via USNI
SAN DIEGO, CALIF. – The Marine Corps plans to issue a request for proposal (RFP) for the early version of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) in March, the head of Marine Corps Systems Command said.I have one serious request for Systems Command. Please get your talking points on the same page!
The RFP will lead to the award of two engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contracts in November or December, said Brig. Gen. Joseph Shrader on Wednesday speaking at the WEST 2015 conference
“We’re going to award two EMD contracts – 16 systems each – for a total of 32 systems to take into testing,” he said.
The Marines plan to buy 200 of the ACV 1.1 eight-wheeled amphibious personnel carrier as an adjunct to the Marines decades old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV-7A1).
“It’s not a replacement to the AAV right now. It’s going to enhance that capability,” he said.
Did you read the second quotation I highlighted? Its not a replacement for the AAV? Its going to enhance that capability? That sounds like we're back to the original role of the Marine Personnel Carrier! Additionally we were told that the ACV 1.1 would prove superior to the AAV because of its superior ground mobility, equal seakeeping, superior IED protection etc....
Why is this important? Because it gives us an idea of where they're going with the selection next month.
If we're looking at a AAV replacement then the two front runners will be the BAE SuperAV and the General Dynamics...whatever they're calling it. Why? Because from what I can tell they're designed to be superior swimmers while providing capable on land performance.
If we're looking at a "complimentary" vehicle then the SAIC Terrex 2 and the Lockheed Martin Patria AMV become the favorites because they provide superior land mobility, have been tested in combat (Patria AMV) and have tremendous network upgradeability (Terrex 2).
I still don't understand the need to do testing on 32 systems. After all these years a single source contract should be ready to be issued.
On a sidenote, I would bet body parts that the contending design teams are pounding walls and cursing the Marine Corps. After all the starts and stops, they're now faced with this last minute rush.
SIDENOTE: Make no mistake about this. The downselect will happen next month but the production of this limited number of vehicles won't be done for another decade. For all intents and purposes the AAV will serve until 2040. This might end up being a regional vehicle and assigned to units headed to CENTCOM....everyone else will get by with AAVs....in other words we have a replacement for Marines in the Middle East. So now they will ride ACV 1.1, MPCs or whatever you call it instead of MTVRs.
If the CGI image from GD that has been floating around for the past 6 months is any indication, their vehicle is much more LAV based than Piranha. It is very likely that they submitted a swimming DHV Stryker. That would be good for them, core commonality, proven performance, production already set up.
ReplyDeleteThen again, they could just have a really crappy design team that stuck some crap on Stryker wheels and a Stryker frame.
This thing is such a side show I just don't know anymore. Any decision that is made will end up with the majority of forces using AAV7's and that is a crime.
that's why the comments by Systems Command have me confused. is this a compliment to the AAV or a replacement? i thought the whole deal with renaming it ACV 1.1 was because it was to replace the AAV until the 2.0 could be developed.
ReplyDeletein the end you're right though. the AAV will serve until 2030 and all this is just window dressing. the down select is next month but production won't take place for another decade.
If I were super-pragmatic, I'd say we ship these 32 units to Ukraine for a real live fire test. The Ukrainians are happy to get top end equipment and we get a better test than "run round the track in 2 minutes".
ReplyDeleteEven though I agree with you, I have to say... Using then as Guinea pigs is kinda wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhen I compare the numbers, designs based obviously only on limited public information it seems to me the BAE SuperAV is the best vehicle across the board. Its not like for instance the Patria is faster on land or better protected.
ReplyDeleteEven if I am wrong, I would still go for the 'strongest swimmer'.
There is one thing I would want from any design picked though, that I can not judge: a lot of room for improvement.
its the only vehicle designed from the ground up to be amphibious....well Marine Corps amphibious. the others were designed to swim inland waterways. the Italian Marine Corps are buying the SuperAv as a replacment for the AAV
ReplyDeleteZap, even if those guinea pigs need the equipment and will likely thank us for it? Not to mention the manufacturers would be glad of the "tested under fire" sticker they can paste on the hulls. Think of it as less of testing, and more of a win-win deal for all parties.
ReplyDeleteHell, it'll also encourage the manufacturers to put their best foot forward for the tests, anything less and the rest will put the slacker to shame.
If swimming is the criteria, then it's the SuperAV vs the Terrex ironically. The others only do Sea State 2. And yes, the Terrex was a surprise. Apparently, the buoyant armour they were using was much more effective than anticipated. Enough for SAIC to claim that there is a lot of reserve buoyancy left.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/February/Pages/AmphibiousCombatVehicleCompetitiontoHeatUp.aspx
Wonder if there is enough to swap the M2s and the Mk19s for a 35mm RWS. Or add in a few TOWs.
Yeah, I agree with you on this one, it's really a good opportunity to test the vehicles.
ReplyDeleteSolomon: YES and that is exactly why I would want this vehicle.. NOT to replace AAV, since it is not a a fully capable sucsesor, but because its a good thing to have the capability to go ship to shore for Marines. Specailly when you do not lose other capabilities, since the SuperAV is competitive at all other levels.
ReplyDeleteOwl: Hm.. The Terex looks strangely bulky, so what you say makes weird sense.