AMPV Program - AOA / RFP
The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) Program was the proposed Army program for replacement of the M113 Family of Vehicles within the Heavy Brigade Combat Team. Proposed in January 2011, the program was initially put on hold pending an FY12 Materiel Development Decision that would define the program, to be followed by an Analysis of Alternatives that would confirm the system or systems that would replace the M113. The proposed program schedule would see the program achieving Milestone B and entering Engineering and Manufacturing Development by the end of FY13, reaching Milestone C in FY16, having the first prototype vehicles delivered in early FY17, and then seeing the first unit equipped with the selected AMPV design by the end of FY17.
An analysis of alternatives began following the approval of the AMPV requirement for materiel development in February 2012. A total of $74 million had been requested in the FY13 budget to fund both the AMPV analysis of alternatives and pre-milestone A development activities. Initial focus for the AMPV program would be on replacing M113s within the Army Heavy Brigade Combat Teams. The remaining efforts would then focus on a future decision point to address the M113s located in echelons above brigade.
A draft analysis of alternatives report was provided to a team at the US Army Research Laboratory's Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate for review in June 2012. The same team had been tasked with conducting the review of the GCV analysis of alternatives. The draft report had been produced by the US Army's Training and Doctrine Command, which drew upon the review conducted to present a final analysis on the replacement of the M113A3 vehicles to Army leadership later in the summer of 2012. The AMPV then became set to go through the Army's typical acquisition process.
On 22 March 2013, the US Army issued a draft request for proposals (RFP) for the AMPV program. The draft RFP stated that the non-cost/price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than the cost/price factor. No proposal, no matter how highly rated under the non-cost/price factors, would be considered for award if unaffordable for either the AMPV Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase or the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phase. For EMD, this included affordability based on (a) the total available funding in FY14-FY17 and, (b) since the awards would be RDTE incrementally funded contracts, available RDT&E funding within each of the FY14-FY17 funding periods.
For LRIP, this included affordability based on (c) the total available Production funding in FY18-FY20 and, (d) since the option year CLINs would be funded by fiscal year, available Production funding within each of the FY18-FY20 funding periods. According to draft RFP, the availability of funding for the AMPV EMD Phase for FY14-FY17 was: $65.2 Million (FY14), $145.5 Million (FY15), $109.9 Million (FY16), and $67.4 Million (FY17). Also according to the draft RFP, the availability of funding for the AMPV LRIP Phase for FY18-FY20 was: $335.4 Million (FY18), $361.2 Million (FY19), and $378.9 Million (FY20).
For the AMPV program the Army would look to consider existing or programmed solutions, which might include, but were not limited to, derivatives of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Stryker variants, Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, variants of the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) also in development, or other systems. Even prior to the Materiel Development Decision, a derivative of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, using the A3 vehicle chassis and body with additional improvements, but without the turret, had been proposed.
In the past, BAE and General Dynamics had split the US combat vehicle market. General Dynamics built the M1 Abrams main battle tank, and BAE built the smaller M2 Bradley. BAE offered a variant of its turretless Bradley. It was not a new vehicle, it was basically a Bradley. The AMPV capitalized on proven Bradley and M109A7 designs, meeting the Army’s force protection and all-terrain mobility requirements while enabling the AMPV to maneuver with the rest of the Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT).
General Dynamics offered either its wheeled double V-hull Stryker, or a newer tracked version of the Stryker. General Dynamics displayed its tracked Stryker concept vehicle at AUSA in 2012 as an offering in the Army's AMPV competition. Army’s formal briefing to industry in April 2012 had emphasized that AMPV “requires off-road mobility comparable to M1/M2” — both tracked vehicles. The simple fact is that above a weight threshold of about 20 tons, wheeled vehicles don’t do as well off-road as tracked vehicles.
The tracked Stryker would have wider tracks with more road wheels, making for better cross-country mobility. It would weigh 32 tons, about the same as the latest uparmored wheeled Stryker, but with vastly more horsepower, 675 instead of 450.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
