Really good article from WOTR. I agree with the author completely.
No End in Sight to the Army’s Dependence on Airpower
No End in Sight to the Army’s Dependence on Airpower
A sad day for the soldier/seaman/airman on the ground.... (A-10/CAS Discussion)
- Thread starter Kraut783
- Start date
The proponants of MDB keep dropping terms like "joint effort", "partnerships", "working closely", "in conjunction " and "coordination" with the other services...while at the same time talking about empowering the Army to sink ships (with land-based artillery equipped with anti-ship capabilities), establish air supremacy with anti-aircraft weapons and have infantry platoon sergeants conducting cyber warfare on their laptops. And all this against our future enemy, a cyber-proficient conventional major power (China? Russia?) with an air force and a navy. The concept itself seems impractical, like a seamless meshing of the gears between all the services in which everybody knows how to do everything in everybody else's domain. Like cross-training...only on a massive scale.
I don't see the Army fighting enemy aircraft carriers anytime soon. But...I could be wrong.
Last edited:
Disagreed with him on this paragraph.
Operation Allied Force over the Former Republic of Yugoslavia proved that air forces alone could win. Reasonably characterized as “winning ugly”, it was a 78-day NATO air campaign that stopped the slaughter of Kosovar Albanians and led to the independence of Kosovo and Montenegro. The Army’s contribution was limited to defensive measures; even Army aviation was unneeded in the operation. The Army’s view that only they can achieve victory in warfare is unsupported by the historical record and dismissive of the Army’s complete dependence on the joint force for its logistics.
NATO authorized a ground incursion, and that's when negotiations got serious.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
If it's a CAS or CCA platform for a low threat environment that the Army wants, a DAP equivalent in conventional aviation would be pretty slick. Twin 30mm cannons, forward facing M134s, or .50 cal miniguns, 2.75 rockets, a metric fuck-ton of ammo, and long loiter time.
We already have rotary wing pilots, crews, and training facilities.
We already have rotary wing pilots, crews, and training facilities.
We could certainly use land based anti-ship ballistic missiles in the South China Sea.
Whats the difference between that and the Apache fire power wise?
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
DAPs have 2 or 4 hardpoints, the most common setup seems to be 2x 30mm (the same gun used by Apaches) and 2x rocket pods. The miniguns in the doors are fixed to fire forward. I don't know how many rounds of 30mm the DAP carries, but I know it's more per gun than the Apache carries.
So, 2x the 30mm, plus 7.62, level on rockets. DAPs can carry Hellfires, but I think the consensus is that an extra 30mm is the better use of space.
They gain their advantage from the cabin space- the rear half houses a fuel tank, while the front half is full of ammo.
With the Kiowa being retired, I think it would be highly effective to field teams of Apaches and DAPs working together. I don't see the conventional Army ever getting them, but it's a nice thought.
Speaking of that, I seem to remember reading of a Marine shore battery on Tulagi sinking (or at least discouraging) a Japanese submarine that had surfaced in the strait and was firing its deck gun at Higgins boats...So maybe you have something there.
Anti ship ballistic missiles will change warfare at sea. They probably already have. I believe we need to leverage land based anti ship ballistic missiles to help control littoral seas. Other countries are already doing this and we need to do the same.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I very much agree, and showing my naïveté, trying to wrap my head around how it would work. The targets are moving. The missiles need guidance to target the ships. How do they do that? Satellite? Our ships/aircraft as C3?
SpongeBob*24
Verified Military
Getting off basis here, but this plays drastically into the Marine Corps future in planning beach assaults. What is being done to prevent ships from getting hit by land based anti ship ballistics before they get close enough to allow Marines to breach the beach.
I don't think anybody in their right mind would plan an amphibious assault unless they felt land-based anti-ship ballistics could be neutralized beforehand. In fact, I just can't see the Marine Corps even considering a frontal beach assault on a well-defended coast when you have vertical envelopment capabilities.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
Surface radar.
Devildoc
Verified Military
Which makes sense, but do it with...ships? Aircraft?
In my deeply depleted and plebian state of mind, am I wrong in thinking that if we had radar-equipped whatever to lock the land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles onto target, we would be close enough to just use ship-based or air-based missiles? Eliminating the need for land-based missiles?
Of course, my knowledge in this area comes from Tom Clancy novels circa mid-80s.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
I would assume the missle batteries would have their own radar system.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,459
Or the missiles themselves. Some cruise missiles have a point that once they get to a kill box they actively scan the area and attack any target they "see"
Not disagreeing, but if that's what you are proposing as a fix, as more and more countries have surface to sea missiles, then you are going to need to change Marine Corps doctrine.
I'm at dinner right now but I'll try to formulate a coherent response later. Bottom line: it's not a pretty scenario and is radically increasing the risk of forcible entry from the sea.
This isn't a uniquely Marine Corps issue; proliferation of modern man portable anti air weapons and GPS guided surface to surface missiles should concern the USAF and US Army as well.
