Why didn't we go with a simplified EFV?

John in an e-mail message laments about the offer from General Dynamics to provide the Marine Corps with a simplified EFV.  Remember this vehicle was ready to go and had been tested with Infantry Battalions, had been thru all climate testing and was shown to be shipboard compatible. High water speed would be stripped from the vehicle but the other bits would remain.  It would be a bit faster than the AAV, it would have tremendous firepower gains (you just can't sneeze at that 30mm setup they developed) and it would have all the comms and networking we could imagine.  Even better it would have already been in the fleet. I need real deal information.  No guesses allowed.  No conspiracy theories.

Why didn't we bite?

Spare me the talk about IEDs too.  According to John the EFV had MRAP protection that rivals the ACV so that can't be it.  Mobility?  I'm a track guy and while everyone is screaming that wheels offers the same mobility despite what I'm hearing and the example of the MTVR I'm gonna need to see more before I kill off that bias.

Its almost inexplicable.  A simplified EFV seems like a no brainer.  General Dynamics doesn't talk about it.  Marine Corps history ignores the issue and armor historians don't seem to know the controversy even exists.

So I ask again.  Why didn't the Marine Corps go with a simplified EFV?

Ok. Maybe police can't win.

Did you check out the above video?  This guy staged a scene with the help of some bubbas from the Mobile Police Dept and he surprised the hell outta his girlfriend by using them to propose to his future wife.

Instead of everyone cheering and saying way to go Mobile Police, that's some real good shit you instead have jack asses saying that its across the line.

Even when they're trying to do the right thing the police are getting shit on.  Maybe police can't win.

Personally I think this is fucking "cute" and cool as hell.  Good on all involved.

SIDENOTE!  If you're a proponent of community policing then this is it in action.  Being able to talk to police about even goofy shit is what its suppose to be about.  This is modern day Mayberry USA stuff you're seeing. Oh and for you nancies that are saying this was dangerous the LEOs pulled STUN GUNS.  The guy might have gotten a bit of a shock at worse but he was in no danger of death (if he's reasonably healthy and he looks solid) so chill out!

Open Comment Post. Dec 14, 2016

ACV questions answered and development path clarified.

I've been scouring the internet looking for information on how HQMC could be pushing the ACV as the solution to the ancient AAV while not delivering an increase in capability (at least on paper).  General Mullen (he's at 29 Palms now...poor bastard...I guess he went rogue and pissed in someone's Cheerios!) basically told me to "sit down, chill the fuck out cause they got this shit" and from my glance around the net I think he might have been right. Check this out from Armor and Mobility Mag.

"In the higher protection offered by the ACV such as added armor and underbelly configurations like a V-hull, the biggest distinguisher between what are likely to be two similarly-capable platforms is a better protection package and ground mobility offered by the ACV" 

So that answers that.

The thinking is that the ACV will offer better protection and ground mobility. The upgrade path has also been a matter of concern for many of my readers. I know the answer on this one from doing a little bit of scanning my brain housing group.  Remember ACV 1.1 was suppose to be just a protection upgrade (really didn't remember the increase in mobility being much talked about) but the ACV 1.2 was suppose to add the capability to swim from ship to shore.

If you think back you'll remember BAE/Iveco and SAIC/ST Kinetics both crowing about how their vehicles were already meeting that requirement (and the contract was constructed so that "extra points" were given for increased capabilities...that is over and beyond ACV 1.1 requirements).

Later the Program Office chimed in with the thinking that they would be getting a vehicle that could swim to shore and how ACV 1.2 requirements would be satisfied with this initial buy.

I tend to believe them on this point.

This leaves us with trying to figure out what ACV 1.3 is going to give us.  From my reading ACV 1.3 is going back to the EFV concept to determine if a true high water speed vehicle is technologically feasible.  Its suppose to be a follow on to ACV 1.3 work to attain even higher water speed while maintaining ground combat mobility and survivability.

ACV 2.0 is pure fiction.  We won't see it in our lifetime...by the time ACV 2.0 is achievable the Marine Corps will have moved to space combat and that will be our new ocean we have to swim (float-spacewalk-do extravehicular movements?) across.

Apologies if this is disjointed but I hope its clear.  ACV 1.1/1.2 in the form of the winner of this downselect will be the AAV replacement.  For better or worse we're going wheels boys.  YATS-YAS (you ain't tracks, you ain't shit) is now YAWS-YAS (you ain't WHEELS, you ain't shit)? That's gonna take some getting used to!

Distinct differences between the Marine Corps ACV and the Italian SuperAV

I was talking to Kinetics about the ACV and while hitting on the Marine Corps lack of interest in a 30mm cannon, which the Italian SuperAV has, I noticed some pretty interesting differences in the vehicles.

Above is the Italian SuperAV...below is the ACV.  Besides the 30mm cannon what caught my eye were the lack of "steamlineness" in comparison to the AAV.  You're gonna have alot of disturbed water heading to the props with this vehicle.  Next notice the swim vane on the ACV in comparison to the SuperAV. I'm not sure but it appears to be a bit "beefier" and while many believe that is armor (and it might serve that purpose too) attached to the front of the vehicle I get the impression that it's designed to work with the swim vane.  The next part is sketchier because I don't have a real good reference but the ACV appears to sport larger tires and if I'm not mistaken seems to be a larger vehicle than its Italian stablemate.

Am I off base?

Tues Funny. Yearbook pics from 1911

Below are yearbook photos from 1911. via Culture and Style Tumblr.

BAE Systems rolled out the first of 16 Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) 1.1 prototypes to the U.S. Marine Corps

via BAE PRESS RELEASE

BAE Systems rolled out the first of 16 Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) 1.1 prototypes to the U.S. Marine Corps in a ceremony today at the company’s York, Pennsylvania facility.
BAE Systems’ ACV 1.1 offering is a fully amphibious, ship-launchable and ship-recoverable 8x8 wheeled combat vehicle.
“BAE Systems has a long-standing legacy of supporting the Marines Corps’ amphibious mission,” said John Swift, the company’s director for the ACV 1.1 program. “That expertise, coupled with the hard work of our dedicated ACV team, has allowed us to deliver the first of these vehicles ahead of schedule.”
BAE Systems’ solution for ACV 1.1 leverages an existing platform provided by Iveco Defence Vehicles. It is highly effective at sea when compared to any other amphibious vehicle in production today, providing superior land mobility and state-of-the-art systems survivability.
“As the Marine Corps begins testing we are confident that the capabilities of these vehicles will be proven,” Swift said.
The BAE Systems solution balances the Marine Corps’ demands for an affordable, production-ready platform with added designs for increased force protection, water and land mobility, lethality, transportability, and survivability.

BAE Systems’ ACV 1.1 is equipped with a robust 700HP engine, providing a significant power increase over the Assault Amphibious Vehicle currently operated by the Marine Corps. The vehicle excels in all-terrain mobility and has a suspended interior seat structure for 13 embarked Marines, blast protected positions for an additional crew of three, and improved survivability and force protection over currently fielded systems.
The Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems a $103.7 million contract for the Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) phase of the ACV 1.1 program in November 2015, one of two EMD contracts issued. During this phase, the company is producing 16 prototypes that will be tested by the Marine Corps starting in the first quarter of 2017.

BAE Systems has long been a trusted supplier to the Marine Corps across multiple domains and has more than 70 years of experience designing and building amphibious vehicles. The company is also a leading provider of combat vehicles, having produced more than 100,000 systems for customers worldwide. Iveco Defence Vehicles brings additional proven experience, having designed and built more than 30,000 multi-purpose, protected, and armored military vehicles in service today.

Geez.

Can't lie.  CoffeeJoeJava made some fantastic points and I still would love for the leadership to explain why this is the right solution for the here and now (I think that's the major disconnect..Amos was stomped on so hard that HQMC got into a bubble and free roaming discussion/explanation of decisions has all but disappeared today...we'll head in the direction chosen but at least explain why this is the right idea).

The BAE/Iveco is still my favorite, I think its right but I need to understand the compromises, choices made etc.  If they don't then the move from tracks to wheels will be a source of debate for a long time.  God forbid we ever see a pic of one stuck on a beach.

MV-22 crashes off the coast of Okinawa.

via III MEF Press Release.

‪#Breaking: We can confirm a U.S. Marine CorpsMV-22 aircraft mishap has occurred off the coast of Okinawa, Japan. Please monitor here for additional details. ‬

Another freaking crash?  The Marine Air Wing is broken.

A chilling indictment of the USMC's Amphibious Combat Vehicle Concept.

I've been a supporter of the ACV that the USMC is struggling to buy but a reader made a chilling indictment of what we're about to get.  Check this out...CoffeeJoeJava says....

A little comparison:

Weight
AAV (current): Combat loaded with troops 56,743 lbs
ACV: Weight combat loaded 74,780 lbs

Sea Speed
AAV: 6 kts, 8.2 kts max
ACV: 6 kts (nothing written about max)

Max Land Speed
AAV: 45 mph
ACV: 65 mph

Height
AAV: 122.75 (includes weapons cupula)
ACV: 113 (no weapons)

Length
AAV: 312.75
ACV: 350

Just on the numbers, I am not seeing the advantage of the new vehicle over the old. Why spend limited defense dollars on something that is as good as what is being replaced. Yes, the EFV program was an abortion of epic proportions. Lets tone the requirements down a bit and get something that will increase capabilities rather than keep the status quo.

Wow.  What are we actually getting with the ACV?  I thought the increase in capabilities would be noteworthy but are we really getting a Marine Personnel Carrier (remember when that was suppose to be the inexpensive wheeled, inland waterway swimming counterpart to the more expensive EFV) relabeled as an AAV replacement?

Have I really missed the obvious because of a desire to get Marines that new car smell?

If I'm true to my values then simply upgrading the AAV to the SAIC configuration makes more sense than wasting money on new vehicles that don't deliver new capabilities.

CoffeeJoeJava is right.  Better a detuned EFV than a vehicle that doesn't deliver an increase in capabilities.  The ACV Program Office has some explaining to do or else this is a bad game being played with the budget.

Loss of a Legend

You ever wonder why Glenn did get a seat in Gemini or Apollo?  Its because (supposedly) President Kennedy declared him a national asset that couldn't be risked in any more space flights.  I don't know if that's true or not, but that's the talk on the internet.

The Marine Corps lost a great.  He should have been embraced more while he was alive.

Argentina set to reform/rebuild its military.

via Mercopress.com

In addition to training, Argentina wants to strengthen its airspace control on the borders with Bolivia and Paraguay where there are more illegal flights with drugs or smuggling. Martínez's plan includes the commissioning of two 3 D radars that the state company INVAP handed over to Defense. The 3 D's are for military use only. One is already in operation and the other two have been delivered but are still and “packed” in their boxes.
Formosa Governor Gildo Insfrán has failed to build the civil work to place one of the radars in the town of Pipané, Martínez explained. He discussed the issue recently with Insfrán as to who should have taken over the works. In the end, the Defense Ministry will build a base there and another in Corrientes to add to the radars already in operation in the so-called Operativo Escudo Norte (Operation North Shield), to control most of the airspace in the area.
Martinez was enthusiastic last week because he had managed to get the current radars to operate between 6 to 12 hours a day and thus identify more illegal air traffic, but with no aircraft to intercept them.
For the Air Force, four medium-sized transport airplanes will also be purchased to reinforce the work of the three Hercules that were in operation and are the main logistical resource of the Antarctic campaign today. The Italian-built Spartan or the C-295 are the models under scrutiny because they can carry loads or transport paratroopers with systems “more versatile” than those of the Hercules. The Air Force lost 72 aircraft during the 1982 Malvinas War and almost 100 during the Kirchner years due to lack of spare parts.
For the Navy, the Government plans to buy four multipurpose ocean patrol boats. The idea is to buy two finished and another two that will arm in Tandanor to take hand Of local work. In turn, the Army is expected to buy between 10 and 30 troop transport armored vehicles that can be used within UN peacekeeping deployments.
Another project under consideration is an agreement with the Italian factory Beretta to co-produce a combat rifle, which replaces the 7.62mm caliber FAL caliber.

Interesting.  Seems like mismanagement of their forces hit the Argies harder than the war with the UK.  I find that astonishing.  Also did you notice the claim that the C-295 is more versatile than the Hercules?  Is that true?

Alternatives to the F-35? The Congressional Budget Office have worked the problem!

Thanks to Super Rhino for the link!

via CBO

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is the military’s largest aircraft development program. The F-35 is a stealthy aircraft—one that is difficult for adversaries to detect by radar and other air defense sensors. The objective of the program is to produce three versions of that aircraft: the conventional takeoff F-35A for the Air Force, the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B for the Marine Corps, and the carrier-based F-35C for the Navy. Through 2016, 285 F-35s had been purchased for the U.S. military: 178 F-35As, 71 F-35Bs, and 36 F‑35Cs. Current plans call for purchasing 2,158 more F‑35s through 2038. The Department of Defense (DoD) has estimated that the remaining cost of those purchases, including the cost to complete development, will amount to $265 billion (in nominal dollars). The Marine Corps and the Air Force declared their versions of the F-35 operational in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The Navy expects to declare its version operational by 2019.
Under this option, DoD would halt further production of the F-35 and instead purchase the most advanced versions of older, nonstealthy fighter aircraft that are still in production: the F-16 Fighting Falcon for the Air Force and the F/A-18 Super Hornet for the Navy and Marine Corps. The services would operate the F-35s that have already been purchased. By the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, the option would reduce the need for discretionary budget authority by $29 billion from 2018 through 2026 if the F-16s and F/A-18s were purchased on the same schedule as that currently in place for the F-35s. Outlays would decrease by $23 billion over that period. Additional savings would accrue from 2027 through 2038 if F-16s and F/A-18s were purchased instead of the F-35s that are scheduled to be purchased in those later years. However, the Navy and Air Force are both planning to develop entirely new aircraft with fighter-like capabilities to be fielded in the 2030s and might choose to replace some planned F-35s with those aircraft instead.
An advantage of this option is that it would reduce the cost of replacing DoD’s older fighter aircraft while still providing new F-16s and F/A-18s with improved capabilities—including modern radar, precision weapons, and digital communications—that would be able to defeat most of the threats that the United States is likely to face in the coming years. The F-35s that have already been purchased would augment the stealthy B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters that are currently in the force, improving the services’ ability to operate against adversaries equipped with advanced air defense systems. The military has successfully operated a mix of stealthy and non-stealthy aircraft since the advent of the F-117 stealth fighter in the 1980s.

Game.  Set.  Match.

We can kill this "thing" and move on to the next generation airplane.