Jump to content


Photo

Usmc Amphibious Combat Vehicle


  • Please log in to reply
298 replies to this topic

#21 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 06 March 2017 - 1857 PM

BTW, the vendors better read the contract specs, if it doesn't hold a full squad(13) don't even bother.  S/F....Ken M



#22 shootER5

shootER5

    Beer drinker, hell raiser.

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 711 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas
  • Interests:model building, history, firearms

Posted 06 March 2017 - 2023 PM

 

You mean the next version of the ©littoral combat ship?

 

 

:D 



#23 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,104 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2017 - 2225 PM

Why the overwhelming drive to make an AAV faster in the water? While it may be doable from an engineering standpoint (procurement cockups aside) once the initial assault is complete you're still left with a massive vehicle for the duration, not really optimized for long road marches driving to baghdad, and if you use the large capacity you're asking for a lot of casualties.

Instead what about an amphibious (but not necessarily surf rated) APC designed around a squad (13+2-3), so smaller than an AAV-7, and design a companion hovercraft around that: just large enough to lift it loaded.

Then you get all the speed in the water you want, they're smaller than LCAC so you can carry more, and once the initial wave is done they can help with ship to shore. LCACs can still be used for bulk items, MBT, large number of softskins etc.

Factor in evolutionary upgrades (but not revolutionary): APC around 23 tons in assault config, 30 tons with addon armor, M230/Javelin RWS, licence produced active protection, mine resistant seating.

Battalion landing team would get 12-24 APC/Hovercraft combos for the GCE (one for one hovercraft / apc combo to replace each AAV-7 and maybe each LAV)

Edited by Burncycle360, 06 March 2017 - 2229 PM.


#24 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,104 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2017 - 2234 PM

Would be a pity if those Marines actually needed some heavy support..................
 
Or would Astro-Gavins provide suitable support?  I mean if the US can rocket three men to the moon on top of a Saturn 5, why cannot they send a company of 10 Astro-Gavins, on 10 Saturn 5s, to support space Marines landed in Pervertistan half the way across the world?


Geostationary space based lasers and rods from god on call should do nicely ;)

#25 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,129 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 06 March 2017 - 2339 PM

An LCU? The problem with any landing craft is that they are competing for stern well space and time when your LHA or LPD is sitting still and waiting to be hit. Hence the interest in staying over the horizon.

The LST was specifically designed to schlep a company of medium tanks across theatres and land them on a distant beach.



#26 CaptLuke

CaptLuke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,095 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco, CA, USA

Posted 06 March 2017 - 2342 PM

USMC has the same problem that US Army Airmobile/Airborne have: they're fixed on one vehicle that solves both their transport problem and their "after the landing is secure, we're driving around the next A-stan, or worse," problem.

 

The requirements to get the vehicle to the landing are a huge handicap for making the vehicle suitable for sustained combat afterwards and vice versa.  It's a fool's errand to try to combine the two requirements into one vehicle.

 

A lot more options open up if you start looking at two vehicles: one for an initial landing and a much larger, better protected one that can be landed later, after your logistics are secure, for the long haul.


Edited by CaptLuke, 06 March 2017 - 2343 PM.


#27 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,104 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2017 - 2348 PM

An LCU? The problem with any landing craft is that they are competing for stern well space and time when your LHA or LPD is sitting still and waiting to be hit.

 

Rough estimate based on deck space yields ~18 full sized LCAC pre-loaded with whatever you'd like on a platform that can semi-submerge as necessary.

 

 

 

F6VtaIl.jpg

 


Edited by Burncycle360, 06 March 2017 - 2348 PM.


#28 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,129 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 06 March 2017 - 2352 PM

I'm seeing a bit of a freeboard issue myself.



#29 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,903 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 07 March 2017 - 0238 AM

 

1) Depends who you fight and whether they fight back. That is unchanging.

 

2) Most materiel for sustained campaigns still goes by ship to the theater. Geography follows.

 

3) Despite your presumed logic, nobody in the USN/USMC wants to lead a surface assault with LCACs! Nor does anybody think the helicopter proves the only necessary assault means.

1) If you fight enemy's like Granada, AMTRACS are ok, if you fight enemy's like Russia or China, AMTRACS are death traps.
 

2) Exactly. That's why you need more Fast ship to shore connectors.

 

3) Is is not my logic. Most European nations embrace this concept.

 

You must forget assault on heavily defended shores. No AMTRAC can withstand artillery & Airforce bombardment, modern ATGW systems, Tank, IFV, SPAAG and TAAG cannon fire. When the defenders spot them, it will be a blood bath. And you all know that drones are the most common machine of detection, accessible even to the poorest. China & Russia have fare more sophisticated drones, radars, satellites ect to detect AMTRACS swimming slowly to the shores. 

 

An AMTRAC is not meant to be able to withstand those.  The entire idea is to land where the defenders are not, or where they are sparce.  If a country has 1000 kilometres of coastline to defend, it usually means that the whole 1000k cannot be defended well.  Amphibious forces should aim to land and form a bridgehead, and use airborne / helicopter borne forces to impede the enemy concentrating on that bridgehead.  Examples may be the landing by Super Sea Stallion of light armoured units to slow or block defenders.  For those landings such vehicles are very useful.

 

Amphibious forces can also provide a threat off a coast that a defender must be prepared to move forces to meet, thus diluting forces available elsewhere. An amphibious force off the coast of Kuwait caused the Iraqi occupiers to have to deal with a possible landing, without a landing actually taking place. 



#30 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 07 March 2017 - 1520 PM

What about amphibious tanks like the Chinese ZTD05?

 

https://www.wikiwand...TD05_Light_Tank

I'm not sure how amphibious they are, Andreas. For oceanic use, they need to operate in state 3 seas and cross surf.



#31 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 07 March 2017 - 1527 PM

The amphibious force off Kuwait in 1991 was unable to handle mines in the surf zone and beach. All it managed was a token raid on an offshore island. We also took hits farther offshore, from Italian-made Mantra Mines: an FFG and an LPH among them.

 

One can just as easily say that a few Iraqi divisions manned by conscripts managed to keep two first-rate USMC brigades stranded offshore, unable to support.  In the end, one regiment of infantry, 5th Marines,  was landed behind friendly lines to move forward as reinforcements. Unnecessary even at the time.

 

The Very Shallow MCM Systems had already been deleted from the 1990 POM. So it remains.


Edited by Ken Estes, 07 March 2017 - 1550 PM.


#32 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 07 March 2017 - 1549 PM

 

An LCU? The problem with any landing craft is that they are competing for stern well space and time when your LHA or LPD is sitting still and waiting to be hit.

 

Rough estimate based on deck space yields ~18 full sized LCAC pre-loaded with whatever you'd like on a platform that can semi-submerge as necessary.

 

 

 

F6VtaIl.jpg

 

 

Thanks. That's a good example that physics still rules and relatively small explosives [much less than a mine] can disable a warship. There is really no such thing as mineproof vessels.

 

The heavy lift type ship, BTW, could never participate in an amphibious operation, except one that has been secured. Amphibious shipping must have double or triple hulls, mechanical redundancies, damage control systems and other features that make most merchant ships unsuitable.



#33 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 07 March 2017 - 1558 PM

The amphibious force off Kuwait in 1991 was unable to handle mines in the surf zone and beach. All it managed was a token raid on an offshore island. We also took hits farther offshore, from Italian-made Mantra Mines: an FFG and an LPH among them.

 

One can just as easily say that a few Iraqi divisions manned by conscripts managed to keep two first-rate USMC brigades stranded offshore, unable to support.  In the end, one regiment of infantry, 5th Marines,  was landed behind friendly lines to move forward as reinforcements. Unnecessary even at the time.

 

The Very Shallow MCM Systems had already been deleted from the 1990 POM. So it remains.

 

Mine warfare is something the USN only does reluctantly, the boost of the Korean war lasted for 20 years but now it's all but forgotten. 



#34 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 2129 PM

 

The amphibious force off Kuwait in 1991 was unable to handle mines in the surf zone and beach. All it managed was a token raid on an offshore island. We also took hits farther offshore, from Italian-made Mantra Mines: an FFG and an LPH among them.

 

One can just as easily say that a few Iraqi divisions manned by conscripts managed to keep two first-rate USMC brigades stranded offshore, unable to support.  In the end, one regiment of infantry, 5th Marines,  was landed behind friendly lines to move forward as reinforcements. Unnecessary even at the time.

 

The Very Shallow MCM Systems had already been deleted from the 1990 POM. So it remains.

 

Mine warfare is something the USN only does reluctantly, the boost of the Korean war lasted for 20 years but now it's all but forgotten. 

 

Unsexy therefore career killer



#35 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,104 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 March 2017 - 2303 PM

 

 

An LCU? The problem with any landing craft is that they are competing for stern well space and time when your LHA or LPD is sitting still and waiting to be hit.

 

Rough estimate based on deck space yields ~18 full sized LCAC pre-loaded with whatever you'd like on a platform that can semi-submerge as necessary.

 

 

 

F6VtaIl.jpg

 

 

Thanks. That's a good example that physics still rules and relatively small explosives [much less than a mine] can disable a warship. There is really no such thing as mineproof vessels.

 

The heavy lift type ship, BTW, could never participate in an amphibious operation, except one that has been secured. Amphibious shipping must have double or triple hulls, mechanical redundancies, damage control systems and other features that make most merchant ships unsuitable.

 

 

Of course it would be quite vulnerable.  Even though we're talking over-the-horizon ops, ANY ship in an amphibious ready group would be absolutely mission killed (at least) after a hit from any modern anti shipping missile or torpedo.

 

But that wasn't the point... I wasn't necessarily suggesting we literally place LCACs on a commercial ship. Besides Blue Marlin is way too slow to keep up.  I was giving a size / capability reference. 

 

The point is, If your concept of operations requires a certain number of LCACS  (just for example) to surge a certain amount of assets for the initial landing, then you plan your procurement accordingly.  The technology is there.  Whether it's a ship purpose built to military standards (not sure if possible without solid gold plating), a  commercial standard vessel pressed into service ( ala the Brits in the Falklands), or a purpose built military vessel to commercial standards (Littoral Combat Ship), it's not the first time the military has been willing to sacrifice survivability.

 

So maybe there needs to be a fresh start to get everyone on the same page as to just what capabilities are obsolete, what capabilities are desired, what's the best way to achieve it and, what we can do with this mish-mash of equipment that exists as a result of decades of half-completed doctrine changes that never quite panned out (V-22, LCS, Zumwalt, EFV, etc)


Edited by Burncycle360, 07 March 2017 - 2306 PM.


#36 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,129 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 07 March 2017 - 2340 PM

I've always wondered if the Japanese Type 2 Ka-Mi arrangement might not be a way of getting greater performance afloat which can then be jettisoned once you get on shore. A foam filled bow section and water jet equipped propulsion module aft that can be dumped and recovered once ashore.



#37 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,903 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 08 March 2017 - 0526 AM

I've always wondered if the Japanese Type 2 Ka-Mi arrangement might not be a way of getting greater performance afloat which can then be jettisoned once you get on shore. A foam filled bow section and water jet equipped propulsion module aft that can be dumped and recovered once ashore.

 

The USA actually had something similar worked out for the M-4

 

m4-medium-tank-m19-flotation-device-01.p

 

Of course the DD worked better


Edited by DougRichards, 08 March 2017 - 0529 AM.


#38 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,427 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 March 2017 - 0602 AM

A further development from the Type 95 Ha-Go light tank based Type 2 Ka-Mi was the Type 1 Chi-He based Type 3 Ka-Chi. Ka-Chi had 50 mm of armor on the front hull and turret and water speed is given as 10.5 km/h. Only 19 of these were made and none saw combat.

 

Ka-Chi1.jpg

 

ka-chi2.jpg



#39 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 08 March 2017 - 1444 PM

 

 

The amphibious force off Kuwait in 1991 was unable to handle mines in the surf zone and beach. All it managed was a token raid on an offshore island. We also took hits farther offshore, from Italian-made Mantra Mines: an FFG and an LPH among them.

 

One can just as easily say that a few Iraqi divisions manned by conscripts managed to keep two first-rate USMC brigades stranded offshore, unable to support.  In the end, one regiment of infantry, 5th Marines,  was landed behind friendly lines to move forward as reinforcements. Unnecessary even at the time.

 

The Very Shallow MCM Systems had already been deleted from the 1990 POM. So it remains.

 

Mine warfare is something the USN only does reluctantly, the boost of the Korean war lasted for 20 years but now it's all but forgotten. 

 

Unsexy therefore career killer

 

But a good school for Ensigns and jaygees...



#40 Indy_Shark

Indy_Shark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis, Indiana

Posted 08 March 2017 - 1453 PM

I thought there were two prototypes being tested. SAIC and BAE.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users