• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Coastal Riverine Squadron

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Our ships also outmatch theirs by being such great jobs programs for multiple electoral districts.
If you don't think China doesn't have a somewhat similar problem you would be wrong, even if it is an autocracy it still needs to keep its people happy to a degree.

Otherwise, sell them or just give them to any allies who we actually want doing this low intensity conflict stuff to counter China or Russia in their EEZs.
While I see their utility in some areas (CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM and AFRICOM) I question their utility for us in the Pacific to counter China, unless we help our allies out in that arena by supplying them with stuff to police their EEZ's to monitor and if necessary counter Chinese actions there.
 

Hair Warrior

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Give 2 to Denmark, 2 to Poland, 2 to Lithuania, 2 to Latvia, and 2 to Estonia. Sell 2 to Sweden for Gotland. Bring all 12 back together each year for an annual combined exercise with lots of beer, shooting .50 cals, and other good fun. I’ll bite the bullet to be a staff officer on that one for my AT.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
Give 2 to Denmark, 2 to Poland, 2 to Lithuania, 2 to Latvia, and 2 to Estonia. Sell 2 to Sweden for Gotland. Bring all 12 back together each year for an annual combined exercise with lots of beer, shooting .50 cals, and other good fun. I’ll bite the bullet to be a staff officer on that one for my AT.
Do we really want our security partners using their limited resources to try and sustain these essentially one-off craft?

Again, the argument of "pew pew pew" comes up as opposed to a well reasoned discussion of what the point of these is.
 

Hair Warrior

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Do we really want our security partners using their limited resources to try and sustain these essentially one-off craft?

Again, the argument of "pew pew pew" comes up as opposed to a well reasoned discussion of what the point of these is.
I was mostly joking, and hoped the mental image of what is basically a modern day bunch of vikings drinking beer after a joint ex might convey that.

At this point, I don’t care who ends up with them. I think the U.S. Navy getting rid of them already is the DoD equivalent of my 4 year old asking for a PB&J for dinner and then 5 minutes later after I make it saying he wants mac & cheese instead, without having eaten the PB&J. The Navy is throwing a tantrum (just like the USAF does with its Warthogs almost every budget cycle). I mostly hope Congress makes the Navy just eat the damn PB&J but clearly this forum wants to keep talking about other possible snacks in the fridge. Maybe little brother Coastie will come along and eat the PB&J and we don’t have to go all over the damn cul-de-sac ringing neighbors’ doorbells and asking if they want a used, “barely chewed” PB&J.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
I was mostly joking, and hoped the mental image of what is basically a modern day bunch of vikings drinking beer after a joint ex might convey that.

At this point, I don’t care who ends up with them. I think the U.S. Navy getting rid of them already is the DoD equivalent of my 4 year old asking for a PB&J for dinner and then 5 minutes later after I make it saying he wants mac & cheese instead, without having eaten the PB&J. The Navy is throwing a tantrum (just like the USAF does with its Warthogs almost every budget cycle). I mostly hope Congress makes the Navy just eat the damn PB&J but clearly this forum wants to keep talking about other possible snacks in the fridge. Maybe little brother Coastie will come along and eat the PB&J and we don’t have to go all over the damn cul-de-sac ringing neighbors’ doorbells and asking if they want a used, “barely chewed” PB&J.
By this forum you mean you? We've all mostly said "they seem to be a solution looking for a problem" and mostly seem to be along the lines of "get rid of them, who cares how?" Personally I think they sound like money sinks so just dispose of them. Why bother saddling other friends of ours with our problems?
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
The sailors that actually operate the things fucking hate them and think the CONOPS for employing them is stupid.

The Northern Europeans have their own small craft in a large variety of capability which are quite frankly much better than this PoS.
They don’t need second rate American half assed attempts at building a patrol boat.
Edit: which isn’t a knock on Safe Boats, their other craft were decent. It’s the stupidity of building something to design requirements that are not at all operationally valid. Which is the same lazy, uninformed staff mentality that created this PoS in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot

“In the past you think, ‘Well, there’s 75 Marines in location X. They’re not a threat,’” Smith said. “If I can sink one of your $1.5 billion warships with a $1.5 million missile, I am a threat.”

Perhaps relevant to the lack of USMC interest in a dozen machine gun armed boats.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
Alright, I wasn’t gonna do this, but I will take the gunboats off the Navy’s hands. I’ll only request a few hundred thousand for each boat for disposal costs, given that they are “a POS” but I am willing to give the Navy a discount.

BT BT

Who wants to go bass fishing?
Rockfish will be running soon in the bay.
 

JTS11

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Alright, I wasn’t gonna do this, but I will take the gunboats off the Navy’s hands. I’ll only request a few hundred thousand for each boat for disposal costs, given that they are “a POS” but I am willing to give the Navy a discount.

BT BT

Who wants to go bass fishing?
Bass are terrible to eat, but fun to fish.

Bass-to-Mouth is not as popular as Farm-to-Table.
 

ABMD

Bullets don't fly without Supply
So...this is the part I mean by Navy doesn't know WTF it wants from its small craft community.

If you want base/harbor security of naval assets, but done in a low threat expeditionary (ie ATFP focused) manner abroad, then you never needed the Riverine force or Mark VI. MSRON already did/does that. And the force never did a good job articulating the difference between this:
View attachment 29952
and this:
View attachment 29953
...and why one is SO much more expensive than the other.

If you just want a brown water force to give ground forces mobility and fire support in a riverine/littoral environment, then...the MK VI was never that, and the actual "green side" of the Riverine force was gutted years ago in all but name, but...you can rebuild this stuff really quickly.

There are enough SME's and TTPs in SWCC to revive the "grey matter" side of this in a hurry if ever needed, and it's pretty easy to build this stuff up - hell even most of the material we used was borrowed from either USMC or SWCC.

If you want your small craft doing something useful for you in a war where you are contending with PLA(N) forces, then those folks need to articulate what it is that those craft will do. Proponents of small craft tend to do poorly at providing that detail beyond "boat with missiles."
When it comes to port security, whether at home or abroad let the CG do that. If you're actually doing brown water stuff and Maritime Interdiction that's when SWCC steps in (SOC-R and Sealion).
 
Top