 |
Japan Ground Self-Defense Force officers observe a static display of assault amphibious vehicles July 12 at Camp Schwab as part of the Japan observer exchange program. “The JOEP members came here to inquire about the capabilities of the AAV platform,” said U.S. Marine Capt. John S. Kim “They want to know how the vehicles are employed and what its capabilities are in oceanic and land-based exercises.” Kim is the company commander of AAV Company, Combat Assault Battalion, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force
|
Are we missing a tremendous opportunity by delaying the development of the ACV?
The Japanese and Brazilians have already expressed interest in the AAV and would probably jump at a more modern vehicle (even if that vehicle was say the wheeled Marine Personnel Carrier certified to operate in surf conditions and capable of carrying 9 Marines). Toss in the possibility to the winning manufacturer of getting improved economies of scale with regards to sales and you have one of the biggest armored vehicle projects going in the next 5 maybe 10 years and its international to boot.
Its the F-35 program, but for an optimized Marine armored vehicle and its a true bridge to operational compatibility with allied forces. Besides Japan and Brazil, you can bet that the S. Koreans would be interested as would Taiwan, Australia (eventually), Italy (ok, maybe not they're sold on wheels and have the SuperAv), Spain and a few others that are seeking to fully develop their amphibious forces.
Remember, the fastest growing segment of warship is the amphib and armored transport for Marines is something that many lust for.
Yeah. We are missing an opportunity here.
Is there anything wrong with the German Fox amphibious armored vehicles?
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchs_(APC)
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrheinmetall-to-modernise-additional-german-fuchsfox-vehicle
They are already in our inventory as NBC recon vehicles, already combat proven by our allies, and they are amphibious (although 10 kph isn't exactly going to set any speed records).
i think the Fox would be a great vehicle. its truly amphibious, can accommodate different RWS (up to 25mm i think) and can carry 9 Marines. it would be a helluva better fit than trying to use Strykers and if the Army offered them up, i'd jump all over them if i was in charge.
Deletesidenote. read your post on rucking and was wondering. are you going to expand on your fitness program in the near future?
USAF's B-52 will be well into her 80s by the time the type gets mustered out...
ReplyDeleteOnce folks have gotten over the implausible 'romance' of placing an ARG within even old shore-defense reach (current policy is 12nm), and once folks have learned to abandon the idea of floating infantry to shore via AAVs, reason will prevail and GCE would be hauled by fast heavy and light-lift Connectors (LCU-F ? and LCAC/SSC)
Which makes retaining AAV-7 a perfectly fine solution.
And it matches fiscal austerity.
What's wrong with AAV-7 ?
Spend the money to reinvent AAVs on a fine fleet of LCU-Fs...
because getting to shore is just the start of the mission. maybe the easiest part. once ashore it has to keep pace with the M1's cross country, it needs to protect against IEDs and artillery fragments, it needs to defend against anti-tank missiles/rpgs and it needs to deliver the Marines in shape to fight. once Marines are close to the objective it needs to be able to provide fire support against enemy infantry and possibly IFVs. once the objective is secure it needs to be able to allow the infantry to mount up and do it all again...for days on end...plus it must be able to do all this in all weather conditions with possibly spotty maintenance and perform like a champ. oh did i add the need to be able to fight effectively at night, in contaminated areas? so yeah. we need a new vehicle more than we need a large ship to shore transport. how will the LCU-F not be even more vulnerable to anti-ship artillery or missiles than the vehicle i jus described????
Deleteanswer. it won't. while it sounds good, what you're talking about is a supersize, high speed LCU that has the same vulnerabilities that its world war 2 grandaddy had. why won't we face the same problems with it getting hung up on reefs and vehicles driving into water...the non-amphibious ones???
For M1 and AAV-7 JANE's lists the same range, 5 mph less for the AAV-7 which going from 25% of the M1-power to perhaps 40% would fix readily; and toss out the 1930s-era Jimmy-diesel 2-stroke relic while at it...
ReplyDeleteAn APC apparently about as armored as an MBT ?
As to the ship-to-shore task, the perspective that that "...may be the easiest part..." strains to turn a multi-decade incapacity to engage in a 'hot' landing into a modest 'glitch'. With the apparent hope to have an MBT-equivalent APC, getting neither one to shore would make neither one particularly useful to the MEU and the tax-payers.
Unless one were willing to give up on that 'amphibious stuff'...
And that's where elected and unelected civilian 'kick in' to question where such 'priorities' have led up to today, and would continue to lead, now deeper into the Age of Austerity. They are already at work shrinking the available pie-slice sizes.
While some would continue to 'simulate' their OTH-(X) landing protocols, with others discussing the (theoretical ?) value of STOM and OMFTS, others know that an integrated coherent system has to have ALL elements. MISSING LINKS in that chain render the whole effort subject to intense scrutiny in an age of cost-cutting. And a Connector like LCU-F constitutes the vital but missing link.
In contrast, AAV-7 is clearly deemed adequate by the USMC leadership (2030 !).
So, unless one gives up on amphibious capabilities from distances that would plausibly protect the ARG - and ARG Commanders have an interest in survival of body, mind and career - , LCU-F or equivalent would be highest on the list of current 'must-haves' - right next to F-35B.
the same leadership that you just praised for deciding that the AAV could serve till 2030 are the same people that have put an LCAC replacement and a LCU replacement on the back burner.
DeleteBecause the industry's offerings have been poor, with both currently not offering much of any improvement for the cost, both with perhaps a low 2-digit bump here and there.
ReplyDeleteThe LCU-competition of the early 2000s produced the same conceptual failures.
In response, LCU-F in performance and available numbers aboard the typical ARG constitutes a distinct departure from that dismal track-record - and thus deserves solid USMC support.
Are you on board ?
Will you champion the first serious solution to 'deliver' the MEU from OTH-(X) ?
perhaps. but its easy to love a powerpoint or concept. much harder to like the cold hard reality.
Deletethe USMC is facing a procurement log jam. the F-35, MV-22, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, CH-53K, and then they MIGHT get around to the AAV. at the same time the USMC is pushing the Navy to make changes to the LHD America class, pushing for an LSD replacement, pushing for MLP, pushing for next gen MPS ships, pushing for the JHSV, fighting to get Marines aboard Navy warships other than amphibs, pushing for an amphib baseline of 33 ships instead of the projected 28 and all the other progressive programs that you're such a fan of.
does that reality mesh with a LCU replacement? who is going to build it? do they have documented experience with a project this large (assuming yes)? what is the amount of risk (financially to prevent cost overruns)? has this been actually modeled? are the designers willing to let DARPA do a feasibility study on this concept (to determine if its doable)? how will this affect operations? can it be designed with out the pre-loading requirement? equipment should fit doctrine, we should not develop doctrine too fit equipment. and that's just off the top of my intoxicated head.
Not sure about that tox... Sure is hot here !
ReplyDelete1. No plausible amphibious ops without a heavy-lift higher-speed Connector with capabilities like LCU-F to carrying the GCE ashore, and preferably to multiple insertion-points.
2. With a need of between 60 and 90 units, for best political support it would follow acquisition-precedent to see them built scattered across a number of well-established yards in 'deserving' states.
3. This project is conceptually less radical than LCAC was.
4. As the co-authorship suggests, from a technical angle certain numbers of NAVSEA's 'tech-heads' have obviously looked at this - otherwise NAVSEA's Mike Bosworth likely would not have been in a position to co-sign the concept. And doctrinally/practically Mike Junge as a senior active-duty Amphibious Warfare Officer (e.g. CO of LSD-41) and Professor at the Naval Warfare College clearly thinks that this should be considered seriously in the context of his hands-on experience of having done amphibious landings and extractions with the existing Connector hardware.
5. This is way too low-tech for DARPA, in terms of 'articulation' and respective systems the equivalent of a 'de luxe' construction back-hoe.
6. She clearly is designed empty, but able to accept whatever she needs to carry up to her capacity- and volume-limits, with 200-tons load stated and deck-space comparable to LCU-1610.
Note the 55,000 gal 'field-riggable' combat-tanker option, or the Inshore Fire Support option via roll-in/slide-in MLRS/HIMARS system(s). Heck, someone fired an M-109 6" round off an LCU-1610 type. The German Navy planted their 6" 52 cal. PzHbz-2000 gun-0system on one of their modern frigates for a try...
You want 'Land-Attack' or just IFS, there are reasonably plausible options here - until she breaks.
And as stated elsewhere before and implied in the piece, MASH-equivalent is clearly conceivable, as is a SOC-ops self-deploying 'base' etc. And of course she'd serve (GCE unloaded) 'as is' as an UH/AH refueling platform until she's running on 'fumes'. Clearly a multi-purpose tool.
Pre-loading is one very vital option - if getting the GCE to the shore in one First Wave matters to the MEU and ARG Commanders. The assumption clearly was that it is.
Why not post a new thread with this Question, Solomon: "Is a MEU-GCE First Wave arriving in a dozen insertion-points desirable Expeditionary Assault Doctrine ?"
7. Equipment either enables Doctrine - or it disables Doctrine.
Doctrine without matching hardware-wherewithal is optimistic, but not credible...
Once Gen. Krulak et. al. defined OMFTS and STOM in the 90s, the challenge for a faster heavy-lift LCU-type was on (again!) officially stated by USMC-goals as a fundamental and indispensable Must-Have.
LCU-F seems the first proposal that fully respects that doctrinal aspiration. No other design here or abroad has so far done that.
Would you support this capability and thus the technical means to execute ?
Staying cool...
P.S.: On the presumed complexity/risks involved in LCU-F, unlike the 'Artist's Impression' would suggest, it seems safe to assume that the unfolding sequence would take place moving only one of the three hull-elements at a time...
You may want to consider 'sharing' LCU-F with South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, Micronesia (?) - without needing to buy LSD/LPDs - as one comparatively cheap means to enforce sovereignty through a range of mission-suites carrying whatever they already have and are good at using.
ReplyDeleteA de facto 420-tons Amphibious Corvette seems a useful tool to help restrain PLAN expansionistic visions over other countries's 200nm Exclusive Economic Zones and every rock and beach therein.
Any stabilized large-bore gun or, again, the USA/USMC MLR/HIMARS family of ammo would offer impressive options. The 24" diameter ATACMS is good for over 180 miles of range. And European allies are neck-deep into their 2nd generation of ammos matching MLRS/HIMARS.
With her apparent air-draft of just between 9 and 10 feet, not much beam either, no above-water exhaust-emissions, what would a medium or long-range ("carrier-killer") PLAN-projectile be trying to aim at ?
She clearly would have distinct limitations on use facing serious sea-conditions. But in that part of the world, weather-forecasting works pretty well, and the distances from the nearest protective base are fairly short at 19-20kts.
And there may be a LSD-41 belly around to tuck yourself into.
So, akin to use of other smaller craft in USN history, you'd not stay out in all weather - because you don't have to in moderate size China Sea waters.
I'd retain the folding geometry however for direct compatibility with USN well-decks in case of a 'Coalition of the Willing' elsewhere in the world, and for easier stacking ashore - dry, without fouling, corrosion or chafe. Any mid-size travel-lift would put her empty hull in in under 30 minutes.
So, there may be a need for more than 60-90 hulls..
Would be a refreshing Joint Amphibious Assault Craft (JAAC) project next to the Joint Strike Fighter template.
Makes APC ruminations somewhat less intriguing...
Are you in ?
I hadn't planned on blogging about my fitness program, as I think there are plenty of people doing that right now.
ReplyDeleteAlthough spending 12 hours a day in front of a computer screen (my current and forseeable staff weenie job) does give me a perspective into the fitness challenges posed by a sedentary lifestyle. Now I have to think about it.