I'm just tossing this out there as a question. Don't take this as having lost faith in the Marine Personnel Carrier....if anything its really questioning whats been going on inside HQMC when it comes to this whole AAV replacement affair.
Did anyone consider just making some simple hydrodynamic improvements to the AAV (understanding that it might require a redesigned hull), putting in a compact 1000 horsepower MTU diesel engine, a RWS of sufficient killing power and maybe lengthening the hull? How much more water speed can we get with improved water pumps on the market today...or even if simply upsized the legacy ones on the vehicle?
I just wonder if anyone actually considered that. Or did we get so wrapped around the axle about a hydroplaning tracked vehicle that we couldn't back off that position until funding woes forced our hands.
I think you could do alot...and ive listed alot on here before.
ReplyDelete1) rebuild the interior; actual blast seats, spal linner, A/C (i know..but hey?), the ability to see outside the vehicle in button up conditons, and a way to vent out fumes from the interior!
2) a larger bow plane like youve seen on the EFV and the Chinese ZBD2000, a rebuilt water jet system(very easy to do)
3) composit armor pkg to replace EAKK, take 20mm fire (to much?)
4) RWS, with a 20/30mm weapon system. have the ability to mount AT weapons (tow/jav) on a select few vics maybe?
5) a rebuilt transmission. the engine is amazing and always has more power than the transmission can take.
6)upgraded comms. the AAV still uses VIC2, upgrade to VIC3 system allow for the use of PRC-117's and multi freq radios
7) Blue Force Tracer...nuff said
8) make it so you can use a raven inside of the vic. allow it to have a integrated UAV per section, increase SA
9) Rubber tracks
just a few things.....
I like where this is going. better then nothing. Ive been curious about what a rebuilt from zero hours Harrier 2 would look like as well.
DeleteThe latest MTU V10 892 engine on Puma IFV provides 920 kW (1250 hp).
ReplyDeleteAlso Puma's tracks are worth looking at: http://www.diehl.com/en/diehl-defence/products/tracks-and-suspension-systems/light-weight-tracks.html
or the unmanned 30 mm turret...
What?! An evolutionary design? In American defense acquisitions?! Makes too much sense! Blasphemy! All must be Revolutionary!
ReplyDeleteI agree with John. OTS items can be utilized during overhauls to update the beast. But it still remains that an amphib must get within 5 miles of the beach to launch them, not deviating from the track until all are out of the well deck.
ReplyDeleteI think the EFV was a good idea but then the additional requirements kept getting added. Kind of like that YouTube video that was posted about the Bradley!
Your pretty much using track and jets when you launch, your in what we call water tracks so when you put the vehicle in gear it operates both, once your off the well deck you switch to neutral it goes full jets. When we hit battle speed off the beach you go to gear again so you can hit the sand and roll.
DeleteI worked in the efv....I could Say alot haha, ive also seen the bae aav-uax(?) It was pretty cool
Actually, the Pentagon Wars thingy was seriously made up, the air force guy, Burton I think his name was, was pretty much a wannabe, he wrote a book on how "heroic" he was and that got made into the movie. Always be wary of autobiographies that write on how the main character is a "hero".
DeleteThe Bradley's specs were pretty much written already, it was supposed to be matched against Soviet BMPs, it was just that someone from the Air Force couldn't get it and saw it as a project in isolation from outside conditions. Face it, is there any logic in getting an Air Force specialist to comment on tank design? Shouldn't they have gotten a tanker to provide input instead?
Personally, I've always seen Burton as one of those idiots "trying" to be a "leader" by picking fault at everything. Had a Basic mate like that. To put it in the words of a guy from another platoon he "assisted" at the range, "I was so tempted to shove this (M-16) into his mouth and pull the trigger."
Remember, the M2 was not over budget and delayed. The ONLY problems ever associated with the development all stemmed from one source. Mr "Hero".
Daniel, that's a lot of bunk in a short post. The M2 was certainly delayed multiple times as well as redesigned multiple times over its life span. It started out as a slight faster M113 in its original design.
DeleteAnd there were very real and serious issues with BRL's testing of the vehicle and reluctance to conduct actual realistic live fire tests which are well documented by many others not just Burton. BRL was using simulations and models that were in some cases completely inaccurate and in other simply wildly optimistic. The live fire testing conducted after the congressional hearings showed this affirmatively and significant changes were made to the design as a result.
Was Burton trying to portray himself as heroic and didn't understand things enough, hell if I know, but to assert that the Pentagon Wars is seriously made up is at least an equal amount of bunk. There were very serious issues with the Bradley design process/flow and very serious life threatening issues with the Bradley that were not caught by BRL's testing regimen. I'm will to grant you there was probably a lot of embellishment in the book (and certainly in the movie), but to assert that there was nothing wrong with the development or testing is complete and utter hog wash.
Next thing you are going to assert is that the F35 program is a model program with no issues or serious flaws...
Sometimes you have to take what you have, add what you can get and improve it.
ReplyDeleteThe old LVT's were able to float only if the bilge pumps worked so they improve the bilge pumps and landed Marines.
The armor plate was non existent so they added extra plate which proved less than expected but may have helped save some lives and land Marines.
Machine guns were .30 cal. and manned by Marines being transported, then dedicated machine gunners were added and Marines were landed.
No one wanted Tarawa's Betio landings yet they were ordered and Marines were landed their tank support all but nullified by enemy gunners, US Navy aviators and the terrain.
Yet Tanks were landed as were the Marines at great cost.
A large quantity of sub standard vehicles to swamp the enemy beaches or a small quantity of super AAV's to dazzle the enemy to death, make your choices, Marines will be landed either way.
Get there the fastest with the mostest as the old General said but get there at least.
Sometimes a refurbished and modernized Sherman can work wonders as in the Israeli experience when a Modern M-60 gets lit up.
Ya have to make the best of what you got and are given.
The LVTP is old but it works and it's all we got besides that turkey the F-35.
Sol, didn't you have a post last year about BAE offering a solution similar to what your suggesting? They offered three options, new build AAV's with some upgrades, but the same externally, a modified new build AAV with some changes inside and out but still looking similar to the current model, and a fairly radical redesign as the third, which supposedly looked very different. Can't remember if that was you or someone else in a comment on a post.
ReplyDeleteSol, this was why I said cancelling the AAV rebuild and getting MPC is a logical move. Look at the 2 objectively you'll see that the MPC gives exactly the same capability as the AAV provided that the MPC is able to swim to shore, with some improvements.
ReplyDelete1) Improved armour (aluminium vs steel ceramic composite)
2) Improved range (2x improvement)
3) Similar weapons fits but with potential for improvements (most MPC candidates can upgrade to 30mm RWS cannons)
4) Modern electronics and protection (spall liner, V-hull, video cameras etc)
5) Wheels (wheels vs tracks is an old old debate but in this case, when you are hitting a potentially mined beach, a wheeled MPC hitting a mine will usually lose a wheel and still be able to carry on when a tracked vehicle will end up as a mobility kill when the track sheds)
The only advantage the old AAVs have over the MPC is that it has more internal space, but practically, you don't pack them like clown cars, the administrative unit is either a half marine squad, a single marine fireteam or a full army squad of 9 men max hence the common "designed for 9 men" limit.
So some loss of manpower space for the improvements listed above. Worth it IMO.
MPC. Functionally, the new AAV.
Ill agree that the mpc could fill the aav roll, save a few things.the aav handles muchgreater surf? Being tracked has a much greater advantage on the surf and the beach. Also a marine squad operates at a minimum of 12, thats what the vehicle needs to carry.
DeleteI will agree a new mpc has many advantages but being wheeled on a beach isnt one, ive watched lavs ger stuck in the beach and its fun to laugh as your drive by.
But we can do this all ots if we are smart and put the right people in charge
Isn't a marine squad 14? That was why I put half squad or fireteam level. Trying to squeeze in 14 men + driver and TC might be a bit too much, you'll have to sacrifice something. Much safer to break the squad into 2 or individual fireteams.
DeleteIf you go fireteams, you keep your control tight as the squads are already pre-formed into their maneuver units, but there is a fair bit of space wastage, going half squads uses the space better but when debussing you got a bit of reorganizing to do. Either way works.
As for wheels vs tracks, well, that's an old old debate. Personally I prefer tracks too but that doesn't mean I can't see advantages for wheels. Especially when you throw a track.
Sol, what did you just change your cover photo to? That thing looks awesome!
ReplyDeleteSol, I outlined this particular approach to AAV-7 on this-here-blog months ago.
DeleteSeems we've come to agree on this one.
Nope, no hugging now....stay the frack away...
http://karakter.de/#/
DeleteIt's from the Killzone game. There is an accreditation on the right bottom of the image.
I think we all have to remember that no matter what we get...it is Lance Corporals that will be operating and maintaining these objects of our desire. I know civilian contractors are a given when we have arrived, but it is up to the lowest common denominator to keep the thing maintained and running until that time comes.
ReplyDeleteI am a HUGE proponent of the KISS principle. And ALWAYS remember, those who do the daily maintainence are the lowest common denominator of any weapons system.
The things i propouse would be very easy to implement to the current AAV and wouldnt require a large TM updated for the vehicle. Now SOP's would change with the newer weapon systems, armor, and abilites but thats ok!
Deleteas for the KISS principle im with you, but just so you know the enlisted marines did a better job of maintaing the EFV than the civilians. Enlisted Trackers understand maintainence and doing things via the TM. Basic Track School is 3 months long for a reason, you learn all the ins and out of maintaining, operate, drive, shoot, splash ect.... Its one reason why when i was on the Ramp, i never excepted "Sgt i wasnt taught that".
That being said, AAV community takes the dropouts of everyother MOS, when i went through we had Motor T, Air Crew, S-2, ect..dropouts haha, so you have to take that with a grain of salt.
Everything that John lists at the top as possible improvements has been integrated and tested; that package and more is on the shelf. It is not like various groups have been idle; but have been proposing, developing, integrating and testing. Have to remember, though, when you start adding protection and lethality, there is a substantial weight increase, and if you upgrade the power train, that's adding weight. At many levels, it becomes a zero-sum gain. And trying to get an aluminum box with tracks to be more hydrodynamically efficient adds even more weight, complexity and maintenance requirements. Regardless of opinions and the facts, there is a reason why the USMC has been working since 1975 (yes, 1975) to develop an advanced amphibian; and why the technology for an amphibious vehicle has remained more or less in the same performance envelope for the last 75 years.
Delete