The Marines already have a tailor made solution to the issue of what to buy for the Marine Personnel Carrier. That solution is in production and being delivered today. It would need minor modifications and is transportable by CH-53E/K.
Its the LAV-25A2.
Simply remove the turret, replace it with a remote weapon station and the issue is resolved. Approval by the SecDef should be easy, it can be sole sourced (by passing competition) and it can be in the fleet by the 1st quarter of next year. IF they act now.
USMC LAV A2
I LIKE it. The KISS principle applied! Better is the enemy of good enough. In production so startup, training and life cycle costs are known.
ReplyDeleteI do not like it... One of the many ideas of the MPC is being capable to carry a full squad of Marines... The LAVA2 can only carry 6 Marines. A better idea would be using the Stryker body and just slap upgraded armor. The stryker already is proven, has 14.5mm AP protection all around and can be equipped with cage armor and things like that... The only downside is that it can not swim but swimming is not a requirement of the MPC IIRC.
ReplyDeleteWithout the turret bustle intruding into the fighting compartment could you not fit more marines inside ?
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, exactly how big is a single Marine rifle squad ? Is it 13 ??
OK, just looked that up myself on Wikipedia, so a Marine rifle squad is still 13 men, so your not going to fit that in the back of a Stryker either (2 crew plus 9 - but the 9 look a little cramped !)
ReplyDeleteI thought the MPC was only supposed to carry 8-9 too (with two MPCs per squad).
ReplyDeleteI think the LAV A2 would be woefully under-armored these days, especially vs IEDs. It can't accept a lot more armor because of suspension/powerplant limits.
Best to just go with the Stryker A1 and share the production, development, and support pipeline with the Army.
Stryker is too heavy...will take up too much space aboard ship...besides, the Army is moving toward the second version which will be even heavier still with a different engine, suspension etc...
ReplyDeletethe LAV-25A2 without its turret will meet mission specifications, can be acquired immediately and will provide an adequate level of protection.
remember that vehicle was designed with the ied threat in mind.
the LAV A2 has the same level protection of the Stryker... 14.5mm AP all around.
ReplyDeleteIt will take a while to modify a Stryker to MPC and then get in line behind the Army prouduction quotes.
ReplyDeleteAnd you can put more LAVs in a given amount of sq.footage.
Can the LAV A2 protect vs 14.5mm all around and then add cage on top of that to defeat RPGs like the Stryker? Will it have a double-V hull to protect against mines and IEDs like the Stryker upgrade program promises?
ReplyDeleteIIRC, the current MPC entrants include the Patria AMV and the BAE/Iveco SUPERAV - both significantly larger and heavier than the LAV A2. Both in the Stryker weight range.
Lee,
ReplyDeleteIs Stryker production maxed out right now? I have to imagine significant new orders for any of these vehicles (including the LAV A2) may require ramp up time. Perhaps increasing the Stryker production rate would be no more difficult and could end up benefiting both the Army and Marines with improved production efficiencies.
Does the LAV A2 have enough interior space for the 8-9+2 Marines and all their kit? Its interior is significantly smaller than the Stryker, which carries the same number of troops.
How long will it take to modify any of these vehicles to the MPC spec? None have exactly what the Marines want off-the-shelf. At least the Stryker has gone through all of the rigorous testing and Army Milspecing and we have significant combat experience with it now.