The Five Pillars of U.S. Army Armored Vehicle Modernization

Armored vehicles serve a variety of needs for U.S. forces from protected fire support, to troop transport, and reconnaissance. The value of armored vehicles in modern warfare is reflected in the military assistance the U.S. has provided Ukraine, where over 8,500 armored vehicles have been provided to Ukraine since the conflict escalated in 2022. The vehicles the U.S. provided include Abrams tanks, Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles, M1117 Armored Security Vehicles, and armored medical treatment vehicles to name a few.  

Domestically, the U.S. Army is committed to modernizing its current fleet of armored vehicles, which includes those being used in Ukraine, such as the Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicle, through the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) initiative.

NGCV began in 2018 with the establishment of the NGCV Cross-Functional Team (CFT). Key efforts include replacing the Bradley fighting vehicle with the XM30, procuring the M10 Booker (mobile protected firepower), upgrading to M1E3 Abrams, and adopting the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV).

In this article, we will take a look at what the five pillars of the Army’s vehicle modernization are, and how NGCV will support maneuver warfare through 2030 and beyond.

To hear from Army personnel leading NGCV efforts, join IDGA at this year’s Armored Vehicle USA Summit taking place June 23-24 at the Marriott Ypsilanti at Eagle Crest in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The Four NGCV Vehicle Programs

A good place to begin breaking down armored vehicle modernization efforts for the U.S. Army is by looking at the four vehicles the Army plans to replace and develop. Those vehicles include:

Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV)/XM30: This Bradley fighting vehicle replacement is one of the first programs of note for NGCV. In 2025 the Army paused Milestone B approval for the XM30 Bradley replacement to keep open the option of revamping the program. In February, Breaking Defense reported on a new RFI seeking rapid production of 40–80‑ton vehicles suggests the service is exploring alternatives while current prototypes from Rheinmetall and GDLS proceed toward summer delivery.

Unmanned Ground Robotic Combat Vehicle (UGRCV): What was originally the Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) shifted to UGRCV because of the Army’s desire to lower costs, as well as an enhanced emphasis on commercial adaptation, autonomy, reliability, operational endurance, and modular payload integration. Last month, IDGA posted a full report on the shift from RCV to UGRCV and what that means for robotic vehicles in the future. To read that report, click here.

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): AMPV is the Army’s program to replace the Vietnam-era M113. In 2014 BAE Systems was awarded $1.2 billion to develop AMPV. Most recently, BAE Systems partnered with Forterra to rapidly develop an autonomous variant of AMPV. The team plans to deliver a prototype in 2026, leveraging Forterra’s AutoDrive full‑stack autonomy system and BAE’s combat‑vehicle production expertise to accelerate development to commercial-tech speeds.

Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF): The MPV system, now designated as the M10 Booker Combat Vehicle, is an armored infantry support vehicle. The Army awarded General Dynamic Land Systems a contract to build the M10 Booker in 2022. However, in June 2025, the Army terminated the program “in response to current world events and in support of the strategic objectives outlined in the Army Transformation Initiative,” the Army revealed in a statement. At the time of the termination, the Army had 26 Booker production on hand and stated any vehicles that were in final stages of production would be accepted by the Army. 

Pentagon’s Acquisition Reform

The previous section laid out the four vehicles the Army initially prioritized as part of its armored vehicle modernization efforts. However, programs such as RCV and MPF have shifted or been terminated as part of the U.S. military's effort to procure and develop emerging technologies at a quicker rate.

A core reform is replacing traditional Program Executive Offices (PEOs) with Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs) who oversee entire capability portfolios.  For ground combat systems, NGCV programs now fall under the Maneuver Ground portfolio, which integrates previously separate organizations like PEO Ground Combat Systems and PEO Soldier.

With this structure, one executive will oversee:

• Requirements
• Science & technology
• Contracting
• Acquisition
• Testing
• Sustainment
• Production

Another key reform embeds senior contracting authorities directly within each portfolio, enabling faster contract awards.

Overall, the Army’s acquisition reform means NGCV is no longer treated as a single massive vehicle program, but rather a part of a broader maneuver ground capability portfolio where leaders can rapidly adjust requirements, integrate new technologies, and shift resources between related systems such as manned fighting vehicles, robotic combat vehicles, autonomy software, and supporting sensors.

This ensures the Army can iterate NGCV capabilities more like a technology platform than a one-time procurement program, incorporating soldier feedback, commercial innovation, and emerging technologies throughout development rather than waiting years for major upgrades.

Maneuverability, Lethality, Capacity and Survivability

The last two pillars focused on the programs and procurement strategies that are shaping armored vehicle modernization. The remaining three will look at the operational and technological requirements the Army is seeking from the armored vehicles themselves.

To begin, let’s start with the four attributes an armored vehicle should possess. Those include:

Maneuverability - Designing a platform that can balance security with high speeds, agility, and the ability to change direction quickly, allowing a vehicle to navigate challenging terrain and urban environments.

Survivability – The armor and systems (fire suppression, sensors, etc.) in a vehicle designed to keep a crew and its passengers safe.

Lethality – The combat systems within a vehicle designed to provide superior firepower, advanced sensors, and high accuracy. One example is the 50mm equipped on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

Capacity – The total weight of passengers, crew, armor, and payload a vehicle can safely carry.

At IDGA’s annual Armored Vehicle USA conference, speakers frequently mention maneuverability and survivability as imperative to the success of armored formations. For example, at last year’s conference a panel discussion titled “Gaining Maneuver Dominance With Armored Formations” featured Lieutenant General (Ret.) Tony Aguto, the former Commanding General of the Security Assistance Group Ukraine (SAGU), and Brigadier General Chad Chalfont, Commandant at the U.S. Army Armor School.

Integrating Digital and Autonomous Systems

The Army’s attempts to modernize its ground fleet increasingly depends on integrating digital architectures and autonomous capabilities. This effort aligns with the Pentagon’s widespread push to create autonomous systems capable of keeping American lives out of harms way.

With the cancellation of RCV the Army is asking industry to provide “vehicle‑agnostic autonomy” solutions, reflecting a major strategic shift from prescriptive requirements to leveraging pre-existing commercial autonomy software.

One challenge is the Army’s preference for optionally manned vehicles, which requires retaining heavy armor, crew protection, and dual‑mode controls. True autonomy requires re-engineering of current armored vehicle systems, which would dramatically increase integration cost and technical complexity.

Despite the perceived challenges, a program such as AMPV shows near-term progress is still possible. The collaboration between BAE Systems and Forterra on AMPV creates a foundational platform for autonomy. Over 500 AMPVs delivered to date could be upgraded to support missions such as high‑risk resupply, casualty evacuation, and forward reconnaissance.

Enabling Multi-domain Operations

The Army’s modernization strategy isn’t solely focused on vehicles but rather ensuring multi-domain operations (MDO) are integrated across land, air, maritime, space, and cyberspace.

The Army’s broader Transformation Initiative, directed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Army leadership in 2025, aligns force design with MDO requirements by prioritizing long‑range fires, next‑generation aviation, UAS/C‑UAS systems, and modern ground combat vehicles while divesting obsolete platforms.

To embrace this strategy, the Army is turning towards capability‑based modernization, shifting resources to systems that can survive in contested electromagnetic environments, integrate digital mission‑command networks, and synchronize effects from multiple domains.

One role that armored vehicles can take in this transformation is becoming a networked command-and-control platform rather than a standalone weapon system. Modern digital architectures allow vehicles to connect with drones, satellites, cyber systems, and long-range fire networks, enabling them to contribute to the joint fight far beyond their immediate line of sight.