First a refresher via Armed Forces Press Service...
“[The force] is not just going to be amphibious warships -- it’s going to have flat-bottom hulls that will give us the capability to do at-sea assembly and transfer of capabilities at sea,” Glueck said.Lt. Gen. Kenneth J. Glueck Jr, isn't talking about an amphibious vehicle. He's talking about a new version of the LCAC or in HQMC parlance a new ship to shore connector.
For example, he said, a fully-loaded logistics ship can be selectively off-loaded at the capability needed and the equipment then can be transferred at sea onto a connector or Landing Craft Air Cushion, a high-speed, over-the-beach fully amphibious vehicle.
“It [will] give you that step forward and the opportunity to be there quickly to bring some command and control, some organization, to any crisis and be able to set up and be prepared to receive forces,” he said. “I look at it as a great opportunity for the challenges to move forward, and this is right there in our wheelhouse.”
Not a good thing to gloat about - but .... behold.Without a new ship to shore connector, Amos' plan to use Marine Personnel Carriers as the new Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1 (why are they calling it that when it won't be fully amphibious?) no longer makes sense if the plan is to launch from 100 miles out.
The U.S. Navy can’t meet its funding needs for surface warships and a new class of nuclear attack submarines from 2025 to 2034, according to the service’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan.
The congressionally required blueprint, submitted late last week and obtained by Bloomberg News, says the Navy’s plan “requires funding at an unsustainable level” unless spending on shipbuilding is increased.
The document outlines challenges facing the plan to increase the Navy fleet to 306 vessels from the current 289 while building 12 new Ohio-class submarines, part of the nation’s nuclear triad of air, land and sea weapons.Yea, it's that bad - and a tad more.
The average cost of the Navy plan during the period when the service will be spending the most on the new submarine is $19.7 billion a year, including more than $24 billion at the peak year of fiscal 2032, according to the report.
This budget “cannot be accommodated by the Navy from existing resources -- particularly if” the Pentagon remains under congressionally mandated automatic cuts known as sequestration, the report said.
That means that we're looking at an air assault 101st, sea going Marine Corps.
Now answer this one.
Who is stupid enough to believe that an enemy that has anti-ship missiles that will keep an amphibious task force at bay won't have anti-air missiles that won't feast on MV-22s?
This is what I was saying before regarding RoRos like the watson class, possibly with bays inside, to be offloaded at floating sea-bases to connectors. And escorted through the corridor to the shore. Unfortunately current force structure is not geared towards this, to do this the US would need decent LCSs, probably with some area-air defence capability.
ReplyDeleteOpposed landings are a massive undertaking, especially against a nation with the sorts of small missile boats, and warships, the vast submarine fleets and the air assets of say a nation like china. As more nations develop, they will probably adopt a similar approach, the end result will be the USMC will be rendered impotent.
Indirectly they are saying that its more politically correct to loose 10 MV-22's than it is to loose a ship. Any ship.
ReplyDeleteSo the Carrier Battle Group or Groups (perhaps even long range support from the USAF) aren't going to clear the targeted area of the landing first? That SF aren't going to be calling down fires from the destroyers on to possible threats ashore? Or even that the USN / USMC aren't going to engage in manoeuvre warfare and land where the enemy aren't present in strength?
ReplyDelete