Home » International » Conway Sticks With EFV, Or Similar

Conway Sticks With EFV, Or Similar

By Colin Clark Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 11:03 am
Posted in International, Land, Naval, Policy

Even if the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle made by General Dynamics is killed, departing Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway says the country will need the same sort of capability and will end up buying it.

“It’s my believe if that program was canceled outright we would still go with another weapon systemn like EFV,” he said this morning at what may well be his final Pentagon press conference.

The EFV is no longer on life support in terms of its program performance, according to Marine sources, but GD’s efforts to bring it back from near coma status may well be too little too late. It will be interesting once the budget comes out in February to see if Conway was offering us hints that EFV will be killed or reduced to a research and development program pending a new effort.

Conway repeated his mantra that if the Marines are going to storm ashore from “over the horizon” then they need something fast, amphibious and armored. Navy Undersecretary Bob Work didn’t exactly endorse EFV when he spoke about the Marines’ future recently at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The EFV is a “tremendous machine,” he said, but it is “very expensive.” Its future, along with the future of all Marine platforms, is under scrutiny and will be decided during ongoing “affordability discussions.” We betcha!

Join the Conversation

	poor taxpayer August 24th, 2010 at 11:25 am Is there where Byron says that BAE raised the price on EFV like he did last time it was talked about.
	Charley August 24th, 2010 at 11:26 am So far, the Marines have not provided realistic scenarios where a brute force, door knocking amphibious assault would be necessary — which makes it difficult to justify the EFV.
	GI Joe August 24th, 2010 at 12:47 pm @Charley. You, along with Rumsfeld, were probably advocating the reudction of the US Army in Aug 2001 stating: “The Army has not provided realistic scenarios where we would need 100K+ soldiers deployed for any length of time anywhere in the world” .
	JEFF August 24th, 2010 at 1:01 pm The concerns of amphibious landing capabilities are not souly about “brute force, door knocking.” The simple reality is that providing ports for the greater majority of materiel to come to a theater is always a strong need, but whether it is secured forcibly or not, the ability to move amphibiously in securing those locations is needed. The ability to move up and across rivers as desired is also a worth while advantage. The issue should be split in two… we need an amphibious vehicle, but do we need it in as large a quantity? And should it be expected to push speedily from beyond the horizon? Rather than toss the baby with the bath water maybe the EFV style vehicle should shift from the realm of high risk amphibious assault to being a specialized niche vehicle for lower risk landings. That would allow its requirements to be loosened up to bring its costs down.
	smart guy August 24th, 2010 at 1:53 pm “You never need something unti it’s gone” — some smart dude
	BOOMER August 24th, 2010 at 3:05 pm You never know where your next fight will be and we are loosing more and more so called allies as time goes by. If we were launching against Afghanistan today it would require major air strikes followed by mass deployment of airborne troops to get there (which would be hard considering insufficient air transports and downsizing of Airborne units. The same goes for amphib landings, the next country we go to war with may not have US allies as neighbors requiring us to conduct amphib landings, and you cant pull a ship up to a dock when invading a country and not expect them to shoot all the line handlers, you have to secure the ports and that requires fighting your way inland from the sea. Such would likely occur with Iran — Korea — China if something occured. (yes it would be faster to attack N.Korea from the sea than through the DMZ)
	CHOMO TRIGGER August 24th, 2010 at 5:01 pm Yeah, we really “need” to be nation building in Afghanistan, just like we “needed” to forcibly change Saddam’s regime in Iraq because of all his scary WMDs…or was it his involvement in 9/11…or maybe because he sheltered terrorists…or tried to assassinate GHWB…or was it our duty to bring freedom to the world…I forget why we went there.
	General Disarray August 24th, 2010 at 5:05 pm Don’t forget all the teachers we’d need to deploy to make sure the Afghanis get a proper education on the backs of the American taxpayers. I wonder if they have teacher layoffs in Kabul like they do in my hometown…
	dirtydog2186 August 24th, 2010 at 5:21 pm I’d rather have a vehicle for a current war than fighting a war with a vehicle from the past war. The Osprey is proving it’s worth & they tried to kill it too when the CH46 Sea knight was older than the pilots flying them.
	Bobbo August 24th, 2010 at 5:23 pm Go there we did and Marines kicked butt because that was was we wanted. If we want them to kick butt in the future then we need the EFV. It’s simple.
	@E_L_P August 24th, 2010 at 5:23 pm What a con. This gold-plated failure needs to be cancelled. Oh yeah the opposite is true because the EFV is such a quality product. This report from the GAO shows the mess that is the EFV program. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10758r.pdf
	BOOMER August 24th, 2010 at 5:35 pm A lot of the issues with this programs problems can be done away with now that the MARINES have made it clear that they cannot equip thier vehicles to be heavy armored. The weight of the vehicle and trying to get more out of the drivetrain to power the thing is what caused all the problems ( double the weight of your pov and see if you dont have issues). Reverting back to the original specs will eliminate a lot of cost as well.
	BOOMER August 24th, 2010 at 5:39 pm they are about to go public with the AUGUSTA which is a civilian, sleek design, 9 passenger and payload OSPREY, They wouldnt be allowed to go public if it wasnt deemed safe. Because it is a civilian craft it is probably cheaper and better built as well.
	Scathsealgaire August 24th, 2010 at 8:16 pm I agree, generally speaking “You never need something until it’s gone”. But also: “You don’t fight a war with the Army you want, but the Army you’ve got” — another smart dude. I still don’t understand why they just don’t design a vehicle which can be shipped by a high speed LCAC or LCV. Wait, they have vehicles for that. Well why don’t they design a better LCAC or LCV? Cheers, Scathsealgaire
	roland August 24th, 2010 at 8:17 pm I think it needs some anti boats missiles attach to it.
	Trophy August 24th, 2010 at 8:25 pm ““You don’t fight a war with the Army you want, but the Army you’ve got” — another smart dude. ” Good quote, but not from a really credible individual. That “smart dude” was so smart that he disregarded Gen. Shinseki’s recommendation for hundreds of thousands of troops for security forces in Iraq. Four years later they had to surge to finally stave off the insurgency that was only growing stronger.
	daniel August 24th, 2010 at 8:26 pm But they would field a military aircraft if it wasn’t safe? circular logic anyone?
	pfcem August 25th, 2010 at 12:59 am Nevermind that said evaluations were done using test vehicles which had ALREADY had the equivalent of 10 years wear & tear on them with nowhere near 10 years worth of proper maintanence OR that the VAST majority of the ‘reliability problems’ were with a few subsystems (which may very well have performed better if they had been maintained to even remotely the same magnitude as they had been used).
	freefallingbomb August 25th, 2010 at 5:17 am To the poster “guest”: You wrote: “Because ideally you need to have a relatively secure beachhead first to land that LCAC. Otherwise those 24 marines or 1 tank just becomes one huge target. FYI, the EFV is meant to be a MUCH better LCV/LCU. I think having armor infront of you and on top of you WITH A GUN is better than a normandy beachstorming Higgin’s boat, wouldn’t you?” I don’t know how high your illusions are, but then you better ensure that that beachhead is EXCEPTIONALLY well secured to welcome the EFVs, for even battle tanks suffer when they get hit by most things, and these are “rather” thick-skinned in comparison to EFVs, AAVs, LCUs and LCACs. And to think that in the 21st Century the enemy is going to engage bobbing EFVs with “shrapnel”, “mortars” or “small arms fire” IS one of those delusions. Makes you wonder what kind of enemy you really plan to invade with all your unpayable armament. Try this overly optimistic scenario for instance: The first ammo to be fired as EFVs approach are submunitions… right ahead of the water line. Sooo: Are you gonna open the submersed rear doors, to let the Marines hop off? (As I said: I was being benign)
	Oblat August 25th, 2010 at 8:23 am At the combined price of two similarly sized corporate jets and a helicopter for one BA 609 — not many companies will be dumb enough to buy it.
	BOOMER August 25th, 2010 at 9:54 am The government can only cancel the contract cant sue the contractor like a bunch of civilians can.
	BOOMER August 25th, 2010 at 10:05 am They wont launch an assault without a beach recon, all obsticles will be identified and cleared, ground forces will already be in place and launch harssments and assaults from the rear while taking out any threats to the landing force they come across. Air attacks will also be performed in advance and during the landing. small arms fire and portable rockets will be the biggest threats, the rockets will kill a tank so yes the lighter skinned EFV wont survive so smalls arms fire is the biggest concern.
	BOOMER August 25th, 2010 at 11:07 am Also — the civilian model is not locked into military specifications requireing contract mods to upgrade design problems — It is safe to say they learned from the ospreys mistakes over the years and the agusta is an improved model resulting in the smaller more aerodynamic size which is the downfall of the osprey. The osprey still has kinks but it is proving itself useful over and over.
	Chuck August 25th, 2010 at 12:07 pm He could note the EFV costs ten times more than the current AAV, weighs twice as much, burns three times more fuel, yet carries half as much.
	William C. August 25th, 2010 at 12:36 pm IIRC the AAVP-7A1 carries 25 or so guys in back as opposed to the 17–18 of the EFV. Main reason for this I believe is because the Marines typically only carry a full squad (13 men) and specialist team in the AAVP despite it’s greater capability. If the Chinese could built a high-speed AAV with the ZBD-2000 (which is probably based off of technology they stole from us), we should certainly be able to do it.
	@E_L_P August 25th, 2010 at 6:01 pm Whaaabulance time.
	terry August 25th, 2010 at 9:16 pm Charlie — you moron. The Corps history.…read it! We will always have the need for amphibious assaults. That will never change. The Army said the Corps was unneccessary after WW1.….hhmmm how many amphib assaults did the Marines do in WW2? Wake up man.….get Obama off your brain housing group!!
	Jeffx August 25th, 2010 at 9:31 pm I designed component for this overweight pig. To heavy and to small to float correctly, this was known 10 years ago.
	Jeffx August 25th, 2010 at 9:37 pm I designed component for this overweight pig. To heavy and to small to float correctly, this was known 10 years ago.
	RRBunn August 26th, 2010 at 7:54 am Lots of money already spent on this new tool. As much as we love the AAV7A1, it cannot do the job on the modern battlefield. The Marines need an APC and they also need transport from ship to objective. Yes, it’s going to cost, but look at the cost of alternatives. Lets say we do vertical envelopment (Vietnam era think), once the Marines are on the ground — no mobility! Cost of one helo is not much different then the EFV. EFV may be the high priced spread but taken in context of other weapons systems, not so bad. Reducing the numbers multiplies the per unit cost. We’ve already invested a great deal of RDT&E, let follow through and give the Marines a new vehicle. The old one (AAV7A1) was ment to be a stop gap and last for 10 years and now it’s 37 years old.
	A Marine Veteran August 26th, 2010 at 8:29 am Nonsense. Amphib landings against a defended beach.…..the probability is miniscule to the point of being irrelevent. The United States is long past fighting anything but Joint wars. There are, and will be, options I cannot even imagine, that will enable our forces to project inland and take the airhead or seaport necessary for grey and black bottom shipping to dock, if that is necessary. The EFV is a political and military white elephant. It’s time is long past and the program should be cancelled as Sec Gates is attempting to do. Certainly, with the vehicle’s production so entwined in Washington’s politics…and distributed as it is, or surely will be, throughout the country, killing the program will be a challenge. But it’s end is near. A Marine Veteran
	A Marine Veteran August 26th, 2010 at 8:33 am I don’t have at my finger tips this instant the differences between the two vehicles, and I will say they differ in many ways, however; a valid requirement based on a required capability based on a requirement development process based on how the Marine Corps fights and envisions itself fighting in the future, should drive how it equips itself for the next war. The EFV is backward-looking.….
	A Marine Veteran August 26th, 2010 at 8:38 am Everyone should avail themselves of the opportunity to comb through all of the excellent and credible information available on the Internet, and sharpen their understanding not of where the Marine Corps has been, but where it must go in the future. Backward looking leads to preparing to fight the last war, not the next war: this is not 1944. The Marine Corps cannot afford to resemble a second land army or its future is in jeopardy. Fighting a single-service war, i.e., the Corps going it alone, will never happen again. The United States fights Jointly.…when the Corps goes in, it is the Navy carrying it, the Air Force providing capabilities, and the Army gearing up to follow on. That’s the way it is.
	freefallingbomb August 26th, 2010 at 9:08 am Part 1 / 5 : The water (even crossing a wide creek) is always a nasty place to get ambushed. But… 1) although battle tanks are better protected than E.F.V.s, they are also “rather inept” at gaining a foothold on defended beaches, 2) battle tanks and other heavy equipment can (and should) be brought ashore in a second wave only, by L.C.A.C.’s , which are faster, farther-ranging and more seaworthy than E.F.V.s, 3) there isn’t really much that any non-tank type of vehicle can do about a single hit by an explosive shell (quote from another “D.o.D. Buzz” article about the E.F.V.s : “For a $1,000 round, he [ = the enemy] gets a $20 million vehicle and possibly 20 KIAs”) http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/05/04/marines-unveil-… (second last phrase), 4) other, smaller, faster and more agile craft help seaborne Marines to dodge artillery and rocket fire better than E.F.V.s, 5) enemy small arms fire is inefficient at night, 6) night raids are generally safer than daylight raids, especially since in a certain way the U.S. Armed Forces “own” the night, 7) smaller landing craft carry fewer storm troopers each, which means fewer losses per full hit ( = “dispersion”. Alias: Same goes for downsizing ALL terrestrial, aerial and maritime means of transport), 8) the E.F.V.s’ on-board armament is simply bizarre: (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am Part 2 / 5 : a) For starters, it can only be used on land anyway, after the 1 hour swim (under fire?), b) it’s laughably useless against tanks, c) it’s useless against artillery, rockets, missiles and even against sleeping soldiers a mere 2 km – 3 km away, so who ordered that turret, d) once on terra firma, “difficult” moments will persist, and then i) a self-loading, low-pressure, 5 cm – 7,6 cm cannon ( = 49 years old, Soviet BMP 1-technology, ideal even for light-weight airborne vehicles) and / or ii) one or two chain guns or Gatling guns (in 7,62 mm or 0,50 cal) would provide much more firepower to the dismounted Infantry (Marines, Army, commandos et al) than that GAY 3 cm gun. My tip: IF you need to have an “E.F.V.” at all costs, then get AT LEAST Bofors’ automatic 4 cm L70 cannon for it: Ammunition with Swedish I.Q. flying 12,5 km far and at a rate of 5,5 r.p.m. . Watch and drool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3hC0vsZ5-8 (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 26th, 2010 at 9:10 am Part 3 / 5 : For all these reasons I wonder why those 20-MILLION-$-a-piece E.F.V.s haven’t long been deferred over 20 (!!!) bullet-proof rubber boats EACH ! Even our European Coast Guards ENVY drug and contraband runners for their long, spacious, state-of-the-art, inflatable boats 1) with 5 – 8 powerful outboard motors, 2) with a speed of almost 100 km/h (“Stiletto”, anyone?), 3) with enough range to connect ALL North African and South European coasts, 4) that carry up to 7 tons of freight and fuel reserves, or DOZENS of illegal aliens, and 5) cost only ~ 100.000 € of unit price, and these air rafts are HOME-made on top of that! Unlike those over-sophisticated, “multi-parts” E.F.V.s, rubber boats don’t exactly break down every eighth hour either: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/mcef… Can you even imagine how many such inflatable boats fit into ANY corner of an L.P.D., DEFLATED ??? (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 26th, 2010 at 9:11 am Part 4 / 5 : That’s why I wonder if this old and tried beach-storming technology has really been given some serious reflection by the Marines, and remotely as much R & D money as that “E.F.V.” idea… Hey, if you divided the E.F.V.’s price of (more than!) 20 million $ by its crew of 20 ( = 100.000 $ per capita), you could almost buy T-E-N of the best jet skis in the World for E-A-C-H grunt inside, and even lose 9 jet skis during the race ashore without worry, although jet skis can JUMP over rocks and other obstacles lurking in the water – very much unlike E.F.V.s who will ram them all! Even at their legal (U.S.) top speed of 70 m.p.h., jet skis would draw fun circles around 20-million-$ E.F.V.s at the latter’s top speed of merely 28,6 m.p.h. and still look more normal than them! Police units in several countries use them already, even twin-seater jet skis: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive… http://www.yachting-n-boating.com/Jet-Ski-Safety.… http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7… (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 26th, 2010 at 9:12 am Part 5 / 5 : What L.P.D. will even launch the E.F.V.s if the enemy SLIGHTLY STRETCHES his land-sea missiles’ range to – say – 50 km? Or if China sold its conventional, 2.000-km-range, anti-carrier missile abroad like hot cakes? What happens to the whole E.F.V. program’s cost of 9 – 10 billion $ then – and to all U.S. invasions? Will A SINGLE , FOREIGN weapons system render the 235 years old U. S. Marines irreversibly obsolete? If this conclusion already gnaws in the U.S. top brass’ minds, then that could actually explain some recently detectable trends and decisions (“slowly closing the Marines’ shop”) … I know, I know: In the end, the U.S.A. will ax no one’s ox and pump some 500 billion $ into stealthy, air-droppable, underwater Marine carriers with turrets and on tracks, or into waterproof, bullet-proof exoskeletons, etc., to ensure that absolutely no one dies during an invasion!
	guest August 26th, 2010 at 11:43 am Wow, you really are the “don’t invest in the navy, don’t invest in the marine corps, we ONLY need an army and airforce” type. Go ahead, rewrite history, have nonspecialized infantry do entire wars. I bet you’d try to paradrop into enemy territory with all the new AA and interceptors every nation is popping out without any prebombardment or airsupport (which are pretty much the scenarios you keep suggesting). FYI, look into studying history, as history would easily point out your flaws. Look up DUKW (there IS a reason we used vehicles that are not used for a one way trip), the AAV (the current amphib APC being used, you might as well criticise every beach landing that its particpated in as well right?), Normandy (if you don’t have protection or specialization just have over 100,000 men land, who cares about casualties?), the entire Pacific campaign, and Inchon. There’s a reason they can’t always strike at night. Nor when we always want to. Also, you don’t need much to kill a man on a jetski. A 25 cent bullet does that. We can stick with the AAV, but sooner or later, we are going to need something just like it.
	guest August 26th, 2010 at 11:46 am Look up how modern marines operate in amphibous operations. They already do that.
	freefallingbomb August 26th, 2010 at 12:40 pm To the guest: —————————– You wrote: “Wow, you really are the ‘don’t invest in the navy, don’t invest in the marine corps, we ONLY need an army and airforce’ type.” Actually, I have a small penchant for sea denying navies. —————————– You wrote: “I bet you’d try to paradrop into enemy territory with all the new AA and interceptors every nation is popping out without any prebombardment or airsupport (which are pretty much the scenarios you keep suggesting).” Gotta start being less vague then. —————————– You wrote: “Look up DUKW” Thin-skinned, carries not enough troops or cargo, TOP speed in water: 6,3 m.p.h. = slower than a waddling duckling. —————————– You wrote: “the AAV (the current amphib APC being used, you might as well criticise every beach landing that its particpated in as well right?” I could find nothing about its participation in opposed landings, its main mission. —————————– You wrote: “Also, you don’t need much to kill a man on a jetski. A 25 cent bullet does that.” The basic difference between an E.F.V. and a jet ski is that no matter how much you increase the ordnance fired at it, it will still always kill ONLY ONE man. That was the point: Small + very fast = hard to hit with no matter what ammunition, and kills at worst only one guy (per hit). —————————– You wrote: “We can stick with the AAV, but sooner or later, we are going to need something just like it.” Sooner or later you’ll have to launch your A.A.V.s literally from beyond I.C.B.M. range, if you didn’t get my previous point. I recommend you rewrite its replacement’s requirements based on that, because something like that IS bound to happen soon… —————————– Have a nice!
	Bradford Hutchingson August 26th, 2010 at 12:56 pm Just an idea. Think about it like this: “we’ve got a 35+yr. old AAV…the new EFV is 2X heavier, 1/2 the carrying capacity, & 10X the $$$…Well, how about specially modified, operable one-man “torpedoes”???…Think about it. Do we need to get 20 — 30 troops in one 30 — 60 ton vehicle? Why? Why not armored JET-SKIS? Hey, I’m being serious here? Please don’t tell me I’m the first one to think of this! As crazy as this idea sounds, the more I think about it, the more ideas I get for it!…otherwise, carry on, Semper Fi!
	BOOMER August 26th, 2010 at 1:43 pm A full fledged Normandy type landing probably is slim, but many countries are spending millions to protect themselves from attacks from the sea. It does not matter if it is joint ops or not — the only way you can take those inland airfieldsof a country not bordered by one of our so called allies is with mass ariel attacks and airborne drops wich we are lacking in capability these days, any troops you drop in will have to be relived from outside as will the gear to rebuild the airfields for our gear to be flown in.
	Jay Citizen August 26th, 2010 at 10:53 pm This is the kind of thought that needs to come up while discussing anything like this. I feel we could do things smarter myself. Cost could go way down if they made things more modular, much like some of the armored trucks designed for IEDs. Since the Army is already in trouble with their new fighting vehicle program, why not incorporate them into one design? Make the armor modular so it can be removed or downgraded for Marine assaults. We now have amphibious landing craft that make the old higgins boat look like a caveman designed it. Special hull designs and a new air cushion have made some landing craft designs very fast and very capable in unfriendly beach conditions. Why not make the new EFV capable of sealing up inside by crew action? We need combat vehicles that can cross rivers with little waterproofing also; why not go all the way? A quick sealing vehicle would make chemical protection more practicle too. This design could be lighter, because it would take the element of surprise and quickly be deposited on shore, if the landing craft sinks, the vehicle can still float and use water jets to manuever toward shore. As far as that goes, you could build a simple platform lander like this design, and put a Bradley on top of it; the expendable platform, could lay on the beach and be discarded if need be. I just saw a film of this type of lander on another site, check it out! Of course this CATamaran is not exactly expendable! http://www.defense-update.com/products/p/pacscat_… With landers like that, you could put a Bradley fighting vehicle on shore post haste, and still be able to back off for more load. This thing flat smokes a hover landing craft!!!
	guest August 27th, 2010 at 12:16 am You wrote: “I could find nothing about its participation in opposed landings, its main mission.” Exactly, prebombardment and/or proper recon made them SUCCESSFUL BEACH LANDINGS. SOMETHING YOU KEEP SAYING IS IMPOSSIBLE. You wrote: “The basic difference between an E.F.V. and a jet ski is that no matter how much you increase the ordnance fired at it, it will still always kill ONLY ONE man. That was the point: Small + very fast = hard to hit with no matter what ammunition, and kills at worst only one guy (per hit).” Here’s my proposition, since you are so completely convinced this will work, TEST THIS IDEA YOURSELF. Get ALL the combat gear a soldier/marine would go on in such a mission. Get on your combat jetski, speed to the beach, dodging, weaving, trying not to fall off since your gear weighs how much? If you do fall off, try not to drown. Hit the beach, at what speed? Full speed? Half speed? Dismount in the open, raise your weapon to the ready, and engage. I bet that’s supereasy. Get your friends to do it too, I’m sure they’ll thank you for it. Then get it all on youtube. You wrote: “Sooner or later you’ll have to launch your A.A.V.s literally from beyond I.C.B.M. range, if you didn’t get my previous point.” So do what? ROLL OVER AND DIE? Forget having any armed forces and just go with the nuke war? Good luck living through that. If you are talking about those crazy new missiles, there’s alot of answers to that: Aegis, CAP, active/passive ECM, NATO SeaSparrow, SMs, CIWS, chaff. LAYERED DEFENSE OF AN ENTIRE FLEET. And then there’s prebombardment against the “big, bad missiles.”
	freefallingbomb August 27th, 2010 at 6:41 am Part 3 / 8 As you can see, 1) the U.S. Armed Forces atavistically, genetically, prefer to buy JUNK instead of what truly matters 2) and, as you can glean from Iraq and Afghanistan, Marines also only lose wars, whereas F-22s only win wars. That’s why I totally agree with Robert Gates about disbanding the utterly useless and ineffective Marines, and reallocating their budget wholesome to the U.S. Airforce. And if the ungrateful Marines don’t step down voluntarily, the Airforce should help Gates out with a few J.D.A.M.s on Camp Pendleton. After all, the proud U.S. Armed Forces aren’t some liberal Socialist entitlement program! (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 27th, 2010 at 6:42 am Part 4 / 8 Worse: I really suspect that I must be the only one around here who guesses the REAL sword that hangs over modern amphibious operations (although this whole topic doesn’t even interest me minimally – never did) : It’s NOT the danger which the overloaded Marines face when they finally hit land and crawl under barbed wire and over mines towards a machine-gun muzzle (because I agree that they will have hard-working “guardian angels” overhead), but it’s the threat which the “MOTHERSHIPS” of their L.C.U.s, A.A.V.s and E.F.V.s face from the increasingly farther shooting coastal defenses! 1) Since the Middle Age, people used large-calibre coastal batteries ( = reused battleship guns in fortified emplacements) to threaten any invasion fleets looming on the horizon, 2) but today, and thanks to ammunition evolution, these got replaced by common tanks and artillery: Now even 15 cm R.A.P. artillery shells – not to mention rocket artillery – can easily reach the relatively static amphibious transport docks at the E.F.V.‘s maximum swimming distance of 46 km, (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 27th, 2010 at 6:42 am Part 5 / 8 3) next came tactical anti-ship missiles, every new generation of them flying dozens of kilometres farther than the previous one: The oldest – and widely exported – series of Chinese anti-ship missiles, the Silkworms, already flew more than TWICE an U.S. American L.P.D.‘s maximum E.F.V.-spawning distance, and even its older Soviet precursors, the Styxs (which sank the first warship in the World in 1967), already flew 80 km back in 1960, and 2 years later the Soviet AS-4 “Kitchen” anti-ship missiles even flew 400 km far at Mach 4, etc. etc., so you can’t be entirely sober to suppose that all these dumb and smart ammunitions that fit on the back of a truck will let your L.P.D.s deploy their A.A.V.s or E.F.V.s orderly, ideally, almost parade-like, from only 46 km away! 4) Recently, conventional anti-ship I.C.B.M.s were invented too, with an initial flight range of “only” 2.000 km, and I presume that aircraft carriers, troop transporters and amphibious transport docks are their three juiciest targets. So, how will you nudge your fuel-less A.A.V.s for the remaining 1.950 km ahead? 5) Long-range anti-ship cruise-missiles soon to follow (one day, maybe: Large diameter, intelligent, fire-and-forget intercontinental torpedoes. Just an old sweet death wish of mine…). Enough? (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 27th, 2010 at 6:43 am Part 6 / 8 Not only does advanced defensive weapon technology ( = anti-air, anti-tank and anti-ship) become increasingly democratized in the global village, meaning that every dictator in the World can buy it too, as well as I notice a sick new trend in the U.S. American Navy, Army and Airforce (unfortunately too…) towards new weapon systems of ever-increasing weight and fuel consumption and less and less firepower, or troop-carrying capacity = mostly fat, a few muscles and no brains. But simultaneously, or better: Already back in 2000, the Russians developed prototype tanks (the T-95s) armed with nothing less than 13,5 cm and even 15,2 cm guns ( = self-propelled howitzers on steroids!) that weighed only 50 tons ( = only 81 % of an Abrams’ weight!), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-95 http://www.tanksim.com/topic8.htm as well as the biggest passenger / troop planes and cargo planes in the World, etc., for only A FRACTION of what all these vehicles would have cost in the U.S.!!! Sad, very sad… (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 27th, 2010 at 6:44 am Part 7 / 8 But back to (light-weight) alternatives for the E.F.V.: 1) If you think that jet skis aren’t bullet-proof enough or that their riders risk to get wet, change their design: Military divers have already an array of most exotic submersibles at their disposal to take them to their objectives, from individual, torpedo-shaped, water jet engines with handles to “canopies with propellers” (for 2 – 4 men), you name it. Unless, of course, deep down there you admit that Marines are so… uh… “unsophisticated” that they actually need some sort of chauffeurs to drive or fly them into their combat zones (“We only fight!”) and, once there, wail and wait for air support (“Booo hooo hooo… that’s not fair! They don’t even give us a chance!”). 2) And why not armoured speed boats? If armoured planes and even armoured HELICOPTERS can take off & fly & fight, what’s so physically impossible about THAT ? (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 27th, 2010 at 6:44 am Part 8 / 8 My “last bid” for today: 3) ULTRA-fast landing barges for tanks and troops, since you apparently insist a) on amassing targets nicely for the enemy b) on getting the first assault wave to lug around as much heavy equipment as possible. Obviously, such heavily armoured and – say… – 100 km/h fast Higgins Boats ( = World-War-Two-type landing craft, like you saw in “Saving Private Ryan”) with an Abrams inside would probably burn several cubic metres of fuel during each ship-to-shore dash of only 50 km – 200 km. This smacks of technological crudeness, but so f@Ç&ing WHAT ?? It’s a SIMPLE , EFFECTIVE and even CHEAP solution to your “E.F.V.” problem: Since the U.S. Armed Forces don’t know the meaning of saving money anyway, if the decisive factor for safe, victorious invasions in the future is ONLY saving less fuel for a few, critical hours, that surely won’t bankrupt the Empire!
	Jay Citizen August 27th, 2010 at 3:51 pm I’m not ready to call landing craft obsolete by any means. Anytime your planing a naval approach to a target, you are going to have to “soften up” the target area. With proper planing and the right combined arms; I have no doubts the Navy could accomplish that mission; the Marines would still execute the final element of the attack. Yes floating assets will burn fuel; but no where near as much as flying assets. This is the reason the airlines have to plan around the huge costs of fuel in their business plans. What is it? Two thirds of their cost is in jet fuel? Besides, you could still use landing craft for economical follow up to airborn assault; you would still need them.
	freefallingbomb August 28th, 2010 at 10:16 am To the poster “Jay Citizen” : You wrote: “Yes floating assets will burn fuel; but no where near as much as flying assets.” You got that right: Ships ate the cheapest means on Earth to transport cargo, exactly because of their comparatively low fuel consumption. But now imagine that you even felt like burning fuel like mad in a ship engine, even for a short moment: How many tons of cargo could you propel forwards (even with a non-hydrodynamical hull!) and at what high speeds? But: Does this speed reserve necessarily have to result in an “E.F.V.” = in a landing barge with a gun of homosexual calibre that wants to crawl out of the water too ( = where locomotion starts to demand more fuel…) and to behave and fight like a tank or A.P.C.? Isn’t this already blending too many technologies and concepts into one? Couldn’t you just “leave it” at ferrying fully manned tanks and I.F.V.s in record-fast barges to the shore and return to the L.P.D.s for more?
	Jay Citizen August 28th, 2010 at 4:29 pm Almost every vehicle in the Russian inventory is already a “swimmer”. There is no excuse for us to build one more combat vehicle without this requirement. Yes I feel a fast barge would be good enough, if the crew inside the fighting vehicle can fire on the target while in transport. If not then the landing craft would at least need a TOW missile or something less “homo”(your words) to do the work. I feel that marine warfare has come to the point that brute force landing against withering fire are probably dead in modern tactical planning. One look at how our last two expeditions went in the early stages, shows that this is probably true. Marines would use airborne assets to surprise and disperse the enemy — sea assets would sneak into the rear quickly and in a timely manner, to serve the coup de grace.
	subutai August 28th, 2010 at 9:25 pm When was the last time a heavily armored amphibious landing force was forced to fight their way onto a beach? Korea. You might make the argument that the threat of a marine landing held several Iraqi divisions in place in Desert Storm, but ultimately it was the combined use of airstrikes, airmobile and ground assault forces that made the difference. And that was 20 years ago. The entire nature of war has shifted since Desert Storm. A reinforced SEAL team can do what it took an entire division of marines to do in 1952. Envelopment by airmobile and airborne units, and the use of special ops , combined with an integrated, robust and lethal mix of automated drone strikes and over-the-horizon cruise missiles, is what we will see in future conflicts. Of course, if in their infinite wisdom, our political leaders continue to insist american troops occupy large countries for years at a time, then building giant, gas guzzling, oversized tonka-toy MRAPS, and huge floating metal bulldozers is probably the way to go.
	freefallingbomb August 28th, 2010 at 10:46 pm To the poster “Jay Citizen”: You wrote: “Yes I feel a fast barge would be good enough, if the crew inside the fighting vehicle can fire on the target while in transport.” Uh… Imagine a landing barge. Now imagine an extremely fast landing barge (that doesn’t exist, I know). And now imagine an extremely fast landing barge in ROUGH SEAS (like on D-Day). Do you really want the tank inside the landing barge to aim and shoot in these conditions? Theoretically, it could be done, but all these tanks models will need extraordinarily 1) well stabilized and 2) depressable (!) guns then, depending on how wild the ride will be.
	freefallingbomb August 28th, 2010 at 11:46 pm To everybody: —————- Part 1 / 2 Let’s imagine once – just for conversation’s sake – a World entirely without anti-ship weapons. Yep: Over night all those large guns and missiles that could threaten the L.P.D.s just disappeared miraculously, rendering the seas absolutely safe for E.F.V. deployment… Let’s just talk about what happens once those E.F.V.s sprinted ashore. How comes that every time I tried to hint at the simple topic of an E.F.V.‘s fighting ability, even in the most timid terms, everybody else here automatically tried to drown me out with such deflective “arguments” as “combined arms”, “mass deployment of airborne troops”, “vertical envelopment”, “ground forces will already be in place”, “special forces”, “assaults from the rear”, “Navy shore bombardment”, “air attacks in advance”, “C.A.S.”, etc. etc. ? I wish to speak about apples, and everybody answers with oranges? (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 28th, 2010 at 11:46 pm Part 2 / 2 OK, so let’s say that in the future there will be really no U.S. American amphibious landings without previous U.S. American air superiority, parachutists, heavy bombings and dense clouds of ground-attack aircraft buzzing over the battle-field, etc. etc. … But imagine, just IMAGINE FOR ONCE … that the bombers and all your special forces etc. only did 99,99 % of their job. Sooo, after the beachhead is established, an intrepid E.F.V. happily ventures into the bombed-out coast village, and suddenly finds itself driving side by side with… a REAL enemy tank or I.F.V. ! What happens next? Did anybody ever evaluate and determine an E.F.V.‘s true land warfare qualities = its LAND MODE , and if so, why I can’t I find ANY reports about that anywhere? (I’m not queer, so don’t even answer with its “3 cm” cannon) That’s what I want to know. Don’t you? I mean, what exactly do you get in return for the E.F.V.‘s unit price of 6 – 7 Bradleys?
	Jay Citizen August 29th, 2010 at 12:21 am When you look at the history of amphibious operations, no one ignored the weather report; if weather was too choppy — you turned back. Did you ever put you Halo 5 game down long enough to look at what is available out there? Yes they are fast — wicked fast! Cripes even those old hover craft landers can complete operations in fairly heavy seas.
	Jay Citizen August 29th, 2010 at 12:28 am You are correct sir; however that action would promptly be followed by swift landing action by large forces to circumvent obstacles in theater. We will still need amphibious flanking action in the chaos of war. I honestly don’t think they will need to face withering fire for just the reasons you put forth. However with our dwindling need for far flung bases already in countries, this need will increase not decrease. I feel maintaining bases in countries that don’t particularly care for us, and in fact charge us exorbitant rates to occupy said space, are just not in the cost picture anymore. I can’t understand why we keep many of the bases we do have. Other than the State Department’s need for some kind of weird hero sandwich!
	freefallingbomb August 29th, 2010 at 9:37 am To the poster “Jay Citizen”: ——————————– Part 1 / 2 You wrote: “Cripes even those old hover craft landers can complete operations in fairly heavy seas.” Yes, but soldiers and tanks inside them didn’t open fire until they arrived at the beach, and that’s what we were talking about before. I could imagine that as the Higgins Boats approached a well-defended beach, the soldiers inside them even ducked behind the L.C.A.‘s or L.C.V.‘s partially armoured walls to protect themselves against light weapon fire and shrapnel. You said, however, “the crew inside the fighting vehicle can fire on the target while in transport”. Remember, the E.F.V. has a uhm very unmanly looking gun with a rather short firing range ( = not by far its deployment distance of 46 km), but even if it was an amphibious 20,3 cm self-propelled howitzer instead, the maximum distance from L.P.D. to shore is still considerable. As a former artillerist I can assure you that that is slightly too much to engage point targets with direct fire. (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 29th, 2010 at 9:37 am Part 2 / 2 Even when using indirect (high arc) fire, and being able to permanently determine your exact position on the run (with G.P.S.), the E.F.V.‘s gyroscope (does it even have one?) would still need a valiant amount of tri-axial ship (barge or E.F.V.) movement monitoring in order to compute and execute the necessary gun stabilization, to even hit a small island with indirect fire (no kidding). Worse: Even if you used intelligent ammunition to compensate for the barge’s / E.F.V.‘s violent pitch and roll in the water (and who guides that intelligent ammunition ahead of the first wave?), the relatively fast E.F.V.s still need a whole hour to make it to the beach, and after one hour of shooting on the ocean their barrels are so overheated that as they approach the beach the fire rate dies down ( WHEN THEY MOST NEED IT !!! ) and the barrels become too inaccurate even for direct short-range fire. But please: Who am I to discourage the Marines from integrating yet another concept (that of Artillery fire on the move) into their omni-capable pet project!
	Jay Citizen August 29th, 2010 at 2:40 pm I’m not defending the present design in this article; I’m just proposing new ideas. You seem fixated on fire control problems that were solved long ago in the XM1 tank. It fires on the move, even if violently pitching in rough terrain and can still hit other targets even if they are moving. It is not like they don’t have the science to incorporate what has already become standard. Hell, I’ve even spoke with witnesses that fought World War II that stated their tank commanders were able to take advantage of the gyroscopic gun stabilization built into the newer tanks to use what amounts to Kentucky windage to take out lead vehicles in columns of moving motorized infantry — SS to be exact in one incident. As I’ve stated elsewhere; I think depositing Marine infantry on a beach under withering fire is obsolete anyway. But I still feel they need another waterproof combat vehicle — so does the Army; why not incorporate the design, or at least build a modular design that can be customized for Marine use?
	freefallingbomb August 30th, 2010 at 11:54 am To the poster “Jay Citizen” : You wrote: “You seem fixated on fire control problems that were solved long ago in the XM1 tank. It fires on the move, even if violently pitching in rough terrain and can still hit other targets even if they are moving. It is not like they don’t have the science to incorporate what has already become standard.” I know, that’s why I REALLY had hoped you wouldn’t take this turn… What you said 1) only applies to direct fire = against relatively close targets, 2) and even so, the resulting (im)precision of shooting while flying (over a trench) is measured in % of hit probability (as I’m sure you know, too). But don’t you understand that this way the E.F.V.’s lady-like 3 cm gun can only start firing in the final 2 – 3 km to shore? ( PRESUMING that all targets even stand at the waterline!) Or do you expect the enemy to use similarly effeminate 3 cm calibre weapons to engage the approaching E.F.V. fleet? That would be a first one! I have never heard of gun stabilization for DRIVING self-propelled howitzers firing dumb ammo at maximum range either. To my present knowledge, this technology only exists for ship guns. So, by exclusion of parts, the best you can do is to arm an E.F.V. (variant) with a long gun or mortar of decent calibre and to ask it to bombard the beach ahead it for the other E.F.V.s escorting it = to act like the beach-shelling battleships or monitors of yore. But judging by the World War Two experience about the massive, but INeffective softening-up of the Normandy prior to D-Day, the resulting random hits would produce a similar (IN)effect as rocket launchers or dumb bombs dropped from high-flying planes.
	Jay Citizen August 30th, 2010 at 6:01 pm Sorry for taking another turn; I do enjoy the discussion. : ) If you include the new 105mm mounted on the Stryker; I’m sure I saw the same advanced fire control system on it as well, I’ve watched video of it firing and maneuvering while hitting stationary targets, so that isn’t quite the test for that. You are right for the run of the mill howitzer though; the NLOS was supposed to fix that. But their is really no need in that feature for behind the lines artillery. I see no reason why you couldn’t mount a MLRS or simiilar reloadable rocket on the rear of any large lander to protect itself. The ammunition for those weapons has become extremely wide in choice and capability in the last ten years. You are right to point out that the weapon on an individual amphibious vehicle is not of sufficient fire power or range to protect itself out in naked exposure while landing. Perhaps a small fast attack boat with something better could move just offshore to provide this. The navy use to do this in old operations with cutters or smaller craft. I know this is obsolete now, but if it is fast enough it could act as a gun ship for half a dozen landers. I really like the cheap fast rubber dingy idea, and I’ve already seen some well tested designs for this, that are probably already in use; however, I don’t see that as practical over a large distant run up to a shore line, with the distances we are talking about — also why I don’t like the EFV in the article(for the same reason). The navy now has quite a few launching vessels that I’ve seen test footage on, that can dump these boats out the rear as they hydrofoil past the target area. These were of a radar stealth design, and had pretty quiet but powerful turbine engines. Fuel use could be a thing of the past if the Navy would plan to carry these kinds of ideas near the launch point (over the horizon) in some of the amphibious assault ships I still see in service. So efficiency is still preserved in my view. Check out the L-CAT by CNIM as another medium lander, just for brain food. Feel free to criticize as I know you probably do already. http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/patro…
	freefallingbomb August 31st, 2010 at 10:59 am To the poster “Jay Citizen” ——————————– Yet another turn. Part 1 / 4 You wrote: “If you include the new 105mm mounted on the Stryker; I’m sure I saw the same advanced fire control system on it as well, I’ve watched video of it firing and maneuvering while hitting stationary targets, so that isn’t quite the test for that.” Ah, we’re making “progress” (by looking into the past…) ! So, a 6,95 m long, 18 tons heavy Stryker can fire a 10,5 cm gun, but a 10,67 m long, 35 tons heavy E.F.V. ( = almost TWICE as long and TWICE as heavy) can only fire a 3 cm gun? OK, it could get cramped for the 17 Marines inside an E.F.V. if they had to share their tight space with a 10,5 cm gun & magazine, but this is only a question of optimizing the right number of passengers with the right calibre gun for their means of transport. I’m even convinced that one or two Gatling guns (7,62 mm – 12,7 mm calibre, 6.000 r.p.m. = 100 rounds per second – EACH ) would back the dismounted Infantry with far more firepower than the present 250 r.p.m. ( = 4,2 rounds per second) 3 cm gun! .….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….. You wrote: “NLOS was supposed to fix that. But their is really no need in that feature for behind the lines artillery.” But when you fire only 3 cm guns, like the E.F.V. does, nearly everything in sight is already “behind lines” for you! But you’re not behind lines for the enemy… The enemy isn’t gay: He doesn’t use 3 cm cannons. (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 31st, 2010 at 10:59 am Part 2 / 4 You wrote: “I see no reason why you couldn’t mount a MLRS or simiilar reloadable rocket on the rear of any large lander to protect itself.” The M.L.R.S.’ ammunition (“A.T.A.C.M.S.”) flies 300 km far = 6,5 times father than the E.F.V.’s maximal range of 46 km in the water. That’s like using sniper rifles at point blank. I’m not sure whether its sub-munitions will make a lot of impression on enemy Infantry lying in wait in typical coastal fortifications either, or at least in protected firing positions. To sum up my pessimistic opinion about pre-invasion bombardment: It’s always a massive, lengthy and extremely wasteful effort of uncertain outcome… .….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….. You wrote: “Perhaps a small fast attack boat with something better could move just offshore to provide this.” Fire support from a “small” offshore boat? Sounds like some sort of vessel whose small calibre armament puts it deeply inside enemy anti-tank missile range… (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 31st, 2010 at 10:59 am Part 3 / 4 You wrote: “I really like the cheap fast rubber dingy idea, and I’ve already seen some well tested designs for this, that are probably already in use; however, I don’t see that as practical over a large distant run up to a shore line, with the distances we are talking about — also why I don’t like the EFV in the article(for the same reason).” The logical alternative being releasing the L.C.V.s or E.F.V.s closer to land, but how do you wish to achieve that?! The pre-eminent concern during ANY invasion is precisely to keep the L.P.D.s ( = the E.F.V.s’ motherships) safely out of the INCREASING range of land-based ordnance! (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 31st, 2010 at 11:00 am Part 4 / 4 You wrote: “The navy now has quite a few launching vessels that I’ve seen test footage on, that can dump these boats out the rear as they hydrofoil past the target area.” I believe that the E.F.V. is an attempt of the Marines to: 1) Ferry troops in ARMOURED , protected, means of transport to the shore (and I kinda doubt that a hydrofoil can dump several armoured boats into the water. But I could be wrong on that point), 2) let the first wave of Marines immediately enjoy armoured fire support upon arrival. But the “hydrofoil-dropped” boats which you proposed would probably NOT be able to a) crawl out of the water themselves b) carry an Abrams or a self-propelled howitzer inside them, and therefore need to be complemented by other, larger, more conventional landing craft. But this second point is probably moot, because I’ve never before heard such an IMBECILIC idea like bombarding, establishing and defending a beachhead (and everything that depends on it) with 3 cm calibre ammunition… These small heaps of giant non-sense which the U.S. Armed Forces lately spend huge fortunes on really manage to piss me off (and I consider myself a layman!). .….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….. You wrote: “Check out the L-CAT by CNIM as another medium lander, just for brain food. Feel free to criticize as I know you probably do already.” Thanks for the link. The catamaran’s ramp seems to be a little bit too short to offload non-amphibious, non-waterproof vehicles in shallow beaches without the catamaran running aground, though.
	Jay Citizen August 31st, 2010 at 3:10 pm To freefallingbomb; I acknowledge your comments on my MLRS idea; but disagree with it. Most effective enemy defensive fire during an amphibious assault comes from behind defilade some distance inland to the assault group. This would enable the assault force to engage the enemy early and hit them hard all the way in. I was in the artillery too; so I’m pretty familiar will the system. I’ve kept up on the newer developments since that time. I have been very surprised how flexible the system has become since they’ve used it in Irag. The munition include the same capabililtes that JDAM and other smart munitions have acquired. But even my comments are somewhat beside the point; as I still think the fast attack idea I related is better. I’ve seen the “rubber dinghy” boats that I refer to, and they are composite armored and very hard to hit because of high speed and low silhouette. When backed up with a hydrofoil or similar launching assault craft, which is armed with at least one 5″ full auto deck gun. I can’t see how this gun could not fill your requirements. Armored support vehicles would be supplied with other elements previously mentioned. Any assault requires timing and good management, so please don’t think I am suggesting these events happen separately or at all. It would all depend strictly on the particular mission at hand. This post in answer to your previous post, which seems to have disappeared! ?
	freefallingbomb August 31st, 2010 at 7:00 pm To the poster “Jay Citizen” You wrote: “This post in answer to your previous post, which seems to have disappeared!?” I’m already happy that you’re even aware that I answered to you: Normally my posts simply disappear as soon as I hit the “Submit” button…! We have to adopt French Résistance tactics to communicate on this Free U.S. American Internet forum, encrypt our messages (do you speak Chinese?), synchronize our watches and only post at pre-determined hours, before the reactionary occupant’s ELINT vehicles intercept our messages and delete them again! Me first, my grandma taught me how to do it: FGJMK DFGBO FJG PAOF, GOUI, AJ HPOIUFH GNL SJ G POFDSAG ? FGJA FGI JKHND ! SFH USF DIUSFAH… GSIF UAHK GSAIU, OPHF DSGJ KNFOI GP, JF DIGOJFGO IF,DJGI, O AFJGO IFGJA PIFGJ UA! TG AR EJGLKF? VJAOI PRJGE !!!!!!!
	Jay Citizen September 1st, 2010 at 1:57 pm I hope your PC is not compromised! I and my think tank group have been under attack by the Chinese for more than two years now. They’ve become smarter, and initiate their web-assaults from universities, where they can blame students for cracking folks firewall perimeters. Your way ahead of me on the cryptology; it is a fascinating subject; but I’m not much for coding — either program language or encryption. I’ve probably forgotten more Japanese, German, and Russian than I know in English! I used to be able to speak and write in Russian, but sleep apnea took my brains away, unfortunately. I look forward to further discussion on the Buzz! If communications become anymore compromised — one can always join the same bot-net system the folks in Iran use. No tyrannical government has been able to shut everything down; even though they may be able to record a bunch of gibberish!
	Jay Citizen September 14th, 2010 at 11:52 pm You seemed to answer your own question about the 105mm; and I agree! You misunderstand again my purpose here. The bulk of Marine personnel would land in armored boats; and they do go WAY up on shore, I’ve seen it! The armored vehicles would follow immediately behind or even interspersed with them, using my other suggested methods. The catamaran design was just an example of a rapid transfer craft. This satisfies efficiency/survivability requirements and saves fuel. Then a more capable smaller LCT takes if from there. I’m back to my original high-speed transfer craft for depositing armored elements directly on the beach, and retreating for more loads. Craft like that catamaran can change attitude in the water like a oil derrick and launch the LCTs half way from over the horizon. This would be survivable from the stand point that it is fast, dispersed, and you won’t need to worry about losing assault carriers as they will still be over the horizon, launching support VTOL gunships, and other fire support, and providing long range support & firepower. I still feel building a fast method of depositing standard armored vehicles on the beach is cheaper than building a fancy armored vehicle that can do it all. On Iwo Jima, they had Higgins boats by the dozen, and my uncle simply jumped over the side and floated into the battle. Once he got on the beach the armored vehicles that were lucky to make it to the beach simply got blown up by Japanese coastal artillery. So much for having armored vehicles right there with the troops. They all learned to avoid them like the plague, as they were just a lighting rod for destruction.. We do have better methods to destroy dug it enemy defenses now, but I still feel the point is valid. Light infantry is armed with some very powerful weapons now, that can do a lot of damage while landing operations are being commenced during the assault phase. Landing the armored elements should be very fast and seize the initiative. I can’t see a slow poke metal box floating in the water barely a boat and barely a tank, doing much good until it crawls up on shore. By then it will be a heap of metal on the bottom of the ocean or a pyroclastic flow on the beach!

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

Conway Sticks With EFV, Or Similar

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments