Re: DD(X) Costs

In message <m3%Mg.17483$Ca4.10219@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul F Austin <pfaustin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
You're assuming that the reason for amphibious operations (the defining one)
is spec ops on steroids. We haven't done an opposed landing in over 50 years
but that's the reason for the amphibious fleet's existance.

No!

Seriously, no. Amphibiosity is not just about letting Spielberg release "Saving Private Ryan II" as troops charge concrete bunkers... it's about landing fifty miles up the coast where the defenders are spread thin and weak, and you have time to get a decent lodgement ashore with the enemy scrambling to react (or, if you're really lucky, sitting tight and waiting for you to come out when you're as ready as you'll get, with his aviators trying to get at you as his navy stays home and his army huddles deeper in their foxholes) while still having a usable route to get to something the enemy _does_ care about, and being able to ensure that in the hopefully-decisive battle he runs out of men, munitions or munchies before you do.

We may argue
about whether that mission is probable enough to maintain the expertise for
break-ins but that's the reason for the Marines and the shipping that
supports them. While the Air Force and the Army Airborne think they can do
the job (and had a cow when the Marines were tapped to sieze the airhead in
Afghanistan), the need to sieze a port or airhead against significant
opposition is real enough to justify the assets.

That's _one_ mission for amphibious forces. Fundamentally, if you own the sea and the enemy has a coast then you can threaten every shore he owns. Leverage those synergies! (And the further inshore you can reach the better - with the caveat below)

LCACs aren't intended to operate under fire and against modern weapons,
would be hopelessly vulnerable. I agree that Strykers or something like them
should be part of the Marine's equipment (because of their superior
operational mobility ashore), they can't swim.

Know what you can do, with what you can get, to the fight you're willing to have.

Sounds easy - but it isn't.

--
Paul J. Adam
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hi Play65Official Sheila Baker, I was Play65 user nicknamed SleepWalkerr in November 2006.
    ... I was Play65 user nicknamed SleepWalkerr in November ... Play65 closed my account with some funny reasons. ... I want to write here some laughable mails, received from Mr Paul one ... GE sent me a new reason to close my account. ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: OT: LOL! "Yoooo vill Explode!"
    ... Trying to reason with a bigot like you would be about as worthwhile as ... exception of Ron Paul has pledged allegiance to The Beast (yes this ... that Israel is worth defending. ... I think that defending a democracy is a worthwhile goal. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Word v.X doesnt print tables properly in Panther
    ... Is there some good reason why Microsoft ... it's only where the major applications are concerned that this is ever ... Entourage Help Page: ... One has already been stated by Paul: ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
  • Re: ATWT - Casting News
    ... Paul was the only ... I also am interested in what good reason Babs had for her kneejerk ... Hmm, okay, LOL, yeah, I know the snobbish reasons, but ... ... being judgmental, 'cos I don't see that, or the 'better than' attitude. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Re: Teddies out of Pram and Into Orbit Time...
    ... Methinks you are not the reason, simply a convenient excuse. ... If Straczynski wants to make himself scarce, ... IMO using Paul as the excuse, serves the purpose of making all his ...
    (uk.media.tv.sf.babylon5)