• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

USMC Mobile Protected Weapons System (MPWS)

Amphibious forces possess capabilities that are uniquely featured by their responsiveness to the maritime aspects of the national strategy. Amphibious warfare requires the full spectrum of capabilities from naval combat effectiveness off-shore and in the air to the close combat mission ashore. The close combat capability provides the mobility, shock action and portions of the firepower necessary to enable landing forces to successfully attack and destroy enemy personnel and materiel, breach their defenses, link up surface borne with helicopter borne forces, defeat infantry and mechanized counterattacks and exploit success in combat ashore. Capabilities possessed by the landing force provided limited mobility and direct fire combat power to enable assault units to rapidly close with and destroy enemy forces.

The principles of defense against amphibious assault had as their goal the creation of conditions which will allow the Soviet commander to initiate decisive action while denying the landing force commander this same capability. In furtherance of this goal, the Soviet defense is based upon high-intensity mobile operations using large numbers of tanks and armored fighting vehicles, extensive use of supporting arms and tactical aviation, and echeloned defense-in-depth deployed in an integrated combined arms concept.

An intuitive need for a highly mobile, helicopter-transportable weapons system which can provide the landing force assault fire support as well as an antiarmor capability first became apparent in the early 1970s. There were several contributing factors. Naval gunfire support assets, so important during an amphibious assault, were steadily decreasing. Navy combatant ships with suitable guns for shore bombardment were being retired without replacements, or being replaced with ships less capable of providing gunfire support to amphibious forces. The retirement from the Fleet Marine Force (FMF) of the ONTOS, a light, mobile, antitank weapon system carrying six 106 millimeter (mm) recoilless rifles. The retirement of the crew-served individual 106mm recoilless rifle. The deletion of the 3.5-inch rocket launcher from the Marine Corps inventory.

At a time when naval gunfire and direct-fire weapons were decreasing, the Soviet and Soviet aligned forces increased their capability with a wide array of armored weapons systems, including tanks, armored personnel carriers, and lightly armored weapons platforms. The need for an MPWS was reinforced by a 1972-1973 Marine Corps Development and Education Command (MCDEC) study, which projected threat and friendly forces in a variety of scenarios and concluded that a lightweight, highly mobile and agile, helicopter-transportable weapons system capable of supporting the infantry against armor, materiel, and personnel targets would substantially contribute to success in future (1985-95) combat.

In 1976, the Armored Combat Vehicle Technology (ACVT) Program was initiated, with an Army project lead, USMC participation, and DARPA funding. A Department of the Army Systems Manager's Office was established in 1977 to construct a technology bale for further Army and USMC development efforts.

This joint program was initiated involving the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Army, and the Marine Corps, for the purpose of determinir, the appropriate actions to be taken by the Army and the Marine Corps concerning the development of lightweight combat vehicles. This effort, known as the Armored Combat Vehicle Technology (ACVT) Program, would investigate, through the use of testbed hardware, comprehensive experimentation and analysis, the utility of future lightweight armored vehicles. In support of this effort, the 75-millimeter gun was chosen as the Medium Caliber Antiarmor Automatic Cannon (MCAAAC). The Marine Corps was particularly interested in this gun development because it showed promise of providing a hypervelocity gun with relatively low impulse forces, thus increasing the possibility of mounting an effective antiarmor weapon on a lightweight vehicle.

In 1978 the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) established a Combat Vehicle Technology Directorate (CVTD) in conjunction with the Systems Manager's Office to further conduct the ACVT study. Also in 1978, the Marine Corps promulgated a requirement for the Mobile Protected Weapons System (MPWS). This need specified in greater detail the characteristics set forth in the earlier MCDEC MPWS study, and placed greater emphasis on the antitank capability.

Further reinforcement of the need for the MPWS came in Fiscal Years 1979 and 1980 from the Congress. In each of those two years, the Congress added $5 million to the MPWS research and development efforts. By these actions, the Congress joined the Marine Corps in recognizing the requirement for a lightweight armor vehicle/ MPWS capability.

The study plan concepts included the Mobile Protected Weapons System (MPWS-I)- which was a pure anti-tank system in two separate versions.

1. A helicopter-transportable USMC system.
2. A 40-ton Army system.
3. MPWS I1- a 40-ton Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).
4. MPWS III- a 40-ton Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV).

The Missions of MPWS were fully documented in MPWS Mission Profile, Supplement B to the Statement of Work for MPWS (N00024-80-PR-20039, dated I April 1980).

The ACVT study, which was completed in 1982, recommended a system based on a 75mm main gun in a low profile turret, fire control and mobility equal to the Ml main battle tank, and armor protection from 14.5mm penetration on the vehicle's front and sides.

A concept definition phase was conducted for a Mobile Protected Weapons System (MPWS) with an Initial Operating Capability (TOC) of fiscal year 1988. The Marine Corps had previously conducted mission area analyses and had written a mission element need statement (MENS) that validated the requirement for the MPWS. In order to operate within the guidelines of OMB Circular A-109, the Marine Corps wanted to specify mission needs and then allow industry to provide innovative applications of advanced technology to meet these needs. To that end, Decisions and Designs, Inc. (DDI) assisted in the preparation of a Threat and Requirements Statement and other materials used at the pre-bidders conference for the conceptual MPWS.

At the conclusion of the conceptual or initial MPWS analysis, the emphasis shifted to an analysis of near-term existing vehicles. This topic had been receiving high-level Marine Corps and Congressional attention in the light of the recent interest in the Rapid Deployment Force. Study group efforts were then focused on the specification of requirements and evaluation criteria for an off-the-shelf Light Armored Vehicle.

In specifying mission needs, three scenarios for the MPV'S were examined. These included an assault support role (offensive), a blocking position role (defensive), and a role in subsequent infantry operations ashore. While these roles are not all-inclusive, they were deemed representative of the spectrum of most demanding combat roles for the MPWS.

Certain reauirements for the conceptual MPWS were considered as absolute and non-negotiable by industry. That is, any contender for the MPWS must meet all of the absolute requirements or it would receive no further consideration. These requirements included helicopter transportability, tactical and strategic air transportability, compatability with an amphibious environment, fordability, and an NBC overpressure capability.

The remaining requirements for the MPWS were treated as variable performance parameters. These were factors that could vary greatly with system design and were available to industry for making technical, operational, and cost trade-offs. A hierarchical structure was used to develop a logical decomposition of these parameters into specific system characteristics that could be evaluated.

The results of this study were briefed to the VCSA in September 1980. Both the Army and the Marine Corps used the MPG Study as the basis for a Mission Element Needs Statement (MENS). The USMC MENS for a helicopter-transportable Mobile Protected Weapons System (MPWS) was approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in March 1981. The USMC bought a Light Armor Vehicle (LAy) which they feel provides a solution to their requirements. It is not exactly as described by either the MPG or ACVT Studies, but was an existing 8X8 wheeled armored vehicle which was modified to accept various weapons systems.