Marines.mil.
Marines in the infantry and Assault Amphibious Vehicle communities can provide valuable insight into the requirements for the next Amphibious Combat Vehicle, said Dr. John Burrow, executive director for Marine Corps Systems Command and director of the Marine Corps ACV team.Really?
The ACV team was established in January in response to a tasking from the commandant of the Marine Corps and the assistant secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, Burrow said. Their mission is to evaluate the contributions of high water speed and the feasibility of building an affordable, survivable amphibious high water speed vehicle.
The team includes representatives from MCSC; Combat Development and Integration; Plans, Policies and Operations; Programs and Resources Department; Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity; Program Executive Officer-Land Systems; and various other commands within the Department of Defense.
About 25 Marines gathered July 9-11 at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., to “rack and stack” capabilities that will help shape the ACV team’s analysis for a new high water speed vehicle. Of 198 requirements evaluated for the ACV, about 30 were deemed “tradable”—capabilities with multiple cost and weight implications—following the team’s initial requirements and engineering analysis.
During the three-day ACV Warfighter Requirements Workshop, the Marines reviewed the tradable requirements to determine the value they place on various capabilities that may be included in the vehicle.
“The purpose of the workshop was to gain the insight and experience of operators from the fleet about how they employ amphibious vehicles in an operational environment,” said Maj. Lynn Berendsen, branch head for Amphibious Combat Vehicles at MCOTEA. “The group includes Marine sergeants up to battalion commanders. We wanted a wide perspective of people who have been involved with amphibious vehicles in the past and will most likely be intimately involved with the next amphibious vehicle.”
Seriously?
Witness the definition of a clusterfuck. We've been developing this thing for how long and NOW THEY WANT INPUT FROM THE INFANTRY AND TRACK COMMUNITY?
Just fire all these bastards now. They're more concerned with the image of doing something than they are with actually getting a vehicle built.
I think everyone needs to reread first to fight and story of how the Higgins boat and the LVT came into existence.
ReplyDeleteOr the LCU-F...
DeleteIn light of growing shore-defense capability, why are we still talking about "high water speed" ?
ReplyDeleteWhich ARG-Commander will allow the flotilla so close to shore that individual ACVs would disembark from the amphibs ?
A low-cost/large-quantity direct modern-equivalent successor to 7kts AAV7 will suffice to ford rivers, lakes, tidal creeks, estuaries.
EFV never had any tactical 'legs' with its high-speed still-too-short water-range forcing the ARG too close inshore. Techno-happy but pointless since dangerous concept, taking too long and 3 Billion Dollars to die. For that, you likely could have had all the 90+ LCU-Fs - plus many AAV-8 for that !
OTH-far-enough will never again allow slow and inadequate numbers of Connectors to force mad inshore-presence 'doctrine' upon the Navy, risking very expensive hardware to address conceptual failures getting the heavy-weight GCE-assets to shore.
So, go cheap-&-plenty on the AAV-8 and let the Navy haul everything to the shore.