AUSA: Army moves ahead with M113 replacement - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

AUSA: Army moves ahead with M113 replacement

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — When it comes to replacing the M113 armored personnel carrier, the Army’s Heavy Brigade Combat Teams are first in line, according to service officials.

While the Army has 6,000 M113s overall, 2,900 of the vehicles are in the Army’s heavy brigades, Scott Davis, program executive officer for Ground Combat Systems, told reporters at the Association of the U.S. Army winter symposium.

“That 2,900 is before force structure changes,” said Col. Bill Sheehy, Heavy Brigade Combat Team program manager. “That is the number if it happened today.”

With its 2013 budget, the Army announced it would eliminate at least eight brigade combat teams, but that number could change when the service completes an ongoing force structure/force design study.

In the meantime, the Army is moving ahead with the M113 replacement program, called the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle, which the Pentagon made a formal acquisition program on Feb. 9.

The Army is now standing up the program office and working to finish an analysis of alternatives, with the possibility of beginning contracting activities in fiscal 2013.

“We don’t know what it’s going to be — whether it’s wheeled or tracked,” Sheehy said.

The M113 was canceled because of its lack of mobility, its inadequate force protection and the overall growth potential of the platform.

However, the Army found no fault with the mission equipment packages. Therefore, the Army intends to harvest the M113’s MEPs and use them on the new platform.

The Army would like one platform able to carry out the four to five mission roles the M113 performs in the heavy brigades, Sheehy said.

For the remaining vehicles located at echelons above brigade, the Army will decide what to do in 2017, according to Sheehy. That would be a different program with a separate analysis of alternatives, he added.

“There will be competition in this area — how that competition manifests itself, we have yet to determine,” Sheehy said.

However, because of costs, it’s looking likely the AMPV platform will be a familiar one, Davis said.

Possible options include the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, built by BAE Systems, or an upgraded General Dynamics Stryker vehicle.

“The cost target that we’re moving toward in AMPV indicates to us that it is probably a capital system the Army already owns or a modification of a capital system the Army owns,” Davis said. “It is a pretty low price point that we’re willing to pay for this system.”

The initial cost target was $2.4 million per vehicle, but Sheehy said, “We will squeeze that down.”

The Army is eager to get the AMPV program going, partially because it could help with some of its industrial base concerns.

The Army is looking for ways to fill the gaps that will emerge when production of new Bradley and Stryker vehicles ends between 2012 and 2014.

“If it ends up being a capital system — for speculative purposes, a modified Bradley or Stryker — it would certainly help that manufacturing industrial base,” Davis said. “We are pressing as hard as possible to get the analysis of alternatives done ahead of where it’s currently planned so we can move onto the next step.”