if it can enter the water with those crashing waves then it can certainly drive off the back of an amphib. Royal Marines like their hybrid ops too much to ever buy a dedicated amphibious vehicle
Patria push to the limit IFV ability to swim with full combat load, about 22-23tons. Anything heavier in wheeled IFV class and you go to the Davy Jones locker, I still don't know what is the combat weight of BAE vehicle, we also saw two versions of it, the "tin" one and that "fat" one with additional... well something. I think it was displacement modules that gives swim ability for full combat load.
But still, Marines will get another taxi. Where is the version with serious punch, 25-30-40 mm cannon to support troops with something more solid then old 0.50 cal ?
Its too top heavy on land and the fire power can't touch a LAV-25. In fact its so top heavy I doubt it will ever be a good land vehicle with an armored turret.
I agree USMC needs better protection, but I'd just really rather have a ACV since its getting a real turret.
I would like to see a smaller vehicle with less troops similar to LAV-25 with more armor, but it needs GUNS.
In OIF the premium asset was armor, but OIF isn't every war and firepower is still important.
Its pretty bad when I think to myself I'd rather get the weapons on a BMP-3, with our communications and optics, than what the US military's is getting.
Has the pentagon seen the red force vehicle,..... what are they thinking. We should pull a china and copy that shit lol.
i don't mean to be disrespectful but you don't know what you're talking about. the vehicle isn't top heavy. it has high ground clearance. there is a difference. you want your vehicle to be able to survive IED attacks? then it needs to have good, no, great ground clearance. take a look at MRAPs. more specifically take a look at S. African MRAPs. they're so tall it isn't funny.
second. have you taken a good look at Russian and Chinese armor? its improving lately but even they know they're building crap. the Russians are teaming with western armor designers to get their next gen vehicle, the Boomerang because the BMP-3 has alot of weapons sticking out of it but they never get to use them because they're so easy to kill. they're trash. the only real advantage they have is that they're light enough for an airborne force to become mobile. for every other use i wouldn't set foot inside one. in that case a bad walk is better than a good ride...to hell.
last, don't get it twisted. this vehicle and others can all mount the latest and greatest weapon systems. thats the easy part. the hard part is building a vehicle that can do what the video illustrates. survive the surf, swim well, make it a good IED stopper and yet still be able to carry Marines into combat.
this vehicle accomplishes that mission. it just needs to be rebranded ACV and put into production.
Well sol, if its not top heavy, and has battles other than the war that is already over in mind I could be convinced. I watched the video super av really does swim well. There are some suspensions that have adjustable ground clearance. I'm not discrediting IED protection. But it is not the only quality required.
The traditional MRAPs had problems flipping in afghanistan. I would simply chalk that up to the mountains but eastern europe, russia, Iran, northern and central africa, PRC, USA, mexico, and canada also have mountains.
The Havok has a different shape, if you look at the super av the top half is almost twice the size.
There is the chance that there are flotation cells and part of the armor is spacial. but in order for the vehicle to NOT be top heavy it would have to have most of the armor in the bottom. rather than sharing a little of the armor weight with the front and sides where USMC also need improvement over the LAV-25.
Now if might be able to fit a 5,000 lb turret 10 feet in the air but if it cant maneuver off road well after that its not a good thing.
When I mentioned the BMP-3 I wasnt talking about the vehicle itself, I was talking about the turret with the 100 mm gun/launcher with the 5500 meter missiles versus the little .50 CROWS.
Next USMC APC should be an IFV. It should swim well. It needs to have good IED protection, to facilitate rapid maneuver. Equally important it needs front and side protection from 20 mm APDS It needs to maneuver well. at least half of the USMC APC portfolio needs to be tracked. And the wheeled version should be as maneuverable as the LAV-25. Needs a quality combat communications network. And an armored, stabilized turret with a cannon that fires something like a 30x173 mm and 2 ITOW, so it doesn't have to run and dodge like a bitch.
well said. i keep wondering why people are getting wrapped around the axle with weapons fit. thats a USMC issue. i personally lean heavily toward the APC versus IFV concept but if thats what the Corps wants then i'd bet valuable body parts that my girlfriend would miss that any number of weapons can be fitted.
this kinda reminds me of the arguments against the early Burke class destroyers. its said that Senators looked at them and wondered why they weren't bristling with weapons like the Russian ships. they were informed better and bought the system.
the same will happen with this IFV vs. APC argument. dismounts are more valuable than a 30mm cannon on a vehicle..especially when you have Javelin missiles being lugged into combat by your infantry.
Javelin is an excellent system. Im all for having that in the squad. I'm just wanting the ITOW on the turret to avoid dismounting and potentially losing a couple troops killing a tank. Wanting the 30 mm to avoid exhausting the limited ITOWS on light and medium vehicles. 30 mm ammo is a lot cheaper than TOW and Javelin missile tubes if they have to be taken out but don't have stand off antitank weapons.
Looks like it can hang ten pretty well!
ReplyDeleteLooks good butcan it dive off the rear ramp of a Newport class? :)
ReplyDeleteWe could do with a regiment's worth here to support 3 Cdo ops.
if it can enter the water with those crashing waves then it can certainly drive off the back of an amphib. Royal Marines like their hybrid ops too much to ever buy a dedicated amphibious vehicle
DeleteBetter show the fully load version, with all those kg of equipment and then we will see if it will swim so nice.
ReplyDeletei know you're a Patria AMV/Lockheed Havoc fan, and its got its good points but the BAE is a better swimmer.
DeletePatria push to the limit IFV ability to swim with full combat load, about 22-23tons. Anything heavier in wheeled IFV class and you go to the Davy Jones locker, I still don't know what is the combat weight of BAE vehicle, we also saw two versions of it, the "tin" one and that "fat" one with additional... well something. I think it was displacement modules that gives swim ability for full combat load.
DeleteBut still, Marines will get another taxi. Where is the version with serious punch, 25-30-40 mm cannon to support troops with something more solid then old 0.50 cal ?
This is what I was thinking, "Glad i go to shore on a LCAC or LCU."
ReplyDeleteHow do they keep the engine from sucking in water?
i imagine the same way they do with an AAV. that's a simple engineering problem.
DeleteI hate saying it, but I'm not sold.
ReplyDeleteIts too top heavy on land and the fire power can't touch a LAV-25. In fact its so top heavy I doubt it will ever be a good land vehicle with an armored turret.
I agree USMC needs better protection, but I'd just really rather have a ACV since its getting a real turret.
I would like to see a smaller vehicle with less troops similar to LAV-25 with more armor, but it needs GUNS.
In OIF the premium asset was armor, but OIF isn't every war and firepower is still important.
Its pretty bad when I think to myself I'd rather get the weapons on a BMP-3, with our communications and optics, than what the US military's is getting.
Has the pentagon seen the red force vehicle,..... what are they thinking. We should pull a china and copy that shit lol.
i don't mean to be disrespectful but you don't know what you're talking about. the vehicle isn't top heavy. it has high ground clearance. there is a difference. you want your vehicle to be able to survive IED attacks? then it needs to have good, no, great ground clearance. take a look at MRAPs. more specifically take a look at S. African MRAPs. they're so tall it isn't funny.
Deletesecond. have you taken a good look at Russian and Chinese armor? its improving lately but even they know they're building crap. the Russians are teaming with western armor designers to get their next gen vehicle, the Boomerang because the BMP-3 has alot of weapons sticking out of it but they never get to use them because they're so easy to kill. they're trash. the only real advantage they have is that they're light enough for an airborne force to become mobile. for every other use i wouldn't set foot inside one. in that case a bad walk is better than a good ride...to hell.
last, don't get it twisted. this vehicle and others can all mount the latest and greatest weapon systems. thats the easy part. the hard part is building a vehicle that can do what the video illustrates. survive the surf, swim well, make it a good IED stopper and yet still be able to carry Marines into combat.
this vehicle accomplishes that mission. it just needs to be rebranded ACV and put into production.
Well sol, if its not top heavy, and has battles other than the war that is already over in mind I could be convinced.
ReplyDeleteI watched the video super av really does swim well.
There are some suspensions that have adjustable ground clearance. I'm not discrediting IED protection. But it is not the only quality required.
The traditional MRAPs had problems flipping in afghanistan. I would simply chalk that up to the mountains but eastern europe, russia, Iran, northern and central africa, PRC, USA, mexico, and canada also have mountains.
The Havok has a different shape, if you look at the super av the top half is almost twice the size.
There is the chance that there are flotation cells and part of the armor is spacial. but in order for the vehicle to NOT be top heavy it would have to have most of the armor in the bottom. rather than sharing a little of the armor weight with the front and sides where USMC also need improvement over the LAV-25.
Now if might be able to fit a 5,000 lb turret 10 feet in the air but if it cant maneuver off road well after that its not a good thing.
When I mentioned the BMP-3 I wasnt talking about the vehicle itself, I was talking about the turret with the 100 mm gun/launcher with the 5500 meter missiles versus the little .50 CROWS.
Next USMC APC should be an IFV.
It should swim well.
It needs to have good IED protection, to facilitate rapid maneuver. Equally important it needs front and side protection from 20 mm APDS
It needs to maneuver well. at least half of the USMC APC portfolio needs to be tracked. And the wheeled version should be as maneuverable as the LAV-25.
Needs a quality combat communications network.
And an armored, stabilized turret with a cannon that fires something like a 30x173 mm and 2 ITOW, so it doesn't have to run and dodge like a bitch.
Regards "top heavy":
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the weight in the vehicle is below the midpoint - drivetrain, wheels, gears, engine, etc.
Don't mistake the volume of the upper section for weight. If it were actually top heavy, it would capsize.
well said. i keep wondering why people are getting wrapped around the axle with weapons fit. thats a USMC issue. i personally lean heavily toward the APC versus IFV concept but if thats what the Corps wants then i'd bet valuable body parts that my girlfriend would miss that any number of weapons can be fitted.
Deletethis kinda reminds me of the arguments against the early Burke class destroyers. its said that Senators looked at them and wondered why they weren't bristling with weapons like the Russian ships. they were informed better and bought the system.
the same will happen with this IFV vs. APC argument. dismounts are more valuable than a 30mm cannon on a vehicle..especially when you have Javelin missiles being lugged into combat by your infantry.
Javelin is an excellent system. Im all for having that in the squad.
DeleteI'm just wanting the ITOW on the turret to avoid dismounting and potentially losing a couple troops killing a tank.
Wanting the 30 mm to avoid exhausting the limited ITOWS on light and medium vehicles. 30 mm ammo is a lot cheaper than TOW and Javelin missile tubes if they have to be taken out but don't have stand off antitank weapons.