PDA

View Full Version : Marines Defend New Wheeled Amphibious Vehicle Design



Max Rockatansky
03-14-2015, 08:30 AM
Wheeled versus Tracked. The wheeled version does make more sense.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/11/marines-defend-new-wheeled-amphibious-vehicle-design/?ESRC=dod.nl
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill today voiced concerns about the U.S. Marine (http://www.military.com/Community/Home/1,14700,MARINE,00.html) Corps’ new amphibious vehicle, questioning the service’s selection of wheels over the venerable tracked design.
Marine Corps leaders testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee’s Subcomittee on Seapower to discuss modernization efforts in the proposed Fiscal 2016 budget request.
The Corps has identified its new Amphibious Combat Vehicle as its top modernization priority. The effort is set to replace most of Marine Amphibious Assault Vehicles (http://www.military.com/equipment/aav7-amphibious-assault-vehicle) that are well over 40 years old......

......Currently, the Corps has 1,062 AAVs. Of those, 392 AAVs will receive a survivability upgrade that will enable the service to maintain a forcible-entry capability for all seven of Marine expeditionary units, as well as two Marine expeditionary brigades, Glueck said.


Current AAV-7
http://www.military-today.com/apc/aav7.jpg



The proposed ACV 1.1: http://www.military.com/video/forces/marine-corps/modern-day-marine-amphibious-combat-1-1/3806281448001/
http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/v1/unsecured/media/77374810001/201409/1965/77374810001_3806604829001_video-still-for-video-3806281448001.jpg?pubId=77374810001

donttread
03-14-2015, 09:27 AM
Wheeled versus Tracked. The wheeled version does make more sense.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/11/marines-defend-new-wheeled-amphibious-vehicle-design/?ESRC=dod.nl
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill today voiced concerns about the U.S. Marine (http://www.military.com/Community/Home/1,14700,MARINE,00.html) Corps’ new amphibious vehicle, questioning the service’s selection of wheels over the venerable tracked design.
Marine Corps leaders testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee’s Subcomittee on Seapower to discuss modernization efforts in the proposed Fiscal 2016 budget request.
The Corps has identified its new Amphibious Combat Vehicle as its top modernization priority. The effort is set to replace most of Marine Amphibious Assault Vehicles (http://www.military.com/equipment/aav7-amphibious-assault-vehicle) that are well over 40 years old......

......Currently, the Corps has 1,062 AAVs. Of those, 392 AAVs will receive a survivability upgrade that will enable the service to maintain a forcible-entry capability for all seven of Marine expeditionary units, as well as two Marine expeditionary brigades, Glueck said.


Current AAV-7
http://www.military-today.com/apc/aav7.jpg



The proposed ACV 1.1: http://www.military.com/video/forces/marine-corps/modern-day-marine-amphibious-combat-1-1/3806281448001/
http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/v1/unsecured/media/77374810001/201409/1965/77374810001_3806604829001_video-still-for-video-3806281448001.jpg?pubId=77374810001

Two questions.
1) How much do these things cost?
2) Are they necessary to defend our own shores?

Max Rockatansky
03-14-2015, 09:31 AM
1. Est. "$3–$4.5 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Combat_Vehicle)"

2. Yes.

Peter1469
03-14-2015, 09:32 AM
How would wheeled perform in mud?

Max Rockatansky
03-14-2015, 09:41 AM
How would wheeled perform in mud?

From the link:

“Performance was very good and for a medium-weight vehicle; it was equivalent to what we would get out of a tracked vehicle,” Dee said. “It may not be as maneuverable or as mobile in off-road conditions in certain cases as an M1 tank (http://www.military.com/equipment/m1a2-abrams-main-battle-tank), but is it certainly as maneuverable as we are going to get in that class of vehicle.”Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said she was worried that first version of the wheeled ACV will be less capable since it is designed to carry 10 infantrymen instead of 14 like the current AAV.
“From all the analysis we have done, we are not giving away any capability whatsoever from going from tracked to wheeled technology,” Glueck said. “Actually we are gaining capability. We are gaining survivability.”

Reading between the lines here, I think one reason the Marine Corps is going this way is due to foreseen cost-cutting. As usual, the Marine Corps is being forced to do more with less. Is it better to have 100 state-of-the-art vehicles or a 500 off-the-self ones which are very good, just not as good?

While both the Republicans and Democrats give lip-service to "protecting our troops with the best equipment available", the fact remains they're most talk and not as much walk. Especially the Democrats/Left-Wing as comments on this thread and others prove.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1544
After 26 years of searching for a tracked vehicle to replace the AAV, the Marine Corps also shifted focus to wheeled vehicles.

Purchasing commercially available wheeled vehicles will save money and will provide an improved capability over available tracked vehicles, Lt. Gen. Kenneth Glueck, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, told reporters during a June 26 breakfast meeting in Washington, D.C.

Several existing wheeled personnel carriers were tested at the Nevada Automotive Test Center. “The capability that came out of these vehicles was far superior to a tracked vehicle,” said Glueck.

More than 1,000 amphibious assault vehicles, or AAVs, that Marines ride out of the well decks of amphibious ships, onto shore and into combat, are 50 or more years old and need to be replaced.

Marine Corps leaders wanted a vehicle that could ride fast through the water while planing like a speedboat, then sufficiently protect Marines once ashore.

The latest failed development attempt, called the expeditionary fighting vehicle, achieved the desired speeds through water, but sacrificed troop protection and weapons.

It was canceled and revived as the amphibious assault vehicle, which has lagged and is being revised as a phased acquisition. Engineers from the military, industry and academia studied the issue and found that the Marine Corps’ desired vehicle was technically feasible, Glueck said. But shoehorning the requirements for both high water speed and survivability into a single vehicle would come at an unaffordable price, he said.

“The price was not just dollars, it was in terms of capability,” Glueck said. “To be able to get the high water speed, you have to keep it under a certain weight.

Peter1469
03-14-2015, 10:12 AM
I saw that in the article. The only reason I ask is that in a muddy environment, wheeled vehicles can fail. We had that problem at Ft. Lee. I imagine that most places where the Marines would us them they would operate fine. They can mothball some of the old track versions in case a particular mission requires it.

Max Rockatansky
03-14-2015, 10:18 AM
On a related note to my post above:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/13/defense-cuts-will-harm-national-security/
On February 11, the House Armed Services Committee held ahearing (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/2015/2/the-fy16-budget-request-a-view-from-outside-experts-alternative-budgets-and-strategic-choices) with four think tanks to explore possible alternatives for the fiscal year (FY) 2016 congressional budget. Although different views abounded, all agreed on one thing: The sequestered discretionary caps instituted by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ25/pdf/PLAW-112publ25.pdf) (BCA) severely damage national security.

As Congress crafts its budget for FY 2016, it should properly prioritize national defense, one of the federal government’s core constitutional functions. Balancing the budget by short-changing defense capabilities would be short-sighted and dangerous. It is also impossible, as growing entitlement spending and interest on the debt are responsible for almost all of the increase in spending and the debt.

Congress should realize that if it does not raise the budget caps on discretionary defense spending, the U.S. military will be unable to meet its current mission requirements. Congress should increase (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/01/a-proposal-for-the-fy-2016-defense-budget) FY 2016 defense spending to $584 billion.
http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/DS-defense-not-cause-spending-growth.jpg

Peter1469
03-14-2015, 10:23 AM
Entitlement spending is what is bankrupting the US. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2014)

http://www.heritage.org/%7E/media/infographics/2014/12/cp-federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2014-02-2-the-money_507.ashx?h=553&w=507

Crepitus
03-14-2015, 10:40 AM
Peter1469 and Max Rockatansky, I don't think either one of you included discretionary spending of which something like 55% goes to the military.

As far as the vehicle in the OP, that 8 wheeled design is going to have hundreds of less moving pieces to manufacture and maintain. I would guess reliability would go up as well so the saving should be substantial in many ways.

Peter1469
03-14-2015, 10:44 AM
My link combines mandatory and discretionary spending and illustrates that mandatory spending is what is breaking the bank.

And I agree that the wheeled APCs are cheaper to maintain.


@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) and @Max Rockatansky (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=575), I don't think either one of you included discretionary spending of which something like 55% goes to the military.

As far as the vehicle in the OP, that 8 wheeled design is going to have hundreds of less moving pieces to manufacture and maintain. I would guess reliability would go up as well so the saving should be substantial in many ways.

Max Rockatansky
03-14-2015, 10:53 AM
@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) and @Max Rockatansky (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=575), I don't think either one of you included discretionary spending of which something like 55% goes to the military.Why does only discretionary spending matter? The fact remains all those expenditures are under the authority of Congress and can be changed by law.

Let's not forget that the Constitution specifically empowers Congress with providing for the national defense, not Medicaid and Welfare. Ignoring mandatory spending and only focusing upon discretionary spending is one of the main reasons Congress can't provide a sustainable budget.

http://www.cbo.gov/about/products/ce-faq


As far as the vehicle in the OP, that 8 wheeled design is going to have hundreds of less moving pieces to manufacture and maintain. I would guess reliability would go up as well so the saving should be substantial in many ways.The benefit of a proven, off-the-shelf product. It's not the best and it does have drawbacks, but as mentioned previously it's the best bang for a shrinking buck

Crepitus
03-14-2015, 11:09 AM
Why does only discretionary spending matter? The fact remains all those expenditures are under the authority of Congress and can be changed by law.

Let's not forget that the Constitution specifically empowers Congress with providing for the national defense, not Medicaid and Welfare. Ignoring mandatory spending and only focusing upon discretionary spending is one of the main reasons Congress can't provide a sustainable budget.

http://www.cbo.gov/about/products/ce-faq

The benefit of a proven, off-the-shelf product. It's not the best and it does have drawbacks, but as mentioned previously it's the best bang for a shrinking buck
Not saying it's the only thing that matters, just that it matters too.

Max Rockatansky
03-14-2015, 11:18 AM
Not saying it's the only thing that matters, just that it matters too.
Personally, the only time I've seen people bring up the difference between mandatory spending and discretionary spending is when they are seeking to hammer the military as breaking the US budget. I do not know if that is your intention, but that is, indeed my experience.

Which, of the graphs below, most accurately depicts Congressional spending of American tax dollars annually?

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/publications/discretionary-spending-pie-2015.png


https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/publications/mandatory-spending-pie-2015.png
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/publications/total-spending-2015.png

Crepitus
03-14-2015, 11:28 AM
Personally, the only time I've seen people bring up the difference between mandatory spending and discretionary spending is when they are seeking to hammer the military as breaking the US budget. I do not know if that is your intention, but that is, indeed my experience.

Which, of the graphs below, most accurately depicts Congressional spending of American tax dollars annually?



Not what I was trying to do. I don't think the US is even in the top 20 for military spending as a percent of GDP, even though we do have the largest military budget by far.

Anyway, if I was wrong about the charts I apologize.

Max Rockatansky
03-14-2015, 11:32 AM
Not what I was trying to do. I don't think the US is even in the top 20 for military spending as a percent of GDP, even though we do have the largest military budget by far.

Anyway, if I was wrong about the charts I apologize.Thanks and you are correct about GDP: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbap i_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

Russia pays more. One reason the US spends more, however, because it favors high tech over warm bodies. We spend billions on tech, whereas another nation, percentage-wise may spend less but have more people carrying rifles and/or plastic keys to heaven (http://www.themodernreligion.com/ugly/unholy.html).