Military Review

The US Marine Corps abandons tanks: optimization or mistake?

110

Tankmen of the 1st battalion of the 1st division of the KMP and their M1A1 tank, prepared for transportation. July 6, 2020


In March, it became known that in the near future the US Marine Corps will abandon the main combat tanks... A few weeks ago, in July, the process of decommissioning such equipment began, followed by the disbandment of tank units. In the new plans for the development of the ILC, scheduled for the coming decades, there was no place for heavy armored vehicles.

In the process of writing off


Until recently, the US ILC had three tank battalions - the 1st, 2nd, and 4th divisions; the numbers of battalions and divisions were the same. In active units and in reserve, there were almost 450 MBT M1A1 Abrams. Despite belonging to not the newest modification, such armored vehicles were successfully used to solve all the main tasks. Also, the KMP owns 80 repair and recovery vehicles M88A1 ​​/ 2.

In early July, real measures were launched to abandon the Abrams. The 1st tank battalion of the 1st division was the first to lose such equipment. The tanks were used at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms in California to train personnel. In connection with the change in plans, the need for such "training" MBT disappeared, and they were taken from the battalion. The battalion itself is awaiting disbandment.

On 18 July, the Alpha Company, 4th Battalion, 4th Division "deactivated" ceremony took place at Camp Pendleton. The decommissioned armored vehicles were sent to one of the storage bases. Several more companies of this battalion will be disbanded in the coming weeks. Until the end of next 2021, the 4th battalion, consisting of six companies and headquarters, will completely cease service.


Tankmen of the 4th tank battalion of the 4th division escort the M88A1 ​​armored vehicle. July 18, 2020

At the very end of July, a similar ceremony took place at Camp Lejeune, which put an end to the M1A1 service as part of Charlie Company, 2nd Panzer Battalion, 2nd Division. Similar measures are expected, as a result of which other companies of the battalion will cease service.

Thus, the process of writing off MBT from the ILC parts has already begun and is gaining momentum. In the foreseeable future, all three tank battalions will be "disarmed" and disbanded as unnecessary or reorganized into units for another purpose. For the first time in several decades, the Marines will be left without their own tanks.

Force Project


Command's current plans for the development and restructuring of the ILC were published in March in the document Force Design 2030. It describes the existing and anticipated challenges and threats, as well as how to counter them and measures to develop the Corps. According to such plans, the abandonment of MBT is only part of a larger reform of the ILC. Almost all Corps structures will undergo reductions and changes.

The authors of the Force Project indicate that in connection with the change in the strategic military-political situation, the Asia-Pacific region will become the main zone of responsibility of the US ILC in the near future. It may even become a new theater of operations. The APR as a theater of operations has a number of characteristic features that impose specific requirements on the capabilities of the ILC.

The Asia-Pacific region is characterized by a large number of small islands, some of which, moreover, are a disputed territory, and a long coastline. In such a theater of operations, amphibious assault forces on an unprepared coast with a quick transition from one piece of land to another are relevant. Similar techniques have already been used during the Second World War.


Tanks of the 1st logistic group of the ILC in Afghanistan, 2012

The command of the ILC believes that such operations require a wide range of amphibious armored vehicles for various purposes, and most of the available vehicles meet these requirements. MBT "Abrams", in turn, do not fit into this strategy. Despite their high combat qualities, tanks are not mobile enough and require a special approach, which makes them not very useful in amphibious operations.

The necessity of staff reduction and optimization of the Corps structure is noted. So, in the structure of Fleet Marine Forces, uniting the forces of the Navy and the ILC, 12 thousand people should remain. Infantry battalions will be reduced to 200 people. The active forces will be 21 infantry battalions, the reserve - 6 battalions. Tank battalions are disbanded. The artillery will include 5 batteries with barrel systems and 21 batteries for MLRS. It is also proposed to create 12 light reconnaissance companies and 4 amphibious landing companies. Transformations will be completed by 2030.

Former tanks and armored vehicles of the KMP will be transferred to storage bases. Further, some of the vehicles will undergo modernization and enter service in the ground forces. Also, the released equipment can be sold to third countries.

Benefits and Limitations


The ILC refuses tanks due to the specifics of the expected armed conflicts. In recent decades, the Corps has largely supplemented the Army in ground operations, during which it required a full range of armored vehicles, including MBT.


Tank M1A1 of the 2nd battalion of the 2nd division of the KMP, 2013

Operations of a different kind are expected in the future, in which landing craft and amphibious vehicles are of particular importance. The command expects that the planned restructuring of the ILC will provide the required combat capabilities, but at the same time not spend money on the maintenance and operation of tanks - actually useless in the conditions of expected conflicts. If the ILC needs MBT support, it will be provided by ground forces. Moreover, new strategies provide for closer interaction with the Army in joint actions.

Optimization of the organizational and staff structure of the ILC will reduce costs for all major items. In the March document Force Design 2030 it was argued that the savings will reach $ 12 billion, while this is not about the loss of combat qualities and the inability to solve the assigned tasks.

It should be noted that the ILC still used tanks of the old M1A1 modification - this negatively affected the combat potential and led to a lag behind the army with modern M1A2s. The modernization of armored vehicles required considerable expenses, which is why it was never carried out. Thus, the abandonment of MBT leads to additional savings on upgrading equipment.

In defense of tanks


In general, the command views the abandonment of tanks as a useful measure that can positively affect the potential of the ILC. However, this measure turns out to be at least ambiguous. For many decades, the ILC successfully used tanks in different situations and conditions - and no criticism led to their abandonment.


1st battalion in training, 2015

MBT M1A1, despite its considerable age, retain fairly high combat qualities. As recent operations have shown, such equipment is still capable of solving assigned combat missions. Carrying out the modernization would increase its capabilities at reasonable costs.

The lack of mobility argument is questionable. The amphibious ships of the US Navy are capable of transporting a variety of equipment, incl. tanks. Airborne assault vehicles provide the delivery of armored vehicles to the shore - and tanks too. At the same time, the amphibious forces have at their disposal well-protected equipment with high maneuverability and powerful weapons, capable of effectively supporting them. Why a bunch of MBT and amphibious assault vehicles was considered unsuitable for use in the future is unclear.

One way or another, the ILC decided to abandon one of the most convenient and versatile models in the field of armored vehicles. Now the development of the Corps is associated only with light and medium-weight vehicles, which are inferior to tanks in a number of characteristics. It cannot be ruled out that such a difference in parameters and capabilities will manifest itself in a negative way.

Plans and actions


The approved US ILC development plan proposes restructuring this type of armed forces and changing the approach to manning the fleet of equipment. The first measures have already been taken in both directions - the decommissioning of tanks and the disbandment of tank companies from separate battalions at divisions have begun. Complete abandonment of MBT will take no more than a few years and will be completed in the foreseeable future.

The Pentagon expects that after all this, the ILC will be smaller, cheaper to maintain and more efficient in the expected theater of operations. How true such forecasts and plans are is an open question. Time will tell where the current reform will lead and how correct it was.

For now, it cannot be ruled out that in the future, after certain events, the ILC will urgently begin to restore tank units and return the Abrams to service. However, now they are rejected with confidence and optimism. Temporarily or permanently is unknown.
Author:
Photos used:
US Marine Corps
110 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Professor
    Professor 5 August 2020 06: 27 New
    -6
    I wrote a long time ago that the tank is an atavism.
    1. Andrey VOV
      Andrey VOV 5 August 2020 09: 07 New
      +4
      And your "Merkava" too?
      1. fider
        fider 5 August 2020 10: 46 New
        +1
        Andrey VOV
        "And your Merkava too?"
        Is the Merkava a tank? Means too. Only Israel has no marines. wassat
      2. Professor
        Professor 5 August 2020 21: 09 New
        -1
        Quote: Andrey VOV
        And your "Merkava" too?

        Sure. The tank has no future. Any tank. Your Armata is another example of this.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 10 August 2020 09: 22 New
          +1
          Your Israel has no future without tanks.
          Your country is supported by tank forces, if you haven't noticed.
          1. Professor
            Professor 10 August 2020 20: 06 New
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Your Israel has no future without tanks.
            Your country is supported by tank forces, if you haven't noticed.

            Uh-huh. That is why Israel is reducing the number of armored brigades.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 11 August 2020 14: 37 New
              +1
              Reduces, because with the help of the United States managed to completely disorganize the Arab world around.
              But not because the tank has no future.

              Keep in mind that the Arabs can come out of this mix stronger than they were, and, most importantly, with mental shifts in terms of organization that you will not like.
              And then the value of your Merkavot can grow.
              1. Professor
                Professor 11 August 2020 20: 12 New
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Reduces, because with the help of the United States managed to completely disorganize the Arab world around.
                But not because the tank has no future.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Your country is supported by tank forces, if you haven't noticed.

                So on tanks or not on tanks anymore? wink

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Keep in mind that the Arabs can come out of this mix stronger than they were, and, most importantly, with mental shifts in terms of organization that you will not like.
                And then the value of your Merkavot can grow.

                No tank has a future. Greetings to the cavalrymen.
    2. Olddetractor
      Olddetractor 5 August 2020 09: 23 New
      0
      There's something about it. The tank will replace it (do not take it for sophistry, the replacement tank will be different, made differently and developed by other people)
  2. Free wind
    Free wind 5 August 2020 06: 32 New
    +1
    The Marines are unlikely to want to give up. They are forced to do it. Of course, some Marines will not be thrown into battle, but the commander probably wants to have heavy equipment under his command. Of course, the technique is in the same hands. it is cheaper to operate and maintain. But that's my opinion. The penultimate photo of Abrams is interesting. Around us, it is argued that Abrams is not capable of underwater driving, but in the photo he is clearly equipped with this system. Well, it’s not a boiler house. smile
  3. Ilshat
    Ilshat 5 August 2020 07: 06 New
    +2
    It seems that the main motives are financial ...
    1. Berber
      Berber 5 August 2020 08: 48 New
      -1
      And that's always the case. In our country it is described by the proverb: "the thunder will not break out - the man will not cross himself." The first, subsequent experience of hostilities will show the incorrectness of this decision. In the meantime, yes - finance is the main motive.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 10 August 2020 09: 22 New
      +1
      No, the motives are completely different.
  4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 August 2020 07: 39 New
    +2
    Well, the USMC is a very serious enemy, and the lack of tanks will greatly reduce its combat effectiveness. What can only be happy about
  5. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 5 August 2020 09: 53 New
    +4
    The lack of mobility argument is questionable. The amphibious ships of the US Navy are capable of transporting a variety of equipment, incl. tanks. Airborne assault vehicles provide the delivery of armored vehicles to the shore - and tanks too. At the same time, the amphibious forces have at their disposal well-protected equipment with high maneuverability and powerful weapons, capable of effectively supporting them. Why a bunch of MBT and amphibious assault vehicles was considered unsuitable for use in the future is unclear.

    The landing of tanks at the KMP is not so simple.
    While the Marines had the old M60s, everything was in the openwork: not only large LCUs could be used for landing them, but also medium LCM-8s (which took 1 tank), which could be stuffed into a landing ship dock quite a lot. After replacing the M60 with Abrams, it suddenly turned out that they can only be dropped on the LCU-1610 or LCAC. That is, no more than 2-4 landing craft per dock ship. The matter ended with the fact that the development of a new medium landing craft was recently ordered, designed to carry one "Abram" - the successor of the LCM-8. And then the Marines were left without tanks. smile
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 5 August 2020 10: 03 New
      +2
      I suppose we should ask the question "what can be dropped instead of one Abrams?" Two delusions or three Strykers? Well, there may be three strikers and more needed ..
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 5 August 2020 10: 10 New
        -1
        In KMP LAV-25 and ACV. Perhaps they will buy something more difficult instead of them.
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 5 August 2020 11: 00 New
          +2
          These even 4 will fit in weight.
      2. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 5 August 2020 10: 40 New
        +1
        I read the original, there will be a new wheeled car 8x8
        another 8x8 wheeled design
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 7 August 2020 21: 23 New
          -1
          Quote: Grazdanin
          there will be a new wheeled car 8x8

          that is, the car will be there sometime, and the tanks are being written off now? well, okay laughing
  6. Operator
    Operator 5 August 2020 10: 00 New
    -10
    US GDP dropped 32%, dive continues, printing press breaks ...
  7. Engineer
    Engineer 5 August 2020 10: 22 New
    +5
    The third article on VO is about how the ILC refuses tanks.
    Rejection of tanks means rejection of ARVs, tankers, bridgelayers, etc. Mobility is clearly improving.
    If you need tanks, interact with the army or set tasks for the army separately.
    The second point - maintaining a high level of BP in military conditions is easier
    KMP no longer need tank ranges, tank directors
    Landings on an unequipped bridgehead, the breakthrough of the Atlantic Wall is already a legacy of history.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 5 August 2020 10: 46 New
      0
      UAVs and missile systems will be the main strike weapons, fortifications and heavy equipment will be destroyed by them. People will defend Ostrava from the remnants of the troops, for this the tank is redundant. They are planning a new wheeled vehicle of a "different design", perhaps with a 105/120 mm cannon.
      1. Nastia makarova
        Nastia makarova 5 August 2020 12: 21 New
        +1
        against the Papuans only
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 7 August 2020 21: 26 New
          -1
          Quote: Nastia Makarova
          against the Papuans only

          and not very much against the Papuans. All Papuans have RPG-7s, and some have ATGMs.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 August 2020 10: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      Rejection of tanks means rejection of ARVs, tankers, bridgelayers, etc. Mobility is clearly improving.

      I remember an anecdote about a dwarf - a karateka who broke tables in a bar with the edge of his palm, which made everyone present very frightened. And then a tough guy got up, took the dwarf and threw it out the window. Everyone is amazed:
      - How did you decide on this, he's so strong!
      - Yeah, strong. But easy! :))))
      So it will be with mobility as well.
      Quote: Engineer
      If you need tanks, interact with the army

      Practice shows that even in the army it is better to use formations of tanks and infantry + artillery, because specialized formations interact worse - there is no constant practice, and this is not counting a single command.
      Quote: Engineer
      Landings on an unequipped bridgehead, the breakthrough of the Atlantic Wall is already a legacy of history.

      But the need for a Big Armored Brother with a Tolstoy Cannon is constantly demonstrated, even in battles against lightly armed gangs.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 5 August 2020 11: 16 New
        +3
        Here's how to throw the ILC out the window, then we'll talk
        But the need for a Big Armored Brother with a Tolstoy Cannon is constantly demonstrated, even in battles against lightly armed gangs.

        He is and this is the army. No matter how feed the ILC, the army is still better.
        even in the army it is better to use formations of tanks and infantry + artillery

        The army will use them.
        The KMP hits the jab. Army throws power


        We have already cited examples that the pilots of the ILC fly at times less often than their colleagues from the Air Force due to the specifics of this type of aircraft. Most likely the same with tanks.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 August 2020 11: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Engineer
          Here's how to throw the ILC out the window, then we'll talk

          Sorry, but if today our law enforcers are sent to eliminate terrorists with sapper blades instead of firearms, then there is no need to wait for the result - it is predictable in advance. Maybe they will overwhelm due to preparation and a sense of duty, but losses ..
          .
          Quote: Engineer
          He is and this is the army. No matter how feed the ILC, the army is still better.

          Quote: Engineer
          The KMP hits the jab. Army throws power

          I'm afraid you do not fully understand the essence of the ILC. These are not our marines who are acting according to the scenario you described. The USMC is essentially an expeditionary force, which is expected to be able to fight on its own in the absence of ground forces - in conflicts of low and medium intensity.
          Quote: Engineer
          We have already cited examples that the pilots of the ILC fly at times less often than their colleagues from the Air Force due to the specifics of this type of aircraft.

          I haven't heard that. Can you tell me who wrote this and when?
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 5 August 2020 11: 34 New
            +1
            Sorry, but if today our security officials are sent to eliminate terrorists with sapper blades instead of firearms, then there is no need to wait for the result - it is predictable in advance

            This is demagoguery. The ILC even without tanks has something to inflict fire damage.
            I'm afraid you do not fully understand the essence of the ILC

            I'm afraid you read through the stump deck as usual.
            ILC is a separate type of aircraft. But now it is not a "thing in itself", but a more "niche" and specialized force. The implication of the reform "take the burden by yourself" is quite clearly traced. And the big guys - the army and the air force will crack nuts harder.
            I haven't heard that. Can you tell me who wrote this and when?

            Timokhin wrote in an article about the reform of the ILC
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 August 2020 11: 49 New
              0
              Quote: Engineer
              This is demagoguery.

              Until it touches you personally. Then it will immediately cease to seem to you demagoguery.
              Quote: Engineer
              The ILC even without tanks has something to inflict fire damage.

              Today, the tank represents the pinnacle of the ground forces' food pyramid. That is, it embodies the maximum protection and firepower and is able to provide direct support to the infantry. Of course, tank tasks on the battlefield can be accomplished by other means. But this is not optimal and will lead to increased losses. We understand this, and therefore return the tanks to the Marines.
              Quote: Engineer
              I'm afraid you read through the stump deck as usual.

              let's see who reads through the stump and who reads through the deck. You wrote
              Quote: Engineer
              We have already cited examples that the pilots of the ILC fly at times less often than their colleagues from the Air Force due to the specifics of this type of aircraft.

              Timokhin wrote in the article
              Overstrain caused by an endless war, in general, in principle, harmed the US Armed Forces. But Marines - especially. So, the flight of the Hornet pilot, assigned to the Corps, fell to a miserable 4-5 hours a month.

              That is, the drop in raids is associated with hostilities, and not with the specifics of the type of the Armed Forces.
              Quote: Engineer
              But now it is not a "thing in itself", but a more "niche" and specialized force. The implication of the reform "take the burden by yourself" is quite clearly traced.

              That is, the Americans are deliberately reducing the military potential of the ILC. What is the dispute about?
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 5 August 2020 12: 11 New
                +1
                That is, it embodies the maximum protection and firepower and is able to provide direct support to the infantry.

                In the case of the Americans, this is a 70-ton colossus requiring infrastructure and costly in every sense of the provision of a database. most likely "they counted and shed tears".
                That is, the drop in raids is associated with hostilities, and not with the specifics of the type of the Armed Forces.

                Timokhin has written
                But especially the Marines.

                That is, everyone is fighting, but the ILC sagged on the raid especially strongly.
                About "at times" I was mistaken, because I wrote from memory.
                I decided to find the original source, but it turned out that Timokhin most likely threw in unverified information (the very frequently cited in the quote below). Therefore, the dispute about this aspect loses its meaning.
                https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/02/14/marines-are-flying-more-than-the-air-force/
                The Marines are averaging between 14 to 16 hours a month per pilot, while the Air Force is averaging just a little above nine to 10 hours per pilot per month, according to testimony Wednesday from Gen. Glenn M. Walters, the Marine Corps assistant commandant, and Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen W. Wilson at a Senate Armed Services hearing on military readiness.

                Average monthly flight hours is an important metric for the services, an indicator of how much training and experience their pilots have. The Corps has frequently cited lower flight hours as a potential reason for numerous air mishaps that have plagued the Marines over the last couple years.


                That is, the Americans are deliberately reducing the military potential of the ILC. What is the dispute about?

                The fact that the reduction of the strike potential is planned to be compensated by an increase in mobility. In general, there is no reduction in military potential. There is a rearrangement of accents.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 August 2020 12: 58 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Therefore, the dispute about this aspect loses its meaning.

                  OK, accepted.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  In the case of the Americans, this is a 70-ton colossus requiring infrastructure and costly in every sense of the provision of a database.

                  A1M1 like 61 tons? And any equipment will require infrastructure and support. Of course, it's more difficult with a tank, but ... that much?
                  Quote: Engineer
                  The fact that the reduction of the strike potential is planned to be compensated by an increase in mobility. In general, there is no reduction in military potential.

                  This is a common excuse for drastically reducing anything. This is not a stone in your garden, but in an American one.
                  1. Engineer
                    Engineer 5 August 2020 13: 20 New
                    +2
                    This is a common excuse for drastically reducing anything.

                    There is no doubt that there is room for doubt.
                    But the Americans themselves formulate everything very clearly:
                    The concept of full-fledged armed forces in miniature, which is the ILC, has largely exhausted itself
                    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32703/marines-to-radically-remodel-force-cutting-tanks-howitzers-in-favor-of-drones-missiles
                    Here is the commander's opinion
                    “We need an Army with lots of tanks," Berger said. "We don't need a Marine Corps with tanks."

                    Here is the opinion of the "deputy director of development"
                    “The wargames do show that, absent significant change, the Marine Corps will not be in a position to be relevant" in a high-end conflict against a “peer competitor,” US Marine Corps Lieutenant General Eric Smith, head of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, also explained to the Journal.

                    Against whom all this is not hiding. Peer competitor revealed
                    "China, in terms of military capability, is the pacing threat," Berger told the Journal. "If we did nothing, we would be passed."
                    1. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 5 August 2020 14: 12 New
                      0
                      Quote: Engineer
                      https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32703/marines-to-radically-remodel-force-cutting-tanks-howitzers-in-favor-of-drones-missiles

                      Great article. On VO for 3 articles could not transfer information.
                      They did not write about the new wheeled vehicle 8x8 "of a different design," then they will not buy rippers and will change the requirements for promising UAVs for the ILC.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 August 2020 14: 22 New
                      0
                      Quote: Engineer
                      There is no doubt that there is room for doubt.
                      But the Americans themselves formulate everything very clearly.

                      I agree with you. But the Americans, in my IMHO, make a big mistake - after all, the PLA marines have light tanks and armored personnel carriers and self-propelled guns in service. Not to mention the fact that the disputed territories can be occupied by land formations.
                      1. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 5 August 2020 14: 28 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The PLA also has light tanks and armored personnel carriers and self-propelled guns.

                        Missile systems and UAVs will be used against them. There will also be a new wheeled vehicle, possibly a wheeled tank.
                        The number of missile systems will be tripled, and UAVs will be doubled.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 5 August 2020 14: 38 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        Missile systems and UAVs will be used against them

                        UAVs will not particularly interfere with the Chinese, nevertheless, their army air defense is better than that of Hamas.
                        Missile systems .... It is painfully expensive to use GMLRS square-nested artillery instead of cannon artillery.
                      3. Engineer
                        Engineer 5 August 2020 14: 38 New
                        +2
                        You see, the catch is that the reduction is already being made, but there is no new "wheeled vehicle" yet. And it is not known whether it will be at all. Americans seem to have forgotten how to do normal "Wiikly"
                        For some reason, everyone ignores the decrease in the number of artillery batteries by four times... This is not clear to me. Arta, in my opinion, is really useful always and everywhere, unlike overhyped tanks
                      4. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 5 August 2020 14: 52 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        You see, the catch is that the reduction is already being made, but there is no new "wheeled vehicle" yet.

                        The reductions will take place until 2030 (they can be extended), they started with training sessions, until it comes to combat units, it will take a lot of time. They have not chosen new UAVs for the ILC either. Apparently, this will be done in 23-24, and by the 30th they will just have time to rearm.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        For some reason, everyone ignores the fourfold reduction in the number of artillery batteries.

                        UAVs and missile systems are their direct replacement. Artillery is very cumbersome and requires a lot of service weapons, it is convenient to defend bases with them, it is problematic to transfer from island to island.
                      5. Engineer
                        Engineer 5 August 2020 14: 57 New
                        +1
                        Arta works just fine in conjunction with the UAV.
                        and no one canceled direct fire.
                        I don't know anything about the capabilities of modern MLRS, honestly)
                      6. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 5 August 2020 16: 26 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Arta works just fine in conjunction with the UAV.

                        Therefore, they are reduced, and not completely removed.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        I don't know anything about the capabilities of modern MLRS

                        HIMARS is more of a versatile launcher for various surface-to-surface, surface-to-air missiles. HIMARS can launch rockets directly from the ship. I just read from this article smile
                        https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15410/himars-goes-to-sea-us-marines-now-fire-guided-artillery-rockets-from-ships
                      7. Engineer
                        Engineer 5 August 2020 17: 07 New
                        0
                        I read it.
                        HIMARS turns out to be "extra long arm". In a traditional combined arms battle, it turns out, the Marines should not enter with such weapons at all. At least in theory. Another attempt at the ultimate implementation of the technological advantage. But it's too expensive. Will they pull.
                      8. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 5 August 2020 17: 18 New
                        -1
                        If the tanks are written off, they will pull lol
                        As far as I understand, they represent the battle as follows:
                        The conquest of air superiority, UAVs identify ground targets, a missile attack is made against them from all means, the landing and clearing of the territory begins, when dangerous equipment or fortifications appear, they are attacked from patrolling UAVs and HIMARS, the island is captured, the ILC begins to prepare for defense, air defense systems and HIMARS with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles are being deployed, UAVs with the same tasks are on duty in the sky.
                      9. Engineer
                        Engineer 5 August 2020 17: 27 New
                        0
                        Questions begin if the target is not an island and an enemy counterstrike is expected with the use of BTT and heavy art, and the Marines need to prepare / hold a bridgehead for concentrating army men. Then from the very beginning it is necessary to attract the army to help. Everything is logical, but an unpredictable mix in this situation is quite likely.
                      10. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 5 August 2020 17: 38 New
                        -1
                        They have exercises to practice joint actions of the Army, Air Force, Navy, ILC on a regular basis. All the same, the Marine Corps has 2 main tasks: to capture and hold the coastal zone until the main forces approach and prevent the enemy from doing so.

                        By the way, about the UAV that the KMP wanted, though the requirements have already changed.
                        https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21376/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-usmcs-ambitious-vertical-takeoff-combat-drone
                    3. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 7 August 2020 21: 35 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Grazdanin
                      As far as I understand, they represent the battle as follows:
                      Air superiority gain

                      that is, if you could not win complete air superiority, then the operation failed?
  • Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 5 August 2020 11: 51 New
    +2
    People don't think in terms of goals. The main thing is more equipment with big guns, which banged louder. Well, the ILC has no enemy other than China now, and large-scale hostilities are possible only in the South China Sea region. There are no opponents in South America and Africa. Only Iran remains in the Middle East, which the Navy and Air Force will destroy, ground operations are suicidal, and it is lined with army bases on all sides. Russia has a defensive doctrine, and the ILC is insignificant against us.
    Here they are rebuilding their troops in accordance with new threats.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 August 2020 12: 07 New
      -1
      Quote: Grazdanin
      Here they are rebuilding their troops in accordance with new threats.

      laughing
      Look at the Hussites, well, not at all an enemy. Ancient "Kalash" and rubber slippers ....
      But even with them without a tank it is at least uncomfortable to communicate. And often just deadly.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 August 2020 13: 27 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Look at the Hussites, well, not at all an enemy. Ancient "Kalash" and rubber slippers ....

        Uh-huh ... and behind the back - ATGM, OTR and anti-ship missiles. smile
        Quote: Spade
        But even with them without a tank it is at least uncomfortable to communicate. And often just deadly.

        Yes, it is dangerous to communicate with them even in the presence of a tank. The Houthis, Pomnitsa, "Abrams" managed to knock them out in the forehead.
    2. Engineer
      Engineer 5 August 2020 12: 15 New
      -2
      People don't think in terms of goals.

      Do they not think in categories of goals in the ILC?
      If you want to "bang louder", then you must, on the contrary, ask for more tanks
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 5 August 2020 12: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: Engineer
        Do they not think in categories of goals in the ILC?

        I'm talking about the local commentators. The ILC is based on goals.
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 5 August 2020 12: 27 New
          +1
          I understood. I wanted to strengthen the conclusion, but it turned out awkwardly))
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 August 2020 13: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: Grazdanin
      People don't think in terms of goals.

      And why was it so clear to demonstrate this with your comments?
      Quote: Grazdanin
      Well, the ILC has no enemy other than China now, and large-scale hostilities are possible only in the South China Sea region. There are no opponents in South America and Africa.

      And now we are studying the experience of the counter-terrorist actions of the Russian Federation in Chechnya, for example, and we understand that the tank is extremely useful even against insurgents with light weapons, not to mention the cases when heavy weapons fall on them. But in your opinion, apparently, from now on, the ILC will only participate in police operations, and not across the entire spectrum, but so - the dispersal of demonstrators ...
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 5 August 2020 13: 05 New
        +1
        What has Chechnya, Houthis and other rubbish to do with it? Are we talking about the army? The ILC has its own tasks, the Army has its own. An army without tanks will not be able to, for the tasks of the ILC, tanks are redundant. Porridge is in your head.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 August 2020 14: 27 New
          0
          Quote: Grazdanin
          What has Chechnya, Houthis and other rubbish to do with it?

          Turn on your head, please. And if you do not know how to add 2 + 2, then why are you getting into a conversation with smart people?
          What did you write?
          Quote: Grazdanin
          People don't think in terms of goals.

          It is understood that you are capable of this. You are given a simple thought - the tank has shown its necessity even in low-intensity conflicts like Chechnya. EVEN THERE they are needed and useful - what can we say about more serious conflicts. Accordingly, if the ILC abandons tanks, what goals will it achieve? What tasks to solve? Drive the demonstrators to Chicago?
          Quote: Grazdanin
          Porridge is in your head.

          "and you, in the presence of two people with a university education, allow yourself with absolutely unbearable swagger to give some advice of a cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity ..."
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 5 August 2020 14: 36 New
            +1
            What are the main objectives of the Marine Corps? The army? At the National Guard? What theater of operations do these types of armed forces have?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 August 2020 16: 29 New
              +1
              Quote: Grazdanin
              What theater of operations do these types of armed forces have?

              Great question. Just perfect.
              There used to be the whole world. Just look at their emblem.

              Now they decided to sharpen the ILC under a certain theater of operations. Thus significantly limiting their capabilities.
            2. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 5 August 2020 16: 48 New
              +2
              Quote: Spade
              Now they decided to sharpen the ILC under a certain theater of operations. Thus significantly limiting their capabilities.

              This is what we talk about. In the last third of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, there were opponents of the USSR, Iraq, Syria, Libya, S. Korea, Iran. They all have huge armored armies, against them the ILC was imprisoned, from their theater of operations. The USSR collapsed, no war is foreseen with Russia, Iraq is captured, Syria and Libya are plundered and destroyed as states, Iran is not dangerous The Air Force and the Navy will cope, S. Korea remained and China was added. Where can there be a war with China? In the South China Sea and Indochina, are 70 ton machines effective? The answer is clear to everyone. Wheeled vehicles of a "different design" are needed there.
            3. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 August 2020 19: 29 New
              0
              Quote: Grazdanin
              in that HPT are 70 ton machines efficient? The answer is clear to everyone.

              Of course I understand.
              Exceptionally effective
              Quote: Grazdanin
              Where can there be a war with China?

              Africa, South America
    4. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 August 2020 14: 27 New
      -2
      Quote: Grazdanin
      What has Chechnya, Houthis and other rubbish to do with it? Are we talking about the army?

      Despite the fact that when the most that neither is the army is at war even with the public such as the Houthis, Hamas or Chechen fighters, the tank is an extremely useful thing, capable of really reducing losses.

      And not only in the steppes and deserts. In a closed area such as urban development, it is absolutely the same. The lack of tanks will have to be compensated for by the loss of manpower.

      Quote: Grazdanin
      for the tasks of the ILC, tanks are redundant.

      If the tasks of the ILC do not provide for the conduct of hostilities, only parades, then yes.
  • Sanichsan
    Sanichsan 7 August 2020 21: 37 New
    -1
    Quote: Grazdanin
    There are no opponents in South America and Africa.

    exactly? then why is Guaido still president of the void?
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 5 August 2020 12: 10 New
    -1
    Quote: Engineer
    And the big guys - the army and the air force will crack nuts harder.

    They also do not have a lot of tanks. Not at all thick. Most army brigades without them
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 5 August 2020 12: 13 New
      +2
      Then it is all the more correct to concentrate tanks in the army and not share them with the ILC.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 5 August 2020 12: 27 New
        0
        Quote: Engineer
        Then it is all the more correct to concentrate tanks in the army and not share them with the ILC.

        So that as few troops as possible have the training to fully interact with tanks? Reasonable 8)))

        No, it doesn't work that way. No wonder the Germans at one time began to appear all sorts of "panzergrenadiers".
        And here it is better to "share" as in Russia with the Airborne Forces. Than then incur heavy losses due to the inability of the "light infantry" to interact with the attached tanks.
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 5 August 2020 12: 31 New
          0
          well if
          Most army brigades without them

          Then they will learn to interact if you transfer tanks from the ILC
          And / Or Bring to the OTB as part of the army and teach interaction with both the infantry and the ILC
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 5 August 2020 12: 47 New
            0
            Quote: Engineer
            Then they will learn to interact if you transfer tanks from the ILC

            They will "transfer" them to the Sierra Army Depot
            1. Engineer
              Engineer 5 August 2020 13: 07 New
              +1
              The KMP tanks are М1А1, they currently do not meet army standards. Therefore, storage-based collection makes sense.
              I don’t know if they will be modernized.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 August 2020 14: 34 New
              -2
              Quote: Engineer
              The KMP tanks are М1А1, they currently do not meet army standards.

              Then why take them away?
            3. Engineer
              Engineer 5 August 2020 14: 51 New
              +1
              The modernization of the M1A1 unit for the army - a question that was resolved more than a year ago - will allocate 714 million. Whether this number will include marine tanks I do not know, and it does not matter. For from memory in storage as many as 2000 Abrams. The army armored group will be strengthened in any case.
              They are not taken away, but the Marines themselves get rid of them in connection with the new doctrine
              GOTO: start of discussion))
            4. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 August 2020 14: 57 New
              +1
              Quote: Engineer
              They are not taken away, but the Marines themselves get rid of them in connection with the new doctrine

              laughing
              Well, naturally.
              They will not say "we have no money"

              If it is very necessary, then for the rearmament on stone axes, you can pile the "doctrine" .... As an example, the British. Under screams about the Russian military threat, about "increasing efficiency" and about other dregs, they are significantly reducing their army.
            5. Engineer
              Engineer 5 August 2020 15: 00 New
              +3
              Well, this is already a question of ideology laughing
              Mattress fillers - it will not hurt so much, but more often and faster, and in general tanks are slag
              Matrasophobes - clowns have done it again, stupid people are such stupid people - censored corrected)), the printing press broke down, you have to save.
            6. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 August 2020 16: 32 New
              +1
              Quote: Engineer
              Well, this is already a question of ideology

              This is a matter of reality. Suffice it to recall how much it was planned to spend on the modernization of the KMP tanks and on the installation of KAZ systems on them.
            7. shinobi
              shinobi 6 August 2020 16: 14 New
              0
              You misled the word a little. "Phil" - to love, amateur. "Fob" - to hate. Or not?
            8. Engineer
              Engineer 6 August 2020 16: 28 New
              0
              Yes, but where is the contradiction?
            9. shinobi
              shinobi 6 August 2020 16: 33 New
              0
              It is not entirely clear with whom you associate yourself.
            10. Engineer
              Engineer 6 August 2020 19: 52 New
              0
              With d'Artagnan from the same anecdote bully
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 6 August 2020 13: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: Engineer
    If you need tanks, interact with the army or set tasks for the army separately.

    Where can we get this army during the landing and expansion of the bridgehead? And most importantly - how to transport its equipment and how to land it? wink
    Well this is what it turns out - instead of the regular tank battalions of the ILC, trained in airborne assault, you will have to take army troops on board the landing ships, drive their equipment to the DKA for a long time and dreary, and then land them, praying that the Abram will not get stuck on the beach, because the mechanic is a soldier he did not learn to disembark on an unequipped shore.
    Quote: Engineer
    Landings on an unequipped bridgehead, the breakthrough of the Atlantic Wall is already a legacy of history.

    Is it possible that the Chinese will equip landing zones on their islands and agree not to shoot until the ILC finishes the landing? wink
    According to the new doctrine, the ILC will have to capture the islands of the front lines and defend them and the borders as a whole with their own forces.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 6 August 2020 13: 32 New
      +2
      Where can we get this army during the landing and expansion of the bridgehead? And most importantly - how to transport its equipment and how to land it?

      As far as can be judged, the landings of large groups on an unequipped coast in the past. The concentration of the army will be carried out on a fully controlled logistics hub (s). This has happened more than once.
      According to the new doctrine, the ILC will have to capture the islands of the front lines and defend them and the borders as a whole with their own forces.

      Isolation of the point of disembarkation, grinding into dust, disembarkation-capture, early preparation for a new strike.
      Any involvement in protracted combined arms battles should be ruled out. If the target is too large and too sharp, then this is not a job for the ILC.
      This is as far as I can tell from a superficial acquaintance with the subject.
    2. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 6 August 2020 16: 08 New
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      so that the "Abram" does not get stuck on the beach, because the mechanic-soldier was not trained to land on an unequipped shore.

      Abrams will not be able to get off the road in that region, there will be 70 tons of bunker. They are preparing for war in the South China Sea and Indochina, there are cities, islands, mountains and jungles. It's not fun to cut across the desert. A wheeled "tank" is more suitable in that region. I think they mean it by a wheeled vehicle 8x8 "of a different design." LAV-25 only has 105 \ 120 mm cannon. May well purchase Japanese Type 16 or a variation on a theme.
    3. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 10 August 2020 09: 32 New
      +1
      Where can we get this army during the landing and expansion of the bridgehead? And most importantly - how to transport its equipment and how to land it?


      They no longer plan to land "head-on" on strong defenses. The point is that during the war in coastal areas, the MP must forestall the enemy in capturing important islands and hard-to-reach places by equipping strong points there with anti-ship missiles and creating a zone where the US Navy can operate comfortably, and the enemy's navy is forced will be torn between the suppression of American coastal units and the fight against the Navy.

      This is the "strategy of the weak" that the strong uses. The army is "by" there.

      Regarding an operation of the type that took place in WWII, in the United States it is slowly becoming mainstream that breaking into the enemy's defenses by amphibious forces is impossible in principle.
  • Lebed
    Lebed 5 August 2020 15: 27 New
    12
    Why should they not cut it ... Some of them have already been transferred to Europe, on the islands in the Asia-Pacific region, in the event of a landing, they will do without tanks. Let them cut it.
    1. sav
      sav 6 August 2020 08: 03 New
      11
      Quote: Lebed
      Let them cut

      And then they are formed anew. Whatever the child is amused ...
  • shinobi
    shinobi 6 August 2020 16: 11 New
    0
    Tanks in the ILC are needed, but not Abrashi. They can land only on a prepared shore and only with someone else's help, which is not good for a real landing. You need something lighter and more mobile. The general is still overweight.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 6 August 2020 16: 16 New
      0
      Yeah, in the original article there was information that they were planning to buy an 8x8 wheeled vehicle of a "different design", given that the LAV-25 has all modifications except for the 105 \ 120 mm cannon, I think it will be.
      another 8x8 wheeled design
      1. shinobi
        shinobi 6 August 2020 16: 18 New
        0
        Can't it work like with strikers for 125mm guns?
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 6 August 2020 16: 23 New
          0
          Above I wrote about the Japanese Type 16 with a 105 mm cannon, they can take it, a more successful car. They can develop something else, the decision on the car will be made in 25. Stryker 120 mm as a self-propelled gun passes, but that rubbish turned out to agree. It is not necessary to cram something unpushy.
          1. shinobi
            shinobi 6 August 2020 16: 25 New
            0
            Type 16? I'll see what kind of animal.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 6 August 2020 16: 26 New
              0
              Yeah, the MCV program is called.
              https://topwar.ru/170998-kolesnye-tanki-tip-16-dlja-sil-samooborony-japonii.html
              1. shinobi
                shinobi 6 August 2020 16: 58 New
                0
                Well, uh-uh, how-bae an ambiguous impression. Chasing armed AK-47 barmaley and mumbu-yumba is one thing, but getting an ATGM from an attack helicopter in return is quite another. I remember one old story with French wheeled vehicles in Africa. article in the internet. Staraya. There were fluttering that the wheels from the DShK were burned into the sides. In general, I am all doubtful.
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 6 August 2020 17: 05 New
                  0
                  You need to look comprehensively. The United States will not fight without gaining air superiority, there is LAV-AD against helicopters that accidentally break through. There will be new UAVs with radar, air-to-surface missiles, air-to-air missiles. HIMARS is available with surface-to-air missiles.
                  And for a helicopter that Abrams and Kolesnik are the same goal, getting to Abrams is even easier.
                  1. shinobi
                    shinobi 6 August 2020 17: 48 New
                    0
                    Let's see. The declared tasks for the ILC, military operations on the coast of the APR. Korea, China, India. These are a slightly different kind of players. More likely Korea and China. You can, of course, consider, theoretically, the situation of a sudden landing in order to seize a bridgehead based on the time of the initial reaction and approach of forces for defense. But as the events of half a century ago in the Usuri show, without an appropriate concentration of troops (and what then is surprise and invisibility), four MLRS installations can plow the entire captured bridgehead 1,5 meters deep. The advantage is in the air, yes. I wonder how this number will get through in this case.
                    1. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 6 August 2020 17: 53 New
                      0
                      Quote: shinobi
                      The advantage is in the air, yes. I wonder how this number will get through in this case.

                      The new UAV programs are very interesting. If they succeed in doing what they plan, and there is no reason to doubt it, they will completely reverse the approach to air operations. Skynet is half a step away smile
                      1. shinobi
                        shinobi 6 August 2020 17: 58 New
                        0
                        laughing That's it, I'm awful! belay I will look for an unoccupied bunker in the nearest hills! yes
                      2. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 6 August 2020 17: 59 New
                        +2
                        We have a robot Fedor, so calmly stop
                      3. shinobi
                        shinobi 6 August 2020 18: 46 New
                        +1
                        Laughter, laughter, but I remembered-compared some facts that were described on VO and I somehow got sick of laughing. I don't consider toys like Fedor or from Dinemix, walking combat vehicles are the lot of fiction (although who knows, maybe someday), but this is what is already undergoing tests and running in. Purely what is ours. Uraniums, Platform, Mars are cyber infantry. An operator is required on difficult terrain and to make decisions on shooting. While it is required. An unmanned version of the T-14 Armata is being tested. Tank. Cyber ​​tank. C own full-fledged AI. Without comments. I really initially thought it was strange, given the level of automation, why would he need 3 crew members? One would be more than enough. Tank-cyborg. Reality turned out to be cooler. And who prevents the same AI from putting the Terminator on BMPT? A hunter, an attack drone. No comments. Little is known about him, except that he is. He brought everything together and the humor was over. Playing "tanks" I saw that the game AI plays better than the average player in 45% of cases. That is, the algorithms are accepted iya solutions for military AI already exist, the case rests (or rests?) in a compact and powerful hardware. Skynet speak? belay
                      4. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 6 August 2020 20: 03 New
                        0
                        Ground vehicles in the unmanned version will not start fighting fully soon, technically it is very difficult. Unlike UAVs. We have very underestimated this. When the F35 / 15 will be accompanied by a dozen autonomous slave UAVs, any modern air defense system will be multiplied by 0. They will simply exchange UAVs for fighters and ground systems, at least 3 to 1. Then the free hunt for ground equipment will begin. Therefore, the importance of heavy ground equipment is questionable. Just imagine 3 flights of 4 F35s, each with ten slave UAVs of different classes. 132 aircraft to the front sector, just 200 ~ 260 missiles need to be shot down.
                      5. shinobi
                        shinobi 6 August 2020 20: 31 New
                        +1
                        And it is inappropriate to shoot down, they themselves will fall. The Iranians without any fancy stunned the newest Yankee drone with an export version of not the newest electronic warfare station. He sat perfectly on the nearest flat surface as he burned all the fuel. The further fate of the RQ-170 is unknown, but after 3 years the first reports about our heavy shock stealth drone. And so, in 2019, the Hunter flew. Long really rocked, eight years. All drones with remote control have common weaknesses, external sensors and antennas. Any EMP strike and drone are blind-deaf-uncontrollable. In general, far not a cake, but in the fight against an enemy who has access to an EMP weapon, the prospects are murky. In an ordinary plane, the pilot will still pull the car out of stunning, the drones will crumble like leaves from a maple tree in the fall. The picture is beautiful by the way. Nostalgia, just like in the 80s! Then about Reagan SDI also And a fully autonomous drone with full-fledged AI is very expensive, dangerous and does not fit into the concept.
                      6. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 6 August 2020 20: 45 New
                        -1
                        My education in radio engineering and the VUS liaison does not allow me to agree with you. Electronic warfare against the system I have written is useless, these are just goals. EMP has a limited effect, if a nuclear war starts, it doesn't matter what flies.
                        About the Iranian case, this is a bike, it's just that the RQ170 went out of order and sat down, unfortunately, it is technically impossible to take over control of a military UAV. There was not a single time that 2 UAVs in a row sat down, once every 1-2 years, the UAV simply fails and falls. 3 US fighters crashed this year, also electronic warfare?
                      7. shinobi
                        shinobi 6 August 2020 21: 05 New
                        +1
                        Bike then kakraz about malfunction 170. It is difficult to intercept control, yes. To jam, to spill the entire exterior of a drone? It's much easier. How can this be? And look on YouTube, score "experiments with a microwave oven." Among the slag, one Ukrainian guy should come up showing what and how. The principle is the same. As history shows, simple solutions turn out to be the most effective.
                      8. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 6 August 2020 21: 13 New
                        0
                        Quote: shinobi
                        Stun, splash the entire exterior of the drone?

                        In theory, yes, in practice the UAV will change course before finding a signal. The most sophisticated with quasi-AI do not need to contact the ground at all.
                        Quote: shinobi
                        Taking control is hard, yeah

                        It is necessary for the intelligence to obtain all the technical documentation for communication and control of the UAV, create exactly the same equipment, and obtain encryption protocols.
                      9. shinobi
                        shinobi 6 August 2020 21: 19 New
                        0
                        With a burned non-working antenna, he will look for this signal until the second coming.
                    2. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 6 August 2020 21: 19 New
                      0
                      Electronic warfare is generally useless against slave UAVs, communication is via a highly directional, high-frequency communication channel. It is impossible to detect and disrupt communications.
                    3. shinobi
                      shinobi 6 August 2020 21: 46 New
                      +1
                      And you don’t need to intercept. During hostilities, this is generally contraindicated. The same principle as with the air defense missile system. Found, aim, sent a gift. Why do we need their negotiations. Just instead of a rocket, a microwave beam. Imagine what will happen to the AFAR grill? The prototype itself? They tested it in 2003, they showed it to me. They burned all the electronics on the decommissioned fighter. This year, a manual version of the device appeared, to drop various little things on the ground. The message on VO went on the news.
                    4. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 6 August 2020 21: 55 New
                      0
                      Quote: shinobi
                      Can you imagine what will happen to the AFAR grill?

                      Well, ok, one of the UAVs is out of order, the microwave emitter is destroyed by a retaliatory strike, the other UAV turns on its radar and starts searching for targets (although it is enough just for the emitter for the F35 radar to work in passive mode)
                    5. shinobi
                      shinobi 7 August 2020 02: 27 New
                      +1
                      For this kind of wars, drones should not be more expensive than air defense missile systems, since the concept of use considers them as kamikaze. This is not so yet, although they are cheaper than serial fighters. Not much. At the moment, I consider these plans as utopian. To penetrate our air defense they are may oversaturated its limits, in the near future this is unrealistic. For this they will need all NATO aircraft in one place, without being noticed. Wait and see.
                    6. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 7 August 2020 02: 41 New
                      0
                      UTAP-22,
                      price: 2-3 million dollars;
                      Flight range - 2 600 km.;
                      Payload weight - 250 kg, while in the bomb bay - 160 kg. + 45 kg each. ammunition under each wing.
                      Photo under the wing of F15
                    7. shinobi
                      shinobi 7 August 2020 13: 34 New
                      +1
                      Well, this has already happened. The USSR dabbled with a similar concept in 30. Even the price per unit, in the switch to the modern course, is comparable. It is known how it ended. Not that. In this particular case, this is a rehash of the old idea of ​​the CD with a cassette warhead with an individual The antidote has also been around for a long time.
  • Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 6 August 2020 16: 37 New
    0
    Quote: Grazdanin
    Stryker 120 mm

    Correction 105 mm
  • grumbler
    grumbler 8 August 2020 14: 32 New
    0
    The Marines' abandonment of tanks cannot be considered in isolation from a much more general and deep reform of the ILC, initiated by the gene. D. H. Berger - see the article "Step into the unknown, or the Future of American Marines" (https://topwar.ru/169972-shag-v-neizvestnost-ili-kakim-budet-buduschee-u-amerikanskih-marines.html)
    Berger's planned reform is inherently tied to how American strategists
    see a future conventional (or limited nuclear) war against China.
    And first of all - where do they see this war. And they see her at the so-called "First
    chain of islands "- a set of archipelagos cutting off mainland China
    from the Pacific Ocean.
    At the same time, the specificity of the theater of operations is that the chain is already under the allies
    Americans, and the task will not be so much to take these islands by storm,
    how much it is to prevent the Chinese from doing this when they try to break through the sea
    blockade, for example. A separate issue is the islands in the South China Sea.
    Often this is just shallow, no more addition, but control over them allows you to control shipping in a wide area, and the capture of islands, which have airfields, makes it possible to quickly transfer troops within the archipelagos. This is a very specific environment ... Berger does not hide, and he said about it more than once that the task of the Corps will be to fight effectively in this specific environment, not elsewhere.

    Indeed, are tanks needed to hold the "sandbanks" (where they get bogged down and nowhere to maneuver)? So it is necessary to discuss the refusal of the ILC from heavy weapons in general, as a result of the optimization of the tasks of the marines for the new military-political tasks of the United States in the Pacific Ocean:
    Berger announced his plan with the need for radical cuts,
    and what! Abandoning all tanks: rather numerous tank forces of the Corps
    disbanded completely, there will be no tanks. ...
    and then there is about artillery, and so on. and so on.
  • rusboris
    rusboris 10 August 2020 22: 46 New
    0
    Our generals also need to prepare for future wars. Give the Marines UDC and BDK with the support of artillery armored cruisers. It is necessary to seize port cities, important islands, remove and break through the trade blockade. No one will try to send the Russians to Heaven and Hell with a global disarming strike. We will fight in foreign territories. marines and airborne forces.