Mike found this brochure of the tech demonstrator model of the LAV A2. A quick look at this reveals that after removing the turret, making a few modest upgrades/changes and you have your MPC.
The time for lengthy development schedules is over. We have the blueprint already in service...time to sole source this puppy and get it done.
Soooo... Essentially they turned it into a Stryker. Why not just buy Strykers again?
ReplyDeleteThe Stryker is a different beast; jam-packed with US Army-only gear for starters.
ReplyDeleteLAV II looks like a further development of the ASLAV APC, or the LAV-25 C2/cargo version already in the USMCs fleet. Btw, there's also that 10x10 Piranha LAV version which would be usefull for the marines, considering their larger 13-troop squads.
and how does fit into the latest definition of AMTRAC which the USMC is calling "Amphibious Combat Vehicle"? I just don't think the Marines are going to get all they need in one AIFV?
ReplyDeleteMarcase,
ReplyDeleteSo strip out the Army-specific gear, but keep the base Stryker A1 vehicle. Most of this gear is electronics and comms right? How hard is it to replace all that with USMC gear? Would this really be more expensive than taking the LAV A2 demonstrator through development and testing to production?
It looks like the LAV A2 is only a smidge smaller and lighter than the current Stryker, BTW.
Except that the Stryker is not amphibious. I assume that is mainly due to weight.
ReplyDeleteIIRC, the LAV is only amphibious in the sense that it can cross relatively tame rivers. It's not "surf-zone" capable like the AAV.
ReplyDeleteThe Piranha III, on which the Stryker is based, can be fitted with propellers like the LAV, but the Army chose not to. IIRC, the Spanish and Brazilian Piranha IIIs have this. I imagine the Stryker's extra armor weight preclude swimming anyway.
BTW, the Army Technology page on the Piranha III mention an amphibious kit for "rough seawater operations". Wonder what that means?
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/
whoa....wait a minute guys. the Stryker is much larger than the LAV A2...second the LAV A2 is in production right now for the Marines...third, the vehicle is amphibious...not in a surf zone but hey...that's not part of the MPC requirement....amphibious in inland waters is the requirement.
ReplyDeleteoh and the Army is moving toward an Stryker A2 version so all new builds will be to that standard...far too heavy for Marine Corps requirements.
ReplyDeleteStryker:
ReplyDeleteLength 6.95 m
Width 2.72 m
Height 2.64 m
Gross Vehicle Weight: 42,000lbs (A1 is 55,000lbs)
LAV A2:
Length 6.92 m
Width 2.65 m
Height 2.26 m
Gross Vehicle Weight: 40,000lbs
So a bit higher and a tiny bit wider.
Are there any formal MPC requirements?
no...lets call spades spades...
ReplyDeleteLAV 12 tons...
Stryker 16 tons....
you're pushing a rock up hill on this. even a look at the vehicle reveals that the Stryker is a heavier vehicle...i know you've seen them in person right?
oh and if you don't believe that then how about this...
ReplyDeletethe LAV-25 is still transportable by C-130 without waiver. the Stryker is carriable but with waiver and suspension lowering, removing weapons etc..
sol, what do you think of losing the bushmaster cannon and only having a 50 cal, wont that make it less lethal against lighter vehicles?
ReplyDeletenot too concerned about the loss of the Bushmaster. its suppose to be a personnel carrier not an infantry fighting vehicle so ... get the grunts close to the objective and let them fight their way to it and thru it.
ReplyDeleteifv's deposit you on the 'x'....
no loss...besides...give the yats yats boys cannons and they think they're the weapon...not the grunts...
An original LAV-25 might be transportable by C-130, but how about an A2 with all-around 14.5mm protection like the Stryker? I imagine it doesn't still weigh 12 tons.
ReplyDeletefair enough, i like the idea of the LAV than other vehicles they are considering, the LAV is battle tested and known to the corps, i prefer an evolutionary approach than revolutionary in this situation. give them an upgraded platform with modern comm, sights, speed, etc, but something the corp knows how to use and use with max effectiveness.
ReplyDeletesmitty, the loss of the turret may offset some of the weight difference.
ReplyDeletefrom what i understand the A2 is still transportable not only by C-130 but by CH-53.
ReplyDeleteremember the issue with the Stryker in that role is not only its weight but also its size. it was darn near touching the fuselage on both sides...that was part of the waiver...the crew chiefs couldn't walk around the thing while in flight to inspect the tie downs.
MEXAS for the Stryker weighs 7,000 lbs. I can't imagine whatever the Marines chose for the A2 to give it all around 14.5mm protection weighs that much less. The A2 has a slightly smaller volume under armor, but not that much smaller.
ReplyDeleteSo figure a curb weight of 13 tonnes + 3 tonnes for armor = 16 tonnes.
RPG protection with slat armor for the Stryker weighs an additional 5,200lbs, or 2.3 tonnes.
So yes, you might be able to airlift a LAV A2 via C-130 or H-53 with its base armor package, but once you start configuring it like it would be used in Iraq or Afghanistan, its weight would quickly rise to Stryker levels.
Then there's the question of how you fit 9 Marines plus a commander and driver and all their kit in a vehicle smaller than a Stryker. They won't be able to carry as much. How well can they ingress and egress with the lower roof?
I recognize that, since the LAV A2 is in production for the Marines, it is probably the most affordable option. But does it meet the MPC requirements? BTW, what are the MPC requirements?
About all I've found is that they'd like it to be able to swim (objective, not threshold), and carry 9+2 Marines. Nothing about the protection package.
I just saw a history chnl clip on the DD amphibious tanks at Normandy. You think there is a precedent for LAV A2 swimming ashore?
ReplyDeleteOr will they suffer the same fate as many DDs did?
Lee,
ReplyDeleteThat's what I was wondering about with the Piranha III's "rough seawater operations" kit. I wonder how rough is "rough", and how it handles crossing reefs and sandbars?
B.Smitty.
ReplyDeletenot necessarily true. both the USMC and Australian Army are operating LAV-25 (ASLAV) without extra armor. they also operated in Iraq without the added slat armor that was found on US Army Strykers.
Lee.
USMC operating concepts for these vehicles effectively rules out being able to cross the 'surf zone'...no ship to shore movement pure land and obstacle crossing (lakes, rivers and streams) so rough water kits won't be bought.
Sol perhaps "doctrine" needs to be re-thunk?
ReplyDeleteTo go one step further, instead of tryhing to design a FAST ACV or whatever they call the EFV replacement. How about adapting existing fast landing craft to lift a good AIFV (whichever) ashore or up the shore. IOW ........
Has the WW2 Alligator concept seen its eclipse?
The Australian LAV's had slat armour in Iraq in the beginning, but soon found that it was more trouble than t was worth in the tight narrow confines of Baghdad and elsewhere. It's ability to maneuver without the slat armour was found to be of better allround protective usw, than the ability to withstand RPG strikes. Of course if ADF vehicles had started being hit regularly by RPG's that might have changed, but we weren't and it didn't...
ReplyDeleteWe've also found the ASLAV-PC variant extremely useful and the lack of the 25mm cannon is not such a huge issue when you mix and match capabilities with a force package. Besides if more firepower is required, the Konsberg Protector RWS can handle a 40mm auto-grenade launcher and has the option of integrating a Javelin anti-armour launcher onto the RWS as well.
Here is an Aussie ASLAV in Iraq with the bar armour fitted.
http://www.australian-armour.com/bar_armour.jpg
Aussie Digger,
ReplyDeleteInteresting, the ASLAV-PC only holds 7+2 soldiers right? Can it hold 9+2? Or is it too small in back for that many realistically equipped troops?
fas.org says the LAV-PC can carry 8+2.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/lav-pc.htm
Depends how much kit they are carrying. You could fit that many in, but it's rather like the "combat loading" of Blackhawks you may have seen where up to 20 soldiers are carried in them, a VERY tight squeeze... Here's the inside of an ASLAV-PC.
ReplyDeletehttp://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/aslavpc4_4.jpg
Doesn't look too bad, but those bench seats are really only designed for 3x each side, though if you had to you can probably mount 4 down each side, for a very close ride with your comrades...
It is advertised as being capable of carrying up to "10" soldiers by the manufacturer, but that is a very optimistic assessment that includes the vehicle crew and assumes a very light load of equipment (virtually only the troops their personal weapons and light webbing, no packs, support weapons, equipment etc)...
The Australian Army only use the ASLAV-PC to carry around our recon scout troops, which are 6 man light recon teams employed within our Cavalry/recon regiments (2nd Cavalry Regiment and 2/14 Light Horse Regiment).
regards,
AD
AD,
ReplyDeleteYep, and if you install shock absorbing seats, you'll shrink that space further.
Still, the USMC intends to use two MPCs per squad, so even if it's only 7 Marines per vehicle, they'll still fit. 8 or 9 would certainly be better to accommodate attachments.
leesea...
ReplyDeletei know what you're getting at...but i'm just not a believer in using an LCAC or LCM for the assault echelon. i still think we need an actual AAV or ACV.
B. Smitty...
read the same thing on this LAV-25A2. its suppose to be able to carry 9 Combat Equipped Marines.
the only thing about the MPC that worries me is that it adds another vehicle to essential a light force. the USMC is heading toward being a medium weight force and that makes sense...adding additional vehicles doesn't...we should just max out on AAV upgrades and get an affordable ACV.
isn't the lav-25 inferior in protection (esp. mine) to the newer wheeled IFVs (read: Patria)?
ReplyDeleteand a patria can also swim and is 14.5mm protected out of the box (30mm from the front and 30mm on upper side with the addition of the removable armour, but it probably loses the amph. ability then).
ReplyDeleteit weights 35000 lbs in the basic edition i think.
Sol roger your opinion, I just think it will be damn hard to come up with a modern version especially in view of speed rqmt??
ReplyDelete