Interim Armored Vehicle

Interim Armored Vehicle
Mike Cullum, CIV · Public domain · source
Name	Interim Armored Vehicle
Origin	United States
Type	Armored personnel carrier
Manufacturer	General Dynamics Land Systems
Designer	General Dynamics Land Systems
Production date	2012–2018
Number built	~2,900
Armour	Alloy and composite
Primary armament	Remote weapon station
Secondary armament	Smoke grenade launchers
Engine	Diesel
Transmission	Automatic
Suspension	8×8
Speed	~62 km/h
Range	~400 km

Interim Armored Vehicle The Interim Armored Vehicle was a United States wheeled armored personnel carrier developed to provide an immediate replacement for legacy armored platforms and to support brigade combat teams. Intended as a stopgap between legacy vehicles and a longer-term family of vehicles, the program involved prototype testing, production contracts, and rapid fielding to units deploying to expeditionary operations. The vehicle influenced subsequent programs of record and industrial partnerships among North American and European defense firms.

Development and Procurement

The program emerged amid procurement debates involving the U.S. Army, United States Marine Corps, United States Department of Defense, and staff from U.S. Army Materiel Command, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and congressional oversight committees such as the U.S. House Armed Services Committee and U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. Early requirements drew input from combat experience in Iraq War (2003–2011), War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), and lessons from engagements linked to Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Competing industrial teams included General Dynamics Land Systems, BAE Systems, Oshkosh Corporation, Patria, Nexter, BAE Hägglunds, and Rheinmetall. Procurement actions referenced statutes such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation and used contracting mechanisms influenced by programs like the Future Combat Systems and the Ground Combat Vehicle program. Rapid acquisition offices coordinated testing at facilities including Yuma Proving Ground, Aberdeen Proving Ground, and Fort Bliss with oversight by Defense Acquisition University analysts.

Design and Specifications

The vehicle utilized an 8×8 wheeled chassis developed by General Dynamics Land Systems with input from suppliers like Cummins, Allison Transmission, Meggitt, and Rheinmetall Defence. Survivability features incorporated composite and aluminum armor and modular add-on kits influenced by research from U.S. Army Research Laboratory and standards from NATO interoperability studies. Mobility specifications were tested on ranges at White Sands Missile Range and performance metrics were benchmarked against vehicles such as the Stryker family, Boxer MRAV, Patria AMV, and Freccia (vehicle). Vehicle electronics integrated communications suites compatible with Blue Force Tracking, tactical radios from Harris Corporation, and battlefield management systems used by U.S. Army Cyber Command and U.S. Army Signals Command nodes.

Armament and Protection

Primary armament consisted of a remote weapon station supplied by vendors such as Kongsberg Gruppen, Rheinmetall, or General Dynamics Land Systems integrating weapons like the M2 Browning, Mk 19 grenade launcher, and machine guns including the M240 machine gun. Protection systems included underbody blast mitigation developed with input from U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center and armor modules derived from technologies tested with DARPA programs and standards from Naval Sea Systems Command survivability research. Active protection system trials involved suppliers such as Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Raytheon Technologies while smoke and obscurant capabilities referenced systems fielded on platforms like the M1 Abrams and Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

Variants and Upgrades

Fielded variants included troop transport, command and control, medical evacuation, and mortar carrier configurations, paralleling families seen in programs like the Stryker family and Boxer (armoured fighting vehicle). Upgrade packages addressed powertrain enhancements from Allison Transmission, enhanced lethality suites from Thales Group and FN Herstal, and electronic warfare countermeasures influenced by U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command requirements. Modular growth paths were proposed in coordination with Army Futures Command concepts and interoperability with allied equipment used by NATO partners such as United Kingdom Armed Forces, Canadian Army, German Army, and Australian Army.

Operational History

Interim vehicles deployed to units rotating through U.S. Central Command areas of responsibility and to training rotations at Joint Readiness Training Center and National Training Center (Fort Irwin). Units employed the vehicles in convoy operations, base security, and stabilization missions derived from lessons in Iraq War (2003–2011), War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), and multinational operations coordinated by United States European Command and United States Africa Command. After-action reports involved analyses by RAND Corporation, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and service-level study groups within U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

Operators and Deployments

Primary operator was the U.S. Army with units assigned to 3rd Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division, 4th Infantry Division, and brigade combat teams participating in rotations to Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and training in Europe under Operation Atlantic Resolve. International interest and technical exchanges occurred with allies including United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and NATO partner nations during defense exhibitions such as Eurosatory and AUSA Annual Meeting where industry and military delegations negotiated logistics and support.

Evaluation and Replacement Plans

Evaluations compared the Interim Armored Vehicle to programs of record such as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle and initiatives under Army Futures Command and the Next Generation Combat Vehicle portfolio. Replacement planning factored lessons from the vehicle’s deployment, industrial base considerations involving General Dynamics, BAE Systems, and Oshkosh Corporation, and budgeting processes reviewed by Office of Management and Budget and congressional defense appropriations subcommittees. Transition strategies aimed to migrate units to a family of vehicles with increased commonality, survivability, and networked capabilities, reflecting doctrinal shifts debated at institutions like U.S. Army War College and National Defense University.

Category:Wheeled armoured fighting vehicles Category:Military vehicles introduced in the 2010s