Tuesday, April 27, 2021
I told you people LAR was dead...plus a few other mind blowing changes coming to the Missile Marines...
The arrogance of the current Commandant is breathtaking. The tribe is restless, he knows that his moves are not only controversial, unpopular and confusing...but despite all that he is rushing to enshrine his views on the Marine Corps for a generation. He will make sure the organization is so broken that it can't be easily repaired. This quote is breathtaking...
“We will succeed, and we will create irreversible momentum with our modernization efforts over the next 24 months,” Commandant Gen. David Berger wrote in the document’s introduction.
Onto the rest of the story.
via Marine Times
The document specifics that Marines have “invalidated the requirement to replace existing LAV-25s with a similar armored, wheeled or tracked manned vehicle in a one-for-one ratio.”
Sorry LAR.
You just got the tanks treatment. You're deader than disco. The army wants some Stryker crewmen so you have a home to go to.
Major moves on the aviation side have already been announced, such as trimming the number of light, heavy and tilt-rotor helicopter squadrons and moving toward a 40 percent crewed and 60 percent uncrewed aircraft composition.
The wing tried to reinvent the Corps into an "Air Centric" force. Instead they've become almost as irrelevant as 99 percent of the Ground Combat Element they were seeking to kill. Marine Air Ground Task Force? That shit is dead. It no longer exists...just like the Marine Corps for all practical purposes no longer exists once this plan goes into effect.
Who won?
Artillery...rather Missile Artillery will be the main warfighter for the Marine Corps. Navy Air will dominate the wing and eventually replace it. What will remain? Marine Corps bands. Token Infantry. Token ACV.
What wins is missiles, missiles, missiles.
I don't know what this new Marine Corps mission is. They don't know. It's no longer a ground gaining force. It no longer seeks to be a force in readiness but no some fuzzy ass "stand in" force.
The Marine Corps we've known is dead. What has been birthed is a mystery and we'll see how it performs in the unexpected combat of the future.
Monday, April 26, 2021
Light Amphibious Warships Face Survivability Questions
via National Defense Magazine
The vessel “could carry troops and some of their gear ashore in smaller packages so that the larger amphibious warships will stay farther away,” he said. “For the Chinese, it may not be worth it to launch an anti-ship ballistic missile.”
The ships would be harder to target and the cost exchange may not be ideal, he noted.
“The hope is, well, maybe these small ships are not as attractive a target as a large amphibious warship so that we can stream a bunch of these in and deliver troops into the Philippines or to the southwest islands of Japan,” he said. “Then we can move them around in that environment at a lower risk, and even if the Chinese do attack a couple of them, the impact on the overall operation will be less than if we had driven that large amphibious warship close to shore.”
Clark noted that while light amphibious warships will be important assets in future fights, one flaw is that they would have a limited ability to protect themselves if they do come under attack.
“Because they’re not that big, they can’t carry a whole bunch of self-defense” systems, he said. “We’re going to have to ask the question: ‘Are we willing to accept the vulnerability of these ships?’ … Because the Chinese could decide, ‘Well, I’m not going to launch an anti-ship ballistic missile, but I’ll send a bunch of bombers over in that direction and I’ll attack these with cruise missiles or anti-ship missiles.”
The Navy, which is currently mulling over the vessel’s requirements, may need to spend more money than originally anticipated to equip the ships with the necessary defensive weapons, Clark said.
The service is targeting a per unit procurement cost of $100 million to $150 million for the vessels, according to a Congressional Research Service report, “Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.”
“It might end up being a little more expensive” than that, Clark said. “If you put the rolling airframe missile on it, for example, that might be a $10 [million] or $15 million system ... but that’s probably a pretty good price to pay.”
Clark estimated each platform might cost around $200 million in order to equip them with the necessary self-defense systems. While they won’t be invulnerable, such weapons would create dilemmas for adversaries such as the Chinese, he noted.
“You might have to launch four or five missiles at it to take it out,” he said. “Now you get to the point where maybe the attack becomes either too expensive or too difficult.”
The Navy and Marine Corps are considering how they can balance affordability with survivability, as well as operational and programmatic risks, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday said.
“Those need to be balanced against each other in a decade where we’re really trying to move fast and deliver,” he said in April during a Defense Writers Group event.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger called amphibious vessels a “Swiss army knife.” The service is eyeing somewhere between 30 to 50 light amphibious warships. That is in addition to the 10 big-deck amphibs and 20 San Antonio-class LPD-17s the service has previously identified as requirements.
The reality? Would it be worth it to the Chinese to launch 5 anti-ship missiles at one LAW? My answer is yes. Kill 5 of these ships and you've shocked the nation. The cost? 25 missiles? The Chinese would gladly pay that price.
This concept is bankrupt.
Add to this the fact that even upgunned these ships are underarmed AND they're operating forward and you have a recipe for disaster. EVEN IF you toss in a destroyer for escort, the escort is gonna be fighting for its own survival not protecting its escort-ee.
This plan just don't pass the smell test.
Centauro armored vehicle enters service with Jordanian Army
The Centauro 8×8 armored vehicle has entered service with the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF). The JAF released photographs showing at least 12 Centauros lined up at a 3rd Royal Tank Battalion base, which is part of the 60th Prince Hassan bin Talal Armoured Brigade that is based in the central military region. The army said that the acquisition from Italy is part of a wider plan to upgrade all its weapons and equipment.The Janes website said that the Spanish company Star Defence Logistics and Engineering (SDLE) announced in 2018 that it had won a contract to repair and upgrade 80 first-generation Centauros for Jordan. The first-generation vehicles do not have room for dismounts in the back. A year later, SDLE said the first 10 had been repaired and it would fit these with third-generation thermal cameras.
Hmm. B1 model. I hope they have upgraded electronics...otherwise they're getting a somewhat dated vehicle.
A Glimpse at Warfare in the Future
via Interesting Engineering.com
Death Knell of the Tank
For many decades, the mainstay of the modern battlefield was the Main Battle Tank (MBT). Since the end of the Cold War, however, the MBT has faced many challenges that suggest its heyday could be coming to an end. By 2050, the ongoing process of one-upmanship between the tank and anti-tank systems may finally result in them becoming obsolete.
The Main Battle Tank became a mainstay during the 1970s when every advanced nation adopted a single model that would gradually replace all other variants. Different nations produced their own versions, including the US M1 Abrams, the Soviet-Russian T-80/T-90, the German Leopard II, the French Leclerc, the Chinese ZTZ80/88, the Israeli Merkava, the British Challenger 2, and others.
In all cases, these tanks incorporated advances like composite armor, advanced optics (including night vision), stabilization systems, reactive armor, and high-tech munitions. Simultaneously, anti-tank systems rapidly advanced to keep up, ranging from rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and guided missiles, to laser-guided missiles.
The situation worsened as anti-tank systems became more sophisticated and asymmetric warfare more common in the post-Cold War era. During the First Chechen War (1994-1996), the Iraq War (2003-2011), and the War in Afghanistan (2001 - 2021), armored units were either not well-suited to the local geography or suffered heavy casualties in close-quarters urban combat.
To address this, tank designers have been experimenting with active protection systems, integrated fire control, networking, radar decoys, and other counter-measures. However, it appears that in the long run, tanks are destined to go the way of the dinosaur, because it is too expensive to adapt them rapidly enough for changing conditions.
The fact that most combat engagements in the modern era have not included battles between tanks has also shown that their importance may be on the wane. Between the high cost of maintaining armored units and their diminishing role on the battlefield, armies worldwide are considering replacing the tank with more flexible combat systems.
For example, in 2014, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launched the Ground X-Vehicle Technologies (GXV-T) program to investigate possible alternatives. In 2016, Major Christopher Orlowski (the GXV-T program manager) summarized the purpose of the program as follows:
"We're exploring a variety of potentially groundbreaking technologies, all of which are designed to improve vehicle mobility, vehicle survivability, and crew safety and performance without piling on armor. DARPA's performers for GXV-T are helping defy the 'more armor equals better protection' axiom that has constrained armored ground vehicle design for the past 100 years and are paving the way toward innovative, disruptive vehicles for the 21st century and beyond."
By 2050, this could result in the complete abandonment of the MBT in favor of lighter vehicles that have swapped out their treads in favor of wheels, adjustable tracks, or even legs. Rather than heavy armor, these vehicles are likely to rely on radar, AI-driven situational awareness software, and active countermeasures that sense incoming threats and neutralize them in advance.
Other layers of defense could come from deployable hunter-killer drones and active camouflage (similar to the "invisibility cloak."). Gasoline engines will no doubt be replaced by high-capacity batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. And rather than crews of three or four, a combat vehicle could have one driver, be remotely operated, fully autonomous, or all of the above.
In terms of armaments, the more traditional cannon could be swapped for an electromagnetic induction gun (aka. a railgun) or a directed energy weapon (aka. a laser). Some robotic point-defense machine guns would also be helpful, and less-lethal measures like EMP charges, high-pitched sonic blasts, and other crowd-control measures could also be effective.