BAE showcases recon Amphibious Combat Vehicle, plans for recovery variant
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2023
- BAE showcased its ACV-30 and the C4/UAS variant at Modern Day Marine. Plus, Reporter Irene Loewenson updates you on solutions to the ACV’s recent problems.
- Sport
Great reporting bringing up current issues of the platform keeping the coverage balanced.
that was an outstanding report. smart young lady.
I love her questions.
I rather have a 50mm bushmaster on the ACV or 40mm CTA cannon because it has more punch than the 30mm bushmaster.
The problem with bigger (auto)cannons is that you don't trade off much for firepower while your ammunition stockpile is severely hampered. There is a reason most foreign-sale CV90 series go with the 35mm instead of the 40mm Bofor, as the former is one of the larger cannons that can still use belt + more space for more ammo vs the Bofor clip fed ststem. Also research and development cost of a new gun for 50mm is a thing.
If they really want to upgun the ACV, they will probably end up putting the existing 105 or 120 on the chasis like the M1128
The CTA40 ammo takes up the same space as a 25mm but packs the punch off the 40mm
the ACV might be good, but i see already a problem in the water ... the water will flow up and down between the tires ...
like a Pickup Truck will create an aircushion on the bed if the hatch is closed, the air will flow over it. Same with the tires here ... the water can flow down the tires and will slow the vehicle down, some few bars, or even better pontoons between the tires, lining up with the body, could stop that, and also increase the carriage-capacity slightly ..
or simplier, do a pipe from the propellers to the front, so the water gets sucked in in a constant flow
BAE good spokesmen.
The USMC, Semper Fi, need to add ATGM'S to the 30 variant instead of wasting resources on a dedicated anti tank version, if all the 30's have atgm's then that lethality can be available all the time. The ARV should maintain the 25mm MC like its predecessor the LAV 25 it should have a capable aaw system as well, distributed lethality is the goal especially since they got rid of their M1's and its cannon, a great replacement for the M1 is the Centauro 2, check it out.
True, the French t40 unnmanned turret with two mbda akeron would have been the best choice in that regard. Especially with the added punch and versatility that a 40mm give you.
I think the rational was simply that the USMC use the 30mm bushmaster and us army stryker dragoon use that very turret.
Yeap, commonality of ammo equals better logistics, but when do you arm up to the 35mm or 40mm because as time always reveal those weapons will become Obsolete and its best to be ahead of that curve instead of reacting to it, that french turret will be ideal for the ACV/IFV variant.
They are have a prototype 30 turret on a JLTV with javelins and stingers, although im not sure if you can mount both at the same time or if you swap them out.
What current recovery vehicle is in the Marine Corps vehicle fleet that can recover the new ACV??
The Marines currently employ the AAVRA1, Oshkosh MMRS, and the M88A2 Hercules (recently retired along with tanks). Another thing to take into consideration is the ACV is a family of vehicles that depending on the mission could be outfitted to be an armored troop transport, command vehicle, recovery vehicle, etc.
GDLS needs to throw their hat in to keep all the 8x8 vehicles the same throughout (since the new strikers will most likely replace the LAVs). I’m sure making an amphibious version of the Stryker platform wouldn’t prove difficult but I’m just a common navy veteran. Also much more a fan of the M230LF system instead of the bulky turret auto cannon built for an ifv
cottonmouth will replace LAV. Stryker is an army thing, will always be an army thing, and the base vehicle is already too heavy to fuck around with redesigning to make amphibious to the point where it would just be better to produce a purpose built platform.
Yat yas
there ya go...3rd tracs 87-91 over here.
BAE needs to be fined & pay back some money because all those problems are things they supposedly had experience fielding in the past. This isn't part of some revolutionary new technology that needs to be worked out like with the Osprey or F-22 that is changing how warfare is fought in the future. This is basic technology that's been around for decades. No excuse BAE! Now add an Active Protection System to it doesn't get shot out of the water while landing and we're good to go!
13 dismounts. That's 2 short of the new squad size...
Not like the Ajax cockup. Cost in access of £5 billion and still not in service. Mind you I think that was built by a US firm. Corruption in defence contacts is like a bottomless pit for the TAXPAYERS.
General Dynamics UK. Theyre a british subsidiary.
the girl blinks a lot faster than 40mm CTA cannon
I haven't actually heard what the properties of ACV are when it comes to combat and survivability on the battlefield. Because if they are not definitely better than LAV-25 and Stryker, I wonder what is the point of investing such huge funds on a new project?!? Of course, I understand that investing in new equipment gives the opportunity to develop and search for better solutions. And I understand that in the future (perhaps quite near), the US armed forces will need something much better than the current equipment, which has a long history and something that will be in use for decades to come. I also understand that the entire group of people associated with the arms industry must receive adequate money to be constantly ready. . However, I think that when it comes to equipping the Marines with means of transport that would enable them to quickly get from the ship to the shore, conduct combat and quickly occupy the area, a MUCH CHEAPER AND MORE EFFECTIVE way would be to construct floats that are easy to quickly assemble and disassemble, which can be attach additional engines (as in motorboats) and mount them to the above-mentioned, LAV-25 or Strykers. This design is very simple, very cheap and allows the use of vehicles that are in the possession of the Marine Corps. But of course it's Uncle Sam's decision and American money. And maybe a European guy's concern about US finances doesn't make much sense. However, if there is a confrontation with China, every dollar will be needed and useful
Nonsense, this is a.....a.....a...a... CYBERTRUCK !!!!!!!
Amphibiosity ??? the price just rose 23 %
Who is the first devil dog to knock up Irene is the real question
Amphibiosity...
😆 right!? 🤣
Yeah , Tf lol
When will the 50mm ACV equipped vehicles be put into service. The 50mm equipped ACVs is a great help to the Marines because of its firepower and ammunition
This thing is YUGE.....good thing it is replacing the AAV.......
So, what is the latest on the Marine Corps New ARV that is supposed to replace the LAV?????
The latest news on that ????
obviously not asking right questions : throwing more tax payer money is not the answer, why are these ACV breaking down so quickly?
To damn big for Marines.....they break shit that can't be broken......
Very arrogant statement from China "if" it's true. It's easy to make a statement like this when only one side of the coin is considered. Let's "supposed" that this statement is true, the question is: Is China willing to accept the high cost of sinking one of our carriers?, because it'll be an extremelly expensive cost in equipment, human lives, capabilities and economy ammoung other things to be paid in an event of this magnitude. Everyone can dream but reality is so much different and hard. Let's hope that China's Goverment isn't that "reckless", considers the consecuencesand the lives of their Armed Forces members and Citizens. I hope that it doesn't come to that but of it does "WE'RE READY" to give them "a good run for their money" and then some.
Up The Enclave ! Commies would get crushed but both would see a war like the world has ever seen.
@@savagex466-qt1io; Agreed!. But human loses will be catastrophic to both sides and China will loose the majority of his naval assets. Take care Sir!.
The us is so embarrassed that they can’t create a normal ground vehicle to be effective GD can’t cope to create a successful IFV , APC ,AFV or UGV meanwhile Russia , turkey , and even rhe UAE can create an normal modern and protected fk machine like the boomerang or the orokar apc model , so the good il USA asked “BAE” system to do it for them and when they say BAE system they have to exclude IVECO DV for the embarrassing truth that they depend to an Italian firm to create an decent vehicle , mean while the Brits are turning theyr head around the GD ajax good luck w that !
what makes this "unsuccessful"?
Terrible upgrade. Track is always better in mud, this carriers less grunts, its the same speed in the water as the aav, less room inside and the vehicle is the same size as the old one. This means that it will take up the same space on a ship tank deck for amphibious ops and carry less infantry to the beach assault. This vehicle has more design to deal with ied s but really is not much better other than that from the aav. The aaav that they canceled was way more capable than this new acv. The now canceled aaav was super fast in water going about 18 knots vs this new one of 8 knots. It also carried the same amount of grunts. This vehicle is not going to be as successful as the old aav and after a real big war starts they will go back to the older aaav that they canceled with some upgrades. The old AAV was my mos in the Corps I know all the good and bad. The corps is being redesigned into some shape that some leaders of it think they're right doing like eliminating tanks and artillery and this new vehicle being brought in to service. The mission of the aav was to get grunts to the beach and secure it then fight inland with the vehicle and grunts and each vehicle carrying 5 less grunts is detrimental to that mission. Once a real big war starts tanks and artillery will be brought back to the corps and the mistake will have cost great loss in lives. The leaders who are changing the corps are too used to fighting these low intensity ambush type wars like in afghanastan and Iraq and think artillery and tanks are not needed but when a big war kicks off with a major power tanks and artillery will be back in the corps after losses of life necessitates it.
Tracks are not god. With CTIS you can get through mud just fine with a competent driver. This is a much more survivable vehicle than the AAV that would pop like a tin can when it hits a mine or IED. The EFV was called the epic fail vehicle for a reason, it couldnt even handle the recoil of its own main gun and the powertrain was a nightmare.
dude its a old vehicle and they needed a new tracked one with the modern protection. You may have been in the military but you do not know about armored warfare and the ability of tracked vehicles over wheeled. Read what happened to the German army in WW2 in front of Moscow in 1941 when all their wheeled vehicles were stuck in mud and snow only the tanks with their trucks could pull them out. I saw a wheeled LAV get stuck in a Wadi in the gulf war and the AAV P7 rolled right in and pulled it out. We puled out LAVs out of the mud other times too. Tracked vehicles are superior in bad terrain. Its a military fact. @@mh3225
Tell that to the German army in WW2 who were in the suburbs of Russia and they had the most experienced army at the time in armored warfare and applying vehicles in terrain. Their wheeled vehicles were all stuck in the mud up to the hoods and the tanks were pulling them out. Dude tracked vehicles are superior in bad terrain. It's a military fact that generals will tell you from all nations.
@@mkat740 it also helps to not ignore every frucking weather report and your experienced generals that you champion to not invade when the ground turns to mush, the same thing the russians did 2 years ago. By the way, your tracked vehicles also got stuck.
@@mkat740 "i saw an LAV get stuck" okay. Ive seen Abrambs and CV-90s get stuck in afghanistan. What now? Tracks do not outweigh physics and the natural properties of mud and sand, especially when combined with weight. Inshallah be gone with you.
To bad usmc didn't have these in 1991, 2003-2021