U.S. Marines New Amphibious Combat Vehicle With 30mm Cannon 

SUPER

shit i don't know, maybe this cheaper than EFV

USA needs another 1 million troops if it thinks it will go to war with China...

Just another "bug" hunt!

Don’t sweat it, there’s still a crayon dispenser in the crew compartment.

MGS needed a 120mm mortar-gun, not a high velocity 105. Direct fire? Check. Indirect? Check.

​@@CorePathwaythe Stryker already has an IDF version in service. The M1128 retired and confirmed that no replacement will take the 1128's place. Not even the M10 booker.

No, the ARV is the planned replacement for the LAV-25. Separate vehicle.

If I had to guess, it will probably have the same 30mm unmanned turret. I will miss those goofy frogs with the Detroit 6V53T whenever they go away

ALRIGHT

are you talking about the periscope? Because it looks like the air intake might be further back and to the left of the gun. I imagine the periscope being located in line with the gun probably helps with spotting and lining up targets.

BAE is made up of several companies across a few countries they have a large factory in the US.

Copiato dal super av italiano non c'è niente d,'inglese

It’s replacing the AAV

Just what it's tested in mirror smooth no one shooting at you

The boght FMC

It’s Italian

BAE is a SWEDISH/BRITISH consortium that works with other arms manufacturers at times, such as the German company KONGSBERG that makes the 30 mm unmanned turret.

@@ericb.4358 British that owns the main Swedish Armoured Vehicle manufacturer.

@@trevorhart545 I always thought BAR Systems was a JOINT Brit/Swedish ownership, around 50/50. Nez pas?

?

ALRIGHT

Doubtful

@@chbgator2226anyway for me to find out?

New version of it.

They do 6 dead already

It’s actually a licensed version of an Italian family of armoured vehicles based on the CENTAURO II … even though it resembles the Stryker because of some design convergence, it’s still is pretty different on the inside

When Russia invades a NATO country or China invades Taiwan.

US Marine command basically said contested landings are an outdated concept, in their restructure that isn't what they are rebuilding for. So the amphibious part of these is just the logistics of getting them onto uncontested shorelines far away from port infrastructure (I presume before the enemy can move forces to contest it). If they needed more rapid landings I presume they'd use LCAC's or a more modern equiv (which I don't think they want to spend the money buying), maybe they will leave that capability to the Navy for logistics.

speed in water from an amphibious vehicle requires something like a hovercraft, which the military already has. Much larger type of vehicle that would drop less amphibious vehicles off. In something like this...speed in water is wishful thinking, too high a requirement. If they need to land on extremely swampy terrain, then these things will come in handy. I imagine it would be useful if we wanted to conduct a massive war in southeast Asia, which has quite a bit of jungle and scattered bits of land that regularly floods.

"US Marine command" should not be relied on for objective analysis and sound decisions. CMC Berger.....yea, that guy....is responsible for the FD2030 debacle which gutted the US Marine Corps, perhaps destroying the US Marine Corps. The ACV isn't a good design; refresh your head with the reports from California surf testing where it did NOT perform well and is now limited to pretty darn low sea-state. ACV.....big as a two car garage.....a bad idea. And, by the way, contested landings are most certainly NOT outdated, considering the asymmetric capabilities available today, to the "bad guys". Today's US Marine Corps leadership makes one wonder who is in charge and what are their true motives? Too many "yes men/women" in today's Corps......too many willing to "go along" to get ahead. @@deadlydays3401

LCACs are huge targets. A Marine Corps should be able to conduct uncontested and contested landings as part of its amphibious capability.

YES

No shit!

@@user-kr4rz5hn4n they usually test all that stuff before making deals

This ACV capable to be MRAP too 👍because quite enough of height and good Vshape

The old ones will be used for reserve and training units

⁠@@user-kr4rz5hn4nThe AAVP7 is a piece of shit. It needs to go.

Then why not just use landing craft to ferry in REAL IFVs

then have your mom work more.

afaik marines said contested landings are basically impossible and their restructure isn't considering contested landings a primary focus. So the amphibious part of this is mostly logistics getting forces to an undefended shoreline far away from port infrastructure. afaik, you'd need a ton of fast hovercraft to be fast enough to make any contested landing....and you could just carry these on those anyway. Hovercraft are shit on land, so using them as anything other than transports is pretty pointless. So building these is fine I think, if they ever decide to bring back forces for conducting shoreline assaults they are likely going to just be building large hovercraft to tote these up to the beachfront. LCAC's, though maybe marines plan on leaving the LCAC landers to the navy and asking them for help landing if needed?

This isn’t 1942, no one is making contested landings.

too....its "too" slow....

Agreed . With the ability to use both aviation, LCACs , and AMTRAKs mobility (hopefully) should make contested landing a thing of the past. This will be a amphibious IFV (again, I hope) first and a ship to shore transport second

No one does amphibious assaults anymore. We will never accept the casualties a contested landing demands. Marines need to stop kidding themselves.

PLA tanks will lose to missiles.

PLA tanks will break down.

stringdong, wong answer!

PLA tanks will lose by having water instead of fuel

they will let you know

When will people realize the AAV and now the ACV are/were never meant to 'storm the beach'? Marines travel on Naval vessels and the AAV and now ACV are one of the delivery methods to get them from ship to shore as well as inland objectives. That's why Marines are the "tip of the spear". We're always deployed on a ship somewhere, combat prepped and ready to go at a moments notice.

"Tip of the Spear" is an acceptable way of saying "Cannon Fodder". "Deployed on a ship somewhere" means a reinforced battalion of infantry, along with a few tanks and artillery, doing "donuts in the ocean" waiting to land on an uncontested beach or airfield, securing the site for follow-on Army main forces, with the "big guns". They may also be joined with an Army Airborne battalion, and these two elements will defeat numerous potential enemies armed with bamboo spears and bananas! LOL!