System costs are kept low (about $5,000.00 per unit in FY-96) by dispensing with costly precision guidance and thermal-imaging components. For the required maximum range of 600 m/1,970 ft, it is sufficient to have a few microchips and mechanical components that function as an "inertial autopilot." Against a stationary target, this automatically compensates for crosswinds, uneven terrain, and variations in thrust as the rocket motor burns out. Against a moving target (up to speeds of 22 mph/35.4 kph), the missile"s autopilot senses the slew (crossing) rate as the gunner tracks the target for about a second before launch, and then automatically computes the correct lead angle for target intercept. All the gunner has to do is keep the crosshairs of the 2.5 power telescopic sight on the center of the target and pull the trigger. The Predator does the rest.
In its nose Predator carries a highly sensitive "target detection device" that combines a tiny range-finding laser, angled downward and forward to sense the edge of the target, and a magnetometer that senses the ma.s.s of the target. When the software concludes that the missile is directly over the target, it detonates the 5-lb/2.25-kg warhead, which projects an explosively formed heavy metal penetrator (like that of the TOW-2B) at almost Mach 5 down through the thin roof of the target. In tests on old M-48 tanks, the projectile even continued downward to blow a hole through the hull floor! Loral has also proposed a "direct attack" version for the Army, with a simple, ma.s.sive high-explosive or incendiary warhead. Minimum range, determined mainly by the safe arming distance for the warhead, is only 56 ft/17 m, making this an ideal weapon for ambushes in urban or wooded terrain. Maximum velocity of the missile is 984 fps/300 m/s, and the time of flight to 500 m/1,640 ft is only 2.25 seconds. While its size and weight will probably mean that only one Predator per Marine will be carried, it will give a rifle squad back its lethal-ity against armor and other heavy targets. In addition, the growth potential of Predator, as well as the Javelin system, means that these systems will be in service well into the 21 st century.
[image]
An M1A1 Abrams main battle tank a.s.signed to BLT 2/6 in the well deck of the USS Whidbey Island Whidbey Island (LSD-41). Note the openings on the left rear and aft deck for the air inlet and exhaust stacks. (LSD-41). Note the openings on the left rear and aft deck for the air inlet and exhaust stacks.
JOHN D. GRESHAM.
Armored Fighting Vehicles The Marine Corps today has a small but vital force of armor, which is designed to provide support to the rifle units that are at the core of its being. It is a force focused on supporting Marines in the field and helping them accomplish their missions. Amphibious tractors are used to deliver troops to the sh.o.r.e under armor. The wheeled force of Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs) is used to provide screening and reconnaissance, as well as an under-armor anti-tank system. And the small force of main battle tanks (MBTs) provides a hard edge to the rest of the force, both in offensive and defensive operations. All of these vehicles are part of the TO&E of the Corps because they are needed on a modern battlefield, not because they are easy to support and move around. That perhaps is why the Corps is asking the question about whether or not MBTs and other armored vehicles will actually be needed in the future. This question is part of the ongoing Sea Dragon project at the Commandant"s Warfighting Laboratory at Quantico, Virginia, and will be under study for some time to come. Meanwhile, armored vehicles will remain part of the Corps.
General Dynamics M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank The Marines acquired their first tanks during World War II as hand-me-downs from the U.S. Army. Though tanks have seen action with the Corps in virtually all of their combat actions since that time, they never have been the center of the Marine combat force. Always used to support rifle units, they have mostly been deployed in small units like platoons or companies. From the 1960s to the Gulf Crisis in 1990, the armored fist of the Marine Corps was based around the M48 and M60-series Patton tanks. These were the last U.S. MBTs that utilized cast-hull-and-turret construction, and served with honor for almost three decades. But by 1990, they were badly dated in terms of mobility, firepower, and protection. This is not to say that they were not a welcome addition to the forces that served in the Persian Gulf. On the contrary, when the M60 tanks of the First Marine Expeditionary Force"s (I MEF) 3rd Tank Battalion rolled off of the ships of Maritime Preposition Squadron Three (MPSRON 3), they represented the first heavy armor to arrive in support of Operation Desert Shield (in August 1990). Equipped with reactive armor, they held the line until the M1A1 Abrams MBTs of then-Major General Barry McCaffrey"s 24th Mechanized Infantry Division arrived in September.
[image]
While other Army armored units arrived in the fall of 1990, the Marines continued to use their elderly M60s. Still, the limitations of the old Pattons were not lost on the leadership at Central Command (CENTCOM) headquarters. For this reason, the British 7th Armored Brigade (the "Desert Rats"), and later the 2nd Armored Division"s "Tiger" Brigade, augmented I MEF with their more modern tanks and armored fighting vehicles. As the run-up to Desert Storm started, the leadership of the Marine Corps decided to do something about the shortcomings of the MBT force, and decided to request an early introduction of the M1A1 Abrams into service.
The story of the M1A1 coming into service with the Marines started in the late 1980s, when they ran compatibility trials with the Abrams. Marine Corps requirements had not really been considered when the Ml was being designed and developed by the Tank and Automotive Command (TACOM) in Warren, Michigan. In fact, the Marines have usually had very little to say when it came to the design of MBTs, and the M 1 was no exception. This is not to say that the M 1 was in no way compatible with Marine requirements. It was. But the Abrams was developed to be transported in the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster heavy transport aircraft, without any particular eye to future use in the Corps. By the late 1980s, though, the obsolescence of the M60 was obvious to the Corps leadership, and moves were begun to bring the Abrams into Marine service.
The major additions and changes to accommodate the Marine mission involved the addition of a fording kit, which provided the M1"s gas turbine engine with a steady supply of water-free air. This involved the addition of several tall stacks that are installed whenever the Abrams is involved in crossing streams or other water hazards, or emerging in the surf-line from a landing craft. Plans went forth to begin procurement of a small force (about four hundred) of the Mls to upgrade the Marine MBT force in the early 1990s. The 1990 crisis in the Persian Gulf short-circuited these plans. When it became clear in November that an offensive to evict Iraq from occupied Kuwait would be required, and not wanting his Marines to fight in obsolete MBTs, General Al Gray (the Commandant at the time) requested that TACOM send the Marines in the Gulf an allotment of M1A1 MBTs to flesh out one tank battalion (the 2nd) of I MEF. The 2nd Tank Battalion fought their way through the flaming h.e.l.l of the Kuwaiti oilfields in February of 1991. Since that time, every tank battalion in the Marine Corps has received the M1. Meanwhile, the Marines procured enough extra tanks to flesh out the embarked tank battalions aboard the ships of the three MPSRONs stationed around the world. The last of these did not come easily, since they were diverted from U.S. Army stocks of the tank. The Army"s position was that they needed all of the big iron beasts that they could get, though the diversion of several hundred to meet the needs of the Marines seems a small inconvenience for the Army. In any case, the money for the Marine Abrams program went right back into producing new state-of-the-art M 1A2s, which are much more advanced than the A1 models handed over to the Corps.
The M1A1 model lacks the advanced digital data links and electronics of the later M1A2s, but it has the same heavy depleted uranium armor, special M829 "silver bullet" ammunition, and engines as its more modern brethren in Army service. For the Marines, this is hardly a problem, since they tend to use their tanks in four-tank platoons, and are not in need of the extra command-and-control systems designed into the M 1A2. This is not to say that they may not desire to have some of the more modern versions later on. They might. The new AAAV is planned to have the same kinds of interconnects into the so-called "digital battlefield" planned for the 21st century, so don"t be surprised if the Marines don"t have General Dynamics Land Systems remanufacture their M1A1s into A2s sometime down the road.
One of the more interesting M1A1 developments has been the first deployment of M1s with the 26th MEU (SOC) in August 1995. This is the first tank deployment with an afloat amphibious unit in almost five years, and represents a new acceptance of the MBT by those who practice amphibious operations. The unit"s commander, Colonel Jim Battaglini (whom we will meet later), wanted the edge that a platoon of four M1A1s might give his unit, especially if they were required to operate in the Balkans. This request was based on a careful evaluation of the Abrams"s different a.s.sets and detriments. On the plus side was the incredible armor, firepower, and mobility that four such vehicles would give him. With its highly accurate and powerful 120mm smoothbore gun, the four tanks would have more gun firepower than a pair of Aegis cruisers with their twin 5-in./127mm guns. After the incredible reduction in supporting firepower that has occurred over the last five years, this is an important reason for taking the 67-ton steel monsters along. The downside of this has to do with the weight issue. That is, each one of the M1A1s weighs so much that a Landing Craft, Air Cushioned (LCAC) can carry only one M1, while a conventional Landing Craft, Utility (LCU) can carry two. Furthermore, both types of landing craft are limited to delivering them in fairly calm seas and surfs. Finally, the M1A1 has a big logistics tail, requiring regular refueling (it gets about 1 mi/1.6 km for every two gallons/7.6 liters of diesel fuel/JP-8 burned), lots of spare parts, and an M88 recovery vehicle. All this is a significant addition to the load carried by an amphibious ready group. Despite the problems, Colonel Battaglini felt the gains were worth the price, and the first deployment with the tanks has been completed successfully. There will be more to follow. For now, though, plan on seeing the M1A1 in Marine service well into the 21st century.
Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) Back in the late 1970s, the Marine Corps began to be concerned about its lack of a good, general-purpose armored reconnaissance and personnel carrier. What was required was something smaller, faster, and more agile than an MBT like the M60 or a large personnel carrier like the LVTP-7/AAV-7. Traditionally, the Marines have lacked the kind of armored cavalry units that the Army considers essential to its operations, and the coming of large Warsaw Pact armored forces in the late 1970s worried the Corps leadership. They feared that without an armored reconnaissance and screening force, MAGTFs might be overrun before they could be made ready to repel an armored a.s.sault. It was in this context that the Marines began a program to build a family of light armored vehicles to support their operations. The requirement was rigorous, because it specified that the winning design would have to be both armored and capable of dishing out enough firepower to kill an enemy armored personnel or reconnaissance vehicle. In addition, it had to be capable of being lifted by transport aircraft as small as a C-130 Hercules, or carried as a swing load by the new CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter. This meant that the new LAV could weigh no more than sixteen tons, and this almost guaranteed that it would have to be wheeled instead of tracked. Thus, the new vehicle would have to be an unusual kind of armored fighting vehicle these days, an armored car. What sets armored cars apart is that they carry fair armor and weapons, but on a cha.s.sis only half the weight of a tracked vehicle. In addition, they are very fast on roads and good terrain, though somewhat less so in poor terrain and driving conditions (snow, mud, etc.). Dating back to World War I, they have been used by reconnaissance and screening forces with great success.
A total of eight contractors submitted bids on the LAV contract, with the winner being declared in 1982. The winning team was composed of Detroit Diesel, General Motors (DDGM) of Canada--which supplied the cha.s.sis, and Delco Electronics (part of Hughes/GM)--which built and integrated the weapons turrets. The vehicle itself was based on the Swiss Piranha (designed by MOWAG), a diesel-powered, eight-wheeled vehicle which would carry an M242 25mm Bushmaster cannon and an M240G 7.62mm machine gun in the turret. Fast and agile, it would also be capable of carrying six Marines in the rear compartment, thus allowing it to act as a small armored personnel carrier. While it would not be as capable or as sophisticated as the new M2/3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) that was also just coming into service, it would do its job for about half the cost ($900,000.00 at the time). In addition, it would be far more deployable and mobile across a variety of conditions than the Bradley. Because the LAV was based upon an off-the-shelf design, procurement was fast and the first units were in service by the mid-1980s.
So successful was the initial version that a number of variants were procured. All of them were based upon the same basic DDGM cha.s.sis, and generally have a driver and commander, as well as gunners and other crew as required by their respective roles. The driver is located in the left front of the vehicle, where he (USMC armor personnel are currently male) steers with a conventional steering wheel. Other controls (accelerator, brakes, etc.) are also fairly conventional, and the LAV family drives very well. All versions of the LAV are armed with a single M240G 7.62mm machine gun (with two hundred ready rounds and eight hundred additional stowed) on a pintle mount and eight smoke grenade launchers (with eight ready grenades and eight stowed), and are fully amphibious (with only three minutes preparation) for crossing rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles. The LAV family is driven by a 275-hp General Motors diesel engine with all eight wheels being powered (8X8). Thus, even across broken or steep terrain, the LAV is a very quick vehicle. Speeds of up to 62 mph/99.8 kph on hard-surface roads are possible, while the LAV can swim a calm body of water at 6 mph/9.6 kph. Armor protection might be described as "basic," which means that while it can stop sh.e.l.l fragments and fire from heavy machine guns and light cannons, it will probably not survive a hit from an anti-tank missile or an MBT gun. On the other hand, the LAV"s high mobility and maneuverability make it capable of running away from everything but an attack helicopter or aircraft.
[image]
There are many versions of the LAV ; they include the following: * LAV-25 LAV-25--This is the baseline version of the LAV, which is equipped with the M242 25mm Bushmaster cannon and a M240G 7.62mm machine gun. An additional light machine gun can be mounted on a pintle mount. The two-man (commander and gunner) turret has 210 ready rounds--150 high-explosive (HE), 60 armor-piercing (AP)--of 25mm ammunition, as well as stowage for 420 more in the rear compartment if troops are not carried. There are 400 and 1,200 rounds of 25mm and 7.62mm ammunition respectively. The weapons are sighted through an optical sight with a light-image intensifier for night operations, though no FLIR system is yet carried. The turret is powered by an electrically pumped hydraulic system, which is fully stabilized so that it can fire on the move. A total of 401 LAV-25s are in service with the Marine Corps.* LAV-AT-- LAV-AT-- The LAV-AT (for Anti-Tank) uses the same cha.s.sis as the LAV-25, and is equipped with a two-man "hammerhead" mount for a twin Hughes Tube-launched, Optically sighted, Wire-guided (TOW) missile launcher in place of the 25mm cannon turret. In addition, a M240G pintle-mounted machine gun with four hundred 7.62mm rounds is carried. Thanks to the erectable "hammerhead" design, the LAV-AT can hide behind a hill or rise and still sight and fire its missiles. A pair of missiles are stored as ready rounds in the launcher, with room for fourteen more in the ammo compartment. A total of ninety-five LAV-ATs are in service with the Marines. The LAV-AT (for Anti-Tank) uses the same cha.s.sis as the LAV-25, and is equipped with a two-man "hammerhead" mount for a twin Hughes Tube-launched, Optically sighted, Wire-guided (TOW) missile launcher in place of the 25mm cannon turret. In addition, a M240G pintle-mounted machine gun with four hundred 7.62mm rounds is carried. Thanks to the erectable "hammerhead" design, the LAV-AT can hide behind a hill or rise and still sight and fire its missiles. A pair of missiles are stored as ready rounds in the launcher, with room for fourteen more in the ammo compartment. A total of ninety-five LAV-ATs are in service with the Marines.* LAV-AD-- LAV-AD--The newest version of the LAV is the LAV-AD (for Air Defense). The weapons station is armed with two four-round packs of Stinger SAMs as well as a 25mm GAU-12 three-barreled Gatling gun. Equipped with a FLIR targeting sensor and a digital data link for queuing, it is a significant improvement over the existing Avenger system which is based on an HMMWV. Currently, seventeen are being procured by the Marines, with additional procurement likely.* LAV-C2-- LAV-C2--Every unit needs secure positions where commanders can receive reports and issue orders. Unfortunately, fixed command posts rarely last long in combat, because either they fall too far behind an advancing force, or they are quickly destroyed by enemy artillery or air strikes when their positions are determined by radio-direction-finding equipment. Thus, the armored mobile command post. To give this capability to LAV units, the Marines have purchased a force of fifty command variants. In the LAV-C2, the weapons turrets are deleted, the crew and ammo compartments are made into a single s.p.a.ce and equipped with a shelter tent extension for the rear of the vehicle, and there is a battery of radio gear. This includes four VHF sets, a combined UHF/VHF unit, a UHF position-location reporting set, one HF radio, and a single portable VHF set.* LAV-L-- LAV-L--Armored units need a lot of supplies in order to accomplish their crucial jobs. Since logistics vehicles of LAV units come under the same kinds of fire as the combat vehicles, they need to be armored as well. For this reason, 94 LAV-L logistics versions were purchased. Based upon the LAV-C, the LAV-L is basically an open compartment for carrying supplies; and it is equipped with a 1,100-1b/500-kg manually powered crane for lifting heavy items like pallets and engines.* LAV-M-- LAV-M--One of the shortcomings of Marine armored units is that they have no organic armored artillery units like the Army"s M 109A6 Paladin 155mm self-propelled howitzer. However, the Marines have developed and deployed fifty armored mortar carriers, based on the LAV. Called the LAV-M, it is equipped with an M252 81mm mortar and carries ninety-nine (five ready, ninety-four stowed) 81mm projectiles. Using the same open-compartment cha.s.sis as the LAV-L and C variants, it has a hatch over the rear compartment for the mortar to fire through. The LAV-M also carries a baseplate and bipod for operating the M252 dismounted.* LAV-R-Nearly every family of armored vehicles breeds a recovery version, which can be used to haul broken or damaged vehicles to the rear for repair, and the LAV is no exception. The Marines have acquired forty-five of this type, designated LAV-R. Each LAV-R is equipped with a 9,000-1b/4,086-kg boom crane, a 30,000-lb/ 13,620-kg winch, a battery of floodlights, an electric welder, a 120/230-volt generator, and a 10-kw hydraulic generator. The crew consists of a driver, commander, and rigger who is cross-trained in welding and other maintenance/repair skills.
[image]
A Marine LAV-C2 (command and control) of BLT2/6 disembarks from an LCAC in Tunisia in 1995.
OFFICIAL U.S. MARINE CORPS PHOTO CORPS PHOTO.
Other versions are currently in development, including an electronic-warfare (EW) version that has an array of direction-finding, intercept, and jamming equipment packed onboard. Watch for this LAV-EW version to appear before the turn of the century in USMC service. Other countries using versions of the LAV include Australia, Canada, and Saudi Arabia.
In combat, the LAV has acquired a reputation for reliability and effectiveness, in spite of its light armor and lack of a FLIR thermal sight system. During Desert Storm, LAVs acted as the armored cavalry for the units of I MEF, fixing and finding Iraqi units from the Battle of Al Kafji to the final liberation of Kuwait City. Tragically, the bulk of the LAV losses occurred from friendly fire: One LAV-25 was mistakenly destroyed by a TOW missile from an LAV-AT; and an errant AGM-65 Maverick missile from an Air Force A-10A killed another.
United Defense LVTP-7/AAV-7A1 (Landing Vehicle, Tracked, Personnel) There is no more traditional Marine mission than to land on a beach and then storm inland to an objective. Doing this mission right calls for an extremely specialized kind of vehicle--the amphibious tractor. The amphibious tractor is a strange hybrid mixture of landing craft and armored personnel carrier, a seemingly impossible mix if you think about it. The first requirement for an amphibious landing craft is that it be a seaworthy boat. It needs to handle well in rough seas, and to be able to come ash.o.r.e in plunging ocean surf--up to 10 ft/3 m high--without swamping or getting stuck. On top of that, the armored personnel carrier must have good cross-country mobility, all-around firepower, and protection for the crew, at least from small-arms fire and sh.e.l.l fragments. All of those requirements make for a design problem with daunting contradictions. Consider the following. You need to design a machine that can deliver a platoon of twenty-five Marines from a landing ship some miles offsh.o.r.e to a hostile beach, making at least 8 mph/13.5 kph. Then, the machine has to be able to crawl inland at 40 mph/64 kph. And it has to have both protection and firepower. The resulting design was neither subtle nor pretty. But it was a great improvement over previous Marine amphibious tracked vehicles.
The Marines call it an "amtrac" (amphibious tractor), and it"s the product of an evolution that began way back in the 1930s in Clearwater, Florida. Donald Roebling was an eccentric millionaire, the grandson of Washington Roebling, the visionary engineer who designed and built the Brooklyn Bridge. One of Roebling"s pet projects was the "Alligator," an amphibious crawler designed to rescue hurricane survivors or downed aviators in the cypress swamps of the Everglades. Engineers at the nearby Food Machinery Company (FMC, which built orange juice canning equipment) helped him fabricate parts for the contraption in their spare time. In 1938, the Marines sent an officer to request a demonstration, but Roebling wasn"t interested. Then came Pearl Harbor. And Roebling changed his mind. Even so, he maintained his quirky integrity: He refused to accept any royalties from the Government for his design patent, and when he discovered that the cost of building the first military prototype, the LVT-1, was $4,000 less than the Navy Department had allocated, he insisted on submitting a refund!
[image]
A pair of AAV-7A1s moves to contact during an exercise.
UNITED DEFENSE.
By the end of the war FMC (now the managing partners of United Defense) had built over eleven thousand LVT "Water Buffaloes" in dozens of different types and modifications. They first saw action with the Marines at Guadalca.n.a.l in 1942 as cargo carriers, but their moment of glory came in the invasion of Tarawa in November 1943. Planners had miscalculated the tides and underestimated the difficulty of crossing the jagged coral reefs that encircled the tiny atoll. But the amtracs waddled ash.o.r.e while the normal landing craft were stranded and shot to pieces, thus saving the day and the invasion. The Marines eventually organized a dozen amtrac battalions in the Pacific, and the U.S. Army even formed a few in Europe (these spearheaded the a.s.sault crossing of the flooded Rhine in the spring of 1945). Later, in the Korean War, amtracs played a key role in the Inchon landing.
When Marines were deployed in force to Vietnam in 1964, the standard amtrac was the LVTP-5, a forty-ton steel monster that carried thirty-seven men, with a ramp door at the bow and a gasoline engine in the rear. It was a good landing craft, but impractical for the jungles and rice paddies of Southeast Asia. The fuel tanks were located under the floor, which made the vehicle a death trap if it struck a mine. As a result, Marines generally preferred to ride on top, and contemporary photographs often show LVTP-5s decorated with improvised forts on their roofs made of sandbags and chain-link fence.
Even before our direct involvement in Vietnam, the shortcomings of the LVTP-5 were well known, and plans were afoot to make good its shortcomings. In 1963, the Marine Corps asked industry to develop a smaller, less costly amtrac with better cross-country performance. FMC"s first LVTPX-12 prototype was finished in 1967; and with minor modifications, it entered production in 1971 as the LVTP-7. Production eventually ended in 1983 when an improved version, designated the LVTP-7A1 (also known as the Amphibious a.s.sault Vehicle Seven--AAV-7A1), came into service. A total of 995 of the original vehicles have been rebuilt to the AAV-7A1 standard, joining 403 new production units. LVTP-7s also serve with the naval infantry of Argentina, Brazil, Italy, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, and Venezuela.
The AAV-7 is a huge box of welded aluminum alloy, slightly pointy at one end, 26 ft/7.9 m long, 10 ft, 9 in./3.3 m wide, and 10 ft, 3 in./3.1 m high at the deck. Its EAAK armored version weighs 46,314 lb/21,052 kg empty. There is a lumpy weapons station/turret to starboard and smaller lumps for the platoon sergeant"s and driver"s hatches to port. Marines enter or exit through an enormous hydraulic-powered ramp at the stern, or through a small hinged door in the ramp itself. The accommodations inside can only be described as "austere," with a row of seats along each wall and a removable bench in the middle. The 400-hp c.u.mmins diesel engine is mounted in the right front, where the ma.s.sive engine block provides some measure of protection to the crew compartment behind it. The Marines who ride it like to complain about the ventilation system, which seems to suck the exhaust fumes directly into the crew compartment. Diesel fumes may smell awful, but diesel fuel is much less explosive than gasoline if your vehicle is. .h.i.t. The same basic engine is used in the Army"s M2/3 Bradley armored infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). The tracks on each side run over six road wheels, each with a torsion-bar suspension system. In the water, the vehicle is propelled by twin jet-pumps which draw water from above each track and spew it out at a rate of 14,000 gallons/53,000 liters per minute. Steering deflectors on the jet pumps allow the vehicle to turn completely around in its own length.
It was originally intended that the powered one-man turret would carry a German-designed 20mm automatic cannon and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. But this proved impractical and the production turret carried the cla.s.sic and reliable M2 .50-caliber heavy machine gun, with a simple reticle gunsight. A thousand rounds of belted ammunition are stowed in two-hundred-round cans which can be reloaded internally. The improved turret of the LVTP-7A1 is powered by an electric motor rather than a hydraulic drive, and supplements the M2 machine gun with a stubby 40mm Mk. 19 automatic grenade launcher with ninety-six belted rounds as the basic load. Eight externally mounted smoke-grenade launchers can deploy a dense white obscuring cloud over a wide arc in a matter of seconds. A switch on the driver"s panel can also be activated to dump raw fuel into the engine exhaust manifold, which generates dark obscuring smoke, at the cost of very high fuel consumption.
On land, the AAV-7 can reach a maximum speed of 45 mph/72 kph. It can climb a 3-ft/.9-m vertical obstacle or cross a trench 8 ft/2.4 m wide. In addition, it can climb an astonishing 60% grade and negotiate a 40% slide-slope without tipping over. At 25 mph/40 kph, the maximum endurance is 300 mi/483 km. The driver has an AN/VVS-2 night-vision device, an electro-optical image intensifier, or "starlight scope," that amplifies even the weakest light. On water, the maximum speed is rated as 8 mph/13 kph, but this a.s.sumes a calm sea. The AAV-7 is not, however, limited to placid waters; it can operate in higher sea and surf conditions than any other landing craft used in the world"s amphibious forces. Theoretically, the AAV-7 can cruise for up to seven hours at 6 mph/9.6 kph, but Marine doctrine, based on considerations of fatigue, control, and navigation, prescribes a run-in to the beach of no more than an hour. An efficient bilge pump serves to keep the crew compartment dry, even in rough seas. Standard navigation equipment is limited to a crude magnetic compa.s.s, but today many vehicles have a GPS receiver added to their equipment fit.
In an a.s.sault from the sea, Marine platoons will typically embark on their AAV-7s inside the docking well of amphibious transport such as an LPD, LHD, or LSD. The transport will then flood its ballast tanks and open the stern gate, creating a gentle incline for the amtracs to crawl down into the water. They then turn on their water jets and head for the beach. The goal of the amtrac unit is to deliver its pa.s.sengers safely as close as possible to the objective, where they will dismount and secure the area. The amtracs might then return to their mother ship to pick up a second wave of Marines, or a load of supplies--up to five tons of food, ammunition, and equipment. Note that the amtrac with its driver and gunner "belong" to an amphibious tractor battalion, while the pa.s.sengers will generally be an embarked Marine infantry platoon belonging to a rifle company. During Desert Storm, most Marine platoons stayed with the same amtrac for the four days of the ground war, using them just like conventional armored personnel carriers.
On dry land, the AAV-7 has severe tactical shortcomings, mostly because of its large size and limited armor protection (in Kuwait, the amtracs were supported by LAVs and main battle tanks). By itself, the AAV-7 is terribly vulnerable to enemy anti-armor weapons, since its thin aluminum armor was designed only to keep out small-arms fire and sh.e.l.l fragments. A bolt-on Enhanced Applique Armor Kit (EAAK) has been developed, which adds several thousand pounds of weight, but defeats the Soviet KPV 14.5mm armor-piercing machine gun, which is carried by many threat helicopters, light armored vehicles, and heavy weapon teams. One of the greatest threats to the crew of an armored vehicle is fire resulting from the penetration of a rocket-propelled grenade or anti-tank guided weapon. The amtrac now carries an automatic fire-suppression system, which combines super-fast-acting infrared sensors with quick-discharge bottles of Halon, an inert gas that snuffs out the fire before the fire can snuff out the crew. In practice, combat vehicles usually spend much of their time in battle with the engine idling, to keep the batteries charged and the radio operating while they wait for orders. The standard vehicle has three secure voice radios; but a special command version has six VHF, one UHF, and one HF set, plus a ten-station intercom system. Very soon, it will be fitted with the new SINCGARS-series radios, which will greatly improve the range and quality of communications for the big craft. As currently planned, the fleet of AAV-7s will have to serve about another fifteen years until the arrival of the new Advanced Amphibious a.s.sault Vehicle, which is currently under development. Until roughly 2006, they will have to hold the line, and continue doing their uncomfortable, dangerous job.
The Future: The Advanced Amphibious a.s.sault Vehicle (AAAV) A quiet little program run out of an office building in Arlington, Virginia, will provide a replacement for the long-serving AAV-7s. The Advanced Amphibious a.s.sault Vehicle (AAAV) is going to be the world"s most advanced armored fighting vehicle, with capabilities previously undreamed of by Marines, or by soldiers of any nation. Our story begins back in the late 1970s when the Marines began to reevaluate their doctrine for forced entry amphibious operations. Ever since "Brute" Krulak took the first unit of amphibious tractors out on their evaluation trials, higher speed through the water has been a desired goal. There even was a stillborn program, the Landing Vehicle a.s.sault (LVA) back in the 1970s, that was designed to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, the technology to achieve the lofty requirements of the LVA specification simply was not there, and the program was terminated in 1979.
[image]
An Advanced Amphibious a.s.sault Vehicle (AAAV) prototype during high-speed water trials. Production AAAVs will be able to transit over 25 nm/48 km fully loaded through heavy seas in less than an hour.
UNITED DEFENSE.
Now, you did not need to have a Ph.D. in Systems Engineering back then to figure out that the nature of naval warfare was changing. These changes, though, did not invalidate the high-speed amphibious tractor requirement. On the contrary, it was being rapidly confirmed by current events. One look at any one of a dozen trade publications would have shown you the variety of weapons and systems being developed to attack surface vessels from ships, subs, planes, and sh.o.r.e bases. In short, the closer an amphibious task force approached an enemy sh.o.r.e, the more dangerous it was getting. Take, for example, the British experience in the Falklands War of 1982: In less than a month of amphibious and support operations, the Royal Navy lost two destroyers, two frigates, a pair of landing ships, and a container ship to Argentine air and missile attacks. Several times this number were damaged. The lessons were made clear for the whole world to see: Put yourself within visual range of a hostile sh.o.r.e, and you"ll get shot with weapons that will likely hit you and hurt you.
If the Falklands experience was bad, everyone who dealt with such matters knew that the future was going to be worse. They knew that within a few years, you would need to stand away from an enemy sh.o.r.e and deliver your forces from a long distance if your large amphibious forces were to survive. Thus, the Marines and Navy began to develop new ships and delivery systems that would allow a greater standoff from the sh.o.r.eline during amphibious operations. The Marines" part in this revolution in amphibious warfare doctrine is centered around three systems. The first of these was the LCAC, which allowed the amphibs to stand over 50 nm/91 km from the sh.o.r.eline. Following the LCAC will be the MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor transport aircraft, which is designed to replace the CH-46E Sea Knight. With greater speed, range, and payload (by roughly 300%) than the Sea Knight, it allows a ship like the Wasp (LHD-1) to stand over 200 nm/366 km offsh.o.r.e and still put its cargo ash.o.r.e in about an hour. The final system designed to exploit standoff from the beach will be the AAAV.
The AAAV is designed to move at speeds over 25 kn/45 kph, so that the ship that launches it can stand over the visual horizon from the beach. And that"s very good. But more important, the AAAV is going to be the finest armored IFV ever built, better even than the Army"s M2/3 Bradley fighting vehicle. This is a tall claim for a system that has just had its prime contractor (General Dynamics, Land Systems) selected, but you have to understand the Marine Corps" approach to a design problem like this one to appreciate why. To repeat something I"ve said before: The technology base of the Marines is very narrow and specifically tailored to the missions of the Corps. Well, the technology elements of the AAAV fall into just that category, which means that the Corps has invested much of its hard-fought research and development (R&D) budget in the AAAV effort. Now, you might ask what it takes to give a high-performance IFV the characteristics of a high-speed powerboat. Well, the following is a list of some of the systems that had to be developed to make the AAAV possible: * High-Speed Hull-- High-Speed Hull--Over a series of fifteen years, a series of high-speed-planing-hull designs has been developed to test the feasibility of the AAAV concept. Through the use of three subscale test models (built by AAI Corporation), a basic design utilizing a retractable bow flap, which acts like a surfboard, has been settled upon as the basis for the AAAV design. Called "Skimming Bricks," they are providing a solid database of experience with which to develop the AAAV hull.* Dual Mode Propulsion System Dual Mode Propulsion System--The AAAV will be equipped with an incredible 2,600-hp MTU/Detroit Diesel turbocharged diesel engine. Sealed as a self-contained power unit, it will last up to nine years, and only require an oil change every two years! Working through an automatic transmission, it will drive a pair of powerful 23-in./60-cm-diameter water jets, which will drive it through the water at speed approaching 43 mph/70.5 kph in calm seastates. The propulsion system is so powerful that the twin sets of impeller blades will puree a four-inch-by-four-inch log without a blink. Once it approaches to within a few hundred yards/meters of the beach, the track system will take over, still pushing the AAAV through the surf at around 8 mph/13 kph. Once on dry land, the AAAV will have better mobility than an M 1 Abrams tank, while only using about 800 hp from the engine.* Retractable Track System-- Retractable Track System--If the AAAV is to obtain high speeds through the water, the track system must be shrouded from the water flow under the vehicle. To this end, the AAAV"s track system retracts into the vehicle, and is dropped when it approaches the beach. All of this takes place in just under twenty seconds. Once on dry land, it utilizes the same kind of hydropneumatic suspension system as the M1, which will give it excellent mobility.* Armor Protection System--The armor-protection system of the AAAV will likely take advantage of the advanced composite armor development being done by United Defense. This will allow the relatively large (27 ft/8.2 m long, 12 ft/3.7 m wide, and 10 ft/3 m tall) AAAV to weigh in at only thirty to thirty-six tons, yet still have better protection than the M2/3A3 variant of the Bradley IFV. In addition, there appears to be some effort to reduce the acoustic, infrared, visual, and possibly even radar signatures of the AAAV.* Vehicle Electronics System-- Vehicle Electronics System--Like the M1A2 Abrams and M2/3A3 Bradley, the AAAV will be equipped to operate on the planned digital battlefield of the 21st century. This will include second-generation FLIR viewer systems for the driver and gunner/commander. In addition, the AAAV will be equipped with the same kind of vehicle electronics as the M1A2 and MZ/3A3, including a digital data bus with onboard diagnostics, GPS tied to a moving map display, a combat identification system to avoid fratricide, and a digital data link fed through three of the new SINCGARS jam-resistant radios. All of this will be controlled by a vehicle software package that will be composed of between 300,000 and 500,000 lines of Ada code, over a Mil. STD-1553 data bus. The driver will even control the throttle, steering, and brakes through a computer, what the Marines call a "drive-by-wire" system!* Armament Package Armament Package - While this particular item is still being decided upon, current planning has the AAAV equipped with an M242 25mm Bushmaster cannon and a 7.62mm machine gun, like those on the M2/3 Bradley and the LAV-25. There had been plans to perhaps arm the new amtrac with a special 35mm cannon firing time-fused ammunition, but this will probably not happen. But it may carry a twin launcher for the new fire-and-forget Javelin anti-armor missile, if all goes well. All of the AAAV"s armament will be usable both in the water and on dry land, and is designed to provide it with the firepower to survive and overmatch other armored vehicles on the battlefield. - While this particular item is still being decided upon, current planning has the AAAV equipped with an M242 25mm Bushmaster cannon and a 7.62mm machine gun, like those on the M2/3 Bradley and the LAV-25. There had been plans to perhaps arm the new amtrac with a special 35mm cannon firing time-fused ammunition, but this will probably not happen. But it may carry a twin launcher for the new fire-and-forget Javelin anti-armor missile, if all goes well. All of the AAAV"s armament will be usable both in the water and on dry land, and is designed to provide it with the firepower to survive and overmatch other armored vehicles on the battlefield.* Payload/Range-- Payload/Range--Each AAAV will be capable of transporting a thirteen-man rifle squad and a heavy weapons team--about eighteen personnel plus the three-man crew. Given this load, the AAAV will be capable of swimming up to 65 nm/120 km, or traveling up to 300 mi/483 km on dry land. A normal mission configuration would have the vehicle swimming in from about 25 nm/46 km offsh.o.r.e, moving about 100 mi/161 km to and from the objective, and then swimming back to the mother ship. The minimum high water speed will be 25 mph/40.2 kph, and maximum 43 mph/69.2 km. All of this in seas up to 10 ft/3 m. In the event an AAAV is overturned, it is capable of righting itself automatically in up to Seastate 5.* Production Variants-- Production Variants--Current USMC plans call for a total of 1,013 AAAVs to be produced by 2012, the planned termination date of the contract. Of these, there will be 948 transport versions, and 75 configured as mobile command posts. Planned IOC will be in 2006, and the 1,013 AAAVs will replace a force of 1,323 LVTP-7/AAV-7 amtracs. There will not be a recovery version, since it is planned that other cha.s.sis (the M88 carried for the M1A1s) can do double duty for this job. Unit cost has yet to be fixed, but will likely be between $2 and $4 million a copy (comparable to the cost of a new M1A2 MBT). Hard work is being done to drive this cost down.
It is likely that the AAAV will be the last armored vehicle procured by the Marine Corps in the foreseeable future. It therefore must be able to survive and dominate its chosen battles.p.a.ce for most of the first half of the 21st century. It is an ambitious program, though all of the technologies are well proven and understood by all of those involved.
Transportation While Marine units are anything but "heavy" where vehicles are concerned, they still require their share of trucks and other transportation a.s.sets to keep themselves supplied and mobile. For this reason, the Corps has carefully selected a few varieties of transport vehicles to support their expeditionary units, and is generally quite happy with them. A proper complement of transport vehicles is vital for a unit like a MEU (SOC), since there is only so much room aboard its amphibious ships to stow its gear. In fact, while you will find about thirty armored vehicles in such a unit, it will have over one hundred trucks of different types, including those mounting machine guns, mortars, and missiles. Here are the most important of these:
AM General M998 High-Mobility Medium Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) The vast majority of vehicles in the Army and Marine Corps today derive from the cla.s.sic M998 High-Mobility Medium Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). Like the Army, the Corps has embraced the "Hummer," and it has performed n.o.bly in a vast variety of tasks. Produced for over a decade by AM General of South Bend, Indiana, the HMMWV is used for everything from ambulance duty to air defense. Powered by a diesel V-8 engine, it is practically indestructible and can climb anything that a member of any military force in the world might want to take and hold. Today, the Marine Corps" buy of Hummers is pretty much complete, though there will probably be additional buys in the 21st Century as older models wear out. As it is, the M998s that the Marines use are being heavily used, and will probably require a mid-life service life-extension program (SLEP) sometime in the next ten years or so. In the short term, if a Marine offers you a ride, expect it to be in an HMMWV
M923 5-Ton Truck No implement of war seems less glamorous than the 5-ton truck, but none is more vital, or causes more sleepless nights for the commander. During World War II, the rapid advance of General Eisenhower"s armored spearheads was only made possible by a stream of rugged, reliable GM 4X6 trucks. Today"s 5-ton trucks are very similar to that 1940s-era design, except that diesel engines replace the old gasoline models. Unfortunately, today"s 5-ton trucks are also very old. To put it simply, the Marines" truck fleet is worn out and undersized. With 8,300 vehicles in inventory, you might think there are plenty of trucks to go around, but large numbers of them are tied up on maritime prepositioning ships, in depots, and in support of fixed bases in the rear.
A Marine Logistics Vehicle System (LVS) transporter truck on maneuvers in Norway in 1994.
OFFICIAL U.S. NAVY PHOTO.
[image]
The term "5-ton" describes the nominal cargo capacity, not the empty weight of the vehicle, which is 21,600 1b/9,800 kg. The 5-ton is 25.6 ft/7.8 m long and 8.1 ft/2.5 m wide, and has three axles. The two rear axles are powered and have twin tires on each side, which are tied to a five-speed automatic transmission. The engine is a six-cylinder in-line, liquid-cooled diesel of 250 hp, and the fuel tanks hold 81 gal/306 L, sufficient to take the truck 350 mi/560 km down the highway. The 24-volt electrical system is sufficient to power a radio when one is fitted, and many are also equipped with SLGR GPS receivers. Engineer units are equipped with dump truck and wrecker models, which are subject to particularly severe wear and tear. A major rebuild and SLEP are currently under way to keep the Corps" truck fleet rolling into the 21st century.
Logistics Vehicle System (LVS) In the category of cross-country heavy military trucks, the Oshkosh Corporation of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, despite stingy and uncertain budgets and extremely stringent requirements, has engineered a line of world-cla.s.s vehicles. For the Corps, Oshkosh has adapted the Army"s HEMTT family of ten-ton 8x8 trucks to produce a transporter good enough for Marines. Known as the Logistics Vehicle System (LVS), it provides the heavy lift capability for expeditionary Marine units. The LVS consists of two units, a standard Mk 48 Front Power Unit (FPU), and a variety of specialized trailers or Rear Power Units (RPUs). The FPU can be attached to any RPU through an articulation joint to produce a flexible 8x8 vehicle. The FPU has a 445-hp liquid-cooled, turbocharged diesel engine. The s.p.a.cious and fully enclosed cab seats two drivers and provides exceptional visibility. The FPU is 8 ft/2.4 m wide and 8.5 ft/2.6 m high at the roofline, and weighs 12.65 tons/11,470 kg unloaded.
[image]
A pair of Marine AV-8B Harrier II Plus"s from VMA-542 at MCAS Cherry Point, N.C., on a training mission over the Atlantic. These aircraft are equipped with APG-65 radars so that they can employ the AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile.
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS.
The LVS is equipped with a four-speed automatic transmission, and the vehicle can ford water up to 5 ft/1.53 m deep without special preparations. The fuel tanks hold 150 gal/568 L, providing a nominal range of 450 mi/725 km. The RPUs include cargo trailer, wrecker, crane, and ribbon-bridge variants. The LVS family of vehicles are a critical link in the supply chain that moves bulk fuel, ammunition, and supplies from the beachhead or landing area to the forward combat elements of the landing force. The Marine Corps operates 1,584 of these useful transports, a.s.signed to special combat service support motor transport units. A deployed MEU (SOC) would normally have at least two of these trucks, a.s.signed as diesel fuel carriers.
Marine Corps Aviation Marine aviation has always had two goals. The first is to support Marines on the ground, and the second is to remain expeditionary, which is another word for mobile and deployable. Today, the Corps deploys one of the most unusual and focused air forces in the world. Its aircraft have been specially selected to support the Marine mission, and this has put the Marines frequently at odds with the leadership of both the nation and the other services. In these conflicts, the Marines have usually won out in the end. In the 1970s, the Administration of President Jimmy Carter killed--several times in fact--the AV-8B Harrier II and CH-53E Super Stallion programs, claiming that they were not necessary or useful. Luckily, the Corps has an awesome Congressional lobby, and was able to sustain the programs until the coming of the 1980s and President Ronald W. Reagan. Today the Marines are winning another battle with the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor medium transport aircraft, which then-Secretary of Defense d.i.c.k Cheney actually canceled back in 1989. No matter how you look at it, when Marines see something they really want, they will do what is necessary to get it.
McDonnell Douglas/British Aeros.p.a.ce AV-8B Harrier II Harriers are a species of marsh hawk native to the British Isles that preys on rodents and small reptiles. Not a bad description of the tactical role of this unique British-designed and internationally built aircraft that is now in service with the U.S. Marine Corps. In the 1950s, Sir Sidney Camm of the Hawker Aircraft Company (already a well-respected British aircraft designer) began sketching ideas for a jet plane capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). The British Government, believing that guided missiles would soon make the manned fighter aircraft obsolete, showed little interest; but the company invested its own funds to build a prototype, the P.1127, which made its first flight on November 19th, 1960, after a series of tethered hovering tests.
Over the years, designers and engineers have proposed many bizarre solutions to the VTOL problem, but the P.1127 used one of the oddest solutions yet, and it proved to be a winner. The key is the Pegasus engine (designed by Dr. Stanley Hooker of the Bristol-Siddeley Engine Company), a turbofan without a tailpipe. The jet exhaust is vented through an array of four nozzles that swivel through an angle of more than 90deg. The concept is called "vectored thrust." Point the nozzles straight down, and the plane goes straight up. Point the nozzles aft and the plane zooms off into level flight. To land, reverse the sequence. Sir Sidney observed that, kinetically speaking, it was easier to stop and then land than to land and then try to stop. He was right. Tactically, a VTOL aircraft does not require a ten-thousand foot concrete runway; it can operate from a parking lot, a clearing in the woods, or even a tennis court (if you take down the net). During the Cold War on NATO"s Central Front, a Soviet surprise attack might have knocked out most of the concrete runways on Day One, but a force of VTOL fighters, well dispersed and hidden, could have carried on the fight, waging a kind of aerial guerrilla warfare.
The test successes of the P.1127 led to an order in the early 1960s from the Ministry of Aviation for an evaluation unit of nine improved aircraft, under the type designation Kestrel FGA.1 (Fighter, Ground Attack). Pilots from the Royal Air Force (RAF), the U.S. Navy and Air Force (six were shipped to the Navy"s flight test center at Patuxent River, Maryland, for evaluation), and the new West German Luftwaffe were invited to test-fly the Kestrel. In February 1965, the RAF ordered the first pre-production batch of VTOL fighters, under the name Harrier, and on August 31st, 1965, the new aircraft made its first flight. (Hawker Siddeley was eventually merged into British Aeros.p.a.ce, while Rolls-Royce took over Pegasus engine production.) For U.S. naval aviators, wedded to their big deck aircraft carriers, the poky little Harrier (no radar, no afterburner, and look at that cramped c.o.c.kpit!) was unimpressive in comparison with their mighty new supersonic McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs. But for USMC pilots, traditionally committed to delivering close air support that flies really, really close, it was love at first sight. There is a legendary story of how two Marine officers quietly went to the 1969 Paris Air Show (with the backing of the Corps leadership), walked up to the British Aeros.p.a.ce chalet, and told the British representative, "We"re here to fly the Harrier!" The rest is history. With the enthusiastic support of the Commandant, the Marines used their considerable political clout to win budget approval for the purchase of a dozen Harriers, modified to carry the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, and designated AV-8A. By 1977, the force had grown to a total of 110 Harriers, including eight TAV-8A two-seat trainers, equipping four attack squadrons of Marine Air Group (MAG) 32 based at Cherry Point, North Carolina (VMA-223, VMA-231, VMA-542, and VMAT-203). In 1972, the first Harrier detachment went to sea, aboard the USS Guam Guam (LPH-7), and proved highly effective. Unfortunately, by 1985, one trainer and 52 single-seaters had been lost in accidents. Like so many early jet designs, the early Harriers were harshly unforgiving of pilot error, especially during the critical transition between vertical and horizontal flight. (LPH-7), and proved highly effective. Unfortunately, by 1985, one trainer and 52 single-seaters had been lost in accidents. Like so many early jet designs, the early Harriers were harshly unforgiving of pilot error, especially during the critical transition between vertical and horizontal flight.
One of the lessons learned from the early Harriers was that vertical takeoff was usually both wasteful and unnecessary. A short horizontal takeoff roll saved a great deal of fuel, made it possible to carry a greater payload, and greatly eased the tricky transition from vertical to horizontal flight. In military organizations, every new concept generates a new acronym; hence STOVL, "Short Takeoff, Vertical Landing." For their second-generation Sea Harriers, the British further refined this technique with the development of the "ski jump." Providing an inclined ramp at the bow of a ship, or the end of an expeditionary airfield, gave the aircraft an extra "kick" at the moment of takeoff, and placed it in a safer nose-high att.i.tude in the event of an engine flameout. During the South Atlantic war of 1982, both RAF Harriers and Royal Navy Sea Harriers proved the validity of the concept under difficult combat conditions. Suddenly, the Harrier had become a war-winner. Spain and India ordered various models of Harrier to operate off their small forces of aircraft carriers, and the little aircraft began to develop an international following.
[image]
A Marine AV-8B Harrier II of VMA-231, a.s.signed to HMM-264, sits on the deck of the USS Wasp Wasp (LHD-1). Six of these birds from MCAS Cherry Point, N.C., were a.s.signed to the air component of the 26th MEU (SOC) for their 1995/96 cruise. (LHD-1). Six of these birds from MCAS Cherry Point, N.C., were a.s.signed to the air component of the 26th MEU (SOC) for their 1995/96 cruise.
JOHN D. GRESHAM.
In U.S. naval aviation circles, where doctrine prohibits using the word "small" in the same sentence with "aircraft carrier," the Harrier was regarded as an aberration; and the Marines had to fight a series of bitter budget battles during the late 70s and early 80s to keep the program alive. But they did more than that. In cooperation with British Aeros.p.a.ce, McDonnell Douglas proposed an improved "big wing" version of the Harrier, the AV-8B, Harrier II, which entered service in 1984. The Marines originally hoped to procure 336 of these aircraft to equip every light attack squadron. But by the end of 1993, only some 276 were delivered, including 17 two-seat TAV-8B trainers. At the beginning of 1995, the Marine Harrier force, a small community of eight 20-plane squadrons, was evenly split between the East (Atlantic) and West (Pacific) Coasts. One squadron from Yuma has often been forward-deployed on rotation to Iwakuni, j.a.pan. Squadrons provide detachments of six aircraft for six-month deployments aboard amphibious ships around the world.
[image]
The key feature of the AV-8B is an advanced graphite-epoxy composite wing, with integral fuel tankage providing up to 100% greater range than the AV-8A. A built-in-air-refueling probe makes it possible to extend the range even further. The larger wing provides six hard-points, rather than the four on the AV-8A, a 50% increase in armament options. The engine intakes and nozzles were redesigned to reduce drag, and an automatic stability-augmentation system was provided, with small "puffer" jets at the nose, tail, and wingtips, using high-pressure bleed air from the engine. The landing gear is unusual, with a steerable nosewheel and twin-wheel main gear retracting into the fuselage; spindly outriggers at half-span on the wings retract rearward, where the wheels dangle freely in the slipstream.
Visually, the Harrier"s most distinctive feature is the sharp angle at which the wings droop downward from root to tip; aeronautical engineers call this "anhedral." This helps to trap a cushion of air under the wing during VTOL operation. The wingspan is 30 ft, 4 in./9.25 m, small enough to fit on shipboard elevators without the added design complexity and weight penalty of folding wings. The Harrier"s length is 46 ft, 4 in./14.12 m, and the Harrier does not have (or need) a tailhook. Empty weight is only 13,086 1b/5,936 kg, compared with an F/A-18C fighterbomber, which tips the scales at 24,600 1b/11,182 kg empty! Maximum vertical takeoff weight is 18,930 lb/8,587 kg, while maximum horizontal takeoff weight is 31,000 1b/14,061 kg, showing the dramatic benefit of a short takeoff roll.
The heart of the Harrier is the Pegasus vectored thrust engine, which gives it such unique qualities. Over the years, the engineers at Rolls Royce have managed to tweak additional thrust out of the Pegasus engine through a series of incremental upgrades. These are shown in the table below: [image]
Maximum speed in a "clean" (without external stores) configuration at sea level is 661 mph/1,065 kph. A new bubble canopy greatly improves the pilot"s view to the sides and rear. The original twin 30mm ADEN-DEFA cannon (a joint British-French design from the late 1950s) in removable pods under the fuselage have been replaced by the awesome five-barrel rotary 25mm General Electric GAU-12, with the gun in one pod and a three hundred-round ammunition magazine in the other. There are six underwing hard-points, and one on the centerline. The four inboard hard-points have plumbing to accommodate 300-gal/1,135-L drop tanks; and for air-to-air missions up to four AIM-9 Sidewinder or AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles (AAMs) can be carried. With regards to air-to-ground ordnance, the following maximum loads can be carried along with the GAU-12 gun pods: * Up to sixteen Mk 82 500-1b/227-kg general-purpose or Mk 20 Rockeye cl.u.s.ter bombs. * Up to sixteen Mk 82 500-1b/227-kg general-purpose or Mk 20 Rockeye cl.u.s.ter bombs.* Up to six Mk 83 1,000-1b/454-kg general-purpose or CBU-87/89/97 cl.u.s.ter bombs.* Up to four 2.75-in./70mm Hydra 70 Rocket pods (each with ten unguided rockets).* Up to four AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles.
Accurate delivery of unguided and laser-guided weapons is ensured by the Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing Set (ARBS). In addition, an ALR-67 radar warning receiver and ALE-39 chaff/flare dispensers are fitted in the tail. In high-threat environments the centerline hard-point would be occupied by an ALQ- 164 or ALQ-167 defensive-electronics-countermeasures (ECM) pod.
As with so many other weapons systems, the 1991 Persian Gulf War gave the Marines and the Harrier II a chance to prove themselves in combat. Only seventeen days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, forty AV-8Bs of Marine Attack Squadrons VMA-311 and VMA-542 arrived at Sheikh Isa Air Base (also known as "Shakey"s Pizza") in Bahrain after a grueling trans-Atlantic flight. An additional twenty aircraft arrived with VMA-331 aboard the USS Na.s.sau Na.s.sau (LHA-4). And at the end of August 1990, VMA-311 moved up the Saudi coast to King Abdul Azziz Air Base. By late December, another squadron had arrived, VMA-231, flying eighteen thousand miles--more than halfway around the world--from Iwakuni, j.a.pan, across the Pacific, the United States, and the Atlantic. As the start of the air war approached, in order to get really close to the action, a forward operating location was established at Tanajib, a helicopter field only 40 mi/64 km south of the Saudi/Kuwait border. The narrow 6,000 ft/ 1,828-m runway provided s.p.a.ce for about a dozen Harriers at a time, but a good truck road allowed continuous delivery of fuel and ordnance. The Desert Storm air campaign plan envisioned holding the Harriers in reserve until they were needed for direct support of Marines in the ground war. But early on January 17th, 1991, Iraqi artillery batteries fired on Marine positions near the Saudi coastal town of Khafji, and the Harriers were called in to deal with the situation: (LHA-4). And at the end of August 1990, VMA-311 moved up the Saudi coast to King Abdul Azziz Air Base. By late December, another squadron had arrived, VMA-231, flying eighteen thousand miles--more than halfway around the world--from Iwakuni, j.a.pan, across the Pacific, the United States, and the Atlantic. As the start of the air war approached, in order to get really close to the action, a forward operating location was established at Tanajib, a helicopter field only 40 mi/64 km south of the Saudi/Kuwait border. The narrow 6,000 ft/ 1,828-m runway provided s.p.a.ce for about a dozen Harriers at a time, but a good truck road allowed continuous delivery of fuel and ordnance. The Desert Storm air campaign plan envisioned holding the Harriers in reserve until they were needed for direct support of Marines in the ground war. But early on January 17th, 1991, Iraqi artillery batteries fired on Marine positions near the Saudi coastal town of Khafji, and the Harriers were called in to deal with the situation: "We launched four aircraft. They made two pa.s.ses each, releasing the one-thousand-pound bombs right onto the artillery pieces themselves.
We watched the video of the sortie, and you could actually see the big 122mm guns going end over end as though they were toys."
--Lieutenant Colonel d.i.c.k White, USMC, VMA-311 You can appreciate the skill of the Marine pilots when you remember that these were unguided, "dumb"- bomb attacks. To avoid Iraqi SAMs and gunfire, Harriers tried to stay above 10,000 ft/3,048 m, making targets relatively difficult to spot. The typical attack profile was a 45deg jinking dive at 525-kt/960-kph airspeed, with bomb release at between 10,000 and 7,000 ft/3,048 and 2,134 m. Chaff would be dispensed on the way in to confuse enemy radar, and flares would be dropped on the way out to decoy heat-seeking SAMs. By the end of the war, Harriers were ranging up to 210 mi/338 km deep into Kuwait to find targets. Pairs of aircraft would attack from different directions, often relying on targeting information from a forward air controller in a low-flying Marine OV-10 Bronco or Navy/Marine F/A-18 Hornet.
[image]