via DoD Buzz (read it all there)....
Marine officials explained that the Corps using all the lessons learned from the EFV program – which focused on achieving increased high-water speed – to ensure the same mistakes don’t occur again.and...
“Capabilities such as high-water speed will be weighed carefully for affordability and for trade space so we understand what we are giving up if in fact we want to achieve the high-water speed,” said Lt. Gen. Richard Mills deputy commandant for Combat Development and Integration.
Marine officials said they would know more in October when the Corps is scheduled to receive a report from industry that will look trade space areas that will help program officials set requirement priorities.So a decision on the ACV is now delayed till October. A new fiscal year. Additionally they're willing to trade high water speed for crew carriage. Last we're not going to hear about this vehicle until October!
“The number of Marines inside it would be one of those areas where we would look at possible trade space,” Mills said.
The ACV is capable of traveling at more than 15 knots in high water, compared to the current AAV which has a top speed of seven knots, Mills said.
My prediction?
The Amphibious Combat Vehicle is dead. They're going to use industry to put forth the reasons why and hide behind their coattails.
We're all being setup to see an upgraded AAV. You can bet body parts that you highly value on that. The real question is...do we get new builds or are we going to get refurbished vehicles? Will we see a different design? Think F-18 Legacy and F-18 Super Hornet...they look the same but are different.
The next question. What does this mean for the Marine Personnel Carrier Program?
If I'm wrong and they somehow come up with some type of ACV then the Marine Corps needs to take heed to a warning from the past. Remember the LVTP-5. Biased toward water performance, a dog on land (where it spent the majority of its time) and got its men killed in Vietnam. It had the shortest tenure of service of any LVT/LVTP/AAV in Marine Corps history. It was such a dog that Marines preferred to take their chances on getting shot riding outside than be caught inside and burned alive by a buried mine the vehicle struck. If we go after a water optimized ACV then we're going to relive that experience.
I don't think its that bad of an idea to cancel the ACV. A newly built AAV with a v-hull, new engine / hydro suspension/tracks, new turret with 30mm, and composite armor tiles would basically be a EFV or ACV. Hopefully they put a active protection system on the AAV vehicles since they're so vulnerable to RPGs/ATGM. Even the EFV was still vulnerable, only had protection against 14.5mm. I can't imagine this ACV getting much better.
ReplyDeleteDo I get a gold-star for spotting the Ontos in one of the pic's ?
ReplyDeleteI think the USMC would be better just getting on with the 8x8 procurement program, making sure whatever they buy has best in class amphibious capability (perhaps some extra flotation devices), and keeping a small number of AAV for logistic support and specialist teams. I think EFV was rather like our FRES program. You can only push budget, technology, and physics so far. With FRES we were never going to get an air transportable vehicle with the level of protection they wanted. I think EFV, as super as it looks and performs, is just too much. As long as you can land across beach and don't need port facilities that is what is important not being able to re-run a Pacific War or D-Day opposed landing. The US is lucky that it has the firepower to remove anybody on the beach waiting for a landing force. Spending extra money on giving vehicles that ability to survive or conduct an opposed landing is waste. Better perhaps spending that money on more firepower?
The AAV upgrade progam is already underway. It was started under Gates when the EFV was cancelled. He basically said, "Sorry but I had to kill your EFV so as a consolation you can keep a couple of million and upgrade your AAVs."
ReplyDeleteOf course this is a slow process and nothing has been finalized but the ideas I have seen are as follows:
-Automotive: meaning new engine, rebuilt tracks, rebuilt trans. The current uptime rates are abbysmal so this should mean they at least can drive.
-Comm: Radios and BFT are going to be installed in specially designed brackets. Will be similar to a M-ATV comm wise.
-Night vision sight: yes that is right the current AAV can not see in the dark, the new one will.
-Laser range finder: Lase, aim, fire. This is not a fire control system it just means the gunner skips the step of guessing the range.
That is about it and there will be no new builds, only rebuilds of existing hulls. Personally I say give up on the ancient completely obsolete death traps and ride in MTVRs until a new vehicle finally arrives.
AAV sounds like it was made in Iraq after you just described it.
DeleteBecause the drawdown of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, everyone no longer see the need.
ReplyDeleteLook at what happened with IED started becoming a common cause of casualties? They fast-tracked the evaluation and deployment of MRAP.
Let's say there's a shooting war in NK and an amphib assault is required, I tell you, DoD will do the same thing.
It's just a question of how many Marine lives are the brass and politicians going to sacrifice?