are subjected to actual threats. The engineering point remains: survivability is not something that goes into a brochure, and survivability efforts are often late, costly, and non-negotiable.
Over the years, the Bradley has assimilated significant upgrades to become a more networked and crew-protected platform without any radical change to its external appearance. A subsequent package of upgrades to the A3 standard included GPS, digital displays, better ammunition storage, automatic fire detection and suppression, and thermal sensors networked into a more complex command and control architecture. While such upgrades have helped keep the Bradley modern, they have also underscored the ceiling on the platform, which has little room left for the sensors, armor growth, and defensive systems now considered the norm.
This is the true “message” that the Bradley is sending to the Army’s next vehicle. The XM30 program is designed to not make the same mistakes of the past, and by June 2025, both XM30 candidates had completed Critical Design Review and entered the prototype phase. The proposed successor is based on a different set of premises: an unmanned turret, a smaller two-man crew, and a design that is meant to be modular and receptive to upgrades without requiring a complete overhaul. The linchpin is the XM913 50mm gun, with missile launchers making their return as a tried-and-true response to heavy threats—an acknowledgement that the Bradley’s gun and TOW combination is still what “enough” is for an infantry fighting vehicle.
Behind the scenes, the new wave of innovation is modularity and software. The XM30 is being designed as a Modular Open Systems Architected (MOSA) platform, an attempt to ensure that future sensors, anti-drone systems, and defensive systems are not bespoke hellholes. The anticipated hybrid-electric design introduces a new variable: range, signature management, and “silent watch” are no longer simply logistics speak, but tactical options. The Bradley’s longevity proves that a weapon system can be contentious, limited, and still indispensable. The Bradley’s successor inherits this same trinity of trade-offs: “lethality, protection, and growth margin,” but now with software design, autonomy solutions, and anti-drone threats resting atop every design choice.”
