United States Marine Corps

[Redlands18]

As of last week the intent was to still deploy
Initial elements arriving in April, full task force closing by July
Marines headed to Australia will have to undergo quarantine for two weeks - via Marine Times

US Marines arrive in Darwin - Australian Defence Magazine

All Marines will be quarantined for 14 days at Defence facilities in the Darwin area, following biosecurity screening and COVID-19 testing on arrival.

www.australiandefence.com.au

Better late than never, the first 200 Marines of the 9th rotation arrived in Darwin on 4 June. They have to spend 14 days in isolation before they can begin any activities.

 

[stevenyeadon]

This article by USNI confirms that the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) will not function in current ARGs. It will be forward stationed in places like the Baltic Sea or the South China Sea. It will be for archipelagic warfare, setting up EABs with anti-ship missiles and SAMs, and will attempt to hide among civilian ships of similar size in a conflict. It will have little in the way of defenses, using autocannons and heavy machineguns only.

In addition, the LPD Flight II program may see its ships altered to make them multi-mission capable, and the San Antonio-class Flight I's may be upgraded to be multi-mission capable. The problem is the cost of this. If it is too expensive to upgrade Flight I vessels and change flight II vessels, a new, small amphib able to work in an ARG may be pursued instead.

Marines Look to Two New Ship Classes to Define Future of Amphibious Operations - USNI News

The Navy and Marine Corps are looking to quickly overhaul their Cold War-era way of moving Marines around, with the services already agreeing on the basic requirements for a new Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) and in the early phases of looking at a separate small amphibious ship class. LAW would...

news.usni.org

I like making the LPDs multi-mission capable given their almost 2 billion dollar unit cost. I also like they are open to a small risk-worthy amphib coming into service in ARGs.

The main problem I have, which I hope someone can speak to, is whether this would ever work against Russia in the Black, Baltic, and Barents Seas? It seems much harder to hide in those environments than, say, the South China Sea. Another issue is that Russian naval, land, and airborne assets may simply overwhelm small groups of 75 Marines with vehicle-based missile launchers early in a war. The sheer size of the Russian airborne forces and the number of nearby planes and surface based launchers gives me great pause. I also think it may prove consequential to have an "invasion fleet" (according to the Chinese) stationed in the South China Sea.

 

[Blackshoe]

The main problem I have, which I hope someone can speak to, is whether this would ever work against Russia in the Black, Baltic, and Barents Seas? It seems much harder to hide in those environments than, say, the South China Sea. Another issue is that Russian naval, land, and airborne assets may simply overwhelm small groups of 75 Marines with vehicle-based missile launchers early in a war. The sheer size of the Russian airborne forces and the number of nearby planes and surface based launchers gives me great pause. I also think it may prove consequential to have an "invasion fleet" (according to the Chinese) stationed in the South China Sea.

Short answer, IMHO, is no. Frankly, even more so than my complaints against China, trying to project power ashore (especially actual manpower) against Russia is a supremely dumb idea.

 

[ngatimozart]

A US Marine is dead and 8 are missing following a AAV accident off the California coast yesterday. The AAV was reported as taking water on at the time and had 15 marines and 1 sailor onboard. SAR efforts are continuing.

Marine Dead, 8 Missing Following AAV Incident Off California - USNI News

A Marine is dead and eight more are missing after an amphibious assault vehicle incident off the coast of California late Thursday. Fifteen Marines and a sailor were aboard the AAV, assigned to the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, as it was operating near San Clemente Island. They reported taking...

news.usni.org

 

[OPSSG]

Strictly speaking a navy program but very relevant to the US Marines.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1272880216470441988

Textron Systems announced the delivery of the 2nd Ship to Shore Connector (SSC) to the US Navy on 27 Aug 2020. In Apr 2020, Textron Systems was awarded a US$386 million, for the construction of 15 landing craft, air cushion (LCAC) 100 Class Craft — the SSC Program is the functional replacement of the existing fleet of LCAC vehicles. It is an air cushion vehicle designed for a 30-year service life. The SSC mission is to land surface assault elements from the sea at over-the-horizon distances while operating from amphibious ships and mobile landing platforms. These craft also will incorporate an advanced skirt, a cargo deck capable of carrying a 74-ton payload (up to M1A1 Tank). With an enclosed personnel transport module loaded, it can carry up to 145 combat-equipped Marines or 108 casualty personnel.

Payload	74 t/ 163,142 lbs.
Speed	35 knots/40 mph/65 km/h at Sea State 3
Deck Area	67 × 24 feet (1,608 sq feet)/20.42 × 7.32 m (149.39 sq m)
Operating Crew	Four (pilot, co-pilot, load master and deck engineer)
Overall Height	5 feet/1.52 m
Overall Length	92 feet/28.04 m
Overall Beam	48 feet/14.63 m
Propulsion	Four gas turbine engines
Service Life	30 years

This 27 Aug 2020 delivery follows the successful completion of Acceptance Trials with the US Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey. During these at sea trials, the craft underwent testing to demonstrate the capability of the platform and installed systems across all mission areas to effectively meet its requirements.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058041746293178368

Captain Cedric McNeal, amphibious warfare program manager, Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships said: “We have 12 additional craft in production with another 10 on contract, positioning us to steadily deliver increased capability to our fleet over the coming years”.

 

[swerve]

Ah, the delights of spurious precision!

"74 t/ 163,142 lbs" - from two decimal places to six. Doh! That reminds me of travelling by rail in a country that had converted from imperial to metric measures & where the height above sea level of each station was given on its name board: in metres, to the nearest centimetre, all of of which converted back to multiples of 10 feet.

 

[ngatimozart]

A USMC F-35A and KC-130J have had a mid air touch in California whilst mid air refuelling. The F-35B crashed with the pilot banging out safely and receiving medical treatment. The KC-130J crash landing in a paddock with the crew being reported as all having been safely recovered. The incident occurred at 1600 PST / 0100 Wednesday 30/09/2020 UTC.

Marine F-35B Crashes After Collision With KC-130 Over California; All Aircrew Recovered Safely - USNI News

A Marine F-35B aircraft has crashed near Naval Air Facility El Centro, Calif., following an air collision with a KC-130J, defense officials confirmed to USNI News. At approximately 4 p.m. local time, “it was reported that an F-35B made contact with a KC-130J during an air-to-air refueling...

news.usni.org

.

 

[OldTex]

Naval News reported General David H. Berger (Commandant of the U.S.M.C.) explanation of where the Corps’ M1A1 tanks will go at Modern Day Marine 2020 held 22-24 September. Outside of deterrence, Berger said that the traditional, conventional view of a massive landing force used during World War Two and during the Korean War’s Inchon landing is too narrow-minded. Despite the improvements delivered by the M1A2 SEPv3, there was the question of whether they were the right fit for Marine General Berger’s Force Design 2030 that seeks for a more mobile, lighter and smaller force that is also affordable.

The U.S. Navy’s Landing Craft Air Cushion’s (LCAC) replacement, the Ship-to-Shore Connector (SSC), can transport 74-tons at 35 kts compared to the LCAC's 60-tons. The M1A2 SEPv3 weighs in at 66.68-tons basic configuration and can weigh in excess of 80-tons with TUSK and Trophy APS kits added. At 80+-tons, that leaves the Navy’s Landing Craft Utility (LCU), able to carry a 127-ton to 183-ton payload as the only reasonable M1A2 SEPv3 weight-carrying landing craft transport to hit the beach.

General Berger said that the M1A1s were going away; he didn’t say that tanks were not going to be a part of the Marine Corps’ future. A plausible answer suitable to the Force Design 2030 concept would be the domestically-produced Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) Light Tank Program, two competing tank contenders armed with a 105mm cannon, might be sufficiently light enough to carry on the Navy’s fast LCAC and SSC hovercrafts. While the 105mm MPF Light Tanks may not be as lethal or as well-protected armor-wise as the Corps’ divested M1A1s, the MPFs would allow for double the number of lighter tanks to be transported via a single Navy hovercraft, whereas the LCAC is overloaded to carry a single 61.7-ton M1A1 and the SSC can still only carry one M1A1. MPFs fit the load-carrying capacity of both U.S. Navy hovercrafts.

The question will be whether the USMC can make the MPF work within the Force Design 2030 CONOPS.

 

[10puii3a]

The USMC and US Army are trying the capacity of stifled rifles and automatic weapons (up to and including the M2 HB BMG) being standard issue for infantry. Clearly, the silencers cost around US$700 each so it is costly to unit out full brigades. Likewise, they are trying to perceive how long the silencers last; obviously, 1,500 - 2,000 rounds is the normal life right now.

 

[Volkodav]

I could be wrong but isn't focussing exclusively on light forces making unopposed landings an even narrower focus? Also aren't tanks even more critical in other than landings requiring massive landing forces? A troop (US platoon) of tanks would make even more difference to the effectiveness and survivability of a small, light force than a regiment or brigade sized force.

 

[ngatimozart]

The USMC and US Army are trying the capacity of stifled rifles and automatic weapons (up to and including the M2 HB BMG) being standard issue for infantry. Clearly, the silencers cost around US$700 each so it is costly to unit out full brigades. Likewise, they are trying to perceive how long the silencers last; obviously, 1,500 - 2,000 rounds is the normal life right now.

G'day @10puii3a Welcome to the forum. Please take the time to read the rules. Do you have a source or sources for the claims that you make in your above post? The citing of sources is a requirement here.

 

[OPSSG]

General Berger explained on 23 Sep 2920, at his Question and Answer virtual session.

Simply put, the US Marine Corps’ 61.3-ton M1A1s are going to the US Army.

I could be wrong but isn't focussing exclusively on light forces making unopposed landings an even narrower focus? Also aren't tanks even more critical in other than landings requiring massive landing forces? A troop (US platoon) of tanks would make even more difference to the effectiveness and survivability of a small, light force than a regiment or brigade sized force.

According to Textron Marine Systems, the US Navy’s Landing Craft Air Cushion’s (LCAC) replacement, the Ship-to-Shore Connector (SSC), can transport 74-tons at 35 kts. The US Army’s M1A2 SEPv3 weighs in at 66.68-tons basic and can weigh in excess of 80-tons with TUSK and Trophy APS kits added, six tons more than the allowable on the SSC hovercraft.

At around 80 tons, that leaves the US Navy’s Landing Craft Utility (the LCU in has three variants), able to carry a 127-ton to 183-ton payload (or 1 to 2 M1A2 SEPv3s with TUSK and APS installed).

The main problem with using the LCUs is that it sails at a slow 8 to 11 knots despite its 1,200 nautical mile range. Essentially, the US Marine Corps cannot buy the latest and greatest Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 used by the US Army because these SEPv3 MBTs are too heavy to carry via any U.S. Navy hovercraft.

The Commandant said that the M1A1s were going away; he didn’t say that tanks were not going to be a part of the US Marine Corps’ future. If the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) light tank is developed for the US Army, it could be of interest to the US Marines.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

A USMC F-35A and KC-130J have had a mid air touch in California whilst mid air refuelling. The F-35B crashed with the pilot banging out safely and receiving medical treatment. The KC-130J crash landing in a paddock with the crew being reported as all having been safely recovered. The incident occurred at 1600 PST / 0100 Wednesday 30/09/2020 UTC.

Marine F-35B Crashes After Collision With KC-130 Over California; All Aircrew Recovered Safely - USNI News

A Marine F-35B aircraft has crashed near Naval Air Facility El Centro, Calif., following an air collision with a KC-130J, defense officials confirmed to USNI News. At approximately 4 p.m. local time, “it was reported that an F-35B made contact with a KC-130J during an air-to-air refueling...

news.usni.org

.

An expensive accident, but the good news is that there are no casualties.
Here some images...

Watch: F-35B Crashing Into The Ground After Mid-Air Collision With KC-130J During Air-to-air Refueling - Fighter Jets World

A video posted on Instagram seems to show the F-35B crashing into the ground near the Coachella Vall

fighterjetsworld.com

 

[Volkodav]

General Berger explained on 23 Sep 2920, at his Question and Answer virtual session.

Simply put, the U.S. Marine Corps’ 61.3-ton M1A1s are going to the US Army.


According to Textron Marine Systems, the U.S. Navy’s Landing Craft Air Cushion’s (LCAC) replacement, the Ship-to-Shore Connector (SSC), can transport 74-tons at 35 kts. The Army’s M1A2 SEPv3 weighs in at 66.68-tons basic and can weigh in excess of 80-tons with TUSK and Trophy APS kits added, six tons more than the allowable on the SSC hovercraft.

At around 80 tons, that leaves the Navy’s Landing Craft Utility (the LCU in has three variants), able to carry a 127-ton to 183-ton payload (or one or two Army M1A2 SEPv3s with TUSK and APS installed).

The main problem with using the LCUs is that it sails at a slow 8 to 11 knots despite its 1,200 nautical mile range. Essentially, the U.S. Marine Corps cannot buy the latest and greatest Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 used by the U.S. Army because these SEPv3 MBTs are too heavy to carry via any U.S. Navy hovercraft.

The Commandant said that the M1A1s were going away; he didn’t say that tanks were not going to be a part of the US Marine Corps’ future. If the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) light tank is developed for the US Army, it could be of interest to the US Marines.

Yes I read the article and understand the logistic implications, i.e. the limitations of the SSC in moving a max weight fully outfitted M-1A2 SEPv3, but it is capable of lifting the baseline vehicles or a vehicle with some options fitted. Interestingly, the stern landing craft the General seems so enamored with at the moment would be able to easily lift full spec SEPv3s as well as other types.

This seems more a cultural disagreement on how the existing and future budget should be spent than a strategic leap forward.

 

[OldTex]

Interestingly, the stern landing craft the General seems so enamored with at the moment would be able to easily lift full spec SEPv3s as well as other types.

The Congressional Research Service released a report "Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program: Background and Issues for Congress" which includes the following:

"...the Marine Corps has developed two supporting operational concepts, called Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment (LOCE) and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO).Under the EABO concept, the Marine Corps envisions, among other things, having reinforced-platoon-sized Marine Corps units maneuver around the theater, moving from island to island, to fire anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and perform other missions so as to contribute, alongside Navy and other U.S. military forces, to U.S.operations to counter and deny sea control to Chinese forces.More specifically, the Marine Corps states that the EABO concept includes, among other things, establishing and operating “multiple platoon-reinforced-size expeditionary advance base sites that can host and enable a variety of missions such as long-range anti-ship fires, forward arming and refueling of aircraft, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance of key maritime terrain, and air-defense and early warning,”

"...The LAW ships would be instrumental to these operations, with LAWs embarking, transporting, landing, and subsequently reembarking these small Marine Corps units." The stern loading vessel (SLV) being one option to be considered for the LAW (if it progresses beyond the study stage).

There was also the suggestion in the report that the US Army logistic support vessels (LSV), particularly of the General Frank E. Besson class could be transferred to the Navy/USMC to provide the basis for the development of the LOCE/EABO CONOPS and the vessel requirements arising from those CONOPS. The LAW is not intended to be part of the ARG so the LCAC/SSC and LCU would be the only options for moving heavy tanks from the ARG to shore.

 

[10puii3a]

Marine Corps is undergoing a series of comprehensive reforms to its force structure, equipment, and doctrine. These reforms are geared towards countering China in the Western Pacific. General Berger marine equipment online, the Commandant of the USMC, has proposed plans for the Corps that suggest a profound change in the US strategic outlook with significant implications for NATO and the UK.

 

[ngatimozart]

Marine Corps is undergoing a series of comprehensive reforms to its force structure, equipment, and doctrine. These reforms are geared towards countering China in the Western Pacific. General Berger marine equipment online, the Commandant of the USMC, has proposed plans for the Corps that suggest a profound change in the US strategic outlook with significant implications for NATO and the UK.

@10puii3a This is the second time that you have posted without providing sources. You were asked to politely in my reply to your first post. This time this is a Moderators request that you supply sources for your posts. Be advised that if we have to ask a third time, we won't be so polite about it. Rule #14 applies.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Marine Corps receives first amphibious combat vehicle

The new ACVs, destined to replace the Vietnam-era amphibious assault vehicle, were sent to Delta Company, 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, based out of Twentynine Palms, California.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

Looks like a capable and rugged combat vehicle to me.
The ACV is to be operational between 2020 and 2022, with 573 vehicles planned to be procured. So i expect hundreds of used AAV will become available for the exportmarket the coming years.

 

[ngatimozart]

Marine Corps receives first amphibious combat vehicle

The new ACVs, destined to replace the Vietnam-era amphibious assault vehicle, were sent to Delta Company, 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, based out of Twentynine Palms, California.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

Looks like a capable and rugged combat vehicle to me.
The ACV is to be operational between 2020 and 2022, with 573 vehicles planned to be procured. So i expect hundreds of used AAV will become available for the exportmarket the coming years.

I wouldn't touch the used AAV with a 40ft barge pole. They will be absolute rubbish and would cost a fortune to bring back up to any sort of half decent standard. You would be wasting your money; in fact you might as well go and flush it down the toilet.

 

[OPSSG]

An update on the CH-53K for the USMC. It appears that the program is now on track and is on schedule to complete testing and commence operational deployments in 2023. This is good news for a program that was recently quite troubled.

Marine Corps CH-53K King Stallion Helicopter On Track To Become Heaviest Lifter In Joint Force

The new helicopter can lift more than any other rotorcraft in U.S. history.

www.forbes.com

The U.S. Navy has ordered its first six heavy-lift CH-53K helicopters, a move which brings much greater cargo, supply and troop-carrying capacity to amphibious warfare.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1324664097586192384

The CH-53K is powered by 3 GE Aviation T408 engines. Capable of producing more than 7,500 shaft horsepower, the T408 is built to deliver numerous mission-critical advantages.