_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_(ACU-2)%2C_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao%2C_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg)
via DoD Buzz
As it rethinks its global posture for a possible shift to the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. Army wants to buy a new fleet of small boats and upgrade existing watercraft, an official said.There is no such thing as a crowded battlefield, at least when you're talking about friends or allies.
The land force and largest branch of the U.S. military has more than 100 vessels in its inventory — including the Cold War-era Landing Craft Mechanized-8 “Mike” boat, as well as the larger Logistics Support Vessel, LSV, and Landing Craft Utility, or LCU-2000 — to support combat and humanitarian missions.
The Army is gearing up to solicit proposals to replace the so-called Mike boats as part of a new acquisition program to buy three dozen craft called the Maneuver Support Vessel (Light), or MSV(L), according to Scott Davis, who heads the service’s Combat Support and Combat Service Support office in Warren, Michigan.
THERE IS SUCH a thing as services stepping onto each others designated roles and functions.
100 New Mike boats?
During a time when the Army is having trouble getting funding for its Ground Combat Vehicles?
This might be bluff and bluster but its clearly a shot across the USMC's bow. The gloves are off and they've stepped firmly into Marine Corps turf. Is this in response to the SPMAGTF-CR's that Amos stood up?
Is it part of the chess game with the budget?
Unknown. What I do know is that this will raise eyebrows in Marine Corps circles.
It's an attempt to underline their relevance in the Pacific shift. The Army has always had a big navy.
ReplyDeletethey're making that navy bigger in a time of declining defense budgets and what i would consider more important procurement issues being left on the table.
Deleteyou want to talk relevance? the US Army has that in spades. the Middle East and now Europe. homeland security (of which they make up the largest part of the military support). a HUGE role in SOCOM...even if they keep that role quiet and finally a division of soldiers in Korea.
they're relevant as fuck and i haven't even talked about how they're the main force in Africa with the Marine Corps just providing token forces to that area.
they're relevant all right and now they're on our shit.
this smells and i ain't talking about roses.
But we'll still be buying the F-35 Thunderjug, right?
ReplyDeleteYup, The F-35 Brewster Buffalo II.
DeleteThe Army operates a larger Ship and boat fleet than the Navy.
ReplyDeleteThe reason is because they would rather operate more air lifters than the Air Force but rules forbid that, where the rules don't define who can own ships.
The Tango boats were mostly Army during the riverine battles in the Mekong.
The Mike boats are normally just a larger Higgins boat design, the ones pictured are actually considered by the Navy as independent commanded surface craft with a crew, Captain berthing spaces and a mess deck.
The Army Amphibious units are considered or were considered as Engineer troops.
The reason?
The United States Marine Corps is handicapped by it's size restrictions.
Limited by Congress, the budget and it's inability to rapidly grow to a size sufficient to launch a large scale (Army sized large scale) amphibious force without a long term period of training and recruitment handicaps the Marines ability to conduct operations larger than say a two Corps sized event. A two Corps amphibious landing force would take at minimum a year to grow to size and possibly longer to get on the beach, where the Army can rapidly place several Corps of troops, tanks, aviation assests on a beach head faster, they don't actually have to be specially train for amphibious operations since the landing is just the beginning of the battle.
The Marines are like the Airborne, small forces used for small insertions of limited scale by specialist troops in these insertion methods.
To take airfields, go airborne/airmobile, to take Ports, and pursue operations pertaining to Naval Operations use the Marines.
To land a sizable land battle fighting force in a size to take on enemy land battle forces you need an Army.
The amphibious mission of the Army does not tread on the Marine mission, it's meant to be a method for getting it's troops on the land for a basic land battle.
wait are you sure about the size thing? i mean the current US Army is smaller than the WW2 USMC.
DeleteThe Army did more landings then the Marines did in WW2 as well. A fact that seems to be lost in the history books. This was actually due to the fact that each branch was its own cabinet level office, and they duplicated a lot of resources.
DeleteIf war did happen in Asia, where would rail and air power do to get the Army to reinforce (example) Taiwan? Does the navy have enough extras sealift and LCU/M's laying around to move the Army as well as the Marines? Remember all the LST are gone, sold or sunk as targets. The great rusting fleet is all but gone, the ships were polluting the water (lead paint) and had other leaking issue. Maintenance cost were starting to creep up. Then a company in Texas figured out that all the older ships were virgin steel, not recycled. They were worth more due to the quality of the metal.
BTW The LCM-8 was/is a real brown water boat, not a true blue water to brown landing craft.
i love how people love to throw that fact into the mix when it has nothing to do with the conversation. point of fact. the defense reorganization that occurred in the late 40's that created the DoD, and established the Congressional mandated size of the USMC....along with its functions and responsibilities.
Deleteso while the USAF is extremely guarded in the way that it interprets the use of air power, the USMC has been much more....liberal.
the argument can be made that SPMAGTF-CR's encroached on Army turf. i'll accept that everyday and twice on sunday, but at the same time it can't be denied that this move is a blast to the face of the USMC and our core mission sets.
This isn't WWII. If we count every rubber raiding craft in the infantry and every Munson boat in the Corps of Engineers, then the Army might have more boats than the Navy. Even the story cited says the Army has " more than 100 vessels." And that size craft would be operated by a First Class Petty Officer Bosun Craftmaster, not an officer. The services each have storied histories and current relevant national security capabilities. We don't need to cannibalize each other in this era of sequestration.
ReplyDeleteThe only time I complain about a crowd in theater is at the DFAC. If the Army can use these boats to get more and heavier forces into the fight, more the better.
rigid rubber craft aren't boats, in the way we're using it and you know it Trons Away. additionally lets be honest here. why would the Army need essentially LCU-1600? simple. they're not talking about doing what the Army has normally done with these boats but instead are heading toward some type of quasi assault type mission.
Deletewe can agree to disagree but i still think that's bullshit.
additionally your point about a crowd is one that i echoed so the only thing left is the mission set here. the diversion of procurement money away from more pressing needs like the Airborne Tank, the GCV, the JLTV etc... something is going on here and just like carrier Navy got pissed about the America class LHA creeping onto its turf, i'm a bit pissed about the Army even thinking about steppign on our toes...both here and in the halls of congress.
I think you misunderstood me. I fully concur. CRRCs are not a replacement for combat ships or AAVs. Despite the number of amphibious assaults the Army did in dubya dubya eye eye, the Marine Corps is our amphibious force. The Marines role will be to kick in the door and enable follow on forces to seize the initiative. These Army craft are movement vice maneuver vessels.
DeleteIf we have to conduct an amphibious assault in the Pacific theater, we will not call on the Army's LCU 2000s. We will rely upon whatever the USMC determines is the AAV and LAV follow on.
Your overall cautions are apt. Commandant Dunford needs to emphasize that the Marines are more than just an expeditionary F-35B force. That's the legacy of Gen Amos.
No, The Army is larger than the current Marine Corps though.
ReplyDeleteMuch as D-day was an Army affair because the real fight was considered to be after the beach landings and would extend inland across the Continent.
The battle space for this type ops is better handled by a force that can go almost from scratch to a huge force ashore.
Like the old put Army divisions on big deck CV's and land them concept.
To fight deep in side the country would take more troops, tanks and such than the current Marine Corps has or could obtain without a lot of long term prior preparation.
The Marine Corps at the start of WW2 was too small to even defend what it needed as was the Army, it took years of preparation to get where it could.
Even the World War two six division Marine Corps could not have been as effective as the Army while invading and marching to Germany without a larger size than possible to build.
The Army simply has the power already, the Marines would have to build up and time may not be on our side.
The Army doesn't view amphibious as a full time mission, just as a way to start their idea of a war and battle.
My Father's youngest brother, my Uncle fought in the Mekong with the 9th Infantry Riverine force.
ReplyDeleteHis comments were, "Where the fuck are the Marines" in one letter home echo in my memory.
His recounts of the river battles and units forces involved pointed to a large brown water force of Tango Mike and other craft operating from LST as barracks ships.
Still the training he received wasn't Marine style amphibious it was for the fight after they left the boats. The boats were simply transports much as the Helo's were in the regular non Cav and airmobile leg units.