{ "id": "R42723", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R42723", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues for Congress", "retrieved": "2020-09-07T12:22:16.087706", "id": "R42723_49_2020-07-23", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2020-07-23_R42723_13c726eac29aed8719b33b82a012bb934be7a533.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42723/49", "sha1": "13c726eac29aed8719b33b82a012bb934be7a533" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-07-23_R42723_13c726eac29aed8719b33b82a012bb934be7a533.html" } ], "date": "2020-07-23", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R42723", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 617558, "date": "2020-02-20", "retrieved": "2020-02-21T23:16:05.575649", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a \u201cmore affordable and sustainable\u201d vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles were intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations. On June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program \u201con ice\u201d due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable. \nIn what was described as a \u201cdrastic shift,\u201d the Marines decided to \u201cresurrect\u201d the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also planned to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and at the time planned to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. The Marines are reportedly exploring the possibility of developing a high water speed ACV 2.0, which could accompany tanks and light armored vehicles into combat.\nOn November 5, 2014, the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. On November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE\u2019s contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC\u2019s for $121.5 million, and each company was to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. Both BAE and SAIC delivered their prototypes early, and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) testing began mid-March 2017. In early December 2017, the Marines reportedly sent the ACV 1.1 down select request for proposals to BAE and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). \nOn June 19, 2018, the Marine Corps selected BAE Systems to produce the ACV. The initial contract\u2014valued at $198 million\u2014was for low-rate production of 30 vehicles to be delivered by the autumn of 2019. On April 10, 2019, during testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy and Marine Corps leadership announced that during the fall of 2018, ACV 1.1 prototypes demonstrated satisfactory water mobility performance in high surf conditions and, in doing so, met the full water mobility transition requirement for ACV 1.2 capability. As a result, ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 were to be consolidated into a single variant\u2014the ACV\u2014which is intended to replace all AAVs.\nPotential issues for Congress include the potential ramifications of the consolidation of the ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 programs and how the possible adoption of the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) operational concept could affect the ACV program.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42723", "sha1": "c4be26f9acbb32ff7c10f59e854658e0e107ce0b", "filename": "files/20200220_R42723_c4be26f9acbb32ff7c10f59e854658e0e107ce0b.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42723", "sha1": "65f12ed76911e7c9e89ff54ce4ea4fb23923b043", "filename": "files/20200220_R42723_65f12ed76911e7c9e89ff54ce4ea4fb23923b043.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4902, "name": "Air, Land, Sea, & Projection Forces" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 601474, "date": "2019-06-28", "retrieved": "2019-12-20T17:39:31.456917", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a \u201cmore affordable and sustainable\u201d vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles were intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations. On June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program \u201con ice\u201d due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable. \nIn what was described as a \u201cdrastic shift,\u201d the Marines decided to \u201cresurrect\u201d the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and at the time planned to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. The Marines are reportedly exploring the possibility of developing a high water speed ACV 2.0, which could accompany tanks and light armored vehicles into combat.\nOn November 5, 2014, the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. On November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE\u2019s contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC\u2019s for $121.5 million, and each company was to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. Both BAE and SAIC delivered their prototypes early, and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) testing began mid-March 2017. In early December 2017, the Marines reportedly sent the ACV 1.1 down select request for proposals to BAE and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). \nOn June 19, 2018, the Marine Corps selected BAE Systems to produce the ACV. The initial contract\u2014valued at $198 million\u2014was for low-rate production of 30 vehicles to be delivered by the autumn of 2019. On April 10, 2019, during testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy and Marine Corps leadership announced that during the fall of 2018, ACV 1.1 prototypes demonstrated satisfactory water mobility performance in high surf conditions and, in doing so, met the full water mobility transition requirement for ACV 1.2 capability. As a result, ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 were to be consolidated into a single variant\u2014the ACV\u2014which is intended to replace all AAVs.\nPotential issues for Congress include the potential ramifications of the consolidation of the ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 programs and how the possible adoption of the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) operational concept could affect the ACV program.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42723", "sha1": "f031245270d3f0443534b02bd4805e69cec80e59", "filename": "files/20190628_R42723_f031245270d3f0443534b02bd4805e69cec80e59.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42723", "sha1": "11b49f22577f975a6a7b440ed56b8abd3b86e9d6", "filename": "files/20190628_R42723_11b49f22577f975a6a7b440ed56b8abd3b86e9d6.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4902, "name": "Air, Land, Sea, & Projection Forces" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 596251, "date": "2019-04-11", "retrieved": "2019-04-17T13:43:13.106643", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a \u201cmore affordable and sustainable\u201d vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles were intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations. On June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program \u201con ice\u201d due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable. \nIn what was described as a \u201cdrastic shift,\u201d the Marines decided to \u201cresurrect\u201d the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and at the time planned to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. The Marines are reportedly exploring the possibility of developing a high water speed ACV 2.0, which could accompany tanks and light armored vehicles into combat.\nOn November 5, 2014, the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. On November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE\u2019s contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC\u2019s for $121.5 million, and each company was to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. Both BAE and SAIC delivered their prototypes early, and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) testing began mid-March 2017. In early December 2017, the Marines reportedly sent the ACV 1.1 down select request for proposals to BAE and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). \nOn June 19, 2018, the Marine Corps selected BAE Systems to produce the ACV. The initial contract\u2014valued at $198 million\u2014was for low-rate production of 30 vehicles to be delivered by the autumn of 2019. On April 10, 2019, during testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy and Marine Corps leadership announced that during the fall of 2018, ACV 1.1 prototypes demonstrated satisfactory water mobility performance in high surf conditions and, in doing so, met the full water mobility transition requirement for ACV 1.2 capability. As a result, ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 were to be consolidated into a single variant\u2014the ACV\u2014which is intended to replace all AAVs.\nPotential issues for Congress include the potential ramifications of the consolidation of the ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 programs and how the possible adoption of the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) operational concept could affect the ACV program.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42723", "sha1": "191402e7db8ee3e0949ce393cbec0119a66b8b74", "filename": "files/20190411_R42723_191402e7db8ee3e0949ce393cbec0119a66b8b74.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42723", "sha1": "8a510c9eae11490e3366e216f1baf5b78601fa21", "filename": "files/20190411_R42723_8a510c9eae11490e3366e216f1baf5b78601fa21.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4902, "name": "Air, Land, Sea, & Projection Forces" } ] }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues for Congress", "retrieved": "2020-09-07T12:22:16.085266", "id": "R42723_41_2019-03-15", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2019-03-15_R42723_a44f714167ea3201ac4a9db4b7197eefe6383ac0.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42723/41", "sha1": "a44f714167ea3201ac4a9db4b7197eefe6383ac0" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2019-03-15_R42723_a44f714167ea3201ac4a9db4b7197eefe6383ac0.html" } ], "date": "2019-03-15", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R42723", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 585656, "date": "2018-09-26", "retrieved": "2018-09-27T13:15:54.207863", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a \u201cmore affordable and sustainable\u201d vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles were intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations. On June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program \u201con ice\u201d due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable. \nIn what was described as a \u201cdrastic shift,\u201d the Marines decided to \u201cresurrect\u201d the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and at the time planned to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. The Marines are reportedly exploring the possibility of developing a high water speed ACV 2.0, which could accompany tanks and light armored vehicles into combat.\nOn November 5, 2014, the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. On November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE\u2019s contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC\u2019s for $121.5 million, and each company was to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. Both BAE and SAIC delivered their prototypes early, and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) testing began mid- March 2017. In early December 2017, the Marines reportedly sent the ACV 1.1 down select request for proposals to BAE and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). \nOn June 19, 2018, the Marine Corps selected BAE Systems to produce the ACV. Reportedly, the initial contract\u2014valued at $198 million\u2014will be for low-rate production of 30 vehicles to be delivered by the autumn of 2019. Eventually, 204 vehicles are to be delivered under the ACV 1.1 phase of the project. BAE will also produce the ACV 1.2 variant and, all told, the entire ACV 1.1 and 1.2 project is expected to deliver 700 vehicles, and, if all options are exercised, the total contract will reportedly be worth $1.2 billion.\nA potential issue for Congress is how the possible adoption of the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations operational concept could affect the ACV 1.1 program.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42723", "sha1": "a22dee7fa68ac89e38746512d778cd05accb0e98", "filename": "files/20180926_R42723_a22dee7fa68ac89e38746512d778cd05accb0e98.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42723", "sha1": "073c7c07e7cc8cf0db7fbf3dc90267e42b997b27", "filename": "files/20180926_R42723_073c7c07e7cc8cf0db7fbf3dc90267e42b997b27.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4902, "name": "Air, Land, Sea, & Projection Forces" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 579003, "date": "2018-03-07", "retrieved": "2018-03-12T03:35:40.245001", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a \u201cmore affordable and sustainable\u201d vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles were intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations. On June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program \u201con ice\u201d due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable. \nIn what was described as a \u201cdrastic shift,\u201d the Marines decided to \u201cresurrect\u201d the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. The Marines are reportedly exploring the possibility of developing a high water speed ACV 2.0, which could accompany tanks and light armored vehicles into combat.\nOn November 5, 2014, it was reported the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. The Marines were looking for information from industry regarding program milestones, delivery schedules, and where in the program cost savings can be achieved. \nOn November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE\u2019s contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC\u2019s for $121.5 million, and each company was to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. The Marines expect to down select to a single vendor in 2018. On December 7, 2015, General Dynamics Land Systems filed a protest to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about the award of the contract to BAE and SAIC, and GAO had until March 16, 2016, to decide on the protest. In March 2016, it was reported that GAO had denied GDLS\u2019s protest, noting that \u201cthe Marine Corps\u2019 evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme identified in the solicitation.\u201d The Marines reportedly stated that the protest put the ACV 1.1 program about 45 days behind schedule but anticipated that the ACV 1.1 would still be fielded on time. Both BAE and SAIC delivered their prototypes early, and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) testing began mid- March 2017. In early December 2017, the Marines reportedly sent the ACV 1.1 down select request for proposals to BAE and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). \nThe Department of Defense\u2019s FY2019 budget request requests $265.7 million for 30 ACV 1.1s.\nA potential issue for Congress is how the possible adoption of the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations operational concept could affect the ACV 1.1 program.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42723", "sha1": "dc50afed796bb53348a9a838de847df5c00688e1", "filename": "files/20180307_R42723_dc50afed796bb53348a9a838de847df5c00688e1.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42723", "sha1": "0407cd48d80d6f74af9774794e838b564ab5d968", "filename": "files/20180307_R42723_0407cd48d80d6f74af9774794e838b564ab5d968.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4902, "name": "Air, Land, Sea, & Projection Forces" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 461700, "date": "2017-06-01", "retrieved": "2017-08-22T14:32:14.189574", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a \u201cmore affordable and sustainable\u201d vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles are intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations.\nOn June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program \u201con ice\u201d due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable. \nIn what was described as a \u201cdrastic shift,\u201d the Marines decided to \u201cresurrect\u201d the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. \nOn November 5, 2014, it was reported the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. The Marines were looking for information from industry regarding program milestones, delivery schedules, and where in the program cost savings can be achieved. \nOn November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE\u2019s contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC\u2019s for $121.5 million, and each company was to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. The Marines expect to down select to a single vendor in 2018. On December 7, 2015, General Dynamics Land Systems filed a protest to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about the award of the contract to BAE and SAIC, and GAO had until March 16, 2016, to decide on the protest. In March 2016, it was reported that GAO had denied GDLS\u2019s protest, noting that \u201cthe Marine Corps\u2019 evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme identified in the solicitation.\u201d The Marines reportedly stated that the protest put the ACV 1.1 program about 45 days behind schedule but anticipated that the ACV 1.1 would still be fielded on time. Both BAE and SAIC delivered their prototypes early, and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) testing began mid- March 2017.\nThe Department of Defense\u2019s FY2018 Budget Request requests $340.5 million for 26 ACV 1.1s.\nPotential issues for Congress include an increase in Marine Corps end strength and force structure resulting in an increase in overall ACV requirements and the challenges and risks associated with the Marines\u2019 new MPC/ACV acquisition strategy.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42723", "sha1": "f8e3a58a321df244c116c6f5f6552030c674680d", "filename": "files/20170601_R42723_f8e3a58a321df244c116c6f5f6552030c674680d.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42723", "sha1": "1e4d38b88d45be0c79c78a82e0d9d80235762e21", "filename": "files/20170601_R42723_1e4d38b88d45be0c79c78a82e0d9d80235762e21.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4902, "name": "Air, Land, Sea, & Projection Forces" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 459441, "date": "2017-03-08", "retrieved": "2017-03-09T17:47:25.849956", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a \u201cmore affordable and sustainable\u201d vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles are intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations.\nOn June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program \u201con ice\u201d due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable. \nIn what was described as a \u201cdrastic shift,\u201d the Marines decided to \u201cresurrect\u201d the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. \nOn November 5, 2014, it was reported the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. The Marines are looking for information from industry regarding program milestones, delivery schedules, and where in the program cost savings can be achieved. \nOn November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE\u2019s contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC\u2019s for $121.5 million, and each company was to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. The Marines expect to down select to a single vendor in 2018. On December 7, 2015, General Dynamics Land Systems filed a protest to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about the award of the contract to BAE and SAIC, and GAO had until March 16, 2016, to decide on the protest. In March 2016, it was reported that GAO had denied GDLS\u2019s protest, noting that \u201cthe Marine Corps\u2019 evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme identified in the solicitation.\u201d The Marines reportedly stated that the protest put the ACV 1.1 program about 45 days behind schedule but anticipated that the ACV 1.1 would still be fielded on time. Both BAE and SAIC delivered their prototypes early, and the Marines anticipate testing to begin sometime in March 2017.\nA potential issue for Congress is the Marines\u2019 new MPC/ACV acquisition strategy and its associated challenges and risks.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42723", "sha1": "20320867849b64564c8dcf7ad02ffa57c852d91b", "filename": "files/20170308_R42723_20320867849b64564c8dcf7ad02ffa57c852d91b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42723", "sha1": "f4e1450a97af1fb70e165fb288a308055cdcaa61", "filename": "files/20170308_R42723_f4e1450a97af1fb70e165fb288a308055cdcaa61.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4902, "name": "Air, Land, Sea, & Projection Forces" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455694, "date": "2016-09-09", "retrieved": "2016-09-16T18:04:39.738763", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a \u201cmore affordable and sustainable\u201d vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles are intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations.\nOn June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program \u201con ice\u201d due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable. \nIn what was described as a \u201cdrastic shift,\u201d the Marines decided to \u201cresurrect\u201d the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. \nOn November 5, 2014, it was reported the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. The Marines are looking for information from industry regarding program milestones, delivery schedules, and where in the program cost savings can be achieved. \nOn November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE\u2019s contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC\u2019s for $121.5 million, and each company is to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. Both vendors are expected to start delivering their prototypes in the fall of 2016 for testing, and the Marines expect to down select to a single vendor in 2018. On December 7, 2015, General Dynamics Land Systems filed a protest to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about the award of the contract to BAE and SAIC, and GAO has until March 16, 2016, to decide on the protest. In March 2016, it was reported that GAO had denied GDLS\u2019s protest, noting that \u201cthe Marine Corps\u2019 evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme identified in the solicitation.\u201d The Marines reportedly stated that the protest put the ACV 1.1 program about 45 days behind schedule but anticipated that the ACV 1.1 would still be fielded on time.\nThe Administration\u2019s FY2017 budget request for the ACV was $158.7 million in Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding. A potential issue for Congress is the Marines\u2019 new MPC/ACV acquisition strategy and its associated challenges and risks.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42723", "sha1": "3916f0dbfd13bcdc768ee8ee1f0fc28d43b55668", "filename": "files/20160909_R42723_3916f0dbfd13bcdc768ee8ee1f0fc28d43b55668.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42723", "sha1": "6b226de8f29101f2930c49b616144c4fbadd75c7", "filename": "files/20160909_R42723_6b226de8f29101f2930c49b616144c4fbadd75c7.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3148, "name": "Conventional Weapons and Military Equipment" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4531, "name": "Defense Authorization" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 450260, "date": "2016-02-26", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:00:13.023163", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a \u201cmore affordable and sustainable\u201d vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles are intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations.\nOn June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program \u201con ice\u201d due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable. \nIn what was described as a \u201cdrastic shift,\u201d the Marines decided to \u201cresurrect\u201d the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. \nOn November 5, 2014, it was reported the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. The Marines are looking for information from industry regarding program milestones, delivery schedules, and where in the program cost savings can be achieved. \nOn November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE\u2019s contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC\u2019s for $121.5 million, and each company is to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. Both vendors are expected to start delivering their prototypes in the fall of 2016 for testing, and the Marines expect to down select to a single vendor in 2018. On December 7, 2015, General Dynamics Land Systems filed a protest to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about the award of the contract to BAE and SAIC, and GAO has until March 16, 2016 to decide on the protest.\nThe Administration\u2019s FY2017 budget request for the ACV was $158.7 million in Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding. A potential issue for Congress is the Marines\u2019 new MPC/ACV acquisition strategy and its associated challenges and risks.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42723", "sha1": "528b9f214992fba7bf7ebcc496871301be194493", "filename": "files/20160226_R42723_528b9f214992fba7bf7ebcc496871301be194493.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42723", "sha1": "7619c73cd5ae7f8ea87a64ff54ca54dcafe16b37", "filename": "files/20160226_R42723_7619c73cd5ae7f8ea87a64ff54ca54dcafe16b37.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3148, "name": "Conventional Weapons and Military Equipment" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4531, "name": "Defense Authorization" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795869/", "id": "R42723_2015Dec03", "date": "2015-12-03", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report discusses issues surrounding the funding for development of Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC). The Marines are required by law to have the necessary equipment to conduct amphibious operations and land operations.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20151203_R42723_dd2b6a4646d91b854ed76a407ae5734ef915ad5c.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20151203_R42723_dd2b6a4646d91b854ed76a407ae5734ef915ad5c.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense budgets", "name": "Defense budgets" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious ships", "name": "Amphibious ships" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Weapons systems", "name": "Weapons systems" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Naval procurement", "name": "Naval procurement" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense contracts", "name": "Defense contracts" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813593/", "id": "R42723_2015Mar03", "date": "2015-03-03", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150303_R42723_f388b54fdf19888acf82f09d10bee8a75e2d0d43.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150303_R42723_f388b54fdf19888acf82f09d10bee8a75e2d0d43.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc501651/", "id": "R42723_2015Jan06", "date": "2015-01-06", "retrieved": "2015-03-30T22:03:27", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report discusses issues surrounding the funding for development of Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150106_R42723_c3d6085b1138da49188bbcb533dd6f4574172247.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150106_R42723_c3d6085b1138da49188bbcb533dd6f4574172247.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense budgets", "name": "Defense budgets" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious ships", "name": "Amphibious ships" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Weapons systems", "name": "Weapons systems" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Naval procurement", "name": "Naval procurement" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense contracts", "name": "Defense contracts" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463343/", "id": "R42723_2014Jul30", "date": "2014-07-30", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report discusses issues surrounding the funding for development of Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140730_R42723_70f5839e8248933a1443800f25c3faeb4e23fbb2.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140730_R42723_70f5839e8248933a1443800f25c3faeb4e23fbb2.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense budgets", "name": "Defense budgets" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious ships", "name": "Amphibious ships" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Weapons systems", "name": "Weapons systems" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Naval procurement", "name": "Naval procurement" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense contracts", "name": "Defense contracts" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462714/", "id": "R42723_2014Jul16", "date": "2014-06-16", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report provides background information regarding Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle(ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC). The report discusses the marines' justification for the ACV and MPC and desired operational capabilities.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140616_R42723_218d189ac81947b62032af372c80005e6efeec3d.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140616_R42723_218d189ac81947b62032af372c80005e6efeec3d.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious operations", "name": "Amphibious operations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious ships", "name": "Amphibious ships" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Weapons systems", "name": "Weapons systems" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462258/", "id": "R42723_2014Feb28", "date": "2014-02-28", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report provides background information regarding Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle(ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC). The report discusses the marines' justification for the ACV and MPC and desired operational capabilities.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140228_R42723_0e89e19192d576a0c7b6e1ccd40d23593c604db8.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140228_R42723_0e89e19192d576a0c7b6e1ccd40d23593c604db8.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious operations", "name": "Amphibious operations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious ships", "name": "Amphibious ships" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Weapons systems", "name": "Weapons systems" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463384/", "id": "R42723_2014Jan15", "date": "2014-01-15", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report provides background information regarding Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle(ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC). The report discusses the marines' justification for the ACV and MPC and desired operational capabilities.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140115_R42723_2f3c2d900540ec3d81118ba43093ae58b714a7ee.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140115_R42723_2f3c2d900540ec3d81118ba43093ae58b714a7ee.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious ships", "name": "Amphibious ships" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious ships", "name": "Amphibious ships" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious operations", "name": "Amphibious operations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Weapons systems", "name": "Weapons systems" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463522/", "id": "R42723_2013Jun26", "date": "2013-06-26", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report provides background information regarding Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle(ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC). The report discusses the marines' justification for the ACV and MPC and desired operational capabilities.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130626_R42723_6bf0ae2ee1501bde12ec5d614f049d3f4680dcfb.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130626_R42723_6bf0ae2ee1501bde12ec5d614f049d3f4680dcfb.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious ships", "name": "Amphibious ships" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Amphibious operations", "name": "Amphibious operations" } ] } ], "topics": [ "National Defense" ] }