We tag the purchase to the US Army's Stryker program and we kill a couple of birds with one stone.
 |
| BAE SEP Alligator |
 |
| CV 90 Armadillo |
 |
| French VBCI |
 |
| German Boxer |
Its amphibious (on lakes and streams)...
Its has a degree (slight) of modularity...
Its in the same family as the Army Stryker...
Its a proven design in service with the Brazilian Marine Corps and the Romanian Army as well as several other armed forces worldwide.
If you want this done quickly then you select the vehicle that you want and write the requirements to fit it (sorta like the USAF did with the A-300 in the Tanker competition).
Its doable, its quick and it'll get a vehicle that our Marines need sooner rather than later. Remember, a lack of urgency led to the EFV failure.
If the IIIC is an option, then why not go for the Mark IV - might as well go for the latest model.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if, in light of the EFV cancellation, the MPC requirements will change. Currently the MPC is envisioned as a pure APC, a full squad carrier, with a .50cal/40mm RWS (and perhaps Javelin) only, similar to the Stryker.
With the loss of the EFV's 30mm, something else will have to fill the fire support role as there won't be more M-1 tanks (and the USMC really should keep those at the current level).
Then there are the protective requirements; IED resistant, integration of ADS (Trophy etc.), able to carry the latest modular (active) armor...
An off-the-shelf buy of the Piranha (or a similar vehicle) may not tick enough boxes, and the MPC program may be in forsome serious trouble if it will follow the Stryker program which allowed the vehicle to balloon in weight and complexity.
well Marcase, don't tell anyone but i was going to do a post that states since we're going forward with the MPC then we should also make a final determination on Tanks.
ReplyDeletemy proposal is to simply use the MPC and mate it up with the Stryker mobile gun system and finally get Tanks out of the Marines.
we're over a barrel with Tanks anyway. we don't have the money for new ones and the Army is about to buy an M-1A3 version.
I am not liking the protection level on this APC... only 12.7mm no way.
ReplyDeleteHow about the 120mm mortar on a Patria (or other AFV) chassis for fire support? The weapon and ammo is in service now with US. We all know that the USN won't be anywhere close enough to the beach to help, and those 120 rounds go out about 10 km. It's direct or indirect fire capabable too.
ReplyDeleteI am not a land gunner but think that the 105 mm turret on Stryker is too big and I believe they are having problems with it?
the 120 mm mortar isn't necessary for Marine Corps operations but I could see it for NECC.
ReplyDeleteabout to do a post on it but the buy of LCS should be truncated and the littoral mission just given to NECC and a platoon dedicated to the ARG. they could easily tag along onboard an LPD or LSD...