BAE Systems has received a $120 million contract from the US Marine Corps for additional Amphibious Combat Vehicles under a third order for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP).

The company say that this award is an important next step on the path to full rate production.

“This latest contract is for the ACV personnel carrier variant (ACV-P), an eight-wheeled amphibious assault vehicle capable of transporting Marines from open-ocean ship to shore and conducting land operations.”

Each vehicle embarks 13 Marines in addition to a crew of three.

“This award further validates the Marine Corps’ confidence in the vehicle’s proven capability in meeting their amphibious mission, and represents an important step toward fielding the vehicle in the Fleet Marine Force. The ACV is a highly mobile, survivable and adaptable platform designed for growth to meet future mission role requirements while bringing enhanced combat power to the battlefield,” said John Swift, director of amphibious programs at BAE Systems.

BAE say that current low-rate production is focused on the ACV-P variant. More variants will be added under full rate production to include the command and control (ACV-C), 30mm medium caliber turret (ACV-30) and recovery variants (ACV-R) under the ACV Family of Vehicles program. BAE Systems previously received the Lot 1 and Lot 2 awards.

The US Marine Corps selected BAE Systems along with teammate Iveco Defence Vehicles for the ACV program in 2018 to replace its legacy fleet of Assault Amphibious Vehicles, which have been in service for decades and were also built by BAE Systems.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Geoffrey Roach
Geoffrey Roach (@guest_480790)
1 year ago

…and the Royal Marine versions are being delivered?

fearlesstunafish (@guest_480794)
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoffrey Roach

i honestly dont entiely understand the reasons bae can develop stuff for the us and then not also privide it to the uk…. political wrangling aside surely as they are our closest allies i really dont quite understand why we can cooperate and share re next gen ssbns but then not share/cooperate on anything else…
well, not without shafting ourselves over and letting everyone else gain profits from our rnd

fearlesstunafish (@guest_480795)
1 year ago

and yes i do know that theyre an international company and that the us division is seperate from the uk one….but then how is it really still part of bae other than shareholder profit?

BB85 (@guest_480803)
1 year ago

I’m not sure how much development BAE did on this one. It’s a license built Italian design.
As for the RM, they seem pretty committed to the viking design. It always seemed a bit of an odd concept to me but seems to be the king of rough terrain and as gun buster said can be split in half for air transportation.
Does anyone know if the mod found a buyer for the broncos or are they sitting in a shed somewhere?

Frank62 (@guest_480886)
1 year ago
Reply to  BB85

Hi BB85, I just checked my shed & there’s none in there, just bicycles & garden tools.

DaveyB (@guest_480940)
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank62

Don’t tell me you’ve got the Christmas tree out already?

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_480829)
1 year ago

Just a guess but I would say its nothing to do with not sharing or providing it for the UK. It’s a product made at the request of the US for their marine corps.

If MoD asked for x amount of them and were willing to stump up the cash they’d get them.

Jon Agar
Jon Agar (@guest_481311)
1 year ago

UK Govs do not trust BAEs anymore due to past performance and issues, Little know fact BAEs removed the main contractor support for the Harriers in an argument over the Nimrod upgrade program. removed extended flight hours on all airframes, this is why there are only 4 uk Harriers with airtime left 3 SharS 1 T , would you trust them, won’t mess with the US,

fearlesstunafish (@guest_480796)
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoffrey Roach

was going to edit but theres no button…. why we keep apparently trying to go into military development with the french/europe, who continually seem to then cancel orders or just plain screw us over and go into competition, rather than the us who always buy massive numbers i dont quite know…. i just really hope we go with italy, sweden and japan for tempest and keep the french the hell away!

Gunbuster (@guest_480797)
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoffrey Roach

Why would the RM want it? Yes the picture above is in the snow but a BV or Viking is far better suited to Northern Flank operations along with working in other terrain if need be. I very much doubt that the ACV is air portable without anything smaller than a CH53 whilst a split Viking can be shifted by a Merlin if needed or whole by Chinook. The RM’s are not the USMC. The USMC is a combined arms force in its own right with its own with Tanks, APCs , Gunships, Transport Helos and its own fixed wing… Read more »

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_480814)
1 year ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Well said Gunbuster. Thank you. The US Marine Corps has probably got the equivalent fighting power to at least our entire armed forces. The RM Viking is perfectly suited for its role. If the RMs come up against something Viking cannot handle that is why we have Apache, F35B and the Army.

DaveyB (@guest_480942)
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

No, they are larger.

Gunbuster (@guest_480801)
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoffrey Roach

Why does the RM need it?
Unlike the USMC the RM are not a combined arms force with its own Tanks, APC’s and Air Force . Their main focus was and is growing again to be the Northern Flank of NATO.
The picture may be in the snow but i doubt that the vehicle is going to perform as well as a BV, Viking or

Gunbuster (@guest_480802)
1 year ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Grrrr no edit function!!!

Steve Taylor
Steve Taylor (@guest_480827)
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoffrey Roach

Too heavy for the RM. It would be nice to think somebody in Main Building a year or two after the end of the Cold War would have the vision to see the future of the Army as an ‘amphibious’ force modelled along USMC lines. But unnecessary wars in the Sand Box and generals wanting BAOR back sort of scuppered such visionary thoughts. Won’t be long before I bet before the disestablish 3 Cdo…….just as everybody else is investing in that form of warfare for obvious reasons.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_480843)
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Taylor

The Future Commando Force is looking at returning the RM to more traditional raiding with smaller units from what I’m reading elsewhere.

It has already happened with 42, which lost its conventional role. Remains to be seen if it is just a smokescreen for scrapping much of the capability of 3 Cdo, but that Brigade has not been able to self deploy as a complete formation with all the enablers for years anyway.

Will be interesting to see what transpires but the Littoral Strike Ships are mentioned as involved.

Steve (@guest_480804)
1 year ago

I don’t get the critism of bae here. Its the MOD that doesn’t have the money for them. If they had the money and wanted the asset, I am sure the US would approve the sale.

Steve H
Steve H (@guest_480813)
1 year ago

When I think of US Marines amphibious armoured vehicles like this, I can’t get the images of them in Iraq when they hit landmines and were opened up like a tin of beans in a microwave out of my head.
Maybe good for beach assaults but DEFINITELY not good for an urban environment where they were extremely vulnerable.

Sean Crowley
Sean Crowley (@guest_480823)
1 year ago

Lot of discussion on the Royal Marines and these things , having seen the US Marines in action in Australia they seem to come across as piling a lot of bodies on the beach so fast that a good third live irrespective of the trouble sent they’re way . Come on guys the lobsters were never meant for that , they are Specialised Naval Infantry that act as enablers for army units . US Marines transformed them selves practically into an independent service as a result of Australia’s favorite WW2 US Joint Chief of Staff Admiral King , when hearing… Read more »

Elliott (@guest_480887)
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean Crowley

The no retreat from Northern Australia was also due to General MacArthur not wanting to order another withdrawal, so soon after the fall of the Philippines.

Simon m
Simon m (@guest_481277)
1 year ago

Obviously large scale amphibious ops are dead! Not

One question about the RM and LSS if the later is now delayed, why are the changes to the brigade to operate in a different way being made now? I’m afraid I know the answer ?

Ray (@guest_481331)
1 year ago

They are wonderful vehicles.