The question no one is asking is where was the Marine Littoral Regiment’s NSM anti-ship missile in the SINKEX (Marine F/A-18Cs did participate). My guess is the Marines still don’t have an initial operational capability (IOC) after almost 5 years.
The anti-ship missile fired by the Army was the PrSM, a supersonic missile with a range of about 310NM. Planned future upgrades will extend the range to 400NM and then to about 600NM. The PrSM can be fired from HIMARS, which begs the second question. Why didn’t the Marines pursue the PrSM instead of the subsonic NSM with a range of about 115NM. My guess is because the Marines circumvented the combat development process in their rush to boast relevancy in the Western Pacific.
Each of the Army’s Multi-Domain Task Forces has a strategic fires battalion, which consists of a sort range battery (PrSM missile); a mid-range battery (TLAM w/range of over 1,000NM); and a long range battery (Long Range Hypersonic Weapon w/range of 1,800NM and speed of Mach 5).
The 38th and 39th Commandant have destroyed the global response capability of the Marine Corps to fund a duplicative, inferior, and largely ineffective missile force. Go figure?
Stars and Stripes 2023 -04-26ARMY With Marcos watching, US Army HIMARS fires 6 times but misses target in South China Sea By SETH ROBSON STARS AND STRIPES • April 26, 2023 Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. waves to reporters after touring a M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, while attending a Balikatan live-fire drill at Naval Station Leovigildo Gantioqui in San Antonio, Philippines, Wednesday, April 26, 2023. (Jonathan Snyder/Stars and Stripes) SAN ANTONIO, Philippines — The Philippines’ president was on hand Wednesday as one of the U.S. Army’s best-known weapons missed its target — a decommissioned warship floating miles away in the South China Sea — during a live-fire exercise. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. observed from a tower as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, fired six times at the Philippine navy corvette, …
There is only one MEB command element and it is located in the Middle East. Moreover, there are not enough available amphibious ships to carry a MEB and the MPF ships to support all MAGTFs have been cut from 21 to 7 ships. There are insufficient infantry battalions to support the continual deployment of a MEU in the Med and WestPac ("heel to toe") as we did years ago. So Phil, to answer your question, the Corps is no longer able to provide a global response 365 days a year.
And that is all the Marine Corps has left - - empty words about a capability no longer possessed. Global response is more that the episodic presence of a MEU or truncated MAGTF. Global response requires persistent forward presence; the capability to quickly deploy a robust combined arms MEB and rapidly composite into a sustainable MEF; the wherewithal to fight any foe, anywhere, and win. Saying it’s so in congressional testimony and in written documents does not make it so.
Since the Army has the largest budget and the most resources, why does the Marine Corps want to eliminate its most unique contribution to National Defense, that as a combined arms naval expeditionary force, and duplicate what the Army is doing? Former Commandant Berger was appointed in 2019. As early as 2017, Admiral Harry Harris, then Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, suggested that the Army should begin work to sink enemy ships. The 1st Multi Domain Task Force of the US Army stood up in 2017 at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. So, Admiral Harris' request for the Army to sink enemy ships was almost two years prior to CMC Berger's concept to scrap the time tested combined arms naval expeditionary Marine Corps, and turn it into a missile force. If the Army was requested to do this, why was the Marine Corps giving up its one mission which no other service could do?? Admiral Harris did not request this of the Marine Corps. He specifically requested the Army. This makes no sense. Its not like the Marine Corps was just adding a few anti-ship missile batteries to its T/O. This turned the Marine Corps on its head, and created a new organization and eliminated the one thing the Marine Corps did and no other service can duplicate. With many hot spots brewing up over the world, the United States now has no credible combined arms naval expeditionary force to meet the requirement for a "globally responsive" (to use General McAbee's phrase) Marine Corps.
Presumptively, Phil is referring to the Frag Order delivered by the current CMC some months ago. To anyone who read it, it was a word salad of the highest order written by consultants. We are back to what we “old thinkers” have been asking for months now, if not years. How can the Marine Corps meet the mandate under Title X when there is neither the Table of Organization nor Table Equipment to support it. Both Generals McAbee and Van Riper broke it down in the simple basics, as in what we had to support the mandate and what we have and have not now, which basically is a MAGFT principal in need of a transfusion of men and equipment.
By the way, if being and an “old thinker” means that thinking in a Socratic manner, or taking it further by adding Aristotles way of approaching an issue is a problem for the proponents of FD2030, maybe they ought remind themselves that Aristotle was Alex the Great’s personal tutor, and that Democritus essentially discovered the theory of the atom, a couple hundred years before Christ. So perhaps reference reading of some old thinking is order before the next FragO gets crafted and promulgated.
FD-20XX does not have anything joint about it save the desire to request tanks if we need them. The Corps betrayed itself, the Navy and all Joint Doctrine. I hate to be so grossly negative but the incompetence was only matched by the arrogance. It is simply stunning.
The question no one is asking is where was the Marine Littoral Regiment’s NSM anti-ship missile in the SINKEX (Marine F/A-18Cs did participate). My guess is the Marines still don’t have an initial operational capability (IOC) after almost 5 years.
The anti-ship missile fired by the Army was the PrSM, a supersonic missile with a range of about 310NM. Planned future upgrades will extend the range to 400NM and then to about 600NM. The PrSM can be fired from HIMARS, which begs the second question. Why didn’t the Marines pursue the PrSM instead of the subsonic NSM with a range of about 115NM. My guess is because the Marines circumvented the combat development process in their rush to boast relevancy in the Western Pacific.
Each of the Army’s Multi-Domain Task Forces has a strategic fires battalion, which consists of a sort range battery (PrSM missile); a mid-range battery (TLAM w/range of over 1,000NM); and a long range battery (Long Range Hypersonic Weapon w/range of 1,800NM and speed of Mach 5).
The 38th and 39th Commandant have destroyed the global response capability of the Marine Corps to fund a duplicative, inferior, and largely ineffective missile force. Go figure?
Stars and Stripes 2023 -04-26ARMY With Marcos watching, US Army HIMARS fires 6 times but misses target in South China Sea By SETH ROBSON STARS AND STRIPES • April 26, 2023 Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. waves to reporters after touring a M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, while attending a Balikatan live-fire drill at Naval Station Leovigildo Gantioqui in San Antonio, Philippines, Wednesday, April 26, 2023. (Jonathan Snyder/Stars and Stripes) SAN ANTONIO, Philippines — The Philippines’ president was on hand Wednesday as one of the U.S. Army’s best-known weapons missed its target — a decommissioned warship floating miles away in the South China Sea — during a live-fire exercise. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. observed from a tower as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, fired six times at the Philippine navy corvette, …
Read more at: https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2023-04-26/army-himars-marcos-balikatan-exercise-9923537.html
Source - Stars and Stripes
So the MAGTFs, MEUs, etc are no longer global response? FragO suggests otherwise.
There is only one MEB command element and it is located in the Middle East. Moreover, there are not enough available amphibious ships to carry a MEB and the MPF ships to support all MAGTFs have been cut from 21 to 7 ships. There are insufficient infantry battalions to support the continual deployment of a MEU in the Med and WestPac ("heel to toe") as we did years ago. So Phil, to answer your question, the Corps is no longer able to provide a global response 365 days a year.
Navy problem that the Corps has to adjust to.
No MEB HQ in III MEF?
And that is all the Marine Corps has left - - empty words about a capability no longer possessed. Global response is more that the episodic presence of a MEU or truncated MAGTF. Global response requires persistent forward presence; the capability to quickly deploy a robust combined arms MEB and rapidly composite into a sustainable MEF; the wherewithal to fight any foe, anywhere, and win. Saying it’s so in congressional testimony and in written documents does not make it so.
It looks like in this case the Marine Corps is trying to reinvent the wheel, and a bad one at that.
Since the Army has the largest budget and the most resources, why does the Marine Corps want to eliminate its most unique contribution to National Defense, that as a combined arms naval expeditionary force, and duplicate what the Army is doing? Former Commandant Berger was appointed in 2019. As early as 2017, Admiral Harry Harris, then Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, suggested that the Army should begin work to sink enemy ships. The 1st Multi Domain Task Force of the US Army stood up in 2017 at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. So, Admiral Harris' request for the Army to sink enemy ships was almost two years prior to CMC Berger's concept to scrap the time tested combined arms naval expeditionary Marine Corps, and turn it into a missile force. If the Army was requested to do this, why was the Marine Corps giving up its one mission which no other service could do?? Admiral Harris did not request this of the Marine Corps. He specifically requested the Army. This makes no sense. Its not like the Marine Corps was just adding a few anti-ship missile batteries to its T/O. This turned the Marine Corps on its head, and created a new organization and eliminated the one thing the Marine Corps did and no other service can duplicate. With many hot spots brewing up over the world, the United States now has no credible combined arms naval expeditionary force to meet the requirement for a "globally responsive" (to use General McAbee's phrase) Marine Corps.
Presumptively, Phil is referring to the Frag Order delivered by the current CMC some months ago. To anyone who read it, it was a word salad of the highest order written by consultants. We are back to what we “old thinkers” have been asking for months now, if not years. How can the Marine Corps meet the mandate under Title X when there is neither the Table of Organization nor Table Equipment to support it. Both Generals McAbee and Van Riper broke it down in the simple basics, as in what we had to support the mandate and what we have and have not now, which basically is a MAGFT principal in need of a transfusion of men and equipment.
By the way, if being and an “old thinker” means that thinking in a Socratic manner, or taking it further by adding Aristotles way of approaching an issue is a problem for the proponents of FD2030, maybe they ought remind themselves that Aristotle was Alex the Great’s personal tutor, and that Democritus essentially discovered the theory of the atom, a couple hundred years before Christ. So perhaps reference reading of some old thinking is order before the next FragO gets crafted and promulgated.
FD-20XX does not have anything joint about it save the desire to request tanks if we need them. The Corps betrayed itself, the Navy and all Joint Doctrine. I hate to be so grossly negative but the incompetence was only matched by the arrogance. It is simply stunning.
Oh how I whish I could hear Major General J. M. Wainwright's thoughts on Force Design's role in the New Multi-Domain Task Force.
"wish" my apologies