KAAV-II (Korean Amphibious Assault Vehicle)

GTX

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
15 April 2006
Messages
7,745
Reaction score
10,945
Website
beyondthesprues.com
jsport said:
Not withstanding the tragedy it is time for a collaborative Japan/South Korean/US vehicle development as a basis for allied pacific cooperation/integration.
Click to expand...
Maybe?

The JMSDF/Marines have a slightly different need for their vehicles, more assumed under "Disaster Response" and "recovery of a captured island" than the US equivalent.

And don't forget just how much really bad blood there still is left over from WW2.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
bad blood is slowly overcome and this would be a good venue.
Click to expand...
The blood between South Korea and Japan is still so bad that the last time a JMSDF ship was invited to dock at a Korean port, the Korean government demanded that the JMSDF ship not fly the Rising Sun.

You can't do that, that's a severe violation of the Laws of the Sea, because the Rising Sun is the Japanese naval ensign, the symbol of a warship under international law. A Warship not flying the owning country's naval ensign is the definition of a war crime.

The JMSDF said as much and didn't have their ship dock at a Korean port for that RIMPAC.



jsport said:
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/...uilds-amphibious-assault-vehicle-demonstrator
navyrecognition.com

Mitsubishi Tracked Amphibious vehicle MAST Asia 2017 Japan 11206171

MAST Asia 2017: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries unveils new tracked amphibious vehicle At MAST Asia 2017, the Defense Maritime/
navyrecognition.com navyrecognition.com

over coming corral reefs is a thing and the US has looked at
View: https://youtu.be/tT0AbGz3F3g
Click to expand...
Hrm. EFV but without a cannon turret.

Goes back to the disaster response primary mission of the JMSDF.
 
the recent camp david mtg hosted by the Admin between SK & Japan is to have jumpstarted increase cooperation and vehicle dev is great start.

The base veh whether civilian or military dosnt matter.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The blood between South Korea and Japan is still so bad that the last time a JMSDF ship was invited to dock at a Korean port, the Korean government demanded that the JMSDF ship not fly the Rising Sun.
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
Goes back to the disaster response primary mission of the JMSDF.
Click to expand...
An amphibious assault vehicle for disaster response??? The primary mission of the JMSDF being disaster response and not BMD??? Either way a turret is planned.
maav2.jpg

The US are also actively cooperating on the program and if the results are promising enough will buy some if results are promising enough. If not just stick to the ACV-30. Either way it's hardly some ultra specialized vehicle like you think it is. 163987514222160307594.jpg
 
Kota said:
An amphibious assault vehicle for disaster response??? The primary mission of the JMSDF being disaster response and not BMD??? Either way a turret is planned.
Click to expand...
Typhoons and tsunamis can easily destroy the port of an island.

Amtracks are designed to go ashore even when there's no functional port in place.

Helicopters are better for search and rescue, amtracks are better for hauling supplies in large quantities.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Typhoons and tsunamis can easily destroy the port of an island.

Amtracks are designed to go ashore even when there's no functional port in place.

Helicopters are better for search and rescue, amtracks are better for hauling supplies in large quantities.
Click to expand...
Amtracks have almost no space to haul anything. A helicopter can carry more and at a much higher rate especially considering one of Japan's most numerous helicopter is the CH-47 which can each lift up to 12t at 300kmh. I don't even think you could find enough space on an AAV to fit half that load and you would be moving it at 7kmh. If you really want to move supplies across water you can do it much more efficiently with LCACs, LCUs, LCMs. I don't see a single situation where it would be favorable to use these things as cargo vehicles.

These are amphibious assault vehicles with crew compartments, no dedicated cargo space, an autocannon, a 3000hp engine, a 46kmh top speed in water, a 40+ ton weight from the size and armor. I don't know how any of that screams "humanitarian cargo hauler" to you. Again, disaster relief is probably like 10th on the list of roles for the JMSDF, so the idea of replacing the AAV-7 with what you think is a glorified cargo hauler is pretty funny and even more so considering the US will potentially buy some.

Seriously just admit you were mistaken and everyone can move on, but I don't get why you are doubling down on this idea that the Mitsubishi amphibious ASSAULT vehicle is some humanitarian supply vehicle. The basis of your belief and argument was that it was unarmed, but it's already proven that this isn't the case, so why continue to try and argue it? maav1.jpg
 
Kota said:
Amtracks have almost no space to haul anything. A helicopter can carry more and at a much higher rate especially considering one of Japan's most numerous helicopter is the CH-47 which can each lift up to 12t at 300kmh. I don't even think you could find enough space on an AAV to fit half that load and you would be moving it at 7kmh. If you really want to move supplies across water you can do it much more efficiently with LCACs, LCUs, LCMs. I don't see a single situation where it would be favorable to use these things as cargo vehicles.

These are amphibious assault vehicles with crew compartments, no dedicated cargo space, an autocannon, a 3000hp engine, a 46kmh top speed in water, a 40+ ton weight from the size and armor. I don't know how any of that screams "humanitarian cargo hauler" to you. Again, disaster relief is probably like 10th on the list of roles for the JMSDF, so the idea of replacing the AAV-7 with what you think is a glorified cargo hauler is pretty funny and even more so considering the US will potentially buy some.

Seriously just admit you were mistaken and everyone can move on, but I don't get why you are doubling down on this idea that the Mitsubishi amphibious ASSAULT vehicle is some humanitarian supply vehicle. The basis of your belief and argument was that it was unarmed, but it's already proven that this isn't the case, so why continue to try and argue it
Click to expand...
Go read their mission statement.
 
Disaster response organizations don't normally plan for combined vertical envelopment-mechanized amphibious assault operations.

The US Navy is more of a international humanitarian relief organization than the SDF ever could be. It doesn't mean it plans in it in its procurement, although it would be a truer expression of what it does, in general.
 
Now, the JMSDF definitely does have a disaster mission, but that mission has also long been used as a justification or cover for general amphibious warfare capabilities (c.f. the Osumi class).

If they wanted a vehicle to do disaster relief, they'd get something like the LARC XV or equivalent (essentially a big amphibious truck). High-speed amtracks (with or without cannon) are definitely for doing assault landings. This is a relatively new mission to the SDF, with the initial decision to field such a capability in the early 2000s and the formation of an actual amphibious assault brigade in 2018.
 
How could you guys go so adrift from the topic of the thread (KAAV-II). Go make a separate thread, be it FAT-R thread or whatever to talk about the Japanese programme.
 
I find it so fascinating years after the usmc canceled the EFV both korea and japan are developing extremely similar vehicles, general dynamics must be so disappointed.
 
Cjc said:
I find it so fascinating years after the usmc canceled the EFV both korea and japan are developing extremely similar vehicles, general dynamics must be so disappointed.
Click to expand...
China, too.

Thing is, the EFV types don't get the big gray target/LHA/LPD out of reach of coastal AShM range. They don't really even reduce the vulnerability of the attacking force to ATGMs, as AAV7s are very low profile in the water and planing hulls are about as high profile as you can get.
 
Scott Kenny said:
China, too.

Thing is, the EFV types don't get the big gray target/LHA/LPD out of reach of coastal AShM range. They don't really even reduce the vulnerability of the attacking force to ATGMs, as AAV7s are very low profile in the water and planing hulls are about as high profile as you can get.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough if anyone was actually serious about naval landings then something like the ussr ampibius landing sub is probably the only way to get close to shore safety.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom