• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

USMC looking for something between a HMMWV and an EFV

Kirkhill

Puggled and Wabbit Scot.
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
11,274
Points
1,160
HMMWV is too small - with armour it has no payload
EFV is too big -  too many eggs in one basket (reinforced squad of 17 per vehicle)

They're looking for an armoured vehicle that will allow them to split the squad into 3 (3x6?) for dispersed operations. - Some folks might be inclined to call that a platoon or troop!

Marines Eye Replacement for Humvee
 
 
(Source: US Marine Corps; issued Nov. 3, 2005)
 
 
MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. --- The Marine Corps is searching for a larger, more capable combat transport to replace the Humvee. 

The Fires and Maneuver Integration Division of Marine Corps Combat Development Command is outlining the requirements for its future vehicle, dubbed the Combat Tactical Vehicle, with the goal of fielding the first CTVs in 2011. 

Kevin M. McConnell, deputy director of the Fires and Maneuver Integration Division, said the Humvee, while a battle-proven tactical vehicle, is beginning to show its limitations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

"The Humvee A2 is a great vehicle, [but] it has outlived its usefulness," said McConnell. "We have added very capable armor to the Humvees in Iraq. But for every pound of armor you add, that's a pound less capable the vehicle is. We have done a lot of modifications to the vehicle, and it's at the end of its capabilities. There is just no more you can do for that vehicle." 

McConnell said among the improvements is the requirement that the CTV accommodate up to six Marines with their existence loads and three days of food, water and ammunition. 

The current Humvee, including up-armored versions, normally seats four Marines or less. 

"As we go into the future, we know we have to plan for a couple of things," said McConnell. "We have to plan for increased mobility of the ground combat element, and we need to plan for (heavier) payloads. The first configuration we want to build is a people mover, not a fighting vehicle. It will take six guys with three days of supplies and be able to perform like a BMW on the Autobahn." 

McConnell said the requirements for the CTV, including its ability to transport six combat-ready Marines, supports Operational Maneuver From the Sea and Distributed Operations, as well as the Marine Corps' capstone concept, Seabasing,. 

"The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the EFV, holds 17 people, a reinforced rifle squad," said McConnell. "Three CTVs would hold a reinforced rifle squad. It supports our Distributed Operations concept. It allows that type of unit to be tactically employed. We figured out a way to divide a reinforced squad into packages. Why didn't we make it a 17 person vehicle? 

One, it would be a big vehicle. Two, if you take out that vehicle, you take out 17 people. You split them up into more vehicles and you increase the survivability of the team itself." 

The CTV combines a laundry list of requirements, drawn in large part from the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned and the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, and responds to the needs of the modern warfighter. 

"There is nothing better than a war to validate ideas," said McConnell. "All of the requirements that we have built into this are traceable back to something that somebody, from lance corporal to colonel, who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan or both, has told me or one of the guys in the division." 

McConnell said the Marine Corps is working with the Army, Navy, Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command to identify joint requirements that could help turn the CTV into a joint endeavor. 

"The requirements for (the Army's concept) vehicle line up pretty closely with CTV," said McConnell. "In the end, we and the Army are working very hard to make this a joint program. There are a lot of efficiencies in doing this with one vehicle, both in production and in lifecycle management." 

According to McConnell, the Marine Corps has an inventory of about 20,000 Humvees, while the Army has more than 120,000. 

By December, McConnell said his team hopes to have a solid draft of an initial capabilities document to present to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and the Marine Requirements Oversight Council, the next step in the process for the CTV. 

"I intend to have a very good draft of that in December to begin socializing the vehicle and its requirements in the Marine Corps and the other services," said McConnell. "Why we're doing this now is because no time in the last 20 or 30 years have we had such a wealth of information coming in about what the Marine Corps' needs to run a war. Now is the best time to make it happen." 

-ends- 

 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34
 
http://www.adi-limited.com/2-01-010-040-030.html

Give 'em to your AAAV platoons and put the six guys in the back.
 
Isn't that what the LAV's are for?

The Bn's in the 75th are starting to use Stryker's.   Oops did I say that, now JATF will have to get them.

 
The USMC LAV 25s would seem to have almost all the attributes they are looking for, especially size, carrying capacity and protection. Strykers and LAV IIIs would also do, but are much larger, so the Marines might have to do the trade off: Currently available and logistically compatable with the SBCT or CF, pull LAV 25s from the LARs, or try to procure an all new vehicle family.

If I were to make the choice, the LAV III would be the baseline, and at the same time replace the LAV 25s in the LARs with LAV III or Stryker varients (i.e. Stryker ATGM and Mortar carriers for the LAV TOW and mortar carriers, etc.). The advantages of economy of scale, quick availability, logistical compatability with the Army and some allied forces and the fact that the LAV can be modified to swim (never hurts if you are a Marine!) all point to that direction in my mind. A LAV III with the CT_CV turret would also go a long way to resolving the Marine's need for some sort of fire support vehicle as well. See http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961/post-281321.html#msg281321 for a more detailed account.
 
UberCree said:
Isn't that what the LAV's are for?

Well, I guess that depends on if they want a fighting vehicle or a protected form of transport.  LAV's require (should, at least) a whole extended level of tactics for your Zulu callsigns.
 
Infanteer said:
Well, I guess that depends on if they want a fighting vehicle or a protected form of transport.  LAV's require (should, at least) a whole extended level of tactics for your Zulu callsigns.

We are talking about Marines, so I will expect they will go for fighting vehicles. At least this was the implication I got from the article.
 
The first configuration we want to build is a people mover, not a fighting vehicle. It will take six guys with three days of supplies and be able to perform like a BMW on the Autobahn." 
 
Kirkhill said:
The first configuration we want to build is a people mover, not a fighting vehicle. It will take six guys with three days of supplies and be able to perform like a BMW on the Autobahn."

Oops. Reading and posting don't seem to be integrated right now. (I do have an out though; it says "the first configuration". Maybe I am just talking about iteration 2 and above..... ;D)
 
Maybe I am just talking about iteration 2 and above.....

Aye....that must be it right enough. ;)

Having said that, it will be interesting.  I seem to recall comments resulting from the after action reports on OIF that basically advocated just that....The LAV-25 was a good piece of kit but getting long in the tooth and it would make sense to piggy back on the LAVIII-Stryker programme.  I think it was in NDM.
 
Back
Top