It could be argued that technological progression drives development of new doctrine and practices for amphibious operations. The complexity and demand for the integration and co-operation of military personnel, logistics and fire support encourages implementing new concepts for amphibious operations. Further to this, the technology available will directly impact how any amphibious operations would be undertaken and drive the change in the doctrine and the forces that deploy. States spend money on incorporating existing, advanced technologies into the military as opposed to developing new technologies that have not been proven on the contemporary battlefield. However, the recent arrival of drones and robotics highlights very real doctrinal
…show more content…
The historical norm of establishing beach heads through amphibious landings is giving way to the concept of hitting an objective directly without transitioning through the littoral (STOM). These concepts present new challenges and a greater demand for more advanced technologies and equipment. The want to update and, to a degree, revolutionise amphibious operations is indicative of doctrinal and tactical concepts driving demand. There are now robotic assets in development that are capable of deploying from ship to shore and providing live information feeds as well as a data collection ability. This amphibious capability, combined with aerial assets, can enable an amphibious force to deploy to a beach or a landing zone without boots having ever been on the ground. This therefore substantiates the argument that the need of a capability is driving technology, the doctrine, and then ultimately the practice of the forces employed. In the future battle space restrictions of the past are no more and new tactics emerge; this is particularly crucial for global and battle space manoeuvring. Using the MV-22 Osprey as an example, compared to its predecessor, the CH-46E helicopter, it is capable of operating at higher altitudes and faster speeds. Further to this, its rapid acceleration through …show more content…
These systems will become capable of performing complicated tasks such as plane-to-plane combat, respond to voice or gesture commands and operate weapon systems. UAV assets can support the securing of a beach or airhead during an initial insertion and offer precision fire support to deploying forces. Furthermore, they can provide imagery to the Commander Amphibious Task Force (CATF) for exploitation both before and during an operation. Additionally there are now surface robots capable of completing beach recces and data collection removing the need for friendly, human forces to create an intelligence picture of the battle space. Cooperation between the CATF and the Commander Landing Forces (CLF) using this gathered intelligence allows identification of enemy forces or ground installations for friendly force engagement. In practice no boots would be required on the ground until an amphibious landing is taking place; doctrinally advantageous and in practice less operational risk to friendly forces. Should robots and drones become capable of replacing humans, they will not only cut down the physical risk to soldiers but also the risk of mental and emotional trauma. With the ability to fight into hostile environments without the threat of loss of life, UAVs and robots would most likely be deployed for particularly dangerous missions or operations. Further to this, their
The historical norm of establishing beach heads through amphibious landings is giving way to the concept of hitting an objective directly without transitioning through the littoral (STOM). These concepts present new challenges and a greater demand for more advanced technologies and equipment. The want to update and, to a degree, revolutionise amphibious operations is indicative of doctrinal and tactical concepts driving demand. There are now robotic assets in development that are capable of deploying from ship to shore and providing live information feeds as well as a data collection ability. This amphibious capability, combined with aerial assets, can enable an amphibious force to deploy to a beach or a landing zone without boots having ever been on the ground. This therefore substantiates the argument that the need of a capability is driving technology, the doctrine, and then ultimately the practice of the forces employed. In the future battle space restrictions of the past are no more and new tactics emerge; this is particularly crucial for global and battle space manoeuvring. Using the MV-22 Osprey as an example, compared to its predecessor, the CH-46E helicopter, it is capable of operating at higher altitudes and faster speeds. Further to this, its rapid acceleration through …show more content…
These systems will become capable of performing complicated tasks such as plane-to-plane combat, respond to voice or gesture commands and operate weapon systems. UAV assets can support the securing of a beach or airhead during an initial insertion and offer precision fire support to deploying forces. Furthermore, they can provide imagery to the Commander Amphibious Task Force (CATF) for exploitation both before and during an operation. Additionally there are now surface robots capable of completing beach recces and data collection removing the need for friendly, human forces to create an intelligence picture of the battle space. Cooperation between the CATF and the Commander Landing Forces (CLF) using this gathered intelligence allows identification of enemy forces or ground installations for friendly force engagement. In practice no boots would be required on the ground until an amphibious landing is taking place; doctrinally advantageous and in practice less operational risk to friendly forces. Should robots and drones become capable of replacing humans, they will not only cut down the physical risk to soldiers but also the risk of mental and emotional trauma. With the ability to fight into hostile environments without the threat of loss of life, UAVs and robots would most likely be deployed for particularly dangerous missions or operations. Further to this, their