My source deep inside the workings of General Dynamics (stay safe buddy...they're paranoid) is telling me that they're going with a derivative of their LAV II Technology Demonstrator.
Interesting but it may all be academic.
The MPC
The Marine Corps hasn't.
Why?
Because the Marine Corps historically chops boat spaces first and equipment last.
You haven't heard a Marine General Officer speak on sequestration because the first move will be to reduce the ranks. (Read a Marine Corps Times article on it here...no info on the Marines is given) If it hits as hard as some indicate I would expect at least 10,000 Marines released from their contracts for the good of the service before the end of the fiscal year.
Once they get around to equipment what do you think will be first? The F-35 is protected. The MV-22 is the Marine Corps pet. The JLTV is a joint project with the Army and we're committed to buying the first 5000. That leaves Marine Corps specific programs. The MPC. The ACV. The CH-53K.
If it hits and if it sticks the Marine Corps might not seen any of those projects reach the fleet.
If I had to pick, I would chose the MPC to be terminated. Marines need acv since the aav is a total piece of shit like the bradley, a aluminum tin can. Put a 30mm on the LAV-25, modify it with a v-hull, remote control turret, armor and engine upgrade, maybe a new suspension. Lav can wait 10 to 15 years for replacement. I think the MV-22 really screwed everything up for the marine helo fleet. Having two transport helos is not needed. That money could of gone to ch-53 and other programs more important like acv,mps, etc.
ReplyDeletewell quite honestly the MPC brings the old Marine Corps thinking forward...i'm working on a post for it now.
DeleteHow many infantrymen can be carried inside LAV? I am not buying into the ideal of a dedicated armored personal carrier. But if the corps insists on having one, remove the gun turret from LAV and you have a 80% solution MPC.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, that's what I'm suggesting. The lav-25 is for recon, not carrying a squad of marines. MPC doesn't make sense anymore. Maybe they should get a new 6x6 apc.
DeleteYou guys are going to hate me. But I think MPC is a good idea. I mean when I was in the grunts we used to be divided into 3 companies. Helo, boat and track. Wich meant if we did an amphibious assault tracks would lead in follow shortly by us in helos then the boat guys would helo in or go on LCU's or LCACs.
ReplyDeleteAfter that we hoofed it or trucked it. I don't see AAV's assaulting and taking any kind of fortification with a MK19 and a 50cal. Wich means either CAS or landing a tank on an LCACs. So think getting us Mechanized will allow us to exploit mobility. Than waiting for an AAV that's can fight anything besides light infantry.
MPC beats loading a squad into a 5ton truck and having those be the base of our mobility inland.
i agree with ya and i'm still working on a piece but i'm having trouble pulling it together.
DeleteAmericanMarine, I hate you already ha ha. If the corp. get acv and mpc, then they should cancel the puchase of jltv since they're in a budget crisis here. LAV-25 Upgrade with a remote controlled turret would free space for at least two extra marines. That means two lav-25 could carry a re-enforced rifle squad of 17 marines. Give ACV a auto cannon and your good to go on fortifications. Our Marines are fortunate enough to get main battle tanks, some countries have nothing more than light armored vehicles.
Delete