Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: is the AAAV still being developed?
rikopotomous    12/21/2004 5:14:18 PM
now that was written about 6 years ago so I dont know if it got cut by rumpsfeel in his slashing of military R&D programs. so tell me about its current status. all the info about it is at that link. Federation of American Scientists. they have everything about every military of the world and where the militaries are going. very good website, I believe everything I read there and they list all their sources too.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Bejean    RE:is the AAAV still being developed?   12/31/2004 5:57:50 AM
I believe it is cancelled....but variants of which is still being looked at and developed.
 
Quote    Reply

HJ    AAAV/EFV alive and well   12/31/2004 10:22:57 AM
Check out: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm AAAV was renamed EFV (Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle in 2003 and is still in development; far from being cancelled. I sat in one earlier this year so I can attest to there being something tangible out of the only USMC ACAT I program.
 
Quote    Reply

Clausewitz    RE:AAAV/EFV alive and well   1/2/2005 9:32:41 AM
I have a question. Maybe it would be better for the marines to adopt the FCS (and some more landing craft air cushion). The EFV seems to be just a big tractor with a 30 mm. The EFV can not be as armored as other IFV because the vehicle needs to swim. I am no expert in amphibious warfare. But landing craft air cushion delevering FCS-vehicles should be very interesting stuff for the marines.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:AAAV/EFV alive and well   1/2/2005 11:17:47 AM
There are a number of reasons for this: The LCAC is one big unarmored target. It is totally unsuitable for going against any defended beach or position. The land area needs to be secured first. This is normally by Marines landing in AAVs other landing craft or by vertical insertion. The LCAC is primarily a heavy hauler logistic craft not an assault craft. While LCACs and other hover craft can operate on land this is restricted by terrain. The AAV can operate over far more restrictive terrain. As stated before the LCAC is large. Under the current make up of an Amphibious Ready Group getting rid of AAVs in your shipping space might give you space for one more LCAC. I say might because you still need space for the FCS vehicles you propose replacing the AAVs with. So your plan would actually reduce the ship to shore lift assets available to the Commander. AAVs also give the commander more flexibility allowing an assault to take place on multiple axis at a time instead of one or two. Then there is cross loading. I can either crowd my Marine assets into a few LCAC or spread them out among several AAVs, LCMs, LCUs, and LCACs. So you are restricted by available amphibious shipping for what you want to do. The EFV is not supposed to be an amphibious Bradley. It is suppose to get Marines from ship to shore quickly from an over the horizon position and offer some relative protection and firepower in the process. Its on shore fighting capability is not supposed to match a Bradley and under current technology this is not possible. However it will be better than the AAV. I do see some advantage in the Marine Corps obtaining smaller hover craft like the UK operates. You have to remember the Marine Corps does not organize or equip itself to yet another mechanized force in the US military. It was more or less forced to take M-1 tanks whish it felt were to heavy for amphibious roles and a bigger logistics problem than it M-60A3s. Its LAVs are designated as a reconnaissance assets not Infantry combat assets The Marine Corps as primarily structured itself as a 30 day kick in the door/roof force with the Army taking on the longer sustained combat roll. That Corps finds itself fighting in other rolls such as mechanized force come form the problems of getting enough Army heavy units into an Area such as the Iraq war and the Corps reluctance to say it cannot do something. So the Marine adapts the assets on hand to the situation, though not perfect they get by. A good example of this is the Marines being the first large conventional force in Afghanistan. The Army said it needed more time to establish a larger logistics base to support a larger force and the Air Force would not land its C-130 at Khandahar until the airfield was improved. The Marines said they would go in now. So you had Marines securing Khandahar and the first aircraft landings were Marine KC-130s not Air Force. This should have been an 82nd Airborne operation as Khandahar is in a land locked country miles from the nearest body of water. But Marine Corps leadership step up when Shinseki and his crew stepped back. I am sure the 82nd was chopping at the bit to go in.
 
Quote    Reply

Clausewitz    RE:AAAV/EFV alive and well - to ambush   1/2/2005 12:32:15 PM
Thanks the information. Your arguments sounds logical. So the marines are the modern medium sized forces the amy wants to transform itself into? But some doubts remain. Given todays firepower it could end in tragedy if soft skinned giant EFV with 25 marines in will be hit by tank fire or ATGM. When the marines have to hold the beach against a first or second line power they should have modern real fighting-tools. And one of the most modern will be the FCS. Maybe the marines will trade their M1- and LAV-battallions for FCS batallions. If the 20 ton FCS will work this tool will be to valuable not to use it.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:AAAV/EFV alive and well - to ambush   1/2/2005 4:45:30 PM
I don't think calling the Marines a medium force is accurate. If you look at the Marines primary combat organization the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) it is built around a Marine Infantry Battalion. For all the Marine's talk about combined arms teams everybody in the Corps knows they exist for one reason-to support the grunt. A Marine Infantry Battalion is almost twice as big as its Army counterparts at about 950 plus personnel. Its rifle Squads are 1/3 larger at 13 men. It has more snipers/reconnaissance personnel assigned. The MEU is heavy in assets to support these grunts with Armoer Artillery and additional recon units along with suppport and logistics units. There is also the aviation assets to consdier. How many Army Battalion task forces have a Helicopter Group and Harriers directly under their control? I think when you start getting into the light Medium and Heavy designations youstart orgnaizing and equipping for specific missions while the Mairnes try to strive for maximum flexibilty 26th MEU (SOC) (1996 I think) A MEU is not fixed but is a task force tailored made bu tthey all folow this genreal arrangement: GCE 1 Infantry Battalion 1 LAV recon Platoon 1 M1 tank Platoon 1 M198 Arty Battery 1 AAV Platoon 1 Recon Platoon 1 Engineer Platoon 1 Shore Control Party ACE: 12 CH-46 8 CH-53E 3 UH-1N 8 AH-1 6 AV-8 CSSE: Comm Platoon Landing Support Platoon Engineer Support Platoon Supply Platoon Motor Transport Platoon Maintenance Platoon Medical Platoon
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:AAAV/EFV alive and well - to ambush   1/2/2005 4:51:22 PM
I think you would have to weigh the ship to shore logistics of the FCS. For every AAV you take way that is one less assets for moving troops and supplies (it is just not a people mover) The Marine LAV unlike the Army's Stryker is also Amphibious and canmake it to shore onits own power in most circumstancesWhen the Marines were looking at the LAV they also looked at other vehicles like the Scorpion (I was at 29 plams for a while when this was happening) and I think part of what put the LAV over the top was the amphibious capability). If you had FCS to the mix it is another asset you have figure how to get to shore. Do yo add more Amhibous assault ships and LCAC/LCM/LCUs. This certainly drives the cost of FSC up for the Marines and Navy. And alternative is what is being considered for HIMARS. One of the plans being kicked around is to assign the HIMARS units to the Marine reserves and use them for more sustatined combat operations by a Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF)such as the 1st MEF in Iraq. I am in favor of getting rid of the M-1 for a system a little more Infantry friendly and a 20 ton FCS certainly would be easier to get ashore than a 70 ton M-1. I think the key is to recognize the capbilites and limitation of your vehicles and adapt your tactics accordingly. The Marines adapted the LAV and AAV opertions to Iraq in both Gulf Wars and did not try to use them in direct combat like Bradleys.
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:AAAV/EFV alive and well - Marine FCS   1/2/2005 5:22:48 PM
My understanding is the Marines plan to adopt something like the FCS to replace the LAVs and Abrams in about 2015-2020. They want their own vehicle but budget concerns may force them to simply take the FCS, lose some electronics, and improve the amphibous capacity and call them Marine vehicles. Current thinking is something like a AFV version of the JSF different models for diferent services. The Marines want a 10 ton and 30 ton version at present. The 10 ton will offer similar capability to the LAV with less weight and the 30 ton will be a light tank to replace the Abrams. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/meffv.htm
 
Quote    Reply

Clausewitz    RE:AAAV/EFV alive and well - to ambush   1/3/2005 6:59:13 AM
Thanks again. For sure the ship to shore capability of the EFV will be the most valuable qualilty for the marines. And they need the protection against indirect fire (shrapnel and blast) too. But if they face a a determined and well trained enemey with modern weapons they need new tools to fight ashore. Modern PGM gives the infantry a favor. So the infantry-heavy marines are on the right track. But if all the fire support available (Cobras, Harriers, naval guns, F-18) might not supress the enemy the grunts need a real fighting tool. And imagine what happens the heavy equippment is not available. I guess the marines will trade their tanks and LLAV in FCS and remain infantry heavy and flexible. That will fit future demands.
 
Quote    Reply

Clausewitz    RE:AAAV/EFV alive and well - Marine FCS   1/3/2005 7:04:44 AM
Well, 68 inches sounds real flat. And this won't stop ATGM in top-attack-mode. I guress the marines will adopt some versions of the FCS because a new development would be to expensive.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics