|
Quoted: It is a pretty sound philosophy on its face. The typical response by people who believe Hollywood movies too much will say the light ship will be quickly spotted by Chinese satellites and then destroyed in short order. Uh huh. You could play hell on a highly centralized military like China where things have to go far up the chain before ground commanders can act. I keep making this point; but it drove us crazy in the Gulf War trying to find those Scud launchers in Western Iraq. That was a first rate military With great Intel and great Command and Control, with a Institution very versed in how to conduct a real war. Now flip that with China who has zero institutional war managing knowledge, zero combat experience, highly centralized command trying to find, fix and finish these things. good luck -Morgan Freeman Quoted: Quoted: These are not for storming beaches but sneaking around to spots to set up and fire at Chinese navy ships close to China's island bases in the South China Sea near Taiwan. These 3 ships vs 72 Chinese corvettes and any Chinese aviation that is sent to attack them if any of the 7,500 Chinese "civilian" ships or satellites or whatever sees them. It is a pretty sound philosophy on its face. The typical response by people who believe Hollywood movies too much will say the light ship will be quickly spotted by Chinese satellites and then destroyed in short order. Uh huh. You could play hell on a highly centralized military like China where things have to go far up the chain before ground commanders can act. I keep making this point; but it drove us crazy in the Gulf War trying to find those Scud launchers in Western Iraq. That was a first rate military With great Intel and great Command and Control, with a Institution very versed in how to conduct a real war. Now flip that with China who has zero institutional war managing knowledge, zero combat experience, highly centralized command trying to find, fix and finish these things. good luck -Morgan Freeman The difference between the SCUD launchers in Iraq and the Giligans Island strategy is theres a gigantic amount of Iraq, and the US did not have a positive relationship with the locals to provide intel. Theres a very finite amount of these little islands the Marines could land on, which are very well known to the chinese. A China has thousands of merchant marine and fisherman operating in those warriors, who could ID the arrival of Marines with just binoculars and a radio. |
|
Quoted: It appears that .gov is pressuring the dominant semiconductor producers in Taiwan to move more production to the US, but Taipei is resisting, most likely because keeping the production local is Taiwan's "silicon shield" strategy. The faster that production gets moved elsewhere, the more willing .gov is to accept China taking Taiwan. https://www.ft.com/content/bae9756a-3bce-4595-b6c9-8082fd735aa0 https://www.stimson.org/2022/semiconductors-and-taiwans-silicon-shield/ It's almost like the ROC knows the only bargaining chip it has - pardon the pun - is its semiconductor industry. It's almost like the ROC knows that's all what's keeping the US interested in aiding the ROC against the PRC forcibly reunifying the mainland with the ROC. |
|
Quoted: The answer they give is dispersed forces are more survivable. Can still be cut off from supply and located if they don't have good signature management as you point out. I still don't think they will be enough of a threat - robot JTLV with 2 short range JSMs (200Km?) is a joke, even if you have 10 of them. And anyone who has been on small Pacific islands knows those vehicles will get stuck anytime they go off a paved road. Robot vehicles make no sense there. Tomahawks and SM6 or PrSM make more sense but then you get big and heavy. Quoted: Quoted: How survivable will platoon reinforced sized SIFs hauling HIMARS and NSMs around on little islands be, given the (lack of) speed of these LSMs to deploy and recover SIFs and what I would expect will be pretty heavy electronic and radiation signatures the SIFs will have? The answer they give is dispersed forces are more survivable. Can still be cut off from supply and located if they don't have good signature management as you point out. I still don't think they will be enough of a threat - robot JTLV with 2 short range JSMs (200Km?) is a joke, even if you have 10 of them. And anyone who has been on small Pacific islands knows those vehicles will get stuck anytime they go off a paved road. Robot vehicles make no sense there. Tomahawks and SM6 or PrSM make more sense but then you get big and heavy. ROGUE-Fires can either have a naval strike missile sled or an MLRS family of munitions sled, and it’s the long awaited replacement for the M142 HIMARS so it can use the eventually fielded PRiSM TLAM and SM6 a whole different ball park and you start getting issues of ability to move, road networks that can support etc, etc. |
|
Quoted: top speed of only 14 knots, wtf? The top speed is yet to be determined, they gave a range the vessel must be able to meet. And the lower numbers were based on the cost curve, going fast cost a lot more and the Marines goal was cheap so they could get many of them. |
|
Quoted: The USMC budget is $48 billion. That’s rather close to Russia’s entire defense budget of like $66 billion. And $300 million for a barge that can only make 14 knots, and only carries 75 marines? That’s not even a full rifle company. Quoted: The USMC budget is $48 billion. That’s rather close to Russia’s entire defense budget of like $66 billion. And $300 million for a barge that can only make 14 knots, and only carries 75 marines? That’s not even a full rifle company. The Marines don’t buy ships, there is a title X mandate for the Navy to provide them. There is a Marine General and 50 Marines on the CNO’s staff who represent the Marine Corps interests for amphibs, naval fires, naval aviation etc. |
|
Quoted: Note: I've replaced the "[" and "]" with "(" and ")" in order to show the text without the images. Instead of this (quoted from your post) (url=https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3708190-the-ugly-truth-can-the-light-amphibious-warship-survive-war-with-china/amp/)https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3708190-the-ugly-truth-can-the-light-amphibious-warship-survive-war-with-china/amp/(/url) (img)https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/2BD2A075-E52F-403D-AB40-C99918B3E2F2_jpe-2584940.JPG(/img)(img)https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/4B1C7A5C-5C52-47AC-A125-17B039EB9AE2_jpe-2584941.JPG(/img)(img)https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/A43D6DDB-CE16-49FB-917C-DEDEFDA3DFD9_jpe-2584942.JPG(/img)(img)https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/E4963B4F-7C08-4E6F-8482-0E6ED6E29D6B_jpe-2584950.JPG(/img)(img)https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/6B3470DF-4FBB-4188-842C-4C3ED3F82B00_jpe-2584944.JPG(/img)(img)https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/E5A109E6-A3E8-4F82-AA90-874F5DC0DCAE_jpe-2584946.JPG(/img) Do this (url=https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3708190-the-ugly-truth-can-the-light-amphibious-warship-survive-war-with-china/amp/)https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3708190-the-ugly-truth-can-the-light-amphibious-warship-survive-war-with-china/amp/(/url) Just hit the return button once or twice between links. It aligns the images rather than making them jumbled when viewed on a computer screen. (url=https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3708190-the-ugly-truth-can-the-light-amphibious-warship-survive-war-with-china/amp/)https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3708190-the-ugly-truth-can-the-light-amphibious-warship-survive-war-with-china/amp/(/url)]https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3708190-the-ugly-truth-can-the-light-amphibious-warship-survive-war-with-china/amp/,https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3708190-the-ugly-truth-can-the-light-amphibious-warship-survive-war-with-china/amp/[/url] |
|
Quoted: No tanks... @mooreshawnm They got rid of there means in 2021 along with some artillery and light attack aircraft https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/ |
|
Quoted: Forward deployed coastal arty with no supply line. Quoted: Quoted: So basically the USMC is transforming itself into coast artillery? Forward deployed coastal arty with no supply line. Fires is one of the functions an EABO can do, they also provide sensing, FARPing, potentially VLS reloading, IAMD etc. |
|
Fewer personnel than for jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan who don’t have a Navy and Air Force or ballistic missiles and 1 billion population https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2022/04/20/fewer-marines-in-the-corps-but-more-pay-for-those-who-stay/ Attached File https://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/MARADMINS/Article/886553/marine-corps-end-strength-increase/ Attached File . Attached File |
|
Quoted: The US will not have enough bodies to fight that war. The draft will start mass chaos. Imagine if China was able to get Iran and or North Korea to join in or provoke a war e.g. Trump & Biden both said Iran won’t be allowed to have nukes https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/china-russia-iran-north-korea-just-how-many-wars-can-america-fight-198060 Attached File |
|
Quoted: Imagine if China was able to get Iran and or North Korea to join in or provoke a war e.g. Trump & Biden both said Iran won’t be allowed to have nukes https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/china-russia-iran-north-korea-just-how-many-wars-can-america-fight-198060 https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/80C477BA-BC1D-4E71-AE5D-1D486943D131_jpe-2585640.JPG Quoted: Quoted: The US will not have enough bodies to fight that war. The draft will start mass chaos. Imagine if China was able to get Iran and or North Korea to join in or provoke a war e.g. Trump & Biden both said Iran won’t be allowed to have nukes https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/china-russia-iran-north-korea-just-how-many-wars-can-america-fight-198060 https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/80C477BA-BC1D-4E71-AE5D-1D486943D131_jpe-2585640.JPG IMO there's a near absolute certainty that NK would get involved. Highly probable that IRN would flare up some BS in the Gulf region. 
|
|
Force design is based on the concept that a large role for the Marine Corps in the Pacific is to provide forces that are always present in what is now known as the competition phase of hostilities as captured in Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication, 1-4 Competing As as force that is always there they prevent the onset of hostilities, and it hostilities become more possibly impose risk to the enemy, and provides off ramp opportunities. |
|
Quoted: Force design is based on the concept that a large role for the Marine Corps in the Pacific is to provide forces that are always present in what is now known as the competition phase of hostilities as captured in Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication, 1-4 Competing As as force that is always there they prevent the onset of hostilities, and it hostilities become more possibly impose risk to the enemy, and provides off ramp opportunities. Do they have the manpower for it? Do they have the manpower for 2 or more regional wars? |
|
Quoted: Do they have the manpower for it? Do they have the manpower for 2 or more regional wars? Quoted: Quoted: Force design is based on the concept that a large role for the Marine Corps in the Pacific is to provide forces that are always present in what is now known as the competition phase of hostilities as captured in Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication, 1-4 Competing As as force that is always there they prevent the onset of hostilities, and it hostilities become more possibly impose risk to the enemy, and provides off ramp opportunities. Do they have the manpower for it? Do they have the manpower for 2 or more regional wars? The GWOT demonstrated no service in DoD has enough enough uniformed forces for any type of long term operations. |
|
Quoted: The GWOT demonstrated no service in DoD has enough enough uniformed forces for any type of long term operations. The Army held 569,000 for all of like 2 years out of 20 year GWOT and Congress rolled in right after that 2 year mark with the sequestration bill 2011-2013 about the time Obama admin proposed dropping the Army down to 420,000 which General Odierno told Congress was too small and incapable of executing any NDS requirements. Here we are today with an Army of 461,000 with Iran, China, North Korea and Russia listed as NDS threats. The Army wanted to grow to 540,000 under Trump just for current needs. When I first enlisted the Army was 792,000 I think in Reagan days. Do we even have the money for a war with China and or China/Iran/North Korea? I’m guessing the defense budget would need to hit a trillion a year for something like that. The public would have an aneurysm if it lasts more than a year and imo it will last more than a year. USMC I believe peaked at 204,000 in GWOT and now projecting to fall to 172,000. |
|
Quoted: The USMC budget is $48 billion. That’s rather close to Russia’s entire defense budget of like $66 billion. And $300 million for a barge that can only make 14 knots, and only carries 75 marines? That’s not even a full rifle company. A rifle company? You mean like Colt, or PSA or Geissele? Size really varies with those. |
|
Quoted: IMO there's a near absolute certainty that NK would get involved. Highly probable that IRN would flare up some BS in the Gulf region. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The US will not have enough bodies to fight that war. The draft will start mass chaos. Imagine if China was able to get Iran and or North Korea to join in or provoke a war e.g. Trump & Biden both said Iran won’t be allowed to have nukes https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/china-russia-iran-north-korea-just-how-many-wars-can-america-fight-198060 https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/80C477BA-BC1D-4E71-AE5D-1D486943D131_jpe-2585640.JPG IMO there's a near absolute certainty that NK would get involved. Highly probable that IRN would flare up some BS in the Gulf region. I imagine if a CCP/NK hullabaloo caused Iran to act froggy the Israelis would see it as a perfect opportunity to do the needful and win some more brownie points with us. |
|
Quoted: I imagine if a CCP/NK hullabaloo caused Iran to act froggy the Israelis would see it as a perfect opportunity to do the needful and win some more brownie points with us. Israeli doesn’t have the range to wage ongoing operations on Iran plus most importantly Iran’s new nuclear facilities are even deeper under mountains than before since the Mossad ran anti nuclear ops on the Iranians. Hard as it is for everyone to believe, if Trump now Biden are serious about Iran no nuke policy, it’s requires a ground invasion. Iran has been prepping for an air campaign for some time now. MOAB and Massive Ordnance Penetrator no longer cuts the mustard. That’s just Hollywood now  Top Gun: Maverick (2022) - The Bombing Run Scene | Movieclips Attached File https://m.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-709729/amp |
|
Quoted: I think you are wrong here. "Choking out" a nuclear-armed country, particularly as to food or energy, is almost certain to lead to nuclear escalation. The key is to keep a conflict regional and defeat local forces. Also, I think it is unlikely that we would be willing to attack merchant vessels regardless of flag because it is a bad look in today's world. At most, we might try to detain them with surface vessels,  which is also problematic because I have read the Chinese have cargo containers that can conceal armament.Also, as to Russia, the problems here are entirely of Biden's making because he should have encouraged compromise and peace. Ukraine is NOT a critical national interest of the US, nor should the US focus its efforts on destroying Russia. If Russia and the US get into a nuclear war, who benefits? China, that's who. As such, Biden is literally flirting with handing the world over to China. As it is, he has unwisely pushed Russia into the arms of China and pissed off both of them. Stop being rational bro. 
|
|
Quoted: ROGUE-Fires can either have a naval strike missile sled or an MLRS family of munitions sled, and it’s the long awaited replacement for the M142 HIMARS so it can use the eventually fielded PRiSM TLAM and SM6 a whole different ball park and you start getting issues of ability to move, road networks that can support etc, etc. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How survivable will platoon reinforced sized SIFs hauling HIMARS and NSMs around on little islands be, given the (lack of) speed of these LSMs to deploy and recover SIFs and what I would expect will be pretty heavy electronic and radiation signatures the SIFs will have? The answer they give is dispersed forces are more survivable. Can still be cut off from supply and located if they don't have good signature management as you point out. I still don't think they will be enough of a threat - robot JTLV with 2 short range JSMs (200Km?) is a joke, even if you have 10 of them. And anyone who has been on small Pacific islands knows those vehicles will get stuck anytime they go off a paved road. Robot vehicles make no sense there. Tomahawks and SM6 or PrSM make more sense but then you get big and heavy. ROGUE-Fires can either have a naval strike missile sled or an MLRS family of munitions sled, and it’s the long awaited replacement for the M142 HIMARS so it can use the eventually fielded PRiSM TLAM and SM6 a whole different ball park and you start getting issues of ability to move, road networks that can support etc, etc. Still think a robot vehicle in that environment makes no sense and only PrSM with an Antiship seeker makes any sense in the Pacific. I think the Japanese have a new antiship missile with pretty long range, but TLAM would make the Chicoms worry and spend assets hunting if the Marines could make it mobile enough to use widely. You said earlier EABO was only in 3rd MarDiv? I thought Berger was doing this dispersed warfare model everywhere, isn't EABO the baseline of this strategy? |
|
Seems like she makes the right point if we think Taiwan invasion is less than a few years away: In other words, the military needs more stuff and it needs it fast. What it doesn’t need are platforms irrelevant for a fight in the Pacific or those that could be fielded, at the earliest, a decade from now. It needs existing capabilities that can not only act as a bridge for next-generation platforms but are useful for winning and deterring war in the Indo-Pacific and maintaining presence forward to prevent conflict. Need more ammo (all types) now, buy E7 now, buy F15s and F35 now, buy tankers and upgrade B52s now. We are too late on ships and subs unless they can pump out DDG and SSNs faster which I doubt. We should have been planning for this back around 2010. |
|
Quoted: Seems like she makes the right point if we think Taiwan invasion is less than a few years away: In other words, the military needs more stuff and it needs it fast. What it doesn’t need are platforms irrelevant for a fight in the Pacific or those that could be fielded, at the earliest, a decade from now. It needs existing capabilities that can not only act as a bridge for next-generation platforms but are useful for winning and deterring war in the Indo-Pacific and maintaining presence forward to prevent conflict. Need more ammo (all types) now, buy E7 now, buy F15s and F35 now, buy tankers and upgrade B52s now. We are too late on ships and subs unless they can pump out DDG and SSNs faster which I doubt. We should have been planning for this back around 2010. Biden Admin Defense budget spending priorities, big Army and some others are in the 2030-2034 camp of war with China while USN is sticking to the the 2027 or possible sooner Taiwan camp. |