Highlights of the above document...
ACV Wargame
To develop the ACV MP, a wargame was conducted involving a representative group of subject matter experts (SMEs) who wargamed the individual scenarios to create the necessary details for tasks, events, duration and operating conditions. The participants had the opportunity to discuss their actions during each of the scenarios and their responses were collected. Once the tactical approach to the scenario was decided upon, the responses were focused on the time-phased representation of systems operation that is key to the OMS/MP. Refer to the ACV OMS/MP Wargame Final Report for further details.So the AAV turret is being tossed and they're going with a RWS with either a fifty cal or 40mm. Interesting. I wonder if this is priming the AAV Battalions to go down to a two man crew?
Each of the scenarios had a number of lethality engagements that supported the description of how the ACV’s weapon system would be employed. Each engagement was executed with the ACVs having a mix of a stabilized remote weapons system (RWS) equipped with either a .50 caliber M2 or a 40 mm Mk19 MOD. The ACV platoon had an equal mix of the two weapons (ACV platoon with 21 vehicles 11 x .50 cal and 10 x Mk19). During the scenario discussions, the participants were presented a threat engagement and given the opportunity to discuss their actions during engagement and then their responses were collected. Once the tactical approach to the engagement was decided, the responses were focused on how the weapons system was employed and rounds fired.
Littoral Penetration Summary (Scenario 1)
The first scenario in the ACV mission is a littoral penetration. A company team (Co Tm) comprised of an infantry company, an ACV platoon, a light armored reconnaissance (LAR) platoon and a tank platoon is part of a larger joint task force. The Co Tm has been staged near a border of a threat nation. This scenario starts with the infantry company mounted on ACVs moving under the cover of darkness to a launch point and crossing the surf of an estuary that is part of a border with the threat nation. During this water movement, there is an engagement with two ‘technical’ vehicles from cliffs above the estuary. After a 3 NM movement, the ACVs cross through another surf zone into the threat nation. Upon landing, the ACVs move along the beach to the beach exit and establish an assembly area where infantry disembark and await link up with the LAR and tank platoon.I'm still digesting this. In the document "Statement of Work for the ACV" they include this blurb...
Launching from Amphibious Ships Analysis
The Contractor shall perform an analysis of their vehicle design showing the capability of launching from amphibious ships identified in the ACV System Performance Specification. The analysis shall include the sub-sections listed below. The Contractor shall prepare and submit the Amphibious Ship Launching Capability Analysis in accordance with CDRL A066.So while it was never war gamed, it does appear that they're looking for the future Marine Personnel Carrier (aka ACV 1.1---NOTE! HQMC fix this naming nonsense!) will be at least analyzed in its ability to launch from amphibious ships.
Is this an actual requirement or a "like to have"?
Either way I want to thank the little bird that keeps dropping these crumbs on my window sill. You can download and read the documents yourself here.
NOTE! I stand by my earlier assessment that the USMC cannot afford these vehicles under current budget pressures. The work you see above is simply "residual" effects from Amos' tenure as Commandant. This was laid out and ready to go when Amos took office. To see it suddenly appear now is nothing but legacy building. Dunford will not be able to put his stamp on the Marine Corps...and this program for another 3 to 4 months. You're witnessing program "inertia"...everyone is waiting to see what the "new" guy has to say, in the mean time the work goes on.
the M2 and Mk19 should not be the primary weapons on this vehicle! A fucking Cannon, a 20/30/40mm cannon, that can actually range out and hit another IFV and Kill it, while having effects on heavy armor. The EFV has the 30mm for a reason, heavier fire power.
ReplyDeleteStill reading alot of this, i'd like to know who we're the SME's and what background they had on armor, armor warfare and the future of armor.
ditto! i would love to know them but you know HQMC will never tell. as far as weapons fit, i'm middling. grunts will have javelins and i don't know if we want these vehicles transporting Marines into the battlespace. to the edge yes...onto it? no! dismounted operations on objective will be the way to go and these MPCs can suppress enemy infantry. add a cannon and suddenly the crews are thinking they're mini-tanks and getting into duels. remember the Army experience in Gulf War 1 with the Bradley. yeah it was a meeting engagement but damn it, you had Bradleys fighting toe to toe with tanks! i mean really? by accident is one thing but they stayed and played. ...they made the call but i shiver at the thought of a Marine unit running into that kind of meat grinder.
DeleteThose M2's had Tow missiles. The 25mm cannon fire bounced off the tanks at best scratched the paint the tow missiles made the kills. The Army is now looking at a upgraded version of that same 30mm cannon that once graced the turret of the EFV but in a Auto turret they have also prototyped that turret on a Stryker. The Marines should do the same. but mount some Javelin missiles
DeleteIf it is vehicle based I recommend TOWs over Javelins. The missiles aren't all that different in terms of max range and capabilities for the newest generation of missiles, but the IBAS/ITAS platform is really damn good optics. The CLU isn't bad either, but a vehicle mounted CLU is not currently in the inventory.
Deletegood point but the bigger issue is this. we keep coming back to your Stryker solution. its all gonna depend on the Republicans and exactly how childish the President decides to be. if they increase defense spending will he veto it? will they even propose an increase...
Deletethat Stryker thing is looking like a simple, quick, get this shit done solution that bypasses the political games.
and bonus points the mount does not require the Turret to penetrate the hull as deeply as a manned turret meaning you can keep the full infantry load. so if the Marines lay down the cash on MPC/ACV1.1 they could mount that same turret keep the full 8-9 marines in the troop bay and still have better protection and penetration power then the LAV25.
DeleteAM Tow would be fine to, I know that the DOD tested a M2 variant that swapped Tows for Javelin besides that having a Javelin would offer more commonality between infantry and vehicles in either case it would be better to have both a chain gun and ATGM's then just one or the other.
That is a lot of black ink!
ReplyDeleteJohn, the Mk 19 has some advantages, like someone on a rooftop. You can lob the 40mm round high up and let it fall on his head, it's designed for that. A cannon isn't really designed for dropping shots.
There are basically 2 kinds of IFV that work together, the cannon one that you want, and the M2/Mk19 one which go after enemy infantry while the cannon one goes after vehicles. They work together, not either/or.
I'm a bit surprised that the weapon systems on the AAV/ACVs are either/or M2/Mk19. I've seen a few old Singaporean IFVs on trips there and they can carry both, so why is there an either/or limit when even 30 year old vehicles can carry both?
the old AAV turret had both. why go for a single weapon on the RWS? not sure. i do know that dual weapons mounts aren't that numerous and i also know that the US Army is using kongsberg's so maybe they're looking for rationalization with Army supply chain?
Deletethe bigger headline to me is that the USMC is going away from a manned turret. that goes against doctrine. the USMC has been real BIG on head up and out of the turret.
That's true too. On the bright side, with the ACV, at least it looks like the Marines are finally getting out of aluminum vehicles and into steel ones.
DeleteWould be much happier if they also developed an XL-LST and dumped their OTH concept. No more faffing around in 5-10 knot AAVs, just ram the bloody thing onto shore and dump M1s right on their laps.
I can see the remote weapon station to a degree as it wouldn't take up internal space on these smaller vehicles. But don't they make a remote version of the AAV turret, seems like you posted on it once. Keep both weapons and be able to reload under armor.
Deletei don't recall a remote version but they do make upgunned versions of the same turret only with 20, 30 or 35(i think) mm cannons.
DeleteThey do make a remote version of the AAV turret.
DeleteI'm Very aware of the MK19's Capabilities, as a former tracker (now jtac/scout), you know that the MK19 kills, you could have a combo like Sol and Myself have discuessed in the pass of (and this is working old aav section now) 3 basic ACV's with RWS .50/Mk19 and 1 "Gun" ACV with a 20,30,40mm/240 combo.
19D?
DeleteWe got to be a bit careful with the phrase 40mm these days, the grenade and the CTA round all share the same diameter.
Think we agree on the cannon/anti-infantry AFV mix part. Now all we have to figure out is if any of these programs will ever come to completion. The US seems to love wasting money on these start/stop programs.
I agree with Solomon, it really depends on what the mission is: troops carrier (APC) = protected mobility with troops that typically dismount, Fighting Vehicle (IFV) = mobile fire power with less troops that eventually dismount (when combined fire is needed). Modern APCs typically have an RWS small caliber as a primary weapon while IFVs have a manned/rws medium caliber (25-40mm) dual-feed weapon. I don't think that ACV with 13 marines will ever be an IFV. If more firepower will be needed it will come from another effector/platform. A protected 40mm turret with ammo is about 2 tons. Do you really want to carry it on such a large and high amphibious vehicle? Such a 30mm/40mm turret can cost 40% of the vehicle price whilst a small caliber RWS will cost less than 10%. Do you want a fleet with 33% less vehicles that are heavier, more complex and more expensive to mantain? A combo pheraps may be an option but it has to be evaluated carefully...
ReplyDeleteI wonder if in the End the Marines are not forced to replace the AAV with two vehicles. one being a dedicated EFV type for fire support and combat a IFV type a second closer to the AAV in terms of function perhaps slower and lighter in both weight and fire power something like the Gibbs Amphibious Combat Craft- Riverine concept That Lockmart was supposedly partnering on.
ReplyDeletelol Leon I was thinking of Gibbs too but as the sole replacement. Speed vs armour (I believe firepower can be the same).
DeleteI don't think the EFV will ever get into service, it was way too ambitious.
If they select the LMC Patria they need to call it the....
ReplyDeleteAMV-7 Havoc.