Sol, what do you think is the longest serving armored vehicle in the world right now? Although I'm pretty certain the AAV might be the longest serving in the US (as far as I know), there are also some Soviet T-54 and T-55 tanks still running somewhere around the world.
well heck if it really matters on how you label "in service". there are WW2 vehicles in combat around the world from Ukraine to northern Africa.
still i think that's not really a question a super power should be asking. the issue really is more basic. is the AAV really what you want to stuff 17 Marines inside of? one IED hit and its a tragedy on tracks. one IED hit and everyone is killed and you're paying more in death insurance than the cost of one MPC (morbid but if we're going to look at costs then lets really look at costs).
there is no excuse for the AAV not to be radically upgraded.
Israel still has variants of the mighty Centurion in service, they are even keeping some of the tanks stored wile scrapping much more modern ones. Even older, the same Israelis still have artillery mounted on a Sherman chassis in reserve. Beating that is the M3 Stuart, from 1941, still in service in Paraguay. Technically even older, but likely later produced about a dozen mostly African nations still use the T34.
Here is a top 10 list of the oldest serving military weapons the M3 Stuart from Paraguay coming in at 6th position. http://jalopnik.com/the-ten-oldest-military-vehicles-still-in-service-730743683 Also the oldest tank to see combat I heard of was the Ragheads and Soviet Afghan Govt forces used FT-17 tanks from WW1 during the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan 1979-1989(I know its not today but still I was amazed see link below.). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP9huCf-iZM
That's remind me something "funny" with Japan... the Empire of Japan was the only nation in modern Polish history that, Poland official declare war against it.
Few people today remember that the only country that Poland, since independence in 1918, had declared war on is Japan. Since the conflict with the Soviet Union and the Third Reich had not been formally initiated by either party, so the only conflict led "de iure" by the Second Republic in the twentieth century was a fifteen-year war with the Empire of Japan.
Information about the state of the war with Japan is included in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Poland of December 20, 1941 "On the basis of Art. 12 of the Law of the constitutional act on a request from the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Poland is starting from 11 December 1941, war with the Empire of Japan."
Then Prime Minister of Japan - Hideki Tojo - commented on this fact as follows:
"We do not accept Poles challenge. Poles fighting for their freedom, declared war on us under pressure from the UK"
(Great Britain demand that every enemy of them will be automatic an enemy of Poland in form of "enemy of my enemy is also your enemy" but underline that "enemy of yours... is not our enemy" That's why UK never declare war on Soviet Union)
Which clearly meant a paradox because it was the only war Poland declare in the century, and it was not accepted, in international relations is not likely to happen.
As for the two-state armed conflict, this battle can not be assigned to either too bloody or too intense. None of Polish military unit never fought against any Japanese unit.
The war officially ended 8 February 1957 year when the Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Joseph Winiewicz and Japanese ambassador to the UN, Toshikazu Kase signed an agreement for the restoration of normal relations between the Polish People's Republic, and Japan.
The strangest war ever declare by Poland, officially came to an end.
Lol, there certainly are times I like the way you guys think!
Reminds me of this little British town that apparently still was at war with Russia over an earlier Crimean war. Wikipedia needs updating ( duhhh) with your story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_extended_by_diplomatic_irregularity
Then now... on topic.. These AAV's still look majestic, really awesome machines to see.
They do look shiny new, but I really wonder at the choice. I mean, the Japs could have gotten a jump on the USMC in replacing the AAVs by simply either buying or producing their own MPC variants. The AAV has a lot of room for improvement, starting with the frame (steel), armour (ceramic), weapons (RWS? 20-30mm?).
If you really at all costs want a capacity of 17 men, that is fairly easily done since the problem is mostly a space/volume problem, you can still build a lot of upgrades into a new "AAV" design.
You CAN do a lot of things, even building new AAV's with new materials and technology, but based on the old design.. But the downside is that it wont be 'perfect' , it won't be able to do it all.. which is something military leaders, designers and politicians almost cant help but strive for.
Iv said before: why not use existing components and build a relatively large and well armored, reasonably fast vehicle. The Russians used MBT technology to build amphibious vehicles. The reason I suggest a relatively big vehicle is that it takes quite a bit of volume to make something well armored float. I favor relatively high level armor over high speed. Since the Russians can make a 45 ton amphibian capable of 15 kmh in the water using relatively simple technology. How hard can it be to make something capable of carrying 17 people, with a remote controlled turret and decent armor and reasonable speed?
It is certainly not impossible. In fact, the EFV has pretty much everything you described. If you remove hydroplanning, the cost goes down, maintenance issues decrease, and you have infinitely more armor options as you can tailor kits for various threats.
This is not an industry problem where it is just impossible to build vehicles; this is an acquisitions problem where requirements change too frequently or are so odd that they sink the vehicles when it comes time to start building them (EFV and Army GCV).
If you are dead set at getting 17 per vehicle, it would probably be a better idea to scrap this ACV1.1/MPC silliness and focus on a full system over haul on the AAV.
The single largest sin coming out of the AAV reset program is that the vehicle, as far as I know, will have the same survivability against IED's as a VW Beetle. If FNSS can devise redesign programs that restore the mobility and reliability of M113's while adding turrets and increasing armor protection against all threats, there must be someone out there who can do the same to the AAV.
There is one thing that plagues all programs now: affordability.
I would be quite happy with either, a 'new' design , using known components and leaving out hydroplaning , both to ad to affordability or a new-build AAV with better suspension, engine and armor.
The very fast Chinese amphibian, looking at the numbers, seems to be lacking armor. You can not have it all.. can you?
These AA7V's do give a new point to both Owl and Slowman to when they were having a debate over those Japanese light raiding boats a couple of days back.
Not much point. If he can't figure out that small boats are for recce insert, and might I point out the title of the photo, and recce are not stupid enough to use noisy AAVs for transport, then I really can't help him. There's no cure for stupid.
There nothing wrong with old AAV7 other than refitting older model ones wont' change the fact their old and physically worn out. Producing new ones and improving the design would have been cost effective means fixing the problem. However, as with any organization...there always going been need or desire to expand capacities and something new.
Unfortunately now, it cost so much for something "new" that sticking with the old maybe easier as long it's in tooling still being used to produce the basic components.
I'm not sure AAV can be given enough protection from regular enemy threats like RPGs. Those things can be placed on beaches as well as next to a roadside. Marines need decide if they handle having vehicle that can get people to the beach or try to it all. Do it all cost's money, Japan is being practical since they don't go into harms way as often.
China threatens to arm Hawaii separatists who want kingdom
China has suggested arming Hawaii’s independence activists in retaliation for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and recently threatened to challenge American sovereignty by making legal claims to the Pacific islands as its territory.
Sol, what do you think is the longest serving armored vehicle in the world right now? Although I'm pretty certain the AAV might be the longest serving in the US (as far as I know), there are also some Soviet T-54 and T-55 tanks still running somewhere around the world.
ReplyDeletewell heck if it really matters on how you label "in service". there are WW2 vehicles in combat around the world from Ukraine to northern Africa.
Deletestill i think that's not really a question a super power should be asking. the issue really is more basic. is the AAV really what you want to stuff 17 Marines inside of? one IED hit and its a tragedy on tracks. one IED hit and everyone is killed and you're paying more in death insurance than the cost of one MPC (morbid but if we're going to look at costs then lets really look at costs).
there is no excuse for the AAV not to be radically upgraded.
Even T-34 are still running in that or other form.
DeleteIsrael still has variants of the mighty Centurion in service, they are even keeping some of the tanks stored wile scrapping much more modern ones.
DeleteEven older, the same Israelis still have artillery mounted on a Sherman chassis in reserve.
Beating that is the M3 Stuart, from 1941, still in service in Paraguay.
Technically even older, but likely later produced about a dozen mostly African nations still use the T34.
Here is a top 10 list of the oldest serving military weapons the M3 Stuart from Paraguay coming in at 6th position.
Deletehttp://jalopnik.com/the-ten-oldest-military-vehicles-still-in-service-730743683
Also the oldest tank to see combat I heard of was the Ragheads and Soviet Afghan Govt forces used FT-17 tanks from WW1 during the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan 1979-1989(I know its not today but still I was amazed see link below.).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP9huCf-iZM
That's remind me something "funny" with Japan... the Empire of Japan was the only nation in modern Polish history that, Poland official declare war against it.
ReplyDeleteDo you want to know more?
you do know you went Starship Troopers movie with that "do you want to know more"? thing! but yeah. i do want to know more!
DeleteGlory the great Robert A. Heinlein!
DeleteFew people today remember that the only country that Poland, since independence in 1918, had declared war on is Japan. Since the conflict with the Soviet Union and the Third Reich had not been formally initiated by either party, so the only conflict led "de iure" by the Second Republic in the twentieth century was a fifteen-year war with the Empire of Japan.
Information about the state of the war with Japan is included in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Poland of December 20, 1941 "On the basis of Art. 12 of the Law of the constitutional act on a request from the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Poland is starting from 11 December 1941, war with the Empire of Japan."
Then Prime Minister of Japan - Hideki Tojo - commented on this fact as follows:
"We do not accept Poles challenge. Poles fighting for their freedom, declared war on us under pressure from the UK"
(Great Britain demand that every enemy of them will be automatic an enemy of Poland in form of "enemy of my enemy is also your enemy" but underline that "enemy of yours... is not our enemy" That's why UK never declare war on Soviet Union)
Which clearly meant a paradox because it was the only war Poland declare in the century, and it was not accepted, in international relations is not likely to happen.
As for the two-state armed conflict, this battle can not be assigned to either too bloody or too intense. None of Polish military unit never fought against any Japanese unit.
The war officially ended 8 February 1957 year when the Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Joseph Winiewicz and Japanese ambassador to the UN, Toshikazu Kase signed an agreement for the restoration of normal relations between the Polish People's Republic, and Japan.
The strangest war ever declare by Poland, officially came to an end.
Lol, there certainly are times I like the way you guys think!
DeleteReminds me of this little British town that apparently still was at war with Russia over an earlier Crimean war.
Wikipedia needs updating ( duhhh) with your story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_extended_by_diplomatic_irregularity
Then now... on topic.. These AAV's still look majestic, really awesome machines to see.
They do look shiny new, but I really wonder at the choice. I mean, the Japs could have gotten a jump on the USMC in replacing the AAVs by simply either buying or producing their own MPC variants. The AAV has a lot of room for improvement, starting with the frame (steel), armour (ceramic), weapons (RWS? 20-30mm?).
DeleteIf you really at all costs want a capacity of 17 men, that is fairly easily done since the problem is mostly a space/volume problem, you can still build a lot of upgrades into a new "AAV" design.
You CAN do a lot of things, even building new AAV's with new materials and technology, but based on the old design.. But the downside is that it wont be 'perfect' , it won't be able to do it all.. which is something military leaders, designers and politicians almost cant help but strive for.
DeleteIv said before: why not use existing components and build a relatively large and well armored, reasonably fast vehicle. The Russians used MBT technology to build amphibious vehicles. The reason I suggest a relatively big vehicle is that it takes quite a bit of volume to make something well armored float. I favor relatively high level armor over high speed.
Since the Russians can make a 45 ton amphibian capable of 15 kmh in the water using relatively simple technology. How hard can it be to make something capable of carrying 17 people, with a remote controlled turret and decent armor and reasonable speed?
It is certainly not impossible. In fact, the EFV has pretty much everything you described. If you remove hydroplanning, the cost goes down, maintenance issues decrease, and you have infinitely more armor options as you can tailor kits for various threats.
DeleteThis is not an industry problem where it is just impossible to build vehicles; this is an acquisitions problem where requirements change too frequently or are so odd that they sink the vehicles when it comes time to start building them (EFV and Army GCV).
If you are dead set at getting 17 per vehicle, it would probably be a better idea to scrap this ACV1.1/MPC silliness and focus on a full system over haul on the AAV.
The single largest sin coming out of the AAV reset program is that the vehicle, as far as I know, will have the same survivability against IED's as a VW Beetle. If FNSS can devise redesign programs that restore the mobility and reliability of M113's while adding turrets and increasing armor protection against all threats, there must be someone out there who can do the same to the AAV.
There is one thing that plagues all programs now: affordability.
DeleteI would be quite happy with either, a 'new' design , using known components and leaving out hydroplaning , both to ad to affordability or a new-build AAV with better suspension, engine and armor.
The very fast Chinese amphibian, looking at the numbers, seems to be lacking armor. You can not have it all.. can you?
These AA7V's do give a new point to both Owl and Slowman to when they were having a debate over those Japanese light raiding boats a couple of days back.
ReplyDeleteNot much point. If he can't figure out that small boats are for recce insert, and might I point out the title of the photo, and recce are not stupid enough to use noisy AAVs for transport, then I really can't help him. There's no cure for stupid.
DeleteThere nothing wrong with old AAV7 other than refitting older model ones wont' change the fact their old and physically worn out. Producing new ones and improving the design would have been cost effective means fixing the problem.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as with any organization...there always going been need or desire to expand capacities and something new.
Unfortunately now, it cost so much for something "new" that sticking with the old maybe easier as long it's in tooling still being used to produce the basic components.
I'm not sure AAV can be given enough protection from regular enemy threats like RPGs. Those things can be placed on beaches as well as next to a roadside. Marines need decide if they handle having vehicle that can get people to the beach or try to it all. Do it all cost's money, Japan is being practical since they don't go into harms way as often.
One question- Why have they given the journalists old pith helmets ?
ReplyDeleteIt's like why everyone in a construction area has to wear helmets. Safety. They're probably in an Army training range, hence regulations = helmets.
DeletePLA generals want to arm Hawaiian separatists with weapons.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/china-threatens-arm-hawaii-separatists-who-want-ki/
China threatens to arm Hawaii separatists who want kingdom
China has suggested arming Hawaii’s independence activists in retaliation for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and recently threatened to challenge American sovereignty by making legal claims to the Pacific islands as its territory.