More than likely two firms offering vehicles and a few others offering some types of upgrade packages.
I initially see General Dynamics revamping its original EFV offering. Hopefully this will involve the removal of the hydroplanning system...a redesign of the vehicles interior and a decent exit ramp.
I'm actually surprised that the Marine Corps didn't sole source this competition and list what had to go and what needed to stay with this vehicle that had so much money pumped into it. Actually this is probably the best case scenario but won't happen as funds are tight and HQMC seems to be saving all of its money to support the F-35 and MV-22 even at the expense of the much needed CH-53K, AH-1Z, UH-1Y and an upgraded HUMVEE.
The other option is that we see BAE come up with an improved AAV. This would likely involve an upgraded power train and suspension, added armor and blast seats, some type of improved weapon station and upgraded water jets.
What will be interesting is whether HQMC would allow for new build AAVs or if it would be a pure upgrade program. The other players in this game will only offer upgrades of one type or another.
I'm pretty much on par with what your saying from GD. My thinking is they need to drop the reliance on computer driven technology. When a vehicle is designed to splash in the ocean, it needs to run primarily on mechanical controls, to many things can happen without those mechanical systems.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ramp, the ramp wasn't half bad, dropped way quicker than the aav and had the entire squad out before the aav ramp hit the ground, and that's with a horrible vehicle interior
it looks narrow as hell...but if it works then keep it but that transformer system definitely has to go.
ReplyDeleteThat's a must, great in theory and did have great results in the water but the execution of it just makes it unreliable
ReplyDeletehey John. can you send me a pic of your warbelt again. i want to do a post on them and i lost the one you sent earlier.
ReplyDeleteDitch the hydroplaning system? But that was the best part of the EFV. Didn't they *finally* get it working too just when the program was cancelled? That would fit the trend.
ReplyDeleteWhy not scale the EFV down to a vehicle carrying 13 marines (that's a full marine squad right?) as opposed to 17-18 marines in back?
If the Chinese could get this concept working with the ZBD/ZLT-05, why can't we?
but the issue with the hydroplaning system just wasn't that they finally got it to work but in my mind the maintenance on the thing and its vulnerability in combat.
ReplyDeletebesides, i'm not sure but i imagine that modern waterjets could propel the EFV to at least double the speed of the AAV.
not hardly ideal but it should be sufficient in the near term.
scaling the vehicle down isn't in keeping with Marine tactics. in an assault you want to build up combat power as rapidly as possible that's why medium Marine helo's carry more people than Army helo's and Marine personnel carriers do too.
i don't know much about the ZBD but i'll be looking over the info on APA's site about it (don't give me shit about this one guys. they have the best info i've seen on the web when it comes to Chinese armored vehicles so back the fuck off...info is info...get over it)
The Chinese version of the AAAV didn't solve anything like the efv, it has a huge bowplane that's true but it doesn't have the speed the efv has in just track mode. And it doesn't transform from.what I've seen.
ReplyDeleteIt's got a turret I believe the next version of the aav and ACV need to at least match in firepower
that's been my main sticking point. like is said APA has the best information i've seen on the web when it comes to Chinese vehicles but they don't list a vehicle speed...its cannon is relatively impressive though but i'm not at all impressed with the rest of the vehicle.
ReplyDeleteto restate the obvious, they attempted to get better hydrodynamics through hull design and it appears to be a limiting factor on land.
It's always a compromise. The ZBD 2000 carries 8 dismounts and the armor is designed to defeat 7.62 and 12.7 from the front only. EFV had higher levels of protection and carried 17 dismounts and in order to get the high speed required 2,800hp.
ReplyDeleteThe main thing is whether it's an IFV first or an amphibious vehicle. EFV proved having both was both complex and expensive. Ditching the high water speed, and the irrational doctrine that demanded it where it was too dangerous for the Gators to be within 20 miles of shore but somehow the battle space was prepared for a beach assault, could result in an effective affordable vehicle.
Given the history of how AAV's are used the Corp should concentrate on getting the best IFV first with excellent levels of protection. However fast in the water the new vehicle is there should be a focus on getting the ride more comfortable to enable Marines to operate more effectively. Some thought should be given to bleeding some of the water jet system to the sides to get some level of stabilization so they don't wallow so much (or some other system) and having them leak less.
i've been thinking about the water requirement. even if the environment has been shaped, high water speed is desirable. if we look at how the Norwegians have adopted anti-tank missiles to shore defense then it becomes obvious that no matter how good your ISR you'll miss alot of shooters.
ReplyDeletebut that ignores the facts here. you're right, and the Marine Corps will be getting a vehicle that is slower in the water than the EFV but hopefully better on land than the current AAV.
time will tell but leaking and wallowing is just part of the fun...you ain't a Marine till you've been sea sick in an Amtrac..