The Marines rejoined the fleet to fight for control of the seas. This shows the Navy is taking this seriously:
The U.S. Navy wants to buy as many as 30 of a new class of Light Amphibious Warships that would be significantly smaller and cheaper to operate than its existing fleets of large amphibious ships. ... Each LAW will have a crew of no more than 40 sailors and be able to accommodate at least 75 Marines.
I am fully on board dispersing and disaggregating the Marines. Is a force of 75 Marines really enough? Wouldn't over 100 to have a shot at a company-sized element on one ship be appropriate?
And shouldn't the vessel at least have some basic air defense and a cannon for fire support if needed?
Sure, some of the ships could be unarmed. But as I wrote about a few years ago in Proceedings (membership required) when calling for conversions of old warships to be APDs--armed transport ships--the way the Navy used in World War II by converting old destroyers to carry a company of troops.
Or will the deployments always be to friendly islands under the umbrella of other military assets? Maybe Japan's stumbling plans for securing their own islands in the East China Sea should give the Navy and Marines cause for rethinking this approach.
Shouldn't some of these LAWs be armed? And bigger?
