Marines F-35 reset

Recent usefulness of the BEEs demonstrated:

How to Seize Islands, Set Up a Forward Refueling Point: Marine Corps Recipes for Expeditionary Operations
13 Sep 2019 Megan Eckstein

"... • With Golf Company and Fox Company ashore, a HIMARS with Battery Q, 3rd Battalion, 12th Marines, 3rd Marine Division went ashore on a Landing Craft Utility (LCU) and simulating firing the HIMARS using data from an F-35B flying overhead, “demonstrating the capability for long-range precision fire support during expeditionary operations,” according to the news release...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/09/13/how-to ... operations

31st MEU USMC Island Hopping Ex. 12 Aug 2019 - F-35B at end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYcW5pJPGT0

If the Marines intend to play a big role in the sea control/sea denial mission they will need to greatly increase the number of HIMARS. The current reality is that they only have a handful of launchers. How does that happen? Will they get additional funding or will they need to trade a capability?

It would seem that the Army is set up better for this mission. They have a large HIMARS and M-270 inventory. The Army is also set up better for the air defense role.

Not having been nor being nor will be an US Marine NOR knowing anyone currently involved with the USMC I can only guess and of course I have a high regard for the capability and smarts of US Marines in all domains (except Space I presume). Here are some current URLs for what they are thinking, seems to me they do this regularly having recently demanded to operate from the sea and not be a 'second land army' operating ashore - because goldarnit theys MARINES - as they put it.

https://news.usni.org/2019/09/18/marine ... -the-corps
&
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... ships.html
&
https://seapowermagazine.org/speakers-a ... irectives/
&
https://seapowermagazine.org/marine-cor ... eaper-uav/

I'll look for more USMC HIMARS material - already there is some info in this forum.... Search just the F-35 subsection using HIMARS for 94 hits and seven pages with references to that word. You will get probably more searching F-16.net

CURRENT HIMARS USMC Status: https://www.candp.marines.mil/Programs/ ... rt/HIMARS/

"Program Status
The HIMARS program is in the operations and support phase. HIMARS achieved Initial Operational Capability in the fourth quarter of FY 2008. In early 2012, HIMARS was fielded to two additional battalions (one active and one Reserve) in the Marine Corps. In early 2012, HIMARS was fielded to two Marine battalions (one active and one Reserve), and in 2017 the Marine Corps decided to field a second active battalion, procurement for which is scheduled to begin in 2019."

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... y-systems/
&
Plenty of googled HIMARS hits - even Oz gets a mention: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lesso ... -guidance/

NOT HIMARS but about the USMC RESET: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/mar ... new-force/

If the Marines intend to play a big role in the sea control/sea denial mission they will need to greatly increase the number of HIMARS. The current reality is that they only have a handful of launchers. How does that happen? Will they get additional funding or will they need to trade a capability?

It would seem that the Army is set up better for this mission. They have a large HIMARS and M-270 inventory. The Army is also set up better for the air defense role.

I always like the 'HI MA NO HOOK' Herk meme so meanwhile back to the F-35B we all know and luv so well for USMC use.

Navy Considering Marine CAC2S System for Amphibs to Exploit Strike Fighter’s Capabilities
19 Sep 2019 Richard R. Burgess

"QUANTICO, Va. — Navy officials said the service is considering installing a modern Marine Corps command and control system on large-deck amphibious assault ships.

“The Navy is looking to purchase CAC2S [Common Aviation Command and Control System] and put those on L-class ships so that they can do some of the same things we do on L-class ships the CAC2S can pull down off an F-35. It will help build situational awareness for the SWOs [surface warfare officers] on the ship,” said Col. Kurt Schiller, director, Air Combat Element/Maritime Expeditionary Warfare Division in the Capabilities Development Directorate, speaking at a panel discussion sponsored by the Amphibious Warfare Industrial Base Coalition at the Modern Day Marine expo at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia.

CAC2S, built by General Dynamics Mission Systems, provides a complete and coordinated modernization of Marine Air Command and Control System (MACCS) equipment.

CAC2S provides the MAGTF Aviation Combat Element with the hardware, software and facilities to effectively command, control and coordinate air operations integrated with naval, joint and/or combined C2 units.

CAC2S is made up of standardized modular and scalable tactical facilities, hardware and software to significantly increase battlefield mobility and reduce the physical size and logistical footprint of the MACCS.

“The F-35B brings extraordinary situational awareness capability,” Frank DiGiovanni, deputy director, Expeditionary Warfare, said during the panel discussion. “The CAC2S that the colonel was talking about brings the ground common operational picture to the ship and to the rest of the Navy.”"

Photo: "F-35Bs conduct flight operations aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp. Navy officials say the service is considering installing a modern Marine Corps command and control system on amphibs to take advantage of the F-35’s capabilities. U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Daniel Barker" https://seapowermagazine.org/wp-content ... 24x745.jpg

Source: https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-consi ... abilities/

One thing is for sure. The future battle space is going to become extremely lethal....

If the Marines intend to play a big role in the sea control/sea denial mission they will need to greatly increase the number of HIMARS. The current reality is that they only have a handful of launchers. How does that happen? Will they get additional funding or will they need to trade a capability?

It would seem that the Army is set up better for this mission. They have a large HIMARS and M-270 inventory. The Army is also set up better for the air defense role.

Well, you just peed in someone's Cheerios with that comment.

If the Marines intend to play a big role in the sea control/sea denial mission they will need to greatly increase the number of HIMARS. The current reality is that they only have a handful of launchers. How does that happen? Will they get additional funding or will they need to trade a capability?

It would seem that the Army is set up better for this mission. They have a large HIMARS and M-270 inventory. The Army is also set up better for the air defense role.

Well, you just peed in someone's Cheerios with that comment.

Not at all. I feel quite comfy.

Berger: Marines Focused on China in Developing New Way to Fight in the Pacific [best read all at source]
02 Oct 2019 Megan Eckstein

"THE PENTAGON – The Marine Corps continues its drive to become a more agile and maritime-focused force that can respond to tensions quickly and buy decision space for military leaders and diplomats, the commandant said.

The service sees China as the pacing threat to prepare for, but the service does not want a war; rather, the Marine Corps sees itself as a first-responder to any fight that bubbles up, quickly getting to the scene to “freeze” the conflict and allow diplomats to de-escalate, ideally, or for the military to send in follow-on forces if called upon, Gen. David Berger told a small group of reporters today in his office.

Though planning for this kind of force has been taking place at Marine Corps Base Quantico and at the Pentagon for several years now, talk of pacing threats, peer adversaries and freezing and containing conflicts hasn’t been part of the public lexicon. But Berger, who took command of the service in July after heading up future force planning efforts in his last assignment, said he’s ready for the public to see a more modern take on what the Marine Corps brings to the joint force.

After so many years of operating as a second land army in Iraq and Afghanistan, Berger said he wanted to make clear that the Marine Corps of today and tomorrow is “a fleet marine force that could go ashore, instead of a land force that could go on a ship,” he said. Of those lengthy ground wars, he said “we had to do that, but actually that’s not why we have a Marine Corps.”...

...While acknowledging that Russia did also present challenges to the service, he said China was “clearly the long-term existential threat to the U.S.” Berger likened China to the New England Patriots: if another football team wanted to best prepare to win the Super Bowl, it should get the right people and do the right training with the Patriots in mind, even if a game against the Patriots isn’t on that team’s near-term schedule.

Berger said the joint force has this view of China as a pacing threat, and even as Chinese military capabilities evolve, so too must American capabilities to stay ahead of that pacing threat. To that end, Berger said the Marine Corps has a vision of what it wants to be, but it’s not there just yet. “We are too heavy, too cumbersome. We’re built for another Desert Storm. … We have to go on a diet,” he said....

...Asked about the threat China and its increasing anti-access/area-denial weapons pose, Berger said he is “absolutely comfortable” operating inside these weapons envelops as long as the Marines don’t mass their people and expensive gear in a single location to create a vulnerability. If Marines are dispersed and on the move, he said, they can accomplish their missions.

Training will have to become more amphibious-focused, with inland ground training ranges like 29 Palms in California being used to simulate insertions from the sea and coastal locations like Catalina Island being used more for LOCE and EABO training.

While it may take some years to shift the entire Marine Corps to this new way of fighting – some Marine occupational specialties will become less relevant, and those Marines will have to be trained for new jobs as their MOSs are phased out gently, without leaving anyone without a job – there can be a “hard shift” in what Marines are learning in schoolhouses and on-the-job training to prepare them for the information warfare environment and new technologies that will shape their maritime- and peer threat-focused operations."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/10/02/berger ... he-pacific

The New Marine Corps Vision https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QnmCEXBF_8

Another 'best read at source' screed:

Berger: Marine 2030 Force Design Is Nearly Complete; Concepts Now Being Modeled, Tested
03 Oct 2019 Megan Eckstein

"...Though Berger couldn’t describe the future force in full detail, he said “force design is my top priority. I think that is my principle vehicle for redesigning, realigning the Marine Corps as part of a naval expeditionary force, which is part of the joint force.” To that end, he described three driving principles of the future force: it will be an integrated naval force, it will be a stand-in force and it will be a distributed force.

Though the Marine Corps has been wrapped up in ground wars for the past two decades, Berger said an ongoing consideration must now be, “what can Marines do to help the fleet commander fight his fleet? How does that contribute towards a joint fight? That could mean Marines ashore or afloat with longer-range anti-ship missiles; you could visualize them as an extension of the fleet’s magazine, basically, augmenting in other words air and ship-based fires.”

He said Marines could also strap their weapons to ship decks, much like when a Marine Corps electronic warfare system helped shoot down an Iranian drone in the Persian Gulf earlier this year from the deck of USS Boxer (LHD-4). And, he said, the expeditionary advance bases and forward arming and refueling points the Marines are working to regain proficiency in setting up and operating from would not just be used to support Marine Corps operations, but could provide refueling or intelligence-gathering services to the joint fight and could also leverage specific Army or Air Force niche capabilities as needed for a mission....

...Asked by event host Dakota Wood of the Heritage Foundation why this effort would succeed even though many of the ideas have been pitched in the Marine Corps before, Berger said China as an existential threat and a pacing threat will force the change. Since the end of the Cold War, he explained, the military pursued new capabilities simply to push forward technology, and the pace was dictated by resources and willpower. Now, he said, China’s rapid military advancement in recent years means the Defense Department needs to act differently.... Having such a “threat-based force design” is new to this generation of the Marine Corps....

,,,Ultimately, though it will mean developing new systems and refocusing the force on a new way to fight, Berger said he’s all-in in setting the Marine Corps down a new path. “The game plan is all about imposing cost” on an adversary, such that they decide a fight with the U.S. isn’t worth it today."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/10/03/berger ... led-tested

USMC Commandant General David H. Berger at The Heritage Foundation [03 Oct 2019]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgQskenFR8Y

Commandant Stresses Marine Corps Must Change to Meet Peer Threats
03 Oct 2019 Otto Kreisher

"...Based on his observation and that of others, Berger said the current Marine Corps “is not optimized for great power competition. It is not optimized to support a naval campaign. It is not optimized to support the fleet through missions like sea denial. And it is not optimized to deter a pacing threat.”

Because the fiscal 2021 defense budget has been submitted to the White House, any major changes will not show up until the following year or later, he said. And his assumption is that those future budgets “will be flat or declining, not rising.”

In his sweepingly provocative planning guidance released shortly after he took over as commandant, Berger said he was willing, if needed, to cut the size of the Corps to have money for the modernization of equipment that will be needed to counter a peer threat. [Then follows why there may be a change to the mix of USMC F-35Bs and USMC F-35Cs]

In his speech and answers to questions, he repeated his focus on shifting from reliance on the few, large, relatively expensive amphibious warships, which he said would be vulnerable to interdiction by Chinese long-range precision weapons, to a large number of smaller, less expensive manned ships and a wide range of unmanned surface, subsurface and aerial systems. “Mass will have a quality all its own. … And low cost doesn’t mean cheap,” Berger said."

Source: https://seapowermagazine.org/commandant ... r-threats/

General Berger is one of the most insightful military leaders out there. James Holmes, who teaches at the Naval War College and wrote the book Red Star over the Pacific with Toshi Yoshihara, characterizes Berger as a counter revolutionary.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... airs-86361

USMC Commandant General David H. Berger at The Heritage Foundation [03 Oct 2019]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgQskenFR8Y

I watched the video of Berger at the Heritage Foundation and was struck by how open minded he is. He does not believe in sacred cows in designing the force for 2030. At the end of the Q and A an audience member asked about reevaluating the need for a Marine organic fixed wing Tac Air capability, a question which would send a few on this forum and other to the deep end. Berger didn't belittle or dismiss the question outright. He responded by saying that everything is on the table as the reality is that they will need to trade some existing capabilities for future capabilities which is more suited to the threat. They need to go through the process to determine what stays and what goes.

He reiterated the importance of what the planning guidance calls the stand-in force, which will operate in a distributed manner within the enemy's engagement envelope. It will serve to deter and defend against peer threats, reassure allies, and provide certain capabilities which cannot be provided at stand off ranges.

"The Stand-in Forces concept is designed to restore the strategic initiative to naval forces and empower our allies and partners to successfully confront regional hegemons that infringe on their territorial boundaries and interests. Stand-in Forces are designed to generate technically disruptive, tactical stand- in engagements that confront aggressor naval forces with an array of low signature, affordable, and risk-worthy platforms and payloads. Stand-in forces take advantage of the relative strength of the contemporary defense and rapidly-emerging new technologies to create an integrated maritime defense that is optimized to operate in close and confined seas in defiance of adversary long-range precision “stand-off capabilities.”"

The survivability of the stand in force will depend on the ability to disperse, but the effectiveness of dispersal as an concept will greatly depend on the range of combat weapon systems. If an anti ship cruise missile only has a range of 100 nm, its utility will be limited. These systems need to be able to disperse, hide, and have the range to mass fires. This is something they will need to address in designing the new force.

Operating the F-35B from EABOs seems to go against the criteria for the stand-in force. Is it affordable and a risk-worthy planform? It might be, depending on its role and impact. Berger has endorsed EABOs and using LHD/LHAs as light carrier in his planning guidance. It will be interesting see what B/C mix they decide on. He specifically raised the issue if more is needed from the Marines to support carrier air wings. The number of tac air squadrons assigned to each carrier wing was reduced by 1 after the end of the Cold War. If the Marines went with a 50/50 mix of Bs and Cs they would end up with ten F-35C squadrons. This would be enough for the Navy to increase the number of fighter squadron in each CVW to 5.

The Navy needs to decide and explain how CSGs will fight in a peer conflict. The defense of Japan and U.S. bases in the region figures prominently. But what what will be their role once the U.S. begins offensive operations? Will they main be there to support AF bombers, or is there a different role they could perform? Does the CVW need to be redesigned for the new roles it will need to perform?

"I watched the video of Berger at the Heritage Foundation and was struck by how open minded he is."

You should get out of the house a little more...

"If the Marines went with a 50/50 mix of Bs and Cs they would end up with ten F-35C squadrons."

IIRC, at some point in the last decade or so, USMC tacair (fleet) force structure was something like 21 squadrons -- 11/3 Active/Reserve Hornet sqdns, and 7 Harrier active sqdns. I wouldn't be surprised to see the procurement numbers change to support a somewhat similar force structure going forward, with C squadron PAA being 10-12 and B squadron PAA on the order of 14-16. Back to the future...

The current plan already envisages 22 sqn comprising 9x16B, 5x10B, 2x10B reserve, 4x10C and 2 FRS (not counting OTE). That would have taken into account LHD and EABO basing. Can't see USMC leadership compromising the 16B sqn to downgrade to 10C sqns. There could be some flexibility on the 10B sqn to shift to 10Cs since those are the last to convert but what's the operational advantage?

The B still offers the most flexibility where it comes to land basing without the need for long runways. The Navy's already got their CVN sqns mapped out and unless CVN numbers increase or number of sqns per CVN increase, that's moot.

The sacred cow that can't be slaughtered is getting the USAF to convert to Bs.

“Can't see USMC leadership compromising the 16B sqn to downgrade to 10C sqns. There could be some flexibility on the 10B sqn to shift to 10Cs since those are the last to convert but what's the operational advantage?”

You make the 10B units 10Cs, and you’re one unit different than my speculation. The operational advantage is range/tos and later lot capabilities upon delivery. I would also point out that distributed basing options are not unique to stovl jets.

"I watched the video of Berger at the Heritage Foundation and was struck by how open minded he is."
You should get out of the house a little more...
.

I love the insults. Have you never heard of a general officer who played politics or focused more on protecting his/her turf? Maybe I not the one who needs to get out of the house?

“Have you never heard of a general officer who played politics or focused more on protecting his/her turf?”

I’m not sure how ‘playing politics’ or ‘protecting...turf’ has anything to do with whether or not one’s mind is ‘open’ or ‘closed’. But, for the record, my up close and personal first-hand observation of FO/GOs is that they are no more or less open or closed-minded than many other officers. They just happen to hold positions of broader and/or more complex responsibilities. And, as a going-in position, I tend to expect of them the best until their actions suggest that that judgment is misplaced.