Jump to content


Photo

Usmc Amphibious Combat Vehicle


  • Please log in to reply
298 replies to this topic

#41 dragon1w4e5

dragon1w4e5

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 43 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 1529 PM

BAe ACV 1.1

 

15384366_1198774290158759_51928071216683

 

Size Comparison beguine AAV-SU & Terrex 2 ACV 1.1

 

maxresdefault.jpg


Edited by dragon1w4e5, 08 March 2017 - 1551 PM.


#42 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,947 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 09 March 2017 - 0437 AM

reminds me of

 

sandypic010221093480_zps1e11d690.jpg



#43 dragon1w4e5

dragon1w4e5

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 43 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 0215 AM

BAe ACV 1.1

 

34052.jpg



#44 dragon1w4e5

dragon1w4e5

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 43 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 0511 AM

More from BAe ACV 1.1

 

15369936_1197630966939758_69894494539804

Tv_WNXFd.jpg

x638_Qdd.jpg



#45 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,307 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 19 March 2017 - 2106 PM

That is really big.

#46 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 19 March 2017 - 2356 PM

Actually, this was BIG:

 

300px-Expeditionary_Fighting_Vehicle.jpg

 

35.97 metric ton Length 10.67 m (35 ft) Width 3.66 m (12 ft) Height 3.28 m (10.7 ft) (turret roof)

#47 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,904 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 20 March 2017 - 0347 AM

A 35 feet boat is not that big imho. ;) I always wondered how many of these they could have fit on LHD/LPD and other transports. And how many other vehicles would have had to stay home.


The ACV project looks much more reasonable to me. Although both prototypes look like boats too.

#48 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,947 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 20 March 2017 - 0500 AM

A 35 feet boat is not that big imho. ;) I always wondered how many of these they could have fit on LHD/LPD and other transports. And how many other vehicles would have had to stay home.


The ACV project looks much more reasonable to me. Although both prototypes look like boats too.

LCVP

 

Length:

  36 ft 3 in (11.05 m) Beam: 10 ft 10 in (3.30 m) Draft:
  • 3 ft (0.91 m) aft
  • 2 ft 2 in (0.66 m) forward

 

 

But it did carry a platoon.



#49 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 01 April 2017 - 1230 PM

Really need to focus on the fact that landing large numbers of foot mobile troops isn't very useful if they can't move anywhere at faster than 3mph.  Since we really don't do contested landings, we absolutely must have mobility ashore.  S/F....Ken M



#50 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,307 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 02 April 2017 - 0326 AM

Thus your APC should not be oprtimized for swimming to shore. Just have the Navy deliver you to the beach. LHA 6....... hahahahahaha



#51 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,904 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 02 April 2017 - 0941 AM

Thus your APC should not be oprtimized for swimming to shore. Just have the Navy deliver you to the beach. LHA 6....... hahahahahaha


isn't part of the LCAC fleet mothballed? Add to that some new landing crafts (maybe with a design like the norwegian Skjold class?) and put the marines in 8x8 APCs for land movement.

#52 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 02 April 2017 - 2050 PM

Yes, 89 were built, plus 2 prototypes, six are sold to Japan and about a third were mothballed because the USN was shortfunded for the ships that would have carried the 89; built 10 each vice the planned 12 each of LHD, LPD, LSD.

 

According to Wiki entry, the USN operates 36 on each coast and they are in a SLEP now. Apparently the mothballing was discontinued and 17 were 'disassembled for Govt Furnished Equipment', in other words, I gather cannibalized to get the spare parts for the 72.

 

It's hard to keep the USN on the mark in amphib programs, vice CVs, aircraft and subs. Don't even think of mine warfare.



#53 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,307 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 02 April 2017 - 2103 PM

The two new LHAs don't even have dock wells. Of course the new normal is to fight inland on continents. I'm wondering if a large number of LSTs built to serve as commercial ro-ros when in reserve would achieve the desired surge lift, sustain shipbuilding and help reverse the concentration of shipping from the PRC.



#54 Halidon

Halidon

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2017 - 0915 AM

Serving amphibs like LSTs (or LSDs,LPDs, etc etc) and commercial Ro/Ros don't have compatible requirements, and the Sealift Command has Ro/Ros already. There are studies going right now looking at solutions: most seem to gravitate toward more LPDs/LSDs, expanding the MSC fleet, and new "connectors" which can take vehicles off the big amphibs and drop them on or closer to the beach.

#55 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 03 April 2017 - 1019 AM

Assault shipping is still needed. LSTs don't do well vs mines and coastal defense missiles. They are a relic of WWII style landings.

 

The latest LHD of the America class, LHD-8 Bougainville, has a well deck, as will any further ships of the class.


Edited by Ken Estes, 04 April 2017 - 1645 PM.


#56 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 03 April 2017 - 1022 AM

It's interesting to see some signs of the USN reviving it's neglected Phib capability. Maybe the Chinese version of the famous Japanese 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' island belt will be tested. A few examples ought to suffice for the rest. A rather vulnerable investment.



#57 On the way

On the way

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 502 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Why the hell did the French stop making that tracked sports car with the pirated German canon? Point me to the tank races.

Posted 09 April 2017 - 1702 PM

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

 

I think that the USMC ACV program is now a one horse race. The BAE entry will win almost by default. The above competing entry from SAIC, a derivative of the Singapore Armed Forces Terrex AFV, has now been compromised to the Chicom after 9 earlier versions were confiscated by Hong Kong Customs in Hong Kong and interred (for, can we say detailed examination by the Chinese) for over 2 months. The version that was confiscated was an earlier model, the one submitted for the USMC competition differs in that it is heavier and has a bigger engine. But the design philosophy and other things like the Battlefield management system, remote turret and amphibious drive engine would all have been probably examined and copied by the Chinese. I am not sure how the USMC will feel knowing that the Chinese have detailed knowledge on an earlier version of their new ACV. BAE will surely use this to their advantage and tell the Marines that the SAIC version is as good as having given inside info to the Chinese.    .



#58 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 09 April 2017 - 2125 PM

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.


BTW, the US Marketing Corps has been in the business of finding a successor for the AA>V-7 since 1973 - 44 years with very short interruptions.

By now they should have all their AAV-7s taken away, to be consumed in target practice by the army without a single museum piece surviving - to punish for institutional incompetence.


The technical answer to the problem is extremely simple.
(1) Devise an armed APC that's got inland water amphibiousness and is useful in forced river crossings (which largely eliminates 8x8)
(2) Devise a simple yet somewhat fast-moving (maybe 18 kts) stackable (potentially RHIB) ferry that can carry said APC, a 40 ft ISO container or two 20 ft ISO containers

#59 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 10 April 2017 - 0015 AM

Nothing at all is accurate in your post. As for 'extremely simple', that would seem to be you. Perhaps you ought to do some research.



#60 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 April 2017 - 0519 AM

You're either ignorant or you lied.
Now I suppose calling you out on this is appropriate, since it's the same allegation of lies or ignorance as the one you hurled at me.


evidence:

1972: AAV-7 enters service

1973: Landing Vehicle, Assault (LVA) project began, no production

1982: LVT(X) project began, no production

1990's and 2000's: AAAV project, no production, renamed EFV

cancelled in 2011: EFV project, no production

since 2011: ACV project (previously already cancelled "MPC" when it was meant as a LAV successor)



The LVA project's existence in 1973 alone already suffices to prove you wrong.

Edited by lastdingo, 10 April 2017 - 0531 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users