Monday, November 05, 2012

General Dynamics Amphibious Combat Vehicle meets IED blast requirements.

via GD.

General Dynamics Amphibious Combat Vehicle Hull Design Meets Marine Corps’ Survivability Requirement
Successful mine-blast test confirms hull design’s lifesaving characteristics.STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. – General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), recently conducted simulated mine-blast tests that confirmed the ability of its Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) ballistic hull design to meet the U.S. Marine Corps’ current ACV mine-blast survivability requirements.
Funded through General Dynamics’ internal research and development initiatives, the tests were conducted by National Technical Systems, Inc., at the National Ordnance and Ballistic Test Center in Camden, Ark. The successful tests simulated an underbelly mine-blast event on the forward and aft sections of the General Dynamics ACV ballistic hull.
The tests confirmed that General Dynamics’ hull design meets the Marine Corps’ ACV survivability requirement and provided an early assessment of the unprecedented level of protection against threshold and objective threat levels that the new hull design will provide to the Marines Corps.
“General Dynamics Land Systems continues to invest in support of the U.S. Marine Corps’ development efforts toward a modern Amphibious Combat Vehicle,” said Michael Bolon, senior vice president, Marine and Navy sector at General Dynamics Land Systems. “The successful results of these company-funded tests reinforce our confidence in our ability to deliver a low-risk Amphibious Combat Vehicle solution with mature and affordable technology, drawing on the industry’s broadest base of amphibious combat vehicle knowledge and experience to deliver solutions that meet the Marine Corps’ requirements.”

In addition to evidence of the hull design’s survivability characteristics, this test also provides empirical data to correlate survivability models that will be used to refine and confirm performance of the General Dynamics’ hull design, which will also be tested by the government under the ACV Hull Survivability Demonstrator contract.
“This testing is critical for General Dynamics,” said Bolon. “We are committed to providing a successful long-term, balanced and affordable solution, and the information we’ve gathered enhances our ability to do so.”
The ACV Hull Survivability Demonstrator contract, awarded in August 2012, is for the design, fabrication and test support of a full-scale hull to demonstrate crew-protection technologies. Work will conclude by May 2013 and will be used to refine ACV requirements for effective protection against threats from under-vehicle blasts and fragmentation devices.
Hmmm.  Interesting.  But the canary in the coal mine is the AAV upgrade program.  If improvements to that vehicle can be made that improve that vehicle enough to be adequate then the ACV and the MPC are both in trouble.

3 comments :

  1. excuse me if im pissed of by this. But you gotta be SH*%N me.

    “We are committed to providing a successful long-term, balanced and affordable solution, and the information we’ve gathered enhances our ability to do so.” F yourself General Dynamics. Your a BIG reason why amtracks dont have a new vehicle now! you mismanaged a program, took MILLIONS! from the Marine Corps, and gave us nothing in return...while setting yourself up to be ahead of the competition when the ACV starts. All your going to do is take the EFV, and remodel it. YOUR welcome for having a leg up on the competition on the Marine Corps dime. Why your even allowed to be a part of this i will never know. You disgust me as a company, thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  2. oh you're totally right. GD butt fucked the Marine Corps on the EFV...but i wonder what they have cooking for the ACV. it won't plane so i wonder if that hull form is still effective. if it is effective and they're just adding conventional water jets then i wonder why the Marines just didn't push through with that option. either way GD has a long way to go to get back in the good graces of not only the Marines but also the Army.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Both you guys have your head up your asses. With colocation the Marine Corps knew everything that GD did and how much the EFC cost. Maybe we should look internal to the Corps to find out why the EFV did succeed-like not spending the money needed to conduct a reliability program early in development

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.