This is probably a repeat but I am fascinated by the solution Korean industry came up with to make the K-21 float. I seem to remember a similar solution was arrived at early on for the Bradley IFV but was discarded for being somewhat unwieldy. But I think the real reason why I keep circling back to this is because during the late 70's-early 80's, Bell came up with an LCAC "like" proposal to make the AAV high speed. Pics follow. Oh and a sidenote. They named it "Landing Vehicle Air Cushion".
A few rounds through the floats will turn it into a "Landing Vehicle Whoopie Cushion".
ReplyDeleteright! of course the same applies to the K-21...which is why the LVAC wasn't pursued!
DeleteMuzzlehatch
ReplyDeleteK2 tanks will be first ones to cross river submerged to secure positions before the rest of K21 IFVs cross the river.
It looks like a pretty good solution to me. I think, if the vehicle is in one piece and capable of continuing to fight than the floats will be in one piece.
ReplyDeleteIt is basic technology, pumps, bladders, and some armored covers to protect them.
RIB tubes can and have been made bullet proof or at least self sealing to the rate where leaks can be sustaned.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that the danger of bullets only comes in couple hundret metres from the shore ,threats that can reach further will kill the vehicle with or without bladers.
you do REALIZE that a defended river crossing will have the defenders waiting until the vehicles are in the water before engaging. that means heavy machine guns firing at the IFVs in the water and anti-tank teams taking out the vehicles in overwatch positions on the opposite bank.
Deletewere you trying to be a smart ass, testing me or just didn't realize how stupid that statement sounded. additionally if you have scouts make the crossing first to determine enemy positions or have drones flying overhead then you've lost momentum AND you're giving away the probable crossing.
geez dude. i once did this for a living.
Thats why regiments, battalions and llower levels need pleanty of cheap and expendable ground launched UAVs, that way ambushing forces can be detected and eliminated/suppressed with artillery, company level 120mm mortar systems, think AMOS/NEMO (probably NEMO to try and retain amphibious) mounted on the same chassis would make quick work of this sort of situation...
DeleteThese 120mm mortars can also be used for direct fire-support, and the DPICM munitions made by america and others are capable of taking out very well armoured vehicle.
Actually this is very true, assuming you are fighting a determined adversary, which is why the floatation scheme is fundamentally flawed and has been since the whizkids tried the same (miserably to failure) with the Bradley.
DeleteBut sol has a point, which was proven correct in the initial invasion of OIF.
As long as you sanitize the area with artillery beforehand you should be fine, South Korea has one of the most powerful artillery forces in the world, both nominally and relative to the size of their army. They are more than capable of sanitizing a small beachead for what few river crossing they need.
DeleteThe alternative is to either not cross the river, therebye ceding the initive to the enemy and chanaling your forces through heavily mined strategic chokepoints that are viable targets for mass rocket artillery strikes, or to have built vehicles that can cross the river, but once they do they are extremely vulnerable because they are poorly armoured.
Neither options are desirable.
Look all amphiblous vehicles use system of bilge pumps and in case of inflatables a compressor to keep things inflated ,so i could imagine that this thing could take number of punctures before becoming useless. And like mentioned Rigid inflatible assault boats have bullet proof tube options for some time (http://zodiacmilpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/armorflate.jpg ,http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/Armorflate%20Info%20Sheet.jpg). River crossing is hardy ever done in contested area its just a way to get gear across without stopping for engeneers to lay bridges or floating pontoons.
ReplyDeleteIf you have ever seen a river crossing of tanks that can go submerged (all German, Russian ,Korean tanks) a crew member actually has to walk ahead (in funny scuba gear)to see if terrain is passable,depth is ok for snorkel and that there are not to many boulders as you can easly get stuck on a river bank and crew are then dead. This is a carefouly planes operation as vehicles need good entry and exit points on the riverbanks .
Again never used in contested terrain even tough they practice for it
Are canvas bags are better than inflatable floats ,similar gear was used on D-day against well defended beach.
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m2bradleyswim.jpg.
the Marine Corps practices opposed river crossings. they do it all the time. additionally i've seen the US Army do the same...and they do it with bridges.
Deleteoh and want to know when the last bridging operation occurred in combat? look back at the 2nd gulf war invasion. a young USMC combat engineer got a medal while making sure bridging was emplaced...completely by the numbers...all while getting incoming enemy fire. oh and they asked for a volunteer to do it and stuck his hand up in heartbeat. so yeah. river crossings under fire are a fact of life for USMC and US Army units.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPb3pCfaRQE
ReplyDeletehttp://far-maroc.forumpro.fr/t2183p225-armee-sud-coreene-republic-of-korea-armed-forces-rokaf
when the last time US marines conduct an opposed amphibious landing ? the world war 2 ? with all the available intelligence it is better to conduct unopposed landing , or air assaulting behind enemy position... Question : can the USMC conduct an opposed amphibious landing against a peer/near peer enemy with modern weapons without taking unacceptable loss ? The landing force will be subjected to numerous attacks before they can even get close to shore..
ReplyDeletenot true. the USN has been working the problem of getting the landing force ashore hard. real hard. harder than the recent past USMC leadership.
Deletethey're working on a plan to roll back enemy defenses and to create gaps and corridors to allow Marines to get to shore and then maneuver to the objective.
the thing that the USMC and most commentators have focused on is the thought that Marines will make opposed landings alone. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! you'll see at least two (if not more) carriers in the area. you'll have cruise missile subs firing off all 144 of their tomahawk missiles, you'll have Burke class destroyers doing the same, you'll see Force Recon, MARSOC, SEALs, SF and maybe even Rangers conducting diversionary raids and then finally you'll have every available ISR asset looking to find that right spot to make the AAVs, and follow on force feet dry for their push inland.
so to answer your question.
yeah. we can make an opposed landing against enemy forces of a peer nation. we'll reduce their defenses to rubble before we launch, but we can do it.
Reminds me of the floatation devise that was supposed to make the Bradley amphibious.
ReplyDeleteYou can either have an amphibious vehicle (like the BMD or BMP) that compromises protection OR you have a vehicle that provides adequate 30mm protection without amphibious capability.
I say, get *both*