Currently the US Army has two missile-equipped Multi-Domain Task Forces in the Indo-Pacific theater and plans to add a third by FY 2028. Army leaders are in the process of consolidating the MDTF’s Mid-Range Capability (MRC)—built from elements of the SM-6 and Tomahawk naval missiles—and Long-Range Hypersonic batteries into a Long-Range Fires Battalion with Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM).
According to FY 2025 budget documents, the first procurement-funded Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) Naval Strike Missile launcher will be delivered in January 2026, and the first Remotely Operated Ground Unit for Expeditionary fires (ROGUE) carrier for the launcher will be delivered in September 2025. One report shows the NMESIS delayed until April 2026 and the ROGUE until November 2025.
Bottom line, the US Army has more capable anti-ship missiles deployed today than the Marine Corps will begin to deploy a year and half from now! In my view, Marine senior leaders could rightly be accused of professional malpractice as they waste taxpayer money creating a duplicative and less capable missile system years after the Army fielded better ones. Moreover, in their attempts to do this these leaders gutted the Corps’ means of conducting combined arms operations and, despite claims otherwise, walked away from a maneuver warfare philosophy.
Each of the Navy's 4 Ohio class SSGN submarines are armed with 154 Tomahawks. These boats are built for stealth and endurance. Future Virginia class submarines (Block 5) will carry 40 TLAMs or some number of the Navy's new submarine launched hypersonic missile. The SIF is less than irrelevant compared to these capabilities.
With China’s naval encirclement of Taiwan as reported this morning, and the reported prolonged overflight of our sensitive locations in the greater Norfolk area, what in the world is happening? My instincts tell me we are being tested by several foes - yes, foes - and we are falling short, seemingly by design or willful neglect. Drawing such a conclusion shocks me, its author. Admiral J.O. Richardson’s “On The Treadmill To Pearl Harbor” has a haunting ring to it, and we need to heed its warning. It seems to me NOW is a ripe time for China to make its move on Taiwan: our body politic is split, POTUS is badly weakened, our candidates are a combination of word salads and and imbecilic bombast, and our “First To Fight” force suffering from self inflicted wounds. At some point in time this nightmare will end, and, when it does we need to ask how POTUS, SecDef, SecNav, CJCS, SASC & HASC, and so many USMC senior officers permitted this malady to strike without a whimper. Time for Congress to act, and the VFW & Legion to intervene (as they did in 1947).
The US Army is on target with its development and implementation of its MDFs! Unfortunately for our Corps, the US Army's new MDFs are more efficient and effective than the "brain child" of former CMC Gen Berger's Littoral Rgts that do little to warn or thwart any action by the CHICOMs against the RoC aka Taiwan! This FD2030 insanity has neutered the Corps' MAGTF capabilities and rendered the Corps to be used as "ship snipers" and coastal artillery and left the Corps solely dependent on the US Army for any armor/tank support and for large cannon artillery fire support, should any mission warrant such.
The author is "spot-on" with the observations and criticisms yet again, and the call for US Congressional hearings and oversight is critical immediately to reverse and restore our Corps as America's "Force-in-Readiness" and ability to fight in "every clime and place"!
I may be just a simple cave frog, but I wonder that we don't use our emergent SIF in the one obvious place where it would actually be a unique and overpowered asset: to reinforce our ally who already has SIF in place at the BRP Sierra Madre on Second Thomas Shoal. I understand the diplomatic complexities, to include the Philippines denying such support. However, the lack of discussion or comment around this obvious application is deafening. The concept would be for a very small det (4 Marines) from an MLR, with some of it's unique assets, to join the detachment already on board the Sierra Madre as a symbol of partnered American presence in support of Philippine sovereignty. It would suck for the Det, as the Sierra Madre is slowing falling apart, but success would mean the ability for meaningful repairs and more robust resupply for all on the outpost. The heavier part would be the rest of the Naval Expeditionary Force (NEF) that is prepared to challenge PRC interference in the resupply/relief of the Philippine and US Marines on board the Sierra Madre. A US NEF challenge could easily play the grey zone UNO reverse card with bigger ships and bigger water cannons on the PRC forces. This is a case where some type of EABO might even work by playing on clear home team advantages. Of course, it would take close coordination with the US Dept. of State, the Philippines, and open communications with the PRC to prevent escalation and get the message across. In turn, this would reinforce our good faith in standing with other nations across the South China Sea. The status quo is doing nothing but proving the bravery of the Philippine Marines and Navy in a gross overmatch quiet turf war. We've seen how the PRC, when unchecked, wins those fights eventually. .
Concur with CFrog. As a matter of precedent for such a deployment, please note the announcement this morning of the 100 U.S. Soldiers being deployed to Israel for manning of our THADD system …. “Boots On The Ground” in an active combat zone & in a defensive posture. So, the “ice is broken” .. let’s put the concept to the test of the real world.
The USMC could have a true ship killing capability within weeks. The F-35 B can carry the USAF developed ship killing smart bombs internally. Combine the range of the aircraft and the smart bomb and with the maneuverability of Amphibious shipping and Pacific airfields and the entire, current USMC concept is stillborn. Why is the stubborn insistence being stuck to? Observe, Orient, Decide and Cancel. If the current Marine leadership cannot grasp what is happening they need to be removed.
Agree! Why FD2030 reduced and eliminated squadrons in favor of developing ground based anti-ships missiles is beyond my grasp. The Navy's primary anti-ship weapon is aircraft. Why not put the focus on the stealthy US Marine F-35 armed with standoff weapons. Why go in the direction of developing land based anti-ship missiles when the US Navy has the Arleigh Burk Destroyer with the existing and an improving effective anti-ship missile defense. There was a time that the US Marine Corps Amphibious doctrine call for a Navy destroyer in direct support of each numbered color beach. Where were General Berger's strategic thinkers? General Lejeune sent LtCol Pete Ellis on a covert mission into the Pacific in August of 1921. "It was as if Ellis had peered into a crystal ball and watched the Marines storm the beaches at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Guam, and Iwo Jima." https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/pete-ellis-father-of-amphibious-warfare/
If the United States Marine Corps continues down this “ship killing missile” road, they may very well force the end of the Corps itself. Being “me too” is not a long term winning strategy.
The American people do not realize it yet, but the US is in for a long existential struggle whose logic will require, and ultimately result in, massive changes to our industrial and economic systems, and to our political orientations as well. Otherwise we will not be able to survive the challenges that will be posed by the Chinese mega-power and its allies. We have to open our eyes both to the inevitable reality of major military confrontation in the Pacific and elsewhere, and to the question of how our military and society must become drastically stronger to remain free in the face of those challenges.
For starters, the USN and USMC need to be able project as much power--surface, amphib, air, etc.-- to Taiwan as PLAN can, beginning today. And to plan realistically from the perspective of that simple calculus, which our leadership, military and civil, has not always been doing in recent years. And the ante may go up from there, like Czechoslovakia in 1938 or Poland in 1939. China, while it holds all the strategic-industrial cards, is strongly incentivized to play them.
For those of you with an artillery background, would a HIMARS raid force from a MEU be more logical and sustainable than the MLR? Such a package could include a HIMARS platoon, a SAM section, and an infantry platoon. I think using LCACs or air assets would be more strategically viable than the MLR. The way the MLR is set up, is a regiment to support a missile battery.
If we had a pre-FD Marine Corps, we could station a couple MEU's off a couple important Chinese ports in the Middle East or South America. That would also send an imporatant message. We were told on one of the CP postings that surrounding Taiwan was one of their plans.
Exactly! The CHICOMs don't have the capabilities to project power or prevent aggression against or defend their overseas assets or interests, but can only operate with limited "green water" capabilities...
With all the defensive weapons that current naval ships have at their disposal, how many missiles does doctrine state you fire at each target to overwhelm their defenses and score a "kill"?
I can only assume that the Chinese have as many defensive weapons on their vessels as the US does. So the answer to my query above is definitely more than one. The NMESIS that I have seen has two missiles, short range ones at that. How many of these exactly does one of these SIF units have?
And back to my Logistics backgfround....the SIF has fired its initial loadout....How do they rearm? How do they protect themselves from the inevitable response? Because firing missiles at something is not a way to remain "stealthy". The LMSR things the Corps is attempting to force the Navy to purchase (I won't get into the Navys current practice of manning ships at 75-80% manning for deployments or their current recruitment woes) are not "stealthy" and will not survive in a high threat atmosphere. How are the Marines now moved or protected?
Currently the US Army has two missile-equipped Multi-Domain Task Forces in the Indo-Pacific theater and plans to add a third by FY 2028. Army leaders are in the process of consolidating the MDTF’s Mid-Range Capability (MRC)—built from elements of the SM-6 and Tomahawk naval missiles—and Long-Range Hypersonic batteries into a Long-Range Fires Battalion with Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM).
According to FY 2025 budget documents, the first procurement-funded Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) Naval Strike Missile launcher will be delivered in January 2026, and the first Remotely Operated Ground Unit for Expeditionary fires (ROGUE) carrier for the launcher will be delivered in September 2025. One report shows the NMESIS delayed until April 2026 and the ROGUE until November 2025.
Bottom line, the US Army has more capable anti-ship missiles deployed today than the Marine Corps will begin to deploy a year and half from now! In my view, Marine senior leaders could rightly be accused of professional malpractice as they waste taxpayer money creating a duplicative and less capable missile system years after the Army fielded better ones. Moreover, in their attempts to do this these leaders gutted the Corps’ means of conducting combined arms operations and, despite claims otherwise, walked away from a maneuver warfare philosophy.
Missile Systems Range
Army Precision Strike Missile. 310-621 Miles
Army SM-6 230-290 Miles (Reported)
Army Tomahawk 1,500 Miles
Army Hypersonic 1,725 (Reported)
Marine Corps Naval Strike Missile 115 Miles
Agree 100% sir with your observations and assessments of the current clusterf^k of our Corps' leaders! Semper Fi sir!
Let hope they can keep them gassed up.
Each of the Navy's 4 Ohio class SSGN submarines are armed with 154 Tomahawks. These boats are built for stealth and endurance. Future Virginia class submarines (Block 5) will carry 40 TLAMs or some number of the Navy's new submarine launched hypersonic missile. The SIF is less than irrelevant compared to these capabilities.
With China’s naval encirclement of Taiwan as reported this morning, and the reported prolonged overflight of our sensitive locations in the greater Norfolk area, what in the world is happening? My instincts tell me we are being tested by several foes - yes, foes - and we are falling short, seemingly by design or willful neglect. Drawing such a conclusion shocks me, its author. Admiral J.O. Richardson’s “On The Treadmill To Pearl Harbor” has a haunting ring to it, and we need to heed its warning. It seems to me NOW is a ripe time for China to make its move on Taiwan: our body politic is split, POTUS is badly weakened, our candidates are a combination of word salads and and imbecilic bombast, and our “First To Fight” force suffering from self inflicted wounds. At some point in time this nightmare will end, and, when it does we need to ask how POTUS, SecDef, SecNav, CJCS, SASC & HASC, and so many USMC senior officers permitted this malady to strike without a whimper. Time for Congress to act, and the VFW & Legion to intervene (as they did in 1947).
😭
The US Army is on target with its development and implementation of its MDFs! Unfortunately for our Corps, the US Army's new MDFs are more efficient and effective than the "brain child" of former CMC Gen Berger's Littoral Rgts that do little to warn or thwart any action by the CHICOMs against the RoC aka Taiwan! This FD2030 insanity has neutered the Corps' MAGTF capabilities and rendered the Corps to be used as "ship snipers" and coastal artillery and left the Corps solely dependent on the US Army for any armor/tank support and for large cannon artillery fire support, should any mission warrant such.
The author is "spot-on" with the observations and criticisms yet again, and the call for US Congressional hearings and oversight is critical immediately to reverse and restore our Corps as America's "Force-in-Readiness" and ability to fight in "every clime and place"!
Semper Fidelis!
Joel "Big Country" Bowling, SGT USMC 1985-91; CWO2 (ret) NCARNG 1991-2013
I may be just a simple cave frog, but I wonder that we don't use our emergent SIF in the one obvious place where it would actually be a unique and overpowered asset: to reinforce our ally who already has SIF in place at the BRP Sierra Madre on Second Thomas Shoal. I understand the diplomatic complexities, to include the Philippines denying such support. However, the lack of discussion or comment around this obvious application is deafening. The concept would be for a very small det (4 Marines) from an MLR, with some of it's unique assets, to join the detachment already on board the Sierra Madre as a symbol of partnered American presence in support of Philippine sovereignty. It would suck for the Det, as the Sierra Madre is slowing falling apart, but success would mean the ability for meaningful repairs and more robust resupply for all on the outpost. The heavier part would be the rest of the Naval Expeditionary Force (NEF) that is prepared to challenge PRC interference in the resupply/relief of the Philippine and US Marines on board the Sierra Madre. A US NEF challenge could easily play the grey zone UNO reverse card with bigger ships and bigger water cannons on the PRC forces. This is a case where some type of EABO might even work by playing on clear home team advantages. Of course, it would take close coordination with the US Dept. of State, the Philippines, and open communications with the PRC to prevent escalation and get the message across. In turn, this would reinforce our good faith in standing with other nations across the South China Sea. The status quo is doing nothing but proving the bravery of the Philippine Marines and Navy in a gross overmatch quiet turf war. We've seen how the PRC, when unchecked, wins those fights eventually. .
Concur with CFrog. As a matter of precedent for such a deployment, please note the announcement this morning of the 100 U.S. Soldiers being deployed to Israel for manning of our THADD system …. “Boots On The Ground” in an active combat zone & in a defensive posture. So, the “ice is broken” .. let’s put the concept to the test of the real world.
The USMC could have a true ship killing capability within weeks. The F-35 B can carry the USAF developed ship killing smart bombs internally. Combine the range of the aircraft and the smart bomb and with the maneuverability of Amphibious shipping and Pacific airfields and the entire, current USMC concept is stillborn. Why is the stubborn insistence being stuck to? Observe, Orient, Decide and Cancel. If the current Marine leadership cannot grasp what is happening they need to be removed.
Agree! Why FD2030 reduced and eliminated squadrons in favor of developing ground based anti-ships missiles is beyond my grasp. The Navy's primary anti-ship weapon is aircraft. Why not put the focus on the stealthy US Marine F-35 armed with standoff weapons. Why go in the direction of developing land based anti-ship missiles when the US Navy has the Arleigh Burk Destroyer with the existing and an improving effective anti-ship missile defense. There was a time that the US Marine Corps Amphibious doctrine call for a Navy destroyer in direct support of each numbered color beach. Where were General Berger's strategic thinkers? General Lejeune sent LtCol Pete Ellis on a covert mission into the Pacific in August of 1921. "It was as if Ellis had peered into a crystal ball and watched the Marines storm the beaches at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Guam, and Iwo Jima." https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/pete-ellis-father-of-amphibious-warfare/
If the United States Marine Corps continues down this “ship killing missile” road, they may very well force the end of the Corps itself. Being “me too” is not a long term winning strategy.
The American people do not realize it yet, but the US is in for a long existential struggle whose logic will require, and ultimately result in, massive changes to our industrial and economic systems, and to our political orientations as well. Otherwise we will not be able to survive the challenges that will be posed by the Chinese mega-power and its allies. We have to open our eyes both to the inevitable reality of major military confrontation in the Pacific and elsewhere, and to the question of how our military and society must become drastically stronger to remain free in the face of those challenges.
For starters, the USN and USMC need to be able project as much power--surface, amphib, air, etc.-- to Taiwan as PLAN can, beginning today. And to plan realistically from the perspective of that simple calculus, which our leadership, military and civil, has not always been doing in recent years. And the ante may go up from there, like Czechoslovakia in 1938 or Poland in 1939. China, while it holds all the strategic-industrial cards, is strongly incentivized to play them.
For those of you with an artillery background, would a HIMARS raid force from a MEU be more logical and sustainable than the MLR? Such a package could include a HIMARS platoon, a SAM section, and an infantry platoon. I think using LCACs or air assets would be more strategically viable than the MLR. The way the MLR is set up, is a regiment to support a missile battery.
If we had a pre-FD Marine Corps, we could station a couple MEU's off a couple important Chinese ports in the Middle East or South America. That would also send an imporatant message. We were told on one of the CP postings that surrounding Taiwan was one of their plans.
Exactly! The CHICOMs don't have the capabilities to project power or prevent aggression against or defend their overseas assets or interests, but can only operate with limited "green water" capabilities...
With all the defensive weapons that current naval ships have at their disposal, how many missiles does doctrine state you fire at each target to overwhelm their defenses and score a "kill"?
I can only assume that the Chinese have as many defensive weapons on their vessels as the US does. So the answer to my query above is definitely more than one. The NMESIS that I have seen has two missiles, short range ones at that. How many of these exactly does one of these SIF units have?
And back to my Logistics backgfround....the SIF has fired its initial loadout....How do they rearm? How do they protect themselves from the inevitable response? Because firing missiles at something is not a way to remain "stealthy". The LMSR things the Corps is attempting to force the Navy to purchase (I won't get into the Navys current practice of manning ships at 75-80% manning for deployments or their current recruitment woes) are not "stealthy" and will not survive in a high threat atmosphere. How are the Marines now moved or protected?