Embedded in MAGTF combined arms and Warfighting is the intangible quality of ingenuity. Reading about then Col. O. P. Smith, the new 5th Marines CO in 1943, he was tasked with an amphibious assault that would have to be accomplished without the benefit of naval gunfire support. The solution was to place 5 Sherman tanks in LCMs. Tank fire support was used instead of naval gunfire. Where there is a will, there is a way. The promised air support didnt show either but the 5th Marines prevailed. Marines must be able to function in an imperfect world. SF
I read an article (link below) that state the US Air Force, conducting a demonstration bomb drop from a B-52, that sank the USS Tarawa with a “Quicksink” bomb. This demonstration was part of Rimpac war drill.
Here again, our sister services have the technology and know how to sink aircraft carriers with one cheap bomb at their disposal, why would the Marine Corps have a need to continue to pursue FD that is focused on access denial targeting the People’s Liberation Army Navy? Get back to maneuver warfare. Get away from the littoral regiments design. Get back to the MAGTF concept that is proven and is still very much in need for our combatant commanders who are dealing with multitudes of serious geopolitical issues around the world.
The Marine Corps leadership must refocus on the MAGTF concept and retool as fast as possible. Leave the sinking and sea lanes denial to our sister services…don’t duplicate the effort!
The simple answer to your question is that relying on a single method of attacking ships (the B-52) is a brittle approach that goes against our combined arms doctrine. The slightly longer, while still unclassified, answer, is that the survivability of air and surface forces in the South China Sea in the event of a hot war with China is, to put it bluntly, not good. The idea behind the MLRs is to apply combined arms at the Joint level, to present the PLAN and PLAAF with a real dilemma, and by doing so deter them from starting a war in the first place.
In an odd coincidence, The Connecting File published here on Substack, conducted an interview with Major General Julian D. Alford, USMC (ret) yesterday. Rather than provide too long a rehash or even Cliff Notes of the 90 plus minutes of the interview it is worth listening to, as he covered several MAGTF/Combined arms topics. (As a teaser, he said we need a direct fire gun, that makes big bangs and big holes in an urban battle space as example) His candor is really enjoyable, and there are times when his commentary is laugh out funny on a serious subject. Not to put words in his mouth, but the MAGTF capability was a reinforcement of many of the thoughts that are discussed here regularly. Force Design has been an enormous drain on all matter of levels. General Alford left a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, the alternative of a speeding locomotive is a less enjoyable possible outcome.
The fact that “two Marines have been selected to be part of the next cohort of so-called “Phantoms”… to participate in the DAF_MIT AI Accelerator” is good news. I would have to caution and hope, however, that the right two Marines are selected as the “Phantoms” and they don’t have to be two of LT.Gen. Matthew Glavy (deputy commandant of information) “computer” guys. One of the Information Technology hard rock principles is IT initiatives (projects) must be based on business REQUIREMENTS. The “Business” experts/analysis and not the IT Department must take the lead in developing REQUIREMENTS. All IT applications are based on manual business processes and the same will hold true for the AI Accelerator. The two Marines selected for the AI Accelerator must be experts on MCDP-1 Warfighting (having read and re-read) and MAGTF operations and systems. We don’t need computer guys here, we need WAR FIGHTERS.
Embedded in MAGTF combined arms and Warfighting is the intangible quality of ingenuity. Reading about then Col. O. P. Smith, the new 5th Marines CO in 1943, he was tasked with an amphibious assault that would have to be accomplished without the benefit of naval gunfire support. The solution was to place 5 Sherman tanks in LCMs. Tank fire support was used instead of naval gunfire. Where there is a will, there is a way. The promised air support didnt show either but the 5th Marines prevailed. Marines must be able to function in an imperfect world. SF
I read an article (link below) that state the US Air Force, conducting a demonstration bomb drop from a B-52, that sank the USS Tarawa with a “Quicksink” bomb. This demonstration was part of Rimpac war drill.
Here again, our sister services have the technology and know how to sink aircraft carriers with one cheap bomb at their disposal, why would the Marine Corps have a need to continue to pursue FD that is focused on access denial targeting the People’s Liberation Army Navy? Get back to maneuver warfare. Get away from the littoral regiments design. Get back to the MAGTF concept that is proven and is still very much in need for our combatant commanders who are dealing with multitudes of serious geopolitical issues around the world.
The Marine Corps leadership must refocus on the MAGTF concept and retool as fast as possible. Leave the sinking and sea lanes denial to our sister services…don’t duplicate the effort!
https://www.wionews.com/world/china-alarmed-as-us-tests-quicksink-bomb-to-rein-in-bellicose-pla-navy-745708
The simple answer to your question is that relying on a single method of attacking ships (the B-52) is a brittle approach that goes against our combined arms doctrine. The slightly longer, while still unclassified, answer, is that the survivability of air and surface forces in the South China Sea in the event of a hot war with China is, to put it bluntly, not good. The idea behind the MLRs is to apply combined arms at the Joint level, to present the PLAN and PLAAF with a real dilemma, and by doing so deter them from starting a war in the first place.
In an odd coincidence, The Connecting File published here on Substack, conducted an interview with Major General Julian D. Alford, USMC (ret) yesterday. Rather than provide too long a rehash or even Cliff Notes of the 90 plus minutes of the interview it is worth listening to, as he covered several MAGTF/Combined arms topics. (As a teaser, he said we need a direct fire gun, that makes big bangs and big holes in an urban battle space as example) His candor is really enjoyable, and there are times when his commentary is laugh out funny on a serious subject. Not to put words in his mouth, but the MAGTF capability was a reinforcement of many of the thoughts that are discussed here regularly. Force Design has been an enormous drain on all matter of levels. General Alford left a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, the alternative of a speeding locomotive is a less enjoyable possible outcome.
The fact that “two Marines have been selected to be part of the next cohort of so-called “Phantoms”… to participate in the DAF_MIT AI Accelerator” is good news. I would have to caution and hope, however, that the right two Marines are selected as the “Phantoms” and they don’t have to be two of LT.Gen. Matthew Glavy (deputy commandant of information) “computer” guys. One of the Information Technology hard rock principles is IT initiatives (projects) must be based on business REQUIREMENTS. The “Business” experts/analysis and not the IT Department must take the lead in developing REQUIREMENTS. All IT applications are based on manual business processes and the same will hold true for the AI Accelerator. The two Marines selected for the AI Accelerator must be experts on MCDP-1 Warfighting (having read and re-read) and MAGTF operations and systems. We don’t need computer guys here, we need WAR FIGHTERS.