Thanks for the link Alexander!!!
Check this out from War is Boring Blog...
* The Army has experience operating from Navy ships AND have the advantage of being able to source many of the same parts/mechanical expertise to service those aircraft because they're basically the same bird the Navy flies. If they're smart enough to avoid trying to push CH-47's onboard ship then this is a winning move.
* The Army is already joined at the hip with SOCOM through the Rangers, Special Forces, 160th and Delta. Some type of RIP program lite for Infantry Battalions that can function as exterior security/support for SOCOM will get them firmly in the door of being SOCOM's go to force for support.
* With a much more robust logistics capability than the Marine Corps, participation with the sea service is most desired. You can't get austere enough to be able to negate the need for robust logistics if you operate vehicles.
And there are many more points that I haven't pointed out. What should be noted is that this is to be expected. I don't know what Marine Corps leadership is thinking but attempting to edge the Army out of its mission sets is not the way to go.
This is actually brilliant. The Marine Corps Air Contingency Battalions will never be able to compete with the 82nd. The Army will prove that they're willing to get aboard any ship that the Navy can provide, and still do there traditional missions. In one quick swoop they've made a lie of the Marine General's requesting more amphibs and at the same time I've heard from reliable sources that Army quick reaction Brigades based around aviation and some type of air transportable armored vehicle are coming down the line.
We declared war with Expeditionary Force 21, but the US Army is about to fight back.
Check this out from War is Boring Blog...
Army helicopters flew practice missions from the USS Ponce, a sort of prototype sea base. Navy destroyers and patrol craft and Air Force bombers also participated.Read the entire article but consider...
Now the ground combat branch is rewriting the book on flying from ships—literally. The existing Army manual on the topic is almost 17 years old.
The Army is already applying what it learned. The service’s helicopters flew from Navy ships during exercises off Hawaii earlier this year.
This is important. Pundits have questioned the ground branch’s role in the Pentagon’s pivot toward the Pacific. The military’s new Air Sea Battle doctrine places heavy emphasis on ships and planes.
The Army clearly wants to be able to participate in these sort of “maritime contingency operations” on a regular basis in the future. The Army-Navy tag team could help the ground branch prove its worth at sea.
* The Army has experience operating from Navy ships AND have the advantage of being able to source many of the same parts/mechanical expertise to service those aircraft because they're basically the same bird the Navy flies. If they're smart enough to avoid trying to push CH-47's onboard ship then this is a winning move.
* The Army is already joined at the hip with SOCOM through the Rangers, Special Forces, 160th and Delta. Some type of RIP program lite for Infantry Battalions that can function as exterior security/support for SOCOM will get them firmly in the door of being SOCOM's go to force for support.
* With a much more robust logistics capability than the Marine Corps, participation with the sea service is most desired. You can't get austere enough to be able to negate the need for robust logistics if you operate vehicles.
And there are many more points that I haven't pointed out. What should be noted is that this is to be expected. I don't know what Marine Corps leadership is thinking but attempting to edge the Army out of its mission sets is not the way to go.
This is actually brilliant. The Marine Corps Air Contingency Battalions will never be able to compete with the 82nd. The Army will prove that they're willing to get aboard any ship that the Navy can provide, and still do there traditional missions. In one quick swoop they've made a lie of the Marine General's requesting more amphibs and at the same time I've heard from reliable sources that Army quick reaction Brigades based around aviation and some type of air transportable armored vehicle are coming down the line.
We declared war with Expeditionary Force 21, but the US Army is about to fight back.
The Army has always been flying from Navy ships during war. A side issue to this is Navy/USMC helos have salt-water specifications. Sail around with some types of Army helicopters on deck as a day-to-day practice and you will have corrosion problems. I don't have a problem with it really. There is enough work to go around. I think Operation:UPHOLD DEMOCRACY was a good example of using Army assets with Navy ships.
ReplyDeletei once thought that the lack of marinization with regards to Army helicopters would make it a deal breaker but somehow the Brits make it work, and besides, i see these more as temporary rotations that won't have them on ship long enough for serious damage to take place.
Deleteyou're right about it being a common thing but its always been don adhoc, not as part of official Army doctrine. that's whats changing.
the USMC fucked up this time. as many Soldiers have always said, the Army has a proud amphibious tradition too...they've damped it down because of roles and missions. with the Marine Corps crowding the Army, is it any wonder that they push back?
The latest RN PR/advert video on YouTube showed RM flying from Ocean in CH47. With Queen Elizabeth class CH47 capable I think this is a sign of things to come. Operating Ch47 and Apache from Ocean as a demonstration isn't the same as the UK deploying "land" helicopters from ships at the same frequency as the USN/USMC operates their navalised helicopters. On TD I speculated that the money spent on the Puma should have been spent lightly navalising the UK's new CH47. A good support capability but daily driver no way.
DeleteWhat I do find interesting is how redundant "armies" have become since the end of the Cold War. Armies only work when they sit at the end of a good logistical chain with the enemy just across the border. In the times of empire we had tiny packets of troops scattered here and there and then it was replaced with us sitting in Germany. You Americans had to have an army to police your two national borders and your "internal" frontier and then your had small colony phase (ie Philippines), and then with you sitting in Germany and Korea. All that over the last 20 years has unravelled. The threat can pop up anywhere and that means need for reach and more self sufficient logistics and that mean navies (and marines.) This has left land based air forces and armies scrambling for relevance and purpose. Even with the absence of peer naval threat the West's navies (and supporting sea soldiers) are relevant. Organisations are composed of humans so show human characteristics one of which is the need for self preservation. Man's life span is so short that it doesn't take long for us to regard an institution as a permanent feature of life and national fabric. Look at GB. We built an empire on diplomacy, commercial, and naval power. Yet stop the average Brit in the street and he will struggle to tell you what the navy is for, but will understand so he thinks the purpose of the army and airforce. The idea that we in the West should slowly wind up our armies and air forces and go back to a maritime based security model is beyond the ken simply because it is outside their experience and knowledge. All very fascinating. Human behavior is a never ending soucre of intrigue.
Steve, the purpose of an Army is two fold.
ReplyDelete1, prevent war.
2, failing purpose number 1, win on the field of battle.
Having an Army is like having a black belt in jiu jitsu. You make the cost of getting into a fight with you so high for the other guy that you don't have to fight at all.
With the American Model of Regional Combatant Commands, expect the US Army to continue to increase deployments for non-kinetic missions (training, assistance, etc) in support of diplomatic ends. Part of the goal in this is "relevant internationalism" where if something is going on in a country or region, we know some of the players in the game before things get out of hand. I've trained with Lebonese, Israeli, Turk, Greek, Slovenian, Congolese, and more South American military officers than I can count.
So think of the Army as not just a fighting force, but another tool of diplomacy.
Thanks. I hadn't realise any of that.
Deletethey are starting to station Army Apache units on Aircraft carriers in the gulf
ReplyDelete