Army Plans Maritime Exercises with Navy in Pacific

Army Plans Maritime Exercises with Navy in Pacific

The new commander of the U.S. Army Pacific said the service will continue conducting Army-Navy maritime training exercises in the Pacific theater with Navy ships and U.S. Army aviation assets.

“We hope to increase the amount of aviation in the Pacific. We’ve done these [Army-Navy maritime exercises] in the Middle East and we are keen to do the same in the Pacific and work with Army aviation in a maritime environment,” said Gen. Vincent Brooks, Commanding General, U.S. Army Pacific, speaking Monday at the Association of the United States Army Annual Meeting and Exposition.

The Army has conducted joint training exercises wherein Army helicopters landed on Navy ships in the Middle East. Over this past summer, Army helicopters landed aboard several Navy ships including the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport dock. The exercises took place in what’s called the 5th fleet area of responsibility, an area including the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf and other waters nearby.


Now, the Army plans to bring these exercises to the waters of the Pacific theater, Brooks explained. The operating radius of Army aircraft is extended by landing on a Navy vessel, Brooks explained.

Brooks said the Army has aircraft assets in Alaska, Hawaii and Korea. He explained that U.S. Army Pacific works closely with the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet.

“More than half of the world’s population lives in the Pacific,” Brooks added.

Citing the U.S. Army’s historic involvement in the Pacific, Brooks said the service’s rebalance is a natural fit.

“The roots of our expeditionary experience in the Army were born in the Pacific,” Brooks said.

Expeditionary maneuvers, while seemingly novel in light of the Pacific rebalance, have historic precedent for the Army. Thousands of Army soldiers traveled across the ocean to storm the beaches of Normandy in June, 1944 during World War II.

Not only will the rebalance be strategically and tactically relevant with respect to potential conflict, but it also has great relevance for humanitarian efforts and disaster relief, Brook said.

“Our partners are excited about our increased presence in the Pacific,” Brooks said while referring to an ongoing series of meetings and training exercises with allies in the area.

Brooks recently met with as many as four different ministers of defense and visited many countries in the region since taking over the command post this past summer. Overall, there are 36 countries in the region, 27 of them have militaries.

Join the Conversation

This sounds more like Army Aviation plans maritime exercises with Navy in Pacific.

Essentially, (Air Force/Navy/Army-)Air-Sea battle?

Everything old is new again. During the 80’s & 90’s (at least) I know 18th Abn Corps aviation units did ship-quals annually. Hell, a sizable Army aviation TF staged off of CVN-69 (along with a brigade of infantry from 10th Mtn) for Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti.

“More than half of the world’s population lives in the Pacific,” Brooks added.

Under the sea…under the sea…

Yep, the Pacific ocean is a big place, not much land around for an Army to play on, they figured they had better ‘get with the program’ or get left behind on CONUS ;-P

If the Army wants to act like they have “historic precedent” of expeditionary experience at sea born in the Pacific, they might want to check their geography. When “thousands of Army soldiers traveled across the ocean to storm the beaches of Normandy,” they were a little bit farther west…or east depending on which direction they want to travel. (He probably should have used an island in the Pacific that they did fight on…and fought quite well!) Army, good luck trying to convince Congress that we still need half a million soldiers sitting in the United States waiting for the big one based on a war fought 70 years ago.

I have my doubts. The Navy/Marine strike force is far more potent. Marines have air to ground assets, F-18’s, carrier qualified, Harriers for close air support off amphibs. and faster, longer range vertical envelopments with the Osprey. The Navy protects the fleet, battle space air superiority and are pretty damn good in the ground attack role too. I will take Marine/Naval aviators for ground support as my first choice. Being realistic, a surface engagement with the US Navy with supporting carriers will be over in a matter of a couple of days, if not hours. Even the Marines have accepted the doctrine that landing forces are going to come from over the horizon. Army air doesn’t have the punch to clear the way for a landing force. The Chinese are focusing on stand off denial weapons systems. You will never see a 250,000 landing force make it to the beach,

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a military branch dedicated to operating ground and aviation units off of ships? They could man, train, and equip an entire force optimized for operations off of Navy ships, and could spend 50+ years since WWII conducting all sorts of missions from those ships. They might even learn some lessons on how to do it better than we did it in WWII and do it with modern equipment. This could create a “corporate memory” on what it takes to integrate these operations into a joint fight. Wishful thinking, but maybe someday …

Amusing. One would be foolish to say that we would be able to take on China without using the Army so why shouldn’t the Army polish up on this skill? It would be more foolish to think we could take on China plus an ally or two without using the Army. The last time I checked, we were not able to fight any prolonged campaign without using the Army.

Great idea joint training across the board , spent 4 years with the USMC and retired from the US Army ! Yes! with the US shrinking military force lets joint train and make this a consolidated effort to win and understand how each other operates in time of need.

The Navy, Air Force and Marines would never be able to fight a serious campaign without using the Army. Not knocking any branch and I agree that this Navy/Marine turf all day long but I don’t think anyone here can show me a serious conflict in our recent past where all of the branches were not “needed”. I don’t see why the Army couldn’t develop Air Assault from the Sea tactics and easily refine amphibious operations since they currently keep plans and tactics updated at some level. At the bare minimum, they could support the Marines and free up Marines for more challenging landings if required. Aside from that, the Marines do not have an airborne capability that can respond to an area faster than ships can get there. And finally, Army Special Operations (50,000 strong) would be used heavily in any conflict whether it is prolonged or not.

I mean why else would they keep expanding “that branch” and conduct exercises SEVERAL times a year (of various different types), have several thousand troops with “that capability,” in “that area?”

Support yes, but let’s not fool ourselves.

1. That Airborne capability is flawed when facing an opposing air force of several thousand including AWACS. Also several there is ALOT of ocean that can’t hide much.

2. All LHA/LHDs all are assigned to USMC units and are filled to the brim. All Army units would either have to insert through other means (air), or through the new ships being made which almost have NO naval combat capability.

Can’t wait to see an Army helio pilot landing on a heaving flight deck on a rough sea.

You maybe right, but your not considering other contingency operations that the Army would have to be involved in.

Can’t be that hard…Navy helicopter pilots do it.

Please check history. The US Army has done more amphibious landings than the US Marine Corps, with over 100 in the Pacific theater during WWII.

Show me how many they have done since. With modern equipment? With modern C2? With currently designed Navy ships? Show me the guy in the Army right now that has any expertise on amphibious operations. This is a common bumper sticker in the Army amphibious argument, but it is meaningless in the current environment.

You’re right. It’s not hard to land on a ship. It’s just like any other LZ, just moving a little bit. The hard part is ship compatibility, that is actually being able to operate from the ship with a cohesive package. Plus, the weather in the ocean isn’t always that great, so you have to be able to fly instrument approaches into the ship.

Well, there was the joint landings at Inchon, but that’s hardly past WWII, so your point is well taken.

The Army DOES NOT have an airborne capability that can responded to an area (OutConus) faster than ships can get there. Except the 82nd that relies on USAF transports. Who may not want to risk C-17s and 130’s in a high threat environment (This isn’t Normandy or Holland). 101st ain’t doing it this time without some major shipping.

The Marines have a MEU parked in most seas.

It was the Marines who went up the Central Pacific and took bases for B-29s to attack Japan while the Army took the southern route to satisfy Mac’s “Need to Return”.

As for your Army SOC. They’ll do raids and train. But out of the 50k, how many do Asia? How many aren’t the guy who makes ID Cards(and only ID cards) for the guys who print leaflets.

While the Army has might have more ships than the Navy. It’s like trying to move and all your friends are weight lifters but only have Priuses. Except for that one friend from high school that has a F150. He is a Marine.

Army would be wise to send their support units first. Marines like showers and chow. Something the Army does right. The campaign will most likely not be prolonged and it sure as shit won’t wait for a build up like 1990 and 2003. And even if there was a build up, where? PI? Japan? No combat shipping to get to the battle unless the Glorious Bastards of the 2nd ID hold out.

In which case Marines will do another Inchon.

Go back to studying for your E-4 test.

And how many have made History? Against sustained fire?

I know Doug didn’t like to share the spotlight so I’m giving you a break. Don’t even compare the worst day on PI to Iwo, Tarawa or Peleliu(Cocksucker cost Marine lives for nothing).

It’s always amusing to read the whole inter service arguments. Every professional soldier (meaning Army Navy air Force and Marine) understands the mutual support role all branches have with one another. The Army/Air Force wins wars, the Marine/Navy team winds battles and are damn good at it. There is no one solution to todays military problems. Heck, there never has been. You all are very important so please pat yourselves on the back and take a chill pill…

And they used the book the Marine Corps wrote to do them…

The biggest problem I see is that Army and Air force helos do not have power folding rotor blades. You can’t handle many helos if you can’t fold them and stow them. The Army would have to modify a lot of aircraft to be able to put a brigade ashore rapidly. Blackhawks might not be to much of a problem as the Navy uses the same airframe, but Chinooks would be harder up grade to the power folding capability.

Salt air is not kind to army stuff!

Being able to land on an LHA doesn’t make you amphibious, being berthed on one does.

Not to mention, all that salt and sea air eating away at Army aviation assets that are not “sea proofed” like Naval Aviation assets (Marine and Navy).

Try it at night, then come talk to us.

We have such a unit already, Its called the Marine Corps.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.