Jump to content


Photo

Usmc Amphibious Combat Vehicle


  • Please log in to reply
298 replies to this topic

#1 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,464 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 04 March 2017 - 0748 AM

Looks like the USMC ACV project has been mentioned in various threads, but does not have a dedicated thread for the future workseahorse of the marines. :unsure:

So here is one dedicated to the ACV.

the current prototype:

p1693367.jpg


Land Platforms
SAIC rolls out amphibious vehicle prototype for USMC
Daniel Wasserbly, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
23 February 2017


Science Applications International Corp (SAIC) has unveiled the first of 16 prototypes for the US Marine Corps' (USMC's) competitive Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) 1.1 programme during a 21 February ceremony at the company's facility in Charleston, South Carolina.
SAIC partnered with Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK) to submit STK's Terrex 2, which includes a V-shaped hull and space to carry 11 marines with a crew of three (to add additional room to carry two more marines would have required a redesign and added weight that the company deemed unnecessary).
"Tailored to meet [US] Marine Corps requirements, SAIC's ACV is an 8x8 wheeled, armoured amphibious vehicle with improved survivability, mobility, lethality, and C4ISR capability tailored to transport Marine Corps fighting units from ship to shore," the company said.
SAIC noted that its ACV 1.1's "engine and transmission offers 600 horsepower" and it is fitted with an independent suspension system, hydraulically driven propulsion systems with full independent thrust control authority, and water mode cooling solution that together allow "safe operation at Sea State 3 for ship-to-shore operational employment and through six-foot plunging surf".
The platform is built with "360-degree situational awareness, force protection through leading blast protection seats, and a V-Over-VTM hull design", SAIC said.
The USMC in November 2015 awarded competing engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contracts to BAE Systems and to SAIC for ACV 1.1, and both companies are leading teams to produce 16 prototypes to be tested by the USMC beginning in early 2017.
BAE Systems partnered with Italian truck manufacturer Iveco Defence to submit a vehicle driven by a six-cylinder, 700 hp FPT Industrial Cursor 16 engine and with a suspended interior seat structure for 13 embarked marines, the company has said. BAE Systems first unveiled its prototype during a 13 December 2016 ceremony at the company's facility in York, Pennsylvania.
(...)

http://www.janes.com...totype-for-usmc

#2 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 04 March 2017 - 0910 AM

Interesting.  The Marines stated they require space for 13, SAIC says 11 is enough...


Edited by shep854, 04 March 2017 - 0911 AM.


#3 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2017 - 2128 PM

Call me crazy but I just do not get the modern USMC fascination with ship to shore landing assault craft.  This is not 1945, there are no Tarawas nor Iwo Jimas nor Solomons to clear any longer.  Fact is, if the USMC goes in, it should be by helicopter assault or on C5s/C141s/C17s.  You can make the argument that they're Marines and therefore should deploy from ship, but on the other hand, how many "airborne assaults" in WWII (that is, assaults conducted by paratroopers) were done from a land base, on foot or trucked to the battle area?  Lots.  Lots and lots. 



#4 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,445 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2017 - 2222 PM

Well, a new Amphibious Assault Vehicle gets my endorsement. This V-shaped hull wheeled version is probably a result from the experience of AAV7s making inroads into Iraq in 2003 which IIRC had a few bad mine related casualties. With that said, beware of the blah blah blah of recent geopolitics lurking nearby that would bubble up to respond to that why question.

#5 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,208 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 04 March 2017 - 2239 PM

I wonder how they will deal with not carrying a full marine squad (13 men) per vehicle? Would have been nice if they kept the 30mm cannon from the EFV but that would mean even less seats in back I suppose.



#6 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,903 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 05 March 2017 - 0325 AM

Call me crazy but I just do not get the modern USMC fascination with ship to shore landing assault craft.  This is not 1945, there are no Tarawas nor Iwo Jimas nor Solomons to clear any longer.  Fact is, if the USMC goes in, it should be by helicopter assault or on C5s/C141s/C17s.  You can make the argument that they're Marines and therefore should deploy from ship, but on the other hand, how many "airborne assaults" in WWII (that is, assaults conducted by paratroopers) were done from a land base, on foot or trucked to the battle area?  Lots.  Lots and lots. 

 

Just because it is amphibious does not meant it always needs to be used for ship to shore assaults: Marine units still need to move around after they are landed.  The USMC adopted the LAV-25 and versions, amphibious yes, but not suitable for landings through the surf, as it recognised that it needed a land vehicle that could also be used to cross water obstacles when necessary.

 

Or are you saying that amphibious assaults 'over the beach' are no longer necessary?  That all those Navies, and Marine units, that maintain amphibious vehicles, and even landing craft (let alone LCACs and their replacements) should try to land everything by helicopter?  Good luck with having helicopters land Abrams.



#7 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 05 March 2017 - 0459 AM

Amazing what you can do with a Stryker, with some MDF and some polystyrene blocks isnt it? :)

 

Seriously though, it looks a far more sensible concept than anything they have come up with since the LVTP7. I hope it gets funded.



#8 dragon1w4e5

dragon1w4e5

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 42 posts

Posted 05 March 2017 - 0523 AM

The WW 2 amphibious assaults are over. AMTRACS are a thing of the past. ACV is a waste of money. The USMC must understand this. They must purchase the Stryker the Army is using and retire the LAV and AAV. They should use the money they save, to purchase more LCAC and fast LCUs.

original.jpg

original.jpg



#9 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 05 March 2017 - 1120 AM

Depends who you fight and whether they fight back. That is unchanging.

 

Most materiel for sustained campaigns still goes by ship to the theater. Geography follows.

 

Despite your presumed logic, nobody in the USN/USMC wants to lead a surface assault with LCACs! Nor does anybody think the helicopter proves the only necessary assault means.


Edited by Ken Estes, 05 March 2017 - 1123 AM.


#10 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,133 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 05 March 2017 - 1226 PM

One shot LSTs!

#11 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 05 March 2017 - 1828 PM

One shot LSTs!

They were known as 'Large Slow Targets'... ;)



#12 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 05 March 2017 - 1904 PM

Not really LST's, Large dedicated assault ships, highly buoyant, designed to be mine resistant and with suppressive weapons for a beach assault.  Double hull, crush layer with water exclusion materials, maybe a floatation collar like a RHIB that sort of thing.  Several multiple shot line charges on the prow to blast clear the beach line for the troops.  Multiple rotary cannon to suppress ATGM/MG teams.  Large FAE rockets.  Perhaps a large MLRS to further suppress the landing zone, and provide support to the BLT inland until they can get their organic artillery sorted.  

 

Basically banzai in, blow the ever loving Hell outta the beach front then land a BLT or so, and the ship is spent and written off.  Mostly automated systems, motion cued guns and the like.

 

Unfortunately, the collateral damage inherent in such an approach makes too many people squeamish.  It's basically the nuclear landing prep, without the nukes. S/F.....Ken M   



#13 Andres Vera

Andres Vera

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Becoming a helicopter pilot for the Pinochet administration

Posted 05 March 2017 - 1912 PM

The WW 2 amphibious assaults are over. AMTRACS are a thing of the past. ACV is a waste of money. The USMC must understand this. They must purchase the Stryker the Army is using and retire the LAV and AAV. They should use the money they save, to purchase more LCAC and fast LCUs.

original.jpg

original.jpg

WW2 type dogfights are over! Guns are a thing of the past. I can be solve with technology like IR and BVR missiles, AWACS have made dogfights a thing of the past.



#14 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,903 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 06 March 2017 - 0328 AM

Not really LST's, Large dedicated assault ships, highly buoyant, designed to be mine resistant and with suppressive weapons for a beach assault.  Double hull, crush layer with water exclusion materials, maybe a floatation collar like a RHIB that sort of thing.  Several multiple shot line charges on the prow to blast clear the beach line for the troops.  Multiple rotary cannon to suppress ATGM/MG teams.  Large FAE rockets.  Perhaps a large MLRS to further suppress the landing zone, and provide support to the BLT inland until they can get their organic artillery sorted.  

 

Basically banzai in, blow the ever loving Hell outta the beach front then land a BLT or so, and the ship is spent and written off.  Mostly automated systems, motion cued guns and the like.

 

Unfortunately, the collateral damage inherent in such an approach makes too many people squeamish.  It's basically the nuclear landing prep, without the nukes. S/F.....Ken M   

 

Why not send individual marines onto the beach in large rockets?

ie

 

=============================

Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion or SUSTAIN is a concept first proposed in 2002 by the United States Marine Corps to deploy Marines via spaceflight to any location on Earth.

Project Hot Eagle, launched by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Air Force Research Laboratory, is an investigation into the development and use of suborbital spacecraft to fulfill this vision. Hot Eagle would use a craft based on a design similar to Space Ship One, which could launch a squad on a suborbital trajectory in two stages and deliver them anywhere on two hours' notice.

Extraction would have to come by other means. Future proposed capabilities for the Marine Corps include launching into low earth orbit to choose the time of an attack.

Delivery of soldiers by rocket has been proposed before, including by General John B. Medaris, head of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in the 1950s. The lander itself is designed to hold a 13-man squad and land in almost any terrain at any time, avoiding diplomatic concern for airspace rights.

=============================

 

Would be a pity if those Marines actually needed some heavy support..................

 

Or would Astro-Gavins provide suitable support?  I mean if the US can rocket three men to the moon on top of a Saturn 5, why cannot they send a company of 10 Astro-Gavins, on 10 Saturn 5s, to support space Marines landed in Pervertistan half the way across the world?


Edited by DougRichards, 06 March 2017 - 0332 AM.


#15 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,133 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 06 March 2017 - 0435 AM

Could you imagine telling the Navy....yeah...we want you to beach yourself and then stay there to fire in support of of the Marines.

With the crew mainly astern and in an armored citadel operating remote turrets and mountings, it's not a bad plan at all.

Especially if you really set it up for a short run into the landing beaches from forward staging location rather than a 3 week slog from CONUS.

#16 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,903 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 06 March 2017 - 0450 AM

Could you imagine telling the Navy....yeah...we want you to beach yourself and then stay there to fire in support of of the Marines.

With the crew mainly astern and in an armored citadel operating remote turrets and mountings, it's not a bad plan at all.

Especially if you really set it up for a short run into the landing beaches from forward staging location rather than a 3 week slog from CONUS.

 

You mean the next version of the ©littoral combat ship?   Sounds pretty fuqued to me.

 

Mind you, the old Landing Ship Medium, with two twin 40mm in the bows and five medium tanks, was a possibilty......



#17 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,903 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 06 March 2017 - 0708 AM

Could you imagine telling the Navy....yeah...we want you to beach yourself and then stay there to fire in support of of the Marines.

With the crew mainly astern and in an armored citadel operating remote turrets and mountings, it's not a bad plan at all.

Especially if you really set it up for a short run into the landing beaches from forward staging location rather than a 3 week slog from CONUS.

 

Actually that is precisely the role of the WW2 of the Royal Navy Landing Craft Gun Medium.

 

LCGM.jpg



#18 dragon1w4e5

dragon1w4e5

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 42 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 1241 PM

1) Depends who you fight and whether they fight back. That is unchanging.

 

2) Most materiel for sustained campaigns still goes by ship to the theater. Geography follows.

 

3) Despite your presumed logic, nobody in the USN/USMC wants to lead a surface assault with LCACs! Nor does anybody think the helicopter proves the only necessary assault means.

1) If you fight enemy's like Granada, AMTRACS are ok, if you fight enemy's like Russia or China, AMTRACS are death traps.
 

2) Exactly. That's why you need more Fast ship to shore connectors.

 

3) Is is not my logic. Most European nations embrace this concept.

 

You must forget assault on heavily defended shores. No AMTRAC can withstand artillery & Airforce bombardment, modern ATGW systems, Tank, IFV, SPAAG and TAAG cannon fire. When the defenders spot them, it will be a blood bath. And you all know that drones are the most common machine of detection, accessible even to the poorest. China & Russia have fare more sophisticated drones, radars, satellites ect to detect AMTRACS swimming slowly to the shores.  



#19 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,445 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2017 - 1318 PM

It'll probably be interesting to note that Japan has so far paid for about 40 AAV7s and will finish paying for their total requirement of 52 AAV7s. These 52 AAV7s will be used in the formation of a new amphibious battalion in the JGSDF.

 

 

An amphibious assault ship similar to the wasp-class that includes the use of AAV7 like vehicles has been studied into by the MoD. The current outline does not have a requirement for amphibious assault ships but a recent announcement by the Mod said that a new outline will be made and published sometime in August this year. Items already said to be considered for the new outline are for eight frigates at 3,000 tons and THAAD. I think there is a decent chance that there will be a requirement for 1 or 2 Amphibious Assault Ships.

jiohyigyftyfyt.jpg

 

Furthermore, they are also looking into a new amphibious assault vehicle that would be about twice as fast in the water as the AAV7.

njmjhjkhjkhjk.png

 

nklnjjklnkjnkl.png

 

jkbnjkgjkjl.jpg

 

So any argument that is for the continued use of amtrack like vehicles is not only being upheld by the USMC but also by the Japanese.



#20 Andres Vera

Andres Vera

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Becoming a helicopter pilot for the Pinochet administration

Posted 06 March 2017 - 1536 PM

What about amphibious tanks like the Chinese ZTD05?

 

https://www.wikiwand...TD05_Light_Tank






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users