U.S. Marines New Amphibious Combat Vehicle With 30mm Cannon

According to Marine Corps Systems Command, an up-gunned version of the Corps’ new amphibious combat vehicle or ACV will be armed with a lighter version of the Army’s Stryker 30mm cannon.
The U.S. Marine Corps has awarded BAE Systems a $88 million contract to build multiple ACV-30 Production Representative Test Vehicles, or PRTVs. Once delivered, the PRTVs will undergo a testing period before a full-rate production decision.
Support us:
KZbin : @USDefenseNews
Facebook : / usdn.official
Instagram : / us_defensenews
If you have any problems viewing this Video, please report it here: [e-mail]

[@Eric-lq6yk]

So its basically a water proofed and ligter version of the army striker?

[@tomc8384]

It’s based on the Italian IVECO DV SuperAV (same mechanics of centauro II and vbm freccia). AVCs are produced by BAE Systems on licence IVECO DV

[@EllaVloggs]

SUPER

[@RusselHustle]

shit i don't know, maybe this cheaper than EFV

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

USA needs another 1 million troops if it thinks it will go to war with China...

[@ivan200804]

Its looking more and more like that APC in "Aliens."

[@user-xn7xo5vk5y]

Just another "bug" hunt!

[@rockytorres958]

while traversing the sea between amphib ship & shore the ship should provide anti air cover. this acv should have an anti drone or air defense devise for troop protection.

[@robertoorsi5771]

It's a BAE System Production. It is not based on Stryker, but on IVECO 8 x 8 that is bigger then Stryker.

[@trevor21241842]

It just has to be able to not sink lol anything other than that is a plus. It doesn’t have to be fast it just has to work

[@rasydrasta4568]

The height and V shape,, I recommend this ACV capable to be MRAP 😎😀

[@williambarnebee40]

YAT-YAS!!!

[@drbendover7467]

Send the old ones to my place:)

[@mj-np9sy]

What sort of additional maintenance do these require post-traversal of a body of water? Do they need to be put into amphibious mode or are they always in it?

[@BritMemes]

Technically this is British as its designed and built by BAE Systems a British Company

[@Beebob-xw9xn]

BAE is made up of several companies across a few countries they have a large factory in the US.

[@Heretowatchstuff]

4:46 wow. Watching them getting dogged down brings back memories. “Set condition one alpha throughout the ship.” Filling out manifests for my squad. The smell of the well deck. We were still using AAVs when I was in though. A MK-40 and a 50 cal on the turret. Hopefully these have bigger benches inside though. With all your gear on, your ass was hardly touching anything. And we’d spend hours sitting all squeezed in back there. Breathing all the diesel exhaust. Not seeing anything. Sure beat walking though. Boats or helo companies had to walk from the LZ or the shore/river. The few times I got to sit in the TC hatches were pretty cool though. Especially just after splashing.

[@WarriorsBreakfast]

Good to go!

[@DJHazzard]

Looks like the German BOXER 😅 good upgrade for the Marines !

[@antikoerper256]

Love this machine! Much love from your humble NATO ally - Bulgaria

[@edl617]

Completely different horse than the old LVT-7. The best crews turn out to be those who never operate an LVT

[@rammone5241]

The crew exiting wearing only his overalls and no combat load, that looks very tight if you got a fireteam trying to enter the vehicle in a hail storm of bullets and mortars, that first step looks like 4 ft to the deck, I want to see a grunt in full load with his rifle hoping out that thing and back in. I am not seeing a ramp hinges on that rear, unless I missed something.

[@Waltham1892]

WHY IS THERE NO BAYONET LUG ON THE 30MM? THAT IS FUCKING UNACCEPTABLE FOR A MARINE CORPS VEHICLE

[@csh5414]

Don’t sweat it, there’s still a crayon dispenser in the crew compartment.

[@tmac4usmc1]

Will the 30 mm variation be part of future LAR battalions? Replacing the. LAV 25 I assume?

[@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13]

No, the ARV is the planned replacement for the LAV-25. Separate vehicle.

[@onseki1774]

If I had to guess, it will probably have the same 30mm unmanned turret. I will miss those goofy frogs with the Detroit 6V53T whenever they go away

[@TypeRyRy]

Is there a reason the RCWS is mounted directly behind the engine snorkel?

[@EllaVloggs]

ALRIGHT

[@dewdew80]

are you talking about the periscope? Because it looks like the air intake might be further back and to the left of the gun. I imagine the periscope being located in line with the gun probably helps with spotting and lining up targets.

[@thewilliam8342]

They should have stayed with a tracked vehicle ….🤷🏻‍♂️

[@gene-ry3vy]

I was hoping it gets fitted with a jawline missile with 30mm cannon.

[@CheerfulTerrier-xe6nn]

I can see this vehicle as w.orking in concert with lars..,...Lars has a command control know as C squares....the command version of this vehicle as being a vast improvement in the CoC

[@christopherwang4392]

If the ACV / SuperAV 8x8 wheeled chassis is large enough to carry the three-man turret of the US Army's M10 Booker, maybe it could replace the now-retired M1128 Mobile Gun System.

[@CorePathway]

MGS needed a 120mm mortar-gun, not a high velocity 105. Direct fire? Check. Indirect? Check.

[@CCM1199]

​@@CorePathwaythe Stryker already has an IDF version in service. The M1128 retired and confirmed that no replacement will take the 1128's place. Not even the M10 booker.

When it face a Centauro II it will disappear.

[@Drownedinblood]

Wait a minute I thought you were all saying amphib assault vehicles were useless in the modern day?

[@user-sb2og6jd6h]

To this day they still haven't developed anything that worked better then the EFV, including this turd.

[@billrich9722]

God damn. Why is the music so loud and dramatic? It's distracting. And the speaker sounds like an AI.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

They should probably give them SHORAD module.

[@antonmode1626]

Более легкую цель для РПГ или ПТРК еще поискать нужно. Удивительно что такие двухэтажные автобусы строят в принципе для военных.

[@candidorodriguez6259]

Más potencia y mas velocidad en el mar

[@Vash45Long]

Are these replacing Amtracs or LAVs?

[@pr1nce.b33]

It’s replacing the AAV

[@Danzo1212]

BAE Systems is a british defense contractor?

[@Vash45Long]

The boght FMC

[@pr1nce.b33]

It’s Italian

[@ericb.4358]

BAE is a SWEDISH/BRITISH consortium that works with other arms manufacturers at times, such as the German company KONGSBERG that makes the 30 mm unmanned turret.

[@trevorhart545]

@@ericb.4358 British that owns the main Swedish Armoured Vehicle manufacturer.

[@ericb.4358]

@@trevorhart545 I always thought BAR Systems was a JOINT Brit/Swedish ownership, around 50/50. Nez pas?

[@EllaVloggs]

WOW

[@ericb.4358]

ANdnow if the Big Army would just order the CV 90 IFV from BAE. But Noooooo! it has already whittled done the contenders to two, and likely the German version will lose out to something that has the same chassis as the BOOKER light tank (yes, it IS a light tank, despite the Army's contorted name) something larger and harder to transport to a war zone.

[@swimcali]

Why? It’s archaic thinking.

[@user-ts4kv3sy5q]

👍👍👍👍👍

[@xinjinpiig4062]

Can they survive DONGFENG?

[@ericb.4358]

Q: What's the MAXIMUM SEA STATE these vehicle can handle? Likely more than 3.

[@russell7489]

Just what it's tested in mirror smooth no one shooting at you

[@paulcoverdale8312]

Do they sink as quick as the outgoing Brick?🙏🙏👍👍🇬🇧🇬🇧⛵️⛵️

[@Beebob-xw9xn]

?

[@othosos]

Imagine a thousand of these coming ashore your countries beach.

[@IndigenousAmericanTrucker]

About time they are replacing those older ACV's! Those things were so ugly, and all though these new ones are ugly, too, they look better than the old ones. They also needed to modernize, anyway! The Army has well surpassed the Marines, especially with the Stryker. Since the Marines are first in, they should have some of the best equipment, especially since they're a small force!

[@stevelevesque3274]

rear door won't work

[@seandoherty1507]

Don't make it over technical.

[@Freedom2x462]

yes that is enough to sink another amphibious lander, chinese got over kill canons

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

I hope they don't sink to the bottom of the ocean like their last attempt at floating tanks in World War 2 ?

[@russell7489]

They do 6 dead already

[@comchadelalora]

More toys...? What for ? Are they going to use any ? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@Beebob-xw9xn]

When Russia invades a NATO country or China invades Taiwan.

[@xmifi]

Since when is Stryker new?

[@Beebob-xw9xn]

New version of it.

[@chromaticturtle8657]

um thats not NEW, its a stryker with a 30mm........

[@20Mb01]

It’s actually a licensed version of an Italian family of armoured vehicles based on the CENTAURO II … even though it resembles the Stryker because of some design convergence, it’s still is pretty different on the inside

[@damongraham1398]

Can the ACV enter the maritime mission bay of the Freedom class version of the LCS?

[@EllaVloggs]

ALRIGHT

[@chbgator2226]

Doubtful

[@damongraham1398]

@@chbgator2226anyway for me to find out?

[@jds6206]

100% propaganda. Just don't get the "ACV" into heavy surf or it'll ROLL OVER....... As big as a two-car garage....on wheels....really, REALLY bad idea.

[@aceu.c.veteran5167]

Not new. Get it right.

[@cm-pr2ys]

Terrible idea...the ACV should be faster in water so as to enable an amphibious force to have the option to do beach assaults vice slapping a 30mm cannon on it that turns it into a glass cannon! It may have firepower but what about armor? You won't risk an entire 13-Marine Rifle Squad taking on enemy tanks and IFVs would you? This is a stupid idea, just focus on the APKWS if you want the acv to be able to take on armored vehicles.

[@deadlydays3401]

US Marine command basically said contested landings are an outdated concept, in their restructure that isn't what they are rebuilding for. So the amphibious part of these is just the logistics of getting them onto uncontested shorelines far away from port infrastructure (I presume before the enemy can move forces to contest it). If they needed more rapid landings I presume they'd use LCAC's or a more modern equiv (which I don't think they want to spend the money buying), maybe they will leave that capability to the Navy for logistics.

[@dewdew80]

speed in water from an amphibious vehicle requires something like a hovercraft, which the military already has. Much larger type of vehicle that would drop less amphibious vehicles off. In something like this...speed in water is wishful thinking, too high a requirement. If they need to land on extremely swampy terrain, then these things will come in handy. I imagine it would be useful if we wanted to conduct a massive war in southeast Asia, which has quite a bit of jungle and scattered bits of land that regularly floods.

[@jds6206]

"US Marine command" should not be relied on for objective analysis and sound decisions. CMC Berger.....yea, that guy....is responsible for the FD2030 debacle which gutted the US Marine Corps, perhaps destroying the US Marine Corps. The ACV isn't a good design; refresh your head with the reports from California surf testing where it did NOT perform well and is now limited to pretty darn low sea-state. ACV.....big as a two car garage.....a bad idea. And, by the way, contested landings are most certainly NOT outdated, considering the asymmetric capabilities available today, to the "bad guys". Today's US Marine Corps leadership makes one wonder who is in charge and what are their true motives? Too many "yes men/women" in today's Corps......too many willing to "go along" to get ahead. @@deadlydays3401

[@cm-pr2ys]

LCACs are huge targets. A Marine Corps should be able to conduct uncontested and contested landings as part of its amphibious capability.

[@andreww1225]

Send some of the old ones to Ukraine

[@jeffwalsh4613]

No shit!

[@andreww1225]

@@user-kr4rz5hn4n they usually test all that stuff before making deals

[@rasydrasta4568]

This ACV capable to be MRAP too 👍because quite enough of height and good Vshape

[@pr1nce.b33]

The old ones will be used for reserve and training units

[@Gridlocked]

⁠@@user-kr4rz5hn4nThe AAVP7 is a piece of shit. It needs to go.

[@joeswheat]

Why? designed to do ferrying between island? Amphibious assault isn't going to happen in today's warfare. Doesn't matter what kind of Cope Cage you put on it, not happening. Thought they came to that realization with the EFV.

[@russell7489]

Then why not just use landing craft to ferry in REAL IFVs

[@samseven5260]

34 trillion in debt.

[@Desstrik]

then have your mom work more.

[@sergiodesouzajunior3962]

Compro 20.000 unidades para a marinha do Brasil rio de janeiro e o projeto e a tecnologia para a avibras

[@EllaVloggs]

YES

[@sergiodesouzajunior3962]

Compro 100.000 unidades para a marinha do Brasil rio de janeiro

[@puirYorick]

Another channel uses an AI reader with corporate press releases as a script.👎🏼

[@juanlugo7492]

This is a mistake these things are to slow in water the more time in water less chance of survival

[@deadlydays3401]

afaik marines said contested landings are basically impossible and their restructure isn't considering contested landings a primary focus. So the amphibious part of this is mostly logistics getting forces to an undefended shoreline far away from port infrastructure. afaik, you'd need a ton of fast hovercraft to be fast enough to make any contested landing....and you could just carry these on those anyway. Hovercraft are shit on land, so using them as anything other than transports is pretty pointless. So building these is fine I think, if they ever decide to bring back forces for conducting shoreline assaults they are likely going to just be building large hovercraft to tote these up to the beachfront. LCAC's, though maybe marines plan on leaving the LCAC landers to the navy and asking them for help landing if needed?

[@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13]

This isn’t 1942, no one is making contested landings.

[@MakeSomeNoiseAgencyPlaylists]

too....its "too" slow....

[@peterprovenzano9039]

Agreed . With the ability to use both aviation, LCACs , and AMTRAKs mobility (hopefully) should make contested landing a thing of the past. This will be a amphibious IFV (again, I hope) first and a ship to shore transport second

[@CorePathway]

No one does amphibious assaults anymore. We will never accept the casualties a contested landing demands. Marines need to stop kidding themselves.

[@user-wf3uu2tb7v]

ПЕРЕДЕРГИВАЕТЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ 90х в РОССИИ с ПРАПЕЛЕРОМ а ТАК свое на 2024год ПОКАЗАТЬ НЕЧЕВО все с РОССИИ ПЕРЕДЕРГИВАЕТЕ --- ОТСТОЙ )))).... СЕМИЧКИ для РОССИИ !!!

[@briancooper2112]

Old news

[@mingkwong9277]

You will lose to PLA tanks

[@Gridlocked]

PLA tanks will lose to missiles.

[@gld1010]

PLA tanks will break down.

[@Desstrik]

stringdong, wong answer!

[@steelgear3876]

PLA tanks will lose by having water instead of fuel

[@markbrockman9859]

When is the marine corps going to get past storming the beaches.

[@Desstrik]

they will let you know

[@chbgator2226]

When will people realize the AAV and now the ACV are/were never meant to 'storm the beach'? Marines travel on Naval vessels and the AAV and now ACV are one of the delivery methods to get them from ship to shore as well as inland objectives. That's why Marines are the "tip of the spear". We're always deployed on a ship somewhere, combat prepped and ready to go at a moments notice.

[@petero3588]

"Tip of the Spear" is an acceptable way of saying "Cannon Fodder". "Deployed on a ship somewhere" means a reinforced battalion of infantry, along with a few tanks and artillery, doing "donuts in the ocean" waiting to land on an uncontested beach or airfield, securing the site for follow-on Army main forces, with the "big guns". They may also be joined with an Army Airborne battalion, and these two elements will defeat numerous potential enemies armed with bamboo spears and bananas! LOL!

[@mortenvikene228]

next over priced, over complicated, high maintenance even higher maintenance price, peice of crap to steal taxpayer dollers with

[@extremathule982]

Look.....the IVECO ACV, ...this is interesting...