I've been caught up in the rush to find out info on the BAE SuperAV which (as a reader from a certain Scandinavian country informed me) has left coverage of the Patria AMV lacking.
I mean to make up for that.
Lockheed Martin is a curious place when it comes to messaging. The F-35 (still a supporter) is a jumbled confusion when it comes to messaging. Info is found at 3 or 4 official websites and they all take turns getting out breaking news. The Havoc has one location and although the guys are cooperative, they seem to be rather muted when it comes to standing on a hilltop and singing the praises of a combat proven modular vehicle.
Modularity.
This was my biggest "wonder". How was the Havoc modular? What makes being "modular" a worthwhile asset? How would it benefit the Marine Corps? The answer to that question is rather straightforward If (as I suspect) that the next vehicles will be the vehicles that we keep for at least two generations then that vehicle needs to be upgradeable...it needs to have growth potential...it has to have the inherent flexibility to grow. If you look at the photos above you see the Havoc sporting a 105mm cannon, a BMP-3 turret with a 100mm cannon w/30mm cannon in coax, and last but not least you see a twin mortar carrier. Quite honestly the Marine Corps should have moved to a 30mm cannon on the LAV-25 long ago...it should have sought more firepower on the legacy AAV and even if the EFV had come into service, I have had discussions with other bloggers that even now it would be going back for an upgrade to a 40mm cannon just to keep up with the evolving threat on the battlefield (the EFV was suppose to provide overmatch capability against threat vehicles). The Havoc out the box gives the Marine Corps that option. Other vehicles have it too but not to the DEMONSTRATED degree that the HAVOC has shown. Additionally it has a plug and play architecture that makes these turret upgrades not simple, but easier than they would be otherwise.
Variants.
Similar to but different from "modularity" when you take a look at the different versions of the Havoc you can see that the "Single Family of Vehicles" concept is the guiding vision. One vehicle, all roles. via Wikipedia.
Combat Record.
The Poles have deployed their version of the Havoc to Afghanistan and it performed well. No. That understates it. It performed like a champ. The Taliban began calling it the "Green Devil" and it successfully shrugged off RPG hits on multiple engagements and even IED blasts. Unlike the US Army's Stryker experience in Afghanistan, the Havoc did its job and did it well. Unfortunately the nature of warfare indicates that eventually no matter what the vehicle, you will lose men in it. This happened and from my reading of events it was an attack by a large form IED and it shocked the Poles because (I imagine because I wasn't there) up to that point the Havoc had brought them to hell and back without the loss of any troops. This should be a point of emphasis. Of all the contenders in the Marine Personnel Carrier Contest only the Havoc is combat proven.
Conclusion.
The Havoc is a great vehicle and the Marine Corps (in my opinion) finds itself in a great place...if it would just decide to improve its armor the way that it has emphasized its air side that is! Again, in my opinion, we have two great vehicles to choose from and it only takes someone, somewhere to get the contest rolling, make a decision and then to get them in production. If the Havoc is chosen I would sleep well. Its combat proven, modular, has several versions, can help us achieve the vaunted "single family of vehicles" concept that would help us "neck down" our armored fleet.
Headquarters Marine Corps needs to move forward with the Marine Personnel Carrier Program asap.
I mean to make up for that.
Lockheed Martin is a curious place when it comes to messaging. The F-35 (still a supporter) is a jumbled confusion when it comes to messaging. Info is found at 3 or 4 official websites and they all take turns getting out breaking news. The Havoc has one location and although the guys are cooperative, they seem to be rather muted when it comes to standing on a hilltop and singing the praises of a combat proven modular vehicle.
Modularity.
This was my biggest "wonder". How was the Havoc modular? What makes being "modular" a worthwhile asset? How would it benefit the Marine Corps? The answer to that question is rather straightforward If (as I suspect) that the next vehicles will be the vehicles that we keep for at least two generations then that vehicle needs to be upgradeable...it needs to have growth potential...it has to have the inherent flexibility to grow. If you look at the photos above you see the Havoc sporting a 105mm cannon, a BMP-3 turret with a 100mm cannon w/30mm cannon in coax, and last but not least you see a twin mortar carrier. Quite honestly the Marine Corps should have moved to a 30mm cannon on the LAV-25 long ago...it should have sought more firepower on the legacy AAV and even if the EFV had come into service, I have had discussions with other bloggers that even now it would be going back for an upgrade to a 40mm cannon just to keep up with the evolving threat on the battlefield (the EFV was suppose to provide overmatch capability against threat vehicles). The Havoc out the box gives the Marine Corps that option. Other vehicles have it too but not to the DEMONSTRATED degree that the HAVOC has shown. Additionally it has a plug and play architecture that makes these turret upgrades not simple, but easier than they would be otherwise.
Variants.
Similar to but different from "modularity" when you take a look at the different versions of the Havoc you can see that the "Single Family of Vehicles" concept is the guiding vision. One vehicle, all roles. via Wikipedia.
The AMV is offered in three main variants: a basic platform, a high roof platform and a heavy weapon platform.
*The AMV basic platform includes APC, IFV, C2, ambulance, reconnaissance, mortar carrier, FCV, ATGM and MGS vehicles. Basic platform can also be provided as an extended Basic L platform with increased internal volume.*The AMV high roof platform features a larger and higher rear compartment which allows more space-requiring work to be done inside the vehicle. The AMV SP is suitable for e.g. C3, large ambulance and workshop vehicles.*The AMV heavy weapon platform features stronger structure enabling heavy weapon systems e.g. Patria AMOS 120 mm mortar turret or Mobile Gun System.
Combat Record.
The Poles have deployed their version of the Havoc to Afghanistan and it performed well. No. That understates it. It performed like a champ. The Taliban began calling it the "Green Devil" and it successfully shrugged off RPG hits on multiple engagements and even IED blasts. Unlike the US Army's Stryker experience in Afghanistan, the Havoc did its job and did it well. Unfortunately the nature of warfare indicates that eventually no matter what the vehicle, you will lose men in it. This happened and from my reading of events it was an attack by a large form IED and it shocked the Poles because (I imagine because I wasn't there) up to that point the Havoc had brought them to hell and back without the loss of any troops. This should be a point of emphasis. Of all the contenders in the Marine Personnel Carrier Contest only the Havoc is combat proven.
Conclusion.
The Havoc is a great vehicle and the Marine Corps (in my opinion) finds itself in a great place...if it would just decide to improve its armor the way that it has emphasized its air side that is! Again, in my opinion, we have two great vehicles to choose from and it only takes someone, somewhere to get the contest rolling, make a decision and then to get them in production. If the Havoc is chosen I would sleep well. Its combat proven, modular, has several versions, can help us achieve the vaunted "single family of vehicles" concept that would help us "neck down" our armored fleet.
Headquarters Marine Corps needs to move forward with the Marine Personnel Carrier Program asap.
