United States Marine Corps: News

The US Marine Corps began to receive new wheeled armored personnel carriers ACV

U.S. Marine Corps disbanded its last tank battalion

I sincerely hope that if the need for tankers ever arises again, the fighting spirit that has been inherent in our battalion for most of a century will be resurrected and inspire the next generations of Marines, as it was on November 1, 1941.

The Marine Corps is gearing up to conduct combat exercises with its information warriors. Doesn't sound like the leathernecks of yore, does it? As America's military transitions from the global war on terror to great-power competition with near-peers like Russia and China, the Marines are rethinking what they need to deter or defeat in the future. One area where they need to bolster skills is protection of battlefield networks, because Russia and China are able to conduct cyber attacks and electronic warfare.

So the Marines are putting more emphasis on information operations in their preparations for combat, because if your communications are jammed or your intelligence data is corrupted in wartime, fighting effectively could be hard. The latest Marine Operating Concept (the Corps' plan for fighting and winning future wars) is heavily focused on securing and exploiting the electromagnetic spectrum.

Once you get beyond that innovation, though, what you find is a service returning to its roots: maneuver warfare, amphibious operations, "every Marine a rifleman." And with good reason. The operational environment of the future looks better suited to the agile, expeditionary strengths of the Marine Corps than it does to the ponderous, industrial-age traditions of the Army. The Marines have made rising China the pacing threat for their plans, while the Army is focused mainly on Russia in Europe. The White House cares more about China.

Because the Marine Corps and Navy are so much better prepared for combat in the Western Pacific than the Army and Air Force are -- at least, once you get away from the Korean Peninsula -- there is a case to be made that the Marines will dominate U.S. ground combat operations in the future. They certainly look poised to be called on more frequently than the Army for missions like crisis response and regional deterrence.

In fact, if Washington scales back its military presence in Korea and U.S. relations with European NATO nations stay on their present vector, the Army might have trouble finding things to do in the years ahead. Not so the Marine Corps, which will be forward deployed near every potential flashpoint in the global littorals where 80% of the world's population and the vast preponderance of its commerce are found. Here are five reasons why the Marine Corps is likely to be the face of U.S. ground combat operations in the future.

An identity that matches what national strategy requires today. The Marine Corps is a naval expeditionary force focused on maneuver warfare and amphibious operations. What that means in practical terms is that the Marines are postured for fast foreign deployment, and they are based at sea rather than depending on land bases. They defeat enemies by throwing them off balance, using the sea as a maneuver space to surprise and deceive. Because their bases are mobile and positioned near trouble spots, they will almost always be the first foreign troops that respond. The Marine Corps is thus uniquely prepared for a world of unpredictable threats and fluid relations.


Training that focuses on basic warfighting skills and adaptability. Expeditionary warfare requires self-sufficiency, so Marines are trained to operate in austere conditions with minimal assistance from other services. Their combat units combine ground, air, logistical and command elements in an integrated structure focused on the support of infantry. Whatever their combat specialties may be, all Marines receive basic infantry training so that they can operate flexibly in fast-moving campaigns. Marine warfighting doctrine delegates responsibility to the lowest levels within combat units, and encourages initiative among junior personnel. U.S. Marines thus tend to be more resilient than the warfighters of other nations.

Technology that surpasses enemy gear and fits the moment. Although the Marine Corps claims only 7% of the defense budget and receives a fraction of what the Army does for equipment, it has invested wisely. Its MV-22 Osprey is the world's only operational tilt-rotor, combining the vertical agility of a helicopter with the speed and range of a fixed-wing plane. Its F-35B fighter is the world's only stealthy tactical aircraft capable of landing on a dime, without a runway. Its Amphibious Combat Vehicle (awarded to BAE Systems this week) will be the most capable ship-to-shore fighting vehicle ever built. So Marines have options for assaulting and defeating hostile forces that other services lack.

A warrior culture that emphasizes bravery and self-sacrifice. Anyone who volunteers for military service knows they might have to die for their nation. However, awareness of that fact seems closer to the surface in Marine Corps culture than in the other services. Marines are taught to be tough, exhibiting physical and moral courage in the most harrowing circumstances. Although Marine formations are scalable and tailorable to tactical challenges, combat training focuses on small units that, as the Corps puts it, are led by warfighters "biased to action." The end result is highly disciplined killers who can respond to any contingency across the spectrum of conflict.

A leadership that is politically adept but principled. Marines tend to operate more effectively in political jobs than warfighters hailing from other military services. It is no coincidence that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff both come from the smallest of the four military services under the Department of Defense. The Marine Corps seems to have done a better job than the Army of training its general officers for sensitive joint assignments, and as a result Marine thinking permeates the senior leadership of the national defense establishment. This presumably influences how warfighting options are assessed when conflicts arise.

To summarize, the competencies, training, technology, culture and influence of the Marine Corps make it more likely to be the preferred choice in future ground combat campaigns than the Army. If prolonged occupation of other countries is required then the superior numbers of the Army's active and reserve components might make it a crucial contributor to any campaign. But at the moment domestic political sensibilities seem to be trending away from long-term occupations, just as they are trending away from support for European defense. Nation building is not a franchise for the future, nor is the protection of allies who seem unwilling to help themselves.

However, there is one facet of Marine Corps preparedness that needs to be addressed if the service is to achieve its full potential in support of future military operations. A military organization that relies on warships for its bases needs an adequate number of warships. At the moment, the Marine Corps is several ships short of the 38 amphibious vessels it would need to lift two full expeditionary brigades, and that's before items like wartime attrition are taken into account. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has calculated the Marines actually need 40 "amphibs" -- 11 large-deck, 29 small-deck -- to meet future operating requirements, and that is probably the right number.

Those ships are purchased and operated by the Navy, which has to balance the demands of amphibious warfare against the competing needs of surface warfare, undersea warfare, and naval aviation communities (not to mention the Navy's contribution to the nuclear triad). President Trump has provided a fiscal framework for eventually getting to 38 amphibious warships, but at the rate they are being built, that will take a long, long time. Considering how indispensible the Marine Corps is likely to be in the future operating environment, it seems there is a convincing case to be made for accelerating the pace at which warships suitable for amphibious warfare are purchased and put to sea.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:
One U.S. Marine Dead, Eight Other U.S. Troops Missing and Two More Seriously Injured, in a Training Exercise Accident off the Coast of California.


https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/1-marine-dead-8-missing-after-training-accident-off-california/ar-BB17pFpo?ocid=SKY2DHP


One hell of an accident.

Hole wrote:The MV-22 can transport less then a Mi-8 but costs 5 times more. And it can only transform from heli to plane mode when the weather is fine.
The F-35B is as stealthy as a Cadillac and can haul less warload in VTOL mode then a UH-1 heli.
The ACV has been in development since the middle of the 90´s (in one form or another). Not much to show, except large bills for the taxpayer.

And the Marines got rid of their tanks. No heavy artillery. They can only fight lightly armed enemies.

Another important point: they need ships to get close to the shore, so the enemy shouldn´t have coastal defence missiles like Bal and Bastion.

GarryB wrote:The new gun system was supposed to provide fire support for landing forces on the cheap that could hit point targets out to several hundred kms with excellent precision for the price of an artillery shell instead of a million dollar cruise missile.