[Blindé] Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, l'après M-113

[Serge]

Ça y est. Les pièces du puzzle sont visibles. Le programme de remplacement du M-113 est lancé au sein de l'US-Army.

Afin de suivre avec précision une histoire qui risque de connaître des rebondissement, ouvrons un fil dédié:

General Dynamics Land Systems is featuring several of its forward-thinking solutions at the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) 2012 Annual Meeting & Exposition, including the Stryker+Tr medium tracked concept vehicle.

The Stryker+Tr offers the maximum survivability of the battle-tested Stryker double-V hull vehicle and significant commonality with the entire Stryker family of vehicles.  Its power generation, transmission and suspension systems exceed current requirements for the Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program, and it delivers mobility and reliability characteristics similar to those of the Abrams main battle tank.

http://www.asdnews.com/news-45679/GD_Land_Systems_Features_Medium_Tracked_Concept_Vehicle_at_AUSA_.htm

[Serge]

N'oublions pas l'XP-2 de Nexter:

AUSA: France’s Nexter Peddling XP2 at AUSA Meeting

By PIERRE TRAN

PARIS — Nexter is sending its XP2 armored vehicle technology demonstrator and CTA International 40mm cannon to this week’s Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) show, both bearing the French company’s hopes of winning orders from the U.S. Army and other forces, a company executive said.

The target for the XP2 is the U.S. Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program, intended to replace the M113 troop carrier, said Patrick Lier, Nexter vice president for international affairs.

The M113 saw service in the Vietnam War.

The XP2 is a six-wheel-drive vehicle in the 20-ton class, designed to show “capability for innovation and know-how in armored vehicles,” Lier said.

The French vehicle is designed to provide a high level of protection up to the NATO Standard Agreement 4 level, offer high mobility and be equipped with advanced onboard electronics and 360-degree camera vision, Lier said. The vehicle can carry nine soldiers and rations for two days, and its motor can be changed in an hour, he said.

Nexter faces stiff competition.

General Dynamics is expected to pitch its Stryker, while BAE Systems has said it will offer a modified Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.

Navistar has said it is interested in competing with a partner.

The U.S. Army, which could buy up to 3,800 units, has said it would likely opt for a vehicle already in service and has set a cost target of $2.4 million per vehicle.

Another potential buyer of the XP2 is the Australian Army, with a requirement for about 1,500 armored vehicles under its Land 400 program, Lier said.

The Australian planners have not yet said whether the new vehicle will be tracked or wheeled, Lier said.

Nexter developed the XP2 as a contender for the French Army’s Véhicule Blindé Multi-Role (VBMR), a multirole armored vehicle, for which the previous Army chief of staff set a price cap of 1 million euros ($1.3 million) for the planned 1,000 armored personnel carrier units of the VBMR program.

The cased telescoped CTA 40mm gun is aimed at arming the U.S. Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), Lier said.

Army procurement is looking to buy more than 1,800 GCVs that will be armed with a 25mm gun, but that choice of caliber has sparked comments of “not enough,” Lier said.

Nexter hopes to spark interest with its CTA 40mm, built under the CTA International joint venture with BAE.

Nexter also hopes to sell the CTA 40mm to Australia, which is looking for a gun for its infantry fighting vehicle, Lier said.

“The 40mm could be a serious contender,” he said.

The GCV is intended as replacement for the Bradley.

Nexter sent its Véhicule Blindé Combat d’Infanterie (VBCI) to AUSA two years ago, and the Caesar 155mm artillery piece last year.

The French company had hoped the VBCI might be picked for the Ground Combat Vehicle, but the requirement for a tracked unit left the wheeled infantry fighting vehicle out in the cold.

[Serge]

the programme initiatives highlighted by General Dynamics Land Systems at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) 2012 annual meeting was a new ‘Tracked Stryker’ medium tracked concept vehicle.

Dubbed ‘Stryker+Tr’, the concept vehicle features the Stryker Double-V Hull vehicle and targets the US Army’s emerging Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) requirement to replace its aging M113 series family of vehicles.

‘Initially we chose the Stryker “Double-V” to be our offering as the M113 replacement, primarily because of fuel efficiency,’ explained Mike Cannon, senior vice president for Ground Combat Systems at GDLS.

‘The Stryker DVH is the lowest combat vehicle we have from an operational cost standpoint – between $17 and $18 a mile. That compares to an M113, which is the second lowest, at about $48 per mile.

‘Now, emerging army requirements said that they may want a tracked vehicle,’ Cannon added.

‘So about five months ago we decided that it was really looking like it was going that way so we had better see if we can come up with a tracked solution that we could call non-developmental. We chose the Stryker as the basis because it has great commonality with 4,000 [stryker] vehicles already fielded and it has the Double-V Hull so that it has underbelly survivability. And we decided to see if we could put tracks on it to make it an M113 replacement vehicle. And we have done that.

‘It’s going to be quite a good offering for us,’ he added. ‘And even if it doesn’t go as the AMPV solution we still believe that we needed a medium weight tracked vehicle in our portfolio. And this will be our first one…And it’s pretty slick looking.’

Because of the significant weight differences between wheeled and tracked vehicle designs, the new ‘Stryker + Tr’ features a 675 horsepower engine.

‘We sized [the vehicle concept] up to 84,000 pounds versus 54,000 pounds for a fully up-weighted [wheeled] Stryker,’ Cannon said.

The current concept design also uses a Diehl track design employed on several international M113 designs. However, GDLS developers were quick to note that work is continuing on an objective design that would feature a wider track and additional road wheels.

Other obvious differences in the concept vehicle hull include relocation of the driver’s position further to the rear to provide room in the forward vehicle area for the track drive subsystem.

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2012-gdls-introduces-tracked-stryker-concept/

[Serge]

The Defense Acquisition Board will meet in January to determine the way forward for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program, and service officials will brief the Pentagon’s top acquisition executive, Frank Kendall, on the program’s analysis of alternatives later this month, Col. Bill Sheehey PM Heavy Brigade Combat Team told reporters today.

The AMPV is envisioned as the replacement for the aging M113 infantry carrier, and Army officials have said that they want to buy as many as 3,800 vehicles. An RFP is expected in the second quarter of fiscal 2013.

While BAE has said it plans on submitting a version of its tracked Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and General Dynamics will offer its wheeled and tracked versions of its Stryker, Sheehey said that “I am not married to a tracked solution” as long as the platform meets the requirements laid out.

http://blogs.defensenews.com/ausa/2012/10/23/army-to-brief-dod-weapons-chief-on-ampv/

[Serge]

General Dynamics Land Systems was the talk of AUSA 2012 with its new tracked version of the venerable Stryker wheeled vehicle.

GD built the tracked Stryker concept vehicle is as a potential offering for the Army’s upcoming competition to replace the Vietnam-War era M113 armored personnel carrier.

“One of the major benefits of this platform is it maintains the Stryker chassis Double-V Hull protection,” said Garth Lewis, Stryker Program Manager for General Dynamics Land Systems, at the Association of the United States Army’s 2012 meeting and exposition. “This vehicle will go everywhere an Abrams tank goes, everywhere a Bradley goes, and you will have the top speed to keep up with those platforms.”

Seeing a Stryker outfitted with tracks is a little ironic since many in the armor community feared that the 1999 launch of the wheeled-vehicle concept would lead to the end of tracked vehicles. Then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki fueled that fear when he announced his vision of a medium-weight force and alluded to a possible future of an “all-wheeled force.”

The Stryker-equipped combat brigades that emerged from Shinseki’s vision have proven to be a game-changing asset for ground commanders. In Iraq, Stryker units quickly became known as the senior ground commander’s 911 force because of their ability to cover great distances quickly and deliver highly-mobile combat power on short-notice.

But lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan have also shown that wheeled vehicles have their limitations, especially in loose or muddy terrain.

That’s why the Army is planning to consider both wheels and tracks in an upcoming Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle program.

“I will tell you I’m not married to a track solution. … If you can come in with a wheeled variant that can meet our mobility force protection levels, bring it. If it’s a hover craft, it’s whatever you got, a reindeer pulled sled, I don’t care, as long as it meets the requirement, the target cost, the target affordability and all the capabilities we’re looking for,” said Col. Bill Sheehy, Heavy Brigade Combat Team program manager.

Right now, the Army has only released a draft performance-specification document, said industry officials who are awaiting a draft request for proposal.

GD’s concept vehicle displayed at AUSA is completely drivable, but the next-generation vehicle will maintain the Double-V hull and feature a wider platform for better stability. It will have six road wheels on each side and will have a wider track, Lewis said. It will also have a larger power plant offering up to 700 horsepower.

“At the end of the day, what that does for you is it gives you the survivability of the underbelly of a Stryker DVH and it also gives the mobility of an Abrams,” he said.

GD officials estimate that the tracked Stryker will have “greater than 60 percent commonality” with the wheeled version, an asset that will make it a strong candidate for the AMPV program, said David Dopp, program manager of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

Sheehy agrees, but it will still have to prove itself against all other contenders.

“I think what GD is doing is outstanding trying to push the envelope and innovate with what we have; I welcome it,” he said. “As far as the question about whether it will cut the mustard [for the AMPV program], I don’t know.”

[Drakene]

Pour le XP-2 de Nexter je trouve ça couillu de présenter de la roue, le VBCI ayant déjà été retoqué à cause de ça.

M'enfin si les américains le laissent se présenter c'est que rien n'est tranché entre roue et chenille j'imagine.

Cela serait quand même le coup du siècle qu'il soit sélectionné (je suis dubitatif sur les chances de Nexter, mais pourquoi pas).

Affaire à suivre  =)

[collectionneur]

La masse annoncé de 38 t me semble bizarre pour remplacer un M113 qui dépasse au maximum les 14 t. Cela ne rentrera pas dans les C-130 ni même les A-400M  :-X

[Gibbs le Cajun]

La masse annoncé de 38 t me semble bizarre pour remplacer un M113 qui dépasse au maximum les 14 t. Cela ne rentrera pas dans les C-130 ni même les A-400M  :-X

en générale ,les US déploient le lourd par voie maritime ,et le M113 à toujours était déployait comme sa (j'ai pas le souvenir de M113 déployait par voie aérienne ) .

enfin il me semble  =)

[Serge]

USA: BAE has had plenty on its plate lately, what with the failed merger with EADS and all. But at least BAE's American division was the odds-on favorite for the Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). That is, at least until last week. That's when rival General Dynamics debuted a tracked version of its 8x8 wheeled Stryker at the Association of the US Army conference in Washington, DC.

The backstory: For decades, BAE and General Dynamics had pretty much split the US combat vehicle market. General Dynamics built the massive M1 Abrams main battle tank at its plant in Lima, Ohio, while BAE built the smaller but tank-like M2 Bradley troop carrier (technically, an "infantry fighting vehicle") and its various variants in York, Penn. Production of new vehicles ceased years ago, but there's a thriving business in upgrades, especially improved armor and electronics. Both firms worked on developing new vehicles for the Army's Future Combat Systems program; when FCS failed, they both got contracts to build dueling prototypes for the Ground Combat Vehicle, a better-protected replacement for the Bradley, although the Army is now under some pressure to cut the competition short and pick a winner soon.

Humming along in the background, however, is the AMPV, a low-profile but high-impact program to replace at least 3,000 M113s, the 1960s-vintage workhorse of the Army's armored divisions. Running on tank-style tracks like the Bradley, but much less well armed and armored, the M113 has long since retired from frontline roles but remains in service as a support vehicle, serving as everything from a mobile command post to a mortar carrier to an armored ambulance. In Iraq, though, the threat of improvized explosive devices was so great that the M113 was rarely allowed off-base. In the relatively static warfare of the last decade, when the Army could rely on an extensive network of bases, the Army could make do without M113s. In future, more mobile campaigns in less well-provided theaters, however, the Army will need a support vehicle that can actually keep up with the combat forces -- hence the AMPV.

So while the Ground Combat Vehicle program gets most of the money and attention, the Army's is still committed to buying the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle. In fact, since the AMPV's required capabilities are so much more modest -- it's basically an armored, track-borne truck, not a front-line assaulter -- and its cost accordingly so much lower, the AMPV has a better chance to survive the coming budget cuts.

"The Army's current plan for this thing is very slow and very low risk, and it's not a huge amount of money compared to GCV, so right now I don't detect any opposition," one Congressional staffer told AOL Defense.

One pundit even argued that AMPV should be the Army's top-priority vehicle. "The one area where there has been no modernization in decades has been the M113," the Lexington Institute's Daniel Goure told AOL Defense. "We have a very good infantry fighting vehicle, the world's best tank, and an obsolete, very vulnerable M113 fleet."

While the formal requirements are still being worked out, with a request for proposals expected early in 2013, the AMPV competition is already shaping up. The Army wants low cost, both to develop the vehicle and to keep it supplied with spare parts, so the emphasis is on modifying machines already in service. BAE will offer a turretless version of the Bradley, the current mainstay of the Army's heavy armored brigades, while General Dynamics had been expected to offer its eight-wheel-drive Stryker, currently used in the eponymous medium-weight Stryker brigades.

That match-up distinctly favored BAE. The Army's analysis of the M113's missions put a premium on the ability to move cross-country. Over and over, the Army's formal briefing to industry back in April emphasized that AMPV "requires off-road mobility comparable to M1/M2" -- both tracked vehicles. The simple fact is that above a certain weight threshold, about 20 tons, wheeled vehicles simply don't do as well off-road. That's why the tank was invented in the first place.

The Army has considered splitting the current M113 missions between two different vehicles, a tracked AMPV to provide support right behind the fighting forces and a wheeled version for relatively road-bound missions in the rear, like transporting higher-level headquarters. Then the service could buy some of BAE's turretless Bradley and some of General Dynamics' Strykers. But most of the missions would require a tracked vehicle, so most of the money would go to BAE.

General Dynamics' development of a tracked Stryker changes that equation. Now the Army has a tracked alternative from either vendor. If the services decides to buy a mix of tracked and wheeled vehicles after all, General Dynamics is the only competitor that can offer both -- and with common components to ease maintenance across the AMPV fleet.

"The tracked Stryker, it makes it possible for GD to possibly get the whole thing," said the Congressional source.

General Dynamics is more modest. "We're hedging our bets," GD's senior vice-president for ground combat systems, Michael Cannon, told AOL Defense. The company went from concept to a working vehicle in five months, he said.

Admittedly, that first tracked Stryker, the "concept demonstrator" at AUSA, is not exactly what the company would offer for the AMPV contest. Besides incorporating whatever the Army's final requirements are, the next iteration of the tracked Stryker will have wider tracks with more road wheels to drive them, making for better cross-country mobility. It will weigh 32 tons, about the same as the latest, most uparmored wheeled Stryker, but will have vastly more horsepower, 675 instead of 450. Pledged Cannon, "We will have it ready in January 2014."

BAE, naturally, is skeptical. "I'm not sure how you convert a vehicle specifically designed for wheeled operations" to run on tracks, said Roy Perkins, director of business development for BAE's ground vehicles. The suspension, for one thing, is totally different. "The thing to remember about our vehicle is it's not a new vehicle," Perkins said. "It's basically a Bradley and we've built 11 variants of Bradley [to date]."

In fact, BAE's plan for the AMPV program is not to build new vehicles but raid the vast fleet of surplus Bradleys and refit them. That will require popping off the turret to free up cargo space, removing rust, adding armor, and above all upgrading the vehicle's engine and electrical power. Current Bradleys are badly overburdened by all the additional armor, anti-IED jammers, and other electronics added for the war in Iraq. Troops sometimes have to switch one system off so they can turn another on, while speed, acceleration, and off-road agility have all suffered.

With their turretless design for AMPV, however, BAE claims to have gotten Bradley back to its pre-9/11 automotive performance with plenty of electrical power to spare. How? Perkins wouldn't talk details, but he points to BAE's ongoing work on the Paladin Improvement Program (PIM), where the company has rebuilt aging M106 Paladin howitzers with new Bradley-derived engines and alternators capable of generating a whopping 70 kilowatts of power.

BAE doesn't build any wheeled vehicles in the right weight class for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle. But buying Bradley for both halves of the AMPV mission would allow the Army to exploit an existing system of spare parts, maintenance, and training that's even better established than that for the Stryker. But the turretless Bradley is hardly a shoo-in over the tracked Stryker.

The tracked Stryker, "it's pretty great," said Col. Bill Sheehy, the Army's program manager for heavy brigade equipment, speaking to reporters last week at AUSA. "What GD is doing is outstanding, trying to push the envelope and innovative with what we have." But, he added, the only way to see if it performs is to test it.

"I am not married to tracked solutions," Sheehy went on. "You can come in with a wheel-barrow ..If it's a hovercraft, if it's a reindeer-pulled sled, I don't care [if] it meets the requirements."

"The intent for AMPV is full and open competition," Sheehy summed up. Now that both competitors can offer a tracked vehicle, that's what the Army might actually get.

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/02/gds-tracked-stryker-aims-to-knock-bae-out-in-race-to-replace-m/

[Serge]

Photo du proto 2 du Stryker-tr. Il faut remarquer le train de roulement qui est plus proche de la version finale. Le proto 1 remplaçait chaque roues par un galet. Ce n'est pas optimal car 4 galets c'est faible pour garantir une bonne mobilité.

Il a une bouille sympa.

Pour comparer, voici une photo du proto-1:

[Serge]

Quelques photos de la proposition de BAE: La reconstruction de châssis Bradleys.

Version sanitaire

Version transport de troupe

On voit sur la dernière photo que les réservoirs sont maintenant externes pour la protection de la cellule vie. POur rappel, la passage de la version A2 à A3 du M113 se distingue par cet agencement.

A titre perso, j'aime beaucoup ce nouvel arrière.

[g4lly]

Quelques photos de la proposition de BAE: La reconstruction de châssis Bradleys.

Vraiment bizarre la ligne du toit, le machin est assymétrique en fait? Le second c'est la version évacuation? et le premier la version traitement?

Toute la petit famille, de gauche a droite :

- mortier

- évacuation médicale

- soins médicaux

- commandement

- emploi général

[Serge]

La première photo est la version San. Elle est presque identique à celle PC:

Les photos deux et trois sont la proposition VBTT et porte-mortier.

La sur-élévation du toit est différente car dans le premier cas il y a:

- un Groupe Auxillière de Puissance (le cube au-dessus du compartiment moteur). Le compartiment est donc moins avancé.

- Le version SAN/PC est plus haute

[Serge]

Continuons le petit tour en images de la proposition BAE pour l'AMPV. Lors de l'exposition AUSA-2012, on voyait ceci:

[Kiriyama]

Il faut voir si les finances US permettent un programme si ambitieux.

[Serge]

Je verrais bien la proposition de BAE comme la base d'une modernisation des Bradley A3 ainsi qu'un simple complément de la force sur deux trois points comme l'adoption d'un porte-mortier.

[Kiwi de fer]

Pour moi le M-113 était vraiment parfait ,je veut dire il était simple dans c'est forme se qui redait sa production assez rapide !

Les boite sur les coté c'est du blindage réactif ? Sa a la l'aire super gros !

[Raoul]

A priori, les usa, font le choix du "tout-chenille" (que ce soit pour ce vtt ou pour les vci...).

Les avantages et inconvénients des deux ont  déjà été discutés.

Mon intervention vise à souligner le paradoxe suivant : les us ont toujours accordé énormément d'importance aux voies de communication dans leur déploiement et pourtant, ils ne veulent pas de blindés à roues ; inversement, la France souhaite pouvoir se déployer de façon plus souple, mais le choix du "tout-roue" nous empêche de trop nous éloigner des routes. 

[alexandreVBCI]

Le Stryker est un 8x8 pour les Brigade Combat Team. Les marines utilisent le LAV-25, qui est aussi un 8x8. Toute la logistique est à roues.... 

[Serge]

Mon intervention vise à souligner le paradoxe suivant : les US ont toujours accordé énormément d'importance aux voies de communication dans leur déploiement et pourtant, ils ne veulent pas de blindés à roues ; inversement, la France souhaite pouvoir se déployer de façon plus souple, mais le choix du "tout-roue" nous empêche de trop nous éloigner des routes. 

Il faut avoir à l'esprit que l'US-Army était composée de deux ailes. Une légère, l'autre lourde. Au milieu, il n'y avait rien. C'est le général Shinzeky qui, fin des années 90 et tirant ses leçons de la Bosnie, inspira l'idée d'une force médiane sur roues.

Actuellement, il me semble que les américains ont bien intégrés cette gradation de force. Elle est durable dans leur esprit.

À noter un petit point. Le Stryker n'apporte pas seulement une réduction des coûts...  Il apporte à l'infanterie US la capacité de transport qu'elle avait perdu en étant sur Bradley.

[Serge]

BAE Systems to provide best solution to replace old M113 personnel carrier with AMPV vehicle.

BAE Systems shows at AUSA 2013 its proposed solution to the Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program, which will replace the M113 personnel carrier. The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) is the U.S. Army’s program to replace the aging M113 Family of Vehicles for five mission roles including General Purpose, Mortar Carrier, Mission Command, Medical Evacuation and Medical Treatment in the U.S. Army Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT).

BAE Systems Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) at AUSA 2013

BAE Systems non-developmental proven solution uses proven Bradley hardware and leverages the platform’s modernization investments to meet the U.S. Army’s mobility, survivability, and commonality needs. The maturity of our offering provides a low-risk solution for the Army and is ready for production.

The BAE Systems Bradley-based AMPV is a mature, low risk and cost effective solution that rapidly delivers continued combat overmatch capability for the U.S. Army. The Bradley platform delivers combat proven mobility, survivability and force protection to fight with the ABCT formation. Our AMPV solution provides the flexibility, versatility and SWAP-C to integrate the unique mission equipment packages and inbound network technologies for all five AMPV mission roles with a single common platform.

BAE Systems’ solution builds upon our over 50 years of industry-leading combat vehicle manufacturing experience. As the Bradley Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), BAE Systems leverages the existing Bradley industrial base and organic support of the established ABCT logistics infrastructure to economically produce and sustain the AMPV. Future AMPV upgrades are made easier by building-in growth margin and leveraging ABCT Modernization efforts through commonality with the Bradley fleet.

[Serge]

The Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress

(Source: Congressional Research Service; issued Sept. 24, 2013)

The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) is the Army’s proposed replacement to the Vietnam-era M-113 personnel carriers, which are still in service in a variety of support capacities in Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs). While M-113s no longer serve as infantry fighting vehicles, five variants of the M-113 are used as command and control vehicles, general purpose vehicles, mortar carriers, and medical treatment and evacuation vehicles. An estimated 3,000 of these M-113 variants are currently in service with the Army.

The AMPV is intended to be a “vehicle integration” or non-developmental program (candidate vehicles will be either existing vehicles or modified existing vehicles—not vehicles that are specially designed and not currently in service). Some suggest that a non-developmental vehicle might make it easier for the Army to eventually field this system to the force, as most of the Army’s most recent developmental programs, such as the Future Combat System (FCS), the Crusader self-propelled artillery system, and the Comanche helicopter were cancelled before they could be fully developed and fielded.

The Army anticipates releasing a Request for Proposal (RFP) in mid-September 2013, followed by an Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract award in May 2014. Full rate production could begin in FY2020, and the Army plans to procure 2,897 AMPVs; however, these quantities could change if the Army further reduces its force structure.

The Administration’s FY2014 AMPV Budget Request was $116.298 million in Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) funding. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees recommended fully funding the FY2014 AMPV Budget Request.

The House Appropriations Committee recommended $86.298 million in RDT&E funding, cutting $30 million from the FY2014 Budget AMPV Request due to schedule slip. This is due to the Army’s decision to slip the AMPV’s Request for Proposal from June 2013 to mid-September 2013. The Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended fully funding the FY2014 AMPV Budget Request.

A potential issue for Congress is, should the AMPV be the Army’s number one combat vehicle acquisition priority?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) noted in a report that it might be advisable to make the replacement of M-113s with AMPVs the Army’s first acquisition priority as opposed to developing the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV).

Other defense officials and analysts suggest, given current and anticipated future defense budgetary constraints, the Army’s emphasis on the GCV might be unrealistic. They instead suggest a more appropriate course of action might be for the Army to shift its emphasis to the non-developmental AMPV.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R43240.pdf

-ends-

[BPCs]

C'était le même CBO qui proposait :

"• Purchase the Israeli Namer armored personnel carrier.

• Significantly upgrade the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle by buying new vehicles.

• Purchase the German-made Puma infantry fighting vehicle.

• Cancel the GCV program outright and extend the lifecycle of the current Bradley fleet."

Avec ainsi 2 propositions tournant autour du Bradley pour le GCV...

Si le CBO veut maintenant favoriser l'AMPV, où l'une des propositions tourne autour du Bradley , cela risque en retour d'aboutir à un Bradley amélioré pour le GCV.

[Serge]

The Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress

(Source: Congressional Research Service; issued January 6, 2014)

The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) is the Army’s proposed replacement for the Vietnam-era M-113 personnel carriers, which are still in service in a variety of support capacities in Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs). While M-113s no longer serve as infantry fighting vehicles, five variants of the M-113 are used as command and control vehicles, general purpose vehicles, mortar carriers, and medical treatment and evacuation vehicles. An estimated 3,000 of these M-113 variants are currently in service with the Army.

The AMPV is intended to be a “vehicle integration” or non-developmental program (candidate vehicles will be either existing vehicles or modified existing vehicles—not vehicles that are specially designed and not currently in service). Some suggest that a non-developmental vehicle might make it easier for the Army to eventually field this system to the force, as most of the Army’s most recent developmental programs, such as the Future Combat System (FCS), the Crusader self-propelled artillery system, and the Comanche helicopter were cancelled before they could be fully developed and fielded.

On November 26, 2013, the Army issued a new draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the AMPV.

This latest RFP stipulates that the Army plans to award a five-year EMD contract in May 2014 worth $458 million to a single contractor for 29 prototypes. While the March 2013 RFP established an Average Unit Manufacturing Cost Ceiling for each AMPV at $1.8 million, this was rescinded to permit vendors greater flexibility. The EMD phase is scheduled to run between FY2015-FY2019, followed by three years of low-rate initial production (LRIP) starting in 2020.

The Administration’s FY2014 AMPV Budget Request was $116.298 million in Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) funding. The FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act recommended fully funding the FY2014 AMPV Budget Request. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $86.298 million in RDT&E funding, cutting $30 million from the FY2014 Budget AMPV Request due to schedule slip.

This is due to the Army’s decision to move the AMPV’s Request for Proposal from June 2013 to mid-September 2013. The Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended fully funding the FY2014 AMPV Budget Request.

A potential issue for Congress is should the AMPV be the Army’s number one combat vehicle acquisition priority? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) noted in a report that it might be advisable to make the replacement of M-113s with AMPVs the Army’s first acquisition priority as opposed to developing the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV). Other defense officials and analysts suggest, given current and anticipated future defense budgetary constraints, the Army’s emphasis on the GCV might be unrealistic. They instead suggest a more appropriate course of action might be for the Army to shift its emphasis to the non-developmental AMPV. This report will be updated.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R43240.pdf

[Serge]

Sur les conséquences positives de la fin du programme GCV :

http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/9592-le-ground-combat-vehicle-est-lanc%C3%A9-pour-2017/page-5#entry751398