The US Marine Corps has awarded BAE Systems a $198 million contract to deliver an initial 30 Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACV), with options for a total of 204 vehicles which could be worth up to $1.2 billion.
BAE Systems, along with teammate Iveco Defence Vehicles, prevailed in the Marine Corps’ robust competition for the next generation of vehicles to get the Marines from ship to shore to engage in land combat operations.
“We are well positioned and ready to build the future of amphibious fighting vehicles for the Marine Corps, having already produced 16 prototypes,” said Dean Medland, vice president and general manager of Combat Vehicles Amphibious and International at BAE Systems.
“Through this award, we are proud to continue our partnership with the Marine Corps by providing a best-in-class vehicle to support its mission through mobility, survivability and lethality.”
According to BAE:
“The ACV provides exceptional mobility in all terrains, and blast mitigation protection for all three crew and 13 embarked Marines, along with other improvements over currently fielded systems. The new vehicle is an advanced 8×8 open ocean-capable vehicle that is equipped with a new 6-cylinder, 700HP engine, which provides a significant power increase over the Assault Amphibious Vehicle, which is currently in service and has been in operation for decades. The ACV is also adaptable to accommodate growth for future technologies or requirements.”
The BAE Systems team conducted its own extensive risk mitigation testing and evaluation for land mobility, survivability, and swim capabilities that proved its vehicle’s performance prior to delivering the first 16 prototypes to the Marine Corps in 2017.
Over the past 15 months, the company supported the Marine Corps’ rigorous Developmental Testing and Operational Assessment of the vehicles, which performed superbly in water and land operations, payload, and survivability. Work on the program will be performed at the company’s facilities in Aiken, South Carolina; Sterling Heights, Michigan; Minneapolis; Stafford; San Jose, California; and York, Pennsylvania.
This vehicle is based on the Italian Iveco SuperAV adapted by BAE systems for the USMC and to be manufactured in the US.
Little if any UK content.
Unsuitable for the British army due to lack of armour protection, guess the RM would like them.
Basically BAe are an American company producing this kit.
BAE are an international company owning companies around the world
It goes without saying when it comes to the US. Even when they buy from foreign companies it’s all built in the states, not something that foreign defense companies will bother to protest over with the size of the orders.
Better question is where would the profits be invested, here or the US? I know America has some draconian laws for foreign defense companies working in the US but I’ve no idea if they require them to keep money made in America.
Law only pertains to work and facilities not to profits. The only thing a company has to watch for in dealing in the Defense industry is when conducting international deals with countries on the US sanctions list. They have to insure money received from the US government is never in the same account as money from a contract with someone the US government would find objectionable. Say taking the money from the US then as part of a contract with country B to set up a factory to bid on future contracts there. Transfers money from a account containing money… Read more »
BAE is an international company with international investors. Investors probably pension and hedge funds. Not individual
Surprised they didn’t go for a Piranha 4 derivative to maintain commonality with the Striker. It must be too heavy for amphibious tasks.
What about a small royal marines order for these vehicles?
Something with a 40mm or larger turret on the roof, and/ or a close range air defence variant with land ceptor. Is that even possible within this size of vehicle?
keep dreaming. royals were fighting to keep rifleman this ti.e last year. they’ll never get USMC doctrine kit
Why would the RM want them. Post Afgan they are getting back to their core deployments and stomping grounds which are Norway and Northern Flank of NATO work. I cannot see an 8 wheeled APC doing the same job as a BV or Viking in the snows of a Norwegian winter and a Viking can do swimming anyway.
How does this compare with Boxer? Could the Boxer be adapted for amphibious warefare?
Compared to both Boxer and Stryker the ACV (and the Iveco on which it’s based) is a very different creature. In order to increase speed for the Italian Army requirements while still being able to float they had to shave whatever weight the possibley could. Both Boxers and Strykers are relatively heavy. The Strykers weight has only gone up since inception as the US Army up armored and upgraded it. While the Boxer depending on configuration can way from 24000 to 38000 kg. So in short in a Boxer or Stryker you have some protection while in a Iveco series… Read more »