USMC Doctrine Changes

jsport said:
Mk.41 VLS for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles on a JLTV.View attachment 705278
Click to expand...
I know these are officially just for Tomahawk, but image the mess a few of these carrying SM6 with a datalink for launch on remote could cause to incoming large aircraft. Scoot right up to the forward edge of battle, launcher would fire blind, and CEC takes over the guidance.

Could start to put cruise missile carriers, rather than just the weapons in credible range for ground based interception.
 
bobthemonkey said:
I know these are officially just for Tomahawk, but image the mess a few of these carrying SM6 with a datalink for launch on remote could cause to incoming large aircraft. Scoot right up to the forward edge of battle, launcher would fire blind, and CEC takes over the guidance.

Could start to put cruise missile carriers, rather than just the weapons in credible range for ground based interception.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, though I’m not sure the vehicle could survive a mk72 booster ignition. It would make for an interesting remotely deployed SAM trap and I believe SM-6s have been guided by F-35s in USN experiments. If nothing else the GATOR radar might be combined. But I think the USM is also buying the Mk70 launcher that is the basis for the the Army MRC, which is a better fit for the capability even though it’s a lot, lot larger.
 
jsport said:
https://www.defensenews.com/digital..._term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief

The answer — which the Air Force calls Agile Combat Employment — calls for the service to be able to launch, recover and maintain planes away from its main air bases and instead at unorthodox locations like partner nations’ military airfields or civilian airports.

A chance for true jointness betwwen the USN and USAF.

Specifically, the large, geographically dispersed terrain of the Asia-Pacific region generates unique challenges, said Maj. Gen. Brian Killough, deputy commander of Pacific Air Forces. “We’ve got to respond to that requirement to move everything by either air or ship across the theater” he said in a Jan. 29 interview. “
Click to expand...
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/as...Toverlay=342f5a58-c37b-4142-b049-1f737335b507
 
Sunbic, Clarke, or the Batanes would be huge moves almost certain to provoke China. I’d be surprised if Marcos (I can’t believe that’s a thing again) would go that far.
 
Josh_TN said:
Sunbic, Clarke, or the Batanes would be huge moves almost certain to provoke China. I’d be surprised if Marcos (I can’t believe that’s a thing again) would go that far.
Click to expand...
When the choice is between:
1) doing nothing and watching (armed) Chinese fishing boats strip-mine your country's food supply via drift nets in your EEZ​
OR​
2) letting the Americans use your military bases and listening to China complain about it,​
what are you going to do?
 
Scott Kenny said:
When the choice is between:
1) doing nothing and watching (armed) Chinese fishing boats strip-mine your country's food supply via drift nets in your EEZ​
OR​
2) letting the Americans use your military bases and listening to China complain about it,​
what are you going to do?
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm all for it, but it would be quite a change from the PI's policies even before Duterte.
 
TomS said:
Subic Bay is probably happening. Possibly more like the presence in Singapore than an actual US Naval Base, but it's going to be available.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/...urn-to-subic-bay-counter-chinas-presence.html
Click to expand...

I actually think even a minor presence in the Batanes is a lot more interesting in this context. That's a hell of a roadblock even if all you could get there was an MLR. Even a small pre-existing US presence would make taking the place in a surprise attack not only more difficult but inherently an attack on US forces.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom