Finally: US Built Its New Amphibious Combat Vehicle
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2022
- The US Marines were looking for a new 8x8 amphibious armored personnel carrier, which would replace their ageing LAV-25 series of armored vehicles, that were used since the early 1980s. The US Marine Corps (USMC) currently operates more than 700 LAVs of all variants. The US Marine requirement was for a wheeled medium-weight fully-amphibious armored troop carrier, that could be launched from amphibious assault ships and operate in the open ocean. It was required that the new vehicle could fight on land alongside M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks. The requirement was for a vehicle produced in the United States. So in order to meet this requirement a number of international companies teamed up with US-based companies as an expediters for the US market. Thus appeared Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) 1.1 - a new armored vehicle designed and manufactured by BAE Systems in collaboration with Iveco Defence Vehicles.
For copyright matters please contact us at: ytproductionvideo@gmail.com
"Designed and manufactured by Bae Systems with the contribution of Iveco". No, actually this vehicle was designed by Iveco DV at the end of the first decade, well before the USMC even knew it existed. It was intended for both the export market and possibly the Italian Navy as a viable replacement for its AAV7 ageing fleet. The Italian Navy at that time didn't show particular interest, primarily because the landing force wasn't even sure/aware of its own requirements in the first place. A few years later, when the USMC issued its requirements and launched the bid for new landing vehicles, Iveco DV built 3 full-functioning prototypes and invited the USMC's procurement officers to Italy for an in-depth test and evaluation session at sea. Having apparently exceeded all expectations, in order to officially run for the bid and offer its product, Iveco DV had therefore to join a Us-based company acting as prime contractor, and that was Bae Systems Usa, also responsible for specific mods and vehicle customization.
good deal. im happy its being made by aussie buddies. at least its not made in china.
Thank you for that. Isn't that something that the military would normally put out for contractors to bid on? I don't know how the process works and am curious.
@@mikejohnson5900 yes absolutely, but in this case the vehicle r&d and design was 100% self funded by the manufacturer under no specific requirements. Maybe (probably) there has been some funding by the Usmc for Iveco to build the 3 prototypes they requested for test.
bravo, ben detto..👍🏻
Now we just have to make it a little bigger so it has better capacities in the water and artillery wise
I served on Active Duty as a Marine for 20 years. I after retiring, I had the opportunity to stand next to a prototype of the new amphibious vehicle and it seemed so much larger than the old AAV-7P...until I later stood next to an AAV-7P. They are actually of very similar external size.
The irony of the requirement to operate wit the now disbanded USMC tank battalions is not lost on me.
i think its now meant to keep up with the army in near peer engagements.
That's right. It will have to operate at those FOBs without the aid of tanks and hopefully a fair number of them will at least have the 30mm cannon as their main weapon for some decent firepower for defensive and offensive measures. But it is about time for the USMC to update these amphib vehicles, just hope it's a good one.
Semper Fi dog's. Question. Is the new ACV meant to replace both the AAV and LAV? If that is indeed the case I would expect variants with more fire power for armor. Please allow me one gripe gents. It was a mistake to get rid of all our beloved Corps tanks and to think " we will call on the Army if tanks are needed."
@@scothayes9220 oh no doubt but that sthe reality we live in now... i guess they want more inter brnach dependancey?
@@SSGTWinters That makes no sense. I understand co-op with sister service's. But, USMC/Navy doctrine doesn't seem to mesh well our Armies current doctrine in the Pacific theater. Berger shuffled the deck and I agree with him on most points. But not all and appears several stall Marines aren't happy. Just my opinion. After all I only made PFC twice.
all these channels get shit wrong its not replacing the LAV-25 is replacing the AAV platform, the LAV's got modernized a year or two ago. even more than they already are. the acv is expected to Homologate AAV and LAV units into one, so that everyone's using the same vehicle but that's 10-20 years down the line. or atleast until the other ACV variants come to fruition
I literally came to the comments to say this. This is a poorly researched article.
I was an AAV crewman, and lat-moved to LAV mechanic. The LAVs are a dominant battlefield system, and aren't going anywhere for a while.
the AAVs are aging badly. with the sinking recently that resulted in 8 deaths, the lack of spare parts and no infrastructure to support the vehicles, they need a replacement. Hell, we were having problems getting parts for them in 2004.
I read a Article that the Marine want a Vehicle to replace the LAV-25.
@@BarrowDAMarine Hell I was a 2141 from 91-95. We couldn’t get parts for our R-7A1 when the check valves blew out on the crane. Several parts like the power distribution box, and drivers bar graph gauges were unobtainium parts for P7s. R7s and C7 specific parts were unicorn’s. We waited 2.5 years to send the R7 vehicle to Depot Rebuild and get refurbed one with a working generator and crane. It was the first R7 I’d every worked with that had a functioning AC generator.
This new ACV is a step backwards it seems. I call bullshit on the seaworthiness rating. LAVs are deathtraps in any kinda rough surf. I don’t see this thing being any better. Can it right itself without any crew input if it flips inverted because it got broadsided by a swell? An AAVP7A1 can. I was stationed in K-Bay and Japan. We routinely saw rough surf that was much worse than what most AAV units saw. We also sank 3 AAVs in the 4 years I was there. Drivers would hit a submerged coral reef head with that weak assed brittle AF cast aluminum front mounted final drive and shatter it/ rip it out of the hull. Even then it took about 30-45 minutes for them to sink. The bilge pumps move a helluva lot of water but the sea always wins. I was the crew chief on the R7 so we’d get to recover them.
I also doubt the acv can cover the terrain a tracked AAV can. I saw LAV’s struggle to go places we could go with the greatest of ease. Especially in swampy marshland conditions. Is it faster? No doubt. It can’t carry as much as an AAV and from the crappy video it’s already at max weight / vehicle stability capacity with a freaking CROWS mounted .50. Dropping a 30mm auto cannon turret on that thing and splashing it in a real ocean? F. You! Not this redneck. YAT YAS!
I see the Navy adding more LCAC capacity in about 10 years to compensate for this Italian conceived British corporate built turd. Ever owned an Italian or British car? I have. Never again! I just hope they don’t kill to many Marines figuring out the problems.
Water jet propulsion ? Dude i clearly saw a propeller spinning on that .
Yep, ducted prop. Steering by powering one more than the other as it looks like they don't rotate.
@@DreadX10 hey dude look again at 5.06 clearly thats a propeller spinning , ducted propellers ? Nope them regular props which ya would not put on a water jet propelled craft . Somebody messed up
@@joelstanhope7231 Ducted prop (or shrouded prop) has a nozzle around the blades. Like you can see at 5:06. Prop is spinning but the nozzle/shroud can't rotate (around the vertical axis).
@@DreadX10 which you wouldnt have ANY propellers on a waterjet boat . They use impellers . Ever see propellers on a fvcking jetski ? That was my point
Too often I feel commanders will feel empowered to put these into situations they are not designed for just because it has a cannon. It’s either an amphibious troop delivery system or an armored infantry fighting vehicle.
If your looking for a lightly armed water taxi feel free to hop into a classic M113, as for me, I'd rather have something to fire back at those firing ATGMs, cannons, artillery, and MGs over the minimum half dozen mile journey for the beach. We've become far deadlier at far greater ranges compared to WWII and could use as much help as possible.
@@zano187 I don't think they're advocating for removing the cannon or returning back to M113s, far from it.
Instead they seem to be cautioning against forcing the vehicle into roles that it was not designed to fill, simply because it has the increased capability. Somebody in a position of leadership may get the bright idea to do risky things with this vehicle just because it has a cannon.
This is a discussion that's already happened and is ongoing with the introduction of Stryker Dragoons in the Army. Will guys be under the (false) impression that they can go head-on with enemy armor, just because their light vehicles now have cannons? Or that they can afford to be more risky with their usage of vehicles, banking on the vehicle's firepower in offensive maneuvers?
These are not questions for me or you, but for the people who will drive and lead these vehicles into battle.
How about this: Somebody might carry a pistol for personal protection, and while they might feel confident in their ability to ward off attackers, that doesn't mean they should be go around stirring trouble at midnight in the city slums.
Marines: We want an Amphib APC that'll fight alongside M1 Abrams
Also Marines: We're getting rid of tanks
I don't think these is a replacement for the LAV's but for the aging LVTP7.
They’re replacing both. This is an evolution of the original program to replace lav that was expanded after EFV program was cancelled
2:11 that desert color vehicle is actually the Lockheed Martin contender for the competition
which lost and BAE/Iveco won.
It seems to me that a turreted cannon is critical for the defense of ACVs trying to land on a contested beach or to support its own ground troops; otherwise its's just a taxi. This appears to be especially important in view of the withdrawal of the M1 tank from USMC service.
It seems like the planners are not thinking about what happens when the Marines are storming a beach. They are almost defenseless except for their carried weapons. Bunkers and fortified revetments will be terrifying with no armor or heavy gun support. I swear, all of this sounds like old men playing with lead soldiers on a big table and not the real world.
6:42
They might have to mod some of the LAV-25s into dedicated fire support vehicles. Instead of having a hull to carry troops, they'll just carry extra ammo or armor. All the LAV-25s really need is a fire control system that matches that of an Abrams and maybe a new 30mm auto-cannon and it's ready to go toe to toe with Russian 8x8s. And we saw those Ukrainian 8x8s taking out those T-72s, T-80s, and BMPs in close quarters combat.
Huh. I worked on the first LAV-MC25 back in the day at Delco. Great machine.
I was a Marine many years ago and I think that the age of war has changed but the planners haven't. Think about what is happening in Ukraine now. The Russian navy has left the scene because of land-based missiles. Million-dollar tanks are being destroyed with $500 drones and a mortar shell. Modern incoming radar can spot where the last round came from and a reply is on its way in minutes. Foot soldiers have anti-tank weapons that can destroy any modern tank which are much cheaper to build than tanks. An amphibious force will face missiles instead of artillery with very limited range and accuracy. Missiles are very accurate and their range is way over the horizon. In fact, the ships bringing the Marines will be targeted long before they can launch these new amphibs. Someone needs to think outside of the box.
They should have designed these vehicles to travel under water until they reached the beach, and given them more than a 13 mile range in water , then they could have approached by stealth and then stormed the beach in masse.
Needs 50mm rheimetal gun with 50 cal side by side in turret plus antitank misses marines should be able to fight from within the vehicle safely
Minor detail: Needs to be able to float.
@@Wick9876 it does float
Again, I agree. But if you served in the Corp you know were first to fight, last to receive new kit. A lot of Marines leave the Corp and join the Army for that very reason.
Outstanding !. The World's Finest US Marines. Semper Fi
Now that the USMC has decided to eliminate Tank operations, a 25/30mm turret option is a must for amphibious operations. When I served the mantra was "OFFENSIVE Amphibious Assault", not Battle to Belong. SFMF
mistakes were made.
Should make a version with 105mm
Nice idea but could make it too heavy and would not be able to transport personnel and weapons
@@langsnek07 It wouldn't be a personnel carrier anymore , but rather , a support vehicle.
Does it have a cup holder
Unfortunately no
Strange. Those “water jets” look exactly like propellers.
This is perfect ! Marines love rear entry !!!
Some of us have a problem considering the 80's "Ancient".
I still like the canceled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV)
The ACV should not replace the LAV-25. The ACV will replace the AAV7
I concluded that this new "AVC" have massive factor in all conditions to survive as well enhance the capability to carry troops one from another areas.
I did not hear about optics on it. Surely it has great optics at least right?
It doesn't seem special. Just faster, more range, with undisclosed better armor. Doesn't say what it is rated for.
I never understood how difficult it is for the US to design ground vehicles. Even the new M10 seems over priced for what it does. It does absolutely nothing special. It isn't even fast nor light, nor has active protection systems.
Why we don't at least put cages and ERA on our vehicle's is beyond me too.
One of the most important parts of combat vehicles like this are the logistics core that supports and maintains it. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is a great reminder of the value of maintenance.
Should’ve partnered with multiple allies plus lifted LAV components directly off to speed development and testing. By the time ACV fully fielded it’ll be 20+ years before in development
But think of all that contractor money and political kick backs to politicians!
Wish there were more interior shots included instead of the same seven or so exterior shots in an endless loop. It is a great looking combat vehicle though. Can't wait to see it in action for real!
When I was in we still lugged around the recoilless cannon with the .50 spotting gun. Remember those? I only bring them up because the Marines may have to dig them up again to have some firepower when they need it.
Honestly I figured the more modern APC's would look more like the APC from the Movie Aliens low profile vehicle hull with huge tires the current APC is sweet but just not what I was expecting
You do know the APC from Aliens was based on a aircraft tug? The interior shots were fake.
It looks so good!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Marines had souped up a Bradley clone to launch from ship. It was WAY faster, could handle more sea, had more armor and a 30 mm in a turret. It was also as expensive as a tank and just a bit complicated. Also, much of the sea worthiness was provided by hydro planing - a wedge shaped front augmented by a hydraulically deployed bow plate (more stuff to break). By seaworthiness read waves. Without its considerable forward motion courtesy of immense water jets used for propulsion, I'd bet it wouldn't take much of a wave to swamp it.
None the less, if I had to storm a beach, I know which I'd want to be in. I'd just be REAL dedicated to maintainence.
However, we aren't going to be storming beaches. Our landings will be on sand already secure and this is just a way to avoid barging armored vehicles to land and loading them up there.
Yes, thank-you. I’m very very familiar with the Marine Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) fiasco and replacement disaster….. with the Marines change in doctrine and most of their LPHs being used as stop gap F-35 carriers, the day of over the beach assaults is moving to the back of the bus. Best regards
All you have to do is look at D-Day and what happened to the Shermans that had the skirt to make them amphibs. They are all at the bottom of the English Channel because they weren't sea worth in rough seas. Plan for the worst but hope for the best should be their motto.
Im just being a bit devils advocate but if there is an entrenced enemy on a pacific island how do you secure the beechhead before these things come along
@@michaelheather8469 Your absolutely correct…. The day of over the beach invasion ended in a photo-op in March 1965 when the Marines staged a show of force landing in Vietnam. With the ending of 10 years of the war on terror, marine armored vehicles where entirely used in urban conflict. The Marines have retired the M-1 tank. Long story short, the Marine doctrine has changed extensively. The Marines assault the beach by helicopter CH-53, V-22, AH-1Z, etc.
@@frankcessna7345 i would really worry about casualty rates in an exercise like this and resupply of a ground element of any size . I know the russian airforce is nowhere near us airforce but the damage a couple hundred manpads could do even with atacams firing off the coast as well i would let the first wave in and then attempt to close the air against an enemy with conviction i think it could easily go wrong but who am i to say there are guys a lot smarter than us looking at this (no offence meant ) 👍👊
Beautiful
One machinegun? Scary stuff.
Nice truck. Want one. Where can I place my order?
😁👍
It'll only cost 5 million dollars.
Can’t wait for a scale model to come out.
So, a LAV 25 without a turret...
YAT YAS!
It's based on an Italian IFV.
Yes it is designed on the Italian vehicle.
Because it was made by Italy
Shown here also is a Timoney Technology vehicle but its not the IvIco version. That was designed for another company by Timoney.
Not a military expert here. I'm easy to impress with most new technologies. Failed wannabe engineer here. But what really matters is mission capability and survivability of marines and other US troops.
Those propellers look vulnerable.
They look to be a bit of an improvement over our old LVTA5 Mod. of the 1950 s era. I worked as an instructor at Del Mar in 1956 and we were still using those clunks after returning from
Korea.
I remember when they were testing the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), that was way more ambitious of a project. It could go 42 mph on land and up to 30 knots at sea, it had a 30-millimeter cannon, coax machine gun and could transport 17 fully loaded combat marines.
Worked on that program when it was AAAV then EFV then canceled
Yes, but there was a lot put out by the Marine Corps times that was showing the AAAV (EFV) was having major maintenance problems. It mainly centered around the retractable track system I think.
EFV was bad design
Why is it rolling over in surf and on land. Is it top heavy or is too much weight outside of wheel base?
Water jet ? I see a prop
Wow fowerfull
What I see at the rear are two shrouded or ducted propellers, not water jets. Water jet installations work in a different manner.
I love that design 👍👍👍👍😁😁😁😁
Very nice
Where was this vehicle when I was in the military
I like this very much
Good job making this vehicle
Not bad
Not bad at all
No better, and more expensive, then the one the Italians have, for years.
As a former Marine I am not sure what the Corps is doing getting rid of tanks getting rid of belt fed weapons for full auto M16 ? ect ect Now this not sure what they are thinking?
The British BAE Systems is rapidly becoming the worlds go-to for AFVs.
Looks like a good compromise to fulfill many requirements - marine and land. 65 mph on land is remarkable, given the configuration, but the 7 mph amphibious speed is understandable, with restrictions of Hull Speed for a water-line-length of 29' = 7.4 mph, which would be on the high end because it is doubtful that the 29' refers to hull water-line length.
Run out of gas. Nice.This is the lesson on Effectiveness vs Efficiency - a car can be EFFECTIVE getting you to A-B however, the car may have a high weight and drag. So not EFFICIENT.
at 4:38 that going to be a problem,cramp
Seems slow in the water.
Works well on cement and hard beach sand with waves my 3 year old can swim in..
Nothing wrong here...
imo
This vehicle isn't replacing the LAV 25 its replacing the old AAV that had problems with sinking while moving to shore, It will have nothing to do with replacing the mission of the LAV
Loss of firepower capabilities has a few marines grumbling
Just what I need when I take my family to Alaska again.
2 reverse speeds, what are they "back up" and "bug out"?
Like the Striker?
The new vehicle and its fighting features are great. However , the old amphibians vehica,l I would have it refurbished with state of the art advanced weapons. That way the amount of there vehicles would be increased
Wish we had these for WW2. I think they would have made a big difference.
I'd take one if ya gave it to me!
Be hard to get through the drive-thru!
Didn't the USMC decide to get rid of all their M1 Abrams?
Funny that the requirement include the need to work alongside the M1 Abrams tank. The Marine Corps has eliminated its tank battalions in 2022
Might want to consider submarine escape gear in case one of these sinks in relatively shallow water.
My buddy drives one of them, He sent me videos etc of him driving it. Let's just say it needs a bigger gun armor is not very good at or 20mm could take it out.
There’s great snap videos and TikTok’s of these things rolling over in light surf, kinda sucks tbh
3ton payload isn't much !???
Additional amour, weapons and troops
Then they took that shit away. Right before my deployment leaving an entire company pretty much stranded on ship.
too slow in the water makes for a slow moving target
I agree, used to crew-chief the LVTP 7's. I never understood why hovercraft were never developed for ultra fast insertions.
only took 22 years
except they aren't replacing the LAV. they're replacing the AAV-P7 which is 20 years older than the LAV.
the ACV is replacing the AAV not the LAV and the Marines no longer have the M1A1
Until it is deployed in a shooty-shooty environment its capabilities are still vapor-ware.
👍👍👍
Thank you!
67,000lb motorised raft that barely floats to begin with, and two open hatches -- what could possibly go wrong?
If I'd like to see how it performs in high seas.
Perfect to cross the Dneiper. Lol.
"Water jets"???? Many shots in the video show quite conventional ducted propellers.
Looks like the German Boxer
Wow, and after they turned down the GD design years ago after the production lines and everything were ready. Wooooowww.
It looks like they want a vehicle that does both recon and troop transportation. When you try to make a weapon that does ALL things good,
Well it's better but it still can be improved
I hope it survives COMBAT
Hello , I hope a cheap $ 60,000.00 missile won’t take this beautiful puppy out of action , for the features it has I’m hoping that it’s worth what the military is paying for it , thank you kindly all the best my friends;)
Its faster on land but a sitting duck in the water!
Could they be loaded up with soldiers mounted on silent electric dirt bikes?
No- these vehicles are for Marines !
If it can’t have a powerful cannon then is just a carrier and not a fighting vehicle.
From my understanding it is a short term solution
ARV is replacing LAV FOV not the ACV
This IFV was purchase from Italy and built in the US under contract by a British owned company BAC - British Aerospace Company. The US can’t build anything on time, on budget that actually works….
thats why poland is thinking of cancelling the order for HIMARS and ordering the truck/missle system south korea uses...the US can produce all we and our allies need...the place they build HIMARS said it would be 2 years before they could double production
@@michaelcraig58 do you have a reference for that? HIMARS is a multiple launch rocket system, the Marine vehicle is an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), completely different vehicles. Poland already produces and sells its own IFV, they don’t need to purchase anything abroad. Think you might be confusing the Polish order for South Korean K-2 tanks?
@@frankcessna7345 i was refering to the US defense market not having the abillity to produce what our partners need...poland wanted only HIMARS but they are going to buy the K239 Chunmoo missile launcher because we cant produce HIMARS fast enough,,HIMARS is 100% produced in camden arkasas and i just saw a video where they said themselves it would take two years to double production..
@@frankcessna7345 ua-cam.com/video/iUEDRKLbKZU/v-deo.html
Thie video seemed to suggest that the ACV is a replacement for the AAV and LAV25, but that is incorrect. You guys need to do you research. The ACV is only a replacement for the AAV. There is a separate program of record looking for a replacement of LAV25. DO A BETTER JOB.
Fantastic, who’s our next lucky victim.
Marines.
rocks a bit to much on uneven roads ?
Name of music pleas👍
IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A BALLISTIC SKIRT AROUND THOSE WHEELS, THAT THING IS DEAD IN THE WATER, IF YOU HIT ONE OR 2 OF THE WHEELS, BYE-BYE VEHICLE, ALSO IT NEED THE 50 mm chain cannon from Northrop, it have come with drones, fire and forget missiles anti tank, laser anti drones or helicopter. the side ballistic skirts can be useful as floats better have a powerful jets to move a lot faster im the water, i would make some radical changes otherwise this will be an easy prwy
Look like shrouded propellers to me...NOT water jets.
Water jets? I see propellers, not water jets.
Ask the troopers how they like it? IS IT 👍 Or a 👎
Problem is they are replacing the P-7 with a vehicle originally designed to replace the lav .🤦♂️