photos via China Defense Mashup
I've been focused like a laser on Chinese naval developments, on their Marine Corps and on their new Mechanized Infantry Brigades. Which means I took my eyes off the what many foreign armies consider their rapid deployment force. The airborne.
It doesn't receive much coverage (and to be honest outside of Tanks and their supposed EFV "in ability" amphibious vehicle not much is found on the net regarding Chinese armored vehicles) and at first glance it might not seem formidable but the ZBD-03 gives the Chinese Airborne what few units have....mechanized assault capability right off the drop zone.
It sports a 30mm cannon, 7.62 coax, has a crew of 3 and carries 5 airborne troops. It is extremely light weight coming in at 8 tons. This weight class indicates that it is only proof against small arms fire and maybe shell splinters....maybe. It definitely lacks IED protection and my assumption is that its intended to go where they ain't.
Couple this vehicle with China's new air transport and all the pieces of a truly expeditionary force...land, sea and air....are coming together nicely for them.
Is the legacy of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars hurting US armored vehicle development? We're expecting IED protection in all our vehicles while our enemies are putting into service armor that is designed to arrive quickly, and defeat the enemy without becoming involved in nation building. Perhaps its time to clearly delineate between combat and nation building/peacekeeping vehicles. Our combat vehicles will be light, lethal and easily transported. Our peacekeeping vehicles will be MRAPs. That will mean that the Army will get the Stryker as it was intended and not over armored to the point where it can't climb a damn hill and the Marines will get its Marine Personnel Carrier that can get the job done without costing an arm and a leg.
I've been focused like a laser on Chinese naval developments, on their Marine Corps and on their new Mechanized Infantry Brigades. Which means I took my eyes off the what many foreign armies consider their rapid deployment force. The airborne.
It doesn't receive much coverage (and to be honest outside of Tanks and their supposed EFV "in ability" amphibious vehicle not much is found on the net regarding Chinese armored vehicles) and at first glance it might not seem formidable but the ZBD-03 gives the Chinese Airborne what few units have....mechanized assault capability right off the drop zone.
It sports a 30mm cannon, 7.62 coax, has a crew of 3 and carries 5 airborne troops. It is extremely light weight coming in at 8 tons. This weight class indicates that it is only proof against small arms fire and maybe shell splinters....maybe. It definitely lacks IED protection and my assumption is that its intended to go where they ain't.
Couple this vehicle with China's new air transport and all the pieces of a truly expeditionary force...land, sea and air....are coming together nicely for them.
Is the legacy of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars hurting US armored vehicle development? We're expecting IED protection in all our vehicles while our enemies are putting into service armor that is designed to arrive quickly, and defeat the enemy without becoming involved in nation building. Perhaps its time to clearly delineate between combat and nation building/peacekeeping vehicles. Our combat vehicles will be light, lethal and easily transported. Our peacekeeping vehicles will be MRAPs. That will mean that the Army will get the Stryker as it was intended and not over armored to the point where it can't climb a damn hill and the Marines will get its Marine Personnel Carrier that can get the job done without costing an arm and a leg.
You make a good point. IEDs take time to deploy and use but only are only effective if you are using the same roads over and over.
ReplyDeleteLandmines are becoming rarer because of the international treaty
As long as you are trying bring democracy to some primitive fucks....
I wonder if vehicle design re: IEDs takes into account the average size of the IEDs and just tries to proof vehicles against the most common ones, not the 200lb ones.
i never considered what the size of the IED we're building our vehicles to be proof against but i did suddenly realize the obvious.
Deletewe haven't been at war in Afghanistan since 2006. we've been nation building that backwards ass culture and have been paying through the nose to do it.
thats the problem. we won the war a loooong time ago. we lost the nation building because we were dealing with primitives. you can't bring 21st century sensibilities to a 19th century culture.
19th Century?! You're being gracious.
ReplyDeleteI think you are on to something. I was involved with Desert Shield/Storm and felt that that was what our military should be used for. Get in, kick ass (also known as victory) and go home.
Nation-building isn't what our military is, or should be, geared for. Acting as cops/diplomats/punching bags puts a tremendous amount of stress on our troops and in the end is counter-productive. (ie Bales, et.al) Plus, being an occupying force doesn't sit well with the psyche of the average American. It's just not who we are and I think it goes a long way to explaining a lot of PTSD coming out of Afghanistan.
I have always thought that Weinberger's rules of engagement made perfect sense for the US military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine
I think following the Weinberger Doctrine would help our allies get on board as well knowing that they aren't going to get dragged into some drawn out mission that will just end up being a money and blood black hole.
If we feel the need for nation-building (why do we feel this need anyway) we should just figure out how to send our dead presidents in a way that does the most good without getting a lot of people killed for no good reason. Perhaps a quasi-military diplomatic corps with a big checkbook. We could draft all the lobbyist that infect Capital Hill. In the end, you can't drag people kicking and screaming into the 21st century, they have to want to be there.
i like that. the Weinberger doctrine is just what we need...we'll soon here about a missile strike and then we'll see the long slow slide into Syria. if i remember correctly we still have troops on the border. the entire middle east should be declared a quarantine zone.
Delete"...Our combat vehicles will be light, lethal and easily transported..."
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, every time a war end people start to talk about how ligth and fast vehicules are better and cheaper. But when another war happen and soldiers start to die then vehicles get heavier and slower with more armor and bigger weapons. Instead of design and build fast deployable expendable "coffins with threads" like the chinese, why you americans don't just replace your Hercules with Atlas so you can send by air bigger vehicles?
because we have more C-17s at Pope AFB than Germany has A400s in service or on order. its not about a coffin on treads its about vehicles that are designed to do the job.
DeleteMRAPS are nation building trucks. nothing more or less.
"because we have more C-17s at Pope AFB than Germany has A400s in service or on order."
DeletePlease correct me if I'm wrong but I think that C-17 jet can't land in improvised airfields like the A400 turboprop. I think that it limit fast deployment near the objectives. C-17 was fine fo send reinforcements to Europe in the cold war across the Atlantic, but look inadequate for an expeditionary force transport that can operate almost everywhere.
"its not about a coffin on treads its about vehicles that are designed to do the job."
No offense mister, but can you please define what kind of job you are thinking? For example, a BMP-3 can survive the ZBD-03 30mm with the front armor but the ZBD-03 is unlikely able to survive the 30mm from the BMP-3.
"MRAPS are nation building trucks. nothing more or less."
Agree, but ask for an IFV with very little protection as a trade of for be able to fit two in a C-130 transport don't look likely to get funds unless the US congress accept the idea that american soldiers are expendable like the CCP see their own PLA soldiers. In my opinion, light armor is ok in an APC, but light armor in an IFV sounds asking for casualties.