Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle

The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) is a U.S.

Army program to replace the M113 armored personnel
carrier and family of vehicles.[1] AMPV is a sub-project of
the Next Generation Combat Vehicle program.

In 2014, the U.S. Army selected BAE Systems' proposal of a

turretless variant of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle to replace
over 2,800 M113s in service.[2]

As of 2013, five variants of the AMPV are planned: M1283

General Purpose (522 planned), M1284 Medical Evacuation Soldiers from 4th Squadron (Dark Horse),
Vehicle (790 planned), M1285 Medical Treatment Vehicle 9th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade
(216 planned), M1286 Mission Command (993 planned), Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division,
and M1287 Mortar Carrier Vehicle (386 planned).[3] As of complete field testing of the Armored Multi-
2015 the program was scheduled to deliver 2,897 vehicles at Purpose Vehicle at Fort Hood, Texas, circa
a total cost of $10.723 billion, or $3.7 million per vehicle.[4] 2018

The first AMPV prototype was rolled out in December

2016,[5] and the first production vehicles began rolling out in September 2020.[6]

In March 2023, the U.S. Army delivered the first AMPVs to the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd
Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia.[7]

Rationale
The M113 has been in service since the early 1960s and while able
to take on various roles, has proven too vulnerable for combat. In
the 1980s, the M2 Bradley replaced the M113 in the front-line
transport role, moving it to rear-area roles. In the Iraq War, urban
warfare tactics still defeated the M113, leading it to be almost
entirely replaced in active service by MRAP vehicles. MRAPs
were useful on the roads of Iraq, but have less payload capacity and
poorer off-road performance. The AMPV aims to find a vehicle
more versatile and mobile against a wide range of adversaries while The AMPV has 78% more interior
having off-road mobility comparable to Bradleys and M1 Abrams volume compared to the M113
tanks.[1] armored personnel carrier.

Some reports suggested that the AMPV program was being favored
over the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program. While procurement of the AMPV fleet would cost over
$5 billion, the Government Accountability Office estimates the GCV fleet would cost $37 billion. In April
2013, the Congressional Budget Office said the AMPV would be a better buy because analysts have
asserted that the vehicles the GCV is slated to replace should not be first. The GCV was to replace 61 M2
Bradley infantry fighting vehicles in each armored combat brigade, making up 18 percent of the 346
armored combat vehicles in each armored brigade.[8]
A September 2013 Congressional Research Service report suggested that given budgetary constraints, the
GCV program may be unrealistic, and that one potential discussion could focus on a decision by the Army
to replace the GCV with the AMPV as their number one ground combat vehicle acquisition priority.[8] The
Army FY 2015 budget proposal suggests cancelling the GCV program and moving funds to the AMPV as
the service's priority vehicle program.[9][10]

In order to keep development costs down, the Army is requiring the vehicle be a commercial off-the-shelf
design that can be incrementally improved. The vehicle would have new technologies including
electronics, networking, and communications gear added onto the platform as they become available later.
If the AMPV can incorporate newer satellite communications as they are developed, they could be linked to
other ground vehicles that would normally require a complete subsystems overhaul for new gear after a
certain number of years.[11] The operational maintenance cost requirement of the AMPV is up to $90 per
mile, compared to $58 per mile for the M113.[12]

History
In March 2013, the Army issued a draft request for proposals (RFP) for the AMPV. The RFP proposed a
$1.46 billion contract for design and development phases. The engineering and manufacturing development
(EMD) phase would build 29 prototypes over four years from 2014 through 2017 for $388 million. Low-
rate initial production (LRIP) would be from 2018 to 2020 at $1.08 billion for 289 production models.
After 2020, the Army planned to buy another 2,618 vehicles over ten years for a total of 2,907 AMPVs.
Cost per vehicle is not to exceed $1.8 million, totalling $4.7 billion for the entire fleet. As with the revised
GCV program, one development contract will be awarded to one company.[3]

In October 2013, the Army released a new draft RFP, delaying the start of the program by one year and
raising the development costs by several hundred million dollars. The new document said the Army
planned to award a five-year EMD contract in May 2014 to one contractor, which will manufacture 29
vehicles for government testing, followed by a three-year LRIP contract starting in 2020. The EMD phase
was extended from FY 2015 to FY 2019, and raised the cost to build 29 prototypes to $458 million.[8]

Expenditures for three years of LRIP for 289 vehicles were $244 million the first year, $479 million the
second year, and $505 million the third year, totaling an increase to $1.2 billion for low-rate production.
The AMPV will cost $1.68 billion before full-rate production begins, an increase from $1.46 billion
previously. The new draft did not change the total number of vehicles desired and does not include an
average unit manufacturing cost. Congress approved $116 million for the program in the Army's FY 2014
budget.[8]

The AMPV has a relatively long production schedule for a non-developmental vehicle of 13 years: 3 years
for low-rate production and 10 years for full-rate production. The production plan was partly based on
budgetary constraints, but also to be able to speed up production in the event of war or another
contingency. 33 percent of an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) is made up of M113s, which are
not used in combat operations because they are less mobile and poorly protected than other combat vehicles
in an ABCT. Full-rate production should build just under 300 AMPV vehicles per year, but the ability is
there to quickly increase production if an ABCT needed to deploy to combat. Letting industry build as fast
as possible regularly only to stop it later is seen as irresponsible.[13]

In November 2013, the Army released the official AMPV EMD phase RFP. Despite sequestration budget
cuts, the program is maintaining its previously stated goal of 2,907 vehicles at $1.8 million each, built over
13 years. A 5-year EMD contract was to be awarded to one manufacturer in May 2014 to produce 29
vehicles for testing, which will be followed by a 3-year LRIP contract in 2020. Although the October draft
RFP raised the cost of the EMD phase to $458 million, the official November RFP lowered it to $436
million.[14]

Annual expenditures for the EMD phase are $70 million in FY 2015, $174 million in FY 2016, $114
million in FY 2017, $64 million in FY 2018, and $14 million in FY 2019. The RFP also contains an
Optional Exchange Vehicle (OEV) program to exchange up to 78 vehicles during the EMD phase for
AMPVs. 39 Bradley vehicles of versions previous to the current M2A3/M3A3 configurations and 39
M113s not including the M113 AMEV can be exchanged by the government to the contractor for credit.[15]

RFP issues

In February 2014, General Dynamics filed a protest with the Army Materiel Command on grounds that the
AMPV requirements had been written to favor a chassis based on the BAE Systems Bradley Fighting
Vehicle, making it more difficult for their Stryker designs or other foreign designs to compete in the
program. They cite the option of using excess Bradleys as optional exchange vehicles, which is difficult for
a competitor not offering the chassis, the Army not providing performance data on Bradley components
outside of BAE, which they could use to develop a tracked offering, and mobility requirements that
exclude wheeled vehicles, which call for a vehicle that can go 100 percent of places the M113 is able to,
including very soft ground.[16][17]

BAE said the Army's changed mobility requirements from a zero turning radius to a larger turning radius
that could accommodate a wheeled design and that requirements do not specify a Bradley-based vehicle
because a pure Bradley solution would not meet them; the AMPV's survivability requirements are higher
than that of an M2 equipped with the Bradley Urban Survival Kit (BUSK) III. Navistar Defense also
offered its MaxxPro MRAP to fulfill part of the AMPV role. The idea is to replace the M113 sooner with
the more survivable mine-resistant MaxxPro until the AMPV can be fielded in 2020.[18][17]

The Army Materiel Command denied General Dynamics' protest in April 2014. Their response was that
although BAE had an advantage being the manufacturers of the Bradley and M113, the government was
not required to neutralize that and that does not constitute preferential treatment. Regarding OEVs, the
Army Materiel Command clarified that they may not specifically be used for conversion but could still be
exchanged for foreign sales or be scrapped, which would be less cost-effective. General Dynamics could
have gone to the Government Accountability Office with its protest, or simply withdraw from the
competition.[17][19]

In April 2014, General Dynamics released a statement saying they wouldn't file a protest with the GAO,
but would still be engaged in talks with Congress and the Department of Defense. The company may
believe it has a better chance of gaining support through Congress, which favors a strategy of buying a mix
of both Stryker and Bradley vehicles, and would be less likely to act if the dispute was brought to the GAO
to avoid affecting the outcome of the protest. AMPV proposals were due by 28 May 2014.[20]

General Dynamics also favors the mixed Bradley/Stryker AMPV acquisition idea, saying a combination
fleet would match missions with Bradley and Double V-hull (DVH) Stryker strengths to quickly provide
enhanced survivability and lower logistics costs. The Stryker M1135 NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle is
already organic within ABCTs, and the M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle deployed with an ABCT to
Iraq in 2009.[21]

Using the wheeled Stryker to perform some AMPV missions would offset costs associated with
maintaining tracked vehicles. A company analysis concluded that a mixed fleet would save billions of
dollars through lower life-cycle costs compared to one fleet of either solution. The Stryker family of
vehicles already includes all AMPV versions, except medical treatment, so "up-front" availability of those
vehicles would shorten development timelines and allow the M113 to be replaced quicker.[22]

In May 2014, the House Armed Services Committee Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee passed its
markup of the FY 2015 budget. Language pertaining to the AMPV approved 80 percent of requested
funding, but withheld 20 percent until the Army submitted a report on the program by May 2015. The
report requests a study on replacing M113 vehicles in formations separate from frontline fighting, rather
than just in armored brigades, and the feasibility of a wheeled vehicle being used for the medical evacuation
role. This works into General Dynamics' suggestion of a split buy, using tracked Bradley-type vehicles for
mobility missions while having wheeled Strykers as an armored ambulance and for support vehicle
missions not assigned to combat brigades.[23]

Although a split buy may be considered, with lower-mobility vehicles serving in rear-echelon units outside
of armored brigades, the Army is unlikely to procure a mix of tracked and wheeled armored vehicles within
an ABCT itself due to risk of mobility differences hindering cross-country maneuvering and mechanical
differences increasing maintenance demands.[23] General Dynamics claims that using the Stryker medical
evacuation vehicle would save $2 billion in life cycle costs and that it is smoother and quicker than a
tracked vehicle in the role.[24]

Vehicle submissions

In May 2014, BAE Systems submitted their proposal for the

AMPV competition. Their submission was based on the Bradley
and Paladin Integrated Management designs to meet the force
protection and all-terrain mobility requirements with maximum
commonality within the family of vehicles. The BAE AMPV team
includes: DRS Technologies for power management, distribution,
and integration; Northrop Grumman for Mission Command
Mission Equipment Package design and integration; Air Methods
The AMPV at the U.S. Army Cold
Corporation for medical evacuation and treatment subsystems; and
Regions Test Center
the Red River Army Depot for vehicle teardown and component
remanufacture.

A 52-month EMD contract was to be awarded in January 2015, with prototypes delivered after 24
months.[25] General Dynamics did not make a submission, saying they would not compete in the program
as the requirements and other provisions did not allow them to provide a competitive solution. The
company ruled out bringing their protest to the Federal Circuit Court so they could pursue other options,
including their mixed fleet idea to include Stryker medical vehicles.[26]

The Senate Appropriations Committee may include language in its 2015 defense appropriations bill that
prohibits the Army from funding the medical evacuation variant of the AMPV. This is due to lobbying from
General Dynamics to Congress in order to get the Stryker incorporated into future Army vehicle plans, with
the Senate claiming time and funding may be wasted on developing a new medical evacuation variant
when "a wheeled combat vehicle has successfully deployed in combat with armored brigade combat
teams," referencing Stryker medical vehicles deployed with some heavy brigades in Iraq. The Army said
that this would require them to compete that part of the program separately, write a new RFP, and come up
with a new acquisition strategy, independent cost estimate, and acquisition decision memorandum. This
could potentially cost an additional $95 million, delay the program at least two years, and would take
money away from Abrams, Bradley, and Stryker modernization efforts.[27]

EMD

In December 2014, BAE Systems was awarded a $383 million contract to begin the Engineering,
Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) phase of the AMPV program. The initial award is for a 52-month
base term, to produce 29 vehicles across each of the variants. It contains the option to begin Low-Rate
Initial Production (LRIP) immediately following the EMD's conclusion to produce an additional 289
vehicles for the total contract value of $1.2 billion.[28][29][30]

The vehicles are to move as rapidly as the primary combat vehicles in an ABCT during unified land
operations over multiple terrain sets with superior force protection, survivability, and mobility than the
M113. They will support the M1 Abrams and M2/M3 Bradley to resupply the formation, conduct battle
command functions, deliver organic indirect fires, provide logistics support and medical treatment, and
perform medical and casualty evacuation to function as an integral part of the ABCT formation.[31][32][33]

Army leaders have rejected General Dynamics' idea of using a wheeled vehicle for medical evacuation in
armored brigades, saying a tracked vehicle's superior mobility better enables it to retrieve wounded soldiers.
The requirements were for a vehicle that could go wherever the tracked vehicles of an armored brigade
went, which would include rough terrain and soft ground that a wheeled vehicle could get bogged down in,
preventing an armored ambulance from reaching wounded soldiers in time. Using BAE's Bradley-based
chassis allows for commonality between 75 percent of an armored brigade's combat vehicles, easing
maintenance and logistics and ensuring the vehicles have comparable mobility.[34][35]

Variants
There are to be five versions of the AMPV:[36]

XM1283 General Purpose (GP): Replaces the M113A3

APC. Requirements are for 2 crew and 6 troops, be
configured to carry one litter, and mount a crew served
weapon. Tasks include conducting logistics package
escort, emergency resupply, casualty evacuation, and
security for medical evacuation.[36] 522 planned.[3]
XM1284 Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV): Replaces
the M113 AMEV. Requirements are for 3 crew and able The General Purpose and Medical
to have either 6 ambulatory patients, 4 litter patients, or 3 Evacuation Vehicle variants of the
ambulatory patients and 2 litter patients. It must also AMPV
have medical equipment sets and environmental
cooling. Tasks include conducting medical evacuation
from the point of injury to an aid station and medical resupply replenishment.[36] 790
planned.[3]
XM1285 Medical Treatment Vehicle (MTV): Replaces the M577A3 Medical Vehicle.
Requirements are for 4 crew and one litter patient, as well as medical equipment sets and
environmental cooling. Tasks include serving as the forward aid station, main aid station,
and battalion aid station.[36] 216 planned.[3]
XM1287 Mortar Carrier Vehicle (MCV): Replaces the M1064A3 Mortar Carrier.
Requirements are for 2 crew and 2 mortar crew, with a 120 mm mortar and 69 mortar rounds.
 The task is to provide indirect mortar fire.[36] 386 planned.[3]
XM1286 Mission Command (MCmd): Replaces the M1068A3 Command Post Carrier.
Requirements are for 2 crew, 2 operators, and a mount for a crew served weapon. The task
is to serve as a command post.[36] 993 planned.[3]
Engineer Vehicle: An internal BAE project in collaboration with the US Army to develop an
engineer vehicle to replace M113's in that role at Echelons Above Brigade (EAB).[37]

Competitors
BAE Systems Turretless Bradley – BAE is offering a turretless version of their Bradley
Fighting Vehicle.[38]
General Dynamics Stryker – General Dynamics was offering a tracked version of their
Stryker APC,[38] but then offered the wheeled version of the Stryker.[23]
Navistar Defense Maxxpro – Navistar was offering a modified version of their wheeled
MaxxPro MRAP.[39]

See also
Interim Armored Vehicle, a U.S. Army combat vehicle program that resulted in the acquisition
of the Stryker family
Ground Combat Vehicle, a U.S. Army infantry fighting vehicle acquisition program canceled
in 2014
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, a U.S. armed forces acquisition program to replace the Humvee
Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, an ongoing U.S. Army infantry fighting vehicle program
to replace the M2 Bradley

References
1. Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. (29 May 2012). "Army Mulls $1.7 Billion Effort To Replace 3,000
M113s" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130413104358/http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/29/ar
my-mulls-1-7-billion-effort-to-replace-3-000-m113s/). Defense AOL. Archived from the
original (http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/29/army-mulls-1-7-billion-effort-to-replace-3-000-m1
13s/) on 2013-04-13.
2. McLeary, Paul (23 December 2014). "Army Awards AMPV to BAE Systems, Future Fights
Loom" (https://www.armytimes.com/land/2014/12/24/army-awards-ampv-to-bae-systems-futu
re-fights-loom/). Army Times. Retrieved 3 February 2022.
3. Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. (22 March 2013). "Army Issues RFP For $6 Billion M113
Replacement: Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Program" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130
324182124/http://defense.aol.com/2013/03/22/army-issues-rfp-for-6-billion-m113-replaceme
nt-armored-multi-p/). Defense.AOL.com. Archived from the original (http://defense.aol.com/20
13/03/22/army-issues-rfp-for-6-billion-m113-replacement-armored-multi-p/) on 2013-03-24.
4. GAO-15-342SP defense acquisitions Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs (http://w
ww.gao.gov/assets/670/668986.pdf#page=75) (PDF) (Report). US Government
Accountability Office. March 2015. p. 67. Retrieved 15 July 2015.
5. Judson, Jen (15 December 2016). "BAE Systems Presents First AMPV Prototype to US
Army" (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/bae-systems-presents-first-ampv-prototype-to-u
s-army). Defense News. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
 6. Army Set to Receive First Armored Vehicles to Replace Vietnam-Era M113 (https://www.milit
ary.com/daily-news/2020/09/02/army-set-receive-first-armored-vehicles-replace-vietnam-era
-m113.html). Military.com. 2 September 2020.
7. Judson, Jen (2023-03-14). "First unit gets new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles replacing
old M113s" (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/03/14/first-unit-gets-new-armored-mult
i-purpose-vehicles-replacing-old-m113s/). Defense News. Retrieved 2023-03-17.
8. McLeary, Paul (2 October 2013). "US Army Looks To Delay, Increase Cost of AMPV
Program" (https://archive.today/20131006111913/http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013
1002/DEFREG02/310020011/US-Army-Looks-Delay-Increase-Cost-AMPV-Program).
Defense News. Archived from the original (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131002/D
EFREG02/310020011/US-Army-Looks-Delay-Increase-Cost-AMPV-Program) on 6 October
2013. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
9. Cox, Matthew (4 March 2014). "Army 2015 Budget Kills GCV, Cuts Readiness" (https://web.
archive.org/web/20140306015030/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/03/04/army-2015-budget-k
ills-gcv-cuts-readiness/). DoD Buzz. Archived from the original (http://www.dodbuzz.com/201
4/03/04/army-2015-budget-kills-gcv-cuts-readiness/) on 2014-03-06.
10. Vergun, David (4 March 2014). "FY15 Army budget: request includes small pay raise, 490K
end strength" (http://www.army.mil/article/121217/FY15_Army_budget__request_includes_s
mall_pay_raise__490K_end_strength/). Army.mil. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
11. Osborn, Kris (31 October 2013). "Army Mulls Trading New Vehicles for Upgrades to Old
Ones" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150923221536/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/10/31/a
rmy-mulls-trading-new-vehicles-for-upgrades-to-old-ones/). DoD Buzz. Archived from the
original (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/10/31/army-mulls-trading-new-vehicles-for-upgrades
-to-old-ones/) on 2015-09-23.
12. Gourley, Scott R. (7 November 2013). "Abrams Dieselization Project: Doing the Math" (http://
www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/abrams-dieselization-project-doing-the-math/).
DefenseMediaNetwork. Faircount Media Group. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
13. Wasserbly, Daniel (22 October 2013). "AUSA 2013: Army envisions AMPV production spike
for emergency contingencies" (https://web.archive.org/web/20131029185711/http://www.jan
es.com/article/28836/ausa-2013-army-envisions-ampv-production-spike-for-emergency-cont
ingencies). Jane's International Defence Review. Archived from the original (https://www.jan
es.com/article/28836/ausa-2013-army-envisions-ampv-production-spike-for-emergency-cont
ingencies) on 2013-10-29.
14. McLeary, Paul (26 November 2013). "Army releases RFP for new armored vehicle" (http://w
ww.armytimes.com/article/20131126/NEWS/311260025/Army-releases-RFP-new-armored-
vehicle). Army Times. Archived (https://archive.today/20131128163010/http://www.armytime
s.com/article/20131126/NEWS/311260025/Army-releases-RFP-new-armored-vehicle) from
the original on 28 November 2013. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
15. Gourley, Scott R. (10 December 2013). "Army Releases Final RFP for Armored Multi-
Purpose Vehicle (AMPV)" (http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/army-releases-final
-rfp-for-ampv-part-i/). DefenseMediaNetwork. Faircount Media Group. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
16. McLeary, Paul (29 March 2014). "More Disputes Likely in US Army's AMPV Contest" (https://
archive.today/20140330185845/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140329/DEFREG0
2/303290021/More-Disputes-Likely-US-Army-s-AMPV-Contest?odyssey=mod_sectionstorie
s). Defense News. Archived from the original (http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014032
9/DEFREG02/303290021/More-Disputes-Likely-US-Army-s-AMPV-Contest?odyssey=mod_
sectionstories) on 30 March 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2014.
17. Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. (1 April 2014). "General Dynamics: We Can't Compete For AMPV
Unless Army Changes Course" (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/general-dynamics-we-j
ust-cant-compete-for-ampv-unless-army-changes-course/). Breaking Defense. Breaking
Media, Inc. Retrieved 2 April 2014.
18. McLeary, Paul (29 March 2014). "More Disputes Likely in US Army's AMPV Contest" (https://
archive.today/20140330185845/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140329/DEFREG0
2/303290021/More-Disputes-Likely-US-Army-s-AMPV-Contest?odyssey=mod_sectionstorie
s). Defense News. Archived from the original (http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014032
9/DEFREG02/303290021/More-Disputes-Likely-US-Army-s-AMPV-Contest?odyssey=mod_
sectionstories) on 30 March 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2014.
19. Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. (4 April 2014). "Denied: Army Rejects General Dynamics Protest
On AMPV Program; GD, BAE Respond" (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/denied-army-r
ejects-general-dynamics-protest-on-ampv-program-gd-bae-respond/). Breaking Defense.
Breaking Media, Inc. Retrieved 4 April 2014.
20. Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. (15 April 2014). "Tank Wars: General Dynamics Won't Protest
AMPV To GAO, Targets Hill" (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/tank-wars-general-dynami
cs-wont-take-ampv-protest-to-gao-but-will-to-hill/). Breaking Defense. Breaking Media, Inc.
Retrieved 2019-04-28.
21. Gourley, Scott R. (22 April 2014). "A "Bradley/Stryker Combo" Concept for AMPV?" (http://w
ww.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/a-bradleystryker-combo-concept-for-ampv/).
DefenseMediaNetwork. Faircount Media Group. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
22. Gourley, Scott R. (22 April 2014). "A "Bradley/Stryker Combo" Concept for AMPV?" (http://w
ww.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/a-bradleystryker-combo-concept-for-ampv/).
DefenseMediaNetwork. Faircount Media Group. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
23. Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. (1 May 2014). "HASC Throws General Dynamics Little Bone On
AMPV" (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/hasc-throws-general-dynamics-little-bone-on-a
mpv/). Breaking Defense. Breaking Media, Inc. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
24. Cox, Matthew (20 May 2014). "MRAPs Join Competition to Replace Troop Carriers" (http://w
ww.military.com/daily-news/2014/05/20/mraps-join-competition-to-replace-troop-carriers.htm
l?comp=7000023317843&rank=5). Military.com. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
25. Gray, Alicia (28 May 2014). "BAE Systems Submits Bid for Highly Survivable, Affordable
Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle" (http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_167495/bae-sys
tems-submits-bid-for-highly-survivable-affordable-armored-multi-purpose-vehicle).
baesystems.com. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
26. Cox, Matthew (29 May 2014). "GDLS Won't Compete in Army's AMPV Program" (https://web.
archive.org/web/20140531142951/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/05/29/gdls-wont-compete-i
n-armys-ampv-program/). DoD Buzz. Archived from the original (http://www.dodbuzz.com/20
14/05/29/gdls-wont-compete-in-armys-ampv-program/) on 2014-05-31.
27. McLeary, Paul (29 June 2014). "US Armored Vehicle Battle Intensifies" (https://archive.today/
20140707085459/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140629/DEFREG02/306290016/U
S-Armored-Vehicle-Battle-Intensifies). Defense News. Archived from the original (http://www.
defensenews.com/article/20140629/DEFREG02/306290016/US-Armored-Vehicle-Battle-Int
ensifies) on 7 July 2014. Retrieved 5 July 2014.
28. "BAE Systems wins $1.2 bn contract to launch Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle program" (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20141230080633/http://www.armyrecognition.com/index.php?opti
on=com_content&task=view&id=10011). ArmyRecognition.com. 24 December 2014.
Archived from the original (http://www.armyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content
&task=view&id=10011) on 2014-12-30.
29. McLeary, Paul (24 December 2014). "Army Awards AMPV to BAE Systems, Future Fights
Loom" (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2014/12/23/army-ampv-armor/
20835861/). Defense News. Archived (https://archive.today/20141224182019/http://www.def
ensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2014/12/23/army-ampv-armor/20835861/) from the
original on 24 December 2014. Retrieved 24 December 2014.
30. "BAE wins $1.2bn US combat vehicles contract" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-305
97521). BBC News. 24 December 2014. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
31. "BAE Systems wins $1.2 bn contract to launch Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle program" (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20141230080633/http://www.armyrecognition.com/index.php?opti
on=com_content&task=view&id=10011). ArmyRecognition.com. 24 December 2014.
Archived from the original (http://www.armyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content
&task=view&id=10011) on 2014-12-30.
32. McLeary, Paul (24 December 2014). "Army Awards AMPV to BAE Systems, Future Fights
Loom" (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2014/12/23/army-ampv-armor/
20835861/). Defense News. Archived (https://archive.today/20141224182019/http://www.def
ensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2014/12/23/army-ampv-armor/20835861/) from the
original on 24 December 2014. Retrieved 24 December 2014.
33. "BAE wins $1.2bn US combat vehicles contract" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-305
97521). BBC News. 24 December 2014. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
34. Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. (31 March 2015). "70-Year-Old M113s: The Army's Long March To
AMPV" (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/the-armys-long-march-to-ampv-expect-70-year-
old-m113s/). Breaking Defense. Breaking Media, Inc. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
35. Gould, Joe (31 March 2015). "US Army Leaders Make Case for AMPV Decision" (http://www.
armytimes.com/story/defense/show-daily/ausa/2015/03/31/us-army-leaders-make-case-for-b
aes-ampv/70728052/). Army Times. Archived (https://archive.today/20150406035852/http://
www.armytimes.com/story/defense/show-daily/ausa/2015/03/31/us-army-leaders-make-case
-for-baes-ampv/70728052/) from the original on 6 April 2015. Retrieved 5 April 2015.
36. "Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) Industry Day" (https://web.archive.org/web/201212
24053652/http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/ArmoredMulti-PurposeV
ehicleProgramIndustryDayCharts.pdf) (PDF) (Flyer). Sterling Heights, MI. 24 April 2012.
Archived from the original (http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/Armored
Multi-PurposeVehicleProgramIndustryDayCharts.pdf) (PDF) on 2012-12-24.
37. Gray, Alicia (3 April 2018). "AMPV: Bringing flexible, multi-mission capabilities to the U.S.
Army" (https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/ampv-bringing-flexible-multi-mission-capa
bilities-to-the-us-army). baesystems.com. Retrieved 2019-04-28.
38. Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr.; Clark, Colin (2 November 2012). "GD's Tracked Stryker Aims To
Knock BAE Out In Race to Replace M-113" (https://web.archive.org/web/20121117054149/h
ttp://defense.aol.com/2012/11/02/gds-tracked-stryker-aims-to-knock-bae-out-in-race-to-repla
ce-m/). Defense.AOL.com. Archived from the original (http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/02/gds
-tracked-stryker-aims-to-knock-bae-out-in-race-to-replace-m/) on 2012-11-17.
39. Parsons, Dan (24 October 2013). "Industry to Army: The Vehicles You Own Can Perform
Future Missions" (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2013/10/24/industry-to-a
rmy-the-vehicles-you-own-can-perform-future-missions). National Defense. National
Defense Industrial Association. Retrieved 2019-04-28.

External links
BAE Systems Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle web page (https://www.baesystems.com/en-u
s/product/armored-multipurpose-vehicle-ampv)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armored_Multi-Purpose_Vehicle&oldid=1145066957"