"America’s Next Armored Amphibious Vehicle:..." Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Tango01 | 26 Apr 2014 10:27 p.m. PST |
An 80% Solution that is 100% Right. "Is the recent release of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) 1.1 RFI a sign that the U.S. Marine Corps finally going to get serious about procuring modern amphibious vehicles? I have something of a personal stake in this, after urging the USMC to reconsider the early 2013 abandonment of the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) back in November of last year. I thought the MPC offered a cost-effective "80% solution" that bought the USMC time to put the EFV behind it–or time to wait for tech to come along that enabled the USMC to salvage something–anything–from the billions sunk into the abortive Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
" Full article here. link Amicalement Armand |
Ron W DuBray | 27 Apr 2014 8:09 a.m. PST |
problem they want an AFV that can take fire and keep on fighting, but it needs to swim as fast as a speed boat. I just don't think that is going to happen. I think they need to build very good AFVs and also build small fast landing craft to get them to the beach. |
Mardaddy | 27 Apr 2014 10:12 a.m. PST |
I think the focus is incorrect. Instead of a ground-fight-based that can swim, they need a swim-based that can still ground-fight. When and if needed, the heavier, more ground-fight based and resilient vehicles are going to be in the landing craft/LCACs and helo'd in ANYWAYS. We are in the era of "over-the-horizon." Even when we were NOT in that era, the sea-to-shore traverse time was still the most vulnerable – it's going to be even more so when the craft is not designed with swimming the primary function
It's going to be tough to sell to that 0311 that speed is more important and you have to come into the teeth of the enemy with a "second-priority-is-your-protection" armored carrier. Then again, with the alternative being staying with the flat-bottomed, slow-swim and aluminum-armored LVTP, maybe the V-hull for IED mitigation and "need for speed" will convince a few. |
Rubber Suit Theatre | 27 Apr 2014 2:44 p.m. PST |
The Marines had an amphibious version of the Stryker (actually, the Stryker is based on the LAV). Like the Bradley, it is not even remotely seaworthy. Good enough to ford calm crossings, but not truly amphibious. I did 14' surf at one point in an AAV, which was an extremely bad idea but nobody died. But our tracks were old 20 years ago when I was driving them, and the replacement track was always imminent and never forthcoming. What they really need are competent procurement folks, but that's not going to happen. |
Bellbottom | 27 Apr 2014 4:25 p.m. PST |
Ah, the fabled 'Lost Tribe' of competent procurement folks. I wonder where they be?, certainly not in the UK. |
Augustus | 27 Apr 2014 5:49 p.m. PST |
The Lost Tribe is a myth. Though as I understand it, you can commune with them on a Tuesday, during a full moon, but only if there is a butterfly sitting on your left shoulder. Note, if the butterfly is on your right shoulder, it has an entirely different meaning, but only if you are in New Orleans and drinking Hurricanes. |
Legion 4 | 28 Apr 2014 8:15 a.m. PST |
I agree Mardaddy with all you say
crossing a large open body of water can quickly go from a "Danger Area" to a "Kill Zone"
|
Lion in the Stars | 28 Apr 2014 10:42 a.m. PST |
The first thing is that the Marines really want an Abrams that can swim. *that* boat won't float. The next idea was an amtrack that could actually get up and on plane, to minimize the time in the surf zone. That was supposed to be the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. What killed the EFV was the shocking discovery that getting a 30+ton non-boat on plane required an immense amount of horsepower. More horsepower than the Abrams. I'm talking 2800hp for the entire time of your water crossing, and that's *really* hard on an engine. The as-delivered EFV prototypes couldn't run at 2800hp for the half hour or more that it would take to run from over the horizon to the shore. (12+nm horizon at 25knots is a half hour, and you can see a carrier-sized ship at better than 15 nautical miles, hull down over the horizon). There isn't a diesel engine that can handle that much over-boost for that long a time. (the typical massive overboost time is 10 to 15 minutes before you need to shut down and pull the engine for a complete overhaul!) OK, lemme look at this proposal
"significant wave height of 2 feet"?!? Say what?!? That's what Sailors call "Lake Pacific" or "mill pond" conditions. "4-6 foot plunging surf"? Hey, Marines? Help a deep-water Sailor out here? How often do you see surf that's ONLY 4-6 feet?!? What was the wave and surf conditions for Normandy? *google* Tension builds on the 3rd June 1944. Eisenhower demands morning and evening swell updates. The D-Day was coming. On the 4th June, the forecast for next 48 hours had 2-4 foot wind waves for the assault areas.What was considered "The Most Important Weather Forecast in the History of the World" came on Monday, 5 June 1944, at 0400 DBST. "Okay! Let's go!", said Dwight Eisenhower. The observed wave conditions at Operation Neptune's beachheads on the 6th June were: 2-6 foot waves with "choppiness [that] makes personnel transfer difficult". from: linkOk, so the RFP is asking for a vehicle that can carry a short squad of Marines (poor call, make it a FULL squad, and don't ditch the AAVs yet!) in what are essentially IDEAL water-landing conditions. Sorry, that's utterly inadequate! |
Legion 4 | 29 Apr 2014 9:24 a.m. PST |
|
|