The Marines are not defined by hardware but by being Marines.
Any hardware the USMC has should serve the mission; nothing more. Not the mission of the military industrial congressional complex. Not the mission of the United States Marketing Corps who have lost their way.
I would think Solomon and I could agree to that.
For the Pacific pivot, the USMC needs vehicles that get them where they need to go; don't cost a lot; and aren't so expensive that attrition is unworkable.
What vehicles would I like to see the USMC use in the Pacific, to be truly successful in the coming years?
These:
BMP-3
BTR-80 series (my favorite fun video which gets better after about the first minute).
BRDM-2
Weapons procurement is only there to serve the Marines. Not, the other way around.
13 comments:
I tend to like the Patria "Havoc" joint development being offered and tested.
A little heavier, more modern and more expensive than the good old boys Eric mentioned, but it would seem like an exceptional and sufficiently proven option with apparently pretty impressive amphibious performance and very good frontal arc protection, comparatively.
A definite upgrade over the LAV-25.
I especially like that Patria mortar-M variant, although not sure if the Marines will seek replacement for their LAV-25M ??
Why not do some modest enhancements to the M-113 APC within C-130 air transportability? Absolutely no point in junking well-proven in-service assets to benefit arms manufacturers who continually seek to flog products they have created ignoring some desirable military characteristics.
Bushranger 71,
There *is* the MTVL, which only weighs about 15 tons at combat weight in it's base configuration.
There's also the ACV-300 and ACV-S, made by FNSS in Turkey.
Moreover, with over 10000 M113s in US Army storage, we can afford to tinker a bit. ;-)
The USMC's current favorite for the Marine Personnel Carrier Program is Lockheed-Martin's "Havoc";
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/havoc.html
It's a license-built Patria AMV, with a number of bells and whistles for the USMC. Assuming the brochures are accurate (usually a dangerous assumption, I'll admit), it's one hell of a lot better than the LAV Is that the Havoc is meant to replace.
It might also interest you to know that I've compared the stats of the Havoc against the M1126 Stryker ICV;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG7qpxaLBP0
That's quite relevant, because the runner-up so far in the MPC competition is a variant of the Stryker itself, and it's f***ing HUGE;
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20120910/NEWS/209100319/Personnel-carrier-development-contracts-awarded
A few parting thoughts.
A Full-Track APC is better for obvious reasons, but few are still offered. Besides the two I mentioned to Bushranger 71, about the only modern Full-Track APCs I can think of are these...;
http://www.military-today.com/apc/g5.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/bionix_40_50.htm
http://defense-update.com/products/u/urbanfighter.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/namer.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/cv90_armadillo.htm
...but they're all too heavy to swim. There are Russian, Chinese, and "third-party" Full-Track APCs that swim, but I doubt the Marines will touch a vehicle with "cooties" on it.
Regarding one more Wheeled APC, the South African RG41 seems almost ideal for the MPC requirement, but it has a major, instant dis-qualifier which isn't likely fixable --- it can't swim;
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/rg41wheeledarmouredc/
Hang on we just got rid of 50% of our C130 assets.
Where is Bonza when you need him.
And then check out the stuff up of the program relating to the M113.
Hi Blacktail; you provide good info. Those derivatives of the M113 you mention are certainly the sort of gear more suited to Marines concepts of operations, especially in the SW Pacific.
My main point is many nations are now in a bind because for too long they have succumbed to being bribed by the arms manufacturers to accept largely unproven platforms that really do not have the attributes of well-proven in-service assets. With defence budgets shrinking and likely to be minimized for perhaps a decade, it just seems commonsense to enhance the proven platforms.
procurement is out of control. We spend billions of dollars on systems such as F-35 and LCS which are inferior and overpriced. We could buy eurofighters, meteor missiles, eurofrigates which all could be build in license here in the US and we would not have to worry about a degraded military through sequestration, but we are too proud to be practical and that is CHina is winning.
No question, the Turkish designed and built ACV-S variant could be a valid option to buy outright, or at least partially license-build in the US. For either the US Army or USMC.
And that Patria "Havoc" design too, designed by Finland, would also be a credible and proven design to acquire -- either by US Army or USMC.
I'm not so sure about the swimming abilities of the ACV-S, maybe an improvement over the LAV-25(?), but the swimming performance of the Patria design are definitely impressive.
I could envision quite a future capability by USMC if able to pull up out of nowhere, a couple JHSV 500m off shore and launch even 20 or so 'Havoc' vehicles off the back ramp in support of a special ops rescue mission.
"The Marines are not defined by hardware but by being Marines."
I couldn't agree more!
In WWII Marines swam to shore fully loaded island to island, only taking a break to piss napalm, and spit the salt water out of their mouths while yelling "Hoo-rah!" BArbed wire? Thats what teeth are for. Marines didn't Amtracs because armor is for wimps, the EGA is your sheild and the mameluke sword is your sword.
Flying was easy, marines need only sprint down a runway while making airplane noises and bending their gull "wings" (arms) (old corps saying)
The Marines have never needed unique equipment in the past!
The ACV-S is said to be fully-amphibious;
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/acv-s/
I can't verify that, but I know a video that shows the ACV-300 to be amphibious (among many other things);
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBmL0TytZuc
The ACV-300 is no experimental vehicle, BTW --- it's used by Iraq (300), the Philippines (7), Turkey (2249), the UAE (136), and Malaysia (323). That includes 16 Malaysian ACV-S'.
Maybe a fold-out platform could be built into the ACV-S ramp so when lowered, it could serve as a 120mm mortar base plate. There would probably be sufficient displacement from the hull to allow unrestricted launch of mortar rounds. A mortar crew would of course have to dismount.
The ACS-V could then be a terrific all round fire support vehicle. Just an outside the square thought!
Agreed, Bushrangeer71 - The 'ACV-S' would not be a bad 120mm mortar fire support vehicle!
But, my question would be... why would you prefer to have your crew dismount to operate a mortar -- thus putting them at unnecessary risk and hindering mobility -- when the apparently modular 'ACV-S' can just as easily be equipped with either a 120mm turreted or 120mm non-turreted 120mm mortar system?!?
Yet another follow-on question might be... could an ACV-S also be slung-lifted by a Marine CH-53K up to 100nm from base? Not sure what the ACV-S's loaded weight is, or if the CH-53K can sling up to 35k lbs?? If so, that would definitely be an incredible capability and open up some pretty dynamic tactical options.
That said, perhaps the Marines could ponder an economically mixed '25/15t' carrier vehicle acquisition plan; which could include the heavier Patria Havoc (likely with better swimming performance) + a lighter ACV-S?
Hello Anonymous; I meant keep the turreted cannon (1 man) and add a 120mm mortar capability. If there is room to do that via a rear roof hatch, then great.
Whichever option is practicable, the vehicle would be stationary for mortar firing anyway so mobility not really an issue. As for crew risk; it bothers me considerably why many these days seem loathe to accept that reasonable risk is just part of the game in war-fighting. Hitherto, mortars have mainly been operated in largely unprotected scenarios.
Regarding airlift of an ACV-S or whatever other swimmer vehicle. The CH-53K can reputedly lift around 36,000 pounds externally, presumably over short range, and light armoured vehicles ought to be C-130 transportable - C-130J payload capability 42,000 pounds).
Although desirable, not necessary that vehicles contain full fuel and ammunition while being airlifted as these can be a complementary air move.
Post a Comment