The above paper has had me pounding walls. You can read the Marine Corps Times article on it here.
My question is simple. Did they steal Mike Sparks ideas, dress it up in Marine Corps green and push it forward as their own? The concept that they're pushing looks remarkably like Mike's Air-Mech-Strike Concept.
The image of the SkyCrane concept is straight off Mike's page.
Check facts.
Check images.
Check ideas.
These guys blew it on all counts.
NOTE: Mike Sparks wrote these pages early on during the days of the internet...I mean like the mid 90's just as it was becoming widespread...so the articles by today's standards are overly long and the guy is a bit eccentric, but if you scroll down far enough you'll see what I'm talking about. Additionally follow some of the links on a lazy day when you have time to burn. Some of the stuff is out there but some of it is spot on.
Well, Solomon, atleast he shares your lack of enthusiasm for the F-35.
ReplyDeletethe entire Marine Corps shares my lack of enthusiasm for the F-35. they're hoping that they have so much momentum that it can't be stopped but the costs keep piling up and the USMC just can't bear the burden of putting an airplane into service that will eat up over 2/3rds of our procurement budget.
DeleteThar be cases of plagarism and lack of citing sources. If this was a University, these two would be expelled or suspended at the very least. They could have at least thrown a shout out to Sparks.
ReplyDeleteyou would think they would! i don't mind people saying ok, this is a great idea, let me polish it up a bit, but these bastards just acted like they came up with something fresh and fluffy.
DeleteFUCK THEM!
I read the paper and it sucks. Nothing new or novel. If amphibious assault ships and carriers are vulnerable to anti ship missiles why would slow cargo carrying helos not be vulnerable to anti air missiles?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the EFV was the system that could have made a difference. Amphibious ships launching these vehicles where the enemy is not seems like maneuver warfare to me. I think Afghanistan and Iraq have reminded us if old lessons learned: stay of roads, tracks over wheels, lots of boots, and heavy armor is your friend.
I get your argument that helos are vulnerable to missiles like ships but I don't entirely agree, you don't have many assault ships and each one carries a considerable percentage of your landing force, so you can't afford to lose any. You do have a lot of helicopters however and losing one or two wouldn't cause the landing to fail.
DeleteOne thing often overlooked however is that long range missiles have a considerable minimum engagement altitude. There's usually an envilope between the sea and this minimum large enough for your transport helicopters to fly in where they are safe from enemy air defenses, you might lose a couple to lucky shots but the vast majority would reach the shore safely.
Michael! SPOT ON!
DeleteScot. have you seen the MV-22 in the landing zone?
Oh I wouldn't touch an Osprey for a landing like this, they're too big and one lucky bastard with an RPG or some sort of Manpad could take out too many people, I doubt they can even fly low enough to stay under the minimum engagement altitude.
DeleteI'd go with lots of small utility helicopters, they're harder to shoot down and hopefully then sheer numbers would overwhelm remaining defenses, they could even provide close air support once they've dumped their payload. Lynxes would be my preference but even Vietnam era hueys would be good enough
Perhaps we need a large number of cheap decoy drones to fly alongside the helos to suck up AA missile fire on the way in.
DeleteSandwyrm, thats actually a very good idea.
DeleteI can't agree with author regarding AAV. To me, even a fully SLEPed/modernized AAV is incapable for OTH mission envisioned under EF21. Swimming across more than 100km in high waves to the shore, all by itself? Asking 17 young marines to endure the hellish ride inside metal box for 10 hours non-stop? Is he nuts? If you are going with a large shore-to-shore connector solution, then amphibious capability becomes irrelevant. I was favoring a simplified EFV variant for ACV requirement, but it was before the Corps published EF21 strategy. The most logical path forward would be a wheeled platform with some degrees of on water mobility and hardened protection. The next commandant should re-direct limited resources into procuring such vehicle ASASP before next budget axe fell.
ReplyDeleteSparks is a madman, that his ideas have been referenced positively in something semi-official is deeply disturbing.
ReplyDeleteMissile envelope areas and such are definitely not my area of expertise. Launching EFVs from 100 miles out is insane. I'm thinking more along the lines of normal operational ranges on undefended access areas in a distributed fashion. Maneuver swarming.
ReplyDelete17 marines plus crew are too many eggs. Two smaller EFVs consisting of a reinforced rifle squad and crews but with a high water speed could be the GCV for the future. How useful would the EFV been in the invasion of iraq?
Calling Mike Sparks "eccentric" is like saying that Detroit has mild crime problems. The man is a nut - he might dig up some interesting ideas know and then, but he's a conspiracy wacko with an ego the size of a planet.
ReplyDeleteLook, I'm a civilian, and even I can see that trying to move slow amphibious assets over 100 miles of water is flat out insane in a combat situation. If heavy air-lift is not the answer, then what is? I’m asking seriously.
ReplyDeleteBecause the only real alternative that I can see is air-to-ground elimination of the missile threat, so that the ships launching the amphibious vehicles can do so closer in. But that’s flat-out impossible to guarantee with current missile tech. The launchers are too easily hidden, and a likely target like Iran has hundreds of them on mobile platforms.
Other options would be some kind of advanced anti-missile interceptor or laser shield. But that tech isn’t anywhere near mature to the point of being able to cover a squadron of landing ships against 50+ incoming sea-skimmers a mile or two from shore.
So unless you’re gonna deliver troops and equipment with some kind of Sci-Fi LCV-Submarine, that leaves parachutes and choppers as your only logical option.
what they're saying is that its ok if the enemy waits till the landing force is launched aboard the ship to shore connectors and then is taken out on the run to the beach by shore launched anti-tank missiles like hellfire, spike or any of the russian models.
Deletethese things are huge.
forcible entry is by its very nature very hard very joint and very messy.
HQMC is trying to fool the uninformed into thinking that the code has been cracked to make it simple and bloodless. they're fools.
the answer is simple. you're going to have to prep the battlespace. you're going to have to work hard to negate those enemy defenses either electronically or kinetically. its not going to be quick and easy. its going to take hard work.
but its what the Marine Corps does.
It’s easy to say “Grrrrr…”, but if your choice to get to shore is 8-10 hours in an amphibious tank exposed to anti-ship missiles and hellfire-equivalents all the way in, or a 30-60 minute ride in a stealth-less helicopter that’s exposed to something like the S-300 ADS, or even some old radar-guided AAA is that really a choice at all? Might as well pack up and go home.
DeleteShort of submergible LCTs, it really seems like the corps needs to be coming up with a fast-response system for identifying and eliminating enemy launchers in the 2-10 minutes it takes to set up and fire them. Which would probably require a network of drones linked to close air support, and littoral ship assets ready to be remotely (and automatically) fired at whatever threat shows itself to the drone controllers.
you would rather take your chances against an S300 or S400 in a helicopter? are you smoking crack? so i guess MANPADS and RPGs don't mean shit to you either? or the fact that everyone has rifles that can shoot into the air....ask the Navy SEALs that flew into Sudan inside a MV-22 how that worked out for them.
Deleteyou're sipping the HQMC koolaide that air travel is the way to go. besides you're forgetting established Marine Corps doctrine. we don't need amtracs that can swim 100 miles. we just need to deliver them just offshore and let them swim the rest of the way.
I don't think that you read what I actually said.
DeleteBoth approaches are delusional.
So ignore the air-lift BS for a second, and consider the real point of this report. What is the purpose of the Marine Corps in an environment where amphibious landings under fire are all but impossible versus China, Iran, or Russia?
The Corps either solves that problem, or it just becomes another special forces branch.
Heheh, and here Iran was thinking during the Iraq Occupation that the USA wont need marines to Invade Iran via the coast line. They just need to make a right turn and land in Iran. Off course, all the glory would have thhen gone the Army Cavalry, Aviation and Mech. Infantry people reinforced with AF.
DeleteThe only way you are going to "Land Troops and Material against China, Iran and Russia given the missiles at their disposal is if you Invade the Country right next to them. I'd say Mongolia and Kazakhastan would be the perfect country. Unsinkable, Perfect Manouvre Country, extremly low civilian population. Its a place where all of USA's 9000 Abrams and thousands other Bradleys, LAV/Strykers, M113's would be used to full and telling effect against any opponent. USA's true ovherwhelming advantage in technology, technique, weapon systems, Manpower and Logistics will shine truly here.
And the Best part about it all is.........Bulk of Chinese and Russian Forces are deployed elesewhere and their training and force orientation is also for a different theatre. Take for exapmple those floating chinese tanks being made to Invade Taiwan...................Useless against 120MM Sabots on flat terrain. All their Island hoping plans in the South China Sea, undone.
DeleteThere are no easy answers.
DeleteTraditionally, amphibious operations were supported by superior firepower, by the big guns, which have been largely replaced by missiles (and this is a fucking stupid idea, conceptually, although good luck barking up that tree).
If amphibious sea-to-beach operations are risky, aerial insertion is even more so.
So my answer is
1.) invest considerably in active protection (which we are not) to defeat missiles and rockets.
2.) Re-invest in traditional heavy guns fitted with modernized fire control systems. Im not going to pull a mike sparks card and say we need battleships, although there is a merit to the big gun idea.
3.) Invest in a new AAV with improved protection and survivability, in addition to firepower, and of course, protection systems to counter missiles and RPGs.
4.) Employ the adequate electronic warfare means to counter radar guidance modules of enemy SAMs and ASMs or at least reduce their capabilities.
5.) Employ the use of heavy close support aircraft (like A10s).
Probably none of these things are going to happen. Just like Solomon has been preaching all along (and me in concurrance), the Marine Corps acolytes of Amos, actually believes air assault marines and F35s is the way to go.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIMHO Landings are only really feasible if you can find a space when and where the the enemy does not expect you to land. Landings should ideally be limited in size and scope to simple objectives, such as obtaining and defending a small area (oil rig, island, small port or airstrip, etc) harassing or feinting an enemies weak points, or eliminating a specific target. Massive operations like D-day probably ain't going to happen again.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to see the marines focus on operating in swamps, deltas, marshes, and other areas that are too wet for army and too dry for the navy. I think it would 'interesting' to see our modern day military try to operate in an area like the Mekong Delta or the spratleys.
I am bi-polar about Mike Sparks.
ReplyDeleteComing from the active duty Army side (infantry), I believe he has great ideas (and a few crazy ones and others simply obsolete and lacking recent operational experience, such as his "combat light" meme). I love the concept of upgunning light trucks and APCs with the 30x113mm automatic cannon http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3643.html
and Starstreak missiles. Or the Spike.
Not to mention the staggering importance of airborne armor, such as the cancelled M8 buford and M113 Lynx or a modernized version that is truly air transportable. The Army airborne forces' fascination with humvees doing all that work is utterly suicidal and stupid in my opinion.
His scathing criticism of strykers I can agree with strongly. As is the army's lack of combat focus for the most part, instead being a welfare program for bureaucrats looking to keep the most expensive, complex, and contractor dependent weaponry in service rather than simple robust systems conducive to waging war with.
But holy shit, the guy is a bit nuts in my opinion. Not to mention any great ideas he has have been seriously harmed by his online behavior. Maybe he's eccentric?
This is utter plagerism of spark's work and Im laughing my ass off. The Air-Mech concept is a brilliant idea, but that should be a Army thing (pay attention 82nd), not a Marine Corps thing. The Marines, Poseidon bless them, are amphibious assault shock troops. Not flying amphibians.