USMC Doctrine Changes

[mkellytx]

I just don't think the stand off range is sufficient for a non fighter aircraft to survive the delivery in that close a proximity to the mainland.

Well, the B-1B could be used for that purpose - they could do low-altitude approach & toss delivery, then making supersonic retreat.

Never saw the Bone doing tosses with J-series weapons, but lots of level deliveries, some from zoom climb pop ups. I conducted a level one from .94M at 1500 ft AGL and Mk65 mine drops from the BUFF. Problem here is the bay door limit of .94M and it's poor performance at altitude.

Honestly, if you want to mine the harbors close to the mainland Bones and BUFF's aren't the platforms to use unless you add propulsion to the glide kit. Go with B-2's, B-21's or better yet submarines, the latter being the best option.

 

[Dilandu]

Honestly, if you want to mine the harbors close to the mainland Bones and BUFF's aren't the platforms to use unless you add propulsion to the glide kit. Go with B-2's, B-21's or better yet submarines, the latter being the best option.

Problem is, that USN submarines are big & not exactly well-suited for minelaying in defended harbors.

 

[Josh_TN]

I just don't think the stand off range is sufficient for a non fighter aircraft to survive the delivery in that close a proximity to the mainland.

Well, the B-1B could be used for that purpose - they could do low-altitude approach & toss delivery, then making supersonic retreat.

Never saw the Bone doing tosses with J-series weapons, but lots of level deliveries, some from zoom climb pop ups. I conducted a level one from .94M at 1500 ft AGL and Mk65 mine drops from the BUFF. Problem here is the bay door limit of .94M and it's poor performance at altitude.

Honestly, if you want to mine the harbors close to the mainland Bones and BUFF's aren't the platforms to use unless you add propulsion to the glide kit. Go with B-2's, B-21's or better yet submarines, the latter being the best option.

I've heard anecdotally that most of the B-1's stores aren't rated for super sonic anyway. And there are only going to be two dozen combat coded B-1s. And there's no way the USAF is giving away its silver bullets just to deliver mines for the USN, so B-2s need not apply.

If someone can kick a Quickstrike out to 200nm, that might be feasible, but I don't think you'll see bombers delivering ordnance to the wrong side of Taiwan any other way. The PLA-AF has air to air ordnance that can reach out almost that far and the Nationalist China air force and navy dies in the first two hours. So if the USAF wants to lay mines, it is on its own. And it will be a hard sell for the USN to convince the USAF to use mines vs cruise missiles.

 

[marauder2048]

Honestly, if you want to mine the harbors close to the mainland Bones and BUFF's aren't the platforms to use unless you add propulsion to the glide kit. Go with B-2's, B-21's or better yet submarines, the latter being the best option.

Problem is, that USN submarines are big & not exactly well-suited for minelaying in defended harbors.

Hammerhead and CDM are designed for UUV-based laying. They might do something with SLMM.

https://beta.sam.gov/opp/6d069db552c045e6a48277a7e26abe6d/view

Long Range Aerial Delivery of Maritime Mines

The mine may be required to deliver a minimum 500 lb explosive payload a minimum of 100 nautical miles
with 2000 lb explosive payload and ranges beyond 100 nautical miles desired. Additionally, proposed
design concepts may utilize the current target detecting, safety, and arming devices that are part of
the current Quickstrike family of mines.

 

[marauder2048]

Question: what does Quickstrike/-ER/powered cost?

I've never been able to find unit costs for the mine and the unit cost I have for the wing kit is years old.
The JDAM tail kit is known and you can make a reasonable guess at what a miniature turbojet would cost.

 

[Josh_TN]

I've never found a figure for that, but I can't imagine the TDD is pricy. A similar arrangement goes all the way back to the Destructor series of mines...some of those were actually used as seismic mines on land. I can't imagine the TDD for a Quickstrike is an expensive piece of kit. In the smaller Flouder mines (mk82) with the glide kit, it seems to actually fit into the fuse well from behind, not in the nose.

Moderators, I believe we have gone far, far off topic, but I think the discussion is worth pursuing. If it is within your power, could we move the last couple dozen posts to a topic that specifically addresses mine warfare in the context of the Western Pacific?

 

[Bhurki]

Question: what does Quickstrike/-ER/powered cost?

I've never been able to find unit costs for the mine and the unit cost I have for the wing kit is years old.
The JDAM tail kit is known and you can make a reasonable guess at what a miniature turbojet would cost.

Quickstrike is often combined up with clandestine mine programs, so finding per unit price would be difficult. Albeit, a round figure can be estimated based on subcomponents. (Jdam kit, glide config)

Here's an unclassified document pertaining to mine development which gives numbers for RDT&E but doesn't show article numbers.

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY18/RDTE/N/0604601N_135.pdf

 

[mkellytx]

Honestly, if you want to mine the harbors close to the mainland Bones and BUFF's aren't the platforms to use unless you add propulsion to the glide kit. Go with B-2's, B-21's or better yet submarines, the latter being the best option.

Problem is, that USN submarines are big & not exactly well-suited for minelaying in defended harbors.

Really, I blew the dust off of my Tom Clancy SSN book from 20 years ago. The mines cold swim several miles and place themselves two decades ago. I think this is still more survivable than a bomber, and I do have some experience with those

 

[mkellytx]

I just don't think the stand off range is sufficient for a non fighter aircraft to survive the delivery in that close a proximity to the mainland.

Well, the B-1B could be used for that purpose - they could do low-altitude approach & toss delivery, then making supersonic retreat.

Never saw the Bone doing tosses with J-series weapons, but lots of level deliveries, some from zoom climb pop ups. I conducted a level one from .94M at 1500 ft AGL and Mk65 mine drops from the BUFF. Problem here is the bay door limit of .94M and it's poor performance at altitude.

Honestly, if you want to mine the harbors close to the mainland Bones and BUFF's aren't the platforms to use unless you add propulsion to the glide kit. Go with B-2's, B-21's or better yet submarines, the latter being the best option.

I've heard anecdotally that most of the B-1's stores aren't rated for super sonic anyway. And there are only going to be two dozen combat coded B-1s. And there's no way the USAF is giving away its silver bullets just to deliver mines for the USN, so B-2s need not apply.

If someone can kick a Quickstrike out to 200nm, that might be feasible, but I don't think you'll see bombers delivering ordnance to the wrong side of Taiwan any other way. The PLA-AF has air to air ordnance that can reach out almost that far and the Nationalist China air force and navy dies in the first two hours. So if the USAF wants to lay mines, it is on its own. And it will be a hard sell for the USN to convince the USAF to use mines vs cruise missiles.

Keep in mind , not everything has to be close in. If you take the denial approach not everything has to be close , in fact the most effective will be around most feasible. There are plenty of choke points outside of the close in limits that can still shut down PRC trade

 

[marauder2048]

Moderators, I believe we have gone far, far off topic, but I think the discussion is worth pursuing. If it is within your power, could we move the last couple dozen posts to a topic that specifically addresses mine warfare in the context of the Western Pacific?

Well here's a slide on minelaying from Maj. General Owens USMC. So we're back on topic.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I believe the Japanese would look favourably on their subs laying mines and doing anything else they are needed to do. Being smaller they are probably more survivable in littoral areas. Ocker boats too perhaps.

 

[Josh_TN]

Honestly, if you want to mine the harbors close to the mainland Bones and BUFF's aren't the platforms to use unless you add propulsion to the glide kit. Go with B-2's, B-21's or better yet submarines, the latter being the best option.

Problem is, that USN submarines are big & not exactly well-suited for minelaying in defended harbors.

Really, I blew the dust off of my Tom Clancy SSN book from 20 years ago. The mines cold swim several miles and place themselves two decades ago. I think this is still more survivable than a bomber, and I do have some experience with those

You are thinking of the 'mobile mines' that were made from converted mk37 torpedoes. Or perhaps the cancelled program that was to replace those with mk48s. I had thought that mk37s were completely out of service, but someone who claimed to be a squid online said they still practiced arming them as recently as a few years ago. I can't vouch for the status of those weapons. I would assume there is a propulsion unit associated with the new 'Clandestinely Deployed' mine, but I've no information on the project other than a picture of simple cylinder.

 

[Josh_TN]

I just don't think the stand off range is sufficient for a non fighter aircraft to survive the delivery in that close a proximity to the mainland.

Well, the B-1B could be used for that purpose - they could do low-altitude approach & toss delivery, then making supersonic retreat.

Never saw the Bone doing tosses with J-series weapons, but lots of level deliveries, some from zoom climb pop ups. I conducted a level one from .94M at 1500 ft AGL and Mk65 mine drops from the BUFF. Problem here is the bay door limit of .94M and it's poor performance at altitude.

Honestly, if you want to mine the harbors close to the mainland Bones and BUFF's aren't the platforms to use unless you add propulsion to the glide kit. Go with B-2's, B-21's or better yet submarines, the latter being the best option.

I've heard anecdotally that most of the B-1's stores aren't rated for super sonic anyway. And there are only going to be two dozen combat coded B-1s. And there's no way the USAF is giving away its silver bullets just to deliver mines for the USN, so B-2s need not apply.

If someone can kick a Quickstrike out to 200nm, that might be feasible, but I don't think you'll see bombers delivering ordnance to the wrong side of Taiwan any other way. The PLA-AF has air to air ordnance that can reach out almost that far and the Nationalist China air force and navy dies in the first two hours. So if the USAF wants to lay mines, it is on its own. And it will be a hard sell for the USN to convince the USAF to use mines vs cruise missiles.

Keep in mind , not everything has to b close in. If you take the denial approach not everything has to be close , in fact the most effective will be around most feasible. There are plenty of choke points outside of the close in limits that can still shut down PRC trade

I feel like shutting down PRC trade would be a trivial effort for the USN. I think the US could just say "we will engage every ship with a Chinese flag and every neutral that leaves a Chinese port" and the insurance costs alone would bring trade to a halt overnight. Preventing the PRC from sending a large number of ships against a very local target is a different thing, however.

 

[marauder2048]

CDM is replacing SLMM. I'm not sure how we got on to an economic blockade; I suspect US subs are going to need all of their torpedo
capacity for direct attack ASW/ASuW. That's reflected in the figure above where UUVs are doing the mine laying with CDM and Hammerhead.

 

[marauder2048]

And rather serendipitously, today I was pointed to a RAND study on OTAs. They had Gray Wolf as a case study and
indicated that TDI was able to get the TDI-J85 turbojet down to $38,000 (not quite the price goal of $26k).

So with JDAM tail-kit at $25k, Wing-kit at say $26k (2012 estimate), you are looking at ~ $90k to get the
QS mine (whatever that may cost) out to 100+ nautical miles.

That's really quite an affordable range extension stack for just about any munition.

 

[Ronny]

I wonder why they limited hammerhead mine to submarine laying only

 

[TomS]

I wonder why they limited hammerhead mine to submarine laying only

Specifically UUV delivery, which suggests to me that they were able to pry lose the money by pitching it as a thing that would make UUVs useful in the near term, not strictly on the merits of mine warfare itself.

 

[Josh_TN]

It would make a lot of sense to make hammerhead compatible with the bomber force. The ability to rapidly delivery a large number of deep water ASW mines would be profoundly useful. A pair of BUFFs could probably carry 40 mines and make a continuous barrier dozens of miles long, depending on the sensor radius of the mine. It looks like it uses some kind of active high freq sonar, though I would have expected a vertical reliable path hydrophone array along the mooring cable.

 

[Ronny]

Specifically UUV delivery, which suggests to me that they were able to pry lose the money by pitching it as a thing that would make UUVs useful in the near term, not strictly on the merits of mine warfare itself.

I guess that could be one of the reason, quite disappointing though, I was hopping that it could be a modern Mark60 captor

 

[TomS]

Specifically UUV delivery, which suggests to me that they were able to pry lose the money by pitching it as a thing that would make UUVs useful in the near term, not strictly on the merits of mine warfare itself.

I guess that could be one of the reason, quite disappointing though, I was hopping that it could be a modern Mark60 captor

Still could end up that way -- the rumor mill is saying that it recycles a bunch of CAPTOR elements anyway. Sometimes you just need to get your foot in the door first, especially with offensive MIW, which has languished so badly for the past few decades.

 

[jsport]

‘Marines make excellent soldiers’: Over half a Marine tank company just joined the Army National Guard

www.stripes.com

 

[jsport]

Arming Without Aiming? Challenges for Japan’s Amphibious Capability - War on the Rocks

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from a policy roundtable “The Future of Japanese Security and Defense” from our sister publication, the Texas National

warontherocks.com

 

[jsport]

Small rotations to far-flung Southeast Asian countries are likely the future of INDOPACOM assignments

The days of "fixed bases in fixed places" could be coming to an end.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[jsport]

U.S. Military Is Offered New Bases in the Pacific

The Republic of Palau has asked the Pentagon to build ports, bases and airfields on the island nation, officials said, offering a boost to U.S. military expansion plans in Asia, as Washington aims to counter China.

www.wsj.com

How two-man US Army crews in Oceania will shape Defender Pacific 2021

After COVID-19 tests and quarantine on a tropical island, teams of two are building relationships in Oceania that will help to shape Defender Pacific when it grows in scale and scope in 2021.

www.defensenews.com

 

[jsport]

Will the Marines take on submarine-hunting?

“The undersea fight will be so critical in the High North and in the western Pacific that the Marine Corps must be part of it," Berger said.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

 

[Josh_TN]

The USMC is very desperate to stay relevant.

 

[TomcatViP]

Powerful statement:

there is too much information flowing in multiple directions to have centralized quality control or fact checking. The vetting of information must occur at the individual level, and we need to enable the force’s access to high-quality news outlets. This doesn’t require any larger investment. The Army currently funds access to training and course material for education purposes. Extending these online resources to provide every member of the force online access to a handful of quality news organizations costs little but creates a culture of reading fact-checked news. More importantly, the news that is not funded by click baiting is more likely to be less sensational since its funding source comes from dedicated readers interested in actual news that matters.

How to protect troops from an assault in the cognitive domain

Social media has presented an opportunity for our adversaries to present a plethora of information that is meant to persuade our force.

www.c4isrnet.com

 

[jsport]

Powerful statement:

there is too much information flowing in multiple directions to have centralized quality control or fact checking. The vetting of information must occur at the individual level, and we need to enable the force’s access to high-quality news outlets. This doesn’t require any larger investment. The Army currently funds access to training and course material for education purposes. Extending these online resources to provide every member of the force online access to a handful of quality news organizations costs little but creates a culture of reading fact-checked news. More importantly, the news that is not funded by click baiting is more likely to be less sensational since its funding source comes from dedicated readers interested in actual news that matters.

How to protect troops from an assault in the cognitive domain

Social media has presented an opportunity for our adversaries to present a plethora of information that is meant to persuade our force.

www.c4isrnet.com

‘Weaponized truth’: How the US military plans to compete in the crowded information space

The military must empower everyday personnel as well as public affairs officials to combat and compete with adversaries in the information sphere, according to one public affairs professional.

www.c4isrnet.com

 

[jsport]

Marines Hop Islands, Set Up Long-Range Fires as Force Preps for Clash with China

Marines in Japan got a look at what future missions could look like during a recent island-hopping naval exercise.

www.military.com

 

[jsport]

Marine Corps stands up old landing support battalions for new fight

The 1st and 2nd Landing Support Battalions saw extensive use in World War II, where the distinctive red patch on the utility uniform was first developed.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

 

[jsport]

‘Semper Tanks’: Marines hold on to tanker spirit as 100-year legacy ends

www.stripes.com

 

[bobbymike]

Designing Tomorrow’s Marine Corps

Force design must be versatile, balanced, risk-informed, and strategy-driven so the Corps is ready for the future.

www.usni.org

 

[Josh_TN]

I feel like the USMC is trying to bring a knife to a gun fight in the WestPac.

 

[In_A_Dream]

I feel like the USMC is trying to bring a knife to a gun fight in the WestPac.

I think the entire notion of Island Hopping should be thrown out the window. China has over a billion able bodies it can throw in Zerg fashion towards every island in the area.

 

[aonestudio]

U.S. Marine Corps deactivated another tank unit

The United States Marine Corps said final goodbyes to Bravo Company, 2d Tank Battalion during the deactivation ceremony on Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. U.S. Marines with Bravo Company, 2d Tank Battalion, 2d Marine Division (MARDIV) have participated in a deactivation ceremony of Bravo Company...

defence-blog.com

 

[bobbymike]

Marine Armor Is Outclassed by China

With the end of Marine Corps tank battalions, only lightly armored vehicles remain.

www.usni.org

Time to explore semi-autonomous ground vehicles with hyper-velocity missiles?

 

[Grey Havoc]

They would only be a stopgap at best unfortunately. The USMC really needs to jettison the current Commandant and get it's tanks back (and to restart serious work on tank designs while they are at it).

 

[Josh_TN]

The USMC also needs accept the fact it doesn't have a very significant role to play in the WestPAC.

 

[shin_getter]

Marine Armor Is Outclassed by China

With the end of Marine Corps tank battalions, only lightly armored vehicles remain.

www.usni.org

Time to explore semi-autonomous ground vehicles with hyper-velocity missiles?

An SPG in island defense far more effective. A modern SPG force with terminally guided munitions and some targeting system (maybe a radar moved to some high points in the island) can inflict heavy damage to a landing force in minutes if not silenced. MRSI can challenge cruiser class AA/C-RAM and quickly drain even large escorts of interceptors. Any uncovered landing craft can quickly start sinking dozens of miles from shore. Air assault can eat an AA HVP or have the LZ covered with fire instantly resulting in mass casualty event.

A conventional tank force, on the other hand, have huge range and positioning problems. A tank force can not take a forward slope defense position and duel ships that far out range it, as all previous battles experience have shown, making it unable to challenge the landing force before making landfall. A tank force also have difficulty responding to air assault which can choose tank-inaccessible terrain with help of additional battlefield shaping (air dispersed mines, bridge destruction, etc) denying use of tanks. Even if the tank force gets into range, it will suffer losses against light elements of the attacking maneuver force, as any guy with a Javelin (or C-KEM or whatever counts as optimal) can defeat one, never mind long range precision strikes.

The threat of the far more vulnerable landing force being defeated by long range fires means that (non-desperate) amphib operations would only be undertaken under conditions of air superiority, extensive ISR and long range firepower enabling near instant suppression of large launch platforms. If such conditions are achieved, tanks are unusable in opposition.

The article is about how an LAV may not beat a tank. But what about an LAV beating a 155mm or MRLS barrage?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

All that is well and good but what about when the Marines are on the offensive or counter-offensive and need direct fire and armor protection?