Basic instincts: Resetting USMC core operational mindset

Marines Folding F-35B into New Pacific Island-Hopping Concept
23 Apr 2019 Megan Eckstein

"ARLINGTON, Va. – The Marine Corps is learning how to incorporate its new F-35B Joint Strike Fighter jets into its island-hopping concept of Expeditionary Advance Base Operations, with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit rehearsing this concept recently in the Pacific.

The Japan-based MEU was the first to operate with the new F-35B, though its experience with the jet has been quite different than that of the 13th MEU and Essex Amphibious Ready Group, which were the first to deploy with the F-35B from the United States and the first to conduct an operational air strike with the Joint Strike Fighter.

The 31st MEU, unique in being the only forward-deployed amphibious group, has been focused on integrating the new jet into its crisis-response and self-defense missions and showing off the new plane to Pacific allies and partners, MEU Commanding Officer Col. Robert Brodie said today at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. If a conflict were to emerge in the Pacific, 31st MEU would likely be among the first on the scene and would likely use its island-seizing EABO concept – so, figuring out how to conduct this mission with the new airplane was the focus of a recent exercise on a small Japanese island, Brodie said.

On Ie Shima, off Okinawa, 31st MEU conducted a standard raid and seizure: a recon team jumped in to pave the way for a raid force being flown in to seize the island. Once the island was secured, CH-53E heavy-lift helicopters flew in fuel bladders and ordnance to conduct a forward arming and refueling point (FARP) operation with the F-35Bs.

“We were actually able to set up a refueling point, and our 53s were taking the gas from a bladder and filling up F-35s, and then the F-35s were going and flying missions,” Brodie said. “That’s kind of the concept we rehearsed there. And the key to this is speed: we did not rush through it because we wanted to be very deliberate and we’re in a learning phase, but I think you could do these types of things relatively quickly if you had the right ground.”

Brodie said the Marines could do this type of operation with either the CH-53E or the MV-22B Osprey, but the MEU has found the helicopter works best….

...The Marines lease the western side of Ie Shima Training Facility and have built in a replica amphibious assault ship deck – which is separate from the runway where the FARP mission was taking place – so they could simulate the ship-to-shore missions for the helicopters as they supported the movement of fuel, weapons and other supplies to the island that was seized. Brodie noted “there’s immense utility in being able to just hold ground,” where the Marines could bring people, logistics, radars and more ashore by air or by surface connector...."

Photo: "An F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 lands at Ie Shima Training Facility during simulated Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations, March 14, 2019. Marines with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit are conducting simulated EABO in a series of dynamic training events to refine their ability to plan, rehearse and complete a variety of missions. During EABO, the 31st MEU partnered with the 3rd Marine Division, 3rd Marine Logistics Group and 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, and airmen with the U.S. Air Force 353rd Special Operations Group, planning and executing training mission sets for military operations. US Marine Corps photo."
https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... 191467.jpg

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/04/23/marine ... ng-concept

USS America, USS New Orleans to Forward Deploy to Japan; USS Stethem, USS Wasp to Return to U.S.
26 Apr 2019 USN PR

"SASEBO, Japan — The Navy announced that the amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) and landing platform dock USS New Orleans (LPD 18) will become part of the U.S. 7th Fleet forward-deployed forces in Sasebo, Japan, the commander, Naval Forces Japan Public Affairs, said in a release and the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) will shift its homeport to Norfolk, Virginia, to undergo scheduled maintenance...."

Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/201 ... Photo.html

Berger: Marine Corps May Have to Shrink to Afford Modernization, Readiness Goals

“Our endstate is that all amphibious ships have the capability to downlink and share F-35 data. The Navy has already installed on several amphibious ships the new capstone Ship Self Defense System (SSDS), which brings the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and Link-16 to the platform. Five Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs) are scheduled for similar upgrades over the next five years. This system provides a critical combat capability which will integrate with F-35s over Link-16,” he wrote.
“We have fielded a system on select amphibious ships that enables post-flight data from the F-35 to be disseminated to warfighters and analysts at a lower classification level. We have also begun to install Marine Corps Common Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S) on amphibious ships. This is a new capability being used by USMC tactical air defense controllers and air control electronics operators. CAC2S enables aircraft to become a forward sensor for the command elements embarked on Marine Expeditionary Units/Amphibious Ready Groups (MEUs/ARGs), providing greater situational awareness and faster decision making.”

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/30/berger ... ness-goals

I posted this in the six-pack thread... moving it here.

I have been watching with some consternation over the past decade at the Chinese slowly building islands all around the Southeast Asia Sea, the Spratley Islands etc. The Obama administration seemed to have a rather tepid response to this militarization of the area.

But, have I gotten it all wrong? Has the USMC been quietly, gleefully applauding the Chinese for building all these bases for the Marine Corps? Seems like they are all ready made bases for the taking... operate from for 48 hours, then skip town. Or have I got it all wrong?

(On other hand... if the Chinese have rigged every one of those man made islands to blow at the push of the button... maybe not such a great place to put your expensive Killer Bees, Ospreys and CH-53E/K's...)

Marines prep to hit the beach (but need more ships from the Navy)
06 May 2019 Shawn Snow

"WASHINGTON — In March, nearly ten thousand Marines and sailors waged a campaign in the vast Pacific Ocean against a near-peer competitor, putting to test emerging technologies and fighting concepts aimed at sea control. The Pacific Blitz exercise tackled naval integration and getting “back to our roots” following years of counterinsurgency operations in the Middle East, Lt. Gen. Joseph L. Osterman, the commander of the California-based I Marine Expeditionary Force, told Marine Corps Times in an interview.

Studying a future sea battle, Marines realize that they might be ordered to seize islands and beachheads, a traditional mission for the amphibious force. But a maintenance backlog and procurement delays for amphibious ships and connectors threaten to hamper the Corps’ ability to fight at sea and prepare itself to confront a rising China....

...The lack of available amphibs impairs the Corps’ ability to train a force to relearn and experience naval operations and reignites an age-old complaint about adequate Navy support to the Marines’ amphibious mission. There’s also the ongoing debate between military officials and defense experts about how high casualties might rise from a seaborne invasion of a contested beachhead....

...After 17 years of fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan, critics worry that the Corps lost touch with its sea roots and is in the process of relearning its primary amphibious mission, a key reason why the Marines need more ships to retool those skills....

...The recent Pacific Blitz exercise, which honed skills for sea control against a near-peer foe, involved four Navy ships and roughly 5,000 Marines. Lt. Gen. Osterman says he’d like to get in the habit of doing these MEF-level exercises at least once every year. “It’s a shift from what we’ve been used to doing in terms of counterterrorism,” Osterman said.

The exercise afforded the Corps the chance to see how vulnerable the service is against a near-peer foe and how the force “can contribute to the sea control fight,” Osterman said. To Marines, exercises like Pacific Blitz don’t merely help update potential war plans but are essential to teaching personnel how to fight and survive in 21st combat.

That likely could mean commanders relearning the importance of the Corps’ basic block of combat power, the infantry squad, and devolving its management down to lower levels of leadership. There could be “a platoon-sized element on an island somewhere and they got to have this savvy ability to be able to make some decisions on their own,” Osterman said....

...“We are looking at things, like, how do we fold in the littoral combat ship? How do we, with the advancement in connectors … how does that work for us in terms of intra-island maneuver?” Osterman said...."

Source: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... -the-navy/

I posted this in the six-pack thread... moving it here.

I have been watching with some consternation over the past decade at the Chinese slowly building islands all around the Southeast Asia Sea, the Spratley Islands etc. The Obama administration seemed to have a rather tepid response to this militarization of the area.

But, have I gotten it all wrong? Has the USMC been quietly, gleefully applauding the Chinese for building all these bases for the Marine Corps? Seems like they are all ready made bases for the taking... operate from for 48 hours, then skip town. Or have I got it all wrong?

(On other hand... if the Chinese have rigged every one of those man made islands to blow at the push of the button... maybe not such a great place to put your expensive Killer Bees, Ospreys and CH-53E/K's...)

Perhaps this article will ease your concerns 'O concerned One StevenOfWondrousness the THIRD' Overlord 1st Island Chain.

Some more recent Hubba-hubba: https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... ships.html

Marines: FVL Intriguing, BUT CH-53K Is Essential
09 May 2019 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...Supplying Island Outposts
So why does the Marine Corps need heavy lift so badly? “We have a requirement that is difficult,” Rudder, the deputy commandant for aviation, told the Sea-Air-Space conference, “because of the weight required for today’s battlefield and the logistics required for distributed operations.”....

…Distributed operations, however, is an issue for the future — albeit a future the Marines want to reach as fast as possible. In Afghanistan and Iraq, US forces built up an extensive infrastructure of large, well-supplied Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) to provide both efficient logistics and protection against insurgents: Car bombs could blow up the gate, unguided rockets and mortar shells could harass the troops inside, but the enemy lacked the firepower to wipe out such a large outpost. But against a high-tech, heavily-armed nation-state like Russia or China, with access to spy satellites, scout drones, and long-range, precision-guided missiles, a big base is just a big target: It’s not a sanctuary, it’s a deathtrap.

That’s why the Marines are all keen on “distributing” their forces across the future battlefield. (The Army and Navy have their own versions of this idea). Instead of concentrating on big bases, units will split up and take cover to avoid a precision-guided barrage. But there’s a catch. By giving up the easily targeted infrastructure, you also give up its logistical efficiency: How do you resupply small units scattered across the war zone?

That’s particularly challenging for the Marines, because their concept for future combat, Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO), calls for establishing small outposts on scattered islands. Each base would have batteries of long-range missiles to shoot down enemy aircraft, intercept enemy missiles attacking US forces, and sink enemy ships. Some bases would have landing areas and, more important, repair, refueling, and rearming facilities for small contingents of F-35B jump jets.

The idea is for each island to extend a “no-go zone” well out to sea, forcing the enemy to take time either destroying the outpost or going around. Collectively, the islands would act like an anvil, with Navy and Air Force forces forming the highly mobile hammer.

(This island-outpost approach would be useful defending the Nordic and Baltic countries from Russian aggression, but it’s most relevant to a Pacific war with China. The use of land bases to extend control over the sea and air is a key component of both the Russo-Chinese tactic of Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) and the Army-led Multi-Domain Operations concept).

Operating from islands rules out some options like the robotic supply trucks the Army is developing. The Navy-Marine Corps team has decades of experience supplying land forces from the sea, but an enemy with long-range precision missiles could sink supply ships that just hung around offshore, the way the Navy did at Iwo Jima. Keeping the supply ships on the move and well out at sea requires supplies to make the final leg of their journey by air....

...“We’d like to have the option of not being wedded to large airbases [with] 8,000, 9,000, 10,000-foot runways,” Rudder said. “That’s what the F-35 does for us, we can go ashore with a 1,000 or 3,000 foot runway, or less, and be able to rearm, reload, and get back up into the fight. We’d like the same conditions for all of our assets coming off the ship.”"

Graphic Map: "Land-based missiles deployed at “Expeditionary Advance Bases” could form a virtual wall against Chinese aggression (CSBA graphic)" https://sites.breakingmedia.com/uploads ... 24x610.png

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/mar ... essential/

I posted this in the six-pack thread... moving it here.

I have been watching with some consternation over the past decade at the Chinese slowly building islands all around the Southeast Asia Sea, the Spratley Islands etc. The Obama administration seemed to have a rather tepid response to this militarization of the area.

But, have I gotten it all wrong? Has the USMC been quietly, gleefully applauding the Chinese for building all these bases for the Marine Corps? Seems like they are all ready made bases for the taking... operate from for 48 hours, then skip town. Or have I got it all wrong?

(On other hand... if the Chinese have rigged every one of those man made islands to blow at the push of the button... maybe not such a great place to put your expensive Killer Bees, Ospreys and CH-53E/K's...)

Perhaps this article will ease your concerns 'O concerned One StevenOfWondrousness the THIRD' Overlord 1st Island Chain.

Some more recent Hubba-hubba: https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... ships.html

Marines: FVL Intriguing, BUT CH-53K Is Essential
09 May 2019 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...Supplying Island Outposts
So why does the Marine Corps need heavy lift so badly? “We have a requirement that is difficult,” Rudder, the deputy commandant for aviation, told the Sea-Air-Space conference, “because of the weight required for today’s battlefield and the logistics required for distributed operations.”....

…Distributed operations, however, is an issue for the future — albeit a future the Marines want to reach as fast as possible. In Afghanistan and Iraq, US forces built up an extensive infrastructure of large, well-supplied Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) to provide both efficient logistics and protection against insurgents: Car bombs could blow up the gate, unguided rockets and mortar shells could harass the troops inside, but the enemy lacked the firepower to wipe out such a large outpost. But against a high-tech, heavily-armed nation-state like Russia or China, with access to spy satellites, scout drones, and long-range, precision-guided missiles, a big base is just a big target: It’s not a sanctuary, it’s a deathtrap.

That’s why the Marines are all keen on “distributing” their forces across the future battlefield. (The Army and Navy have their own versions of this idea). Instead of concentrating on big bases, units will split up and take cover to avoid a precision-guided barrage. But there’s a catch. By giving up the easily targeted infrastructure, you also give up its logistical efficiency: How do you resupply small units scattered across the war zone?

That’s particularly challenging for the Marines, because their concept for future combat, Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO), calls for establishing small outposts on scattered islands. Each base would have batteries of long-range missiles to shoot down enemy aircraft, intercept enemy missiles attacking US forces, and sink enemy ships. Some bases would have landing areas and, more important, repair, refueling, and rearming facilities for small contingents of F-35B jump jets.

The idea is for each island to extend a “no-go zone” well out to sea, forcing the enemy to take time either destroying the outpost or going around. Collectively, the islands would act like an anvil, with Navy and Air Force forces forming the highly mobile hammer.

(This island-outpost approach would be useful defending the Nordic and Baltic countries from Russian aggression, but it’s most relevant to a Pacific war with China. The use of land bases to extend control over the sea and air is a key component of both the Russo-Chinese tactic of Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) and the Army-led Multi-Domain Operations concept).

Operating from islands rules out some options like the robotic supply trucks the Army is developing. The Navy-Marine Corps team has decades of experience supplying land forces from the sea, but an enemy with long-range precision missiles could sink supply ships that just hung around offshore, the way the Navy did at Iwo Jima. Keeping the supply ships on the move and well out at sea requires supplies to make the final leg of their journey by air....

...“We’d like to have the option of not being wedded to large airbases [with] 8,000, 9,000, 10,000-foot runways,” Rudder said. “That’s what the F-35 does for us, we can go ashore with a 1,000 or 3,000 foot runway, or less, and be able to rearm, reload, and get back up into the fight. We’d like the same conditions for all of our assets coming off the ship.”"

Graphic Map: "Land-based missiles deployed at “Expeditionary Advance Bases” could form a virtual wall against Chinese aggression (CSBA graphic)" https://sites.breakingmedia.com/uploads ... 24x610.png

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/mar ... essential/

A lot depends on what happens to the battle over ISR and overhead systems. But Chinese have a good idea of potential austere runways in the first island chain and will preempt by putting those runways out of commission. If they had a limited supply of TBMs or cruise missiles then maybe it would work.

But you have go back to why do you want F-35s close to enemy lines or behind enemy lines for that matter. Unless the Chinese are blind or distracted with regard to the battle space then striking at the mainland from those locations will be short lived. Maybe providing DCA for Marines on the ground somewhere or the ROC? If that's the case them you are going to need a lot of F-35s, a lot of fuel, and a lot of locations which you will need to defend.

Truck mounted ASCMs make a lot of sense. If the US could get them into the ROC the Chinese would be hard press to neutralize them in built up areas or in rural areas. As long as they can still be cued through a network and the PLA is not on the island then it could have a significant impact.

Navy Wants to Invest In Amphibious Ship Upgrades, But Funding, Timing Still Unclear
13 May 2019 Megan Eckstein

"NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – The Navy is committed to upgrading its amphibious ships to support the Navy and Marines’ new way of operating and to leverage the power of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, but it’s still unclear when dollars will start flowing to pay for these upgrades to communications and command and control systems.

Rear Adm. Jim Kilby, the Navy’s director of warfare integration, said last week that service leaders are looking at the command and control upgrades and logistics enablers to allow the Navy/Marine Corps team to conduct Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) and Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO), the two services’ concepts to address high-end warfare in the open ocean and the littorals. However, he acknowledged, those investments must be made while balancing other modernization efforts, rebuilding readiness and growing the force.

Amphibious ships, “in conjunction with things like the Joint Strike Fighter, are really changing the way we view those assets and how they would help us in this great power competition,” Kilby said during a panel on expeditionary warfare at the Navy League’s annual Sea Air Space conference last week. “We’ve been focused for a long time on power projection ashore. And now there’s a balance that we have to think about in great power competition of sea control and power projection,” he said, adding that the Navy and Maries are looking at investments in things like long-range precision weapons so that Marines ashore can hold at risk enemy targets at sea….

[ Marine Corps Gets Long-Range Missile to Take Out Enemy Ships 09 May 2019 https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... ships.html ]

...Despite the general acknowledgement that DMO and EABO are moving the services in the right direction, it is unclear when more money will start flowing for modernization and upgrades to support these concepts. The Marine Corps is trying to field a long-range anti-ship missile as fast as possible and is working with Raytheon to integrate the Naval Strike Missile with its existing infrastructure. A long list of remaining spending needs, though, are “a high priority,” Kilby said, but “I can’t answer that specifically now” as to when those spending items will be funded....

...At the top of the list, though, is boosting the command and control capabilities of the amphibious assault ships to best leverage the massive amount of data the F-35B will soak up as it flies its missions. In particular, the Wasp-class LHDs cannot take in all the data the jets are collecting and share them with Marines aboard and with other ships in the fleet – something the amphibious community wants to fix. “There’s a lot of threats that come from land, so working that connectivity between the [situational awareness] on the ground and also on the surface and in the air is an important part, we think, of the F-35B and our connectivity to the Marine Corps’ command and control system,” DiGiovanni [Frank DiGiovanni, deputy director for expeditionary warfare on the chief of naval operations staff (OPNAV N95B)] said.

An amphibious warship capabilities evolution plan outlines the upgrades the Navy and Marine Corps want to invest in to boost connectivity, lethality and survivability of the amphibs to succeed in EABO and DMO in a high-end environment. Director of Expeditionary Warfare Maj. Gen. David Coffman last fall outlined his vision for amphib ship upgrades, which would include a mid-life overhaul period for amphibious assault ships — akin to the mid-life refueling and complex overhaul that aircraft carriers undergo — to give these ships the computers, the communications gear and more they need to fully leverage the F-35B.

“I don’t want to bring Marine Aviation down to third- and fourth-gen; I want to bring the rest of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force up to fifth-gen and exploit that technical expertise and have a fifth-gen MAGTF. The problem is, we’re having to embark a fifth-gen MAGTF on a third-gen ship, and we have to fix that. Time, now,” Coffman said in November 2018...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/05/13/navy-w ... ll-unclear