The ACV-30 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle is approaching serial production

Amphibious infantry fighting vehicle ACV-30 undergoing testing

Since 2020, the US Marine Corps has been receiving serial amphibious armored vehicles of the ACV family. Currently, the Pentagon and its contractors are completing work on the next model of this line - the ACV-30 infantry fighting vehicle. Experimental and pre-production equipment of this model is undergoing testing, and at the same time, contracts are appearing for the supply of components for the future construction of serial vehicles.

Wheeled platform

Let us recall that the development of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) began in 2011, shortly after the unsuccessful closure of the previous similar project. The goal of the new program was to create a universal wheeled platform for the Marine Corps. It was planned to develop several types of combat and support vehicles for various purposes on its basis.

The competitive part of the program lasted until 2018, and its winners were the project from BAE Systems and Iveco. They received an order from the Pentagon for further development of their platform, as well as for the creation of a floating armored personnel carrier based on it.

The first batch of ACV-P type APCs was delivered to the KMP in October 2020. Several dozen more such vehicles were delivered in the following months. At the same time, the first unit using the new equipment reached the stage of initial operational readiness. The production of ACV-P products continues to this day, and is used to re-equip combat units.

Armored vehicle on land

In mid-2019, the Pentagon ordered the development of a command version of the new APC, designated ACV-C. Despite the relative simplicity of the project, the work took several years. The first batch of such vehicles was delivered to the customer only in early 2024. At the moment, there is an order for several dozen command armored vehicles, and their production continues.

In March 2022, an order was placed for the ACV-R recovery vehicle. The development of this project lasted just over two years. The contract for serial production was signed in April of this year. Delivery is expected in the foreseeable future.

With a small caliber gun

In June 2019, the companies developing the ACV platform received a contract to create the ACV-30 combat vehicle. The customer wanted to receive an amphibious infantry fighting vehicle with a small-caliber gun on a remotely controlled combat module (RCCM). The Norwegian company Kongsberg Defense Systems was chosen as the supplier of the module.

Adaptation of the finished platform to the new equipment did not take much time. By mid-2022, three companies had completed the development of the future IFV. In August of the same year, the KMP signed a contract with them to build a pilot batch of ACV-30 for a total of $88 million. The delivery of this equipment was scheduled for the first quarters of the 2024 financial year, i.e., the beginning of the 2024 calendar year.

The contractors successfully completed the task, and at the end of January 2024, the Pentagon received the first three IFVs of the new model. Several more vehicles are expected to be delivered in the near future. This equipment is currently undergoing testing at one of the KMP units and demonstrating all its capabilities.

Since the start of testing, Pentagon officials have repeatedly spoken about the ACV-30 vehicles and their prospects. They claim that testing continues, and the equipment shows the desired results. There are some comments, but the developers are quickly eliminating the identified shortcomings. There is every reason to believe that the project will be completed on schedule.

Plans for the series

In November 2023, the Pentagon revealed plans for serial production of the new ACV-30 IFV. It was reported that an order for 175 such vehicles would be placed in the near future. The first deliveries are scheduled for 2025-2026, and the last batches will be delivered to the customer at the end of the decade.

Interestingly, the Pentagon has not yet announced any orders for serial production of the ACV-30. First, this combat vehicle must undergo testing and modifications, and only after that is a major contract worth billions of dollars expected to be signed. However, the exact timing of the signing of such a document has not been disclosed.

However, the first steps towards launching serial production are already being taken. On November 4, the Pentagon and Kongsberg signed a contract for the supply of MCT-30 RCBMs, which will be used on the new IFVs. The contractor will manufacture 175 modules and will receive $329 million for this. The order must be completed by June 2028.

Amphibian during water testing

Thus, the military department is starting to place orders for key units for future amphibious infantry fighting vehicles. This means that a major contract for the construction of the armored vehicles themselves will soon be signed. At the same time, it is worth paying attention to the number of ordered DUBMs: it corresponds to the number of planned ACV-30.

The new contract shows that plans to build 175 amphibious armored vehicles remain in place. At the same time, the production schedule is being adjusted to reflect the current situation. For example, due to financial constraints and other factors, the number of vehicles planned for production in fiscal years 2025 and 2026 was recently reduced. During this period, the customer will receive 48 fewer IFVs than previously planned. These vehicles will likely be built in subsequent years, and the total number of vehicles will not change.

According to current plans, production of the ACV family of vehicles will continue until approximately 2030. It is planned to build about 630 vehicles of all modifications. Interestingly, at the start of the program, the Pentagon and the Marine Corps wanted to purchase more than 1100 units of equipment, but later the plans were cut almost in half.

Technical aspects

The new ACV family of vehicles is being developed as a modern replacement for the AAVP-7A1 amphibious transporters. The latter are obsolete both morally and physically, and their continued operation is associated with a number of problems and risks. In this regard, it was decided to develop a new family of amphibious armored vehicles, including vehicles of several modifications.

ACV platform driver's workplace

The ACV platform is a four-axle chassis with the ability to transport personnel and install various weapons. It was also converted into specialized vehicles through minor reworking.

The ACV is built around a welded armored hull that provides protection against small caliber artillery from the front corners, as well as from bullets and shrapnel from other angles. The design includes measures to protect against explosive devices. It is also possible to hang additional modules and protection systems.

The unified chassis is 9,2 m long, 3,1 m wide and 2,9 m high (at the roof of the hull). The chassis unladen weight is 32 t. The load capacity reserve is more than 3,3 t.

The ACV has a traditional layout for modern wheeled APCs and IFVs. The engine and some transmission elements are located in the nose, and the remaining units of the four-axle drive are located under the floor of the habitable compartment. In the center of the hull, there is space for a combat module, and the remaining volumes are occupied by the troop compartment.

The platform is equipped with a 16 hp Iveco Cursor 700 diesel engine and an Allison 4800SP automatic transmission. On the highway, the vehicle can accelerate to 105 km/h. On the water, it uses two stern propellers and reaches a speed of over 10 km/h. Cruising range on land is over 500 km, on water - over 20 km.

Troops boarding the ACV-P armored personnel carrier. The ACV-30 has the same ramp.

The ACV has a crew of three: a driver, a commander, and a gunner or operator-gunner. The troop compartment has 13 passenger seats. The crew has its own hatches in the roof, and the troops must use the upper hatches or the rear ramp.

The various vehicles of the ACV family differ in their equipment and armament. The ACV-30 IFV is equipped with a Kongsberg MCT-30 combat module, equipped with a 30-mm automatic cannon and a machine gun. The module is also equipped with optical means for searching for targets and firing at any time of day. The RCBM is controlled from the operator's workstation.

Obvious progress

Thus, the development and production program of the ACV family of amphibious armored vehicles is successfully moving forward and yielding the desired results. One model of this series has already been launched into serial production, and others are approaching this stage. In addition, work is underway to create new vehicles for other purposes, which will be included in the Marine Corps in the foreseeable future.

The ACV-30 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle is still undergoing testing, but is already approaching completion. The Pentagon is optimistic and has already ordered the delivery of a key component for future serial production of such equipment. The next step in this direction will be an order for serial production of the IFVs themselves.

Comments

[Vadim S]

I hope we will have something similar, finally serial production! Because the guys are all fighting with old stuff, SVO should make adjustments

[bayard]

Quote: Vadim S

I hope they will make something similar here too, it’s finally in serial production!

Actually, they made it - BTR-82B (the name is not final). They reinforced the armor, now the front can withstand a 30 mm. projectile, the sides can withstand 12,7, 14,5 mm. bullets and heavy fragments, the front MTO with an engine from a BMP-3 (500 hp), a rear ramp. The combat module is the same, but if desired, you can install any - even from the "Kurganets" or "Bakhcha", but then it will already be a wheeled IFV. You can even screw on the "Sprut" turret and it will be a "wheeled tank". And the main good news - IT DOESN'T FLOAT!! But it is well armored. We already have plenty of floating equipment.
But this is at an exhibition and has been for at least a year. In theory, they should have already launched it into production instead of the BTR-82A or on a parallel line.

[bear cub]

How many lives of soldiers could have been saved if they had used such equipment, and not MT-LB or BMP. Even the old Bradley can cover the team well. It is not even worth talking about the comfort inside.

[Soldatov V.]

What's new here? How is it different from our BTR-80-82? All engineering solutions are conservative, range, speed on land, on water are also no different from previous BTRs.
Surprisingly, the speed on water for armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles cannot be raised above 10-12 km/h anywhere in the world.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: V.

What's new here? How is it different from our BTR-80-82? All engineering solutions are conservative, range, speed on land, on water are also no different from previous BTRs.

You won't believe it, but with armor.

Quote: V.

Surprisingly, the speed on water for armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles cannot be raised above 10-12 km/h anywhere in the world.

They can, and it is noticeable, but it is expensive and has not gone beyond experimental vehicles yet. Like this one: Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)

[Soldatov V.]

Well, the armor as noted here is so-so, no better than our APC, but this is a drawback of all the world's floating APCs. Now, taking into account the SVO, the main protection of armored vehicles is a good "barbecue" and dynamic protection on the sides. And as the commentator Igor IVS noted here, the buoyancy reserve is critical.
Any movement of the landing force forward, backward, or to one side can cause capsizing.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: V.

Well, the armor, as noted here, is so-so, no better than our APC, but this is a drawback of all the world's floating APCs.

What ?!

The ACV is built on a welded armored hull, which provides protection from small caliber artillery from the front corners, as well as from bullets and shrapnel from other angles.

Quote: V.

And as the commentator Igor noted here, the reserve buoyancy is critical.

Let Igor compare it with the BTR-80 afloat, and not the AAV-7, which is practically a ship.

Quote: V.

Any movement of the landing force forward, backward, or to one side can cause capsizing.

The landing party is sitting there, afraid to cough? No, not with 30 tons of weight...

Quote: V.

Now, taking into account the air defense system, the main protection of armored vehicles is a good "barbecue" and dynamic protection on the sides.

Well, let's say Bradley and BMP1-2 and even 3 differ greatly in survivability, as it turns out.

[Dedok]

Well, let's say Bradley and BMP1-2 and even 3 differ greatly in survivability, as it turns out.

there is something to think about...
if not to say it differently...

[Soldatov V.]

I would put the question differently: are the battles now between BMP 1,2,3, BTR 82 and Bradley on equal terms or is who giving in to whom? Who is now advancing and who is retreating? Are Leopards, Abrams, and the same Bradleys saving the Banderites? The vaunted German, Swedish, French self-propelled guns?

[Dedok]

I would put the question differently: are the battles now taking place between BMP 1,2,3, BTR 82 and Bradley on equal terms or who is inferior to whom?

the question is completely different: the survivability of the vehicle, and therefore its crew and the troops it transports...survivability!
and who, where, is advancing or retreating - let the generals think about that...
and there was no talk about tanks - that's a separate topic...

[Soldatov V.]

You understand that you are reasoning apolitically, grandpa. You wouldn't have gotten a pat on the head for such reasoning in WWII.

[Dedok]

You understand that you are reasoning apolitically, grandfather.

I agree, but as Lyudev got older, I felt sorry for him...

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: V.

Who is advancing now and who is retreating? Are Leopards, Abrams, the same Bradleys saving the Banderites? The vaunted German, Swedish, French self-propelled guns?

Of course it won't save. But the question is different. In the ratio of losses.
If our BMP 1,2,3, BTR 82 were on par with Bradley, then there would be one level of losses, but if Bradley is superior, then the level of losses would be different. After all, the level of losses is the price of victory.

[Soldatov V.]

While the SVO is going on, no one, either our side or the other, will tell you the real level of losses. Such are the laws of war. In my opinion, our armored vehicles are better, they are made for our mentality. Another question is the unexpectedness of the use of armored vehicles, or an ambush. This is the whites' move, they start and win, but not always.
Yes, the Bradley has good armor on the front, but what about the rest? If our gunner manages to shoot first and knock off the Bradley's gun, he's finished. In the footage of the Bradley's confrontation with our APCs and BMPs, I don't see much of an advantage for the Bradley. And then dozens of ways have already been invented to destroy the Bradley and other NATO armored vehicles before they reach the battlefield.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: V.

Soldatov V.
While the SVO is going on, no one will tell you the real level of losses, either on our side or on the other. Such are the laws of war.

I don’t argue with this and I understand the need to close this information.

Quote: V.

Yes, Bradley has good armor on his forehead, but what about the rest?

And our forehead and the rest are not so good. But that's not what I mean.

Quote: V.

If our gunner manages to fire first and knock out the Bradley's gun, he's finished.

Without if. In such questions, "if" is not taken into account.
Our guys started fighting on captured Bradleys, so we should ask the crew of this vehicle for their comparative assessment. It can't be that this crew didn't fight on our BMP-3

[Soldatov V.]

Well, then ask, or watch the video on the Internet of how Bradley is killed.
And then you comment so categorically praising the enemy’s equipment that it creates the impression that we are fighting on some kind of junk.
Compare Bradley and BMP-3 according to the data on the Internet, it's like night and day.
Our crew would never get into a Bradley after a BMP-100. One gun is 30 mm, the other is XNUMX mm, plus an ATGM.
You understand the need to close information about losses, but you write, hinting that our losses from Bradley are greater than their losses from our APCs. Recently there was an exchange of corpses of fighters, they gave us about 50 and we gave 500.
Who are you rooting for: the Russian army or the Ukrainian army, NATO?

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: V.

losses, but you write, you hint that our losses from Bradley are greater than their losses from our armored personnel carriers.

You distorted the meaning of my post. Oh well, people don't always understand each other in conversation, and when reading a text, even more so.
Any military equipment is assessed comprehensively, and not only -

Quote: V.

Z. One gun is 100 mm, the other is 30 mm, plus an ATGM.

[Soldatov V.]

Believe me, a ship mechanic with experience working on ships, with such dimensions and 32 tons of weight, if more than a ton of water enters, it will sink to the bottom like a stone in any case.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: V.

Believe me, a ship mechanic with experience working on ships, with such dimensions and 32 tons of weight, if more than a ton of water enters, it will sink to the bottom like a stone in any case.

It's hard to argue, but somehow this is very different from the previous statement:

Quote: V.

Any movement of the landing force forward, backward, or to one side can cause capsizing.

[Soldatov V.]

A passenger or landing party member has a weight that is taken into account when designing any floating craft. For example, when a passenger ship departs from a pier with a turn from the pier, the ship's internal doors are closed so that passengers running en masse to the other side to wave to those seeing them off do not capsize the ship.
This is from practice. Or another example, if you do not let the arriving passengers ashore first, and allow the next passengers on the flight, then you can sink the ship right at the pier. This is also practice. That is why a load line is made on the sides of the ship, preventing this.

[Vladimir_2U]

Sorry, but if you don't see the difference between

Quote: V.

passengers fleeing en masse to the other side of the plane

и

Quote: V.

Any movement of the landing force

then the load line, even the winter one for the North Atlantic, will not help here.

[Soldatov V.]

It's hard for me to argue with a stubborn amateur.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: V.

It's hard for me to argue with a stubborn amateur.

People who consider a vehicle with partially anti-projectile armor to be equal in protection to the BTR-80-82 will find it difficult to argue with anyone on this site...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

For people who consider a vehicle with partially anti-projectile armor to be equal in protection to the BTR-80-82

According to the data sheet (information from Wiki), the Bradley's forehead should hold a 25mm projectile, and the side - 14,5mm. But practice has shown that the side is quite pierced by our 12mm KORD. And some people claimed that

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Well, let's say Bradley and BMP1-2 and

even 3

They differ greatly in terms of survivability, as it turns out.

That is, the BMP-3, whose front can withstand a 30mm shell, and can withstand large-caliber small arms in all directions, is inferior in survivability to the Bradley. Any examples for these statements?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Bad_gr

According to the data sheet (information from Wiki), the Bradley's forehead should hold a 25mm projectile, and the side - 14,5mm.

Let me clarify, according to Wikipedia - M2A1, without ERA, and the Khikhols mainly have M2A2, and also with BRAT, and a 25 mm SUB-CALIBER shell, and this is comparable even for the old M791 with the ZUBR8 "Kerner", which are still in the troops, 22 mm at 1300 m versus 27 mm at 1000 m.
https://topwar.ru/234756-o-bronebojnyh-snarjadah-avtomaticheskoj-pushki-brjedli.html?ysclid=m3gk6zo0lu478319030

Quote: Bad_gr

That is, the BMP-3, whose front can withstand a 30mm shell, and can withstand large-caliber small arms in all directions, is inferior in survivability to the Bradley. Any examples for these statements?

Holds it according to the passport. Just like even the M2a1.
The nature of the damage speaks for itself. And if Bradley can throw a turret only if there is a TOU in the ammunition rack, then the BMP-3 has 100 mm shells guaranteed. With obvious consequences for the crew and the landing force. And there are enough videos in the telegram with repeated defeats of Bradley, which do not always even lose speed, not to mention that they always allow the landing force to leave the vehicle.
But there are no such videos about the BMP-3.

Quote: Bad_gr

But practice has shown that the side can be stitched with our 12mm KORD.

Examples?

[Maxim G]

It is enough to remember that we were going to produce the ATOM infantry fighting vehicle based on the French VBCI.

[tagil]

If you attach dynamic protection to PMB 1.2 and 3, they will be as survivable as Bradley or any other Western equipment. I hope you have no complaints about our BMPs in terms of firepower?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tagil

If dynamic protection is added to the PMB 1.2 and 3, their survivability will be on par with the Bradley and any other Western equipment.

As for mine resistance too? Well, we haven't managed to get 1-2 yet, and tank DZ is not suitable for thin-armored vehicles.

Quote: Tagil

I hope you have no complaints about our IFVs' firepower?

Well, if we don’t mention accuracy, especially for a kopeck, then no.

[tagil]

As for mine resistance too? Well, we haven't managed to get 1-2 yet, and tank DZ is not suitable for thin-armored vehicles.

We are talking about IFVs, not MRAPs. A mine explosion will equally disable a Bradley, a Troika, or a tank, but a landmine explosion is death for any vehicle.
The new DZ for the troika are superior to imported ones and can be mounted on an armored personnel carrier. The DZ does not detonate from an RPG, a shot, or a hit from a small-caliber projectile. The question is when they will appear in the troops (the Ministry of Defense is an inert thing, as in any country).

Well, if we don’t mention accuracy, especially for a kopeck, then no.

We are talking about firepower and comparing the Kopeyka with the Bradley is still not correct, although with new modules the Kopeyka surpasses the Bradley and they are being supplied to the troops en masse.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tagil

We are talking about IFVs, not MRAPs. A mine explosion will equally disable a Bradley, a Troika, or a tank, but a landmine explosion is death for any vehicle.

You might think that the MRAP would survive a mine explosion. But the MRAP and Bradley-like vehicles protect the troops and crew from the effects of a mine explosion much better than all three types of domestic IFVs mentioned.

Quote: Tagil

The new DZ for the troika are superior to imported ones and can be mounted on an armored personnel carrier. The DZ does not detonate from an RPG, a shot, or a hit from a small-caliber projectile. The question is when they will appear in the troops (the Ministry of Defense is an inert thing, as in any country).

Where did you get the information about "superior"? And even if that were true, the enemy's DZ is right there, on the enemy's vehicles. By the way, what's the point of DZ if it doesn't detonate from RPGs? And small-caliber shells may not initiate DZ, but they can be easily destroyed. And that's a transition to the next question.

Quote: Tagil

We are talking about firepower and comparing the Kopeyka with the Bradley is still not correct, although with new modules the Kopeyka surpasses the Bradley and they are being supplied to the troops en masse.

In general, the conversation was initially about the kopeck, well, let's say. Bushmaster initially fired M791 subcaliber shells, the armor penetration of which is comparable to the ZUBR8 "Kerner", which are still in the troops, 22 mm at 1300 m versus 27 mm at 1000 m. So, even formally, the firepower against armored targets is comparable with 30 of our BMPs
https://topwar.ru/234756-o-bronebojnyh-snarjadah-avtomaticheskoj-pushki-brjedli.html?ysclid=m3gk6zo0lu478319030
Furthermore, the Bushmaster is more accurate and lays shells much more densely than the 2A42, not to mention the 2A72, although not in threes. And this is already superiority in firepower.
Well, the TOU is definitely superior to missiles launched from a 100 mm barrel.

[tagil]

You convinced me. I really forgot that we were talking about the BPM-1. Although comparing a Kopeyka and a Bradley is not much fun (there is a twenty year difference). But then you should compare not the modernized Bradleys. We will still argue about all the other points.

By the way, what's the point of DZ if it doesn't detonate from an RPG?

Here I expressed myself incorrectly. DZ on light armored vehicles, when protected from RPGs, does not cause damage to the lightest vehicles when detonated.
And finally, you compare Bradleys that have undergone more than one upgrade (including ammunition) with our first-issue equipment. This is somehow unfair.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Well, let's say Bradley and BMP1-2 and even 3 differ greatly in survivability, as it turned out.

Provide links to information that proves the clear superiority of the Bradley's survivability over

BMP1-2 and even 3

[IVZ]

Judging by the photo, the reserve buoyancy is meager. The Seven sailed with open hatches, but here, if you don't batten it down, the height of the freeboard combined with the reserve buoyancy... any wave or fountain from a rupture and aha. On the other hand, it's a more difficult target.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: IVZ

Judging by the photo, the buoyancy reserve is negligible. The seven sailed with open hatches

She even jumped from the ramp into the water.

[tralflot1832]

I like this "barn" more in terms of price. In the early 2000s, the US tested the EVP prototype - for over-the-horizon landings 30 km from the shore, a speed of 55 km/h on the water was achieved by an engine with a capacity of over 2200 hp, on the ground the capacity was limited to 850 hp. But somehow this "barn" came out too expensive, so they abandoned it. There will be no over-the-horizon landings now. The cost of the adopted ACV 30 is 5-7 million $ per unit. Soldiers in the right - the carrying capacity of the ACV 30 is 3,3 tons, 1 ton of water in the hull, it is necessary to use life jackets.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: tralflot1832

But somehow this “barn” was a bit expensive, so they abandoned it.

22 megabucks apiece. And in 2015 dollars.
The reason is the same as for the Zumwalt shells, which cost a million a piece: epic development times + reduction of the purchase batch (fixed costs had to be divided into a smaller number of pieces).

[tralflot1832]

Alexey, I would buy it It would be the coolest on the Kola Peninsula, even cooler than 4 hunters in BTR 60 with Penta engines.

[Alexey RA]

The new ACV family of vehicles is being developed as a modern replacement for the AAVP-7A1 floating transporters. The latter are obsolete both morally and physically, and their further operation is associated with a number of problems and risks.

The issue there is not so much about obsolescence as about the misuse of the former LVTP-7.
The story began in the 80s of the last century. The Marine Corps needed a combat vehicle. Not an APC, but a floating infantry fighting vehicle. And by order of the Marine Corps, the development of the AAAV program began.
And until the completion of the new IFV, which seemed close during the Cold War, in 1984 the AAV-7A1 amphibious assault vehicle was adopted as a temporary replacement. Which was a slightly tweaked LVTP-19 APC in terms of engine, transmission and armament (Ma Deuce + Mark7). In general, the APC was simply reclassified as an IFV.
At that time it seemed that any minute now this floating coffin would be replaced by a full-fledged IFV. However, at the same time, the Osprey was expected to be in service already in the early 90s.

But suddenly the Cold War ended - and the military budget was cut. The AAAV program, renamed EFV in 2003, dragged on for 30 years and produced an IFV priced at 22 megabucks. The Marine Corps, morphing from such prices, closed the program and began work on a new floating IFV.
And all this time, the former armored personnel carrier, adopted as a temporary palliative solution, pretended to be a combat vehicle for the Marine Corps - without having any armor or weapons for this.
There is nothing more permanent than temporary. ©
It is no wonder that with the receipt of normal infantry fighting vehicles, the KMP decided to remove these coffins from the front line.

[Scharnhorst]

I don't understand what there is to admire!? ACV 2024 / AAV-7 1984 - let's compare! Dimensions L * W * H - 9,2 * 3,1 * 2,9 (on the roof of the hull) / 7,9 * 3,2 * 3,2; crew + troops - 3 + 13 / 3 + 25; Power * speed on water - 700 * 10 / 400 * 13; Weight * carrying capacity - 32 * 3,3 / 29,1 * 4,5. Two conclusions suggest themselves: in 40 years, the Americans have become much fatter and even more stupid ... A flag in their hands and a drum around their necks in the fight against the Chinese for the Pacific atolls!

[Viktor Sergeev]

We should admire how the US is sawing up its budget by buying crap it doesn’t need.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Scharnhorst

I don't understand what to admire!? 2024 ACV / 7 AAV-1984

No need to get excited about this. The 2024 ACV just finally has the armor the Marines asked for from the start. Just 30 years later, their wishes have been realized in a production vehicle.

[Viktor Sergeev]

And most importantly, in all these 30 years, the Americans have never carried out landings that required armored vehicles and will not carry them out.

[Scharnhorst]

What armor!? Calculate the hull volume and divide by the weight! Subtract the heavier engine and the new turret with a gun and ammo. I hope the new machine's level of protection won't be lower than the old one's. I can also assume dishonest advertising. And even if I'm wrong, it's easier to hit the 9 square meter frontal projection with an RPG-7 or ATGM, and even more so to penetrate it. It's not even decent to mention drones, the Chinese will definitely not spare them for the Americans.

[Viktor Sergeev]

It seems like it’s not needed at all, but the money has already been allocated for cutting, so we need to take it.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

What ?!

Nothing. The armor is in fact bulletproof, that is, from most angles 23 or 30 mm will easily turn this wonder weapon into a sieve. And any, even an old RPG, will turn this wonder weapon into a mass grave. I will keep quiet about drones, and it is problematic to camouflage such a machine, too bulky.

It is not by chance that our BMPs and BTRs are so low. This makes it easier to hide behind natural obstacles (hills, ruins of buildings, bushes, etc.), as well as to camouflage them. No one thought about anything like that here.