My frankenstien AAV upgrade...
The MTU powerpack for the PUMA infantry fighting vehicle excels with its outstanding power-to-weight ratio and extremely compact design. Together with the 10V 890 engine, the powerpack includes a Renk 6-speed transmission unit, the starter-generator and the air cooling and filtering plant.
1. MTU Powerpack....I want something compact and powerful. If you can give me a diesel engine that puts out 1500 horsepower then we're cooking. I'll accept a little less if I have to but I want max power in a compact package. MTU has the track record of providing this kind of powerplant. Just to show that I have some international flavor I'll even compromise and take the powerplant from the PUMA IFV..yeah its only a little over 1000 horsepower but I'll take it. No! I want it in my redone AAV.
Elbit 30mm RWS (foldable trialed on the AAV)
2. Firepower. This one is tricky. It depends.... Do we want our Track Commanders fighting heads down? Are we going to designate a crewman as gunner so we can have a RWS...if we stick with the MK44 turret will it take up too much room on the AAV? Will a RWS be too tall? Are foldable options good enough? It really doesn't matter what they decide as long as its 30mm or bigger. I despise the RAFAEL mount but it does have the option to mount anti-tank missiles along with the gun. Leaning toward the ELBIT option as its already been trialed on the AAV.
CV-90 Armadillo sporting rubber tracks.
3. Tracks. I don't know how this one is gonna go over. I believe at one time the tracks were used to help with self righting. We can find another way to accomplish that mission but its time to switch to rubber tracks. I admittedly don't know as much about them as I should and this one might be subject to getting dumped from the list...for instance can you shorten the track and run with it if you sustain damage with rubber like you can with steel? Do they last as long? Are they cost effective? If they are then its time to get on the rubber bandwagon. Besides BAE has already done this the CV90 and SEP.
4. Trophy or some other anti-missile system. Detractors like to talk about AAVs never being used in an amphibious assault. Even if they're not RPG's and Anti-Tank missiles dot the landscape. How about we build in the latest anti-missile defense onto the vehicle instead of questionable add-on armor that won't do the job against the latest threats and add unnecessary weight? I have no idea of what works and what doesn't but its a thought.
5. More to come. The goal is to upgrade the AAV to such an extent that if Congress goes crazy (and they will) and money dries up, that we can have a vehicle that is good enough to serve another 20 years if need be. Upgraded power, transmission, suspension, firepower, protection and ride should help get us more than halfway there. I have no faith that the ACV will be developed on schedule and am beginning to wonder about the Marine Personnel Carrier Program. The budget crunch is coming and their is no sense of urgency when it comes to programs except for the F-35 and MV-22. This is unsat. TIme for the groundside to get what it can while it can.
Sol I know you said you were not going to make another post on Ferguson, but the governor just declared a state if emergency and national guard and police are probably headed into a rough situation tonight. Also the protesters posted their protest locations. I hope all stay safe tonight. Heading to get my popcorn now.
ReplyDeletei'm beginning to grow suspicious about the current administration and all these flash points. have you noticed that this president has no agenda until something blows up? ISIS wasn't an issue until two journalist were killed. illegal immigrants suddenly had to be an issue because they had hundred of thousands of children show up at the border. climate change is such an issue because they have a small cadre of people always bitching about it.
Deletei get the same thing with Ferguson. the Justice Dept, the Governors office, the local authorities all could have acted better to keep it from becoming a crisis...yet here we are.
i'm tired of jumping to the tune of a feckless group of people that need to get excited about tragedies that they create.
You forgot uparmouring and reframing the AAV. The basic frame is aluminum I think, and it limits the "growth potential" (aka the weight of all the extra stuff you finally realized you need in combat and need to bolt it on the outside).
ReplyDeleteno i didn't. the damn thing needs to float. if it didn't then we'd just use strykers. i covered that with the trophy system. its good against small arms and shell splinters and if we get direct tank fire then we've done something very wrong.
DeleteSolomon,
DeleteHere is a question for you: If you to compare your new and improved AAV against the Rosamak and it's family of vehicles would you still buy it? If you discount legacy and the fact that we already have the AAV in service would you still choose this over the Rosamak or another MPC family of vehicles?
i would buy the SuperAV right now. write up the contract and lets sign it. Same for the Rosamak. The Terrex, probably the same but i would need to see more. the General Dynamics offering? what are they offering! but since i answered your question answer mine.
Deletedo you really believe that the USMC is serious about replacing the AAV? i don't. take a look at procurement and one thing becomes obvious to me. aviation is still in a place of privilege and will remain in that place for at least another fiscal year. if the F-35 actually reaches IOC in 2015 then all bets are off for the next 20 years. i truly believe that plane will consume our budgets for the next 20 plus years.
thats why this proposal was put forward. it gets us something...now! no more broken promises. no more lies from the head shed. just wrench turning and upgrades.
Amos fooled us all and for a while we bought into it. he screwed the Marine Corps and thats his legacy.
I do believe we are serious about replacing the AAV but are stuck in a horrible loop between reality and the world that we want to live in.
DeleteThe EFV was the vehicle that we really wanted becuase without it OMFTS does not work. However, the EFV has been defeated by physics. You cannot make a 30 ton boat that is a workable IFV. Or a IFV that makes a decent boat. It cannot be done.
Instead we just have infighting over what the EFV, MPC, ACV 1.1, ACV 2.0, or whatever it is named right now should be or do. We take a vehicle with 8 wheels and most officers assume that it must go to LAR or it must be a Stryker. If it does not hold a full squad everyone complains about splitting the squad and the total square footage used in amphibious shipping. If it cannot swim from a LPD then how do we deploy it? Worst of all it it makes us the US Army and we are back to second land army.
All of that points us back towards the EFV, which cannot exist because of physics.
With everyone only being able to agree that a vehicle that only exists in .ppt is the answer and that the real vehicles that could work make us into the US Army; so we have compromised and are upgrading the AAV7, again.
That leaves two choices going forward:
-We buy a version of Rosamak or the SuperAV, are pleasantly surprised by how good the vehicle is and steadily keep ordering more. This is the Stryker plan. Not that we are buying Strykers but that the Stryker was just meant as an interim vehicle until the Future Combat System vehicles was in production. Instead the Stryker has outlived the FCS and the GCV, both systems that were supposed to replace it.
-Solomon you are going to punch a wall when you read this but.. The MV-22B. With no one being able to decide on a ground vehicle the idea will be floated to do away with it all together. Keep the AAVs but continue to push us towards going air mobile. Afterall, if the LPD, LHA, LSD all have to stay 65nm from shore why even bother with a ground vehicle? Plus MV-22Bs can do HA/DR better, embassy evacuation, carry Marines to set the cordon for a SOCOM raid...
you do know that going the airmobile route for the Marine Corps means the destruction of the Marines right? if we become MV-22 centric then the table is flipped. we go down to one Marine Division worth of infantry if we're lucky. tanks, tracks, artillery go away. we'll be lucky to hold onto 120mm mortars and we're forever SOCOM's bitch.
Deletethe air wing would love it. SOCOM would love it. the Marine Corps that i know would be dead...but maybe that's the plan.
Do you know if we even did one vertical envelopment during OIF1 and if it worked?
DeleteThe only thing i can find about what we used helos for during OIF1 was logistics. All the real fighting was with tanks and infantry.
it was a strictly combined arms fight. no heli-borne assaults that i know of. and with good reason. helicopters and tilt rotors are magnets for small arms, RPGs and missiles. everyone knows it but somehow the vulnerability is being ignored when it comes to ship to shore ops.
Deletei don't get the disconnection. if you have to park your ships that far out at sea that tracks can't swim to shore then you're going to have to kill anti-air systems to get the landing force to the beach too. why is that simple fact being ignored by everyone?
I think the SuperAV and Patria/Havoc would be excellent options. Im willing to bet a months income that if the marines, by the grace of the gods, adopted either, the army would follow suit to replace their strykers.
DeleteFor supposedly re-focusing on the Pacific, we are seriously lacking amphibious CFV capability. Hopefully this changes soon.
Sol in the real world I would bet good mechanics could get that package done for less than 4 million per copy (and that includes Trophy active protection which costs about 250k). Here is one area where I might disagree with you a bit. You cannot blame everything on the F-35. No doubt it is consumer way way too much of the defense budget, but Obama just magically found 4 billion dollars to help poor countries deal with climate change. What a total waste! With that 4 billion you could spend 4 million a copy on an upgraded AAV and the Corps would be in a dramatically better place. With proper leadership you should be able to have the entire fleet upgraded in 3 years. This business of spending 6 years to think and study and do models ect ect ect is ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteI still get the sense that the USMC is still wandering around the amtrack question rather aimlessly despite the ACV program. The topic now necessarily brings up questions about ship-to-shore connectors and other assets which the USMC needs to review. What's the best way to get these vehicles "close-enough" to the shore to swim the distance?
ReplyDeletebullshit. the former COmmandant used the idea of a full scale invasion as a reason to do nothing. ship to shore connectors are hardly the issue. the real issue is rolling back enemy defenses. you're gonna have to do it anyway. even if you want the USMC to be a seagoing 101st airborne you're still going to have to roll back defenses. don't buy into HQMC bullshit.
DeleteI believe band tracks to be the future, and we will gradually see conventional steel tracks go the way of the dodo bird with the exception of heavy armor, at least until they evolve enough to be applicable in vehicles with weight over 30-tons.
ReplyDeletehttp://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2014/06/band-tracks.html
This has a number of references to statistics regarding band tracks, although I'm still rather skeptical. They supposedly have a much longer service life than conventional tracks, although, until they are widely employed by the US military on the scale we deploy vehicles, much remains to be seen.
I've seen somebody post it here before, but the "LF" version of the M230 30mm automatic cannon might be a very desirable weapon for your hypothetical new AAV. You have the excellent anti-infantry and anti-IFV capabilities in a weapon that uses an already common ammunition type in service http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkAStevenCannon.pdf
The modularity of the remote weapons station also can accommodate the M240, Mk 19, M2, M134, among others.
But yes, I agree strongly with the active protection system. They are the necessary next step for protective equipment among AFVs, especially the lighter ones that do not have the luxury of just adding on more ceramic armor due to the risk of losing amphibious capability.
It also needs to transport a whole squad of infantry.
For a Vehicle of the AAV's 29.1 tons band tracks are good. they reduce vibration, Noise, have a longer service life offer better traction, are lighter weight, are less destructive and more fuel efficient. Wins across the board.
ReplyDeleteeveryone keeps going back to the weight of the vehicle when discussing band tracks. i don't get it! it was once believed that wheeled vehicles couldn't get over 25 tons and be viable but now we see some approaching 35 tons. what is it about band tracks that makes them inappropriate once a certain weight threshold is crossed.
Deleteat it's heart a band track is still little more than a continuous, rubber band with metal plates molded in this means it still has some issues, and if it throws a track it's not as easy to fix it's also more susceptible to explosives. but less to small arms. the biggest is I just don't' think any one has really pushed a Band track on a heavier vehicle yet.
DeleteThe reason why I mentioned a 30-ton threshold is because the "under-30-tons" weight on a chassis is the only experience of band tracks being used on an armored vehicle. My personal experience is a Cat Challenger with band tracks, and that piece of equipment weighs 15 tons more or less.
DeleteBut, like everything else, I predict MBTs eventually using band tracks as newer technologies and manufacturing techniques become more commonplace. At this point, a 60-70 ton MBT operating them invokes a bit of skepticism on my part.
a 60-70 ton MBT is it seems to me a dated object in the future in itself. 40-50ton seems the aim these days
Delete