As you know, the key to the Marines idiotic missile sniping
(and ASW!) concept is the Light Amphibious Warship, now being called a Landing
Ship Medium (some admiral-wannabe probably got another star for that
reclassification!) in the latest churn which attempts to look like
progress. The LAW/LSM is already a few
years late as the Marines have already stood up their littoral regiments (they
haven’t explained how they’ll transport those Marines since the LAW/LSM does
not yet exist).
The Navy has seemed reluctant to embrace the Marine’s
concept and has slow-walked the LAW/LSM program, as noted in the GAO annual
report.[1]
So, the Navy is going to purchase ships that they know will not meet the requirements? Do you know what a ship that can’t meet the requirements is called? That’s right, it’s areef, paperweight,
target drone, LCS, embarrassment .
Is the Navy at least moving quickly on the Block 2 version
that fully meets the requirements?
They haven’t even defined the requirements, yet?
I can’t see anything going wrong with this program.
___________________________________
… after years of delays and affordability concerns, the Navy shifted to a two-block acquisition strategy in December 2024 that reduces requirements for the ships in the first block and defers pursuit of a ship that will fully meet requirements to a later block.[1]
So, the Navy is going to purchase ships that they know will not meet the requirements? Do you know what a ship that can’t meet the requirements is called? That’s right, it’s a
… program officials said they have yet to start planning the details of the transition to the second block, such as the timing of the transition or the requirements of the next block.[1]
They haven’t even defined the requirements, yet?
I'm being extra generous when I say this, ok, its not easy to build a new carrier, a new SSBN, a new jet fighter,etc....these are complex machines that cost a lot of money and take time BUT SERIOUSLY, this is a glorified WW2 LSM!!!! This is nothing in terms of engineering, complexity, build,etc....USN should be able to do this sleeping!!!! There's no excuse here!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe USN/USMC Team is lost.
ReplyDeleteWell it seems at least to me. Im not sure I understand the purpose of the USMC. All Ive heard lately is island hopping anti-ship missile teams. Maybe Im being to simplistic.
ReplyDeleteI guess this explains everything:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.marines.mil/force-design/
Personally, I like my own fictional stories better. They're more realistic than the Marine's.
DeleteLOL Then I guess you hated this:
ReplyDeleteFirst to Fight
A Capstone OperationalConcept
https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jun/16/2003949217/-1/-1/0/FIRST_TO_FIGHT_A_CAPSTONE_OPERATING_CONCEPT_MAY_2026.PDF
Ditributed Lethality seems to be the current paradigm and has been talked about for over a decade. Somehow Im not sure the right platforms, sensors and weapons are available or will be soon. And the USN still seems wedded to the Carrier Battle Group. And I truly dont see how the BBGN fits. But Im off topic.
ReplyDeleteI hope the LSM is everything the USMC wants but I understand the first ships will have:
Lower Survivability
Austere C4I
Minimal self-defense weapons
Plus it takes 3 years to build. The design as far as I can tell hasnt been finalised and us based on a Bollinger aAND a Damen design. So earliest 2029. For protection hide innplain sight ie ocean clutter. Then use island geography and be defended by USMC AA and anti-ship umbrella set up on the island(s). And when in the open ocean protected by what else DDG 51s!!! What can possibly go wrong???
DeleteI surely dont know what to make of this:
Delete“The Navy approved the Damen LST-100 base design as the standard fleet architecture for the broader McClung-class. However, it awarded Bollinger Shipyards the contract to build the very first hull using its ILSV package to jump-start domestic manufacturing line setups.“
Ok. Got it. In 2025 Bollinger got a contract to buy raw materials as the requirements are simlar for both designs. Bollinger will build to Damen blueprints adapted to US measurements. What could go wrong. This contract also allowed Bollinger to hirer workers and clear space to build. A ship construction manager instead of USN will oversee. Bollinger builds first ship then Fincantieri Marinette will build next four!!! What could go wrong??? This is built off bits and pieces I could find .
ReplyDeleteFincantieri gets to build four ships to make up for the four canceled Constellations. Three more are in the 2.2B contract for 8 total. Remains to be seen who builds them. TOTE is the name of the construction manager who I understand got the contract that Bollinger and Fincantieri build off of. Hope I havnt confused the issue but in my defense it all seems a bit inherently convoluted.
ReplyDeleteFunny thing about USN ship building:
ReplyDeleteEven though the first restart DDG 51 was commissioned in 2017 but five Ticos were decommissioned in FY 2022 and four in 2023 it took all the new construction to that point to replace them one for one albeit a bit inferior. Even now with another four slated to be decommissioned soon(19 total with three more the next two years)enough Burkes still havnt been built to replace them and wont be quickly. The hazards of sudden decommissioning s for block obsolesence or whatever reasoning.
My bad two soon and 4 next year and the last 2028.
ReplyDeleteA far, far better option for the Marines, the Martin P6M SeaMaster jet powered seaplane from 1959.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_P6M_SeaMaster
G2mil
Marines can re-start the SOCOM C130 Float Plane conversion program in the link and use existing C130s in Marine Corps inventory
Deletehttps://www.twz.com/air/c-130-float-plane-program-put-on-pause-by-special-operations-command
Problem is the capacity of any aviation asset is much less than ship borne and an MLR is basically a reinforced Battalion with a lo t of heavy vehicles line the NMESIS.
Seaplanes are limited but survivable. If Marines hope to resupply light forces in contested areas, they need seaplanes to fly in with air cover, dump supplies, and fly away within a hour. Slow, unescorted amphibs will be sunk by enemy subs, aircraft or drones within a few hours of entering a hostile zone.
DeleteLook at the situation right now in the Persian Gulf. Marines in Bahrain need supplies. Would you send a couple seaplanes to drop supplies off, or send an LSM into the Persian Gulf?
DeleteCamp Issa in Bahrain is far from the coast and has a large airfield. You can send C17s or contracted FedEx aircraft like they regularly do.
DeleteI assume people watch the news of airbases getting blasted almost daily from Iran. It would be the same problem with China.
DeleteThe P6M was a bomber although it could be easily refitted for cargo, one assumes. More troublesome is that the combat range is listed as 760 miles with a 30,000 lb payload. That's not much range for supplying forward bases in the first island chain.
DeleteSetting all that aside, does it seem plausible that a large, non-stealthy, unarmed, slow cargo plane, of whatever type, would be survivable in a forward operating area? We seem to acknowledge that slow, non-stealthy ships would not survive so why would the airborne equivalent be survivable?
"Marines can re-start the SOCOM C130 Float Plane"
DeleteDoes it seem plausible that a large, non-stealthy, unarmed, slow cargo plane, float or otherwise, of whatever type, would be survivable in a forward operating area? We seem to acknowledge that slow, non-stealthy ships would not survive so why would the airborne equivalent be survivable?
"Seaplanes are limited but survivable."
DeleteNot in a contested environment which is what supply for first island chain bases would be. Large, slow, non-stealthy, and unarmed is what's referred to as a target drone.
A seaplane MIGHT be useful in ancillary roles around the periphery of a conflict but that's not applicable to this scenario.
"Marines in Bahrain need supplies. Would you send a couple seaplanes to drop supplies off, or send an LSM into the Persian Gulf?"
DeleteA ship, without a doubt! If we can't ensure the safety of a ship against a beaten down, third rate military then we have bigger problems than supplying some Marines.
"I assume people watch the news of airbases getting blasted almost daily from Iran"
DeleteCome on, now. That's not even remotely true. Airbases are not betting blasted almost daily. The occasional missile launches from Iran are mostly aimed at undefended, foreign facilities. There have been only a few attacks on US airbases in the entire war and negligible damage done, given the scope of the war.
"Not much appears in our corporate news, but a few websites provide good info."
DeleteI'm sorry but I had to delete your comment. The video and site you referenced is the most blatant propaganda I've seen in quite some time. That alone doesn't mean it isn't true but the site offers NO authoritative supporting documentation. THAT instantly disqualifies it from being displayed on this blog. I insist that everything be documented and factual.
The videos are extensively blurred out which makes them totally generic and unrelatable to any actual events. This further weakens any credibility. We have repeatedly seen the Iranians cobble together stock footage of weapons to create fictional stories and this is exactly what the site's videos appear to be.
I'm sorry but without independent, supporting evidence I cannot publish these links. Thank you for understanding.
The Royal Navy is doing the same with their Type 31 general purpose frigates, except they call it a Capability Insertion Period (CIP).
ReplyDeleteThe first T31's are being built with a 12 cell (2 x 6 cells) Sea Ceptor array to be replaced at a later (underdermined date) with a 32-cell strike length Mk 41array.
This not a way to build and operate a navy.
The problem with all the "equipped for but not with" options is that they are almost never upgraded. What they have at launch is what they forever wind up with.
DeleteThe modernized Catalina, using the exact same CONOPS from its WWII success, could be in the air now.
Deletehttps://catalinaaircrafttrust.com/ngaa-home
Looking4NSFS
"The modernized Catalina"
DeleteHow do you envision a large, slow, non-stealthy aircraft penetrating the first island chain without being detected and shot down? I keep asking this question of everyone who offers a seaplane solution and no one has yet answered. Will you be the first? If not, then the idea is not viable.
"The modernized Catalina"
DeleteBefore you go touting the Catalina as a model for today's combat, you might check out the loss rates for the Catalina in combat zones. Here's the numbers: PBY Catalina
The Catalina was survivable, to the limited extent it was, due to the very short range of the predominant sensor of the time: the eyeball. It's value was in the peripheral roles rather than combat scouting or contested resupply.
Consider this quote from the CO of the Philippines PBY squadron: "... Lieutenant Commander Frank O’Beirne, the commanding officer of VP-22, stated that the PBY Catalina was “effective only for patrols in areas where the enemy do not have strong aerial concentrations. Even then, if any enemy planes are present, they cannot outrun or outfight the attackers.”
Today's infrared, optical, radar, and satellite sensors combined with very long range air-to-air missiles make the survivability of a modern seaplane problematic, to say the least.
They could be useful but only in carefully employed, peripheral roles.
While I love the USMC, there is absolutely 0 chance that a poorly defined expensive ship without a CONOP that is a service priority will receive funds while the Navy needs the funds and shipyards for national priorities such as Carriers and MIssile Subs. This is why the purchase and operation of the LSM are set into the second half of the next Presidential Administration.
ReplyDeleteMarines have 3 options:
1) Repurpose existing Navy assets. LCS are capable of carrying 150 to 200 troops and can also tow at sea while being available in the Western Pacific. Marines just need to develop ways to offload personnel and equipment.
2) Just like the Army decided to develop an in-house landing ship capability, Marines can purchase Runnymeade class LCUs out of their budget and retrain AAV Marines to operate them. This will cost $140 to $150 million per ship according to CBO but does tie up shipyards.
3) Most feasible and immediate option is to purchase Offshore Support Vessels from oil companies and crew them with contract sailors. This is the most rapid option and has precedent in how the British used cruise liners in the Falklands. Cost is $50 to $150 million. While they are more range limited, OSVs have dynamic stability which allows for a range of options to offload onto a beach or a pier. Best of all, this option is reversible when a future administration decides that Marine Littoral Regiments should be re-configured into the next fashionable idea.
Forget about whether it's a LCS, Runnymeade, or any other vessel, does it seem plausible to you that a slow, non-stealthy, lightly armed vessel operating singly in enemy controlled (or at least heavily contested) air and water will be survivable?
DeleteThe concept of hiding in plain sight with Marine on the deck is not believable, especially since there are either drones or Chinese spies in just about any Pacific nation, but the idea of the LCU being survivable all depends on the scenario. In a pre-hostility scenario where we are pre-staging, survival is not a concern. In a post hostility scenario, survival depends upon what escorts and support the Navy can provide and even LPDs and LHAs are vulnerable without adequate submarine and aviation support.
Delete"In a post hostility scenario, survival depends upon what escorts"
DeleteThis is not correct for the use the Marines intend. The Marines want a single vessel that can (they foolishly believe) sail into the first island chain ALONE and clandestinely drop off the Marines and conduct subsequent resupply so that the Marines remain hidden and unknown the enemy. A convoy of supporting Navy ships would preclude and invalidate the concept. Thus, the Marine's ship will be operating alone and depend for survival only on the Chinese being totally blind and ignorant to single vessels sailing around the first island chain. Boy, it's hard to write that without laughing!
The LSMs will be an anchor on a dwindling fleet. We don't need 25K+ and 45K+ amphibs only. We don't even need 16k repeats of our later Cold War Designs. The smallest LCAC able LSDs were the Thomaston's which could also sustain 20 knots. We need a cheap LSD around 12k tonne. No EASR radar and composites. It could still have 2 large helo spots or 4 small. Carry a company and 500-550 tonnes of gear using cheaper, higher capacity connectors. Give the LSMs to the army, play with the experimental connectors which are actually cheap and useful in the western Pacific intra-theater. Plan an LSD that we can use for small island, distributed operations support or any more traditional MAGTF/MEU operation..
ReplyDelete"We need a cheap LSD around 12k tonne"
DeleteWe're discussing establishment and resupply of small, hidden bases in the first island chain. Does it seem plausible to you that a small, slow, non-stealthy, nearly unarmed vessel would be survivable in that scenario?
If you're talking about a small LSD in a general amphibious role, that's a separate topic.
@Anon: "The LSMs will be an anchor on a dwindling fleet."
DeleteThis is the real problem: a lack of focus on priorities.
The USA should be building three (3) SSNs per year, and four (4) to five (5) more conventional submarines (pick a current German, or Japanese boat design under license).
Buying ships to fulfill ill-defined requirements, to be built to unknown specifications, for a sister service that has not demonstrated the validity of a mission set is insane given the dire need for weapons and platforms that exists today.
GAB
"The LSMs will be an anchor on a dwindling fleet."
DeleteThe Marines have publicly stated that they are out of the frontal, opposed, amphibious assault business. If we take them at their word then, by their own admission, they have no need for big deck amphibious ships or ship-embarked air wings since they will be limited to unopposed, unloadings rather than assaults. For unopposed unloadings LSTs and/or RO/ROs would be more useful than the current amphibious ships. Since the LSM is neither, it would seem to be unneeded.
Again, this is basically the Marines saying this by logical extension of their stated policy rather than just my opinion.
One could take this logic a step further and ask why, if all we need is to unload in an unopposed scenario, we even need a Marine Corps? The Army/AF can fly troops and equipment anywhere in the world and in far less time than it would take a MEU to respond to a crisis.
I have stated that the core mission of the Marines should be port seizure (and maybe airbase seizure?) but the Marines have no interest in that mission. Instead, they want to snipe missiles at the occasional passing ship and conduct ASW in some unexplained and unimaginable fashion. The Marines are adrift and rudderless.
I couldnt agree with you more. But by law the USN must maintain 31 Amphibs. Just read a lawmaker wants to raise that to 33. Unfortunately the new LSM doesnt count. But like you state the USMC seems to have no real purpose except maybe to contribute F35C squadrons to the Carrier Air Wing.
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately the new LSM doesnt count"
DeleteJust as a point of interest, I think the LSM would count. The law specifies 31 amphibs with 10 being LHA/LHD. The remaining 21 are not type-specified so I see no reason why they wouldn't count unless someone classifies them as non-amphibious.
“Section 1023 of the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 7776/P.L. 117-
Delete263 of December 23, 2022) amended 10 U.S.C. 8062 to require the Navy to include not less than
31 operational larger amphibious ships, including not less than 10 LHA/LHD-type “big-deck”
amphibious assault ships and the remaining ships to be LPD-type or older LSD-type amphibious
ships. “
I cannot find that. Do you have a link?
DeleteIts from a CRS report. Trying to find it again. As I forgot to save it.
Deletehttps://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43543
Deletehttps://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ263/PLAW-117publ263.pdf
DeleteIt is also in the Omnibus, but the markups are no longer on the House Committee on Appropriations website. :(
Remember that *All* authorizations are subject to appropriation; and no Congress is beholden to another (previous Congress's actions).
GAB
You mentioned USMC ASW. Found this:
ReplyDeletehttps://cimsec.org/make-asw-joint-integrating-the-joint-force-into-full-spectrum-asw/
Since at least 2020. I vaguely remember reading about this. But forgot about it:
Deletehttps://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/november/marines-will-help-fight-submarines
Things in the military happen excruciatingly slowly.
Okay, now analyze the article and tell us what about it is relevant to the Marine's concept of small, hidden bases in the first island chain.
Delete"Since at least 2020."
DeleteDid you actually read that piece of buzzword garbage? It was a combination of pure fantasy and buzzword public relations spin.
Please, before you post anymore articles, read them and make sure they have some small degree of relevance, reality, and specifics. Thank you.
Since you brought up ASW in your first line. I thought the two articles were relevant and about as detailed as you could get from the time. Sorry to have offended.
DeleteThe articles were useless generalities and PR spin. Feel free to point out some specific aspect that you feel is relevant and informative. Perhaps I missed something.
DeleteI did not see a single specific about how the Marines would conduct ASW from small, hidden, island bases. Did you? The only slightly specific mention was a reference to MQ-9Bs, however, those are massive aircraft and require fully capable airbases to operate from with control stations, maintenance hangers, runways, etc. which, obviously, totally negates the Marine's stated intent of operating small, hidden bases.
The articles brought up the first island chain. And possibilities for USMC to wage ASW. But even so your blog didnt mention “small, hidden bases”. Just how MLRs were to get around. The 3rd MLR just finished an exercise in the Phillipines to test its concepts sans ASW. No mention on how they got there. I will refrain from linking the relevant article. My only thought was to explore the ASW concept you mentioned. Again sorry to cause offence. If you would like me to post what I thought relevant I will. But alas direct quotes on “small, hidden” there are none. So Im not sure you would be assuaged by other passages I thought were relevant.
ReplyDeleteThe blog assumes a certain degree of familiarity with subject matter. In this case, it has been well understood for some years, now, that the Marine's vision of ASW is tied directly to their missile sniping concept which is founded on small (platoon size) units, hidden on islands in the first island chain. Berger, after receiving extensive criticism about the missile sniping concept, began to throw out other supposed justifications for the concept, one of which was that these platoons would conduct ASW in some unspecified manner. Now you know what you should have understood without needing a full explanation. If there is anything you feel is relevant and specifically informative in the articles as pertains to this, feel free to cite and discuss. I saw nothing.
DeleteIn fact i forgot to mention your blog didnt bring up “first island chain” either. I just went off ASW which you specifically brought up.
ReplyDelete"forgot to mention your blog didnt bring up “first island chain” either."
DeleteAs you undoubtedly know (and seemed to ignore), the entire rationale for the LAW was to establish and support the Marine's small, hidden, missile-sniping platoons. The entire rationale for even needing such a capability was to emplace them in the first island chain in a war with China. This was Berger's attempt to find a role for the Marines in a war with China. With this fundamental background well known and established for some years, there was no need to specifically mention the first island chain since everyone (except, apparently, you) understood the scenario.
As I said, a certain degree of familiarity with the subject matter is required to interact on the blog. You seem not to possess that level of knowledge. Please study the background before commenting again.