New fleet needed: Marines could go to war on small carriers, commercial vessels - Lebanon news - أخبار لبنان

New fleet needed: Marines could go to war on small carriers, commercial vessels

New fleet needed: Marines could go to war on small carriers, commercial vessels

Changes in how the Navy and Marine Corps fight together could see Marines aboard both military and commercial ships as they traverse crowded seas, accompanied by small aircraft carriers filled with unmanned drones.

Both the Marine Corps commandant and his top general at combat development are looking at new ways that Marines and an evolving Navy fleet will fight in the crowded sea space of future wars.

And at least one analyst called plans by Commandant Gen. David Berger a “once-in-a-generation” change in Marine Corps thinking.

Berger’s planning guidance, released in July, looks to move away from the unfeasible 38-amphib ship goal and instead use a mix of amphib ships, smaller expeditionary sea bases, fast transport ships and even commercial ships to move Marines.

This is all an effort, Berger wrote in an article for the website War On the Rocks, titled “Notes on Designing the Marine Corps of the Future,” for the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard to design its own “cabbage strategy.”

That’s a reference to the Chinese method of enveloping a contested area with a variety of boats, from commercial fishing ships to marine surveillance ships and actual warships that wraps an area in layers, like a cabbage.

That scenario makes conventional warfare and naval deterrence and access much more difficult, creating hazards that have international consequences such as a military vessel colliding with a commercial ship.

Get the Marine Corps Times Daily News Roundup Don’t miss the top Marine Corps stories, delivered each afternoon

Subscribe

Enter a valid email address (please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D’ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Thanks for signing up!

×

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Marine Corps Times Daily News Roundup.

And to meet that challenge, Berger points out, the current forward bases and infrastructure all within range of enemy weapons, are “extremely vulnerable.”

As are the large ships now in service with “large electronic, acoustic, or optical signatures.”

The shift in how Marines would fight from and back to the sea also changes how the Navy could fight.

Vice Adm. James Kilby, who heads war fighting requirements and capabilities, said that traditionally, naval leaders think of how Marines influence the land component of a sea battle, not the sea. But if they can have effects on sea access and deny enemies movement, then he, as a naval commander can think differently about how to employ his ships.

All of which support recent statements from top Marine leadership that the force has to get lighter, work in smaller formations in support of naval operations, said Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, head of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command.

Getting lighter pairs with “lightning carrier” experimentation ― using smaller aircraft carriers that take advantage of the F-35 capabilities. It even calls for an air wing that consists “mostly or entirely of unmanned aerial vehicles.”

Those comments are from a Thursday a U.S. Naval Institute panel, an article by Berger published the same day and a Congressional Research Service report published in November.

The panel featured Smith, Kilby and Ronald O’Rourke, naval affairs specialist for Congressional Research Service.

Drawing on his CRS report, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” O’Rourke said that combined changes advocated for both force design and managing and training Marines falls somewhere between, “a total house cleaning and a complete revolution for the Marine Corps.”

O’Rourke noted that the long-held goal of a 38-ship amphibious force within the larger 355-ship Navy was to meet the requirement to lift assault echelons of two Marine Expeditionary Brigades. That requirement dates to 2006.

leave a reply

*

code

error: Content is protected !!