Its time to brutally use an ally to see what kind of deal the USMC can get when it comes to new built AAV's. The Japanese are in the market to buy AAV's and the deal they had brewing with SAMSUNG of S. Korea (who have the license rights to build them) fell through so they're looking at a US company to get the job done. That company would be BAE.
Additionally Brazil just put out that they're in the market for 24 or 36 of these vehicles.
Its time to get medival on BAE and get our armored vehicle issues solved once and for all.
Approach BAE with a wish list of modifications, improvements and armaments fits for the vehicle....get a bulk buy including the Japanese and Brazilians in the deal and there you have it.
SEALY, Texas has jobs....the USMC has its vehicles...Japan and Brazil too...and good enough but not great is satisified.
Additionally BAE has already done the leg work on this. We can have this setup for next years budget instead of playing the usual procurement games.
But is leadership smart enough to get it done? I doubt it. They're fans of process and paperwork instead of results.
Have a huge list....huge.
ReplyDeleteReally I want a ACV, a vehicle that can go toe to toe with any ifv out there. Has the ability to swim about 20 mph, ground speed in the 50s, take hits up to 30mm at 1000m. Has the ability to punch threw older series t tanks (t-60 and Hell if possible a tungsten round that could punch threw a t72). A ADA class turret that can be direct fired. Retain one of the strengths of the aav, its ability to carry large amounts of.cargo and troops. Be user AMD maintenance friendly
You'll need a 105mm to reliably kill T-62+ tanks frontally. That'll mean a big turret.
DeleteEh, the 30 for the efv was getting good penetration with its slap rounds, against 62+. Had good range and the ammo was reliable. Doesn't have to blow the turret off, as long as damage is going inside hitting the crew.
DeleteMaybe against the sides or back, but not the front.
DeleteMk 44 uses the same ammo as the Gau-8 including APFSDS-T rounds, easily punch threw the armor of a 62+, having seen the effects on the range from my own usage of the mk 44 inside the efv turret I'am confident in that statement. Like i said its not going to be a huge turret blown of kill, but if im sending slag flying side of the tank then the crew is taking hits.
DeleteThe A-10 doesn't use APFSDS and typically doesn't hit the frontal armor straight on.
DeleteA base T-62 has frontal protection of over 200mm RHAe in places. A good tungsten 30x173mm APFSDS round will only penetrate half that.
Deletethat might be asking too much. the armor requirements you're laying out would make it a poor swimmer and 20 mph on water would bring back the EFV pain. everything else seems doable though.
ReplyDeleteEh the efv was pulling 20+ with no transformation, it was the 40+ that needed the boat mode. And yah 30mm maybe asking a lot 20mm maybe more realistic but hey its nice to ask for and be told can't do it yet.
ReplyDeleteThe big thing for me is survivability. Needs to be able to be a fighting vehicle that its crew can count in to take a hit or two for them. Next come speed in the water/firepower
I still think that the AAV-7 as potential to grow...new weapon sistems like the javelin missile,the bushmaster ,and even the stinger,combine whit new strap on armor can make it competitive in the future...
ReplyDeleteThe USMC should buy more AAV-7s ,and new off the shelf armoured car(CV-90)and save the money to buy more planes(F-35s,Super Tucanos,EF-18Gs,etc)
We have plenty of AAVs trust me, whole ramps full of them. Adding improved weapon kits, and armor allow it to keep up for a little while but that's what we've been doing since the 70's. Vehicle isn't going to go any faster in the water the way it is now, just isn't, they've put three diffrent engines in the hog, and all of them go 8mph in the water. Air gets plenty, and while I deal with air as a JTAC as a former tracker I know they need the love, especially with all the prep for the Pacific again
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong but I'm fairly sure the Corp's position is going to be they want their scarce dollars going to ACV not improvements to the AAV. The trouble of course will be if ACV is another bust like EFV.
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't believe the high water speed of EFV, 28mph, is compatible with both high levels of protection and firepower. Compatible here being defined as something the Corp can afford to procure and operate.
Some compromise has to be made and if the Corp is going to get an IFV then the high water speed needs to go in favor of protection and firepower. The other compromise should be how far the Gators have to offshore. It was always a bit ridiculous that the Gators have to be far offshore, because it's not safe, yet somehow the battle space has been prepared for a beach assault. Those two notions are a tad incompatible.
If the Gators do not have to be that far offshore then the water speed requirement is far less of an issue. If the Navy's answer has anything to do with the mine threat then they need to suck it up and buy more mine warfare craft and remember not every job and ship has to be sexy.
Another option would be to keep the water speed requirement and just stick with an APC and purchase a separate IFV that isn't designed for beach assault. It's probably a better idea than buying an amphibious ACV/IFV and a separate wheeled APC (MPC). In any case the Corp is probably better served making ACV both work and be affordable and drop MPC.
aav upgrades aare part of the programming when it comes to the procurement budget...right along with the ACV and MPC.
Deletehoping that BAE does this the right way, if they are smart they sell their AAV upgrades as a counter for the MPC, using that money for the AAV's free up more funds for the ACV, which should be the main focus.
Delete