Friday, February 07, 2014

Modest Proposal. A short procurement time out.





Consider the following...

1.  The EFV highspeed requirement has been shelved.  At the time of the cancellation, General Dynamics offered the same vehicle without the "transforming" hydraulics.  The Marine Corps said no.

2.  The USS America was built without a well deck.  Soon after construction started the "ground side" of the Marine Corps all said at the same time WTF! and now we have the next vessel in cue being designed with a well deck.

3.  The MLP was petitioned for by the USMC to the Navy and once it was built, we have two of these ships immediately going to SOCOM to become AFSBs.  A Navy Admiral is quoted as saying that we'll have sailors figure out how we're going to use these ships.

The list goes on.

The problem?

The hoped for advances that Marine Corps theorist thought possible have not panned out.  Amphibious Assault from over the horizon (about 25 miles) is now just as risky as setting up within view of the beach.  As a matter of fact 200 nm offshore will still put you in range of some land based anti-ship missiles.

Buying gear without a plan is foolish. 

A short procurement timeout is necessary.  Maybe 6 months to review plans, and policies regarding how we approach amphibious warfare.  Additionally we can determine what the "real" numbers are when it comes to gear we end up buying.  Fewer squadrons?  Fewer F-35s.  Fewer Battalions?  Fewer MPCs and ACVs...etc.

Thats how the Marine Corps regains the trust of the nation.  By demonstrating that we are once again good stewards of the taxpayers dollar....as well as a kick ass military force.

26 comments :

  1. Sol, your claim that distance does not matter in the self-defense of the ARG strains credulity.

    Ship-to-shore distances:
    -12nm is current 'policy', even though only dictated due to a persistent lack of adequate numbers of heavy-lift Connectors, and has thus been de facto suicidal for a long time, i.e. not a realistic scenario any ARG-CO would have been able to follow.

    - OTH-50nm may be 'standard' in the near future, well out of reach by artillery, tank-gun, mortar, short-range missiles etc. But it does of course eliminate 'self-deployment' of any wheeled or tracked combat-vehicles

    - OTH-100nm, if doable with adequate numbers of heavy-lift fast Connectors, gives a lot of warning-time.

    Advanced LCU-types and typical LCACs can carry USMC-regular <$3 mill. ANQ-64-F1 3-D radar (40nm of range) to serve as 'trip-wire' for out-going cruise-missiles, along with on-board barrel- and tube-systems to attempt taking them out.

    And with increases in ship-to-shore distance, the number of shore-systems capable to target the ARG/MEU shrinks dramatically.

    So,
    - OTH-150 and
    - OTH-200 massively boosts the survivability of the ARG.

    Very few states would have any system of that range in numbers along shore adequate to launch against the ARG and its successive layers of LCU-x and LCAC-based defenses.

    This is just standard defensive posture at work, all COTS and currently doable without breaking any budgets. One burning LSD alone would nix any 'amphibious' anything instead.

    Serious self-defense by distance and layered defense is the tactically obvious and fiscally prudent approach.

    ReplyDelete
  2. rocket propelled artillery can reach out to 50nm now. future advances will take it to the 100nm mark EASILY! additionally land based drones equipped with hellfires will sink most connectors (they were designed to take out MBTs so punching holes in fancy boats won't be a problem)....so distance is no longer a protective barrier.

    railguns will make the issue almost mute and once lasers are properly weaponized we get the assault back on track. distance is not the solution to the problem. what the solution is, is simple. we must fight our way into the battle space. they did it in WW2 but with the "information" warriors they want to believe that they can avoid all the hard work by being out of reach.

    it don't work that way on land, won't work at sea and won't work in air. the fight is the fight. you can't change it because you want to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, you are proposing to go from 6knots AAV-7 'invading' from at most 12nm out, in one amazing leap all the way to ray- and rail-guns ??

      If we had those ray-gun ("I-Guns"?), I'd have one on each Connector to fry any drone before it can engage its cloaking-device...while throwing out enough smoke to 'dumb-down' any laser.

      And being quite mobile on the water and not restricted to some 'road' or near none of topographic constraints, I'd watch that rail-gun plant heavy inert metal plugs amongst the lobsters down to, say, 10 fathoms. May go back for recycling, depending upon the alloy used...

      For the next 10-20 years however, from what new text of strategy and tactics would we draw on to forward this New Amphibious Assault Doctrine in which for neither Marines nor Sailors physical distance never again is any part of layered tactical maneuvering, offensive and defensive ?

      Delete
    2. you're being a jackass. i stated clearly that the "distance" solution that you sought is already a false dream. i CORRECTLY pointed out that howitzers can reach 50 miles right now with rocket assisted shells. i CORRECTLY pointed out that greater distances are already being pursued as we speak and that soon 100 mile shells will be in service.

      so your distance solution is a lie.

      additionally (and here's where you're especially being a jackass) that railguns are under development.

      i CORRECTLY pointed out that you're going to have to fight your way to the beach and then on to the objective. you can't just hover over the horizon and solve the problem. additionally you can develop whatever ship to shore connector you want and its still a vulnerable transport.

      nuff said.

      Delete
    3. So, how will you get to the beach and beyond ?

      Delete
    4. you're going to have to roll back enemy defenses, you're going to have stage raids and if you're going after a port then you're going to have to launch continuous air and naval guns on the enemy locations and then get your infantry onto the needed facilities as quick as possible and buildup rapidly.

      the more they want to move away from Iwo Jima, in reality the more we're moving right back to it.

      Delete
    5. Since you keep dwelling on how from zilch to 200nm+ any ARG is de facto 'toast', then
      - where would any MEU be,
      - any MARSOC element,
      - any 'fighters' to do anything ?

      With what will you "roll back" these fearsome invincible enemies and their rail- and ray-guns ?

      Are you claiming that beyond HA/DR-missions, Marines are impotent without a CSG and massive land-attach measures ?
      So much for doing anything when and where necessary 'in time'.
      So much for doing anything by surprise.
      So much for doing things by stealth and deception.

      No-Can-Do without an opening-salvo of Daisy-Cutter and de facto tac-nukes ?
      Plus endless air-support dodging rail- and ray-guns...

      Not promising at all, Sol.

      Delete
    6. Once more, Sol, how do you get to the shore - and from where ??

      Delete
    7. how do you debate a point when one side has the solution already lined up and is only trying to get the conditions set to meet their desired outcome?

      if it is something less than an amphibious assault then you won't have the massive A2/AD then the MEU is fully capable of doing the tasks assigned to it. same with even the MEB or the SPMAGTF....

      so once again. your argument is false.

      Delete
    8. "Massive A2/AD" would be a few folks on Enduros with RPGs, mortars, sniper-rifles, 'networked' - all well organized because between visuals, noise, IR, radio-plumes etc. you announced your intentions with by coming in so close to shore to leave any uncertainty 'over-the-horizon'.

      No D-Day re-enactments with inferior 'business-models' to be lined up !

      But right now, you can't plant a full MEU on dry ground without a great deal of uncertain luck, absurd risks, and the flamingly implausible assumption that nobody local see you coming in s many ways because of your 'in-your-face' zero-stealth signature fog-horned and fire-worked all over the intended theater to awaken the last Miracle Ear to the obvious.

      Good thing that sensible folks within USN and USMC would not let anyone indulge in that tragic error.

      Delete
    9. so sats, uavs, recon flights and ground recon is something we don't know how to do anymore?

      Delete
    10. Sats, uavs, recon flights and ground recon can't find every asymmetric warrior 'embedded' wherever they choose. And then they take those enduros...and go to work.

      Between your claims of full shore-defense control of coastal waters out to 200nm, and those ubiquitous rail- and ray-guns, you still have not pointed out so far how you'd get any force ashore beyond the inflatable-&-outboard approach.
      What will haul your big-wheeled APC to shore ?

      Delete
  3. We also have to build a force where we are not totally afraid to take losses. We do our best, but war attrition does happen. We can't build a billion dollar cacoon around every single soldier, sailor, marine and airman. Right now DOD is in a pattern (with too few exceptions) of looking at the most expensive, gold-plated solution and picking it. Even better if it is overly complex. As an aside, remember that there are mine threats too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And where would the USMC try to land with this kind of landing force? The Diaoyu Islands? the islands aren't even large enough to put 1,000 soldiers there. Taiwan? Taiwan is a lost cause if it comes to USMC having to plan a landing.

    The only realistic landing scenarios are the landing of Pyongyang and the landing near North Korea's nuclear weapons depot, which are indeed being drilled every year, but those operations assumes the Korean Navy providing landing ships.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the entire S. Korean Marine Corps might make up a Regiment of US Marines...might. as far as landing craft are concerned, you don't have enough to take care of your own forces much less provide us with any.

      understand something. when i talk about the USMC, its with the understanding that there isn't another Marine Corps on this planet...no, in this galaxy that has the same capabilities. it isn't a matter of others catching up, they can't because the US invests too much into the Marine Corps to make that possible.

      quite honestly the USMC with assistance of the Navy can defeat most forces on this planet. realize this. the USMC is larger than the British Army and Royal Marines combined. you could combine all the forces of Italy and alone the USMC would be larger.

      you could do the same comparisons with Spain, the Netherlands etc...

      so understand that i'm talking about something that few understand. keeping the best fighting organization on this planet at the distant front of the pack.

      Delete
    2. It seems that this Site has been hacked by 'Doves' spreading subversive stuff...

      Delete
    3. Solomon,

      How are the Futenma marines supposed to do their stated job of stealing North Korean nuclear warheads during the opening hours of a war if all their equipment must be delivered by shipping from Japan? The answer is they can't and they won't. The plan was always to airlift the Futenma personnel to Korea, then hitch a ride onboard ROKN landing ships. And indeed, USN landing ships, be it LHD or LPD, never showed up in annual landing drills in Korea, just thousands of airlifted USMC marines from Futenma.

      And the "most forces" that landing USMC troops are able to defeat alone don't include the PLA troops occupying Taiwan and the North Korean troops guarding Pyongyang and nuclear weapons depots, where the USMC landing force would be outnumbered 20:1.

      Other than the operations involving in North Korea, there are no military operations around the world that would require a large scale USMC landing. Seriously, the USMC won't land in Taiwan to recover it from China once the PLA has occupied Taiwan. That would be the end of story.

      Accordingly, the USMC landing capability should be cut back to pay for the forces needed to carry out the AirSea battle; more bombers, more carriers, more cruise missiles, and more submarines, not more landing ships and amphibious landing vehicles when a landing on a Chinese occupied territory is not possible.

      Remember, the money is tight and what little is available should be used to develop capabilities to carry out the AirSea battle plan, not on a large landing fleet.

      Delete
    4. two points.

      1. The Marines at Futenma don't have a mission to "steal" N. Koreas nuclear weapons. That is a fact. Trust me, I know.

      2. Cutting back the USMC? wishful thinking cowboy. America loves her Marines. many have tried and all have failed.

      3. AirSea Battle includes amphibious warfare.

      Sorry. You lose.

      Delete
    5. 1. Then why would Futenma marines drill for the seizure of North Korean nuke depot landing in Korea each year, in fact right now? That's exactly Futenma marine officials were telling to Japanese and Korean press until now. http://jsw.newpacificinstitute.org/?p=164 Okinawans know this story too well because they have been asking for the very reason the Futenma base exists in Okinawa, and the North Korean nuke seizure was the answer that Okinawans got for years, although the answer may now include the Diaoyu recovery as well now that China wants a showdown soon.

      2. I am not talking about cutting back the USMC, rather a cutback on the landing fleet(LPD, EFV types in particular). Almost all landings save for the landings at Diaoyu Islands and in North Korea will be peaceful. The Diaoyu recovery landing won't involve more than 2,000 troops tops(and only 1,000 can stay afterward), and like in Korean landings Japan will provide most of landing fleet support, so the US doesn't need a large landing fleet in Japan either.

      3. That's just a minor component, like the Diaoyu landing.

      Delete
    6. SLOWMAN!!!!

      you have a better view of the US military than most. so you know that our Special Operations would be tasked with getting those nukes. more than likely a combined Ranger/MARSOC action with a few battalions of Marines providing security while they fought their way down the tunnels.

      but more specifically i was stationed on Okinawa and never once did we practice, wargame or even contemplate doing that mission. hell, we can't even get Regiment, or Division to take seriously a wargamed port seizure mission, how would they react to a nuclear seizure mission? wait. what am i talking about. nuke seizure they'd be all over but one of the bread and butter Marine missions not so much.

      and about cutting the landing force. why? you're going to do more missions with Marine than without. the shipping is needed. desperately needed.

      Delete
    7. I was going to say....I was stationed in Okinawa for over 8 years and 2 with the shipsin Sasebo. Never once did the Marines from Futenma practice this what you are saying. Why? Futnema Marines are Air Wingers! They are mechs and air frames types....not infantry.

      Slowman, you ever been there? I had a pretty good grasp on the exercise scenarios that dealt with Korea and China, not to mention war plans...

      Delete
  5. There is no point in trying to land in Taiwan to recover it from the PLA; the US must defeat the PLA landing force at sea and in air via the AirSea Battle.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/09/us-taiwan-china-idUSBRE99809020131009


    Taiwan says China could launch successful invasion by 2020

    TAIPEI Wed Oct 9, 2013 5:10am EDT

    (Reuters) - China will be able to fend off U.S. forces and successfully invade Taiwan by 2020, the island's Defense Ministry said on Wednesday, the first time Taipei has given such a precise timetable for the threat it says it faces.

    In its annual national defense report, Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense cited a number of ways China will likely enhance its military might aimed at Taiwan, including honing its ability to coordinate a landing on the island and deploying anti-aircraft missiles in the Taiwan Strait.

    China has been rapidly modernizing its sea and air forces as well as missile capabilities, according to the report, so that it will be able to prevent intervention from other nations that would come to Taiwan's defense - a reference to the United States, which is treaty bound to come to the island's aid.

    "In the future, the Chinese military will continue focusing on further integration of its military units, with the expectation that it will be able to resist foreign forces' intervention in any attack on Taiwan," the report said.

    "Over the long-term, it will be wholly sufficient to engage in a war over Taiwan by 2020."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. defending Taiwan is a fools errand. you can look on a map and see how crazy any ideas of outside help arriving in time to defend it actually are. you're talking about minutes worth of flight time and just a bit longer by sea.

      the Taiwanese must repel any Chinese assault on their own. they're technologically capable and can be expected to hold out.

      but more importantly they have to get their act together as a country. large parts of the population are favoring reunification so the need to decide what they're going to do.

      Delete
    2. Has anyone else figured out how Sol gets to any shore ?

      Delete
    3. And how can anyone speculate today where and how any future conflict would break out ?

      Usually, you'd want to be prepared for 'everything'. And there is plenty of shoreline, estuaries, rivers in places where things can hit the fan.
      That means light forces and heavy armor, surface-born and helo-delivered etc.
      No argument.

      Most folks will have to come by boat...

      Delete
    4. Solomon

      Taiwanese can't repel the PLA landing force on its own, they would be outnumbered 20:1. CCTV actually aired a drama on Invasion of Taiwan, describing how the PLA would take over Taiwan prior to the presidential election, in order to sway the Taiwanese voters to not vote for a pro-Independence candidate. Remember, Taiwan's KMT are the ones who were defeated by Mao's Red Army back in 1948, and the situations haven't improved since.

      So telling Taiwanese that they are on their own is like signing Taiwan's death warrant.

      So here are the facts on USMC landing warfare.

      1. There aren't hardly any places in the world where the USMC needs to carry out a full-blown landing operation. In most situations, the USMC would be able to simply dock at ports and land in airports without firing a single shot.

      2. Where the USMC is expected to face a full blown landing operation like in North Korea or at the Diaoyu Islands, the allies would provide the majority of landing fleet support, reducing the USN's needs to maintain its own landing fleet strength.

      3. Because money is tight, what little funding is available for new weapons acquisition should be spent on buying weapons needed to stop the PLA at sea and in air, not to land in a PLA occupied territory.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.