Anybody heard anything about the ACV-S?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

doggtag RE:Anybody heard anything about the ACV-S? 10/23/2005 3:55:44 AM

This issue has arisen before, most notably in many of the Stryker vs M113 debates. UDLP (formerly FMC), now a subsidiary of BAe (who also owns Alvis, makers of the Scorpion CVR(T) and Warrior), has already developed its own stretched model, the MTVL. link They also have studied several variants (see the drop down box). I also mentioned, looking at the ancestry of the M2/3 Bradley vehicle, its XM723 prototype had a hull that very closely resembled a stretched version of the company's (FMC at the time) AIFV, a slope-sided, 5-road wheel adaptation/improvement of the M113. Turkey probably has the second highest experience level with M113 developments. It's very rare to see the technical exchange system work in reverse, meaning seeing a foreign company work with a US corporation to develop newer-version military systems. Another example was in the DENEL cooperative exchange to develop a US version of their LEO 105mm gun (GDLP), which fit snugly onto a LAV III hull and could drive off combat-ready from a C-130 with about 4 dozen ready rounds it could throw as far as 30km. There was also the (UDLP's) Variable Volume Chamber Cannon, another 30km capable 105mm artillery. link 105mm LAV III Artillery Weapon System by Mr. James Vickery, Generak Dynamics-LS Variable Volume Chamber Cannon ( V²C² ) by Mr. Jack Kuhn, UDLP What I'm suggesting is, as capable as the Turkish ACV-S and the BAe/UDLP MTVL systems are, could the same 105mm system be stuck on those chassis and give us a lightweight (reminiscent of Abbot SP gun, but with greater range) SP system similar to the Russky SO-122 122mm M-1974 (2S1) Gvozdika? Even though the US is taken on the FCS NLOS-C in 155mm form, other nations might see the potential of the 105mm system (and could more readily afford it.) Other M113 series developments have mounted direct-fire guns up to 90mm (MECAR 90/46, CMI Mk3 & Mk8 guns), 76mm weapons (the Australian FSV mounting the Saladin turret, although some think it's a Scorpion turret: the Scorpion turret was fitted to Canadian 6x6 LAVs.) Israel's hypervelocity 60mm has also worked (but never purchased by anyone intending to mount them on that chassis.) And of course, the BMP-3 multi-weapon turret. Somewhere I had a link about a 120mm turret mortar on the M113, but it has been inactive for a considerable amount of time. Currently, no one mounts a turreted 120mm on M113 types except for trials/test bed, even though the hull would support a single-barrel model. The M113 has always been a jack of all trades, and Turkey's ACV series is just more proof that imitation (in improved form) is the sincerest form of flattery...plus, it has helped Turkish engineers and industry get their own expertise at designing AFVs, by virtue of working off a familiar system. As far as your suggestion (for a US system to augment Bradley vehicles): that won't happen when it means stealing money away from the various FCS programs to fund it...even though their considerable program inflation has already led to cuts and delays. We (US) may very well have to consider using an off-the-shelf system in the future if the FCS keeps getting more and more out of hand. As for improving the Bradley's firepower, they have already been tested with the various Bushmaster guns up to 50mm, so it's only just time and money deciding whether we would fit anything more than the M242 Bushmaster in 25mm. But with UDLP being acquired by BAe, whose Warrior is planned to fit the 40mm CTAI gun for the British Army, I wonder what the odds are they'll offer the same turret (although equipped with ATGMs also) to the US Army.

Quote Reply