the Marines new toy

hope its way better than the old amphibous vehicle

www.fas.org...

Commander, There Could Be A Problem



Missing from both the specification and prototypes are provisions for water skiing tow ropes.

This grave design omission could result in dramatically reduced options for deploying Marines in recreational combat zones.

I checked out the specs of this new Amphibious Assault Vehicle and I must say I like what I see. I think they will be very effective and cost cutting at the same time.

its much faster in water then the aav.. the aav hit about 8 knotsin the water the new aaav hits 30 knots thats a nice improvement but the aaav is not as pretty as the aav

Wow! Ive got the feeling these beasts will be all over Tehran soon. Man, if only we had these now! Seems to be perfect for urban ops and would be almost unstoppable.

The AAV is big, bulky, and slow not good for littoral waters and for ground fighting. This new AAAV has better armor, speed, maneuverability, range, and tech.

AAV

Please excuse this ignorant Brit, but why is your military spending $1000s on a new assault vehicle when, in my opinion, you don't really need them.

Didn't your Marines have Hovercraft Assault Craft? They were big, heavily armed and ideal for beach landings. They could even carry tanks and tracked artillery. Whatever happened to them and why aren't they still in service?

Originally posted by fritz
Please excuse this ignorant Brit, but why is your military spending $1000s on a new assault vehicle when, in my opinion, you don't really need them.

Didn't your Marines have Hovercraft Assault Craft? They were big, heavily armed and ideal for beach landings. They could even carry tanks and tracked artillery. Whatever happened to them and why aren't they still in service?

The Hovercraft aka LCACs (Landing craft air cushion) are made to go on land too, but just enough to get the cargo off. , and they really don't work that well on rocky or rigid terrain, mainly good for water sand and grass plains. Which is all you need for an amphibious landing.

LCACs were not Assault hovercraft and are not heavily armed. They are simply cargo craft to get whatever from the ship to the beach as fast as possible. The new AAAV's can come on shore and continue on as troop transport. The new ones can also double up as an LAV (light armored vehicle).

Anyways, they had a problem with the old ones....too many kept sinking.
seriously!!

Traditionally amphibious vehicles make great fish structure. They sure look "macho" though.

Hovercrafts are good troop and cargo transporters and they are good in the water, however their range is limited on land. They are not heavily armored and could not stand up against armored vehicles. The AAAV is deigned to land on shore and continue on ground for hundreds of miles and it can take out armored vehicles.
Hovercraft are still in operation they are just mainly used for cargo transport.

Originally posted by Majic
Commander, There Could Be A Problem

Missing from both the specification and prototypes are provisions for water skiing tow ropes.

This grave design omission could result in dramatically reduced options for deploying Marines in recreational combat zones.

No problem, just have one or two of these handy.
SOLO

I'd like to see the turret moved back a bit, for asthetic purposes only.

Originally posted by fritz
Please excuse this ignorant Brit, but why is your military spending $1000s on a new assault vehicle when, in my opinion, you don't really need them.

Didn't your Marines have Hovercraft Assault Craft? They were big, heavily armed and ideal for beach landings. They could even carry tanks and tracked artillery. Whatever happened to them and why aren't they still in service?

US seems like to stay one step ahead of well everything, if something gets old, even if we don't need a new one, we just make a new one just in case if we ever need it, you might never know when you will need it hehe

Australia should buy these.
Compliment project JP 2048.

www.defence.gov.au...

Full on fire power