TufenHuden Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Not to say Jav sucks-I don't know if this true-but there is an RPG-7-that can take out about 600-700mm armor-that can take out a M-1A2 if used right-also seen web-sight a possible new weapon appeared on there side. Took out an M-1-but it was a side shot and like the hole was a size pencil-no crew were killed-Thank God....Might be a newer RPG-maybe-16 or RPG-7v http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm?POE=click-refer http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/rpg.htm I still say US needs something more punch but simpler Anti-Tank/Bunker buster but cheap to make-the new Law-80 sounds good but it's fires one and it's done.... Reading more on the RPG-they like 6-7 different rnds-including a 105mm type rnd-Max range-700mm-kill radius-about10-20m. That's not bad for a about $1200.00 weapon- This weapon did derived from the Panzerfaust- in WW-II-when soviets captured some-they where impressed by it's AT/HE capabilities-but the Faust was one-shotter too-and they copied the MP-44 in which the AK-47-year-1947... We need Our version of an RPG-or something like it-just my humble opinion.... [ January 07, 2006, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: TufenHuden ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Originally posted by LtCol West: The SMAW that the USMC has used for a while is still inservice, with the addition of AT rounds as well as the NE thermobaric rounds. Initially it was just a HE bunker-buster. I have not seen the SMAW(D) in service.The SMAW-D isn't a Marine weapon - the US army uses it as their bunker-defeat-munition. Originally posted by TufenHuden: Not to say Jav sucks-I don't know if this true-but there is an RPG-7-that can take out about 600-700mm armor-that can take out a M-1A2 if used right-also seen web-sight a possible new weapon appeared on there side. Took out an M-1-but it was a side shot and like the hole was a size pencil-no crew were killed-Thank God....Might be a newer RPG-maybe-16 or RPG-7vSo that's about equivalent to the LAW80 and AT4. That said, the M1 KO'd was hit by a 'Golden BB' - a regular RPG7 would probably have defeated the armour at that point. and they [soviets] copied the MP-44 in which the AK-47-year-1947.Not true. They look similar but I'm told the mechanisms are different. The short cartridge the AK47 uses is 1943 vintage as well. [ January 07, 2006, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: flamingknives ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Originally posted by TufenHuden: Not to say Jav sucks-I don't know if this true-but there is an RPG-7-that can take out about 600-700mm armor-that can take out a M-1A2 if used right-also seen web-sight a possible new weapon appeared on there side. Took out an M-1-but it was a side shot and like the hole was a size pencil-no crew were killed-Thank God....Might be a newer RPG-maybe-16 or RPG-7v http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm?POE=click-refer http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/rpg.htm I still say US needs something more punch but simpler Anti-Tank/Bunker buster but cheap to make-the new Law-80 sounds good but it's fires one and it's done.... Reading more on the RPG-they like 6-7 different rnds-including a 105mm type rnd-Max range-700mm-kill radius-about10-20m. That's not bad for a about $1200.00 weapon- This weapon did derived from the Panzerfaust- in WW-II-when soviets captured some-they where impressed by it's AT/HE capabilities-but the Faust was one-shotter too-and they copied the MP-44 in which the AK-47-year-1947... We need Our version of an RPG-or something like it-just my humble opinion.... The reality is that the RPG-7 family is reaching the end of it's useful life. They can keep making the warheads bigger, but range and accuracy suffer. They are cheap, and that is a big advantage, but next to not long-out weapon systems like the Predator, the RPG-7 looks like a pointy stick as a tank-killer. The U.S. military has no need for the RPG-7s AT abilities, even the impressive PG-7vr warhead. The RPGs anti-personnel / anti-structure abilities are not particulary impressive, and effectiveness is typically achieved through volley fire rather than precise employment of a single round. I don't believe there is a thermobaric round for the RPG-7 system, the Russians turning to tube-launched systems for their current weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popfreak Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Just wanted to say Semper Fi to all my Marine brothers in here. Pop CPL USMC MARDET USS New Jersey ACo 1/5 ECO 2/24 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Originally posted by akd: The reality is that the RPG-7 family is reaching the end of it's useful life. They can keep making the warheads bigger, but range and accuracy suffer. They are cheap, and that is a big advantage, but next to not long-out weapon systems like the Predator, the RPG-7 looks like a pointy stick as a tank-killer. The great advantage of the RPG-7 is that the warhead diameter and overall size and shape are not limited by the characteristics of the launcher. This has meant improvement over the years in the armour-piercing abilities of available rounds, and a variety of other warhead natures becoming available. It would normally be a safe bet to predict that a weapon is reaching the end of its useful life when it is has been in service for 40 years, but for the RPG-7 that was five years ago. I see no reason why the weapon shouldn't go on almost forever; there will always be a need for infantrymen to project some kind of anti-tank, anti-personnel or anti-material munition a top a range of a few hundred metres, and as long as suitable warheads are available, the launcher need not change. Originally posted by akd: The U.S. military has no need for the RPG-7s AT abilities, even the impressive PG-7vr warhead. Well make your mind up, you were comparing it to a pointy stick a paragraph ago. Originally posted by akd: The RPGs anti-personnel / anti-structure abilities are not particulary impressive, and effectiveness is typically achieved through volley fire rather than precise employment of a single round. What shoulder-launched weapon does better, do tell? Originally posted by akd: I don't believe there is a thermobaric round for the RPG-7 system, the Russians turning to tube-launched systems for their current weapons. The TBG-7 rocket for RPG-7 works on exactly the same principle as the warheads of the RShG-1 and RShG-2. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TufenHuden Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Well in the links I've posted- it has a 105mm rnd-and other anti-personalrnd capabilities. Almost any tank can be K'od in the rear or sides-it has been for M-1A2's-and a T-62/64/ 72/80/90/-Prob the BlackEagle. SMAW was used in the USMC when I was in, I fired it once-but it was big-bluky, I'm impressed with the CG-84-Carl Gustov, small-compact-fires 84mm-HC/HE-Army Rangers may still have it-the Canucks still have it. The AK-47 copied the MP-44-they just made the rnd-7.62 short-another weapon was copied(US) was the FJ-42-in which M-60 of today-feed paw tray about the same.... http://www.cruffler.com/historic-november00.html Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just wanted to say Semper Fi to all my Marine brothers in here. Pop CPL USMC MARDET USS New Jersey ACo 1/5 ECO 2/24 -------------------- "Rest well, yet sleep lightly; and hear the call, if again sounded, to provide fire power for freedom." --Decommissioning Commanding Officer 1969 USS NEW JERSEY BB-62 Semper Fi-too bad there decommissioning New Jersey-Iowa class-BB-impressisive firepower-16-naval guns-lethal...I think the Big-Mo was there.... I heard them and seen them at night when they pounding Iraqis positions in Kwaiti, 1st Gulf war..... [ January 07, 2006, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: TufenHuden ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 The only thing the Russians copied from the MP44 is the concept. Mechanically they're pretty different. If it was a straight copy, you'd expect it to use the same mechanism and have the selector switch in vaguely the same place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 The general view expressed here, though it might not be accurate, tends to see the US force in CMSF comming from the East out of iraq and moving rapidly with armour and mech support towards damascus in the west. If that is the basic scenario, then an obvious follow on module would focus on the other front, A multinational sea borne operation on the coast above the Lebanon, near Tripoli moving east towards Alleppo(?). and in the more mountainous terrain near the Turkish border, With a greater emphasis on Infantry on foot than fast open mobile warfare. Given Amphibious capability the obvious candidate forces would be the USMC, the British Royal Marines and the French, as far as I am aware the Germans don't really have any capability. Whetehr or not a follow on module would include something as complex as "Water" to allow for amphibious assalt is a mute point, but BF will have to do it at some point, so if the "mechanics nad beemn done for say the WW2 game, then it need'nt be out with the scope of a module. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by akd: The reality is that the RPG-7 family is reaching the end of it's useful life. They can keep making the warheads bigger, but range and accuracy suffer. They are cheap, and that is a big advantage, but next to not long-out weapon systems like the Predator, the RPG-7 looks like a pointy stick as a tank-killer. The great advantage of the RPG-7 is that the warhead diameter and overall size and shape are not limited by the characteristics of the launcher. This has meant improvement over the years in the armour-piercing abilities of available rounds, and a variety of other warhead natures becoming available. It would normally be a safe bet to predict that a weapon is reaching the end of its useful life when it is has been in service for 40 years, but for the RPG-7 that was five years ago. I see no reason why the weapon shouldn't go on almost forever; there will always be a need for infantrymen to project some kind of anti-tank, anti-personnel or anti-material munition a top a range of a few hundred metres, and as long as suitable warheads are available, the launcher need not change.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 LTC West, So true about the CAS blue on blue risk. Digitization would likely have saved C Company in that one instance, but as you say bad things would still happen elsewhere. The reason why I singled out the C Company strike was because the FAC didn't know that C Company was there in the first place. The reasons for that were many fold, but BFT would have straightened that much out for sure. Remember, every vehicle has BFT in a digitized combat formation. So even if 11 out of the 12 tracks there (it was around that at least) had their BFTs down for the count (a statistically improbable event) the 1 track that was signalling would have been enough to cause the FAC to hesitate. And since there are several BFTs within the HQ, higher up at Brigade level (in this case Regimental), someone would have raised the question. Again, I am not saying that digitiztion eliminates the chance of blue on blue, just reduces it. However, in this one specific hindsight event in An-Nasiriyah I think it is reasonable to assume it woudl have forestalled a lot of pain C Company suffered, including the mis directed CAS mission. Peter, Turkey borders Syria. If there was reason for NATO nations to go to war against Syria, Turkey would provided bases. It would have no choice. If it refused it would likely be out of NATO and have about zero chance of getting into the EU any time soon. On the other hand, allowing a strike from Turkey would strengthen its position within NATO and by extension the EU. That is a chance I think the Turks would not pass up. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 In a tight urban setting where combat occures at less than 500m, I bet you'd prefer 10 more RPGs than another Javelin. You can never have to many RPGs, especially for low-tech forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Originally posted by FAI: In a tight urban setting where combat occures at less than 500m, I bet you'd prefer 10 more RPGs than another Javelin. You can never have to many RPGs, especially for low-tech forces. There are a lot of things I'd take over a Javelin in that scenario, but then you might be wishing you had 1 Javelin over your 10 RPGs when you take fire from a building over 300m away. Javelins are just neat anyways. Here's an interesting bit of market analysis: Dean Lockwood, a weapons systems analyst at Forecast International, notes the Russian RPG (Ruchnoy Protivotankoviy Granatomet) line of weapons continues to dominate this market. Under the auspices of the Rosoboronexport organization, the combined output of Russian defense contractors will account for over 68 percent of man-portable anti-armor and bunker buster weapon production, worth over 51 percent of the total market value, through 2014. The most significant production will involve the Russian RPG-26 and RPG-27. According to Lockwood, "Combined production of these two weapons will account for over 54 percent of all new production, worth over 31 percent of the total market value, through 2014." Nevertheless, the ubiquitous RPG-7 remains the man-portable anti-armor weapon of choice worldwide. Through 2014, the RPG-7 (and the follow-on RPG-16) – as well as various licensed and unlicensed copies – will account for nearly 8 percent of all new production, worth 5.63 percent of the total market value. http://www.forecastinternational.com/press/release.cfm?article=83 [ January 08, 2006, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: akd ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Sorry Steve but you are just so far from reality it's not true. Nato works by consensus not majority and always has. It is not and never will be the case that a decenting member is expelled if it opposes the majority view, although most go along with it, it works completely the other way. If a nation like Turkey, a key and major regional player in the conflict, says you can invade but you can't use or bases, then thats what you have to do, end of story. If Turkey says no what do you do. With the exception of the Greeks and the Republicans in the US, no one else in Europe is going to back expulsion, particularly so that they can go to war with syria. The three options left would be, 1) Nato seaborne with Turkey allowed to stay on the sidelines, 2) No Nato Seaborne , but made up of nato members, or 3)Nato seaborne with Turkey expelled. Given that all three amount to the same thing militarily but your option is a political disaster for Nato, and a therefore a non starter, I doubt if even the current Bush administration is daft enough to suggest let alone even attempt expulsion. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Originally posted by FAI: In a tight urban setting where combat occures at less than 500m, I bet you'd prefer 10 more RPGs than another Javelin. You can never have to many RPGs, especially for low-tech forces. Let's not forget that other U.S. man portable anti-tank rocket (although it's a Swedish design, I beleive) the AT-4. That's what I'd use in a tight situation such as you describe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 But Peter, keep in mind that Turkey is also trying very hard to get into the E.U. If they say "No" to a NATO majority decision, they can kiss their chances goodbye. It'd be political suicide. If confronted with a reasonably close to united front from the major powers of Europe (ie those that would decide whether or not Turkey gets in the E.U.), Turkey would let itself be used as a jumpoff point. No doubt in my mind. akd, incredible timing on the Javelin photo! They must have used a wire to the camera or something to take the photo right as it launched. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Originally posted by juan_gigante: akd, incredible timing on the Javelin photo! They must have used a wire to the camera or something to take the photo right as it launched. Motor drives are pretty fast nowadays. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 Originally posted by Popfreak: Just wanted to say Semper Fi to all my Marine brothers in here. Pop CPL USMC MARDET USS New Jersey ACo 1/5 ECO 2/24 And Semper Fi to you as well, Devil Dog. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 Originally posted by akd: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FAI: In a tight urban setting where combat occures at less than 500m, I bet you'd prefer 10 more RPGs than another Javelin. You can never have to many RPGs, especially for low-tech forces. There are a lot of things I'd take over a Javelin in that scenario, but then you might be wishing you had 1 Javelin over your 10 RPGs when you take fire from a building over 300m away. Javelins are just neat anyways. Here's an interesting bit of market analysis: Dean Lockwood, a weapons systems analyst at Forecast International, notes the Russian RPG (Ruchnoy Protivotankoviy Granatomet) line of weapons continues to dominate this market. Under the auspices of the Rosoboronexport organization, the combined output of Russian defense contractors will account for over 68 percent of man-portable anti-armor and bunker buster weapon production, worth over 51 percent of the total market value, through 2014. The most significant production will involve the Russian RPG-26 and RPG-27. According to Lockwood, "Combined production of these two weapons will account for over 54 percent of all new production, worth over 31 percent of the total market value, through 2014." Nevertheless, the ubiquitous RPG-7 remains the man-portable anti-armor weapon of choice worldwide. Through 2014, the RPG-7 (and the follow-on RPG-16) – as well as various licensed and unlicensed copies – will account for nearly 8 percent of all new production, worth 5.63 percent of the total market value. http://www.forecastinternational.com/press/release.cfm?article=83 </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Sweden, Finland, Ireland, and Austria are all members of the EU and not one is in Nato. Nato membership doesn't effect EU membership at all. Malta and Cyprus just joined and they aren't in Nato either. The idea that a Nato member won't get in to the EU if it decents from An american view is just plain daft. Given the current view in berlin and Paris, not to mention the change in government in spain and soon possibly in Italy some would argue that Turkey distancing it self more politivally from the US has actually strengthened it's EU prospects. Me I think EU membership will be decided regardless of Nato. Generally Turkey though it didn't allow it's territory to be used For OIF was more supportive than France, in addition as far as I was aware for political reasons neither Turkish nor Greek forces played an active lead role in the Balkans. Indeed one of the reasons that Nato involvement in the Balkans was such a long and difficult process, was the need to come up with an intervention that everyone could sign up to without a split. Thats partly why it seemed to little to late. Nato has a great ability to fudge things and compromise to preserve the fascade of unity while covering up a messy compromise. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 For anyone interested in what a Marine Expeditionary Force looks like, here is a press release showing the task organization for I MEF going back to Iraq, real soon. United States Marine Corps Press Release Public Affairs Office 1st Marine Expeditionary Force; U. S. MARINE CORPS FORCES, PACIFICUIC 42540FPO AP 96426-2540; 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, U. S. MARINE CORPS FORCES, PACIFICUIC 42540FPO AP 96426-2540; 1st Marine Expeditionary Force; U. S. MARINE CORPS FORCES, PACIFICUIC 42540FPO AP 96426-2540, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, U. S. MARINE CORPS FORCES, PACIFIC UIC 42540 FPO AP 96426-2540 Capt. Megan McClung Megan.McClung@usmc.mil or 760-763-4682 Contact: Release # 1223-05-1049 I MEF units deploying to Iraq Dec. 23, 2005 CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. -- There are some corrections to a previous announcement of Marine units deploying to Iraq. Corrections are in red. Marines and sailors from the I Marine Expeditionary Force, headquartered here, have begun deploying to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07 to relieve the II Marine Expeditionary Force, from Camp Lejeune, NC, in the Al Anbar Province in western Iraq. This rotation of forces includes approximately 25,000 Marines and sailors, built around a division-sized Marine Air Ground Task Force. The I Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) will include units from the 1st Marine Division, the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing and the 1st Marine Logistics Group and will be augmented by units from the II Marine Expeditionary Force, headquartered at Camp Lejeune, N.C., III Marine Expeditionary Force, headquartered at Okinawa, Japan, and Marine Forces Reserve, headquartered at New Orleans, La. Marine forces will primarily deploy to Iraq in two, seven-month rotations, with the first rotation transitioning into Iraq beginning in January 2006. Major Marine units to deploy under the command of I MEF (Fwd) for the first rotation are as follows: I MEF (Fwd) Command Element I MEF Headquarters Group elements of the 9th Communication Battalion elements of the 1st Radio Battalion elements of the 1st Intelligence Battalion elements of the 1st Force Reconnaissance Company elements of the 2nd Air and Naval Gunfire Liaison Company 3rd Civil Affairs Group 1st Provisional Military Police Battalion, 14th Regiment Ground Combat Element elements of the 2nd Tank Battalion elements of the 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion elements of the 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion elements of the 1st Tank Battalion Regimental Combat Team 5 Regimental Combat Team 7 elements of the 11th Marine Regiment elements of the 10th Marine Regiment 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment 1st Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment elements of the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion elements of the 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion elements of 1st Combat Engineer Battalion Air Combat Element (proper abbreviations provided for clarity) elements of the Marine Wing Headquarters Squadron 3 (MWHS-3) elements of the Marine Aircraft Group 16 (MAG-16) elements of the Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 16 (MALS-16) Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 268 (HMM-268) Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 463 (HMH-463) Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 361 (HMH-361) Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 169 (HMLA-169) elements of Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 269 (HMLA-269) Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 252 (VMGR-252) Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 352 (VMGR-352) elements of the Marine Attack Squadron 513 (VMA-513) elements of the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 533 (VMFA(AW)-533) Marine Tactical Air Command Squadron 38 (MTACS-38) Marine Air Support Squadron 3 (MASS-3) elements of the Marine Wing Support Group 37 (MWSG-37) elements of the Marine Air Control Squadron 1 (MACS-1) Marine Wing Support Squadron 274 (MWSS-274) Marine Wing Support Squadron 374 (MWSS-374) elements of the Marine Wing Communications Squadron (MWCS-38) elements of the Marine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron 2 (VMU-2) Combat Service Support Element (proper abbreviations provided for clarity) elements of the Brigade Service Support Group 1 (BSSG-1) elements of the Communications Company elements of Service Company 1st MLG elements of the 9th Engineer Support Battalion, 3rd MLG elements of the 7th Engineer Support Battalion 1st MLG elements of the Combat Logistics Regiment 11 (CLB-11) elements of the Combat Logistics Battalion 5 (CLB-5) elements of the Combat Logistics Battalion 7 (CLB-7) elements of the Combat Logistics Regiment 15 (CLR-15) elements of the 1st Maintenance Battalion elements of the 1st Supply Battalion elements of the 1st Medical Battalion elements of the 3rd Materiel Readiness Battalion elements of the 3rd Transportation Support Battalion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 The EFV will be the Corp's new track for amphibious and mech ops. When the USMC module is made, I hope it is part of the game. USMC EFV Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle The Marine Corps plans to replace the amphibious assault vehicle with 1,013 advanced amphibious assault vehicles for $6.7 billion, including a $456-million increase due to a 2-year procurement delay. With a water speed of 23 to 29 miles per hour, the new vehicle could be launched from amphibious ships 25 miles or more offshore and reach shore far more quickly than the current vehicle. This improved mobility would reduce the risk to Navy ships from missiles, aircraft, boats, and mines. Until the new vehicle is fielded, beginning in 2008, the Marine Corps anticipates spending more to maintain the current vehicle. The Marine Corps is developing the AAAV to replace the AAV as its primary combat vehicle for transporting troops on land and from ship to shore. The AAAV must satisfy many operational requirements, which will provide increased capabilities compared to the AAV and improve the ship-to-shore movement, thus allowing the Marine Corps and the Navy to more effectively implement OMFTS. The AAAV will be capable of transporting 18 Marines and a crew of three over water at speeds of 29 miles an hour; the design uses a planing hull propelled by two water jets. On land, AAAV will achieve speeds of 45 miles an hour, with cross-country mobility equal to an M1 Abrams tank. In addition to its high land speed, the EFV has sufficient ballistic protection to defeat rounds up to 14.5mm or fragments from 155mm artillery shells. It also has improved mine-blast protection and a nuclear, chemical and biological defense system. This combination of features alone will provide enhanced survivability. A smooth transition from water to cross-country movement has always been a difficult and dangerous task for amphibious vehicles. The General Dynamics AAAV design solves this problem by the automatic transfer of power from the high-speed water jets to the vehicle tracks. Using the same vehicle design, General Dynamics will also deliver a command and control AAAV variant to the Marines. This mobile command post will provide access to information from satellite and computer-based intelligence sources, as well as from ships, aircraft and other vehicles, while controlling operations at sea or on land. The AAAV is the U.S. Marine Corps only acquisition category (ACAT) I acquisition program. The Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) represents the signature mission of the USMC. A truly amphibious vehicle that will replace the USMC's aging current system and provide the capability to maneuver, combat loaded with a Marine rifle squad, at 20-25 knots in the water and maneuver cross country with agility and mobility equal or greater than that of the M1 Main Battle Tank (MBT). The AAAV will virtually revolutionize every facet of USMC combat operations. It is one of the most capable all-around weapon systems in the world. The technology to meet these requirements has been demonstrated, and the plan to procure this system represents the most operationally effective solution for meeting USMC requirements. In 1997, nearly the entire Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) team, over one hundred and fifty members, including the prime contractor staff and critical subcontractor personnel, Government and contractor secretaries, engineers, logisticians, computer programmers, and financial managers were given an unprecedented fleet and field exposure to the amphibious operational environment for the sole purpose of improving system design for support, readiness, and durability. Everyone was taken by bus to Norfolk, Virginia and taken on a two day amphibious exercise specifically designed to expose him or her to the systems' operating environment. Everyone rode and most drove amphibious vehicles on land and in the water side-by-side with the Marines of Delta Company, 2nd Amphibious Assault Battalion. The entire group of Government and private industry team members were housed aboard the Amphibious Assault Ships USS Tortuga and USS Oak Hill in troop living spaces for the exercise. The experience resulted in a significant improvement of the team's understanding of operational suitability, support and readiness that is now reflected in improvements in the AAAV design. The AAAV will allow the Navy and Marine Corps to seamlessly link maneuver in ships and maneuver ashore enabling Operational Maneuver From The Sea (OMFTS). The AAAV will be the principal means of armored protected land and water mobility and direct fire support for Marine infantry during combat operations. Based on this unique mission profile, the AAAV must leverage state of the art advances in water propulsion, land mobility, lethality and survivability. Lightweight components and structures that are cost and operationally effective and supportable together with a significantly more powerful engine are the primary technical challenges for the AAAV. There are currently 1,322 USMC Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAV7A1 ) which will be replaced by 1,013 AAAVs beginning late in the first decade of the next century. The Marine Corps has a requirement to procure 1,013 AAAVs. Prior to December 1994, the cost to develop and procure AAAVs was estimated at $7.2 billion (then-year dollars). Due to budget constraints, DOD reduced AAAV funding in the FYDP by $189 million in December 1994. As a result, the Marine Corps extended the demonstration and validation phase 22 months and delayed procurement by 2 years, which increased the program's cost by $456 million, to $7.6 billion. As a result, low-rate initial production has been delayed from fiscal year 2003 to 2005; initial operational capability from fiscal year 2006 to 2008; and full operational capability--fielding all required AAAVs to the active assault amphibian battalions and the maritime prepositioning squadrons--from fiscal year 2012 to 2014. In July 2001 the US Marine Corps awarded General Dynamics Land Systems, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics, a $712 million contract for the Systems Development and Demonstration phase of the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) program. Under the cost-reimbursable contract General Dynamics will provide all required material, services, personnel and facilities to complete the design and development of the AAAV, manufacture and test nine new prototypes, refurbish three early development prototypes, support the Marine Corps initial operational test and evaluation, and prepare for the production phase of the program. The contract begins the next phase in the development of the world’s most advanced amphibious assault vehicle, which started with award of a $200 million-plus demonstration/validation contract to General Dynamics Land Systems in June 1996. More than 500 General Dynamics employees and contractors, Marines and naval personnel in Woodbridge, Virginia, will do engineering and assembly of the nine new prototype vehicles. The Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) was officially renamed the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) sometime in late 2003. Two platform variants are under development: the personnel variant (EFV(P)), which will be armed with a 30 mm cannon and a 7.62 mm machinegun and is intended to transport 17 combat-equipped Marines and a three-man crew; and a command and control variant (EFV©) which will transport a commander and staff. Testing is ongoing, and according to the DOT&E there have been concerns with regards to system reliability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 Here are some more pics... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I love the EFV. Aside from its impressive capabilities, it manages to look modern yet somehow old-school at the same time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 Here is a good shot of a SMAW team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 Originally posted by akd: I love the EFV. Aside from its impressive capabilities, it manages to look modern yet somehow old-school at the same time. I cant believe that the damn thing floats, but then again, I cant believe that the old AAV's float. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.