G&R Tactical
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: USMC's new "Amphibious Combat Vehicle"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,181
    Feedback Score
    0

    USMC's new "Amphibious Combat Vehicle"

    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/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    2,711
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Slater View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,216
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    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.
    What if this whole crusade's a charade?
    And behind it all there's a price to be paid
    For the blood which we dine
    Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,765
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,064
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    2,711
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Damage View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,064
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckman View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    On top of a mountain, NC
    Posts
    1,039
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    To me this seems like a totally unnecessary waste of taxpayer money. Amphibious invasions aren't really a thing and haven't been in a long, long time.

    I get that the Corps is trying to stay relevant but that money could be much better spent on new helicopters (it's the only branch without a Blackhawk variant), more comm gear (squad level comms with electronic ear pro), suppressors, more training ammo, etc. Things that would actually make a difference in combat effectiveness.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    2,711
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Damage View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sandhills NC
    Posts
    553
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dist. Expert 26 View Post
    To me this seems like a totally unnecessary waste of taxpayer money. Amphibious invasions aren't really a thing and haven't been in a long, long time.

    I get that the Corps is trying to stay relevant but that money could be much better spent on new helicopters (it's the only branch without a Blackhawk variant), more comm gear (squad level comms with electronic ear pro), suppressors, more training ammo, etc. Things that would actually make a difference in combat effectiveness.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but if the Marines didn't have an amphibious assault vehicle it would kind of take away from the whole Marine thing wouldn't it? The reason we haven't had any marine landings is because of the theater of operations we have been involved with LATELY. That doesn't mean there will not be a future biome that requires the use of an amphibious assault vehicle.

    My opinion is that the Marine's Amphibious Assault Vehicle is and will always be their "go to" simply because it is what defines them by definition. I think we need the Marines to have the best vehicle available to carry them into battle. No matter where it comes from.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •