via Press Release.
BAE Systems was awarded a contract worth up to $1.2 billion from the U.S. Army for the Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) and Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV).This is interesting.
The program aims to provide the U.S. Army with a highly survivable and mobile fleet of vehicles that addresses a critical need to replace the Vietnam-era M113s.
“This award represents a significant milestone for the U.S. Army and BAE Systems,” said Mark Signorelli, vice president and general manager of Combat Vehicles at BAE Systems. “The AMPV will provide a substantial upgrade over the Army’s current personnel carrier fleet, increasing the service’s survivability, force protection, and mobility while providing for future growth potential. It also confirms BAE Systems’ role as a leading provider of combat vehicles.”
The initial award is for a 52-month base term, valued at approximately $383 million, during which BAE Systems will produce 29 vehicles across each of the variants. The award also provides an option to begin the LRIP phase immediately following the current EMD phase, at which time the company would produce an additional 289 vehicles for a total contract value of $1.2 billion.
We can debate wheels vs. tracks all day but the fact remains. One of the worlds biggest users of armored vehicles and perhaps the leading practitioner of land maneuver warfare sees a need for both.
Perhaps thats the answer that no one wants to admit. You need both.
Sidenote: Defense News adds this juicy tidbit to the story...
This contract only covers units at the brigade level and below within the ABCT. There are still another 1,922 M113s in use supporting Echelons Above Brigade (EAB) that the service eventually wants to replace.
This makes a bit of sense.
ReplyDeleteWe have thousands of Bradley hulls in storage and there is no reason to reinvent the wheel with limitations in the budget and sequestration.
If it can't swim, it is useless as an "M-113 replacement". And thus, not that useful for a "Pacific" pivot.
ReplyDeleteArmy doesn't need vehicles to swim we're not Marines. If we need to cross a river we have bridge layers for that. Why would the Army need to pivot to the pacific anyways? There is nothing in the Pacific for the Army to fight.
DeleteWhy do the vehicles that escort the tanks need to swim? I am not questioning the utility, but the requirement.
Delete"A big issue with the aging M113 — which was terminated in 2007 — is that it was unable to fully keep pace with the service's armor formations." which would rule out a Bradley because it is slower than a new-spec M-113. http://www.combatreform.org/lavdanger.htm And so much more. But hey, anything to bilk the taxpayer. Plus the Army owns the IP rights to the M-113.
ReplyDeleteThe Bradley IFV can actually be converted to swim, or at least used to be able to until it got uparmored, there might of been a way around that as I've seen pictures of the Bradley with pontoons attached to it and floating unless that is the South Korean K21. Doesn't really matter when the m113's amphibious capability is poor anyway without modification.
DeleteBy the way, that website is not what I would consider much of a credible source. While I do agree with maybe one or two things Mike Sparks has said, the guy is nuts.
ya know i don't agree with him on EVERYTHING and i'm not a Sparks defender but he was spot on with regard to so many subjects that its actually head spinning.
Delete1. he bitched about the lack of protection for vehicle commanders/gunners. later the military got protection and eventually RWS.
2. he talked about modular combat brigades before it was cool. he called it air-mech strike, the army went with stryker brigades.
3. he railed against the V-22 in the landing zone and talk about how vulnerable it is and how it needed a forward firing gun. the V-22 IS EXTREMELY vulnerable while landing and its finally (after lying to at least two commandants) finally getting forward firing weapons.
that's just a few off the top of my head and i have't been to his site in a long time now. he absolutely hates the USMC and i don't get that at all but to each his own. if you can't be us, can't work with us then i guess you hate us...which is fine.
i'm not a booster, but i just had to say this. anytime a person deems a site NOT credible it throws up flags for me now.
let me hit with this Leon...chime in too AM...why not use the M-113 as the mobility vehicle for airborne forces? its already air droppable, they've shoved it out the back of planes on that LAPES (?) thing, so why not give the 82nd what we have with the added benefit of it having a bit more armor than the trucks and atvs that they're looking at.
Deletehttp://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013/pdf/army/2013bradley(ecp).pdf
DeleteTake a look at the engineering change proposal for the Bradleys. The issues with them in Iraq were lack of side protection (fixed with ERA tiles) and lack of underbody protection. This engineering change could give the vehicle MRAP levels of protection. For another 400k a vehicle you could get a Trophy active protection and rubber tracks. All of these changes together would make the Bradley a world class vehicle I would think. Also, the logistical and training advantages of having the new Paladin, the Bradley, and the AMPV all using the same bodies and mechanical components are huge. People are quick to criticize poor decision making by the military and rightly so. This call makes a lot of sense and should be praised.
I have a general question about IP rights. A utility patent lasts 20-25yrs in most countries so how does it work that the Army has IP rights to something as old as an M113? Also Turkey builds a bigger better M113 in the form of an ACV-S and it's still amphibious. Not that the US would ever buy it. Just curious.
DeleteThe BAE AMPV really was a given, after the GCV got cut (because projections w/o add on armor had it at 75-85 tons), the Army had to find a way to modernize the Bradley fleet that it would have for the foreseeable future and get rid of M113's. This option does just that, as it provides a better vehicle than the M113 AND creates a stream-lined pipeline for upgrades to the rest of the Bradley IFV fleet.
DeleteA few things though:
1) I hope they built the kind of growth potential into these vehicles that the M109A7 because the M109A7 is almost insane with how much it can absorb with both new technology and weight.
2) This only makes sense if they take all of the upgrades done to the AMPV's (like a v-shaped hull, electronics and suspension upgrades) and apply them to the rest of the Bradley fleet because as it sits, you will have M113 replacements running around that are more survivable then the IFV's they were based on.
3) As for the idea of using the M113 as an air-droppable vehicle, you would have to do major upgrades and it would really just be easier to, as someone said earlier, have FNSS do a factory rebuild/upgrade on them.
1.) Sparks' ideas are borrowed from or influenced by General James Gavin and Colonel Hackword, among others. Anybody who reads their work knows this. So simply dismissing all of Sparks' ideas as nuts, because him, the person, was utterly incapable of acting civil to critics himself (a dose of irony), is criticising one of the greatest military commanders in our history. Certainly the most revolutionary.
Delete2.) The M113 was originally conceived as a air transportable battle taxy, as cited in one of Gavin's books. God knows if i can remember which one. Ill have to go through my library.
3.) The Bradley CANNOT SWIM. Period. It weighs 33-tons and is protected up to 30mm armor. Swimming was an impossibility during its pre-ODS variants, let alone with the significantly heavier A3 variant. The measures taken to make a "A0" swim were absolutely insurmountable in real-world conditions.
4.) The M113 is a dead horse, because well, the army decided it was to end this way. What sol said about fitting them to airborne forces is a good solution to what is lacking, although good luck convincing them that they need armor. Because "AIRBORNE!" by god. Even introducing a tracked vehicle within 100 meters of an airborne light infantry unit would inspire a mutiny (I joke, but this is well grounded with a sprinkle of truth).
I did not mean to be a total jackass when I said the site is not credible, I apologize guys. As for sparks' hatred of the marines, supposedly from what I gathered doing internet searches, he tried volunteering for the Marine Corps but got rejected so he joined the Army. Again, I emphasize "supposedly" as I am not a hundred percent on that.
DeleteNot saying all of Sparks' ideas are nuts, the idea of a mechanized airborne is something I agree with. I do cringe when I hear people calling the m113's "Gavins" though when that is not an official nickname for the line of vehicles.
The Marines have managed not to sink the M1A2 Abrams they have, so not swimming doesn't seem like a big issue. But if they really need some help the Army can always shift some Bradleys, which can swim, to assist.
ReplyDeleteEchelons above Brigade are Divisions, Corps, and Combatant Commands, AND the units that support those HQ units. So a signal brigade that supports a Corps is considered an Echelon Above Brigade asset, despite being a brigade itself. Our MLRS/HIMARS units are EAB despite being in their own brigades as well. The Army RSTA (Recon, Surveillance, Target Aquisition) Brigades are Corps level assets as well.
My point is that you have combat assets at EAB that look a lot like Brigade Combat Teams, but aren't BCTs because of who they work for, and how they are used, and what the food chain looks like. So just because they are EAB, doesn't mean they aren't filled with "front line" troops, because in many cases they are.
I know I am the reliability bore around here but why no mention of the vastly superior uptime and ease of maintence of the Stryker over the M113? Every soldier and every AAR I have read slammed the M113 as, paraphrasing here, "an old unreliable piece of crap that never @#$%^&^& worked!"
DeleteI will grant the Strykers are significantly newer but I have talked with soldiers and they assure me that 95% uptime is easily doable. Never heard of M113 being that good even in their heyday.
From my experience, the A3s were far more reliable than the predicessors, simply because the old ones were old as dirt.
DeleteThey were absolutely miserable to do long marches in. Miserable. The vibration from sitting in the back, with the tracks rolling about 30 mph would zap the strength out of superman. They were fast and nible though. If you had a A2 with the lateral steering, god help you. You are in for fun times.
Yes, brand new vehicles should have superior uptime. For the time being...
Back to the future Bradley returns to its 70's roots billions of $ later LOL
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
Oh Dear God! That has way too much truth to it!
DeleteI really don't like that movie, much of the criticism (from that clip that you linked) is unfair, unfounded and caters to those people that think every dollar spent on national defence is a waste.... And I really don't like the parts where the people who are supposed to be following the orders, are talking back to their superiors and being complete smart-asses and utter twats, telling them what the vehicle should be, and saying what the vehicle is supposed to be..
DeleteAnd noo... It is not a battle taxi, battle taxis are silly, you either build an IFV that is capable of defending itself and fighting a major war, or you build a ~15tonne MRAP with a comercialy available truck engine for armed patrols in low-intensity MOOTW scenarios.
Thats exactly what I was thinking! LOL.
DeleteAnd Colonel Burton's "criticism" is completely fair, founded, whose assertions are inconvenient facts that the Pentagon would like to make go away.
Yeah there were alot of good points made, especially about aluminium being crap and the corruption and poor procurement processes, but the backchatting and whinging by people working on the project was not cool. Customer is always right, even when they are wrong. As the other guy said, they don't need to buy it, just build it...
DeleteBesides they aren't part of the procurement process, they are engineers, and it is their job to build what the military believes it requires, not question national defence policy, and run down their seniors.
I don't think the M113A3 is even cleared to swim these days. The weight gain over the years makes it unsafe. I don't think we could justify the cost to mechanize our entire airborne divisions but but some armor would be nice in the form of a modernized M8 AGS. Maybe a BMD-type vehicle based on the M8 with room for four passengers would be useful. Provide a better reconnaissance platform than whatever HMMWVs they might have.
ReplyDelete