 |
| pic courtesy BAE |
Sea Keeping.
The BAE MPC has under gone testing in Europe and has even swam out to an LST for testing of its coming aboard and departing the ship. In addition BAE is using extensive modeling to ensure that it meets Marine Corps requirements. Its been tested to sea state 2 and has been modeled up to sea state 3. If BAE is able to get the vehicle to actually operate in sea state 3 then that would equal the AAV and would be best swimming wheeled vehicle ever designed.
Engine.
The engine is a 560 horsepower Iveco power plant. It can be tweaked to give increased power if necessary but it should be noted that at this setting the only vehicle in US service that would boast more horsepower (at least to my knowledge) is the Abrams Main Battle Tank.
Side Vent.
I expressed concerns to Jared that the vent on the side of the vehicle (easily seen in the pic above) would be a hit sink and would give away the vehicle when viewed through IR devices or could leak when the vehicle was in the water. Nunn's answer surprised me. On land the exhaust from the engine is mixed with cool air to reduce the heat signature. Sorta like the way the AH-64 does with its engine exhaust to reduce its signature to heat seeking missiles. What happens when its in the water is extremely unique though. When in the water, the vent actually allows water into the engine bay and by that process the engine is cooled. Simple yet elegant.
Protection/Armor.
I asked which armor maker they were using --- Plasan or IBD. They've done work with IBD but the armor package will be in house via BAE. Blast seats (suspended) and other now standard anti-ied/blast protection is part of the requirement and will be included in the vehicle.
SUPER AV or US Marine Corps Specific?
One misconception floating around the Internet when it comes to this vehicle is that its the Super AV currently in use by the Italian Army and Marine Corps. It isn't. When the USMC first announced this requirement, BAE noticed that the Italian Marine Corps requirement was similar. This led to the partnership with Iveco. Further testing and a closer look at what was being asked for in the Marine Personnel Carrier led to changes in the vehicle. I have said previously that the requirement to transport 95th percentile Marines is a no compromise area in this or any vehicles design and that led to BAE designing a larger vehicle than the Italian version. Other requirements led to the design becoming USMC specific.
Mil Spec or Commercial?
The next question I had concerned whether the vehicles parts would be mil spec or commercial. My thinking was that mil spec parts are always of a higher standard. John stated that contrary to popular belief, in many cases commercial parts are of better quality than mil spec. He explained it this way. Iveco is a large truck manufacturer, and those vehicles can rack up a hundred thousand miles a year or more. Military vehicles often will travel only a couple hundred. The BAE MPC is being designed to utilize off the shelf components wherever possible but not at the expense of durability or reliability.
US or Overseas content?
With all military programs a certain amount of US content is required. John state that the BAE MPC will have upwards of 70 percent US content. Additionally it would make use of Iveco's world wide distribution network. That means that they can leverage Chrysler, or Case International manufacturing facilities here in the US. American jobs will be created making the vehicle an economic multiplier. As a side note, the Boeing 787 has 70 percent US content and is considered a US product.
Cube Space on board ship.
The BAE MPC is required to occupy the same or less space than the AAV. It meets those requirements with room to spare. I expressed concern when pics of the vehicle appeared on the net showing it to be a rather large vehicle. Those concerns were misplaced. As stated previously the vehicle has been tested on older LST type ships and was able to get on and off without problem. Operating off the San Antonio Class LPD or any of the LHA/LHD's currently in service should be no problem.
Overview.
An interesting contender in the MPC contest. I've already sent e-mails to Lockheed Martin, SAIC and General Dynamics to see if they'll be as willing as BAE to discuss their offerings.
Personal Observation.
The Amphibious Combat Vehicle and the Marine Personnel Carrier are, as noted by the Congressional Research Office, quite similar in requirements. The major difference is ship to shore capability. For the ACV that is a primary requirement, for the MPC its secondary with the crossing of inland water ways and inland mobility being primary. IF the MPC can operate in sea state 3 and IF it is capable of making that transit at current or better AAV speed then we could easily see these programs merge. This program and ALL the contestants are worth watching.
UPDATE:
John in the comments asked about weapons fit. That was discussed. The program manager stated that the vehicle requirements that they're prepping the vehicle to meet has as part of it the ability to mount anything from a 50 cal to a 30mm cannon. John also asked about mobility and brought back memories of 29 stumps and washboard road. I didn't cover off road mobility. I'll make contact and get info on that.
UPDATE 1:
I e-mailed Sarah to get further info on John's question about the BAE MPC's mobility. She contacted the Program Manager and hit me with this. "Our MPC offering is governed for 65 MPH on road speed with up to 45 MPH off road as to compliment the M1A1 mobility in most mission profiles." That means it meets the gold standard of being able to keep up with the Abrams. If you remember the initial assault into Iraq during the 2nd Gulf War then you understand why this requirement is so important to the Marine Corps.