Since World War 2, when AAV's were first developed, what have they all had in common spec wise?
A top speed of about 8 mph in the water.
Remember all those war movies where amphibs had to make dashes into the shore to off load Marines? Its because the water speed for tracked landing craft was so low.
Only the EFV sought to bring a game change to that. Because it went over budget and because we're now reverting to basically an upgraded AAV, we're probably looking at limited water performance improvement.
Is it time to dump the swim requirement and to simply buy the best IFV available and depend on LCAC/LCU to get our vehicles ashore?
If we believe that we fight as complete combat arms teams then we'll need our logistics tail...we'll need to get our MTVR's on the beach and they don't swim or fly...we'll need to get our artillery ashore and although they can fly its not the optimum solution...in other words over half the MEU/MEB/MEF can't swim so do we need our IFV's to?
I think the answer is yes. We must maintain amphibious assault as one of the three legs of forcible entry. That means that our AAV's need to swim.
What do you think?
I think you need enough Well Decks, Helicopter Pads, Landing Craft and Helicopters to drop off an entire MEF in one wave.
ReplyDeleteSo swimming vehicles are very much a secondary concern from my point of view.
i get what you're saying but i think you would increase costs more than you realize with that strategy. right now the requirement is to get 2.5 MEBs across the beach. that's a MEF(-) and bigger than an Army division. heck if the numbers are as i remember you're talking about almost 3 divisions.
Deleteyou will always need a Amphibious assault craft. you take those away and now your hopping the LCU's and LCac's dont all get shredded in the first wave. typically a small number of lcu's and lcac's in a MEU. its the AAV's job to get the bulk of the ground forces in. plus its alot harder to take out a bunch of aav's via a few lcu's/lcac's
ReplyDeletetotally agree John but we have to ask the question and have a good answer ready because Congress will ask.
DeleteI have read an article(cant remenber where)that calls for an end to amphibious vehicles in the USMC.They should use the same vehicles as the Army and buy more LCAC/LCUs.The article also stated the the LCAC/LCUs should be armed and have a secondary mission of controlling riverine aereas...
ReplyDeleteI never bought it for the same reasons thet John stated...i think that any Marine Corps in any coutry in the world should have this capabilaty.Just look at the Chinese and the Russians.The USMC might have to intervine in even more parts of the world that these oposing forces,so more assets are needed...The upgraded AAV/ACV are needed.
P.S-Sorry for the bad english
your english is better than mine. agree on your points and i remember the article but can't find it.
DeleteYour English as well as your point of view towards the swimming of Marine vehicles is great Nuno!
DeleteJohn
ReplyDeleteWhy send unescorted landing craft?
Either LCACs or AAVs?
Send them in with helicopter gunships over head, CB90s out front and Armed/Armoured LCACs dotted in between.
If a LCAC was devoted entirely to carrying automatic 120mm mortars, thats a hell of a lot of firepower.
Sol
I just picked a random force.
But, if you ditch the amphibious tanks, its a lot of cash to pump into other platforms, to land more real tanks with the first wave.
An LCAC carrying a tank if that tank can fire accurately while embarked with out damaging it or the LCAC becomes a highly mobile armored hovercraft or a big assed target according to your train of thought.
DeleteTurn some LCAC's into well armed and armored large hovering TANGO boats able to cross beach water and other terrain.
Might work though!
SO, this CB90, is it going to sprout legs and walk onto the beach and play with the rest of the landing force when it hits the land? helicopter gunships are awsome..give you about a hour of playtime, then they have to go home. it sucks when air support leaves you and the things providing you support cant follow you all the way in.
ReplyDeletearmed/armoured lcac's...Lcac's already take up a huge amount of space (ussually can fit two in a amphib), making them armed and armoured doesnt take away their weakness in numbers. Also they dont really have that large of a carrying capacity. it still multiple trips to reach the impact a company of tracks already has. Also those tracks now have the ability to go mobile inland while the lcac has to go back.. Oh yah they also have mclck's....helps out with those pesky obstacles and mines.
they also are tracked meaning they have great ability to traverse over any terrain. they carry a crap load (current aav can carry 10000lbs of man, water, food, and ammo) and are keeping the fight going inlnand.
while the one lcac brought a tank (maybe two)...one abrams is awsome, but its still, only one. or maybe it brought 4 lav's...its still not alot.
having multiple options, to get man and machine to the beach is key. thats why we've always had air company, boat company, track company and truck company. it makes a well rounded fighting force.
ive pulled lcu's out of the mud with my aav in haiti, and seen what a small bolt can do to a LCAC, deadlining it for a week. the AAV (or its future offspring) keeps going. its old, it sucks at times, but the old thing is a maching that keeps going even when the odds are down, and best part. If it breaks they are pretty easy to fix.
that being said. i value Lcac's. Nothing like hitting the beach, dropping a few MCLCK's and pushing forward just to have the big girl dropping of a few abrams for extra firepower.
also, they arnt tanks. Their tracks, and well as the saying goes YAT-YAS.
"helicopter gunships are awsome..give you about a hour of playtime, then they have to go home."
DeleteGood Point lets not forget what happened to that mass helo attack on a fixed and fortified position full of men with AK-47's and Machine guns with RPG's
Wiki:The AH-64 took part in invasion of Iraq in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In one engagement on 24 March 2003, 31 Apaches were damaged, and one Apache was shot down and captured by Iraqi troops near Karbala. The intended attack against an armored brigade of the Iraqi Republican Guard's Medina Division was unsuccessful. The tank crews had set up a "flak trap" amongst terrain and employed their guns to good effect.
I'd say any Helo gunships attacking a fortified beach head would face this kind of ambush scenario.
I'd argue that the nation has a requirement for our military to have within it's range of capabilities forced entry from the sea and that part of this requires an armored amphibious vehicle. Frankly without forcible entry the USMC also loses a unique mission that helps to justify it's continued existence as a separate service.
ReplyDeleteThat said it's not at all clear to me that the AAV has to be an IFV. Till now it's been an APC and that seems to have worked fairly well. What the Corp is considering now is the AAV replacement being an IFV in ACV (son of EFV) while also buying a wheeled APC that cant' carry a squad.
It might be worth considering if that makes cost effective sense? How about the AAV is an APC, like it's always been, and if the Corp has a requirement for an IFV then they purchase one that doesn't necessarily have the AAV water speed and sea state requirement(s)?
Finally it's worth considering what happens without an AAV? Helicopter assault isn't always viable and at times a rapid build up ashore is required. No AAV means troops go ashore via boat, LVCP, LCM, etc. Memo: the LCVP was replaced for beach assault by the LVT(AAV) about 70 years ago.
extremely well said. i think you hit on something i never considered. why does it need to be an IFV! Marine Corps tactics dictates an APC! the Marine Corps is not really equipped to operate IFV's as doctrine indicates by US Army standards so an APC should be adequate.
DeleteAWESOME REASONING!
If you cannot swim, what happens when you come up to a river, lake or other water obstacle? Hope there are intact bridges?
ReplyDeleteNever give an enemy an easy tactical solution.
not really an issue for INFANTRY in the assault. but for mechanized forces you're going to have to bridge regardless. your fuel, beans and bullets don't swim. you can try and keep a mechanized assault going by air and we practice setting up refueling points by bladder brought in by air but that's not a real solution.
Deleteeven if sequestration gets delayed a couple of months, it will still come in some way or anther. As long as we have Dear Leader in office there will be more resources sucked out of the defense budget and allocated towards full completion of the nanny state, no way around this. All the militaries pet projects will be dramatically underfunded as priorities will be given to support existing developments (F-35, ect), but no worries because Santa Clause will make sure all the other special interest groups that were pandered to in the last 4 years get their 'fair share'.
ReplyDeleteThere is a need for Armored and armed AMTRACS even if their only job is swimming and crawling up to the high water mark or over a seawall and not as APC/IFV, they need armor and weapons heavy enough to take and hold the portal at the beachhead for follow on forces in LCAC and Mike boats to come in and exploit the hole in the door.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the LCAC and Mikes need to be up armored to the TANGO boat configuration and/Or up armor a shallow draft gunboat and send them in closer with the initial waves to cover the boats. The swim in could aided by transporting the AMTRACS in landing craft designed to planing hull or hydrofoils and drop the AMTRACS closer to the beach at speed. Perhaps a towed at sea type AMTRAC can be towed to the Line of Departure.
What ever, there is a need in Marine Corps Amphibious doctrine for a vehicle that can crawl ashore under fire and shooting back even if it cannot become an APC after it hits the beaches.