>“We’re going to modernize about a third of the fleet,” said Col. Roger Turner, director of the Marine Corps Capabilities Development. “We think we can extend the service life of this vehicle, make it perform better, and have enough survivability to be relevant in the current and future operating environments ahead.” PEO LS created the AAV Survivability Program to provide the Marine operating forces with 392 vehicles that have a longer life span because of updated features for the current battle spaces and force protection. “We’ve noticed in both Iraq and Afghanistan the AAV had some vulnerabilities in an IED environment, so we decided to upgrade it to increase its armor protection and also to increase its water performance,” said Turner.
>The AAV SU, or Amphibious Assault Vehicle Survivability Upgrade, will build upon the existing hull. The upgrades include buoyant armor, blast-mitigating seats and spall liners. They will also include fuel tank protection and automotive and suspension upgrades to keep both land and sea mobility regardless of the added weight. “It does the exact same thing with some upgraded horsepower and basically more armor, so it allows the Marines to go into environment where before we couldn’t go,” said Capt. James McGowen, an infantry officer assigned to Project Manager Advanced Amphibious Assault. These 392 vehicles can equip the Corps with four battalions for amphibious operations and additional support.
http://www.marines.mil/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/3258/Article/695458/marine-corps-demonstrates-upgraded-aav.aspx
Why only a third of the fleet? If they have an upgrade available then why wouldn't they apply it to all vehicles?
>>29282729
Because the entire fleet doesn't need it.
>>29282729
>Why only a third of the fleet?
Aren't they trying to replace it with that new wheeled APC? If that's the case it makes sense
>>29282729
>Why only a third of the fleet? If they have an upgrade available then why wouldn't they apply it to all vehicles?
Not worth the money when they're looking for a replacement in the long run and most of the AAVs wont even leave the US in the rest of their lives
AAVs aren't meant to actually get into the shit though are they?
Basically meant to just ferry Marines from an LHD, I thought. Trying to also put significant armor on that seems like a fool's errand.
>>29283013
The problem is the Marine Corps doesn't have any other tracked APC. They are making do with what they already have since the AAAV program was squashed a few years back after like 15 years in development. The LAV-25 is also badly dated. I'm a former LAR Marine. Some of our LAVs were 1st Gen 1980s models. The Marine Corps chose not to participate in the Army Stryker (LAV III) program instead waiting for "the next generation" of fighting vechicle.
>>29282729
>>29283076
It's because of the F-35 soaking up $$$ plain and simple.
>>29282729
>Why only a third of the fleet?
Because of image related.
>>29283166
Fuck off Solomon, the Marines squandered a fortune on the EFV/AAAV.
>it's a "yet another amphibious vehicle we'll get it right this time we swear!" episode
>>29283900
>it's a "pretending to be stupid" episode
>>29283852
What the fuck is that thing? Does it not have any weapons?
>>29284074
Ah that's what they want you to think
>>29283076
Ayy, 2147 here
Most, if not all of the vehicles on the ramp I work on are "modern" ie, rebuilt in the last five years or so. Some of the ATs are getting up there, but they just came out with a new turret for it that I have yet to see.
Having said that the basic design of the LAV is old as hell, but the suspension and power pack are really not terribly outdated, it still performs well, it's mostly the trimmings and SL-3 that need improvements.
>>29284074
...you can put a turret on it. Its not hard.
>>29282729
They're only upgrading some to plug the gap as they slowly introduce the MPC into the fleet.
Prime example, the Detroit Diesel 6V53T just does not have the same sort of reliability and serviceability as modern turbodiesels. A lot of packs coming in have out of spec blocks that have been continually shaved down and resealed and rebuilt to the point that they will just gradually leak from regular use.
Changing an engine is not easy though, you have to change a lot of other things that are directly dependent on the engine to work. It makes more sense to just gradually phase in a new vehicle, but the Marine Corps doesn't even have money to buy gaskets and RTV hehe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZVTC1Smyiw
>>29284303
Apparently the new AAV7s will have Cummins VT903 engines, which is also used on the Bradley
>>29284303
had money to spend billions on the EFV
has money to spend billions on fancy new helicopters
But having ground vehicles that can actually go into combat vs a semi-relevant force? Too expensive haha
>>29282729
When will US produce something new instead just upgrading old stuff
>>29287425
Because it is cheaper to strip an old vehicle down to the last bolt and put it back together with new equipment, giving you a new vehicle, than to develop a whole new family of vehicles that gives you the same result.
>>29287425
Congress keeps cancelling the funding for new ground vehicles
And most of the designs seem to look like disasters too
