The AMPV family of armored vehicles and the process of replacing old M113


Experimental car XM1283 AMPV-GP on trials, 2018

The US Army still has a large number of M113 armored personnel carriers and equipment based on them. These machines have long been morally and physically obsolete and need to be replaced. As their successor, the modern multipurpose AMPV platform has been developed. She has already reached mass production, and recently the first serial batches of such equipment hit the troops.

Future replacement

The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) development program was launched in March 2013 at the initiative of the US Army. Along with the request for information, the Pentagon published the main technical requirements for the project, and also disclosed a schedule for future work. Later, in October, the program plan was revised and approved for further implementation.

Based on the results of AMPV, the army wanted to get a modern tracked armored platform platform capable of replacing the old M113 armored personnel carrier and some samples based on it. Such an object was supposed to surpass the old technique in all basic parameters.

It was necessary to provide a higher level of protection, the ability to install various weapons or systems, as well as increase the useful volume and carrying capacity. With all this, the design had to be based on available units and have a high degree of unification with modern models of the US Army.

Comparison of the new AMPV and M113

Applications for participation in the program were filed by BAE Systems and General Dynamics. By the spring of 2014, they completed the development of preliminary designs and submitted them to the customer for analysis. However, controversy arose at this stage. So, GD accused the Pentagon of dishonest drafting of the terms of reference: in her opinion, the terms of reference were drawn up for a competitor's project. However, the proceedings had no real effect, and GD defiantly withdrew from the program.

In December 2014, the only remaining participant, the American branch of BAE Systems, received a contract to continue development with the subsequent construction and testing of experimental equipment. All activities were given 52 months (4 years and 4 months) and $383 million.

Production plan

Under the terms of the 2014 contract, the contractor was to develop a unified platform and five variants of armored vehicles for various purposes. Then the construction of prototypes of all types was expected - a total of 29 units. With their help, they were going to conduct comprehensive tests, factory and army. Testing and fine-tuning were to be completed in 2019-20.

For 2020, they planned to sign the first contract for serial production, so far "at a low pace." This stage was to last three years. For the allotted time, the contractor had to build and transfer to the customer 289 AMPV machines of all types.

In FY2023 The Pentagon was going to issue BAE Systems the first contract for a full-fledged serial production. Over the next 10 years, it was supposed to purchase 2618 armored vehicles of various modifications. As a result of these processes, the total number of AMPVs built and transferred to the army should have exceeded 2900 units.

In 2013-14 the planned cost of the armored vehicle, taking into account development costs, was determined at $ 1,8 million. Accordingly, the entire fleet required $ 5,3 billion at the prices of that time. At the same time, all costs could be divided between several annual budgets of the future.

Plans for the production of equipment on the new platform are already known. The XM1286 MCmd command and control vehicle will become the most massive serial model. It is planned to purchase 993 such products. In the amount of 790 units. build ambulance vehicles XM1284 MEV. Also required are 216 XM1285 MTV Advanced Medical Vehicles. To replace the existing vehicle based on the M113, 386 XM1287 MCV self-propelled mortars will be purchased. In addition, 522 XM1283 GP "general purpose" vehicles will be built - this will be a multi-purpose protected transport.

Development and release

The developer company BAE Systems as a whole successfully coped with the development of a full-fledged project and proceeded to the assembly of experimental equipment. At the same time, it slightly lagged behind the original schedule. In addition, an additional contract was needed, due to which the development budget was brought up to $438 million.

Self-propelled mortar XM1287 firing

However, prototypes built in 2016-18. passed the tests and confirmed the design characteristics. Such tests were carried out at army training grounds with different landscapes. At the later stages, the personnel of combat units were attracted to participate in them.

Based on the test results, in February 2019, a contract was signed for serial production at a slow pace. For the production of 289 units. equipment of various modifications allocated $585 million over the course of three years. Subsequently, the terms of this document were adjusted.

In July last year, it became known that the first production batch of AMPV armored vehicles in the "general purpose" XM1283 version is being tested at one of the land forces' training grounds. During these events, new equipment was mastered by crews from combat units. The features of its operation in conditions as close as possible to full-fledged service were also checked.

Production has reached the required pace and now allows you to re-equip the first parts. In January 2022, it was reported that the first batch of an unnamed number of AMPV-GPs had been transferred to the 2nd tank brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division stationed at Fort Stewart. The personnel of the unit began experimental military operation. In June, a similar set was received by the 69th tank regiment of the same division.

Medical vehicles transferred to the 69th Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, June 2022

Until recently, AMPVs were tested and trial operation only in the United States. Now this technique is also being tested abroad - on difficult landscapes. In mid-August, it became known that several cars were transferred to the Tropic Regions Test Center in Panama. A photograph of the XM1283 armored vehicle on the road has been published.

How long the current tests and trial operation will continue has not yet been specified. It is likely that these activities will be completed in the near future. This will be followed by the signing of a contract for a full-fledged series and the official adoption of equipment for service.

On a ready basis

One of the main reasons why the Pentagon chose the BAE Systems AMPV project was its origins. The new unified platform was made on the basis of the M2 Bradley serial infantry fighting vehicle. This AMPV variant is actually an infantry fighting vehicle without a turret and a part of the internal equipment, capable of carrying one or another target equipment.

The AMPV platform effectively retained the original aluminum hull to withstand small caliber rounds from forward angles and bullets/shrapnel from all angles. In this case, the forehead can be equipped with dynamic protection, and the sides are covered with spaced armor modules.

XM1283 on trial in Panama

The AMPV uses a power unit developed by BAE Systems for installation on existing or new armored vehicles. It is based on a 600 hp Cummins diesel engine. The chassis of the serial BMP has not undergone significant changes. Due to the replacement of the engine, it was possible to compensate for the increase in weight up to 34-36 tons and maintain driving characteristics at the level of the base machine.

The AMPV's own crew includes two people, a driver and a commander, whose functions depend on the type of vehicle. It is proposed to place up to six people and the necessary equipment in the central and aft parts of the hull. The crew has at its disposal an intercom for the required number of subscribers, means of voice communication, operational control, etc. Comfort and safety are provided by air conditioning and collective protection against weapons of mass destruction.

The XM1283 multi-purpose armored vehicle is actually a tracked armored personnel carrier. On the roof of its hull is placed a turret with a glazing, open from above, equipped with a large-caliber machine gun. There are six passenger seats in the landing compartment. In the fighting compartment of the XM1287 machine, an installation with a 120-mm mortar, 69 rounds and two mortars is placed. Shooting is carried out through the hatch in the roof. The command and staff XM1286 gets two jobs for commanders and a turret with a machine gun for self-defense.

The XM1284 recovery vehicle will be driven by a crew of three. In the habitable compartment, it will be possible to place up to six seated wounded or up to four stretchers. Their combinations are also possible. Loading will be carried out through the stern ramp, and equipment, medicines and materials will allow first aid. The XM1285 will have a crew of four and will only be able to carry one bedridden patient. At the same time, it will receive a more developed complex of medical equipment.

Obvious progress

Thus, the AMPV program is gradually moving towards the intended result. The contracting company has completed the development of the platform project and five machines based on it, and has also launched production at a slow pace. The army, in turn, masters new equipment and tests it in different conditions, incl. outside the country. In just a year or two, a new contract for the production of 2618 new armored vehicles is expected to appear, which will allow a full-fledged rearmament to begin.

However, it is already clear that the AMPV program alone will not cope with the task of replacing the old M113. Current plans provide for the production of 2900 of these vehicles over the next 10-12 years, while at least 5 old armored personnel carriers and various equipment based on them remain in service. To fully replace all such equipment, it will be necessary to create and adopt not only AMPVs, but also other samples. Or reduce the target size of the fleet in accordance with current production and economic possibilities.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    19 August 2022 06: 13
    Apparently, such objects are becoming more secure, but at the same time more massive, heavier.
    Where is the reasonable balance here?
    1. +2
      19 August 2022 06: 45
      And you pay attention to the saturation of the PTS troops, the Americans have 2 ATGMs in the squad - the norm.
      1. +5
        19 August 2022 07: 08
        Quote: strannik1985
        the Americans have 2 anti-tank systems in the department - the norm.

        If we take into account the ATGM installed on the BMP, then yes, it can be in department 2 of the ATGM

        Anyone who is designated as an anti-tank on the diagram MAY be armed with a Javelin or other anti-tank weapon.
        Those. anti-tank defense attaches great importance and pays a lot of attention and weapons. In our country, anti-tank systems are much larger in size and organizationally always attached to units, with the exception of naturally anti-tank systems installed on standard equipment.
      2. +1
        19 August 2022 08: 51
        It has already been written so many times that the infantry, and indeed all others, now have many different means of countering heavy, armored vehicles.
        You can’t talk about the regular armies of countries, they are packed according to the most, the most ... here you can also remember about different rebels / partisans how much they have in service now.
        1. +2
          19 August 2022 10: 16
          There are even more means against infantry. From a variety of mines, from old shrapnel shells with radio fuses and tubes, new cluster munitions, to shells with remote detonation. And now only lazy people are not talking about thermobaric ammunition.
          1. 0
            19 August 2022 10: 29
            In an open field, the one who has serious, powerful means of amplification has more chances ...
            And in the mountains, in dense urban areas, in the jungle ... it all depends on the theater. You can't fight the same way everywhere.
            1. +1
              19 August 2022 10: 41
              It’s even more fun in the city, there was a video from Mariupol, where a tank folds the entrance of a high-rise building with two dozen shots. Does the infantry have a better chance there?
              A tank from a distance of 1,5 km can make all window openings along the facade of a building deserted with the help of shells with remote detonation.
              1. 0
                19 August 2022 11: 43
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                A tank from a distance of 1,5 km can do

                Or maybe not have time to do it ... "here the" bullet "arrived and yeah !!!"
                Tanks, this is a means of reinforcement, fire support ...
                1. 0
                  19 August 2022 13: 07
                  The next one will come and continue. But the ability of the infantry to move under the fire of tank guns is in doubt.
                  In order for infantry tanks to hit ATGMs, you need to carry them on yourself, and shells are at hand in the tank. This is the difference.
                  1. +1
                    19 August 2022 14: 16
                    Any problem / task is solved in a complex way ... otherwise, it is often a waste of resources and human lives ...
              2. +3
                19 August 2022 12: 03
                Maybe. If he does not fly under the shoulder strap at this time from the side or from behind from a grenade launcher.
                How the ingenious introduction of tanks without cover into a building saturated with anti-tank weapons ends has been seen more than once.
                These do not end very well, and not good for tanks uncovered by infantry.
                1. -2
                  19 August 2022 13: 13
                  So, maybe ours do not know that it is dangerous for tanks in the city? wassat
                  1. -3
                    19 August 2022 13: 16
                    It's very possible. It is impossible to explain otherwise the repeated repetition of this idiocy, with the burning of equipment
                    1. -3
                      19 August 2022 13: 31
                      Every time they forget to consult with the local commentators! am
                      1. -2
                        19 August 2022 13: 43
                        Every time they lose people and expensive armored vehicles, under the joyful approval of Internet idiots.
                        Details of how this happens can be found in the memoirs of the participants in the brilliant assault on Grozny.
                      2. 0
                        19 August 2022 13: 53
                        Quote: Lex_is
                        joyful approval from the internet morons

                        Did I understand you correctly that you personally do not belong to this class? If so, I would like to understand - on what basis are you doing this and how exactly do you differ from the aforementioned.

                        Thank you.
                      3. +3
                        19 August 2022 14: 09
                        Internet jerks
                        Now this is just about you. Tanks are used in the storming of cities, by all armies of the world and will be used. This is the most protected combat vehicle, do you think if a tank is on fire or a mine is blown up in a city (this also happens), then everything will be fine with armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles? Some other, more protected assault equipment will appear, they will use it. The survivability of the tank in the city, of course, increases with good interaction with the infantry. But as long as the tanks stormed the cities, they will continue to do so.
                      4. 0
                        19 August 2022 14: 16
                        No about you.
                        If you are not able to understand the difference between the use of armored vehicles and the use of armored vehicles WITHOUT COVERING BY INFANTRY, which is written in charters and instructions and repeatedly confirmed by practice as a prerequisite for successful use.
                        These are the basics of military affairs.
                      5. +3
                        19 August 2022 14: 24
                        It is clear that one cannot simply drive 40 tanks into a city without infantry and wait for the result. So is infantry without tanks, it’s better not to drive one. I'm talking about the fact that tanks are used to storm cities, so they will be.
                      6. 0
                        19 August 2022 14: 30
                        So no one argues that tanks are needed and important.
                        The conversation is that the tank itself burns out very quickly in modern conditions, and its effective use is ensured by infantry cover, artillery cover, target designation, reconnaissance and many others in the complex, as, by the way, the infantry, which without armor support is also not feels very good.
                      7. +2
                        19 August 2022 14: 39
                        I agree with you, the survivability of tanks also increases from the installation of thermal imagers, panoramic sights, KAZ, modern remote sensing, etc. But now I don't understand what we're arguing about, comrade laughing
                      8. +2
                        19 August 2022 14: 55
                        Nothing to do with you. I can only agree.

                        But I don’t agree at all with the opinion broadcast by Sergey of not at all smart people (some of whom wear large and beautiful shoulder straps) that a tank driven into a building will sweep away enemy infantry.
                        Such brilliant ideas are very costly.
                        Infantry in general is picked out very hard and for a long time, a tank can suppress firing points, ensuring the successful actions of its infantry, but by itself it is not capable of coping with enemy infantry.
                      9. The comment was deleted.
                      10. 0
                        19 August 2022 16: 43
                        Plus, the dialogue was interesting hi
                  2. -1
                    25 August 2022 15: 01
                    The idea is to know. Back in the 45th, during the capture of Berlin, they ate (massive use of faustpatrons, etc.) ... And if they have forgotten since then, then they are fools themselves (that's just the guys who die because of idiots, it's a pity) ...
    2. 0
      19 August 2022 14: 28
      From the 113th, it differs only in that it is even larger and heavier. More secure is also a big question, anti-tank systems penetrate 500 - 600 mm. armor.
      1. 0
        19 August 2022 14: 49
        So many are already predicting that support vehicles will be without a crew, controlled remotely ... and AI will also be planted at the bottom.
        Someday it will be so, but now, everything is the old fashioned way, whatever you say ... the armor is thicker and a lot of all sorts of tricks to protect against countermeasures.
        In general, it’s possible to roll up to a large cast iron ball, which rolls by itself ...
        1. +1
          19 August 2022 17: 11
          Computers and AI are certainly good, but hackers are bastards, they are on the alert, especially if they are in the service of the state.
          1. 0
            19 August 2022 19: 23
            So the struggle does not stop, at all levels.
            Who will be the winner .... in general, we will talk about this later, when we have something to talk about.
  2. 0
    19 August 2022 06: 21
    more in volume and becomes higher - it is easier to get into it.
    1. +7
      19 August 2022 07: 10
      Our T-15 and Kurganets-25 are larger. And one more note - they got it to the stage of deliveries to the aircraft, but we didn’t pass further factory tests.
      1. +1
        19 August 2022 08: 40
        Only we have this is the fourth generation, and they have the second.
        Moreover, out of the indicated number (for 11 (maximum 16, if you add NG) armored brigades), only 522 are general-purpose, that is, they can be used to transport infantry. The remaining 42 brigades ride Strykers and MRAPs with maximum protection in the form of knife screens. And nothing.
        1. +2
          19 August 2022 12: 07
          The remaining 42 brigades ride the Strykers

          How many???
          They have a total of 6 SBCTs and 14 IBCTs)
          1. 0
            19 August 2022 12: 49
            +27 National Guard Brigades
        2. +1
          20 August 2022 05: 55
          How is our 4th generation different from the first? The fact that they put another tower on the chassis of the 1st generation?
          1. 0
            20 August 2022 09: 56
            Anyway, the level of situational awareness and weapon capabilities is one of the aspects of protecting armored combat vehicles.
    2. 0
      19 August 2022 08: 53
      This machine should not enter the battlefield at all. This is a b / a technique that is always located in the near rear.
      1. 0
        19 August 2022 10: 04
        The M-ATV, Cougar has a height of 2,7-2,6 meters, i.e. the transport of infantry brigades is more at risk of mines than combined arms combat.
        1. 0
          19 August 2022 15: 27
          So he should not go to the battlefield.
          1. 0
            19 August 2022 15: 59
            And the infantry does not overcome the PZO / NZO lines in the attack, and there is always the opportunity to use helicopters. Pure local or high-intensity conflict, but with complete superiority over the enemy.
            1. 0
              19 August 2022 16: 07
              And where does the infantry in the attack?
              The M-ATV in the IBCT is the company command and control vehicle. They definitely don't go on the attack on it.
              1. 0
                19 August 2022 16: 49
                Like a cargo 1083 or Hummer.
                1. +2
                  19 August 2022 18: 00
                  Naturally. And the M113 does not attack, but is used as an auxiliary tracked lightly armored platform in the ABST.
                  Now, due to the increased probable depth of defeat by the enemy, it was simply replaced with a more protected platform, unified with Bradley, which forms the basis of the same ABCT.

                  At the same time, no one is going to attack her anyway, she needs armor to protect against mines, shelling from ambushes in the near rear and fragments of artillery shells.
  3. +4
    19 August 2022 08: 06
    Yes, it's Bradley.
  4. +1
    19 August 2022 14: 36
    Both DZ and lattices are available. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation, which is at war for the sixth month ....
  5. IVZ
    19 August 2022 19: 25
    This is Bradley. Apparently they want to support the production involved in the release of Bradley. And it is very likely that Bradley has prepared a replacement.
  6. 0
    20 August 2022 01: 53
    The fact that all modern projects for the creation of new armored vehicles are faced with the problem of too much mass is a direct continuation of the growth in the spread of anti-tank weapons on the battlefield. Only ATGMs in the world have been created in a huge number, several times greater than the number of all tanks combined. And given the fact that ATGMs of the 2nd and even 3rd generation cost less than a tank and are produced faster, then in theory it turns out to saturate the battlefield with them faster than with tanks.

    Hence the desire to protect modern armored vehicles more strongly. This leads to an increase in weight and dimensions. And if earlier, this growth could still be increased, then by the current, third decade, here and there, designers from different countries have approached the physical limit of protection. Now technology increases protection only through a strong loss in mobility, cheapness and ease of production. If they do not find a way out of such a decision, there will be a crisis of heavy armored vehicles.

    At this point in time, there are 2 main directions for solving the problem. But both do not yet solve the root of the problem, and therefore will not solve the problem completely in the long term.

    1) Redistribution of part of the shock functions to lighter and more mobile equipment. Distribute part of the weapons on wheeled and light tracked platforms. Due to their cheapness and simplicity, they can be produced in sufficient quantities to distribute the entire composition and roles with weapons. An armored pickup can be a mobile anti-tank vehicle (by installing an ATGM installation with a supply of missiles on the hood), and a mobile air defense system (by placing gun carriages with MANPADS), and support (by installing light guns or mortars), etc.
    But such an approach deprives the army as a whole, and the SV in particular, of protection. Light equipment, not capable of parrying all types of threats with its mobility. Such equipment will be easily destroyed even with light weapons. And attempts to strengthen and strengthen such vehicles will lead to ersatz armored cars not able to be as mobile and simple as ordinary light platforms, but their protection will still not be enough.

    2) Parrying threats through the use of active protection systems. Such as KAZ, jamming and electronic warfare systems, active camouflage. This approach only works in relation to the fight against a technologically weaker enemy, which, by definition, cannot provide itself with sufficiently modern weapons in sufficient quantity. And with a massive transition and preparation of the army for a potential war with an enemy who has a close or equal technological level of technology in the army, the problem of the price of such systems will be revealed. Indeed, already now, various types of active threat countermeasures are noticeably more expensive than the threats for which they are designed. In theory, provided that the means of attack also do not stand still and also develop, then we can expect an economic impasse in the development of active defense systems. Namely, situations where a complex of various active defense systems, with some elements of passive defenses (the same dynamic protection units) in total will cost more than the cost of several missiles / shells spent on the destruction of this equipment.

    And at this stage I would like to propose the idea of ​​considering one of my ideas. Radical ideas, I admit it myself.
    And what if you design a completely new class of heavy armored vehicles by changing two design ideas to the opposite of what they were for the last 100 years.

    1st change - do not try to limit the size of the combat vehicle to the dimensions of transportation on railway tracks. And to design from the idea that at ranges of several hundred km. the equipment will be able to move under its own power along the main routes and roads of both our country and potential theaters of hostilities (except for especially extreme ones, like mountainous or arctic regions, for which they are already trying to create their own equipment) and over long distances the equipment moves disassembled within several wagons. The reason is that railroads have become a strong limiting factor in the development of heavy armored vehicles around the world. And the restructuring of all railway tracks for larger cargo will cost as much as no construction project in the world has cost.

    2nd change - try to design the car not from the strength and thickness of the armor, but from the distance between the protection elements and important equipment units. Make the vehicle large enough so that, due to the dimensions and the use of spaced, multi-layered armor, do not allow existing and promising shells to nail the entire armor of the vehicle. And in case of penetration, leave most of the systems intact so that the armored vehicles continue to work. Simply put, the distance between the very first protection circuit (anti-cumulative gratings or DZ) and the insides, as well as taking into account additional layers of protection in the path of striking elements, was greater than the strength of the vast majority of anti-tank weapons.
  7. +1
    7 October 2022 23: 57
    Stupid shit of a box (like German Boxer) vs. sloped-armored Namer IFV is since long producible (certified production like) at GDLS (General-Dynamics Land-Systems) and has proven itself in Israeli combat across the Gaza strip. The Namer also has a Tank Depot in Israel, near where most battles happen (Middle-East, Eastern- Europe).