Thanks for the link Jonathan!
vai Defense News.
I mean seriously! They are going from a fully motorized force, into an airlanded intervention force! I know that some will say that they're simply attempting to fulfill the vision of the force that General Shinseki laid out when he introduced the Stryker ICV as an interim vehicle.
I disagree.
We're looking at a US Army that is setting itself up for even worse trouble than what I see happening with SPMAGTF-CR's.
If they actually follow through with this we will see the 82nd Airborne Initial Ready Company being hung out to dry for 72 hours or more against forces that will have at least technicals, probably heavy anti-tank weapons and possibly even Chinese or Russian main battle tanks or armored personnel carriers.
The US Army is setting itself up for a bloodbath in a far off land. Blackhawk Down will look like a picnic in comparison.
vai Defense News.
Frost & Sullivan analyst Wayne Plucker credited the conceptual vehicles as more sustainable than the multi-ton mine-resistant ambush- protected vehicle, and said they might allow troops to operate a week without support, from an “airborne beachhead.”The Army is in even worse shape than the Marine Corps when it comes to forming a coherent doctrine...or to use Pentagon-speak..."shape a direction for future armored/mechanized transport" of their forces.
“My Marine colleague here called this, ‘too light to fight,’ ” Plucker said. “The Marines have several layers they can bring in via sealift, and this is the Army saying, ‘we can do this too,’ but they might need to finagle on the weights and sustainability. ... If we were inserting ourselves into Africa, say, not near a coast, it would probably work for a while.”
The LRV, envisioned for a six-scout squad, would host basic and advanced surveillance systems. Infrared systems, ground surveillance radar and links to UAVs would be among them. This would replace Humvees kitted with surveillance gear. Not meant as a fighting vehicle, it would have a medium-caliber weapon system and baseline protection against small arms, 152mm shrapnel and anti-personnel mines, with the ability to receive heavier armor.
The LRV’s capabilities development document is still in draft form; its estimated operating time frame is fiscal 2020. The platform is considered to be in the technology development phase with plans to hold a performance demonstration in the third or fourth quarter of fiscal 2015.
To be considered, the vehicles would have to be transportable inside or by sling load by a CH-47.
The MPF, envisioned for 2024, has an initial capabilities document scheduled for consideration in October by the Army Requirements Oversight Council.
In concept, the MPF would quickly engage enemy forces, protecting the infantry brigade’s freedom to maneuver.
I mean seriously! They are going from a fully motorized force, into an airlanded intervention force! I know that some will say that they're simply attempting to fulfill the vision of the force that General Shinseki laid out when he introduced the Stryker ICV as an interim vehicle.
I disagree.
We're looking at a US Army that is setting itself up for even worse trouble than what I see happening with SPMAGTF-CR's.
If they actually follow through with this we will see the 82nd Airborne Initial Ready Company being hung out to dry for 72 hours or more against forces that will have at least technicals, probably heavy anti-tank weapons and possibly even Chinese or Russian main battle tanks or armored personnel carriers.
The US Army is setting itself up for a bloodbath in a far off land. Blackhawk Down will look like a picnic in comparison.
At the start of WWII, the Army thought that a 37mm antitank gun towed behind a jeep was an excellent way to deal with enemy armor.
ReplyDeleteAnd then when the 37 mm towed was found wanting, designed a 57 mm that was also "towed behind" a vehicle.
DeleteTowed anti tank guns are dead meat when it comes to shoot and scoot.
Of course once that was learned they did the really intelligent thing and, "mounted the gun" in the back of a truck.
Of course designing an anti tank vehicle meant to the Army something with armor barely able to stop rifle fire yet could haul butt a little faster than a tank.
The reason?
Army designer's and Generals know as well as Politician's that one important fact, "It will not be their son's and daughter's dying for their fuck ups" no, it will be our son's and daughter's.
This is where jewels like the F2F Brewster Buffalo come from.
I submit the new name for the F-35 be the F35 Brewster Buffalo II.
ReplyDeleteHey Sol, this is one of the ideas that some other militaries are also debating. The Heavy tank versus antitank confrontations more or less got to the limit of the 65 ton tank, and there is no advantage adding more armor. The next step seems to be active protection systems, which enable the maneuver unit (tank and IFV) to be lightly armored and fast and cheap and having a small logistics and maintenance tail. Wheeled vehicles have greater strategic mobility than tracked tanks (which require expensive transporters) and with advanced suspension and bigger engines are able to move over 95% (?) of the terrain that tracked vehicles can traverse.
ReplyDeleteThe above prototype seems to go in that direction. The Israeli Military Industries CombatGuard 4x4 armoured vehicle is very similar in design and has Active Antimissile System and RWS with missile/heavy MG.
In the Second World War the heavy Tiger tank with 88mm HV gun and thick armour prevailed over the T34/Sherman M4 but was overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the lighter tanks, which cut through defenses and were victorious in the end. I can see a parallel and history seems to repeat itself.
All modern armies are searching for a mobility/protection/firepower combination to provide the tools for the next war, in which probably no large armoured division type formations will oppose armoured divisions and large static defense lines. The way it looks, the future battlefield will be more diffused. Not ideal for tank attack?
The IDF has an ongoing debate regarding maneuver and the tank versus fire (air and artillery - tube and rocker/'missile) with highly accurate delivery, and what form the next tank will be.
I must, however, note that the effective use of the heavy IFV, the Namer, and the heavy Merkava 4 in the last Gaza War, as a result of which the cutbacks in Markava and Namer have been cancelled and the orders doubled.
But it all depends on the terrain you are going to fighting in.....
Well-designed tanks don't require transporters.
DeleteOf course they do! Otherwise they will not last on their tracks and the roads will be chewed up for all other wheeled transport.
ReplyDeleteThe petrol/diesel gets used up a lot more and the need for more refueling tankers, tracks getting used up, etc.etc.
There is increasing favour for the mix of heavy tank and wheeled, lighter fighting vehicles for future battlefields.