“Marine Corps Called on to Gain and Maintain Sea Control both from Amphibious Ships and from Shore”

Marine Corps is busy figuring out what they do – and don’t – need to buy to support their emerging operational concepts for high-end warfare.

Leaders are committed to keeping Navy and Marine programs aligned so they can increase interoperability – Marine Corps aircraft flying off Navy flight decks, or Marine weapons engaging targets at sea while aboard Navy ships – while involving program managers and resource sponsors from two services.

As the two services build their future fleets together, they are embarking on an effort to budget in parallel and develop an integrated force structure assessment FSA that will inform both their budget plans.

Previous FSAs conducted by assessment division of the chief of naval operations’ staff cherry-picked Marine Corps capabilities they wanted to include that provided a benefit to the naval fleet, and used them in wargaming to inform shipbuilding plans and budgets. 

For the first time, this naval integrated FSA NIFSA will reflect the full gamut of Marine Corps contributions and needs and produce a product that represents the full cost and capability of the integrated naval force. 

The NIFSA will also for the first time include new capabilities that the services need to rapidly incorporate, such as unmanned systems and connectors to support the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Advance Base Operations concept, which falls under LOCE, rather than only include programs of record already in the fleet.

Navy and Marine Corps will have detailed definitions of the new capabilities they want to have included in the NIFSA. This means defining how many vertical launching cells the Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle will have, for example, and what the composition of an expeditionary advance base will be for each of several possible EAB mission sets.

“People have misconstrued EABO as one thing. … EABO has multiple forms: there’s strike, there’s sensing, there’s electronic warfare, there is reconnaissance, there’s forward arming and refueling. So the size of an EAB, an expeditionary advance base, which is very temporary – go in, grab something, and then move or leave – they could be 40 Marines, it could be much larger than that if we had to do a significant refueling operation. It’s all going to be threat-dependent. But that’s what EAB is, and we’re going after and procuring things that will assist us in doing that,” 

Marines want one integrated fire network where all the systems snap into that same standard. And that’s a challenge for us because our requirements process isn’t generated to do that; it usually generates a requirement that is satisfied by a single resource sponsor and a single program manager, so we’ve got to kind of up our game here.”

Working rapidly to inform the next budget cycle, planners for both services are looking at how to network their systems together, how to sustain forces spread out across large areas and how to impose significant cost on the adversary while operating in that wide space – and how to do so affordably – to support the Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations and Marine’s Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment concepts.

On the aviation side, the Marine Corps looked at possible technological improvements to the MV-22 Osprey that would make it more lethal and survivable in a denied environment, and continued seeking industry input on a large unmanned aerial vehicle that could be flying by 2026, all in a bid to bring the vision of a networked, long-range force to the aviation community.

With the fifth-generation F-35B Joint Strike Fighter to pack a lethal punch and suck up intelligence on the battlefield, and the V-22 to carry Marines long distances while keeping the passengers in the back connected to troops on the ground through on-plane network connectivity, the glaring gap for Marine Corps Aviation is the heavy-lift helicopter.

The Marine Corps has made clear that its future lies at sea with the Navy, being good partners in the blue/green team, the Marine Corps is interested in buying long-range anti-ship missiles “as fast as possible. There’s a ground component to the maritime fight. We’re a naval force in a naval campaign; you have to help the ships control sea space. And you can do that from the land.”

The service made progress on transitioning its anti-drone system rushed to the field into a formal program of record. The Marine Air Defense Integrated System MADIS family of systems will include a mobile variant that will be affixed atop a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and a fixed version to protect forward-operating bases – both to address smaller drones that could attack our forces or send their location back to an enemy – as well as a third variant that would be more of a medium-range intercept system  that combines a surveillance radar, fire control system and missiles to go after large Group 4 and 5 drones.

Commandant put out Planning Guidance shortly after taking command of the service that shook up a lot of assumptions about how the Marine Corps would fight and therefore how it needed to equip itself. Most noticeable in the document was a step back from the long-stated requirement for 38 amphibious warships to transport two Marine Expeditionary Brigades into battle.

“We must acknowledge that different approaches are required given the proliferation of anti-access/area denial A2AD threat capabilities in mutually contested spaces. Visions of a massed naval armada nine nautical miles off-shore preparing to launch the landing force in swarms of ACVs, LCUs, and LCACs are impractical and unreasonable.”

As the service started making sense of what the Commandant was calling for, it became clear that the service would want to get into theater by means other than just traditional amphibious warships – something smaller than a Whidbey Island-class LSD but larger than an LCU connector – to provide more flexibility to the force and to confuse the adversary. 

The concept of something like an Offshore Support Vessel came up, with the idea being that it would look more like commercial vessels to enemy radars and would confuse their ability to target Marines amidst littoral and blue water marine traffic.

Unmanned vehicles could serve to move goods around the theater and to serve as decoys, leadership has said, again serving to create flexibility for operators and confusion for the enemy. Requirements for this smaller alternate ship and long-range unmanned surface vessel have not yet been written and passed along to Naval Sea Systems Command to begin working on, but conversations are ongoing between the Navy and Marine Corps to figure out exactly what features the Marines need and how to begin to engage industry on these programs.

“Marine Corps Embarking on Major Effort to Equip Infantrymen with Gear Based on New Tech” 

As the military is undergoing probably the largest modernization in the infantry squad in the last 25 years, verything from optics to the weapons themselves are getting revamped.

The overhaul will significantly change how the Marine Corps fights and manoeuvres on the battlefield, as well as increase the lethality of infantrymen.

For example, the service is currently seeking a new rocket motor.. It is decreasing the number of tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided anti-tank missiles in the infantry battalion from eight to four and increasing the number of Javelins from eight to 12.

With that increase in the number of Javelins we need reliable motors that are low cost.”
 
Another area of interest is a new suppressor for rifles. “The intent is to suppress every M4, M4A1 and M27 in the infantry community. Our intent there is to move quickly and find the best possible suppressor we can that is good enough in order to move out in a quick enough fashion.”

Another top priority for the infantry weapon program office is the dual-tube, white phosphorus squad binocular night-vision goggle. 

The service is also working on a new squad common optic that will be outfitted on the M27 to give Marines greater fidelity. The Marine Corps plans to field the optic to every infantry rifle platoon in order to give them an automatic capability.

The Service is also looking for a slew of new gear that Marines can wear.

“Part of our business in infantry combat equipment is outfitting Marines for battle with everything from uniforms to body armor to load-bearing equipment. making them look good, but also allowing them to operate safely and effectively” in any environment.

“Like everyone, we want it cheaper, better, faster. We also want something that’s scalable.” The service doesn’t want to have different sets of gear or armor for different missions, but rather modular pieces.

The current uniform is performing well, but the service wants to combine some capabilities.  For example, the Marine Corps’ fire-resistant organizational gear, or FROG suits, work well in vehicles but are not well suited for walking through woods because they can give off short-wave infrared signatures that the enemy can spot.

“We stand out a lot and that’s kind of bad when you’re trying to camouflage someone.  “We’re looking at bringing all of those things together — a lightweight, durable uniform that has FR and SWIR” concealment,

The service is also looking for a new lightweight tropical uniform that can be worn in hot and humid conditions. On the other side of the coin, the program office also wants new cold weather gear.

“If you look at where we’ve been for, say, the last 20 years, it’s kind of been hot and dry, but the service is now preparing for potential operations in environments that will have a very different climate.
A new intense cold weather boot is required.

“The seabag-issue boot works well down to 20 degrees” Fahrenheit. “The ‘Mickey Mouse’ boot — the big, rubber black one — works well, minus 20 or below. But  it makes your foot really hot and sweaty in between so that’s not so good.”

To fill that gap, the service is looking for a boot that can be worn in temperatures between minus 20 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit.  The Marine Corps recently conducted testing with new boots and found some that worked well. However, challenges still remain.

Because of suede material on the footwear, “once they get wet on the outside they stay wet, and that just transmits the cold to the Marine’s feet, so they don’t like it so much.  “In the dry cold it works great, stays well insulated — so we’re looking for something that works a little bit better in those wet, slushy conditions.”

The service is also mulling over new general purpose boots. “We have some good boots, … but we’re always looking for better.”

Additionally, the Corps is considering a “grunt boot” that would be specifically crafted for Marines working in infantry operations.

“What we keep running into is, we’ll find a boot that works well in one circumstance, but maybe not so in another or the durability sufferers.”

Many of the Marine Corps requirements are still undefined.

“Lack of Integration Between Marines/Navy in Recent Years Results in Gap Leaving Amphibious Forces More Vulnerable and Less Lethal” 


Marine Corps has drifted away from the Navy over the last two decades. Shortages of amphibious shipping combined with a need to justify force structure gave birth to shore-based SPMAGTFs. 
The new Commandant of the Marine Corps said in his planning guidance, “…there is a need to reestablish a more integrated approach to operations in the maritime domain.” By virtue of their range and speed, aviation assets are inherently able to bridge gaps. Amphibious forces usually take this as meaning between the sea and the land, but it also bridges gaps between forces at sea.

Amphibious ships can no longer serve merely as transportation for their embarked Marines. In the future anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment, they have to be part of the open-ocean kill chain. If the naval services are to enhance their survivability and lethality against the medium- and high-threat fights of the future, they have to combine their efforts and their assets. The keystone of that effort will be the aviation assets of the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). They must be reconfigured to better exploit aviation platforms such as the V-22 and F-35B, and turn the Corps into a force for sea control.

The strength of the Navy and Marine Corps team is the use of seaborne mobility to achieve effects on land. New aviation platforms can reinvigorate this for the 21st century, making both the Navy and Marine Corps more survivable, deadly, and integrated.

Ospreys Enable Naval Distributed Operations

In Marine parlance, “distributed operations” mean small units scattered throughout a given ground commander’s area of responsibility. In Navy parlance, distributed maritime operations are those within a naval commander’s area of responsibility. Rarely are the two domains intertwined, but now they need to be.

Marines routinely practice distributed operations within the ships of an Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) – performing “split-ARG” ops at widely separated locations. But this is much less common among the ships of the larger Expeditionary Strike Group, which adds attached surface combatants and often a submarine. 

It is virtually unheard of to detach Marines to other ships, such as those in a carrier strike group. The ARG typically does not integrate much with the rest of the Navy, but in the future, it will need to in order to survive. To that end, why are Ospreys tethered to ships at all, much less particular ships? Ospreys are easier to maintain on land. With the two KC-130Js normally assigned to the MEU, they can reach anywhere in most theaters within hours. 

The tiltrotor squadron assigned to SPMAGTF-CR-CENTCOM and the half-squadron with SPMAGTF-CR-AFRICOM are burning out aircraft and people for little operational benefit. By making the MEU MV-22s and the tiltrotor company land-based, the SPMAGTFs are made redundant.  Instead of having a SPMAGTF in a given theater in addition to MEU assets, the MEU VMM, tiltrotor company, and KC-130Js would shadow the MEU from shore instead. 

If the rest of the MEU is needed, the tiltrotor-borne unit could be a rapidly deployable advance element, or conversely, remain in strategic or operational reserve. The base tiltrotor squadron, KC-130J detachment, and tiltrotor infantry company would essentially be an airmobile split ARG, capable of independent action, but rejoining the MEU main body when necessary. They could immediately take spots on the air plan ferrying Marines ashore, recovering aboard ship, or to an airfield as the situation dictates. 

For many missions, there is no need to commit the entire Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) or ESG when V-22s can take Marines almost anywhere in theater. It saves these warship formations from having to steam for days. It also affords another way to split the MEU besides just between the ships in the ARG, increasing flexibility and the MEU’s ability to respond to multiple contingencies. In certain threat environments, staging Marines from ships other than amphibious platforms may be the most survivable option, offering greater distribution and putting a greater number of the enemy’s shore bases at risk of amphibious assault. The enemy will never be entirely sure which vessels present that threat, complicating their threat analysis.

Once the MEU doesn’t have to be in one place, or even two, options expand. Amphibious ships aren’t the only vessels Marines can stage from. Ospreys can land on many other naval vessels, even if they can’t support sustained flight operations. The Ospreys could embark, or they might just deliver a contingent of Marines, by alternate insertion means (FAST rope, hoist, etc.) if necessary. Then the ship’s organic air and surface assets would come into play.

With the right preparation, much of the Navy’s fleet could become staging areas for Marines. 

Aircraft carriers are certainly capable of supporting MV-22s. CVNs typically carry two squadrons of H-60s and will soon have their own CMV-22s Ospreys, so have a robust organic insertion capability. They also have sufficient billeting for any GCE Marines. If MV-22s deliver Marines to destroyers or cruisers, those also often have their own helicopters. While they typically carry the MH-60R, not optimized for troop transport, Marines could still use those ships as lilypads for certain missions. Those ships could also deploy small craft with Marines aboard. That would typically be for naval missions like interdiction and counterpiracy, but could also include going ashore for embassy reinforcement or humanitarian assistance. In permissive environments, even USNS vessels could provide staging areas for a small GCE. 

Strike – A Primary Mission

Moving the Ospreys and the tiltrotor company off the ship or distributing these assets across more ships frees up plenty of space above and below deck. This allows for other assets that are more dependent on shipboard space compared to more flexible aviation assets. Those can bring new capabilities such as increased lethality.

Given the number of active theaters today, the 11 big-deck carriers are not enough. However, with the F-35B amphibious strike capability is no longer just providing bomb trucks for low-threat sideshows new amphibious assault formations can strike targets in high-threat environments.

The F-35B is not just a replacement for the AV-8B. It is a 5th generation multirole fighter, capable of penetrating integrated air defenses. But six F-35s per MEU is not sufficient. Due to the situational awareness the F-35 provides pilots, its preferred maneuver element is a division of three or four aircraft, vice the sections of two that AV-8Bs typically employ. Given 75 percent availability, eight aircraft are required to make two light divisions, and thus support sustained combat flight operations. With eight F-35Bs, both the strike and counter-air capabilities of the MEU are dramatically improved. Having a baseline detachment of eight F-35s per MEU will enable a full spectrum of missions, especially a fairly robust offensive and defensive counter-air capability, which the AV-8B was only able to perform in relatively permissive environments. 

Having more F-35s doesn’t just mean more bombs on target. F-35s make every other combatant around them more effective. For example, F-35Bs are capable of directing SM-6 intercepts, HIMARS strikes, and providing in-flight retargeting support to other networked munitions. The SM-6 is not only a capable SAM, but can also be used to engage surface targets. The HIMARS is not limited to working ashore, but can also be fired from a ship’s deck, filling the long-neglected gap in naval gunfire support. Ship-launched HIMARS could also provide amphibious platforms with a powerful new anti-ship capability without requiring launch cells, further expanding the high-end mission set to include sea control.

The F-35 links the ships of the ESG together into something far more deadly and survivable than before. Big-deck amphibs can become formidable strike platforms, reaching out not just with the F-35Bs themselves, but also with their networking support for other shooters distributed across the battlespace.

HSC to VSC?

If LHAs and LHDs are to be legitimate strike and counter-air platforms, they are going to need greater logistics and search-and-rescue (SAR) capability. The current Navy SAR detachment aboard the LHD/LHA is only capable of relatively short-range recovery in secure areas, generally overwater “planeguard” duty. But soon the Navy will be fielding its own enhanced variant of the MV-22, the CMV-22.

A CMV-22 detachment would enhance the capability of both the Navy and the Marine Corps team. With CMV-22s aboard, the Navy could reclaim the long-range SAR mission. This is key if amphibs are going to routinely serve as strike platforms and perform a greater role in sea control. With the right equipment and personnel, this could provide a capability well up the SAR decision matrix, making a VSC detachment valuable as a joint theater personnel recovery asset.

Using more F-35Bs means using more engines, including those the CMV-22 is uniquely suited to carry, not to mention the additional bombs and missiles a “lighting carrier” would need. This is in addition to the benefits of being able to conduct longer-range resupply in general, especially at the distances involved in the Indo-Pacific. The CMV has an 1150nm range, roughly 300nm greater than an MV.

That is not a small investment on the part of the Navy. Replacing the expeditionary MH-60S with CMV-22s would require 22 aircraft, assuming that the squadron and the ship keep similar deploy-to-dwell ratios. With additional Fleet Replacement Squadron, pipeline, and attrition aircraft, the ultimate requirement would be 25 to 30 CMV-22s to sustainably outfit all the big-deck amphibs. That said, the MH-60S is starting to come up on the point when recapitalization is necessary. With the CMV-22 already being purchased for COD, expanding that community to include the gator Navy offers a huge increase in capability for a marginal increase in cost.

In exchange for that investment, the Navy and Marine Corps can make a leap from a marriage of convenience in their rotorcraft fleets to a truly synergistic and integrated partnership.

Room to Grow

Even with the addition of F-35Bs and trading MH-60Ss for CMV-22s, there is still significant room for adding capability.

One of the recurring complaints about the MV-22 is that it is too large for certain missions, such as VBSS (Visit Board Search and Seizure). While the UH-1N was not able to do significant troop lift, the UH-1Y can. That means the aviation combat element (ACE) needs at least four, not the typical three aircraft. At a readiness rate of 75 percent, that would allow a section of UH-1Ys to be devoted to assault support, especially in support of special missions and hard hits. The third would be able to perform any other tasks in the utility mission set. The Marine Corps has already purchased attrition aircraft over its T/O requirement that could be used to fill this need immediately. If this employment proves useful, additional UH-1Ys could be purchased to preserve this capability into the future.

There are normally four AH-1Zs assigned to the ACE. With a typical four aircraft to make three, the addition of that extra UH-1Y would allow an extra mixed section of skids to provide CAS and FAC(A) when shooting becomes the priority. The Yankee brings significant CAS capability, including Precision Guided Munitions – for now just APKWS rockets, but in the future, likely Hellfire missiles as well. 

Unmanned Systems 

The Marine Corps and the Navy are working past each other when it comes to UAS. The Marines field small tactical platforms and the Navy seeks to enhance sea control with larger systems. Neither of those efforts reaches the other, nor provides top cover for the critical period when Marines transition ashore.

The Marine Corps has begun the MAGTF Unmanned Expeditionary program (MUX), looking to acquire a large UAS capable of vertical takeoff. For CAS and persistent ISR, it requires a Group 5 UAS, a huge asset in normal MEU operations. Just as importantly, a VSTOL UAS with a reconfigurable payload and long endurance would make every platform around it, both Navy and Marine, more capable.

Currently the ESG does not have an Airborne Early Warning (AEW) capability. Its organic sensors are limited by line-of-sight from just above the waterline, or at best from the radars of MH-60Rs from surface combatants, which can provide coverage for only a few hours at a time, even if they are near enough. Sea-skimming threats traveling below the radar horizon would pose a considerable threat, making an organic AEW capability fundamental for awareness and survivability in a high-end threat environment.

Currently an LHD or LHA flight deck is able to support only eight to twelve hours of flight operations a day. A long-endurance UAS would extend this coverage greatly, staying in the air even when ships aren’t at flight quarters. With two, ideally three, AEW-equipped units, MUX would enable almost continuous coverage.

AEW would allow the F-35Bs to stay on the deck in an alert status appropriate for the threat, vice burning hours overhead performing the same AEW function. MUX could also detect and cue air or surface targets for other shooters. Long-range weapons like Tomahawk and the Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM) work best when standoff observation and in-flight retargeting support is readily available, and where unmanned aviation platforms can be more readily risked to provide time-critical networking support.  

Marines are still Naval Infantry

In the future, we can’t assume that we will possess uncontested sea control, whether in the objective area or in transit. The ESG may have to fight its way there. Every asset aboard every ship, including manned and unmanned aircraft, whether they have “Marines” or “Navy” painted on the side, must work in concert. We need to move beyond the construct where the Navy exists only to move Marines to an objective, into one where elements of both are a cohesive fighting team from embarkation to debarkation.

With V-22s, every ship can have access to a Marine detachment when needed. We do not always need CVNs for strikes if we have F-35B-capable amphibious ships. With additional UH-1Ys, the ACE can execute more direct action missions and CAS, relieving other high-demand assets. And with the right UAS providing overwatch, the ESG should never be surprised.

Once we stop thinking of the Navy and Marine Corps as operating in distinct domains, the survivability and lethality of the ESG and the MEU, and even carrier strike groups and surface action groups will be increased. Employed correctly, emerging Marine and Navy aviation platforms, such as the F-35B, CMV-22, and MUX, combined with the assets of the MEU, ARG, and ESG, will make the integrated Navy-Marine team more capable and deadly.