The US Marine Corps (USMC) is moving to recapitalise and replace its ageing amphibious assault vehicles after the January cancellation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) programme. On 17 February, the service issued three requests for information (RfIs) after the EFV cancellation, including an RfI for an EFV replacement, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), in addition to RfIs for a service-life extension programme for the USMC's existing 1970s-era AAV-7A1s and, in conjunction with the US Army, plans for a new Marine Personnel Carrier (MPCs)[.]
But they sure would like one vehicle for all tasks:
The US Marine Corps (USMC) commandant believes the marines' Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) programme could produce a useable system in less than four years. "Before I leave office four years from now - really three-and-a-half years from now - we will have a programme of record, we will have steel, it will be a vehicle and I'll be able to drive it," Gen James Amos told Congress during a budget hearing on 1 March[.]
I think General Amos is over-optimistic, if I'm reading these as indicating the ACV is supposed to do what the EFV was supposed to do. If a single, affordable vehicle to move Marines from a ship over the horizon to the shore and from the shore to an objective more than 250 miles inland was possible, the EFV would have done it. Amos may be able to drive it, but he won't be able to buy more than the one he drives.
More likely, as the first email notes, is saving the AAV for movement to shore by rebuilding them and teaming up with the Army for a fighting vehicle to move and fight inland. Why does the entire movement from ship to inland objective have to be done in one bound? And if a hostile shore is too dangerous for an amphibious warfare ship to expose itself by moving closer to the target zone to launch AAVs, why wouldn't approaching EFVs be vulnerable to shore-based missile and artillery fire on the long run in?
As I wrote eight years ago, after the Marine march up from Kuwait to Baghdad:
Perhaps the lesson of this second major non-amphibious mission-this time deep inland driving all the way to Baghdad-is that the time to replace the AAV has arrived. The AAVs should be kept in case they are needed for an amphibious assault-you never know-but a drive inland like the '03 campaign calls for different and better equipment. The Marines need another infantry carrier ...
The Marines have Abrams tanks already. Give them the Bradley too.
Heck, even if the Army gets its new Ground Combat Vehicle to replace the Bradley, maybe the Marines should still consider adopting the Bradley as a cheaper but still effective alternative to the new GCV.
