In mathematics, the point at which everything changes is called the inflection point (that’s a very loose definition that I’m taking great liberties with). Amphibious assault doctrine is struggling to find its inflection point – the point or distance from shore at which an assault has a reasonable chance of success but beyond which, or nearer than, the assault will fail. Where is that optimum inflection point?A reader named Trons Away has had me spinning because this is the very issue we've been discussing, but to Navy Matters I simply say that he's short changing the Squids on this one.
The Navy would place it 50+ miles from shore – perhaps hundreds of miles.
The Marines would place it 25 miles or closer – the closer, the better; much, much closer being preferred.
Why would an assault fail if it is beyond the optimum inflection point? It would fail because the amphibious fleet lacks a ship-to-shore connector that can transport sufficient quantities of personnel and equipment in fighting condition to sustain an assault. The distance reduces the number of trips per day that the connector can make and, worse, renders the delivered Marines unfit for combat. The distance also invalidates Navy gun support. The standard 5” gun can’t even reach the shore from the distances the Navy wants to operate at.
Why would an assault fail if it is closer than the optimum inflection point? It would fail because the Navy’s ships can’t survive against land launched anti-ship cruise missiles at that range (that’s the Navy’s stated position not ComNavOps’ opinion).
The US Navy has been bending over backwards to accomodate the USMC.
Why do I say that???
Check this tick tock....
1. The Marine Corps wanted the Marine Landing Platform. The Navy got it. What happened? The Marine Corps isn't sure how they're going to use it and the majority of them will instead be used for Afloat Forward Staging Bases (AFSB) by SOCOM.
2. The USMC wanted improved LCACs. The Navy got them. What happened? The USMC is now saying that it needs a new generation with even greater range.
3. The USMC wanted dedicated gun ships to support landing ops. The Navy got them. What happened? The DDG-1000 is about to hit the water and now we hear that bigger guns with greater range is needed.
4. The USMC wanted an aviation dedicated LHA. The Navy got them. What happened? The USMC reversed itself and now says it wants well decks back on the America class LHAs!
5. The USMC screamed that small boat swarms are a danger. The Navy said ok. It developed the LCS and now we're watching it morph to handle additional missions and the costs balloon.
6. The USMC said it wanted out of the Riverine Mission. The Navy said ok, and it set up the NECC.
Additionally the Navy is working on several things to enable Marines to more easily assault a beach...Lasers, Rail Guns, UAVs (X-47), improvements to the Super Hornet, improvements to AEGIS, etc...
The Navy has been doing its work.
The problem is that the Marine Corps, once a decisive service that had solid concepts is now struggling mightily to come up with a plan of action for the future.
So while I admire the work that Navy Matters Blog does, on this one he gets it wrong. The problem isn't the Navy. The problem is a vacillating, indecisive, morally bankrupt, stick a finger in the wind, feminist, liberal leader in Marine Corps green that somehow kissed ass into the Commandant's chair called Amos. When Amos leaves you'll see this and other issues worked out.
Nothing better than an Inter-Service rivalry to spark up your day.
ReplyDeleteBut you do have to admit, it just sinks your heart and churns your stomach when you hear of a Navy ship go down and all those poor souls trapped in air bubbles or sealed cabins going down with the ship. Everyone knows that despite modern tech. underwater salvage and resuce is still to come to terms with large scale rescue in a short period of time.
When you see a situation like this, the Navy is fully justified in doing their best to avoid such shore based missiles.
quick. name the last US ship that was lost to enemy action. you have to go all the way back to the mayaguez incident.
Deletebefore that i think its some action in WW2. long story short the US Navy doesn't lose ships to enemy action in the modern era.
Exactly, Solomon. The US navy doesnt loose any ships. And at the back of the mind of every navy seaman, they must congratulate themselves everyday they dont loose a ship. And this record of not loosing any ships further sets and justifies in their mind the tactics and tech. used for achieving such a phenominal result.
DeleteI followed that link on the Navy Matters Blog and also followed another link in the article about the Risk Aversion in the US Navy. Believe me, the whole world knows that ever since the dawn of Armies and Conquests, no army has conquered and won soo much while themselves sustaining soo few casualties than the US Military services. Your Kill/Death ratio while considering time and Sq.Km controlled and size of deployed force are the worlds best. The navy just took it one step forward when it comes to their ships. The next step- Zero.
DeleteI bet that the first country (which i believe to be the USA) which cobbles together effective Directed energy weapons- EMP cannons and Lazers will............till the time tech. proliferates, also have the luxury of having their Army, Airforce and Marine corps mirror the Navy's Zero Figure.
How much more fire-power and ISTAR capability does the USN need to make it safe to land 25 nm in?
ReplyDeleteThey have carriers that carry more aircraft than most nations have in total. And not crap aircraft but up to date equipment flown by pilots with lots of training time and lots of munitions.
LCS is crap. A simple steel frigate with two 5in, carrying two Seahawk, and a few RWS cannon is needed. Swarm attacks are a bogey man. If the helicopter swept the FAC from the sea what chance little boats? Mount weapons on the LCU replacement. Get some small fast boats of your own.
None of this is unsolvable.