 |
| US Army Stryker ICV |
 |
| Piranha V, failed entrant in the UK FRES competition |
 |
| Piranha III, in service world wide most notably with the Canadian Army, the Spanish Marine Corps and the Brazilian Marine Corps. |
A 500 pound gorilla.
That's about the best description of General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) if they decide to jump with both feet into the Marine Personnel Carrier Contest.
THEY ARE NOT GIVING OUT ANY INFO!
Zip. Zilch. Nada.
I have written everyone I can think of in their outfit and they must hit delete without thinking about it. BAE and Lockheed were cautious but were forthcoming with as much info as they thought reasonable. It is after all a competition.
GDLS. The info on what they're going to be presenting is password protected, and marked eyes only. I have a feeling it has to do with the tremendous burn that they received from the British when it came to their FRES contest. From the outside looking in they had a much better product than the ASCOD, yet were shot down in a weird cost shoot out (we keep coming back to that factor instead of the best vehicle winning).
With that being said I'll list a few bullet points on what will make GDLS a formidable opponent in this contest...even though I'm not quite sold on their offering in comparison to what BAE and Lockheed are putting forward.
1. They could attempt to make the Stryker amphibious and push commonality with the US Army. As a matter of fact if they can make the Stryker surf ready and keep many of the components the same then they're well on their way to winning....but...
2. Number one in this depends on what the Army does with its M-113 replacement program and whether the Marine Corps will wait for them to decide. If the Stryker wins that contest then the first option becomes even more attractive.
3. Eyes will also be on the contest in Canada for a close combat vehicle. GDLS was at one time going to enter the LAV-V with the Lancer turret in that contest. If the Canadians get their act together and make that buy then the Marines could be tempted to go with that setup. The LAV-V though has not been touted as an amphibious vehicle and I don't know if it swims or could be made to. What I do know is that the Lancer turret is an outstanding looking piece of gear. The Canadians will be running ballistics tests and the LAV-V supposedly is an uparmored variant of the LAV-III.
4. The Piranha III is in service world wide with a number of forces. The Marines on the east coast did a training evolution with the Spanish Marines (I believe it was the 24th MEU) and got an up close look at the beast.
5. A major down fall of this vehicle is its troop carriage. Its limited to a crew of 3+6. Not competitive.
6. If this does turn into a price war then GDLS should have it going away. They already have manufacturing set up. A supply chain already in place. NSN setup for ordering parts, etc...
To sum it up.
I have no idea what GDLS is going to do.
If they offer the Piranha III and if its compatible with the Stryker as far as drive train, components, parts etc...are concerned then they will win a price war. All they'll really have to do is meet requirements.
We're in the unfortunate place of having the air wing gobbling up a tremendous part of the budget (not bitching, just pointing this out). With the F-35, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, MV-22 and the CH-53K all gobbling up funds, it looks like the ground side is just going to have to gut it out.
A side note to all this is you can bet that the only reason why the JLTV is still alive in Marine Corps planning is because the US Army is basically subsidizing the buy.
But back to the Piranha. I just can't put my finger on but I'm just not warm to this vehicle....
Note*
My buddy Grim tells me I might have flubbed the issues that GDLS has in the FRES competition. He's probably right. Between the European, US and Canadian divisions its hard to keep up with the vehicles, how they're designated and what competitions they're involved in and heck, even the vehicles designations are confusing.
Just a bonus to the commonality aspect (and where the money gets saved should a III-type be entered) is that the Chilean MC is planning on acquiring ICV and MGS type Strykers. Thirty of the former and ten of the latter. That will help with training down there, and parts.
ReplyDeleteBut, I'll look into contacting GLDS for information, as well, Sol. Thanks for keeping up with all of this.
Sol I think you're getting confused about the FRES competition in your post.
ReplyDeleteThe Piranha 5 was the winning entrant into the FRES-U (Utility) contest, that ultimately got delayed (cancelled in all but name) to focus on FRES-Scout (CVRT replacement). It got cancelled because the money for FRES-U dried up and any money that could have been available went to supporting the specialist vehicles we bought for Afghan. I doubt we'll see any type of FRES-U for many years now, although in one form or another we've been trying to get it off the ground for decades (See thinkdefence for a history of FRES).
FRES-Scout on the other hand was a straight shoot between ASCOD and CV90, and I think we made the wrong decision there, and that it was flawed to begin with when you look at what we're trying to replace and what CVRT's best features were (9 ton weight made it deployable in just about every way you could want).
Scout SV is a much bigger vehicle than the Scimitar. Its similar to Warrior size which means more room for ISTAR tech.
ReplyDeleteGDUK prime Scout with GD Spain manufacturing ASCOD and LMUK responsible for the turret
The Corp might want to rethink the entire concept. Originally the plan was to have a heavy, medium, and light infantry carrier. The heavy was to be an IFV (EFV), the medium MPC, and the light JLTV.
ReplyDeleteNow it might have been worth considering originally that the EFV be the medium and then acquire an IFV; however, now that EFV is gone and the AAV is going to continue in service as far as the eye can see does the Corp need another APC and do they in fact require an IFV?
There's also the significant issue of either MPC is large enough to carry 13+ dismounts or you need more to carry a platoon. Frankly a tracked vehicle probably serves the Corp better. Wheeled armored vehicles have issues going past a certain weight where tracks become preferred.
It's also worth considering how MPC and JLTV fit into the stated intent of the Corp getting back to being centered around expeditionary operations and whether it might be better to focus on one or the other? Moreover, without EFV what happened to the IFV requirement?
depending on how this works out you might see the MPC replacing the AAV without the AAV getting a replacement.
ReplyDeletethis is all a very weird way of doing business and to be honest i think the current Commandant wants to get rid of the amphibious tractor without raising too much of a fuss. if they can make the MPC swim well it'll help him sneak it in.
@Mikey b: I know it needed to be bigger for better protection (CVRT is a little under-armoured now, but the new Mk2 makes up a fair bit of that) and more ISTAR equipment, but going from 9 to 40 tons changes deployability options radically. At present the only certain way to rapidly deploy it would be either C17 or the heavier landing craft we have. Scimitar has been so valuable because it has gone pretty much wherever we've deployed in recent years, going pretty much anywhere the infantry can/do.
ReplyDelete@Sol: FRES has been a 2 decade mess, it is damn hard to keep on top of, so dont worry about getting mixed up. Think Defence does do a damn good job of rounding it up though.
Maybe the Corp needs a memo that without forced entry from the sea it loses it's unique status reason for existence. Replacing the AAV should be the first priority and if they're willing to go with even less amphibious capability than the AAV in the MPC then I'd submit it would be very straight forward to get an AAV replacement as the long distance and high water speed requirement is clearly dead.
ReplyDeleteNow personally I always thought the underlying doctrine supporting the requirements for EFV were ridiculous in that it was too dangerous for the Gators to close to 20 miles but somehow the battle space was prepared for a beach assault. If the Gators are not going to get close enough for MPC to replace the AAV there is no reason why a better vehicle, like EFV without the high water speed requirement and the needed 2,700 hp engine, isn't being sought.
Moreover, the notion that MPC can operate everywhere is suspect. Right now the Stryker is having a lot of issues operating off road due in part to the weight issue with all the added protection.
Part of being expeditionary should be the capability to operate anywhere and in a lot of cases this means tracked not wheeled vehicles. Sadly it does look like that perhaps this simply about buying something affordable instead of meeting requirements.