Sunday, November 04, 2012

Armored Airborne making a comeback.


via Tradoc Daily News.

Army Eyes Airdropping 'Up-gunned' Combat Vehicles for Early Entry Ops
By Sebastian Sprenger
Army officials are considering airdrops of Strykers or similar combat vehicles in austere locations as part of an initiative to boost the service's edge in expeditionary operations, according to a Training and Doctrine Command official.
The idea has yet to make it past the concept stage, Brig. Gen. William Hix, director of the concepts development directorate at TRADOC's Army Capabilities Integration Center, acknowledged in an interview. "We are doing concept development work in conjunction with 18th Airborne Corps [at Ft. Bragg, NC] to look at how we improve the punch of their forces if they have to do forcible entry operations," Hix told Inside the Army.
Options include "airlanding" -- by way of a landing zone on the ground -- or airdropping "some sort of up-gunned ground platform," Hix said. The deliberations entail discussions with the Air Force about the number of air crews qualified for airdrops, he said. A TRADOC spokesman did not provide information by press time about how many air crews now are qualified for that job, and how many there must be to make the Army's concept work.
Army concepts are used to identify capability gaps, which are turned into the requirements on which acquisition programs are ultimately based.
The idea of deploying armor to austere locations quickly, thereby achieving an element of surprise, has been an Army goal for some time. The multibillion-dollar Future Combat Systems program, canceled because of cost and a lack of immediate utility, envisioned aerial insertion of armored formations as part of its doctrinal foundation. At the time, the idea was criticized by some analysts for its potentially enormous price tag and its dependency on systems that ultimately failed to come to fruition.
Proponents of the concept point to the early days of the Iraq invasion in 2003, when Air Force and Army forces opened a northern front in that country by inserting troops and equipment with C-17s, as proof that such operations can be valuable. While no heavy combat vehicles were airdropped, the operation entailed unloading tanks from the cargo planes onto an airfield that ground troops had previously secured.
In the interview with ITA, Hix mentioned the operation as an example of what Army officials have in mind with the new concept. "These are options," he said. "We're just trying to work through how to employ them more effectively and make this more of a routine action, not an exceptional action."

A draft version of the upcoming Army Capstone Concept proposes beefing up the service's expeditionary capability, creating new formations for early entry operations. Asked for details about those new formations, Hix characterized their creation simply as the product of an "overall defense reposturing of the force" and an Army-wide reorganization of brigade combat team components.
"This is, I think, more importantly a re-emphasis on the importance of expeditionary operations, given the wider range of areas that we may be called on to respond," he said.
Bringing Armored Airborne back would be just outstanding.  Quite honestly between the US Marines and a robust Army Airborne over 90% of the small wars can be handled.  The only missing ingredient is a "real" Light Infantry Division or two.

This capability lagged once the US became entrenched in the Middle East.  Once forces became permanently assigned to the region then the need for Rapid Deployment Forces went away.  With the end of the War in Afghanistan, it appears that those same forces are being rebuilt.

IF the Army commits to developing a Armored Airborne Force, then the push to develop the Marine Expeditionary Brigade more fully will make a heck of alot more sense.  A couple of MEU's along with a Army Armored Airborne Brigade would fall under either a MEB or an Army Regiment (I believe that's the next step up from their Brigade).

One point of concern with this formation though.  If you make a max effort and drop 16 Stryker APC's in the middle of Africa...how are you going to keep them refueled and armed?  You're talking about a pretty robust air bridge.  I look forward to seeing what TRADOC and 18th Airborne Corps works out.

5 comments :

  1. The Sheridan gun/missile concept would be a lot more practical engineering problem today. And isn't airfield siezure a specialty of our Airborne forces? Need a MOB? Drop in and take it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. good to see ya back. yeah, airfield seizure is both an 82nd AND Ranger mission now. but what concerns me is resupply. i just wonder how it would work with having to supply both troops AND vehicles. they better hope the Red Horse boys are up to building airfields in remote locations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Time to revive the M8 Buford?

    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

    As for the logistical side of the equation, you've hit the nail on the head.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Thunderbolt2 upgrade for the M8 was a definite plus.

    -- 120mm gun
    -- Autoloader
    -- Improved IIR sensors
    -- Hybrid drive
    -- Space for cargo, troops, etc freed up by hybrid drive

    ReplyDelete
  5. While the US Army clearly needs some airborne armor and cancelling the M551 replacement was a short sighted budget decision it's not at all clear how they'd fit this in with the current structure?

    Consider under the old structure with a light tank battalion assigned to division that there was total flexibility in whether to assign a platoon, company, or battalion to an airborne brigade. A company could be assigned to each airborne brigade but it's not going to be needed all the time.

    I'd suggest bringing back the armored cavalry regiment and assigning an ACR(light) to the XVIII Corps. Moreover, the Army should ditch the binary brigade concept and cease having airborne "brigades" of 2 maneuver battalions. Then it can add the light tank battalion back to division where it belongs and add enough light armor to each airborne brigade for specific missions.

    A separate armored light airborne brigade under the current structure is not in my view a useful notion given it will have a single light tank battalion paired with a light mechanized battalion. Thus it will be able to field two mixed batt which is problematic. At least an ACR with 3 squadrons could have 1 able to deploy 365.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.