As someone whos spent a lot of time in the hull of an amtrac, I absolutely love this one.
Defense Industry Daily reports the Corps has signed a contract with L3 Communications to install thermal sights on their amtrac fleet. The article touts the thermal sights capability over the current light intensification scope.
And if youve ever looked through an amtrac sight, youd agree its about as first-gen as it gets.
The Marine Corps has taken some serious hits in its pursuit of a replacement for the old-school AAV7 Amphibious Assault Vehicle fleet. All you need to see is a row of these medieval behemoths lumbering through the desert hundreds of miles from the sea and you cant help but agree that the Corps needs to find an alternative.
The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is close, but its cost and complexity have hampered development and put its future in doubt. So the Marines have resorted to continuously upgrading today’s amtrac, slapping on new suspensions and applique armor.
The funny thing about this development is that the thermal sight will probably do little good for the amtrackers other than help them see better at night. Though the EFV admittedly has a high-tech thermal sight, the vehicle also has a 30 mm Bushmaster cannon tethered to a computerized weapons system. On the flip side, the amtrac sports a .50 cal machine gun and a Mark 19 grenade launcher. Great weapons, but a little outclassed by such a sophisticated thermal capability.
I dont know too many gator drivers who speak very highly of its weapon systems, and putting an expensive — and potentially glitch-prone — thermal sight on it seems a little over the top.
– Christian
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Concur with Solomon…it is a MK46 30mm gun, incidentally, the same gun being installed on the San Antonio class LPD, albeit modified for shipboard use. Very cool considering LPD17′s will be carrying the EFV (if it ever gets built) and it gives the shipboard personnel an effective weapon vs. the small boat threat.
Thanks to Solomon for the correction.
I it just me or it the US army starting to look like lots of motivated ‘patriots’ and a big pile of useless equipment? All i read is equipement not being addequate for the job: The basic vehicles are useless and weak (humvee’s and convoy trucks), the heli’s are all breaking down or vurnerable to everything from ak’s, rpgs and 20 year old sams. The armor is eaten up by desert sand, or is simply to old and malequipped to be used in a modern war. Any replacement thats mentioned is too expensive or will take 10 years to build (and still be too expensive). To top it up morale is slowly falling and the politic will to do anything isnt really there. Meanwhile AQ, Iran and all their nasty friends keep on pouring in insurgents and effective weapons.
So Iraqi’s keep on dying and nobody on our side gains anything (execept some big corporate money).
It looks like this war will solve itself. My respect goes to the grunts who have to cope with this everyday and for thanks get their *** blown up by IED’s.
The Humvee was designed to be a jeep replacement, and any armoring would cut into the performance of the vehicle, so it was stripped off (that and it wouldn’t be helicopter-transportable). If they were too heavy, we couldn’t move enough, and people like you would complain about how America’s military is unprepared or some junk like that. (Just like most people shoulda known that Abrams cannot cross bridges in Bosnia, see Sava River)
The same is true with all vehicles designed twenty years ago for a different war. Mike Sparks has commented on the possibility that the AAAV “barges” are oversized so the MC wouldn’t need as many vehicle-drivers (25 men a pop…two squads?)
*Everything* breaks down in combat, but the “equipment shortage” is more because of a maintainence backlog, which should be covered by someone but is outside the scope of this blog. It’s all and good to cover the new machines of war, but this blog is not for discussing the mechanisms of the war machine, the failure of the procurement system (Generals bring in the Stryker, go work for GDLS, SFTT revealing procurement generals work for the company that makes IBA, etc).
The defense procurement setup has been sour for years, and it probably wasn’t even related to Eisenhower’s MIC speech. “In the day” Congress ran the warmachine with a tight leash, and during ww2 squeezed the contractors so badly that many imploded and went into bankruptcy after the war. At the moment, it appears to be the opposite.
The AAVP7A1 stopped being a credible weapon system shortly after the Korean War. This thing in a nut shell is a death trap. And you Army guys thought you had it bad in the HUMVEE. The Marines should have bought the M113 and built a float kit for it, or better yet go buy some Bradleys, I bet just like the M-1 the Army would be more then happy to give them away.
Just think how effective that thermal site will be after 20 gallons of sea water hits it. That is if the Marines ever let this thing see water, which I doubt.
Like I’d posted before, this’ll simply tempt people to throw them into front line combat. It’s not like M113′s *need* this as well. MC should not think of the vehicle as their Bradley.
Next question is how much does the 30mm cannon cut into their dismount capacity?
My last post on this subject (have to be careful, Ward is a stickler for niceties). The M113 is more akin to AAV as far as employment is concerned. The Marine Corps is an Amphibious, Expeditionary, Force-in-Readiness. The AAV helps the USMC maintain a credible, forcible entry from the sea ability that procurement of the Bradley or the M113 would not. If we are comfortable on our couches, aware that the AAV is not an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that can mix it up with “whatever” then surely the vehicle crewmen, infantry leaders and Battalion commanders operating in Iraq realize the same. The addition of the thermal sight will not encourage anyone to do anything so foolish. If you are an advocate for the M113 or Bradley, then I have no problem with your assertions but to base vehicle purchases on such flimsy evidence is not “wise.” As far as deathtraps are concerned…warfare evolves…if a 70 ton Abrams can be destroyed by mines then what vehicle on a modern battlefield is safe? Up armoring is good –up to a point–I only need to point out the monstrosity that some lab put out for upping the armor for individual soldiers, that was quickly and effectively killed off because of mobility issues. There will always be diminishing returns, you can get too heavy to fight, whether its a vehicle or a person.
Let’s deal with some facts there sports fan…to the idiot who says the AAVP7A1 hasn’t been a viable weapon system since the Korean War…and he calls himself a tracer…….you ain’t no where near it……first a little history..the first LVTP7 was fielded circa 1973, not 1953…and from Korea we have progressed from the LVT3C to the LVTP5A1 (Viet Nam), the LVTP7, the AAVP7A1 (first Iraqi gunfight) and now the current AAVP7A1 RAM-RS……..the P7 family has more than shown their worth in combat….they went to Kuwait City without a mechanical lose and Marched to Baghdad on the longest road march in Marine Corps History when they left the LOD (“high water mark”…..this vehicle was never designed for the current role that it is fulfilling…during the late ’70s, while stationed with 3d Amtrac Bn, we “wrote” the rules on how to employ and maintain this vehicle during this type of manuever warfare……..we started with the old M-85 50 Cal MG that was designed for aircraft in an electo/hydraulic weapon staton…very unreliable…then we went to an all electric drive weapon station in the 80s but with the same gun….then upgraded to the AAVP7A1 vehicle and incorporated this UGWS, 40MM grenade launcher with an M-2 50 cal machine gun. We have continued to change the role of the vehicle since its conception. It has always been and will be far superior to the M-113 as most old solders will attest to…….is it a Bradley? No thank goodness……..that is why we have the LAV…..but to put a thermal sight on this vehicle, I will have to agree, is a waste of time/effort and money. A thermal sight coupled with a couple of area type weapons will only give the crew situational awareness…..
but for amtracer….get your facts together before you start spouting off about the vehicle….
I still worry as to the consequences of adopting the 30mm. It’s “target niche” is somewhat slim, and IIRC some ww2-era gators had a 105mm, which could be give the landing force a fairly nasty capability if this were retained.
30mm will nail light tanks, but against targets in cover or urban targets they’ll have to dump so much ammo to get anything done. Perhaps a 90mm turret…I think ASV’s have this round?
I think the EFV is supposed to have a 30mm turret as well, so whether or not the 30mm is a good match for this vehicle will affect whether or not it works out well for the EFV.
I am worried not only about the “hey cool, with the cannon we can be more tanklike” side of things, I am moderately concerned about dismount size. The MC wanted something originally intended to carry 25 guys, and now they want a large cannon, which is likely to cut into their dismount size. Wouldn’t this imply they would need to revise their TO’s to add more vehicles to carry additional infantry, or reduce the size of the infantry squad? (akin to how the Army had to do the same when transitioning from M113 to M2).
Was gibt es sch
And he has given 50W cheap cronous cro to me, I was smiling secretly, my master had not known my details.
So I take my all cheap kamas to help you, because it is unworthy much money.
Concur with Solomon…it is a MK46 30mm gun, incidentally, the same gun being installed on the San Antonio class LPD, albeit modified for shipboard use. Very cool considering LPD17′s will be carrying the EFV (if it ever gets built) and it gives the shipboard personnel an effective weapon vs. the small boat threat.
I know that you are not a sloppy person, you have your aspiration, have your ideal. You will not care the game Habbo gold. Therefore you are doomed to leave Habbo, leave friends who these share some hardships, and leave me who am lonely apprentice.
Your reality husband can buy LOTRO Gold for you, but I also can be.
However, if it is also under the free name, charge the massive fee to blackmail us, let us buy Hellgate Palladium to continue this game, I will not play this game forever.
Remember we just met with each other by chance, we practiced the level and made last chaos gold together.
I want to forget you, but I cannot achieve, see the computer and I remember you, see my cheap imvu credits that I remember you once again.
My friends also told me that there is a web site http://www.hameim.com supplies cheap Lunia gold. If one day you want to buy Lunia gold you can go to the above company.
Now I have more Sword of the New World Vis in this game. Of course the Sword of the New World Gold is gained by I upgrade and kill the monsters. If you kill a big monsters you can get more Sword of the New World money.