So this thing basically sucks right?

So this thing basically sucks right? It seems like there’s a huge amount of disagreement over what an AAV replacement should look like.

Apparently there was an incident in July that basically confirmed these things cannot swim in mild conditions which seems to be a problem given it’s purpose is to serve as a ship to shore vehicle.

Why is it so difficult to develop a vehicle that can swim at a reasonable speed? Was the EFV from the 2000s really a failure or was it’s cancellation a budget thing?

I think it’s fairly clear the USMC(and army) need an IFV/APC that is fairly capable at amphibious operations without modification in the field.

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    AAAV bros were right in the end.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >4" rolled homogenous plate ramp
      I wanna see a thousand of these landing in Korean D day

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What on earth was the rationale behind canceling this?

      Can someone tell me if I’m wrong about the following
      >In order for a vehicle to be capable in the water AND on land AND carry enough marines/supplies/fuel/armor to withstand combat and make the expense of landing troops worth it, the vehicle needs to be pretty huge
      >It will probably need an obscenely powerful engine in order to achieve all of those criteria
      >This will also make it fairly expensive
      >So why not build 100 of these things in peace time to at least have the capability to improve the design and mass produce more in a time of war

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it was very expensive and had horrible reliability issues
        Classic case of a vehicle trying to do everything and then turning into a money pit

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So was the solution to just drop the capability to make an amphibious landing altogether? In any condition? I understand that making landings under fire against China simply will not happen

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If they need to swim quickly, that's what the LCAC is for

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              doesn't this require a secured beach head made by swimming vehicles

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          should be big simple fast outboard powered landing dories. too hard to make tank swim good and still be tank.

          OR, add big pontoons to AFV

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >horrible reliability issues
          literally only in your imagination
          these programs are a "money pit" because billions of dollars are spent to design excellent hardware and then they are cancelled before fruition

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >AND AND AND AND
        That's the problem right there.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >In order for a vehicle to be capable in the water AND on land AND carry enough marines/supplies/fuel/armor to withstand combat and make the expense of landing troops worth it, the vehicle needs to be pretty huge
        Just make them water tight and have them drive on the floor of the sea.
        That way they can be more compact. And that way the enemy won't see them coming until they drive up the shore. Also you don't need a jet or anything, you just use the wheels on the sea floor.

        I'm a genius

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Just make them water tight and have them drive on the floor of the sea.
          Yes please.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is that a uparmored 113?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'll fuck you up zoomie cunt.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >armored street sweeper
      y tho?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what are the brushes for

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To keep little kids from sneaking up and tossing IEDs in there.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This thing looks like it belongs on Mars.

      This thing looks like it belongs in buried in the files of unused alpha-build assets from a shitty videogame.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think going from tracks to wheels wasn't a very good idea, how well with they hold up against coral reefs? Even tracks have trouble crossing coral reefs, wheels will get shredded.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      IMO it’s an incredibly short sighted design that may be an even worse program than the LCS development cycle.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        While I agree that the old P7s need to be replaced, the ACV was definitely not the way to go. We've got plenty of experience and knowledge in amphib ops from WWII and Korean War, I think if the US is going to learn that the ACV was a mistake if it ever needs to do a hot beach landing or some sort of island hopping operations against the chinks. Typical really

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think it’s plainly obvious that it’s a mistake, it literally performs worse in the water than the AAV did.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://news.usni.org/2022/07/20/video-two-marine-amphibious-combat-vehicles-disabled-by-surf-no-injuries

            It seems like the waters that they flipped in were pretty damn heavy. About Sea State 5 if I'm reading this right (9-10 foot waves) while both the ACV and the Amtrack are rated for Sea State 3. Sea State 5 is what killed those guys in the AAV in 2020.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >those rolling crests
              >that foam
              >"nah, fuck it, I'ma go parallel with the big wave that's gonna crash on top of me"
              I'd say it was operator error.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah you can see how good the safety boats are being thrown around as well when they're parallel to the waves themselves.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, them randomly milling around in the surf is utterly unexplainable.
                People dab on the vatniks, and often with good reason. But their desantniki, training to immediately beeline for the shore, regardless of how strong the opposition is, regardless of whether or not they'll be blown up if/when they reach it, is the correct one. "Oh, fuck, the enemy's zeroed us" is better than "Oh, fuck, the enemy's zeroed us AND we've just gotten swamped by a wave".

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And, of course, I've fucked up the comma placement in my last post.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This. Nothing wrong with the ACV. It's just retards saying "it can't swim" when it is in fucked sea conditions beyond safety limits.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                PrepHole has a remarkable tendency to look at a new American development that has a couple public incidents and some growing pains, eat up junk media about how it's a total lemon based on deliberate misrepresentation, and then spend the next three to five decades years coping after it invariably goes through development to become the best in it's class.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >if it ever needs to do a hot beach landing or some sort of island hopping operations against the chinks.
          Rule one of amphibious landings is don't do them contested. In an age of PGM standoff munitions there's damn near zero excuse why you should ever be doing one contested.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why does it have angry eyes?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        google badboy bonnet

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The issue is amphibious is a dead end, and was never that valuable to begin with. Dedicated semi-land-mostly aquatic vehicles to drop off troops and armor has always been the superior option.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > So this thing basically sucks right?
    no, why? sure, there were some minor issues but those were ironed out after the UAT phase concluded

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    During testing, it was determined it's MDM (marines drowned per minute) was too low.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What about the Enigma? Is it any good?

Your email address will not be published.