I am not "against" OTH as a concept.
I am against claiming to have the capability, spending Tens of Billions of Dollars on equipment that doesn't work....altering ship designs to fit aircraft while eliminating the seaborne capability of the vessels at the same time....and in the end....not...not....repeat not have the stated OTH capability.
The Navy/USMC would not want me sitting on the Congresional Committees overseeing their acquisition process right now. I would want real capability for money spent.....and the pipe dream of a hydroplaning armored amphibious tractor would never have gotten my unlimited support as it did.
Removing the Well decks from the new LHA class to make it a Osprey Carrier would not have passed Go either.
Amphib ships have always had the flexibility to support all phases of Amphibious assault....sea and air....with LST's being beacheable. Under the current approach....we now will have LHA's with no ability to handle boats, LCAC's, or Amtracs....which is a loss of capability....all due to the requirements imposed by the fielding of the MV-22. The new AFV died....leaving us with the old style AFV which will not work for OTH. I see all this as a net loss of capability at a huge cost in Tax Dollars.
That is what I am against....and a bunch of military bureaucrats, politicians, and industrial complex members getting filthy rich in the process.
Eisenhower warned us about this!
The very technology you mention itself puts and end to Amphibious Assault as we know it. The Marines cling to Amphibious Assault as a means to substantiate its continued existence.
The question is not whether we need a Marine Corps and Amphibious Assault capability but how much capability. I understand the arguments but I see a real limit to what can be done with the state of the budget.
Where does the line get drawn?