Jump to content

[Blindé] Programme Amphibious Combat Vehicle, maintenant ACV-1.2


Recommended Posts

En avril 2014, le programme ACV est devenu ACV-1.2.

Ça y est, c'est partie. Prevu pour remplacer l'AAV-7 A1, l'EFV est mort pour cause de coût astronomique. Il faut donc un remplaçant. Et qu'on ne s'y trompe, cette fois les coûts seront maîtrisés.

U.S. Marine Corps officials told lawmakers that speed is a top requirement for its new Amphibious Combat Vehicle even if it means trading troop capacity to get it.

The Marine ACV program is designed to produce a modern ship-to-shore vehicle that’s twice as fast as the current Amphibious Assault Vehicle.

Corps officials maintain that the ACV is one it the services top modernization priorities, but lawmakers at a May 14 Senate Armed Services hearing seemed skeptical since the Marines last attempt at such an endeavor – the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle – ended in a $3 billion failure.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., wanted to know “What are we doing differently this time? … When you look at the cost of the high speed in the water issue; when you look back on it in retrospect, it is just nonsense,” McCain said.

Marine officials explained that the Corps using all the lessons learned from the EFV program – which focused on achieving increased high-water speed – to ensure the same mistakes don’t occur again.

“Capabilities such as high-water speed will be weighed carefully for affordability and for trade space so we understand what we are giving up if in fact we want to achieve the high-water speed,” said Lt. Gen. Richard Mills deputy commandant for Combat Development and Integration.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, wanted to know how many Marines the new ACV will carry.

“The present AAV is designed to carry at least a squad of Marines,” Reed said. “When you look forward to the new ACV, is that going to maintain that same unit integrity?”

Marine officials said they would know more in October when the Corps is scheduled to receive a report from industry that will look trade space areas that will help program officials set requirement priorities.

“The number of Marines inside it would be one of those areas where we would look at possible trade space,” Mills said.

The ACV is capable of traveling at more than 15 knots in high water, compared to the current AAV which has a top speed of seven knots, Mills said.

Edited by Serge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RFP For Marine Corps ACV Expected In 2014

By Michael Fabey

June 26, 2013

The U.S. Marine Corps will probably issue a request for proposals (RFP) for its amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) in early 2014, says Gen. James Amos, Corps commandant.

“That program is alive,” Amos said June 26 during a discussion roundtable with media.

The Marine Corps has secured and saved a “moderate amount” of money for early program development, he says.

The ACV is the proposed successor to the Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program that was halted because the vehicle, which takes Marines from ships to shore and also serves as a combat platform, proved too expensive.

“We’ve really been working this,” Amos says. The Corps has been trying to reach the right kind of trade-off between requirements and cost for the platform, which the service considers to be vital to its expeditionary nature.

“What do you really need,” Amos asks rhetorically. “We’re only going to get one bite at this apple. I don’t want to mess this up.”

The Marines, he notes, have been working with contractors to see which type of vehicle would meet requirements without proving too costly.

The Marines need something akin to a pickup truck, he says, not a high-end sport utility vehicle.

Cost is another concern for the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV) program, Amos says.

“The JLTV is moving along,” Amos says. “I need them. I like them. But I keep telling people, keep the cost down or I’m not buying them.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ça y est, c'est partie. Prevu pour remplacer l'AAV-7 A1, l'EFV est mort pour cause de coût astronomique. Il faut donc un remplaçant. Et qu'on ne s'y trompe, cette fois les coûts seront maîtrisés.

étant donné qu'il y a eu pas mal de travail avec les test et conception de l'EFV ,il y aura peut-être la solution de gardé la base de l'EFV mais en n' ayant plus le système rétractable des chenilles .

en gros un EFV avec une motorisation pour l'amphibie (hydrojet ) basé sur l'ancien AAV-7 mais amélioré par les nouvelles technologies .

enfin s'est juste une idée comme sa de ma part  =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Le programme le plus important de l'US Marine Corps continue:

Army Researchers Meet Need for Marines' Assault Vehicles

(Source: US Army; issued Oct. 16, 2013)

REDSTONE ARSENAL, Ala. --- In response to an urgent operational need, the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center's Prototype Integration Facility teamed with the Naval Surface Warfare Center and Marine Corps to develop an Emergency Egress Lighting System for the Marine Corps' Assault Amphibious Vehicle.

Assault Amphibious Vehicles, known as AAVs, are armored vehicles, capable of functioning on land or in water, and used to transport Marines and cargo from ship to shore and through hostile territory.

Brad Easterwood, project lead engineer for the Prototype Integration Facility, or PIF, said the emergency egress lighting system that is being added to the AAV is a life-preserving device designed to assist Marines when escaping an AAV in a submersible emergency. When the vehicle flips or goes underwater, a set of lights turn on to guide crew members to the exit hatches.

The new system on the AAV is a modified version of the Emergency Egress Lighting System currently being used on the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.

"We're taking the commercial off-the-shelf Black Hawk equipment and modifying to meet the unique AAV requirement," Easterwood said.

By utilizing a modified commercial off-the-shelf, solution the non-recurring engineering and kit costs were cut in half, which is a tremendous benefit in today's environment, he said.

Along with prototype hardware, the PIF is providing initial limited quantities for user feedback and validation and developing a Technical Data Package and maintenance instructions which the Navy will use for installation and logistics support. Thirteen vehicles have been outfitted with systems to be tested during a deployment by the 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion, at Camp Lejeune, N.C.

Easterwood said this work was a good fit for the PIF because of the need for urgent response to the war fighter and because of its high impact to Soldiers and Marines.

"This is going to save lives," he said. "It fit everything we stand for; rapid response to the war fighter."

Easterwood added that the Army's Tank and Automotive Command is interested also in the emergency egress lighting system for potential application in Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.

In addition to the PIF, members of the team include the Program Management Office for Advanced Amphibious Assault, Program Executive Office Land Systems, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division.

AMRDEC is part of the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, which has the mission to develop technology and engineering solutions for America's Soldiers.

RDECOM is a major subordinate command of the U.S. Army Materiel Command. AMC is the Army's premier provider of materiel readiness -- technology, acquisition support, materiel development, logistics power projection, and sustainment -- to the total force, across the spectrum of joint military operations. If a Soldier shoots it, drives it, flies it, wears it, eats it or communicates with it, AMC delivers it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Marines 2014: Year Of Decision For Amphibious Combat Vehicle

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.on January 09, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Marine Commandant James Amos must make a tough call this year on a program that will define the future Marine Corps: whether to develop and buy the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.

“The Commandant considers a replacement craft for his aging AAV7 Amphibious Tractor to be his number-one priority,” said Gen. Amos’s spokesman, Lt. Col. David Nevers, in an email to me this morning. “He will soon make a decision on the future of the ACV.”

The Marines come ashore from ships and fight their way inland from the beaches. That is what they believe is their military DNA. That’s why ACV is the commandant’s number one priority,

While it may be his top weapons system issue, we aren’t sure how soon “soon” will be. Nevers declined to define it. Given that Gen. Amos didn’t receive the in-depth analysis of aldternatives of ACV options until November, it’s unlikely he can make the much-deferred decision in time to affect the administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2015, theoretically due out next month. (Or he’s made a decision and doesn’t want to telegraph it, which would give time for contractors etc. to influence the decision.)

The Amphibious Combat Vehicle is meant to replace the aging and vulnerable Amphibious Assault Vehicle, aka the LVPT-7, which entered service in 1971, ceased production in the early 1980s, and fought with mixed success in Afghanistan and Iraq. The AAV, in turn, is the successor of the famous World War II Amtrac, which revolutionized the military role of the Marine Corps. In layman’s terms, these are swimming tanks that carry Marine Corps foot troops – 24 in the AAV — over water, onto the beach, and deep inland.

The Marines tried to replace the AAV before, with the ambitious Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. EFV was essentially a water-skiing, transforming tank, able to skim over the water like a speedboat at 30 miles per hour — three times as fast as the AAV — and then reconfigure itself for combat ashore. The idea was a troop transport so fast and long-ranged that Navy ships could launch it from 25 miles offshore, beyond the range of coastal anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) launchers. But missile ranges got longer, the EFV got more expensive, and the program was cancelled by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2011. Ever since, Gen. Amos and the Marine Corps have labored to come up with an alternative.

The Marines face a dilemma with no easy answer. Amos has essentially three options: go high, go low, or go slow.

Go high: a high-speed ACV that meets the ambitious performance goals the Marines hold dear — which critics will immediately declare to be too expensive and doomed to meet the same fate as the cancelled EFV.

Go low: a lower-speed ACV that reduces performance to keep down costs – which critics will immediately argue is too marginal an improvement over the existing AAV to spend money on.

Go slow: a delayed ACV that spends more time in research and development in the hopes of reconciling high speed and low cost — or at least waiting out the current budget crunch.

“Those sound like the generic options to me,” agreed Loren Thompson. “The Marine Corps is not of one mind on ACV, but the path of least resistance at the moment is to keep the effort in R&D.”

But delaying ACV raises near-term dangers, warned Thompson, a well-connected defense consultant, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute thinktank, and a member of our Board of Contributors. “If the service does that,” he told me, “it will have to rely more on tilt-rotors” — the V-22 Osprey aircraft — “and conventional helicopters to get over the beach.” But aircraft, especially Ospreys, cost a lot themselves, and they can only drop off the riflemen and fly away, not drive them overland under armor.

The problem, said Thompson, is that “amphibious vehicles that lack the agility of a planing design” — the water-skiing approach of the high-speed EFV — “are becoming too vulnerable to perform opposed landings.” Even if anti-ship missiles can’t hit the Navy’s transports before they launch the amtracs, anti-tank missiles can easily hit slow-moving vehicles in the water — and even a non-state “hybrid” force like Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia has effectively employed both types of missiles.

Once ashore, there is the risk of roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which took a fearsome toll on AAVs in Afghanistan and Iraq: With 24 riflemen and three crew packed into a relatively lightly armored vehicle, a single well-placed blast could kill or maim dozens of Marines. By contrast, the Army’s M2 Bradley carries only three crew and six or seven infantrymen under much heavier armor. Even the Bradley proved too vulnerable to sophisticated Iranian-built IEDs, however, and the Army wants to replace it with a much heavier Ground Combat Vehicle — which is also likely to be put in R&D limbo.

The danger for both programs is that no amount of R&D can square their respective circles. For the Army GCV, that’s upping protection without excessive weight and cost. For the Marine Corps ACV, that’s increasing speed and, if possible, protection without breaking the bank.

Without some improbable breakthrough in amtrac technology, however, “there’s only two ways to travel: ploughing through the water, as current vehicles do, which limits speed, [or] a giant jet ski,” said Thomas Donnelly, a national security expert at the American Enterprise Institute and a hardcore armored-vehicle advocate. “If you wanna go faster, you have to get up on top of the water,” he told me — and that ain’t cheap.

There are other significant choices the Marines must face that could trade performance for affordability. “There’s the question of what the thing does once it gets ashore,” he said. Does it have a cannon or not? Either answer is legitimate, but there’s no free lunch. And lastly, and also like the Army [programs], how much electricity does the thing have to generate? Is it a charging station for dismounts and their gear?”

A major advantage of the Army’s eight-wheel drive Stryker troop carriers over the older Bradley is that it has almost 50 percent more electrical power, letting it power both more onboard equipment — most importantly IED jammers — and the ever-increasing amount of electronics that modern foot troops carry. But generating big kilowatts requires big engines, as does carrying heavy armor and weapons, and all this costs big bucks.

So Donnelly is deeply pessimistic about the ACV. “Either it’ll turn out to be a replay of the EFV — which I thought was the right vehicle, but isn’t affordable under current budgets — or they’ll drop some of the capabilities to try to make it affordable,” he told me. “Most likely outcome is they’ll opt for a dumbed-down vehicle but still won’t be able to afford it.”

The Marine Corps’ original plan was to power through its procurement of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, an uparmored Humvee replacement, as fast as possible to free up funding to buy ACVs in bulk as soon as JLTV was done. That plan seems to have fallen victim to the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration.

“The plan had been to make the Marine buy of JLTV quickly in order to clear the decks for ACV production early in the next decade, but that thinking may have lapsed as budget pressures mounted,” Thompson told me. “Gen. Amos was seriously considering giving up the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle to pursue ACV until budgeteers realized there just wasn’t enough money available.”

Even so, Amos insists the ACV remains the Marine Corps’s top priority for the future force, exceeded only in importance by keeping the current force trained and ready for combat. There had been speculation that Amos was softening his stance and putting the Marine Corps variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35B, ahead of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle. Not so, said Nevers: ACV is “number one.”

“While the ACV and JSF are at far different stages of programmatic development” — one yet to settle on a basic design, the other already in operational testing – “the capabilities represented by these two platforms are both critical to our sea-based expeditionary mission sets,” Nevers told me.

What Nevers didn’t say is that, as a practical political and budgetary matter, the F-35′s future is secure, supported by Congress, the highest levels of the Defense Department and by three armed services, two of them — the Navy and the Air Force — much larger and more influential than the Marines. A new amtrac is primarily a Marine Corps priority.

Primarily, but not exclusively. While discussion of potential war in the Pacific have focused on a long-range, high-tech exchange of missiles and cyber attacks with China, Marine amphibious forces would be crucial to seize and defend island bases, especially on the flanks of the main “Air-Sea Battle.” And in a lesser conflict, long-range firepower is less important than the capacity to kick the Chinese off a disputed island — and that takes Marines.

If Gen. Amos can convince the Navy, the Air Force, and the Secretary of Defense that a new amtrac is essential to the scenario that worries them most, the ACV program will have a much better chance.

Edited by Serge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

En quête d'idées simples pour moderniser les AAV7-A1?

Raboter les deux visières d'observation ? Ca fait un peu forts de ligne Maginot je trouve, là :p

Si cela ricoche dessus, ca a plus de chances de remonter vers la tourelle, non ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pour rappel, le programme ACV s'est transformé en ACV-1.2 (celui MPC en ACV-1.1). Dans ce cadre, une partie des AAV-7 A1 va être modernisée pour tenir jusqu'à l'arrivée des ACV-1.2.

Les AAV-7 A1 ont déjà connu une importante modernisation pour environ 600 d'entre eux. C'est le standard RAM/RS qui intégre le train de roulement et GMP du Bradley. Pour illustrer la différence, voici deux photos de profile :

AAV-7 A1 ici, coréen




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Deux candidats sont en course pour moderniser une partie des AAV-7A1.

Legacy of Amphibious Vehicle Excellence Continues with Survivability Upgrades Contract

BAE Systems has received a contract from the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) to provide engineering design and development work related to survivability upgrades for the AAV7A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV).

The contract, valued at more than $12 million, was one of two awarded following a competitive bid and evaluation process. It will allow the company to develop a solution that enhances the survivability and capability of approximately 40 percent of the USMC’s fleet.

“As the designer and original manufacturer of the global AAV fleet and a provider of Marine amphibious combat vehicle solutions for more than 50 years, BAE Systems continues to be a trusted partner to the U.S. Marine Corps,” said Mark Signorelli, vice president and general manager of Combat Vehicles at BAE Systems. “We’re confident that we can deliver a new evolution in the design of the AAV that meets the ever-evolving challenges in the battlefield environment and provides even better protection for U.S. Marines.”

Work on this design and development contract will be performed in York, Pennsylvania; Santa Clara, California; Aiken, South Carolina; and Sterling Heights, Michigan.

The USMC is expected to make a down-select decision in early 2015, choosing a single supplier to move on to the engineering and manufacturing development prototype build phase of the program.

Source : BAE Systems PLC (LSE: BAES.L)

Published on ASDNews: May 19, 2014

Read more: http://www.asdnews.com/news-55048/Le...#ixzz32FU8Xepp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

En faisant ma revue de presse hier, je suis tombé sur d'anciennes illustrations de ce qu'aurait pu être le successeur de l'AAV-7A1. Pour ceux qui n'auraient pas connu ce concept de Bell, je les poste pour votre réflexion :


Son nom : Landing Vehicle Air Cushion


Rappelons qu'en face de cette idée d'effet de surface, c'est la solution à coque planante qui fut retenue pour l'EFV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soufle et petits éclats. Comme les rafts qui se frottent aux rapides.


Sous l'eau les eclat ralentissent tres vite, et l'onde de choc a assez peu d'effet su des volume mou, au final les solution molle sont assez "fiable" meme si des truc pete a coté. Les suédois avec fait pas mal de test avec plusieur solution pour rentre leur char flottant, une barriere molle autour, des flotteur etc. et les exposait aux explosions avec des bon résultats. Certes un coup direct et ca perce ...


Pour le "VHM" les flotteur cylindrique qu'on lui colle sont rigide et pas gonflage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

SAIC vient d'annoncer ceci :

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) Program Executive Officer – Land Systems (PEO-LS) exercised options under a prime contract awarded to Science Applications International Corporation to perform initial upgrades to 10 Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) prototypes. Following this, additional options, if exercised, will lead to developmental testing and low rate initial production (LRIP) delivering 52 vehicles for operational test and evaluation and to USMC units.

This single-award, firm fixed-price contract builds upon SAIC's previously announced initial contract value of $16 million for the engineering phase of the contract. This contract value has been increased by $53 million in options exercised, bringing the total contract value to $69 million. The total contract value, if all options are exercised, is approximately $194 million over five years. The work will be performed primarily in Charleston, South Carolina.

Under the contract, SAIC will upgrade AAVs to provide improved protection while gaining back land and water mobility that improves the AAV's ability to fight. Upgrades include armor, engine rebuild to improve horsepower and torque, replace aging transmission, upgrade suspension components, install new water jets, install blast-resistant seats, and upgrade vehicle control, instrumentation and driver interface systems.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 years later...

Une superbe photo qui met bien en perspective le ACV, il a vraiment une structure bien spécifique, et ça doit bien aider pour la flottabilité, la navigation, on voit bien l'espace et la hauteur au dessus des roues

Et en plus on a droit à un magnifique couché de soleil de la côte Ouest ! 

Suite avec une vidéo :


Edited by Gibbs le Cajun
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Member Statistics

    Total Members
    Most Online
    Newest Member
  • Forum Statistics

    Total Topics
    Total Posts
  • Blog Statistics

    Total Blogs
    Total Entries
  • Create New...