I'd suggest the whole thing hasn't been properly conceptualized. The present AAV is an APC as is the MPC. The AAV replacement (EFV) was supposed to be an IFV, carry 17 Marines, and meet a very high water speed requirement that required it water plane and thus have a 2,700hp engine. The MPC as compared to EFV was seen as an infantry carrier (APC) to complement EFV.Just a quick trip down memory lane for everyone.
Until we see what the new ACV looks like it's not at all clear MPC is required. How about a comparative analysis of two MPC's vs one ACV equipped as an APC not an IFV?
The entire original notion of having a heavy, medium, and light infantry carrier (EFV, MPC, and JLTV) seemed odd and entirely as a response to not being able to afford enough EFVs.
The thing that actually concerns me the most is the natural pressure when operating a 9 man infantry carrier to go to a 9 man squad. MPC carrying 9 makes a lot less sense for the Corp than other organizations that use a 9 man squad. In the US Army's case moving to the 9 man squad in a new IFV is a big improvement from the current Bradley platoon.
I'd rather see ACV finalized before decisions are made on MPC. Otherwise there's going to be too much pressure to just cut ACV and use the "cheaper" MPC, even though twice as many are needed.
1. The EFV was suppose to replace the AAV on a one for one basis as the primary Marine Corps IFV/personnel carrier.
2. During development the cost of the EFV ballooned to such an extent that the full buy of EFV could not be made.
3. As a solution to the problem of the EFV not being affordable enough to replace the AAV on a one for one basis, the MPC concept was born.
4. The EFV was cancelled and the MPC concept continued.
5. The Marine Corps has revived the EFV in a new supposedly affordable form named the Amphibious Combat Vehicle. Initial impressions make it out to be the EFV but without the high water speed requirement.
6. The Marine Corps has also decided to approach industry for information on how an update to the legacy AAV would work.
That's the procurement history in a nutshell. The question remains. Are we correct in continuing with the MPC?
Does it make sense?
If we are to continue with the MPC then do we shelve the AAV upgrades? Do we shelve the ACV? If the answer to either one of those questions is to continue with the MPC then justification must be made for the AAV upgrade/ACV procurement.
If the answer is no then we should cancel the MPC NOW and circle our wagons around the AAV and ACV.
To continue with all three of these programs makes no sense. Either the AAV upgrade, ACV or MPC should go. We cannot afford all three.
Tell me something Sol, does the MPC imply a fundamental shift in the way the USMC intends to fight? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always viewed the Marines as an infantry force, albeit with plenty of organic support. Do they now intend to transform themselves into a mechanized ground force, capable of sweeping operational maneuvers? Is the rest of the Corps to match this new mobility. Will they have the robust type of logistical support that is needed to supply this sort of warfare? If the answers are "no" then why do they need such a vehicle in the first place?
ReplyDeletethe Commandant is in over his head. the only program he's sure about is the F-35. on all others he's differing to different factions inside the Marine Corps and appears to weak to have his own views on how the Marine Corps should move forward.
ReplyDeletethe MPC is the poster child program for that confusion. we don't know if we want to be a commando force, a medium weight force or an Army light.
on reflection if the AAV is going to be upgraded and if its going to serve for another 20 years then the MPC program makes no sense. same with the ACV...if its coming online and will replace the MPC on a one for one basis then why the MPC...you get where I'm going but the Marines are confused.
what also has me laughing or crying is the fact that MPC type vehicles were once classified as armored cars and they were relegated to either internal security OR recon. now they're being labled as frontline combat vehicles. additionally its been said that if a wheeled vehicle gets over 30 tons then tracks are preferrable. but we're seeing a host of vehicles that are wheeled over 30 tons...and everyone knows that they're not as mobile in rough terrain but everyone is (it appears) gearing up for internal security missions or urban warfare.
i just don't know. but its becoming frustrating.
Here's another thought: Why exactly does the AAV have to be the IFV? The AAV has been an infantry carrier, or APC, since it was called an LVT about 70 years ago. Why not simply design a new vehicle to combine amphibious assault and infantry carrier while dropping the IFV requirement with the 2 man turret? Let this vehicle replace everything.
ReplyDeleteObviously the way to go was something like EFV but itself led to MPC as a cost effective complement since EFV was so expensive. Frankly I'd very much like to know how much ACV costs without the IFV turret and merely equipped as an APC.
As far as the Corp going light mechanized (wheeled) it does seem to be a trend for what used to be called colonial forces and what now we'd call peace keepers, COIN, etc., that is being widely seen. On one level it's a practical response to the post Cold War world and on another level it allows many nations to downsize or eliminate heavy maneuver forces and the requirement to fight a "real" war.
For the Corp it's not clear it makes sense. Does one of the BLT's companies in a MEU go MPC or are MEU's ever deployed without AAV's or with MPC's instead?
Is the IFV turret really the pricey part of the ACV program? Seems all of the development was done for the EFV. IMHO, the newly designed hull, power plant, running gear, armor, C4, and waterborne bits will be the costly parts. The turret adds a lot of capability. I wouldn't want to give it up.
ReplyDeletethe thing that concerns me about a 30mm gun on an apc is the fact that crews will begin to fight the vehicle. by that i mean they'll be hunting targets instead of supporting the infantry. its a thin line but an important one. you don't want them out hunting other vehicles instead of laying down fire support for the squad in attack. that turret makes them hunters instead of supporters in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSol,
ReplyDeleteThat's a training and leadership issue.
In some cases, the most important support they can give the Marines may be to shoot up enemy vehicles. And 30mm APFSDS puts at risk nearly every vehicle on the battlefield except for the frontal armor of tanks. Even then, it could kill a tank with a flank or rear shot.
It also opens up the possibility of using airburst rounds, and has much better range and barrier/fortification penetration than the current .50/40mm turret. Plus it is stabilized and has better optics.
I'd rather have it, and use it as METT-TC dictates, than not. But just MHO.
a 30mm gun at the expense of another troop on the ground? i don't think so. even if you don't add another seat the extra storage space would be useful. i prefer a 50 cal or maybe a 25mm gun that's engaging targets to support the infantry rather than a big gun thats primary mission is killing other vehicles.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'd personally rather see the AAV replacement an IFV it's still worth asking how much added expense the IFV costs over an APC. If the issue is we can't afford an AAV/IFV but can afford an AAV/APC then the vehicle we can afford to purchase is infinitely superior to the one we can't.
ReplyDeleteIt's not an inconsequential added cost. To make an infantry carrier into an IFV requires a large amount of internal volume for the turret and supporting ammo storage. Ballpark you give up around 1/3rd internal volume. If EFV wasn't an IFV it would be significantly smaller and cost less plus the savings in not having the IFV turret.
In a perfect world every Marine, when required, would ride in a well protected and heavily armed IFV like EFV. That world doesn't exist and even when it looked like we could afford EFV we had to create a new program of low cost infantry carriers to complement EFV because it cost so much we could not afford to buy the required numbers. In fact we were able to purchase none as the program was cancelled due to high cost.
The Corp would be better off with ACV/IFV plus ACV/APC rather than ACV plus MPC. Moreover, the APC version could easily be turned into an IFV in the future through a RWS.
It's a gigantic leap to say every AAV has to be an IFV when till now none have been and every AAV is simply an APC. What the Corp needs is a new AAV, whether it's an IFV or if every single one is an IFV, is an affordability issue.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteThe current AAV is spec'd to carry, what, 25 dismounts plus a crew of 3? You're saying you wouldn't trade one of those twenty five dismounts for a stabilized, two-man, 30mm/7.62mm turret with advanced EO/IR optics and a LRF? You might actually be able to see and hit something with it on the beach from 1000m offshore.
25mm guns aren't that much smaller, though there are one-man turrets for them that might fit in the existing AAV turret volume.
Lane,
It's more likely you'll just be able to afford fewer AAV/IFVs than AAV/APCs, rather than none at all. Still, I agree, it would be an interesting cost comparison.
The percentage of internal volume needed for the turret in an AAV/IFV is lower than for a regular IFV. The AAV/IFV is much larger to begin with.
Yes I agree it's likely the Corp ends up with fewer AAV/IFV's and some number of MPC's (wheeled APC). Might the Corp be better off with neither and just getting an AAV/APC? Certainly losing the IFV is a capability hit but the Corp doesn't have one now. If the funds become available one can always add more weapons to the vehicle, some IFV's are presently utilizing RWS with 30mm and ATGW's.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened with EFV was the requirements of relatively high protection and firepower together with the high water speed requirement drove cost up so high the vehicle wasn't affordable. Maybe an IFV isn't affordable right now and perhaps the requirement for one is overstated and/or can be met later.
Interestingly enough, the EFV turret is the only part that actually made it into production as the Mk46 Mod 0/2.
ReplyDelete