3000 BAE AMPV to Replace US Army M113 Fleet

[Cloud Cover]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1692990-new-army-infantry-carrier-built-for-major-war

"Built by BAE Systems, the platform is intended to replace the Vietnam-era M113 infantry carrier; several variants are planned, including a General Purpose Vehicle, Mortar Carrier Vehicle, Mission Command Vehicle, Medical Evacuation Vehicle and Medical Treatment Vehicle.
Overall, the Army plans to build roughly 3,000 AMPVs at a cost of $1 million to $1.7 million each."

Note reference at bottom of article to "...DUKE v3 electronic jammer engineered to identify and jam the signal of an electronically-detonated roadside bomb."

More on the DUKE here: http://www.srcinc.com/what-we-do/ew/crew-duke.html

 

[Kirkhill]

From Cloud Cover's post

The General Purpose AMPV transports two crew members and six passengers. It is armed with a 50-cal crew-served weapon and carry one injured Soldier on a litter.

Implications for Section/Squad size and tactics?

 

[tomahawk6]

So what happens with the Bradley ?

 

[Kirkhill]

Anything newer than this?

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/06/08/army-ffv-future-fighting-vehicle-bradley-bae-requirements-abrams-stryker/28535079/

 

[George Wallace]

So what happens with the Bradley ?

Off to the Reserves or the Guard ? ??

 

[dapaterson]

So what happens with the Bradley ?

Wiki claims the US still has 6000 M113s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier#Current_operators); Bradleys and Strykers are on top of that.

 

[CBH99]

I don't think the Bradley is going anywhere.

The Bradley, recently upgraded, has a 25mm cannon & AT missiles, as well as carrying a squad of infantry.

This vehicle seems to be replacing the M113, and is only armed with a .50 cal, same as a majority of the M113 fleet.

 

[tomahawk6]

Its a waste of money.

 

[McG]

Its a waste of money.

... Because the M113 does not yet need replacing or because this is the wrong vehicle?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Anything newer than this?

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/06/08/army-ffv-future-fighting-vehicle-bradley-bae-requirements-abrams-stryker/28535079/

If you dig back far enough, you'll find that's how the Bradley project started. A simple carrier. Look what it ended up being.

Watch The Pentagon Wars with Kelsey Grammer. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/

 

[cupper]

One thing about this option is that they can take some of the current Bradley fleet that they want to phase out and use the chassis and certain components as the base for the new vehicles, possibly cutting overall costs.

The wikipedia entry for the Bradley makes mention of this as well.

Turretless Bradley

For the U.S. Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program to replace the M113, BAE offered a variant of the Bradley. The AMPV submission is a turretless Bradley chassis, providing greater cargo space, increased armor, and an upgraded engine and electrical systems. For increased protection, a V-shaped bottom replaces the flat base. The AMPV also has several modular roof sections to adapt to each role. For fuel efficiency, BAE is considered using a hybrid-electric drive, similar to their GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It was suggested that surplus Bradleys could be retrofitted into this version. The Turretless Bradley competed against General Dynamics' Tracked Stryker.[42][43]

BAE said they have the capability to build up to eight AMPV platforms per day, the same as the Bradley during the height of its production, as both vehicles share the same production line and supply base.[44] A mortar carrier vehicle can be converted from the original Bradley in 40 days.[45] Underbody blast tests demonstrated that AMPV survivability requirements could be met with a Bradley platform.[46] BAE projected their AMPV submission to have similar operating costs to the M113 and lower costs than an M2 Bradley, as the platform's most expensive components are related to the omitted turret.[47] To better accommodate modern electronics, the Turretless Bradley has 78 percent more internal space than the M113 and two 400 amp generators.[48]]

 

[tomahawk6]

... Because the M113 does not yet need replacing or because this is the wrong vehicle?

IMO the M113 as a platform is obsolete.I can support a modified Bradley or an all new platform using the lessons learned from dealing with IED's.Something with a V hull perhaps.

 

[McG]

From what I read, this is a modified Bradley.

 

[Kirkhill]

My understanding too McG.

The Army is also preparing to take delivery later this year of its new infantry carrier platform called the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, or AMPV.
Built by BAE Systems, the platform is intended to replace the Vietnam-era M113 infantry carrier; several variants are planned, including a General Purpose Vehicle, Mortar Carrier Vehicle, Mission Command Vehicle, Medical Evacuation Vehicle and Medical Treatment Vehicle.

Overall, the Army plans to build roughly 3,000 AMPVs at a cost of $1 million to $1.7 million each.

The platform is designed to transport troops, evacuate injured Soldiers, escort logistical convoys and maneuver alongside larger vehicle such as Abrams tanks.  The AMPV is designed with the speed to maneuver such that it can increase its chance of avoiding Anti-Tank Guided Missiles. An ATGM is the kind of conventional weapon the Army would be likely to face in a hybrid or great-power engagement. The vehicle is also armored in order to reduce its vulnerability to long-range enemy weapons.

The AMPV is a tracked vehicle built on a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle chassis;

That would mean commonality across the Bradley, the AMPV, the M109A7 and the M995 MLRS transporter.

 

[cupper]

IMO the M113 as a platform is obsolete.I can support a modified Bradley or an all new platform using the lessons learned from dealing with IED's.Something with a V hull perhaps.

It's supposed to have a V hull from what I read.

 

[Red 6]

The AMPV isn't a replacement for the Bradley, at least not yet. Every mechanized unit has soldiers that use APCs. Medics, Maintenance contact teams, the TOC, mortars, etc, etc, etc, all currently deploy on the 113. That track has been obsolete for a long time. The AMPV shares many components with the Bradley, which is a good thing.

 

[Cloud Cover]

And here it is.  The M113 replacement looks like a TLAV.

https://thedeaddistrict.blogspot.com/2020/09/first-production-armored-multi-purpose.html?m=1

 

[FJAG]

Off to the Reserves or the Guard ? ??

The USAR may have some units with M113s, but the primary reserve users are with the three Armored Brigade Combat Teams, one Cavalry Brigade Combat Team and one brigade sized Armored Cavalry Regiment all of which are equipped with Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Paladin self-propelled howitzers and M113s in various combat support vehicle roles. Additionally there are a number of ARNG artillery brigades many of which have Paladins and M113 variants.

There is currently no plan that I know of to convert any additional ARNG BCT's to ABCTs. I would suspect at some point, the AMPVs would replace M113s within ARNG formations and units.

If the AMPV has significant M2/M3 component compatibility (especially with power pack and track and wheel assemblies, then that would be a significant benefit to the maintenance and driver training of the tracked vehicle fleets within ABCTs.

There is no intent to replace any Bradleys with the AMPVs. The AMPV is part of the Next Generation Combat Vehicle program which also has as part of it's mandate finding a replacement for the Bradleys. There have been several projects to do this which have crashed and burned and the most recent ongoing one has is called the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle which has gone back to the drawing board with a new Request for Proposal as recently as July of this year.

There's a fairly decent briefing paper to congress that explains things as of July 13th.

:cheers: