We've all been talking about the rise of China but its been mostly in the context of their air or sea power. That's a luxury the Think Tanks that are trying to lay the groundwork for Air/Sea Battle can enjoy....Not professional Soldiers or Marines.
The first thing that should be done is a comparison of equipment on a 1 for 1 basis. This is a first attempt to do just that.
Infantry Carriers.
 |
ZBD -09 8x8 Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The quick and dirty rundown? It has a 30mm cannon, a coax 7.62 and can be fitted with a 12.7mm cannon for use by the vehicle commander. It carries a crew of 3 and 7 infantrymen.
vs. |
 |
| Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle. Quick and dirty? 12.7mm machinegun on a RWS mount with a crew of 2 and 9 dismounts. |
Advantage? Slight nod to the Chinese vehicle. The 30mm cannon was the deciding factor. . You can't ignore the extra Infantrymen that the Stryker carries. You also can't ignore the massive fire support that the 30mm cannon of the Chinese vehicle either.
Mobile Gun Systems.
 |
Information is spotty when I tried my Google-foo. In a way that makes it more dangerous, not less. Its an unknown quantity.
vs. |
 |
| The Mobile Gun System IS a known quantity. Its underpowered, it sports an unusual for western armies 105mm cannon and it features an automatic loader. Its very unreliable and we'll all know the Army is serious about its Stryker Brigades when it goes for a manned turret like the CV-90/120T sports. |
Advantage? China. I am NOT a fan of what the Army did with this weapon system and hopefully they'll improve it. Until then they're at BEST looking at a slight loss. Future combat might indicate that I was being extremely generous.
Artillery
 |
Combat proven, light weight, air mobile and hard hitting. Extremely long ranged when coupled with the right shells but vulnerable to counter battery fire.
vs. |
 |
| In this configuration its shorter ranged than the US system but makes up for it by being mechanized. |
Advantage? China. Mechanized artillery is a major advantage that the Chinese would have in a force on force encounter. How the US Army failed to provide for this shortcoming in Stryker Brigades is beyond me but its a glaring mistake. It probably has more to do with operations in Afghanistan than anything else, and I'll notch this oversight as another scalp that the COIN Mafia can claim...but it need to be fixed.
Anti-Air Systems.
Advantage? Huge plus for China. I don't even know of a system in development for US forces. The USAF will keep enemies at bay? That's your daddy's USAF. The new guys will leave you hanging. If the US Army isn't prepared to deal with the reality that support will be MUCH less than they've enjoyed in the past then they aren't paying attention. Meanwhile China is working on something to kill drones AND keep Apaches from killing everything in sight. It seems they studied the Deep Strike that Apaches attempted in Iraq.
Summation. US ARMY LOSES. As things stand right now, it looks like a Stryker Brigade could be facing a mismatch when up against a Chinese Mech unit. The years of fighting a COIN war have really taken a toll. In a perfect world I'd like to see the Stryker Brigade bite the bullet and integrate at least a company or two of Tanks...see some type of mobile air defense added and definitely a Stryker based artillery system added.
+self-propelled+air+defense+system+(SPAD)+Self-propelled+anti-aircraft+weapon+spag+ciws+pla+army+plaaf+pakistan+export+(2).jpg)
+self-propelled+air+defense+system+(SPAD)+Self-propelled+anti-aircraft+weapon+spag+ciws+pla+army+plaaf+pakistan+export+(1).gif)
+self-propelled+air+defense+system+(SPAD)+Self-propelled+anti-aircraft+weapon+spag+ciws+pla+army+plaaf+pakistan+export+(2).jpg)
We know literally nothing about the reliability and combat effectiveness of any of these chinese vehicles, let alone their guns. Its also interesting to point out the struggles China has had with fielding a reliable 30mm cannon, they first tried to build their own but then ended up with a clone of the old bushmaster - now they are trying to put that same weapon in their battle chopper (a bit front heavy, know?) - yikes.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, there would be a better chance of a simultaneous alien invasion and zombie apocalypse then these two forces meeting in battle.
i'm always amazed that people really believe that combat between the US and China is outside the realm of possibilities. its beyond obvious that the Chinese think its a possibility. if you study their military then you'll see that its being tailored to either match or exceed our own capabilities. additionally they're still pressing claims in the Pacific and have threatened or acted in a hostile way toward our allies.
Deletelast you can't say any of the above in regards to their weapon systems. i've been tracking them for awhile now and i haven't read any of what you claim.
FURTHERMORE.....we'll either fight them or fight their stuff. So THIS ELEMENTARY ANALYSIS MAKES SENSE!
There is only one place in Asia where the US Army may engage the PLA face to face; in North Korea during the regime collapse. And while it is true that the US Army has falled behind over the past decade due to endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the other element in that equation, the ROK army which may become the largest and most powerful standing army of the free world after the US army size reduction is compleyed has grown vastly in strength enough to more than make up for the shortfall in the US army strength in any future ground war involving the PLA.
DeleteAll the other conflict zones in Asia, including Senkaku, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia, are AirSea battles, thus the US needs to concentrate only on rebuilding the naval and air power. There is no pointing in sending ground troops to Taiwan once the PLA troops make a successful landing because the war is then over like the fall of the South Vietnam 1975
hmmm. i don't think i'm being understood here.
Deletethe Stryker Brigade is the most ill concieved fighting formation the US Army has. comparing a Armor Brigade to its Chinese counterpart and the US Army is both in quantity and quality.
additionally they're able to stand and fight outnumbered.
the Stryker Brigade as its been developed is too heavy to get anywhere quickly and too light to win once it gets there.
thats' the point. they need to upgun the Stryker. they need to develop some type of mechanized artillery to in these formations...they need to develop a Stryker based anti-air system...they can do it better but as things stand now, its in trouble.
additionally the Chinese aren't playing things too smart either.
if you look at how they're developing their forces, they're negating every advantage they have in an effort to duplicate our forces. its really silly on thier part but that alone will keep us competititive.
last but not least you made the comparison to Vietnam.
My point is that there is little role for the US Army to play in regional conflicts and that the US Navy and the US Air Force are primary combatants in hypothetical war against China, so the US Army being poorly equipped is not that important.
DeleteIn reality, China dose not has the C-5 equivalent or the equivalent of the Military Sealift command. So China is nowhere near us and we can reach anywhere in the world, globally.
ReplyDeletethey're working on a large cargo plane and building large ships is nothing for them. besides. they're mostly worried about regional superiority. they have it. next is global.
DeleteThey dont care about invading Chile
DeleteThey do care about leap frogging to Australia.
The Stryker Brigade dates back to the Kosovo disaster and Gen. Shinseki deciding we needed deployable units that had the right size and equipment for Operations Other Than War (remember OOTW?). It was supposed to be deployable via a C130 (we all know that failed as the Strykers were too heavy and tall) and be able to deploy to a Kosovo/Bosnia/Haiti situation. It was not intended to deploy and take on a near peer enemy. The Stryker is pathetically suited for mechanized warfare since it is underarmed and under-armored. The reason it only has a M2HB is it was supposed to take on guys with AKs, not IFVs. There is no way a SBCT could be effective in southern Lebanon or North Korea. It isn't even effective against guerrillas since it is vulnerable to IEDs. It is at best a wheeled APC for peace-keeping/stability ops, not warfare.
ReplyDeleteThe Stryker BCTs should be stripped of current Strykers or have them upgunned to turreted 30mm with better armor. If they aren't upgraded, put them in storage with the MRAPs so they could be deployed for stability/peacekeeping and look for another OTS wheeled IFV like Patria AMV, Boxer or VBCI. In fact there is plenty of overlap between this requirement and the USMC MPC to buy the same platform and equip it differently.
And dump the AGS altogether. It doesn't work. Have the Army buy Hagglunds/BAe CV90-120 for an AGS and CV90 for GCV and AMPV.
Hmm... I don't like to repeat myself, but in my humble opinion if some people think that the US need fully mechanized airborne brigades, then get bigger transports like the Atlas able to operate in improvised airfields. The 20 tons ceiling of the Hercules make transport mechanized troops an experiment of compromises of mobility, protection or firepower, like the French AMX-10 RC tank destroyer and the CAESAR self-propelled howitzer.
ReplyDeletethe idea that you're going to land the A-400 on unpaved landing strips is a lie. they won't do it. they barely do it with the Hercules and they damn sure won't land the A-400 on unpaved strips carrying anything more than a tissue box.
Deletereality is a bitch and the bitch ain't buying what Airbus is selling with the A-400.
Well, if what you say is correct then the your idea require convince the US congress about the urgent and critical need of design and build a family of light armoured vehicles that can fit in a C-130 but only can deal with third world countries armed with obsolete cold war weapons or equivalent chinese air transported light armoured forces in a time of defense budgets cuts. I agree that it can be nice for world peace if the US have fully mechanized airborne brigades, the problem is there is no much money. So I think that it can be good for your argument if you can elaborate why this have a high priority when american people seems to be against US military interventions? Like for example: "If we want to secure WMDs from Syria or Pakistan before they fall in the hands of terrorists fully mechanized airborne brigades will be critical in such operation.". When you imply fighting the chinese on land I think that you may get the opposite effect of what you want.
DeleteI really can't stress it enough that our troops deserve much better than the Stryker.
ReplyDeleteWhen push comes to shove we are probably not going to see deployment of large armies by planes (which can be seen hundreds of kilometers away and cost as much as whole ships) but rather by sea. Air deployment is fast but it is very expensive and has a low throughput compared to ship based deployment. Any great power worth its salt could stop such deployments with LR BVR missiles like meteor. And when these air deployable systems arrive they are too poorly equipped to win.
ReplyDeleteI deployed as a Stryker Anti Tank PL in 2009 to Diyala, Iraq. Having rolled around in MRAPs, I'll still pick a Stryker first for an actual fighting vehicle.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Stryker is useless because it is vulnerable to IEDs as Paralus states is idiotic, even MRAPS and Abrams are vulnerable to IEDs. If your bomb doesn't work, you didn't factor in enough "P Factor" (P is for Plenty).
Solomon, you can get a Stryker BDE into position faster than you can get an Armor Brigade into position. It doesn't have the offensive punch, but is good for getting lots of boots on the ground, boots that are armed with Javelin anti armor missiles. As far as the ADA aspect goes, there is no IBCT, SBCT, or ABCT in the Army that has organic ADA anymore. So unless you are implying the the Army is useless as a fighting force because our Units Of Action don't have organic ADA, I don't know what the point is. We have seperate ADA units, and they exist to be farmed out to Combatant Commanders as needed. Remember we fight a combined arms fight, so between EAC ADA assets and USAF CAS we normally don't have to worry about enemy aircraft. If we do have to worry about enemy aircraft, it means the Air Force failed, and we ran out of missiles.
Stryker Brigades move faster than either IBCTs or ABCTs and get there with more firepower than an IBCT but less than an ABCT. This is how a single SBCT could serve as Corps QRF for all of Iraq.
Now, the worst possible way to judge who wins a fight is on a system per system basis. This goes back to the "insurgents can never win a war" fallacy because they can never match a government on a system per system basis. You need to look at more than the systems as individuals, more importantly you need to look at the capabilities, training, and support for those systems. Do the Chinese versions have GPS guidance and digitally integrated secure comms which they are proficient in using? Remember the Taiwanese F-86s kicking ass over Red Chinese Migs, even though the Migs were better planes on paper. http://www.av8rtc.com/warbirdgallery/f86dsabre.htm
And if you want a land system example, the Tiger Tank was better than the Sherman Tank. So what? We won anyways. Remember, it isn't about having the absolute best weapon. It is always about having the right mix of capabilities and a crafty commander who can make the most of what he's got to work with.
on this one i'm gonna disagree.
Deletea few things....
* totally agree with you on the air defense issue, but i was being forward looking without saying so and even having said that i was not clear even with that caveat. what i should have said is that we don't have a mobile air defense system that can provide local protection against threat...the Patriot is fabulous but its more a theater asset i consider it a disadvantage not to have ADA in the pocket of the Brigade Commander.
* you didn't address the issue with artillery. i'll take that for a win.
* i'm not looking for MRAP type protection. i'm a firm believer in the going where they aren't crowd. but the Stryker desperately needs to get a larger gun on it.
* Javelin. awesome piece of kit but a 30mm cannon is going to outrange it. assuming that the Chinese are as good as we are then we're looking at infantry supporting their armor and hunting our anti-tank teams.
* doing a weapon system vs. weapon system analysis is how we determined what was needed to fight the Germans and Soviet Union. i don't think we need to change with the Chinese. you can point to the German Tiger as a talking point but we massively outnumbered them, they were fighting on two fronts and that vehicle was VERY far from being automotively reliable. its a bad example. the F-86 is also a poor example. everything i've read and i'll read your link later, states that the airplanes were evenly matched and the quality of pilots made the difference.
i think that many took this as being a condemnation of the Stryker Brigade. it wasn't. in reality through my critique i'm lining up an argument that the Army and the Stryker need increased funding to make them competitive in the future fight.
you can't say that if its perfect as is.
Well good luck fighting numerically superior enemies using inferior hardware with lower engagement ranges, lower firepower. lower survivability, and lower manouverability (no swim capacity), lacking the CAS the force structure was composed around and the air supremacy the Army depends on. Also good luck pitting infantry against tanks, the chinese have artillery to support their tanks for a reason, they will saturate such deployments with artillery fire. Infact the russians have a vehicle (terminator) for tank support that has 3 independent gunners/guns.
DeleteUnless you are in an urban area I doubt infantry would be much use against tanks (especially on plains, which the iraqis tried in operation desert storm btw...). An in an urban area I would just cut it off and starve them all out, or maybe go in demolish it block by block.
Not to mention ADS largely negates the effectiveness off ATGMs like Javelin. Improvements in technology and systems could schedule automatic retaliatory and preventative firemissions (with AA guns). Maybe in the future mechanized forces in urban areas will operate with armed quadrotor support launched from drone carriers.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU
* you didn't address the issue with artillery. i'll take that for a win.
ReplyDeleteTake it for a win, you are spot on in the analysis that the M777 is a compromise system for an SBCT, but it is a pretty good compromise when you look at how we fight with an SBCT. The SBCT isn't designed to have the punch of an ABCT with their 109's so the Army won't bother creating a Stryker specific 155 platform. Stryker Infantry Company has dedicated IDF support from 120mm mortars that have digital integrated fire control systems. They give up some range and punch compared to 155 cannons, but they roll with and support the dismounts. You have more 120mm mortars in a Stryker Battalion than you do in an entire IBCT, and you have 3 Stryker BN's in each SBCT. That is a lot of support at the Brigade level all of it controlled by BN and CO commanders. The M777's are controlled by the BDE CDR and they are the fastest of all towed artillery to get into the fight because of the integrated digitization. If 120s can't handle it, an M777 is going to be only slightly slower than an M109, but with a much lighter logistics cost and airmobile capability.
As far as the Stryker getting a larger gun, that's in the works, however having a larger gun won't change the fact that the Stryker is an Infantry carrier not meant to slug it out against enemy armor. But, just in case they do every Stryker Battalion also has ATGM TOW variants. They can range by doctrine 3750 meters, which outranges the official 2,500 meters of a Russian 30mm BMP-2 cannon. We want the 30mm gun on Strykers not to kill enemy vehicles, but to support the dismounts, especially in built up urban areas where thick concrete soaks up 50 cal.
Doctrinally Strykers are meant to put boots on the ground, the support them with a heavy machine gun. A "Combined Arms Team" mix of Abrams and Strykers worked very well in Iraq, giving the punch of an ABCT with the dismount capabilities of an SBCT. Really an SBCT is an IBCT put into a fast delivery system. Otherwise we would just go back to having legs and treadheads with no intermediate capability.
Jacobite.NZ, If you want to kill an enemy tank, do you need a superior tank? No, you need a tank killer. That could be missiles, artillery, or my favorite answer, a helicopter or airplane. Fighting tank for tank is the pipe dream of Armor officers trying to relive WWII. An Apache and an Abrams cost roughly the same to buy, but one has a bigger combat radius, can laze targets for other aircraft or artillery, and one can fly over obstacles that would bog down the other. Fight ground system to ground system only when you have to.
Secondly. As far as your critique of missile systems, what ADS are you talking about? I know of no vehicle mounted active denial system that would shoot down an incoming missile the way a C-RAM or AEGIS system would, especially not in direct fire mode for a TOW which is often below RADAR horizon. Maybe you should brush up on how Javelines and TOW-2A and TOW-2B missiles actually work.
And lastly, the Iraqi's tried to put fixed fortifications in the desert. As Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete