Every allied Marine Corps with the exception of the S. Koreans (they license built AAVs) is in need of a replacement for the AAV.
Will our allies that have Marines be interested in the MPC?
I ask the question mainly looking at the Pacific. No matter how doubtful I am about the "partnership missions" there is no doubting that many nations like to operate US hardware. Considering the growth in Marine Forces in the Pacific this seems like a no brainer.
Whoever wins the MPC contest will have a leg up on the competition to modernize our allies amphibious armored forces. A relatively small vehicle buy by the USMC could turn out to be extremely valuable.
Note: BAE believes that the US Army might eventually buy an amphibious vehicle to complete its Pacific Pivot. I don't know what information they have they gives them that idea but the display of the SuperAV at Ft. Benning late last year didn't escape my notice.
Let's do some analysis.
ReplyDeleteAustralia : They currently don't have marines, but are likely to buy a couple dozen amphibious armored vehicles via an international open competition to fill their Canberra-class ships should the decision is made is made to go ahead and create a marine corp.
Japan : The Japanese "marines" belong to the JGSDF, not to JMSDF, per the Japanese tradition of Japanese army doing landing operations all the way back to the Imperial Japanese Army days. The JGSDF are ground warfare people who like to deliver their combat vehicles via hovercrafts and the personnel by V-22s, so the provision is being made to increase the V-22 deployment capability, including modification of Osumi-class ships to host V-22s with new elevators. Since the JGSDF is not interested in delivering troops by landing armored vehicles, mass adoption of US-type MPC is unlikely.
Korea : The ROKMC will most certainly develop their next amphibious troop carriers locally to replace KAAV-7s when the time comes because their large requirement of 200+ units justifies a local development.
Taiwan : Will buy whatever the US has to sell them.
Thailland : A likely international open competition.
Indonesia : A likely international open competition.
your analysis is faulty.
DeleteAustralia. already stated that they intend to develop Marine like capabilities if not an actual Marine Corps.
Japan. they're already buying used USMC AAVs. with ties between the US and Japan only getting stronger and with JGSDF training regularly now with USMC it should be obvious that they'll be interested in the MPC.
Korea. much like they chose to piggy back on work done with the M1 to develop their K1 and like they chose to license build AAVs, its obvious that they will seek to maintain commonality with the USMC and get a vehicle that is based off the USMC choice.
Taiwan. obvious they'll buy.
Thailand. same as Japan.
Indonesia. they're developing a Marine Corps and are quietly establishing closer ties to the US. they will get on board.
mass adoption of this vehicle is a given. i state clearly and plainly that your analysis is wrong, your reasoning flawed and that your assessment of the local politics and the desire of countries to move closer to the US is based in .... i don't know what but you're missing the obvious.
the USMC MPC program will spawn the adoption of the vehicle by many nations around the globe. especially if the USMC is able to get the vehicle at a decent price.
Solomon
Delete> Australia. already stated that they intend to develop Marine like capabilities if not an actual Marine Corps.
The proposed number is 1,100. How many vehicles do you need to support a troop of that size?
> Japan. they're already buying used USMC AAVs.
For an immediate need, and only 16 units. That's all their needs.
> with ties between the US and Japan only getting stronger and with JGSDF training regularly now with USMC it should be obvious that they'll be interested in the MPC.
Not at all, because Japanese have their own way of doing things. This is the reason why Japan never had a "marine" unit until now, and even that "marine" unit is just a 3,000-men army brigade doing some amphibious landing training, not real marines in a traditional sense.
> Korea. much like they chose to piggy back on work done with the M1 to develop their K1 and like they chose to license build AAVs, its obvious that they will seek to maintain commonality with the USMC and get a vehicle that is based off the USMC choice.
Followed by K2 tank and K21 IFV locally engineered armored vehicles. Likewise KAAV-7 will be replaced by a locally engineered vehicle. Korea has three armored vehicle vendors(Hyundai Rotem of K1, K2, and a rejected IFV prototype, Doosan of K21(The winning IFV design) series, Samsung of K9 and a rejected IFV prototype) and they would certainly not let the ROKMC buy a US-based design with their lobbying.
> Indonesia. they're developing a Marine Corps and are quietly establishing closer ties to the US. they will get on board.
Indonesia's amphibious armored vehicles are ex-ROKMC units, and their LPDs are Korean supplied. Given the wave of Korean arms being supplied to Indonesia and the Korean tactic of using movie stars in marine uniforms to sway public opinion in Indonesia, they would most likely operate ex-ROKMC KAAV-7s based on history if they don't go open bidding in the first place.
http://youtu.be/gqucppbZba4
> the USMC MPC program will spawn the adoption of the vehicle by many nations around the globe. especially if the USMC is able to get the vehicle at a decent price.
Good luck with that, given the quoted prices of MPCs. The US may be able to sell last remaining stock of AAV-7s once MPCs start rolling in, but not new MPCs in large quantities with single exception of Taiwan. The other countries might buy a couple dozen, that's all.
"good luck with that given the quoted prices of the MPC?"
Deletei don't know of a website on the net that covers the MPC as closely as i do and i have never heard a price quoted by anyone. not once.
that alone proves how flimsy your argument is.
go forward with your opinion. but you provided no facts here. the opposite actually. you took facts and twisted them to fit your world view which is completely foreign to me.
Solomon
Deletehttp://defensetech.org/2013/10/11/baes-supersized-personnel-carrier/
"BAE’s version of the vehicle costs about $3.5 million, he said."
This is before the inevitable cost overruns. The FMS price is likely to be $7 million range, too high relative to European, Russian, and Asian competitors.
Just a historical note, the Japanese have had marines before, the Rikusentai were marines under the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Service in WWII. Though they did do a few para-drops, they did quite a few amphib ops as well. Sorry for the tangent.
Deletechaos56
DeleteThose "marines" were armed sailors on base/facility guard roles when the Japanese navy ships could be deployed faster than the Japanese Army, or those sailors whose ships went down and had to serve on ground, not specialized amphibious landing troops as understood in the West.
All but one amphibious landings was done by the Japanese army. And this is the reason why the JGSDF is creating a "marine" brigade(functionally equivalent to US marines) today, not the JMSDF because of this long-standing tradition of a clear turf division between the army and the navy, each of which were created and staffed by different political factions of the Meiji Restoration, and are famous for non-cooperation because of their political rivalry.
http://weaponsandwarfare.com/?p=27921
Delete"....Rikusentai continued to lead aggressive Japanese operations into 1942. Among these was a highly aggressive assault on Milne Bay on August 25, 1942. Thereafter they were engaged in Japan’s defensive perimeter campaigns, starting with defense of New Georgia. They were severely mauled in fighting on Guadalcanal. Rikusentai and naval base troops badly bloodied U. S. marines on Tarawa through fanatical resistance. U. S. marines and Japanese marines met again on Saipan, where the last Rikusentai parachute troops were wiped out. Rikusentai also fought U. S. marines on Iwo Jima...."
Don't forget Tarawa, where there were no troops from the Japanese Army.... Rikusentai does mean something akin to a "shore party" of sailors, but in WWII they were hardly used as such, they conducted landings in the Philippines (Lamon Bay 1st and 2nd Sasebo), New Guinea (Milne Bay, 6th Kure), Timor Island.... after August of '42 they mostly fought defensive operations (out of necessity), they were present on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Okinawa, Philippines.... I recommend you read a history book.
Delete@Slowman.
Deletei read that article and as soon as possible contacted BAE about the price quoted. they walked it back so fast that it could make your head spin. additionally even if we're going off that number its still a bargain for an Amphibious Armored Vehicle in 2014. face it buddy. Hyundai, Samsung or Rotem ain't building it cheaper than that. additionally the Japanese will be paying sky high prices for anything from Mitsubishi or Kawasaki heavy industries.
but again. you're just argumentative without reason. i stated that i would stop responding to your comments because its useless. sorta like how Chaos56 is finding out. every idiot between hear and Red China knows that the Japanese had Marines and that they're looking to develop them in the future.
you're just one stubborn bastard without need. so be it.
@ chaos56
Delete> Among these was a highly aggressive assault on Milne Bay on August 25, 1942.
This was the only instance in which Japan's "armed sailors" tried to make a landing, after the Japanese Army which is normally responsible for landing operations declined the Japanese Navy's request citing its own troubles with the US troops. The Japanese Navy decided to attack the allied airfield alone based on a faulty intelligence of few at the base with a disastrous outcome.
> Rikusentai does mean something akin to a "shore party" of sailors
And this is indeed what they were.
@ Solomon
> i read that article and as soon as possible contacted BAE about the price quoted. they walked it back so fast that it could make your head spin.
So what prices did BAE Systems quote you? Less or more than $3.5 million?
> additionally even if we're going off that number its still a bargain for an Amphibious Armored Vehicle in 2014.
Wheeled vehicles are considerably cheaper than tracked vehicles to begin with. And the original European vendors of SuperAV and Havoc would love to underprice their US market models, no doubt.
Selling a ground combat vehicle isn't like selling a fighter jet, where there is actually a lot of international competition and the US market models aren't necessarily the most competitive ones; just take a look at how the M1 tank is being steamrolled by the Leopard 2 in international markets.
> Hyundai, Samsung or Rotem ain't building it cheaper than that.
K21 currently sells for $2.7 million, and this is a tracked vehicle considerably larger and heavier than MPC candidates. So it is entirely possible that the ROKMC could get its KAAV-7 replacement for under $3.5 million a unit.
> additionally the Japanese will be paying sky high prices for anything from Mitsubishi or Kawasaki heavy industries.
Just take a look at the Diaoyu Islands on the Google Map that the JGSDF is trying to land on "alongside the USMC", and see how many MV-22s and amphibious assault vehicles could land there. And then you will begin to see why the JGSDF is focusing on MV-22 capabilities and not on amphibious vehicles.
your an idiot...
DeleteThailand doesn't have the money at the moment, they have to make do with 2nd hand stuff.
DeleteIndonesia is getting 420 Terrex(es?) local manufacture under license so that's a pretty much closed store.
Korea, they'll product their own same as Japan. The US is a very inconsistent supplier in most Asian's eyes. This is because of the Indonesian embargo and the Taiwan F-16 lack of sale (Regan canned the deal to avoid friction with China then). This means that if Congress took a dislike to you or came under pressure, you can kiss your air force or army goodbye through lack of parts. Russia on the other hand, simply doesn't care.
This is also why the Malaysian air force looks like a cut and paste mishmash. They bought US, then went Russian out of fear that they have no idea what the US is going to do.
Next time, to encourage US business worldwide, I recommend shooting politicians. Helps a lot.
It's normal industrial practice never to release any information that can be used against you to anyone unless their access to the information is critical to the project. If they've announced that it's going to cost X amount then there's no way they'll tell a relatively minor defense blogger anything different regardless of the actual situation.
DeleteWhat BAE told you Solomon isn't worth the paper it's written on.
relatively minor? correction. extremely minor. additionally they never quoted a price but simply stated that the number quoted in the article isn't representative of what they're going to be giving the Marine Corps.
Deletewhat does that mean? basically that they're not going to tell me shit about price. so your words about them telling me something that isn't worth the paper its written on is spot on.
THEY TOLD ME NOTHING, BUT EVEN BETTER THEY DIDN'T LIE.
i'll take that anyday of the week. you haven't been following this blog long have you?
Sol don't get your panties in a twist, he's right in a sense that if it is deal critical info, no way they are going to give it out, and their reply to you proved he was right. It's not a personal insult, it's just how a competitive industry works. Don't have to take it as a personal attack.
Deletenot pissed Daniel, just a little annoyed. i've been trying to beat the bushes to get info about the different offerings and its been pure agony.
DeleteSorry for overstating the importance of your blog
DeleteYou said that BAE "walked it back" very quickly, while I don't know exactly what you mean with that I assume you wouldn't use the fact that BAE fobbed you off as an argument against Slowman so I assumed that you meant that BAE called bullshit on SlowMan's claims.
In that context I feel what I said was a valid argument.
lol good luck. GD's "entry" is a total black hole in terms of information and SAIC does black box work on US military electronics. Not a chatty line of work. Lockheed and Bae does a lot more up front work and their different approaches do shine through. The cloak and dagger guys love to keep mum while the marketing guys do a lot of advertising.
DeleteSort of predicted the AAV dump and MPC replacement for months. It was the only logical and economical thing to do, only questionable factor was if the USMC was working on logic and economics or as a Congressional scapegoat for budget cuts. Face it, sequestration only took place because Congress couldn't put together a budget they could agree on, so the military took the direct hit for that.
As for MPC A,B or C, doesn't matter, they are all fairly generic and at a strategic level, all the little differences are really meaningless.
i'm wondering though.
Deletewe could be seeing a whole change in tactics.
it can't be denied that the AAV's are getting old. which ever MPC we buy, we're still looking at a family of vehicles. we're still looking at either rebuilding (again) the AAV. whats left unsaid is now going to be a blog post.
@Scott. its only valid because its widely known. i've complained on these pages about the way that secrecy is shrouding these contests. a quick google search and you can see these defense companies proudly advertising their latest widget. even GD was proud to put the tracked Stryker out there, but for some reason the MPC contest is...different. i don't know why everyone is treating it this way...the JLTV will probably deliver the same monies but everyone has their products front and center ...so much so that no one is even bothering to talk about it.
Deletewhat's your theory about the "why"
I'd guess it's because the sort of politicians that make defense cuts are lazy bastards that can't be bothered to read the briefs given to them. Therefore if a project has a low profile in general then it's got a higher chance of surviving the cuts.
ReplyDelete