link to page 2 
Updated April 6, 2023
The Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) System
What Is the Mobile Protected Firepower MTA Rapid Prototyping contracts required delivery of 12
(MPF) System?
pre-production vehicles (from each vendor) for
The Army’s MPF system is intended to address an
developmental and operational testing, and a Soldier
operational shortfall in infantry units:
Vehicle Assessment (SVA).
Currently the Army’s Infantry Brigade Combat
MPF Program Status
Teams (IBCT) do not have a combat vehicle
The SVA reportedly began in January 2021 at Fort Bragg,
assigned that is capable of providing mobile,
NC—without the BAE prototypes because of production
protected, direct, offensive fire capability.... The
challenges—with testing running through June 2021. While
MPF solution is an integration of existing mature
BAE was unable to provide prototypes at the beginning of
technologies
and
components
that
avoids
testing, prototypes were eventually provided to the Army
development which would lengthen the program
for testing. During the assessment, soldiers evaluated
schedule.
GDLS and BAE MPF prototypes in a variety of operational
scenarios.
Operationally, the Army wants the MPF to be able to:
Neutralize enemy prepared positions and bunkers
MPF Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP)
and defeat heavy machine guns and armored
Contracted Awarded
vehicle threats during offensive operations or when
On June 28, 2022, the Army announced the award of a
conducting defensive operations against attacking
$1.14 billion contract to GDLS for the production and
enemies.
fielding of up to 96 MPF systems (Figure 1). Delivery of
the first LRIP MPF system is expected in 19 months, and
In terms of the Army’s overall procurement plans for MPF:
Initial Operational Testing and Evaluation is planned for the
The Army Acquisition Objective (AAO) for MPF
end of FY2024. The first unit equipped is scheduled for the
is 504 vehicles, with 14 MPFs per IBCT. The
fourth quarter of FY2025, consisting of a battalion of 42
MPFs. Each LRIP MPF system is expected to cost about
targeted fielding for the First Unit Equipped (FUE)
$12.8 million. Full-Rate Production MPF systems are
is Fiscal Year (FY) 2025.
expected to cost less than LRIP variants and may include
MPF Acquisition Strategy
modifications based on Operational Testing and Evaluation
In November 2017, the Army issued a Request for Proposal
results.
(RFP) for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development
(EMD) phase and, in order to maximize competition,
Future MPF Fielding
planned to award up to two Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA)
The Army’s MPF acquisition objective is for 504 systems,
contracts for the EMD phase in early FY2019.
with Army officials reportedly noting that this number
could vary “slightly.” Under current Army plans, four MPF
Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA) according to the Defense
battalions are to be fielded by 2030, with the bulk of the
Acquisition University is a rapid acquisition approach that
planned acquisition scheduled to be completed by 2035.
focuses on delivering capability in a period of 2 to 5 years. The
authority to use MTA was granted by Congress in Section 804
of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) is a programmatic
decision made when manufacturing development is completed
(P.L. 114-92). Programs using MTA are not subject to the Joint
and there is an ability to produce a small-quantity set of
Capabilities Integration Development System (JCIDS) and
provisions of DOD Directive 5000.01 “Defense Acquisition
articles. It also establishes an initial production base and sets
the stage for a gradual increase in the production rate to
System.” MTA consists of utilizing two acquisition pathways:
allow for Ful -Rate Production (FRP) upon completion of
(1) Rapid Prototyping, which is to streamline the testing and
development of prototypes, and (2) Rapid Fielding, which is to
Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E).
upgrade existing systems with already proven technologies.
Full-Rate Production (FRP) is a decision made that allows
for government contracting for economic production
On December 17, 2018, the Army awarded two Section 804
quantities fol owing stabilization of the system design and
Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA) Rapid Prototyping
validation of the production process.
contracts for MPF. The two companies awarded contracts
were General Dynamic Land Systems (GDLS), Inc.
(Sterling Heights, MI) and BAE Systems Land and
Armaments, LP (Sterling Heights, MI). Each MTA Rapid
Prototyping contract was not to exceed $376 million. The
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) System
Figure 1. GDLS MPF Variant
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Estimates, March 2023, Army,
Justification Book Volume 1 of 1, Procurement of W&TCV, p. 38.
Notes: $M = U.S. dollars in mil ions; Qty. = FY2024 procurement
quantities.
Considerations for Congress
Oversight questions Congress could consider include the
following:
Creating MPF Battalions
Reportedly, the Army is planning to create a MPF battalion
at division level. From this battalion, MPF companies
Source: General Dynamics, “General Dynamics Land Systems Wins
would then be allocated to IBCTs. In terms of personnel,
U.S. Army Competition for Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicles,”
each MPF company requires 64 armor crewmen and 24
June 29, 2022.
armor maintenance soldiers to maintain MPF systems.
FY2022 Director, Operational Test and
Given current and anticipated future recruiting challenges,
Evaluation Report
the Army might have difficulties in meeting the demand for
In January 2023, the Department of Defense’s Director,
MPF crew and maintenance soldiers for new units.
Operational Test and Evaluation Report (DOT&E) issued
its annual report on the previous fiscal year’s test and
Sustaining and Basing MPF Battalions
evaluation activities. The report notes the MPF’s progress
Another concern is a limited quantity of on hand,
toward achieving operational effectiveness is “satisfactory.”
serviceable 105 mm ammunition for MPF training and
The report also noted, “Developmental testing found that
operational use. As such, there could be a requirement to
the MPF had high levels of toxic fumes when firing the
procure additional 105 mm ammunition and there might
main gun, requiring modifications to crew procedures
also be industrial base- associated ammunition production
during firing to mitigate the build-up of fumes in the
challenges as well. The provision of existing 105 mm
turret.” DOT&E recommended the Army “continue
ammunition to Ukraine as part of current and future
implementing system design fixes to reduce the high level
Security Force Assistance efforts might also have an impact
of toxic fumes when firing the main gun.” DOT&E further
on 105 mm ammunition availability for MPF systems.
recommended the Army “continue improving the vehicle’s
There are also concerns about suitable storage and
cooling system to reduce preventative maintenance checks
maintenance facilities and training ranges for MPF units
and services times required.”
assigned to infantry posts not structured to accommodate
armored fighting vehicles. Additionally, there might be
FY2024 MPF Budgetary Information
environmental concerns about stationing MPF units at bases
in Hawaii and Alaska, for example. One possible solution
Table 1. FY2024 MPF Budget Request
might be to station MPF units at bases better suited to
Total
support armor units, but the Army reportedly would like to
Total Request
Request
keep MPF units within at least a six-hour drive from the
Funding Category
($M)
(Qty.)
division they are assigned to. Another issue is that there
might be related challenges in creating MPF units in the
RDT&E
$102.201
—
Army National Guard (ARNG). Given these MPF unit-
Procurement
$394.635
33
related considerations, Congress might also monitor the
Sources: RDT&E: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2024
Army’s progress in addressing the aforementioned
Budget Estimates, March 2023, Army Justification Book Volume 3a of
challenges in creating new MPF units.
3 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, RDT&E − Volume II,
Budget Activity 5A, p. 222. Procurement: Department of Defense
Andrew Feickert, Specialist in Military Ground Forces
IF11859
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) System
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11859 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED