Peregrinations of the EFV to ACV to MPC to ACV 1. July 2. 7/1. 5: The Marine Corps is reportedly scheduled to downselect two designs for its Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program in late 2. The requirement calls for a 8. The five designs have been undergoing testing, with the USMC planning to progress the two downselected bids through a development phase. AAAV/ EFV, swim mode(click to view full)The US Marine Corps’ AAVP7 Amtracs have been their primary ship to shore amphibious armored personnel carrier for a long time; the AAV7. Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program. Robert Pridgen, program manager for the. The Marine Corps makes these three commitments: We will make Marines. We will win our Nation’s battles. We will develop quality citizens. Learn more about The Few. Connecticut's congressional delegation is urging the U.S. Navy to suspend any possible plans to shift maintenance of the Marine One presidential helicopter. What Should We Do With the Nine Marine One Replacement. When the original presidential helicopter program was. Now we hear that one of those agencies. A1 was initially fielded in 1. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was the USMC’s plan to replace the aging AMTRACS (lit. AMphibious TRACtor. Marine One est l'indicatif d'appel pour tout a.S), which saw extensive service deep inland during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The personnel version of the new EFVs would carry a crew of 3, plus a reinforced rifle squad of 1. Marines. A high- tech weapons station would provide firepower, via a stabilized ATK 3. MK 4. 4 Bushmaster cannon with advanced sights to replace the AAV’s unstabilized . A command variant would carry an array of communications and computer systems and staff personnel. The EFV remained the U. S. Marine Corps’ top land acquisition priority, even as its price tag and development issues cut its buy sharply. Push finally came to shove in 2. USMC realized that it simply couldn’t afford the vehicle, or its performance. That begat a new program called the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), designed to be a more realistic version of the EFV.
A Marines version designed for only light water use was called the MPC, which was iced in June 2. That program was resurrected under increased capabilities pressures as the APC 1. July 2. 01. 4. A draft RFP was released in November, with hopes that a final RFP would be issued in spring 2. ACV 1. 1 research, testing and evaluation. The APC 1. 1 has been examined by the Congressional Research Service, producing this report, which – in a nutshell – says that the program has a few issues, the primary one being the strategic lack of “connectors” allowing equipment onshore. Current options (LCAC, JHSV and LCU 1. Amtracs Replacement, Take 1: The EFVExpeditionary Fighting Vehicle: Capabilities & CONOPSThe New: EFV Features(click to view full)The EFV was expected to come in 2 main variants: EFV- P infantry fighting vehicles, and EFV- C command vehicles. Even after the program’s demise, its characteristics and associated Concept of Operations remain relevant. They were developed in response to what the Marines think they need, and early 2. The EFV- P personnel carriers have a stabilized turret. Primary firepower is provided by an ATK 3. MK 4. 4 Bushmaster cannon and 7. The Bushmaster cannon will use HEIT(High- Explosive Incendiary Tracer) rounds with a super- fast fuse for maximum shrapnel, and MPLD (Multi- Purpose Low Drag) tungsten- tipped rounds against harder targets. The MPLDs offer an advantage over current 2. Rounds are selectable on the fly, and Col. Brogan of the EFV program office has said that the cannon would defeat any vehicle short of a main battle tank up to 2 km away. The EFV program has also completed foreign comparative testing for programmable fuse rounds similar to those slated for the XM3. The goal was to qualify them as an additional standard ammunition choice. The current AAV7 Amtracs, in contrast, offer only low- light vision optics, in a non- stabilized manned turret, firing a . GMG grenade launcher. Some Amtracs have added thermal sights, but other vehicles are sporting far more advanced manned turrets – and these days, unmanned RWS systems as well. Additional firepower comes from the EFV’s onboard Marines, which is meant to include a full reinforced Marine rifle squad of 1. Marines + 4 additional or specialists, including Javelin anti- tank teams) in addition to the vehicle’s crew of 3. The AAV7 listed a capacity of 2. The AAV7’s original design parameters even included an M1. Jeep or trailer, or 2 supply pallets from an LKA ship, as holdovers from its role as a mere LVT (Landing Vehicle, Tracked) before USMC doctrine began emphasizing its role as an armored personnel carrier. The EFV dispenses with that. EFV: Command variant(click to view full)A command EFV- C variant carries an array of communications and computer systems and staff personnel. Indeed, all EFVs were slated to carry an array of communications equipment and electronics including GPS/INS navigation systems and C2. PC (Command and Control, Personal Computer). C2. PC is similar to the Army’s “Blue Force Tracker,” showing an overlay of friendly units and detected enemies on a common map. The two systems aren’t interoperable yet, though things are moving that way. C2. PC is used in the US Army at brigade level and information can be shared through that command structure. Electronics and salt water don’t exactly mix, however, so the EFV program has had to take precautions. All electronics must be fully sealed, all cables have shielding & protection, and design efforts were made to remove voids and enclosures where salt might become trapped. On the outside, a series of enviro- friendly coatings were used that avoided the use of carcinogenic hexavalent chrome, and areas where dissimilar metals are mated need barriers to prevent electricity- producing galvanic reactions. If that sounds more complex and exensive than standard IFVs, well, it is. The Old: AAVP7, ashore(click to view full)Beyond the difference in these variants, however, all EFVs had broad similarities in a number of areas. The EFV was designed to have positive buoyancy, and the program office has confirmed that the vehicle will float when at rest. Waterjet propulsion gives an amphibious speed of more than 2. AAV7. An underwater explosion survivability requirement is incorporated, and EFVs are also meant to move at high speed up to Sea State 3, and transition/low speed up to Sea State 5 (up to 8 ft. This sea state capability would match the older AAV7s, and this level of unassisted armored landing capability in high sea states is reportedly unique to the AAV7 among present- day vehicles. Those EFV water speed and sea state requirements have driven a number of design decisions, however, raising the vehicles’ cost and increasing its vulnerabilities. For instance, the need for hydroplaning at speed forces a flat bottom, which limits the hull’s potential protection against IEDs and other land mines. It also leads to an engine bigger than a 7. M1 tank’s, as well as very high vibration levels in transit that aren’t very friendly to onboard equipment. Once on land, keeping up with the USMC’s M1 Abrams tanks imposes land speed requirements that must also be addressed. EFV top speed after landing will be about 4. AAV7 RAM/RS, and enables the vehicles to keep up with a USMC’s M1 Abrams tank’s cruising speed. An engine almost twice as powerful as the ones in the 7. M1 tanks they’ll be accompanying certainly helps. Maintenance and readiness are meant to be similar to vehicles like the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley, though they never even got close to that goal before the program was terminated. Bradley reactive armor. On the protection front, the EFV has done what it could within its specifications, but it will not reach the level of the US Army’s Bradley or similar IFVs. Measures have been taken to make EFV detection harder, including moving thermal giveaways to the rear, reducing telltale dust via side skirts, etc. NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protection is also included. For direct protection when maneuver or concealment become impossible, its LIBA SURMAX silicon ceramic composite armor is expected to provide protection from 1. The previous AAV7’s base was 1. The LIBA SURMAX armor adds high resilience under multiple hits from armor piercing projectiles, easy field repair, and lightness to the protection equation. Having met that “same as” standard, the EFV program does not officially plan to include armor- up kits of its own. Reactive armor like that fitted to M2/M3 Bradleys, M1. Nor was the “cage” slat armor fitted to Army Strykers etc. Some minor casualty reduction would have been provided by improved fire suppression, and by spall linings that narrow the . In response to pressure from Congress, ideas have now been floated re: removable applique armor, but no official decision was taken. Over the longer term, the EFV had reserved computing power, a card slot, and memory to integrate “active protection systems” like the RAFAEL/General Dynamics “Trophy” being fielded in Israel, or the Raytheon APS system contracted before the Army’s FCS ground vehicle family was canceled. The EFV program office never formally evaluated any of these systems, however, as no funding or requirements were provided to do it. EFV protection varies against the IED land mines that have already destroyed several Amtracs in Iraq. The EFV’s flat bottom remains a hazard when facing mines. Detonations underneath will remain a challenge, however, because the need for hydrodynamic lift forces a flat bottom design – and the same design that catches the full force of the water to provide lift, will also catch the full force of a mine blast. Given the amphibious distance and speed requirements, however, the EFV program office noted that blast- deflecting V- hulls were not an option. Shock- absorbing seats that reduce spinal injuries were the best they could do, given the specifications. On the other hand, its low side skirts offer very better protection from side blasts than current Amtracs, especially since the SURMAX armor is good at absorbing “dynamic deflection.” The front is helped by the presence of the extensible plate for water travel, while the back features armor levels comparable to the sides. This last vulnerability, to the #1 in- theater killer from America’s last 2 major wars, attracted sharp political scrutiny, and was a factor in pressure to cancel the program. Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: The Case in Favor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |