expeditionary advance base operations

Report to Congress on Navy Medium Landing Ship

The following is the May 24, 2023, Congressional Research Service report Navy Medium Landing Ship (LSM) (Previously Light Amphibious Warship [LAW]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress. From the report The Navy’s Medium Landing Ship (LSM) program, previously called the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program, envisions procuring a class of 18 to 35 new amphibious […]

The following is the May 24, 2023, Congressional Research Service report Navy Medium Landing Ship (LSM) (Previously Light Amphibious Warship [LAW]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

From the report

The Navy’s Medium Landing Ship (LSM) program, previously called the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program, envisions procuring a class of 18 to 35 new amphibious ships to support the Marine Corps, particularly in implementing a new Marine Corps operational concept called Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO). The Navy wants to procure the first LSM in FY2025. The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requests $14.7 million in research and development funding for the program.

The EABO concept was developed with an eye toward potential conflict scenarios with China in the Western Pacific. Under the concept, the Marine Corps envisions, among other things, having reinforced-platoon-sized Marine Corps units maneuver around the theater, moving from island to island, to fire anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and perform other missions so as to contribute, alongside Navy and other U.S. military forces, to U.S. operations to counter and deny sea control to Chinese forces. The LSMs would be instrumental to these operations, with LSMs embarking, transporting, landing, and subsequently reembarking these small Marine Corps units.

LSMs would be much smaller and individually much less expensive to procure and operate than the Navy’s current amphibious ships. Under the Navy’s FY2024 budget submission, the first LSM would be procured in FY2025 at a cost of $187.9 million, the second LSM would be procured in FY2026 at a cost of $149.2 million, the third and fourth LSMs would be procured in FY2027 at a combined cost of $297.0 million (i.e., an average cost of about $148.5 million each), and the fifth and sixth LSMs in FY2028 at a combined cost of $296.2 million (i.e., an average of about $148.1 million each). The first LSM would cost more than subsequent ships in the program because the procurement cost of the first LSM would include much or all of the detailed design/nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the class. (It is a traditional Navy budgeting practice to include much of all of the DD/NRE costs for a class of ship in the procurement cost of the lead ship in the class.)

The LSM as outlined by the Navy could be built by any of several U.S. shipyards. The Navy’s baseline preference is to have a single shipyard build all the ships, but the Navy is open to having them built in multiple yards to the same design if doing so could permit the program to be implemented more quickly and/or less expensively. The Navy’s FY2024 budget submission states that the contract for the construction of the first LSM would be awarded in December 2024, and that the ship would be delivered in July 2028.

The LSM program poses a number of potential oversight matters for Congress. The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s annual funding requests and envisioned acquisition strategy for the program. Congress’s decisions regarding the program could affect Navy and Marine Corps capabilities and funding requirements and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.

Download the document here.

Report to Congress on Navy Medium Landing Ship

The following is the April 13, 2023, Congressional Research Service report Navy Medium Landing Ship (LSM) (Previously Light Amphibious Warship [LAW]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress. From the report The Navy’s Medium Landing Ship (LSM) program, previously called the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program, envisions procuring a class of 18 to 35 new amphibious […]

The following is the April 13, 2023, Congressional Research Service report Navy Medium Landing Ship (LSM) (Previously Light Amphibious Warship [LAW]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

From the report

Download the document here.

CMC Berger to Senate: ‘There’s No Plan’ to Meet Amphib Warship Requirements

The Marine Corps’ top officer told a Senate panel that he put a $1.75 billion warship on the top of his unfunded priorities list to show there’s no path to expand the U.S. amphibious ship inventory. Speaking before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee on Tuesday, Commandant Gen. David Berger said he saw a net reduction […]

Amphibious warship Richard M. McCool, Jr., (LPD-29) on Aug. 4, 2022. USNI News Photo

Speaking before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee on Tuesday, Commandant Gen. David Berger said he saw a net reduction in the amphibious ship force because of the retirement of three older landing ship docks (LSDs) with no planned replacement with new shipbuilding. This prompted his decision to include funding for a San Antonio-class (LPD-17) amphib on his unfunded priorities list.

“This budget proposes early decommissioning of three of those LSDs with no construction or acquisition of an LPD. For my role as defining what the requirements are – the statutory minimum of 31 – there’s no plan to get there. From my perspective, I didn’t see any other way than to put it on the unfunded list in order to reflect that. There’s no plan to get to the minimum requirements,” he said in response to questions from Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).

Berger warned that without adequate amphibious shipping to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts, the U.S. runs the risk of China filling in with its own assets.

“When we can’t respond when we have to, then our allies’ and partners’ trust goes down. In all likelihood, the way the Chinese Navy is growing and they’re expanding, they’re liable to try to step in and we can’t afford that to happen,” he said.

Berger’s comments come as the Department of the Navy and Pentagon continue to struggle over how they will develop a future amphibious force. While Berger and other Navy leaders have acknowledged a requirement for 31 amphibious ships to meet the Marines’ latest island-hopping concept, the Navy zeroed out the budget line for new amphibious ships over the next five years, as the service takes a “strategic pause” on buying new gators while it takes on new studies mandated by the Pentagon, USNI News previously reported.

As part of the budget rollout earlier this month, Pentagon budget officials called the current amphibious ship inventory in the near-term “sufficient.”

Meanwhile, the Navy is working on the latest fleet assessment it plans to deliver to Congress – the Battle Force Ship Assessment and Requirement (BFSAR) – in late spring.

“I’ve committed to Congress to deliver that report by the 10th of June this year, and I will make that deadline. We are on track with our analysis team to do that,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday told the panel.

The new BFSAR is a follow-up on the assessment Congress ordered last year that put the goal of 373 ships to support the roles and missions required of the Navy in the long term. The details of the last year’s assessment were classified, but shortly after its delivery to Congress, Gilday issued a public plan for the Navy’s Force Design 2045.

The notional 2045 Navy calls for:

12 Columbia-class ballistic missile nuclear submarines
12 Aircraft carriers
66 Submarines, split between fast attack and large diameter payload boats
96 Large surface combatants like the Arleigh Burke class destroyer and the emerging DDG(X) next-generation destroyer
56 Constellation-class guided-missile frigates
31 Large amphibious ships
18 Light amphibious warships to support Marine Littoral Regiments
82 Combat logistics ships and auxiliaries
150 large surface and subsurface unmanned vessels that will act as sensors and auxiliary magazines to the manned fleet

He told the panel that he expected the underlying details of the plan to change with the new assessment.

“With respect to, not only the size, but the composition of the fleet, I would expect that to change from the last report, particularly in terms of composition. It’s too early to tell with respect to size, but quite honestly, I can’t see it getting any smaller than 373 manned ships,” Gilday said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) raised questions about how the service would meet its long-term shipbuilding goals when the current budget outlook results in a net negative of five battle force ships from now through Fiscal Year 2028. Under its latest long-range shipbuilding plan, the service would need to craft a budget at about 5 percent above the rate of inflation to hit its 373 goal, Gilday told Graham.

“If we’re at 296 [battle force ships] today and under this budget, we’re going to be at 291 in [Fiscal Year] 28. How do we get to 373?” Graham asked.
“The budget you’re supporting [today] is below inflation. And you’re telling us to get to where we want to go, we’ve got to be above inflation by 5 percent. If this is a good budget, I would hate to see a bad budget.”

Graham asked Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro if the bottleneck was due to funding or shipbuilding capacity

“Do we have a shipbuilding industry problem, or do we have a budget problem?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Del Toro.

“We have a shipbuilding industry problem, currently Senator,” Del Toro said.

Pilot Course Aims to Build Marines’ Skills as Communicators for the Future Fight

SAN DIEGO – Expeditionary communicators will be critical to the command and control of small Marine Corps units dispersed across far-flung islands in contested terrain, service officials say. Those Marines will need to travel light, be nimble and have the capability to provide their commanders with continuous and seamless communications and networks, even in the […]

Marines with 9th Communication Battalion, I Marine Expeditionary Force Information Group, trouble shoot a network connection during a certification exercise at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, Feb. 27, 2023. US Marine Corps Photo

SAN DIEGO – Expeditionary communicators will be critical to the command and control of small Marine Corps units dispersed across far-flung islands in contested terrain, service officials say.

Those Marines will need to travel light, be nimble and have the capability to provide their commanders with continuous and seamless communications and networks, even in the face of threats and under fire.

The future fight won’t have the fixed, forward operational bases that deployed units over the last 20 years of conflicts relied on for support. Communications Marines will find themselves in a markedly different environment – and with a lot more responsibilities on their shoulders.

“You need somebody who can do lots of things” and who can think on their own, is physically fit and is innovative, Paul Stokes, the Marine Corps Communication and Electronics School’s deputy operations officer, told an audience earlier this month at the WEST 2023 conference, hosted by the U.S. Naval Institute and AFCEA. “Those are all skills that have to take time to develop … We’re talking about somebody who can operate in any kind of domain.”

But that expeditionary communicator doesn’t exist, yet.

No current course provides the training to build those skillsets and create the tech-savvy Marine who can do all that. For the past decade, communications Marines have worked in one of three main tracks: Data, transmissions and networks. But the Marine Corps is looking to change that, as requirements must evolve to adapt to the future expeditionary environment and support the restructured Marine Corps driven by Force Design 2030, officials say.

“You really don’t have the luxury of having three or four guys all doing the same thing,” Stokes said. Rather, the small-unit leader might have just one or two Marines skilled in all those areas handling their communications, a likely scenario for the future company landing team moving by air.

Following guidance from the Marine Corps’ director for information, command, control, communications and computers (IC4), MCCES and its Communications Training Battalion last year created a pilot course to develop those Marines into a jack-of-all-trades role as an expeditionary communicator. That Marine is a leader who’s effective in any domain – sea, land, air, cyber and space, according to the MCCES presentation, and “self-reliant and capable of operating and maneuvering across distributed operational environments.”

“The idea is to develop a leader who’s tactically and technically proficient and somebody who can operate in a whole variety of environments,” Stokes said, adding “that’s quite a tall order.”

School officials used the Marine Corps Special Operations Command’s model developing special operations communicators as a guide, he said. All 16 Marines who attended Expeditionary Communications Proof-of-Concept Course 1-23 – held Oct. 3, 2022 to Nov. 22, 2022 at the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, Calif. – completed the course.

Developers are tweaking the instruction for a second proof-of-concept class that starts Sept. 11, 2023. School officials hope that by next year, with approvals from Marine Corps headquarters, the first class of up to 30 students will report to the desert base for the new and permanent Expeditionary Communications Course. That resident course, as envisioned, will run for 75 to 80 days and will be offered to corporals, sergeants, staff sergeants and gunnery sergeants, officials said.

That’s more than double the 37 training days during the initial pilot, which included attendees ranging from corporals and sergeants in the target military occupational specialties: 0621 transmission systems operator, 0631 network administrator, 0671 data systems administrator, 0627 SHF satellite communications operator and one Marine assigned 28XX.

Course Vision

U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Timothy Tschida, a joint terminal attack controller with 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, coordinates with pilots from Marine Attack Squadron (VMA) 223 to drop practice bombs at Townsend Bombing Range, Georgia, Feb. 24, 2023. US Marine Corps Photo

The goal of the new course “is to combine the critical skillsets from the 062X, 063X and 067X MOSs to support expeditionary communications skillsets as multi-disciplinary independent operators, in support of Force Design, (Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations) and similar concepts,” according to an MCCES presentation slide. “This will allow commanders at all levels [to] possess the organic capability to exercise command and control, in any environment across the full range of military operations, in the smallest formation.”

What’s envisioned is a team of two Marines who set up and operate communications from the team and squad level up to a battalion-sized, forward command operations center. They are “tech-savvy” and up-to-date on the latest in communications systems, and they understand the peer threats in whatever denied, degraded and contested environment they find themselves in.

For the proof-of-concept course, instructors assigned students to two-person teams, replicating their likely future employment within small units. The instruction reflects their responsibilities to plan, install and secure the network, and then operate and maneuver the network in all domains, regardless of challenges at hand. Broken antenna? Source another one. System down? Find another means. They also learn to assess and maintain the network to ensure continuous operation and mission success.

The first pilot course, with 16 students, was designed to be small and manageable, within MCCES’ existing resources. The school got “no funding, no extra bodies. We’ve done all this out of hide,” Col. Joseph Broome, MCCES commander, told USNI News after the presentation. The initial success of the first course has bolstered instructors and developers, he said, adding that “we are looking at how do we make the next one better.”

“Networking continues to evolve, so our MOSs have to continue to evolve,” Broome said.

Students in the proof-of-concept class learned about expeditionary and small-unit communications, network fundamentals, satellite systems and tactical radio systems. The course, which included lectures, guided discussions, practical applications and tactical decision games, culminated in a final, four-day field exercise. Ahead of that culminating event, students spent several days planning for those expeditionary conditions and practiced breaking out, using and packing the equipment and tactical assault kit they would use.

“From day one, we talk about the mentality from a denied and degraded C2 environment,” Maj. Toby Pope, a course developer, told the WEST audience, “and how that requires us to be thinkers and doers in a different way than in the past.”

Students “walked away from the course having a completely different mindset,” he said. “You can’t get that from a networker that just takes some additional radio [lessons].”

The 16 students were a small cross-section of corporals and sergeants across the Marine Corps: Six from I Marine Expeditionary Force, two from II MEF, one from Marine Corps Forces Pacific and seven from III MEF, the latter of which included five Marines with 3rd Marine Logistics Regiment.

All were set to deploy overseas or to service-level training exercises, Pope said. “That is intentional, because we are using that in our feedback cycle to refine the next proof-of-concept” course.

The course isn’t meant for an entry-level Marine “because there’s too much theory, there’s too much practice” required, Broome said. Ideally, the Marine coming to the course has at least two to three years of operational experience, plus “they’re showing aptitude and a drive for this” and after another operational tour would get advanced training and reenlist. “I want to get some reinvestment out of them,” he said. “I’m looking at second term and on, and I would love for this being their primary MOS.”

Fitter Communicators

Marine Cpl. Logan Ledgerwood, left, and Lance Cpl. Jacob Layton, network administrators with Marine Air Control Group (MACG) 28, move communications equipment at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina, Feb. 22, 2023. US Marine Corps Photo

“There is Fleet [Marine Force] buy-in – especially on those we support – on us being physically fit. We’re going to sustain that,” Pope said. He recalled one infantry leader, when asked what he needed from communicators, who “said, ‘I need somebody that can keep up. Because most of the time, comm cannot keep up.’”

So course developers created the instruction with the new experimental infantry battalion in mind and incorporated physical training into every phase of instruction. Students spent more time out of the classroom and in the field in scenarios from urban to austere. The slide presentation showed images of students at computer monitors in classroom labs and students in the field carrying rucks and setting up equipment, including mobile command-and-control platforms.

“Really, for us, this is part of being communicators … being able to keep up with those that we are supporting,” Pope told the audience. “If we can’t keep up, then we are useless. Period.”

“So throughout the course, we did rucks, we did hikes, we did water PT, we swam,” he said. “All this to make the Marines better and to be a complete communicator.”

The Marines “had to ruck in to their place. They had to have everything in their packs and on their back,” he said. “They had to think of, okay, what am I putting in my pack first? Is it the radio? Is it the antenna?” At times, students forgot to pack needed gear, he added.

The course marks a big change from what communications Marines have done, but “it’s what we need to be,” said Pope. “These events simulate a lot of the expected stuff in our future.”

New Marine Littoral Regiment Key to Expanded Pacific Security Cooperation, U.S., Japanese Leaders Say

The 12th Marine Regiment will become the 12th Marine Littoral Regiment as the United States upgrades its forward-deployed forces in Japan, as part of an expansion of U.S. and Japanese security cooperation as China continues to expand its influence in the Western Pacific. Officials from Japan and the U.S. announced the expansion following the 2023 […]

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin speaks during the 2023 U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee meeting co-hosted with Secretary of State Antony Blinken hosting Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa and Japanese Defense Minister Hamada Yasukazu, at the Department of State. Washington, D.C., Jan 11, 2023. DoD Photo

Officials from Japan and the U.S. announced the expansion following the 2023 U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee (“2+2”) meeting in Washington on Wednesday. The meeting between Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi and Japanese Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada comes after Japan announced in December a revised National Security Strategy, National Defence Strategy and intention to increase its defense spending.

The future 12th Marine Littoral Regiment will be one of three planned for the Indo-Pacific region, USNI News previously reported. The Marine Corps reorganized the 3rd Marine Regiment into the 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment in March.

“We’ve decided that the 12th Artillery Regiment would remain in Japan and be reorganized into the 12th Marine Littoral Regiment by 2025,” Austin said.
“We will equip this new formation with advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, as well as anti-ship and transportation capabilities that are relevant to the current and future threat environments. These posture updates adhere to the basic tenets of the 2012 realignment plan, and they will strengthen our Alliance’s ability to maintain regional peace and stability.”

Along with the 12th Marine Littoral Regiment, the 3rd Marine Division Headquarters will also remain on Okinawa rather than be relocated under the 2012 Defense Policy Review Initiative Realignment Plan.

The decision to keep the 3rd Marine Division Headquarters on Okinawa was a reaction to the increasingly severe security environment, Hamada said. The Japanese defense chief added that both the U.S. and Japan will work on mitigating the effect of the military presence in Okinawa and obtaining the buy-in from the local community.

Japan’s efforts to increase its military presence and facilities around its southwestern islands has previously faced opposition from the local population. China’s activities around the area, particularly around the disputed Senkaku Islands administered by Japan and claimed by China and Taiwan, resulted in increased support among the population there for the military build-up.

A Marine Corps release stated that the service remains committed to the basic tenets of the 2012 Defense Policy Review Initiative Realignment Plan, which includes the relocation of approximately 9,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to commence in 2024.

Marines with 3d Marine Littoral Regiment, 3d Marine Division present arms during the redesignation ceremony of 3d Marines to 3d MLR aboard Marine Corps Base Hawaii, March 3, 2022. US Marine Corps Photo

“This week’s announcement does not impact previous sites addressed in land return agreements,” according to the release, which added that no new units will be added to Okinawa under the agreement.

Units identified to remain in Okinawa per the previous agreement will be strategically dispersed throughout the Indo-Pacific Theater, with Guam to serve as an important logistics hub in the future

“The Marine Corps will continue to maintain a persistent presence to bolster deterrence and improve and expand our network of allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific,” Gen. David Berger, commandant of the Marine Corps, said in the release, “Our enduring and undivided relationship with the Government of Japan is key to the development of new operational concepts that will ensure we are fully prepared to deter aggression in the region.”

The release added that 12th MLR will add to a ready and capable stand-in force in the first island chain, prepared to support the U.S-Japanese alliance, bolstering the Corps’ ability to support deterrence efforts and respond to contingencies, while the 3rd Marine Division HQ will provide command and control capabilities.

China, Russia and North Korea have caused a new era of strategic communication, according to a joint statement from the meeting. During the joint press conference, officials from both countries said the United States and Japan were united in aligning their strategies and efforts.

U.S. Marines with 1st Battalion, 2d Marine Regiment, currently attached to 4th Marine Regiment, 3d Marine Division, demonstrate expeditionary advanced basing capabilities Oct. 7 to 8, 2020, as part of Exercise Noble Fury, from Okinawa to Ie Shima and across surrounding waters. U.S. Marine Corps Photo

The joint statement stated that the four officials concurred that China’s foreign policy seeks to reshape the international order to its benefit. Japan and the United States, along with other members of the international community, are concerned about how China plans to employ its growing political, economic, military, and technological power.

China represents the greatest strategic challenge in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, according to the joint statement.

The statement also said that The United States reaffirmed that Article V of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands. North Korea was condemned for its ballistic missile launches and Russia for its war against Ukraine. Russia’s growing and provocative strategic military cooperation with China, including through joint operations and drills in the vicinity of Japan, was also of concern to the ministers.

Among other initiatives decided upon as part of the modernization of the U.S.-Japan alliance was the invocation of Article V of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty under specific circumstances in relation to attacks to, from or within space, an increase of bilateral exercises and training in areas including Japan’s southwest islands and deepening bilateral cooperation toward the effective employment of Japan’s counterstrike capabilities in close coordination with the United States.

Increased training and exercises along with further expanding cooperation with Australia and the Republic of Korea is also targeted, according to the joint statement.

The ministers welcomed the establishment of the Composite Watercraft Company at Yokohama North Dock, scheduled in 2023, which will further strengthen alliance maritime mobility in Japan, according to the statement. Technological research and industrial cooperation will be further expanded with Austin and Hamada expected to sign new agreements on such during their meeting on Thursday.

On Wednesday, as well, the prime ministers of Japan and the United Kingdom signed a Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA) for both countries in London, allowing the U.K. and Japan to simplify procedures for the deployment of forces in both countries.

The U.K. has been conducting significant activities with Japan in recent years, most notably the deployment to Japan of the Queen Elizabeth Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 21 in 2021, and recently, members of the U.K.’s 16th Air Assault Brigade, together with paratroopers from the U.S 11th and 82nd Airborne Divisions, Japan’s 1st Airborne Brigade and the Australian Defence Force Parachuting School, conducted the multilateral New Year’s Friendship Parachute Jump exercise on Sunday at Camp Narashino in Chiba, Japan.

HMS Queen Elizabeth sails from Portsmouth on Sept. 7, 2022. UK Royal Navy Photo

Both the UK offshore patrol vessels deployed to the Indo-Pacific, HMS Tamar (P233) and HMS Spey (P234) have conducted visits to Japan in 2022, as well, through the course of their deployment.

“The international security environment is becoming more severe in various parts of the world, as the international order that has been established is challenged by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by force in the East and South China Seas,” according to a Japanese Foreign Ministry release on the RAA signing. “Against this backdrop, the Japan-U.K. security and defense cooperation will be lifted to new heights and the movement toward the realization of a ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ will be further enhanced by the signing of this important security agreement between Japan and the U.K., each other’s closest security partners in Asia and Europe.”

The release noted that the U.K. was the second country after Australia to sign an RAA with Japan.

A U.K. release stated that the RAA would be put forth at their respective parliaments for ratification in the coming weeks.

Marine Commandant Will Have More Say in Crafting Navy’s Amphibious Force as Part of New Defense Bill

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The commandant of the Marine Corps will have a direct say in both the requirements for the Navy’s amphibious ships and the force structure, according to provisions in the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. One provision in the bill mandates the Marine Corps’ top officer decide the requirements for amphibious […]

Marines attached to the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) wave to spectators as they arrive in Morehead City, N.C., aboard the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS Arlington (LPD-24) on Oct. 10, 2022. US Navy Photo

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The commandant of the Marine Corps will have a direct say in both the requirements for the Navy’s amphibious ships and the force structure, according to provisions in the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act.
One provision in the bill mandates the Marine Corps’ top officer decide the requirements for amphibious ships, while another requires the Navy talk with the Commandant regarding crucial matters pertaining to the amphib force.

“It clearly states from Congress that the role of the commandant of the Marine Corps in defining requirements. That’s a very positive thing. It doesn’t say anything negative about a personal relationship between the [chief of naval operations] and the commandant or the two services are bickering with each other,” Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger told reporters today of the legislation.

“It just says Congress understands that that’s a service requirement so we want to hear from the service what you need. I think that’s not complicated at all. I’m comfortable with the way things are moving forward,” he added, noting the appropriators still have not released their final spending bill.

Asked what the legislation would enable him to do now that he couldn’t do before, Berger said it will allow officials to move past the requirements piece.

Amphibious warship Richard M. McCool, Jr., (LPD-29) on Aug. 4, 2022. USNI News Photo

“We can stop talking about what the requirement is year to year to year and talk more about what we can afford and how to use it and how to maintain it. Because the CNO wants to keep the LPD line hot also. You all know the reasons. We’re in 100 percent agreement there. What it does is stop talking about 31 or 35 or 38 – we know what the minimum is,” he said during a Defense Writers Group breakfast on Wednesday.
“Now let’s talk about what we can afford.”

The conference legislation, released late Tuesday, also sets a floor for the Navy to have a minimum of 31 amphibious ships.

The various provisions come after a budget cycle in which the Navy and Marine Corps appeared to diverge on amphibious warships. The Navy’s FY 2023 budget proposal earlier this year said it would end the LPD-17 Flight II line with the purchase of LPD-32. But Berger placed advanced procurement for LPD-33 at the top of his annual wishlist that followed the budget submission.

The original Navy proposal also sought to retire four Whidbey Island-class dock landing ships, but the conference bill prevents the service from decommissioning the ships.

Asked about the proposed decommissioning of the amphibious ships on Wednesday, Berger said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday has the best understanding of how much it costs the service to maintain the older amphibs.

“We need to make sure the inventory of amphibious ships, combatant ships, is adequate to do what the president and the secretary need us to do based on the National Defense Strategy. It’s not any more complicated than that. But inventory is more than how many. It’s how many that are working, that are usable. So we can have 100 of something, but if only 20 of them are usable, then 100’s not a relevant number. It’s the 20,” Berger said.

“From our perspective, we have to focus on both – the inventory of amphibious ships and the readiness, availability of those ships. The CNO’s pretty open about it,” he continued. “He’s not very happy with the maintenance part of fixing them and getting them out on time, and then they get underway and break again. He’s not very happy with all of that – making progress, but he wants to hold them accountable. Me too.”

Amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD-2), right, amphibious dock landing ship USS Pearl Harbor (LSD-52), left, and amphibious transport dock ship USS Portland (LPD-27), transit the Arabian Sea on Sept. 13, 2021. US Navy Photo

Berger also cited industrial base capacity as a limitation for how many amphibious ships the yards can build, an argument Gilday has also made in recent months.

“I think the department of defense leadership – civilian and uniform – is a lot more aware of, even if we’re not smart enough on, the industrial base than we were five years ago. I don’t think we’re cavalier about it,” Berger said.

“It wasn’t as big of a focus as it is right now. Now, industrial capacity, diversity – this is a discussion like every week and it never was before. Now it is. When you only have so many factories, so many shipbuilding companies – the mergers that took place over time down to get to three or four and there’s not much competition – all this is like now an every week topic of conversation.”

Labor, Berger said, “is one of the main limiting factors,” for amphibious ship production.

Marine Corps Gen. David Berger, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, speaks to Marines and Sailors assigned to the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), during a distinguished visit aboard Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD-2) on Feb. 20, 2022. US Marine Corps Photo

“I think if the CNO had his druthers, he would double the number of shipyards tomorrow because we need capacity and we need competition and we need both to get the citizens a good price on the ships, right, and quality,” the commandant said.

HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding, which builds both the San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks and the America-class amphibious assault ships, is currently building three LPDs and one LHA at its yard in Pascagoula, Miss. The shipyard in October won a $2.4 billion contract to build another LHA – LHA-9 – and in June won a $240 million contract to buy long lead material for a fourth LPD.

Marine Corps, Navy Remain Split Over Design, Number of Future Light Amphibious Warship, Divide Risks Stalling Program

The Marine Corps and Navy remain at an impasse over the future of the Light Amphibious Warship, as skepticism about the program’s viability mounts due to the internal division, sources familiar with the program have told USNI News. While the Marines remain committed to their plan for nearly three-dozen beachable ships that can ferry units […]

Sea Transport Solutions Image

While the Marines remain committed to their plan for nearly three-dozen beachable ships that can ferry units between islands and shorelines in the Pacific, the Navy wants fewer. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday’s 2022 navigation plan, unveiled in late July, calls for 18 LAWs.

“It’s obviously a big battle within the Marine Corps on where the Marine Corps’s headed and whether the Navy really supports LAW or not,” said one person familiar with the discussions on LAW.

But as recently as last week, the Marine Corps said it wants as many as 35 LAWs to achieve its vision for operations in the Indo-Pacific, which would include smaller units moving between islands and setting up ad-hoc bases from where they could fire anti-ship missiles off of the chassis of a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.

US Marine Corps Rouge Fires missile system.

“The Light Amphibious Warship is absolutely required – up to 35 of them. Those vessels enable the three [Marine] Littoral Regiments in the Pacific to move tonight, to immediately move to strategic chokepoints and strategic locations throughout the battlespace before the action begins in order to conduct sea denial as part of distributed maritime operations,” Assistant Commandant Gen. Eric Smith said last week at Defense News’ annual conference.

The disconnect between the two services on LAW comes after a contentious budget cycle in which the Navy and Marine Corps presented two different views on the future of larger amphibious ships. The most recent Fiscal Year 2023 submission also delayed the purchase of the first LAW out from that fiscal year to FY 2025, a move Marine Corps officials have repeatedly argued is a risky one for the service and its strategy in the Pacific.

“That risk gets passed onto combatant commanders. So when you don’t have that Light Amphibious Warship for an additional year, that risk is absorbed by the combatant commander and the execution of [operational] plans,” Smith said last week.

The division between the two services largely comes down to survivability, or what types of weapons and armors to place on a ship that would operate in the first island chain, within range of Chinese missiles.

Adding more weapons and armor to LAW makes the ship more expensive. Projections in 2020 called for each LAW to cost $100 million, a number described as unrealistic by the person familiar with program discussions. Now the Marine Corps wants the ship to cost around $150 million a piece so it can buy more of them, while the Navy is pushing for a more survivable ship that would end up costing about $300 million each.

Landing ship under construction at Halter Marine Aug. 5, 2022. USNI News Photo

The diverging views on costs may be driving the different numbers of LAWs the Navy and Marine Corps each say is required, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

“At the higher level you’ve got a lot of disagreement and even just outright skepticism that we’re even going to pursue the program. You’ve got a lot of people working on what should this ship look like, what capabilities should it have, how much should it cost, how many might we buy, how will we use it,” Clark told USNI News.

“At the lower levels, you’ve got a lot of activity, a lot of the normal activity. And then at the higher levels I think there’s a lot of people who just feel like this is never going to happen, that the Navy and Marine Corps are not really going to reconcile their competing visions of the program and the financial constraints on the shipbuilding budget are going to keep it from ever achieving launch,” he continued.

Work on the program continues with a requirements evaluation team. The Navy last year issued five companies – Fincantieri, Austal USA, Halter Marine, Bollinger and TAI Engineers – concept design contracts. Austal USA has published a rendering of its LAW design and Halter Marine already builds LSTs – or Landing Ship, Tanks – which are beachable and can carry Marines and equipment.

Part of the debate over the survivability and affordability of LAW may have to do with concerns over past troubled programs like the Littoral Combat Ship, which was not designed to operate in highly contested environments.

“It’s just two competing visions for what that ship does and I think the Navy is unlikely to budge on it because when it comes down to it, they’re responsible for the ship,” Clark said of LAW. “And they’ve been burned before with LCS when they tried to build a ship that was less survivable than its predecessors.”

Dakota Wood, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a retired Marine, said the survivability and affordability questions may show different risk assessments between the two services.

“It would reveal the two different perspectives on risk. You put a Marine unit on the ground, they have to engage with an enemy in close combat. I mean, you just have to do that. And so there is a service culture that says we’re going to assess the risk. We’re going to do everything we can to mitigate that risk – to lessen it – but you cannot eliminate it and it just comes with the territory of ground combat that you are going to lose people,” Wood said.

“On the Navy side, they have a relatively small number of ships – and relative meaning relative to task, the size of the world, how many ships you have in the water and all that stuff – so each one of those things represents a fairly significant percentage of naval power,” he continued. “You lose a ship, it’s a billion dollar plus investment, all the sailors aboard that ship. And so the Navy hasn’t had to operate truly in a threat environment for a very long time.”

While the services work out their differences over LAW, the Marine Corps is using a leased stern landing vessel to experiment with how it could use the platform. Smith said the Marine Corps is leasing one and has a contract that could increase that number to two or three vessels.

USNS Carson City (T-EPF- ) entering the Black Sea on Aug. 15, 2018. Photo by Yörük Işık used with permission

“What we expect from them is how’s the load out? What is your ability to move from point A to Point B? What is your ability to hide yourself electromagnetically and physically? How quickly can you onload and offload?” Smith proposed as questions to ask the Marines experimenting with the leased stern landing vessel. “What do you do to connect fuel when you need fuel from a different source – KC-130 putting fuel in? What did you forget to bring with you? What did your supply chain look like? And can you use that vessel to both support you for organic mobility and can it be used for periods of time to support the joint force logistically?”

The Navy has also pitched the LCS, which has frequently deployed to the Western Pacific, as an option to move Marines around the region to conduct Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations. Clark said the Expeditionary Fast Transport, or EPF, the Landing Craft Utility and used Army watercraft could also fulfill some of the missions the Marine Corps envisions for LAW.

“You’re already hearing out of III [Marine Expeditionary Force] and out of [Marine Corps Combat Development Command] the fact that they’re looking at alternative platforms and theoretically this is designed to inform the lAW effort, but it might also identify ways that you would be able to do this without necessarily having the dedicated LAW” program, Clark said.

Report to Congress on Marine Littoral Regiments

The following is the Aug. 25, 2022 Congressional Research Service In Focus report, The U.S. Marine Corps Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR). From the report On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) announced a major force design initiative planned to occur over the next 10 years referred to as “Force Design 2030.” As part […]

The following is the Aug. 25, 2022 Congressional Research Service In Focus report, The U.S. Marine Corps Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR).

From the report

On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) announced a major force design initiative planned to occur over the next 10 years referred to as “Force Design 2030.” As part of this initiative, the Marine Corps aims to redesign its force to place a stronger emphasis on naval expeditionary warfare and to better align itself with the National Defense Strategy, in particular, the strategy’s focus on strategic competition with China and Russia. As part of this redesign, the Marines plan to establish at least three Marine Littoral Regiments (MLRs) organized, trained, and equipped to accomplish a number of missions within contested maritime spaces.

MLR Missions

According to the Marines, the MLR is to be capable of the following missions:

Conduct Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) which is a form of expeditionary warfare involving the employment of naval expeditionary forces with low electronic and physical signatures, which are relatively easy to maintain/sustain. These forces are to be arrayed in a series of austere, temporary locations ashore within a contested or potentially contested maritime area to conduct sea denial, support, sea control, and fleet sustainment operations; · Conduct strike operations with a variety of systems;
Coordinate air and missile defense operations;
Support maritime domain awareness;
Support naval surface warfare operations; and
Support information operations.

The MLR’s Operational Environment

The Commandant of the Marine Corps’ May 2022 Force Design 2030 Annual Update states:

The security environment is characterized by proliferation of sophisticated sensors and precision weapons coupled with growing strategic competition. Potential adversaries employ systems and tactics to hold the fleet and joint force at arm’s length, allowing them to employ a strategy that uses contested areas as a shield behind which they can apply a range of coercive measures against our allies and partners.

Operating in this environment, MLRs are envisioned to serve as what the Marines call a “Stand-In Force (SIF),” primarily to “help the fleet and joint force win the reconnaissance and counter reconnaissance battle within a contested area at the leading edge of a maritime defense-indepth.”

Download the document here.

Senate FY 2023 Appropriations Bill Adds $4B to Navy Shipbuilding, Money for New Amphibs

The Senate Appropriations Committee included advanced procurement dollars for two new amphibious warships as part of a $32 billion shipbuilding budget, according to the defense subcommittee’s Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations bill released on Thursday. The FY 2023 bill shipbuilding and conversion portion appropriates $250 million in advanced procurement for a new San Antonio-class (LPD-17) amphibious […]

The future USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28) departed Huntington Ingalls Shipyard to conduct Acceptance Trials in the Gulf of Mexico. US Navy Photo

The FY 2023 bill shipbuilding and conversion portion appropriates $250 million in advanced procurement for a new San Antonio-class (LPD-17) amphibious transport dock and $289 million more than the Navy’s initial $1.08 billion requested funds for the next America-class big-deck amphibious warship, LHA-10, according to the bill’s explanatory statement.

The advanced procurement for what would be LPD-33 extends the San Antonio line beyond where the Navy sought to end the class at LPD-32. In his unfunded request to Congress for the Marine Corps budget, Commandant Gen. David Berger asked for the advanced procurement for LPD-33 as his number one priority.

In line with the Senate and House authorization bills released, the bill puts $6.9 billion toward the purchase of three Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers (DDG-51), $4.5 billion for two Virginia-class nuclear attack boats (SSN-774), $1.13 billion for a Constellation-class frigate (FFG-62) and $1.6 billion for a San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock. The bill also added $645 million for two ambulance variants of the Spearhead-class Expeditionary Fast Transport ship and funds for three additional Ship-to-Shore Connectors over the Navy’s request for one, for a total of $264 million.

The committee also directed the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on Fiscal Year 2024 domestic shipbuilder suppliers, “identifying critical components that are available from only one or a few suppliers in the United States; and, providing recommendations to expand productive capacity in the United States,” reads the explanatory language with the bill.

The committee’s bill also appropriates $1.96 billion for 16 carrier-capable F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters for the Navy and Marines – three more than the Navy requested. The bill added funds for 18 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps – three more than the Marines requested. The bill also added five V-22s for $619 million and no money for additional F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. The Navy did not ask for any Super Hornets in the budget request because the service wants to end the line.

The topline for the total bill was $792.1 billion – a$32 billion increase in the topline as part of the FY 2023 request.

Marines Pitching Service as Western Pacific Recon Asset for Combined Joint Force

MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII — As the Marine Corps reshapes its force for a future conflict in the Western Pacific, the service is refining how to meet the reconnaissance mission for the wider U.S. military. The Marine Corps is a year away from the initial operational capability milestone for the Stand-in Forces concept, meaning Marines […]

Marine Corps Cpl. Alexander Tran, intelligence specialist with 1st Battalion, 12th Marines, 3rd Marine Division, launches a RQ-20B Puma at Pōhakuloa Training Area, Hawaii, July 20, 2022. US Marine Corps Photo

The Marine Corps is a year away from the initial operational capability milestone for the Stand-in Forces concept, meaning Marines would have the capabilities needed to deploy for missions in the region.

In a recent interview with USNI News, Col. Stephen Fiscus, the assistant chief of staff for force development at Marine Corps Forces Pacific, described the vision for SIF as having nearly all of the service’s force laydown in the Indo-Pacific acting as the reconnaissance arm for the combined joint force.

“To be inside and to be able to understand and report on what the enemy is doing, basically to be able to … the wonky way of describing it is the ability to gain and maintain custody of high-value targets and hold them at risk, with our own resources or joint force resources,” Fiscus said.

“[Special Operations Forces] has the capability to do that, but certainly the Marine Corps has the capability to do that at much greater scale, and with much greater persistence. SOF can’t do it at scale and at the capacity that we can,” he added.

The Marines argue that because they’re already operating in places like Okinawa, Japan, part of the first island chain that is in the range of Chinese weapons, they are in the position to perform the reconnaissance and counter-reconnaissance missions in a potential conflict.

“As part of the Stand-in Force, what that really means to the [Marine Littoral Regiment] is, we look at it to deter malign behavior, to operate inside the enemy’s weapons engagement zone, to support sea control and sea denial operations and then ultimately … to set the conditions for joint force and combined follow-on actions as part of that Stand-in Force,” Col. Timothy Brady, the commanding officer of the recently re-designated 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment, told USNI News.

While the new 3rd MLR is a piece of the Stand-In Force, the concept would employ most of the Okinawa-based III Marine Expeditionary Force and the Marine Expeditionary Units embarked on the Navy’s amphibious ships and operating in the Pacific.

“The Stand-in Force … pretty much requires almost all of III MEF, elements of I MEF, and the transiting MEUs in order to make it fully capable. It requires almost all of the [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command]-assigned force. And the infrastructure from Marine Corps Installations Pacific that enables that is pretty key to that as well. So it requires all of it. So to focus on just, on one entity is kind of missing the totality. The whole MAGTF, or Marine Air-Ground Task Force concept, is applicable to the Stand-in-Force,” Fiscus said.

The ability to see and realize information, Fiscus said, is the cornerstone of delivering the type of lethality the Marine Corps is historically known for bringing to conflict.

Landing Craft, Air Cushion 76 assigned to Assault Craft Unit 5, prepares to land on Marine Corps Base Hawaii, during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2022, July 11, 2022. US Marine Corps Photo

“It’s understanding what your target is, where it is, and the effect that it’s going to have on the network that you’re influencing. You can translate that directly from what we were doing in counter-insurgency operations with the effect on an insurgent network, all the way down to a peer and pacing threat,” he said.

“And what’s going to happen when you take this asset out? It’s fairly easy to be lethal, to pull a trigger – whether that trigger is the 566 from a rifle or all the way up to using a Naval Strike Missile or a [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile], or some other huge asset and you’re targeting a capital asset. The need is to understand what you’re doing and understand immediately what’s going to happen. And that’s what Stand-in Forces bring, is they bring that whole package to the naval expeditionary force that really closes a pretty significant gap,” Fiscus continued.

3rd MLR Experimentation

U.S. Marines with 3d Marine Littoral Regiment, 3d Marine Division, post security during a field training exercise at Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, Hawaii, May 30, 2022. US Marine Corps Photo

After converting the 3rd Marine Regiment into the 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment in March, Brady says they now have the relevant units in place to do full-scale experimentation.

The MLR consists of a Littoral Combat Team, a Littoral Logistics Battalion, and a Littoral Anti-Air Battalion. In June, the Marine Corps converted 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines into the 3rd MLR’s Littoral Combat Team and also re-designated Combat Logistics Battalion 3 into the Littoral Logistics Battalion that is now under the 3rd MLR, Brady said. That means the 3rd MLR now has all three units operating under the new construct.

“This provides us the opportunity – as we continue to train and experiment moving forward – with all of the primary capabilities now being organic to the MLR, to be able to develop our concepts of employment for our future Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations,” Brady said.
“Because it will take portions of all those different units to provide the capabilities necessary to be able to do the sea control and sea denial operations, to be able to provide the long-range precision fires, to be able to provide the air direction, air control early warning activities, to be able to provide the sensors necessary to the joint force,” he continued. “It will take an aspect of each one of those battalions to be able to actually produce the capability for it in the battlespace. So for the very first time, we have all of those capabilities as part of this unit and that’s what we’re looking forward to training in the future with.”

The Hawaiian islands, where the 3rd MLR is based, are uniquely suited to experiment with the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations concept – which would see Marines quickly moving between islands and shorelines to set up ad-hoc bases and fire anti-ship missiles – because they are similar to the first island chain, Brady said.

“To EABO in and of itself – to be able to seize and secure key maritime terrain – is not anything new to the Marine Corps. But the purpose of EABO is a paradigm shift. The purpose now is once we do seize and secure that maritime terrain is to look outward, right, to be able to support the naval expeditionary campaign and the larger naval campaign with that battlespace awareness … along with those long-range precision fires,” Brady said.

During the biennial Rim of the Pacific 2022 exercise, the Marine Corps is employing the EABO concept in two different scenarios: to enable an amphibious landing and to enable the transit of a carrier strike group.

“So specifically to RIMPAC, having an amphibious task force as well as a carrier strike group operating in the notional operating environment, we are supporting their maritime maneuver. And ultimately the MLR helps the joint and combined force achieve multi-domain integrated naval power to be able to impose asymmetric threats on the enemy,” Brady said.

Digital Interoperability

A Marine Corps AH-1 Super Cobra participates in a sink exercise (SINKEX) during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2022, from Marine Corps Base Hawaii on July 22, 2022. US Marine Corps Photo

Brady described a layered approach to how his unit is working toward operating with the joint force and ultimately allies and partners, also known as the combined force, which the Marines have the chance to work with at RIMPAC.

But working across the various platforms means they need what the Marines have defined as digital interoperability, or a way for all of the systems from the different U.S. services and other nations’ forces to communicate with each other.

“As we build those kill webs, that digital interoperability, you know the communications and the [command and control] systems, and we’re actually applying all those sensors and eventually the long-range precision fires, is we’re doing that internally to that Stand-in Force, the MAGTF, right, the Marine Corps,” Brady said.

“At the next level we’re really doing that across the joint force and looking at how to do that better. And then what RIMPAC provides us the opportunity to do is to do that with the combined force, right, the allies and partners, because to close those kill webs requires a lot of digital interoperability across multiple different systems, to be able to do it at speed and to be able to do it with all those nations that will be together inside the first island chain,” he continued.

In the type of conflict environment the services are preparing for in the Indo-Pacific, forces need multiple avenues to share information.

“If one type of way form is shut down and we can’t use it, there needs to be other pathways that we can take advantage of to move that information along, again, to generate that tempo for the commander so he can make a timely and accurate decision,” said Maj. Adrian Solis, a fires expert at MARFORPAC.

Future Capabilities

A Marine with 1st Battalion, 12th Marines, 3rd Marine Division, triages a victim during a simulated mass casualty evacuation training event at Pōhakuloa Training Area, Hawaii, July 22, 2022. US Marine Corps Photo

While Fiscus said the Marine Corps has what it needs to communicate with various assets across the joint force to share targeting information and execute missions under the Stand-in Forces concept, he said the Marines need more of the platforms they’re currently experimenting with – like the MQ-9A Reaper used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

“A lot of our platforms right now, we have one or two of them. And we have a plan to get more, but we have one or two of them. So we’re fairly finite,” he said.

The service also wants to make some of their capabilities and assets lighter so Marines can move quickly and carry what they need on their backs while moving around islands and shorelines.

“Making them small, deployable forward and getting them out to where [Brady] can access them and tactical commanders can fuse all of those systems is a big part of the experimentation in the systems that we’re doing. We have answers that say yes, we can do that. We can see them. We can put them together,” Fiscus said.

“Doing it sustainably and in austere environments and amidst allies and partners – because remember, we’re standing in, chances are we’re standing in next to somebody. All of the allies and partners that we’re sailing with that he’s working with right now, they by nature of where they’re located are standing in too. So we anticipate being with them on their terrain,” he added.

With IOC a year away, Brady and Fiscus said they’re focused on getting more capabilities to experiment with, like the stern landing vessel the Marine Corps wants to use while the service continues developing the Light Amphibious Warship. LAW is meant to have a beachable capability to shuttle Marines directly to islands and shorelines without needing to pull into a pier and a leased stern landing vessel will allow the Marine Corps to experiment with the capability in the interim.

I MEF in southern California will start the experimentation with the stern landing vessel, and then it will head to Hawaii. Fiscus said the 3rd MLR should have the platform within a year.

The service also now has a platoon of several dozen Marines who will do research and development work in Norfolk, Va., on the service’s future Long Range Unmanned Surface Vehicle, or LRUSV, Brady said.

“The Long-Range Unmanned Surface Vessel … that’s something that will provide additional reach and availability of weapons and systems well out into the maritime domain,” Brady said. “All of those things are coming in the next couple of years that will further enable us to provide additional capabilities to the joint and combined force.”

Metal Shark is on contract to build several LRUSV prototypes for the Marine Corps through an other transaction authority agreement, the company announced in January 2021.

While the Marine Corps first envisioned the LRUSV to function as an ISR platform and a way to bring more fires to the fight, Fiscus said the service wants to experiment and see what else the platform could do.

“Its principal mechanism right now, as it was conceived, was the ability to sense and bring additional firepower, organic precision firepower to the totality of the package. But that doesn’t limit it from what it’s possibilities could be once we understand – you know, right now we’re still in that concept phase. But the initial concept the way it was scratched out was for an additional surface ISR and organic precision fires platform,” he said.

While IOC is about a year away and will mean the Marines are ready to deploy under the SIF concept, Fiscus said achieving full operational capability will require the Marine Corps to remain deployed for longer and sustain the force’s operations.

“By achieving IOC of the Stand-in Force, the totality of the Stand-in Force, you will have a deployable and sustainable capability for that to go forward, supported by the full MAGTF. That includes the full sense and make sense. So we will have our Group 5 [unmanned aerial system] – the MQ-9A – up with the ability to connect the whole package and do it. IOC means we have the capability and it’s deployable,” Fiscus said.

The 3rd MLR “be forward doing it, supporting operations, activities, investments – OAIs – but you’ll see the totality of the value proposition fieldable and presentable in its full depth. It may only be for finite periods of time because … the difference between IOC and FOC is depth and sustainability and how long that presence can be forward and impactful.”