As many of you know I've been a critic of not only the ACV, but also the timetable for its entry into service. Ignoring all that and assuming it moves forward I've questioned its weapons fit, mobility claims, swim ability, the idea of launching from FAR beyond the horizon etc...
After a short (45 min) conversation with General William F. Mullen its become obvious that a few things are going on. First is that the USMC has worked this issue. Yeah. That caught me by surprise too. I guess the picture of the calm duck on the surface but paddling furiously underwater applies to this project. The second is that we're finally seeing a full throated defense of the course being taken.Read Mullen's bio here. I won't give a full recap of the conversation but I will give you a rundown of the points that were hit.
Mobility.
I planned to put him on his back foot with this from the jump. A wheeled vehicle that has equal mobility to the M1 Abrams? Bullshit. Mullen countered that he saw it with his own eyes at the Nevada Automotive Test Center. Ok. Fair enough but the challenge was given to talk to a person at that facility to verify the results. I'll do that this week but how do they explain the superior mobility? High ground clearance, improved wheeled vehicle tech and the ability of wheels to act in a track like manner in rough terrain. When pushed on the subject about the different terrain that Marines encounter whether desert, snow, ice, marsh, deep beach sand etc...the defense was made that testing had occurred in all conditions and the results were the same. The ability to continue after battle damage was also stressed with the idea that wheels can keep going if one is blow off where you would have a mobility kill on a tracked vehicle.
Weapons Fit.
With the proposed ACV we're looking at a "legacy" setup. 50 cal machine guns with 40mm grenade launchers on the ACV. I asked why. The ability to meet current worldwide standards of having at least a 30mm cannon seems like a no brainer. I also pointed out that work had already been done on the BushMaster 30 mounted in the turret for the EFV and that should be a simple plug and play for manufacturers. So why aren't they moving forward with more firepower for the vehicles. Turns out the discussions are being had to do just that. The Corps seems determined to go with a RWS setup with a large caliber weapon in the future...but in true Marine Corps fashion it will be on an upgrade path rather than entering service with the chosen weapon system. The old adage of get it first then make it perfect seems to apply.
Family of vehicles.
I asked if any consideration was made to neck down the number of vehicles operated by the Marine Corps by moving LAR Battalions to the ACV. I was told that there is. NOTE: The ramifications of this could be pretty intense in hindsight though. We would be moving those units back to essentially Light Armored Infantry instead of "quasi" Cav. I get the impression after this talk that the USMC is slowly moving toward the "Combat Assault Battalion" concept for the mechanized side of the house. Necking down to the ACV platform for the current AAV, LAR, Engineer (assuming a vehicle with plow, MCLIC charges, maybe demolition gun can be made) seems like a no brainer.
Even more surprising was that the idea of replacing the M1 Abrams with an "assault gun" or "mobile gun system" is also being discussed. I was told that the LAR Battalion was engaged by T-72's and lost no vehicles to direct gun fire. How did they accomplish this feat? Different tactics. While the ability to do "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" will no longer be possible, different tactics should make the vehicles just as effective.
Concept of Operations. US Navy vs. USMC. Is there confusion?
This was another of those points that I expected hemming and hawing on. The CNO has been recorded as saying that they will be able to close the distance to about 12 miles off shore and launch amphibious assaults. The USMC continues to talk about launching from 65 miles plus offshore. What gives? It was explained that there is no confusion. The views are complementary. How? The CNO is right. The Navy will be working hard to roll back defenses and setup corridors for our people to get to shore. The extreme launch distance is being called for to work with those efforts to help defeat the A2/AD complexes on shore. The example given was the SCUD hunt during the first Gulf War. Finding those missiles from the air was problematic. Eventually the allies turned to units on the ground to locate them. The same thinking applies to anti-ship missiles that are truck mounted. Launching Company Landing Teams from distance to help with the A2/AD fight ashore is where they're going with the concept.
Company Landing Teams.
Why the company landing team? I viewed them as too small to survive in a hostile battle space and easy for the enemy to destroy once located. The thinking is that the firepower found in the modern Marine Corps Infantry company far outstrips what we had during the 60's and 70's. Supporting fires are much more effective and soon to become even more lethal (the General pointed to the rail gun specifically on this) with the added reality that a smaller Marine Corps would need to maximize its lethality versus foes that will outnumber us.
Ship to shore connectors.
Did you know that 80% of Marine Corps equipment arrives by LCAC or LCU? I did but failed to properly assess the importance of this fact. Getting grunts ashore is the easy part. Keeping them sustained is hard. With the STOM Triad "modified" (I refuse to say its broken) with the MV-22, F-35, and ACV instead of the EFV, the importance of the SSC becomes even more important. Several concepts are under consideration. They'll be covered in future blog posts. As a sidenote, the idea of using JHSVs to do instream launches of AAVs was talked about. I asked if experiments had been done and was surprised to learn that they had but it was low speed. Modifications are being done to enable the ships to do high speed, instream launches. This will bear watching.
Why no improvement on water speed since 1940.
I pointed out that we're looking at a vehicle that while it MIGHT prove superior to the AAV on land, will still give us the same water speed as the WW2 LVT. The answer was illuminating. All my readers that have emphasized that physics was the determining factor and that making a brick swim faster just couldn't be overcome with horsepower alone were correct. Additionally the General named more offices then I will tell you about that are working this problem. The results are the same. High water speed remains important but the trade-offs at this time just aren't worth it.
A complimentary vehicle becomes primary.
Why would the Marine Personnel Carrier morph from a complimentary vehicle into a primary carrier for Marine Infantry? Technology, mobility, firepower potential of the MPC vs. cost, unbearable tradeoffs in protection on land for the EFV. A full assessment revealed that the MPC...which became the ACV will give greatly improved land performance while keeping amphibious assault from the sea viable.
The future.
Work will continue with the ACV once it enters service and we can expect changes to the vehicle that come from user experience and evolving threat profiles. You will see improved weapons, the promise of a Trophy-like anti-missile system and MANY initiatives to improve water performance. Some of those I will cover in blog posts down the line. I was given several examples of where the thinking is going and while some sound almost out of this world, they all seemed within the realm of the possible today. We're seeing a return to evolutionary development instead of attempts at leap ahead tech.
What about the bear in the room. Sequestration?
I asked him about the threat of sequestration and if it returned, would we see additional delays in getting the vehicle into service. He stated that funding was protected within a five year time period (as far out as Marine Corps budgeting goes) and that sequestration would NOT have an affect on this program. The ACV is being touted as a MUST DO for the Marine Corps.
My thoughts.
I'm not sure that the answer they have to the ACV issues are correct, but they are working it. Additionally we're finally seeing a Marine Corps type pushback to the critics (myself included). No more crouching, waiting for blows to be struck but getting out and defending the work that is being done. That alone makes me cheer. Do I have doubts? Yeah. The mobility part alone will have me burning up the phone this morning. I'll also try and touch base with some of the offices mentioned. Verification? Yep. Confirmation? You betcha. Oh and I have to add this. At the start of the conversation I asked if he was shaping the battlefield because news of the ACV was coming out this month...he said he wasn't. We'll see how this plays out. Confidence isn't high, but I am "chilled out".
UPDATE! I need to make several corrections. First. The talk about a family of vehicles is EXTREMELY preliminary. The primary consideration is simply getting the ACV into service. My musing on the possibility of fitting a large caliber gun to the "track" (will we still call the ACV a track?) is MANY years down the road IF it happens at all. Consider that personal enthusiasm for the idea. Second. The instream testing was done with LCACs NOT JHSVs. Comms got jumbled and I apologize for the error.
