"The US Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). " Topic

"BAE Systems was awarded a contract worth up to $1.2 USD billion from the U.S. Army for the Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) and Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). The program aims to provide the U.S. Army with a highly survivable and mobile fleet of vehicles that addresses a critical need to replace the Vietnam-era M113s.

"This award represents a significant milestone for the U.S. Army and BAE Systems," said Mark Signorelli, vice president and general manager of Combat Vehicles at BAE Systems. "The AMPV will provide a substantial upgrade over the Army's current personnel carrier fleet, increasing the service's survivability, force protection, and mobility while providing for future growth potential. It also confirms BAE Systems' role as a leading provider of combat vehicles."…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

"turret-less Bradley" seems like something they should have standardized on a LONG time ago…

Too flipping heavy and not enough troop carrying capacity esp. with all the gear we chuck on the kids nowadays.

Can Anti-Materiel Rifles knock out those remote mount weapon combos?---look! no apostrophe!!!!

Skippy, a kid with a .308 rifle could shoot out the optics on one of those without too much difficulty. I also suspect that hitting the ammunition box would foul up the links and cause it to jam.

Damn those idiots in the DOD for coming up with such a daft srt of requirements for this vehicle when they should just have got the TMP crowd to do it properly :)

How SOOO true David. Just to remind the TMP armchair consultants: This puppy is suppose to replace the remaining M113 variants still in the inventory, NOT the Brad. And its LOOOOONG overdue.

"This puppy is suppose to replace the remaining M113 variants still in the inventory, NOT the Brad."

To clarify: my point was that using a Bradley-chassis minus the expensive and space-consuming turret hardware (which is what this vehicle basically is) as an M113 replacement is the sort of platform-sharing that shouldn't have taken 3 decades to come about. The M2 Bradley and M109 Paladin are both United Defense (now owned by BAE) products, and the latest M109A7 features Bradley engines/transmissions/etc. So our heavy divisions will basically have only two types of armored vehicle: Bradley-based and Abrams-based. The M113 is just an armored box, but no one went forward with the Army-wide logistical cost savings of building a Bradley-drivetrain armored box before this? Seriously?

Does the turretless Brad actually carry an entire infantry squad? (Is it supposed to carry infantry squads?)

If it's supposed to carry a full infantry squad and doesn't, why the hell are we spending money on it?!?

Frankly, I'm wondering why the Bradleys weren't stretched to the "long chassis version" as used on M270 MLRS to allow the Bradleys to carry a full 9-man infantry squad.

The 'turretless Brad' isn't suppose to be an IFV; its a replacement for all those specialist variants of the M113. So it doesn't have to carry a 'full squad' (which is rarely at full strength). As for the never ending argument about the Brad's carrying capacity; well, that horse left the barn 30 years ago, so get over it.

Re: Why it took so long to come up with a Brad derived vehicle? Originally, a whole series of variants were planned, but got shelved (first because of budget and then when the Army went into the black hole of that farce GCV program). At least they finally pulled the trigger on the program (and the 50+ year old 113 can go into a respected and well deserved retirement).

Like most armies, always ready to fight the last war.

@Coastal: So, the turretless Brad is filling roles like mortar carrier, ambulance, forward HQ (or at least TOC)? What am I missing?

Considering that currently serving officers are still bitching about the lack of transport space in a Brad, while the horse left the barn long ago, it's loss is still keenly felt.

As far as being ready to fight the last war, well, I don't think that the US is really doing that. Not like the Brits, who are apparently replacing all their tracked APCs with wheeled MRAPs. I'm not sure if they're replacing their theoretically-behind-the-lines supply trucks with an MRAP-type vehicle.

Lion- I don't disagree. When the Brad's design was fixed (back in '80-'81), I vaguely recall some discussion of going to a smaller squad. That didn't pan out (and rightfully so), but the design was set and too advanced to change. So we got stuck with a 9 man squad and 6 man vehicle. The two flopped programs to replaced the Brad (the MGV and GCV) would have solved that. And the current program to replace the Brad won't come to fruition until 2019 (at the earliest). Not perfect, but what's the alternative? Run around in more M113s? or Strykers? The grunts will do what we have always done: adapt, adjust and make-do (and bitch about it to the heavens… and rightfully so…).