tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4667936089867394036..comments2024-03-19T01:17:12.212-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: From Here To Eternity – Or At Least Several Miles InlandComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44549048939178069632014-01-31T06:45:45.711-08:002014-01-31T06:45:45.711-08:00Hand-picked and stood up first as the Amphibious C...Hand-picked and stood up first as the Amphibious Capabilities Working Group and more recently formalized as the 'Ellis Group' under a 1 & 3-star, the Ellis Group published in the November '13 issue of the PROCEEDINGS (pp.24-29) what seems a preview of a new USMC Expeditionary Assault Doctrine. And around the concepts of 'Amphibious Forward Presence' and of 'Littoral Maneuver' based on indeed Amphibious Assault Ships, it has clear references to stealthy heavy-lift Connectors to haul across growing distances the weights of up-armored tracked and wheeled combat-vehicles.<br /><br />Earlier on April 21 2012, the Amphibious Capabilities Working Group spend 15 pages out of 75 on just the issue of Connectors i.e. LCUs and LCACs. They concluded then with a stated minimum of at least 60 modern LCU types. <br /><br />Overall, the emerging picture would appear to reflect the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan and up-armored vehicles.<br /><br />By Spring 2014 we may see the final document for the new amphibious doctrine. TwentyTwentyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935410307831357488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56517720380896378552014-01-09T13:53:29.918-08:002014-01-09T13:53:29.918-08:00GAB,
I agree 100 percent. The JMSDF operates bo...GAB, <br /><br />I agree 100 percent. The JMSDF operates both H-47’s and H-60’s from their Osumi class LPD’s and claims that a Hyuga class DDH can operate up to 11 H-47’s (the normal peacetime complement is 3 SH-60 ASW helos and 1 MH-101 minesweeping chopper). <br /><br />The H-47 makes even more sense when you consider it’s essentially a scaled up derivative of the H-46, which would simplify logistics and shipboard ops. So perhaps a combination of navalized H-47’s and updated H-46’s might have made more sense. Or perhaps we could split the difference, and have a mixture of H-47’s for heavy lift like the British and the Japanese already have and a medium lift version of the H-60 as an H-46 replacement, like Cheney proposed. This would also have the advantage of much greater commonality with the Army’s helicopter fleet, which would save money and simplify the logistics chain. But of course, this would all make far too much sense, and cut into some of the obscene war profiteering being perpetuated by the MICC, so it will never happen.<br />Bluebackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14032254521923350018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32936222306688264542014-01-09T06:46:05.848-08:002014-01-09T06:46:05.848-08:00Enrique,
It is a pity the SECDEF Mcnamara did not ...Enrique,<br />It is a pity the SECDEF Mcnamara did not win out when the H-53/H-47 debate came up. The Marines should have been forced to buy a navalized variant of the H-47.<br /><br />The British have flown H-47s off their amphibious ships for decades and love them. <br /><br />There is no reason that the USMC could not have purchased a H-47 version modified for shipboard use.<br /><br />The H-47 is still in production, and even if a navalized version costs twice as much, you will still be able to buy 2-3 H-47s for every CH-53K.<br /><br />GAB<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-80179098615781075682014-01-09T06:37:08.650-08:002014-01-09T06:37:08.650-08:00USMC 0802: "The USMC will take our bigger hel...USMC 0802: "The USMC will take our bigger helos and drop us outside of max weapons range and then you have to walk to the objective. Army will use their smaller helos and drop right on top of the objective."<br /><br />zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz<br />Actually,<br /><br />The Army has the option of doing both, with the added benefit that the H-47 can also assault directly on target.<br /><br />The problem with larger helos is that they become incredibly lucrative targets for the enemy :(<br /><br />This really becomes an issue when terrain becomes more difficult, or when the ground to air threat ratchets up. Sure you can fast rope or rappel, but frankly the best option is always to land units *intact* and directly on the LZ.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72368667479737112382014-01-09T06:08:49.597-08:002014-01-09T06:08:49.597-08:00Agree, I think we are assuming suppression of air ...Agree, I think we are assuming suppression of air defence is complete along with air superiority and some ground suppression.<br /><br />I would assume escorted aerial assault with Harrier and Cobra.<br /><br />Then we are talking about aerial assault TO ALLOW unopposed \ less opposed anphib assault \ landing.<br /><br /><br />I think the main point really is about more tools in the box, much more difficult to defend a perimeter when you are having to defend against so many options and permutations of combined options off one boat. Especially given the speed and unpredictability of aerial assault vs anphibious.<br /><br />BenoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62391560292200566652014-01-08T19:22:16.455-08:002014-01-08T19:22:16.455-08:00Back when Dick Cheney was SECDEF in the early 1990...Back when Dick Cheney was SECDEF in the early 1990's, he tried to kill the V-22 project on the grounds that it was overly expensive and that it would make more sense to buy two or three times as many conventional helicopters for the same amount of money. Not surprising the MICC fought Cheney tooth and nail and Congress kept the V-22 project alive even though the Pentagon wanted to kill it. Say what you want about Cheney's conduct as VP, but I think he was right on this issue.<br /><br />Cheney proposed replacing the V-22's that the Marines wanted to buy with a mixture of upgraded CH-53's and a larger, medium lift version of the UH-60 known as the CH-60. The CH-60 would have had comparable troop and cargo lift capabilities to the V-22, but been much less expensive. It's a pity that Cheney lost that fight, because his proposed solution would have made far more sense while costing quite a bit less.Bluebackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14032254521923350018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77949496758258047732014-01-08T15:54:51.004-08:002014-01-08T15:54:51.004-08:00USMC, I have no reason to doubt your numbers. The...USMC, I have no reason to doubt your numbers. They agree with other bits and pieces I've read and I thank you for the corrections. : )ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45608057296498557262014-01-08T14:28:37.404-08:002014-01-08T14:28:37.404-08:00GAB
That has baffled me since i was a 2ndLt and fi...GAB<br />That has baffled me since i was a 2ndLt and figured out that a TO rifle squad is 13 Marines not 12. Do you just hope that someone is sick that day? Plus you need your platoon commander, platoon sgt, docs, and any other stray cats like a FiST, assault team, MG team.USMC 0802https://www.blogger.com/profile/08575800617871827503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61643236089682111582014-01-08T14:17:18.615-08:002014-01-08T14:17:18.615-08:00They are correct and all I can offer is my assuran...They are correct and all I can offer is my assurance on that. And yes it is worse than published. That is why you read many articles talking about how we are "massing" out the amphibs before we are "cubing" out like in olden times.<br /><br />The reason the USMC has bigger helos is because of deck space on the amphibs. For the same footage comparing MV-22, CH-53E and MH-60 the bigger helos can carry more tonnage faster than many small ones. This in turn leads to the difference in air assault doctrine between the USMC and the Army. The USMC will take our bigger helos and drop us outside of max weapons range and then you have to walk to the objective. Army will use their smaller helos and drop right on top of the objective. I think a better option would be a navalized version of the S-92 from Sikorsky. Like a bigger Blackhawk or more in line with the old CH-53D. But i do not buy USMC helos...USMC 0802https://www.blogger.com/profile/08575800617871827503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20815665096783870632014-01-08T11:56:25.853-08:002014-01-08T11:56:25.853-08:00I don't think the Marines have ruled out amphi...I don't think the Marines have ruled out amphibious assaults. They would prefer to stay away from opposed amphibious assaults. But there is a range of activities between opposed assaults and administrative landings that are still on the table. And they still may be required to do opposed assaults, it's just not preferable for obvious reasons. <br /><br />The degree of opposition is also important. Is the OPFOR an organized and well-run mechanized armored division? Or a handful of guys in pickup trucks? B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42236309526267862572014-01-08T10:46:50.198-08:002014-01-08T10:46:50.198-08:00USMC, thanks for the updated data. If your number...USMC, thanks for the updated data. If your numbers are correct it only makes the situation worse - meaning even less of the Marine's equipment can be transported. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20041054199862370032014-01-08T10:10:39.111-08:002014-01-08T10:10:39.111-08:00“Now, what do we think the life expectancy of slow...“Now, what do we think the life expectancy of slow, unarmed helos and MV-22s will be in a high threat environment?”<br />zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz<br /><br />One threat that the Russians emphasize, but which gets little attention in the west, is the effect of artillery on helicopter operations. Consider that even infantry mortar fire will reach altitudes that are far above the altitude that helicopters fly. The threat that dozens of radar, laser or optically fused shells present to aircraft, particularly helicopters is quite serious. Obviously, HLZs will be hammered by artillery, mortar, and rocket fire; but also reverse slopes of hills to deny attack helicopters attack corridors, mountain valleys (think Korea), and of course FARPs will be targeted. <br /><br />GAB <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71926385518974643142014-01-08T10:01:28.184-08:002014-01-08T10:01:28.184-08:00I'm all for the Marines getting some H-60s. I...I'm all for the Marines getting some H-60s. I agree that the V-22 is and expensive and limited tactical airlifter. <br /><br />Frankly I would've loved to have seen an H-47/H-60 mix for the Marines, to match Army air assault units. Or at least an H-53/H-60 mix. And consolidate all of the V-22s as theater lift assets.<br /><br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27994989575460849822014-01-08T09:58:11.716-08:002014-01-08T09:58:11.716-08:00Smitty,
I should have said "tactical troop i...Smitty,<br /><br />I should have said "tactical troop insertion" versus "air assault" - of course the V-22/H-47/H-53 have an valuable role in a vertical envelopment...<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69928298713966970792014-01-08T09:54:25.929-08:002014-01-08T09:54:25.929-08:00Smitty,
The U.S. Army is reluctant to use $26 mil...Smitty,<br /><br />The U.S. Army is reluctant to use $26 million dollar H-47s for air assaults, prefering H-60s for the role instead - I find it extraordinary that the USMC plans to use $70 million dollar V-22s, or even $115 million dollar H-53Ks for the role.<br /><br />Aside from costs, the V-22/H-47/H-53 concentrate almost twice as many troops in a single aircraft, which ares just as vulnerable to ground defenses.<br /><br />Worse, the V-22/H-47/H-53s are big and less agile than the H-60. Physically they have fewer choices of landing zones, and it takes longer for them to insert/extract forces.<br /><br />Realistically, just supporting an ashore infantry battalion logistically through aerial supply is going to be a challenge. V-22/H-47/H-53s will be in high demand.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61007094895591000342014-01-08T09:16:59.165-08:002014-01-08T09:16:59.165-08:00ThThe problem with the Marines is that they built ...ThThe problem with the Marines is that they built up a whole policy based on assault landings which came from WW2 in the Pacific which was a very special case<br /><br />You had lots of islands, with poor resources and facilities but were being defended by a first rate military. You could not bypass every island and if you landed on the island they were packed with a very strong military force that took a direct assault to take out.<br /><br />However the world both before and after WW2 is different, where is the strongly held but isolated places where you are going to do a major beach assault. The Pacific islands today are almost undefended, as is most of the world coastlines. And it would be suicidal to try a landing at places with a significant military forces, such as China, Russia, North Korea. Even against Iraq the US was not willing to risk an assault from the sea. Even Inchon was done while the North Korean forces were mostly in the south so the assault was against a greatly weakened defense.<br /><br />What the Marines need to do is look to their past to see jobs that need to be done<br /><br />1. Base defense both for present US bases and for any that might be siezed. The US Marines had Marine Defense Battalions which had both AA and Coast Defense guns to defend any place the Fleet needed defending<br /><br />2. Ship defense and supplying boarding party’s plus a harbor defense force. Right now we use sailors for this but wouldn’t it work better if we had professional soldiers involved. In the old days that what was done, the Marines would provide the tip of the spear and the sailors would back them up with their own weapons and provide technical support such as operating the boats and communications. Sailors are not trained soldiers, they can do the job but why not use Marines who are full time at this<br /><br />3 Raiding and punitive forces against terrorists and pirates. Think of the Barbary Pirates<br /><br />4. Occupy unstable areas. Think Haiti and Central America in the past<br /><br />5 Embassy defense and rescue force<br /><br />6 Evacuation of US and possibly other citizens for dangerous areas<br /><br />7 Initial disaster relief<br />DJFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72696244505240244082014-01-08T09:08:25.364-08:002014-01-08T09:08:25.364-08:00USMC 0802 made some great additions, but no one h...USMC 0802 made some great additions, but no one has addressed the real issue:<br /><br />The USMC needs a medium lift helicpter than can transport a complete rifle squad into a *potentially hot* LZ and it needs enough of them to in a MEU to move a reinforced company in one lift. <br /><br />V-22s and H-53s are not optimized for this job: they are too valuable to the logistics of the MEU, they cost too much for the mission, and they are too large/carry too many troops making any single aircraft a very lucrative target. <br /><br />The H-46 was built around the antiquated idea that helicopter capacity should be equated to LVT and landing craft size. This is wrong; insertion craft (helo or landing craft) should be tied to the size of tactical units, which is the rifle squad. <br /><br />If the USMC is truely commited to vertical envelopment it needs a naval variant of the H-60. The UH-1 is too small, and the other helicopters are needed for other things (logistics!)<br /><br /><br />The next issue is weight, The USMC is even heavier than stated because MRAPs are much bigger and heavier than the HMMWVs they replaced. JLTV is going to be a large vehicle too.<br /><br />Finally, much is made about light infantry, but in the 21st century pretty much all infantry is motorized. Modern enemy forces are fielding a plethora of vehicles from "technicals" with cannons mounted in portee on Toyota pickups, to T-55s and 62s.Coupled with the IED and indirect fire threats, it is silly to not provide at leased armored transport of some sort to the infantry. ComNavops and I disagree about the importance of urban combat, but I think it is unavoidable: US forces will see more fighting in urban areas, not less. The upshot is that we will need more armor and engineers, not less. RMA has not worked well in Falluja, Mosul, southern Lebanon, Syria, or Grozny; but good troops backed with the ability to expend lots of explosives have prevalled... <br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10723220484027353662014-01-08T08:55:26.045-08:002014-01-08T08:55:26.045-08:00USMC, what's a realistic pax planning factor f...USMC, what's a realistic pax planning factor for the MV-22? The brochure says 24, but it's actually smaller inside than a CH-46. I've read reports that 16-18 are more realistic, especially with the belly gun installed. B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69848819737327112342014-01-08T08:26:31.060-08:002014-01-08T08:26:31.060-08:00I am going to take this in small bites so first so...I am going to take this in small bites so first some weights and capacities.<br /><br />LAV-25 is closer to 16 tons if not higher. They keep adding armor.<br /><br />M1A1 is around 65-70 tons depending on what extras it has. (Armored MG positions, plow, ect.) 60 tons was the original M1. Again more armor.<br /><br />MAX weight external for a CH-53E was 32,000 lbs (16 tons). There is not a aircraft in the fleet that can lift that anymore. As Helos age their lift capacity drops, so in 1986 a LAV-25 could be carried by a 53 in 2013 between the LAV adding weight and the 53 losing capacity it is no longer a match.<br /><br />CH-53Es only carry 24 troops. There is not enough room internally. If you beg you can up it to 26-27 but more than that is impossible. Planning factor for CH-53E is 24 pax and reality is maybe 27 but those guys will literally be sitting on their packs in the middle not on a crash seat. Where the idea that you can fit 55 passengers into a CH-53E comes from i have no idea but it is completely wrong.<br /><br />MV-22 can carry 10,000lbs externally under ideal circumstances. (Cool air at sea level.) This is rarely achievable. Additionally a MV-22 that is carrying an external load is not capable of high speed because the load will become unstable. Without it's high speed is to force air over the wings the MV-22 cannot make lift so it is forced to use the PropRotors as lift. The rotors are not very effecient in this configuration so range and speed are dramatically reduced. Thus MV-22s need to carry everything internally. That is why the USMC EFSS was designed aroudn that the entire system that can fit inside a MV-22.<br /><br />The MTVR (7-ton) is around 20,000-26,000lbs. Depends on many configurations but the armored troops carry is even more at 30,000 to 34,000 lbs.<br /><br />HMMWVs start at 6,000 lbs but rapidly increase. A uparmor with a TOW, and 5 paxs is closer to 14,000lbs. USMC 0802https://www.blogger.com/profile/08575800617871827503noreply@blogger.com