Military Review

BMP or BTR - that is the question. The US Army is preparing to transfer to a new armored vehicle.

25
US forces are considered the strongest army on the planet. At the same time, they still use some equipment developed even before the outbreak of the war in Vietnam (1965 – 1974). The question of the need to replace it today is very relevant for the Pentagon. Even in the rich US, cost is a significant factor. There is a choice between an expensive CGV infantry fighting vehicle and an armored personnel carrier cheaper AMPV.


In early 1956, the U.S. Armed Forces began developing the M-113 - a multi-purpose armored personnel carrier (BTR) for armored and mechanized units. It was assumed that he could swim and he could be transported by military transport aircraft aviation (BTA). Production of the M-113 began in 1960. The first armed conflict in which the APC took part was the Vietnam War (1965–1974), during which he earned positive reviews from the military due to its reliability and wide tactical capabilities.

BMP or BTR - that is the question. The US Army is preparing to transfer to a new armored vehicle.In addition to the basic version, the M-1068 command and control vehicle (KSHM), M-1064A3 and M-106A2 self-propelled mortars (CM) (equipped with 120-mm and 81-mm mortars, respectively), armored repair and recovery vehicle (BREM) M were produced. 579 and M-113 AMEV (Armored Medical Evacuation Vehicle) and M-577 medical armored vehicles. This list includes not all modifications of the M-113 BTR - for all history his service only in the American army there are more than 40.

In 80, the US Army began replacing a significant number of M-113 armored personnel carriers with a Bradley infantry fighting vehicle (BMP). Despite the fact that most of the basic versions of the M-113 were withdrawn from the active army, there are about three thousand units in the ranks, mostly auxiliary vehicles such as medical BTR, SM and KSHM. In parts located in Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes there are also separate instances of the basic version of M-113.

At the start of the 2000, the US military revealed the main problems of the tested armored personnel carrier. Basically, this is an insufficient level of its security in the conditions of modern combat in the theater of military operations (theater of operations). For example, some commanders who used this technique noted that in order to effectively accomplish the task at the advanced operational bases, M-113 had to be equipped with additional mounted armor plates and engineering equipment for various purposes to clear minefields. This seriously worsened the maneuverability of the BTR. At the same time, the army command repeatedly noted that the use of other lightly armored vehicles to carry out M-113 tasks (for example, in evacuating the wounded) significantly reduced their effectiveness. So on the agenda was the question of replacing the entire family of armored vehicles.

Table 1
Currently, M-113 continue to serve. In particular, in the heavy brigade combat group (Heavy Brigade Combat Team), the 114 of these BTRs of the following modifications are used (Table 1).

In March, the 2012 US Department of Defense approved the start of work on the creation of an armored personnel carrier, which would completely replace the M-113. The program was called the “armored multi-purpose vehicle” - AMPV (Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle). By July of the same year, the army completed a preliminary study of the project and concluded that a ready-made vehicle was required. Allowed the option to purchase AMPV with minimal modifications. As a result, the Pentagon’s representatives responsible for the program missed the phase of the technical design of the sample and moved on to the pre-production phase.

Fig. 1
It was originally planned that the contract for the supply of a month 42 will be transferred to one manufacturer. Its estimated cost is 1,46 billion dollars. 388 of millions of them were intended for the production of 29 AMPV for testing in the period of 2014 – 2017 of financial years, another 1,08 of billion - for the purchase of 289 machines of the head lot in 2018 – 2020. It was expected that the competition will begin in July 2013. The average cost of one AMPV is about 1,8 million dollars, it was supposed to buy 2897 units. That is, the total cost of the program is close to five billion dollars.

However, in October 2013, the project made significant changes. The process of selecting the winner of the competition was postponed to May 2014, and the contract duration was extended to 60 months. The estimated cost of 29 testing machines increased to 458 millions, the dates shifted to 2015 – 2019 years. Expenses for the production of the first 289 machines in 2020 – 2022 also increased. In the first year, the Pentagon will spend 244 million, in the second - 479, in the third - 505. The total cost of the new armored vehicles is 1,68 billion or 220 million more than originally planned.

According to representatives of the Ministry of Defense, the estimated cost of one mile (1,6 km) of movement has changed compared to the M-113 BTR, in which it was equal to 58 dollars. The same indicator for the new machine will be 90 dollars. At 2014, the congress approved the AMPV allocations in the amount of 116,298 million dollars.

Table 2
Now there is no estimated distribution by type. The Pentagon has not yet published accurate data on how many and in what quantity AMPV modifications will be produced. Nevertheless, the corresponding predictions about the future production of the new armored vehicle can be made on the basis of a known number of M-113 armored personnel carriers and their distribution among the modifications presented in the 2 table.

Complete replacement of the outdated M-113 is assumed. After the start of AMPV serial production, the Ministry of Defense plans to re-equip them with two or three brigades within one financial year. After the changes made to the program, the rate of retrofitting with new machines is not specified.

The question remains who will take part in the tender for the supply of AMPV. According to experts, the most likely participation in it is the company BAE Systems (BAE Systems). Supposedly she will present a modification of the BMP "Bradley" without a tower combat module. The tender also awaits General Dynamics Land Systems (General Dynamics Land Systems), which is preparing a tracked or wheeled version of the Stryker BTR with a W-shaped bottom. A number of analysts believe that the application for participation in the auction can be filed by the company Navistar (Navistar) with a machine model protected from the impact of mines and improvised explosive devices - MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected) "MaxPro" (MaxxPro). But the chances of winning this company are small, as she had previously refused to remake her car under the tracked chassis, citing positive experience in combat use of the wheeled structure. So most likely the main struggle will unfold between BAE Systems and General Dynamics Earth Systems. It’s too early for anyone to talk about preferences.

Fig. 2
In the manual of the Pentagon there are serious disputes, which of the programs should become a priority - the AMPV BTR or the BMP of the new generation CGV (Combat Ground Vehicle). At present, it is on the CGV concept that the program for the modernization of heavy and mechanized brigades of the US Army is being built. The AMPV program is relegated to the background. However, opponents of the BMP have serious arguments. First, it is a high cost - 37,923 billion dollars per program. Secondly, the unsatisfactory pace of retrofitting heavy brigades. In all, the state has 346 armored vehicles in these units, including Bradley 61, that is, less than one-fifth. So, with the adoption of the CGV, the fleet of armored vehicles of the brigade will be updated less than if you replace the 114 M-113 armored personnel carriers. Experts also criticize the Pentagon’s intention to fund the project on such a large scale, since the total number of heavy brigades at the end of 2012 was about a third of the total number of US Army units.

There is another argument. "Bradley" is in service much less M-113, which is more than 50 years, so it is more logical to replace the older type of armored vehicles. Experts also note that the requirements that the engineers followed when designing the M-113 after the Korean War (1950 – 1953) are now significantly outdated, and the modernization of these armored personnel carriers has ceased in the 2007 year. Therefore, in 2013, the average age of one M-113 is 14 or more. AMPV is also supported by the fact that this project does not imply research and development of a completely new prototype, since a modification will be chosen from one of the vehicles already in service. This factor can also serve as a reason for changing priorities when choosing the main project of a new armored vehicle for retrofitting the US Army.

Under the conditions of the constant reduction of the US military budget, the Ministry of Defense regards the CGV programs and the armored car of the JLTV special forces (instead of the famous Hammer) as one of the last opportunities to achieve large allocations for the purchase of armored vehicles. But the high cost of the BMP can lead to the fact that the program is significantly reduced or even terminated.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ljubomir
    Ljubomir 6 December 2013 08: 40
    +2
    "Akhzarit" help them. From m-60. lol
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 6 December 2013 10: 07
      +4
      Quote: Lubomyr
      "Akhzarit" help them. From m-60. lol

      "Akhzarit" was made on the basis of the T-55.
      1. just exp
        just exp 8 December 2013 15: 32
        +1
        he meant to make TBMP from M60, as you did Ahzarit from T55.
    2. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 10 December 2013 02: 53
      0
      Well, they have already attached themselves to Namer, here are marinz and Namer:

  2. Su-9
    Su-9 6 December 2013 08: 55
    +2
    I always wondered how Bradley is comparable to the BMP-3 - in aggregate. For example, if you take two equally trained companies on Bradley and BMP-3 and put them against each other on a hilly treeless training ground with the task of capturing / holding equidistant heights ... Who will be stronger? And is there a better opportunity to compare?
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 6 December 2013 12: 40
      +2
      The latest versions of the Bradley are much better protected than the BPM-3. At the same time, the BMP-3 is capable of forcing water obstacles and is better armed.
      1. Rex
        Rex 7 December 2013 09: 32
        +1
        There are nuances:
        1 Additional protection Bradley comes as an "option" - it is hung as needed, has a decent weight and installation is clearly not counting minutes.
        Not all cars are equipped with it and it is unlikely that these sets are in every part.
        You can strengthen the BMP-3 - easier and cheaper.
        2. The real plus of BMP buoyancy has always been questionable ..
        Having visited dozens of rivers, sometimes I wondered:
        On one side there is a 3-meter cliff - on that side there is a continuous forest. Or the banks are not wooded, but on the other hand there is also a 3-4 meter cliff. And so throughout the entire course of the channel.
        This is without taking into account such trifles as enemy fire.
        Someone counted how many kilometers go tens of kilometers. there is one place where armored vehicles can safely cross the river?
        And why should it be crossed in such places, and not overcome by underwater driving (unless of course the depth allows)?
        And is it necessary at the same time that all BMPs / armored personnel carriers in the army are able to sail at the expense of armored protection?
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 6 December 2013 12: 53
      0
      The 100mm cannon will blow the Bradley to shreds. And that's all.
      1. kplayer
        kplayer 10 January 2014 21: 57
        0
        Aluminum armor BMP-3 is not a problem for the 25-mm Bradley gun, not to mention the TOW ATGM and optoelectronic surveillance and guidance devices.
        The question is which one is really BMP, i.e. Convenient vehicle for infantry.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. datur
      datur 6 December 2013 13: 34
      +1
      [quote = Su-9] I've always been wondering how Bradley is comparable to BMP-3 - in aggregate. For example, if you take two equally trained companies on Bradley and BMP-3 and put them against each other on a hilly treeless training ground with the task of capturing / holding equidistant heights ... Who will be stronger? And is there a better opportunity to compare? ---- I think that the children on the BMP-3 will defeat the enemy !! at a time !! wink
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 6 December 2013 19: 16
        +2
        There is such a soldier's wisdom. "Whoever shoots further wins." 100 million cannon + coaxial 30mil. against 30 mln. guns on Bradley. + missiles "Bastion" (maybe another). Armament: one-way.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 7 December 2013 02: 27
          +1
          The M2 Bradley BMP is equipped with an 25-mm gun. Yes, and BMP-3 in the Russian army is almost there, so they are unlikely to meet in battle.
          1. Rex
            Rex 7 December 2013 09: 42
            0
            I will add that Bradley can be equipped with an ATGM (though again as an "option", I think most cars do not have them).
            At one time, they also set up a laser system for counteracting and incapacitating enemy sights and blinding operators.
            But it was almost a piece.
            1. kplayer
              kplayer 10 January 2014 22: 09
              0
              All BMP / BRM M2 / M3 Bradley equipped with ATGM family TOW, SAM Stinger optional (M6 Linebacker - removed from service).
            2. The comment was deleted.
    5. Rex
      Rex 7 December 2013 09: 07
      0
      I think such thoughts to tens of thousands of people came to mind wink
      And those only in armored vehicles.
      Indeed - basically all debates about the benefits are conducted at the level of theory and TTX comparison
    6. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 10 December 2013 03: 28
      +1
      Depends, usually Bradley's company has a network-centric "Cloud" of communication and control in real time - according to the principle "sees one - sees everything" and a regular mini UAV is subordinate to the command vehicle, the BMP-3 does not have a similar system (there is only one-way data transmission to the command units), Bradley's company will act as a single mechanism, and the BMP-3 is only available for voice radio. The speed of decision-making, the accuracy of transferring goals down the chain by an order of magnitude will be different - and in battle, initiative is the alpha and omega of victory. So the chances of the BMP-3 company are not ice.
      And if just iron against iron, without communication, the BMP-3 will have an advantage, since it is more powerful and long-range armed.
      But at night, on the contrary, on Bradley optics and thermal imagers are more accurate.
  3. Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 6 December 2013 10: 32
    +2
    Quote: Aron Zaavi
    "Akhzarit" was made on the basis of the T-55.

    It's not about which of which. And not about Ahzarit. Speech about the concept.
    It is proposed to convert the obsolete M60 fleet into a heavy BMP.
    I wonder why 3,14ndos do not go this way?
  4. datur
    datur 6 December 2013 13: 42
    +1
    [quote = Aristocrat] [quote = Aaron Zaavi] "Akhzarit" was made on the basis of the T-55. [/ quote]
    It's not about which of which. And not about Ahzarit. Speech about the concept.
    It is proposed to convert the obsolete M60 fleet into a heavy BMP.
    I wonder why 3,14ndos do not go this way? - Logically, our CHEMISTS RIDE on BMPs made on the basis of the T-72 !! wink
  5. kosta_cs
    kosta_cs 6 December 2013 15: 05
    +2
    It's not about which of which. And not about Ahzarit. Speech about the concept.
    It is proposed to convert the obsolete M60 fleet into a heavy BMP.
    I wonder why 3,14ndos do not go this way?

    You do not take into account the interests of money bags from their defense industry.
    A car from scratch will cost more.
    1. Alex 1977
      Alex 1977 April 6 2014 10: 14
      0
      I think that everything is more commonplace.
      To make a promising BMP, which should form the basis of a light fleet over the next twenty, thirty years, on a chassis whose production was curtailed in 1987 - this needs to be paid a second salary in Moscow. And the third in Beijing.
      Only the amounts necessary to restore the production cycle of obviously obsolete components are already very considerable.
      Or carry out a deep modernization, with the replacement of the engine, transmission, communications and surveillance, and all that is essentially inside.
      And while still cut the armored box for new tasks.
      This is despite the fact that air transport is immediately a big question, all sorts of solutions like a mine bottom also require a global alteration of the box, and so on.
      What will remain there from the source?
      What is the saving?
      On removing "canned food" for the sake of rollers and trucks?
      I have an unconfirmed fear that reworking and ensuring the service of such machines will become more expensive than developing a new one.
      Then Abrams need to be converted into heavy infantry fighting vehicles.
      The idea is even worse, but they are at least fresher.
      You can save money by combining modernization programs for MBT and armored personnel carriers, and in general it is easier with logistics.
  6. Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 6 December 2013 16: 24
    0
    Quote: kosta_cs
    It's not about which of which. And not about Ahzarit. Speech about the concept.
    It is proposed to convert the obsolete M60 fleet into a heavy BMP.
    I wonder why 3,14ndos do not go this way?

    You do not take into account the interests of money bags from their defense industry.
    A car from scratch will cost more.


    I already thought about it. But on the other hand ... M113 has been used for half a century. If they wanted, they could make money on Novelties, then they would have pushed them for a long time (parable in tongues in the lobby of arms corporations).
    1. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 10 December 2013 03: 33
      0
      Quote: Aristocrat
      M113 has been used for half a century


      And for another half a century they will be used where there is no money for new weapons, there are a bunch of modernization kits.





  7. Frontierguard
    Frontierguard 6 December 2013 18: 24
    +1
    In fact, they have no particular choice. It's not even that how much it costs and how armed. For example, a car bomb. They won't care, M 113, Bradley or CGV. One way or another, in the best case, the car is undeveloped. It’s necessary to put on shoes.
    But we have a choice - the BTR-70 or 80, even having lost 2-3 wheels, will leave the blast site. Therefore, in the USSR Armed Forces, many units were manned mixed: a company - on BMP, two - on armored personnel carriers. Or something like that.
  8. Leshka
    Leshka 6 December 2013 18: 42
    0
    they still say something
  9. Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 6 December 2013 22: 21
    +1
    Quote: Frontierguard
    For example, a car bomb. They won't care, M 113, Bradley or CGV. One way or another, in the best case, the car is undeveloped. But we have a choice - the BTR-70 or 80, even having lost 2-3 wheels, will leave the blast site. Therefore, in the USSR Armed Forces, many units were manned mixed: a company - on BMP, two - on armored personnel carriers. Or something like that.

    No, actually.
    1. That the 70th that the 90th will not lose the wheels, but will lose the crew ... 90th with a V-shaped bottom can do with the wheel ...
    2. The companies were not equipped with regiments but regiments (regiment on infantry fighting vehicles, regiment on armored personnel carriers).
    3. They were recruited not "for this", but because the BMP is a high cross-country ability, maneuverability, powerful weapons (in comparison with the transporter). At the same time, the armored personnel carrier is cheapness, running resources and high speed (you yourself remember the doctrine of a lightning march to the English Channel). The acquisition of "both topics and topics" covered all needs, especially considering the vast territories of our country with a huge variety of landscapes.
  10. Rex
    Rex 7 December 2013 09: 53
    0
    Once again, he drew attention in the article to the money issue.
    One new BTR will cost the states $ 1,5-2 million, with weapons and development from scratch.
    And our "Ural" armored truck (although with more armor, but without weapons) is selling to the army for $ 1,2 million. Well, there is also a Euro-3 engine and air suspension!
    How can you then “stigmatize” their capitalism and the high cost of their weapons?
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 7 December 2013 10: 10
      0
      Something too expensive, even for an armored Ural. Where does the information come from?
      1. Rex
        Rex 8 December 2013 17: 49
        0
        Yes, this site was about a month or two ago.
        Indicated the number of cars purchased by our MO and the amount of the contract.
        Somewhere 1,2 went out on the car. The amount then puzzled many.
        Although maybe in the contract we say the service was included for several years

        At the same time, the "ordinary" Federal from the same Urals for the Ministry of Internal Affairs costs about 6-6,5 million rubles. Although it is certainly simpler in everything, including booking (7,62 against 14,5)
    2. just exp
      just exp 8 December 2013 15: 46
      +1
      Yes, they will not have a new armored personnel carrier for 1.5 Lyama
      == so for fiscal year 2007 $ 1.1 billion is earmarked for MRAP ==
      also without weapons, and the purchasing power of the dollar 6 years ago was higher.
  11. bublic82009
    bublic82009 8 December 2013 13: 38
    +2
    successful model lives very long
  12. tchoni
    tchoni 9 December 2013 17: 04
    0
    Not. Akhzarites will not do it. They are too heavy. And they deliver them around the world (:-)) So, most likely they will build both this and that. Vsmysle and armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.

    Although, according to the logic of things, based on the experience of recent conflicts, the option of equipping tank divisions (full-weight, rather than some BMPT and PR.) + TBTR (because the infantry tank is often very vulnerable and blind, and transporting it behind the tank by the battlefield is desirable in something as armored as the tank.)
  13. psiho117
    psiho117 11 December 2013 06: 26
    +1
    Quote: And Us Rat

    And if just iron against iron, without communication, the BMP-3 will have an advantage, since it is more powerful and long-range armed.

    It’s only a pity that it is impossible dreams - in real life, an attack aircraft or a helicopter attack helicopter will direct our BMP (Aviation + communication is a terrible thing). Either the motorized rifles will get out of the car and illuminate with a laser ... They will shandarahnut with a guided projectile, or they will direct a drone. Or they can embed it without a backlight from a regular Javelin ...
    1. Rex
      Rex 11 December 2013 16: 58
      0
      Not correct.
      The comrade initially described the company-by-company situation
      Neither in our company, nor in their company have attack aircraft or helicopters.
      With their participation, we are talking about combined arms combat, and in this case there is a cover for motorized air defense rifles.
      The Yankees used to prefer companies not at all, but company tactical groups — with reinforcement by fire and tanks.
      There is no full-time Javelin on Bradley, but BMP-3 with guided weapons on each machine.
      In both cases, ATGMs and MANPADS are present in the companies.
      And communication is a good and necessary thing, but in itself does not kill
      1. kplayer
        kplayer 10 January 2014 23: 00
        0
        Quote: kplayer
        Aluminum armor BMP-3 is not a problem for the 25-mm Bradley gun, not to mention the TOW ATGM and optoelectronic surveillance and guidance devices.
        The question is which one is really BMP, i.e. Convenient vehicle for infantry.


        In addition to the mandatory PU ATGM TOW, there is a regular Javelin for the motorized infantry division of the ATGM (replaced by ATGM Dragon), in the company 9 units.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  14. svp67
    svp67 11 December 2013 17: 01
    0
    In a big war - BMP is more important, in small (police) - armored personnel carriers ...
  15. kelevra
    kelevra 18 December 2013 21: 29
    +1
    And armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are needed in any army! In these types of armored vehicles, versatility will not work.
  16. air wolf
    air wolf 21 January 2014 21: 28
    0
    I am for an armored personnel carrier, and self-propelled guns based on an armored personnel carrier.