| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| Now that Gates cancelled the EFV, China has the best amphibeous vehicles |
| 2011-01-17 |
| Posted by:Frozen Al |
| #10 Don't forget JAPAN, whom currently is negotiating wid the US + considering not only "OFFENSIVE" COMBAT ROLES FOR THE JSDF, BUT ALSO TO PLACE SAME UNDER DIRECT US ANDOR UNO COMBAT COMMAND IN REGIONS + MILOPS OUTSIDE OF JAPAN + NE ASIA PROPER, besides also for natural Disasters + UN Peacekeeping. CHINA has repor claimed that it will NOT base any PLA Milfors in NORTH KOREA save under UNO = UNSC MANDATE. BE IT MIL "OFFENSE" OR MIL "DEFENSE" ROLES, ETC. CHINA = JAPAN = BOTH WANT THE UNO SEAL-OF-APPROVAL. * ION DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > NASA REVEALS [futurist]STRANGE BOMBER-LIKE PLANES OF 2015 | NASA UNVEILS EXTRAORDINARY DESIGNS FOR AIRCRAFT IN 2025. * travel at minima? 85% of Speed-of-Sound. * 7000-Mile Range. * 50,000-100,000 Payload. ------------ As for the EFVS + Amphib Warfare, pragmatically as long as most International Commerce is moved by OCEAN CARRIERS IN BULK, + as long as US NAVY "GATOR" AMPHIB TRANSPORTS [e.g. LDP, LHD] ARE NOT ASSIGNED TWO OR MORE DEDIC HEAVY-LIFT AIRCRAFT [Manned, UALV]AS PART OF THEIR SHIP'S AFLOAT DETACHMENT/ORGZ, THE NAVY WILL STILL NEED AAFV + LCAC, ETC. AMPHIB VEHICLES FOR A LONG WHILE TO COME YET. No way around it for the US Navy-DOD until NT provides a CHEAP, RELIABLE OR EFFEC LIFT SOLUTION. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-01-18 00:15 |
| #9 Gates is a US State Department and CIA invention purposefully designed to strangle DoD and harvest the defense budget. Both agencies are giving him very high marks and permitting him to speak internationally on matters of US foreign policy as well as intellgence. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-01-17 20:35 |
| #8 I'm going to go ahead and speculate that we're not anticipating the need for amphibious landings against a Chinese force. The obvious example, an invasion of Taiwan, would be a defensive battle, fought mostly by Taiwanese ground forces & a mix of American and Taiwanese air assets. If it became necessary for us to make a contested landing in that scenario, the situation would be pretty much irretrievable anyways. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2011-01-17 20:14 |
| #7 Cluster Munitions, save the big boys for the big ships? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-01-17 19:14 |
| #6 Hellfires and Javelins make excellent anti-amphib tractor weapons. Relatively cheap too. |
| Posted by: George Hupaviger4591 2011-01-17 18:19 |
| #5 I doubt the Chinese vehicles cost 25 million a piece, which probably makes them better than the EFV even if it weren't cancelled. I also notice that it's smaller. It may actually be cheaper than the anti-ship missiles the Taiwanese may be shooting at them in the event of an invasion. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-01-17 16:06 |
| #4 "I can dribble with my right hand and I can dribble with my left hand. I'm amphibious." Charles Shakelford |
| Posted by: Beavis 2011-01-17 16:04 |
| #3 I think that in order to talk about amphibious warfare, one should be able to spell amphibious first. |
| Posted by: gromky 2011-01-17 16:00 |
| #2 I've wondered about that. I'm guessing the Chinese want amphibious landing ships because of Taiwan, so they have a specific reason to build them. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-01-17 15:11 |
| #1 The question is, are those of any value in a modern combat scenario: how many times will we be making an amphib landing where the primary means will be AAV, and not LCAC (with LAV and Tanks) and heliborne insertions? If we have the kind of air superiority needed for an "Iwo" or "Normandy" style over the beach assault, then why not Heliborne putting ashore the initial infantry, then LCAC and other gator navy vessels to bring in better AFV than the EFV/AAV or their Chinese counterparts? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2011-01-17 14:21 |