America’s Cutting Edge AMPV Could See Combat in Ukraine

The Army is changing priorities, and Ukraine could get its hands on the AMPV before the US has a chance to field it.

The AMPV being tested by the US Army. DoD. Public domain.

In early May 2025, the Ukrainian defense outlet Defense Express reported that Ukraine may acquire a vehicle that even the United States Army has yet to fully field: the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, or AMPV.

The source of this surprising development is a letter allegedly sent by Glenn Dean, Executive Director for Ground Combat Systems, and obtained by Breaking Defense. In it, Dean outlines the US Army’s intent to downshift AMPV production to a bare “sustainment rate” level… Unless Ukraine steps in to pick up the slack.

While not officially confirmed by the Pentagon, the letter suggests that Ukraine could soon receive some of the most advanced Bradley-based platforms ever produced, originally earmarked for a next-generation US force that is now being strategically restructured (read – gutted by Hegseth).

It is a turn of events that may hand Kyiv an unprecedented battlefield edge and offer the US military an unexpected proving ground for one of its most ambitious vehicle programs.

What Is the AMPV, and Why Was It Designed?

The AMPV is what happens when the Army realizes that Cold War relics like the M113 have no business in 21st-century warfare.

Born from the same DNA as the M2 Bradley, the AMPV was envisioned to inherit the protection and mobility of its predecessor while shedding the limitations of turreted designs. It is not a fighting vehicle in the traditional sense, at least not in its baseline form, but rather a flexible chassis designed to perform a range of critical support functions on a modern, fast-moving battlefield.

The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, or AMPV, was designed from the outset as a flexible, battlefield workhorse with five core mission-specific configurations, each tailored to meet the diverse needs of modern mechanized warfare.

At its foundation is the general-purpose variant, an armored personnel carrier that can transport up to six fully equipped infantry soldiers directly into contested zones. This version balances protection, mobility, and interior space, making it ideal for front-line troop movement under fire.

The mobile medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) variant serves a critical role in casualty care, allowing wounded soldiers to be transported from the battlefield quickly and safely. Built with shock-absorbing suspension and advanced internal climate systems, this configuration ensures patient stability during rapid extraction.

Complementing this is the medical treatment variant, essentially a rolling trauma center, configured for performing field surgeries close to the front. With space for medical personnel, surgical equipment, and life-support systems, it brings a higher level of care to the point of injury than legacy vehicles ever could.

Then there is the mission command variant, which acts as a mobile command-and-control node, outfitted with ruggedized communications gear, advanced battlefield networking tools, and map projection systems. It allows commanders to coordinate multi-domain operations in real time, even under fire, without relying on vulnerable fixed infrastructure.

Finally, the mortar carrier variant is armed with a 120mm system capable of indirect fire support, providing mobile, high-volume suppressive fire and rapid repositioning after launch.

This configuration delivers organic artillery capability to armored units without waiting on towed or truck-mounted systems. Together, these five variants form a cohesive, adaptable family of combat platforms designed to replace the aging M113. Or, at least, that’s what the Pentagon originally envisaged.

But those were just the Army’s original plans. BAE Systems, the vehicle’s manufacturer, has gone further, showcasing combat configurations with full turrets, counter-drone modules, and even partnerships with Finland’s Patria to test the NEMO 120mm mortar system, which I’ve written about before.

The AMPV being tested by the US Army. DoD. Public domain.

The NEMO is a remote-controlled, fast-firing indirect fire solution with devastating rapid impact capability.

Weighing 36 tons, the AMPV shares a powertrain with the M109A7 Paladin and M2 Bradley, simplifying logistics and spare parts management. Its design prioritizes protection against mines, IEDs, and direct fire, and unlike the M113, it is purpose-built to survive the modern battlefield, not just survive transport to it.

Why is the Pentagon Letting it Go?

Let’s be clear. This isn’t some failed experiment the Pentagon is looking to offload onto Ukraine.

The Army is pivoting because the Army’s mission is shifting. With China now the pacing threat, and the Pacific theater as the new focus under Trumpty Dance, the US is ditching bulk in favor of agility. (Anyone remember the Humpty Dance by Digital Underground?)

Heavy vehicles like the M10 Booker light tank and Stryker variants are being cut or scaled back. The logic is simple: you cannot deploy a fleet of 36-ton vehicles across island chains and expect it to be logistically sustainable. After all, we don’t have any “General MacArthurs” around these days. And, (don’t dare tell the Marine Corps this), but large-scale amphibious warfare is a lost art in the US.

That leaves programs like the AMPV in limbo.

Good vehicle, wrong theater. Enter Ukraine.

The Pentagon may now treat Ukraine as a functional “combat lab,” and the AMPV, particularly its experimental variants, as a platform in need of real-world validation.

If Ukraine agrees to buy or receive surplus units, it solves two problems at once: Ukraine gets much-needed armor, and BAE Systems gets to see how its latest modular platform performs under fire.

When the Pentagon shelves a military vehicle program, it doesn’t exactly hold a going-out-of-business sale or quietly write it off like a Fortune 500 company waving goodbye to a failed smartwatch. No, in the Department of Defense, failure is less a loss and more a… line item. A very expensive, taxpayer-funded line item.

Here’s how it works when Washington decides to pull the plug on one of its billion-dollar battlefield babies, like the AMPV program slowly getting ghosted by the Army’s shifting priorities.

The Money's Already Gone, Folks

First up, the money already spent: research, development, testing, redesign, internal squabbling, committee hearings, and the PowerPoints that launched a thousand briefs, is a sunk cost. Which is government-speak for “thanks for the donation, America.”

Unlike in the private sector, where a company writes off a failure, eats the loss, and maybe gives the guy who suggested it a cardboard box and a walk of shame past the break room, the DoD simply shrugs and moves on. The AMPV didn’t fail; it’s just no longer “aligned with emerging strategic priorities,” which is Beltway code for “we changed our minds after spending a small nation’s GDP.”

Now, if there’s money in the budget that hasn’t been spent yet, that’s where things get interesting. Those funds might be reallocated to other programs with shinier acronyms or buzzier political backing. Or, and this is where it gets fun, they might get offered to allies with deep enough pockets and immediate needs.

Which brings us to Ukraine.

Let’s talk about Donald Trump for a moment. Regardless of whether he’s holding rallies or holding court, the president views international defense aid through the lens of a transaction. You want weapons? You better have cash, natural gas, or kompromat—ideally all three. Ass, grass, or gas; nobody rides for free…

And oddly enough, in this unique instance, this mindset could work in Ukraine’s favor.

Ukraine’s military, battle-hardened and scrappy, is one of the few forces willing to buy what the Pentagon shelves. For Kyiv, the AMPV isn’t a dead program. It’s an opportunity. Think of it as finding a $7 million armored vehicle in the clearance bin. Sure, it’s missing a few bells and whistles, but it’s reliable, upgradeable, and already compatible with NATO logistics.

While Washington calls it a “strategic pivot,” Ukraine calls it “available inventory.”

Because in modern warfare, one army’s cancellation is another army’s combat multiplier.

How Ukraine Could Use the AMPV

Look, Ukraine does not need science projects. It needs battlefield results. But that’s exactly where the AMPV may shine.

First, the standard APC and command variants would provide Ukraine with much-needed survivability in high-casualty zones. The M113s, which have served bravely across hundreds of miles of front, are functionally obsolete.

Ukrainian troops have suffered losses simply because their transport platforms were designed for a different era.

Early in the war, I even wrote a scathing article that the US donations of M113s to Ukraine would benefit the Russians more than the Ukrainians because the vehicles are ancient death traps. I stand by that piece even today.

Second, the C-UAS variant of the AMPV could be a breakthrough asset. Russian FPV and fiber drones are dominating trench and vehicle warfare, and while jamming solutions exist, they are often fragile or poorly integrated. An armored, mobile drone defense platform with electronic warfare capabilities could protect convoys, dismounts, or command posts.

Third, the NEMO mortar configuration is arguably the most tantalizing. Ukraine’s reliance on indirect fire is only growing, and a fast-deploying, self-contained mortar system with 10 rounds per minute would offer an immediate tactical advantage in supporting advances or suppressing Russian positions.

This is not theoretical. Ukraine has already developed logistics pipelines and repair hubs for Bradley systems. According to reports, Ukrainian mechanics are now servicing Bradleys at scale, including engines, transmissions, fire control, and sensors. This means Ukraine is technically and logistically ready to absorb the AMPV fleet with minimal delay.

If deployed in meaningful numbers, the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle could deliver several critical battlefield advantages for Ukraine.

First and foremost is modular fire support. With the AMPV’s adaptable chassis, Ukraine can integrate a variety of turrets, weapon systems, or mortar platforms to match terrain and tactical needs. Whether it's a direct-fire autocannon for urban combat or a 120mm mortar for indirect fire in open terrain, the vehicle’s plug-and-play design allows it to evolve with the battle.

The AMPV Medical Treatment variant being tested by the US Army. DoD. Public domain.

Just as important is troop survivability. In a war where artillery and drone strikes dominate the contact line, moving infantry in up-armored, mine-resistant platforms dramatically reduces casualties. By keeping trained personnel alive and in the fight longer, Ukraine can maintain experienced units at the front rather than constantly rotating in undertrained replacements.

The AMPV’s command and control variant also brings clear advantages. Mobile C2 platforms reduce Ukraine’s reliance on vulnerable fixed headquarters and enable forward-deployed leadership to make real-time decisions without exposing themselves to precision strikes. On the medical side, rapid casualty evacuation and field treatment capabilities from the MEDEVAC and surgical variants bring NATO-standard trauma care closer to the fight, raising post-injury survival rates and boosting morale across the force.

In every sense, the AMPV is a capability amplifier, not simply because it adds firepower, but because it enhances the operational effectiveness of every component it supports. It connects the dots between firepower, command, mobility, and resilience, enabling Ukrainian forces to act faster, last longer, and hit harder in an increasingly complex battlespace.

Historically, US weapons have evolved through the fires of allied conflict. From Vietnam to the Middle East, battlefield use by partner forces has shaped the refinement of American defense systems.

Ukraine could be next.

If the AMPV performs well under Ukrainian command, it could validate the US Army’s bet on modularity over mass. Conversely, if it struggles, that feedback loop may help the Army pivot before it commits to years of wrongheaded procurement.

There is also a geopolitical message embedded here. While Russia and China invest heavily in large, traditional platforms, the T-14 Armata or the Type 99A, Ukraine’s success with Western modular systems may signal a new path: small, smart, and scalable.

The AMPV was not built with Ukraine in mind. It was designed for the US Army’s future. But as that future takes a sharp turn toward the Pacific, Ukraine may inherit one of the most flexible armored platforms ever conceived.

If this deal materializes, it will be more than a transaction. It will be a test of the platform, of modular doctrine, and of what twenty-first-century ground warfare truly demands. Whether Ukraine receives 50 vehicles or 500, the battlefield data they generate will shape armored warfare far beyond the Donbas. And who knows? If it does extremely well in Ukraine, the Army might revive the program for the Pacific.

The United States is no longer providing handy Pentagon readouts for journalists detailing military equipment that’s scheduled to be sent to Ukraine. This is a good thing, generally, as it doesn’t telegraph what Russia should prepare for. But it makes OSINT journalists’ work a little harder to bring you the news.

I’ll provide an update here as soon as we have confirmation of this deal, but realistically, the first hint may be a battlefield video from Ukraine in a few months (or an OSINT watcher on X who snaps a picture of an AMPV being loaded into a C-17 at Dover AFB).

Either way, subscribe so you don’t miss future analysis!

And as always, glory to Ukraine. Glory to the heroes. Crimea is Ukraine.

Слава Україні!