Just an quick update and clarification on the video I posted earlier. A little birdy tells me that the SuperAv was COMBAT loaded and had remote weapon station ballast on the top of the vehicle when you saw it enter the surf.
Shas raised the issue of it not being able to perform like it did in the video while decked out. Shas was wrong (nothing wrong with that...we all are at one time or another).
The burning issue for the Marine Corps is simple.
Should we consider replacing tracks with wheels for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle requirement? Should we get what is available now, label it interim and wait for tech to develop to the "EFV but affordable" standard later?
NOTE: Watch the video again. Take a good look at the surf thats the vehicle is going thru. BAE has a tremendous amount of confidence and guts to take a vehicle out in those conditions. A failure would have been catastrophic. Consider this also...AAVs have sunk in calmer conditions.
Just one (of many) concerns on the wheels vs. tracks debate for Amphibious Combat vehicle - how soft of the beaches in the pacific? I seem to remember watching a documentary on the DUKW that it was one of the only vehicles to get up some beaches on fully deflated tires - but it only weighed 7t. Now a 20+ t vehicle on wheels or tracks is going to limit amphibious options.
ReplyDeletesand isn't an issue for these vehicles. its been demonstrated that the approximately 15+ ton LAV-25A2 has no problem. the issue from WW2 was the coral reef. additionally my proposal is to simply follow the original game plan but in reverse. buy the MPC now. update the AAV. if the tech improves (which it most certainly will) then we build an affordable ACV....just later in the que.
Deletelet me add one other thing. the mobility issue between wheels and tracks is reaching a point of being overblown. ANY vehicle can get stuck. i've seen M1 Abrams bogged down and needing recovery so with modern vehicles we can toss those concerns aside.
DeleteAgreed, it's not wheels vs tracks, but ground pressure and how the pressure is applied. Also terrain - some places only hovercraft will do.
DeleteCan't find pic of the DUKW passing stranded vehicles on the beach, but did come across this picture of one surfing into the beach.
http://www.surfresearch.com.au/awaveheight_bascom5.jpg
Any vids / pics of the SuperAv returning back through the surf?
Hmmm... full Combat and with ballast, still don't know how much is that. For the remote weapon station, probably Protector with 12.7 mm that is some... 180 kg, full combat load of AAV is almost 30 tons. But AAV have much heavier power package, armor is irrelevant because it got just a paper thin one. Then how much will SuperAv carry ? it's big, very big... as mu friend joke it's a HAVw A6 Juggernaut of modern days, maybe it must to be that big to pack inside not only a proper armor protection but also displacement packs. More or less, some 26 tons ?
ReplyDeleteIf they pack everything in 26 tons and it can still swim, and not that bad as in vid then, well bravo BAE. I was wrong, but I'm also happy to see some serious R&D work that maybe will serve Corps in next years.
But, still... I'm afraid that will be another taxi without any serious punch. I will wait for BAE to show some final weapon configuration and pray to the Deus Mechanicus that Marines will not end again with MG's as primary weapons for personal carriers.
weapons fit isn't up to BAE. thats a Marine Corps issue. I can tell you this. IFVs are a dead end in the evolution of armored vehicles in my opinion. when your primary transport is so involved in the fight that its fighting other armored vehicles, tanks, IFVs etc instead of providing supporting fire to the infantry then its doing the wrong thing.
Deleteadditionally that means instead of unassing short of the objective and assaulting on foot, i've watched the US Army go to a dismount ON the objective. that works in alot of scenarios but the downsides are legion. better a vehicle that isn't designed to have to take direct tank fire in my opinion, otherwise we end up with a fleet of Namera or Ground Combat Vehicles...that won't be able to swim.
I would not agree that IFV's are dead end, concept of IFV is very good but indeed they start to look like baby tanks. As always Theory and Practice, politicians start to see those class of vehicles as substitute to tanks and we all know that this is bullshit. As you know I'm a big fan of Patria and in my opinion they build the best combo of firepower, protection and carrying capability, but what good for one don't need to be good for other.
DeleteAh, Namer is a beast, but it is design for specific type of fighting and even he don't have on board nothing bigger then 40 mm grenade launcher.
But why not put on SuperAv remote Protector but not with the .50 cal but with the Medium Caliber RWS that would give your ability to mount M242, weapon that is know to Corps, no need for new ammo type supply, the same ballistic ect. But that would be some 1.5 t more of weight.
But again there will be question of weight, how much SuperAv can carry and still be sea worthy ?
i can make this even simpler. which is better. a bigger cannon on a vehicle or more dismounts? the answer is almost always more dismounts unless you find yourself fighting a 73 Eastings.
Deletequite honestly that is the only time where the IFV concept actually worked as advertised and in that battle it was technically (i think, i'll have to check) a Cav type fight and not a mech infantry affair.
But how many there was actions in last years that infantry only ride to the battlefield in carriers, dismount them and move to the objectives when carriers stay behind and do, well nothing ? That's the dragoons way of fight in some old style.
DeleteNow they are ride in to the battlefield, dismount under a covering fire of IFV and move to the objectives with direct support of it.
Then, as you for sure are more knowledge then me in this case, Marines now are fighting like mech infantry or more like classic infantry that are ride to the fight on trucks ?
Patria and the superav, both have there up and downs. I think they need to reinforce the suspension and extend the axiles to push out the wheels a foot wider on both side before super av maneuvers well.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the primary role is to transport and support infantry, but the IFV isn't a dead end especially for the USMC. MEUs are and always have been light on MBTs. Amphibious operations with M1 Abrams is a nightmare. There is a limited number of landing craft so even if they included a proper number of MBTs in the ship (which they do not) those tanks come in at a trickle. So the IFV is important.
I do agree the primary role of a transport is to transport and support the infantry to and at the objective. And I will definitely agree that the vehicle shouldn't be screwing with the squad size. If the Bradley actually seated a 9 man squad the army wouldn't be back at the drawing board.
The battle of 73 Easting is a rare but relevant modern example. Saddam was an idiot and his forces had equipment 30 years behind their opponent. It showed that the IFV with superior optics,C2, and ATGM could prevail, but it also showed the 25 mm was insufficient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN67BO4m9ZM
I predict we will either encounter an dismounted asymmetric foe, or we will encounter a maneuvering foe that doesn't dig in and moves with lots of near peer vehicles with heavy weapons. If we start to SEAD and use lots of air power they are more likely to charge than dig in like he did.
But either way why would you value dismounts over a bigger cannon. Any time you unload the vehicle you're looking at 5-10 min in the area. Preferably infantry aren't dismounted until decisive victory in the macro environment is achieved anyway.
Get a cannon with a 3000 m+ HEI and HEAB ammunition and avoid dismounting to win the war faster/ move before the enemy masses against you. Whether infantry are dismounted or not having an armored vehicle that fires devastating superior range direct fire to support the infantry's observations is the way to go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ16Octyugo
DeleteOTH at its best. Prepare the beach head. ship maintains standoff, send them in far and fast.
Believe dismounts are valued because fighting armour onl fights against defender leads to defeat. Combined arms still only game in town for shit fest
DeleteTrue, true. I've been preaching the big gun turret because combined arms is the only game in town.
DeleteYou need infantry with MG and ATGM to help when complex opposition over match the vehicle.
But the infantry need a nasty vehicle group to over match the infantry and vehicles so the infantry doesn't have to deal with every little thing, and can maneuver to areas where they can make the enemy fight on their terms instead or treading through the battle at .5-2 miles an hour the whole way while the enemy masses its counters.
Good point. Problem is what happens when contact over and brigade needs to rapidly move to next objective but A platoon has to walk cos its vehicles were taken out during the battle... Gradually, perhaps quickly you lose mobility, manuoevre, cohesion as mixed arm brig
DeleteWheels are quicker to replace than tracks. So the after contact reconstitution is not really an issue with wheels versus tracks. What is a valid concern is how many running spares of wheels you need to have on hand verses tracks. One of the Air Force officers I know who "crossed over into the green" listed the numbers of long tons of tires he transported to Iraq to support Stryker units. It is an impressive number, but if you could get common wheel capability with another family of vehicles such as the FMTV/LMTV units, then you are talking big savings overall and actually streamlining logistics.
ReplyDeleteWheeled beats tracked in stealth and weight. Tracked beats wheeled in maintaining mobility under fire and over the roughest terrain. My experience in the Army says that the USMC could do well with a wheeled solution as anything that is going to give a wheeled vehicle a mobility kill is going to take out a track as well (Strykers and LAVs can keep going with a few wheels blown off, they just go slower).
To sum up, what BAE has now is better than what the USMC has now, and it makes sense now. It may not make sense in twenty years, but on the flip side it could make even more sense then too.
Five Days later (011614):
ReplyDeleteIn related News via D.I.D. of today:
"The Army's Ground Combat Vehicle is another big program long known to be on the ropes that looks increasingly likely to be slashed. This won't surprise the contractors currently involved in the program's Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase...."