BAE Systems has delivered a first-in-its-kind Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) Turreted Mortar prototype to the U.S. Army.
The prototype showcases a newly designed top plate system—the External Mission Equipment Package (ExMEP)—that allows for the easy installation of a variety of turrets. This vehicle prototype is also outfitted with the Patria NEMO remote-controlled 120mm turreted mortar system.
“The result of a rapid collaborative technology investment effort involving the U.S. Army, BAE Systems, and KONGSBERG/Patria, the prototype demonstrates potential variant growth for the highly adaptable AMPV family of vehicles. By using a fielded and fully-qualified asset like the AMPV chassis, it gives the Army options to field combat capabilities—such as the Patria NEMO—to Soldiers who need them at a much faster pace and reduced cost.”
“Handing this remarkable capability over to the Army for evaluation is an important step in creating broader multi-purpose options for Soldiers to maintain combat overmatch on the battlefield,” said Bill Sheehy, BAE Systems AMPV program director.
“The AMPV Turreted Mortar prototype was born from a capability discussion we had with the Army in 2022—the same year ExMEP was conceptualized with industry partners, and we look forward to its evaluation. The collaborative, future-driven approach to develop it will benefit the warfighter, and that is what the AMPV program is all about.”
The AMPV Mortar Carrier variant, which is one of the five variants currently in production with the U.S. Army, is comprised of the legacy 120mm mortar system.
Could this be fitted to Warrior or Ajax? If so, this could be a useful addition to the fleet.
No point fitting to Warrior. The MoD is soon to ‘can’ the fleet.
The needs to make its own platform for modules to fit onto. Something is needed to replace FV430s, bulldog soon. Having a base platform would also allow IFV to be made. BAE are in a strong position to make a great vehicle.
That’s what Boxer was originally supposed to do. Before they added Warrior replacement to the list.
On the subject of Warrior replacement now we have gone down the Boxer route. The tracked Boxer hull could be a possible answer as it utilises the same mission modules. Offering the lower running costs of wheeled hulls for training and tasks best suited. While having the option of fielding tracked hulls for keeping pace with MBTs, when nothing else will do. Tracked Boxer is wider than the wheeled, has more powerful engines, heavier load carrying, thicker armour and lower ground pressure. Only testing will tell if it ticks all the other boxes. Pardon the pun. Acquisition of both types… Read more »
What about off the shelf tracked Boxer hulls.
I’ve always quite liked the concept of the unmanned mortar turret; it provides “proper” artillery firepower at short range with a tiny vehicle footprint in comparison with, say, Archer.
NEMO especially is a fun idea, it can be used from a container for point/base defence and also has been put on landing craft for fire support.
How about a Boxer module to replace the 105mm or similar? You get top attack anti tank with guided rounds and MRSI of 5 rounds past 10km with glide-assisted bombs, firing on the move and direct fire if necessary.
That all sounds very useful to me……
I can’t tell whether you’re being sarcastic or not. Maybe a bit more elaboration?
No sarcasm here, I agree with your post, sounds like a great system for the British Army to add to its order of battle …
No problem, but you never know with some of these people and your ellipsis confused me.
Glad you agree anyway 😁
Add the tracked Boxer hull to the mix and we could have a very versatile fleet of vehicles. Either by luck or design. With interchangeable modules and great incentive to develop more potential options. Like Starstreak, Brimstone, 155mm etc etc. Not forgetting the often overlooked NBC Detection vehicles. With Russia, Iran and the ChiComs as potential opponents CW is an almost certainty.
Not sure about 155mm, that module seems to lose all of the mobility advantages that Boxer has. However, Brimstone and Starstreak are things that we need to replace/introduce anyway in the next few years and Boxer is the best platform for both jobs.
The tracked hull would be the best match for a howitzer being wider with better mobility. But if the wheeled Boxer hull is available and the operational requirements are not affected by it’s inherent limitations. Then why not benefit from the higher road speed? Increased versatility and flexibility is never a bad thing. Neither is increasing our manufacturing facilities to include tracked Boxer hulls. If the 15+ RCH 155 Self-Propelled Howitzer units ordered by Ukrainian for delivery next year, fall through. We could start the ball rolling with them and make modifications to our own future orders. Insisting on manufacturing… Read more »
We’ve bought Archer for wheeled artillery already, so I doubt Boxer would really be able to compete. For tracked, it would be between boxer and the Korean K9 Thunder. I’m not really qualified to make a judgement between them.
The main advantage of Boxer is its modularity and light weight. Slapping a massive howitzer turret on top removes an element of modularity (the units have a frame that allows them to fit in a TEU system, 155 doesn’t work) and impacts on maneuverability.
We only bought 14 archer as an intrim platform the most likely replacement for As90 is K9 although As90 merely needs a couple of upgrades as we’re doing with challenger as for ajax that’s a unbelievable the army could have purchased cv90 with the same suite of capabilities
I for one have continuously voiced my opinion, that the Army needs this capability. It’s the ability to fire from undercover that gets my vote. Previously from a FV432, you had to open the hatches, swing the table to the desired bearing, adjust for range, adjust the propellant rings then lob the bomb down the tube. Whilst listening in for corrections. The NEMO does all this and more. Whilst being fully automated, therefore has can maintain a higher rate of fire, which doing simultaneous rounds on target. If the Patria 8×8 has been fitted with the turret, then there should… Read more »
I’m fairly sure there were some Mortar carriers in with the ordered boxer variants, but I’d have to look it up to be sure.
28 mortar carriers in Tr1 of Boxer.
Yes, although these are unturreted ones, with slide back roof I believe? I can see the saving, but a turreted version would be a win in my view.
They’re the open roof version:
UKDJ “British Boxer mortar mission module fired for first time”
I think the ones we’re getting are 81mm instead but the same design. You only get 270 degrees arc and no fire on the move or MRSI.
You have comments under there but may have slipped your mind
Thanks for the details. So we are really getting a very basic system which is no real improvement on the FV432 mortar variant presumably first fielded in the early 60s.
Verging on yet another epic fail.
They’re only changing the vehicle carrying it mate!
Exactly my point. No real capability improvement some c.60 years since first fielding the 432 (Mortar), other than a wagon that can travel a bit faster on roads and tracks.
A massive missed opportunity.
Absolutely. And just 28 vehicles across 5 Battalions? How many 81mm does each Mortar Platoon have? I recall 8?
The numbers are telling there own story across multiple programs of what the army views as being deployable at one time. Vehicles would stay deployed with troops rotating in and out. The army has had to try and keep a good range of capabilities/skills that it used to have but has also had to take on new roles especially with cyber, drones etc etc. This has led to small numbers of most things with some units not really having a place within structure. The army is expected to be capable of worldwide deployment with full range of capabilities to deal… Read more »
I think the army, like all HM forces, have too much of a can do attitude for that realism!
There was talk of replacing the 81mm mortar with a 120mm one. I am hoping this is more than an aspiration. But looking at how poorly the Treasury and Government are treating defence in general, I very much doubt it!
Yep, its all crazy, unless a future Tr3 of Boxer purchase has more mortar carriers. I don’t think there are any in Tr2 (the order for 100 Boxers).
It’s archaic to fire mortars from an open hatch – no armour or CBRN protection for the crew. I wonder which other countries still do this?
No top armour when hatch is open, was what I meant…..obvs.
It should still be 8 per battalion, unless some ‘genius’ has changed the Orbat, cut the number to save money to win an MBE!
Second thoughts. It may be 6 mortars per AI/Mech Inf mortar platoon. Dern would know.
3 x Sections of 3 so 9.
Thanks DB, nice to know that someone with actual experience agrees with my internet warrior work! NEMO isn’t even the most interesting one, the Finns and Swedes came up with the AMOS, which has twin guns in one turret for a higher rate of fire (and also to look like a battleship). How useful do you think NEMO would be navally? There can’t be much in that class (TEU footprint) that has as much hitting power and range out to 10km as an automatic mortar. For an OPV, for example, you could put a mortar and a 40mm on it,… Read more »
Boxer will now be deployed into the Armoured Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) to replace the Warrior IFV. So that is where you would put your Boxer-based mortar carriers. Can’t see that you would also have a tracked mortar carrier in the ABCT?
“The result of a rapid collaborative technology investment effort” sounds like this was requested by someone and need to be designed quickly ?
US Army looking for quicker shoot and scoot ability