 |
| pic via Defense Daily.com |
Where did I find it? Defense Daily.com!
My usual afternoon sweep through the internet for news on the program led me to a 9/26/2014 article (can't believe I missed it...but it was behind a paywall) that you can catch a tidbit of below......
“Our vehicle is basically another family member of the most experienced 8x8 armored vehicle on the planet, the most combat experienced…from Strykers to Canadian LAV-3,” program manager Gary O’Brien said. “We built the MPC off the LAV-6.0 chassis, so it comes with all that credibility from the start.”My take?
GDLS believes its ACV competitor is the most survivable light armored vehicle it has built, saying that it meets or exceeds many of the ACV requirements already. It swims above expectations, at 6.5 knots, and has 25 percent buoyancy.
O’Brien said the company’s MPC offering performed very well in testing but “was ugly as sin,” so GDLS hired a team to redesign the exterior and make it look sleeker. The vehicle was also lengthened to accommodate more Marines–meeting the threshold 10 Marines–but overall the vehicle design was kept the same from MPC to ACV.
O’Brien said his vehicle has 15 percent growth capacity built into it, the company has its supply chain in order, and “what we’re doing now is just basically confirming and bringing all the data together for the RFP.” He said he was comfortable he was prepared to move forward quickly if selected despite the tight schedule. “It’s up to the Marine Corps to maintain its schedule. They’ve set a very aggressive schedule, whether they can maintain it or not will be for them to say. We’re very agile” and ready to begin work quickly if chosen.
We're looking at an enlarged Piranha 5. Remember the vehicle that was caught being tested by GD?
I captured that screen grab from a vid of GD conducting tests. I thought it looked like a "big" Piranha 5 then and the latest graphic confirms it.
It also closes the loop on something else.
The teaming of GD and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries might actually have to do with improving the hydrodynamic performance of the vehicle. 6.5 knots won't do. That will not do at all. The talk about the vehicle being butt ugly has nothing to do with the redesign that took place. It had to do with water performance. I'd bet body parts.
Considering that GD owns the swiss company that developed Piranha i would be suprised if there is any LAV left i wouldn't bother with it ither, as its decades old design that has been superseded in house by Piranha 5
ReplyDelete25% reserve buoyancy means they added lots of volume .
6.5knots is quite fast for an APC 10% faster than most.
You have to realise that upping the water speed is near imposibilty ,displacment speed to planing speeds is kinda like pushing past supersonic it can only be done with stream lining the wheels(like EFV) and drooping in an engine 3x more powerful (again like EFV)
In my opinion even for the EFV the practical approach would be to utilise a separate landing craft unit tact could be unmaned those are easy to make go fast and you do not carry all the handicaps of an EFV once you are on land.
but slightly slower than the AAV, the vehicle that its designed to replace. if it doesn't match its water speed, has wheels so won't be as mobile over all ground then exactly what are we getting with a wheeled ACV?
DeleteThis vehicle is only 1 km/h slower than the AAV7, but the ACV contenders are far more protected than the AAV could ever hope to be, that is what you are getting. Also, remember the AAV's that will get survivability upgrades, I am not aware of any planned engine upgrades so those AAV's will likely be slower than they originally were. So you have some AAV's that are more protected than others, none of which are as survivable as any of the ACV contenders, and are slower than other AAV's.
DeleteI agree that it seems foolish to spend large amounts of money on vehicles that cannot carry the same amount of personnel over adverse terrain as their predecessors but the reality is that there are no other vehicles (that could fulfill capacity, speed, and survivability requirements to replace the AAV outright) which could even be in LRiP in 4-5 years.
The only possibility would be a stripped down EFV (only to lower the base cost) with no turret, the same reliability issues (and thus operational costs), and questionable protection against IED's. As much as it sucks, this is (via the deep, deep hole that has been dug) the only feasible option to get a new amphibious combat vehicle fielded.
so what you're telling me is that our new ACV is now barely more capable than the AAV in the water, probably less mobile than a legacy AAV over broken terrain but the plus side is that its more heavily protected?
Deletedo you get what you're saying?
we canned a high speed EFV that was (according to HQMC) only suffering from reliability problems...they said that it had attained MRAP type levels of protection before it was canceled. we declined to buy a non-planning version of that same vehicle because we said that high speed in the water was important. we not only threw away all the work that was done on the EFV but then we turned around, wasted 4 years debating this issue and in the end we're going to rely on a vehicle, the Marine Personnel Carrier that was intended from the start to be a surrogate vehicle to the EFV.
we invest over 15 years of work...waste millions of dollars and in the end we're getting a vehicle that only equals (at best) what we have now?
sorry. i want to be fired up, but this just makes me want to choke someone in leadership. don't piss on my back and tell me its sunshine. additionally lets be real. we'll actually be lucky to have these vehicles in service by 2025. so again. tell me why i should be happy?
I'm not telling you to be happy at all, i'm simply making the point that because of the extremely poor decision making that has occurred over the last 4 years especially, this is really the only route they can go, or at least the only route they can go thinking it will be fast. (I am not trying to sell you crap, just saying they are standing in crap, so all they have is crap)
DeleteI agree, they could have made the EFV work but, as you said, they did not want to give up hydroplaning.
Realistically, they could turn this around if they really want to. General Dynamics never threw all the EFV stuff away, its sitting somewhere, on file or in storage. The could dump hydroplaning and set limited contracts for analyses of:
1) Parts and systems that faced continuous reliability or cost-related issues and how the issues could be corrected.
2) Adding even a shallow v-shaped hull (could be done because they wouldn't be worried about interfering with hydroplaning).
*These moves would dramatically change or correct the original problems.
In fact, this is what should be done. Once the data is crunched, you can make a better comparison between buying the ACV now and waiting for a fairytale later or buying a re-camped EFV. Though, this would require the will for yet another program change and to piss off most of the ACV contenders; I also don't know if they have the money, even a re-structured EFV will probably cost more than ACV1.1 because it is a lot more than just a re-named MPC.
That top photo is one of the worst photoshops I have ever seen, I hope you realize it isn't real.
ReplyDeleteNot that unrealistic, Check out the Mowag PIRANHA 5.
Delete“...."was ugly as sin,” so GDLS hired a team to redesign the exterior and make it look sleeker."
ReplyDeleteSeriously?? Its an Amphibious Armored personal carrier ( and potentially Amphibious Infantry fighting Vehicle) . I don't Care if It looks like Medusa's uglier sister on a bad hair day ( infact turning the enemy to stone on sight would be a major DEW coup :P). and given that statement I think I see What Solomon is saying here. The USMC is a Expeditionary force that is supposed to focus on Battle form the Sea to the land. this Vehicle is focusing instead on battle on land. it's slow sea speed means that if the Marines had to deploy from a extended sea range to the landing beach the marines aboard would be trapped in a large number of slow trawling targets sitting in the ocean waiting for the enemy to knock them into submarines. any chance of a fast strike or surprise is gone as the vehicles would be sitting in the transition between ship and shore. once your on shore the vehicles would do fine but that critical transition is the issue. EFV had that down pat. but this is actually sacrificing it it even gives up the sea speed. even of the vehicle it was originally supposed to replace the LAV 25.
And this leads to the issue. Which is are the Marines becoming the Army? If the Marines are willing to sacrifice there sea mobility for ground protection, Why are they Marines? LAV25 which MPC was supposed to replace was amphibious ( less then AAV but still more then this) until SEP and up armoring. this adds it back but its more of a riverine Amphibious and fails to consider the threats to the ships that have to close to the shore to unload. It comes back to connectors. and if the Entire Marine landing force is using Connectors you are going to have a lot of connector gap. it's a bit like the GCV and it's 80 tons how the hell do you get that in country in a hurry? You could not even fit the damned thing in the flight envelope of a C17.
I can understand the want of protection, and that some argue speed is not a counter for lack of armor, but for the US who fights Expeditionary and globally. Mobility is more then just moving across a battle zone at low speed tanking pot shots at baddies as there rounds bounce off. Its about getting there. If all your fights are with your neighbors you can get away with building super heavy APC's and IFv's. but if your the US who operate anywhere and Everywhere you need to find that compromise where Protection and mobility meet.
If you want to get from beyond the horizon to the shore on the cheap (i.e. without a massive counter-ICD effort by real, not Marine wannabe, carriers) you need to consider a Stiletto or Sea Fighter to make the intermediate transition from a large standoff (at least 150nm) to shore at 50 knots plus, there to dump 3-4 vehicles at a time before heading back out. The vehicles then driving immediately away from the predictor with enough food and gasoline to be independent ops safe for a day or more.
DeleteRather than a Puller type vessel-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Lewis_B._Puller_(T-MLP-3/T-AFSB-1)
I would recommend a conventional bulk goods container ship with end to end well deck, lateral fuel tanks, double reinforced tank bottom and external propulsors as a modern day LST with the doors at the back.
This would get you 10-20 Seafighters into a single enclosure with open-flood lift to the garage deck above.
Clusters of these little ships then being held in separate compartment sections and FLOATED up, like a canal lock, with differential flooding via pumps, to the garage deck where vehicles board simply by driving across ramps in Olympic swimming pool sized stowage barns.
With enough buoyancy as keel strength to flood 2 out of 5 compartments at a time, a single load could take perhaps 30 minutes and all five be done in 1:30 with garage door hatchways in the compartments then sliding across to let the ships transit through to the stern doors and out.
When _not in use_ these ships would be stacked, literally, on wall racks, via an overhead, submersible, crane leaving the center throughway always open.
With enough food for a day or three at sea the JHSV Sea Fighters would be semi autonomous so that their mother ship which followed the commercial sealanes in the shadow of planned traffic, could literally debark clusters of Marine attack forces along a couple hundred nautical miles worth of coastline frontage which would then come charging in together, all at once, before heading back out to sea to be picked up on the swing back.
This is what a real ship gives you, even beyond speed, as the seakeeping abilities to /endure/ a blue water release and a loiter in lag before going operational.
Remember The Funnies gentlemen. Remember the DDs. Remember death by drowning to so many tank crews, even before the Germans started shooting, because the Sea is always the ultimate enemy. Which never blinks and never misses a chance to kill you.
As for 'more protection', shoot. That thing is 10ft at the roof or I'm an Irishman. 13+ across the RWS. It's as tall or taller than an M-1 with competitive side area to an RTD bus. It's got unshielded rubber tires. It's got a ten man sheep test inside. It doesn't matter if it's got more protection, the exposed area and the HVT trophy status is going to get it nailed to a cross and _for what_?
DeleteTen men for housecleaning is a cat fight in a coat closet for clumsiness and if you need to set up a perimeter and a medic, send four vehicles with four men each to cover both the front and back at the same time. And tt the _very first_ sign of trouble, back off and start pumping in 40mm 3P rounds into the room in question until the blood starts staining the wallboard.
For everything maneuver-else, machine sentries and remote video overwatch is smarter because it can be jammed tighter and thus keeps the vehicle silhouette small and the transport load light.
Speaking of overweight monstrosities, you do realize that the GCV was and is the basis for a Future MBT, not an IFV, right? They could never get funding for such a dinosaur anachronism as an E-100, errrr... Tiger III, no... 'Schwarzkopf!
Hell yeah, that's it! Fat, irascible and inept!
They'll never get a Schwarzkopf to service unless it's spec'd around a 'new view' of terrorist insurgency and stabilization missions. Which of course means infantry since infantry are worthless at anything but holding dirt and intimidating civilians. Hence an IFV is not an F-MBT even though that's exactly the load class the chassis and drive train were pushing for.
Never tell the Army they aren't as subtle as a five alarm chili fart at a pube waxing party.
You'll hurt their feelings.
The high center of weight... I can bet 10$ that this one will be unstable like hell.
ReplyDeleteI'm more interested to know where are the cameras. Or is their only visual device the vision blocks and the RWS?
ReplyDeleteBlind as a bat anyone? :)
Sol, Nick, out of curiosity, if you had a choice of fast but weak armour vs heavily armoured but slow, which would you choose? An MPC or a Gibbs amphitruck? How would you try to use them tactics wise?
Shas, all 8x8s look top heavy. Practically, it doesn't make much of a difference, most of the heavy stuff is at the bottom, only a RWS on top.
I would go with the MPC because war always necessitates a certain level of armor and the MPC is more or less there, for a vehicle of its size at least. The problem is that you have to be realistic about what you want to happen and what will actually happen.
DeleteAs Solomon has pointed out many times over the past year or so, the current strategy of basing many miles off shore to be safe from anti-ship missiles is pretty much a dud at best. The facts are that:
1) Currently, anti-ship missiles may be a nuisance, if an few years, they will be a fully credible threat capable of allowing nations to conduct full area denial strategies.
2) It does not matter if you are 10 miles, 25 miles, 50 miles, or 100 miles away, if you are going to conduct an amphibious invasion of any sea-accessible, modern country, they are going to know about it and you are going straight into a shit-storm.
3) The idea that you can come across the water so fast that you can exploit weaknesses in coastal defenses or beachheads on the fly is flawed at best.
What does this mean?
1) You do need to be able to come across the water fast enough to not be a siting duck for who ever, or whatever, might be waiting for you. You need to have enough speed to make it to the beach intact.
2) Once you are there, you need to have enough protection, firepower, and mobility to make it off of the beach and then operate inland.
*Again, as Solomon has noted many times, any amphibious invasion of a modern country will need the shore and beach to be bombarded before your forces make entry, you have to soften it up but that does not mean you are guaranteed success.
Again, I would choose the MPC because it has the best chance of survival. I am skeptical of an AAV's chances of coming off of a modern beach. They did not do well in ambushes in Iraq and an amphibious landing is just that, heading straight into an ambush. On the flip side, I don't know that a wheeled vehicle, laden down with war-fighters, equipment, and supplies could push or forge its way off of a beach like a tracked vehicle. Long story short, the MPC is the option, not because it's the best, certainly not because it's the least of all evils, but because it seems to be at least partially on its way to production.
Why is a wheeled vehicle even being entertained? A future AAV should be a tracked vehicle.
ReplyDeleteThere really isn't much of a difference by now mobilitywise, wheeled does better against mines, have a better operating range than tracked and finally the killer motive, they are already in production and on offer by private companies so you don't have to spend a few billion just to design a vehicle from scratch again.
DeleteDesigning a new vehicle costs the same regardless of if it is 80 tons or 20. Production costs may differ, but the AutoCad stage is all the same. So it would cost about 900 million for a design, same as the GCV. There goes the budget.
Same reason the EFV was dead in the water. Money.
Besides, if it delivered the same effect, does it matter if it is wheeled, tracked or moved by invisible pixies carrying it on their shoulders? What matters is results. If it can consistently gets Marines on the beach in a condition to kick arse, it's a good vehicle.