AAVs Tracked or Wheeled?

If I'm reading this right, we'd be getting half (3+10~) the passengers of the current AAV(3+21), which puts us closer to LAV size (3+6), and design.

It seems odd to drop below squad sized, because logistically, it now takes twice as many to accomplish the same mission, but the take up about the same amount of physical space.

Here's a video that discusses the merits of the ACV.

http://www.mccdc.marines.mil/Resources/AmphibiousCombatVehicle/ACVVideo.aspx

From the 27 Feb 15 USMC Public Affairs Communications Playbook:

AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT VEHICLE

SITUATION

Some internal and external audiences are not informed about Marine Corps infantry mobility requirements and existing capability gaps and how a complementary system of capabilities, which includes the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), provides the most robust and flexible capability solution for the evolution of amphibious operations.

STATEMENT/VIDEO

The Marine Corps will, in the near term, field an ACV in order to provide protected mobility for our infantry units throughout the varied terrain mixes in the littorals. The ACV will be amphibious. However, it will normally rely on surface connectors to conduct the preponderance of its ship-to-shore movement.

Risk over the midterm will be mitigated through survivability and sustainment upgrades to our current self-deploying Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) to extend their service life through 2035.

In a longer term effort, in concert with the Navy, the Marine Corps will continue to explore capabilities that better enable high-speed, extended range surface littoral maneuver from ship-to-objective in order to fully replace its legacy AAVs that were first fielded in 1972.
An ACV video has been produced to provide the background and strategy behind the ACV acquisition decision:

http://www.mccdc.marines.mil/Resources/AmphibiousCombatVehicle/ACVVideo.aspx

TALKING POINTS / Q&As

TP1. The evolution of operational maneuver from the sea (OMFTS) and ship to objective maneuver (STOM) requires developing a complimentary portfolio of capabilities within the Ground Combat and Tactical Vehicle Strategy (GCTVS) and Connector Strategy. The ACV is specifically designed to fill current protected mobility capability gaps within the portfolio of capabilities.

TP2. As a bridge to the ACV, which could be introduced into the operating forces as early as the 4th quarter of FY 20, the decision has been made to sustain and upgrade about a third of the AAV fleet.

TP3. Modern wheeled vehicles have substantially closed the maneuver performance gap that previously existed between tracked and wheeled vehicles with improved cross-country performance and shore-to-shore swimming capability.

Q1. Is the decision to acquire the ACV moving away from the Marine Corps service-defining capability of transitioning from ship to shore and conducting forcible entry?

A1. No. However, the need to modernize the service-defining capability of transitioning from ship to shore and conducting forcible entry and surface assault is unquestioned. Initial indications are that ACV prototypes developed by industry have a swimming capability equal to an AAV. However, this will need to be tested by the Marine Corps. High water speed (HWS) is still a very important capability and the Marine Corps will continue the research and development to pursue technology that may enable this capability without unacceptable trade-offs.

ACV 2.0 serves as a conceptual placeholder for a future decision around 2025. At that time, sith the knowledge gained from the fielding and deployment of ACV 1.1 and 1.2, the state of the naval connector strategy and research and development work in support of a HWS capable, self-deploying armored personnel carrier will aid in an informed decision.

Q2. What will happen to the AAV?

A2. The AAV and ACV are complementary capabilities. We have begun a survivability upgrade program to 392 AAVs, a sufficient number to support our MEUs and to provide a bridge to a longer range solution. These upgrades will provide for performance, reliability, and survivability improvements, and will be delivered to the Fleet beginning in FY 19.

Q3. Why have you chosen to go with a wheeled vehicle when you previously said a tracked vehicle was desired?

A3. A combination of tactical, technical and budgetary factors led us to this decision. With that said, wheeled vehicle performance has improved greatly since we began our efforts to replace the AAV. Wheeled vehicles have:
 Greater mobility in complex, littoral terrain
 Increased IED protection (2X)
 Reduced fuel consumption (>1/2 fuel consumption)
 Reduced maintenance (improved mean time between failure)
 Reduced signature and smaller profiles (a critical survivability factor in a G-RAMM environment)
 Increased dispersion of personnel among more vehicles (a critical risk reduction factor)
 Design margins that allow for a family of vehicles of various configurations (personnel, command, and recovery variants; potentially others i.e.: indirect-fire, anti-armor in the future)
 Significantly reduced cost
 Less technological risk
 Nearer-term availability.
Additionally, we have determined that emerging anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems will require us, in some instances, to stand-off at distances beyond which even a high water speed ACV can reasonably achieve.

Q4. What impact will a wheeled ACV have on amphibious shipping and surface connectors?

A4. The concept of employment for ACV places a premium on using enablers like the mobile logistics platform (MLP) and surface connectors. Programmed efforts, like the ship-to-shore connectors (SSC) that succeed existing landing craft, air-cushioned (LCAC), are critical to our approach. Longer term, we will look at the “art of the possible” regarding refinements to other platforms and the possible pursuit of non-traditional landing craft solutions. In much the same way the MV-22 has greatly expanded the amphibious forces littoral maneuver options, we must also innovate our surface connector fleet.

The idea of a tracked tractor was conceived because the flat belly boats could not get over the reefs and were stranded at low tide. No doubt the tracks work great to overcome this hurtle. The AAV has proven itself well. However it is time for change. The Marines were working on and had made the newer version called the AAAV. Not sure what happened with that one. As for wheels, there has been several wheeled amphibious trucks before and one is in use still today. Because I have limited time on an amtrak and am not an engineer, I say give the wheel design a chance. The state good reasoning as to why they want to try wheels.