US Marines exercising an amphibious landing operation near Odessa.

[Ivanov]

Those pics look kind of like a new CMBS installment  
 

 

[John Kettler]

Ivanov,

Those things are monsters! Got to watch a bunch of them years ago coming ashore at the USMC's Camp Pendleton as we drove past. It's hard to believe something that big and hulking can operate on land. Got more details on the landing exercises? Would imagine there's a lot of fuming in the Kremlin and MoD over them. The US has been looking for a AAV7A1 replacement for some time. Here's the latest on the two remaining candidates.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/tech/2016/01/04/inside-amphibious-vehicles-won-marines-225m-contracts/77380728/

But while we're waiting for those, currently not expected until 2020, the Marines are getting the AAV7A1SU, which is much tougher than the former AAV7A1. "SU" stands for Survivability Upgrade.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/03/16/marines-aav-amphibious-assault-vehicle-survivability-upgrade-saic-quantico/81869442/

But I really wish we could've had the revolutionary EFV (Expeditionary fighting Vehicle)!
 

Regards,

John Kettler

[AttorneyAtWar]

That feel when you hope the marines next amphibious assault vehicle doesn't look like a bath tub, but than you see its replacement and it still looks like a bath tub only shinier.

[c3k]

Looking at the saic vehicle, I'm surprised at the lift capacity of only 11 Marines. I would think a minimum requirement would have been a complete squad (13 men). I would've made the rfp for a complete squad, full vehicle crew, plus one more (2?) additional passenger(s), to be able to attach extra men as needed.

It's a big vehicle. I wonder why they limited its capacity.

Edited August 2, 2016 by c3k

[MOS:96B2P]

3 hours ago, c3k said:

Looking at the saic vehicle, I'm surprised at the lift capacity of only 11 Marines. I would think a minimum requirement would have been a complete squad (13 men). I would've made the rfp for a complete squad, full vehicle crew, plus one more (2?) additional passenger(s), to be able to attach extra men as needed.

It's a big vehicle. I wonder why they limited its capacity.

Yep, this.  An entire squad should fit.  Millions of dollars and years of planning to get a new vehicle and they can't even get a full squad in said vehicle?  The fact that the Marine Corps is allowing this makes me wonder if they have future plans to reduce the number of troops in a squad.   

[c3k]

Platoon is 3 squads plus HQ of 4 men. That's 43 total. To lift a platoon would require 4 vehicles...and leave just one open seat. It's incomprehensible to me that they'd do that. However, the Army did that with the Brad, so we ended up with the oddball crossloading requirement. 

The design requirement should've had at least 13 open seats. I'd make it 15. That way the HQ could split into 2 vehicles and a spare 2 seats would be left for attached personnel and you'd just need 3 vehicles to lift a platoon. If you're going to go with 4 vehicles to move a platoon, I'd still go 13 pax. Take one fire team out of a squad and put them with the HQ. 8 men in that track, 5 open seats for extras. 2 tracks are full. One track has 4 open seats for another attached unit.

But, they didn't ask me. At 65 friggin' tons, with a 6 ton lift (10% cargo fraction), this is not a study in efficient transportation. At least get the squad together.

[Codename Duchess]

16 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:

That feel when you hope the marines next amphibious assault vehicle doesn't look like a bath tub, but than you see its replacement and it still looks like a bath tub only shinier.

It's a funny thing, buoyancy.

I rode in an AAV7 back when I was a midshipman.  I was convinced I was going to drown 110% of the time.  Anything more boat like is a plus in my opinion, and honestly the whole idea of a an amphibious landing as we all imagine them is pretty archaic in this day and age.

Really they just need something that can cross long distance over water, quickly.  The fanciest death-dealing armored amphibious vehicle doesn't mean a thing when the LHD carrying them all sank from a Chinese ASCM because it was sitting 15 (or 150) miles off the coast.

[sburke]

6 hours ago, c3k said:

Platoon is 3 squads plus HQ of 4 men. That's 43 total. To lift a platoon would require 4 vehicles...and leave just one open seat. It's incomprehensible to me that they'd do that. However, the Army did that with the Brad, so we ended up with the oddball crossloading requirement. 

The design requirement should've had at least 13 open seats. I'd make it 15. That way the HQ could split into 2 vehicles and a spare 2 seats would be left for attached personnel and you'd just need 3 vehicles to lift a platoon. If you're going to go with 4 vehicles to move a platoon, I'd still go 13 pax. Take one fire team out of a squad and put them with the HQ. 8 men in that track, 5 open seats for extras. 2 tracks are full. One track has 4 open seats for another attached unit.

But, they didn't ask me. At 65 friggin' tons, with a 6 ton lift (10% cargo fraction), this is not a study in efficient transportation. At least get the squad together.

and here i was thinking you were trying to say the Marines were getting fat.

[John Kettler]

It is rather odd that the USMC wouldn't mandate the ability to carry a full squad. It occurs to me, though, that this may well be driven by vehicle maneuverability once ashore. My recollection is that the AAV7 series is quite ungainly in this regard. Also, it's easier to achieve a high level of ballistic protection on a smaller vehicle than it is on a behemoth, simply because the protected volume requirement is so much smaller. These seem like reasonable design drivers to me.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bloody Bill]

As a Marine myself (medically retired) I loved the old AAV7's.  As being attached to an engineer unit we were at sea way to much and got to land on a few shore lines.  The idea of the saic as I understand it is to have two vehicles carry a squad.  One vehicle with two fire teams in it and the other with squad command a fire team and more gear.  Less lives lost if a vehicle is destroyed.

[AttorneyAtWar]

6 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

It's a funny thing, buoyancy.

I rode in an AAV7 back when I was a midshipman.  I was convinced I was going to drown 110% of the time.  Anything more boat like is a plus in my opinion, and honestly the whole idea of a an amphibious landing as we all imagine them is pretty archaic in this day and age.

Really they just need something that can cross long distance over water, quickly.  The fanciest death-dealing armored amphibious vehicle doesn't mean a thing when the LHD carrying them all sank from a Chinese ASCM because it was sitting 15 (or 150) miles off the coast.

Hehe yeah I know the reason, just ragging on it for fun.

Honestly I would love to experience a (simulated) beach landing from an amphibious assault ship in one of those things.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Raptorx7

[MOS:96B2P]

10 hours ago, Bloody Bill said:

<Snip> The idea of the saic as I understand it is to have two vehicles carry a squad.  One vehicle with two fire teams in it and the other with squad command a fire team and more gear.  Less lives lost if a vehicle is destroyed.

Okay, that makes sense. 

[Michael Emrys]

On August 2, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Codename Duchess said:

...and honestly the whole idea of an amphibious landing as we all imagine them is pretty archaic in this day and age.

Yeah, didn't the Marines come up with the idea of vertical envelopment to avoid just that back in the '50s? Is the current idea that the first wave goes in via helos and Ospreys with follow-up forces landing on neutralized beaches via the kinds of vehicles discussed in this thread? I think that opposed amphibious landings are still considered the most dangerous and difficult job around.

Michael 

[c3k]

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 0:07 AM, Bloody Bill said:

As a Marine myself (medically retired) I loved the old AAV7's.  As being attached to an engineer unit we were at sea way to much and got to land on a few shore lines.  The idea of the saic as I understand it is to have two vehicles carry a squad.  One vehicle with two fire teams in it and the other with squad command a fire team and more gear.  Less lives lost if a vehicle is destroyed.

Well, that still breaks the squad. The result will be that the two half-squads will be treated as individual tactical elements. They will become de-facto squads of 6 or 7 men. Splitting tactical elements up due to seats on a lift (be it a helo, truck, track, or "sack") negates all the doctrinal reasons for having that tactical element sized the way it is. Meaning, the Marines have a 13 man squad for a reason.

If the SAIC ("sack"  ) can carry 1/2 a squad, then that means that a platoon would require 6. (11 seats, with 6 or 7 occupied, means the 4 man platoon HQ can just ride along with one of the squads. Err, "demi-squads".) If the sack carries a full squad, with a few extra seats (as I posted above), then the platoon would require 3 tracks. What kind of footprint would that represent? What kind of maintenance? What kind of outlay/support?

Let me ask: using WWII titles, have you ever used spw250s instead of 251s? Would you? A pzgrdr platoon in 7 250s sucks. The half-squads don't last long. They need to unite...with the CORRECT other half-squad.

Now, if you follow the reasoning that more Sacks mean better survivability, then I suggest jet-skis instead. Seriously. Stick a ceramic armor shield on the front with some ballistic glass for a windscreen. Put two men on each jet-ski and have it tow extra gear (like what pro-surfers use to get out to the breakers or what life-guards have). Instead of a 6-knot behemoth smashing the waves into submission, you'd have maneuverable jet-skis flitting about at about 60 mph. Let's just call it 50 knots.

If the amphib assault starts from 6 miles out, the sack-tracks would take one hour to close the distance. That'd give time for reaction forces to gather, allocate equipment, set up their ATGMs, and plink away. The same jet-ski force would be ashore in under 8 minutes. And they'd be more stylish while doing so. No dedicate crews needed: just ditch the jet-ski when they land. Each platoon would have 22 or so. One gets hit? Pshaw: just two men down. Carry on. Imagine the flocking algorithms needed for a defensive system to cope with a full battalion assault by a jet-ski landing battalion? That'd be pretty slick...eh?

Small size, reduced time in the target zone (by an order of magnitude), damage tolerance (if one engine goes down, you've only lost 4% of your force, not 16% or 33%), simplified maintenance (commercial off-the-shelf), no development money needed (seriously, they work: just bolt a shield to the front), unit survivability is enhanced (reduced chance of a hit and much less impact on the unit if a hit does occur). Better situational awareness for the Marines before they hit the shore (ever sit in a box before landing? ugh).

Drawback? The jet-skis aren't so good AFTER landing. Shrug. Gain the beachhead and then land some purpose built IFVs. LAVs, Strykers, Brads, whatever. Anything is better for land combat than an AAV. Or the sack.

Ken

[Bloody Bill]

@c3k I am not sure if you ever served in the military.  Common sense on building vehicles, spending money our footprint or maintenance is never thought of it seems.  Look at the massive support that is needed to keep a platoon of Abrams going.  Design of the Saic could change by the time it is deployed and most likely will change after it is used in real world.  Marines don't care how they get to the fight they just want to get to it.  Marine Amtracs have crossed many miles of desert and stayed very effective in transporting and supporting Marines.

As for your jet-ski battalion you had just better hope the enemy has no modern ability to use Arty with cluster rounds or your battalion is dead in the water.

I do not know why the saic would not hold a full squad the only reasoning I was ever told was for the survivability situation I posted above.

 

 

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, c3k said:

Drawback? The jet-skis aren't so good AFTER landing.

You also can't use them for hauling cargo, such as ammo, medical supplies, fresh water, rations, etc. to the beach after the troops have landed.

Michael

[c3k]

59 minutes ago, Bloody Bill said:

@c3k I am not sure if you ever served in the military.  Common sense on building vehicles, spending money our footprint or maintenance is never thought of it seems.  Look at the massive support that is needed to keep a platoon of Abrams going.  Design of the Saic could change by the time it is deployed and most likely will change after it is used in real world.  Marines don't care how they get to the fight they just want to get to it.  Marine Amtracs have crossed many miles of desert and stayed very effective in transporting and supporting Marines.

As for your jet-ski battalion you had just better hope the enemy has no modern ability to use Arty with cluster rounds or your battalion is dead in the water.

I do not know why the saic would not hold a full squad the only reasoning I was ever told was for the survivability situation I posted above.

 

 

28 years. My experience has, admittedly, colored my perception of the procurement process.

[c3k]

32 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

You also can't use them for hauling cargo, such as ammo, medical supplies, fresh water, rations, etc. to the beach after the troops have landed.

Michael

Well, with the sleds behind the jet-skis, you carry enough for two men to fight for the beach. After that? Well, that's when you land the vehicles meant for land-warfare. (Tongue out of cheek, I don't see the Saic going back and forth to and from the beach until after the beach has been secured.)

Another benefit of the jet-ski battalion? Think of the MWR rental opportunities.

My magic procurement wand would wave about and create a vehicle which can transport a single squad, plus a few extras, and have enough room for about 2-3 days of combat supplies. It'd have some overwatch capability (Javelins, 120mm direct fire mortar (flat trajectory: look it up), or 35mm Bushmaster III, possibly up to 40mm. Machineguns? Of course. And sensors for them. About a 3 man crew. And air conditioning. Because it's nicer that way.) Do NOT split up a tactical unit. Or, just get a swarm of jet-skis.

As for cluster munitions? Not a factor. The time the swarm is vulnerable is too short to target and get rounds on 'em. You need to know they're there, and have something which has survived the landing prep which can fire within the right timeframe.

Ken

 

 

[Michael Emrys]

2 minutes ago, c3k said:

My magic procurement wand would wave about and create a vehicle which can transport a single squad, plus a few extras, and have enough room for about 2-3 days of combat supplies. It'd have some overwatch capability (Javelins, 120mm direct fire mortar (flat trajectory: look it up), or 35mm Bushmaster III, possibly up to 40mm. Machineguns? Of course. And sensors for them. About a 3 man crew. And air conditioning. Because it's nicer that way.) Do NOT split up a tactical unit.

...And maybe be about twice the size of an AAV. I think you should forget about the mortar and Bushmaster and go straight to a 6" naval cannon. That'll get the enemy's attention!

Michael

[Bloody Bill]

I agree with you 100% that the squad should not be broken up.  I do like the sound of your "magic vehicle"  would save a lot of lives. 

[c3k]

Some fun...

http://www.military.com/video/guns/naval-guns/120mm-mortar-system-on-landing-craft/3547046540001

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=120mm+mortar+turret&view=detailv2&&id=52ECDE8890E3C3D9B2CF842B9ECE308CAD25D396&selectedIndex=0&ccid=26kB8Xi7&simid=608008220205321391&thid=OIP.Mdba901f178bb1c8bec2deacab31f9bdao0&ajaxhist=0

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1850.html

C'mon...this brings the "boom" to the party.

[antaress73]

Spec ops al ready use jet skis 

[c3k]

Shhhhhhh.......

Kinda cool how so much specops gear has found its way to mainline forces. Could jet ski flotillas be next?

[Plague2Delta]

On 8/6/2016 at 1:10 PM, Bloody Bill said:

I agree with you 100% that the squad should not be broken up.  I do like the sound of your "magic vehicle"  would save a lot of lives. 

Being new and wishing to contribute insight from experience, I would have to say this is not so much of a problem these days. I would say that the squad can be broken as long as fire team integrity is maintained. That is now the most basic maneuver element, especially concerning satellite patrols etc. When we did work ups with tracks in 29 Palms, I don't ever recall any issues with split squads/platoons due to seating in the tracks. It was never an issue as long as fire teams maintained cohesion. Now knowing the Corps and the differences in SOP's across infantry battalions and even companies, some might have differences when concerning this. However, for my unit, this was not much of an issue at all. 

[c3k]

 

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 8:45 AM, Plague2Delta said:

Being new and wishing to contribute insight from experience, I would have to say this is not so much of a problem these days. I would say that the squad can be broken as long as fire team integrity is maintained. That is now the most basic maneuver element, especially concerning satellite patrols etc. When we did work ups with tracks in 29 Palms, I don't ever recall any issues with split squads/platoons due to seating in the tracks. It was never an issue as long as fire teams maintained cohesion. Now knowing the Corps and the differences in SOP's across infantry battalions and even companies, some might have differences when concerning this. However, for my unit, this was not much of an issue at all. 

Good to know and thanks (sincerely) for your service and for the input. But, you do know you're ruining the image of dozens of gung-ho Marines "training" on Jet Skis at beaches across the globe? "First squad! We've got TDY orders to Daytona Beach to practice our beach landing SOP/TTPs! Mount up!"  

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by c3k