Once in a great while, I take a peek at a non-naval issue
and today is such a case.
The US has sent 30 some M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine and
reports suggest they’ll be committed to some kind of spring offensive when the
ground dries enough to support heavy armored vehicles. That raises the probability that Russia will
eventually capture an Abrams tank. Yes,
I know that some of the more sensitive gear has been stripped out of the tanks
for just that reason but what about the general characteristics of the tanks,
especially the armor. We’d be giving
Russia the opportunity to study the tanks’s armor scheme, material composition,
strengths, and vulnerabilities as well as other general characteristics and
capabilities. And, of course, anything
Russia gets or learns will make its way to China, one way or another. Is this wise?
Considering the amount of M1's sold around the world to countries like Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia I think Russia and China has all the intel on the tank they need.
ReplyDeleteThese are also obsolete M1A1 from the mid 1980's while the US Army is using M1A2 sep 3's where the upgrades are from the 2010's.
Seems a low risk. The units sent are older. As noted above one might wonder at the security of some of M1 customers. Seeing a country that is an active US advisory wear itself down more as the result of their presence seems a large net positive. Using any US weapon/system anywhere has the potential to expose its capabilities. But this far from comparable to say be handing over F-35s. Besides the street works both ways clearly a great deal of Russian kit even some of its best is being analyzed in the other direction.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, reports seem to indicate that the Russians have not used their latest tank in this war.
DeleteThey have the the T-90 versions are the latest working tank. The T-14 is clearly vaporware.
Deleteedit add on nothing makes this more clear than the fact the T-14 was supposed to usher in active defense for Russian tanks. Not only has it not appeared on the AWOL T14 its not even appearing a bolt on addition to anything.
DeleteThe T14 has been trialed in the Ukraine conflict & sent back for tweaking. Its too early to say if it will be mass produced or not but its at best in very low rate initial production or just before that, still working out some bugs. This happens to all complex military equipment though.
DeleteThere have been hardly any tank-on-tank engagements in Ukraine, so it would make sense for the Russians to focus their resources on producing tried and proven T90-Ms, which are as good as anything the Ukrainians have, rather than trying to iron out the bugs in the T14s and put them into mass production in the middle of a war.
Delete"The T14 has been trialed in the Ukraine conflict & sent back for tweaking"
DeleteErr they the same about it in Syria. Its been being tweaked for over a decade now.
"tried and proven T90-Ms, which are as good as anything the Ukrainians have, rather than trying to iron out the bugs in the T14s and put them into mass production in the middle of a war."
I sure that is a comfort to Russian soldiers having to keep using pop top tanks while a reportedly/supposedly safer tank is kept in the wood shed.
"I sure that is a comfort to Russian soldiers having to keep using pop top tanks while a reportedly/supposedly safer tank is kept in the wood shed."
DeleteNone of us have any idea why Russia is not committing to the production and use of the latest tank. Do you have anything substantive to contribute? Some sort of analysis or additional information, perhaps?
What I know is obvious. It has not produced them aside from a number pud and a dozen to maybe 2 dozen nor produced any credible after action reports of their use. They never established a working production line for them and none of their very useful supposed subsystems have appeared on say a T90. I thought my reply was clear and substantive if Russia can produce any number of working tanks that make a mission kill is not a death sentence and that has features that theoretically could very useful against at least advanced anti tank missiles the fact they are not in the war seems to lead to a self evident conclusion. Russian can't make them.
DeleteI realize I can't edit. But sorting out a new PC set up and not sure quite where I want log ins yet for comments to be saved. Trying to be a little more organized on a new setup.
"seems to lead to a self evident conclusion. Russian can't make them."
DeleteI don't mind speculation when clearly indicated as such. I won't allow speculation to be presented as fact which is what you're doing.
Russia might be holding off on production due to quality issues, capability issues, budget issues, rethinking operational requirements, lack of a perceived export market, shortage of required raw materials, or any other number of possible explanations. Unless you are a member of Putin's inner circle and privy to military status and planning, you're just speculating.
Your conclusion was neither obvious nor self-evident. In fact, it doesn't even seem like a top ten possible reason. This blog is about facts and logic. Stick to that and you'll be successful.
Considering we have sent Patriot missile batteries and UK has sent their latest cruise missiles, don't think the Russians are going to learn much from an old M1 that they don't already know....On the other way around, I think the damage is far worse for the Russian since so much of their gear has been compromised in the past 2 years, there's videos and pics of their latest ECM gear, missiles still looking intact, etc and with the brain drain that they have incurred, it will be FAR HARDER for them to improve and change their compromised systems than it is for the US or EU.
ReplyDeleteBe nice if we could pin down sanctions on western companies a bit better so as to reduce the flow of western components that are leaking through sanctions.
DeleteYes, agree, probably far more important since it's pretty obvious that Russia needs quite a lot of foreign tech. I don't remember what missile it was, Russian or North Korean that was found pretty much intact and it was loaded with US and EU parts, some quite recent! Closing that gap would go a long way.
Delete29* one was destroyed today in the avdeevka region
ReplyDeletehttps://t.me/Novichok_Rossiya_2/1533 (telegram link)
Read that folks involved with the B21 development have stated that measures have been taken to improve cyber security etc. They did not want a repeat of the CCP getting information on the F35.( The B21 will have a hefty price tag,)
ReplyDeleteThese are M1A1, not A2.
ReplyDeleteM1's one "benefit" is also its fatal problem - gas turbine engine. This tank can easily start in very cold weather but heat generated are several times of typical diesel engines thus a very good target for IR homing anti-tank missiles. Despite having gas turbine technologies and used in other weapons, China simply doesn't use it in their tanks, nor Russia.
In general, Chinese tanks are better than Russian ones. Just google yourself on their export ones - VT4 and VT5 (light tank) even though these are purely for export. Chinese army's most advanced one is type 99A.
F-16 and other weapons have similar issue as Russia will capture and study them.
However, you have got to supply Ukraine something or they will collapse tomorrow.
I suspect the most useful thing we could do would be to restart M114 howitzer production. Then also restart production of the M107 shells, which are much easier to produce than the M795. Restarting DPICM production would be a bonus...
DeleteThey seem to be aggressively expanding the FPV drone production but still lag in artillery.
@Austin. Latest I heard was US Army still expects early 2025 before it gets to 100k production a month of 155mm rounds....haven't heard much about Javelin or Stingers since at the beginning they said they wanted to ramp up, not much news since. I doubt we ramping up anything else really....
DeleteI think there has been incremental improvement in the javelin and stinger rates, but also less demand from Ukraine. Word is the Russians have changed tactics to not be so vulnerable to those systems. We also basically had enough to kill every Russian tank, so there is a limit to usage.
DeleteWe’ve never had great capacity to produce the M795. It uses really fancy metal to be ~30% more lethal than the M107. Also utilizes insensitive explosives.
The M107 is known for being mediocre in all qualities except cost/ease of production. A lot of countries use them for training rounds. With the same investment as we’ve put into scaling M795 we could probably have 2x-5x more M107 with a faster ramp. It’s never too late to correct an oversight like that.
Javelins have two serious problems exposed by this war. First, it takes a long time to lock target. Army actually knew this during 2002-3 Afghan and Iraq Wars but considered as minor (faced weak enemies).
DeleteSecond problem was found from this war - Javelins could easily lose targets after fire. In past, during tests, Army fired on stationary targets but in battle fields, Russian tanks move irregularly. Of course, they don't want to be hit.
Another issue is during test against stationary target, Javelins could well hit target 90 degree which gives best penetration but could not hit in 90 degree on irregularly mobile targets.
"IR homing anti-tank missiles"
DeleteTell me you're Russian without telling me you're Russian. :V
No antitank missile produced by anybody uses IR homing ala Sidewinder. Javelin and Spike use an Imaging Infrared seeker, like Maverick: the missile sees an image of the target, saves it in its brain, and then flies towards that image.
Russian sources and posters seem incapable of understanding or differentiating the difference between IR and IIR.
So it uses IR homing, you are splitting hairs, maybe more sophisticated IR homing, so not just any heat source will do, but nevertheless still IR homing.
Delete"Tell me you're Russian without telling me you're Russian"
DeletePolitely discuss the ideas, not the person. Thank you.
"So it uses IR homing, you are splitting hairs, maybe more sophisticated IR homing, so not just any heat source will do, but nevertheless still IR homing."
DeleteYou're using the wrong terms. IR homing homes in on the hottest heat signature it sees. IIR flies toward a picture that is taken with a camera. The methodology of operation is far closer to an EO guided weapon like Walleye or EO Mavericks, than an IR homing AAM like Sidewinder.
This blog has a comment policy which requires people to know what they're talking about. You should familiarise yourself with it.
My point is this: the additional heat signature doesn't actually matter, because IIR ATGMs are not homing on heat signatures, they are homing in on a picture taken by an infrared camera. Which means that the shooter needs to have line of sight on the target tank, either because they are on the defense and the tank is approaching their position to breakthrough, or because they are on the offense in an elevated position and can observe the tank.
DeleteAlso, the way that thermal imagers work is by contrast in temperature. So long as there's a difference in temperature between the terrain, ambient air and the vehicle - and there *will* be this temp differential, it's physics - there will be contrast to see.
And let's face it, the combat ranges that ATGMs are being fired at in Ukraine is averaging one mile. You can absolutely see a tank on the move with the naked eye at one mile.
"The M107 is known for being mediocre in all qualities except cost/ease of production."
DeleteI think that for a 155mm HE shell, that's probably as good a quality to have as any.
It's just a run-of-the-mill round to be fired in large quantities for the general purpose of blowing stuff up.
The low cost allows it to be used generously. And I would say that artillery is one area in which quantity really does have a quality all its own.
Lutefisk
"that's probably as good a quality to have as any.
DeleteIt's just a run-of-the-mill round to be fired in large quantities"
Bingo! So many people think that if a weapon can't defeat every target in the universe, it's no good. That's just silly. In a war, the best quality any weapon system can have is affordability/ease of production. No war has ever been won with precision. You win with quantity. Good on you for recognizing that!
You still have to hit close enough, accurately enough. Consider Washington's gun duel with Kirishima: a lot of rounds fired, yes, but a lot of effective hits at the same time.
DeleteAs was noted in The Eagle Went Over the Mountain: "The determined enemy is not suppressed by noise."
"The determined enemy is not suppressed by noise."
DeleteI don't know the context of the statement but, on the face of it, an idiotic statement. The enemy that desires to live is suppressed by explosives. The unsuppressed enemy is dead.
The Russians (actually Soviets at the time) did try to use gas turbines in the T-80. Their engines had short lives. How much of that was due to typical Soviet quality control and how much to less-than-stellar Soviet maintenance is a good question. The T-90 can almost be described as an improved T-80 turret on an improved T-72 hull.
Delete"You still have to hit close enough, accurately enough. Consider Washington's gun duel with Kirishima: a lot of rounds fired, yes, but a lot of effective hits at the same time."
DeleteGround artillery doesn't really work like that.
It is an area weapon, not a point target. Lots of shells get fired and they strike randomly within a targeted impact area.
Artillery fire can be observed and adjusted to move the impact area, but it is indirect fire (in which the firing weapon does not directly observe the target) and so pinpoint accuracy is not necessary, or possible, without a form of terminal guidance. Those would be special purpose rounds and not for general usage.
That's why having a larger quantity of standard shells is desirable.
Lutefisk
Sure, but the point of observers is to adjust the impact area as close as possible. That's a completely different thing from what ComNavOps is advocating, which is blind area bombardment. Of course dispersion and atmospherics preclude pinpoint accuraccy, but tube arty has always been most effective when it can be directed onto the target, instead of just blasting a grid square and hoping for the best.
DeleteAlso if you're going to do that grid square blasting, I feel I'd rather use HIMARS to do the area bombardment - we call 227mm rockets Grid Square Removal Devices for a reason.
"Sure, but the point of observers is to adjust the impact area as close as possible. That's a completely different thing from what ComNavOps is advocating, which is blind area bombardment."
DeleteI didn't get that impression from CNO's comments, unless I just missed it.
Lutefisk
"Also if you're going to do that grid square blasting, I feel I'd rather use HIMARS to do the area bombardment - we call 227mm rockets Grid Square Removal Devices for a reason."
DeleteAbsolutely, MLRS are the best.
But it becomes a cost and availability issue.
Often the targets or circumstances don't warrant the use of such a high value weapon system as HIMARS or other MLRS.
Lutefisk
"different thing from what ComNavOps is advocating, which is blind area bombardment."
DeleteYou need to read what is actually written rather than what you think is written. Throughout the blog, in a multitude of posts and comments, I've called for ALL forms of artillery and ALL manner of execution. Suppressive fire is just one type. Pinpoint fire is preferred IF you can find targets - in combat, that will be rare. I advocate suppressive fire, area bombardment, targeted fire, precision fire, and every other kind of fire. What I don't advocate is our current, nearly exclusive focus on exquisite, unaffordable weapons in place of cheap but effective weapons.
Now you know what I've actually written.
"You should look"
DeleteI said that we'd discuss ideas, not people. You didn't listen so the comment was deleted.
"Pinpoint fire is preferred IF you can find targets - in combat, that will be rare."
DeleteThere are ways to find targets, of course. One of the tactics the Russians have been observed to employ is to send their cannon fodder forward to take fire from dug in Ukranian positions. Once those positions have been identified, they follow up with drone strikes onto those positions.
And of course, fixed defenses that are being assaulted by breakthrough elements are by their nature targets that have been found...
"There are ways to find targets,"
DeleteThere are ways to hide targets. Now that we've both stated the incredibly obvious, do you have anything substantive to contribute? Some sort of analysis or additional information, perhaps?
Don't worry my brother, I'm getting there!
DeleteFor the benefit of the readers: The issue with targets staying hidden is that if your enemy stays hidden and does nothing at all, he's effectively suppressed himself on your behalf. He can stay hidden and unattacked, but then that lets you operate with impunity.
On the other hand, with how lethal modern warfare has become, as soon as he's exposed, he draws incredibly lethal fire onto his position.
This is the tactical dilemna that is forced on the defender.
We decry the Russians for using human wave attacks with their undertrained underequpped mobiks, but viewed clinically, this is actually a fairly effective use of their lacking resources. Their conscripts aren't going to be able to fight for shit anyhow, but by sending them against Ukranian positions, it forces a dilema. A squad or fireteam bunker in overwatch can easily wipe them out, but by firing, they expose their position and are thus marked for servicing with fires - artillery, mortars, and drones. On the other hand, if the bunker lets them keep coming, the sheer weight of numbers means a platoon of conscripts will be able to kill a squad of veterans in close combat.
This is an exchange that hurts the Ukranians more, as they can ill afford to lose skilled veterans and have less ability to regenerate their combat losses. I'm of the opinion that they made a strategic mistake at Bakhumat by holding it with their elite units; they should have put their conscripts and regulars there to hold, concentrating their elites and keeping them whole for a more opportune breakthrough to exploit.
"A squad or fireteam bunker in overwatch can easily wipe them out, but by firing, they expose their position and are thus marked for servicing with fires..."
DeleteNot if they engage with copious amounts of cheap-ass artillery shells.
That is literally how cavalry works when in a stationary screen...observe the enemy and call down crushing indirect fire without giving away your own positions by using direct fires against the enemy.
Another reason to have lots of artillery and huge piles of shells to fire from it.
Lutefisk
"That is literally how cavalry works when in a stationary screen...observe the enemy and call down crushing indirect fire without giving away your own positions by using direct fires against the enemy."
DeleteDefinitely helps if you're also riding in a vic that has some chance of surviving an artillery barrage! I get why Big Army's going to the DAGR, there's a lot of value in a light fast dune buggy for a scouting vehicle that isn't supposed to use direct fires, but I've always felt a little happier inside an M3.
"...I've always felt a little happier inside an M3"
DeleteHey! Somebody I can bounce my cav vehicle idea off of!
I would like to create a 40 ton medium tank, something like the M10 Booker or a CV90-105, and adapt it to cav use.
It would have a front mounted diesel engine and be armed with a 105mm M68a1 cannon. The rear compartment would squeeze in a 3-man 19D dismount team.
It would be shaped to resemble the M1 Abrams as much as possible, to put one more layer of difficulty in identifying units by vehicle type.
The key functional feature of this vehicle would be a mast mounted sight similar to what was on the OH-58D.
Like the helicopter version, this sight would have telescopic, thermal imaging, laser rangefinding, and a laser designator. All of these features would be very helpful to a ground cavalry scout.
It would be placed on a 12' telescoping mast that would be mounted on the rear of the turret. Assuming an 8' high vehicle, that would enable the sight to be raised to a height of 20'.
This would allow the vehicle to remain in a hide position behind low hills, one story buildings, stands of trees, in a gully or a wadi, etc. while still able to effectively scout.
The 40 tons would allow the application of relatively heavy armor while still being able to be transported two-at-a-time on a C17.
These would be used in divisional cavalry units and ACR's, replacing the M3 Bradleys on a one-for-one basis.
Lutefisk
"I would like to create a 40 ton medium tank, something like the M10 Booker or a CV90-105, and adapt it to cav use."
DeleteAre you sure this isn't the Army version of the Navy's do-everything ship?
What's the mission for this vehicle? If it's recon, presumably you'd want to stay hidden so there's no need for much of a gun or heavy armor, right?
Are you doing recon by single vehicles or in force?
I guess what I'm asking is ... are you designing a fighting vehicle or a scout vehicle? If the answer is both, isn't that the do-everything approach?
How much smaller, lighter, and cheaper would your vehicle be if you skipped all armor except for small arms/shrapnel protection and stuck with a small gun like a 30 mm?
Six (or more?) people aboard (driver, commander, gunner, 3 dismounts, and ???) for a recon mission??! How did we manage in WWII with 3 people in a Greyhound?
Speaking of which, why wouldn't an M8 Greyhound work?
It's interesting to note that while Big Army is very enthusiastic about using DAGRs as scout vehicles, there's been testing of the concept going on since last year. One of the observations the test company found was that while they have significantly increased mobility, being that a DAGR is basically an offroad buggy, it's also more easily suppressed if it runs into enemy scouts with more firepower (i.e. an OP or scouts in Hummvees). A Hummvee with a .50 can drive off a DAGR, while the DAGR and it's GPMG can't really do the same.
DeleteSame problem with jeep scouting, basically. When you're undetected, they're great, but as soon as you're observed and you start taking fire, you're fucked. Which is just a fact of life of using these sorts of vehicles.
As for the Brad, it has dismounts so that you can cover more ground. A Greyhound basically blunders about into trouble. The Brad drops the scout team off to go do scout things, covering more ground and being less conspicuous than a Brad - and infinitely quieter, the diesel on the Brad is LOUD.
I'll say this for the Abrams, that gas turbine drinks fuel like no tomorrow, but there are power bands and speeds it can operate in where that engine's pretty damn quiet, MUCH quieter than the diesels on our Brads.
"Are you doing recon by single vehicles or in force?"
DeleteInterestingly enough, for a time during the Cold War, the German Army had an armored reconnaisance battalion where they shifted obsolescent Leopard 1 tanks to, during the transition to the Leopard 2. The idea was basically that because Leo 1s were lightly armored and fairly light as MBTs went, they had better range than the Leo 2s and Abrams, so they would be sent to range ahead and find the enemy, and destroy any enemy pickets/observation posts/recon units they ran into. The idea was to keep going as far as they could, doing reconnaisance, servicing targets of opportunity, and being enough of a threat that the Soviets would have to retask actual tanks to counter them, which would therefore reduce the forces being thrown forward against the Leo 2s and Abrams, diluting the power of the Soviet armored thrusts and weakening their concentration of tanks for the breakthrough.
"it's also more easily suppressed if it runs into enemy scouts with more firepower"
DeleteEverything is more easily suppressed if it runs into an enemy with more firepower. The issue is how well it performs its function until it runs into superior firepower?
"dismounts so that you can cover more ground."
??? Men on foot are going to cover more ground than a vehicle?
"Greyhound basically blunders about into trouble. "
Unless you believe a Bradley (or any other vehicle) has some sort of inherent, magical ability to not blunder into trouble, a Greyhound would be no more likely to blunder into trouble than any other vehicle and probably less likely due to its significantly small size which makes it harder to spot.
If you want to scout with men on foot, a Greyhound can park and the crew can wander off on foot the same as a Bradley crew.
Your questions are really good questions.
DeleteI'll try and give good answers.
"What's the mission for this vehicle? If it's recon, presumably you'd want to stay hidden so there's no need for much of a gun or heavy armor, right?
Are you doing recon by single vehicles or in force?
I guess what I'm asking is ... are you designing a fighting vehicle or a scout vehicle? If the answer is both, isn't that the do-everything approach?"
Cavalry units in the army have two primary missions; screening and reconnaissance.
Reconnaissance is basically looking for the enemy, while security missions are to prevent the enemy from finding our main body of troops.
In ground fighting, reconnaissance is a combat mission.
The goal, of course, is to stay hidden while looking for the other guys.
But due to the proximity of friendly and enemy forces, and the density of forces, the ability to remain unquestioningly unobserved yourself is nearly impossible.
One of the inevitabilities of doing recon is that you are going to stumble into the enemy recon forces.
At the point that contact is made with enemy recon elements, it can be debated as to whether the cavalry unit is still doing only recon or if the mission has also become a screening operation to prevent the enemy recon from scouting our main body.
The cavalry unit has to win that battle with the enemy recon forces.
If you can win the recon fight, you can observe the enemy's main body and allow your commander to have the initiative as to where, when, and how to bring the fight to the enemy.
If the cavalry loses the recon fight, the opposite happens.
When designing cavalry forces, the choice falls generally between being light and stealthy or emphasizing combat power.
Light infantry forces will have lighter and more stealthy cavalry units. They use humvees for greater battlefield mobility but do a lot of their work dismounted, snooping around on foot.
Armored forces, which is really what this discussion centers around, use armored vehicles so that they have some chance of survival on the lethal armor battlefield.
So what kinds of forces does the army use for armor cavalry units?
Cavalry units are composed of Regiments (brigades) which are made up of 3 to 4 Squadrons (battalions) which are then made up of 3 to 4 Troops (companies) which are made up of 3 to 4 Platoons.
Cavalry regiments typically screen for a corps (2 to 5 divisions).
Cavalry squadrons are assigned to divisions.
Cavalry troops from squadrons are often farmed out to screen for brigades within the division structure.
To help demonstrate how the army looked at armored cavalry at the end of the cold war (when the army still knew how to fight this kind of war) I'll lay out what an Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) looked like, starting from the bottom up.
A scout platoon would be comprised of 6 M3 Bradleys.
A cavalry troop would be made up of two of those scout platoons, two tank platoons (each with 4 M1 Abrams) a mortar section with two self-propelled 120mm mortars, and the commander and XO in an Abrams and a Bradley. (13 Bradleys, 9 Abrams, and 2 mortars)
A squadron contained 3 of those troops, a tank company with 14 Abrams, and an artillery battery with 8 M109 155mm self-propelled howitzers, and a pair of Bradleys for the command group.
The ACR consisted of 3 of those squadrons and an air squadron of helicopters (the helicopter squadron is something for another day's discussion I think).
1 of 2
Lutefisk
So these cavalry units in heavy divisions and corps carried a lot of punch.
DeleteBut they did that because they needed it.
During WW2, the M8 armored car was used. The 37mm gun would have been good enough against light armored vehicles, but useless against heavier tanks.
And during much of the cold war, the armor units used either the M113 or M114 APCs as the primary scout vehicle.
Soviet doctrine would put light armored vehicles like BRDMs, BMPs, BMDs in their recon platoons.
But immediately behind them, as part of the leading elements (what we would include in our cavalry designation) would be real tanks.
The M113s and M114s were considered to be inadequate, so the M2 Bradley IFV was modified as the M3 for cavalry.
The M3 Bradley has a 25mm auto-cannon. That weapon can punch through most of the light vehicles it would likely encounter. But it will just piss-off enemy tankers.
To deal with the tanks the M3 has a TOW launcher, which should do fairly well against main battle tanks.
The M3 also has a pair of dismounts. These are cavalry scouts, their MOS is 19D. Their job is to do recon on foot away from the vehicle. Doing things like setting up listening and observations posts (LP/OP), looking over the tops of hills before the vehicle crests it, checking bridge supports for damage or explosives, etc.
"How much smaller, lighter, and cheaper would your vehicle be if you skipped all armor except for small arms/shrapnel protection and stuck with a small gun like a 30 mm?"
A good question. But I think that the 30mm cannon is just an incremental improvement over the Bradley's armament.
What I've done by using the M68a1 105mm tank gun is combine the 25 mm and TOW missiles of the Bradley into a single weapon.
The 105 is going to give an almost certain one-shot kill on light armored vehicles. And when using a DU round, the 105 will penetrate main battle tanks, depending on distance, angle, and location of the hit.
The M3 is also approximately 30 tons in weight, and the next generation is supposed to be even heavier.
My tank would be 40 tons, which is big, but not substantially more than the M3. And my vehicle would be more compact, allowing that weight to be concentrated in heavier armor.
The biggest challenge in my design is making space for the dismounts.
The design, with engine in the front, uses the Merkava style layout. The Merkava has a clamshell door in the back between the rear idler wheels. The space between those doors and the turret basket of the Merkava can hold up to 4 stretchers.
My vehicle would be smaller, but would only need to accommodate seats for the dismounts.
I'd prefer to use 3 dismounts, but space might force me to only have the standard two.
I'd hesitate to try and use a smaller vehicle in this role.
While a smaller vehicle would be stealthier, it's not going to be invisible. I'd be concerned that it would not be able to survive in the smash-mouth world of modern armored combat.
I'd also be worried that the 30mm gun would not be able to dispatch enemy vehicles quickly enough, and would not be able to knock out enemy tanks at all.
So, there it is. Smart people could have a serious debate about what I've proposed, but these are my reasonings.
Sorry for the delay in posting, but I needed to have a block of time to put this together.
Thanks again for hosting a terrific blog that provides a vehicle for these kinds of discussions.
2 of 2
Lutefisk
After all of that, I forgot to talk about the most important feature of my cav vehicle, which is the mast mounted sight (MMS).
DeleteThat device would allow the vehicle to remain completely hidden but still be able to raise the mast up to 20' above the ground to look over things like one story buildings, trees, barns, walls, hills, etc.
The MMS would provide telescopic sights, thermal sights, laser range finding, and laser designation for those types of weapons.
That would help offset the disadvantages of the large size by letting the vehicle be completely hidden while still performing observation and targeting.
Lutefisk
"??? Men on foot are going to cover more ground than a vehicle?
Delete"Unless you believe a Bradley (or any other vehicle) has some sort of inherent, magical ability to not blunder into trouble, a Greyhound would be no more likely to blunder into trouble than any other vehicle and probably less likely due to its significantly small size which makes it harder to spot."
Refer to Lutefisk's posts, where he's explained quite well how scouting in armored units is done. I don't really see the need to reinvent the wheel therein. I was took for granted that you understood a lot of the unspoken assumptions that he and I are working from, but it seems that wasn't the case.
"If you want to scout with men on foot, a Greyhound can park and the crew can wander off on foot the same as a Bradley crew."
Lutefisk has answered this in the agregate, but I want to touch on it further: Scouting isn't just a matter of the vehicle crew wandering off. It's setting OP/LP, snooping about on foot. We do these things with dismounted troops and dirt bikes from Hummvees and cav scout Brads. When I talk about covering more ground, I'm talking about how a vehicle can only be in one place at a time; meanwhile a vic and a scout team can be in two different places. The CFV Brad has 3 scouts and a dirt bike, that's 2 men to man an OP and the third man in a dirt bike to scout ahead or relay messages. If the enemy scouts find and engage the scout team, the Brad can either respond and counterattack the enemy scouts, or fall back to report the penetration to higher if the enemy is pushing up in force.
It's like the Big Blue Blanket, where the outer circle is the weaker less survivable ships that are serving as radar pickets to give early detection of aerial attack and draw fire.
"I don't really see the need to reinvent the wheel therein."
DeleteOf course, that assumes the wheel is the proper one for the job. The Ford is the standard wheel for Naval aviation but that doesn't mean it's the right wheel. In fact, it's pretty clearly wrong. Similarly, I have doubts about the wisdom of the current doctrinal approach to land scouting which seems to welcome and even seek out combat when it should, perhaps, be doing the opposite and striving to avoid contact and combat.
" took for granted"
You can skip the snarky comment if you'd like to continue commenting.
"If the enemy scouts find and engage the scout team"
This borders on a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're going to scout around in a gigantic tank or IFV then you're much more likely to be seen and engaged than if you're flitting around in a Greyhound or dune buggy.
"Cavalry units in the army have two primary missions; screening and reconnaissance."
DeleteI'm seeing what seems like a doctrinal mistake in this. I understand that screening guarantees contact and combat at some point. That requires some type of armored vehicle.
What seems missing from the doctrine or missing from the discussions is pure scouting: searching WITHOUT being seen and WITHOUT engaging. For that, you'd presumably want the smallest possible unit to minimize the chance of detection.
Every discussion about scouting instantly devolves into a discussion of engagements. How poor is our scouting that we can't even seem to imagine being able to detect the enemy without being detected and engaged? That would seem, by definition, to be a failure because you've now made the enemy aware of your presence - the opposite of what scouting should be seeking to accomplish.
Ideally, I'd want scouting to be a one-man job - very hard to detect one man. However, the need to cover lots of ground dictates a vehicle of some sort so the smaller the better, one would think.
I understand what the current doctrine is. I just have doubts that it's the proper doctrine.
I also see a related disconnect between close and far scouting. Screening is, by definition, a close-to-the-main-body activity. Scouting, one would think, is a far-from-the-main-body activity designed to locate the enemy with enough space and time to allow the formulation of battle plan rather than simply instantaneously leaping into an unplanned battle at the first screen contact.
What do you think? Do we have the right doctrine or do we need to rethink it?
On a related note, the advent of small UAVs would seem to offer the chance to greatly complement or replace a portion of the ground force scouting ... but that's a separate topic.
"This borders on a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're going to scout around in a gigantic tank or IFV then you're much more likely to be seen and engaged than if you're flitting around in a Greyhound or dune buggy."
DeleteNo, it isn't. I'm talking about a 3-man scout team that is ahead of the Brad. Like what Lutefisk and I have been saying, dismounted scouts are sent to range ahead of their transport to set an observation point. You stop at where you can hide the vehicle, the scouts dismount and stalk forward on foot through the woods, and set their OP. They are IN FRONT of the vehicle.
Addressing your suggestion of a dismounted Greyhound crew, if the crew dismounts to scout ahead on foot, the vehicle is effectively abandoned and is no longer doing anything, which is a waste of an armored vehicle with a gun. We've basically taken that weapon out of the fight. If we're going to do that, we might as well use a hummvee or a dune buggy, neither of which is that well armed, so we lose nothing by abandoning the vehicle at an offset.
"However, the need to cover lots of ground dictates a vehicle of some sort so the smaller the better, one would think."
That's why the cav scout team in the Brad has a dirt bike. You can have two men set the OP, and one man on the dirt bike ranging further ahead.
Rumors abound that on the SOCOM side, they've been experimenting with electric dune buggies in the Middle East and North Africa, because electric motors are near-silent, and that's a big consideration in wide open deserts where sound can carry for miles. I expect once the tech becomes robust enough for Army use, we're going to see the scout team's ICE dirt bike replaced with an EV dirt bike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUOfnd1ac0M
Commercial electric dirt bikes, as of 5 years ago. Pretty damn quiet.
Carry on fellas, y'all are having a fascinating discussion.
Delete"For that, you'd presumably want the smallest possible unit to minimize the chance of detection."
@ComNavOps if you don't mind a third party sticking his oar in, I figure its all a tradeoff. Scouts moving on foot, stalking through the woods, are surely that smallest possible unit, but their range and speed is limited. Open terrain is a death sentence for scouts because they have neither the speed to cross open terrain safely, and have zero survivability once engaged - as you noted yourself a few years ago, there's no way for a soldier to hide from detection on the battle. Nightvision, IR, radar - there's just no way to hide. (https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/08/chinese-type-05-amphibious-assault.html - August 11, 2019 at 9:39am.)
"What do you think? Do we have the right doctrine or do we need to rethink it?"
DeleteI've been giving this some thought as to how scouting could be done differently, and with less of a combat operation flavor.
The idea of very small groups of maybe just a couple of guys has been used in the past.
During the Civil War, it apparently was common to use paid civilians, called Spies at the time, to ride on horseback to observe the enemy and bring back information. Of course many civilians, depending on where their sympathies lay, were likely to give the various opposing armies information about the enemy.
That one is hard to imagine replicating in modern times, especially when fighting in a foreign country.
Sniper teams, with their ability to hide themselves, are pretty good at gathering intel. They are often referred to as Scout/Snipers, reflecting the value of the complementary roles.
In Vietnam they had the Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols (LRRPs). They would be inserted deep into enemy held territory to gather intelligence about enemy operations.
But those methods are a bit limited in their scope. They are typically going to be dismounted, so without much mobility. And part of their stealth is that they are not highly mobile.
They are a handy asset to use if you want to observe a key fixed point; a stretch of highway, a key intersection, a bridge, a dam, or an airfield. Not really well suited, however, to reconning an enemy force at scale.
You could increase the mobility of small scout groups by mounting them in vehicles, but then the problem becomes their ability to move about the countryside.
It's exceedingly slow to pick your way through a forested area in a vehicle, or slog through marshy ground.
Moving out into more open areas like grasslands or farm fields exposes the scout to being seen, and almost all roads are going to be observed by somebody. That is especially true since the enemy will have his own screening forces deployed with the expressed intent of spotting your recon before they can do their jobs.
But let's say that a small scout group, like a small team on foot or a single vehicle, can successfully infiltrate the enemy screen, find the enemy, and then exfiltrate their way out.
What they are going to be able to observe is very small. They might just see a couple of guys or 2 or 3 vehicles.
To get a full picture of the size and location and activities of a large enemy force is going to require quite a few of these small teams.
If I were the enemy, and knew this was the tactics being used against me, I'd take a combat unit and sweep the areas around my forces, hoovering up our scouts a couple at a time. They will either be killed or captured (worse yet from an OPSEC standpoint).
It's really the presence of enemy screening that makes it tough to sneak in and out in the numbers needed to determine the location, composition, and activities of the enemy main force.
I'm open to suggestions, but am not seeing an alternative at the moment.
Lutefisk
"I'm open to suggestions, but am not seeing an alternative at the moment."
DeleteAlternative to what? To the current armor-heavy 'scout' units riding around in Bradleys? Talk about not very stealthy! And, as you described, armored vehicles are useless in jungle, mud, rice paddies, mountains, etc. What do you scout with then? Or, are we force structured only for the European theater and the Soviet Union? What is the Army going to scout with in the Pacific?
You want an alternative? Start with CLEARLY distinguishing between screening (counter-scouting) where you WANT to get in a fight and scouting where you don't want to be detected. Once you've done that, you've ruled out Bradleys as scouts (possibly they're great at screening but not scouting). You've 'ruled in' dune buggies (Greyhounds), small UAVs by the hundreds/thousands, and SIGINT. The enemy is just as afflicted by verbal diarrhea on comms as we are, maybe more due to their centralized C2 organization. SIGINT should be performed all the way from division down to squad.
Use technology - set up remote listening devices and vibration sensors all over. Drop them by the thousands for a hundred miles around you.
Scout-snipers are a huge asset and their usage should be greatly increased (assuming their training emphasizes the scout portion of the title). Every scout-sniper team is, essentially, a listening post. You just need lots of them.
If you're on the move and teams on foot can't keep up, then you depend on UAVs.
The least desirable scouting is scouting by force where you blunder into the enemy with a armored unit and then an unplanned battle results (Robert E Lee lost Gettysburg because of that). You don't want unplanned battles that either side could win. You want planned battles that give you an overwhelming advantage - that's why it's called planning!
What do you think?
CNO, here is a youtube video that I think does a pretty good job of discussing armored cavalry.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmiIqONvHeQ
Lutefisk
"here is a youtube video that I think does a pretty good job of discussing armored cavalry."
DeleteThanks for the link. I enjoyed it. HOWEVER, while it did a decent - if exceedingly dry - job of explaining the cavalry function, that doesn't necessarily mean that the function is correct. For example, pre-WWII, the Navy could have done an excellent job of explaining battleships, however, that explanation would have been outdated and invalid.
The main thing that jumped out at me was the concept of 'fighting for information'. The accompanying concept is 'giving away free information' since every contact with the enemy BOTH gains information AND gives away an equal amount of information on one's own location, assets, direction, etc.
Stealth was mentioned only in passing and dismissively with no dedicated equipment, doctrine, or tactics to implement it. There was also no mention of unmanned assets which ought to be a major factor, I would think.
What do you think? Was it a description of battleships that no longer serve their original purpose or was it a description of cutting edge, completely valid scouting operations and equipment?
Take all of this with an enormous grain of salt as I have no land combat expertise ... just the ability to ask common sense questions!
CNO, sorry for the long delay in replying...real-life tying up my time. I love that this blog facilitates these kind of out-of-the-box discussions, and I've wanted to give a worthy response.
DeleteAs I've had time to think about this, I've come to the conclusion that we are talking about two separate but related activities.
Much of what you are suggesting would, I believe, fall under intelligence gathering. The types of things that you are advocating: UAV's, SIGINT, LRRP's, Scout/Snipers, are all valuable activities in gaining information on the enemy, much of which could fall under the umbrella of reconnaissance. My understanding is that these types of operations are coordinated and controlled at higher levels.
Cavalry, on the other hand, is a form of combat operation. It is one of the combat branches, along with Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Air Defense, Aviation (sometimes), Engineers (also sometimes), etc.
Cavalry is controlled by the ground commander, typically up to a Corps (2 to 4 divisions) level.
Cavalry units do not typically fight outside of the immediate vicinity of the units that they are attached to or are supporting.
Their job is to provide immediate and detailed operational information to the ground commander about what the enemy is doing and the composition of enemy forces in the immediate vicinity of his forces.
The cavalry unit is also expected to exploit the situation to shape the future battle in a way that helps the ground commander win.
It's really a combat mission that is founded on finding and engaging the enemy in whatever way supports the ground commander's intentions. It's purpose is a little bit different than intelligence gathering.
The Gettysburg campaign is a really good example of the value of fighting cavalry.
Meade was moving the Army of the Potomac up into Pennsylvania to try and locate and intercept Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.
Buford's cavalry division was screening the army's flank as it was moving.
But was Buford screening or was he performing reconnaissance? It's a bit hard to say exactly.
He was certainly protecting the flank of the army from attack, which would be screening. But in doing so he was also simultaneously doing a systematic search of disputed territory with the intention of locating enemy forces, which would be reconnaissance.
At Gettysburg they discovered enemy infantry on the march. Importantly, they were able to interact with the enemy main forces because JEB Stuart and his cavalry were off doing a raid somewhere and weren't screening their own infantry.
Buford wisely determined that he had good ground for the army to fight on so he engaged the enemy main forces in a delaying action. This slowed down the enemy infantry long enough to allow the friendly infantry to get in place to continue the fight, on advantageous terrain, before the cavalry was defeated in its delaying action.
The cavalry is one of the maneuver units. They are the leading edge of the combat forces.
And armored cavalry, which is specifically what we've been talking about as cavalry in this thread, is the most heavily armed and armored and the least stealthy of any of the cavalry force types that we have.
I think those of us that are talking about cavalry were being very specific about what we were discussing (talking about a specific type of operation) which might not be known by anyone outside of that small circle. Meanwhile, your viewpoint has been a more holistic overview of intelligence gathering opportunities more generally.
That was the impression that I came to.
Lutefisk
If cavalry's function is fighting rather than stealthy surveillance then, sure, I get the need for heavy armored vehicles (tanks, IFVs) to be the required assets.
DeleteI look at it this way: surveillance/scouting should be conducted far enough away from the main force as to allow the main force time to maneuver and prepare for battle when the enemy is located (hopefully without the enemy knowing they've been located!). Cavalry/screening, almost by definition is going to make contact too close to allow much time for preparation. It's the literal equivalent of stumbling into a battle. The odds equally favor both sides as to who is best positioned to take advantage of the contact. In contrast, if you can locate the enemy far away and without him knowing, the odds will drastically favor you.
So, yes, I can see both a surveillance and a screening function but everything I read (admittedly not much!) seems to equate screening with surveillance which seems wrong to me. Of course, I may well be missing the surveillance function discussion in other readings.
In the naval application, we don't want the screening destroyers (cavalry) to be making unanticipated contact because, by then, the enemy is way too close and we have no time to properly prepare for, and define, the battle. That's why we send scout planes out hundreds of miles so we can find the enemy far enough away to prepare an advantageous engagement. This is why I'm struggling to understand the Army's seeming focus on cavalry and screening to the ?exclusion? of surveillance/recon.
Check this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13127321/Russia-claims-destroyed-M1-Abrams-Ukraine-war-frontline.html
I don't mind links but please refrain from doing so without an explanation and some value-added analysis. Thank you.
DeleteThis link shows first M1 tank destroyed in Ukraine.
DeleteAnd your value-added contribution is ... ?
DeleteThat abrams is only truly destroyed when it's taken out of the equation.
DeleteIf it's recovered & repaired by the Ukrainians, which judging by the lack of additional footage released by the Russians, seems to be the case, it may be back in combat sometime next month.
"That abrams is only truly destroyed when it's taken out of the equation."
DeleteYeah, judging from the imagery, it looks like the blowout panels did their job. It makes for a spectacular fireball, but it won't be the first Abrams to have suffered an ammo det that was recovered and repaired. It's a far cry from the turret tossing the T-72s have performed, because the ammo carousel is stored in the hull, under the turret ring, so if the ammo cooks off, the force of the explosion going up tosses the turret.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4tLyoVn5lA
Image of blast door and blowout panel ammo det cookoff tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP8JiqItigE
Image of an Iraqi Abrams suffering ATGM hit to the turret bustle ammo rack; blowout panels in action.
"...so if the ammo cooks off, the force of the explosion going up tosses the turret."
DeleteMy understanding is that the Ukrainians have been having a contest on who can launch a Russian tank turret the highest.
I believe the record is 250 ft!!!!
Lutefisk
On the tank issue, I can't see what harm could come if we're giving Ukraine the same model we've sold to less-trustworthy allies.
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me a lot more in terms of revealed capabilities is the ongoing tit-for-tat with the Houthis in the Red Sea. It looks to me like we're giving potential adversaries (not just the Houthis, but Iran, and likely China and Russia as well) a long, detailed look at US Navy anti-missile defense capabilities.
Unless the Navy is heavily sandbagging against the Houthis (and risking sailors' lives while doing so) I can't see how that will end in anything less than the eventual loss of a US warship to a missile swarm at a place and time of our adversaries' choosing.
"we're giving potential adversaries (not just the Houthis, but Iran, and likely China and Russia as well) a long, detailed look at US Navy anti-missile defense capabilities."
DeleteOf course, we're also giving our systems the long delayed, real world testing that we so desperately need since we refuse to conduct realistic tests. Lessons learned from this will save sailor's lives and eventually save a warship in battle.
In contrast, China is not giving away any information on their weapon systems but they also have no idea how their systems will perform in combat.
I'd rather know and fix the problems than to enter combat with totally untested weapon systems which history assures us, with 100% certainty, will largely fail compared to their claimed performance.
Do you recall the recent report about a Houthi missile/drone getting close enough to a ship that it had to be shot down by a CIWS? There's a host of lessons in that incident that we can now learn from and improve.
Of course the other side (here Houthis etc) get to see how their weapons & tactics work and then they get a chance to refine them. So there will always be uncertainty unless weapons & tactics don't change.
DeletePotentially a very expensive lesson - quite deliberately putting a $2.5 billion warship and its crew in harm’s way (saved at literally the last minute by a functioning CIWS) to no purpose that I can see, other than to provide the Houthis with target practice.
Delete"quite deliberately putting a $2.5 billion warship and its crew in harm’s way (saved at literally the last minute by a functioning CIWS) to no purpose that I can see"
DeleteThe ships are there for a very specific purpose: defending the shipping lane. You can agree or disagree with the geopolitical strategic need for that but, let's be clear, the ships are there for a purpose.
Yes, you are quite correct. I should have said ‘no effective purpose’, since our attempts to defend the sea lanes, protect international trade, deter the Houthis, or whatever else we were trying to do, seem - entirely predictably - to have had no effect whatsoever.
DeleteThe Israeli port of Eilat is scarcely functioning, the Suez Canal is effectively blockaded, the Red Sea is virtually closed to commercial shipping (except for Russian and Chinese vessels), and the Houthis remain entirely undeterred, although to be fair I imagine their goats have by now been widely scattered.
It’s hard to visualize a bunch of Iranian mullahs guffawing, but after watching us doing this stuff for a couple months they must be holding their sides..
"whatever else we were trying to do, seem - entirely predictably - to have had no effect whatsoever."
DeleteAs a society, we've lost touch with worldwide reality. By that, I mean that we've forgotten the harsh, often brutal, reality of the rest of the world. We think the rest of the world is just as reasonable and pacifist as we believe ourselves to be. That kind of reasonable, pacifist, appeasing approach is not a survival characteristic that is rewarded in the real world.
Might makes right is still the order of the day in the real world and, further, you have to be willing to use your might, not just threaten with it but never use it, as we do.
I see the issue not as a lack of willingness to use military force but rather as an absence of any coherent strategy around when appropriately to use it, which surely should only be in defense of vital U.S. national interests and with due regard for its usefulness and limitations.
DeleteTeddy Roosevelt counselled us to talk softly and carry a big stick. Thomas Jefferson told the world that while ‘we are friends to liberty everywhere, we are the guarantors only of our own’. Good advice from both.
"In contrast, China is not giving away any information on their weapon systems but they also have no idea how their systems will perform in combat."
DeleteChina sold drones to Saudi and UAE. Saudi heavily used CH-4 during its fight with Houthi. Between 2018 and 2022, 13 CH-4 were shot down by Houthi (from Wikipedia). Since Oct. last year, Houthi has shut down two MQ-9B.
So, we can see how Chinese drones (CH-4) perform through Saudi-Houthi battles. Earlier, Iraq purchased CH-3 from China and used them in fighting ISIS.
UAE purchased Wing Loong series and used in Libya.
Drones are consumables. Only nations can afford to treat them as consumables can talk drone warfare.
Delete"Jefferson told the world that while ‘we are friends to liberty everywhere, we are the guarantors only of our own’. Good advice from both."
DeleteActually pretty silly advice from Jefferson. And only feasible for a 3rd rate nation saved by oceans and being surrounded by more inept or disorganized polities and have only one potential enemy who could liquidate the USA and it was kinda busy at the time. I avoid geopolitical advice from the inept mastermind of his embargo and then his succesors near suicidal war that followed.
ComNavOps is right that the Nazy can learn valuable lessons here. I guess I've just gotten so cynical I think the chance that the USN will both learn anything and then implement positive change as a result is effectively zero. I hope I'm wrong!
ReplyDeleteWell, sadly, it's war. Lots of dead soldiers, dead civilians and destruction. You can't supply weapons to Ukraine and not have them end up in Russian hands eventually, we getting our hands on a lot of there stuff too. In the long run from just a technical point of view, USA and West is ahead, we have the money and resources to work on modifications or new gear with lessons learned from opening up Russian gear.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget our Asian friends, no doubt IMO they are getting their hands on this gear too, Soviet/Russian gear is the base of most Chinese gear so I would be very very surprised SK, Japan and Taiwan aren't acquiring RU gear too.
Funnily enough, South Korea had a couple companies or so of Soviet gear - T-62 and T-72 tanks used for OPFOR, and T-80 tanks and BMP-3 IFVs, transferred over as merch in lieu of cash, to repay debts incurred in the Soviet era.
DeleteTracked vehicles, finally something I'm qualified to speak on.
ReplyDeleteThe M1A1s sent to Ukraine will not give Russia or China any technological insights. It's old and our potential adversaries understand it quite well. Several examples were captured by the Iranians about 10 years, admittedly those versions lacked the armor but they had almost the same electronic suite.
The Bradley's we sent, however were upgraded to our current software, besides the absense of the commanders independent viewer. I believe one was captured nearly intact.
If one is so afraid of letting the enemy know what their capabilities are, then one have no business at all safeguarding their interests internationally.
ReplyDeleteYou can either turtle yourself like North Korea and we all know how well that turned out.
"If one is so afraid of letting the enemy know what their capabilities are, then one have no business at all safeguarding their interests internationally."
DeleteThose two thoughts are not related. Do you have anything substantive to contribute? Some sort of analysis or additional information, perhaps?
gCaptain:Navy Secretary Del Toro Pursuing Korean Investment to Help Revitalize American Shipbuilding
ReplyDelete"U.S. Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro met with top shipbuilding executives in Korea this week, visiting two of the world’s largest and most technologically advanced shipyards. The goal of the visit was to attract Korean investment in commercial and naval shipbuilding facilities in the United States."
I realize this is off-topic, but I really like this idea. The South Korean Navy has a pretty good size fleet and the competition would helpful.
Not going to happen. Reagan unilaterally killed US shipbuilding subsidies w/o any agreed reciprocity from Japan, Norway, ROK or China (although that is the future disaster of letting them in the WTO in the 90s). US ship building ain't coming back - unless you get a consensus on an industrial policy to do it.
Delete"attract Korean investment in commercial and naval shipbuilding facilities in the United States."
DeleteI would point out that exactly this was done with Austal who built a facility in the US to produce the LCS. They then produced badly flawed ships that were over budget and over schedule. Not all of that was their fault but a substantinal portion was. Simply persuading a foreign builder to establish a facility in the US is not going to magically solve our shipbuilding problems. They'll still be bound by US laws, regulations, safety requirements, and diversity requirements and they'll still have to use US workers operating under US unions and labor laws. Finally, they'll still be subject to the idiotic program management of the US Navy which can turn a canoe into a billion dollar exercise!
The grass is always greener in foreign countries but, ultimately, they still have to build here where the grass is brown and dying.