via National Interest.
Increment 1.1 performed and exceeded the performance requirements in key areas that were the desired performance of the 1.2, Mullins said. “In essence, 1.1 gave us the 1.2 performance requirements, and so there was really no need to continue on with using the vernacular of 1.1, 1.2.”Story here.
Combining the increments into one program is expected to save money, Geurts said in April.
“That brings gear to the fleet faster,” he said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on seapower. “It is much more cost effective, and now we can focus some of that [research-and-development funding] on what is past 1.2, not just redoing the R&D just for the sake of redoing it.”
In President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2020 budget request, the Marine Corps asked for $318 million in base funding to procure 56 ACVs for the first increment.
As part of the family of vehicles, the service is seeking multiple variants. These include personnel; command-and-control; and recovery vehicles. Additionally, the Marine Corps decided to pursue a gunned variant that will have a 30 mm cannon to increase lethality.
The current acquisition objective is to obtain 1,122 total vehicles, Mullins said.
“So far, the feedback we’ve gotten from the Marines that operate this vehicle has been extremely positive,” he noted.
However, the decision to have a single family of vehicles will likely have ramifications on Capitol Hill, the Congressional Research Service said in a June 2019 report titled, “Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle: Background and Issues for Congress.”
With the consolidation of the program, “there will likely be a number of programmatic changes and potential ramifications for the ACV and ACV 2.0 programs,” the report stated. CRS encouraged the service to explore questions such as: “What is the revised timeline for the replacement of AAVs and will this result in cost savings from not having to upgrade and maintain AAVs longer than previously intended?”
But Mullins said consolidating the increments into one has been a positive step.
It likely accelerated the timeline of multiple variants and “allowed us to pursue those solutions faster than doing it in a ... 1.1, 1.2 approach,” he said. “It hasn’t had a negative impact on the schedule. It hasn’t had a negative impact on the program. … In many ways it makes it a more efficient program to execute.”
A few things...
* Anyone ever hear the number 1,122 for the total number of ACV being procured ever used before? I hadn't. Up to this point the number always seemed to hover at around 500. This is an almost one for one replacement of the AAV.
* Increments 1.1 and 1.2 being combined IS news we've heard quite often. What slipped my mind is that 1.2 was scheduled to be tracked. Mobility must be awesome for that requirement to have gone away. I don't know if I actually covered it but the real deal is that the the ACV was always formatted (at least in my mind) as a kind of enhanced Marine Personnel Carrier. Looks like its actually going to assume the role of the AAV with no backup coming online anytime soon.
* ACV 2.0 is still a thing. What I wonder about is the Commandant's new planning. Does his plan to use "different" amphibious ships/Alternative shipping allow for the performance of the ACV for the next couple of decades or does it require the high waterspeed/water ange of the 2.0. It might not seem like a big deal but money will matter and even though the ACV is relatively inexpensive, if it doesn't fit concepts going forward it will be dumped.
Just my thoughts. Did I miss anything?
No comments :
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.