A yellow bird landed on my window and passed along a bit of depressing information.
According to my source the Amphibious Combat Vehicle program is floundering.
What exactly is the problem? I have no idea..but consider this. Do you remember all the wild gyrations that we witnessed in the last two years? First the Marine Personnel Carrier program was canceled outright. Then it was resurrected. Then we saw HQMC rename the program and break it into two parts. First the ACV 1.1 was basically the Marine Personnel Carrier with new wrapping and second we had the ACV 1.2 that was supposed to be the old EFV but this time it would work and be affordable. Also remember the late interviews given by Amos as he was heading out the door. I can't remember the source but I distinctly recall him suddenly claiming that funding was just not there.
This points to the procurement train wreck being even more devastating than even I imagined. I spent yesterday afternoon trying to get in contact with the Program Office but they've been moved behind a fire wall, are no longer even listed on the PEO Land website and the e-mail address that I had to Manny Pacheco is no longer working (I don't even know if he's still the spokesman for the program).
The reality is stark.
Can we with good conscious continue to send Marines into combat in almost 50 year old AAVs? If not then how do we fix this?
Just started following this blog. My question is what tracked amphibious vehicles out there are sufficient enough to replace the AAV? I know the marines wanted to get the efv and were offered a downgraded version but did not buy it. I've looked into the AAV upgrades and they all seemed to have the same capabilities as that down graded efv.
ReplyDeletewell i heard that General Dynamics and BAE are working hard on a redesigned AAV that has better hydrodynamic performance. additionally all the companies working on the MPC are setup to deliver on those vehicles right now. the main problem as i see it is that the upgraded AAV still doesn't give you the blast protection of the EFV or the MPC candidates, despite those upgrades has lost much of its cross country mobility and to be frank is simply at the end of its service life.
Deletea perfect world for me? give me that dang EFV/MPC setup. detune the EFV so its affordable. squeeze the life out of the manufacturers so you can get the MPC at a decent price and call this a day. but don't be fooled by those AAV upgrades. its like asking a pilot to fly a F-4 phantom today and expect him to compete with F-15s. tell him that the plane has been upgraded and then see how successful he is.
A newly built AAV with the same armor as efv would more than likely have the same ballistic protection. Both use aluminum hulls, no v-hull design. There's only so much protection you can get with such a large vehicle without making it too heavy. I wonder why a shallow v hull has not been considered. Since the marines dropped the requirement for the speed on water. No need for the flat hull to hydroplane fast like efv. Mobility can be enhanced with new track, more powerfu engine, better suspension. Armament can be increased also with 30mm weapon station. The way I see it is the Marines are doing what the Army has been doing with its vehicle's. Upgrading them instead of buying a new vehicle that does not have a huge capability over the existing vehicle. It might just be my biased opinion of amphibious vehicles or my army way of thinking but IMO I think AAV and EFV are bad ideas, especially for urban combat.
DeleteAAVs in urban combat?
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nasiriyah
The infamous AAVs in Ambush Alley.
Yeah f*** that death trap. I wish the best of luck for the Marines to get a better protected vehicle.I just hope they don't pick a vehicle like the EFV that gives them no good protection against the latest IEDs and ATGMs. Same for the Army with the Brad.
DeleteIt is funny that you mention the F4 competing against the F-15. The Israeli's had an upgrade path for the F4 that was cancelled so it wouldn't threaten the F-15 funding from American foreign military aid, or so the story goes.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the AAV is that the USMC is a sole service client. There are no good options for an affordable USMC specific armored amphibious vehicle. So the options are pick something with an international flavor like the Havoc (a good option), pick up an interim solution from the Army (Strykers or Bradleys) or stick with the AAV. At this point there is no Defense industry solution that can deliver value to the USMC within a budget price the USMC can stomach.
If the DOD were serious about china, an AAV replacement would be fielded by now instead of being used as justification for an entire fleet of F-35s.
AM your right on the money about AAV replacement. A tracked vehicle that can carry 17 fully equipped marines from only 8 miles away that cant even survive a .50 cal AP round is a failed design. The whole amphibious vehicle idea is damn near worthless. Most ships can't even get within that range of a country with anti ship missiles. Marines already have the ability to bring armor to the beach(LCAC, LPDs). Smaller more heavily protected vehicles like the Havoc is the way to go. I've always thought the Marines put to much money into aviation. Let the Navy do majority of the air support and focus on armor development!
ReplyDeleteyou were good to go until you started dumping on the mission and the gear. only 8 miles away? have you ever ridden in an AAV on the open ocean? a mile on land and a mile at sea ARE IN NO WAY COMPARABLE! additionally the AAV can withstand fifty cal rounds. there is nothing worthless about the amphibious vehicle idea unless you believe that all wars will be fought in the desert. additionally the number of dismounts carried is based off the idea of building up combat power as rapidly as possible. its not optimized for pitched armored warfare but is a tradeoff between protected mobility to deliver Marines close to but not onto the objective. i also have to add that while everyone is so shit hot behind the idea of using LCACs and other landing craft to deliver Marines ashore, they're even more vulnerable to missiles, RPGs and even small arms fire than an AAV!
Deletelast, have a care when it comes to the forcible entry mission from the sea. its a tool that has to be utilized properly but it has value. if you really want to talk about questionable forces then point your fingers at your airborne and air assault units. forcible entry by airborne troops? with the proliferation of advanced anti-air missiles? when you stuff 78 paratroopers into the back of C-130s and even more in C-5s? as slow as they fly? as low as they have to fly when they do their drops?
keep it fair, but don't head toward service bias or making statements about missions you obviously don't understand.
Maybe the Corps should take a cue from the Navy and the Super-Hornet program. An "upgrade" that was actually a new plane that looked a lot like the old one. We use the same outer hull design as the LVTP-7 but use a brand new Bradley chassis, Bradley engine like the rebuilds, but as new production with updated com/visulal systems, slightly thicker hull or maybe layered one with Kevlar between two metal sheets to reduce spalling. We would improve the ground clearance and put on a more mine resistant bottom. Since the latest mine-resist designs would make the already god-awful sea ride worse we could do a cheap solution: a full-length polymer cover that can be dropped off later on-cant be any more expensive than a drop tank from a fighter that scattered all over hell. on top we put an Israeli Typhoon 25mm remote cannon like Navy/Coast Guard patrol boats use. It has all-weather camera systems, a sleek profile since it isn't a manned turret, and already meant to be used at sea. We dub the result the AAVP7-B1 (the way Boing has an E/F that isn't even the same size as the A-D model hornets) and say to congress "we don't need a new design, just a newly built upgrade of the old one." Ta-dah!
DeleteThe Army isnt stupid enough to do a forcible entry of airborne troops unless its safe enough to send vulnerable aircraft like a C-17 or Blackhawk. Airborne forces are light units used for rapid reaction. They open the doors for mechinzed units. Airborne drops are rare and have not been used heavily since WWII. They're only good for low intensity conflicts. You say the AAV is not ment to bring marines on to the objective but near it. So are they supposed to bring them close to the objective and have them walk the next 10 miles since they can't survive anything more powerful than a .50cal bullet? What good are you if you cant get close enough to the enemy? Your vehicle has to deliver your troops right away up close, that means within range of ATGMs, AT mines, IEDs, RPGs. Being amphibious means you don't bring good armor to the fight, and thats a serious weakness. Its also kind of difficult to forcibly enter from the sea without airpower. Either way if you take an AAV or a hovercraft to shore you have to make sure that you have a safe enough path to get to shore. AAVs and landing craft wont come close to shore unless airpower destroys the anitship missile threats. Just like Airborne forces will be shot down if the anti air threats don't get neutralized. If done right you can enter from the sea but an amphibious assault vehicle or a landing craft alone cannot do the job. You also have to take in consideration of enemy heavy armor and artillery on the coast. Airpower must eliminate these threats as well. An AAV will have just as much trouble dealing with small arms fire as a landing craft will. Both would be to vunerable to ATGMs without an active protection system. At least landingcraft can bring tanks and other vehicles to the shore right away. The likely chance of entry from the sea is RARE just like an airborne assault. You won't touch a heavily defended country like China or Russia by sea. There is always a way to enter another country by land or air. Most of our enemies are fought by riding into their country. I'm not bashing the mission of the Marines, Im just saying the chances of an amphibious assault these days are so slim and difficult. Its hard to understand a mission that hasn't been done since WWII. Technology and tactics change making missions difficult or impossible to complete. This is just my opinion on the subject, like I said I'm used to the way Army armored units do things.
DeleteTankerboots11
DeleteI dont know about Russia but China is preparing for a full on Maritime Conflict on almost every piece of land that can be found in the South China Sea. To counter them I would say the chances of amphibious assault even on defended beaches is pretty high. One look at the Chinese preperations for Taiwan and one realizes that Amphibious Warfare cannot be ignored.
50 Ton+ MBT's do have their value but the logistical premium and time premium you will pay for them in this theatre might be unaffordable. It makes good sence for the USA to have a fully capable amphibious force of atleast a couple of hundred thousand constantly pricking the chinese in this Pivot to the Pacific. Even in peace time, large scale war exercises on/near disputed areas, exercises with other countries which the chinese have little opinion about, organizing commercial fishing fleets of neighbouring nations like the chinese have done, multilateral exercises right on China's doorstep etc all featuring the best of what the US can offer as regards Amphibious Warfare because thats exactly where most of the Chinese efforts are being concentrated.
Actually, the RfP for ACV 1.1 is out, right on time:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=1573ddf346cbf43e9c2822ea71e73977&tab=core&_cview=0
The section that everyone wants to see, the System Performance Specification (Sec J Att 2), is unfortunately only available by request, though. What is noteworthy is that the master SOW mentions tests for launching and recovering from amphibious ships.