Read on Twitter
Sometimes DOT&E reports showcase broader issues beyond platform specific ones.
Ladies & gentlemen, the USMC’s Amphibious Combat Vehicle, or ACV.
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/navy/2020acv.pdf?ver=AYnmVr-2qiW6qtmSDJ9FRA%3d%3d
Ladies & gentlemen, the USMC’s Amphibious Combat Vehicle, or ACV.
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/navy/2020acv.pdf?ver=AYnmVr-2qiW6qtmSDJ9FRA%3d%3d
What is it?
“ACV is a modern generation, eight-wheeled, armored personnel carrier with a combat-loaded gross vehicle weight of 70,000 pounds. The primary weapon on the ACV is a single mount Remote Weapons System (RWS) equipped with an MK 19 AGL or M2(A1) .50 caliber HMG.”
“ACV is a modern generation, eight-wheeled, armored personnel carrier with a combat-loaded gross vehicle weight of 70,000 pounds. The primary weapon on the ACV is a single mount Remote Weapons System (RWS) equipped with an MK 19 AGL or M2(A1) .50 caliber HMG.”
Amphibious, you say?
“ACV to operate with Marine Air Ground Task Force maneuver formations, and achieve up to
6 knots while operating at sea. The ACV will carry a crew of 3 operators and 13 embarked infantry Marines with 2 days of supplies and combat essential equipment.”
“ACV to operate with Marine Air Ground Task Force maneuver formations, and achieve up to
6 knots while operating at sea. The ACV will carry a crew of 3 operators and 13 embarked infantry Marines with 2 days of supplies and combat essential equipment.”
It is, however, another program affected by the Commandant of the USMC’s changes to organisation.
“planned acquisition objective of 632 ACVs will replace the legacy AAVs fielded to the within the Marine Division. The previous acquisition objective of 1,122 has been reduced.”
“planned acquisition objective of 632 ACVs will replace the legacy AAVs fielded to the within the Marine Division. The previous acquisition objective of 1,122 has been reduced.”
That’s quite a reduction.
So, carries 3+13 on water, through the surf zone, and into combat. There’s a 30mm version on the way. Let’s see what the current, RWS-equipped vehicle does.
So, carries 3+13 on water, through the surf zone, and into combat. There’s a 30mm version on the way. Let’s see what the current, RWS-equipped vehicle does.
When compared to the legacy turret on the AAV, the ACV’s RWS looks pretty good:
“During gunnery live-fire against stationary targets, ACV sections hit 91% of targets when the ACV was stationary, and 97% of targets while the ACV was on the move.”
Better results on the move!
“During gunnery live-fire against stationary targets, ACV sections hit 91% of targets when the ACV was stationary, and 97% of targets while the ACV was on the move.”
Better results on the move!
However...the RWS was government furnished equipment. So what?
“ACV demonstrated an MTBOMF of 39.0, which is less than the 69-hour MTBOMF reliability requirement. The RWS, which is GFE, was the source of the largest number of operational mission failures (OMFs).”
Yikes!
“ACV demonstrated an MTBOMF of 39.0, which is less than the 69-hour MTBOMF reliability requirement. The RWS, which is GFE, was the source of the largest number of operational mission failures (OMFs).”
Yikes!
The DOT&E testing can reveal organisational shortcomings, too.
“The ACV platoon did not have a hydraulic jack/other means to lift the ACV without an LVSR Wrecker.
ACV weight, height, & size made recovery challenging & time consuming, at times requiring additional LVSR support.”
“The ACV platoon did not have a hydraulic jack/other means to lift the ACV without an LVSR Wrecker.
ACV weight, height, & size made recovery challenging & time consuming, at times requiring additional LVSR support.”
(This is the LVSR Wrecker)
“When vehicles sustained severe damage to suspension components or became mired, one or more LVSRs were required to recover the ACV. Additional LVSRs may be required to support future ACV platoon or company-level operations.”
“When vehicles sustained severe damage to suspension components or became mired, one or more LVSRs were required to recover the ACV. Additional LVSRs may be required to support future ACV platoon or company-level operations.”
How well does it go carrying soldiers (or Marines, I guess)?
“The ACV accommodated 3 crew & 13 embarked infantry. Due to the placement & number of blast mitigating seats, interior space within the ACV is limited, making rapid ingress and egress difficult.” Hmm (ACV not pictured)
“The ACV accommodated 3 crew & 13 embarked infantry. Due to the placement & number of blast mitigating seats, interior space within the ACV is limited, making rapid ingress and egress difficult.” Hmm (ACV not pictured)
So, it’s tricky to get into & out of quickly, how about comfort?
“Infantry Marines noted that the troop seats were not contoured to fit body armor configurations, leading to discomfort during long range ship-to-objective missions.”
“Infantry Marines noted that the troop seats were not contoured to fit body armor configurations, leading to discomfort during long range ship-to-objective missions.”
So, DOT&E recommendations?
“Continue to improve ACV reliability by implementing corrective actions on future LRIP vehicles to reduce failure rate and maintenance demand.”
Maybe replace the GFE RWS, could help, @GrantSando ?
“Continue to improve ACV reliability by implementing corrective actions on future LRIP vehicles to reduce failure rate and maintenance demand.”
Maybe replace the GFE RWS, could help, @GrantSando ?
Another:
“Develop & provide equipment that allows more efficient tire changes in an expeditionary environment, & consider adding a spare tire kit at the section level.”
Goes to @aussie_tanker’s point about ensuring sufficient & correctly echeloned recovery equipment in ACR/CSSB.
“Develop & provide equipment that allows more efficient tire changes in an expeditionary environment, & consider adding a spare tire kit at the section level.”
Goes to @aussie_tanker’s point about ensuring sufficient & correctly echeloned recovery equipment in ACR/CSSB.
