photo via Marine Corps Times...
Of all the issues on procurement that the USMC faces, one vehicle has virtually disappeared from the discussion...the Marine Personnel Carrier...this from Marine Corps Systems...
An MPC company lifts an infantry battalion in conjunction with the infantry’s organic wheeled assets. Like the planned Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), MPCs will be assigned to the Assault Amphibian Battalions of the Marine Division currently outfitted with Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs). The reconstituted Assault Amphibian battalion would tentatively consist of one MPC company (nominally 88 vehicles) and three EFV companies (about 45 vehicles each).
The MPC family of vehicles will consist of a base vehicle and two supporting mission role variants. The MPC-Personnel will be the base vehicle, two of which carry and support a reinforced rifle squad of 17 Marines (one EFV would do the same). Each vehicle would carry 9-10 combat-equipped Marines and a two-man crew. This meets the need to transport more Marine infantrymen than the existing Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) or Humvee platforms while providing greater protection. The eight-wheeled LAV is not employed as an armored personnel carrier and usually carries a four-person Marine scout/reconnaissance team in addition to its crew. The MPC-Command will be equipped to serve as a mobile command-echelon/ fire-support coordination center for the infantry battalion headquarters. The MPC-Recovery will be the maintenance and recovery variant of the MPC.
The MPC supports expeditionary maneuver by enhancing the Marine Air Ground Task Force’s (MAGTF) tactical and operational protected mobility. Conceptually, the MPC will complement the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and will be delivered to the fight as part of the reinforcing echelon of the MAGTF during forcible entry operations and in of support sustained operations ashore. The MPC will enable the GCE to maintain lift capacity requirements and provides an additional balanced platform that will be capable across the range of military operations.
The Marine Corps leadership deferred a Milestone A go-ahead for the MPC program in May 2008, saying the delay would allow it “to effectively prioritize near-term investment decisions, in order to provide a synchronized mobility strategy with respect to the capabilities the MPC, the EFV, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) offer in the future.” (See the separate EFV and JLTV chapters of this publication.) MPCs would be supported by JLTVs carrying heavy weapons, communications equipment, and cargo.
The MPC will be designed to cross rivers and inland bodies of water in a Marine Air-Ground Task Force’s littoral operational area. The MPC likely would have a remotely operated weapon station turret fitted with a .50 caliber machine gun, a 7.62 mm machine gun, or an automated Mk. 19 grenade launcher with a thermal sight. The MPC crew could provide direct fire in support of dismounted Marine infantrymen.'
Read the whole thing here...
But my questions are these...
1. What will the MPC bring to the table that the current MRAP doesn't?
2. If the vehicle is only required to cross inland water sources then is this really a must have for Marine forces? A host of vehicles can perform the troop transport mission and the fact that the vehicle will perform the APC role and not that of the IFV reinforces this notion.
3. How are we going to justify this vehicle in light of modifying the HUMVEE (and for that matter is the JLTV a must have)? Can we not modify legacy Strykers to perform this mission at much reduced cost?
I guess in summation its time to get to budget crunching in a serious way. If the EFV is a must then we've got to start tossing other programs into the garbage heap. I submit that the MPC be the vehicle that gets tossed...
US Army Strykers (used) and slightly modified to have an amphibious (limited) capability would seem ideal. They're already set up with Blue Force tracker, already have RWS and can be had fairly cheaply...with the added bonus of the Marine Corps being able to piggy back on the Army's supply system.
This seems like a no brainer.
Scrap the MPC and modify US Army Strykers for this mission. Or..if you really want to be light and expeditionary...want a vehicle that you can fly to dispersed locations to give your infantry companies mobility then how about this...
Nothing to say about DADT, Solomon?
ReplyDeletehmm. i don't know what to say. people are going to get their asses kicked if they're in a line unit...people will have their careers ruined by this new policy and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a sorry little bitch.
ReplyDeleteother than that, nothing to post.
I have to agree that MPC seems a bit redundant. For force-on-force maneuvers just use the EFV, and for patrols or limited recce wheeled vehicles like M-ATV or Humvee-Mod, even if those aren't amphibious/river crossers.
ReplyDeleteSomething like the Supacat WMIK underslung would be ideal during early entry. The WMIK is sort-of M-ATV-like and can still be airlifted to provide FO/ANGLICO, Javelin and/or sniper teams some ground mobility, without going overboard on heavy armor.
On the MPC's gun; the current Stryker proved that a single .50cal or 40mm AGL is too light - a RWS with 30mm (same as EFV) would be better.
you just gave me an idea...one thats lighter than the Supacat...
ReplyDeleteYep, the BV10S would be ideal as a back-up to the EFV. Amphibious, air transportable (especially when split, maybe even MV-22 underslung?) and combat proven - ticks all boxes.
ReplyDeleteModular as well with numerous variants.
I'm wondering why the USMC is still looking for a wheeled MPC.
i hate to say it Marcase but i think it had more to do with following the latest trend than with it being a military necessity...the Marines are facing the same age old problems...not enough armored transport for its infantry...since they weren't going to be able to afford enough EFV's, they formulated the idea to get the latest and greatest wheeled apc to do the job...by doing that i think they overlooked a great vehicle like the BVS-10 (still not sold on the Warthog)....
ReplyDeleteWarthog is just a bigger Viking but it does have some very smart logistics tail lift/hooklift systems.
ReplyDeleteThe big plus for Viking is it can be split and lifted by Merlin (just) although with all the extra theatre entry kit not sure if that is the case. It can also be carried on the Griffon 8100TD hovercraft which the RM are angling to get
http://www.griffonhoverwork.com/products/8
If that doesn't convince you, have a look here
http://img98.imageshack.us/i/tekanemobq7.jpg/
I am always in favor of buying and existing military system rather then building and buying a new one. Either the Viking or the Warhog could be bought and maybe even license-built here in US?
ReplyDeleteThe advatages of know capabilites, existing training and logistics system can add up to many pros and maybe overcome some cons?
I did see an article that UK was havign a lot of issues with first item deliveries of the new Warthogs? I guesss this should be cross-posted to the newer article?
With the AAV pushing 40 years old, LAVs too small and the EFV is the probable victem of SECDEF Gates' next cut a better AFV is needed for the USMC. The Viking is more converted farm vehicle and a maintenance nightmare for the brits. The Iveco SuperAV 8x8 is amphibious up to sea state 3. Prototypes are using Freccia turrets with 25,30&40mm guns and a Centaro low recoil 105mm. Carries 12 dismounts and a crew of 2. Here is a Link: http://www.mainpump.com/news/specialty/3110.htm
ReplyDeleteseems to be what the USMC and Army are looking for. The Patria AMV/Rosomak is another posibility.