The US military is so caught up in defeating the anti-access strategy of China that the ground forces are losing sight of what needs to be done once that access is gained.
If we're talking about a peer competitor (China) then we need to focus on developments in their ground forces. I'll find the article, but China is moving toward a smaller, more technologically advanced force. Smaller is relative, but technologically advanced is not. The PTL02 assault gun is just one example. Amphibious landings. Air Assault. Airborne Ops. They all become more difficult if they've doped out our sites and have a couple of companies of these vehicles, along with infantry waiting.
Why the sermon? Because the Marine Corps seems to be getting more and more locked into this SPMAGTF-CR concept.
The MV-22 is a sitting duck in the approach to the landing zone. It might be fast but in the end all the pilots and grunts will be doing is rushing to their deaths if we don't get beyond the idea of MV-22 transported infantry/Special Ops being able to take on mechanized forces and win.
A Javelin will open that thing up like a tin can, as will a SMAW.
ReplyDeleteIt's armor MAY be proof to a .50cal, but that is doubtful.
Vehicles like this exemplify the phrase "glass cannon"
The army tried it with the Stryker AGS, and guess what, it didn't work. It was too heavy and need loads of add-on armor to stop an RPG.
Wet dreams.
DeleteDavid, you're talking the COIN fight not a combined arms fight between two near peers with one having mechanized forces and the other with light infantry only.
Deletehow are you going to aim a javelin if you can't get your head up to shoot if because they're blasting your positions with artillery? ROCKET AND CANNON?
oh should i remind you that the Chinese and Russians both put a bigger emphasis on artillery than we do? do i need to remind you that unlike air power, artillery is available 24/7?
do i need to tell you that the problem with the Striker MGS isn't with the concept but with the autoloader that GD sold the army?
your statement on this one is wrong on so many levels its almost criminal. additionally (back to the Stryker). it wasn't too heavy for the work intended, it got pushed into a fight it wasn't designed for. the US military has dealt with mines since its beginning but no one knew that a bunch of primitives would utilize them in the manner they did. additionally the war plan (as put forward by Rummy) guaranteed that we could win the first fight but lose the peace. between a backwards culture and a fucked up war plan its amazing that the US military AND its equipment performed as good as it did.
well except for USAF air support. it was missing in action and Kiowa pilots had to let their shit hang out flying between buildings to support the guys on the ground.
why do you think the US Army is building up its attack helicopter fleet instead of shrinking it like everything else. its one of the real bright spots for the infantry.
David, we haven't met a peer competitor in combat for almost seventy years. One could argue Korea with the PRC, but that was a war of limited scope and size.
DeleteWe have been taking on guerrillas and Soviet-client states that have been plagued by bad training and logistics.
There are devices out there that scan the horizon with a laser to detect optics and if there are optics detected, it will fire a dazzling beam to blind the operator. We invented the technology back in the 90's but never deployed it because it was a violation of the international laws.
Stick such a system that on these vehicles or even just one that cues the weapons system to the direction of optics and being an ATGW operator won't be an enviable job.
Then there are active defenses that could be used to neutralize incoming warheads.
Then passive ones like smoke generators.
Then doctrine like using artillery delivered WP to cover attacks.
If you have stupid breakdowns in sound tactics and doctrine like the IDF reacting to the Egyptians breaching the Bar Lev line and sending in only armor without infantry or arty support, yeah ATGW are deadly.
But sound combined arms is what keeps armor alive.
Thankfully, the Chinese are nowhere near active defenses for armored vehicles.
DeletePlus, why would we fight China at all? Our economies couldn't take it.
Plus, the Chinese haven't fought a war since 1979, where they got slapped around by the Vietnamese. Most of their Generals and other officers got there via corruption or political patronage.
Their Army is completely untested, as is their Navy and Airforce.
A blinding laser would only blind a CCD sensor in the launch unit.