tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7280264829039280359..comments2024-03-19T01:17:12.212-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Disaggregated ARG OperationsComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24506796701928282382016-01-11T17:04:32.735-08:002016-01-11T17:04:32.735-08:00Yeah I agree with a medium weight vehicle and a re...Yeah I agree with a medium weight vehicle and a regenerative hybrid system would be worth looking at. <br /><br />There is some added flexibility with such a drive system and potential for fuel savings, which in turn means a smaller chain and less soft targets (fuel trucks) for the enemy to target.<br /><br />I think that if unmanned turrets are to feature, then there must be variants to specifically carry such weapons.<br /><br />Interestingly enough the Russian Armada tank is claimed to have a totally unmanned turret. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25575648593412682712016-01-09T17:09:08.012-08:002016-01-09T17:09:08.012-08:00Forgot to mention, I think a regenerative propulsi...Forgot to mention, I think a regenerative propulsion system, either mechanical or electric would be a good way to reduce the logistics burden by lowering fuel consumption and realizing real cost savings.<br /><br />BAE was exploring a hybrid-electric propulsion system upgrade to CV90 to reduce fuel consumption by 10-30%, BAE SEP developed for sweeden was also hybrid electric.<br /><br />There are some legitimate potential advantages from a Hybrid Propulsion system, weight/fuel/space/power increase by simplifying the drive train.<br /><br />With an electric drive train you can reverse at the same speed, similar to what you would get by using the CVT transmission found in the latest Japanese tank, important since most armor is at the front.<br /><br />Also it provides a small reserve that can be tapped into if your engine is knocked out, to get your ass out of there.<br /><br />>works very well with a redundant, distributed APU like the Free-piston system.<br />>lowers your profile, which together with the slight V-hull would make an acceptably IED resistant vehicle, that is reasonably low profile.<br /><br />_________________________________<br /><br />BAE also experimented with active dampening in the CV90 for suspension, increasing its maximum speed over rough terrain. I think such improvements in situational awareness, mobility, firepower and armor would translate into a huge advantage over the current vehicles....Jacobite.NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122687938230113832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73674674120515414012016-01-09T16:55:35.155-08:002016-01-09T16:55:35.155-08:00Altand,agree with most of those points, so that wo... Altand,agree with most of those points, so that would be 30-40tonne, non-amphibious? Also why do you disagree with installing a cannon on the vehicle so that it can be called an IFV?<br /><br />______________<br /><br />Would like to see several other improvements as a minimum though:<br /><br />1.) Reduced observability, russians allegedly have new composite add-on armour which passively reduces IR and and radar signature due to it's composition.<br /><br />2.) Distributed APUs, you can have something like the Free-Piston system distributed, so that you can hopefully limp away and move your turret if you are hit, and also run your systems without the main engine on.<br /><br />3.) Decent unmanned turret, big cannon with dual ammunition feed, airburst munitions with ATGMs/rockets and a decent optics, i.e. commander and gunner optics, + 360degree sensors, like the T72M upgrade had.<br /><br />4.) Multiple External hard-points for cheap/expendable drones, to launch/recover and charge from. Particularly useful in urban conflict for peaking around corners/through windows. Even if all they can carry is a short-ranged 360Degree optical/ir sensor.<br /><br />____________<br /><br />Nowadays we have unmanned turrets, so there is separation of ammunition storage and crew compartment, and there is no more internal space taken up than would be by having a remote 12.5mm MG, frankly can't see many disadvantages here.<br /><br />Also think that it would be a good idea for nations to consider reactivating some of their in-storage cold-war tanks, strip them down, up-armour them, and convert them to Heavy IFVs like isreal did to NAMER.Jacobite.NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122687938230113832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55050495538844389682016-01-08T17:38:44.309-08:002016-01-08T17:38:44.309-08:00You say that, but USMC is indeed outfitted as a li...You say that, but USMC is indeed outfitted as a light infantry force suitable only for occupation, how are they going to hold a beach/head or port-city with 7ton HMWVs.<br /><br />Point is that if USMC is not needed to conduct amphib assault, why even have it? Like you said?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55437544716061373462016-01-08T17:12:52.527-08:002016-01-08T17:12:52.527-08:00In regards to the tracked vehicle debate, and I ap...In regards to the tracked vehicle debate, and I apologize if I got off topic, I'd say that a medium weight tracked vehicle is needed. <br /><br />It should ideally have:<br />1. Very wide tracks for low surface ground pressure<br />2. Relatively low profile <br />3. V shaped hull (for survivability against IEDs) - there is a bit of a tradeoff here because you want a low profile, but the V shaped hull will raise it somewhat<br />4. Active defense system (something like Israel's trophy)<br />5. Modular armor, and ideally the ability to mount Explosive Reactive Armor bricks <br />6. Anti-spall liner<br />7. I'm not a fan of IFVs, but if you have them, you must have blow out panels for the ammo storage <br />8. Fire extinguisher system extensively tested (the Bradley was known for false alarms)<br />9. A diesel engine would be best for this, probably mounted in the front (for faster rear loading/unloading), plus like the Israeli Merkava, it provides a defense point against frontal damage. Hybrid electric is also an option, for maximum range. <br />10. External storage of fuel (the M113 historically had the tendency to burn when hit causing casualties in the vehicle for the occupants)<br /><br /><br />Extensive real "live testing" of this vehicle with random aim points. It would need a lot of testing against real weapons before I'd declare it ready for action. <br /><br />I'm not a big fan of aluminum armor (burns under heat, and weakens), although there are some that support it. Titanium is very expensive and spalls, although the strength to mass can be good, as is the corrosion resistance and ability to keep its strength under heat. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35235691523419611222016-01-08T13:11:06.892-08:002016-01-08T13:11:06.892-08:00Discussions do tend to meander, do they not? :)Discussions do tend to meander, do they not? :)ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22528682861558359852016-01-08T09:58:25.631-08:002016-01-08T09:58:25.631-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55618077356957254072016-01-08T08:53:04.506-08:002016-01-08T08:53:04.506-08:00I really don't see much of a jump from seizing...I really don't see much of a jump from seizing a US military aircraft, capturing a US Navy ship, or attacking a SCBT and I certainly don't see where our response would likely be any different. History certainly doesn't suggest otherwise. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39230332598231383142016-01-08T08:50:47.084-08:002016-01-08T08:50:47.084-08:00Even if you believe the incident was an accident, ...Even if you believe the incident was an accident, which I don't, the subsequent seizure of the aircraft, stripping, and dismantling, with no return until around 3 months later would certainly constitute an act of war. In addition, the crew was held prisoner for a couple of weeks and interrogated under less than civil conditions. It's kind of hard to imagine how the incident could have been any more provocative! Our response was an apology!!!!<br /><br />NK seized a US Navy ship. Again, how much more provocative can it get?<br /><br />Keep rationalizing these incidents if you wish but they clearly illustrate that our concept of deterrence and your opinion of its effectiveness as a point of policy is highly suspect.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90442130163758250262016-01-08T08:20:29.330-08:002016-01-08T08:20:29.330-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52722854923455613382016-01-08T06:20:48.195-08:002016-01-08T06:20:48.195-08:00Did the attack on the USS Pueblo prompt a response...Did the attack on the USS Pueblo prompt a response? Did the forcedown and subsequent seizure of the EP-3 prompt a response? History has shown that it is actually quite difficult to prompt a response from the US even in the face of direct attacks and seizures of its military units. Units don't create deterrence - the will to respond creates deterrence and we don't generally have it.<br /><br />Going beyond will, then the question of capability arises. Strykers and LCSs aren't exactly heavy hitters that would keep unfriendly forces from acting.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25359367735014659602016-01-08T04:16:36.051-08:002016-01-08T04:16:36.051-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73159816649912163872016-01-07T18:35:34.802-08:002016-01-07T18:35:34.802-08:00Commitment to what? We've issue red line warn...Commitment to what? We've issue red line warnings and then ignored violations. What are we committed to? How would an SBCT demonstrate our commitment if we have no intention of using it?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54602087216113705352016-01-07T17:42:18.375-08:002016-01-07T17:42:18.375-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75695263288873813642016-01-07T16:55:44.666-08:002016-01-07T16:55:44.666-08:00"If preserving the nation is our military'..."If preserving the nation is our military's only mission, then we can slash military spending dramatically."<br /><br />????ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91584161567191009072016-01-07T16:54:52.616-08:002016-01-07T16:54:52.616-08:00We warned Putin against aggression towards both Cr...We warned Putin against aggression towards both Crimea and Ukraine. He ignored both warnings. Nothing about our military is deterring him. Now, let's be honest. It's not the military capability that he's ignoring. It's the political will to back up our warnings that he's ignoring. He knows we won't take action. No amount of military might will compensate for a complete lack of will to employ it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45736654974712317602016-01-07T16:29:27.630-08:002016-01-07T16:29:27.630-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51619111532178806972016-01-07T16:28:10.235-08:002016-01-07T16:28:10.235-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86299946638014287962016-01-07T16:26:33.429-08:002016-01-07T16:26:33.429-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27775591710230994952016-01-07T15:49:23.050-08:002016-01-07T15:49:23.050-08:00"You design a military around what gives you ..."You design a military around what gives you the most useful combat power for a given budget."<br /><br />As I've stated before, you design a military to accomplish a mission (preservation of the nation, presumably). This is an existential requirement. Therefore, budget is not really a factor. You either provide the needed budget (reducing social programs, if need be) or be conquered by a neighbor.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51177069699749834482016-01-07T15:47:04.993-08:002016-01-07T15:47:04.993-08:00Just as no potential enemy sees an LCS as a deterr...Just as no potential enemy sees an LCS as a deterrent, no enemy with heavy armored divisions will see an SBCT as a deterrent. Putin, for example, hasn't been deterred by anything about the West. <br /><br />To be fair, deterrence is like proving a negative. Unless someone blurts out that they were deterred, it could have happened and we'd never know it. That said, an SBCT doesn't present much firepower to act as a deterrent to armored forces.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26075475630065224322016-01-07T13:13:52.617-08:002016-01-07T13:13:52.617-08:00Your numbers are correct, I was only adding some d...Your numbers are correct, I was only adding some detail ( rounding up is the bane of modern life). <br />My point is that a split MEU is fine, as its planned that way, and makes sense if you are down to essentially one MEU deployed at a time. ( someone may have more precise details)Ztev Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553128132098513643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64957626912606182702016-01-07T13:10:46.580-08:002016-01-07T13:10:46.580-08:00Your numbers are correct, I was only adding some d...Your numbers are correct, I was only adding some detail ( rounding up is the bane of modern life). <br />My point is that a split MEU is fine, as its planned that way, and makes sense if you are down to essentially one MEU deployed at a time. ( someone may have more precise details)Ztev Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553128132098513643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31459172036449610812016-01-07T13:04:07.295-08:002016-01-07T13:04:07.295-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23069323380334954352016-01-07T11:13:17.183-08:002016-01-07T11:13:17.183-08:00All of that means nothing if your force of soldier...All of that means nothing if your force of soldiers on scooters (or in Strykers, as the case may be) get chewed up by the enemy's heavy armor when they get there.<br /><br />Sure, we can suppose that we have total air superiority (or we wouldn't be doing it, right? cause the military never does anything dumb) and our airpower will completely eliminate the enemy armor. Of course, if we're just going to hand wave our way out of problems can't we assume we'll have multiple airfields to transport our own armor and that they'll be close to the battlefield? Or, do we have to assume worst case transport but best case battle conditions?<br /><br />You don't design the military around what's easy or cheap or light. You design the military to fight the worst case. If that requires heavy armor then you figure out how to transport it to the battle. Surely you see that it does not good to get to the battle if the forces you bring can't win?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com