BAE Systems showcased two new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) prototypes at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) 2024 annual meeting.
The latest prototypes, say BAE, demonstrate the flexibility of the AMPV platform, which continues to evolve to meet the needs of the U.S. Army.
One of the featured prototypes includes a 30mm turret equipped with the KONGSBERG Medium Caliber Turret (MCT), a lightweight, remote-controlled system that has also been selected for the U.S. Marine Corps’ Amphibious Combat Vehicle program.
The second prototype, known as the AMPV Modular Turreted Mortar System (MTMS), is outfitted with a 120mm remote-controlled mortar system and has recently completed field evaluations at the U.S. Army’s Yuma Test Center. This prototype was delivered to the U.S. Army in early 2024 and was successfully demonstrated during a live fire event at the Maneuver Warfighter Conference in Georgia last month.
A key feature of the AMPV’s adaptability, according to BAE, is its common top plate, which allows for seamless integration of mission equipment, supporting more than 30 different turret systems.
Bill Sheehy, AMPV program director at BAE Systems, said, “Our goal with the AMPV common top plate has remained the same since day one. We are demonstrating the time and cost-effective options the AMPV brings to the table for Soldiers who need new and evolving capabilities quickly so they are ready for today’s battlefields.” The modular design also enables future upgrades, ensuring the vehicle remains adaptable for decades to come.
In addition to the two prototypes on display, BAE Systems has developed three other AMPV configurations over the past year, including a Counter-Unmanned Aerial System (C-UAS) turret, an unmanned 30mm turret, and another medium-caliber 30mm weapon system. All of these adaptations are made possible by the AMPV’s modular design.
So the US Army wants a cheap replacement for the M113 and have gone for a turret less version of the Bradley, now they are sticking loads of different turrets on it.
Does that make sense to anyone ?
Ironic that the Bradley entered service in 1981 and Warior in 1987 and we are replacing our IFV with wheeled.
Hopefully sense will prevail with the IFV. Not all tracked or all wheeled. Horses for courses and some decent armament up top. Simples isn’t it? Same with the SPGs. Going all wheeled with the RCH155. Is that sensible? I think the French are doing the same so that makes two in the club.
It’s ironic that the western world’s largest maker of armoured vehicles is a British company and we buy all ours from US and German defence contractors at eye watering prices.
These are built in the US, aren’t they?
Parts of BAE are more American than British.
Yes BAE bought a lot os industries. Bofors in Sweden, for the US United Defence this came with M113, Bradley, M109 155mm SP, the 5″ american naval gun
Interesting, not cognizant of all previous history, but strongly suspect BAES royally torqued off the wrong individuals w/in the MoD at some point. This could explain some of the aversion to BAES products by the British Army. 🤔
The clue is the name…
BAE
BIG And Expensive.
As a shipbuilder they ripped us off, other systems as well; the irony is the CV90 would have been great for us and a lot cheaper.
I had not heard that ‘BIG and Expensive’ dig before. As you say, that has not been especially true for Land equipment made by BAE.
The suspicion is that BAES torqued off the RAF and politicians in Government over the Nimrod AEW3 project in the 1980s. Some (unfairly in my view) solely criticised BAES over the Nimrod MRA.4 MPA programme, cancelled in the 2010 SDSR, at which point it was £789 million over-budget and over nine years late. The British Army, on the other hand, has had almost all of its AFVs supplied over 60 or more years by 5 British manufacturers: Alvis, RO plc, Vickers Defence Systems, VSEL and GKN – companies all now taken over by BAES. I served 1975-2009 and can’t think… Read more »
BAE created a revolving door money pit with former Purple joining their ranks after contracts had been signed.
Sceptic, moi?
CV90 was the right route but the wrong brand.
If only we had the opportunity to buy from a British Company. We could have replaced so much of our kit years ago…😏
BAmericaE systems strike again. So their plan is for the entire western world to buy their kit?
you mean the same as Lockheed & RTX’s intention?