Take a good look at the pics above. What you're looking at is the interior of the AAV. Make note too that old skool vehicles even had a "row" between the exterior seating to jam even more Marines inside the vehicle.
For the devil pups out there, this is why your Drill Instructors always pushed as many of you into as tight a space as possible. I've heard, and definitely don't know if its true but supposedly upwards of 50 people were transported in these vehicles in emergency situations.
But back on task. Did you notice something else? The current seating is totally inadequate when it comes to dealing with current threats. Yeah it has add on side armor but do you see a spall lining in these vehicles? Talking about seating, you don't see seats suspended from the ceiling that would help lessen G-forces in case of an IED blast. You don't see designed storage.
What you do see is a vehicle that was designed in the 1960's with that generations design concepts.
Driving a 1960 Mustang might be awesome as hell (especially if its cherry....) but when you do that with armored vehicles its something else entirely. Now check out the pics below.
Thats the interior of the FNSS Pars 8x8 recently put into service for the Malaysian Army.
Notice the difference?
Yeah.
Replacing Marine Corps armor is a big deal and long past due. I want the Marine Corps to be cost effective for the United States people, but at the same time I want our Marines to have the tools they need to win.
If tiny, backwards Malaysia can see the need to upgrade their armored forces then why can't the USMC?
Note: I'm getting the impression that the MPC/ACV decision is once again being kicked down the road. Meanwhile we also have the AAV upgrade in limbo. Marines are facing the prospect of once again utilizing MTVRs as infantry carriers if they go ashore. That's unsat.
I can't see a big difference between AAV and FNSS Pars 8x8 seating. Both seats are fixed to the wall.
ReplyDeletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/FNSS_Pars_arka_gorunum.JPG
These seats are fixed to the ceiling:
http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/puma8.jpg
http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/puma11.jpg
These seats even have airbags:
http://www.artec-boxer.com/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=uploads%2Fpics%2FBild_10.jpg&md5=0ddf99d857168134c750c89d88e35d53f2d2b3fd¶meters[0]=YTo0OntzOjU6IndpZHRoIjtzOjQ6IjgwMG0iO3M6NjoiaGVpZ2h0IjtzOjQ6IjYw¶meters[1]=MG0iO3M6NzoiYm9keVRhZyI7czo0MToiPGJvZHkgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbjowOyBi¶meters[2]=YWNrZ3JvdW5kOiNmZmY7Ij4iO3M6NDoid3JhcCI7czozNzoiPGEgaHJlZj0iamF2¶meters[3]=YXNjcmlwdDpjbG9zZSgpOyI%2BIHwgPC9hPiI7fQ%3D%3D
FNSS has been working on the PARS design for quite awhile. you can find pics of anything but the option given to the Malaysian Army are suspended from the ceiling and are designed to mitigate G-forces from IED blasts.
Deleteadditionally you can find all sorts of stuff out there. thats' not the point (but on a side note what idiot would design airbags into a combat vehicle that will get all kinds of shocks and bumps that might accidentally deploy the system, not to mention the added costs of having to replace them every few years....)
the point though is bigger than the nitpicking you're doing. i'm talking about the need to upgrade USMC armor.
save the rest of it for a different topic.
Then you've never been in the back of a moving amtrack. You dont just sit and relax, you fight to stay in your seat and hope you dont get bucked.
DeleteThe PARS is far superior in ever way in the back save one, and its the one thing ive always loved about the AAV; There is always room for more. But that thinking cost lives, injures people and most importantly drains on the people in the back because they cant relax. In Iraq tracks would remove the deck plates and fill the bottom with sand bags to try and lessen the impact of IED's and Mines. no Spalling protection, but with EAKK you get some stand off but not much. All in All the AAVP7A1 is a product of the 1970's and needs to be replaced, i have a list of upgrades that would make it competitive to a point but still, its way past time for it to be replaced.
Solomon
ReplyDeleteMalaysia isn't a tiny, backwards country. It is a large country with a booming economy thanks to Singapore, and has a GDP per capita in excess of $10,000. So it is no surprise that Malaysia can afford nice weapons.
And this FNSS Pars 8x8 from Turkey illustrates my previous point of ground combat market being much more competitive with many vendors from around the world. Thus the Marine Personnel Carrier would have faced a much tougher competition in the Asian market, even if it wasn't delayed indefinitely by the latest budget.
I WAS SPEAKING MILITARILY DUMBFUCK, NOT ECONOMICALLY!
Deleteadditionally did you know that BAE works with FNSS?
get a clue bitch.
Solomon
Delete> I WAS SPEAKING MILITARILY DUMBFUCK, NOT ECONOMICALLY!
Military is intrinsically tied with economy. Weak economy = no money to spend on military, as you are painfully witnessing right before your eyes with the US military.
> additionally did you know that BAE works with FNSS?
That does not change the fact that FNSS is a Turkish company offering a Turkish manufactured product, and the Pars 8x8 looks nice.
> get a clue bitch.
Wow, that's uncalled for. What has gotten into you?
Sol sort of agree with Slow, that was really an over reaction. You alright or is there something stressful going on these few days?
DeleteYou keep asking yourselves, why second rated countries like Malaysia or Poland could afford and successfully equipped their troops with state of the art armor vehicles while US military failed miserably? The answer is actually simple. These countries buy OTS solutions while US insists on developing new solution from scratch. We all know by now, DoD is incapable of program managing complex weapon systems under budget and schedule. Why not eat your pride and go with an existing solution, maybe tweaked the design a little to match your requirement better. But don’t try to reinvent wheel.
ReplyDeletethats so false it hurts.
Deletethe US Army's GCV program brought the German Puma, the Israeli Namer, the BAE CV90 and other vehicles to see if they met specs. additionally the MPC brought in the Patria AMV, the SuperAV (Italian), the Singapore Kinetics offering (forgot the name)....only GD is doing something different and we don't know if its just a modified off the shelf item or not.
lastly you can look at the US Army's Stryker. pure dee 100% off the shelf except for the MGS.
so please stow the anti-Americanism.
adaptus primus
DeleteTwo reasons
1. Lack of funding. Can't do anything without money, and money is hard to come by these days.
2. Too much customization.
Agree on the customization step, lots of projects seem to hit this step, go into skyrocketing costs and overruns and get cancelled. The US does do OTS, but somehow the customization to in service step seems to jam. Pity.
DeleteStryker is a good example. Ironically it was successful only because it's OTS. All other combat vehicle programs failed. FCS, Crusader, EFV, GCV, you name it. If Puma was selected for GCV, that program will be alive today. But the army officials wanted something new and better, they end up with a 80-ton IFV requirement and it went downhill ever since. The other burning issue is requirement engineering. You have to set your requirements realistic and reasonable. Not based on some science fiction fantasy. Puma is good enough for Bundeswehr, but not good enough for US Army? I don’t buy it.
ReplyDeleteThe GD Stryker is nowhere near to be MOTS.
DeleteThe Swiss MOWAG http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenpanzer_93 is a less than 14 tonnes APC while Stryker is a 24 tonnes inanity. Swiss cart tracks are far better than most highways in Iraq or Afghanistan.
who builds the MOWAG? i mean really? seriously? come on man!
Deleteits just a LAV-25 with a RWS and stretched a bit.....dang dude. MOWAG is under teh General Dynamics banner and has been for quite awhile now.
DeleteMOWAG is the company that built the original "Radschützenpanzer 93" (Wheeled IFV 1993) years before MOWAG was bought by General Dynamics 2003.
DeleteMOWAG developed
1972: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOWAG_Piranha_6x6_IB (9 t)
1974: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOWAG_Piranha_4x4_IB (6.6 t)
and
1994: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOWAG_Piranha_IIIC_10x10 (18 t)
For good reason MOWAG tried to keep the weight below 4 t per axle.
GD'S power point rangers sold an overweight vehicle.
Btw. in 1981 MOWAG designed an 22 t version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowag_Shark
with far better suspension system.
We should have a fully modernized army with Puma IFV and PzH2000 mobile cannon. But we don’t, only because army had to have some new toys invented here. They were given many opportunities, but each time they dropped the ball. The failures are beyond comprehension. Marine’s situation is different, I realize that. Not a whole lot nations need amphib combat vehicles, OTS options may not exist. But again, the same pattern of mistakes is inexcusable. Unrealistic performance parameter and constantly changing requirement list killed that program.
ReplyDeletedo you know what the US Army was trying to achieve with the GCV program? i do because i wanted to see some of the tech that they were working on migrate to USMC vehicles.
Delete1. they wanted IED blast protection that protected troops in IFVs as well as dedicated MRAPs. NO SMALL FEAT!
2. they wanted hybrid engine technology to provide power for increased electronics AND increased fuel economy. I ESPECIALLY LIKE THIS! the most vulnerable part of the invasion of Iraq was the supply lines. if you could cut down on the number of trucks needed to keep your assault moving then that was a win. additionally if you can power all the Ipads, notebooks and cellphones from your vehicle...and also have enough power to maintain watch at night with your devices then thats a plus....and it also cuts down on the number of batteries i have to stow in my rucksack. ANOTHER BIG WIN!
3. if that wasn't enough they wanted the vehicle to still be as mobile as a M1Abrams cross country, they wanted it capable of defeating other IFVs on the battlefield (which means that soft targets would be no mproblem)
in other words, none of the vehicles you mention were satsifactory for that program!
the NAMER came closest but i seriously doubt that it met the function of providing MRAP type protection. the Namer? quite honestly its just a rehashed and modernized Bradley.
i don't know why people are so enthused about that vehicle. the CV90 is more impressive in my opinion.
The million dollar question really is if a vehicle can practically combine all the functions Sol mentioned without turning into the Maus Mk II. And with the price tag of a small destroyer. Cutting edge increases costs and increases the chances of a failed project. Sometimes, good enough may not be sexy, but it can win wars.
DeleteThink Germany in WWII, they made the Cadillac of all tanks in the world then, but they still lost to mass produced allied tanks that went up in smoke in a single hit. (Think the Sherman was popularly called Ronson after the lighter by german tankers. "Lights first time, every time". Painful if you were a tanker.)
Maybe the US should aim a bit lower in their desires. Sure, the end product may not be sexy, but armies don't need sexy, they need efficient, effective and everywhere.
Well, if you set your goal too high. You get 80 ton gross weight (GCV) and 17 million $ per unit (EFV), you are destined for failures. Role #1, low your expectation, seek 80% or even 70% solution instead a perfect solution. GCV was on shaky ground to begin with because the army leadership set the goal too high. And guess what? Now they are publically stating they are willing to trade protection for mobility, using speed instead of armor to defeat future threats. No more insistence of MRAP level defense against IED attack. What the hell? If that’s the case, Puma is the perfect candidate. CV90 is a good choice too.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest cutting back on IED protection requirement to save money. There aren't going to be Islamic insurgents laying IEDs around in the US's next war in Asia Pacific, unless the US DoD foresees a Iraq-style invasion and occupation of Iran, which I can't see.
DeleteJust keep the weight down and a lot of problems are solved.
Indonesia. Muslim extremist have been using IEDs. Philippines. Muslim extremist have been using IEDs. even reports are that they've used IED in China and Russia.
Deletethe Pacific is full of threats from IEDs.
Solomon
DeleteNow, why would the US invade and occupy Indonesia and Philippines? There is no place in Asia Pacific where the US needs to occupy and rebuild a country for a prolonged period(Not even in North Korea. Not even those brain washed North Koreans would not be wearing bomb jackets and shout "Long Live Grand Marshal Kim Jong Un!" before blowing themselves up if the 30,000 North Korean defectors are any indications), so all the threats are contained during the initial military operations phase, then the control is handed over to the respective sovereign government.
It will be sort of quick jump-in, hand it over to a friendly government, then get out kinds of operations. IED would not be the US's problem. Thus there is no need to build 80 ton vehicles for IED protection when the US won't be doing "occupation and nation building while battling Islamic insurgents" things anymore.
As for the IED protection of US troops inside "China", now that's basically a World War III we are talking about, probably a nuclear war too.
Deleteyour ability to clearly see the future is nothing short of amazing ... AND ANNOYING. you don't know what the future holds but i can tell you this.
DeleteUS forces will be going back to the Philippines. they will be training on those islands and they will be targets of Muslim Terrorists.
those soldiers will be in vehicles that are not IED resistant and IEDs are the weapons of choice for those people.
the same applies for Indonesia. we won't have bases there but we will conduct training there and they are seeking closer relations with the US. the same threat is present. and thats from what is obvious.
we don't know what we don't know.
if N. Korea collapses whose to say that Terrorist from Russia won't seek to rush in and set up a toe hold? who's to say that we won't see more combat in the Middle East? what about Africa? we might want to pivot to the Pacific but the enemy gets a say. current events get a say. so yeah.
the US Army needs a transport that is IED resistant.
the statement that I was responding to was you saying that there weren't any Muslim extremist in the Pacific.
DeleteI proved you wrong .... just roll with it cowboy.
Solomon
ReplyDelete> US forces will be going back to the Philippines. they will be training on those islands and they will be targets of Muslim Terrorists.
The US presence in Philippines will be against "external threats" based on air and naval power, not ground forces. The US is not responsible for muslim separatists and the Filipino government must deal with muslim separatist elements itself.
> those soldiers will be in vehicles that are not IED resistant and IEDs are the weapons of choice for those people.
Filipino troops, yes. American troops, no. American troops opening fire on Filipino citizens in Philippines would be politically unacceptable unless the US bases are attacked somehow. But for defending US bases you don't need heavy ground combat vehicles.
> the same applies for Indonesia. we won't have bases there but we will conduct training there and they are seeking closer relations with the US. the same threat is present.
But the US won't conduct any military operations on Indonesian soil.
> if N. Korea collapses whose to say that Terrorist from Russia won't seek to rush in and set up a toe hold?
North Korea would be under the ROK occupation so no need for the US to worry about the aftermath of the regime collapse and occupation.
> who's to say that we won't see more combat in the Middle East?
I am pretty certain that there won't be another Iraq-style "Invade and Occupy" military operation in the Middle East; the US can't afford it and the public resistance for another war is just too high. Air strikes, and V-22 special ops, yes. A full scale invasion, hell no.
> what about Africa?
Leave Africa to the French and the Africa Union..
> the US Army needs a transport that is IED resistant.
Deleting this requirement would make vehicles weigh half as much and save tens of billions of dollars. Heck, it would even be possible to buy the GCV wiinner off the shelf at under $4 million a copy
> the statement that I was responding to was you saying that there weren't any Muslim extremist in the Pacific.
There is no muslim terrorist group or an Islamic terror sponsoring nation that the US needs to battle in Asia Pacific. Should there be another 911 by an Islamic terrorist group based in Indonesia, you bet the US would get a full cooperation from the Indonesian government in hunting them down. Heck, the Indonesian government would probably arrest the suspects themselves and hand them over within 72 hours.
The only case a US would need IED-resistant vehicles is the invasion of Iran. But that's the path the US must not go down.
Isn't the US training the detachment 88 folks in their fight against the Jemaah Islamiyah group?
DeleteLikewise, aren't US advisors active in the Southern Philippines and at times 'assisting' via gunfire?
I think we need to ask what is an IED? IN olden times, they were called landmines. We can't plan resistance to every kind of IED. Some of them were mortar rounds, others were 250kg buried deep
ReplyDeleteWhat is the average size of an IED that resulted in US casualties? How often did we encounter these?
Most new vehicles like Puma and CV90 have a 10kg AT mine protection.
A popular IED for the Japanese was an artillery round buried in a hole with a highly motivated and well disciplined Japanese soldier and a hammer.
DeleteThe IED that US forces were taught long ago was a 40 lb cratering charge facing upside down in the path of enemy vehicles.
Also the infamous bolo bomb consisting of a long rope and two satchel charges, one charge is thrown over the turret to hang off one side while the other is primed and left hanging on the near side.
I have read where some IEDs were up to 500 lb bomb size and used to kill individual infantry in Vietnam, or as simple as a toe popping Elsie mine.
IED is just a new name for booby trap or infernal device of the civil war.
Sol, I read your blog daily. I must however correct some misconception about Indonesia. Contrary to your views, it's not riddled with bearded muslim extremists just itching to blow themselves up in return for paradise. The last "terror" related news I could remember was some months ago someone left a pipe bomb in front of a small restaurant (a "warteg" as we call it here) and they had to get the police EOD squad on the scene. And months back (way back) a grenade was evidently thrown and exploded at the front door of a home of some businessman. All evidence points to business rival/feud gone violent. That's pretty much it. The last uprising we had was in Aceh, but with our current provincial autonomy laws, there should not be any valid reason for uprisings anymore. The people *directly* elect their leaders -- from our President, down to municipal/township level. We are arguable the most democratic country in the world don't you say? We just don't try to export our democracy and values to the rest of the world by means of violence. The only hotspot we have, if you could call it that, is in West Papua where foreign-backed savage separatists are disturbing the peace by gunning down civilians and police officers. Our current problem is natural disaster management, and traffic jams.
ReplyDeleteOh and IEDs, they're just mines. It's improvised because they're perpetrated by non-state actors. If the locals of a country you're supposed to help are trying to kill you, you're doing something really really wrong.
Kevin, I do agree that Indonesia is not as riddled as terrorists as Sol makes it sounds, but to assume all locals are so accommodating is a bit risky. Every population has a wide distribution of people and the extreme nutters might only be even less than 0.1% of a population, but at 10 million people, that's still 10,000 people.
DeleteOn a practical note, you don't really need MRAPs for Indonesia, we (Singapore) did INTERFET in LSVs, but that really does depend on threat level, and the threat level at that time was moderate gunfire risk, low IED risk.
I sort of see a need for a dual tier vehicle acquisition. MBTs and fairly armoured IFVs for conventional head to head confrontation with strong resistance to direct fire but not much mine protection and a tier of post-invasion COIN vehicles resistant to 0.5cal fire (insurgents seldom have anything 20mm+) and mine protected.
On a more /facepalm note, Kevin, you got any idea why at this time when the world is on an anti-terrorist kick, your leaders got the brainstorm of naming a warship after 2 bombers. Sure I know that you guys say they are heroes, but isn't the timing rather terrible for it? Maybe in another 20-30 years when the world finds something else to go stupid over (and those that really care are 6 feet underground), it's going to be ok to use that name, but now, it's not exactly the smartest thing to do, makes Indonesia look like a terrorism supporter, and that will hurt Indonesia's rep.
Not that Singapore doesn't over react too, the airshow invites cancellation was IMO one step too far.
Perhaps the size needs to be reduced, a large quantity of smaller vehicles with fewer troops aboard.
ReplyDeleteDoes every AFV/IFV and APC need the ability to take on tanks?, other APC's? Aircraft?
Or like the M-113 does it just need local mg support as a battle taxi.
There was a SciFi book long agop called "The Forlorn Hope" where the APC's had egress doors that dropped from the sides instead of the rear or front to encourage the troops to un-ass the vehicle because the vehicle was just a crematorium while buttoned up.
Too much protection it was thought would keep the troops skulking inside their assault vehicles until someone brewed the whole shebang up.
Notice the spall-liner and spaced armor on the floor of FNSS PARS.
ReplyDelete