Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Naval Surface (gun?) Fire Support

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Naval Surface (gun?) Fire Support

    A new report from RAND:
    Naval Surface Fire Support
    An Assessment of Requirements

    The report:
    https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...AND_RR4351.pdf

    The associated web page:
    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4351.html
    .
    .
    .

  • #2
    Thank you for posting that, it makes for fascinating reading. I especially enjoyed the scenarios that were presented, although not all of what they drew my attention to was related to NSFS. The Palawan scenario especially was very interesting to me, as that particular geography and opponent are given as the rationale for the reorganization that the USMC is proposing.

    First, if said scenarios were to take place a few years down the road when the USMC is reorganized and equipped for EABO operations according to the currently articulated plan, a few things come to mind. The EAB is optimized to strike naval targets from land, in this scenario, that required them to throw the first punch. If the first move is made by China, that EAB is suddenly at a distinct disadvantage. If they can’t hit the PLA landing force before it lands, they have real problems after. The scenario described a PLANMC landing force as having armor and self-propelled artillery. If they get ashore, they can outmaneuver and outgun any EAB. This strikes me as a real problem for a contact/blunt force.

    The recommendations for improved ISR and C2 as well as investments in munitions that would increase range and area effects seem like good sense, hopefully there can be room found for them in a future that will likely see declining defense expenditure.

    Comment


    • #3
      tailor the scenario to push your need.

      Marines deployed to southern Pi to conduct a Sea Control operation? Really?
      With their air support coming from Japan. And no artillery landed. Then the battalion deploys to company size (assumption) Exp Advance bases that cannot provide mutual support. This force only has one fire support ship
      The PLAN shows up with a ARG and lands a Brigade.

      The focus is only on the ships gun. With no other considerations. The Plan ships split into 2 forces and the ship cannot conduct NSFS at both landing sites. No shit. Did we strip the ship of missiles?

      The Infantry Battalions objective is to control the Mindoro Strait AND the Sulu Sea from Palawan island . Who came up with that BS? And the Navy element only brought 1 Destroyer.

      Here is an idea How about using a realistic mission and appropriate naval support. A ESG will normally have 1 CG and at least 2 DDGs assigned with a possible SSN.

      The same goes for the other scenarios also. The Yemen one being the only semi realistic one. Once again the rocket battery and massed troops at Al Assad could be handled by Tomahawks

      Here is another idea, maybe, just maybe use some fire support experts for your study. Of the 4 USMC officers they used to "discuss NSFS requirements, One of the Generals is/was a CH-46 pilot the other is/was a logistics officer. The Col is a CH-46/MV-22 pilot couldn't find anything on the LtCol. If you want to discuss fire support I would think you might want to talk to an Artillery Officer along with a Infantry officer.

      Comment

      Working...
      X