APC Development and related topics. - Page 25

DRG · #**241** January 19th, 2016, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

ALSO...since we're at it...

The USMC will see their operational capability with the ACV 1.1 in 2020. This will prove a very hot competition between BAE and SAIC (TERREX 2 8x8) which are both fielding known fully amphibious platforms. It reports had given SAIC an early edge as the TERREX, first seen as a 6x6 platform was the first successful 360 situational awareness APC developed to include an RWS to operate in the same manner. TERREX 1 as it's now referred to was originally developed by TIMOTHY Industries of Ireland. And thought they just made good Beer and Whiskey!?! TERREX (1) was one of my first posts in the APC Thread where I'll re-post this to.
http://news.usni.org/2015/11/24/mari...stems-and-saic

I feel like I'm slowly coming back. I hear some of you already!?!

(Used not for it's normal meaning!

)

Need I say it-yeah, with an addition-CONTINUING TO TRACK.

Two for one not bad Don.

Regards,
Pat

Great.....I get to use the Stryker Icon for something else or any one of a number of already existing IFV Icons....the Patria looks very close......EFVP part deux let me know when they float one full of Marines

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ntoHeatUp.aspx

quote----The first phase of vehicles could be deployed as early as 2020, with full operational capability projected for 2023.

Suhiir · #**242** February 23rd, 2016, 09:45 PM

Seems the new USMC Amphibious Combat Vehicle has been narrowed to two contenders:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...acts/77380728/

The SAIC's Terrex 1 is a very interesting design.

scorpio_rocks · #**243** February 23rd, 2016, 11:39 PM

doesnt the fact that Terrex can't hold a full squad kinda rule it out?

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**244** February 24th, 2016, 01:58 AM

Simply put, no, the USMC is evaluating the ST Engineering/SAIC submission which is the TERREX 2 8x8 which will carry C2/P12
fully equipped troops with resupply. As discussed in ref. 1. Ref. 2 looks at both ACV 1.1 and the MPC Programs. 3. The competition BAE/IVECO from the "ground up". 4. The GAO speaks. 5. Another option? This was expressed in other places as well. I always respect another point of view, however, SAM's come to my mind as another problem and lift capability.
http://www.janes.com/article/54107/s...moured-vehicle
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf
http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/arti...v-1-1-program#
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...ment/75039660/
http://ec.militarytimes.com/pdfs/marine-procurement.pdf

The AVC 1.1 is just the beginning "a stop gap" if you will. If allowed to fully mature, in the end there will be an over the horizon solution-or Dons favorite-something akin to the EFV.

Regards,
Pat

DRG · #**245** February 24th, 2016, 08:52 AM

EFVP Déjà vu

< singing The Who's "won't get fooled again..........>

( 'cause how could I resist beating my head against that wall again.......) It IS nice that just about every recent APC developed looks the same......it's makes my job easier and before anyone says " hey those are too big" they are 3x sized but they are proportioned to the BAE version

Suhiir · #**246** February 24th, 2016, 08:18 PM

Ideally whatever vehicle is adopted will carry around 15-20 passengers, a standard 13-man squad plus a 2 to 4-man support team (AT, MG, Engr, whatever) that's a pretty much standard attachment to a Rifle Squad.
The real problem is the USMC can't use large numbers of vehicles simply because all the vehicles used to transport a landing force have to be able to fit into the US Navy amphibious ships. Unless a vehicle that carries half as many troops is literally half the volume and mass as one that carries twice as many it just plain won't work. This is why USMC LVTs are so damn big in the first place. Their APC function is secondary to their amphibious one.

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**247** March 12th, 2016, 04:30 AM

I'll simply call this "better late than never"...the WARTHOG has gone the way of the VIKING, which is retired then probably sold off or donated. On my list for next year.
http://www.janes.com/article/58712/b...moured-vehicle

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**248** March 17th, 2016, 09:26 PM

I expect we'll see the ACV 1.1 come into fruition within the new end date expected in the next patch, ACV 1.2 towards the end but, this next if I may quote one of the great heroes in all of history!!!!....this next will continue "INTO INFINITY AND BEYOND!" - BUZZ LIGHTYEAR. Given it's long history and now the probability is this vehicle will be around to the end of the 2020's if not 2030+. ACV 1.1 was never meant to replace the the AAV but to only to augment it. The replacement will come from the ACV 1.2 competition winner whose costs are rising at about 11-12 million dollars per unit still a little less than 1/2 the cost of the EFV. Here's your article...
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...grades-024049/

For my USMC friend out here this morning was a 234/240 (She'll know what I mean.) seven years in a row @ 230+, I think I'm almost ready to take you on at the range!?! But somehow I expect you'd find a way to "legally" shoot over 240!

Still not a 1911 COLT .45 though.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**249** March 17th, 2016, 10:00 PM

Just found this to accompany my last post...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march...ine_corps.html

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir · #**250** March 18th, 2016, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Just found this to accompany my last post...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march...ine_corps.html

Regards,
Pat

Well, looks like the are a LOT more comfortable then the older wood bench. Now if they've figured out how to vent the exhaust outside the vehicle rather then inside the crew/passenger compartment ...
http://www.defensenews.com/videos/de...3/16/81883614/