Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

land warfare

Discussion in 'Space Technology' started by gf0012-aust, Mar 27, 2017.

Share This Page

  1. gf0012-aust

    gf0012-aust Grumpy Old Man Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    18,005
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Australia
  2. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    The USMC has some major challenges in front of it which the little tech dog won't help them with.

    They need to be successfull with their new AAV successor after the last cash and time burning attemps while keeping their current AAV inventory in service and upgraded.

    But this new vehicle most probably won't be as capable as the envisioned EFV leaving parts of the over the horizon employment dead in the water with only the Osprey and LCAC fullfilling their desired roles.

    And all that while replacing their legacy fighters with Lightnings, starting a program to ccompletely replace their aging LAV fleet, putting more Ospreys into service and getting started with the CH-53k introduction.

    I for one am not sold on the over the horizon employment idea. An adversary which has the capability to fire a decent salvo of modern AShMs with the ability to punctuate the USN defensive screen is most probably also able to track a sizeable amphibious assault force even if it is a bit further out at sea.

    I for one would really think of binning the AAV successor and instead pumping the money into an enlarged LAV replacement while also getting some additional fast ship to shore connectors to supplement the LCACs (I like the french EDA-R).

    Would also help with the mechanized part of the battle after the beachhead is secured. The amphibious vehicles will always carry the birdem of more compromises.
     
  3. Blue Jay

    Blue Jay Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2015
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York, USA
    From what I've seen the USMC is currently looking to procure a vehicle like the Iveco SuperAV which will have fairly solid swimming capabilities but will also rely a lot on Ship-to-shore connectors. 8WD. Optional manned turret with heavy armament options. Solid protection scheme (not sure if modular and/or scalable). And a 8-12 troop capacity depending on configuration. It sounds pretty similar to your enlarged LAV suggestion, minus the additional LCACs.

    Edit: Extra details on SuperAV.
     
  4. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    You mean the BAE ACV 1.1 prototype? I've seen it. It's still huge, has no turret with AC/ATGM and probably is without serious armor protection due to it's swimming requirements.

    With enlarged I meant more in numbers and not physically larger. Sorry for being unspecific. Give them a family of ground combat vehicles best suited to expeditionary maneuver warfare without the ballast of huge troop capacities or getting to the beach on it's own power. Putting some extra LCACs/EDA-Rs) onto a semi submersible ship carrier is probably much cheaper than getting a new AAV successor into service. The corps needs to stop burning huge amounts of cash for the ship to shore phase of combat which in the end is quite rare and short albeit critical.

    Concentrate on getting the USMC vehicles to the shore without the huge ballast in terms of costs and ground combat capability compromises that comes with having them amphibious.
     
  5. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    In the rum store
    This is it: Iveco Superav 8x8 Armoured Personnel Carrier - Army Technology. Has a turret on it and has capability to offer different variants. Also has add on armour as well.
     
  6. colay1

    colay1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    terra
  7. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    But this is a possible LAV successor and not an AAV replacement, no? The design appereance, speed (5km/h in the Water) and text (replacement of the M113 amphibious vehicle) suggest it to be able to cross and navigate inland water obstacles like rivers and lakes not coping with the surf of a beach landing.

    I forgot about the UHAC. If they get it to work it would IMO add to the incentive of getting rid of amphibious APCs able to navigate the surf by themselves and just rely on ship to shore connectors.
     
  8. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    In the rum store
    The USMC are already testing the BAE Iveco Superav 8x8 Armoured Personnel Carrier through the surf. Same with the SAIC - AAV Terrex II 8X8. These are the two shortlisted finalists in the competition.
     
  9. Blue Jay

    Blue Jay Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2015
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York, USA
    AAVP7A1 specs added in [brackets] for comparison.

    Actually, the BAE/Iveco SuperAV modified variant submitted for ACV 1.1 can allegedly swim 10nmi [20nmi] from a well deck to shore at 6-7mph [8mph] through Sea State 2-3 (modest winds and ~2ft waves) [compare to Sea State 5] with 13 combat loaded marines [21 marines].

    It can then drive 290mi on land immediately after [unsure about AAV]. Reserve buoyancy of 21% [compared to 22%]. It seems to offer very good blast protection as well. The baseline variant has no turret, but it appears that provisions for variants with unmanned turrets (probably similar to the German Puma) will be made available, with weapons of up to 40mm able to be mounted [compare to .50 cal + 40mm grenade launcher]. The Italians use a 30mm auto cannon. I don't see why ATGMs couldn't be integrated either.

    I expect that there will be multiple variants of the vehicle like the US Army did with the Stryker. The link ngatimozart posted states that APC, ATGM, mortar carrier, engineer vehicle, recovery vehicle, ambulance and command post variants are already available.

    Interesting detail is that each wheel is apparently individually powered, giving the vehicle some of the characteristics of a tracked vehicle.

    As of now, the program has down selected to two competing designs. The other is a version of the SAIC Terrex, currently in service with Singapore. A fairly similar vehicle.

    All in all it seems like the new designs are less capable as amphibs, but are more capable on land (where it really counts) in return, leading to a less compromised design.

    https://news.usni.org/2015/09/28/ma...ow-off-prototypes-as-program-downselect-nears

    Second link providing specs for the older SuperAV variant that was entered for the MPC program. Gives a lot more technical details including its protection:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/superav.htm

    Edit: added 2nd link.

    Edit: added detail about individually powered wheels.
     
  10. colay1

    colay1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    terra
    The goofy-looking UHAC can also serve as a taxi for APCs and AAVs. You could piggyback 3 at a time on a UHAC to be launched into the water much closer to the beach.
     
  11. Blue Jay

    Blue Jay Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2015
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York, USA
    It'd be very interesting to see if UHACs end up replacing the US's current LCACs. You'd essentially have enormous amphibious tracked vehicles plowing through the ocean at 20kn to land on the beach and unload their cargo.

    Would a production variant be purely like an LCAC or LCU? Or would it follow a similar path as the old LVTs and grow to have assault/fire support capabilities? It essentially is an oversized LVT.
     
  12. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    Thanks for the AAV/ACV stat comparison.

    Give it a turret and it's surf crossing ability will be reduced even further coming close to the inland water capability mentioned above.

    I for one think that this is the right way. The AAVs performance in the land warfare phase of Iraq wasn't exactly stellar and the LAVs are getting quite old by now.

    It is also questionable if an enemy sophisticated enough for keeping the amphibs out in the blue will not eat an amphibious vehicle assault for breakfast anyway.

    Just some dispersed NLOS carrier and spotters will be a real problem. The Japanese envision to use their NLOS ATGMs on their Humvee equivalent this way.
     
  13. colay1

    colay1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    terra
    Forget the WW2-style amphibious landings. Swarms of UAVs, USVs and UUVs will play prominent roles in a future assault force to help mitigate the threats posed by enemy defenses. Achieving a pervasive presence and awareness of the battle space leading up to and during engagement should allow one to fight smarter.


    https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/articles/marines-testing-new-technology-for-amphibious-landings

    New amphibious landing tactics and technology

    This April, the Navy and Marine Corps will hold an exercise at Camp Pendleton, California, that will test more than 100 proposed technologies to help Marines find and exploit gaps in enemy defenses as part of amphibious operations, which will include drones, communications equipment and remote-control amphibious vehicles, officials said at a media roundtable on Thursday... A joint Navy-Marine Corps task force will determine which technologies the Marines will further test during a military exercise this fall at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, officials said...Think about it this way: I’m maneuvering ashore, potentially in a boat,” he said. “What’s flying overhead is an unmanned swarm, that as soon as somebody radiates, gives off a signature, that swarm is just going right after them.”

    In the vignette, the Marine aviation commander says he knew that the Marines could not destroy all of the enemy’s coastal and air defenses, “But we could create ‘bubbles’ for small periods.”

    The intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technology being tested in April is meant to help create such bubbles by finding gaps in enemy defenses where Marines can send manned and unmanned forces, said Maj. Jim Foley, with the Ellis Group, the Marine Corps’ think tank that explores future warfighting scenarios...Think about it this way: I’m maneuvering ashore, potentially in a boat,” he said. “What’s flying overhead is an unmanned swarm, that as soon as somebody radiates, gives off a signature, that swarm is just going right after them.”
     
  14. Blue Jay

    Blue Jay Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2015
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York, USA
    I actually recall reading an article with a more detailed description of how the USMC would create bubbles of survivability within a hostile environment. It was within the context of the South China Sea and also mentioned Multi-Domain Battle. I'll see if I can find the article then post the link here.

    Edit: Google is wonderful. I found the article. Here's the link:

    http://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/a-bridgehead-too-far-csbas-aggressive-risky-strategy-for-marines/
     
  15. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    I am not sold on the plan described in the article of establishing static land bases inside the area where the enemy can reach out and touch you.

    The idea of creating a bubble of air support to attack emerging threats to the amphibious assault force is not new and may work. Replace the fancy UAV swarm with LHD based rotary air and LHD/CVN based fast air and it is what they are doing these days anyway. As mentioned in the article, getting the ISR bubble to work is the challenge.

    But the idea that an enemy won't hit these fixed forward bases due to camouflage, fortifications and protection systems is not based on real world capabilities IMHO.

    The Donbass conflict has shown that artillery is still king on the battlefield. Such a base won't be safe from a battery of Smerchs firing bomblets from some 70 klicks away and never will. And these artillery strikes are extremely hard to prevent and hard to counter.

    And to think that a company of Marines, their vehicles, some artillery and AD assets and a rotary/VTOL service point is not worth a couple of battery shots of an enemy rocket or tube artillery unit is delusional.

    The commentary of the army general in the article is quite right. Everything standing still for too long is dead meat on todays battlefields.
     
  16. Blue Jay

    Blue Jay Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2015
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York, USA
    The take I had on it was that it wasn't necessarily to create bases that will turtle in the middle of a hostile environment. Rather the static bases would put friendly forces in very enabling positions that will allow them to reach out and touch the enemy instead. The key is to get them there in the first place (with the help of ISR assets), then make them survivable enough to accomplish the neutralization of enemy assets before they themselves get taken down (which is accomplished by making them small and numerous). The fight as a whole would be a race to see who could deal the necessary amount of damage the quickest.

    The plan seems to be rather unsustainable in of itself, but it doesn't need to be. It's a very aggressive, offense-minded, high-risk plan that only needs to last for however long the marines need to open up the way for more forces to penetrate the AD/A2 wall.

    IIRC it's like trying to push open a door someone else is trying to hold closed. ISR assets push and open up the door just a crack, then the marines jam their fingers into the crack and wiggle it just open enough for someone to slide in the doorstop. Once the doorstop is in, you've penetrated the A2/AD and its just a matter of pushing.

    Probably not 100% accurate, but that's the vibe I got. I think there's definitely merit in the concept.
     
  17. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    That's why I wrote "inside the area where the enemy can reach out and touch you".

    A base which contains HIMARS to hit enemy positions is at minimum in range of Smerch, Tornado and co. rocket artillery (I always forget the Chinese versions...) and if unlucky also in tube artillery range. If it contains a service point for F-35s it may even warrant an Iskander or two (or another SRBM).

    The point is it goes counter the whole idea of shoot and scoot which was deemed essential since the cold war. The need for dispersion and maneuver warfare goes into the same direction.

    The time from target aquisition to shooter has gotten shorter and modern MLRS got even more widespread not only with the Russians and Chinese. So what has changed that sitting still in range of enemy artillery assets while actively participating in the fighting and thus radiating ones own position has become a good idea?

    No one can sell me on the corps being able to keep the location secret while using HIMARS and other active shooters out of it. When using a battery of MLRS with bomblets one doesn't need the exact position down to a meter...

    I hope this is not partly born out of recent conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan where fire bases were quite successfull. Ask the Ukrainians how they fared when not constantly on the move...
     
  18. gf0012-aust

    gf0012-aust Grumpy Old Man Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    18,005
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Australia
    and now much more difficult as the russians have used UAS as supporting spotters

    once they add designators to those UAS then you have another layer of difficulty in getting away on time

    and as you say, the area of effect for using dispersed shells/bomblets just adds another layer of hurt
     
  19. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    In the rum store
  20. colay1

    colay1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    terra
    I'm wondering how UHAC would fare vs IEDs. Applicable lessons learned from MRAP may be adopted.