Having said all that, the need to swim from ship to shore...provide a crew station for the senior troop commander that provides observation points without electronics, the ability to mount a current or projected Marine Corps weapon that allows direct fire support for 1000 meter assault....
I think we'll see this project winnow down to just a couple of companies rather quickly. But read it for yourself below...
MPCAnnexA
Thanks for posting that as it confirms that the MPC company will have roughly twice as many MPC's as compared to an AAV company. It was specifically mentioned that MPC is "complimentary" in carrying 9 Marines vs 17 in an AAV.
ReplyDeleteIt'll be interesting to see if 6 MPC's are normally assigned to carry a platoon as that's a max capacity of 54? Moreover, exactly how will the platoon be broken down for transport aboard 6 MPC's?
yeah but it keeps bringing me back to some interesting questions. will the MPC require more tankers? if so are we on the verge of have less volume now than weight when it comes to our amphibs? think about it....it will take twice as many MPC's to move the same number of Marines across the beach. the engines are suppose to be complimentary so we'll be looking at
ReplyDeletei guess what i'm saying is that it almost appears that a new built AAV might be a better bargain.
I'd suggest the whole thing hasn't been properly conceptualized. The present AAV is an APC as is the MPC. The AAV replacement (EFV) was supposed to be an IFV, carry 17 Marines, and meet a very high water speed requirement that required it water plane and thus have a 2,700hp engine. The MPC as compared to EFV was seen as an infantry carrier (APC) to complement EFV.
ReplyDeleteUntil we see what the new ACV looks like it's not at all clear MPC is required. How about a comparative analysis of two MPC's vs one ACV equipped as an APC not an IFV?
The entire original notion of having a heavy, medium, and light infantry carrier (EFV, MPC, and JLTV) seemed odd and entirely as a response to not being able to afford enough EFVs.
The thing that actually concerns me the most is the natural pressure when operating a 9 man infantry carrier to go to a 9 man squad. MPC carrying 9 makes a lot less sense for the Corp than other organizations that use a 9 man squad. In the US Army's case moving to the 9 man squad in a new IFV is a big improvement from the current Bradley platoon.
I'd rather see ACV finalized before decisions are made on MPC. Otherwise there's going to be too much pressure to just cut ACV and use the "cheaper" MPC, even though twice as many are needed.