U.S. Marines Test GDLS and Textron ARV-30 Reconnaissance Vehicle Prototypes to Replace LAV-25.

The U.S. Marine Corps put reconnaissance Marines inside competing 30 mm Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle prototypes from General Dynamics Land Systems and Textron Systems during a June 2026 evaluation at Detroit Arsenal, testing whether either design can replace the LAV-25’s direct-fire role. The assessment focused on whether the future vehicle can combine amphibious mobility, anti-armor firepower and battlefield communications for Mobile Reconnaissance Battalions.

During the June 10-11 Marine Touch Point, crews drove, fired and assessed both vehicles, with particular attention to crew layout, fire-control systems and the remotely operated turret. Their feedback will shape the ARV-30’s baseline design before production decisions lock in the vehicle’s combat effectiveness, survivability and ease of use.

Related topic: Ukraine Approves $240 Firefly Precision Bomb Kit for Heavy Drone Strikes on Russian Fortifications.

U.S. Marines evaluate competing GDLS and Textron ARV-30 prototypes at Detroit Arsenal, testing vehicle handling, turret controls, and 30 mm firepower to shape the future reconnaissance vehicle before production (Picture source: U.S. DoW).

The evaluation follows a development sequence that began with C4/UAS prototypes delivered by Textron and GDLS in December 2022 and government testing initiated in February 2023, when the Marine Corps also examined a modified BAE Systems Amphibious Combat Vehicle. GDLS and Textron received ARV-30 prototype contracts on March 6, 2024, followed in April 2026 by a second rapid-prototyping phase covering the ARV-C4/UAS, ARV-30 and ARV-LOG variants. Each company is to build 16 pre-production vehicles, producing 32 vehicles for the competitive test program; Textron publicly valued its agreement at $450 million and said it would also provide three systems-integration laboratories and four blast-test hulls. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2028, with a production decision planned for the first quarter of fiscal year 2031. The fiscal year 2027 budget request includes $506.5 million in research and development funding for continued subsystem maturation and prototype integration.

The ARV-30’s principal weapon is the Northrop Grumman Mk44 Bushmaster II automatic cannon chambered for 30×173 mm ammunition, a substantial change from the LAV-25’s M242 cannon firing 25×137 mm rounds. The Mk44 is listed at 156 kilograms, including receiver, feeder and barrel, with an externally powered action, dual ammunition feed and selectable single-shot, burst or automatic fire at 200 rounds per minute. The cannon has 60 percent parts commonality and 90 percent operator and maintenance-training commonality with the M242, reducing the transition burden for existing LAV crews. By comparison, the LAV-25 was designed around a three-person crew, four embarked scouts, a 25 mm cannon, two 7.62 mm machine guns, approximately 62 mph road speed, and limited water mobility.

The larger cartridge matters because the ARV-30 must engage targets that increasingly include armored reconnaissance vehicles, protected firing positions, and drone-control teams operating from cover. The Mk310 programmable round leaves the muzzle at approximately 970 meters per second and can function in airburst, point-detonating, or delayed point-detonating modes. Airburst permits the gunner to place fragments above trenches, behind walls, or around defilade where impact-fuzed ammunition may be ineffective. The NG1170W armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot round is listed at 1,450 meters per second and at least 105 mm of rolled homogeneous armor penetration at 1,000 meters, although this is manufacturer data and the Marine Corps has not publicly identified its final combat ammunition mix. The requirement also includes an anti-tank guided missile, but the missile type, launcher arrangement, and carried quantity remain undisclosed.

The cannon and missile combination would allow an ARV-30 section to deal with light and medium armored vehicles using 30 mm ammunition while reserving guided missiles for heavier armor or targets beyond effective cannon range. This is tactically different from treating the vehicle as a simple LAV-25 replacement. The ARV family is also intended to carry modern command-and-control equipment, receive information from unmanned aircraft, distribute target data, and support reconnaissance units operating beyond immediate visual contact with the main force. Current plans identify six variants: C4/UAS, 30 mm, logistics, operational precision fires, counter-UAS, and recovery. The precision-fires variant is intended to support engagements to 40 kilometers and operate loitering munitions, while the counter-UAS variant is intended to provide kinetic and non-kinetic effects to about 10 kilometers.

The U.S. Marine Corps has not released several figures needed for a complete assessment, including combat weight, armor protection level, ammunition capacity, troop capacity, swim speed, sensor detection ranges and electrical power available for future mission equipment. These omissions are important because amphibious mobility creates a direct weight tradeoff among armor, weapons, fuel and payload. The Corps states that the ARV will be smaller and lighter than the ACV-30, and both competing ARV-30 designs completed open-water testing at Camp Pendleton in early 2026, but successful swimming does not by itself demonstrate acceptable performance in surf, high sea states, soft beach exits or after battle damage.

The accelerated test method is intended to expose such problems while engineers can still alter the design without reopening completed engineering work. Driver visibility, emergency egress, ammunition access, turret-screen layout, seat placement, maintenance-panel access and the ability of scouts to carry radios, batteries and unmanned aircraft are difficult to judge from drawings. Correcting them before critical design review is generally cheaper than modifying 32 pre-production vehicles or introducing changes after production tooling has been established. The June event also produced direct comparisons between the two manufacturers under the same conditions, but it does not replace reliability growth, blast, ballistic, electromagnetic compatibility, cyber, saltwater-corrosion, and operational testing.

Ukraine’s Iron Range provides a wartime example of the same feedback principle operating at a much higher tempo. During its first year, the Ukrainian service received almost 750 test applications and completed more than 550 tests, including trials under simulated radio-frequency interference; manufacturers can return repeatedly during development and receive military assessments before codification. The U.S. process is more regulated, and the ARV remains on a schedule extending to 2031, but the operational lesson is relevant: equipment requirements can change faster than a conventional acquisition cycle. Drone density, electronic-warfare conditions, signature-management requirements and counter-UAS needs have all changed rapidly in Ukraine, making early operator testing necessary to prevent the United States from fielding a technically compliant vehicle built around outdated assumptions.

For U.S. forces, the ARV could combine protected reconnaissance, 30 mm direct fire, anti-tank missiles, unmanned-system control, data distribution and shore-to-shore movement in one vehicle family. Its practical value will depend less on the cannon alone than on whether crews can detect a target, transmit usable coordinates, engage or break contact, and move before enemy drones and artillery complete their own targeting cycle. The planned touch points therefore address a central program risk: whether the ARV’s sensors, weapons, crew layout, and amphibious requirements work together under field conditions rather than merely satisfying separate technical specifications.

Explore More Defense News

• Land Defense News
• Naval Defense News
• Defense Aerospace News

Written by Evan Lerouvillois, Defense Analyst.

Evan studied International Relations, and quickly specialized in defense and security. He is particularly interested in the influence of the defense sector on global geopolitics, and analyzes how technological innovations in defense, arms export contracts, and military strategies influence the international geopolitical scene.