US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Interesting story about Niger events... from a French blogger which also write articles for a Aviation mag i buy :)
But French birds arrived too late:(

To Niamey based 4 : 2 Mirage 2000C interceptor normaly and 2 Mirage 2000D fighter bomber both armed with in general with 2 GBU-12, the first have guns not the 2nd which have designator pod
In general to minimum 2 in a patrol do a mission by day some days the 4 ! always by 2 coz the pod or Mirage 2000C need a JTAC.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the MQ-9 also can designated a target, 5 to Niamey with a big readiness fly up to 25 hours !

Thank you French (updated)

Not always quick to recognize the merits of the French military and the French
Americans are rediscovering the existence of a French army, and thanking it (1). That's what is legible through a few tweets here and there, but also in the mouths of US military and politicians who appreciated that Mirage and French helicopters, maybe also some passing commandos (but not those I Believe, read the end of the paper) in the corner, come to assist their commandos ambushed a few days ago. Four have left their lives in the case, but today, the finding is unanimous, without the French, the addition would have been much worse

So many corners of shadows remain -Washington has even mobilized the FBI, that is to say, nothing to complain about the French, almost embarrassed to the entournures of the tribute, while some articles in the press, originally, left even to be surprised by surprises-lent to Frenchmen-for not having been informed of the American mission.

It is rare for the special forces to say much about what they do, and this is true in both the United States and France. Placed in a reverse situation, it is likely that the French would have been as discreet about their movements.

On the side of the EMA/ Army Staff we do not feed the controversy, but we willingly willing to detail a timeline, without detours. Barkhane was alerted to an attack at 1132Z, alerting her fighters in the next minute. At 1220Z, the patrol made up of a Mirage 2000D and a Mirage 2000C performed its first show of force.

Beautiful responsiveness that probably evokes a brief briefing, perhaps in flight, and a nice perf trackers to release the aircraft.

The show of force allowed the Nigerians to breathe a little, but without allowing air strikes. The EMA recognizes, important detail, that the Nigerian CEMGA had "authorized" an opening of the fire (2000C guns or bombs of the two Mirage 2000), but that there was no firing possible, because the various elements were not localized.

Theoretically, it is the job of a JTAC to guide the hunt. Was there any in the column? Did he have the elements? In any case, the arrival of the French allowed to evacuate the dead and the wounded. Two helicopter patrols Tigre / transport Helos have been able to ensure their work, either without opening fire, another performance appreciated by Americans, followers of "we do not leave anyone behind us". Even if we know that an American will still be two days on the spot, and will be found dead (but that's another story).

Without obviously breaking this francophile upturn, a question persists: the column having been in the forefront of chasing a jihadist well placed in the US killing list, why not have whispered in the ear of the French a request for prior support, or at least in driving. A simple exchange that would have, perhaps, changed the course of things.

Come on, thank you Barkhane and thank you Spartan (and not Saber), which is easy to pronounce for Americans who also use this code. In this case, once is not custom, it is mountain commandos, already at the appointment in previous operations in BSS/Sahel area.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
understandably Amphibious Warfare Leaders Warn Against Buying Light Carriers Instead of Amphibs
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Navy’s director of amphibious warfare warned that pursuing a light aircraft carrier option in lieu of amphibious assault ships would limit the Marines’ options for responding to operational commanders’ needs, and instead urged faster shipbuilding and experimenting with new ship groupings to increase operational flexibility.

Maj. Gen. David Coffman (OPNAV N95) said Thursday at the National Defense Industrial Association’s annual Expeditionary Warfare Conference that “there is a threat from above – ‘threat’ being Pentagon-speak – of the light carrier coming down into Marine trade space and affecting us.”

The most recent iteration of the light carrier concept was raised in a trio of future fleet architecture studies released earlier this year, with proponents advocating something similar to the America-class amphibious assault ship or potentially something that looks more like a conventionally powered aircraft carrier with a catapult to launch planes. Amphibious assault ships USS America (LHA-6) and the future Tripoli (LHA-7) are aviation-optimized ships that trade a well deck in order for added aviation maintenance space and jet fuel storage.

During a panel discussion at the conference, Capt. David Bossert, the amphibious warfare branch head (OPNAV N953,) said the Navy has a history of using its big-deck amphibs as a light carrier during certain operations, while still retaining the inherent flexibility of an amphibious ship. In the Gulf War, for instance, he said a big-deck might be outfitted with only fixed-wing aircraft “so you could put more on there and you could operate better.”

“If you’re launching fixed-wing and then you’re launching helicopters and then you’re launching tilt-rotors, they all launch a little bit different, you have to set different conditions, you have to maneuver around, so it’s much easier if you’re just doing fixed wing, fixed wing, fixed wing,” the former USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) commanding officer said.
“So if you look at that model, we can certainly do it again.”

Coffman agreed there are operational benefits to operating a light carrier or an aviation-centric amphib, but he said that would only be helpful if supplemented by traditional big-deck amphib capabilities to address the entire range of military operations.

“When we present our case for our (acquisition) plans, this is part of why we are going to argue we need to get to our 12 big-decks sooner rather than later, in order to open up the flexibility of the particular value of the aviation-optimized America and Tripoli as they come into service,” he said.

In fact, the Navy is conducting a congressionally mandated study to look accelerating the procurement of the next amphibious assault ship, LHA-9, to Fiscal Year 2021 instead of the planned FY 2024 procurement. Tom Rivers, amphibious warfare program manager within the Program Executive Office for Ships, said at the conference that his office would be looking at the acquisition benefits of bumping up that procurement timeline – less risk to suppliers, more stability for sole amphibious warship builder Ingalls Shipbuilding, lower cost by avoiding a production break – and OPNAV N95 would supplement that report with the operational considerations for building another amphib sooner. The Navy and Marine Corps intend to eventually have 12 amphibious assault ships in the fleet, though today they have just nine.

The study is due to lawmakers in March, he told USNI News, with a decision on how to proceed potentially coming in the Fiscal Year 2019 defense bills.

Coffman said the Navy could add more flexibility to its amphibious forces by considering alternatives in deploying them. He suggested leaders “think less about preparing a three-ship [amphibious ready group] that can take care of itself, and think more about a scale up here at the task force level, mixing and matching assets that you can move from crisis response to major contingency operations to major combat operations in a contested environment.”

He noted the Upgunned Expeditionary Strike Group concept that pairs amphibious ships with destroyers that can provide anti-air and ballistic missile defense coverage, and praised U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Scott Swift and head of amphibious forces in the Pacific Rear Adm. Marc Dalton for experimenting with that concept.
 
Yesterday at 2:45 PM
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

now just one thing: 355 is the USN idea, even bigger than Trump's bravado (350)!
links are Feb 25, 2017

and Nov 20, 2016

plus also Bernard (how are you? LOL)
#6782 Bernard, Jan 25, 2017

anyway here's the article:

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and here's DoDBuzz:
Is 355 Ships by 2050 Realistic? Maybe Not, Navy Undersecretary Says
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The president and the House and Senate agree: The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
needs about 355 ships, up from its current battle force total of 278.

But while top Navy officials have heartily endorsed the 355 number and said repeatedly that the fleet needs to grow fast, there are subtle indications the service is considering looking beyond ship numbers to maintain dominance.

“It’s going to take a long time, and it’s going to take a lot of money,” acting Navy Undersecretary Thomas Dee said at the National Defense Industrial Association’s Expeditionary Warfare Conference on Wednesday.

“We can get on a mark, by mid-century, to be approaching 350 ships with significant additional topline in our shipbuilding accounts, and it’s in the billions of dollars. So that’s possible. Is that realistic? We don’t know,” he said.

Dee, who previously served as vice director of the Navy Staff before being assigned to temporarily perform the duties of the Navy undersecretary in February, acknowledged the service’s current stated strategy: to shore up readiness in the fiscal 2018 budget and to begin supercharging fleet growth in fiscal 2019.

But with sequestration defense spending caps from the 2011 Budget Control Act potentially affecting the fiscal calculus until 2021, Dee said the Navy is contending not only with limited funds, but also with fiscal uncertainty that hobbles long-term planning.

“[With] ships, you can’t do this on individual and incremental decisions,” he said. “It’s got to be a holistic view of how we’re going to build a future capability.”

The Navy continues to pursue the funding its ideal fleet size requires.

“[Defense] Secretary [Jim] Mattis is determined that that’s going to be based on a strategy, with the realization, to quote the Rolling Stones, that you can’t always get what you want,” Dee said.

“So we may want a 355-ship Navy, we may want it very soon, perhaps we’ll be able to get there,” he said. “But we’re going to have to work with our partners over on the Hill, and we’re going to have to work out the best-laid plan to lay and increase funds.”

Navy leaders have stated they need the extra ships fast. The Congressional Budget Office laid out a spending plan that could get the service to 353 ships by 2046 at the rate of an extra $102 billion per year.

Naval Sea Systems Command has discussed a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

But in a May planning document, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson discussed the potential of reaching
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
leveraging unmanned systems and other cutting-edge technology to build the fleet while getting more out of existing platforms.

Dee’s remarks reinforce the perspective that increasing the Navy’s power may not be just about the numbers.

“So what do you do, assuming that you’re not going to get all that money and you can’t wait until 2050 in order to have the capacity?” he said. “Now you’re looking at, how do you provide that capacity and that capability in some other ways besides just counting platforms.”

The race for more ships is driven in great part by the competition. China is reportedly on track to have 351 ships by 2020, while Russia’s Navy is in the midst of its own major buildup.

With the U.S. military’s growing focus on multi-domain warfare, Dee suggested capability should be assessed collectively, taking into account surface, subsurface, air, space and cyberwarfare efforts, leveraging all together to maintain a competitive advantage over these adversaries.

“If you look at those domains … in each one, we’re in a pretty good place,” he said. “Putting them all together just might help us to outpace the competition.”
 
I recalled, located a previous 'capacity versus capability' article:
Aug 12, 2017
When It Comes to the Navy, Size Matters
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


...
now:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As the Pentagon finishes its strategic review, the stage is set for another struggle over whether to ready for a high-end war with Russia or China or just manage the current, much lower intensity battles around the world.

In military terms it’s a choice between capability and capacity. The outcome will shape the four services modernization portfolios, the size of America’s military, and how ready our forces are to fight.

Strategists focus on the high-end conflicts and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis seems so inclined once immediate readiness shortfalls are fixed. But he is likely to find what his predecessors did, that the press of today’s conflicts and crises pushes the department to expand forces and build readiness. CSIS
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and we found that the services were leaning towards force structure and readiness — capacity — despite the pressing strategic imperative for modernization (capability). The result of this tension is likely to be a high-low mix that tries to cover both.

High-End Conflict

It is a commonplace observation that great power competition has returned after a generation. China and Russia are challenging the global order and have the ability to set up very sophisticated
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
environments. Strategists naturally focus on this challenge because it is the most demanding and the basic military planning approach to is to assume the worst and plan for it. Only Russia and China can compete with the United States in all five warfighting domains — ground, sea, air, space, cyber. So-called peer conflicts put far different demands on the forces than the regional conflicts and stability operations that the United States has conducted for the last 25 years. Competing requires developing and fielding the most advanced technologies and implementing new war fighting doctrines to go with these technologies, for example, distributed operations to avoid vulnerable concentrations, and long-range precision strike to stay outside of the adversary’s defensive bubble.

Mattis seems to be focused on this. After rebuilding readiness in the fiscal 2017 and 2018 budgets,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, “We cannot focus solely on urgent threats when other countries with far greater potential to threaten our future security continue to expand their military capability.” Gen. Joe Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, noted
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
: “I don’t see, in the near term, our ability to really grow the force.”

Day-to-day Superpower Commitments. Unfortunately, the world has not been cooperating with this vision. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
anticipated that force demands would decline once the US withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan. That would allow forces and near-term readiness to be cut. However, this projection was immediately upset by Russian aggression in Crimea and the Ukraine, ISIS conquests in Syria and Iraq, and China’s increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea.

The United States responded by deploying more forces. For Europe, a long neglected theater, the U.S. created the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), which stopped the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe, expanded engagement with allies in Eastern Europe and the Baltics and began the rebuilding of infrastructure to facilitate rapid reinforcement. Originally conceived as a one year program, ERI is in its fourth year and projected to continue indefinitely. Funding has increased from the original $1 billion to a proposed $4.3 billion in fiscal 2018. Troop commitments have increased commensurately, with an armored brigade now rotating continuously to Europe.

In the Middle East, the US began an air war against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. Over time, it has also ramped up the ground component beginning with special forces teams and now including a wide variety of ground combat troops acting in support of local forces. In Afghanistan, the US halted its withdrawal. In the Pacific, the US has tried to “rebalance” by moving 60 percent of its naval strength to meet the rising challenge from the Chinese Navy. The Trump administration has continued these deployments, even expanding them with there recently announced “mini-surge” in Afghanistan.

In the Obama administration, this strategic tension produced a clash between Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. Carter had established the Third Offset Strategy that sought to build advanced capabilities for conflict against a peer competitor. Mabus, feeling the stress on naval forces, wanted to increase the size of the Navy fleet. The competing visions came to a head over the LCS program. Mabus wanted to build 52
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Today, these tensions have expanded to all the services. Each of the four services complains that it is too small to meet the day to day demands that have been put on them. As result, they have leaned towards capacity and readiness, and sacrificed modernization if they had to.

  • Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    the congressionally directed manpower level of 1,018,000 and did not decline to 980,000. Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley noted that: “We’ve done the analysis and we think we need to be bigger” and asked for 14,000 more soldiers in his unfunded requirements list. The Army did not have the money to propose any new modernization programs,although it desperately wants to start developing advanced ground combat and aviation systems.
  • Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    can meet only half of the regional commanders’ requests for Navy ships, although these are admittedly unconstrained requests. As a result, it has set a new target of 355 ships, up from the old target of 308. Like the Army, it decided to buy existing platforms in order to grow quickly, rather than take the time to develop new platforms. The Navy is even considering reactivating retired frigates.
  • Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    maintains the congressionally increased endstrength of 185,000 and has set a target endstrength of 194,000.
  • Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    “an insatiable demand for airpower” as it conducts an air war in the Middle East while still meeting all of its global commitments. As result, it maintains the A-10 fleet, which it had planned to retire, and is expanding its efforts to upgrade and extend the life of the legacy F 16C/D and F-15C fleets. To pay for this, it reduced F-35 procurement, requesting only 46 in 2018, down from the previous level of 48 and far below the target of 60 per year. It is even investigating procurement of light attack aircraft to provide a low-cost force expansion for low threat environments.
In the past, the services have resolved this tension by adopting what they call a high-low mix. They build some systems with advanced capabilities to deal with peer competitors while also building less capable systems to fill out their force. The classic example was the Navy in the 1980s, when it built Aegis cruisers (CG-47s) for a high-end fight with the Soviet Union and large numbers of Perry-class frigates (FFG-7s) for escort duties and forward presence.

Of course, a large defense buildup could do everything — build capacity and capability, with innovation, quality of life, compensation, and a lot of other things besides — and that’s what the services would like to do. Unfortunately, the fiscal future is highly uncertain. In fiscal 2022, there’s a $100 billion difference between the spending level prescribed
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and that recommended by Sen. John McCain and Rep. Mac Thornberry. Further, the fiscal future is not all that favorable. The Trump Administration was not able to get its full defense increase in fiscal 2017 or make an agreement for the next year. Where the budget comes out will have a profound effect on the size of the forces and the service modernization programs. But that’s a topic for another time.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

yeah but I didn't get what they actually suggested to do, exactly:
Small, fast
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
clear a path through coastal waters for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
jet skis, surfboards, and mini-subs scout out landing sites ahead of the human force. High-speed landing craft carry troops, their gear, and vehicles to the beach. Those are some of the ideas the Marines are experimenting with as they seek new ways to get ashore in the teeth of high-tech defenses.

“We have to find a solution to getting Marines to shore, from over the horizon, at something greater than seven knots (8 mph),” the swimming speed of the existing Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) and its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(ACV) replacement, said deputy Marine commandant
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. “We simply have to get there.”

Beaudreault’s technological wishlist includes ship-launched large drones for long-duration reconnaissance, an alternative to the Stinger missile for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and large numbers of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for precision and massed artillery fire. But nothing got the general more fired up than the need for speed in getting ashore.

Helicopters and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
can solve part of the problem, but they can’t carry troops, tanks, and supplies in bulk. The Navy has both lumbering World War II-style landing craft (LCUs) and faster
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(LCACs), but not many of either. A large-scale landing operation would require a lot of Marines to come ashore in painfully slow and thus vulnerable Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs).

“You’ve got to have high speed connectors (i.e. landing craft),” Beaudreault told the annual Expeditionary Warfare conference here. “We must find a high-water-speed vehicle on the surface. We must.”

The Need For Speed

Why the hurry? Traditional amphibious operations follow a stately sequence: scour the sky of enemy aircraft, sweep the seas of enemy ships and subs, mass the fleet offshore, bombard the beaches, and only then send in the landing force. That’s worked well since the second half of World War II, when we could dominate the air and sea. But our dominance is now in doubt.

Even terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Islamic State now have anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, drones to find targets for them, and wireless networks to command them.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
like Russia, China, and to a lesser degree North Korea and Iran can set up long-range layered defenses known as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(A2/AD) systems. Wearing these defenses down from the outside in, using only long-range strikes, may take too long to rescue threatened allies, assuming we don’t just run out of missiles first.

So all the US services are studying ways to penetrate A2/AD bubbles and destroy them from the inside out. For the Marines, that means landing in areas that are not yet under friendly control and establishing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Don’t think of Iwo Jima, where Navy control of air and sea allowed the Marines to land: Think of Guadalcanal, where Marines landed to seize an airstrip (Henderson Field) that in turn helped win the battle at sea.

“We’re not going to just back off and operate from greater distances,” Beaudreault said. “We’re going to be inside the adversary’s A2/AD envelope. That’s the role of the Marine Corps.”

Since the landing sites will now be within hostile waters and airspace, the fleet can’t just line up offshore and unload landing craft: They’d be sitting ducks, then dead ones. Instead, the Navy’s big, expensive, hard-to-replace ships will stay perhaps
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— out of the range of many missiles, though hardly all — and launch the landing force from there. That’s not a distance you want to cross at eight miles per hour, especially under fire. Hence the need for speed.

Beaudreault and other Marines are usually looking at they call “connectors”: various kinds of landing craft. The idea is to have a vessel optimized for the water carry a vehicle optimized for the land, rather than try to design one machine for both.

Robots and Missile Boats

“Some of the technologies we’re looking at for the future may have that high-water speed capability, but they may not be a manned system,” said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
executor director of Marine Corps Systems Command. “In an amphibious assault today, it may be better to utilize an unmanned capability as the initial assault.” Once the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
had softened up the defenses would the humans land in a second wave.

In the recent
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(ANTX) at Camp Pendleton, the Marines put out an open invitation for private sector innovators to show off
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. “We weren’t sure what to expect,” said Lt. Col. Dan Schmitt, who works for the testing branch of the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
was impressive and included robotic surface and underwater vessels, add-on kits to make AAVs and other manned vehicles self-driving, and new propulsion systems, some of them “capable of high water speeds.” There was even a self-driving jet ski and “an autonomous surfboard,” originally developed to track dolphins but repurposed for military reconnaissance. The guiding principles, Schmitt told me, are that the tech should be “small, smart, cheap, and often — not always — disposable.”

The Marines are also experimenting with new manned craft that can land small forces through A2/AD defenses, said John Berry of the Marines’ Combat Development & Integration office. The concept calls for “long-range, low-signature boats so you can project marines ashore from the distance to do advanced force operations, amphibious raids, (etc.).”

Operating close to shore, the Navy and Marines will also need “some type of screening / scouting surface forces,” Berry said. “I’m talking about missile boats.” Many countries use them for coastal defense, although the US Navy has historically considered them too fragile and short-ranged. Against A2/AD, however, where the US Navy would not want to risk its big ships close to shore, missile boats might play an important role: small enough to avoid detection most of the time, cheap enough to be relatively expendable if caught, and well-armed enough the enemy couldn’t just ignore them. They could scout ahead of the landing forces and then protect their flanks from enemy craft.

This range of weapons would make up a very different
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
than the one the Marines and Navy have relied on since World War II. But it might be
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
source is BreakingDefense
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

yeah but I didn't get what they actually suggested to do, exactly:
source is BreakingDefense
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Helicopters and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
can solve part of the problem, but they can’t carry troops, tanks, and supplies in bulk. The Navy has both lumbering World War II-style landing craft (LCUs) and faster
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(LCACs), but not many of either. A large-scale landing operation would require a lot of Marines to come ashore in painfully slow and thus vulnerable Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs).
Okay what he means here is that Huey's. Osprey and CH53 can only carry a half dozen to 3 dozen infantry or vehicles at a time. No service has the capacity limited to those to actually bring Armored vehicles to a fight. They can bring scouts or light infantry even some light artillery but with the threat of sea denial systems the ranges get pushed farther out. today the Marines rely on the navy for some degree of fire support that is not a possibility in a sea denial zone.
in the event of the Us needing to deploy marines in a Sea denial zone the first troops to touch down will be those from V22's that means light infantry. The heaviest weapons available to them would be 120mm mortars either the current EFSS or some
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and ATGMs. They might get some fire support from AV8B++ and F35B and or F35C's but limits on fuel kick in.
second in would be Venoms and Ch53's as well as AH1Z bring some heavier fire support Towed M777's Hummvees and LATV's but those are burning fuel and burning fast.

“You’ve got to have high speed connectors (i.e. landing craft),” Beaudreault told the annual Expeditionary Warfare conference here. “We must find a high-water-speed vehicle on the surface. We must.”
Speaking like Yoda Marines do...

Basically what he means is The Marines and Navy need a way to ferry their armor from ship to shore fast. the Current system assumes that we can park an LHD off shore and wade in AAV's and ACV's from 8 miles out. now currently there is little money or Options to replace the AAV7 fleet wide. and engineering wise It's easier to refit them to survive land threats then extend their sea range and speeds.
Even the EFV would have run into a snag as although it had the water speed it lacked the fuel with a max water range 1 way of about 74 miles ( without land travel which would have meant filling up on the beach not a option) the A2AD pushed farther than that. When the Marines were forced to can the EFV there fall back became the ACV. The top pick for the ACV is the SuperAV that has a 1 way water range of 40 miles ( again no fuel for land operations) So what they need is a way to get these vehicles to the last dozen miles fast.
Current LCAC can bring such vehicles from ship to shore but then why invest in Amphibious vehicles? and there are other missions that demand those. The Abrams MBT pretty much overloads a LCAC the second the current model rolls onto the bed and it needs to go all the way so the 74 LCACs the US has can quickly be used up. The Marines and Navy have plans for a new LCAC the Ship to Shore connector with the aim of 73 units and a heavier cargo weight ( but still only 1 Abrams. which would help but still stretching the numbers game. (another help would be if the Marines found a light Tank to there liking.)

This is where the Spearhead-class Expeditionary Fast Transport would jump in. They have the range and tonnage to carry Marines and equipment fast. But they also need ways to protect those vehicles because now they have a long time in the ocean and EFT are unarmed and as we saw on the Former HSV Swift are open targets. they can bring ACV and AAV to a dozen miles out with less risk than a full LPD or LHD but are still unarmored and open to attack.

This is where the Robots and Missile boats come in. They can patrol escort and act as fire support. not new missions for Amphibious landing craft. They in theory during a counter landing operation ( IE fighting off a Landing force attempting to take an Island in a A2AD zone) can move ahead and do a lot of damage to the landed force especially if they themselves are a Marine force who tends to lighter armored vehicles.

I think longer term the USMC needs to partner with the Japanese for a new AAV with longer range and speed then the EFV.
33pw-fyfzhap5229645.jpg
And invest in some more modern amphibious vehicles to assist in logistics and scouting.
but even then there are limitations.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
not sure why not to suppress the Opfor (in the coastal area and surrounding littorals) and arrive in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm guessing I'm coupla decades behind though
That's kinda what they are talking about the only problem is LST's are still on the large side and they want something a bit smaller and faster that can be loaded from a Expeditionary Mobile Base and can avoid mines.. but even then you want to secure the beachhead so that's where the Amtracks and ACV's come in. They can land infantry's third wave before the heavy equipment comes in.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The 3 VPs before based to Kaneohe Bay are now to Whidbey Island, right now the 2 reserve VPs kep their P-3C so 16 + some others 28 necessary to replaced a next P-8 batch to this base in 2020 VQ-1 with EP-3E Aries II will become VUP-11 with MQ-4-C
VP list
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Second Pacific Squadron Receives P-8A Aircraft

The Pacific Fleet’s maritime patrol squadrons transition to the P-8A Poseidon aircraft is proceeding apace with a second squadron receiving its first P-8As.

Patrol Squadron 47 (VP-47) has received its first two aircraft as it proceeds with its transition from the P-3C Orion, according to sightings by the North American Military Aviation Research group. The squadron, based at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash., is the second squadron based there to make the transition, following VP-4.

VP-47 was based at Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. It departed for a deployment overseas and returned from deployment in March to its new home at Whidbey Island for the transition. It will be followed in transition by VP-9, which also is moved to Whidbey as it returned this month from its split deployment to Kadena Air Base, Japan, and Comalapa, El Salvador.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Also interesting and the P-8 have 120 sonobuoys P-3C 87, P-1 100
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Future USS Ralph Johnson to be Commissioned in Charleston

Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer announced that the newest Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer Ralph Johnson (DDG 114), will be commissioned during a ceremony March 24 in Charleston, S.C., Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, said in an Oct. 23 release.

Ralph Johnson, commanded by Cmdr. Jason Patterson, a Chicago native, is the 64th Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, and the 30th DDG 51-class destroyer built by the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) shipyard. It is the first warship named for Medal of Honor-recipient Marine Pfc. Ralph Henry Johnson.

Johnson, a native of Charleston, posthumously received the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions during the Vietnam War. Johnson used his body to shield two fellow Marines from a grenade, absorbing the blast and dying instantly in March 1968.

In early fall of 2014, the keel of Ralph Johnson was laid down. The ship was launched on Dec. 12, 2015, and christened on April 2, 2016, during ceremonies at the HII shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss.

After commissioning in Charleston, Ralph Johnson will make its way to homeport in Everett, Wash.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Hyperwarp

Captain
USS Nimitz is scheduled to visit Colombo today (Saturday). I hope I can get to see it from my balcony or I'd have to go to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
but don't know the exact time it'll enter port. Anyone here has any idea? I'll be an awesome sight!

USS Nimitz Visit to Sri Lanka First for U.S. Aircraft Carrier Since 1985 -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


USS Nimitz to Visit Sri Lanka Saturday; First U.S. Carrier to Visit Colombo in More than 30 Years -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top