USMC Doctrine Changes

You would think the geniuses behind the MLR would have at least considered putting something like the old Liberty FAADS in their new order of battle.

liberty-2-jpg.26974
 
If the USMC needs protection from planes and missiles while it comes ashore just so it can emplace its own missiles, one has to question why they bothered going ashore at all: leave the missiles on the ship and co-locate the air defense there and save USMC a trip. This whole modern day island hopping routine reeks of an institution desperate to be relevant. They are trying to build a mission around capability rather than the other way around.
 
Liberty wouldn't do much against the threat they're worried about -- return fire from land attack cruise or ballistic missiles. Think something more like MEADS. But Josh has the right of it, IMO. This is the Marines searching for a mission that isn't Army Lite and reading the wrong lessons from early WW2. If the Marine advanced base model from pre-WW2 planning is at all valid, what you want to give the Marines is mainly air and missile defense so they can secure forward resupply bases for the Navy. But the Navy looks at that and says they can do the same with improved UNREP and the same AEGIS ships they already want for other reasons.
 
Here's thought exercise: how many LCAC/LST loads would it take to deliver a battery of something like the surface to air launched version of AIM-120, GATOR radar(s), some kind of point defense system (just buy MSHORAD), an offensive AShMs battery (lets say NSM), and sufficient troops and logistics for local defense and upkeep? And how expensive of an effort is it? Now compare that to an FFG(X) in terms of cost, which has a greater offensive capability, defensive capability, and is a moving target instead of a tiny islet with no terrain or foliage. Is it worth buying those new LSTs (that's all LAW is) just for short ranged SAMs and puny ability to send anti shipping missiles down range? It seems to me the USMC just will become a liability that needs rescuing instead of truly restricting or impeding PLAN movement. Kinda like dropping the 82nd airborne into Saudi back in '91: if the Iraqis had just decided to go for it, the US would have been hard pressed to save the unit and probably lost of a lot of aircraft trying.
 
Josh_TN said:
If the USMC needs protection from planes and missiles while it comes ashore just so it can emplace its own missiles, one has to question why they bothered going ashore at all: leave the missiles on the ship and co-locate the air defense there and save USMC a trip. This whole modern day island hopping routine reeks of an institution desperate to be relevant. They are trying to build a mission around capability rather than the other way around.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't think the USMC is factoring in Chinese suicide drones peppering islands with bio/chem agents.
 
TomS said:
Liberty wouldn't do much against the threat they're worried about -- return fire from land attack cruise or ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Liberty was intended to be able to help defend against both cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles.
 
Grey Havoc said:
TomS said:
Liberty wouldn't do much against the threat they're worried about -- return fire from land attack cruise or ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Liberty was intended to be able to help defend against both cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...

Seems really unlikely that it could deal with ballistic missiles -- the missile element was Shahine, which was basically a lightly modernized Crotale. Maybe it could have handled an artillery rocket like FROG, but nothing faster than that certainly.
 
Shanhine was supposed to be a short term stopgap until the VT 1 missile was available, or so I thought?
 
Grey Havoc said:
Shanhine was supposed to be a short term stopgap until the VT 1 missile was available, or so I thought?
Click to expand...
I believe that is correct. The VT-1 is AFAIK the same missile as today's Crotale NG.

Of course if the USMC doesn't want to pay the cost to operate main battle tanks and other armor there is no chance of an AFV like that now. It would make a lot of sense for the Army however.
 
news.usni.org

Marines Considering 3 Littoral Regiments for the Indo-Pacific - USNI News

As the Marine Corps reorganizes to prepare for a potential conflict with China, the service is considering three new Marine Littoral Regiments for its campaign of land warfare in the Indo-Pacific. The service is shedding its heavier equipment so it can operate between expeditionary bases on...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
therestlesstechnophile.com

Future frigates: Survivable persistent Strike

In a previous article, I reviewed the challenges facing today and tomorrow’s surface vessels. The main ones are the proliferation of satellite observation capabilities and of capable anti-shi…
therestlesstechnophile.com therestlesstechnophile.com

A small uncrewed submarine drone carrying a dozen strike missiles is a good way for western navies to counter area-denial strategies and maintain a survivable and affordable strike capability against land and possibly naval targets. Each drone is cheap as the only advanced systems they carry are their Air-Independent Propulsion engine and their missiles, but their high level of stealth and their number make them very hard to track. There seems to be no technical roadblock, and the pressing operational need will probably overcome institutional resistances.
Click to expand...

Diesel Subs vs US MARINES what will happen?
 
bobbymike said:
www.stripes.com

Light vehicles with long-range punch give Marines a better tank killer, general says

www.stripes.com www.stripes.com
Click to expand...
Current JTLVs are not "light" and still have no APS and will not withstand autocannon which they will be easy tgts for as they are humongous.
.
'Moving JTLVs rapidily'..jokish.

These ATGMs (if they can defeat APSs) are not small and logistically burdensome.
Everyone wants a radio flyer w/ a recoiless..as others have stated, but no one is even discussing or tryin to develop logistically logical, let alone operationally relevant capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:

Early Experiments are Proving Out Tank-Free Marine Corps Concept

www.snafu-solomon.com www.snafu-solomon.com
Click to expand...
Additionally, other R&D and experimentation efforts have centered on enablers to be successful in what the Marines are calling the “hider-finder challenge” inside the enemy’s weapons engagement zone: if both the Marines and the enemy are trying to find each other and avoid being detected themselves, whoever wins that first stage of the competition has an advantage in the next stage – whether it’s the adversary trying to escalate, or the Marines trying to take a decisive action to force the adversary to deescalate.
Click to expand...
They're really trying to flesh out the "competition" thing. I don't get it. This bubba really thinks penny packets of Marines will cause an enemy to deescalate?

“hider-finder challenge” inside the enemy’s weapons engagement zone is the future, but those packets of Gyrenes will need a racing radio flyer w/ a repeating recoiless and real offroad capability which 4x4s like the heavy JTLV and its hand full of missiles, does not have.

PS: deescalate discussion is just asinine you either decisively dominate or dont show up.
 
A fair amount of wishful thinking by the USMC brass showing through in those two articles, especially the first one.
 
A long while ago now we started out on the road to reductions and the tank force. We reduced the mileage, then the hours on the engines and finally the revs on the main and genie units. They went to TEWT's, Tank Exercises Without Tanks. They sent teams out in land rovers and Bedford 3 or 4 tonners. I asked the CO why bother and he spouted something about maitaining credibility to which I responded, "Why not just have a bunch or Radio setups in different rooms of a HQ building for example". My point about carrying savings too far were lost, obviously. My point being why roam about the countryside controlling imaginery tanks when you can do that while running the process in a room with maps etc. I know, smarta56e.
 
As usual, the Brits have been down this painful path first.
In 1944 the UK was able to take part in one of the largest seaborne invasions in history.
In 1956 the UK had to buy up used DUKWs and LSTs from civilian operators to help a modest size invasion force shamble from Malta to Alexandria.
The US Marines received a boost from the Inchon landings in Korea. During the Cold War a sizeable three Division force was equipped to do Inchons from Norway to Japan.
The post Cold War world has seen most deployments either by airliner or roro to a friendly port. Or rather absurd like journalists waitin on a Somalian beach for LCACs to storm ashore.
 
I really hate the term 'LAW'. It's an LST. Maybe it loads from the stern instead of the front, but in size, form, speed, and function, it is an LST.
 
Josh_TN said:
I really hate the term 'LAW'. It's an LST. Maybe it loads from the stern instead of the front, but in size, form, speed, and function, it is an LST.
Click to expand...

Not really big enough to be an LST -- the proposed 4-8000 square feet of vehicle stowage is less than half of a Newport News class. I'd call them LSMs and have done with it.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom