New AMPV armored vehicles have replaced half a century-old armored personnel carriers.

51
New AMPV armored vehicles have replaced half a century-old armored personnel carriers.
The first production M1283 armored personnel carrier before delivery to the customer, August 2020. Photo by BAE Systems


At the beginning of the last decade, the Pentagon made another attempt to update the fleet of armored combat vehicles of the ground forces. The AMPV (Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle) program was launched, the goal of which was to develop and bring to series a promising unified platform and several types of armored vehicles based on it. To date, the AMPV project has been brought to full-fledged mass production, and the re-equipment of parts has already started.



Perspective replacement
The US Army still has a large number of M113 armored personnel carriers and equipment based on them. This platform, despite all the modernizations, has long been obsolete and required replacement. Several attempts have been made in the past to create a new unified chassis, but none of them led to the desired results.

In 2013, the Pentagon launched a program to develop a new platform and equipment based on it under the general name AMPV. At that time, it was assumed that the coming years would be spent on creating the project, and by the beginning of the next decade, mass production would begin. In total they wanted to build approx. 2,9 thousand new armored vehicles of several models. The cost of cars of different models differed and should not exceed $1,8 million. They wanted to spend no more than $4,7 billion on the entire construction.

At the end of 2014, BAE Systems received the contract for the work. She had to complete the development of the previously presented project, as well as set up and launch the production of experimental equipment. More than $380 million and 52 months were allocated to carry out all these activities.

The contract provided for the development of the AMPV platform itself, as well as five vehicles for various purposes based on it. The army wanted to receive the XM1283 General Purpose (GP) armored personnel carrier, the XM1286 Mission Command (MCmd) command and staff vehicle, the XM1285 Medical Treatment Vehicle (MTV), the XM1284 Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV), as well as the XM120 1287-mm self-propelled mortar Mortar Carrier Vehicle (MCV).


Armored vehicles of the AMPV family (from left to right): Self-propelled mortar XM1287, medical vehicles XM1285 and XM1284, KShM XM1286 and armored personnel carrier XM1283. Photo by BAE Systems

According to the first contract, BAE Systems was to build 29 prototypes of all five types for testing under different conditions. The first armored vehicle of the experimental batch was handed over to the customer in December 2016, and the last batch was shipped in April 2018. Without waiting for the delivery of all the equipment, the Pentagon began a test program in September 2017.

Low rate production
Testing of the resulting vehicles lasted less than a year and a half. During this time, it was possible to establish the real characteristics and parameters of the equipment of all models and their compliance with customer requirements. Based on the test results, at the beginning of 2019 the Pentagon moved the AMPV program to the next stage. Now we were talking about launching mass production.

At the beginning of 2019, BAE Systems received a new order from the military department worth $873 million. It was required to begin “low rate initial production (LRIP)” and produce 457 units. equipment of all models.

It took about a year to launch the production line and assemble the first batch of armored vehicles - the customer wanted to receive finished products in March 2020. By the end of FY 2020. (by October) they demanded the delivery of 258 combat and auxiliary vehicles. For FY2021 They planned to produce 143 cars, and the remaining 2022 for the first months of 56. After this, the start of a full-fledged series was expected.

The development of mass production encountered some problems. In particular, BAE Systems referred to the coronavirus pandemic and related difficulties. Because of this, the first AMPV armored vehicle in the configuration of the M1283 armored personnel carrier was delivered to the customer only in September 2020 - six months later than the planned date. The plan to assemble 285 cars by the end of the financial year was also disrupted.


A prototype armored personnel carrier undergoing testing, October 2017. Photo by the US Department of Defense

Due to the setbacks of 2020, the Pentagon and Congress have had to adjust plans for the next fiscal year. Thus, the equipment supply plan was reduced from 143 units. to 32. The budget for the work was reduced from $445 million to $193 million. Plans for the following periods were revised accordingly.

It was possible to fulfill the order for the production of LRIP only in mid-2023. The army received the desired vehicles of all modifications and began distributing them between units and formations. In addition, it became possible to launch full-scale mass production.

Armored vehicles in the series
At the beginning of August 2023, the Pentagon announced the start of the series. Despite all the difficulties and delays, BAE Systems was able to set up the production line. Now it is ready to fulfill full-scale orders and to ensure the rearmament of ground forces.

According to reports ten years ago, the US Army required 2907 AMPV armored vehicles of all modifications. Later, it was proposed to revise and reduce such plans, but the Pentagon managed to defend the rearmament program in its original volumes. In 2018, before the launch of LRIP, the previous volume of the production program was approved and has not been adjusted since then.

Under the terms of the contracts issued, BAE Systems will have to build at least 300 AMPV armored vehicles of various modifications annually. To fully implement previously approved plans, it will have to assemble 2450 serial products. If the required production rates are met, it will take a little over 8 years to produce such a series. However, deviations from the planned rates in one direction or another cannot be ruled out with changes in production volumes and timing.


Firing tests of the XM1287 self-propelled mortar, September 2018. Photo of the US Department of Defense

At the request of the customer, the executing company had to create a reserve of production capacity for the “mobilization” expansion of equipment production. It was not reported how much the production rate should increase in this case. At the same time, it is clear that accelerating production will allow us to fulfill all plans faster.

It cannot be ruled out that in the future the Pentagon will issue additional orders to BAE Systems for the production of new batches of AMPV. Thanks to them, the department will be able to increase the overall size of the army’s equipment fleet, replacing a larger number of outdated materiel, as well as compensate for wear and tear or losses of serial armored personnel carriers and other vehicles.

Start of rearmament


The AMPV family of armored vehicles is intended to replace outdated M113 armored personnel carriers and vehicles based on them in units of ABCT (Armored Brigade Combat Teams) armored brigades. Each such brigade has 114 units in the state. M113 and their derivatives. They want to replace 2897 old armored vehicles - more than 25 brigade sets. For this purpose, 2907 new AMPVs will be built, and we are talking about an almost equivalent replacement.

Experimental armored vehicles of the new family underwent military tests in units of the 2nd ABCT of the 1st Cavalry Division, serving at the Fort Hood base in Texas (now Fort Cavazos). At this stage, representatives of other units and formations also became familiar with the equipment. At the same time, full adoption and entry into service remained a matter of the future.

The first brigade set of AMPV armored vehicles of all models entered service in March 2023. It was received by the 1st ABCT of the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart (Georgia). It has not yet been announced where the other vehicles from the LRIP series will go. Also, plans for the supply of full-fledged serial armored vehicles, the assembly of which began last year, have not been specified.


Medical equipment being tested, 2022. Photo of the US Department of Defense

However, the results of all these processes are already clear. Over the next 8-10 years, more than two dozen ground brigades will update their fleet of armored vehicles. At the same time, they will receive new armored personnel carriers, self-propelled mortars, military vehicles and medical vehicles. It was reported that units stationed both in the United States and at foreign bases will undergo rearmament.

With a vision for the future


The M113 armored personnel carrier and the equipment based on it have long been obsolete and are in need of modern replacement. A new line of armored vehicles for this has already been developed and brought to full-fledged mass production. In addition, finished equipment is supplied to the troops and mastered by combat units. Overall, the Pentagon and its contractors have reason to be proud, albeit with some reservations.

Now the task of industry and the military department is to produce two and a half thousand serial armored vehicles and re-equip two dozen brigades. This will take the next few years, and deliveries may take until the early thirties. However, such a long wait is considered acceptable and justified. The fleet of new equipment will serve for the next several decades, and in this situation the priority is the quality of work, not the speed of its completion.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    16 February 2024 04: 59
    interesting car. It’s high time to get rid of the M113, but for some reason, all of the US armored vehicles are heavy
    1. +1
      16 February 2024 08: 33
      Why save money if you can steal more? The main thing is that they are not difficult, but expensive. Why don’t you like the M113? The machine is like a machine, it copes with its task perfectly, for the USA there is no need for anything better.
      1. +4
        16 February 2024 13: 59
        It's always touching when all sorts of semi-literate citizens worry about corruption in the United States. Writing such nonsense in 2024 is something special.
        1. +1
          18 February 2024 00: 19
          And everyone who is still touched, like difficult and naive children with developmental delays, believes in “blessed America” with its perfect society. To believe in such nonsense in 2024 is something strange. They cut billions of dollars there, unlike billions of rubles here... Feel the difference
    2. +5
      16 February 2024 13: 57
      They are heavy for a reason. Armor is armor.
  2. +10
    16 February 2024 05: 14
    As always, this author has a lot of text, but very little specifics. When talking about the new basic armored personnel carrier, which should replace the M113, it would be appropriate to give its characteristics.
    1. +1
      16 February 2024 06: 01
      Quote: Tucan
      it would be appropriate to give its characteristics.

      https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a46686255/m1283-armored-multi-purpose-vehicle/
      1. +3
        16 February 2024 06: 21
        Quote: Aerodrome
        Quote: Tucan
        it would be appropriate to give its characteristics.

        https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a46686255/m1283-armored-multi-purpose-vehicle/

        Thank you! hi
        The only pity is that the author did not consider it possible to publish them.
    2. +2
      16 February 2024 06: 59
      As always, this author has a lot of text, but very little specifics.
      The author practically duplicated his article on VO dated 19.08.22/XNUMX/XNUMX with the same illustrated photos, but probably edited it so that there were no complaints. In the first article, he cited individual performance characteristics.
  3. +6
    16 February 2024 07: 05
    Here. A normally protected armored personnel carrier of a healthy person with a normal method of landing through a ramp from behind, and not a widowmaker based on the BTR-60/70/80, the armor of which in modern conditions can be called cardboard.
    1. -2
      16 February 2024 08: 15
      The issue of cost and timing has not been canceled.
      If you choose to travel on foot (waiting for Kurganets for at least another five years) or on an armored personnel carrier82, which is better?
      Who is ready to give up their personal savings for the production of equipment (understanding what a mess the defense industry is at the very least)?
      Who is ready to work in the defense industry for food?
      1. +3
        16 February 2024 15: 28
        It is clear that “for lack of a maid, they also tear down the janitor,” but the question here is how it happened that there were no “maids,” but only “janitors.”
      2. 0
        April 2 2024 10: 47
        Since when do citizens who pay a ton of taxes and fees have to develop and produce armored personnel carriers at their own expense? Do you have a lot of requests for the tax-paying population?
    2. +3
      16 February 2024 08: 43
      Why are you comparing with the armored personnel carrier, and not with the MT-LBM 6M?
    3. +1
      16 February 2024 10: 12
      Quote: AmOgus
      Here. A normally protected armored personnel carrier of a healthy person with a normal method of landing through a ramp from behind, and not a widowmaker based on the BTR-60/70/80, the armor of which in modern conditions can be called cardboard.

      Yeah... An armored personnel carrier for as many as 6 landing personnel. The body is aluminum with mounted steel armor.
      "Bradley" is without a turret. At first, BAE generally wanted to use the chassis of the old M2/M3 for the production of AMPV, but it didn’t work out.
    4. -2
      16 February 2024 11: 06
      widowmaker based on the BTR-60/70/80, the armor of which in modern conditions

      The only drawback of the BTR-80 is that it really lacks armor.
      Thickening the case by 5 millimeters has been asking for a long time. As well as working out the possibility of screwing ceramics onto them.
      The same Stryker without additional ceramic plates is not particularly superior to the BTR-80.
      But our people apparently still dream of accepting the Boomerang as soon as possible, and then it will be to the side.
      In practice, the BTR-80 is superior to the Stryker. Both in terms of chassis and weapons. Where is Browning and where is KPVT.
      Striker without ceramics does not hold the CPV itself, and it also does not hold 12,7 on board. With additional Its armor and weight are appropriate; it even turns out to be a slightly different class of vehicle. And not all Strikers have this armor.
      Do not forget that in the 80s, nothing from small arms could penetrate the BTR-80, but now only 7,62 armor-piercing cartridges are available that are capable of this. Also at that time there were no requirements for wheeled armored personnel carriers to be modular.
      Otherwise, the BMP and MT-LB perfectly complement the BTR-80.
      1. +1
        19 February 2024 10: 39
        Quote: English tarantass
        But our people apparently still dream of accepting the Boomerang as soon as possible, and then it will be to the side.

        There will most likely no longer be a boomerang - no one needs an armored personnel carrier/infantry fighting vehicle with the MBT price tag, no budget is enough. But maybe the BMP-3M "Manul" will appear with the correct configuration, front placement of the MTO and aft ramp, and an armored personnel carrier at its base. The level of protection is the same as that of the Kurganets, the weapons are at the same level or higher and with a price tag that is several times lower (proven technology and industrial cooperation).
        But right now, the urgent need for TBTR and TBMP on a tank chassis and with a tank level of protection has been revealed in all its severity. We are a land power and the wars that we will have to wage will be predominantly of a land nature. Having problems with demographics and sensitivity to losses in human resources, it is simply unacceptable for us to neglect the opportunity (if absolutely necessary) to create a sufficient fleet of such highly protected machines. Moreover, in comparison with the aluminum (for the sake of buoyancy) hulls of the BMP-3 and Kurganets, the cost of such TBTR made of reliable combined armor steel will be approximately at the level of the BMP-3M and much less than the fabulously expensive Kurganets. But in realizing their advantages in buoyancy, over the two years of the Northern Military District, neither the RF Armed Forces nor the Ukrainian Armed Forces have shown any success. . Despite the abundance of rivers, streams and other water barriers in the theater of operations. Hence the conclusion - buoyancy for modern armored vehicles in a modern war against a more or less equal enemy is not used and is not converted into combat success. Only high security, mobility, quality of weapons and the general organization of combat control on the battlefield are converted into such success.
        Therefore, the main infantry fighting vehicles (infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers) should be highly protected armored personnel carriers/infantry fighting vehicles on a tank chassis with STEEL (combined) armor under dynamic protection. And we already have plenty of floating equipment.
        As a chassis, it is best to take the chassis from the T-80 and deploy the production lines as part of Omsktransmash - by expanding production.
        As an emergency measure, it is best to use the chassis of old tanks in storage. These are early versions of the T-80 and 2500 units. T-64s, which will definitely not be used as tanks.
        1. 0
          19 February 2024 13: 43
          Do you propose to replace all wheeled armored personnel carriers with tracked heavy vehicles?
          Have you ever served in the army?
          What is the service life of the tracks on the T-80 tank? What is the average traveling speed on the highway? What are the march standards for motorized rifle companies?
          What difference does it make for a cumulative grenade to penetrate an armored personnel carrier or a TBTR? Such shells, especially now, have armor penetration with a reserve. Even tandem warheads are not at all uncommon.
          Are you suggesting that the infantry get out of the TBTR at a distance where the enemy is ready to destroy tanks? Will they get there in the Urals? Will the tent go through the artillery strike?
          1. +1
            19 February 2024 15: 03
            Quote: English tarantass
            Do you propose to replace all wheeled armored personnel carriers with tracked heavy vehicles?

            Not .
            I propose to arm the assault infantry with highly protected TBTR and TBMP.
            Quote: English tarantass
            Have you ever served in the army?

            In Sovetskaya. Combat command officer of an air defense formation.
            And in this war, which for the Russian Federation and the rest of the world only became relevant for 2 years, I have been “living” in it for 10 years (almost since the spring of 2014). In Donesk .
            Quote: English tarantass
            What is the service life of the tracks on the T-80 tank?

            On average, like any modern tracked armored vehicles and MBTs.
            What is it like for the English Challenger?
            Quote: English tarantass
            What is the average traveling speed on the highway?

            On trailers, depending on the trailer itself and the restrictions for such transportation.
            Quote: English tarantass
            What are the march standards for motorized rifle companies?

            What does the English tarantas care about our standards?
            Quote: English tarantass
            What difference does it make for a cumulative grenade to penetrate an armored personnel carrier or a TBTR?

            Big. With combined and spaced armor under dynamic protection, not every grenade will penetrate a TBTR with the level of protection of a modern Russian MBT. And if penetration does happen, then the cumulative jet will not find the ammunition for detonation under the armor. Perhaps one of the landing party will suffer. But the car will remain on the move and continue to perform mission tasks.
            Quote: English tarantass
            Even tandem warheads are not at all uncommon.

            Perhaps only such people can count on being penetrated by a jet. But behind the frontal armor of the TBTR there will be a MTO with an engine, and behind it there will be another armored bulkhead. The sides of such a TBTR have spaced armor both due to the side screens and due to the external inclined armor plate under the remote protection from the outer edge to the level of the fender. And behind it is the vertical armor of the citadel with anti-fragmentation lining. And the movement of such TBTR will be covered by BMPT/ShMPP, which will calculate and reset these grenade launchers.
            Quote: English tarantass
            Are you suggesting that the infantry get out of the TBTR at a distance where the enemy is ready to destroy tanks?

            No, the tanks will remain behind in order to cover the advance of the assault infantry to the dismounting line. TBTR are advancing to this line under the cover of BMPT/ShMPP. The tanks provide insurance, suppressing enemy firing points, while the TBTR and BMPT/ShMPP move forward and do their job.
            And we are talking specifically about assault infantry, this equipment is for them.
            Wheeled armored vehicles were not discussed either in the article or in my commentary.
            As a wheeled armored personnel carrier, I quite liked the new modification of the reconfigured and with reinforced armor BTR-82AM (I hope I didn’t make a mistake with the name). With front placement of MTO, aft ramp, reinforced armor to the ability to hold 20, 25 and even (if memory serves) 30 mm with the forehead. projectile on board - 12,7 and even 14,5. . The chassis is the same, but reinforced, the engine is from the BMP-3, so mobility certainly has not deteriorated. And now he's definitely not a swimmer.
            What regiments did you serve/serve in?
            Is the English ration filling?
            Why were so few Challengers sent?
            1. 0
              19 February 2024 20: 27
              assault infantry

              This is how I answered the person who wrote about the low characteristics of the BTR-80.
              And we were talking about the BTR-80 and its classmates.
              What does your rant about TBTR have to do with this?
              So what? How do your dreams of updating the staffing structure of the Russian Armed Forces relate to tracked armored personnel carriers?
              Why were so few Challengers sent?

              We are still thinking about how many cars there will be enough money to modernize.
              1. 0
                19 February 2024 20: 34
                Quote: English tarantass
                This is how I answered the person who wrote about the low characteristics of the BTR-80.

                Did they answer me?
                Quote: English tarantass
                What is the service life of the tracks on the T-80 tank? What is the average traveling speed on the highway? What are the march standards for motorized rifle companies?

                Quote: English tarantass
                What difference does it make for a cumulative grenade to penetrate an armored personnel carrier or a TBTR?

                Quote: English tarantass
                You suggest that the infantry get out of the TBTR

                Quote: English tarantass
                What does your rant about TBTR have to do with this?

                lol And yours ?
                Quote: English tarantass
                Why were so few Challengers sent?

                We are still thinking about how many cars there will be enough money to modernize.

                But why modernize them, send it like this - the Sumerians will accept it.
      2. 0
        April 2 2024 10: 56
        The BTR 80 is full of shortcomings. Due to the tank layout, the cabin is very inconvenient for transporting drugs and cargo. Try to drag the wounded man on a stretcher into the side door of the BTR80. Try loading large cargo through the side door. The cabin height is insufficient. There is no protection against mines. The engine takes up almost 50% of the length of the armored personnel carrier... A very inconvenient vehicle, invented by sadists for masochists. Only the lazy didn’t mention the armor. BTR80 is sewn with Browning .50 right through from all angles. This line of under-transport vehicles should have been replaced 30 years ago with a more convenient vehicle. It was necessary to rearrange the car. In this case, the side doors must be preserved.
  4. +4
    16 February 2024 07: 18
    "To fully implement previously approved plans, she will have to assemble 2450 serial products."
    Putin reproached the USSR for making only galoshes, while he himself fought only with “Soviet galoshes.” I had already cleaned all the warehouses and turned to the DPRK with an outstretched hand. It seems that we have been fighting for two years now, and we only see Putin’s galoshes at parades and exhibitions. The brains in power still can’t get into the right order. They can’t understand that their “galoshes” require mechanical engineering and machine tools! And here we assemble Moskvich from Chinese parts and rejoice. This is what it means when the “gateway” teaches!
    1. +2
      16 February 2024 10: 08
      Quote: steel maker
      Putin reproached the USSR for making only galoshes, while he himself fought only with “Soviet galoshes.”

      “I haven’t read Putin, but I condemn him,” - so what? smile
      Try listening to all of VVP’s few minutes of speech. And not a skillfully cut passage that talked about Soviet consumer goods.
      Yes, my dear, yes. No need to discuss. The fact is that what we produced (and we don’t have to wave our hands), nobody needed, because nobody bought our galoshes, except for the Africans, who had to walk on the hot sand. That is the whole point.
      We had a defense industry - cool, strong, and we are still proud of it. We are grateful to our grandfathers and our fathers for creating such a defense after the Great Patriotic War.
      From the audience: ... And the first satellite.
      Vladimir Putin: Both the first satellite and the first man in space are our common pride, these are the achievements of the Soviet government, of which we are all proud. These are nationwide achievements.
      But consumer goods… Zhirinovsky has already said this. Where were they? There were none. Let's not lie to each other and the people. The people know what was and what was not.

      With such figurative quotation one can make Stalin an anti-Soviet - a sentence from there, a proposal from here... smile
      1. 0
        16 February 2024 11: 19
        no one needs

        Nevertheless. Back in the 10s, my grandmother used a Soviet washing machine and refrigerator. Somehow they worked.
        The oldest cars on the roads now are Japanese, and, horror of horrors, domestic ones, from the late 80s and 90s. And they drive, and they are made from local parts. Why, there’s a frying pan at home with a stamped price of 2 rubles. She didn’t care for that time, but still it doesn’t look like a galosh.
        It is clear that GDP most likely spoke about the quality of consumer goods in the 80s, when on average it began to be inferior to Western ones, primarily in terms of assortment.
        But now we still don’t have the money to buy only high-quality goods, and the range of domestic ones is depressing.
        The Chinese, of course, will do everything, and cheaply, and the quality is not even the worst (depending on your wallet). Only local production increases not just GDP, but the PPP of GDP, which makes local goods cheaper for local residents in reality, not nominally.
      2. 0
        18 February 2024 09: 16
        “I haven’t read Putin, but I condemn him,” so what?
        Show me what to read from Putin? For 20 years, he has never presented his program, only slogans. Only a “blizzard drives through the box” every day. We provide 25 million jobs!!! That’s why he brought in 10 million migrants, along with their villages! The stupidity Putin said will stay with him forever! If this had been a reservation, now they would have filled everything up with “Putin’s galoshes.”
      3. 0
        April 2 2024 14: 23
        But weren’t AZLK-408/412 exported in thousands? No? "Galoshes that no one needs." The USSR's exports were quite broad. Including consumer goods.
        1. 0
          April 2 2024 15: 14
          Quote: cast iron
          But weren’t AZLK-408/412 exported in thousands?

          And for this we must thank the Renault company, which in the late 60s carried out a complete reconstruction of MZMA. The plant even changed its name - to AZLK. In general, the situation is the same as in Tolyatti, only instead of Italians there are French.
          1. 0
            April 3 2024 12: 02
            Should Japanese automakers thank Benz for its internal combustion engine? Shouldn't everyone thank Newton for his discoveries and differential equations? There is a fact. The USSR supplied a WIDE range of goods for export. Don't wear galoshes. It is a fact. And VVP deliberately lied. Because he is a member of the bourgeoisie and he works for the well-being of the capitalists.
    2. -1
      16 February 2024 14: 10
      > They can’t understand that for their “galoshes” they need mechanical engineering and machine tools!
      What a brilliant statement! Now you have opened your eyes!
      >And here we assemble Moskvich from Chinese parts and rejoice
      It’s good that it wasn’t like that in the USSR. There, the Zhiguli was a Fiat, the Vyatka washing machine was Indesit, the air conditioners were Hitachi, etc. and so on. But the main thing is that it’s not Chinese, lol.
      1. +1
        17 February 2024 19: 38
        Quote from Witsapiens
        There "Zhiguli" was "Fiat"

        Lada (VAZ 2101) was not a Fiat. Yes, they were made on its basis, but it was a modernized machine that had many differences. And each subsequent modification of the “penny” had more of them.
  5. -2
    16 February 2024 08: 31
    Translated into Russian: the cutting of the dough continues.
  6. +4
    16 February 2024 10: 04
    Oh-ho-ho... again the article will be completed in the comments. smile
    The "new AMPV platform" is essentially a version of the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle without a turret. At first, BAE generally wanted to make new AMPVs directly on the chassis of the old Bradleys. But it didn’t work out - and I had to do it all over again.
    AMPV vehicles have an engine and transmission compartment similar to the BMP modification M2A3, which includes a 600-horsepower Cummins diesel engine combined with an L-3 Combat Propulsion Systems HMPT-500 transmission, as well as an upgraded suspension. In accordance with the design of the M2 BMP, in order to increase survivability and increase the useful volume of the hull, the internal fuel tanks were replaced with armored external ones in the rear of the vehicle. A WMD protection system and air conditioning are also installed in an external installation at the rear of the hull. The aluminum hull armor is reinforced with additional steel armor, and it is also possible to install additional dynamic protection modules. In order to enhance mine protection, the design of the hull bottom has been completely redesigned using steel armor and the introduction of a “floating floor” system developed by BAE Systems.
    © bmpd
    Moreover, the BAE version was pushed through the tender by the warriors themselves. By adjusting the TTT, they cut off the competitor - the converted Stryker from General Dynamics.
    And the Pentagon is not going to change all M113s - even the United States does not have the money for this. The contract for 2897 vehicles provides for the replacement of armored personnel carriers only in “heavy” brigades.
    ...the US Army Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program provides for the replacement of 2897 M113 tracked armored personnel carriers and vehicles based on them in armored brigades (Armored Brigade Combat Teams - ABCT), each armored brigade has 114 M113 armored personnel carriers and vehicles on staff their database
    © bmpd
    1. -1
      18 February 2024 09: 28
      "The new AMPV platform is essentially a version of the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle without a turret."
      The point is not that it is old and without a tower, but the fact that they have production, it is old to modernize. How about thousands! Here, from the communists, the fields are clogged with these tanks and are rusting. Take off the turret and make it into a tractor, an all-terrain vehicle, or a fire truck! But they didn’t find anything better, just dig in the ground in the northeastern district. But because there is no production of our own. Everything is Putin’s way: why produce when you can buy from the Chinese!
      1. 0
        19 February 2024 11: 37
        Quote: steel maker
        The point is not that it is old and without a tower, but the fact that they have production, it is old to modernize.

        * looks thoughtfully at the T-72B3, which have already been produced for about fifteen hundred years. And on the BMP-2 with Berezhki, for which a new workshop was built in Tula.
        Quote: steel maker
        Take off the turret and make it into a tractor, an all-terrain vehicle, or a fire truck!

        And then what to do with them? With a tractor with a tank gearbox, which is not suitable for a tractor at all? With an all-terrain vehicle carrying unnecessary tank armor? With fire trucks, which are only needed in used warehouses?
        Look, BAE also initially decided to make do with little expense - take the old chassis from storage. It didn’t work out - I had to make the “crazy Bradley” from scratch.
        1. 0
          April 5 2024 11: 51
          The BMP with the berezhok module is a modernization of the previously made Soviet BMP-2.
          The T-72B3 is a modernization of the previously made Soviet T-72.
          This is not production from scratch, but modernization.
  7. -5
    16 February 2024 10: 20
    Americans don’t know how to build combat vehicles. What’s not a machine is a barn and a grenade launcher’s dream. How can a black man live inside without a swimming pool and a refrigerator with Coca-Cola
    Although system modularity is a worthy idea
    1. +3
      16 February 2024 10: 38
      Well, stupid! It was necessary to build like ours - two inches from the ground, so that not a single enemy grenade launcher could see it. This is why we have no losses!
      1. -1
        16 February 2024 13: 32
        Quote: Wacht an der Spree
        Well stupid!

        Not stupid, but self-confident
        Quote: Wacht an der Spree
        It was necessary to build like ours - two inches from the ground,

        9 cm from the ground, where did you see such a tank, does blindness torment you?

        Quote: Wacht an der Spree
        This is why we have no losses!

        Don't read nonsense, learn to analyze
    2. +1
      16 February 2024 16: 12
      You forgot about UAVs, which are not at all interested in the height of the target, even if the target is no thicker than a pancake!
    3. -1
      16 February 2024 16: 13
      Quote: APASUS
      Americans don't know how to build combat vehicles.

      And this is not a fighting machine.
      The army wanted to get
      armored personnel carrier XM1283 General Purpose (GP),
      command post vehicle XM1286 Mission Command (MCmd),
      sanitary XM1285 Medical Treatment Vehicle (MTV),
      medical evacuation XM1284 Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV),
      as well as the XM120 Mortar Carrier Vehicle (MCV) 1287mm self-propelled mortar.

      This is a chassis for auxiliary equipment and an infantry transporter. A transporter is not a combat vehicle. So she has nothing to do on the front line.

      But the Yankees, it seems, really weren’t able to build a normal armored personnel carrier. For an armored personnel carrier as a unified chassis for special equipment of a brigade, the capacity and dimensions of the landing squad are primarily important. In which the mortar and command-and-control equipment will be installed, in which commanders and doctors will work, in which the wounded will have to be transported. The M113 had a troop compartment for 11 people. And this cut-off "Bradley" has a landing force of only 6 people.
    4. 0
      April 2 2024 14: 29
      There they make cars that are convenient for humans, and not for midget dwarfs.
      1. 0
        April 2 2024 14: 42
        Quote: cast iron
        There they make cars that are convenient for humans, and not for midget dwarfs.

        Everything is correct, the machine is for people. Not for fighting, but for making it comfortable.
        1. 0
          April 3 2024 12: 04
          Everything is right for a person. Which does not need to be three times dead to get to the battlefield, and then tired and broken into battle. The M113 is better than the BTR-80 in terms of transporting infantry. It is a fact.
          1. 0
            April 3 2024 12: 55
            Quote: cast iron
            to get to the battlefield,

            To get to the battlefield, should the dimensions of a combat vehicle be smaller or larger?
            1. 0
              April 4 2024 03: 29
              It doesn't matter now. An anti-tank missile system or a drone will destroy with equal probability a barn for people or a can of sprats. It's time to change the attitude towards soldiers. They need to be transported in comfortable conditions in armor that will protect against 155 mm fragments and near misses.
  8. 0
    16 February 2024 23: 27
    The title of the article is incorrect. The platform is expensive, there will be an order of magnitude fewer of them than the M113. For the same reason, something like the BT-3F will not replace the MTLB.
    1. 0
      19 February 2024 11: 41
      Quote: Maxim Davydov
      The title of the article is incorrect. The platform is expensive, there will be an order of magnitude fewer of them than the M113.

      No. There will be even slightly more new AMPVs than the M113 chassis in heavy brigades - 2907 units.
      The AMPV family of armored vehicles is intended to replace outdated M113 armored personnel carriers and vehicles based on them in units of ABCT (Armored Brigade Combat Teams) armored brigades. Each such brigade has 114 units in the state. M113 and their derivatives. They want to replace 2897 old armored vehicles - more than 25 brigade sets. For this purpose, 2907 new AMPVs will be built, and we are talking about an almost equivalent replacement.

      Another thing is that in structures above the brigade level the old M113s will remain - there is no money to replace another 1993 vehicles.
  9. +1
    17 February 2024 14: 50
    Quote from Witsapiens
    It’s good that it wasn’t like that in the USSR. There, the Zhiguli was a Fiat, the Vyatka washing machine was Indesit, the air conditioners were Hitachi, etc. and so on

    Comparing the butt with a finger.
    Both Zhiguli and Vyatka were made from parts entirely produced within the Soviet Union. Therefore, no sanctions could interrupt the production process.
    But in modern Russia, after 22, all supposedly localized automobile factories simply stopped.
  10. 0
    21 February 2024 20: 45
    Quote: Alexey RA
    There will be even slightly more new AMPVs than the M113 chassis in heavy brigades - 2907 units.

    In heavy brigades - yes. But all 88 thousand (according to Wiki) M113 - no.
    1. 0
      April 4 2024 03: 31
      It’s funny that the M113 of the 60s turned out to be so balanced that the United States still doesn’t dare change it completely, given their budgets.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"