Surprisingly, Marine Commandant Berger does not share his plans and thinking with me. I know, he should but he doesn’t. The problem is that I’m left to try to understand his plans and thinking based on the occasional public statement he or his cronies make and it seems that every statement made contradicts the one before it.
Now, one might think that it’s irrelevant whether I understand his plans except that he desperately wants and needs to get agreement and support from me as a taxpayer, Congress as the provider of funds, and the Navy as the builder of ships. To date, he’s gotten support from none of those and his plans and programs are floundering. Specifically, the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) transport/landing ship that is key to the missile-shooting concept is in danger of being eliminated or delayed so long that the entire concept dies before it can be implemented.
Every new statement just confuses the issue even further.
For example, I was led to understand that during war with China the LAW would transport Marines to secret, hidden locations, conduct resupply, and relocate the Marines when necessary.
Well, the latest statements suggest this is not the case. According to Lt. Gen. Karsten Heckl, the deputy commandant for combat development and integration, the LAW will not be anywhere near a combat zone.
The Marines don’t envision using this vessel during combat operations either, the general said.
If there are indications a conflict may break out, the combatant commander would order the light amphibious warships, or LAW, to quickly relocate Marines or resupply units, “and then it goes into hiding, it goes into bed-down somewhere. Nowhere do we envision the LAW out transiting the sea lanes in the middle of a kinetic fight.”[1]
Wait, what now?! The Marines don’t envision the LAW being anywhere near combat? Well, then, how will they locate, resupply, and relocate the Marines? Will they call a time-out during the war to conduct those tasks while the Chinese obligingly pause and wait for the LAW to do its job and then leave the combat area? If you recall, the concept was supposed to have been that the Marines could not be found by China but, if they were found, the LAW would nimbly and quickly relocate them to another hidden location to continue raining destruction down on the befuddled Chinese. Now we see that the LAW won’t be anywhere near the combat zone so how will the Marines relocate, if discovered? Will they swim to a new island, towing their missiles behind them? I’m confused.
 |
| Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) - total confusion |
Moving on, am I to now understand that any Marines not already in place at the start of the war won’t be able to take part in the fight because the LAW won’t be ‘transiting the sea lanes in the middle of a kinetic fight’? And, am I to now further understand that Marines won’t be resupplied, evacuated, or relocated during the war and that once they’ve shot their small handful of missiles they won’t be receiving any reloads since the LAW will be ‘bedded down’ somewhere?
Another new aspect is some fantasy-level hiding scheme, according to the general,
Heckl said the light amphib is meant to appear like a commercial craft — to “hide in plain sight.”
“The [Indo-Pacific] sea lines of communication are the most traversed sea lines in the world; it would be a challenge for any power to surveil everything all the time in that area,” he said.
I keep hearing variations of this idiotic notion from both naval observers and uniformed Marine/Navy personnel. There is a belief that looking like a commercial vessel is somehow going to provide immunity and ‘stealth’. I hate to be the bearer of bad news – meaning, reality – but in a war the Chinese are going to sink everything that they can’t positively identify as friendly. How do I know this? Because it’s common sense and every belligerent did it in WWII. Remember the Doolittle raid? We didn’t hesitate to sink Japanese fishing boats during the carrier’s run in to the launch point. That’s just elementary common sense. If you can’t identify something as friendly, you destroy it. Simple. Straight forward.
According to Lt. Gen. David Furness, the deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations,
Furness said the way the light amphibious warships operate would mitigate the risk China defeats them. These ships would operate in and around the 7,000 islands of the Philippines, for example, blending in with local commercial craft and not likely to become a target for Chinese precision missiles.[1]
Setting aside the fantasy that the Philippines will allow us to operate on their islands and in their territorial waters in a war with China, it would be remiss to fail to note that the Philippines has a significant Chinese population and no US ship is going to operate unobserved and unreported. Further, China is going to destroy any and all unidentified vessels without bothering to ask questions.
Also, in a China-US war there won’t be any commercial sea lanes. Sea lanes are a peacetime construct. During war, no commercial vessel is going to sail anywhere near a combat zone because they know they’ll be sunk. The only vessel sailing in a combat zone will be known, friendly ships/warships or unknow and presumed hostile ships. No unidentified ship, regardless of what it looks like, is going to get a free pass. This is just unrealistic, fantasy level, wishful thinking. I can’t excuse civilian naval observers for this type of idiotic thinking and I absolutely expect better from uniformed, professional (clearly, they aren’t) warriors.
But wait, there’s even more confusion. I thought the Commandant’s vision was a concept for fighting and defeating China in a high end war. Now I find out that war/combat is not the purpose of the Marines and their missile-shooting concept.
[The Marines] say their small units will be focused on deterrence, but also outfitted with the sensors and weapons to fight if necessary.[1]
So now I’m led to believe that these missile-shooting Marines are not combat forces but are deterrent units that will be given sensors and weapons as a last resort, to fight ‘if necessary’?
How will a platoon or company size unit deter China?
“One of the strengths of the stand-in force is to cause the adversary that moment of guessing and second-guessing their decision, and ratchet down and deescalate,” Heckl said.[1]
Yes, I’m sure China will halt their Taiwan invasion plans because we have a platoon of Marines hiding in the Philippines.
These new statements completely contradict every previous statement and understanding about this concept that I’ve had.
Berger wants support for his concept but every new statement just ups the level of confusion and apparent idiocy surrounding this plan.
Sorry, Commandant. Until you can elucidate a coherent plan you’ll get no support from me.
_______________________________
[1]Defense News website, “Marines, Navy near agreement on light amphibious warship features”, Megan Eckstein, 5-Oct-2022,
If they won't be in combat, then the Marines don't need LAWs. Just buy a few dozen varied (used) coastal freighters with cranes to off-load and some bunker barges and add them to the MPF pre-po fleet or Sealift Command manned by civilians. If they are to hide in plain sight, you don't want them with the same unique design painted Navy grey. If they are to cruise about unescorted, you want cheap/used freighters. And the Marines can do this now, without spending a billion dollars over a decade to design and test a LAW.
ReplyDeleteExactly! The Marines are inconsistent in their logic. If the LAW is a non-combat vessel then any leftover, used commercial freighter is perfectly good and the LAW is not needed, as you point out.
DeleteOn the other hand, if it's a combat vessel, then the public statements are incorrect.
Which is it Commandant Berger? If you want support then you have to settle on one, simple, clear message about how your concept will work. Is it any wonder you can't get the support you want?
The Marines are tying themselves into logical knots trying to explain this concept.
Great comment!
Current plans call for buying the first LAW in 2025 for evaluation, which means 2027 or 2028 when it is actually in the water. It will take way past 2030 to get close to the 30 that is the claimed minimum, and way past the Davidson window for China to take over Taiwan.
DeleteMarines need a commercial option. They are currently leasing a Stern Landing Vessel for evaluation. Recommend that they lease sufficient ships for lifting all Okinawa and mainland Japan Marines to the fight and exercise this capability a twice a year until the kinks are worked out. China will undoubtably watch these exercises but that will serve a little like a deterrent if the concept is solid and teach us some lessons without having to spend billions if the concept is bad.
"It will take way past 2030 to get close to the 30"
DeleteSchedules ALWAYS slip so it would be well past the dates you indicate! Berger will be long gone before the first LAW is even ordered. The question is whether his successor(s) will continue down this path or revert to something more conventional?
"Berger will be long gone..."
DeleteI think that even the Navy brass has doubts about Berger and his ideas, and are just dragging their feet and waiting for his replacement...
So true, why in the world buy these, with that "new car price tag", when you can buy a freighter, or a novel idea, use the fast transports the Navy built, like the USS Brunswick or San Juan, which can seat a couple of hundred marines, carry some vehicles, and with some alteration probably be used in some lower draft situations. At some point we are going to hear of a scandal where shipbuilders are just funneling $$ into retirement accounts of current Marine generals. That makes more sense than the whole concept of the LAW after this latest admission.
DeleteI now recall this has already been proposed to support all naval operations, since big cargo ships are big targets and need big ports.
ReplyDelete"There is a surplus of offshore support vessels (OSVs) that could be purchased and put into Military Sealift Command (MSC) service, along with other commercial vessels that could be modified for CLF purposes."
https://cimsec.org/usns-dreadnaught-combat-logistics-force-21st-century-warfare/
Somehow my first comment was deleted when I published the second. I backed up to copy and paste.
DeleteIf they won't be in combat, then the Marines don't need LAWs. Just buy a few dozen varied (used) coastal freighters with cranes to off-load and some bunker barges and add them to the MPF pre-po fleet or Sealift Command manned by civilians. If they are to hide in plain sight, you don't want them with the same unique design painted Navy grey. If they are to cruise about unescorted, you want cheap/used freighters. And the Marines can do this now, without spending a billion dollars over a decade to design and test a LAW.
Your comment wound up in the blog spam folder. This is an occasional problem over which I have no control and which seems to have rhyme or reason. Just rest assured that if you submit a comment, it will eventually appear. I check the spam folder several times per day so it shouldn't take too long to appear.
DeleteThem LAWs seem to be confusing Berger, rather than China. Hah!
ReplyDeleteBesides, why call them War-ships if they won't go to war?
ReplyDeleteI think this is a trend that started with the Littoral Combat Ship.
DeleteWouldn't the Philipines be to far away to affect the actions around Taiwan?
ReplyDeleteIf so, then even if they are allowed to operate unhindered (the Marines), then what is the point/ utility?
Don't let something as trivial as geography get in the way of a stupid idea! :D
DeleteThis sounds to me like:
ReplyDelete1. USMC move before hostilities, fire and then Chinese find us and we die. Basically, it's suicide mission for every Marine that fires it's ASMs and then just waits to be located by Chinese.
2. Dream world where 4, 6 or 8 ASMs are going to deter China from invading Taiwan.....from the South Philippines?!? Not sure how you going to interdict for very long the invasion force with that few missiles or distance from there.....
3. USMC admits it can't fight with LAWs and can't admit it. (sounds like LCS all over again!!!)
One of the increasingly disturbing trends in professional military thinking/planning is the number and magnitude of assumptions that have to hold true in order for our plans to work. Distributed lethality, mine countermeasures, amphibious assaults (are we doing them or not?), Marine missile shooting, and so forth can only work if a large number of very unlikely/impossible assumptions hold true. Despite this dependence on assumptions, we're basing our planning and force structure on them. We seem to have forgotten that Murphy still roams the battlefield, laughing at all our assumptions. None of this will end well.
Delete"USMC move before hostilities"
DeleteAnd therein lies one of [many] problems with the concept. If we're going to move and be in place prior to the commencement of hostilities, we're certainly not going to get permission to operate in/on Philippines territory so how do we position ourselves there? Expanding that, we don't actually own ANY islands in the Chinese theater so how are we going to position ourselves anywhere?
I have yet to hear the Marines explain that one.
Why build any ship that you don't envision using in combat?
ReplyDeleteRelatively easy solution to providing the Marines with "light amphibious warships": Order a flight of Constellation class frigates with helipads rated for the CH-53K King Stallion. The King Stallion can transport Marines and the missiles they need for the littoral mission- which will likely take two or more trips, but...
ReplyDeleteAnyways, they're frigates with the ability to defend themselves from enemy air, surface, and submarine attacks; and a 26-knot speed so they can get to where they're needed much sooner than the Marines "Light Amphibious Warships" IN NAME ONLY. And if it turns out the Marines' littoral mission doesn't make sense? They're still frigates, able to serve in the same missions you'd use a frigate for- admittedly overpriced frigates, due to the need to build them capable of handling the massive CH-53K, but at least they're not dead weight like the Light Amphibious Warships.
The hiding in traffic and avoiding hostilities are non-starters. We need standard self defense packages on everything. Make them pay for it and have to commit to an attack. Then survive it. I can see a traditional LST. I'd still be interested in something faster. Remember, this ship still hits the beach, not a pier. That said, we might want a ship that lives with having a pier available. This would be especially true if we are trying to get units staged before a conflict.
ReplyDelete"We need standard self defense packages on everything."
DeleteThat's interesting. In WWII, a 'standard' self-defense package would have been something along the lines of one or two 5" guns, 2-4 dual 40 mm Bofors, and a dozen or so 20 mm Oerlikons. Given today's anti-ship missile threat as well as air attack, what would you consider a 'standard' self-defense package and can it physically fit on smaller vessels like an LST?
I'd want SEWIP with NULKA, SRBOC, NIXIE, SEARAM, and Mk 38 mod IV. I'd also grab the anti UAV gear off SHORADS or the Bahrain FRCs. That's a plan based on using things we have.
DeleteRadars for detection, tracking, and fire control are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for a ship to defend herself from conventional military threats, including air and missile attacks. SeaRAM has its own radar, but this radar- and the weapons it finds targets for- are short-ranged. Long-ranged radars are expensive, require specialized manufacturing facilities to make- which can be an extremely time-consuming process, due to difficulty getting the necessary components- and require specialized maintenance to keep functional.
DeleteAnd after you jump through all those hoops to get a radar you can mount on an amphibious warship, to defend her from enemy aircraft and missiles, what's stopping a general or admiral from saying, "We need this set for [insert mission here]," and commandeering it before the radar even leaves the factory?
If you want to sneak in Marines, go back to the WWII Marine Raiders and how they were inserted: submarines. If I recall correctly, the USS Nautilus and USS Argonaut, which were mine-laying submarines, were used to deliver two companies of Raiders (one company each) to assault Makin Island. At least with submarines, their chances of survival or success might improve.
ReplyDeleteThere is a complete absence of logic with this. The Navy already wants to ditch LSD's, Congress does not, and I'm guessing the Marines don't want the big amphibs to go away either. The Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) with the Philippines (signed in 1951) is still intact and Luzon is around 630 miles from Taipei. There is no love loss between the Philippines and the PRC, especially after a Chinese fishing vessel rammed and sank a Filipino fishing vessel in July of 2019.
Submarines could land a small number of troops but it couldn't transport and land their missiles and launch vehicles, if that's what you're thinking. It would be good for landing coastwatchers but nothing more.
DeleteI don't know what the general populace thinks about China but the government has been pursuing close relations with China in the form of military aid and training, financing, etc. At this moment, Philippines would be far more likely to side with China than the US.
"I don't know what the general populace thinks about China but the government has been pursuing close relations with China in the form of military aid and training, financing, etc. At this moment, Philippines would be far more likely to side with China than the US."
DeleteFixing that, if it can still be fixed, should be a priority for USA foreign policy, as the Philippines are very likely key to the first island chain.
Marcos is a big fan of China, and China has been building and financing a lot of major infrastructure projects that are badly needed. One of the huge new inter-island bridges makes landfall about 8km from our 2nd home in Negros Occidental. There is a lot of enthusiasm for these projects that should not be underestimated.
DeleteI wonder if Berger realizes how close he is to destroying USMC. We can't be only ones here wondering not only about the concepts and LAW, getting rid of all heavy armor and artillery, etc....at some point, even DC will start to wonder " why do we need such a huge USMC?" since what does USMC do that other services don't do better or can be merged into another service???
ReplyDeleteAgreed- the Corps has been neutered and weakened into being light infantry. If it continues down this path, the need for its continued existence comes into question. The Navy spends a lot on an amphibious capability- if its not to be used, or isnt worth attempting to use, why waste the money and effort?
Delete"I wonder if Berger realizes how close he is to destroying USMC"
DeleteHomebrew conspiracy theory: What if he was chosen to do so?
This idea was stupid from the start and it just keeps getting dumber and dumber.
ReplyDeleteIt always assumed the Chinese were willing to let the USMC do as it pleases - in this case sail a glorified unarmed LCM at freighter speed to some island and lob anti ship missiles at Chinese warships.
Funny thing about LCM...I mean LAW...it is meant to be counted as a combat warship in terms of the big fleet expansion. Yet now it seems it will certainly not be sailing into harms way.
If the LAW really isn't intended for combat, maybe they should just use more of the Army's Besson Class Logistical Support Vessels (LSV). They can come up to the beach and have a longer range than the LAW, albeit a couple knots slower.
ReplyDeleteThey cost a lot less that the proposed LAW (a few tens of millions, albeit that was about 15 years ago).
I believe the Army was actually trying to auction off a couple a few years ago. Maybe they'd be willing to just give a couple to the Marines for experimentation.
What is the overall logistical plan for FD2030? I have never seen anything about the "how" of this. How do they get reloads for missiles? How do they "sneak" into these islands? How do they remain "invisible" to the potential adversary? How do they reload the missiles?
ReplyDeleteThe logistician in my just sees not quite but very steep learning curve on this. It seems they war gamed the situation but not the key to it all....the logistical tail.
"war gamed the situation but not the key to it all"
DeleteYes, yes, yes! Spot on! They appear to have started - and stopped - their planning and simulation at the moment of launch. More unanswered questions include:
- how will they obtain targeting data for over-the-horizon targets?
- how will they hide multiple, large launch and logistic trucks?
- how will they operate UAVs (if they do) without being detected and backtracked to their location?
- how will they provide for their anti-air defense?
All this from a platoon or short company size unit?
I wonder if this is all a bit of a rose. Designed to allow the USMC to train in the area, operate in the grey zone and complicate Chinese invasion planning.
ReplyDeleteIf hostilities look likely, units evacuate the islands and either join with naval units or move directly onto Taiwan.
We're talking about a handful of platoon or short company size units. That won't complicate anyone's planning any more than a handful of platoons moving to Taiwan will change the outcome of a Chinese invasion.
DeleteHave to agree with that assessment given the numbers. I thought there would be a lot more marines in the area since a lot of the USMC was transitioning into this type of force structure.
Delete"I thought there would be a lot more marines in the area since a lot of the USMC was transitioning into this type of force structure.
DeleteThat's one of the [many] mysteries surrounding this concept. The plan seems to only require one or two hundred troops. What the other 180,000 very lightly armed Marines will be doing is unknown.