USMC's new "Amphibious Combat Vehicle"

**Slater** · 04-20-17, 09:26

Interesting that the competitors are going with two modified existing vehicles (Italian and Singaporean) instead of clean-sheet-of-paper designs. Of course nowadays, designing major systems from scratch seems to be a roll of the dice. More often than not these seem to result in expensive failures.

Hell, the foreigners seem to be able to make these things work. Either their requirements are reasonable or their engineers are better than ours. Maybe both?

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/s...ests-to-begin/

**chuckman** · 04-20-17, 09:49

Originally Posted by Slater

Interesting that the competitors are going with two modified existing vehicles (Italian and Singaporean) instead of clean-sheet-of-paper designs. Of course nowadays, designing major systems from scratch seems to be a roll of the dice. More often than not these seem to result in expensive failures.

Hell, the foreigners seem to be able to make these things work. Either their requirements are reasonable or their engineers are better than ours. Maybe both?

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/s...ests-to-begin/

Well, we have Italian handguns and German rifles, so it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.

I know POTUS has claimed to be building the military, but not a single new dollar has been appropriated, and given budget issues on big-ticket capital projects, I can see why we would go with an existing platform instead of a new design.

**glocktogo** · 04-20-17, 09:54

Note that the engine and trans are spec'd from CAT and Allison respectively. There's a lot more global manufacturing integration these days, to the point it's difficult to determine country of origin for a product as complex as this due to globally sourced components. Country of final assembly is about the only easy thing to determine.

Being a huge gearhead, I've seen over the past 40 years that auto manufacturers tend to ebb and flow on market appeal, based on the cyclical nature of product development. If they make a misstep when creating a new cycle, it can be disastrous to sales for years to come. Even the best of them occasionally succumb to the short term profitability of coasting on their reputation and brand image alone. Very few manufacturers spend the cash and energy to continually be at the forefront over long periods of time.

**pinzgauer** · 04-20-17, 21:39

Marine LAV and Army Stryker are both based on the Swiss Mowag Piranha, by way of Canada.

FMTV family of tactical trucks were Steyr (Austrian)

**Digital_Damage** · 04-21-17, 07:43

They do not have the budget big green does, they buy mostly off the shelf or ride the coat tails of big green or AF. Development of a new system like that would blow their whole budget.

**chuckman** · 04-21-17, 07:59

Originally Posted by Digital_Damage

They do not have the budget big green does, they buy mostly off the shelf or ride the coat tails of big green or AF. Development of a new system like that would blow their whole budget.

By necessity the Marines have been frugal, but they will spend money on big-ticket capital projects. Past AAVs and the Harrier come to mind.

You are absolutely right in that they ride the Army's coattails. The Marines were fielding the M60 tank through the 90s, well after the Army started using the M1. Same story for other platforms as well.

**Digital_Damage** · 04-21-17, 08:26

Originally Posted by chuckman

By necessity the Marines have been frugal, but they will spend money on big-ticket capital projects. Past AAVs and the Harrier come to mind.

You are absolutely right in that they ride the Army's coattails. The Marines were fielding the M60 tank through the 90s, well after the Army started using the M1. Same story for other platforms as well.

The Harrier used by the USMC was a revision of earlier model already in production, not a whole new development cycle.

**chuckman** · 04-21-17, 08:29

Originally Posted by Digital_Damage

The Harrier used by the USMC was a revision of earlier model already in production, not a whole new development cycle.

Not a whole new aircraft, no, but one only the Marines wanted, and they were willing to create the spending necessary to make it happen, and to "Marineify" it. There was a great deal of difference between what the Marines wanted from the airframe than what was being produced.

The point being, they'll spend money where they have to, and they will make do with older stuff if it gets the job done.