Pimp My SBCT Round 3 - The Amphibious Assault Brigade Combat Team (AABCT)
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
-
The USMC is moving away from large-scale amphibious assaults towards smaller, battalion-and-below formations and EABO. However, the US Military may still find itself in need of performing such an assault as part of a broader forcible-entry operation. What’s needed is a “relatively” inexpensive way to land a large, mobile, armored force in short order.
So how about give the large-scale amphibious assault mission to the Army? Switch three IBCTs (roughly a division) over to an Amphibious Assault Brigade Combat Team (AABCT), an organization mirroring the SBCT, but replacing the ~300 Strykers with the USMC ACV.
In this way, existing, land-based SBCT doctrine and training could remain the same. The AABCT can be used in more or less the same ways and same situations as an SBCT. ACVs are somewhat heavier and larger than Strykers so the logistics elements in the SBCT will need a bit of a bump.
Outfitting the AABCT
The Army has selected the Rafael Sampson 30mm remote turret to arm its Stryker brigades. This may include integration of Javelin missiles with the Sampson turret. Rafael offers a Sampson variant that includes the TROPHY Active Protection System. A full-capability Sampson turret with TROPHY and Javelin is ideal for AABCT infantry ACVs.
Sampson turret on a Stryker
Perhaps do away with the goofy overhead 105mm MGS for a proper turret.
Lastly, the Army is looking to replace its current Stryker mortar variants with a turreted system. This may even more important for an AABCT, potentially allowing indirect and direct fire while swimming. One obvious option, which has already been trialed on boats, is the Nemo mortar turret.
Patria Nemo
Moving the AABCT
Unlike current USMC doctrine that relies heavily on rotary wing lift and landing craft to move forces ashore, the AABCT's main combat element of 300+ ACVs would wade ashore on their own, in a single wave, ready to fight immediately and move off the beach at vehicle speeds. This hearkens back to the huge waves of LVTs in the Pacific in WWII.
Obviously the AABCT would need a way to get from its home to the line of departure. The Navy is investigating modifications to the stern ramp of the JHSV/EPF to support launch and recovery of ACVs.
Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF)
Around twelve to fourteen EPFs would be required to carry all of the AABCT's ACVs. Given that the Navy only plans to buy 14 EPFs total, a larger buy would be required. Perhaps some could be bought using Army funds and manned by soldiers, much as the Besson-class LSV is today.
Another option instead of the JHSV would be to re-introduce the humble LST. Stay away from the faster, more complex Newport class LST, in favor of something like the older, simpler, 17-18kt De Soto County class.
A modern version should be relatively inexpensive to build, perhaps even less than the EPF, if sticking to a modest combination of commercial and naval design practices. Damen Shipbuilding has a line of LST designs that might be a good starting point.
However, ACVs still only constitute around a third of the AABCT's total rolling stock of around 1,000 vehicles. These other vehicles would have to be carried by other vessels and landed by regular landing craft, lifted ashore by heavy lift helicopters, or make use of a port or pier to offload. Additional LSTs or EPFs could be purchased for this, but I propose re-introducing Amphibious Cargo Ship (LKA). A larger LKA could carry more with fewer ships.
We already have a suitable starting point with the M/V Craigside conversion to the SOCOM MV Ocean Trader.
MV Ocean Trader
A similar design was considered for the Royal Navy Littoral Strike Ship.
The LKA could offload vehicles and logistics via its rear ramp to its own lighterage, to LSTs, or to other Navy or Army lighterage.
Both the LST and LKA could be built by second or third tier yards, which don't normally build Navy warships, and are more accustomed to building commercial vessels.
A combination of fourteen LST/EPFs and four or five LKAs could carry the entire AABCT, likely with room to spare.
Perhaps some or all of these ships could be bought or leased by the Military Sealift Command and crewed with a mix of civilian mariners and Navy sailors.
Obviously there is a cost to buying 19 or so additional large ships per AABCT and introducing the ACV to the Army. However, LKAs and LSTs should be an order of magnitude cheaper than existing Navy amphibious ships, like the LHD/A and LPD, especially if they’re limited to amphibious transport and eschew the Sea Base and warship roles of current Navy amphibious ships. Removing the requirement to spend months at sea supporting open-ended ARG/ESG tasking, in favor of point to point troop movements should greatly simplify their design.
For the LST, the Army’s smaller and slower, but conceptually similar, 83m Besson-class LSV costs a mere $32 million each.
Shoot for a unit cost in the neighborhood of $200-300M per LST. At around $180M each, the EPF is less expensive than this.
Assuming a unit cost of $200M per LST and $300M per LKA, the 19 ships needed to transport a single AABCT would cost $4.3 billion. Three AABCTs-worth would need $12.9 billion.
Certainly not pocket change, but consider a single, battalion-sized ARG requires three ships that cost close to $8 billion. The LST/LKA combo lifts an entire brigade for a bit more than half the price.
Table of Contents Introduction Fleet Architecture Key Concepts Bimodal Presence and Maneuver Forces New Task Force Types Ship Types Aviation CV55 CVL-150 Subsurface Combatant SSK Large Combatants SC-150 FPD-150 FMG-150 Small Combatants LCK Logistics &Auxiliary This version of the IAFM is sized to correspond to the Navy's Battle Force 2045 and "355" fleet designs. As such, it is more expensive than our existing fleet design, or the recent Hudson fleet design. The IAFM is broken down into categories of ships: Aviation, Subsurface Combatants, Large Combatants, Small Combatants, and Logistics & Auxiliaries. Each section lists the steady-state count of each ship type, a notional "First In Class" cost, a discounted unit cost that applies a learn factor and build rate discount to generate an average cost, a service life of each ship in the class, and the resulting build rate. I also include a notes column that describes roughly what each type of ship is. A
Introduction The Frigate Platform Dock (FPD-150) is the most flexible ship in the IAFM. It came about when I was mulling over how to provide enough escorts for SAGCOMs and CVCOMs, while still supporting forward deployed Marine forces. The existing US Navy force model splits amphibious vessels (LPD, LSD, LHD/A) and escorts into distinct pools. However you still have to provide escorts for ESGs as well as CVBGs. But if you look at a modern amphibious ship, like the LPD-17, the systems aboard aren't that far off from those on a frigate. It has an air defense radar, short-range SAM systems and C4ISR. So my thought was, why not smash together the capabilities of a guided-missile frigate and a modest-sized LPD and make a self-escorting "Frigate Platform Dock"? This way, every ESG is always self-escorting. Also, an ability to perform strike with VLS-based munitions, and Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) with Multiple Launched Rocket System (MLRS) and the gun mount. Th
M1A2 SEPv3 In the previous Pimp My IBCT, I suggested using a combination of refurbished M-ATVs to achieve full vehicular mobility for some IBCTs. This would give them a degree of tactical and operational mobility near that of the Stryker BCTs. They would suffer off-road, in comparison to the SBCT, but would be at least as mobile on roads, with lower logistics overhead. However both SBCTs and mounted IBCTs are still severely hamstrung if used offensively. The Stryker ICV is protected against 14.5mm HMGs organically, and partially protected against RPG-7s with slat armor. It is not protected against heavier RPGs (e.g. RPG-29) or any ATGMs. M-ATV is protected against 7.62mm rounds only. So even this guy would ruin its day. Source: Wikipedia Aggressive, offensive use of either BCT type against foes with anti-armor systems, or in built-up areas, would likely result in heavy casualties. Both BCT types will be stuck either dismounting prematurely, whenever enemy re
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/EITML52B6ZHRFO3BZ44DLU6JWQ.jpg)
Comments