U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2019, 05:22 PM
 
13,673 posts, read 12,572,517 times
Reputation: 18617

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf View Post
It is not outdated at all.



Amphibious landing as part of modern military operations is as important as ever. Littoral combat will never lose its importance. Landing troops as part of a full scale conflict is a vital capability and has been since the beginning of time.
I said outdated as in the WW2 style many think of, lol.

I would not say it is as important as ever, I can think of several things more important. The fact the Marines had to "insist" shows there are many who view it as something on the lower priority list.

Against a modern military, forget it, anti-ship missile tech has come too far now to park some large ships off the coast and storm the beach. Hell, carrier tactics are now investing in drone tech to extend the range of the fighters so the carriers can be further from the coast, so they will lessen their vulnerability to anti-ship missile tech that is not here yet, but maybe soon will be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2019, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
9,244 posts, read 5,059,964 times
Reputation: 7909
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
.......Against a modern military, forget it, anti-ship missile tech has come too far now to park some large ships off the coast and storm the beach. Hell, carrier tactics are now investing in drone tech to extend the range of the fighters so the carriers can be further from the coast, so they will lessen their vulnerability to anti-ship missile tech that is not here yet, but maybe soon will be.

Just as there is anti-ship missile tech, so is there anti-anti-ship missile.


I cannot believe that for all the effort we put in the Cold War to defeat the things that we have now said to give up for there is no stopping the things.


That's like saying the modern ship is a one hit deal; it takes a hit and you might as well abandon.


Now, even though I'm almost a generation out of it, I probably shouldn't talk about what I knew back then. Let me illustrate, however, one aspect.


Sea State. The cruise missile over a somewhat planer ocean can be pretty hard to detect while it has the detection advantage but what happens in extreme sea states where the trough and crests are like valleys and mountains? If at the point of anticipated contact the ship is down in a trough, the missile could fly right over without seeing it.


The ability to attack in such weather could be a nice advantage. Even if it is just a demonstrated ability, as another said, it forces an enemy to keep watching in regions where energy and effort are consumed when they could be employed elsewhere.


Never doubt the audacity of the other guy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Maryland
1,125 posts, read 333,801 times
Reputation: 2503
It always comes down to boots on the ground eventually. They’ve got to get there somehow and that approach, if it is available at the time and better than other options, still makes sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 08:58 AM
 
15,661 posts, read 9,063,039 times
Reputation: 26323
Nothing in military doctrine is 'outdated.'

Remember during the hey days of the "war on terror?" The emphasis was on unconventional warfare and insurgency, including urban warfare. The cold war strategy seemed to be on the out with draw down in Europe.

Well what do you know. With the slowdown in the Middle East and rising tensions with Russia, cold war tactics are back. And now with China and the North Koreans as a possible threat, back to traditional warfare a la WW2. We certainly will be needing maritime tactics in those cases.

Nothing is ever obsolete, depends on the current political climate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
8,237 posts, read 8,256,125 times
Reputation: 4898
never know...California has lots of beaches ...........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
9,596 posts, read 3,269,353 times
Reputation: 5688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
And then the US Army has its version in maintaining the capability to drop an Airborne Battalion. Only they can point to the Rangers on Grenada and the 82nd Airborne in Panama as more recent examples.
The US Marines carried out amphibous landings during the Koean War, Persian Gulf War and later in the second Gulf War at Al-Faw Peninsula in 2003.

Other countries have also used amphibous warfare landings since WW2, during wars such as the Falklands War etc.

There are also new more advanced crafts and ways to carry out amphibous warfare.

The Navy Might Have a Plan to Change Amphibious Warfare Forever - The National Interest (2018)


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 01:01 PM
 
13,673 posts, read 12,572,517 times
Reputation: 18617
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
Just as there is anti-ship missile tech, so is there anti-anti-ship missile.


I cannot believe that for all the effort we put in the Cold War to defeat the things that we have now said to give up for there is no stopping the things.


That's like saying the modern ship is a one hit deal; it takes a hit and you might as well abandon.


Now, even though I'm almost a generation out of it, I probably shouldn't talk about what I knew back then. Let me illustrate, however, one aspect.


Sea State. The cruise missile over a somewhat planer ocean can be pretty hard to detect while it has the detection advantage but what happens in extreme sea states where the trough and crests are like valleys and mountains? If at the point of anticipated contact the ship is down in a trough, the missile could fly right over without seeing it.


The ability to attack in such weather could be a nice advantage. Even if it is just a demonstrated ability, as another said, it forces an enemy to keep watching in regions where energy and effort are consumed when they could be employed elsewhere.


Never doubt the audacity of the other guy.
A anti-sub plane like a P-3 can detect a periscope in a sea state five. So it is rpetty feasible that a missile can detect a large, amphib warship in any sea state. Those ships are up over 40 thousand tons, not exactly small. Plus, they cannot launch past a certain sea state anyway, I think four may be the limit.

Anti-missile tech has not kept up with current missile tech. Even for what we have, it is for use against 1, 2, 3 missiles, not a salvo of dozens of missiles. Just as we have no defense against a Russian mass attack, launching thousands of nukes at the US.

The US is developing tech to counter the advancement in missiles. One is to keep the ships much further off shore. They are now launching operations from beyond the horizon, and developing better landing craft and helicopters to deliver to onshore, allowing ships to be much further out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy View Post
Nothing in military doctrine is 'outdated.'

Remember during the hey days of the "war on terror?" The emphasis was on unconventional warfare and insurgency, including urban warfare. The cold war strategy seemed to be on the out with draw down in Europe.

Well what do you know. With the slowdown in the Middle East and rising tensions with Russia, cold war tactics are back. And now with China and the North Koreans as a possible threat, back to traditional warfare a la WW2. We certainly will be needing maritime tactics in those cases.

Nothing is ever obsolete, depends on the current political climate.
Plenty of things are outdated. We no longer have the line formations we used in the Revolutionary War and Civil War, marching straight in-line with drums beating. To say we would not do that in the future in 1776, you would have been laughed at. We also do not have a drummer, flag bearers, bright colored uniforms, bayonets are still sued, though much rarer and not even instructed at the rate they were 200 years ago. We also do not "carpet bomb", using precision ordinance instead. You can call these changes due to technology or whatever, but still are outdated concepts despite the reason.

But like I said, the WW2 concept of beach assaults is outdated, beach assaults will not be like that. There will be no D-Day style assaults. Al Faw as nothing like WW2 assaults, it actually was like any other assault except it was launch from the water, helicopters and air support were the primary way it was done. They did not land hovercraft, running into a blaze of gun fire like on D-Day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
The US Marines carried out amphibous landings during the Koean War, Persian Gulf War and later in the second Gulf War at Al-Faw Peninsula in 2003.

Other countries have also used amphibous warfare landings since WW2, during wars such as the Falklands War etc.

There are also new more advanced crafts and ways to carry out amphibous warfare.

The Navy Might Have a Plan to Change Amphibious Warfare Forever - The National Interest (2018)


Yes, there are landings, and there are assaults, two different things. A landing is not being done under fire, or very minimal fire. it takes a while to unload hovercrafts, been there, done that. They are very vulnerable to being shot at also, they are huge, slow, about zero armor, and little defensive capabilities. The link you provided is just about a more modernized one that allows the assault ships to operate further from land, away from anti-ship missiles, which I referred to above; this is the direction they are going right now.

A beach assault is done under fire, a lot of it. There will always be a need for landings, it is a very good way to move material from ship to shore, especially given the absence of feasible ports in the world in conflict zones. But an assault? It will be more like the Al Faw type assaults, not the D-Day, Pacific island hopping style in WW2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,066 posts, read 48,165,179 times
Reputation: 18121
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
A anti-sub plane like a P-3 can detect a periscope in a sea state five. So it is rpetty feasible that a missile can detect a large, amphib warship in any sea state. Those ships are up over 40 thousand tons, not exactly small. Plus, they cannot launch past a certain sea state anyway, I think four may be the limit.
In sea state five, it is extremely difficult to operate a submarine in a manner that would allow only a periscope up out of the water.

If a submarine attempts to go up to PD [Periscope Depth] in state five sea conditions, there will be moments where most of its hull is exposed.

It is really hard to hold a level-bubble when the seas are rough.

I have participated in a few attempts to medically evacuate wounded crewmen onto helicopters in rough seas. The evolution gets ugly very fast. The 'Lessons' Learned' from decades of the US Navy doing Medi-Vacs is that it is far safer to broach, put the wounded crewman in an exposure suit, and as soon as the helicopter has the crewman in sight, to submerge under him. Let the helicopter crew pluck him from the waves.

On my last boat, Medi-Vacs were our only method of getting mail off the boat to our families. We would pack the guy's underwear with letters home, knowing that eventually his wife would get the letters and pass them on to the rest of our wives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 01:39 PM
 
13,673 posts, read 12,572,517 times
Reputation: 18617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
In sea state five, it is extremely difficult to operate a submarine in a manner that would allow only a periscope up out of the water.

If a submarine attempts to go up to PD [Periscope Depth] in state five sea conditions, there will be moments where most of its hull is exposed.

It is really hard to hold a level-bubble when the seas are rough.

I have participated in a few attempts to medically evacuate wounded crewmen onto helicopters in rough seas. The evolution gets ugly very fast. The 'Lessons' Learned' from decades of the US Navy doing Medi-Vacs is that it is far safer to broach, put the wounded crewman in an exposure suit, and as soon as the helicopter has the crewman in sight, to submerge under him. Let the helicopter crew pluck him from the waves.

On my last boat, Medi-Vacs were our only method of getting mail off the boat to our families. We would pack the guy's underwear with letters home, knowing that eventually his wife would get the letters and pass them on to the rest of our wives.
Yes, a sub has a good chance of broaching in a high sea state, but it can and has been done without broaching, but fact is that a P-3 can detect a scope, mast, in a sea state five, this is made in context about a missile's ability in detecting a 40,000+ ton ship in a high sea state. There are anti-ship missiles, the advancements speaking of are about ballistics really, the range of the missiles as current missiles have extremely short ranges that put the launcher basically in the range of current defenses. Hitting a ship with a ballistic missile is extremely difficult, and you will need ballistics to strike at such ranges.

We always surfaced to do medivacs, I think it was SOP to do so, we even had to pull into an inlet/harbor area once because the sea state was too high for a safe medivac, so we needed calmer water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
9,244 posts, read 5,059,964 times
Reputation: 7909
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
A anti-sub plane like a P-3 can detect a periscope in a sea state five. So it is rpetty feasible that a missile can detect a large, amphib warship in any sea state. .........
You are comparing apples and oranges of radar usage.

In one case, you are talking about an wide sweep air search radar. In another case, you are trying to apply the same to a seeker head with a limited area.

The other thing is the P-3 doesn't care as much if its radar sweep is detected by the submarine because most subs don't carry AA to fight back with. The anti-ship missile "does care" if it is detected because that can mean potential death. The way they use the beams is different.

It is not the same thing.

Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 01-05-2019 at 02:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top