Thanks for the link Lee!
via Inside Defense.
They've been interviewed and talked about the AAV Upgrade/ACV/MPC for years now and not a damn thing has happened. Quite honestly I consider this another of Amos' trial balloons, to gauge reaction to his idea of upgrading the AAV and renaming it ACV.
The reality is simple. We have a capable MPC offering from BAE that can get the job done and will be better for the Corps in the long run. Stop playing patty cake with the Army on a JLTV we can't afford and sole source a buy of HUMVEE upgrades from Textron/Granite.
But barring all that (assuming they won't) just stop talking about upgrading Marine Corps armor.
We all know it isn't priority for this aviation centric HQMC cabal, and the gnashing of teeth over the whole thing is embarrassing.
via Inside Defense.
Air-Sea Battle Concept, Amphibious Vehicle Strategy Still In DevelopmentYa know. Sometimes, Marines need to learn to just shut the fuck up.
The Marine Corps is developing an amphibious vehicle strategy that will play a role in the Pentagon's Air-Sea Battle concept, a service official said last week.
Either a new Amphibious Combat Vehicle or an upgraded Assault Amphibious Vehicle will fit into the Air-Sea Battle concept. How each vehicle fits into that concept is to be determined, Brig. Gen. Kevin Killea, commanding general of the service's warfighting laboratory, told Inside the Navy Oct. 10 after testifying before the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee.
As the ACV team prepares options for Marine Corps senior leadership, the service is leading an effort to upgrade its legacy amphibious vehicle.
"The upgrade to the AAV is very important to the Marine Corps. It's an old system, a very good system, it's served us well but certainly ACV or some upgrade to the AAV" is needed, Killea said.
They've been interviewed and talked about the AAV Upgrade/ACV/MPC for years now and not a damn thing has happened. Quite honestly I consider this another of Amos' trial balloons, to gauge reaction to his idea of upgrading the AAV and renaming it ACV.
The reality is simple. We have a capable MPC offering from BAE that can get the job done and will be better for the Corps in the long run. Stop playing patty cake with the Army on a JLTV we can't afford and sole source a buy of HUMVEE upgrades from Textron/Granite.
But barring all that (assuming they won't) just stop talking about upgrading Marine Corps armor.
We all know it isn't priority for this aviation centric HQMC cabal, and the gnashing of teeth over the whole thing is embarrassing.
Sol, did you read the exchange of Letters to the Editor in the PROCEEDINGS on 'A Landing-Craft for the '21st-century' in September (pp.9 & 82) and then October (pp.9 & 84) ?
ReplyDeleteTo quote from the latter's last paragraph:
"For the $3billion cost of the ill-fated Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program, the complete LCU-F fleet might have been built, with funding left to upgrade the stalwart AAV-7 amphibious assault vehicle one more time. Carried ship-to-shore by LCU-F, its modest speed afloat in inland waters would serve perfectly well, while the ARG remains better protected from shore defenses by keeping it far beyond the horizon."
That seems like a plausible way within the current budgetary constraints to massively boost USMC's amphibious capabilities with LCU-F until that use suggests what the next ACV or MPC really should look like.
The problem of LCU approach is survivability. If one gets hit really bad, you pretty much can kiss the entire marine landing company goodby. It's much harder to target each individual amtrac and destroy them all. Do you want to put all your eggs in one big basket?
ReplyDeleteIt is not a question of want to but have to. The Navy will not get closer than over the horizon, plus if you think having a LCU get hit is bad what do call a hit on the LHA?
DeleteSo the USMC has no choice, we have to operate from OTH. No vehicle can be made that can travel OTH and still be a capable IFV on land. We spent over a decade and 3 billion trying to make that vehicle and it failed.
Based on spending priorities and that fact that a ICD has not even been formally issued for the ACV leads me to the conclusion that we do not prioritize the new IFV and instead are going with the vertical envelopment aspect above all else. And if that is the case than why even bother with the AAV?
totally disagree. how far over the horizon can you launch? antiship missiles now have ranges of up to 300 nmi. even if you're using vertical envelopment, you're going to be at the outer limits of our helos. the MV-22 might make it but even it is going to need gas.
Deletethis over the horizon mantra that the Marine Corps is screaming about and holding onto like a drowning man is nothing but a bad lie.
ASB has already said that its a lie and the Navy and Air Force are already planing on having to roll back enemy defenses if we need to launch an amphibious assault.
sorry stud, but your commandant wants to get HIS wing more new toys. if we're going to have an aviator as commandant then we need an infantryman as assistant. no one has the balls to tell the guy how fucked up he is.
The PROCEEDINGS proposal was based on 12 LCU-Fs and 3 LCACs per MEU ! Which would equal 15 baskets for the GCE to hit the shore in One First Wave, all the way from OTH-100 to beyond 200nm+ if it is preferable to initially stay outside the EEZ.
DeleteEach LCU-F's could run the <$2.7mill AN/MPQ-64 F1 3-D radar (75miles of range) to intercept 'outgoing' anti-ARG cruise-missiles to at least relay their presence if not take them out via the AVENGER-turret upgraded to 4x AIM-9X 'Sidewinders' for Mach 2.5 and 20+ miles of range.
Which may make this 'lowly LCU-type' one of the more promising 'force-multipliers' by delivering a GCE First Wave in one shot and help protect the 3-vessel ARG way over the horizon - all that in an era on contraction.
Nothing on wheels or tracks can do that.
Make that radar-range 40nm and 75km...
DeleteUSMC and USA have quite a few dozens of these, making this 'seagoing' application not much more than convincing USN to bolt them on top of 'their' LCU-Fs. These units already fold down nicely to 2' height on an 5'x5' footprint; we'll just strike the HMMWV and trailer off the order-sheet.
As to AH-1 and UH-1 combat-radius, we are looking at 100nm (perhaps a pinch more with less arms), meaning you'd have to carry them aboard LCU-F and then keep one or two LCU-Fs perpetually mobile near inshore as AH/UH Bingo-platforms to re-fuel, re-arm, re-crew for a few cycles before the Combat Support Element arrives.
DeleteWith one LCU-F however configured as a combat-tanker with 55,000 gals,(plus one AH/UH on her stern), that would be how many refueling sessions with AH-1 internal fuel of 300gals ?? About 180 refuelings - or tactically more usefully so, a few days of work for all of the MEU's AH and UH helos.
So, we'd keep the LHD safe at OTH-x...
For Adaptus to read that article, check it out here:
ReplyDeletehttp://hallman.nfshost.com/bolger/LCU-F.pdf