The 80's and the 90's was a golden time in Marine Corps leadership.
In succession we had General PX Kelly, General Gray, General Mundy, General Krulak, and General Jones.
These men assembled the equipment, developed the doctrine and re-established a warfighting ethos that serves us even today.
One of those pieces of equipment is the LAV-25.
In the early 1980's the Marine Corps is concerned about a conflict in the Middle East. Not the small wars that we've been fighting but a major mechanized effort possibly involving the Soviet Union. General Kelly was concerned that the Marine Corps would be at a severe disadvantage against a highly mechanized force and would not be able to maneuver against such an opponent because so many Marine Infantry Units were foot mobile, at best truck transported.
The LAV-25 was suppose to fill that gap by providing a degree of mobility to the Marine Corps...hence the name of the first units equipped with the LAV-25--- Light Armored Infantry Battalions.
The vehicle was armed with a 25mm gun in a turret that provided a overmatch capability against the threat vehicle at the time most likely to be encountered...the BMP.
The choice to mount a turret on the vehicle with a large cannon proved to change the entire concept of the vehicles employment.
IF the Marine Corps had chosen to equip the majority of the vehicles in the Light Armored Infantry Battalions with 50 caliber machineguns instead...say a ratio of 3 machine gun equipped LAV's for every 4 vehicles...then the Light Armored Infantry Battalions would have worked. You would have been able to field Infantry Battalions that were mobile AND capable of conducting operations independently...consider it akin to the Army's Stryker Brigades but on a lighter scale (in essence the Marine Corps developed a pure Stryker Brigade Concept almost two decades before the Army tried to cobble parts to equal an MEU).
Instead we have an ultra light unit that operates somewhat like a Calvary unit but inside the sphere of the Marine Regiment (or Division) and not able to operate at speed because its tied to Infantry that is either truck or AAV mounted in a mechanized attack.
If the Marine Corps is again faced with a long range attack against a formidable foe then a repeat of the invasion of Iraq will again happen. The Army will be in the lead, Marine units be pushed hard to keep up and Commanders will again face the drama of pushing men beyond exhaustion or to disagree and risk being replaced (In my opinion this is the one REAL mistake that Mattis ever made...he relieved a Commander for taking care of his troops in the attack...Google it I won't debate the issue)
The invasion of Iraq (Gulf War 2 for the kiddies) highlighted two serious problems with Marine Corps armor. First the AAV was woefully inadequate and only BARELY able to do the job of being an APC. Second, the LAV-25 was wonderful as a Calvary vehicle but the Marine Corps is able to gather information from other higher speed sources..most notably Marine Air...add UAV's to the mix and only someone asleep at the wheel would need to conduct recon by fire.
The Marine Corps is in a pickle. One of three options are on the table. Either develop an Amphibious Combat Vehicle, upgrade the AAV and/or buy the Marine Personnel Carrier.
 |
| MTVR. The Corps true APC. |
The MTVR was pushed into that role and quite honestly it has been the workhorse for the Ground Combat Element but it needs to fulfill its original requirements, not serve as an adhoc APC.
I seriously question whether the AAV can be upgraded enough to make it survivable on a modern battlefield. I also question (unfortunately) whether the Amphibious Combat Vehicle will survive the coming budget mess.
That leaves the Marine Personnel Carrier. The vehicles are ready now. The Marine Corps should select the vehicle can that provide the best performance possible...not for river crossing but as a true APC. If we continue to rehab AAV's while waiting on the ACV then we can still fulfill the forcible entry role. The problem for the Infantry is that once they're feet dry they're foot mobile. The AAV's go off to AAV land and they're rarely seen again.
Infantry are either walking or riding into battle in the back of a 7 ton truck.
That just won't do.
Upgrading the AAV is the worst thing they could possibly do. Its too vulnerable to enemy fire. Marines need ACV, that's priority number one. Number two, its either buy MPC and don't buy JLTV, or upgrade lav-25 and buy jltv. They will have to cancell at least one thing to save money. I would go with ACV, turretless lav 25 upgrade to add troops, and keep jltv for transport/patrols. You save money while becoming more effective, that's the way it is now with the budget.
ReplyDeleteYes! I been saying this shot for years. I was a 0311 then became a 0331 when I was assigned to a FAV(m151 mutts) section in my company. I always found it ridiculous that command talked about having to hump 12 miles to contact. With as much shit as we carried in the late 1990's I can't even think of it now with marines carrying more armor and gear.
ReplyDeleteBesides that you make a big fat juicy target for a tank or IFV section. I always said we're the most advanced military and the best shit we have are Helos from Vietnam ch46's, tracks just as old and fucking 5 ton trucks.
China has shitloads of BMP clones and new AAV's. seems maybee we need to outsource our upper command or make it mandatory that all commandants would have to serve a tour as an Infantry battalion CO.
I think MPC needs to Swim maybee not as a fast hydroplane as the AAAV. But decent enough to get to shore on its on and leave LCACs for Tanks, Arty and other crap too heavy to swim. I think AAV's need some punch added unless they plan on only storming Shanty Towns and treelines. Ditch the lame turret in some of them and give them something with a punch. Couldn't you rig a system like they use for tows in the Bradley's?
ReplyDeletedamn dude! you keep messing up my stuff! i was just going to get to the idea of going back to the AMTANK concept and have every AAV platoon have two of the vehicles! same with the MPC. we don't need a heavy machinegun (example...25mm cannon) we need a light main gun (example ...90mm gun) for direct fire for the infantry!
Deletewe're on the same wave length though. love it.
I was under the impression that the LAV-25s in the Light Armored Recon units were considered a success.
ReplyDeleteRelying solely on UAVs and aviation to do recon is a bad idea, IMHO. Recent conflicts have reinforced the value of ground Cav/RSTA units. The LAV-25 is great for this. It's more appropriate than the HMMWVs and Brads used by the Army, IMHO. It can actually fight for information, to a limited degree, unlike the HMMWV. But is smaller, lighter, quieter and less logistics intensive than a Brad.
Just forget about ACV and MPC, neither one is going to happen! Not under current fiscal reality. Marine should focus on the programs most likely to survive the budget axe. For ground vehicles, it’s the JLTV. Just counting numbers alone, JLTV dwarfs both ACV and MPC. If a young marine is going to hitch a ride into battlefield in the future, the chances are he will be inside a protected tactical vehicle instead of a fully armored combat vehicle.
ReplyDeleteCut AAV fleet by half, the remaining half gets a limited SLEP to ensure their combat readiness (a band-aid solution yes but what else can you do). Cancel ACV and MPC outright and channel the savings into other vital programs. You can have an 80% solution MPC by purchasing more LAV-A2 with gun turret removed. The original LAV variants receive some updates to extend their useful service life (maybe an up-gunned LAV-30?). I am afraid even this very modest proposal won’t have chance to be realized in today’s austerity environment.
Regarding LAV as a recon asset, the days of actionable recon are over. At least this is the new way of thinking according to US military doctrine. Ground scout’s job is now reduced to intel/info gathering, no need to fight back.
the JLTV is simply a bone being tossed to the Army to keep the program on track ... quite honestly i expect it to die before the ACV. the real issue is the ACV. are we going to get a clean sheet design that is a true advance over the AAV? if not will new build AAV's modernized be a cheaper solution? if new built AAV are cheaper will we be able to procure enough of them to replace the current fleet on a one for one basis or will we still need the MPC? if not then does it make sense to cancel that program and buy MORE MPC's? those are the questions that need to be asked.
DeleteI did some researches on my own. Both LAV-25 and Canadian AVGP series are based off Gen I Mowag Piranha chassis. It is capable of carrying 3 men crew plus a fully equipped infantry section (8 men team). MPC design requirement calls for 2 men crew with half of a reinforced rifle squad (17 marines). Here we go.
ReplyDeletethe MPC is to carry 9 Marines.
Deleteadaptus primus said, "Regarding LAV as a recon asset, the days of actionable recon are over. At least this is the new way of thinking according to US military doctrine. Ground scout’s job is now reduced to intel/info gathering, no need to fight back. "
ReplyDeleteThat's what the Transformationalist would like us to believe, but most combat in OIF started from movements to contact. Pure, clandestine scouting couldn't keep pace with the rate of advance. HMMWV-based scouts were often pulled back out of fears over survivability, or augmented to be able to fight for information (combined HMMWV/Brad Cav units).
fighting for info is rather passe'...even the Army is moving away from that model with its Stryker Brigade concept. you're seeing even them relying more on UAV's for info and the Aviation Brigade to provide flank security.
DeleteUnfortunately, if judging by recent conflicts, it's more the norm than passé. UAVs and air just can't find every target (or even most), especially in complex environments and against non-traditional enemies. You may not know they are bad guys until they start shooting.
DeleteThe Army lurches back and forth between more and less robust Cav/Scout units. They (fairly recently) went from heavy Cav units with tanks, to all HMMWV scouts, and then to a combo of HMMWVs and M3s. IMHO, that trend will continue. And then there's the question of if your scouts also perform economy of force missions too? (a traditional cavalry mission)
This study is pretty hefty, but details the evolution of Army recon and Cav units through OIF,
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/cameron_fight.pdf
It's a good read, IMHO.
Smaller, lighter and carry less Marines I'm talking fire team of 6 or 4 in an Amtrac that is soccer mom van size, or smaller perhaps Volvo station wagon size! Just 1 crew a driver, weapons station is mixed every other amtrac has a grenade launcher with every other one mounting an MG 7.62 or .50 BMG manned by the Fireteam leader and locate himself on the outside terrain/sea Drop all capability except swimming and crawling up to and not much farther than high water mark.
ReplyDeleteTracked with continuous rubber and metal like the old half track and M-113 using a smaller engine and jet swim drive.
Land the APC, IFV OR STRIKER/LAV-25 after on LCAC.
You could land rifle Bn to secure the beach then smash in with boat landed vehicles and armor to exit the beachhead and expand or race off to the mission assigned.
Build the AAV 7/LPTV 7 but make it smaller and only used as a single purpose armored amphibious insertion vehicle.
Armored amphibious hover craft that are smaller using the same size fireteams.
The landing force could insert and go much deeper than the high water mark.
My experience is limited to that of an L/Cpl during the 70's so I'm not sure how feasible this view of mine is.
If the Amtrac gets to big, heavy and is just a multipurpose platform it will not be able to do any one job well. Swimming, and climbing the insertion point takes a different vehicle than an APC or IFV like wise designing for just the troop carrying role plus fighting or providing fire support takes away from the best Amphib. characteristics needed.
The vehicle currently desired is OTH delivery, the ability to travel afloat at Ski boat speeds, climb any beach, sand slope or rocky coastline, fight as a light tank, able to fire weapons capable of taking out bunkers, redoubts and possibly tanks. It must also be able to keep up with M-1 Abrams tanks.
Will the vehicle be able to sling load from a chopper?
Will current Landing ships be able to store many of these craft?
Air Transportable by C-17 or C-130?
Perhaps the AAA? should be a semi submersible?
Until these wonder weapons come on line the AAV-7 up graded and modernized will have to do. It;s the Marine Corps way! OOHRaaaa.
i read an article on Defense Tech from 2010 that basically said the same thing about just having the AAV replacement concentrate on the swimming part ... in short it called just like you are to go back to the LVT type concept of Korea and WWII.
Deletei think the problem is what happens when you get in shore. everyone is afraid that we still don't have a Stryker or Bradley equivalent and you can bet that everyone is already getting vehicles that far outclass the AAV. think about the German Puma, Bae Alligator, CV90, Stryker, Boxer, Warrior, Pandur, LAVIII, LAV IV, LAV V, AMV, Rooikat...the list goes on and we haven't even gotten to enemy vehicles yet.
lets face it. the Marine Corps is operating a 1970's era vehicle and might still be operating it in the year 2020.
With the proliferation of highly accurate and lethal modern anti-armor missile, a bigger vehicle simply means more probability of getting hit and destroyed. The survivability maybe hinges on smaller signature. Dismounted troops or 4x4 tactical vehicles may offer superior protection versus big fat sitting ducks. One ACV carries 17 marines, one MPC carries half of that number. The enemy stores one direct hit, all are toasted. Is that a good strategy?
ReplyDeletewell from what little reading i've done, it seems that anti-tank missiles aren't as big a threat as they once were. they're slow, and can be defeated by a number of different techniques/tech. additionally larger IFV's is the trend when it comes to armored vehicles...it even applies to the JLTV. remember the JLTV is a humvee replacement and its larger than that vehicle. fighting dismounted slows your attack too much and a slow attack is a bloody attack. speed was the key to success in Gulf War 1 and 2. that means motorized combat. and quite honestly its always been that way. investments in trophy and other anti-missile systems is the future. improving armor to protect against mines is the other key. the iron triangle must be maintained.
DeleteIf you go small 4x4, can you afford the large increase in vehicle square plus the cost of additional drivers, gunners, maintenance, and so on?
Deleteding ding ding. you just hit on the real issue with smaller more numerous vehicles. you double maybe triple maintenance costs. and that's what is probably going to push an AAV upgrade and MPC (i hope) solution through.
DeleteWhat happens if you hit a ied with 17 marines in it. What hell that would be. Active protection systems wont save you from ieds. Its hard to protect a large vehicle because you have to distribute armor packages over a larger area. If ACV can carry a 13 man squad of Marines that should be good. Maybe have a JLTV behind it to carry the extra 4 marines for a reinforced rifle squad?
DeleteI love how everyone is caught on this IED. Like we plan on only fighting Al-Queda for the rest of eternity. I remember when I was a boot we went to a speech by then Commandant Gen Krulak who told us as small unit leaders and jr marines. To learn from the past but don't get stuck Figthing the last war when you should be training for the next one.
ReplyDeleteMobility is the key to maneuver warfare. Humvee2 is not necessary the key to to the future Marine campaign. We are cut and getting more boat spaces cut. We are going to be expected to fight inland no matter what. America isn't going to put up with bullshit like "sorry our Disco Tracks can't fight their way into a jungle gym now days"
We need to get grunts able to go anywhere in the battle field fast and with reasonable protection. AT missile will fuck up any APC that's a given unless we her that Israely APC/ Tank protection system it's just going to happend. But we should be able to be able to take Light and Medium arms fire without so much as an afterthought.
Our AAV needs Gun. A real gun something that will fuck up fortifications and take out APC's tactical vehicles and
I agree on the IED issue. I think this notion that now every vehicle has to have near MRAP level protection is misguided. We will still need relatively inexpensive, light tactical vehicles (e.g. HMMWVs), even unarmored ones. JLTV is NOT light and is not inexpensive.
DeleteOn the gun topic, maybe the Russians are going in the right direction with the BMP-3 armament. The 100mm/30mm system may be more complex, and the 100mm ATGM isn't going to scare a modern MBT frontally, but perhaps the combo is more useful for the majority of targets faced by infantry.
I started thinking about a westernized version of this armament. There are a few different HE tossers we could use, including the 90mm Cockerill Mk3/8, 120mm mortar turrets, or the old, low-pressure British 76mm. However, perhaps the best for the job might be a ~22-caliber (think M101) 105mm howitzer firing standard, semi-fixed ammo.
This round is already in service with the US and has been for decades. It's fired from a rifled barrel, in theory producing much better direct fire accuracy than a smoothbore 120mm mortar, and it is a similar (if a bit longer) size to the Russian 100mm 2A70 round. It should be straight-forward to adapt an existing 105mm ATGM like LAHAT or Falarick. Perhaps a 105mm howitzer variant of the IMI APAM round could be developed too, or a modern 105mm HEAT round.
Pairing it with a standard Bushmaster 30mm and an MG would round out the armament suite.
Preferably, the turret would take more care in protecting munitions from catastrophic explosions than the BMP-3 turret, either by moving them to an armored bustle rack, or enclosing individual rounds in protective containers.
Charge 7 105mm HE rounds out of a 22-cal barrel will have a flatter trajectory (~470m/s) than even the most recent 100mm HE round, aiding accuracy.
Yes, I know, it will never be built. We have a hard enough time fielding anything these days. Just a thought.