I couldn't find a thread containing the Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle which replaces their AAV. Moderators can move this post if it fits better elsewhere.
ACV 1.1 does not actually replace the AAVs, at least not near-term. The AAVs are still getting a survivability upgrade that keeps it in service for another couple of decades. ACV 1.2 or later may replace AAV in the long-term, but the plan is really hazy right now.
ARLINGTON, Va. – U.S. military researchers are asking Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) in Reston, Va., to build a prototype reconnaissance armored combat vehicle...
www.militaryaerospace.com
The ARV will achieve standoff with active and passive protective systems to sense, orient, classify, track, and defeat incoming rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank guided missiles, and precision-guided munitions.
ARLINGTON, Va. – U.S. military researchers are asking Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) in Reston, Va., to build a prototype reconnaissance armored combat vehicle...
www.militaryaerospace.com
The ARV will achieve standoff with active and passive protective systems to sense, orient, classify, track, and defeat incoming rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank guided missiles, and precision-guided munitions.
Information seems to be the dominant feature of combat superiority. Networking is key to that. Is it possible to network and communicate without "broadcasting to everyone within 300kms"? Or at least do so in a way that is too quick and irregular to track. I'm going to guess you can.
The point raised in the quote is actually about APS radar that can be picked up from ELINT from 300km away, and the need for coverage means it must broadcast everywhere. Don't think LPI tech can fundamentally change this.
The point isn't that the vehicle necessarily won't work, but with its armor, many protection systems and sizable weapons there is nothing that makes a specialized information gathering (recon) vehicle as opposed to just a general medium weight combat vehicle.
If the actual recon is supposed to be done by UAV and UGVs, it ought to be categorized as a command and control vehicle as opposed to a recon one.
The point raised in the quote is actually about APS radar that can be picked up from ELINT from 300km away, and the need for coverage means it must broadcast everywhere. Don't think LPI tech can fundamentally change this.
The point isn't that the vehicle necessarily won't work, but with its armor, many protection systems and sizable weapons there is nothing that makes a specialized information gathering (recon) vehicle as opposed to just a general medium weight combat vehicle.
If the actual recon is supposed to be done by UAV and UGVs, it ought to be categorized as a command and control vehicle as opposed to a recon one.
What kind of power does an APS radar need to detect something 200 feet away? Doesn't seem like it would have to be that much. These days, tank crews will probably opt for the APS vs whatever worries they had about people 300km away. Someone will have to demonstrate the ability to target long range missiles on a tank using their APS emissions to change their minds.
A command and control vehicle usually means something dedicated to battlefield direction. I assume a "reconnaissance" vehicle would have organic sensors but also would command UAV/UGV sensors as well. As for its armor and guns, I would guess it would be no more than a current Stryker with a 30mm cannon.
You can count the number of operational A-50Us in a combat theater on one hand, at any one point in time, so it's simply not a serious threat. Twelve guys in a strategic battle command aircraft have a lot worse things to worry about than your dumb truck stopping a Kornet or some guys flying a quadcopter.
Strategic ELINT can theoretically pick up your Motorola PRR and classify a battalion down to a couple meters per individual emission but it's not exactly a realistic threat scenario outside of clinical paranoia. The Russians wouldn't be needing to collate extensive dossiers on troops to identify battalions based on commercial cell signals to coordinate fire strikes otherwise. Sure, your battalion might get hit, but it's not going to be because of your APS radars.
This is why every smart military today is restricting peacetime use of cellular devices and monitoring social media use by their troops.
Very little, yes, but A-50U is very sensitive because it's a strategic battle command system. Rheinmetall put out a flier about 3 years ago showing that a low power APS radar (like a Trophy's) can be detected by it from 380 kms. This is where he got his seemingly random number from.
This was for an advertisement for a APS system Rheinmetall was working on, that nobody ended up buying, called StrikeShield.
He's just making a somewhat disingenuous claim that because your APS radar shoots down a Kornet, you're about to get fire striked by Iskanders and Smerchs from 100-500 kilometers away directed by a A-50U airborne command crew, because they saw your APS radar was on or something.
No word on why this hasn't happened to T-55AMs with Drozd in the Russian Marines and Rivet Joints and ATACMS.
The Marine recce vehicle looks okay, even if it's a bit tall but that seems to be what they want, and I would be concerned about the roof height more than anything given that everyone and their dog has passive night vision/thermal sights these days you really want to factor in Johnson's Criteria more rather than less. Something flat like a Fennek or RSV Shadow would probably be a bit better.
The capabilities the companies described as part of the ICS are similar to what Pentagon officials have said is needed for Joint All Domain Command and Control.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
