And it looks a lot like the old FCS-ICV, coming in a bit heavier, 30+ tons, with a greater reliance on armor than the FCS, where the concept, as laughable as it now seems in the days of the IED, was that the network was the armor.

So the army has gone old school:

The major departure from the FCS vehicle design in the new vehicle effort will be “integral survivability,” said Mark Signorelli, BAE vice president for new combat vehicles. The FCS vehicles were supposed to rely on situational awareness provided by electronic sensors and speed to survive on the battlefield and were not heavily armored for close combat.

The Army now says networking and sensor technology can improve a vehicle’s survivability, but real survivability must be inherent in the vehicle, he said. In other words, the vehicle must be able to take and survive a hit. MRAP-like survivability doesn’t get you combat survivability, which means the ability to survive kinetic hits from auto– and larger cannon, Signorelli said. For that you need heavy armor.

As for weapons systems, to fit both a turret bustle, such as that on BAE’s Bradley fighting vehicle, and a squad into a vehicle, would require a very large vehicle. That may push industry into going with an unmanned turret, Signorelli said. The most likely weapon is an auto-cannon and coaxial machine gun, and probably anti-armor missiles.

It appears that the vehicle will, “be required to have the mobility of a Bradley, the sustainability of a Stryker and the lethality of a Bradley,” which makes one wonder, why not just upgrade the Bradley?

There are unmanned turrets that would allow a Bradley to carry a full 9 man squad by freeing up interior space, such as the CTA International 40mm telescoped round auto-cannon.

As to getting the sustainability to that of the Stryker, I’m not sure that this would be possible on a tracked vehicle, tracks require more maintenance than wheels, and at over 30 tons, I see mobility issues with a wheeled vehicle.

An all new vehicle might be cheaper and more fuel efficient than an upgraded Bradley, but it will undoubtedly also be more expensive than a new-build Bradley, and much more expensive than an refurbished Bradley.

It just does not make sense to develop a new vehicle.