Defense Daily
27 March 2000
Officials: Navy Still Short on Amphibious Landing, Fire Support
Capabilities
By Hunter Keeter
The Navy remains deficient in its ability to confidently
place Marines ashore and support them with adequate firepower once there,
according to senior service officials.
The Senate Armed Services' Committee's seapower panel heard
testimony last week from the Navy's branch heads who stated that
since the 1991 Persian Gulf War there have been few improvements
in
amphibious landing capability.
This deficiency particularly applies to countermine activity
in the
very shallow water region, or from about 40 feet of water depth
into
the surf zone.
"Our capability in that area remains very limited," Marine
Maj.
Gen. Dennis Krupp, director of the Navy's expeditionary warfare
division, told the panel. "We have the marine mammals and line
charges...but from 40 feet of water depth on into
the surf line, we have had very little improvement in that
capability
since 1991.
The Navy maintains a dedicated mine countermeasures (MCM)
force,
based at Corpus Christi, Texas, including two squadrons of
Sikorsky
[UTX] MH-53 helicopters, 15 specialized explosive ordnance
disposal
detachments, and two MCM marine mammal systems. But these
systems
take time to deploy to a theater making the reality today that
when a
battle group encounters mines, they are effectively "dead in the
water" for up to 60 days while the MCM force arrives.
The service will have to wait until 2005 when MCM capability
organic to the battle groups and amphibious ready groups begins
to
arrive.
In the area of surface fire support for forces ashore, the
Navy is
also playing a waiting game, officials said. Because of the
decision
too delay for two years the delivery of the first DD-21s, the
Marines
will have to take interim steps to shore up their artillery own
support.
"We have an additional two years of risk [associated with the
delay
of the DD-21]," Marine Lt. Gen. Michael Williams, deputy chief
of
staff for programs and resources, told the panel.
Current naval gunfire support, while a formidable capability,
is
not sufficient to ensure freedom of operations inland, he added.
"The five-inch gun is a great weapon but it is
deficient...even
with the [Extended Range Guided Munition] ERGM we still won't
have
the lethality that we need," he said. "We will have situations
ashore
where smart weapons are inappropriate...Size counts in
artillery.
[Right now] we have nothing to fill the gap until we can get
ashore
with our own organic 155mm howitzers."
But those systems are not ideally expeditionary, the Marines
have
noted. Given that, the Corps is looking to other services
for some assistance, most notably the Army.
"The Commandant [Gen. James Jones] has asked for two [Highly
Mobile
Artillery Systems] HIMARS from the Army to experiment with,"
Williams
said. "That might be a partial solution until we get the 155mm
gun on
DD-21 into the force."
The Marine Corps made a decision several years ago not to
embrace
rocket artillery as the Army had done. The service is now
rethinking
that decision.
--------------------
Defense Daily
27 March 2000
<bold><bigger>Officials: Navy Still Short on Amphibious Landing,
Fire
Support Capabilities
</bigger></bold> By Hunter Keeter
The Navy remains deficient in its ability to confidently place
Marines ashore and support them with adequate firepower once
there,
according to senior service officials.
The Senate Armed Services' Committee's seapower panel heard
testimony
last week from the Navy's branch heads who stated that since the
1991
Persian Gulf War there have been few improvements in amphibious
landing
capability.
This deficiency particularly applies to countermine activity
in the
very shallow water region, or from about 40 feet of water depth
into
the surf zone.
"Our capability in that area remains very limited," Marine
Maj. Gen.
Dennis Krupp, director of the Navy's expeditionary warfare
division,
told the panel. "We have the marine mammals and line
charges...but from
40 feet of water depth on into
the surf line, we have had very little improvement in that
capability
since 1991.
The Navy maintains a dedicated mine countermeasures (MCM)
force,
based at Corpus Christi, Texas, including two squadrons of
Sikorsky
[UTX] MH-53 helicopters, 15 specialized explosive ordnance
disposal
detachments, and two MCM marine mammal systems. But these
systems take
time to deploy to a theater making the reality today that when a
battle
group encounters mines, they are effectively "dead in the water"
for up
to 60 days while the MCM force arrives.
The service will have to wait until 2005 when MCM capability
organic
to the battle groups and amphibious ready groups begins to
arrive.
In the area of surface fire support for forces ashore, the
Navy is
also playing a waiting game, officials said. Because of the
decision
too delay for two years the delivery of the first DD-21s, the
Marines
will have to take interim steps to shore up their artillery own
support.
"We have an additional two years of risk [associated with the
delay
of the DD-21]," Marine Lt. Gen. Michael Williams, deputy chief
of staff
for programs and resources, told the panel.
Current naval gunfire support, while a formidable capability,
is not
sufficient to ensure freedom of operations inland, he added.
"The five-inch gun is a great weapon but it is
deficient...even with
the [Extended Range Guided Munition] ERGM we still won't have
the
lethality that we need," he said. "We will have situations
ashore where
smart weapons are inappropriate...Size counts in artillery.
[Right now]
we have nothing to fill the gap until we can get ashore with our
own
organic 155mm howitzers."
But those systems are not ideally expeditionary, the Marines
have
noted. Given that, the Corps is looking to other services
for some assistance, most notably the Army.
"The Commandant [Gen. James Jones] has asked for two [Highly
Mobile
Artillery Systems] HIMARS from the Army to experiment with,"
Williams
said. "That might be a partial solution until we get the 155mm
gun on
DD-21 into the force."
The Marine Corps made a decision several years ago not to
embrace
rocket artillery as the Army had done. The service is now
rethinking
that decision.
|
