Minor Updates To HDFM & MCAV

Project Updates

Usually I refrain from posting uodated and amendments for RFI and such. This isn't some policy or anything, just never really crossed my mind or anything. Oftentimes, Q&A responses consist of highly specific, technical questions that 99.9% of people will never care about.

Very rarely is there something monumental, and when RFI can be updated multiple times a week sometimes? You tend to not get into the mentality of dedicated, small posts for usually little information. For bigger projects though, I do wonder if there is still utility there in providing such a service to people.

In this case, we have a new amendment for the dual HDFM/MCAV RFI that included a decent Q&A section with a few key updates I thought would be interesting to share. I don't know exactly how to do/format this, however I do think that in certain cases there is value in highlighting some of these changes. You guys also seem to love RFI updates lol.

The most notable inclusion of the Q&A is a numbers update. While we have had a good idea of some of the numbers presented, if you read the newsletter, the RFI provided respondents with a general estimate. Those are:

• HDFM: up to ~201 MBT, 33 ARV, and 44 AEV

• MCAV: up to ~250 medium cavalry vehicles, 12 command post vehicles, 6 recovery vehicles, and 4 repair vehicles

These numbers align at two very different scales to what we had previously reported over the last few months. HDFM is purposely, as I know it, exploring it's higher-end numbers that I know. It is in fact the highest concept I have seen. Lower do exist, but ~200 was the highest I had known. Such a fleet, if it came to fruition, would sit just behind France in terms of fleet size, pushing Canada just out of the top five as it comes to tank fleet size, and a quadrupling of the current usable fleet.

Comparatively, the 250 number of MCAV has been out there for a while. War Zone also discussed it a few months ago. It is on the lower end of the concepts I have seen, some of which get up towards the 600-700 range at it's highest. Granted, my knowledge of the HDFM numbers, and one of you who wants to dig through DWAN could probably find the explanation, is that the 201 figure includes training, warstock, etc. The MCAV do not.

Of course, as always, both HDFM and MCAV are young projects. They aint been on the books long, and their numbers at this stage should be viewed more as a concept, and idea over a concrete plan. There is still lots of time and many decisions for things to shift around.

Looking at numbers this early can present a good idea of mentalities, but if you've been following around here a while, you'll know numbers are only as cemented as the people who will keep them proped up.

We might get a better idea of the concept of operations, and a better look at the gramder plan, once the Army Warfighting Concept comes out this Fall. That should provide some extra clarity where I can figure out the plan and maybe figure out the likely end of the spectrum.

Also should note there is teasing in here, and I won't repost but those of you with SAP can likely find what I'm referencing, that the 250 order is only a ‘first phase’ of what will be the Army’s future MCAV Capability.

For now though? They're something official, and oftentimes that's a lot better than nothing. It gives us a grounding to at least have conversations! Should also note that the Q&A both confirms that the proposal for a fast-track of 50 vehicles for MCAV is separate of these numbers and that the RFI is not looking at this time at upgrading or a mix of upgrading-acquisition for HDFM.

The MCAV fleet will not replace any existing platform (we already knew this, but theh reiterated) and the Army is primarily looking at a tracked vehicle. While there is no requirement for potential OEM to submit information regarding Munitions and the MSP, there is an expectation that companies will make munition-based investments as part of the wider projects.

Overall? Not a whole lot of info, but I at least hope having this out there can be helpful for somw of you! Also hope it can help further sonw of the discussions we are having here regarding the programs. I hate that a lot of this info is locked behind barriers for many of you, something that historically it hasn't been.

Only the last two or so years has such information been locked away to industry. I despise it amd what it does for engagement. That's what im here for I guess!