Rethinking Amphibious Assault

For USNI subscription members only (behind the paywall), this article by Noel Williams titled The Next Wave: Assault Operations for a New Era is a really interesting read. Here is a sample:

Perhaps the most promising technology area is unmanned systems. In the 2020s and beyond there will simply be no reason to place 20 Marines in a steel box and drive them through mined waters to land on an area-denied beach. An unmanned breacher vehicle (UBV), or family of unmanned systems, could clear and mark the assault lanes ahead of any manned surface movement. These UBVs could be launched from surface, subsurface, or airborne delivery means—overtly or covertly. UBVs could be given large magnetic and acoustic signatures to trigger influence mines and could be equipped with cameras, remote gun systems, plows, cutters, and/or line charges to clear beach obstacles. Additionally, it would be possible to transition the UBV to convoy reconnaissance and clearing missions once manned vehicles are ashore.

Introducing an unmanned system breaks the tyranny of the hybrid vehicle that we have found to be so costly and that inevitably results in compromises in both operating domains—afloat and ashore. Since current plans call for landing existing manned breacher vehicles roughly 30 minutes after the first amphibious tractor landing, the time frame requiring a vehicle that transitions seamlessly from sea to shore is roughly 30 minutes. If the joint force is able to achieve beach superiority for this brief period, there is no need for a hybrid vehicle at all. Introducing an unmanned initial assault wave completely eliminates the requirement.

Unmanned systems can provide improved operational capability and enhanced force-protection at significantly reduced cost. Unmanned breachers allow the introduction of ground-fighting vehicles to shore via surface-effect and displacement connectors. By thus avoiding the requirement for a hybrid vehicle, the Marine Corps can focus its limited resources on producing a new fighting vehicle optimized for operations ashore.

This combination of unmanned systems for the initial surface wave and non-hybrid wheeled fighting vehicles for ashore provides a real opportunity to lighten the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), while drawing a clear distinction between Marine Corps and heavy Army units. Additional savings might be realized by participating in a joint venture with the Army to produce a next-generation fighting vehicle (a Stryker successor) with riverine capability. The latest generation of light armored vehicle, or its commercially available equivalent, would provide operational flexibility, training, maintenance, sustainment, and affordability benefits. Determining the actual material solution should be facilitated by additional wargaming and analysis based on threat and operational-concept considerations.

If the USMC did something like this - going unmanned with their breach vehicle from the sea - that would have a trickle down impact on several things including the MPC (Marine Personnel Carrier) requirements, because the MPC would become more important as the primary mover of Marines. There are a lot of things you can do when you remove the EFV/AAAV role and replace that with an unmanned system, but it is also obvious it adds additional impacts to other areas of the USMC ground vehicle force that would require additional study.

I like this idea a lot, but need more time to consider the degree to which it impacts other things.

The Answer is Always the Marine Corps, Now What Was the Question?

"With or without the LCS, when asked what capability is required to fight in the Littorals - the right answer will always be the Marine Corps."

I try to save all my email, and that is a quote from an email sent to me in early November 2008, before I was embarked on FREEDOM, from a Marine LtCol who insisted that is the most important lesson I would learn by riding on FREEDOM a few days. I thought of that quote when I read this article over at DoD Buzz discussing Chris Rawley's swarming boat scenario from earlier this morning.

Phil Ewing concludes implying the right answer to swarming threats might be the Marine Corps Cobra gunships. That suggests me that in 2011:

• The LCS is still a Powerpoint capability
• RW Squadrons need more articulate advocates
• Navy ships can never have enough guns, particularly on the bigger warships

The point is valid though. Of the three scenarios presented by Chris, none of them include a Marine Corps perspective. Back when the EFV was in its infancy, I distinctly remember suggestions the EFV and it's 30mm gun could blow up swarming boats as it moved from ship-to-shore. When I was at the EFV shop in San Diego earlier this year, I asked about that. When asked, the Marine SSgt looked at me and said (and I am quoting),

"The EFV is as fast as the LCS, shorter than a Boston Whaler, and surrounded in armor. Tell me how creative the Colonel is and I'll tell you what we can do."

So as I think about the question Chris proposed, I'm thinking that the price of 1 DDG-51 I'll take a LPD-17 with Romeos, Cobras, EFVs, and instead of LCACs or LCUs, I'll take CB-90s and the blue green team that makes this capability a blue/green/brown water nightmare for the enemy.