Fact.
The USMC has labored since its birth to perfect forcible entry. Today its working hard with the Navy to overcome A2/AD problems and while we don't have all the answers, we're working the problem.
Fact.
There are only three forms of forcible entry. Airborne. Air Assault. Amphibious Assault.
Question.
Have you seen the US Army working to solve the forcible entry problem for its Airborne or Air Assault formations?
The Reality.
While the Army has made a great show of squashing the term "Air-Sea Battle" (even though they had no problem with the term "Air-Land Battle" previously...show me a better sign of a paranoid service!), pushing to get Army Aviation aboard already crowded US Navy ships and played with the way that their units are made up, they've ignored their piece of the Forcible Entry pie.
The Rub. Light Combat Vehicles for the 82nd might be "cool" but doctrine needs to be written on how the division will enter contested airspace and be sustained once they're on the ground (I won't even touch on the strategically immobile 101st Airborne!).
The Solution.
The US Army and Air Force must turn to on making forcible entry for Airborne and Air Assault units a reality. The idea of "emptying" an aircraft carrier for a redux of the Haiti experience IS NOT an answer. Penetrator aircraft...C-5's, C-17's and even partnering with Air Force Special Ops to use CV-22's as guide aircraft for Army Rotary winged aircraft must be examined. Additionally it should be noted that every Army Unit has some form of Air Assault capability. Does the 101st actually serve a useful service to the nation or would we be better served by having another Airborne Division that is strategically agile?
What is also interesting about how the Army is doing things is that the 101st has had 2 combat aviation brigades(101st and 159th) in the past to make it more effective at air assault operations than other units. However now they are deactivating the 159th Combat Aviation Brigade so now the 101st is going to have the exact same basic organization as the 82nd airborne and 10th mountain divisions.
ReplyDeletefrom the outside looking in they're working so hard to standardize the entire Army that they've lost focus on what they're suppose to be delivering to the nation.
ReplyDeletethey want to out Marine Corps, the Marine Corps but it doesn't work in an organization that size. meanwhile they're chasing there tail in the Pacific doing shit that they're hardly capable of and destroying their equipment in the long run to prove that they can.
Why is mechanized land assault not considered forcible entry?
ReplyDeletebecause it requires the permission of another nation. thats the simple, non-politically correct answer.
ReplyDeleteyou have to stage with the permission of a host nation. you can't conduct military activities from their soil without their permission.
quite honestly if it doesn't originate from US territory or from the sea then its not forcible entry. which leads to the obvious question.
why is air assault in the way practiced by the 101st considered forcible entry!
Good question. It takes as long to deploy and unload as 1st Armored Division.
ReplyDeleteDid you not consult JP 3-18 at all?
ReplyDeleteThe answer to that lies in JP 3-18. Air Assault forced entry operations can come from the sea, as per the joint doctrine the USMC and US Army have already signed off on.
ReplyDeleteWhat are they supposed to be delivering to the nation? How is the Army trying to "out Marine Corps the Marine Corps" in any way? Honest questions here.
ReplyDeletequite honestly you've lost points with me. why won't i answer your question? because i refuse to engage with a person that won't actually debate honestly. i addressed my issue with your F-35 rant. the issue is that it was a thinly veiled assault on the Marine Corps and your choice of supporting "documents" revealed that. i don't even remember the two websites but i mean seriously?
ReplyDeleteand of course i KNEW it would happen. the critique of the F-35 has morphed into questioning the very survival of the Marine Corps.
now back to you. the conversation has gyrated between an actual critique of the F-35, to supposed sins of the Marine Corps on battlefields past (the websites you noted...and McGregor is a WELL KNOWN Marine Corps hater ---critic doesn't apply to someone of his ilk), to saying that the Marine Corps doesn't need fast jets.
when i counter that the Army should instead seek to reverse the ban on its having fast jet close air support you indicate that its not needed.
we have a diametrically opposed view of things so why not simply let it go and move on.
Solomon, I've apologized before, and I will apologize again that I offended you. But I really want the record to be clear about what I actually said.
ReplyDeleteI wrote specifically that the USMC doesn't need vertical take off jets to justify its continued existence. The USMC is a vital part of national defence and foreign policy. I specifically wrote that the USMC should continue.
I never once wrote that the USMC should be dissolved, and I directed readers to "get analytical, not angry" when reading the two linked articles. The argument that a service should be disbanded because it duplicates the capabilities of another service is a non-starter, EVERY service duplicates capabilities of other services (police, medical, JAG, rotary wing, ground transport, fuelers, etc). The point was to analyze the argument about whether or not the "unique" capabilities of vertical lift fixed wing aircraft was worth the squeeze or not.
If I wanted to insult the USMC I would be direct about it. I apologize that my words offended you, I can only say that I didn't intend
AM!
ReplyDeletedude! i'm a basic individual. in my world guys get pissed with each other, disagree, throw punches (if called for) and then move on. your apology is UNNECESSARY.
EXTREMELY UNNECESSARY.
i'm on to the next episode. let me leave you with this though. you will note that i never defended the F-35.
In my world an apology for not choosing my words more carefully was definitely due. Be thankful I didn't put the apology in haiku form.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, you never defended the F-35.