You have to wonder how wedded the Marine Corps and Army is to the JLTV program in light of budget pressures. If its a choice for the Army between the GCV or AMPV will the JLTV live? How about the AAV or MPC for the Marines?
This will be interesting...especially with SOCOM set to select a new vehicle this month.
Its time for the Army to cancel the GCV program and pick a alternative vehicle. Its a 30+ billion dollar program, and 13 million per vehicle. A CV-90 variant is perfect, the Army is wasting its time and money. The M-113 is far to old/vulnerable and needs replacement, along with death trap Humvees. They're about to cancel the carbine replacement competition which is pathetic since the Army has canceled several M-16/4 replacement programs. What if the Marines put a lightweight 120mm cannon on a ACV to replace the Abrams. It could keep costs down and they would be able to keep both ACV and MPC. I can't see a JLTV being very useful for beach landings. Lets let the Army do the patrols in JLTV type vehicles while Marines stick to they're main role, being naval infantry.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, a 120mm gun on a wheeled system is stupid. 2. The GCV only carries 8 men, the gcv carries 9. The cv90 has the NIH problem. Plus, the first time your glass can n adv runs into a tank or a modern at missile, it becomes a rolling coffin. As for the M4 replacement, the army just needs to wait a few years until the LSAT caseless rifle is ready.
DeleteI said a 120mm on ACV which is tracked. " The GCV only carries 8 men, the gcv carries 9" you make no sense. NIH Test? " glass can n adv?" Speak English. The Army doesn't seem to be serious about a M4 replacement, so what makes you think the LSAT rifle will make a difference?
DeleteGod... It's ugly.
ReplyDeleteAnd not the "A-10 badass ugly". More just "ugly ugly."
Over a couple of months later and my car is still running perfectly. I would absolutely recommend active automatic transmissions to anyone! Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology
ReplyDelete