Find a Security Clearance Job!

Military


XM765 Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV)

FMC Corporation, which built the M113, had been one of the losing bidders in the MICV-65 program. In 1967, the FMC Corporation was awarded a contract with the US Army to build two candidate infantry fighting vehicles. These models were not adopted by the Army, but further development by FMC, as a private venture several years later, resulted in the Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle (AIFV) later designated XM765. The company decided that the future of the APC business moving in the IFV direction and so allocated its own funds to developing the XM765 AIFV (Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle). Variants are urrently in service with the Netherlands, the Philippines, Belgium,, and Turkey. The Dutch YPR765 is a license-built version of the private-venture AIFV FMC had derived from the M113.

The Army was looking to develop the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, following the failed MBT-70 project, and wanted an IFV that was more mobile and better protected than the XM765. In February 1979, at hearings before the House Armed Services Commitee on the Fiscal Year 1979 defense appropriation, Brig. Gen. Stan Sheridan, program manager for fighting vehicle systems, defended his program, stating that: "The Army feels rather strongly there is an urgent requirement for Infantry and Cavalry Fighting Vehicles to fight side by side with the XM1 Tank. It is the Armys position that the current concept and design of that vehicle . . . meets the requirement and provides improved and versatile firepower; mobility compatible with XM1; sufficiently increased protection to allow infantry and cavalry to fight from within the vehicle; and simplified maintenance."

The IFV/CFV Special Study Group formed at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in March 1978, under Brig. Gen. Fred Mehaffey. The Mehaffey group, in conjunction with the Tank-Automotive and Armaments Comand (TACOM) program manager for fighting vehicle systems, was directed to determine the cost-effectiveness of an IFV-based successor for the M113-based Improved TOW Vehicle, and to determine the cost-effectiveness of the IFV and CFV programs against M113 derivatives. The Mehaffey groups recommendations were in the same vein as those of the Crizer task force. It found that the ITV was more cost-effective than the proposed IFV-based TOW vehicle and that M113 derivatives would require extensive reengineering to be even marginally satisfactory, requiring extensive modifications to accept a TBATII turret or analogous weapons station, along with a new power plant and suspension.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list