The above pics are of a 1970's/early 1980's effort by Bell Corporation to give the Marine Corps an AAV with high water speed. It reminds a bit of what the Koreans are doing today with their K-21 Infantry Fighting Vehicle. But unlike the K-21 which relied on inflating pontoons to aid in buoyancy, the Bell Landing Vehicle Air Cushion sought to combine the features of the LCAC with those of the AAV.
Which really brings us back to the issue at hand. We have been lusting for a vehicle that is high speed in the water and yet capable of fighting as well as an IFV that doesn't have a requirement to be amphibious.
Is that really the way to go? We had that with the EFV and it was considered too expensive. WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN? The answer is quite simple. Nothing.
We're looking for a technological answer when we might be facing a tactical problem.
The Navy and Marines have tested deploying an LCAC with AAVs aboard from over the horizon, the LCACs making the majority of the run to the beach and then the AAVs launching from the LCACs to complete the final leg of the amphibious assault on their own power.
Whether you're talking about an ACV, AAV Upgrade OR a Marine Personnel Carrier, that concept should be explored further. An LCAC that is doing 30 knots with 3 MPC's a piece on them and then allowing those vehicles to make the last dash would be more comfortable for the Marines inside the vehicles, would lower the water requirement and would give us more robust vehicles for land warfare.
THINK TACTICS. STOP WISHING FOR TECHNOLOGY TO FINALLY CATCH UP WITH MARINE CORPS DREAMS!
Wow! That would have been a kick ass vehicle for my GI Joes back in the day!
ReplyDeleteFrom MC Ampibious Capabilities pg. 73 (Available on the web just google it.) [quote]
ReplyDeleteMaximizing lift per connector. While currently developing its design for the future MPC, the service should challenge industry to help meet the requirement for a light armor protected personnel carrier that fits within desired weight, square footage, price and protection constraints; has a swim capacity; provides robust mine, direct fire, and indirect fire protection; and fits three MPCs on each connector. There is a specific opportunity to optimize the weight of the MPC in order to maximize the number that could be placed on an existing LCAC. An MPC weight of under 49,000 pounds would enable each LCAC to carry three MPCs instead of two. This could make a critical difference in the speed with which an amphibious force would deliver and build combat power ashore. [/quote]
So yes the USMC is looking into it. What I truely question is the need for a swimming vehicle at all. Yes I know it would be nice but what is the cost in terms of money, capability, reliability and durability? The EFV was looking at a cost of 25 million per vehicle, did not mount ATGM, which are frequently used as direct fire artillery, and did so-so versus IEDs. Additionally it had a major breakdown every 40 hours of operation. A infantry company with 12 vehicles is going to suffer one break down every 2.5 hours roughly. I do not care that on paper the vehicle can swim across the water at 25 knots, if the damn thing is broke the speed is zero.
Here is what I know:
-This vehicle will have to fight on shore.
-This vehicle will strike IEDs, conventional land mines and be shot with everything from 5.45 up to ATGMs.
-This vehicle MIGHT have to do an amphibious assault. (Amphibious landings do not count.)