via Breaking Defense.
With current technology, “a few good men” can get ashore from more than 65 miles out. That’s enough Marines to rescue some US citizens, reinforce an embassy, or hit a key target and get out, but not enough to seize and hold ground. It would be less an amphibious assault and “more of a raid,” King told me.I've tried to be diplomatic but that's not working so a little wall to wall counseling is in order.
Putting this first small force ashore doesn’t necessarily require blowing holes in the enemy’s layered defenses, just disrupting it at key times and places through stealth airstrikes or cyber attack. “[E.g.] for this eight-hour window, I can fly this route — I don’t need to keep it open all day, I need to create a window of opportunity to put that company ashore,” King said. “Once they’re ashore, they’ll wreak havoc.”
The force would probably a single company of a hundred-plus Marines slipping ashore from a boat or flying in on a V-22 aircraft. But while the Marines are developing “internally transportable vehicles” that can fit inside a V-22, most of the Marines in such a company-sized force would still have to walk, which limits both their maneuvers and their ability to carry heavy weapons.
“65 to 100 miles out….there’s no way we do an entire amphibious landing from that type of distance,” Brig. Gen. Mullen told the Sea-Air-Space conference when I raised the question. “It’s not possible, it’s not feasible, we can’t go do a build-up at an operationally relevant pace.”
What the fuck is HQMC and the little group of pussy generals thinking????
They keep talking about the anti-access threat. They continuously talk about ships being vulnerable to anti-ship missiles and act as if the MV-22 is bullet proof.
Its not.
Its vulnerable to small arms fire, RPGs, and Man Pads. If the enemy has the architecture to keep our ships at bay then it will also have the resources necessary to make MV-22 scrap metal.
THEY AREN'T THINKING ANYMORE. THEY'RE SIMPLY PUSHING BULLSHIT CONCEPTS.
We need new leadership to save the Marine Corps. Not from the enemy but from substandard leaders.
I think you're too quick to judge, you need to look at why they're doing it rather than just screaming on about why you don't like it. Area denial weapons are a game changer in this field, new missiles are becoming harder and harder to counter at longer ranges. It's suicidal to bring your assault ships as close in as they used to and the ability to deploy a company safely is better than being able to deploy a larger force but with a very high chance of multiple assault ships being sunk and 500+ marines being killed as well as the assault failing.
ReplyDeletefirst you son of a bitch understand this. my blog, my fucking rules. second, i've read it and it doesn't take me to "see what they're trying to do" to understand that this is a fucked up concept. third, air sea battle is designed to roll back anti-access systems. are you actually trying to tell me that the USMC is going to do a landing with those systems still up? are you trying to tell me that MV-22's will be able to land Marines with anti-access weapons still up?
ReplyDeleteyou're smoking crack.
kiss my ass, find a new blog to visit and don't come back here you stupid motherfucker.
Rather extreme response, I was just trying to explain the methodology behind it, but if you want me to be a patronizing arse then I will oblige...
ReplyDeleteI had assumed that you had read the article, or even the small extract posted on here although it seems that I was optimistic. This doctrine is for small scale raids where clearing a landing site would ruin the element of surprise or simply be too costly, it may also be used to put a small initial force ashore prior to a full scale landing. IT IS NOT a replacement of conventional landings except from in the context of amphibious raids, that is overwhelmingly clear from the article.
If you want to shout down anyone who tries to point anything out that doesn't fit your own view on the matter then I'll leave of my own accord, as entertaining as this is I won't make a habit of it.
bye bitch. i dont' need you to explain a fucking thing to me.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the problem with such a small group of Marines getting to land via MV-22. The problem is ONCE they are there. A few ITVs and everybody else on foot is not a very mobile unit. They will be outmatched by the sort of opponent that has the access to these high-end AShMs. If other larger Marine units with armor and artillery can't join them soon they'll be entrapped and destroyed. Yes some support can be provided from F-35Bs and in some cases AH-1Zs, but that simply may not be enough in many scenarios.
ReplyDeleteIt might work against SOME opponents if you could guarantee follow-on forces ashore within a certain period of time, if these company sized units were entirely motorized, and if USN aircraft and assets are supporting the operation too. The latter will be necessary to get those larger and better equipped follow-on forces ashore.
The CH-53K could carry some more useful vehicles for transportation or fire support, but the lower speed of those is a problem. In my opinion we'd have to wait for a next-generation tilt-rotor to carry the sort of vehicles necessary to make such a company sized fully motorized.