Friday, December 26, 2014

Lets talk Ultra Light Combat Vehicle Concept...

First lets see what the horses mouth has to say about the Ultra Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV)...



Next, lets look at the contenders for the contract...

Polaris DAGR

Boeing Phantom Badger

General Dynamics Flyer 72

So now we know what and who the ULCV is designed for, but the short document also has several highlights that are of importance...

*  The vehicle is being designed specifically for the 82nd and 101st.

*  We can assume that the selected vehicle will see widespread use among all the Combat Aviation Brigades.

*  Mobility for Airborne and Air Assault operations has been ill served by the heavier HMMWV and projected (although I still believe it will be canceled) JLTV.

The real play here?

The US Army is attempting to make the Global Reaction Force more competitive.  The Army is playing for keeps.  What is the biggest criticism of Airborne forces once they leave the drop zone?  They lack mobility...even against rebels in technicals.

Show your age.

How many of you remember the once in vogue Pentagon term "out of area operations"?

That's what the Army is trying to reclaim.  The expeditionary pieces are falling into place.  The heavy mech is already covered.  The old out of area operations is the final piece of the puzzle.

The USMC better be aware.  They're not drinking our milkshake (yet) but they have a straw out.

Sidenote:  The great that come out of this is that the Marine Corps will soon be looking for a replacement for the Internally Carried Vehicle.  It would be awesome if we could piggy back off this development...I know the Phantom Badger is internally carriable by the V-22 and I think the Flyer 72 is...I don't know about the DAGOR (Coffee Man set me straight.  The Flyer 72 IS NOT internally carriable by the V-22 but they have a different model that is).

Sidenote 1:  We see the vehicles.  We know who they're intended to go to.  What we don't know is the concept that they're being developed to fill.  Airborne troops don't normally drop into an area to conduct a raid and then drive out...not normally anyway.  SO WHAT IS THE THINKING BEHIND THIS?  The Army doesn't like talking to me but I'll shoot an e-mail to the Maneuver Center to see if they'll fill in the holes.

28 comments :

  1. That looks more like a special forces quick-strike or long-range-desert patrol mission vehicle. As for real fights (Blackhawk down (land phase), Iraq etc. Soft vehicles don't do well in AK / RPG-rich environs. They get shot up. Killing a lot of people. Would rather have a CH-47 sling-load an M113. https://twitter.com/USAACE/status/243414306690043906

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also para-drops of M-113s have been done before. LAPES drops also. Same with M551s. M551 is out of service. Its original gun system was goofy but you would have to admit having a direct fire 150mm -class weapon would make short work of points of resistance faced today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50cpPAVoxJQ

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eric Palmer. The RPG accounted for at least 5 Sheridan kills in Vietnam that I know about, and countless M113 kills across the Arab world as part of the "Arab Spring"

    You can't sling load or drop enough armor to negate the RPG threat to vehicle crews. At best you can bolt on an RPG cage once the vehicle hits the ground.

    The ULCV is based on the classic Light Infantry missions of "Raid, Recon, and Ambush" where defense is not needed because the whole point is to use the element of surprise to obtain overwhelming effects on the target.

    The ULCV is not designed for peacekeeping, presence patrolling, or MOOTW missions in general.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its about knowing your mission and staying to that. When i look at the ULCV, i think Marine RECON during the invasion of Iraq. bare bone humvee's, heavy guns, no armor. Moving quick and hitting hard.

      now if you could get this vehicle going, and develop some sort of IFV/APC to support this force you would have a really interesting concept. I do see a TOW being used by this vehicle at the least.

      Delete
    2. A TOW kit would easily fit on a ULCV, and odds are one will be, especially if they need to conduct a raid or pull security where the enemy has military vehicles. Or there happens to be a bunker that needs busting.

      In Afghanistan we used John Deere Gators with field expedient mounts to drive off of CH-47s to support raids with a "mobile heavy machine gun" and plenty of firepower. They could drive on/off from the ramp quickly and carry extra ammo, batteries, food and water. Even serve as a medical evacuation platform if need be. The SAS with their Land Rovers looked a lot sexier.

      Traditional airborne ops deliver a lot of dismounts. People need support, and if it isn't in your rucksack well doom on you. Adding more light vehicles to the mix means more rolling arms rooms, more mobile command posts, more rolling supply rooms. And as far as getting paratroopers out of combat, well they have to get somewhere that they can get picked up by helicopters, an airstrip for fixed wing extraction, or link up with ground vehicles.

      The UCLV is there to support those paratroopers (or SOF) during that time period between feet hitting the dirt and link up for extraction. But there will be an awful lot of paratroopers who are still walking.

      Delete
  4. Sol, Flyer 72 is internally carriable for CH53 and 53K but it's 72 inch with prevents V22. For that there is a 60 inch wide version which is likely what the Air Force may be looking at to.

    http://www.gd-ots.com/flyer.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. which is a shame as the flyer is showing some awesome potential.

      Delete
    2. funny cause the vehicle that has my mouth watering is the Phantom Badger. agreed on its role as being a quick strike vehicle but we're talking about Airborne Infantry so i don't understand the contention that its going to be used for raids and such. Airborne Raids are SOCOMs job and Airborne Infantry is to hold ground until relieved. i'm saying all that to say that the vehicle is being designed but we still don't know the concept that they're looking to put in place for its use.

      Delete
    3. Well Like I said there is a Version, the Flyer 60 which is Scaled for the V22 but it's smaller giving up cargo and personal capacity.

      Delete
  5. Like you said, the best thing that could happen is if the USMC piggybacked into this to replace the ITV/EFSS prime mover. If it has a better availability and it has parts that don't all have to take months because they are custom built, it will be a God-send to the mortar community.
    I would like to see infantry Battalions and Regiments get it. The Bns don't have anything to carry 81mms right now other than grunts. Regiments should get this vehicle and Arty should turnover the 120mm mortar EFSS to become Regimental mortars and allow infantry to have scalable effects (60mm at Co, 81mm at Bn with this vehicle, 120mm at Regt with same vehicle). This I would get excited about

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any reason not to have 120s at the Company level the way the Army went with the Stryker units? As we retire those digitized M113 based mortar carriers I'm sure the USMC could find a use for an ancient amphibious tracked vehicle... Lots of good fire support from the digital fire control system, and zero setup time. Just stop the vehicle, plug the data, orient the tube, and start dropping rounds. No settling of base plates, and you can pop the sucker back into drive before counter fire arrives....

      Delete
    2. Those tracked 120mms came in very handy in Iraq. Having them at the Company level would be great, but not sure that the USMC would like to support another vehicle.

      Delete
    3. the problem comes from who operates them. artillery took the 120's from the infantry (they saw where the wind was blowing under amos and knew that big guns was going the way of the dodo bird under his leadership...the 120 was a way to stay relevant...some have talked about getting rid of guns altogether and rely on big tubes). additionally no one wants to give what limited tracks we have to artillery to be used for other than transporting infantry. last but not least i say yes take anything surplus from the Army that we can use.

      Delete
    4. Add to that that the amphibious is limited at best. the LAV 25 has.. Had a faster Swim speed in rougher waters. Even the ACV 1.1 worst model has a faster swim. M113's swim is about 3.5 MPH in calm water. even if you use the amphib modification it's not much better.

      Delete
    5. Yes, but right now the USMC has what in terms of self propelled heavy mortar systems?

      Something is generally better than "nothing" in my humble opinion. And not swimming very well hasn't been a handicap for Marine tank crews, or those 6x6 logistics trucks that haul around the M777s. And technically they could be slung under a CH-53. The M113 fanbois are always telling me how deployable the M113 is, including C-130 droppable.

      Honestly if I had to choose between an air drop direct fire weapon (light tank) and air drop mechanized mortars, I'm going to choose the mortars for any sort of maneuver outside of urban areas.

      Delete
    6. The Marines did have a program a while back called Dragon Fire 2 which used a self loading 120mm Mortar that could be towed by a Growler or placed in a LAV hull. There is also the 120mm Elbit Spear Mortar system which could be mounted on a Flyer or Badger or perhaps even a Dagor
      http://youtu.be/4OrlIIiZJJk

      Which would be a Step up form a EFFS
      http://youtu.be/bIOK1Raw7ds

      Delete
    7. http://youtu.be/b9UIPPGViWs
      Phantom badger with a 120mm mortar and fire control system as well as ammo storage. all based on the Army's Digital 120mm system

      Delete
  6. Okay, bonus points I think go to the GD Flyer as not only does it have a version that fits in the Osprey ( a fairly Tall order) but It also can be up armored.

    DAGOR's to wide for Osprey. For the Army that's not a issue as they don't use V22 anyway but that would limit Marine buys unless they only use them with CH53 and 53K. the reason it can fit it's to wide 74 inches.

    Phantom Badger was designed specifically to be suitable for the Osprey and is 60 inches in with. it it reconfigurable with a mission module in the rear.

    Already I think we see a trend here. Why is it that DAGOR and Flyer 72 are to wide well the 60 inch wide Phantom Badger and Flyer 60 can? The M151 Mutt and the Ch 46. hitting the way back Machine we hit 1980. Operation Eagle Claw and it's failure at Desert one became the reasons for the Remodel of US Special operations and one of the leading reasons behind the then Army Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental program that would create the V22. When the Marines took the program in 1983 they decided to place it in there fleet as a direct replacement for the CH46 Sea knight with that aim they used the internal dimensions of the Sea Knight as the point of reference. That Chopper intern was built to carry the M151 internally And so to was the Osprey. M151 Was a based on the post WW2 M38A1 Jeep but with a higher Suspension, Ground Clearance, narrower body and lower curb weight to give it better Off Road performance but this also gave it a higher roll over rate and in the 80's the DOD had started retrofit Roll bars to the MUTT by 1984 the Army started the Humvee program but the HMMWV has a 85 inch with making it impossible to fit in the Osprey or Sea knight. well the Army's Chinook has a ramp and door of a much wider with allowing it to load Hummers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is basically a modern Jeep. from WW2-Vietnam we have used jeeps for just about .... well everything we didn't use a truck for and some things we should have used trucks for. There is always a need for a general light utility vehicle you can take anywhere. They are less planned to fill a specific niche than a vehicle you use to fill in a niche you had forgotten about.

    We moved a lot troops in every war by light utility vehicles without armor. I have a young MP friend you came back from Iraq who loves the idea of these vehicle. He and his teams used stripped Humvees and suffered less casualties than MP platoons who had taken on the armored Humvees. Given a choice of plodding in a slow MRAP that can't do true cross-country, and one of these light all terrain vehicles, He would rather get his kidneys bounced a bit riding off road than being a target stuck to roads that can handle a heavy vehicle.
    A jeep isn't what you want for every job, but no vehicle is. I personally like a little steel between me and the enemy, but no armored personnel vehicle is invulnerable for that matter. Okay, an Abrams is close...but unless we decide to do the Israeli thing of converting tanks to APC's then yea, no APC is invulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting specifications for the contract.

    Has anyone tried to imagine 9 men with equipment sitting in one of these?

    Makes you wonder if they are looking for a combat vehicle or a clown car, not to mention doctrine wise, they seem to have no idea what they want out of a platform other than "carry 9 men". No mention of possible weapons fits or how it would integrate with the unit, so I'd be guessing that it is going to be a logistics vehicle only, which is a pity as many here have pointed out, it can dual role into a fire support platform without too much compromise.

    I would have gone 6 man vehicle, one fire team + gunner and driver, basically a "reinforcement" vehicle, organize them administratively as part of the support platoon swapping them out one on one for a mortar team, MG team or AT team.

    https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5556/14471236032_d11f22d5ed.jpg

    Really looks like the DAGR doesn't it? GPMG with scope on the right, AT missiles on the top.

    Now why does it remind me of Halo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9 men per vehicle is pushing it maybe a bridge too far. i don't see how they're going to be able to swing it. consider. if this is more than a 48 hour mission then you're going to be stacking a bunch of ammo, food and water in addition to fuel ontop of the packs, crew served weapons and all those guys. they should have gone with a max of 6 and maybe bought trailers to go with the vehicles.

      Delete
    2. I think trailers is the part of the aim with these.

      Delete
    3. Solomon allowed Owl back to the blog ?

      Delete
    4. yep. i was short fused. it happens. don't expect an apology though.

      Delete
    5. Guess we were both a bit short fused, mutual hot button push I guess. Though the ISIS comparison just for a differing opinion was rather nasty.

      I can sort of see where they are going with the 9 men thing, if you totally treated it as a transport from point A to point B for men only, you don't need stores, ammo, food or water, only what the men carry on themselves, which means that they want a cargo truck only and nothing else, which is how you end up with "as many men as you can carry" as a requirement. If you wanted a combat support unit, the 4+2 would be what they would be looking for. One fireteam + vehicle crew. Remember, 9 men, one squad, so when the squad goes into combat...who's left with the vehicle? No one. When you dismount to fight, the vehicle looks like it is going to be abandoned in place, which makes sense as leaving someone to guard the vehicle takes away firepower from the squad. So basically, the airborne forces are getting a truck, maybe with trailer to haul stuff. Not a light strike vehicle.

      Delete
  9. ULCV gets you sufficient rolling approach to bring a heavily equipped unit to the objective in minimum time from a distant insert.

    This buys you operational surprise because the threat isn't in overwatch on likely LZs and doesn't hear the rotor noise while it also provides tactical flexibility because the time variation between an HMG or Mortar team coming 1-2 miles from vehicle dropoff with the ordnance vs. humping it 6 miles from the LZ is a big one in terms of getting the mission on the target in a quick manner without necessarily exposing your ride by narrowing the proximity ring around the objective in a predictable road axis fashion.

    My issue, is that I would still like to see teams which are solely remote fires and MAV oriented. If you have a trailer full of Spikes as a cheap Netfires standin and two Ravens/Switchblades plus two operators (one missile, one UAS) on one vehicle and a 4-man security element in another, why do you /need/ a 9-man squad for a recce mission?

    If you're doing a platoon or company POI snatch, how much of that double perimeter is a function of the noise of the helos landing or the sight of 20 men walking in from the edge of town vs. a real need to hold off the locals with an outward looking protective schiltron? How much -less- could you get away with if you had overhead warning you of ambush and intelligent NLOS fires to punch a hole through any obstacle you couldn't avoid?

    What happens when your (hybrid) quiet ride is only half a block down ready to dash up as you walked out the front or back door with your man?

    It's all well and good to avoid giving out any more DFCs to idiots who put down their 100 million dollar Osprey into a storm of lead and then wonder why their flying writeoff doesn't wanna take off again. Because the easiest way to avoid hero-stupids is to simply avoid the opportunity with alternative cavalry methods of remote insert and fast getaway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. But once you are on the ground, you still need to consider the realities of what you can do with 30 vs. 3 mph mobility getting into a semi-urban environment to quickly vs. quietly reach your objective. And what you can -carry- in that mission so that, maybe, you don't have to go in at all.

      In 2006, when the IDF got their noses severely pushed in, trying send Merkava through a channelized kill sack covered by multiple ATGW, it was up to the Commandos of the Sayeret Matkal to provide an endgame solution to a politically unpopular war. They went north, deep into Lebanon to 'have a chat' with one of the big arms smugglers there and figure out, exactly, whether or not their people were still in the country.

      When they came back out, on their FAV type dune buggies were mounted slant launchers for Spike. The word was that X had several of his warehouses blown up with the notion that he would be a very poor man if he didn't arrange a meeting (the meet occurred and there was an ambush which got the SM leader and two others killed but not before it was verified that the soldiers were, in fact, already in Iran and likely dead...).

      With that achievement the war came to a rapid conclusion.

      There is no reason why OOA cannot be similarly enabled by multiple, small, light units pushing missions as varied as airfield attack and TEL hunting in support of say a DPRK/ROK war or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

      This ability to push beyond the frontal expectation zone and force the enemy to defend in depth is a large part of what we need to be considering as both an SWA and a Pacific Pivot conditioned fight.

      Because we will not be pushing from a FOB or other secure location. We will be dropping in the hot with a real need to secure mission force protection through randomness and multi-axial cross support (engaged/unengaged fighter) and not worry so much about fixed lines of retreat.

      If you don't have to take an objective you can instead hostage, then don't. Trade people for gear.

      Delete
  10. Hmmm, wonder what happen with FED Alpha.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.