I know the following quote has been used by other commenters on this platform in other postings. I think it is very relevant to today’s posting: “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” — Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (Prussian Field Marshal)
How does this quote relate to FD? Simple, static missile units can’t adjust dynamically; maneuver units can. The Marine Corps must return to maneuver warfare. If missiles are needed within the MEF, add them as a force multiplier.
I hate to say this; the US Army is innovating and adapting without gutting their units at a much faster rate than the Marine Corps…never thought I would see the day the Army becomes more and more relevant than the Marines on the global stage.
Do not shut down a production line or parts manufacture until the replacement product is being fielded. Low rate production is not very economical but it is your insurance policy. We made this mistake with CH-46’s when the Osprey suffered delay after delay and delay. There is a value in mass and reliability that often exceeds the hollow promise of state of the art promises. As a culture we are quick to fall in love with cutting edge technology or game changer ideas. That is a good thing to a point. It is a disaster when it does not work in time. The premature introduction of the M-16 to replace the M-14 was another classic.
My Father flew the Pacific in WWII in a PBY, a pilot of VPB33. There is time and place for most innovation and while float planes were valuable for those islands, a gigantic version in today’s war may not be! RIP, POP!
Hmmm….the “AIRCAT Bengal MC” – Yes, it has the versatility, the flexibility and the speed the US NAVY, (repeat – US NAVY) needs for a small amphibious assault ship. One of the FD2030 requirements that the General Berger got right is the US Navy’s need for a small, adaptable, flexible and fast amphibious assault ship.
The LSTs were easily configured into variants like Repair, Hospital, Barracks and Fighter Direction Ships. The LCIs were also converted into a number of variants (Gunboats, Rocket ships, Mortar ships, Vehicle transports, and Command and Control Ships). BTW when things fell apart at Utah Beach a couple of these small amphibs, after beaching, went into the direct fire mode to neutralize German fortified positions. The US Navy also turned loose their destroyers that charged into 1000 meters of the beach to provide direct fire in German positions on Utah Beach. Definitely not a recommended solution but you never know.
Considering this, what role does the AIRCAT fill in the Amphibious Land Plan? I can see it making the run between an ESB (Expeditionary Sea Base) and the beach. In addition, maybe delivering the “floating dumps” to the assault beach and EVAC casualties. I do have to wonder about its limited 44 tons (two 20 Ft containers) and troop capacity.
I thought that the EPF (Expeditionary Fast Transport) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead-class_expeditionary_fast_transport was going to fill some of these roles. However, the US Navy has decided that the EPF needs to be retired (along with the LSDs). The EPF is not V-22 friendly and therefore, not a good amphibious solution for the US Marine Corps. I sometimes wonder if the US Marine Corps is its own worst enemy.
The AIRCAT is versatility, flexibility and has the speed needed for a new small amphib. It is a good idea and let’s build on that idea and maybe develop a “variant” with a larger cargo and troop load. S/F
Another old proverb/saying is: don't count your chickens until they hatch. Five years and we are still waiting for the NMESIS eggs to hatch. Boy am I getting hungry!
Regarding the Liberty Lifter, the Japanese already have a small amphibian. We would be wise to purchase that one, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. Another proverb: a bird in the hand is better than one in the bush!
I know the following quote has been used by other commenters on this platform in other postings. I think it is very relevant to today’s posting: “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” — Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (Prussian Field Marshal)
How does this quote relate to FD? Simple, static missile units can’t adjust dynamically; maneuver units can. The Marine Corps must return to maneuver warfare. If missiles are needed within the MEF, add them as a force multiplier.
I hate to say this; the US Army is innovating and adapting without gutting their units at a much faster rate than the Marine Corps…never thought I would see the day the Army becomes more and more relevant than the Marines on the global stage.
Do not shut down a production line or parts manufacture until the replacement product is being fielded. Low rate production is not very economical but it is your insurance policy. We made this mistake with CH-46’s when the Osprey suffered delay after delay and delay. There is a value in mass and reliability that often exceeds the hollow promise of state of the art promises. As a culture we are quick to fall in love with cutting edge technology or game changer ideas. That is a good thing to a point. It is a disaster when it does not work in time. The premature introduction of the M-16 to replace the M-14 was another classic.
The Big, Big Rule!
https://marinecorpscompasspoints.substack.com/p/compass-points-the-big-big-rule
My Father flew the Pacific in WWII in a PBY, a pilot of VPB33. There is time and place for most innovation and while float planes were valuable for those islands, a gigantic version in today’s war may not be! RIP, POP!
Hmmm….the “AIRCAT Bengal MC” – Yes, it has the versatility, the flexibility and the speed the US NAVY, (repeat – US NAVY) needs for a small amphibious assault ship. One of the FD2030 requirements that the General Berger got right is the US Navy’s need for a small, adaptable, flexible and fast amphibious assault ship.
In WW2 we build thousands of small amphibious assault ships. They were call LSTs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship,_Tank
and LCIs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Infantry
The LSTs were easily configured into variants like Repair, Hospital, Barracks and Fighter Direction Ships. The LCIs were also converted into a number of variants (Gunboats, Rocket ships, Mortar ships, Vehicle transports, and Command and Control Ships). BTW when things fell apart at Utah Beach a couple of these small amphibs, after beaching, went into the direct fire mode to neutralize German fortified positions. The US Navy also turned loose their destroyers that charged into 1000 meters of the beach to provide direct fire in German positions on Utah Beach. Definitely not a recommended solution but you never know.
Considering this, what role does the AIRCAT fill in the Amphibious Land Plan? I can see it making the run between an ESB (Expeditionary Sea Base) and the beach. In addition, maybe delivering the “floating dumps” to the assault beach and EVAC casualties. I do have to wonder about its limited 44 tons (two 20 Ft containers) and troop capacity.
I thought that the EPF (Expeditionary Fast Transport) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead-class_expeditionary_fast_transport was going to fill some of these roles. However, the US Navy has decided that the EPF needs to be retired (along with the LSDs). The EPF is not V-22 friendly and therefore, not a good amphibious solution for the US Marine Corps. I sometimes wonder if the US Marine Corps is its own worst enemy.
The AIRCAT is versatility, flexibility and has the speed needed for a new small amphib. It is a good idea and let’s build on that idea and maybe develop a “variant” with a larger cargo and troop load. S/F
Another old proverb/saying is: don't count your chickens until they hatch. Five years and we are still waiting for the NMESIS eggs to hatch. Boy am I getting hungry!
Regarding the Liberty Lifter, the Japanese already have a small amphibian. We would be wise to purchase that one, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. Another proverb: a bird in the hand is better than one in the bush!