| I don’t see how big pieces of equipment can even hardly be used anymore. Drone and missile technology has just come too far. We are seeing that with tanks now of course. I can’t help but wonder if the initial stages of World War III won’t be similar to using horses against machine guns in world war one |
|
Quoted: Sounds like we need to throw some more money at the problem. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/05/28/marine-corps-continues-to-get-smaller-under-latest-budget-proposal/ Attached File |
|
Quoted: FIFY Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like we need to throw some more FIFY The problem is, the Marine Corps wants a relatively cheap “risk worthy” asset, and the Navy does not believe it is survivable and wants to make that ship significantly more expensive to improve survivability |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like we need to throw some more money at the problem. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/05/28/marine-corps-continues-to-get-smaller-under-latest-budget-proposal/ https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/14740C6E-DDB1-421F-B738-9D7FD9EF1834_jpe-2584956.JPG Blue dollars pay for ships that support Marine forces, it’s written into title 10 and the reason there is a Marine general officer and approximately 50 Marines assigned to the OPNAV staff |
|
Quoted: I don’t see how big pieces of equipment can even hardly be used anymore. Drone and missile technology has just come too far. We are seeing that with tanks now of course. I can’t help but wonder if the initial stages of World War III won’t be similar to using horses against machine guns in world war one But we need to spend big bucks on them. |
|
Quoted: No tanks... Also less infantry so I guess the Army with its shortage of infantry and maritime transport can fill in for island hopping operations https://taskandpurpose.com/news/marine-corps-force-design-infantry/?amp Attached File |
|
Quoted: Sounds like we need to throw some more money at the problem. More contracts will fix this problem. What we need are really expensive stealth ships.. and ones that can hover onto the beaches, then fly away when they need to. Like a Pontoon Harrier.. think of it! Attached File |
|
Quoted: So, it’s basically a defenseless barge that has a deep draft to limit its usefulness? The LSMs are to be equipped with defensive weapons, and part of the future experimentation is to see what embarked weapons can be fired from the LSM underway The Navy’s concern is the defense of weapons are not high-end. They may not be linked into a Combat management system and probably not federated across the entire naval network. |
|
Quoted: Light Amphibious Warships sounds like poorly armed and armored missile magnets if the Navy expects them to storm defended beaches.  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. |
|
Quoted: 12ft isn't exactly deep Quoted: Quoted: So, it’s basically a defenseless barge that has a deep draft to limit its usefulness? 12ft isn't exactly deep The LSMs needed to be beachable in order to expand their offload and on load locations to beyond pier side only. |
|
Quoted: Light Amphibious Warships sounds like poorly armed and armored missile magnets if the Navy expects them to storm defended beaches. They're specifically for undefended beaches. The basic idea is that ships are huge sinkable targets that cost too much to actually risk losing in combat. So the USMC can deploy to undefended islands with missile systems that can prevent other countries from operating in the waters around them. The islands can't be sunk and losing 50 Marines is much more palatable than losing several hundred aboard a naval ship. |
|
Quoted: The LSMs needed to be beachable in order to expand their offload and on load locations to beyond pier side only. Absolutely, but isn't 12ft (at the stern I'm assuming) in line with old school LST? I haven't seen any designs, but I can see a 3-400ft ship that drafts 1wft at the stern in landing trim being reasonable |
|
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. That’s the thing we are not rolling up on the A2AD network without seriously having suppressed it including the satellite network. We are talking sub sanitation, mine clearance, suppression of ASM, SEAD everything. Once that is paired back these ships might have utility to avoid mainland anti ship missiles. At no point is any US ship going to be going this alone. |
|
Quoted: That’s the thing we are not rolling up on the A2AD network without seriously having suppressed it including the satellite network. We are talking sub sanitation, mine clearance, suppression of ASM, SEAD everything. Once that is paired back these ships might have utility to avoid mainland anti ship missiles. At no point is any US ship going to be going this alone. Attached File |
|
Quoted: I don’t see how big pieces of equipment can even hardly be used anymore. Drone and missile technology has just come too far. We are seeing that with tanks now of course. I can’t help but wonder if the initial stages of World War III won’t be similar to using horses against machine guns in world war one Missiles and drones cannot hold ground. You need boots on the ground to hold land. Those boots need armor and support for the waves of enemies that they will have to fight to keep that land. Armor and boots will never be obsolete. |
|
Quoted: Light Amphibious Warships sounds like poorly armed and armored missile magnets if the Navy expects them to storm defended beaches. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/10/04/us-marines-warn-against-navys-fy24-decommission-scheme/ Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted: Missiles and drones cannot hold ground. You need boots on the ground to hold land. Those boots need armor and support for the waves of enemies that they will have to fight to keep that land. Armor and boots will never be obsolete. I agree with boots. But I am not sure I can agree with armor. The effectiveness we are seeing with the portable tank killing missiles in Ukraine is astounding. When I was a kid I wanted to be a tanker instead of the grunt I became. You couldn’t pay me enough to be in a tank during combat now. We will have to wait and see about naval warfare to know for sure. But I am willing to bet it will prove to have become almost untenable since last it was used in any scale. |
|
Quoted: I agree with boots. But I am not sure I can agree with armor. The effectiveness we are seeing with the portable tank killing missiles in Ukraine is astounding. When I was a kid I wanted to be a tanker instead of the grunt I became. You couldn’t pay me enough to be in a tank during combat now. We will have to wait and see about naval warfare to know for sure. But I am willing to bet it will prove to have become almost untenable since last it was used in any scale. From what I’m hearing, air is going to be just as precarious. Unless China’s ASW is formidable, maybe subs is a bit more survivable? |
| So, if hostilities are imminent, China is just going to let all these islands sit undefended? They have the manpower to put a small detachment on enough of them prior to shots being fired to make this whole idea of uncontested landings a no go. Then what? It does not sound like a very well thought out plan. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like we need to throw some more money at the problem. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/05/28/marine-corps-continues-to-get-smaller-under-latest-budget-proposal/ https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/459941/14740C6E-DDB1-421F-B738-9D7FD9EF1834_jpe-2584956.JPG That's only a 6% increase. That's not even going to cover inflation. Maybe it will with the staff reduction. |
|
The whole Marines strategy seems completely retarded. China is a straight up fireworks factory of missiles; trying to be in a dinky boat, or occupy a small island (what small island would that even be in the first island chain) is a recipe for getting absolutely blasted.  Even if successful, their entire shore based missile arsenal would likely be below a single Rapid Dragon delivery, which can be used without stranding a bunch of Marines on Gilligans missile target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system) The Marines should face reality - Rifleman aren't a relevant force in whats essentially a A2AD Missile Duel / game of Battleship. Facing that, they should pitch themselves as the 'ABC Force' - Anywhere But China Force. With the rest of the services focused on China, the Marines mission will be to handle crisis that occur anywhere else in the world. The current collapse of Haiti, where armed gangs are stealing all the aid, and the UN unwilling to help, is a perfect example of a ABC mission. |
|
Quoted: The whole Marines strategy seems completely retarded. China is a straight up fireworks factory of missiles; trying to be in a dinky boat, or occupy a small island (what small island would that even be in the first island chain) is a recipe for getting absolutely blasted. https://i.redd.it/lvtmoq61cex91.png Even if successful, their entire shore based missile arsenal would likely be below a single Rapid Dragon delivery, which can be used without stranding a bunch of Marines on Gilligans missile target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system) The Marines should face reality - Rifleman aren't a relevant force in whats essentially a A2AD Missile Duel / game of Battleship. Facing that, they should pitch themselves as the 'ABC Force' - Anywhere But China Force. With the rest of the services focused on China, the Marines mission will be to handle crisis that occur anywhere else in the world. The current collapse of Haiti, where armed gangs are stealing all the aid, and the UN unwilling to help, is a perfect example of a ABC mission. Unfortunately strategic guidance when the Marine Corps started down this path was such that crisis response and a force in readiness were not specified tasks. |
|
Quoted: That's only a 6% increase. That's not even going to cover inflation. Maybe it will with the staff reduction. I think the reduction is literally supposed to be the plan for affording new shit. Even the Army is starting to float “we didn’t fail recruiting the money we save on personnel can go to research and development” talk. But General Berger claims otherwise https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/9/1/marine-corps-commandant-defends-force-size-divestment Attached File https://news.usni.org/2022/05/09/fewer-marines-more-sensors-part-of-bergers-latest-force-design-revision Attached File |
| 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 concept of surface ships being able to go around anywhere undetected will be gone as sensors and software become better. Signature reduced enough to obscure details about it and make it harder for missiles to get a radar fix on, sure. But the notion of any surface vessel being able to "hide" from airborne sensors will probably not be around for long. |
| Never mind the problems with the ships, what about the 75 Marines that will be left on the islands in a contested sea/airspace? It sounds like resupply will difficult, and the Chinese will certainly know where the missiles are coming from. Sounds like the setup for a bunch of mini Wake Islands. |
|
Quoted: From what I’m hearing, air is going to be just as precarious. Unless China’s ASW is formidable, maybe subs is a bit more survivable? I think we have to assume this to be the answer as it seems to be the only approach that somewhat mitigates the advantage created by a zillion eyeballs and countless surface vessels. I'm imagining something along the lines of a fleet of Japanese midget subs. I have to imagine that certain advancements are going to lead to replacing one large high-value target with numerous smaller lower value ones. |
|
Quoted: China beating the us .mil will be last step in them becoming world misery exporter, I mean leader. The left goes on about western colonialism and how evil it was. China is going to be absolutely brutal. Yep the left hates God and Christianity which the west was built upon... When the anti Christ forces take over all that secular humanism and social welfare they are so fond of is out the window...gulags and forced organ donations are what they can look forward to...and if they complain...bye bye. |
|
Quoted: China beating the us .mil will be last step in them becoming world misery exporter, I mean leader. The left goes on about western colonialism and how evil it was. China is going to be absolutely brutal. Yep the left hates God and Christianity which the west was built upon... When the anti Christ forces take over all that secular humanism and social welfare they are so fond of is out the window...gulags and forced organ donations are what they can look forward to...and if they complain...bye bye. |
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter