Army Mulls $1.7 Billion Effort To Replace 3,000 M113s

The $1.7 billion Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program is the Army’s blandly named initiative to replace the M113, an all-too-lightly armored transport — sometimes called a “battle taxi” — that first entered service in 1961. Over 3,000 M113 variants serve in a host of unglamorous but essential roles from troop carriers to armored ambulances to mobile command posts.

via Army Mulls $1.7 Billion Effort To Replace 3,000 M113s.

The folks in the Huey community used to joke that when the last Blackhawk is dropped off at the boneyard, the crew would catch a ride home on a Huey.

Pretty much the same thing can be said for the M113.  To say it has been a successful vehicle is a bit of an understatement. More M113s have been built than any other post war Western armored vehicle.

That’s not to say the vehicle doesn’t have its faults. It does. But any replacement vehicle will cost more to buy, be heavier, and cost more to operate.  That’s just the nature of improvements in armored vehicles. It may well be a good investment to look for  a replacement (and the proposed stripped down Bradley chassis is the common sense approach).

As long as the Army looks for a modest improvement, and not some transformational approach, a good vehicle shouldn’t be out of reach.

10 thoughts on “Army Mulls $1.7 Billion Effort To Replace 3,000 M113s”

  1. As long as the Army looks for a modest improvement, and not some transformational approach, a good vehicle shouldn’t be out of reach.





    Good one.

    1. A stripped-down Bradley would be a good start. But now we have all this extra speed without the turret, surely we can add some more capability in there with all the weight we’re saving…

      I really fear this thing is going to end up looking a LOT like the Bradley already does, only costing us a ton in the process.

  2. My 1st “113” at Ft. Bliss had spots that had been filled in due to bullet holes from Viet Nam. I was at Bilss in 86-87. That being said, my M-2 had a depot rebuild date of Aug. 67 and it never missed a lick. I think an old 113 would make a good fishing vehicle. It would do well going down the beach to some good fishing spots.

    1. Some years back when I had some spare cash to waste I looked quite seriously at buying an M113, for pretty much exactly that purpose. It’d been demilled, so it had a couple of VERY large torch-cut holes in the armor, but it did come with 2 spare engines (one still in the crate), 2 full spare track sets (SETS, not 2 individual tracks), and a whole raft of suspension parts.

      Big problem was, I didn’t really have a place to park it, and moving would have been a real bitch, since I don’t own a lowboy …

    2. forgot to add:

      I suspect the transportation issue was why it was still for sale. A running APC for the low low bargain price of only $10,000 with all those spares is a real value, even 10 years ago.

  3. Um {raises hand} wasn’t the Bradley designed to be the M-113 replacement?

    For that matter, just how is a Blackhawk superior to a Venom, besides payload?

  4. The Bradley was thereplacement for the mechanized Infantry and cavalry troops. The M113 stayed VERY relevant by being used by the company 1SG, commo section, maintenance team (that part does not fit in the M88), medics, engineers, etc. Those Soldiers do not need a turret with a cannon and TOW. The upgraded M113 was more than sufficient to very ably fill that gap. It was complimentary.

    And while I liked my M113s I was very glad to get my Bradleys.

    Let’s not go all Mikey Sparks over our “love” for the dang things!!!

  5. The problem is that when you ask for a “new vehicle” it has to have a new engine (despite there being ones in the inventory that can do the job), it has to have some form of COTS (despite commercial products not up to mil-spec) and it have to have new electronics and radios (despite plenty of radios and computers already in the inventory).

    It will be loaded down with so much “fun to have” features that the M-113 will probly stick around until our grandkids put in their retirement packets.

Comments are closed.