via THINKDEFENCE.
On a sidenote. Littoral Warfare is in hindsight the naval version of counter insurgency. Blue water assets can handle any littoral issue. We need to focus on building a survivable blue water fleet. Green/brown water ops can be adapted to by Marine/Army/Navy units on the fly.
On a sidenote. Littoral Warfare is in hindsight the naval version of counter insurgency. Blue water assets can handle any littoral issue. We need to focus on building a survivable blue water fleet. Green/brown water ops can be adapted to by Marine/Army/Navy units on the fly.
The issue isn't that blue water ships can't do littoral warfare, it's that using them in that role exposes very big, high tech, expensive ships to a lot of comparatively low tech, cheap threats. It also ties up those expensive assets in roles much smaller, cheaper ships should fill.
ReplyDeleteThe USN has no concept of littoral warfare because, if they had one, the LCS could be compared to it and exposed as a fraud.
One type of littoral is COINish as you say. Think Pirates and Market Time.
For the other example, think Sweden. They developed a very high tech force of small craft, coastal rangers, and so on that was designed to inflict unacceptable losses on a blue water attacking force. This is a whole different issue.
In real life, the lines are blurring. We are in an era when a terrorist group can launch an anti-ship missile attack. It would take a lot of explaining if an Aegis cruiser went down to something fired off the back of a truck . . .
Personally, I think riverine / COIN littoral should belong to the USMC. Doing right always involves boots on the ground, amphibs are natural mother ships, and close cooperation with the USN is key and it needs to be recognized as a different type of littoral combat than what the Swedes envisioned or even than what the Israelis have actually fought.