Compass Points - PrSM Focus?
Getting the right missile.
Compass Points - PrSM Focus?
Getting the right missile.
July 14, 2025
.
Missiles are useful tools.
Most likely, each large Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) should be augmented with more missiles. The Marine Corps combat development process can figure out how many missiles and what types are genuinely needed.
Missiles come with different specifications. Which missile is best for Marines?
At one time, the Marine Corps thought it needed the large TLAM, Tomahawk missile. But recently the Marine Corps has decided against the Tomahawk.
A recent article in the Naval News reports that "U.S. Marine Corps Abandons Tomahawk Missiles . . . ."
.
--------------------------
--------------------------
.
The U.S. Marine Corps’ Long Range Fires (LRF) launcher, built around a single-cell Mark 41 VLS cell for Tomahawk missiles on a ROGUE-Fires carrier vehicle, has been cancelled due to concerns over maneuverability in littoral and austere environments.
The decision was unveiled in the Corps’ FY2026 budgets unveiled this week.
LRF was first introduced to the USMC in 2023 when the first battery was stood up at Camp Pendleton, California. With it came four LRF weapon systems delivered to Long Range Missile Battery A, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, offering the force an additional, longer ranged arm to strike ships from shore and inland.
-- Naval News
.
--------------------------
--------------------------
.
Now, there is more missile news which may continue to change Marine Corps thinking.
.
--------------------------
--------------------------
.
The U.S. Army has announced the transition to full-rate production of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) in its Increment 1 configuration.
The program has entered Phase C, which authorizes mass production and the deployment of the missiles to operational units, according to an official Army press release.
On March 29, the Pentagon awarded a $4.9 billion contract to purchase the new PrSM Increment 1 missiles, which are set to replace aging ATACMS missiles currently being phased out.
Procurement is scheduled from 2025 through 2029, with the Army planning to acquire 1,296 PrSM missiles under the contract.
. . . The PrSM missile has demonstrated an ability to hit targets at a range of up to 499.4 kilometers, although its projected range is up to 650 kilometers, significantly surpassing the performance of the ATACMS system currently in service.
-- Militarnyi
.
--------------------------
--------------------------
.
The PrSM has more than three times the range of the Marine Corps' current Navy Strike Missile, NSM. And the PrSM does not need a complex new launcher like the NMESIS. The PrSM can be fired from the M270A2 and M142 HIMARS launchers.
Why does the Marine Corps need a complex launcher like NMESIS that uses the subsonic and limited range Navy NSM? It is time for the Marine Corps to continue rethinking its entire missile plan. What is the most useful missile for Marines now and in the near future? When the Marine Corps originally caught missile fever back in 2019 it claimed that it needed:
.
—TLAM
—NMESIS
—HIMARS & PrSM
.
Now that the Marine Corps has announced it no longer wants the TLAM Tomahawk, it is time for the Marine Corps to also let go of the NMESIS and its limited range NSM. The best alternative is the HIMARs with the PrSM.
The HIMARS is in the Marine Corps inventory system now. The PrSM has a much longer range than the NSM. The PrSM is also a major Army contract and that should help the Marine Corps acquire the PrSM at a better cost.
The missile plan all along should have been to simply deploy the HIMARS already in Marine inventory and add the PrSM. There was never any need to dismantle so many of the units, equipment, and capabilities that make the MEF a reservoir of combat power. If the Marine Corps needed sensor and missile units off the coast of China, those could have been add to MEF sourced MAGTFs. If III MEF, the Marine Corps' so called "fight now" MEF in the Pacific still had the combined arms units, equipment, and capabilities it should, then it would be able to send out combined arms units with missiles if the mission required missiles.
Compass Points congratulates the Marine Corps on rethinking its missile plan. It may be that chopping the Marine Tomahawk is a sign that the Marine Corps at last is beginning to change its focus away from island missile units and back to the global, enhanced, combined arms MAGTF.
Now is the time to go further and chop the NMESIS as well. Everyone from Congress all the way down is beginning to understand that the role of the Marine Corps should never be primarily as an island missile force, but should be instead as a global 9-1-1 force, always on the world's oceans, ready to arrive at any foreign crisis to give US policy makers nearly unlimited options. The Tomahawk and the NMESIS may each be great weapons, but neither is a great weapon for the Marine Corps. Missiles are a powerful tool, but missiles can never do all the things that Marines can like, fight, strike, deter, evacuate, rescue, restore order, and more. If US policy makers want the whole range of operational missions accomplished around the globe, there is only one answer: Send in the Marines!
.
- - - - -
.
Naval News - 06/27/2025
U.S. Marine Corps Abandons Tomahawk Missiles, Doubles Down on Extended Range NMESIS in FY2026 Budget
By Carter Johnston
.
- - - - -
.
Militarnyi - 07/06/2025
U.S. Launches Mass Production of PrSM Ballistic Missiles
By Volodymyr B.
https://militarnyi.com/en/news/u-s-launches-mass-production-of-prsm-ballistic-missiles/
Like all fatally flawed concepts (the Maginot Line and McNamera's Line being good examples), FD will fail. Cracks in the foundation are already starting to show. You know you are in trouble when the Navy is neglecting the amphibious fleet; the "crown jewell" has lost its luster because too many are largely "compositioning" or "training to deploy" but not forward deployed; the light amphibious warship envisioned to position, reposition, and logistically support the SIFs have essentially been abandoned for an Army Logistical Support Vessel (LSV); routine training, exercises, logistics, and operations are touted as new capabilities; global response only exists on briefing slides and in talking points; and previously divested equipment is being brought back, such as almost 100 of the 200 tactical aircraft tossed aside.
The Marine Corps is not in a good place. Contrary to some, those opposed to FD are not trying to destroy the Marine Corps. They are trying to save it. Those who disagree should argue the issues. For starters, tell us why the NSM makes more sense than the LRASM or PrSM, increment 2. Or tell how the LSV can survive inside contested waters when the shooting starts.
Cpl Grable. Read your two articles closely. The first lists 8500 service members which is 9O-95 % ships crews and higher Headquarters. Ground combat units listed?
The second article is a PR stunt. Merely a small addition to already existing Navy to Navy, specific interoperability between three navies.