Global Defence Technology has a nice overview of current Amphibious APC/IFV's worldwide.
The list itself is worthy of discussion. Check it out here (page 8, listed as "Best of Both Worlds").
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
My picks would either be the Chinese ZBD-05 or the IVECO SUPERAV. The ZBD-05 has speed in the water and firepower. IVECO SUPERAV has speed on land and better armor protection.It can also operate in worse sea conditions than the HAVOC. If I had to choose between the two I would go with the IVECO because you need something that will survive once it gets on shore and can give the option of speedy advance.
ReplyDeleteyou do know that the ZBD doesn't plane and there is no evidence that it actually has high water speed. all the pics that were put out that showed it "moving" on water were just photo shops replacing the EFV with the ZBD.
Deleteas far as the SUPERAV vs. HAVOC vs. Terrex, i just don't know. at the beginning of the contest i would have bet on the Super but the Havoc has undergone some notable changes as has the Terrex. additionally the Terrrex has the backing of the Singporean govt. i didn't do due dillegence and they probably have tested it coming off the back of one of their LPDs.
still. i think the Marine Corps should just analyze available information and make a decision. either they sole source someone to produce a vehicle or they get the Army's Strykers and do the Marine thing with them. i'm sure General Dynamics is probably pitching the idea of a Marinized Stryker as we speak.
I was not aware of that information. I was simply commenting on the ZBD based on the information from that Global Defence Technology article where they stated that the ZBD had a water speed of 45km/h the fastest of any of the vehicles listed in that article. However I will take your word for it.
DeleteOther than that I stand with you on your opinions with the rest of the vehicles and I think that a marinized Stryker would probably work out for the Marine Corps quite well. It could possibly replace the AAV, the LAV-25, and maybe even the Mobile Gun system variant could temporarily replace the M1A1 until the budget problems get sorted out.
yeah i was going to get with them and get some clarification on that. budget rules the roost though and there is no way the USMC can afford everything on the list. no way at all unless the budget is increased.
DeleteMy call is anything but the Stryker. It's simply too light which affects protection levels, though that is a bit of a chicken and egg thing, it's light because of less armour, and it's less armoured because it is light. Most of the other hulls from the west are almost 50-100% heavier than it when loaded with comparable weapons and a large chunk of the extra weight is armour.
Delete5-8 tons of extra armour makes a big difference when the rounds start flying I'm sure, and any applique and add ons in the field will be a smaller fraction by weight of the main vehicle, so there is less strain on the frames and engine (e.g add 1 ton of extras on a 10 ton vehicle = 10% weight increase, add 1 ton on a 20 ton = 5% weight increase). Makes it less likely to overstrain the vehicle.
I know that the Stryker underwent a SLEP which is addressing the issue, but look at it this way, it was added on to the Stryker, the rest had most of the features inbuilt from the start.
Its about tradeoffs really.
DeleteIn order to be amphibious, the vehicle cannot have protection from 30mm cannon fire. The technological advancements in armor and bouyancy haven't been achieved yet that I know of.
The Stryker is supposedly rated for 14.5mm/152mm airburst/10 lb AT mine, as is the Lockheed Havoc. The Patria/Havoc is better suited to add heavier armor that gives it 30mm resistance though.
The Stryker is inadequate because it is not amphibious. The Havoc and others are. But again, the Marines have to figure out what they want first and how they are going to apply the tool that they want.
n0t, but somehow or other, the other 8x8s are amphibious and 30mm resistant. And yes, it's the armour, the ceramic/steel mix is lighter though a bit bulkier for more buoyancy.
DeleteThe reality is that the Stryker was supposed to be an "interim combat vehicle" until the "Future Combat Vehicle" program matured. Which it never did. So you are now stuck with an temporary permanent solution. Or was that supposed to be permanent temporary solution.
The Stryker was never meant to serve this long.
Don't believe me? Go look up what the Stryker selection program was called.
Currently, the others can deliver performance and protection. The MPC program should have been stamped "Closed" a long time ago. All benchmarks reached, and still dittering.
One thing I do disagree with Sol on is that the Terrex has a backing. Sure it may have Sg government support, but once SAIC gets their hands on it, it becomes a US company gouging the US government. Remember, all of them have to be manufactured in the US of A, so any savings from foreign buying won't even take place as all the processing is going to take place in the US's value chain. Which is an oxymoron. I suspect the USMC will end up paying 2x or more of what the people overseas are paying for the same item.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought the 30mm protection was for vehicles specifically fitted with additional armor, at the cost of forgoing amphibious capability? Im fairly certain that the AMV's and Havoc's amphibious "baseline" version at level 4a/4b, which is 14.5mm resistant. I have no helpful information about the superAV other than manufacturer anecdotes.
DeleteYeah I know about the history of the stryker, and the subsequent result of sequestration. My take on it was with the purchase of Stryker IIs, they intend on keeping them far longer than originally intended.
I think the Patria baseline had stated 30mm resistance frontal arch (level 5), the sides and back are only level 4. Not spectacular, but pretty good, much better than the AAV.
DeleteThe very strange thing with technology is that sometimes, it turns paradigms upside down. If they do get buoyant armour, then floating with more armour isn't the problem any more. It's moving when it gets out of the water without the water to support the additional weight. I wonder if we hit that stage yet.
sorry for off
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB7tKNmmGI8
i think we will have some things to see regarding Moldova starting 30 november
... how did the AAV get onto the list I have no idea. Sure I admit it gave sterling service, but unless this is a historical document, the others have performance parameters that put it at a severe disadvantage. Better armour, better range, better potential weapons suites all for similar kinematic performance and lane meters. So how did it get on the list as one of the "best"?
ReplyDeleteIt got on the list because it is used by the largest and most highly trained amphibious force in the world; the USMC. A "just ok" vehicle with great troops can trump a great vehicle with "just ok" troops.
DeleteThat said, it is also among the lightest armed of all these vehicles. The Russians and Chinese are now putting very large caliber (100mm!) weapons on their vehicles. Since the MGS version of the Stryker has a 105mm in an unmanned turret, I hope that whatever...of "if ever"at this rate...vehicle the US eventually goes with will include the 105 in it's arsenal.
mil, then you are not comparing the vehicle any more is it? I can toss the BTR-60 in with the USMC, does that then suddenly make it one of the best?
DeleteIf you want to compare military units, stick to military units, if you want to compare vehicles, stick to vehicles. And focusing specifically on vehicles, the AAV is showing its' age. One example, gyro-stabilized guns. RWS and stabilization for all the newer vehicles means that they can fire from the surf with a decent chance of a hit. Is the AAV stabilized for their weapons? I doubt it, it still looks like manual operations for the 40mm and the 0.5 cal.
I admit to the sin of hyperbole mixed with national pride. But my point was that by sheer virtue it being used by the USMC it would be listed due to the influence and status of US forces. By default we are the standard, even if our standard happens to be sup-par compared to newer vehicles. As I stated when discussing the 105mm, the AAV as presently armed is among the worst armed of the lot. Any future amphib purchase by the US should at the very least have remote operated stabilized weapons as you mentioned. I have seen some interesting new weapon stations out with a .50cal/Hellfire mix as well as 30mm/Javelin and other combos that would be nice for retrofitting or putting on future platforms.
Delete