 |
| BAE SuperAV |
First up it must be emphasized that this is an enhancement but not replacement for the AAV/ACV. We will still need an amphibious tractor to get from ship to shore. BUT! We also need a vehicle that will provide protected mobility to our Marines once ashore. The MTVR needs to revert to its pure logistics role and not continue to serve as a surrogate troop carrier.
 |
| Patria AMV |
 |
| SAIC Terrex |
We can finally neck down our ground vehicle programs in a HUGE way. If we're smart enough and bold enough to develop a family of vehicles along the line of the Stryker system then we will be cooking with gas. They won't be perfect solutions but by falling in on US Army systems we can save money and get quite a bit done. The Engineer Support Vehicle? Awesome. We should adapt the bits to fit onto whichever vehicle is picked. NBC vehicle? Ditto. It goes down the line. The only vehicle I wouldn't adapt to Army equipment fits is the MGS.
 |
| Japanese Maneuver Combat Vehicle |
As part of our family of vehicles we should design a proper mobile gun system (manned) that will serve as infantry support. By that I mean bunker busting, infantry fighting vehicle killing, anti-personnel dispatching ---monsters of the midway.
But what about tanks? They'd operate this version of vehicles. Oh and before you ask we'd put artillery men inside designated 120mm mortar carriers too.
As far as the tanks themselves? Lets be honest. The US Army has moved past the M1A1, a decision on whether to upgrade them to Army standards or maintain them as is, is under consideration and whatever choice is made its gonna be expensive.
So what do we do when we need heavy firepower? We do what was done in the first Gulf War and we get the Army to assign a Tank Brigade to us...this time permanently. One each for our Marine Expeditionary Brigades. They'd be stationed at 29 Palms (God save the Soldiers headed there), Lejeune and then finally in say...Australia. The problem with this is Army manning. They're cutting to the bone and might not have enough personnel to get this done. If not then its for wartime use only.
These are all probably decisions to be made by the next Commandant...to include whether or not to proceed with the MPC. Pity. We have lost 4 years to the debacle that has become Marine Corps ground vehicle procurement. Whoever sits in the big chair next has some major league issues on the plate. Unfortunately that includes what to do with the MPC/ACV/AAV Upgrade.
I've always felt ever since ive seen the MPC requirement come out that we should be looking at the Stryker program and go from there. Take the Vehicle and make the changes we want. WHy? because we could save a crazy amount of money, simply push for the ability to get through say sea state 2(?) and fall in line with the log system already in place. all of the different variants are already around (Including the Arty var, that the army didnt go with) and we can request a version we want (ADA!!! and maybe a scaled down version of MGS say to 90mm or the 76 hyper)
ReplyDeletebut we need to get this done now! not drag out waiting for a whole system to be produced, go of the shelf and push for a vehicle that gets the job done, not some mythical future want, but a real world solution that we can use today and has the ability to be upgraded for the next 20. If the AAV has shown us anything is if you have a solid chasis you can keep it going for a while, without having to go over complicated
totally agree. its back to the future time. smart frugality, an end to unique items that are just that...unique without doing a better job than stuff already in Army inventory. the fat budget days are over.
DeleteTheir is another MPC from Poland called the WPB Anders. Here's the link
ReplyDeletehttp://www.armyrecognition.com/poland_polish_tanks_heavy_armoured_vehicles_uk/anders_120mm_light_tank_expeditionary_technical_data_sheet_specifications_description_pictures_video.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPB_Anders
Here's the Youtube Video as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmOZVIR02jA
i covered that vehicle when it was first announced but since that time Polish Defense Holdings hasn't said a word about it.
DeleteThe mistake of space shuttle design was that it tried to bring both men and cargo in same vehicle, when the launch cost of manned vehicle was five times that of unmanned vehicle per pound. The marine assault vehicles should be separated into two, one three-man vehicle optimized for high speed water travel and firepower to serve as the vanguard of a landing force, and another troop transporter optimized for troop carrying capacity.
ReplyDeleteDon't try to put two functions in one vehicle, separate them into two each optimized for their roles.
Unfortunately Slow, in amphibs, space and lane meters are at a premium. Cost? Not so much. If they can carry 2 multi-purpose vehicles that can be used as an assault vehicle and troop transport, that is already double the capability of a specialized vehicle in the assault and in troop capacity.
DeleteThere are always pros and cons to every selection, and I can see the merits in both situations so both routes are viable with individual weaknesses too.
Personally? I'll just arm an LST and ram it into shore. You can't sink a ship that is grounded and most ships are so full of compartments that to totally kill one, you have to chop it into confetti or set it on fire first. Remember, LSTs went out of fashion not because they were bad at their job. They became useless because they won the war. A beached LST with a deck mounted 57mm or 76mm would give very decent anti-armour support and a pair of CIWS/C-RAMs would chop any infantry hardpoint in the way of the marines to shreds as well as providing a narrow shorad zone for the marines to deploy safe from helicopter, UAV or even mortar harassment. It's crazy to expose a high value unit like that, but a decent warship is hardly a shrinking violet. More like a Queen in a chess board. Risky to lose but even before it goes down, can wreck massive havoc. Sometimes, you just have to be daring to win.
i think the LST is the missing ship in Marine Corps formations. the idea isn't about an Iwo Jima, the idea is that a massive Marine Corps amphibious assault will have massive support. but the ability to put a battalion of tanks on the beach in one landing with a fast LST is too good an opportunity not to be explored.
DeleteAgreed, but even an amphibious assault can run afoul of bad luck and stumble across a patrol or even a single civilian phoning the sighting in and a base sending in a mounted patrol to check. Or hell, even maybe finding that the softest spot in the enemy defence line was a stretch of beach with a single pillbox or dug in observation post which photorecon somehow missed. No Iwo Jima, just some IFV patrols or missed hardpoints, which sometimes happen if you are unlucky.
DeleteThe bright side to this method of deployment is that as Slow said, you can simply specialize the vehicles for assault, not swimming. Makes them a lot more efficient and instead of the tin can AAV, you can simply toss an M-1 onto shore as your opening gambit. And the LST is a lot more flexible. Land and air weapons can be integrated into it as it has lots of space and can ignore weight requirements to an extent. An armoured vehicle can only be anti-land or anti-air. Unless you happen to be very, very good with a 30mm.
The trouble is trying to carry LC's and AAV's. It is crews that cost. A simpler aviation ship. An AAV carrier. And a large LSD ship (2 LCU, with a system for handling an LC like the LC1ME.
DeleteI don't know why the US haven't got after some form of LST. The trouble with LST for most countries is gaining sea control and air superiority because a beached ship ain't going anywhere. That isn't something the US with which should have a problem. This is LCS fails because what you guys needs is a cheap diesel frigate to carry two or more 5in with smart rounds. Of course there is the Soviet model; drop a kedge anchor and head for the beach. I can't see any reason why a CODAG WARP design where the GT is only spun on a run into the shore.
PS: Super conversation Sol!
Steve, 2 LCUs is way too little. Many European and Asian designs run with 4-6. This is why I said that US LCU numbers are among the lowest in the world. They compensate with self deploying AAVs so the problem is not that acute. LCACs are a bit of a ? for me, they are fast, but they take up space that LCUs use for a lower carry weight, so it's usually either LCU or LCAC, capacity or speed.
DeleteAnyone familiar with the breakdown of LCU vs LCAC numbers on amphibs?
Not LCU's are created equal. A British Mk10 is a smaller vessel when compared to an American 16xx class. Two large slow landing craft (USN LCU) backing up multiple LC1ME seems to be better mix than say 4 LCAC. Note as I said "a system for handling" by which I just don't mean docks but something more innovative like an internal lift or large external crane/davit arrangement. What the USN needs is a modern Whidbey Island class dock landing ship.
DeleteI sort of bashed my original comment out at speed hence the typos and general disjointedness.
You aren't going to get the Army to dedicate 4 Brigades worth of Armor in the form of Abrams to the USMC. Maybe 4 Tank Battalions, as that would be the appropriate size element to support a Marine Brigade. With the Army going to 33 Brigades for sure, it's a tough sell to say 10% of our combat formations will be dedicated USMC support.
ReplyDeleteBut honestly if the USMC needs tanks, the Army has plenty to spare, most of them sitting in wartime reserve right now.
As far back as 2001 some of us have been arguing for a transition away from a turbine engine to a traditional internal combustion piston engine for a fuel savings measure (which are EXTREMELY significant, over 200 gallons less every day per tank per 12 hour mission) and reliability increases. http://defensetech.org/2013/12/20/army-to-review-m1-engine-upgrades/
Anyways, if the engine gets replaced with a traditional diesel, the M1A2 SEP with TUSK package would be an ideal USMC support option for everything except weight. Those big bastards are heavy. Even if the engine doesn't get upgraded until the M1A3 model, a current M1A2 SEP with TUSK is the best option in our inventory. Unless someone can think outside the box and maybe do a swap with Israel to get Merkavas for the USMC. The organic mortar capability of the Merkava makes a lot of sense for an expeditionary force like the USMC where you need overhead fires to kill what direct fire has suppressed.
you're spot on with the correction. i bungled the brigade with battalions. i like the idea of marrying up to Army heavy armor if and when its upgraded. but like you said the problem is weight. for many missions tanks just aren't needed for Marine Corps needs. thats why i propose simply letting the Army perform that mission when needed and attach them to the Marines when called. the basing thing comes from the idea of training together and to have them operate off amphibious ships and to get that training regularly.
Delete