 |
| Marines with Battalion Landing Team 3/1 work together to fit a 120mm
mortar into a tracked vehicle for the first time here June 15. The
Marines are a part of a field exercise conducted by the 11th Marine
Expeditionary Unit. |
 |
| Marines with Battalion Landing Team 3/1 work together to fit a 120mm
mortar into a tracked vehicle for the first time here June 15. The
Marines are a part of a field exercise conducted by the 11th Marine
Expeditionary Unit. |
 |
| Marines with Battalion Landing Team 3/1 work together to fit a tactical
vehicle into a tracked vehicle for the first time here June 15.The
Marines are a part of a field exercise conducted by the 11th Marine
Expeditionary Unit.
|
 |
| Marines with Battalion Landing Team 3/1 work together to fit a tactical
vehicle into a tracked vehicle for the first time here June 15. The
Marines are a part of a field exercise conducted by the 11th Marine
Expeditionary Unit. |
I had seen pics of the Marines in the Old Corps doing this with Jeeps and Howitzers and other gear when using the LVTP-5.
And if there ever was a shortcoming in the EFV design its the fact that it can't be used in a logistics role...a role that AAV/LVTPs have been performing since WW2.
So this means you can RO-RO the same things in the back of an AAV that you can in an Osprey? I didn't know that capability was there.
ReplyDeleteHello Solomon,
ReplyDeleteI agree about the logistics issue,all armoured personnel carriers should be designed to carry pallets on the floor at least.
Is it true those mortar towing Growlers cost over a million dollars each?
That vehicle illustrates my major objection to the Osprey (I know you like it),it can't carry a decent sized vehicle,unlike the big and beautiful CH53K which will probably be one of the best things the Marines have bought in a generation.
GrandLogistics.
Agree to a point....and totally agree on the price paid for the Growlers (don't know the price though---probably for the best---i've been ranting enough lately)...
ReplyDeletebut if the MV-22 is seen as part of a system then it makes perfect sense.
its designed to replace the CH-46 which (along with the UH-1N) were the slowest aircraft in the fleet. so the MV-22 is designed to act as a troop transport 90 percent of the time and only a cargo bird the other ten.
its fast, flies high and is so quick that jet fighters can comfortably escort it. in that light its a knock it out the park hit.
and as part of the system its teamed up with the CH-53K (which you're probably right about it being the best aviation purchase in a generation) then it looks better. the problem is that the CH-53E's have been a jack of all trades...they're doing as much troop transport as cargo.
the USMC wants to get them back to their specialties...troop and cargo lift respectively.
BB...
ReplyDeleteyeah i don't know if its passe' cause you don't see the AAVs being used in a logistics role very much at all anymore but if you've got to get EFSS ashore without flying it in and want it with the assault wave then this is the way you do it.
Man is that a tight fit! Really interesting to see the Marines try the Growler in other then air assets.
ReplyDeleteI do believe most vehicles came ashore in Pacific in LCVPs, LCMs and LCUs though? You know those old slow landing craft which seemed to work (if only by benefit of quantity?).
Of course IF the Marines desire to put vehicles into the ACV, the weight to speed equation goes even further into the dumpster.
Why not British PASCAT or French L-Cat aka ERA-D? Both are in production Fast Landing Craft. For that matter restart the LCU(R) program.
We can argue about survivability until the cows come home, but availability and cost will govern ANY purchase of replacements for good old AAVPs. Too few ACVs will not help get the needed numbers of Marines and gear ashore.
we didnt have cargo helicopters in ww2.
ReplyDeleteno need for a substitute LCAC thats slower and only carries a bit more.
the Brits and French have a lack of capability that they're trying to gain by using outdated, slow tech. nice to have homegrown but that homegrown better be capable.
I guess I should have added that I see a distinction between a landing craft for ASSUALTS, and lighterage for LOGISTICS. We need BOTH types and just need to get the balance right.
ReplyDeleteNot seeing a need for more LCVPs and LCMs (although other navies have some nice fast ones), but somehow the tonnage of vehicles and gear must be moved and quicker than currently done.
Don't think LCAC MkII aka SSC will ever be bought in enough numbers at $55 million each! to help with tonnage?