Prototype of the AMPV30mm at I Fort Hood “Cavazos” pictures were post by 1st Cavalry Division on their facebook page.
10 Likes
Headed there as soon as possible after Monday!
2 Likes
I like the concept and I don’t like the concept, testing prototypes or not. The same applies to the USMC ACV-30.
The U.S. Army still has the notion that an AMPV with a 30mm autocannon will fight towards an objective and escort the dismounted soldiers with precision fire…”close with and destroy the enemy.” However, with FPV drones and loitering munitions, the AMPV-30 might not even get close to the objective to provide fire. Thus, the AMPV-30s should have loitering munitions or sUAS dispensers for ISR, situational awareness, and indirect kamikaze attacks and use the line-of-sight autocannon as a backup resort.
The General Dynamics PERCH would also work in this scenario.
2 Likes
its amazing how many people on their FB page were saying it looked like an M113
I think they all need to learn some AFV Recognition as it looks nothing like a normal M113 as its a Bradley with a Stryker Dragoon turret and then upgraded from there.
the closest it looks to the M113 would be the likes of the YPR and AIFV Range of vehicles that branched off from the prototype versions of when the Bradley was first developed
which started with the XM765 that was part of the Bradley development stages.
or even the likes of the FNSS ACV range that is like a crossbreed between the 2 and people mistake for being an M113
and are similar looking to the FMC made the XM723
which became the XM2 and then became the M2 Bradley
4 Likes
That is because the AMPV is a turretless Bradley…that now has a 30mm turret added, hmm??
2 Likes
Model companies will be happy as the tracks look to be rubber band type. 
1 Like
Give me rubber band or link and length tracks on every kit please. But RFM. ILK, Meng one of them will still find a way to make these 10 pieces per link. Now the question is who will get this kit first to market? Maybe Magic Factory and this time it wont have to be an Aprils fool joke.
1 Like
The ironic thing is that the Remote Combat Vehicle (RCV) was canceled by SECDEF as rumored to be too expensive (upwards of $2-3 million a copy for the RCV Medium variant) and vulnerable to FPV drones that are $250-$2,000 each.
The RCVs were purposed to go ahead of manned IFVs and deal with the enemy first before soldiers and crewed IFVs. RCVs can be fitted with 25mm-40mm autocannons whereas the 50mm autocannon was reserved for the RCV-Heavy chassis that never got off the drawing board.
The entire RCV program worked well and was canceled. Now the U.S. Army is scrambling to field UGVs outside of the RCV program that are cheaper, lighter, less complex, and more expendable, but also kind of an “unguided program” as all these contenders are participating so the U.S. Army, and the USMC, haven’t narrowed any UGVs down yet. The RCV-Medium winner was the Textron Systems’ RIPSAW UGV.
Ripsaw M3 RCV-Medium (canceled) outfitted with a 30mm autocannon and two Javelin ATGMs on a remote turret (photo: Textron)
Below photo of RCV-30mm…
A video, that surfaced as part of the Bushmaster Users Conference, shows Pratt Miller’s EMAV-MCA (Expeditionary Modular Autonomous Vehicle- Medium Caliber Armament) features the XM813 Bushmaster Chain Gun.—Defence Blog
https://defence-blog.com/northrop-grumman-shows-massive-combat-drone-in-action/
So now the ironic thing is that the current SECDEF is supporting sending manned IFVs and M1E3 tanks into battle because the current Administration politics is favoring manned AFVs over unmanned RCVs (just like reviving the WW2 battleship idea). Instead of sending (expensive) unmanned (some heavily) armed robots, the current trend is to send new high-tech manned AFVs. Yes, it’s political, but canceling the RCV program that was maturing seems a very big leap backwards because why test a manned AMPV-30 when the unmanned RCV-30 was tested years ago?
1 Like
There was never anything in the ortiginal proposal that specifically banned turrets. The intent on the original prototypes was to maximiaz internal volume to allow for various packages, which a turret basket would not allow for. Those original designs, not even the ones that were eventually adopted, had to forego turrets simply to meet the requirements. Now, with BAE’s ExMEP packages, the newers system simply bolt on and don’t penetrate into the hull space. Best of both worlds.
2 Likes