The Marines are moving ahead with acquiring the Israeli Iron Dome system in a modified form.
… USMC officials have developed and tested an MRIC [Medium Range Intercept Capability] prototype that removes the Rafael-made Iron Dome launcher from its heavy base, mounts it on the back of a trailer to fire Tamir missiles, and integrates it with other service capabilities.[1]
Why are the Marines doing this? A Breaking Defense article offers this,
Growing concerns about cruise missile threats have prompted US military leaders to hunt for innovative ways to quickly field new air defenses.[1]
Here’s a bit more,
Ultimately, the service wants to outfit three Marine Air Wings each with an MRIC battery by the end of 2028 … [1]
So, these anti-air units would, presumably, be used to defend Marine air bases? Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO)?
The entire point of the Marine’s small unit, hidden base concept is that they’re hidden. Clearly these units would not be suitable for that, given their size and large amount of required resources and support, as we see here,
… in addition to utilizing the truck-mounted Iron Dome launcher paired with the Tamir interceptors, it also uses the Common Aviation Command-and-Control System (CAC2S) and a mini battle management control (BMC) system for the Tamir missile, along with the AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR).[1]
That’s only suitable and viable for a large, well established base. This could fit with the EABO concept if the EABO base is large. That being the case, this is the Guadalcanal scenario where the base is well known to the enemy and we’re in a continuous, pitched battle for the base’s survival.
 |
| Marine Iron Dome Test |
Of course, we next have to wonder if the system is even suitable and effective as an anti-missile system. Remember that the Israeli Iron Dome was developed as an anti-rocket system, not an anti-missile system. Can it actually intercept cruise missiles? Supposedly the Marines tested the system, however, the description of the testing leaves much to be desired and engenders a lot of doubts.
… the USMC wrapped up its series of three MRIC live-fire tests in September 2022 when it used the more mobile, expeditionary launcher for the first time against several threats including a maneuvering target.[1]
It’s clear from the preceding that the Marine’s testing was mostly conducted under non-representative conditions as the mobile launcher and a maneuvering target were only used during the wrap up testing and the suggestion is that was a one-time event. Did they test it against supersonic targets? Targets with electronic warfare penetration aids? Saturation attacks? Targets with terminal evasive maneuver capability? In bad weather? Against sea-skimming targets?
Given the example of the fraudulent Marine testing and declaration of IOC for the F-35 (see, “Pencil Whipped”), one cannot help but be highly suspicious.
Is that the extent of the concerns? No, there’s also cybersecurity issues.
Questions abound about the [cyber]security of weaving these capabilities together … the Army has flagged it as a prime concern and said it does not plan to integrate the two Iron Dome batteries it currently has in its inventory into its larger air defense architecture.[1]
In fact, the Army has selected a different system instead of Iron Dome.
Does it make sense for the Army and Marines to have selected two different systems for the exact same application? Isn’t that a bit like the Navy building both the Freedom and Independence variant LCS for the exact same application? We see how that worked out.
One of the potential missions for both Army and the Marines is to defend Air Force bases. Wouldn’t it make more sense if they each had the same equipment?
Summation
As with almost every decision the Marines have made over the last several years, I’m at a loss to understand exactly what the Marines are trying to accomplish. I’m all for anti-air defense systems but is selecting a non-Army standard, unproven, large footprint, anti-rocket system really the best way to go about defending against potentially supersonic cruise missiles? Does that really fit with the missile-shooting concept or the EABO concept?
__________________________________
[1]Breaking Defense, “Marines greenlight mobile Iron Dome launcher development, seek 2025 prototype fielding”, Ashley Roque, 5-Jan-2023,
