Zukünftige Kriegführung in Küsten- und Randmeergebieten

[Quintus Fabius]

Und hier mal eine völlige Gegenposition:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://navy-matters.blogspot.de/2012/05/littoral-warfare-is-there-such-thing.html">http://navy-matters.blogspot.de/2012/05 ... thing.html</a><!-- m -->

One, the Navy’s official doctrine is to avoid beachfront assaults in favor of aviation-borne, maneuver-based assaults in the enemy’s rear area. Two, there’s nothing unique about a coastal zone that precludes our current naval vessels from operating there.
...
Regarding the first point, if we aren’t going to conduct beachfront amphibious assaults then there is no littoral war zone. Remember the definition of the littoral war zone? It's a coastal zone that we want to be in and someone wants to prevent. Well, if we don’t want to be there, then there’s no littoral war zone. Wait a minute. We don’t want to conduct amphibious assaults? Who said that? The Navy and Marines, apparently,

“At a recent amphibious warfare roundtable discussion, the Navy and Marine Corps amphibious warfare leaders, RADM LaPlante and Maj. Gen Jenkins, both agreed that, ‘the World War II amphibious frontal assaults are remote possibilities in today's modern warfare.’"
....
Isn’t the Navy continually telling us that land launched missiles make the coastal regions out of bounds for amphibious forces?
...
Regarding the second point, if we did do a beachfront assault, what’s so unique about a coastal region that it would preclude current ships from operating successfully there?
....
Well, what about draft? The LCS can go further inshore and that’s beneficial isn’t it? Is it? Why would we want to be sailing around in 20 ft deep water? What’s there that we want? What can a ship do in 20 ft of water that it can’t do further out in, say, 100 ft of water?