I've already thrown away 3 posts on this and I'm still struggling to properly verbalize it but WTF...here goes.
The USMC is in a doctrinal black hole.
Marine Corps thinkers back during the late 80's and 90's looked at the world and came up with concepts that would allow the Marine Corps to fight and win on the battlefields of the 2000-2020 time period.
This thinking produced Sea Basing, Operational Maneuver From the Sea, Ship to Objective Maneuver and Distributed Operations (both on land and with mini MEU's made by sending individual ships to perform missions and then have them reunite).
Designed for the 2000-2020 time period this was ground breaking, paradigm shifting work. It was revolutionary.
Marine Corps procurement was based around this thinking. The problem? Instead of taking 4 or 5 years to get the designs ironed out it stretched to 5, 10, 15...even 20 years!
The protracted development time required by the EFV/ACV, MV-22 and F-35 has done more than caused a procurement train wreck. Its left Marine Corps doctrine in tatters. Where once we had systems that operated beyond the reach of threat weapons, we now are solidly vulnerable to them.
Heard of the S-400/500? Its an anti-air weapon that can reach out to 600 km. Hovering at a distance of 65 miles from shore means that MV-22 and F-35 not to mention AH-1Z and UH-1Y can be shot down as they're leaving the deck.
Heard of the P-700 and 800? Those are anti-ship missiles that can reach out over 300 km from shore (further if air launched). What does that mean? It means that the sea base itself is vulnerable to attack.
Even if the MV-22 dodges the long range anti-air missiles they still have to deal with Manpads at the landing zones.
LCUs, LCACs, JHSVs etc...are all much more vulnerable to enemy fire than swimming armor. Add trophy type systems to those vehicles and they become even more formidable.
But the point isn't to praise the AAV type vehicle and curse other forms of getting to the beach...the point is that this concept is putting all the Marine Corps eggs in the aviation basket and in doing so is creating an unbalanced force that will be easily defeated and incapable of matching even a moderately capable force.
The USMC is in a doctrinal black hole.
Marine Corps thinkers back during the late 80's and 90's looked at the world and came up with concepts that would allow the Marine Corps to fight and win on the battlefields of the 2000-2020 time period.
This thinking produced Sea Basing, Operational Maneuver From the Sea, Ship to Objective Maneuver and Distributed Operations (both on land and with mini MEU's made by sending individual ships to perform missions and then have them reunite).
Designed for the 2000-2020 time period this was ground breaking, paradigm shifting work. It was revolutionary.
Marine Corps procurement was based around this thinking. The problem? Instead of taking 4 or 5 years to get the designs ironed out it stretched to 5, 10, 15...even 20 years!
The protracted development time required by the EFV/ACV, MV-22 and F-35 has done more than caused a procurement train wreck. Its left Marine Corps doctrine in tatters. Where once we had systems that operated beyond the reach of threat weapons, we now are solidly vulnerable to them.
Heard of the S-400/500? Its an anti-air weapon that can reach out to 600 km. Hovering at a distance of 65 miles from shore means that MV-22 and F-35 not to mention AH-1Z and UH-1Y can be shot down as they're leaving the deck.
Heard of the P-700 and 800? Those are anti-ship missiles that can reach out over 300 km from shore (further if air launched). What does that mean? It means that the sea base itself is vulnerable to attack.
Even if the MV-22 dodges the long range anti-air missiles they still have to deal with Manpads at the landing zones.
LCUs, LCACs, JHSVs etc...are all much more vulnerable to enemy fire than swimming armor. Add trophy type systems to those vehicles and they become even more formidable.
But the point isn't to praise the AAV type vehicle and curse other forms of getting to the beach...the point is that this concept is putting all the Marine Corps eggs in the aviation basket and in doing so is creating an unbalanced force that will be easily defeated and incapable of matching even a moderately capable force.
Good thing then that the LCU-F folks quoted 1500nm range at 19-20kts.
ReplyDeleteAnd an anti-ship missile with 300km/160nm of range should splash before reaching the OTH-200 mark that LCU-F offered as one option for any type of 'Seabase' in that article.
And who's actually got 160nm capable cruise-missiles ?
Then there is LCU-based intercept-options.. And...
Methinks we're all god.
India, Russia and China. expect more nations to get them especially once they read open source material on how the US is going to operate in the future.
Deletesidenote. i guess partnership missions are done for the Marine Corps. what allies will be able to operate with us if we pursue this? none. not even the brits will be capable of doing what the USMC is proposing.
Good thing we have relatively friendly relations with India.
DeleteAnd the Israelis have shown that it isn't too hard to obliterate ASMs in warehouses.
Also, the S-500 won't come online until 2020 or so at the earliest. The S-400 will not be exported before 2015.
Brits, NATO, Germany will have to step up to the plate and get serious about their understanding of Marines-type/amphibious assault missions and match that with acquisition-policies.
DeleteUK buying top-end SSNs, two CVs may want to set aside a bit for 21st-cventury amphibious operations beyond the modest, shrinking and 'in-full-view-from-shore operational ideas' that won't take any advanced cruise-missiles to shut down once and for all.
Germany is building political determination to be militarily more active internationally. A few 20,000tons LHDs (cum F-35Bs) would look good to begin to match aggressive global-trade posture as the per-capita mega-exporter.
Japan, S.Korea, Australia, Taiwan, perhaps even Philippines will figure matching hardware in response to USMC's new doctrine as a matter of perpetually 'friending' USA under the assumption of shared operational parameters to boost their own more modest capabilities.
Fiscal austerity near everywhere will have allied leaders look for commonalities in shared hardware and tactical approaches. Which should mean that US well-deck parameters and LCU-(x) parameters will be central guide-posts.
And if you can do 65nm, then you can do learn to do much more.
The new Doctrine is clearly a paradigm-shifter.
Solid de facto 21st-century global 'Marines'-defining legacy by the Commandant.
@David.
Deletethe Israelis are operating against incompetent opponents....additionally those opponents are involved in a civil war. don't compare the Israeli experience to what we might have to face.
@Twenty-Twenty. distance will never be an adequate defense. missiles will continue to evolve to reach further and get their faster. the only real solution is to roll back enemy defenses. that means more than the F-35 can provide. that means that the USMC needs to get serious about electronic warfare in the form of the EA-18G.
DeleteDistance is very much a central part of any defense and offense-approach.
Delete65nm helps a great deal against the vast majority of shore-defenses.
LCU-F offers Connector-function to beyond 200nm OTH.
And this along with other platforms would indeed leverage that distance to establish trip-wires and increasingly serious INTERCEPTOR CAPABILITY between shore and ARG/MEU assets.
There'd be enough 'juice' aboard every LCU(x) in the theater to warm up a laser to zap 'overhead' or nearby/sea-skimming ASMs.
Then there are very-fast missiles that can readily be integrated into any LCU-(x) defensive systems.
This just to get the conversation started, Sol...
Think aggressive defense-layering.
any missiles, guns etc you put on your LCU takes away from cargo getting to shore. but a bigger issue is staring you in the eye.
Deleteforget distance how about equipment fits...as in fleet forces.
DDG-1000. designed to provide fire support to Marines ashore. optimal distance? 12 miles. that provides a 50 mile arc inland.
LCS. designed to operate in the littoral zone.
Sea Basing. designed to operate 25 miles off shore.
LCAC. designed to operate no more than 25 miles off shore.
THE EQUIPMENT DOESN'T MATCH THIS FAIRYTALE. THE SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTORS ARE ALL MYTHS TO COVER THE BUY OF ADDITIONAL AIRCRAFT WITHOUT COMPLAINT!!!!!!!!
AMOS AND HIS CRONIES IN HQMC ARE MAKING AN ASS OF DEFENSE JOURNALIST, MILITARY THINK TANKS AND FAN BOYS. HE'S MAKING A USMC AIR FORCE. FUCK THE GROUND COMBAT ELEMENT, JUST THE WING. HIS SUPPLEMENTAL CALLS FOR 1.6BILLION FOR AVIATION READINESS AND MODERNIZATION. THE GCE? 74 MILLION.
NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!!
No !
DeleteI would propose to understand the new Doctrine as significantly rewriting the current 'close-inshore' dictates which are based on literal incapacity to do this in earnest..
Once via advanced fast heavy-lift Connectors you open up the aperture of analysis, things can be moved out to sea:
- You'll notice the cut-off for DDG-1000 at 3 units, which means technology-carriers versus tactical assets, which would never be where the 7 ARG/MEUs would find themselves. Emergencies do not wait for the DDG-1000 to eventually join the ARG.
- LCS would have a supportive role once the system-modules are fully-developed, such as for mine-countermeasures.
- Sea-Basing can be where ship-to-shore Logistics allow - therefore from the current 10-15nm to 65nm, then to, heck, 200nm, all very flexibly.
- LCAC/SSC are good for about 200nm of range, particularly if the heavy-weights like MBT ride in LCU-(x) which makes 65nm x2 for about 140nm roundtrip just fine and dandy.
With this paradigm-shift in the new Doctrine General Amos rewrites the book and moves USMC way upwards in relevance for the national command authority. And USN surely need that level of USMC-capability.
Where so far AAV-7 were to trundle at 6kts for 2hrs from the ARG/MEU parked in the adversaries front-yard at 8-12nm, now the new Doctrine pushes unambiguously back on the all too widespread claims by too many analysts that Amphibious Assault cannot be done anymore.
And stout reassertion of precious unique amphibious capabilities by the Commandant is in every Marines' interest.
GCE is not the issue. Getting it from ship to shore is the challenge he is taking on.
Listen to General Amos at WEST 2014 starting at 0:12:20 or so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHWy1LIYyjQ
Rewriting the future of the Marines towards unrivalled global amphibious reach is a mighty Legacy indeed !
As to the weight of guns/missiles/lasers aboard a displacement-speed LCU(x) everything but the laser is carried by AH-1.
DeleteAnd that laser-module now upon AFSB PONCE does not seem to bend any deck-beams either; a matter of time before things are down to a handy-package weighing together under 10-tons in total system weight. Some seem already below that.
No offense but I don't think anyone is going to be conducting a landing under a 300+ umbrella. Nor into a beach lined with naval radars queuing ASM.
ReplyDeleteThose evil F-35's , cruise missiles, etc.. will have to prep the area by suppressing/destroying those 300+ systems and the naval radars. Then and only then will marine landings be possible. ASM cannot self target at range so even if a few truck mounted missiles survive without the targeting radars they will be useless.
Your 300+ argument basically just reinforces your opponents views that without the F35 the rest of the marine kit is irrelevant in a near-pear conflict.
You'd aim ASMs at low-slung least-signature LCU-(x)s ready to return the favor ?
DeleteOnce the ARG-MEU is well OTH (Over-The-Horizon) up-front aggressive LCU(x)-based assets will shine, from anti-ASM-duty to physically depositing tracked and wheeled assets.|
As folks begin to work to this new(long-overdue) distance, a great deal of creativity will get harnessed within USMC and USN in terms of hardware and tactics.
@C-LOW. wrong. sea survelliance sats and UAVs help negate the targeting problem. additionally we're talking about supersonic approaching hypersonic missiles and thats the tech today. long story short if you're having to roll back enemy defenses then their is no need to launch at distance.
DeleteI was under the impression that the Marines were being equipped for invading countries that don't actually have sea surveillance satellites, nor that the ones that do exist can be used to guide missiles.
DeleteThe missiles you are talking about need radars to target them assuming that sats capable of targeting them are unavailable and that Ageis can handle UAVs. You need to destroy the radars and/or the missiles before a landing is safe, not doing so would be stupid, suppressing defenses been done at every landing since the war. Since naval artillery no longer has a range advantage over missiles you can't suppress defenses without jets and cruise missiles.
The thing is that while missiles are expensive and so are usually present in small numbers you can pick them out and disable them relatively easily, so there's no need to be 500km off shore before you go in, your big logistic ships are safe closer than that.
However pretty much every country in the world that the US may face has large numbers of large artillery pieces with relatively long ranges, their smaller size and larger numbers mean that cruise missiles and jets can't be relied upon to destroy all of them.
This is where 65km comes in. Since only a few shells could be catastrophic on an LPD or LPH and complete destruction of all artillery cannot be relied upon you don't risk your large ships within their range. 65 km is safe from most artillery so you leave your fleet there after you've wiped out all land based anti-ship missiles. There you should be safe from everything but attack by enemy aircraft but that's the responsibility of the navy's air defense destroyers.
You combined this with least-signature fast-heavy-lift LCU-(x) types as trip-wires and missile-defense carriers, the ARG MEU is quite well protected.
DeleteIt is 65nautical miles = 120 km, with that number likely to grow.
Two hours out in one of these.......
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyugon-class_landing_craft
Well, on DYUGON 2x 9000HP won't offer much range, with 2x 70 tons M1A1/2 already maxing these 140-tons carriers out - versus the claimed 3 MBTs at 200+tons.
DeleteAnd do we have any evidence that these will still get going to say 20kts with a full combat-load i.e. two M1A1s loaded aboard ?
The claims on DYOGON smell a bit odd.
Let's see them tested independently for
- hull carrying-capacity,
- range,
- loaded speed,
and most importantly
- how many will fit inside the 30+ fleet of US Amphibs.
It seems that they'd fail the test, particularly on the last count versus the LCU-F proposal for instance. Let's see...
Salomão:
ReplyDelete65 milhas fora da costa é bom se for num veleiro em férias!
Você parece um cara legal, gosto de ler o que escreve mas, de uns tempos pra cá, você só coloca “ataque, ataque, ataque”.
Será que não é um bom tempo de sentar na beira da rua, abrir uma cerveja e conversar com os vizinhos?
O mundo inteiro sabe que dólares são impressos sete dias por semana, durante 24 horas a cinco anos seguidos, ninguém aguenta mais sustentar vocês.
Aqui no Brasil já se fala em fazer “confetti” (papel picado redondo) com dólar no Carnaval de 2015!
Seu “papel-moeda” servirá apenas para isso.
Salomão, vou te contar uma coisa sobre voto que, você aí nos EUA não tem:
1- No Brasil o voto é OBRIGATÓRIO, quem não vota não pega empréstimo, não tira passaporte, não compra armas, todo cidadão entre 18 e 70 anos é obrigado a votar.
2- Aqui, você vota de Presidente a Prefeito diretamente no cara (Obama aqui não teria sido eleito de jeito nenhum, os “banksters” já sacaram isso, pode crer).
3- Sim, votamos em alguns ladrões mas, nada dá o direito de os tirar a força de armas visto que foram eleitos, a cada quatro anos podemos reverter a merda feita (vocês não);
4- Há propaganda eleitoral na TV mas, é distribuída de acordo com partidos, 5 minutos duas vezes por semana seis meses antes das eleições, uma hora por semana dissolvida quando próximo das eleições nas redes de TV abertas, se você é assinante de TV paga não há propaganda eleitoral Kkkkkkkkkkkkk!
5- Para votar, você entra numa escola só com as mãos, é como sacar dinheiro no banco, é só colocar o dedo, sua impressão digital está lá, é tudo informatizado.
Salomão, pense bem, quem é mais democrático, um país onde você vota diretamente no cara que vai te representar ou, um país onde você vota num cara que irá votar em outro que vai votar em outro?
Infelizmente o processo eleitoral nos EUA está andando de carroça enquanto o mundo está viajando a 1.666 Km/hora girando em torno de si mesmo.
Não quero de forma alguma denegrir seu jeito de viver mas, convenhamos, a Democracia exportada pelos EUA desde a IIWW matou mais gente que toda aquela guerra.
Voltando à Guerra, se realmente sua economia entrar em colapso, tomara que os soldados norte-americanos saibam nadar, é o único jeito de voltar para casa.
Salomão, se você tiver bom senso e conhecimento de Geografia, saberá que é mais saudável terminar os dias abaixo da Linha do Equador.
Bração aí.
Alexandre.
Sim,porque o Brasil é um paraiso...lol...o seu pais é dos mais corruptos do mundo e você vem para aqui dar lição de moral nos EUA...é de morrer a rir.
DeleteEstive nos Estados Unidos no ano passado...eles estão no mínimo 100 anos á frente do Brasil...
Systems like the S-400 and S-500 are still limited by the curvature of the earth. They aren't going to hit a helicopter at low altitude at such an absurd distance. The S-500 is also a strategic anti-ballistic missile system that has yet to be fielded or even shown. The S-400 is potent but it can be countered like any other SAM. The much discussed missile type with 400km range hasn't yet to be seen in the real world. Such a missile is designed to engage large targets like tankers or bombers.
ReplyDeleteSupersonic anti-ship missiles with such long ranges are nothing new. The Navy's AEGIS system was introduced and continually improved due to such threats. As was the case for the F-14 and upgraded variants of the E-2. The USN and the Soviet Union were always trying to counter the new systems the other was introducing. Luckily we never ended up in a war with the Soviets where we had to test all of this equipment and planning.
The whole "over the horizon" doctrine for amphibious assaults was based around the AAAV (later EFV), V-22, and LCAC. The distance between the shore would put their ships out of the way of mines and many land-based AShM platforms. Today there are more potent land-based AShMs on the market but a stand-off distance will still put you out of the range of many smaller types. Yet the USMC will require a lot of Navy support in order to make any sort of amphibious assault against a modern opponent a possibility.
The MV-22 and LCAC are here and working and can quickly bring troops and equipment to where the enemy isn't. Both of these systems can be improved upon but space and numbers are always limited by the number of amphibious warfare ships the USMC has to work with.
ACV raises a lot of questions. For the AAAV/EFV the USMC wanted a vehicle with room for a full marine squad plus a weapons or specialist team. 18 passengers was seen as the ideal target although at some point the requirement was reduced to 17. The need to get as many marines in a short amount of time means a larger vehicle is a more efficient use of the space the Marines have to work with on their limited number of sphibs. Yet such vehicles do have their disadvantages once on land and being used in a manner similar to APCs. The MPC was a response to this which would both supplement/replace the LAV and give the Marine Corps a more capable alternative to trucks and amtracks once on land. Considering all of the wars the USMC has fought where water has been of little concern this makes a lot of sense in my opinion.
The new incremental plan for the ACV is interesting because it could provide both capabilities. First a modern 8x8 wheeled armored fighting vehicle with limited amphibious capabilities. Then later a true successor to the AAV-7 family. Yet this order doesn't seem quite in line with the whole "Pacific pivot" talk.
Say what you want about the DDG-1000 but at least it provides some respectable naval gunfire out to 130km or so. Cruise missiles can't be used on everything.
But define the threat for us. Who are we fighting and where is the fighting occurring?
TwentyTwenty what is this LCU-X you keep talking about. I'm not familiar with that program if it's official or is it an idea of someone's?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNuke,
DeleteStudy these, and you'll be up-to-speed:
- 1. http://hallman.nfshost.com/bolger/LCU-F.pdf
- 2. http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-21st-century-landing-craft.html
- 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHWy1LIYyjQ
Big question is now, when will what happen ?
Already very interesting as it stands.
If he is indeed in the process of
- boosting USMC's (USN's) Connector-numbers per ARG/MEU,
- significantly increasing individual Connector heavy-weight carrying-capacity,
- and then confirms unprecedented higher-speed Connector performance,
then Gen Amos may end up with indeed a major positive footprint in USMC-history, as these efforts could result in paradigm-shifting amphibious capabilities for the USMC-USN Team.
And never overlook 19-20kts per dusk-to-dawn cycle to equal up to an options-rich 220nm Amphib-to-Shore distance. OTH-200+ is thus conceivable. Now we may be on the way towards proving it. Heady stuff - potentially.
i'll do another post on ship to shore connectors. but i can tell you now that the questions will be are they survivable in a forcible entry situation and if we head this way can we afford them.
Deleteoh and don't get too fired up about Amos. none of this stuff will make it past the concept stage with the time he has left.
his indecision has guaranteed that he will be known as the worst Commandant of the modern era. the only thing he has his name on are social issues that most Marines don't like AND the F-35 that the majority of the Corps questions.
he ain't popular, he ain't like and little concept papers won't change that.
There has not been any indecision by Gen. Amos on LCU-F whatsoever.
DeleteIn this case he not only had his staff apparently go to serious length to explore LCU-F towards fully understanding her potential. But, as he stated in public on video, he is apparently putting money towards further R-&-D.
And since not everybody may have noticed what he has done there in February at WEST in San Diego:
- For the first time in ages (ever?), with his committing first funding-tranches for R-&-D, this USMC Commandant is pushing forward towards finding the most able Connector - typically the exclusive domain of the Navy !!
Since USMC-HQ has been aware of LCU-F since last summer, any decisions on MPV and AAV-7 successors are directly linked to the potential of LCU-F.
If LCU-F works as proposed, then serious savings can be had by going with a lower-cost limited water-crossings APC-type.
And that should match your concerns about the fiscal realities facing the Corps.
Finally, you go out and collect Marines that would not want something with the capabilities and further potential of anything like LCU-F !!
Which means that General Amos's successor will likely want to explore this opportunity further. No USMC-future without the most able Amphib-correct ship-to-shore solutions.
I'd reckon, you'd be celebrating Gen. Amos unarguably taking the initiative on Connectors.