via Inside Defense.
The Marine Corps must upgrade its legacy amphibious vehicle to better protect it against the improvised explosive device threat before the Amphibious Combat Vehicle comes online in 2020, according to service officials.More equivocation. More vacillation. More bullshit.
In January 2011, after spending about $3 billion on development, the Marine Corps canceled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle due to cost overruns. That cancellation has led the service to recognize that it must increase the Assault Amphibious Vehicle's capability since it will be in the fleet until about 2030, Angelo Scarlato, project director for the upgrade, said during a May 30 interview.
The service released a request for information on May 24 for AAV force protection improvements. The government anticipates releasing a request for proposals during the fourth quarter fiscal year 2013. The RFP is expected to include a six-month contract for design with options for prototyping and low-rate initial production, according to a Federal Business Opportunities notice.
"Frankly, it's been programmed for retirement several times because of the projected original fielding of the EFV, but with the cancellation of the EFV we've mandated at this point to do more to increase the capability of the AAV," Dennis Boucher, AAV program director said during the same interview.
One of the challenges for the service is to improve the AAV's survivability against IEDs. There are roughly 1,063 AAVs in the fleet and the Marine Corps plans to upgrade about 400 of them, Scarlato said.
That number of vehicles is the requirement for a two Marine Expeditionary Brigade lift capability -- the service's forward deployable operational forces -- Marine Corps spokesman Manny Pacheco said during the same interview.
The current AAVs do have armor, but it is an applique solution that goes on the side of the vehicle to protect against direct fire weapons, Scarlato stated.
Scarlato said the service may have to conduct suspension upgrades as well because of the additional weight carried by the new armor. The armor upgrades will include underbelly armor, sponson armor and blast mitigating seats that are similar to those in a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. However, he called force protection the "heart and soul" of the AAV upgrade.
The service plans to take a single increment approach to the upgrades. Once a vehicle is selected, all of the upgrades will be completed at one time. This approach was chosen because it is the most cost effective, he said.
Scarlato said the program has conducted industry days in the past that were beneficial. The program may host another one in the future or may meet one-on-one with vendors.
From 1997 to 2007 the Marine Corps conducted the reliability, availability, maintainability return to standard (RAM RS) project on the AAV which was a temporary capability upgrade, Boucher said.
The force protection upgrades will not extend the AAV's service life but will increase its capability, he added.
The FY-14 budget request seeks $43.4 million for the Marine Corps' AAV research and development. AAV upgrades are expected to enter the acquisition cycle at milestone B during FY-14 and then begin the engineering, manufacturing and development phase. Developmental testing is planned for late FY-15, according to the program executive officer for land system's advanced technology investment plan. -- Lee Hudson
Remember the Commandant saying he would drive the Amphibious Combat Vehicle before he left office?
The bastard lied.
Remember Lima 3/25 and what happened to their AAV when it struck an IED.
ReplyDeleteI am not too sure I am sold on applique armor for counter IED protection. First you have to have a way to bolt it on, the GAO report on the EFV stated the USMC plan was apparently to have a really strong Marine crawl under the vehicle and bolt each 100lb plate to the bottom of the vehicle with just the 18 inches of ground clearance the vehicle naturally has. I would guess we will use a similar system for the AAVA2, we should just start calling it. I have not seen the data but I find it hard to believe that a blast wave is not able to penetrate joints of the applique armor. Shouldn't the shockwave push and warp the frame under the plates then penetrate?
So America with a 550 billion dollar a year defense budget plans on taking a vehicle that started production in 1972, ended production in 1982 into combat up until 2030? All this when even tiny Singapore has very capable wheeled armored fighting vehicle availabe for sale for about 2 million each.
Solomon, do you know the ACV budget for this year? I thought it was in the neighborhood of 120 million for the year?
hmmm. don't know right off what the budget for the ACV is but i'm gonna look it up. i think its a bit more than 120m though.
Deleteas far as anti-ied protection, there is really no way to do it. not unless they get some type of suspension that i've never seen before and get it about 2 or 3 feet above the ground...attaching additional belly armor is really no good too and i don't even need to point out the reasons why. let just say that the blast pressure alone coupled with the attachment points for the belly armor will add to the injuries that Marines will suffer.
I thought i had saw somewhere for the ACV, not the MPC, just the ACV that the budget for this year alone was 120 million. I want to say there was another 60-80 million for the MPC and again that is just for FY13.
ReplyDeleteYou know I just remembered that the Havoc APC does not have a V-hull. That means problems for Lockheed. If they were to build new AAVs with V-hull it would help a lot more.
ReplyDeletethey've done something weird with the hull to make it pretty strong against IEDs. the Poles took their version to Afghanistan and its done 110% better than the Strykers have. maybe 110 isn't a high enough ranking. but with all that said, it just shows that its time to move onto another vehicle.
DeleteV hull is a good anti-mine technology, the first one used and still effective, but a lot of factors are involved in mine resistance. The later the vehicle design, the more likely it is to use a variety of tools. Seating, for instance, turns out to be very important: anchoring the seats to the hull sides (better) and roof (best) can take a lot of the shock out of a mine explosion for the crew.
DeleteIt's also important to remember that IED does not necessarily equal a mine. Many are platter charges / explosively formed penetrators that go after side armor and thus are not affected by hull design.
BB1984
DeleteEFPs are the main reason why I'm for a new built AAV. I can't see this ACV surving anything bigger than a 14.5mm bullet. So what's the point when you can build a AAV with a v-hull, armor tiles for protection against 14.5mm, seats hanging from roof etc.
Solomon
I would have to get more information on the Havocs "subframe" before I could compare it to a Patria AMV with a V-hull.
the Patria AMV and the Havoc are the same vehicle...if anything the Marine Corps would be getting one thats even more heavily armored.
DeleteI know they're the same vehicle but the Havoc lacks a V-hull. I'm wondering which has better protection against IEDs, Havoc belly design, or the Patria AMV?
DeleteThere are basically three alternatives to V hull for mine resistance:
Delete- brute force, just strengthen / armor the belly plates
- a double floor: the outer layer take the blast and bends while the inner layer fights off the much reduced force that reaches it
- a layer of 'shock absorber' metal that absorbs force, much like crumple zones work for accident protection on a car
Modern vehicles that want good mine resistance but don't want the height/volume penalties of a v hull will generally use some combination of these.