The amphibious support from the Navy has been a troublesome spot foir many years. Somehow the Navy leadership does not think the amphibious arm of the Navy is worth the effort. The Marine Corps leadership differs from that position. I had the pleasure of meeting with the Marine Corp Comandant in 1999 in my Pentagon tour. He was very forceful in his support of the Navy amphibious ship building effort (my boss at the time was the Navy Comptroller, reporting to the SECNAV). Obviously that has not had the effect it needed. We are continuesly underfunding the Marine support to our detrement. End of story. r/Karl
Back when I was war gaming the Carrier Strike Groups could rain hell on any location and created a swath of destruction required where ever they went if needed. However, my real gems were my Marine Air/Ground Task Forces. A MAGTF combined with a “Lightning Carrier” would be a truly the cat’s meow for my purposes.
I have to believe that a half dozen “Lightning Carriers” could add a lot to PRESENCE (Show-the-Flag) operations around the planet. Some pressure could be taken off of the Carrier Strike Group employment schedule. A “Lightning Carrier” Concept of Operations should be written, and the Marine Corps already has a head start on what that would look like.
Uh..NO and "F*ck No" - if the "maintenance" is on par with the rest of the Fleet - and I suspect that CruDes are being "maintained" better than the Gator Navy.
Though part of the problem is that USMC has not advocated (note the comment below is from the last century) for being our Amphibious Force and in some instances had abdicated the role in the last generation.
Ospreys and LCAC's are not gonna be sufficient to lift and support more than a token force and both take up a lot of deck space relative to their capacity.
One has only to point to the last "Amphibious" idiocy; the Gaza pier, being a largely Army show to see the sorry state of anything "Amphib".
CDR Vandenengel's Questioning the Carrier posited the age of the missile puts the CVN at great risk. His conclusion - stop building more carriers. Should it not follow that any large amphib would be at equal or greater risk?
I will start off that CDR Vandenengel is selling a book and sales tend to be proportional to controversy. A book is not a debate but rather a one-sided persuasion/argument exercise. For a debate on the matter, the USNA Museum's event from a decade ago now with our Porch friends Bryan McGrath and Jerry Hendrix still reins supreme IMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8sdNU0K1Hg Finally, there is today's YouTube upload by Ward Carroll.
To answer your question, if the assumption is that current aircraft carriers are incapable of defending themselves and are obsolete then putting an even less capable vessel into the identical situation would definitely be at equal or greater risk. Smaller airwing, lower speed, lower endurance, and smaller magazine.
I greatly respect both debaters. Dr. Hendrix's comment that this is a "math problem" nails it for me. Real world defense challenges are highly non-linear and they impose questions of probability(ies). Example. VLS cell count is a "composition" metric but to to me it is a partial differential equation in space and time - where, what (composition) and locality and questions of probability(ies) are most certainly in play. The "archers and arrows" are evolving rapidly as are the diversity, versatility and quantity of assets employed for reconnaissance and surveillance. Those ISR assets can be employed in depth and are sustainable over time. My unease stems from the artifact that the USN has never actually engaged in a real world conflict (over a period of months) that remotely resembles what she could be facing in the not too distant future. I fear the stakes in the ground that is the CSG and, especially the MEU, are risky ones. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise. At the end of this for me, I see sailors and marines and the degree to which we will put them at a risk level that could be mitigated by other means.
The amphibious support from the Navy has been a troublesome spot foir many years. Somehow the Navy leadership does not think the amphibious arm of the Navy is worth the effort. The Marine Corps leadership differs from that position. I had the pleasure of meeting with the Marine Corp Comandant in 1999 in my Pentagon tour. He was very forceful in his support of the Navy amphibious ship building effort (my boss at the time was the Navy Comptroller, reporting to the SECNAV). Obviously that has not had the effect it needed. We are continuesly underfunding the Marine support to our detrement. End of story. r/Karl
Back when I was war gaming the Carrier Strike Groups could rain hell on any location and created a swath of destruction required where ever they went if needed. However, my real gems were my Marine Air/Ground Task Forces. A MAGTF combined with a “Lightning Carrier” would be a truly the cat’s meow for my purposes.
I have to believe that a half dozen “Lightning Carriers” could add a lot to PRESENCE (Show-the-Flag) operations around the planet. Some pressure could be taken off of the Carrier Strike Group employment schedule. A “Lightning Carrier” Concept of Operations should be written, and the Marine Corps already has a head start on what that would look like.
amphibs, icebreakers, tenders, minesweepers, etc. all those "unsexy" things, needed badly. yep
Uh..NO and "F*ck No" - if the "maintenance" is on par with the rest of the Fleet - and I suspect that CruDes are being "maintained" better than the Gator Navy.
Though part of the problem is that USMC has not advocated (note the comment below is from the last century) for being our Amphibious Force and in some instances had abdicated the role in the last generation.
Ospreys and LCAC's are not gonna be sufficient to lift and support more than a token force and both take up a lot of deck space relative to their capacity.
One has only to point to the last "Amphibious" idiocy; the Gaza pier, being a largely Army show to see the sorry state of anything "Amphib".
That was an excellent hour.
CDR Vandenengel's Questioning the Carrier posited the age of the missile puts the CVN at great risk. His conclusion - stop building more carriers. Should it not follow that any large amphib would be at equal or greater risk?
I will start off that CDR Vandenengel is selling a book and sales tend to be proportional to controversy. A book is not a debate but rather a one-sided persuasion/argument exercise. For a debate on the matter, the USNA Museum's event from a decade ago now with our Porch friends Bryan McGrath and Jerry Hendrix still reins supreme IMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8sdNU0K1Hg Finally, there is today's YouTube upload by Ward Carroll.
To answer your question, if the assumption is that current aircraft carriers are incapable of defending themselves and are obsolete then putting an even less capable vessel into the identical situation would definitely be at equal or greater risk. Smaller airwing, lower speed, lower endurance, and smaller magazine.
I greatly respect both debaters. Dr. Hendrix's comment that this is a "math problem" nails it for me. Real world defense challenges are highly non-linear and they impose questions of probability(ies). Example. VLS cell count is a "composition" metric but to to me it is a partial differential equation in space and time - where, what (composition) and locality and questions of probability(ies) are most certainly in play. The "archers and arrows" are evolving rapidly as are the diversity, versatility and quantity of assets employed for reconnaissance and surveillance. Those ISR assets can be employed in depth and are sustainable over time. My unease stems from the artifact that the USN has never actually engaged in a real world conflict (over a period of months) that remotely resembles what she could be facing in the not too distant future. I fear the stakes in the ground that is the CSG and, especially the MEU, are risky ones. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise. At the end of this for me, I see sailors and marines and the degree to which we will put them at a risk level that could be mitigated by other means.
Outstanding Mid-Rats. Very insightful indeed. Many thanks
Why bother having a gator navy if you don’t use it?
Yemen was a perfect place to use the Marines to seize ports and offshore islands but we didn’t.
What's new? Amphibs and Logistics vessels have been at the end of the maintenance que for the best part of 50 years.
Not quite - mine warfare is below them.
And since the Navy turned all salvage assets over to MSC they've dropped completely off the radar.
It would be nice if MARAD kept doing their shipbuilding surveys to help with the industrial base work. Tim Colton passed away. Here is some spreadsheet work I ran out of time to complete or clean up, but you can see we have a few options we aren't fully utilizing. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vGXRBmAkCuZfMZf-B16O565gF9V1tkFUaNlOsQ3Ir94/edit?usp=sharing