And yes, I'll say it, the EFV sure would be useful in the type of amphibious raid scenario we see in Libya where we do not want under any circumstances to have US Marines on land for longer than a single day at a time. The ability to rapidly move a Marine Rifle Company to shore from sea at sunset, roll into the city, blow up enemy equipment in an urban environment (hiding by a hospital, for example), hit a FARP, attack another couple targets, then pull back out to sea before daylight... EFV sure would be useful. I am not convinced the AAVs can do that, and if you send M1A1s and LAVs, you are staying longer than a single night because you can't get them on and off the shore fast enough.Let me just add this. It seems like our past is our future. During the 1930's the US Marines were involved in a series of small wars. While Afghanistan and Iraq don't qualify...conflicts like Libya do. These are the types of missions that the Marine Corps is expert at...these are the missions that will be our nations future.
UPDATE:
Galrahn also makes this tantalizing and fierce statement...
It is a true lack of respect for Europe how almost everyone interviewed on cable TV describes the European military capabilities as the punchline of a joke.Its not just me (talking to my readers in Europe). There is a feeling in the US amongst 'talking head' military experts that Europe is not adequately pulling its weight in even this limited war.
If Europe (as a whole) is going to take its proper place in the world then it might be time (especially in light of the Dutch and UK military cutbacks) for you to fully integrate your military forces.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteif you just want to blow things up,you don't need marines on shore to do that,send an aircraft.
Ground forces are essential for seizing and maintaining ground control,either temporarily or long term.
The only scenarios I can think of where I would want to put marines ashore for a single night would be rescues,evacuations or to capture someone/something.
This quite a big subject and hard to explain in a short reply but I think increasing surface landing capacity is the way to go,not making floating tanks.
On the other hand,it will take 40 years to replace the current amphibious fleet with new ships.
So I can see why the marines might want something to tide them over until then.
It is a shame the U.S.Navy did not stump up the £65 Million to buy Largs Bay,she would have made a fine experimental "Heavy Landing Ship".
Just put davits on the flight deck to carry 8 more L.C.U Mk.10s (4 each side).
Then see how fast you can offload the ship with 9 L.C.Us serving 1 docking well.
Unlike the current way of doing things that approach means you don't have to trade landing craft capacity against payload.
GrandLogistics.
GL you are right on all accounts. A fast "assault swimmer" may be a technological feat which is a Bridge Too Far?
ReplyDeleteThe USN is full devoted to exquisite amphibs which will not all be IOC until about 2020.
I had 24 LCVPs in four davits on Francis Marion. The USN has given up on that tried and true system. As have they stopped sideloading or even lifting pontoon systems
You have pointed to one of several disadvantages to wet well dock, simply put the USN amphibs have NO Plan B. And the dirty little secret is there are NOT enough landing craft "spots".
I think there is a vast difference in the scale of a naval raid and a full blown amphibious assault. Therefore I see the vessels & vehicles requird as basically different.
ReplyDeleteI question the assumption that a naval raid in the modern era would need an "assault swimmer" vehicle in the mode of an EFV. (Man will that get some reactions?!)
The Libya scenario (whether it is wise on not, the assumptin was - no BOG) does NOT require an EFV type vehicle, nor as discssesd in the rest of the article does an EFV type vehicle provide credible firepower for NGFS.
I think many are over valuing the EFV? It is at its core an AIFV which goes fast in the water, is it not? Will the Marines' ACV of the future also try to accomplish that and cost millions in the process? Yes.
I am NOT questioning the need for assaults from the sea ONLY the method they are conducted and more specifically the vessels and vehicles they use.