More than six years into the implementation of FD and the best the SIF can do is deploy a NMESIS without lethality. Worse, of the 14 MMSL batteries touted under FD only two have been on partially stood up. It's past time to scrap NMESIS/NSM and focus on HIMARS/ PrSM.
Gee, Cpl. the PLAN is building multiple multi-mission LARGE BLUE WATER amphibious ships. I wonder why they aren’t building little 12 Kt. tramp steamers, because as the last two Commandants have told us, large amphibious ships can’t survive in the era of missiles and drones.
Keep touting the FD line, you and FD are getting more irrelevant every day.
Mr. Cao needs to order an immediate, urgent high-speed, long-range assault amphib and combat logistics vehicle to replace LCAC. USMC cannot do its main mission with the ACV--USN will never come within ACV-range of enemy land again.
He also needs to immediately revert to the middle-weight force of Vision 2035.
MSVL is the bird in the hand, but it has limits and doesn't fit in a well deck. I've been working on a catamaran lander that fits 2 in a 3 LCAC spot. Uses 4 rather than 3 of the engines from MSVL. It's aluminum but similar payload to an LCU. 25 knots sustained, 20 knots economic. (approx)
We are fortunate to have Hung Cao as the Acting Secretary of the Department of the Marine Corps and Navy. Here is more good news:”Japan, Australia and a New Regional Order
By George Friedman -
April 20, 2026
Open as PDF
We have written a great deal on the evolution of U.S.-China relations, and we expect them to evolve further after the upcoming summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. We have also written on the evolution of relations between Japan and Australia, driven in part by the U.S. and China. Last week, a significant event enhanced Japanese-Australian ties: The government in Canberra signed a deal to order 11 frigates from Japan. More, Australia announced recently the largest-ever increase in its defense budget, while Japan has dramatically increased its own defense budget.”…George Friedman’s work can be found on his website he also has a YouTube Channel.
SECNAV's first official act should be to summarily fire both the Commandant and Assistant Commandant AND any other senior officer who has supported FD2030! Only then can we right this
ship from hitting anymore shoals. Serious times requires drastic measures. I learned a long time
ago that bad news and/or decisions never get better with the passage of time! Too much time has already passed!!!!
"The line between foreign battlefield and domestic threat has not just collapsed but has exposed where the United States is least prepared. The uncomfortable truth is that the United States is exquisitely prepared for a war no adversary wants to fight. The Pentagon has spent decades and trillions of dollars optimizing for high-end conflict —the kind built around stealth platforms, precision strikes, and overwhelming technological advantage. But that model assumes short wars, finite adversaries, and dominance through superiority. Cheap drones are invalidating all three assumptions in real time."
"That mismatch is increasingly out of step with the wars America is actually facing. China is already moving aggressively in the opposite direction, pursuing a program to field one million tactical drones, while the United States procured roughly 50,000 in 2025 and plans another 200,000 by 2027. "
It is becoming glaringly evident that the US is FAR behind in the employment of drones, UAV's, UGV's, UUV's. The US does a lot of experimentation but little implementation. Sometimes....most time... a 75% solution is the best.
U.S. Deploys NMESIS Coastal Missile System to the Philippines to Reshape First Island Chain Defense Posture (Army Recognition, by Teoman S. Nicanci) - A U.S. Marine Corps NMESIS anti-ship missile launcher is being forward-positioned toward Itbayat during Balikatan 2026, bringing a mobile land-based maritime strike capability close to the Luzon Strait and one of the Indo-Pacific’s most contested maritime corridors. By moving this system into the Batanes island chain, U.S. and Philippine forces are demonstrating their ability to disperse precision fires across strategically located terrain, reinforcing deterrence while complicating the operational planning of any hostile naval force.
The current launcher design is static; it cannot rotate and must be physically steered in the direction of the target before firing.
“Block 0” versions of the system, cannot transmit targeting data digitally from external sensors directly into the launcher's computer. Instead, a Marine must sit between two different screens or systems—literally "swiveling" their chair—to read coordinates from a sensor screen and manually type them into the missile's firing console.
Existing Marine artillery systems, like the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System were not originally designed to track multiple moving targets at sea or handle complex cruise missile flight plans. Integrating NMESIS into the broader joint force digital communication loop is essential has proven technically challenging.
NMESIS cannot "see" over the horizon on its own. It is entirely dependent on external sensors to provide real-time targeting data. If these communication links are jammed or the external sensors are destroyed, a NMESIS unit cannot engage moving targets.
The NMSIS’s Naval Strike Missile has a range of only 115 miles. This is insufficient to reach the Taiwan Strait except from the northern most Philippine islands to be effective against a mainland invasion fleet. So much for its supposed utility along the First Island Chain.
The Corps has had considerable difficulties with the NMESIS “leader-follower” navigation system as well as a newer self-driving system whose sensors struggle to differentiate between obstacles like a solid wall and passable terrain like tall grass or shifting dust, which can cause the vehicle to stall or navigate incorrectly.
The CSIS think tanks wargames indicated that resupplying these units with fresh missiles during an active conflict would be nearly impossible.
"Prepared for air movement by C-130J, NMESIS gives Marine littoral units the ability to establish temporary missile engagement zones from austere terrain..."
I thought that these were supposed to operate in the WEZ where not even a heavily armed US destroyer would fear to tread....let alone a lumbering slow moving C-130.
How exactly are they rearming these launchers once they shoot their load?
The crane on the trucks hauling the reloads should be able to do it. They unload boxes for HIMARS. That said, I have only seen video of NMESIS reloading with a forklift on a concrete surface.
“…Instead of concentrating combat power in predictable locations, the U.S. force posture is increasingly built around rapid movement, expeditionary logistics, and precision fires from austere terrain.”
1. These systems ARE being located in predictable sites. When you have a subsonic 100 NM missile locations become predictable. And they’re being introduced in places that, it’s my guess that the PLA/PLAN already have initial missile units and firing data developed.
2. It’s one thing to be able to “rapidly” occupy a firing position, it’s another to be able to displace from that position far enough away to negate PLA/PLAN counter battery fires.
3. You’ve got to be kidding yourself and us about expeditionary logistics. The Navy/Corps has demonstrated zero ability to maintain and resupply a forward deployed unit in a contested maritime environment. First you don’t even have a viable resupply stock of the NSM. Second you don’t have replacements of major end items such as launchers, radars, etc. to replace combat loses, and if you did you have no way of getting them to a forward deployed unit. I know Marines are going to “scavenge” for rations. Please tell me how you’re going to “scavenge” for Class V?
4. I also noticed that the article talks in the singular, an NMESIS system, NOT a NMESIS UNIT. After more than six years, the Corps still doesn’t have a fully equipped and functional NMESIS unit.
Keep churning out these puff PAO pieces there Cpl., we find them very amusing.
U.S. Anti-Ship Missiles in the Philippines for Balikatan 2026 (Naval News, by Aaron-Matthew Lariosa) - American anti-ship missile launchers have been deployed to the Northern Philippines near the Luzon Strait in support of planned maritime strike, coastal defense and sea denial operations during Balikatan 2026. Around 1,300 Marines and Sailors from the Hawaii-based 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment are in the Southeast Asian archipelago for Washington and Manila’s largest annual military drills. The regiment, designed to provide maritime sensing and anti-ship capabilities in littoral environments to joint and allied forces, routinely deploys to the Philippines for drills with local forces.
One can understand Force Design and still disagree with it, much as with Astrology or Tarot. In any case, maybe the NMESIS isn't itself FD, but it is disingenuous to insinuate that it it's acquisition and employment is not tied to FD. "Investment in additional rocket artillery batteries
This investment provides the basis, over time, for
generating one of the fundamental requirements for
deterrence, and ultimately successful naval campaigns
More than six years into the implementation of FD and the best the SIF can do is deploy a NMESIS without lethality. Worse, of the 14 MMSL batteries touted under FD only two have been on partially stood up. It's past time to scrap NMESIS/NSM and focus on HIMARS/ PrSM.
Tell me you don’t understand force design without saying you don’t understand force design. . .
Gee, Cpl. the PLAN is building multiple multi-mission LARGE BLUE WATER amphibious ships. I wonder why they aren’t building little 12 Kt. tramp steamers, because as the last two Commandants have told us, large amphibious ships can’t survive in the era of missiles and drones.
Keep touting the FD line, you and FD are getting more irrelevant every day.
I have high hopes for the new SecNav. We have not had a good one since John Lehman.
Mr. Cao needs to order an immediate, urgent high-speed, long-range assault amphib and combat logistics vehicle to replace LCAC. USMC cannot do its main mission with the ACV--USN will never come within ACV-range of enemy land again.
He also needs to immediately revert to the middle-weight force of Vision 2035.
MSVL is the bird in the hand, but it has limits and doesn't fit in a well deck. I've been working on a catamaran lander that fits 2 in a 3 LCAC spot. Uses 4 rather than 3 of the engines from MSVL. It's aluminum but similar payload to an LCU. 25 knots sustained, 20 knots economic. (approx)
We are fortunate to have Hung Cao as the Acting Secretary of the Department of the Marine Corps and Navy. Here is more good news:”Japan, Australia and a New Regional Order
By George Friedman -
April 20, 2026
Open as PDF
We have written a great deal on the evolution of U.S.-China relations, and we expect them to evolve further after the upcoming summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. We have also written on the evolution of relations between Japan and Australia, driven in part by the U.S. and China. Last week, a significant event enhanced Japanese-Australian ties: The government in Canberra signed a deal to order 11 frigates from Japan. More, Australia announced recently the largest-ever increase in its defense budget, while Japan has dramatically increased its own defense budget.”…George Friedman’s work can be found on his website he also has a YouTube Channel.
SECNAV's first official act should be to summarily fire both the Commandant and Assistant Commandant AND any other senior officer who has supported FD2030! Only then can we right this
ship from hitting anymore shoals. Serious times requires drastic measures. I learned a long time
ago that bad news and/or decisions never get better with the passage of time! Too much time has already passed!!!!
The new Chinese ship has a catapult....does it have arresting gear? Seems like a small ship to be able to launch and land non-VSTOL aircraft.
Its for zero speed launches. Probably UAVs.
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/america-fighting-wrong-drone-war?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru
"The line between foreign battlefield and domestic threat has not just collapsed but has exposed where the United States is least prepared. The uncomfortable truth is that the United States is exquisitely prepared for a war no adversary wants to fight. The Pentagon has spent decades and trillions of dollars optimizing for high-end conflict —the kind built around stealth platforms, precision strikes, and overwhelming technological advantage. But that model assumes short wars, finite adversaries, and dominance through superiority. Cheap drones are invalidating all three assumptions in real time."
"That mismatch is increasingly out of step with the wars America is actually facing. China is already moving aggressively in the opposite direction, pursuing a program to field one million tactical drones, while the United States procured roughly 50,000 in 2025 and plans another 200,000 by 2027. "
It is becoming glaringly evident that the US is FAR behind in the employment of drones, UAV's, UGV's, UUV's. The US does a lot of experimentation but little implementation. Sometimes....most time... a 75% solution is the best.
In other news. . .
U.S. Deploys NMESIS Coastal Missile System to the Philippines to Reshape First Island Chain Defense Posture (Army Recognition, by Teoman S. Nicanci) - A U.S. Marine Corps NMESIS anti-ship missile launcher is being forward-positioned toward Itbayat during Balikatan 2026, bringing a mobile land-based maritime strike capability close to the Luzon Strait and one of the Indo-Pacific’s most contested maritime corridors. By moving this system into the Batanes island chain, U.S. and Philippine forces are demonstrating their ability to disperse precision fires across strategically located terrain, reinforcing deterrence while complicating the operational planning of any hostile naval force.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2026/u-s-deploys-nmesis-coastal-missile-system-to-the-philippines-to-shape-first-island-chain-defense-posture
And here is the rest of the story:
The current launcher design is static; it cannot rotate and must be physically steered in the direction of the target before firing.
“Block 0” versions of the system, cannot transmit targeting data digitally from external sensors directly into the launcher's computer. Instead, a Marine must sit between two different screens or systems—literally "swiveling" their chair—to read coordinates from a sensor screen and manually type them into the missile's firing console.
Existing Marine artillery systems, like the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System were not originally designed to track multiple moving targets at sea or handle complex cruise missile flight plans. Integrating NMESIS into the broader joint force digital communication loop is essential has proven technically challenging.
NMESIS cannot "see" over the horizon on its own. It is entirely dependent on external sensors to provide real-time targeting data. If these communication links are jammed or the external sensors are destroyed, a NMESIS unit cannot engage moving targets.
The NMSIS’s Naval Strike Missile has a range of only 115 miles. This is insufficient to reach the Taiwan Strait except from the northern most Philippine islands to be effective against a mainland invasion fleet. So much for its supposed utility along the First Island Chain.
The Corps has had considerable difficulties with the NMESIS “leader-follower” navigation system as well as a newer self-driving system whose sensors struggle to differentiate between obstacles like a solid wall and passable terrain like tall grass or shifting dust, which can cause the vehicle to stall or navigate incorrectly.
The CSIS think tanks wargames indicated that resupplying these units with fresh missiles during an active conflict would be nearly impossible.
"A launcher"....that is the big news? A single launcher? How the Chinese must be shaking in their boots!
"Prepared for air movement by C-130J, NMESIS gives Marine littoral units the ability to establish temporary missile engagement zones from austere terrain..."
I thought that these were supposed to operate in the WEZ where not even a heavily armed US destroyer would fear to tread....let alone a lumbering slow moving C-130.
How exactly are they rearming these launchers once they shoot their load?
The crane on the trucks hauling the reloads should be able to do it. They unload boxes for HIMARS. That said, I have only seen video of NMESIS reloading with a forklift on a concrete surface.
Here ya go Cpl. some other news, that is MUCH more relevant than NMESIS.
https://nextgendefense.com/tiberius-ramjet-artillery-shell/
Mach 3 vs. NSM’s subsonic speed.
150 km (93.2 mi.) range vs. NSM’s 100 NM range, almost equivalent.
A max ord of 65,000 ft. AGL, placing it above most jamming systems.
Can be fired from a conventional tubed 155mm artillery system.
Cheaper at scale than the NSM.
And it’s made by a U.S. company.
Yep, Cpl. you and the last two Commandants were and are wrong that tubed field artillery is no longer viable on the battlefield.
From the article.
“…Instead of concentrating combat power in predictable locations, the U.S. force posture is increasingly built around rapid movement, expeditionary logistics, and precision fires from austere terrain.”
1. These systems ARE being located in predictable sites. When you have a subsonic 100 NM missile locations become predictable. And they’re being introduced in places that, it’s my guess that the PLA/PLAN already have initial missile units and firing data developed.
2. It’s one thing to be able to “rapidly” occupy a firing position, it’s another to be able to displace from that position far enough away to negate PLA/PLAN counter battery fires.
3. You’ve got to be kidding yourself and us about expeditionary logistics. The Navy/Corps has demonstrated zero ability to maintain and resupply a forward deployed unit in a contested maritime environment. First you don’t even have a viable resupply stock of the NSM. Second you don’t have replacements of major end items such as launchers, radars, etc. to replace combat loses, and if you did you have no way of getting them to a forward deployed unit. I know Marines are going to “scavenge” for rations. Please tell me how you’re going to “scavenge” for Class V?
4. I also noticed that the article talks in the singular, an NMESIS system, NOT a NMESIS UNIT. After more than six years, the Corps still doesn’t have a fully equipped and functional NMESIS unit.
Keep churning out these puff PAO pieces there Cpl., we find them very amusing.
And more
U.S. Anti-Ship Missiles in the Philippines for Balikatan 2026 (Naval News, by Aaron-Matthew Lariosa) - American anti-ship missile launchers have been deployed to the Northern Philippines near the Luzon Strait in support of planned maritime strike, coastal defense and sea denial operations during Balikatan 2026. Around 1,300 Marines and Sailors from the Hawaii-based 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment are in the Southeast Asian archipelago for Washington and Manila’s largest annual military drills. The regiment, designed to provide maritime sensing and anti-ship capabilities in littoral environments to joint and allied forces, routinely deploys to the Philippines for drills with local forces.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/04/u-s-anti-ship-missiles-in-the-philippines-for-balikatan-2026/
Cpl Grable. They have no missiles.
You sure about that?
Perhaps Mr. Cao should swing by BK and see for himself.
I hope he does. . .
NMESIS does not define Force Design and by anchoring on NMESIS you confirm you don’t understand FD.
One can understand Force Design and still disagree with it, much as with Astrology or Tarot. In any case, maybe the NMESIS isn't itself FD, but it is disingenuous to insinuate that it it's acquisition and employment is not tied to FD. "Investment in additional rocket artillery batteries
This investment provides the basis, over time, for
generating one of the fundamental requirements for
deterrence, and ultimately successful naval campaigns
– long-range, precision expeditionary anti-ship missile
fires. This requirement is based on one of the more
well-supported conclusions from wargaming analysis
conducted to date." from Force Design 2030 pub'd March 2020.
Also note: "I am not confident that we have identified the additional
structure required to provide the tactical maneuver and
logistical sustainment needed to execute DMO, LOCE
and EABO in contested littoral environments against
our pacing threat. " from the same.