 |
| The picture shows a scene of the armored vehicles in loading and sailing training. A troop unit under the Nanjing Military Area Command (MAC) of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) organized armored vehicles to conduct loading and sailing training in strange waters on April 13, 2014 in a bid to improve troops' comprehensive combat capability. (Chinamil.com.cn/ Xu Xiaojun) |
Yeah.
Those 100 Marines in the Company Landing Team are going to create havoc when facing this type of opposition. Sarcasm off. I find it interesting that the USMC is throwing away concepts that it has perfected while the rest of the world seeks to gain those capabilities.
When everyone is thinking the same (as in EF21) then no one in that group is thinking.
EF21 is a sad joke that must not be allowed to develop into a flawed doctrine.
That computer rendered pic you published a few days back with the all ships said a lot to me. LCACs, MV22s, and helicopters and not one conventional LC. The stupid thing is the tech is out there and proven to build cheap fast LC. Yet they don't feature in the USMC's future.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't find it funny if the bunfight in the South China Sea was lost by our side because the Chinese had just built lots of LST and LCT and beached them.
you get it! EF21 is designed to fight terrorists. it might be good in Africa (MAYBE...just MAYBE) but it will be useless elsewhere. additionally i thought we were suppose to be pivoting to the Pacific? this won't work there at all and allies and enemies are trying to get US capabilities while we're throwing them away.
ReplyDeleteAmos got a chance to work with SOCOM on the small wars journal and left infatuated with their concept of operations.
the problem?
SOCOM is basically useless in a conventional fight, they require too much support and they can be used in only a few mission sets.
SOCOM is not a swiss army knife. so why are we trying to duplicate them?
with everyone talking about landing crafts and amphibs......take a look at their tanks. Those are the Type99 MBT's...the very latest in what china has to offer their forces. And just a while back we saw pics of their Z-10 attack chopper trying to land on a ship landing pad. I think that the Type99 would be more than a match for the Abrams verion which the USMC are fielding, as would the Z-10 against the Viper.
DeleteThose are NOT Type 99, they are Type 96 and not very good. I don't think Type 99 can fit in these landing crafts.
DeleteThanks for the correction. By the way, do the chinese have plans to equip their amphib forces with the Type99, the MBT not the Medium/Light tank ?
DeleteThe ships pictured do represent a gap in Navy/Marine capability it would seem. Some Frank S Besson Class and LCU 2000's with updated engines, some armor and a few good offensive and defensive weapons systems could fit nicely. They could drive all the way up to the beach or with the right ramps stop a few miles short and launch multiple AAV's or MPC's. Many of these smaller ships rolling in closer than one or two big amphips could get, then deploying many more smaller vehicles, the closer we get the smaller the targets get and the more of them their are for the enemy to try and target. Sad that the Army has these ships and the Navy doesn't. The cost of a couple f35's could build a fleet of them probably.
ReplyDeleteWith "Besson" and "LCU-2000" churning across the mighty waters at a max speed of 12kts, we'd just send the adversary a memo to please wait a bit, possibly air-drop them a grill, some burgers and buns, a beer-making set-up perhaps and tell them we'll show up.. a few weeks from...
DeleteAre you guys trying to redefine 'expeditionary force' according to the ancient principles of the honorable Chinese war-theoretician Slo-Mo-Shun,..?
..almost forgot.
DeleteFirst the post on Russian LSTs and now the Chinese LST, both so obliviously fooling around waving their 'landing-maneuvers' Handbook, while a pimple-faced bunch of 13-year old hoodlum-girls on 125cc strokers could take each and every one these 'eyes' out - and make off cackling as the rearward-facing helmet-cam record that rising orange-glow ready to upload to YouTube under 'Turkeys - Shot'...
Surely though that is why conventional craft would work for the US because you should, on paper, have enough firepower to sweep the beach first? Though ideally the idea behind of such a good amphibious capability is to be able to land (more or less) at the point of your own choosing.
DeleteYou are right about the LSV and Runnymeade's. But as I said above the tech' is out there.
The Russian's had problem with this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyugon-class_landing_craft
but I don't think there is anything to major to be solved. We Brits have PASCAT, the French are deploying L-CAT.
The other failing is greater organic firepower. Look at this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lublin-class_minelayer-landing_ship
What the US wants is a cheaper frigate with a 5in at A and B. Your LPDs need a 5in. Back in the day even LKA had guns. Modern PGM are long range. Your amphibious group would be operating in waters protected by CBG.
And finally Sol's favourite topic a simple AAv replacement with greater firepower. The US put a man on the moon and yet they don't seem to be able to build a new LVT(A)?
http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/usa/lvta4_fedet1.jpg
I think the US can. I just think too many in the US defence establishment are interested in planes.
And finally what is wrong with firepower supplied by the trusted and proven AH?
It is all do-able. And that is what's so sad.
"Though ideally the idea behind of such a good amphibious capability is to be able to land (more or less) at the point of your own choosing."
DeleteI should have gone to say "where enemy resistance would be at its weakest."
Steve,
Deletethis whole thing has to do with a concept that has been ruled dead and now they're trying to shoehorn the old concept with a few sprinkles of new stuff to make it work.
quite simply you have sea basing, operational maneuver from the sea and ship to shore objective all conflicting with air sea battle.
the Navy and Air Force are charging toward the threat and making plans on rolling back anti-access systems, meanwhile you're having the USMC saying that we don't need you to roll back the systems we can make a forcible landing anyway...even though ANTI-AIR SYSTEMS ARE PART OF ANTI-ACCESS SYSTEMS!!!!
Broadly my point was that the US has such depth in all aspects of warfighting that sanitizing the sea and destroying in detail any opposition shoreside before a landing shouldn't be too problematic in theory. The US seems now more interested in toys than basic firepower is a concern. And then that a landing of even brigade size should be a formality. But again instead of toys like MV22 and F35b it should concentrate on simpler technologies such as (fast) LC and guns en masse leveraged even more with new technology like PGM. How many (fast) LC or conventional helicopters could be bought for the cost of one MV22? How many 5in mounts for the cost of one F35b? And how many PGM could be bought for the cost of another F35b? (Surely a FJ like F35b belongs in a proper carrier and not cluttering the decks of the gator navy?)
DeleteAre those Landing Craft that are carried in a something like a LPD or are they tiny LSTs? I cannot figure that out.
ReplyDeletei think and i'm not sure, but i think they're mini LSTs. that type of ship is real popular in the region. and like you already know the Russians are real big with the concept too.
Delete