Friday, July 24, 2015
The AAV. The US Marines 70 year old (planned) combat vehicle!
via The Marines Amphibious Combat Vehicle site.
We have parallel survivability upgrade and sustainment programs in place to improve protection and performance of a portion (392) of the AAV fleet so that it will continue to serve as the primary amphibious mobility platform until the fleet is replaced entirely by a modern capability. AAV Upgrade meets surface assault echelon capacity requirements for two MEBs while mitigating a force protection gap in capability.The AAV will serve through AT LEAST 2035!
This program will start in FY 19, though some aspects such as electrical and communications system upgrades are already being addressed, and will extend their the service life through at least 2035. The AAV Upgrade Program will improve the force protection of the personnel carrier variant of the AAV, specifically its underbelly protection against explosive threats. In addition, the AAV Modification and Sustainment will focus on safety upgrades, replacement of obsolete components, and improvements to interoperability, reliability, maintainability, and availability extending the life and operational relevance of the AAV.
Drink that in.
Marines will ride the AAV into combat through AT LEAST 2035!
Yes. I'm repeating myself, but that would be like sending Marines into Gulf War 2 in LVT-2's!
Have you thought about it? Do you get the force of connection with this issue yet? Tell me again that this isn't foolish risk. Tell me again that I'm wrong about this being a basic leadership failure. Make a compelling argument that the course of action being taken is the right one.
You can't, because the modernization plan for Marine Corps armor is batshit crazy. Future Marines will die and it will be because we're sending them out in geriatric vehicles that should be in museums.
The F-35 is NOT worth the disruption that its bringing to the Marine Corps budget. Its just not.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
120mm Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS)
Question.
Does anyone know how the 120mm mortar became the cat's meow? At one time all the rapid deployment forces were sold on the 105mm howitzer, in particular the British model (I'm not sure but I believe it was the 119 something...not gonna look it up right now). How and why the change?
We know who the Amphibious Combat Vehicle competitors are...
via Janes.
The surprises? Lockheed Martin actually has the audacity and the USMC allowed them to enter this program after the corporate espionage they engaged in.
Lockheed Martin is without honor. The Marine Corps should have a care. If the company you're dealing with will cheat a partner then they will sell you shoddy gear.
Where I'm sitting it looks like a BAE vs. SAIC contest if swimming is the most important or even a very important factor.
If it turns into a cost blow out then you need to add General Dynamics to the mix. BAE and SAIC would stay in because they'll play hardball too.
In my opinion Lockheed Martin stands virtually no chance and that's as it should be....but what about ADVS? Actually I just don't know. I do know you never bet against little guys. Those are the bastards that will surprise you when you underestimate them.
We'll see what we'll see.
Key PointsThe rest of its behind a paywall and I'm not subscribed, but I did a quick search for ADVS and its here.
- Two solutions are to be chosen from offerings by ADVS, BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and SAIC
The US Marine Corps (USMC) will soon downselect two designs for its Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) programme, and the prospective next USMC commandant is sanguine about the prototypes' in-water capabilities.
- ACV 8x8 armoured personnel carriers are meant to 'swim' some distance to shore, and USMC leaders say prototype trials so far have proven that capability
The surprises? Lockheed Martin actually has the audacity and the USMC allowed them to enter this program after the corporate espionage they engaged in.
Lockheed Martin is without honor. The Marine Corps should have a care. If the company you're dealing with will cheat a partner then they will sell you shoddy gear.
Where I'm sitting it looks like a BAE vs. SAIC contest if swimming is the most important or even a very important factor.
If it turns into a cost blow out then you need to add General Dynamics to the mix. BAE and SAIC would stay in because they'll play hardball too.
In my opinion Lockheed Martin stands virtually no chance and that's as it should be....but what about ADVS? Actually I just don't know. I do know you never bet against little guys. Those are the bastards that will surprise you when you underestimate them.
We'll see what we'll see.
5 Amphibious Combat Vehicle competitors?
via Breaking Defense.
The committee’s questions show a certain skepticism of this proposed Amphibious Combat Vehicle. Will the “four foreign designs” being evaluated have adequate mobility through the water? Well, Neller responds, there are actually five designs, only two of them non-US. Of those five, he says, “we are confident that at least two” — the number required for a second-phase competition later this year — “[will] achieve water mobility performance on par with or greater than our existing [AAV].”Here.
As usual the reporters for the traditional media missed it. Five instead of four? Lets do the rundown again....
1. General Dynamics.
2. SAIC/STKinetics
3. BAE/IVECO
4. Lockheed Martin/Patria
So who is the 5th? Additionally the Lockheed Martin/Patria offering is supposedly off according to Patria.
So what the fuck gives?
Additionally these were suppose to be off the shelf designs! So who could be the fifth? The same little birdy that told me about Lockheed Martin subterfuge stated that they were working on a vehicle so maybe the plan to backstab their partner was already in motion and they put a vehicle into service.
But what if it isn't Lockheed Martin? Who else has an amphibious wheeled vehicle that could be offered? VBCI? Doesn't swim. Boxer? Nope. Could BAE have dusted off the SEP design and used the 8x8 to enter solo? Possibility...not sure.
This is curious.
Damen Landing Ship Transport 120...
Why am I highlighting the Damen Landing Ship Transport 120? Simple. I still contend that the ship missing from modern amphibious assault task forces is the old LST. Yeah. You can talk to old skool sailors that absolutely hated the things. You can read about the accidental beachings that came along with the ship doing its job, but the fact remains.
Rapid buildup of forces ashore means that you need to get the most gear possible on the beach with one pass. Being able to put almost almost a battalion's worth of armor with one dash to the beach with the Newport class means unprecedented combat power....and conservation of forces. You protect one ship for the one hour round trip instead of a convoy of LCACs for 8 hours as they make runs. To me its a no brainer. More info here.
Norwegian CV90 Modernization...
Note: The CV90 is a good vehicle and one that has been improved over the years. I wonder about one thing that the Norwegians did with their modernization though. Why did they ask BAE to include such a tall and ungainly RWS? One other thing. They call one of these vehicles a "Storm" Tank. What exactly is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)