PANAMA CITY, Fla. — Marine Corps leaders have big dreams of new hardware. They want amphibious tanks that can swim from ships to the shore. They also expect the Navy to equip it with advanced vessels that would be used for high-end warfare, low-intensity conflict and humanitarian operations.
The problem, as is usually the case, is the budget. Current wars are draining the Pentagon’s modernization accounts, not just for the Marines but for the other services as well. The Corps most likely will have to downscale its equipment ambitions, but so far officials insist that they will continue to fight the budget battles as long as necessary to ensure the next-generation weapons systems are funded.
“The challenge I face day to day in the inbox is to support the warrior in the fight. But I also have to worry about the future, and how do I balance the two? That is the hard part of our responsibility right now,” said Lt. Gen. George Flynn, deputy commandant for combat development and integration at Marine Corps headquarters. “There is an opportunity cost for what we’re doing today in relation to what we need to do tomorrow … We cannot afford to be a one-trick pony,” he told the National Defense Industrial Association expeditionary warfare conference.
Against this backdrop, the 202,000-strong Marine Corps will have to respond to five challenges — disruptive threats, such as cyberattacks; catastrophic events, such as the use of a nuclear weapon; irregular foes from nation-state actors to terrorists; traditional threats from peer competitors; and the most complex one of all — one which combines several of the above, perhaps three or four at the same time, said Flynn.
Marines in Southwest Asia are working with Afghan army units in the eastern part of their country. Marine special operations forces have taken over command in the western region to help train the locals, and also to root out terrorists. To the south, about 11,000 marines are spread out along the Helmand River to provide security and stability operations for the region’s population.
The service’s planners predict troops will be engaged in areas of the world known as the “arc of instability,” a band of regions around Earth’s mid-section where developing nations are threatened by terrorists, unstable governments and other turbulent circumstances. It is concentrated in areas of the Middle East, Africa and South Asia.
Sea-based operations will be mandatory in this region, where airfields and logistical support facilities are non-existent for marines, said Flynn.
The expeditionary fighting vehicle — the marines’ beleaguered amphibious platform that can bring forces from the sea and operate on shore — remains the core priority, said Flynn. “The EFV is the linchpin for us to be able to do sea basing and forcible entry in the future,” he said. After the program was restructured several years ago, the marines are on course to field the vehicle, provided that it continues to meet performance objectives. “We’re excited about the EFV and we’re committed to EFV,” Flynn said.
One problem with weapons systems is that they are too heavy, officials said. “Every piece of equipment we’re developing, except in one case that I know of, is heavier than the original one that it’s replacing,” said Flynn. “We need to stop that.”
The humvee occupies 109 square feet of space on a ship, said Jim Strock, director of the sea-basing integration division at Marine Corps headquarters. The joint light tactical vehicle intended to replace that truck will require more room. Unlike the humvee’s “soft” doors that could be popped off for ship transport, the JLTV’s armored doors will not be easily removed, he pointed out.
The medium tactical vehicle replacement trucks were originally designed to weigh between 39,000 to 40,000 pounds. But they are showing up at the pier in excess of 48,000 pounds, said Strock. They require eight tie downs on amphibious ships, and on the LPD-17-class transport dock ship, a fully armored MTVR will not fit through the loading side door.
The mine-resistant ambush-protected trucks with V-shaped hulls present another problem. Even their smaller, more compact versions — the MRAP-all terrain vehicles — are causing storage difficulties below deck on the amphibs. “We cannot get them into lower vehicle stow,” said Brig. Gen. Walter L. Miller Jr., director of the capabilities development directorate.
Hangar bays are packed to the gills, said Strock. Non-maneuver vehicles such as forklifts are being armored, and they, too, are getting taller, bigger and heavier, he added.
Shipbuilders must become more aware of these problems and offer up options for storing bulky, heavy equipment, officials said.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway has told his staff to balance the force for regular and irregular warfare and to place more emphasis on the service’s naval roots, said Miller. Today, it has a fleet of 31 amphibious ships. But the Corps needs to attain a minimum of 38 amphibious ships for forward presence and engagement operations. Of those, 34 ships are required to support forcible entry operations of two regiments.
“There’s concern because when they look at amphibious ships, they think joint forcible entry capability. The real key today is engagement,” said Miller. “Without amphibs to do engagement in the arc of instability, we’ll have more Afghanistans and Iraqs in the future.”
Marines regret having eliminated the amphibious ready groups — organizations of ships and sailors with expertise in expeditionary operations — from the fleet in 2001. “The loss has hurt us,” said Miller.
The Navy expects to expand the fleet to 38 amphibious ships, said Rear Adm. David Woods, one of several officials from the chief of naval operations staff who is working on the Quadrennial Defense Review.
“The QDR will be the down payment for how to rebalance the current and future force,” he told the conference. “Accepting risk in the current fight is not going to be stomached,” he added. So there will be increased risks taken in the capacity of the future force.
The Marine Corps’ agenda in the QDR is to secure a sufficient number of amphibious ships, said Strock. Officials also want to find ways to improve maritime pre-positioning force (MPF) ships, and expand the notion of global fleet stations — small groups of amphibious and cargo ships operating at sea around the globe.
The future maritime pre-positioning force as currently envisioned is unaffordable. “We recognize that, but this doesn’t mean that the capability is not needed,” said Flynn. “The nation needs naval forces to have the ability to operate without ports, to selectively offload at sea and to do at-sea transport. To do this, we can get there by capitalizing on what we have — the legacy MFP squadron.” The fleet continues to add large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ships and dry cargo and ammunition ships to the squadron. Officials are testing ramps that will allow the marines to do at-sea transfer of equipment.
The commandant has set a minimum requirement for two regiments’ worth of “forcible entry” capability — a force that would be ready to deploy within days of a crisis. But the Defense Department needs to better articulate what forcible entry is and what it gives the nation, said the commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis. “The question is, how much do we need, and how do we move and employ it?”
Supporting forcible entry units and operations is expensive, he said. There are two ways for the Defense Department to go ashore — one is with the marines, the other is with the Navy. “If EFV won’t work, then we’re going to have to have another way to get ashore,” he said. “EFV is a magnificent vehicle,” but the military ought to have several methods to do forcible entry, said Mattis, who commanded Task Force 58 during Operation Enduring Freedom in southern Afghanistan. Amphibious ships were key to bringing marines closer to shore.
“Thank goodness for the amphibs,” he said. “These ships are agile and flexible along the lines of what the secretary [of defense] has called for.”