Jump to content

OT: pbs frontline 'the future of war'


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dear Warfare students,

The current U.S. Army transformation poorly represents the lighter AFV school of thought, the point of which is to have AFVs that can FLY by both Army and USAF aircraft for battlefield 3-D maneuver capabilities, hence my humorous title for this post. Before Gen Shinseki took over, the under 20-ton Future Combat System [www.geocities.com/pentagon/5265/futuretank.htm] was supposed to be FLOWN by the Future Transport Rotorcraft (FTR), and it appears this is to be true, but I have to honestly qustion if Gen Shinseki believes in Army Aviation at all. He seems 3-D only one time from CONUS by USAF aircraft and this is not going to cut it. The article below outlines where we need to go to get the BEST 2-D/3-D synergism.

Airborne!

Mike Sparks

U.S. ARMY TRANSFORMATION's NEXT STEP: 3-DIMENSIONAL MANEUVER CAPABILITIES

The U.S. Army has selected heavy, 18.8 ton (combat loaded) wheeled LAV-IIIs for a handful of its Interim Brigade Combat Teams at a staggering cost of $4 BILLION DOLLARS. While lighter than 70-ton M1 Abrams tanks, these vehicles at 37, 618 pounds are still too heavy for Army CH-47D/F Chinook helicopters to fly them nor USAF C-130 fixed-wing aircraft since they exceed the Hercules' 32,000 pound limit for landing at unimproved forward landing strips. A high-silhouette wheeled armored car like the LAV-III has ground clearance and wheel travel that makes it too high to meet the tip-off curb requirement to be parachute airdropped over the rear ramp of C-130 aircraft. By pressing this 18.5 tons onto just 4 axles and a narrow tire footprint, they have too much floor pressure to be carried inside cargo 747s even if they could fit through access doors. Battlefield Commanders need to be able to air-deploy mobile forces rapidly, by any and all means available to them to anywhere on the non-linear battlefield; not just where there are concrete runways or using scarce over-sized USAF C-5/17 cargo jets. Joint Regional Commanders need superior forces to win a Major Theater War not just a handful of medium Brigades, and they need them by "Fedex" overnight air-delivery. They need transformed Army forces today, not in 2010 or later after an "objective force" centered on a Future Combat System whose technology is not even developed/tested.

So with only a handful of Brigades transformed, what's next for the Army's transformation to a faster air-deployable, dominant on the ground force?

Its urgent that the rest of the U.S. Army gain 3-Dimensional air-maneuver capabilities immediately by changing 1 Battalion in each of its Brigades to lighter, C-130 transportable in-all-conditions, already-in-Army service M113A3-type tracked vehicles like the U.S. Army Europe Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) has done.

www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/m113a3setaf.htm

The U.S. Army has thousands of M113s that can be inexpensively upgraded to A3 standards and fitted with the digital capabilities used by the IBCTs for inter-operability. By low-cost enhancements like rubber, flexible one-piece "band tracks" these vehicles become maintenance, vibration and noise free while being even more gentle on third world country roads for peacekeeping operations than armored cars. Even better, the vehicle is lightened by 1,000 pounds, making M113A3s easily transportable by CH-47D/F Chinook helicopters for tactical, battlefield Air Assault mobility. Available now P900 and advanced applique armor kits can be added making M113A3s protected from Heavy Machine Guns, autocannon and Rocket Propelled Grenade fires without exceeding the delivery aircraft's lift capacities into forward landing strips. RPG resistant armor if fitted to LAV-IIIs would make the vehicle 43,000 pounds and too heavy to be carried at all by C-130s under ANY conditions. Tracked vehicles are inherently more protected and remain mobile to complete the mission if hit by enemy shrapnel and small-arms fire that would puncture, shred and flatten a LAV-III's 8 rubber tires, that even with "run flats" must limp home at 5 mph within 5 miles.

The digital battlefield is a two-edged sword: America's enemies are already using communications and computer technology to create "situational awareness" that make for defenses that can rapidly mass at the point of U.S. entry, that can result in costly close-range fights. Termed "Surveillance Strike Complexes" these fortified but clearly ambiguous-as-to-where they-are-strong-or-weak, defenses employ the principle of rapid offensive counter-attack to keep a usually complex urban/vegetated under their constant control by fires/surveillance. Attacking SSCs from a predictable 2-dimensional direction along roads that wheeled vehicles are limited to could result in heavy U.S. casualties that could lose a conflict by default via a withdraw of U.S. public support due to enemy information warfare attacks through mass media. In fact, battle simulations show that had the wheeled IBCT fought the Serbs into Kosovo the cost would be a casualty exchange ratio of 1 for 1, which is unacceptable. America's Army must dominate fights not struggle at even or inferior positions.

Clearly, today's battlefield commanders must have an organic 3-D fire/maneuver capability, deploying behind and around enemy SSCs by USAF C-130 austere assault zone airlanding and parachute airdrop, and this capability must be Army-wide to create the mass needed to win battles and not just force entries; though the 82d Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina would be the place to begin. These forces using air-deployment means would deliver mechanized infantry forces in M113A3s and other tracked vehicles to "fly light, fight heavy" striking the enemy behind his SSCs and collapsing his cohesion, facilitating his defeat by reaching into his comfort zone of previously thought secure areas and smashing them and placing them under U.S. Army control. As the enemy struggles to cope with American Army OPTEMPO, striking deep, he will lash out with thrusts best countered by tactically air-mobile, "Air-Mech-Strike" forces that can fly by Army helicopters into positions of advantage under full armor protection to target/destroy them with precision weaponry and follow-on tracked cross-country mechanized infantry combat. The Divisional-sized force tailored for this type of combat, the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky could also CH-47D/F air-transport readily available M113A3s, but with a modest purchase of 4-ton German Wiesel tracked armored fighting vehicles, could transport them by their widely-available UH-60Ls Blackhawk helicopters and reduce USAF strategic lift needs for the 101st by being cargo 747 transportable as well.

Notice that in the proposed Army Air-Mech-Strike Brigades, 2 Battalions are left "as is", whether "heavy" with M1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles or "light" on foot in order to retain dominant 2-D fire/maneuver to win armor-heavy conflicts in open areas and terrain-agile lightfighters in closed, vegetated areas. Both of these type Brigades are backed up by their organic 3-D Battalion to create a warfighting 2-D/3-D synergism best capable of exploiting U.S. Army situational dominance quickly before enemy SSCs can react in kind. In total, the deployment weight of the entire U.S. Army is reduced to facilitate their deployment in parts or whole by aircraft means; setting the requirement for the fielding of giant Wing-In-Ground effect logistics-over-the-shore seacraft that can deploy 1000 Soldiers and 100 tanks at a time to finish the Army's transformation to a strategically mobile, ground-dominant force.

www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/wig.htm

The details of how the rest of the U.S. Army can be transformed are outlined in our book, "Air-Mech-Strike: 3-Dimensional Phalanx, full-spectrum maneuver warfare to dominate the 21st century" available online with other important documents at the web site below;

www.geocities.com/air_mech_strike

The Army has done well to order 105mm Mobile Gun Systems to give its Medium IBCTs the meeting engagement firepower to ward off enemy tanks, the key lesson learned from the 9th High Technology Test Bed Division experience in the 1980s. However the LAV-105 (MGS) has yet to roll on/off a C-130 whose 102 inch height limit leaves a 78 inch tall vehicle only 24 inches available for a turret. It would be better to employ a 105mm gun system on a more compact tracked vehicle like a stretched M113A4 MTVL or the type-classified M8, which uses existing M113 and 5-ton truck components to insure C-130 airdrop/airland transportability for 3-D Air-Mech-Strike warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- US army chief of staff shinseki wants to change the US army to be more rapidly deployable, with more firepower once it arrives. good, but it still looks like the marines are the first to go. are they?

NOT TRUE. The U.S. Army's XVIII Airborne corps is the first to fight, arriving ANYWHERE in the world in hours, as proven in Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Desert Shield...

The marines only have a mere battalion afloat in 3 different oceans and are hardly capable of being the first to any conflict unless already stationed there beforehand. The days of keeping men packed like sardines for 6 months at a time in ships that leave visible wakes, targeted from space or even from unsophisticated terrorists are rapidly coming to a close (USS Cole?). America needs SIGNIFICANT sized forces (Brigades and larger) that can deploy by AIR in a world that moves by AIR. Spit shines, hubris and lying about your history will not change the fact that your sea-based organization is obsolete for warfighting. As a taxi service for the state department to evacuate U.S. nationals permissively, marines are ok, though overpriced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you can't wait the six months it takes to get M1's over to Lower Slabovia along with all the support they require.

You're a grunt, and you've got to take out a machinegun nest. Wouldn't it be nice to call in some wheeled LAV with a 20mm to pound the MG for a while? How about a LAV with a 4.2 mortar, with onboard fire control?

In the future, you can't wait, and if you do, you might lose the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Sparks is the person I mentioned in my previous post on this thread.

Please read what he says carefully, as he was kind enough to spell it our for us. He has been involved with the conceptual development of these 'light' airborne tanks for a while.

Thanks again Mike for your contribution. See you on the email.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-22-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the M113A3 is a better deal but I am sure that the military will spend a fortune on an 6/8/12 wheeled coffin.

I like the russian vehicle (OT something)that can fire a 120 mortar type weapon in the direct or indirect fire mode. Give it thermobaric rounds, WP and top attack smart rounds in addition to HE and HEAT. This multipurpose aproach gives flexibilty and bang for the buck. Mount a turret like that in a M113A3.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much would it cost to develop and field the WIG platform that is mentioned on the above posted web pages ? I'm guessing that 20 or so of these 5000 ton behemoths would cost about $1 trillion dollars in development and manufacturing and take about 15+ years to field. I'm also of the opinion that landing and unloading such craft would probably have to take place in a large, level, clear and firm-grounded area. A water-based landing/debarking would have some definite restrictions too (especially in the case of heavy armor). The Caspian Sea-based "ekranoplans" are just not a good enough example to base the concept of heavy-lift WIG on.

In my opinion such a heavy lift platform is strictly in the realm of fantasy for the next 20 years, much like "Star Wars" was in the 80's. The technology doesn't exist (in my opinion) to the level required to field a platform such as this (despite what some of the Russians said).

Admittedly there seems to be a bit of misrepresentation on the details about the transportability of the LAV-IIIs on C-130s from DoD (or whoever is actually saying that they are transportable on that platform). Apparently the configurations (that are transportable) and the limitation on where the C-130s can land with such a load will pose a bit of a hurdle to employing LAV-IIIs in the manner that Shinseki has envisioned.

In terms of the M113A3 - how many of the M113s are late construction models (i.e. - less than 20 years old now). I guess FMC could retool and start cranking out new ones if they got the contract. Another question... with a 25mm Bushmaster on the M113A3 chassis, what space would be available inside for troops or C3I gear, etc. ? Another important consideration would be fuel consumption... is either platform at an advantage over the other (since logistics would come into play in a quick reaction force) ?

[This message has been edited by Schrullenhaft (edited 11-22-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this debate is very informative, what it all comes down to for DOD is the bottom line: ie; What will be a lesser write-off when it gets popped with that man-portable ATGM? A multi-million $ MBT, or a LAV that only cost the tax-payers a couple 100K?

The generals may want you to think it's all about the Mission, but it's the accountants who are running the "peacetime" Army.

Right after the Gulf War dribbled to a halt, I read an article in the Army Command College's official publication (who's name escapes me), about how it was more cost-effective to ship those heavy armored divisions from Europe to Saudi and have them be destroyed in combat, then it would be to ship them back to CONUS and be decomissioned (as had been originally intended). Fortunately (?), it didn't turn out like the accountants wanted...

There are disadvantages to living in a market driven capitalist economy, and this is one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Von Lucke,

Take a look at Michael Sparks website where he explains the conceptual development of an urban fighting light tank. It would be resistant to RPG-7.

Ignore the illustration, which shows a fixed gun. It was an error in the artists conception. There would be an inbody turret. ( a la Leonardo Da Vinci)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by air_mech_strike:

- US army chief of staff shinseki wants to change the US army to be more rapidly deployable, with more firepower once it arrives. good, but it still looks like the marines are the first to go. are they?

NOT TRUE. The U.S. Army's XVIII Airborne corps is the first to fight, arriving ANYWHERE in the world in hours, as proven in Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Desert Shield...

The marines only have a mere battalion afloat in 3 different oceans and are hardly capable of being the first to any conflict unless already stationed there beforehand. The days of keeping men packed like sardines for 6 months at a time in ships that leave visible wakes, targeted from space or even from unsophisticated terrorists are rapidly coming to a close (USS Cole?). America needs SIGNIFICANT sized forces (Brigades and larger) that can deploy by AIR in a world that moves by AIR. Spit shines, hubris and lying about your history will not change the fact that your sea-based organization is obsolete for warfighting. As a taxi service for the state department to evacuate U.S. nationals permissively, marines are ok, though overpriced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

easy there. i'm just asking. i'm a civilian, no service bias need apply!

when i talk about first, i mean first with a combined arms force - artillery, AFVs, infantry, etc -, air power, and logistical support. the US 18th at least used to be a relatively light force, primarily infantry. would you send the 18th into a conflict with, say, israel, or any other heavily-armed, well-trained opponent?

i am -not- knocking the 18th. it's a very effective force. i -am- suggesting it may not be as all-around capable as a marine task force if there is some water-based access

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...