"We will have a vehicle before I leave office."
You're running out of time Commandant.
The same issues that doomed the EFV seem to be dooming the ACV...
*Lack of urgency on the part of Marine Corps Acquisitions Officials...
*A mindset that the AAV is good enough...
*Other priorities....
The problem is quite simply this. The AAV is as old as dinosaur bones. Its beyond time to get it replaced, and yet the US Army is showing more urgency, and is being more tenacious when it comes to replacing the Bradley IFV which is practically new when compared to the Marine's vehicle.
Since the AAV has been in service the US Army has fielded the following vehicles....
 |
| Ok, this is the Australian version of the M-113 but you get the point. The Army introduced this vehicle during the Vietnam War... |
 |
| The Bradley IFV...the current US Army Chief of Staff is not a fan of this vehicle. As a matter of fact he pretty much damned it, but if the truth be known it has performed quite well, has excellent off road agility and has outstanding firepower. They could have product improved this IFV but are choosing not to. |
 |
| The Stryker. I'm not as sold on this vehicle as the US Army is but they're selling the future of the Army on the capabilities...and weaknesses it has. Its all rather immaterial though. The GCV might end up relegating this vehicle to state side use. |
Three combat vehicles.
The US Army has done it and is now working on its next generation replacements for the Bradley and the M-113. Oh and don't be confused...they're two different programs.
While the US Marines can't get the AAV replacement off the ground.
Disgraceful!
While I tend to agree with you here it's a bit over the top. The AAV-7 came out in 1972 or ten years after the M113. The Corp did design a replacement that met all requirements. The problem of course were the requirements were so high the EFV was not affordable and some would also argue too complex impacting reliability.
ReplyDeleteI'd equate the M113 as simply an evolution of the M59 which came into service in 1954 and thus more a contemporary of the LVT-5 which got into service in 1956. Indeed both the M113 and LVT-5 trace development directly from vehicles produced during WWII. The M59 being derived from the M75 itself being produced as a squad carrying response to the far larger M44 developed during WWII.
The AAV-7 came out ten years after the M113 and about ten years before the Bradley so I'd compare it to the German Marder which got into service the year before. Germany is just starting to replace the Marder today.
If the requirements for the EFV had either dropped the requirement to be an IFV or had dropped the high water speed requirement it's pretty clear the Corp would have an AAV-7 replacement well in hand.
It's not as if the US Army didn't totally screw up the initial Bradley replacement program either. In fact since that program was supposed to replace almost everything I'd argue FCS was a far bigger screw up than EFV, by an order of magnitude. Both services are thus now trying to get it right the 2nd time around.
Interestingly the solicitation for ACV actually says the desired high water speed is an "ideal" that might not be "affordable" so it appears the Corp is making more realistic requirements. They appear to be asking for either a cheaper and more reliable EFV or an EFV that's slower. The addendum I believe specified 8+ knots water speed.