Imagine if you will, a pre-FD 2030 Marine division, with a couple of Naval Strike Missile batteries as part of the artillery regimental T/O. Also, imagine a MEU operating in the Western Pacific with instead of a tank platoon aboard, a mobile naval strike missile platoon in its place, in the well deck of an L Class amphibious ship. Such a force would be ready to deploy, with a missile strike capability anywhere, at anytime. A pre-FD 2030 Marine Division as I have described, provides the traditional MAGTF MEU with tanks, arty, with the added capability of a naval strike mission.
While the Marine Corps is planning on the big near-peer conflict with China, there are growing world wide emergencies and conflicts which this Nation is now not ready to confront. In the move to FD 2030, the Marine Corps has relinquished the most unique capability it provides this Nation. That is its ready, combined arms, naval expeditionary force. Ready to deploy, and strike if needed, anywhere at any time.
-Second Thomas Shoal is an interesting case study on how the Philippine Navy has implemented their take on principles similar to those behind FD /FD2030.
-They have a SIF unit (PhilMar detachment) permanently stationed on an LSM (LST- former USS Harnett County turned BRP Sierra Madre) that was beached to provide an enduring presence at relatively low cost inside the contested area. The Philippine strategy has not overspent on supporting that SIF unit nor compromised other capabilities...knowing its value lies in presence before lethal kinetic hostilities begin. The Philippine Marine Corps has formed a Coastal Defense Regiment, focused on providing long range anti ship fires. They chose the BrahMos; it seems a valid choice in terms of capability,range, availability, and cost. Notably, the formation of the Coastal Defense Battalions has been pursued without compromising other key capabilities. The Armed Forces of the Philippines have to consider other crisis requirements due to ongoing internal threats and thus know implicitly that 'divest to invest' is not a credible option. They have capitalized on the courage and tenacity of their forces to limit Chinese development in the disputed territory. In this context, as noted by Compass Points, the USMC best brings expeditionary capabilities and supplemental long range precision fires, while the US Navy provides the robust fleet capabilities the Philippine Navy lacks. Simply providing more SIF and coastal defense batteries is not exactly what the Philippines needs.
FD destroyed the Expeditionary Marine Corps and built a One Combatant Commander SIF that ialready exist in the Indo Pacific in triplicate ie, allied nations, USN and Allied Navies, US Army, USAF etc etc…
Just seconds ago I viewed an X by the below and took the opportunity to respond to it using data shared by a giant of the Corps gleaned from MCCP… Samuel Whittemore • @“SamuelWhittem14 • 42s
Replying to @USMC and @3d Marine Div on X w a PAO photo of a single HIMARS in the snow somewhere in Japan.
“Are missile launchers "artillery"? Regarding Stand In Forces, where do you place a SIF w/o host nation permission. Case in point the Philippines will not allow the placement of a SIF. Why is the USMC Destroying itself. The NDDA requires answers! When will the answers mandated... Show more
2:02 Mon Mar 18
7 83%
囗
Aall
∞ 目
凸
History of Marine Defense Battalions.
贝
目
P.K. Van Riper commented on "Battlespace" Thanks for remaining engaged and offering your considered thoughts. The defense battalions were not drawn from the operating forces but were a Congressional "plus up" of 9,000 Marines requested by CMC. The MLRs will pretty much emasculate the rest of the Marine Corps, particularly the ability to conduct combined arms operations. 2nd MarDiv has already been drawn down to two-thirds of its former strength and, as we know, with full implementation of FD 2030 3rd MarDiv will have no infantry regimental maneuver headquarters, which begs the question what does the division headquarters do -- other than allocate forces? An additional and important point. Wake Island fell because US forces were unable to support it logistically or operationally. Midway would have likely fallen also if the fleet had not been nearby. The Corps learned a hard lesson and made the necessary changes to the remaining seven defense battalions. To date our Corps has not presented a solution to how the SIFs will fare any better than the defense battalions if they are not operationally and logistically”
Thinking that a decisive tactic will be sneaking HIMARS batteries onto Pacific Islands to provide pivot points for the US Navy is beyond stupid. Especially when the US Marine Corps does this at the expense of the flexibility of the Marine MAGTF. General Berger's decision to trade tube artillery for anti-ship HIMARS is a strategic organizational error. Especially when we don’t have a HIMARS anti-ship missile.
We need to first equip our allies (like the Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Singapore) with anti-ship missiles and anti-missile defenses (thinking Iron Dome here). Yes, there will be gaps in the “Island Chain” but US Navy combatant ships along with naval mines, towed SOSUS and P8s (and USSPACECOM satellites) can cover those gaps.
During the WW2 Pacific Island Campaigns an iron bomb dropped from an airplane was the best anti-ship weapon. The same will hold true for a future war in the Pacific except the airplanes will be launching standoff missiles vice dropping iron bombs at “mast level”.
A war with the CCP will be a war fought over SLOCs. During each and every WW2 Island Campaign the US first established air superiority over the SLOC. This enabled the US to destroy reinforcing Japanese troops and supplies by the ship load. Naval surface engagements were decided by aircraft. An exception was the Battle of Leyte Gulf where the Japanese’s deception play was to dangle their remaining empty carriers under Admiral Halsey’s nose in order to draw off the US Carriers and it worked.
If we are going to develop and anti-ship missile it needs to be one that the F-35 can carry and launch. The Tomahawk (a long-range, all-weather, jet-powered, cruise missile) can’t be carried by the F-35. However, cruse missiles can be launched by most other planes in the US inventory including the B-52. The BUFF can carry up to 20 Tomahawk like cruse missiles. The simple math is a flight of three B-52s equals 60 cruise missiles. We don’t know how many missiles a battery of HIMARS launchers will have at the ready because to date they have not been developed and fielded.
The Commandant should let the US Navy develop the next generation of air launched missiles. They will need them more than the Marines. Let the US Army develop land based anti-air and anti-missile defense brigades. Let the Marine Corps get back to offensive operations like the reinforcement of Taiwan (or retaking it).
The war w the CCP/PRC is being fought today in Our Homeland. We are infiltrated from coast to coast. The PRC has its own police stations in numerous US Cities, NYC, Others, they fly surveillance ballon’s over us at will and have intercept capabilities on cargo cranes in our ports, near our military bases and an army of spies everywhere. One example the deceased Chi Fi aka Senator Dianne Feinstein had a CCP “driver/assistant for decades. Til Tok streams it’s data to numerous data collection sites continuously. Tens of thousands of military age males have crossed our borders since Jan 21, 2021. Confucius Institutes exist throughout academia. The main source of the Biden Crime families booty comes from PRC, witness the facts during this week’s House Hearings. This is not an ad hominem attack these are facts. Peter Schweizer’s book Blood Money documents further details.
Will a “host” nation allow survey of possible launch sites? There may be some advantages to have selected and maybe some minor prep work done to such sites. And the number of possible sites must be far in excess of what might be needed. This so the commanders can rotate sites often ( as a long ago Marine I have no clue on the amount of sophistication intel collection is in this dangerous time). Host nations will always take money from us with the promise of cooperation $$$for site selection activity and no SIF? Maybe time to call the bluff- better now than when an enemy is on the move.
addendum to above:…..Show more “Are missile launchers "artillery"? Regarding Stand In Forces, where do you place a SIF w/o host nation permission. Case in point the Philippines will not allow the placement of a SIF. Why is the USMC Destroying itself. The NDDA requires answers! When will the answers mandated by law be forthcoming? Has the USMC learned thousands of lessons from the incredible Combined Arms application by the IDF? Tanks, Artillery, Aircraft, multiple forms of Unattended Aerial Vehicles, Naval Gunfire etc etc...?”
This major flaw in USMC Force Design IS ONCE AGAIN REVEALED. One way of saying it could be “Hey I am the USMC and I want to give you SIF”! Are we surprised that the PI does not want SIF?
I just recently read an article that stated that the Corps is phasing out HIMARS…for wait for it…MLRS!
So we are to believe under FD2030 we’re going to be more “stealthy”, more “swift, silent, and deadly”, but we’re going from a highly mobile very capable HIMARS to a bigger footprint, more maintenance intensive, heavier MLRS. The only difference is in the number of rockets that can be carried.
So the FD2030 “divest to invest” is already showing fraying around the edges when we need to go to a bigger more complicated weapons system.
I’d love to have a FD2030 supporting arms expert come on here and explain this apparent dichotomy in “force design”.
Greg CMC or one of his Lieutenants indicated the it was no longer FD 2030 just plain old FD. My bet is that it is really FD Chaos or FD Ahsxxx while “All the Kings Horses and All the Kings Men are trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again”!
While the offensive capability of amphibious shipping are the Marines they carry, is there a way to add more defensive armament to the ship's weaponry to support the fleet? I realize the Navy really wants battle-force ships, but if the amphibs carried more defensive weapons. they could at least be part of the defensive fight. Just a thought.
CP encourages and appreciates reader comments.
Comments can contain passion, humor and wit, but they must remain professional.
If comments stray into the non-professional, they will be removed.
SF,
CP
Imagine if you will, a pre-FD 2030 Marine division, with a couple of Naval Strike Missile batteries as part of the artillery regimental T/O. Also, imagine a MEU operating in the Western Pacific with instead of a tank platoon aboard, a mobile naval strike missile platoon in its place, in the well deck of an L Class amphibious ship. Such a force would be ready to deploy, with a missile strike capability anywhere, at anytime. A pre-FD 2030 Marine Division as I have described, provides the traditional MAGTF MEU with tanks, arty, with the added capability of a naval strike mission.
While the Marine Corps is planning on the big near-peer conflict with China, there are growing world wide emergencies and conflicts which this Nation is now not ready to confront. In the move to FD 2030, the Marine Corps has relinquished the most unique capability it provides this Nation. That is its ready, combined arms, naval expeditionary force. Ready to deploy, and strike if needed, anywhere at any time.
Spot on !
-Second Thomas Shoal is an interesting case study on how the Philippine Navy has implemented their take on principles similar to those behind FD /FD2030.
-They have a SIF unit (PhilMar detachment) permanently stationed on an LSM (LST- former USS Harnett County turned BRP Sierra Madre) that was beached to provide an enduring presence at relatively low cost inside the contested area. The Philippine strategy has not overspent on supporting that SIF unit nor compromised other capabilities...knowing its value lies in presence before lethal kinetic hostilities begin. The Philippine Marine Corps has formed a Coastal Defense Regiment, focused on providing long range anti ship fires. They chose the BrahMos; it seems a valid choice in terms of capability,range, availability, and cost. Notably, the formation of the Coastal Defense Battalions has been pursued without compromising other key capabilities. The Armed Forces of the Philippines have to consider other crisis requirements due to ongoing internal threats and thus know implicitly that 'divest to invest' is not a credible option. They have capitalized on the courage and tenacity of their forces to limit Chinese development in the disputed territory. In this context, as noted by Compass Points, the USMC best brings expeditionary capabilities and supplemental long range precision fires, while the US Navy provides the robust fleet capabilities the Philippine Navy lacks. Simply providing more SIF and coastal defense batteries is not exactly what the Philippines needs.
FD destroyed the Expeditionary Marine Corps and built a One Combatant Commander SIF that ialready exist in the Indo Pacific in triplicate ie, allied nations, USN and Allied Navies, US Army, USAF etc etc…
Just seconds ago I viewed an X by the below and took the opportunity to respond to it using data shared by a giant of the Corps gleaned from MCCP… Samuel Whittemore • @“SamuelWhittem14 • 42s
Replying to @USMC and @3d Marine Div on X w a PAO photo of a single HIMARS in the snow somewhere in Japan.
“Are missile launchers "artillery"? Regarding Stand In Forces, where do you place a SIF w/o host nation permission. Case in point the Philippines will not allow the placement of a SIF. Why is the USMC Destroying itself. The NDDA requires answers! When will the answers mandated... Show more
2:02 Mon Mar 18
7 83%
囗
Aall
∞ 目
凸
History of Marine Defense Battalions.
贝
目
P.K. Van Riper commented on "Battlespace" Thanks for remaining engaged and offering your considered thoughts. The defense battalions were not drawn from the operating forces but were a Congressional "plus up" of 9,000 Marines requested by CMC. The MLRs will pretty much emasculate the rest of the Marine Corps, particularly the ability to conduct combined arms operations. 2nd MarDiv has already been drawn down to two-thirds of its former strength and, as we know, with full implementation of FD 2030 3rd MarDiv will have no infantry regimental maneuver headquarters, which begs the question what does the division headquarters do -- other than allocate forces? An additional and important point. Wake Island fell because US forces were unable to support it logistically or operationally. Midway would have likely fallen also if the fleet had not been nearby. The Corps learned a hard lesson and made the necessary changes to the remaining seven defense battalions. To date our Corps has not presented a solution to how the SIFs will fare any better than the defense battalions if they are not operationally and logistically”
Madness and Stupid
Thinking that a decisive tactic will be sneaking HIMARS batteries onto Pacific Islands to provide pivot points for the US Navy is beyond stupid. Especially when the US Marine Corps does this at the expense of the flexibility of the Marine MAGTF. General Berger's decision to trade tube artillery for anti-ship HIMARS is a strategic organizational error. Especially when we don’t have a HIMARS anti-ship missile.
We need to first equip our allies (like the Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Singapore) with anti-ship missiles and anti-missile defenses (thinking Iron Dome here). Yes, there will be gaps in the “Island Chain” but US Navy combatant ships along with naval mines, towed SOSUS and P8s (and USSPACECOM satellites) can cover those gaps.
During the WW2 Pacific Island Campaigns an iron bomb dropped from an airplane was the best anti-ship weapon. The same will hold true for a future war in the Pacific except the airplanes will be launching standoff missiles vice dropping iron bombs at “mast level”.
A war with the CCP will be a war fought over SLOCs. During each and every WW2 Island Campaign the US first established air superiority over the SLOC. This enabled the US to destroy reinforcing Japanese troops and supplies by the ship load. Naval surface engagements were decided by aircraft. An exception was the Battle of Leyte Gulf where the Japanese’s deception play was to dangle their remaining empty carriers under Admiral Halsey’s nose in order to draw off the US Carriers and it worked.
If we are going to develop and anti-ship missile it needs to be one that the F-35 can carry and launch. The Tomahawk (a long-range, all-weather, jet-powered, cruise missile) can’t be carried by the F-35. However, cruse missiles can be launched by most other planes in the US inventory including the B-52. The BUFF can carry up to 20 Tomahawk like cruse missiles. The simple math is a flight of three B-52s equals 60 cruise missiles. We don’t know how many missiles a battery of HIMARS launchers will have at the ready because to date they have not been developed and fielded.
The Commandant should let the US Navy develop the next generation of air launched missiles. They will need them more than the Marines. Let the US Army develop land based anti-air and anti-missile defense brigades. Let the Marine Corps get back to offensive operations like the reinforcement of Taiwan (or retaking it).
The war w the CCP/PRC is being fought today in Our Homeland. We are infiltrated from coast to coast. The PRC has its own police stations in numerous US Cities, NYC, Others, they fly surveillance ballon’s over us at will and have intercept capabilities on cargo cranes in our ports, near our military bases and an army of spies everywhere. One example the deceased Chi Fi aka Senator Dianne Feinstein had a CCP “driver/assistant for decades. Til Tok streams it’s data to numerous data collection sites continuously. Tens of thousands of military age males have crossed our borders since Jan 21, 2021. Confucius Institutes exist throughout academia. The main source of the Biden Crime families booty comes from PRC, witness the facts during this week’s House Hearings. This is not an ad hominem attack these are facts. Peter Schweizer’s book Blood Money documents further details.
Will a “host” nation allow survey of possible launch sites? There may be some advantages to have selected and maybe some minor prep work done to such sites. And the number of possible sites must be far in excess of what might be needed. This so the commanders can rotate sites often ( as a long ago Marine I have no clue on the amount of sophistication intel collection is in this dangerous time). Host nations will always take money from us with the promise of cooperation $$$for site selection activity and no SIF? Maybe time to call the bluff- better now than when an enemy is on the move.
addendum to above:…..Show more “Are missile launchers "artillery"? Regarding Stand In Forces, where do you place a SIF w/o host nation permission. Case in point the Philippines will not allow the placement of a SIF. Why is the USMC Destroying itself. The NDDA requires answers! When will the answers mandated by law be forthcoming? Has the USMC learned thousands of lessons from the incredible Combined Arms application by the IDF? Tanks, Artillery, Aircraft, multiple forms of Unattended Aerial Vehicles, Naval Gunfire etc etc...?”
2:02 Mon Mar 18
今83%
This major flaw in USMC Force Design IS ONCE AGAIN REVEALED. One way of saying it could be “Hey I am the USMC and I want to give you SIF”! Are we surprised that the PI does not want SIF?
I just recently read an article that stated that the Corps is phasing out HIMARS…for wait for it…MLRS!
So we are to believe under FD2030 we’re going to be more “stealthy”, more “swift, silent, and deadly”, but we’re going from a highly mobile very capable HIMARS to a bigger footprint, more maintenance intensive, heavier MLRS. The only difference is in the number of rockets that can be carried.
So the FD2030 “divest to invest” is already showing fraying around the edges when we need to go to a bigger more complicated weapons system.
I’d love to have a FD2030 supporting arms expert come on here and explain this apparent dichotomy in “force design”.
SEMPER FI!
Greg CMC or one of his Lieutenants indicated the it was no longer FD 2030 just plain old FD. My bet is that it is really FD Chaos or FD Ahsxxx while “All the Kings Horses and All the Kings Men are trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again”!
While the offensive capability of amphibious shipping are the Marines they carry, is there a way to add more defensive armament to the ship's weaponry to support the fleet? I realize the Navy really wants battle-force ships, but if the amphibs carried more defensive weapons. they could at least be part of the defensive fight. Just a thought.