I was reading an article by Chris Rawley over at Information Dissemination and I'm a bit confused. Read his article here. But he makes this statement...
In an hybrid warfare environment, a stateless enemy with only a handful of higher end, state-provided, sea denial capabilities such as anti-ship cruise missiles will likely choose his targets carefully to maximize impact at a minimal cost. A capital surface combatant off the coast makes a more tempting and high profile target than a larger number of smaller green water combatants.This leads me to my confusion.
1. Why would we build ships that are in other words designed to be lost...along with the crews...in order to preserve our capital ships...
2. How can the SecDef question the relevance of Amphibious Assault while at the same time pushing the concept of the building Littoral Combat Ships if amphibious assault can't occur because of anti-ship missiles, shore batteries etc???
This is almost idiotic!
Greg over at Defense Tech penned an article you can read here. In it he made this statement.
The proliferation of low-cost, precision anti-ship missiles into the arsenals of potential enemies means large deck amphibious ships are becoming “wasting assets.”
So amphibious assault doctrine is to operate 50 miles or more off shore and now the US Navy is designing a class of ships to push in closer??? We are actually embarking on a path where we will have 50 or more 600 million dollar a piece throw away ships to operate in hostile, congested waters with small crews and limited defensive countermeasures and its the path of the future?
Wow.
I DON'T GET IT!
