link to page 1 link to page 1 
Updated May 18, 2022
The Marine Corps’ Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV)
Background
According to the Marine Corps:
Figure 2. Amphibious Combat Vehicle Ashore
The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is the
Corps’ next-generation vehicle designed to move
Marines from ship to shore (Figure 1). Designed to
replace the Corps’ aging Amphibious Assault
Vehicle (AAV – in service since 1972), the ACV
will be the primary means of tactical mobility for
the Marine infantry battalion at sea and ashore
(Figure 2). The ACV will possess ground mobility
and speed similar to the M1A1 tank during
Source: https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/multimedia/amphibious-
sustained operations ashore and have the capability
combat-vehicle-1-1—acv-1-1-, accessed February 3, 2021.
to provide organic, direct fire support to dismounted
infantry in the attack. The ACV will support
Current Program Status
expeditionary mobility capability and capacity with
In June 2018, the ACV entered Low-Rate Initial Production
balanced levels of performance, protection and
(LRIP) with BAE Systems selected for the first 30 vehicles
payload.
to be delivered in fall 2019. In November 2020, the ACV
achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC). In December
There are currently four ACV variants planned: (1) a
2020, a Full-Rate Production (FRP) decision was reportedly
Personnel Variant (ACV-P), which can carry three crew
made by the Marine Corps after having been delayed from
members with 13 Marines and two days of combat
September 2020 due to issues related to Coronavirus
equipment and supplies; (2) a Command and Control
Disease 2019. The current planned acquisition objective of
Variant (ACV-C); (3) a Recovery Variant; and (4) a 30-mm
632 ACVs would replace AAVs in Assault Amphibian
Gun Variant. The Marines intend for the ACV to provide
battalions. The previous acquisition objective of 1,122
effective land and tactical water mobility (ship-to-shore and
ACVs was reduced in accordance with Marine Corps Force
shore-to-shore), precise supporting fires, and high levels of
Design 2030 modernization efforts (see CRS Insight
force protection intended to protect against blasts,
IN11281, New U.S. Marine Corps Force Design Initiatives,
fragmentation, and kinetic energy threats.
by Andrew Feickert). Reportedly, ACV production is to
take place at BAE Systems facilities in Virginia, California,
The ACV program delivered initial ACV-P variants in
Michigan, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
November 2020 and delivered initial ACV-C variants in
FY2022. Plans call for delivery of Improved Lethality 30-
mm Gun Variants in FY2025 and Recovery Variants in
Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) is a programmatic
FY2026.
decision made when manufacturing development is completed
and there is an ability to produce a small-quantity set of
Figure 1. Amphibious Combat Vehicle in
articles. It also establishes an initial production base and sets
Ship-to-Shore Mode
the stage for a gradual increase in the production rate to
allow for Ful -Rate Production (FRP) upon completion of
Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E).
Full-Rate Production (FRP) is a decision made that allows
for government contracting for economic production
quantities fol owing stabilization of the system design and
validation of the production process.
Initial Operational Testing Observations
During Marine Corps initial operational test and evaluation
(IOT&E) conducted from June to September 2020, the
Department of Defense Director of Operational Test and
Source: https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/multimedia/amphibious-
Evaluation (DOT&E) noted the following:
combat-vehicle-11-acv-11, accessed February 3, 2021.
The ACV demonstrated water mobility and the ability to
self-deploy from the beach, cross the surf zone, enter the
ocean, and embark aboard amphibious shipping. The
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Marine Corps’ Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV)
infantry rifle company equipped with the ACV was able
Potential Issue for Congress
to deploy from amphibious shipping, maneuver on the
beach, and conduct subsequent offensive and defensive
Ability to Egress a Floundering ACV at Sea
operations ashore.
As previously noted in DOT&E’s 2020 Annual Report,
“interior space within the ACV is limited, making rapid
While the ACV demonstrated good operational
ingress and egress difficult.” This, combined with problems
availability and maintainability during IOT&E, it did
accommodating full-equipped infantry Marines also noted
not meet its 69-hour mean time between operational
in the report, suggests a suboptimal situation that could
mission failures (MTBOMF) threshold. The
raise potential safety concerns. A 2014 academic study on
government-furnished Remote Weapons System
AAV safety noted the following:
(RWS)—an internally controlled, exterior-mounted MK
19 automatic grenade launcher or M2 .50 caliber heavy
A 2014 Naval Postgraduate School study of Marine
machine gun was the source of the largest number of
Corps assault amphibian vehicle emergency egress
operational mission failures (OMFs). The government-
scenarios found the more Marines put into the back
furnished RWS reliability issue was reported by the
of the AAV, the longer it will take for them to
Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2019.
egress from the vehicle due to the lack of
The ACV accommodated three crew and 13 embarked
maneuverability afforded by their body armor and
infantry. Due to the placement and number of blast
other essential gear.
mitigating seats, interior space within the ACV is
This concern is heightened by the August 2020 incident off
limited, making rapid ingress and egress difficult.
San Clemente Island, CA, when an AAV floundered at sea
Infantry Marines noted that the troop seats were not
during training, killing nine sailors and Marines, reportedly
contoured to fit body armor configurations, leading to
the AAV’s deadliest training incident in its history.
discomfort during long range ship-to-objective missions.
Because of the noted safety implications, Congress might
Reportedly, the Marines initiated corrective actions after the
wish to examine this particular aspect of the ACV’s design.
DOT&E report was published. In September 2021, the
Potential areas for examination could include the following:
Marines suspended amphibious use of the ACV due to
How much more or less survivable is the ACV in its
towing mechanism problems. In November 2021, the
present configuration than an AAV when it flounders at
Marines began testing modifications to the towing
sea?
mechanism in order to resume amphibious operations once
the problem was repaired. Reportedly, in early 2022 after
How was “egress at sea” tested by BAE and the Marines
fixing the towing mechanism, the Marines began
during the ACV’s design and development? Is such
amphibious operational training with ACVs that included
testing done by simulation, or are live tests conducted
crew certification and training on a number of new safety-
under controlled conditions with actual test subjects?
related procedures.
What, if any, ACV design solutions are under
Budgetary Information
consideration to improve emergency egress at sea?
What additional personal protective equipment (PPE)
Table 1. FY2023 Navy Budget Request—ACV
solutions might be available to Marines to enhance their
Total
survivability in the event of floundering at sea?
Total Request
Request
What, if any, nonmaterial solutions, such as revised
Funding Category
($M)
(Qty)
loading or operational procedures or limitations on
RDT&E
94.6
—
numbers of embarked Marines, are under consideration?
Procurement
536.7
74
Source: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
For a more detailed historical discussion of the ACV Program,
(Comptrol er)/Chief Financial Officer, Program Acquisition Cost by
see CRS Report R42723, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat
Weapon System: United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year
Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew
2022 Budget Request, April 2022, p. 3-10.
Feickert.
Notes: RDT&E = Research, Development, Test & Evaluation: $M =
U.S. Dollars in Mil ions; Qty = FY2023 Procurement Quantities.
FY2023 ACV plans include procuring the third full-rate
Andrew Feickert, Specialist in Military Ground Forces
production lot of 74 vehicles (57 ACV-P vehicles and 17
IF11755
ACV-C vehicles) and procurement of related items.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Marine Corps’ Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV)
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11755 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED