Being reasonably familiar with the maritime conditions and terrain from Malaysia to Korea I would say the LSM is a baby goat in the lion’s den. The illusion that it will not draw attention is simply ludicrous. Its lack of speed makes it vulnerable to virtually every threat from weather to Jet skis, drones and every tub puttering about. The concept of small groups of Marines hiding on islands with short range missiles and lighting up radars is delusional enough. Pay a visit to every friendly military in the region and present the concepts. They will be too polite to laugh. The LSM will certainly evoke a laugh or two. Speed is essential with the ability to operate at high speed, in the dark, in shallow waters, in various sea states in heavily trafficked areas with land population density that defies the imagination. There must be 12-15 different ships built across the globe that could meet these needs and be available quickly. Yet, provided the perfect ship were available tomorrow morning, the base concept remains fatally flawed. I would suggest a full scale series of exercises in Hawaii, the Outerbanks off of North Carolina and the Florida keys. The kind of exercise that should have been conducted five years ago before the Corps divested itself of its combat power. Sold the car and made the payments on a car no one had ever seen or even designed.
See MV Ocean Venture. See also LST 325 and Besson LSV. Available now.
(meanwhile, not a lot available on most recent ops of the Stern Landing Vehicle Resolution in Testing after demos at Pendleton in the winter. No update on the two design convepts purchased by MCWL for further testing.)
“In the Guadalcanal Campaign, neither side enjoyed the overwhelming local naval and air supremacy which ensured victory in every other amphibious operation of the war. This necessitated an increase in the number of high-speed transports, hybrid warships which combined the functions of transports and destroyers. The concept of the high-speed transport embodied sufficient armament for the ship to defend herself against smaller warships and to support the troops she carried.”
In addition to APDs, we build thousands of LSI’s (Landing Ship Infantry) and LSDs. The LSI could land 200 troops to the beach and even this vessel was armed with four 20mm anti-aircraft guns. The LSI was easily modified into rocket, mortar, vehicle, and command/control variants. After the amphibious landing these small amphibs were used to resupply the larger combat ships with ammunition and dry stores.
In an age of satellites, drones, sonar (active and passive arrays), and “Peoples Militia” fishing boats numbering in the thousands, how is the US Navy and Marine Team going to get anti-ship missile units onto islands undetected?
There is a need for small amphibious ships. The US Army has even figured out this problem and amazingly they have an operational small amphib fleet. You are not going to be able to conduct an amphibious operation or raid without control of the SLOC and air. You will probably be able to pull off a raid with V-22s and helos but in order to sustain a seized objective you are going to need the SLOC. In WW2 the most effective raids were not Marine amphibious raids bit aircraft carrier raids.
nice recall! Between current Destroyers, LCS, and previous gen Frigates, I've been of the mind that this concept is part of a realistic short term hybrid solution. ( edt- i also wonder why we aren't exploring the efficacy of a modern PBY.)
Yep, there is definitely an interim solution, why we (Navy, Marines and MSC) are not working one is puzzling me. Pre-WW2 the Navy knew they had a scouting problem. First contact of the Jap TF at Midway was made by a PBY. At first light that morning the Navy launch 22 PBYs from Midway in a recon fan pointed in the direction we knew the Jap fleet was coming. The P8 is the follow on and replacement for the P3. In the cold war. when I was stationed in Iceland, the P3s and SOSUS kept the Murmansk submarine fleet (100+) monitored all the way thru the GIUK Gap. The P8 has 11 weapon stations for Tomahawks, torpedoes, and others. Why we are not practicing using P8s and towed SOSUS to close gaps in the "First Island Chain" instead of developing anti-ship missiles is another question.
A modern amphibious aircraft/PBY would be excellent. The possibility of usage are numerous. The Japanese are using them for SAR operations. They could be used to ferry troops, carry cargo, and probably to carry anti-ship missiles. Just buy the Japanese aircraft. Why do we continue to reinvent the wheel??
The LSM is a naval disaster waiting to happen. The current fleet cannot be properly maintained and we do not have the needed battle force ships or large amphibious ships we need! Why are we going to start a new ship class when we can't maintain what we have. The Zumwalt Class is a disaster and the Littoral Combat Ships have not lived up to their potential. I say lets scrap the LSM program along with FD and go back to being a combined arms naval expeditionary force. Station an ARG/MEU off the coast of Africa or one of China's overseas outposts.
The Holcomb/Schuster piece should cause all of us, to include USN officers in particular, to give sober thought re the LSM concept and its shortcomings. As presented in the essay, beyond relative low cost & speed of construction, I did not perceive strong points that would argue for putting that vessel in harms way - and, as we know, the PRC can put a lot of harm in our way. Frankly, I had not thought of the comparison with the USS PUEBLO, an episode I remember well. I was in Viet Nam at the time, and - wrongly, as it turned out - I thought our Navy would sail off Yankee Station, sally forth, and get our ship & crew back. Wrong! Not only could the PUEBLO NOT defend itself, apparently, our policy makers could not conceive the unthinkable would occur, to wit: the forceful taking of a U.S. naval vessel. Hence, the ship and crew were doomed to capture, and the U.S. to humiliation. God knows what kind of sensitive information, methods, and procedures were compromised. Given what appears to be available “in the clear”, the LSM concept offers little improvement over its sister, USS PUEBLO, and its sad episode 56 years ago. We simply need ships adequately built to the purpose of war at sea. Full stop!
In a recent email to my TBS Class Mates (ECHO-74) I stated this: What in bloody-hell is going on with the Navy. They can't build ships or maintain them, and they keep firing COs. This is the 12th CO for 2024...and the year ain't half over. My perception is our Marine Corps is not faring much better in this category.
Navy fires USS Somerset’s commanding officer following investigation (msn.com)
Back in the day (late 70s) I remember having a discussion with a Navy Officer about the difference between "leadership" and "management". The discussion abruptly ended when I told the Navy Officer that the Navy leadership is "managing" themselves out of a job.
I think Gary is hitting the “nail on the head”. I agree that some point a General Officer should choose or be selected for the Service side (Organize Equip and Train) or the Joint Combatant Commander Side. Semper Fi
What is clear is the procurement process is a very poor system. Over burdened with “paperwork” and inputs. When an attack submarine comes into to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard here in NH/Maine there is a designated period over which the refit is meant to take place. You can canvas the civilian work from iron worker to people at the top, and do the same for the members of the crews that come in with the boat and it is always the same story, the boat finally goes to sea for good months late, and cost overruns that would make even a crooked banker blush.
Which brings one to the point. If you tried the foist the LSM on the public like say the Edsel, the public say it stinks and we won’t buy it. Within a short period the car goes away and no one at Ford wants to talk about it. Learning from these sorts of disasters, wise money says, “our first loss is our best loss” and they write the damn thing off the books and stop hemorrhaging money.
Fast forward to General Van Riper’s comment regarding General Conway calling some of the senior USMC leadership aka “managers” incompetent, 5 SecDef’s and 7 SecNav’s watched the incompetent foul up the Marine Corps and “nobody was watching!” Same comment is applicable, no one is watching the waste, fraud and abuse as the LSM process winds up and will no doubt unwind as an unsuccessful vessel class that can’t do anything well, is too costly and will be sunk at the water line by Somali pirates.
Easy answer which any prudent business would take, stop the project. Cut your losses and move to a vessel that is supportive of the efforts to rebuild the Corps strength in the MAGTF. Literally stop now, cancel the project and say that was a mistake. As Coke Cola how to do it I’d your so dumb you can’t say no. How long did “New Coke” last?
U.S. Marine Corps Commandant General Eric M. Smith has signed the U.S. Marine Corps Training and Education Annual Report (TEAR), June 12, 2024. Published and distributed by Commanding General U.S. Marine Corps Training and Education Command (TECOM) Lieutenant General Kevin M. Iiams, the TEAR is the first annual report since the publishing of Training and Education 2030 (TE2030) by General David H. Berger, the 38th Commandant of the Marine Corps. The 14-page document outlines how CG TECOM has organized, progressed, and accomplished the 37 Force Design directed actions from TE2030.
“The Training and Education Annual Report is another milestone on our modernization journey,” said Gen. Smith. “We continue to deliver on our promise to Congress, the Joint Force, our Allies and partners, and our Marines to ensure we are postured, manned, trained, and equipped for a peer fight while ensuring we remain ready for any crisis. I can’t say enough about the efforts of Lt. Gen. Iiams and his team, who keep pushing us forward. Our Corps remains at the cutting edge of training and education, which allows our Marines to continue to survive and thrive in any clime and place.”
TECOM has codified Three Primary Projects, also known as the Three Ts, to accomplish its Force Design obligations: Project Triumph, Project Trident, and Project Tripoli. Collectively, these projects are providing the Fleet Marine Force with the standards, curriculum, and training environments it needs to prepare, fight, and win in the future highly contested multi-domain battle space…/
So what will Marine Littoral Regiments do in the new Cuban Missile Crisis?
In Cuba, Russia Explores a Counter
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman
Russian warships, including what appears to be a nuclear-powered submarine, have made port in Cuba – just 400 miles (645 kilometers) or so from the U.S. coast at Florida. The U.S. ports along the Gulf of Mexico are vital to the American economy, so while it’s unlikely that Moscow is trying to pick a nuclear fight, it is certainly trying to remind Washington of the vulnerabilities it can exploit.
The real issue for Russia, of course, is to not lose the war in Ukraine. So in Cuba, its goal is simply to show
Dear CMC, Read the open source intelligence on the massive size of the PRC Armed Naval Militia. The LSM concept is as embarrassment to the USMC. God Save Us. We are being led by delusional fools!
Dear CMC WTFU! Even a US Coast Guard Cadet knows the massive size of the 3RD Element of the PRC Navy! Purpose built seagoing Privatier/ Pirate Military Boats that would eat the LSM for lunch. One Nation’s Fishing Fleet, Another Nation’s Pirates: Countering China’s Maritime Militia
China’s maritime militia often acts in ways consistent with either piracy or naval forces.
By Cadet Jeffrey W. Jaeger, U.S. Merchant Marine
April 2024 Proceedings Vol. 150/4/1,454
MARITIME COIN
COMMENTS
Tensions in the South China Sea have been escalating for more than a decade, most recently in a series of clashes between China and the Philippines. A key player is China’s massive fishing fleet, which typically operates in a military gray zone adjacent to the China Coast Guard and not far over the horizon from the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). However, recent events suggest China is willing to be more open about the true nature of its People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia (PAFMM).
Under international custom and law, these fishing vessels cannot be counted as warships, and yet they enjoy the sovereign immunity of their flag state, which is precisely the reason China has organized them—by some estimates, up to 200,000—into the PAFMM. Any action against a fishing vessel by a warship or merchant vessel of another state can be expected to be condemned by the Chinese government as hostile and unlawful, no matter how justified.
Considering China’s hegemonic ambitions, its maritime militia should be considered an auxiliary of the PLAN, and the United States and other nations should respond accordingly if the PAFMM continues to undermine the rules-based international order. In addition, the United States and its allies should consider invoking the right to issue letters of marque and reprisal if China insists on keeping the status of its “little blue men” vague.1 China has opened a new front in naval warfare, and
Being reasonably familiar with the maritime conditions and terrain from Malaysia to Korea I would say the LSM is a baby goat in the lion’s den. The illusion that it will not draw attention is simply ludicrous. Its lack of speed makes it vulnerable to virtually every threat from weather to Jet skis, drones and every tub puttering about. The concept of small groups of Marines hiding on islands with short range missiles and lighting up radars is delusional enough. Pay a visit to every friendly military in the region and present the concepts. They will be too polite to laugh. The LSM will certainly evoke a laugh or two. Speed is essential with the ability to operate at high speed, in the dark, in shallow waters, in various sea states in heavily trafficked areas with land population density that defies the imagination. There must be 12-15 different ships built across the globe that could meet these needs and be available quickly. Yet, provided the perfect ship were available tomorrow morning, the base concept remains fatally flawed. I would suggest a full scale series of exercises in Hawaii, the Outerbanks off of North Carolina and the Florida keys. The kind of exercise that should have been conducted five years ago before the Corps divested itself of its combat power. Sold the car and made the payments on a car no one had ever seen or even designed.
See MV Ocean Venture. See also LST 325 and Besson LSV. Available now.
(meanwhile, not a lot available on most recent ops of the Stern Landing Vehicle Resolution in Testing after demos at Pendleton in the winter. No update on the two design convepts purchased by MCWL for further testing.)
Exactly, “fatally flawed…” Say no more.
We got the modern version of the WW2 Liberty ship except its 100X's more expensive. It can carry less, not as well armed and just as slow.
I'm sorry the LSM is 2 Knots faster than a Ship built in the 1930's. " LOL "
How did we handle the LSM issue in both Oceans in WW2?
Ans: For starters, the APDs Fast Transports, "AP" for transport and "D" for destroyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_transport
“In the Guadalcanal Campaign, neither side enjoyed the overwhelming local naval and air supremacy which ensured victory in every other amphibious operation of the war. This necessitated an increase in the number of high-speed transports, hybrid warships which combined the functions of transports and destroyers. The concept of the high-speed transport embodied sufficient armament for the ship to defend herself against smaller warships and to support the troops she carried.”
In addition to APDs, we build thousands of LSI’s (Landing Ship Infantry) and LSDs. The LSI could land 200 troops to the beach and even this vessel was armed with four 20mm anti-aircraft guns. The LSI was easily modified into rocket, mortar, vehicle, and command/control variants. After the amphibious landing these small amphibs were used to resupply the larger combat ships with ammunition and dry stores.
In an age of satellites, drones, sonar (active and passive arrays), and “Peoples Militia” fishing boats numbering in the thousands, how is the US Navy and Marine Team going to get anti-ship missile units onto islands undetected?
There is a need for small amphibious ships. The US Army has even figured out this problem and amazingly they have an operational small amphib fleet. You are not going to be able to conduct an amphibious operation or raid without control of the SLOC and air. You will probably be able to pull off a raid with V-22s and helos but in order to sustain a seized objective you are going to need the SLOC. In WW2 the most effective raids were not Marine amphibious raids bit aircraft carrier raids.
nice recall! Between current Destroyers, LCS, and previous gen Frigates, I've been of the mind that this concept is part of a realistic short term hybrid solution. ( edt- i also wonder why we aren't exploring the efficacy of a modern PBY.)
Yep, there is definitely an interim solution, why we (Navy, Marines and MSC) are not working one is puzzling me. Pre-WW2 the Navy knew they had a scouting problem. First contact of the Jap TF at Midway was made by a PBY. At first light that morning the Navy launch 22 PBYs from Midway in a recon fan pointed in the direction we knew the Jap fleet was coming. The P8 is the follow on and replacement for the P3. In the cold war. when I was stationed in Iceland, the P3s and SOSUS kept the Murmansk submarine fleet (100+) monitored all the way thru the GIUK Gap. The P8 has 11 weapon stations for Tomahawks, torpedoes, and others. Why we are not practicing using P8s and towed SOSUS to close gaps in the "First Island Chain" instead of developing anti-ship missiles is another question.
A modern amphibious aircraft/PBY would be excellent. The possibility of usage are numerous. The Japanese are using them for SAR operations. They could be used to ferry troops, carry cargo, and probably to carry anti-ship missiles. Just buy the Japanese aircraft. Why do we continue to reinvent the wheel??
The LSM is a naval disaster waiting to happen. The current fleet cannot be properly maintained and we do not have the needed battle force ships or large amphibious ships we need! Why are we going to start a new ship class when we can't maintain what we have. The Zumwalt Class is a disaster and the Littoral Combat Ships have not lived up to their potential. I say lets scrap the LSM program along with FD and go back to being a combined arms naval expeditionary force. Station an ARG/MEU off the coast of Africa or one of China's overseas outposts.
The Holcomb/Schuster piece should cause all of us, to include USN officers in particular, to give sober thought re the LSM concept and its shortcomings. As presented in the essay, beyond relative low cost & speed of construction, I did not perceive strong points that would argue for putting that vessel in harms way - and, as we know, the PRC can put a lot of harm in our way. Frankly, I had not thought of the comparison with the USS PUEBLO, an episode I remember well. I was in Viet Nam at the time, and - wrongly, as it turned out - I thought our Navy would sail off Yankee Station, sally forth, and get our ship & crew back. Wrong! Not only could the PUEBLO NOT defend itself, apparently, our policy makers could not conceive the unthinkable would occur, to wit: the forceful taking of a U.S. naval vessel. Hence, the ship and crew were doomed to capture, and the U.S. to humiliation. God knows what kind of sensitive information, methods, and procedures were compromised. Given what appears to be available “in the clear”, the LSM concept offers little improvement over its sister, USS PUEBLO, and its sad episode 56 years ago. We simply need ships adequately built to the purpose of war at sea. Full stop!
The LSM is the 21st Century’s equivalent of the 1930’s tramp steamer.
You go Gary!
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/06/12/selecting_generals_and_admirals_who_can_fight_and_stay_out_of_jail_1037579.html
In a recent email to my TBS Class Mates (ECHO-74) I stated this: What in bloody-hell is going on with the Navy. They can't build ships or maintain them, and they keep firing COs. This is the 12th CO for 2024...and the year ain't half over. My perception is our Marine Corps is not faring much better in this category.
Navy fires USS Somerset’s commanding officer following investigation (msn.com)
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-somerset-captain-fired/
Back in the day (late 70s) I remember having a discussion with a Navy Officer about the difference between "leadership" and "management". The discussion abruptly ended when I told the Navy Officer that the Navy leadership is "managing" themselves out of a job.
I think Gary is hitting the “nail on the head”. I agree that some point a General Officer should choose or be selected for the Service side (Organize Equip and Train) or the Joint Combatant Commander Side. Semper Fi
What is clear is the procurement process is a very poor system. Over burdened with “paperwork” and inputs. When an attack submarine comes into to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard here in NH/Maine there is a designated period over which the refit is meant to take place. You can canvas the civilian work from iron worker to people at the top, and do the same for the members of the crews that come in with the boat and it is always the same story, the boat finally goes to sea for good months late, and cost overruns that would make even a crooked banker blush.
Which brings one to the point. If you tried the foist the LSM on the public like say the Edsel, the public say it stinks and we won’t buy it. Within a short period the car goes away and no one at Ford wants to talk about it. Learning from these sorts of disasters, wise money says, “our first loss is our best loss” and they write the damn thing off the books and stop hemorrhaging money.
Fast forward to General Van Riper’s comment regarding General Conway calling some of the senior USMC leadership aka “managers” incompetent, 5 SecDef’s and 7 SecNav’s watched the incompetent foul up the Marine Corps and “nobody was watching!” Same comment is applicable, no one is watching the waste, fraud and abuse as the LSM process winds up and will no doubt unwind as an unsuccessful vessel class that can’t do anything well, is too costly and will be sunk at the water line by Somali pirates.
Easy answer which any prudent business would take, stop the project. Cut your losses and move to a vessel that is supportive of the efforts to rebuild the Corps strength in the MAGTF. Literally stop now, cancel the project and say that was a mistake. As Coke Cola how to do it I’d your so dumb you can’t say no. How long did “New Coke” last?
Wait for it……….drum roll….”WASHINGTON, D.C. --
U.S. Marine Corps Commandant General Eric M. Smith has signed the U.S. Marine Corps Training and Education Annual Report (TEAR), June 12, 2024. Published and distributed by Commanding General U.S. Marine Corps Training and Education Command (TECOM) Lieutenant General Kevin M. Iiams, the TEAR is the first annual report since the publishing of Training and Education 2030 (TE2030) by General David H. Berger, the 38th Commandant of the Marine Corps. The 14-page document outlines how CG TECOM has organized, progressed, and accomplished the 37 Force Design directed actions from TE2030.
“The Training and Education Annual Report is another milestone on our modernization journey,” said Gen. Smith. “We continue to deliver on our promise to Congress, the Joint Force, our Allies and partners, and our Marines to ensure we are postured, manned, trained, and equipped for a peer fight while ensuring we remain ready for any crisis. I can’t say enough about the efforts of Lt. Gen. Iiams and his team, who keep pushing us forward. Our Corps remains at the cutting edge of training and education, which allows our Marines to continue to survive and thrive in any clime and place.”
TECOM has codified Three Primary Projects, also known as the Three Ts, to accomplish its Force Design obligations: Project Triumph, Project Trident, and Project Tripoli. Collectively, these projects are providing the Fleet Marine Force with the standards, curriculum, and training environments it needs to prepare, fight, and win in the future highly contested multi-domain battle space…/
So what will Marine Littoral Regiments do in the new Cuban Missile Crisis?
In Cuba, Russia Explores a Counter
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman
Russian warships, including what appears to be a nuclear-powered submarine, have made port in Cuba – just 400 miles (645 kilometers) or so from the U.S. coast at Florida. The U.S. ports along the Gulf of Mexico are vital to the American economy, so while it’s unlikely that Moscow is trying to pick a nuclear fight, it is certainly trying to remind Washington of the vulnerabilities it can exploit.
The real issue for Russia, of course, is to not lose the war in Ukraine. So in Cuba, its goal is simply to show
Dear CMC, Read the open source intelligence on the massive size of the PRC Armed Naval Militia. The LSM concept is as embarrassment to the USMC. God Save Us. We are being led by delusional fools!
Dear CMC WTFU! Even a US Coast Guard Cadet knows the massive size of the 3RD Element of the PRC Navy! Purpose built seagoing Privatier/ Pirate Military Boats that would eat the LSM for lunch. One Nation’s Fishing Fleet, Another Nation’s Pirates: Countering China’s Maritime Militia
China’s maritime militia often acts in ways consistent with either piracy or naval forces.
By Cadet Jeffrey W. Jaeger, U.S. Merchant Marine
April 2024 Proceedings Vol. 150/4/1,454
MARITIME COIN
COMMENTS
Tensions in the South China Sea have been escalating for more than a decade, most recently in a series of clashes between China and the Philippines. A key player is China’s massive fishing fleet, which typically operates in a military gray zone adjacent to the China Coast Guard and not far over the horizon from the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). However, recent events suggest China is willing to be more open about the true nature of its People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia (PAFMM).
Under international custom and law, these fishing vessels cannot be counted as warships, and yet they enjoy the sovereign immunity of their flag state, which is precisely the reason China has organized them—by some estimates, up to 200,000—into the PAFMM. Any action against a fishing vessel by a warship or merchant vessel of another state can be expected to be condemned by the Chinese government as hostile and unlawful, no matter how justified.
Considering China’s hegemonic ambitions, its maritime militia should be considered an auxiliary of the PLAN, and the United States and other nations should respond accordingly if the PAFMM continues to undermine the rules-based international order. In addition, the United States and its allies should consider invoking the right to issue letters of marque and reprisal if China insists on keeping the status of its “little blue men” vague.1 China has opened a new front in naval warfare, and