The Marines are to deploy around INDOPACOM and establish anti-ship outposts in a shifting kill web. Would flying boats be the better way to deploy, resupply, and redeploy these small units?
The Marines are moving away from being a "second army" capable of extended land campaigns to one that reorganizes into Marine Littoral Regiments to support the Navy. These are made of Littoral Combat Teams (quoting a USNI article):
“The Littoral Combat Team (LCT) is task-organized around an infantry battalion along with a long-range anti-ship missile battery. The LCT is designed to provide the basis for employing multiple platoon-reinforced-size expeditionary advance base (EAB) sites that can host and enable a variety of missions such as long-range anti-ship fires, forward arming and refueling of aircraft, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) of key maritime terrain, and air-defense and early warning,” he said.
If the Marines can drop these [NMESIS anti-ship systems] off on islands and coasts by helicopters and link them with satellite or drone communications links to targeting assets, the Chinese would have serious problems breaking through the first island chain.
This ability to drop off and rearm or move the UGV with helicopters should make the Navy and Marines reconsider fully relying on the Light Amphibious Warship.
I'm not happy with the light amphibious warfare concept as it exists now:
I'm really not happy with how the proposed LAW ship class is unfolding. How is it possible to think a slow and unarmed vessel can survive, let alone complete their missions? If the threat environment is low enough to do both, the Navy (and Air Force) has already won control of the seas--or it is peacetime still.
If these are supposed to roam around planting small Marine detachments capable of fighting the Chinese navy, I think the World War II model should be the destroyer transport (APD), as I wrote about in Proceedings a few years ago.
Heck, at least the LST had a top. Will the Marines only deploy in good weather?
I still think the destroyer-transport model is good for ship-based deployments.
But maybe the helicopter deployment isn't as good as I first thought because of range and capacity issues. Would amphibious planes be a better way to move small NMESIS teams or any other platoon-based EABs?
These planes were big the last time we fought in the Pacific:
America and Canada built several thousand Catalina aircraft of various types. They proved very useful:
During World War II, PBYs were used in anti-submarine warfare, patrol bombing, convoy escort, search and rescue missions (especially air-sea rescue), and cargo transport.
The type operated in nearly all operational theatres of World War II. The Catalina served with distinction and played a prominent and invaluable role in the war against the Japanese.
Such aircraft may reduce the number of ships needed--whether LAW or APD--to build and maintain the kill web. If speed of deployment is needed, the planes would be faster.
Even if ships deploy Marine anti-ship units, amphibious planes could fly long distances to resupply them or get them out.
Is it time to have an amphibious plane in the Navy arsenal again?
UPDATE: Hey! This is a random relevant fact I did not know:
These [long-range] weapons can be air-delivered, by C-17s or, conceivably, a C-130 seaplane that is under consideration.
I had no idea a C-130 seaplane is under consideration. Good!
