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.
