Marines to Buy New Amphibious Combat Vehicle from BAE Systems

beerftw said:

I have no actual issue with the antiques being retired, my gripe would be the replacement being 90% amphibious while going back to ww2 they ad 100% amphibious, full function of original design should be delivered with the first model, not something you buy and they promise to sell you a second model to do what the first was supposed to do.

Click to expand...

Then us, what is the difference between 90% amphibious, and 100% amphibious.

Oozlefinch said:

Then us, what is the difference between 90% amphibious, and 100% amphibious.

Click to expand...

9 times out of ten it crosses a water obstacle without sinking.

Grand Mal said:

Yeahyeah. Urbandictionary. Where the deranged go to justify their derangement.
Listen. TDS blinds you to what a buffoon Trump is, and makes you gloss over and spin-doctor the lyingest national leader since Enver Hoxha. TDS makes you ignore when he reverses his position on something. TDS makes you applaud when he threatens to sabotage the best economy your country has had in years. TDS makes his disciples forget what he said yesterday and cheer what he says today.
Trump Derangement Syndrome has made millions of Americans abandon what their common sense tells them for what a spoiled trust-fund-baby NY real estate shyster tells them.

Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry but you're mistaken. What you describe is not TDS but TuRDs (Trumpanzee Reality Denials). TDS is Tiny Dick Syndrome, another malady that afflicts Trump and the Trumpettes...you know, small hands and all.

Oh, and since braindrain likes urban dictionary so much,

braindrain said:

urban dictionary is a lot more then you have provided to back your claim

Click to expand...

I'll provide this to back my claim:

A man who obviously wants everyone he meets to immediately think he has a very large penis. This is because he is very poorly endowed and lacks any shred of self confidence...The slightest insult will either shatter their false confidence and leave them a whimpering wreck, or send them into a rage of overcompensation that ends with them challenging everyone in the room to some sort of contest.

Click to expand...

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tiny Dick Syndrome

Oozlefinch said:

You have to look at what the purpose of this vehicle is. It is not designed to be an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) like the M-2 Bradley. It's primary mission is to get Marines from the ship to the shore, then return to the ship to get more Marines. Yes, many times it is employed as an IFV, but that is not it's main purpose. And as such, the Infantry inside do not fire from it. They are either buttoned up inside because it is in the water, or in cases where it is used as an IFV they are actually riding on top of it, like they did in Vietnam. This is the type of thing that all Marines are aware of. Other than direct amphibious operations, we rarely actually worked with LVTs or AAVs. We got on, went from ship to shore or across a river, then got off. In the rare event we did work with them for prolonged operations, we generally stayed on the roof, knowing that being inside of them on land where the chances of being taken under fire by anti-tank missiles was high was a death sentence. And yes, these boxes are well past time for retirement. The current LAV-7 is actually a Nixon era machine, designed during the Vietnam War. They should have been retired decades ago.

Click to expand...

We rode on top of our 'battle taxi' not for missiles but for land mines. If they are around enough to have an AT missile they are around enough to have several rifles or a machine gun. I did a little time in the Mech when it was equipted with M113a1s.

But while Marines know their ship to shore vehicles are not meant to fight they were in fact used for just that in GWII. The problem arises when the Marines are used not as assault troops but as ad hoc mech cav and they pay a price. Tough to make armored vehicles that can float very 'battle' proof.

I won't be surprised to see these new ship to shores used like the older tracked taxis were in Vietnam, and the Gulf Wars- as ad hoc fighting vehicles... eace

Rogue Valley said:

Marines to Buy New Amphibious Combat Vehicle from BAE Systems

BAE Systems Amphibious Combat Vehicle prototype



The BAE ACV has space for 13 kitted Marines and a crew of three which keeps the rifle squad together. It also features a V-shaped hull to better protect against mines/IED's and suspended seats. It will also feature a .50-caliber gun and a 40 mm grenade launcher both remotely controlled. 50% more horsepower than the legacy AAV. Note: the amphibious ability of the ACV 1.1 model is only about 90% complete which will be completely addressed in the 1.2 model.

Related: BAE Systems | Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1

Click to expand...

Amphibious truck at $6 million dollars.

Good contrcat if you can get it.

Polar Bum said:

I think the Titanic was 90% unsinkable.....but that 10% will always bite you in the backside.

I remember observing Marine AAV's back in the 90's performing Amphibious ops in Okinawa......the coral channels are narrow, so the operators need to be very away of their position approaching the beach; one AAV was out of position and struck the edge of the reef....it resulted in the final drive of the AAV being torn away from the vehicle.

Makes me wonder why the Marines think rubber tires will hold up any better, or if it is simply a weight saving measure?

Click to expand...

I served 5 years on the USS Spartanburg County LST -1192 and the USS Barnstable County LST -1197.


As the LPO of A-Gang, I have sent hundreds AAV's down the bow ramp and off the stern gate.








Each and every time, all I could say to myself was that I was glad that I wasn't in those freaking things.

RetiredUSN said:

I served 5 years on the USS Spartanburg County LST -1192 and the USS Barnstable County LST -1197.


As the LPO of A-Gang, I have sent hundreds AAV's down the bow ramp and off the stern gate.


View attachment 67235396


View attachment 67235397


Each and every time, all I could say to myself was that I was glad that I wasn't in those freaking things.

Click to expand...

My father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all career Navy; I couldn't do it...Had to go Army...I have terrible claustrophobia.

I remember touring several of the larger Navy vessels ( Carriers, Missile Cruisers, Amphibious Assault ) with my father and grandfather over the years.....I was climbing the walls after a few minutes, so I don't know how anyone could tolerate being buttoned up in that little armored can bounding on the waves.....don't even get me started on Subs.

Polar Bum said:

My father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all career Navy; I couldn't do it...Had to go Army...I have terrible claustrophobia.

I remember touring several of the larger Navy vessels ( Carriers, Missile Cruisers, Amphibious Assault ) with my father and grandfather over the years.....I was climbing the walls after a few minutes, so I don't know how anyone could tolerate being buttoned up in that little armored can bounding on the waves.....don't even get me started on Subs.

Click to expand...

Subs are another world altogether. Back in 79-81 I worked alongside a diesel inspector on the emergency diesels (Fairbanks Morse 5 1/4 diesels) onboard the Pargo, Dace, Greenling, Tinosa, and the Trepang. We were both over 6'2" and had a hard time getting into the ED space..... never mind working on the engines. Got underway on the Pargo for 2 days testing snorkeling.

RetiredUSN said:

Subs are another world altogether. Back in 79-81 I worked alongside a diesel inspector on the emergency diesels (Fairbanks Morse 5 1/4 diesels) onboard the Pargo, Dace, Greenling, Tinosa, and the Trepang. We were both over 6'2" and had a hard time getting into the ED space..... never mind working on the engines. Got underway on the Pargo for 2 days testing snorkeling.

Click to expand...

You, Sir, are a far better man than I.....at 6'3, it would have been problematic at best for me....toss in the claustrophobia, and after 2 days, they would have had to scrape me off the bulkheads and force feed me Xanax.

Kudos to you.

Polar Bum said:

You, Sir, are a far better man than I.....at 6'3, it would have been problematic at best for me....toss in the claustrophobia, and after 2 days, they would have had to scrape me off the bulkheads and force feed me Xanax.

Kudos to you.

Click to expand...

My amazement far outweighed any fear or discomfort while onboard the subs. I was like a sponge soaking up all the information that the conventional machinest mates were filling me with. Of all the technical systems onboard, I was more amazed with the air scrubbing system than anything else. The compressed air systems were a close second. I only held a classified security clearance at the time so I never went into the reactor compartments.

RetiredUSN said:

Each and every time, all I could say to myself was that I was glad that I wasn't in those freaking things.

Click to expand...

Yea, tracks really suck. They tend to roll in any kind of swell at all, and that initial dive into the water can give you a near case of whiplash, so long as you do not smash your head against one of the bulkheads.

But as much as they suck, they are better then going down the side in a cargo net into a Mike Boat.

Oozlefinch said:

Then us, what is the difference between 90% amphibious, and 100% amphibious.

Click to expand...

I would think it would refer to how amphibious it was, like lets say it could cross deep waters shallow waters etc, but could not handle ocean deep waters like launched from a ship to move to shore.

beerftw said:

I would think it would refer to how amphibious it was, like lets say it could cross deep waters shallow waters etc, but could not handle ocean deep waters like launched from a ship to move to shore.

Click to expand...

Well, let me know when you can give me an answer. Because to be honest I have absolutely no idea what that even means. And I attended the Amphibious Warfare school in Little Creek.

And BTW, nothing short of a vessel like an amphibious transport can handle anything but the waters immediately around a land mass or island. None.

By their very design they are shallow keel vessels, designed to bring the forces the short distance from ship to shore. They can easily cross "deep water", the actual depth under the vessel means nothing. But deep water away from land is always choppy and has swells, which would swamp or sink a shallow keel vessel.

The closest thing to what you are talking about is probably the WWII era LST. The last LST we had was the USS Fredrick, a 1970 Newport class LST. It was decommissioned 16 years ago and sold to Mexico as the ARM Usumacinta.

Oozlefinch said:

Well, let me know when you can give me an answer. Because to be honest I have absolutely no idea what that even means. And I attended the Amphibious Warfare school in Little Creek.

And BTW, nothing short of a vessel like an amphibious transport can handle anything but the waters immediately around a land mass or island. None.

By their very design they are shallow keel vessels, designed to bring the forces the short distance from ship to shore. They can easily cross "deep water", the actual depth under the vessel means nothing. But deep water away from land is always choppy and has swells, which would swamp or sink a shallow keel vessel.

The closest thing to what you are talking about is probably the WWII era LST. The last LST we had was the USS Fredrick, a 1970 Newport class LST. It was decommissioned 16 years ago and sold to Mexico as the ARM Usumacinta.

Click to expand...

I don't think amphibious means ocean crossing, I am reffering to ship launched like ww2, where they would be short distance from shore but still in deep waters, where deep water is a requirement for amphibious. I know jeeps equiped for it could actually handle deep water for short distances, they could just float across the water.

beerftw said:

I don't think amphibious means ocean crossing, I am reffering to ship launched like ww2, where they would be short distance from shore but still in deep waters, where deep water is a requirement for amphibious. I know jeeps equiped for it could actually handle deep water for short distances, they could just float across the water.

Click to expand...

Actually, "Amphibious" means the ability to go from water to shore.

It may be landing troops in wooden rowboats like in the Revolutionary War, it may mean landing them by helicopters and hovercraft in modern wars. "Amphibious" is simply the doctrine of how to get troops from water to land. And yes, that also includes crossing large bodies of war without a bridge.

So an ocean liner dropping off troops via rowboats like a Galipoli, that is amphibious. Using WWII era MIKE boats, that is amphibious. Need to cross the Mississippi with a military force, that is amphibious. Need to take a Battalion off of a ship and have them use a helicopter to land 25 miles inland and take an airport, also amphibious.

And when it comes to making landings, generally the amphibious transports wait 20 miles or so off-shore, and the various types of landing craft go in from there.

As for the rest of what you keep talking about, it really does not apply. Depth does not matter, only the distance that is needed to be crossed.

And yes, amphibious can mean ocean crossing. Our various ROROs are all "Amphibious Transports", only they carry not personnel but war material. And bring it right to shore where it is deposited ready to use. Fully fueled and armed.

RetiredUSN said:

I served 5 years on the USS Spartanburg County LST -1192 and the USS Barnstable County LST -1197.

Click to expand...

Ahh, the Newport Class, the last true heavy equipment amphibious landing ships we had. 20 were built, we only have 2 left. Only one will remain after the Racine is sunk later this year.

While the RORO is a great ship design, I still think it is foolish to not have at least some LST class ships in service. We can not depend on always have the ability to land at an actual port facility to offload our equipment by anything other than an LCAC.

Oozlefinch said:

Our various ROROs are all "Amphibious Transports", only they carry not personnel but war material. And bring it right to shore where it is deposited ready to use. Fully fueled and armed.

Click to expand...

It's like Christmas morning. I hope I got a bike.